Benefits of the use of driven piles as a foundation alternative would include:
x Driven piles extending below groundwater with a pile cap above the groundwater level may have less construction challenges than drilled methods below the groundwater table; x Driven piles would not require slurry or cutting disposal; x Steel pipe piles or H-piles can be cut or spliced to accommodate variations in pile length in relation to variable subsurface conditions encountered during pile driving; x Concrete piles can be constructed long and cut off to accommodate refusal above the tip elevation if needed but would generate cut-off pieces that would need to be disposed of; x Closed-end pipes or full displacement concrete piles would likely develop end bearing resistance relatively quickly with the older alluvium and at shallower depths than CIDH piles designed for friction alone and advanced deeper within the wet ground; and x Driven piles can be designed to provide resistance to scour and liquefaction.
Constraints of the use of driven piles as a foundation alternative would include:
x Pile driving will generate noise. Pre-construction surveys of nearby residences, distress surveys, and noise and vibration monitoring may be needed for pile driving; x Pile driving in close proximity to Sycamore Creek may not be permitted for environmental reasons, or could require special permit conditions such as the use of buffer trenches or curtains to attenuate noise and vibrations from pile driving from adversely impacting aquatic species in the creek;
x Driving could be delayed if splicing of steel piles is needed because of requirements for inspection and testing of field welds;
x A group of driven piles will likely be needed to support structure loads above the standard pile capacity or to provide a structural connection between the foundation and superstructure.
Pile cap excavation and construction for the driven piles would need to include shoring and dewatering to control groundwater and provide lateral support to excavations within the younger alluvium; and
x Pile caps for driven piles could require a larger final design footprint compared to largediameter CIDH pile connected directly to the structural column.
Driven piles are considered suitable foundation support for the proposed overcrossing. The piles would need to be driven into the older alluvium and consider additional down drag and potential lateral forces associated with settlement and liquefaction.
ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 15 Preliminary factored nominal axial resistance versus embedment depth into the alluvium are provided on Figure 6 for Caltrans (2018) Standard Plan 200 pipe piles (Alternative “W”) for both openended and close-ended conditions. Factored nominal axial resistances provided on Figure 6 were estimated according to the latest Caltrans (2019) amendments to the AASHTO (2017) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for the Strength Limit State (resistance factor of 0.7) and Extreme Limit State (resistance factor of 1.0) and do not include the effects of scour, loading due to seismically induced downdrag, or preliminary lateral resistance. The provided preliminary factored nominal axial resistances neglect resistance contribution from potentially liquefiable layers. Yeh should be contacted if pile sizes or types other than those provided on Figure 6 are needed for preliminary design.
9.1.3 CAST-IN-STEEL-SHELL (CISS) PILES
CISS piles typically consist of driving a steel pipe pile into the ground and casting reinforced concrete into the head of the pile to form a structural connection to the superstructure. The concrete can be placed in a closed-end pile, or by removing a portion of the soil plug within an open-end pipe pile to Figure 6: Preliminary Factored Nominal Axial Resistance Versus Depth for Driven Piles - Strength Limit State ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 16 allow for concrete placement. CISS piles would likely need to develop end and frictional resistance within the older alluvium and below approximately el. -25 feet to provide suitable support for the new overcrossing.
Benefits of the use of CISS piles as a foundation alternative would include:
x Larger diameter CISS piles can be specified that help develop resistance at shallower depths compared to driven piles.
x CISS piles are commonly used to resist lateral loads for relatively large structures and may be preferred over standard steel pipe piles if a larger lateral resistance is needed to satisfy special structural considerations or loading conditions; and
x CISS piles can be designed to provide resistance to scour and liquefaction-related effects.
Constraints of the use of CISS piles as a foundation alternative would include:
x CISS installation would involve soil disposal for the soil plug that may encounter potentially contaminated soil or groundwater conditions.
x Pile driving will generate noise. Pre-construction surveys of nearby residences, distress surveys, and noise and vibration monitoring may be needed for pile driving. x Pile driving in close proximity to Sycamore Creek may not be permitted for environmental reasons or could require special permit conditions such as the use of buffer trenches or curtains to attenuate noise and vibrations from pile driving from adversely impacting aquatic species in the creek.
x Driving could be delayed if splicing of steel piles is needed because of requirements for inspection and testing of field welds; and
x A group of driven piles will likely be needed to support structure loads above the standard pile capacity or to provide a structural connection between the foundation and superstructure.
