HomeMy WebLinkAboutRosedale Hwy Widening Drainage Study
Caltrans EA Number 06-0F3601
Drainage Report
October 2013
California Department of Transportation
District 6
Prepared By: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening
From Mohawk Street to SR-99
This report has been prepared under the direction of the following
Registered Engineer
Kevin Vu, P.E.
Project Engineer
Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
16795 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92606
October 2013
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening Project 06–Ker–58–PM 46.1 / 51.7
Drainage Report EA 06-0F3601
October 2013
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
II. PURPOSE OF REPORT ...................................................................................... 1
III. AREA CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................. 1
Topography ............................................................................................................. 1
Soil Characteristics .................................................................................................. 1
Land Use ................................................................................................................. 2
Climate .................................................................................................................... 2
IV. HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................... 2
Drainage Tributary Areas ........................................................................................ 2
Method of Analysis and Criteria ............................................................................. 2
Storm Runoff Coefficients ...................................................................................... 3
V. HYDRAULICS ...................................................................................................... 3
Inlet Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 3
Culvert Design Criteria ........................................................................................... 3
Evaluating Existing Detention Basin ...................................................................... 4
VI. EXISTING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................... 4
Existing Drainage Area ........................................................................................... 4
VII. PROPOSED SYSTEMS AND DESCRIPTIONS ............................................... 4
Drainage Systems and Culvert Calculations ........................................................... 5
Waterspread Analysis .............................................................................................. 5
VIII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 6
Erosion Control Measures ...................................................................................... 6
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) .................................................. 6
IX. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 6
X. ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................. 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Project Runoff Coefficients
Table 2: Detention and Infiltration Basin Storage Summary
Table 3: High Water and HGL Elevations
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening Project 06–Ker–58–PM 46.1 / 51.7
Drainage Report EA 06-0F3601
October 2013
Page 1 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION
State Route (SR) 58, known locally as Rosedale Highway, is located within the unincorporated
area of County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield. The project proposes widening the
roadway from four lanes to six lanes, between Allen Road and SR-99. The total length will be
approximately 5.6 miles. This report covers the remaining State owned portion of SR-
58/Rosedale Highway, between Mohawk Street and SR-99, referred herein as Segment 4. The
relinquished portion of Rosedale Highway, from Allen Road to West of Mohawk Street
referred to as Segment 1 through 3 lays within County of Kern and City of Bakersfield
jurisdiction. A separate Hydrology and Hydraulics reports will be prepared and submitted to
The City and County for Segments 1 through 3. Therefore, this report will cover the proposed
drainage system within State Right-of-Way with the exception of the drainage system
connecting to the existing Retention Basin #9 located in County jurisdiction, west of Mohawk
Street.
A vicinity map of the project location is included as Attachment A.
II. PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report analyzes the proposed drainage pattern recommendations within the project area
and verifies its implementation will not tax existing, adjacent systems and conforms to local
jurisdictional drainage standards.
The hydrology and hydraulic calculations herein have been performed in accordance to
Caltrans Rational Method and Highway Design Manual (HDM) 6th Edition.
III. AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Topography
The terrain within the project vicinity is relatively flat. The project survey, USGS topography
map and as-built plans show the average ground elevation in the proposed project area ranges
from approximately 397 feet above Mean Sea Level (msl) at Mohawk Street (Station 1039+70)
to about 404 feet msl at the eastern limit of the project (Station 1082+50).
Soil Characteristics
A Geotechnical Design & Material Report (GDMR) prepared for this project in 2008 indicates
subsurface soils consist of 1- to 5-feet of artificial fill, except at the structural embankment of
the BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) railroad crossing. The fill soils primarily consist of
brown, silty sands. Below the artificial fill, alluvial sands were encountered and consist of dry-
to-wet, loose-to-dense, poorly graded sand and silty sands to sandy silts, with isolated layers of
clay. Moderated amounts of gravel and cobbles were encountered below 30 feet to the
maximum explored depth of 81.5 feet. A GDMR prepared by Kleinfelder dated December 12,
2012 described the geotechnical conditions and provides recommendations for the Rosedale
Highway Widening Project. According to this report, the near-surface soils consisted of
medium-dense, poorly-graded sand with varying degrees of silt and silty sand, extending to a
depth of 61.5 feet below existing grade.
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening Project 06–Ker–58–PM 46.1 / 51.7
Drainage Report EA 06-0F3601
October 2013
Page 2 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)’s soil survey of Kern
County, (Northwestern Part), three soil types were determined: Cajon loamy sand, Cajon sandy
loam and Wasco sandy loam. These soils are classified as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A, A
and B respectively. HSG A soils are described as, “Soils having a high infiltration rate (low
runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well-drained to
excessively-drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.” HSG B soils are described as, “Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or
well-drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.”
Land Use
Land use along this segment of SR-58 varies from light industrial to commercial development.
Climate
According to the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) of the City of Bakersfield, the climate for the
project site is classified as subtropical desert (BWh, in the Koeppen Classification system),
characterized by long, hot, dry summers and brief, cool, sometimes rainy winters. Most
precipitation falls during winter and spring with an approximate average annual rainfall of only
6.36 inches per year. The rainy season occurs between October 15th and April 15th.
