You are on page 1of 360

Earth

Mechanics
Fugro - Earth Mechanics
A

J O I N T

V E N T U R E

AXIAL PILE DESIGN AND DRIVABILITY


MAIN SPAN-EAST PIER & SKYWAY STRUCTURES
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE
EAST SPAN SEISMIC SAFETY PROJECT

Prepared for
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
March 2001

Earth
Mechanics
Fugro - Earth Mechanics
A

March 5, 2001
Project No. 98-42-0054
California Department of Transportation
Engineering Service Center
Office of Structural Foundations
5900 Folsom Boulevard
Sacramento, California 95819-0128
Attention:

J O I N T

V E N T U R E

7700 Edgewater Drive, Suite 848


Oakland, California 94621
Tel: (510) 633-5100
Fax: (510) 633-5101

Mr. Mark Willian


Contract Manager
Final Axial Pile Design and Drivability
Main Span-East Pier and Skyway Structures
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

Dear Mr. Willian:


The geologic and geotechnical studies for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) East Span
Seismic Safety Project are being conducted by Fugro-Earth Mechanics (a joint venture of Fugro West, Inc.,
and Earth Mechanics, Inc.) under California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Contract 59A0053. The
work scope authorized by Task Order No. 5 includes the geotechnical components of the final foundation
design studies.
The current report provides the final axial pile capacity, axial load-deformation, and pile drivability
analyses for the driven piles that will support the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway structures. Final lateral
load analyses are provided in a separate report. The design analyses reported herein are based on structure
information as defined by the 65-percent submittal (and preliminary footing layouts from the 85-percent
submittal) for the Main Span, and the draft 100-percent submittal for the Skyway Structure submitted by
TY Lin/Moffatt & Nichol (TY Lin/M&N). The subsurface conditions that form the basis for these analyses
are as described in the Final Marine Geotechnical Site Characterization report (Fugro-EM, 2001e).
In August 1999, a draft version of this report was submitted that was based on the 65-percent design
submittal. Subsequent to the draft report submittal: 1) several design modifications were made by TY
Lin/M&N to both the Skyway and Main Span structure foundations; 2) additional subsurface explorations
(Phase 3 site investigation) were performed to refine shallow stratigraphy at many of the piers; 3) additional
evaluations were performed to assist with the development of the Skyway Special Provisions; and 4) the Pile
Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP) was successfully completed. As a part of finalizing this report, the
design analyses and recommendations presented in the draft report were modified to reflect those design
modifications and the additional data collected.
This report includes text that summarizes the subsurface conditions that control axial pile design and
installation, and describes the design issues relative to axial capacity, load-deformation, setup, and pile
drivability. The report includes general illustrations that support the text. In addition, the pier-specific design
analyses results are provided on a series of illustrations in Appendix A, whose numbering corresponds to the
pier numbers designated on the TY Lin/M&N drawings. Further description of the analyses methods are
included in Appendix B.

Earth
Mechanics
Fugro - Earth Mechanics
A

J O I N T

V E N T U R E

California Department of Transportation


March 5, 2001 (98-42-0054)

On behalf of the project team, we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to Caltrans' design of the
new bridge to replace the existing SFOBB East Span. Please call if we can answer any questions relative to
the information presented in the enclosed report.
Sincerely,

C
COB HAC
JA

M.

NO. 58850
Exp. 06/30/03

CI V IL
RN
EO
F C ALIF O

IA

AT

IA

GE

CI V IL
RN
EO
F C ALIF O

Copies submitted:

Mr. Mark Willian, Caltrans


Mr. Saba Mohan, Caltrans
Mr. Robert Price, Caltrans
Dr. Brian Maroney, Caltrans
Ms. Sharon Naramore, Caltrans
Mr. Gerry Houlahan, TY Lin/M&N
Mr. Sajid Abbas, TY Lin/M&N
Mr. Al Ely, TY Lin/M&N

No. 37667
Exp. 12-31-03

TE

CI VIL

ST

Attachment

GINEER
EN

Thomas W. McNeilan, C.E., G.E.


Vice President

W cN
AS

LAN
EI

THOM

ES
ROF SIONA
DP
.M

REGISTE
RE

Robert Stevens, Ph D., P.E.


Senior Technical Consultant

NI

REGIST
ER
E
RO

ST

AT

Roger Howard, Jr., P.E.


Project Engineer

ST

NO. C61002
Exp. 12/31/04

OFESSION
AL
PR
KO

OW
A

EER
GIN
EN

A
W.

M. Jacob Chacko, P.E.


Project Engineer

,
RD

EER
GIN
EN JR.

OFESSION
AL
PR
D
.H

REGIST
ER
E

FUGRO-EARTH MECHANICS, A Joint Venture

O F C A LIF O

SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE


EAST SPAN SEISMIC SAFETY PROJECT
CALTRANS CONTRACT 59A0053

AXIAL PILE DESIGN AND DRIVABILITY


MAIN SPAN-EAST PIER & SKYWAY STRUCTURES

MARCH 2001

Prepared For:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Engineering Service Center
Office of Structural Foundations
5900 Folsom Boulevard
Sacramento, California 95819-0128

Prepared By:
FUGRO-EARTH MECHANICS
A Joint Venture
7700 Edgewater Drive, Suite 848
Oakland, California 94621

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................
1.0

2.0

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................
1.1 Background .........................................................................................................
1.1.1 SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project ..............................................
1.1.2 Caltrans Contract for Geotechnical and Geological Investigations
for the Project ..........................................................................................
1.2 N6 Main Span and Skyway.................................................................................
1.2.1 N6 Alignment Description ......................................................................
1.2.2 Signature Structure Spans and Pier Locations ........................................
1.2.3 Skyway Structure ....................................................................................
1.3 Foundation Description .......................................................................................
1.3.1 Pile Type, Size, and Section....................................................................
1.3.2 Pier Footings (Pile Caps) and Number of Piles.......................................
1.4 Project Datum......................................................................................................
1.5 Basis of Characterization ....................................................................................
1.5.1 Site Investigations ...................................................................................
1.5.2 Integrated Approach and GIS Database ..................................................
1.5.3 Report Organization ................................................................................
1.6 Related Project Reports Prepared by Fugro-Earth Mechanics............................
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND SUBSURFACE
STRATIGRAPHIC MODEL .......................................................................................
2.1 San Francisco Bay Bathymetry ...........................................................................
2.2 Geologic Features and Subsurface Stratigraphy .................................................
2.2.1 Principal Features and Formations..........................................................
2.2.2 Structural Contour and Isopach Thickness Maps....................................
2.2.3 Subsurface Cross Sections ......................................................................
2.3 Description of Geologic Features........................................................................
2.3.1 Easterly Sloping Bedrock of the Franciscan Formation..........................
2.3.2 Holocene- and Pleistocene-Age Marine and Alluvial Sediments ...........
2.3.3 Channeling ..............................................................................................
2.3.4 Gassy Sediments .....................................................................................
2.3.5 Definition of Areas With Common Geologic Structure .........................
2.4 Formation Description.........................................................................................
2.4.1 Young Bay Mud (YBM) .........................................................................
2.4.2 Merritt-Posey-San Antonio (MPSA) Formations ...................................
2.4.3 Old Bay Mud/Upper Alameda (Primarily) Marine (OBM/UAM)
Sediments ................................................................................................
2.4.4 Lower Alameda (Primarily) Alluvial (LAA) Sediments.........................

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-VOL1_TOC.MAR.DOC

-i-

ES-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-8
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-9
2-10
2-11

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

CONTENTS -- CONTINUED
Page
2.5

2.6

3.0

4.0

Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel (El. -70 Meters) Sand at Main SpanEast Pier...............................................................................................................
2.5.1 Extent and Thickness of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand....
2.5.2 Characteristics of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sands .............
Characteristics of the Lower Alameda Alluvium................................................
2.6.1 Lithology .................................................................................................
2.6.2 Implications of Lower Alameda Alluvium Variations for Design and
Construction ............................................................................................
2.6.3 Soil Properties .........................................................................................

2-13
2-13
2-13
2-13
2-14
2-15
2-15

AXIAL PILE DESIGN OVERVIEW ..........................................................................


3.1 Design, Construction, And Performance Issues..................................................
3.1.1 Channeling ..............................................................................................
3.1.2 End-Bearing Stratum Variations .............................................................
3.1.3 Load-Transfer Considerations.................................................................
3.1.4 Post-Installation Setup of Axial Capacity ...............................................
3.1.5 Cyclic Degradation and Strain Rate Effects During Earthquake
Loading ..................................................................................................
3.2 Preliminary Design And Seismic Design Philosophy.........................................
3.3 Pier-Specific Design Information........................................................................
3.4 Pile Tip Elevations ..............................................................................................
3.4.1 Preliminary Pile Tip Elevations ..............................................................
3.4.2 Structural Analyses And Results.............................................................
3.4.3 Design Modifications ..............................................................................
3.4.4 Revised Pile Tip Elevations For Skyway Structure Piers .......................
3.4.5 Additional Considerations For Piers E3 Through E5..............................
3.5 Skyway Temporary Towers ................................................................................

3-3
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-6
3-6
3-7
3-8

AXIAL PILE DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DATA ..........................................


4.1 Design Basis........................................................................................................
4.1.1 Boring-Specific Design Data ..................................................................
4.1.2 "Synthetic" Boring Design Data .............................................................
4.1.3 General Pier-Specific Information ..........................................................
4.2 Design Methodology ...........................................................................................
4.3 Ultimate Static Axial Pile Capacity ....................................................................
4.3.1 Side Shear (Skin Friction) .......................................................................
4.3.2 End Bearing.............................................................................................
4.4 Axial Load-Deformation Relationships ..............................................................
4.4.1 t-z Curves ................................................................................................
4.4.2 q-z Curves ...............................................................................................
4.5 Axial Pile Head Load-Deformation Curves ........................................................

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-4
4-6
4-8
4-8
4-9
4-10

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-VOL1_TOC.MAR.DOC

- ii -

3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

CONTENTS -- CONTINUED
Page
4.6

Earthquake Loading Effects ................................................................................


4.6.1 Cyclic Degradation of Pile Capacity.......................................................
4.6.2 Strain Rate Effects...................................................................................
4.6.3 Example Calculations of Earthquake Loading Effects ...........................
4.6.4 Recommendations for Design .................................................................

4-10
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13

5.0

PILE SETUP ................................................................................................................


5.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................
5.2 Prediction of Pile Setup.......................................................................................
5.2.1 Preliminary Predictions of Pile Setup in Clay.........................................
5.2.2 Revised Setup Predictions Based on Soderberg (1962) ..........................
5.2.3 Discussion of Prediction of Pile Setup in Clay .......................................
5.2.4 Setup In Sand ..........................................................................................
5.3 Impact of Pile Setup on Construction Schedule..................................................
5.3.1 Preliminary Evaluations ..........................................................................
5.3.2 Findings From the Pile Installation Demonstration Project ....................

5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-5

6.0

PILE DRIVABILITY CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................


6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................
6.2 Drivability Analyses............................................................................................
6.2.1 Analytical Process ...................................................................................
6.2.2 Soil Resistance to Driving.......................................................................
6.2.3 Wave Equation Analyses ........................................................................
6.2.4 Evaluation of Pile Drivability .................................................................
6.3 Results of Preliminary Drivability Analyses.......................................................
6.3.1 Computed Soil Resistance to Driving .....................................................
6.3.2 Pile Run ..................................................................................................
6.3.3 Blow Counts............................................................................................
6.3.4 Driving Stresses.......................................................................................
6.4 Analysis of Drivability Into The Franciscan Formation Bedrock.......................
6.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................
6.4.2 Analyses ..................................................................................................
6.4.3 Results and Discussion............................................................................
6.5 Findings From the Pile Installation Demonstration Project ................................
6.5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................
6.5.2 Summary of Drivability-Related Findings..............................................

6-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-7
6-8
6-8
6-10
6-11
6-11
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-13
6-13

7.0

PILE INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........


7.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................
7.2 Driving System Submittal ...................................................................................
7.3 Pile Tip Elevations ..............................................................................................

7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-VOL1_TOC.MAR.DOC

- iii -

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

CONTENTS -- CONTINUED
Page
7.4
7.5
7.6

Pile Schedule .......................................................................................................


Delays and Redriving ..........................................................................................
Dynamic Monitoring ...........................................................................................
7.6.1 Preparation of Piles To Be Monitored ....................................................
7.6.2 Mounting Instrumentation on the Pile.....................................................
7.6.3 Removal of Instrumentation....................................................................
Acceptable Hammer Types .................................................................................
7.7.1 Primary Hammer .....................................................................................
7.7.2 Secondary Hammers ...............................................................................
Refusal Blow Count Criteria ...............................................................................
Allowable Driving Stress Criteria .......................................................................
Minimum Blow Count Criteria (If Needed)........................................................
Pile Acceptance Criteria......................................................................................
Remedial Installation Procedures........................................................................
Pile Clean Out .....................................................................................................
7.13.1 Placement of Structural Concrete............................................................
7.13.2 Installation of Seismic Monitoring Instruments......................................
Pile Setup and Construction Schedule ................................................................

7-3
7-3
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-5
7-5
7-6
7-6
7-6
7-7
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-10
7-10
7-10

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................

8-1

7.7

7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13

7.14
8.0

PLATES
Plate
Bathymetry and N6 Alignment .............................................................................................
Main Span Alignment ...........................................................................................................
Skyway Structure Alignment ...............................................................................................
Main Span East Pier and Skyway Footing Geometry ..........................................................
Marine Exploration Location Map .......................................................................................
Final Fugro-EM Reports ......................................................................................................
Delineation of Areas Addressed by Fugro-EMI Reports .....................................................
Structural Contours
Base of Young Bay Mud ..........................................................................................
Top of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand .................................................
Base of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand ................................................
Top of Lower Alameda Alluvial Sand .....................................................................
Regional, Top of Franciscan Formation ...................................................................
Isopach (Thickness) of:
Young Bay Mud .......................................................................................................
Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand .............................................................
Sediment Section Above Lower Alameda Alluvial Sand ........................................

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-VOL1_TOC.MAR.DOC

- iv -

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

CONTENTS -- CONTINUED
PLATES -- CONTINUED
Plate
Conceptual East-West Soil Profile Outside (South) of Recent Paleochannel,
Proposed N6 Alignment Skyway ...................................................................................
2.9
Conceptual Section at South Edge of (East-West) Recent Paleochannel ............................. 2.10
Subsurface Cross Sections Along N6 Alignment, Yerba Buena Island to Oakland Mole,
Pier E1 to E8.............................................................................................................. 2.11a
Pier E9 to E20............................................................................................................ 2.11b
Interpreted Variations at Edge of Recent Paleochannel ....................................................... 2.12
Example Detail of LAA Stratigraphy ................................................................................... 2.13
Expected Variation of Top of LAA Sand ............................................................................. 2.14
LAA-Clay Interbed Thickness, 1998 Marine Borings ......................................................... 2.15
Distribution of LAA-Clay Interbed Thickness ..................................................................... 2.16
Percent LAA-Clay Interbeds Within LAA Sand .................................................................. 2.17
Distribution of LAA-Clay Interbeds With Elevation ........................................................... 2.18
Distribution of LAA-Clay Interbeds With Depth ................................................................ 2.19
Static Axial Loads and Recommended Pile Tip Elevations, Skyway Structure Piers ..........
3.1
Variation of Pile Length and Tip Elevation Along N6 Alignment, Skyway Structure Piers
3.2
Estimated Factors of Safety Against Static Loads, Skyway Structure Piers.........................
3.3
Predicted Setup of Skin Friction in Clay, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Steel Pipe Piles ..................
5.1
Estimated CAPWAP Skin Friction Capacity and Anticipated Construction Pile Loads,
Pile Capacity from Pile Installation Demonstration Project............................................
5.2
Schematic Illustration of Pile Drivability Analysis...............................................................
6.1
Comparison of Calculated Soil Resistance to Driving Profiles, Pier E7-Eastbound
(Boring 98-49) .................................................................................................................
6.2
Summary of Wave Equation Parameters ..............................................................................
6.3
Wall Thickness Schedule Used in Preliminary Drivability Analyses, 2.5-Meter-Diameter
Pipe Pile Composite Profile ............................................................................................
6.4
Summary of Preliminary Drivability Analyses.....................................................................
6.5
Comparison of Predicted Coring Case Blow Counts, Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49),
Menck MHU-170, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles ............................................
6.6
Drivability of Piles Tipped in Franciscan Formation Bedrock, Piers E3 through E5,
Eastbound and Westbound .............................................................................................
6.7
PDA-Measured and Predicted Soil Resistance to Driving, Pile No. 2, Pile Installation
Demonstration Project ....................................................................................................
6.8
Observed and Predicted Blow Counts, Pile No. 2, Pile Installation Demonstration
Project .............................................................................................................................
6.9

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-VOL1_TOC.MAR.DOC

-v-

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

CONTENTS -- CONTINUED
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PIER-SPECIFIC DESIGN PLATES
Pier and Boring Location Plan,
Frame 1 .......................................................................................................................... A-1
Frame 2 .......................................................................................................................... A-2
Frames 3 and 4 ............................................................................................................... A-3
Pier-Boring Correlation Table.................................................................................................. A-4
Key to Terms and Symbols Used on Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results ..................... A-5
Summary of Preliminary Axial Pile Capacity, Piers E2 through E16 ...................................... A-6
For a guide to pier-specific design plates in Appendix A,
please refer to the chart on the following page.

APPENDIX B: VERIFICATION OF AXIAL PILE DESIGN METHODS


Static Compression Load Test.................................................................................................. B-1
Statnamic Test Results ............................................................................................................. B-2
Drive Simulation,
Compression Test........................................................................................................... B-3
Statnamic Load Test ...................................................................................................... B-4
Load Tests...................................................................................................................... B-5
Original and Simplified Soil Reactions .................................................................................... B-6
Axial Pile Load-Settlement Behavior....................................................................................... B-7
Load-Settlement Behavior With Self-Weight .......................................................................... B-8
Degradation Parameters From Model Tests ............................................................................. B-9
Load-Time History at the Mudline......................................................................................... B-10
Pile Head Displacement-Time History................................................................................... B-11
Pile Tip Displacement-Time History...................................................................................... B-12
Effects of Earthquake on Residual Loads............................................................................... B-13
Effects of Earthquake on Displacements................................................................................ B-14
Static and Degraded Soil Reactions........................................................................................ B-15

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-VOL1_TOC.MAR.DOC

- vi -

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

CONTENTS -- CONTINUED
PIER-SPECIFIC DESIGN PLATE NUMBERING GUIDE

E2-EB

E2-WB

E3-EB

E3-WB

E4-EB

E4-WB

E5-EB

E5-WB

E6-EB

E6-WB

E7-EB

E7-WB

E8-EB

E8-WB

E9-EB&WB

E10-EB

E10-WB

E11-EB

E11-WB

E12-EB&WB

E13-EB

E13-WB

E14-EB&WB

E15-EB&WB

E16-EB&WB

Pier Number

Axial Pile Load Transfer-Displacement Curve

2a-b

2a-b

Tabulated Axial Pile Load Transfer Data

3a-b

3a-b

Static Pile Head Load-Deformation Curve

4a-b

4a-b

Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results

Soil Resistance to Driving

Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU-500T

6a

6a

6a

6a

6a

6a

6a

6a

6a

6a

6a

Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU-1000

6b

6b

6b

6b

6b

6b

6b

6b

6b

6b

6b

Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU-1700

6c

6c

6c

6c

6c

6c

6c

6c

6c

6c

6c

Analyses performed

No analyses performed

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND STUDY DESCRIPTION
The geologic and geotechnical studies for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
(SFOBB) East Span Seismic Safety Project are being conducted by Fugro-Earth Mechanics (a
joint venture of Fugro West, Inc., and Earth Mechanics, Inc.) under California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) Contract 59A0053. The "Phase 2 (Final) Site Exploration and
Characterization" activities were authorized by the July 30, 1998, notice to proceed for Task
Order No. 5. That task order included provisions for the final design-phase subsurface
exploration, the final site characterization, and the final geotechnical foundation design
recommendations.
REPORT DESCRIPTION AND INTENT
This report provides the axial pile design and pile drivability analyses for the driven piles
that will support the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway structures. The information includes:

Representative soil profiles at each pier,


Estimates of ultimate axial pile capacity,
Axial load-deformation data,
Predictions of pile setup,
Results of pile drivability analyses, and
Pile installation considerations and recommendations for the preparation of the
project specifications.

Final lateral load analyses are provided in a separate report (Fugro-EM, 2001a).
Information for the two Main Span piers founded in rock is provided under separate cover, as are
the design information for the Oakland Shore Approach structures.
The design analyses reported herein are based on structure information as defined by the
draft 100-percent submittal for the Skyway and preliminary drawings from the 85-percent
submittal for the Main Span-East Pier developed by TY Lin/Moffatt & Nichol (TY Lin/M&N).
The subsurface conditions that form the basis for our analyses are as described in the Final
Marine Geotechnical Site Characterization Reports (Fugro-EM, 2000e).
The design analyses results are presented for each of the individual piers (Bridge Piers E2
through E16). The pier-specific design analyses results are provided on a series of illustrations
whose numbering corresponds to the pier number as designated on the Project drawings

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-EXECSUM.MAR.DOC

ES-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

OVERVIEW OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS


The bathymetry underlying the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway structures slopes
downward to the west and varies from a minimum of elevation (El.) -3 meters (re: mean sea level
[MSL] datum) at Bridge Pier E16 down to El. -13 meters at the Main Span-East Pier.
The subsurface conditions underlying the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway portions of
the SFOBB East Span are influenced by the following geologic features:

Shallow, easterly sloping bedrock of the Franciscan Formation offshore eastern Yerba
Buena Island.

Holocene- and Pleistocene-age marine and alluvial sediments that unconformably


overlay the Franciscan Formation bedrock. In general, the marine sediments
(deposited during sea level high stands) are more prevalent and are primarily clay. In
contrast, the alluvial sediments (deposited during sea level low stands) are more
commonly sand.

The Holocene- and Pleistocene-age sequence has been eroded (and complicated) by
various episodes of channeling. In many locations, the channels have subsequently
been filled with comparatively softer sediments. The geologically Recent channeling
includes: 1) an east-west-trending paleochannel sequence to the north of and
subparallel to the existing East Span bridge alignment, and 2) north-south-oriented
subsidiary channels that cross under the bridge alignments and flow into the east-west
channel(s). A somewhat deeper (and older) nested series of north-south-oriented
paleochannels were imaged in the western portion of the bridge alignment offshore
from the eastern end of Yerba Buena Island.

The primary geologic formations that underlie the Skyway alignment (or portions of the
alignment) are listed below in descending sequence. While the formation designations are
useful, the subsurface conditions are described primarily in terms of undrained shear strength (of
cohesive soils) and relative density or measured cone tip resistance (of granular soils). That
choice was made based on the extensive test data from the 1998 Fugro borings and the direct
applicability of the test data to foundation design. The typical soil designations for the
formations are included in the following table:
Formation Designation

Typical Soil Designation

Young Bay Mud

Very Soft to Soft or Soft to Firm Clay

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio Formations (also referred to as


Merritt Sand)

Dense to Very Dense Sand with Stiff to Very Stiff Clay Layers

Old Bay Mud

Very Stiff to Hard Clay with Dense Sand Layers

Upper Alameda Sediments

Very Stiff to Hard Clay with Dense Sand Layers

Lower Alameda Sediments

Dense to Very Dense Sand and Hard Clay

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-EXECSUM.MAR.DOC

ES-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The proposed N6 alignment is underlain by variable subsurface conditions that


intrinsic to any replacement bridge alignment to the north of the existing bridge. Whereas
Main Span-Pylon structure will be sited on shallow, sloping bedrock, the remainder of
marine structures will be founded on a significant thickness of sediment. Many details of
stratigraphy and characteristics of the subsurface sediments vary continuously along
alignment.

are
the
the
the
the

MAIN SPAN-EAST PIER AND SKYWAY FOUNDATIONS


The Marine Geotechnical Site Characterization studies (Fugro-EM, 2001e) recognized
that the variability of the subsurface conditions will significantly affect the site response and the
axial and lateral load deflection response of the foundation. From a geotechnical standpoint, a
foundation design that reduces the sensitivity of the foundation (and superstructure) response to
those inevitable variations across and along the Skyway was recommended. The choice (made
by TY Lin/M&N) of battered, large-diameter, driven steel pipe piles is considered appropriate
relative to that goal.
Large-diameter, driven steel pipe piles are considered to be an appropriate and desirable
foundation type for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway. The piles will be driven open ended
and will subsequently be partially filled with concrete. Large-diameter pipe piles provide a
number of advantages:

Comparatively high axial and lateral load capacity per pile can be used to reduce the
number of piles, pile group effects, and the pile cap size.

Piles can be designed to provide elastic behavior during extreme seismic loading per
Caltrans design criteria.

The pile wall thickness can be designed to provide desired pile stiffness,
accommodate an appropriate-sized pile hammer, and facilitate driving.

Axial load-carrying capacity under service loads will be largely developed by skin
friction at relatively small pile deflections. Additional axial capacity in end bearing
can be mobilized (albeit at larger pile deflections) when piles are subjected to extreme
loads.

Construction experience including the recently completed Pile Installation


Demonstration Project (Fugro-EM, 2001f) suggests that the piles can be driven and
that add-ons can be restarted with an appropriately sized, large offshore pile hammer.

On the basis of information provided by TY Lin/M&N, the Main Span-East Pier and the
Skyway piers will be supported on 2.5-meter-diameter steel pipe piles. The upper sections of the
piles will be filled with reinforced concrete to form a composite structural member denoted by
Caltrans as a cast-in-steel shell (CISS) pile. The Skyway piles will extend down to between
El. -93 and El. -108 meters with structural concrete fill to between approximately El. -63 and

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-EXECSUM.MAR.DOC

ES-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

El. -71 meters. Alternate pile tip elevations of El. -75 and El. -95 meters are being considered for
the Main Span-East Pier. The piles are currently being designed to include a variable wall
thickness schedule, which TY Lin/M&N indicates will vary from 76 millimeters (mm) at the pile
cap to 51 mm near the pile tip.
The foundation layouts provided in the TY Lin/M&N design drawings indicate that the
Main Span-East Pier will be supported by 16 piles. These piles will be arranged in two groups of
eight piles each that are centered beneath the westbound and eastbound bridge alignments. For
the Skyway Piers E3 through E14, the eastbound and westbound piers are to be supported by a
group of six battered piles. Eastbound and Westbound piers for Skyway Piers E15 and E16 are
to be supported by groups of four battered piles. The area circumscribed by the loci of the pile
tips for each Skyway pier is on the same order of magnitude as a football field.
TARGET PILE TIP STRATUM
Skyway
Recommended tip elevations for the piers supporting the Skyway structures were
developed on the basis of the geotechnical properties of the underlying sediments and the service
load/seismic performance information provided by TY Lin/M&N. Piles supporting Piers E3
through E5 are the most heavily loaded of the Skyway piles. To reduce the potential for
excessive deformations, tip elevations for those piers were selected slightly below the interpreted
bedrock elevation. Tip elevations for the remaining piers were selected so as to maximize the
probability of piles being tipped in a predominantly sand sequence in the Lower Alameda
Alluvium (LAA-sand).
Both the variation of the top elevation of the LAA-sand and the local presence or absence
of LAA-clay interbeds within the underlying LAA-sand are intrinsic variations of the deposit.
Because these are local variations, it is impractical to expect to predict how those variations
occur over the football-field-sized area circumscribed by the loci of the pile tips at each set of
piers. Thus, the pile design and construction will need to accommodate these variations. From
a design standpoint, the primary implication was to formulate predictions of the range of pile
end-bearing capacity and stiffness with recognition of the variations that could be logically
expected to occur.
Main Span-East Pier
The stratigraphy at the Main Span-East Pier varies somewhat from the typical
stratigraphy encountered beneath the Skyway alignment. The proposed Main Span-East Pier
location is within the area directly affected by geologically Recent channeling. Above about
El. -70 meters, the stratigraphy includes relatively thick and soft paleochannel clays. At about
El. -70 meters, an approximately 15-meter-thick, dense, sand-filled paleochannel is encountered
at the top of the Upper Alameda Marine sequence.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-EXECSUM.MAR.DOC

ES-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Driving steel pipe piles through that 15-meter-thick sand layer (Upper Alameda Marine
Paleochannel Sand) may be problematic. In addition, the Main Span-East Pier corresponds to
the location where the Lower Alameda Alluvium onlaps the Franciscan Formation, and only a
thin layer of Lower Alameda Alluvium is present. Thus, rock may be encountered at about the
pile tip elevation if that elevation is to be the same as those used for the Skyway piers.
Pile design data are provided for both piles tipped in the Upper Alameda Marine
Paleochannel Sand and piles driven deeper into the thin Lower Alameda Alluvium layer.
Careful consideration should be given to the choice of pile length at the Main Span-East Pier
location.
AXIAL PILE DESIGN ANALYSES AND RESULTS
The large-diameter steel pipe piles and soil conditions are similar to those
used/encountered in many offshore structures. Thus, the design methods used are based on sitespecific modifications to the procedures recommended by API RP 2A Guidelines for the Design
of Fixed Offshore Structures (API, 1993a,b), rather than the conventional Caltrans procedures
that have been formulated and used for the design of much smaller piles. The design methods
were developed with the intent of providing the soil parameters necessary for the assessment of
pile performance under static and dynamic loading.
Due to the economic importance of the SFOBB and the consequences of catastrophic
failure in both economic and human terms, the design and analysis of the pile foundations
supporting the bridge explicitly consider a number of aspects of pile-soil behavior that are
normally ignored. These aspects include: 1) the effects of consolidation and setup, 2) the
behavior under dynamic loading, 3) the losses of resistance under cyclic loading, and 4) the loadsettlement behavior of the piles under severe cyclic loading conditions. Since the treatment of
complex aspects of pile foundation behavior is not codified in any guiding documents, several
project-specific methods were developed for design and analysis of the foundation piles.
Information provided by TY Lin/M&N indicates that the piles will experience their
maximum loads during the design earthquake. Calculated seismic loads on the Skyway piles
varied as a function of the pile stiffness and damping assumed in the analyses. For the Safety
Evaluation Earthquake, tension loads of up to approximately 80 to 90 MN and compression
loads of up to approximately 120 to 140 MN were calculated. Structural analyses and design of
the Main Span structure are ongoing, and the results of those analyses were unavailable at the
time this report was being prepared.
The design seismic loading conditions produce: a) temporary losses in the axial capacity
due to cyclic degradation, and b) transient increases in the capacity due to rate of loading effects.
Because of those phenomena, evaluation of relative safety factors based on calculated static axial
capacities are not meaningful for seismic design. Furthermore, the magnitude of seismic loads
imposed on the piles is dependent upon the stiffness of the foundation response. In general, for

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-EXECSUM.MAR.DOC

ES-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

the typical range of structure periods considered, the stiffer the foundation (frequently due to
increased pile capacity), the higher the loads imposed on it. Therefore, a range of anticipated
foundation parameters was used to evaluate the load-deformation behavior of the piles and to
estimate the stresses imposed on the structure.
The results of our static axial capacity and axial load-deformation analyses are presented
on a series of illustrations for each pier. The analyses results and the plate numbering
nomenclature are as follows:

Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results, including:


soil stratigraphy, interpreted design strength and submerged
unit weight profiles, unit skin friction and unit end-bearing
curves, static axial pile capacity, recommended tip elevation .... Plate EX-YB.1

Axial Pile Load Transfer-Displacement Curves ......................... Plate EX-YB.2

Tabulated Axial Pile Load Transfer Data ................................... Plate EX-YB.3

Static Pile Head Load-Deformation Curves............................... Plate EX-YB.4

In the above nomenclature, "X" corresponds to the pier number and "Y" corresponds to
either an eastbound or westbound pier designation. For example, Plate E3-WB.2 presents the
axial pile load transfer-displacement curve for westbound Pier E3.
PILE DRIVABILITY ANALYSES
An evaluation of pile drivability was conducted for the Main Span-East Pier and
representative Skyway piers. The analyses were conducted for the anticipated pile wall
schedules shown in the 45-percent drawings (TY Lin/M&N, 1999). Three large offshore
hammers were considered: 1) a 550-kilojoule (kJ) Menck MHU-500T, 2) a 1,000 kJ Menck
MHU 1000, and 3) a 1,700 kJ Menck MHU-1700.
When drivability analyses were performed for a pier, the results are provided with the
pier-specific axial design results and include:

Soil Resistance to Driving..........................................................Plate EX-YB.5


Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 500T..............................Plate EX-YB.6a
Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 1000 ..............................Plate EX-YB.6b
Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 1700 ..............................Plate EX-YB.6c

In general, the drivability analyses suggest that the MHU 500T hammer will be
inadequate for driving piles to the recommended tip elevations. The data suggest that the MHU
1000 hammer has the minimum energy capable of driving the Skyway foundation piles at Piers
E7 through E16 to the proposed tip elevations. However, that hammer is likely to encounter

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-EXECSUM.MAR.DOC

ES-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

refusal above the proposed pile tip elevations at Piers E3 through E5, where the piles are to be
tipped in rock, or at a number of other pier locations if the pile plugs. With few exceptions, it
generally should be possible to restart driving within the LAA-sand with the Menck MHU 1700
hammer even if delays occur during driving within that layer.
The results for the Main Span-East Pier show that the smaller MHU 500T hammer will
be inadequate to drive the piles through the Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand
encountered at about El. -70 meters. Hard driving should be expected even when using the
larger MHU 1700, and contingencies should be provided in the specifications for refusal above
the specified tip elevations.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-EXECSUM.MAR.DOC

ES-7

SECTION 1.0

SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1

BACKGROUND

This Axial Pile Design Report has been prepared to provide final design
recommendations for large-diameter steel pipe piles that will be driven to support the Main
Span-East Pier and Skyway structures. These piles are planned to be 2.5 meters in diameter,
about 100 meters long, and penetrate between about 70 and 95 meters into the soils underlying
this portion of the alignment. This report is being provided to assist the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) and its design team during the final design of the Main Span (East
Pier) and Skyway structures of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) East Span
Seismic Safety Project.
1.1.1

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

Bridge and Route Description. The SFOBB carries 10 lanes of Interstate 80 traffic,
5 eastbound and 5 westbound, across San Francisco Bay. The bridge is bisected longitudinally
by Yerba Buena Island, with the West Span(s) extending from San Francisco to Yerba Buena
Island and the East Span(s) extending from Yerba Buena Island to Oakland. The existing bridge
is a double-decked structure that was constructed in the 1930s.
Earthquake Damage and Retrofit Evaluation. During the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake, the East Span(s) of the bridge suffered considerable damage, including the collapse
of one span. Recognizing the vulnerability of the structure to future earthquake shaking,
Caltrans embarked on a seismic retrofit program to upgrade the bridge. In the summer of 1995,
Caltrans presented their retrofit strategy for the SFOBB East Span to the Seismic Advisory
Board, who suggested replacement in lieu of retrofit.
Subsequently, Caltrans developed a 30-percent design of a continuous viaduct replacement structure. In 1996, that 30-percent design was presented to the Bay Bridge Design Task
Force, who had been appointed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to select
a bridge type for the East Span replacement structure. The MTC and their task force then formed
an Engineering and Design Advisory Panel (EDAP), who advised against Caltrans' proposed
replacement bridge type.
Replacement Bridge. Following those recommendations, Caltrans contracted with a
joint venture between TY Lin International and Moffatt & Nichol Engineers (TY Lin/M&N) to
develop 30-percent designs for two alternative bridge types (Phase 1 design). The two bridgetype alternatives included a cable-supported Main Span offshore from Yerba Buena Island and a
Skyway structure farther to the east, as well as the associated Yerba Buena Island transition
structure(s) and Oakland Mole Shore Approach structure(s). The locations of the various
components of the chosen N6 alignment are shown on Plate 1.1 and large-scale maps of the areas
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

discussed in this report are shown on Plates 1.2 and 1.3. The alternative cable-supported main
structures that were considered included single-tower or dual-tower, cable-stayed and selfanchored suspension bridge structures. The timing for the design project required that Caltrans
and TY Lin/M&N submit 30-percent design-level schedule and cost estimates to EDAP and
MTC by May 29, 1998.
In June 1998, EDAP and MTC selected the single-tower, self-anchored suspension bridge
structures and haunched, concrete Skyway structures for final design. Final design of the chosen
structure types and alignment was begun by the TY Lin/M&N team in late Fall 1998. The
following table summarizes submission dates for various design submittals that have since been
prepared. The most recent submittal for each component of the replacement bridge (see
tabulation below) provides the basis for descriptions of structures presented in this report.
Design Submittal

Main Span

Skyway

Oakland Shore Approach

45 percent

January 1999

January 1999

January 1999

65 percent

August 1999

July 1999

August 1999

85 percent

February 2000

August 2000 (Long Structure)


September 2000 (Short Structure)

100 percent

November 2000 (Draft)

1.1.2

Caltrans Contract for Geotechnical and Geological Investigations for the Project

To support their design efforts, Caltrans also has contracted with Fugro-Earth Mechanics
(a joint venture between Fugro West, Inc., and Earth Mechanics, Inc.) to conduct geotechnical
and geological investigations and studies for the replacement bridge. Caltrans Contract
59A0053, dated August 27, 1997, authorized those studies.
To date, six task orders have been issued under Contract 59A0053:

Task Order No. 1 - Initial Site Characterization-Geophysical Surveys phase with a


Notice to Proceed issued January 6, 1998.

Task Order No. 2 - Project Management and Coordination with a Notice to Proceed
issued January 26, 1998.

Task Order No. 3 - Preliminary Site Exploration and Testing with a Notice to Proceed
issued January 26, 1998.

Task Order No. 4 - Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Update and Preliminary
Site Response Analysis with a Notice to Proceed issued May 19, 1998.

Task Order No. 5 - Phase 2 and Phase 3 Site Exploration and Characterization with a
Notice to Proceed issued July 23, 1998.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Task Order No. 6 - Pile Installation Demonstration Project Engineering/Monitoring


with a Notice to Proceed issued December 23, 1998.

Task Order No. 5 Work Scope. The Task Order No. 5 work scope included provisions
for the final design phase of site exploration, testing, and characterization for the chosen bridge
alignment and structures. The task order authorized the extensive marine exploration as well as
the land exploration programs on Yerba Buena Island and the Oakland Mole. The task order
also provided authorization for the final geotechnical foundation design analyses and
recommendations. This report was prepared as a part of the work scope authorized by Task
Order No. 5.
1.2

N6 MAIN SPAN AND SKYWAY

The following descriptions of the N6 alignment, Main Span and Skyway structures, and
pile groups are based on the information contained in the 65-percent Main Span design plans and
the draft 100-percent Skyway design plans that were submitted by TY Lin/M&N in August 1999
and November 2000, respectively. Additional footing layout data for the Main Span East Pier
were provided in TY Lin (2001b).
1.2.1

N6 Alignment Description

The N6 alignment, as received from TY Lin/M&N (2001a), is shown on Plate 1.1, and
various Main Span and Skyway portions of the alignment are shown on Plates 1.2 and 1.3,
respectively. The proposed N6 alignment lies to the north of the existing alignment generally as
follows:

The proposed N6 alignment transitions from a double-decked structure at the tunnel


portal on Yerba Buena Island to two, parallel, side-by-side structures north of the
existing bridge.

The maximum deviation between the alignments is to the east of existing Bridge Pier
E4. At that point, the centerline of the N6 alignment is about 220 meters to the north
of the centerline of the existing bridge alignment.

From its point of curvature, the new alignment extends easterly to the Oakland Mole.
The proposed alignment centerline is about 80 meters north of the existing bridge
centerline at the point of curvature of the existing bridge at Pier E10.

At the western end of the Oakland Mole, the proposed new alignment centerline is
about 55 meters to the north of the existing bridge centerline.

At its easternmost end, the N6 alignment is coincident with the existing at-grade
SFOBB approach to the west of the toll plaza.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The N6 alignment structure is understood to include the following features:

Twin bridge structures carrying separate east- and westbound traffic.

A total width of the corridor for the new structures of about 70 meters. The
replacement bridge provides for 5 lanes of traffic in either direction, and a bike path
along the eastbound structure.

An approximately 410-meter-long transition structure extending from the Yerba


Buena Island Tunnel to the eastern tip of Yerba Buena Island.

An approximately 565-meter-long, single-tower, self-anchored suspension cable,


main-span signature structure extending offshore from the tip of Yerba Buena Island.

An approximately 2.1-kilometer-long, four-frame Skyway structure extending from


the signature structure eastward to the Oakland Shore Approach.

An Oakland Shore Approach structure extending about 700 meters form the Skyway
structure to the north side of the Oakland Mole.

An earthen fill transition from the Oakland Shore Approach structure to the roadways
leading to and from the existing bridge.

1.2.2 Signature Structure Spans and Pier Locations


The Main Span signature structure (Plate 1.2) will be an asymmetrical structure with a
longer East Span and shorter West Span. The signature structure will be supported on three
piers. The West Pier will be located on the eastern end of Yerba Buena Island, as shown on
Plate 1.2.
The shorter West Span will be 180 meters long. The main tower (or pylon) will be
35 meters to the west and upslope of the tower location that was originally planned during the
initial Phase 1 studies. As shown on Plate 1.2, this location is about 65 meters offshore from the
east end of Yerba Buena Island. At this location, the Bay floor slopes to the southeast and the
mudline elevation varies between about elevation (El.) -13 to -20 meters, relative to mean sea
level (MSL) datum, beneath the pylon centerline.
The East Span of the main structure is expected to have a length of 385 meters. The East
Pier location is thus about 75 meters farther to the east than the East Pier location originally
planned during the initial Phase 1 studies. The East Pier will be located about 75 meters east of
the location proposed in the initial Phase 1 study and about 190 meters north of existing Bridge
Pier E3.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1.2.3

Skyway Structure

The approximately 2.1-kilometer-long Skyway structure (Plate 1.3) will extend from the
Main Span-East Pier to the Oakland Mole. The Skyway will include separate, parallel eastbound
and westbound structures. Each structure will include four structural frames that are numbered 1
through 4 from west to east.
Frames 1 through 3 (which will comprise about 90 percent of the total Skyway length)
will each be supported by four piers, and Frame 4 will be supported by two. Pier spacings for
Frames 1 and 2 are 160 meters. As the Skyway approaches the Oakland Mole, pier height
progressively decreases with water depth. Pier spacing of Frames 3 and 4 also will decrease
from 160 meters to 96 meters as the Skyway nears the Oakland Shore Approach structure.
1.3

FOUNDATION DESCRIPTION

1.3.1

Pile Type, Size, and Section

On the basis of information provided by TY Lin/M&N, the Main Span-East Pier and the
Skyway piers will be supported on 2.5-meter-diameter steel pipe piles. The upper sections of the
piles will be filled with reinforced concrete to form a composite structural member denoted by
Caltrans as a cast-in-steel shell (CISS) pile. The piles will be about 70 to 95 meters long, and
extend down to between El. -93 and El. -108 meters with structural concrete fill to between
approximately El. -63 and El. -71 meters. The piles are currently being designed to include a
variable wall thickness schedule provided by TY Lin/M&N that varies from 76 millimeters (mm)
at the pile cap to 51 mm near the pile tip.
1.3.2

Pier Footings (Pile Caps) and Number of Piles

The pile caps for the Skyway Structure and Main Span are structural steel frames that are
encased in concrete. The pile cap forms a footing for concrete box section piers. Footing
layouts for the Main Span-East Pier (TY Lin/M&N, 2001b) and Skyway piers (TY-Lin/M&N,
2000b) are shown on Plate 1.4.
Main Span East Pier. The Main Span-East Pier footings are connected octagonal units
that are 25.3 meters in the transverse direction by 24.5 meters in the longitudinal direction. The
Main Span-East Pier footings are connected octagonal units that are 25.3 meters in the transverse
direction by 24.5 meters in the longitudinal direction. The Main Span-East Piers are each
approximately 6 meters by 5.4 meters.
As shown on Plate 1.4, the Main Span-East Pier will be supported on 16 piles. The piles
will consist of two groups of eight vertical piles centered on the piers supporting the eastbound
and westbound bridge alignments, respectively.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Skyway Structure Piers. The Skyway footings for Piers E3 through E14 are octagonal
while the footings for Piers E15 and E16 are roughly rectangular. The footings are 20.8 meters
in the transverse direction, and 18.4 meters (Piers E3 through E14) or 14.3 meters (Piers E15 and
E16) in the longitudinal direction. The Skyway piers are 8.5 meters wide, in the transverse
direction, and vary from 6.5 meters to 5.5 meters in the longitudinal direction.
As shown on Plate 1.4, Skyway Piers E3 through E14 are each supported on six batter
piles. The piles at the four corners of the footing have a batter of 1:8 while the piles that are
located along the longitudinal axis of the alignment have a batter of 1:12. Skyway Piers E15
and E16 are supported on four batter piles that have a batter of 1:8.
During the development of the 85-percent design submittal, a design modification
performed to increase the flexibility of the piers (and thereby reduce the loads induced on the
foundation) resulted in the lengthening of the piers supporting Frames 2 through 4. The
lengthening of the piers resulted in the lowering of the pier footing to between 6 and 13 meters
below the existing Bay floor. To allow for inspection/maintenance, an approximately 11.5- to
2.5-meter-diameter access casing is provided around each of those piers.
1.4

PROJECT DATUM

The horizontal and vertical datum specified by Caltrans (1997b) for use on this project
were as follows:

Horizontal Datum: California Coordinate System Zone 3, NAD 1983 (meters)

Vertical Datum: Mean Sea Level (MSL) Datum of 1929

Locations and elevations presented in this report are in reference to this project datum. The
NGVD 29 datum is generally close to MSL datum. Caltrans (1997b) specified that MSL (or
NGVD) was 0.942 meter above mean lower low water (MLLW) datum (e.g., to convert MLLW
elevations to MSL/NGVD elevations, subtract 0.94 meter from the MLLW elevation values).
1.5
1.5.1

BASIS OF CHARACTERIZATION
Site Investigations

Our interpretation of the subsurface conditions is based primarily on the Phase 1, 2, and 3
marine site investigation activities conducted in January through April 1998, September through
November 1998, and September through October 2000, respectively. The marine investigation
activities included:

Phase 1:
14 regional marine borings with extensive in situ and laboratory testing
2-D and 3-D marine geophysical surveys

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Phase 2:
30 pier-specific marine borings with extensive in situ and laboratory testing
49 tethered Seascout cone penetration test (CPT) soundings

Phase 3:
77 wheeldrive Seacalf CPT soundings
2-D marine geophysical survey around Yerba Buena Island

The marine explorations were completed using offshore equipment and included
extensive in situ testing and strength testing. The methods used for the various Fugro-EM site
investigations are described in and the collected data presented in the Final Marine Geotechnical
Site Characterization Report (Fugro-EM, 2001e), respectively. The locations of the borings are
shown on Plate 1.5.
In addition to the Fugro-EM site investigation data, the following were also considered:

1.5.2

Various previous borings completed in 1994 through 1996 for the Caltrans' retrofit
studies, and

Other historic drilling information.

Integrated Approach and GIS Database

For the interpretations presented in this report, primary emphasis was placed on the sitespecific conditions encountered in the 1998 borings, 2000 CPTs, and the subsurface geometry
imaged by the 1998 and 2000 marine geophysical surveys. The 1998 borings include extensive
in situ and laboratory test data (on relatively undisturbed push samples), whereas the older
borings include variable (and often limited) quantities of test data (on comparatively disturbed
driven samples). Testing on samples recovered from the 1998 borings together with the 1998
and 2000 in situ test data are the principal basis for the interpretations described herein. Other
older data have generally been used to supplement the stratigraphic information provided in that
new data.
The stratigraphy in the borings and CPTs has been compared and integrated with the
interpreted stratigraphic relationships as imaged by the geophysical surveys (Fugro-EM, 2001d).
That integrated effort has been used to prepare surface contour and isopach (thickness) contour
maps for various stratigraphic horizons and units that underlie the site.
All of the new and past drilling data have been input into a Geographic Information
System (GIS) to allow synthesis, comparison, analyses, and output of the data.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1.5.3

Report Organization

Main Text. The main text of this Axial Pile Design and Drivability report includes the
following sections:

Section 1.0 - Introduction


Section 2.0 - Generalized Subsurface Conditions and Stratigraphic Model
Section 3.0 - Axial Pile Design Overview
Section 4.0 - Axial Pile Design Methodology and Data
Section 5.0 - Pile Setup
Section 6.0 - Pile Drivability Considerations
Section 7.0 - Pile Installation Considerations and Recommendations
Section 8.0 - References

Various list and graphical information are provided on tables and illustrations that follow
each section of the main text.
Appendix A - Pier-Specific Design Data. The axial pile design data are provided as
pier-specific groups of plates for the Main Span-East Pier and each of the Skyway piers. The
pier-specific plates include:

Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results,


Axial Pile Load Transfer-Displacement Curves,
Tabulated Axial Pile Load Transfer Data, and
Static Pile Head Load-Deformation Curves.

When drivability analyses were performed for a pier, the following plates also are
included with the pier-specific plate group:

Soil Resistance to Driving


Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 500T
Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 1000
Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 1700

Appendix B - Verification of Pile Design Methods. This appendix documents several


of the data sources and example analyses that were performed to verify the methods described in
Section 4.0 of the main text.
1.6

RELATED PROJECT REPORTS PREPARED BY FUGRO-EARTH MECHANICS

The flowchart presented on Plate 1.6 has been prepared to clarify and delineate the areas
and issues addressed (or to be addressed) by the primary reports prepared (or to be prepared) for
the project by Fugro-Earth Mechanics (Fugro-EM, 2001a-h). As shown on Plate 1.6, the project
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

submittals have generally been divided into: a) geotechnical site characterization reports, and
b) foundation design reports.
Site characterization report submittals consist of: a) marine, b) Oakland Shore Approach,
and c) Yerba Buena Island. Final foundation reports will be prepared to address: a) Yerba
Buena Island transition structures and Main Span-West Pier and Main Span-Pylon, b) Main
Span-East Pier and Skyway Piers (E3 through E16), and c) Oakland Shore Approach structures
to the east of Pier E16. In general, foundation design recommendations and results are
developed interactively and iteratively with the structural engineers. Since the design loads and
foundation layouts are still being modified, all but the Skyway structure foundation reports are
either in draft or in preparation. Design recommendations are typically being provided to the
design team via memoranda and will be included in the final foundation reports.
Areas addressed by various site characterization and foundation reports are shown on
Plate 1.7. As shown on Plate 1.7, delineation of these areas is generally based on the site
investigation techniques used. In contrast, the areas addressed by the final foundation reports are
based on: a) the subsurface conditions (as defined in the geotechnical site characterization
reports), and b) the requirements of the various bridge and structural engineering teams.
Consequently, the division of areas addressed in each of the foundation reports is somewhat
different from the division of areas addressed in each of the site characterization reports.
As shown on Plate 1.6, the final reports for the foundation design of the Main Span-East
Pier and Skyway structures include: 1) this Axial Pile Design and Drivability report, 2) a
companion Lateral Pile Design report, and 3) a Temporary Towers report.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC1.MAR.DOC

1-9

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1835500

1836000

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

1839000

1839500

1840000

649000

649000

SCALE 1:12,500
0

100

200

Meters

ROACH
RE APP
D SHO
L
IL
/F
E
TUR
STRUC

-2.

N
OAKLA

-5.0

648500

648500

-13.0

-3.0

.0

-2

-4

.0

-10.0

100

-1.0

$
$

$ $

$ $
$

$ $

-30.0

$ $

N
IO
IT

R
U

N
R

A
R

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

1998 Phase 2 Marine Borings

1998 Phase 1 Marine Borings

Pre-1998 Marine Borings

Phase 3 Surveys, Meters, Re. MSL 1929


S

(Caltrans, 1997)

-10.0

Major (Interval = 5 Meters)

Minor (Interval = 1 Meter)

-3.0

$
B

$ $

.0

-10

Bathymetric Elevations from Phase 1 and

$
-5.0

$
$$ $$
$

.0

-5

LEGEND

YERBA

E8

N6 Alignment

BUENA
ISLAND

Pier Location and Number

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3,

Bay Bridge

NAD83, Meters

-15.0

-10.0

San Francisco-Oakland

647000

647000

647500

-12.0

-4.

648000

$
$
$

.0

647500

$
$
$

-15

5.

E7

E5

E3

$
$
$

$
$
$$

E15

OAKLAND MOLE

-1

#
#
# #
#
## # #
# #####
#
##
#

$
$

0.

-2

##
E2

#
#

E9

E12

648000

#
# #

-15.0

#
#

.0

E4

E6

-5

.0

-5

IN

##

.0

.0

E8

-5

-10

15.0

#
#

#
#

E13

.
-1

-5.0

#E10 #

$$
$

2.

-1

$
$
$$

-1

ISLAND

SKY

.0

$$
$$

TREASURE

$
$$

URE

UCT

STR
AY

$ $$$$$$
$ $ $
$$

.0

-1

$$ $

-7

.0

BATHYMETRY AND N6 ALIGNMENT

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1835500

1836000

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section1\plate1-1.odb, ksmith, 03/01/2001

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

1839000

1839500

PLATE 1.1

1840000

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836200

1836400

1836600

1836800

98-9

Meters, Re. MSL 1929


00C-78

(Caltrans, 1997)

0 to -5

-5 to -10

E5

FR

-15 to -20

98-28

E4

00C-18

98-26

00C-30

PIER)

94-11

98-81

$
Meters
00C-79

-20.0

.0

-10

00C-09

98-3

#
96-3

98-2

98-23

-20.0

98-21

95-18

48-64C
94-8

96-2

(Caltrans, 1997)

Major (Interval = 5 Meters)

1998 Phase 1 Marine Borings

94-12

Minor (Interval = 1 Meter)

Pre-1998 Marine Borings

(Caltrans,

22

1997), Contour Interval =

2 Meters

Bay Bridge

-30.0

Topography, Meters, Re. MSL 1929

San Francisco-Oakland
96-1

16

YERBA

Multibeam Survey, Meters, Re. MSL 1929

N6 Alignment

WEST PIER

16

1998 Phase 2 Marine Borings

.0

-15

-25.0

Bathymetric Elevations from Phase 3

98-8
-15.0

(PYLON)

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

98-40

E1

98-48

48-64

E3

647600

647600

96-4

98-5

98-24

98-45

0C-07

E4

00C-34

#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#

95-19

96-5

LEGEND

98-4

48-64A

00C-19

98-22

00C-10

#
94-12

00C-20

98-7

98-1

00C-13

-1

-15.0

00C-15

98-6

00C-17

E5

.0

00C-23

00C-12

60

30

.0

30

-1

00C-22

SCALE 1:3000

647800

48-88

5.0

-1

E2 (EAST

-12.0

647800

98-25

#
48-89

00C-29

98-27

$
$

.0

00C-28

00C-27

98-82

98-19

E3

00C-26

00C-11

48-90

-1

98-8

IN

00C-25

00C-14

< -30

98-40

5.0

.0

98-50

-25 to -30

-1

-5

00C-21

-20 to -25

00C-08

98-29

00C-24

-10 to -15

648000

00C-77

1837200

Bathymetric Elevation

648000

1837000

E2

Pier Location and Number

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters


-2

5.

E2

BUENA
ISLAND

MAIN SPAN ALIGNMENT


6

1836200
j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section1\plate1-2.odb, ksmith, 03/01/2001

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

94-9

1836400

1836600

1836800

1837000

1837200

PLATE 1.2

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836800

1837200

1837600

1838000

1838400

1838800

Bathymetric Elevation
Meters, Re. MSL 1929

(Caltrans, 1997)
0 to -5
-5 to -10

648400

SCALE: 1:6000
50

100

Meters

98-11

ME

FRA

00C-66
98-39

00C-60 00C-64

00C-57

-4

$
$

-5.0

E14

-5.

-5.0

$
$

-5.0

$
$
$$

-4.0

-10.0

95-17

E20

00C-34

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

-13.0

Bathymetric Elevations from Phase 3 Multibeam


Survey, Meters, Re. MSL 1929 (Caltrans, 1997)

98-40

1998 Phase 2 Marine Borings


Major (Interval = 5 Meters)

98-8

$
$

$
$

E3

1998 Phase 1 Marine Borings

Minor (Interval = 1 Meter)


647600

$
$

94-12

5.0

%a

Pre-1998 Marine Borings

N6 Alignment

PIDP Locations

San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge

-1

.0

00C-65

648000

E4

.0

-20

-4.0

-4.0

648000

LEGEND

.0

-15

647600

95-16

-4.0

E6

.0

5.0

00C-67

E8

-2

00C-68

00C-63

00C-59

E12

Location

-1

00C-56

-4.0

98-81

96-5

94-12

98-7

-5.0

1 & 2)

48-88

96-4

(Pile Nos.

00C-55

00C-48

E16

95-15

00C-52

E18

00C-43

00C-39

E10

94-2

94-6

98-38

00C-69

94-11

00C-30

-15.0

96-3

%a

94-7

98-42

# #

98-43

E12

E15

94-1

48-89

00C-23

94-4

94-3

98-33

00C-45

-4.0

98-82

Test
Location

%a

94-5

00C-47
94-10

00C-54

00C-61
00C-62

PIER)

00C-29

Test

00C-36

-1

00C-22

98-26

#
E2 (EAST

98-40

48-90

Pile No.3
Primary

#
#

98-49

00C-33

E8

E9

00C-42

.0

98-27

98-10

E7

00C-38

00C-41

98-34

-5

00C-27

98-25

98-29

00C-35

98-32

98-31

.0

E3

98-19 00C-28

00C-26

00C-32

E6

E10

-5

E4

98-50

E5

00C-24

.0

98-28

98-8

98-41

98-9

00C-25

00C-31
98-30

-1

98-20

#
E11
#

E14

00C-51

00C-40
00C-37

ME

98-35

ME

FRA

00C-34

FRA

00C-44

AY

W
SKY

00C-50

00C-49

00C-58

98-37

$$

00C-46

00C-53
98-36

$
$
$$

.0

98-12

$$

-25 to -30

ME

FRA

-3

-20 to -25

50

-15 to -20

$$ $$
$
$
$ $$
$

648400

-10 to -15

PIDP Area
Grid: California State Plane,

-12.0

E10

Pier Location and Number

Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

SKYWAY STRUCTURE ALIGNMENT

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1836800
j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section1\plate1-3.odb, section1, 03/05/2001

1837200

1837600

1838000

1838400

1838800
PLATE
1.3

S F O B B T a s k O rd e r N o . 5
P r o je c t N o . 9 8 - 4 2 - 0 0 5 4

S K Y W A Y P IE R

E 3 T H R O U G H

E 6

S K Y W A Y P IE R

9 8 4 2 \0 0 5 4 m a i2 .d s f( 2 )

M A IN

S P A N

E A S T P IE R

E 1 5 T H R O U G H

E 1 6

M A IN S P A N E A S T P IE R A N D
S K Y W A Y F O O T IN G G E O M E T R Y
S F O B B E a s t S p a n S e is m ic S a fe ty P r o je c t

N O T E S : 1 ) F o o tin g la y o u t f r o m T Y L in - M o f fa t & N ic h o l d r a w in g s .
2 ) D im e n s io n s s h o w n o n p la n s a r e in m illim e te r s .

S K Y W A Y P IE R

E 7 T H R O U G H

E 1 4

P L A T E 1 .4

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836500

1837000

1837500

-10 0

1836000

1838000

1838500

1839000

1836400
C-15
-20.0

-15.0

98-1

-10.0

98-4

-5

.0

-2.0

.0

-5

98-23

-1

0.

00C-73
00C-72
98-44
98-11

94-8
Meters

00C-46
.0

00C-44
00C-40
00C-37

648300

0
5.

-25.0

-1

648000

$ $

648200

0
0.

