HomeMy WebLinkAboutBert W Salas Inc; 2010-01-15; PWS10-16ENG Part 4 of 4APPENDIX "D"
GEOTECHNICAL - FOUNDATION REPORT
ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE
PROJECT NO. 3919
Report prepared by: GeoLogic Associates
16885 West Bernardo Drive
Suite 305
San Diego, California 92127
858-451-1136
Report date: August, 2009
NOITE
Geo-Loqic
ASSOCIATE SvJ
FOUNDATION REPORT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BR. NO. 57C-0214L; CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
, •
AUGUST 2009
PREPARED FOR:
NOLTE ASSOCIATES
15070 AVENUE OF SCIENCE, SUITE 100
SAN DIEGO, CA
PREPARED BY:
GeoLogic Associates
16885 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 305
San Diego, California 92127
(858) 451-1136
Geo-Loqic
ASSOCIATE S,*J
Geologists, Hydrogeologists and Engineers
August 14, 2009
Project No. 2008-0143
Mr. Jack Abcarius
Nolte Associates
15070 Avenue of Science, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92128
FOUNDATION REPORT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 57C-0214L; CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SOUTH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoLogic Associates (GLA), has completed
a Foundation Report for the replacement of the Las Encinas Creek Bridge on Carlsbad Boulevard
in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1, Vicinity Map).
Based on the results of GLA's study, it is our opinion that the construction of the Las Encinas
Creek Bridge Replacement is feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided the conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report are implemented in the design and construction of
the proposed structure. The accompanying report provides geotechnical conclusions and
recommendations relative to the proposed site improvements.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding this report,
please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
GeoLogic Associates
Joseph G. FranzonerGE 2189
Supervising Geotechnical Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee, electronic submittal
16885 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 305, San Diego, California 92127; Phone: (858) 451-1136 FAX: (858) 451-1087
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Scope of Work 1
1.2 Proposed Structure 2
1.3 Original Plans and Previous Studies 2
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3
2.1 Subsurface Investigation 3
2.2 Subsurface Conditions 3
2.3 Laboratory Testing 5
3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 5
3.1 Faulting 5
3.2 Seismicity and Caltrans Seismic Design 6
3.3 Acceleration Response Spectra (ARS) Curve 7
3.4 Historic Seismicity 8
3.5 Seismic Lurching 8
3.6 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement 8
3.7 Lateral Spreading 9
3.8 Ground Surface Rupture 9
3.9 Landslides 10
3.10 Tsunamis and Seiches 10
3.11 Engineering Properties of Onsite Soils 11
4.0 CONCLUSIONS 12
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 13
5.1 General Earthwork 13
5.1.1 Site Preparation 13
5.1.2 Removals 13
5.1.3 Structural Fills 13
5.1.4 Trench Backfill 14
5.2 Foundation Design 14
5.3 Lateral Pressures and Resistance for Structural Elements 17
5.4 Slope Stability 18
5.5 Preliminary Pavement Design 18
5.6 Soil Corrosivity 19
5.7 Construction Considerations 21
6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, LIMITATIONS, AND PLAN REVIEW 22
7.0 CLOSURE 22
- ii -
CAActive\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Fina] report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc .Geo-Loqic
* :. 5 1« V : A 1 •: £. -J
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
8.0 REFERENCES 23
TABLES
Table 1 Seismic Parameters for Active Faults 6
Table 2 Major Tsunamis Recorded in San Diego County to 1975 10
TableS Recommended Foundation Design Summary 16
Table 4 Lateral Earth Pressures 17
Table 5 Recommended Flexible Pavement Section vs. Traffic Index 19
Table 6 Soil Corrosion Test Summary 20
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map Rear of text
Figure 2 Boring Location Map Rear of text
Figure3 Local Geology Rear of text
Figure 4 Regional Fault Map Rear of text
FigureS Recommended Design ARS Curve Rear of text
Figure 6 California Seismic Hazard Map Rear of text
APPENDICES
Appendix A Boring Logs
Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Appendix C Seismic/Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix D Bridge Widening/Repair Plans
PLATES
Log of Test Borings Plate 1
-iii-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo Logic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
FOUNDATION REPORT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 57C-0214L; CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SOUTH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Las Encinas Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 57C-0214L) will replace the existing
bridge along Carlsbad Boulevard South over the Las Encinas Creek in Carlsbad, California (see
Figure 1-Vicinity Map). The proposed bridge structure replacement is located approximately
1700 feet north of the intersection with Island Way in Carlsbad, CA.
This foundation report addresses geotechnical conditions for the proposed structure.
The purpose of this foundation study was to evaluate soil conditions below the existing bridge to
provide geotechnical recommendations to aid the design team with preparation of project plans
and specifications. It is anticipated that design and construction will be performed in accordance
with current Caltrans criteria and requirements.
1.1 Scope of Work
The study included a review of available data, subsurface investigation, soil sampling, laboratory
testing, engineering analysis, development of design recommendations, and preparation of this
report. Specifically, the scope of work included performance of the following tasks:
• Field location of the borings and coordinate location of underground utilities with
Underground Service Alert.
• Obtain two boring permits from the County of San Diego.
• Obtain an encroachment permit and an approved traffic control plan from the City of
Carlsbad.
• Drill, log and sample two exploratory borings at the site.
• Observe groundwater conditions in the borings at the time of drilling.
• Conduct laboratory tests on selected samples.
-1-
C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeVFinal report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc .Geo-Lofjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
• Compile and interpret field and laboratory data.
• Perform a seismic hazard analysis, evaluate liquefaction potential, and provide Caltrans
seismic design criteria.
• Perform engineering analyses and develop foundation recommendations for the
accommodation of vertical and lateral bridge loads.
• Evaluate the corrosion potential of the on-site soils.
• Provide special construction considerations.
• Provide a Log of Test Borings.
• Prepare a written report, documenting the work performed, physical data acquired and
geotechnical design recommendations.
1.2 Proposed Structure
The Las Encinas Creek Bridge replacement will replace the aging existing bridge originally
constructed in 1913. The existing structure is 24 feet long and 69 feet wide.
Schematic plans provided by Nolte Associates indicate the two options for the proposed
replacement structure include:
1. A standard cast-in-place box culvert, and
2. A CON/SPAN prefabricated arch bridge system.
The proposed bridge will be a minimum of 38 feet long for both options. The box culvert option
will include at least 3 cells to accommodate the 100-year discharge.
1.3 Original Plans and Previous Studies
The bridge was originally constructed in 1913 with at least 2 widening events and several
maintenance episodes. The early inspection reports (July 1937 and May 1940) refer to the
existence of foundation piles supporting the bridge structure but later reports refer to the existing
structure founded on conventional concrete footings. Reviewed bridge inspection reports are
-2-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc .Geo-Locjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
presented in the references, Section 8.0. The original bridge plans were not available for review,
but the widening/repair plans are presented in Appendix D.
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
2.1 Subsurface Investigation
Before conducting the field investigation, GLA submitted a boring permit application to the San
Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) for drilling two borings on the site.
The permit was approved on January 12, 2009.
Two borings were advanced to depths of 66.5 to 71.5 feet below the existing ground surface.
The boring locations are shown in relation to the existing bridge structure on Figure 2 and
Plate 1. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A and on the Log of Test Borings, Plate 1.
Both bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples from the Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and
Modified California ring sampler were obtained from the borings and transported to our
laboratory for testing and evaluation. The SPT and ring samples were obtained by driving a 1.4-
inch and 2.5-inch, respectively, inner diameter sampler with a 140-pound weight dropping about
30-inches in general conformance with ASTM D1586 procedures. Sample size, depth and other
information are shown on the test boring logs in Appendix A and on the Log of Test Borings
(Plate 1).
The drilling and sampling operations were performed under the direct supervision of a geologist,
who also logged the borings and prepared the samples for subsequent evaluation and laboratory
testing. Earth materials were visually classified in the field in general accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System by observation of the samples and boring returns. A
description of this classification system is presented in Appendix A.
2.2 Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The subject site is situated on the coastal plain of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of
California. The coastal plain area has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and
subsequent marine regression throughout the last 54 million years, resulting in the deposition of
a thick sequence of marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks on the uplifted and eroded high-
relief basement terrain. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene
time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine
-3-
C:\ActiveV Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Repoit.doc
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
and non-marine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial
erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during
Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which
characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today.
The general site vicinity is underlain by Tertiary marine sediments capped by Quaternary marine
and non-marine sediments deposited on wave-cut terraces. Each marine terrace was formed
during a Pleistocene sea level high stand, and tectonically uplifted. Each subsequent sea-level
rise would produce a new terrace, eventually forming a series of terraces along the modern
shoreline, with the oldest terrace occupying the highest elevation. In the immediate vicinity of
the site, Las Encinas Creek has scoured the terrace materials away and deposited alluvium which
presently underlies the site. Based on our subsurface exploration and review of geologic maps,
the project site is underlain by artificial fill, alluvium, and the mid-Eocene Santiago Formation
(Kennedy, 1975, and Kennedy and Tan, 2005). Local geology is presented in Figure 3.
Exploratory boring locations were selected on the north and south sides of the proposed bridge
structure (on the western side of the roadway) to evaluate the deepest alluvial thickness and to
provide representative samples of the subsurface materials. Each unit encountered is described
below.
Fill soils associated with the existing retaining walls were encountered in Boring B-l to a depth
of 16 feet and to 9 feet in Boring B-2 (as measured from the bridge deck). The fill soils were
described as medium dense to dense, fine silty sand with scattered to numerous cobbles, and
boulders to 36 inches in diameter (rip rap), with scattered wood fragments.
Alluvial soils were encountered below the fill soils to a depth of 53 to 56.5 feet below the
existing bridge deck ground surface. The alluvium was described as alternating layers (ranging
from 3 to 8 feet) of dense, silty sand; very stiff, silty clay; and medium dense, clayey sand.
The Santiago Formation was encountered below the alluvium at a depth of 53 to 56.5 feet below
the existing bridge deck elevation. This unit is described as yellowish gray, dense fine silty
sandstone.
Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, the site can be characterized as Competent
Soil (per Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.4, Section 6.2.2(A)).
-4-
C:\Active\_Projccls\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Lpcjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 9 feet below the existing ground surface of the
bridge deck in Borings B-l and B-2. This approximately equals a groundwater elevation of +6
feet mean sea level. Groundwater is anticipated to be encountered during excavation for the base
of the proposed arch or box culverts especially during high tides or after periods of precipitation.
It should be noted that the depths to groundwater observed in the borings represent temporary
groundwater levels prior to backfilling, and should not be considered as the static groundwater
table. The groundwater levels in the borings are anticipated to vary daily and seasonally.
The boring logs are presented in Appendix A and on Plate 1.
2.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed to provide a basis for design recommendations. Selected
samples collected from the borings were tested to evaluate: in-situ moisture content/density,
shear strength, grain size analysis, percent of soil finer than the No. 200 sieve, soluble sulfate
content, pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and soluble chloride content. The results of the in-
situ moisture and density testing are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A and on the Log of
Test Borings, Plate 1.
3.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
3.1 Faulting
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and
policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition
of the California Geological Survey, an active fault is a fault that has had surface displacement
within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially
active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000
years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the
Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1975,1985,
1990, 1992, and 1994. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and
certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults.
The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-
Priolo Act. Our review of available geologic literature (Section 8.0) indicates that there are no
known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.
-5-
OVActiveV ProiectsV2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeVFinal report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation ReporLdoc Geo-LocjiC
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
The nearest active regional fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 4.1 miles
from the site. Figure 4 presents the site location and the known nearest major active faults.
3.2 Seismicity and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern
California. From a deterministic standpoint, Table 1 identifies potential seismic events that
could be produced by the Maximum Credible Earthquake event.
The maximum credible earthquake is defined by the State of California as the maximum credible
earthquake (MCE) that appears capable of occurring under the presently understood tectonic
framework. Site-specific seismic parameters included in Table 1 are the distances to the
causative faults, earthquake magnitudes (M), and expected ground accelerations, which were
determined with EQFAULT software (Blake, 2000a).
Table 1
Seismic Parameters for Active Faults
Fault Zone
(Seismic Source)
Rose Canyon
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore)
Coronado Bank
Elsinore Fault
San Andreas Fault
Distance
to Site
(miles)
4.1
6.9
19.8
25.6
68.0
Maximum Credible Earthquake Event
Moment
Magnitude
7.2 (1)
7.1
7.6
7.1
8.0
Peak Horizontal Ground
Acceleration (g)
0.44
0.38
0.23
0.12
0.08
Notes:(1) See discussion below.
The Caltrans California Seismic Hazard Map 1996 considers the Rose Canyon and the Newport-
Inglewood as a continuous fault abbreviated NEE on Figure 5. Caltrans presents the MCE on the
Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood Fault as Magnitude (M) = 7.0. However, in 2003, the State of
CA issued their revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps (Cao, et. al., 2003)
with the MCE on the Rose Canyon Fault as M = 7.2. Therefore we have used M = 7.2 for the
MCE on the Rose Canyon Fault.
• 6-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Fina] report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Lotjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Discussions with Mr. Mahmoud Khojasteh, Earthquake Engineering Specialist with Caltrans'
Office of Geotechnical Design South (OGDS) indicates that the current design criteria of
Caltrans to determine the design peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a deterministic approach
using the MCE event. This deterministic event is roughly equal to a probability of exceedence of
2% in 50 years or a return period of 2,475 years. He also stated that Caltrans may soon change
their seismic design criteria to a hybrid deterministic-probabilistic approach using a return period
of roughly 1,000 years. But for this analysis, the MCE (most conservative) was selected as the
design earthquake event.
As indicated in Table 1, the Rose Canyon Fault is the active fault considered to have the most
significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. The MCE from the fault has a 7.2 moment
magnitude, generating a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.44g at the project site. This
site acceleration was determined using four different attenuation relationships including
Campbell and Bozorgnia, 1997 for alluvium, Sadigh, 1997, Idriss, 1994, and the New Generation
Attenuation relationship, (Abrahamson, et.al., 2008; Boore, et.al, 2008; Campbell, et.al., 2008;
and Idriss, 2008). The results of our analyses are presented in Appendix C. This site
acceleration compares favorably with the values recommended on the CA Seismic Hazard Map
1966 (Mualchin, 1996). In summary, the seismic hazard study of the site is characterized by the
following:
• Fault Distance = 4.1 miles
• MCE Magnitude = 7.2 (Rose Canyon Fault)
• Peak (horizontal) ground acceleration = 0.44g
• Soil Profile Type = D (Seismic Design Criteria, 2006, Table B.I, Appendix B)
The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the Caltrans Design Guidelines
and state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of
California.
Secondary effects associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake
on a regional fault that may affect the site include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture,
soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of
seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections.
3.3 Acceleration Response Spectra (ARS) Curves
Based on the results of the above-described seismic hazard analysis and review of the "California
Seismic Hazard Detail Index Map, 1996" (Mualchin 1996), apeak horizontal ground motion
-7-
C!\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Enemas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Repoitdoc . .Geo-Logic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
of 0.44g is considered appropriate for this site (Figure 5). The Acceleration Response Spectra
(ARS) presented in the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, 2006, Version 1.4, Figure B.8, page
BIO (see attached Figure 6) for a Soil Profile Type D with a magnitude of 7.25 + 0.25 should be
used and modified as required by Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, 2006, Section 6.1.2 as
follows. This specifically involves the following increases in the spectral accelerations to
account for the close proximity of the Rose Canyon Fault to the site:
• Increase spectral coordinates by 20 percent for periods equal to or greater than 1.0 second.
• No changes for periods less than or equal to 0.5 second.
