Attachment_J_-_Draft_Foundation_Report.pdf

ATTACHMENT J

DRAFT FOUNDATION REPORT

Prepared for:

701 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825

Prepared by:

2491 Boatman Ave.

West Sacramento, CA 95691

E120-N99 CONNECTOR

(SR99/120 Interchange Connector – Phase 1B Project) Bridge No. 29-NEW, Contract No. 10-1M3001; 10-SJ-120;

PM5.74

Manteca, California

February 2025

West Sacramento Office:

2491 Boatman Ave West Sacramento, CA 95691 Auburn (530) 887-1494

(916) 375-8706 Fresno (559) 438-8411

File No. 4283.x February 14, 2025

Mr. Eric Fredrickson, PE Mark Thomas 701 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825

Subject: DRAFT FOUNDATION REPORT

E120-N99 Connector SR99/120 Interchange Connector – Phase 1B Project Bridge No. 29-NEW, Contract No. 10-1M3001; 10-SJ-120; PM5.74

Dear Mr. Fredrickson, Blackburn Consulting (Blackburn) is pleased to submit this Draft Foundation Report for the E120-N99 Connector Project in Manteca, California. Blackburn prepared this report in accordance with our June 27, 2023 agreement between Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. and Blackburn. Elevations referenced in this report are based on NGVD 29 datum unless otherwise noted.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of your design team. Please call if you have questions or require additional information.

Sincerely;

BLACKBURN CONSULTING

David J. Morrell, P.E., G.E. Rob Pickard, P.G., C.E.G.

Sr. Project Manager Sr. Engineering Geologist

DRAFT FOUNDATION REPORT E120-N99 Connector SR99/120 Interchange Connector – Phase 1B Project

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope of Services

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location and Site Description

2.2 Proposed Replacement Structure

3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

3.1 Drilling & Sampling

3.2 Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)

4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

5 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

5.1 Geology

5.1.1 Regional Geology

5.1.2 Site Geology

5.2 Surface Conditions

5.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions

6 GROUNDWATER

7 AS-BUILT DATA

8 SCOUR DATA

9 CORROSION EVALUATION

10 SEISMIC INFORMATION

10.1 Soil Class for Seismic Design

10.2 Ground Motion Hazard

10.3 Surface Fault Rupture

10.4 Liquefaction Potential

10.5 Post-Liquefaction Seismic Settlement

10.6 Lateral Spreading

10.7 Seismic Slope Instability

11 GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Foundation Type Selection

11.2 Pile Foundation Data and Loading

11.3 Engineering Parameters

11.4 Pile Foundation Analysis

11.4.1 Compressive and Tension Resistance

11.4.2 Settlement

11.4.3 Lateral Load Analysis

11.4.4 Static Negative Skin Friction

11.4.5 Liquefaction-Induced Negative Skin Friction

11.5 Foundation Design Recommendations and Pile Data Table

12 ABUTMENT AND WING WALL LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

13 APPROACH FILLS

13.1 Geometry and Stability

13.2 Settlement

14 NOTES FOR SPECIFICATIONS

14.1 CSS Section 49 (Caltrans Class 200 Alt “W” Piles)

14.1.1 CSS Section 49-1.03 (Construction)

14.1.2 CSS Section 49-2.01A(3)(b) (Driving System Submittal)

14.1.3 CSS Section 49-2.01C(3) (Drilling)

14.1.4 CSS Section 49-2.01C(5) (Driving)

14.2 CSS Section 19 (Earthwork)

14.2.1 CSS Section 19-1.02 (Materials)

14.2.2 CSS Section 19-6.03D (Settlement Periods and Surcharges)

15 NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION (CLASS 200 ALT “W” DRIVEN PILES)

16 RISK MANAGEMENT

17 LIMITATIONS

Table of Contents (cont.)

FIGURES

Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Regional Geologic Map Figure 3: Fault Map

APPENDIX A

Log of Test Borings

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX C

Design Acceleration Response Spectrum Liquefaction and Post-Liquefaction Settlement Analysis Results

APPENDIX D

Table 9: Foundation Design Recommendations Pile Axial Capacity and Settlement Output Pile Lateral Capacity Output Other Analysis and Calculations

APPENDIX E

Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report, Geoprofessional Business Association

DRAFT FOUNDATION REPORT E120/N99 Connector

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

Blackburn prepared this Draft Foundation Report for East State Route 120-North State Route 99 Connector (E120-N99 Connector) Project in Manteca, California. This project is part of the overall SR99/120 Interchange Connector – Phase 1B project.

The purpose of this report is to provide Mark Thomas geotechnical design and construction criteria for the proposed connector bridge that will carry eastbound State Route 120 (SR120) traffic to northbound State Route 99 (SR99). Do not use or rely upon this report for different locations or improvements without the written consent of Blackburn.

1.2 Scope of Services

To prepare this report, Blackburn:

• Discussed the project with Mark Thomas.

• Reviewed the following documents:

o Preliminary Foundation Report, North Connector Overcrossing, Parikh Consultants, Inc., December 2017.

o As-built Log of Test Borings for North Connector Overcrossing, California Department of Transportation, 1977.

o Foundation Investigation for North Connector Overcrossing , Bridge No. 29-286, California Department of Transportation, January 19, 1976.

o As-built General Plan and Foundation Plan for North Connector Overcrossing, Bridge No. 29- 286, California Department of Transportation, 1977.

o Preliminary Geotechnical Report, State Route 99/120 Interchange Connector Project, Parikh Consultants, Inc., December 2017.

o Preliminary General Plan/Foundation Plan (undated) for the E120/N99 Connector structure prepared and provided by Mark Thomas.

o “Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle; California,” California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5A; Wagner, D.L., et al, 1990.

• Drilled two borings at/near proposed abutment support locations in October 2023.

• Performed one cone penetration test (CPT) at/near the proposed bent support location in

October 2023.

