Sacramento City Council
February 18, 2025

Truxel Bridge
Concept and Feasibility Study
The City of Sacramento is planning
for a new bridge across the
Lower American River that will
create a better connection for
those traveling between north
Sacramento communities and downtown Sacramento.

The City’s goals of providing better access between
communities will improve air quality, enhance job
opportunities and economic development, and improve
emergency response.

We want your feedback on Truxel Bridge!
Take the Online Community Questionnaire now until February 26 Visit bit.ly/TruxelBridgeQuestionnaire
or scan the QR code.

For more information, visit the project website at bit.ly/TruxelBridge or contact Fedolia “Sparky” Harris at [email protected] Truxel Bridge
Concepto y estudio de viabilidad
La ciudad de Sacramento planea
construir un nuevo puente sobre
el American River que creará una
mejor conexión para quienes viajen
entre las comunidades del norte
de Sacramento y el centro de la
ciudad. Los objetivos de la ciudad de proporcionar
un mejor acceso entre las comunidades mejorarán
la calidad del aire, aumentarán las oportunidades
de trabajo y el desarrollo económico, y mejorarán la
capacidad de respuesta ante emergencias.
¡Queremos conocer su opinión sobre el Puente Truxel!
Responda al Cuestionario comunitario en línea ahora
y hasta el 26 de febrero
Ingrese en bit.ly/TruxelBridgeQuestionnaire
o escanee el código QR
Para más información, ingrese en el sitio web del proyecto bit.ly/TruxelBridge o póngase en contacto con Fedolia “Sparky” Harris enviando un correo electrónico a [email protected].

Introduction
On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m., the City of Sacramento hosted a Stakeholder Focus Group
MeeIng as part of the Truxel Bridge Concept and
Feasibility Study’s public outreach and engagement
process. The meeIng was held at the Stanford SeOlement
Neighborhood Center located at 450 West El Camino
Avenue.

Prior to the stakeholder meeIng, the City hosted an
introductory community meeIng in January 2024 and
launched a follow-up online quesIonnaire in February
2024, which garnered 1,019 responses from the
community about various project elements like the
proposed bridge alignment and cross secIons. The purpose of the April meeIng was to present modified opIons for the bridge cross secIons and mix of uses and gather addiIonal feedback from stakeholder representaIves.
10 RepresentaIves from the following organizaIons aOended the meeIng:
• 350 Sacramento
• Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG)
• North Natomas Jibe
• The River District
• Environmental Council of Sacramento
(ECOS)
• Save the American River AssociaIon
(SARA)
• Gardenland-Northgate Neighborhood
AssociaIon
• The Sandford SeOlement Center
• Sacramento Area Bike Advocates (SABA)
• Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders
(STAR)
Project Background
In 2013, the City completed the American River Crossings AlternaIves Study, and the City Council adopted the
vision for a new mulI-modal crossing at Truxel Road as
the recommended alignment. The Truxel Bridge
alignment was recommended and adopted based on its
ability to address limited connecIvity across the lower American River, creaIng a barrier to downtown
Sacramento for communiIes north of the river. The City’s plan for Truxel Bridge will create a more direct connecIon for those walking, biking, taking transit, or driving
between northern Sacramento communiIes and
Sacramento’s urban core. It will also provide beOer
Pamela Dalcin-Walling, Dokken Engineering, (back right), presents to a:endees about Truxel Bridge
Proposed loca@on for Truxel Bridge

access, improve air quality, increase job opportuniIes, enhance economic development, and reduce emergency
response Imes.

PresentaIon
The meeIng began with a welcome from Gladys Cornell,
Outreach Manager with AIM ConsulIng, who reviewed the
meeIng agenda, introduced the project team, and
provided a recap of the public outreach acIviIes
completed so far as well as the feedback received. Below are some of the key benefits and concerns that the team has heard from the community:

Key Benefits: Key Concerns:
• Encourages alternaIve modes of
travel
• Provides beOer emergency access
• Offers direct, faster access to
downtown
• Avoids I-5 congesIon
• Cut through traffic on Truxel Road
• Safe faciliIes for bikes/peds on bridge
• Environmental impacts to the Lower American
River
• Cost of bridge
Next, Fedolia “Sparky” Harris, Principal Planner and the City’s Project Manager, provided an overview of the
feasibility study, its purpose and background, and some frequently asked quesIons from the community. Below are the FAQs and their acknowledged answers.
• Can the project be built if environmental impacts
are idenIfied?
o Yes, most projects have some level of
environmental impact. These impacts must
be idenIfied, disclosed to the public, and
minimized.
• Can a different bridge locaIon be considered as
one of the alternaIves?
o Aker the need for an American River bridge crossing was idenIfied, the City of Sacramento completed the American River Crossing AlternaIves Study, which idenIfied Truxel Road as the preferred locaIon. The City Council would have to approve revisiIng other bridge locaIons.

Gladys Cornell (center) begins the presenta@on
Sparky Harris (center) provides a project overview

• Will the environmental document require consideraIon of mulIple alternaIves? o At this Ime, it is anIcipated that the project’s CEQA document will be an Environmental Impact Report. The City will be responsible for selecIng feasible project alternaIves that accomplish the project’s objecIves and that also may avoid or substanIally lessen significant environmental effects.
• Can a bridge without cars be considered as one of the alternaIves? o At this Ime, the project addresses the need for a local jurisdicIon mulI-modal crossing of the lower American River that includes vehicle lanes. This has been established in the Sacramento General Plan and recognized in the Metropolitan TransportaIon Plan/Sustainable CommuniIes Strategy 2035, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2012.

Following Sparky’s introducIon, Pamela Dalcin-Walling, Project Manager with Dokken Engineering, reviewed the Truxel Bridge horizontal alignment design and proposed cross-secIon opIons. Below are the proposed cross secIons presented to the community earlier in 2024, and then the modified cross secIons with community feedback incorporated.

Cross SecIons: OpIon C

Benefits:
§ All modes and directions are separated
§ Jed Smith connection for the west side
§ Reduced shoulder control speeds
Likes:
§ Separated transit lanes
§ Placement of transit in the middle
§ Bike lanes/sidewalks on both sides
§ Directional consistency of all modes
Dislikes:
§ No barrier between cars and bikes
§ Wider bridge
§ Partial trail connectivity

Cross SecIons: OpIon B

Benefits:
§ All modes are separated
§ Jed Smith connection
§ Reduced shoulder control speeds
Likes:
§ Separation of bikes, peds, vehicles, and transit
§ A narrower shoulder discourages speeding
Dislikes:
§ No barrier between cars and bikes
§ No dedicated emergency lane
§ Greater environmental impact

Cross SecIons: OpIon B1

Variation:

Swap transit and cars to provide separation from bikes/peds.

Cross SecIons: OpIon B2

Variation:

Swap transit and cars to provide separation from bikes/peds.

Combine bikes/peds for the Multipurpose Path on the west.

Cross SecIons: OpIon B3

Variation:

Swap transit and cars to provide separation from bikes/peds.

Combine bikes/peds for Multipurpose Path on the east.

Cross SecIons: OpIon A

Benefits:
• Narrowest
• Least environmental impacts
• Lowest cost
• Emergency lane
• Shoulders
• Multi-purpose path
• Jed Smith connection
• Physical barrier between vehicles/ bikes & peds
• Combined vehicles and transit in same lanes controls speeds Likes:
• Separation of bikes/peds
• Placement of various modes
• Low costs
• Shoulders & Emergency Lane
Dislikes:
• Shared vehicle/transit lanes
• Not enough bike/ped separation

Cross SecIons: OpIon A1

VariaIon:

Reduces width by removing sidewalk

Stakeholder Feedback
All community feedback from the discussion is below, with the project team members' responses in bold below.

• How long is the span of the bridge?
o Close to 3,000 feet
• Good, I think sharing tracks with Light Rail for a
short amount of Ime is not that bad.
• All opIons only have two lanes (one in each
direcIon) for vehicles?
o Yes.
• As a resident, I appreciate that you’re considering
transit-only lanes. I don’t want to own a car
anymore. I think they’re unsafe and I do want to
bike more. I think the lack of car-free opIons is
unfair to the lowest-income residents. There may be a bias in the feedback you’re gerng from the community. If we conInue with car-inclusive infrastructure, that will not help to miIgate VMT, and climate goals of the City.

Stakeholder discusses cross sec@on op@ons

o We hear you, and to address those, we
try to lower the barriers by making the
quesIonnaire as accessible as possible.

We work with local stakeholder
organizaIons to reach priority
populaIons. We also raise awareness by
holding pop-up workshops in the
community where the community
already gathers.
o In terms of the VMT calculaIons, we are
working on analyses that are anIcipated
to show that making the route to
downtown more direct actually lowers
VMT (VMT per capita).
• It sounds like you would be digging twice.
o We don’t anIcipate digging again when RT is installed, we build the bridge so that transit accommodaIons can be added easily.
• Is there a cost difference based on what type of transit is included on the bridge? o We don’t currently have any cost esImates.
• I heard someone say that this is not consistent with the American Parkway Plan, is that true? o The American River Parkway plan shows a transit/pedestrian/bike-only bridge. We can’t build anything unIl we update that plan to reflect the kind of bridge we want to build. We anIcipate working with the County to amend the Parkway Plan during the environmental phase.
• E-bikes are becoming more popular. Regular bikes and e-bikes creates a deterrent for mixing. The speed differences in an area with pedestrians may be concerning. I do like the idea of having a barrier between bicyclists and pedestrians.
• If there is a rounded lip (elevated bike lane), would it encourage people to drive onto it if they were frustrated? But having a sharp corner could also be dangerous for bicyclists if they fall off. o Do you have a preference for a specific cross secIon? o I think that bikes should be separate from pedestrians. So, an opIon that has bikes on one side to connect to trail. But is separate.
• Could you eliminate one shoulder on OpIon A, and make it narrower? For OpIon A1 – Make it with four-foot shoulders, then the middle lane would be for breakdowns and emergency vehicles. • Upcoming bikeway guidelines are going to say 8-foot minimum either direcIon for cycletracks.

For anywhere, and it’s because of the different types of bikes now. The City is obligated to consider it.
• New vehicle/transit lanes are unacceptable. They are pinch points in the transit system and incur unnecessary slowdowns. In turn, there will be lots of money spent to eventually fix it. That would be true whether it ends up being LRT or BRT/bus. That’s my organizaIon's view.

A:endees discuss the cross sec@ons

• When looking at the different opIons, I would
prefer to have transit and vehicles, because they
have 15-minute headways. I would think sharing
that space is more efficient. I don’t think it’s
acceptable to have walking and biking mixed.

People feel more comfortable when there is a
physical barrier protecIng them. I feel like it may
be beOer to consolidate space.
• The shoulders on OpIon A seem like it’s almost
begging for people to drive up onto them.
• I don’t think I’m on that technical level, but if
there were no cars, some people work late into
the night, work mulIple jobs, and work odd
hours. Using public transportaIon requires Ime
that some people don’t have. Most people will
have their friends or parents drop them off. I like
the idea of public transportaIon, but the reality is that people may not use it. • Caltrans is purng in extra lanes on I-5, does that mean this bridge is not needed? o The short answer is no. They have looked at Truxel bridge as potenIal miIgaIon, but not a replacement for any of the traffic. This bridge has the potenIal to reduce VMT.

The goal is to not increase VMT. They’re supporIve.
o Caltrans has said they would put in auxiliary lanes to the airport. My quesIon is if there are cars on this bridge, would they not have to add lanes on I-5? o The Truxel Bridge is intended to serve people coming from North/South Natomas.

Those improvements on I-5 are intended to serve the whole I-5 corridor. Right now, Truxel Bridge would divert some of the local traffic off I-5. • Because of how transit currently works, it currently gets stuck behind cars most of the Ime. In reality, if we started to eliminate that with new development, some people might take public transit from point A to point B. I get that this is difficult and has been years in the making, but eliminaIng anything to discourage people from driving will help to improve our world for the future.
• If we do have cars and transit sharing, there needs to be strong public educaIon to make sure people know how it will help the community. I used to take the bus downtown, but it’s a different use of your Ime. I like OpIon A the best.
• As we’re looking at the American River Parkway and the two rivers on southern side. You’ll want to make sure there are the smoothest connecIons. I think people walking may also be interested as well. Yes, the difficulty in people looking to travel in a way besides transit is preOy bleak. It’s going to be many years. With any luck, there will be more transformaIon in the mobility network. We need to make sure there is efficient transit travel.

A:endees discuss the cross sec@ons

• As a transportaIon advocate, my prioriIes are walking, biking and transit, so I do support the bridge.
• Because there’s ambiguity about what kind of transit, let’s not overbuild it. I do like the mixed lanes, it creates more flexibility as the opIons evolve. • This project has been going on for over 10 years. We’ve become more climate oriented. By the Ime this thing gets built, it could be another 10 years. Part of me wants to see whether or not we should go back to Council with the future in mind. We know what’s going on with the climate.

Is there a mechanism to revisit that with council, or have some future focus? We’re talking about the present, but this bridge will get built in 10 years Ime. o We have to base our plans on future plans (like General Plan), that already take future projecIons into account. The best they can do is plan for the future based on land use planning, etc.
• We’re thinking about future recommendaIons, and things are being built right now that are using older planning documents or old criteria. I just want to make sure we are considering that. • Right now all the plans exclude car-free conversaIons. The plans are not being funded right now.

We would be funding it in the future.
• If we are giving RT dedicated right of way, that would be easier to sell. As soon as you start mixing uses, RT would lose some of that control.
o RT doesn’t want anything in the middle between transit lanes/space (shoulders/extra lanes). Not saying no emergency access, but just not between. • Could RT communicate with LRT vehicles to keep them off the bridge in case of emergencies? o Yes, but if they are already on the bridge, they would have to stop if there is a car broken down on the shoulder.

Next Steps
Finally, the project team reviewed next steps with the stakeholders. The project team will be taking the stakeholders input and making further versions of the cross secIons for the next community meeIng in Fall 2024.

Administrative Office
1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, CA 95811
Human Resources
2810 O Street, Sacramento, CA 95816
www.sacrt.com
Equal Opportunity Employer
To Fedolia “Sparky” Harris,
SacRT has been an active partner in the Truxel Bridge conceptual design process guided by Dokken Engineering and the City of Sacramento. The Truxel Bridge project is in the early stages of development requiring more refinement and direction from City Council.

SacRT staff held an internal meeting on August 27th, 2024, to discuss numerous bridge design alternatives and provide comments for the future refinement of those alternatives. Below are highlighted comments, suggestions, clarifications and guidance to the City of Sacramento (originally provided September 6th, 2024) for the Truxel Bridge project:

Alignments:
• An alignment where trains are next to bikes/peds is potentially problematic without a barrier.
• SacRT is concerned about the potential crossover designs as it can increase the risk of train vs car collisions, as well as motorists possibly entering the exclusive railway and being impossible or very difficult to remove.
• Consider modifying the pedestrian crossing design of the future intersection at garden highway to ensure pedestrians only cross on three legs. This would allow the bridge/roadway connection to have less conflicts with light rail turning movements. • The alternatives display long intersections on the bridge, which may have a traffic delay.

CPUC:
• Speeds will be slow through these segments due to curves and may lead to possible train/car collisions concerns.
• CPUC could conceivably raise the same concerns and should be contacted sooner than later in this project development process.

Traffic Study:
• A traffic study has been done to estimate vehicle volumes, but did not include the analysis of intersection delays at the crossovers. The City has confirmed the next phase of project development will conduct more traffic analysis (i.e. the environmental section will examine delay plus the internal circulation of the buildings).
• The clarification of the City traffic division’s involvement in the development of this project would be appreciated.

Safety:
• There was some uncertainty if vertical barriers would exist between transit and bike/ped, in the scenario where the two features are next to one another. Please clarify in the final report.
• There is consensus that if trains are next to bikes/peds, there should be a vertical barrier between them, to prevent bikes/peds from accidentally straying in front of a train. The barrier type and height can be determined in the next phase of review if agreed upon in practice now.
• Please consider determining if there are any documents or studies that can be added to the final product that state center vs side running transit is safer on a shared bridge.

Bus vs Rail Awareness:
• SacRT internally discussed the consequences of rail and overhead not being constructed at the same time as the bridge. Tracks on bridges require electrical isolation and the use of track plinths for fixing the future track elements.
• Track plinths must be incorporated into the deck of the bridge at the time of bridge construction, (i.e. cannot be retrofitted later).
• SacRT asks this Truxel Bridge project team to examine if other bridges in the Country have exposed plinths, but a temporary roadway placed over the plinths for an operable bus service. Currently, a bus running on future or planned rail tracks is not possible without an engineering solution. At a bare minimum, SacRT can assume increased bridge costs due to this information.
• Lastly, footings for future OCS will also require 13-foot-deep footings, and that curved track will require even more footings. Consultant profiles do show a 3-foot width between tracks, presumably for OCS poles, and presumably their design and cost estimates would include those OCS pole footings, because the bridge cannot be retrofitted later. SacRT requests verification with the City and consultant on this aspect of the design.

Kevin Schroder
Senior Planner
Sacramento Regional Transit District
1-279-234-8374
[email protected]
Attachment N. Geotechnical Memo
JULY 2024
PREPARED FOR:

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA 95630
PREPARED BY:

GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
3160 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 800
RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95742
GEOCON PROJECT NO. S2815-05-01

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT
Truxel Road Bridge
Sacramento, California
Project No. S2815-05-01
July 31, 2024

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Pamela Dalcin-Walling, PE
Dokken Engineering
110 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
Subject: PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

TRUXEL ROAD AT AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Dalcin-Walling:

In accordance with your authorization, we herein submit our Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) for the proposed Truxel Road at American River bridge project located in Sacramento, California.

This report generally evaluates the geotechnical conditions for the proposed bridge based on previous subsurface explorations and geotechnical laboratory test data for the project area and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for project planning and preliminary design. Additional site-specific subsurface exploration, geotechnical laboratory testing, and engineering analysis will be required for design-level project recommendations.

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this PFR or if we may be of further service.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Ronald E. Loutzenhiser, PE, GE
Senior Engineer
Jeremy J. Zorne, PE, GE
Senior Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 2

3.1 Background and Site Description.................................................................................... 2

3.2 Proposed Structures........................................................................................................ 2

3.3 Pertinent Project Information......................................................................................... 3

4.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.............................................................................. 3

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................. 4

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM............................................................................................... 5

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS....................................................................................................... 5

7.1 Geology ........................................................................................................................... 5

7.2 Surface Conditions.......................................................................................................... 5

7.3 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................... 6

7.3.1 Levee/Embankment Fill (Unit 1) ........................................................................ 7

7.3.2 Alluvium (Units 2 through 4).............................................................................. 7

7.4 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards............................................................... 8

7.4.1 Landslides........................................................................................................... 8

7.4.2 Embankment Failures ........................................................................................ 8

7.4.3 Ground Subsidence............................................................................................ 8

7.4.4 Expansive Soils................................................................................................... 9

7.4.5 Collapsible Soils.................................................................................................. 9

8.0 GROUNDWATER........................................................................................................................... 9

9.0 AS-BUILT DATA...........................................................................................................................10

10.0 SCOUR DATA ..............................................................................................................................10

11.0 CORROSION EVALUATION..........................................................................................................11

12.0 SEISMIC INFORMATION .............................................................................................................11

12.1 Ground Motion Hazard ................................................................................................. 11

12.2 Other Seismic Hazards ..................................................................................................12

12.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture ......................................................................................12

12.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic-Induced Ground Surface Settlements.....................12

12.2.3 Pile Downdrag..................................................................................................14

12.2.4 Lateral Spreading Potential..............................................................................15

12.2.5 Seismic Slope Stability......................................................................................15

12.2.6 Tsunami Risk ....................................................................................................15

13.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................15

13.1 Deep Foundations.........................................................................................................16

13.1.1 Special Considerations for Driven Piles............................................................19

13.1.2 Driven Pile Acceptance Criteria........................................................................19

13.1.3 Special Considerations for CIDH Concrete Piles...............................................20

13.2 Retaining Walls/Wingwalls ...........................................................................................20

13.3 Embankment and Approach Fill Earthwork ..................................................................21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13.3.1 Materials for Fill ...............................................................................................22

13.3.2 Fill Area Preparation and Fill Placement..........................................................23

14.0 GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER..................................................................................................23

15.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................24

15.1 Construction Advisories................................................................................................24

15.2 Construction Considerations that Influence Specifications..........................................24

15.3 Construction Monitoring and Instrumentation ............................................................24

16.0 DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION..............................................................................25

17.0 CLOSURE.....................................................................................................................................26

17.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review...........................................................................26

17.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions.....................................................................26

18.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................27

FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
Figure 3, Geologic Map
Figure 4, Preliminary Recommended Design Response Spectrum

APPENDIX A

PREVIOUS BORING LOGS, LOGS OF TEST BORINGS, AND LABORATORY TESTING BY OTHERS

APPENDIX B

ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS
Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 1 - July 31, 2024

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) presents our preliminary geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the proposed Truxel Road at American River bridge project located in Sacramento, California. The approximate site location is depicted on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this report is to generally evaluate subsurface geologic and geotechnical conditions for the proposed bridge and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for use in bridge concept and feasibility study evaluation. Given the preliminary nature of this study, this report should not be relied upon for final project design.

The preliminary recommendations presented herein are based on our review of the existing subsurface and laboratory test data for the project area, preliminary engineering analyses, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. No subsurface investigation was performed as part of our study. The logs of borings, laboratory test results, and logs of test boring (LOTB) sheets used in our review are presented in Appendix A. Preliminary engineering analyses and calculations are presented in Appendix B.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work included:
• Reviewing published geologic maps, aerial photographs, preliminary project plans, in-house documents, geotechnical information by Geocon and others, and other literature pertaining to the site to aid in evaluating geologic conditions and hazards that may be present. A list of referenced materials is provided in Section 18 of this report. • Performing a site reconnaissance to review existing site conditions. • Performing preliminary engineering analyses to develop geotechnical design criteria and evaluate existing site conditions.
• Preparing this PFR in general accordance with Caltrans’ Foundation Reports for Bridges (2021).

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 2 - July 31, 2024

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Background and Site Description
The American River and adjacent Garden Highway extend east-west near the project location, with Garden Highway located on the north river levee. The south river levee is topped by a paved pedestrian / bicycle path. The north and south river levees are approximately 2,400 feet apart. The American River directly abuts the south levee and Steelhead Creek (also known as the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal / Arcade Creek) abuts the north levee. Discovery Park and undeveloped riparian floodplain area occupy the area in between. Truxel Road is an arterial connector currently extending north from the Garden Highway beyond Interstate 80 and terminating in the North Natomas area of the City of Sacramento. Approximately 1,500 feet south of the river, Richards Boulevard is an east-west aligned arterial connector extending through the “River District”, a largely commercial / industrial area of Sacramento. Richards Boulevard connects to Jibboom Street and Interstate 5 (I-5) on the west and State Route 160 (SR-160) on the east. There are no other arterial street connectors that cross the American River between I-5 and SR-160 for vehicular traffic and the only option for pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area is the Jibboom Street bridge, an old local access vehicular bridge east of I-5, or the Sacramento Northern Bikeway, a converted rail bridge east of SR-160.

Land use in the project area is generally residential north of the American River and commercial/industrial with some residential south of the river. Major bodies of water near the proposed bridge site include the American River, Steelhead Creek, an approximately 50-acre pond within the floodplain area north of the American River, and the Sacramento River approximately 4,000 feet west.

3.2 Proposed Structures
The improvements discussed herein are based on preliminary project plans and design loading information provided by Dokken Engineering. Elevations used in this report are based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), which is the datum currently used for the project . The proposed bridge structure will be a 20-span, cast-in-place, prestressed concrete box girder and voided slab bridge. Preliminary bridge details are provided in Table 3.2.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 3 - July 31, 2024
TABLE 3.2

PRELIMINARY PROPOSED BRIDGE DETAILS
Bridge Details
Bridge Station Line “Truxel” Line
Begin Bridge (BB), Station 112+12.50
End Bridge (EB), Station 140+12.49
Bridge Length, feet 2,800 (20 spans: 4 at 80, 15 at 160, 1 at 80) Bridge Width, feet 92.0 (based on the widest alternative being considered) BB Elevation, feet 40.84
EB Elevation, feet 43.15
Abutment 1 Pile Type and Number of Piles 24-inch diameter driven steel pipe piles, 30 piles Bent Pile Type and Number of Piles
(per support) 96” Diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile, 4 to 6 piles Abutment 21 Pile Type and Number of Piles 24-inch diameter driven steel pipe piles, 30 piles Pile cutoff elevations, abutment pile cap elevations, pile layout, and other specific details are not available at this time. Associated retaining walls may be required for this project; however, no design details are currently available. No other structures (sound walls, ground-supported overhead signs, etc.) are currently proposed for this project.

The proposed project configuration and approximate bridge alignment are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

3.3 Pertinent Project Information
A summary list of references used in this study is presented in Section 18. Key project information was obtained from the following:

1. General Plan, Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, Dokken Engineering, undated.

2. Additional project information and topography provided electronically by Dokken Engineering.

4.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Unless otherwise stated, this PFR was developed and prepared in general conformance with Caltrans’ current policies.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 4 - July 31, 2024

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
A site-specific geotechnical investigation has not yet been performed for the project. Existing geotechnical information referenced for this PFR include the following:
• Intra-Division Correspondence, III-Sac-238-B, Beltline Freeway, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Materials and Research Department, August 4, 1959.

Boring D-1 is assumed to be located near the northwest corner of the intersection of Truxel Road and Garden Highway based on the description on the boring log. • Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Department of Water Resources, June 2008, Boring Nos. WCSBAR_001B and WCSBAR_002M.
• Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Parcels 8 and 15A, Sacramento, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Project No. S9498-05-11), December 2014, cone penetration test (CPT) soundings CPT1, CPT2, and CPT5.
• Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Seven Parcels, North Side of Richards Blvd between 5th and 7th Streets, Sacramento, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Project No. S9498-05- 18), September 16, 2020, CPT soundings CPT2020-1, CPT2020-2. • Additional Geotechnical Investigation Summary, Township 9 – Phase A1/A3, 7th Street and Chill Avenue, Sacramento, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Project No. S9498-05-20), September 26, 2022, Borings B1 and B2.
• Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report for [Interstate 5] American River Bridge (Widen), Caltrans, File No. 03-Sac-5-PM 24.82, Bridge No. 24-0068, July 10, 2020. This project is located approximately ½ mile west (downstream) of the proposed bridge alignment with a similar bridge length over the same river and the explorations show generally similar soil conditions as expected at the project location. Explorations from this report are provided for reference only and were not used in our preliminary analysis given the distance from the project alignment, age of the data (1960’s), and lack of laboratory test results.

No ground surface elevation data was stated for Boring D-1 so we assumed an elevation based on the current ground surface profile has been used. Elevations for the CPT soundings are also unknown and were also assumed in a similar manner. Explorations included in the American River Bridge SPGR reference benchmarks that are not shown within the Sacramento City database; the reference datum and elevation adjustment to NAVD 88 for these explorations are unknown.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 5 - July 31, 2024

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
No geotechnical laboratory testing was performed as part of our study. Geotechnical laboratory test results provided in the referenced documents listed in Section 5.0 consisted of the following:
• In-Place Dry Density and Moisture Content: ASTM D2937 (CTM 226) • Grain Size Distribution: ASTM D422
• Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318
• Unconfined Compression: ASTM D2166
• Consolidation: ASTM D2435
Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix A.

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

7.1 Geology
The site is located within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California, more commonly referred to as the Sacramento Valley. The Sacramento Valley is a broad depression bounded by the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. The Sacramento Valley has been filled with a thick sequence of sediments derived from weathering of the adjacent mountain ranges resulting in a stratigraphic section of Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary deposits.

The site is located near the central portion of the Sacramento Valley, about midway between the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada mountains. The American River extends approximately east-west through the site and joins the north-south aligned Sacramento River approximate 4,000 feet west/downstream of the bridge site. Alluvial sediments at the site have been deposited primarily during flood stages of the American River, as well as those of the Sacramento River and other minor local watercourses. Past development included constructing earthen levees along the north and south river banks and an embankment supporting Truxel Road extending north from the Garden Highway.