• Linear interpolations for periods between 0.5 and 1.0 second.
3.4 Historic Seismicity
The historic record of earthquakes in southern California for the past 200 years has been
reasonably well established. More accurate instrumental measurements have been available
since 1933. Based on recorded earthquake magnitudes and locations, the area may be vulnerable
to moderate seismic ground shaking during the design life of the project. Review of historic
earthquakes (Blake, 2000b) indicates that the most significant seismic event that impacted the
site over the last 200 years was a Magnitude 6.5 earthquake event (south of the site on the Rose
Canyon Fault) that occurred in 1800 approximately 8.1 miles from the site which was estimated
to have caused a site acceleration of 0.31 g at the site (Appendix D).
3.5 Seismic Lurching
Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the ground surface by the passage of seismic surface
waves. Effects of this nature are likely to be significant where the thickness of soft sediments
vary appreciably under structures. Damage to the proposed development should not be
significant since a relatively large differential thickness of soft sediments is not known to exist
below the site.
3.6 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose shear strength for short periods of time during
an earthquake, which may result in very large total and/or differential settlements for structures
founded on liquefiable soils. In order for the potential effects of liquefaction to be manifested at
the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular, loose to medium dense, saturated
relatively near the ground surface, and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration
of shaking.
-8-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Lpgic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
GLA has performed a liquefaction evaluation based on the SPT blow counts (and the few
modified Cal Sampler blow counts modified in accordance with the criteria of the NCEER
workshop, 1997) observed during our drilling. Our calculations (Appendix C) utilize a cyclic
stress ratio sub-program in SHAKE2000 (Ordonez, 2006). The results of our analysis are
presented in Appendix C and indicate that the majority of the alluvial soils at the site are not
subject to liquefaction due to their high density (high SPT blow count) or fine-grained nature.
However, a zone from 28 feet to 31 feet deep in Boring B-l was analyzed to have a dynamic
factor of safety against liquefaction under the design earthquake of 1.34. This factor of safety is
considered acceptable in accordance with State guidelines (per Table 7.1, SCEC, 1999).
The overall subsurface profile and the overlying thickness of non-saturated soils (non-liquefiable
soils, Ishihara, 1985) indicates that the potential for large-scale liquefaction at the site during the
life of the structure is very low. It is therefore our opinion that the structure need not be designed
with a deep (pile) foundation to mitigate adverse liquefaction affects on the proposed structure.
Calculated dynamic settlement of the ground at the site due to the design earthquake event is
expected to produce a maximum total and differential settlement of approximately less than 0.2
and 0.1 inch, respectively. This magnitude is less than the estimated static settlement under
normal structural loading conditions, and is not considered significant.
It should be recognized, however, that many of the parameters used in liquefaction evaluation are
subjective and open to interpretation. It should also be understood that much of Southern
California is an area of moderate to high seismic risk and is not generally considered
economically feasible to build structures totally resistant to earthquake related hazards (such as
liquefaction, sand boils, ground rupture, etc.). However, current seismic standards for design
and construction are intended to reduce the potential for major structural damage.
3.7 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading during the design earthquake event was evaluated by the use of SHAKE2000
(Ordonez, 2006) which uses the procedures of Bartlett & Youd (1995) and Zhang, et.al, (2004).
The results of the calculations are presented in Appendix C and indicate that dynamic lateral
spreading due to the MCE event is likely in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 inch. This magnitude is
within the range of normal static settlement and is not considered significant.
3.8 Ground Surface Rupture
Since no active faults are known to transect the site, ground surface rupture as a result of
movement along known faults is considered unlikely.
-9-
C'\Active\ Proiects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeXFinal reportVLas Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc .Geo-tocjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
3.9 Landslides
The site is located in a gently sloping area with slight topographic relief. Accordingly, the
potential for landslides or other slope instability problems is considered to be low.
3.10 Tsunamis and Seiches
A tsunami is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides or volcanic activity,
which displaces a relatively large volume of water in a very short period of time. Several factors
at the originating point such as earthquake magnitude, type of fault, depth of earthquake, focus,
water depth, and the ocean bottom profile, all contribute to the size and momentum of a tsunami
(lida, 1969). In addition, factors such as the distance away from the originating point, coastline
profile (including width of the continental shelf), and angle at which the tsunami approaches the
coastline also affect the size and severity of a tsunami. There have been over 500 tsunamis
reported with recorded history, most of them generated at subduction-convergent plate
boundaries along the margin of the Pacific Ocean. Large tsunamis have been occurring
somewhere in the Pacific Basin at an average rate of roughly 1 every 12 years (Joy, 1968). Most
complete reports along the California coast are available from San Diego and San Francisco
where tide gauges were installed in 1854 (McCulloch, 1985). Table 2 shows a number of great
tsunamis that generated wave heights in excess of 0.2 m in San Diego representing each of the
major generating zones within the Pacific Basin (McCulloch, 1985).
Table 2
Major Tsunamis Recorded in San Diego County to 1975
Event Location, Magnitude3
Hawaii, Ms 7. 1
Prince William Sound, AK, M 9.2
Coast of central Chile, M 9.5
Rat Islands, M 9.1
Offcast coast Kamchatka, M 9.0
Southern Alaska, M 7.4
Off Point Arguello, CA*, M 7.3
Chile, Magnitude unknown
Chile, Ms 8.5
San Diego Bay, San Diego,
California
Date
11/29/75
3/27/64
5/22/60
3/9/57
11/5/52
4/1/46
11/24/27
8/13/1868
8/14/1868
5/27/1862
San Diego
Arrival
Time^hrs)
9
+6.2
+14
+6.9
+9.6
9
9
9
Wave Height2
(m)
0.12
1.1
1.5
0.45
0.7
0.37
0.05 '
0.8
0.3
La Jolla
Arrival
Time1 (hrs)
9
+5.8
+14
+6.6
+9.6
+6.2
+0.98
9
Wave
Height2 (m)
0.3
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.24
0.43
0.05 '
9
The only locally generated tsunami that has affected San
Diego; associated with an earthquake that caused the most
intense shaking locally known; eyewitness account only.
1 Joy, 1968, 2 Agnew, 1979, 3 Magoon, 1965.
* This is the only well documented locally generated tsunami in California history.
-10-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Locjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Tsunami wave heights and run-up elevations experienced along the San Diego coastline during
the last 170 years (including the values presented in Table 2) have fallen within the normal range
of tidal fluctuations (approximately 9 feet).
Southern California is oriented obliquely (i.e. not directly in line) with the major originating
tsunami zones, it has a relatively wide (about 240 km) and rugged continental shelf (or
borderland), which acts as a diffuser and reflector of remotely generated tsunami wave energy
(Joy, 1968). These conditions, in addition to the geologic and seismic conditions (such as the
strike-slip fault regime, and the scarcity of large submarine earthquakes) along the coastline also
tend to minimize the likelihood of a large tsunami at the site.
McCulloch (1985) predicts the average tsunami height in the San Diego region for an event with
a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (500-year return period) is approximately 11.5
feet. Considering an average high mean water level of +2 feet yields a tsunami wave height
elevation of 13.5 feet (or 1.5 feet below the roadway elevation). Accordingly, for the proposed
project (and considering that the supported roadway is not a major tsunami evacuation route), it
is not considered necessary to design the structure for the effects of a tsunami.
Seiches are defined as oscillations in a semi-confined body of water (such as a lake, lagoon, or
bay) due to earthquake shaking or fault rupture. The site is 1.5 miles from the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, accordingly, the potential for seiches in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to affect the site is
very low.
3.11 Engineering Properties of the Onsite Soils
Expansion potential testing of the existing fill soils indicates that the soils have a very low
potential for expansion based on ASTM D4829 (see Appendix B). The alluvial soils were
evaluated to be more fine-grained and have an expansion potential ranging from very low to
moderate. Based on the results of the corrosion analyses, the site soils are considered corrosive.
The test results are presented in Appendix B.
-11-
C:\Aclive\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Ftaal report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Lpgic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our investigation of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed bridge
structure is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and
recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and sound
engineering/construction practices are utilized during site development. The following is a
summary of the geotechnical factors that may affect development of the site.
• It is anticipated that the existing alluvial soils will support the anticipated bridge loads. It is
also anticipated that slope layback and/or shoring as well as groundwater control/withdrawal
will be necessary to facilitate construction.
• Based on the results of the corrosion analyses, the site soils are considered corrosive.
Reinforced concrete requires corrosion mitigation in accordance with Caltrans Bridge Design
Specifications, Article 8.22 (Caltrans 2004a).
" Based on our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, the existing fill soils are
generally considered to have a very low expansion potential (Appendix B) and provide
adequate wall backfill soil and foundation bearing material after removal and recompaction.
The alluvial material is generally too fine-grained to be used as select wall backfill material.
• In general, the existing onsite fill soils appear to be suitable material for structural fill
construction provided they are relatively free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments
larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension.
• The site is not in an area of known active faults. The anticipated horizontal site acceleration
due to the MCE on the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak ground acceleration
(PGA) at the site of 0.44g. The potential for adverse liquefaction affects on the proposed
structure due to the MCE event is very low. Accordingly, a deep foundation system (piles) is
not considered necessary to support the new structure.
» Considering the calculated tsunami wave height (and that the supported roadway is not a
major tsunami evacuation route), it is not considered necessary to design the structure for the
effects of a tsunami.
• The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone), and based on our review of published geologic maps, there are
no known active faults underlying the site. Therefore, the potential for surface fault rupture
at the site is considered low.
-12-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeVFinal report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Locjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the project specifications and the following
recommendations.
5.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of existing surface and subsurface obstructions.
Vegetation and debris should be disposed off site. Oversize material may be used onsite as rip
rap or slope armor in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions such as foundations or below-grade
structures that extend below finished site grades should be filled with properly compacted soil or
crushed gravel under the observation and testing of the geotechnical engineer.
5.1.2 Removals
Removals are anticipated to reach the base of the new structural slab/footings. All excavation
bottoms should expose firm and competent fill or alluvial soils and all excavation bottoms should
be observed by a geotechnical engineer prior to footing placement so that competent materials
are reached across the base of the new structure. Additional removals and backfilling with
gravel may be recommended in selected areas.
Groundwater control/removal should be anticipated especially during the rainy season. The
contractor should determine the best method of groundwater control and/or dewatering based on
the test results presented herein. The contractor should prepare and submit a groundwater
control plan to the Engineer for review prior to construction based on the site conditions and
proposed method of construction.
5.1.3 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic
material and debris. Material greater than 3 inches in maximum size should not be placed within
5 feet of the roadway grade or the face of slopes. Asphalt concrete and concrete should not be
placed in structural fills. The area to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6
-13-
C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Enemas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Repoit.doc Geo-Logic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction (based on Modified Proctor test method, ASTM D1557).
Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on Modified
Proctor, ASTM D1557) near optimum moisture content. The optimum lift thickness to produce
a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In
general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.
Import soils if needed, should consist of soils with a very low expansion potential (less than 20
based on ASTM D4829) and with a maximum particle size less than 3 inches. In general, the
existing on-site soils should be suitable for reuse as fill except for areas of rip rap. Import soil
may be needed for placement of structural backfill behind the abutments. Import fill should
consist of clean, granular material which meets Caltrans Standard Specifications for structure
backfill (Caltrans, 2006b).
Soil should be tested for corrosive properties prior to importing. We recommend that imported
materials be non-corrosive. Based on Caltrans criteria, a non-corrosive soil is defined as having
a maximum soluble sulfate content of 2,000 ppm, a pH greater than 5.5, and a maximum soluble
chloride content of 500 ppm. The fill soils should be tested by the geotechnical consultant a
minimum of 5 days prior to site delivery for conformance to the above recommendations.
5.1.4 Trench Backfill
The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks
and other material over 3 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be
compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical
means to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Pipe bedding should conform
to the recommendations of the California Standard Specifications (Caltrans, 2006b).
5.2 Foundation Design
It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be either a single arch system with a continuous
reinforced concrete slab bottom, or a triple cell box culvert. Schematic drawings of each option
are presented below.
-14-
C:\Activd_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final repoirtLas Encinas Creek Foundation Repoit.doc Geo-Lptjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Single arch system:
EL ',8 5J±EL.M:S±
AL'.W 4 SfiM
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
SEE NOTE 8
PRECAST COKSPi'. BSOOE AMD
MNGWALLS JOP AFPSOVEC EQUAL)
Triple cell box culvert:
-A/C Dike, Typ
Along 1 SBnd
Carl shod Boulevard
ELEVATION
The elevation of the base of the slab bottom (for both options) is anticipated to be +4 to +8 feet.
The retaining walls for the arch or box culvert are planned with a stepped footing with bearing at
elevations of near the slab/culvert bottom (44 to +8 feet) and also near elevation -0.5 to +1 feet.
At these elevations, groundwater is anticipated to be encountered and groundwater
control/removal should be implemented during construction.
The minimum base (structural) slab thickness should be 12 inches and reinforced top and bottom
in accordance with the recommendation of the structural engineer. We recommend a minimum
5-foot deep cutoff wall for the bottom concrete slab on the upstream and downstream side of the
bridge. The cutoff walls should be founded a minimum of one foot below the depth of maximum
scour.
For design purposes, we provide the following allowable bearing capacity based on structural
elements founded into competent alluvial materials as follows.
-15-
C:\Active\_Projecis\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\FinaJ reportVLas Encinas Creek Foundation Reportdoc BEST
COPY
Geo-Locjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Table 3 - Recommended Foundation Design Summary
Support Location
South Retaining Wall
Slab Bottom
North Retaining Wall
Approximate Bottom
of Footing Elevation
(feet)
-0.5 and +6
(stepped footing)
+4 to +8
-0.5 and +6
(stepped footing)
Recommended Bearing Limits
Working Stress Design
Allowable Bearing
Capacity (q^,)
2,750 psf
2,750 psf
2,750 psf
Load Factor Design
Nominal Bearing
Resistance (qj
8,500 psf
8,000 psf
8,500 psf
The above values are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for short-term
wind or seismic loads. The working stress design is based on a settlement criterion using a total
and differential settlement of no greater than one inch and one-half inch, respectively. The
minimum footing width should be based on the allowable bearing capacity and wall footing
sliding/overturning criteria.
Footings may be reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's requirement. If wall
footings are adjacent to slopes, footing setbacks should be in accordance with Caltrans
recommendations.
To provide a uniform working surface and to control groundwater, the base of the box culvert
and retaining wall footings may be underlain by a minimum of 24 inches of crushed gravel (3/4
to 1-1/2 inches; maximum size).
We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement
is placed as designed. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and
foundations can generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However,
some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal;
however, it is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the
time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or
windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and
moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4
inches at the time of placement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking.
-16-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolte Encinas Bridge\FinaI report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Lpgic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance for Structural Elements
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can withstand
under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be
designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength
of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be
designed for 'at rest' conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance
developed by the soil is the 'passive' resistance.
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure in each case for walls founded
above the static ground water table (with level or 2:1 sloping backfill) and backfilled with onsite
or import soils of very low expansion potential (less than 20 per ASTM 4829) is presented in the
following table.
Table 4
Lateral Earth Pressures (Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf))
Condition
Active
At-Rest
Passive
Level
35
55
300 (Maximum of 3 ksf)
2:1 Slope
55
65
-
The results of the laboratory testing indicate that the onsite granular fill soils may be used as wall
backfill soils for Caltrans Standard Wall designs (Caltrans, 2006c). The alluvial soils below the
fill soils are generally too fine-grained and expansive to be used as wall backfill.
