ce 462 project
Post on 08-Apr-2018
232 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
1/28
Gilkey Creek AnalysisLippincott Blvd, Roat Ct, & Lapeer Rd
Group 8Paul Christner
Ryan Kunkel
Timothy Panzigrau
Silvia Sutkowski
4/29/2011
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
2/28
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 6
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Location Maps ......................................................................................................................... 7
APPENDIX B: Flood Flow Data ..................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDIX C: Review of As-builts and Engineering Plans ............................................................................ 12
APPENDIX D: Existing Inundation and Cross Sections................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX E: Proposed Floodplains and Cross Sections ............................................................................. 21
APPENDIX F: GIS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 27
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
3/28
Abstract
Due to urbanization, the upper 7.1 miles of Gilkey Creek, located in the City of Burton, Genesee
County, Michigan, frequently floods. A location map is provided in APPENDIX A. Flow data for the
project area was used from a previous project that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along
Gilkey Creek and is attached as APPENDIX B. Engineering plans and as-builts were reviewed and
APPENDIX C contains the information gathered. A survey crew also gathered information pertaining to
the existing crossings and typical drain cross sections. The specific crossings studied were Lippincott
Boulevard, Roat Court, and Lapeer Road. All information was evaluated using ArcMAP, HEC-RAS, and
HEC-GeoRAS. Existing conditions for the 10-year and 100-year flood events can be found in APPENDIX
D. Upon analysis it is recommended that the following improvements be made:
Replace existing structure at each crossing with bridges. Excavate Roat Ct crossing to have new, lower bottom elevation. Institute a maintenance schedule to maintain flow capabilities.
Resulting outcomes with the above recommendations during the 10-year and 100-year floods for the
studied crossings can be found in APPENDIX E.
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
4/28
Introduction
Group 8 was retained by the City of Burton to analyze 3 crossings over Gilkey Creek due to its
frequent flooding. Gilkey Creek is located in the City of Burton, Genesee County, Michigan. A location
map can be found in APPENDIX A. Originally the creek and its tributaries served as a drainage route for
the adjacent farmlands. Urbanization has resulted in significant changes in the 8.7 square mile
watershed and now contains residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses. This
increase in urbanization has resulted in a runoff spike, which needs to be properly modeled to manage
flood waters. There are 43 total crossings over the main branch of Gilkey Creek. Group 8 was contacted
to analyze the existing crossings at Lippincott Blvd, Roat Ct, and Lapeer St. The location of this section of
the creek can be found in APPENDIX A. Flow data for the project area was used from a previous project
that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along Gilkey Creek and is attached as APPENDIX B.
From this data, the existing floodplains were created and are depicted in APPENDIX D. All information
gathered was evaluated and manipulated using ArcMAP, HEC-RAS, and HEC-GeoRAS.
Discussion
Methods
In order to start analysis of the creek, information was gathered from a variety of sources. A
survey crew was retained to analyze the existing crossings and typical drain cross sections.
Engineering plans and as-builts were also reviewed. The information gathered from this review
can be found in APPENDIX C. FEMA flood maps effective September 25, 2009 were studied to
understand the flood effects on the surrounding area. Existing conditions, such as land use types and
topographic data, useful in ArcGIS were obtained through Genesee County. APPENDIX F shows a
screen shot of the GIS Table of Contents with a sample layout. Flow data for the project area was
used from a previous project that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along Gilkey Creek.
The flow data is attached as APPENDIX B. Using the GIS data obtained, a concise map was created to
include only the area of interest. Through HEC-GeoRAS modeling techniques the creek geometry was
created and imported into HEC-RAS. Effectively, a model of the section of stream being analyzed was
created. Adding the flood flow data allowed for an existing floodplains map to be created in ArcMAP.
The existing floodplain maps and cross sections at the crossings can be found in APPENDIX D. Steady
flow analyses were run. The effects of different structures at the crossings were evaluated and the
most effective designs were chosen to properly manage the flood flows.
