FOUNDATION REPORTS

for

BRIDGES

February 2017.r1

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES

 Foundation Reports for Bridges
February 2017.r1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................2

1.1 Intent of this Document ..................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Exceptions to Policy .......................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Overview of the Foundation Investigation and Reporting Process ................................... 2

1.4 Signing and Sealing Requirements.................................................................................... 2

1.5 Report Format.................................................................................................................... 3

1.6 Revised Reports................................................................................................................. 3

1.7 Report Types...................................................................................................................... 4

2. STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (SPGR) AND

PRELIMARY FOUNDATION REPORT (PFR) ..............................................5

2.1. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Project Description ............................................................................................................ 5

2.3. Exceptions to Policies and Procedures .............................................................................. 6

2.4. Field Investigation ............................................................................................................. 6

2.5. Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................... 6

2.6. Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.7. As-built Foundation Data .................................................................................................. 7

2.8. Scour Evaluation................................................................................................................ 8

2.9. Corrosion Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 8

2.10. Preliminary Seismic Information and Recommendations ................................................. 9

2.11. Preliminary Foundation Recommendations .................................................................... 11

2.12. Additional Field Work and Laboratory Testing .............................................................. 11

2.13. Report Copy List ............................................................................................................. 12

2.14. Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 12

3. FOUNDATION REPORT (FR).........................................................................13

3.1. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................. 13

3.2. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Exceptions to Policies and Procedures ............................................................................ 14

3.4. Field Investigation and Field Testing Program ............................................................... 14

3.5. Laboratory Testing Program............................................................................................ 14

3.6. Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................ 14

3.7. Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 15

3.8. As-built Foundation Data ................................................................................................ 16

3.9. Scour Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 16

3.10. Corrosion Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 16

3.11. Seismic Design Information and Recommendations....................................................... 16

3.12. Foundation Recommendations ........................................................................................ 17

3.13. Additional Considerations ............................................................................................... 34

3.14. Supplemental Project Information................................................................................... 34

3.15. Report Copy List ............................................................................................................. 34

3.16. Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 35

-i-
 Foundation Reports for Bridges
February 2017.r1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Intent of this Document

The intent of this document is to define the Department’s standard of practice for preparation
of the Structures Preliminary Geotechnical Report (SPGR), the Preliminary Foundation
Report (PFR) and the Foundation Report (FR). Standardized and consistent report
presentations for projects statewide benefit the Department’s staff, engineering consultants,
bidders, and contractors. Geotechnical Services staff as well as any other organization
preparing these reports must comply with the requirements presented herein.

This document addresses report content only, it does not address foundation engineering
practice (investigations, design procedures, etc.). Policy and procedures relating to
foundation investigations and design procedures are presented elsewhere in the Geotechnical
Manual.

The following terms, as defined below, are used throughout this document to convey the
Department’s policy:

Term Definition

Must, Required Mandatory Standard. The associated provisions shall be used.

There is no acceptable alternative.

Should Advisory Standard. The associated provisions are preferred

practices.

1.2 Exceptions to Policy

Exceptions to the policy and procedures set forth in this document require prior approval per
the Offices of Geotechnical Design – Quality Management Plan.

1.3 Overview of the Foundation Investigation and Reporting Process

Foundation investigation and reporting generally occurs at three stages of the project
development process:
• A Structures Preliminary Geotechnical Report (SPGR) to support Advanced Planning
Studies, performed during the WBS 150.15.30 (K Phase) or the 160.10.85 (0 Phase).
• A Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) to support Type Selection, performed during
the WBS 240.65 (1 Phase). (Note: Implementation of 0-Phase drilling will move the
PFR to the WBS 160.10 level)
• A Foundation Report (FR) to support the design and construction of the bridge,
performed during the WBS 240.80 (1 Phase).

1.4 Signing and Sealing Requirements

Signing and sealing requirements are presented in the Communications and Reporting
section of the Offices of Geotechnical Design – Quality Management Plan.

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

1.5 Report Format

A separate foundation report must be prepared for each bridge, except that left, center, and/or
right bridges with the same bridge number should be combined.

1.5.1 Reports Prepared by Caltrans Staff

Foundation Reports are written to the Structure Designer, Specification Engineer, and
Structure Construction. They are also provided to bidders via the Information Handout.

For reports prepared by Geotechnical Services staff, Foundation Reports must be prepared
using the current departmental memorandum format with the subject line of “Foundation
Report for Bridge Name” or “Preliminary Foundation Report for Bridge Name” or
“Structures Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Bridge Name”. Do not use the section
numbers in the report. Section titles must be used.

The Log of Test Borings (LOTB) and/or As-built LOTB are not to be submitted as part of
the FR. Microstation LOTB files and scanned copies of the As-built LOTB sheets will be
sent to the Structure Designer for inclusion within the Contract Plans.

1.5.2 Reports Prepared by Consultants

Foundation Reports must consist of the following: cover sheet, table of contents, main
contents per this document, and appendices. The cover of the report and any
addenda/amendments to the report must include the following information: Caltrans District,
County, Route, Post Mile, Bridge Number, Bridge Name, and Expenditure Authorization
(EA) number.

The LOTB and/or As-built LOTB must be submitted as part of the FR. Refer to the Caltrans
Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual for direction on the
preparation of the LOTB and As-built LOTB.

1.6 Revised Reports

When reissuing a report to provide modified recommendations, begin the memorandum
subject line with “Revised”, such as “Revised Foundation Report for Little Creek Bridge.”

Revised reports are issued as complete reports that supersede all previous versions so that
only one report is included in the construction contract. Include a statement in the Scope of
Work section of the report to indicate that the revised report supersedes all previous
versions. A brief explanation of why the revisions are necessary, and perhaps the scope of
revisions, should be included.

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

1.7 Report Types

1.7.1 Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report (SPGR)
The SPGR is required during the early stages of a project to assist Structure Design in the
preparation of an Advanced Planning Study and cost estimate for the District. Often the
number, location, and type of bridge(s) are not completely known. As a result,
recommendations may be general, and detailed field investigations are usually not warranted.
Typical fieldwork consists of a site visit only. The SPGR provides an overview of the
existing foundations, site geology, seismicity, and, if possible, recommendations regarding
suitable and unsuitable foundation types. If appropriate, the SPGR should also discuss the
anticipated field and laboratory work required to support the PFR and FR.

1.7.2 Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR)

The PFR is required during the early stages of a project after completion of the SPGR and
Advanced Planning Study, and prior to the Structure Type Selection. Generally more will
be known about the number, location, and types of bridge(s), and the PFR is used to expand
upon the information provided in the SPGR. The PFR will document existing foundation
conditions, provide preliminary seismic recommendations, make preliminary foundation
recommendations, and identify the need for additional investigations and studies. Typically
fieldwork will be limited to surficial observations, mapping, and/or measurements, although
in certain cases may involve subsurface exploration.

For 0-Phase drilling, the above paragraph is revised to:

Caltrans is transitioning the subsurface investigation from the 1-phase to the 0-phase. For
projects where the subsurface investigation is performed during the 0-phase, the PFR is
prepared using the Foundation Report preparation requirements (Section 3) and utilizes the
information collected during the subsurface exploration to present draft foundation
recommendations based upon preliminary loads provided by Structure Design. The PFR is
provided to Structure Design prior to PA&ED and structure type selection.

1.7.3 Foundation Report (FR)

The FR expands on data provided in the PFR, documents the results of field exploration and
laboratory testing and provides foundation and construction recommendations. The FR
becomes part of the contract documents via its inclusion in the Information Handout per
Standard Special Provision 2-1.06B, “Supplemental Project Information.”

For 0-Phase drilling, the above paragraph is revised to:

The FR expands on data provided in the PFR, and updates the foundation recommendations
based upon final loads provided by Structure Design. The FR becomes part of the contract
documents via its inclusion in the Information Handout per Standard Special Provision 2-
1.06B, “Supplemental Project Information.”

