2. Addendum No. 9 — Anaheim City Council, May 17, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

8/30/2017https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/

APPENDIX D:

QUALIFICATIONS OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL

Orangewood Avenue Improvements Phase I ESA | D-1

QUALIFICATIONS OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Phase I Environmental Site As sessments (ESAs) prepared by Michael Baker reflect the most current interpretations of industry standards, which are in accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM) E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments.

KEY PERSONNEL

This Phase I ESA was overseen by Ms. Kristen Bogue , who also conducted quality assurance/quality control. Document research and records gathering was conducted by Ms.

Jessica Ditto. Site reconnaissance was conducted by both Ms. Kristen Bogue and Ms. Jessica Ditto.

Kristen Bogue
Environmental Professional

Ms. Bogue graduated from the University of California, Irvine, with a degree in Environmental Analysis and Design. Mr. Bogue’s professional environmental experience of nine years includes the management, review, and preparation of hazardous material assessments, which include:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Initial Site Assessments for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Preliminary Hazardous Material Assessments, Existing Hazardous Material Conditions Assessments, and Environmental Baseline Surveys for the Department of the Navy for sites located throughout California, Arizona, and New Mexico. As an environmental analyst, Ms. Bogue is also involved with preparation of Environmental Documentation compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), Visual Impact Assessments (VIAs), field studies, as well as various technical studies in support of CEQA and NEPA. In the past nine years Ms. Bogue has personally evaluated over 250 real properties in California.

Jessica Ditto
Environmental Analyst

Ms. Ditto graduated from University of California, Los Angeles , California, with a degree in Communication. As an Environmental Analyst at Michael Baker, Ms. Ditto is involved with the preparation of technical studies in support of environmental documents and the preparati on of Appendix D | Qualifications of the Environmental Professional

Orangewood Avenue Improvements Phase I ESA | D-2
environmental documents in compliance with CEQA and NEPA. Ms. Ditto ’s professional experience of 4 years includes the preparation of hazardous material assessments, which include:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Initial Site Assessments for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Preliminary Hazardous Material Assessments for sites located throughout California.

APPENDIX D
Basis of Design Report

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 General Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Study Objective ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Study Area Description ................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Proposed Improvements ............................................................................................................ 10 3 Design Information ............................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Local Drainage Design ................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Toe Protection Requirements ..................................................................................................... 11 4 Hydraulic Model Development ........................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Channel Hydraulic Models .......................................................................................................... 12 Effective Condition Model .................................................................................................................. 12 Existing Condition Model .................................................................................................................... 12 Proposed Condition Model ................................................................................................................. 14

4.2 Local Drainage Improvements .................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Results of HEC-RAS Channel Hydraulic Analysis ......................................................................... 15 5 Scour ................................................................................................................................................... 18

5.1 General Scour .................................................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Bend Scour ........................................................................................................................................ 19

5.3 Contraction or Abutment Scour ........................................................................................................ 20

5.4 Bed Form Scour ................................................................................................................................. 20

5.5 Low Flow Channel Incisement .......................................................................................................... 20

5.6 Local Pier Scour ................................................................................................................................. 20

5.7 Long-term Scour ................................................................................................................................ 21

5.8 Summary of Channel Toe-down Requirements ................................................................................ 21

5.9 Scour Countermeasures .................................................................................................................... 21

5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 24

6. References .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
Technical Appendix
Technical Appendix A Bridge Widening Concept
Technical Appendix B Scour Analysis
General Scour
Local Scour
Technical Appendix C HEC-RAS Analysis
Existing Condition
Proposed Condition
Technical Appendix D Local Drainage Hydrology and Inlet Capacity Technical Appendix E Local Drainage Hydraulic Calculation Existing 48” RCP at Full Flow
Proposed System Hydraulics
Orangewood 48” RCP Drainage System Outlet Scour Analysis Technical Appendix F Scour Countermeasure: Rock Sizing Calculation

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
1 Introduction

1.1 General Introduction
The purpose of this report is to document the widening of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge (55C0050) over the Santa Ana River (E01). The portion of the channel affected by the Orangewood Avenue Widening Project is located in the City of Anaheim, Orange County, California. Figure 1 shows a vicinity map of the project site. The design discharges were previously established in the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided HEC-RAS hydraulic model. The HEC-RAS hydraulic model was used in order to conduct the analysis of the potential impacts the Orangewood Avenue Widening Project may have on the Santa Ana River hydraulics.

The widening of Orangewood Avenue and the Santa Ana River Bridge will provide expanded bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the Platinum Triangle corridor. In general, the project will incorporate an additional lane from south of the SR-57 overcrossing.

The existing five lane bridge is planned to be widened by between 30 to 35 feet to carry 6 lanes of traffic with sidewalks on each side. The total length of bridge is 348’-6” consisting of seven spans with a deck to channel 20-degree skew. The deck is supported by pier walls aligned with the channel flow. The existing structure was built in 1966 and widened in 1981 on the south side. The superstructure is reinforced concrete T-beam girders continuous over pier. The substructure consists of concrete pier walls and diaphragm type abutments all supported with concrete driven piles. The channel is soft bottom with base width of approximately 270’ and grouted riprap armored banks.

1.1 Study Objective
The purpose of the project is to widen the Orangewood Avenue Bridge (55C0050) over the Santa Ana River. The roadway widening will increase the bridge width between 30 to 35 feet on the north side. The bridge widening concept is shown in Technical Appendix A. The channel crossing is located between State College Boulevard and Main Street, southeast of the Anaheim Stadium.

This report has identified the following key objectives in developing a comprehensive technical analysis of the hydraulics associated with the Orangewood Avenue crossing of Santa Ana River. These objectives include the following:
• Perform supporting water surface profile hydraulic analysis of the Santa Ana River – Orangewood Avenue crossing to verify that the minimum freeboard requirements and flood protection levels are provided which are consistent with local and federal jurisdiction requirements. Water surface profiles will examine the USACE General Design Memorandum (GDM) Event.
• Provide evaluation for the total scour depths including long-term, general, and local pier scour based upon the application of standard design criteria for alluvial channels. • Provide evaluation for Bridge pile scour protection measures. • Provide evaluation of local drainage improvements.

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT

VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
°
0 500 1,000250
Feet
11/15/2021 JN M:\Mdata\159416\GIS\MXD\Project Location.mxd <USER NAME> Legend
Project Area
Major Roadways
Channels

SANTA ANA RIVER

CA L I F OR N I A
57 ORANGEWOOD AVENUE

ECKHOF STREET

ANAHEIM ANGEL

STADIUM

RAMPART STREET
Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
2 Background

2.1 Study Area Description
The project is located in the City of Orange, Orange County, California within the Santa Ana River watershed. The mean annual precipitation in Orange is 13.4 inches. The area surrounding the project is primarily fully developed with residential housing, existing streets, industrial/commercial buildings, and a sports stadium. The area is located within the coastal and alluvial plains, ranging from sea level and rising to about 400 feet of elevation. The drainage pattern within Orangewood Avenue generally slopes away from the median towards the outside lanes where the flows are collected in drainage systems and conveyed into the Santa Ana River.

The Santa Ana River (E01) begins at the San Bernardino Mountains and traverses past the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. The river is approximately 96 miles long and drains a watershed of 2,650 square miles. Two regional flood control dams meter the flow in the Santa Ana River. Seven Oaks Dam in Highland and Prado Dam in Chino. The Prado Dam lies appropriately 17.9 miles upstream of the project site. From the origin, the river flows southwest generally via earthen lining into the Prado Dam storage reservoir. It then flows via a channel with grouted riprap and filter stone lined walls with an earthen bottom channel with various heights and widths and traverses through Orange County and drains into the Pacific Ocean. The existing channel, within the limits of the project, is a trapezoidal channel with grouted riprap and filter stone lined walls and earthen bottom.

2.2 Existing Conditions
The Orangewood Avenue Bridge was built in 1966, widened in 1981, and is a seven span continuous reinforced concrete “T” beam supported by reinforced concrete pier walls with open end reinforced concrete diaphragm abutments, all on concrete piles. The roadway supported by the bridge is 5 lanes wide and spans approximately 71 feet. The bridge crosses the Santa Ana River at an approximate skew of 19°59’18”. Photos 1 and 2 show the Orangewood Avenue Bridge. Photos 3 and 4 show the typical pier supporting the structure. The top width of the channel ranges from 331 feet to 317 feet due to the abutments of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge, causing a reduction in the channel width. The channel widens back to 331 feet downstream of the bridge. The channel bottom is earthen and comprised mostly of fine alluvial material, shown in Photos 5 and 6. The banks of the channel are lined with grouted riprap and filter stone. There is a grade stabilizer at Station 667+00 of the Santa Ana River, approximately 150 feet downstream of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge, shown in Photo 6.

The average slope of the channel for 2,000 feet downstream of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge is

0.0019 foot/foot. The average slope of the channel for 1,000 feet upstream of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge is 0.0073 foot/foot. The side slope of the channel in the project area is typically 2:1. Looking upstream, left side of channel is bikeway and right side of channel is a Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance access road. Bridge abutments within the channel at the Orangewood Avenue Bridge crossing cause a reduction in channel width at this location.

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

Photograph 1 – Orangewood Avenue Bridge Crossing Santa Ana River (Facing North). Note Bikeways in the Channel.

Photograph 2 – Orangewood Avenue Bridge Crossing Santa Ana River (Facing West)

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

Photograph 3 – Orangewood Avenue Bridge Piers (Downstream side of bridge, looking toward the right bank)

Photograph 4 – Orangewood Avenue Bridge Piers (Upstream side of bridge, looking toward the left bank)

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

Photograph 5 – Santa Ana River Channel Lining (Facing Upstream)

Photograph 6 – Santa Ana River Earthen Channel. Location of Grade Control Structure (buried). Note fine alluvial material.

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

2.3 Proposed Improvements
The roadway widening will increase the bridge width between 30 to 35 feet on the north side of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge. The abutments and piers will be extended, along with a realignment of the bikeway on the west side of the Santa Ana River. The bridge alignment in relation to the channel will remain skewed 19°59’18”. The bridge pier alignment will also remain the same. The hydraulic impacts to the channel are a result of extending of the abutments and piers and realignment of the bikeway. The proposed bridge widening concept is shown in Technical Appendix A.

The existing bridge piles are not sufficiently deep to fully support the bridge during the calculated scour event. The bridge load capacity is severely impacted as a result of the scour that may occur during the USACE General Design Memorandum flow event. Foundation improvements are proposed to protect the existing bridge and the proposed bridge widening from the potential effects of scour.

Improvements to the local drainage systems are proposed to capture flow from the widened bridge and roadway improvements and convey local drainage flow to the Santa Ana River. The existing 48” RCP that runs adjacent to the westbound Orangewood Avenue lanes will be realigned north of the proposed retaining wall. A lateral to the 48” storm drain will connect to two (2) grate inlets to capture surface runoff from the proposed improvements.

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
3 Design Information
The OCFCD is the local agency responsible for the regional flood control facility, Santa Ana River. The requirement and goal of OCFCD includes design of regional flood control improvements to provide 100- year protection for residences and other non-floodproof structures pursuant to the Public Services and Facilities Element of the General Plan. The federal government, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), has also developed minimum guidelines for the regulation of development in the floodplain. These regulations ensure developments are provided a minimum of a 100-year level of flood protection. The FEMA criteria represents a minimum guideline for flood protection, however, the local governing agencies may enforce more stringent requirements related to flood protection. The USACE GDM event is based on a release from Prado Dam using all of the available gates within the primary spillway, at full design head. The hydrology is based on Santa Ana River 1988 Phase 2 GDM it varies along the length of the model but at Orangewood Bridge the flow is 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The GDM event does not correlate to a specific return frequency. The GDM event is generally accepted to be much larger than the 100-year discharge because the combined Seven Oaks Dam and Prado Dam have the capacity to detain adequate volume of runoff to contain the 100-year event within the channel, as evidenced by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Santa Ana River.

3.1 Local Drainage Design
Local drainage features will be designed to meet the requirements of the Orange County Local Drainage Manual. Inlets, junctions and transition structures will be designed using City of Orange Standard Plans.

The proposed drain outlets into the Santa Ana River. The proposed grouted rip rap pad is developed according to guidance from OCPW LDM (2020). Calculations supporting the design are presented in Appendix E, Orangewood 48” RCP Drainage System Outlet Scour Analysis.

3.2 Toe Protection Requirements
Protection for the embankment is proposed to articulate to the full depth of scour at the Orangewood Bridge. Section 4.2 of HEC-23 is referenced for the proposed scour protection. Excavating the embankment to the full scour depth is not feasible in the Santa Ana channel invert so mounded toe approach is proposed as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: HEC-23 Mounded Toe Revetment
Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
4 Hydraulic Model Development
The hydraulics of the Santa Ana River were analyzed using the USACE HEC-RAS water surface profile model. The existing condition hydraulics model was obtained from the USACE. The model was modified to analyze the proposed improvements to the Orangewood Avenue Bridge and Santa Ana River Bike Trail to ensure that the criteria for required level of flood protection is achieved. HEC-RAS is a one- dimensional, rigid boundary model which assumes that the channel bed does not move. The HEC-RAS program is used for calculating water surface profile for steady and gradually varied flow in natural and manmade channels. The effects of obstacles such as bridges, culvert, and road crossings can be modeled in the computations. The bridge piers were modeled with debris loading in accordance with OCFCD Design Manual guidance.

4.1 Channel Hydraulic Models
Three models provided to support the analysis in this report. An effective model from the USACE that models the Santa Ana River from Prado Dam to the Pacific Ocean. An existing condition mode built on the effective model shows the existing Orangewood Bridge. The proposed condition model is build on the existing condition model but cuts the cross sections from a merged proposed surface in the vicinity of the bridge at appropriate spacing for the proposed bridge. The effective model represents the hydraulic model as it was received from USACE. The following description is from the notes of that model.

Effective Condition Model
• Cross-sections were "cut" from digital topography to estimate channel and overbank elevations utilizing HEC GeoRAS tools in ArcGIS v10.1. The channel conditions downstream of Weir Canyon Road, which is downstream of Reach 9, reflect as-built conditions (1990-1994 USACE as-builts).

The channel conditions of Weir Canyon Road, within Reach 9, reflect the most recent survey conditions. Specifically, the current conditions invert profile of Reach 9 primarily reflects in the HEC-RAS model conditions as surveyed in 2007 and 2013. The channel conditions from upstream of Weir Canyon Road to approximately the downstream extent of Phase 2B, reflect 2013 survey data. The remainder of the Reach 9 topographic data and river profile was developed from two data sources: aerial surveys of the project area conducted in 2007, and an aerial survey of the Riverside County portion of the project area conducted in 1996. All elevations are based upon NGVD29 and all horizontal distances are based on North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The topography was developed using State Plane coordinates California Zone V.

Existing Condition Model
The existing condition model was developed from the effective model. The following changes were made to the effective model to create the existing condition model. • A high-resolution surface of the terrain was obtained specifically for the project using LIDAR. The surface was created in NAVD88 datum. The model is in NGVD 29 so the LIDAR surface was translated from NAVD 88 to NGVD 29 using the datum shift of 2.423’ from OCPW benchmark 1L- 53-82 (Elevation NGVD 29 = Elevation NAVD 88 – 2.423’). • The LIDAR Surface was used to cut the slopes of the channel for model cross sections 67683- 65933. Figure 3 shows the existing model cross sections and the lidar surface.

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
• The invert elevations at cross sections were determined by linear interpolation within as-built invert elevations from USACE Record Drawing E01-101-31R. Figure 4 plots the as-built elevations and interpolated cross-section elevations.

Figure 3: Existing Condition Model & Terrain (North is up page) Figure 4: Invert Interpolation
Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
• Table 1 shows the river station and interpolated invert values used in the existing and proposed models.

Table 1: Interpolated Invert Elevations from As-built Invert Santa Ana River Station Interpolated Invert Elevation (ft, NGVD 29) 67683 133.24
67500 132.87
67333 132.53
67166 132.19
67000 131.86
66956 131.77
66922 131.7
66847 131.55
66723 131.31
66600 131.06
66433 130.72
66266 130.38
66100 130.05
65933 129.71
• Manning’s n values of 0.028 are used for sections 67683 through 65933. The n value was selected based on the HEC RAS 6.0 Reference Manual by choosing a value that represented the unarmored channel bottom and grouted rip-rap banks.
• Added 5’X6’ debris rectangle on piers according to OC Flood Control District Design Manual, Chapter 1.

Proposed Condition Model
Proposed condition model maintains the changes to the effective model in the existing model with the following additional changes.
• The proposed condition model is built from the existing condition model by extending the bridge and merging the trail and retaining wall surfaces to the existing condition lidar surface. It is shown in Figure 5.
• An upstream bridge bounding cross-section at river station 66956 is added in the proposed condition model to analyze the bike trail extension and retaining wall.

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

4.2 Local Drainage Improvements
The proposed alignment of the 48” RCP along Orangewood Ave was analyzed in WSPG to ensure that the drainage system has capacity for the existing system at full flow. Lateral 1 was also analyzed in WSPG to ensure it has capacity for the local runoff in its tributary area. CALTRANS standard GT1 inlets were placed to capture surface flow. This system is in inlet control.

4.3 Results of HEC-RAS Channel Hydraulic Analysis
Results of the HEC-RAS analysis for the existing and proposed condition at the Orangewood Avenue Bridge are summarized in Table 2 below. The channel hydraulics were prepared using the HEC-RAS water surface profile model and modifying the cross sections based on the proposed improvements of the project. The proposed improvements for the Orangewood Avenue Bridge widen the bridge by approximately 35-ft. The proposed improvements for the Orangewood Avenue Bridge will require the abutments and piers to be extended. The extension of the abutments will require the Santa Ana Bike Trail to be realigned. These adjustments are within the channel lining and are reflected in the proposed hydraulic model. The hydraulic model results for the existing and proposed condition can be found in Technical Appendix C. A comparison of the channel hydraulics for the existing and proposed conditions in the vicinity of the bridge is shown in Table 3.

Figure 5: Proposed Condition Model & Terrain (North is up page) Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

Table 2 – Santa Ana River at Orangewood Avenue Bridge Water Surface Elevation Summary Model Q (cfs) Riv Station WSE (NGVD 29)
Bridge Soffit Elev
(NGVD 29) Freeboard (ft)
Existing
Condition 40000
66884 BR
U 144.2 146.3 2.1
Proposed
Condition 40000
66884 BR
U 144.4 145.8 1.4

Table 3 – Santa Ana River at Orangewood Avenue Bridge Water Surface Elevation Summary Results of Hydraulic Analysis
Proposed Condition Existing Condition WSE Comparison
River Sta Profile Q Total
(cfs)
Invert
Elev (ft
NGVD
29)
Proj
WSE (ft
NGVD
29)
Velocity
in
Channel
(ft/s)
Freeboard**
(ft)
Top
Width
(ft)
Ex WSE
(ft
NGVD
29)
Vel
Chnl
(ft/s)
Freeboard
(ft)
Top
Width
(ft)
Prop - Existing (ft)
68808* GDM 40000 135.5 148.6 10.1 4.2 333.7 148.6 10.1 4.2 333.5 0.0 68700.00 GDM 40000 135.3 148.4 10.2 5.6 325.6 148.4 10.3 5.6 325.4 0.0 68547* GDM 40000 135.0 148.2 10.1 2.6 326.9 148.2 10.2 2.7 326.6 0.1 68395.00 GDM 40000 134.6 148.0 10.0 2.0 328.7 148.0 10.0 2.1 328.5 0.1 68222.00 GDM 40000 SR 57 Bridge
68050.00 GDM 40000 134.1 146.7 10.7 21.5 327.2 146.6 10.8 21.6 326.8 0.1 67866* GDM 40000 133.7 146.3 10.7 3.6 323.2 146.2 10.8 3.7 322.8 0.1 67683.00 GDM 40000 133.2 146.0 10.6 2.7 320.5 145.9 10.7 2.8 320.2 0.1 67500.00 GDM 40000 132.6 145.7 10.8 2.4 314.9 145.5 10.9 2.5 314.4 0.1 67333.00 GDM 40000 132.5 145.4 10.8 2.6 314.3 145.3 10.9 2.7 313.8 0.1 67166.00 GDM 40000 132.2 145.1 10.8 2.7 322.8 145.0 10.9 2.8 311.1 0.1 67000.00 GDM 40000 131.9 145.1 9.9 4.0 329.1 144.9 10.1 4.1 328.7 0.1 66956.00 GDM 40000 131.8 144.9 10.0 4.4 326.8 Proposed Condition Model Only 66922.00 GDM 40000 Existing Condition Model Only 144.8 10.2 3.9 321.7 Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
Results of Hydraulic Analysis
Proposed Condition Existing Condition WSE Comparison
River Sta Profile Q Total
(cfs)
Invert
Elev (ft
NGVD
29)
Proj
WSE (ft
NGVD
29)
Velocity
in
Channel
(ft/s)
Freeboard**
(ft)
Top
Width
(ft)
Ex WSE
(ft
NGVD
29)
Vel
Chnl
(ft/s)
Freeboard
(ft)
Top
Width
(ft)
Prop - Existing (ft)
66884.00 GDM 40000 Orangewood Ave Bridge
66847.00 GDM 40000 131.6 144.1 10.8 4.1 330.8 144.1 10.8 4.0 330.9 0.0 66723.00 GDM 40000 131.3 143.9 10.7 5.0 348.0 143.9 10.7 5.0 348.0 0.0 66600.00 GDM 40000 131.1 143.6 11.0 2.3 313.7 143.6 11.0 2.3 313.8 0.0 66433.00 GDM 40000 130.7 143.4 10.5 2.4 325.7 143.4 10.5 2.4 325.7 0.0 66266.00 GDM 40000 130.4 143.0 11.0 2.5 312.9 143.0 11.0 2.5 312.9 0.0 66100.00 GDM 40000 130.1 142.7 10.9 2.3 313.8 142.7 10.9 2.3 313.8 0.0 65933.00 GDM 40000 129.7 142.5 10.8 1.8 313.8 142.5 10.8 1.8 313.8 0.0 65766* GDM 40000 129.3 142.3 10.4 3.2 323.0 142.3 10.4 3.2 323.0 0.0 65600.00 GDM 40000 129.0 142.1 10.3 2.8 324.5 142.1 10.3 2.8 324.5 0.0 65425* GDM 40000 128.7 141.8 10.3 2.1 325.6 141.8 10.3 2.1 325.6 0.0 65250* GDM 40000 128.5 141.5 10.3 2.1 326.6 141.5 10.3 2.1 326.6 0.0 65075* GDM 40000 128.2 141.2 10.3 2.2 327.6 141.2 10.3 2.2 327.6 0.0 64900.00 GDM 40000 127.9 140.9 10.3 2.2 328.6 140.9 10.3 2.2 328.6 0.0 64734* GDM 40000 127.3 140.7 10.1 1.3 328.9 140.7 10.1 1.3 328.9 0.0 64568.00 GDM 40000 126.8 140.5 9.9 1.9 322.8 140.5 9.9 1.9 322.8 0.0 64559* GDM 40000 126.8 140.5 9.9 2.3 322.7 140.5 9.9 2.3 322.7 0.0 * Interpolated cross-section in effective, existing and proposed model ** Freeboard is calculated from minimum of LOB or ROB elevation minus WSE

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
5 Scour
The primary failure mechanism of rigid bank protection revetments for channel systems is generally due to scouring under the toe of the revetment. Scour is the removal of material along the channel as a result of hydraulic forces. The design of the channel slope protection must provide adequate toe-down protection below the earthen channel invert to account for dynamic changes in the streambed elevations during the passage of a storm hydrograph. The toe-down depth must consider the potential of general bed degradation, bend scour (for curved portions of the channel’s horizontal alignment), bed form height, abutment or contraction scour, and local scour associated with hydraulic structures such as bridge piers.

Local scour needs to be considered in addition to development of the potential long-term equilibrium channel slope or invert elevation that may develop from general degradation and sediment deposition.

The following methodology was used for determination of scour. The maximum scour depths for toe protection were calculated for the GDM event in the vicinity of the bridge. Toe down depths for the channel slope protection will consist of general or natural scour in the channel as calculated by the Blench and Modified Lacey regime equations plus adjustments for local scour. Unless stated otherwise, scour depth will be defined as the depth of scour below the minimum channel bed elevation. The bed elevations are taken from the HEC-RAS model provided by the Army Corps of Engineers.

In this report the requirements for toe-down is the total cumulative channel adjustments possible from long-term degradation, general scour, bend scour, contraction scour, local scour, low-flow incisement, and bed forms.

𝑍𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑍𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 + 𝑍𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑 + 𝑍𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑍𝐵𝑒𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 + 𝑍𝐿𝑜𝑤 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝑍𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟 + 𝑍𝐿𝑜𝑛𝑔−𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
The toe-down requirements are applicable to the channel side slopes/crossing slope protection, as well as the channelization facilities. A scour protection structure was constructed downstream of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge to eliminate long-term degradation. Any new channel bank revetment will be designed to provide GDM event protection. The project proposes to widen the Orangewood Avenue Bridge, extend the piers and abutments of the bridge, and reconstruct the bike paths. The proposed improvements will change the channel configuration and a hydraulic model was created to show the change in water surface elevation in the affected areas. The hydraulic model for the Santa Ana River and calculations for the scour depth are included in Technical Appendix B.

5.1 General Scour
General scour is the lowering of the streambed across the channel or stream over a relatively short time period such as the passage of a single flood event. Current guidance in HEC-18, 5th ed. (FHWA, 2012) removes general scour term from the overall scour calculation at bridges. However, including general scour is a more conservative analysis, and other local agencies require that general scour is included.

General scour was calculated using the Blench Regime and Modified Lacey Equation. Using results of a sediment sample taken from the channel invert in the vicinity of the bridge, a D50 grain size of 1.396 mm was used for the analysis. The grain size analysis results are shown in Technical Appendix B.

Coachella Valley Water District offers guidance in the Development Design Guidance Appendix K3 (DDG K3) for calculating scour in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC). Some reaches in CVSC have similar soil type, D50, flow regime and volumetric flow to the Santa Ana River. DDG K3 advocates using Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
Blench Regime Equation to estimate a General Scour and adding that general scour to the pier scour calculated using the HEC-18, 5th ed. (FHWA, 2012) guidance. This generally provides a slightly deeper scour estimate than the HEC-18, 5th ed. (FHWA, 2012) guidance alone. Given the similar conditions in the Santa Ana River and the CVSC and the importance of the bridges at both locations to the surrounding community the bridge design team choose the deeper scour estimate to advocate.

The Blench Regime Equation is as follows:
𝑑𝑓0 = (
𝑞𝑓
2 𝐹𝑏0
)
1 3

Where:
• 𝑑𝑓0 = regime depth for zero bed change [scour depth below the design water surface, (ft)] • 𝑞𝑓 = unit discharge (design discharge/channel topwidth), (ft2/s) • 𝐹𝑏0 = zero-bed factor (function of median bed material size; a D50 of 1.396 mm was used)

The scour depth is estimated using the following equation:
𝑑𝑠 = 𝑍 × 𝑑𝑓0
Where:
• 𝑑𝑠 = maximum scoured depth below the design channel invert (ft) • 𝑍 = factor to account for straight reaches or bends in channel (Z = 0.6 for generally straight sections)
The Modified Lacey Equation is as follows:
𝑦𝐿 = 0.47 (𝑄
𝑓)

0.33 Where:
• 𝑦𝐿 = mean depth at design discharge (ft)
• 𝑄 = design discharge (ft3/s)
• 𝑓 = Lacey’s silt factor (a D50 of 1.396 mm was used)
𝑓 = 1.76𝐷50

0.5 The Blench Regime and Modified Lacey Equation determines the scour depth below the water surface elevation. Using the Blench Regime Equation, a general scour of 11.8-ft below the channel invert at the bridge crossing was calculated. Using the Modified Lacey Equation, a general scour of 12.2-ft below the channel invert at the bridge crossing was calculated. The deeper scour estimate, from the Modified Lacey Equation, is adopted in this analysis. These scour depths were calculated using the GDM event hydraulic parameters from the proposed bridge HEC-RAS model of the Santa Ana River. The general scour calculations can be found in Technical Appendix B.

5.2 Bend Scour
Bend scour occurs due to the transverse or secondary currents which develop as the flow is forced to change direction through impingement on the channel bank. Scour takes place along the outside of a bend and deposits along the inside of the bend. This scour mechanism is caused by the spiral pattern of Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
secondary currents, it is not due to a shift of the maximum longitudinal velocity against the outer bank.

The reach of channel in the vicinity of the bridge is generally straight, therefore, bend scour is not expected to occur.

5.3 Contraction or Abutment Scour
Contraction or abutment scour results from reduction of the natural floodplain width and the decreased flow area of the contraction channel section due to the channelization. With a decrease in flow area, there is an increase in average velocity and bed shear stress through the contraction. The abutment scour occurs in the stream bed upstream areas of reduced stream width or contraction areas. The increase in transport of bed material from the channel will lower the streambed elevation. Contraction and abutment scour is calculated as 1.5-ft using methods described in HEC-18 5th Ed. (2012).

5.4 Bed Form Scour
Bed forms usually develop in sand bed channels and create a succession of crest and troughs in a sinusoidal pattern along the channel be depending upon the flow conditions. The potential exists for the creation of antidunes within an alluvial channel when the Froude number of the design flow is near or greater than 1.0, i.e. supercritical flow regime. Dunes may form in the lower regime for Froude numbers less than one. Bed form depth below the original bed may range from 10% to 50% of the flow depth.

The reach of the channel in the vicinity of the bridge has a Froude number of generally less than 0.6, therefore, bed form scour is not expected to occur.

5.5 Low Flow Channel Incisement
When large width to depth ratios exists, consideration should be given to the development of a low flow channel. A channel formed predominantly by a 5-year to 10-year flood will develop width and depth characteristics to carry this relatively large discharge in a hydraulically efficient manner; however, for smaller floods, these channel dimensions may result in a flow pattern approaching sheet flow conditions. Rather than carrying the flow in this manner, the channel will develop a low-flow channel that provides more efficient conveyance of the low-flow discharges. The development of a low-flow channel will create entirely different hydraulic conditions than those occurring in the original channel geometry and may create bank instability from incisement. The design storms for toe down determination is the GDM event. Due to the continual routine maintenance of the soft bottom of the Santa Ana River for groundwater recharge, the low flow incisement in the channel was considered negligible.

5.6 Local Pier Scour
Local pier scour occurs at piers and is a function of bed material characteristics, bed configuration, flow characteristics, fluid properties, and the geometry of the pier and footing. The bed material characteristics are granular or non-granular, cohesive or non-cohesive, erodible or non-erodible rock.

Granular bed material ranges in size from silt to large boulders and is characterized by the D50 and a coarse size such as the D84 or D90 size. Cohesive bed material is composed of silt and clay. Flow characteristics of interest for local pier scour are the velocity and depth, upstream of the pier, and the angle of the flow relative to the pier. Pier geometry characteristics consider its type, dimensions, and shape. The type of piers in this section of the channel are complex piers which include the pier, footing or pile cap, and piles. A complex pier scour analysis was performed in order to accurately identify the total local pier scour at the piers by using the HEC-18 complex local pier scour equations.

The HEC-18 complex local pier scour equations are as follows:

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
𝑦𝑠
𝑦1
= 2.0𝐾1𝐾2𝐾3( 𝑎
𝑦1
)0.65𝐹𝑟1

0.43 • 𝑦𝑠 = scour depth
• 𝑦1 = flow depth directly upstream of the pier
• 𝐾1 = correction factor for pier nose shape
• 𝐾2 = correction factor for angle of attack of the flow • 𝐾3 = correction factor for bed condition
• 𝑎 = width of structure (pile, pier, pile cap)
• 𝐹𝑟 = Froude number directly upstream of the pier
Case 2 was used to account for the calculated depth of scour being below the pile cap. Case 1 considers the depth of scour being at or above the pile cap. The total complex local pier scour was determined to be 7.0-ft. The complex local pier scour calculations can be found in Technical Appendix B.

5.7 Long-term Scour
Long term degradation or scour are a result of the channel tending towards an equilibrium slope.

Modifications to the channel can affect the long-term trends. Approximately 150 feet downstream of the bridge, there is a grade control structure. The purpose of the grade control structure is to eliminate long-term scour in the portion of the channel directly upstream of it. A long-term scour analysis was not performed due to the presence of the grade control structure just downstream of the bridge.

5.8 Summary of Channel Toe-down Requirements
The channel side slope toe-down requirements were evaluated for the GDM event discharges. The toe down requirements were evaluated for a range of design conditions based upon the results of the HEC- RAS models. The design conditions represent the maximum range of anticipated design operation and variation of variables. The hydraulic characteristics indicated in the HEC-RAS models were utilized based upon the criteria previously indicated to develop the maximum toe-down depth requirements. Because a grade control structure is located just downstream of the bridge, no long-term scour is expected to occur. As previously discussed, general and local pier scour were used to determine total scour depth for the slope protection toe-down. The results of the toe-down analysis show that the maximum anticipated depth of scour to be approximately 23.5-ft in the vicinity of the bridge. Table 4 summarizes the scour by components.

Table 4: Scour Summary by Components
Total Scour
Long-Term Degradation Scour 0 ft
General Scour 12.2 ft
Contraction Scour 1.5 ft
Pier Scour 9.8 ft

Total Scour 23.5 ft

5.9 Scour Countermeasures
Retrofit piles are added to the existing pile foundation to provide continued stability under the maximum scour event. However, as-built plans indicate that the slope protection toe down is only Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022
around 6-feet in the vicinity of the bridge. The embankments and abutments are vulnerable to scour in the GDM event.

A mounded toe stone revetment or flexible revetment as described in HEC-23, is recommended to provide protection to the embankments at the bridge abutments. Figure 6 shows the suggested stone placement. The stone would be expected to settle along a slope to the full depth of scour. Figures 7 and 8 show the mounded stone before and settled stone after the GDM event.

The stone size was calculated using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineering Manual 1110- 2-1601 (EM 1601) as the equation is presented in HEC-23. Calculations are documented in Technical Appendix F of this report. Table 4.1 in HEC-23 identifies Class V stone meets the required diameter from the EM 1601 equation. The nominal weight of Class V stone is 1/4 ton shown in HEC-23 Table 4.2.

Figure 6: Articulating Stone Revetment 3D View (no scale) Facing Downstream Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

Figure 8: Santa Ana River Section with articulating stone revetement after GDM event (scoured) Figure 7: Section with articulating stone revetment as placed (unscoured) Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

5. Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the existing and proposed condition, the proposed bridge widening increases the water surface elevation within the limits of the project, but backwater effects lower the WSE upstream. The proposed improvements decrease the water surface elevation upstream of the Orangewood Avenue Bridge by a maximum of 0.1-ft. This is due to the new alignment of the bikeway and the abutment and pier extensions. The freeboard at the Orangewood Ave bridge is 1.4-ft in the proposed condition at the lowest point of the proposed bridge. The freeboard in the existing condition is

2.1-ft. The general and local pier scour resulted in a 23.5-ft total scour. Scour protection measures are proposed at the bridge piers and pilings. The design of the bridge proposed piers and existing pier retrofit account for the total scour potential.

Basis of Design Report: Orangewood Avenue Bridge Improvement Project Project Number: 159416
March 2022

6. References
California Department of Transportation. (2018). Highway Design Manual: U.S. Customary Units (6th Edition). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm/chapter- 400-manual-highway-design-manual-hdm
Coachella Valley Water District. Development Design Manual. (2018, August). [PDF] Retrieved from https://www.cvwd.org/208/Development-Design-Manual
County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department. (2000). Orange County Flood Control District Design Manual. https://ocip.ocpublicworks.com/service-areas/oc-infrastructure- programs/documents-maps/online-manuals
L.A. Arneson, L.W. Zevenbergen, P.F. Lagasse, et al. (2012). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 - EVALUATING SCOUR AT BRIDGES - Fifth Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Orange County Public Works. (2020) Local Drainage Manual. https://ocip.ocpublicworks.com/service- areas/oc-infrastructure-programs/documents-maps/online-manuals Philip L. Thompson and Roger T. Kilgore. (2006). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 14 - Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels – Third Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
P.F. Lagassee, P.E. Clopper, J.E. Pagan -Ortiz, et. al. (2009). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23 - Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance-Third Edition: Volume 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration S.A. Brown, J.D. Schall, J.L. Morris, C.L. Doherty, et. al. (2009). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22 – Urban Drainage Design Manual – Third Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
United States Department of Defense: Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) Version 6.1 [Program] downloaded from http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/downloads.aspx United States Department of Defense: Army Corps of Engineers. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual. downloaded from http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec- ras/downloads.aspx
United States Department of Defense: Army Corps of Engineers. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels. EM 1110-2-1601. Department of the Army. Washington, D.C.

TECHNICAL APPENDIX A

BRIDGE WIDENING CONCEPT

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF ANAHEIM

R E V I S I O N S ACCOUNT NUMBER
48 UTILITY AGENCIES

R E F E R E N C E S

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE

PROFILE
SCALE
828-412-K940-7892
RCP2016-12348

C I TY OF ANAHE
IM

CALIFORNIA
FOU
N
D
E
D
1857
MBAKERINTL.COM I N T E R N A T I O N A L
5 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: (949) 472-3505

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (SCOUR PROTECTION)
11 39577
-200-1000100
120
130
120
200
110
100
110
100
130
SCALE: 1"=40'
140140

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
BRADLEY M. LOSEY
CIVIL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 65140
150
160
150
160

SANTA ANA
RIVER

SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL
A A

STORM DRAIN PLAN & PROFILE
12 39578
2+0010+0011+00

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
SCALE: 1"=20'

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF ANAHEIM

R E V I S I O N S ACCOUNT NUMBER
48 UTILITY AGENCIES

R E F E R E N C E S

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE

PROFILE
SCALE
828-412-K940-7892
RCP2016-12348

C I TY OF ANAHE
IM

CALIFORNIA
FOU
N
D
E
D
1857
MBAKERINTL.COM I N T E R N A T I O N A L
5 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: (949) 472-3505
140
130
140
130
1+00
LAT A-1 LINE A
150150
150
160
150
160
BRADLEY M. LOSEY
CIVIL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER No. 65140
140
140
130
130

CURVE/LINE DATA TABLE

SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL

ORANGEWOOD AVE

SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL

SANTA ANA RIVERSANTA ANA RIVER

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF ANAHEIM

R E V I S I O N S ACCOUNT NUMBER
48 UTILITY AGENCIES

R E F E R E N C E S

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE
828-412-K940-7892
RCP2016-12348
C
ITY

OF ANAHE IM CALIFORN
IA
FOUN D E D 1 8 5 7
MBAKERINTL.COMI N T E R N A T I O N A L
5 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: (949) 472-3505

STORM DRAIN DETAILS
13 39579
BRADLEY M. LOSEY

CIVI LSTATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERNo. 65140

OUTFALL PLAN VIEW

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF ANAHEIM

R E V I S I O N S ACCOUNT NUMBER
48 R E F E R E N C E S

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE
828-412-K940-7892
RCP2016-12348
C
ITY

OF ANAHE IM CALIFORN
IA
FOUN D E D 1 8 5 7
MBAKERINTL.COMI N T E R N A T I O N A L
5 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: (949) 472-3505

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT DETAILS
14 39580
BRADLEY M. LOSEY

CIVI LSTATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERNo. 65140

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CITY OF ANAHEIM

R E V I S I O N S ACCOUNT NUMBER
48 R E F E R E N C E S

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE
828-412-K940-7892
RCP2016-12348
C
ITY

OF ANAHE IM CALIFORN
IA
FOUN D E D 1 8 5 7
MBAKERINTL.COMI N T E R N A T I O N A L
5 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: (949) 472-3505

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT DETAILS
15 39581
BRADLEY M. LOSEY

CIVI LSTATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERNo. 65140

TECHNICAL APPENDIX B

SCOUR ANALYSIS
General Scour
Local Scour

Earth Mechanics, Inc.

Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE BRIDGE OVER SANTA ANA RIVER
Project No. 17-126 Date: May 2019
Borehole Location Map
Figure 2
Legend
A-17-001 Boring Number
(target depth)(80’)
R-18-005
A-18-004A-18-003A-18-002R-18-001
Medium Fine
Boring Sample
Number Number
B-2 S-1 0 SP
Remark
Project No. : Date : 04/12/17 Figure No. :

U.S.C.S.

MBI, Orangewood Avenue Improvement
Project, Anaheim GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
US Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Coarse Fine Symbol Depth Soil Color Soil Description ( ft ) ( m )
(ASTM D-422)
17-126
dark olive-brown Poorly graded sand with gravel
-10.0

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
100.0

0.0010.010.11101001000
Percent Finer By Weight (%)
Grain Size (mm)
3" 1"2" 3/8" 3/4" #4 #16#10 #20 #30 #60 #100 #2001/2"2.5" 1.5"4" #8 #40 #505"6" Coarse

yL = mean depth at design discharge (ft) 12.19 USER INPUT Q = design dicharge (ft3/s)40000 CONTAINS FORMULA
D50 (mm) 1.396 RESULTING GENERAL SCOUR DEPTH
Lacey's silt factor f = 2.079483
KEYModified Lacey
𝑓 = 1.76𝐷50

0.5 𝑦𝐿 = 0.47(𝑄
𝑓)0.33
Bank Stabilization Design Guidelines

Figure 12–3. Graph to Estimate Blench Zero Bed Factor (Pemberton and Lara, 1984).

206

Q 40000 USER INPUT
Topwidth 326.81 CONTAINS FORMULA

19.731718 RESULTING GENERAL SCOUR DEPTH
122.39528

1.95 11.84

0.6 KEY
Z = factor to account for straight reaches or bends in channel (Z=0.6 for generally straight channel sections) Blench Regime
df0 = regime depth for zero bed change (scour depth below the design water surface) (ft) qf = unit discharge (design discharge/channel topwidth) (ft 2/sec) Fb0 = zero-bed factor (function of median bed material size; a D 50 of 1.396 mm was used) = ds = maximum scoured depth below the design channel invert (ft) 𝑑𝑓0 = (
𝑞𝑓
2 𝐹𝑏0
)
1 3
𝑑𝑠 = 𝑍 × 𝑑𝑓0

USER INPUT
Vc = Ku y1/6 D1/3
HEC-18 Eq 6.1 CONTAINS FORMULA

RESULTING CONTRACTION SCOUR DEPTH
Vc Critical velocity above which bed material of size D and smaller will be transported, ft/s 2.85 HEC-18 Eq 6.1 y Average depth of flow upstream of bridge, ft 13.22 HEC-RAS model output D Particle size for V c , ft 0.0046 Average of D50 from 3 sieve analysis results (mm) D50 Particle size in a mixture of which 50 percent are smaller, ft 1.40 Average of D50 from 3 sieve analysis results (mm) Ku 6.19 11.17 HEC-18 Eq 6.1 constant 6.19 (SI), 11.17 (US) V Mean velocity of flow in main channel or overbank area upstream of bridge opening, ft/s 9.93 HEC-RAS model output If
V c > V Clear-water contraction will occur
V c < V Live-bed contraction will occur
TYPE OF CONTRACTION SCOUR Live-bed contraction will occur y2 Average depth in the contracted section, ft 14.16 HEC-18 Eq 6.2, solve for y 2 ys Average contraction scour depth, ft 1.53 HEC-18 Eq 6.3 y1 Average depth in the upstream main channel, ft 13.22 HEC-RAS model output yo Existing depth in the contracted section before scour, ft 12.63 HEC-RAS model output Q1 Flow in the upstream channel transporting sediment, ft 3 /s 40000 HEC-RAS model output Q2 Flow in the contracted channel, ft 3 /s 40000 HEC-RAS model output W1 Bottom width of the upstream main channel that is transporting bed material, ft 329.1 HEC-RAS model output W2 Bottom width of main channel in contracted section less pier width(s), ft 295.51 HEC-RAS model output - total pile width V*/T Ratio of shear velocity in contracted section to the fall velocity of bed material based on D50 1.40 If ratio of V* to T is greater than 2, bed material from upstream end will be mostly suspended bed material discharge and may wash through contracted reach (clear-water scour)
k1 Exponent determined below 0.64
V* (ꝯo/∆)1/2 = (gy1S1)1/2, shear velocity in the upstream section, ft/s 0.83 T Fall velocity of bed material based on the D 50 (m/s), for English units (ft/s) multiply T in m/s by 3.28 0.5904 HEC-18 Fig 6.8 g Acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s 2 ) 32.2
S1 Slope of energy grade line of main channel, ft/ft 0.001603 HEC-RAS model output Where coarse sediments are present, it is recommended that scour depths be calculated for live-bed scour conditions using clear-water scour equation in addition to the live-bed equation, and that the smaller calculated scour depth be used.
y2 Average equilibrium depth in the contracted section after contraction scour, ft 31.39 HEC-18 Eq 6.4 ys Average contraction scour depth, ft 21.89 HEC-18 Eq 6.5 Q Discharge through the bridge or on the set-back overbank area at the bridge associated with the width W, ft 3 /s 9395 HEC-RAS model output - Q Channel at RS 1513.011BR U Dm Diameter of the smallest nontransportable particle in the bed material (1.25 D 50 ) in the contracted section, ft 0.00957 D50 Median diameter of bed material, ft 0.01 Average of D50 from 3 sieve analysis results (mm) W Bottom width of the contracted section less pier widths, ft 69.64 HEC-RAS model output - Top Width at RS 1513.011BR U yo Average existing depth in the contracted section, ft 9.50 HEC-RAS model output - channel hydraulic depth at RS 1513.011BR U Ku 0.0077 (US), 0.025 (SI) 0.0077
ys, final Average Contraction Scour Depth, ft 1.53
Live-bed Contraction Scour
Determine if live-bed scour or clear-water scour
Contraction Scour
Clear-water Contraction Scour
KEY

USER INPUT

CONTAINS FORMULA
K1 Correction factor for pier nose shape 1.00 Table 7.1 Round Nose RESULTING PIER SCOUR DEPTH K2 Correction factor for angle of attack of flow 1.00 Table 7.2, Eq 7.4 - 0 ° angle of attack, L/a = 12 K3 Correction factor for bed condition 1.10 Table 7.3, Plane bed and antidune flow apier Pier width 1.50 ft Proposed Pier width
a*pierd Pier width with debris 1.78 ft Proposed Pier width with debris from Eq 7.32 y1 Flow depth directly upstream of the pier 25.41 ft HEC-RAS model output + General Scour by CVWD Guidance L Length of Pier 105 ft
Fr1 Froude Number directly upstream of the pier 0.23 Calculated V1 Mean velocity of flow directly upstream of the pier 6.71 ft/s HEC-RAS model output velocity x (flow depth upstream of pier / (flow depth upstream of pier + general scour)) g Acceleration of gravity 32.2 ft/s2
ys,pier Depth of scour at pier 4.76 ft
HEC 18 Eq 7.1
Epc,top Elevation at rim of pile cap 128.50 ft Refer to Bridge General Plan Epc,bot Elevation at bottom of pile cap 125.50 ft Refer to Bridge General Plan Ech Elevation of channel bottom 132.75 ft Refer to Bridge General Plan apile cap Pile Cap Width 10.00 ft Refer to Bridge General Plan D50 Median bed material 1.40 mm 0.00 ft Refer to Sieve Analyses D95 95% bed material 10.20 mm 0.03 ft Refer to Sieve Analyses Vc Critical velocity for movement of D 50 1.18 ft/s Equation 7.12 uc
*

0.10 Equation 7.13 & 7.14
f Distance between front edge of pile cap or footing and pier 0.5 ft Figure 7.5 & Equation 7.22, Refer to Bridge As-Builts - Pier Details Sheet h0 Height of the pile cap above bed at beginning of computation -10.73 ft 2.99 Figure 7.5 & Equation 7.22 + contraction scour + general scour h1 Height of the pier stem above the bed before scour 5.99 ft Figure 7.5 & Equation 7.22 h2 Height of the pile cap after pier stem scour component has been computed 5.37 ft Figure 7.5 & Equation 7.22 h3 Height of pile group after the pier stem and pile cap scour components have been computed 6.78 ft Figure 7.5 & Equation 7.22 S Spacing between columns of piles, pile center to pile center 3.00 ft Refer to Bridge General Plan T Thickness of pile cap or footing 3.00 ft Refer to Bridge General Plan y2 Adjusted flow depth for pile cap computations 39.97 ft Equation 7.22 y3 Adjusted flow depth for pile group computations 41.38 ft Equation 7.22 y3,max Maximum y 3 for K h,pg pile group computatiosn 19.55 ft Figure 7.13, Equation 7.31 V2 Adjusted velocity for pile cap computations 4.27 ft/s Equation 7.22 V3 Adjusted velocity for pile group computations 4.12 ft/s Equation 7.22 Original y s,pier exceeds pile cap depth, use pier stem scour calcs to obtain pier scour depth h1/apier 3.99 Equation 7.23, Use Figure 7.6
f/apier 0.33 Equation 7.23, Use Figure 7.6
Kh,pier Use Figure 7.6 in HEC-18 to determine -0.34 Equation 7.23, Use Figure 7.6 kh,pier,corr If Kh,pier exceeds Figure 7.6 Kh,pier limits, default to Kh,pier = 1 1.00 ys,pier Pier Stem Scour Depth 4.76 ft Equation 7.23
T/y2 0.08 Figure 7.7
h2/y2 0.13 Figure 7.7
y2max 35 Figure 7.7
a*pile cap/apile cap Use Figure 7.7 in HEC-18 to determine 0.08 Figure 7.7 KEY
Determine Whether to use Case 1 or 2
Case 1
Pier Scour
Determine Pier Scour Depth Component
Determine Pier Stem Scour Depth Component
Use Case 1 if scour is deep enough to reach the piles
Use pier scour depth component solely if scour is not deep enough to reach pier cap Additional Parameters for Pier Stem, Pile Cap and Pile Group Scour Depth Determine Pile Cap Depth Component
Complex Pier Scour
If y s,pier exceeds/reaches pile cap depth, then need to perform next section of complex pier scour calcs and determine pier scour depth using pier stem scour depth calculations
If y s,pier does not exceed pile cap depth, end at this scour depth 𝑦𝑠
𝑦1
= 2.0𝐾1𝐾2𝐾3( 𝑎
𝑦1
)0.65𝐹𝑟1

0.43 Kw Correction factor to Equation 7.1 or 7.3 for wide piers in shallow flow 1.00 Kw not used since not all conditions met a*pile cap Effective width of pile cap 0.82 Equation 7.24 - Case 1 Guidance Fr < 1 Yes
y 2 < 0.8a* pc No
a* pc > 50D 50 Yes
ys,pile cap c1 Depth of scour at pile cap (Case 1) 2.81 ft Equation 7.24, Kw excluded Not applicable, Case 1 is used
yf Distance from the bed to the top of the footing (after degradation, scour, etc.) 8.37 ft Vf Velocity at the top of the footing 3.46 ft/s
Ks Dimensionless shields parameter 0.1171
y 2 < 0.8a pc No
a pc < 50D 50 No
Kw Correction factor to Equation 7.1 or 7.3 for wide piers in shallow flow 1 ys,pile cap c2 Depth of scour at pile cap (Case 2) 10.6 ft ys,total Total depth of scour (pier, Case 2 pile cap) 15.34 ft a Pile width, side perpendicular to direction of flow 2.00 ft Composite Pile thickness, Inner Piles are 1.5 and outer piles are 2 a*pg Effective width of pile group, Equation 7.28 5.58 Equation 7.28 aprojected Sum of non-overlapping projected widths of piles, Figure 7.9 & 7.10 6.00 ft Equation 7.28, Figure 7.9 & 7.10 Ksp Pile spacing factor, Figure 7.11 0.81 Equation 7.28, Figure 7.11 Km Adjustment factor for number of aligned rows of piles 1.15 Equation 7.28, Figure 7.12 Kh pg Pile group height factor, Figure 7.13 0.23 Equation 7.28, Figure 7.13 Kh,pg,corr If Kh,pg exceeds Figure 7.13 Kh,pg limits or cannot find solution, default to Kh,pier = 1 1.00 n Number of columns of piles in flow direction 3
m Number of rows of piles in flow direction 8
madj Adjusted number of rows 6
ys,pg Pile group scour, Equation 7.31 2.24 ft
ys,total Total depth of scour (pier stem, Case 1 pile cap, pile group) 9.81 ft Equation 7.22 Pile Group Scour
Case 2
Use Case 2 if scour does not reach piles and stops at pile cap Long-Term Degradation Scour 0 ft
General Scour 12.2 ft
Contraction Scour 1.5 ft
Pier Scour 9.8 ft
Total Scour 23.5 ft
Total Scour

TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
HEC-RAS – Effective Condition
HEC-RAS – Existing Condition
HEC-RAS – Proposed Condition

HEC-RAS Plan: OW_Effect River: Santa Ana River Reach: Below Prado Profile: PF 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Below Prado 68999* PF 1 40000.00 143.03 156.65 151.63 158.13 0.001394 9.76 4100.40 332.61 0.49 Below Prado 68994* PF 1 40000.00 143.02 156.64 151.62 158.12 0.001393 9.76 4099.35 332.24 0.49 Below Prado 68989* PF 1 40000.00 143.01 156.63 151.60 158.11 0.001392 9.76 4098.16 331.87 0.49 Below Prado 68985 PF 1 40000.00 143.00 156.62 151.58 158.10 0.001392 9.76 4096.96 331.52 0.49 Below Prado 68977 Inl Struct
Below Prado 68969 PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.64 141.40 150.70 0.002156 8.25 4851.35 311.35 0.37 Below Prado 68964* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.63 141.45 150.69 0.002166 8.26 4841.59 311.35 0.37 Below Prado 68959* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.61 141.47 150.68 0.002175 8.28 4832.18 311.33 0.37 Below Prado 68955* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.60 141.49 150.67 0.002183 8.29 4823.08 311.27 0.37 Below Prado 68950* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.59 141.52 150.66 0.002190 8.31 4814.29 311.20 0.37 Below Prado 68945* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.57 141.54 150.65 0.002197 8.32 4805.79 311.09 0.37 Below Prado 68940* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.56 141.56 150.64 0.002204 8.34 4797.58 310.96 0.37 Below Prado 68936* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.54 141.59 150.63 0.002210 8.35 4789.65 310.81 0.38 Below Prado 68931* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.53 141.59 150.62 0.002215 8.36 4781.99 310.64 0.38 Below Prado 68926* PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.52 141.62 150.61 0.002220 8.38 4774.59 310.44 0.38 Below Prado 68922 PF 1 40000.00 132.80 149.50 141.63 150.60 0.002224 8.39 4767.31 310.22 0.38 Below Prado 68916 PF 1 40000.00 135.73 148.98 144.40 150.53 0.003585 9.43 4075.10 343.91 0.47 Below Prado 68808* PF 1 40000.00 135.51 148.74 144.09 150.29 0.001526 10.01 3995.75 334.17 0.51 Below Prado 68700 PF 1 40000.00 135.30 148.52 143.90 150.13 0.001551 10.15 3940.52 325.98 0.51 Below Prado 68547* PF 1 40000.00 134.95 148.32 143.54 149.88 0.001492 10.02 3993.37 327.31 0.51 Below Prado 68395 PF 1 40000.00 134.60 148.13 143.20 149.64 0.001429 9.87 4053.77 329.19 0.50 Below Prado 68222 Bridge
Below Prado 68050 PF 1 40000.00 134.10 146.84 142.68 148.55 0.001747 10.50 3808.90 328.00 0.54 Below Prado 67866* PF 1 40000.00 133.73 146.50 142.34 148.23 0.001744 10.54 3794.93 324.12 0.54 Below Prado 67683* PF 1 40000.00 133.37 146.16 141.99 147.91 0.001748 10.59 3776.36 320.34 0.54 Below Prado 67500 PF 1 40000.00 133.00 145.83 141.63 147.59 0.001744 10.63 3764.03 316.70 0.54 Below Prado 67333* PF 1 40000.00 132.62 145.70 141.14 147.26 0.001501 10.02 3998.79 337.12 0.51 Below Prado 67166* PF 1 40000.00 132.24 145.61 140.67 146.96 0.001311 9.33 4287.44 359.07 0.47 Below Prado 67000 PF 1 40000.00 131.86 145.54 140.14 146.70 0.001112 8.65 4624.29 382.18 0.44 Below Prado 66922 PF 1 40000.00 131.80 145.14 140.14 146.58 0.001370 9.64 4151.02 330.42 0.48 Below Prado 66884 Bridge
Below Prado 66847 PF 1 40000.00 131.60 144.29 140.05 145.90 0.001655 10.20 3923.27 332.45 0.52 Below Prado 66723* PF 1 40000.00 131.30 143.92 139.91 145.68 0.001808 10.65 3767.39 331.00 0.55 Below Prado 66600 PF 1 40000.00 131.00 143.69 139.60 145.45 0.001787 10.64 3759.77 322.36 0.55 Below Prado 66433* PF 1 40000.00 130.67 143.40 139.28 145.16 0.001772 10.62 3765.79 321.55 0.55 Below Prado 66266* PF 1 40000.00 130.33 143.12 138.93 144.86 0.001750 10.59 3777.28 320.84 0.54 Below Prado 66100 PF 1 40000.00 130.00 142.83 138.62 144.57 0.001732 10.56 3786.21 320.11 0.54 Below Prado 65933* PF 1 40000.00 129.67 142.56 138.28 144.27 0.001700 10.49 3813.00 321.48 0.54 Below Prado 65766* PF 1 40000.00 129.33 142.30 137.94 143.98 0.001661 10.40 3846.41 322.95 0.53 Below Prado 65600 PF 1 40000.00 129.00 142.05 137.60 143.70 0.001625 10.31 3879.08 324.51 0.53 Below Prado 65425* PF 1 40000.00 128.73 141.77 137.33 143.42 0.001627 10.30 3882.03 325.55 0.53 Below Prado 65250* PF 1 40000.00 128.45 141.49 137.05 143.13 0.001624 10.29 3888.30 326.57 0.53 Below Prado 65075* PF 1 40000.00 128.18 141.20 136.78 142.84 0.001626 10.28 3890.85 327.56 0.53 Below Prado 64900 PF 1 40000.00 127.90 140.92 136.50 142.56 0.001623 10.26 3897.51 328.60 0.53 Below Prado 64734* PF 1 40000.00 127.34 140.70 135.98 142.28 0.001532 10.08 3969.09 328.90 0.51 Below Prado 64568 PF 1 40000.00 126.78 140.50 135.50 142.02 0.001417 9.91 4036.21 322.77 0.49 Below Prado 64559* PF 1 40000.00 126.78 140.48 135.48 142.01 0.001416 9.91 4036.73 322.66 0.49 Below Prado 64550* PF 1 40000.00 126.78 140.47 135.46 142.00 0.001414 9.91 4038.06 322.58 0.49 Below Prado 64541* PF 1 40000.00 126.79 140.46 135.45 141.98 0.001417 9.91 4034.58 322.46 0.49 Below Prado 64532* PF 1 40000.00 126.79 140.44 135.44 141.97 0.001417 9.92 4034.06 322.37 0.49 Below Prado 64522* PF 1 40000.00 126.79 140.43 135.44 141.96 0.001420 9.92 4031.63 322.24 0.49 Below Prado 64513* PF 1 40000.00 126.79 140.41 135.43 141.94 0.001422 9.93 4029.53 322.15 0.49 Below Prado 64504* PF 1 40000.00 126.80 140.40 135.42 141.93 0.001429 9.94 4022.70 322.05 0.50 Below Prado 64495 PF 1 40000.00 126.80 140.38 135.42 141.92 0.001433 9.95 4018.61 321.94 0.50 Below Prado 64490* PF 1 40000.00 126.80 140.37 135.43 141.91 0.001436 9.96 4015.94 321.89 0.50 Below Prado 64486 PF 1 40000.00 126.80 140.36 135.42 141.91 0.001439 9.97 4013.19 321.83 0.50 Below Prado 64478 Inl Struct
Below Prado 64470 PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.34 126.62 137.26 0.001691 7.70 5194.84 306.71 0.33 Below Prado 64465* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.33 126.63 137.25 0.001682 7.68 5207.03 307.87 0.33 Below Prado 64460* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.33 126.64 137.24 0.001673 7.66 5219.63 309.01 0.33 Below Prado 64455* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.32 126.65 137.23 0.001663 7.64 5232.65 310.14 0.33 Below Prado 64450* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.32 126.65 137.22 0.001652 7.62 5246.07 311.26 0.33 Below Prado 64445* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.31 126.66 137.21 0.001641 7.60 5259.89 312.36 0.33 Below Prado 64440* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.31 126.66 137.20 0.001630 7.58 5274.11 313.45 0.33 Below Prado 64435* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.30 126.66 137.19 0.001619 7.56 5288.71 314.52 0.33 Below Prado 64430* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.30 126.65 137.18 0.001607 7.54 5303.69 315.58 0.32 Below Prado 64426* PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.29 126.64 137.17 0.001594 7.52 5319.04 316.63 0.32 Below Prado 64421 PF 1 40000.00 117.80 136.29 126.63 137.16 0.001582 7.50 5334.72 317.67 0.32 Below Prado 64416 PF 1 40000.00 120.80 135.98 129.35 137.12 0.002533 8.60 4670.56 345.33 0.41 Below Prado 64308* PF 1 40000.00 120.60 135.83 129.14 136.97 0.000947 8.56 4671.05 344.38 0.41 Below Prado 64200 PF 1 40000.00 120.40 135.73 128.95 136.87 0.000921 8.56 4670.94 336.57 0.41 Below Prado 64063* PF 1 40000.00 120.20 135.59 128.79 136.74 0.000939 8.58 4661.72 342.03 0.41 Below Prado 63927 PF 1 40000.00 120.00 135.50 128.74 136.60 0.000899 8.43 4747.97 344.99 0.40 Below Prado 63878 Bridge
Below Prado 63829 PF 1 40000.00 119.50 134.51 128.15 135.66 0.000975 8.60 4649.74 344.15 0.41 Below Prado 63600 PF 1 40000.00 119.20 134.23 127.76 135.43 0.000992 8.80 4545.88 332.09 0.42 Below Prado 63400* PF 1 40000.00 119.05 134.02 127.61 135.23 0.001005 8.84 4527.44 332.02 0.42 Below Prado 63200 PF 1 40000.00 118.90 133.80 127.46 135.03 0.001019 8.87 4507.76 331.94 0.42 Below Prado 63000* PF 1 40000.00 118.45 133.64 127.00 134.81 0.000954 8.68 4606.50 333.42 0.41 HEC-RAS Plan: OW_Effect River: Santa Ana River Reach: Below Prado Profile: PF 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile E.G. Elev W.S. Elev Crit W.S. Frctn Loss C & E Loss Top Width Q Left Q Channel Q Right Vel Chnl (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s)
Below Prado 74969 PF 1 178.44 177.07 172.72 382.56 358.76 39641.25 9.43 Below Prado 74927 BR U PF 1 178.34 176.70 173.10 341.79 40000.00 10.28 Below Prado 74927 BR D PF 1 177.95 176.39 172.76 376.53 40000.00 10.03 Below Prado 74886 PF 1 177.95 176.45 172.69 0.04 0.00 381.64 40000.00 9.83 Below Prado 74862* PF 1 177.91 176.41 172.65 0.04 0.00 381.57 40000.00 9.83 Below Prado 73467* PF 1 166.18 164.67 160.59 0.21 0.03 383.46 39970.85 29.15 9.84 Below Prado 73334 PF 1 165.93 164.53 160.53 393.17 39730.96 269.04 9.51 Below Prado 73324 BR U PF 1 165.80 164.04 160.99 351.89 40000.00 10.64 Below Prado 73324 BR D PF 1 165.62 163.99 160.67 382.14 40000.00 10.22 Below Prado 73314 PF 1 165.61 164.12 160.52 0.20 0.01 392.37 40000.00 9.82 Below Prado 73207* PF 1 165.41 163.81 160.08 0.19 0.02 383.04 40000.00 10.14 Below Prado 71081* PF 1 161.94 160.50 155.90 0.15 0.07 363.50 40000.00 9.64 Below Prado 70961 PF 1 161.72 160.51 155.05 362.82 1.58 39998.42 8.81 Below Prado 70894 BR U PF 1 161.65 160.31 155.37 343.94 40000.00 9.27 Below Prado 70894 BR D PF 1 161.36 160.00 155.15 355.85 40000.00 9.35 Below Prado 70827 PF 1 161.36 160.06 155.06 0.16 0.02 361.96 40000.00 9.14 Below Prado 70714* PF 1 161.18 159.67 155.13 0.17 0.01 351.10 40000.00 9.85 Below Prado 69601 PF 1 159.42 158.01 152.77 0.30 0.00 336.47 40000.00 9.55 Below Prado 69366 PF 1 159.12 157.71 152.39 333.50 200.03 39799.97 9.57 Below Prado 69341 BR U PF 1 158.98 157.21 152.98 289.18 40000.00 10.67 Below Prado 69341 BR D PF 1 158.61 156.93 152.47 315.63 40000.00 10.40 Below Prado 69313 PF 1 158.60 157.09 152.25 0.16 0.00 333.54 40000.00 9.84 Below Prado 69200 PF 1 158.44 156.92 152.05 0.03 0.02 348.63 39350.70 649.30 9.94 Below Prado 68547* PF 1 149.88 148.32 143.54 0.22 0.01 327.31 40000.00 10.02 Below Prado 68395 PF 1 149.64 148.13 143.20 0.00 0.02 329.19 40000.00 9.87 Below Prado 68222 BR U PF 1 149.62 147.89 143.64 1.04 0.01 303.15 40000.00 10.55 Below Prado 68222 BR D PF 1 148.57 146.79 142.77 0.00 0.02 322.78 40000.00 10.71 Below Prado 68050 PF 1 148.55 146.84 142.68 0.32 0.00 328.00 40000.00 10.50 Below Prado 67866* PF 1 148.23 146.50 142.34 0.32 0.00 324.12 40000.00 10.54 Below Prado 67000 PF 1 146.70 145.54 140.14 0.10 0.03 382.18 1.97 39998.02 8.65 Below Prado 66922 PF 1 146.58 145.14 140.14 330.42 40000.00 9.64 Below Prado 66884 BR U PF 1 146.43 144.65 140.74 294.59 40000.00 10.70 Below Prado 66884 BR D PF 1 145.91 144.20 140.15 325.28 40000.00 10.49 Below Prado 66847 PF 1 145.90 144.29 140.05 0.21 0.01 332.45 40000.00 10.20 Below Prado 66723* PF 1 145.68 143.92 139.91 0.22 0.00 331.00 39956.14 43.86 10.65 Below Prado 64063* PF 1 136.74 135.59 128.79 0.13 0.01 342.03 39996.36 3.64 8.58 Below Prado 63927 PF 1 136.60 135.50 128.74 344.99 39996.89 3.11 8.43 Below Prado 63878 BR U PF 1 136.53 135.30 129.24 319.95 40000.00 8.90 Below Prado 63878 BR D PF 1 135.66 134.46 128.23 338.00 40000.00 8.78 Below Prado 63829 PF 1 135.66 134.51 128.15 0.23 0.01 344.15 40000.00 8.60 Below Prado 63600 PF 1 135.43 134.23 127.76 0.20 0.00 332.09 40000.00 8.80 Below Prado 62800 PF 1 134.61 133.49 126.55 0.19 0.02 334.97 40000.00 8.49 Below Prado 62601 PF 1 134.41 133.13 126.69 337.27 41996.04 3.95 9.07 Below Prado 62451 BR U PF 1 134.24 132.59 127.40 286.22 42000.00 10.31 Below Prado 62451 BR D PF 1 132.66 130.81 126.46 312.10 42000.00 10.93 Below Prado 62301 PF 1 132.66 131.03 126.20 0.00 0.02 328.77 42000.00 10.23 Below Prado 62300 PF 1 132.64 131.07 126.02 0.28 0.00 330.45 42000.00 10.04 Below Prado 60800* PF 1 130.60 129.23 123.40 0.23 0.02 337.99 42000.00 9.39 Below Prado 60600 PF 1 130.36 129.04 123.00 0.04 0.01 341.77 42000.00 9.21 Below Prado 60550 BR U PF 1 130.31 128.87 123.25 0.08 0.02 322.99 42000.00 9.61 Below Prado 60550 BR D PF 1 130.21 128.85 122.87 0.03 0.01 341.55 42000.00 9.34 Below Prado 60500 PF 1 130.16 128.85 122.79 349.50 42000.00 9.20 Below Prado 60372 BR U PF 1 130.01 128.44 123.28 310.38 42000.00 10.03 Below Prado 60372 BR D PF 1 129.23 127.55 122.74 321.19 42000.00 10.41 Below Prado 60245 PF 1 129.19 127.62 122.56 0.03 0.00 331.53 42000.00 10.03 Below Prado 60222* PF 1 129.15 127.59 122.54 0.03 0.00 331.47 42000.00 10.03 Below Prado 58464 PF 1 118.00 116.90 111.34 0.12 0.00 417.96 42000.00 8.43 Below Prado 58353 PF 1 117.89 116.78 111.06 403.69 42000.00 8.44 Below Prado 58307 BR U PF 1 117.74 116.34 111.82 352.18 42000.00 9.51 Below Prado 58307 BR D PF 1 117.17 115.82 111.07 387.79 42000.00 9.32 Below Prado 58260 PF 1 117.16 115.93 110.89 0.01 0.00 401.80 42000.00 8.90 Below Prado 58252* PF 1 117.15 115.92 110.87 0.01 0.00 402.56 42000.00 8.88 Below Prado 52655* PF 1 97.01 93.05 91.45 0.04 0.03 243.19 46000.00 15.97 Below Prado 52605 PF 1 96.94 93.25 91.22 244.60 46000.00 15.41 Below Prado 52598 BR U PF 1 96.80 91.51 91.51 227.63 46000.00 18.45 Below Prado 52598 BR D PF 1 96.45 91.14 91.14 234.38 46000.00 18.48 Below Prado 52590 PF 1 96.35 91.07 91.07 0.06 0.05 236.07 46000.00 18.45 Below Prado 52545* PF 1 96.09 91.26 90.73 0.04 0.09 235.91 46000.00 17.62 Below Prado 52224* PF 1 95.67 92.40 89.76 0.03 0.03 252.25 46000.00 14.51 Below Prado 52178 PF 1 95.62 92.43 89.55 249.40 46000.00 14.31

0 100 200 300 400
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
Orangewood Ave Bridge RAS Model Plan: OrangewoodEffective 3/15/2022