Precipitation during summer months is infrequent and rainless periods from May through
September are typical. Summers are hot with daily temperatures usually exceeding 100
degrees Fahrenheit. Winters have mild daytime temperatures reaching into the low 60 degrees
Fahrenheit.
IV. HYDROLOGY
Drainage Tributary Areas
The Drainage Area Map shows each tributary area bounded by a thick, dark, dashed line (see
Attachment B); each area is color-coded to depict the inlet receiving runoff from its respective
area. Each tributary area is shown with its corresponding runoff coefficient and flow rate. The
Drainage Area Map also provides flow patterns (drainage arrows) to identify high points and
low points. Mohawk Street is planned for extension to the north per the Street Improvement
Plans (SIP) prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineer, dated February 12, 2013. The
entire runoff is self-retained at the low point. This Project will have its own drainage
systems/basins and is expected to be constructed before the Rosedale Highway widening
project. The proposed drainage from this improvement will not create any adverse conditions
to the existing Rosedale Highway’s drainage system.
Method of Analysis and Criteria
Rational Method: The Rational Method is used to calculate peak discharge:
CiAQ
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening Project 06–Ker–58–PM 46.1 / 51.7
Drainage Report EA 06-0F3601
October 2013
Page 3 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
Where:
Q = Peak Flow (ft³/sec)
C = Runoff Coefficient
i = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
A = Tributary area (acres)
The rational method returns an approximate peak flow (Q) for a specific drainage area given a
rainfall intensity and runoff coefficient. The rainfall intensity duration curve for this project
was generated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Atlas 14,
Volume 6, Version 2, provided by Caltrans (see Attachment C). A 5-minute rainfall duration
was used for the culvert calculations, resulting in a rainfall intensity value of 2.32 in/hr.
Attachment D shows the calculation of the peak flow (Q) for each drainage area.
Storm Runoff Coefficients
Table 1 below provides a summary of runoff coefficients used to calculate peak flow based on
the type of runoff surface. These values are consistent with the recommendation in the
Hydraulic Design Criteria for the Central Region.
Table 1: Runoff Coefficients
Type of Drainage
Area
Runoff Coefficient
Paved Surface 0.95
Unpaved Median 0.75
Side Slopes 0.50
V. HYDRAULICS
Inlet Design Criteria
Inlets are spaced in such a manner that excess flows will not encroach into the travel lane.
Additionally, they are placed at all low points and spaced intervals on continuous-grade
roadway profiles. Caltrans' standard inlets will be used at all proposed locations. Caltrans’ Type
GDO inlets are provided at roadway profile sag locations. The maximum design water spread
on Caltrans’ roadway is the width of the shoulder plus ½ outer lane, based on the 25-year storm
event. Inlets in sump locations assume 50% clogging of the grate. A hydrology summary table
of runoff captured per inlet can be found in Attachment E.
Culvert Design Criteria
All proposed pipe systems were analyzed using Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension 2008. Per
Table 808.1 in the HDM, the approved software for use when analyzing and designing storm
water systems is Hydraflow Storm Sewers. A 25-year storm event was used to adequately size
the pipes within each drainage system.
General design criteria are as follows:
Minimum cover for the drainage pipe is 2 feet below the roadway at the edge of
traveled way (Table 856.5, HDM)
Manning’s coefficient of 0.013 for all pipes
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening Project 06–Ker–58–PM 46.1 / 51.7
Drainage Report EA 06-0F3601
October 2013
Page 4 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
The recommended minimum slope will achieve self-cleaning velocity of 3 ft/s when
pipe is flowing half full (HDM 838.4.3)
The minimum pipe diameter is 18 inches (Table 838.4, HDM)
The recommended spacing between inlets and manholes for pipes less than 48 inches in
diameter ranges from 300 to 700 feet (HDM 838.5c)
Evaluating Existing Detention Basin
The additional runoff generated by the proposed widening will be collected and stored in several
existing detention basins, described as No.7, No.8 and No.9 , located in close proximity of SR-
58/Rosedale Hwy. Using applicable design criteria, each basin was analyzed to determine the
storage volume required and then compared to the existing available volume to verify the existing
retention basins have adequate volume to contain the runoff generated by 2-10-Year, 24-Hour
design storm events. For existing retention basin No. 9, the storage volume required was
determined using both Caltrans and Kern County method because it is located within the County
of Kern, but only around 30% of the total runoff conveyed to the basin comes from a portion of
Rosedale Hwy within Caltrans jurisdiction, specifically from Mohawk Street to the Railroad
crossing west of Landco Road. The existing basin evaluation approach was based on
conclusions presented in the Project Report and Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
approved in June 2012, which indicated that storm water from the project could be
accommodated by the existing retention basins.
VI. EXISTING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Existing Drainage Area
The project area generally drains toward Basins No. 7, 8 which were constructed in the early
1970’s and Basin 9, a privately maintained sump located jurisdiction, on the westerly edge of
lot 6 of Parcel Map 7984 within County of Kern, was constructed in the early 1990’s.
The existing drainage systems and tributary areas were determined using record as-builts from
Caltrans and County of Kern Records and verified by field surveys. The existing system is
shown in Attachment B of this Report.