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

2. STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (SPGR) AND

PRELIMARY FOUNDATION REPORT (PFR)

The following topics should be addressed in all Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Reports
(SPGR) and Preliminary Foundation Reports (PFR). It is expected that as the foundation
investigation process proceeds, the level of detail in the PFR will expand upon the content of
the SPGR.

If the subsurface investigation (partial or complete) was performed in the 0-phase, prepare the
PFR using the applicable portions of the Foundation Report requirements in Section 3, and
include “Additional Field Work and Laboratory Testing” as necessary.

Example text is italicized and appears at the bottom of most sections.

2.1. Scope of Work

Summarize the purpose, scope, and types of work performed to obtain the information
supporting the preliminary recommendations. Reference the general plan and foundation
plan by date so the reader knows on what plans the recommendations are based. Do not
present an exhaustive list of tasks performed, a few sentences are sufficient.

Example
Per the request dated January 3, 2017, this Preliminary Foundation Report has been
prepared for the proposed widening of Dry Creek Bridge. The purpose of this report is to
summarize the preliminary investigations performed and to provide preliminary foundation
recommendations for Dry Creek Bridge. The recommendations presented in this report are
based on the draft general and foundation plans dated December 15, 2016, review of As-
built plans, discussions with Maintenance personnel, and a site visit.

2.2. Project Description

Describe the existing and/or proposed bridge(s), and pertinent project information relating to
the planned improvements. Provide project datum reference.

Example
The bridge site is located in the city of San Diego on State Route 15 at PM R3.8 which
crosses over Interstate 805 (I-805) at PM 15.1. At this site, the proposed bridge
replacement is necessary to accommodate the underlying highway improvements, which
include the widening of the existing I-805 in order to provide additional High-Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Based on the General Plan (dated December 10, 2015), the
proposed bridge is a 2-span, cast-in-place, prestressed concrete box girder bridge
supported on pile foundations.

All elevations referenced within this report are based on the National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29), unless otherwise noted.

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

2.3. Exceptions to Policies and Procedures

If applicable, discuss exceptions to Departmental policies and procedures relating to the
SPGR or PFR. Approved Request for Exception forms must be included in the Appendix.

2.4. Field Investigation

Provide an overview of the field investigation(s) to support the preliminary foundation
recommendations.

Example

As-built LOTB show that a subsurface investigation, consisting of three mud rotary borings,

was performed in 1969. Additionally, a site visit was performed on February 23, 2016.

2.5. Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions

Provide a generalized description of the project site geology and known subsurface
conditions. The site data may come from current or past field investigations at or near the
bridge site, As-built LOTB, maintenance records, construction notes, geologic literature, or
any other relevant information. The information included within this section may include but
not be limited to:
• Pertinent observations from the site visit
• Topography and geology
• Types of soil and thickness of generalized layers
• Type of rock and depth to rock
• Pertinent soil conditions or geologic hazards, such as
o Landslides or slope failures
o Embankment failures
o Unsuitable materials (Collapsible, expansive foundation materials)

Do not re-create the As-built LOTB in detail in this section. A generalized discussion is
sufficient.

Example
The bridge is located within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. The
Geologic Map of Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle shows that the site is underlain by
Quaternary alluvium. The topography is relatively flat and the site appears free of
geologic hazards.

In general, the alluvial soil at the site can be separated into three units. The upper unit
consists of very loose to slightly compact silty sand with gravel that extends from the
ground surface to a depth of about 15 feet (~ Elev. 950 feet). The middle unit consists of
slightly compact to dense sand to a depth of approximately 35 feet (~ Elev. 930 feet). The
lowermost unit consists of dense to very dense gravelly sand and sandy gravel with isolated
zones of sandy silt and gravel. This unit extends to the maximum explored depth of the
borings, which is approximately 60 feet below the ground surface (~ Elev. 905 feet).

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

2.6. Groundwater
Report groundwater elevation(s) and dates of measurements. Use of a table is recommended
if there are numerous borings and/or measurements.

Example: Groundwater Present

During the 1966 subsurface investigation, groundwater was encountered in both borings.
Groundwater levels varied from elevation 945 feet in February to elevation 938 feet in
August. Recent measurements by the Department of Water Resources for nearby sites are
generally consistent with the 1966 measurements.

Example: Groundwater Not Present

During the 1966 subsurface investigation, groundwater was not encountered in either
boring within the explored depth of 100 feet (elevation 900 feet).

Example: Groundwater Information Not Available

Groundwater information was not available based upon the literature search performed.

2.7. As-built Foundation Data

Include discussion of relevant As-built data, such as:
• Existing foundation types
• As-built geotechnical capacities or resistances
• Construction reports or records such as pile driving logs, pile load test reports,
groundwater monitoring notes, etc.

Example: Driven Piles

Construction of the original bridge was completed in 1969 with all three supports
supported on driven Alternative (Alt) “X” concrete piles with a design load of 45 tons. The
1969 As-built LOTB provided some pile driving information, which included the minimum,
average, and maximum penetration elevations for the piles. The bottom of pile cap
elevations listed were obtained from the as-built foundation plan. Table 1 presents a
summary of the 1969 As-built Data.

Table 1: Summary of the 1969 As-built Data

Bottom of Min. Avg. Max
Support Foundation Design
Pile Cap Penetration Penetration Penetration
Location Type Load
Elev. (ft) Elev. (ft) Elev. (ft) Elev. (ft)
12” Driven
Abut 1 45 ton 958.1 929.3 927.1 926.5
Alt “X” Pile
12” Driven
Bent 2 45 ton 935.5 920.2 918.1 916.1
Alt “X” Pile
12” Driven
Abut 3 45 ton 953.6 928.1 926.5 925.3
Alt “X” Pile

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Example: Shallow Foundations

The existing Cenda Ditch Bridge consists of a two-span, cast-in-place, slab bridge that was
constructed in 1963. Abutments 1 and 3 are end-diaphragm abutments and are supported
on spread footings placed in approximately 20 feet of embankment fill material. Pier 2 is
supported on seven columns on spread footings founded on rock. The As-built bottom of
footing elevations and design loads for the bridge are shown below in Table 2.

Table 2: As-built Information

Location As-built Bottom of As-built Allowable As-built Design
Footing Elevation (ft) Footing Pressure (tsf) Footing Pressure (tsf)
Abutment 1 4499.1 2.0 2.0
Pier 2 4475.0 5.0 5.0
Abutment 3 4490.7 2.0 2.0

2.8. Scour Evaluation

Report pertinent scour information including the potential for scour and magnitude of scour.

Example
The Office of Design and Technical Services, Structure Hydraulics Branch, provided scour
information for the site (Table 1).

Table 1: Scour Data

Long Term Scour
Short Term Scour
Support Location (Degradation and
(Local) Depth (ft)
Contraction) Elevation (ft)
Abut 1 2285.6 3
Left Bridge
Abut 2 2285.1 3
Abut 1 2291.9 3
Right Bridge
Abut 2 2291.6 3

2.9. Corrosion Evaluation

Report and discuss pertinent site corrosion data.

Example: No information available

Historical corrosion data is not available. For preliminary design purposes the site should
be considered non-corrosive based on the presence of predominantly cohesionless
material.

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Example: Non-Corrosive
Three soil samples and one water sample were collected for corrosion testing during the
2016 subsurface investigation. Corrosion test results for those samples are shown below in
Table 1. Based on current Caltrans’ standards, the site is considered to be non-corrosive.

Example: Corrosive
During the 2016 subsurface investigation four soil samples were collected for corrosion
testing. Corrosion test results for the samples collected from borings RC-16-001 and
RC-16-010 are shown below in Table 1. Due to chloride content and sulfate content being
greater than 500 ppm and 1500ppm respectively in two of the samples tested, the site is
considered to be corrosive based on current Caltrans’ standards, and corrosion mitigation
is required.