7.2 Surface Conditions
The proposed bridge alignment will cross the existing north and south levees, the American River, and the floodplain area (Steelhead Creek and Discovery Park), meeting up with existing roadways beyond the levees. North of the north levee, the ground surface elevation is at approximate elevation 17 feet with Truxel Road on an ascending embankment that climbs to elevation 40 feet at the top of the levee Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 6 - July 31, 2024
where the roadway ends at the intersection with the Garden Highway. South of the Garden Highway, the embankment slope descends to elevation 10 feet at Steelhead Creek. South of the creek, the ground surface elevation gradually climbs from approximate elevation 20 feet to approximate elevation 30 feet at the north bank of the American river approximately 1,700 feet to the south. The north bank of the American River has an approximate 20-foot drop into the river channel. At the south bank of the American River, the levee climbs to an elevation of 40 feet and then descends to approximate elevation 28 feet on the land side. Levee embankment slopes adjacent to the proposed bridge location vary from approximately 2.5:1 to 3:1 based on available topographic mapping. Site drainage occurs via sheet flow in undeveloped areas. There are no significant existing cut or fill areas in the immediate project area, other than the levee and roadway approach embankments.

The waterside levee embankments and the Discovery Park area are heavily vegetated with mature trees, brush, blackberry bushes, and other vegetation. Overhead utilities cross Truxel Road immediately north of the intersection with Garden Highway. High voltage transmission lines parallel Garden Highway approximately 300 feet to the south (south of Steelhead Creek); a tower supporting these lines exists due south of the intersection of Truxel Road and Garden Highway.

7.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following descriptions of subsurface conditions are based on the exploration logs presented in Appendix A and our geotechnical experience in the area. The exploration logs in Appendix A are those that are closest to the project alignment and/or extend the deepest below grade. These explorations were used for our preliminary analysis for this project. We note that most of these explorations are at least 500 feet away from the proposed bridge alignment and soil conditions indicated herein may not be fully representative of the subsurface conditions along the project alignment. Also included in Appendix A are the American River Bridge Log of Test Borings No. 1 through No. 5. These logs are from the I-5 bridge approximately ½ mile west of the proposed bridge alignment and have been included for reference but were not used in our preliminary project analysis due to the large distance from the site, lack of geotechnical laboratory test data, and lack of elevation information.

Soils described in the sections below are generally broken out into four major units:
• Unit 1 Levee/embankment fill
• Unit 2 Recent alluvium, channel deposits, and overbank deposits • Unit 3 Older river channel deposits/alluvium (dense to very dense gravel and sand layer) • Unit 4 Older alluvium
Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 7 - July 31, 2024

7.3.1 Levee/Embankment Fill (Unit 1)
The levee/embankment fill (Unit 1) encountered in the 2008 borings by the Department of Water Resources generally consists of dense sand with varied silt content (SP-SM, SM) and stiff to very stiff clay (CL) with varied sand content. This layer extends from the ground surface to approximate elevation 27 feet in Boring WCSBAR_001B and approximate elevation 21 feet in Boring WCSBAR_002M. These borings are located approximately 450 feet east of the proposed bridge alignment.

7.3.2 Alluvium (Units 2 through 4)
Alluvial soils were encountered below the levee embankment fill (Unit 1) in Borings WCSBAR_001B and WCSBAR_002M and from the ground surface (or below minor fill thicknesses associated with roadway or building pad construction) in the remaining explorations. This alluvium can be divided into three units (Units 2 through 4). The borings and CPT soundings used for evaluation are located approximately 450 to 1,800 feet east of the south bridge abutment location with one boring apparently located approximately 200 feet west of the north abutment location (Boring D-1, location assumed based on a somewhat vague description on the boring log).
• Unit 2 (Recent alluvium, channel deposits, and overbank deposits): Unit 2 soils extend from the ground surface or below Unit 1 soils to approximate elevation -26 feet. These soils generally consist of very loose to medium dense poorly-graded sand (SP), poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM), silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), and low plasticity sandy silt (ML) and soft to stiff silt (ML), elastic silt (MH), and clay (CL). These soils appear to transition from a more granular soil profile to the south to more cohesive soils to the north. These soils, where non-cohesive and below groundwater, are potentially liquefiable during a design level earthquake. These materials are also generally subject to settlement/consolidation under superposed loads. • Unit 3 (Older river channel deposits/alluvium): Unit 3 soils consist of a layer of dense to very dense gravel (GP) / cobble materials with varying amounts of sand and silt. These soils extend to approximate elevation -60 feet in explorations near the south river levee. The Caltrans boring north of the river (Boring D-1) did not penetrate more than a few feet into this unit and the unit thickness is unknown at this location. These soils are competent for support of foundation loads but the gravel and cobble content can make pile driving or drilling for deep foundation elements difficult to perform.
• Unit 4 (Older alluvium): Unit 4 soils underlie Unit 3 materials to the maximum depth explored of approximately 111.5 feet (elevation -91.5 feet) and generally consist of dense to very dense poorly-graded sand (SP), well-graded sand with silt (SW-SM), and silty sand (SM) and hard silt (ML), clayey silt (CL-ML), and clay (CL). These soils are competent for support of foundation loads.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 8 - July 31, 2024
A similar soil profile was generally indicated in the Caltrans Logs of Test Borings (1960’s) included in the SPGR for the I-5 bridge located approximately ½ mile west of the proposed bridge alignment. While included here for general reference, these borings have not been used for preliminary project analysis.

These logs indicate that a change in Unit 2 soil conditions occurs across the American River floodplain near the north bank of the American River channel, with sandy soils near the active river channel transitioning to clayey soils to the north. Based on geologic mapping, we expect a more varied transition at the proposed bridge location due to mapped river meanders. Unit 3 gravel/cobbles zones are indicated to be somewhat variable in elevation and thickness along this alignment (indicated elevation of first encounter ranges from -20 feet to -30 feet and bottom of these layers varies from -33 feet to - 75 feet [or lower], with interbedded zones of clay, silt, and sand). Similar variation may be encountered along the project alignment. We note that the elevations indicated within this paragraph are based on a currently unknown/possibly local datum and not on the project datum (NAVD 88).

7.4 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards
The following sections discuss other potential geologic hazards evaluated for the project including landslides, embankment failures, ground subsidence, expansive soils, and collapsible soils.

7.4.1 Landslides
No landslides were observed during our site investigation. Other than bank loss due to scour, landslides or similar slope failures are not a hazard for the site.

7.4.2 Embankment Failures
No embankment failures were observed during our site investigation. The site and vicinity are generally flat and level. Slopes of existing levees/embankments in the project area appear to be performing well without overt indications of significant failures. Other than the existing levees and the Truxel Road approach embankment to Garden Highway, there are no significant embankment slopes on or adjacent to the site.

7.4.3 Ground Subsidence
Ground subsidence is a regional phenomenon that occurs where underlying loose geologic units undergo a densification process. Subsidence can result from the extraction of mineral resources and/or groundwater, as well as the rapid settlement induced by seismic activity. There is potential for ground subsidence in Unit 2 soils due to liquefaction-induced ground settlement, particularly along the southern portion of the project alignment. Given the proximity of the American and Sacramento Rivers, regional ground subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal is not anticipated.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 9 - July 31, 2024

7.4.4 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils possess a high swelling or shrinking potential due to change in moisture content. The common materials associated with high expansion potential are clays. The majority of the near surface onsite soil is silt and sand, with some low-plasticity clays noted within the borings that penetrate the levee embankment. Proposed foundations will be supported below a depth where significant moisture variation is expected. Thus, expansive soils are not a consideration for bridge foundation design or new roadway approach embankments.

7.4.5 Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils are unsaturated soils that undergo a large volume change upon saturation, even without increase in external loads. Soils that generally display collapsible potential are porous and have a low dry density. No porous or honeycomb structure was noted within the reviewed boring logs. Bridge foundations will penetrate through less competent and potentially liquefiable Unit 2 soils to bear within Unit 3 and possibly Unit 4 soils. Thus, the potential for collapsible soils are not a consideration for foundation design.

8.0 GROUNDWATER
Where recorded, previous explorations encountered groundwater at depths ranging from approximately 13.7 to 35.1 feet (elevation -5.0 to 6.1 feet). Table 8.0 summarizes the groundwater encounters, including the dates encountered, approximate depths, and elevations. Top of exploration elevations are estimated/assumed based on available data for several explorations; actual exploration and groundwater elevations may vary at these locations.

TABLE 8.0

SUMMARY OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
Exploration
No.

Exploration
Date
Exploration
Depth (feet)
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Groundwater
Depth (feet)
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet)
B2 9/2/2022 86.5 21.0 22.0 -1.0
D-1 8/4/1959 50.0 15.01 20.0 -5.0
WCSBAR_002M 6/19-20/2008 97.0 41.2 35.1 6.1
CPT1 12/15/2014 46.8 21.51 19.4 2.1
CPT2 12/15/2014 50.2 21.51 19.8 1.7
CPT5 12/15/2014 66.1 35.01 33.0 2.0
CPT2020-1 8/19/2020 38.9 20.01 13.7 6.3
CPT2020-2 8/19/2020 48.2 20.01 14.5 5.5
Average 2.2
Note: 1. Surface elevation is estimated or assumed based on available data.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 10 - July 31, 2024
Groundwater elevations from the online SGMA Data Viewer maintained by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) shows a groundwater elevation at the project site of approximately -10 feet for Spring 2023, the most recent interval provided. The above DWR elevation is in NAVD 88, which is consistent with the project datum.

Caltrans used a design groundwater elevation of 23 feet in their 2020 SPGR for the proposed I-5 bridge widening approximately ½ mile downstream (west) of the project alignment. This elevation is also in NAVD 88.

Given the above, a design groundwater elevation of 23 feet was used for our preliminary analysis based on the controlling design groundwater elevation recommended by Caltrans near this project location.

Fluctuations of groundwater levels may occur due to variations in precipitation, temperature, and other factors. Depth to groundwater can also vary significantly due to localized pumping, irrigation practices, and seasonal fluctuations. Therefore, it is possible that future groundwater may be higher or lower than the levels observed during the referenced investigations.

9.0 AS-BUILT DATA
There is no existing bridge structure at the proposed project location. The As-Built plans indicate the I-5 bridges to the west are supported by driven 45-ton piles. These piles are indicated to consist of a combination of Alternative “Z” Raymond Step Taper piles (both 12-inch and 15-inch diameters at the top of pile) and 14BP117 steel H-piles. Additional details on the pile types and locations used, installed lengths, and construction difficulties are available in the Caltrans report for this structure (2020).

10.0 SCOUR DATA
The proposed bridge will span the American River and Steelhead Creek. No scour information is available in the I-5 bridge SPGR. A Caltrans Foundation Report (FR, 2022) for the American River Bridge for State Route 51 (Business 80) approximately three miles east (upstream) of the project site indicates that long term scour is to be anticipated only within the active river channel (no depth provided) and local scour between approximately 4 to 18 feet may be expected at all pier support locations.

A preliminary hydraulics memo has been prepared for this project (Dokken Engineering, July 2024).

According to the memo, with design peak flow “some bed scour may occur that may not be replenished as the upstream in-channel stored sediments are slowly being depleted.” Also, the bridge foundations are anticipated to be designed below scour depths and local scour at support locations/levee embankment slopes will be mitigated by use of rip-rap boulders and armoring.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 11 - July 31, 2024
Preliminary scour estimates for this project provided by Dokken Engineering indicate between 2 and 5 feet of total scour are anticipated at pier locations. The results of a detailed hydraulics analysis will need to be considered and incorporated into the future Foundation Report (FR) for the project.

11.0 CORROSION EVALUATION
No soil corrosivity testing has been performed as part of the existing geotechnical evaluations reviewed near this project site. Soil corrosion potential testing will be performed as part of the geotechnical investigation for final project design and presented in the project FR.

12.0 SEISMIC INFORMATION

12.1 Ground Motion Hazard
The design response spectrum for the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE), as specified in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria with October 2019 interim revisions (v2.0), is the probabilistic response spectrum representing the horizontal ground motion at the site with a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 975 years). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2014 National Seismic Hazard Map is used as the basis to determine the design Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS). The preliminary ARS for the site was estimated using Caltrans’ ARS Online web tool (V3.1.0, accessed June 11, 2024).

Table 12.1 summarizes the site-specific information used for the analysis and the ARS Online results.

TABLE 12.1

ARS ONLINE SUMMARY
Approx.

Latitude,
°
Approx.

Longitude,
°
Estimated Shear
Wave Velocity
(VS30)1, feet/second
Design Peak
Ground
Acceleration
(PGA)2, g
Deaggregated Mean
Earthquake Moment
Magnitude (M)
Mean Site- to-Source
Distance
(R)3, miles
Site
Soil
Class4

38.6043 -121.4963 700 0.26 6.68 55.4 S2
Notes:

1. Estimated time-average shear wave velocity for the upper 100 feet of soil at the site.

2. Where “g” represents the acceleration due to gravity.

3. Mean site-to-source distance for 1.0 second period spectral acceleration.

4. Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered within the foundation’s zone of influence and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Sections 6.1 and 6.2.3. Site Soil Class S1 is considered competent and Site Soil Class S2 is considered non-competent (marginal, poor, soft, potentially liquefiable, and soil susceptible to lateral spreading).

The bridge is not located within a deep sedimentary basin per Caltrans ARS Online. Based on the subsurface materials encountered during previous referenced investigations nearby, the site is anticipated to be generally underlain by soft to stiff and loose to very dense alluvial soils, which most Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 12 - July 31, 2024
closely reflects a Caltrans Soil Profile Type D. The shear wave velocity, VS30, was calculated using an average of the shear wave correlations obtained from the four Geocon CPTsreferenced for project design in which shear wave velocity measurements were obtained (CPT-1, CPT-5, CPT2020-1, and CPT2020-2).

The preliminary recommended design response spectrum for the proposed replacement bridge is presented as Figure 3 (Preliminary Recommended Design Response Spectrum).

12.2 Other Seismic Hazards

12.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the State Geologist around known active faults. Local field reconnaissance revealed no indications of an active fault trace at the site. Review of available literature indicates there are no active fault traces within 1,000 feet of the project location. The USGS maps the nearest active fault as the Hunting CreekBerryessa fault system located over 40 miles west of the project location. Given the above, no fault rupture hazard analysis is required for this project.

12.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic-Induced Ground Surface Settlements Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary loss of shear strength due to pore pressure buildup under the cyclic shear stresses associated with intense earthquakes. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are moderate to strong ground shaking (seismic source), the presence of relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater).

The site is not located in a currently established State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction.

However, soil and groundwater conditions exist near the site that may be susceptible to seismic-induced liquefaction and the Soil Site Class is designated as S2 per the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria guidance. We preliminarily evaluated liquefaction potential using both the measured parameters in the referenced CPT soundings and the SPT blow counts measured in the referenced borings. The CPT-based analysis was performed using the CLiq software program (v. 2.2.0.37 by GeoLogismiki) following the Youd, et. al (2001) analysis method. The SPT-based analysis was performed following Youd, et. al (2001) per the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (Caltrans 2020). A peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.26g developed using ARS online (see Section 12.1) was used in liquefaction analysis per Caltrans guidelines. We used a design groundwater elevation of 23 feet.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 13 - July 31, 2024
We estimated post-liquefaction settlement under the PGA ground motions using the CLiq software following the methodology of Zhang, et. al (2002) for the CPT-based analysis and the methodology of Boulanger and Idriss (2008) for the SPT-based analysis. For the borings, we excluded soil layers that had relative densities of “dense” or “very dense” based on N60 blow counts (Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation) or the (N1)60 blow count was greater than 25 (AASHTO LRFD BDS).

A summary of our preliminary liquefaction analysis is included in Appendix B. Table 12.2.2 summarizes the results of the analyses.

TABLE 12.2.2

PRELIMINARY LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Exploration
Approximate
Exploration
Elevation,
ft
Approximate
Depths of
Potentially
Liquefiable
Zone,
ft
Approximate
Elevations of
Potentially
Liquefiable Zone,
ft
Approximate
Thickness of
Potentially
Liquefiable
Zone,
ft
Estimated
Vertical
Settlement,
in.

B1 20.0 0 – 43.0 -23.0 – 20.0 43.0 16.0
B2 21.0 0 – 47.0 -26.0 – 21.0 47.0 16.9
CPT1 21.5 20.0 – 44.3 -22.8 – 1.5 24.3 4.0
CPT2 21.5 13.9 – 49.0 -27.5 – 7.6 35.1 5.3
CPT5 35.0 32.8 – 59.9 -24.9 – 2.2 27.1 2.4
CPT2020-1 20.0 7.6 – 38.2 -18.2 – 12.4 30.6 7.8
CPT2020-2 20.0 13.9 – 49.0 -27.5 – 7.6 35.1 9.4
D-1 No liquefaction
WCSBAR_001B No liquefaction
WCSBAR_002M No field blow counts or soil laboratory data for liquefaction analysis Based on our preliminary evaluation, several soil layers near the southern portion of the bridge alignment between elevation -27.5 to 20 feet are considered potentially liquefiable as a result of the design-level (PGA) earthquake ground motion; however, Boring WCSBAR_001B does not appear to have potentially liquefiable zones. This may be due to previous levee improvements performed in the location of that test boring, natural variation in geologic depositions, differences in sampling equipment/methods, or other reasons. The only nearby exploration we have to reference north of the American River channel is Boring D-1, which indicates that potentially liquefiable soils are not present near the northern end of the bridge alignment. Based on the CPT data, the thickness of these soil layers are variable and up to about 30 feet thick. Our CPT- and SPT-based analyses indicates that post-liquefaction vertical ground settlements of up to approximately 17 inches may occur; however, CPT-based analyses are typically preferred to SPT-based analyses. The average estimated liquefaction-induced settlement from CPT-based analyses is approximately 6 inches. It is typical geotechnical practice to assume that the magnitude of differential liquefaction settlement is approximately one-half of the estimated total liquefaction settlement.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 14 - July 31, 2024
Another secondary effect of liquefaction is the potential for liquefaction-induced sand boils or ground loss. In this case, pore water pressure induced within liquefied strata exerts significant upward forces and results in ejecta of the liquefied soil at the ground surface. Sand boils/ground loss may be resisted by a “capping layer” of non-liquefiable soil. At this site, there is not a sufficiently thick, non-liquefiable soil layer overlying the potentially liquefiable layers within the channel. Therefore, there is a potential for localized ground loss due to sand boils at the site.

Given the above, we anticipate that strong ground shaking due to a seismic event would likely cause liquefaction of some soil layers at/near the proposed bridge location resulting in ground surface settlement (subsidence) and potentially localized ground loss within the channel due to sand boils, particularly along the southern portion of the bridge alignment. We considered these conditions in developing preliminary recommendations for foundation design. Since sand boils may occur, the postliquefaction vertical settlements at the pier locations presented herein should be considered minimum, lower-bound estimates as sand boils can result in additional, unquantifiable ground loss.

Each bridge support location will be supported on deep foundation elements that extend below the liquefiable soil to bear within Unit 3 and Unit 4 materials. The effects of liquefaction have been considered in the preliminary foundation design. Per Caltrans design guidelines, abutments are not designed for Extreme Limit State axial loading conditions. However, the piles for the abutments should extend through Unit 1 and Unit 2 soils to bear within more competent, underlying materials.

12.2.3 Pile Downdrag
Piles at the pier and abutment locations will extend through any potentially-liquefiable soil layers to bear within competent underlying soils. Per Caltrans design guidelines abutments are not designed for Extreme Limit State loading conditions (including liquefaction).

Based on the existing ground profile data and preliminary pile loading conditions provided by Dokken Engineering, we have performed preliminary liquefaction-induced downdrag analysis for a typical pile at Piers 9-20 using the guidance provided in the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction-Induced Downdrag module (January 2020), which relies on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification with California Amendments (April 2019), Caltrans Memo to Designers 3-1, Deep Foundations (June 2014), and the various modules of the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (latest versions). The piles at these support locations share the highest pile loads and would also likely experience the most downdrag if they are penetrating potentially liquefiable soils. A spreadsheet documenting the preliminary liquefaction-induced downdrag analyses performed for the Extreme Limit State loading conditions following these document guidelines is included in Appendix B. Table 12.2.3 summarizes the results of the analyses.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 15 - July 31, 2024
TABLE 12.2.3

PRELIMINARY LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED DOWNDRAG ANALYSIS SUMMARY Explorations (Various)
Approximate Elevations
of Potentially
Liquefiable Zone,
ft
Downdrag Zone
Bottom Elevation,
ft
Estimated Downdrag
Load,
kips/pile
Piers (96” CIDH) -27.5 – 20.0 -18 2,357
Note: Downdrag loads were calculated for 96-inch diameter CIDH piles at a typical pier location.

12.2.4 Lateral Spreading Potential
Since there appears to be a potential for seismic-induced liquefaction, the possibility of lateral spreading during a liquefaction event should be considered. Lateral spread potential should be evaluated as part of the analysis for the design FR after a site-specific field investigation is completed and updated topographic and cross-section information is available for the project.

12.2.5 Seismic Slope Stability
Given the limited project information at this time, slope stability modeling has not been performed as part of this preliminary study. Slope stability should be evaluated as part of the analysis for the design FR after a site-specific field investigation is completed and updated project details and topographic/cross-section information is available for the project.

12.2.6 Tsunami Risk
Tsunamis are large sea waves caused by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic eruptions. Per Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-13, a tsunami hazard is significantly reduced for projects located greater than ½ mile from the coast or at elevations greater than 40 feet. The proposed bridge is located approximately 40 miles inland from the nearest large bay (Suisun Bay) connected to the Pacific Ocean.

Sacramento County does not have a California Official Tsunami Inundation Map. Based on the above information and per MTD 20-13, a tsunami hazard does not exist at the site.

13.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The following preliminary recommendations are for the Truxel Road Bridge as shown on the referenced General Plan (undated) by Dokken Engineering. These recommendations are based on select existing subsurface information data in the general project area and are provided solely for the project feasibility study (not for construction).

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 16 - July 31, 2024

13.1 Deep Foundations
Based on the anticipated structural loading, reported soft to stiff/very loose to medium dense nearsurface soil conditions in the previous investigations near the project location, estimated liquefaction ground settlements, the potential for ground loss due to sand boils, and the anticipated scour conditions at the site, shallow foundations are not considered suitable and the proposed bridge will require deep foundations for support. The deep foundations will penetrate through the relatively soft/liquefiable soil to bear within the underlying hard/dense, non-liquefiable materials.

Based on the subsurface conditions at the proposed bridge location and the design loading requirements, the structure may be supported by large diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles at the pier locations and Caltrans Class 200 driven piles at Abutments (24-inch diameter steel pipe piles driven open-ended). Given the anticipated thickness of potentially liquefiable soils at the pier foundation locations (approximately 30-foot depth below bottom of pile cap), potential loss of lateral support asthe result of a liquefaction event, and limited penetration anticipated during driving into the underlying dense gravel soils, Class 200 driven piles are not considered a feasible foundation option at the pier locations from a geotechnical perspective. Class 200 driven piles are only considered potentially feasible at the abutment locations because Extreme Limit State loading conditions are not considered for abutment design; however, detailed slope stability and lateral pile analysis will be required to confirm their use is acceptable for this project. Although not analyzed as part of this preliminary study, larger diameter cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) piles may also be suitable for the project at both abutment and pier locations.

Due to the presence of the granular soil and groundwater, temporary casing and/or wet construction methods will be required during CIDH concrete pile installation.

According to current Caltrans guidelines, preliminary foundation designs for abutments and bents were analyzed using the latest American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (BSD) with Caltrans Amendments methodology. We used the APILE and SHAFT software programs which incorporate the α method for clays and β method for sands per FHWA guidelines. For the piers, the piles are assumed to act individually given the single row of piles at each support location. As abutment piles are anticipated to be tipped into dense to a thick layer of dense to very dense granular materials and the pile capacity is generated predominantly through end-bearing, Caltrans does not require settlement analysis to be performed and settlement of abutment pile foundations was not analyzed for this preliminary study.

Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided herein.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 17 - July 31, 2024
Seismic-induced soil liquefaction may cause settlement of the liquefiable and overlying soil layers. For the pile foundations, the movement may influence the axial load distribution in the piles, including negative skin friction/downdrag. Pile design presented herein incorporates the recommendations of the Liquefaction-Induced Downdrag module of the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual.

Pier pile foundations will penetrate through overlying potentially liquefiable soils to bear within dense to very dense and very stiff to hard alluvial soil. Per Caltrans design guidelines, abutment piles are not designed for Extreme Limit State loading conditions.

Preliminary design pile tip elevations for the piers shown below have been lowered by two feet below the controlling design tip elevation to account for the bottom portion of the pile that cannot be tested using gamma-gamma testing (untested concrete zone) per the recommendations of the Caltrans Castin-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) Pile Foundations module.

CIDH concrete piles will develop their support from side frictional resistance for the Service and Strength Limit States and from both side frictional resistance and end bearing for the Extreme Limit State. Tables 13.1A through 13.1C summarize the preliminary foundation design loads and recommended tip elevations. Calculations are presented in Appendix B. The pile tip elevations for the piers extend below the limits of the previous geotechnical investigations at the site and we assume similar soil conditions extend to the depths of the proposed pile tips.

TABLE 13.1A

PRELIMINARY PILE FOUNDATION DESIGN DATA TABLE
Support
No.

Pile
Type
Finished
Grade
Elevation
(feet)
Cut-off
Elevation
(feet)
Pile Cap Size
(feet)
Permissible
Settlement
under Service
Load
(inches)
Number of
Piles per
Support B L
Abut 1 24” dia. PP 25.0 20.0 14 94 1.0 30
Piers 96” CIDH -6.0 to 25.0
(varies)
-16.0 to 20.0
(varies) N/A N/A 1.0 4 to 6 (varies)
Abut 21 24” dia. PP 25.0 20.0 14 94 1.0 30
Note: N/A = not applicable.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 18 - July 31, 2024
TABLE 13.1B

PRELIMINARY PILE FOUNDATION FACTORED DESIGN LOADS
Support
No.

Service-I Limit State
(kips)
Strength/Construction Limit State
(Controlling Group, kips)
Extreme Event Limit State
(Controlling Group, kips)
Total
Load Per
Support
/ Column
Permanent
Loads Per
Support /
Column
Compression Tension Compression Tension
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Abut 1 3,150 2,700 4,725 210 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Piers 2,400 1,800 3,600 3,600 0 0 2,700 2,700 0 0
Abut 21 3,150 2,700 4,725 210 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Note: N/A = not applicable.

TABLE 13.1C

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Support
Location
Pile
Type
Cut-off
Elevation
(feet)
Required Nominal Resistance
(kips) Preliminary
Design Tip
Elevations
(feet)2,3,5
Preliminary
Tip Elevation
(feet)4,6
Strength / Construction Extreme Event
Comp.
(φqs=0.7, φqp=0.7)1
Tension
(φqs=0.7)
Comp.
(φqs=1.0, φqp=1.0)
Tension
(φqs=1.0)
Abut 1 24”
dia. PP 20.0 300 0 N/A 0
-31 (a-I)
N/A (b-I)
N/A (a-II)
N/A (b-II)
N/A (c)
N/A (d)
-31
Piers 96”
CIDH
-16.0 to

20.0 (varies)
5,150 0 2,700 0
-127 (a-I)
N/A (b-I)
-85 (a-II)
N/A (b-II)
-58 (a-III)
N/A (c)
N/A (d)
-129
Abut 21 24”
dia. PP 20.0 300 0 N/A N/A
-31 (a-I)
N/A (b-I)
N/A (a-II)
N/A (b-II)
N/A (c)
N/A (d)
-31
Notes:

1. Resistance factor φqs is for skin friction and φqp is for end bearing.

2. Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a-I) Compression (Strength Limit), (b-I) Tension (Strength Limit), (a-II) Compression (Extreme Event-During Earthquake), (a-III) Compression (Extreme Event-Post Earthquake/Downdrag), (b-II) Tension (Extreme Event), (c) Settlement, and (d) Lateral.

3. Design tip elevation for lateral load was provided by the structural engineer.

4. The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations for tension, lateral, and tolerable settlement.

5. N/A = not applicable or not available.

6. For CIDH piles, the pile tip elevation has been lowered 2 feet to account for the bottom portion of the pile that cannot be tested using gamma-gamma testing.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 19 - July 31, 2024
Settlement of piles imposing the design axial load is expected to be less than ½ inch. Settlements should be essentially complete shortly after completion of the bridge superstructure.

Lateral pile analysis will be performed by the structural engineer. Soil parameters for lateral pile analysis will be provided in the FR following our field investigation and laboratory testing for this project.

13.1.1 Special Considerations for Driven Piles
Driven piles should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 49-2.

Due to the presence of hard/very dense soil layers, difficult driving conditions may be encountered prior to reaching the specified tip elevations. The contractor should have all equipment available onsite to install the piles to the design tip elevation. For this project, jetting or vibrating of piles is not an allowable method of pile installation.

