The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272281(1) TYPE SIZE & LOCATION ADDENDUM MONSTERROADBRIDGEREPLACEMENT SINGLE SPAN COMPARISON .✓ } . J F YY t / !3 C+•'y- ,<.<>i., W w +.� '%;lf,�..+,�..a;J'Jf.' !r:;:��' ?' ,.{-.., %:°+•'Jro"•'4,'JJ;`+:.: .}}.r'r•,•% :': r},:.»' �'', ;::::•Y..'+'�i s:yy`:f✓,:,;Y.:::r..;:: �iYi'•)ir.:•l„i: ..:J` S:%:r.::)�: ..:>::;':%R:.•,,,�•i+!/,.:5•:SSS•r �:Y:• ::sl :: :: �<y.';:;�, l�f� ";:.,:R.;:;Y.•itnac?r>2%:�.::/:::/••+., +�/,.vr:.i:�Cix,v--.�' !..ti.F.;f.+...!�, � k,/,,,. •;�`!.'-''''n4...+. .vfv.v.,,,:...'•fi ::'>fi:'H•/•; > f J,'t •./ q �!ir'4'i�: ' f,y'f:"sf;' y.., ..f,:::l.'•yi yy {•:',N.•rl}•;,.;� +nJ....-i.<:%J.1:y�,?� "'z'::'i.,!!f�Trfr:{J!YJ�•;%:f'�.:�'�+r�li?%i:f�:%%%%%;:.:i.fif:!<C-v:}:�+�: i:Y,.}yy�''/i{:. ;;.v';, v i'N•%%.i'•^.:Jarl.4.':i:::{,L.%:{•}iis3+{{+,,:!!:»::.!+.fY.;:�}}!n.i:.;i.fH!i»i!i.!!.;ny;:}:,::v.r Y:<<!Sy:;:;.'-�j•-, y'.S:•:.G.+r1+JS�:•isS'',.:::f'x:�:>: :'�SSSSr%'S'SSS•:S>i'!+/;::}S::r:.-.<::c;.i.•b:,}r,!r.;..:;:.H,iyt...<;.!�+;?': tif.'.N•�,':.iSS;:� .y. ,,.:•;}!-rr p)!S:%S f✓+.:ff- •:� {C F;:�.:}, �f-'::,�,�"J'S«gii;;�,si;�GyCtiijy�,r!.'�•�3t+�,'fn'<'<%/:�j,�Y•'l#t�,1�s ;•::.f•,+,,M„NO . S: •`:,::}�✓�::: {.;',.y�if>:i:!: �'• !<:•/:•.^ -.y:::n;.�;Y.i:.;i•.;;3fS,;K•4c':..S;:.i!%Y.}`::f: .:fi:'`�•r:�:.�:: %;;y.!.:::i%7,ya•y.,,:.:",?'�' ;ry S�.r.;.+,.,71--..�;}:: ;>w4+!.•.•t:Xty,Y1, i<• ,";. ;,RG' u ,}Q'/"r 2< 4.:. >,S_..: +•G' ::. ':.Syr.)H.!!-;.S�I�"� .•;. .�. fR...E^ q,+?5....t' :}�yy',�� .w.'' � !?•�c;!Ci`{i)%.yi!i�:;;�:f{S;SS"R;..:{i .:.oQ< Y < ^•�++ "t✓J' .., :.4:!.. !Y•�,n;y:... :;y,n;f..a;.v{{i{' k.y^:•rrri+:�'•':::�:::..y.;:}yv;::{:J:{J}r H 1'• ,!.i'<K'i + .f OE�7`i2A'I•!'n;��5��5 ...{:i} 'N �f+ ' +�i'. ... ..... .. .1:•r:•ir•%:r/.{4 "Sri F•.: Y 'L l\':-i,,:..... .... Y. '•»:H�,q>:,fyrwa• .c.•?r3:.,.:w .'+�;.;:r. !y'i:+'C�'.•'�%v .J... ..7.,�'iioj4' ;',•,?'',,',;:S;S;%5::::.!!.: �, !i J/ H;oU*. �;., �'- n'qR :. ;k•. �lri' .yG�`KrJ : y }„ / Jf/ x 2 % !:.t.:�;:.i::;�y4y iy..:rr:g.,SQ;'r;�y:<ff4'�•n;./�*j.�. c ••,,75j.•:,r.,:/!.y. ..<.. Jf... .+r+:�' ; :ri•.S 'rNS.:::C.:t:'^ij:':•'.::�iio. .{r,`<.�4.:yn J<,. �.F6+ .,�//i:;SY:.::•::t..Y Yi•�+.:�i:.�<..:l..-{!::i::, ,/%'//. :<:.:.:,Y'ifif::f::::}Q,i�:ii�S:��ii$!:.'.:::ti_r!. :�ifiirv:/RO::A::::+ili/+Y:J:rry4•..'i!. / :;v�!!!.'.••}.yra n....::C.::: ........... }:•ff'y. C//f ..tf%l:<Y y:. .F::v ::<cv ...-i�" Jr/.:i;:+.,.y;:'<+i ..S+i>'�'i`�ii%:�i>)}:%r::t^i:•Yr�'�'?Jr:•ri .wJ: R..,,.+/.l..a.:rl:.H;tE'1i" ,/fG+ " a{•r:k{:!!':{J:::^}:Y{+rrf:t•:J:t�r'v:wm'r:.ii':.::.v::}Y:::...:v.:. J /i.'::•y::.yyif'':' %Y:n' ff%%% I+ F '!rf ff:i:�'i<•i:•:F'i' +nJv. •S:.}i:•r+i'.:H•'i.!!!!:i:�f.'lY/y: :�r%9�';:.:'S!:��."�'/,.!H^'S•Jy� r:+.Y S/.S'!. Y.ry �, :'St,+:;:.' :,,•.y;:�:'r:: .:mf ' ;J»S:i.,::...�:.Sri��%'r�;:r}-FF>.Srrrirrr}: ' ;z7!;� •.£'$ +.:a;,H;%:�+,, <r / .�/!/,•f/ fi''� f �,.%f sty"HyW/�,c:<"::...... `2 < <. : :Y:y:':"•;:':�c::6';n.`.h'°�,i3`.�5w;;;»:iiNii>.v$��Nl.�:R:::: �� .i+ ?vL:w11/Jf.%:+n•:�!!!+N%l.H,..S�'!++f, !fH!t 1was n�:4?:'::{<t!<:-:i:.Xd9:: .'yQ;`siY; �>S�? +:^V F4w'� rf! �3i��;vlHAN" ySyR,n::.: ft L,r ryt;,/.✓.��y�l r �;. ,rS' // .'•' /i. . . xfnY,'y'o; {•::a:::::::!rr• .:: ... .,<kJY,+..,/! k{•!'/ "! / yf /; < hYrrr:Jr:o;.{;e• :•.rirF.;%�:!;:5;:: :�4�..,N;:try::>J.;'/,.:.,:;/rQ,%'•::•,•,.t///�./.•.!i/.• J/iy!iiry,S�.gl!.c-r,:../jr,.ytrj .il:,' 7,/!//H1,/.f�::::�:;:r::�i:::%�S:%%cr,.ar {�S'�.t.::-r.•.:£. r+;4/!::r.!;S{::. 'y.•' ttj., !'+�/ ,r,��ii�%%Jfff !'::y':w:��.v'' / ': W.' +v:t%::•.,:. f :a•ycii.?t:>t2Y j;?� k ,3�5�f ./r /ri .,�,`, /�/•S�lG:,"�' �.U' ''."' Y',�rri� { 'y'j :Sri' tE:�`7. / .!�^ s.,:,S:ii7 ;' 'r: 9'�+ff>.,,N'S tif>•h. }Y;. ..:.y.;.! yi: '':'ii r ",<.,. }: 'S�S:'fi.7y'1F':"jS�,:.�^'�9y' "�2C�$.