1 Corporate Office: 1100 Corporate Drive, Suite 230 | Sacramento, CA 95831 | (916) 455-4225 Modesto: 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite B | Modesto, CA 95350 | (209) 312-7668 Pleasanton: 6200 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 330 | Pleasanton, CA 94588 | (925) 401-3515 Rocklin: 4220 Rocklin Road, Suite 1 | Rocklin, CA 95677 | (916) 455-4225 Ukiah: 100 North Pine Street | Ukiah, CA 95482| (707) 240-4400 Sacramento | Modesto | Pleasanton | Rocklin | Ukiah January 20, 2017 Mr. Jeremy Lipke Siskiyou County Department of Public Works 1312 Fairlane Road Yreka, CA 96097 Subject: Foundation Report Addendum No. 1 Taber File: 2011-0209 Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway Existing Bridge No. 2C-0264 Siskiyou County, California Dear Mr. Lipke, As requested, Crawford & Associates, Inc. (CAInc) prepared this Addendum No. 1 to Taber Consultants’ Foundation Report dated December 3, 2013 for the Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway project in Siskiyou County, California. Taber Consultants was acquired by CAInc in 2016. This addendum updates the Pile Data Table for the Caltrans Standard Class 140 (Alternative “X”) 12-inch square precast, prestressed concrete piles recommended in the Taber Foundation Report. Please refer to that report for information not included herein. Following is updated project information provided by you in e-mail communications dated December 21, 2016: • Bridge Deck Dimensions = 35.85’ L x 33.33’ W • Abutment Skew = 12.5° • Abut. 1 Pile Cut-Off = 2746.65 feet • Abut. 2 Pile Cut-Off = 2746.65 feet • Total Service-I Limit State Load = 123.6 kips/pile A total of four piles will be used at each abutment. No scour is indicated for this project and Rock Slope Protection (RSP) will be placed in front of the abutments to mitigate potential scour. We understand that the abutment pile foundations for this project use the Working Stress Design (WSD) method. Also, for implementation of the Gates Formula, the Taber Foundation Report recommends a nominal driving resistance value of 370 kips to be used for Class 140 pile acceptance criteria. This requirement reflects a factor of safety applied to the Gates Formula. However, this is not required by Caltrans and that recommendation may be ignored.
49
Embed
Sacramento | Modesto | Pleasanton | Rocklin | Ukiah ... C...Ukiah: 100 North Pine Street | Ukiah, CA 95482| (707) ... computation method was used to estimate axial pile capacity. Working
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
1) Design tip elevations are controlled by: (1) Compression; (2) Tension; (2) Lateral Load 2) The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevation for lateral load.
3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-21 16(916) 371-1690(707) 575-1568Fax (916) 371-7265www.tabe rconsu ltants. com
Foundation RepoÉSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 HighwayExisting Bridge No. 2C-0264Siskiyou County, California
,WMartin W. Mcllroy
TãberSIncê 1954
Mr. Scott Waite, P,E.
Siskiyou County Department of Public Works1312 Fairlane RoadYreka, California 96097
Subject:
MWM/GGWRLFAccompanying: Repofts (4)
Dear Mr. Waite:
Transmitted herewith are four copies of our Foundation Report performed at theabove site. The original transparencies of the "Log of Test Borings" drawings are beingforwarded under separate cover. An electronic version (PDF format) of the "Log of TestBorings" drawíng has been sent to you by e-mail.
Should any questions arise concerning foundation conditions at the site, pleasedo not hesitate to call on us. An opportunity to review and comment on plans andspecifications insofar as they rely on this report is an integral part of ourrecommendatrons.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Very truly yours,
December 3,20L2
2011-02094IL22-F5:114N;218W
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists
391.1 W€st Cap¡tol AvenueWesl Sacramento, CA 95691-2116p-r- (916) 371_1690' Síncalgí4 ì.n-r' ^.. ,.oo(707) 575-1568Fax (916) 371-7265www.tåberÇon$u ltanls, com
FOUNDATTON REPORTSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway
Existing Bridge No. 2C-0264Siskiyou CounW, California
County of SiskiyouOwner/Desígn Engineer
2011-020947t22-F5:114N;218W
December 2013
Tebêr Conaultantsêngineers and Gøologísts
:l*i:' ä
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1
Site Description ......................................................................................................... 2
available bearing capacity and scour susceptibility.