Caltrans standard walls are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the walls are
designed for the sloping backfill and traffic surcharge loading conditions. In accordance with
Caltrans guidelines (Caltrans 2006d), all soil within 4 feet (measured vertically) of new
pavement and within 8 feet (measured horizontally) of all new slopes shall be soil with a low to
very low expansion index (less than 50 per ASTM 4829) and with a Sand Equivalent (ASTM
2419) greater than 20. The above values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other
than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided
on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall structures should be
provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. Wall backfill should be compacted by
-17-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report-doc Geo-Lpcjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
mechanical methods to at least 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method
D1557). Wall design for lateral pressures due to compaction efforts, seismic, and vehicle
loading should be in accordance with Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications Sections 5.5.2,
5.5.4, and 5.5.5.10, respectively. Approach slabs are not considered necessary for this structure
since the criteria (Caltrans, 1992) for their use do not apply to the proposed construction.
Wall footing design and setbacks should be performed in accordance with the previous
foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations.
Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive
pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may
be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third for loads
of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum
of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-
thirds of the total resistance.
5.4 Slope Stability
Embankment slopes constructed at a maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter should be stable against deep-seated and surficial failures. To reduce the potential for
erosion, we recommend that slopes be planted with drought-tolerant vegetation as soon as
practical after grading. Abutment slopes should be protected from creek and wave scour as
necessary. Slopes should be designed so that water does not flow over the top of slopes and
cause erosive rilling.
5.5 Preliminary Pavement Design
Based on the results of our borings and experience with similar soils, we anticipate that the near-
surface soils have an R-Value of approximately 35. Therefore, we have assumed a minimum
design R-value of 35 to represent the anticipated roadway subgrade conditions after construction
is completed. Accordingly, all import soils to the site should have a minimum R-Value of 35
(per California Test Method 301).
Based on the City of Carlsbad Street Design Criteria (Table A, Chapter 1), Carlsbad Blvd. may
be classified as one of the following three types of streets (see Table 5 below). With assumed
Traffic Indices (TIs) to represent various levels of expected passenger and truck traffic; alternate
pavement sections were calculated using the Caltrans Topic 608.4 method (Caltrans, 2008b) of
pavement design. The designer/civil engineer should determine the appropriate TI in accordance
-18-
C:\Active\ Projecls\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeXFinal reportVLas Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Lpcjit
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
with the proposed traffic volumes and City recommendations. Additional testing is
recommended, as necessary, if different subgrade conditions are encountered during grading
when finish grade has been established. The results of our pavement calculations are presented
in Table 5.
Table 5
Recommended Flexible Pavement Section vs. Traffic Index
Design
Traffic
Index
(TI)
TI = 6.0
TI = 8.0
TI = 8.5
Design
R-Value
35
35
35
Average Daily
Traffic (ADT)
Ranges
2,000-10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000-40,000
Flexible Pavement Section
Asphalt Concrete
Thickness
3.5 inches
5.0 inches
5.5 inches
Aggregate Base
Thickness
7.0 inches
10.0 inches
10.0 inches
A traffic index of 6.0 is similar to a collector street with an average daily traffic of 2,000 to 10,000
vehicles per day with moderate small truck traffic and minor heavy traffic. A traffic index of 8.0 is
similar to a secondary arterial street with 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. A traffic index of 8.5
can accommodate up to 40,000 vehicles per day.
The upper 6 inches of subgrade soil below the pavement section should be compacted to at least
95 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content. The pavement subgrade
should be firm and unyielding when the pavement section is placed. All pavement section
materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the Caltrans
Standard Specifications (Caltrans, 2006b).
5.6 Soil Corrosivity
Caltrans considers a site to be corrosive to foundation elements if one or more of the following
conditions exist for the representative soil samples taken at the site:
Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm, sulfate concentration is greater than
or equal to 2000 ppm, or the pH is 5.5 or less.
-19-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeXFina! reportVLas Encinas Creek Foundation Reportdoc Geo-Loqic
1 ^ •; » < ! A I ( :i -J
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Soil samples of both the site fill and underlying alluvial soils at the project site were obtained for
corrosion analysis at the following boring locations and depths as presented in the following
Table 6.
The test procedures are described in Appendix B along with the tabulated test results.
Table 6 - Soil Corrosion Test Summary
Boring No./
Sample No./
Sample Depth
B-l/1, 0-2'
B-l/4, 15'
B-l/7, 30'
B-2/1, 3-5'
B-2/3, 10'
B-2/8, 35'
Material
Fill
Alluvium
Alluvium
Fill
Alluvium
Alluvium
Minimum
Resistivity
(Ohm-cm)
760
<500
<500
1800
<500
<500
pH
8.0
9.1
9.6
8.6
8.6
9.1
Soluble Chloride
Content
(ppm)
1168
4599
1984
238
6909
2154
Soluble Sulfate
Content
(ppm)
542
728
449
185
677
634
Based on the results of the corrosion analyses, the site soils are considered corrosive.
Controlling corrosion test parameters are the general high levels of soluble chloride in the fill
and alluvial samples (except for the fill soil sample from B-2/1 from 3 to 5 feet deep).
All soils that are planned to be used as an import source for the site should be tested for
suitability and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to hauling to the site. The contractor
should provide ample time (at least five working days) for a representative sample of the planned
import soils to be tested for soluble sulfate/chloride potential, corrosion potential, and other
engineering properties pertinent to site conditions.
The proposed structure is to be located within 1,000 feet of salt water, will be in direct contact
with salt and brackish water, may be subject to ocean spray, and is in the splash zone (per
Caltrans, 2003 and 2004a).
Reinforced concrete requires corrosion mitigation in accordance with Caltrans Bridge Design
Specifications, Article 8.22 (Caltrans 2004a).
-20-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgrtFinal reportVLas Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Loqic>-, v •» o < i *. r ( \f~f
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
5.7 Construction Considerations
Groundwater control/removal will be necessary to maintain a dry working environment when
constructing the foundations and bottom slabs. Gravel layers in possible conjunction with
ground stabilizing geotextiles (such as Mirafi 600X or approved equivalent) may be needed if the
exposed foundation bottoms are pumping or otherwise unstable.
Groundwater control in conjunction with excavation sloping techniques, as necessary, should be
careful not to undermine adjacent existing improvements and utilities. The contractor should
submit a groundwater control plan for review prior to construction. All sloping excavations
should be in accordance with OSHA requirements for the types of soils encountered.
Oversize rock, rip rap and construction debris were encountered in the borings. These materials
should not be reused as structural fill soil, accordingly, an allowance should be assumed for
some select import soils for use on the site, depending on the actual width/height of the proposed
structure. Clean, sound rock and rip rap may be used as slope/wave slope protection on site if
suitable per Caltrans requirements.
-21-
C:\Active\_Projecls\2008\2008-OI43 - Nolle Encinas BridgeVFinal reportVLas Encinas Creek Foundation Reportdoc Geologic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, LIMITATIONS, AND PLAN REVIEW
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were
obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. The
nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within
small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and
do occur over time. In addition, changes to applicable or appropriate environmental standards
may occur, whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the
findings of this report may be revised or invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our
control.
We understand that this report is preliminary in nature, and that as the design progresses,
additional geotechnical information may be necessary. Nevertheless, the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if GLA has the
opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project,
in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. In addition, we
recommend that this office have an opportunity to review the final grading and foundation plans
in order to provide additional design-specific recommendations.
7.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices and
makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice or data
included in it. The report is based on the project as described and the data obtained in the field
or from referenced documents. GLA should be notified of any pertinent changes in design or
site conditions that differ from those described in this report, since this may require a re-
evaluation of the recommendations.
This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or
described above. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
-22-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final reporl\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Repottdoc Geo-Lpcjic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
8.0 REFERENCES
Agnew, D. C. 1979, Tsunami history of San Diego, pp. 117-122 in Earthquakes and Other Perils,
San Diego Region, P. L. Abbott and W. J. Elliott, eds. (San Diego: San Diego Assoc. of
Geologists for the Geol. Soc. of America)
ASCE/SCEC, 2002, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication
117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, June
2002.
Abrahamson, N.A., and Silva, W.J., 2008, Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-
motion relations, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 67-97.
Bartlett, S.F. and T.L. Youd, 1992, Empirical Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement
Generated by Liquefaction-induced Lateral Spreads, Technical Report NCEER-92-
0021, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
York, Buffalo.
Bartlett, S.F. and T.L. Youd, 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-induced Lateral Spread,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121. No. 4, April 1995.
Boore, D.M., and Atkinson, G.M., 2008, Ground-motion prediction equations for the average
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between
0.01s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 99-138.
Blake, Thomas F., 2004, "EQFAULT- Version 3.00b, A Computer Program for the
Deterministic Predication of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California
Faults", Computer Services and Software, Newbury, Calif., January.
Blake, Thomas. F., 2000a, EQSEARCH (Version 3.00b ), A Computer Program for the
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake
Catalogs.", with 2004 revised fault data.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Memo to Designers, 1992, Structure
Approach, No. 5-3.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Memo to Designers, 1999, Seismic Design
Methodology, No. 20-1.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Memo to Designers, 2002, Protection of
Reinforcement Against Corrosion Due to Chlorides, Acids, and Sulfates, No. 10-5.
-23-
C*\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final reportXLas Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc .Geo-Loqic
ft i •* O < . *. i• S :, ~J
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003 Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0,
September 2003.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2004a, Bridge Design Specifications, dated
August, 2004.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Memo to Designers, 2004b, Foundation
Report/Geotechnical Design Report Checklist for Earth Retaining Systems, No. 5-20.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006a, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.4
dated June 2006.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006b, Standard Specifications, dated May,
2006.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006c, Standard Plans.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006d, Guidelines for Structures Foundation
Reports, Version 2.0, dated March 2006.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Memo to Designers, 2007, Tsunami Hazard
Guidelines, No. 20-13, dated November 2007.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Memo to Designers, 2008a, Soil
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Analysis Guidelines, No. 20-15, dated July 2008.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2008b, Highway Design Manual, July 2008.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Maintenance, Bridge Inspection
Records for Bridge 57C0214L and 57-12 (former name) for the following years: 1937,
1938, 1940, 1941, 1947, 1948, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1966, 1967,
1973, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996. 2000, 2002, and
2004.
California Department of Public Works, 1928, Plans for the Widening of Bridge Across Las
Encinas Creek, No. 57-12.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117, 101 p.
Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008, NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean
horizontal component of the PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response
spectra for periods ranging from 0.01s to 10.0s, Earthquake Spectra, 24,139-171.
-24-
C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final reportlLas Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Logic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
Campbell, K.W., 1997, Empirical Near-source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and
Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-
absolute Acceleration response Spectra, Seis. Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, Jan/Febr.,
1997.
Cao, T, Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2002, The Revised 2002
California Seismic Hazards Maps, June 2003 revision of CDMG Open File Report, No.
96-08, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California.
CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File
Report No. 96-08, revised 2002.
Garcia, A.W. and Houston, J. R., 1974, Tsunami Run-up Prediction for Southern California
Coastal Communities, USA in Tsunami Research Symposium 1974: Royal Society of
New Zealand, Bulletin 15.
Hart, E. W., and Bryant, W. A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: CDMG Special
Publication 42.
lida, K., 1969, The Generation of Tsunami and the Focal Mechanism of Earthquakes in
Tsunamis in the Pacific Ocean; Proceeding of the International Symposium on Tsunamis
and Tsunami Research, University of Hawaii; East-West Center Press.
Idriss, I. M., 2008, An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values
generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 217-242.
Idriss, I. M., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Condition, personal
communication documented by T. Blake.
Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits during Earthquakes, Proceedings of the Eleventh
International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A. A. Belkema
Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Joy, J.W., 1968, Tsunamis and Their Occurrence Along the San Diego County Coast Prepared
for the Unified San Diego County Civil Defense and Disaster Organization:
Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory.
Magoon, O., 1965, Structural Damage by Tsunamis, in Coastal Engineering Conference
Proceedings, October 1965, ASCE.
-25-
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolte Encinas BridgeVFinal report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-togic
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement
McCulloch, D. S., 1985, Evaluating Tsunami Potential, in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the
Los Angeles Region: An Earth-Science Perspective, USGS Professional Paper 1360.
Mualchin, L., 1996, A technical report to accompany the Caltrans California seismic hazard map
1996 (based on Maximum Credible Earthquakes): California Department of
Transportation, Engineering Services Center, Office of Earthquake Engineering,
Sacramento, California (rev 1), 64 p., with CA Seismic Hazard Map 1966.
Mualchin, L. and A. L. Jones, 1990, Peak acceleration from maximum credible earthquakes in
California (Rock and Stiff-Soil Sites) Draft: California Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report (Revised and Issued in 1992 as Open
File Report 92-01).
Nolte Associates, 2009, Bridge Inspection Report for the City of Carlsbad, dated 1-8-2009.
Nolte Associates, 2009, Las Encinas Creek Bridge Replacement Improvement Plans, Sheets 1-6
of 15, undated, Project No. 3919.
Ordonez, 2006, SHAKE2000, A Computer Program for the ID Analysis of Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering Problems, Version 2.0.0, October 1, 2006.
Sadigh, K., Chang, C.Y., Egan, J.A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R.R., 1997, Attenuation
Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California String Motion Data,
Seis. Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1 Jan/Febr, 1997.
SCEC, 1999, Recommended Procedures for the Implementation of DMG Special Publication
117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, March 1999.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K., and Brachman, R.W.I., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction-Induced
Lateral Displacements Using the Standard Penetration or Cone Penetration Test, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, pp. 861-871,
August 2004.
-26-
C:\Aclive\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Final repott\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-LoqicK. i '> -B < - *, I' ( :> -~J
•atum: 1 XXJO-melei UTM grid cone 11
(www.igage.com!
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 7000 8000
REFERENCE: U.S.G.S.,1968, 7.5 Minute Topographic Series, Encinitas, CA, Revised 1975.
FIGURE 1
N FOUNDATION REPORT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE (BR. NO. 57C-0214L)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
VICINITY MAP
Geo-Loqic
ASS O C I AT tS*J
Draft
JGF
Date
01/09
Project No.
2008-0143
REF.: Nolle. 2009.
B-2
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
FIGURE 2
20 20
APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE
ONE INCH = 20 FEET
(11" X 17" FORMAT ONLY)
40 FT
BORING LOCATION MAP
FOUNDATION REPORT
US ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE (BR. NO. 57C-0214L)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Tsa
SITE
Qmb
REFERENCE: Kennedy and Tan, 2005, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 601 Quadrangle, California.
M.trnK' heach deposit* <lal« Iloloc
bench deposits const sting mostly of ft nc- ;md medium-grained
saud
Yiinnji iilhm<il ll*jmJ phmi deposits iH»loccne and hut
IMtistd.ceiU'f ..... Mostly poorly consolidated poorly sorU'd.
permeable flood plain deposits
( >hl fMi .the drjtotiit until* nkd ihuc to middle
}— Mo5tK poorly Doited moderately permeabfe.
vn. mtcifin^eivd ^t^^^ldlIn^% beach, cstuarine ami
colluM.il dcpo^Hi. computed of si its tone* sandstone and
conglomerate These deposit* jest on ihe now emergent wave
cut jbniM«.'n pbtjormb prtM.er%ed b\ rcgiotial uplift, Where
more than one number is shown {e.g.. Qopi-j those deposits
AK- unJntded{Fi«. *J Includes
>vr\ tolil paLtlic ikp^MK umlnitl^d imiddk1 lo ciirly
Plt'i^U'vcitu1*- Most!> puorl% \c-itod, moderately p^rmoublc.
