DESIGN HYDRAULIC STUDY

ARROYO PASAJERO BRIDGE AT

S. EL DORADO AVE. Bridge No. 42C0097

Prepared for the

COUNTY OF FRESNO

November 2015

The Report contained herein has been prepared by or under the direction of the following Registered Person(s):

Robin E. Yates, P.E. Date

12/31/16

C76631

Robin E. Yates

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 

STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................... 5 

HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 6 

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 6 

SCOUR ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 8 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 12 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 13 

APPENDIX A 

ARROYO PASAJERO FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION 

HYDROLOGY REPORT 

APPENDIX B 

HEC-RAS SUMMARY FILE – EXISTING CONDITION 

APPENDIX C 

GEOTECNICAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM 

3

DESIGN HYDRAULIC STUDY Arroyo Pasajero Bridge at S. El Dorado Avenue

Bridge No. 42C0097 Fresno County, California

INTRODUCTION Bridge No. 42C0097 is located over Arroyo Pasajero on S. El Dorado Avenue, approximately 2.0 miles north of W. Jayne Avenue, 6.5 miles southwest of the City of Huron (see Figure 1). The existing bridge was built in 1970 and consists of a 3-span precast-prestressed concrete double T-girder unit superstructure with a composite, cast-in-place concrete deck supported on reinforced concrete pier walls and abutments. All foundations are cast-in-drilled-hole piles. The bridge is approximately 152 feet long and 34 feet wide, carrying two vehicular lanes. The ADT for S. El Dorado Avenue based on a 2004 evaluation is 900 vehicles per day, with approximately 5% of the total being trucks. The estimated future ADT for the year 2029 is 1419 vehicles per day. Based on the Caltrans Structure Inventory and Appraisal sheet dated November 20, 2011, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 96.7 and is neither Structurally Deficient nor Functionally Obsolete. Therefore, the bridge is not eligible for rehabilitation under the traditional Highway Bridge Program; however, it does qualify for preventive maintenance funds under the Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program. The primary eligible maintenance item for this location includes the repair of existing scour countermeasures and placement of new erosion control measures.

Arroyo Pasajero is a natural channel with a trapezoidal shape. The channel sides and bottom are typically earth-lined with moderate vegetation on the banks, consisting of small trees and grasses. According to the 2011 Caltrans Bridge Inspection Report, there is local scour occurring along the piers and abutments, exposing up to 31 inches of the pile cap and slope paving toe. In addition, field observations conducted by TRC in February 2014 revealed that the channel bottom has eroded significantly since the construction of the bridge in 1970 due to its silty/fine sand composition. Also, the

Upstream Edge of Bridge No. 42C0097

4

south channel bank has eroded to a near vertical slope upstream of the bridge as shown in the picture looking upstream of the bridge below.

Colorado State University conducted a sediment transport study of Arroyo Pasajero in 2003 and found that the top layer of sediment is composed of silts and clays that are transported downstream during times of high flow, causing the channel bottom to degrade and the banks to become incised.

Figure 1 – Project Location Map

Hydraulic investigation of this bridge began in October of 2014. The findings of the hydraulic studies by TRC showed that the calculated scour depth extends well below the bottom of the pile cap foundations to locations where the supporting CIDH piles are

Looking Upstream of Bridge No. 42C0097

5

unreinforced. Field investigation of this site revealed that the streambed has degraded for thousands of feet upstream and downstream of the bridge, leaving much of the pile cap at Pier 2 exposed. Therefore, it is not possible to armor the pier foundations without raising the channel bottom or mounding rock at the discrete pier locations. Raising the channel bottom at the bridge would have a negative impact on the structure’s hydraulic capacity, and mounding of the rock at the piers violates recommendations in FHWA's HEC-23 which states that rock rip rap should be buried below grade in order to function effectively against scour. Caltrans Hydraulics has recently reevaluated this bridge and determined it to be Scour Critical. As of November 2015, the Arroyo Pasajero Bridge has been removed from the Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) and will be programmed as a separate scour project.

STUDY AREA The study area is located on Arroyo Pasajero near Huron, California. Arroyo Pasajero is a stream located on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley that transports creek flows eastward from the Diablo Range to basins at the California Aqueduct. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has jurisdiction over this stream and is a repository for all studies conducted on the Arroyo Pasajero and its tributaries. The Coalinga Canal is located south of the bridge and is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. Upstream of the bridge, there is an undercrossing designed to allow flood water that pushes up against the south and west side of the canal to drain under the Coalinga Canal and into Arroyo Pasajero.