Recommendations
Spread Footing Foundations
Spread footing support is available, but requires consideration of potential
scour and changes in channel grade. For the indicated bridge layout, such a footing
would need to be below existing channel grade possibly requiring shoring,
dewatering and tremie pour or seal course. Neglecting scour effects, a maximum
spread footing elevation of elev. 2744 is required. Scour depths may affect final
footing bottom depths and also may require riprap protection to help limit scour at
the abutments.
For planning purposes, spread footings could be established on native
materials below the existing roadway embankment to the elevation previously
indicated. Preliminary allowable bearing capacity of 2 ksf would appear appropriate.
Footings are assumed to be at least as long as the bridge structure is wide and at
least 10 ft in width. Spread footing bottoms should be established at least 3-ft below
grade or to elev. 2744 (whichever is deeper) in intact native materials for the above
allowable gross bearing capacity to be used. The designer should determine the
actual footing widths. The abutment footings should be set back a minimum of 5 ft
from the proposed channel finished slope face.
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 15
Based on encountered earth materials and conditions, we have developed the
following table:
Table 2 – Spread Footing Data Table
Support Location
Footing Size
Bottom of
Footing
Elevation (ft)
Minimum
Footing Embedment
(ft)
Working Stress Design (LRFD Service-I Limit State Load
Combination) Load Resistance Factor Design
Width Length
Permissible
Gross Contact
Stress
(ksf)
Allowable
Gross Bearing
Capacity
(ksf)
Service Strength Extreme
(ft) (ft)
Permissible
Net Contact
Stress (ksf)
Factored
Gross Nominal
Bearing
Resistance (ksf)
Factored
Gross Nominal
Bearing
Resistance (ksf)
(φ=0.45) (φ=1.0)
Abut-1 10 30.6 2744
3 2 2
N/A N/A N/A
Abut-2 10 30.6 2744
3 2 2
N/A N/A N/A
Settlement on the order of 1-inch from liquefaction/cyclic softening within the
loose sand and soft layers may occur. The thicknesses of the sand layer from one
support to the other differ and settlements from one support to the other could
vary. Differential settlement along the footing length may also be realized but should
be less than the total estimated settlement.
Pile Foundations
Driven pile foundations are feasible and recommended. Piles are assumed
driven from elev. 2750 (assumed pile cut-off elevation). Borings did not encounter
boulders or cobbles, but, the presence of cobbles within this interval cannot be
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 16
precluded based on the drill action recorded in the field and the descriptions in
published mapping. Overhead clearances appear suitable for pile driving.
Caltrans Standard Class 140 pre-cast concrete piles are recommended for the
bridge foundations. Pile capacity calculations and specified tip elevations neglected
contributions from the upper 9±ft of the soil profile below the cutoff elevation.
Assuming a “free-head” condition and applying methods outlined in ATC-32
and Naval Facilities Design Manual 7.2 (with coefficient of variation of subgrade
modulus “f” taken as 20 pci for intact native soft-stiff clay or semi-compact sand
below elev. 2740±), lateral stiffness of 12 inch square concrete piles at abutments is
estimated as about 10 kips/inch and “ultimate” lateral capacity as 20 kips.
A “Pile Data Table” reflecting the above recommendations is as follows. This
office should be consulted in the event that changes in pile type, cut-off elevation
and/or loading are required or if tensile and/or lateral loads need additional
consideration.
Table 3 – Pile Data Table - Class 140
Location Pile Type
Cut-
off Elev.
(ft)
LRFD Service-I
Limit State Load per support (kips)
LRFD Service-I
Limit State Total Load per
pile (compression)
(kips)
Nominal Resistance
(kips)
Design
Tip Elev.
(ft)
Specified
Tip Elev.
(ft)
Nominal Driving
Resistance Required
(kips) Total Permanent
Abut-1
12” Square concrete
(Class 140) 2750 316.3 N/A* 106 215
2700 (1);
2720 (3) 2700 370
Abut-3
12” Square concrete
(Class 140) 2750 316.3 N/A* 106 215
2700 (1);
2720 (3) 2700 370 1) Design tip elevations are controlled by: (1) Compression; (2) Tension; (3) Lateral Load 2) Piles are assumed driven from an assumed cutoff elevation of elev. 2750. 3) Pile Loads are assumed design loads using Caltrans Standard Plans values. 4) *Service Limit-I Limit State Loads have not been provided
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 17
All piles should be specified to penetrate to or below Specified Tip Elevation
and should have full design bearing per the Gates Formula at final penetration. For
implementation of the Gates Formula on this local agency project, an “ultimate”
driving resistance value of 370 kips should be used for the given design loads for
Class 140 piles. This driving resistance value follows recommendations by FHWA for
implementation of the Gates Formula for driving resistance and has been indicated
by FHWA literature to provide a bearing capacity more consistent with design
service loading conditions and is appropriate for local County bridges where dynamic
pile analysis and load tests are typically not used.
