APPENDIX D HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 APPENDIX D HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

2 County of Wellington B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 Hydrology and Hydraulics Report October 20, 2017 Public

3

4 B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 Hydrology and Hydraulics Report County of Wellington DRAFT Public Project No.: 16M Date: October 2017 WSP Suite Queensview Drive Ottawa, ON, Canada K2B 8K2 Tel.: Fax: wsp.com WSP Canada Inc.

5

6 October 20, 2017 Public County of Wellington 74 Woolwich Street Guelph, ON N1H 3T9 Attention: Dear Sir: Mark Eby, P.Eng., Construction Manager We are pleased to submit 2 copies and 1 electronic copy of the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report for the replacement of the Gordonville Bridge (B014005). This report details the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations used to assess the existing and proposed bridges. We trust the submission of this document meets your requirements. Should you have any comments we look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Bryan Orendorff, P.Eng. Project Manager, Water Resources BDEO/mjn Encl. cc: WSP ref.: 16M Suite Queensview Drive Ottawa, ON, Canada K2B 8K2 Tel.: Fax: WSP Canada Inc.

7

8 Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3 Remarks Draft Date October 20, 2017 Prepared by Mahdi Esmaeili Signature Checked by Bryan Orendorff Signature Authorized by Isabelle Hemmings Signature Project number 16M Report number File reference

9

10 S I G N A T U R E S Prepared by Mahdi Esmaeili, EIT Reviewed by Bryan Orendorff, M.A.Sc., P. Eng. Project Manager, Water Resources This report was prepared by WSP for the account of the County of Wellington, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the intended recipient. The material in it reflects WSP s best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This limitations statement is considered part of this report. B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page i

11

12 P R O D U C T I O N T E A M Client Project Manager Mark Eby WSP Manager Project Manager EIT Structural Project Manager Proof (non-technical) / format Isabelle Hemmings Bryan Orendorff Mahdi Esmaeili Chris Middleton Melinda Nowak B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page iii

13

14 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Site Description Hydrologic Assessment Hydrologic Model Hydraulic Assessment Hydraulic Performance Standards Design Storm Top of Road Freeboard Relief Flow Clearance (Bridges) Temporary Works Summary of Performance Standards Model Preparation Existing Conditions Assessment Proposed Conditions Assessment Conclusions B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page v

15 Tables Table 3-1 Peak Flow Comparison... 4 Table 4-1 MTO Drainage Design Standards... 7 Table 4-2 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary Existing Conditions... 8 Table 4-3 Hydraulic Performance Summary Existing Conditions... 8 Table 4-4 Flood Elevation Comparison Preferred Alternative Table 4-5 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary Table 4-6 Hydraulic Performance Summary Appendices Exhibits A SWMHYMO Input and Summary Output B HEC-RAS Input (Cross-Sections and Longitudinal Profile) C HEC-RAS Output Exiting Condition D HEC-RAS Output Proposed Condition WSP 14 July 2017 Page vi B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road Project No. 16M County of Wellington

16 1 Introduction WSP was retained by the County of Wellington to undertake the design services for the replacement of the Gordonville Bridge (B014005) on Wellington Road 14. The location of the site is shown on Exhibit 1. As part of this project, a hydrologic and hydraulic assessment was completed for the existing structure and the proposed replacement structure. This Hydrology and Hydraulics Report outlines the required performance standards, documents design flows, and details the development of the hydrologic methodology and hydraulic model used to evaluate the existing structure and proposed replacement. B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page 1

17 2 Site Description The B structure is located on Wellington Road 14 in the community of Gordonville and crosses over Four Mile Creek. The structure crossing is within the jurisdiction of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). A site investigation was undertaken on May 6, 2017 to document site conditions and photograph the existing structure. Observations indicate the stream banks are generally in good condition. One span has been observed to be generally dry during normal flows and the other span carries the majority of the lower flows. Two major storm events have occurred at the site in the last 30 years and the flood waters during those major events has been observed to be in contact with the underside of the bridge. Refer to Exhibit 4 for the photo inventory. Constructed in 1919, the Gordonville Bridge is a two span concrete T-Beam structure with a concrete deck. The bridge has two m spans and an overall deck width of 9.6 m. As part of a bridge inspection conducted in 2015, the bridge structure was found to be in an advanced state of deterioration. WSP 14 July 2017 Page 2 B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road Project No. 16M County of Wellington

18 3 Hydrologic Assessment The Four Mile Creek flows under Wellington Road 14 from east to west ultimately outletting into the Grand River at Conestogo. The drainage boundary contributing to the culvert is approximately 54.2 km 2, which was delineated using OBM contours. The watershed consists primarily of agricultural lands with some isolated patches of treed areas and rural residential properties. The existing drainage catchment to B is presented on Exhibit 2. According to Design Chart 1.02 of the MTO Drainage Management Manual, the site is located in Zone 1 and therefore Hurricane Hazel was used as the Regulatory Storm. 3.1 Hydrologic Model The design flows were generated using a comparison of four different methods, including: 1 The Modified Index Flood Method (MIFM) 2 Flood Frequency Analysis (FFA) 3 The Unified Ontario Flood Method (UOFM) 4 SWMHYMO, an event-based model The MFIM as described in the MTO Drainage Management Manual is also a regional frequency analysis method and is applicable for large watersheds. SWMHYMO is an eventbased model widely used to determine runoff characteristics for rural and urban watersheds. This model was also used to generate the peak flow resulting from the Hazel (Regional) Storm event. The FFA uses the GRCA s FFA fitted curve and is referenced to the Conestogo River above Drayton which has a drainage area of 272km 2. Using this method, flows are generated at Drayton using unit flow rates (in m 3 /s/km 2 ) obtained from the GRCA and then linearly interpolated to the smaller drainage area at Gordonville. A new regression method, the UOFM, has been developed for the calculation of the design flow rates in Ontario by the Ministry of Transportation. The design flows represent the peak flow estimates (flood quantiles) of various return periods for bridges and culverts, at stream and river crossings. This method uses mean annual precipitation, drainage area and lake attenuation index to generate peak flows. The UOFM method gives three sets of flow values upper limit, mean quantile and lower limit. According to UOFM guideline: If the flow value from the UOFM is higher than any other applicable methods, then the UOFM mean quantile values for the different return periods shall be applied in design If the flow value from UOFM is lower than any other applicable methods, then the value at the upper limit of the range shall be applied in design The SCS 12-hour, AES 12-hour and SCS 24-hour storm distributions were used to determine the flows at the crossing using SWMHYMO modelling. These storm distributions represent long duration, high volume rainfall events. The parameters used in the hydrologic modelling include the Curve Number (CN), Initial Abstraction (Ia), and the Time to Peak (Tp). The SCS B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page 3

19 Upland Method, SCS Curve Number Method and the Airport Method were used and the results averaged to calculate the Tp. For the catchment, modelling parameters were selected based on soil type, land use and topography. The parameters were then calibrated to the hydrologic method selected for the analysis to determine the Regional flow. The summary of peak flows is summarized in Table 3-1. The hydrologic modelling files are provided in Appendix A. As the FFA method yielded the highest flows, it was carried forward in the analysis. Table 3-1 Calculation Method Peak Flow Comparison Return Period Flow (m 3 /s) 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Regional FFA SWMHYMO * MIFM UOFM OFAT *This value is calibrated WSP 14 July 2017 Page 4 B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road Project No. 16M County of Wellington

20 4 Hydraulic Assessment The hydraulic assessment was completed using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model which was compiled based on a detailed cross section and structure survey upstream and downstream of B The HEC-RAS model is used to generate flood elevations and determine the hydraulic performance of the existing structure and assess the proposed replacement structure. 4.1 Hydraulic Performance Standards The following hydrologic and hydraulic performance standards were identified to evaluate the performance of the existing structure as well as proposed replacement and temporary works options: Design storms used to calculate flood elevations Minimum and desired top of road freeboard Minimum soffit clearance Maximum depth of relief flow over the road Maximum product of depth and velocity of relief flow over the road Allowable increase in flood elevation upstream of the structure Temporary works during construction The replacement of the Gordonville Bridge B structure is not a Ministry of Transportation (MTO) project; however, the performance standards used in this study are based on the MTO Highway Drainage Design Standards (HDDS) (January 2008). The MTO standards were used since they incorporate much of the standards for watercourse crossings from the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Design Storm In accordance with the requirements of the MTO HDDS WC-1, a new structure with a span greater than 6.0 m on a Rural Arterial or Collector roadway should be designed to convey a minimum of the 50-year design storm Top of Road Freeboard The MTO HDDS WC-7 recommends a minimum freeboard of 1.0 m measured vertically from the design flow hydraulic grade line elevation to the edge of the travelled lane. The desirable freeboard is 1.0 m measured vertically from the energy grade line elevation for the design flow. These freeboards are recommended values. It is recognized that due to site-specific considerations it is not always feasible to meet this objective. B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page 5

21 4.1.3 Relief Flow According to the MTO HDDS WC-13 design of a water crossing shall incorporate passage of the Relief Flow over the Roadway in cases where the Regulatory Flow exceeds the Design Flow of the bridge or the culvert Relief flow over the roadway. The standard recommends that if the Regulatory Storm overtops the road, two parameters shall not be exceeded: The maximum depth of flow on the roadway should not exceed 0.3 metres The product of the velocity and depth on the roadway shall not exceed 0.8 m 2 /s Clearance (Bridges) As per MTO HDDS WC-2, the minimum clearance for bridges with a straight soffit shall be 1.0 metres Temporary Works The MTO HDDS TW-1 identifies the return period required for the sizing of temporary flow passage systems during construction. The return period is selected based on the duration of construction and potential consequences (low, medium or high) in terms of public safety, traffic delays, property damage due to flooding, and environmental impacts. The worst case impact from the four categories shall be used to select the return period that shall guide design. Assuming a construction period of up to 4 months (to meet the July - September construction window due to the fish species present) and a medium consequence of capacity exceedance, the 5-year design storm event will be used for temporary works sizing for this project Summary of Performance Standards Table 4-1 provides a summary of the MTO Drainage Design Standards applied to this assessment. 4.2 Model Preparation A hydraulic model did not exist for the watercourse at the site location; therefore, an existing conditions model was created based on field survey data. The topographic survey and watercourse survey were completed by WSP in March Exhibit 3 illustrates the locations of HEC-RAS surveyed cross-sections for the watercourse. Graphical representations of the cross-sections and longitudinal profile of the channel is provided in Appendix B. A boundary condition must be established for each hydraulic model. Boundary conditions are required to perform steady flow calculations and to establish the starting water surface at the upstream and downstream limits of a river system. Ideally, a HEC-RAS model should originate far enough downstream so that it accounts for any downstream influence on upstream water levels. For this analysis a normal depth based on survey information (i.e. slope and nearest cross-section) was used as the downstream boundary condition. WSP 14 July 2017 Page 6 B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road Project No. 16M County of Wellington

22 Table 4-1 MTO Drainage Design Standards Item Design Standard Description Standard Section 1 Design Flow Storm 50-Year WC Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) 3 Top of Road Freeboard (Desired) 4 Relief Flow (Max. Depth over roadway) 5 Relief Flow (Velocity x Depth) 6 Soffit Clearance >1.0 m (Design Flow Water Surface Elevation top of road low point) >1.0 m (Design Flow Energy Grade Line Elevation top of road low point) Max. depth over roadway should not exceed 0.3 m for Regulatory Storm Velocity x Depth should not exceed 0.8 m 2 /s for Regulatory Storm Design Flow Water Surface Elevation Soffit Elevation 1.0 m WC WC WC WC WC Existing Conditions Assessment The 2-year through 100-year as well as the Regulatory Storm events were analysed in HEC- RAS; the 50-year storm event is the design storm for the structure replacement. The existing top of road freeboard, flood depth, and other hydraulic performance parameters as they pertain to the MTO HDDS are identified in Table 4-2. Table 4-3 illustrates whether the existing structure meets current hydraulic standards. Refer to Appendix C for the existing condition HEC-RAS output. B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page 7

23 Table 4-2 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary Existing Conditions Description 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50- Year 100- Year Regional Water Surface Elevation Energy Grade Line Elevation Top of Road (Low Point) (2+4) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) (3) Top of Road Freeboard (Desired) Top of Road Velocity (5) Top of Road Velocity x Depth Soffit Elevation (Upstream) (6) Soffit Clearance Table 4-3 Hydraulic Performance Summary Existing Conditions Criteria Description Criteria Storm Event Meets Criteria (Yes or No) (2) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) 50-Year Yes (3) Topof Road Freeboard (Desired) 50-Year Yes (4) Relief Flow (Max. Depth over roadway) Regional No (5) Relief Flow (Velocity x Depth) Regional Yes (6) Soffit Clearance 50-Year No As summarized in Table 4-3, the existing structure fails to meet the relief flow and soffit clearance criteria, but does meet the freeboard criteria. In addition, the modelled soffit clearances (i.e. no clearance in about the 15-year flood) are consistent with the historical site observations Proposed Conditions Assessment The following alternatives were developed for the replacement of the existing culvert: WSP 14 July 2017 Page 8 B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road Project No. 16M County of Wellington

24 1 A single 25 m span 2 A two span option with 14 m and 12 m spans 3 A variation on Option 2 using a different structural configuration but the same spans. Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred alternative. Tables 4-4 through 4-6 summarize the hydraulic performance of the preferred alternative. Table 4-4 compares the flood elevations for the preferred alternative to those of existing condition. Table 4-5 summarizes the top of road freeboard and other hydraulic performance criteria for the preferred alternative, as they pertain to the MTO Design Standards identified in Table 4-1 in Section Table 4-6 indicates whether the preferred alternative meets current hydraulic standards. The hydraulic model output files for the preferred alternative are included in Appendix D. B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page 9

25 Table 4-4 Section Number Flood Elevation Comparison Preferred Alternative 2-Year 25-Year 100-Year Regional Ex. Prop. Diff. Ex. Prop. Diff. Ex. Prop. Diff. Ex. Prop. Diff Gordonville Bridge WSP B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 July 2017 Project No. 16M Page 10 County of Wellington

26 Table 4-5 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary Description 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50- Year 100- Year Regional Water Surface Elevation Energy Grade Line Elevation Top of Road (Low Point) (2+4) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) (3) Top of Road Freeboard (Desired) Top of Road Velocity (5) Top of Road Velocity x Depth Soffit Elevation (Upstream) (6) Soffit Clearance (7) Max. Increase upstream of structure Table 4-6 Hydraulic Performance Summary Criteria Description Criteria Storm Event Meets Criteria (Yes or No) (2) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) 50-Year Yes (3) Topof Road Freeboard (Desired) 50-Year Yes (4) Relief Flow (Max. Depth over roadway) Regional Yes (5) Relief Flow (Velocity x Depth) Regional Yes (6) Soffit Clearance 50-Year No (7) Max. Increase upstream of structure Regional No As summarized in Table 4-6, the preferred alternative meets all the applicable design standards except for maintaining the HGL upstream of the structure during the Regulatory Storm and meeting the soffit clearance. The Regional Storm increase is 0.32 m, which is significant, but located only on the upstream side of the structure. This increase is due to the B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page 11

27 raise in the road profile at the bridge. Rather than significantly overtop the road during the Regional Storm, the raised roadway blocks more flow but allows the road to be used as a viable emergency route during such a large storm. During the 100-year storm, there is no increase in water surface elevation. Similarly, while the soffit clearance criterion is not met, it is improved by 0.78m. This improvement is significant in terms of the safety of the bridge. The only reasonable way to ensure the soffit clearance is met is to increase the grade of the road even further which would also cause the Regional Storm elevation to increase. The preferred alternative is therefore a reasonable compromise between the two criteria. The bridge as a whole is proposed to be significantly improved with respect to hydraulic performance. Deficiencies are proposed to remain, but be significantly reduced, as addressing one deficiency generally means exacerbating the other. WSP 14 July 2017 Page 12 B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road Project No. 16M County of Wellington

28 5 Conclusions The existing Gordonville Bridge structure B Bridge is a two span concrete T-Beam structure with a concrete deck. The bridge has two m spans and an overall deck width of 9.6 m. Four Mile Creek flows from east to west across Wellington Road 14. A hydrologic analysis was completed to determine the peak flows. The following summarizes the steps involved. Delineated the catchment area drainage to the crossing and determined catchment slopes and flow lengths using 1:10,000 Ontario Base Mapping Defined land use characteristics using aerial photography Defined the hydrologic soil characteristics using the Soil Map of Wellington County Report No. 35 of the Ontario Soil Survey Developed a SWMHYMO model to generate peak flows for the design storms as well as the Regional Storm event. Multiple different hydrologic methods were compared to determine the most applicable peak flows. The 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year design flows. Flood Frequency Analysis based on the GRCA s FFA fitted curve were determined to be the design flows. The SWMHYMO model was calibrated to the FFA flows to generate the Regional Storm flow. The results of the hydraulic assessment indicate that the existing condition fails to meet the relief flow and soffit clearance criteria, but does meet the freeboard criteria. Three structure replacement alternatives were assessed: 1 A single 25 m span 2 A two span option with 14 m and 12 m spans 3 A variation on Option 2 using a different structural configuration but the same spans. Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred alternative. The results of the hydraulic assessment indicate that the preferred alternative meets all the applicable design standards except for maintaining the HGL upstream of the structure during the Regulatory Storm and meeting the soffit clearance. The preferred alternative is a reasonable compromise between the two deficiencies, which are directly opposed to one another. The bridge as a whole is proposed to be significantly improved with respect to hydraulic performance. B Replacement of Gordonville Bridge - Wellington Road 14 WSP Project No. 16M July 2017 County of Wellington Page 13

29

30 Exhibits

31 COUNTY ROAD 14 GORDONVILLE BRIDGE ARTHUR HIGHWAY 6 8th LINE SIDE ROAD 7 STUDY AREA GORDONVILLE BRIDGE COUNTY ROAD 16 LUTHER LAKE GRAND VALLEY EXHIBIT 1

32 8th L INE OAD 3 SIDE R GORDONVILLE BRIDGE INE 6th L D 16 Y ROA COUNT OAD 7 SIDE R COUNT D 14 Y ROA LEGEND: CATCHMENT BOUNDARY C ha CATCHMENT No. CATCHMENT AREA DIRECTION OF FLOW EXISTING DRAINAGE MOSAIC GORDONVILLE BRIDGE EXHIBIT 2

33 COUNTY ROAD LEGEND: HEC-RAS SECTION HEC-RAS SECTION ID DIRECTION OF FLOW HEC-RAS SECTION LOCATIONS GORDONVILLE BRIDGE EXHIBIT 3

34 DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF BRIDGE LOOKING UPSTREAM UPSTREAM SIDE OF BRIDGE LOOKING DOWNSTREAM PHOTO INVENTORY GORDONVILLE BRIDGE EXHIBIT 4

35 APPENDIX A SWMHYMO Input and Summary Output

36 Ex.dat 2 Metric units *#****************************************************************************** *# Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] *# Date : *# Modeller : [klm] *# Company : MMM Group, a WSP company *# License # : *#****************************************************************************** START TZERO=[0.0], METOUT=[2], NSTORM=[1], NRUN=[002] ["002SCS24.stm"] READ STORM STORM_FILENAME "STORM.001" *% CALIB NASHYD ID=[1], NHYD=["101"], DT=[5]min, Area=[5422.4](ha), DWF=[0](cms), CN/C=[76], IA=[7] (mm), N=[3], TP=[5.5]hrs, END=-1 *% START TZERO=[0.0], METOUT=[0], NSTORM=[1], NRUN=[005] * ["005SCS24.stm"] START TZERO=[0.0], METOUT=[0], NSTORM=[1], NRUN=[010] * ["010SCS24.stm"] START TZERO=[0.0], METOUT=[0], NSTORM=[1], NRUN=[025] * ["025SCS24.stm"] START TZERO=[0.0], METOUT=[0], NSTORM=[1], NRUN=[050] * ["050SCS24.stm"] START TZERO=[0.0], METOUT=[0], NSTORM=[1], NRUN=[100] * ["100SCS24.stm"] START TZERO=[0.0], METOUT=[0], NSTORM=[1], NRUN=[200Haz] * ["hzl48.stm"] FINISH Page 1

37 Ex.sum ================================================================================= SSSSS W W M M H H Y Y M M OOO ========= S W W W MM MM H H Y Y MM MM O O SSSSS W W W M M M HHHHH Y M M M O O ## Ver 4.05 S W W M M H H Y M M O O Sept 2011 SSSSS W W M M H H Y M M OOO 9 9 ========= # StormWater Management HYdrologic Model ========= ******************************************************************************* ***************************** SWMHYMO Ver/4.05 ****************************** ********* A single event and continuous hydrologic simulation model ********* ********* based on the principles of HYMO and its successors ********* ********* OTTHYMO-83 and OTTHYMO-89. ********* ******************************************************************************* ********* Distributed by: J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc. ********* ********* Ottawa, Ontario: (613) ********* ********* Gatineau, Quebec: (819) ********* ********* swmhymo@jfsa.com ********* ******************************************************************************* Licensed user: McCormick Rankin Corporation Kitchener SERIAL#: ******************************************************************************* ********* PROGRAM ARRAY DIMENSIONS ********* ********* Maximum value for ID numbers : 10 ********* ********* Max. number of rainfall points: ********* ********* Max. number of flow points : ********* ******************************************************************************* ***** DESCRIPTION SUMMARY TABLE HEADERS (units depend on METOUT in START) ***** ***** ***** ***** ID: Hydrograph IDentification numbers, (1-10). ***** ***** NHYD: Hydrograph reference numbers, (6 digits or characters). ***** ***** AREA: Drainage area associated with hydrograph, (ac.) or (ha.). ***** ***** QPEAK: Peak flow of simulated hydrograph, (ft^3/s) or (m^3/s). ***** ***** TpeakDate_hh:mm is the date and time of the peak flow. ***** ***** R.V.: Runoff Volume of simulated hydrograph, (in) or (mm). ***** ***** R.C.: Runoff Coefficient of simulated hydrograph, (ratio). ***** ***** *: see WARNING or NOTE message printed at end of run. ***** ***** **: see ERROR message printed at end of run. ***** ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ******************************************************************************* *********************** S U M M A R Y O U T P U T *********************** ******************************************************************************* * DATE: TIME: 16:17:24 RUN COUNTER: * ******************************************************************************* * Input filename: C:\SWMHYMO\ \FFA\Ex.dat * * Output filename: C:\SWMHYMO\ \FFA\Ex.out * * Summary filename: C:\SWMHYMO\ \FFA\Ex.sum * * User comments: * * 1: * * 2: * * 3: * Page 1

38 Ex.sum ******************************************************************************* #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** ** END OF RUN : 1 ******************************************************************************* RUN:COMMAND# 002: START [TZERO =.00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 2 ] #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** 002: READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 24.00:PTOT= 55.61] 002: ID:NHYD AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01: No_date 18: [CN= 76.0: N= 3.00] [Tp= 5.50:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 4 ******************************************************************************* RUN:COMMAND# 005: START [TZERO =.00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 5 ] #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : Page 2

39 Ex.sum # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** 005: READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 24.00:PTOT= 76.10] 005: ID:NHYD AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01: No_date 18: [CN= 76.0: N= 3.00] [Tp= 5.50:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 9 ******************************************************************************* RUN:COMMAND# 010: START [TZERO =.00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 10 ] #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** 010: READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 24.00:PTOT= 89.08] 010: ID:NHYD AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01: No_date 18: [CN= 76.0: N= 3.00] [Tp= 5.50:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 24 ******************************************************************************* RUN:COMMAND# 025: START [TZERO =.00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] Page 3

40 Ex.sum [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 25 ] #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** 025: READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 24.00:PTOT= ] 025: ID:NHYD AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01: No_date 18: [CN= 76.0: N= 3.00] [Tp= 5.50:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 49 ******************************************************************************* RUN:COMMAND# 050: START [TZERO =.00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 50 ] #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** 050: READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 24.00:PTOT= ] 050: ID:NHYD AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01: No_date 18: [CN= 76.0: N= 3.00] [Tp= 5.50:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 99 ******************************************************************************* RUN:COMMAND# Page 4

41 Ex.sum 100: START [TZERO =.00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 100 ] #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** 100: READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 24.00:PTOT= ] 100: ID:NHYD AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01: No_date 18: [CN= 76.0: N= 3.00] [Tp= 5.50:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 199 ******************************************************************************* RUN:COMMAND# 200: START [TZERO =.00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 200 ] #****************************************************************************** # Project Name: [Gordonville Bridge] Project Number: [ ] # Date : # Modeller : [klm] # Company : MMM Group, a WSP company # License # : #****************************************************************************** 200: READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=60.00:SDUR= 48.00:PTOT= ] 200: ID:NHYD AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01: No_date 50: [CN= 76.0: N= 3.00] [Tp= 5.50:DT= 5.00] 200: FINISH Page 5

42 Ex.sum - ************************************************************************************ * WARNINGS / ERRORS / NOTES Simulation ended on at 16:17:25 ==================================================================================== = Page 6

43 Watershed Type: Southern Watershed Area (A): 54 km 2 Flow Calculations Using the Modified Index Flood Method Gordonville Bridge Main Channel Length: m Main Channel Length at 85% of Length: m Main Channel Invert at 85% of Length: m Main Channel Length at 10% of Length: 1200 m Main Channel Invert at 10% of Length: m Main Channel Rise: 20.0 m Main Channel Run: 9000 m Watershed Slope: 0.2% 85/10 Method Watershed Storage Area (Ad): 2.02 km 2 Storage(Ad/A): 4% CN Number: 76 Watershed Base Class: 8.9 (Design Chart 1.15 or 1.17) MTO Drainage Manual (1995) Slope Adjustment: -0.5 (Design Chart 1.18) MTO Drainage Manual (1995) Storage Adjustment: -0.5 (Design Chart 1.19) MTO Drainage Manual (1995) Net Watershed Class: 7.9 NetClass = BaseClass + SlopeAdj. + StorageAdj. Class Coeff. (C.C.): 1.77 (Design Chart 1.15) MTO Drainage Manual (1995) 2-yr Storm: 18.1 m 3 /s Using Best Curve Fit Frequency Conv. Factor 2.33-yr Storm: 0.54 Q 2.33 =Q 25 x C.F.= 19.0 m 3 /s (Design Chart H5-9) MTO Drainage Manual (1984) Frequency Conv. Factor 5-yr Storm: 0.67 Q 5 =Q 25 x C.F.= 23.6 m 3 /s (Design Chart H5-9) MTO Drainage Manual (1984) Frequency Conv. Factor 10-yr Storm: 0.82 Q 10 =Q 25 x C.F.= 28.9 m 3 /s (Design Chart H5-9) MTO Drainage Manual (1984) Frequency Conv. Factor 25-yr Storm: 1 Q 25 =C.C. x Area 0.75 = 35.3 m 3 /s 25-yr Storm Frequency Conv. Factor 50-yr Storm: 1.13 Q 50 =Q 25 x C.F.= 39.8 m 3 /s (Design Chart H5-9) MTO Drainage Manual (1984) Frequency Conv. Factor 100-yr Storm: 1.27 Q 100 =Q 25 x C.F.= 44.8 m3 /s (Design Chart H5-9) MTO Drainage Manual (1984) yr Storm: 10-yr Storm: 100-yr Storm:

44 Unified Ontario Flood Method Flows for Mixed Wood Plains Return period (years) Lower Limit of QUOFM (m3/s) = QUOFM (m3/s) = Upper Limit of QUOFM (m3/s) =

45 APPENDIX B HEC-RAS Input (Cross- Sections and Longitudinal Profile)

46 472 Gordonville Bridge Plan: Ex_Plan 10/20/2017 Gordonville Bridge Upstream End Legend EG Reg WS Reg EG 100-yr WS 100-yr Elevation (m) EG 50-yr WS 50-yr EG 25-yr WS 25-yr Crit Reg EG 10-yr WS 10-yr EG 5-yr WS 5-yr EG 2-yr WS 2-yr Crit 100-yr Crit 50-yr Crit 25-yr Crit 10-yr Crit 5-yr Crit 2-yr EG ObsFlow WS ObsFlow Crit ObsFlow Ground Ineff Bank Sta Station (m)

47 468 Gordonville Bridge Plan: Ex_Plan 10/20/2017 FourMileCk Main Legend EG Reg WS Reg EG 100-yr Elevation (m) WS 100-yr Crit Reg EG 50-yr WS 50-yr EG 25-yr WS 25-yr EG 10-yr WS 10-yr EG 5-yr WS 5-yr Crit 100-yr EG 2-yr WS 2-yr Crit 50-yr Crit 25-yr Crit 10-yr Crit 5-yr Crit 2-yr EG ObsFlow WS ObsFlow Crit ObsFlow Ground Main Channel Distance (m)

48 472 Gordonville Bridge Plan: Propcon1_Plan 10/20/2017 Gordonville Bridge Upstream End Legend EG Reg WS Reg EG 100-yr WS 100-yr Elevation (m) EG 50-yr WS 50-yr EG 25-yr WS 25-yr Crit Reg EG 10-yr WS 10-yr EG 5-yr WS 5-yr EG 2-yr WS 2-yr Crit 100-yr Crit 50-yr Crit 25-yr Crit 10-yr Crit 5-yr Crit 2-yr EG ObsFlow WS ObsFlow Crit ObsFlow Ground Ineff Bank Sta Station (m)

49 468 Gordonville Bridge Plan: Propcon1_Plan 10/20/2017 FourMileCk Main Legend EG Reg WS Reg EG 100-yr Elevation (m) WS 100-yr Crit Reg EG 50-yr WS 50-yr EG 25-yr WS 25-yr EG 10-yr WS 10-yr EG 5-yr WS 5-yr Crit 100-yr EG 2-yr WS 2-yr Crit 50-yr Crit 25-yr Crit 10-yr Crit 5-yr Crit 2-yr EG ObsFlow WS ObsFlow Crit ObsFlow Ground Main Channel Distance (m)

50 APPENDIX C HEC-RAS Output Exiting Condition

51 HEC-RAS Plan: Ex_Plan River: FourMileCk Reach: Main Reach 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 (m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m) Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main Bridge Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow

52 APPENDIX D HEC-RAS Output Proposed Condition

53 HEC-RAS Plan: Propcon1_Plan River: FourMileCk Reach: Main Reach 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 (m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m) Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main 740 Bridge Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main yr Main Reg Main ObsFlow