13.1.2 Driven Pile Acceptance Criteria
The contractor should prepare and submit a complete Driving System Submittal per Caltrans’ Standard Specifications Section 49-2.01A(3)(b) prior to construction.

Static or dynamic pile load testing to evaluate driven pile axial capacity is not considered necessary.

Driven pile acceptance criteria should be based on the criteria set forth in Section 49-2.01A(4)(c) of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications. The piles must be driven to at least nominal driving resistance and specified tip elevations shown on project plans. Specifically, within the last foot of pile driving, a formula correlating the installation hammer blows and manufacturer’s hammer energy rating to the nominal driving resistance is required for driven pile field acceptance.

Piles that demonstrate “refusal” as much as 3 feet above specified tip elevation may be accepted without review/consultation. Acceptance of piles meeting formula bearing at levels higher than this should be made only on the basis of specific review by Geocon. Driving “refusal” can be defined as piles achieving 1½ times the nominal resistance in compression.

Piles that do not attain the required nominal driving resistance at the specified tip may be considered acceptable with formula bearing on redrive after a minimum 24-hour “set period.” Depending on the soil conditions at the pile location, a longer set period may result in a higher driving resistance during redrive. If there is more than one “soft” pile, then Geocon will designate which pile(s) is/are to be redriven. Do not use a cold hammer for redriving.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 20 - July 31, 2024
If the nominal driving resistance is attained for the pile designated to be redriven, the remaining piles in that footing are considered satisfactory and further driving will not be required. If redriving the designated pile demonstrates that the nominal driving resistance has not been attained, redrive all “soft” piles in the footing until the nominal driving resistance is attained.

13.1.3 Special Considerations for CIDH Concrete Piles
Pile construction should conform to the requirements of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications Section 49, including the preparation and submittal of a complete Pile Installation Plan per Section 49-3.02A(3)(b) by the contractor prior to construction.

Groundwater/seepage will be encountered within the foundation construction depths. Zones of gravel and cobbles have been noted in Unit 3 soils (Section 7.3.2) and may be present in other soil units. CIDH concrete pile installation will require using the wet construction methods (including the installation of PVC inspection pipes for acceptance testing) and the use of temporary casing will be required. Wet construction methods may require concrete placement under slurry. The contractor should review subsurface conditions and select the appropriate wet construction methods. Geocon should be contacted if permanent casing is proposed, since the geotechnical capacity may be affected.

The standard specification that allows the contractor to revise specified pile tip elevations is intended for driven piles only. Tip elevation revision is not allowed for drilled shafts. An engineered length for skin friction resistance primarily controls the specified CIDH pile depth, and the drilling process has no inherent measurement (analogous to blow count) to verify the resistance.

A Geocon representative should observe all CIDH pile excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel or concrete. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.

13.2 Retaining Walls/Wingwalls
Table 13.2 summarizes our preliminary lateral earth pressure recommendations in terms of equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) for design.

TABLE 13.2

PRELIMINARY LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Condition Equivalent Fluid Density
Active 35 pcf
At-rest 55 pcf
Seismic Increment 10 pcf
Note: pcf = pounds per cubic foot
Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 21 - July 31, 2024
Unrestrained walls should be designed using the active case. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H is the height of the wall). Walls restrained from movement should be designed using the at-rest case. The above soil pressures assume level backfill under drained conditions within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall.

To resist lateral movement of retaining wall foundations, a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted engineered fill soils or undisturbed natural soil. This passive pressure is based on the assumption that a horizontal surface extends at least 5 feet or three times the depth of the footing or shear key, whichever is greater, beyond the face of the retaining wall foundation. If sloping ground is present in front of footings, a reduced passive resistance will apply. We should be contacted if this condition exists. A friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. Combined passive resistance and friction may be utilized for design provided that the passive resistance is reduced by 50%.

Backfill soil placed behind walls and wing walls should be primarily granular in nature and conform to Caltrans requirements for structure backfill (Standard Specifications Section 19-3.02). All structure backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by CTM 216.

Walls should have a back-drainage system similar to Caltrans’ Revised Standard Plan RSP B0-3, Bridge Detail 3-1 or an approved geocomposite chimney type drain material. The back-drainage system should provide positive drainage to daylight and be maintained such that it does not clog with debris and allow a buildup of hydrostatic pressure.

13.3 Embankment and Approach Fill Earthwork
From a geotechnical perspective, embankments and fill slopes may be constructed at inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. Embankments constructed in accordance with Caltrans requirements should possess adequate factor of safety against slope instability. Consideration should be given to the use of slope paving, rip-rap, or other surface treatments to minimize surficial erosion until adequate erosion-resistant vegetation can become established. All roadway drainage should be directed to appropriate collection and discharge facilities to prevent run-off from flowing over the tops of slopes.

Based on the field explorations and experience in the area, soil generated from onsite and local excavations are likely suitable for use as embankment and general fill. However, some screening and selection may be required depending on excavation location and intended use. For example, retaining wall (structure) backfill may require the use of primarily granular (sandy) soil rather than silty or clayey Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 22 - July 31, 2024
soil. Similarly, select, low-expansive soil may be required within specific portions of the bridge approach embankments, near the abutments. All grading should be performed in conformance with Section 19 of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications or equivalent.

Backfill placed within the full width of the embankment and within 150 feet of the abutment is considered structure backfill. All structure backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. All compaction on the project should be based on this test method. All other backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.

Structural fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches (loose thickness) and brought to final design elevations. Each lift should be moisture-conditioned and compacted. New fill should be benched into existing embankment fill as the fill is placed. Benches should extend at least 3 feet laterally into the existing embankment fill.

New embankments and roadway areas will be supported on primarily very loose to medium dense granular soils and/or soft to stiff cohesive soils that will experience settlement as fill is placed. Minor surface settlement may occur primarily as a result of compression within the new fill itself. Settlement magnitudes and time durations will need to be estimated once a site-specific field investigation and laboratory testing program is performed. Per Caltrans (1959), consolidation tests indicate that clayey silt soils may consolidate up to 2 feet with up to 30 feet of few fill embankment construction; however, no settlement duration was provided. New fill should be placed as soon as practical to allow settlement to occur prior to construction of overlying pavement sections.

13.3.1 Materials for Fill
Excavated soil generated from cut operations at the site are suitable for use as general fill in structural areas provided they are examined and selectively placed during grading in accordance with the following recommendations:
• Deleterious material, material with greater than 3% organics, and debris should be exported from the site and not incorporated into structural fill. We anticipate limited quantities of these materials (primarily organics).
• Backfill placed behind retaining walls should consist of “structure backfill” meeting Section 19-3.02B of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications. In addition to the criteria shown in Section 19-3.02B, structure backfill should have a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less), a Liquid Limit less than 50, and a Plasticity Index of 15 or less.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 23 - July 31, 2024
• Import fill material should be primarily granular with a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50), a Liquid Limit less than 50, Plasticity Index of 15 or less, be free of organic material and construction debris, and not contain rock larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension.
• Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be considered. Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by Geocon prior to its transportation to the site.

13.3.2 Fill Area Preparation and Fill Placement
Areas to be developed should be cleared and stripped of existing structures/pavements, obstructions, trees, bushes, grass, roots, and the upper few inches of soil containing organic debris. Soils/organics removed by stripping can be transported offsite or stockpiled for use in landscaping. Existing drainage and utility lines or other existing subsurface structures that are not to be utilized, if any, should be removed, destroyed or abandoned in compliance with applicable regulations.

In general, all loose, soft, or wet surficial soil in the areas planned to receive new improvements or fill materials should be removed to expose competent materials. The actual removal depth is dependent upon the depth to competent materials.

All earthwork, grading, and engineered fill placement and relative compaction testing for new fill should conform per Caltrans’ Standard Specifications, Section 19. New embankment fill placed on sloping ground and adjacent to existing embankments/slopes should be keyed and benched in accordance with Caltrans’ Standard Specifications. Ponding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted.

14.0 GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER
This preliminary report has been prepared for project planning purposes only. Site-specific subsurface investigation and geotechnical laboratory testing will be required for project design. This report is prepared based on the currently available project information including the proposed structures and foundations described herein. Geocon must be contacted for review and possible revised recommendations if the proposed structures and foundations are changed.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 24 - July 31, 2024

15.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

15.1 Construction Advisories
Traffic control with roadway, lane, and shoulder closures and detours are anticipated during construction. In addition, there are overhead and underground utilities along or near the proposed bridge alignment. The Contractor should verify these utility conditions and plan the construction activities accordingly.

Commercial structures exist immediately adjacent and residential structures within approximately 200 feet of the proposed driven pile foundation locations. The impact of noise and vibration due to pile driving may need to be mitigated by limitation on hours of the day for driving piles. The recommendations of the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Guidance Manual, including Chapter 9 (General Procedures for Addressing Vibration Issues) should be followed. Evaluation for specific pile driving equipment can be performed once the contractor completes their Driving System Submittal.

15.2 Construction Considerations that Influence Specifications All grading should be performed in conformance with Section 19 of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications or equivalent. Backfill placed behind retaining walls should have a very low to low expansion potential.

The extent and placement of the low-expansive soils should conform to Caltrans’ Geotechnical Manual, Embankments (December 2014) Figure 1. Quality assurance during construction should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 6-2.01A, including the use of the CTM 216 test method for relative compaction testing.

The Contractor should verify the existing utility line conditions. These areas should not be used for stockpiling of construction materials. Any conflicts should be reviewed prior to construction.

15.3 Construction Monitoring and Instrumentation
Site grading, footing excavations, pile excavation and driving activities, removal of any unsuitable soils or oversize material, and replacement and compaction of backfill and subgrade should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Faces of cut slopes in alluvial materials should be observed by an engineering geologist for indications of instability. Appropriate field tests should be conducted to provide quality control, quality assurance for structural fills and related earthwork elements.

The Contractor should execute a monitoring program for structures in proximity to any deep excavations so that appropriate modifications to the excavation/shoring system and/or foundation type are implemented to minimize the surface deflection or structure damage in a timely manner.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 25 - July 31, 2024

16.0 DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION
The preliminary recommendations contained in this report are provided for project feasibility analysis only and are based on specific project information regarding structure type, location, and design loads that have been provided by Dokken Engineering and on existing geotechnical data in the general project vicinity. A site-specific geotechnical investigation including laboratory testing will be required in order to provide design-level recommendations for the project.

Any questions regarding the above recommendations should be directed to the Rancho Cordova Office of Geocon at 916-852-9118.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 26 - July 31, 2024

17.0 CLOSURE

17.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review
Geocon should review the grading plans and foundation plans as project design progresses to determine whether additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.

17.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions
The preliminary recommendations of this report are based on a review of existing geotechnical information and will be revised following our geotechnical investigation for this project. If the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon.

Our professional services were performed in accordance with generally acceptable geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the site area at this time. No warranty is provided, express or implied.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 27 - July 31, 2024

18.0 REFERENCES

1. AASHTO and California Department of Transportation, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2017 (Eighth Edition) with California Amendments (AASHTO-CA BDS-6), December 2023.

2. California Department of Transportation, ARS Online V3.1.0, https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/index.php?, accessed June 11, 2024.

3. California Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Specifications, Section 4 – Foundations, November 2003.

4. California Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Specifications, Section 5 – Retaining Walls, August 2004.

5. California Department of Transportation, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, May 2021.

6. California Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Manual, latest version of the individual sections.

7. California Department of Transportation, Memo to Designers 3-1, Deep Foundations, June 2014.

8. California Department of Transportation, Seismic Design Criteria, version 2.0, April 2019.

9. California Department of Transportation, Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual, December 2022.

10. California Department of Transportation, 2023, Standard Plans.

11. California Department of Transportation, 2023, Standard Specifications.

12. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020.

13. California Department of Water Resources, geologic mapping from the Flood Emergency Response Information Exchange (FERIX), undated.

14. Department of Water Resources, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, June 2008.

15. Dokken Engineering, General Plan, Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, undated.

16. Dokken Engineering, Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report, July 2024.

17. Geocon Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Parcels 8 and 15A, Sacramento, California, Project No. S9498-05-11, December 2014.

18. Geocon Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Seven Parcels, North Side of Richards Blvd between 5th and 7th Streets, Sacramento, California, Project No. S9498-05-18, September 16, 2020.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 28 - July 31, 2024

19. Geocon Consultants, Inc., Additional Geotechnical Investigation Summary, Township 9 – Phase A1/A3, 7th Street and Chill Avenue, Sacramento, California, Project No. S9498-05-20, September 26, 2022.

20. California Department of Transportation, Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report for American River Bridge (Widen), File No. 03-Sac-5-PM 24.82, Bridge No. 24-0068, July 10, 2020.

21. State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways (Caltrans), Materials and Research Department, Intra-Division Correspondence, III-Sac-238-B, Beltline Freeway, August 4, 1959.

22. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.

Sacramento
River

PROJECT

ALIGNMENT
Southside
Park
Capital
Park
Discovery
Park
American River

SACRAMENTO
WEST

SACRAMENTO

RI VERF RONT
S T
FI FTH
S T
C S T
A S T

CUMMINS WAY

RI SKE L N

SACRAMENTO AVE
3R
D
S
T
4T
H
S
T

ANDREW S T
5T
H
S
T
D
O
U
GLAS
S T

RI VER CRES T DR
B ST
S OUTH
RI VER
RD

SOULE S T

L I GHTHOUS E DR
E S T
D ST
G ST
F ST

FOUNTAI N D R

W EST CA P ITOL AVE
2N D S T

TOW ER BRIDGE GTW Y
I ST
ELDER
D
R
COUNTY
R
D 136
10TH
ST
11TH
ST
P ST
9TH
ST
Q ST
8TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST

CAPITOL MALL
I ST
H ST

HISTORIC ALY
14TH
ST
N ST
L ST
J ST
G ST
12TH
ST

FAT ALY

LIESTAL ALY
17TH
ST
F ST
18TH
ST
N C ST
E ST
19TH
ST
T ST
5TH
ST
D ST

GARDEN HW Y
N 16TH
ST
N B ST

DEMOCRACY ALY
24TH
ST
3RD
ST
NO
RTHG

ATE BLV
D
25TH
ST

GATEWAY OAKS DR
O
R S
ST
T

RAI LYARDS BLVD
4TH
ST

RICHARDS BLVD
S ST

CAPITOL AVE

TRUXEL RD
2ND
S T
20TH
ST
F
RONT
S
T

CHINATOWN ALY

GOVERNMENT ALY
23RD
ST
W S T
N 12TH ST
26TH
ST

JAZZ ALY

EGGPLANT ALY
A

MERICAN AV
W E

EL CAMI NO AVE
K ST

IMPROV ALY

OPERA ALY

MATSUI ALY

I STREET BRG

AZUSA ST
21ST
ST
22ND
ST
U ST
13TH
ST
C ST

NEIGHBORS ALY
7TH
ST
A ST
6TH
S
T

DEL PASO BLVD

BERCUT DR

ATHENA AVE
N
6TH S T
DOS
RIOS
ST
N
O
R
T
H

VI EW DR

RI VER PLAZA DR
M

ORELL S T
N
7TH
ST
N
5TH
ST

HAWK AVE

SOLONS ALY

QUILL ALY
V ST

RICE ALY

KAYAK ALY
N D ST

HARDING AVE

WILSON AVE

RI VERINE WAY
N 10TH
ST
JIBBO
O
M ST

VINE S T

BANNON ST
N
3RD
ST

CIRIC AVE VENTURE OAKS
WAY
CONSULTANTS, INC.
3160 GOL D VA L L E Y DR - S UI T E 800 - RA NCH O COR DOVA, CA 95 742 PHON E 916. 852.9 118 - FAX 916 .852 .9132
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 1

VICINITY MAP
Sacramento,
California
Truxel Road Bridge
GEOCON 7/18/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\S2815-05-01_Truxel_Road_Bridge\01_ReportMaps\Figure_1_Vicinity_Map.mxd 0 2,000
Scale in Feet
N

SACRAMENTO
SAN

FRANCISCO

LOS ANGELES

SAN DIEGO

PROJECT

LOCATION

REDDING

BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO
Steelhead Creek
American River
PIER 20
American River Bridge
Explorations Area

PROPOSED
BRIDGE
Sacramento River
B2
B1
CPT1
CPT2
CPT5
CPT 2020-1
CPT 2020-2
WCSBAR_001B
WCSBAR_002M
D-1
HINGE
PIER 9
PIER 5
PIER 6
PIER 10
PIER 14
PIER 16
PIER 2
PIER 7
PIER 8
PIER 11
PIER 18
HINGE
PIER 13
PIER 12
PIER 15
PIER 17
PIER 3
PIER 19
PIER 4
1 2
3 4
115+00
6 7
8 9
120+00
1 2
3 4
125+00
6 7
8 9
130+00
1 2
3 4
135+00
6 7
8 9
140+00
1 2
3 GARDEN HWY
N
5TH
ST

MI L L CREEK DR
N
7TH
ST

RICHARDS BLVD

SEQUOI A

PACI FI C
BLVD

CANNERY AVE

BERCUT DR

R IVERINE WAY

S ANDCAS TLE WAY
CHI LL
AVE
N
6TH
ST

H ELMSMAN WAY

CAPI TAL PARK
DR
VI NE
S T

SCALEHOUSE
ST

TOWNSHIP NINE AVE

NATOMAS PARK DR

JIBBOOM ST

AZUSA ST

TRUXEL RD

MOS S Y BANK DR

CR E EKSI DE OAKS DR
N
3RD
ST
CONSULTANTS, INC.
0 500
Scale in Feet
3160 GOL D VA L L E Y DR - S UI T E 80 0 - RA NCH O C ORDOVA , CA 9 5742 PHON E 9 16. 852.9 118 - FA X 91 6.852 . 913 2
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 2

SITE PLAN
Sacramento,
California
Truxel Road Bridge
Legend
Approximate Exploratory Boring Location
(Geocon 2022)
Approximate Cone Penetration Test Location
(Geocon 2020)
Approximate Cone Penetration Test Location
(Geocon 2014)
Approximate Boring Location
(DWR 2008)
Approximate Boring Location
(Caltrans 1959)
American River Bridge Explorations, 1963-64
(See Appendix A, for reference only)
GEOCON 7/30/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\S2815-05-01_Truxel_Road_Bridge\01_ReportMaps\Figure_2_Site_Plan.mxd B2
CPT2020-2
WCSBAR_002M
CPT5
D-1
Proposed Bridge Design Drawing by Dokken Engineering

PROJECT

ALIGNMENT
3RD ST
C S T

ANDREW S T
A ST

RE GATTA LN
6TH S T
4TH ST

CUMMI NS WAY
5TH ST
B ST 8TH ST

REUTER DR

WATERC OLOR LN

FOUNTAI N DR
2ND ST

JAMES S T

W I LL I AM S T

LI GHTH OUS E DR

ELIZABETH ST

CALIFORNIA ST

WELLAND WAY
COUNTY RD 136
Ra
Rb
W 1937
Ha (Agr)
Hn
Hob
Rch Rcs
L
Hcs
Rcs
Ha (Urb)
Ha (Agr)
W 1937
Rch
Rch
Ha (Urb)
Hcs
Rcs
Rcs
Rcs
Rdc
Hob
Rb
Rms
Hcs
Hob
Rch 1873
ML
ML
W 1854 RR
RR
Ra
Rch
Rcs
Rcs
BP
Rcs
Rch
1854
Rch
Rpb
BP
Rch
ML
Rcs
Rcs Hs
Ra
Ra
Hch
Ra
Hch
W 1937
Hch
R Rb b
Rb
Rb
Rb Rb
Rb
Rob
Rch 1854
Rch
Rch
Rb
Rdc
Rb Hch
Ra
Ra
Ra
Ra Rch
Ra
W 1937
L
Hfy
Rob
Hob Rob
Rob
Rob
Rob
Rch
Hcs
Hn
Hob
Rch
Hob
Hob
Rch
Ra
Rob Rob
Hob
Hcs
Rob
Hob
Hch
Ra
Ra
Ra
Hch
Rob
Rb
Ra
Ra
Hch
Hch
BP
Ra
Rpb
Rch
1854
L
Hs
Ra
R
Ra
Hch
Rb
Rb
W 1937
Rcs
Ra
Ra

S TONECREEK
D
R
N C ST

GARDEN HWY
N 16TH
ST
N B ST

NORMINGTON DR

TRUXEL RD

RAI LYARDS BLVD

NORCROSS
DR

RICHARDS BLVD
5TH ST

S EAMI S T DR

W EL CAMI NO AVE

MOREL L CT
N 12TH S T
ERI N
DR
N 18TH
ST

DORINE WAY

NORTHGATE BLVD

AZUSA ST

CANNERY AVE

WATERWHEEL DR
A ST

NORCUT CT

NORGARD CT
BERCUT
DR

THELMA AVE

NORTHGLEN ST

ATHENA AVE

CHI LL AVE

PI PEVI NE ST

HAGGIN AVE
N 6TH S T

GATEWAY OAKS
DR
DOS
RIOS
ST

NORTHVIEW DR

BRUNSWI CK WAY

NORBERT WAY

MORELL ST
N 7TH
ST

FAIRWEATHER
DR

TOWNSHIP NINE AVE
N 5TH
ST

HAWK AVE

JIBBOOM ST
N D ST

SANDCASTLE WAY

MI LLCREEK DR
AHERN
ST
12TH
ST

AZEVEDO DR

S EQUOI A PACI FIC
BLVD
7TH
S T

RI VERI NE WAY

WATER ST

NATOMAS PARK DR

RI VER PLAZA DR
6TH
ST

RINGLET AVE
N 10TH
ST

NORTHEY DR

DREHER ST

BASLER ST

MENDEL WAY

THORNTON AVE

VINE ST

WILSON AVE

NORTHFIELD DR
S
UN
BEAM
AVE

BANNON ST

CAPI TOL OAKS
DR
N 3RD
ST

CIRIC AVE

GREENLEA AVE
M

OS S Y BANK DR

S UMMI T TUNNEL AVE

VENTURE OAKS
WAY
CONSULTANTS, INC.
3160 GOL D VA L L E Y DR - S UI T E 80 0 - RA NCH O C ORDOVA , CA 9 5742 PHON E 9 16. 852.9 118 - FA X 91 6 .852 .9 13 2
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 3

GEOLOGIC MAP
Sacramento,
California
Truxel Road Bridge
GEOCON 7/18/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\S2815-05-01_Truxel_Road_Bridge\01_ReportMaps\Figure_3_Geologic_Map.mxd 0 1,000
Scale in Feet
N
Unit Explanation
Alluvial Deposits
Alluvial deposits; undifferentiated
Alluvial fan deposits
Basin deposits
Borrow pit
Channel bar deposits
Channel deposits
Channel meander scroll deposits
Crevasse splay deposits
Distributary channel deposits
Levee
Made land
Marsh deposits
Overbank deposits
Point bar
Railroad embankment
Road embankment
Water
BP
Ha
Hch/Rch
Hcs/Rcs
Hfy
Hn
Hs
L
ML
R
RR
Ra
Rb
Rdc
Rms
Hob/Rob
Rpb
W
Notes:

1. R=Recent, H=Holocene, and lowercase letters represent the actual deposit type.

2. Geologic data from the CA Department of Water Resources Flood Emergency Response Informaiton Exchange (FERIX)
https://ferix.water.ca.gov/lep/
ARS Data for:

Soil Profile (VS30): 213 m/s
or: 699 ft/s
Rupture Distance: R: 89.1 km
or: 55.4 mi
PGA (HPGA): 0.26 g
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 4

0.10 0.00
Seismic Loading Table

0.25 0.45

0.57 0.71

0.16 0.12

0.09 0.50

0.75 1.00

0.67 The ARS curve was developed based on the USGS 2014 national Seismic Hazard Map for a 975 year return period (Hazard Model/Edition Dynamic Conterminous U.S. 2014
(Update) (V4.2.0) hazard data obtained by using ARS Online v3.1.0). Modifications for basin effects and/or near fault effects were applied, where applicable, per Appendix B of SDC v2.0 with October 2019 Interim Revisions.

SEE Design - Ground Motion Data Sheet
PGA Mean Moment
Magnitude (M) for PGA: 6.68

0.30 RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
California
Sacramento,
Truxel Road Bridge
Truxel Road Bridge
-121.496300
Longitude, degrees

38.604300
Latitude, degrees
Period, T
(s)

5.00 4.00

3.00 2.00
Spectral Acceleration,
Sa (g)

0.74 0.26

0.46 0.20

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Spectral Acceleration, Sa(g)
Period (s)
Acceleration Response Spectrum
5% Damping

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

PREVIOUS BORING LOGS, LOGS OF TEST BORINGS, AND

LABORATORY TESTING BY OTHERS















































!"





















#



$%#$&'
$%#()(
$%#*
$%#%+)(
$%#%%
$%#%()(
$%#%*
$%#,+)(
$%#,%
*
-
%,
%(
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
+
%
,
;
<
(
*
-
=
>
%+
%%
%,
%;
%<
%(
%*
%-
%=
%>
,+
,%
,,
,;
,<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$


# 




#






 


# C



C


















0
/






$%#,()(
$%#,*
$%#;+)(
$%#;%
$%#;()(
$%#;*
$%#<+)(
$%#<%
$%#<*
%(
,%
%>
,-
*;
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
,(
,*
,-
,=
,>
;+
;%
;,
;;
;<
;(
;*
;-
;=
;>
<+
<%
<,
<;
<<
<(
<*
<-
<=
<>
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0












5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$




















0
/






# 
C

C


!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
(+
(%
(,
(;
(<
((
(*
(-
(=
(>
*+
*%
*,
*;
*<
*(
**
*-
*=
*>
-+
-%
-,
-;
-<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0












5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$


6#



















0
/




































.








6
!"
$%#=()(
$%#=*
$%#>+
$%#>(
=%
(+
-<8>
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
-(
-*
--
-=
->
=+
=%
=,
=;
=<
=(
=*
=-
==
=>
>+
>%
>,
>;
><
>(
>*
>-
>=
>>
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$




.






!"

D<)(








































$50!
"/0!"/
"
%%%)(
2//"
05&7"/0
5"
/&0/
$6'2!/
7!".
/"
6//"
05&"

6/
7!".
5!
6&""!
$%#%++)(
$%#%+(
$%#%%+
>=8%+
*=
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
%++
%+%
%+,
%+;
%+<
%+(
%+*
%+-
%+=
%+>
%%+
%%%
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0












5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$






















!"













!"


















#




# 




# 





$,#$&'
$,#()(
$,#*
$,#%+
$,#%+)(
$,#%%
$,#%()(
$,#%*
$,#,+)(
$,#,%
>
>
>
%+
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
+
%
,
;
<
(
*
-
=
>
%+
%%
%,
%;
%<
%(
%*
%-
%=
%>
,+
,%
,,
,;
,<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$


#







# 







#





# 















0
/
$,#,(
$,#;+
$,#;(
$,#<+
$,#<(
*
,
%<
=
>
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
,(
,*
,-
,=
,>
;+
;%
;,
;;
;<
;(
;*
;-
;=
;>
<+
<%
<,
<;
<<
<(
<*
<-
<=
<>
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$














0
/
# 
C

C


# 




 C





















$,#(+
<-
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
(+
(%
(,
(;
(<
((
(*
(-
(=
(>
*+
*%
*,
*;
*<
*(
**
*-
*=
*>
-+
-%
-,
-;
-<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$
















0
/
.









!"




