Request for bridge scour analysis for complex pier foundations

Similar documents
A STUDY OF LOCAL SCOUR AT BRIDGE PIERS OF EL-MINIA

LOMR SUBMITTAL LOWER NEHALEM RIVER TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON

LOMR SUBMITTAL LOWER NESTUCCA RIVER TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON

Pressure Head: Pressure head is the height of a column of water that would exert a unit pressure equal to the pressure of the water.

Field Observations and One-Dimensional Flow Modeling of Summit Creek in Mack Park, Smithfield, Utah

MODELING OF LOCAL SCOUR AROUND AL-KUFA BRIDGE PIERS Saleh I. Khassaf, Saja Sadeq Shakir

Evaluation of Scour Depth around Bridge Piers with Various Geometrical Shapes

YELLOWSTONE RIVER FLOOD STUDY REPORT TEXT

STREAM RESTORATION AWRA Summer Specialty Conference, GIS and Water Resources IX

UPPER COSUMNES RIVER FLOOD MAPPING

Technical Memorandum No Sediment Model

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DISTRICT 3-0

Design Hydraulic Study. Bridge 09C-0134, Blairsden-Graeagle Road over Middle Fork Feather River. Plumas County. Prepared for:

DRAFT Design Hydraulic Study. Bridge 04C-0055, Mattole Road Bridge over Mattole River at Honeydew. Humboldt County. Prepared for:

Sediment Transport Analysis for Stream Restoration Design: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Technical Memorandum. To: From: Copies: Date: 10/19/2017. Subject: Project No.: Greg Laird, Courtney Moore. Kevin Pilgrim and Travis Stroth

APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY

!"#$%&&'()*+#$%(,-./0*)%(!

Diego Burgos. Geology 394. Advisors: Dr. Prestegaard. Phillip Goodling

Technical Memorandum No

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BED MORPHOLOGY IN THE REACH BETWEEN CABRUTA AND CAICARA IN ORINOCO RIVER.

Countermeasure Calculations and Design

Evaluation and Incorporation of USACE HEC-RAS Model of Chicago Waterway System into the Development of the North Branch DWP

HEC-RAS Reservoir Transport Simulation of Three Reservoirs in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin. Mike Langland and Ed Koerkle

ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PA

Modified Level II Streambed-Scour Analysis for Structure Crossing Little Eagle Creek and I-65 in Marion County, Indiana

Section 4: Model Development and Application

TSEGI WASH 50% DESIGN REPORT

HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS MUSKEG RIVER BRIDGE

Debris Loads, Bridge/Culvert failure, and Climate Change Identifying stream reaches most susceptible to climate-exacerbated debris load

Big Wood River. General Information

FHWA/IN/JTRP-2000/12. Final Report. D. A. Lyn E. Neseem A. Ramachandra Rao A. G. Altschaeffl

CR AAO Bridge. Dead River Flood & Natural Channel Design. Mitch Koetje Water Resources Division UP District

Ways To Identify Background Verses Accelerated Erosion

Summary of Hydraulic and Sediment-transport. Analysis of Residual Sediment: Alternatives for the San Clemente Dam Removal/Retrofit Project,

(3) Sediment Movement Classes of sediment transported

EXAMPLES (SEDIMENT TRANSPORT) AUTUMN 2018

Modelling of flow and sediment transport in rivers and freshwater deltas Peggy Zinke

Estimating Scour. CIVE 510 October 21 st, 2008

Overview of fluvial and geotechnical processes for TMDL assessment

New computation method for flood flows and bed variations in a low-lying river with complex river systems

(3) Sediment Movement Classes of sediment transported

Factors affecting confluence scour

Degradation Concerns related to Bridge Structures in Alberta

Squaw Creek. General Information

Fish Passage at Road Crossings

STUDY ON LOCAL SCOURING AT SURAMADU BRIDGE PIERS FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY MONITORING

Fluvial Processes in River Engineering

Highland Lake Bathymetric Survey

Lecture 10: River Channels

Vegetation effects on river hydraulics. Johannes J. (Joe) DeVries David Ford Consulting Engineers, Inc. Sacramento, CA

Analysis of the Cause for the Collapse of a Temporary Bridge Using Numerical Simulation

JACINTO. Sediment Transport and Scour Analysis San Jacinto River, Stage 4 North and South Levees SAN ENGINEERING STUDY. Prepared for: Prepared by:

Sediment transport and river bed evolution

The last three sections of the main body of this report consist of:

Geomorphology 5. Stream Sediment Stream Sediment

FOLLOW-UP ON CHANNELIZATION IN SPRING CREEK SUB-WATERSHED

Streams. Stream Water Flow

Swift Creek Sediment Management Action Plan (SCSMAP)

Rivers and Streams. Streams. Hydrologic Cycle. Drainage Basins and Divides. Colorado River Drainage Basin. Colorado Drainage Basins.

Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment. Appendix J. Vermont Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves

Appendix I. Dredged Volume Estimates. Draft Contractor Document: Subject to Continuing Agency Review

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District. Sediment Trap Assessment Saginaw River, Michigan

Growing and decaying processes and resistance of sand waves in the vicinity of the Tone River mouth

Development of a Fluvial Erosion Hazard Mitigation Program for Indiana

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF BACKWATER RISE DUE TO BRIDGE PIERS AS FLOW OBSTRUCTIONS

1.060 Engineering Mechanics II Spring Problem Set 8

COMPARISON OF LABORATORY AND FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF BRIDGE PIER SCOUR

Addressing the Impact of Road-Stream Crossing Structures on the Movement of Aquatic Organisms

Preliminary Hydraulic Report

3 Theoretical Basis for SAM.sed Calculations

Geomorphology Geology 450/750 Spring Fluvial Processes Project Analysis of Redwood Creek Field Data Due Wednesday, May 26

Evaluation of flood discharge hydrographs and bed variations in a channel network on the Ota River delta, Japan

Erosion Surface Water. moving, transporting, and depositing sediment.

GEOL 652. Poudre River Fieldtrip

June 9, R. D. Cook, P.Eng. Soils Engineer Special Services Western Region PUBLIC WORKS CANADA WESTERN REGION REPORT ON

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC REPORT FOR SR. 0522, SECTION 5BN ALONG BLACKLOG CREEK CROMWELL TOWNSHIP HUNTINGDON COUNTY. Prepared for:

APPENDIX A. Watershed Delineation and Stream Network Defined from WMS

L OWER N OOKSACK R IVER P ROJECT: A LTERNATIVES A NALYSIS A PPENDIX A: H YDRAULIC M ODELING. PREPARED BY: LandC, etc, LLC

L.O: SLOWING STREAMS DEPOSIT (SORT) SEDIMENT HORIZONTALLY BY SIZE.

Las Colonias Subdivision September 2010 Flood Study

PRELIMINARY CULVERT ANALYSIS REPORT FOR CULVERT NO. 008-C OREGON AVENUE OVER PINEHURST CREEK

STABILIZATION OF THE H&CT RAILWAY STONE DAM WALTER E. SKIPWITH, PE, JOYCE CRUM, AIA AND JOHN BAUMGARTNER, PE. Introduction.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STREAM CONDITIONS AND HABITAT TYPES IN REACH 4, REACH 5 AND REACH 6.

Sediment and Erosion Design Guide

Upper Mississippi River Basin Environmental Management Program Workshop

Module 2. The Science of Surface and Ground Water. Version 2 CE IIT, Kharagpur

Project (Project No. US-CA-62-2) Maintenance Inspection and Reports (Subtask 14.1) Inspection Report No.2

OPEN CHANNEL FLOW. One-dimensional - neglect vertical and lateral variations in velocity. In other words, Q v = (1) A. Figure 1. One-dimensional Flow

GIS in Water Resources Exercise #4 Solution


-- Lessons from a successful salmon stream and estuary relocation on Gravina Island

ESTIMATING JOINT FLOW PROBABILITIES AT STREAM CONFLUENCES USING COPULAS

GREENE COUNTY, PA. Revised Preliminary DFIRM Mapping FEMA. Kevin Donnelly, P.E., CFM GG3, Greenhorne & O Mara, Inc. April 10, 2013

Beaver Creek Corridor Design and Analysis. By: Alex Previte

SCALING ISSUES FOR LABORATORY MODELING OF BRIDGE PIER SCOUR

Monitoring Scour Critical Bridges During Floods For Local Bridge Owners. Presented by

11/12/2014. Running Water. Introduction. Water on Earth. The Hydrologic Cycle. Fluid Flow

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE

Stream Simulation: A Simple Example

Transcription:

Technical Memorandum To: Theresa Maahs-Henderson, Stantec Dale Grove, Stantec Keith Farquhar, HNTB Corporation From: Hugh Zeng, P.E. & Mark Abrahams, HZ United, LLC Date: 03/22/2016 RE: Request for bridge scour analysis for complex pier foundations HZU has completed the requested bridge scour analysis for complex pier foundation. Our findings are based on the updated HEC-RAS model (as discussed below). The proposed bridge geometry was provided for two design alternatives, 4-span and 5-spans bridge. Scour analysis was conducted using the procedure outlined in FHWA HEC-18 for scour at complex pier foundations. The revised HEC-RAS model included the confluence of the Baudette River and the Rainy River. A newly created junction in the HEC-RAS model represents the river confluence. Discharges of the Baudette River was obtained from the USGS Streamstat website, which incorporates USGS Regression Equation using GIS drainage boundaries and the stream gauge data. Because the drainage tributary area of the Baudette River is much smaller than that of the Rainy River, coincidental factor was considered to correlate the peak discharges from each river. The results of the HEC-RAS model with the confluence showed minor water surface increases. The Baudette River connects to the Rainy River near a right angle. The velocity is slow compared to the Rainy River. Sand delta bars formed at the mouth of the Baudette River indicate a low stream energy from the tributary. As a result, the effects of the Baudette River on the mainstream is minimum. The stream attack-angle of 18.7 was unchanged in the scour calculation. The scour calculation took into account of both contraction scour and pier scour. The contraction scour was calculated from the HEC-RAS model. HEC-18 equations were used to predict the pier scour instead of using HEC-RAS model due to the complex pier footing configurations, which consist of pile caps over pile groups. Results for the two proposed pier configuration bridges are provided below: 1

Table 1: Complex Pier Foundation Scour Analysis (100-yr Event) Alternative 1: Continuous Steel I- Girder, 4-Span Alternative 1: Continuous Steel I- Girder, 5-Span Contraction Scour (ft) Pier Stem Scour [ft] Pile Cap (Footing) Scour [ft] Pile Group Scour [ft] Total Scour [ft] 3.90 4.80 19.07 3.08 30.85 4.17 4.84 19.23 3.10 31.34 Table 2: Complex Pier Foundation Scour Analysis (500-yr Event) Alternative 1: Continuous Steel I- Girder, 4-Span Alternative 1: Continuous Steel I- Girder, 5-Span Contraction Scour (ft) Pier Stem Scour [ft] Pile Cap (Footing) Scour [ft] Pile Group Scour [ft] Total Scour [ft] 4.36 5.03 20.06 3.24 32.69 4.69 5.08 20.25 3.26 33.28 The results shown above are preliminary and subject to revision. The predicted scour depths are comparable to the 30ft scour depth, which was documented in a June 19, 2009 MnDOT memorandum. Our analysis shows only a slight difference between the two proposed pier configurations. Preliminary bridge design provides identical pier geometry for the two proposed alternatives, so the only source of variance is due to any impact in water surface and velocity in the channel at the Bridge. It should also be noted that this analysis was conducted using a pier skew at 18.7 relative to the channel thaweg. Aligning piers normal to the channel flow will effectively reduce the overall scour estimates. Detailed calculations for the complex scour analysis are attached. 2

Attachment A: Complex Scour Calculations for 4-span Alternative

S.P. 3905-09 Scour for Complex Pier Foundations Baudette Bridge PE 3 Pier Alternative Rev Date By Ck 0 03/22/2016 MBA HZ Live-bed or clear water scour Ref: FHWA HEC-18, sect. 6.3 Live-Bed Contraction Scour V * = shear velocity in the upstream section g = Acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s 2 ) y 1 = average depth in the upstream main channel = 25.69 ft (7.83 m) S 1 = slope of energy grade line of main channel (ft/ft) = 0.000092 ft/s (0.084 m/s) T = fall velocity of bed material based on the D 50, (use D 50 = 0.50 mm) for fall velocity in English units multiply T in m/s by 3.28 Use T = 10 C, ω 0.06 m/s Use live-bed scour. 1

100-yr Event 1. Contraction Scour Depth Contration Scour computed from HEC-RAS river analysis. Refer to HEC-RAS model for contraction scour computation and inputs < R:\1502-Baudette Br PE\Design\Calculations\HEC-RAS>. Channel Contraction Scour: Ref: HEC-18, sect. 7.5 Scour for Complex Pier y s = Total Scour from superposition of components 100-yr event 2. Pier Stem Scour Depth (7.23) Where: f = Distance between front edge of pile cap or footing and pier 9 ft. (2.74 m) a pier = pier width = 7 ft (2.13 m) h 1 = h 0 + T = height of the pier stem above the bed before scour = 0 K h pier = Coefficient to account for the height of pier stem above bed and shielding effect by pile cap overhang distance f in front of pier stem. 2