-1

10

10

20

Meters

.0

-5

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

Phase 3 Surveys, Meters, Re. MSL 1929

647000

1998 Phase 2 Marine Borings

98-8

.0

-10

-15.0

(Caltrans, 1997)
Major (Interval = 5 Meters)

1998 Phase 1 Marine Borings

94-12

Bathymetric Elevations from Phase 1 and

647000

Minor (Interval = 1 Meter)

Pre-1998 Marine Borings


N6 Alignment

E2

Pier Location and Number

San Francisco-Oakland

MARINE EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP

Grid: California State Plane,

Bay Bridge

Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section1\plate1-5.odb, ksmith, 03/01/2001

00C-70

00C-68

1838800

00C-34

98-40

1836000

00C-71

648200

LEGEND

00C-69
00C-67

.0

00C-06

-10

ISLAND

#
00C-65

00C-63

00C-05

BUENA

94-1

00C-62

98-39

E17

00C-66

00C-61

.0

E16

95-20

YERBA

00C-64

-5

96-1

-5.0

00C-60

E3

E4

96-2

#
94-9

-5.0

E6

-5.0

647500

#
#

1838800

.0

96-3
95-18

E8

98-81

-15.0

E10

96-4

00C-20

E14

96-5

94-12

OAKLAND MOLE

E22

95-15

# #
#
## # #
# #####
#

98-7

95-17

648300

00C-23

95-16

94-11

5.

00C-02

95-19

98-6
00C-19

# 48-89
#

E18

94-6

00C-74

98-82

48-90

-1

00C-13

00C-30
48-88

-15

00C-15

00C-10
00C-07
00C-04

98-3 00C-17

00C-12

00C-09

##

00C-39

00C-52

00C-59

00C-55

94-4

98-27

00C-28
00C-29

00C-45

98-38

-2.0

00C-79

E2

98-26

98-49

00C-33

00C-36

94-7

#
#98-42 # 94-10 00C-48

-3.0

-3.0

00C-01

$
$

-15.0

-5.0

98-25

E3

98-19

00C-27

00C-22
00C-03

$
$

$ $

98-8 00C-26

00C-11 00C-14
00C-08

E9

# 94-3

94-5

#
94-2 #

00C-51

00C-54

E14
00C-56

00C-25

E5

# 98-40
#

00C-35

E7

98-33
00C-43

98-43

00C-18

98-50

$
$
$

00C-21

$
$
$

00C-76

98-28

00C-32

# 98-35

98-36

.0

ISLAND

00C-24

98-10

00C-38

00C-42

00C-50

-5

TREASURE

98-41
98-29

# E10

98-32

00C-41

00C-49

98-37

648000

00C-78
00C-77

98-31

$
$
$

00C-34
00C-31
98-30

98-9

98-20

$
$
$$

1836400

98-34
00C-47
E11

20

$$

10

$
$
$$

10

-1

647500

00C-53

98-12

E17

48-64C

48-64

Meters

.0

200

-3
98-48

100

-4

98-2

-7.0

$$
$$

E1
98-21

100

SCALE:1:10,000

98-24

$
$

98-45

$ $ $ $$ $
$$ $ $
$ $

647600

98-5

648500

648500

48-64A

$$ $

.0

98-22

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1838500

1839000

PLATE 1.5

S F O B B T a s k O rd e r N o . 5
P r o je c t N o . 9 8 - 4 2 - 0 0 5 4

F U G R O -E M
G E O T E C H N IC A L S T U D Y

S ite C h a r a c te r iz a tio n
In fo r m a tio n

O n s h o r e S ite
C h a r a c te r iz a tio n R e p o r ts

O a k la n d S h o r e A p p r o a c h S ite
C h a r a c te r iz a tio n R e p o r ts
T h e O a k la n d S h o r e A p p r o a c h r e p o r t
a d d r e s s th e p o r tio n s o f th e p r o p o s e d
N 6 a lig n m e n t t h a t a r e o n th e O a k la n d
M o le o r w it h in t h e tid a l fla t z o n e to th e
n o r th o f th e O a k la n d M o le . T h e d a ta
p r o v id e d a r e a p p lic a b le to th e s tr u c tu r e s u p p o r te d p o r tio n o f th e b r id g e a t th e
w e s t e n d o f t h e m o le , a n d to th e fills u p p o r te d p o r tio n s fa r th e r e a s t.

F in a l O a k la n d S h o r e A p p r o a c h
G e o te c h n ic a l S ite C h a r a c te r iz a t io n - p r o v id e s a d e ta ile d s it e
c h a r a c te r iz a tio n fo r th e O a k la n d
M o le a n d a d ja c e n t m a r in e a r e a s
o n th e b a s is o f F u g r o - E M s ite
in v e s tig a tio n s . A d d itio n a lly , th e
r e p o r t p r o v id e s th e r e s u lt s o f
liq u e f a c tio n a n d la te r a l s p r e a d
a n a ly s e s p e r fo r m e d in th is a r e a .
V o l 1 - M
V o l 2 A a
A p
V o l 3 - C
V o l 4 - A
P r

a in T e x t a n d I llu s t r a tio n s
n d 2 B - B y - b o r in g
p e n d ic e s
P T S o u n d in g A p p e n d ix
d d itio n a l R e p o r ts :
e lim in a r y S tu d y o f
A p p r o a c h F ills
S tu d ie s o n L a te r a l S p r e a d in g
o f F ills
F in d in g s fr o m T r e n c h a n d P it
E x c a v a tio n
U C B e r k e le y G e o te c h n ic a l
T e s t in g
3 /5 /0 1

M a r in e S ite C h a r a c te r iz a tio n R e p o r ts
T h e m a r in e s it e c h a r a c te r iz a tio n r e p o r ts a d d r e s s p o r tio n s
p o s e d N 6 a lig n m e n t o v e r th e S a n F r a n c is c o B a y to th e e a
B u e n a Is la n d a n d to th e w e s t o f th e O a k la n d M o le . T h e s e
d e s c r ib e s u b s u r fa c e c o n d itio n s b e n e a th : a ) th e M a in S p a
M a in S p a n - E a s t P ie r ; c ) th e v a r io u s S k y w a y p ie r s ; a n d d )
p o r tio n s o f t h e O a k la n d S h o r e A p p r o a c h s tr u c tu r e to th e w
O a k la n d M o le .

Y e r b a B u e n a Is la n d S ite
C h a r a c te r iz a tio n R e p o r ts
T h e Y e r b a B u e n a Is la n d s ite
c h a r a c te r iz a tio n r e p o r ts a d d r e s
la n d - b a s e d s t r u c tu r e s a t th e w e
e n d o f th e N 6 a lig n m e n t. T h o s
r e p o r ts h a v e /w ill a d d r e s s ( e d ) th
M a in S p a n - W e s t P ie r a n d v a r io
tr a n s it io n s tr u c tu r e s fr o m th e tu
to th e M a in S p a n .

P h a s
V o l 2
C o
S

e 1 S u b c o n tra
- N O R C A L G e
n s u lt a n ts , In c .
u rv e y s - Y e rb a

c to
o p h
(S e
B u

F o u n d a tio n D e s ig n
In fo r m a tio n

F in a l S
M o tio n
m o tio n
e n tir e p
lis t ic h a
a n a ly s e
m u ltip le

e is m ic
R e p o r
re c o m m
r o je c t.
z a rd s t
s , A R S
-s u p p o

H
t e
It
u d
d
rt

a z a rd G ro u n d
p r o v id e s g r o u n d
n d a tio n s fo r th e
in c lu d e s p r o b a b iie s , s ite r e s p o n s e
e s ig n c r ite r ia , a n d
tim e h is to r ie s .
2 /2 8 /0 1

P ile In s ta lla tio n D e m o n s tr a tio n


P r o je c t (P ID P ) G e o te c h n ic a l
R e p o r t - d o c u m e n ts th e fie ld a c tiv itie s d u r in g P ID P p r o g r a m a n d
s u m m a r iz e s th e r e s u lts a n d c o n c lu s io n s d e r iv e d fr o m th e d a ta
c o lle c te d d u r in g th a t p r o g r a m .
3 /5 /0 1

F in a l F o u n d a tio n D e s ig n
In fo r m a tio n R e p o r ts

s th e
s t
e
u s
n n e l

M a r in e G e o p h y s ic a l R e p o r t

r R e p o rts
y s ic a l
is m ic
e n a Is la n d )

F in a l M a r in e G e o p h y s ic a l S
P h a s e 1 2 -D a n d 3 -D g e o p h y
P h a s e 3 2 - D g e o p h y s ic a l s u r
a n u m b e r o f s tru c tu re c o n to u
( th ic k n e s s ) m a p s fo r th e p r im
fie d in th e o v e r w a te r p o r tio n s
d o c u m e n te d in th is r e p o r t a r e
g e o lo g ic s tr u c tu r e s id e n tifie d
a n d th e a s s e s s m e n t o f th e re
a lo n g o ff s h o r e p r o je c tio n o f s
Y B I.

C O L O G , In c . (B IP S D a ta Y e r b a B u e n a Is la n d )
H u g h e s In s itu E n g in e e r in g ,
I n c . ( P r e s s u r e m e te r T e s t in g )
6 /2 4 /9 8
F in a l Y e r b a B u e n a Is la n d G e o te c h n ic a l S ite C h a r a c te r iz a tio n d o c u m e n ts th e F u g r o - E M s ite
in v e s tig a tio n s . T h e r e p o r t in c lu d e s
s tr a tig r a p h ic d e ta ils a n d e n g in e e r in
p r o p e r tie s o f s o il a n d r o c k fo r th e
d e s ig n o f s tr u c tu r e s o n Y e r b a B u e n
Is la n d . T h e r e p o r t a ls o d o c u m e n ts
th e m a p p in g a n d s u b s e q u e n t e v a lu
a tio n o f s h e a r z o n e s o b s e r v e d o n
Y B I.
D ra ft 3 /1 /0
N o t e : W ill b e f in a liz e d w h e n M a in S p a n a n d
T e m p o r a r y S tr u c tu r e d e s ig n is c o m p le te d .

g
a
-

P h a s e 1 S u b
V o l 1 G
W
V o l 2 H

M a r in e G e o te c h n ic a l R e p o r ts

u r v e y - s u m m a r iz e s th e
s ic a l s u r v e y s a n d th e
v e y . T h e r e p o r t p r o v id e s
r m a p s a n d is o p a c h
a r y g e o lo g ic u n its id e n t io f th e p r o je c t a r e a . A ls o
e v a lu a t io n s o f o ff s h o r e
in th e M a in S p a n a r e a
c e n c y o f m o v e m e n ts
h e a r z o n e s m a p p e d o n
3 /5 /0 1

V o l 3 -

c o n tra c
e o v is io n
e le n c o ,
u g h e s In
E n g in e e
F u g ro S o u

V o l 4 -

U n iv e r s ity o f T e x a s
a t A u s t in
G e o T e s t U n lim ite d

P h a s e 2 S u b
V o l 1 G
W
V o l 2 G
V o l 3 F

9 8 4 2 \0 0 5 4 flo 4 .d s f( 1 - 3 ) ,p 2

o f th e p ro s t o f Y e rb a
re p o rts
n - P y lo n ; b )
o v e rw a te r
e s t o f th e

F in a l M
p h a s e s
o f th e p
g ra p h y
in g p r o p
V o l 1
V o l 2

to r R e p o rts
In c .
s itu
r in g , In c .
th , In c .

c o n tra c to r R e p o rts
e o v is io n
e le n c o , In c .
e o T e s t U n lim ite d
u g ro W e s t, In c .

a r in e G e o te
o f F u g ro -E M
r o je c t a r e a .
u n d e r ly in g th
e r tie s o f th e
- M a in T e x t
A th ro u g h 2 H

c h n
s ite
T h e
e b r
s o il
a n d
- B

S k y w a y a n d M a in S p a n - E a s t P ie r
T h e s e r e p o r t s p r o v id e fo u n d a t io n
d e s ig n r e c o m m e n d a t io n s a n d p r e s e n t c o n s tr u c tio n c o n s id e r a tio n s fo r
th e M a in S p a n - E a s t P ie r ( P ie r E 2 )
a n d S k y w a y P ie r s ( E 3 th r o u g h E 1 6 ) .
T h e r e p o r ts a r e g e n e r a lly a p p lic a b le
to a r e a s u n d e r la in b y s ig n if ic a n t
th ic k n e s s e s o f s e d im e n t w h e r e p ie r s
w ill b e s u p p o r te d b y b a t te r , la r g e d ia m e te r , d r iv e n s te e l p ip e p ile s .

B o r e h o le G e o p h y s ic s
B o r e h o le T e le v ie w e r L o g s
P r e s s u r e m e te r T e s tin g
R e s o
D ir
D y n a
S p
L a b o

B o r
B o r
L a b
S e a

n a n
e c t
m ic
e c im
r a to

e h o
e h o
o ra
s c o

t C o lu m n
S im p le S h
P r o p e r t ie
e n s
ry R o c k T

le G
le T
to ry
u t C

ic a l S ite C h a r a c te r iz a tio n in v e s tig a tio n s p e r fo r m e d in


r e p o r t p r o v id e s d e ta ile d d e s
id g e a lig n m e n t a n d a ls o s u m
a n d ro c k e n c o u n te re d .
I llu s tr a tio n s
y - b o r in g a n d C P T s o u n d in g

e o
e le
R o
P T

p h y s
v ie w
c k T
s o u

a n d
n
s

re -

p o -

n
lly
tio n

G e o te c h n ic a l F o u n d a tio n
R e p o r t fo r S tr u c tu r a l A lt e r n a tiv e , O a k la n d S h o r e A p p r o a c h
S tr u c tu r a l o p tio n s ( e s p e c ia lly in
m a r in e a r e a s ) a r e b e in g a d d r e s s e d
b y F u g r o - E M . N o n s tr u c tu r a l d e s ig n
c o n c e p ts fo r th e O a k la n d S h o r e
A p p r o a c h a r e b e in g d e s ig n e d b y
C a ltr a n s . N o d e s ig n r e c o m m e n d a tio n s a r e p r e s e n te d fo r th o s e b y
F u g r o - E M . T h is r e p o r t p r o v id e s
fo u n d a tio n d e s ig n r e c o m m e n d a tio n s a n d p r e s e n ts c o n s tr u c tio n
c o n s id e r a tio n s fo r th e s tr u c tu r e s u p p o r te d p o r tio n s o f th e O a k la n d
S h o re A p p ro a c h .
D ra ft 7 /3 1 /0 0
N o t e : W ill b e f in a liz e d w h e n M a in S p a n a n d
T e m p o r a r y S tr u c tu r e d e s ig n is c o m p le te d .

e s tin g P r o g r a m
3 /5 /0 1

ic s
e r L o g s
e s tin P r o g r a m
n d in g s

a p p e n d ic e s

u e n a Is la n d S tr u c tu r e s
S p a n -P y lo n F o u n d a tio
p o r t p r o v id e s fo u n d a tio n
r e c o m m e n d a t io n s a n d p
o n s tr u c tio n c o n s id e r a tio n
Y B I a p p r o a c h s tru c tu re s
W 3 th ro u g h W 1 0 a ), te m
to u r s tru c tu re s , a n d th e
p a n - W e s t P ie r a n d - P y lo
1 ) . T h e r e p o r t is g e n e r a
b le to a r e a s o f o n s h o r e
tio n s o r fo u n d a tio n s s u p
in r o c k .
In P re p a ra

N o t e : W ill b e f in a liz e d w h e n M a in S p a n a n d
T e m p o r a r y S tr u c tu r e d e s ig n is c o m p le te d .

6 /2 4 /9 8

a n d C y c lic
e a r T e s ts
s o f I n ta c t S o il

s u m m a r iz e s
th e o v e rw a te
c r ip tio n s o f th
m a r iz e s th e

Y e rb a B
M a in
T h is r e
d e s ig n
s e n ts c
fo r th e
(B e n ts
ra ry d e
M a in S
( P ie r E
a p p lic a
fo u n d a
p o rte d

th e th re e
r p o r tio n s
e s tr a tie n g in e e r -

A x ia l P ile D e s ig n a n d
D r iv a b ility , M a in S p a n -E a s t
P ie r & S k y w a y S tr u c tu r e s p r o v id e s p ie r - s p e c ific r e s u lts o f
p ile d e s ig n fo r d r iv e n p ile fo u n d a tio n s u n d e r s ta t ic a x ia l lo a d in g c o n d itio n s . T h e r e p o r t a ls o
p r o v id e s th e r e s u lts o f p ile d r iv a b ility a n a ly s e s a n d p r e s e n ts
c o n s tr u c tio n c o n s id e r a tio n s f o r
la r g e - d ia m e te r p ile fo u n d a tio n s .
3 /5 /0 1

L a te r a l P ile D e s ig n , M a in
S p a n -E a s t P ie r & S k y w a y
S t r u c t u r e s - p r o v id e s p ie r s p e c ific r e s u lts fo r th e d e s ig
o f d r iv e n p ile s s u b je c t to s ta
la te r a l lo a d s . T h e r e p o r t a ls
p r e s e n ts a b a s is fo r th e a n a
s is o f p ile s u n d e r d y n a m ic
la te r a l lo a d in g c o n d itio n s .
2 /2 8

t ic
o
ly /0 1

A n a ly s is a n d D e s ig n P r o c e d u r e s fo r P ile F o u n d a tio n s
S u p p o r t in g T e m p o r a r y
T o w e r s - p r o v id e s s u b s u r fa c e
in fo r m a tio n a n d e x a m p le c a lc u la tio n s a s g u id a n c e fo r th e
d e s ig n o f te m p o r a r y to w e r
fo u n d a tio n s fo r th e S k y w a y
S tru c tu re s .
3 /5 /0 1

F IN A L F U G R O -E M R E P O R T S
S F O B B E a s t S p a n S e is m ic S a fe ty P r o je c t

3 /5 /0 1

P L A T E 1 .6

SECTION 2.0

SECTION 2.0
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND
SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC MODEL

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

2.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND


SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC MODEL
The following discussion summarizes the subsurface stratigraphy and subsurface
conditions underlying the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway of the N6 alignment. This summary
is a synopsis of the more detailed description contained in the Final Marine Geotechnical Site
Characterization report (Fugro-EM, 2001e). The following discussion is limited to the
conditions underlying the approximately 70-meter-wide N6 alignment corridor. The discussion
also is limited to the stratigraphic section within the depth penetrated by and immediately
underlying the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway pile foundations (i.e., this discussion is limited
to the sediment section above about El. -110 meters). The Final Marine Geotechnical Site
Characterization report (Fugro-EM, 2001e) should be referred to for information relative to:
1) the shallow, easterly sloping rock offshore Yerba Buena Island, 2) the regional stratigraphic
conditions beyond the alignment corridor, or 3) the deeper sediment and rock stratigraphy below
the depth of interest for pile design.
2.1

SAN FRANCISCO BAY BATHYMETRY

Contours of Bay floor elevation in the project area are presented on Plates 1.1 though 1.3.
The bathymetric data are from: 1) a multibeam bathymetric survey (May 2000) along most of
the existing bridge and N6 alignments; and 2) fathometer measurements taken during the 2-D
and 3-D geophysical surveys (January to April 1998). Details of the various bathymetric surveys
are presented in the Final Marine Geophysical Survey report (Fugro-EM, 2001d).
As shown on Plates 1.1 through 1.3, the Bay floor within the survey areas generally
slopes east to west from between 0.15 to 2 percent to within about 300 meters offshore Yerba
Buena Island. Offshore Yerba Buena Island, the surface slopes more steeply to the east. The
lowest elevation in the survey area is about El. -30 meters (re: MSL datum) in the deep scour
depression offshore the eastern tip of Yerba Buena Island.
A north-south-trending channel is located to the east of Yerba Buena Island. Along the
channel axis, the nominal elevation of the channel base is El. -15 meters. Between the existing
Bridge Piers E2 and E3, however, the channel reaches a depth of El. -30 meters. This scour hole
measures about 700 by 300 meters and is elongated in a north-southwest direction. It is more
than 15 meters deep relative to its outlet to the southwest. The east- and west-facing slopes of
the depression, which underlie the area between the Main Span pylon and East Pier, are as steep
as about 10 to 30 percent while the north- and south-facing slopes are more typically about 3 to 4
percent.
In addition to the prominent scour hole between existing Bridge Piers E2 and E3, there
are scour depressions adjacent to a number of the bridge piers. The scour holes are typically 3 to

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

5 meters deep. Around the piers, scour hole sizes generally increase to the west. While the
scour holes around existing Bridge Pier E22 measure approximately 30 to 50 meters in length,
they elongate to 200+ meters around existing Bridge Pier E3. To the west of existing Bridge
Pier E6, the scour holes extend largely to the south of the piers.
Beneath the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway, the bathymetry slopes to the west. The
bathymetric features to the west of the Oakland Mole are described below:

Beneath the Oakland Shore Approach and immediately to the west of the Oakland
Mole, the Bay floor slopes easterly from about El. -1 meter down to El. -3 meters.
The majority of that slope difference occurs beneath the western two-thirds of the
Oakland Shore Approach.

Beneath Skyway Frames 3 and 4, the Bay floor consists of a broad, approximately
700-meter-wide, nearly flat-bottomed shallow area. In this area, the Bay floor slopes
westerly from about El. -3 meters down to about El. -3.75 meters at a slope of less
than 0.15 percent.

A slightly steeper slope is present beneath Skyway Frame 2. In that area, the Bay
floor slopes from about El. -3.5 to El. -7 meters at an average slope of about 0.8
percent.

A north-south-trending, approximately 5-meter-high slope is present below the


eastern half of Skyway Frame 1. In this area, the Bay floor deepens from about El. -7
to El. -12 meters over a horizontal distance of about 300 meters. The Bay floor is
locally as steep as about 2 percent in this area of steeper bay bottom.

Beneath the western half of Skyway Frame 1 and the area of the Main Span-East Pier,
the slope flattens to about 0.3 to 0.4 percent and the Bay floor decreases from about
El. -12 to El. -13 meters.

A variety of cultural features were observed on the side scan sonar data in the survey
area. These features include several utility cables and pipelines as well as: a) debris; b) scour
depressions; c) changes in sediment density; d) small linear anomalies from anchor chains,
buoys, pipelines, and cables; e) bridge piers, dolphins, signs, platforms, and other obstructions
with a positive relief; and f) unidentifiable features of unknown origin. The features are shown
on a 1:5,000-scale map in the Final Marine Geophysical Survey report (Fugro-EM, 2001d).
2.2

GEOLOGIC FEATURES AND SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

2.2.1

Principal Features and Formations

The geologic structure underlying the N6 alignment includes the following general
features:

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Easterly sloping bedrock of the Franciscan Formation

A westerly thinning sequence of Holocene- and Pleistocene-age marine and alluvial


sediments

Extensive channeling within the Holocene- and Pleistocene-age sediments

The primary geologic formations that underlie the N6 alignment (or portions of the
alignment) are listed in descending sequence:

Young Bay Mud (YBM)

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio (MPSA) Formations (sometimes simplified as Merritt


Sand)

Old (Yerba Buena) Bay Mud (OBM)

Upper Alameda (primarily) Marine (UAM) Sediments

Lower Alameda (primarily) Alluvial (LAA) Sediments

Franciscan Formation (FF) Bedrock

Descriptions of the sediments in each of those units are provided subsequently.


2.2.2

Structural Contour and Isopach Thickness Maps

Interpreted structural contour and isopach (thickness) maps of the various geologic
formations that underlie the site are presented in the Final Marine Geophysical Survey report
(Fugro-EM, 2001d). Reduced page-size versions (typically at a scale of 1:10,000) of some of the
interpretive maps presented in that report are provided on Plates 2.1 through 2.8. The reducedscale maps provided in this report are:

Structural Contours, Base of Young Bay Mud - Plate 2.1


Structural Contours, Top of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand - Plate 2.2
Structural Contours, Base of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand - Plate 2.3
Structural Contours, Top of Lower Alameda Alluvial Sand - Plate 2.4
Structural Contours, Top of Franciscan Formation - Plate 2.5
Isopach (Thickness) of Young Bay Mud - Plate 2.6
Isopach (Thickness) of Upper Alameda Paleochannel Sand - Plate 2.7
Isopach (Thickness) of Sediment Section Above Lower Alameda Alluvial Sand Plate 2.8

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

2.2.3

Subsurface Cross Sections

The geologic structure and stratigraphic relationships underlying the SFOBB East Span
Skyway are illustrated on two simplified, conceptual, subsurface cross sections:

Plate 2.9 - Conceptual east-west cross section to the south of the east-west-oriented
paleochannel

Plate 2.10 - Conceptual north-south cross section at the south edge of the east-west
paleochannel

The soil lithologies encountered in the borings, data from the borings, and the interpreted
stratigraphic contacts, as imaged on the marine geophysical records, are shown on a series of
three cross sections that span Plates 2.11a and 2.11b. The cross sections presented on those
plates were generated along: 1) the centerline of the N6 alignment; 2) the centerline of the
westbound lanes; and 3) the centerline of the eastbound lanes. The cross sections include the
measured undrained shear strength data and CPT tip resistance (qc).
Additional cross sections are presented in the Final Marine Geotechnical Site
Characterization report (Fugro-EM, 2001e) and the Skyway Temporary Towers report (FugroEM, 2001c). Transverse cross sections presented in Fugro-EM (2001e) illustrate: 1) the
subsurface conditions down to bedrock in the area around Piers E2, E3, and E11; and 2) the
shallow stratigraphic conditions (down to El. -80 meters) at the locations of buried Skyway pier
footings (Piers E7 through E16) . The cross sections presented in Fugro-EM (2001c) provide
stratigraphic details and material properties at the anticipated locations of temporary towers to
support the ends of the Skyway structures during construction.
2.3

DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC FEATURES

2.3.1

Easterly Sloping Bedrock of the Franciscan Formation

The eastern San Francisco Bay is underlain by Franciscan Formation bedrock hat slopes
to the east from Yerba Buena Island.
Bedrock Surface Contours. As shown on Plate 2.5, a prominent bedrock high or nose
extends to the northeast of Yerba Buena Island. Offshore, the bedrock slopes down (at an
inclination of between about 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical [2.5H:1V] to 3.5H:1V [approximately 15
to 22 degrees]) to the north, east, and southeast from the edge of the island out to about El. -70
meters on the north and El. -95 meters on the east and southeast. In this area, the inclination of
the bedrock surface is generally consistent with the dip of the bedrock strata observed in our
marine borings, suggesting that the easterly-facing slope is a dip-slope.
The bedrock slope flattens farther to the east. Along the N6 alignment, that change of
bedrock slope occurs about 70 meters to the west of the Main Span-East Pier. From that point,
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

the bedrock surface continues to slope to the east, but at a flatter average slope of about 1.5 to 2
percent (approximately 0.8 to 1.2 degrees), and reaches about El. -135 meters near the tip of the
Oakland Mole. The bedrock surface between the toe of the steeper slope and the Oakland Mole
decreases in several 5- to 10-meter-high steps separated by several-hundred-meter-wide areas of
relatively flatter slope.
Bedrock Lithology. The bedrock beneath the Skyway portion of the N6 alignment
consists of nearly equal amounts of thinly to thickly interbedded sandstone (graywacke) and
fine-grained siltstone and claystone. In most areas, the upper approximately 6 to 9 meters of
bedrock is typically intensely to moderately weathered. In the weathered zone, the recovered
cores were intensely to very intensely fractured into pieces ranging from about 25 to 75 mm
long. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of the weathered zone generally is less than about
25. The weathered zone is underlain by a relatively thin, 1.5- to 3-meter-thick layer of slightly
weathered rock with up to 12 mm of light brown moderately weathered rock on each side of the
fractures and joints.
The thinly to thickly bedded siltstone and claystone interbeds are dark gray to black,
moderately hard, and normally intensely to very intensely fractured into pieces generally less
than about 100 mm long. The siltstone/claystone rock in the cores generally broke along
smooth, polished, bedding-plane partings, the majority of which were inclined at about 20 to 40
degrees. The siltstone/claystone beds typically range from about 0.1 to 0.3 meter thick, although
several thickly bedded zones of fine-grained rock up to 3 meters thick were encountered.
Below the weathered zone, the fresh rock is typically moderately to slightly fractured,
with zones of intensely fractured rock up to about 1.5 to 1.8 meters thick in several borings.
RQD values for fresh rock typically range from about 40 to 70. Within the slightly to intensely
fractured rock, at least three primary fracture inclinations were observed in the rock cores: a) 40
to 50 degrees, b) 60 degrees, and c) 70 to 90 degrees.
2.3.2

Holocene- and Pleistocene-Age Marine and Alluvial Sediments

A westerly-thinning sequence (Plates 2.9 and 2.10) of Holocene- and Pleistocene-age


marine and alluvial sediments unconformably overlay the Franciscan Formation bedrock along
the N6 alignment. In general, the marine sediments (deposited during sea level high stands) are
primarily clays and silts. In contrast, the alluvial sediments (deposited during sea level low
stands) are more commonly sands. In some depth zones, sequences that are composed of
primarily fine-grained marine clays contain interbedded layers of sand. In addition, the primarily
granular alluvial sequences often contain significant quantities of fine-grained layers.
Except where eroded and then backfilled by past sequences of channeling, the bedding
inclination of the marine and alluvial sediments is slight and, for practical purposes, the bedding
can be considered to be near horizontal. The Holocene- and Pleistocene-age marine and alluvial
sediments, however, are frequently interfingered and interlayered. Thus, although the
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

stratigraphic sequence generally can be extrapolated between borings (and geophysical


tracklines), the lithologic and geotechnical properties of the soils can vary significantly over
limited horizontal distances.
2.3.3

Channeling

The SFOBB East Span project area contains a series of nested, shallow, buried
paleochannels. Paleochannels that are infilled with geologically Recent Holocene-age sediments
(referred to subsequently as Recent channels or paleochannels) are shown on Plate 2.2 and
include: a) east-west-trending channeling to the north of the existing SFOBB alignment
(consistent with the channeling mapped by Trask and Rolston [1951]), and b) tributary south-tonorth channels associated with the east-west channeling. In general, the marine clays are thicker
and the alluvial sands are thinner, deeper, or absent within the limits of the Recent
paleochannels.
The geophysical records and their integration with the boring data document the presence
of the east-west-trending paleochannel to the north of the existing bridge. The approximate
limits and thalweg of that channel are shown on Plate 2.1. Borings 98-11 and 98-9, drilled near
the thalweg of the paleochannel, penetrated approximately 25 meters of very soft to firm clay
(Young Bay Mud). The thalweg of the paleochannel is interpreted to slope to the west
(Plate 2.1), although the gradient of the thalweg is minimal. As shown on Plate 2.1, the southern
edge of the paleochannel meanders across both the existing and proposed N6 bridge alignments.
The width of the east-west paleochannel is variable. To the north of existing Bridge Piers E5
through E7, the paleochannel is only about 600 meters. Farther to the east, however, the width
of the paleochannel exceeds 1,000 meters. The narrow portion of the paleochannel (to the north
of Bridge Piers E5 through E7) coincides with the area of steeper bathymetry.
Most previous interpretations (Trask and Rolston, 1951; Goldman, 1969; Rogers and
Figures, 1991) of widely spaced borings have suggested that the east-west-trending geologically
Recent channel deflects to the southwest and passes around the southern tip of Yerba Buena
Island. However, other interpretations of regional geology (Lee and Praszker, 1969) suggest that
a Recent paleochannel also extends northward along what is now the eastern edge of Treasure
Island. As shown on Plate 2.1, the available geotechnical and geophysical data show that the
outlet to the east-west-trending Recent paleochannel is to the north.
In addition to the geologically Recent channels described above, the site also is underlain
by a number of deeper and older channels. In general, the records suggest that as the channel
system evolved, successive channels eroded into, along, across, and through older, deeper
channels. As described subsequently, geophysical data for areas underlain by the east-westtrending Recent paleochannel are of limited quality due to the pervasive presence of biogenic gas
within the channel infill. Consequently, it was relatively difficult to map deeper paleochannels
beneath the Recent east-west-trending paleochannel. The boring and CPT data, however, show

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

one such series of nested paleochannels beneath a north-south-trending tributary to the primary
east-west-trending Recent channel in the vicinity of proposed Bridge Pier E7. That series of
nested paleochannels is illustrated on the cross sections presented on Plate 2.11a.
A somewhat deeper (and older) nested series of north-south-oriented channels were
clearly imaged in the western one-third of the survey area. The east-west- and north-southtrending paleochannels merge in the area below the Main Span-East Pier and the western onehalf of Skyway Frame 1. Two north-south-trending paleochannels are shown on the crosssections presented on Plate 2.11a. The upper channel is within the Old Bay Mud unit and is
infilled with very stiff clay. The lower channel is a predominantly sand-filled channel that was
eroded into the top of the Upper Alameda Marine Formation. The base of the sand-filled
channel that eroded into the Upper Alameda Marine was mapped as part of the integrated study
and the resultant structural contours are shown on Plate 2.3.
2.3.4

Gassy Sediments

Much of the region surveyed for this project has shallow gas in the sediments. This gas is
assumed to be biogenic in origin and is dissolved in the interstitial fluid in the sediment. The gas
appears to be derived from both the paleochannel sediments as well as the surface of the
underlying paleochannel bank into which the paleochannels have been cut. The gassy
characteristics of the paleochannel sediments are observed in the boring suspension logs where
very low primary wave velocities (Vp) were measured in the geologically Recent paleochannel
sediments.
2.3.5

Definition of Areas With Common Geologic Structure

The stratigraphic conditions beneath the overwater portion of the proposed N6 alignment
of the SFOBB East Span replacement bridge can be divided into three segments.
Shallow Bedrock Area Offshore From Yerba Buena Island. This portion of the
alignment is defined as the area shoreward (to the west) of the El. -40-meter structural contour
on top of the Franciscan Formation as presented on Plate 2.5. The area extends about 150 meters
offshore from the eastern tip of Yerba Buena Island (or about 30 percent of the distance from the
proposed Main Span-Pylon to the Main Span-East Pier of the proposed N6 alignment. The Main
Span-Pylon structure will be founded in this area on shallow, sloping Franciscan Formation
bedrock. However, the Pylon foundation is not addressed within the current report.
Channel Intersection Area Beneath Western One-Third of N6 Alignment. Beyond
the Shallow Bedrock Area, the approximately western one-third of the N6 alignment is underlain
by complex stratigraphy created by the intersection (or merging) of the east-west and north-south
sets of nested paleochannels. The western area extends eastward to beyond the apex of the N6
alignment, in the middle of Skyway Frame 1. This eastern limit approximately coincides with
the location where the Bay floor slope steepens to about 2 percent between the El. -8-meter and
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

El. -12-meter contours.


Frame 1.

This area includes the Main Span-East Pier and most of Skyway

Paleochannel Margin Area Beneath Eastern Two-Thirds of N6 Alignment. The


eastern two-thirds of the N6 alignment extend eastward of the apex of the N6 alignment to the
Oakland Mole. The subsurface geometry underlying the eastern two-thirds of the bridge has
significant north-south variation in the upper 30 meters due to the presence of the incised eastwest-aligned paleochannel sequence to the north of the bridge. Because the edge of channeling
meanders along the bridge alignment (Plate 2.12) and tributary channels cross the proposed
N6 alignment, there also is significant east-west variation beneath much of the alignment. The
deeper stratigraphy also varies in the east-west direction due to the easterly sloping surface of the
Franciscan Formation and the westerly thinning wedges of deeper sediment that overlie the
Franciscan basement. This area includes the eastern limit of Skyway Frame 1 as well as Skyway
Frames 2 through 4.
2.4

FORMATION DESCRIPTION

The geologic formations (as defined by Caltrans, 1997a) that underlie the N6 alignment
(or portions of the alignment) include, in descending sequence:

Young Bay Mud (YBM)

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio (MPSA) Formations (sometimes simplified as Merritt


Sand)

Old (Yerba Buena) Bay Mud (OBM)

Upper Alameda (primarily) Marine (UAM) Sediments

Lower Alameda (primarily) Alluvial (LAA) Sediments

Franciscan Formation (FF) Bedrock

While the formation designations are useful, the subsurface conditions are described
primarily in terms of undrained shear strength (of cohesive soils) and relative density or
measured cone tip resistance (of granular soils). That choice was made based on the extensive
strength data from the Fugro-EM borings and CPT soundings and the direct applicability of the
strength data to foundation design.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The typical soil designations for the formations are as follows:


Formation Designation
Young Bay Mud
Merritt-Posey-San Antonio Formations (also referred to as
Merritt Sand)
Old Bay Mud and Upper Alameda Marine Sediments
Lower Alameda Alluvial Sediments

Typical Soil Designation


Very Soft to Soft or Soft to Firm Clay
Dense to Very Dense Sand with Stiff to Very Stiff Clay Layers
Very Stiff to Hard Clay
Dense to Very Dense Sand (or Very Dense Sand) and Hard Clay

The general relative relationships of these soil strata and formations are illustrated on Plates 2.9
through 2.11. The following paragraphs provide an overview of each formation.
2.4.1

Young Bay Mud (YBM)

The Young Bay Mud is a marine clay deposited since the end of the last sea level low
stand (circa 11,000 years ago). The YBM occurs as a blanket of sediments that cover the
majority of the Bay floor between Yerba Buena Island and the Oakland Mole and as infill in the
geologically Recent paleochannels (Plates 2.1 and 2.6).
As much as 29 meters of Young Bay Mud were encountered within the center of the eastwest paleochannel to the north of the N6 alignment. Outside of the paleochannel, this surface
clay consists of a westerly thinning wedge of sediments that thins from about 8 to 10 meters
thick to the east of Pier E8. To the west of the steeper Bay floor bathymetry (beneath the eastern
portion of Skyway Frame 1), the surface clay layer is between 3 and 5 meters thick. The base of
the deposit is typically at about El. -12 to El. -18 meters.
The Young Bay Mud typically is composed of fat clay. The YBM within the
paleochannel is very soft to firm and its undrained shear strength increases with depth. The
YBM paleochannel fill includes sand layers and/or seams within several depth intervals. The
surface blanket of YBM is typically soft outside of the paleochannels.
The Young Bay Mud provides only a relatively small percentage of the axial skin friction
capacity of the piles. For earthquake-loading conditions, the undrained shear strength will
degrade. The variable thickness of the YBM, however, has a more significant impact on the
lateral response of the piles during seismic loading.
2.4.2

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio (MPSA) Formations

Beneath the Young Bay Mud, a layered sequence of sands and clays is present
(Plate 2.12) over portions of the eastern San Francisco Bay. The terminology Merritt-Posey-San
Antonio Formations is preferred over the more simplified designation of Merritt Sand in
recognition of the layered and interbedded characteristics of the sequence. The geophysical
reflections in the MPSA Formations are generally discontinuous and suggest that individual
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-9

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

layers are often of limited lateral extent. Borings and CPT soundings along the proposed N6
bridge alignments suggest that the MPSA Formation sequence generally is no more than 5 to 10
meters thick.
The MPSA Formations include dense to very dense sand with layers of stiff to very stiff
sandy clay and clay. In some areas, such as beneath the Oakland Shore Approach (Piers E17
through E22), the sequence includes a distinct 3- to 4.5-meter-thick, very dense sand (Merritt)
layer. This sand layer is often overlain by a limited thickness of clayey sand (or sandy clay) and
is underlain by variable amounts of stiff to very stiff clay and sandy clay with sand layers. The
lowest layer in the MPSA Formations is often a stiff to very stiff clay layer. Beneath much of
the Main Span and at certain locations beneath the Skyway (such as in the vicinity of Pier E16),
the borings suggest that little or no sand is present within the MPSA Formations. At those
locations, the sequence is entirely composed of stiff to very stiff clay.
The geophysical records suggest that the elevation of the top of the sequence varies due
to erosion and channeling. Although the base elevation of the sequence is less variable, the
bottom of the sequence locally extends down into erosional channels that are cut into the
underlying Old Bay Mud.
The variability of the presence or absence of MPSA along the N6 alignment is illustrated
on Plate 2.12, which shows the relative amount of dense sand encountered in the soil borings and
CPT soundings relative to the mapped limits of the geologically Recent paleochannel edge. Also
shown on Plate 2.12 is an indication as to whether the sand layers are relatively deep (below
approximately El. -25 meters) or shallow (above approximately El. -25 meters). Outside of the
Recent paleochannels, the mapped thickness of the layered sand-and-clay sequence is
approximately 5 to 10 meters, and the sand layers are typically shallow. As shown on Plate 2.11,
along the flanks of the Recent paleochannels, the thickness of the shallow sand layers in the
MPSA Formations are often reduced due to partial erosion. Several explorations along the N6
alignment encountered relatively thick layers of deeper sand within the MPSA Formations. At
those locations, the MPSA is present along the flank of the Recent paleochannel and/or at the
base of the paleochannel. Since the Recent paleochannel sometimes may not have eroded the
MPSA Formations as deeply as the MPSA-infilled channel eroded the underlying strata, the
thickness of the MPSA Formations (as shown on Plate 2.12) along those portions of the
paleochannel flank may exceed its thickness outside of the paleochannel areas.
2.4.3

Old Bay Mud/Upper Alameda (Primarily) Marine (OBM/UAM) Sediments

The Old Bay Mud and Upper Alameda Marine sediments both consist primarily of very
stiff to hard fat clay. Because the composition and geotechnical properties of the two units are
similar, the two formations have been mapped and are discussed as one combined sequence of
sediments. Except where eroded by channeling, the top of the sequence typically is present from
about El. -17 to El. -25 meters. The Old Bay Mud and Upper Alameda Marine sediments,

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-10

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

although somewhat stiffer, are also similar in composition and geotechnical properties to the clay
layers that are frequently present near the base of the Merritt-Posey-San Antonio (MPSA)
Formations. In many instances, the demarcation between the MPSA and the OBM/UAM
sequences is tenuous and subject to interpretation.
Borings show that the combined generally 60-meter thickness of the two formations
typically includes multiple crust layers with locally higher strength. Geophysical reflectors
within the sequence are generally flat-lying, frequently discontinuous, and often show evidence
of channeling (particularly in the western portion of the alignment). At any given elevation, the
sediments in the sequence within the western portion of the site are inferred to be generally
younger than those at the same elevation farther to the east. This is due to the presence of the
nested set of north-south channels that underlie the site to the west of the apex of the N6
alignment.
The majority of the axial pile capacity due to skin friction is derived in the Old Bay Mud
and Upper Alameda Marine sediments. The marine clays that comprise the OBM and UAM
sequences are generally very stiff to hard fat clays with shear strengths increasing from
approximately 125 to 175 kilopascals (kPa) at the top of the sequence to about 150 to 250 kPa at
the base of the sequence. The sequence also includes numerous crust layers where the undrained
shear strengths are at least 25 to 50 kPa higher than the adjacent layers. In the western one-third
of the site, the OBM/UAM sequence was subject to various episodes of channeling and
redeposition, and the sediments are commonly somewhat younger than the sediments at
equivalent elevations along the eastern two-thirds of the alignment. Consequently, below the
heavily overconsolidated top of the OBM, the undrained shear strengths within the OBM/UAM
sequence in the western one-third of the site are commonly 25 to 40 kPa less than at equivalent
elevations to the east.
Although composed primarily of clay, the sequence includes some sand layers that tend
to become more prevalent below about El. -65 meters. Sand layers below that depth are more
common at the western end of the area. The relative prevalence of sand near the base of the
OBM/UAM sequence in the western portion of the area is interpreted to reflect the presence of a
sand-filled paleochannel overlying the toe of the steep bedrock slope to the west. The presence
of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand at about El. -70 meters is of significant
consequence to the design and installation of the piles for the Main Span-East Pier. That local
condition is described subsequently.
2.4.4

Lower Alameda (Primarily) Alluvial (LAA) Sediments

The sediments present below about El. -80 to El. -85 meters are interpreted to be the
Lower Alameda (primarily granular) Alluvial sediments. These primarily dense, granular
sediments onlap the lower portion of the bedrock slope in the western portion of the site and

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-11

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

overlie the Franciscan Formation bedrock to the east of the toe of the steep bedrock slope
(Plate 2.11a).
The geophysical reflector mapped as the top of Lower Alameda Alluvial sediments is a
strong, generally continuous, flat-lying reflector. The reflector depth correlates to a distinct
increase in primary and shear wave velocities (Vp and Vs, respectively) measured in the borings.
The interpreted top of LAA is generally relatively horizontal over most of the N6 alignment. To
the east beneath Skyway Frames 3 and 4, however, the top of LAA is interpreted to slope upward
to the east (Plate 2.11b).
Although the Lower Alameda Alluvial Formation is composed of primarily granular
sediments, the reflector interpreted to correlate to the top of the formation generally correlates to
the top of a lean clay layer, subsequently referred to as the LAA-clay cap. This clay layer is
distinctly different in composition than the overlying clays of the Upper Alameda. This reflector
is typically 5 to 10 meters above the top of the first dense sand layer, subsequently referred to as
the LAA-sand, which is present at about El. -90 to El. -92 meters (see Plate 2.4).
The draft 100-percent design submittal for the Skyway structures (TY Lin/M&N, 2000b)
shows that the Skyway pile foundations will consist of piles driven to tip at about one to two pile
diameters into the first significant sand stratum within the Lower Alameda Alluvial sediments or
down to bedrock. Since the bedrock surface dips to the east, piles designed to be tipped in
bedrock are limited to the western part of Skyway Frame 1 (Piers E3 through E5) with
anticipated bedrock elevations ranging from approximately El. -103 to El. -105 meters. Farther
to the east, the piles are designed to be tipped below the top of the LAA-sand. Thus, the pile tip
elevation for Piers E6 through E16 is expected to be at about El. -94 meters (4 meters).
The geophysical data suggest local variation of the LAA-sand and the borings show that
the primarily alluvial sediments include an appreciable quantity of clay layers. It should also be
noted that the top of the LAA-sand shown on Plate 2.4 generally correlates to the top of a
relatively continuous layer of medium- to coarse-grained granular sediments. This surface,
however, does not always correlate to the first significant sand stratum within the Lower
Alameda Alluvial sediments. In a few of the borings drilled in the Skyway area (e.g., Boring
98-43), significant fine-grained sand layers were encountered above the surface of the LAAsand.
The variability of the Lower Alameda Alluvial Formation is critical to the choice of pile
tip elevation and the definition of pile end bearing and pile tip stiffness. Those variations are
described and discussed subsequently.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-12

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

2.5

UPPER ALAMEDA MARINE PALEOCHANNEL (EL. -70 METERS) SAND


AT MAIN SPAN-EAST PIER

As described above, with the exception of the dense sand layers within the Merritt-PoseySan Antonio (MPSA) sequence, most of the sediments above the LAA-bearing stratum are clay
soils with variable, but generally relatively limited, quantities of sand layers. An exception to
this generality occurs at the top of the Upper Alameda Marine (UAM) sequence in the area of the
Main Span-East Pier. At this location, the top of the UAM is encountered at about El. -70 meters
and consists of a very dense, fine to medium sand, which is subsequently defined as the Upper
Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand.
2.5.1

Extent and Thickness of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand

The Upper Alameda Marine (UAM) Paleochannel Sand appears to infill a north-southoriented paleochannel that is incised into the top of the UAM in the western one-third of the N6
alignment. The relatively flat surface of the top of the UAM Paleochannel Sand is present at
about El. -70 meters. On the west, the UAM Paleochannel Sand appears to onlap onto the
eastwardly dipping Franciscan Formation. To the east, the UAM Paleochannel Sand extends to
about the location of Skyway Frame 1, Pier E3; however, in that area, the UAM Paleochannel
Sand thins rapidly at the edge of the paleochannel. At the location of the Main Span-East Pier,
the UAM Paleochannel Sand is about 15 meters thick, and extends down to the top of the
underlying Lower Alameda Alluvium. The extent and geometry of the UAM Paleochannel Sand
are shown on Plates 2.2, 2.3, and 2.7.
2.5.2

Characteristics of Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sands

The UAM Paleochannel Sand is typically fine to medium sand with about 5 to 10 percent
fines and a mean grain size of between about 0.15 and 0.6 mm. The sand frequently includes
layers of sandy silt. A submerged unit weight of about 10.5 kilonewtons per cubic meter
(kN/m3) is representative of the UAM Paleochannel Sand.
The measured cone tip resistance in the UAM Paleochannel Sand typically ranges from
about 20 to 50 megapascals (MPa). An angle of internal friction of between 38 and 42 degrees is
considered to be representative of fine to medium sand.
2.6

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOWER ALAMEDA ALLUVIUM

The steel pipe piles planned to support the Skyway (and possibly the Main Span-East
Pier) are to be driven down into the Lower Alameda Alluvium (LAA). The following
description is intended to be a synopsis of the characteristics of the LAA. This synopsis is to
provide input into the evaluation of the pile tip elevation, end-bearing capacity, and end-bearing
stiffness. A more detailed description is provided in the Final Marine Geotechnical Site
Characterization report (Fugro-EM, 2001e)

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-13

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

2.6.1

Lithology

Principal Materials. The Lower Alameda Alluvium (LAA) includes a cap layer of very
stiff to hard lean clay (LAA-clay cap) underlain by a sequence of primarily very dense granular
alluvial sediments (LAA-sand). The LAA-sand consists of a wide range of granular sediments
that include poorly graded silty fine sand, fine to coarse sand (or clayey fine to coarse sand) with
gravel, and gravel with sand and silt. The poorly graded silty fine sand typically has 10 to 42
percent finer than a No. 200 sieve, and a median grain size of 0.1 to 0.35 mm. The fine to coarse
sand and gravel typically have 3 to 12 percent finer than a No. 200 sieve, and a median grain size
of about 1.5 to 8.5 mm. Interbedded within the LAA-sand are layers of hard lean and fat clay
(LAA-clay interbeds). Plate 2.13 provides an example of the layering and the relationships of
the three components of the LAA. The representative undrained shear strength of the LAA-clay
cap is about 250 kPa. In contrast, the representative undrained shear strength of the LAA-clay
interbeds is more typically about 350 to 400 kPa.
The LAA-clay cap is typically about 3 to 10 meters thick. Globally, the LAA-clay cap
includes about 15 percent sand layers. The sand layers are typically less than about 1 meter
thick, although layers as much as 2.5 meters thick were occasionally encountered. The top of the
underlying LAA-sand is typically encountered at between about El. -89 and El. -92 meters.
Plate 2.14 provides a cross section showing the elevation of the top of the LAA-sand as
encountered in the borings. As shown, the top of the LAA-sand appears to vary locally by about
5 meters. The borings suggest that the local variation across the alignment at a set of piers (i.e.,
adjacent eastbound and westbound piers) may be as much as the variation between a set of
adjacent piers.
LAA-Clay Interbeds. The thickness of the individual clay interbeds encountered in the
twenty-six (26) 1998 marine borings underlying the Skyway is shown on Plate 2.15. In addition,
Plate 2.16 shows the cumulative frequency distribution of the clay interbed thickness for
different distances below the top of the LAA-sand. As shown on those two illustrations, more
than 50 percent of the individual clay interbeds are less than 0.65 meter thick, and only about 10
to 15 percent of the interbeds are more than 2.5 meters thick.
Plate 2.17 shows the total thickness of the clay interbeds (encountered in the 1998
borings) as a percentage of the total thickness of sediments below the top of the first significant
sand in the Lower Alameda Alluvium (defined as the top of the LAA-sand). The data from the
borings suggest that total thickness of clay interbeds is less than about 5 percent of the total
thickness of sediments in the first 4 meters below the interpreted top of the LAA-sand. Globally,
however, the clay interbeds account for about 20 to 30 percent of the total thickness of the LAA
deposit in the next 10 to 15 meters below the top of the LAA-sand.
Distribution of Clay Interbeds with Depth, Elevation, and Location. The distribution
of LAA-clay interbeds with elevation and depth below the top of the LAA-sand are shown on

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-14

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Plates 2.18 and 2.19, respectively. This analysis examined the occurrence or non-occurrence of
clay interbeds within each 0.2-meter depth or elevation increment.
As shown, the frequency of clay interbeds varies with depth below the top of the LAAsand and elevation. In general, the data show that less than about 5 percent of the borings
included clay interbeds within any depth or elevation interval in the top 3 to 4 meters of the
LAA-sand. The frequency of clay interbeds increases to about 30 percent of the borings within
the depth interval between about 5 to 8 meters below the top of the LAA-sand, and then
decreases to about 10 to 15 percent of the locations within the depth interval between about 9 to
11 meters below the top of the LAA-sand. Within the depth interval about 12 to 15 meters
below the top of the LAA-sand, the frequency of clay interbeds again increases.
2.6.2

Implications of Lower Alameda Alluvium Variations for Design and Construction

Both the variation of the top elevation of the LAA-sand and the local presence or absence
of LAA-clay interbeds within the underlying LAA-sand are intrinsic variations of the deposit.
Because these are local variations, it is impractical to expect to predict how those variations
occur over the football-field-sized area circumscribed by the loci of the pile tips at each set of
piers. Thus, the pile design and construction will need to accommodate these variations.
From a design standpoint, the primary implication is prediction of the range of pile endbearing capacity and stiffness that can be logically expected to occur. If the pile tip elevations
are to be pre-established, the implications of those variations for construction include:
1) establishment of the maximum depth to which the piles can be driven below the top of the
LAA-sand and the minimum pile hammer required to accomplish that, 2) the practical underand over-drive allowances that the prefabricated pile head connection can accommodate, and
3) the required length of sacrificial pile length above the pile head connection.
2.6.3

Soil Properties

Undrained Shear Strength. The interpreted representative undrained shear strength of


the LAA-clay cap is about 250 kPa. In contrast, the representative undrained shear strength of
the LAA-clay interbeds is more typically about 400 kPa.
Drained Strength of LAA-Sand. The data show that the Lower Alameda Alluvial
sediments are generally dense to very dense with relative densities in excess of 80 percent. The
standard penetration test (SPT) N-values exceed 50 and commonly greater than 50/15
centimeters (cm). The measured cone tip resistances are greater than 30 MPa. Friction angles
estimated from in situ CPT data generally range from about 38 to 43 degrees.
State of Consolidation. Consolidation test results and empirical indices show that the
clay cap and clay interbeds within the Lower Alameda Alluvium are overconsolidated. The data
suggest a preconsolidation pressure of about 1,000 to 1,300 kPa in the LAA-clay cap and about

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-15

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1,500 kPa in the LAA-clay interbeds. Those values correspond to an overconsolidation ratio
(OCR) of about 1.5 with a typical range of about 1.3 to 1.8 for the LAA-clay cap, and an OCR of
between 1.5 and 2 for the LAA-clay interbeds. The relatively low OCRs at greater depths are
not indicative of light overconsolidation, since the interpreted maximum past pressures are on the
order of 300 to 800 kPa higher than the estimated overburden stresses.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC2.MAR.DOC

2-16

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1835500

1836000

1836500

1837000

1838000

1838500

1839000

1836400

LEGEND

Elevation of Mapped

# -86*

1998 Phase 2 Borings

1998 Phase 1 Borings

-72 *

-20

2000 Phase 3 CPTs

-37 *

NP

Horizon (m)
-21

-15 to -20

NP

* Elevation (m) of Mapped

NP

E1
NP

Horizon at Exploration

NP

-20 to -25

SHALLOWER
THAN EL. -15 m

-25 to -30
-30 to -35

NP

NP

NP = Unit not present in exploration

-24

NP

NP

Deeper than -35

-15

NP

No Value = Unit not present in exploration

-25

-3

NP

Alignment

10

10

20

Meters

-30

N6

649000

647600

Pre-1998 Borings

647600

NP

# -79*
649000

1837500

-25

-20

San Francisco-Oakland
1836400

Bay Bridge

-15
0

-2

Contours (m) of Elevation of Mapped Horizon

Thalweg of Paleochannel

648500

TREASURE
0

2-D Sleeve Gun Survey

-2

SHALLOWER

Tracklines

THAN EL. -15 m

-30

-25

-30

-35

SHALLOWER
THAN EL. -15 m

1838720

-2

E5

-21

648240

-15

-12

648000

-16
-16

-14

10

-10

-11

-12

E17

-12

E16

-2

NP

-17

YERBA

-11

-17

E3

NP

E2

1838800

647500

#
#

E12

NP

E14

-17

-22
-23

-33

E18
E16

E7

OAKLAND MOLE

E22

-10

E10

-19
-22

-7

-11

10

20

647500

NP

-28

-12

-15
-13

648240

# #
#
## # #
# #####
#

-26

-19

-17

-32

-21

-16

-25

-26

-15

-19
-20

E9

-13

-17

-13

-12

-14

-26

-23

-16

-12

-13

E14

$ $

NP

-18

-26

-30

# -17 #

NP

-24

NP
NP

-26

-29

-23

E7

-17

-16

-13
-15

-14

NP

-29 -31

E3

#
#-15

-19

-12

-14

NP

NP NP

Surficial mud down to approximately

fill (see report Section 4)

-2

NP

$
$

$ $

-25

-27

-20

NP

elevation -17 m in this area is primarily

E2

-28

-32

$
$

-27

-34

-22

-17

-17

-14

-14-14

-3
-28

Young Bay Mud

-33

-38

-37

-31

E5

-22 -18

-29

-19

##

-17

$
-34

#-24

$
$
$

-27

-33

Zero isopach of

-28

-38

$
$
$

#
-37

# -24

# -13

-16

-11

648000

-29

-36

$
$
$

Survey Report for map notes.

-35

$
$
$$

-27
-35

-20

Refer to Map 5 of Final Marine Geophysical

-22

-25

-24

# E11
#-15 #
-13

-16

-14

$$

-17

(Caltrans, 1997)

-21

Elevations: Meters, Re. MSL 1929,

NP

-14

-11-12

E17

-16

$
$
$$

-20

Meters

-2

-30

$$
$$

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83,

THAN EL. -20 m

$
$

SHALLOWER

E2 Pier Location and Number

$ $ $ $$ $
$$ $ $
$ $

ISLAND

$$ $

648500

Contour Interval = 5 m

-10

Meters

BUENA
NP

ISLAND

1838720

Surficial mud
NP

SCALE 1:10000

NP

1838800

in this area is fill

100

100

200

STRUCTURAL CONTOURS

Meters

BASE OF YOUNG BAY MUD

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1835500

1836000

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-1.odb, section2, 03/04/2001

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

1839000

PLATE 2.1

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836200

1836400

1836600

LEGEND

-72 *

#
#

98-10
-70

94-12
-68

1837000

1837200

1837400

1837600

Elevation of the
Mapped Horizon (m)

1998 Phase 2 Borings

Shallower than -70


1998 Phase 1 Borings

648200

648200

98-25

1836800

-70 to -72

Pre-1998 Borings

-72 to -74

* Elevation (m) of Mapped

-74 to -76

Horizon at Exploration
Deeper than -76
NP = Unit not present in exploration

98-31

NR = Exploration did not reach depth of unit

NP

No Value = Unit not present in exploration

N6

Alignment

it

0
20#

Contours (m) of Elevation of Mapped Horizon

ry

ra

it
rb

Contour Interval = 2 m

g
pin

Ma

98-28

-7

NP

-7

-70

Grid Interval is 3.125 m, 5-Bin

-71

Interval Shown

98-8
-72

E2 Pier Location and Number

2 #

#
4

NP

94-4

NP

E8

48-90
-71

98-82
-68

2
-7

48-89

E7
-72

E2

-72

94-11

48-88

-76

-71

98-81

Survey Report for map notes.