�-�'✓�2�''{`:{t�'+r�i)J��.Y:"<?.t: M�SS'�•.f;^"'+at>��, I V4% IN �R 1 .0 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Table of Contents 2.0 Executive Summary 1 3.0 Introduction 2 4.0 Discussion of Eliminated Structure Types 4 5.0 Design and Evaluation Criteria -6- s' r 6.0 Evaluation of Single Span Alternative 7 7.0 Preliminary Comparative Bridge Estimates 13 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 14 TABLES 1. Weighted Comparison Matrix Table 11 2. Preliminary Comparative Bridge Costs 13 APPENDICES A. Plans and Profiles 1 B. Hydraulic Report INCH` 4%R 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this addendum is to compare a single span alternative (as requested by WSDOT) with the three span alternative recommended in the April 1994 TS&L Study report. The Single Span Alternative chosen has a 140 foot span, WSDOT Series 14 (73-1/2" s.> deep) prestressed concrete girders and a 7-1/2" minimum cast-in-place concrete deck. The Three Span Alternative has spans of 42.5 feet - 95 feet - 42.5 feet, 6 lines of 41" deep decked bulb tee prestressed concrete girders and a 1-1/2" latex modified concrete overlay. The Three Span Alternative is still recommended, after comparison to the single span structure, because of its lower cost, easier construction, and shorter construction time. F" i 1 INCA► m1t 3.0 INTRODUCTION This addendum supplements the Type Size & Location (TS&L) Study, dated April 1994, for the replacement of the existing Monster Road Bridge structure. The TS&L Study evaluated three structural alternatives for a three span bridge. A 41" decked bulb tee prestressed concrete girder bridge was recommended. This addendum compares a ` single Span bridge with WSDOT Series 14 (73-1/2" deep) prestressed girders and a 7-1/2" minimum cast-in-place deck (deck thickness varies from 7-1/2" to 10-1/2" due to superelevation) to the three span alternative. The bridge spans over a waterway now called the P-1 channel. A vertical clearance of 6 feet over the 100 year flood elevation of this waterway was used in the TS&L Study. Upon review, it was determined that a vertical clearance of 3 feet was adequate. T' Therefore, the recommended Three Span Alternative has been lowered to the 3 foot ` clearance for comparison with the Single Span Alternative. The single span bridge span length was determined by hydraulic considerations. The distance between its back of pavement seats is approximately 145 feet, and the girders are 140 feet long. 3.1 Single Span Alternative Profile s The development of the Single Span Alternative was controlled by the following ► parameters: 1. Avoid vertical curve on proposed bridge. 2. Begin and end alternative similar to the three span bridge. 3. Bridge abutments constructed outside the 100 year flood plain. 4. Vertical clearance above 100 year flood elevation is 3 feet. r Following the parameters listed above, the roadway embankment is increased approximately 3 feet from the south end of the bridge, Sta. 101+55, to a connection with the existing roadway, vicinity Sta. 105+00, when compared to "T the Three Span Alternative. The maximum profile grade for the Single Span Alternative is 4.33%. The driveway right, Sta. 104+50, is impacted by the grade differential between the existing road and the new profile. The Single Span Alternative profile is 2.5 feet higher at this driveway than the Three Span 2 IINCA► N% �- WL Alternative. As shown on the profile in Appendix A a stopping sight distance for 35 mph (250 ft.) is provided on the crest vertical curve, vicinity Sta. 103+00. The application of a 0.18% grade in the vicinity of the structure will not be a drainage problem as the roadway presents a 4% superelevation rate due to horizontal curvature. 3.2 Three Span Alternative Profile.Modifications The reduction of the clear zone, above the 100 year flood elevation of 20 feet (from 6 feet to 3 feet), allows the profile grade of the improvement to be modified. The modifications include a lower profile, relocation of the vertical curves to avoid the proposed structure, and a decrease in the maximum grade from 4.42% to 1.5%. A minor temporary connection to the existing roadway, vicinity Sta. 105+00 will be necessary to avoid unnecessary roadway a reconstruction in the first stage plan. See Appendix A for the plan and profile. 