The bridge is located in a very rural area consisting of agricultural lands and residential/agricultural structures, and there are established orchards on the two eastern quadrants of the bridge and empty fields on the two western quadrants (see Figure 2). According to the sediment transport study of Arroyo Pasajero prepared by Colorado State University, DWR has a stream and sediment gage at Arroyo Pasajero at El Dorado Avenue. It was observed on the downstream side of the bridge attached to Pier 2 during TRC's field investigation. The flow information used in this analysis was provided to TRC by DWR and was based on a previous study conducted by DWR and the US Army Corps of Engineers. See further discussion under “Hydrology” below.

6

Figure 2 – Project Aerial

HYDROLOGY The flow adopted for the analysis was taken from Table 3 of the “Arroyo Pasajero Feasibility Investigation, Hydrology Report” by the California Department of Water Resources dated December 3, 1996 (see Appendix A). This table provides peak flow rates at various locations along the Arroyo Pasajero system based on a HEC-1 hydrologic analysis of the March 10, 1995 flood event. There is a flow rate location provided at the location of this bridge (Arroyo Pasajero Creek at El Dorado Avenue). Based on the 1996 DWR report, the peak flow rate was 28,100 cfs. This flow rate will be the adopted flow rate for this study, as shown in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1 ADOPTED FLOWS

Type of Flow Arroyo Pasajero Flow (cfs)

Peak Flow 28,100

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS A hydraulic analysis was performed using HEC-RAS software to determine the channel velocity and water surface elevation for the adopted flow given in Table 1. The existing

7

condition model accounts for the natural earth-lined banks and cobble-lined bottom with moderate to heavy vegetation at each end of the bridge.

Manning’s “n” values were used to model the channel friction. Values of 0.045 and 0.040 have been assumed for the main channel throughout the existing model to represent a winding natural stream with some pools and shoals and some weeds and stones and concrete slope paving with natural channel floor underneath the bridge, respectively. A value of 0.060 has been assumed for the channel overbanks throughout the existing model to represent flood plains with light brush and trees.

Imagery of the 1995 flood received from DWR shows the water contained in the channel and flowing underneath the bridge (see right). However, the results of TRC's existing hydraulic model show the peak flow overtopping the bridge.

DWR provided multiple flow rates for the 1995 flood on Arroyo Pasajero at El Dorado Avenue (shown in Appendix A). The flow data includes a range of flow rates from 25,000 cfs to 30,000 cfs and a theoretical peak flow value of 28,100 cfs. The range of flow rates was determined using the high water marks on the bridge since the stream gage was washed out during the flood event, and the theoretical peak flow rate was developed using HEC-1 software. All of the provided flow rate values overtopped the bridge in TRC's HEC-RAS models despite manipulation of the Manning's "n" values within a justifiable range. This may be due to the one-dimension limitation of the HEC-RAS program, which does not account for the curvature of the channel and variance in cross sections. Or, the actual flow rate at the time of the photo may be different than the values provided in the table. Although the photographed water surface elevation was unable to be matched with the model, the main task of this project is to determine the maximum anticipated scour at the bridge. Therefore, it is most important to determine the maximum water velocity. To that end, the theoretical peak flow rate was utilized in the HEC-RAS model. This maximizes the flow through the channel and in turn maximizes the water velocity.

8

Table 2 shows the water velocity at the bridge for the investigated peak flow. The flood event was modeled as a free flow condition using the critical depth method. The water surface elevation for the existing condition is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 2 WATER VELOCITY

(EXISTING CONDITION)

Flow Discharge

Q (cfs)

Velocity V

(ft/s)

Peak Flow 28,100 10.19

TABLE 3 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION

Flow Discharge, Q

(cfs)

Existing Condition WSE

(ft)

Peak Flow 28,100 486.81

SCOUR ANALYSIS A review of the Caltrans Bridge Maintenance Reports was performed to assess the scour history of the bridge. Scour exposing the pile cap at Pier 2 and the toe of slope paving at Abutment 4 has been noted since 1999. The scour conditions are likely due to the increased water velocity caused by the constriction of the flow under the bridge, and the curvature of the channel at the bridge which skews the flow angle to the supports.

Recognizing the structure’s vulnerability to scour, the County put together a Plan of Action (POA) in 2010. The POA includes plans for placement of native fill and riprap at the exposed footings. It also identifies a visual monitoring plan and bridge closure plan in the event that unsafe conditions are observed.

Below are calculations for the total anticipated scour at the bridge based on the above HEC-RAS hydraulic analysis.