45

E6

647800

-72

-72

98-40

-73

98-49

E6

-70

-66

-70

98-26

98-25

Refer to Map 9a of Final Marine Geophysical

98-27

E7

-68

-71

Elevations: Meters, Re. MSL 1929 (Caltrans, 1997)

98-19
NR

-7

-7

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters


647800

E3

-70

E8

E4

98-50

-70

98-10

98-41

-71

50

E5

Contour Interval = 1 m

3-D Geophysical Survey Bin Grid

98-29

Lim

NP

648000

-7

Bay Bridge

-6

-69

San Francisco-Oakland
648000

98-30

98-9

-71

-7

-67

50

E5
e

Lin
#

30

98-6

98-3

NP

94-12

98-7

-70

96-5

-68

-70

55

E4

NP

#
E1 #
#
# #
## #
##
#
#

95-19

NP

60

96-4

96-3

E3

-73

ne

sli

os

Cr

SCALE 1:4000
80

-73

96-2

#
#

NP

80

Meters

65

95-18

0
35#

647600

647600

-7

NP

-7

70

WEST PIER

96-1

NP

E2

-72

75

limit of paleochannel

sand where it onlaps


YERBA

Franciscan Formation

BUENA
647400

STRUCTURAL CONTOURS

d
un

Bo

rn

he

an
is

40

94-9

f C
it
y o
Lim
g
pin
p
Ma
ar

ut

So

ta

Da

ry

ra

bit

Ar

TOP OF UPPER ALAMEDA MARINE


PALEOCHANNEL SAND

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

NP
1836200

1836400

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-2.odb, section2, 03/07/2001

1836600

1836800

1837000

1837200

1837400

647400

ISLAND

bedrock

t
on

re

ou

Approximate western

PLATE
2.2
1837600

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836200

1836400

1836600

1836800

1837000

1837200

1837400

LEGEND

648200

98-25

Elevation of Mapped Horizon (m)

1998 Phase 2 Borings

-86*

#
#

98-10
-72 *

94-12
-79*

648200

Shallower than -72


1998 Phase 1 Borings
-72 to -76
Pre-1998 Borings

-76 to -80

* Elevation (m) of Mapped

-80 to -84

Horizon at Exploration
-84 to -88
NP = Unit not present in exploration

98-30

Deeper than -88

NR = Exploration did not reach depth of unit

98-9

it

98-28

Contour Interval = 2 m

-84

Interval Shown

25

-84

-86

NR

-86

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

98-27

-74

-75

E7

48-89
-74

94-11

48-88
-82

Refer to Map 9b of Final Marine Geophysical

-75

98-81

98-3

0
e 3

98-6
NP

96-5
-78

-76

50

55

E4

94-12

-8

-79

60

96-3

0
35

#
#

96-2

NP

-80

95-18

E3

96-4

ne

sli

os

Cr

-86

647600

#
E1 #
#
# #
## #
##
#
#

-80

647600

98-7
-86

NP

NP

45

E6

E5

Lin

95-19

-74

Survey Report for map notes.

E8

NP

-84

-88

Elevations: Meters, Re. MSL 1929 (Caltrans, 1997)

-75

98-26

94-4

647800

98-25

-75

48-90

98-82

E2
E2 Pier Location and Number

-75

-72

E3

98-19

98-8

Grid Interval is 3.125 m, 5-Bin

-8

3-D Geophysical Survey Bin Grid

647800

98-40

E4

NP

-72

NP

-77

Contour Interval = 1 m

98-10

-74

98-50

#
98-49

-7

Contours (m) of Elevation of Mapped Horizon

E5
8

b
Ar

pp

Ma

-75

E7

-78

E6

98-29

Lim

-7

ry

a
itr

ing

98-41

648000

20

Bay Bridge

-7

San Francisco-Oakland

-76

Alignment
-8

648000

#
-7

N6

NP

-74

No Value = Unit not present in exploration

65

SCALE 1:4000

80

NP

80

Meters

70

WEST PIER

96-1

NP

E2

-82

-7

Approximate western

limit of paleochannel
sand where it onlaps

bedrock

BUENA
647400

ry

a
nd

So

40

94-9

is

an

ta

Da

Co
it
Lim
g
pin

of

u
ap
Bo
y M
ar
r
t
bi

er

h
ut

o
nt

STRUCTURAL CONTOURS
BASE OF UPPER ALAMEDA MARINE

Ar

PALEOCHANNEL SAND

NP

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1836200
j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-3.odb, section2, 03/07/2001

1836400

1836600

1836800

1837000

1837200

1837400

647400

ISLAND

Franciscan Formation

YERBA

ed

ur

50

PLATE 2.3

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1835500

1836000

1836500

649000

-92 *

94-11

-95*

1838500

1839000

30

Elevation of Mapped
Horizon (m)

1998 Phase 2 Borings

ne

sli

os

-92 *
98-11

1838000

Cr

Shallower than -90

649000

98-44

1837500

LEGEND

1837000

40

1998 Phase 1 Borings


-90 to -92
0

50

Pre-1998 Borings

-92 to -94

* Elevation (m) of Mapped

-94 to -96

60

Horizon at Exploration
-96 to -98
NP = Unit not present in exploration
00

Deeper than -98

NR = Exploration did not reach depth of unit


No Value = Unit not present in exploration
0

80

Alignment

648500

648500

N6

San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge

-9

Contours (m) of Elevation of Mapped Horizon


Contour Interval = 2 m

-92

3-D Geophysical

-92

Grid interval is 3.125 m,

98-34

20-Bin Interval Shown

-93

E2 Pier Location and Number

98-30

98-41

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

98-10

-96

Elevations: Meters, Re. MSL 1929 (Caltrans, 1997)

98-28

98-50

NP

Survey Report for map notes.

98-25
NP

98-26 NR

# # NP

E2

NP

647500

30

95-18

#NP
NP #

96-2

96-1
NP

96-3

NP

-88

94-12

-92

94-3
-94

-9

E14

-93

#
94-6

NR

95-15

95-16

95-17

NR

NR

94-1

E22

LE

O
D M

LAN

OAK

-92

NR

-93
E12

E10

-9

94-4
-94

E16

-91

-9

NR

-9

48-89

E7

94-11

#
-95

98-81

# -96

-96
E5

96-5

-95

-9
E3

N
it

Ma
ry

ra

bit

Ar

ing

Lim

pp

-9

94-9

YERBA

E7

-92

##

647500

E2

Lin

96-4

NP

-96

94-2

-91

-96

98-49
-93

98-82

-94

-92

98-29
-94

98-40

-91

E14

98-43

48-90

-93

98-33

# -93

98-38

-9

# #
#
## # #
# #####
#

95-19
NP

#
#

-91

94-7

# 94-5

# 98-4294-10
# -91 #NR

-95

-92

-9

98-3
NP

# 98-7

98-6

98-27

NR

48-88

20

E5

98-19

98-8

-94
E3

-98

Refer to Map 11 of Final Marine Geophysical

-92

E9

98-36
-91

E18

-91

648000

E11

98-20

-92

-91

-92

-9

648000

98-9

-94

98-44
98-39
98-37

98-35

-93

98-32
98-31

-92

-9

-92

-92

98-12

-9

98-11

Survey Bin Grid

Lin

NP
95-20

BUENA

ISLAND

SCALE 1:10000

NP

Lin

200

00

200

Meters

STRUCTURAL CONTOURS

ALLUVIAL SAND

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1835500

1836000

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-4.odb, ksmith, 03/01/2001

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

1839000

647000

647000

TOP OF LOWER ALAMEDA

PLATE 2.4

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1835500

1836000

0
3
-1

Pre-1998 Borings

-90 to -80

0 to 10

* Elevation (m) of Mapped

-100 to -90

-10 to 0

Horizon at Exploration

N
N

Deeper

N
N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N
N

N
N

NR

95-17

E22

LAN

OAK

O
D M

NR

E16

E10

-110

# -110
E7

N
N

E5

N
N

N
N

N
N

N
N

N
N

N
N

N
N

N
Refer to Map 13 of Final Marine Geophysical
Survey Report for map notes.

N
N
N

NR

95-16

E12

NR

-110

NR

-127

E19

E14

NR

94-7

NR

NR

N
N

94-3

NR

94-2

94-6

95-15

-135

-105

N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N
N

E7

98-42

NR

NR

94-1

NR

N
5

-102

N
N
N
N
N

98-82

94-11

N
96-5

98-49

-109

48-90

#
# -120
94-5
98-33

E14

94-4

NR

-1

98-40

N
N
N

N
N

E5

# NR
#

N
N

N
N

-94

E3

ISLAND

N
N
N
N
N

98-81

NR

94-12

YERBA
BUENA

N
N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N

94-9

-15
-20

-97

-40

-103

NR

96-4

-80

-50

-14

95-20

98-27

48-89

48-88 -95

N
N

N
N
N

E2

E3

# # 98-26

96-3 -98

96-2
-53

96-1

-8

20

N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

-95

-58

#
#

NR

98-10

E9

##

98-38

647500

95-18

-27

10

647500

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N

-17

-20

N
N
N

N
N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N
N

# 95-19

-40

# #
#
## # #
# #####
#

NR

# 98-7

-59

-29

NR

NR

98-28

NR

-120

-50

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

98-29

-103

NR

NR

NR

NR

#
E11
#
# 94-10

NR

NR

98-43

NR

E18

-130

98-3

E2

0
98-6

98-41

98-20

NR

98-31
98-30

-98

-96

-6

Elevations: Meters, Re. MSL 1929

NR
98-32

98-19

NR

98-37

98-36

-128

98-34

98-50

98-25

Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

-124
98-35

98-9

98-8

-9

Grid: California State Plane,

98-39
98-12

648000

20-Bin Interval Shown

E2 Pier Location and Number

N
N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N
N
N

Grid interval is 3.125 m,

N
N
N

N
N
N
N

Bin Grid Vertices

(Caltrans, 1997)

N
N

N
N
N

N
N
N
N

3-D Geophysical Survey

N
N

N
N
N

N
N

Tracklines

98-44

# 98-11
-100

2-D Sleeve Gun Survey

N
N
N

N
N
Gas in Sediments Limits

N
N
N

Contour Interval = 5 m

Resolution of Reflectors

N
N
N

Contour Interval = 10 m

N
N

Contours (m) of Elevation of Mapped Horizon

648500

than -130

-50 to -40

-130 to -120

-40 to -30

Bay Bridge
648500

Alignment

San Francisco-Oakland

648000

-1

-120 to -110

-30 to -20
N6

se

re

e
wh

NR = Exploration did not reach depth of unit

rd

co

re

r
ism
cto
of
fle
p
re
to
n
e
io
at
ag
ea
rm
Ar
t im
Fo
no
n
d
a
i
c
d
cis
an
Fr

-110 to -100

-20 to -10

ic

10

-94*

-80 to -70

10 to 20

-1

94-12

-70 to -60

than 20
1998 Phase 1 Borings

1839000

-60 to -50
Higher

-96*

-109*

1838500

649000

1998 Phase 2 Borings

98-10

1838000

20

1837500

Elevation of Mapped
Horizon (m)

98-25

1837000

-1

649000

LEGEND

1836500

Refer to Map 14 of Final Geophysical Survey

-70

Report for additional contour detail in this area.

647000

200

200

Meters

TOP OF FRANCISCAN FORMATION

647000

REGIONAL STRUCTURAL CONTOURS


SCALE 1:10000

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1835500

1836000

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-5.odb, ksmith, 03/01/2001

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

PLATE
2.5
1839000

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1835500

1836000

1836500

1837000

LEGEND

2000 Phase 3 CPTs

1998 Phase 2 Borings

10 *

1998 Phase 1 Borings

1838500

1839000

#
#
#

E1

Horizon at Exploration

NP

NP = Unit not present in exploration

NP

NP

NP

100

200

Meters

10

20

Meters

10

NP

Alignment

SCALE 1:10000
100

15

NP

NP

San Francisco-Oakland

NP

NP

649000

NP

10

* Isopach (m) of Mapped

10

NP

647600

Pre-1998 Borings

N6

NP

647600

1838000

1836400

#
#
649000

10 *

1837500

Bay Bridge

20

1836400

Isopach (Thickness) (m) of Mapped Horizon

15

Contour Interval = 5 m

648500

TREASURE 2-D Sleeve Gun Survey


ISLAND

Tracklines

648500

Thalweg of Paleochannel

E2 Pier Location and Number

E10

#3

1838720

E5

1838800

17

648240

0 to 5

E16

13
13

E2

BUENA

10

15 to 10

10

9
0

10

20

Meters

1838720

1838800

20 to 25

NP

NP

in this area is fill

12

10 to 15

NP

Surficial mud

ISLAND

10

5 to 10

NP

YERBA

E17

10

14

Horizon (m)

Isopach of Mapped

E3

14

15

648000

E12

$ $

647500

E14

12

NP

E18
E16

647500

NP

NP

648240

#
#

OAKLAND MOLE

E20

24

E7

#9

12

11

# #
#
## # #
# #####
#

# 10

10

13

E14

10

#10
#

14

12

NP

NP

NP

fill (see report Section 5)

NP

14

12

10

NP
NP

Surficial mud down to approximately


elevation -17 m in this area is primarily

6
3

NP

16

NP

$
$

$ $

NP

##

12

# 13 #12

NP

E2

18
17

E3

# 15 #

25

13

18

#
15

12

10

NP

15

#6
#

14

E7

13

13 14

10

10

11

10

15

19

$
$

Young Bay Mud

15

18

20

10

E5

19

##

10

11

$
16

18

Zero isopach of

#
10

$
$
$

18

28
20

$
$
$

11

$
$
$

13

E9

$
$
$$

25
22

15

17

15

10

12

10

11

648000

19

19

22

29

29

12

$$

25

Survey Report for map notes.

16

Refer to Map 6 of Final Marine Geophysical

18

13

# E11
12
# 11 #

$
$
$$

20

#
17

$$
$$

10

(Caltrans, 1997)

E17

12

$
$

10

Elevations: Meters, Re. MSL 1929,

10

10

26

$ $ $ $$ $
$$ $ $
$ $

Meters

$$ $

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83,

Thicker

ISOPACH (THICKNESS) OF

than 25

YOUNG BAY MUD

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


1835500

1836000

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-6.odb, section2, 03/04/2001

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

1839000

PLATE 2.6

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836200

1836400

1836600

1836800

1837000

1837200

1837400

LEGEND

#
#

15 *
98-10
3*

94-12
11*

Isopach of Mapped Horizon (m)


1998 Phase 2 Borings

Thinner

9 to 10

than 2
1998 Phase 1 Borings

Pre-1998 Borings

2 to 4

10 to 12

4 to 6

12 to 14
Thicker

6 to 8

* Isopach (m) of Mapped

648200

648200

98-25

than 14

Horizon at Exploration

NP = Unit not present in exploration


NR = Exploration did not reach depth of unit
No Value = Unit not present in exploration

98-30
NP

N6

Alignment
it

San Francisco-Oakland

of Mapped Horizon

bit

Ar

20

ing

E5

NP

Contour Interval = 2 m
Contour Interval = 1 m
98-50
7

12

13

E2 Pier Location and Number

0
25

NR

98-25

Survey Report for map notes.

48-90

98-6

14

98-3

NP

98-7

E7

50

#
0

55

E4

12

Cr

60

E3

SCALE 1:4000

96-4
96-3

96-2

95-18

35

80

13

80

Meters

647600

647600

#
E1 #
#
# #
# # #
##
#
#

NP

lin

s
os

94-12

#
#

E5

11

95-19

45

E6

96-5
7

NP

98-81

15

48-88

30

98-82

94-11

E8

NP

94-4

12

11

Lin

98-26

10

10

Refer to Map 9c of Final Marine Geophysical

NP

647800

15

48-89

E2

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

98-27

98-10

98-40

E3

98-19

98-8

98-49

Interval Shown

E4

98-29

E7

10

Grid Interval is 3.125 m, 5-Bin

647800

98-28

3-D Geophysical Survey Bin Grid

pp

Ma

98-41

648000

Contours (m) of Isopach (Thickness)

y
ar

Lim

Bay Bridge
648000

E6

98-9

0
65

12

NP

NP

70

WEST PIER

NP

E2

Approximate western
0

BUENA

bedrock

94-9

00

ta

Da

ISOPACH (THICKNESS) OF

UPPER ALAMEDA MARINE


PALEOCHANNEL SAND

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

NP
1836200

1836400

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-7.odb, section2, 03/07/2001

1836600

1836800

1837000

1837200

1837400

647400

647400

sand where it onlaps


Franciscan Formation

re

u
to

n
Co
it
of
ry
Lim
a
g
nd
in
u
p
ap
Bo
rn
y M
he
ar
ut
itr
o
b
r
S
A
an
is
75

limit of paleochannel

YERBA

ISLAND

10

96-1

PLATE 2.7

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1835500

1836000

1836500

98-44

98-12

1998 Phase 2 Borings

1839000

ne

sli

Cr

78 to 82

40

82 to 86

Pre-1998 Borings

81 *

1838500

Thinner than 78

1998 Phase 1 Borings

1838000

30

os

94-11

Isopach of Mapped Horizon (m)

91 *

88 *

1837500

649000

649000

LEGEND

1837000

50

86 to 90
* Isopach (m) of Mapped
Thicker than 90

Horizon at Exploration

60

NP = Unit not present in exploration


NR = Exploration did not reach depth of unit

70

No Value = Unit not present in exploration

N6

Alignment

80

648500

648500

San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge
Contours (m) of Isopach (Thickness)
of Mapped Horizon
88

Contour Interval = 2 m

6
86

98-32
98-31

#86E3

98-19
NR

98-8

NP #

Survey Report for map notes.

98-25
NP

#
E2

647500

96-4
95-18

#NP
#

96-3

NR

98-81

82

94-7

#
94-6
NR

95-15
E16

E14

87

95-16

95-17

NR

NR

94-1

E22

LE

O
D M

LAN

OAK

89

NR
94-2
88

E12

#
88

E5

96-5

90

79

E3

75

NP

it

78

ing

NP

NP

ry

ra

bit

Ar

94-9

YERBA

88

83

96-2
96-1

88

88

86

94-11

NR

# 94-5

##

#
98-38

E10
86

E7

48-89

85

89

98-43

647500

Lin

94-4

48-90

94-12

84
98-82

89

98-33

92
E14

90

E2

30

75

# 82
#

86

NP

NP

80

# #
#
## # #
# #####
#

# NP

98-26

98-40

87

82

95-19

# 98-7

NP

98-3
NP

83

48-88

98-6

20

98-27

98-10

94-3

98-20
E9

87

86

88

86

##

E5

E7

98-49

E11

# 98-42 94-10
# 87 # NR

98-36

648000

#
88

648000

82

86

82
98-50

Refer to Map 12 of Final Marine Geophysical

84
98-28

87

85

84

98-29

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

98-30

98-41

98-9
83

90

89

98-37

88

89

90

91

E18

89

98-12

98-35
98-34

E2 Pier Location and Number

Lin

98-44
98-39

86

Survey Bin Grid

20-Bin Interval Shown

88

3-D Geophysical

Grid interval is 3.125 m,

86

98-11

Contour Interval = 4 m

Lim

p
ap

NP

BUENA

95-20

ISLAND

SCALE 1:10000

NP

Lin

200

200

Meters

40

ISOPACH (THICKNESS) OF
SEDIMENT SECTION ABOVE
647000

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1835500

1836000

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-8.odb, ksmith, 03/01/2001

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

1839000

647000

LOWER ALAMEDA ALLUVIAL SAND

PLATE 2.8

S F O B B T a s k O rd e r N o . 5
P r o je c t N o . 9 8 - 4 2 - 0 0 5 4

W E S T E R N 1 /3 r d

W E S T

E A S T E R N

V E R Y S O F T T O
D E N S E S A N D

F IR M

W IT H

2 /3 r d s

E A S T

C L A Y [Y B M ]

S T IF F T O

V E R Y S T IF F C L A Y L A Y E R S [M P S A ]

S T IF F C L A Y
V E R Y S T IF F C L A Y
[M P S A ]

[O B M ]
V E R Y S T IF F T O H A R D C L A Y
W IT H (D IS C O N T IN U O U S )
H A R D C L A Y C R U S T L A Y E R S

[U A M ]

W IT H D E N S E S A N D
A N D S IL T L A Y E R S

V E R Y D E N S E S A N D W IT H
V E R Y S T IF F C L A Y L A Y E R S
[U A M P A L E O C H A N N E L S A N D ]

H A R D

L E A N

C L A Y L A Y E R [L A A

- C L A Y C A P ]

V E R Y D E N S E S A N D A N D G R A V E L
W IT H H A R D C L A Y L A Y E R S [L A A - S A N D ]
F R A N C IS C A N
F O R M A T IO N

9 8 4 2 \0 0 5 4 p ro 2 .d s f

N O T E : N o t t o s c a le , p r o f ile is v e r t ic a lly e x a g g e r a t e d .

C O N C E P
O U T S ID E (S
P ro
S F O B B

T U
O U
p o
E

A L E
T H ) O
s e d N
a s t S p

A S
F
6
a n

T -W
R E
A lig
S e

E S T
C E N T
n m e n
is m ic

S O IL
P A L E
t S k y
S a fe ty

P R O F IL E
O C H A N N E L
w a y
P r o je c t
P L A T E 2 .9

9 8 4 2 \0 0 5 4 e d g 2 .d s f

S O U T H

E D G E (S H O U L D E R )
O F P A L E O C H A N N E L
D IS C O N T IN U O U S
S A N D O R S A N D Y
C L A Y L A Y E R

E D G E O F G A S S Y S E D IM E N T

V E R Y S O F T T O
S O F T C L A Y

Y B M

D E N S E S A N D W IT H
F IR M C L A Y L A Y E R S
Y B M

M P S A

S O F T T O
F IR M C L A Y

O B M

V E R Y S T IF F C L A Y

L E G E N D
= G a s

P L A T E 2 .1 0

N O T E : N o t to s c a le ,
P r o file is v e r tic a lly e x a g g e r a te d .

Y B M

= Y o u n g B a y M u d

M P S A

= M e r r it t- P o s e y - S a n A n to n io F o r m a t io n s

O B M

= O ld B a y M u d

C O N C E P T U A L S E C T IO N A T S O U T H E D G E
O F (E A S T -W E S T ) R E C E N T P A L E O C H A N N E L
S F O B B E a s t S p a n S e is m ic S a fe ty P r o je c t

( A ls o m a y b e r e fe r e d to a s M e r r it t S a n d )

S F O B B T a s k O rd e r N o . 5
P r o je c t N o . 9 8 - 4 2 - 0 0 5 4

N O R T H

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Pier E8W

98-31, 0 m, North

00C-34, 20 m, North

Pier E7W

00C-31, 15 m, North

98-30, 2 m, North

Pier E6W

98-41, 3 m, North

98-29, 18 m, South

Pier E5W

Pier E4W

98-28, 3 m, South

Pier E3W

98-50, 15 m, North

00C-25, 15 m, North

00C-26, 10 m, North

Pier 2 (East Pier)

98-25, 1 m, North

00C-22, 1 m, North

00C-19, 1 m, North

98-6, 20 m, North

98-4, 4 m, North

Pier E1 (Pylon)

98-22, 5 m, North

98-45, 1 m, North

CENTERLINE OF WESTBOUND STRUCTURES

SW

NE

C% %C

% %% % %

%%%O%O%%O%O

%%%%O %%O % %C C%C%%C%%CC%% %CC%%C%%C% %C %


%C C%

% %C%
%O % % C%%%%C C%

%
%O%O%

% %C %

-10

%O%%O

%%O%O %O%O
%

%%O C% % %%O%O
%C

%O

%%

%O

%O%O

%O%

-20

/
/

%O

"

%O%O

% %%O%O

%O
0

100

$"

C% %

% C%

HARD CLAY

" "

$"

%O%O
%

%O
%%O

%%

+
+

%O

%O

%C %

VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY

-50

%O

-40

O%%O

""

""

%O
%
%

%O%O

"

"

-60

"+

%%O

%OO%

$"

-30

C%
% C% % % %

$"

"

300

300

-60

OBM

200

200

100

"

"

100

%O
%O

10

$"

""

%
%

20

10

C% C%
" "

$"

$"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

20

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

%O

$"

%O%O

% %

/
/

%O

C% %O%O
%C
%
%
/

"

"

"

"

C%
% C%

300

$ ""

%%

O%
%

""

%OO%
%
/

$"
"$

%O%O

%O
%

C%

%
200

$
$

"

100

O%

%C

$
/

"

%%O

VERY STIFF TO

"

%C

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

%O

C%

MPSA

$"

C%

%O%O

%%

%O
O%

"

O%
%

""

200

C%

10

Match Line to Plate 2.11b

%O

%C

%O%O

%O

20

Elevation (meters)

$"

%C%O%O%O

%C

"
"

"

OBM

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

-50

C% %C%%C

%%O

/
/
/
//
//
/ //
//
/
/
//

%%O

%O %O
% %O O% %O
%

%%O%O %

""
/

"

"

CLAY

"

YBM

"

10

$"
$

TO STIFF CLAY

" "

"

VERY STIFF

20

$"

""
"
""

-40

TO FIRM CLAY

/
/
/
/

VERY SOFT

VERY SOFT

//

MPSA

"
""

//

/ /

"

O%

-30


%O%O %%O%O %%O%O

Elevation (meters)

%%O %
O%%O O% %O

"
"

$
$"

//

%% %%

YBM

/
/
/
/
/
//
/

% %O%O

YBIS

-20

//

/
/
//

%C
%O %O %O
OC %O%C%
%%O% %C%%%O %%%O%%CC C%%%O C%%O % %%C

% % % %C %%C %CC%% %C %C% C%%%C%%C C% %C %C %C


% % % %O

/
/
/
/
//
/
//
//
//
//
//
/

/
//
//
//

#
%C%%%C %CO%C% %C% %C%
%%O%O%O %%O %%O %O %%O%%O% %C

% %C% %C%%%C%C%% %C%%


/

%%O % % %% % %

-10

FILL

UAMPC

%%O

10

100

200

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

""

-70

""

20

BEDROCK

" "

O%
%O

% %

FF

%O
%O

$""

-70

%O

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

UAM

"

"

300

200

100

% %

%%O

10

20

$"

%
UAM

UAMPC

"

-80
0

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

-80
200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

Horizontal Alignment of Sections is on Pier E4 Centerline

94-3, 43 m, South

98-31, 19 m, North

Pier E8

00C-35, 9 m, South

Pier E7

00C-32, 6 m, South

Pier E6

98-41, 22 m, North

98-10, 6 m, South

98-29, 1 m, North

Pier E5

98-40, 26 m, South

Pier E4

98-28, 18 m, North

Pier E3

98-27, 25 m, South

00C-28, 5 m, South

98-19, 6 m, North

00C-27, 12 m, North

98-26, 16 m, South

Pier 2 (East Pier)

98-25, 22 m, North

98-7, 38 m, South

00C-23, 23 m, South

00C-20, 24 m, South

98-5, 10 m, South

98-24, 3 m, South

Pier E1 (Pylon)

98-2, 5 m, South

98-21, 4 m, North

CENTERLINE OF N6 ALIGNMENT

SW

NE

%%O C% % %%O%O
C%

% %O%%O
%O%

C% %

%
%

%%

%O

Match Line to Plate 2.11b

"+

%O
%O

""

% % %

"" " +

%O
%

$"

+
+

O%

LAA

%%

%O

%%

O%

"

-80

" "

%O%O
" "

CLAY LAYERS

"

-70

%
%

"

SAND AND HARD

LAA

DENSE TO VERY DENSE

"+
+

O%%O

$""

%O

%O
%O%

"
"

UAMPC

$"

"

$"

-60

Elevation (meters)

O%%O

$"

%O%O

%%

%O

% %%O%O

%O

%O

O%

"

"

%%
"

"

"

-90

Tip Resistance
0
100 (MPa)
200

Tip Resistance (MPa)

-100

-50

VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY

O%
%
%
%O

% %

+
+

O%
%

%O
%%O

+
+

O%
%O

"

$"

"

"

10

$"

OBM

$" "

%O
%

FF

20

300

"

10

200

%O

"

300

CLAY LAYERS

20

100

""

"

%
200

SAND AND HARD

BEDROCK

%O%O

$
$
""

""

"

""

%O%O

300

%O%O
100

10

""

$"

200

DENSE TO VERY DENSE

$""

20

100

%O

UAMPC

-90

-40

$"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$"

%O

"

%O

$"

O%%O

10

""

$"

300

%O

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

-80

200

%O
%O%

"
"
"

100

%%

""

%O

C% %O%

" "

$"""

%
%%O

10

%O

% C%

C%

UAM

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$ ""

"

""

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$""

%O
20

" "

$"

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

%O%%O

O%%%O %O%O
O%

% %
%

%
/

200

100

%%

"

-70

% %%%O %%O % C% C%C%%%C%%%CC C%C%%C%%%C %C %


%C %C
C%

%
%O%%O%

%
%

%C C%
/

""

%O%O

""

-30

$"

%O

20

"

$"

HARD CLAY

"

%O
/

$""

%O

Shear Strength (kPa)

%O

%O
%

C%

%%

VERY STIFF TO

C%

/
/

""

300

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND

%C

C%

%C
%

$
$

""

%O%O
200

-20

/
/

WITH STIFF CLAY LAYERS

%
+

%
%

-60

"

%%%OO% %O%%O

%%

%O%O

C%

$"

"

C%

%O
%O

100

$"

"

C% %

Tip Resistance (MPa)

C%

%C%O%O%O

%O%O

"
"

C%

%O%O

C%

""

""

%O%O

%C
%

%O
% %

%C

O%
%O

%%O

%%

"

10

%O % %O %%O %O %O
%O%%O %O

%%O %%O %O%O


%

%O%O

%%O

%
%O

$" "

O% %O

20

%C%%

% %C %
% %% % %

%C
%O %O %O
OC %OC%%
%%O% C%%%O% %%O%%%CC %C%O% C%%O % %%C

C% %C%%C

%C%C% %C C%%%%C %C C%%%


% %O%O %
%%O%O

% %

%O
%O%O

""

TO STIFF CLAY

"

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

%%

200

$
/

OBM

C%

"

C%
% C% % % %

100

"

-10

"

10

%O

%OO%
/

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)


20

""
/

$""

$""

"

C%

200

% %%

100

%O %
0

$"

"

O%
%

10

"+

/
//
//
/ //
//
/
/
//

"

"

""

%%O

%% %%

$""
"$
"
$
"

Elevation (meters)

20

"

%%

%%O

%O
% %% %%

-50

CLAY

$"
$

" ""

/
/

VERY SOFT

MPSA

$" "

"

"

"
"
""
"
""
""
""

VERY STIFF

C% C%%%C% C%%C% %C% %C%%C %C%%C%


%
%%O%O % %O%O %O%O %%OC%%O %O%C%O%%O

% C%% %C%%C %C %C%C% %C C%%C% %C


%O%%O %
%

% %O%O
%

-40

TO FIRM CLAY

" "

%O

"

%
%

""

200

"
""
"
""
"
"
"

$"

VERY SOFT

/ /

$ $"

"

%%O

-30

"
" "

//

//

YBM

//

//

//

%O

%O
%%O % %O% % %%O % % %O %
% %
%
%
%

$"
$" "
$
$

C%

% %%

%O %O
O%%O %O%O %%O % O%%O
%
%
%O

%%
"

$ "
$ "$
"$"

$$$
$

/
/
//

/
/
/
/
/
/
//

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

$
$
$
$

%% %%

% % % %C %%C C%% CC%% C%% %C%C%%%C %C %C C% %C


% % % %O

//

//
/
/
//
//

$"

/
/
/
//
/
/
/
//
/
/

/
/
/
//
//
/
//
//
//
//
//
/

%% %C%% C%% %C %C% %C %C%%C% %C%

%% %

$
#

/
/

-20

-10

FILL

100

200

300

300 Shear Strength (kPa)

Shear Strength (kPa)

Top LAAS

-100
20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)


20

300

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

20

300

100

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND

300

Shear Strength (kPa)


10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

Shear Strength (kPa)

200

WITH HARD CLAY LAYERS

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

20

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

Shear Strength (kPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

-110

-110

BEDROCK

-120

-120

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

Horizontal Alignment of Sections is on Pier E4 Centerline

Pier E8E

00C-35, 11 m, North

00C-36, 11 m, South

00C-33, 11 m, South

Pier E7E

98-49, 5 m, South

Pier E6E

98-10, 15 m, North

98-29, 22 m, North

Pier E5E

98-40, 5 m, South

Pier E4E

Pier E3E

98-27, 4 m, South

00C-29, 4 m, South

00C-30, 16 m, South

98-26, 5 m, North

Pier E2 (East Pier)

98-7, 18 m, South

00C-23, 2 m, South

00C-20, 3 m, South

98-5, 11 m, North

98-48, 0 m, North

Pier E1 (Pylon)

94-8, 5 m, North

98-23, 7 m, South

CENTERLINE OF EASTBOUND STRUCTURES

SW

NE

%%
%O % %O %%O %O %O
%O%%O %O

100

200

300

%
%

%O

$" " $

O%
%O
%
%

%O%O

-50

OBM

$
$
""

-60

""

%O
%
%

% %

%O

$"

%O%O

UAM

"

%%O

"

%O

UAMPC

300
10

100

200

$""$

$" "

300

20

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

"

+
+

% %%O%O

%O

%%

"

BEDROCK

-70

"

200

100

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

UAMPC

300

$""

-80
20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

-40

$"

"

200

%O%O

""

$
"

10

100

"

%O

O%%O

"

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

-30

Elevation (meters)

300

Match Line to Plate 2.11b

%C %%O%O %O%O
C% %C C%

O%

%%

200

%O

C%

"

"

$"

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

""

%%

FF

-70

100

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

MPSA

""

"
"

$"""

""

300

%
%

%O%O

$"

C%

%O
%

UAM

200

%O

%O%%O
%

%C
C%
C%
/

$""

-60

100

% %% % %C %C%C% %C
%

%C%%

% C% %
% %% % %
%

%O%O

%O

% %

%C
%

%O
%O

%%

%O%O

"

10

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

%O

%O%O

"

300

""

%
%

200

%%

100

10

20

VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY

""

20

/
/

""

O%
%O
10

C% %

300

-20

20

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

%%
%

%O O%
%
+

C%

200

%%O %%O %O%O

%
%
% %% %

100

$"

""

$"

$" "

$"

%O %
10

%%

20

O%
%

-50

"
"

%O
% % %

OBM

$"
$"

"

"

"+

$"
"
"$
"
"$

""

"
"
""
"
""
""
""

VERY STIFF CLAY

$
"

""

-40

% %O%%O %
%%O%O

% %O%O
%

$" "

" "

"

"
""
"
""
"
"
"

"

$ $"

%O

"

""

SAND WITH STIFF TO

MPSA

-10

YBM

DENSE TO VERY DENSE

VERY STIFF CLAY LAYERS

-30

"
" "

VERY SOFT

/
/
/
/

//

//

TO FIRM CLAY

$$$
$

$"
$" "
$
$

/
/
/
/
/
/
//

YBM

%O

%O
%%O % %O% % %%O % % %O %
% %
%
%
%

%O

O% %O
%O%O %O%O %%O % O%%O

% %%

%%

$"
$ "
$ "$
"$"

C%%C% %C %C%%%C %C C%%%

/
//

% % %C %C %C
%%O%%O % % %C% %C%%C %C %C%%C C %

%% %C%% %C% C% %C% %C C%%%C% %C%

$
#

"

Elevation (meters)

/
/
/
//
/
/
/
//
/
/

//
//
/
/
/
//

-20

YBIS

-10

$ $

FILL

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

-80
300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

Notes:
1) Stratigraphic contacts are approximate and are interpreted from CPT soundings, borings, and seismic
reflection survey data.
10m

2)

SHEAR STRENGTH SYMBOLS

40m

FILL

Fill

YBM

Young Bay Mud

MPSA

YBIS

OBM

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio Formations


YBI Sediments
Old Bay Mud

UAM

UAMPC

LAA

LAAS

FF

Upper Alameda Marine


Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand
Lower Alameda Alluvial
Lower Alameda Sand
Franciscan Formation

$
C

C % O

KEY TO GEOLOGIC UNITS

+
\

Unconsolidated Undrained (UU)


Unconfined Compression (UC)
Pocket Penetrometer (PP)

Conditions vary both along and perpendicular to the section line.

Boring and CPT sounding logs are projected onto the lines of the cross sections.

Therefore stratigraphic

contacts may not exactly correspond to the contact indications (lithology, shear strength, etc.) in the logs.
3)

Shear strengths are calculated from CPT tip resistances and measurements made on samples from borings.

4)

Horizon geometry between borings based on correlations with seismic reflection data.

5)

Lithology from pre-1998 borings are in some instances modified from those shown on the Caltrans Log of

Torvane (TV)
Miniature Vane (MV)
Remote Vane (RV)
Strength Exceeds Capacity
of Measuring Device

Test Boring sheets.

Modifications were made based on subsequent laboratory test results and extrapolation

SUBSURFACE CROSS SECTIONS ALONG N6 ALIGNMENT

from adjacent 1998 borings.


6)

Horizontal datum is California Coordinate System Zone 3, NAD83, in meters.

Vertical datum is MSL 1929,

in meters (0.942 meters above MLLW; Caltrans, 1997).


7)

Refer to Plate 2.11b for Cross Section Location Map and Key to Data Shown on Borings and CPT Soundings.

YERBA BUENA ISLAND TO OAKLAND MOLE


PIER E1 TO PIER E8
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE 2.11a
j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-11a.odb, section2, 03/04/2001

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

649000

Oakland Mole

Pier E21W

Pier E20W

648500
648000
647500

%C
%C

Elevation (meters)

% % %%
%

N
IO
IT

LEGEND

-60

HARD CLAY

E2

Western Cross Section Lines (Plate 2.11a)

ISLAND

%%

+
+

Eastern Cross Section Lines (Plate 2.11b)

SCALE 1:15000
0

300

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters


600

Meters

-70

%O
%O

1836000

1836500

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

1839000

"

$ ""

1998 Phase 1 Borings


Pre-1998 explorations
Piers

O%%O

% %

1998 Phase 2 Borings

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

""

$""

+
+

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

#
#
#

C
U

T
I

E4

""

EASTBOUND

647000

$" "

%O

%O%O

"

E6

BUENA

STIFF TO

E8

YERBA

300

E18

"

200

OAKLAND MOLE

#
#

%O%O

100

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

200

%%

+
+

#
# #
#

%O
O%%O

100

%
O%
%O
%
%O
O%
%
%

$" "

%O%O

"

%O%O
2010

300

98-44, 16 m, North

%O
%O
%
200

UAM

%
Shear Strength (kPa)

10

00C-74, 2 m, South

%O%O
100

O%%O

20

-50

""

%
"

300

%
O%

""+

LAA

200

%
10

%%

"

$" "

""

$"
+

Pier E19W

%O%O %%O %%O %%O %%O%O %%O %O % % %

%O

%O

20

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"+

VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY

"

$" "

"

$"

"

UAM

-40

%O
O%
%

%
%O
O%
% %

%O

""

"

"

100

"

%O%O
%

O
%%O

%%

$$ "

%%O

% %O

%C

%
%

C%

%O
%O
%

%
%O

%C
O%
% %%O

O%%O

C%

"

%O%O

C% C% %O

%C

%%

"

"+

$
$

$"

OBM

"

"

+
+

""

00C-73, 0 m, North

%%O%O
%O

% %O

%%

C%

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

" "

C%

%O

%O

%C %C %%O

%C %

O%

O%%O

%O
%O

%O

%O

O%%O

%O%%O

300

00C-72, 14 m, North

%C%
%O %O%O % %% %% %C%C%C%
%

%C% % % % % %

%O

%%O

%O
% %%O

%O%O
C% %%O C% %C
% C%
% O%%O
%O
%
%
C%

%O

% %%O
%O
%

% C% %C%%
%C% %C %C%%

%C

%O% %%O% % %

%O

%%%O%O%
%%O

%%O
%%O

%O%%O
%O

%O%O

%C% C% %C% %C %%CC% %C %

% %O %O O%%%O % %%%C C% %C% %C%C% %C%


C%

% %C %CC%%%C% %C C% %C% %C %
%C C%

%%%C %C %C%
%%O%O %O%O %O%O % %O %O%O %%O%OC%%C% %C%%C%%C C% %

% % %O
O%%O

%%O

Pier E18W

98-39, 4 m, South

Pier E17W

00C-64, 1 m, North

00C-61, 11 m, South

Pier E16W

00C-60, 13 m, North

Pier E15W

00C-58, 8 m, South

00C-57, 15 m, North

98-37, 7 m, South

00C-54, 5 m, North

Pier E14W

00C-53, 9 m, North

98-36, 8 m, North

00C-50, 12 m, North

Pier E13W

00C-49, 12 m, North

Pier E12W

98-35, 5 m, South

00C-46, 26 m, North

98-34, 5 m, South

Pier E11W

00C-44, 14 m, North

Pier E10W

00C-41, 1 m, North

00C-40, 13 m, North

98-20, 14 m, South

Pier E9W

98-32, 5 m, South

%C%
%%O %%C%%%C %C C% %C%

Elevation (meters)

300

200

$""

#
#
# ##
## # #
######
# E1 ##
#

E10

#
## #

E14

100

""+

$""

$ $

" "

300

200

-80
Shear Strength (kPa)Tip Resistance (MPa)

200

100

IN

" $

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

-30

#
#

#
#

647000

"

$"

300

100

10

200

10

$"

20

100

$
"$

Tip Resistance (MPa)

$"

"

300

10

"

200

10

$ $

100

300

$ $

$"

200

"

20

""

100

#
# #
#
#
# ##

E3

10

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$"

10

$ $

-60

20

20

""

$"

/
/

10

$ $

"

"

-70

300

$
$$ $
$
$

20

$ "$

200

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)


20

"

""

100

20

+
+

"

OBM

10

+ Strength (kPa)
Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear

"

20

""

"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

E5

#
#

E13

##

647500

""

"

"
"

"

$"

300

"

#
#

E7

#
$

$"

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)


+

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

/
200

100

200

200

E9

-20

300

$
$
$

100

100

$"

200

$
$
$

10

100

$
$
$

20

300

10

10

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

E11

ISLAND

$
$
$$

20

20

/
/

10

WA

SKY

WESTBOUND

TREASURE

E20

RE

CTU

U
STR

$
$

300

300

$
$
$

200

200

$
$
$$

100

100

CTUR

APPR

$$
$$

$
0

10

SHOR

STRU
OACH

$
$$

20

10

"

20

-10

AND

#
20

$
$

1839000

OAKL

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

1838500

$ $$$$$
$$ $ $
$$

$"

"
"

1838000

$$ $

$
$

1837500

VERY DENSE
SAND

SAND WITH STIFF CLAY

1837000

NE

$
$
$

DENSE TO VERY DENSE

LAYERS

"

$" "

200

$
$

Tip Resistance
(MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)
/

100

10

MPSA

1836500

648000

-50

Match Line to Plate 2.11a

-40

20

/
//
/

$
$
$

YBM

$
$

""

$"
$

" "

TO FIRM CLAY

//
//
//

//

VERY SOFT

-30

YBM

//

/
//

//

//

$
$
$
$

-20

/ /
/
/ /
//

/
/

-10

/
//
//

/
//
//

/
/ /
//
//

/
/
//
//
/
//
//
//

1836000

648500

//
//
/
//
//

SW

CROSS SECTION LOCATION MAP


649000

00C-37, 13 m, North

CENTERLINE OF WESTBOUND STRUCTURES

LAA
-80

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

20

Shear Strength (kPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

Horizontal Alignment of Sections is on Pier E12 Centerline

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

Tip Resistance (MPa)

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

Shear Strength (kPa)

%O%

%O

$
%O

%O

%O

%O

%O

%O
O%
% %

Strength Measured

in Laboratory

$" "

O%

+
+

%%

"

% %

"

"" "

"

-70

"

+
+

"

30
30

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

2
200

400
4

Lean CLAY (CL)

Well graded GRAVEL (GW)

-90

10

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

300

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

Shear Strength (kPa)

Poorly graded GRAVEL (GP)

Sandy lean CLAY (CL)

GRAVEL with sand (GP or GW)

Silty CLAY (CL-ML)

GRAVEL with clay (GP or GW)

Elastic SILT (MH)

-110

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

600

11

9
8
7
6

100

5
4

1
2
10

SILT (ML)

Clayey GRAVEL (GC)

100

200

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

300

100

200

GRAVEL with silt (GP or GW)

Sandy SILT (ML)

Silty GRAVEL (GM)

Clayey SILT (ML/CL)

Well graded SAND (SW)

-100

300

Highly plastic ORGANICS (OH)

Poorly graded SAND (SP)

Low plasticity ORGANICS (OL)

Shear Strength (kPa)

Shear Strength (kPa)

SANDSTONE (Rx)

SAND with gravel (SP or SW)

SILTSTONE (Rx)

SAND with clay (SP-SC)


0

400

10

11

Friction Ratio (%)

20

10

200

Shear Strength (kPa)

12

10

LAA

"

1000

-80

""

10

Shear Strength (kPa)

KEY TO SOIL LITHOLOGY:

"

20

Tip Resistance (MPa)

600
6

Tip Resistance (tsf)

""

HARD CLAY

UAM

STIFF TO

-60

$"

Elevation (meters)

%O

Tests and In Situ

%%

Top LAAS

20

Resistance

Undrained Shear

%%

O%
%O
%

$$

-50

200

Strength Interpreted

CPT Tip
Symbols Represent

"

"

of Undrained Shear

(Nk = 12-15)

"

"

Estimated Range

from CPT

$ "
$"

"

%O

%
%

"" "

100

300

20

300

%
%O

200

Shear Strength (kPa)

200

%C %

%C

%O%O

100

20

100

%%O

% % %%

%O%O

%
%

%O

"

Tip Resistance (MPa)

(Colors)

" "+

""

"

300

% %%O

%O
%O
%

C%
%

%O

C%

10

(Nk = 12-15)

"

Soil Type

20

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

Top LAAS

10

%%O

%O%O

%%

C%
%O

%%O

C% C% %%O

300

from CPT

"

Vane Shear Tests

200

"

Shear Strength (kPa)

%C%
% %%%O % %%CC%%C%C
% $

%O%O%O

%O

%O

%%O%O

$""

Strength Interpreted

"

SAND LAYERS

LAA

300

20

Pier E20

98-44, 36 m, North

Pier E19

Pier E18

00C-69, 12 m, South

00C-71, 11 m, South

%
%O%O %%O %%O %%O %%O%O %%O %O % %

% %C %C %C
C%%OC%O % %O % % % % %CC%%

%C% % % % % %

%O

%C C% % %

%C

%O
%O
%

%O
%O

100

$"

VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY

20

-100

$"

"

""

"

200

%%O%O

%C
%C

%
%%
%%O

%O

%O

C% %C %%O

%%

C%

%O

%
10

300

"

$"

20

200

" "

" 0"

10

$"

-90

"

"

""

100

O%%O

"

"

$""

$"

Estimated Range
of Undrained Shear

"

"

$"

10

$"

Resistance

-40

"

$"

%
%O

%O
% %%O

%O

UAM

"

CPT Tip
-30

20

"

O%

20

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$$ "

"

" "

WITH DENSE TO VERY DENSE

"

"

""

% C% %C%%
%%C C% C%%%

%C C%%O%OC%C%%C%C% %C%
%O

%O

%O

"

Soil Type

OBM

O%

%O
%

"

"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$""

""

Water Level

$"
$"
"$
$"

-20

"

""

$"

"

$"

+
+

$"

""

300

"
"

"

"

%%

%%

"

200

%%

300

$ ""

" "

"

200

300

"

200

" "+
"

O%%O

%O

%%

$"

100

100

$$

SAND

"
"

%O

"

"

%O

%O

%O

"
"
"

Shear Strength (kPa)

$"

Pier E17

94-1, 11 m, South

00C-61, 9 m, North

Pier E16

00C-62, 9 m, South

98-38, 14 m, South

Pier E15

98-37, 13 m, North

Pier E14

00C-55, 16 m, South

00C-51, 7 m, South

Pier E13

98-43, 17 m, South

Pier E12

O%
%O

$"

$"

-80

"

-70

Match Line to Plate 2.11a

-60

"

"

$""

100

/
/

"

$ $

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

10

"

"

300

$"

%%O%O

"

200

100

20

"

%O

O%%O
%

""

%O
%

%O

$ "$

10

"

"

"

$
$

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

""

"
"
"

200

"

100

"

/
/

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"
"
"

" "+

$$

%O

%O
%O

% %%O

%O

""

OBM

"

10

20

"

%%
C% %

""

O% %O%O

"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

""

/
/

"
"

O%

C%

% % %

O%

"
"
"
"

%O%%O

%O%O

"

20

"
"

%O%O

"

%O
%
O%

$""

$" $

"/

"

O%

"
"

300

10

/
/
/
//
/

""

"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"

" 200

100

"

O%%O

LAYERS

-10

O%%O%C % %
%C

"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$"

"

%O

$$
"

$
10

%O
/

20

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

VERY DENSE

"

"
"

$"

"

"

SAND WITH STIFF CLAY

%O

"

O%%O

"

DENSE TO VERY DENSE

$" "

MPSA

CPT SOUNDING WITH


SOIL BORING LITHOLOGY WITH

$
$
$

%O%O
%%O C% %C
% C% C%
% O%%O
%O
%
%
C%

%O%%O

"

$
$
$

YBM

"

VERY SOFT

O%

%%O

%%O

%%O
/

%O

"

//
//
//

% %%O %%O %%O%O


% %OO%

%%O

"

"

20

""

/
//
//
//

/
/

TO FIRM CLAY

""

$" "

$"

//

% %O %O O%%%O % %%%C C% %C% %C%C% %C%


C%

%O

"

"

" "

-50

"

-40

/
//

%O

%O

YBM

$"
$

-30

% %C %CC%%%%C %C C% %C% %C%


%%%O%O%
C% C% C% %%CC %C
%%O % %%O%O
%C%C% %CC%

%O

% % %C C% %C%
%O %O%O %O %%O %O%O %O%O %OC% %OC% C%% %

%%% C% C%%
%%O%O %O%O %O%O % %O %O%O %%O%OC%%C% C%%C%%C% C% C%

% % %O
O%%O

/
//

/
//
/ /
/
//

/
//
//

/
//
/
/ /
//
/
//
/ /
//

/
//
//

Elevation (meters)

98-35, 15 m, North

94-10, 20 m, South

98-42, 20 m, South

Pier E11

98-34, 15 m, North

94-5, 22 m, South

00C-42, 5 m, South

98-33, 23 m, South

Pier E10

98-20, 7 m, North

Pier E9

00C-38, 9 m, South

%C%
%%O %C%%%C %C C% %%C%

//

$
$
$
$

##

KEY TO BORING LOGS AND CPT SOUNDINGS ON CROSS SECTIONS


NE

//

-20

//
//
//
/

/
/
//
//
/
//
//
//

-10

/
/
/
//
//

SW

98-32, 15 m, North

CENTERLINE OF N6 ALIGNMENT

200

20

300

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

Shear Strength (kPa)

100

200

300

-110

Shear Strength (kPa)

CLAYSTONE (Rx)

Clayey SAND (SC)

Zone

Soil Behavior Type

U.S.C.S.

Sensitive Fine-grained

OL-CH

Organic Material

OL-OH

Clay

CH

Silty Clay to Clay

CL-CH

Clayey Silt to Silty Clay

MH-CL

Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt

ML-MH

Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

SM-ML

Sand to Silty Sand

SM-SP

Sand

SW-SP

10

Gravelly Sand to Sand

SW-GW

11

Very Stiff Fine-grained *

CH-CL

12

Sand to Clayey Sand *

SC-SM

*overconsolidated or cemented

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND

Silty SAND (SM)

Interbedded Rock Strata (Rx)

SAND with silt (SP-SM)

CONGLOMERATE (Rx)

Fat CLAY(CH)

ROCK FRAGMENTS

Sandy fat CLAY (CH)

PAVEMENT

CPT CORRELATION CHART

WITH HARD CLAY LAYERS

-120

-120

(Robertson and Campanella, 1988)

Soil lithologic classifications based on the Robertson and Campanella (1988)


soil behavior chart are sometimes inaccurate.

For example, CPT data from

many of the stiff to hard clay layers of the Old Bay Mud/Upper Alameda Marine
Formations plot in soil behavior zones that correspond to silts and are shown
in green on the cross sections.

-130

-130

100

200

FF

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

BEDROCK

-140

-140
0

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

Fill

UAM

Upper Alameda Marine

YBM

Young Bay Mud

LAA

Lower Alameda Alluvial

CENTERLINE OF EASTBOUND STRUCTURES

%O

98-51, 16 m, South

Pier E19E

Pier E18E

00C-70, 16 m, South

00C-69, 8 m, North

Pier E17E

%C C% %O%O%%C %O

%O

%O

00C-68, 13 m, South

00C-67, 3 m, South

94-1, 9 m, North

00C-65, 0 m, South

00C-63, 8 m, South

Pier E16E

00C-62, 11 m, North

98-38, 6 m, North

00C-59, 13 m, South

%O
%O

Pier E15E

00C-56, 6 m, South

%O

O%
%O

%O

C%
%C
C% %
%O

C%

%O

%C %C

%O

C%

%O

%%O%O

C% C%
"

%O

CLAY

"

%O

%O

C%

-60

"

O%

"

$$ $

Horizontal datum is California Coordinate System Zone 3, NAD83, in meters. Vertical datum is MSL 1929,

in meters (0.942 meters above MLLW; Caltrans, 1997).

"

"

WITH DENSE TO VERY DENSE


SAND LAYERS

6)

300

$"

VERY STIFF TO HARD CLAY

Modifications were made based on subsequent laboratory test results and extrapolation

from adjacent 1998 borings.

%O

Lithology from pre-1998 borings are in some instances modified from those shown on the Caltrans Log of

Test Boring sheets.

"

"

200

5)

-50

"

"

100

Horizon geometry between borings based on correlations with seismic reflection data.

%O

$"

4)

"

10

Shear strengths are calculated from CPT tip resistances and measurements made on samples from borings.

%%O

%O

TO HARD

3)

STIFF

""

%O

-40

/
/

Elevation (meters)

C%

300

-30

"

Therefore stratigraphic

%C
% C%

%O

%O

"

"
"
"
"

$"

"

"

%O

300

Boring and CPT sounding logs are projected onto the lines of the cross sections.

contacts may not exactly correspond to the contact indications (lithology, shear strength, etc.) in the logs.

%O

200

2)

%C

C%
C%
100

O%

%O
%O

%%
%O
0

Conditions vary both along and perpendicular to the section line.

C% C%

%%O

10

UAM

"

"

"" +

"

100

200

300

-70

10m

Shear Strength (kPa)

"

"" "

"

$"

+
+

" 200

100

$""

"
"

%%

"

""

"

O%

%O

%
%%

%C C% % %

20

-20
/

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

UAM

"

20

"

-70

%O
%

"

reflection survey data.

$"

"

$ ""

"

$$

10

"

O%%O

10

1) Stratigraphic contacts are approximate and are interpreted from CPT soundings, borings, and seismic

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

300

" "+

%O

"
"
"

OBM

"

Shear Strength (kPa)

"

-60

$"

200

"

20

300

""

$""

100

SAND

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

$
$

$$

"
"

%O

$ $

300

200

Tip Resistance (MPa)

"

300

%%

200

300

100

200

20

"
"

200

"

100

"

300

10

100

%%O%O

200

100

"
"
"

/
/

100

%O

"

20

%
%O%O

-10

"

%C
%C

%
%O

%O

10

"

"

"
"

"
"

%O

20

%O

"
"

-50

10

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

O%

"

10

10

"

"

20

"

"

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

%O

""

O%%O

"

20

of Measuring Device

"

"
"
"
"
"
"

%O

%O

$$
"

"

Strength Exceeds Capacity

"

""

"

300

" Tip Resistance (MPa)Shear Strength (kPa)


"
"

""

""

200

%O

"
"
"
"

300

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

200

O% %O%O

O%

% %%
%

"

100

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

O%%O

200

100

"

$" $

10

20

300

$""

O%

%O%O

""

"
"

"

OBM

$$

200

100

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

"

"

Tip Resistance (MPa) Shear Strength (kPa)

10

10

O%

%O %O

20

20

O%

"

300

200

"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"

100

%C %

10

%O

$$
"

20

"

"

100

Remote Vane (RV)

Notes:

Shear Strength (kPa)

"

%O

"

%O

"

"

Miniature Vane (MV)

VERY DENSE

%O%O%O

%O
%O

SAND WITH STIFF CLAY

Torvane (TV)

FILL

"
"

MPSA

LAYERS

"
"

"
"

Pier E14E

% %%O %%O %%O%O


% %OO%

DENSE TO VERY DENSE

Pocket Penetrometer (PP)

20

Franciscan Formation

Unconfined Compression (UC)

NE

$" "

FF

Old Bay Mud

%O

%O
%O

%O

O%

"

YBM

"

Lower Alameda Sand

Unconsolidated Undrained (UU)

%O

%O
%O

%%O %%%O%O

%O

"

"

%O

-40

"

MPSA

-30

Match Line to Plate 2.11a

Elevation (meters)

"

% C %C %C
%C %OC%O % %O % % % % %C %

%C%

C% %C%%O%OC%C%%%C%C

C% %C %C
C%C%% CC%% %C

%O

-20

/
//
//
//

VERY SOFT
TO FIRM CLAY

"

"

94-6, 6 m, South

00C-55, 4 m, North

00C-51, 12 m, North

Pier E13E

00C-52, 11 m, South

98-43, 3 m, North

94-2, 4 m, South

00C-48, 11 m, South

Pier E12E

00C-47, 8 m, North

94-10, 1 m, North

98-42, 0 m, North

Pier E11E

00C-45, 8 m, South

94-5, 2 m, South

98-33, 3 m, South

Pier E10E

00C-43, 11 m, South

00C-38, 10 m, North

94-7, 18 m, South

Pier E9E

%
%C %C%
%O %O%O O% %O% %O%O %O%O O%%%C %O%C %C% %C %

%O

$ $

%O

$ $

"

"

"

YBM

"

-10

/
//
/ /
/
//

//
/
//
//

/
//

//
//
//
/

SW

LAAS

00C-39, 13 m, South

OBM

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio Formations

C % O

FILL

MPSA

SHEAR STRENGTH SYMBOLS

KEY TO GEOLOGIC UNITS

Horizontal Alignment of Sections is on Pier E12 Centerline

"" "

LAA

"

"

40m

-80

-80
0

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

100

200

Shear Strength

300

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

20

10

Tip Resistance (MPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

100

200

300

Shear Strength (kPa)

SUBSURFACE CROSS SECTIONS ALONG N6 ALIGNMENT


YERBA BUENA ISLAND TO OAKLAND MOLE
PIER E9 TO PIER E20
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE 2.11b
j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-11b.odb, section2, 03/04/2001

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836000

1836500

1837000

LEGEND

San Francisco-Oakland

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio Formations

Bay Bridge

1838500

1839000

Isopach (Thickness) (m) of Mapped Horizon

Appreciable Thickness (~ > 3 m)

1838000

Alignment

Thickness of Dense Sand in

Contour Interval = 5 m
Moderate Thickness (~ 1 to 3 m Thick)
Contour Interval = 2.5 m

<

Minimal Thickness (~< 1 m Thick)

Approximate Edge of Recent

Indicates that Sand is Shallow

Paleochannel (Base of Young Bay

(~ above El. -25 m)

Mud = El. -20 m)


2-D Sleeve Gun Survey

Grid: California State Plane, Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

648500

648500

N6

1837500

Tracklines

Elevations: Meters, Re. MSL 1929, (Caltrans, 1997)


E2 Pier Location and Number

<

<
0

<

<

<

<
<

<

E12

E10

5.0

5.0

5
7.

E5

Isopach of Mapped
Horizon (m)
Thinner

E3

than 5

10 to 15

5.0

5 to 10

E2

647500

5.

647500

E16

E14

5.

MOLE

E18

E7

OAKLAND

.0

10.0

<

<

!
!
!

<

5.

E9

10

E20

E2

.0

10

E7

7.5

E14

7.

E3

E5

<

.0

648000

< <<

.0

E18

648000

!
!
!
!

.0

!!

!!

!
!
!
!

!
!
!!
E11

!!!
!
! ! !! !

!
!!
!

