hydraulic report dead - marquette county, michiganaecom computations the hec-ras data files are...

Prepared for: Prepared by: Marquette County Road Commission AECOM Ishpeming, MI Marquette, MI 60240279 December 9, 2011

Hydraulic Report County Road 595 Bridge over Dead River

Prepared By AECOM Brian A. Hintsala, P.E. 906.226.4966

AECOM

i

Contents

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................. 1

3.0 Variables and Coefficients ................................................................................................. 1

4.0 Starting Point ....................................................................................................................... 1

5.0 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 1

6.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 2

List of Appendices Appendix A HEC-RAS Computations

Appendix B Profile Sheets

Appendix C Topographic Map ‐ HEC-RAS River Sections

Appendix D Bridge Plans

Appendix E Cross Sections

Appendix F Damage Waivers

Appendix G Flow Rates

Appendix H Site Photographs

Appendix I USGS Topographical Map and River Gradient Calculations

AECOM

1

1.0 Introduction

This hydraulic report is being prepared for the Marquette County Road Commission concerning the proposed County Road 595 crossing of the Dead River. The site is located in Section 11 of T49N, R29W, Quad Map Name – Bulldog Lake (Lat.46.65449308/Long. -87.90586935) in Champion Township, Marquette County. Multiple road alignments were investigated. The chosen alignment crosses the river at the site of an existing bridge. The existing bridge is both structurally and geometrically inadequate for the projected road traffic and requires replacement.

2.0 Method of Analysis

The hydraulic analysis was performed using the “HEC-RAS River Analysis System” computer program, Version 3.1.1 developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center. The steady flow data for the flood events were obtained from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

3.0 Variables and Coefficients

The river sections near the bridge use an expansion coefficient of 0.30 and contraction coefficient of 0.50 which are suitable for a typical bridge per Table 3.3 of the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. The Manning’s n-values for friction loss were selected using Table 3.1 of the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. The main channel is fairly uniform with some weeds so a value of 0.035 was chosen. Upstream of the bridge the overbank areas are swampy with light brush so a value of 0.060 was chosen. Downstream of the bridge the overbanks are covered with heavy brush so a value of 0.100 was chosen. Representative photographs of the site are included in Appendix H.

4.0 Starting Point

The starting point of the analysis was a surveyed river section about 210 feet downstream of the proposed road. This location was chosen because it was far enough downstream to be outside of the influence of the proposed bridge. The starting water surface elevation was calculated by HEC-RAS using the slope-conveyance method. An average channel slope of 0.0013 was estimated from a USGS quadrangle map and used for the normal depth boundary condition. The calculations are included in Appendix I.

5.0 Discussion

Downstream of the bridge, the main channel of the Dead River is well defined and conveys the majority of the flow up to and including the 100-year flood event. Upstream, the main channel width is more variable and the floodplain becomes much wider. At the 100-year flood event, the majority of the flow is carried by the overbank floodplain. The river gradient is relatively flat and the flow regime is sub-critical for all flood events.

The existing bridge has a 13 foot wide timber deck which is supported by longitudinal steel beams. The beams span 17 feet between the abutments which are stone filled timber cribs. The proposed bridge will be placed directly over the location of the existing bridge (after is removed).

AECOM

2

The proposed bridge is a pre-cast concrete, three-sided culvert (ConSpan) with a span of 24 feet. Since the culvert is a buried structure, the normal road section is continued over the bridge. The concrete footings will be placed on the natural soils at the site and will be protected from scour by driven steel sheet piling. The restored stream banks will be treated with heavy riprap which is sized and placed in accordance with the Michigan Department of Transportation 2003 Standard Specifications for Construction.

The river cross sections are placed in HEC-RAS at the distances measured along the center line of the channel. In some cases the surveyed sections on each side of the bridge were adjusted up or downstream as required to model the bridge using the standard bridge/culvert input section of HEC-RAS. This is required because the actual location of the bridge was not known when the survey was performed. The final positions of the sections are shown in the plan view in Appendix C.

The ConSpan three-sided arch can be modeled either as a culvert or as bridge in HEC-RAS. For this project, it was modeled as a bridge to better represent the natural stream channel. In addition, since HEC-RAS does not perform scour calculations for culverts, modeling the ConSpan as a bridge allowed scour calculations using HEC-RAS.

The existing road approaches on each side of the bridge cut off a large portion of the overbank flow during the higher flow events. Ineffective flow areas were included in the overbank portions of the cross sections upstream and downstream of the bridge as suggested in chapter 5 of the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual.

The proposed bridge has a larger span to alleviate existing bridge encroachment on the main channel. This reduces the water velocity at the bridge as well as the water elevation upstream.

Table 1 on the following page summarizes the key model results for two configurations:

1. The existing 17’ span bridge. 2. The proposed 24’ span bridge.

6.0 Conclusion

Analysis results indicate that the proposed bridge decreases water surface elevations and channel velocities for all of the flow events compared to the existing bridge.

Hydraulic Comparison of Various Bridge Options 3County Road 595 Bridge DesignDead River4/1/2010

Table 1HEC-RAS Analysis Results

Flow thru

Bridge

(cfs)100 Year 10 Year 100 Year 100 Year 200 Year 100 Year 100 Year(550 cfs) (220 cfs) (550 cfs) (550 cfs) (700 cfs) (550 cfs) (550 cfs)

Existing Bridge 10.17 7.44 550 1552.32 1553.23 1552.40 1552.42Proposed Bridge 7.92 5.84 550 1551.17 1551.87 1551.43 -0.97 1551.51 -0.91

Water Surface Elevation at Upstream

Face of BridgeRiver Station 3

(feet) (feet)

Energy Gradient Elevation at 260'

Upstream of Bridge

Velocity in

Channel at Bridge

Energy Gradient Elev at Upstream

Face of Bridge

Model Configuration Change Change

River Station 3River Station 2.8(ft/sec) (feet)

River Station 5

AECOM

Appendix A HEC-RAS Computations

AECOM

Computations

The HEC-RAS data files are included in a separate electronic folder named:

HEC-RAS_Dead River.zip

In order to provide a brief summary of the analysis results, a “Profile Output Table” for the existing and proposed conditions are included on the following pages.

HEC-RAS Plan: Existing River: Dead Reach: DeadReach 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) Dead 5 10 Year 220.00 1546.25 1550.11 1550.13 0.000249 1.44 488.06 829.82 0.14Dead 5 50 Year 440.00 1546.25 1551.71 1551.71 0.000023 0.56 2278.64 1249.35 0.04Dead 5 100 Year 550.00 1546.25 1552.42 1552.42 0.000013 0.46 3191.16 1305.91 0.03Dead 5 200 Year 700.00 1546.25 1553.32 1553.32 0.000008 0.40 4395.55 1377.00 0.03

Dead 4 10 Year 220.00 1545.82 1550.10 1550.11 0.000104 0.90 606.11 825.15 0.09Dead 4 50 Year 440.00 1545.82 1551.71 1551.71 0.000017 0.48 2438.91 1271.22 0.04Dead 4 100 Year 550.00 1545.82 1552.42 1552.42 0.000010 0.41 3367.62 1326.69 0.03Dead 4 200 Year 700.00 1545.82 1553.32 1553.32 0.000007 0.37 4590.53 1396.36 0.03

Dead 3 10 Year 220.00 1546.06 1549.95 1548.54 1550.06 0.001470 2.67 88.64 101.07 0.32Dead 3 50 Year 440.00 1546.06 1551.60 1549.34 1551.68 0.000617 2.53 236.53 210.13 0.23Dead 3 100 Year 550.00 1546.06 1552.32 1549.67 1552.40 0.000467 2.47 309.11 247.79 0.20Dead 3 200 Year 700.00 1546.06 1553.23 1550.12 1553.30 0.000361 2.45 399.53 289.72 0.19

Dead 2.8 BR U 10 Year 220.00 1546.06 1548.83 1548.83 1549.69 0.014977 7.44 29.55 17.00 1.00Dead 2.8 BR U 50 Year 440.00 1546.06 1549.84 1549.84 1551.22 0.013024 9.42 46.71 17.00 1.00Dead 2.8 BR U 100 Year 550.00 1546.06 1550.28 1550.28 1551.88 0.012498 10.17 54.07 17.00 1.01Dead 2.8 BR U 200 Year 700.00 1546.06 1550.86 1550.86 1552.72 0.011531 10.94 64.01 17.00 0.99

Dead 2.8 BR D 10 Year 220.00 1544.97 1548.85 1547.38 1549.10 0.001963 4.05 54.35 17.00 0.40Dead 2.8 BR D 50 Year 440.00 1544.97 1549.80 1548.40 1550.41 0.003285 6.23 70.58 17.00 0.54Dead 2.8 BR D 100 Year 550.00 1544.97 1550.04 1548.84 1550.88 0.004276 7.38 74.56 17.00 0.62Dead 2.8 BR D 200 Year 700.00 1544.97 1550.26 1549.41 1551.50 0.005869 8.93 78.35 17.00 0.73



HEC-RAS Plan: Conspan Brdg River: Dead Reach: DeadReach 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) Dead 5 10 Year 220.00 1546.25 1549.66 1549.75 0.001044 2.69 166.47 527.44 0.27Dead 5 50 Year 440.00 1546.25 1550.97 1550.97 0.000099 1.06 1373.92 1190.63 0.09Dead 5 100 Year 550.00 1546.25 1551.51 1551.51 0.000050 0.81 2033.87 1233.74 0.07Dead 5 200 Year 700.00 1546.25 1552.22 1552.22 0.000027 0.66 2929.89 1289.97 0.05

Dead 4 10 Year 220.00 1545.82 1549.66 1549.68 0.000327 1.44 311.17 575.99 0.16Dead 4 50 Year 440.00 1545.82 1550.96 1550.96 0.000064 0.83 1511.46 1213.31 0.07Dead 4 100 Year 550.00 1545.82 1551.51 1551.51 0.000036 0.68 2187.20 1255.77 0.06Dead 4 200 Year 700.00 1545.82 1552.22 1552.22 0.000021 0.57 3100.54 1310.98 0.04


Dead 2.8 BR U 10 Year 220.00 1546.06 1548.86 1548.63 1549.39 0.010548 5.84 37.69 24.00 0.82Dead 2.8 BR U 50 Year 440.00 1546.06 1549.90 1549.47 1550.67 0.007815 7.04 62.50 24.00 0.77Dead 2.8 BR U 100 Year 550.00 1546.06 1550.18 1549.83 1551.16 0.008599 7.92 69.44 24.00 0.82Dead 2.8 BR U 200 Year 700.00 1546.06 1550.50 1550.28 1551.78 0.009822 9.08 77.11 24.00 0.89

Dead 2.8 BR D 10 Year 220.00 1544.97 1548.86 1547.29 1549.01 0.001309 3.12 70.48 24.00 0.32Dead 2.8 BR D 50 Year 440.00 1544.97 1549.88 1548.10 1550.21 0.001931 4.63 95.06 24.00 0.41Dead 2.8 BR D 100 Year 550.00 1544.97 1550.17 1548.44 1550.62 0.002389 5.39 101.95 24.00 0.46Dead 2.8 BR D 200 Year 700.00 1544.97 1550.49 1548.90 1551.12 0.003041 6.39 109.60 24.00 0.53



AECOM

Appendix B Profile Sheets

0 100 200 300 400 5001540

1545

1550

1555

1560

1565

1570

Dead River Crossing Plan: Existing Bridge 4/3/2010

Main Channel Distance (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Legend

EG 200 Year

WS 200 Year

EG 100 Year

WS 100 Year

EG 50 Year

WS 50 Year

EG 10 Year

Crit 200 Year

WS 10 Year

Crit 100 Year

Crit 50 Year

Crit 10 Year

Ground

Dead Dead

0 100 200 300 400 5001540

1545

1550

1555

1560

1565

1570

Dead River Crossing Plan: Conspan as a Bridge 3/31/2010

Main Channel Distance (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (ft

)

Legend

EG 200 Year

WS 200 Year

EG 100 Year

WS 100 Year

EG 50 Year

WS 50 Year

EG 10 Year

Crit 200 Year

WS 10 Year

Crit 100 Year

Crit 50 Year

Crit 10 Year

Ground

Dead Dead

AECOM

Appendix C Topographic Map HEC-RAS River Sections

AECOM

Appendix D Bridge Plans

AECOM

Appendix E Cross Sections

AECOM

Cross Section

Cross sections are included for the existing condition and the proposed bridge condition.

AECOM

Existing Channel Condition

AECOM

Proposed Bridge Condition

AECOM

Appendix F Damage Waivers

AECOM

No Damage Waivers Required

AECOM

Appendix G Flow Rates

Michigan.gov Home | DEQ_Home | Online Services | Permits | Programs | Site Map | Contact_DEQ State Web Sites | Privacy Policy | Link Policy | Accessibility Policy | Security Policy

Copyright © 2011 State of Michigan

Joint Permit Application DEQ Home | CIWPIS | Online Services | Permits | Programs | Site Map | Contact DEQ

Flood Discharge Request Record 20110446-2 12/6/2011

| Home | Water Management | Lowflows | Discharge Requests | Watersheds Map |

Discharge InformationWatercourse: DEAD RIVER

Location: Trail 5 Drainage Area: 8.63 mi2Basin Name: 45 - Dead Contributing Area: 8.63 mi2

County: Marquette Tn/Rng/Sec: 49N29W/11Township: Champion Latitude: 46.65451139

Quad Name: Bulldog Lake Longitude: -87.90586843Quad ID: D11NW

Requested By: Sheila Meier (DEQ-LWM-Ishpeming)

Received Date: 11/23/2011

Request Type: Trans. - County Issued Date: 12/5/2011File Number: 20110446-2 Reference Number: 20090423-4

Discharge Frequencies: Volume Frequencies:10%: 220 cfs

2%: 440 cfs1%: 550 cfs 1%: 1100 acre-ft

0.5%: 700 cfs 0.5%: 1400 acre-ft0.2%: 950 cfs

Access to the Flood Flow Database is provided as a service to allow you to check the status of your flood flow requests or to view discharges from previous requests for preliminary design purposes. The discharges values are only valid for the original requestor and for one year after the original request date. To obtain discharge information from the Hydrologic Studies Program, a flood flow discharge request form may be submitted electronically to the DEQ. A written or email response to your request will be returned to you and must accompany your permit application.

Page 1 of 1DEQ - Flood Frequency Discharges

12/6/2011http://www.deq.state.mi.us/flow/hflow.asp?FileNumber=20110446-2

AECOM

Appendix H Photos

County Road 595 over the Dead River.DOC

Existing Bridge Looking North

Looking Upstream from Existing Bridge


Looking Downstream from Existing Bridge

AECOM

Appendix I USGS Topographical Map and River Gradient Calculations

Map includes portions of Quadrangle maps:

Bulldog Lake Silver Lake

Basin

Copyright (C) 1999, Maptech, Inc.

087° 55' 0.00" W

087° 55' 0.00" W

087° 54' 0.00" W

087° 54' 0.00" W

087° 53' 0.00" W

087° 53' 0.00" W

046°

41'

0.0

0" N

046°

41'

0.0

0" N

046°

40'

0.0

0" N

046°

40'

0.0

0" N

046°

39'

0.0

0" N

046°

39'

0.0

0" N

475

470

Proposed bridge location CR 595/Dead Riv. 5m Intv. 5m Diff or 16.4' = 16.4/13,110 = 0.0013 or 0.13%

475

470


475

470


475

470


4° W

hydraulic report dead - marquette county, michiganaecom computations the hec-ras data files are...

Documents