D<)(























$50!
"/0!"/
"
=*)(
2//"
05&7"/0
/65&"/0/
"
,,
2//"
$6'2!/
7!".
/"
6//"
05&"

6/
7!".
5!
6&""!
$,#=()(
$,#=* =,
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
-(
-*
--
-=
->
=+
=%
=,
=;
=<
=(
=*
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0










5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$

Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 300
TIP
TSF 0 8

FRICTION
TSF 0 8
Fs/Qt
% 0 100
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT1
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A1 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 5.413ft
Ref*
Delay 11.87ms
Velocity*
Depth 10.007ft
Ref 5.413ft
Delay 19.30ms
Velocity 488.39ft/s
Depth 14.928ft
Ref 10.007ft
Delay 27.19ms
Velocity 563.29ft/s
Depth 20.013ft
Ref 14.928ft
Delay 35.47ms
Velocity 581.94ft/s
Depth 25.262ft
Ref 20.013ft
Delay 43.75ms
Velocity 613.63ft/s
Depth 30.020ft
Ref 25.262ft
Delay 52.11ms
Velocity 556.77ft/s
Depth 34.941ft
Ref 30.020ft
Delay 60.23ms
Velocity 596.14ft/s
Depth 40.026ft
Ref 34.941ft
Delay 67.26ms
Velocity 714.65ft/s
Depth 44.948ft
Ref 40.026ft
Delay 74.06ms
Velocity 717.34ft/s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (ms)
Hammer to Rod String Distance 1.778 (m)
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT1
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A6 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 300
TIP
TSF 0 8

FRICTION
TSF 0 8
Fs/Qt
% 0 100
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT2
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A2 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 300
TIP
TSF 0 8

FRICTION
TSF 0 8
Fs/Qt
% 0 100
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT5
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A5 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 10.007ft
Ref*
Delay 15.70ms
Velocity*
Depth 14.928ft
Ref 10.007ft
Delay 20.39ms
Velocity 948.20ft/s
Depth 20.177ft
Ref 14.928ft
Delay 27.81ms
Velocity 670.54ft/s
Depth 24.934ft
Ref 20.177ft
Delay 34.69ms
Velocity 669.74ft/s
Depth 35.925ft
Ref 24.934ft
Delay 52.03ms
Velocity 622.05ft/s
Depth 40.026ft
Ref 35.925ft
Delay 57.50ms
Velocity 741.24ft/s
Depth 44.948ft
Ref 40.026ft
Delay 64.37ms
Velocity 709.19ft/s
Depth 50.033ft
Ref 44.948ft
Delay 70.93ms
Velocity 769.16ft/s
Depth 55.610ft
Ref 50.033ft
Delay 78.12ms
Velocity 771.34ft/s
Depth 60.039ft
Ref 55.610ft
Delay 83.67ms
Velocity 794.50ft/s
Depth 65.125ft
Ref 60.039ft
Delay 90.31ms
Velocity 762.52ft/s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (ms)
Hammer to Rod String Distance 1.778 (m)
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT5
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A7 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 6

FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT1
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A1 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 6

FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT2
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A2 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 4.99ft
Ref*
Arrival 9.45mS
Velocity*
Depth 10.01ft
Ref 4.99ft
Arrival 17.73mS
Velocity 471.97ft/S
Depth 15.03ft
Ref 10.01ft
Arrival 26.01mS
Velocity 547.79ft/S
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 15.03ft
Arrival 33.59mS
Velocity 623.83ft/S
Depth 26.08ft
Ref 20.01ft
Arrival 44.06mS
Velocity 561.81ft/S
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 26.08ft
Arrival 50.07mS
Velocity 640.73ft/S
Depth 35.01ft
Ref 30.02ft
Arrival 57.89mS
Velocity 628.27ft/S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depth 39.44ft
Ref 35.01ft
Arrival 64.29mS
Velocity 683.06ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT1
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A4 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 5.09ft
Ref*
Arrival 11.80mS
Velocity*
Depth 10.27ft
Ref 5.09ft
Arrival 21.56mS
Velocity 416.94ft/S
Depth 15.19ft
Ref 10.27ft
Arrival 29.30mS
Velocity 576.90ft/S
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 15.19ft
Arrival 36.64mS
Velocity 622.90ft/S
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 20.01ft
Arrival 54.06mS
Velocity 558.83ft/S
Depth 35.01ft
Ref 30.02ft
Arrival 62.42mS
Velocity 587.17ft/S
Depth 40.03ft
Ref 35.01ft
Arrival 70.85mS
Velocity 587.87ft/S
Depth 45.01ft
Ref 40.03ft
Arrival 77.34mS
Velocity 761.95ft/S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depth 48.72ft
Ref 45.01ft
Arrival 80.39mS
Velocity 1207.52ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT2
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A5 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 tration made wi
levation shown.

FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION

BORING PROFILE

APPROACH FILLS FOR
SACRAMENTO 8 AMERICAN RIh4ER

FREEWAY CROSSINGS
DATE DWG. NO DIST. COLJNTY ROUTE SEC SHtE.T
238 8 2 3

3.25P

1.0P
17 2
S01A_001_002B
S02A_002_003B
S03A_003_004T
Pushed Shelby
tube at 1000 psi;
tube damaged
S04A_004_006S
S05A_007_007P
S06A_010_012S
S07A_012_012P
Driller notes very
easy drilling
S08A_015_017S
Sample numbers 9
and 10 not used
S11A_017_018P
38 15
27 6
62 43
12 17
100
56 44
67 10
44 64
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
11 HD
HD
Asphalt and Gravel Road Base.
[LEVEE FILL]
LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL); dark olive brown (2.5Y
3/3); moist; 85% very high dry strength fines; 10% fine to medium sand; 5% subrounded gravel, max. 1/2 in..
[LEVEE FILL]
SILTY SAND (SM); dense; dark yellowish brown (10YR
3/6); 72% fine to medium sand; 27% medium plasticity
fines; 1% fine to coarse, subrounded gravel, max.

1.2 in.; portion of fines are clay-sized.
[LEVEE FILL]
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); very stiff; dark olive brown
(2.5Y 3/3); moist; 50% medium plasticity, medium dry
strength fines; 40% fine to medium sand; 10% fine to
coarse, subrounded gravel, max. 1 in..
[Approximate bottom of Levee Fill at10'].

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); medium dense;
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); dry; 94% fine to medium
sand; 6% fines; 0% gravel.

SANDY SILT (ML); medium dense; brown (10YR 5/3);
moist; 62% low plasticity, low dry strength fines; 38%
fine sand; 0% gravel.
10 13
18 [31]
3 4
5 [9]
4 5
7 [12]

FIELD LOG REVIEWER
G. Bradner

HAMMER TYPE, MAKE/MODEL, WEIGHT/DROP
Marl, automatic, 140 lbs / 30-inch drop

FIELD LOGGER
M. Horse

BOREHOLE BACKFILL OR COMPLETION
5% bentonite grout

DATE STARTED
6/5/08

VERTICAL INCLINED

DRILLING ROD TYPE AND DIAMETER
6" HSA, 94mm

HELPER'S NAME
R. Ryon/M. Ageev

CONSULTANT COMPANY
GEI Consultants, Inc.

DRILLING METHOD
0 - 3 ft: HA, 3 - 11.5 ft: HSA, 11.5 - 70 ft: Rotary Wash

TOTAL DEPTH OF FILL
10 ft

DRILL RIG MAKE AND MODEL
MARL M-10 (Gregg Rig No. D-44)

CASING TYPE, DIAMETER, INSTALLATION DEPTH
Surface, 6-in., 10 ft

ELEVATION DATUM
NAVD 88

GROUND ELEVATION

36.74 ft

TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

70.0 ft

HAMMER EFFICIENCY
83%

DRILLING CONTRACTOR
Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc.

DRILL BIT SIZE AND TYPE (HOLE DIAMETER)
5-inch drag bit

DRILLER'S NAME
E. Santellan

DATE COMPLETED
6/5/08
GROUNDWATER READING: DURING DRILLING
N/A due to rotary wash drilling method

AFTER DRILLING (DATE-TIME)
X

SAMPLER TYPE(S)
Bag, DCore(2.5"), PCore(2.5"), Shelby(2.37"), SPT(1.375") Elevation, feet PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 1 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 FILL 35 30
25 20

0.75P

0.75P

0.75P
40 46
30 21
S12A_020_022S
S13A_023_023P
S14A_025_027S
S15A_027_027P
S16A_030_032S
S17A_033_033P
S18A_035_037S
S19B_037_038P
S19A_040_040P
S20A_040_042S
S21A_043_043P
48 29
44 58
19 11
26 21
15 30
24 44
69 44
14 44
62 72
100
61 55
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
HD
SG
HD
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6); wet; 56% fine sand; 44% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel; portion of fines are
clay-sized.

SANDY SILT (ML); medium dense; dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6); moist; 60% low plasticity, low dry
strength, rapid dilatancy fines; 40% fine sand; 0%
gravel.

As above except 42% sand; 58% fines.

LEAN CLAY (CL); medium stiff; very dark greenish gray
(10GY 3/1); wet; 95% very high dry strength, low
toughness fines; 5% sand; 0% gravel.

SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; greenish black
(10GY 2.5/1); moist; 81% fine to medium sand; 19%
fines; 0% gravel.

Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); medium dense;
dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); moist; 89% fine to coarse
sand; 11% fines; 0% gravel.
7 9
10 [19]
5 7
8 [15]
5 7
4 [11]
8 11
11 [22]
8 8
9 [17]
Elevation, feet
PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 2 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 15 10
5 0
-5
22 22
S22A_045_047S
Box 1
Representative
S23A_048_048P
S24A_050_052S
Box 2
Representative
S25A_052_053P
No Recovery
Driller notes
gravels/cobbles
S27A_057_058P
S28A_060_062S
No Recovery
Rig chatter
Rig shaking; driller
notes
gravel/cobbles
No Recovery
No Recovery
Rig chatter and
shaking; driller
notes
gravel/cobbles

2.75 in. cobble
fragments in core
barrel slough
8 11
29 28
47 26
72 86
67 38
0 60
61 0
0 0
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); as above.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); medium dense;
dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); moist; 92% fine to coarse
sand; 8% fines; 0% gravel.

Well-Graded GRAVEL (GW); dense; cobbles present.

Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); medium dense;
dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); moist; 89% fine to coarse
sand; 11% fines; 0% gravel.

Gravel and Cobbles.
8 10
11 [21]
9 10
10 [20]
17 19
15 [34]
8 10
9 [19]
50/4"
[REF]
Elevation, feet
PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 3 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 -10
-15
-20
-25
-30
Borehole terminated at 70 feet. Backfilled with 5% bentonite grout.

Elevation, feet
PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 4 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 -35
-40
-45
-50
-55

2.5P

0.45T

1.75P

0.35T
17 28 13
Piezometer Cap
12" Morrison
Flush Mounted
Vault
Ready Mix
Concrete
6 7
Gravel Road Base; compacted.
[LEVEE FILL]
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); very stiff; olive brown (2.5Y
4/4); moist; 70% medium plasticity, very high dry
strength, slow dilatancy, medium toughness fines; 30%
fine to medium sand; 0% gravel.

As above except very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2);
45% sand; 55% fines.
[LEVEE FILL]
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); olive yellow
(2.5Y 6/8); dry; 94% fine to medium sand; 6% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.
[LEVEE FILL]
SILTY SAND with Gravel (SM); olive brown (2.5Y 4/3);
dry; 60% fine to medium sand; 20% fine to coarse,
subrounded to rounded gravel, max. 1.25 in.; 20% low
plasticity fines.
[LEVEE FILL]
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); olive brown
(2.5Y 4/3); dry; 93% fine to medium sand; 7% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.
[LEVEE FILL]
LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL); stiff; light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/4); moist; 85% very high dry strength, no
dilatancy, medium toughness fines; 15% fine sand; 0%
gravel.
1-foot thick Sandy Lean Clay (CL) lense; 40% fine sand; 60% medium plasticity fines.

HD
HD
S01A
Box1
S02A
S02B
Box2
S03A

DRILL RIG MAKE AND MODEL
ProSonic, Full-size Sonic

DRILLING CONTRACTOR
Boart Longyear/Prosonic

DRILL BIT SIZE AND TYPE (HOLE DIAMETER)
6-inch OD carbide

DATE COMPLETED
6/20/08
GROUNDWATER READING: DURING DRILLING
36 ft

AFTER DRILLING (DATE-TIME)

35.11 ft on 6/26/08 9:25AM

DATE STARTED
6/19/08

VERTICAL INCLINED

DRILLING ROD TYPE AND DIAMETER
6-inch OD sonic

ELEVATION DATUM
NAVD 88

GROUND ELEVATION

41.18 ft

TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

97.0 ft

HAMMER EFFICIENCY
N/A%

TOTAL DEPTH OF FILL
20 ft

HELPER'S NAME
D. King/S. McNulty

CONSULTANT COMPANY
GEI Consultants, Inc.

DRILLER'S NAME
C. Hill
X

BOREHOLE BACKFILL OR COMPLETION
See piezometer installation notes

DRILLING METHOD
0 - 97 ft: Sonic

CASING TYPE, DIAMETER, INSTALLATION DEPTH
None

FIELD LOG REVIEWER
J. Myers

HAMMER TYPE, MAKE/MODEL, WEIGHT/DROP
None

FIELD LOGGER
M. Horse

SAMPLER TYPE(S)
4-inch ID core barrel
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet 40 35
30 25
Depth, feet
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 1 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II FILL

0.1P

0.1P
5% Bentonite
Grout
2" ID Sch. 40
PVC Blank
Casing
10 77
53 CLAYEY SAND (SC); 60% fine to medium sand; 40%
medium plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6); dry; 90% fine to medium sand; 10%
low plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

LEAN CLAY (CL); 95% medium plasticity fines; 5%
sand; 0% gravel.

SILTY SAND (SM); very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2);
moist; 55% fine sand; 45% low plasticity fines; 0%
gravel.

LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL); dark yellowish brown
(10YR 3/6); moist; 77% medium plasticity fines; 23%
fine sand; 0% gravel.

As above except dark olive gray (5Y 3/2).

SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH); very soft; very dark gray
(2.5Y 3/1); moist; 53% medium plasticity, medium dry
strength, rapid dilatancy, low toughness fines; 47% fine sand; 0% gravel.

As above except wet.

ELASTIC SILT (MH); very soft; very dark gray (2.5Y
3/1); wet; 90% medium plasticity, medium dry strength,
rapid dilatancy, low toughness fines; 10% fine sand;
0% gravel.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); greenish black
(5G 2.5/1); wet; 90% fine to medium sand; 10% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

HD
S03B
Box3
S03C
S04A
S04B
Box4
S04C
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet 20 15
10 5
0 Depth, feet
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 2 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
Transition Seal
(3/8" Bentonite
Chips)
Filter Pack
(RMC Pacific
Monterey #3
[8x20])
2" ID Sch. 40
PVC Screen
(0.020" slot)
2" ID Sch. 40
PVC End Cap
6 3
6 Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); as above.

As above except dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); 94% fine to
medium, predominantly medium sand; 6% fines.

Poorly Graded GRAVEL (GP); greenish black (10GY

2.5/1); wet; 86% fine to coarse, subrounded to rounded
gravel, max. 3 in.; 11% fine to medium sand; 3% fines.

As above except increasing gravel; decreasing sand.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); greenish black
(5G 2.5/1); wet; 94% fine to medium, subrounded to
rounded sand; 6% fines; 0% gravel.

Box5
S05A
S05B
Box6
S05C
Box7
S05D
S06A
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Depth, feet
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 3 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
Bottom Seal
(3/8" Bentonite
Chips)
Driller notes
cobble lodged in
barrel
Backfill below
Seal
5 12
2 Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); as above.

Poorly Graded GRAVEL with Silt (GP-GM); dark
greenish gray (10GY 4/1); wet; 85% fine to coarse
gravel, max. 3 in.; 30% cobbles or boulders, max. 3.5
in; 10% fine to coarse sand; 5% medium plasticity
fines.

As above except 20% cobbles; 82% gravel, 7% sand;
12% fines.

Poorly Graded SAND (SP); very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1);
wet; 98% fine to medium sand; 2% low plasticity fines;
0% gravel.

Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); dark olive gray
(5Y 3/2); wet; 90% fine to coarse sand; 10% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

HD
HD
S06E
S06G
S06B
Box8
S06M
S06F
S06D
S06C
S07A
Box9
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet -30
-35
-40
-45
-50
Depth, feet
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 4 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
Borehole terminated at 97 feet.

LEAN CLAY (CL); yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); moist;
90% medium plasticity, medium toughness fines; 10%
fine to medium sand; 0% gravel.

NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet -55
-60
-65
-70
-75
Depth, feet
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 5 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II

|
Disregard prints bearing eorber surbens —| em DRAWING No. PR- \ L
NOTE: Classification of earth material as shown on this sheet is based upon field inspection and © not to } be construed to imply mechanical

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION

FIELD STUDY by 2. MHIg2r T- Gd
DRAWN By A. Errpions /O=B~Gad

CHECKED

SRIDGE DEPARTMENT

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL BASED ON STANDARD GRADE SIZE LIMITS =
.
5 ASR
Sy fev dL

DIAGRAMS SHOWING THE BAIS FOR XATIMATES
: OF GRAGE ATE BIETAIBVIION USES 1 DETER=
WINATION AF GLASS MAUKS, ! %, IP GRAVEL 13 PRESENT 14 APPRECIABLE coy, AMOUMTE THE TURM *GRAVELLY® MAY %, BE ADDKD TO THE CLASS NAME, VIZ,
0 "amAveiLy aAND) THE TERMS 40 CCOARSEY *MUDIUM® Asp “FINE? 0 WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE SAND,

ILT AND GRAVEL REFER TO CY STANDARD GMALE AZ
Lite,
F 0
Approval Aecommirded by,

a Ww

LEGEND OF EARTH MATERIALS
L =
7 Suty Guay on
=GRAVEL
% Craver Siuy
Prat Aon iE 3aMD BE Oraarc MATTER
2} Sir
Zl CLAY
iN anor CLAY OR CLAYEY SANDFE Sauoy SY or Id Sieve Sanp € prucyromeryes.@ 2%" Conn PanrrronerEn
B Sazprer Boring (bRY)
=£1] Rovany sorute (weY)
E23 Avoca BeRING (DRY)
owul Jer pone
& Cory poriNa
J Test mv
3 Fie Margriat
atEous Rock
i Stomaourary Rock
4 BH Meramormue Rock l
Miowvs pass fool (Vung tls fund harvmer mith 8 187 Pree Ot) Gravrdmler Jorlcen IM, Top Holo El. Casing driven = of Bice of campter Groin y Bliows pes rool (Uaing » HOT hamsner with #36" (L351 4 oie, or 23 hol
7 rg stort Uneriined corprasyiyog ET
Vana gee Shoor afrergth En
%
\
(a SCanformalio material char:

FEstimated meter! change
Unconformeiis maferial ching 77: on apewe YS weretiomy BoTItant od i Bescripn™n of material
0 Unit weight,
7 4 Atos, bm EXSY Conselidation Tas?

IA OWS,
(co
n
ore
i
Ri
Graphic representation of Cirising rate

LOG OF TEST BORINGS NO.

Ee
commen abutment of J
SHracd ridge
ar. F722
=
=
T-bom & cop IE
S
sAM Aon C-<8”
Sea,
im Concrafe e552 £ of SE
Sor2
ré&éoors
Sheet
Ela,
"
CesS082 SOT
Fgix
Sat Mon G-57
T-tar & cop S378 TRF
-
Fa
Z-1G ©
37 28
AASEAeEEARSS TT 5
3 4
1 AS BUILT PLANS
Contract No. 14-0797
Date Completed_3-68
Document No. 3ccccasz

Shoat &
|{

AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE
52s
5 392
@
2-/8
“CLINE ~
*s
HOOD PRDOLY Sons I
©
8-27
8-20
0 TC
<5
WoOLAAE

Sheet 2
Ny0
eC)
oNZY
>
o SHCRA| rtprp,
WwEY Lins
61d Ed 20 27
“C,” 12 +3842 POT
“2% g2/+38 52 £C
Sheet 3
8-77
)
2%
hnwi
27 28 29 20
ev-10
“CU LnE ~ exec soreeanr1265

oor. Cogary
03 sec
5 Vlsd/75\078
LIES KASAI Con (AIG—LaRaas $3
Rowtx Sacnos

wo.
waxy

AmrwTa
Yotas

£5. ROAD
iV. Ko.
7 CALIF,

STATE] 7. A PROJICT NO.

SHEET
269.

TOTAL
SALETS

DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Vertical Datum:

As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 1 OF 5

IXY TOTAL

TERROAR STATE] ». apaniey sn. wT} fercrs

nN esr. CXnINTY RITE BETTI i fr ar
:: O3lsnc| » Pd761/77
I
fi :
3 3 SL
or
t i 3 = LLL Gos Dasara VI
st : >
$
$ y
HI2 3 onsen25,1965
$3V | \ ® 3 ks) Q
ar 2%
8-3
@ if FP N
3 ¥ Ele“a -
VE 2 gi 8 3 9 Tor
FY.
wn N 2-4 Comme ~~
0 fF 2zo 3 9 N + 20 Gs2
A
220
P 27 Pe
o
20 27= 2372
2 223 23
—
-
-
hed N TN N 3 '87g2/r 3352 £C re id i v Q
HE /q 2 nN
ToT 197338 Sor a2 Sra
. 3 N oN S 30 8-26 g-25 eso /\ . AS > -
x £ BC oe" N _
uw 3
os
=
$
k
3 |
26= 8ze N [nN 25 8 Ne
1 $3 3 i 7 ks) , J y X
& $3 3 hi 12 | i] Sofr brown clayey SilF 3
$ b 2 yey 8-24 PN » Q
o Rd £8 T 4 | rrrerbedd2 with 274 5 2 20 9 Gili | eemmm 8Yass, : a; 2 £ Ba & 2 |
%
KE A rr@——<— Loose groy raterry 4 hy ©
S
° { 2 EE ds : Sse
a
5 2, ) 3 2
+ n Lo , 2
2 z ~ \ 3 Jo .

Slightly Frme modzradely compacy brown Esx
al2
0 g% ‘N 0
0 - ph i - i 7 2
Sa 3
¥ | RA Silty sand | 7 "2 : : 3 . i. 7 1) AN 2 3B River Waorer Elevation SL \ : . Lo yy , « PIE RT EIZzH Loose gray mcsccous 7, 5 ? 8-2 Aas = w PSO lire S :
0 § SH § g | Led vary S//ty Fine sond <, 22 /& _ Gg) &-/ along . ™ Pp 8-3 o o iy ® Py [STi wh organic material. 1% 2 CS = | C3 = 1 fs) 7 ebiify SEEN E
4 iHTH Stightly compact,
gray ! 2
2) 2
2} | very loose oroy medium - in Zeal] some . o : . $ WILANY :

Fine
.

Fo medium os
ed 3 .

Pe
CY Vary loose groy oorse od
="
* 5 8 k
“ -
° Ks i -10 Z7! BeZ| Silty sand. WA&
"3 7 Tl"| Loose groy rmadium Fo
Zz 17.9 -
"| sone :!
teira},
ri coove
Fo vary ery
loose= gray
gro : 3
13i { taa | -| Stighity compact; gray =% 55 i: hn| coarse sono - ol1| fryloose feoseory4madiuerr ; ——_—| |Tens sand 3 + 5 7 Le Eg] . ¥- medium Po cosrse I 7 . . '; wd 0 to sord | >; # 5.7) Stightly compact gray | Loos gray ccomse Sor. rs i=20 * 20 A # [alee Y medwers Fo coisa —_—ize} ] = 5. Loose groy madsen Fo - i z 2 = , 5
2, AN Fl Same ; 5 p / q Cozrgs sara.
“ 2] Stightly compact oray I5 re7] Dolesl!] Hbtoosa Fo slightly LC compro . ‘
: [TE
|
Come
Vary
fo
jeose
rations
groy clayey
comes Coral:

Zl
: o Yada Some 5 2 { Ee gray radium Fo cosrse } bi i gel LL -20 w I -30 TEE] spahtly zermpoct gray ' tleJZ al77 -
FET.<)~ Bamsar . -
: =a
te EY
Leesa gro
Y
clay
7 gravel. —
a
2&2A) Some
ComoIcl
# gravel
FO dene
|
Coors en
a
2 ETL& < £
9 L rayadres vary Hom Sard sifF lenses. wih 2)z 2
i i EL2
Bass
: z . 1 oh? i} }
eo LI hd gravel : I= = Danse grovel SEDanse light gray si/r 771 TEER e 2
»] 3 ~~ - ; so] Leos 2 7a] | | Compact gray medium fo 2a : oy Pemser gravel -£0 yaEd gg“8z &
2;8 Ek i) {
Seated| Varyo£ dense buFF sifF
$< B2 2
0 oy oo ; re CL —_ on \ nr & Sime SifFy zis TZ
Ij CaBrse Su fT TEEN) Sighly cormpralt Fon clayEy ya] ET Semis Lime ES $zey , 38 ¢ 7 [Feat] # Aime somo . x YE PE Some wiFH Sore Sond FOEAg § x 2 5 : BX — . ) madiurry Send z B - Lu FE Foirradt : :
= 5 > w eo ¥ | Dense Suid irom sro } — os ji i : i
oe=([me £3422 59 eirm BBUZ(| s/F Zaro hard clayey |
a
> 7%7-47-G “e 22 } LA| some CompactFo sty layersSand. of silt & i PE . | . =
———% Danse Ercwr medium Fo -55
¥ oy “50 “s
G asiLey!
Sy
Vary dense readin Fo oo(EEE ComrSa Some wif SommeT—
EL, «8 8 | Very sEEE bull clyey ~ 22 Compact Sify Sano’ wits | coarse S2md & paz ordsal & Sora SIE langsas " o 3 grovel | grovel | : ~ -~ - o] § r= ® ov = o TZIBX il N i 4 33 £ § & z z EER J fo ot Pa. 5d h Cormened Srowr mediums -z0 3 3 £5 2 : § 22 Compe: fo arse Growers Era] Compose? Grown silty a] soma : Zz Bi <z 2 A san gravel . S200 - ; - Solna OF : Y sl Bory or g 3 g z 2 GO i ~ = - - i] radu somo. - Een Sary SHAE Aor silty clay : Wil 53388 £ £2 5 = | Vary fons brown sify — :] ’% ¥ : ~ Dense Grown Si Sd iNEoEEA BEL CY => ; 5 on 5 2
“p X 5 So | 7-2/6 1 n he Bersse ork Grow Fo brows 3 Dense sono & groval wits oro SEFE2L sn = ohTai ri L 3 ul 2% Se -70 = Ee =z : ; SEY Fine sare - zl & Sanoly $717 farses ; Yale o Sy 93 { 7-17-G% | % NN zl 3 oe 5 x RE 4 : TRIN gl § £ 2 53:3: i (1) Vary dense broom siffy :
.

Ux
2152
i
NX
\
-
& id 2
a
o
~80
|
i
aFirs sono . » Dense f2n Fine fo medver sal. Damsa Eves mmsCTE oe eeBE :i =o {551dsand wilh cermamimd 3 somo oF Cd famsas i ‘ 2 > 3 o ;; 4]7 ] : !
8] lo E
oli) HHH#
alEl 8:58 LE¥euie oo i¢ x
ov Sansa gray SIF | Varmy densa
; Sighs
se
Sowers
; Hae eg SRY SY sry Fina sand witis -20_ ol&l8l E w| 28 3338s i 2lelEl = al 3: igRfgf: -20 :
.
posed= Amesomo. me Fy rime Sa ef _
podJ camanies’ si/F JansSES — Fo mam Semsa
- z Bl gg $3 8:83 < gl o3ské IF § 2% /o- 7-63 F , ssa Crown Sine ir Darse isranOcoYad layers Fy somo.

MES ERSTE iy oFsi/ty Fina sand, Ares’ o| 32223 ged? 5 nd Pres a gl y3.32833:%8¢ e 23 uo S5eit {
Zend
Frm clayey SOF gray -/00
Z si3fzeyy 3s -/00 —
= :

E > a = Sd —_ - E212 EEN Srna fo cocrse sama .
—_ -
5 Epsseg3igss : . i FO-D-23 z
0 =}5
$32gE833% ;yEigase I. (C-2-G3 : : EE gl 35333, i i ! & 9 a Is 25 ’ j ; ul a
£ ~1/0 ‘ R : po _— ~ so fz SK = EY PN 8 ARES 25 r/o G20 627 20 zdig<9 IsEls Fix oN]a5i - : } ETS TSTez2s 38 £C a "-Cs —
nf F3 ERAT Por E OROFILE Ta A 2
em _— an 0 S o +
VERY. 1 TzdD
wza 0 2
E
ag 1 AS BU| Ld PLANS : TTT mesiz. sms
2 z §2 - J —~ oz §@ Contract No. 24-0e179¢ AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE E EL I——0 Date Completed_z- ez o oo x 2
0 x ification of earth mate- . ate Lompiete J
@ 8GJ iol NOTE:osshown Comosionof on thisert shes hosed oct Document No. 3aceaasz- LOG OF TEST BORINGS NO.2 upon inspection be construed to imply mechanical Cn SCALE £5 Norms’ SmDet 24-43 3 foi prawns 25 55-3 analysis. ) : . p
~~. ~)

{

Disragord pends becriog earber nombirs ——>

|

PEL. DRAWING No. PR-. [asdX04] | |
DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 2 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:

BRIDGE DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL BASID ON STANDARD GRADE Sng LIMITS NOTE: Ci
cial as shown on this
of earth mateis based

#1€:.0 STUDY br R, MIger 7- GR
DNAWN by AK. Enon (O=/~C¥ CHECKED By fDi Jo LD De
Aprrens) Acconmended wi72ACT . Fajinm ing Ciretagns

eo oN " oe

LEGEND OF EARTH MATERIALS
L ¥ a BE N ©
‘Hury CLAY or
mo Gravel
7 CuAvey GiLy
(sao BE Beatonthatren
Fo El Sy £3 Fie Maramiau
. ota "COARNEY ‘MEDLEY Aup “Fird”
3 N\ZN/N 3 MH LED TO DUSCAIBE BAND Cray YN ACsTrakAY ,, HILT AKD 4SAYEL REAP, TO \N/N/N/\X STANDAND GRADE SEK
B Satine CLAY Of
KA, -, LIMITS, CLAYEY JAKD ad 38 » BLT OR
3 irdavis
= Meravorsse Rock
DiAgrAtA iowTHE SAIS FOR RATMATRS
OF ASABE LIIE DETAIRVTION USED IM DETER~ X= MIKALION OF CLARE HAYES, q soy IF GRAVEL 58 PRESENT 14 APFARCIABLE
g % % AMOUNTS TUE TNL *ARAVILLYY MAY $20 Ma AGDLD TO THU CLASS MAME, VIX, ©Panemoveree
@ 24"Conn Panatmorerer:
i © Sampuan goin (oR) rons par foal
f= Rotany oma (wey) (Quag anib hind Jarrpners pith 8
i of Avot Boring (ORY) 1? pres fant)
8 JET BORG
& (CORE BORING
t WG tamaveruy sand? THE Terma
8 lanuoua Roex

EDIMENTARY ROCK
[7 Tesy mir
bE] 9 Description of matersd
Unit whi! (Ac 1, (ot iar)
AT ANT Connotication Tast cams LeffLIEme : v | Conformalie material Chars Air Diwvmen 1157} oN Eatimated ruleal change ,
. Aree shir soc Unconformeba meferizl charga firo] PS
fur of Pen .