!
! !! ! ! !!
!
5.0

<

7.5

15 to 20
Thicker
than 20

YERBA
BUENA

SCALE 1:8000

ISLAND

100

100

200

Meters

INTERPRETED VARIATIONS AT
EDGE OF RECENT PALEOCHANNEL

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1836000

1836500

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section2\plate-2-12.odb, section2, 03/04/2001

1837000

1837500

1838000

1838500

PLATE
2.12
1839000

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

100

90

80

70

Percent Less than

60

WITHIN 5m OF TOP OF LAA-SAND


(20 Layers)

50

WITHIN 10m OF TOP OF LAA-SAND


(43 Layers)
40

WITHIN 15m OF TOP OF LAA-SAND


(57 Layers)

30

20

10

0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Thickness of Clay Layers, Meters

DISTRIBUTION OF LAA-CLAY INTERBED THICKNESS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
J:\CALTRANS\Reports\finalreports\Finalaxpiledrive_Book6\plates\Odb-XL\section_1to5\Section2\PLATE2.16.doc

PLATE 2.16

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

35

Percent Clay in upper 5m


Percent Clay in upper 10m
Percent Clay in upper 15m

30

Percent Thickness of Clay Layers

25

20

15

10

All Data

Piers E3-E6

Piers E7-E9

Piers E10-E12

Piers E13-E16

PERCENT LAA-CLAY INTERBEDS WITHIN LAA SAND


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
J:\CALTRANS\Reports\finalreports\Finalaxpiledrive_Book6\plates\Odb-XL\section_1to5\Section2\PLATE2.17.doc

PLATE 2.17

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Number of Borings
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-80

-82

-84

Elevation (meters)

-86

-88
Percent Clay
Number of Borings
-90

-92

-94
TYPICAL RANGE
OF PILE TIP ELEVATION
CONSIDERED
-96

-98

-100
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent of Borings with Clay

DISTRIBUTION OF LAA-CLAY INTERBEDS WITH ELEVATION


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
J:\CALTRANS\Reports\finalreports\Finalaxpiledrive_Book6\plates\Odb-XL\section_1to5\Section2\PLATE2.18.doc

PLATE 2.18

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Percent of Borings with Clay


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PRELIMINARY
PILE TIP
ELEVATION

Depth Below Top of LAA Sand

6
Percent Clay
Number of Borings
8

10

12

14

16
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Number of Borings with Data

DISTRIBUTION OF LAA-CLAY INTERBEDS WITH DEPTH


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
J:\CALTRANS\Reports\finalreports\Finalaxpiledrive_Book6\plates\Odb-XL\section_1to5\Section2\PLATE2.19.doc

PLATE 2.19

SECTION 3.0
AXIAL PILE DESIGN OVERVIEW
SECTION 3.0

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

3.0 AXIAL PILE DESIGN OVERVIEW


3.1

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES

3.1.1

Channeling

Main Span-East Pier. The proposed location for the Main Span-East Pier is in the area
where an east-west and a north-south paleochannel sequence intersect or merge. The pier will be
located along the southeastern bank of the paleochannel intersection where the thickness of very
soft to firm geologically Recent paleochannel clays will vary across the width of the foundation.
Due to those non-uniform conditions, the lateral pile load-deformation response will vary across
the width of the pier and with the direction of loading. The load-deformation response of piles
located along the northern limit of the alignment will be comparatively soft relative to those
located along the southern limit of the alignment.
Skyway. The Skyway alignment overlies and straddles the meandering edge of the eastwest geologically Recent paleochannel (Plate 2.12). Local near-surface variations relative to the
thickness of surficial very soft to soft clay and the presence or absence of near-surface sand
layers are inevitable beneath the Skyway alignment. Those variations, which occur continuously
along the alignment, may occur across the width of an individual pier, between adjacent piers,
and/or between adjacent Skyway frames. In general, the thickness of soft paleochannel clay
beneath the alignment will increase, and the presence and thickness of sand layers will decrease
to the north of the proposed alignment.
This variability of subsurface conditions will affect the lateral load deflection
characteristics of the foundation. From a geotechnical standpoint, a foundation design that
reduces the sensitivity of the foundation (and superstructure) response to those inevitable
variations across and along the Skyway is desirable. Because the geologically Recent
paleochannel is a near-surface feature, axial pile capacities are comparatively less sensitive to the
variability of the near-surface sediments along the proposed N6 alignment. The batter piles that
are proposed for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway piers provide for additional lateral
stiffness as well as reduce the sensitivity of the foundations to the intrinsic variations in the soil
conditions by transferring lateral loads from the structure as axial loads on the pile.
3.1.2

End-Bearing Stratum Variations

The geophysical data and the borings drilled along the alignment suggest as much as 3 to
5 meters of local variation in the top elevation of the erosional surface of the LAA-sand endbearing stratum. Furthermore, the borings show that the primarily alluvial sediment sequence
includes an appreciable quantity of clay layers. Both the variation of the top elevation of the
LAA-sand and the local presence or absence of LAA-clay interbeds within the underlying LAAsand are intrinsic variations of the deposit. Because these are local variations, it is impossible to
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

predict how the variations occur over the football-field-sized area circumscribed by the loci of
the pile tips at each set of piers. Thus, the pile design needed to accommodate these variations.
From a design standpoint, the primary implication of the variation in the end-bearing
stratum is in prediction of the range of pile end bearing capacity and stiffness that logically can
be expected to occur. Since the pile tip elevations are to be pre-established:

3.1.3

It appears likely that at some pier locations not all piles of a given pier may be tipped
in LAA-sand. The design process should include sensitivity analyses to evaluate the
influence of such conditions on the performance of the structure;

It is recommended that an adequate pile driving hammer that can advance the pile
through a greater thickness of LAA-sand than suggested by the borings should be
specified; and

The design of the pile wall thickness schedule and the pile head connection detail
should allow for an appropriate underdrive allowance.

Load-Transfer Considerations

In addition to load capacity, the design of long, large-diameter, driven pipe piles should
consider axial load-deflection characteristics. Because the pile deflection required to mobilize
the end-bearing component of pile capacity is significantly greater than the deflections required
to mobilize the skin friction component of pile capacity, it has long been recognized (in offshore
platform design) that the component of pile capacity due to end bearing is largely in reserve for
piles driven through primarily clay soils and designed for normal factors of safety. In other
words, the percentage of the total capacity in skin friction typically exceeds the applied load (i.e.,
the ultimate load divided by the factor of safety). Thus, the majority of the applied service load
is mobilized in skin friction along the pile shaft at levels of deflection much smaller than those
required to mobilize significant components of the end bearing.
For structures that are designed for both: a) gravity loads, live loads, and normal cyclic
loads, and b) extreme infrequent dynamic loads (i.e., extreme earthquake loads), it is common to
consider either a lower factor of safety for the extreme load or the use of a higher value of end
bearing for calculating the capacity under extreme, infrequent loads. In either case, this
potentially allows more load to be transferred to end bearing with a resulting increase in pile
deflection.
3.1.4

Post-Installation Setup of Axial Capacity

The process of driving large-diameter pipe piles into plastic clays results in a high degree
of disturbance in the soil adjacent to the pile and the creation of excess pore water pressures in
the surrounding soil. One consequence of this disturbance is a significant decrease in the
as-driven capacity and a subsequent increase in the capacity with time as the excess pore
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

pressures dissipate. The reduced as-driven pile capacities will need to be considered during the
construction process. The recently completed Pile Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP)
(Fugro-EM, 2001f) provides insight into the setup of large-diameter pipe piles in Bay soils. .
3.1.5

Cyclic Degradation and Strain Rate Effects During Earthquake Loading

There are two characteristics of pile-soil interaction that affect the axial pile capacity
during earthquake loading. The first is the potential for cyclic degradation of the skin friction
along the pile due to multiple cycles of reversal of the axial loads together with the combined
interaction of cyclic axial and lateral loading. This effect tends to reduce (due to cyclic soil
strength degradation) or eliminate (due to gapping) the axial pile capacity provided by the
surficial soils, and axial pile loads are transferred farther down the pile shaft. Additional soil
resistance to those loads are mobilized by increased relative pile-soil movement, and this results
in increased pile settlement.
The second effect that occurs during the earthquake loading is an increase in soil
resistance relative to static values due to rate-of-loading effects. Because earthquake loads occur
rapidly, the soil undrained shear strength that can be mobilized will exceed the measured values
from in situ and laboratory tests used for computation of the static axial capacity. This increase
in capacity opposes and tends to compensate for the loss of strength due to cyclic degradation.
For the subsurface conditions underlying the N6 alignment, losses of resistance due to
cyclic degradation in the relatively soft and relatively sensitive Young Bay Mud are estimated to
be greater than the increases in resistance due to strain rate effects. However, for the relatively
stiff underlying clays of the Old Bay Mud and Upper Alameda Marine sediments, the increase in
soil resistance due to strain rate effects is estimated to exceed the loss in capacity due to
degradation effects in the lower clays. Since a larger percentage of the axial capacity of the pile
is mobilized within the relatively stiff underlying clay layers, the net result is estimated to be a
higher axial capacity during earthquake loading when compared to the static axial capacity.
However, because of degradation in the upper Young Bay Mud, load is redistributed down the
pile and may result in additional pile settlement.
3.2

PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND SEISMIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Foundation design parameters and recommendations for the development of the


30-percent submittal were provided in a Preliminary Foundation Design Report (Fugro-EM,
1998). Those recommendations were based on the Preliminary Phase 1 site investigations and
provided design parameters for four representative areas along the Main Span-East Pier and
Skyway alignments. Additional preliminary recommendations for the seismic foundation design
were provided in Fugro-EM (1999). Those data were used to guide preliminary pile type and
layout selection.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The preliminary analyses performed (using those data) by TY Lin/M&N suggested that
the piles experience their maximum loads during the design earthquake event, which is denoted
as the Safety Evaluation Earthquake. During this event, the peak loads (which are typically
experienced for less than 1 second) were estimated by TY Lin/M&N to be on the order of
120 MN in compression and 80 MN in tension. In contrast, the static (gravity loads) on the piers
were estimated to be on the order of 35 MN.
Since the earthquake loads were significantly higher than the static loads, the
performance of piles under dynamic loading is of primary concern. Of particular interest are the
evaluation of the expected permanent settlement and the potential temporary loss of static
capacity resulting from the cyclic degradation of the soil shear strengths during the earthquake.
Since the design loading conditions result in temporary losses in the axial capacity due to
cyclic degradation and transient increases in the capacity due to rate of loading effects,
evaluation of relative safety factors based on calculated static axial capacities are not meaningful
for seismic design. Furthermore, the magnitude of seismic loads imposed on the piles is
dependent upon the stiffness of the foundation response. In general, for the typical range of
structure periods considered, the stiffer the foundation (frequently due to increased pile
capacity), the higher the loads imposed on it. The evaluation of the seismic performance of the
foundation piles is therefore based on the estimated load-deformation behavior of the piles (and
the associated stresses imposed on them) during the earthquake for an anticipated range of
foundation support parameters.
3.3

PIER-SPECIFIC DESIGN INFORMATION

Subsequent to the performance of the Phase 2 (design level) geotechnical site


investigations, pier-specific axial foundation design parameters were developed based on the
geotechnical characteristics of the underlying strata and the approximate axial load values
described above. The axial pile design data for the Main Span-East Pier and each Skyway pier
were provided to TY Lin/M&N and are reproduced in Appendix A of this report. In many cases,
separate data are provided for eastbound and westbound piers. The pier-specific axial pile
design information provided includes:

Representative soil profiles, soil properties, and axial pile capacity estimates;
Discretized axial pile load transfer-displacement curves; and
Preliminary static pile head load-deformation curves.

The methodology used to develop the axial pile design data and a discussion of the
recommended pile design parameters are presented in Section 4.0.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

3.4

PILE TIP ELEVATIONS

3.4.1

Preliminary Pile Tip Elevations

Since little pier-specific pile loading information had been provided to Fugro-Earth
Mechanics, the preliminary pile tip elevations used to generate the load-deformation data
presented in Appendix A were selected on the basis of the geotechnical characteristics of the
underlying strata and the approximate axial load values provided by the design team.
When those tip elevations were selected, the pile-head connection design details would
require that piles be driven to a specified elevation and there was to be little, if any, underdrive
allowance. Consequently, the preliminary pile tip elevations were selected so as to: 1) have the
highest probability of bearing in the sand layers of the Lower Alameda Alluvial Formation, and
2) have a low likelihood of encountering refusal within sand layers above the specified tip
elevation. In general, those pile tip elevations were typically about 4 meters below the elevations
where dense sand layers were anticipated at or near the surface of the Lower Alameda Alluvial
(LAA) Formation. As noted in Section 2.0, the first relatively thick sand layer in the LAA
(denoted as the top of the LAA-sand) is at about El. -90 meters (3 to 5 meters). The
preliminary pile tip elevations are provided on Plate A-6 of Appendix A.
As discussed in Section 2.0, a significant thickness of sand (denoted as the Upper
Alameda Marine [UAM] Paleochannel Sand) was encountered at approximately El. -70 meters
in borings drilled in the vicinity of the Main Span-East Pier. Estimates of the static pile capacity
show that the ultimate compression and tension capacity for piles tipped in the Franciscan
Formation bedrock are approximately 125 MN and 65 MN, respectively. The estimated ultimate
compression and tension capacity for piles tipped in the UAM Paleochannel Sand are
approximately 80 MN and 47 MN, respectively. Depending on the foundation capacity
requirements at the Main Span-East Pier, it also may be feasible to tip the piles in the UAM
Paleochannel Sand.
3.4.2

Structural Analyses and Results

The axial design parameters presented in Appendix A and the lateral pile design
parameters (provided in Fugro-EM, 2001a) were used by TY Lin/M&N in combination with the
pier-specific, multiple-support free field motions (Fugro-EM, 2001b) to perform non-linear
service load (static) and time history (earthquake) structural analyses for the Skyway. The
discretized support springs used to model the pile in those analyses were linearized to relevant
load levels. Estimates of permanent pier settlement and foundation loads for static and design
seismic events were developed from those analyses.
The estimated static loads on the most loaded pile for each Skyway pier are provided on
Plate 3.1. Calculated seismic loads on the Skyway piles varied as a function of the pile stiffness
and damping assumed in the analyses. For the Safety Evaluation Earthquake, tension loads of up
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

to approximately 80 to 90 MN and compression loads of up to approximately 120 to 140 MN


were calculated. Structural analyses and design of the Main Span structure are ongoing, and the
results of those analyses were unavailable at the time this report is being prepared.
The structural analyses for the Skyway structure suggested that permanent settlement of
the piers occurs during seismic events. The mechanism by which that deformation occurs has
been described as a ratcheting or scissoring mechanism. During the earthquake, the piles at
the corners of the piers are subject to cycles of compression and tension loads with downward
movements of the pile during compressions phases. The alternating downward movement of
opposing piles results in a net settlement at the center of the pier footing.
In general, the magnitude of the pier settlements varied as a function of the pile design
parameters used in the analyses and ranged from approximately 40 to 50 mm at the most loaded
piers. The piers with the highest predicted settlement typically were the ones with the lowest
estimated factors of safety against static loads (FS = 1.8 to 2.0) when using static skin friction
axial capacity (equivalent to tension capacity) only.
3.4.3

Design Modifications

Subsequent to the performance of structural analyses and during the development of the
85-percent design submittal, the design team made modifications to the pier and pile cap design.
Those modifications provided additional flexibility to accommodate potential variations in both
the horizontal alignment and penetration achieved during the installation of piles. The pile
details were modified to allow for up to 5 meters of underdrive.
3.4.4

Revised Pile Tip Elevations for Skyway Structure Piers

The preliminary pile tip elevations were reviewed relative to the design modifications and
the analyses performed by TY Lin/M&N. TY Lin/M&N stated that, in their opinion, the
predicted range of pier settlements under extreme seismic loads was somewhat excessive at the
most loaded Skyway piers. Consequently, the piles supporting the most loaded Skyway piers
were lengthened.
The most heavily loaded piers were typically within the western portion of Skyway
Frame 1. Since bedrock is interpreted to be relatively close to the preliminary pile tip elevation,
those piles were extended to tip in bedrock. The additional end-bearing resistance provided by
rock at the pile tip will likely reduce the potential for ratcheting settlements to impact the
performance of the portion of the structure supported by those piers.
Additionally, the inclusion of a minimum 5-meter underdrive allowance allowed for
refinements of the pile tip elevations at several other piers. Those modifications generally
resulted in deeper pile tip elevations. The deeper tip elevations are intended to:

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Provide additional skin friction/tension capacity at other relatively heavily loaded


piers; and

Increase the probability of piles for Piers E6 through E16 being tipped in the sand
layers of the Lower Alameda Alluvium.

Plate 3.1 provides a summary of the static axial pile loads and the revised
recommendations for pile tip elevations at each Skyway pier. The tabulated pile loads are the
average loads on the most loaded piles at each pier. The estimated ultimate static axial (tension
and compression) capacity for piles driven to the recommended tip elevations are shown on the
Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results plates for each pier in Appendix A. Those estimated
capacities for each Skyway pier also are tabulated on Plate 3.1. The revised pile tip elevations
are plotted along with the Bay floor or base of footing elevation on Plate 3.2. It should be noted,
however, that although the revised tip elevations and associated static capacities are shown on
the Axial Design Parameters and Results plates in Appendix A, the load-deformation analyses
(which, with the exception of the piles tipped in bedrock, should be relatively insensitive to the
small changes) were not updated to match the revised tip elevations.
Estimated factors of safety against the static loads are plotted on Plate 3.3. As shown on
Plate 3.3, the estimated factors of safety for skin friction capacity generally increase with
increasing pier numbers (i.e., to the east). Consideration was given to raising the pile tip
elevations by a few meters for those piers with relatively high estimated factors of safety against
static loads (and relatively low pier settlement). However, discussions among Caltrans, the
design team, the seismic peer review panel, and Fugro-EM concluded that the pile tip elevations
should not be changed. That conclusion was based on the judgement that the additional
redundancy (in terms of end-bearing capacity from piles tipped in dense sand layers of the Lower
Alameda Alluvium) for extreme seismic events outweighed the potential savings in cost that
would be generated by shortening the piles.
3.4.5

Additional Considerations for Piers E3 through E5

The revised tip elevations for Piers E3 through E5 are to provide for the piles supporting
those piers to be tipped in bedrock. Since there is some variability in the estimated bedrock
elevation at those locations, the recommended tip elevations are approximately 3 meters below
the estimated bedrock elevation. Consequently, it is considered likely that piles for Piers E3
through E5 will encounter bedrock above the recommended pile tip elevation. Since sudden
increases in the toe stresses are likely to be observed when the bedrock surface is encountered,
analyses were performed to evaluate the potential for damage to the driving shoe and to develop
refusal criteria for those piles. Those analyses are discussed in Section 6.0. Pile installation
considerations are presented in Section 7.0.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

3.5

SKYWAY TEMPORARY TOWERS

The design drawings for the Skyway structure indicate that temporary towers are required
for support of the peripheral deck sections during construction. The design of temporary tower
foundations is the responsibility of the contractor. However, as requested by Caltrans, a
summary of subsurface conditions in the temporary tower areas, criteria for the design of
temporary tower foundations, and example calculations are provided under separate cover in
Fugro-EM (2001c).

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC3.MAR.DOC

3-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

[EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; MN = meganewton; m = meter; MSL = mean sea level]


Pier
Pier E3-EB
Pier E3-WB
Pier E4-EB
Pier E4-WB
Pier E5-EB

Statica
Axial Load
(MN)

Bay Floor/Base of
Footingb Elevation
(m, re MSL)

45.0

-13.0

-106c

82

132+

-12.0

-106

79

129+

-107

85

135+

-107

80

130+

-108

86

136+

86

136+

44.9
39.8
40.5
45.3

-12.0
-11.0
-10.0

Recommended Pile
Estimated Ultimate
Tip Elevation
Static Tension Capacity
(m, re MSL)
(MN)

Estimated Ultimate
Compression Capacity
(MN)

Pier E5-WB

44.4

-10.0

-108

Pier E6-EB

40.1

-8.0

-96

80

130

Pier E6-WB

38.6

-8.0

-96

80

130

Pier E7-EB

39.8

-12.5

-98

78

121

Pier E7-WB

38.3

-12.5

-98

78

121

Pier E8-EB

37.7

-11.3

-97

82

125

Pier E8-WB

36.5

-11.3

-97

82

125

Pier E9-EB

37.1

-10.9

-96

85

128

Pier E9-WB

35.8

-10.9

-96

85

128

Pier E10-EB

38.6

-11.75

-97

90

132

Pier E10-WB

35.2

-11.75

-97

89

132

Pier E11-EB

38.3

-9.6

-95

94

140

Pier E11-WB

36.7

-9.6

-95

91

137

Pier E12-EB

36.7

-12.6

-97

92

138

Pier E12-WB

34.7

-12.6

-97

92

138

Pier E13-EB

32.9

-14.5

-96

83

129

Pier E13-WB

30.9

-14.5

-96

86

132

Pier E14-EB

29.7

-16.0

-96

98

143

Pier E14-WB

28.5

-16.0

-96

98

143

Pier E15-EB

36.3

-10.5

-93

89

137

Pier E15-WB

35.2

-10.5

-93

89

137

Pier E16-EB

29.8

-11.0

-95

93

141

Pier E16-WB

28.2

-11.0

-95

93

141

Static axial load values were provided by TY Lin/M&N.


Values listed are estimated mudline elevations for Piers E3 through E6 and planned base of footing elevations for Piers E7
through E16. They represent the elevation below which piles will derive soil support.
c
Pile tip elevations are for piles tipped in bedrock.
b

STATIC AXIAL LOADS AND RECOMMENDED PILE TIP ELEVATIONS


Skyway Structure Piers
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
J:\CALTRANS\Reports\finalreports\Finalaxpiledrive_Book6\plates\Odb-XL\section_1to5\Section3\PLATE3.1.doc

PLATE 3.1

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60
Bay Floor/Base of Footing Elevation

Pile Tip Elevation

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

PLATE 3.2
VARIATION OF PILE LENGTH AND TIP ELEVATION ALONG N6 ALIGNMENT
Skyway Structure Piers
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

Pier E16-WB

Pier E16-EB

Pier E15-WB

Pier E15-EB

Pier E14-WB

Pier E14-EB

Pier E13-WB

Pier E13-EB

Pier E12-WB

Pier E12-EB

Pier E11-WB

Pier E11-EB

Pier E10-WB

Pier E10-EB

Pier E9-WB

Pier E9-EB

Pier E8-WB

Pier E8-EB

Pier E7-WB

Pier E7-EB

Pier E6-WB

Pier E6-EB

Pier E5-WB

Pier E5-EB

Pier E4-WB

Pier E4-EB

Pier E3-WB

Pier E3-EB

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Elevation (meters, re MSL)

J:\CALTRANS\REPORTS\FINALREPORTS\FINALAXPILEDRIVE_BOOK6\PLATES\ODB-XL\SECTION_1TO5\SECTION3\PLATE3.2.DOC

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

J:\CALTRANS\REPORTS\FINALREPORTS\FINALAXPILEDRIVE_BOOK6\PLATES\ODB-XL\SECTION_1TO5\SECTION3\PLATE3.3.DOC

6.0
Piles supporting Piers E3 through E5 are to be tipped in bedrock.
Estimated factors of safety against compression loads for
Piers E3 through E5 may be higher than show n on this plot.
5.0
FS - Skin Friction
FS - Compression
4.0

+
3.0

+
+

2.0

PLATE 3.3

ESTIMATED FACTORS OF SAFETY AGAINST STATIC LOADS


Skyway Structure Piers
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

Pier E16-WB

Pier E16-EB

Pier E15-WB

Pier E15-EB

Pier E14-WB

Pier E14-EB

Pier E13-WB

Pier E13-EB

Pier E12-WB

Pier E12-EB

Pier E11-WB

Pier E11-EB

Pier E10-WB

Pier E10-EB

Pier E9-WB

Pier E9-EB

Pier E8-WB

Pier E8-EB

Pier E7-WB

Pier E7-EB

Pier E6-WB

Pier E6-EB

Pier E5-WB

Pier E5-EB

Pier E4-WB

Pier E4-EB

Pier E3-WB

0.0

Pier E3-EB

1.0

SECTION 4.0
AXIAL PILE DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DATA

SECTION 4.0

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

4.0 AXIAL PILE DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DATA


Due to the economic importance of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) and
the consequences of catastrophic failure, in both economic and human terms, the design and
analysis of the pile foundations supporting the bridge explicitly consider a number of aspects of
pile-soil behavior that are normally ignored. These aspects include: 1) the effects of
consolidation and setup, 2) the behavior under dynamic loading, 3) the losses of resistance under
cyclic loading, and 4) the load-settlement behavior of the piles under severe cyclic loading
conditions. Since the treatment of complex aspects of pile foundation behavior is not codified in
any guiding documents, several project-specific methods were developed for design and analysis
of the foundation piles.
4.1

DESIGN BASIS

The geologic conditions underlying the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway portions of the
N6 alignment are relatively consistent. However, the thickness and presence or absence of the
individual strata and layers, as well as the representative soil properties of the strata, are variable
along the alignment. Therefore, pier-specific pile capacities are provided for the Main Span-East
Pier and each of the Skyway piers. For these interpretations, primary emphasis was placed on the
site-specific conditions encountered in the 1998 borings (which were drilled using offshore
drilling equipment and wire-line sampling, in situ testing, and downhole tools) that included
extensive in situ and laboratory test data (on relatively undisturbed push samples), the 2000 CPT
soundings, and the subsurface geometry imaged by the marine 2-D and 3-D geophysical surveys.
4.1.1

Boring-Specific Design Data

A total of 44 borings were drilled during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 marine investigations.
An additional 77 CPT soundings were performed during Phase 3. As shown on Plate 1.5, 27 of
the marine soil borings were located within 40 meters of the N6 alignment to the east of the Main
Span-East Pier. From the west end of Skyway Frame 1 through the middle pier of Skyway
Frame 3 (Pier E12), there was at least one boring drilled under the anticipated location of the pier
for either the eastbound or westbound alignment. In addition, 41 of the 77 CPT soundings
performed during Phase 3 were along the Skyway alignment.
When a marine boring was located within the area circumscribed by the loci of the pile
tips for the pier, the stratigraphy and interpreted soil parameters for that specific boring were
used to develop the pier-specific pile design data. As discussed previously, at each pair of
Skyway piers (E3 through E14) the area circumscribed by the loci of the pile tips will be about
30 by 25 meters. Therefore, there will be intrinsic variations in the subsurface within the area
penetrated by the piles for each pier. The pier-specific borings should be recognized as

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

representative of the interpreted conditions underlying each pier, but not explicitly representative
of the stratigraphy and conditions that will be penetrated by each of the individual piles beneath
the pier.
4.1.2

"Synthetic" Boring Design Data

As noted in Section 2.0, the subsurface conditions vary both along and perpendicular to
the N6 alignment. Because the drilling program was not scoped to include borings under both
the eastbound and westbound piers, it is necessary to extrapolate the conditions from the boring
under the adjacent westbound or eastbound pier to anticipate the conditions under the
complementary pier without a boring.
To develop the design soil stratigraphy at those locations, the subsurface geometry
imaged by the marine geophysical survey was used to help develop the expected soil stratigraphy
at the pier locations that did not have borings. The data from the boring beneath the adjacent
complementary pier and the next piers to the east and west were then used to estimate the soil
properties at that location. The combined stratigraphy interpreted from the geophysical data and
the soil properties interpolated from the adjacent borings thus were used to develop "synthetic"
borings for the piers where marine borings were not drilled.
A similar procedure to that described above was used at the eastern end of the alignment
beneath Skyway Frames 3 and 4. The pier spacing is reduced at that end of the alignment as
compared to the typical 160-meter spacing beneath Skyway Frames 1 and 2. Because of the
reduced pier spacing beneath those eastern Skyway frames, borings were not drilled under each
set of piers.
4.1.3 General Pier-Specific Information
Pier-specific data are provided in groups of pier-specific plates in Appendix A. Pier and
boring location plans for the Main Span-East Pier and the various Skyway frames are provided
on Plates A-1 through A-3. A pier-boring correlation is shown on Plate A-4.
For each pier, the axial design data are presented on a series of four illustrations within
the appropriate pier-specific plate group. For example, the plates for Skyway Frame 1,
Eastbound Pier 3 (of the East Span) are numbered Plates E3-EB.1, E3-EB.2, E3-EB.3, etc.
Similarly, the design data for Skyway Frame 1, Westbound Pier 3 are numbered Plates E3-WB.1,
E3-WB.2, E3-WB.3, etc., and the design data for Skyway Frame 1, Eastbound Pier 4 are
numbered Plates E4-EB.1, E4-EB.2, E4-EB.3, etc. An additional set of load-deformation
analyses was performed for the borings located at the Main Span-East Pier (Borings 98-25 and
98-26). In the additional analyses, the load deformation-behavior was analyzed with the piles
tipped in the middle of the Upper Alameda Marine sand layer. These plates are numbered
E2-WB.2b, E2-WB.3b, E2-WB.4b, E2-EB.2b, E2-EB.3b, and E2-EB.4b.
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The pile design data provided for each pier are as follows:

Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results, including:


soil stratigraphy, interpreted design strength and submerged
unit weight profiles, unit skin friction and end-bearing
curves, and static axial pile capacity .................................................... Plate EX-YB.1

Axial Pile Load Transfer-Displacement Curves .................................. Plate EX-YB.2

Tabulated Axial Pile Load Transfer Data............................................. Plate EX-YB.3

Static Pile Head Load-Deformation Curves ......................................... Plate EX-YB.4

Plate A-5 provides a key to the legend for the Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results plates
numbered as EX-YB.1.
The preliminary pile tip elevations used in developing the load-deformation data
presented in Appendix A are shown on Plate A-6. As discussed in Section 3.0, those tip
elevations were subsequently revised on the basis of subsequent structural analyses by
TY Lin/M&N. The revised tip elevations are shown on Plate 3.1. The following sections
summarize the design methodology used to develop the information provided on the pier-specific
plates in Appendix A.
4.2

DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The piles supporting Piers E2 through E16 of the replacement bridge are proposed to be
2.5-meter-diameter pipe piles measuring approximately 100 meters in length that are driven to
depths ranging from 70 to 95 meters below the Bay floor. Since these piles are outside the range
of normal onshore experience, design methods generally used by Caltrans were considered to be
inappropriate. Therefore, the methods used for design were adapted from the American
Petroleum Institute (API) recommendations provided in the API RP 2A Guidelines for Design of
Fixed Offshore Structures (API, 1993a,b). The API guidelines were used as such, with the
generic API design equations modified to reflect the site-specific soil conditions.
The design methods were developed with the intent of providing the soil parameters
necessary for the assessment of pile performance under static and dynamic loading. Since the
principal design consideration was pile performance rather than static capacity, strict adherence
to design codes (which provide for methods to estimate capacity under static loading conditions)
was not emphasized. It was recognized that, due to rate effects and cyclic degradation, direct
comparisons between the nominal earthquake loads and the static axial capacities calculated to
exist prior to the design event were not sufficient to evaluate adequate performance under
seismic loading conditions. Hence, the most accurate prediction of the load-deformation
behavior of the piles was emphasized.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The design methods used to produce the necessary soil parameters and the related soilstructure interaction analyses are briefly discussed in the following sections of the report.
Evaluations of site-specific field test data and example calculations that model the complex soilpile interaction behavior during an earthquake are contained in Appendix B.
4.3

ULTIMATE STATIC AXIAL PILE CAPACITY

The ultimate axial capacity of driven piles is generally calculated as the algebraic sum of
the side shear (skin friction) acting on the outside surface of the embedded length of pile and the
end-bearing pressure acting on the pile tip. For clay soils, the unit side shear transfer and the unit
end-bearing pressures are calculated as functions of the undrained shear strength. For
cohesionless soils (e.g., sands and silts), the unit side shear transfer and the unit end-bearing
pressures are calculated as functions of the effective overburden pressure with limiting values
given for both the side shear and the end bearing.
4.3.1

Side Shear (Skin Friction)

Cohesive Soils. The results of static pile load tests performed by Caltrans on piles
supported in Young Bay Mud (Brittsan and Speer, 1993) were evaluated. Details of those
evaluations are presented in Appendix B. As described in Appendix B, the ultimate side shear
transfer in the pile load tests were estimated to be equal to the undrained shear strength.
Hindcast analysis to match the observed static load-settlement behavior of the pile resulted in an
estimate of the undrained strength ratio (c/p') of 0.31. Additionally, Ko Consolidated-Undrained
Triaxial Tests were performed as a part of the marine site characterization procedures. The
results of those tests also suggest a c/p' value on the order of 0.31 and are presented in the Final
Marine Geotechnical Site Characterization report (Fugro-EM, 2001e).
Commentaries within API (1993a,b) recommend that pile capacity determination should
be based on engineering judgement that takes into account site-specific soils information,
available pile load test data, and industry experience in similar soils. The API design procedure
(1993a,b) was adapted from an Offshore Technology Conference paper by Randolph and Murphy
(1985) in which the unit side shear transfer is calculated using the relationship:
f = Su
where:

= (c/p')1/2 (Su / ') -1/2

Su

= undrained shear strength at any depth

'

= effective overburden stress at any depth

c/p' = ratio of the undrained shear strength to the vertical effective


overburden pressure

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The API adopted a lower-bound value of 0.25 for the c/p' ratio for Gulf of Mexico clays,
resulting in a default value of 0.5 for the (c/p')1/2 term in Eq. 6.4.2-2 of API RP 2A (1993a,b).
Based on available site-specific data, the design methods presented in API (1993a,b) were
modified by increasing the value of the implicit c/p' ratio in API Sec. 6.4.2-2 from 0.25 to 0.31.
The ultimate unit shear transfer in the clay strata was then calculated as:

(0.31)1 / 2 S u

(0.31)

'

1/ 2

Su

'
f

where:

1 / 2

for

Su
'

1 .0

for

Su
'

> 1 .0

1 / 4

S u

= unit shear transfer

Su

= undrained shear strength at any depth

'

= effective overburden stress at any depth

= adhesion factor

While these formulations give axial shear transfer capacities in clay approximately
11 percent greater than those given by the API, they are in much closer agreement with the lower
bound of the experimental data. Since the formulations do not consider the additional shear
transfer capacity available from deposits with non-zero shear strength intercepts at the mudline,
the calculated capacities will retain an inherent degree of conservatism. However, the particular
soil conditions under consideration render the magnitude of under-prediction of axial capacity
acceptable, since only the axial capacities at shallow depths in the very soft to soft Young Bay
Mud are affected.

Cohesionless Soil. The unit shear transfer in cohesionless strata was calculated using the
API (1993a,b) procedure as:
f
where:

= k' tan f max

= coefficient of lateral earth pressure (=0.8 for both tension and


compression)

'

= effective overburden stress at any depth

= friction angle between the pile and the soil

fmax = limiting unit shear transfer

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

4.3.2

End Bearing

To preliminarily evaluate the variation of pile compression capacity with penetration,


estimates of end bearing were made along the full length of the pile. For piles end bearing in
clay strata, the unit end bearing was calculated as:
q = N cSu
where:

= unit end bearing

Nc

= bearing capacity factor for clay (= 9.0)

Su

= undrained shear strength at any depth

For piles end bearing in cohesionless soils, the unit end bearing was calculated by:

q = N q 'v q max
where:

= unit end bearing

Nq

= bearing capacity factor for cohesionless soils (a function of the soil


friction angle )

'v

= vertical effective stress at any depth

qmax = limiting unit end bearing

Equivalent Unit End Bearing. For the steel pipe piles, the end bearing was limited to
the frictional resistance of a soil/concrete plug developed inside the pile. The total skin friction
on the inside of the pile is assumed equal to the total skin friction on the outside of the pile. Any
influence of the driving shoe on the internal skin friction was ignored along with the soil end
bearing on the steel end area of the pile. The assumptions made in the analyses do not affect the
unit end bearing below the point where the pile plugs (i.e., equivalent unit end bearing becomes
equal to unit end bearing). Above this point, the frictional resistance of the soil plug limits the
unit end bearing.
Evaluations of End-Bearing Resistance for Skyway Foundations. The Main SpanEast Pier and Skyway piles are intended to tip in the primarily dense sand of the Lower Alameda
Alluvial deposits. Although it is possible to estimate the elevation at which the top of the
LAA-sand was encountered in the boring nearest each pier, the available data (see Plate 2.14)
suggest that there will be variations within the relatively large area circumscribed by the pile tips
at any pier. Additionally, as discussed in Section 2.0, the available data indicate that thin clay
layers are pervasive (see Plate 2.15) within the LAA-sand, but are typically of limited thickness.
Consequently, there is a fairly high probability that pile tips at any given pier may be tipped in
either thick layers of sand or clay.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The elevation where LAA-sand was first encountered in a boring that was considered
most representative of the conditions at each pier was selected as a reference datum for the
selection of preliminary pile tip elevations. The objective was to reduce the potential for
drivability concerns during construction, and the possibility of tipping piles in the somewhat
thicker clay layers that are more prevalent at greater depth. Thus, the preliminary pile tip
elevations were selected to be 4 meters below the top of the LAA-sand. At selected piers,
additional penetrations were considered to provide for an axial capacity of approximately 80 MN
in tension. In general, preliminary pile tip elevations typically ranged between El. -92 meters and
El. -98 meters.
In order to develop estimates of end-bearing capacity, a statistical evaluation was
performed to evaluate the probable presence of clay layers at the pile tip. Those evaluations were
performed for all marine borings and also on a frame-by-frame basis. Fugro-EMs database of
1998 boring data was used to estimate the percent of borings with clay at: 1) a particular
elevation, and 2) a particular depth below the top of LAA-sand in that boring. Those data are
summarized for all marine borings on Plates 2.18 and 2.19. All borings considered in the
analysis penetrated below the top of LAA-sand. As shown on Plate 2.18, between approximately
15 and 30 percent of the borings encountered clay layers between El. -92 and El. -98 meters.
Similarly on Plate 2.19, the data suggest that typically between 10 and 35 percent of the borings
encountered clay layers in the 5 meters (two pile diameters) below the pile tip elevation.
Although Plate 2.19 suggests that little clay was encountered in the upper 4 meters below the top
of LAA-sand, it should be noted that this particular presentation does not show variations in the
elevation of the top of LAA-sand.
To account for the potential presence of clay layers, values for the end-bearing capacity
were developed on a frame-by-frame basis using weighted averages based on the relative
amounts and thicknesses of the interbedded clay layers expected to be encountered. On the basis
of laboratory tests and in situ tests, a median value of 360 kPa was estimated for the undrained
shear strength (Su) of clay layers within the Lower Alameda Alluvial Formation. For the range of
pile tip elevations being considered for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway, the bearing
capacity factors for both sand and clay have attained limiting values. The values adopted for
design were an ultimate unit bearing pressure of 3.24 MPa for the clay layers and 11.97 MPa for
the very dense, relatively coarse LAA-sand.
The value of the unit end-bearing pressure (qu) for each frame was calculated as:

qu
where:

3.24X + 11.97Y
100

= percentage of clay layers

= percentage of sand layers

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Clay layer percentage values and the associated end-bearing values that were used for
each frame in this analysis are summarized on the following table:

4.4

Frame

Percentage of Clay Layers (X)

End Bearing (MN)

1
2
3
4

20
35
30
25

50.2
43.7
45.9
48.1

AXIAL LOAD-DEFORMATION RELATIONSHIPS

Since the stresses developed in the bridge superstructure and the acceptability of its
performance are sensitive to differential settlements between adjacent piers and among the piles
at each pier, the load-settlement behavior of the piles is equal in importance to the total capacity.
The performance of the piles under service and design loads thus warranted detailed
consideration. The behavior of the piles under static and dynamic loading conditions was
investigated using the DRIVE computer program (Matlock and Foo, 1979). In this program, the
side shear (skin friction) is modeled by nonlinear support curves that describe the development
of: a) side shear as a function of the local pile-soil displacement (t-z curves), and b) end bearing
as a function of the local pile-soil displacement at the pile tip (q-z curves). The nonlinear curves
representing the side shear were developed using methods proposed by Bogard and Matlock
(1990), while the end-bearing curve shapes were taken from API RP 2A (API, 1993a,b).

4.4.1

t-z Curves

For sand, the reactions are elastic-plastic with yielding assumed to occur at a relative pilesoil displacement of 0.00254 meter. For clays, the curves are nonlinear with the values of
displacement being proportional to the diameter. The recommended curve shapes are taken from
Bogard and Matlock (1990). The curve is of the form:

t
t max

where:

z max

z
0.3 + 0.7
z max

= the shear transfer

tmax = the peak shear transfer


z

= the pile displacement

zmax = the corresponding displacement taken as 0.01 times the diameter

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

For this study, the curve shape defined above was simplified to the following normalized
relationship between the side shear reaction and the ratio of the pile displacement to the pile
diameter:
Point

t/ tmax

z/D

0.0

0.0

0.25

0.001

0.5

0.0024

0.75

0.0048

0.9

0.072

1.0

0.0100

A proprietary study performed by Fugro disclosed that this formulation yields very close
agreement with the results of 17 pile load tests. Although similar in form, the curve shape
recommended in the API RP 2A (1993a,b) gave less satisfactory agreement, particularly for pile
head displacements near design load levels (one-half to two-thirds of the ultimate load).

4.4.2

q-z Curves

The curve shape for the pile end bearing-displacement curve is based on API RP 2A
criteria (1993a,b) and is a cubic parabola of the form:
z
D
where:

Q
= 0.10
Qu

= pile tip displacement

= pile diameter

= end-bearing reaction corresponding to tip displacement, z

Qu

= ultimate end-bearing reaction

For this study, the curve shape defined above was simplified to the following normalized
relationship between the end-bearing reaction and the ratio of the pile displacement to the pile
diameter:

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

Point

Q/Qu

z/D

1
2
3
4
5
6

0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75
0.9
1.0

0.0
0.0015
0.0125
0.0420
0.0730
0.1000

4-9

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

4.5

AXIAL PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES

Axial capacity versus displacement analyses were conducted using a single-pile model
with pier-specific, depth-varying, nonlinear axial skin friction (t-z) and end-bearing (q-z) soilsupport curves, specified pile lengths, and the preliminary pile section schedules provided by the
designer. The DRIVE program was used for the axial pile analyses since the same input data can
be used for static, quasi-static cyclic, or dynamic loading conditions. The computer program also
accepts user-defined descriptions of the sensitivity of the soils to cyclic loading, thereby enabling
the losses in resistance under cyclic loading to be estimated.
Since the soil-structure analysis program used for analysis of the SFOBB does not accept
the large number of input curves provided for in the DRIVE program, and since the location of
the input curves had to match the depths at which free-field ground motion had been estimated in
the site response analyses (Fugro-EM, 2001b), additional analyses were performed to provide
simplified profiles for the structural analysis. Preliminary analyses were performed using the
detailed stratigraphy considered representative at each pier. Subsequent analyses were performed
using a simplified profile. By comparing the results of the two solutions and adjusting the
simplified profile, compatibility of the total axial capacity and the load-settlement behavior at
each set of input support curves was obtained. Additional details and a typical example of the
procedures followed are provided in Appendix B. The resulting nonlinear pile head loaddeformation curves are provided on pier-specific Plates EX-YB.4 in Appendix A.
The load-deflection curves for the steel pipe piles indicate that the required vertical pile
head-deflections to mobilize the full compression capacities are in excess of 0.3 meter. These
relatively large deflections can be attributed to the relatively large displacements required to
mobilize the end-bearing component of the pile resistance. Significantly less deflection is
required to mobilize the full side shear component of resistance. The load deflection curves
indicate that approximately 0.05 meter of deflection is required to mobilize approximately 65 to
70 percent of the ultimate compression capacity.

4.6

EARTHQUAKE LOADING EFFECTS

As discussed in Section 3.0, the two primary impacts of earthquake loads on soil-pile
interaction are: 1) cyclic degradation of soil resistance, and 2) an increase in soil resistance
(relative to static estimates) due to rate of loading effects. Those effects may occur
simultaneously or independently, depending on the time-history of loading at the pile head.

4.6.1

Cyclic Degradation of Pile Capacity

Cyclic axial loading of long flexible piles may result in two detrimental effects: a) losses
in capacity due to cyclic degradation of the side shear, and b) progressive settlement due to the

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-10

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

nonlinear and inelastic soil response (i.e., the pile tip does not rebound during upward loading
phases to the same extent as it settles during downward loading phases at the pile head).
Since little experimental data was available to describe the progressive degradation in
axial shear transfer capacity in the San Francisco Bay clays, preliminary analyses were performed
by assuming that the cyclic degradation behavior is similar to that observed in the highly plastic
Gulf of Mexico clays. In the Gulf of Mexico clays, the cyclic minimum shear transfer was
experimentally determined to be approximately equal to the remolded shear strength. In detailed
soil-pile interaction analyses (as can be done using the DRIVE program), the degradation of peak
shear transfer (from the static value to that corresponding to the remolded shear strength of the
soil) occurs progressively with each additional cycle of loading. Details relative to the
degradation model used in such analyses are presented in Appendix B.

4.6.2

Strain Rate Effects

Earthquake ground motions result in horizontal and vertical forces on the piles that are
applied quite rapidly. It was therefore necessary to develop methods to estimate the effects of
loading rate on the magnitude of the shear transfer along the piles. A number of dynamic axial
load tests were examined to evaluate the effects of loading rate expressed as a function of the
relative pile-soil velocity. Details, results, and discussion of those tests are provided in the Final
Marine Geotechnical Site Characterization report (Fugro-EM, 2001e). Additionally, rate of
loading effects were evaluated (as described in Appendix B) from statnamic load tests on piles.
The damping coefficients that were developed from those evaluations are of the form:

C eq = Log
V
Vref
where:

Ceq = equivalent linear viscous damping coefficient

= site-specific strain rate parameter

= relative velocity of pile and soil

Vref = relative velocity of pile and soil corresponding to static loading


From dynamic direct simple shear (DSS) tests and hindcast estimates, was determined
to be 0.12. From axial load tests on a 30-inch-diameter pile in Gulf of Mexico clays, Vref was
determined to be 0.0254 millimeter per second (mm/sec). Viscous dashpots with a damping
coefficient of Ceq can be used to model rate of loading effects on shear transfer along the piles.
Additional details on the derivation of these values and examples of their application in dynamic
soil-pile interaction analyses are provided in Appendix B.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-11

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

4.6.3

Example Calculations of Earthquake Loading Effects

Example analyses of soil-pile interaction during earthquake loading were performed using
the computer program DRIVE. Detailed descriptions of those analyses are provided in
Appendix B and in Fugro-EM (1999). Those analyses were performed using preliminary pile
head load-time histories provided by TY Lin/M&N for piles at Pier E10. DRIVE has an
algorithm that models the progressive cyclic degradation of soil shear strength and allows for the
use of viscous dashpots to model strain rate effects. Sensitivity analyses were performed using
degrading soil properties, non-degraded soil properties, and reduced (but not degrading) t-z
parameters.
In general, the total settlements predicted on those preliminary analyses for piles with
degrading soil properties were similar to those for piles with no degradation as long as the piles
could mobilize significant end bearing. This observation is attributed to the fact that the majority
of the settlement appeared to be associated with the velocity/displacement pulse (referred to as
the fling) that occurs at the start of the earthquake before significant degradation occurs.
For analyses with piles tipped in sand layers of the Lower Alameda Alluvium, the
displacement appeared to stabilize after the initial fling-induced" displacement. Sensitivity
analyses performed for piles tipped in clay appeared to indicate progressive and larger settlement
during the earthquake. However, it should be noted that the load time histories used in these
analyses were generated for the stiffer pile response corresponding to sand end bearing.
Somewhat reduced loads (and therefore smaller predicted settlements) would be anticipated for a
softer pile with clay end bearing.
Although the analyses using degrading soil models indicated that side shear resistance of
the pile could be reduced by up to 25 percent, there appears to be ample capacity remaining at the
end of the earthquake to resist service loads. Most of the strength degradation appeared to be
within the relatively soft Young Bay Mud layers. Over time, the pile will likely set up to its
design static capacity.
The numerical models used by TY Lin/M&N generally are not able to model the
degradation of soil resistance. However, the DRIVE program does not perfectly model the
structural connectivity to the pile. Hence, the changes in pile-head load due to the pile response
also are not modeled. Consequently, an iterative procedure would have been required to
accurately model the earthquake performance of the piles. However, since the preliminary
analyses suggested that the estimated pile settlements were similar in cases with and without
degrading soil response, TY Lin/M&N elected not to model the cyclic degradation of soil
resistance in their structural analyses.
The extent of cyclic degradation and pile performance is affected by the relative pile
stiffness, the distribution of soil reactions with depth, and the magnitude of axial loads. Thus,
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-12

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

the observations from the example calculations may not be universally applicable to other piers
with differing structural, foundation, and soil characteristics.

4.6.4

Recommendations for Design

As discussed in Section 3.0, the use of conventional safety factor-based analyses is not
always meaningful in evaluating the performance of a structure during earthquake loading. The
procedures used to estimate pile capacity frequently include some level of conservatism. The use
of conservative soil properties, while appropriate for service load design, may not always be
suitable for evaluating the seismic performance of the structure. In some cases, conservatism
in pile support parameters and the consequent modeling of a relatively soft pile response can
result in underprediction of stresses on the structure due to the earthquake. Therefore, it is
recommended that structural design consider a range of soil support conditions to establish both
the potential settlements at the piers and the stresses in the structure.
Load tests in San Francisco Bay soils (Brittsan and Speer, 1993) have shown that the unit
side shear resistance on a pile can equal the undrained shear strength of the supporting soil,
whereas the average skin friction values used in the static estimates generated using the modified
API (1993a,b) methodology are typically on the order of 70 percent of the undrained shear
strength of the surrounding soils. Those load tests therefore indicate that the available side shear
resistance may be as much as 40 percent higher than that which would be used for design.
Similarly, the API (1993a,b) procedures apply a limit to the end-bearing capacity that can be used
for static design. Case histories document end-bearing resistances that are similar to those that
would be calculated using bearing capacity factors that are commensurate with those predicted
theoretically for the angle of internal friction of the soils at the pile tip. For the typical length of
piles being considered for the Main Span East Pier and Skyway Structures, the removal of the
API limiting end bearing produce end-bearing capacities that are on the order of 2.5 times larger
than are recommended for the evaluation of service loads.
For earthquake anlayses of the structure, it is recommended that the range of soil support
conditions be established using:
1. The static pile design parameters presented in Appendix A for the service load
performance evaluations; and
2. The t-z curves established by using a side shear capacity 1.4 times that used for static
design and q-z curves established by using end-bearing capacities 2.5 times stiffer
than those used for static design.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-13

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Additional sensitivity analyses should also be performed to evaluate the potential impacts
on the structure due to at least some of the piles at a pier being tipped in clay interbeds in the
LAA-sand. Those piles will likely exhibit a somewhat softer response under extreme seismic
events due to reduced end bearing. Sensitivity analyses should also be performed to evaluate the
stiffer response of the piles due to the stiff end-bearing spring where piles are to be tipped in
bedrock at Piers E3 through E5.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC4.MAR.DOC

4-14

SECTION 5.0

SECTION 5.0
PILE SETUP

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

5.0 PILE SETUP


5.1

INTRODUCTION

Pile setup is a complex physical phenomenon. Although general mechanisms are


understood, the specific behavior and results of the phenomenon are difficult to predict. During
continuous driving in fine-grained soils, the soil near the pile tip and wall is sheared and
remolded. This process generates large excess pore water pressures that reduce the effective
stress and soil shear strength in the vicinity of the pile wall. Therefore, at the end of driving, the
skin friction component of pile capacity in fine-grained soil will be significantly less than the
static skin friction pile capacity used for design.
As the pore pressures generated during pile installation dissipate and the effective stresses
in the vicinity of the pile wall increase, the pile capacity will increase. Field measurements from
numerous projects and studies have shown that the time required for piles to achieve their
ultimate geotechnical capacity in clay soils can be on the order of months to years. The reduced
pile capacity at the end of driving and the subsequent rate and magnitude of pile setup should be
considered in the scheduling of construction activities that will transmit load to the pile
foundation.
5.2

PREDICTION OF PILE SETUP

Field measurements have shown that the rate of pile setup in clay soils differs between
displacement and open-ended pipe piles. The rate of setup varies with pile diameter, pile wall
thickness, and the horizontal coefficient of consolidation of the soil. The time rate phenomenon
of setup is strongly influenced by the permeability of the zone immediately surrounding the pile.
Since measurements of permeability and pore pressure dissipation rates are one of the least
accurately predicted phenomena in geotechnical engineering, there is uncertainty associated with
setup predictions. Consequently, in the absence of site-specific setup data, some conservatism is
warranted in the predictions of setup.
Two methods have been used to predict setup. Initially, a procedure developed by
Bogard and Matlock (1990) that was based on a lower bound of available empirical data from the
Gulf of Mexico was used. Because there is an absence of site-specific setup measurements for
large-diameter steel pipe piles, the estimated setup predictions were anticipated to be
conservative. Subsequently, the procedure developed by Soderberg (1962) has since been
incorporated to better utilize the available radial coefficient of consolidation data from this
project. The applicability of the Soderberg procedure was later verified by data obtained from
the Pile Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP).

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC5.MAR.DOC

5-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

5.2.1

Preliminary Predictions of Pile Setup in Clay

The Bogard and Matlock approach is based on a large number of experiments on Gulf of
Mexico clays with instrumented probes and piles with various diameters and wall thicknesses.
The empirical design procedures that were developed from those experiments include the effects
of pile diameter, wall thickness, and plugging on the rate of consolidation and setup (Bogard and
Matlock, 1990).
The procedure presented by Bogard and Matlock (1990) provide a single function
describing the relationship between setup and time. This procedure implicitly assumes an initial
setup factor of 5 and was developed as a lower bound of the experimental data. The
experimental data presented in Bogard and Matlock (1990) also were used to derive an upper
bound relationship, which assumes a setup factor of 3. The equations for the upper bound and
lower bound estimates are as follows:

where:

Lower Bound:

Q( t ) = Q u [0.20 + 0.80 U]

Upper Bound:

Q( t ) = Q u [0.33 + 0.67 U]

Q(t) = axial capacity due to side shear at time, t


Qu

= ultimate static axial capacity due to side shear

= percent consolidation (or setup) described by:


t
t 50

U =

1+
where:

t50

t
t 50

= time required for dissipation of 50 percent of the excess pore


pressures and is described by the relationship presented by Soderberg
(1962):
t50 = r2/ch

where:

= pile radius

ch

= radial coefficient of consolidation (ch = 5.4 square meters per year


(m2/yr)

The modified Bogard and Matlock (1990) curves presented on Plate 5.1 were based on
experimental data from the Gulf of Mexico for piles with a pile diameter to pile wall thickness
ratio (D/t) equal to 40, which is similar to the D/t ratio for the SFOBB piles. Although those
relationships were known to be somewhat conservative, in the absence of site-specific data, they
were recommended for preliminary design.
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC5.MAR.DOC

5-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

5.2.2

Revised Setup Predictions Based on Soderberg (1962)

The relationship for pile setup in clay developed by Soderberg (1962) also has been used.
With this prediction method, the laboratory measurements of the radial coefficient of
consolidation and the site-specific PIDP data can be incorporated in the predictions. Soderberg
solved the radial consolidation problem with a finite difference approach. His solution is
presented as a plot of percent pore pressure dissipation at the pile surface versus a dimensionless
time factor (T) defined as:
T = (ch t)/rp2
where:

ch

= coefficient of radial consolidation

= time

rp

= pile radius

Predictions of setup using the Soderberg (1962) relationship assume ultimate setup
factors ranging from 3 to 5. A value of the horizontal coefficient of consolidation (ch) was
chosen for the Soderberg method based on available consolidation data in the Young and Old
Bay Muds and a series of multiple orientation consolidation tests conducted as part of the
Phase 2 marine site characterization (Fugro-EM, 2001e). The consolidation data show that a
vertical coefficient of consolidation (cv) of approximately 8 square meters per year [m2/yr] is
representative of approximately the lower one-third of the data. Based on available multioriented consolidation test data in the overconsolidated range of stresses, the ratio of ch to cv was
estimated to be about 1.5. On the basis of that data, a ch of 12 m2/yr was used for the setup
predictions using Soderberg (1962).
The assumed values of setup and ch were validated by the data obtained from the PIDP.
The Soderberg setup curves reasonably bounded the interpreted clay skin friction setup data from
the PIDP (see Fugro-EM, 2001f). The interpretation of the PIDP data should be considered
somewhat approximate since: 1) the data was interpreted from CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave
Analysis Program) analyses with assumptions regarding the thickness and distribution of clay
layers; 2) the longest setup period was only about 33 days, a relatively short time compared to
the anticipated time required to reach the ultimate skin friction capacities; and 3) the PIDP tests
were conducted at only two locations along the approximately 2.1-kilometer-long Skyway
structure alignment.
5.2.3

Discussion of Prediction of Pile Setup in Clay

Upper- and lower-bound curves of predicted setup of skin friction in clay are provided on
Plate 5.1 for both the Bogard and Matlock (1990) and Soderberg (1962) approaches. The
Soderberg curves (using site-specific estimates of ch) predict considerably faster setup during the
first 3 to 4 months. Thereafter, the two sets of setup curves converge. The predictions using the

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC5.MAR.DOC

5-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Soderberg relationship suggest that 50 percent of the ultimate skin friction capacity in clay is
available in less than about 20 days. Predictions using the Bogard and Matlock relationship
suggest that approximately 1 to 2 months are required to develop 50 percent of the ultimate skin
friction capacity. The time required to reach approximately 80 percent of the ultimate skin
friction capacity ranges from 9 to 10 months using the Soderberg relationship to 8 to 10 months
using the Bogard and Matlock relationship.

5.2.4

Setup in Sand

Setup within the sand layers encountered along the N6 alignment is generally expected to
occur relatively quickly compared to the setup of the fine-grained soils. The setup rate in sand
depends on the amount and type of fines in the sand layer, the grain size distribution, the extent
and thickness of the sand layer, the amount of smearing of adjacent clay layers into the sand, and
other factors. The temporary degradation of pile resistance due to pile driving and subsequent
setup of the pile capacity in sand layers has generally been ignored in these analyses.

5.3

IMPACT OF PILE SETUP ON CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

5.3.1

Preliminary Evaluations

TY Lin/M&N developed anticipated load-time histories during construction for the most
heavily loaded piles at two Skyway piers (TY Lin/M&N, 2000c). Those time histories suggest
that placement of the (cast-in-place) pile cap, pier, and pier cap generally do not transmit
significant loads to the piles. Construction of the subsequent precast deck sections is anticipated
to use unbalanced cantilever construction techniques, and the spans within a frame will be jacked
to reduce potential shrinkage-induced loads. Those activities transmit large loads to the piles.
The application of deck section loads to the piles will occur during the time frame when setup is
expected to occur. Thus, the load capacity of the piles while the deck is being constructed will
be less than the ultimate pile capacity. The load-deflection characteristics during this time period
will be softer than the ultimate load-deformation behavior of the pile.
To help evaluate how the construction loading will affect the axial pile head loaddeformation behavior, a series of preliminary analyses were performed using the computer
program DRIVE. The analyses were performed for the "worst case" piers within each of the
Skyway frames. The "worst case" piers were selected as those with the least number of sand
inclusions above the pile tip elevation, which should correspond to the location where the setup
will be slowest.
Load-deformation curves were then generated for compression and tension at different
times after the end of continuous driving. For those analyses, the t-z curves at each time were
reduced by the factor shown on the Bogard and Matlock (1990) setup curves presented on Plate
5.1. No reduction was applied to the end-bearing q-z curves or the t-z curves in sand layers.
Ultimate end-bearing values were assumed to be the average values provided in Section 3.0 of
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC5.MAR.DOC

5-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

this report. The analysis results for each of the "worst case" piers were provided in a Fugro-EM
project memorandum (2000).
The analyses were used to estimate the minimum time required before a particular
construction activity could be conducted. Since little site-specific data were available to predict
setup, the relatively conservative techniques presented by Bogard and Matlock (1990) were
adopted in generating those estimates. The minimum time estimates before particular
construction activities could occur were predicted for both capacity and load-deformation
criteria. Those criteria were:

The time required to achieve a factor of safety of 1.5 on side shear (skin friction)
capacity alone (without consideration of the end-bearing capacity); and

The time required to maintain axial pile-head displacement of less than 20 mm as


predicted using the monotonic load-deformation curves for side shear.