H*ddis.li-bJO«Mi, mici fingered ^tundhnc. beach, cstunrtnc and
coiliiMal dcpObttv oump'.'i.C'i of ^iltitom*, y^ndstone and
von^lomcRiitc Thc^ ifep«.sH-» reM on the now emergent wave
>,ut abrjMc-n platforms pioscrvcd b\ regional uplift. Where
mtMo than one mirnbei it* j.lK'i*n tc g . Ovop^.g) thost' de-posits
Xjmuua ri.nn.ili.in inudiili I IKVIIC»— Nmned by Woodring
,ind Popenoc iN45) far Eocene deposits of northwestern
banu AKI Mountains Tlicre are three distinctive parts. A
basal member that consists of buff and brownish-gray.
ma&sive, coarse-grained, poorly sorted urfcosic .sandstone and
conglomerate < sandstone generally prc-dc<niJDa[in.g>. In sonw
ureais the basal member is overlain by gray and brownish-gray
<ialt and pepper) central member that consists of soft.
incd. moderately well-sorted arko.sk sandstone,
N
1 INCH = 2250 FEET
APPROXIMATE SCALE
FIGURE 3
FOUNDATION REPORT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE (BR. NO. 57C-0214L)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
LOCAL GEOLOGY
Geo-Loqic
AS S O C I ATE S^
Draft
JGF
Date
01/09
Project No.
2008-0143
30 40 miles
FIGURE 4
FOUNDATION REPORT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE (BR. NO. 57C-0214L)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
Geo-Loqic
AS S O C I AT ES<*F
DRAFT:
JGF
DATE:
01-09
PROJECT NO.:
2008-0143
LEGEND:
0.7g Peak Acceleration
0.6g Peak Acceleration
0.5g Peak Acceleration
0.4g Peak Acceleration
0.3g Peak Acceleration
0.2g Peak Acceleration
Ay O.lg Peak Acceleration
Special Seismic Source
Ay' Faults with Fault Codes
State Highways
County Boundary
Latitude & Longitude
NIW = Newport-lnglewood/Rose Canyon Fault
Contour
ContourContour
Contour
ContourContour
Contour
(SSS)
(MCE)
\
REFERENCE: Mualchin, 1996, California Seismic Hazard Map.
«.——• —ssss=~ ----.-—„—
CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARD MAP 1996
N FIGURE 5
1 INCH = 10 MILES
APPROXIMATE SCALE
FOUNDATION REPORT
.AS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE (BR. NO.57C-0214L)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
Geo-Loqic
ASS O C I ATESoJF
Draft
JGF
Date
01/09
Project No.
2008-0143
SOIL PROFILE TYPE D
MAGNITUDE: 7.25+0.25
PERIOD (SEC)
50
_ 40
iu
a
I
30 ~
20
0.7g (O.Tg
0123
PERIOD (SEC)
Note: Peak ground acceleration values not in parentheses are for rock (Soil Profi le Type B) and peak
ground acceleration values in parentheses are for Soil Profile Type D.
Figure B.8 Elastic Response Spectra Curves (5% Damping) for Soil Profile Type D
(M = 7.25 ±0.25)
Reference: Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, June 2006.
Notes: 1). The Acceleration Response
Spectrum (ARS) Curve is for Soil Profile D
(M=7.25 ± 0.25) at 5 percent damping in
accordance with Caltrans Seismic Design
Criteria, 2006.
2). The ARS curve should be modifed to
account for near-fault effects per Section
6.1.2.1 of the Seismic Design Criteria, 2006.
3). The controlling fault is the Rose Canyon/
Newport-Inglewood Fault.
4). Peak horizontal ground accereration (PGA)
due to the MCE on the fault is estimated at
0.44g.
FIGURE 6
FOUNDATION REPORT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE (BR. NO. 57C-0214L)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDED DESIGN ARS CURVE
Geo-Loqic
A S S O C I AT E S«JP
Draft
JGF
Date
01/09
Project No.
2008-0143
DRAFT Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
C-\Aaive\Pn>Kcts\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Draft Report\Las Enemas Creek Foundation Report.dot Geo-Loqic*[>?•» (,: • \ i •; i «Jr
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION
rs'> fi.
HighlyOrganicSoils
OH CH MH
Silts and ClaysLiquid Limit >50%
OL CL ML
Slits and ClaysLiquid Limit <50%
(more than 50% is smaller than No. 200 sieve)
SC SM
ines Cle;
SP SW
Sands - more than 50% of coarse
fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve
travels with Fines Clean Gravels>12% Fines <5% Fines
Gravels - more than 50% of coarse
fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve
(more than Grained Soilsirgerthan No. 200 sieve)
60
o
•Lot OL
Ml or m
LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
GW and SW: Cu = DM /D,0 greater than 4 for GW, greater than 6 for SW
Cc = DM
2/DM x D10 between 1 and 3
GP and SP: Clean gravel or sand not meeting requirements for GW and SW
GM and SM: Atterberg Limits below "A" LINE and PI less than 4
GC and SC: Atterberg Limits above "A" LINE and PI greater than 7
ay Sand MediumSand Cobble Boulder
20 40 60 80
LIQUID LIMIT
Classification of earth materials is based on field inspection and should not beconstrued to imply laboratory analysis unless so stated
MATERIAL SYMBOLS
Asphalt Calcaerous Sandstone
Concrete
Conglomerate
Sandstone
Silty Sandstone
Clayey Sandstone
Siltstone
Sandy Siltstone
Siltstonelystone
Claystone/Shale
Limestone
Dolostone
Breccia
Volcanic Ash/Tuff
Metamorphic Rock
Quartette
Extrusive Igneous Rod
Intrusive Igneous Rock
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR
SOILS
According to the Standard Penetration Test
Blows / Foot*
0-5
6-10
11-30
31-50
50
Granular
Veiy Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Blows / Foot*
0-2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
>30
Cohesive
Very Son
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
' using 140-lb. hammer with 30" drop = 350 fMb/blow
LEGEND OF BORING
Bulk Sample
Driven Sample
Water Level 5
Unit Change
Bottom of the Borino
•NSR" indicates NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
PageA-1
Geo-Loqic GeoLogic Associates BORING NO.: B-1
ASSOCIATES^! Boring Log PAGE: i OF 2
JOB NO.: 2008-0143 DATE STARTED: 1/15/2009 GW DEPTH: 9 FEET
SITE LOCATION: LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE DATE FINISHED: 1/15/2009 CAVING DEPTH: NA
DRILLING METHOD: 8" 0 HOLLOW STEM AUGER ELEVATION: 15.2 FEET NOLTE, 2009. TOTAL DEPTH: 71.5 FEET
CONTRACTOR: TEST AMERICA
LOGGED BY: TMP
LABORATORY
TESTING
MIN. RESIST. <fe pH
SOLUBLE SULFATE
CHLORIDE CONTENT
MIN. RESIST. & pH
SOLUBLE SULFAlt
CHLORIDE CONTENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
MIN. RESIST. 4 pH
SOLUBLE SULFATE
CHLORIDE CONTENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
DIRECT SHEAR
|£
S|
il
94.6
124.5 MOISTURE(%)4.5
25.8
28.7
39.1
29.3
42.0
17.8
17.9
18.2
22.2 BLOWS(COUNT/FT.)47
100+
37
30
30
20
21
31
30
34
Ld
%&
21
BULK
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
ci
UJ_Ja.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
z
iti
E*o1
0
•v
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 -
-
1
1
1
*£x u
ttJ
£s
-
—
-
—
_
-u
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
— 7—
-8
-9
--1CL
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16 MATERIALSYMROIi&?(iz?11ii*i%
**go
II
P
SM
SM
\ CL
SC
t
SM
\ CL
'•t sc
/
'
(
DESCRIPTION
FILL:
LIGHT BROWN (SYR 5/6) MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE
SILTY SAND WITH SCATTERED COBBLES.
...95 FEET: NUMEROUS COBBLES.
...@10 FEET: WOOD, COBBLES, AND ROUNDED GRAVEL.
ALLUVIUM:
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, DENSE, FINE
SILTY SAND.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, VERY STIFF,
SILTY CLAY.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET. MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE CLAYEY SAND.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, MEDIUM DENSE,
SILTY SAND.
OLIVE BLACK (5Y 2/1) WET, VERY STIFF, SILTY CLAY.
OLIVE BLACK (5Y 2/1) WET, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE CLAYEY
SAND.
...@40 FEET: BECOMES DENSE.
...@45 FEET: BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE.
...950 FEET: BECOMES DENSE.
The data presented on this log is a simplification of actual conditions encountered and applies only at the location of this boring
and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with the passage of time.
GCO-Loqic GeoLogic Associates BORING NO.: B-1
ASSOCIATES^ Boring Log PAGE: 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 2008-0143 DATE STARTED: 1/15/2009 GW DEPTH: 9 FEET
SITE LOCATION: LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE DATE FINISHED: 1/15/2009 CAVING DEPTH: NA
DRILLING METHOD: 8" 0 HOLLOW STEM AUGER ELEVATION: 15 FEET NOLTE, 2009. TOTAL DEPTH: 71 5 FEET
CONTRACTOR: TEST AMERICA
LOGGED BY: TMP
LABORATORY
TESTING
^l|
£: 3a —MOISTURE(%)22.2
15.1 BLOWS(COUNT/FT.)34
39
45
49
Ld
M x-^
"ft
Ul I
^z
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
d
ya.
11
12
13
14
z
xtIs
50-
RR -
_
-
—
—
_
-
l<&lUISit2s
_
_
- 17
-18
-19
-20
-22
-23
-24
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31 MATERIALSYMBOL/VS
%
5zqo
1
sc
DESCRIPTION
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
YELLOWISH GRAY (5Y 8/1) MOIST, DENSE, FINE SILTY
SANDSTONE.
NOTES:
1. TOTAL DEPTH = 71.5 FEET.
2. SAMPLER DRIVEN BY A 140-POUND HAMMER WITH A
30-INCH DROP.
3. GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 9 FEET AT TIME OF
DRILLING.
4. BORING BACKFILLED ON 1/15/2009.
The data presented on this log is a simplification of actual conditions encountered and applies only at the location of this boring
and at the time of drill ng. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with the passage of time.
Geo-Loqic GeoLogic Associates BORING NO.: B-2
ASSOCIATES^ Boring Log PAGE: i OF 2
JOB NO.: 2008-0143 DATE STARTED: 1/15/2009 GW DEPTH: 9 FEET
SITE LOCATION: LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE DATE FINISHED: 1/15/2009 CAVING DEPTH: NA
DRILLING METHOD: 8" * HOLLOW STEM AUGER ELEVATION: 15 FEET NOLTE. 2009. TOTAL DEPTH: 66.5 FEET
CONTRACTOR: TEST AMERICA
LOGGED BY: TMP
LABORATORY
TESTING
MIN. RESIST. &_pH
SOLUBLE SULFATE
CHLORIDE CONTENT
MIN. RESIST. & pH
SOLUBLE SULFATE
CHLORIDE CONTENT
DIRECT SHEAR
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
MIN. RESIST. & pH
SOLUBLE SULFATE
CHLORIDE CONTENT
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
l|
106.1
79.1
80.6 MOISTURE(%)8.3
21.1
20.8
43.2
40.4
20.3
25.2
23.5
23.5
19.9 BLOWS(COUNT/FT.)17
25
30
26
24
26
26
30
31
35
UJM s-^in [/>
UJ I
BULK
1.4
1.4
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
0
UJ
0.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
z
xk1— LJ
O.
15
30
40
45
50
-
1
u
1
.J.Q;&!
—
-
-
-
-u
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-JQ.
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16 MATERIAL<?YMRnii <i
;• '•'
1
1
%i
k USCS/GEOLOGICFORMATIONGM
. SM
SM
\ SC
'
\ CL
^ SC
t.
\ CL
SM
j'sc
DESCRIPTION
FILL:
RIP RAP (BOULDERS 24 TO 36 INCHES IN DIAMETER).
WITH SAND MATRIX.
LIGHT BROWN (5YR 5/6) MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE
SILTY SAND.
ALLUVIUM:
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, MEDIUM DENSE.
FINE SILTY SAND WITH SCATTERED COBBLES.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE CLAYEY SAND.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, VERY STIFF,
SILTY CLAY WITH SCATTERED COBBLES.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE CLAYEY SAND.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) WET, VERY STIFF,
SILTY CLAY.
LIGHT OUVE GRAY (5Y 5/2) MOIST TO WET, MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE SILTY SAND.
...945 FEET BECOMES DENSE.
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) MOIST, DENSE, FINE
CLAYEY SAND.
The data presented on this log is a simplification of actual conditions encountered and applies only at the location of this boring
and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with the passage of time.
T
GeO-LOClic GeoLogic Associates BORING NO..- B-2
ASSOCIATES^ Boring Log PAGE: 2 OF 2
JOB NO.: 2008-0143 DATE STARTED: 1/15/2009 GW DEPTH: 9 FEET
SITE LOCATION: LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE DATE FINISHED: 1/15/2009 CAVING DEPTH: NA
DRILLING METHOD: 8" <6 HOLLOW STEM AUGER ELEVATION: 15 FEET NOLTE, 2009. TOTAL DEPTH: 66.5 FEET
CONTRACTOR: TEST AMERICA
LOGGED BY: TMP
LABORATORY
TESTING
to t
o * —MOISTURE(X)19.9
20.2 BLOWS(COUNT/FT.)35
34
37
38
UJ
y g
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
CD
CL
11
12
13
14
z
xt
o
Or
I
I
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
—
-
ll
-
—
-
—
—
—
-
—
-
-16
- 17
-18
-19
-20
-22
-23
-24
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-31 I MATERIALI SYMBOL\\\ii
CJ
go
t3 2
SM
SC
DESCRIPTION
PALE YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/2) MOIST, DENSE, FINE
CLAYEY SAND.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
YELLOWISH GRAY (5Y 8/1) MOIST, DENSE. FINE SILTYSANDSTONE.
NOTES:
1. TOTAL DEPTH = 66.5 FEET.
2. SAMPLER DRIVEN BY A 140-POUND HAMMER WITH A
30-INCH DROP.
3. GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 9 FEET AT TIME OF
DRILLING.
4. BORING BACKFILLED ON 1/15/2009.
The data presented on this log is a simplification of actual conditons encountered and applies only at the location of this boring
and at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with the passage of time.
DRAFT Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
AND TEST RESULTS
C'\Aciive\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolte Encinas BridgeXDraft Report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc ,Geo-Locjic
DRAFT Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy
to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or
approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter
specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until
volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
Sample Location
B-l/1,0-2'
Sample Description
Brown silty sand with mica
Expansion
Index
8
Expansion
Potential*
Very Low
*Based on ASTM D4829.
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in
general accordance with California Test Method 643 to evaluate the corrosion potential. The
results are presented in the table below:
Boring No./Sample
No^Depth
B-l/1,0-2'
B-l/4, 15'
B-l/7, 30'
B-2/1, 3-5'
B-2/3, 10'
B-2/8 35'
pH
8.0
9.1
9.6
8.6
8.6
9.1
Minimum Resistivity
(ohms-cm)
760
<500
<500
1800
<500
<500
Corrosion Potential**
Non-corrosive
Non-corrosive
Non-corrosive
Non-corrosive
Non-corrosive
Non-corrosive
** per California Department of Transportation, 2003.
Grain Size Analysis: Grain-size distributions were performed on selected samples in
accordance with ASTM D422. The results are presented in the following pages.
Direct Shear Testing: Direct shear testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080.
The results are presented on the following pages.