CISS piles are considered suitable for support of the proposed overcrossing structure. CISS piles bearing near elevation -28 feet (approximately 33 feet below the ground surface) were used to support the Sycamore Canyon Bridge with nominal design capacities up to 280 kips. These piles appear embedded within the younger alluvium (Qia) unit. The younger alluvium may be potentially liquefiable based on preliminary analyses, and is not the recommended bearing material for CISS, if used. The piles would need to be driven into the older alluvium and consider additional down drag and potential lateral forces associated with seismic settlement and liquefaction.
9.1.4 CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE (CIDH) PILES
Cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles typically consist of a reinforced concrete pile cast in a drilled hole.
CIDH piles would likely need to develop frictional resistance within the older alluvium and below approximately el. -25 feet to provide suitable support for the new overcrossing. Loose, wet alluvium encountered in the previous borings at the project site would require wet-method (slurry displacement) CIDH pile construction and/or temporary casing. Drill rigs used to construct CIDH piles ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 17 can be equipped with temporary casings and other tooling to help advance the hole through loose soil and groundwater. Pile contractors are typically experienced in drilling in loose or caving soil or below groundwater.
Benefits of the use of CIDH piles as a foundation alternative would include:
x CIDH piles can be designed to larger diameters (compared to standard piles) to provide additional axial or lateral resistance or help to reduce the total number of piles needed; x A single CIDH pile can be designed with a structural connection to the bridge column without the need for a pile cap (and associated excavation);
x CIDH pile installation typically also does not have the noticeable vibrations or noise associated with pile driving;
x CIDH piles can be designed to develop higher capacities in hard or dense bearing material where a smaller-, standard-size driven pile may have a limited capacity and meet refusal near the surface of the bearing material; and
x CIDH piles can be designed to provide resistance to scour and liquefaction-related effects.
Constraints of the use of CIDH piles as a foundation alternative would include:
x Post-construction inspection and non-destructive testing of CIDH piles constructed in the wet is required by the Standard Specifications. Anomalies are often identified that require delays, review of the design loads, and possible mitigation or pile replacements to address anomalies; x Tanks for slurry and spoils associated with wet-method CIDH pile construction can require a larger construction footprint compared to driven piles; and x CIDH pile construction would involve cutting and slurry disposal that may encountered potentially contaminated soil or groundwater conditions.
ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 18 CIDH piles are considered suitable for support of the proposed overcrossing structure. Preliminary factored nominal axial resistance versus embedment depth into the alluvium are provided on Figure 8 for various CIDH pile diameters requested by Quincy. Factored nominal axial resistances provided on Figure 7 were estimated according to the latest Caltrans (2019) amendments to the AASHTO(2017) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for the Strength Limit State (resistance factor of 0.7) and does not include the effects of scour, seismically induced downdrag, or preliminary lateral resistance. Yeh should be contacted if pile sizes or loading other than those provided on Figure 7 are needed for preliminary design.
Figure 7: Preliminary Factored Nominal Axial Resistance Versus Depth for CIDH Piles – Strength Limit State ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 19 9.1.5 PREFERRED PILE FOR DESIGN
The proposed overcrossing should be supported on deep foundations bearing in dense older alluvium based on subsurface conditions encountered in previous borings drilled for adjacent structures.
Similar to the foundation support for the Sycamore Creek Bridge on Highway 101, driven piles are considered most suitable for support of the overcrossing structure based on the subsurface conditions encountered in previous studies in the site vicinity and would help to avoid potential foundation problems associated with shallow groundwater, caving soil conditions, and foundation support. CIDH piles are also considered suitable for support of the overcrossing structure; however, CIDH piles may encounter more constructability challenges relative to the project site compared to driven piles (as described above). Preliminary axial resistance versus embedment depth for various piles are provided in the previous sections to be used with preliminary design. Final design pile tip elevations will be recommended in the Foundation Report based on additional field exploration and test results, load demands, the estimated scour depth, estimated seismically induced downdrag or loads, and foundation analysis to evaluate the lateral resistance of piles relatively to axial and lateral load demands.
10.RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF WORK FOR FINAL DESIGN
Additional field exploration and testing at or near project support locations should be performed as input to the final Foundation Report for the project. Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings and drilled borings are recommended to characterize the foundation support soils relative to foundation capacity, liquefaction, and compressibility. Samples collected from the borings will be laboratory tested for classification, strength, and compressibility and compared to interpreted data collected from the CPT soundings. Geotechnical recommendations should be provided in the final Foundation Report based off the additional field exploration and testing performed relative to foundation support of the overcrossing structure, seismic and scour considerations at the site, any anticipated retaining wall structures, as well as site grading and earthwork. Table 4 provides a summary of proposed exploration and considerations for alternative overcrossing geometries provided by Quincy (2022).