Table 1: Soil Corrosion Test Summary

Minimum Sulfate
Chloride
Boring ID Elevation (ft) Resistivity pH Content
Content (ppm)
(Ohm-Cm) (ppm)
RC-16-001 15.8 to 14.3 1544 7.24 N/A N/A

RC-16-001 -4.2 to -3.2 683 7.94 384 432

RC-16-010 -69.1 to -70.6 73 6.86 850 1500
RC-16-010 -104.1 to -105.6 78 7.71 1000 1600
Caltrans currently defines a corrosive environment as an area where the soil has either a chloride concentration of 500
ppm or greater, a sulfate concentration of 1500 ppm or greater, or has a pH of 5.5 or less. With the exception of MSE
walls, soil and water are not tested for chlorides and sulfates if the minimum resistivity is greater than 1,000 ohm-cm.

2.10. Preliminary Seismic Information and Recommendations

The preliminary seismic information and recommendations must include:
1. VS30 and how it was estimated (e.g., SPT correlations, Seismic CPT, PS Logging).
2. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the site.
3. Maximum moment magnitude (MMax) and site-to-fault distance (RRUP) if
deterministic. Design magnitude (M) and site-to-fault distance if probabilistic.
4. Identify site and/or support locations as either “Poor, Marginal, or Competent” per
the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), “Classification of Soils.”
a. 0-Phase drilling: provide p-y curves if site soils are “Poor” or “Marginal.”
5. Seismic Design Data Sheet (use attached template)
6. If applicable:
a. Surface fault rupture potential (see Fault Rupture Module)
b. Liquefaction potential (see Liquefaction Evaluation Module)
c. Lateral spreading potential
d. Seismically induced settlement
e. Seismic slope instability
f. Tsunami risk

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

If preliminary seismic recommendations are delivered under separate cover (e.g., fault
rupture reports), those reports should be referenced in this section. However, items 1 – 5
must be presented in the SPGR/PFR and item 6 topics should be summarized (i.e., do not
simply direct the reader to the other report for all information).

Example
The bridge site may be subject to strong ground motions from nearby earthquake sources
during the design life of the bridge. Based on available subsurface information and
Standard Penetration Test correlations for determining shear wave velocity, the average
shear wave velocity (VS30) for the upper 100 feet of soil is estimated to be 980 ft/sec. Per
the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), “Classification of Soils”, the site should be
considered “Competent.”

The Design Response Spectrum was determined using the Caltrans ARS Online (v.2.3.07)
web tool. The Design Response Spectrum is the upper envelope of the deterministic and
probabilistic response spectrum, but not less than the Minimum Deterministic Spectrum for
California. For this site, the Design Response Spectrum is controlled solely by the
deterministic approach. Adjustments for site conditions and near fault effects were
implemented when applicable.

Example: Deterministic Spectrum Controls

The controlling deterministic fault for the site is the Rose Canyon (Silver Strand Section -
Downtown Graben) (Fault ID: 410, strike-slip, dip=90°), with a maximum moment
magnitude MMax=6.8, located approximately 2.6 miles west of the site. The peak ground
acceleration (PGA) is 0.40g.

Example: Probabilistic Spectrum Controls

Using the USGS Interactive Deaggregation Tool, the controlling probabilistic fault
scenario for the site was determined to have a design magnitude of M = 6.7 and site-to-
fault distance of approximately 41.2 miles. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) is 0.27g.

Notes to the Geoprofessional (Preliminary Seismic)

The following information is provided to assist the Geoprofessional in providing
comprehensive and consistent recommendations.

1. For sites with a low VS30 (per SDC, Appendix B), site-specific seismic recommendations
using site response analysis and design ground motion time-history may be necessary.
2. Present recommended field and laboratory investigations for site-specific ground motion
analysis and/or potential seismic hazards in Section 2.12.

10

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

2.11. Preliminary Foundation Recommendations

Recommendations must include discussion on the appropriateness of shallow foundations,
driven pile foundations, and cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles. Recommendations
must be presented in the order of preference with the recommended foundation type(s)
presented first; followed by feasible, but not preferred, alternatives; followed by foundation
types not recommended. If applicable, include commentary relating to foundation types
proposed by the Structure Designer (MTD 3-1, Table 3-2).

Example
At all three support locations, the preferred foundation type is a Standard Plan driven
concrete pile as it will generate significant end-bearing resistance in the underlying dense
sand layer. If tension and/or lateral resistance requires additional penetration, Steel H-
Piles or Standard Plan open-ended steel pipe piles (Alternative “W”) are recommended.

CIDH concrete piles are not recommended due to the presence of groundwater,
construction difficulties, and increased costs associated with potential caving soil. Shallow
foundations are not recommended due to the presence of loose near-surface compressible
soil.

2.12. Additional Field Work and Laboratory Testing

Describe the anticipated scope and types of fieldwork and testing that may be required to
complete the foundation investigation. Discuss the potential need for entry permits, task
orders, groundwater monitoring, access road construction, lane closures, etc.

Example: SPGR
The available site information will not provide adequate data to complete the design
recommendations for Dry Creek Bridge. Therefore, a field investigation consisting of
approximately four borings and laboratory testing will be performed to characterize the
site.

To achieve the goal of 0-Phase drilling, the District Project Manager must initiate the
process of obtaining drilling clearances (e.g., environmental permits, right of entry,
categorical exemptions, etc.) so that drilling, preliminary design, and the Preliminary
Foundation Report can be completed prior to the end of PA&ED. For foundation
investigation details, the District Project Manager may contact the Office of Geotechnical
Design XX.

The request for the Preliminary Foundation Report should conform to “Memo to
Designers” 1-35 and include all design information for Foundation Recommendations (per
MTD 3-1 and/or MTD 4-1). The request should include a General Plan and preliminary
foundation loads so the number, depth, and location of borings can be determined.

11

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

If soil-structure interaction analysis data such as p-y, t-z and q-z curves are required,
indicate that in the request.

If the current vertical datum that will be used for the proposed bridge is different than the
As-built datum, then a datum conversion needs to be provided.

Any questions regarding the above recommendations should be directed to the attention of
NAME and PHONE.

2.13. Report Copy List

The SPGR and PFR must be addressed to the Structure Designer and copies provided to
those listed under Report Distribution in the Communications and Reporting Module.

2.14. Appendices
Appendix I: Seismic Design Data Sheet

12

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

3. FOUNDATION REPORT (FR)

The following topics, if applicable, must be addressed in the Foundation Report.

3.1. Scope of Work

Summarize the scope and types of work performed to obtain the information supporting the
foundation recommendations. Include a statement that the current report supercedes all
previous reports (referenced by title and date).

Example: Foundation Report

Per the request dated January 10, 2017, this Foundation Report has been prepared for the
proposed widening of Dry Creek Bridge. The purpose of this report is to summarize the
investigations performed and to provide foundation recommendations for Dry Creek
Bridge. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the general and
foundation plans dated December 10, 2016, a subsurface investigation, loads and scour
information provided by Structure Design.

This Foundation Report supercedes the Preliminary Foundation Report for Dry Creek
Bridge dated March 15, 2016 and the Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Dry
Creek Bridge dated January 28, 2016.

Example: Preliminary Foundation Report with 0-Phase Drilling

Per the request dated January 10, 2017, this Preliminary Foundation Report has been
prepared for the proposed widening of Dry Creek Bridge. The purpose of this report is to
summarize the investigations performed and to provide preliminary foundation
recommendations for Dry Creek Bridge. The recommendations presented in this report are
based on the draft general plan dated December 10, 2016, a subsurface investigation
consisting of borings at the abutments, and preliminary loads and scour information
provided by Structure Design. Borings were not completed at Bent 2 because access
permits were not yet available.

3.2. Project Description

Describe the existing and/or proposed bridge(s), and pertinent project information relating to
the planned foundation improvements. The datum used to reference the elevations in the
report should be included.