20 /0
o
-/0
-20
-30
~-<20
Ee
-¢o
-70
80 !
Ei
S20

§ Nu. HEEASEESRTERIR ERI RnTy Va PuyG0Bk
E20
8 5)
tinaleRDg,
1 Bf VE
ze
e-/-a< of
ZooAS \/
ANl
i
1 . oS
1 yr
Td RE EEEToatoioryPulmantag KoFibobolTaTa 0Foilop,210s“a y
©
A { | ®!

-
GS,
®°N

ac ’Lre,25r02
322
“ LE RPC 2D
8-12 ®
243 £/. GE S-11-c4
{
26 No oe i
Taras WaFinh
OphRnRBLL,ThlleofFayToeTH
1 CR

5 %
17£37
od
E
5 .

G-lO-GS
£
Very ov. rer
onse Gray SU
Vary A
o/syey SY
Vary
sl
z= egy,
age~
Lz
miescacus $i/F Fo
XK gray SilF
Vary Soff gray elayay
Yay
Sed $7
= =
MC
oderk gro
SIIF iFH
maffer |
Danse
Demme
OF arpa
FF a
HE
aL pr.

FF or
YY
L_ SofF dork groy Sloyay
& clay .
loose Fork
5 Silty somo |
oo
77 Sifts Soro’ wer
smal! gravel .

SwFF
Serna scorfarasd
Bree:
on
Serres
mreSCacus
Gra
PTI
oy Fime
i
i
i
F-&
G
~
. I}
HN
Loose brown € grayish
brown Sify Frrme
gravel & cobbles .
-s
27H/5
LL
ey
=~.
.
23 Sand- Sora rmr/ed
Vary loose Fo loose
Som rnYardes'cad
Garo Silty clay |
LY
Vary $EF7F &lue -
Fame $0
CoEGE
my Fror
|
i3
weEh rradiver seme
tom clayey sil.
aw
danse blagray
gray silty eioy Fo
radi Sond,
27 SI Sano interbedded
ery cofYbloat gray 2/By #ia1g
Cevmpact Groat Sad

Sy Sfty ely,
Sansa Ercwrr fre 2,
Sv.
ed
rie
{et
Fol
Aa wr
;
ARR
loyars
2 :

TE
{3 i7«

1g i)«
[72
, A freadCN
4 ment) § vod Lode AASTOI ho
i
PVTfr

TT rearie oo NYEwh,
’
wd
7INCek
%
52s. 4
TOLL,
j=
Ly ——

~
acy
=
)
~

7.& 2
L
A

2 3
—
Sh E GL
i [2

RaRrC,"26r23

ive 40 L1'C, 27430
TRE RTEREREALREERRNA REEMA ERAERASE SaInTiara DnnO
RC,C27 7e
27 28

CTT ol
i
28 Sr
22: %
£f. 152
Z-o-cd
msmtneTN
"
A: WBE JGLRAS Gohala Sl(baleShBad bySi) SRG PSAANGY]
rnin meri
—
= « NS | ©
he

&) 1
© “
8 HOLS CC," 28160
Aha a Bp on ARRrC,"28/62 ER
29 Na
0 , CLINE ™N
s0

A=Oraplin represents?en af orig ruts
Slog CG ucanes par 4

22 200

PROFILE
VERT. 17240"
PLAN
/7=50"
HORIZ "= 30°
SCALE 25 Nodeo! | ease eas £
AMERICAN RIVER 3RIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS NO.3
Mekal 1 111 | hoNv16 7
Z
zen
i742 &
oi<y’,
= =

EIENBE
=
& Hy
x Sa
2 Wi
0&
EET)
~-80

vi
2 3Gn
>
N
No Yee
IN NS
NW
N
SF
=
oN
\
~
Lm

>
2 2
br
Zh
Sense
SIE
~~
o
Vary Y-Tord
SAF
Vary oer
1i
WJ amy loose Gros
¥
ErTiarer
gray
Sa
£0.

S2
Us cloy .

App
sg
E-so- aX
.
ry Sense Erowm Sand,
os
Sema Fo
OFF Fo sof?
7 fm ram
=
rs oz
£¥
olbfes - Some clay Cinder
veal iL cocclas |
Gmsiw,
Sra
<7
oo
, Groval §
wr SifFy hoy
F brouers clayey SF.
$F
me L
Crow?
cizyay
z
OAT2 Te
eras’
prowrd fins
alorg C,7 Vins ™,
§
[<
°o
0 2
-50
o

20 | ax ‘Rr’c, 29-82

Contract No.

Bars
6!

AS BUILT PLANS
’
Date Completed_3-628
Document No.30cccof7

By Drviakiis ONG TR——LCran (133

DIV. Wo.

TER. ROAD

O03 |secl $5 FASro 1/77 1779

Ouapy. Coury
STATE]
wows
7 A PROJECT
Secoow
NG.

SNTEY
no
weaxt
ne,

Toren
TC TAL

SRLITS
DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 3 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:
~— FIELD STUDY By PR, Hagar Z-ed
§ . DRAWN By AC, Emc/oiv /O=-2~Gk
~~
a
2 CHECKED By eredO~ 0- Co [SN BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
ow ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION

Appronal Recommended b ANECt ring Grolaght

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL BASED ON STANDARD GRADE SIZE LIMITS LEGEND OF EARTH MATERIALS DiAcanss anovie 1: eg HE BASIS FUR EATIVATES El Graver
7 JuurySuayon
€ Penerromerer
» OF GRADE SITE CUTRIEWTION USED IN DETER~ MINATION OF CLASS AMES, @ 2/4" Conn PenerrovETER 5 on 3 IF GRAVEL 13 PRESENT IN ASPRECIASLE FE s 3] Sear on TER ; . . A AMOUNTS THE TRRM *GRAVELLY® MAY AND GANIC MA 1) Saupren tora (ory) Le Groundtmter sumtice % y §, BE ADDED TO THE CLASS NAME, VIZ, 0% "amavaLLY 8AN0! THE TERMS fl Sir £5 FiLL MATERIAL £1] Rovary Borsa (wen) *COARALY, “MEDIUM” AMD “IIE? fd A FE UOER LORNA (ORY, WIEN USED YO DESCRIBE SAND, [7] CLAY Bl leneous Rock mo : or ILY AND GRAVEL RUFER TO ig JET BouHG STANDARD GRADY LIZS BN 8AubdY CLAY oR [5 . LIMITS, CLavey Sano LER Scomentary Rock ® Cor BORG
anal
be construed to imply mechanical
ysis.
escripfren of meferiol
# recig)nt(feu rt) Ho _counbrIERE Fo ou Meisfore, hammer itt 0BERLdlaseaO Consclication Test Secends per fool,
s Baits MSKierran=Terrd TConfarmebla matorial clang Air Aunmer O15 ps) ia Estimated miter hoga 27D 3 Ey KN Arorage Skin w800 if a2 ~ - R\ct/ncanrermebl material chongo anBhdtorng Toa anca yar Cour 6; NE PENEIRATION Boring
5 Top Hote {=
Graphio repreentation Unconfined “ow Seep! criving rate bist75 52 “ng
XY SS 3 ; Sanoy Suton [8[I . == SILY vescruraats
8 3iLYY SAND idl Mevamorsitc Rock Ud esr oir
upon field inspection and is not to
NOTE: Classification of earth material as shown on this sheet is based 22 /0
o
-/O
-20
30 LO
-s50
GQ
-70
-80
-90
|
B AN
(=
\ .

JA
N Nf

AL LFCSI AOR REEBSTRSER SE CER

AESATE,CRE
aRiNoloOa
A
a

{uy
8vy

&-9-6¢
z/
§ ”

— fe .
~ Nn ne
™
5 Jeon EE = a2 RrC,g2r22 ty ©

AEY RTUE TRTTER
AHE
A
A
ATr c®
=

ty
5 tuIM
8-12 @®
>700.

202
1 e ner,
a2 LC,BF FRO ©
W

JODBX
)
»
a.

Erstt
N
-
,
A $y send.
\
~
’
,
(LL
1 »
t
x
&
oj .
»
[Ava] s
a
G-l5-asd
S

GS-12
vl & gravel lsysrs |
SAF.
2 Sone worth pebbles
Soft brown clayey
SIF.
cloyY
£
c/oy .

5. & grovel
MN WVery densa sornd
28) Vary demse é
Soft brown clay .

SOF, browr silty
® Slightly compact Grown
NY Fire silty sand |
37 ii

SoFF browr clayay
| Vary Soft browr silty
i
i
‘(Dense brown Are
I
i

Fo coarse silty send,
greve/ & cobbles .
2 | Very demse Slockish
ol miescasws radius
MN Compost brews sMHF
roar Tire
8-18 ® Nh
0fon RL RFCSrE ©

RG TN Nl

{mY 7 ~ T. ESSonGASSL S000 WOATR4 buigStag@ 401
perme rmed ®}
| 8
Fla

CHS,AINA

WEL
=
==
3 i
i
i
IE
a/c ®
os
Gy0
200
&
20&

SLLEC, BEAR

37 RhTRNe
I
ATr!
ransom va Wan ———
|
fo nN

\/

7-2-6
8-/6
@
Fe
DES
i
4 Bi J pists bears
3&
©
8-77
;YC," LINE
10 alorg C,”

PROFILE
VERY, 17107
Herz IT 30
&
Bran
172 50°
Approximate growno lim
firme
=,

=
ws £1. 2%

SCALE AS Morso

eorker combers |PREL. DRAWING No. PR-. to
~I~ [~~ 7CILrC
IST ASG topo (Non
t
B
afy D4
—

sey
5 14
o TETEEERG
i THEE, - PETERAE SRSARSEREYAYAAGLOHADYt fe Iatli po

AMERICAN
BRILGE 24 G8
Er
2% | rie

7 EN
3 AN

FLD. ROAD
BEV. No.
7 32

OEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE
CALIF.

{

RIVER BRIDGE
DRAWING 2”
LOG OF TEST BORINGSNO.4 |}
2 7

FA PROUECT No.

5G
Ter
bo.

A 1111]
—20
i|
3 2-G
3 i
i
;
NO.
oer TOTAL
—
2 CO GadOeLLCETl $153
Taian
SrgxTe

03 sacl 5 [*7%:4/781/72
- BLE Kairie
warrenDetobar1965
SHELTS

DIST.
3 COUNTY
SAC

ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 4 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:

FIELD SYUDY by A. fADORr P=-Gd
DRAWN By AK, Edom /O=3 ~Ged.

CHECKED |

SRE DEPARTME FNGINTERING GEOLOGY SECTION
ar
=.

CLASSIFICATION OF MavesiaL BASED
ON STANDARD GryDE sre Livers
DIAGRAM 4HOWIIG THE BAILS FU RSSIMATER
OF GRATE SIXT DLYUDLYION USED I DLTER~ MUATION OF CLASSE WAMES, © ~BrGRAVEL [3 SRESENT IN APPRECIASLE 2, AMOUNTS THE TaRM *GRAVILLY MAY ,, BY ADDED TO THE Clas HAME, VIZ, ¢ vamavaity sano? Tus voews 40 SCOARSET “MEOWM” Ap “FINE WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE SAND, BILY AND GRAVEL REFER. 10 STANUARD GRADE a1ZK LiMiTs,
anal
be construed to imply mechanical
ysis. wl
yy 9 KS SILY rarcrarascs
upon field inspection and is not to
NOTE: Classification of earth material as shown on this sheetis based

LEGEND.OF EARTH MATERIALS
2 Spd larer
Ais)
Stury Car oR ‘CLAvey Sur
SEAT AWDon
7 =Z| FiLL MAteriat
3 Gravee
@Saup
ER Sir22 Cray
=
faNEOUSs Rock
Sanpy Cuay or CLAYEY SAND
SAnpy SILT IR if SiLry Sano

ORGANIC MATTER
SEDIMENTARY Rock
ES Merauorenis Rack
rr
@ PENLTROMETER oo® 2%"CONE PENZTROMETED
A Samprr EORING (ory)
“Ei Rovany Boring (WEY) (Lung tb fund |
meBORING (ORY)
3 JET BORING
& CORE BORING

L.
| Tapeh By
Blows per Foot
hammer ritha 12% Prea 21)
3 | Test piv
1 ii Bazeription of matcriol
0) SY rune win(feoc)
=oh Atos
or 28 noted)
Average whi friction phove 1458 Yeint@ig10)
Sir Aarne©11pa)
5%ehef daring
ests
Peng TRATION Boring
Graphic repressntatnn
dlecenan ges foes
of driving rare

50 EO
- 70
go
“SO
2c
-30
=~/0No
20 <Q

ve <e

20%
(ZT7=
-Ei
(=2lr <4] =
brolre 2
—alra=LL
Eredi
f<éii= IR

\
~
Ly
2 N
Ro
n
a
3 Ny*]

“| mradiurr Som
LE] Dense coanse sVary ok
7/G et
Lense Gray radium Send .

J Very danse fo dense Srowrs
> .
2 Lanse gray rradiumr Sond .
ernse Codrs=
Dense gray madivrn sono .
ne ¥ grovel,
SY Danse Cosrse Sono’ & grovs/ .

Cory & grovel .

Sr
iE
Mord frig
“J Sor 1igh
| Dense Lg :
7 ‘
lad
7 i
EEsmell cobbles
7 brows clayey
Darrse cosrse Sord, grovel
A brown c/oyeay

8.1 Very dense cosrse sor ¢ graval.

FP Orowrm rmiadiurrr Sor.

Fes ?=Gt
J
2 23
SOIT
orgam/z mare brows cloyay
SWS) EM.-2E
i
rio &
roofs .
| Seofared pebbles .

S/F with
’ Vary Sokt dark brown sh Sty eloy with small
Vary soft Fo sof lipht
b
~N
[3oo———FSREAERET
A
pi |
% -

SNARAT Y
2 7]
7 2RENN
3 NnA
g

0 7]
7]
#51
750:
z
7 L/7

TRE fm ®7
23 i
\
GwS, £/. ~2
TeraSS
2 ~

Fo)
|
reE
verr. 17/0"
00 AROSEPRESAIRY 330 gdh NS BB Sat Bos fof
7=-20-6¢
=
®

HORrZ . VT 3C
mn7}

BAS,
|
~
®
n
UPo
#
@
ERSERELE Ebay BRC HSors ~ 0
i
1 SL
|
: |
| i
i N
i
¢
|\EDIFE
J
>
ioJARRRIRR35 HEH3%bly GPP
prance ae
~/7lo
I
nE-Sh
— @.IKPN10(I

a
| LE PEEEE TREATYNUShbaSCova MN
EE croYe,”
| ZL RA ‘e, ARRhyUn paPy,TrBT be/

38 +50

ROA JO

2 Rr."a2 03
SN oR:‘ere r82
ty#3LrRIAD)
183 LC,rd AGE
Zl
Gt
=

M
SCaLL AS AOFeo’

= ir-<h
Z3i7= is.

La
[F722 <
ER:

FR
}
|<i
Et
Ea
{ 77 Le

8 17. &

=F

ra
Me
’
/
A
~N
\
’

T
1 Disragond picts raring ecrber cumbers —]PRE. DRAWING No. PR-.

Sf Danse
Jd oroees
’ :

NN
2 mma S20
SHED
|
oo .

Baise 2-68 4 | Fue
Fo

STAIE OF CALIFGRMIA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE

~So
Soir. 7] Con
$e
&
TR
& grove/
DeiFE Qronrr COSIES SR
“20 &
Corneacs brown somo’ .
s
Danse bro
,
ors
er I]
clayey SOF.
yp Sanda .
vel
,
—
Hd Compact brew cosmse
Seomes :
wer Somg F gravel
Fema
o -20

orawns 2 468-6
LOG OF TEST RORINGS NO.5

|

Soil &or,=
Y
pF Sori breve
eloyeay S/F Fo $i/F
A Vary SEFgroy & dark Drow

ov
cvs, =i. ~3%
: - He GS
so.
2-12
iy)
SAF
Soff dark
SFFFg.
ofFy 2/ay
ITA Vary SofFroark Emo
v
. along
&
—
—y
A SEEF clori brown ©
& dark
Agoroxirma
rons ef, Lyay
<y
A
3 browr Slayay £
Fa growrnd line
“fire ~~
=
>.
20 10

borerears

Date C
D

AS BUILT
ompleted
Contract No. 24-0et119¢ PLANS
ocument No._3ceo. £
2-68
ntSR
8-18
UPD
8-27
PLAN
VacK-v-2
38 tg
mo
Sat
©Q
5 ars Ar, 2oVLS

2 [CEE

Cri LRSM ELI3565

DIV. Ko.

FED. ROAD

SYATE
CALIF.

F. A. PROJECT NO.

EXEKT
NO.

TOTAL
DALAT

DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 5 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS
ARS Online V3.1.0
Using the tool: Specify latitude and longitude in decimal degrees in the input boxes below. Alternatively, Google Maps can be used to find the site location. Specify the timeaveraged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30m (Vs30) in the input box. After submitting the data, the USGS 2014 hazard data for a 975-year return period will be reported along with adjustment factors required by Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) V2.0.

Latitude: 38.6043 Longitude: -121.4963 Vs30 (m/s):
213 Submit
Caltrans Design Spectrum (5% damping)
Period(s) Sa2014
(g) Basin2014 Near Fault Amp Design Sa2014(g)
PGA 0.26 1 1 0.26

0.10 0.46 1 1 0.46

0.20 0.67 1 1 0.67

0.30 0.74 1 1 0.74

0.50 0.71 1 1 0.71

0.75 0.57 1 1 0.57

1.0 0.45 1 1 0.45

2.0 0.25 1 1 0.25

3.0 0.16 1 1 0.16

4.0 0.12 1 1 0.12

5.0 0.09 1 1 0.09
Copy table
Deaggregation (based on 2014 hazard)
Mean moment magnitude (for PGA) 6.68
Mean site-source distance, km (for Sa at 1s) 89.1
Option: recalculate Near Fault amplification with user specified distance 6/11/24, 10:13 AM This is a an example title
https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/index.php/home 1/2
Site-source distance, km: 89.1 Update
6/11/24, 10:13 AM This is a an example title
https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/index.php/home 2/2
Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

20.0 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

21.0 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: -3.0 feet
-1.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

80.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
5 5 9.9 20 15 10.1 9.9 SM 6 115.0 569 569 263 0.990 0.36 4 5.00 1.20 10 0.12 47.3 1 1.00 1.00 0.43 LIQ 58 10 10 14.9 10.1 10 5.1 5 ML 7 120.0 1,439 1,439 667 0.979 0.36 6 5.00 1.20 12 0.14 52.0 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.51 LIQ 108 15 15 21 5.1 5 -1 6.1 SP 12 115.0 2,089 2,089 972 0.969 0.35 6 5.00 1.20 12 0.13 51.2 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.50 LIQ 125

21.1 21.1 23 -1 -1.1 -3 2 SP 15 120.0 2,560 2,498 1,190 0.954 0.35 8 5.00 1.20 14 0.15 55.2 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.58 LIQ 166 25 25 28 -3 -5 -8 5 SP 15 120.0 2,980 2,699 1,391 0.942 0.34 7 5.00 1.20 13 0.14 53.7 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.56 LIQ 168 30 30 33 -8 -10 -13 5 SP 21 120.0 3,580 2,987 1,679 0.921 0.33 9 5.00 1.20 16 0.17 59.0 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.69 LIQ 237 35 35 38 -13 -15 -18 5 SP 19 120.0 4,180 3,275 1,967 0.891 0.32 8 5.00 1.20 15 0.16 57.1 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.67 LIQ 236 40 40 43 -18 -20 -23 5 SP 27 125.0 4,793 3,576 2,268 0.851 0.30 11 5.00 1.20 19 0.20 63.6 0.68 0.98 1.00 0.86 LIQ 353 45 45 83 -23 -25 -63 40 GP 63 130.0 7,705 5,084 3,776 0.804 0.28 22 5.00 1.20 32 NL 85 85 89.9 -63 -65 -69.9 6.9 SM 81 130.0 10,754 6,669 5,362 25 90 90 94.9 -69.9 -70 -74.9 5 SP 50 130.0 11,527 7,072 5,764 36 95 95 99.9 -74.9 -75 -79.9 5 CL-ML 99 130.0 12,177 7,410 6,102 71 100 100 104.9 -79.9 -80 -84.9 5 ML 118 130.0 12,827 7,748 6,440 53 105 105 109.9 -84.9 -85 -89.9 5 SP 150 130.0 13,477 8,086 6,778 42 110 110 111.5 -89.9 -90 -91.5 1.6 SM 68 130.0 13,906 8,309 7,001 46 NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Liquefaction Settlement Analysis S2815-05-01
B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)

20.0 feet GW Depth (Design): -3.0 feet N160 = Blow counts corrected for sampler size, hammer efficiency, and overburden pressure (per AASHTO)

21.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio (Youd, 2001) -1.0 feet Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd

80.0 % MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor (Youd, 2001)
140 pounds Liquefaction Factor of Safety: 1.00 102.24 / M2.56 30 inches CSR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake (Lee, 2007) Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CSR7.5 / MSF εv = Volumetric strain due to soil liquefaction, for CSR7.5 / N160 > 0.01 MSF= 1.34 10 * (N160)
-0.6
References:

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Induced Downdrag module (January 2020) Lee, Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Saturated Sandy Soils (ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (August 2007) - based on Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
N160
(AASHTO) Liq. FS ≤ 1.02 CSR CSR7.5 CSR7.5 / N160
εv
(%)
Liquefaction
Settlement
(feet)
5 5 9.9 20 15 10.1 9.9 SM 6 5 LIQ 0.36 0.27 0.058 4.0 0.39 10 10 14.9 10.1 10 5.1 5 ML 7 7 LIQ 0.36 0.27 0.039 3.2 0.16 15 15 21 5.1 5 -1 6.1 SP 12 6 LIQ 0.35 0.26 0.040 3.3 0.20

21.1 21.1 23 -1 -1.1 -3 2 SP 15 8 LIQ 0.35 0.26 0.034 3.0 0.06 25 25 28 -3 -5 -8 5 SP 15 7 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.034 3.0 0.15 30 30 33 -8 -10 -13 5 SP 21 10 LIQ 0.33 0.25 0.025 2.5 0.13 35 35 38 -13 -15 -18 5 SP 19 9 LIQ 0.32 0.24 0.027 2.7 0.14 40 40 43 -18 -20 -23 5 SP 27 12 LIQ 0.30 0.23 0.019 2.3 0.11 45 45 83 -23 -25 -63 40 GP 63 24
85 85 89.9 -63 -65 -69.9 6.9 SM 81 27
90 90 94.9 -69.9 -70 -74.9 5 SP 50 39
95 95 99.9 -74.9 -75 -79.9 5 CL-ML 99 74
100 100 104.9 -79.9 -80 -84.9 5 ML 118 56
105 105 109.9 -84.9 -85 -89.9 5 SP 150 44
110 110 111.5 -89.9 -90 -91.5 1.6 SM 68 48
NOTES: 1 Detailed N160 calculation and liquefaction analysis are performed on separate spreadsheet tabs. A summary of pertinent results is presented here. 1.34 feet 2 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials). 16.0 inches Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:

Data1
Total:

Calculation
Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Boring: B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation:

Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

By: REL
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation:

Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

21.0 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

22.0 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: -2.0 feet
-1.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

80.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
5 5 9.9 21 16 11.1 9.9 ML 9 125.0 619 619 313 0.990 0.33 10 5.00 1.20 18 0.19 61.7 1 1.00 1.00 0.76 LIQ 121 10 10 13 11.1 11 8 3.1 SP 9 110.0 1,408 1,408 697 0.979 0.33 5 5.00 1.20 11 0.12 49.1 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.49 LIQ 97 15 15 18 8 6 3 5 SP 9 110.0 1,854 1,854 889 0.969 0.34 5 5.00 1.20 11 0.12 48.1 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.47 LIQ 105 20 20 22 3 1 -1 4 SP 10 110.0 2,349 2,349 1,104 0.957 0.34 5 5.00 1.20 11 0.12 49.4 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.48 LIQ 124 25 25 28 -1 -4 -7 6 SP 6 115.0 2,914 2,726 1,357 0.942 0.34 7 5.00 1.20 13 0.14 53.2 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.55 LIQ 162 30 30 33 -7 -9 -12 5 SP 2 95.0 3,496 2,966 1,596 0.921 0.34 2 5.00 1.20 8 0.09 40.6 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.36 LIQ 107 35 35 38 -12 -14 -17 5 SP 14 125.0 4,046 3,204 1,834 0.891 0.33 15 5.00 1.20 23 0.26 71.0 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.05 40 40 43 -17 -19 -22 5 SP 8 120.0 4,659 3,504 2,134 0.851 0.31 8 5.00 1.20 15 0.16 57.0 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.68 LIQ 245 45 45 47 -22 -24 -26 4 SP 9 120.0 5,199 3,763 2,394 0.804 0.29 9 5.00 1.20 16 0.17 58.6 0.71 0.96 1.00 0.74 LIQ 281 50 50 78 -26 -29 -57 31 GP 47 130.0 7,454 4,926 3,557 0.753 0.27 41 5.00 1.20 54 NL 85 85 86.5 -57 -64 -65.5 8.5 ML 82 130.0 10,021 6,261 4,892 41 NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Liquefaction Settlement Analysis S2815-05-01
B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)

21.0 feet GW Depth (Design): -2.0 feet N160 = Blow counts corrected for sampler size, hammer efficiency, and overburden pressure (per AASHTO)

22.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio (Youd, 2001) -1.0 feet Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd

80.0 % MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor (Youd, 2001)
140 pounds Liquefaction Factor of Safety: 1.00 102.24 / M2.56 30 inches CSR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake (Lee, 2007) Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CSR7.5 / MSF εv = Volumetric strain due to soil liquefaction, for CSR7.5 / N160 > 0.01 MSF= 1.34 10 * (N160)
-0.6
References:

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Induced Downdrag module (January 2020) Lee, Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Saturated Sandy Soils (ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (August 2007) - based on Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
N160
(AASHTO) Liq. FS ≤ 1.02 CSR CSR7.5 CSR7.5 / N160
εv
(%)
Liquefaction
Settlement
(feet)
5 5 9.9 21 16 11.1 9.9 ML 9 11 LIQ 0.33 0.25 0.023 2.4 0.24 10 10 13 11.1 11 8 3.1 SP 9 6 LIQ 0.33 0.25 0.045 3.6 0.11 15 15 18 8 6 3 5 SP 9 5 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.050 3.8 0.19
20 20 22 3 1 -1 4 SP 10 5 LIQ 0.34 0.26 0.049 3.7 0.15
25 25 28 -1 -4 -7 6 SP 6 7 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.035 3.1 0.18 30 30 33 -7 -9 -12 5 SP 2 2 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.109 6.0 0.30 35 35 38 -12 -14 -17 5 SP 14 16
40 40 43 -17 -19 -22 5 SP 8 9 LIQ 0.31 0.23 0.027 2.7 0.14 45 45 47 -22 -24 -26 4 SP 9 9 LIQ 0.29 0.22 0.023 2.6 0.10 50 50 78 -26 -29 -57 31 GP 47 44
85 85 86.5 -57 -64 -65.5 8.5 ML 82 44
NOTES: 1 Detailed N160 calculation and liquefaction analysis are performed on separate spreadsheet tabs. A summary of pertinent results is presented here. 1.41 feet 2 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials). 16.9 inches Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:

Data1
Total:

Calculation
Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Boring: B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation:

Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

By: REL
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation:

Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
D-1
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

15.0 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

20.0 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: -8.0 feet
-5.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

60.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
1 5 8 15 10 7 8 ML 25 116.0 93.0 464 464 268 0.990 0.29 27 5.00 1.20 38 NL 2 10 13 7 5 2 5 ML 30 117.0 96.0 41 29 YES 1,221 1,221 619 27 3 15 20 2 0 -5 7 ML 19 117.0 95.0 43 29 YES 1,923 1,923 947 14 4 22 25 -5 -7 -10 5 MH 16 120.0 86.0 58 40 YES 2,632 2,476 1,282 12 5 27 37 -10 -12 -22 12 MH 29 124.0 86.0 3,676 2,990 1,795 0.934 0.32 20 5.00 1.20 29 0.39 78.9 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.64 6 47 50 -22 -32 -35 13 GP 50 129.0 5,259 3,792 2,598 0.783 0.27 24 5.00 1.20 33 NL NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: D-1
Date: 6/11/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
WCSBAR_001B
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

36.7 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

34.9 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: 13.7 feet

1.8 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

83.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
4 4 8 36.7 32.7 28.7 8 SM 31 130.0 27.0 YES 520 520 520 57 6 10 13.7 28.7 26.7 23 5.7 SP-SM 9 120.0 6.0 YES 1,382 1,382 1,382 13 8 15 19.9 23 21.7 16.8 6.2 ML 12 125.0 62.0 2,112 2,112 1,918 0.969 0.18 15 5.00 1.20 23 0.25 70.4 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.89 12 20 23 16.8 16.7 13.7 3.1 SM 19 125.0 44.0 2,693 2,693 2,209 0.957 0.20 23 5.00 1.20 33 NL 14 25 26.5 13.7 11.7 10.2 3.5 SM 15 125.0 44.0 3,105 3,105 2,416 0.942 0.20 17 5.00 1.20 26 0.30 74.5 0.63 0.95 1.00 1.89 16 30 34.9 10.2 6.7 1.8 8.4 ML 11 120.0 58.0 3,828 3,828 2,767 0.921 0.22 11 5.00 1.20 19 0.20 63.5 0.68 0.92 1.00 1.14 18 35 39 1.8 1.7 -2.3 4.1 SM 22 125.0 19.0 4,588 4,460 3,137 0.891 0.22 22 3.43 1.07 27 0.34 76.7 0.62 0.86 1.00 1.78 20 40 43 -2.3 -3.3 -6.3 4 SW-SM 17 125.0 11.0 5,095 4,714 3,391 0.851 0.22 17 1.21 1.03 18 0.19 62.9 0.69 0.86 1.00 1.04 22 45 49.9 -6.3 -8.3 -13.2 6.9 SW-SM 21 125.0 11.0 5,776 5,055 3,732 0.804 0.21 20 1.21 1.03 21 0.23 68.3 0.66 0.82 1.00 1.24 24 50 54.9 -13.2 -13.3 -18.2 5 SP-SM 20 125.0 8.0 6,520 5,428 4,105 0.753 0.20 18 0.30 1.01 19 0.20 63.7 0.68 0.81 1.00 1.07 26 55 56.5 -18.2 -18.3 -19.8 1.6 GW 34 130.0 6,936 5,638 4,315 0.703 0.19 30 5.00 1.20 41 NL 28 60 63 -19.8 -23.3 -26.3 6.5 SW-SM 19 125.0 11.0 7,446 5,896 4,573 0.659 0.18 17 1.21 1.03 18 0.19 62.9 0.69 0.78 1.00 1.13 30 65 70 -26.3 -28.3 -33.3 7 GW 150 130.0 8,308 6,336 5,013 0.622 0.17 126 5.00 1.20 156 NL NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: WCSBAR_001B
Date: 6/10/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Normalized Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 1 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Intermediate Results
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 2 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Cyclic Liquefaction Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 3 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Strength Loss Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 4 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Overall vertical settlements report
Project title : Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Location : Sacramento, CA
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Axial Capacity (kips)
Truxel, Abut 1, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
Depth (ft)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Skin Friction
Tip Resistance
Total Capacity
========================================================================= APILE for Windows, Version 2015.7.3
Serial Number : 136156632
A Program for Analyzing the Axial Capacity
and Short-term Settlement of Driven Piles
under Axial Loading.
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2015
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= This program is licensed to :

Geocon Consultants, Inc.

Rancho Cordova, CA
Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\APILE\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Abut 1.ap7d
Name of output file : PRELIM Abut 1.ap7o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Abut 1.ap7p
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 07:58:52
1 *********************
* INPUT INFORMATION *
*********************
Truxel, Abut 1, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
DESIGNER : REL
JOB NUMBER : S2815-05-01
METHOD FOR UNIT LOAD TRANSFERS :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
Unfactored Unit Side Friction and Unit Side Resistance are used.

COMPUTATION METHOD(S) FOR PILE CAPACITY :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
TYPE OF LOADING :
- COMPRESSION
PILE TYPE :

Steel pipe pile or non-tapered portion of monotube pile - Open-Ended Pile
DATA FOR AXIAL STIFFNESS :
- MODULUS OF ELASTICITY = 0.290E+08 PSI
- CROSS SECTION AREA = 452.19 IN2
CIRCULAR PILE PROPERTIES :
- OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OD = 24.00 IN.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER, ID = 0.50 IN.
- TOTAL PILE LENGTH, TL = 58.00 FT.
- PILE STICKUP LENGTH, PSL = 0.00 FT.
- ZERO FRICTION LENGTH, ZFL = 3.00 FT.
- INCREMENT OF PILE LENGTH
USED IN COMPUTATION = 1.00 FT.
- LENGTH OF ENHANCED
END SECTION = 58.00 FT.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER OF
ENHANCED END SECTION = 0.50 IN.

PLUGGED/UNPLUGGED CONDITIONS :

Internal Pile Plug Calculated by Program
SOIL INFORMATIONS :

LATERAL EFFECTIVE FRICTION BEARING

SOIL EARTH UNIT ANGLE CAPACITY

DEPTH TYPE PRESSURE WEIGHT DEGREES FACTOR
FT. LB/CF

0.00 SAND 0.80 53.00 31.00 8.00

49.00 SAND 0.80 53.00 31.00 8.00

49.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00
114.50 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM UNDISTURB REMOLDED

UNIT UNIT SHEAR SHEAR BLOW UNIT SKIN UNIT END

FRICTION BEARING STRENGTH STRENGTH COUNT FRICTION BEARING

KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* MAXIMUM UNIT FRICTION AND/OR MAXIMUM UNIT BEARING
WERE SET TO BE 0.10E+08 BECAUSE THE USER DOES NOT
PLAN TO LIMIT THE COMPUTED DATA.

LRFD FACTOR LRFD FACTOR

ON UNIT ON UNIT

DEPTH FRICTION BEARING
FT.

0.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
114.50 1.000 1.000

PLASTIC YIELD Qc

INDEX STRESS FROM

DEPTH PI RATIO CPT
FT. % KSF

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
114.50 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
1 **********************
* COMPUTATION RESULT *
**********************
**********************
* API RP-2A (1994) *
**********************

PILE TOTAL SKIN END ULTIMATE

PENETRATION FRICTION BEARING CAPACITY
FT. KIP KIP KIP

0.00 0.0 0.0* 0.0

1.00 0.0 1.3* 1.3

2.00 0.0 2.7 2.7

3.00 0.2 3.9 4.1

4.00 0.6 5.3 6.0

5.00 1.2 6.7 7.9

6.00 1.9 8.0 9.9

7.00 2.8 9.3 12.1

8.00 3.8 10.7 14.4

9.00 4.9 12.0 16.9

10.00 6.1 13.3 19.4

11.00 7.5 14.7 22.1

12.00 9.0 16.0 24.9

13.00 10.6 17.3 27.9

14.00 12.3 18.6 31.0

15.00 14.2 20.0 34.2

16.00 16.2 21.3 37.6

17.00 18.4 22.6 41.0

18.00 20.7 24.0 44.6

19.00 23.1 25.3 48.4

20.00 25.6 26.6 52.2

21.00 28.3 28.0 56.2

22.00 31.1 29.3 60.4

23.00 34.0 30.6 64.6

24.00 37.0 32.0 69.0

25.00 40.2 33.3 73.5

26.00 43.5 34.6 78.2

27.00 47.0 36.0 82.9

28.00 50.5 37.3 87.8

29.00 54.2 38.6 92.9

30.00 58.1 40.0 98.0

31.00 62.0 41.3 103.3

32.00 66.1 42.6 108.8

33.00 70.4 44.0 114.3

34.00 74.7 45.3 120.0

35.00 79.2 46.6 125.8

36.00 83.8 48.0 131.8

37.00 88.6 49.3 137.8

38.00 93.4 50.6 144.0

39.00 98.4 51.9 150.4

40.00 103.6 53.3 156.8

41.00 108.8 54.6 163.4

42.00 114.2 55.9 170.2

43.00 119.7 57.3 177.0

44.00 125.4 58.6 184.0

45.00 131.2 59.9 191.1

46.00 137.1 61.3 198.4

47.00 143.1 65.6* 208.7

48.00 149.3 67.0* 216.3

49.00 155.6 68.5* 224.1

50.00 163.1 307.5 470.6

51.00 171.9 373.0 544.9

52.00 181.0 440.0 621.0

53.00 190.2 450.7 640.9

54.00 199.7 461.3 661.0

55.00 209.4 472.0 681.4

56.00 219.3 482.7 702.0

57.00 229.5 493.4 722.9

58.00 239.8 504.1 743.9
NOTES:
- AN ASTERISK IS PLACED IN THE END-BEARING COLUMN

IF THE TIP RESISTANCE IS CONTROLLED BY THE FRICTION
OF SOIL PLUG INSIDE AN OPEN-ENDED PIPE PILE.
*************************************************
* COMPUTE LOAD-DISTRIBUTION AND LOAD-SETTLEMENT *
* CURVES FOR AXIAL LOADING *
*************************************************
T-Z CURVE NO. OF DEPTH TO CURVE LOAD TRANSFER PILE MOVEMENT NO. POINTS FT. PSI IN.
1 10 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.1000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.2000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.4000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.6000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.8000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.9000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.1000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.5000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.2000E+01
2 10 0.2453E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3590E+00 0.1000E-01

0.7180E+00 0.2000E-01

0.1436E+01 0.4000E-01

0.2154E+01 0.6000E-01

0.2872E+01 0.8000E-01

0.3231E+01 0.9000E-01

0.3590E+01 0.1000E+00

0.3590E+01 0.5000E+00

0.3590E+01 0.2000E+01
3 10 0.4896E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.7645E+00 0.1000E-01

0.1529E+01 0.2000E-01

0.3058E+01 0.4000E-01

0.4587E+01 0.6000E-01

0.6116E+01 0.8000E-01

0.6881E+01 0.9000E-01

0.7645E+01 0.1000E+00

0.7645E+01 0.5000E+00

0.7645E+01 0.2000E+01
4 10 0.4900E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.9032E+00 0.1000E-01

0.1806E+01 0.2000E-01

0.3613E+01 0.4000E-01

0.5419E+01 0.6000E-01

0.7225E+01 0.8000E-01

0.8128E+01 0.9000E-01

0.9032E+01 0.1000E+00

0.9032E+01 0.5000E+00

0.9032E+01 0.2000E+01
5 10 0.6603E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
6 10 0.8296E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
7 10 0.8300E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
8 10 0.9553E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
9 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
10 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
11 10 0.1113E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
12 10 0.1145E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01

TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN.

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3150E+02 0.1200E-01

0.6301E+02 0.2400E-01

0.1260E+03 0.4800E-01

0.2520E+03 0.3120E+00

0.3781E+03 0.1008E+01

0.4537E+03 0.1752E+01

0.5041E+03 0.2400E+01

0.5041E+03 0.3600E+01

0.5041E+03 0.4800E+01

LOAD VERSUS SETTLEMENT CURVE
****************************

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN. KIP IN.

0.5200E+00 0.1231E-03 0.2625E+00 0.1000E-03

0.5200E+01 0.1231E-02 0.2625E+01 0.1000E-02

0.2600E+02 0.6156E-02 0.1313E+02 0.5000E-02

0.5200E+02 0.1231E-01 0.2625E+02 0.1000E-01

0.2556E+03 0.6132E-01 0.1270E+03 0.5000E-01

0.3937E+03 0.1168E+00 0.1508E+03 0.1000E+00

0.5290E+03 0.5240E+00 0.2861E+03 0.5000E+00

0.6195E+03 0.1029E+01 0.3766E+03 0.1000E+01

0.7158E+03 0.2034E+01 0.4730E+03 0.2000E+01
Axial Capacity (kips)
Truxel, Abut 21, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
Depth (ft)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Skin Friction
Tip Resistance
Total Capacity
========================================================================= APILE for Windows, Version 2015.7.3
Serial Number : 136156632
A Program for Analyzing the Axial Capacity
and Short-term Settlement of Driven Piles
under Axial Loading.
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2015
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= This program is licensed to :

Geocon Consultants, Inc.

Rancho Cordova, CA
Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\APILE\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Abut 21.ap7d
Name of output file : PRELIM Abut 21.ap7o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Abut 21.ap7p
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 07:52:28
1 *********************
* INPUT INFORMATION *
*********************
Truxel, Abut 21, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
DESIGNER : REL
JOB NUMBER : S2815-05-01
METHOD FOR UNIT LOAD TRANSFERS :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
Unfactored Unit Side Friction and Unit Side Resistance are used.

COMPUTATION METHOD(S) FOR PILE CAPACITY :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
TYPE OF LOADING :
- COMPRESSION
PILE TYPE :

Steel pipe pile or non-tapered portion of monotube pile - Open-Ended Pile
DATA FOR AXIAL STIFFNESS :
- MODULUS OF ELASTICITY = 0.290E+08 PSI
- CROSS SECTION AREA = 452.19 IN2
CIRCULAR PILE PROPERTIES :
- OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OD = 24.00 IN.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER, ID = 0.50 IN.
- TOTAL PILE LENGTH, TL = 58.00 FT.
- PILE STICKUP LENGTH, PSL = 0.00 FT.
- ZERO FRICTION LENGTH, ZFL = 3.00 FT.
- INCREMENT OF PILE LENGTH
USED IN COMPUTATION = 1.00 FT.
- LENGTH OF ENHANCED
END SECTION = 58.00 FT.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER OF
ENHANCED END SECTION = 0.50 IN.

PLUGGED/UNPLUGGED CONDITIONS :

Internal Pile Plug Calculated by Program
SOIL INFORMATIONS :

LATERAL EFFECTIVE FRICTION BEARING

SOIL EARTH UNIT ANGLE CAPACITY

DEPTH TYPE PRESSURE WEIGHT DEGREES FACTOR
FT. LB/CF

0.00 CLAY 0.00 53.00 0.00 0.00

49.00 CLAY 0.00 53.00 0.00 0.00

49.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00
114.50 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM UNDISTURB REMOLDED

UNIT UNIT SHEAR SHEAR BLOW UNIT SKIN UNIT END

FRICTION BEARING STRENGTH STRENGTH COUNT FRICTION BEARING

KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* MAXIMUM UNIT FRICTION AND/OR MAXIMUM UNIT BEARING
WERE SET TO BE 0.10E+08 BECAUSE THE USER DOES NOT
PLAN TO LIMIT THE COMPUTED DATA.

LRFD FACTOR LRFD FACTOR

ON UNIT ON UNIT

DEPTH FRICTION BEARING
FT.

0.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
114.50 1.000 1.000

PLASTIC YIELD Qc

INDEX STRESS FROM

DEPTH PI RATIO CPT
FT. % KSF

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
114.50 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
1 **********************
* COMPUTATION RESULT *
**********************
**********************
* API RP-2A (1994) *
**********************

PILE TOTAL SKIN END ULTIMATE

PENETRATION FRICTION BEARING CAPACITY
FT. KIP KIP KIP

0.00 0.0 14.1 14.1

1.00 0.0 14.1 14.1

2.00 0.0 18.8 18.8

3.00 1.0 23.6 24.6

4.00 3.0 28.3 31.3

5.00 5.2 28.3 33.5

6.00 7.5 28.3 35.8

7.00 10.0 28.3 38.2

8.00 12.4 28.3 40.7

9.00 15.0 28.3 43.3

10.00 17.7 28.3 45.9

11.00 20.4 28.3 48.7

12.00 23.2 28.3 51.4

13.00 26.0 28.3 54.3

14.00 28.9 28.3 57.2

15.00 31.8 28.3 60.1

16.00 34.8 28.3 63.1

17.00 37.8 28.3 66.1

18.00 40.9 28.3 69.2

19.00 44.1 28.3 72.3

20.00 47.3 28.3 75.5

21.00 50.5 28.3 78.8

22.00 53.9 28.3 82.2

23.00 57.3 28.3 85.6

24.00 60.8 28.3 89.1

25.00 64.4 28.3 92.7

26.00 68.0 28.3 96.3

27.00 71.8 28.3 100.0

28.00 75.6 28.3 103.8

29.00 79.4 28.3 107.7

30.00 83.4 28.3 111.6

31.00 87.3 28.3 115.6

32.00 91.4 28.3 119.7

33.00 95.5 28.3 123.8

34.00 99.7 28.3 128.0

35.00 104.0 28.3 132.2

36.00 108.3 28.3 136.5

37.00 112.6 28.3 140.9

38.00 117.1 28.3 145.3

39.00 121.6 28.3 149.8

40.00 126.1 28.3 154.4

41.00 130.7 28.3 159.0

42.00 135.4 28.3 163.6

43.00 140.1 28.3 168.4

44.00 144.9 28.3 173.1

45.00 149.7 28.3 177.9

46.00 154.6 28.3 182.8

47.00 159.5 30.0* 189.5

48.00 164.5 30.0* 194.5

49.00 169.5 30.1* 199.6

50.00 176.4 295.6 472.0

51.00 185.2 366.9 552.1

52.00 194.2 440.0 634.2

53.00 203.5 450.7 654.1

54.00 213.0 461.3 674.3

55.00 222.7 472.0 694.7

56.00 232.6 482.7 715.3

57.00 242.7 493.4 736.1

58.00 253.1 504.1 757.2
NOTES:
- AN ASTERISK IS PLACED IN THE END-BEARING COLUMN

IF THE TIP RESISTANCE IS CONTROLLED BY THE FRICTION
OF SOIL PLUG INSIDE AN OPEN-ENDED PIPE PILE.
*************************************************
* COMPUTE LOAD-DISTRIBUTION AND LOAD-SETTLEMENT *
* CURVES FOR AXIAL LOADING *
*************************************************
T-Z CURVE NO. OF DEPTH TO CURVE LOAD TRANSFER PILE MOVEMENT NO. POINTS FT. PSI IN.
1 10 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.3840E-01

0.0000E+00 0.7440E-01

0.0000E+00 0.1368E+00

0.0000E+00 0.1920E+00

0.0000E+00 0.2400E+00

0.0000E+00 0.4800E+00

0.0000E+00 0.7200E+00

0.0000E+00 0.1200E+01

0.0000E+00 0.4800E+01
2 10 0.2453E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1199E+01 0.3840E-01

0.1998E+01 0.7440E-01

0.2997E+01 0.1368E+00

0.3597E+01 0.1920E+00

0.3996E+01 0.2400E+00

0.3597E+01 0.4800E+00

0.3597E+01 0.7200E+00

0.3597E+01 0.1200E+01

0.3597E+01 0.4800E+01
3 10 0.4896E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1976E+01 0.3840E-01

0.3293E+01 0.7440E-01

0.4940E+01 0.1368E+00

0.5927E+01 0.1920E+00

0.6586E+01 0.2400E+00

0.5927E+01 0.4800E+00

0.5927E+01 0.7200E+00

0.5927E+01 0.1200E+01

0.5927E+01 0.4800E+01
4 10 0.4900E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.8671E+00 0.1000E-01

0.1734E+01 0.2000E-01

0.3469E+01 0.4000E-01

0.5203E+01 0.6000E-01

0.6937E+01 0.8000E-01

0.7804E+01 0.9000E-01

0.8671E+01 0.1000E+00

0.8671E+01 0.5000E+00

0.8671E+01 0.2000E+01
5 10 0.6603E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
6 10 0.8296E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
7 10 0.8300E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
8 10 0.9553E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
9 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
10 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
11 10 0.1113E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
12 10 0.1145E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01

TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN.

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3150E+02 0.1200E-01

0.6301E+02 0.2400E-01

0.1260E+03 0.4800E-01

0.2520E+03 0.3120E+00

0.3781E+03 0.1008E+01

0.4537E+03 0.1752E+01

0.5041E+03 0.2400E+01

0.5041E+03 0.3600E+01

0.5041E+03 0.4800E+01

LOAD VERSUS SETTLEMENT CURVE
****************************

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN. KIP IN.

0.4763E+00 0.1216E-03 0.2625E+00 0.1000E-03

0.4763E+01 0.1216E-02 0.2625E+01 0.1000E-02

0.2381E+02 0.6082E-02 0.1313E+02 0.5000E-02

0.4763E+02 0.1216E-01 0.2625E+02 0.1000E-01

0.2279E+03 0.6043E-01 0.1270E+03 0.5000E-01

0.3279E+03 0.1147E+00 0.1508E+03 0.1000E+00

0.5077E+03 0.5232E+00 0.2861E+03 0.5000E+00

0.5982E+03 0.1028E+01 0.3766E+03 0.1000E+01

0.6946E+03 0.2033E+01 0.4730E+03 0.2000E+01
Ultimate Skin Friction (tons)
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10
Depth (ft)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Dia=8 ft
========================================================================= SHAFT for Windows, Version 2017.8.10
Serial Number : 500126445

VERTICALLY LOADED DRILLED SHAFT ANALYSIS
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2017
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\SHAFT\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Pier.sf8d
Name of output file : PRELIM Pier.sf8o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Pier.sf8p
Name of runtime file : PRELIM Pier.sf8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 09:07:22
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10
PROPOSED DEPTH = 145.0 FT
----------------
NUMBER OF LAYERS = 4
------------------
WATER TABLE DEPTH = 0.0 FT.
-------------------
FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------- FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------

SOIL INFORMATION
---------------
LAYER NO 1----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.120E+01 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.310E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.000E+00

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.636E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.310E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02
LAYER NO 2----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.636E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.331E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02
LAYER NO 3----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03
LAYER NO 4----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.165E+03
(*) ESTIMATED BY THE PROGRAM BASED ON OTHER PARAMETERS

INPUT DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
------------------------------
MINIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

MAXIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

RATIO BASE/SHAFT DIAMETER = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 5.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN

COMPUTATION RESULTS
-------------------
- CASE ANALYZED : 1
VARIATION LENGTH : 1
VARIATION DIAMETER : 1

DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
-------------------------
DIAMETER OF STEM = 8.000 FT.

DIAMETER OF BASE = 8.000 FT.

END OF STEM TO BASE = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 5.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

AREA OF ONE PERCENT STEEL = 72.392 SQ.IN.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN
VOLUME OF UNDERREAM = 0.000 CU.YDS.

SHAFT LENGTH = 145.000 FT.

PREDICTED RESULTS
-----------------
QS = ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE;
QB = ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
WT = WEIGHT OF DRILLED SHAFT (FOR UPLIFT CAPACITY ONLY); QU = TOTAL ULTIMATE RESISTANCE;
QBD = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING A FACTOR OF SAFETY
APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
QDN = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING FACTORS OF SAFETY

APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE AND
THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE.

LENGTH VOLUME QS QB QU QBD QDN QU/VOLUME
(FT) (CU.YDS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS/CU.YDS)