VII. PROPOSED SYSTEMS AND DESCRIPTIONS
The proposed drainage concept will collect runoff using pipes and curbs to route it to an inter-
connected set of detention basins. The design complies with the Hydraulic Design Criteria for
the Central Region.
The drainage areas of the proposed improvements are divided into three (3) separate
watersheds. Based on the roadway profile, pipe layout, and basin locations, these watersheds
discharge into existing retention Basins 7, 8 and 9, respectively. Table 2 provides the summary
of calculated runoff and available storages. All basins details can be found in Attachment F.
Table 2: Basin Storage Summary of required volume vs available volume
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening Project 06–Ker–58–PM 46.1 / 51.7
Drainage Report EA 06-0F3601
October 2013
Page 5 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
Basin Calculated Runoff
Volume (ft3)
Available Storage
Volume (ft3)
Basin 7 40,550 91,863
Basin 8 73,290 482,097
Basin 9* 245,584 343,712
*= Roadway/Private shared basin
Drainage Systems and Culvert Calculations
All proposed drainage systems were analyzed using Manning’s Equation. Detailed printouts of
the culvert analysis are provided in Attachment G.
Per the Hydraulic Design Criteria for the Central Region, the preferred minimum pipe size of 24
inches was used and determined to be adequate for all proposed systems. However, 18-inch pipe
was used for systems along the Rosedale Highway to minimize the depth of the drainage inlet. In
addition, 18-inch pipes were used where the runoff needed to be conveyed directly from an inlet to
a detention basin via a single, relatively short pipe. The minimum slope criterion to attain self-
cleaning velocity was met for all drainage systems.
By providing the results from Table 2 above, the starting Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) for each
system was set at the calculated high water elevation of each basin. The high water elevation
was determined from the water depth of the storage volume required generated from 2-10-year,
24-hour storm events. Except for the systems draining into Basin 9, including the existing 36”
RCP to 24” RCP system which carries the runoff from Segment 4, the HGL will be set at half full
to conform County’s design criteria as originally designed. Using Hydraflow Storm Sewer to
determine the available HGL at the upstream existing manhole (southwest corner of Rosedale
Highway and Mohawk Street), where the Caltrans drainage system tie in. The result shows HGL
is below the street finish surface that also to be used as HGL control for the proposed drainage
system 14 and 15. This HGL also proved all proposed drainage inlets has 0.75 foot or more below
the intake lip. Table 3 below provides a summary of the water depth in each basin.
Table 3: High Water Elevations
Basin # Bottom Basin
Elevation
High Water Elevation
and Starting HGL
(ft)
Depth of Water
(ft)
7 391 394.80 3.80
8 377 382.70 5.70
9 381 388.80 7.80
Waterspread Analysis
Waterspread calculations were performed using Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) No. 22
and are included in Attachment H. Results indicate that the proposed inlets and grates will
adequately capture the peak flow runoff generated by the proposed improvements. There is
sufficient shoulder width plus ½ outer lane to store the waterspread. Excess runoff will not
into the traveled way along SR-58. The locations of low point (sag) conditions were also
analyzed and adding GDO inlets provides relief for increased peak flow (see Attachment H).
Rosedale Highway (SR-58) Widening Project 06–Ker–58–PM 46.1 / 51.7
Drainage Report EA 06-0F3601
October 2013
Page 6 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
VIII. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Erosion Control Measures
All disturbed areas will be hydroseeded. Fiber rolls will be placed in sloped areas. Field inlets
will be provided with temporary inlet protection devices. As part of the project, the contractor will
install permanent erosion control protection measures.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
A SWPPP will be prepared for this project. The Contractor will be responsible for implementation
and maintenance of temporary pollution control measures during construction.
IX. REFERENCES
Urban Drainage Design Manual, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, August 2001
Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, Caltrans, Revised October 4, 2010
Storm Water Quality Handbook: Project Planning and Design Guide, Caltrans, July
2010
Urban Drainage Design Manual (HEC-22), Federal Highway Administration, 2001
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Drainage Area Map-Inlets
C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Atlas 14
D. Peak Flow Summary
E. Hydrology Report Summary