From those analyses, the minimum required waiting periods (following the end of initial pile
driving) before the initiation of a construction activity were estimated.

5.3.2

Findings From the Pile Installation Demonstration Project

Data from the PIDP generally indicate that pile setup at the PIDP locations occurred
faster than the original (conservative) predictions using the Bogard and Matlock (1990) setup
curves. The PIDP setup data therefore provides a basis for revising the previously recommended
approach relative to construction waiting periods.
Estimated skin friction capacities (from CAPWAP analyses) calculated using data from a
series of restrikes conducted on the PIDP piles are presented on Plate 5.2. The PIDP data
suggests that 65 to 70 MN of skin friction capacity were available approximately 30 days after
the end of initial driving at the PIDP Primary Test Location. The anticipated load-time history
provided by TY Lin/M&N (2000c) for eastbound Pier E8 also is presented on Plate 5.2. A
comparison of the anticipated loads with the available capacity suggests that the allowable pile
capacity (based on skin friction capacity with a factor of safety of 1.5 [FS=1.5]) will exceed the
maximum anticipated construction pile load (Pier 8 Jack Span 4, ~45 MN) after approximately 1
month. At these load levels, monotonic pile-head load-deformation analyses predict about 20
mm of axial pile-head deflection.
Predicted pile setup curves based on the Soderberg (1962) method also are provided on
Plate 5.2. The predicted range of pile setup assumes:

Average clay sensitivity of 2.5 (a reasonable assumption based on available


sensitivity data obtained during the field exploration program),

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC5.MAR.DOC

5-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

80 percent of the skin friction capacity from clay layers (based on static pile capacity
calculations at the PIDP Primary Test Location), and

Ultimate skin friction capacities ranging from 80 to 110 MN.

The assumed range of ultimate skin friction capacities considers the likelihood (based on
the PIDP data) that the total skin friction capacity at the PIDP locations will meet or exceed the
calculated API (1993a,b) design capacity (approximately 80 MN). The setup curves based on
the above assumptions appear to bound the PIDP total skin friction capacity estimates.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC5.MAR.DOC

5-6

SFOBB Task Order No.5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1.0

Notes:
1) The Bogard et al. (1990) setup curves were provided as preliminary (conservative)
recommendations in the absence of site-specific setup data for large-diameter piles.
2) The Soderberg (1962) setup curves assume Ch = 12 m2/yr, estimated from site-specific,
multi-oriented consolidation test data (see Section 5 for discussion).

0.9

0.7
Predicted Range of Setup
Soderberg (1962)

0.6

Bogard et al. (1990)

0.5

Extended Time View


Normalized Pile Side Shear Capacity,
Qs/Qsultimate

Normalized Pile Side Shear Capacity, Qs/Qsultimate

0.8

0.4

0.3

0.2

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1

10

100

1000

Time (days)

0.1

0.0
0

10

11

12

Time (months)

PREDICTED SETUP OF SKIN FRICTION IN CLAY


2.5-Meter-Diameter Steel Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\...\Plate5.1.xls\Plate 5.1

PLATE 5.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Estimated Total CAPWAP Skin


Friction Capacity

100

Pile 1

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity and Pile Loads (MN)

Pile 2
Pile 3
Predicted setup of ultimate skin friction capacity is based on the Soderberg
(1962) method. The setup predictions assume
1) Average clay sensitivity of 2.5,
2) 80% of skin friction capacity from clay layers, and
3) Ultimate skin friction capacities ranging from 80 to 110 MN.

80

Allowable Pile Capacity, FS =


filler2
1.5 (Skin Friction)

filler1
Pile 1
Pile 2
Pile 3

60
Start of Cantilever Construction

Jack Span 4

40
Estimated Pile Construction Load Time
History, Pier E8 (TY Lin/M&N, 2000)
Maximum Construction Load, Jack Span
4, Pier E8 (45 MN)

20

0
0

25

50

75

100

125
Time (days)

150

175

200

225

PLATE 5.2

ESTIMATED CAPWAP SKIN FRICTION CAPACITY AND ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION PILE LOADS
Pile Capacity from Pile Installation Demonstration Project
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

250

SECTION 6.0

SECTION 6.0
PILE DRIVABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

6.0 PILE DRIVABILITY CONSIDERATIONS


6.1

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the constructibility of the proposed pile foundations, preliminary pile


drivability analyses were performed for the Main Span-East Pier and selected Skyway piers. The
following sections summarize:

6.2
6.2.1

Methodology and conditions considered in the preliminary drivability evaluations,


Results of the preliminary drivability analyses, and
Findings from the PIDP.

DRIVABILITY ANALYSES
Analytical Process

Drivability analyses are typically conducted to develop profiles of predicted blow counts
and driving stresses versus pile penetration to evaluate the suitability of the proposed pile driving
hammer system and to help highlight possible driving problems (e.g., early pile refusal or
excessive driving stresses).
A schematic illustration of the processes involved in performing drivability analyses is
presented on Plate 6.1. As shown on Plate 6.1, drivability analyses generally consist of three
steps:
1. Estimate Soil Resistance to Driving. A soil resistance to driving (SRD) profile is
developed for the anticipated soil profile. The SRD profiles are typically derived
from the estimated static ultimate pile capacity profiles. The unit skin friction from
the static pile capacity analyses may then be reduced (particularly in clays) to account
for the degradation of soil resistance during driving. The methodologies used to
calculate SRD for this project are presented in Section 6.2.2.
2. Perform Wave Equation Analyses. Wave equation analyses are conducted that
model the particular pilepile driving hammer system. The wave equation analyses
establish the relationship between SRD and blow count (and driving stress) as
presented in Section 6.2.3.
3. Develop Profiles of Blow Counts and Driving Stresses. The SRD profile and the
results of the wave equation analysis are combined to develop a profile of pile
penetration versus predicted blow count and/or driving stresses.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

6.2.2

Soil Resistance to Driving

Computation of the soil resistance to pile driving is analogous to the computation of


ultimate axial pile capacity by the static method. The resistance to driving is the sum of the shaft
resistance and the toe resistance during driving. The shaft resistance is computed by multiplying
the average unit skin friction during driving and the embedded surface area of the pile. The toe
resistance is computed by multiplying the unit end bearing and the end-bearing area. Unlike
static pile capacity computations, end bearing is not limited to the frictional resistance developed
by the soil plug.
Stevens Method. Stevens et al. (1982) recommended computing lower-and upper-bound
values of soil resistance to driving for both coring and plugged pile conditions. When a pile
cores, relative movement between pile and soil occurs both on the outside and inside of the pile
wall. Shaft resistance, therefore, may be developed on both the outside and inside pile wall. For
the coring condition, the end-bearing area is equal to the cross-sectional area of steel at the
driving shoe. When a pile plugs, the soil plug moves down with the pile during driving. For the
plugged condition, shaft resistance is mobilized only on the outer wall, and the end-bearing area
is the gross area of the pile.
Whether or not the advancing pile is coring, partially plugged, or plugged is determined
by the soil conditions, pile diameter, pile roughness, and pile acceleration during driving. As
discussed by Stevens (1988), the plugging of large-diameter pipe piles during continuous driving
in predominantly cohesive soils is unlikely. The piles are assumed to initially plug, however,
after each add-on is made. For a coring pile, a lower bound of SRD is computed assuming that
the skin friction developed on the inside of the pile is negligible. An upper bound of the SRD is
computed assuming the internal skin friction is equal to 50 percent of the external skin friction.
For a plugged pile, a lower bound is computed using unadjusted values of unit skin
friction and unit end bearing. An upper bound plugged case for granular soils is computed by
increasing the unit skin friction by 30 percent and the unit end bearing by 50 percent. A
corresponding increase in limiting values for unit skin friction and unit end bearing is assumed.
For cohesive soils, the unit skin friction is not increased and the unit end bearing is computed
using a bearing capacity factor of 15, which is an increase of 67 percent.
For sand layers, a "smoothing" process is used to account for the effects of soil layering,
which may reduce the calculated unit end-bearing (UEB) values. This process assumes that the
full UEB in sand layers will not be mobilized until the pile penetrates at least three pile diameters
into the sand layer. Similarly, it is assumed that the pile will not mobilize the full end bearing
below a distance of three pile diameters above the bottom of the sand layer. The three pilediameter transition zones at the top and bottom of the sand layers are based on project experience
and results of model pile tests by Vesic (1977). The UEB reduction process to account for the

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

layering effect is typically carried out through a graphical procedure as outlined in McClelland
Engineers (1981)
The lower- and upper-bound soil resistance curves represent experience gained from
previous projects. Our experience with the drivability of large-diameter steel pipe piles into
predominantly clay soils indicates that the soil resistance calculated for a "coring" pile will
generally provide the best estimate of the field blow counts, provided the pile wall is of adequate
thickness to effectively transmit the energy transmitted by an adequately sized pile driving
hammer.
With the exception of clay skin friction, the unit skin friction and unit end-bearing values
used in the drivability analyses are the same as those used to compute static pile capacity. For
piles driven in cohesive soils, the unit skin friction during continuous driving is computed using
the stress history approach presented by Semple and Gemeinhardt (1981). The unit skin friction
for static loading is first computed by using the method recommended by the American
Petroleum Institute (API RP 2A [API, 1986]). The unit skin friction for static loading is then
adjusted incrementally by multiplying it by a pile capacity factor, such that:
fdr = Fp f
where:

fdr

= unit skin friction used in the drivability analyses

Fp

= an empirical pile capacity factor

= unit skin friction for static loading conditions

The pile capacity factor empirically determined from wave equation analyses performed
for six sites is given by:
Fp = 0.5 (OCR)0.3

The OCR may be estimated from: a) the measured undrained shear strength and
Atterberg limit data, b) consolidation test results, and/or c) correlation with CPT tip resistance.
When based on the measured undrained shear strength and Atterberg limit data OCR is estimated
using the following equations.

Su
S unc
where:

Su

= (OCR ) 0.85

= actual undrained shear strength of clay having a given plasticity index


(PI)

Sunc = undrained shear strength of the same clay if normally consolidated

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

According to a relationship developed by Skempton (1944):

S unc
where:

= 'vo (0.11 + 0.0037 PI)

'vo = effective overburden pressure


PI

= plasticity index.

OCR is estimated from CPT tip resistances using the following equations:
'p = 0.33 (qc - 'vo)
OCR = 'p / 'vo
where:

vo = effective overburden pressure


p

= preconsolidation stress

qc

= cone tip resistance

Sensitivity-Based Method. The sensitivity-based approach uses the same methodology


as the Stevens et al. (1982) method, with the exceptions that: 1) the unit skin friction (fs) for
static loading is computed using the more recent API (1993a,b) recommendations with sitespecific modifications in developing unit skin friction estimates; and 2) the clay SRD is
calculated by reducing the calculated ultimate clay unit skin friction values by the measured clay
sensitivity (the ratio of the undisturbed to remolded clay shear strengths). The sensitivity-based
reduction of unit skin friction in clay for the development of SRD is similar to a model presented
by Dutt et al. (1995) that predicts SRD for large-diameter pipe piles in normally consolidated
clays. The measured clay sensitivities are typically determined from remolded undrained shear
strength tests. As in the Stevens et al. (1982) method, the unit skin friction and unit end-bearing
values for granular soils are the same as those used to compute static pile capacity (i.e., the
sensitivity in granular soil is taken to be 1).
Example SRD Calculations. An illustrative example of the calculation of SRD for both
the Stevens et al. (1982) and the sensitivity-based methods for the design soil profile at Pier E7
Eastbound (Boring 98-49) is presented on Plate 6.2. Shown on Plate 6.2 are:

Soil stratigraphy

Interpreted design submerged unit weight and shear strength profiles

Unit skin friction profiles using the following methodologies:


API (1986), applicable to the Stevens et al. (1982) method
API (1993a,b) with site specific modifications applicable to the sensitivity-based
method

Unit end-bearing profile

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The skin friction reduction values:


The Fp factor for the Stevens et al. (1982) method
The inverse of the clay sensitivities for the sensitivity-based method

Calculated upper- and lower-bound coring case SRD profiles for both the Stevens
et al. (1982) and sensitivity-based methods.

The example calculations on Plate 6.2 demonstrate the relative differences in the unit skin
friction and skin friction reduction values between the two methods used to calculate SRD. In
addition, Plate 6.2 shows that the skin friction "reduction" value equals 1 in sand.
The example on Plate 6.2 also illustrates the differences between the two predicted SRD
profiles. The sensitivity-based SRD is considerably lower than the Stevens-based SRD in the
upper 30 to 40 meters of the soil profile. Below about 40 meters, the sensitivity-based profiles
are typically 20 to 30 percent less than the Stevens-based SRD profiles. In the very dense sand
layers of the Lower Alameda Alluvial sediments, the two SRD profile tend to converge.
6.2.3

Wave Equation Analyses

The GRLWEAP (GRL&A, 1997) computer program, originally coded as WEAP by


Goble and Rausche (1976), was used for this study. Wave equation analysis of pile driving is
based on the discrete element idealization of the hammer-pile-soil system formulated by Smith
(1960). The parameters used in the wave equation analysis can be divided into three groups:
1) hammer parameters, 2) pile parameters, and 3) soil parameters. These parameters are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Hammer Parameters. Air/steam hammers are modeled by three segments: 1) the ram
as a weight with infinite stiffness, 2) the cushion as a weightless spring with finite stiffness, and
3) the pile cap as a weight with infinite stiffness. For hydraulic hammers, such as were
considered in this analysis, a cushion is not used and the ram impacts directly on the pile cap.
The pile driving hammer is described by the:

Rated hammer energy,


Efficiency of the hammer,
Weight of the ram,
Weight of the pile cap,
Cushion stiffness, and
Coefficients of restitution for the ram hitting the cushion and for the pile cap-pile
contact.

The rated energy and the weight of the ram and pile cap are obtained from the
manufacturer. The hammer efficiency and cushion properties are either the measured driving
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

system performance data (estimated from Fugro's proprietary database for 23 offshore hammers
and 12 cushion configurations) or published values.
Pile Parameters. The pile is divided into an appropriate number of segments of
approximately equal length. Each pile segment is modeled as a weight and a spring. The pile
parameters consist of the diameter, the wall thickness schedule, modulus of elasticity of the pile
material, unit weight of the pile material, free-standing length of pile, and penetration below the
bay floor.
Soil Parameters. The soil resistance is distributed along the side of each embedded
element and at the pile toe. During driving, the static component of resistance on each element is
represented by an elastic spring with a friction block used to represent the ultimate static
resistance. The dynamic component of resistance is modeled by a dashpot. There are essentially
three soil parameters used in the wave equation analyses: 1) the quake (also referred to as the
elastic ground compression) for the side and toe of the pile, 2) the damping coefficient for the
side and toe of the pile, and 3) the percentage of the total resistance to driving along the shaft of
the pile.
The soil quake and damping parameters recommended by Roussel (1979) were used in
these wave equation analyses. Those parameters were determined from an analysis of the driving
records of 58 large-diameter offshore piles at 15 offshore sites in the Gulf of Mexico. The side
and toe quakes are assumed equal, with a magnitude of 0.25 centimeter (cm) for stiff to hard
clay, silt, and sand. Side damping in clay decreases with increasing shear strength, which is in
agreement with the laboratory test results of Coyle and Gibson (1970) and Heerema (1979). Toe
damping of 0.49 second per meter (recommended for firm to hard clay, silt, and sand) was
adopted in these analyses.
6.2.4

Evaluation of Pile Drivability

Preliminary evaluations of pile drivability were conducted for representative conditions


underlying the Main Span-East Pier and each Skyway frame based on the subsurface conditions
encountered in the 1998 marine borings. For each Skyway frame, a "best" case and a "worst"
case pier were selected for analysis. The "worst case" pier was the location with the greatest
thickness of relatively deep, dense sand layers above the anticipated pile tip elevation in the
associated boring. Conversely, the "best case" pier was the location with the least thickness of
deep, dense sand above the anticipated pile tip elevation in the associated boring. The selected
"best" and "worst" case piers are tabulated below:

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Location

"Best" Case

"Worst" Case

Main Span-East Pier

Pier E2 (Boring 98-26)

Pier E2 (Boring 98-25)

Frame 1

Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)

Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)

Frame 2

Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)

Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)

Frame 3

Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)

Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)

Frame 4

Pier E14-Westbound (Boring 98-36)

Pier E15-Westbound (Boring 98-37)

The preliminary drivability analyses for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway Frames 1
through 4 were for 2.5-meter, open-ended pipe piles. Three pile driving hammers (Menck MHU
500T, Menck MHU 1000, and Menck MHU 1700) were considered in the evaluation. The
characteristics of those hammers are summarized on Plate 6.3. The evaluation was based on a
preliminary wall thickness schedule provided by TY Lin/M&N. That wall thickness schedule is
provided on Plate 6.4. The results of these drivability analyses are preliminary and should be
reevaluated after the final pile wall thickness schedule and final driving system have been
established.
Wave equation analyses were performed using the hammer, pile, and soil parameters
given on Plates 6.3 and 6.4. The GRLWEAP (GRL&A, 1997) computer program was used to
model the Menck MHU 500T, 1000, and 1700 hammers. For the purpose of those analyses, the
Menck MHU 500T, 1000 and 1700 hammers were considered to be operating at a hammer
efficiency of 95 percent. The coefficient of restitution for the ram impacting on the pile cap and
the pile cap impacting on the pile were assumed to be 0.98 and 0.95, respectively.
6.3

RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY DRIVABILITY ANALYSES

Both the predicted blow count versus depth and the soil resistance to driving curves
estimated from wave equation analyses for the piers considered in this study are discussed in the
following sections and illustrated on the pier-specific plates in Appendix A. The estimated pile
run and maximum predicted blow count from the analyses are summarized on Plate 6.5.
6.3.1

Computed Soil Resistance to Driving

The computed SRD for each of the piers considered in these preliminary pile drivability
analyses is provided in the pier-specific plates in Appendix A at the end of this report. The soil
resistance to driving was computed using the Stevens et al. (1982) method outlined in the
preceding sections.
The SRD profiles indicate that within the primarily clay Young Bay Mud and Old Bay
Mud/Upper Alameda Marine sequences, the coring and plugged soil resistances are relatively
similar. In contrast, the SRD estimated for the plugged case is significantly greater than that

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

estimated for the coring case within the relatively thick and dense sand layers of the Upper
Alameda Marine (UAM) Paleochannel Sand and LAA-sand. The UAM Paleochannel Sand is
generally present in the vicinity of the Main Span-East Pier. The Skyway pile foundations are
expected to be driven into or through the LAA-sand.
6.3.2

Pile Run

The term "pile run" is used to describe the penetration of the pile due to the self-weight of
the pile and the weight of the hammer. Preliminary estimates of the pile-run due to self weight
and the weight of the hammer were made by comparing an assumed weight of the first pile
section and the hammer with the calculated Stevens et al. (1982) lower-bound soil resistance to
driving. Those estimates are summarized for each hammer considered on Plate 6.5. As shown
on Plate 6.5, the pile run ranges from 9 to 16 meters for the Menck MHU 500T hammer, from 12
to 18 meters for the Menck MHU 1000 hammer, and from 14 to 24 meters for the Menck MHU
1700 hammer. The estimates of pile run presented on Plate 6.5 are preliminary and should be
reevaluated based upon the final pile wall thickness schedule, the number and length of pile
sections, and the pile driving hammer system.
Use of the sensitivity-based SRD values to evaluate pile run would generally result in
values of pile run that increase by up to approximately 70 percent over the values estimated using
the Stevens et al. (1982) SRD profiles. The relatively large difference is attributed to the
significantly lower SRD values predicted by the sensitivity-based method in the shallower
portion of the stratigraphy.
6.3.3

Blow Counts

The predicted blow count profiles for each of the piers considered in these preliminary
pile drivability analyses are provided in the pier-specific plates in Appendix A at the end of this
report. The predicted blow count profiles in Appendix A are based on the Stevens et al. (1982)
soil resistance to driving outlined in the preceding sections. For comparison, the coring case
blow counts computed using the sensitivity-based and Stevens et al. (1982) SRD profiles for
Pier E7 Eastbound are presented on Plate 6.6.
Young Bay Mud and Old Bay Mud/Upper Alameda Marine Clay Sediments. As
described in Section 2.0, the Young Bay Mud (YBM) and Old Bay Mud/Upper Alameda Marine
(OBM/UAM) sequences are comprised primarily of marine clay sediments. When driving
through those sediments, our experience suggests that the coring cases are generally
representative of conditions during continuous driving, while the plugged cases are representative
of conditions subsequent to significant delays.
The initial pile section is expected to "run" through the majority of the Young Bay Mud
(YBM) sediments under the weight of the pile and hammer. Blow counts in the YBM sediments
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

are expected to be relatively low, generally under 10 blows per 0.25 meter (bpqm) for the smaller
Menck 500T hammer.
Within the clay sediments of the Old Bay Mud/Upper Alameda Marine (OBM/UAM)
sequence, the drivability analyses suggest that the piles can be driven relatively easily with the
three hammers investigated. The blow counts for the upper-bound coring case with the smaller
Menck 500T hammer were less than 70 bpqm and typically less than 50 bpqm. The maximum
blow count for the upper-bound plugged case in the clay sediments was typically less than
125 bpqm for the Menck 500T hammer. Those blow counts suggest that even with the smaller
hammer, delays during driving in the clay sediments of the OBM/UAM sequence are unlikely to
significantly impact the installation of the piles.
Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand. The Upper Alameda Marine (UAM)
Paleochannel Sand is a relatively thick (10- to 20-meter) deposit of dense to very dense sand that
underlies the western portion of the alignment. The interpreted lateral and vertical extent of the
stratum are discussed in Section 2.0 of this report and shown on Plate 2.11a.
The UAM Paleochannel Sand is 12 to 15 meters thick under the Main Span-East Pier and
is expected to significantly impact the pile driving at that location. To achieve 80 MN (tension
capacity requirement specified by TY Lin/M&N during preliminary evaluations) of ultimate axial
tension capacity at the Main Span-East Pier, will require the piles to be driven through the UAM
Paleochannel Sand into the underlying LAA-sand. On the basis of the drivability analyses, the
development of plugged conditions (such as during delays) within the UAM Paleochannel Sand
could result in refusal even for the larger MHU 1700 hammer. If the pile foundations for the
Main Span-East Pier are to be driven through the UAM Paleochannel Sand, supplementary
installation techniques may be required. To reduce the potential for encountering refusal to
driving within the UAM Paleochannel Sand, delays during driving through those layers should be
avoided.
As shown on Plate 2.11a, the UAM Paleochannel Sand is also present beneath Pier E3.
However, since this location is interpreted as being along the flank of the channel, the thickness
of sequence is estimated to be about 3 to 4 meters. Because the UAM Paleochannel Sand
stratum is relatively thin, refusal during driving is generally not expected at Pier E3.
Lower Alameda Alluvium (LAA). As discussed in Section 3.0 of this report, piles
supporting Skyway Piers E6 through E16 are generally to be driven 4 meters below the estimated
top of the LAA-sand. As shown on Plate 2.4, interpreted structural contours at the top of the
LAA-sand range from approximately El. -85 to El. -95 meters. For the Skyway foundations, it is
expected that the maximum blow counts during driving will typically occur at or a few meters
above the specified tip elevation.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-9

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The maximum predicted blow counts at each pier chosen for drivability analysis are
summarized on Plate 6.5 and below:

Blow counts in excess of 250 bpqm may be encountered, even for the coring case,
when using the smaller MHU 500T hammer.

Blow counts above 80 bpqm are expected under coring conditions for the MHU 1000
hammer.

Under plugged driving conditions, the MHU 500T is likely to meet refusal prior to
reaching the specified tip elevations.

The larger MHU 1700 is generally capable of driving to the specified tip elevations
even when plugged. However, as indicated on Plate 6.5, refusal could be encountered
at select piers with the MHU 1700 if the pile plugs.

The lower-bound coring case blow counts in the LAA clay cap probably are indicative of
the lower-bound blow counts to be expected in the LAA-clay interbeds that may be present at the
pile tip elevations. Lower-bound coring case blow counts within the LAA clay cap typically
range from 30 to 35 bpqm for the MHU 500T, 20 to 28 bpqm for the MHU 1000, and 10 to 13
bpqm for the MHU 1700.
In general, the drivability analyses suggest that the MHU 500T hammer will be
inadequate for driving piles into the LAA-sand. The data suggest that the MHU 1000 hammer
has the minimum energy capable of driving the Skyway foundation piles at Piers E7 through E16
to the proposed tip elevations. However, that hammer is likely to encounter refusal above the
proposed pile tip elevations at Piers E3 through E5 where the piles are to be tipped in rock or at a
number of other pier locations if the pile plugs. With a few exceptions, it should generally be
possible to restart driving within the LAA-sand with the Menck MHU 1700 hammer even if
delays occur during driving within those intervals.
6.3.4

Driving Stresses

The pile drivability results also provide insight relative to the pile stresses during driving
or due to the length of pile stickup. The maximum computed stresses in the piles during driving
are listed in the following table. The results show that the maximum computed stresses in each
of the pile sections are generally at least 20 percent below the yield stress of steel (approximately
344 MPa).
Pile Section

Menck MHU 500T (MPa)

Menck MHU 1000 (MPa)

Menck MHU 1700 (MPa)

P1
P2
P3
P4

179
193
194
186

228
262
262
248

228
262
270
255

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-10

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

6.4
6.4.1

ANALYSIS OF DRIVABILITY INTO THE FRANCISCAN FORMATION


BEDROCK
Introduction

Analyses were performed to evaluate the potential for pile toe damage at Piers E3 through
E5. At those piers, the recommended pile tip elevations are approximately 3 meters below the
interpreted top of the Franciscan Formation bedrock.
Evaluation of "soil resistance to driving" in rock is difficult to reliably assess due to the
large variations in the degree and thickness of weathering and nature of fracturing in the rock.
Pile driving experience and wave equation analyses suggest that the ratio of end bearing to total
resistance (percent end bearing) plays a significant role in the induced driving stresses.
Typically, increases in percent end bearing produce increased driving stresses, with a
concentration of stress occurring near the toe of the pile. Therefore, instead of attempting to
evaluate SRD values for rock, analyses were conducted that investigated a range of SRD and
percent end-bearing values to model the possible effects of driving piles into bedrock.
6.4.2

Analyses

The drivability assessment was performed for the soil profile and recommended tip
elevation at Pier E3 Eastbound. Two hammers were considered in these analyses, the Menck
MHU 1000 and MHU 1700. Hammer and soil properties used in the analyses are shown on Plate
6.3 and are the same as those used in the previously described preliminary drivability analyses.
The pile wall thickness schedule taken from the 85-percent design submittal (TY Lin/M&N,
2000a) is shown in the table below:
Section Length
(m)

Wall Thickness
(mm)

Cross Sectional Area


(mm2)

0 - 35

68

519,544

35 - 50

57

437,470

50 - 108.5

51

392,382

108.5 - 110.0 (drive shoe)

57

437,470

Note: mm = square millimeters

The analyses were run for SRD values ranging from 0 to 150 MN and a percent end
bearing ranging from 10 to 90 percent.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-11

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

6.4.3

Results and Discussion

Results of the analyses for the MHU 1700 hammer are presented on Plate 6.7, Figures A
and B. Figure A on Plate 6.7 shows a profile of compressive stress in the pile for a range of
percent end bearings at an assumed SRD of 105 MN, while Figure B is a plot of percent end
bearing versus calculated maximum compressive stress in the pile. The SRD of 105 MN was
estimated as an upper bound of the SRD that the MHU 1700 hammer is capable of mobilizing.
On Plate 6.7, Figure A shows the increasing trend of compressive stress with increasing
percent end bearing. In addition, Figure A demonstrates the variation of pile stress along the
length of the pile. Notable features of the stress profile include the relatively sharp changes
(reduction) in stress at the changes in pile wall thickness and also the relatively large stresses
computed near the toe of the pile. The profiles show that the maximum compressive driving
stresses occur just above the pile driving shoe. Because the driving shoe is thicker than the
bottom pile section, the stress in the driving shoe is less than the stress immediately above the
shoe. The high stresses at the pile toe are attributed to the superposition of downward and
upward (reflected) stress waves in hard driving conditions at the pile toe.
The plot on Figure B of Plate 6.7 indicates that the toe stresses increase relatively quickly
when the percent end bearing exceeds about 70 percent for both MHU 1000 and MHU 1700
hammers. Since the MHU 1700 hammer is able to transfer greater energy to the toe of the pile,
the predicted stresses exceed about 290 MPa when the percent end bearing exceeds
approximately 80 percent.
Near the recommended pile tip elevations, the skin friction component of the lowerbound SRD estimates is approximately 30 to 35 MN. Since the MHU 1700 hammer may be
capable of overcoming approximately 100 to 105 MN of soil resistance, the end-bearing
component can be on the order of 70 percent if piles are driven into layers hard enough to cause
refusal. For the MHU 1000 hammer, the percent end bearing for a lower bound skin friction
estimate is only about 50 percent. Past experience has shown that for piles driven into very hard
layers with a large hammer, the measured pile toe stresses may be larger than those predicted
using drivability analyses. These differences may be due to uncertainties in the wave equation
model including dynamic soil properties such as toe quake and damping. Furthermore, for piles
driven into bedrock, relatively large toe stresses may develop relatively quickly prior to meeting
the recommended refusal blow counts.
To reduce the potential for pile damage during driving as a result of hard driving
conditions, the wall thickness of the driving shoe was increased from 57 to 76 mm in the 100percent PS&E submittal. At Piers E3 through E5, it is recommended that driving (near the
recommended tip elevation) be discontinued when dynamic monitoring data suggest that the pile
toe stresses exceed 0.85 fy.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-12

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

6.5
6.5.1

FINDINGS FROM THE PILE INSTALLATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


Introduction

Three piles were driven for the SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project PIDP between
October 23 and December 13, 2000. Details of the installation of three 2.438-meter-diameter
steel pipe piles and the subsequent interpretation and evaluation of results are provided in the
Pile Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP) Geotechnical Report (Fugro-EM, 2001f). The
following paragraphs present a summary of the program and findings relevant to pile drivability
that were obtained from the PIPD program.
The piles were driven by Manson/Dutra (a joint venture of Manson Construction Co. and
The Dutra Group) under contract to Caltrans. The piles were 2.438-meter-OD (outside
diameter), steel pipe piles with a variable wall thickness. The piles measured approximately
108.5 meters in total length. Pile Nos. 2 and 3 were driven at a 1H:6V batter, and but Pile No. 1
was driven vertical. Each pile was installed in four sections (A through D, with the A section at
the bottom) that varied in length from 26 to 30.5 meters. The pile sections were spliced in the
field by welding.
The piles were installed at two locations approximately 50 and 90 meters north of the
existing SFOBB East Span alignment. The Primary Test Location (where Pile Nos. 1 and 2 were
installed) was approximately to the north of existing Bridge Pier E6, while the Pile No. 3 Test
Location was north of existing Bridge Pier E8. Three restrikes were conducted on Pile No. 1,
two restrikes on Pile No. 2, and one restrike on Pile No. 3. The PIDP test locations are shown on
Plate 1.3.
The two hammers used to drive the piles, Menck MHU 500T and 1700, have rated
energies (when used above water) of approximately 550 and 1,870 kilojoules (kJ), respectively.
During initial driving and restrikes, Sections B through D of each pile were monitored by two
Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) units. CAPWAP analyses were conducted for at least one hammer
blow from: 1) the initial driving of each pile's D section, and 2) each restrike.
6.5.2

Summary of Drivability-Related Findings

The PIDP provided significant insight into the drivability of the large-diameter pipe piles
with large offshore hydraulic hammers into the soils near the proposed SFOBB East Span
replacement bridge. Some general findings applicable to pile drivability along the proposed East
Pier and Skyway structures include:

Each of the three PIDP piles were successfully driven to the specified pile tip
elevation (SPTE) without excessive blow counts or pile damage.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-13

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Piles had little difficulty penetrating to the specified pile tip elevation, and sand
layers/lenses located above the identified LAA-sand did not significantly impede
driving.

Piles were driven well into the LAA-sand at these two sites, and mostly likely can be
driven into similar soils across the alignment if the same or similar large hammer
(MHU 1700) is used.

Piles cored through the soil during continuous driving, and the soil cores moved up
within the pipe pile during penetration.

Soil Resistance to Driving. Estimates of SRD were computed from PDA data as the
maximum Case Method capacity (RMX) using a damping coefficient (J) of 0.5. A comparison
of RMX (with J=0.5) and CAPWAP capacities showed reasonable agreement, and validated the
use of RMX capacities as SRD values.
Some general observations regarding the soil resistance to driving are:

The PDA-measured SRD profiles for Pile Nos. 1 and 2 are very similar, which
indicates that pile batter did not significantly affect SRD at the Primary Test Location.

The SRD typically increased significantly during initial driving at penetrations below
approximately 80 meters. This increase is likely due to increased tip resistance in the
very dense, fine to coarse sands within the Lower Alameda Alluvial sediments.

SRD increased by a factor of 2 to 3 during the 3- to 5-day welding delays between the
driving of sections. This increase is attributed to a combination of skin friction setup
and the tendency of the piles to initially drive "plugged" following the delays.

Predicted SRD profiles were generated for the Primary Test Location (Pile Nos. 1 and 2)
and the Pile No. 3 Test Location. Two ranges of predicted SRD profiles were generated for each
location. One range was based on the methodology presented by Stevens et al. (1982) and the
other was calculated using the sensitivity-based method. Profiles of measured and predicted
coring case SRDs for Pile No. 2 are provided as an example on Plate 6.8.
As shown on Plate 6.8, the upper- and lower-bound coring case SRD profiles based on
both the Stevens and sensitivity-based methods predicted the SRD at the PIDP locations
reasonably well. Therefore those predictive methodologies should provide reasonable estimates
of SRD at other locations along the proposed SFOBB alignment.
Pile Run. Pile run was observed during the stabbing of Section A for all three piles. At
the Primary Test Location (Pile Nos. 1 and 2) where the soft Young Bay Mud (YBM) was
relatively thin (approximately 4 to 5 meters thick), the piles ran approximately 6 meters. At Pile
No. 3 where the YBM is considerably thicker (approximately 20 meters), pile Section 3A ran
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-14

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

approximately 15 meters to the required cutoff elevation. After Section 3B was spliced onto the
pile and the hammer imparted approximately 18 blows to the pile, the pile then ran to a total
penetration of approximately 19 meters. Production piles are expected to run significant
distances through the soft clays of the Young Bay Mud Formation, and particular attention will
be required in placing and driving the first pile section at locations where the YBM is thick.
Consideration should be given to using initial pile sections that are long enough to extend below
the base of the YBM.
Blow Counts. The blow counts recorded during the initial driving of the three piles
generally were similar for each pile and typically varied from 12 to 45 bpqm. This relatively
small range of blow counts is attributed to the fact that hammer energies were controlled to
maintain relatively consistent blow counts during initial driving of all pile sections. The lower
hammer energies used during the relatively easy driving in the upper soft sediments helped the
contractor to: 1) maintain control of the hammer-pile system, 2) prevent the piles from running,
and 3) maintain the pile alignment. By controlling the hammer energies during driving, there
were no significant differences in the recorded blow counts between the two hammers or within
the different geologic units underlying the Young Bay Mud.
Blow counts increased by factors of two to three times during the elapsed time between
the driving of two sections. The increase in blow count is due to "setup" along the soil-pile
interface (discussed in Section 5.0) as well as the tendency for the piles to act plugged at the very
beginning of driving after a significant period of setup. After approximately 3 to 5 meters of
driving, the blow counts typically returned to values similar to those observed at the end of initial
driving of the previous section.
The PIDP also provided a means to validate the drivability model that has been adopted
for this project. Wave equation analyses were run with the selected pile, hammer, and soil
parameters (including SRD predicted from both the Stevens and sensitivity-based methods) at the
measured hammer energies (from PDA data). Plate 6.9 presents a profile of observed and
predicted blow count versus pile penetration for PIDP Pile No. 2.
The observed blow counts tend to follow the lower bound of the blow counts estimated
using SRD from the Stevens method and are generally bounded by the blow counts estimated
using SRD from the sensitivity-based method. At penetrations above 40 meters, the predicted
blow counts were typically higher than the observed blow counts. These discrepancies are likely
due to the difficulties in accurately modeling pile driving behavior of large-diameter piles driven
with a large pile driving hammer (operating at relatively low energy settings) into the relatively
soft sediment encountered in the upper portions of the soil profile. Blow counts predicted using
the sensitivity-based method SRD seem to better match the blow counts in the softer sediments
in the upper 40 meters.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-15

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The predicted and observed blow counts also diverge at the beginning of driving of each
pile section due to the setup that occurred between the driving of pile sections. The presented
blow count predictions assume continuous driving conditions and do not account for pile setup
(and associated increases in SRD) during driving delays such as those that occurred during the
splicing/welding of pile sections. Typically after about 3 to 5 meters of driving, the setup is
broken down and the predicted blow counts tend to reasonably approximate the observed blow
counts.
Overall it appears that the method(s) used to estimate SRD and input parameters to the
wave equation model were reasonable and can be used with added confidence to predict
drivability of production piles.
Driving Stresses. Maximum measured driving stresses in the piles typically occurred at
the pile toe during the end of initial driving and restrikes. The compressive stresses were as high
as approximately 330 MPa or 90 percent of the pile steel yield strength. Pile toe stresses should
be closely monitored during production pile driving.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC6.MAR.DOC

6-16

S F O B B T a s k O rd e r N o . 5
P r o je c t N o . 9 8 - 4 2 - 0 0 5 4

W A V E E Q U A T IO N
A N A L Y S IS
D R IV IN G

B ig g e r H a m m e r
( A d e q u a t e ly - s iz e d )

S O IL R E S IS T A N C E T O

S m a lle r H a m m e r
( M a r g in a l)

D R IV IN G

P IL E P E N E T R A T IO N

P IL E P E N E T R A T IO N

C O M P U T E D S O IL
R E S IS T A N C E
T O D R IV IN G

S O IL R E S IS T A N C E T O

9 8 4 2 \0 0 5 4 s c h m .d s f

D R IV IN G R E S IS T A N C E
B lo w s p e r F o o t

SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF PILE DRIVABILITY ANALYSIS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

P L A T E 6 .1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -6.2m (MSL)


Fat CLAY (CH), very soft, dark gray

(1.8m)

Upper and Lower Bound


1/Sensitivity

API 1993
SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m3)

SHEAR STRENGTH PROFILE (kPa)


API 1986

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

Sensitivity-Based, MN

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

100

400

200

300

Upper and Lower Bound

Fp (Stevens, 1982)

400

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

0.25

0.5

0.75

Stevens (1982), MN

15

30

45

60

ELEV. (m)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

CORING CASE SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING

DEPTH (m)

CA State Plane Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

STATIC PILE CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTORS

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

N648013

SOIL TYPE

CALCULATED STATIC PILE CAPACITY

DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS

Coordinates: E1837438

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray


-10

-10

-interlayered silty fine sand and fat clay below 5.2m


II

-dense to very dense sand, 7.3m to 9.9m

Clay Profile

f=35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

10

10

Clay Profile

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

-20

III

-clay with sand pockets and calcareous nodules, at 12.8m

-20

YBM

(11.5m)
Fine SAND (SP), dense, gray

(Clay End Bearing)

(14.5m)
Fat CLAY (CH), firm to stiff, olive gray

IV

20

20

-30

-30

(25.3m)
Interlayered Silty Fine SAND (SP), SILT (ML) and CLAY (CH)

30

30

-sand with large clay pockets, at 29.6m

-clay to 31.7m

-40

-40

MPSA

(31.4m)
Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, gray

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)


Clay Profile

VI

-clay layer, 36.0m to 36.3m

-fine sand with silt, below 38.1m


40

40

-clay layer, 39.8m to 39.9m


-clay layer, 40.2m to 40.8m

(41.9m)

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, dark greenish gray

-50

-50

VII

50

50

(50.9m)
o

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense, greenish gray

(55.2m)

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray


-clay layer, 55.2m to 55.8m

IX

(57.6m)

OBM/UAM

(53.3m)

-60

f =30 , d=25 , fmax=81.4 kPa

VIII

Clay Profile
o

(Clay End Bearing)


-60

Clayey SAND (SC), dense, greenish gray

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


o

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

Clay Profile

(Clay End Bearing)

-clay layer, 56.1m to 56.5m

60

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark greenish gray

60

XI

(63.4m)

-70

-70

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray


XII

(68.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray
70

70
XIII

-80

-80

(74.4m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray
-sand layer, 76.0m to 76.2m

XIV

(79.6m)
80

Interlayered Silty Fine SAND (SM), and Hard Lean CLAY (CL),
dark greenish gray

Clay Profile

(Clay End Bearing)

(83.1m)

-90

f =30 , d=25 , fmax=81.4 kPa

XV

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray

-90

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

XVI

80

Clay Profile

(Clay End Bearing)

(86.6m)
Fine to Coarse SAND (SW-SM) with silt and gravel, dense to very
LAA

dense, gray
90
XVII

90

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

Notes:
1) The API (1993)

-100

-100

profile is used in the

sensitivity-based method whereas the API (1986)


TOTAL DEPTH: 95.5m

profile is used in the Stevens (1982) method.


2) API (1993) and API (1986) unit skin friction
profiles coincide in sand layers.

API (1993) and API (1986) unit


end bearing coincide.

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING PROFILES


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\section_1to5\section6(drivability)\plate6.2.odb

6.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

HAMMER PROPERTIES
Menck MHU 500T

Menck MHU 1000

Menck MHU 1700

Rated Energy, kN-m (kJ)

550

990

1,670

Hammer Efficiency, %

95

95

95

Weight of Ram, kN

295

565

924

Weight of Pile Cap, kN

256

276

373

Coefficient of Restitution
Ram on Pile Cap
Pile Cap on Pile

0.98
0.95

0.98
0.95

0.98
0.95

PILE PROPERTIES
2.5

Diameter, m
Length, m

See Plate 6.4

Wall Thickness, mm
Unit Weight, kN/m
Modulus, kN/m

See Plate 6.4

77

2.1 x 10

SOIL PROPERTIES
Quake, cm
Side
Tip
Damping, sec/m
Side
Tip
Tip Resistance, %

0.254
0.254
0.194 to 0.361
0.49
2 to 55

SUMMARY OF WAVE EQUATION PARAMETERS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-PLATE6_3.MAR.DOC

PLATE 6.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Section

Section Length
(m)

Wall Thickness
(mm)

Yield Strength
(MPa)

P-4

26.5

70

345

1.5-m Cut-Off Allowance


P-3

8
18

70
62

345
345

1.5-m Cut-Off Allowance


P-2

13.5
17

62
40

345
345

1.5-m Cut-Off Allowance


P-1

29
1.5

40
51

345
345

WALL THICKNESS SCHEDULE USED IN PRELIMINARY DRIVABILITY ANALYSES


2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Pile Composite Profile
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE 6.4

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreport\axpile_book6...\Plate6.5.xlsPlate6.5

East Pier
(98-26)*
(98-25)*
Frame 1
(E3-EB, 98-27)
(E6-WB, 98-41)
Frame 2
(E7-EB, 98-33)
(E7-WB, 98-30)*
(E10-EB, 98-49)*
Frame 3
(E11-WB, 98-34)*
(E-13EB, 98-43)
Frame 4
(E14-WB, 98-36)
(E15-WB, 98-37)

Tip Depth
(m)

Approx. Pile Run (m)


500T
1000
1700

500T

1700

82
82

15-17
13-15

16-19
16-18

17-21
18-20

34 - 55
36 - 61

24 - 40
26 - 43

13 - 22 >250 14 - 24
R -

R
R

218 - >250 97 - >250


>250 - R 203 - R

87
88

11-Sep
9-11

13-15
14-16

14-15
20-24

55 - 138
52 - 146

40 - 82
39 - 81

20 - 40
20 - 41

R
R

R 170 -

87
88
91

12-14
11-12
11-13

14-15
17-18
12-18

18-20
21-23
12-18

42 - 103
44 - 98
41 - 85

31 - 64
30 - 56
32 - 55

17 - 32
17 - 32
16 - 30

R - R
R - R >250 - >250
154 - >250 70 - 130 44 - 75
159 - >250 89 - 166 45 - 76

91
88

9-10
11-12

12-14
14-17

14-17
17-19

42 - 89
55 - 156

29 - 52
40 - 84

16 - 30
21 - 42

233 R -

92
90

12-15
10-12

15-17
12-16

18-22
12-16

50 - 150 35 - 74
66 - >250 46 - 120

20 - 38
25 - 56

R
R

R
R

R
R
R
R

R
R

96 - 205 58 - 103
R - R >250 - R
R >250 -

R
R

Notes:
1. * Denotes indicated max. blowcounts occurred above the pile tip
2. R denotes that the soil resistance exceeded the capacity of the hammer
3. Pile Run is the depth to which the pile is expected to penetrate under the weight of the hammer-pile system. Pile Run is estimated as
the depth at which the Stevens et al. (1982) lower bound coring soil resistance to driving equals sum of pile plus hammer weight.

PLATE 6.5

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY DRIVABILITY ANALYSES


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

>250 - R
76 - 354

162 133 -

R
R

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Pier/Boring

Maximum Blowcounts (blows per 0.25m)


Coring
Plugged
1000
1700
500T
1000

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Predicted Upper- and Lower-Bound Coring Case Blow Counts,
Stevens et al. (1982)

10

Predicted Upper- and Lower-Bound Coring Case Blow Counts,


Sensitivity Method

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Blows per 0.25 Meter

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED CORING CASE BLOW COUNTS


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE 6.6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

50

Maximum Compressive Stress (MPa)


150
200
250
300

100

350

400

0
MENCK MHU 1700
Percent End Bearing

10

50 %
70 %
90 %

20
30
40

Change in Wall Thickness

Depth (m)

50
60
70
Recommended Allowable Toe
Stress = 0.85fy (~290 MPa)
Within 10 Meters of Tip Elevation

80
Pile not
to scale

90
100
110
Driving
Shoe

120

Change in Wall Thickness

Compressive Stress (MPa)

Figure A Profile of Compressive Stress, SRD = 105 MN

340

MENCK MHU 1700 and 1000

320

Recommended Allowable Toe Stress = 0.85fy (290 MPa)

300
MHU 1700 at 250 blows/quarter meter, SRD = 95 to 100 MN

280

MHU 1000 at 250 blows/quarter meter, SRD = 80 to 85 MN

260
240
220
200
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Percentage End Bearing

70

80

90

100

Figure B Effect of Percent End Bearing on Maximum Compressive Stress

DRIVABILITY OF PILES TIPPED IN FRANCISCAN FORMATION BEDROCK


Piers E3 through E5 Eastbound and Westbound
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE 6.7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Pile 2, PDA-Measured SRD (RMX, J = 0.5)
Predicted Coring Case SRD, Stevens et al. (1982)

10

Predicted Coring Case SRD, Sensitivity-Based Method


Pile 1, Total CAPWAP Capacity Estimates
20

30

Driving restarted after a delay


of approximately 2.9 days.

Penetration (m)

40

50

Driving restarted after a delay of


approximately 3.8 days.

60

70

Note: Two sets of PDA data are


shown for each pile.

80

90

100
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

PDA-MEASURED AND PREDICTED SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING, PILE NO. 2


Pile Installation Demonstration Project
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE 6.8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Observed Blow Counts
Predicted Upper- and Lower-Bound Coring Case Blow Counts, Stevens et al. (1982)

Transferred
Hammer
Energy

Predicted Upper- and Lower-Bound Coring Case Blow Counts, Sensitivity Method

10

Note: Blow counts were predicted using a wave


equation model with the hammer operated at the
indicated PDA-measured transferred energies.

20

160 kJ

Driving of
Section 1B

30

40
Penetration (m)

215 kJ

MHU
500

50

325 kJ

365 kJ

Driving of
Section 1C

60

405 kJ

70

80
Driving of
Section 1D
950 kJ
MHU
1700

90

1520 kJ

100
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Blows Per 0.25 Meter

OBSERVED AND PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS, PILE NO. 2


Pile Installation Demonstration Project
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE 6.9

SECTION 7.0
PILE INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 7.0

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

7.0 PILE INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS


AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1

INTRODUCTION

The installation of steel pipe piles for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway structures will
need to consider several site-specific and design issues. These include (but are not limited to):

Soft near-surface soils that allow piles to penetrate significant distances under selfweight and the weight of the hammer,

Possible local variations in soil conditions,

Possible dense soils above the pile tip elevations that may result in hard driving,

Soils that gain strength during delays in driving,

Possible subsurface debris,

Wind and wave excitation, and

Tidal flow fluctuation.

For typical Caltrans projects, pile installation and pile acceptance are generally in
accordance with Section 49-1 of Caltrans Standard Specifications (1995). In standard Caltrans
practice, a minimum bearing criteria (as verified by the blow count during driving) is included in
pile driving specifications to demonstrate that piles are capable of carrying the design loads. Pile
foundations supporting the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway structures, however, derive much of
their axial capacity from side shear resistance from clay soils. Therefore, the piles are anticipated
to experience pile setup subsequent to initial driving. As described in Section 5.0, the time
required to reach approximately 80 percent of the ultimate side shear capacity is anticipated to
range from approximately 7 to 9 months for the 2.5-meter-diameter piles. Therefore, in view of
the potential impact to construction cost and schedule, it is not considered advisable to follow the
typical Caltrans acceptance criteria based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) formula.
7.2

DRIVING SYSTEM SUBMITTAL

Prior to installing driven piling, the contractor should provide a driving system submittal,
including drivability analysis, in conformance with the provisions in Section 5-1.02, "Plans and
Working Drawings," of the Caltrans Standard Specifications (1995). All proposed driving
systems (i.e., each hammer that may be brought onto the site) should be included in the
submittal. It is recommended that a minimum of 3 weeks be provided exclusively for review of
the driving system submittal.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The driving system submittal should contain an analysis showing that the proposed
driving systems will install piling to the specified tip elevation in accordance with the criteria
described in the subsequent sections. Drivability studies included in the submittal should be
based on a wave equation analysis done by using a computer program that has been approved by
the engineer. The analysis should be performed for the pile schedule/details shown on the plans.
Drivability studies should model the Contractor's proposed driving systems, including the
hammers, hammer cushion, driving helmet, and any pile cushions and followers. The analyses
should consider a range of total soil resistance to driving and associated percentage shaft
resistance for plugged and unplugged cases. The range of soil resistance to driving and
percentage shaft resistance should be determined for site conditions ranging from 10 meters
above to 5 meters below the specified pile tip elevation shown on the plans. Separate analyses
should be completed at elevations above the specified pile tip elevations where difficult driving
or pile splices are anticipated. As a minimum, submittals should include the following:

Complete description of soil parameters used, including soil quake and damping
coefficients, skin friction distribution, percentage shaft resistance, and total soil
resistance to driving;

List of all hammer operation parameters assumed in the analysis, including rated
energy, stroke limitations, and hammer efficiency;

Completed "Pile and Driving Data Form";

Results from drivability analyses should include plots of:


Maximum pile head and pile toe compressive stress versus blows per 250 mm
Soil resistance to driving versus blows per 250 mm;

Estimated range of expected pile penetration due to self-weight and the weight of the
hammer; and

Copies of all test results from any previous pile load tests, dynamic monitoring, and
all driving records used in the analyses.