• Performed laboratory testing on selected soil samples retrieved from the subsurface explorations.

• Performed engineering analysis in support of the recommendations herein.

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location and Site Description

The project will construct a new E120-N99 Connector structure to carry eastbound SR120 traffic to northbound SR99 in Manteca, California. The site is located at approximate latitude 37.784199° N and longitude -121.187905° W. Figure 1 shows the general site location.

The new connector will be constructed within the existing interchange connector basin areas. The existing N99-W120 Connector 3-span structure is located about 400 feet north of the planned new E120-N99 Connector. Land to the east of the new interchange connector is agricultural while land to the west is commercial/industrial.

Site topography is gently sloping within the existing connector basins where the new connector structure/approach fills will be constructed. Site elevations range from about 39-46 feet (NGVD 29 datum) at the proposed bridge support locations. Elevations referenced in this report are based on NGVD 29 datum unless otherwise noted.

2.2 Proposed Replacement Structure

Based on information provided by Mark Thomas, the connector structure will be:

• A two-span, cast-in-place, prestressed concrete box girder deck structure.

• Approximately 275-feet long with a variable width (maximum 39.75-foot width on east side of the structure).

Structure approach fill heights vary from about 29.2 feet at the west abutment (Abut 1) to about 32.0 feet at the east abutment.

3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

3.1 Drilling & Sampling

Blackburn observed the drilling and sampling of 2 borings at/near the proposed connector abutment locations to depths of 81.5-91.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs) between October 24-30, 2023.

Our subcontractor, Taber Drilling, advanced the borings using a CME 55 truck-mounted rig using both solid flight auger and rotary wash drilling methods. Soil samples were obtained by Taber at various intervals using a combination of 2.4-inch O.D. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers, and 3.0-inch O.D.

Modified California (MC) samplers equipped with 2.4-inch diameter liners. SPT and MC samplers were driven with an automatic hammer, weighing 140-pounds, and falling approximately 30-inches per blow.

Blackburn’s geologist logged the borings consistent with the 2022 Caltrans Soil & Rock Logging, Classification and Presentation Manual.

3.2 Cone Penetration Testing (CPT)

Blackburn retained Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc. (Middle Earth) to perform 1 cone penetration test (CPT) at/near the proposed Bent 2 location. Middle Earth advanced the CPT to a depth of 52.49 feet where refusal to penetration was encountered with the 25-ton CPT truck rig. Blackburn’s engineers observed the CPT test and directed Middle Earth to perform secondary CPT push samples at selected intervals to obtain soil samples for classification. Middle Earth also performed a pore pressure dissipation test to estimate the depth to groundwater.

4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

Blackburn completed the following laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings:

• Moisture Content - Dry Density (ASTM D2216 / D2937) for soil classification and in-place soil characteristics.

• Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D6913) for soil classification/characteristics and liquefaction evaluation.

• Plasticity Index (ASTM D 4318) for soil classification/characteristics and liquefaction evaluation.

• Direct Shear (ASTM D3080) for soil strength evaluation.

• Pocket Penetrometer for cohesive/cemented soil strength evaluation.

• pH/Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643) to evaluate corrosion potential.

• Chloride (CTM 422) to evaluate corrosion potential.

• Sulfate (CTM 417) to evaluate corrosion potential.

Appendix B contains the laboratory test results.

5 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

5.1 Geology

5.1.1 Regional Geology

Literature published by the California Geologic Survey indicates that the site is located in the San Joaquin Valley within the central portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. This province encompasses the San Joaquin Valley in the south and the Sacramento Valley in the north. The province is bound by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Mojave Desert and Transverse Ranges to the south, and the Klamath Mountains to the north.

The Great Valley is a broad, elongated, northwest trending, structural trough that has been filled with a thick sequence of sediments. The eastern margin of the valley is formed by the west sloping Sierran bedrock surface that extends westward beneath the alluvium and older sedimentary bedrock within the valley. The western border is underlain by east dipping rock of the Coast Ranges that form a deeply buried trough.

During the late Mesozoic and through most of Tertiary time (approximately 100 million to 20 million years before present), deposition of thousands of feet of marine sediments occurred within the Great Valley. Continental deposits (generally alluvium) of late Tertiary and Quaternary age (approximately 20 million years ago to the present) overlie these marine deposits. Both the continental deposits and the underlying marine sediments form a wedge of sediments that generally thickens from east to west.

5.1.2 Site Geology

Our review of site geology indicates that the project area is underlain by Holocene unconsolidated wind-blown dune sand. The Modesto Formation is mapped at the edges of the dune sand geologic unit and underlies the dune sand at depth. The Modesto Formation consists of older Pleistocene alluvium composed predominantly of gravelly sand and silt deposited by ancient streams and rivers. We display a Regional Geologic Map as Figure 2.

5.2 Surface Conditions

The new connector will cross SR 99 about 400 feet south of the existing E120/N99 connector (North Connector Overcrossing Bridge No. 29-286). The new abutments and approach fills will be constructed within existing drainage basin areas for the existing interchange connector. SR99 is a six-lane lane, hot mix asphalt (HMA) paved highway (three lanes in each direction) within the project limits with paved shoulders and a paved median. The existing basin on the west side of SR99 has gently rolling topography that is generally higher than SR99 grade. The existing basin on the east side of SR99 slopes gently downward towards the east to about 5-6 feet below SR99 grade. Both basins contain scattered trees and grass/weed cover.

5.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions

We present the following discussion of soil conditions based on our explorations described in Section 3.0.

In general, the explorations indicate that the site is underlain by medium dense to dense sands (with variable fines contents) interlayered with occasional stiff to hard clay and silt layers to the maximum depths explored. The sand layers were generally dense to very dense below approximate Elev. 0.0 and CPT-23-018 experienced refusal in very dense sand at approximate Elev. -8.0.