Example
The bridge site is located in the city of San Diego on State Route 15 at PM R3.8 which
crosses over Interstate 805 (I-805) at PM 15.1. At this site, the proposed bridge
replacement is necessary to accommodate the underlying highway improvements, which
include the widening of the existing I-805 in order to provide additional High-Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes. All elevations referenced within this report are based on the North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), unless otherwise noted. To convert an

13

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

elevation at this site from National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) to NAVD
88, add 2.3 feet to the NGVD 29 elevation.

Based on the General Plan (dated December 10, 2015), the proposed bridge is a 2-span,
cast-in-place, prestressed concrete box girder bridge supported on pile foundations.

3.3. Exceptions to Policies and Procedures

Discuss exceptions to Departmental policies and procedures relating to the FR. Approved
Request for Exception forms must be included in the Appendix.

3.4. Field Investigation and Field Testing Program

Provide an overview of the field investigation(s) performed to support the foundation
recommendations including the number of boreholes/CPT soundings, and geophysical
testing.

Example
In May 2016, a subsurface investigation was performed consisting of three mud rotary
borings drilled to a maximum depth of 80 feet. Additionally, the As-built LOTB indicates
that three borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 45 feet in 1969.

3.5. Laboratory Testing Program

Provide an overview of the laboratory testing program, if performed, to support the
foundation recommendations. Briefly explain what the tests were used for (e.g. soil
classification, settlement, strength parameters).

Example
During the most recent field investigation, soil samples for particle analysis and Atterburg
limits were collected from borings RC-16-001 through RC-16-002 for soil classification
and liquefaction evaluation. The summary of the results will be provided in the Information
Handout (referenced in the Special Provisions, Supplemental Project Information section),
and the test sample locations will be shown on the Log of Test Borings.

3.6. Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions

Based on the field investigation, provide an updated generalized description of the project
site geology and known subsurface conditions.

Do not re-create the As-built LOTB in detail in this section. A generalized discussion is
sufficient.

Present only factual information in this section, not how it relates to design and construction.
Discussion of the site geology, geological features, and subsurface conditions as they relate
to the foundation design and construction must be placed in the Foundation
Recommendations and Construction Considerations sections, respectively.

14

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Example

The bridge site is located within the Mojave Desert Geomorphic Province of California.

The “Geologic Map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle” (Bortugno and Spittler, 1998)

shows that the bridge site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium.

During the 2015 investigation, boring RC-15-001 was drilled near the right bridge
Abutment 2 location, boring RC-15-002 was drilled near the left bridge Abutment 2
location, boring RW-15-003 was drilled near the left bridge Abutment 1 location, and
boring RW-15-004 was drilled near the right bridge Abutment 1 location.

The soil borings revealed that the site is underlain by interbedded layers of predominantly
dense to very dense poorly-graded sand with silt and well-graded sand with gravel,
cobbles, and boulders, to the maximum depth drilled at the site of 80.9 feet (elev. 2377.9
feet). Soil descriptions from the 2015 subsurface investigation are presented on the Log of
Test Borings.

At Abutment 2 (Boring RC-15-002), very hard boulders up to 4 feet in size were identified,
however, larger boulders up to 8 feet were visible in the adjacent exposed slope.

3.7. Groundwater
Report groundwater elevation(s) and dates of measurements. Use of a table is recommended
if there are numerous borings and/or measurements. Include discussions relating to the
presence of wet or saturated soil when groundwater measurements were not made. Discuss
surface water conditions that might influence the design or construction of the foundations.

State the groundwater elevation(s) used for analyses and design.

Example
As-built LOTB’s from the April 1968 subsurface investigation indicate that groundwater
was encountered in several borings at that time, and ranged from elevation 19.0 feet to
elevation 21.2 feet (NAVD88 datum). During the 2010 subsurface investigation
groundwater was measured in Boring R-10-001 at elevation 15.3 feet, and in Boring
R-10-002 at elevation 13.9 feet. During the 2014/2015 subsurface investigation, ground
water was encountered in the borings and was measured in boring R-15-003 at elevation
17.1 feet, which corresponded to the level of the water in the riverbed at that time. The
groundwater elevation used for design was 21 feet.

Example: Perched Groundwater

During the 2016 subsurface investigation top of groundwater was measured to be about 6
feet above the sedimentary rock in both Boring RC-16-001 (Abutment 1) and RC-16-002
(Abutment 2). Given that the top of rock at Abutment 1 is at elevation 20 feet and elevation
5 feet at Abutment 2, the groundwater is considered to be perched on top of the sloping
rock.

15

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

3.8. As-built Foundation Data

If not addressed elsewhere in the FR, include discussion of relevant As-built data, such as
pile driving logs, pile load test reports, groundwater monitoring notes, etc.

3.9. Scour Evaluation

Reference and summarize the hydraulic findings outlined in the hydraulics report.

Note to Geoprofessional: If the field investigation reveals geologic information that

contradicts the hydraulics report, then the Geoprofessional must discuss the findings in the
FR and provide that information to author of the hydraulics report so that the scour
recommendations can be re-evaluated.

3.10. Corrosion Evaluation

Include and update the corrosion data required for the PFR (Section 2.9) based on new
findings and field investigations. If corrosion testing was not completed during the
foundation investigation, provide justification for the corrosion recommendations.

3.11. Seismic Design Information and Recommendations

Include and update the seismic design information required for the PFR (Section 2.10) based
on new findings and field investigations.

Provide seismic design recommendations for the proposed foundations (e.g., liquefaction
mitigation, p-y, t-z curves, fault rupture evaluation, etc.). If requested, the seismic design
information should also include seismic earth pressure behind the wall/abutments.

Example: Liquefaction
The Seismic Design Recommendations report, dated 12/16/2016, states that due to the
presence of loose to medium dense alluvial material and high ground water beneath the
site, the potential for soil liquefaction under strong ground shaking is present at the site.
Table 2, below, presents the liquefiable zone elevations at the abutment and pier locations.

Table 2: Liquefaction Potential at Old River Bridge

Estimated Seismic-induced
Support Liquefaction Elevation (ft)
Settlement (in)
Elev. 20 to 15
Abutment 1 and 3
Elev. 0 to -5
Pier 2 Elev. 10 to -5 4
Abutment 3 Elev. 20 to 10 3

16

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Example: Lateral Spreading Potential

The Seismic Design Recommendations report, dated 12/16/2016, states that it is
anticipated that lateral spreading may occur at Abutments 1 and 6 locations. The lateral
spreading forces at the top of each pile are estimated to be 130 kips at Abutment 1, and 120
kips at Abutment 6. See the Seismic Design Recommendations report for additional
information.

Example: Seismic Settlement

The Seismic Design Recommendations report, dated 12/16/2016, states that liquefaction-
induced settlement of the ground surface is estimated to range from 3 to 5 inches. See the
Seismic Design Recommendations report for additional information regarding settlement
for the existing bridge.

3.12. Foundation Recommendations

Provide complete and concise foundation recommendations by addressing the topics in the
applicable portions of this section. Discuss the recommended foundations and any special
considerations which influence their design and selection (ground improvement, scour,
liquefaction, usage of casings or shells, etc.).

Example: Shallow Foundations

The following recommendations are for the proposed Dry Creek Bridge (Br. No. 54-1200),
as shown on the General Plan dated March 14, 2016. At Abutments 1 and 2 support
locations, spread footings are recommended. The subsurface information gathered for the
site indicate that the abutment footings will be founded in sedimentary rock formation. The
following foundation recommendations were designed in accordance with the 2014
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (6th Edition) with CA Amendments.

Example: Deep Foundations

The following recommendations are for the proposed Wet Creek Bridge (Br. No. 54-1201),
as shown on the General Plan dated March 18, 2016. Based on the subsurface information
gathered at the site, driven precast concrete piles are recommended at the abutments and
CIDH concrete piles are recommended at Pier 2. The following foundation
recommendations were designed in accordance with the 2014 AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specification (6th Edition) with CA Amendments.