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Draft ReponALas Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo Logic
DRAFT Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge
Soluble Sulfates and Chloride: The soluble sulfate and chloride contents of selected samples
were determined by California Test Method 417 and 422, respectively, to evaluate the potential
for attack (corrosion) on concrete. The test results are presented in the table below:
Boring No./
Sample No./ Depth
B- 1/1, 0-2'
B-l/4, 15'
B- 1/7, 30'
B-2/1, 3-5'
B-2/3, 10'
B-2/8 35'
Soluble Sulfate
Content (ppm)
542
728
449
185
677
634
Soluble Chloride
Content (ppm)
1168
4599
1984
238
6909
2154
Corrosion
Potential***
Corrosive
Corrosive
Corrosive
Corrosive
Corrosive
Corrosive
*** per California Department of Transportation, 2003.
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Draft Report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Repoit.doc Geo-Loqic
A :1 ! li <:. i & 1 Z l-J
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job # 2008-143
3in 1.5in 3/4in 3/8in
f
5 60> 60
00
1 50-l 50
S.
Ofl _,
on -
m -
^••»— .— —
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
m #30 #100 #200
t—r— i 1 -•—•H _
""f—• — .^Si
\
\
\\
\
\
V
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Boring / Sample
No.
B-1/6, 20'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
94.6
Initial Moist.
(%)
29.2
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
44.3
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
SC
Description
Clayey Sand
GeoLogic Associates
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job #2008-143
3tn i.Sin 3/4in 3/8in #8
Qf\ .
- 70-
.5>
1 60
*1 SOu.
8 4fl -s.
m -
T T 1-
100 10
Boring / Sample
No.
B-1/7, 30'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
Initial Moist.
(%)
42.0
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
#30 #100 *200
•— ii— .• — .-V
S N^
•sS,('
0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
75.7
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
CL
Description
Silty Clay with fine sand
GeoLogic Associates
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job #2008-143
100 -p
QA .
on _
7f» _
!
01
?<B en .c OU
il
c
1
pn -
in -
3in 1.5in 3/4in 3/8 n. — | — , — , — i, , , L. _j ,a, ••••,• r
-
#8^ — ^ —
^V
100 10 1
Boring / Sample
No.
B-1/8, 35'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
124.5
Initial Moist.
(%)
17.8
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
#30 #100 *200
Ns
\
V\\v\\
ss
*
0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
31.5
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
SC
Description
Sandy Clay
Geologic Associates
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job #2008-143
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
3in 1 .Sin 3/4in 3/8in #8 #30 #1 00 #200
ftfl -
?n -£ 70
0)
1 60
>,CQ
? qn -
il
"c
9! 4n -
Of) .
100 10 1
Boring / Sample
No.
B-2/5, 20'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
79.1
Initial Moist.
(%)
43.2
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
"~ •— i
^^4-=~»•BT
0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
89.2
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
CL
Description
Silty Clay with fine sand
GeoLogic Associates
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job #2008-143
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
3in i.5in 3/4in 3/8in #8 #30 #100
on -
on -
7n -
£D)•51 en -
* 50-
C
i!u*- An -1Q. or* .
on .
m -
7
100 10 1
Boring / Sample
No.
B-2/6, 25'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
80.6
Initial Moist.
(%)
40.4
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
*— — --^
#200
\,
0.
Grain Size (mm)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
89.9
"s.
t 0.01 0.001
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
CL
Description
Silty Clay
GeoLogic Associates
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job #2008-143
3in i.Sin 3/4in 3/8in
an .
70 _
cD)
1 60
DO
1 50u_
£
OA
OA .
10 •
T T
#8
• l-<
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
#30 #100 #200
' -t-
100 10
Boring / Sample
No.
B-2/7, 30'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
Initial Moist.
(%)
20.3
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
>\
\\
1
\
\
\\
VS\
0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
31.2
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
SC
Description
Clayey Sand
GeoLogic Associates
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job #2008-143
3in i.5in 3/4in 3/8in #8
on .
7H
£o•5;•S fin5 bU
>.m
o> ^n -c °°IT
f Af\ .
1
on -
in -
T • -
100 10
Boring / Sample
No.
B-2/8, 35'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
Initial Moist.
(%)
25.2
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
iJ.S. Standard Sieve Size
#30 #100 *200
— -."^.-~>X
\v\\sX*
0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
62.3
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
CL
Description
Silty Clay
GeoLogic Associates
Las Encinas Creek Bridge GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422 Job #2008-143
3in 1.5in 3/4in 3/8in #8
1 00 -i ' -J * *
on .
QA ,
£ °
£> fin
>.m
c 3°il
0) xr\ ,
0>Q.
30 -
on -
in -I
0 .
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
*30 #100 #200
100 10
Boring / Sample
No.
B-2/9, 40'
Initial Dry
Density
(pcf)
Initial Moist.
(%)
23.5
Test Dry
Density
(pcf)
^\
N.\
\
\\
\
\
\
\
0
Grain Size (mm)
Test Moist.
(%)
Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve
13.1
s
»
1 0.01 0.001
LL PL PI Unified Soil
Class.
SM
Description
Fine Silty Sand
GeoLogic Associates
Job No. 2008-143 DIRECT SHEAR TEST - ASTM D-3080 Encinas Creek Bridge
peak shear strength strength at 1/4" displacement
4000
3750
3500
3250
3000
2750
2500
^2250
D)
c
0)2000
OJ17500).c
W1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000
Normal Pressure (psf)
Strain Rate: 0.0042 in. / min.
Sample
B-1/8
Type Description
Remolded Sandy Clay
& Saturated
Drv Density (pcfl Initial Water Content
109.9 17.8
Normal Pressure (psf)
1000
2000
4000
Peak Shear Strength (psf) Ultimate Shear Strength
940 @ 0.2000"
1390 @ 0.2300"
2580 @ 0.2500"
C= 350 psf
$= 29deg.
940
1390
2580
C = 350 psf
<|> = 29 deg.
GeoLogic Associates
Job No. 2008-0143 DIRECT SHEAR TEST - ASTM D-3080 Las Encinas Creek Bridge
peak shear strength o strength at 1/4" displacement
4000
3750
3500
3250
3000
2750
5-.2500
W
Q.
^2250
4_j
D)C
032000
CO
I 1750
CDJZ
CO 1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000
Normal Pressure (psf)
Sample
B-2/4, 15'
Type
Undisturbed
& Saturated
Normal Pressure (psf)
1000
2000
4000
Strain Rate: 0.0042 in. / min.
Description Drv Density fpen Initial Water Content (%)
SiltySand 106.1 20.8
Peak Shear Strength (psf) Ultimate Shear Strength (psf)
1040 @ 0.0550"
1690 @ 0.1050"
3340 @ 0.1200"
C= 250 psf
<)>= 38deg.
680
1300
2600
C = 50 psf
<|> = 33 deg.
GeoLogic Associates
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge
APPENDIX C
SEISMIC/LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
C:\Aclive\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Draft ReporrtLas Encinas Creek Foundation Repon.doc Geo Loqic
* :• 1 1, ± : A ^ •, JP
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Encinas Creek Bridge
1100
1000--
900 --
800 --
700 --
600 --
500 --
400 --
300 --
200 --
100 --
0 --
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 100 200 300 400 500 600
100 --
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Encinas Creek Bridge
200 225 250 275 300 325
***********************
* *
* EQFAULT *
* *
* Version 3.00 *
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 2008-0143
DATE: 01-09-2009
JOB NAME: Encinas Creek Bridge
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1158
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3250
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 14) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Alluvium
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE (JULIAN)
ELSINORE (TEMECULA)
ELSINORE (GLEN IVY)
PALOS VERDES
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L. A. Basin)
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE . (Elsinore)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
WHITTIER
ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN)
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-l
SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-l a
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b
SAN JOSE
PINTO MOUNTAIN
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-lc-5
SIERRA MAD RE
CUCAMONGA
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
BURNT MTN.
UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST
CLEGHORN
EUREKA PEAK
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-1
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
DISTANCE
mi (km)
4.1( 6.6)
6.9( 11.1)
19. 8( 31.8)
25. 6( 41.2)
25. 6( 41.2)
36. 5( 58.7)
37. 5( 60.3)
38. 0( 61.1)
43. 3( 69.7)
48. 3( 77.8)
48. 5( 78.1)
49. 2( 79.2)
50. 6( 81.5)
52. 9( 85.1)
54. 5( 87.7)
56. 7( 91.3)
62. 5( 100.6)
64. 3( 103.5)
65. 7( 105.8)
68. 0( 109.4)
68. 0( 109.4)
68. 0( 109.4)
68. 0( 109.4)
71. 5( 115.0)
73. 8( 118.7)
74. 6( 120.0)
75. 1( 120.9)
75. 1( 120.9)
77. 5( 124.8)
78. 3( 126.0)
79. 7( 128.2)
80. 2( 129.0)
81. 5( 131.2)
81. 6( 131.4)
81. 7( 131.5)
81. 7( 131.5)
81. 7( 131.5)
82. 3( 132.5)
RAYMOND | 82. 5 ( 132.7)
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
7.2
7.1
7.6
7.1
6.8
6.8
7.3
6.6
6.5
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.7
7.1
6.6
7.5
8.0
7.7
7.7
6.4
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.9
7.2
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.6
7.8
7.8
7.4
6.7
6.5
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT | 84. 9 ( 136.6) 6.5
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL, g
0.463
0.381
0.231
0.121
0.095
0.061
0.090
0.050
0.037
0.060
0.055
0.045
0.036
0.032
0.036
0.034
0.028
0.035
0.024
0.050
0.078
0.060
0.060
0.017
0.035
0.034
0.031
0.024
0.029
0.017
0.015
0.017
0.015
0.018
0.052
0.052
0.036
0.018
0.015
0.015
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD. MERC.
X
X
IX
VII
VII
VI
VII
VI
V
VI
VI
VI
V
V
V
V
V
V
IV
VI
VII
VI
VI
IV
V
V
V
V
V
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
VI
VI
V
IV
IV
IV
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
.EVIATED
T NAME
ILLS (San Jacinto)
LOCKHARDT
iRT-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
C ZONE
(Northern)
COPPER MTN.
Oak Ridge)
San Fernando)
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi (km)
85. 3( 137.3)
85. 7( 138.0)
86. 4( 139.0)
87. 5( 140.8)
87. 8( 141.3)
89. 0( 143.2)
90. 7( 145.9)
91. 5( 147.3)
94. 4( 151.9)
94. 5( 152.1)
95. 0( 152.9)
96. 7( 155.7)
97. 6( 157.1)
98. 8( 159.0)
99. 5( 160.1)
I 99.8 ( 160.6)
(ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
i1
I MAXIMUM
I EARTHQUAKE
1 MAG. (Mw)
1 6.6
1 6.9
I 6.6
1 6.4
I 7.0
I 7.3
| 7.3
1 6.6
I 7.5
I 6.7
I 6.4
I 6.7
I 7.0
I 7.0
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL . g
0.017
0.020
0.017
0.013
0.023
0.030
0.029
0.014
0.033
0.015
0.012
0.016
0.020
0.018
I 6.7 | . 0.014
1 7.2 | 0.023
**********************>
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD . MERC .
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
V
V
IV
V
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
k-*********
ELMORE RANCH
VERDUGO
SUPERSTITION HILLS
HOLLYWOOD
LACUNA SALADA
LANDERS
HELENDALE - S.
SANTA MONICA
LENWOOD-LOCKHA
MALIBU COAST
BRAWLEY SEISMI
JOHNSON VALLEY
EMERSON So. -
NORTHRIDGE (E.
SIERRA MADRE (
SAN GABRIEL
**************
-END OF SEARCH- 56 FAULTS FOUND
THE ROSE CANYON
WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 4.1 MILES (6.6 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4634 g
***********************
* *
* EQFAULT *
* *
* Version 3.00 ** *
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 2008-0143
DATE: 01-22-2009
JOB NAME: Las Encinas Creek Bridge
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1158
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3250
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 20) Sadigh et al. (1997) Horiz. - Soil
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE (JULIAN)
ELSINORE (TEMECULA)
ELSINORE (GLEN IVY)
PALOS VERDES
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (L. A. Basin)
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE . (Elsinore)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
WHITTIER
ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN)
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-l
SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-la
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b
SAN JOSE
CUCAMONGA
SIERRA MAD RE
PINTO MOUNTAIN
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-lc-5
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
BURNT MTN.
UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST
CLEGHORN
EUREKA PEAK
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-1
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3
RAYMOND
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
APPROYTMTi TIT
DISTANCE
mi
3.7
6.6
19.7
25.5
25.5
36.5
37.4
38.0
43.2
48.3
48.5
49.2
50.6
52.8
54.1
56.7
62.4
64.3
65.7
67.9
67.9
67.9
67.9
71.0
73.1
73.6
73.7
74.5
77.5
78.3
79.7
80.2
81.5
81.6
81.7
81.7
81.7
82.0
82.3
83.0
(km)
( 5.9)
( 10.7)
( 31.7)
( 41.1)
( 41.1)
( 58.7)
( 60.2)
( 61.1)
( 69.6)
( 77.7)
( 78.0)
( 79.1)
( 81.5)
( 85.0)
( 87.1)
( 91.2)
( 100.5)
( 103.5)
( 105.7)
( 109.3)
( 109.3)
( 109.3)
( 109.3)
( 114.2)
( 117.7)
( 118.5)
( 118.6)
( 119.9)
( 124.8)
( 126.0)
( 128.2)
( 129.0)
( 131.2)
( 131.4)
( 131.5)
( 131.5)
( 131.5)
( 131.9)
( 132.5)
( 133.6)
| ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
11
I MAXIMUM | PEAK
(EARTHQUAKE! SITE
1 MAG. (Mw)
I 7.2
1 7.1
I 7.6
1 7.1
I 6.8
I 6.8
I 7.3
I 6.6
1 6.5
| 7.2
| 7.1
1 6.9
| 6.7
I 6.6
1 6.8
I 6.8
I 6.7
1 7.1
I 6.6
1 7.5
1 8.0
I 7.7
I 7.7
I 6.4
I 6.9
I 7.2
I 7.2
1 7.2
I 7.2
1 6.5
I 6.4
1 6.5
I 6.4
1 6.6
I 7.8
1 7.8
1 7.4
I 6.5
I 6.7
1 6.5
ACCEL, g
0.415
0.319
0.188
0.112
0.092
0.060
0.083
0.063
0.038
0.057
0.052
0.044
0.046
0.031
0.036
0.034
0.027
0.046
0.023
0.046
0.067
0.054
0.054
0.022
0.033
0.042
0 .032
0.032
0.039
0.016
0.019
0.016
0.014
0.017
0.045
0.045
0.033
0.020
0.023
0.019
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD . MERC .
X
IX
VIII
VII
VII
VI
VII
VI
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
V
V
V
V
VI
IV
VI
VI
VI
VI
IV
V
VI
V
V
V
rv
IV
IV
IV
IV
VI
VI
V
IV
IV
IV
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
VERDUGO
ELMORE RANCH
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
HOLLYWOOD
LACUNA SALADA
LANDERS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU COAST
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge)
ANACAPA-DUME
SAN GABRIEL
APPROYTM7\ TT?
DISTANCE
mi
85. 0(
85. 3(
86. 4(
86. 9 (
87. 7(
89. 0(
90. 6(
91. 0(
94. 2(
94. 4(
95. 0(
96. 7(
97. 6(
97. 9(
98. 8(
99. 4(
99.8 (
-END OF SEARCH- 57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN
(km)
136.
137.
139.
139.
141.
143.
145.
146.
151.
151.
152.
155.
157.
157.
159.
160.
160.
THE
8)
3)
0)
8)
2)
2)
8)
4)
6)
9)
9)
7)
0)
6)
0)
0)
6)
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
6.9
6.6
6.6
6.4
7.0
7.3
7.3
6.6
6.7
7.5
6.4
6.7
7.0
6.7
7.0
7.5
7.2
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL . g
0.026
0.016
0.015
0.016
0.021
0.027
0.026
0.018
0.019
0.029
0.011
0.014
0.018
0.018
0.023
0.035
0.021
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD . MERC .