100-yr Event K h pier 0.32 (from figure 7.6) For 100-year event (from HEC-RAS output) WSE = 1066.40 ft (325.04 m) Ground = 1040.70 ft (317.20 m) y 1 = 25.7 ft (7.83 m) V 1 = 3.74 fps (1.14 m/s) K 1 = correction factor for pier nose shape; round nose = 1.0 K 2 = correction factor for angle of attack of flow; 18.7 1.50 K 3 = correction factor for bed condition; (From Table 7.3, use plane bed) = 1.1 g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/s 2 3

3. Pile Cap (Footing) Scour Depth Use Case 2; bottom of pile cap is on or below bed 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 100-yr Event y f = distance from the bed (after degredation, contraction scour, and pier stem scour) to the top of footing. k s = Grain roughness, use estimate D 84 for sand, 2.5 mm = 0.0082 ft (0.0025m) Average velocity of flow at the exposed footing (V f ) is determined using the following: (7.25) The scour component equation for the footing can be written as: (7.24) K W = wide pier factor for shallow flow, not applicable. a pc = pile cap width = 20.0 ft (6.10 m) 4

4. Determination of Pile Group Scour Depth Component 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 100-yr Event Where: a proj = sum of non-overlapping projected widths of piles = 6.67 ft K sp = coefficient for pile spacing a = 1.33 ft (16 in) s = 4 ft (7.28) K sp 0.49 (from figure 7.11) 5

100-yr Event K m = coefficient for number of aligned rows 1.4 (from figure 7.12) (7.29) (7.30) K h pg 0.45 (from figure 7.13) (7.31) Total Pier Scour (100yr): Total Scour (100yr): 6

Scour Design Check Flood Frequency (500-yr) 1. Contraction Scour Depth 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 500-yr Event Contration Scour computed from HEC-RAS river analysis. Refer to HEC-RAS model for contraction scour computation and inputs < R:\1502-Baudette Br PE\Design\Calculations\HEC-RAS>. Channel Contraction Scour: 2. Pier Stem Scour Depth Where: f = Distance between front edge of pile cap or footing and pier 9 ft. a pier = pier width = 7 ft h 1 = h 0 + T = height of the pier stem above the bed before scour = 0. K h pier = Coefficient to account for the height of pier stem above bed and shielding effect by pile cap overhang distance f in front of pier stem. 7

K h pier 0.32 (from figure 7.6) For 500-year event (from HEC-RAS output) WSE = 1068.11 ft (325.56 m) Ground = 1040.70 ft (317.20 m) y 1 = 27.41 ft (8.36 m) V 1 = 4.10 fps (1.25 m/s) 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 500-yr Event K 1 = correction factor for pier nose shape; round nose = 1.0 K 2 = correction factor for angle of attack of flow; 18.7 1.50 K 3 = correction factor for bed condition; (From Table 7.3, use plane bed) = 1.1 g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/s 2 3. Pile Cap (Footing) Scour Depth Use Case 2; bottom of pile cap is on or below bed y f = distance from the bed (after degredation, contraction scour, and pier stem scour) to the top of footing. k s = Grain roughness, use estimate D 84 for sand, 2.5 mm = 0.0082 ft Average velocity of flow at the exposed footing (V f ) is determined using the following: 8

500-yr Event ft/s The scour component equation for the footing can be written as: K W = wide pier factor, not applicable. a pc = pile cap width = 20.0 ft 4. Determination of the Pile Group Scour Depth Component Where: a proj = sum of non-overlapping projected widths of piles = 6.67 ft K sp = coefficient for pile spacing a = 1.33 ft (16 in) s = 4 ft, (7.28) K sp 0.49 (from figure 7.11) 9

500-yr Event K m = coefficient for number of aligned rows 1.4 (from figure 7.12) (7.29) (7.30) K h pg 0.45 (from figure 7.13) 10

500-yr Event (7.31) Total Pier Scour (500yr): Total Scour (500yr): 11

Attachment B: Complex Scour Calculations for 5-span Alternative

S.P. 3905-09 Scour for Complex Pier Foundations Baudette Bridge PE 4 Pier Alternative Rev Date By Ck 0 03/22/2016 MBA HZ Live-bed or clear water scour Ref: FHWA HEC-18, sect. 6.3 Live-Bed Contraction Scour V * = shear velocity in the upstream section g = Acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/s 2 ) y 1 = average depth in the upstream main channel = 25.69 ft (7.83 m) S 1 = slope of energy grade line of main channel (ft/ft) = 0.0001 ft/s T = fall velocity of bed material based on the D 50, (use D 50 = 0.50 mm) for fall velocity in English units multiply T in m/s by 3.28 Use T = 10 C, ω 0.06 m/s Use live-bed scour. 1