3.12.1 Shallow Foundations

Present and/or discuss the following:
1. A description of the material on which the footing is to be placed.
2. Summary of controlling loads and footing sizes table (MTD 4-1, Attachment 4,
Tables 3 & 4).
3. Foundation Design Recommendations for Spread Footing table and Spread Footing
Data Table (MTD 4-1, Attachment 5, Tables 2 & 3).
4. Calculated resistance factor for overall global stability and local slope stability
(Service Limit State and Extreme Event Limit State).

17

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

5. The influence of construction of the new footing on the adjacent structures and/or
utilities, if applicable.

Notes to the Structure Designer (Shallow Foundations)

Provide the following (applicable) information in this section to aid in preparation of the
contract plans.

1. Spread Footings below groundwater level: Identify the type of excavation (Type A or
Type D) required at all applicable support locations (See Bridge Design Aids, Section 11
- Estimating).

Example
Groundwater will be encountered during construction of the footings at the proposed
abutment, therefore show Structure Excavation Type D on the plans.

2. Spread footings with sub-excavation and replacement with structure backfill.

Example
At the Abutment 1 & 4 support locations, unsuitable native soils were identified in the
subsurface investigation and possibly underlie the proposed footing. Therefore, it is
recommended that the native materials be removed to a depth of XX feet below the
bottom of footing, and be replaced with structure backfill compacted to 95% relative
compaction, or concrete to the bottom of footing elevation. The bottom of sub-
excavation elevations for the abutments are listed in Table 1. The limits of the sub-
excavation and replacement must conform to the limits specified in Standard
Specification 19-5.03B for compaction of embankments under retaining wall footings
without pile foundations.

Table 1: Abutment 1 & 4 – Bottom of Sub-Excavation Elevation

Support Location Bottom of Sub-Excavation Elevation (ft)
Abutment 1 4334.4
Abutment 4 4336.4

18

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Construction Considerations (Shallow Foundations)

Provide the following (applicable) information in this section for use by the Specification
Engineer, Structure Construction Representative, Contractor, and others.

1. Include the following instructions (edited to the project site) to address potential
disturbance of native material below the specified bottom of footing elevation(s).

Example
At all support locations, the spread footings are to be constructed on the native
alluvium at the bottom of the excavation. The structural concrete is to be placed neat
against the undisturbed native alluvium at the bottom of the footing excavation. Should
the bottom of the footing excavation be disturbed, then the disturbed material must be
removed to a depth of XX feet below the disturbance, and recompacted to 95% relative
compaction.

Example
At all support locations, the spread footings are to be constructed on the weathered
rock at the bottom of the excavation. The structural concrete is to be placed neat
against the trimmed walls and undisturbed rock at the bottom of the footing excavation.
Should the bottom of the footing excavation be disturbed, then the disturbed material
must be removed and replaced to the bottom of footing elevation with concrete.

2. Include the following instructions to request footing inspections by the Geoprofessional.

Example
All support footing excavations are to be inspected and approved by the Office of
Geotechnical Design XX, Branch X. The inspections are to be made after the
excavation has been completed to the bottom of footing elevations and prior to placing
concrete or rebar in the excavations. The contractor is to allow seven working days for
the inspection of each footing excavation to be completed. The Structures
Representative is to provide the Office of Geotechnical Design XX, Branch X a one-
week notification prior to beginning the seven-day contractor waiting period.

(Note: If sub-excavation and replacement are to be required, modify the above example
to require the inspection to be performed when the contractor completes the sub-
excavation and prior to replacement.)

19

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

3.12.2 Deep Foundations (CIDH Concrete Piles)

Present and/or discuss the following:
1. Information provided by Structure Designer
a. Foundation Design Information Sheet (MTD 3-1, Attachment 1, Table 3-4)
b. Foundation Factored Design Loads (MTD 3-1, Attachment 1, Table 3-5)
2. Information Provided by Geoprofessional
a. Foundation Design Recommendations table and the Pile Data Table (MTD 3-1,
Attachment 1, Tables 3-6 & 3-7 or Tables 3-8 & 3-9), with the following
modifications:
i. Modify the tables to report the Nominal Resistance, not Required
Factored Nominal Resistance.
ii. Add footnote: “Column heading modified from Required Factored
Nominal Resistance to Nominal Resistance.”
iii. Report the resistance factors (in column header) using the appropriate
notations, e.g., φqs = XX for side resistance (skin friction), φqp = YY for
tip resistance (end bearing), see AASHTO LRFD BDS, CA Amendment
10.3 & 10.5.5.2.4-1.
iv. The Nominal Resistance reported in the Foundation Design
Recommendations table and the Pile Data Table must be rounded up to
the nearest 10 kips.
v. If a CIDH concrete pile is supporting a single column, identify whether
the pile is a Type I or Type II shaft in the Foundation Design
Recommendations table (“Pile Type” column).
vi. For Permanent Steel Casing/Driven Steel Shell, a column with the
specified tip elevation must be placed in the Foundation Design
Recommendations table and the Pile Data Table.
vii. For Rock Socket quantity, the “Top of Rock Socket” column must be
placed in the Foundation Design Recommendations table and the Pile
Data Table.
viii. Add footnote to define the Bottom of Rock Socket.

An example Foundation Design Recommendations table is presented on the following page.

20

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

INSERT FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION TABLE HERE

21

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Example: Pile Data Table

Pile Data Table – Bent 2

Route XX OH (Br. #54-XXXX)
Nominal Resistance Steel
Top of Rock Specified Casing
Design Tip
Socket Tip Specified
Location Pile Type Elevation
Compression Tension Elevation Elevation Tip
(kips) (kips) (ft)
(ft) (ft) Elevation
(ft)

96” Dia.
CIDH Pile 2416.0 (a)
Bent 2 6800 1300 2436.0 2416.0 2434.0
with Steel 2430.0 (b)
Casing
Notes: Design tip elevations are controlled by (a) Compression (b) Tension
Below the steel casing tip elevation, the CIDH concrete pile diameter is 84”.
Bottom of Rock Socket Elevation = Specified Tip Elevation

22

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Notes to the Geoprofessional (CIDH Concrete Piles)

The following information is to assist the Geoprofessional in providing comprehensive and
consistent recommendations. Some of this information will ultimately be moved to the Deep
Foundation Design module of the Geotechnical Manual.

1. Terminology
a. Cast-In-Drilled Hole (CIDH) concrete piles: CIDH concrete piles, also known as
drilled shafts, can be used as smaller-diameter piles that are connected to a pile cap
supporting a column or as a larger pile (typically 5 feet or larger) that directly
supports a column and is either a Type I or Type II shaft (as determined by the
Structure Designer). Standard Plan CIDH concrete piles are either 16 or 24 inches
in diameter, whereas special design CIDH concrete piles range from 30 to 120
inches in diameter but can be larger if geologic conditions and project needs dictate
their use. Piles placed in wet conditions must be at least 24 inches in diameter to
accommodate inspection pipes for acceptance testing. CIDH concrete pile lengths
should be limited to 30 times the pile diameter to help ensure constructability and
quality.
Type I/Type II Shaft:
i. Type I Shaft: the reinforcement consists of one continuous cage that extends
from the pile tip up to the bent cap.
ii. Type II Shaft: the reinforcement consists of one cage that extends from the
pile tip up to the pile cut-off elevation. The column cage is a smaller-diameter
cage that extends down into the CIDH concrete pile reinforcement cage to
form a lap splice. For 5-foot diameter and larger Type II shaft, a construction
joint is mandatory at the bottom of the column rebar cage elevation. The
construction joint will require the placement of a permanent steel casing/shell
in the hole to allow workers to clean and prepare the joint.
b. Rock Socket: a CIDH concrete pile constructed in hard rock typically requiring a
core barrel, cluster hammer or other hard rock tools for excavation. The rock is
usually stronger than concrete, however, the side resistance is controlled by the
compressive strength of concrete, not the rock strength.
c. Driven Steel Shell: Used for structural capacity and/or geotechnical resistance.
Must be driven into place.
d. Permanent Casing can be either:
i. Permanent Smooth-wall Steel Casing: Used for constructability. May be used
for structural capacity. Not used for geotechnical resistance. Method of
installation dictated in the Foundation Report.
ii. Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Casing: Used for constructability. May be used
for geotechnical resistance. Not used for structural capacity. A CMP is placed
in an excavated hole and the annular space backfilled with grout (SS 49-
3.02B(5), 49-3.02C(6)). If geotechnical resistance of the CMP is utilized in the
pile design, limit the skin friction zone to the uppermost 20 feet.