V
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
IV
IV
V
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
IV
SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 3.7 MILES (5.9 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4154 g
***********************
* *
* EQFAULT *
* *
* Version 3.00 *
* *
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 2008-0143
DATE: 01-22-2009
JOB NAME: Las Encinas Creek Bridge
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1158
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3250
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 25) Idriss (1994) Horiz. - Deep Soil
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: rdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE (JULIAN)
ELSINORE (TEMECULA)
ELSINORE (GLEN IVY)
PALOS VERDES
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L. A. Basin)
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE . (Elsinore)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
WHITTIER
ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN)
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-l
SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-l a
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi (km)
3.7(
6.6(
19. 7(
25. 5(
25. 5(
36. 5(
37. 4(
38. 0(
43. 2(
48. 3(
48. 5(
49. 2(
50. 6(
52. 8(
54. 1(
56. 7(
62. 4(
64. 3(
65. 7(
67. 9(
67. 9(
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 | 67.9(
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b | 67.9(
SAN JOSE
CUCAMONGA
SIERRA MADRE
PINTO MOUNTAIN
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-lc-5
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
BURNT MTN.
UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST
CLEGHORN
EUREKA PEAK
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-1
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3
RAYMOND
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
71. 0(
73. 1(
73. 6(
73. 7(
74. 5(
77. 5(
78. 3(
79. 7(
80. 2(
81. 5(
81. 6(
81. 7(
81. 7(
81. 7(
82. 0(
82. 3(
83. 0(
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
5.9)1 7.2
10.7) 7.1
31.7) | 7.6
41.1) 7.1
41.1)
58.7)
60.2)
61.1)
69.6)
77.7)
78.0)
79.1)
81.5)
85.0)
87.1)
91.2)
100.5)
103.5)
105.7)
109.3)
109.3)
109.3)
109.3)
114.2)
117.7)
118.5)
118.6)
119.9)
124.8)
126.0)
128.2)
129.0)
131.2)
131.4)
131.5)
131.5)
6.8
6.8
7.3
6.6
6.5
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.7
7.1
6.6
7.5
8.0
7.7
7.7
6.4
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.5
6.4
6.5
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL, g
0.395
0.308
0.190
0.122
0.104
0.072
0.096
0.073
0.048
0.070
0.065
0.055
0.056
0.040
0.046
0.043
0.035
0.058
0.030
0.061
0.085
0.070
0.070
0.028
0.042
0.054
0.044
0.044
0.051
0.022
0.024
0.021
6.4 0.019
6.6 0.023
7.8 | 0.063
7.8 | 0.063
131.5) 7.4 | 0.046
131.9) 6.5 | 0.025
132.5)1 6.7 | 0.030
133.6)| 6.5 | 0.025
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD . MERC .
X
IX
VIII
VII
VII
VI
VII
VII
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
V
VI
VI
V
VI
V
VI
VII
VI
VI
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
VI
VI
VI
V
V
V
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
11
ABBREVIATED |
FAULT NAME |
1
I
VERDUGO I
ELMORE RANCH I
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) |
HOLLYWOOD I
LAGUNA SALADA I
LANDERS I
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT |
SANTA MONICA 1
MALIBU COAST I
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS |
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE |
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) |
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. |
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) |
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) |
ANACAPA-DUME 1
SAN GABRIEL I
-END OF SEARCH- 57 FAULTS FOUND
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi (km)
85. 0( 136.8)
85. 3( 137.3)
86. 4( 139.0)
86. 9( 139.8)
87. 7( 141.2)
89. 0( 143.2)
90. 6( 145.8)
91. 0( 146.4)
94. 2( 151.6)
94. 4( 151.9)
95. 0( 152.9)
96. 7( 155.7)
97. 6( 157.0)
97. 9( 157.6)
98. 8( 159.0)
99. 4( 160.0)
99.8 ( 160.6)
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
6.9
6.6
6.6
6.4
7.0
7.3
7.3
6.6
6.7
7.5
6.4
6.7
7.0
6.7
7.0
7.5
7.2
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL, g
0.035
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.030
0.039
0.038
0.024
0.025
0.043
0.015
0.020
0.027
0.024
0.032
0.050
0.031
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD. MERC.
V
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
VI
IV
IV
V
V
V
VI
V
WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 3.7 MILES (5.9 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.3951 g
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
Las Encinas Creek Bridge
1100
1000 -
900 - -.
800 --
700 --
600 --
500--
-100
400 --
300 --
200 --
100 --
-400 -300 -200 -100 100 200 300 400 500 600
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
Las Encinas Creek Bridge
150 -6
125
100--
-50 --
-75 -t
175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
*************************
* *
* EQSEARCH *
* *
* Version 3.00 ** *
*************************
ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM
CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS
JOB NUMBER: 2008-0143
DATE: 01-22-2009
JOB NAME: Las Encinas Creek Bridge
EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQSEARCHl\ALLQUAKE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1158
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3250
SEARCH DATES:
START DATE: 1800
END DATE: 2004
SEARCH RADIUS:
100.0 mi
160.9 km
ATTENUATION RELATION: 14) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Alluvium
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: DS [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust]
SCOND: 0 Depth Source: A
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS
Page 1
III 1
FILEI LAT. | LONG. I DATE |
CODEI NORTH | WEST | I
DMG
MGI
MGI
DMG
T-A
T-A
T-A
PAS
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
MGI
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
MGI
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
PAS
GSP
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
T-A
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
MGI
DMG
DMG
DMG
PDF
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
MGI
"T™ —
133
133
132
132
132
132
132
132
133
132
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
132
134
133
133
133
133
133
134
133
132
133
132
133
133
133
132
133
133
133
133
134
__ j
.00001 117
.00001 117
.80001 117
.70001117
.67001117
.67001117
.67001 117
.97101 117
.20001116
.80001116
.70001 117
.70001 117
.7000(117
.69901117
.20001 116
.71001 116
.75001 117
.75001117
.57501 117
.80001117
.61701117
.80001 117
.00001116
.61701 118
.50101116
.50801116
.50001116
.90001 117
.68301118
.34301116
.7000 | 118
.70001 118
.25001117
.00001117
.75001 118
.75001 118
.75001 118
.75001118
.75001 118
.00001 117
.40001 116
.81701118
.95001116
.32901 117
.40801 116
.20001 116
.78301118
.70001 116
.28301 116
.28301 116
.28301 116
.28301 116
.10001117
.3000111/22/18001
.0000109/21/1856 I
.1000105/25/18031
.2000105/27/18621
.1700(05/24/18651
.1700112/00/1856 I
.17001 10/21/18621
.8700(07/13/19861
.7000(01/01/19201
.80001 10/23/18941
.4000(05/15/19101
.4000(05/13/19101
.4000104/11/19101
.5110(05/31/19381
.60001 10/12/19201
.9250109/23/19631
.0000(06/06/19181
.0000(04/21/19181
.9830103/11/19331
.6000(04/22/19181
.9670(03/11/19331
.0000(12/25/18991
.4330(06/04/19401
.0170(03/14/19331
.5130(02/25/19801
.5140(10/31/20011
.5000(09/30/19161
.20001 12/19/18801
.0500(03/11/19331
.3460(04/28/19691
.0670(03/11/19331
.0670(03/11/19331
.5000(01/13/18771
.2500(07/23/19231
.0830(03/11/19331
.0830(03/11/19331
.0830(03/11/1933 |
.0830 (03/11/19331
.0830(03/13/19331
.5000(12/16/18581
.3000(02/09/18901
.35001 12/26/19511
.8500(09/28/19461
.9170(06/15/20041
.2610103/25/1937
.2000(05/28/1892
.13301 10/02/1933
.3000(02/24/18921
.1830(03/23/19541
.1830)03/19/19541
.1830(03/19/1954
.1830(03/19/1954
.3000(07/15/1905
TIME I | |
(UTC) I DEPTH | QUAKE |
H M Sec| (km) | MAG. I
2130 0.
730 0.
000.
20 0 0.
000.
000.
000.
1347 8.
235 0.
23 3 0.
1547 0.
620 0.
757 0.
83455.
1748 0.
144152.
2232 0.
223225.
518 4.
2115 0.
154 7.
1225 0.
1035 8.
19 150.
104738.
075616.
211 0.
000.
658 3.
232042.
85457.
51022.
20 0 0.
73026.
910 0.
323 0.
230 0.
290.
131828.
10 0 0.
12 6 0.
04654.
719 9.
222848.
1649 1.
1115 0.
91017.
720 0.
41450.
102117.
95429.
95556.
2041 0.
— i 1 r
0| 0.0| 6.501
01 0.0| 5.001
01 0.0| 5.001
01 0.0| 5.901
01 0.0| 5.001
0| 0.0| 5.001
01 0.0| 5.001
21 6.0| 5.301
0| 0.01 5.001
0| 0.0| 5.70)
0| 0.01 6.001
0| 0.0| 5.001
0 0.0| 5.001
4| 10.01 5.501
01 0.01 5.301
6| 16.51 5.001
01 0.0| 5.001
01 0.0| 6.801
01 0.01 5.201
0| 0.0| 5.001
81 0.0| 6.301
0| 0.0| 6.401
3| 0.01 5.101
01 0.0 5.101
5 13.6
6| 15.0
01 0.0
0| 0.0
01 0.0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.501
5.101
5.001
6.001
5.501
5.801
5.101
5.101
5.001
6.251
5.101
5.001
5.101
5.001
5.301
7.001
6.301
5.901
5.001
5.301
6.001
6.301
5.401
6.701
5.101
5.50|
6.201
5.001
0| 0.0| 5.301
SITE
ACC.
g
0.312
0.033
0.024
0.041
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.021
0.015
0.025
0.028
0.013
0.013
0.018
0.015
0.010
0.010
0.043
0.011
0.009
0.026
0.028
0.010
0.009
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.019
0.012
0.014
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.019
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.034
0.020
0.014
0.007
0.008
0.015
0.018
0.009
0.025
SITE
MM
INT.
IX
V
V
V
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
III
III
IV
IV
IIIIII
VI
III
III
V
V
III
III
III
III
III
IV
III
IV
III
III
II
IV
APPROX .
DISTANCE
mi [km]
8.
20.
25.
29.
32.
32.
32.
33.
36.
37.
40.
40.
40.
41.
42.
47.
47.
47.
49.
49.
50.
50.
52.
52.
53.
54.
54.
54.
57.
58.
58.
58.
60.
61.
II 61.
II 61.
II I 61.
II
III
V
IV
IV
II
III
IV
IV
III
V
0.007 | II
0.009 | III
0.016 | IV
0.006 II
0.008 | II
61.
61.
61.
62.
62.
63.
64.
64.
65.
65.
66.
67.
67.
67.
67.
68.
K 13.1)
4( 32.9)
4( 40.9)
6( 47.6)
1( 51.6)
1( 51.6)
1( 51.6)
1( 53.2)
6( 58.9)
4( 60.2)
6( 65.3)
6( 65.3)
6( 65.3)
7( 67.1)
3( 68.1)
1( 75.7)
6( 76.6)
6( 76.6)
4( 79.6)
8( 80.2)
7( 81.5)
8( 81.8)
2( 84.1)
8( 85.0)
9( 86.7)
1( 87.0)
5( 87.7)
6( 87.9)
3( 92.2)
7( 94.4)
8( 94.6)
8( 94.6)
6( 97.6)
2( 98.5)
8( 99.5)
8( 99.5)
8( 99.5)
8( 99.5)
8( 99.5)
9( 99.6)
3(100.3)
9(101.1)
8(102.6)
3(103.5)
7(104.0)
3(105.1)
5(105.4)
0(106.2)
0(107.8)
0(107.8)
0(107.8)
0(107.8)
0(109.4)
EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS
Page 2
1 1
FILE) LAT. |
CODEI NORTH |
DMG |33
DMG | 33
DMG 133
DMG 133
DMG |33
MGI |34
PAS 133
GSP |34
DMG I 33
DMG |34
DMG |33
DMG |34
DMG 134
DMG |33
DMG |34
DMG |34
DMG |34
GSP 134
DMG 132
DMG I 32
DMG |32
DMG |32
DMG (32
DMG | 32
DMG |32
DMG | 32
DMG 132
DMG | 33
DMG |34
DMG 134
DMG |34
DMG |34
PAS 134
GSP |34
PAS |34
GSN |34
GSP |33
DMG 134
GSP 133
DMG 132
T-A |34
T-A |34
T-A |34
MGI |34
DMG |34
DMG |34
GSP |33
DMG |34
GSP |34
DMG 132
MGI |34
DMG |34
GSP |34
.97601
.21701
.19001
.99401
.78301
.00001
.99801
.14001
.85001
.10001
.11301
1 1
LONG. I DATE I
WEST | I
116
116
116
116
118
118
116
117
118
116
116
.20001 117
.20001
.23101
.10001
.18001
.18001
.16301
.9670
.96701
.96701
.96701
.20001
.2000
.0000
.0000
.9830
.9330
.0170
.0170
.0170
.0170
.0610
.1950
.0730
.2030
.8760
.27001
.90201
.08301
.00001
.00001
.00001
.10001
.20001
.2670
.96101
.30001
.23901
.5000
.0000
.30001
.29001
117
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
117
117
115
116
116
116
116
116
118
116
118
116
116
117
116
116
118
118
118
118
117
116
116
117
116
118
118
117
116
.7210106/12/1944]
.1330108/15/19451
.1290104/09/19681
.7120106/12/19441
.2500111/14/19411
.0000112/25/19031
.6060107/08/19861
.7000102/28/19901
.2670103/11/19331
.8000110/24/19351
.0370104/09/19681
.4000107/22/18991
.1000|09/20/1907|
.0040105/26/19571
.7000102/07/18891
.9200101/16/19301
.9200101/16/19301
.8550106/28/19921
.00001 10/21/19421
.00001 10/21/19421
.0000110/21/19421
.0000110/22/19421
.5500111/04/19491
.5500111/05/19491
.5000105/01/19391
.5000106/24/19391
.9830105/23/19421
.3830112/04/19481
.5000107/25/19471
.5000107/24/19471
.5000107/26/19471
.5000|07/25/1947|
.0790110/01/19871
.8620108/17/19921
.0980110/04/19871
.8270106/28/1992)
.2670106/29/19921
.5400109/12/19701
.2840107/24/19921
.66701 11/25/19341
.2500103/26/18601
.2500109/23/18271
.2500101/10/18561
.1000107/11/18551
.9000108/28/18891
.9670108/29/19431
.3180104/23/19921
.5000107/22/18991
.8370107/09/19921
.5500102/24/19481
.3000109/03/19051
.6000107/30/18941
.9460102/10/20011
TIME 1
(UTC) I
H M Sec|
104534.
175624.
22859.
111636.
84136.
1745 0.
92044.
234336.
1425 0.
1448 7.
3 353.
046 0.
154 0.
155933.
520 0.
034 3.
02433.
144321.
162213.
162519.
162654.
181326.
204238.
43524.
2353 0.
1627 0.
154729.
234317.
04631.
221046.
24941.
61949.
144220.
204152.
105938.
150530.
160142.
143053.
181436.
818 0.
000.
000.
000.
415 0.
215 0.
34513.
045023.
2032 0.
014357.
81510.
540 0.
512 0.
210505.