Refer to Log of Test Borings in Appendix A for specific subsurface conditions encountered at each exploratory location.

6 GROUNDWATER

We encountered groundwater during drilling of Boring R-23-017 on October 24, 2023 at a depth of 30 feet (Elev. 15.9) below existing grade. The pore pressure dissipation test in CPT-23-018 indicated a groundwater depth of about 27.9 feet (Elev. 16.55) on October 25, 2023. We did not measure groundwater levels in Boring R-23-019 since rotary wash drilling methods were used to advance the boring prior to encountering groundwater.

We reviewed seasonal groundwater level data for State Well No. 02S07E10B002M (about 1/3 mile south of the site) available at the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) website (https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels). The data shows that groundwater levels have seasonally varied from Elevations 31.9 to 19.8 (NAVD 88) from 1989 to 2017.

Using a datum conversion provided by DWR for the nearby San Joaquin River at Mossdale Bridge station (NGVD 29 = NAVD 88 – 2.4 ft.), the well groundwater levels varied from approximate Elevations 29.5 to

17.4 (NGVD 29) between 1989 to 2017. The well groundwater level was only higher than Elevation 27.0 (NGVD 29) between 1998-2000, and reached up to Elevation 29.5 (NGVD 29) during that time period.

We used a design groundwater level of 27.0 (NGVD 29) in our geotechnical evaluations presented later in this report.

7 AS-BUILT DATA

The 1977 general plan and foundation plan for the existing E120/N99 connector (North Connector Overcrossing Bridge No. 29-286) located about 400 feet north of the planned new E120/N99 Connector show that the existing structure is supported on Class 70 (70-ton) piles and the pile welding detail indicates the piles were driven steel piles but do not indicate the actual type of steel pile used. The specified pile tip elevations for the North Connector Overcrossing ranged from Elev. +3.0 to +5.0 at the abutments, and Elev.

-5.0 at the bent according to the general plan. The probable pile tip elevations ranged from Elev. 0.0 to -2.0 at the abutments and was Elev. -10.0 at the bent according to the general plan.

8 SCOUR DATA

The site is not located near any waterway; therefore, scour is not a consideration for this project.

9 CORROSION EVALUATION

We performed corrosion testing on select soil samples obtained from our borings. Table 1 provides the results.

Table 1: Corrosion Test Results (CTM 417, 422, 643)

Sample Location Sample Depth (feet)

Soil Description pH Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Sulfate Content (ppm)

Chloride Content (ppm)

R-23-017 (Sample 2B) 5.5-6.0 Sandy Lean Clay 7.88 560 487.8 14.5

R-23-017 (Sample 9B) 40.5-41.0 Silty Sand 7.36 1,720 11.0 3.5

R-23-19 (Sample 2B) 5.5-6.0 Silty Sand 7.02 20,510 3.3 1.0

R-23-019 (Samples 6 & 7) 20.0-25.5 Silty Sand 7.38 5,360 19.0 3.0

According to Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Version 3.2, May 2021), the site is not considered corrosive to structural elements.

10 SEISMIC INFORMATION

10.1 Soil Class for Seismic Design

Seismic design of the structure per Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Version 2.0) must consider Class S2 soil since:

• Many of the soil layers in our exploratory borings have (N1)60 blow counts of less than 30 within the foundation influence zones.

• Several of the clay layers within the foundation influence zones have undrained shear strengths of less than 2000 psf.

• The calculated VS30 for Boring R-23-019 is less than 270 m/s (256 m/s based on boring data correlations).

10.2 Ground Motion Hazard

Blackburn used the Caltrans ARS Online Version 4.0 (web-based tool) to evaluate the minimum design acceleration response spectrum (Design Response Spectrum) for design of the bridge. Version 4.0 uses the USGS 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) which includes basin amplification effects (Caltrans basin amplification factors are no longer used). We used Version 4.0 to evaluate the Safety Evaluation Earthquake for this bridge for the 5% in 50 years event with adjustment factors for near-fault and basin amplification effects.

Table 2 provides a summary of our ground motion study results.

Table 2: Ground Motion Study Results

Latitude/Longitude 37.784199°/-121.187905° Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.34g VS30 (Small Strain Shear Wave Velocity) 1 256 meters per second

Near Fault Factor N/A

Basin Amplification Factor N/A

Nearest Holocene or Younger Fault

Corral Hollow-Carnegie fault zone USGS Fault ID: 242 Style: Unspecified Dip: Unspecified Maximum Moment Magnitude (Mmax) = 6.3-7.1 Site to fault distance (RRUP) = 21.3 miles

Design Magnitude (M) and Site-to-Fault Distance (RRUP) Using 2023 NSHM Deaggregation for PGA

Mavg = 6.51, RRUP = 18.5 miles

Soil Profile Classification Class S2

1 VS30 estimated using the boring data in accordance with Appendix A of Caltrans “Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations”, November 2012.

We include our recommended design spectrum and the spectrum data in Appendix C.

10.3 Surface Fault Rupture

The site does not lie within or adjacent to an Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard (California Geological Survey Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation)1, and no known active faults are mapped within or through the project area based on our review of the USGS Fault and Fold Database. The nearest Holocene or younger fault is the Corral Hollow-Carnegie fault zone (See Table 2, Section 10.2) located approximately 21.3 miles southwest of the site. We consider the potential for fault rupture at the site to be very low. We present a Fault Map as Figure 3.

10.4 Liquefaction Potential

Soil liquefaction can occur when saturated, relatively loose sand and specific soft, fine-grained saturated soils are subject to ground shaking strong enough to create soil particle separation that results from increased pore pressure. This separation and subsequent pore pressure dissipation can lead to decreased soil shear strength and settlement.

Liquefaction susceptibility of a soil deposit is a function of the soil grain size, relative density, percent fines, plasticity of the fines, degree of saturation, age of deposit, and earthquake ground motion. We used the simplified procedure outlined by Youd et al. (2001)2 to evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction to occur at the site using our 2023 boring and CPT data. Blackburn used an internally developed Excel spreadsheet for liquefaction evaluation for the borings.

We evaluated liquefaction potential using a site-to-fault distance of 18.5 miles, Maximum Moment Magnitude (Mmax) of 6.51, and a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.34g. We performed our analysis in general accordance with the current Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (Liquefaction Evaluation Module, January 2020). We used a factor of safety against liquefaction of ≤ 1.0 to determine if a soil unit is potentially liquefiable.

Our liquefaction evaluation for Borings R-23-017, R-23-019 and Cone Penetration Test CPT-23-18 detected potentially liquefiable soil as follows:

• Boring R-23-019 between depths of about 44-47 feet (Elev. -5.2 to -8.2) below the ground surface (bgs) in a silty sand layer. We calculated a factor of safety against liquefaction of 0.78 for this layer which had a field blow count of 10.

• Cone Penetration Test CPT-23-018 at depths of about 39.5-41 feet (Elev. 4.9 to 3.4) bgs in a silty sand/sandy silt layer. The calculated factor of safety against liquefaction varied from 0.8-0.9 for the layer.

1 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation; California Geological Survey;

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/; 2019 2 Youd, T. L., et al, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, October 2001, pp.

817-833 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/

The above potentially liquefiable layers are very thin (≤3 feet), fairly deep and appear to be discontinuous based on the lack of potentially liquefiable soil layers in the other explorations at similar elevations. In addition, there is no potential for surface manifestation (ground damage) due to liquefaction based on review of Figure 3 of the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (January 2020 Liquefaction Induced Downdrag module) given the thin liquefiable layer thicknesses, substantial thickness of the overlying non-liquefiable soil and relatively low peak ground acceleration.

Based on this data, we consider the potential for liquefaction to impact the proposed structure to be negligible and we neglected liquefaction in our engineering evaluations for the structure.

Note that the 2017 Preliminary Foundation Report for the project prepared by Parikh Consultants indicated significant liquefaction and associated seismic settlement potential for the new connector structure based on liquefaction evaluation using as-built log of test boring data for the existing E120/N99 connector (North Connector Overcrossing Bridge No. 29-286) located about 400 feet north of the planned new E120/N99 Connector. Blackburn does not consider their preliminary evaluation reliable since in the absence of laboratory test data and hammer energy data. Parikh assumed zero percent fines for all soil layers (i.e. clean sand) and a hammer energy ratio of 60%. Both of these parameters have a significant impact on liquefaction and seismic settlement potential evaluation. In the absence of actual fines content data, plasticity index data and hammer energy ratio data for the as-built borings, we do not consider using these borings and subsequent analysis applicable for design-level liquefaction or seismic settlement evaluations.

We include our liquefaction analysis results in Appendix C.

10.5 Post-Liquefaction Seismic Settlement

We evaluated potential post-liquefaction seismic settlements using data from Borings R-23-017 and R- 23-019 (Tokimatsu & Seed, 1987 method3) and Cone Penetration Test CPT-23-18 (Zhang, 2002 method4). We summarize the calculated post-liquefaction seismic settlements below:

• R-23-017 (Abut 1) o 1.7” settlement of silty sand layer between depths of 39-46 ft. (Elev. 6.9 to -0.1 ft.)

below existing ground surface. Factor of safety against liquefaction = 1.14.

• CPT-23-18 (Bent 2) o 0.25” settlement of silty sand/sandy silt layer between depths of 39.5-41 feet (Elev. 4.9 to 3.4) below the ground surface. Factor of safety against liquefaction varied from 0.8-

0.9 for the layer.

• R-23-019 (Abut 3) o 1.3” settlement of silty sand layer between depths of 32.5-38.5 ft. (Elev. 6.3 to 0.3 ft.).

Factor of safety against liquefaction = 1.11.

o 0.8” settlement of silty sand layer between depths of 44-47 ft. (Elev. -5.2 to -8.2). Factor of safety against liquefaction = 0.78.

3 Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, K. Tokimatsu and H. Seed, 1987.

4 Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Ground Settlements from CPT for Level Ground, Zhang et al., 2002.

We present the post-liquefaction seismic settlement evaluation results with our liquefaction evaluation data in Appendix C.

There is no potential for surface manifestation (ground damage) due to liquefaction based on review of Figure 3 of the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (January 2020 Liquefaction Induced Downdrag module) given the relatively thin layer thicknesses above, substantial thickness of the overlying non-liquefiable soil and relatively low peak ground acceleration. In addition, the closely spaced driven piles (3D spacing or less) and layer settlements resulting from the approach fill loading should reduce the magnitude of the above estimated post-liquefaction seismic settlements at the abutments.

Based on the above and our liquefaction evaluation in Section 10.4, we consider the potential for detrimental post-liquefaction seismic settlement to be very low at the site and did not consider it in our foundation analyses presented later in this report.

10.6 Lateral Spreading

Based on our liquefaction evaluation in Section 10.4 and considerable depth to groundwater below the approach embankment toe elevations, we consider the potential for lateral spreading to occur at the site to be nonexistent for the design seismic ground motion event.

10.7 Seismic Slope Instability

New approach embankments will be constructed in accordance with current Caltrans specifications.

Based on these conditions and given the relatively low peak ground acceleration (0.33g), we do not consider approach embankments subject to instability during the design seismic ground motion event.

11 GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Foundation Type Selection

The subsurface conditions encountered in our subsurface explorations indicate that the site is conducive for either driven piles or Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles. Spread footings are not considered feasible for support due to potentially excessive settlement and inadequate bearing capacity.

CIDH piles would require temporary casing, slurry drilling and gamma-gamma logging due to the high ground water level and potential for encountering caving sand. Even with the above “wet method” installation measures, CIDH pile defects can still occur during installation.

Driven open-end pipe piles are preferred over driven concrete piling in order to penetrate through variably thick layers of dense to very dense sands and hard silts to reach specified tip elevations. Closed-end pipe piles and driven concrete piles should be avoided as they would likely experience refusal to driving above specified tip elevations unless undersized pre-drilling is performed to assist driving.

Based on the above, Blackburn and Mark Thomas concur on using Caltrans Class 200 Alt. “W” Open-End Pipe Piles (PP16x0.5) for bridge support.

11.2 Pile Foundation Data and Loading

Mark Thomas provided the following foundation design information in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3:

Foundation Design Data

Support No. Pile Type

Finish Grade

Elev. (ft)

Pile Cut- Off

Elevation (ft)

Pile Cap Size (ft)

Footing Bottom

Elevation (ft)

Permissible Settlement – Service Load

(in)

Number of Piles Per Support B L

Abut 1 Class 200 (Alt “W”) 58* 53.0 10 31 52.5 1 14

Bent 2 Class 200 (Alt “W”) 44.3 36.1 20.5 20.5 35.6 1 32 Abut 3 Class 200 (Alt “W”) 56.5* 51.5 10 37.5 51.0 1 14

*Approximate finish grade elevation at the front face of the abutment.

11.3 Engineering Parameters

Blackburn derived generalized soil parameters for this project based on a combination of:

• visual logging of soils and drilling procedures by an engineer/geologist,

• laboratory tests on soil samples obtained during field exploration,

• published correlations,

• LPILE software technical manual (Modulus k and E50 values),

• APILE software technical manual (parameters for pile axial capacity evaluation using API RP 2A5)

• professional engineering experience/judgment.

5 Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms (API RP 2A), American Petroleum Institute, 1993.

Table 4:

Foundation Factored Design Loads

Support No.

Service-I Limit State (kips)

Strength Limit State (Controlling Group, kips)

Extreme Limit State (Controlling Group, kips)

Total Load Per

Support

Permanent Loads

Per Support

Compression Tension Compression Tension

Per Support

Max.

Per Pile

Per Support

Max.

Per Pile

Per Support

Max.

Per Pile

Per Support

Max.

Per Pile

Abut 1 1,580 1,450 2,370 260 N/A N/A 1,450 195 0 10

Bent 2 3,135 2,605 4,500 215 0 0 2,650 340 0 195

Abut 2 1,275 1,150 1,990 205 N/A N/A 1,150 150 0 0

Tables 5-7 include the soil parameters used in our pile analysis.

Table 5: Abutment 1 Soil Design Parameters

Elevation (feet)

L-Pile Soil Type

(p-y curve model)

Effective Unit

Weight (lb/ft3)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

Modulus k

(lb/in3)

E50 Strain Factor

Elastic Modulus

Es (ksf)

New Approach Fill

Sand (Reese) 120 33 --- 125 --- ---

46.0 to 35.0 Stiff Clay w/o Free

Water 115 --- 2,000 * 0.007 1,000

35.0 to 31.0 Sand (Reese) 120 40 --- 125 --- 650

31.0 to 27.0 Sand (Reese) 115 33 --- 90 --- 390

27.0 to -3.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 33 --- 60 --- 390

-3.0 to -8.0 Stiff Clay with Free

Water 58 --- 1,500 * 0.007 750

-8.0 to -18.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 35 --- 100 --- 650

-18.0 to -23.0 Stiff Clay with Free

Water 58 --- 3,000 * 0.005 1200

-23.0 to -36.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 36 --- 125 --- 650

*Modulus k internally calculated for the stiff clay by the LPILE software.

Table 6: Bent 2 Soil Design Parameters

Elevation (feet)

L-Pile Soil Type

(p-y curve model)

Effective Unit

Weight (lb/ft3)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

Modulus k

(lb/in3)

E50 Strain Factor

Elastic Modulus

Es (ksf)

45.0 to 27.0 Sand (Reese) 115 33 --- 90 --- 450

27.0 to 23.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 33 --- 60 --- 450

23.0 to 2.0 Stiff Clay w/o Free

Water

(submerged) --- 2,500 * 0.007 1000

2.0 to -8.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 35 --- 60 --- 550

-8.0 to -13.0 Stiff Clay with Free

Water 58 --- 1,500 * 0.007 750

-13.0 to -35.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 34 --- 100 --- 650

*Modulus k internally calculated for the stiff clay by the LPILE software.

Table 7: Abutment 3 Soil Design Parameters

Elevation (feet)

L-Pile Soil Type

(p-y curve model)

Effective Unit

Weight (lb/ft3)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

Modulus k

(lb/in3)

E50 Strain Factor

Elastic Modulus

Es (ksf)

New Approach Fill

Sand (Reese) 120 33 --- 125 --- ---

40.0 to 27.0 Sand (Reese) 115 33 --- 90 --- 300

27.0 to -5.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 33 --- 60 --- 300

-5.0 to -9.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 30 --- 40 --- 280

-9.0 to -15.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 38 --- 125 --- 900

-15.0 to -20.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 34 --- 100 --- 650

-20.0 to -52.0 Sand (Reese)

(submerged) 36 --- 100 --- 650

We used a design groundwater elevation of 27.0 feet (See Section 6 for discussion) in our engineering analyses.

11.4 Pile Foundation Analysis

In accordance with current Caltrans specifications, we used AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications- 8th Edition with current 2019 Caltrans Amendments (AASHTO LRFD BDS with Caltrans Amendments) for our pile analysis. Blackburn presents the results of our analysis below.

11.4.1 Compressive and Tension Resistance

We determined compressive and tension resistance for the proposed Class 200 (Alt. “W”) open-end pipe piles using APILE 2018 software developed by Ensoft, Inc. APILE 2018 computes axial pile capacity and short-term pile settlement. We used the FHWA method for our pile analysis, a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.7 to evaluate compressive resistance at the Strength Limit State and a geotechnical resistance factor of 1.0 to evaluate compressive/tension resistance at the Extreme Limit State. Our research6 indicates that the open-ended pipe piles should plug prior to reaching specified tip elevations and we assumed this in our APILE analysis (end bearing based on fully plugged pile).

Our calculations indicate that the nominal compressive resistance of the piles driven to specified tip elevations will be obtained through relatively equal contributions from skin friction and end bearing resistance. Actual contributions to pile compressive resistance by end bearing and skin friction could vary depending on how the load is transferred to the piles and to the extent that the pile plugging occurs during driving. We neglected the approach fill in our compressive resistance analysis for abutment piles.

To determine tension resistance, we multiplied the pile compressional skin friction values by 0.75 to determine the nominal tension (uplift) resistance.

Appendix D contains the pile compressive resistance analysis results.

11.4.2 Settlement

To determine design tip elevations for settlement, we first used our original APILE 2018 pile compression analysis at each support and used the software to determine the pile embedment that yielded approximately 1-inch of settlement (permissible settlement) at the average Service I Limit State total pile load. We then checked pile group settlement using equivalent footing methodology per Section 10.7.2.3.1 of the AASHTO LRFD BDS with Caltrans Amendments to determine pile embedment that yielded the permissible settlement. Note that we also evaluated pile group settlement for Bent 2 using Settle3D software and the same equivalent footing method/parameters as our spreadsheet as a check of the spreadsheet results. For a design pile tip elevation of -12.4 the Settle 3D analysis yielded a pile group settlement of 1.005 inches compared to the spreadsheet result of 0.999 inches settlement, indicating the spreadsheet results are accurate.

We used the deeper pile embedment from the APILE single pile settlement analysis or pile group settlement analysis as the design tip elevation for the Service-I Limit State permissible settlement criteria.

6 Hannigan, P.J., et al, Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Volume 1, Publication No. FHWA-NHI- 16-009, FHWW GEC 012, National Highway Institute, 2016, pp. 405-410.

We do not anticipate significant long-term settlement at this site based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations.

We include the APILE pile settlement output files and pile group settlement analysis results in Appendix D.

11.4.3 Lateral Load Analysis

We used LPILE 2018 software to evaluate lateral pile capacity. Blackburn determined the allowable lateral pile design loads that would produce approximately ¼-inch and 1-inch top-of-pile deflection for the Service Limit State and Strength/Extreme Limit States, respectively. Mark Thomas requested analysis for pinned pile head conditions at the abutments and a fixed pile head condition at Bent 2.

Blackburn developed appropriate p-multipliers to use for group reduction based on pile spacing/layout information provided by Mark Thomas.

Blackburn presents our lateral pile analysis results for lateral loading in both the longitudinal and transverse bridge directions in Table 8.

Table 8: LPILE Lateral Pile Capacity Results

Support Pile Head Fixity Condition

Direction of Lateral Loading p-multiplier Used for

Group Reduction

Effects

Top of Pile

Deflection (in.)

Lateral Resistance

(kips)

Critical Pile Length (ft.)

Abut `1 Pinned

Longitudinal Bridge

Direction 0.65

1/4 18 n/a

1 45 20

Transverse Bridge

Direction 0.47

1/4 15 n/a

1 36 20

Bent 2 Fixed Both Directions 0.43 1/4 45 n/a

1 110 22.5

Abut 3 Pinned

Longitudinal Bridge

Direction 0.65

1/4 18 n/a

1 47 18

Transverse Bridge

Direction 0.47

1/4 14.5 n/a

1 39 20

Blackburn multiplied the critical pile lengths by a factor of safety of 1.5 to determine the design pile tip elevation for lateral loading at each support. The critical pile length is the pile length at which longer pile lengths do not result in increased top of pile deflection for the strength/extreme limit states.

Refer to the LPILE output files in Appendix D for additional information.

11.4.4 Static Negative Skin Friction

We do not anticipate negative skin friction at abutments or bent provided the new bridge approach fills are constructed prior to abutment foundation installation.

11.4.5 Liquefaction-Induced Negative Skin Friction

The structure foundations will not be subject to liquefaction-induced negative skin friction (pile downdrag loads) based on our liquefaction evaluation and post-liquefaction seismic settlement evaluation in Sections 10.4 and 10.5, respectively.

11.5 Foundation Design Recommendations and Pile Data Table

Table 9 in Appendix D presents our foundation design recommendations based on our analysis presented previously in this report. Table 10 below presents our recommended Pile Data Table for the project.

Table 10: Pile Data Table

Support Pile Type

Nominal Resistance 1Design Tip Elevation

(feet)

2Specified Tip

Elevation (feet)

3Required Nominal Driving

Resistance (kips)

Compression (kips)

Tension (kips)

Abut 1 Class 200 (Alt “W”) 380 10 -12.0 (a), 14.0 (b), 22.5 (d),

4.0 (e) -12.0 380

Bent 2 Class 200 (Alt “W”) 340 195 -18.0 (a), -21.0 (b), -25.5 (c)

1.5 (d), -13.0 (e) -25.5 340

Abut 2 Class 200 (Alt “W”) 300 0 -12.0 (a), 8.0 (b), 21.0 (d),

17.0 (e) -12.0 300

Notes:

1) Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a) Compression (Strength Limit), (b) Compression (Extreme Limit), (c)

Tension (Extreme Limit), (d) Lateral Load, (e) Settlement (Service Limit).

2) The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations without Blackburn and Mark

Thomas review and approval.

3) The required nominal driving resistance is equal to the nominal resistance needed to support the factored load plus driving resistance from the unsuitable penetrated soil layers, if any, which do not contribute to the design resistance.

12 ABUTMENT AND WING WALL LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The following equivalent fluid weights (EFWs) may be used to design the abutment walls and wing walls assuming level structure backfill conditions:

Table 12:

Equivalent Fluid Weights

Condition Static EFW (pcf)

Seismic EFW (pcf)

Active 35 13 *Passive 220 200

For static design, apply the resultant of the static active earth pressures at a depth of 0.33H from the base of the wall where H equals the wall height in ft.

For seismic design, calculate the resultant of incremental lateral soil pressure due to seismic loading based on the equivalent fluid pressure (13 pcf for the active case) and apply the magnitude of the resultant at 0.33H from the base of the wall. Add the resultant of the seismic active earth pressure to the resultant of the static active earth pressure.

The values shown above are consistent with Caltrans standards/practice and assume level backfill conditions using Caltrans “Structure Backfill” with a soil unit weight of 125 pcf, a minimum angle of internal friction of 34º, and that drainage is constructed behind the walls in accordance with Caltrans “Standard Plans and Specifications.”

To limit wall deflection to acceptable levels, we applied a factor of safety of 2.0 to the ultimate passive pressure to generate the allowable passive pressures provided above.

Blackburn estimated the EFWs for seismic loading using the Mononobe-Okabe equation for active and passive lateral coefficients Ka and Kp. In the Mononobe-Okabe equation, we use a horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient (kh) of 0.19 calculated using the equation in Appendix A11, Section A11.5.1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications-8th Edition. This kh value assumes that the walls displace at least 1-inch during the design seismic event. We calculated the above static EFWs using methods presented in the 1982 Naval Facilities (NAVFAC) Design Manual 7.2.

For seismic loading into abutments, calculate abutment longitudinal and transverse stiffness in accordance with Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Versions 2.0).

For surcharge loads, apply an additional uniform lateral load behind the wall equivalent to 0.3-times the surcharge pressure for the active condition. Use a coefficient of friction of 0.48 to resist sliding for concrete placed on compacted approach fill.

13 APPROACH FILLS

Blackburn provides the following conclusions regarding approach fill geometry, stability and settlement assuming that the approach fills are constructed per Section 19 of the 2023 Caltrans Standard Specifications.

13.1 Geometry and Stability

Approach fills will vary from approximately 29 (Abut 1) to 31 feet (Abut 3) in height above surrounding grades. Planned approach fill gradients are 4H:1V at the side and 1.5H:1V in front of the abutments.

Slopes in front of the abutments will be paved. The proposed slope gradients are considered stable for typical approach fill construction.

13.2 Settlement

Blackburn estimated potential static settlement of the ground below the tallest embankment (Abut 3, 31-foot tall) using Settle3D software. We used the soil parameters in Section 11.3 in our analysis.

Our analysis indicates that the ground beneath the tallest part of the Abut 3 embankment could experience about 9 inches of immediate settlement during embankment construction. We anticipate that ground settlement beneath the tallest part of the Abut 1 embankment (29-foot tall) will be on the order of 7-8 inches. We do not anticipate post-construction (long-term) consolidation settlement based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations. A waiting period is not necessary prior to construction of bridge abutment foundations.

We present the Settle3D embankment settlement output in Appendix D.

14 NOTES FOR SPECIFICATIONS

Blackburn provides the following notes for specifications to provide specification preparers with instructions and recommendations for use in editing the standard special provisions. Where referenced below, Caltrans Standard Specifications (CSS) refer to the 2023 Caltrans Standard Specifications with latest revisions.

14.1 CSS Section 49 (Caltrans Class 200 Alt “W” Piles)

14.1.1 CSS Section 49-1.03 (Construction)

Difficult pile installation is anticipated through dense to very dense sand and hard silt layers to achieve the specified pile tip elevations at all bridge supports.

14.1.2 CSS Section 49-2.01A(3)(b) (Driving System Submittal)

The contractor shall provide a Driving System Submittal to verify that the pile driving system is adequate. Separate drivability analyses shall be performed using data from Boring R-23-017 (Abut1), Cone Penetration Test CPT- 23-018 (Bent 2), and Boring R-23-019 (Abut 3).

14.1.3 CSS Section 49-2.01C(3) (Drilling)

Center relief drilling (drilling through the center of open-ended steel pipe piles) may be performed if necessary to attain the specified tip elevation. The diameter of the drilled hole must be less than the inside diameter of the pile. Equipment or methods used for drilling holes must not cause quick soil conditions or cause scouring or caving of the hole. Drilling must not be used within 10 feet of the specified tip elevation without Blackburn’s approval in writing. Do not drill before driving piles.

14.1.4 CSS Section 49-2.01C(5) (Driving)

Piles that do not attain the required nominal driving resistance at specified tip elevation during the end of initial driving (EOD) may be allowed to stand for a "setup period" before being restruck. The "setup period" must be at least 16 hours from EOD. At least 25 percent of the piles (rounded up) at each support that do not achieve the required nominal driving resistance at EOD must be restruck after the “setup period” using the same pile driving hammer to confirm that the nominal resistance has been achieved following pile setup. Select piles with the lowest nominal driving resistance (EOD) at each support for restrike. The pile penetration during restrike must be at least 2 inches. If all of the restrike piles meet or exceed the required nominal driving resistance, then the remaining piles shall be considered to have achieved the required nominal resistance. If any of the restrike piles do not meet or exceed the required nominal driving resistance, contact Blackburn for additional recommendations which could include an extended “setup period”.

14.2 CSS Section 19 (Earthwork)

14.2.1 CSS Section 19-1.02 (Materials)

General import fill (not including structure backfill) shall meet the following requirements:

• No concentrations of organics, debris, and other deleterious materials,

• Maximum particle size of 1-inch, with at least 75 percent passing the No. 4 Sieve and at least 20 percent passing the No. 200 Sieve,

• Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318) less than 25, and

• Within the upper 4 feet of finish grade, import fill shall meet the minimum properties used for design of the pavement section. Consult Caltrans to obtain the minimum properties used for the pavement design since they designed the pavement sections for the project.