The table and flow chart on the following page presents the options for use of a permanent
smooth-wall steel casing, shell, or CMP.

23

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Permanent Smooth-wall Steel Casing, CMP, or Steel Shell in CIDH Concrete Pile Design

Used for Used for
Used for
Types Structural Geotechnical Installation Method
Constructability?
Capacity? Resistance?
Driven, drilled, vibrated,
Permanent
oscillated/rotated into place, or
Smooth-wall Steel Yes Yes No
placed in drilled hole and annular
Casing
space backfilled with grout1,2
Corrugated Metal Placed in a drilled hole and annular
Yes No Yes3
Pipe (CMP) space must be backfilled with grout2
Driven Steel Shell Yes Yes Yes Driven
1) Prohibited methods must be identified in the FR (restriction of driving, p-y impacts, etc.).
2) Sections 49-3.02B (5) and 49-3.02C(6) of 2015 Standard Specifications.
3) If geotechnical resistance of the CMP is utilized in the pile design, limit the skin friction zone to the
uppermost 20 feet.

1) Per Sections 49-3.02B(5) and 49-3.02C(6) of 2015 Standard Specifications. If geotechnical resistance of the
CMP is utilized in the pile design, limit the skin friction zone to the uppermost 20 feet.
2) Installation methods include driven, drilled, vibrated, oscillated/rotated into place, or placed in drilled hole and
annular space backfilled with grout. Prohibited methods must be identified in the FR (restriction of driving, p-y
impacts, etc.).
3) The above flow chart shows the most cost effective options for use of a permanent smooth-wall steel casing,
shell or CMP. Other options are possible.

24

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Notes to the Structure Designer (CIDH Concrete Piles)

Provide the following (applicable) information in this section to aid in preparation of the
contract plans and specifications.

1. Permanent Smooth-wall Steel Casing, Driven Steel Shell, and CMP: The Foundation
Report must state if the resistance of the casing, shell, or CMP is used in pile design, and
specify acceptable installation methods. If a CMP is to be utilized, the Geoprofessional
must state in the FR that the permanent steel casing be specified as a CMP.

Example
The driven steel shell is to be shown on the contract plans. The structural capacity and
geotechnical resistance of the driven steel shell were used in the design of the pile.

Example
The permanent smooth-wall steel casing is to be shown on the contract plans. The
structural capacity of the permanent smooth-wall steel casing was used in the design of
the pile. The geotechnical resistance of the permanent smooth-wall steel casing was
not used in the design of the pile. Installation methods include drilled,
oscillated/rotated into place, or placed in drilled hole and annular space backfilled
with grout (SS 49-3.02B(5), 49-3.02C(6)). Installation by driving or vibration is
prohibited.

Example
The permanent steel casing may be specified as either a permanent smooth-wall casing
or a CMP. Neither the structural capacity nor the geotechnical resistance of the
permanent steel casing were used in the design of the pile. The permanent steel casing
may be placed in a drilled hole, and the annular space backfilled with grout (SS 49-
3.02B(5), 49-3.02C(6)).

Example
The permanent steel casing must be specified as a CMP. The geotechnical resistance
of the CMP was used in the upper 20 feet of the pile design. The structural capacity of
the CMP was not used in the design of the pile. The CMP is to be placed in a drilled
hole, and the annular space backfilled with grout (SS 49-3.02B(5), 49-3.02C(6)).

2. Type II Shaft: Specify the embedment depth of the casing/shell/CMP below the
construction joint elevation (e.g., 5 feet for soil/very soft rock, or 2 feet for more
competent rock (SS 49-3.02C(7)). For sloping rock conditions, the embedment depth
into rock must be based on the lowest top of rock elevation across the pile.

Example
The bottom of the permanent smooth-wall steel casing must extend 2 feet into rock
below the construction joint elevation.

25

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

3. Provide a note to request that the Structure Designer contact the Geoprofessional if the
design tip elevation for the lateral load is lower than the controlling design tip elevation
shown in the Foundation Design Recommendations table.

Example
The Structure Designer must show on the plans, in the pile data table, the minimum pile
design tip elevation required to meet the lateral load demands. If the specified pile tip
elevation required to meet lateral load demands is lower than the specified pile tip
elevation given within this report, the Office of Geotechnical Design XX, Branch X
should be contacted for further evaluation.

4. When a pile cap excavation is anticipated to extend below the groundwater surface
elevation, the Geoprofessional must discuss with the Structure Designer and identify the
“type” of structure excavation (Type A or Type D) required at all applicable support
locations (See Bridge Design Aids, Section 11 - Estimating).

Example

Type D excavation is to be shown on the plans at Piers 2 and 3.

Construction Considerations (CIDH Concrete Piles)

Provide the following (applicable) information in this section for use by the Specification
Engineer, Structure Construction Representative, Contractor, and others.

1. When it is anticipated that an oscillator or rotator may be used to construct the CIDH
piles, the following construction considerations (shown below in italics) must be
included, so the Specification Engineer can include them in the special provisions:

At all CIDH pile locations, if an oscillator or rotator is used to construct the CIDH
piles, the following is required:

• The contractor must maintain a positive fluid head within the drill rod at all times.
The fluid must be mineral or polymer slurry; water is not allowed.

• The contractor is to maintain a minimum 10 foot soil/rock plug within the drill rod.
The 10 foot plug is to be maintained until the drill rod reaches the specified pile tip
elevation. At no time is the contractor to have less than the minimum 10 foot
soil/rock plug until the specified tip elevation has been reached.

• The contractor must provide access to the top of the oscillator/rotator drill rod, as
requested by the Engineer, to verify the positive head and minimum soil plug are
being maintained.

26

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

2. Slurry displacement installation method: Report how the geotechnical resistance is

derived, whether from skin friction and/or end bearing. Present skin friction
contributions along the pile length in the “CIDH Concrete Pile Skin Friction Zone
Elevations” table (see example). Present the highest “Top” elevation and lowest
“Bottom” elevation based on the design.

Example: Slurry Displacement Method

It is anticipated that concrete placement for the CIDH concrete piles will require slurry
displacement method. The calculated “Nominal Axial Resistance” of the CIDH
concrete piles was based on skin friction only. End bearing was not used. The zones
used to calculate the skin friction of the CIDH concrete piles are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: CIDH Concrete Pile Skin Friction Zone Elevations

Support Locations Skin Friction Zone Top Skin Friction Zone Bottom
Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)
Pier 2 165.4 151.4
Pier 3 165.4 153.4
Pier 4 168.5 156.0

Example: Rock Socket

It is anticipated that concrete placement for the CIDH concrete piles will require slurry
displacement methods. The calculated “Nominal Axial Resistance” of the CIDH
concrete piles was based on skin friction only. End bearing was not used. The zones
used to calculate skin friction of the CIDH concrete piles are shown in Table 2. If the
actual top of rock elevation varies by more than XX feet from the elevation presented in
Table 2, the Office of Geotechnical Design YY must be contacted for further instruction.