Assuming adequate materials and workmanship, piling meeting effective
“refusal” within 5 ft above specified tip elevation may be considered acceptable
without specific review by this office. For this purpose, “refusal” may be considered
as at least twice required formula bearing in the last foot or three times the required
bearing within the last 3-inches of driving. Possible difficult driving conditions may
be encountered (but are not anticipated) at higher elevations above specified tip
elevations; pre-drilling may be an option for use as a driving aid only after
consultation with this office.
Soil Pressures
With the use of excavation/backfill details per Caltrans “Standard Plans,”
active soil pressures on abutment walls may be calculated on the basis of an
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 18
equivalent fluid pressure of 36 pcf. Passive soil pressures may be calculated on the
basis of an equivalent fluid pressure of 400 pcf.
Seismic loading will apply additional soil pressure to abutment/retaining walls.
Incremental lateral soil pressure due to seismic loading may be calculated on the
basis of an equivalent fluid pressure of 11 pcf with the resultant load acting at 0.6
times the wall height above the base of the wall. The equivalent fluid pressure will
vary depending on actual wall configuration and slope condition and should be
reviewed during design. For seismic conditions, passive soil resistance of up to 5.0
ksf is available for resistance to seismic loading - to be reduced for effective wall
height less than 5.5 ft in accordance with Caltrans “Seismic Design Criteria” (v.1.6).
Channel Modifications
It is recommended that slopes be configured at 1.5h:1v at the steepest when
re-grading the channel. Flatter configurations would also be acceptable and final
slope configuration will likely be dependent on structure to slope geometry. Existing
embankment soils are considered susceptible to scour. We anticipate that adequate
scour protection will be provided or potential scour conditions mitigated by some
other countermeasure. The abutments should be set back a minimum of 5 ft from
the proposed channel slope face.
Preliminary calculations indicate that stiff near-surface soils should not liquefy
in a seismic event. However, it does appear that minor lateral movement upon the
potentially liquefiable layer between elev. 2750 and 2746 cannot be precluded and
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 19
may potentially be susceptible to some minor slope failure (within the lower 5 ft of
the channel) in a major seismic event. Scour protection may help reduce the
susceptibility of the abutment slope to lateral displacement.
On the downstream side of the culvert, some minor scour may have occurred
as water flowed over the slab. Re-grading in this area of the channel may require
placement of fill to establish finished grades as indicated on the plans. However, the
actual extent of possible scour has not been determined; during construction it
should be determined whether fill will be needed to fill in scour areas on the
downstream side of the culvert.
Earthwork
All earthwork should be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard
Specifications supplemented by the recommendations below.
The area to be graded should be stripped of all debris, vegetation, and other
organic material. Where woody vegetation is removed, all substantial roots should
be excavated and removed. Debris, organic material, and otherwise unsuitable
materials should be disposed to an approved location.
The surfaces to receive fill should be scarified to 6-inch depth, moisture
conditioned to at least optimum-moisture content, and compacted to at least 90%
relative compaction (per CTM 216). Inability to achieve the required compaction on
the scarified materials may be used as a field criterion to identify areas requiring
Embankment fill slopes of 2h:1v or flatter are considered acceptable. Where
new fill is to be placed onto existing fill or natural slopes exceeding 5h:1v, it should
be placed on discrete benches cut fully into the slope and below any loose/soft or
otherwise unsuitable materials (per Section 19 of Caltrans “Standard
Specifications”). These recommendations can be modified by the Registered
Engineer in charge of the project based on soil exposures and grading operations
during earthwork activities.