9

Contraction Scour

To estimate the anticipated contraction scour at the site, the critical velocity for sediment transport, Vc, must first be calculated to determine whether it is live-bed or clear-water contraction scour. The critical velocity formula given below is used in combination with the median grain size (D50) to calculate the velocity for the beginning of motion of the bed material. A D50 value of 0.69 mm (0.027 in) has been provided by Kleinfelder based on field investigation and laboratory testing (see Appendix D for geotechnical memo).

Per HEC-18, equation 6.1:

Vc = Ku y1/6 D1/3

where:

Vc = critical velocity above which bed material of size D and smaller will be transported, (ft/s)

y = average depth of flow upstream of the bridge, per HEC-RAS (ft)

D = particle size for Vc (ft) = D50

Ku = 11.17 (English Units)

Therefore, for the base flood event, the critical velocity is:

Vc = (11.17) (23.29’)1/6 (0.007”/12)1/3 = 2.47 ft/s

Per the HEC-RAS model of the existing condition, the velocity at the bridge is 10.19 ft/s, which is greater than the calculated critical velocity. Therefore, live-bed scour is expected to occur. According to HEC-18 Figure 6.8, the fall velocity of the bed material (T) based on the D50 is 0.1 m/s (0.328 ft/s). The shear velocity in the upstream section is calculated as follows:

V* = (g y1 S1)½

where:

g = acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s2)

y1 = average depth in the upstream main channel, per HEC-RAS (ft)

S1 = slope of energy grade line of main channel, per HEC-RAS (ft/ft)

10

Therefore, for the base flood event, the shear velocity is:

V* = {(32.2 ft/s) (21.00’) (0.0035 ft/ft)}½ = 1.54 ft/s

The mode of bed material transport is identified by the shear velocity, V*, divided by the fall velocity, T, which is equal to (1.54 ft/s)/(0.328 ft/s) = 4.69. According to HEC-18, Section 6.3 this indicates “Mostly suspended bed material discharge”, and yields a k1

value of 0.69. This k1 value is used in the following equation to determine the depth of contraction scour:

and ys = y2 – y0 = average contraction scour depth

where:

y1 = average depth in the upstream main channel, per HEC-RAS (ft)

y2 = average depth in the contracted section (ft)

y0 = existing depth in the contracted section before scour, per HEC-RAS (ft)

Q1 = flow in the upstream main channel transporting sediment, per HEC-RAS (ft3/s)

Q2 = flow in the contracted channel, per HEC-RAS (ft3/s)

W1 = top width of the upstream main channel that is transporting bed material (ft)

W2 = top width of the main channel in contracted section less pier width(s) (ft)

Therefore,

21.0025781.1724942.31

145.09139.77

.

1.06

y2 = (21.00’) (1.06) = 22.18’

and ys = 22.18’– 15.59’ = 6.59’

Thus, the anticipated contraction scour due to the peak flow is 6.6’.

11

Local Scour

The anticipated local scour due to the pier obstruction will be estimated using HEC-18 equation 7.3, as follows:

2.0 .

.

where:

ys = scour depth (ft)

y1 = flow depth directly upstream of the pier, per HEC-RAS (ft)

K1 = correction factor for pier nose shape from Table 7.1

K2 = (Cos + (L/a) Sin ) 0.65 = (Cos 5.6+ (12) Sin 5.6) 0.65 = 1.65

a = pier width = 1.17 ft

L = length of pier = 31.67 ft

Fr1 = Froude Number directly upstream of the pier

= V1/(g y1)½ = 10.19/(32.2*15.59)½ = 0.45

V1 = mean velocity of flow directly upstream of pier, per HEC-RAS (ft/s)

g = acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s2)

Therefore, the anticipated local scour depth is:

1.17 2.0 1.65 1.0 1.15.101.0

.

0.45 . 5.33′

Thus, the anticipated local pier scour due to the peak flow is 5.3’.

Long-term Bed Degradation

Based on available Caltrans Bridge Inspection Report (BIR) scour measurements, it appears that the streambed of the river at the El Dorado Avenue Bridge has degraded over time. In the 1999 Caltrans BIR, the streambed exposed approximately 1 foot of the pile caps. In the most recent (2011) Caltrans BIR, the streambed exposed approximately 2.6 feet of the pile caps. Calculating the long-term degradation rate for this period gives a value of approximately 1.6 inches per year. Applying this rate to the remaining service

12

life of the existing bridge (30 years based on a 75 year design life) gives an estimated additional long-term degradation amount of 4.0 feet.