3 INCA 'T �L 4.0 DISCUSSION OF ELIMINATED STRUCTURE TYPES c In this addendum, a single span prestressed concrete girder bridge with 7 lines of WSDOT Series 14 (73-1/2" deep) girders was chosen for evaluation over the following structure types. As requested by WSDOT, the reasons for eliminating a concrete box girder bridge from consideration were expanded upon. t The CIP concrete box girder bridge structure was eliminated from consideration due to its higher cost and longer construction time. The large quantity of CIP concrete requires extensive falsework and forms, making the base price expensive. Large beams, needed to span the waterway during construction, add to the expense. The construction of the supporting structure and forms combined with the curing time of the T concrete lengthen the time required to construct the bridge when compared to precast construction. i The steel plate girder bridge with a CIP concrete deck was eliminated from consideration due to its substantially higher initial and maintenance cost. The high cost of steel and CIP concrete result in its high initial cost although this is offset a small amount by reduced required pile lengths. The higher maintenance costs are due to periodic painting of the steel girders. A 77" decked bulb tee prestressed concrete girder would have the capacity to span 140 feet. However, each girder would weigh 83 tons. Even a 65" decked bulb tee girder would weigh 78 tons. On the other hand, a 140 foot long WSDOT Series 14 girder i would weigh 51 tons, which is comparable to the 41" decked bulb tee girder, spanning 95 feet and weighing 47 tons, used in the three span alternative. Due to its substantially heavier weight, a 140 foot decked bulb tee girder would require an additional crane for placement. It may not be feasible for two very heavy cranes to maneuver or for three smaller cranes to fit in the limited area of the construction site. ' Even if the space were adequate, the cost of the additional heavy equipment required makes the decked bulb tee girder less attractive than the WSDOT Series 14 girder. x_. 4 INCA► W4%R �LL 5.0 DESIGN AND EVALUATION CRITERIA The criteria to be used for the design of the new Monster Road Bridge structure are discussed in Section 5.1. The criteria used in the evaluation of the single span alternative for the new bridge structure are discussed in Section 5.2. 5.1 Design Criteria for the Bridge Structure f ' 4 The new Monster Road Bridge structure will be designed for an AASHTO HS25 live loading. See Section 6.2 - Evaluation of Single Span Alternative - Live Loading. The minimum vertical clearance required at the waterway is 3 feet above the 100 w year flood. r Seismic response shall be determined in accordance with requirements for Seismic Performance Category (SPQ C in accordance with AASHTO Division I-A, Seismic Design. The Seismic Performance Category is based on the acceleration coefficient as given in the WSDOT Bride Design Manual, Fig. 4.1.5-1. The existing bridge will remain open to traffic during construction. The new bridge shall include accommodations for the existing utilities and be capable of future widening. The design of the bridge structure shall be in accordance with the following standards: k WSDOT Bride Design Manual AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway ridges City of Renton Standard Plans and Specifications WSDOT Standard Plans and Specifications s . 