14.0 26.07 4.25 21.06 25.31 25.31 25.31 0.97

15.0 27.93 9.16 21.93 31.10 31.10 31.10 1.11

16.0 29.79 14.71 22.81 37.51 37.51 37.51 1.26

17.0 31.65 20.86 23.68 44.54 44.54 44.54 1.41

18.0 33.51 27.60 24.55 52.15 52.15 52.15 1.56

19.0 35.38 34.90 25.43 60.33 60.33 60.33 1.71

20.0 37.24 42.75 26.30 69.05 69.05 69.05 1.85

21.0 39.10 51.12 27.17 78.30 78.30 78.30 2.00

22.0 40.96 60.00 28.05 88.05 88.05 88.05 2.15

23.0 42.82 69.37 28.92 98.29 98.29 98.29 2.30

24.0 44.69 79.21 29.79 109.00 109.00 109.00 2.44

25.0 46.55 89.50 30.66 120.16 120.16 120.16 2.58

26.0 48.41 100.22 49.38 149.60 149.60 149.60 3.09

27.0 50.27 111.37 69.56 180.94 180.94 180.94 3.60

28.0 52.13 122.93 91.25 214.18 214.18 214.18 4.11

29.0 54.00 134.87 114.46 249.33 249.33 249.33 4.62

30.0 55.86 147.19 139.22 286.41 286.41 286.41 5.13

31.0 57.72 159.87 165.56 325.43 325.43 325.43 5.64

32.0 59.58 172.90 193.49 366.39 366.39 366.39 6.15

33.0 61.44 186.26 223.05 409.31 409.31 409.31 6.66

34.0 63.31 199.94 250.05 450.00 450.00 450.00 7.11

35.0 65.17 213.93 274.44 488.37 488.37 488.37 7.49

36.0 67.03 228.21 296.13 524.34 524.34 524.34 7.82

37.0 68.89 242.78 315.04 557.82 557.82 557.82 8.10

38.0 70.75 257.61 331.10 588.71 588.71 588.71 8.32

39.0 72.62 272.70 344.24 616.94 616.94 616.94 8.50

40.0 74.48 288.03 354.39 642.42 642.42 642.42 8.63

41.0 76.34 303.60 361.46 665.06 665.06 665.06 8.71

42.0 78.20 319.38 368.53 687.91 687.91 687.91 8.80

43.0 80.06 335.38 375.60 710.98 710.98 710.98 8.88

44.0 81.92 351.57 382.67 734.24 734.24 734.24 8.96

45.0 83.79 367.95 389.73 757.69 757.69 757.69 9.04

46.0 85.65 384.51 396.80 781.31 781.31 781.31 9.12

47.0 87.51 401.23 403.87 805.10 805.10 805.10 9.20

48.0 89.37 418.10 410.94 829.04 829.04 829.04 9.28

49.0 91.23 435.12 418.01 853.13 853.13 853.13 9.35

50.0 93.10 452.21 425.08 877.29 877.29 877.29 9.42

51.0 94.96 469.54 432.15 901.69 901.69 901.69 9.50

52.0 96.82 487.09 439.22 926.31 926.31 926.31 9.57

53.0 98.68 504.86 446.29 951.15 951.15 951.15 9.64

54.0 100.54 522.82 453.36 976.18 976.18 976.18 9.71

55.0 102.41 540.97 460.43 1001.40 1001.40 1001.40 9.78

56.0 104.27 559.29 467.50 1026.79 1026.79 1026.79 9.85

57.0 106.13 577.76 474.57 1052.33 1052.33 1052.33 9.92

58.0 107.99 596.38 481.64 1078.02 1078.02 1078.02 9.98

59.0 109.85 615.13 488.71 1103.84 1103.84 1103.84 10.05

60.0 111.72 634.00 507.95 1141.95 1141.95 1141.95 10.22

61.0 113.58 652.97 527.43 1180.40 1180.40 1180.40 10.39

62.0 115.44 672.04 547.11 1219.14 1219.14 1219.14 10.56

63.0 117.30 691.18 566.96 1258.14 1258.14 1258.14 10.73

64.0 119.16 710.40 586.96 1297.36 1297.36 1297.36 10.89

65.0 121.03 729.67 607.08 1336.75 1336.75 1336.75 11.05

66.0 122.89 748.99 627.28 1376.27 1376.27 1376.27 11.20

67.0 124.75 768.33 647.55 1415.88 1415.88 1415.88 11.35

68.0 126.61 787.70 664.98 1452.68 1452.68 1452.68 11.47

69.0 128.47 807.08 679.67 1486.75 1486.75 1486.75 11.57

70.0 130.33 826.45 691.69 1518.15 1518.15 1518.15 11.65

71.0 132.20 845.81 701.14 1546.96 1546.96 1546.96 11.70

72.0 134.06 865.15 708.10 1573.25 1573.25 1573.25 11.74

73.0 135.92 884.44 712.66 1597.10 1597.10 1597.10 11.75

74.0 137.78 903.69 714.89 1618.58 1618.58 1618.58 11.75

75.0 139.64 922.88 714.89 1637.77 1637.77 1637.77 11.73

76.0 141.51 941.99 714.89 1656.88 1656.88 1656.88 11.71

77.0 143.37 961.03 714.89 1675.92 1675.92 1675.92 11.69

78.0 145.23 979.97 714.89 1694.86 1694.86 1694.86 11.67

79.0 147.09 998.82 714.89 1713.70 1713.70 1713.70 11.65

80.0 148.95 1017.54 714.89 1732.43 1732.43 1732.43 11.63

81.0 150.82 1036.15 714.89 1751.03 1751.03 1751.03 11.61

82.0 152.68 1054.61 714.89 1769.50 1769.50 1769.50 11.59

83.0 154.54 1072.94 714.89 1787.82 1787.82 1787.82 11.57

84.0 156.40 1102.08 714.89 1816.97 1816.97 1816.97 11.62

85.0 158.26 1131.22 704.65 1835.88 1835.88 1835.88 11.60

86.0 160.13 1160.37 693.81 1854.18 1854.18 1854.18 11.58

87.0 161.99 1189.51 682.37 1871.89 1871.89 1871.89 11.56

88.0 163.85 1218.66 670.33 1888.99 1888.99 1888.99 11.53

89.0 165.71 1247.80 657.69 1905.49 1905.49 1905.49 11.50

90.0 167.57 1276.95 644.44 1921.39 1921.39 1921.39 11.47

91.0 169.44 1306.09 630.59 1936.68 1936.68 1936.68 11.43

92.0 171.30 1335.24 616.14 1951.38 1951.38 1951.38 11.39

93.0 173.16 1364.38 603.49 1967.88 1967.88 1967.88 11.36

94.0 175.02 1393.53 592.66 1986.19 1986.19 1986.19 11.35

95.0 176.88 1422.67 583.62 2006.30 2006.30 2006.30 11.34

96.0 178.74 1451.82 576.40 2028.22 2028.22 2028.22 11.35

97.0 180.61 1480.96 570.98 2051.94 2051.94 2051.94 11.36

98.0 182.47 1510.11 567.37 2077.48 2077.48 2077.48 11.39

99.0 184.33 1539.25 565.56 2104.81 2104.81 2104.81 11.42 100.0 186.19 1568.40 565.56 2133.96 2133.96 2133.96 11.46 101.0 188.05 1597.54 565.56 2163.10 2163.10 2163.10 11.50 102.0 189.92 1626.69 565.56 2192.25 2192.25 2192.25 11.54 103.0 191.78 1655.83 565.56 2221.39 2221.39 2221.39 11.58 104.0 193.64 1684.98 565.56 2250.54 2250.54 2250.54 11.62 105.0 195.50 1714.12 565.56 2279.68 2279.68 2279.68 11.66 106.0 197.36 1743.27 565.56 2308.83 2308.83 2308.83 11.70 107.0 199.23 1772.41 565.56 2337.97 2337.97 2337.97 11.74 108.0 201.09 1801.56 565.56 2367.12 2367.12 2367.12 11.77 109.0 202.95 1820.92 565.56 2386.48 2386.48 2386.48 11.76 110.0 204.81 1840.50 565.56 2406.06 2406.06 2406.06 11.75 111.0 206.67 1860.29 565.56 2425.85 2425.85 2425.85 11.74 112.0 208.54 1880.30 565.56 2445.86 2445.86 2445.86 11.73 113.0 210.40 1900.52 565.56 2466.08 2466.08 2466.08 11.72 114.0 212.26 1920.94 565.56 2486.50 2486.50 2486.50 11.71 115.0 214.12 1941.58 565.56 2507.15 2507.15 2507.15 11.71 116.0 215.98 1962.44 565.56 2528.00 2528.00 2528.00 11.70 117.0 217.85 1983.50 565.56 2549.06 2549.06 2549.06 11.70 118.0 219.71 2004.78 565.56 2570.34 2570.34 2570.34 11.70 119.0 221.57 2026.27 565.56 2591.83 2591.83 2591.83 11.70 120.0 223.43 2047.98 565.56 2613.54 2613.54 2613.54 11.70 121.0 225.29 2069.89 565.56 2635.45 2635.45 2635.45 11.70 122.0 227.15 2092.02 565.56 2657.58 2657.58 2657.58 11.70 123.0 229.02 2114.36 565.56 2679.92 2679.92 2679.92 11.70 124.0 230.88 2136.91 565.56 2702.47 2702.47 2702.47 11.71 125.0 232.74 2159.68 565.56 2725.24 2725.24 2725.24 11.71 126.0 234.60 2182.66 565.56 2748.22 2748.22 2748.22 11.71 127.0 236.46 2205.85 565.56 2771.41 2771.41 2771.41 11.72 128.0 238.33 2229.25 565.56 2794.81 2794.81 2794.81 11.73 129.0 240.19 2252.86 565.56 2818.42 2818.42 2818.42 11.73 130.0 242.05 2276.69 565.56 2842.25 2842.25 2842.25 11.74 131.0 243.91 2300.73 565.56 2866.29 2866.29 2866.29 11.75 132.0 245.77 2324.98 565.56 2890.54 2890.54 2890.54 11.76 133.0 247.64 2349.45 565.56 2915.01 2915.01 2915.01 11.77 134.0 249.50 2374.12 565.56 2939.68 2939.68 2939.68 11.78 135.0 251.36 2399.01 565.56 2964.57 2964.57 2964.57 11.79 136.0 253.22 2424.11 565.56 2989.67 2989.67 2989.67 11.81 137.0 255.08 2449.43 565.56 3014.99 3014.99 3014.99 11.82 138.0 256.95 2474.95 565.56 3040.51 3040.51 3040.51 11.83 139.0 258.81 2500.69 565.56 3066.25 3066.25 3066.25 11.85 140.0 260.67 2526.64 565.56 3092.20 3092.20 3092.20 11.86 141.0 262.53 2552.81 565.56 3118.37 3118.37 3118.37 11.88 142.0 264.39 2579.18 565.56 3144.74 3144.74 3144.74 11.89 143.0 266.26 2605.77 565.56 3171.33 3171.33 3171.33 11.91 144.0 268.12 2632.57 565.56 3198.13 3198.13 3198.13 11.93 145.0 269.98 2659.58 565.56 3225.14 3225.14 3225.14 11.95

AXIAL LOAD VS SETTLEMENT CURVES
-------------------------------

RESULT FROM TREND (AVERAGED) LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1320E+00 0.2212E-04 0.2062E-02 0.1000E-04

0.6600E+00 0.1106E-03 0.1031E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1320E+01 0.2212E-03 0.2062E-01 0.1000E-03

0.6618E+02 0.1107E-01 0.1031E+01 0.5000E-02

0.9930E+02 0.1661E-01 0.1546E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1324E+03 0.2215E-01 0.2062E+01 0.1000E-01

0.3310E+03 0.5538E-01 0.5155E+01 0.2500E-01

0.6618E+03 0.1107E+00 0.1031E+02 0.5000E-01

0.9738E+03 0.1654E+00 0.1546E+02 0.7500E-01

0.1212E+04 0.2135E+00 0.2062E+02 0.1000E+00

0.2066E+04 0.4508E+00 0.5155E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2514E+04 0.7500E+00 0.1030E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2734E+04 0.1239E+01 0.1951E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2833E+04 0.2699E+01 0.3620E+03 0.2400E+01

0.3039E+04 0.5133E+01 0.5740E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM UPPER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1960E+00 0.2759E-04 0.2946E-02 0.1000E-04

0.9802E+00 0.1380E-03 0.1473E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1960E+01 0.2759E-03 0.2946E-01 0.1000E-03

0.9843E+02 0.1382E-01 0.1473E+01 0.5000E-02

0.1477E+03 0.2074E-01 0.2209E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1969E+03 0.2765E-01 0.2946E+01 0.1000E-01

0.4923E+03 0.6914E-01 0.7364E+01 0.2500E-01

0.9787E+03 0.1381E+00 0.1473E+02 0.5000E-01

0.1417E+04 0.2047E+00 0.2209E+02 0.7500E-01

0.1705E+04 0.2581E+00 0.2946E+02 0.1000E+00

0.2500E+04 0.4952E+00 0.7364E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2803E+04 0.7825E+00 0.1468E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2936E+04 0.1264E+01 0.2715E+03 0.9600E+00

0.3039E+04 0.2724E+01 0.4298E+03 0.2400E+01

0.3220E+04 0.5153E+01 0.6108E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM LOWER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.7676E-01 0.1721E-04 0.1178E-02 0.1000E-04

0.3838E+00 0.8607E-04 0.5891E-02 0.5000E-04

0.7676E+00 0.1721E-03 0.1178E-01 0.1000E-03

0.3844E+02 0.8611E-02 0.5891E+00 0.5000E-02

0.5767E+02 0.1292E-01 0.8837E+00 0.7500E-02

0.7690E+02 0.1723E-01 0.1178E+01 0.1000E-01

0.1923E+03 0.4307E-01 0.2946E+01 0.2500E-01

0.3846E+03 0.8613E-01 0.5891E+01 0.5000E-01

0.5743E+03 0.1291E+00 0.8837E+01 0.7500E-01

0.7439E+03 0.1705E+00 0.1178E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1531E+04 0.3975E+00 0.2946E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2214E+04 0.7168E+00 0.5915E+02 0.5000E+00

0.2531E+04 0.1214E+01 0.1188E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2628E+04 0.2675E+01 0.2941E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2859E+04 0.5113E+01 0.5373E+03 0.4800E+01
Ultimate Total Capacity (tons)
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10, EE Comp
Depth (ft)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Dia=8 ft
========================================================================= SHAFT for Windows, Version 2017.8.10
Serial Number : 500126445

VERTICALLY LOADED DRILLED SHAFT ANALYSIS
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2017
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\SHAFT\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8d
Name of output file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8p
Name of runtime file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 10:13:39
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10, EE Comp
PROPOSED DEPTH = 142.0 FT
----------------
NUMBER OF LAYERS = 4
------------------
WATER TABLE DEPTH = 0.0 FT.
-------------------
FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------- FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------

SOIL INFORMATION
---------------
LAYER NO 1----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.550E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.600E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.240E+03
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.000E+00

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.550E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.240E+03
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02
LAYER NO 2----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.636E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.331E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02
LAYER NO 3----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03
LAYER NO 4----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.165E+03
(*) ESTIMATED BY THE PROGRAM BASED ON OTHER PARAMETERS

INPUT DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
------------------------------
MINIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

MAXIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

RATIO BASE/SHAFT DIAMETER = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 41.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN

COMPUTATION RESULTS
-------------------
- CASE ANALYZED : 1
VARIATION LENGTH : 1
VARIATION DIAMETER : 1

DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
-------------------------
DIAMETER OF STEM = 8.000 FT.

DIAMETER OF BASE = 8.000 FT.

END OF STEM TO BASE = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 41.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

AREA OF ONE PERCENT STEEL = 72.392 SQ.IN.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN
VOLUME OF UNDERREAM = 0.000 CU.YDS.

SHAFT LENGTH = 142.000 FT.

PREDICTED RESULTS
-----------------
QS = ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE;
QB = ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
WT = WEIGHT OF DRILLED SHAFT (FOR UPLIFT CAPACITY ONLY); QU = TOTAL ULTIMATE RESISTANCE;
QBD = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING A FACTOR OF SAFETY
APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
QDN = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING FACTORS OF SAFETY

APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE AND
THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE.

LENGTH VOLUME QS QB QU QBD QDN QU/VOLUME
(FT) (CU.YDS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS/CU.YDS)

50.0 93.10 17.09 425.08 442.17 442.17 442.17 4.75

51.0 94.96 34.42 432.15 466.57 466.57 466.57 4.91

52.0 96.82 51.97 439.22 491.20 491.20 491.20 5.07

53.0 98.68 69.74 446.29 516.03 516.03 516.03 5.23

54.0 100.54 87.70 453.36 541.06 541.06 541.06 5.38

55.0 102.41 105.85 460.43 566.28 566.28 566.28 5.53

56.0 104.27 124.17 467.50 591.67 591.67 591.67 5.67

57.0 106.13 142.64 474.57 617.21 617.21 617.21 5.82

58.0 107.99 161.26 481.64 642.90 642.90 642.90 5.95

59.0 109.85 180.01 488.71 668.72 668.72 668.72 6.09

60.0 111.72 198.88 507.95 706.83 706.83 706.83 6.33

61.0 113.58 217.85 527.43 745.28 745.28 745.28 6.56

62.0 115.44 236.92 547.11 784.03 784.03 784.03 6.79

63.0 117.30 256.07 566.96 823.03 823.03 823.03 7.02

64.0 119.16 275.28 586.96 862.24 862.24 862.24 7.24

65.0 121.03 294.55 607.08 901.63 901.63 901.63 7.45

66.0 122.89 313.87 627.28 941.15 941.15 941.15 7.66

67.0 124.75 333.22 647.55 980.77 980.77 980.77 7.86

68.0 126.61 352.58 664.98 1017.57 1017.57 1017.57 8.04

69.0 128.47 371.96 679.67 1051.63 1051.63 1051.63 8.19

70.0 130.33 391.33 691.69 1083.03 1083.03 1083.03 8.31

71.0 132.20 410.69 701.14 1111.84 1111.84 1111.84 8.41

72.0 134.06 430.03 708.10 1138.13 1138.13 1138.13 8.49

73.0 135.92 449.32 712.66 1161.98 1161.98 1161.98 8.55

74.0 137.78 468.57 714.89 1183.46 1183.46 1183.46 8.59

75.0 139.64 487.76 714.89 1202.65 1202.65 1202.65 8.61

76.0 141.51 506.88 714.89 1221.77 1221.77 1221.77 8.63

77.0 143.37 525.91 714.89 1240.80 1240.80 1240.80 8.65

78.0 145.23 544.86 714.89 1259.75 1259.75 1259.75 8.67

79.0 147.09 563.70 714.89 1278.59 1278.59 1278.59 8.69

80.0 148.95 582.42 714.89 1297.31 1297.31 1297.31 8.71

81.0 150.82 601.03 714.89 1315.92 1315.92 1315.92 8.73

82.0 152.68 619.49 714.89 1334.38 1334.38 1334.38 8.74

83.0 154.54 637.82 714.89 1352.71 1352.71 1352.71 8.75

84.0 156.40 666.96 714.89 1381.85 1381.85 1381.85 8.84

85.0 158.26 696.11 704.65 1400.76 1400.76 1400.76 8.85

86.0 160.13 725.25 693.81 1419.07 1419.07 1419.07 8.86

87.0 161.99 754.40 682.37 1436.77 1436.77 1436.77 8.87

88.0 163.85 783.54 670.33 1453.87 1453.87 1453.87 8.87

89.0 165.71 812.69 657.69 1470.37 1470.37 1470.37 8.87

90.0 167.57 841.83 644.44 1486.27 1486.27 1486.27 8.87

91.0 169.44 870.98 630.59 1501.57 1501.57 1501.57 8.86

92.0 171.30 900.12 616.14 1516.26 1516.26 1516.26 8.85

93.0 173.16 929.27 603.49 1532.76 1532.76 1532.76 8.85

94.0 175.02 958.41 592.66 1551.07 1551.07 1551.07 8.86

95.0 176.88 987.56 583.62 1571.18 1571.18 1571.18 8.88

96.0 178.74 1016.70 576.40 1593.10 1593.10 1593.10 8.91

97.0 180.61 1045.84 570.98 1616.82 1616.82 1616.82 8.95

98.0 182.47 1074.99 567.37 1642.36 1642.36 1642.36 9.00

99.0 184.33 1104.13 565.56 1669.69 1669.69 1669.69 9.06 100.0 186.19 1133.28 565.56 1698.84 1698.84 1698.84 9.12 101.0 188.05 1162.42 565.56 1727.98 1727.98 1727.98 9.19 102.0 189.92 1191.57 565.56 1757.13 1757.13 1757.13 9.25 103.0 191.78 1220.71 565.56 1786.27 1786.27 1786.27 9.31 104.0 193.64 1249.86 565.56 1815.42 1815.42 1815.42 9.38 105.0 195.50 1279.00 565.56 1844.56 1844.56 1844.56 9.44 106.0 197.36 1308.15 565.56 1873.71 1873.71 1873.71 9.49 107.0 199.23 1337.29 565.56 1902.85 1902.85 1902.85 9.55 108.0 201.09 1366.44 565.56 1932.00 1932.00 1932.00 9.61 109.0 202.95 1385.81 565.56 1951.37 1951.37 1951.37 9.62 110.0 204.81 1405.38 565.56 1970.94 1970.94 1970.94 9.62 111.0 206.67 1425.18 565.56 1990.74 1990.74 1990.74 9.63 112.0 208.54 1445.18 565.56 2010.74 2010.74 2010.74 9.64 113.0 210.40 1465.40 565.56 2030.96 2030.96 2030.96 9.65 114.0 212.26 1485.83 565.56 2051.39 2051.39 2051.39 9.66 115.0 214.12 1506.47 565.56 2072.03 2072.03 2072.03 9.68 116.0 215.98 1527.32 565.56 2092.88 2092.88 2092.88 9.69 117.0 217.85 1548.39 565.56 2113.95 2113.95 2113.95 9.70 118.0 219.71 1569.66 565.56 2135.22 2135.22 2135.22 9.72 119.0 221.57 1591.15 565.56 2156.71 2156.71 2156.71 9.73 120.0 223.43 1612.86 565.56 2178.42 2178.42 2178.42 9.75 121.0 225.29 1634.77 565.56 2200.33 2200.33 2200.33 9.77 122.0 227.15 1656.90 565.56 2222.46 2222.46 2222.46 9.78 123.0 229.02 1679.24 565.56 2244.80 2244.80 2244.80 9.80 124.0 230.88 1701.79 565.56 2267.35 2267.35 2267.35 9.82 125.0 232.74 1724.56 565.56 2290.12 2290.12 2290.12 9.84 126.0 234.60 1747.54 565.56 2313.10 2313.10 2313.10 9.86 127.0 236.46 1770.73 565.56 2336.29 2336.29 2336.29 9.88 128.0 238.33 1794.13 565.56 2359.69 2359.69 2359.69 9.90 129.0 240.19 1817.74 565.56 2383.30 2383.30 2383.30 9.92 130.0 242.05 1841.57 565.56 2407.13 2407.13 2407.13 9.94 131.0 243.91 1865.61 565.56 2431.17 2431.17 2431.17 9.97 132.0 245.77 1889.86 565.56 2455.42 2455.42 2455.42 9.99 133.0 247.64 1914.33 565.56 2479.89 2479.89 2479.89 10.01 134.0 249.50 1939.00 565.56 2504.56 2504.56 2504.56 10.04 135.0 251.36 1963.89 565.56 2529.45 2529.45 2529.45 10.06 136.0 253.22 1988.99 565.56 2554.55 2554.55 2554.55 10.09 137.0 255.08 2014.31 565.56 2579.87 2579.87 2579.87 10.11 138.0 256.95 2039.83 565.56 2605.39 2605.39 2605.39 10.14 139.0 258.81 2065.57 565.56 2631.13 2631.13 2631.13 10.17 140.0 260.67 2091.52 565.56 2657.08 2657.08 2657.08 10.19 141.0 262.53 2117.69 565.56 2683.25 2683.25 2683.25 10.22 142.0 264.39 2144.06 565.56 2709.62 2709.62 2709.62 10.25

AXIAL LOAD VS SETTLEMENT CURVES
-------------------------------

RESULT FROM TREND (AVERAGED) LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1072E+00 0.2090E-04 0.2062E-02 0.1000E-04

0.5358E+00 0.1045E-03 0.1031E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1072E+01 0.2090E-03 0.2062E-01 0.1000E-03

0.5377E+02 0.1047E-01 0.1031E+01 0.5000E-02

0.8066E+02 0.1570E-01 0.1546E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1076E+03 0.2094E-01 0.2062E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2689E+03 0.5235E-01 0.5155E+01 0.2500E-01

0.5378E+03 0.1047E+00 0.1031E+02 0.5000E-01

0.8010E+03 0.1567E+00 0.1546E+02 0.7500E-01

0.1000E+04 0.2029E+00 0.2062E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1746E+04 0.4334E+00 0.5155E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2136E+04 0.7287E+00 0.1030E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2340E+04 0.1216E+01 0.1951E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2441E+04 0.2676E+01 0.3620E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2648E+04 0.5109E+01 0.5740E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM UPPER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1564E+00 0.2572E-04 0.2946E-02 0.1000E-04

0.7822E+00 0.1286E-03 0.1473E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1564E+01 0.2572E-03 0.2946E-01 0.1000E-03

0.7862E+02 0.1289E-01 0.1473E+01 0.5000E-02

0.1179E+03 0.1934E-01 0.2209E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1573E+03 0.2579E-01 0.2946E+01 0.1000E-01

0.3932E+03 0.6448E-01 0.7364E+01 0.2500E-01

0.7864E+03 0.1290E+00 0.1473E+02 0.5000E-01

0.1157E+04 0.1920E+00 0.2209E+02 0.7500E-01

0.1401E+04 0.2431E+00 0.2946E+02 0.1000E+00

0.2114E+04 0.4738E+00 0.7364E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2395E+04 0.7590E+00 0.1468E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2527E+04 0.1240E+01 0.2715E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2629E+04 0.2699E+01 0.4298E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2810E+04 0.5127E+01 0.6108E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM LOWER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.6322E-01 0.1652E-04 0.1178E-02 0.1000E-04

0.3161E+00 0.8261E-04 0.5891E-02 0.5000E-04

0.6322E+00 0.1652E-03 0.1178E-01 0.1000E-03

0.3167E+02 0.8266E-02 0.5891E+00 0.5000E-02

0.4752E+02 0.1240E-01 0.8837E+00 0.7500E-02

0.6336E+02 0.1653E-01 0.1178E+01 0.1000E-01

0.1584E+03 0.4134E-01 0.2946E+01 0.2500E-01

0.3168E+03 0.8268E-01 0.5891E+01 0.5000E-01

0.4750E+03 0.1240E+00 0.8837E+01 0.7500E-01

0.6176E+03 0.1640E+00 0.1178E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1288E+04 0.3844E+00 0.2946E+02 0.2500E+00

0.1871E+04 0.6979E+00 0.5915E+02 0.5000E+00

0.2152E+04 0.1192E+01 0.1188E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2252E+04 0.2653E+01 0.2941E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2486E+04 0.5090E+01 0.5373E+03 0.4800E+01
Ultimate Total Capacity (tons)
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10, EE DD
Depth (ft)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Dia=8 ft
========================================================================= SHAFT for Windows, Version 2017.8.10
Serial Number : 500126445

VERTICALLY LOADED DRILLED SHAFT ANALYSIS
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2017
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\SHAFT\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Pier EE DD.sf8d
Name of output file : PRELIM Pier EE DD.sf8o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Pier EE DD.sf8p
Name of runtime file : PRELIM Pier EE DD.sf8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 11:53:04
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10, EE DD
PROPOSED DEPTH = 142.0 FT
----------------
NUMBER OF LAYERS = 4
------------------
WATER TABLE DEPTH = 0.0 FT.
-------------------
FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------- FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------

SOIL INFORMATION
---------------
LAYER NO 1----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.550E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.600E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.240E+03
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.000E+00

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.550E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.240E+03
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02
LAYER NO 2----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.636E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.331E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02
LAYER NO 3----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03
LAYER NO 4----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.165E+03
(*) ESTIMATED BY THE PROGRAM BASED ON OTHER PARAMETERS

INPUT DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
------------------------------
MINIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

MAXIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

RATIO BASE/SHAFT DIAMETER = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 5.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN

COMPUTATION RESULTS
-------------------
- CASE ANALYZED : 1
VARIATION LENGTH : 1
VARIATION DIAMETER : 1

DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
-------------------------
DIAMETER OF STEM = 8.000 FT.

DIAMETER OF BASE = 8.000 FT.

END OF STEM TO BASE = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 5.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

AREA OF ONE PERCENT STEEL = 72.392 SQ.IN.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN
VOLUME OF UNDERREAM = 0.000 CU.YDS.

SHAFT LENGTH = 142.000 FT.

PREDICTED RESULTS
-----------------
QS = ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE;
QB = ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
WT = WEIGHT OF DRILLED SHAFT (FOR UPLIFT CAPACITY ONLY); QU = TOTAL ULTIMATE RESISTANCE;
QBD = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING A FACTOR OF SAFETY
APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
QDN = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING FACTORS OF SAFETY

APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE AND
THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE.