Total Anticipated Scour

The total anticipated scour is the summation of the contraction scour, local scour and long-term bed degradation. Based on the above calculations, the maximum total anticipated scour at the bridge is 6.6’ + 5.3’ + 4.0’ = 15.9’, which greatly exceeds the existing cutoff wall depths for the concrete slope paving at the abutments, and undermines the pile caps at the piers. Based on as-built drawings, the CIDH piles at the piers are only reinforced in the upper 12’; therefore, the calculated scour depth extends below the pile reinforcement cage making the bridge unstable for calculated scour conditions.

CONCLUSIONS The structure is shown to be unstable for calculated scour conditions due to a potential scour depth below the bottom of the reinforcement cages in the supporting CIDH piles. As a result, Caltrans has deemed the bridge "Scour Critical". Protection of the bridge foundations may require a structural solution, which is beyond the scope of the Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program. Therefore, the bridge has been removed from the BPMP and will be programmed as a separate scour project.

13

REFERENCES

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Davis, California, Version 4.1, January 2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-RAS River Analysis System User’s Manual, Davis, California, January 2010.

State of California, Department of Transportation, Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Chapter 11: Design Standards, page 17-22, January 27, 2012 (revised).

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-003, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 – Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 5th Edition, Virginia, April 2012.

State of California, Department of Transportation, California Bank and Shore Rock Slope Protection Design Practitioner’s Guide and Field Evaluations of Riprap Methods, Third Edition – Internet, October 2000.

State of California, Department of Transportation, Maintenance Records and As-Built

Plans for the S. El Dorado Ave Bridge over Arroyo Pasajero (Los Gatos Creek) (Br #42C0097), 2011.

State of California, The Resource Agency, Department of Water Resources, San

Joaquin District, Arroyo Pasajero Feasibility Investigation, Hydrology Report, December 1996.

Julien, Pierre and Audrey Mendelsberg, Colorado State University, Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Sediment in Arroyo Pasajero and San Luis Canal, Fort Collins, Colorado, July 2003.

APPENDIX A

EXCERPT FROM DWR REPORT

TITLED

ARROYO PASAJERO FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION

HYDROLOGY REPORT

Resources Agency

State of California Resources Agency

Department of Water Resources San Joaquin District

Arroyo Pasajero Feasibility Investigation

Hydrology Report

December 3, 1996

State of California Department of Water Resources

Location

Los Gatos Creek above Nunez Canyon

Los Gatos Creek 4 Miles below Nunez Canyon

W arthan Creek at Caltrans Weir

J acalitos Creek at Jayne A venue

Arroyo Pasajero Creek at El Dorado A venue

Zapato Chino Creek Below Hwy. 33

Aqueduct Retention Basin

Table 3

Verification of HEC-1 Models March 10, 1995 Flood Event

-·---

Observed/Reconstructed Floods - ---

HEC-1 Model Results

Peak Flow Time of Volume Peak Flow Time of 3-Day Peak Peak Volume

(cfs) (af) (cfs) (af)

5,700- 3/10/95 3/10/95 6,500 1900 hrs ---- 6,900 1745 hrs 8,700

8,000 ---- ---- 8,300 3/10/95 10,400 1800

3/10/95 3/10/95 8,300 1800 hrs ---- 8,200 1815 hrs 9,100

3/10/95 3/10/95 ---- 1900 hrs· ---- 6,300 1900 hrs 6,100

25,000- 3/10/95 3/10/95 30;000 2100 hrs ---- 28,100 1930 hrs 32,500

3/10/95 1,600-1,800 ---- ---- 1,500 1815 1,100

3/10/95 ---- ---- 31,000 30,800 2045 hrs 35,400

APPENDIX B

HEC-RAS SUMMARY FILE – EXISTING CONDITION

Six Cross Section Bridge Output Table

APPENDIX C

GEOTECNICAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM

20152738/FRE15L14464 Page 1 of 3 February 16, 2015

Copyright 2015 Kleinfelder, Inc.

5125 North Gates Avenue, Suite 102, Fresno, CA 3722 p| 559-486-0750 f| 559-442-5081

February 16, 2015 File No. 20152738 Ms. Robin Yates TRC Engineers Inc. 6051 N. Fresno Street, Suite 200 Fresno, California 93710 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Design Memorandum

Fresno BPMP Scour Countermeasure Project El Dorado Avenue at Arroyo Pasajero (Bridge No. 42C0097) Fresno County, California

Dear Ms. Yates:

This letter presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for the proposed Fresno BPMP Scour Countermeasure project for the subject location in Fresno County, California. This letter describes the study, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for use in project design. Kleinfelder appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services during the design phase of this project. If there are any questions concerning the information presented in this letter, please contact this office at your convenience.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Understanding of the project is based upon discussions with representatives of TRC Engineers Inc. It is understood the project will consist of a scour evaluation at the El Dorado Avenue at Arroyo Pasajero bridge (Bridge No. 42C0097) location.