Table 2: CIDH Concrete Pile Rock Socket

Top of Skin Bottom of Skin
Support Top of Rock Specified Tip
Friction Zone Friction Zone
Location Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)
Pier 2 67.5 65.5 50.5 48.5
Pier 3 67.5 65.5 52.5 50.5
Pier 4 70.5 68.5 55.0 53.0

Example: Additional Site Information based on Visual Observations

During the subsurface investigation, very hard boulders up to 4 feet in size were
identified as shown in the LOTB, however, larger boulders up to 8 feet were visible in
the exposed slope near the proposed Abutment 1 location. The boulders within the
alluvium may require hard rock excavation techniques (i.e. rock coring, etc). The
amount of difficulty that the contractor may experience will be dependent upon the
methods and means the contractor chooses to use to construct the CIDH concrete piles.

27

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

3.12.3 Deep Foundations (Driven Piles)

Present and/or discuss the following:
1. Information provided by Structure Designer
a. Foundation Design Information Sheet (MTD 3-1, Attachment 1, Table 3-4)
b. Foundation Factored Design Loads (MTD 3-1, Attachment 1, Table 3-5)
2. Information Provided by Geoprofessional
a. Foundation Design Recommendations table (MTD 3-1, Attachment 1, Tables
3-6 & 3-7), with the following modifications:
i. Modify the table to report the Nominal Resistance, not Required
Factored Nominal Resistance.
ii. Add footnote: “Column heading modified from Required Factored
Nominal Resistance to Nominal Resistance.”
iii. Report the resistance factors (in column header) using the appropriate
notations, e.g., φqs & φqp = 0.7 for side resistance & tip resistance (skin
friction & end bearing), see AASHTO LRFD BDS, CA Amendment
10.3 & 10.5.5.2.3-1.
iv. The Nominal Resistance reported in the Foundation Design
Recommendations table and the Pile Data Table must be rounded up
to the nearest 10 kips.
b. For piles driven through zones not used for axial geotechnical resistance,
(e.g., scourable layers, liquefiable layers), add the additional driving
resistance to reach the specified tip elevation (STE) in the “Required Nominal
Driving Resistance” column of the Foundation Design Recommendations
table and the Pile Data Table (Table 3-6 & Table 3-7).
3. Pile acceptance criteria (e.g., per Standard Specification 49-2.01A(4)(c), dynamic
monitoring, pile load test).

Notes to the Geoprofessional (Driven Piles)

The following information is provided to assist the Geoprofessional in providing
comprehensive and consistent recommendations. Some of this information will ultimately
be moved to the Deep Foundation module of the Geotechnical Manual.

1. For driven piles with a nominal resistance greater than 600 kips, dynamic monitoring and
analyses are required (see Section 3.12.4 - Pile Load Testing and Dynamic Monitoring).
2. For driven piles with a diameter from 18 inches to 36 inches, dynamic monitoring and
analyses are required to verify that the pile will develop the nominal resistance (see
Section 3.12.4 - Pile Load Testing and Dynamic Monitoring).
3. For driven piles that are larger than 36 inches, a Pile Load Test is required to verify that
the pile will develop the nominal resistance (see Section 3.12.4 - Pile Load Testing and
Dynamic Monitoring). Exceptions to the axial load test may include situations where
geologic conditions (e.g., bearing in rock or very dense soil) provide confidence in the
nominal resistance development. These cases must be reviewed by Foundation Testing
& Instrumentation Branch and require approval of a design exception from the Office of

28

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Geotechnical Design Policies and Practices (OGDPP) and Structures Policy and
Innovation (SP&I).

Notes to the Structure Designer (Driven Piles)

Provide the following (applicable) information in this section to aid in preparation of the
contract plans.

1. If there are modifications to the Standard Plans, provide specifics so that the
modifications are shown on the project plans or Special Provisions.

Example
All steel "H" piles are to have lugs installed prior to driving. It is recommended that
the pile detail sheets or abutment detail sheets show the lugs as specified in the Bridge
Construction Records and Procedures Manual, Bridge Construction Memo 130-5.0.

Example
Modified Class 200, Alternative "W" steel pipe pile details are to be shown on the
project plans. The Modified Class 200, Alternative "W" steel pipe piles must be shown
with a flat circular steel plate or conical steel tip with a minimum thickness of ¾ inch
welded to the pile tip, similar to the Alternative "V" pile tip detail shown in the 2015
Standard Plans.

2. Provide a note to request that the Geoprofessional be notified if the lateral load tip
elevation is lower than the specified pile tip elevation, as a lower tip might be cause for
revised design recommendations and/or construction considerations.

Example
The Structure Designer must show on the plans, in the pile data table, the minimum pile
design tip elevation required to meet the lateral load demands. If the specified pile tip
elevation required to meet lateral load demands is lower than the specified pile tip
elevation given within this report, the Office of Geotechnical Design XX, Branch X
should be contacted for further evaluation.

Construction Considerations (Driven Piles)

Provide the following (applicable) information in this section for use by the Specification
Engineer, Structure Construction Representative, Contractor, and others.

1. State how the nominal resistance was developed.

Example
The geotechnical resistance of the CISS piles was developed using external skin friction
and end bearing based upon a combination of the end area of the steel shell and the
internal skin friction of the portion of the soil plug that will be left in place.

29

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

2. State the allowable limits of center relief drilling for open-ended CISS piles.

Example
At Abutment 4, it is anticipated that center relief drilling through the center of the CISS
piles will be required to obtain the specified penetration. The center relief drilling must
not extend beyond the pile tip during installation and must not extend below elevation
252 feet. Due to the presence of shallow groundwater at the site, any center relief
drilling done to help advance the pile, must maintain a positive piezometric fluid head
inside the CISS pile and the equipment or methods used for cleaning out steel shells
must not cause quick soil conditions or cause scouring or caving of the hole below the
pile tip.

3. State the top of soil plug elevation and the seal course thickness (if applicable) required
for the end bearing design of CISS piles.

Example
At Abutment 4, a soil plug is utilized to develop internal skin friction in the lower
portion of the CISS pile for end bearing design. The top of the soil plug elevation must
be at elevation 252 feet. A seal course thickness of 5 feet is required to counteract the
hydrostatic forces of the groundwater and to allow for the pile reinforcement and
concrete to be poured in the dry. During the removal of the soil plug and during the
placement of the seal course, the Contractor must maintain a positive piezometric fluid
head inside the CISS pile.

4. Provide a cut-off and refusal criteria for pile acceptance.

Example
Pile acceptance is to be based on Standard Specifications 49-2.01A(4)(c) "Department
Acceptance." At Abutments 1 and 4 support locations, any pile that achieves 1½ times
the nominal resistance in compression, as shown on the contract plans, within 5 feet of
the specified pile tip elevation, may be accepted and cut off with written approval from
the Engineer. (e.g. 1½ times the nominal resistance in compression is 580 kips at
Abutment 1 and 600 kips at Abutment 4).

5. When predrilled holes are required beyond the requirements of the Standard
Specifications (49-2.01C(4)), for newly constructed fills or existing fills, state the
elevation limits and locations of "Predrilled Holes" (Standard Specification 49-
2.01C(4)).

Example
At Abutment 1, predrilled holes through the existing fill to the elevations listed below in
Table 1 are required prior to driving designated piles to minimize vibrations to nearby
utilities. All predrilling must be done in accordance with Standard Specification
Section 49-2.01C(4), "Predrilled Holes." Refer to the LOTB for details regarding the
earth materials to be excavated.

30

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Table 1: Abutment 1 - Bottom of Predrilled Hole Elevation

Support Location Bottom of Predrilled Hole Elevation (ft)

Abutment 1 173.0

6. State the allowable limits of "Drilling" to assist driven pile installation. (Standard
Specification 49-2.01C(3))

Example
At Abutment 1, "Drilling" to assist pile driving through the alluvium soil and
sedimentary rock down to the elevation listed in Table 1, below, will be required prior
to driving each closed-ended pipe pile. All drilling to assist driving must be done in
accordance with Standard Specification Section 49-2.01C(3), "Drilling." Refer to the
LOTB for details regarding the earth materials to be excavated.