LENGTH VOLUME QS QB QU QBD QDN QU/VOLUME
(FT) (CU.YDS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS/CU.YDS)

14.0 26.07 1.66 52.80 54.46 54.46 54.46 2.09

15.0 27.93 3.32 52.59 55.91 55.91 55.91 2.00

16.0 29.79 4.98 52.33 57.30 57.30 57.30 1.92

17.0 31.65 6.64 52.04 58.67 58.67 58.67 1.85

18.0 33.51 8.29 51.74 60.03 60.03 60.03 1.79

19.0 35.38 9.95 51.45 61.41 61.41 61.41 1.74

20.0 37.24 11.61 51.20 62.81 62.81 62.81 1.69

21.0 39.10 13.27 50.98 64.25 64.25 64.25 1.64

22.0 40.96 14.93 50.81 65.74 65.74 65.74 1.60

23.0 42.82 16.59 50.68 67.27 67.27 67.27 1.57

24.0 44.69 18.25 50.58 68.83 68.83 68.83 1.54

25.0 46.55 19.91 50.52 70.43 70.43 70.43 1.51

26.0 48.41 21.57 67.38 88.95 88.95 88.95 1.84

27.0 50.27 23.23 85.73 108.96 108.96 108.96 2.17

28.0 52.13 24.88 105.61 130.49 130.49 130.49 2.50

29.0 54.00 26.54 127.02 153.56 153.56 153.56 2.84

30.0 55.86 28.20 150.00 178.20 178.20 178.20 3.19

31.0 57.72 29.86 174.57 204.43 204.43 204.43 3.54

32.0 59.58 31.52 200.76 232.28 232.28 232.28 3.90

33.0 61.44 33.18 228.61 261.79 261.79 261.79 4.26

34.0 63.31 34.84 254.15 288.99 288.99 288.99 4.56

35.0 65.17 36.50 277.31 313.81 313.81 313.81 4.82

36.0 67.03 38.16 298.01 336.16 336.16 336.16 5.02

37.0 68.89 39.82 316.15 355.96 355.96 355.96 5.17

38.0 70.75 41.47 331.65 373.12 373.12 373.12 5.27

39.0 72.62 43.13 344.42 387.56 387.56 387.56 5.34

40.0 74.48 44.79 354.39 399.18 399.18 399.18 5.36

41.0 76.34 46.45 361.46 407.91 407.91 407.91 5.34

42.0 78.20 48.11 368.53 416.64 416.64 416.64 5.33

43.0 80.06 49.77 375.60 425.37 425.37 425.37 5.31

44.0 81.92 51.43 382.67 434.09 434.09 434.09 5.30

45.0 83.79 53.09 389.73 442.82 442.82 442.82 5.29

46.0 85.65 54.75 396.80 451.55 451.55 451.55 5.27

47.0 87.51 56.41 403.87 460.28 460.28 460.28 5.26

48.0 89.37 58.06 410.94 469.01 469.01 469.01 5.25

49.0 91.23 59.72 418.01 477.74 477.74 477.74 5.24

50.0 93.10 76.81 425.08 501.90 501.90 501.90 5.39

51.0 94.96 94.14 432.15 526.29 526.29 526.29 5.54

52.0 96.82 111.70 439.22 550.92 550.92 550.92 5.69

53.0 98.68 129.46 446.29 575.75 575.75 575.75 5.83

54.0 100.54 147.43 453.36 600.79 600.79 600.79 5.98

55.0 102.41 165.57 460.43 626.00 626.00 626.00 6.11

56.0 104.27 183.89 467.50 651.39 651.39 651.39 6.25

57.0 106.13 202.37 474.57 676.94 676.94 676.94 6.38

58.0 107.99 220.99 481.64 702.62 702.62 702.62 6.51

59.0 109.85 239.73 488.71 728.44 728.44 728.44 6.63

60.0 111.72 258.60 507.95 766.55 766.55 766.55 6.86

61.0 113.58 277.58 527.43 805.00 805.00 805.00 7.09

62.0 115.44 296.64 547.11 843.75 843.75 843.75 7.31

63.0 117.30 315.79 566.96 882.75 882.75 882.75 7.53

64.0 119.16 335.01 586.96 921.96 921.96 921.96 7.74

65.0 121.03 354.28 607.08 961.35 961.35 961.35 7.94

66.0 122.89 373.59 627.28 1000.87 1000.87 1000.87 8.14

67.0 124.75 392.94 647.55 1040.49 1040.49 1040.49 8.34

68.0 126.61 412.31 664.98 1077.29 1077.29 1077.29 8.51

69.0 128.47 431.68 679.67 1111.35 1111.35 1111.35 8.65

70.0 130.33 451.06 691.69 1142.75 1142.75 1142.75 8.77

71.0 132.20 470.42 701.14 1171.56 1171.56 1171.56 8.86

72.0 134.06 489.75 708.10 1197.85 1197.85 1197.85 8.94

73.0 135.92 509.05 712.66 1221.70 1221.70 1221.70 8.99

74.0 137.78 528.29 714.89 1243.18 1243.18 1243.18 9.02

75.0 139.64 547.48 714.89 1262.37 1262.37 1262.37 9.04

76.0 141.51 566.60 714.89 1281.49 1281.49 1281.49 9.06

77.0 143.37 585.64 714.89 1300.53 1300.53 1300.53 9.07

78.0 145.23 604.58 714.89 1319.47 1319.47 1319.47 9.09

79.0 147.09 623.42 714.89 1338.31 1338.31 1338.31 9.10

80.0 148.95 642.15 714.89 1357.04 1357.04 1357.04 9.11

81.0 150.82 660.75 714.89 1375.64 1375.64 1375.64 9.12

82.0 152.68 679.22 714.89 1394.11 1394.11 1394.11 9.13

83.0 154.54 697.54 714.89 1412.43 1412.43 1412.43 9.14

84.0 156.40 726.69 714.89 1441.57 1441.57 1441.57 9.22

85.0 158.26 755.83 704.65 1460.48 1460.48 1460.48 9.23

86.0 160.13 784.97 693.81 1478.79 1478.79 1478.79 9.24

87.0 161.99 814.12 682.37 1496.49 1496.49 1496.49 9.24

88.0 163.85 843.26 670.33 1513.60 1513.60 1513.60 9.24

89.0 165.71 872.41 657.69 1530.10 1530.10 1530.10 9.23

90.0 167.57 901.55 644.44 1545.99 1545.99 1545.99 9.23

91.0 169.44 930.70 630.59 1561.29 1561.29 1561.29 9.21

92.0 171.30 959.84 616.14 1575.98 1575.98 1575.98 9.20

93.0 173.16 988.99 603.49 1592.48 1592.48 1592.48 9.20

94.0 175.02 1018.13 592.66 1610.79 1610.79 1610.79 9.20

95.0 176.88 1047.28 583.62 1630.90 1630.90 1630.90 9.22

96.0 178.74 1076.42 576.40 1652.82 1652.82 1652.82 9.25

97.0 180.61 1105.57 570.98 1676.55 1676.55 1676.55 9.28

98.0 182.47 1134.71 567.37 1702.08 1702.08 1702.08 9.33

99.0 184.33 1163.86 565.56 1729.42 1729.42 1729.42 9.38 100.0 186.19 1193.00 565.56 1758.56 1758.56 1758.56 9.44 101.0 188.05 1222.15 565.56 1787.71 1787.71 1787.71 9.51 102.0 189.92 1251.29 565.56 1816.85 1816.85 1816.85 9.57 103.0 191.78 1280.44 565.56 1846.00 1846.00 1846.00 9.63 104.0 193.64 1309.58 565.56 1875.14 1875.14 1875.14 9.68 105.0 195.50 1338.73 565.56 1904.29 1904.29 1904.29 9.74 106.0 197.36 1367.87 565.56 1933.43 1933.43 1933.43 9.80 107.0 199.23 1397.02 565.56 1962.58 1962.58 1962.58 9.85 108.0 201.09 1426.16 565.56 1991.72 1991.72 1991.72 9.90 109.0 202.95 1445.53 565.56 2011.09 2011.09 2011.09 9.91 110.0 204.81 1465.11 565.56 2030.67 2030.67 2030.67 9.91 111.0 206.67 1484.90 565.56 2050.46 2050.46 2050.46 9.92 112.0 208.54 1504.90 565.56 2070.46 2070.46 2070.46 9.93 113.0 210.40 1525.12 565.56 2090.68 2090.68 2090.68 9.94 114.0 212.26 1545.55 565.56 2111.11 2111.11 2111.11 9.95 115.0 214.12 1566.19 565.56 2131.75 2131.75 2131.75 9.96 116.0 215.98 1587.04 565.56 2152.60 2152.60 2152.60 9.97 117.0 217.85 1608.11 565.56 2173.67 2173.67 2173.67 9.98 118.0 219.71 1629.39 565.56 2194.95 2194.95 2194.95 9.99 119.0 221.57 1650.88 565.56 2216.44 2216.44 2216.44 10.00 120.0 223.43 1672.58 565.56 2238.14 2238.14 2238.14 10.02 121.0 225.29 1694.50 565.56 2260.06 2260.06 2260.06 10.03 122.0 227.15 1716.62 565.56 2282.18 2282.18 2282.18 10.05 123.0 229.02 1738.96 565.56 2304.52 2304.52 2304.52 10.06 124.0 230.88 1761.52 565.56 2327.08 2327.08 2327.08 10.08 125.0 232.74 1784.28 565.56 2349.84 2349.84 2349.84 10.10 126.0 234.60 1807.26 565.56 2372.82 2372.82 2372.82 10.11 127.0 236.46 1830.45 565.56 2396.01 2396.01 2396.01 10.13 128.0 238.33 1853.85 565.56 2419.41 2419.41 2419.41 10.15 129.0 240.19 1877.47 565.56 2443.03 2443.03 2443.03 10.17 130.0 242.05 1901.29 565.56 2466.85 2466.85 2466.85 10.19 131.0 243.91 1925.33 565.56 2490.89 2490.89 2490.89 10.21 132.0 245.77 1949.58 565.56 2515.14 2515.14 2515.14 10.23 133.0 247.64 1974.05 565.56 2539.61 2539.61 2539.61 10.26 134.0 249.50 1998.73 565.56 2564.29 2564.29 2564.29 10.28 135.0 251.36 2023.61 565.56 2589.17 2589.17 2589.17 10.30 136.0 253.22 2048.72 565.56 2614.28 2614.28 2614.28 10.32 137.0 255.08 2074.03 565.56 2639.59 2639.59 2639.59 10.35 138.0 256.95 2099.56 565.56 2665.12 2665.12 2665.12 10.37 139.0 258.81 2125.30 565.56 2690.86 2690.86 2690.86 10.40 140.0 260.67 2151.25 565.56 2716.81 2716.81 2716.81 10.42 141.0 262.53 2177.41 565.56 2742.97 2742.97 2742.97 10.45 142.0 264.39 2203.79 565.56 2769.35 2769.35 2769.35 10.47

AXIAL LOAD VS SETTLEMENT CURVES
-------------------------------

RESULT FROM TREND (AVERAGED) LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1060E+00 0.2070E-04 0.2062E-02 0.1000E-04

0.5298E+00 0.1035E-03 0.1031E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1060E+01 0.2070E-03 0.2062E-01 0.1000E-03

0.5310E+02 0.1036E-01 0.1031E+01 0.5000E-02

0.7967E+02 0.1555E-01 0.1546E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1062E+03 0.2073E-01 0.2062E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2656E+03 0.5182E-01 0.5155E+01 0.2500E-01

0.5312E+03 0.1036E+00 0.1031E+02 0.5000E-01

0.7868E+03 0.1551E+00 0.1546E+02 0.7500E-01

0.9801E+03 0.2008E+00 0.2062E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1705E+04 0.4300E+00 0.5155E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2080E+04 0.7244E+00 0.1030E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2278E+04 0.1212E+01 0.1951E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2375E+04 0.2671E+01 0.3620E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2582E+04 0.5104E+01 0.5740E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM UPPER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1556E+00 0.2544E-04 0.2946E-02 0.1000E-04

0.7778E+00 0.1272E-03 0.1473E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1556E+01 0.2544E-03 0.2946E-01 0.1000E-03

0.7805E+02 0.1274E-01 0.1473E+01 0.5000E-02

0.1171E+03 0.1911E-01 0.2209E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1561E+03 0.2549E-01 0.2946E+01 0.1000E-01

0.3904E+03 0.6372E-01 0.7364E+01 0.2500E-01

0.7774E+03 0.1274E+00 0.1473E+02 0.5000E-01

0.1135E+04 0.1896E+00 0.2209E+02 0.7500E-01

0.1368E+04 0.2400E+00 0.2946E+02 0.1000E+00

0.2058E+04 0.4695E+00 0.7364E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2333E+04 0.7543E+00 0.1468E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2464E+04 0.1235E+01 0.2715E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2563E+04 0.2694E+01 0.4298E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2744E+04 0.5123E+01 0.6108E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM LOWER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.6205E-01 0.1640E-04 0.1178E-02 0.1000E-04

0.3102E+00 0.8199E-04 0.5891E-02 0.5000E-04

0.6205E+00 0.1640E-03 0.1178E-01 0.1000E-03

0.3106E+02 0.8202E-02 0.5891E+00 0.5000E-02

0.4660E+02 0.1230E-01 0.8837E+00 0.7500E-02

0.6214E+02 0.1641E-01 0.1178E+01 0.1000E-01

0.1554E+03 0.4102E-01 0.2946E+01 0.2500E-01

0.3108E+03 0.8204E-01 0.5891E+01 0.5000E-01

0.4656E+03 0.1230E+00 0.8837E+01 0.7500E-01

0.6055E+03 0.1627E+00 0.1178E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1260E+04 0.3819E+00 0.2946E+02 0.2500E+00

0.1820E+04 0.6940E+00 0.5915E+02 0.5000E+00

0.2090E+04 0.1188E+01 0.1188E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2186E+04 0.2648E+01 0.2941E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2421E+04 0.5086E+01 0.5373E+03 0.4800E+01
Liquefaction Induced Downdrag
Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, January 2020 Please refer to this manual when using this spreadsheet.

Project No. S2815-05-01
Project Name: Truxel Road Bridge
Support Location: Pier 9-20 PRELIMINARY
Boring/CPT: Various
Pile Type: 96" CIDH
Pile diameter, inches: 96
Top of Pile Elev., ft: 10.0
Scour Ground Surface 15.0 After degradation/contraction scour only Design Groundwater Elev., ft: 23.0
Top of Liquefaction Zone Elev., ft: 15.0
Bottom of Liquefaction Zone Elev., ft: -26.0
Approx. Depth of Middle of Liq. Zone, ft.: 20.5 or 6.2 meters Pile Tip Elev., ft: -85.0 For Extreme Event-I Limit State, Compression Pile Length, ft: 95.0
Pile Depth from Ground Surface, ft: 100.0
Pile Weight / Foot, lb: 7288
W'p, kips: 685.6 Pile Weight, effective
Permanent Load Per Support, kips: 1,800.0 Service-I Limit State Permanent Load Number of Piles Per Support: 1
(QEQ)Perm, kips: 1800.0 Permanent superstructure gravity load Compression Load Per Pile, kips: 2,700.0 Extreme Event-I Limit State, Compression (QEQ)I, kips: 900.0
HS, ft 0.0 Thickness of Surface Layer, see Figures 3 and 4 HL, ft 41.0 Thickness of Liquefied Soil Layer, see Figures 3 and 4 amax, g 0.26 PGA for 975-year return period
Is there potential for Surface Manifistation? Yes If yes, ignore pile nominal resistances from lowest liquefied layer and overlying layers in Extreme Event-I, Compression (N1)60, average, in liquefiable soil: 8.0
σ'vo, average, in liquefiable soil, psf: 2,173 or 1.0 atmospheres (effective vertical stress) Sr, psf: 240 Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil (average) Use SHAFT or APILE to determine the Design Tip Elevation for Extreme Event-I, Compression, ignoring soil layers above the bottom of the liquefied layer per the analysis above if/as required.

QEQ (Compression Load+W'p), kips: 3,385.6
Round up to next 10 kip interval, kips: 3,390
Actual calculated capacity, kips: 3,396 Include full side friction and end bearing components.

Length OK? YES If the pile length is too short, lower the Pile Tip Elev., above.

Pile embedment to pile diameter ratio: 7.4 Should be greater than 1.5 to allow full soil end-bearing nominal resistance.

Sufficient embedment for nominal end bearing?: YES If not, reduce nominal end bearing capacity in soils.

At this point, double check the design pile tip elevations for Service-I and Strength Limit States, lateral, and uplift. If any of these control, use the lower pile tip from those analyses.

Tip elev. used for Downdrag Load Analysis, ft: -127.0 Start with the tip elev. from EE-I Compression load (or other pile tips if they control) Using S r and the EE-I Compression soil model, calculate axial pile load vs. settlements for pile top and pile tip at the above tip elev. (QEQ)Perm, kips: 1800.0 Permanent superstructure gravity load Round up to next 10 kip interval, kips: 1800
Plot the load vs. settlement curves from the SHAFT or APILE analysis printout. Use the above load to estimate top and corresponding tip settlements. (δt)perm, Top Settlement, in.: 0.18
(δb)perm, Tip Settlement, in.: 0.18
Estimated settlement in liquefied layer, ft.: 0.483 or 5.80 in. From Idriss and Boulanger, 2008 Plot pile and ground settlement profiles (see manual, use elevation instead of depth). Calculate weighted average of z max , per below and Table 1.

Clay thicknesses to top of liq. zone, ft.: 0
Sand thicknesses to top of liq. zone, ft.: 41
zmax / D from Table 1 for clay and pile type: 0.008
zmax / D from Table 1 for sand and pile type: 0.01
zmax / D: 0.01 or 1 percent
zmax, in.: 0.96
δO, from plot, settlement at point "O", in.: 0.18
δc-Liq, in.: 1.14
Plot Point A on the ground settlement profile using the δ c-Liq settlement value, above.

Depth of Point A from ground surface, ft: 33
Elevation of Point A, ft: -18.0
Use Point A elevation (lowest downdrag elevation) to calculate downdrag on the pile, using residual shear strengths for liquefied soils.

DDmax, maximum (nominal) downdrag load, kips: 66.4 Account for adjustment to DD-related loads (existing pile DD on new foundations, alternate analysis methods from the designer, if applicable)

66.4 0 kips adjustment per structural engineer (if applicable) Pile capacity calculation below may be iterative based on pile length and capacity, with effective pile weight changing with pile length.

Pile Tip Depth from Ground Surface, ft: 73
Pile Tip Elev., ft: -58.0 For EE-I DD
Pile Length, ft: 68.0
W'p, kips: 490.5
Extreme Event Limit-I Downdrag load, kips: 2356.9
Round up to next 10 kip interval, kips: 2,360 EE-I DD, equals permanent load + DDmax + W'p, to be generated below elevation of Point A Pile Length Below Ground Surface for EE-I DD, ft: 73
Pile Tip Elev. for EE-I DD load below Point A, ft: -58.0 This needs to be at or above the Pile Tip Elev., above, for pile capacity calculation Is EE-I DD pile tip elevation low enough? YES
Pile Tip Elev. (ft) for use: -127.0 Lowest tip elevation from Extreme Event-I Compression and Extreme Event-I Downdrag Design pile length, ft.: 137.0 From top of pile elevation kips DD plus
Pile Load-Settlement Curves Interpolating Linear Values Data from SHAFT: Value 1 Value 2
Low: 801 0.1567
Top Movement Tip Movement High: 1000 0.2029
tons kips inch tons kips inch Desired: 900 0.18

0.1072 0.2144 0.0000209 0.002062 0.004124 0.00001 tons inches

0.5358 1.0716 0.0001045 0.01031 0.02062 0.00005

1.072 2.144 0.000209 0.02062 0.04124 0.0001 Value 1 Value 2

53.77 107.54 0.01047 1.031 2.062 0.005 Low:

80.66 161.32 0.0157 1.546 3.092 0.0075 High:
107.6 215.2 0.02094 2.062 4.124 0.01 Desired: #DIV/0!
268.9 537.8 0.05235 5.155 10.31 0.025 tons inches
537.8 1075.6 0.1047 10.31 20.62 0.05
801 1602 0.1567 15.46 30.92 0.075
1000 2000 0.2029 20.62 41.24 0.1
1746 3492 0.4334 51.55 103.1 0.25
2136 4272 0.7287 103 206 0.5
2340 4680 1.216 195.1 390.2 0.96
2441 4882 2.676 362 724 2.4
2648 5296 5.109 574 1148 4.8
Top Load Tip Load
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Axial Load, kips
Settlement, Inches
Tip Top

Attachment O. Environmental Memo
Environmental
Documentation
Memorandum
Prepared by:

Prepared for:

October 2024
This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study
October 2024
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................i Introduction................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background......................................................................................1

1.2 Project Purpose................................................................................1

1.3 Project Need.....................................................................................1

1.4 Project Setting..................................................................................9

1.4.1 Lower American River................................................................................................ 9

1.4.2 Biological Resources.................................................................................................. 9

1.4.3 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Constraints Analysis ...................................................... 10

2.1 American River Parkway Plan.......................................................10

2.2 Biological Resources.....................................................................11

2.2.1 Sensitive Habitat Communities..................................................................................11

2.2.2 Special Status Species..............................................................................................15

2.2.3 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................18

2.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................19

2.4 Community .....................................................................................21

2.5 Other Environmental Considerations...........................................21 Further Environmental Analysis.............................................................. 25

3.1 Environmental Document..............................................................25

3.1.1 CEQA/NEPA.............................................................................................................25

3.1.2 Sacramento Regional Transit Previous Environmental Documentation .....................25

3.1.3 ARPP EIR Addendum ...............................................................................................26

3.2 Recommended Technical Studies ................................................26

3.2.1 Biological Technical Studies......................................................................................26

3.2.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................27

3.2.3 Cultural .....................................................................................................................27

3.2.4 Noise.........................................................................................................................28

3.2.5 Air Quality .................................................................................................................28

3.2.6 VMT ..........................................................................................................................29

3.2.7 Community................................................................................................................29 Table of Contents
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study
October 2024

3.2.8 Visual/ Wild and Scenic Rivers..................................................................................29

3.2.9 Hazardous Waste......................................................................................................29

3.2.10 Section 4(f)..............................................................................................................30

3.2.11 Floodplains..............................................................................................................30

3.3 Habitat Mitigation Design ..............................................................30 Future Agency & Stakeholder Consultations......................................... 31

4.1 Sacramento County Regional Parks and American River Parkway Plan .......................................................................................................31

4.2 Interagency Consultation for Air Quality Conformity..................31

4.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers Interagency Coordination......................31

4.4 Section 4(f) Programmatic Coordination......................................31

4.5 State Historic Preservation Officer Consultation ........................32

4.6 Endangered Species Consultations .............................................32

4.6.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................32

4.6.2 National Marine Fisheries Service.............................................................................32

4.6.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife.................................................................32

4.7 Regulatory Permitting....................................................................33

4.7.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................................................33

4.7.2 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board................................................33

4.7.3 Central Valley Flood Protection Board.......................................................................33

4.7.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife.................................................................34

4.7.5 U.S. Coast Guard......................................................................................................34

4.7.6 City Tree Permitting ..................................................................................................34 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 35

5.1 Environmental Documentation and Technical Study Summary.35

5.1.1 American River Parkway Plan...................................................................................37

5.1.2 Biological Resources.................................................................................................37

5.1.3 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................38 Table of Contents
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study
October 2024
List of Tables
Table 1. Attainment Status for SMAQMD..................................................................................21 Table 2. Required Environmental Technical Studies .................................................................35 Table 3. Required Regulatory Permits ......................................................................................37 List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. Project Location .......................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Truxel Design Alternatives .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Bridge Cross Section Alternatives ............................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Discovery Park Area Plan Map...................................................................................13 Figure 6. Habitat and Biological Resources...............................................................................14 Figure 7. Environmental Constraints Overview..........................................................................20 Appendices
Appendix A. UAIC Correspondence
Appendix B. Caltrans Preliminary Environment Study Form Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study
October 2024
This page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study i
October 2024
Executive Summary
The City of Sacramento (City) proposes to construct a multi-modal bridge connecting Truxel Road to Sequoia Pacific Boulevard across the American River as part of the Truxel Bridge Project (Project). The proposed Project would cross the Lower American River within the American River Parkway, which is an open space greenbelt that provides residents and visitors of the Sacramento Region various recreational opportunities. As such, this area contains numerous protected environmental resources. Due to the high environmental sensitivity in this area, it is imperative to fully understand the environmental constraints and how they can affect the Project cost and schedule early in the planning and design process. Through resource identification efforts and stakeholder outreach, potential environmental impacts, required technical studies, environmental documentation, and future coordination efforts were identified for this Feasibility Study.

Biological resources within the Project area include the Great Valley Riparian Forest habitat and the Lower American River. Database research and preliminary field surveys determined that both resources provide suitable habitat for the following special status species: Chinook salmon, Green sturgeon, California Central Valley (CCV) Steelhead, Swainson's Hawk, White-Tailed Kite, Western Pond Turtle, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Impacts to federally listed species require Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) during the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) Phase. During the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) Phase, regulatory permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Flood Board), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) are required for impacts to the American River, Great Valley Riparian Forest habitat, and adjacent jurisdictional water features. As mitigation is required for impacts to these habitats and protected species, the City team has initiated outreach to regulatory and wildlife agencies and the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks to identify potentially suitable off-site mitigation options. Lastly, due to anticipated impacts to state listed species, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from CDFW is anticipated during the final design phase as well.

Due to the high cultural resource sensitivity, the City has initiated early consultation with the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC), including ongoing email correspondence and a field visit with Tribal representatives in May 2024. As part of this early consultation, Indigenous resources known to the UAIC have been identified within and adjacent to the Project footprint, including the Delta Tribal Cultural Landscape (Delta TCL). During the PA&ED Phase, potential avoidance will be pursued but presence/absence of archaeological testing will likely be required to determine if any previously unknown resources are present within the Project footprint. Additionally, all cultural resource identified within the Project footprint will be evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing on either the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. The Project will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to obtain concurrence on any cultural resources identified that require significance evaluations, determinations of effect, and/or a memorandum of agreement under Section 106 of the NHPA.

In an effort to accurately scope other environmental resources and sensitivities within the Project area, a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Preliminary Environment Study (PES) Form was completed. Environmental constraints identified through the PES Form (in addition to those discussed above) were related to Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, Hazardous Waste, Water Quality, Floodplains, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Parks, Visual Resources, and Community Impacts.

Project impacts related to these resources will be evaluated during the PA&ED Phase.

Executive Summary
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study ii
October 2024
Lastly, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is anticipated due to the high level of public involvement as well as potentially significant impacts to environmental resources. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Project is anticipated to require the preparation of a Complex Environmental Assessment (EA) leading to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). All technical studies prepared for this Project will be used to support the CEQA/NEPA environmental document.

Chapter 1. Introduction
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 1
October 2024
Introduction

1.1 Background
The City of Sacramento proposes to construct a multi-modal bridge connecting Truxel Road to Sequoia Pacific Boulevard across the American River (Figure 1. Project Vicinity and Figure 2.

Project Location). In 2013, the City prepared the American River Crossing Study to evaluate optional alignments to cross the American River. Eight alignments were prepared and studied, with Alignment 3 (the Truxel Road alignment) ultimately selected as the preferred alternative for a new crossing.

Dokken Engineering (Dokken) was selected to complete a Feasibility Study for the Truxel Road alignment and many different engineering and environmental constraints were evaluated (Figure

3. Truxel Design Alternatives and Figure 4. Bridge Cross Section Alternatives). This Environmental Documentation Memorandum is intended to scope all future environmental clearances, consultations, permits, and mitigation that will be required to deliver this Project through construction. It is understood that this Project will have a federal nexus, either through impacts to waters of the U.S. and/or due to federal funding. To ensure consistency throughout this document, it is assumed that federal funding would be obtained and that Caltrans Local Assistance would be the lead under NEPA. As such, this memorandum references Caltrans terminology for NEPA studies.

1.2 Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed Project is to:
• Provide a crossing of the Lower American River for all modes of transportation which will increase the ability of the community to walk, bike, and utilize public transit as an alternative to driving while being in compliance with the City of Sacramento’s Neighborhood Friendly Bridge Policy.
• Improve connectivity across the Lower American River between the Central City and South Natomas for all modes of travel in order to enhance accessibility to resources, jobs, commerce, and social exchanges.
• Increase evacuation and emergency/disaster response options for Central City and South Natomas residents and businesses.
• Enhance recreational access to the American River Parkway from both banks of the Lower American River for pedestrians and cyclists.

1.3 Project Need
The proposed Project addresses the following needs:
• The Lower American River creates a barrier to mobility that causes longer trip lengths for relatively close origins and destinations which discourages walking and bicycling, leads to a dependence on automobiles, and creates inefficient transit routing. These transportation system limitations lead to negative effects on public health.

Chapter 1. Introduction
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 2
October 2024
• The Lower American River creates a barrier to economic activity, social exchanges, and job access between the Central City and South Natomas. In addition, lack of direct connection between the Central City and South Natomas diminishes the viability of development that has been planned and approved in the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, the River District Specific Plan, and the Sacramento Railyards Specific Plan. • Limited connectivity across the Lower American River contributes to longer emergency/disaster response times and limits evacuation alternatives. • Limited options for access to recreational facilities reduces opportunities to utilize the Lower American River Parkway, especially for those walking and biking.

I
0 5 10 15
Miles
Source: ESRI 2008; Dokken Engineering7/15/2024; Created By: ahale

Y O L O

S A C R A M E N T O

S O L A N O

P L A C E R

S U T T E R

S A N J O A Q U I N

C O L U S A

E L D O R A D O

Y U B A
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
§¨¦505
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦5
£¤50
£¤50
UV160
UV99
UV84
UV113
UV16
UV45
UV104
UV193
UV12
UV65
UV70
UV128
UV49
UV88
UV99 UV49
UV16
UV99
UV12
UV113
UV70
UV65
UV49
UV99
UV99
UV12
UV113
UV113
AAuubbuurrnn SSttaattee RReeccrreeaattiioonn AArreeaa
FFoollssoomm LLaakkee SSttaattee RReecc AArreeaa
OOlldd SSaaccrraammeennttoo SSttaattee HHiissttoorriicc PPaarrkk WWooooddllaanndd OOppeerraa HHoouussee SSttaattee HHiissttoorriicc PPaarrkk V:\3069_Truxel_Concept_Feasibility\F1_Vicinity.mxd
FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California

PACIFIC
OCEAN
Sacramento
County
CA
NV
AZ
UT
OR ID
^_
Project Location
¨¦§5
¨¦§5
Garden Hwy
Truxel R
d
Richards Blvd
W El Camino Ave
Jibboom
St
Richards Blvd
Garden Hwy
W El Camino Ave
N 10th
St
N
7th
St
Erin
Dr
N B St
N
5th
St
St
Azusa St
Brewerton Dr
Millcreek
Dr
Bannon St
Aze
ve
d
o
Dr
Hawk Ave
Bercut
Dr
M
orell St
Dos
Rios
St
Fairweather Dr
Aquino Dr
Dorin
e
Way
N
3rd
St
Athena Ave
Sto
n
e
cre
e
k
Dr
Natomas
Park
Dr
Thelma A
ve
Waterwheel Dr
Vine St
Mint St
Greenlea Ave
Seamist Dr
Primo Way
River City
Way
Sandcastle Way
Jibbo
o
m
St
Chief Ct
Brunswick Way
N D St
C
a
pitol O
a
k
s
Dr
Helmsman Way
Seq
uoia
Pacific
Blvd
Derow Ct
Prestwick Ct
Virgil Ct
St
St
St
St
Bercut Dr
American River
First Bannon Slough
Discovery Park American River
Parkway
Northgate Park
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200
Feet
I
Source: ESRI World Street Maps Online; Dokken Engineering 9/24/2024; Created By: ahale Project Location
FIGURE 2
Project Location
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California
Document Path: V:\3069_Truxel_
Concept_Feasibility\F2_Location.mxd
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
SHLD/
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
SHLD/
6'
SW
81'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BIKE

1.5'
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BIKE
6'
SW

1.5'
84'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL