draft location hydraulics report€¦ · there are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the...

August 2018

Draft Location Hydraulics Report

DRAFT

Location Hydraulics Report

Harborview Road

Project Development and Environment Study

from Melbourne Road to I-75 Charlotte County, Florida Federal Project ID: 434965-1-22-01

Federal Aid Project Number: D117-053-B ETDM Number: 5351

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal

environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by FDOT

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 14,

2016 and executed by FHWA and FDOT.

Florida Department of Transportation

District One

Prepared By:

Patel, Greene and Associates

Winter Park, Florida

August 2018

E-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and

Environment (PD&E) study to evaluate the proposed widening of Harborview Road (CR 776) from

Melbourne Street to west of I-75 in Charlotte County. The purpose of this PD&E study is to

evaluate engineering and environmental data and document information that will aid Charlotte

County, FDOT, and the Office of Environmental Management (OEM) in determining the location,

type, and preliminary design of the proposed improvements. The total project length is 2.3 miles.

Harborview Road is classified as an urban minor arterial from Melbourne Street to west of I-75,

and the existing right-of-way width is 80 feet for the majority of the project limits. Harborview Road

is a two-lane undivided roadway with 12-foot travel lanes, no paved shoulders, and an open

drainage system. The proposed typical section includes four 11-foot travel lanes, curb and gutter,

and a 30-foot grassed median. Six-foot sidewalks and seven-foot buffered bicycle lanes will

accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the corridor. A total of 114 feet of right-of-way

is needed to accommodate the proposed improvements. The design speed for this urban typical

section is 45 mph.

The project does not encroach into a regulatory floodway. The majority of the project is located

within Zone AE and Zone VE. Since all Zone AE and Zone VE floodplains within the project limits

are tidal, floodplain compensation is not required. During final design, the cross drain extensions

shall be analyzed for encroachment on the riverine floodplain, which will need to be determined

independent of the tidal floodplains shown on the FEMA FIRMs. If the condition of the cross drain

requires that it be replaced, the cross drain facilities will be designed in accordance with FDOT

Drainage Manual, Topic No. 625-040-002.

Replacement drainage structures for this project are limited to hydraulically equivalent structures.

The limitations to the hydraulic equivalency being proposed are basically due to restrictions

imposed by the geometrics of design, existing development, cost feasibility, or practicability. An

alternative encroachment location is not considered in this category since it defeats the project

purpose or is economically unfeasible. Since flooding conditions in the project area are inherent

in the topography or are a result of other outside contributing sources, and there is no practical

alternative to totally eradicate flood impacts or even reduce them in any significant amount,

existing flooding will continue, but not be increased.

The proposed structures will be hydraulically equivalent to or greater than the existing structures,

and backwater surface elevations are not expected to increase. Thus, the project will not affect

existing flood heights or floodplain limits. There will be no significant change in the potential for

interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, it

has been determined that this encroachment is not significant.

Location Hydraulics Report Harborview Road PD&E Study August 2018 i FPID: 434965-1-22-01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Executive Summary 1

Table of Contents i

List of Figures ii

List of Tables ii

List of Appendices ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-3

1.1 Datum 1-4

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-5

2.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics 2-5

2.2 Proposed Roadway Characteristics 2-5

3.0 LOCATION HYDRAULICS 3-1

3.1 Purpose 3-1

3.2 Data Collection 3-1

3.3 Floodplains 3-1

3.4 Hydrology 3-1

3.5 Hydraulic Analysis 3-3

4.0 RISK ASSESMENT 4-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Location Hydraulics Report Harborview Road PD&E Study August 2018 ii FPID: 434965-1-22-01

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Project Location Map ............................................................................................ 1-3

Figure 2.1: Proposed Typical Section ...................................................................................... 2-5

Figure 3.1: Existing Cross Drains………………………………………………………………….....3-2

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Drainage Sub-Basin Limits ..................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3.2: Existing Cross Drain Parameters ............................................................................ 3-3

Table 3.3: 100-Year HW Elevations ........................................................................................ 3-3

List of Appendices

Appendix A VERTCON Datum Conversion

Appendix B FEMA FIRMs

Appendix C SWFWMD Pre-Application Meeting Minutes

Appendix D Field Review Documentation

Appendix E Cross Drain Calculations

Location Hydraulics Report Harborview Road PD&E Study August 2018 1-3 FPID: 434965-1-22-01

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and

Environment (PD&E) study to evaluate the proposed widening of Harborview Road (CR 776) from

Melbourne Street to west of I-75 in Charlotte County. The purpose of this PD&E study is to

evaluate engineering and environmental data and document information that will aid Charlotte

County, FDOT, and the Office of Environmental Management (OEM) in determining the type,

preliminary design, and location of the proposed improvements. The study was conducted to meet

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other related federal and

state laws, rules, and regulations.

The project is located within Section 25, Township 40S, Range 22E and Sections 20, 29, and 30,

Township 40S, Range 23E. The project limits are shown in Figure 1.1, and the total project length

is approximately 2.3 miles.

Figure 1.1: Project Location Map


1.1 Datum

The vertical datum used for this study is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

To convert from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) to NAVD 88, subtract

1.13 feet. Please refer to Appendix A for the VERTCON datum conversion.


2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics

Harborview Road is classified as an urban minor arterial from Melbourne Street to west of I-75,

and the existing right-of-way width is 80 feet for the majority of the project limits. Harborview Road

is a two-lane undivided roadway with 12-foot travel lanes, no paved shoulders, and an open

drainage system. There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the project limits, except for

sidewalks from Melbourne Street to east of Rolls Landing. The posted speed limit is 45 mph, but

is reduced to 35 mph within the three horizontal curves.

2.2 Proposed Roadway Characteristics

The proposed typical section includes four 11-foot travel lanes, curb and gutter, and a 30-foot

grassed median. Six-foot sidewalks and seven-foot buffered bicycle lanes will accommodate

pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the corridor. A total of 114 feet of right-of-way is needed to

accommodate the proposed improvements. The proposed typical section is shown in Figure 2.1.

The design speed for this urban typical section is 45 mph.

Figure 2.1: Proposed Typical Section

The optimized alignment alternative involves constructing four new travel lanes, without saving

the existing pavement. The optimized alignment shifts north or south of the existing roadway to

minimize residential relocations.


3.0 LOCATION HYDRAULICS

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Location Hydraulics Report (LHR) is to address the potential 100-year (base)

floodplain encroachments resulting from the proposed improvements to Harborview Road. In

accordance with 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 650 Subpart A, Section 650.111,

floodplains are to be protected. The intent of these regulations is to avoid possible long- and short-

term adverse impacts associated with the modification of floodplains as a result of development.

3.2 Data Collection

The calculations provided in this report were completed with the best available information. The

scope for the PD&E did not include survey. Furthermore, the existing plans for Harborview could

not be located, with the exception of the portion of the roadway between Melbourne Street and

Cortez Drive. Charlotte County GIS contour data was used to estimate existing ground

elevations. Aerials were used to estimate the pipe lengths. To obtain approximate pipe diameters

and invert elevations, hand measurements were taken during a field review conducted on

December 4, 2017. Please refer to Appendix D for the field review documentation. Given the

lack of survey, the flood data provided in this report is preliminary.

3.3 Floodplains

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel

Nos. 12015C0231F, 12015C0232F, and 12015C0233F (included in Appendix B) for Charlotte

County were used to identify potential floodplain and floodway encroachments. The effective date

of these maps is May 5, 2003. The project does not encroach into a regulatory floodway. The

majority of the project is located within Zone AE and Zone VE. Zone AE is defined as an area

subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood), for which a base flood

elevation (BFE) has been determined. Zone VE is defined as a coastal flood zone with velocity

hazard (wave action), for which a BFE has been determined. Since all Zone AE and Zone VE

floodplains within the project limits are tidal, floodplain compensation is not required. Please refer

to Appendix C for SWFWMD’s confirmation of this approach in the Pre-Application Meeting

Minutes.

During final design, the cross drain extensions shall be analyzed for encroachment on the riverine

floodplain, which will need to be determined independent of the tidal floodplains shown on the

FEMA FIRMs.

3.4 Hydrology

In the existing conditions, the majority of Harborview Road has a rural typical section where

roadway stormwater runs off to roadside swales and is conveyed to existing cross drains. Within

SECTION 3.0 LOCATION HYDRAULICS


the project limits, there are six drainage sub-basins which outfall to five existing cross drains. The

final outfall for the project area is Peace River. Refer to Table 3.1 for the basin limits and cross

drain locations. Refer to Figure 3.1 for the cross drain locations.

Table 3.1: Drainage Sub-Basin Limits

Sub-

Basin Limits Cross Drain Location

1 From Melbourne Street to 75-feet west of Cortez Drive

CD-1 West of Cortez Drive

2 From 75 feet west of Cortez Drive to 215 feet west of Laverne Street

CD-2 East of Deleon Drive

3 From 215 feet west of Laverne Street to approximately 160 feet west of Date Street

CD-3 West of Mary Lu Park

4 From 160 feet west of Date Street to the cross drain east of Purdy Drive

CD-4 East of Purdy Drive

5 From the cross drain east of Purdy Drive to approximately 575 feet east of Danforth Drive.

6 From 575 feet east of Danforth Drive to the entrance of the Charlotte County East Port Environmental Campus

CD-5 East of Frontage Road

Figure 3.1: Existing Cross Drains

Harborview Road

Cross Drain



3.5 Hydraulic Analysis

A hydraulic analysis was conducted for the existing cross drains within the study corridor. Cross

drain calculations are based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hydraulic Design of

Highway Culverts.

This study proposes to widen the existing two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane roadway with

curb and gutter, six-foot sidewalks, and seven-foot buffered bicycle lanes. Due to the proposed

widening, cross drain extensions are anticipated. Table 3.2 summarizes the size and length of

the existing cross drains within the study limits, based on aerial images and hand measurements.

Table 3.2: Existing Cross Drain Parameters

Cross Drain Location Approximate Size Approximate Length

(ft)

CD-1 West of Cortez Drive 9’ x 4’ 106

CD-2 East of Deleon Drive 6’ x 5’ 43

CD-3 West of Mary Lu Park 2-30” 63

CD-4 East of Purdy Drive 10’ x 7’ 55

CD-5 East of Frontage Road 36” 91

Based on the proposed typical section, the roadway elements comprise 106 feet of the total 114-

foot right-of-way width. Accordingly, all cross drains within the corridor will need to be at least 106

feet long. CD-5, however, is skewed and will need to be longer than 106 feet to accommodate

the proposed widening. In the existing condition, CD-1 is 106 feet; therefore, it does not need to

be extended to accommodate the proposed improvements. The standard proposed 114-foot right-

of-way width may need to be increased at the cross drain locations to allow adequate space to

tie to existing ground.

The cross drains were analyzed to determine the effect the extensions would have on the head

waters. The 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year frequencies were analyzed. Discharges were estimated

per Chapter 4.7 (Method 1) of the FDOT Design Guide (2018), as the field review revealed no

signs of scour at the existing culverts. Table 3.3 provides the 100-year headwater (HW)

elevations for the existing and proposed cross drains. Please refer to Appendix E for the cross

drain calculations.

Table 3.3: 100-Year HW Elevations

Cross Drain Existing HW

Elevation (ft)

Proposed HW Elevation

(ft)

HW Elevation Difference

(ft)

CD-1 5.80 5.80 0.00

CD-2 6.45 6.64 0.19

CD-3 5.70 6.20 0.50

CD-4 8.50 8.90 0.40

CD-5 4.93 5.19 0.27



According to the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a rise within a floodplain must

be less than one foot. Given the Method 1 Analysis assumptions, the proposed cross drain

extensions will increase the 100-year HW elevations, as shown in Table 3.3.

Survey was not available for this study; therefore, the calculations were based on Charlotte

County GIS contour data and hand measurements from the field review. The final flood stages

will be determined in the design phase and will ensure that the proposed project improvements

will not have a significant increase to the riverine base flood elevations. Some structures may

need to be replaced to provide a hydraulically equivalent structure.


4.0 RISK ASSESMENT

The proposed improvements to Harborview Road were evaluated to determine whether there

would be adverse floodplain impacts. The cross drains will be reviewed again during the design

phase, once survey is available and a more accurate hydrologic method of analysis is utilized, to

determine the impact of the culvert extensions on the headwaters.

Replacement drainage structures for this project are limited to hydraulically equivalent structures.

The limitations to the hydraulic equivalency being proposed are basically due to restrictions

imposed by the geometrics of design, existing development, cost feasibility, or practicability. An

alternative encroachment location is not considered in this category since it defeats the project

purpose or is economically unfeasible. Since flooding conditions in the project area are inherent

in the topography or are a result of other outside contributing sources, and there is no practical

alternative to totally eradicate flood impacts or even reduce them in any significant amount,

existing flooding will continue, but not be increased.

The proposed structure will be hydraulically equivalent to or greater than the existing structure,

and backwater surface elevations are not expected to increase. Thus, the project will not affect

existing flood heights or floodplain limits. There will be no significant change in the potential for

interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, it

has been determined that this encroachment is not significant.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A VERTCON Datum Conversion

Questions concerning the VERTCON process may be mailed to NGS

Latitude: 26 58 18.11

Longitude: 082 02 29.22

NGVD 29 height: 0.00 ft

Datum shift(NAVD 88 minus NGVD 29): -1.129 feet

Converted to NAVD 88 height: -1.129 feet

Page 1 of 1

11/29/2017https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vert_con2.prl

Liz.Bartell

Typewritten Text

Note: Datum conversion taken at the intersection of Drance Street and Harborview Road.

APPENDIX B

Appendix B FEMA FIRMs

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Callout

Project Begins

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Line

stanley.jones

Callout

Project Ends

APPENDIX C

Appendix C SWFWMD Pre-Application Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes

Patel, Greene, and Associates, PLLC

400 W Morse Blvd, Suite 103 Winter Park, FL 32789 Office: (407) 720-7420

www.patelgreene.com

Project: FPID 434965-1-22-01 Description: Harborview Road (CR 776) from Melbourne Street to I-75 PD&E (Charlotte County) Meeting: SWFWMD Pre-application Meeting Date/Time: 09/06/17 @ 2:00 pm Location: SWFWMD Tampa Service Office Meeting Attendees: Dave Kramer (SWFWMD) Al Gagne (SWFWMD) Brent Setchell (FDOT) Nicole Monies (FDOT) Sergio Figueroa (FDOT) Liz Bartell (PGA) Sarah Johnson (KCA)

1. Background Liz introduced the PD&E Study limits, which include Harborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75. The proposed improvements include widening from two to four lanes, adding paved shoulders, adding bicycle lanes and sidewalks, improving bridges, and improving bus stops. Liz stated that six basins have been identified within the project limits, but the pond siting analysis will review the potential for combining basins to reduce the amount of right-of-way needed. All basins discharge to Charlotte Harbor. 2. Existing Permits Liz stated that there are no existing permits for the majority of Harborview Road within the project limits; however, there are two existing permits from Melbourne Street to Cortez Drive (SWFWMD Permit Nos. 12268.000 and 12226.001), as well as existing permits for some properties adjacent to Harborview Drive. 3. Water Quality Liz stated that the study will likely include wet detention ponds designed to treat 1” over the impervious area. Nutrient loading calculations will be necessary for WBID 2056E (Sunrise Waterways), so pre-treatment may be required. Dave clarified that the Peace River (east of US 41) is not an OFW in the area of this project. However, he stated that any discharge west of US 41 Tamiami Trail would be considered Charlotte Harbor which is an OFW. Liz stated that the existing permits for the adjacent properties will be reviewed for potential joint-use opportunities. She asked SWFWMD if they were aware of any regional opportunities within the area. Dave stated that he was not aware of any opportunities in the vicinity at this time, but that SWFWMD is open to the use of regional options. Dave and Brent suggested reviewing upstream areas for non-conventional stormwater management opportunities.

Meeting Minutes

Patel, Greene, and Associates, PLLC

400 W Morse Blvd, Suite 103 Winter Park, FL 32789 Office: (407) 720-7420

www.patelgreene.com

4. Water Quantity Liz confirmed that attenuation is not required due to the tidal influence at Charlotte Harbor. Dave clarified that attenuation for direct discharge to Charlotte Harbor is not required; however, attenuation will need to be provided for discharge to a closed collection system that eventually discharges to Charlotte Harbor. Discharge to the ditches/channels that directly discharge to the harbor will not require attenuation. 5. Floodplains Liz stated that the project is located in FEMA Flood Zones VE and AE. She confirmed that floodplain compensation is not required since these are tidal zones. Dave clarified that historic basin storage still needs to be reviewed and compensated for. Liz also stated that extensions of existing cross drains will be analyzed for encroachment on the riverine floodplain, which will need to be determined independent of the tidal floodplains shown on the FEMA maps. Dave suggested contacting Charlotte County to see if they had any data that could be useful for this analysis. 6. Wetlands Sarah stated that there are wetlands within the project limits and summarized the mitigation options. She stated that Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank is an option for tidal impacts and Boran Ranch Mitigation Bank is an option for freshwater impacts.

7. Protected Species Sarah discussed the state-listed (Gopher tortoise, Wading birds, and Florida burrowing owl) and federally-listed species (Wood stork, Crested caracara, Florida bonneted bat, West Indian manatee, Florida scrub jay, and Smalltooth sawfish) within the project limits.

APPENDIX D

Appendix D Field Review Documentation

Patel, Greene & Associates, PLLC

Subject: FPID 434965-1-22-01Description Field Review Cross Drain Descriptions

Cross Drain Location Size

North Side (US)

South Side (DS)

Length of Roadway

(ft.)

Total Length

(ft.)

North Side (US)

South Side (DS)

North Side (US)

South Side (DS)

Stain Line from Bottom

(inches)

Stain Line Elevation

(ft.)* Notes

CD-1 West of Cortez Street 10-ft. X 4-ft.34 21.5 50 106 26 31 0.4 0 34 2.8

CD-2 East of Deleon Drive 6-ft. X 5ft.9.5 9.5 24 43 16 17 0.1 0 48 4.0 silted in upstream

CD-3 West of Mary Lu Park Double 30-inch pipes22.5 16.5 24 63 0 17 1.4 0 19 1.6 silted in upstream about 6 inches

CD-4 East of Purdy Drive 10-ft. X 7-ft.9.5 21 24 55 38 48 0.8 0 78 6.5

CD-5 East of Frontage Road Single 36-inch pipe13 17.5 60 91 14 16 0.2 0 22 1.8

skewed, DBI north side, no object marker or headwall on south side

CD-6** West of Frontage RoadDouble 15-ft. X 5-ft. 39 40 85 164 0 3 0.3 0 42 3.5 skewed, debris upstream, DBI in median

*Assumed DS is at 0ft** Outside of project limits

FL Elevation from Bottom (inches)

Length of Headwall to

Assumed Invert Elevation (ft.)*

APPENDIX E

Appendix E Cross Drain Calculations

Patel, Greene & Associates, PLLC Design By: GLSPDate: 12/5/2017Design By:Date:

Subject: FPID 434965-1-22-01, CR 776/Harborview Road PD&ECross Drain Analysis Summary

25 50 100 500 25 50 100 500 25 50 100 500CD-1 4.82 5.15 5.80 9.20 4.82 5.15 5.80 9.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CD-2 5.74 6.03 6.45 10.60 5.83 6.17 6.64 10.70 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.10CD-3 4.70 5.03 5.70 11.40 5.20 5.53 6.20 11.90 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50CD-4 7.72 8.01 8.50 13.89 7.77 8.20 8.90 14.29 0.05 0.19 0.40 0.40CD-5 3.98 4.38 4.93 9.80 4.12 4.57 5.19 9.80 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.00

Cross Drain

Differences elevation (ft.)Storm Frequency

Existing HW Elevation (ft.) Proposed HW Elevation (ft.)Storm Frequency Storm Frequency


Subject: FPID 434965-1-22-01, CR 776/Harborview Road PD&ECross Drain Analysis

Structure Number: CD-1Existing Cross Drain

Culvert Height/Pipe Size: (D 4.00 ft (Box Culvert)

Culvert Depth: 10.00 ftNumber of pipes: 1Pipe Type: ConcreteOutfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthCulvert Length: 106.00 ftUpstream Invert El.: 0.40 ftDownstream Invert El.: 0.00 ftPipe Slope (ft/ft): 0.0038Road Pop-Over El.: 3.00 ftBasin Pop-Over El.: N/A (Rough Approximation)

Typical Section (average):Number of Lanes: 2Lane Width: 12.0 ftClear Zone: 24.0 ftMedian Width: 0.0 ftAdditional Clearance: N/A

Proposed Cross Drain

Culvert Height/Pipe Size: (D 4.00 ft (Box Culvert)

Culvert Depth: 10.00 ftNumber of pipes: 1Pipe Type: RCPOutfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthUpstream End Treatment: endwall (If using a metered-end section, enter MES as text)

Downstream End Treatment: endwall (If using a metered-end section, enter MES as text)

Culvert Length: 106.00 ftUpstream Invert El.: 0.40 ftDownstream Invert El.: 0.00 ftPipe Slope (ft/ft): 0.0038Road Pop-Over El.: 3.00 ft (Assumed existing)

Basin Pop-Over El.: N/A

Proposed Typical Section:Number of Lanes: 4Lane Width: 11.0 ft (PPM V.1, Ch.25.4.5)

Required Clear Zone: 0.0 ft (PPM V.1, Ch.25.4.14.1, design speed >45 mph)

Median Width: 30.0 ftAdditional Clearance: 30.0 ft


Subject: FPID 434965-1-22-01, CR 776/Harborview Road PD&EExisting Cross Drain Method 1: Flowrate Calculations CD-1

Cross Drain Characteristics

Culvert Size: (D) 4.00 ft(B) 10.00 ft

Cross-Sectional Area: 40.00 sfCulvert Length: 106.00 ft

Estimate Discharge (Q)

*Estimated Stream Velocity: 6.00 fps

Q (25 yr) = *Cross-Sect. Area x V = 240.Q (100 yr) = *1.4 x Q (25 yr) = 336.Q (500 yr) = *1.7 x Q (100 yr) = 571.2

Log Interpolated Q (50 yr):

Q (50 yr) = (Log (Q[100 yr]) - (Log(100) - Log(50)) (Log (Q[100 yr]) - Log (Q[25 yr]))) =(Log(100) - Log(25))

= Log (Q[50 yr]) ====> 10Log (Q[50 yr]) = 283.972***It does not matter whether natural log or log 10 is used

Q (25 yr) = 240.0 cfsQ (50 yr) = 284.0 cfs

Q (100 yr) = 336.0 cfsQ (500 yr) = 571.2 cfs

DETERMINATION OF FLOWRATES (Q) USING Q = VA

*Method 1 from Drainage Design Guide, Section 4.7.1 This is a conservative estimate for the velocity of a 25-Yr Storm Event (pipe may have been designed originally with this velocity at 50-Yr Storm Event).


Subject: FPID 434965-1-22-01, CR 776/Harborview Road PD&EExisting Cross Drain Headwater Analysis CD-1

CROSS DRAIN CHARACTERISTICS


Culvert Length: 106.00 ftPipe X-Sectional Area: 40.00 sfWetted Perimeter: 28.00 ftPipe Hydraulic Radius: 1.43 ftUpstream Invert: 0.40 ftDownstream Invert: 0.00 ftRoad Pop-Over Elevation: 3.00 ftAllowable HW Elevation: 2.76 ft (Edge of Pavement)

Pipe Type: ConcreteNumber of pipes 1Outfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthManning's roughness: 0.012 (FDOT Drainage Design Guide Table B-1)Entrance Coefficient (ke): 0.2 (Table C.2. Entrance Loss Coefficients FHWA Hydraulic design Series 5)

FLOW RATES (Q), Q = VA

Q (25 yr) = 240.0 cfsQ (50 yr) = 284.0 cfsQ (100 yr) = 336.0 cfsQ (500 yr) = 571.2 cfs

TAILWATER

The crown of the outlet elevation was used for the tailwater elevations as follows:

TW (25 yr) = 4.00 ftTW (50 yr) = 4.00 ftTW (100 yr) = 4.00 ftTW (500 yr) = 4.00 ft



PROJECT: FPID 434965-1-22-01, CR 776/Harborview Road PD&EExisting Cross Drain Headwater Analysis

HYDROLOGIC AND CHANNEL INFORMATION SKETCH

D = Diameter or Height EL 3.00 ftB = Span

D DAHW = 5.40 ft

B Q50 = 284.0 cfs TW50 = 4.00 ft EL 0.40 ft TW 4.00 ftQ100 = 336.0 cfs TW100 = 4.00 ft So = 0.38% EL 0.00 ft

L = ######(Q1 = DESIGN DISCHARGE, SAY Q50) LSo= 0.40

(Q2 = CHECK DISCHARGE, SAY Q100) MEAN STREAM VELOCITY = 6.00 fpsMAX. STREAM VELOCITY = 14.28 fps

CULVERT HEADWATER COMPUTATIONS CON- OUTLET PEAK PEAKDESCRIPTION Q (CFS) TROLLING VELOCITY STAGE STAGE

(ENTRANCE TYPE) (PER PIPE) D B Q/B HW/D(3) HW ke H(1) dc(2) (dc+D)/2 TW DTW LSo HW HW (FPS) (FT) (M)

25 240.0 4.0 10.00 24.0 1.05 4.20 0.2 0.82 2.62 3.31 4.00 4.00 0.40 4.42 4.42 6.00 4.82 1.4750 284.0 4.0 10.00 28.4 1.15 4.60 0.2 1.15 2.93 3.47 4.00 4.00 0.40 4.75 4.75 7.10 5.15 1.57100 336.0 4.0 10.00 33.6 1.35 5.40 0.2 1.62 3.28 3.64 4.00 4.00 0.40 5.22 5.40 8.40 5.80 1.77500 571.2 4.0 10.00 57.1 2.20 8.80 0.2 4.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.40 8.27 8.80 14.28 9.20 2.80

SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:

Designed by: Checked by:

WORKSHEET FOR CULVERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

SIZE (FT) INLET CONTROL OUTLET CONTROL HW = H + DTW - LSo

Figure 4.7-1 Drainage Manual

0

1. H @ Outlet Control = (1 + ke + (29*n2*L)/R1.33) * ((Q/A)2/(2*g))2. dc = 0.315 * (Q/B)^2/3 (Note that dc cannot exceed D.)

GLSP

3. HW/D for all storm events was found using the FHWA Hydraulic Design Series 5.

Patel, Greene & Associates, PLLC Design B GLSPDate: 12/5/2017Design By:Date:

Subject: FPID 434965-1-22-01, CR 776/Harborview Road PD&EProposed Cross Drain Headwater Analysis CD-1




Pipe Type: RCPNumber of pipes 1Outfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthManning's roughness: 0.012 (FDOT Drainage Design Guide Table B-1)Entrance Coefficient (ke): 0.2 (Table C.2. Entrance Loss Coefficients FHWA Hydraulic design Series 5)



TAILWATER

Tailwater from existing conditions.




PROJECT: FPID 434965-1-22-01, CR 776/Harborview Road PD&EProposed Cross Drain Headwater Analysis



D DAHW = 5.40 ft


L = 106.00 ft(Q1 = DESIGN DISCHARGE, SAY Q50) LSo= 0.40




25 240.0 4.0 10.00 24.0 1.05 4.20 0.2 0.82 2.62 3.31 4.00 4.00 0.40 4.42 4.42 6.00 4.82 1.4750 284.0 4.0 10.00 28.4 1.15 4.60 0.2 1.15 2.93 3.47 4.00 4.00 0.40 4.75 4.75 7.10 5.15 1.57100 336.0 4.0 10.00 33.6 1.35 5.40 0.2 1.62 3.28 3.64 4.00 4.00 0.40 5.22 5.40 8.40 5.80 1.77500 571.2 4.0 10.00 57.1 2.20 8.80 0.2 4.67 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.40 8.27 8.80 14.28 9.20 2.80



WORKSHEET FOR CULVERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

JR

1. H @ Outlet Control = (1 + ke + (29*n2*L)/R1.33) * ((Q/A)2/(2*g))2. dc = 0.315 * (Q/B)^2/3 (Note that dc cannot exceed D.)

0

3. HW/D for all storm events was found using the FHWA Hydraulic Design Series 5.


Figure 4.7-1 Drainage Manual




Culvert Height/Pipe Size: (D) 5.00 ft (Box Culvert)




Culvert Height/Pipe Size: (D) 5.00 ft (Box Culvert)



Culvert Length: 106.00 ftUpstream Invert El.: 0.20 ftDownstream Invert El.: -0.10 ftPipe Slope (ft/ft): 0.0028Road Pop-Over El.: 5.00 ft (Assumed existing)
















Q (25 yr) = 180.0 cfsQ (50 yr) = 213.0 cfs

Q (100 yr) = 252.0 cfsQ (500 yr) = 428.4 cfs











TAILWATER








D DAHW = 6.35 ft






25 180.0 5.0 6.00 30.0 0.95 4.75 0.2 0.74 3.04 4.02 5.00 5.00 0.10 5.64 5.64 6.00 5.74 1.7550 213.0 5.0 6.00 35.5 1.06 5.30 0.2 1.03 3.40 4.20 5.00 5.00 0.10 5.93 5.93 7.10 6.03 1.84100 252.0 5.0 6.00 42.0 1.20 6.00 0.2 1.45 3.81 4.40 5.00 5.00 0.10 6.35 6.35 8.40 6.45 1.96500 428.4 5.0 6.00 71.4 2.10 10.50 0.2 4.18 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.10 9.08 10.50 14.28 10.60 3.23



WORKSHEET FOR CULVERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Figure 4.7-1 Drainage Manual


1. H @ Outlet Control = (1 + ke + (29*n2*L)/R1.33) * ((Q/A)2/(2*g))2. dc = 0.315 * (Q/B)^2/3 (Note that dc cannot exceed D.)3. HW/D for all storm events was found using the FHWA Hydraulic Design Series 5.

GLSP 0





Culvert Length: 106.00 ftPipe X-Sectional Area: 30.00 sfWetted Perimeter: 22.00 ftPipe Hydraulic Radius: 1.36 ftUpstream Invert: 0.20 ftDownstream Invert: -0.10 ftRoad Pop-Over Elevation: 5.00 ftAllowable HW Elevation: 4.78 ft (Edge of Pavement)




TAILWATER








D DAHW = 6.44 ft

B Q50 = 213.0 cfs TW50 = 5.00 ft EL 0.20 ft TW 5.10 ftQ100 = 252.0 cfs TW100 = 5.00 ft So = 0.28% EL -0.10 ft





25 180.0 5.0 6.00 30.0 0.95 4.75 0.2 0.83 3.04 4.02 5.10 5.10 0.30 5.63 5.63 6.00 5.83 1.7850 213.0 5.0 6.00 35.5 1.06 5.30 0.2 1.17 3.40 4.20 5.10 5.10 0.30 5.97 5.97 7.10 6.17 1.88100 252.0 5.0 6.00 42.0 1.20 6.00 0.2 1.64 3.81 4.40 5.10 5.10 0.30 6.44 6.44 8.40 6.64 2.02500 428.4 5.0 6.00 71.4 2.10 10.50 0.2 4.73 5.00 5.00 5.10 5.10 0.30 9.53 10.50 14.28 10.70 3.26






GLSP 0




Culvert Height/Pipe Size: (D 2.50 ft (30-in Pipe)

Culvert Depth: N/ANumber of pipes: 2Pipe Type: ConcreteOutfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthCulvert Length: 63.00 ftUpstream Invert El.: 1.40 ftDownstream Invert El.: 0.00 ftPipe Slope (ft/ft): 0.0222Road Pop-Over El.: 6.00 ftBasin Pop-Over El.: N/A (Rough Approximation)




Culvert Depth: N/ANumber of pipes: 2Pipe Type: RCPOutfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthUpstream End Treatment: endwall (If using a metered-end section, enter MES as text)










Culvert Size: (D) 2.50 ft(B) N/A




Q (25 yr) = *Cross-Sect. Area x V = 29.452Q (100 yr) = *1.4 x Q (25 yr) = 41.233Q (500 yr) = *1.7 x Q (100 yr) = 70.097




Q (25 yr) = 29.5 cfsQ (50 yr) = 34.8 cfs

Q (100 yr) = 41.2 cfsQ (500 yr) = 70.1 cfs











TAILWATER








D DAHW = 4.30 ft






25 14.7 2.5 N/A N/A 1.32 3.30 0.2 0.24 1.75 2.13 2.50 2.50 1.40 1.34 3.30 3.00 4.70 1.4350 17.4 2.5 N/A N/A 1.45 3.63 0.2 0.33 1.95 2.23 2.50 2.50 1.40 1.43 3.63 3.55 5.03 1.53100 20.6 2.5 N/A N/A 1.72 4.30 0.2 0.46 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.40 1.56 4.30 4.20 5.70 1.74500 35.0 2.5 N/A N/A 4.00 10.00 0.2 1.34 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.40 2.44 10.00 7.14 11.40 3.47





1. H @ Outlet Control = (1 + ke + (29*n2*L)/R1.33) * ((Q/A)2/(2*g))2. Critical Depth (dc) was found using the FHWA Hydraulic Design Series 5 charts. Note that dc cannot exceed D.3. HW/D for all storm events was found using the FHWA Hydraulic Design Series 5.

GLSP 0





Culvert Length: 106.00 ftPipe X-Sectional Area: 4.91 sfWetted Perimeter: 7.85 ftPipe Hydraulic Radius: 0.63 ftUpstream Invert: 1.90 ftDownstream Invert: -0.50 ftRoad Pop-Over Elevation: 0.00 ftAllowable HW Elevation: -0.60 ft (Edge of Pavement)




TAILWATER








D DAHW = 4.30 ft






25 14.7 2.5 N/A N/A 1.32 3.30 0.2 0.28 1.75 2.13 3.00 3.00 2.40 0.88 3.30 3.00 5.20 1.5850 17.4 2.5 N/A N/A 1.45 3.63 0.2 0.40 1.95 2.23 3.00 3.00 2.40 1.00 3.63 3.55 5.53 1.68100 20.6 2.5 N/A N/A 1.72 4.30 0.2 0.56 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.40 1.16 4.30 4.20 6.20 1.89500 35.0 2.5 N/A N/A 4.00 10.00 0.2 1.60 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.40 2.20 10.00 7.14 11.90 3.63






GLSP 0




Culvert Height/Pipe Size: 7.00 ft (Box Culvert)




Culvert Height/Pipe Size: 7.00 ft (Box Culvert)


Downstream End Treatment endwall (If using a metered-end section, enter MES as text)

















Q (25 yr) = 420.0 cfsQ (50 yr) = 497.0 cfs

Q (100 yr) = 588.0 cfsQ (500 yr) = 999.6 cfs











TAILWATER








D DAHW = 7.70 ft






25 420.0 7.0 10.00 42.0 0.87 6.09 0.2 0.72 3.81 5.40 7.00 7.00 0.80 6.92 6.92 6.00 7.72 2.3550 497.0 7.0 10.00 49.7 1.00 7.00 0.2 1.01 4.26 5.63 7.00 7.00 0.80 7.21 7.21 7.10 8.01 2.44100 588.0 7.0 10.00 58.8 1.10 7.70 0.2 1.41 4.76 5.88 7.00 7.00 0.80 7.61 7.70 8.40 8.50 2.59500 999.6 7.0 10.00 100.0 1.87 13.09 0.2 4.08 6.78 6.89 7.00 7.00 0.80 10.28 13.09 14.28 13.89 4.23






GLSP 0

Patel, Greene & Associates, PLLC Design By GLSPDate: 12/5/2017Design By:Date:




Culvert Length: 106.00 ftPipe X-Sectional Area: 70.00 sfWetted Perimeter: 34.00 ftPipe Hydraulic Radius: 2.06 ftUpstream Invert: 1.20 ftDownstream Invert: -0.40 ftRoad Pop-Over Elevation: 0.00 ftAllowable HW Elevation: -0.60 ft (Edge of Pavement)




TAILWATER








D DAHW = 7.70 ft






25 420.0 7.0 10.00 42.0 0.87 6.09 0.2 0.77 3.81 5.40 7.40 7.40 1.60 6.57 6.57 6.00 7.77 2.3750 497.0 7.0 10.00 49.7 1.00 7.00 0.2 1.07 4.26 5.63 7.40 7.40 1.60 6.87 7.00 7.10 8.20 2.50

100 588.0 7.0 10.00 58.8 1.10 7.70 0.2 1.50 4.76 5.88 7.40 7.40 1.60 7.30 7.70 8.40 8.90 2.71500 999.6 7.0 10.00 100.0 1.87 13.09 0.2 4.34 6.78 6.89 7.40 7.40 1.60 10.14 13.09 14.28 14.29 4.36






GLSP 0





Culvert Depth: N/ANumber of pipes: 1Pipe Type: ConcreteOutfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthCulvert Length: 91.00 ftUpstream Invert El.: 0.20 ftDownstream Invert El.: 0.00 ftPipe Slope (ft/ft): 0.0022Road Pop-Over El.: 3.00 ftBasin Pop-Over El.: N/A (Rough Approximation)


Proposed Cross Drain Culvert Height/Pipe Size: (D 3.00 ft (36-in Pipe)

Culvert Depth: N/ANumber of pipes: 1Pipe Type: RCPOutfall: HarborFlow Direction: SouthUpstream End Treatment: endwall (If using a metered-end section, enter MES as text)


Culvert Length: 131.00 ftUpstream Invert El.: 0.20 ftDownstream Invert El.: 0.00 ftPipe Slope (ft/ft): 0.0015Road Pop-Over El.: 3.00 ft (Assumed existing)




Median Width: 30.0 ftAdditional Clearance: 55.0 ft skew* clearance 25ft








Q (25 yr) = *Cross-Sect. Area x V = 42.412Q (100 yr) = *1.4 x Q (25 yr) = 59.376Q (500 yr) = *1.7 x Q (100 yr) = 100.939


Q (50 yr) = (Log (Q[100 yr]) - (Log(100) - Log(50)) *(Log (Q[100 yr]) - Log (Q[25 yr]))) =(Log(100) - Log(25))


Q (25 yr) = 42.4 cfsQ (50 yr) = 50.2 cfs

Q (100 yr) = 59.4 cfsQ (500 yr) = 100.9 cfs











TAILWATER








D DAHW = 4.73 ft






25 42.4 3.0 N/A N/A 1.15 3.45 0.2 0.98 2.10 2.55 3.00 3.00 0.20 3.78 3.78 6.00 3.98 1.2150 50.2 3.0 N/A N/A 1.35 4.05 0.2 1.38 2.30 2.65 3.00 3.00 0.20 4.18 4.18 7.10 4.38 1.33

100 59.4 3.0 N/A N/A 1.57 4.71 0.2 1.93 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.00 0.20 4.73 4.73 8.40 4.93 1.50500 100.9 3.0 N/A N/A 3.20 9.60 0.2 5.56 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.20 8.36 9.60 14.28 9.80 2.99






GLSP 0





Culvert Length: 131.00 ftPipe X-Sectional Area: 7.07 sfWetted Perimeter: 9.42 ftPipe Hydraulic Radius: 0.75 ftUpstream Invert: 0.20 ftDownstream Invert: 0.00 ftRoad Pop-Over Elevation: 0.00 ftAllowable HW Elevation: -0.60 ft (Edge of Pavement)




TAILWATER








D DAHW = 4.99 ft






25 42.4 3.0 N/A N/A 1.15 3.45 0.2 1.12 2.10 2.55 3.00 3.00 0.20 3.92 3.92 6.00 4.12 1.2650 50.2 3.0 N/A N/A 1.35 4.05 0.2 1.57 2.30 2.65 3.00 3.00 0.20 4.37 4.37 7.10 4.57 1.39

100 59.4 3.0 N/A N/A 1.57 4.71 0.2 2.19 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.00 0.20 4.99 4.99 8.40 5.19 1.58500 100.9 3.0 N/A N/A 3.20 9.60 0.2 6.34 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.20 9.14 9.60 14.28 9.80 2.99






GLSP 0

draft location hydraulics report€¦ · there are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the...

Documents