On-site soils (less debris or organic material and any boulders) are considered
generally acceptable for use as compacted embankment fill and, except as described
below, should be placed to at least 90% relative compaction at or above optimum
moisture per CTM 216. Relative compaction of at least 95% (CTM 216) should be
achieved on all fill within 150 ft of the bridge and within 30 inches of finished grade
for pavement sections. Imported embankment fill should be approved by the
engineer and have "low" expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 25 or
Plasticity Index less than 20).
Temporary Excavations and Slopes
Temporary groundwater pumping is expected to control groundwater in
excavations. Temporary construction backslopes should be reviewed during
construction in evaluation of stability and for possible supplemental support (e.g.,
local shoring in areas of soft/weak materials). It is expected that construction back
slopes should be stable at configurations of 2h:1v or flatter. Temporary excavations
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 21
of 1h:1v are likely acceptable, but may require shoring to conform to CalOSHA
standards. Shoring and site safety are the responsibility of the contractor.
Pavement Design
Design of new pavement based on basement “R”=50 is considered
appropriate for this project. This assumes re-use and re-compaction of the existing
embankment materials. Pavement section design is based on Traffic Index (TI) and
“R”-Value, but should also reflect local experience and practice, depth and nature of
subgrade preparation, and acceptable level of maintenance.
Preliminary flexible pavement sections calculated in accordance with Caltrans
design methods (Highway Design Manual, Chapter 600) at design “R”=50 and for
TI=9.0 through 13.0 inclusive are shown in the following table.
Table 4 – Flexible Pavement Sections
AB AS Structural Section
Asphalt Class 2 Class 3 Thickness
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
0.45 1.00 0.35 1.80
0.50 1.50 -- 2.00
0.50 1.10 0.45 2.05
0.55 1.70 -- 2.25
0.55 1.25 0.50 2.30
0.60 1.85 -- 2.45
0.60 1.35 0.55 2.50
0.65 2.05 -- 2.70
0.65 1.45 0.65 2.75
T.I.
Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections
"R"=20
12.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
0.45 1.30 -- 1.75
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 22
Pavement sections shown in the table above incorporates a 0.20-ft gravel
equivalent safety factor. Other flexible pavement structural sections for traffic index
values other than those shown can be provided, if desired.
Design by the Caltrans method presumes materials and construction in
accordance with Caltrans “Standard Specifications,” including 95% relative
compaction (CTM 216) on all materials within 30-inches of finished grade. Inability
to achieve the required compaction on the scarified materials may be used as a field
criterion to identify areas requiring additional removal and/or re-compaction.
The subgrade soils should be field reviewed with respect to uniformity and
suitability by the soils engineer. Any unsuitable material, including clay and loose or
disturbed soils, should be removed to full depth and replaced with granular native
soil or Class 2 aggregate base compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (CTM
216). Native granular soils – less debris, organic material and particles over 4-inches
greatest dimension – are considered suitable for use as compacted fill.
The above pavement design assumes that free water will be absent from the
structural section. Suitable surface drainage is of particular importance to limit
subgrade saturation and excess free water.
Construction Conditions
Driven Piles
Extensive free groundwater is not expected within the depth of abutment
excavations if constructed during the dry season. This assumes a pile cap for driven
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 23
piles at elev. 2750. Seasonally, some seepage may be present which is expected to
be controllable by means of pumping within the abutment areas.
This office should be contacted in the event the piles do not meet bearing
criteria or if piles are driving harder before reaching specified tip elevation.
Spread Footings
For spread footing construction on native materials, groundwater may be
present. It is expected that pumping should help control seepage. However, more
granular layers within the excavation may be capable of transmitting larger volumes
of water into the excavation and could be susceptible to collapse (depending on the
slope geometry) and require shoring. Sandbags or other techniques could be
considered within the excavation to help slow seepage transmission and help
facilitate pumping.
Spread footings should be poured neat without forming against intact native
materials as affirmed by this office or the resident engineer in charge of the project.
Footing construction requires concrete that is poured neat without forming against
undisturbed rock. If excavations are unable to be dewatered, the use of a tremie
seal course can be considered for spread footing foundations.
Structure Removal
The entire existing bridge and appurtenant structures will be removed as part
of this project and disturbance to channel slopes and soil beneath support areas is
expected. The depth of the box culvert concrete slab and cut-off walls within the
2011-0209
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 24
channel is unknown; depending on thickness of the slab, channel disturbance may
be below the proposed bottom channel finished grade and could affect final footing
elevations. Reprocessing of the channel bottom soils and banks can be expected as
a result of structure removal.