100-yr Event 1. Contraction Scour Depth Contration Scour computed from HEC-RAS river analysis. Refer to HEC-RAS model for contraction scour computation and inputs < R:\1502-Baudette Br PE\Design\Calculations\HEC-RAS>. Channel Contraction Scour: Ref: HEC-18, sect. 7.5 Scour for Complex Pier y s = Total Scour from superposition of components 100-yr event 2. Pier Stem Scour Depth (7.23) Where: f = Distance between front edge of pile cap or footing and pier 9 ft. (2.74 m) a pier = pier width = 7 ft (2.13 m) h 1 = h 0 + T = height of the pier stem above the bed before scour = 0 K h pier = Coefficient to account for the height of pier stem above bed and shielding effect by pile cap overhang distance f in front of pier stem. 2

100-yr Event K h pier 0.32 (from figure 7.6) For 100-year event (from HEC-RAS output) WSE = 1066.40 ft (325.04 m) Ground = 1040.70 ft (317.20 m) y 1 = 25.7 ft (7.83 m) V 1 = 3.81 fps (1.16 m/s) K 1 = correction factor for pier nose shape; round nose = 1.0 K 2 = correction factor for angle of attack of flow; 18.7 1.50 K 3 = correction factor for bed condition; (From Table 7.3, use plane bed) = 1.1 g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/s 2 3

3. Pile Cap (Footing) Scour Depth Use Case 2; bottom of pile cap is on or below bed 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 100-yr Event y f = distance from the bed (after degredation, contraction scour, and pier stem scour) to the top of footing. k s = Grain roughness, use estimate D 84 for sand, 2.5 mm = 0.0082 ft (0.0025m) Average velocity of flow at the exposed footing (V f ) is determined using the following: (7.25) The scour component equation for the footing can be written as: (7.24) K W = wide pier factor for shallow flow, not applicable. a pc = pile cap width = 20.0 ft (6.10 m) 4

4. Determination of Pile Group Scour Depth Component 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 100-yr Event Where: a proj = sum of non-overlapping projected widths of piles = 6.67 ft K sp = coefficient for pile spacing a = 1.33 ft (16 in) s = 4 ft (7.28) K sp 0.49 (from figure 7.11) 5

100-yr Event K m = coefficient for number of aligned rows 1.4 (from figure 7.12) (7.29) (7.30) K h pg 0.45 (from figure 7.13) (7.31) Total Pier Scour (100yr): Total Scour (100yr): 6

Scour Design Check Flood Frequency (500-yr) 1. Contraction Scour Depth 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 500-yr Event Contration Scour computed from HEC-RAS river analysis. Refer to HEC-RAS model for contraction scour computation and inputs < R:\1502-Baudette Br PE\Design\Calculations\HEC-RAS>. Channel Contraction Scour: 2. Pier Stem Scour Depth Where: f = Distance between front edge of pile cap or footing and pier 9 ft. a pier = pier width = 7 ft h 1 = h 0 + T = height of the pier stem above the bed before scour = 0. K h pier = Coefficient to account for the height of pier stem above bed and shielding effect by pile cap overhang distance f in front of pier stem. 7

K h pier 0.32 (from figure 7.6) For 500-year event (from HEC-RAS output) WSE = 1068.11 ft (325.56 m) Ground = 1040.70 ft (317.20 m) y 1 = 27.41 ft V 1 = 4.17 fps (1.27 m/s) 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 121, Plymouth, MN 55447 500-yr Event K 1 = correction factor for pier nose shape; round nose = 1.0 K 2 = correction factor for angle of attack of flow; 18.7 1.50 K 3 = correction factor for bed condition; (From Table 7.3, use plane bed) = 1.1 g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/s 2 3. Pile Cap (Footing) Scour Depth Use Case 2; bottom of pile cap is on or below bed y f = distance from the bed (after degredation, contraction scour, and pier stem scour) to the top of footing. k s = Grain roughness, use estimate D 84 for sand, 2.5 mm = 0.0082 ft Average velocity of flow at the exposed footing (V f ) is determined using the following: 8

500-yr Event ft/s The scour component equation for the footing can be written as: K W = wide pier factor, not applicable. a pc = pile cap width = 20.0 ft 4. Determination of the Pile Group Scour Depth Component Where: a proj = sum of non-overlapping projected widths of piles = 6.67 ft K sp = coefficient for pile spacing a = 1.33 ft (16 in) s = 4 ft, (7.28) K sp 0.49 (from figure 7.11) 9

500-yr Event K m = coefficient for number of aligned rows 1.4 (from figure 7.12) (7.29) (7.30) K h pg 0.45 (from figure 7.13) 10

500-yr Event (7.31) Total Pier Scour (500yr): Total Scour (500yr): 11