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
5/28
Findings
For the existing culverts and pipes, both the 10-year flood and 100-year flood overtopped the
roadways. The resulting floodplain and cross sections of the existing flows can be found in APPENDIX
D. Several structural options were evaluated. Size increases in the box culverts and pipes were tried
but no options were viable with the given elevations of the roadway. The only feasible options
appeared to be the construction of bridges to replace the existing structures. For Lippincott Blvd,
Roat Ct, Lapeer Rd a bridge effectively managed the flow coming through the crossing. In addition,
an excavation of the channel bottom at the Roat Ct crossing would improve the flow.
Assessment
The mapped inundation using the existing results differed from the provided FEMA floodplain
data, both in APPENDIX D. The differences mainly exist due to the programs predilection for linearly
connecting cross-sections. Some of the curvy features of the creek were not correctly depicted in the
model and therefore allowed for a slightly skewed map of the inundations.
Comparing the existing conditions to the proposed conditions shows a significant change in the
management of the flood waters. With existing conditions, each crossing was overtopped during
both the 10-year and 100-year flood events. By changing the structures at each crossing from box
culverts and pipes to bridges, the flood flows were adequately managed at all three crossings. The
effectiveness in managing the 10- and 100- year flows can be seen by comparing the cross-sections in
APPENDIX D and APPENDIX E.
The impacts of the proposed changes are social, environmental, and economic. Some of the
social impacts will occur during construction. Unfortunately many travel routes will be temporarily
alternated to accommodate for construction at the crossings. The outcome of this construction will
end up being socially beneficial due to the decrease in flooding. Homes, businesses, and roadways
will no longer be affected by the overflowing waters and therefore will allow for people to still travel
and live without worrying about their homes flooding. The reduction in flooding will also be
economically beneficial. Businesses and roadways will be able to stay open instead of closing due to
flooding. One downside of the flooding will be the reduction in nutrients provided to surrounding
farmlands and wetlands. Also, by not allowing the creek to naturally flood, downstream crossings
may be adversely affected because more flow will go through the studied cross sections.
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
6/28
Environmental impacts can be vast. With the decrease of floods, less loose sediment from
surrounding lands will be taken downstream and affect other crossings and the creek in general.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Upon analysis it is recommended that the following improvements be made:
Replace existing structures at each crossing with bridges. Excavate Roat Rd crossing to have new, lower bottom elevation. Institute a maintenance schedule to maintain flow capabilities.
Resulting outcomes with the above recommendations during the 10-year and 100-year floods for the
studied crossings can be found in APPENDIX E. Flooding conditions for both the 10-year and 100-year
predictions may be slightly inaccurate due to the cross-sections being drawn somewhat small. This
eliminated some of the possible flooding that should occur, therefore making it look less expansive.
Also, more cross sections along the stream would have provided a more accurate map of the inundation
compared to the actual stream. However, by comparing the flooding extent from before and after
modifications, it is easy to see that the newly implemented bridges significantly help contain the
majority of flood water from overtopping the banks and corresponding roadway. The first attempt was
to increase the dimensions of the culverts, but it was quickly realized for them to accommodate the
flooding the culverts had to be so large they resembled bridges. For this reason three bridges were
implemented to solve the flooding problem of the Gilkey Creek over Lapeer, Roat and Lippencott roads.