Taber Consultants personnel should be on-site to observe and confirm the
exposed surfaces that will be re-graded and re-processed after removal of the
structures. This will allow us to confirm anticipated subgrade/native soil conditions
are as expected and also to quickly provide further recommendations if unexpected
or emergent conditions are discovered during construction.
Borings did not encounter boulders or cobbles, but, the presence of cobbles
within this interval cannot be precluded based on the drill action recorded in the
field and the descriptions in published mapping.
Supplemental Services
Within our profession it is recognized that the risks of design, construction,
and maintenance-related problems associated with civil engineering works are
typically higher and result in increased overall project cost when the geotechnical
engineer of record is not retained to provide supplemental services. For this project,
Taber Consultants should provide the following supplemental geotechnical services:
review and provide written comments on the final plans and specifications, insofar as they rely upon this report, prior to construction bidding to verify consistency with the recommendations contained herein; and,
TaberSlnce 1954
2011-0209
. Review/observe footing foundation excavations during construction to confirmbearing materials in order to provide additional or alternate recommendationsif necessary.
Should there be significant change in the project or should soils conditions
different from those described in this repoft be encountered during construction,
this office should be contacted/notified for evaluation and supplemental
recommendation as necessary or appropriate.
Taber Consultants cannot be responsible for interpretations made by others
regarding our repoft and the recommendations contained herein. If construction
observation is peformed by others, they should review this repoft and either accept
the conclusions and recommendations herein as their own or provide alternative
recommendations,
Martin W. Mcllroyc,E.G, 2322, P,E. 78846
TABER CONSULTANTS
December 3,2013
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge on Old 99 Highway / 25
2011-0209 GENERAL CONDITIONS
The conclusions and recommendations of this study are professional opinion based upon the indicated project criteria and the limited data described herein. It is recognized there is potential for sufficient variation in subsurface conditions that modification of conclusions and recommendations might emerge from further, more detailed study. This report is intended only for the purpose, site location and project description indicated and assumes design and construction in accordance with Caltrans practice. As changes in appropriate standards, site conditions and technical knowledge cannot be adequately predicted, review of recommendations by this office for use after a period of two years is a condition of this report. A review by this office of any foundation and/or grading plans and specifications or other work product insofar as they rely upon or implement the content of this report, together with the opportunity to make supplemental recommendations as indicated therefrom is considered an integral part of this study and a condition of recommendations. Subsequently defined construction observation procedures and/or agencies are an element of work that may affect supplementary recommendations. Should there be significant change in the project, or should earth materials or conditions different from those described in this report be encountered during construction, this office should be notified for evaluation and supplemental recommendations as necessary or appropriate. Opinions and recommendations apply to current site conditions and those reasonably foreseeable for the described development--which includes appropriate operation and maintenance thereof. They cannot apply to site changes occurring, made, or induced, of which this office is not aware and has not had opportunity to evaluate.
The scope of this study specifically excluded sampling and/or testing for, or evaluation of the occurrence and distribution of, hazardous substances. No opinion is intended regarding the presence or distribution of any hazardous substances at this or nearby sites.
2011-0209 SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Mack, Seymour, 1960, “Geology and Ground-water Features of Shasta Valley,
Siskiyou County,” California: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1484, scale 1:62500.
2. Hotz, P.E., 1974, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Yreka Quadrangle, California:” U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-568, scale 1:62500.
3. Hotz, P.E., 1977, “Geology of the Yreka quadrangle, Siskiyou County, California:” U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1436, scale 1:62500.
4. Hotz, P.E., 1978, “Geologic Map of the Yreka Quadrangle and Parts of the Fort Jones, Etna, and China Mountain quadrangles, California:” U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-78-12, scale 1:62500.
5. Strand, R.G., 1987, “Geologic Map of California: Weed Sheet:” California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250000.
6. Miller, C.D., 1981, Potential Hazards from Future Eruptions in the Vicinity of Mount Shasta Volcano, northern California: U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1503, scale 1:62500.
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916.371.1690 Fax 916.371.7265www.taberconsultants.com
Siskiyou County Department of Public Works
2011-0209 Figure–1
Vicinity Map
Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 HighwaySiskiyou County, California N
1:24000
USGS “Montague, CA” Quadrangle7.5 Minute Series (Topographic),Dated 1984.