F. Detention Basin Sizing Calculations
G. Culvert Calculations
H. Waterspread Calculations
I. Drainage Plans
Attachment A
Location Map
Attachment B
Drainage Area Map-Inlets
Attachment C
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Atlas 14
Attachment D
Peak Flow Summary
Attachment E
Hydrology Report Summary
Attachment F
Detention Basin Sizing Calculations
Attachment G
Culvert Calculations
Attachment H
Waterspread Calculations
Attachment I
100% Drainage Plans
Attachment A
Location Map
Attachment B
Drainage Area Map-Inlets
ASPH
ASPH ASPH
ASPH
ROSEDALE HWY
ASPH
A
S
P
H
A
S
P
H
ASPH
M
O
H
A
W
K
S
T
1025 1030 103523467891234 6 7 8 9
381
3
8
1
3
8 1
381
3
8
1
381
3
8
1
3
8
2
3
8
2
3
8
2
3
8
2
3
8
2
3
8
2
382
3
8
2
3
8
2
3 8
2
3 8
3
3
8
3
3
8
3
3
8
3
3
8
3
3
8
3
383
3 8
3
3 8
3
3 8
3
3
8
4
3
8
4
3
8
4
3
8
4
3
8
4
3
8
4
3 8 4
3 8
4
3 8
4
3
8
4
3 8 4
3 8
5
3 8
5
3 8 5
3 8 5
3
8
5
3
8
5
3
8
5
3
8
5
3
8
5
3
8
5
3
8
5
3 8
6
3 8
6
3 8 6
3 8 6
3
8
6
3
8
6
3
8
6
3
8
6
3
8
6
3
8
6
3
8
6
3 8 7
3 8 7
3 8 7
3 8 7
3
8
7
3
8
7
3
8
7
3
8
7
3
8
7
3
8
7
38
7
3
8 7
3 8 8
3 8 8
3 8 8
3 8 8
3
8
8
3
8
8
3
8
8
3
8
8
3
8
8
3
8
8
3
8
8
388
3 8 9
3
8 9
3
8 9
3
8 9
3
8
9
3
8
9
3
8
9
3
8
9
3
8
9
3
8
9
3
8
9
389
3
9 0
3
9 0
3
9
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
3
9
0
390
3
9
0
3
9
1
3
9
1
3
9
1
3
9
1
3
9
1
3
9
1
3
9
1
3
9
1
3 9 1
3 9 1
3 9
1
3 9
1
3 9
1
3
9
1
GI
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
U
S
E
R
N
A
M
E
=
>
t
y
l
e
r
_
p
h
a
m
D
A
T
E
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
=
>
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
3
T
I
M
E
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
=
>
4
:
0
3
:
2
0
P
M
Checked by:
Engineer:
Drawn:File Name:
Job No.:
Date:
Revision:Date:Description:
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92606
16795 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY
Prepared by:
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Prepared for:
PLANS APPROVAL DATEREGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
SHEETS
TOTAL
No.
SHEET
X XXX
1600 TRUXTUN AVENUE
Dist COUNTY ROUTE TOTAL PROJECT
POST MILES
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY WIDENING
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
06 Ker 58 46.1/51.7
R
E
E
N
I
G
N
E LA
N
O
I
SSEFORP DERE
T
S I
G
E
R
AINROFILAC FO E
T
A
TS CIVIL
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
D
4
-
1
Exist 18" CMP
APPROVED FOR DRAINAGE WORK ONLY
D3-6
SEGMENT 3
DRAINAGE AREA MAP
SCALE: 1" = 70'
Exist 18" CMP
ROSEDALE Hwy "ROS" LINE
R/W
R/W
R
/
W
R
/
W
R
/
W
R
/
W
R/W
R/W
M
O
H
A
W K
S
t
A = 2.2 AC
Q = 2.30 cfs
C = 90
A = 2.6 AC
Q = 2.50 cfs
C = 90
C = 90
A = 22.7 AC
Q = 17.70 cfs
BASIN No. 9
I 02
I 01
I 03
P.M. 7984
DRAINAGE SYSTEM No.
DRAINAGE UNIT
DIRECTION OF FLOW
LEGEND
X
x
GRATE INLET
JUNCTION BOX
TRIBUTARY AREA
SEE RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORD MAPS AT COUNTY OF KERN OFFICE.
FOR COMPLETE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ACCURATE ACCESS DATA,
NOTES:
(SEE DRAINAGE DETAIL SHEET DD3-2)
AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK
Adj Exist GO Inlet TO MATCH NEW CURB c
d a b
c
13
SEE SHEET DP3-3
46
KEVIN VU
C61015
B
A
S
I
N
N
o
.
9
Exist 24" CCMLSP
Exist 36" CCMLSP
Exist 30" CCMLSP Exist 24" CCMLSP
Exist 24" CCMLSP
Exist 24" CCMLSP
Attachment C
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Atlas 14
NOAAATLASPOINTPRECIPITATIONFREQUENCYESTIMATES
(NOAAATLAS14,VOLUME6,VERSION2)
PDSͲbasedprecipitationfrequencyestimateswith90%confidenceintervals(ininches)
(TableProvidedbyCaltrans)
Duration 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500
5Ͳmin 0.95 1.20 1.56 1.90 2.32 2.82 3.30 3.84 5.41
10Ͳmin 0.68 0.86 1.12 1.36 1.72 2.02 2.36 2.75 3.88
15Ͳmin 0.55 0.69 0.90 1.10 1.38 1.63 1.91 2.22 3.12
30Ͳmin 0.37 0.47 0.62 0.75 0.94 1.11 1.30 1.51 2.13
60Ͳmin 0.26 0.33 0.44 0.53 0.67 0.79 0.92 1.07 1.51
2Ͳhr 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.35 0.43 0.50 0.57 0.65 0.77
3Ͳhr 0.14 0.18 0.23 0.28 0.34 0.44 0.50 0.58 0.71
6Ͳhr 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.37
12Ͳhr 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.24
24Ͳhr 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.17
AverageRecurrenceInterval(years)
Attachment D
Peak Flow Summary
4DA 1 1.4 2.32 0.95 3.09
4DA 2 1.3 2.32 0.95 2.87
4DA 3 0.7 2.32 0.95 1.54
4DA 4 0.7 2.32 0.95 1.54
3 Area "I" * 4.8
3 P.M. 7984 * 22.7
Total:31.6 31.54
4DA 5 2.4 2.32 0.95 5.29
4DA 6 1.1 2.32 0.95 2.42
Total:3.5
4DA 7 0.5 2.32 0.95 1.10
4DA 8 0.5 2.32 0.95 1.10
4DA 9 1.2 2.32 0.95 2.64
4DA 10 1.9 2.32 0.95 4.19
4DA 11 1.0 2.32 0.95 2.20
4DA 12 1.1 2.32 0.95 2.42
Total:6.2
* = These tributary areas within Kern County's jurisdiction per hydrology map
(Proposed condition) sheet 4 in Rosedale Highway Widening Draft Hydrology and
Hydraulics Report, dated October 24, 2013.
Segment
No.
BASIN # 7
BASIN # 8
BASIN # 9
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY WIDENING IN CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
Drainage Area
Name
Tributary Area
(Ac)
Rainfall Intensity
(in/hr)
Runoff
Coefficient
Peak Flow
(cfs)Basin Name
0.90 22.50
Attachment E
Hydrology Report Summary
La
b
e
l
By
p
a
s
s
Fl
o
w
To
I
n
l
e
t
Ty
p
e
DA
#
Ru
n
o
f
f
Co
e
f
.
C (%
)
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
Ar
e
a
(a
c
r
e
s
)
T
c
(m
i
n
)
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
(i
n
/
h
r
)
Fl
o
w
(c
f
s
)
Ca
r
r
y
o
v
e
r
Fl
o
w
(c
f
s
)
To
t
a
l
Fl
o
w
to
In
l
e
t
(c
f
s
)
Ma
n
n
i
n
g
'
s
n
(I
n
l
e
t
)
Cl
o
g
g
i
n
g
Fa
c
t
o
r
(%
)
Ro
a
d
Cr
o
s
s
(S
x )
Sl
o
p
e
(%
)
Lo
n
g
.
(S)
Sl
o
p
e
(%)Gutter (Shoulder+1/2 outer lane) Width (ft)Gutter Spread (ft)Bypassed Flow (cfs)
14
a
N
/
A
GD
O
D
A
01
0
.
9
5
1
.
4
0
5
2
.
3
2
3
.
0
9
0.
3
3
3
.
4
2
0
.
0
1
3
5
0
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
15
‐1b
N
/
A
GD
O
D
A
02
0
.
9
5
1
.
3
0
5
2
.
3
2
2
.
8
7
0.
3
3
3
.
2
0
0
.
0
1
3
5
0
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
15
j
1
5
‐1b
GT
4
D
A
03
0
.
9
5
0
.
7
0
5
2
.
3
2
1
.
5
4
0.
0
0
1
.
5
4
0
.
0
1
3
3
3
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
4
1
%
1
4
.
0
0
9
.
3
1
0
.
3
3
15
l
1
4
a
GT
3
D
A
04
0
.
9
5
0
.
7
0
5
2
.
3
2
1
.
5
4
0.
0
0
1
.
5
4
0
.
0
1
3
3
3
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
4
1
%
1
4
.
0
0
9
.
3
1
0
.
3
3
16
c
N
/
A
GD
O
D
A
05
0
.
9
5
2
.
4
0
5
2
.
3
2
5
.
2
9
0.
0
0
5
.
2
9
0
.
0
1
3
5
0
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
17
e
N
/
A
GD
O
D
A
06
0
.
9
5
1
.
1
0
5
2
.
3
2
2
.
4
2
0.
0
0
2
.
4
2
0
.
0
1
3
5
0
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
18
c
E
x
.
DI
G3
D
A
07
0
.
9
5
0
.
5
0
5
2
.
3
2
1
.
1
0
0.
0
0
1
.
1
0
0
.
0
1
3
3
3
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
4
1
%
1
4
.
0
0
8
.
2
1
0
.
3
9
19
c
2
0
c
G3
D
A
08
0
.
9
5
0
.
5
0
5
2
.
3
2
1
.
1
0
0.
0
0
1
.
1
0
0
.
0
1
3
3
3
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
4
1
%
1
4
.
0
0
8
.
2
1
0
.
3
9
20
c
N
/
A
GD
O
D
A
10
0
.
9
5
1
.
9
0
5
2
.
3
2
4
.
1
9
0.
3
9
4
.
5
8
0
.
0
1
3
5
0
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
21
c
N
/
A
GD
O
D
A
11
0
.
9
5
1
.
0
0
5
2
.
3
2
2
.
2
0
0.
0
0
2
.
2
0
0
.
0
1
3
3
3
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
22
c
N
/
A
GD
O
D
A
12
0
.
9
5
1
.
1
0
5
2
.
3
2
2
.
4
2
0.
0
0
2
.
4
2
0
.
0
1
3
3
3
%
2
.
0
0
%
0
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
Re
p
o
r
t
Su
m
m
a
r
y
(2
5
‐yr
St
o
r
m
)
SAGSAGSAGSAGSAGSAGSAG
Attachment F
Detention Basin Sizing Calculations
Rosedale Highway Widening
100% Drainage Report
TABLE 1 ‐ STORAGE REQUIRED
AREA (AC)
RUNOFF
COEFFICIENT C
IMPERVIOUS AREA 3.50 0.95 =Input
PERVIOUS AREA (MEDIAN) 0.00 0.75
PERVIOUS AREA (Basin Area) 0.43 0.50
TOTAL AREA 3.93
CEQUIVALENT 0.90
i=INTENSITY (10 YEAR, 24 HR) 1.58 in (From NOAA Atlas)
STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED
= 2x10‐year 24‐hour storm holding capacity
= 2 x (C i A ) cfs x ft/12in x 43560 ft 2/AC
= 2 x (0.95 x 1.58 x 3.50 ) x 43560/12 = 40,550 ft3
Water Depth=3.80'
TABLE 2 ‐ STORAGE VOLUME AVAILABLE IN DETENTION BASIN
BOTTOM AREA TOP AREA
FULL
VOLUME
AVAILABLE
VOLUME WITH 2'
FREEBOARD
ft2 ft2 ft3 ft3
6,510 18,636 91,863
TOTAL 6,510 15,397 57,874
(ok)
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
BASIN # 7
BASIN #7
Y:\Projects\IR‐12105(Rosedale Hwy)\Design\Reports\Drainage Report\Caltrans\Rosedale Hwy‐Caltrans Basin Sizing Calculations.xls
Rosedale Highway Widening
100% Drainage Report
9/30/2013
TABLE 1 ‐ STORAGE REQUIRED
AREA (AC)
RUNOFF
COEFFICIENT C
IMPERVIOUS AREA 6.20 0.95 =Input
PERVIOUS AREA (MEDIAN) 0.00 0.75
PERVIOUS AREA (Basin Area) 0.98 0.50
TOTAL AREA 7.18
CEQUIVALENT 0.89
i=INTENSITY (10 YEAR, 24 HR) 1.58 in (From NOAA Atlas)
STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED
= 2, 10‐year 24‐hour storm holding capacity
= 2 x (C i A ) cfs x ft/12in x 43560 ft 2/AC
= 2 x (0.95 x 1.58 x 6.20 ) x 43560/12 =73,290 ft3
Water Depth=5.7'
TABLE 2 ‐ STORAGE VOLUME AVAILABLE IN DETENTION BASIN
BOTTOM AREA TOP AREA
FULL
VOLUME
AVAILABLE
VOLUME WITH 2'
FREEBOARD
ft2 ft2 ft3 ft3
4,146 42,644 482,097
TOTAL 4,146 38,459 401,010
(ok)
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
BASIN # 8
BASIN #8
Y:\Projects\IR‐12105(Rosedale Hwy)\Design\Reports\Drainage Report\Caltrans\Rosedale Hwy‐Caltrans Basin Sizing Calculations
Rosedale Highway Widening
100% Drainage Report
10/16/2013
TABLE 1 ‐ STORAGE REQUIRED USING CALTRANS METHOD
AREA (AC)
RUNOFF
COEFFICIENT C
IMPERVIOUS AREA (Onsite) 4.10 0.95 =Input
TOTAL AREA 4.10
CEQUIVALENT 0.95
i=INTENSITY (10 YEAR, 24 HR) 1.58 in (From NOAA Atlas)
STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED
= 2, 10‐year 24‐hour storm holding capacity
= 2 x (C i A ) cfs x ft/12in x 43560 ft 2/AC
= 2 x (0.95 x 1.58 x 4.10 ) x 43560/12 = 44,679 ft3
TABLE 2 ‐ STORAGE REQUIRED USING COUNTY METHOD
AREA (AC)
RUNOFF
COEFFICIENT ai
ONSITE (Area "I") 4.80 0.90
OFFSITE (M.P. 7984) 22.70 0.90
Basin Area (M.P. 7984) 1.09 0.50
TOTAL AREA 28.59
ai 0.88
D10‐5day= depth of rainfall 2.2 in (From NOAA Atlas)
STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED
= 10‐year 5‐day storm holding capacity
= [(D10‐5day)/12](ai)(Area)x43560 ft2/AC
= [(2.20)/12] x 0.88 x 28.59 x 43560 = 200,905
ft3
TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED = 245,584
ft3 Water Depth=7.80'
TABLE 3 ‐ STORAGE VOLUME AVAILABE IN DETENTION BASIN
BOTTOM AREA TOP AREA
FULL
VOLUME
AVAILABLE
VOLUME WITH 2'
FREEBOARD
ft2 ft2 ft3 ft3
8,917 47,379 343,712
TOTAL 8,917 41,991 254,394
(ok)
ROSEDALE HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, KERN COUNTY
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
BASIN # 9 (LOT 6 OF PARCEL MAP 7984)
BASIN # 9
Y:\Projects\IR‐12105(Rosedale Hwy)\Design\Reports\Drainage Report\Caltrans\Rosedale Hwy‐Caltrans Basin Sizing Calculations.xls
Attachment G
Culvert Calculations
Attachment H
Waterspread Calculations
TP
7/12/2013
2 of 2
Project: Rosedale Highway Widening
Subject: Pavement Drainage Calculations (English units)
HEC_22 Sump Inlet Analysis - 25-year Storm
SAG INLET CALCULATIONS
Design Parameters Values Reference
n=Roughness Coeff. Inlet Legend
CF=Clogging Factor,(%) 50% HEC-22 Type Width Type Wg Lg Designation
Areag
d=avg. depth across grate,(ft) W (ft) (std. plans) (ft) (ft) (bar centers)
(ft2)User Input Data
Tallowable=Shoulder Width +1/2 outer lane, (ft)Spreadsheet Calculations
Qsub=Subtotal Discharge Q Results
Qb= Qbypass
Qt=Qsub+Qbypass
Equations Reference Notes:
Qi = CW P d1.5 HEC 22 equation 4-26 See HEC-22, Chart 9B for stage above which
P=Qi /(Cw*d1.5)orifice flow occurs - gererally not below 0.5 ft
GO 2 24-12X 2 3.33 P-1-3/8 5.2
GDO 2 2 24-12X 4 3.33 P-1-3/8 10.3
GENERAL
Drainage Inlet Tallowable dPInlet &WL d
Actual d
System Unit Sx Avg. Required (Grate) Actual Actual Clogging Peffective depth at less
Qsub Qb Qt Lateral depth Perimeter Width Length Factor Effective curb than
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Slope (ft) (ft) (ft) Type (ft) (ft) (%) Perimeter (ft)Max. d
--(cfs)
22 c AREA sag 2.42 0.00 2.42 2.00% 14.00 0.39 3.31 GDO 4 3.33 50% 7.33 0.228 OK
--0.00
-0.00
21 c AREA sag 2.20 0.00 2.20 2.00% 14.00 0.39 3.01 GDO 4 3.33 50% 7.33 0.214 OK
--0.00
c BYPASS 0.39
20 c AREA sag 4.19 0.39 4.58 2.00% 14.00 0.39 6.26 GDO 4 3.33 50% 7.33 0.349 OK
--0.00
--0.00
16 c AREA sag 5.30 0.00 5.30 2.00% 14.00 0.39 7.25 GDO 4 3.33 50% 7.33 0.385 OK
--0.00
--0.00
17 e AREA sag 2.42 0.00 2.42 2.00% 14.00 0.39 3.31 GDO 4 3.33 50% 7.33 0.228 OK
--0.00
j BYPASS 0.33
15-1 b AREA sag 2.87 0.33 3.20 2.00% 14.00 0.39 4.37 GDO 4 3.33 50% 7.33 0.275 OK
--0.00
l BYPASS 0.33
14 a AREA sag 3.09 0.33 3.42 2.00% 14.00 0.39 4.67 GDO 4 3.33 50% 7.33 0.287 OK
--0.00
Inlets
Sag
Sag
Sag
Sag
Sag
Sag
Fl
o
w
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Area
Sag
Grate
Shldr.
+1/2
outer
Lane
Y:\Projects\IR-12105(Rosedale Hwy)\Design\Reports\Drainage Report\Caltrans\Rosedale Hwy-Caltrans Waterspread Analysis.xls
Ro
s
e
d
a
l
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
60
%
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
Su
b
j
e
c
t
:
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
HE
C
-
2
2
I
n
l
e
t
I
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
2
5
-
y
e
a
r
S
t
o
r
m
E
v
e
n
t
)
TP 9/27/2013 1 of 2
IN
L
E
T
I
N
T
E
R
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
C
A
L
CU
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
F
O
R
I
N
L
E
T
S
O
N
G
R
A
D
E
*F
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
Q
,
S
C
S
-
M
e
t
h
o
d
i
s
u
s
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
K
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
De
s
i
g
n
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Legend
Ro
u
g
h
n
e
s
s
C
o
e
f
f
-
n
=
0
.
0
1
3
In
l
e
t
G
r
a
t
e
S
p
l
a
s
h
V
.
Cl
o
g
g
i
n
g
F
a
c
t
o
r
(
%
)
3
3
%
Eq
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Ty
p
e
W
i
d
t
h
T
y
p
e
W
g
L
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
V
o
U
s
e
r
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
Sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
W
i
d
t
h
+
1
/
2
O
u
t
e
r
l
a
n
e
,
(
f
t
)
1
4
'
Q
s
u
b
=
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Q
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
e
t
h
o
d
(
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
)
W
(
f
t
)
(
s
t
d
.
p
l
a
n
s
)
f
t
f
t
(
b
a
r
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
)
f
/s
S
p
r
e
a
d
s
h
e
e
t
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Sl
=
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
l
o
p
e
,
(
%
)
Q
b
=
Q
b
y
p
a
s
s
B
y
p
a
s
s
t
o
n
e
x
t
i
n
l
e
t
Results
(e
n
t
e
r
i
f
o
n
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
g
r
a
d
e
)
Q
t
=
Q
s
u
b
+
Q
b
y
p
a
s
s
T
o
t
a
l
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Sx
=
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
l
o
p
e
,
(
%
)
L
o
n
g
.
S
l
o
p
e
=
P
l
a
n
s
(
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
)
G
3
2
2
4
-
1
2
x
2
3
.
3
3
P
-
1
-
7
/
8
1
0
.
2
(e
n
t
e
r
i
f
o
n
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
g
r
a
d
e
)
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
S
l
o
p
e
=
P
l
a
n
s
(
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
C
r
o
s
s
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
T=
(
(
Q
*
n
)
/
(
0
.