FIELD EXPLORATION

Field exploration included one (1) hand auger boring at the bridge site, which was performed on September 26, 2014. The boring was advanced to a depth of 3 feet below the existing creek bed. The soil encountered in the hand auger boring was visually classified in the field and a continuous log was recorded. A bulk sample was obtained from the auger cuttings at the obtained depth. Upon completion, the exploration location was backfilled with soil cuttings. The bulk sample was transported back to our Fresno Lab for testing.

20152738/FRE15L14464 Page 2 of 3 February 16, 2015

Copyright 2015 Kleinfelder, Inc.

LABORATORY TESTING

Kleinfelder performed laboratory tests on the selected sample to evaluate certain physical characteristics that will be necessary to assist TRC in their analysis. The laboratory test performed was a grain-size distribution. Results are shown on Figure 6.

SITE CONDITIONS AND SUBSURFACE SOILS ENCOUNTERED

The banks of the creek supported vegetation, with some trees, debris and gravel. Riprap is placed around the adjacent canal overflow pipe. The following description provides a general summary of the subsurface soil conditions encountered during the field exploration and further verified by the laboratory testing program. For a more thorough description of the actual conditions encountered at the specific boring location, refer to the boring log presented in Figure 5. All soils have been classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). The earth material at the site generally consists of poorly-graded sand (SP) to the maximum exploration depth of 3 feet. The boring was terminated at a final depth of 3 feet due to caving of the sands.

SCOUR POTENTIAL

The mean grain size (D50) and 90% passing grain size (D90) of the soil anticipated to be exposed in the channel is about 0.69 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively. Should the scour exceed the expected limits, mitigation measures, such as rip rap, may be used.

LIMITATIONS

Recommendations contained in this letter are based on the field observations and subsurface explorations, laboratory tests, and present knowledge of the proposed project. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. Additional soil exploration may be necessary if better definition of any conditions is desired. If the scope of the proposed improvements changes from that described in this letter, the recommendations provided should also be reviewed. This letter has been prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice, as it exists in the general area at the time of the study. No warranty, express or implied, is provided or intended. The preliminary recommendations provided in this letter are based on the assumption that Kleinfelder will conduct an adequate program of tests and observations during the additional phases of the project in order to evaluate compliance with the recommendations. This letter may be used only by Fresno County, TRC Engineers Inc., other project subconsultants and reviewing regulatory agencies and only for the purposes stated within a

20152738/FRE15L14464 Page 3 of 3 February 16, 2015

Copyright 2015 Kleinfelder, Inc.

06/30/15

reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any other party who wishes to use this letter shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the letter, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated letter be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the misuse of this letter by any unauthorized party.

CLOSING

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to TRC Engineers Inc. and Fresno County. We trust this information meets your current needs. If there are any questions concerning the information presented in this letter, please contact this office at your convenience.

Respectfully Submitted,

KLEINFELDER, INC. Steven Linton, EIT Neva M. Popenoe, PE, GE Staff Engineer Project Manager Attachments Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Boring Location Map Figure 3 Graphics Key Figure 4 Soil Description Key Figure 5 Boring Log B-4 Figure 6 Grain-Size Distribution

ATTACHMENTS

0

2,000 2,0001,000

APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)

AT

TA

CH

ED

X

RE

FS

:

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: Im

ag

es: U

SG

S_

Gu

ija

rra

lH

ills-C

A_

19

56

_Q

ua

d.jp

g

FILE NAME:

20152738-fig1_SVM_4.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN:

PROJECT NO.

CA

D F

IL

E: C

:\C

AD

D\2

01

5\2

01

52

73

8\F

re

sn

oB

rid

ge

-B

PM

P_

01

20

15

\4

_E

lD

ora

do

Ave

\ L

AY

OU

T: 4

PL

OT

TE

D: 1

0 Ja

n 2

01

5, 2

:5

9p

m, M

Griffin

www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of

sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or

warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of

such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it

designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information

contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the

information.

LO

NG

B

EA

CH

, C

A

EL DORADO AVENUE AT ARROYO PASAJERO

(BRIDGE NO. 42C0097)

FRESNO COUNTY BRIDGE BPMP, PHASE 2

FRESNO COUNTY, CA

FIGURE

1MRG

NP

1/2015

20152738

SITE VICINITY MAP

SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5' Topographic series, Guijarral Hills, California

Quadrangle Dated, 1956.

CA

D F

IL

E: L

:C

AD

D\2

01

5\2

01

52

73

8\F

re

sn

oB

rid

ge

-B

PM

P_

01

-2

01

5\4

_E

lD

ora

do

Ave

\ L

AY

OU

T: 4

CA

D F

IL

E: C

:\C

AD

D\2

01

5\2

01

52

73

8\F

re

sn

oB

rid

ge

-B

PM

P_

01

20

15

\4

_E

lD

ora

do

Ave

\ L

AY

OU

T: 4

PL

OT

TE

D: 1

0 Ja

n 2

01

5, 3

:0

5p

m, M

Griffin

AT

TA

CH

ED

X

RE

FS

:

AT

TA

CH

ED

IM

AG

ES

: Im

ag

es: A

eria

l_

Im

ag

e_

Site

-4

_E

l-D

ora

do

Ave

_2

00

_4

-1

3-1

3.jp

g

FILE NAME:

20152738-fig2_BLM_4.dwg

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN:

PROJECT NO.

www.kleinfelder.com

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of

sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or

warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of

such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it

designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information

contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the

information.

LO

NG

B

EA

CH

, C

A

EL DORADO AVENUE AT ARROYO PASAJERO

(BRIDGE NO. 42C0097)

FRESNO COUNTY BRIDGE BPMP, PHASE 2

FRESNO COUNTY, CA

FIGURE

2MRG

NP

1/2015

20152738

BORING LOCATION MAP0

60 6030

APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)

SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO 2015, IMAGE DATE 4/13/13.

CA

D F

IL

E: L

:C

AD

D\2

01

5\2

01

52

73

8\F

re

sn

oB

rid

ge

-B

PM

P_

01

-2

01

5\4

_E

lD

ora

do

Ave

\ L

AY

OU

T: 4

EXPLANATION

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

B-4

B-4

FIGURE

3Fresno County Bridge BPMP Phase 2Fresno County, CA

KLEINFELDER - 5125 N. Gates Avenue, Suite 102 | Fresno, CA 93722 | PH: 559.486.0750 | FAX: 559.442.5081 | www.kleinfelder.com

The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. Alldata and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations andlimitations stated in the report.

Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximateboundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ fromthose shown.

No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rockconditions between individual sample locations.

Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at thepoint of exploration on the date indicated.

In general, Unified Soil Classification System designationspresented on the logs were based on visual classification in the fieldand were modified where appropriate based on gradation and indexproperty testing.

Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on thePlasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12%passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., GW-GM,GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC,SC-SM.

If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/Xindicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler Xinches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.

_

SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILTMIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-CLAYMIXTURES

SW-SM

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAYMIXTURES

CL

CL-ML

>

<

<

SANDSWITH5% TO12%

FINES

SANDSWITH >

12%FINES

SA

ND

S (

Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

frac

tion

is s

mal

ler

than

the

#4 s

ieve

)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVELMIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3>

CLEANGRAVEL

WITH<5%

FINES

GRAVELSWITH5% TO12%

FINES

OL

CH

CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

GRAVELSWITH >

12%FINES

>

Cu 4 and1 Cc 3

>_

_

BULK SAMPLE

_

GM

GC

GW

GP

GW-GM

GW-GC

_ _

_

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GRAPHICS KEY

<

SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS

>

<

<

>

CLEANSANDSWITH<5%

FINES

GR

AV

EL

S (

Mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

frac

tion

is la

rger

than

the

#4 s

ieve

)

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3

>

Cu 6 and1 Cc 3

SC-SM

Cu 4 and1 Cc 3

< _

ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYSOF LOW PLASTICITY

SILTS AND CLAYS(Liquid Limitless than 50)

SILTS AND CLAYS(Liquid Limit

greater than 50)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVELMIXTURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

MH

OH

ML

GC-GM

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(M

ore

than

hal

f of m

ater

ial i

s la

rger

than

the

#200

sie

ve)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

<

Cu 6 and1 Cc 3

GP-GM

GP-GC

_

_ _<

>

<

<

>

SP

SP-SM

SP-SC

SM

SC

< _<

>

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITHLITTLE CLAY FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SANDMIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVELMIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITHLITTLE CLAY FINES

SW

SW-SC

POORLY GRADED SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITHLITTLE FINES

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3>

>

FIN

E G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S(M

ore

than

hal

f of m

ater

ial

is s

mal

ler

than

the

#200

sie

ve)

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY ORCLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OFMEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT

INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

GROUND WATER GRAPHICS

OBSERVED SEEPAGE

WATER LEVEL (level after exploration completion)

WATER LEVEL (level where first observed)

WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration)

NOTES

DRAWN BY: SL

CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 1/29/2015

REVISED: -

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/29/

201

5 0

6:1

4 P

M B

Y:

npop

eno

e

PROJECT NO.: 20152738

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

ftin

g\20

14\

201

5273

8\2

015

2738

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[GE

O-L

EG

EN

D 1

(G

RA

PH

ICS

KE

Y)

WIT

H U

SC

S]

(# blows/ft) (# blows/ft)

FIGURE

(# blows/ft)

4Fresno County Bridge BPMP Phase 2Fresno County, CA

KLEINFELDER - 5125 N. Gates Avenue, Suite 102 | Fresno, CA 93722 | PH: 559.486.0750 | FAX: 559.442.5081 | www.kleinfelder.com

SubangularRounded Angular

CRITERIA

Very Soft

Soft

Subrounded

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Thumb will penetrate soil more than 1 in. (25 mm.)

Wet

medium

Loose

Very Loose

DENSITY

1000 - 2000

Homogeneous

DESCRIPTION

Dry

Moist

is required to reach the plastic limit.The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching

>6035 - 60

CALIFORNIA

4 - 10

NAME

YR

BPBP

RP

#40 - #10

#200 - #10

Passing #200

3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)

3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

#4 - 3/4 in. (#4 - 19 mm.)

The thread is easy to roll and not much time

5 - 12

A 1/8-in. (3 mm.) thread cannot be rolled at

5 - 15

15 - 4040 - 70

35 - 65

15 - 35

>70

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular

DENSITY

0 - 15

crumbling when drier than the plastic limit

lumps which resist further breakdown

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated

Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance

APPARENT

10 - 3030 - 50

>50

less than 1/4-in. thick, note thickness

> 8000

Firm

Hard

Very Hard

Non-plastic

Low (L)

Medium (M)

High (H)

NOTE: AFTER TERZAGHI AND PECK, 1948

<4

65 - 85

Boulders

Green YellowGreen

Blue GreenBlue

Purple BluePurple

Red Purple

4000 - 8000

Weakly

Moderately

Strongly

FIELD TESTDESCRIPTION

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading

coarse

ABBR

R

YGYG

BG

RedYellow Red

Yellow

<5(%)

SAMPLER

or thread cannot be formed when drier than the

any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled and the lump

when drier than the plastic limit

FIELD TEST

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

fine

coarse

fine

#10 - #4

GRAINSIZE

>12 in. (304.8 mm.)

3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.)

< 1000

SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY

FIELD TESTDESCRIPTION

plastic limit.

the plastic limit. The lump or thread crumbles

limit. The lump or thread can be formed without

Same color and appearance throughout

DESCRIPTION

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses

CRITERIA

Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layer

0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.)

0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.)

to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be

Lensed

Blocky

Slickensided

Fissured

Laminated

Stratified

DESCRIPTION

None

Strong

Rounded

DESCRIPTION

Cobbles

Thumbnail will not indent soil

Thumb will penetrate soil about 1 in. (25 mm.)

CRITERIA

No visible reaction

Some reaction, with bubbles forming slowly

Violent reaction, with bubbles forming immediately

Weak

0.079 - 0.19 in. (2 - 4.9 mm.)

SPT-N60

Thumb will not indent soil but readily indented with thumbnail

Very DenseDense

Medium Dense

FIELD TEST

NP

< 30

> 50

<0.0029 in. (<0.07 mm.)

rerolled several times after reaching the plastic

SubroundedParticles have smoothly curved sides and no edges

Particles have nearly plane sides but havewell-rounded corners and edges

Particles are similar to angular description but have

of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness

Thumb will indent soil about 1/4-in. (6 mm.)

to fracturing

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers

Angular

Subangular

LL

30 - 50

Particles have sharp edges and relatively planesides with unpolished surfaces

rounded edges

at least 1/4-in. thick, note thickness

CONSISTENCY

SIEVESIZE

>12 in. (304.8 mm.)