SITE
20000
To Yreka
To Grenada
Interstate 5
I
Elii;iå irE'El¡Èil
rl,ls
l¡e
¡*
!ii
it
¡Ë
it
#åi
å!¡E
íit
Il3
!å
fuAttlP¡ l,z-tlPLANS APPROVAL DA1EOLD 99 HIGHWAY
TABER CONSULTANTS3911 Wost Cepitol AvenueWest Secrarnento, CA 95691-21 16
e.\ I
2770
2760
2790 ^***"*tmi'n'm SrûO od fiAçL ndlt to tL ([l)
"''[.f fil'å",# *:-"ffi *"i.i iuJ:",
2740 (bbmretl od loñ dlo# bor UE ft. to cmSO iS ft. to c@ fiAW. it, úgdû, l--YSIT od UY lr-
2730h¡ rJd bor Jö dd db motüh! 9LÍ ilEfü. lo @- ilD
'¡ü ft. to m CRA\€L ñd. mrtd
Cmret to dr! dd )dldú dd*Þoñ ar UEY Sm dth m^É rl
NOrES:l. Flcld c{olsificot¡on of soils wos ¡n qçctdoncc with ASnl D
2,+88-06'D€scriptiff qnd ldntificotìon of Soils (VÌsuol-MonuqlProcedure)".
2. Stqndord Pen€trotlon t€sta wtrs psrfomsd in occsdonce withAS'fi¡ D l5E6-99 us¡ng o hommü op€roted with on outomqteddrop systo, Drill rods wcr€ 1S/E-inch diomctq'A'-rods;sqmplã wos drívrn with brols linqs.
J. '2.5 inch sompl€r'; 10=2.5 inch, OD=2.9 ¡nch; oriwn in somemonn€r os sPT ('1.4 ínch') sompltr.
4. fhe l€ngth of eqch sompl6d int€rvol is shown grophicolly q thebq¡ng log. llho{€ numb€r blow cilnts ("N') represøt the'etqndqrd pcnatrotìon rcsistonce' ínterwl in qccordq¡co w¡thASÌf¡ 01566-99. llhrr! l.!s thon 1 foot of p6otrqt¡ø lsqchi€wd, thq blow c@nt rhown is for thqt frqct¡ø af the'stondord p€netrotion ¡esìstonce' intervol octuolly penstroted.
5. lthere indicot€d by on qsterisk (r) the number of blows shornis for only thqt froction of the initlol 0.5 ft. 'seoting driw'ínttrvol pq€trqted.
6. SPT hommer 6dgy meqsu¡flcnts were not token. Recenthommer enqrgy rqt¡o (ERi) mGosur€ments ¡ndicot€ qn ERi =71X.
7. Conslst€ncy of soils shown ìn ( ) whøe €stimoted,
4ZZ f\ 6. Groundwots wrfoce (GllS) el€votlons ln th€ borings ¡ndicot€d¿I ( V on th€ Log of Test B'orin{ She€ts r€|!€ct th€ fluid-lev€l in the
bor¡ngs on th€ spEc¡f¡€d dot€.
27609. Groundwottr wrfoc€ elevotions ore subþct to seosonol
lluctuotims ond mqy occur qt hlgher or lower devotlonsdepending on the conditiøs qt ony porticulqr tíme.
10. Electron¡c medíq for plqn view provlded by Siek¡)ou County DPlvon Mqy 1, 2012
11. the "Log of Tcst Borings'drowing ¡! included with plons ¡nqccordonc€ with S€ct¡on 2-1.05 of Coltrons 'StondordSpecfrco0on9.
12. Logs (6.5x11'sheets) for Borings 2 qnd 3 ore provid€d in theFoundot¡on Report.
2740
2730
2720 =
B-1
PLAN1"=20'
A.v. 2717.+3-1-7012
A/C ø Ag.gd. &r ü¡(vry rtlfilcqæt) ilÐY UY dth'æÀv+t'.ú* (¡i 2750($ft/ry -ftì d hú ilY dh sp
dd tu CR^!ll- mdtt to f,t, (ñl)Cqoct Ëdn dú od dd h UEY ft. to cffi
SrúO rlü h. b ffi eR^\tr- ffitd, ñod, (h-F^ ñ{)
(Stll0 llgnt æy tr UY Jh m. to ts6sN od GnAEL md.t
hret dda r.ddldr od ffi hom ctAìEY ft. towr SÆ0 lh ft. to cm GAEI- cñút 4 md.t
Lod t{ol* dh qd ffi Hoú CUì€Y fr. toúr ilo iü fr. to c@ mEL d
(Smb@@o to hr, Éoló du {6m WO ff fr. to cm eAE. Woü ilEY ñ. toY cmrté mdd to mt
=2720 St¡r lht ñc EA UY ltt fn. ft. to cdx6-ffi
\ztto
i2700
2690
2680
6+ 00
2710*o
o
L!