5
6
*
S
x
^
1
.
6
7
*
S
l
^
0
.
5
)
)
^
0
.
3
7
5
H
E
C
-
2
2
,
p
a
g
e
4
-
9
,
E
q
.
4
-
2
G
O
2
2
4
-
1
2
X
2
3
.
3
3
P
-
1
-
7
/
8
5
.
2
Le
=
L
*
(
1
-
C
F
)
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
g
r
a
t
e
Rf
=
1
-
0
.
0
9
*
(
V
-
V
o
)
H
E
C
-
1
2
,
P
a
g
e
5
4
,
E
q
.
9
G
T
3
2
2
2
4
-
1
2
X
2
6
.
6
7
P
-
1
-
7
/
8
1
5
.
0
Eo
=
1
-
(
1
-
W
/
T
)
^
2
.
6
7
H
E
C
-
1
2
,
P
a
g
e
5
4
,
E
q
.
7
Rs
=
1
/
(
1
+
0
.
1
5
*
V
^
1
.
8
/
(
S
x
*
L
^
2
.
3
)
)
H
E
C
-
1
2
,
P
a
g
e
5
6
,
E
q
.
1
0
G
D
O
2
2
2
4
-
1
2
X
4
3
.
3
3
P
-
1
-
7
/
8
1
0
.
3
E=
R
f
*
E
o
+
R
s
*
(
1
-
E
o
)
H
E
C
-
1
2
,
P
a
g
e
5
4
,
E
q
.
9
Qi
=
E
*
Q
t
H
E
C
-
1
2
,
P
a
g
e
5
6
,
E
q
.
1
2
G
T
4
2
2
2
4
-
1
2
X
2
6
.
6
7
P
-
1
-
7
/
8
1
5
.
0
GE
N
E
R
A
L
G
U
T
T
E
R
S
P
R
E
A
D
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
n
l
e
t
T
o
t
a
l
In
l
e
t
&
W
L
C
l
o
g
g
i
n
g
L
e
V
o
Sy
s
t
e
m
U
n
i
t
I
n
l
e
t
SS
x
T
(G
r
a
t
e
)
A
c
t
u
a
l
A
c
t
u
a
l
Fa
c
t
o
r
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
p
l
a
s
h
Rf
E
o
Rs
Tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
Qs
u
b
Q
b
Q
t
Lo
n
g
.
L
a
t
e
r
.
S
p
r
e
a
d
v
Ty
p
e
W
i
d
t
h
L
e
n
g
t
h
L
e
n
g
t
h
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
F
l
o
w
F
l
o
w
Qf
Q
a
Side flow Qs
Q
i
Q(bypass)
Ar
e
a
(
c
f
s
)
(
c
f
s
)
(
c
f
s
)
S
l
o
p
e
S
l
o
p
e
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
/
s
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
%
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
/
s
)
F
a
c
t
o
r
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(R
f *E
o *Q
t )Q
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Factor (R s *Q available )Q inlet (cfs)
19
cD
A
0
8
1.
1
0
0.
0
0
1.
1
0
0.
4
1
%
2
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
8.
2
1
0.
1
6
1
.
6
3
G
3
2
3
.
3
3
3
3
%
2
.
2
3
1
0
.
2
0
1
.
0
0
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
7
8
0
.
5
2
2
0
.
2
5
9
0
.
1
3
5
0
.
7
1
3
0
.
3
9
18
cD
A
0
7
1.
1
0
0.
0
0
1.
1
0
0.
4
1
%
2
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
8.
2
1
0.
1
6
1
.
6
3
G
3
2
3
.
3
3
3
3
%
2
.
2
3
1
0
.
2
0
1
.
0
0
0
.
5
3
0
.
5
7
8
0
.
5
2
2
0
.
2
5
9
0
.
1
3
5
0
.
7
1
3
0
.
3
9
15
lD
A
0
4
1.
5
4
0.
0
0
1.
5
4
0.
4
1
%
2
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
9.
3
1
0.
1
9
1
.
7
8
G
T
3
2
6
.
6
7
3
3
%
4
.
4
7
1
5
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
0
.
4
8
0
.
7
3
2
0
.
8
0
8
0
.
5
9
7
0
.
4
8
2
1
.
2
1
5
0
.
3
3
15
jD
A
0
3
1.
5
4
0.
0
0
1.
5
4
0.
4
1
%
2
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
0
0
9.
3
1
0.
1
9
1
.
7
8
G
T
4
2
6
.
6
7
3
3
%
4
.
4
7
1
5
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
0
.
4
8
0
.
7
3
2
0
.
8
0
8
0
.
5
9
7
0
.
4
8
2
1
.
2
1
5
0
.
3
3
In
l
e
t
s
IN
L
E
T
C
A
P
A
C
I
T
Y
H 2 O
de
p
t
h
Sh
l
d
r
.
Wi
d
t
h
+
1/
2
o
u
t
e
r
la
n
e
HEC-22 Chart 5B (appendix)
Y:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
I
R
-
1
2
1
0
5
(
R
o
s
e
d
a
l
e
H
w
y
)
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
\
R
o
s
e
d
a
l
e
H
w
y
-
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
W
a
t
e
r
s
p
r
e
a
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
x
l
s
Attachment I
Drainage Plans