3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)

Pea-sized to thumb-sized

Thumb-sized to fist-sized

Larger than basketball-sized

Fist-sized to basketball-sized

Flour-sized and smaller

Rock salt-sized to pea-sized

Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized

Flour-sized to sugar-sized

SIZEAPPROXIMATE

RELATIVE

85 - 100

<4

MODIFIED CASAMPLER

DESCRIPTION

12 - 35

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight

Crumbles or breaks with considerable

Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

finger pressure

finger pressure

Black N

2000 - 4000

UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (qu)(psf)

Amount

fewtrace

littlesomeand

mostly

<55-1015-2530-45

5050-100

Percentage

PLASTICITY

REACTION WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID

STRUCTURE

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL

MOISTURE CONTENT

APPARENT / RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

CEMENTATION

Munsell ColorGRAIN SIZE

ANGULARITY

Particles Present

DRAWN BY: SL

CHECKED BY: NMP

DATE: 1/29/2015

REVISED: -

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/29/

201

5 0

6:1

5 P

M B

Y:

npop

eno

e

PROJECT NO.: 20152738

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

ftin

g\20

14\

201

5273

8\2

015

2738

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[GE

O-L

EG

EN

D 2

(S

OIL

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N K

EY

)]

Poorly-graded SAND (SP): fine to coarse grained,non-plastic, gray, moist

The boring was terminated at approximately 3 ft. belowground surface. The exploration was backfilled withauger cuttings on September 26, 2014.

SP-SM 94 5.2

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Groundwater was not encountered during drilling or aftercompletion.GENERAL NOTES:Caving was observed at a depth of 2 to 3 ft ft. below groundsurface during drilling.

LABORATORY RESULTS

Lithologic Description

PAGE:

FIELD EXPLORATION

1 of 1

BORING LOG B-4

BORING LOG B-4 FIGURE

5

Surface Condition: Stream bed

T. DeSouzaLogged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Not Available Hand Auger

T. DeSouza

Kleinfelder

-90 degreesPlunge:

Drilling Company:

Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

9/26/2014

4 in. O.D.Sunny/warm Exploration Diameter:

Hand Auger

Add

ition

al T

ests

/R

emar

ks

Dep

th (

feet

)

5

10

Gra

phi

cal L

og

Rec

over

y(N

R=

No

Rec

over

y)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Wat

erC

onte

nt (

%)

Dry

Uni

t Wt.

(pcf

)

Pas

sing

#4

(%)

Pas

sing

#20

0 (%

)

Liqu

id L

imit

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(NP

=N

onP

last

ic)

Fresno County Bridge BPMP Phase 2Fresno County, CA

KLEINFELDER - 5125 N. Gates Avenue, Suite 102 | Fresno, CA 93722 | PH: 559.486.0750 | FAX: 559.442.5081 | www.kleinfelder.com

Blo

w C

ount

s(B

C)=

Unc

orr.

Blo

ws/

6 in

.

CHECKED BY: TD

DATE: 9/30/2014

DRAWN BY: SL

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

ftin

g\20

14\

201

5273

8\2

015

2738

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_BO

RIN

G/T

ES

T P

IT S

OIL

LO

G]

PLO

TT

ED

: 01

/29/

201

5 0

6:1

6 P

M B

Y:

npop

eno

e

PROJECT NO.: 20152738

Sam

ple

Typ

e

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

Sample Description LL PL PI

%SiltCu %ClayCcExploration ID Depth (ft.)

FIGURE

6

SIEVE ANALYSIS

50HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1403 4 20 40

BO

UL

DE

R

6 601.5 8 143/4 1/212 3/8 3 10024 16 301 2006 10

Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Analysis testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D422.NP = NonplasticNM = Not Measured

D60 D30 D10D100Passing

3/4"Passing

#4Passing

#200

NMNM NM

4.260.447 0.1962 - 3 941.22 9725 NMNM

Exploration ID Depth (ft.)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

medium fine

GRAVEL SANDCOBBLE

coarse coarseCLAYSILT

fine

Coefficients of Uniformity - Cu = D60 / D10

Coefficients of Curvature - CC = (D30)2 / D60 D10

D60 = Grain diameter at 60% passing

D30 = Grain diameter at 30% passing

D10 = Grain diameter at 10% passing

5.2

2 - 3B-4

B-4 0.835

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

Fresno County Bridge BPMP Phase 2Fresno County, CA

KLEINFELDER - 5125 N. Gates Avenue, Suite 102 | Fresno, CA 93722 | PH: 559.486.0750 | FAX: 559.442.5081 | www.kleinfelder.com

CHECKED BY: TD

DATE: 9/30/2014

DRAWN BY: SL

REVISED: -

gIN

T F

ILE

: L:

\dra

ftin

g\20

14\

201

5273

8\2

015

2738

.gpj

gIN

T T

EM

PLA

TE

: P

RO

JEC

TW

ISE

: KLF

_S

TA

ND

AR

D_G

INT

_LIB

RA

RY

_201

5.G

LB

[KLF

_SIE

VE

AN

ALY

SIS

]P

LOT

TE

D:

01/2

9/20

15

06

:20

PM

BY

: np

open

oe

PROJECT NO.: 20152738