Eulk Bog Â: 0.5 -1/s0/2012.
PROFILEHOR.1"=10'\ÆRT- 1":10'
2700 7
2690
2680
4+ 005+00
ELEVATION REFERENCE:
@"tocotedJ2.15+71 , älevotîon 2756.70 per Siskiyouof Public Works.
b
>9tl6ó
åäiEã,8,EEEffiM=
L,
¡3 Ëe
: ; ¡ *ä;ä
r3:d
!E!9
¡Ï¡-:E
¡!¡E
õ¡59Pã
i¡gi
EEül
zt
þ'"ipÞ¡3 ã ¡Í ç
isåg¡i
Ëå8l€5
el i Lgl Ë È
sl # õÉl _3;s s€Ëi j$É
.eRBR.¿¿ l*år
SCHULMEYER GULCH BRIDGE AT OLD 99 HIGHWAYGLEN G. WADE, P.G.FIELO INlES¡CATOR
¡¡16 Aoril-Mov 201 2
PRIPARED FIR
SISKIYIU CIUNTYDTPARII.ITNT [F PUBLIC VIRKS LOG OF TEST BORINGS
Caltrans Design ARS Envelope Curve Schulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway Siskiyou County, California
2011-0209 December 2013
Figure-2
VS30: 291 m/s (955 //s) Peak Ground Accelera>on: 0.27 g La>tude: 41.65614 Longitude: -‐122.58107 Site Class: D Nearest Fault: Cedar Mountain Fault System
(Ike’s Mountain sec>on) Maximum Magnitude: 7.1 Controlling Spectrum: 0 < T < 2 seconds
2008 USGS Deaggregated Spectrum
T > 2 seconds Caltrans ARS Online Probabilis>c Spectrum
Asphalt concrete over 1.5-ft of Aggregate Base(compact) SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, (fill), dry to moist
(Compact) SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, (fill) dry to moist
Dense, yellowish and dark reddish brown with grayCLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, moist to wet
Bottom of hole at 7.0 feet.
Groundwater encountered at 6.9-ft depth on April 30,2012.
R
130
GP-GM
SM
SC
Bag
1.440
FIGURE 3
STATION: 8 ft left, STA 6+37SURFACE ELEVATION: 2754.6
PAGE 1 OF 2
Job No. 2011-0209TEST BORING LOG
TYPE: 6-IN SFA BORING NO. 2
LOG
OF
BO
RIN
G (
SO
ILS
ON
LY Q
U)
20
11-0
209.
GP
J C
UR
RE
NT
-LIB
RA
RY
.GLB
TA
BE
R.G
DT
12/
12/1
2
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
UN
CO
NF
INE
DC
OM
PR
ES
SIV
ES
TR
EN
GT
H o
rP
ocke
t Pen
etro
met
er (
tsf)
MA
TE
RIA
LS
YM
BO
L
UN
IFIE
DS
OIL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
LOGGED BY: GGW
(%)
DATE: 04-30-2012
THE BORING LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE DATES ANDLOCATIONS INDICATED AND IT IS NOT WARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRE-SENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
SA
MP
LE N
o.
DE
PT
H
IN F
EE
T
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
350
ft-lb
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SA
MP
LE S
IZE
(inch
es)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y(lb
s/cu
. ft.)
Moi
stur
e
OT
HE
R T
ES
TS
2.0
7.017
C
1
Asphalt concrete over 1.5-ft of Aggregate Base(compact) SILTY SANDY GRAVEL, (fill), dry to moist
Stiff, dark brown and brown mottled CLAY with traceSAND, (fill), moist
Bottom of hole at 7.0 feet.
Groundwater was not encountered within the borehole,April 30, 2012.