71
01
11
01
31
01
51
61
01
61
51
01
01
61
01
61
91
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
11
21
71
81
01
21
01
01
01
01
01
01
0
0
01
61
0
0
01
81
1 1
DEPTH | QUAKE |
(km) | MAG. |
10.01 5.101
0.0|
11.11
10.01
0.0
0.0|
11.71
5.0|
0.0|
0.0
5.0
0.0|
0.0|
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
11.0
8.2
5.0
1.0
8.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
5.701
6.401
5.301
5.401
5.001
5.601
5.201
5.001
5.101
5.201
5.501
6.00|
5.001
5.301
5.101
5.201
5.301
6.501
5.001
5.001
5.001
5.701
5.101
5.001
5.00 |
5.001
6.501
5.001
5.501
5.101
5.201
5.901
5.301
5.301
6.70|
5.201
5.401
5.001
5.001
5.001
5.001
5.001
6.301
5.501
5.501
6.101
6.501
5.301
5.301
5.301
6.001
5.101
SITE ISITEI APPROX.
ACC. MM | DISTANCE
g INT. | mi [km]
0.006 II
0.010 III
0.018 IV
0.007 II
0.008 III
0.006 II
0.009 III
0.006 II
0.005 II
0.006 II
0.006 II
0.008 II
0.012 | III
0.005 II
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.017
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.009
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.017
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.019
0.006
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.013
0.007
0.007
0.011
0.015
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.010
0.005
II
II
II
II
IV
II
II
II
III
II
II
II
II
IV
II
II
II
II
III
II
II
IV
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
II
II
III
IV
II
II
II
III
II
68.
69.
69.
70.
70.
72.
73.
73.
74.
74.
74.
75.
76.
76.
76.
77.
77.
77.
77.
77.
77.
77.
77.
77.
77.
77.
78.
78.
78.
78.
78.
78.
78.
79.
79.
80.
80.
80.
80.
80.
81.
81.
81.
81.
81.
82.
82.
82.
82.
82.
82.
83.
83.
8(110.7)
2(111.4)
3(111.6)
1(112.9)
4(113.4)
4(116.4)
6(118.5)
9(119.0)
2(119.5)
4(119.7)
5(119.9)
0(120.7)
0(122.2)
8(123.5)
9(123.7)
1(124.0)
1(124.0)
2(124.2)
4(124.5)
4(124.5)
4(124.5)
4(124.5)
6(124.9)
6(124.9)
7(125.1)
7(125.1)
2(125.8)
2(125.9)
3(125.9)
3(125.9)
3(125.9)
3(125.9)
4(126.1)
1(127.3)
6(128.2)
3(129.3)
4(129.4)
6(129.8)
9(130.1)
9(130.2)
0(130.3)
0(130.3)
0(130.3)
3(130.8)
8(131.7)
1(132.1)
2(132.3)
4(132.6)
5(132.7)
8(133.3)
9(133.4)
3(134.0)
9(135.1)
EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS
Page 3
1 1
FILEI LAT. |
CODE | NORTH |
DMG
GSP
MGI
GSP
PAS
GSP
DMG
GSG
DMG
DMG
DMG
GSP
DMG
GSP
GSP
DMG
DMG
PAS
GSP
GSN
DMG
T-A
MGI
DMG
DMG
PAS
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
GSP
GSP
PAS
DMG
GSP
DMG
DMG
PAS
PAS
33
34
34
34
33
34
33
34
34
34
33
34
33
34
34
34
34
33
34
34
31
33
34
34
32
33
33
32
33
32
34
34
33
31
34
34
34
34
33
.18301
.02901
.08001
.06401
.01301
.10801
.00001
.31001
.06701
.06701
.03301
.13901
.21601
.34001
.26201
.37001
.08301
.08201
.36901
.20101
.81101
.50001
.0000]
.00001
.98301
.91901
.23301
.95001
.95001
.90001
.26801
.34101
.9440)
.86701
.33201
.00001
.00001
.32701
.09801
1 I TIME | | I SITE SITE
LONG. | DATE I (UTC) I DEPTH | QUAKE | ACC. | MM
WEST | | H M Seel (km) | MAG.| g INT.
115
116
118
116
115
116
115
116
116
116
115
116
115
116
118
117
116
115
116
116
117
115
118
118
115
118
115
115
118
115
116
116
118
116
116
116
116
116
115
.8500|04/25/1957|222412.
.3210108/21/19931 014638.
.2600107/16/1920118 8 0.
.3610109/15/19921084711.
.83901 11/24/19871 131556.
.4040106/29/19921 141338.
.8330101/08/19461185418.
.8480 102/22/20031 121910.
.3330105/18/19401 72132.
.3330105/18/19401 55120.
.8210109/30/19711224611.
.43 10 |06/28/1992| 123640.
.8080104/25/19571215738.
.9000111/27/1992) 160057.
.0020106/28/19911 144354.
.6500|12/08/1812|15 0 0.
.3000105/18/19401 5 358.
.7750111/24/19871 15414.
.8970112/04/19921020857.
.4360 106/28/19921 115734.
.1310|12/22/1964|205433.
.8200105/00/18681 000.
.5000|11/19/1918|2018 0.
.5000|08/04/1927|1224 0.
.7330101/24/19511 717 2.
.6270101/19/19891 65328.
.7170110/22/19421 15038.
.7170106/14/19531 41729.
.6320108/31/19301 04036.
.7000|10/02/1928|19 1 0.
.4020106/16/19941 162427.
.5290106/28/19921 124053.
.6810 101/01/1979 |23 1438.
.5710|02/27/1937| 12918.
.4620|07/01/1992|074029.
.0000|09/05/1928|1442 0.
.0000|04/03/1926|20 8 0.
.4450|03/15/1979|21 716.
.6320|04/26/1981|12 928.
T
01
41
01
31
51
81
01
61
71
21
31
61
71
51
51
01
51
51
51
11
2!
01
01
01
61
81
01
91
01
01
51
51
91
41
91
01
01
51
41
0.01
9.01
0.0|
9.0|
2.4|
9.01
0.0|
1.0|
0.0|
0.0|
8.0|
10.01
-0.31
1.0|
11.01
0.0|
0.01
4.9|
3.0|
1.0|
2.3|
0.01
0.01
0.0|
0.0|
11.91
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
0.0|
3.0|
6.0|
11.31
10.01
9.0|
0.0|
0.0|
2.5|
3.8|
5.10
5.00
5.00
5.20
6.00
5.40
5.40
5.20
5.00
5.20
5.10
5.10
5.20
5.30
5.40
7.00
5.40
5.80
5.30
7.60
5.60
6.30
5.00
5.00
5.60
1 1
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.021
0.006
0.008
0.005
0.032
0.006
0.011
0.004
0.004
0.006
5.001 0.004
5.501 0.006
5.501 0.006
5.20 0.004
5.001 0.004
5.001 0.004
5.201 0.004
5.001 0.004
5.001 0.004
5.401 0.005
5.001 0.004
5.501 0.005
5.201 0.004
5.701 0.006
i 1
II
I
I
II
III
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
IV
II
II
II
V
II
III
I
I
II
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
III
APPROX .
DISTANCE
mi [km]
85.
85.
85.
85.
86.
86.
86.
86.
87.
87.
87.
87.
87.
88.
88.
88.
89.
89.
89.
90.
90.
90.
91.
91.
92.
93.
93.
93.
94.
95.
95.
96.
96.
96.
97.
97.
97.
97.
97.
4(137.4)
5(137.6)
6(137.7)
8(138.1)
3(138.8)
6(139.3)
7(139.5)
9(139.8)
0(140.0)
0(140.0)
2(140.3)
4(140.6)
9(141.5)
0(141.6)
2(141.9)
6(142.5)
1(143.3)
7(144.3)
9(144.7)
7(145.9)
8(146.1)
8(146.1)
1(146.6)
1(146.6)
6(149.0)
2(150.0)
3(150.1)
8(150.9)
7(152.5)
3(153.3)
6(153.8)
1(154.7)
7(155.7)
8(155.7)
5(156.9)
7(157.2)
7(157.2)
7(157.2)
9(157.6)
-END OF SEARCH- 145 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA.
TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2004
LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 205 years
THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 8.1 MILES (13.1 km) AWAY.
LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7.6
LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.312 g
TABLE 1 - NGA SUMMARY FOR THE ROSE CANYON FAULT
Fault: ROSE CANYON
Project! Nolte/Encinas Breek Bridge
Source parameters'2'
Mag, Moment
Top of Rupture (km)
Ftype
Dip (degrees)
Rup Width (km)
Location (dist) Parameters
Rrup (km), closest distance to rupture plane
Rjb(km), Joyner-Boore distance
Rx (km),horizontal distance from top edge of rupture
HW Flag, 1 for hanging wall side, 0 otherwise
Site Response Parameters
Vs30 (m/s), shear wave velocity for 30m
Zl.O (km), depth to Vs=lkm/sec
22.5 (km)
Vs30 est class (A&S and C&Y)
Soil Depth Model (A&S)
Number of Std Dev
epsilon
Notes:
REV
REV/OBL
SS
NML70BL
NML
Value
7,2
5.9
0
90
5.9
Value
5.9
5.9
5.9
0
Value
520
0.040
0.6628
0
0
Value
0
Ftype
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
SA(g) SA(g) SA(g) SA(g) SA(g)
period (sec) A&S(l) B&A C&B C&Y I
0 0.56993 0.33382 0.35205 0.56238 0.40076
0.01 0.45618 0.57393 0.33637 0.35205 0.56238 0.40076
0.02 0.46497 0.58571 0.34236 0.35855 0.57326 0.40076
0.03 0.49240 0.61326 0.36025 0.38470 0.61139 0.42131
0.04 0.62470 0.66198 0.44291
0.05 0.56213 0.65296 0.40659 0.46289 0.72606 0.46927
0.075 0.68418 0.76568 0.51061 0.56730 0.89314
0.1 0.79696 0.90054 0.58816 0.65557 1.04357 0.67942
0.15 0.95725 1.12890 0.71866 0.75396 1.22748 0.79327
0.2 1.01780 1.24744 0.75427 0.81022 1.25928 0.89480
0.25 1.01811 1.31722 0.74189 0.78185 1.23150 0.89623
0.3 0.98088 1.31059 0.69372 0.74638 1.17285 0.84337
0.4 0.87916 1.16368 0.64275 0.68942 1.02080 0.74204
0.5 0.73726 0.91140 0.54670 0.61732 0.87362 0.64129
0.75 0.50489 0.55741 0.40393 0.43654 0.62167
1 0.37516 0.38356 0.31071 0.33462 0.47176 0.35447
1.5 0.23541 0.20749 0.22145 0.21733 0.29535 0.21794
2 0.15966 0.12606 0.16045 0.15783 0.19429 0.14100
3 0.09407 0.06803 0.10257 0.09979 0.10591 0.07764
4 0.06410 0.04285 0.07233 0.07364 0.06758 0.04836
5 0.04840 0.02971 0.05693 0.05999 0.04695 0.03324
7.5 0.02639 0.01717 0.03272 0.03325 0.02244
10 0.01491 0.01008 0.01559 0.02189 0.01208 0.00806
PGV 41.54322 40.41108 38.6988 39.6167 47.44636
I Fault: ROSE CANYON
(Project: Nolte/Encinas Breek Bridge
Results:
Average horizontal ground acceleration: 0.44 g
(1) References: A&S = Abrahamson, N.A., and Silva, WJ., 2008, Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 67-97.
B&A = Boore, D.M., and Atkinson, G.M., 2008, Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods
between 0.01s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 99-138.
C&B = Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008, NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of the PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response
spectra for periods ranging from 0.01s to 10.0s, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 139-171.
C&Y = Chiou, B.S.J., and Youngs, R. R., 2008, Chiou-Youngs NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of the peak and spectral ground motion
parameters, Earthquake Spectra 24, 173-215.
Idriss, I. M., 2008, An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra, 24, 217-242.
Vs estimate from: Wills, C.J., et. al., 2000, "A Site-Condition
(2> Source parameters from Cao, Bryant, Rowshandel, Branum
Map for California Based on Geology and Shear-Wave Velocity," BSSA, V. 90, No. 6, pp. S187-S208.
, and Wills, The Revised 2002 California Seismic Hazards Maps, June 2003.
Las Encinas Creek Bridge
B-1
Liquefaction Analysis
SPT
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
Depth
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25
30
I 35
45
50
55
60
65
70
N field
38
80
37
30
24
20
21
30
34
39
45
40
40
Energy
Factor
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Rod
Factor
1
1
•)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sampler
Factor
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1 H
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Borehole
Factor
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
•* H C
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
Total
Stress
(psf)
650
1300
1950
2575
3200
3825
4450
cr\7C
5700
6325
6950
7575
8200
8845
Effective
Stress
(psf)
650
1300
1638
1951
2264
2577
2890
3516
3829
4142
4455
4768
5101
Cn
1.36
1.15
1.08
1.03
.98
.92
.88
07
.83
.82
.81
.81
.77
, .75
N1,60
62.1
110.5
48
37.1
28.2
22.1
22.2
00 A
29.9
33.5
37.9
43.8
37
36
Fines
Content
(%)
15
15
15
70
44
28
31
OH
31
31
20
20
, 20
20
N1,60,cs
67.5
118.3
52.8
49.5
38.8
29.7
30.5
AO A
39.5
43.7
44.5
50.8
43.5
42.4
Ksigma
1
1
1
1
.98
L. .96-..93
Q7
.85
.82
.8
.78
.76
.74
Alpha
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
—
...
...
...
Kalpha
—
—
...
—
...
...
—
—
—
—
...
CRR
—
—
NL
NL
NL
.465
NL
Ml
NL
NL
h NL
NL
NL
NL
CSR
.283
.288
.303
.318
.332
.347
.362
077
.374
.364
.354
.343
.333
.322
Safety
Factor
—
—
—
—
—
1.34
—
—
—
—
—
...
...
CSR analysis using Seed & Idriss (1971)R File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-R using SPT Data and Seed et. al. Met
CRR File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1_OUTPUT.CRR
CCRR 8-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1 OUTPUT.CSRSPT Data and Seed et. al. Method in 1997 NCEER Workshop
Earthquake used in CSR Analysis: Rose CanyonEarthquake Magnitude for CRR Analysis: 72
Peak Ground Acceleration for CSR Analysis (g, from User): .44Magnitude Scaling Factor JMSF): 1.082Depth to Water Table for CRR Analysis (ft): 10Depth to Water Table for Cn Calculation (ft) : 9
Depth to Base Layer for CSR Analysis (ft : 103.75MS? Option: I.M. Idriss (1999)..Cn Option: Idriss & Boufanger (2003)Ksiqma Option: Idriss & Boulanger (2003)SPT Energy Ratio: Safety Hammer/I): .95effective stress computed using Depth to Water Table for CRR Analysis
"value modified by user
Page No. 1
T
Las Encinas Creek Bridge
B-1
Seismic Induced Settlement Analysis
SPT
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Depth
(ft)
5
10
1Ai20
25
30
35
40L~ _^5i~56l
55
60
65
70
Thickness
(ft)
7.5
2.5
7.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2.5
Soil
Type
(N)1
67.5
l 118.3
....
....
....
....
-...
....
....
....
....
....
....
(N1)60,cs
....
....
....
N(1,J) GSR
M=7.5
....
....
....
.—
.... !
29.7
....
....
....
— .
....
....
.—
....
....
....
....
.261
.266
....
—
....
.32
....
....
....
....
FSL
-...