Table 1: Bottom of “Drilling” to Assist Driving Hole Elevation

Bottom of “Drilling” to Assist Driving Hole
Support Location
Elevation (ft)

Abutment 1 160.0

3.12.4 Pile Load Testing and Dynamic Monitoring

The Geoprofessional must consult with the Foundation Testing & Instrumentation (FTI)
branch for all language and requirements in this section. The FTI branch will provide
technical assistance in determining dynamic monitoring details, order of work, and layout of
the load test piles. In addition, FTI can provide assistance with contractual details and
information for the special provisions to be included in the FR. If the Geoprofessional is
considering recommending a foundation type that would require a pile load test, the
Geoprofessional must have a meeting with the FTI branch and the Structure Designer to
review proposed pile load test loading schedule, layout, and to determine if any test or anchor
piles may be incorporated in the proposed bridge foundation.

Present and/or discuss the following for Pile Load Tests:

1. Control zones and associated support locations for the pile load tests.
2. Location, type and specified tip elevation of the load test pile and anchor piles in a pile
data table format.
3. Intent and type of the test(s) - Compressive and/or tensile resistance (ASTM D 1143,
ASTM D 3689)
a. Proof test at Nominal Resistance
b. Load to failure (defined by the Geoprofessional)
4. Dynamic monitoring requirements (typically the load test pile and at least one anchor
pile).

31

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

5. Restrike schedule if pile-setup is anticipated.

6. Location and number of strain gauges per elevation, if applicable.
7. Test Pile Data Table and pile cut-off criteria as shown in the following example:

Example: Driven CISS Piles – Pile Load Test

Pile load tests in compression must be conducted on a non-production pile between Bent 4
of the left and right bridges. The control zones for the pile load test at Bent 4 will be Bents
2, 3, and 4 of the left and right bridges. The compression test must be performed in two
stages. For Stage 1 Load Test, load the test pile to the nominal axial geotechnical
resistance after driving the test pile to the tip elevation and before removal of the soil
plug. For Stage 2 Load Test, load the test pile to the “failure load” (the load at which
rapid continuing, progressive movement occurs, or at which the total axial movement
exceeds 15% of the pile diameter or width) after removal of the soil plug, placement of the
seal course, and placement of concrete in the test pile. During pile installation, the load
test pile and one anchor pile will be dynamically monitored using the Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA). Strain gauges (4 per each elevation) are to be installed on the Load Test
Pile at elevations 95, 70, 50, and 32 feet, and shown on the plans. The installed strain
gauges are to be monitored during both stages of load test.

Table X: Pile Load Test Data Table

Ground Cut-Off Specified Top Driven Steel Driving
Location Pile Type1 Elevation Elevation of Soil Plug Shell Tip Resistance
(ft) (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation4 (ft) (kips)
48-inch CISS
98 1082,3 40 30 2350
(Load Test Pile)
Bent 4
24-inch CISS
98 101, 1042 N/A 40 800
(Anchor Piles)
Notes: 1) The seal course thickness for the 48-inch CISS is 5 feet.
2) The cut-off elevation allows for installation of PDA equipment. The load test pile and one
anchor pile are to be dynamically monitored using the PDA.
3) After dynamic monitoring, the cut-off elevation for pile load test will be determined in the
field by the Engineer.
4) Tip elevations of anchor and test piles must not be raised if driving resistance exceeds the
driving resistance shown in Table X.
5) Anchor piles and test pile are to be removed down to elev. 95 ft upon completion of pile
load test. Anchor pile voids to be backfilled to elev. 95 ft with minor concrete.

32

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

Construction Considerations (Pile Load Testing and Dynamic Monitoring)

Provide the following (applicable) information in this section for use by the Specification
Engineer, Structure Construction Representative, Contractor, and others.

When the contractor provides the required 10-day notification (per SS 49-1.01D(3)) prior
to installing load test/anchor piles, the Structures Representative must contact the
Foundation Testing and Instrumentation (FTI) branch and Geoprofessional. This is to
allow coordination among Structures Representative, FTI and the Geoprofessional in order
to schedule the pile load test, and to ensure that representatives from FTI are available to
assist the contractor during construction of the load test equipment.

Example: Driven Piles - Dynamic Monitoring

At Piers 2, 4 and 6, dynamic monitoring with the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) is to be
performed on the first CISS pile installed at those support locations and will determine pile
acceptance criteria (SS 49-1.01D(4)). Each dynamically monitored pile will require an
additional length equal to 2 times the diameter of the pile plus 2 feet for mounting of the
PDA gauges. For dynamic monitoring locations and control zones, refer to Table X.

Table X: Dynamic Monitoring Pile Locations and Control Zones

Bridge No. Monitored Pile Locations Control Zone
Pier 2 Piers 2 & 3
57-1234 R/L Pier 4 Piers 4 & 5
Pier 6 Pier 6

3.12.5 Approach Fills

Approach fills, defined as the fill within 150 feet of the bridge abutment, must be constructed
per Section 19 of the Standard Specifications. Present approach fill construction
recommendations in this section. Reporting requirements for embankment construction on
soft soil are presented in the Embankment module and the Ground Improvement module of
the Geotechnical Manual.

Note to the Geoprofessional (Approach Fills)

In cases where settlement-related recommendations are presented, the Geoprofessional must
collaborate with the author of the Geotechnical Design Report to assure that the
recommendations are compatible. Issues to discuss may include:
• Anticipated settlement magnitude
• Rate of construction and waiting periods
• Prefabricated vertical drain spacing
• Use of geosynthetics

33

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

3.13. Additional Considerations

Provide any recommendations that have not already been addressed in any of the preceding
sections.

3.14. Supplemental Project Information

Standard Special Provision 2-1.06B, "Supplemental Project Information", discloses to
bidders and contractors a list and location of pertinent information available for their
inspection prior to bid opening. Documents and information are presented in the following
table:

Supplemental Project Information

Means Description
Included in the Information Foundation Report for Dry Creek Bridge
Handout Lab Test Results for Dry Creek Bridge
Geophysics Report for Dry Creek Bridge
Cone Penetration Test Results for Dry Creek
Bridge
Available for inspection at the
District Office
Available for inspection at the Rock Core Samples for Dry Creek Bridge
Transportation Laboratory

The Geoprofessional must identify and forward all pertinent geotechnical information (in
PDF) to the Structure Designer so that it can be properly included in the construction contract
via SSP 2-1.06B. Include all relevant geotechnical reports and laboratory test results. Items
available for inspection at the Transportation Laboratory or District Office are typically core
samples.

3.15. Report Copy List

The FR must be addressed to the Structure Designer and copies provided to those listed under
Report Distribution in the Communications and Reporting module of the Geotechnical
Manual.

34

 Foundation Reports for Bridges

February 2017.r1

3.16. Appendices
The Foundation Report appendices provide detailed information supporting foundation type
selection, analyses, recommendations, and construction considerations.

Reports prepared by Geotechnical Services staff must include:

Appendix I: Seismic Design Data Sheet

Appendix II: Exceptions to Policy

 Attach all approved "Request for Exception" forms.

Reports prepared by consultants must include:

Appendix I: Site Map showing project location

Appendix II: Log of Test Borings (including as-built LOTB)

Appendix III: Field Exploration and Testing

 Data acquired from field exploration and testing such as surface
geologic mapping and surface geophysical surveys, logs from the Cone
Penetration Test, Pressuremeter, Dilatometer, and in-situ Vane Shear
Tests, Borehole Geophysical logging, indicator pile tests, Piezometer
Readings, etc.
Appendix IV: Laboratory Test Results
 Soil and rock laboratory test results.
 Corrosion test results.

Appendix V: Seismic Design Data Sheet

Appendix VI: Analyses and Calculations.

 Engineering analyses and calculations supporting the foundation

recommendations including all QC/QA signature sheets.
Appendix VII: Exceptions to Policy
 Attach all approved "Request for Exception" forms.

35