2.8 114
CLBag
712
FIGURE 3
STATION: 6.5 ft right, STA 3+75SURFACE ELEVATION: 2755.4
PAGE 2 OF 2
Job No. 2011-0209TEST BORING LOG
TYPE: 6-IN SFA BORING NO. 3
LOG
OF
BO
RIN
G (
SO
ILS
ON
LY Q
U)
20
11-0
209.
GP
J C
UR
RE
NT
-LIB
RA
RY
.GLB
TA
BE
R.G
DT
12/
12/1
2
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
UN
CO
NF
INE
DC
OM
PR
ES
SIV
ES
TR
EN
GT
H o
rP
ocke
t Pen
etro
met
er (
tsf)
MA
TE
RIA
LS
YM
BO
L
UN
IFIE
DS
OIL
CLA
SS
IFIC
AT
ION
LOGGED BY: GGW
(%)
DATE: 04-30-2012
THE BORING LOGS SHOW SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE DATES ANDLOCATIONS INDICATED AND IT IS NOT WARRANTED THAT THEY ARE REPRE-SENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
SA
MP
LE N
o.
DE
PT
H
IN F
EE
T
BLO
WS
/FO
OT
350
ft-lb
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SA
MP
LE S
IZE
(inch
es)
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y(lb
s/cu
. ft.)
Moi
stur
e
OT
HE
R T
ES
TS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
D30 = 0.565 D10 =
Cc = Cu =
10024 16 301 20010
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Sieve Size Percent Finer
coarse fine finemedium
50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 20 406 60
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE-4
1.5
% FINES
3/4
0.0
Material Description
3/8
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R B
Y W
EIG
HT
coarse
16.5
% Clay% Silt
12.5 29.3 14.214.7
Atterberg Limits
% SAND% COBBLES
Coefficients
Depth: 20.0ft
D100 = 37.5 D60 = 5.078 D50 = 2.93
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC-SM)
PL = 15
1 1/2"1"
3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#10#20#40#100#200
Project No.2011-0209
100.096.487.583.376.758.243.534.227.117.714.2
Boring/Sample: B-1/6 and 7
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California
LL = 22 PI = 7
% GRAVEL41.8
12.8
14.244.0
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
D30 = 0.257 D10 =
Cc = Cu =
10024 16 301 20010
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Sieve Size Percent Finer
coarse fine finemedium
50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 20 406 60
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE-4
1.5
% FINES
3/4
0.0
Material Description
3/8
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R B
Y W
EIG
HT
coarse
19.2
% Clay% Silt
11.5 17.3 16.714.3
Atterberg Limits
% SAND% COBBLES
Coefficients
Depth: 20.0ft
D100 = 37.5 D60 = 2.411 D50 = 1.105
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC)
PL = 13
1 1/2"1"
3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#10#20#40#100#200
Project No.2011-0209
100.095.088.588.583.871.256.947.037.921.516.7
Boring/Sample: B-4/4
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California
LL = 26 PI = 13
% GRAVEL28.8
21.0
16.754.5
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
D30 = D10 =
Cc = Cu =
10024 16 301 20010
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Sieve Size Percent Finer
coarse fine finemedium
50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 20 406 60
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE-4
1.5
% FINES
3/4
0.0
Material Description
3/8
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R B
Y W
EIG
HT
coarse
2.1
% Clay% Silt
6.2 3.0 71.51.0
Atterberg Limits
% SAND% COBBLES
Coefficients
Depth: 40.0ft
D100 = 25 D60 = D50 =
LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
PL = 191"
3/4"1/2"3/8"#4#10#20#40#100#200
Project No.2011-0209
100.093.893.891.790.889.888.787.880.471.5
Boring/Sample: B-4/8
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California
LL = 39 PI = 20
% GRAVEL9.2
16.2
71.519.3
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
LL PL PI Fines
22
26
39
15
13
19
14
17
71
PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID LIMIT
ML or OL
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
CL or OL
CL-ML
CH or OH
MH or OH
7
13
20
Siskiyou County DPWSchulmeyer Gulch Bridge at Old 99 Highway
Siskiyou County, California FIGURE-4
Project No.2011-0209
Boring/Sample Depth Description
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC-SM)
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC)
LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)
20.0
20.0
40.0
B-1 / 6
B-4 / 4
B-4 / 8
Since 1954
Taber ConsultantsEngineers and Geologists3911 West Capitol AvenueWest Sacramento, CA 95691-2116916-371-1690 Fax: 916-371-7265www.taberconsultants.com