5 INCA► r Wl sr �R r 5.2 Evaluation Criteria for the Alternatives S _ Many factors must be considered in the preliminary evaluation of the single span t alternative for the Monster Road Bridge structure. The factors considered in the x` evaluation process include: 1 Aesthetic: Which alternative will have the most acceptable and pleasing appearance, and be the most compatible with the surrounding area and adjacent buildings? • Construction Time: Which alternative requires the least construction time? Future Widening: Which alternative is better suited for future widening? • Constructibility: Which alternative is the easiest to construct for the local contractors and requires the least falsework that may interfere with the existing roadway or waterway? • Initial Cost: Which alternative has the lowest construction cost? • Maintenance Cost: Which alternative has the lowest maintenance cost over the structure's useful life? See Section 6.9 Table 1 for the Weighted Comparison Matrix. 6 INCA► MAL �R 6.0 EVALUATION OF SINGLE SPAN ALTERNATIVE A single span alternative was studied and compared to the three span alternative recommended in the April TS&L report. The Single Span Alternative uses precast prestressed concrete WSDOT Series 14 girders with a cast-in-place concrete deck. The Three Span Alternative uses precast prestressed concrete decked bulb tee girders with a latex modified concrete overlay on the deck. An evaluation of the Single Span r . Alternative superstructure and its substructure, as well as a weighted comparison matrix of both alternatives, are provided in thC1 following sections. Given the required superstructure depth, vertical clearance over the waterway determined the minimum allowable profile grade, controlling much of the layout and geometry of the bridge structure. The alternative profiles are given in Appendix A. Because the Single Span Alternative requires a superstructure depth T-6" greater than r the Three Span Alternative, it has a profile correspondingly higher over the bridge and for a distance beyond the bridge until it can be brought down and made to match the three span profile. This higher profile increases the cost of the Single Span Alternative 1 . by the amount of additional fill required to achieve it. The minimum feasible span length was determined by hydraulic considerations, as detailed in the Hydraulic Report in Appendix B. The abutments were required to be positioned outside the flood plain unless an encroachment was mitigated elsewhere on this section of the waterway. However, mitigation is not feasible in this area of the P-1 Channel. In addition, mitigation would have to be addressed again for future widening, potentially obstructing this second stage of construction. Based on this criteria, the minimum span length was found to be 145 feet between back of pavement seats. This results in 140 foot girder lengths. - The total bridge structure length of the Three Span Alternative is 180 feet. The 35 foot difference in length between the two alternatives must be addressed by adding fill, pavement, three new retaining walls, and lengthening the one retaining wall required in the Three Span Alternative. These additional items also increase the cost of the Single Span Alternative and are, therefore, included in the comparison of alternative construction costs given in Table 2, Section 7.0. 6.1 Foundation and Substructure i Preliminary foundation designs are based on information provided in the construction drawings of the existing bridge. Because no soil borings have been f ' i obtained for this study, all foundation recommendations and design criteria are 7 INCA VNo Mil 4�R subject to verification and revision during the final design phase of the project. It is anticipated that the abutment and retaining wall foundations will be founded on steel H-piles. H-piles were chosen for their high capacity, their very good ability to penetrate hard strata, their high friction capacity, and their high lateral force resistance. Due to the higher abutment reaction of the Single Span Alternative, it was anticipated to have longer piles and/or a greater number of piles per abutment than the Three Span Alternative. 6.2 Live Loading Matching the TS&L, preliminary design of the single span bridge structure is based on an AASHTO HS25 live loading. This live loading will minimize the wear on the bridge caused by the large number of heavy trucks which use this - bridge. Designing for an AASHTO HS25 live loading will increase the initial construction cost, but will decrease life cycle/maintenance costs. 6.3 Aesthetics The less cluttered look of the Single Span Alternative (no intermediate piers) is offset by its less attractive north approach profile (profiles given in Appendix A). Therefore, the aesthetics of the two alternatives merit the same rating. x 6.4 Construction Time Construction of the substructure will take longer for the Three Span Alternative because it has two intermediate piers whereas the Single Span Alternative has none. However, the overall construction time will be greater for the Single Span Alternative because of its cast-in-place concrete deck, three additional pile supported retaining walls, and a lengthened portion of the fourth retaining wall. Thus, the Three Span Alternative receives the higher rating for its shorter anticipated construction time. 6.5 Future Widening Future widening of the Single Span Alternative will entail doweling into and extending the deck slab, adding new girders, and constructing two new pile supported retaining walls. The effort involved is comparable to that required to widen the Three Span Alternative. Future widening of the Three Span 8 INCA, ;� ''T �L t` r , Alternative will include new girders with overlay, doweling into and extending two cap beams, and new columns with pile supported footings. Therefore, the future widening consideration of the two alternatives merits the same rating. Y 6.6 Constructibility The Three Span Alternative has.two intermediate piers, one of which should be completely in the dry during construction. The other pier should be either in the dry or just at the edge of the waterway. Both piers are positioned within reach of construction equipment. None of the structural elements of this alternative are unusual. Therefore, the Three Span Alternative can be constructed using common, standard construction techniques. However, the 140 foot length of the Single Span Alternative's girders presents some potential problems. First of all, r.y shipping 140 foot girders to the site may be very difficult. Transporting girders over 100' long through several tight turns on a two lane road may not be feasible. Secondly, erection of 140 foot girders at the site may not be easily achievable due to the limited area available for heavy construction equipment. E. There may not be enough room for an extra heavy crane or for several smaller cranes. This high level of difficulty of construction has been reflected in the cost estimate of the Single Span Alternative. It is possible to design the 140 foot ` girders in two or three smaller segments for easy transport and posttension them at the site before or after erection. However, this would also increase the construction cost. Therefore, the Three Span Alternative merits the higher rating. 4 6.7 Initial Cost The preliminary comparative construction costs for the two alternatives are given in Table 2, Section 7.0. From this comparison, it is apparent that the initial cost of the Single Span Alternative will be $43,000 more than that of the Three Span Alternative. The bridge structure alone is less expensive for the single span structure. Although its deeper, longer girders and CIP concrete deck are more expensive, its shorter length and lack of intermediate piers reduce the cost more than the girders and deck increase it. However, additional fill, pavement, and retaining walls, required by the higher profile and shorter structure length of the alternative, increase the cost to the point that it is significantly more expensive than the three span structure. Therefore, the Three Span Alternative merits the higher rating. 9 INCA— `A WAL 6.8 Life Cycle/Maintenance Cost The latex modified concrete overlay should resist wear as well as the cast-in-place concrete deck. The remaining structural elements will also require the same amount of inspection and maintenance. Thus, the two alternatives should be equal in the category of Life Cycle/Maintenance Cost. n; i - 10 INCH` �L �R 6.9 Weighted Comparison Matrix Table 1 MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WEIGHTED COMPARISON MATRIX i Rahn .::.::.. :' ........ ........ :;::Alternafive::::::::..:;:>::: C terra :Weight;>: ".I?e d Bulb VVSD±}`1'.Ser es 4 ;::>::::: »>::::>::;<:>>;;>::::> Tee.Pies . :.:.:.::<.;:.:... - :::;::::::::,.....::>::«..:..:::.:;;::;;. lre..:.:: :::,..,...::>:::>::»: .<: >::::: .: estxessed::..:.;::<::. :..::.:..:: :::.:.:.. ..::::::.::: .:.... ; ;:<::<::::<.;:>::;<:;:<.:;...:.... :::;. oncrete:Gliders . Conerete.G�rderg.. :::: Aesthetics 1 2 2 Construction 2 2 1 Time - Future Widening 3 2 2 Constructibility 4 2 1 Initial Cost 5 2 1 Life Cycle/ Maintenance 5 2 2 Cost TOTAL 40 29 (Criteria Weight x Rating) The evaluation criteria was weighed on a scale from 1 to 5 to meet the priorities of the City of Renton. The alternatives were then rated on a scale of 1 to 2 on the basis of the given criteria and multiplied by the criteria weight. The sum of these values is the alternative's total rating out of 40 possible points, and the alternative with the highest total rating was chosen for the bridge structure. 11 INCA► `, '7- The alternative with the highest total rating was the Three Span Alternative - 41" Decked Bulb Tee Prestressed Concrete Girders. It had the highest rating in Construction Time, Constructibility, and Initial Cost and tied in Aesthetics, Future Widening, and Life Cycle/ Maintenance Costs. The preliminary construction cost estimates are given in Section 7.0. _a 12 INCA► �0R 7.0 PRELIMINARY COMPARATIVE BRIDGE COSTS nil The following table shows the preliminary comparative bridge costs for the alternatives studied. The recommended alternative is the Three Span Alternative - 41" Decked Bulb Tee Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge which has the lowest cost, as shown in Table 2 below. The cost estimates are based on a bridge structure area of 8,415 square feet for the three span bridge and 6779 square feet for the single span bridge. It is c- emphasized that these construction cost estimates are preliminary, and have been developed with limited field data for Foundation design. Therefore, a contingency of 5% has been added due to these uncertainties. Table 2 MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PRELIlVIINARY COMPARATIVE BRIDGE COSTS* :.: ,P arve;::.;::;:<.::>:<:» rnative.::.::..<.;,.:,. :. :.: :::.::..:: 41`".:I�ecl�ed:Bu1 ; :;':::>:�' D S OT Senesl4 Tee:P Prestressed. acre ......: >: Con; Crete Gudersirdexs New Bridge Structure, Contingencies, $630,000 $673,000 & Items to make Equivalent * Above are comparative bridge costs for alternative selection. The costs do not include approach slabs, approach roadways, or removal of the existing bridge, since these costs would be the same for each alternative. In order to make the two alternatives equivalent for comparison, the cost for the Single Span Alternative includes the additional fill, pavement, and retaining walls required for the approaches. 