When the drivability analyses indicate that steel shell penetration rates are less than
250 mm per 200 blows and that the driving stresses will exceed 80 percent of the specified yield
strength of the steel shell that is more than 5 meters above the specified pile tip elevation, then
the submittal should include assumptions and procedures for soil plug removal.
7.3

PILE TIP ELEVATIONS

Recommended pile tip elevations for the proposed 2.5-meter-diameter steel pipe piles
planned for Piers E3 through E16 are provided on Plate 3.1. Two alternative pile tip elevations
for the Main Span-East Pier are presented on Plate A-6 in Appendix A. For piles that have tip
elevations within the Lower Alameda Alluvium (LAA), it is recommended that a minimum

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

5-meter underdrive allowance be included in the design of the pile wall thickness schedule. The
results of preliminary drivability analyses performed for Pier E3 Eastbound are discussed in
Section 6.0. Those analyses suggest that, if the pile were to plug, there would be a potential for
refusal during driving within sand layers of the LAA (above bedrock). Additionally, the pile tip
elevations at that location are specified to be 3 meters below the interpreted top of bedrock
elevation. In view of the likely termination of driving above the specified tip elevation for those
piers, it is recommended that a larger underdrive allowance be provided for Piers E3 through E5.
7.4

PILE SCHEDULE

Minimum Wall Thickness. It is recommended that pipe piles with a minimum wall
thickness greater than that given in Sections 6.10.6 and 12.5.7b of API RP 2A (API, 1993a,b) be
used to more fully utilize the driving capability of high-energy hammers and to reduce stresses in
the pile during hard driving.
Driving Shoe. The use of a driving shoe at the pile tip is recommended to prevent
damage from hard driving. The inside clearance provided by the driving shoe also acts to reduce
skin friction on the inside of the pile, and may delay plugging by reducing lateral stresses
developed in the soil plug. The driving shoe should be at least 1.5 meters long, have the same
outside diameter as the pile, and have an inside clearance of at least 6 mm (i.e., the inside
diameter should be 12 mm less than the bottom pile section).
7.5

DELAYS AND REDRIVING

During driving, it will be necessary to interrupt driving operations to change hammers or


add pile sections for pipe piles. The interruption to driving operations may last over 24 hours.
The required welding time increases with wall thickness. For example, in the offshore industry,
typical welding times for 36-, 50-, and 75-mm wall thicknesses are approximately 4, 8, and
16 hours, respectively. Welding times from the PIDP indicate that delays during welding may be
longer than those estimates. In addition, delays on the order of several days may result from bad
weather or equipment breakdown.
During delays, clays will generally gain strength as excess pore pressures dissipate and
the soil particles reorient themselves. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as setup. A
similar phenomenon may also occur in fine-grained granular deposits. When piles are redriven
after setup has occurred, increased blow counts should be expected for delays longer than about
2 hours. Interruptions in driving should be kept as short as possible and backup hammers should
be available.
It is recommended that pile splices not be made at elevations where the pile tip will be
within dense sand layers. The requirement for continuous driving through deep sand layers is
particularly critical for Piers E2 through E5. At the Main Span-East Pier (E2), piles driven to the
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Lower Alameda Alluvium will have to be driven through a thick Upper Alameda Marine
Paleochannel Sand layer. Piers E3 through E5 are to be driven through sand layers of the Lower
Alameda Alluvium to reach the specified tip elevation in bedrock. At both those locations,
drivability analyses suggest that refusal may be encountered if the pile were to plug.
7.6

DYNAMIC MONITORING

We recommend that dynamic monitoring with a Case-Goble type PDA be performed


when installing the last add-on of each pile for Piers E2 through E16 Eastbound/Westbound.
Pile monitoring should be performed by Caltrans or its representatives using equipment provided
by Caltrans or its representatives.
7.6.1

Preparation of Piles to be Monitored

The Special Provisions of the construction plans and specifications (P&S) should include
allowances for the installation of dynamic monitoring instruments on the last add-on. Dynamic
monitoring instrumentation is typically bolted onto opposite sides of the pile to cancel bending
effects from eccentric hammer blows. During typical monitoring operations for large-diameter
piles, three 5.6-mm- (1/32-inch-) diameter holes are drilled and tapped on opposite sides of the
pile add-on at about two pile diameters from the top. To provide strain relief for the cable
connecting the instrumentation to the data acquisition system, the cable is attached to an eyebolt
located midway between the sensor locations. The holes are drilled about 25 mm into the pile
wall. Typically, a three-man crew can drill and tap the holes in an average time of about 45
minutes per pile with the pile located on the materials barge, on the deck of the pile driving
barge, or in the fabrication yard before loadout.
7.6.2

Mounting Instrumentation on the Pile

It is often possible for instrumentation to be bolted to the pile prior to lifting and stabbing.
However, extreme care should be used during the lifting and positioning of the pile section to
avoid damaging the instrumentation and associated cables. If it is decided that damage could
occur during handling, the monitoring crew (working from a personnel basket) can attach the
instrumentation in about 30 minutes. The Special Provisions should allow the engineer to
determine if the contractor's handling operations are such that instrumentation may be damaged.
Additionally, the contractor should be directed to halt operations, if needed, so that
instrumentation can be mounted from a personnel basket after the last pile add-on has been made.
For piles driven with an underwater hammer, underwater strain transducers and
accelerometers will need to be specially fabricated. Each sensor will have a 120-meter-long
watertight cable. Fabrication of underwater instrumentation typically requires a lead time of at
least 8 weeks. Similar to above-water instrumentation, the transducers can be bolted to the pile
prior to lifting and stabbing. If it is decided that damage could occur during handling, the
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

instrumentation can be attached after the pile has been made. A personnel basket can be used
while the instrument mounts are above water. However, divers will be required if the mounts are
underwater. Since an operation using divers will take about 6 hours, it is recommended that
instruments be mounted above water.
7.6.3

Removal of Instrumentation

The Special Provisions of the P&S should include guidance relative to the removal of
instrumentation. The driving template should provide sufficient clearances for monitoring
instruments such that piles can be driven to the specified tip elevation without damage to the
monitoring instruments.
For overwater hammers, if instruments are accessible at the end of driving, personnel
from the monitoring crew can walk out to the pile and remove the sensors. Alternatively,
removal of instrumentation can be done from a personnel basket. Removal typically takes about
5 minutes.
For underwater hammers, the instruments can either be sacrificed or removed and re-used
with the help of divers.
7.7

ACCEPTABLE HAMMER TYPES

The 2.5-meter-diameter steel pipe piles for Piers E2 through E16 should be installed with
impact hammers that are approved in writing by the engineer. Impact hammers should be
air/steam or hydraulic. Drop hammers and mechanical or hydraulic vibratory hammers will
likely be inadequate relative to advancing the pile to the specified tip elevations. To assist with
pile handling at shallow penetrations, vibratory hammers may be used. However, to reduce the
potential for vibratory hammers to degrade soil side friction, it is recommended that vibratory
hammers not be used below El. -35 meters.
The minimum hammer efficiency is dependent on the type of hammer selected. The
hammer efficiency is defined as the ratio of the available ram kinetic energy at impact to the
theoretical ram potential energy calculated at the equivalent hammer stroke. The system
efficiency is defined as the ratio of the measured energy transmitted to the pile to the rated
hammer energy. Adequate hammer performance should be defined by the system efficiency.
Recommended minimum values of hammer and system efficiency are tabulated below:
Hammer
Type

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

Recommended Minimum
Hammer Efficiency (%)

System Efficiency (%)

Air/Steam

65

50

Hydraulic

90

75

7-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

7.7.1

Primary Hammer

When performing satisfactorily, the contractor's primary hammer should be a hydraulic


hammer capable of transmitting a minimum of 1,275 kJ of energy to the pile top. For example, if
the system efficiency is 75 percent, the primary hammer should have a rated energy of at least
1,700 kJ. The contractor should demonstrate that the primary hammer is in good working order
and capable of transmitting the specified minimum energy to the pile prior to the use of a smaller
secondary hammer. Satisfactory performance of the primary hammer should be verified by
dynamic monitoring during construction.
7.7.2 Secondary Hammers
In general, it is considered preferable for piles to be driven to the specified tip elevation
with the primary hammer. However, the following recommendations are presented to assist with
the evaluation of smaller secondary hammers that might be proposed by the contractor.
Preliminary drivability analyses suggest that it may be difficult to restart driving with the
primary hammer if refusal occurs under coring conditions with a smaller secondary hammer. To
reduce the potential for refusal under coring conditions, we recommend that secondary hammers:
1) be capable of transmitting a minimum of 375 kJ of energy to the pile top, and 2) transmit
sufficient energy to drive piles to the specified tip elevation at a penetration rate of not less than
3 mm per blow count for continuous driving under coring conditions.
To reduce the potential for delays during driving within dense sand layers above the
recommended pile tip elevation, it is recommended that secondary hammers not be used below
El. -50 meters for Piers E2 through E5.
7.8

REFUSAL BLOW COUNT CRITERIA

The reasons for defining pile refusal as well as an example definition of pile refusal are
given in Section 12.5.6 of API RP 2A (API, 1993a,b). As stated in API RP 2A, the definition of
pile refusal is primarily for contractual purposes to define the point where pile driving with a
particular hammer should be stopped and other methods instituted (e.g., drilling, jetting, or using
a larger hammer). The definition of pile refusal is also meant to reduce the possibility of causing
damage to the pile and hammer. The recommendations for defining pile refusal are based on the
example definition provided in API (1993a,b).
It is recommended that pile refusal be defined as the point where pile driving resistance
exceeds either 250 bpqm for six consecutive 0.25-meter increments, or 650 bpqm of penetration.
If there has been a delay in pile driving operations for 1 hour or longer, the refusal criteria stated
above should not apply until the pile has been advanced at least 0.25 meter following the

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

resumption of pile driving. However, in no case should the blow count exceed 650 blows for
0.12 meter.
7.9

ALLOWABLE DRIVING STRESS CRITERIA

Generally, the highest stress level in the life of a pile occurs during driving. For efficient
utilization of both the pile driving hammer and pile material, it is desirable to stress the pile to
the practical limit during driving. The high strain rate and temporary nature of the loading allow
a substantially higher allowable stress during driving than for static loading.
Pile driving stresses for the last pile add-on should be monitored using dynamic
monitoring equipment. It is recommend that driving generally be terminated when the maximum
driving stress is greater than 0.9 fy, where fy is the yield strength of the steel. The accuracy of the
measured force and velocity signals is typically 5 percent.
Piles supporting Piers E3 through E5 are to be tipped in bedrock. Additionally, the Main
Span-East Pier (Pier E2) is at a location where the Lower Alameda Alluvium onlaps the
Franciscan Formation, and only a thin layer of Lower Alameda Alluvium is present. Since there
is a relatively high probability that the piles (for Piers E3 through E5) will encounter bedrock
above the recommended tip elevation, there is a potential for the pile toe to be damaged prior to
the refusal criteria being met. Although less likely, a similar situation may develop at the Main
Span-East Pier. Therefore, it is recommended that the driving stresses at the toe of the piles be
closely monitored. To reduce the potential for damage to the tips of those piles, driving should be
terminated when driving stresses at the toe of the piles for Piers E2 through E5 exceed 0.85 fy.
Driving stresses should be reduced to an acceptable level by proper selection of the pile
driving hammer and hammer stroke. When driving stresses are excessive and hammer stroke
cannot be reduced without encountering refusal, pile driving should be terminated before the
refusal blow count (as defined above) is obtained.
7.10

MINIMUM BLOW COUNT CRITERIA (IF NEEDED)

In general, Fugro-Earth Mechanics joint venture believes that no minimum blow count
criteria is required at the specified tip elevation for the large-diameter steel pipe piles proposed
for Piers E17 through E22 Eastbound/Westbound of the Oakland Shore Approach. The specified
tip elevations proposed for piles supporting those piers provide for a factor of safety of 2.0
against static axial loads from skin friction resistance alone.
The TY Lin/M&N joint venture, however, has requested guidance in developing a
minimum blow count criteria for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway structure piles. The
following information is in response to that request and describes a technique that has been used
for other projects involving the installation of large-diameter pile foundations in clay soils. This

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

information, even if not included in the Special Provisions of the P&S, should be provided to the
project Resident Engineer during construction.
Minimum blow count criteria are typically included to reduce the potential for the
foundation design to be impacted by variability in the pile bearing strata. In standard Caltrans
practice, a minimum bearing criteria (as verified by the blow count during driving) is included in
pile driving specifications to demonstrate that the piles are capable of carrying the design loads.
However, in view of the relatively long setup periods predicted for the large-diameter steel pipe
piles, demonstrating design pile capacity by pile restrike is likely to adversely impact
construction cost and schedule. Thus, evaluating the design pile capacity at the end of driving
requires modeling the degradation of soil resistance during pile driving. Stevens et al. (1982)
suggest that a blow count that is representative of a lower-bound, degraded pile capacity is the
predicted blow count for the lower-bound, coring case soil resistance to driving. That suggestion
appears to be verified by observation during the PIDP (Fugro-EM, 20001f). Consequently, blow
count values that are less than the lower-bound, coring case blow count may warrant additional
evaluation prior to pile acceptance.
Predictions of soil degradation during driving involve some level of uncertainty.
Sensitivity analyses performed by TY Lin/M&N suggest that pile performance is relatively
insensitive to end bearing at the tip of the pile. The upper bound of predicted pier settlements
(which may be excessive) is associated with cases that model piles tipped in clay layers above the
LAA-sand. Therefore, as a minimum criterion, the blow count (during continuous driving) at the
specified tip elevation should exceed the predicted lower-bound, coring case blow count that is
interpreted within clay layers immediately above the interpreted top of the LAA-sand (i.e., within
the LAA-clay cap) at that pier. That minimum blow count can be established from the driving
system submittal for: 1) each hammer that the contractor intends to use, and 2) a range of
hammer efficiencies. The estimated lower-bound, coring case blow counts within the LAA-clay
cap for Menck MHU 500T, 1000, and 1700 hammers are summarized in Section 6.3.3. The
estimated lower-bound coring cases in the LAA-clay cap range from 10 to 13 bpqm for an MHU
1700 hammer operating efficiently at full stroke.
7.11

PILE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

The recommended tip elevations for the Skyway structure piles supporting Piers E3
through E16 are provided on Plate 3.1. Alternative tip elevations for the Main Span-East Pier are
provided in Appendix A (Plate A-6). Piles driven to the design tip elevation should be accepted.
Analyses to evaluate the performance of pile-supported piers that encounter refusal above
the specified tip elevation were performed by TY Lin/M&N. TY Lin/M&N have indicated that:
a) the performance of piers is satisfactory for piles encountering refusal up to 5 meters above the
recommended tip elevation, and b) that the design pile wall thickness schedule provides for as

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

much as 10 meters of underdrive for Piers E3 through E5, and 5 meters of underdrive for the
remaining Skyway structure piers. Therefore, piles also may be accepted if refusal or excessive
driving stresses (as defined above) are encountered within 10 meters and 5 meters of the
recommended tip elevation for Piers E3 through E5 and Piers E6 through E16, respectively. Pile
acceptance should be contingent upon the satisfactory performance of the contractor's approved
primary hammer. Similar recommendations are applicable to the Main Span-East Pier once the
underdrive allowance has been established.
If refusal to driving is encountered above the recommended tip elevation with a secondary
hammer that is smaller than the contractor's approved primary hammer, the contractor should be
required to replace the smaller hammer with the primary hammer. Driving with the primary
hammer should resume within 48 hours after the smaller hammer reaches refusal. When refusal
is the result of unsatisfactory performance of the contractor's primary hammer, the problem
should be corrected and the pile redriven.
If a pile reaches refusal more than 10 meters (Piers E3 through E5) or 5 meters (Piers E6
through E16) above the specified tip elevation when being driven with a satisfactorily performing
primary hammer, remedial installation procedures should be undertaken if directed by the
engineer. If the contractor is unable to restart driving after equipment breakdown within 5 meters
of the specified tip elevation, the Special Provisions of the P&S should allow for a 24-hour
evaluation period to determine whether the pile can be accepted. If the pile cannot be accepted,
the contractor should be required to initiate remedial installation procedures as described below.
7.12

REMEDIAL INSTALLATION PROCEDURES

The computed ultimate pile capacities that were used for pile design were based on the
assumption that piles will be driven to the desired penetration without supplemental drilling or
jetting. Since pre-drilling may compromise the soil resistance on the pile, it is recommended that
the procedure not be used for the installation of steel pipe piles.
In the event that a pile has met refusal to driving more than 5 meters above design
penetration, jetting or drilling within the steel shell may be used to remove the soil plug with the
approval of the engineer. Soil plug removal should not be allowed to disturb the soil in advance
of the pile toe. In general, it is recommended that soil plug removal extend down to no more
than 7 meters above the pile tip at that time.
Procedures for jetting or drilling should be submitted to the engineer for approval. If
jetting or drilling is required, the contractor should be required to maintain standard logs and
submit copies of these logs to the engineer.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-9

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

7.13

PILE CLEAN OUT

7.13.1 Placement of Structural Concrete


After the required pile penetration has been reached, a portion of the soil plug will be
removed as required by design for placement of the reinforcement cage and structural concrete.
The project plans show that the Skyway piles should be cleaned out to elevations ranging from
El. -63 meters to El. -71 meters. For piles driven to the recommended tip elevations shown on
Plate 3.1, this will result in a soil plug that is approximately 21 to 35 meters thick. Within the
limits of the Skyway structures, the clean out elevations generally fall within the Old Bay
Mud/Upper Alameda Marine sediments. The available subsurface data suggest that those layers
are composed primarily of very stiff to hard fine-grained materials with local dense sand layers.
TY Lin/M&N have indicated that dewatering is required prior to placement of structural
concrete. To reduce the potential for deterioration of the top of the soil plug, a seal course could
be placed above the remaining soil plug prior to dewatering. A positive hydrostatic head should
be maintained inside the pile during pile cleanout and during the placement and curing of the
tremie seal.
7.13.2 Installation of Seismic Monitoring Instruments
Caltrans plans to install a Strong Motion Detection system for the planned replacement
East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The detection system is planned to include
downhole sensors inside the southeast pile of Pier E6. The lowest sensor is planned to be
approximately 7 meters above the recommended tip elevation for Pier E6. The soil plug in the
pile is to be removed down to the elevation of the sensor in that pile.
To reduce the potential for pile cleanout to negatively impact the performance of the pile,
the Special Provisions of the P&S should require very close scrutiny of the contractors proposed
cleanout procedures. The contractors planned procedures should be submitted for the engineers
review to evaluate if cleanout can be performed in a controlled fashion. Further, the field
operation should be closely monitored to ensure that the contractor's operations do not
compromise the soil plug below the cleanout depth.
It is recommended that the casing for the sensor be grouted in place while maintaining a
positive hydrostatic head inside the pile. Subsequently, the seal course concrete can be placed
below the cleanout elevation required for the placement of structural concrete.
7.14

PILE SETUP AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Installation of the piles for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway structures is expected to
remold the soil surrounding the pile, which will reduce the pile capacity at the end of driving.
However, as discussed in Section 5.0, the capacity of the pile is expected to set up over time.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-10

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The reduced capacity of the pile at the end of initial driving and the subsequent setup of pile
capacity should be considered by the contractor during construction. As discussed in Section 5.0,
unbalanced cantilever construction techniques and subsequent jacking of the bridge spans are
anticipated to cause relatively large loads on the piles during construction.
The contractor is responsible for the performance of the pier foundations during
construction. Construction loads should be applied to the pile only when adequate pile stiffness
and capacity are available. As a general guidance, the allowable capacity of the pile at any given
time should be estimated as using a factor of safety of at least 1.5 on skin friction alone.
Reliance on end-bearing pile capacity may result in excessive pile settlement under the applied
construction loads.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC7.MAR.DOC

7-11

SECTION 8.0
REFERENCES

SECTION 8.0

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

8.0 REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute (1986), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, API RP-2A, 16th Ed., API, Washington, D.C.
______ (1993a), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platform-Load and Resistance Factor Design, API Recommended Practice 2ALRFD (RP 2A-LRFD), 1st Ed., API, Washington, DC.
(1993b), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design, API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP
2S-WSD), 20th Ed., API, Washington, D.C.
Bogard, J.D., and Matlock, H. (1990), "Application of Model Pile Tests to Axial Pile Designs,"
in Proceedings, 22nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Vol. 3,
pp. 271-278.
Brittsan, D. and Speer, D. (1993), Pile Load Test Results for Highway 280 Pile Uplift Test Site,
Caltrans Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Foundation Testing and Instrumentation
Branch.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (1995), Standard Specifications State of
California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Transportation,
July.
______ (1997a), Geologic Issues for the Proposed New East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge, August.
(1997b), Internal Caltrans Memorandum dated December 17 from SFOBB
Investigations Section to Office of Structure Design, Subject: Addendum - Vertical
Datum, Caltrans File Nos. 04-SF-80, 04-0434A1, C1, E1, F1, G1, Project Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 21, Bridge No. 33-0025.
Coyle, H.M. and Gibson, G.C. (1970), Soil Damping Constants Related to Common Soil
Properties in Sands and Clays, Texas Transportation Institute, Research Report 125-1,
Texas A&M University.
Dutt, R.N., Doyle, E.H., Collins, J.T., and Ganguly, P. (1995), A Simple Model to Predict Soil
Resistance to Driving for Long Piles in Deepwater Normally Consolidated Clays,
Proceedings, 27th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Vol. 1, pp. 257-269.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC8.MAR.DOC

8-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Fugro-Earth Mechanics (Fugro-EM) (1998), Draft Preliminary Foundation Design Report, San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, FWI Job No. 98-420035, prepared for California Department of Transportation, August 31.
______ (1999), "Dynamic t-z and p-y Method for Bay Bridge SSI Model for 2.5-Meter-Diameter
Piles," project memorandum prepared for TY Lin/M&N Joint Venture, dated March 9.
______ (2000), "Evaluation of Pile Setup and Impacts on Construction Schedule With
Recommendations for Preparation of Special Provisions, SFOBB East Span Seismic
Safety Project," FWI Job No. 98-42-0054, project memorandum prepared for Pile
Installation-Skyway Implementation Team, dated June 13.
______ (2001a), Lateral Pile Design for Main Span-Pier E2 and Skyway Structure, San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, EMI Job No. 98-145,
prepared for California Department of Transportation, February 28.
______ (2001b), Seismic Ground Motion Report, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span
Seismic Safety Project, EMI Job No. 97-146, prepared for California Department of
Transportation, February 28.
(2001c), Analysis and Design Procedures for Pile Foundations Supporting Temporary
Towers, Skyway Structures, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety
Project, FWI Job No. 98-42-0054, prepared for California Department of Transportation,
March 5.
(2001d), Final Marine Geophysical Survey, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East
Span Seismic Safety Project, FWI Job No. 98-42-0054, prepared for California
Department of Transportation, March 5.
(2001e), Final Marine Geotechnical Site Characterization, San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, Volumes 1A & 1B, Volumes 2A through 2H,
FWI Job No. 98-42-0054, prepared for California Department of Transportation,
March 5.
______ (2001f), Pile Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP) Geotechnical Report, San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, FWI Job No. 98-420061, prepared for California Department of Transportation, March 5.
(2001g), Revised Final Oakland Shore Approach Geotechnical Site Characterization
Report, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, Volumes 1
through 4, FWI Job No. 98-42-0058, prepared for California Department of
Transportation, March 5.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC8.MAR.DOC

8-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

______ (2001h), Subcontractor Reports, Final Geotechnical Site Characterization, San


Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, Volumes 1 through 3,
FWI Job No. 98-42-0054, prepared for California Department of Transportation,
March 5.
Goble, G.G. and Rausche, F. (1976), Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving, WEAP Program,
Vol. 1: Background, Vol. 2: User's Manual, Vol. 3: Program Documentation, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Offices of Research and
Development, Report No. FHWA-IP-76-14.1, 14.2, 14.3, and 14.4.
Goble Rausche Likins and Associates (GRL&A) (1997), Wave Equation Analysis of Pile
Foundations, GRLWEAP Version 1997-2 Program, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
Goldman, H.B. (1969), "Geology of San Francisco Bay", in Goldman, H.B., ed., Geologic and
Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill: California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Report 97, p. 11-29.
Heerema, E.P. (1979), "Relationships Between Wall Friction, Displacement Velocity, and
Horizontal Stress in Clay and in Sand for Pile Driveability Analysis," Ground
Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 55-56.
Lee, C.H., and Praszker, M. (1969), "Bay Mud Developments and Related Structural
Foundations" in Goldman, H.B., ed., Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco
Bay Fill: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 97, p. 41-85.
Matlock, H. and Foo, S.H.C. (1979), "Axial Analysis of Piles Using A Hysteretic and Degrading
Soil Model," in Proceedings, 1st International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Offshore Piling, London, England, May, pp. 127-133.
McClelland Engineers (1981), Engineering Department Guidelines, Design and Analysis
Guideline 16C.
Randolph, M.F. and Murphy, B.S. (1985), "Shaft Capacity of Driven Piles in Clay," in
Proceedings, 17th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, Vol. 1,
pp. 371-378.
Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. (1988), Guidelines for Geotechnical Design Using PCPT
and PCPTU, The University of British Columbia, Soil Mechanics Series No. 120,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC8.MAR.DOC

8-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Rogers, J.D., and Figures, S.H. (1991), Engineering Geologic Site Characterization of the
Greater Oakland-Alameda Area, Alameda and San Francisco Counties, California: Final
Report to National Science Foundation, Grant No. BCS-9003785,
Roussel, H.J. (1979), "Pile Driving Analysis of Large-Diameter, High-Capacity Offshore Pipe
Piles," Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Semple, R.M. and Gemeinhardt, J.P. (1981), "Stress History Approach to Analysis of Soil
Resistance to Pile Driving," Proceedings, 13th Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Vol. 1, pp. 165-172.
Skempton, A.W. (1944), "Notes on the Compressibility of Clays," Quarterly Journal, Geological
Society, London, Vol. 100, pp. 199-235.
Smith, E.A.L. (1960), "Pile Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation," Journal, Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, New York, Vol. 86, SM4, pp. 35-61.
Soderberg, L.O. (1962), "Consolidation Theory Applied to Foundation Pile Time Effects,"
Geotechnique, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 217-225.
Stevens, R.F. (1988), "The Effect of a Soil Plug on Pile Drivability in Clay," Proceedings, 3rd
International Conference on the Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Ottawa,
pp. 861-868.
Stevens, R.F., Wiltsie, E.A., and Turton, T.H. (1982), "Evaluating Pile Driveability for Hard
Clay, Very Dense Sand, and Rock," in Proceedings, 14th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, Vol. 1, pp. 465-481.
Trask, P.D., and Rolston, J.W. (1951), "Engineering Geology of the San Francisco Bay,
California," in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 62, pp. 1079-1110.
TY Lin/Moffatt & Nichol (TY Lin/M&N) (1999), 45% PS&E Submittal, Skyway Structures, The
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, dated January.
______ (2000a), 85% PS&E Submittal, Skyway Structures, The San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, dated February.
______ (2000b), Draft 100% PS&E Submittal, Skyway Structures, The San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, dated November.
______ (2000c), table entitled "Pile Construction Load History", pages 4 and 8, provided by
Rick Nutt of TY Lin/Moffatt & Nichol, received June 12.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC8.MAR.DOC

8-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

______ (2001a), E-Mail Transmittal of Microstation File "n6_r8.dgn", by Mr. Tom Ho of TY


Lin, received January 26.
______ (2001b), Unchecked Details, E2 Footing Layout, Main Span Suspension Bridge, Sheet
T028, received February 28.
Vesic, A.S. (1977), Design of Pile Foundations, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 42.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-SEC8.MAR.DOC

8-5

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
PIER-SPECIFIC DESIGN PLATES

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

APPENDIX A
PIER-SPECIFIC DESIGN DATA
The axial pile design data are provided on a pier-specific basis for the Main Span-East
Pier and each of the Skyway piers. For the Skyway alignment, data are provided for both the
eastbound and westbound piers.
DESIGN DATA PRESENTATION
The pier-specific data are provided in a series of pier-specific groups of plates. Pier and
boring location plans for the various Skyway frames are provided on Plates A-1 through A-3. A
pier-boring correlation table is shown on Plate A-4.
For each pier, the axial design data are presented on a series of four illustrations within
the appropriate pier-specific plate group. When drivability analyses were performed for a pier,
three additional illustrations are included within the group. For example, the plates for Skyway
Frame 1, Eastbound Pier 3 (of the East Span) are numbered as Plates E3-EB.1, E3-EB.2, E3EB.3, etc. Similarly, the design data for Skyway Frame 1, Westbound Pier 3 are numbered
Plates E3-WB.1, E3-WB.2, E3-WB.3, etc., and the design data for Skyway Frame 1, Eastbound
Pier 4 are numbered Plates E4-EB.1, E4-EB.2, E4-EB.3, etc. An additional set of loaddeformation analyses was performed for the borings located at the Main Span-East Pier (Borings
98-25 and 98-26). In these analyses, the load deformation-behavior was analyzed with the piles
tipped in the middle of the Upper Alameda Marine Paleochannel Sand layer. These plates are
numbered E2-WB.2b, E2-WB.3b, E2-WB.4b, E2-EB.2b, E2-EB.3b, and E2-EB.4b.
The pile design data provided for each pier are as follows:

Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results, including:


soil stratigraphy, interpreted design strength and submerged
unit weight profiles, unit skin friction and end-bearing
curves, and static axial pile capacity ..........................................Plate EX-YB.1

Axial Pile Load Transfer-Displacement Curves ........................Plate EX-YB.2

Tabulated Axial Pile Load Transfer Data ..................................Plate EX-YB.3

Static Pile Head Load-Deformation Curves...............................Plate EX-YB.4

Plate A-5 provides a key to the legend for the Axial Pile Design Parameters and Results plates
numbered as EX-YB.1. Plate A-6 shows the preliminary pile tip elevations used in the
development of the load transfer data and load-deformation curves (Plates EX-YB.2, EX-YB3,
and EX-YB4).

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_A.MAR.DOC

A-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

When drivability analyses (based on the Stevens et al. [1982] method) were performed
for a pier, the data provided also included:

Soil Resistance to Driving..........................................................Plate EX-YB.5


Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 500T..............................Plate EX-YB.6a
Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 1000 .............................Plate EX-YB.6b
Predicted Blow Counts, Menck MHU 1700 ..............................Plate EX-YB.6c

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_A.MAR.DOC

A-2

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1836600

1836800

1837200

1837400

LEGEND

Bathymetric Elevation
Meters, Re. MSL 1929

648200

00C-34

(Caltrans, 1997)

648200

1837000

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

N6

1998 Phase 2 Marine Borings

San Francisco-Oakland

98-40

0 to -5

00C-34

-5 to -10

CPTs

-15 to -20

URE

UCT

STR

WAY

SKY

Bathymetric Elevations from Phase 3 Surveys,

1998 Phase 1 Land and Marine

-10 to -15

Bay Bridge

1998 Marine Tethered Seascout

98-8

Alignment

Meters, Re. MSL 1929 (Caltrans, 1997)

Borings

Major (Interval = 5 Meters)

Pre-1998 Marine Borings

Minor (Interval = 1 Meter)

94-12

ME

FRA

-20 to -25
Pier Location and Number

Grid: California State Plane,


Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

E10

00C-31

98C-411

00C-24

98-28

/
/

00

E5

50

.0

50

Meters

98C-407

96-5

E4

PIER AND BORING LOCATION PLAN, FRAME 1

-15

.0

-15

94-12

-1

SCALE 1:2500

00

64+

98-7

00

.0

E6

65+

98C-406

5.0

98C-410
98-81

+0

94-11

-1

66+

60

.0

48-88

E7

647800

62

98-26
00C-30

00C-23

-10

67+
-10.0

647800

00

48-89

00C-29

-1

+0

60

98-27

98C-403

+0

61

98C-405

5.0

98C-453

00C-22

+0

98C-454

00

63+

-1

+
61

00C-27

00C-28

00

68+

.0

PIER)

#
98C-402

00

98-82

E2 (EAST

E3

98C-401

98C-415

-1

00

62

98-25

98C-404

00

69+

94-4
48-90

98-19
00C-26

98C-409

98-40

98-8

00

64+

00

98C-414

0
65+0

E4

98-50

63+

66+00

98C-412

00C-25

00C-33

-10.0

00
64+

67+00

68+00

98C-417

98C-421

IN

98C-408

E5

0
65+0

98-29

E7

648000

69+0098-49

E6

98-10

648000

66+00

00C-32

98C-419

98C-413

98C-416

98-41

70+00

67+00

98C-452

$
$

FR

69+00

68+00
1
ME

98-9

98-30

98C-418

$
$

98C-420

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

.0

00

62+
1836600

1836800

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\appendixa_pierspecific designplates\11x17\updatedasoffeb\ platea-1.odb, sdeshpande, 03/01/2001

1837000

1837200

1837400

PLATE A-1

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1837400

1837600

1837800

1838000

LEGEND

Bathymetric Elevation
Meters, Re. MSL 1929

00C-34

(Caltrans, 1997)

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

N6

1998 Phase 2 Marine Borings

San Francisco-Oakland

98-40

0 to -5

00C-34

-5 to -10

Bay Bridge

1998 Marine Tethered Seascout


CPTs

98-8

-10 to -15

Alignment

1998 Phase 1 Land and Marine

Meters, Re. MSL 1929 (Caltrans, 1997)

Borings

Major (Interval = 5 Meters)

Pre-1998 Marine Borings

Minor (Interval = 1 Meter)

94-12

98-11

Bathymetric Elevations from Phase 3 Surveys,

Pier Location and Number

Grid: California State Plane,

URE

UCT

TR
Y S

A
KYW

Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

E10

ME

648200

648200

FRA

76+00

00C-40

/
/

-5.0

E14

E13

72+00

00C-33

E12

94-13

94-3

75+00

73+00

94-7

##

00C-45

76+0

74+00

00C-36

-5.0

.0
-5

E11

$
$

/
/

68+00

98C-423

00C-39

98C-427

98-33

00C-43

76+00
98-42

648000

$
$

648000

98C-425

$
$

69+0098-49

E6

70+00

98C-421

00C-35

E7

00C-32

$
$

$
#

98C-419

98C-417

72+00

98C-429

73+00

.0

67+00

98-41

E8

00C-38

-5

98-10

98-31

-5.0

98C-416

98C-452

98-30

94-5

.0

74+00

75+00

00C-42

-5

98C-418

69+00

68+00

70+00

72+00

E10

$$

98C-420

#
E9

71+00

98C-422

00C-31

98C-424

98-34

E11

98C-431

$$

00C-34

98C-428
98-20

00C-41

73+00

$
$

ME

FRA

00C-37

98C-426

75+00
#

74+00

98C-430

00C-44

ME
FRA

.0

-10

E10

-5.0

-5

.0

E9

-10.0

0
70+

00

69+

-5.0

94-4

SCALE 1:2500

E8

50

00

50

Meters

-10

.0

68+

00

E7

PIER AND BORING LOCATION PLAN, FRAME 2

00

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

-10.0

67+

1837400

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\appendixa_pierspecific designplates\11x17\updatedasoffeb\platea-2.odb, sdeshpande, 03/01/2001

1837600

1837800

1838000

PLATE A-2

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

1838000

1838200

1838400

1838600

1838800

LEGEND

Bathymetric Elevation
Meters, Re. MSL 1929

00C-34

(Caltrans, 1997)

2000 Phase 3 Marine CPTs

N6

1998 Phase 2 Marine Borings

San Francisco-Oakland

98-40

0 to -5

00C-34

-5 to -10

98-8

Alignment

Bay Bridge

1998 Marine Tethered Seascout


CPTs

Bathymetric Elevations from Phase 3 Surveys,

1998 Phase 1 Land and Marine

Meters, Re. MSL 1929 (Caltrans, 1997)

Borings

Major (Interval = 5 Meters)

Pre-1998 Marine Borings

Minor (Interval = 1 Meter)

94-12

Pier Location and Number

Grid: California State Plane,

648400

648400

Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

E10

URE

UCT

STR
AY

SKY

ME

FRA

98-11

$ $

95-17

-5

E22

.0

81+00
/

$ $
$

E21

E20

E19

E18

$
$

00C-68

00C-65

82+00

98C-44

E17

E16

E15

SCALE 1:2500
E14

E13

50

-5.0

$$
/

-5.0

$$

648200

.0

74+00

00C-67

00C-6

.0

-5

75+00

95-16

98C-445

98C-44

-5

76+00

00C-43

77+00

98-33

80+00

98-42

00C-45

94-5

9+00
795-15

00C-48

-5.

98C-429

-5

98C-433

-5.0

74+00

75+00

00C-42

76+00

.0

-5

.0

.0

E10

98C-435

98C-441
98C-439

00C-56

-5

98C-428

94-10

94-6

.0

77+00

00C-52

00C-47

98-34

E11

98C-431

78+00

94-2

80+00

-5

00

98-43

-5.0

4+00

98C-430

75+00
#

00C-41

79+00

98-35

E12

00C-51

98C-437

00C-63

$
$

00C-55

00C-59

E13

00C-62

2+00
8#

98-38

# 83+00

$
$

00C-40

81+00

E17

77+00

00C-44

E15

00C-61

E16 98C-447 94-1

E14

76+00

98C-438

98C-444

00C-58

78+00

98C-432

$
$

648200

79+00

80+00

98C-446 00C-66

98C-434
00C-46

98C-436

98-37

00C-50

00C-49

81+00

00C-54

00C-53
98-36

98-39

00C-64

82+00

98C-440

98-12

ME

00C-60

00C-57

$
FR

FRA

98C-442

98C-443

3
AME

50

Meters

648000

648000

E12

PIER AND BORING LOCATION PLAN, FRAMES 3 AND 4

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

1838000

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\appendixa_pierspecific designplates\11x17\updatedasoffeb\platea-3.odb, sdeshpande, 03/01/2001

1838200

1838400

1838600

PLATE A-3

1838800

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Pier

Centerline
Station

Associated
Boring(s)

Pier E2 Eastbound

61+54

98-26

Pier E2 Westbound

61+63

98-25

Pier E3 Eastbound

63+08

98-27

Pier E3 Westbound

63+23

98-50

Pier E4 Eastbound

64+62

98-40

Pier E4 Westbound

64+83

98-28

Pier E5 Eastbound

66+16

98-29

Pier E5 Westbound

66+43

98-29

Pier E6 Eastbound

67+76

98-10, 98-41

Pier E6 Westbound

68+03

98-41

Pier E7 Eastbound

69+36

98-49

Pier E7 Westbound

69+63

98-30

Pier E8 Eastbound

70+96

98-31

Pier E8 Westbound

71+23

98-31

Pier E9 Eastbound

72+56

98-32

Pier E9 Westbound

72+83

98-32

Pier E10 Eastbound

74+16

98-33

Pier E10 Westbound

74+43

98-31, 98-33

Pier E11 Eastbound

75+76

98-42

Pier E11 Westbound

76+03

98-34

Pier E12 Eastbound

77+36

98-35

Pier E12 Westbound

77+63

98-35

Pier E13 Eastbound

78+88

98-43

Pier E13 Westbound

79+15

98-43

Pier E14 Eastbound

80+24

98-36

Pier E14 Westbound

80+51

98-36

Pier E15 Eastbound

81+43

98-37

Pier E15 Westbound

81+71

98-37

Pier E16 Eastbound

82+39

98-38

Pier E16 Westbound

82+67

98-38

PIER-BORING CORRELATION TABLE


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
J:\CALTRANS\REPORTS\FINALREPORTS\FINALAXPILEDRIVE_BOOK6\PLATES\ODB-XL\APPENDIXA_PIERSPECIFIC DESIGNPLATES\8.5X11\PLATEA4.DOC

PLATE A-4

Earth
Mechanics

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

SOIL TYPES

Well graded GRAVEL (GW)

Clayey SAND (SC)

Clayey silt (ML/CL)

Poorly graded GRAVEL (GP)

Silty SAND (SM)

Highly plastic ORGANICS (OH)

GRAVEL with sand (GP or GW)

SAND with silt (SP-SM)

Low plasticity ORGANICS (OL)

GRAVEL with clay (GP or GW)

Fat CLAY(CH)

SANDSTONE (Rx)

Clayey GRAVEL (GC)

Sandy fat CLAY (CH)

SILTSTONE (Rx)

GRAVEL with silt (GP or GW)

Lean CLAY (CL)

CLAYSTONE (Rx)

Silty GRAVEL (GM)

Sandy lean CLAY (CL)

Interbedded Rock Strata (Rx)

Well graded SAND (SW)

Silty CLAY (CL-ML)

CONGLOMERATE (Rx)

Poorly graded SAND (SP)

Elastic SILT (MH)

PAVEMENT

SAND with gravel (SP or SW)

SILT (ML)

Rock Fragments (Rf)

SAND with clay (SP-SC)

Sandy SILT (ML)

GEOLOGIC UNITS

Af

Artificial Fill

YBM

Young Bay Mud

MPSA

Merritt-Posey-San Antonio Sequence

OBM/UAM

Old Bay Mud/ Upper Alameda Marine Formation

LAA

Lower Alameda Alluvial Formation

FF

Franciscan Formation

KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON


AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

j:\caltrans\reports\finalreports\finalaxpiledrive_book6\plates\odb-xl\appendixa_pierspecific designplates\8.5x11\pla-5.odb, sde shpande, 03/02/2001

PLATE A-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Bay Floor
Estimated
Elevation (m,
Pile Tip
re MSL)
Depth (m)

Pier

Pier E2 Eastbound - tipped in LAA

-13

Estimated
Pile Tip
Elevation
(m)

Ultimate
Tension
Capacity
(MN)

Ultimate
Compression
Capacity (MN)

-95

68

127

82

Pier E2 Eastbound - tipped in UAM

-13

69

-81

48

80

Pier E2 Westbound - tipped in LAA

-13

82

-95

64

123

Pier E2 Westbound - tipped in UAM

-13

69

-81

46

86

Pier E3 Eastbound

-13

87

-100

78

128

Pier E3 Westbound

-12

90

-102

78

129

-12

85

-97

77

127

-11

83

-94

73

123

Pier E5 Eastbound

-10

88

-98

81

131

Pier E5 Westbound

-10

88

-98

80

130

Pier E6 Eastbound

-8

88

-96

80

130

Pier E6 Westbound

-8

88

-96

80

130

Pier E7 Eastbound

-6

87

-93

75

119

Pier E7 Westbound

-6

88

-94

77

121

Pier E4 Eastbound
Pier E4 Westbound

-5

92

-97

83

126

-5

91

-96

81

125

Pier E9 Eastbound

-4

90

-94

82

126

IN

Pier E8 Eastbound
Pier E8 Westbound

-4

90

-94

82

126

-4

91

-95

88

131

Pier E10 Westbound

-4

94

-98

91

135

Pier E11 Eastbound

-4

91

-95

95

146

Pier E11 Westbound

-4

91

-95

92

138

Pier E12 Eastbound

-4

93

-97

92

138

Pier E12 Westbound

-4

93

-97

92

138

P R

E L
IM

Pier E9 Westbound
Pier E10 Eastbound

Pier E13 Eastbound

-3

88

-91

80

126

Pier E13 Westbound

-3

91

-94

86

132

Pier E14 Eastbound

-3

92

-95

98

146

Pier E14 Westbound

-3

92

-95

98

146

Pier E15 Eastbound

-3

90

-93

91

139

Pier E15 Westbound

-3

90

-93

91

139

Pier E16 Eastbound

-3

91

-94

93

141

Pier E16 Westbound

-3

91

-94

93

141

Note: Values in Italics have been superceded with those shown on Plate 3.1.
However, these values were used for the preliminary axial load-deflection analyses presented in the
pier-specific design plates.

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY AXIAL PILE CAPACITY


Piers E2 through E16
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE A-6

PIER E2 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)


Main Span East Pier

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

2.5

7.5

10

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -12.7m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

DEPTH (m)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SOIL TYPE

N647812

CA State Plane Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

UNIT

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Coordinates: E1836695

STRATUM NO.

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to soft, olive gray

-20

YBM

-20

(8.2m)
Fat CLAY (CH), firm, dark olive gray
10

10

II

(16.5m)
-silty sand, below 16.0m

-30

-30

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray


20

20

III

-40

-40

30

30

(31.1m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

IV

(38.4m)

-sand layer, 37.2m to 37.5m


Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

40

(45.1m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray
VI

-60

-60

OBM/UAM

40

-50

-50

(48.5m)
50

Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

50

-sand with clay layers, 51.5m to 52.7m

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


VII

Recommended UAM Tip Elevation = -81 m

-dense sandy silt with sand and clay seams and layers, 57.2m to
60

59.6m

(62.5m)

-sand at 61.3m

Compression = 80 MN

-70

$
#

-70

60

Tension = 48 MN

-Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, dark gray


o

VIII

-very stiff, dark greenish gray lean clay layer, at 64.2m

(69.5m)
70

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, greenish gray

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

-80

-with a clay layer, 62.8m to 62.9m


-80

70

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

IX

(73.0m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

LAA

(78.5m)

-90

-90

-sandy clay below 78.3m


80

XI

-lean clay layer, 79.1m to 79.4m

(82.3m)
XII

FF

Silty SAND (SM), very dense, greenish gray

SANDSTONE (Rx) interbedded with SILTSTONE (Rx), dark gray,

80

moderately to highly weathered, moderately soft


-100

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

TOTAL DEPTH: 82.8m

90

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

Tip Elevation = 12.0 MPa

Recommended LAA Tip Elevation = -95 m

-110

$
#

Compression = 127 MN
Tension = 68 MN
-110

100

100

110

110

-120

-120

Dashed line represents equivalent

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Tension and compression

unit end bearing available from

curves coincide.

frictional resistance of the soil plug

Compression

inside the pile.

Tension

-130

-130

90

-100

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E2-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.020
0.070
0.123
0.197
0.247
0.430
0.493
0.553
0.627
0.693
0.733
0.747

*Based on mudline at El. -13 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-82

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay

0.783
0.920
0.967
1.053
1.160
1.218
0.907
1.125
1.739
1.750

0.25

0.3

Tult

0.35

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Depth*

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

82

Clay

58.8

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.2a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Z (m)
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.017
0.073
0.123
0.197
0.247
0.430
0.497
0.553
0.623
0.697
0.733
0.743

*Based on mudline at El. -13 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-68

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.783
0.923
0.963
1.055
1.153
1.230
0.908

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Depth*

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

68

Clay

32.5

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -81 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.2b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-82

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.005
0.018
0.031
0.049
0.062
0.108
0.123
0.138
0.157
0.173
0.183
0.187
0.196
0.230
0.242
0.263
0.290
0.305
0.907
1.125
0.435
0.438

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.010
0.035
0.062
0.098
0.123
0.215
0.247
0.277
0.313
0.347
0.367
0.373
0.392
0.460
0.483
0.527
0.580
0.609

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.015
0.006 0.053
0.006 0.092
0.006 0.148
0.006 0.185
0.006 0.323
0.006 0.370
0.006 0.415
0.006 0.470
0.006 0.520
0.006 0.550
0.006 0.560
0.006 0.587
0.006 0.690
0.006 0.725
0.006 0.790
0.006 0.870
0.006 0.914

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.018
0.063
0.111
0.177
0.222
0.387
0.444
0.498
0.564
0.624
0.660
0.672
0.705
0.828
0.870
0.948
1.044
1.096

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.020
0.070
0.123
0.197
0.247
0.430
0.493
0.553
0.627
0.693
0.733
0.747
0.783
0.920
0.967
1.053
1.160
1.218

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.870
0.875

0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012

1.565
1.575

0.018
0.018

1.739
1.750

0.025
0.025

1.304
1.313

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -13 meters

DEPTH
(m)
82

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
14.700 0.004 29.400 0.031 44.100 0.105 52.920 0.183 58.800 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.3a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-68

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.004
0.018
0.031
0.049
0.062
0.108
0.124
0.138
0.156
0.174
0.183
0.186
0.196
0.231
0.241
0.264
0.288
0.308
0.908

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.008
0.037
0.062
0.098
0.123
0.215
0.248
0.277
0.312
0.348
0.367
0.372
0.392
0.462
0.482
0.528
0.577
0.615

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.013
0.006 0.055
0.006 0.092
0.006 0.148
0.006 0.185
0.006 0.323
0.006 0.372
0.006 0.415
0.006 0.468
0.006 0.522
0.006 0.550
0.006 0.558
0.006 0.587
0.006 0.692
0.006 0.723
0.006 0.791
0.006 0.865
0.006 0.923

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.015
0.066
0.111
0.177
0.222
0.387
0.447
0.498
0.561
0.627
0.660
0.669
0.705
0.831
0.867
0.950
1.038
1.107

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.017
0.073
0.123
0.197
0.247
0.430
0.497
0.553
0.623
0.697
0.733
0.743
0.783
0.923
0.963
1.055
1.153
1.230

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -13 meters

DEPTH
(m)
68

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q(2)
8.125

Q-z Data
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
0.004 16.250 0.031 24.375 0.105 29.250 0.183 32.500 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -81 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.3b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.050
0.082
0.163
0.247
0.320
0.400

0.00
6.06
14.84
23.00
32.96
57.08
83.49
84.66
97.89
111.82
120.63
126.50
126.50

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.01
14.71
22.77
32.55
53.01
67.56
67.77
67.77
67.77
67.77
67.77
67.77

0.00
0.05
0.13
0.23
0.41
4.07
15.93
16.89
30.12
44.05
52.86
58.73
58.73

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE E2-EB.4a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

Compression
140

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.038
0.052
0.130
0.210
0.280
0.400

0.00
5.94
14.50
22.41
31.80
49.96
60.38
64.27
72.35
77.22
80.47
80.47

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
5.70
13.84
21.23
28.32
42.22
47.97
47.97
47.97
47.97
47.97
47.97

0.00
0.24
0.66
1.18
3.48
7.74
12.41
16.30
24.38
29.25
32.50
32.50

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -81 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.4b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E2-Eastbound (Boring 98-26)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-EB.6c

PIER E2 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)


Main Span East Pier

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

2.5

7.5

10

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -12.7m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

DEPTH (m)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SOIL TYPE

N647812

CA State Plane Zone 3, NAD83, Meters

UNIT

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Coordinates: E1836695

STRATUM NO.

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to soft, olive gray

(8.1m)

-20

-20

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), firm, gray


10

10
II

(14.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, greenish gray
-30

-30

20

20

III

-40

-40

30

30

(32.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray
IV

(36.0m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

-50

-interlayered dense, silty fine sand and very stiff clay, 40.2m
to 42.7m
(43.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray
VI

-60

40

-60

40

OBM/UAM

-50

(49.1m)
50

Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff, greenish gray

50

VII

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Recommended UAM Tip Elevation = -81 m

(58.8m)
Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray
-lean clay layer with fine to medium sand and wood pockets,
60.4m to 61.0m
o

-80

(70.4m)
Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, dark gray

70
o

IX

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, dark greenish gray

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

-90

LAA

(78.0m)

-sandy silt below 77.4m

-90

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

(73.6m)

-sandy silt below 72.5m

80

Tension = 46 MN

-80

70

-70

60

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

VIII

Compression = 86 MN

60

$
#

-70

XI

(83.2m)
SANDSTONE (Graywacke) (Rx), soft, intensely weathered,

XII

FF

-silty sand layer, 79.9m to 80.6m

80

intensely fractured to decomposed


-100

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

90

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

Tip Elevation = 12.0 MPa

Recommended LAA Tip Elevation = -95 m

-110

$
#

Compression = 123 MN
Tension = 64 MN
-110

100

100

110

110

-120

-120

Dashed line represents equivalent

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Tension and compression

unit end bearing available from

curves coincide.

frictional resistance of the soil plug

Compression

inside the pile.

Tension

-130

-130

90

TOTAL DEPTH: 84.2m

-100

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E2-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.023
0.077
0.133
0.210
0.237
0.437
0.500
0.557
0.613
0.673
0.733
0.810

*Based on mudline at El. -13 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-82

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay

0.903
0.933
0.957
0.992
1.072
0.987
0.893
0.978
1.621
1.580

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

82

Sand

58.8

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.2a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Z (m)
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2

T/Tult

1
0.8

Clay

0.6

Sand

0.4
0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.020
0.080
0.133
0.210
0.237
0.437
0.500
0.557
0.613
0.673
0.730
0.813

*Based on mudline at El. -13 meters

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-68

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand

0.903
0.933
0.957
0.992
1.070
0.987
0.892

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

68

Sand

39.5

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -81 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.2b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-82

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.006
0.019
0.033
0.053
0.059
0.109
0.125
0.139
0.153
0.168
0.183
0.203
0.226
0.233
0.239
0.248
0.268
0.987
0.893
0.978
0.405
0.395

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.012
0.038
0.067
0.105
0.118
0.218
0.250
0.278
0.307
0.337
0.367
0.405
0.452
0.467
0.478
0.496
0.536

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.017
0.006 0.058
0.006 0.100
0.006 0.158
0.006 0.178
0.006 0.328
0.006 0.375
0.006 0.418
0.006 0.460
0.006 0.505
0.006 0.550
0.006 0.608
0.006 0.677
0.006 0.700
0.006 0.718
0.006 0.744
0.006 0.804

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.021
0.069
0.120
0.189
0.213
0.393
0.450
0.501
0.552
0.606
0.660
0.729
0.813
0.840
0.861
0.893
0.965

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.023
0.077
0.133
0.210
0.237
0.437
0.500
0.557
0.613
0.673
0.733
0.810
0.903
0.933
0.957
0.992
1.072

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.811
0.790

0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012

1.459
1.422

0.018
0.018

1.621
1.580

0.025
0.025

1.216
1.185

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -13 meters

DEPTH
(m)
82

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
14.700 0.004 29.400 0.031 44.100 0.105 52.920 0.183 58.800 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.3a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-68

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.005
0.020
0.033
0.053
0.059
0.109
0.125
0.139
0.153
0.168
0.183
0.203
0.226
0.233
0.239
0.248
0.268
0.987
0.892

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.010
0.040
0.067
0.105
0.118
0.218
0.250
0.278
0.307
0.337
0.365
0.407
0.452
0.467
0.478
0.496
0.535

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.015
0.006 0.060
0.006 0.100
0.006 0.158
0.006 0.178
0.006 0.328
0.006 0.375
0.006 0.418
0.006 0.460
0.006 0.505
0.006 0.548
0.006 0.610
0.006 0.677
0.006 0.700
0.006 0.718
0.006 0.744
0.006 0.803

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.018
0.072
0.120
0.189
0.213
0.393
0.450
0.501
0.552
0.606
0.657
0.732
0.813
0.840
0.861
0.893
0.963

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.020
0.080
0.133
0.210
0.237
0.437
0.500
0.557
0.613
0.673
0.730
0.813
0.903
0.933
0.957
0.992
1.070

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -13 meters

DEPTH
(m)
68

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q(2)
9.875

Q-z Data
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
0.004 19.750 0.031 29.625 0.105 35.550 0.183 39.500 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -81 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.3b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

Compression

40

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.076
0.161
0.246
0.320
0.400

0.00
6.24
15.29
23.78
34.07
57.53
81.23
93.68
108.31
117.12
123.00
123.00

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.20
15.20
23.60
33.69
52.83
64.23
64.23
64.23
64.23
64.23
64.23

0.00
0.04
0.10
0.18
0.38
4.70
17.00
29.45
44.08
52.89
58.77
58.77

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.4a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Load at the Pile Head, MN

160

140

Compression

120

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.036
0.050
0.132
0.213
0.290
0.400

0.00
6.18
15.14
23.51
33.47
51.86
60.56
65.14
75.77
81.69
85.64
85.64

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.01
14.67
22.69
30.15
41.98
46.14
46.14
46.14
46.14
46.14
46.14

0.00
0.18
0.47
0.82
3.32
9.88
14.42
19.00
29.63
35.55
39.50
39.50

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -81 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.4b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

10
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E2-Westbound (Boring 98-25)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E2-WB.6c

PIER E3 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -12.6m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft , gray to dark gray


I

YBM

(3.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, gray
-silty fine to medium sand, with clay pockets and seams, and
II

shells, 4.6m to 5.2m

-20

-20

-silty sand layer with clay seams, 5.6m to 6.1m


-sand, 7.3m to 7.6m

(10.2m)

-with mica at 7.6m


III

Silty Fine Sand (SM), dense to very dense, greenish gray

(13.6m)

MPSA

10

10
o

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, greenish gray


-30

-30

IV

(20.6m)

20

20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, olive gray

Note:
V

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to


(29.6m)
30

be

approximately 3 meters below the bedrock

-sand below 29.3m

elevation interpreted from seismic reflection

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

-40

-40

30

surveys.

2) Compression capacities for piles tipped in


-50

-50

bedrock are likely higher than the design

VI

compression capacity shown here.


OBM/UAM

40

using data from adjacent borings and seismic


reflection surveys to extrapolate the soil

stratigraphy shown here.

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

Interlayered CLAY (CL), very stiff, and SAND (SP), dense, gray
VII

-60

(46.9m)

-60

40

3) Design tension capacity was estimated by

(Clay End Bearing)

50

50

Clay Profile

(51.5m)
Lean CLAY (CH), hard, gray

VIII

-70

-70

-sand with clay layers, 57.6m to 58.5m


(60.0m)

60

60
o

Fine SAND (SP) with gravel, dense to very dense, gray

IX

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

(62.8m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray

-80

-80
X

70

70

(75.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, dark greenish gray
-90

-90

-silt, 76.8m to 77.1m

XI

-silt, 77.3m to 77.6m


80

80

(81.1m)
LAA

SAND (SP), dense to very dense, gray


-clay layer, 81.4m to 81.7m
-clay layer, 81.8m to 82.1m

XII

(90.8m)
CLAYSTONE (RX), dark gray, intensely weathered

-110

XIII

90

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

Tension and compression


100

curves coincide.

$
-110

TOTAL DEPTH: 90.9m

-100

FF

90

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 10.2+ MPa

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -106 m

-120

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from

-130

Tension = 82 MN

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

frictional resistance of the soil plug

Compression

inside the pile.

Tension

-130

110

Compression = 132+ MN

$
#

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E3-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

0.05

Depth*
(m)

0.017
0.073
0.147
0.217
0.393
0.737
0.540
0.747
0.720
0.703
0.790
0.790

*Based on mudline at El. -13 meters.

0.1

0.15

0.008

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.01

0.012

Soil
Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

Tult

(MN/m)
0.800
0.887
0.983
0.800
1.188
1.158
1.391
1.520
1.714
0.909

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

87

Sand

50.2

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -100 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.004
0.018
0.037
0.217
0.393
0.184
0.135
0.187
0.180
0.176
0.198
0.198
0.200
0.222
0.246
0.800
0.297
0.290
0.348
0.380
0.429
0.909

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.008
0.037
0.073

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.012
0.006 0.055
0.006 0.110

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.015
0.066
0.132

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.017
0.073
0.147

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.368
0.270
0.373
0.360
0.352
0.395
0.395
0.400
0.443
0.492

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.553
0.405
0.560
0.540
0.527
0.593
0.593
0.600
0.665
0.737

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.663
0.486
0.672
0.648
0.633
0.711
0.711
0.720
0.798
0.885

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.737
0.540
0.747
0.720
0.703
0.790
0.790
0.800
0.887
0.983

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.594
0.579
0.696
0.760
0.857

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.891
0.869
1.043
1.140
1.286

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

1.069
1.042
1.252
1.368
1.543

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.188
1.158
1.391
1.520
1.714

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -13 meters

DEPTH
(m)
87

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -100 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

Compression

40

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.056
0.081
0.167
0.250
0.330
0.400

0.00
7.36
17.32
25.55
34.73
57.99
87.06
92.35
102.51
115.35
122.88
127.90
127.90

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
7.32
17.23
25.36
34.37
55.88
76.17
77.71
77.71
77.71
77.71
77.71
77.71

0.00
0.03
0.08
0.19
0.36
2.11
10.89
14.64
24.80
37.64
45.17
50.19
50.19

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -100 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-EB.4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-EB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-EB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-EB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E3-Eastbound (Boring 98-27)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-EB.6c

PIER E3 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E3-Westbound (Boring 98-50)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -12.3m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to soft, olive gray


I

(5.2m)

Fat CLAY (CH), firm to stiff, olive gray


-with a sandy silt layer, 7.9m to 8.2m
10

-20

-20

YBM

-silty fine sand with many clay pockets and seams, below 4.7m

10

II

(16.3m)

20

-interlayered clay and silty fine sand, below 19.5m

(20.2m)

Clay

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

Profile

-30

III

-clay layer, 18.0m to 18.1m

MPSA

Fine SAND (SP-SM) with silt, very dense, gray

-30

(Clay End Bearing)


20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, dark greenish gray


-silt layer, 21.8m to 22.3m

Note:

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

-40

be

approximately 3 meters below the bedrock

IV

30

elevation interpreted from seismic reflection

-40

30

surveys.

2) Compression capacities for piles tipped in

40

compression capacity shown here.

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

Interlayered CLAY (CL), very stiff, and SILT (ML), dense, gray
VI

50

using data from adjacent borings and seismic

OBM/UAM

(47.2m)

40

3) Design tension capacity was estimated by

-60

-50

bedrock are likely higher than the design

(38.4m)

reflection surveys to extrapolate the soil


-60

-50

stratigraphy shown here.


50

(51.7m)
o

Interlayered SAND (SP), dense, and CLAY (CL), hard, gray


-silt layer to 52.1m

(Clay End Bearing)

VII

-sand layer, 172 to 53.0m

Clay

-silty sand with many clay pockets, 55.5m to 55.8m

Profile

-70

(57.9m)

-70

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

Fine SAND (SP-SM) with silt , very dense, gray


60

60

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

VIII

(64.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray
-80

-80

IX

70

70

(74.5m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray
-90

-90

-silty fine sand layer, 77.5m to 77.7m


80

-silty sand, 78.2m to 78.5m

80

LAA

-silty sand, 78.6m to 79.1m


-silty sand, 80.5m to 80.7m

(85.6m)

90

SILT (ML), very dense, greenish gray


TOTAL DEPTH: 89.6m

-110

-100

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

XII

90

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

%
Tension and compression

100

curves coincide.

$
-110

XI

(89.1m)

Silty Medium SAND (SM), very dense, gray


-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 10.2+ MPa

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -106 m

Tension = 79 MN

-120

110

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug
inside the pile.

-130

Compression = 129+ MN

Dashed line represents equivalent


110

$
#

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression
Tension

-130

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E3-Westbound (Boring 98-50)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E3-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

0.05

Depth*
(m)

0.020
0.087
0.183
0.223
0.273
0.347
0.507
0.637
0.597
0.620
0.680
0.737

*Based on mudline at El. -12 meters.

0.1

0.15

0.008

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-86
86-90

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.01

Soil
Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

0.012
Tult

(MN/m)

Sand

0.937
0.980
0.957
0.957
0.702
0.728
1.259
1.675
1.726
1.818
0.912

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

90

Sand

50.2

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E3-Westbound (Boring 98-50)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -102 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-86
86-90

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.005
0.022
0.046
0.056
0.068
0.347
0.507
0.159
0.149
0.155
0.170
0.184
0.234
0.245
0.239
0.239
0.175
0.728
0.315
0.419
0.431
0.455
0.912

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.010
0.043
0.092
0.112
0.137

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.015
0.006 0.065
0.006 0.137
0.006 0.167
0.006 0.205

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.018
0.078
0.165
0.201
0.246

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.020
0.087
0.183
0.223
0.273

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.318
0.298
0.310
0.340
0.368
0.468
0.490
0.478
0.478
0.351

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.478
0.448
0.465
0.510
0.553
0.702
0.735
0.718
0.718
0.526

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.573
0.537
0.558
0.612
0.663
0.843
0.882
0.861
0.861
0.632

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.637
0.597
0.620
0.680
0.737
0.937
0.980
0.957
0.957
0.702

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.629
0.838
0.863
0.909

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.944
1.256
1.294
1.364

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

1.133
1.508
1.553
1.637

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.259
1.675
1.726
1.818

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -12 meters

DEPTH
(m)
90

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E3-Westbound (Boring 98-50)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -102 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.070
0.088
0.173
0.257
0.330
0.400

0.00
8.33
16.62
23.84
32.83
54.30
83.32
97.34
103.57
116.04
123.58
128.60
128.60

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
8.30
16.53
23.68
32.54
52.69
74.55
78.37
78.37
78.37
78.37
78.37
78.37

0.00
0.03
0.09
0.16
0.29
1.61
8.77
18.97
25.20
37.67
45.21
50.23
50.23

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E3-Westbound (Boring 98-50)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -102 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E3-WB.4

PIER E4 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E4-Eastbound (Boring 98-40)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

(2.1m)

-silty fine sand with many clay pockets, 1.8m to 2.1m


II

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray

-20
III

-with clay layers, at 7.8m and 8.4m


-fine sand, 8.8m to 10.5m
-silty fine sand with clay seams and layers, below 10.5m

200

300

400

100

200

300

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

100

DEPTH (m)

12.5

SOIL TYPE

10

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

-20

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q
10

IV

(15.8m)

-30

-fine sand layer, 15.2m to 15.5m


-30

7.5

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

(11.3m)

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, olive gray


-lean clay to 12.2m

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

(5.5m)

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, olive gray

10

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft, olive gray

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -12.0m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

YBM

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MPSA

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray


20

20

Note:

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

-40

30

be

approximately 3 meters below the bedrock

(30.6m)

-silt layer, 29.3m to 29.6m

elevation interpreted from seismic reflection

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

-40

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

30

surveys.

-silt with fat clay pockets, 31.1m to 32.6m


VI

2) Compression capacities for piles tipped in


bedrock are likely higher than the design

(39.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

-interlayered silt, sand, and clay, 44.5m to 46.0m

-50

compression capacity shown here.

OBM/UAM

40

-50

40

3) Design tension capacity was estimated by


using data from adjacent borings and seismic

VII

reflection surveys to extrapolate the soil

-60

-60

stratigraphy shown here.


50

50

(50.9m)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

VIII

(53.9m)
Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, dark gray

-70

-very dense dark gray fine gravel below 57.9m


60

f =35 , d =30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa , qmax=9576 kPa


q

IX

-70

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

(59.9m)

60

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray

-80

-80

-silt layer, 67.7m to 68.0m


70

70

(73.8m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray to gray
-dense sand with clay layers, 75.3m to 76.2m
XI

-very dense, fine sand layer, 79.4m to 79.9m

-90

80

(80.6m)
LAA

80

-dense fine sand layer, 76.7m to 77.4m

-90

Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), very dense, gray

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

XII

-hard, olive gray, lean clay layer, 86.4m to 87.8m

-100

-100

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

90

90

-very dense, greenish gray, sandy silt with gravel fragments,


below 90.8m
TOTAL DEPTH: 91.0m

-110

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

$
-110

100

curves coincide.

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 10.2+ MPa

-120

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Specified Tip Elevation = -107 m

$
#

Compression = 135+ MN
Tension = 85 MN
-120

110

110

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug

inside the pile.

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression
Tension

-130

Dashed line represents equivalent

-130

100

Tension and compression

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E4-Eastbound (Boring 98-40)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E4-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

0.05

Depth*
(m)

0.037
0.107
0.167
0.510
0.560
0.610
0.627
0.663
0.707
0.747
0.890
0.860

*Based on mudline at El. -12 meters.

0.1

0.15

0.008

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-85

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.01

0.012

Soil
Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand

Tult

(MN/m)
0.853
0.910
0.953
1.037
0.928
1.172
1.490
1.488
1.612
0.765

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

0.00375

0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.03125

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

85

Sand

50.2

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E4-Eastbound (Boring 98-40)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E4-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-85

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.009
0.027
0.167
0.510
0.140
0.153
0.157
0.166
0.177
0.187
0.223
0.215
0.213
0.228
0.238
0.259
0.928
0.293
0.373
0.372
1.612
0.765

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.018
0.053

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.028
0.006 0.080

z(4)
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.033
0.096

z(5)
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.037
0.107

z(6)
0.025
0.025

0.280
0.305
0.313
0.332
0.353
0.373
0.445
0.430
0.427
0.455
0.477
0.519

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.420
0.458
0.470
0.497
0.530
0.560
0.668
0.645
0.640
0.683
0.715
0.778

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.504
0.549
0.564
0.597
0.636
0.672
0.801
0.774
0.768
0.819
0.858
0.933

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.560
0.610
0.627
0.663
0.707
0.747
0.890
0.860
0.853
0.910
0.953
1.037

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.586
0.745
0.744

0.006
0.006
0.006

0.879
1.118
1.116

0.012
0.012
0.012

1.055
1.341
1.339

0.018
0.018
0.018

1.172
1.490
1.488

0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -12 meters

DEPTH
(m)
85

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E4-Eastbound (Boring 98-40)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E4-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

Compression

40

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.052
0.082
0.164
0.246
0.320
0.400

0.00
7.66
17.79
26.65
36.45
60.98
89.22
91.61
102.60
114.66
122.18
127.20
127.20

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
7.65
17.73
26.55
36.23
59.50
76.50
77.02
77.02
77.02
77.02
77.02
77.02

0.00
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.22
1.48
12.72
14.59
25.58
37.64
45.16
50.18
50.18

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E4-Eastbound (Boring 98-40)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E4-EB.4

0.40

PIER E4 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E4-Westbound (Boring 98-28)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft, olive gray


(2.4m)

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -11.4m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

-20

II

-20

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), firm, olive gray

(10.1m)

10

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, gray


-intermixed clay and sand, at 11.3m

(12.0m)
(13.3m)

f=25 , d=20 , N =12.0, fmax=67.0 kPa, qmax=2873 kPa


q

III
IV

Fat CLAY (CH), firm, olive gray


-with a silty sand layer, below 13.1m

(15.2m)

10

f=30 , d=25 , N =20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

Silty Fine SAND (SP), dense, greenish gray


-30

-30
20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

20
VI

Note:

be

VII

(34.4m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray

OBM/UAM

approximately 3 meters below the bedrock


elevation interpreted from seismic reflection

-40
30

surveys.

2) Compression capacities for piles tipped in

-lean clay, 36.6m to 37.8m

bedrock are likely higher than the design

-50

compression capacity shown here.

40

VIII

-50

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray


30

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

(28.0m)

-40

40

3) Design tension capacity was estimated by


using data from adjacent borings and seismic

-intermixed fine sand and clay, 43.6m to 46.6m

reflection surveys to extrapolate the soil


stratigraphy shown here.
50

-60

-60

(50.3m)

50

-silty sand, below 49.8m


IX

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray


-silt with clay seams, 52.7m to 53.6m

(54.3m)

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray

(56.7m)

f=30 , d=25 , N =20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray

-70

OBM/UAM

-70
60

60

XI

-with a sand layer, 65.1m to 65.4m

-80

-80
70

70

(74.1m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray to gray
XII

-90

(79.4m)

XIII

(86.0m)
Fine GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, black to gray

90

TOTAL DEPTH: 88.6m

(87.5m) XIV

Sandy SILT (ML),very dense, greenish gray to gray

XV

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q
o
o
f=30 , d =25 , N =20.0, f max=81.4 kPa , q max=4788 kPa
q

-100

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, greenish gray to gray

-100

80

LAA

-sand layer, 78.9m to 79.2m

90

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

%
Tension and compression

-110
100

curves coincide.

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 10.2+ MPa

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -107 m

$
#

-110

80

-intermixed silt and clay layer, 78.6m to 78.9m

-sand layer, 76.2m to 77.4m


-90

Compression = 130+ MN
Tension = 80 MN
-120

-120
110

110

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

frictional resistance of the soil plug


Compression

Tension

-130

inside the pile.


-130

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E4-Westbound (Boring 98-28)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E4-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

0.05

Depth*
(m)

0.033
0.147
0.170
0.173
0.263
0.480
0.550
0.627
0.697
0.850
0.913
0.950

*Based on mudline at El. -11 meters.

0.1

0.15

0.008

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-83

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.01

Soil
Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.012
Tult

(MN/m)
0.840
0.833
0.893
0.988
0.985
1.368
1.438
1.510
1.419
0.588

0.3

0.35

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6

0.00375

0.4

0.03125

0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

83

Sand

50.2

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E4-Westbound (Boring 98-28)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E4-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-83

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.008
0.037
0.170
0.043
0.066
0.120
0.138
0.157
0.174
0.213
0.228
0.238
0.210
0.208
0.223
0.247
0.246
0.342
0.360
0.378
0.355
0.588

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.017
0.073

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.025
0.006 0.110

z(4)
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.030
0.132

z(5)
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.033
0.147

z(6)
0.025
0.025

0.087
0.132
0.240
0.275
0.313
0.348
0.425
0.457
0.475
0.420
0.417
0.447
0.494
0.493
0.684
0.719
0.755
0.710

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.156
0.237
0.432
0.495
0.564
0.627
0.765
0.822
0.855
0.756
0.750
0.804
0.889
0.887
1.231
1.294
1.359
1.277

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.173
0.263
0.480
0.550
0.627
0.697
0.850
0.913
0.950
0.840
0.833
0.893
0.988
0.985
1.368
1.438
1.510
1.419

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.130
0.197
0.360
0.413
0.470
0.523
0.638
0.685
0.713
0.630
0.625
0.670
0.741
0.739
1.026
1.079
1.133
1.064

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -11 meters

DEPTH
(m)
83

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E4-Westbound (Boring 98-28)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E4-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

Compression

40

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.052
0.076
0.160
0.243
0.320
0.400

0.00
6.34
15.19
23.21
32.80
56.89
84.85
87.50
97.58
110.35
117.88
122.90
122.90

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.24
14.92
22.72
31.89
53.01
72.16
72.68
72.68
72.68
72.68
72.68
72.68

0.00
0.10
0.27
0.49
0.91
3.88
12.69
14.82
24.90
37.67
45.20
50.22
50.22

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E4-Westbound (Boring 98-28)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E4-WB.4

PIER E5 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E5-Eastbound (Boring 98-29)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

100

200

300

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

7.5

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

-10

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

SOIL TYPE

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -9.8m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )


UNIT

STRATUM NO.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

-10

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, dark gray


-very loose, olive gray, silty fine sand layer, with many clay

Clay Profile

-sand layer, 7.6m to 8.2m

-20

10

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

-sand layer, 8.5m to 8.8m

10

-20

20

-30

30

-40

40

-50

50

-60

60

-70

70

-80

80

-90

-intermixed clay and sand, 6.4m to 7.0m

YBM

pockets, 0.9m to 1.2m

(14.0m)
Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, olive gray to gray
(16.5m)

II

MPSA

-silty sand layer with clay pockets, 9.1m to 9.7m

-30

20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

III

Note:

30

be

approximately 3 meters below the bedrock

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

elevation interpreted from seismic reflection

IV

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

(28.7m)
-40

surveys.
(34.1m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray

2) Compression capacities for piles tipped in

compression capacity shown here.

40

bedrock are likely higher than the design


-50

3) Design tension capacity was estimated by

50

VI

-sand layer, 48.8m to 49.1m

reflection surveys to extrapolate the soil


stratigraphy shown here.

-60

using data from adjacent borings and seismic

OBM/UAM

(45.0m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

(53.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

-70

60

Fine to Coarse SAND with silt (SW-SM), dense, gray


o

VIII

-silty fine sand below 64.2m

VII

(59.7m)

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

(66.1m)

Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, olive gray

70

(70.7m)

IX

-80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, olive gray

(77.7m)

80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray


-90

XI

(84.4m)
LAA

-interlayered sand and clay, below 82.9m

Fine to Medium SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense to very dense, gray
XII

(90.8m)

90 -100

90

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

Fine GRAVEL (GP), very dense, dark gray


XIII

dense to very dense, fine to coarse sand, at 94.8m


TOTAL DEPTH: 94.9m

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

-120 110

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-110 100

$
100-110

-sand layer, 91.4m to 92.4m

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

Tip Elevation = 10.2+ MPa

Specified Tip Elevation = -108 m

$
#

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from
frictional resistance of the soil plug
inside the pile.

Compression = 136+ MN
Tension = 86 MN

110-120

-100

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression
Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E5-Eastbound (Boring 98-29)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E5-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)

0.023
0.123
0.140
0.213
0.277
0.493
0.530
0.597
0.657
0.737
0.840
0.930

*Based on mudline at El. -10 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.943
0.943
0.957
1.093
1.202
1.053
1.040
1.618
1.717
1.782
0.903

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

88

Sand

50.2

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E5-Eastbound (Boring 98-29)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E5-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.006 0.003 0.012
0.031 0.003 0.062
0.035 0.003 0.070
0.053 0.003 0.107
0.069 0.003 0.138
0.123 0.003 0.247
0.133 0.0025 0.265
0.149 0.003 0.298
0.164 0.003 0.328
0.184 0.003 0.368
0.210 0.003 0.420
0.233 0.003 0.465
0.236 0.003 0.472
0.236 0.003 0.472
0.239 0.003 0.478
0.273 0.0025 0.547
0.301 0.003 0.601
1.053 0.003
0.260 0.003 0.520
0.405 0.003 0.809
0.429 0.003 0.859
0.446 0.003 0.891
0.903 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.017
0.006 0.092
0.006 0.105
0.006 0.160
0.006 0.208
0.006 0.370
0.006 0.398
0.006 0.448
0.006 0.493
0.006 0.553
0.006 0.630
0.006 0.698
0.006 0.707
0.006 0.707
0.006 0.718
0.006 0.820
0.006 0.902

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.021
0.111
0.126
0.192
0.249
0.444
0.477
0.537
0.591
0.663
0.756
0.837
0.849
0.849
0.861
0.984
1.082

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.023
0.123
0.140
0.213
0.277
0.493
0.530
0.597
0.657
0.737
0.840
0.930
0.943
0.943
0.957
1.093
1.202

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.936
1.456
1.545
1.604

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.040
1.618
1.717
1.782

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.780
1.214
1.288
1.337

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -10 meters
DEPTH
(m)
88

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E5-Eastbound (Boring 98-29)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E5-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.058
0.086
0.170
0.254
0.330
0.400

0.00
6.36
15.56
24.13
34.26
58.07
87.78
94.53
105.80
118.15
125.68
130.70
130.70

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.33
15.48
24.00
33.93
56.27
77.99
80.51
80.51
80.51
80.51
80.51
80.51

0.00
0.03
0.08
0.13
0.33
1.80
9.79
14.02
25.29
37.64
45.17
50.19
50.19

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E5-Eastbound (Boring 98-29)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E5-EB.4

0.40

PIER E5 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E5-Westbound (Boring 98-29-Modified)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

100

200

300

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

7.5

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

-10

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

SOIL TYPE

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -9.8m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )


UNIT

STRATUM NO.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

-10

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, dark gray


-very loose, olive gray, silty fine sand layer, with many clay
pockets, 0.9m to 1.2m

-20

10

Clay Profile

f=30 , d =25 , f max=81.4 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

-sand layer, 8.5m to 8.8m

10

-20

20

-30

30

-40

40

-50

50

-60

60

-70

70

-80

80

-90

-sand layer, 7.6m to 8.2m

YBM

-intermixed clay and sand, 6.4m to 7.0m

-silty sand layer with clay pockets, 9.1m to 9.7m

(16.5m)

-30

20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

II

Note:

30

be

approximately 3 meters below the bedrock

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

elevation interpreted from seismic reflection

III

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

(28.7m)
-40

surveys.
(34.1m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray

2) Compression capacities for piles tipped in

compression capacity shown here.

IV

40

bedrock are likely higher than the design


-50

3) Design tension capacity was estimated by

50

-sand layer, 48.8m to 49.1m

reflection surveys to extrapolate the soil


stratigraphy shown here.

-60

using data from adjacent borings and seismic

OBM/UAM

(45.0m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

(53.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

-70

60

Fine to Coarse SAND with silt (SW-SM), dense, gray


o

VII

-silty fine sand below 64.2m

VI

(59.7m)

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

(66.1m)

Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, olive gray

70

(70.7m)

VIII

-80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, olive gray

IX

(77.7m)

80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray


-90

(84.4m)
LAA

-interlayered sand and clay, below 82.9m

Fine to Medium SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense to very dense, gray
XI

(90.8m)

90 -100

90

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

Fine GRAVEL (GP), very dense, dark gray


XII

dense to very dense, fine to coarse sand, at 94.8m


TOTAL DEPTH: 94.9m

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

-120 110

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-110 100

$
100-110

-sand layer, 91.4m to 92.4m

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

Tip Elevation = 10.2+ MPa

Specified Tip Elevation = -108 m

$
#

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from
frictional resistance of the soil plug
inside the pile.

Compression = 136+ MN
Tension = 86 MN

110-120

-100

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression
Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E5-Westbound (Boring 98-29 Modified)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E5-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)

0.027
0.117
0.143
0.210
0.253
0.353
0.557
0.593
0.657
0.737
0.840
0.930

*Based on mudline at El. -10 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.947
0.940
0.957
1.097
1.199
1.053
1.040
1.618
1.717
1.786
0.903

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

88

Sand

50.2

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E5-Westbound (Boring 98-29 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E5-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.007 0.003 0.013
0.029 0.003 0.058
0.036 0.003 0.072
0.053 0.003 0.105
0.063 0.003 0.127
0.088 0.003 0.177
0.139 0.0025 0.278
0.148 0.003 0.297
0.164 0.003 0.328
0.184 0.003 0.368
0.210 0.003 0.420
0.233 0.003 0.465
0.237 0.003 0.473
0.235 0.003 0.470
0.239 0.003 0.478
0.274 0.0025 0.549
0.300 0.003 0.600
0.263 0.003 0.527
1.040 0.003
0.405 0.003 0.809
0.429 0.003 0.859
0.447 0.003 0.893
0.903 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.020
0.006 0.087
0.006 0.108
0.006 0.158
0.006 0.190
0.006 0.265
0.006 0.418
0.006 0.445
0.006 0.493
0.006 0.552
0.006 0.630
0.006 0.698
0.006 0.710
0.006 0.705
0.006 0.717
0.006 0.823
0.006 0.899
0.006 0.790

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.024
0.105
0.129
0.189
0.228
0.318
0.501
0.534
0.591
0.663
0.756
0.837
0.852
0.846
0.861
0.987
1.079
0.948

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.027
0.117
0.143
0.210
0.253
0.353
0.557
0.593
0.657
0.737
0.840
0.930
0.947
0.940
0.957
1.097
1.199
1.053

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012
0.012

1.456
1.545
1.607

0.018
0.018
0.018

1.618
1.717
1.786

0.025
0.025
0.025

1.214
1.288
1.340

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -10 meters

DEPTH
(m)
88

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E5-Westbound (Boring 98-29 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E5-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.058
0.092
0.170
0.254
0.330
0.400

0.00
6.19
15.14
23.44
33.53
57.67
87.63
94.19
106.30
117.75
125.28
130.30
130.30

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.17
15.07
23.32
33.30
55.96
77.76
80.10
80.10
80.10
80.10
80.10
80.10

0.00
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.23
1.71
9.87
14.09
26.20
37.65
45.18
50.20
50.20

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E5-Westbound (Boring 98-29 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E5-WB.4

0.40

PIER E6 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E6-Eastbound (Boring 98-10 and 98-41)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -7.6m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, dark olive gray


I

-10

-10

-medium dense, silty fine sand layer, with clay pockets, 2.3m to
(4.1m)
2.6m
o

II

-firm, dark olive gray fat clay with many shells and shell
10

YBM

Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense, olive gray

(10.7m)

fragments, 8.2m to 9.4m

f=30 , d=25 , N =20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

f =25 , d =20 , N

=12.0 , f max =67.0 kPa

, q

max =2873

10

kPa

-medium dense, silty fine sand, 9.4m to 10.5m

-20

-20

-with clay at 10.1m


III

Fat CLAY (CH), firm to stiff, olive gray


(16.8m)
o

20

(20.4m)

-fat clay below 18.9m


Fine SAND (SP), dense to very dense, gray

-30

-fat clay, 22.3m to 22.6m

Clay Profile

MPSA

IV

-clay layer with sand seams, 17.4m to 17.7m

(Clay End Bearing)


o

Clay Profile

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa


20

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

-30

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, brown

(Clay End Bearing)

(24.5m)

-fat clay, 23.2m to 23.9m


Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

30

30
-40

-40

Note:

VI

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

-silt, 36.0m to 36.6m

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped


in sand layers of the LAA.

40

40

(41.8m)
Fat CLAY (CH), verty stiff to hard, greenish gray

-50

-50

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip


elevation (used in compression capacity
estimates) was estimated using a statistical

consideration the possible presence of clay

50

layers near the specified tip elevation.

-60

-60

OBM/UAM

frame-by-frame approach that takes into


VII

50

(56.5m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray
-sand layer, 56.8m to 57.3m

VIII

(59.4m)
60

Clayey SILT with sand (ML), very dense, greenish gray


o

IX

-70

f=25 , d=20 , Nq=12.0, fmax=67.0 kPa, qmax=2873 kPa

-sand with a few clay seams, below 62.2m

-70

60

(64.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH),

hard, gray
X

-dense sand, 66.6m to 67.5m


(69.0m)
70

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

70

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


-dense sand layer, 72.2m to 72.5m

Specified Tip Elevation = -96 m

$
#

XI

(78.6m)
Lean CLAY (CL) with sand, hard, greenish gray

-90

-fine sand with clay seams, 81.5m to 82.1m

Tension = 80 MN
80
-90

XII

Compression = 130 MN

LAA

80

-80

-80

(83.8m)
Fine to Coarse

SAND with silt (SP-SM), very dense, gray


o

XIII

90

90

(93.7m)

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, yellowish greenish brown

Tip Elevation = 10.2 MPa

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

XV

(96.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, yellowish brown

-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

XIV

LAA

(90.8m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray to gray

-100

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

XVI

(99.7m)
Clayey GRAVEL (GC), very dense, yellowish red

TOTAL DEPTH: 101.8m

XVII

100

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


-110

100
-110

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

110

FF

Dashed line represents equivalent


Tension and compression

unit end bearing available from

curves coincide.

frictional resistance of the soil plug


inside the pile.

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression

110

Tension
-120

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E6-Eastbound (Borings 98-10 and 98-41)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E6-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.040
0.103
0.180
0.197
0.300
0.380
0.580
0.657
0.777
0.793
0.823
0.860

*Based on mudline at El. -8 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.893
0.923
1.083
1.078
1.147
0.825
1.163
1.672
1.700
1.768
0.755

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

88

Sand

50.2

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E6-Eastbound (Borings 98-10 and 98-41)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.010
0.026
0.180
0.197
0.075
0.095
0.580
0.657
0.194
0.198
0.206
0.215
0.223
0.231
0.271
0.270
0.287
0.825
0.291
0.418
0.425
0.442
0.755

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.020
0.052

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.030
0.006 0.077

z(4)
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.036
0.093

z(5)
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.040
0.103

z(6)
0.025
0.025

0.150
0.190

0.006
0.006

0.225
0.285

0.012
0.012

0.270
0.342

0.018
0.018

0.300
0.380

0.025
0.025

0.388
0.397
0.412
0.430
0.447
0.462
0.542
0.539
0.574

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.583
0.595
0.617
0.645
0.670
0.692
0.812
0.809
0.860

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.699
0.714
0.741
0.774
0.804
0.831
0.975
0.970
1.032

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.777
0.793
0.823
0.860
0.893
0.923
1.083
1.078
1.147

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.582
0.836
0.850
0.884

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.872
1.254
1.275
1.326

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

1.047
1.505
1.530
1.591

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.163
1.672
1.700
1.768

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -8 meters

DEPTH
(m)
88

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E6-Eastbound (Borings 98-10 and 98-41)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.058
0.084
0.169
0.253
0.330
0.400

0.00
7.73
17.73
25.51
35.16
58.10
87.22
93.95
104.70
117.25
124.78
129.80
129.80

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
7.70
17.63
25.33
34.83
56.08
77.26
79.60
79.60
79.60
79.60
79.60
79.60

0.00
0.03
0.10
0.18
0.33
2.02
9.96
14.35
25.10
37.65
45.18
50.20
50.20

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E6-Eastbound (Borings 98-10 and 98-41)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-EB.4

0.40

PIER E6 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)


Skyway Frame 1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -7.6m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, dark olive gray


I

-10

-10

-medium dense, silty fine sand layer, with clay pockets, 2.3m to
(4.1m)
2.6m
o

f=30 , d=25 , N =20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense, olive gray

YBM

II

-firm, dark olive gray fat clay with many shells and shell
10

(10.7m)

fragments, 8.2m to 9.4m

10

f=25 , d=20 , N =12.0, fmax=67.0 kPa, qmax=2873 kPa


q

-medium dense, silty fine sand, 9.4m to 10.5m

-20

-20

-with clay at 10.1m


o

Fat CLAY (CH), firm to stiff, olive gray

f=30 , d=25 , N =20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

III

-dense, silty fine sand, 14.5m to 16.2m

-olive gray fine sand, with clay pockets and seams, 17.5m to 17.8m
(20.1m)
o

Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense to very dense, dark gray

(24.1m)
Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, dark gray
-with a clay layer at 25.3m

VI

Silty Fine SAND (SM), medium dense to dense, dark olive gray
(32.3m)
-very stiff clay layer with sand seams, 31.5m to 31.8m

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, olive gray to dark gray

(30.2m)

30
-40

-30

(Clay End Bearing)

Clay Profile
o

f=30 , d=25 , N =20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

(27.1m)

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

20

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

MPSA

IV

-interlayered sand and clay, 21.8m to 24.1m

(34.8m)

Clay

VII

Profile

30

f=25 , d=20 , f max=67.0 kPa


(Clay End Bearing)

Note:

VIII

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray


IX

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped


in sand layers of the LAA.

(40.2m)

40

-40

20
-30

40

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray


X

-50

-50

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

(44.5m)

elevation (used in compression capacity

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray

estimates) was estimated using a statistical


frame-by-frame approach that takes into

-60

consideration the possible presence of clay

50

layers near the specified tip elevation.

-60

XI

OBM/UAM

50

(56.5m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray
XII

60

60

(60.7m)
Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense to very dense, dark olive

-70

-70

gray to gray
o

XIII

-clay layer, 65.5m to 65.8m

f=30 , d=25 , Nq=20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa

-silty sand below 67.7m


-with medium and coarse sand and fine gravel, below 70.0m

70

(70.7m)

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

Specified Tip Elevation = -96 m

$
#

XIV

(77.7m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray
80

-dense sand layer, 78.8m to 79.1m

Compression = 130 MN
Tension = 80 MN
80

XV

-with a sand layer at 79.6m

-90

-90

-80

70
-80

-sandy silt layer, 80.8m to 81.1m


-dense sand with clay seams and layers, 82.0m to 82.6m

(84.1m)

dense, gray

-hard clay layer, 89.0m to 89.3m

90

(91.1m)

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

-100

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

(93.6m)

-sandy silt below 92.0m

Fine to Coarse SAND with silt and fine gravel (SW-SM), very (95.7m)
dense, olive gray to gray

-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

XVII

XVIII

90

XVI

LAA

Fine to Medium SAND with fine gravel and silt (SP-SM), very

Tip Elevation = 10.2 MPa

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

XIX

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, yellowish brown


100

TOTAL DEPTH: 97.7m

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

100
-110

-110

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from
frictional resistance of the soil plug

110

inside the pile.

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression

110

Tension
-120

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E6-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.040
0.107
0.183
0.193
0.283
0.373
0.407
0.543
0.623
0.767
0.590
0.937

*Based on mudline at El. -8 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

1.100
0.997
1.157
1.215
1.267
1.232
0.582
1.323
1.895
2.033
0.902

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

88

Sand

50.2

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-84
84-88

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.010
0.027
0.183
0.193
0.071
0.093
0.407
0.543
0.156
0.192
0.148
0.234
0.275
2.492
0.289
0.304
0.317
1.232
0.145
0.331
0.474
0.508
0.902

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.020
0.053

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.030
0.006 0.080

z(4)
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.036
0.096

z(5)
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.040
0.107

z(6)
0.025
0.025

0.142
0.187

0.006
0.006

0.212
0.280

0.012
0.012

0.255
0.336

0.018
0.018

0.283
0.373

0.025
0.025

0.312
0.383
0.295
0.468
0.550
4.984
0.579
0.608
0.634

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.467
0.575
0.443
0.703
0.825
7.475
0.868
0.911
0.950

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.561
0.690
0.531
0.843
0.990
8.970
1.041
1.094
1.140

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.623
0.767
0.590
0.937
1.100
9.967
1.157
1.215
1.267

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.291
0.662
0.948
1.017

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.436
0.992
1.421
1.525

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.524
1.191
1.706
1.830

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.582
1.323
1.895
2.033

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -8 meters

DEPTH
(m)
88

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.550 0.004 25.100 0.031 37.650 0.105 45.180 0.183 50.200 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacment (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression
Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.058
0.086
0.169
0.253
0.330
0.400

0.00
7.32
17.10
25.01
34.54
57.72
87.37
93.91
104.99
117.35
124.88
129.90
129.90

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
7.30
17.02
24.85
34.23
55.85
77.45
79.69
79.69
79.69
79.69
79.69
79.69

0.00
0.03
0.08
0.16
0.31
1.87
9.92
14.22
25.30
37.66
45.19
50.21
50.21

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-WB.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-WB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-WB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-WB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E6-Westbound (Boring 98-41)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E6-WB.6c

PIER E7 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)


Skyway Frame 2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft, dark gray

(1.8m)

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -6.2m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray

-10

-10

-interlayered silty fine sand and fat clay below 5.2m

II

-dense to very dense sand, 7.3m to 9.9m

Clay Profile

-20

-clay with sand pockets and calcareous nodules, at 12.8m

III

(14.5m)

YBM

(11.5m)
Fine SAND (SP), dense, gray

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

10

Clay Profile

Specified Bottom

of Footing Elevation = -12.5 m

10

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

-20

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

(Clay End Bearing)

Fat CLAY (CH), firm to stiff, olive gray

IV

20

20

-30

-30

30

(31.4m)

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, gray


-40

-clay to 31.7m

Note:

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

VI

-clay layer, 36.0m to 36.3m

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

Clay Profile

-fine sand with silt, below 38.1m


40

in sand layers of the LAA.

-clay layer, 39.8m to 39.9m

40

(41.9m)

-clay layer, 40.2m to 40.8m

-50

-40

-sand with large clay pockets, at 29.6m

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, dark greenish gray

-50

30

MPSA

(25.3m)
Interlayered Silty Fine SAND (SP), SILT (ML) and CLAY (CH)

elevation (used in compression capacity


estimates) was estimated using a statistical

VII

frame-by-frame approach that takes into


50

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense, greenish gray

(55.2m)

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray


(57.6m)

-clay layer, 55.2m to 55.8m

IX

50

layers near the specified tip elevation.

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

Clay Profile

VIII

(Clay End Bearing)


o

-60

(53.3m)

OBM/UAM

Clayey SAND (SC), dense, greenish gray


-60

consideration the possible presence of clay

(50.9m)

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q
o
o
Clay Profile

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

-clay layer, 56.1m to 56.5m


60

60

XI

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark greenish gray


(63.4m)

-70

-70

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray


XII

(68.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray
70

70
XIII

-80

-80

(74.4m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray
-sand layer, 76.0m to 76.2m

XIV

(79.6m)
o

Interlayered Silty Fine SAND (SM), and Hard Lean CLAY (CL),

(Clay End Bearing)

(83.1m)

-90

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

XV

dark greenish gray

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray

-90

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

XVI

80
Clay Profile

80

Clay Profile

(Clay End Bearing)

(86.6m)
Fine to Coarse SAND (SW-SM) with silt and gravel, dense to very

-100

TOTAL DEPTH: 95.5m

90

-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

Tip Elevation = 8.8 MPa

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Specified Tip Elevation = -98 m

100

Tension and compression

-110

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

curves coincide.

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from
frictional resistance of the soil plug

$
#

100

Compression = 121 MN

-110

XVII

LAA

dense, gray
90

Tension = 78 MN

inside the pile.


110

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile


-120

-120

Compression
Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E7-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand

(MN/m)
0.017
0.110
0.173
0.244
0.340
0.337
0.367
0.423
0.600
0.700
0.761
0.754

*Based on mudline at El. -6 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87

Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.754
0.754
1.168
1.128
0.716
1.292
1.726
1.571
1.669
0.625

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

87

Sand

43.7

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -93 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.004
0.028
0.043
0.244
0.340
0.084
0.092
0.106
0.150
0.175
0.761
0.754
0.754
0.754
0.292
0.282
7.157
0.323
0.432
0.393
0.417
0.625

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.008
0.055
0.087

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.013
0.006 0.083
0.006 0.130

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.015
0.099
0.156

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.017
0.110
0.173

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.168
0.183
0.212
0.300
0.350

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.252
0.275
0.317
0.450
0.525

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.303
0.330
0.381
0.540
0.630

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.337
0.367
0.423
0.600
0.700

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.584
0.564

0.006
0.006

0.876
0.846

0.012
0.012

1.051
1.015

0.018
0.018

1.168
1.128

0.025
0.025

0.646
0.863
0.786
0.835

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.969
1.295
1.178
1.252

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

1.163
1.553
1.414
1.502

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.292
1.726
1.571
1.669

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -6 meters

DEPTH
(m)
87

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
10.925 0.004 21.850 0.031 32.775 0.105 39.330 0.183 43.700 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -93 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression
Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.054
0.078
0.162
0.245
0.320
0.400

0.00
8.07
19.20
27.67
35.97
56.88
83.39
87.32
96.46
107.67
114.23
118.60
118.60

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
8.05
19.13
27.50
35.58
54.49
73.43
74.86
74.86
74.86
74.86
74.86
74.86

0.00
0.02
0.07
0.17
0.39
2.39
9.96
12.46
21.60
32.81
39.37
43.74
43.74

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -93 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-EB.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-EB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-EB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-EB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E7-Eastbound (Boring 98-49)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-EB.6c

PIER E7 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)


Skyway Frame 2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft, olive gray

(2.1m)

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -5.6m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft, olive gray


II

-10

-10

(5.6m)

-clay with fine sand, 4.3m to 5.0m

Fine SAND (SP), very dense, gray

Clay Profile

III

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

(10.1m)

10

Specified Bottom

Fat CLAY (CH), firm to stiff, olive gray


-sand layer, 10.5m to 11.1m

10

of Footing Elevation = -12.5 m

YBM

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


-20

-20

IV

20

20

-30

-30

(29.0m)
Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, greenish gray

30

(32.9m)
Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), very dense, olive gray

-40

VI

-40

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

(36.3m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

Note:

-organic clay to 30.6m

MPSA

30

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to


VII

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

(39.0m)
40

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

in sand layers of the LAA.

VIII

40

(42.1m)

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

-50

-50

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

elevation (used in compression capacity


IX

estimates) was estimated using a statistical


frame-by-frame approach that takes into

(50.0m)

50

Sandy Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff, greenish gray

consideration the possible presence of clay

(59.4m)
60

Fat

CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

OBM/UAM

XI

Clay Profile

-60

Fine SAND (SP), dense to very dense, greenish gray

-60

50

layers near the specified tip elevation.

(52.7m)
o

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

60

XII

(63.4m)
Fat

-70

-70

CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray


XIII

(69.5m)
70

70

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray


XIV

(74.4m)

-80

-80

Interlayered Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, and Fat CLAY (CH),
hard, dark greenish gray

XV

(79.2m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

Clay Profile

-greenish gray, lean clay with sand, 83.4m to 84.4m

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q
LAA

XVII

90

-with clay seams and layers, below 89.0m

Clay Profile

Sandy SILT (ML), hard, brownish yellow

(94.8m)
(96.8m)

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, brown


100

TOTAL DEPTH: 100.0m

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

XVIII
o

Medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, very dense, dark brown

(Clay End Bearing)

(93.0m)
-100

$
#

(Clay End Bearing)

Fine to Medium SAND (SP-SM) with silt, very dense, gray

XIX

Tension = 78 MN
90

-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 8.8 MPa

XX

100

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

curves coincide.
Dashed line represents equivalent
110

-90

Compression = 121 MN

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

Tension and compression

-110

80

Specified Tip Elevation = -98 m

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

(82.6m)

-silty sand with clay layers, below 81.4m


-90

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

XVI

-with silt seams, 79.9m to 80.5m

unit end bearing available from

80

Compression
Tension

110

frictional resistance of the soil plug


inside the pile.

-120

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E7-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

T/Tult

1.2
1
0.8
Clay

0.6
0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)
0.026
0.099
0.177
0.269
0.281
0.313
0.385
0.408
0.457
0.526
0.650
0.768

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-83
83-88

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.924
1.085
1.080
0.956
0.916
1.106
1.712
1.582
1.647
1.661
0.754

Tult

*Based on mudline at El. -6 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

88

Sand

43.7

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-83
83-88

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.007
0.025
0.177
0.269
0.070
0.078
0.096
0.102
0.114
0.132
0.162
0.768
0.231
0.271
0.270
2.391
9.158
1.106
0.428
0.396
0.412
0.415
0.754

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.013
0.050

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.020
0.006 0.074

z(4)
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.023
0.089

z(5)
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.026
0.099

z(6)
0.025
0.025

0.141
0.157
0.193
0.204
0.228
0.263
0.325

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.211
0.235
0.289
0.306
0.342
0.395
0.487

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.253
0.282
0.347
0.367
0.411
0.473
0.585

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.281
0.313
0.385
0.408
0.457
0.526
0.650

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.462
0.543
0.540
4.782

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.693
0.814
0.810
7.173

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.831
0.977
0.972
8.608

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.924
1.085
1.080
9.564

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.856
0.791
0.824
0.831

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

1.284
1.187
1.235
1.246

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

1.541
1.424
1.482
1.495

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.712
1.582
1.647
1.661

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -6 meters.

DEPTH
(m)
88

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
10.925 0.004 21.850 0.031 32.775 0.105 39.330 0.183 43.700 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression
Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.058
0.086
0.166
0.248
0.320
0.400

0.00
7.30
17.22
25.81
35.47
56.89
83.86
90.24
99.45
109.76
116.33
120.70
120.70

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
7.29
17.18
25.73
35.23
55.11
74.71
76.95
76.95
76.95
76.95
76.95
76.95

0.00
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.24
1.78
9.15
13.29
22.50
32.81
39.38
43.75
43.75

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-WB.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-WB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-WB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-WB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E7-Westbound (Boring 98-30)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E7-WB.6c

PIER E8 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E8-Eastbound (Boring 98-31-Modified)


Skyway Frame 2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -5.3m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray

-10

-10

10

YBM

-sand layer, 6.1m to 6.4m

Specified Bottom

of Footing Elevation = -11.3 m

10

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


-20

-20

20

(19.5m)

-dense sand, 18.9m to 19.5m

20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to stiff, olive gray to gray


II

-30

-30

(25.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

III

30

30

Note:

(33.8m)

-40

-40

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray


-with a silt layer, 34.6m to 34.7m

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

IV

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

(38.7m)

in sand layers of the LAA.

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray

40

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

-50

-50

40

(48.2m)

-Interlayered hard to very stiff Fat CLAY (CH) and Dense Silty
50

SAND (SM)
-greenish gray silty sand, with clay pockets, seams and layers,

VI

OBM/UAM

elevation (used in compression capacity


-sand layer, 46.3m to 46.6m

estimates) was estimated using a statistical


frame-by-frame approach that takes into
o

Clay Profile

consideration the possible presence of clay

f=30 , d =25 , f max=81.4 kPa

50.3m to 52.4m

50

layers near the specified tip elevation.

(Clay End Bearing)

-60

-60

(55.8m)
Lean to Fat CLAY (CL/CH), hard to very stiff, gray
-with a sand layer at 57.6m

VII

60

60

(61.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray
-70

-70
VIII

70

70

(71.3m)
o

Clay Profile

-80

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

-80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray

IX

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Specified Tip Elevation = -97 m

(79.9m)

$
#

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray


-gray silty fine sand layer, 81.7m to 82.4m
-with sand layers, 83.1m to 83.8m

-90

-dense sand with clay seams, 84.7m to 85.3m

LAA

(88.4m)
Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, gray

XI

-100

Tension = 82 MN

-90

90

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

-100

90

80

Compression = 125 MN

80

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 8.8 MPa
TOTAL DEPTH: 99.2m

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

100

Tension and compression

-110

curves coincide.

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from

110

frictional resistance of the soil plug

-110

100

Compression
Tension

110

inside the pile.


-120

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E8-Eastbound (Boring 98-31 Modified)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E8-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-88
88-92

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)

0.025
0.094
0.132
0.167
0.219
0.251
0.340
0.557
0.590
0.805
0.750
0.888

*Based on mudline at El. -5 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.3

0.959
1.042
1.050
1.024
1.032
1.339
1.405
0.910
1.458
1.847
0.754

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Depth

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

92

Sand

43.7

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E8-Eastbound (Boring 98-31 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E8-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-88
88-92

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.006 0.003 0.013
0.023 0.003 0.047
0.033 0.003 0.066
0.042 0.003 0.084
0.055 0.003 0.109
0.063 0.003 0.125
0.085 0.0025 0.170
0.139 0.003 0.278
0.147 0.003 0.295
0.201 0.003 0.403
0.188 0.003 0.375
0.222 0.003 0.444
0.240 0.003 0.479
0.261 0.003 0.521
0.263 0.003 0.525
0.256 0.0025 0.512
0.258 0.003 0.516
0.335 0.003 0.670
0.351 0.003 0.703
0.910 0.003
0.365 0.003 0.729
0.462 0.003 0.924
0.754 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.019
0.006 0.070
0.006 0.099
0.006 0.125
0.006 0.164
0.006 0.188
0.006 0.255
0.006 0.418
0.006 0.442
0.006 0.604
0.006 0.563
0.006 0.666
0.006 0.719
0.006 0.782
0.006 0.788
0.006 0.768
0.006 0.774
0.006 1.004
0.006 1.054

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.023
0.084
0.118
0.150
0.197
0.226
0.306
0.501
0.531
0.725
0.675
0.799
0.863
0.938
0.945
0.922
0.929
1.205
1.265

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.025
0.094
0.132
0.167
0.219
0.251
0.340
0.557
0.590
0.805
0.750
0.888
0.959
1.042
1.050
1.024
1.032
1.339
1.405

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012

1.312
1.662

0.018
0.018

1.458
1.847

0.025
0.025

1.094
1.385

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -5 meters

DEPTH
(m)
92

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
10.930 0.004 21.860 0.031 32.790 0.105 39.348 0.183 43.720 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E8-Eastbound (Boring 98-31 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E8-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

Compression
Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.062
0.082
0.171
0.255
0.330
0.400

0.00
5.93
14.52
22.46
32.11
55.98
86.20
95.23
103.00
115.36
121.93
126.30
126.30

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
5.91
14.46
22.36
31.94
54.86
78.71
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55

0.00
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.17
1.12
7.49
12.68
20.45
32.81
39.38
43.75
43.75

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E8-Eastbound (Boring 98-31 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E8-EB.4

0.40

PIER E8 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E8-Westbound (Boring 98-31)


Skyway Frame 2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -5.3m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray

-10

-10

10

YBM

-sand layer, 6.1m to 6.4m

Specified Bottom

of Footing Elevation = -11.3 m

10

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


-20

-20

20

(19.5m)

-dense sand, 18.9m to 19.5m

20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to stiff, olive gray to gray


II

-30

-30

(25.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

III

30

30

Note:

(33.8m)

-40

-40

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray


-with a silt layer, 34.6m to 34.7m

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

IV

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

(38.7m)

in sand layers of the LAA.

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, gray

40

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

-50

-50

40

(48.2m)

Interlayered Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, and Silty SAND
50

(SM), dense
-greenish gray silty sand, with clay pockets, seams and layers,

VI

OBM/UAM

elevation (used in compression capacity


-sand layer, 46.3m to 46.6m

estimates) was estimated using a statistical


frame-by-frame approach that takes into
consideration the possible presence of clay
Clay Profile

f=30 , d =25 , f max=81.4 kPa

50.3m to 52.4m

50

layers near the specified tip elevation.

(Clay End Bearing)

-60

-60

(55.8m)
Lean to Fat CLAY (CL/CH), hard to very stiff, gray
-with a sand layer at 57.6m

VII

60

60

(61.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, gray
-70

-70
VIII

70

70

(71.3m)
o

Clay Profile

-80

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)

-80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray

IX

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

-with sand layers, 83.1m to 83.8m

$
#

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray


-gray silty fine sand layer, 81.7m to 82.4m

-90

Specified Tip Elevation = -97 m

(79.9m)

-dense sand with clay seams, 84.7m to 85.3m

XI

-sand with silt, below 90.7m

Clay Profile

(Clay End Bearing)

XII

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

90

-100

-100

-90

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

(91.9m)

-clay layer, 90.4m to 90.7m

(95.1m)
o

-with a silt layer at 93.6m

XIII

(98.1m)
GRAVEL with sand (GP), very dense, gray, subangular
100

LAA

-silt with sand and with clay seams and layers, 86.9m to 87.5m
-clay layer, 89.9m to 90.2m

Tension = 82 MN

(86.6m)

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, gray

90

80

Compression = 125 MN

80

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

Tip Elevation = 8.8 MPa

XIV

-olive brown sandy lean clay with gravel, 95.4m to 96.0m

100

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark yellowish brown mottled with gray

-110

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from

110

frictional resistance of the soil plug

-110

TOTAL DEPTH: 99.2m

Compression
Tension

110

inside the pile.


-120

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E8-Westbound (Boring 98-31)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E8-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)

0.032
0.099
0.149
0.181
0.209
0.249
0.341
0.559
0.587
0.787
0.771
0.888

*Based on mudline at El. -5 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.959
1.042
1.050
1.025
1.031
1.341
1.404
0.905
1.466
1.833
0.754

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

91

Sand

43.7

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E8-Westbound (Boring 98-31)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E8-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.008 0.003 0.016
0.025 0.003 0.050
0.037 0.003 0.075
0.045 0.003 0.091
0.052 0.003 0.105
0.062 0.003 0.125
0.085 0.0025 0.171
0.140 0.003 0.280
0.147 0.003 0.293
0.197 0.003 0.393
0.193 0.003 0.386
0.222 0.003 0.444
0.240 0.003 0.479
0.261 0.003 0.521
0.263 0.003 0.525
0.256 0.0025 0.513
0.258 0.003 0.516
0.335 0.003 0.671
0.351 0.003 0.702
0.905 0.003
0.367 0.003 0.733
0.458 0.003 0.917
0.754 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.024
0.006 0.074
0.006 0.112
0.006 0.136
0.006 0.157
0.006 0.187
0.006 0.256
0.006 0.419
0.006 0.440
0.006 0.590
0.006 0.578
0.006 0.666
0.006 0.719
0.006 0.782
0.006 0.788
0.006 0.769
0.006 0.773
0.006 1.006
0.006 1.053

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.029
0.089
0.134
0.163
0.188
0.224
0.307
0.503
0.528
0.708
0.694
0.799
0.863
0.938
0.945
0.923
0.928
1.207
1.264

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.032
0.099
0.149
0.181
0.209
0.249
0.341
0.559
0.587
0.787
0.771
0.888
0.959
1.042
1.050
1.025
1.031
1.341
1.404

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012

1.319
1.650

0.018
0.018

1.466
1.833

0.025
0.025

1.100
1.375

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -5 meters.

DEPTH
(m)
91

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
10.930 0.004 21.860 0.031 32.790 0.105 39.348 0.183 43.720 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E8-Westbound (Boring 98-31)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E8-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

Compression
140

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.060
0.088
0.169
0.253
0.330
0.400

0.00
5.95
14.56
22.51
32.18
56.07
85.81
93.42
103.00
113.56
120.13
124.50
124.50

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
5.93
14.49
22.40
31.98
54.75
77.74
80.75
80.75
80.75
80.75
80.75
80.75

0.00
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.20
1.32
8.07
12.67
22.25
32.81
39.38
43.75
43.75

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E8-Westbound (Boring 98-31)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -96 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E8-WB.4

0.40

PIER E9 (EASTBOUND
AND WESTBOUND)

Pier E9-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-32)


Skyway Frame 2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -4.0m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft, olive gray

-10

YBM

-10

10

Specified Bottom

10

of Footing Elevation = -10.9 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN

-sand layer, 12.2m to 12.5m


-sand layer, 13.9m to 14.3m

-20

-20

-medium dense silty fine sand, with clay pockets and organic (16.8m)

20

(18.4m)

II

Lean CLAY (CL), hard


III

-silt layer, 17.5m to 17.8m


Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray
-clay layer, 19.7m to 20.0m

MPSA

pockets, 15.5m to 15.8m

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

Clay Profile

20

(Clay End Bearing)

(22.9m)
(25.0m)

IV

-clay layer, 20.4m to 20.7m

-30

-30

Fat CLAY (CH), stiff, greenish gray

30

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

30

(31.1m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

Note:
VI

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

(37.2m)

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray


VII

in sand layers of the LAA.

40

(41.1m)

-silt layer, 40.4m to 40.7m

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

elevation (used in compression capacity

VIII

-50

-50

40

-40

-40

estimates) was estimated using a statistical


(48.2m)

frame-by-frame approach that takes into


IX

50

(51.4m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, gray

-60

OBM/UAM

Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense to very dense, gray

consideration the possible presence of clay

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

50

layers near the specified tip elevation.

-60
o

-silty fine sand layer, 54.9m to 55.2m


o

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

-silty fine to medium sand with trace coarse sand and gravel, (57.9m)
below 56.1m
60

60

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, olive gray


XI

-70

-70

(66.8m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark gray

70

70

XII

(73.5m)
gray

-silty sand layer, 74.2m to 75.3m

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

-sandy silt, with clay seams and layers, 75.3m to 76.2m

XIII

Specified Tip Elevation = -96 m

$
#

80

(81.4m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray
XIV

80

Compression = 128 MN
Tension = 85 MN
-90

-90

-80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard,


-80

(86.4m)

90

-clay layer, 89.0m to 89.3m


Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray

XV

(90.8m)

gray

TOTAL DEPTH: 95.8m

Clay Profile

(Clay End Bearing)

(92.4m) XVI

Fine to Medium SAND (SW-SM) with silt and gravel, very dense,
-100

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

XVII

90

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


-100

-clay layer, 86.9m to 87.2m

LAA

Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, gray

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

Tip Elevation = 8.8 MPa


100

100

Tension and compression

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

curves coincide.

-110

-110

Dashed line represents equivalent


110

unit end bearing available from

Compression
Tension

110

frictional resistance of the soil plug


inside the pile.
-120

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Piers E9-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-32)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E9.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-86
86-90

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)

0.046
0.094
0.133
0.177
0.212
0.386
0.536
0.528
0.625
0.646
0.741
0.744

*Based on mudline at El. -4 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.3

0.946
1.058
1.193
0.961
1.141
1.140
1.415
1.441
1.570
1.783
0.759

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

90

Sand

43.7

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Piers E9-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-32)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E9.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-86
86-90

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.012 0.003 0.023
0.024 0.003 0.047
0.033 0.003 0.067
0.044 0.003 0.089
0.053 0.003 0.106
0.096 0.003 0.193
0.536 0.0025
0.132 0.003 0.264
0.156 0.003 0.313
0.162 0.003 0.323
0.185 0.003 0.370
0.186 0.003 0.372
0.237 0.003 0.473
0.265 0.003 0.529
0.298 0.003 0.597
0.961 0.0025
0.285 0.003 0.571
0.285 0.003 0.570
0.354 0.003 0.708
0.360 0.003 0.721
0.393 0.003 0.785
0.446 0.003 0.892
0.759 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.035
0.006 0.071
0.006 0.100
0.006 0.133
0.006 0.159
0.006 0.289

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.042
0.085
0.120
0.160
0.191
0.347

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.046
0.094
0.133
0.177
0.212
0.386

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.396
0.469
0.485
0.555
0.558
0.710
0.794
0.895

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.475
0.563
0.581
0.667
0.670
0.851
0.952
1.074

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.528
0.625
0.646
0.741
0.744
0.946
1.058
1.193

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.856
0.855
1.061
1.081
1.178
1.337

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

1.027
1.026
1.274
1.297
1.413
1.605

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.141
1.140
1.415
1.441
1.570
1.783

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -4 meters

DEPTH
(m)
90

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
10.930 0.004 21.860 0.031 32.790 0.105 39.348 0.183 43.720 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Piers E9-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-32)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E9.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

Compression
Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.060
0.086
0.169
0.252
0.330
0.400

0.00
7.00
16.88
25.07
34.08
56.68
86.28
94.56
104.20
114.97
121.53
125.90
125.90

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.98
16.82
24.91
33.76
55.17
78.52
82.16
82.16
82.16
82.16
82.16
82.16

0.00
0.02
0.07
0.16
0.32
1.51
7.76
12.40
22.04
32.81
39.37
43.74
43.74

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Piers E9-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-32)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E9.4

0.40

PIER E10 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)


Skyway Frame 2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.8m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

-10

(9.8m)
Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), loose to medium dense, gray
-firm clay layer, 10.5m to 10.8m

-firm clay below 12.2m


Fine SAND (SP), very dense, gray

-20

III

-with a stiff clay layer, 12.8m to 13.7m

10

f =25 , d=20 , fmax=67.0 kPa

Clay

II

Profile

(12.5m)

Specified Bottom

(Clay End Bearing)


o

MPSA

10

Clay Profile

of Footing Elevation = -11.75 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

-20

-10

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm , gray

(Clay End Bearing)

(17.8m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray
IV

20

-stiff to very stiff dark brown organic clay, with a few gray

20

(21.9m)

clay pockets, below 20.1m

Note:

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

(27.3m)

-30

-30

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

in sand layers of the LAA.

30

30

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

VI

elevation (used in compression capacity


estimates) was estimated using a statistical
frame-by-frame approach that takes into

(39.0m)
40

-40

-40

consideration the possible presence of clay

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

40

layers near the specified tip elevation.

VII

(44.5m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

-50

-50

Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense, greenish gray


50

(50.3m)

IX

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, olive gray

OBM/UAM

VIII

(48.3m)

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

50

-60

-60
X

60

60

(64.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, olive gray

-70

-70

XI

70

70

(74.7m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray

-80

-80

-sandy silt with clay seams, 75.3m to 76.4m


XII

80

80

(82.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, olive gray to gray
XIII

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

(93.7m)

Medium to Coarse SAND (SW-SM) with silt and gravel


(96.0m)

-100

XIV

(91.4m)

100

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

90

XV
o

XVI

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

XVII

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) with coarse sand and fine gravel,
very dense, gray

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 8.6 MPa

pockets, 97.5m to 98.1m

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

Dashed line represents equivalent

100

$
#

Compression = 132 MN

-110

Tension = 90 MN

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug
inside the pile.

-120

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Specified Tip Elevation = -97 m

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-110

110

$
-100

-hard, yellowish brown lean clay layer with gravel and silt

TOTAL DEPTH: 100.1m

-fine to medium sand, with silt and fine gravel, at 89.6m

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, dark gray


90

-90

(86.6m)

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression

-120

-dense sand layer, 85.5m to 85.8m

LAA

-90

Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E10-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)

0.017
0.079
0.133
0.147
0.252
0.434
0.580
0.563
0.613
0.823
0.763
0.845

*Based on mudline at El. -4 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.875
0.890
0.958
0.998
1.290
1.360
1.459
1.549
1.641
1.816
0.763

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

91

Sand

43.7

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.004 0.003 0.009
0.020 0.003 0.040
0.033 0.003 0.066
0.147 0.003
0.252 0.003
0.434 0.003
0.145 0.0025 0.290
0.141 0.003 0.282
0.153 0.003 0.307
0.206 0.003 0.411
0.191 0.003 0.381
0.211 0.003 0.423
0.219 0.003 0.438
0.223 0.003 0.445
0.240 0.003 0.479
0.249 0.0025 0.499
0.323 0.003 0.645
0.340 0.003 0.680
0.365 0.003 0.730
0.387 0.003 0.775
0.410 0.003 0.821
0.454 0.003 0.908
0.763 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.013
0.006 0.059
0.006 0.100

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.015
0.071
0.119

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.017
0.079
0.133

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.522
0.507
0.552
0.740
0.687
0.761
0.788
0.801
0.863
0.898
1.161
1.224
1.313
1.394
1.477
1.634

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.580
0.563
0.613
0.823
0.763
0.845
0.875
0.890
0.958
0.998
1.290
1.360
1.459
1.549
1.641
1.816

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.435
0.422
0.460
0.617
0.572
0.634
0.656
0.668
0.719
0.748
0.968
1.020
1.094
1.162
1.231
1.362

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. - 4 meters

DEPTH
(m)
91

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
10.930 0.004 21.860 0.031 32.790 0.105 39.348 0.183 43.720 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

Compression
Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.064
0.092
0.172
0.255
0.330
0.400

0.00
6.92
16.02
23.71
33.08
56.80
88.82
100.30
110.00
120.39
126.94
131.30
131.30

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.89
15.94
23.57
32.81
55.66
82.12
87.65
87.65
87.65
87.65
87.65
87.65

0.00
0.03
0.08
0.14
0.27
1.14
6.70
12.65
22.35
32.74
39.29
43.65
43.65

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-EB.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-EB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-EB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-EB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E10-Eastbound (Boring 98-33)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-EB.6c

PIER E10 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E10-Westbound (Borings 98-31 and 98-33)


Skyway Frame 2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.8m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray

-10

-10

10

YBM

-sand layer, 6.1m to 6.4m

10

Specified Bottom

of Footing Elevation = -11.75 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


-20

-20

(19.5m)

-dense sand, 18.9m to 19.5m


Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to stiff, olive gray to gray

(21.9m)

20

II

Note:

-stiff to very stiff dark brown organic clay, with a few gray
clay pockets, below 20.1m

-30

III

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

(27.3m)

-30

20

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

in sand layers of the LAA.

30

30

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

IV

elevation (used in compression capacity


estimates) was estimated using a statistical
frame-by-frame approach that takes into

(39.0m)
40

-40

-40

consideration the possible presence of clay

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

40

layers near the specified tip elevation.

(44.5m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

-50

-50

Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense, greenish gray


50

(50.3m)

VII

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, olive gray

OBM/UAM

VI

(48.3m)

f =35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

50

-60

-60
VIII

60

60

(64.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, olive gray

-70

-70

IX

70

70

(74.7m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray

-80

-80

-sandy silt with clay seams, 75.3m to 76.4m


X

80

80

(82.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, olive gray to gray
XI

-90

-90

-dense sand layer, 85.5m to 85.8m


(88.4m)

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

XII

(91.4m)
(93.7m)
(96.0m)

100

XIV

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

XV

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

Silty Fine to Medium SAND (SM) with coarse sand and fine gravel,
very dense, gray

90

XIII
o

Coarse SAND (SW-SM) with silt, gravel and medium sand


-100

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

-hard, yellowish brown lean clay layer with gravel and silt

Tip Elevation = 8.8 MPa

pockets, 97.5m to 98.1m


TOTAL DEPTH: 100.1m

$
$

-medium sand with silt, gravel and fine sand, at 89.6m

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -97 m

$
#

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-110

Compression = 132 MN
-110

Tension = 89 MN

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, dark gray

LAA

90

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from

-120

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

frictional resistance of the soil plug

Compression

inside the pile.

Tension

-120

110

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E10-Westbound (Borings 98-31 and 98-33)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E10-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91
91-94

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay

(MN/m)

0.028
0.099
0.139
0.181
0.206
0.251
0.330
0.554
0.560
0.777
0.716
0.807

*Based on mudline at El. -4 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

0.834
0.852
0.928
0.974
1.248
1.324
1.421
1.516
1.610
1.879
0.941
1.995

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

94

Sand

43.7

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E10-Westbound (Borings 98-31 and 98-33)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91
91-94

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.007 0.003 0.014
0.025 0.003 0.049
0.035 0.003 0.070
0.045 0.003 0.090
0.052 0.003 0.103
0.063 0.003 0.125
0.082 0.0025 0.165
0.139 0.003 0.277
0.140 0.003 0.280
0.194 0.003 0.388
0.179 0.003 0.358
0.202 0.003 0.404
0.209 0.003 0.417
0.213 0.003 0.426
0.232 0.003 0.464
0.244 0.0025 0.487
0.312 0.003 0.624
0.331 0.003 0.662
0.355 0.003 0.711
0.379 0.003 0.758
0.403 0.003 0.805
0.470 0.003 0.940
0.941 0.003
0.499 0.003 0.998

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.021
0.006 0.074
0.006 0.104
0.006 0.135
0.006 0.155
0.006 0.188
0.006 0.247
0.006 0.416
0.006 0.420
0.006 0.582
0.006 0.537
0.006 0.605
0.006 0.626
0.006 0.639
0.006 0.696
0.006 0.731
0.006 0.936
0.006 0.993
0.006 1.066
0.006 1.137
0.006 1.208
0.006 1.409

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.025
0.089
0.125
0.163
0.185
0.225
0.297
0.499
0.504
0.699
0.645
0.726
0.751
0.767
0.835
0.877
1.123
1.192
1.279
1.364
1.449
1.691

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.028
0.099
0.139
0.181
0.206
0.251
0.330
0.554
0.560
0.777
0.716
0.807
0.834
0.852
0.928
0.974
1.248
1.324
1.421
1.516
1.610
1.879

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006

0.012

1.796

0.018

1.995

0.025

1.496

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -4 meters
DEPTH
(m)
94

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
10.930 0.004 21.860 0.031 32.790 0.105 39.348 0.183 43.720 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E10-Westbound (Borings 98-31 and 98-33)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

Compression
140

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.070
0.088
0.180
0.264
0.340
0.400

0.00
5.81
14.19
21.93
31.28
54.95
87.62
103.89
111.20
124.17
130.73
135.10
135.10

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
5.79
14.13
21.84
31.10
54.30
82.49
91.36
91.36
91.36
91.36
91.36
91.36

0.00
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.18
0.65
5.13
12.53
19.84
32.81
39.37
43.74
43.74

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E10-Westbound (Borings 98-31 and 98-33)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -98 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E10-WB.4

0.40

PIER E11 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E11-Eastbound (Boring 98-42)


Skyway Frame 3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.9m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

-medium dense olive gray silty fine sand, with clay pockets,

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, olive gray to dark gray

Fine SAND (SP), very dense, dark gray

Specified Bottom

(10.8m)
II

III

10

of Footing Elevation = -9.6 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


Clay
Profile

(17.1m)

f=40 , d=35 , f max=114.9 kPa

-20

partings, and seams, 8.5m to 10.1m

-clay layer with many sand pockets, partings, and seams, 9.3m to
(13.3m)
9.6m

-20

-10

MPSA

10

-silty sand with clay pockets, 4.6m to 5.5m

-10

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to firm, olive gray

(Clay End Bearing)

IV

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, dark greenish gray


(20.6m)

20

20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

Note:

-greenish gray lean clay, 21.3m to 23.2m


V

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

(26.8m)

-30

-30

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, olive gray

in sand layers of the LAA.


30

30

VI

-silt layer with clay seams, 30.2m to 30.5m

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

(33.5m)

elevation (used in compression capacity

Lean CLAY (CL), hard to very stiff, dark greenish gray


VII

estimates) was estimated using a statistical

(36.9m)

-40

-40

frame-by-frame approach that takes into

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, dark greenish gray

consideration the possible presence of clay

VIII

40

layers near the specified tip elevation.

(41.5m)

40

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

Silty fine SAND (SM), dense, dark gray


X

-clay layer, 46.5m to 46.8m


50

-fine to coarse sand, with silt and gravel, below 48.6m

(49.5m)

-50

(46.2m)

OBM/UAM

IX

-lean clay below 44.2m

-50

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q
50

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark greenish gray

-60

-60
XI

60

60

(64.6m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark greenish gray

-70

-70

-sand layer, 64.9m to 65.7m

70

70

XII

-silt layer, 71.0m to 71.3m

(75.9m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, dark greenish gray

-80

-80

XIII

(78.9m)
80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

80

XIV

-90

-silt layer, 85.3m to 86.1m

(86.9m)

Fine to Medium SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense, gray


XV

90

-gravel with sand, silt and clay pockets, below 90.8m

LAA

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

(91.7m)

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, olive gray

Tip Elevation = 9.4 MPa

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

Dashed line represents equivalent

$
#

100

Compression = 140 MN
Tension = 94 MN
-110

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug
inside the pile.

-120

Specified Tip Elevation = -95 m

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-110

110

-100

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

XVII

olive gray
TOTAL DEPTH: 99.2m

90

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

Fine SAND with medium sand (SP), very dense, light brown to

100

XVI

(95.9m)

-100

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression

-120

-90

Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E11-Eastbound (Boring 98-42)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E11-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

(MN/m)

0.037
0.100
0.150
0.267
0.557
0.627
0.587
0.733
0.697
0.920
0.840
0.997

*Based on mudline at El. -4 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

1.137
1.103
1.137
0.897
1.367
1.425
1.535
1.617
1.717
1.893
0.758

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

91

Sand

45.9

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E11-Eastbound (Boring 98-42)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.009 0.003 0.018
0.025 0.003 0.050
0.038 0.003 0.075
0.067 0.003 0.133
0.557 0.003
0.627 0.003
0.147 0.0025 0.293
0.183 0.003 0.367
0.174 0.003 0.348
0.230 0.003 0.460
0.210 0.003 0.420
0.249 0.003 0.498
0.284 0.003 0.569
0.276 0.003 0.552
0.284 0.003 0.569
0.897 0.0025
0.342 0.003 0.684
0.356 0.003 0.713
0.384 0.003 0.768
0.404 0.003 0.809
0.429 0.003 0.859
0.473 0.003 0.947
0.758 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.028
0.006 0.075
0.006 0.113
0.006 0.200

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.033
0.090
0.135
0.240

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.037
0.100
0.150
0.267

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.440
0.550
0.523
0.690
0.630
0.748
0.853
0.827
0.853

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.528
0.660
0.627
0.828
0.756
0.897
1.023
0.993
1.023

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.587
0.733
0.697
0.920
0.840
0.997
1.137
1.103
1.137

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

1.025
1.069
1.151
1.213
1.288
1.420

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

1.230
1.283
1.382
1.455
1.545
1.704

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

1.367
1.425
1.535
1.617
1.717
1.893

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -4 meters
DEPTH
(m)
91

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
11.475 0.004 22.950 0.031 34.425 0.105 41.310 0.183 45.900 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E11-Eastbound (Boring 98-42)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.066
0.094
0.179
0.263
0.340
0.400

0.00
8.16
19.07
27.81
37.50
61.78
95.29
109.30
120.60
133.05
140.58
145.60
145.60

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
8.14
19.01
27.68
37.27
60.80
88.49
95.40
95.40
95.40
95.40
95.40
95.40

0.00
0.02
0.05
0.13
0.23
0.98
6.80
13.90
25.20
37.65
45.18
50.20
50.20

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E11-Eastbound (Boring 98-42)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-EB.4

0.40

PIER E11 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E11-Westbound (Borings 98-34)


Skyway Frame 3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

400

100

200

300

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

-10

f =30

-dense fine sand with silt, a few clay pockets, and a few shell
fragments, 9.1m to 10.1m

, d =25

, N q=20.0

, f

max

=81.4 kPa

, q

max

=4788 kPa

Specified Bottom

(11.9m)
(13.7m)

Fine SAND (SP-SM) with silt, very dense, gray

II

III

(17.4m)

10

of Footing Elevation = -9.6 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


MPSA

Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, olive gray

-20

300

soft to firm, olive gray

-10

10

200

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

ELEV. (m)

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

DEPTH (m)

2.5

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

-20

Fat CLAY (CH),

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

SOIL TYPE

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.8m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )


UNIT

STRATUM NO.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

YBM

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, gray


IV

20

20

(21.6m)

Note:

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

-30

-30

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped


in sand layers of the LAA.

30

30

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip


elevation (used in compression capacity
-lean olive gray clay below 34.4m

estimates) was estimated using a statistical

(36.7m)

-40

-40

frame-by-frame approach that takes into

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

consideration the possible presence of clay


40

VI

layers near the specified tip elevation.

40

(49.2m)
50

VIII

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray to gray

-50

VII

(46.9m)
Silty fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense, greenish gray

OBM/UAM

(44.2m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray
-50

f =30 , d=25 , N =20.0, f max=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q
50

-60

-60
IX

60

60

(64.2m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark greenish gray
-70

-70

70

70

(75.9m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, dark greenish gray

-80

-80

XI

(78.8m)
80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray

80

XII

-90

-90

(89.6m)
Fine to Coarse GRAVEL with medium to coarse sand (GW), very

XIV

dense, dark greenish gray

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

(93.0m)

-hard gray fat clay below 91.7m

f =30 , d=25 , N =20.0, f max=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

TOTAL DEPTH: 99.2m

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

Tip Elevation = 9.4 MPa

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Specified Tip Elevation = -95 m

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

Dashed line represents equivalent

$
#

100

Compression = 137 MN
Tension = 91 MN
-110

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug
inside the pile.

-120

-100

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

-110

110

90

XV

yellowish to reddish brown

100

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

Medium SAND (SW-SM) with silt and fine gravel, very dense,
-100

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression

-120

90

XIII

LAA

(87.2m)
Sandy SILT (ML), very dense, gray

Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E11-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6
0.4

Clay
Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.01

0.012

Depth

Soil

Tult

Depth

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)

(m)
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-90
90-91

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand

(MN/m)

0.030
0.123
0.147
0.193
0.387
0.467
0.530
0.640
0.617
0.687
0.743
0.923

*Based on mudline at El. -4 meters.

0.008

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

1.113
1.180
1.147
1.087
1.355
1.415
1.590
1.558
1.628
1.761
0.665
0.903

0.3

0.35

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

91

Sand

45.9

Depth

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-90
90-91

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0.008 0.003 0.015
0.031 0.003 0.062
0.037 0.003 0.073
0.048 0.003 0.097
0.097 0.003 0.193
0.467 0.003
0.133 0.0025 0.265
0.160 0.003 0.320
0.154 0.003 0.308
0.172 0.003 0.343
0.186 0.003 0.372
0.231 0.003 0.462
0.278 0.003 0.557
0.295 0.003 0.590
0.287 0.003 0.574
0.272 0.0025 0.544
0.339 0.003 0.678
0.354 0.003 0.708
0.398 0.003 0.795
0.390 0.003 0.779
0.407 0.003 0.814
0.440 0.003 0.881
0.665 0.003
0.903 0.003

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.023
0.006 0.092
0.006 0.110
0.006 0.145
0.006 0.290

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.027
0.111
0.132
0.174
0.348

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.030
0.123
0.147
0.193
0.387

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.477
0.576
0.555
0.618
0.669
0.831
1.002
1.062
1.032
0.978
1.220
1.274
1.431
1.402
1.465
1.585

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.530
0.640
0.617
0.687
0.743
0.923
1.113
1.180
1.147
1.087
1.355
1.415
1.590
1.558
1.628
1.761

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.398
0.480
0.463
0.515
0.557
0.692
0.835
0.885
0.860
0.815
1.016
1.061
1.193
1.169
1.221
1.321

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -4 meters
DEPTH
(m)
91

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
11.475 0.004 22.950 0.031 34.425 0.105 41.310 0.183 45.900 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression
Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Displacement Compression
(m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.064
0.094
0.175
0.258
0.330
0.400

0.00
6.75
16.06
24.24
34.18
59.14
92.68
104.70
115.50
126.44
133.31
137.90
137.90

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.72
15.98
24.10
33.92
58.06
85.96
92.04
92.04
92.04
92.04
92.04
92.04

0.00
0.03
0.08
0.14
0.26
1.08
6.72
12.66
23.46
34.40
41.27
45.86
45.86

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-WB.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-WB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-WB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-WB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E11-Westbound (Boring 98-34)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E11-WB.6c

PIER E12 (EASTBOUND


AND WESTBOUND)

Pier E12-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-35)


Skyway Frame 3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.6m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

-10

-10

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to firm, olive gray

-with a sand layer, 5.5m to 5.9m

10

-with a very dense sand layer, 8.4m to 9.1m

(9.8m)
10

Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, dark greenish gray

(16.0m)

-20

Specified Bottom

20

Clay

III

-clay layer, 16.5m to 16.8m

Profile

(19.8m)

-clay layer, 18.3m to 18.6m

of Footing Elevation = -12.6 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


o

Fine with Medium SAND (SP), dense, gray

-20

II

-dense to very dense sand layer, 12.2m to 12.8m

MPSA

-silt layer, 11.7m to 12.0m

f=35 , d=30 , f max=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)


20

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, dark greenish gray

Note:
-30

-30

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to


IV

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

30

30

in sand layers of the LAA.

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard,

elevation (used in compression capacity

(36.6m)

-40

-silt layer with clay pockets, 34.7m to 35.1m

-40

estimates) was estimated using a statistical

gray

frame-by-frame approach that takes into


40

consideration the possible presence of clay

40

layers near the specified tip elevation.

-50

-50

50

(47.9m)

OBM/UAM

-with a sand layer, 46.6m to 46.9m


Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, gray

50

-60

-60

VI

60

60

-70

-70

70

70

(71.3m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray
VII

-80

-80

(76.8m)
Silty Fine SAND (SM), very dense, greenish gray

(80.3m)

80

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

VIII

80

Lean CLAY with sand (CL), hard, greenish gray

IX

-90

-90

(89.3m)
90

Fine to coarse SAND (SW) with fine gravel, very dense, gray

LAA

(Clay End Bearing)

-100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

-hard, sandy lean clay layer below 96.5m


o

100

Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (SM) with fine gravel, very dense,

XI

Tip Elevation = 9.4 MPa

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

gray to yellowish brown

$
#

reddish brown mottling, 101.2m to 103.3m


-orange brown silty fine sand, with medium and coarse sand, fine

gravel and clay pockets, below 103.3m


TOTAL DEPTH: 104.4m
110

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

-120

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -97 m

-hard, light olive gray to greenish gray clay, with silt and

-110

Clay Profile

organic pockets, 94.9m to 95.9m

f=40 , d=35 , f max=114.9 kPa


(97.1m)

Compression = 138 MN
-110

-hard, greenish gray sandy lean clay layer, with sand and

-100

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

Tension = 92 MN

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

frictional resistance of the soil plug


inside the pile.

Compression

-120

90

Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Piers E12-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-35)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E12.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.030
0.127
0.056
0.363
0.477
0.483
0.580
0.587
0.693
0.723
0.753
0.790

*Based on mudline at El. -4 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-89
89-93

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

1.030
1.157
0.953
1.196
1.273
1.235
1.300
1.540
1.265
1.944
0.916

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2

Q/Qult

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

93

Sand

45.9

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Piers E12-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-35)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E12.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-89
89-93

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.008
0.032
0.014
0.091
0.119
0.121
0.145
0.147
0.173
0.181
0.188
0.198
0.258
0.289
0.238
0.299
0.318
0.309
0.325
0.385
0.316
0.486
0.916

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.015
0.063
0.028
0.182
0.238
0.242
0.290
0.293
0.347
0.362
0.377
0.395
0.515
0.579
0.477
0.598
0.637
0.618
0.650
0.770
0.633
0.972

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.023
0.006 0.095
0.006 0.042
0.006 0.273
0.006 0.357
0.006 0.362
0.006 0.435
0.006 0.440
0.006 0.520
0.006 0.542
0.006 0.565
0.006 0.593
0.006 0.773
0.006 0.868
0.006 0.715
0.006 0.897
0.006 0.955
0.006 0.926
0.006 0.975
0.006 1.155
0.006 0.949
0.006 1.458

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.027
0.114
0.051
0.327
0.429
0.435
0.522
0.528
0.624
0.651
0.678
0.711
0.927
1.041
0.858
1.076
1.146
1.112
1.170
1.386
1.139
1.750

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.030
0.127
0.056
0.363
0.477
0.483
0.580
0.587
0.693
0.723
0.753
0.790
1.030
1.157
0.953
1.196
1.273
1.235
1.300
1.540
1.265
1.944

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -4 meters

DEPTH
(m)
93

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
11.475 0.004 22.950 0.031 34.425 0.105 41.310 0.183 45.900 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Piers E12-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-35)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E12.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

Compression

40

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

20

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Doaplacemen Compression
t (m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.066
0.096
0.178
0.260
0.340
0.400

0.00
6.19
15.12
23.36
33.23
57.98
91.09
104.40
115.20
126.24
133.11
137.70
137.70

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.17
15.06
23.24
33.03
57.18
84.93
91.84
91.84
91.84
91.84
91.84
91.84

0.00
0.02
0.06
0.12
0.20
0.80
6.16
12.56
23.36
34.40
41.27
45.86
45.86

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Piers E12-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-35)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -97 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E12.4

0.40

PIER E13 (EASTBOUND)

Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)


Skyway Frame 3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.4m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

10

-sand layer, 9.6m to 10.1m

(13.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, greenish gray
-sand layer, 15.4m to 15.7m

-20

-10

II

(16.9m)

Specified Bottom

-sand layer below 16.5m

20

of Footing Elevation = -14.5 m

-20

10

MPSA

shell fragments, 4.6m to 5.2m

-dark gray silty fine sand, with a few clay pockets, shells and
-10

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN


III

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

20

(21.9m)

Note:

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

-30

-30

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped


in sand layers of the LAA.
30

30

IV

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip


elevation (used in compression capacity
estimates) was estimated using a statistical

-interlayered silt and clay, below 35.7m

frame-by-frame approach that takes into

(38.7m)
40

-40

-40

consideration the possible presence of clay

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

layers near the specified tip elevation.

40

OBM/UAM

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

-50

(46.0m)
-50

VI

50

50

(53.0m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray

-60

-60
VII

60

60

(61.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray
VIII

-silt layer to 61.9m


(65.5m)

Silty

Fine SAND (SM), medium dense to dense, dark greenish

gray
-clay layer, 65.8m to 66.4m

70
X

-laminated sand and clay at 66.4m

(72.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark greenish gray
(74.7m)
Interlayered SAND (SP), dense, and CLAY (CL), hard

-80

Sandy CLAY (CL), dense, dark greenish gray

80

-70

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

IX

(69.5m)

XI

(76.2m)

XII

(77.9m)

XIII

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

(Clay End Bearing)


o

Clay Profile

-80

70

-silt layer, 64.6m to 65.2m


-70

f =35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

Fine to Coarse SAND (SW) with fine to coarse gravel, dense, gray
XIV
(80.5m)

80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, dark greenish gray


XV

LAA

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, yellowish brown

(83.5m)

-sand layer, 80.9m to 81.2m


Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (SM) with fine gravel, very dense,

-90

-90

yellowish brown
o

-with a clay layer, 87.2m to 87.9m

XVI

90

TOTAL DEPTH: 94.9m

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

90

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-100

-100

100

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -96 m

curves coincide.

-110

Compression = 129 MN
Tension = 83 MN

-110

$
#

Tension and compression

110

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

110

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from
frictional resistance of the soil plug

inside the pile.

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression

-120

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 9.4 MPa

-120

Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E13-EB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.043
0.102
0.147
0.183
0.313
0.503
0.543
0.590
0.630
0.690
0.733
0.777

*Based on mudline at El. -3 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-88

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.890
0.937
0.920
1.218
1.278
1.337
1.102
1.433
1.408
1.395

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

88

Sand

45.9

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -91 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-EB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-88

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.011
0.026
0.037
0.046
0.078
0.126
0.136
0.148
0.158
0.173
0.183
0.194
0.223
0.234
0.230
0.305
0.320
0.334
0.276
0.358
0.352
1.395

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.022
0.051
0.074
0.092
0.157
0.252
0.272
0.295
0.315
0.345
0.367
0.388
0.445
0.468
0.460
0.609
0.639
0.669
0.551
0.717
0.704

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.032
0.006 0.077
0.006 0.110
0.006 0.137
0.006 0.235
0.006 0.377
0.006 0.407
0.006 0.443
0.006 0.473
0.006 0.518
0.006 0.550
0.006 0.583
0.006 0.668
0.006 0.703
0.006 0.690
0.006 0.914
0.006 0.959
0.006 1.003
0.006 0.827
0.006 1.075
0.006 1.056

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.039
0.092
0.132
0.165
0.282
0.453
0.489
0.531
0.567
0.621
0.660
0.699
0.801
0.843
0.828
1.096
1.150
1.203
0.992
1.290
1.267

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.043
0.102
0.147
0.183
0.313
0.503
0.543
0.590
0.630
0.690
0.733
0.777
0.890
0.937
0.920
1.218
1.278
1.337
1.102
1.433
1.408

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -3 meters

DEPTH
(m)
88

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
11.475 0.004 22.950 0.031 34.425 0.105 41.310 0.183 45.900 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -91 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-EB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Doaplacemen Compression
t (m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.058
0.084
0.167
0.249
0.320
0.400

0.00
6.12
14.93
23.06
32.83
57.51
88.35
94.47
103.60
114.83
121.71
126.30
126.30

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.09
14.87
22.94
32.62
56.60
78.65
80.43
80.43
80.43
80.43
80.43
80.43

0.00
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.21
0.91
9.70
14.04
23.17
34.40
41.28
45.87
45.87

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -91 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-EB.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound

10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound

20

30

Depth (meters)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-EB.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-EB.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-EB.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Pier E13-Eastbound (Boring 98-43)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-EB.6c

PIER E13 (WESTBOUND)

Pier E13-Westbound (Borings 98-43-Modified)


Skyway Frame 3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.4m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), soft to firm, olive gray

-dark gray silty fine sand, with a few clay pockets, shells and

-10

shell fragments, 4.6m to 5.2m


I

10

-sand layer, 9.6m to 10.1m

-20

Specified Bottom

(16.9m)

of Footing Elevation = -14.5 m

-20

10

YBM

-10

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray


II

20

20

(21.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

-30

-30

30

30

III

Note:

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to


maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

-interlayered silt and clay, below 35.7m

in sand layers of the LAA.

(38.7m)
40

-40

-40

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

40

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip


IV

OBM/UAM

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

estimates) was estimated using a statistical


frame-by-frame approach that takes into
consideration the possible presence of clay
layers near the specified tip elevation.

50

-50

(46.0m)
-50

elevation (used in compression capacity

50

(53.0m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray

-60

-60
VI

60

60

(61.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray
VII

-silt layer to 61.9m


(65.5m)

Silty

Fine SAND (SM), medium dense to dense, dark greenish

gray

-70

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

VIII

(69.5m)

-clay layer, 65.8m to 66.4m

70
IX

-laminated sand and clay at 66.4m

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, dark greenish gray


(74.7m)
Interlayered SAND (SP), dense, and CLAY (CL), hard

-80

Sandy CLAY (CL), dense, dark greenish gray

f=35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa

(72.7m)

(Clay End Bearing)

(76.2m)

XI

(77.9m)

XII

Clay Profile

-80

70

-silt layer, 64.6m to 65.2m


-70

f =35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

Fine to Coarse SAND (SW) with fine to coarse gravel, dense, gray
80

80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, dark greenish gray

LAA

XIII

-90

-90

(87.2m)
Silty Fine to Coarse SAND (SM) with fine gravel, very dense,
yellowish brown
o

XIV

TOTAL DEPTH: 94.9m

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

90

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

-100

-100

90

Unit End Bearing at the Specified


Tip Elevation = 9.4 MPa
100

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -96 m

$
#

curves coincide.

-110

Compression = 132 MN
Tension = 86 MN

-110

Tension and compression

110

110

Dashed line represents equivalent

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug

Compression

inside the pile.

Tension

-120

-120

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Pier E13-Westbound (Boring 98-43 Modified)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E13-WB.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.040
0.103
0.143
0.187
0.297
0.417
0.540
0.587
0.620
0.680
0.720
0.770

*Based on mudline at El. -3 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.877
0.933
0.913
1.208
1.267
1.330
1.098
1.423
1.407
2.031
0.899

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

91

Sand

45.9

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Pier E13-Westbound (Boring 98-43 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-WB.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.010
0.026
0.036
0.047
0.074
0.104
0.135
0.147
0.155
0.170
0.180
0.193
0.219
0.233
0.228
0.302
0.317
0.333
0.275
0.356
0.352
0.508
0.899

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.020
0.052
0.072
0.093
0.148
0.208
0.270
0.293
0.310
0.340
0.360
0.385
0.438
0.467
0.457
0.604
0.634
0.665
0.549
0.712
0.704
1.016

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.030
0.006 0.077
0.006 0.107
0.006 0.140
0.006 0.223
0.006 0.313
0.006 0.405
0.006 0.440
0.006 0.465
0.006 0.510
0.006 0.540
0.006 0.578
0.006 0.658
0.006 0.700
0.006 0.685
0.006 0.906
0.006 0.950
0.006 0.998
0.006 0.824
0.006 1.067
0.006 1.055
0.006 1.523

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.036
0.093
0.129
0.168
0.267
0.375
0.486
0.528
0.558
0.612
0.648
0.693
0.789
0.840
0.822
1.087
1.140
1.197
0.988
1.281
1.266
1.828

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.040
0.103
0.143
0.187
0.297
0.417
0.540
0.587
0.620
0.680
0.720
0.770
0.877
0.933
0.913
1.208
1.267
1.330
1.098
1.423
1.407
2.031

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -3 meters

DEPTH
(m)
91

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
11.475 0.004 22.950 0.031 34.425 0.105 41.310 0.183 45.900 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Pier E13-Westbound (Boring 98-43 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-WB.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Doaplacemen Compression
t (m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.062
0.084
0.174
0.257
0.330
0.400

0.00
6.04
14.74
22.75
32.37
56.53
88.20
98.18
107.20
120.12
127.01
131.60
131.60

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.01
14.65
22.60
32.10
55.33
80.90
85.66
85.66
85.66
85.66
85.66
85.66

0.00
0.03
0.09
0.15
0.27
1.20
7.30
12.52
21.54
34.46
41.35
45.94
45.94

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Pier E13-Westbound (Boring 98-43 Modified)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E13-WB.4

0.40

PIER E14 (EASTBOUND


AND WESTBOUND)

Pier E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)


Skyway Frame 4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.0m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

to 5.8m

-10

-gray silty fine to fine sand with clay pockets and seams, 4.6m
-10

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to firm, dark gray to olive gray

-sand layer, 7.9m to 8.4m


10

10

(12.0m)

Interlayered Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, gray, and Fat CLAY
(CH), very stiff, gray

II

-clay with sand seams, 13.4m to 13.7m


-20

MPSA

(16.8m)

-clay with sand seams and pockets, 14.3m to 14.8m

f =35 , d=30 , fmax=95.8 kPa


Clay Profile
o

(Clay End Bearing)


o

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

-20

-sand layer, 10.1m to 10.4m

Specified Bottom

-sand with clay pockets at 14.8m


20

-very dense fine sand below 15.1m

III

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 2 MN

(21.6m)

Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, gray

of Footing Elevation = -16 m


20

-very dense gray sand, 18.4m to 18.7m


-very dense sand with clay seams, 18.9m to 19.5m
IV

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

-30

-30

(28.3m)

Note:

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, gray


30

-silt layer, 30.0m to 30.5m

30

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to


maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

(34.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

in sand layers of the LAA.

-40

VI

-40

(38.1m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray to olive gray

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

40

frame-by-frame approach that takes into

-with silt layers at 49.1m and 49.4m

consideration the possible presence of clay

-50

50

estimates) was estimated using a statistical


OBM/UAM

(45.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

-50

40

elevation (used in compression capacity

VII

layers near the specified tip elevation.


50

VIII

-60

-60

(60.4m)

60

60

Lean to Fat CLAY (CL/CH), hard, greenish gray

IX

(66.8m)

-70

-70

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, yellowish brown

70

70

(73.5m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray
XI

-sand with clay layers, 74.2m to 75.6m


(77.1m)

-80

-80

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, yellowish brown with light gray mottling
80

80

XII

-90

-90

(88.2m)
90

XIII

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q

XIV

f =35 , d=30 , N =40.0, f max=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

-hard lean clay, with iron oxide staining, silty fine sand

-100

partings and fine gravel pockets, 95.7m to 96.3m

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

(98.1m)
o

100

Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense, yellowish red


(101.2m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, brown

Tip Elevation = 9.2 MPa

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

110

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

100

Specified Tip Elevation = -96 m

Compression = 143 MN
Tension = 98 MN
-110

Dashed line represents equivalent


unit end bearing available from
frictional resistance of the soil plug
inside the pile.

-120

-100

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at

$
#

XV

-sand below 103.8m


TOTAL DEPTH: 103.9m

-110

$
$

very dense, yellowish red

110

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression
-120

90

LAA

Fine to Coarse SAND (SW-SM) with silt and fine gravel, dense to

Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E14.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
0.6

Clay

0.4

Sand

0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.030
0.080
0.113
0.137
0.360
0.547
0.470
0.640
0.613
0.817
0.766
0.907

*Based on mudline at El. -3 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-88
88-92

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

1.087
0.977
0.997
1.265
1.312
1.338
1.468
1.720
1.967
1.966
0.927

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

92

Sand

48.1

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E14.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-88
88-92

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.008
0.020
0.028
0.034
0.360
0.547
0.118
0.160
0.153
0.204
0.192
0.227
0.272
0.244
0.249
0.316
0.328
0.335
0.367
0.430
0.492
0.492
0.927

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.015
0.040
0.057
0.068

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.023
0.006 0.060
0.006 0.085
0.006 0.103

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.027
0.072
0.102
0.123

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.030
0.080
0.113
0.137

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.235
0.320
0.307
0.408
0.383
0.453
0.544
0.488
0.498
0.633
0.656
0.669
0.734
0.860
0.984
0.983

0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006

0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

0.423
0.576
0.552
0.735
0.690
0.816
0.978
0.879
0.897
1.139
1.181
1.204
1.321
1.548
1.770
1.769

0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

0.470
0.640
0.613
0.817
0.766
0.907
1.087
0.977
0.997
1.265
1.312
1.338
1.468
1.720
1.967
1.966

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.353
0.480
0.460
0.613
0.575
0.680
0.815
0.733
0.748
0.949
0.984
1.004
1.101
1.290
1.475
1.475

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -3 meters

DEPTH
(m)
92

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.025 0.004 24.050 0.031 36.075 0.105 43.290 0.183 48.100 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E14.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Doaplacemen Compression
t (m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.072
0.100
0.181
0.266
0.340
0.400

0.00
7.92
17.63
25.81
35.69
61.12
96.85
113.80
122.10
133.58
140.79
145.60
145.60

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
7.92
17.63
25.81
35.69
61.11
92.09
97.51
97.51
97.51
97.51
97.51
97.51

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
4.76
16.29
24.59
36.07
43.28
48.09
48.09

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -95 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E14.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E14.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E14.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E14.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Piers E14-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-36)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E14.6c

PIER E15 (EASTBOUND


AND WESTBOUND)

Pier E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)


Skyway Frame 4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.4m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

-intermixed sand and clay, 4.7m to 5.0m

10

Interlayered Fine SAND (SP), dense to very dense, gray, and Fat
CLAY (CH), very stiff to stiff, olive gray
II

-very stiff clay, 10.8m to 11.4m


-stiff clay, with silty sand pockets and a few calcareous

of Footing Elevation = -10.5 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN

(16.3m)

-stiff clay with organic pockets, below 15.1m


Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, olive gray
Silty Fine SAND (SM), dense, gray

-20

pockets, 11.9m to 13.4m

20

Specified Bottom

MPSA

(10.2m)

10

-20

-10

-fine sand, with clay pockets and seams, 4.0m to 4.7m


-10

YBM

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to firm, olive gray

III

(19.5m)
(21.5m)

f =30 , d=25 , fmax=81.4 kPa

Clay

IV

20

(Clay End Bearing)

Profile

Note:

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray to olive gray


V

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

-30

-30

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

(27.7m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, greenish gray

in sand layers of the LAA.

30

30

-with a silty sand layer, 30.3m to 30.9m

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

VI

elevation (used in compression capacity


estimates) was estimated using a statistical
frame-by-frame approach that takes into

(38.1m)

consideration the possible presence of clay

Fat CLAY (CH), hard to very stiff, yellowish brown


40

layers near the specified tip elevation.

(CH), hard, gray

-50

(44.8m)
Fat CLAY

40

OBM/UAM

VII

-50

-40

-40

50

50
VIII

-60

-60

(58.1m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray
60

60

IX

(62.0m)
Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM), very dense, olive gray
X

(67.1m)

-70

XI

Lean CLAY (CL), very stiff to hard, greenish gray

f=35 , d=30 , Nq=40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa

(65.5m)
-70

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray


70

70

XII

(73.8m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, greenish gray
-80

-80

-interlayered clay and silt, 75.6m to 76.8m


XIII

80

(86.0m)

Lean CLAY (CL), hard

XV

-90

-clay layer with sand seams, 80.9m to 81.2m

f=30 , d=25 , N =20.0, fmax=81.4 kPa, qmax=4788 kPa


q

XIV

LAA

(83.4m)

olive gray

-90

80

(80.8m)
Silty fine SAND (SM), dense to very dense, yellowish gray to

Fine SAND with silt and medium sand (SP-SM), dense to very
90

dense, gray

XVI

f=40 , d=35 , Nq=50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa

-hard clay layer, 90.5m to 91.1m

90

(93.6m)

TOTAL DEPTH: 99.2m

XVIII

Tip Elevation = 9.8 MPa

f=35 , d=30 , N =40.0, fmax=95.8 kPa, qmax=9576 kPa


q

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

curves coincide.
110

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Specified Tip Elevation = -93 m

Tension and compression

-110

-100

dense, yellowish brown to olive gray

100

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

(95.1m) XVII

Fine to Coarse SAND with clay and fine gravel (SP-SC), very

Dashed line represents equivalent

$
#

100

Compression = 137 MN
Tension = 89 MN
-110

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, yellowish gray


-100

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug

110

inside the pile.


2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

Compression
-120

-120

Tension

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E15.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8
Clay

0.6

Sand

0.4
0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

0.012

(MN/m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

0.027
0.110
0.150
0.387
0.420
0.573
0.570
0.613
0.660
0.817
0.857
0.890

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-83
83-86
86-90

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand
Clay
Sand

0.970
1.033
0.983
1.460
1.245
1.408
1.117
1.660
1.958
0.639
1.997
0.903

0.3

0.35

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

0.05

0.01

Depth*
(m)

Depth*

*Based on mudline at El. -3 meters.

0.008

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

90

Sand

48.1

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -93 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E15.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
t(1)
z(1)
t(2)
z(2)
t(3)
0-3
0.0
0.0
0.007 0.003 0.013
3-6
0.0
0.0
0.028 0.003 0.055
6-9
0.0
0.0
0.038 0.003 0.075
9-12
0.0
0.0
0.097 0.003 0.193
12-15
0.0
0.0
0.105 0.003 0.210
15-18
0.0
0.0
0.143 0.003 0.287
18-21
0.0
0.0
0.143 0.003 0.285
21-24
0.0
0.0
0.153 0.003 0.307
24-27
0.0
0.0
0.165 0.003 0.330
27-30
0.0
0.0
0.204 0.003 0.408
30-33
0.0
0.0
0.214 0.003 0.428
33-36
0.0
0.0
0.223 0.003 0.445
36-39
0.0
0.0
0.243 0.003 0.485
39-42
0.0
0.0
0.258 0.003 0.517
42-45
0.0
0.0
0.246 0.003 0.492
45-51
0.0
0.0
0.365 0.003 0.730
51-57
0.0
0.0
0.311 0.003 0.623
57-63
0.0
0.0
0.352 0.003 0.704
63-69
0.0
0.0
0.279 0.003 0.559
69-75
0.0
0.0
0.415 0.003 0.830
75-81
0.0
0.0
0.490 0.003 0.979
81-83
0.0
0.0
0.639 0.003
83-86
0.0
0.0
0.499 0.003 0.999
86-90
0.0
0.0
0.903 0.003
Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -3 meters

DEPTH
(m)
90

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.020
0.006 0.083
0.006 0.113
0.006 0.290
0.006 0.315
0.006 0.430
0.006 0.428
0.006 0.460
0.006 0.495
0.006 0.613
0.006 0.643
0.006 0.668
0.006 0.728
0.006 0.775
0.006 0.737
0.006 1.095
0.006 0.934
0.006 1.056
0.006 0.838
0.006 1.245
0.006 1.469

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.024
0.099
0.135
0.348
0.378
0.516
0.513
0.552
0.594
0.735
0.771
0.801
0.873
0.930
0.885
1.314
1.121
1.267
1.005
1.494
1.762

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.027
0.110
0.150
0.387
0.420
0.573
0.570
0.613
0.660
0.817
0.857
0.890
0.970
1.033
0.983
1.460
1.245
1.408
1.117
1.660
1.958

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.006

0.012

1.797

0.018

1.997

0.025

1.498

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.025 0.004 24.050 0.031 36.075 0.105 43.290 0.183 48.100 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -93 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E15.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Doaplacemen Compression
t (m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.062
0.086
0.174
0.257
0.330
0.400

0.00
6.46
15.75
24.31
34.57
60.29
93.86
104.20
114.20
127.19
134.40
139.20
139.20

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.43
15.68
24.18
34.34
59.24
86.25
91.15
91.15
91.15
91.15
91.15
91.15

0.00
0.03
0.08
0.13
0.23
1.05
7.61
13.05
23.05
36.04
43.25
48.05
48.05

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -93 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E15.4

0.40

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0
Coring, Upper and Lower Bound
10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Soil Resistance to Driving (MN)

SOIL RESISTANCE TO DRIVING


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E15.5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)
Menck MHU-500T, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E15.6a

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10
Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound
20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)
Menck MHU-1000, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E15.6b

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

Coring, Upper and Lower Bound


10

Plugged, Upper and Lower Bound


20

30

40

Depth (meters)

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120
0

50

100

150

200

250

Blows per 0.25 Meter

PREDICTED BLOW COUNTS


Piers E15-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-37)
Menck MHU-1700, 2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Piles
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E15.6c

PIER E16 (EASTBOUND


AND WESTBOUND)

Pier E16-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-38)


Skyway Frame 4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5

7.5

10

12.5

100

200

300

400

UNIT SKIN FRICTION (kPa)

100

200

300

UNIT END BEARING (MPa)

400

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITY (MN)

12.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

ELEV. (m)

2.5

SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

DEPTH (m)

MUDLINE ELEVATION: -3.4m (MSL)

SUBMERGED UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m )

SOIL TYPE

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

UNIT

STRATUM NO.

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (m)

ELEV. (m)

Project No. 98-42-0054

Fat CLAY (CH), very soft to firm, olive gray to gray

II

-10

YBM

-with gas blisters, 4.7m to 7.5m

MPSA

-gray to olive gray silty fine sand with clay pockets, 4.0m to 4.7m
-10

10

10

(11.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff, greenish gray
(15.2m)

Specified Bottom

of Footing Elevation = -11 m

Estimated Skin Friction Capacity at This Elevation = 1 MN

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, greenish gray

-20

-20

-sand layer, 15.8m to 15.8m

20

20

-sand with clay seams and layers, 19.8m to 20.6m


III

Note:

1) Specified tip elevations were selected to

-30

-30

maximize the probability for piles to be tipped

(28.0m)

in sand layers of the LAA.

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff, gray

30

IV

-sand layer, 30.0m to 30.5m

2) Ultimate end bearing at the specified tip

(32.9m)
Lean CLAY (CL), hard, gray

elevation (used in compression capacity

estimates) was estimated using a statistical

(36.6m)

-40

-40

30

frame-by-frame approach that takes into

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray

consideration the possible presence of clay


-sand layer, 39.9m to 40.2m

layers near the specified tip elevation.

VI

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray

-50

(46.3m)

-50

40

OBM/UAM

40

50

50
VII

-60

-60

(57.9m)
Fat CLAY (CH), hard, greenish gray
60

60

VIII

-interlayered clay and silt, 65.2m to 67.7m

70

-sandy

-70

-70

lean clay, 68.6m to 70.1m

70

(70.9m)

-sand layer, 70.1m to 70.3m


-sand with clay seams below 70.4m

IX

(74.7m)

Fat CLAY (CH), very stiff to hard, olive gray


-sand layer below 73.9m

-80

-80

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, brown

80

80

-interlayered clay and silt, 79.4m to 82.3m

-sandy lean clay, 81.7m to 82.9m


-sand layer, 82.9m to 83.4m
-lean clay below 83.4m

-90

(87.3m)
LAA

Fine to Medium SAND with silt (SP-SM), dense to very dense, gray
90

f=40 , d=35 , N =50.0, fmax=114.9 kPa, qmax=11970 kPa


q
XI

-very stiff, brown clayey sand with gravel, 95.4m to 96.3m

-100

f=30 , d=25 , f max=81.4 kPa

-clay layer, 96.3m to 96.6m

Tip Elevation = 9.8 MPa

-reddish brown to gray, silty fine to medium sand with coarse


100

sand and fine gravel, at 98.0m

(100.9m)

Fat CLAY (CH), hard, olive gray

-silt layer, 101.2m to 101.5m

110

Tension = 93 MN
-110

BACKFILLED WITH: Cement Grout

Tension and compression


curves coincide.

Dashed line represents equivalent

2.5-Meter-Diameter Driven Pipe Pile

110

unit end bearing available from


frictional resistance of the soil plug

Compression

inside the pile.

Tension
-120

-120

100

Compression = 141 MN

TOTAL DEPTH: 104.2m

-100

$
#

XIII

90

Estimated Ultimate Axial Capacity at


Specified Tip Elevation = -95 m

XII

Lean CLAY (CL), hard, olive brown


-110

Unit End Bearing at the Specified

Clay Profile

(Clay End Bearing)

(98.5m)

-silty fine sand layer, 84.9m to 85.2m

-90

AXIAL PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS AND RESULTS


Piers E16-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-38)

SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project


PLATE E16.1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

0.005

Z (m)
0.015

0.01

0.02

0.025

0.03

1.2
1
T/Tult

0.8

Clay

0.6

Sand

0.4
0.2
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
Z/D

Depth*

Soil

Tult

(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36

Type
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay

(MN/m)
0.033
0.113
0.163
0.200
0.363
0.573
0.497
0.580
0.630
0.733
0.807
0.977

*Based on mudline at El. -3 meters.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z (m)
0.2

0.008

0.01

0.012

Depth*
(m)

Soil
Type

(MN/m)

36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sand

0.993
0.927
0.990
1.192
1.257
1.368
1.502
1.635
1.750
1.903
0.914

0.3

0.35

0.25

Tult

1.2
1.0
Q/Qult

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075
Z/D

0.100

Soil

Qult

(m)

Type

(MN)

91

Sand

48.1

Depth*

0.125

0.150

AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER-DISPLACEMENT CURVES


Piers E16-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-38)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E16.2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEPTH
(m)
0-3
3-6
6-9
9-12
12-15
15-18
18-21
21-24
24-27
27-30
30-33
33-36
36-39
39-42
42-45
45-51
51-57
57-63
63-69
69-75
75-81
81-87
87-91

t(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

z(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

t(2)
0.008
0.028
0.041
0.050
0.091
0.143
0.124
0.145
0.158
0.183
0.202
0.244
0.248
0.232
0.248
0.298
0.314
0.342
0.376
0.409
0.438
0.476
0.914

z(2)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

t(3)
0.017
0.057
0.082
0.100
0.182
0.287
0.248
0.290
0.315
0.367
0.403
0.488
0.497
0.463
0.495
0.596
0.629
0.684
0.751
0.818
0.875
0.952

t-z Data
z(3)
t(4)
0.006 0.025
0.006 0.085
0.006 0.122
0.006 0.150
0.006 0.272
0.006 0.430
0.006 0.373
0.006 0.435
0.006 0.473
0.006 0.550
0.006 0.605
0.006 0.733
0.006 0.745
0.006 0.695
0.006 0.743
0.006 0.894
0.006 0.943
0.006 1.026
0.006 1.127
0.006 1.226
0.006 1.313
0.006 1.427

z(4)
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012

t(5)
0.030
0.102
0.147
0.180
0.327
0.516
0.447
0.522
0.567
0.660
0.726
0.879
0.894
0.834
0.891
1.073
1.131
1.231
1.352
1.472
1.575
1.713

z(5)
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018

t(6)
0.033
0.113
0.163
0.200
0.363
0.573
0.497
0.580
0.630
0.733
0.807
0.977
0.993
0.927
0.990
1.192
1.257
1.368
1.502
1.635
1.750
1.903

z(6)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

Notes:
1. "t" is load (MN/m)
2. "z" is displacement (m)
3. Data for tension and compression coincide
4. Based on mudline at El. -3 meters

DEPTH
(m)
91

Q(1)
0.0

z(1)
0.0

Q-z Data
Q(2)
z(2)
Q(3)
z(3)
Q(4)
z(4)
Q(5)
z(5)
Q(6)
z(6)
12.025 0.004 24.050 0.031 36.075 0.105 43.290 0.183 48.100 0.250

Notes:
1. "Q" is load in compression (MN)
2. "z" is displacement (m)

TABULATED AXIAL PILE LOAD TRANSFER DATA


Piers E16-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-38)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E16.3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

160

140

Load at the Pile Head, MN

120

100

80

60

40

Compression

20

Side Shear
(Tension)
End Bearing

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Displacement at the Pile Head, m

Load at the Pile Head


Pile Head
Doaplacemen Compression
t (m)
(MN)
0.000
0.002
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.024
0.048
0.066
0.086
0.178
0.261
0.340
0.400

0.00
6.25
15.26
23.57
33.56
58.67
92.62
106.40
115.00
129.09
136.29
141.10
141.10

Tension
(MN)

End Bearing
Component in
Compression
(MN)

0.00
6.23
15.19
23.44
33.33
57.77
86.07
93.04
93.04
93.04
93.04
93.04
93.04

0.00
0.03
0.07
0.13
0.23
0.90
6.55
13.36
21.96
36.05
43.25
48.06
48.06

Note:
Pile head load-displacement
curves are based on the
preliminary pile wall thickness
schedule provided by TY
Lin/M&N and static loading
conditions.

STATIC PILE HEAD LOAD-DEFORMATION CURVES


Piers E16-Eastbound and Westbound (Boring 98-38)
2.5-Meter-Diameter Pipe Piles (Pile Tip Elevation = -94 Meters)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project
PLATE E16.4

0.40

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B
VERIFICATION OF AXIAL PILE DESIGN METHODS

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

APPENDIX B
VERIFICATION OF AXIAL PILE DESIGN METHODS
INTRODUCTION
Due to the economic importance of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) and
the consequences of catastrophic failure in both economic and human terms, the design and
analysis of the pile foundations supporting the bridge explicitly consider a number of aspects of
pile-soil behavior that are normally not considered. A description of the methods used to
evaluate large-diameter pile foundations is presented in Section 4.0. This appendix documents
several of the data sources and example analyses that were performed to verify the methods
described in Section 4.0.
EVALUATION OF STATIC AXIAL LOAD TEST RESULTS IN SAN FRANCISCO
BAY SOIL
The ultimate axial capacity of driven piles is generally calculated as the algebraic sum of
the side shear acting on the outside surface of the embedded length of pile and the end-bearing
pressure acting on the pile tip. For clay soils, the unit side shear transfer and the unit end-bearing
pressures are calculated as functions of the undrained shear strength.
Since the foundation soils along the bridge right-of-way are predominantly clays, it was
deemed appropriate to obtain examples of pile load test data from nearby sites in similar soils,
and to use the results to improve the accuracy of the calculated axial pile capacities. The results
of a number of pile load tests performed by Caltrans in conjunction with the construction of a
bridge structure along I-280 in San Francisco were therefore examined to obtain factual data for
improving the pile capacity calculations.
In the Caltrans study, two 400-millimeter- (mm-) diameter pipe piles were tested well
after the piles were installed so that full setup had occurred. Since the piles supporting the Bay
Bridge are also pipe piles, only the results of these two load tests were examined. Assuming that
the differences in the measured tension and compression capacities were equal to twice the selfweight of the piles, the load tests were deduced to yield net axial capacities of 1,400 and 1,225
kilonewtons (kN). On the basis of the published load-settlement data, it was also deduced that
the axial capacities were derived almost totally from shear transfer along the pile shaft. The
corresponding average unit shear transfer (f) values over the embedded lengths of pipe were
calculated to be 43 and 37 kilopascals (kPa).
The only soil parameter available for correlation was the total unit weight. On the basis
of vertical overburden pressures ('v) calculated from the total unit weights, the lower value of
shear transfer corresponds to an equivalent -value ( = f/ 'v) of 0.31. Similarly, the higher

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

value of shear transfer corresponds to a -value of 0.36. The Young Bay Mud at the site was
assumed to be relatively normally consolidated. Published data suggest that the undrained shear
strength ratio for Young Bay Mud is about 0.31. Since a -value of 0.31 agrees well with
published values of the undrained shear strength ratio for the Young Bay Mud, an undrained
shear strength ratio value of 0.31 was considered appropriate for use (in lieu of the 0.25
inherently assumed by API [1993a,b]) with the Randolph and Murphy (1985) procedure (see
Section 4.0) used to calculate side shear resistance on the pile.
VERIFICATION OF DAMPING FACTORS FOR BAY MUD
The design and analysis of pile foundations for earthquake loading requires that, in
addition to normal static ultimate axial capacity design parameters, the characteristics defining
the nonlinear resistance-deformation behavior under dynamic loading also be determined. To
accomplish this purpose, dynamic laboratory tests on samples of Bay Mud were performed in
Fugro's Houston laboratory. Those tests were performed to demonstrate methods by which the
laboratory test results can be applied to the soil supporting the dynamically loaded foundation
piles.
Experimental Investigation of Dynamic Pile Behavior
As part of a program of pile foundation design for a bridge along I-280, Caltrans
previously conducted a comprehensive study of the behavior of various pile types in a deep
deposit of Bay Mud (Brittsan and Speer, 1993). One of the piles was a 400-mm-diameter,
13-mm-wall steel pipe pile. This pile was subjected to both static and dynamic loading to failure
about 8 months after driving. Since the mechanical properties for this pile are known, and since
the pile-soil support characteristics should be similar to those for the steel pipe piles supporting
the Bay Bridge, this pile was selected to demonstrate the reliability of the methods used to define
the viscous damping characteristics of clay soils.
The results of the load tests are shown on Plates B-1 and B-2. Plate B-1 contains the
results of a quasi-static loading to failure in compression performed on April 21, 1993. The
results of a dynamic loading to failure (performed by Statnamics, Inc., on April 20, 1993) are
given on Plate B-2.
Hindcast Estimates of Static and Dynamic Pile Behavior
The analyses of the pile load tests were performed sequentially, beginning with the static
load tests in tension and compression, and then proceeding to the dynamic compression test. The
static and dynamic pile solutions were performed using the DRIVE computer program,
developed by Meyer and Foo at the University of Texas at Austin under the direction of
Prof. Matlock (Meyer, 1976; Foo, 1978). The axial stiffness of Caltran's test pile was taken as
AE = 3.535 x 106 meganewtons (MN). The self-weight of the pile was calculated to be 1,315
kilonewtons per meter (kN/m) above and 2,024 kN/m below the mudline. These values
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

correspond to the weight of the steel cross section above the mudline and to the weight of the
steel pile plus the internal soil plug below. The calculated self-weight was verified by the
difference in the axial capacities measured in the static tension and compression tests.
By back-fitting the static load tests in tension and compression, the static soil reactions
were found to vary linearly with depth at a rate equal to 0.31 times the effective overburden
pressure, and to be equal in tension and compression. The shape of the axial support curve (t-z
curve) was taken from Bogard and Matlock (1990). Comparison of the measured and calculated
load-settlement behavior verified both the magnitude of the soil resistance and the shapes of the
axial support curves used for static loading.
For the dynamic load test, an equivalent linear damping coefficient was calculated as:
Ceq = (/V) Log10 (V/Vref)
where:

Ceq = an equivalent linear damping coefficient

= the rate of increase in shearing resistance per log cycle of


increase in strain rate

= the relative velocity of the pile with respect to the soil

Vref = a reference (static) velocity, experimentally determined to


be 0.0254 millimeter per second (mm/sec)
On the basis of laboratory test results (Fugro-EM, 2001), the coefficient for Bay Mud
was determined to be 0.12. The velocity of the pile during the dynamic load test was calculated
to be approximately 1.016 meters per second (m/sec), resulting in a damping coefficient of
0.00543 second per millimeter (sec/mm). The damping factor, Ceq, was then multiplied by the
peak static soil reactions along the pile to define an equivalent linear damping coefficient.
The results of the analysis of the static compression test are shown on Plate B-3. A
comparison of Plate B-3 with Plate B-1 indicates that the DRIVE solution closely matched the
results of the pile load test. A similarly close agreement was obtained with the results of the
static tension test.
Plates B-4 and B-5 contain the results of the simulation of the Statnamic load test. For
the DRIVE analyses, the force-time data from Plate B-2 were used to develop an input load-time
history, and the corresponding displacement-time history was calculated. The input force-time
history and the resulting displacement-time history are shown on Plate B-4. On Plate B-5, the
load and displacement data from Plate B-4 are compared with the static load-settlement data
from Plate B-3. A comparison of Plates B-4 and B-5 with Plate B-2 indicates that the DRIVE
results closely match the measured behavior.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

The close agreement between the observed and calculated pile behavior under static and
dynamic loading conditions implies that the method used for estimating the effects of load rate
on the soil reactions is sufficiently accurate for use in the design of pile foundations for
earthquake loading. It is expected that the earthquake loading will result in relative pile-soil
velocities of about 100 to 200 mm/sec, which is within the range of velocities used to develop
the damping coefficients.
EXAMPLE STATIC AND DYNAMIC SOIL-PILE INTERACTION ANALYSIS
To illustrate the static and dynamic axial load-deformation behavior of the piles planned
for the Main Span-East Pier and Skyway piers, example analyses were performed for one of the
piles supporting Pier E10.
Static Analyses
The surficial soils along the right-of-way exhibit a complex stratigraphy. Due to the
complexity of the layering of the soil, a large number of soil support curves are required to
describe the variation in the soil reactions with depth. In order to reduce the number of axial
support curves along the pile, the stratigraphy must be simplified yet faithfully reflect the axial
pile capacity and performance.
Initially, nonlinear axial support curves (t-z) are developed to describe the distribution
with depth of the axial soil resistance that reflects the complexity of the soil profile. These
support curves were then input into an axial pile-soil interaction program and the load-settlement
behavior was calculated. The soil support curves representing the complex soil stratigraphy were
then replaced with fewer curves that result in an identical load distribution along the pile, and the
load-settlement behavior was again calculated. When the two sets of input support curves yield
essentially identical load-settlement behavior, the simplification process is considered complete.
The results of the process are shown on Plates B-6 and B-7. Plate B-6 shows the
distribution with depth of two distributions of peak shear transfer. The first contains the
distribution from axial pile capacity calculations, while the second shows the simplified
distribution. The initial distribution includes the variations due to layering and the calculation
procedures. The second, a stepwise variation, depicts the simplified distribution. For the
simplified distribution, the peak shear transfer was described as remaining constant within each
soil layer used for the site response analysis. Since the layers were 3 meters thick above and
6 meters thick below 45-meter penetration, little error was introduced.
The DRIVE model used for the static and dynamic analyses of the pile consisted of 92
1-meter increments. The mudline was placed at Node 1 and the end-bearing support curve at
Node 92 to represent a 91-meter penetration and 1-meter stickup. The axial stiffness of the pile
was represented as: a) 9.752 x 104 meganewtons (MN) for the steel section between Node 0 and
60; b) 6.232 x 104 MN for the steel section between Node 60 and 92; and c) 1.160 x 105 MN for
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

the concrete between Node 0 and 55. For overlapping sequences, the stiffnesses are
algebraically accumulated. The weight of the steel was taken as 0.03098 meganewtons per meter
(MN/m) between Node 0 and 60, and 0.02017 MN/m between Node 60 and 92. The weight of
the concrete plug was taken as 0.0568 MN/m with the soil plug assumed to weigh
0.03576 MN/m.
The load-settlement curves derived from the DRIVE solutions for a weightless pile using
each load transfer distribution are shown on Plate B-7. As shown on Plate B-8, the pile-head
behavior is virtually identical, since the axial capacities are not biased by the pile weight. For
static (monotonic) loading, the pile can be replaced at each supported point on a structure by the
nonlinear curves shown on Plate B-7. However, for cyclic or dynamic analyses, the curves
shown on Plate B-7 cannot be used to describe the nonlinear, hysteretic response of a pile,
particularly with regards to the effects of cyclic degradation, loading rate (damping), and residual
load distributions.
To demonstrate such effects, the distributed weight of the steel pile, the internal concrete
and soil plugs, and external damping coefficients were added and the analyses were repeated.
The results of those analyses are shown on Plate B-8. In these analyses, a large time step (104
seconds) was used to minimize any contribution from mass and damping effects.
Dynamic Analyses
Cyclic axial loading of long flexible piles may result in two detrimental effects: 1) losses
in capacity due to cyclic degradation of the side shear, and 2) progressive settlement due to the
nonlinear and inelastic soil response. These effects may occur simultaneously or independently,
depending on the axial stiffness of the pile and the time-history of loading at the pile head.
The DRIVE program contains a cyclic degradation algorithm that is based on
experimental observations of the behavior of model and full-scale piles subjected to cyclic axial
loading. The program also provides a time history of loads and displacements along the pile, and
allows the investigation of the effects of biased cyclic loads on the progressive development of
permanent settlements.
Since no experimental data were available to describe the progressive degradation in
axial shear transfer capacity in the San Francisco Bay clays, the behavior was assumed to be
similar to that observed in the high plasticity Gulf of Mexico clays. In the Gulf of Mexico clays,
the cyclic minimum shear transfer was experimentally determined to be approximately equal to
the remolded shear strength. The value of the cyclic minimum shear transfer in the Bay clays
was therefore also taken to be equal to the remolded shear strengths.
The degradation model in the DRIVE program reduces the peak shear transfer on each
cycle of reversal at a prescribed rate as Qn+1 = (1 - )(Qn - Qmin) + Qmin, where Qn is the
resistance on cycle n and Qn+1 is the resistance on the next cycle, n+1. This formulation results
I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

in the resistance Q asymptotically approaching the minimum value Qmin at a rate prescribed by
the constant .
The progressive loss of shear transfer capacity during seven cyclic axial load tests on
instrumented piles in Gulf of Mexico clays are shown on Plate B-9. As shown on Plate B-9, the
rate of loss of resistance per cycle is bounded by values of ranging from 0.25 to 0.40. For the
Bay Bridge analysis, a value equal to 0.40 was selected.
Dynamic analyses were performed using a 51-second pile head force-time history
provided by TY Lin/M&N for one of the piles supporting Pier E10. Initially, time steps of 0.01
and 0.001 second were used, which required 5,100 and 51,000 time steps, respectively. Since a
comparison of the results showed them to be almost identical, the remaining analyses were
performed using time steps of 0.01 second.
The input load-time history, which was applied at the mudline, is shown in Plate B-10.
The load at the beginning and the end of the time history was 37 MN, implying that this value
represents the static load on the pile. The resulting time history of displacement at the mudline is
shown on Plate B-11, with the corresponding displacement history at the pile tip shown on
Plate B-12. At the pile head, a change in the pile-head settlement of 0.017 meter was calculated.
At the pile tip, 0.008 meter of settlement was calculated.
The source of the differential settlement can be found in a comparison of the residual
loads and the corresponding elastic compression of the pile before and after the earthquake. The
residual loads along the pile before and after the dynamic loading are shown on Plate B-13, with
the deflected shapes corresponding to the two load distributions shown on Plate B-14. Due to
the nonlinear and hysteretic nature of the soil reactions, the residual loads along the pile
increased significantly. The effects of the increased residual loads on the pile displacements are
shown in Plate B-14. Had the pile displacements been rigid body movement, the plastic slip at
the pile head and the pile tip would have been equal. However, the pile head exhibited over
twice the settlement of the pile tip. As shown on Plate B-14, the difference in the residual stress
distribution accounts for the difference in the final displacements, with 0.009 meter due to elastic
compression of the pile and only 0.008 meter due to plastic slip.
The results of the analyses shown on Plates B-11 through B-14 emphasize the need for
modeling the pile/soil interaction with a program such as DRIVE. Had the pile-soil system been
modeled solely by a lumped mass on nonlinear supports (even hysteretic supports), the
calculated settlement would have been less than half that predicted with a model that includes the
effects of residual stress along the pile.
The effects of cyclic degradation of the soil resistance along the pile are demonstrated on
Plate B-15. The initial maximum load transfer and the cyclic minimum values are shown on
Plate B-15 as the upper and lower bounds. The degraded values of load transfer at each node

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

along the DRIVE model are identified. For this particular analysis, the effects of cyclic
degradation are minor and are limited to a loss of about 10 percent of the side shear capacity
along the upper portion of the pile. It should be noted, however, that the process of cyclic
degradation is problem-dependent, being affected by the relative pile stiffness, the distribution
with depth of the soil reactions, and the magnitudes of the differences in the axial load. The
behavior predicted for the pile at this particular location under this single load-time history thus
cannot be assumed to represent the behavior at other locations along the bridge where the soils,
loads, and pile penetrations differ from those used for this example.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute (1993a), "Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Load and Resistance Factor Design," API
Recommended Practice RP 2A-LRFD, (RP 2A-LRFD), 1st Ed., API, Washington, D. C.
(1993b), "Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design," API Recommended Practice RP 2A-WSD,
(RP 2A-WSD), 20th Ed., API, Washington, D.C.
Bogard, D. and Matlock, H. (1990), "Application of Model Pile Tests to Axial Pile Design,"
Proceedings, 1990 Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 6376, Houston, Texas,
May.
Brittsan, D. and Speer, D. (1993), "Pile Load Test Results for Highway 280 Pile Uplift Test
Site."
Foo, S.H.C. (1978), "Analysis of Driving of Foundation Piles," Master's Thesis, Civil
Engineering Dept., The University of Texas at Austin, May.
Fugro-Earth Mechanics (Fugro-EM) (2001), Final Marine Geotechnical Site Characterization,
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, Volumes 1A & 1B,
Volumes 2A through 2H, FWI Job No. 98-42-0054, prepared for California Department
of Transportation, March 5.
Meyer, P.L. (1976), "A Discrete-Element Method of Pile-Driving Analysis," Master's Thesis,
Civil Engineering Dept., The University of Texas at Austin, August.
Randolph, M.F. and Murphy, B.S. (1985), "Shaft Capacity of Driven Piles in Clay," Proceedings,
1985 Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 4883, Houston, Texas, May.

I:\WP\2001\1998-0050\98-0054\AXIAL PILE\4-APP_B.MAR.DOC

B-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

STATIC COMPRESSION LOAD TEST


Uplift Test Program, Bridge No. 34-46 (Test Date: 4/21/1993)
Pile 49-Open Ended Steel Pipe Pile 16" x 0.5"
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-1

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

STATNAMIC TEST RESULTS


Pile 48 (Test Date: 4/20/1973)
SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-2

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DRIVE SIMULATION OF COMPRESSION TEST


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-3

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DRIVE SIMULATION OF STATNAMIC LOAD TEST


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-4

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DRIVE SIMULATIONS OF LOAD TESTS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-5

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

ORIGINAL AND SIMPLIFIED SOIL REACTIONS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-6

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

AXIAL PILE LOAD-SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-7

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

LOAD-SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR WITH SELF-WEIGHT


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-8

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

DEGRADATION PARAMETERS FROM MODEL TESTS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-9

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

LOAD-TIME HISTORY AT THE MUDLINE


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-10

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

PILE HEAD DISPLACEMENT-TIME HISTORY


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-11

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

PILE TIP DISPLACEMENT-TIME HISTORY


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-12

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKE ON RESIDUAL LOADS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-13

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKE ON DISPLACEMENTS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-14

SFOBB Task Order No. 5


Project No. 98-42-0054

STATIC AND DEGRADED SOIL REACTIONS


SFOBB East Span Seismic Safety Project

PLATE B-15