Table 4: Summary of Future Exploration by Frame Structure Frame ID No. of
Supports
Location No. Proposed
Explorations x Depth
Access and ROW Considerations
Sycamore Creek
Structure*
(Sta. 12+50 to 19+78)
7 Parallel to US-101 and UPRR and
extending west from the Zoo to
Sycamore Creek
4 Borings x 50-150 feet
3 CPTs x 100-150 feet
All explorations on Zoo or City
property south of UPRR corridor,
use of park and zoo driveways and
parking lot, day work
US-101 Structure A –
clear span alternative
(Sta. 19+78 to 22+02)
2 Crossing US-101 and UPRR
corridors
2 boring x 100-150 feet
2 CPTs x 150 feet
All explorations on Zoo or City
property outside Caltrans and UPRR
corridors, use of park and zoo
driveways and parking lot, day
work
ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 20 Frame ID No. of
Supports
Location No. Proposed
Explorations x Depth
Access and ROW Considerations
US-101 Structure B –
two span alternative
(Sta. 19+78 to 22+02)
3 Crossing US-101 and UPRR
corridors
3 borings x 100 feet
3 CPTs x 150 feet
Two borings and two CPTs on Zoo
or City property outside Caltrans
and UPRR corridors
One boringнWd inside Caltrans
right of way along existing SB
shoulder of US-101. Caltrans lane
closure required, night work likely
US-101 Structure C* -
three span alternative
(Sta. 19+78 to 22+02)
4 Crossing US-101 and UPRR
corridors
4 borings x 100-150 feet
3 CPT x 150 feet
Two borings and ƚǁŽCPTs on Zoo
or City property outside Caltrans
and UPRR corridors
Two borings and one CPT inside
Caltrans right of way along existing
SB shoulder and in center median
of US-101. Caltrans lane closures
required, night work likely
Stacked Ramp
Structure*
(~Sta. 22+02 to
26+00)
5 Intersection of Canada and Pitos
Streets on north side of US-101
3 borings x 50-100 feet
2 CPT x 100-150 feet
All explorations on City property͕
ĚĂLJǁŽƌŬ
*Total No of Borings and CPT Soundings assuming Sycamore Creek Structure, US-101 Alternative C, and Stacked Ramp support locations shown on Quincy (2022)
11 borings x 50-150 feet
8 CPT x 100-150 feet
Zoo and City property outside of
UPRR corridor, Caltrans right of
way along existing SB shoulder and
between existing SB travel lanes of
US-101. City and Caltrans lane
closures required; day and night
work
11. GENERAL CONDITIONS
Yeh prepared this report for Quincy Engineering and their authorized agents only. It is not intended to address issues or conditions pertinent to other parties, projects or for other uses. This report is for preliminary planning purposes only and is not intended for use in final design or construction. The results of this study are preliminary and subject to change pending the results of our design-level geotechnical evaluation. No services have been performed to evaluate environmental impacts or the presence of hazardous or toxic materials.
12.REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2022), AASHTO Guide Specifications for Bridges Subject to Tsunami Effects, issued January 2022.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2017), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition, issued 2017.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2022), ARS Online, Version 3.02, Online Web Tool, https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/, accessed July 26, 2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2021), Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, Division of Engineering Services, Structure Design, issued May 2021.
ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 21 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2020). Caltrans Geotechnical Module, Liquefaction Evaluation, issued January 2020.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2019b), Seismic Design Criteria, Version 2.0 (with interim revisions), Division of Engineering Services, Structures Design, issued April 2019.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2019a), California Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Eighth Edition, Sacramento, California, issued April 2019.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2018), Standard Plans, issued 2018 with April 2022 revisions.
Caltrans Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2014), Memo to Designers 3-1, Deep Foundations, dated June 2014.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2010), Memo to Designers 20-13, Tsunami Hazard Guidelines, dated January 2010.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2008), Pile Driving Records for the Sycamore Creek Bridge Replacement, Bridge No. 51-0332, EA 05-447804.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2005b), US-101 Widening, Kilometer Post Mile 17.4 to 20.6, Sheets 17 through 27, 30 through 32, 613 through 652, dated 2005.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2005a), Sycamore Creek Br (Replace), Log of Test Borings, Bridge No. 51-0332, dated March 17, 2005.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2004), Final Structure Foundation Report, EA 05- 447801, Sycamore Creek Bridge (Replace), Bridge No. 51-0157, dated October 1, 2004.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 1944), Sycamore Creek Test Hole, File No. 10-5-238, Drawing No. P.1706-1, Bridge No. 51-157, dated August 1944.