13 INCA 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended alternative for the Monster Road Bridge is the Three Span Alternative, with 41" decked bulb tee prestressed concrete girders. The primary evaluation criteria is initial construction cost, although this alternative is also considered to be technically superior because of constructibility and construction time advantages. See Table 1 for a weighted comparison matrix and Table 2 for a cost comparison of the two alternatives. It should be emphasized that each of the construction cost estimates are preliminary, based or, limited site data, especially with respect to the foundations. Regardless of the final geotechnical information, it is still clear that the three span, 41" decked bulb tee prestressed concrete girder superstructure is the best choice for the bridge. As given in the TS&L Study, the total estimated cost of the improvement, including the recommended bridge alternative, right-of-way, roadway improvements, and utilities, is $1,670,000. Cost to upgrade the signalization for the BNRR track crossing has not been included in the preliminary estimate of the project cost. 14 I NCA NIL APPENDIX A PLANS AND PROFILES (STAGE 1) INCA y ' t#/W 88t57.74 / \ _ 7y axo-a POW I T""..0 LEFT OF " Gym w< r _ _ _ !j, T—� rrE _ pax 4o TERLi / _ YCNJW MT w CICE ..F._ _ r Go .. .__ .. _. « _.. - •_ �- .__ i %. . i _ "y// MAT&V0.1f so, FR - - _ „• 04 rp.r nYaAnr r_•• •. - _ ... / �• / N -.Akll ME" 1A WNfEAAI/S A[l GAS WN .,`R: .\0 . �7 / �• - '..._ / + , /Y PCMIX Mat Fr:? GTE Po6T do lkw umry PmfQ STA Pp[ / \ - ��' •\ •/ Ru/' •� _ ..\\ -• r / / • .. ornrrY Pal.Mona �.. PAG,Anoa Ca1TPa VALVE pQ. EXISTING R/W LINE R1fA1w P%P omaf Vulow LK or gotm ----- IMT Y17r uRwal .•t ' IE4F1 aIAM PAw 7 mod,.'` .., i T' V!*.h F-+ ._- _ _._. -. -._ :_ / w' ,,••` r,A till 9AW4 27fYT GAPRPA __----- — --------- �.� - ...._. - CDMGZrE PAD yi.- - _.,. .. ..«... ..__. � ..�-._ -"_'_ - —... — �. ---- -- P I CONaS7E f01XOA1gN saw lNf go . - r �`_: ,. - - _... .. _. ---_ -';_".`._ ..... .. - - - _ -- __ •, a _ Q �.cDa:eoxF ., C2KFlrE'fAUf T :aura ax+rrx eDr - .. .......... a ro • ..` - - •--" - RR SMI(N/4tllAL'JGMr �( _ N •�'- ...•� / Z • PVJmh1 otCS9YC$q':AL sw-l-LIGHT-r98+00$6 00 ti 87f�0 98+QQ, -_ : , _.. , N kki a? ......._..._._.................... ........ ................. _......_.._._..._.,-.......__....... ----------- ----�..—.`-------------------.-- X N Y�d�+> �(�"`, y.T; I EX.-- Rny------T`1§- a -JCL LINE• • P.I.>98+57.06 $ is'33.02' MONUMENT WITH 3—SPAN EXISTING R/W LINE ? p x R,_ 800.00' „ CASE do COVER J 20 s to 0 20 a �'+;;w T „ 76.60' /i /ti. / CITY OF RENTON tl SCALE IN FEET ZF i'L"� 152.3T j�^ h / DEP ART)t ENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE 7 INCH ENGINEERS M.r PLAN & PROFILE (INTERIM) . J: � ,!a I;�'• ..- nESraNEP ClP oAtl: FIE NAM: DRAWN: DAH 1'.20'HDRIZ FEW WOK� PAGE; NO. REM40N _ _...__._ i ... , : sE [ € r - , ' 8D i i I i I I ; i ; r _ ; i i 0 i I W i s i I ; ; i 1 c i , finI 1 i E € + { i — I 1 t sn i I I I 1 ,. . ..:. Ii_ ..:... .. _ e _i..._....... i ,.. - ...__j�.... 7II . _ -.t .- - p f a i ' I I I + , 1 r ..._ n - - _. 0: : : : • oox ........ .. . .... ... _20 - - --- i 10._ 32;03 -- 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 99+00 _a-CAL DAIIJW: 'r,,. 29 !�• a-tr` ., '� �..: i / / '� �i. / CL LINE /x ' CL LINE AI. 19 04 29 6 _ALL CROSSING RUBBER x :. / ..: _ P.Ir100+76.57 TRACT 30 R 600.00' \. o� 22'54'40" r T = 100.81' SOIIDREPLA�CAVERTM �� / R . 589.00' `� / ! 1 :+ L = 199.75' �$ T - 119-36' � �'/ L - 235.53' // S 0.04 FT./FT.£X // !r. , t�-b H0U N , S ER / C TRACT 31 //y ! t / _z' v \ ..• %_ / r.1- / -' ` `NEW CB / 4 rr /tEW O A i PROPOSED R/W _ � St PIK / rL . ._ .. I �•^ s," CY;p: � V• � // •�� ice'- \\ 103*00 f;r.-_-j !'f. V `':►v T01+00 Lf ;� CpNSTR. LINE 101+00 /\•�\. .` .`:' .GUARO"IIJ ofY '-, '3-.�,r•- / — :w• .r- vf .r• .-' ''`/.. ,:r ...�TPLUG � �r,;�s- - -� �'•.*... '-.► // rr. ��i,,.-..•. .., ..� ARORAIL..--_.. -� i =''.�'�" . 6 VALVE 16" VALVE / Y,.r -sue a4: �}•+,'�. -r-• - •.:` '�...` .. ._�' �`" •'••'`. ;: (USE VICTAULIC COUPLING-� -- -=m r'-!?a! .r: !' Y'/' �"- -*'^ 20 5 to 0 :OVER BRIDGE,SPAN) y r.