• Import fill must be evaluated and approved by the Engineer prior transporting it to the site.

Expansive materials shall not be placed as part of the embankment from the abutment front slopes to at least 10 feet behind the abutment. Place only material with a low expansion potential within this zone.

Low expansion material is defined as having an Expansion Index (EI) less than 50 (per ASTM D4829), and a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater than 20 (per California Test 217).

14.2.2 CSS Section 19-6.03D (Settlement Periods and Surcharges)

Embankment settlement waiting periods or surcharges are not required. However, the bridge approach fills must be fully constructed prior to driving the piles at Abut 1 and Abut 3.

15 NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION (CLASS 200 ALT “W” DRIVEN PILES)

Difficult pile installation is anticipated through dense to very dense sand and hard silt layers to achieve the specified pile tip elevations at all bridge supports, especially below Elev. 0.0.

Refer to Section 14 (Notes for Specifications) for additional construction considerations related to installing the driven piling.

16 RISK MANAGEMENT

Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicates that the risks of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the geotechnical engineer of record to provide additional services. For this project, retain Blackburn to:

• Review and provide written comments on the (civil, structural) plans and specifications prior to construction.

• Monitor construction to check and document our report assumptions. At a minimum, we should review pile driving submittals, observe pile driving, and observe/test fill construction.

• Update this report if design changes occur, 2 years lapse between this report and construction, or site conditions change.

If Blackburn is not retained to perform the above applicable services, we are not responsible for any other parties’ interpretation of our report, and subsequent addendums, letters, and discussions.

17 LIMITATIONS

Blackburn performed services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently used in this area. Where referenced, we use Caltrans and ASTM standards as a general guideline. We do not warranty our services.

Blackburn based this report on the current site and project conditions. We assumed the soil and groundwater conditions we observed in our subsurface explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions on the site. Actual conditions between the explorations could be different.

Modern design and construction is complex, with many regulatory sources, restrictions, involved parties, construction alternatives, etc. It is common to experience changes and delays. The owner should set aside a reasonable contingency fund based on complexities and cost estimates to cover changes and delays.

The interface between soil layers on the logs is approximate. The transition between layers may be abrupt or gradual. We base our recommendations on the final Log of Test Borings, which represent our interpretation of the field logs, revisions associated with our laboratory test results, and general knowledge of the site and geological conditions.

FIGURES

Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Regional Geologic Map

Figure 3: Fault Map

2/ 6/

3.

x Fi g1 S

R

_1

.d w g

Figure 1

February 2025

File No. 4283.x

DISTANCE, MILE

0 1 2

VICINITY MAP

SCALE: 1"= 1 MILE

Source: Autodesk Civil 3D 2024, CA State Plane 3.

PROJECT

LOCATION

E120-N99 Connector Bridge No. 29-NEW, Contract 10-1M3001

SR99/120 Interchange Connector -Phase 1B

Scale: 1" = 10,000'

L E G E N D

Alluvium

Dos Palos Alluvium

Dune Sand

Modesto-Riverbank Formations Undivided (Arkosic alluvium)

Modesto Formation

Riverbank Formation

SITE

2/ 6/

3.

x Fi g2 S

R

_1

.d w g

Figure 2

February 2025

File No. 4283.x Austin Road Overhead

Bridge No. 29-NEW, Contract No. 10-1M3001 SR99/120 Interchange Connector-Phase 1b

GEOLOGIC MAP

DIST COUNTY ROUTE TOTAL PROJECT

10 SJ 120 PM5.74

POST MILES

Figure 32/ 6/

.x

F ig

SR

_1

.d w g

February 2025

File No. 4283.x E120-N99 Connector

Bridge No. 29-NEW, Contract No. 10-1M3001 SR99/120 Interchange Connector-Phase 1B

FAULT MAP

DIST COUNTY ROUTE TOTAL PROJECT

10 SJ 120 PM5.74

POST MILES

APPENDIX A

Log of Test Borings

E120 - N99 CONNECTOR

LOG OF TEST BORINGS

29-NEW

X X2

.x

S R

LO

T B E N .d w g

XX/XX/XXX

FILE No. 4283.x

PM5.74DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PREPARED FOR THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

1" = 14'

NOTES:

1. Field classification of soils was in accordance with the Caltrans Soil & Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual 2022.

2. Legends sheets are not included in plan set. See Caltrans Standard Plans, 2023 Edition, sheets A10F, A10G (soil legends), and A10H (rock legend).

3. Standard Penetration tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1586 using an automated drop system. Drill rods were 1 5/8-inch diameter "A"-rods;

sampler was driven without brass liners.

4. Where indicated by an asterisk (*) the number of blows shown is for only that fraction of the initial 0.5

ft. "seating drive" interval penetrated.

5. If laboratory tests are not shown as being performed, the soil descriptions presented in the LOTB are based solely on the visual practices described in the before mentioned Logging Manual.

6. The length of each sampled interval is shown graphically on the boring log.

7. Consistency of soils shown in ( ) where estimated.

8. Groundwater surface (GWS) reflect the fluid level in the subsurface explorations on the specified date.

Groundwater surface is subject to seasonal fluctuations and may occur at higher or lower elevations depending on the conditions at any particular time.

9. Subsurface exploration elevations are Approximate and were estimated based on "SJCOG_Mesh_TO.dwg," by Mark Thomas, received 2/12/2024.

4 R-23-017

4 R-23-019

CPT-23-018

AutoCAD SHX Text

$REQUEST

AutoCAD SHX Text

FILE =>

AutoCAD SHX Text

BRIDGE NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES

AutoCAD SHX Text

FOR REDUCED PLANS

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

POST MILE

AutoCAD SHX Text

DIST

AutoCAD SHX Text

COUNTY

AutoCAD SHX Text

ROUTE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOTAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

PLA…