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
7/28
APPENDIX A: Location Maps
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
8/28
Genessee County, Mighigan
Approximate Watershed of Gilkey Creek
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
9/28
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
10/28
APPENDIX B: Flood Flow Data
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
11/28
STA (ft)
10-YR
(cfs)
100-YR
(cfs)
-1+66 866 1256
0+79 887 1282
24+39 854 1243
26+98 854 1243
37+03 868 1307
58+38 864 1321
67+94 689 1043
112+89 683 1052
116+29 666 1155
127+39 670 1159
148+78 662 1137
169+44 580 981
219+39 511 996
237+54 410 780
269+81 325 602
283+25 304 563
326+48 248 450
348+77 58 114
373+21 35 71
0+00 located 306 ft downstream of Center Road
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
12/28
APPENDIX C: Review of As-builts and Engineering Plans
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
13/28
Crossing Type Surface Structure Type
Span
(ft)
Rise
(ft)
# of
Openings
Length Parallel to
Flow (ft) Skew Condition Headwall Type
Headwall
Condition
Sediment in
Culvert (ft)
Center
RoadRoad Bituminous
Corrugated Metal
Pipe Arch13 9 1 80 90 Fair 90-deg Concrete Wingwalls Fair 4
Railroad Rail Rail,Ballast
Concrete PipeCMP
CMP
79.5
9
79.5
9
3 243 90 Poor d/s - steel and concretewingwalls
u/s - projecting
Poor 1.5
I-69 Highway Bituminous
Concrete Box
Concrete Pipe
Concrete Pipe
10
8
8
7
8
8
3 262 90 Fair
90-deg Concrete Wingwalls
for Box Culvert, Projecting
for Concrete Pipes
Fair --
Lapeer
RoadRoad Bituminous Concrete Box 13.3 7 1 45 90 Poor 90-deg Concrete Wingwalls Poor --
Roat Court Road DirtCorrugated Metal
Pipe7.5 7.5 1 54 90 Good Mitred to Slope Fair --
LippincottBlvd.
Road BituminousConcrete BoxConcrete Box
88
6.46.4
2 74 90 Fair Concrete Wingwalls Poor1.51.5
Atherton
RoadRoad Bituminous Concrete Box 11.7 6.4 1 46 90 Good Projecting Poor --
Belsay Road Road Bituminous Concrete Box 14 6 1 60 90 New 45-deg Concrete Wingwalls New --
Bristol Road Road DirtCorrugated Metal
Pipe5 5 1 43 90 Poor Concrete Wingwalls Poor 1
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
14/28
APPENDIX D: Existing Inundation and Cross Sections
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
15/28
FEMA Floodplain
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
16/28
Existing Inundation 10 yr Flood
Existing Inundation 100 yr Flood
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
17/28
Lippincott Blvd 10yr Flood
Lippincott Blvd 100 yr Flood
0 10 20 30 40 50760
762
764
766
768
770
772
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011Lippincott Blvd
Station (ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
0 10 20 30 40 50760
762
764
766
768
770
772
774
GilkeyCrk Pla n: Gilkey1 4/28/20 11Lippincott Blvd
Station (ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Cri t 100yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
18/28
Roat Ct 10yr Flood
Roat Ct 100yr Flood
0 10 20 30 40 50 60761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/201 1Roat Ct
Station (ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
0 10 20 30 40 50 60760
762
764
766
768
770
772
GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/2011Roat Ct
Station ( ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
19/28
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
20/28
Existing Section Profile
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000750
755
760
765
770
775
GilkeyCrk Plan : 1) Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 100yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
GilkeyCreek Group8
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
21/28
APPENDIX E: Proposed Floodplains and Cross Sections
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
22/28
Inundation with Proposed Changes 10 yr Flood
Inundation with Proposed Changes 100 yr Flood
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
23/28
Lippincott Blvd 10yr Flood
Lippincott Blvd 100 yr Flood
0 10 20 30 40 50760
762
764
766
768
770
772
GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/2011Lippincott Blvd
Station (f t)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
0 10 20 30 40 50760
762
764
766
768
770
772
774
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011Lippincott Blvd
Station ( ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
24/28
Roat Ct 10yr Flood
Roat Ct 100yr Flood
0 10 20 30 40 50 60762
764
766
768
770
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011Roat Ct
Station ( ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
0 10 20 30 40 50 60762
764
766
768
770
772
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/201 1Roat Ct
Station (ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
25/28
Lapeer Rd 10yr Flood
Lapeer Rd 100 yr Flood
0 10 20 30 40 50 60756
758
760
762
764
766
768
770
GilkeyCrk Pla n: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Station ( ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
0 10 20 30 40 50 60756
758
760
762
764
766
768
770
GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/20 11
Station (ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Cri t100yr
Ground
BankSta
.045 .045 .045
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
26/28
Existing Section Profile
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000750
755
760
765
770
775
GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/201 1
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elevation(
ft)
Legend
EG 100yr
WS 100yr
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 100yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
GilkeyCreek Group8
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
27/28
APPENDIX F: GIS Table of Contents
-
8/7/2019 CE 462 Project
28/28
top related