—
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
1.34
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
Ecyc
(%)
1 .6402E-02
1 .7998E-02
Evol
(%)
.0106
.0116l —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Settlement
(in)
.009
.003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.06
.06
.06
.03
Total Settlement (in): .222
CSR analysis using Seed & Idriss (1971)CSR analysis on File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1_OUTPUT.CSREarthguake used in CSR Analysis: Rose CanyonCRR File: CAActive\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1 OUTPUT.CRRCRR - SPT Data & Seed et. al. Method in NCEER WorkshopCRR results on File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1 OUTPUT.CRRDepth to Water Table for CRR"Analysis (ft): 10Settlement of Dry Sands: Tokimatsu & Seed (J987)Settlement of Saturated Sands: Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)
Page No. 1
Las Encinas Creek Bridge
B-1
Seismic Induced Settlement Analysis
L.
SPT
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Depth
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25
30
7 ! 35
8
9
10
11
12
13
40
45
50
55
u- 6°^_ 65
14 70
Thickness
(ft)
7.5
2.5
7.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2.5
Soil
Type
(N)1
67.5
118.3
-—
....
— .
....
—....
....
I —i
I
(N1)60,cs
....
—
....
....
—
29.7
—
....
....
—
—
—
N(1,J)
....
—
....
....
—
24.74
—
....
....
....
—
— —
CSR
M=7.5
.261
.266
....
..._
FSL
—
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
.32
—
— .
....
....
....
—
....
1.34
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
Ecyc
(%)
1 .6402E-02
1 .7998E-02
Evol
_ !%!_.0106
.0116—
....
—
! .236
Settlement
(in)
.009
.003
0
0
0
.141
I — - | 0
NFSL |
NFSL
NFSL
....
....
—
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
.... I o
Total Settlement (in): .153
Notes:CSR analysis using Seed & Idriss (1971)CSR analysis on Hie: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1_OUTPUT.CSREarthquake used in CSR Analysis: Rose CanyonCRR File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1 OUTPUT.CRRCRR - SPT Data & Seed el. al. Method in NCEER WorkshopCRR results on File: C:\Active\ Proiects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-1 OUTPUT.CRRDepth to Water Table for CRR~Analysis (ft): 10Settlement of Dry Sands: Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Settlement of Saturated Sands: Ishihara & Yoshimme (1992)
Page No.
Las Encinas Creek Bridge - B-1
-20-
§• -4(H
-60-
-80-
0.00
O Settlement for layer. CRR -
SPT Data & Seed et. al.
Method in NCEER Workshop
Tokimatsu & Seed (1987
Total Settlement at top of
layer.
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Settlement (in)
Las Encinas Creek Bridge - B-1
-20
8- -40-|
-60-
-80
o
0.00 0.05 0.10
Settlement (in)
0.15
O Settlement for layer. CRR -
SPT Data & Seed et. al.
Method in NCEER Workshop
Ishihara & Yoshimine (
Total Settlement at top of
layer.
0.20
Las Encinas Creek Bridge
B-1
2008-0143
Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Displacement
Project: Las Encinas Creek Bridge
Earthquake moment magnitude: 7.2
Lateral Displacement Index: .009 m
Distance to the free face from the point of displacement: 11 m
Height of free face: 2.2 m
Ground slope: .5%
MLR method: SPT - Zhang et al. (2004) - Level Ground with a Free Face
Lateral Displacement: 0.014 m
Lateral Displacement: 0.045 ft
Las Encinas Creeek Bridge
B-2
Liquefaction Analysis
SPT
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Depth
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
N field
17
25
24
21
24
26
26
30
31
35
34
37
38
Energy
Factor
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Rod
Factor
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sampler
Factor
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Borehole
Factor
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
Total
Stress
(psf)
650
1295
1920
2545
3170
3795
4420
5045
5670
6295
6920
7545
8170
Effective
Stress
(psf)
650
1232.6
1545.6
1858.6
2171.6
2484.6
2797.6
3110.6
3423.6
3736.6
4049.6
4362.59
4675.59
Cn
1.52
1.19
1.11
1.05
.99
.94
.9
.87
.84
.82
.79
.78
.77
N1.60
31
35.7
32
26.4
28.5
29.3
28.1
31.3
31.2
34.4
32.2
34.6
35.1
Fines
Content
(%)
15
15
15
89
90
31
62
13
13
13
13
13
13
N1,60,cs
34.9
39.9
36
36.6
39.2
38.8
38.7
34.3
34.2
37.5
35.2
37.7
38.2
Ksigma
1
1
1
1
.99
.95
.91
.9
.87
.83
.82
.78
.76
Alpha
...
...
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
...
...
Kalpha
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
—
...
—
...
...
CRR
—NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
GSR
.284
.302
.32
.337
.355
.373
.391
.392
.38
.369
.357
.345
.334
Safety
Factor
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Notes:_SR analysis using Seed & Idriss (1971)CSR File: CAActiveX Proiects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-2 OUTPUT.CSRCRR using SPT Data and Seed et. al. Method in 1997 NCEER WorkshopCRR File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-2_OUTPUT.CRREarthquake used in CSR Analysis: Rose CanyonEarthquake Magnitude for CRR Analysis: 7.2Peak Ground Acceleration for CSR Analysis (g, from User): .44Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF): 1.082Depth to Water Table for CRR Analysis (ft): 9Depth to Water Table for Cn Calculation (ft : 9Depth to Base Layer for CSR Analysis (ft): 98.75MSF Option: I.M. Idriss (1999)
"effective stress computed usingValue modified by user
.epth to Water Table for CRR Analysis
Page No. 1
Las Encinas Creeek Bridge - B-2
-20-
-40-)
-60-
-80-
0.00 0.05 0.10
Settlement (in)
0.15 0.20
O Settlement for layer. CRR-
SPT Data & Seed et.al.
Method in NCEER Workshop
Tokimatsu& Seed (1987
• Total Settlement at top of
layer.
-20->
-40
i
i
-60-
-80-
0.000
Las Encinas Creeek Bridge - B-2
ii
l 1 1 i : 1 1 r-
0.005 0.010
Settlement (in)
0.015 0.020
O Settlement for layer. CRR-
SPT Data & Seed et.al.
Method in NCEER Workshop
lshihara&Yoshimine(
1 Total Settlement at top of
layer.
Las Encinas Creeek Bridge
B-2
Seismic Induced Settlement Analysis
SPT
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Depth
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Thickness
(ft)
9
3.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
I 2.5
Soil
Type
(N)1
| 34.9
— .
....
—
—
....
....
—
—
—
—
—
(N1)60,cs
—
—
....
....
—
—
—
—
—
....
—
....
...-
N(1,J)
—
—
—
—
....
—
....
....
—
....
—
—
—
GSR
M=7.5
.262—
—
....
....
—
—
— .
—
—
—
—
....
FSL~^
—
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
Ecyc
(%)
2.2660E-02
Evol
(%)
.0193....
—
—
—
—
—
....
—
Settlement
(in)
.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.06
.06
.03
Total Settlement (in): .17
Notes:
ns\B-2_OUTPUT.CSRCSR analysis using Seed & Idriss (1971)CSR analysis on File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeVCalculalioiEarthquake used in CSR AnalysTs: Rose CanyonCRR File: C:\Active1 Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-2 OUTPUT.CRRCRR - SPT Data & Seed el. al. Method in NCEER WorkshopCRR results on File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-2 OUTPUT.CRRDepth to Water Table for CRR~Analysis (ft): 9Settlement ordry Sands: Tokimatsu & Seed (J987)" • • - ' jrated Sands: Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)Settlement of Salura
Page No. 1
Las Encinas Creeek Bridge
B-2
Seismic Induced Settlement Analysis
SPT
No.
1
! 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
; 13
Depth
(ft)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Thickness
(ft)
9
3.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2.5
Soil
Type
(N)1
34.9—
....
— -
—
....
—
....
....
....
....
....
....
(N1)60,cs
....
....
—
....
—
....
....
—
....
....
—
—
—
N(1,J)
—
—
....
—
—
—
—
....
....
—
....
....
GSR
M=7.5
.262
—
—
—
....
—
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
FSL
—
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
NFSL
Ecyc
(%)
2.2660E-02
Evol
(%)
.0193
—
—
—
—
—
....
—
—
—
—
....
....
Settlement
(in)
.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
! Total Settlement (in): .02
Notes:
rojects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-2_OUTPUT.CSR
b:\AcfiveVPrbjecis\S608\2008-0143 - Nolte Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-2_OUTPUT.CRRCRR FileCRR - SPTbVfa&'Seed'etVilT Method rnNCEERWorkshop""CRR results on File: C:\Active\ Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas Bridge\Calculations\B-2 OUTPUT.CRRDepth to Water Table for CRR~Analysis (ft): 9Settlement of Dry Sands: Tokimatsu & Seed (1987JSettlement of Saturated Sands: Ishihara & Yoshimine (1992)
Page No. 1
Las Encinas Creeek Bridge
B-2
2008-0143
Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Displacement
Project: Las Encinas Creeek Bridge
Earthquake moment magnitude: 7.2
Lateral Displacement Index: 0 m
Distance to the free face from the point of displacement: 11 m
Height of free face: 2.2 m
Ground slope: .5%
MLR method: SPT - Zhang et al. (2004) - Level Ground with a Free Face
Lateral Displacement: 0 m
Lateral Displacement: 0 ft
DRAFT Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge
APPENDIX D
BRIDGE WIDENING/REPAIR PLANS
C:\Active\ Proiects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgettJraft Report\Las Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo-Loqic* it; a •; ; * 1 i." t, -J»
DC9I
rBrHfHv^^f9*!
ftantfOiiGiffrfit'to** J'^MJ!!™,.
*&&. £f? 3&? fe^t-f**- V'^rji^ As»ff'^if9^" £j._ ; *..... ^:.._.^,.±*.,., 4rr*-J™** t—*'^*^™,^
' ..STMSBTi
J |
J ,C,-35E^—-^ LI /,:
r* crn or Tiit *K>VS uocurfm I*KKN
_TITLt _',/<_. _/.- 'L/
I rg.*£f * I "*»• 1 —•" 1 •aw I
I i ^isrrrj^Wr""-^: ssW
CO
1Q.
Ho5-e
O •/>
• -|-y-"~ -r-r-T-r--"^ ,- -^ ,...,-- -jM^v^.
I \ ,•',''' '; .<""' '' ; ; [:"*":""
J. g-llT-t^l-L ..'__,'.. 'lj-;%...+ ..Uirj:1. .:-
t -* ! ifcw ! i ! I 'fefv ¥ I ! i tefi-Sf
*Vigi wiy^uJ-fr— U2>--!r ••-^4i -"'• nw4 ••---
•tx(0 ttiC I £Xfl»<vjtott Cm
GIBDE.R DETAIL•-
l 4-L I'-
L ^TJ fXPAttSIOf. Cfi/Q
1
seer i OH LOOKING
* Ptri*tii Of firm 4ft
AS BUILT
SECTION LOOKING
'
DESIGN SECTION
REPAIR J BRtOGES ACROSS
LOS PfrtASOU/TOS CR££K- SAN MARCOS WEE*AND LAS ENCINAI ateix
TYPICAL CECTiON { QlROEO LAYOUT
*u?iit»iATrc nr BIK HIBEOTO? i
DATE-'/.•//'.' aroinTuair
ISUUMCOU) *"€*»
lit EJCAKlCrfl - OK FACE
TYPICAL SECTJOtf
oortion of «xie>:inyinjurtota rr&r.-e.onu repxxftt , as e/n extvt~ • '**'* O
of stirrups
from out to oat of cvt in
J, All y&tices in ivtt-a rn*an on& . Mmttot (a £•* /oopM o misumum or 3 .
He sor&blQStKt of ear rsa/alng
TYPCAL CORNER CAP REPAIRS
(br I**
.i XEMfl 3 flW3G£3 -CffOSSKOJ ' PfWASQWrOS CWBK" S4W MARCOS
AND LAS CN&NAS CR££K
r • -r. - tit ) it. :
Foundation Report - Las Encinas Creek Bridge
PLATE 1
LOG OF TEST BORINGS
C:\Active\_Projects\2008\2008-0143 - Nolle Encinas BridgeVDraft ReportXLas Encinas Creek Foundation Report.doc Geo Loqk
* ;;;- i. •:, • AT ;: t,-J
liiiLi,B^BBDBB
!iisis|i!s
nun
CARLSBAD BLVD.PLATE I
GaotBChnkal Laboratory Testing Legend
PACI
&
1
/ATON 8
ELEV. ±15.2
I flULKI
{ V JU
' * '"
1 11 l\.t
1 3lTl.<
lv *>» ** — ^ ^ t J ^-.J ^ -— =„ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ .. __ ___ ® -Dk9ctSr»BfTast(ASTMD30flO)
^_ -*. S -jpSBBBSHHBaB^r^ .•*""""" —„«—-•» ^ ^ _,„,_ __ _ ft = Particle Analysis (ASTM 0422)
FIC nrFAW PLAN _,. — PACIFIC O(rll* UUtAFM SCALE- r-ffl r«^*iriv* \J\
5 C1 so1
0 B-1 ELEV. ±150T
O FILL; bff* brown, mowt, dprca. (me SLTY SANO (SM) «Nh mUarad cabblec
f BULKl"
- (J^ | fS timll aa ithnun ai»i numercm nVf inn iyi Ln H In fl rrfim in mtttimjm Oinwiafin 1 17 11.4
»ll
- in-UQ ALLUVIUM: PatayaVow«hbrown.swgt.daue, rineSILTYSANOrSM} L B IJJ
Pale yslow* brown, w*. very «l IH. SILTVCLAY (Ct)
-'TsiTI 1 9 IU"; Pato yaUowiah brown, wet, meoun Oente, Ime CLAYEY SAND (SC)
B4.ElzdjllQ 1 M 114PaW yalowitn brown, «*, madium Qertw. S1LTY SAND (SM)
- 'IMjOg Q^ blach| wt[ ^^y |tfl siTYCLAYjCLJ 1 W^*
Oh« black. wW. madium dertw. line CLAYEY SAND (SC)
'**•*"*•• ' "Mr" ' M "-4
- TlTji i4ouiju. a- CJt.Hi.
SANTIAGO FORMATION: YrikMuri g^y. wet, bense, line SILTY SANDSTONE
L
,o,^oem
w -T -Wl .
DEAN
i- ELEVA
HB-2
FILL: Rt rap (bouUan to Z4 to 36 hctee w maximun dnwvion) vrtti Mnd matrti
O Light brown, moist, medium deraa, Ine SLTY SAI£J (SM)
— — TwSu AMI Ml W Pita ysllrviffti hrnw iwt mnrl»n rlensn Mrtfl Oil TV WNP (SM) w* nrflflnrBTl rntifHrri
Pate ydowisn bro«wi, wot, madium Own*. Im CLAYEY SAND (SQ
rj. .Js^U.I UW. ™, dM, 3LT> CLM (CU^I, ^Jt.^ 4»
BOB 1 40 J 1 ^
Pate yalowiBh brown, wet. medumtteiSB Ira CLAYEY SAND ISO)
LaMt Okve QTBV. wel, rrednjm aente, ftna SILTY SANO (SM)
- IZLSI
Pm» yattMWtn brown, «el. dviK, line CLAYEY SAND (SC)
""^ SANTIAGO FORMATION: Yetowi* fltay, ml, defHB. hne SILTY SANDSTONE
- 61SFEET
PROFILE
HORIZONTAL SCALE: r-20
VEfTTTCAL SCALE: r-1ff
4-
JMUWIVI.ZIW
PREPARED FOR THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
LAS ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS
*LSl>JiLINWCH£3 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 BSMGWO PWMre BCMNG j !
APPENDIX "E"
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE
PROJECT NO. 3919
Report prepared by: Nolte Associates, Incorporated
15070 Avenue of Sciences
Suite 10
San Diego, California 92128
858-385-2143
Report date: March, 2009
NOTE TO CONTRACTORS:
This Plan is not provided in this specification document. Copies are
on file for review at the City of Carlsbad's offices, 1635 Faraday
Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.