CalTopo (CalTopo 2022), Online Topography Tool, accessed August 3, 2022, https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=34.42081,-119.66787&z=17&b=mbh Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2022), FEMA Flood Map Service Center, Map No. 06083C1391J, effective September 28, 2018, accessed September 6, 2022.
Google Maps (Google 2022), street view, accessed September 6, 2022.
Minor, S.A., Kellogg, K.S, Stanley, R.G, Gurrola, L.D, Keller, E.A., and Brandt, T.R. (Minor et al. 2009), Geologic Map of the Santa Barbara Coastal Plain Area, Santa Barbara County, California, scale 1:25,000.
Natural Hazards Risk and Resiliency Research Center (NHR3 2022) Web Portal, ec2-35-167-122-9.uswest-2.compute.amazonaws.com, accessed October 5, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 3
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 222-181 Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan October 14, 2022 22 Quincy Engineering, Inc. (Quincy 2022), Planning Study, Canada Street POC, dated October 5, 2022.
United State Geological Survey (USGS 2022), Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States,
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf8 8412fcf, accessed August 3, 2022.
Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I.M. (Youd and Idriss 2001), Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Co-chairs Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-833.
ATTACHMENT 3
PLATE PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER: REVISION DATE:
EXISTINIG FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Geotechnical • Geological • Construction Services
1 Lower East Side Pedestrian
Community Connector
Santa Barbara CA
222-181 9/12/2022
Existing Boring (2004)Existing Well (2004)Existing Boring (1944)USGS Survey Benchmark (R28-1920) Sound Wall LocaƟons
North
feet
0 100
LEGEND:
Existing Boring (Soundwall #1)
Base Image (Google Earth, 2022) Existing Exploration Locations (CaltransMetric Sheet L-6 and L-7, 2005).
Overlain Image Pedestrian Bridge design (Quincy Engineering) B2-04 B1-04
B18-04
B13-04
B21-04
Test Hole #1
16+00
15+00
14+00
13+0000+2
1 Sycamore Creek Bridge(1944, 2005, 2008) Sound Wall #1 PM 11.8-12.1 (2005, 2008)
Sound Wall #2
PM 12.1-12.2
(1984)
B34-04
B29-04
B24-04
Sycamore Creek
Sycamore Creek Highway 101 SB
Highway 101 NB
Salinas Street S. Canada Street Pitos Street
Union PaciĮc Railroad
Santa Barbara
Sunrise RV Park
Dwight Murphy Field Santa Barbara Zoo
U.P.R.R.
U.P.R.R.
ATTACHMENT
3 APPENDIX A - PREVIOUS STUDIES - BORING LOGS
ATTACHMENT 3
A-1 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
A-2 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
A-3 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
A-4 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
A-5 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
A-6 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
A-7 of 7
ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX B - PREVIOUS STUDIES - RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING ATTACHMENT 3
B-1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 3
WW
E/y/
Z
E
Z/E'^
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Preferred Alternative Grades Less than 5%
ATTACHMENT 3
Short Ramp Alternative Grades up to 8.3%
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA SUPPORTING THE LOWER EASTSIDE
SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT AND PEDESTRIAN
AND BICYCLE OVERCROSSING PROJECT, AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO APPLY FOR A GRANT TO FUND
DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND
CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, in 2018, City Council adopted a Vision Zero Strategy committing to the elimination of all injuries and deaths on City of Santa Barbara streets and, concurrently with this resolution, approved the Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan, which identifies safety enhancements intended to reduce injuries and collisions within the Lower Eastside neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the safety enhancement infrastructure improvements identified in the plan would improve safe routes to Franklin Elementary School, Adelante Charter School, and Dwight Murphy Park; and
WHEREAS, public workshops and stakeholder meetings were held to review the plan and the safety improvements identified in the plan; and WHERAS, the community continues to support these safety improvements and funding towards design, environmental review, and construction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Staff is directed to seek funding for the design, environmental review, and construction of the Lower Eastside Safety Enhancements Project and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Overcrossing Project, as described in the Lower Eastside Community Connectivity Active Transportation Plan.
SECTION 2. Staff is authorized and directed to apply for an Active Transportation Program Grant, SB1 Grant, or other eligible grants that would be appropriate for the design, environmental review, and construction of the projects named in Section 1 and take all actions consistent with this resolution necessary or convenient for the implementation of these safety improvements.