• i- 20 +o 't3RIDGE •e` ^; ,, i^ ,. ;,� r' SCALE IN FEET ,l- ! r: :i. \�"`-•tlplOtiE 16 ICVATER _ !" WIDENING. Y / 3—SPAN CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE WCA ENC04MS W. PLAN & PROFILE (INTERIM) DESK7,IED:CLP DrtE: PC E NAME: DRAWN: DAH 1'+20•HORI2. CHECKED: CL? SCKE.I'�)p•%um fIE1.D BCCK. ?AGE.r i -.,._.... _. .. .... .. -_.. .. _.. ... _ .. _ -. .1 .`. t { • _Hl_GH—P�LN7L�X__ 2.1�_._.__ 1 f -r HIGH POINT STA "i 98+ a _- — i•_. PVI :STA. >= 99 20 i I ; :- - ._ ....i. -f - - i.. -- _ - ....._ - - t PVI ELEV - 33.10 € { 1 ... t.. - - i 1 ADD. _i-1.50 i { i .. ; _i. i 1 } ' i ( ( PVI ELEV- 4.65 _......._._._.�....__.____.__... _ 0.0,.04 vc. ! I � { i i _. _.:_._._. .........: .4 t - --- — - _....._ .. - - - - - - _ _ € _.�_.__... { t I i { t X. ` fi0.6tin '3 - - — — - — ----5D 1 - -�eaee'-ve pO ..L.. '.. C - - - - 1 i 1 ....._. _... ... _... _. ._ ._.. ` .._ .. _ A IAJ { ... !. � m �IMPROVEMENTS`Y rn U WW .. ..__..._. ..... .per i ! ! N t {...._._... 5y. 1 : i --- - -- --- - - - - --'- -- 2D i N." 100 Yk. FLDOD -- - - 3 MOST EASTERLY BRIDGE GIRDER: EXISTING 10 �' ,CLEAR LINE EL EXI_ NG ROADWAY x - - —. --.. _ w C o TE!dOP CON ccN T?� TO - _ .10 _ EXISTING ROADWAY : s ; X 32:03 3t62 - - _ 30.90 30.75 29.40 28.65 tT90 2775 20.t0 %5_=4 2408 Ar"a :•SiMF2' . h 99+00 100+0.0. _ 102+00 103+00 104+00 ~ 101+00 W Z .J + .�a --•. W....... X Z !- ....................W W D 0 c ._.. n .... »EX. PROP. LINE... m . .......................................... .. ... w p n N (A + K 04 + •-..........d' + Z mow.. s ............ O F- N W M O .! C O ._ a _cJ _..._.. EX R _.............. PAVEME _ c n 6 r 08 7c EDGE- _..__... z AYEMENT _ .: __ 1 — — -- smirks +�- .'•. �-•r—_y �--- --. -- �.r�..rr� ---r"�"'w�_�e•r,,,,�4 •�'Yfli�_ 1— _ �i'i•D — i _.... ._. _. 4. r! •. �^ -\---Z.T'' �—'...�r r�_._.- s;•:.. 0.0 1�..� .ry _ 11 3E � \5-:18. -...-� _ � "...�..�.,•........_.....__ �...• ... ,.mow .r.•.A'C E-:iii } !7 xry,%r N li 3—SPAN 20 S rD D 20 so '""" "1.• !� CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SCALE IN FEET J%CA MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE W-1,ENGsNEERS INC. PLAN & PROFILE (INTERIM) DESKiNED:ttP DATE: FLE NAME: CRAWN: DAN 1•.20'HORIL CHECKED: CLP SCALE:1':Id VEFi. FIELD BOOK PAGE: , NO. RMSKA BY APPR DA fE SHEET J OF f t i I ....... I I 1 I i I I ! I : _. ; I ...._._.. _....... 1 1 I I 1 sn t PVI STA a ...1...1.2.0.e1I1.+.50 PYI.EL 0 Ii. .--_.............. _ 4_.... r i ;i1t 111rji .. _ ... iiIiiIi O �A.D. 1.95 50_ 00.00 VC ------------ a+ �GI__40 a N + W- O L -•• • _ ii .. fiiI1iit ... _. _..._.4 im f3TE F IMPROVEMENTS L WZ _ } ... .. _.... .. ..... .... ... ...... _.. EXISTING ROADWAY .—.__t•-__ —___�i1. .— ._ _.._.4._._.A_.._... _._...i : ! i 2.1.0E 22.74 21.90 6i0PI,Ot. ,L ^ai,:'J: a5,'!4i; 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 tRiCa_ cc... . o. , i LEGDID .. ' �• , ` / I /� "�' --Y CONTROL POINT ,L"--=, IETAtIN:E ALL 98+57.74 j, - f BOID MAR _. WARD RAIL IFENCE ttaocDn' 40 LEFT OF CENfERLIN ♦ ••--'•-• so SON ', %. �. _ .._-_"._•_•«._ __. _-. _..i fi', / "� _N I ,• .s `� TIRE NYDRANr �9 aoMTnTous .. % .•, E \ �• RATER METER ^r y WEE ��' N { �.; /. c.• I+ w VAL* y OEMylOLS TREE rl - ' \ i' • _ a 1 NEW ? vo�En vAar s.:• u¢rosr ' ♦ ' UIUIT POLE SGND PPE r. utturT PORE ANOM K. WrATIOM CONrw VAL* EXISTING R/W LINE ��:. \ . \" t_ QQ . z. _ -\ h , Ew+«asur OwRf MLDP UF ..�' '^ "•.- -_-- 1 O _ - - g 3 ��y TDfAIONE VAllT EDL� R)OF 9WDEF ' f�. _ Y _ • P •"_ SANITARY Y'AFF MAKIWF 04EEL CNNR RAMP . .i y - l�l•�? ^v;:--------"----- A —pr...• - .yyr - �' CATCH BASIN _ fASY BAPTN R/� 4- - --- DELrcmcKrl PAD — OXXTE ! ' .•� :....__ --_- -- .. .._ ...... .. _ . _ Or SI.tKM1N igXORM DRAIN YNMQL CONCRETE NQU10A TICH ALA •-_ __.,�!. ._...._._.._ ,__ tRKTX CONTROL BOX ., .. �•..,• -..-- :✓-'' N RR SM TDI/9CNAl IKNT _ n _.. __... ..._..__....�....._�... a f :1 RAILROADrnas9Nc 9aAL r� �T 45f00 s" a 96+00 As.er N p 30 98+00� sBtEEr Ear a - K ' T i sr ....._...._.—...,.-_. .................. ..... ..._.__.. — 0� ____.._ ._...._..._.._... _......-... \ S 1 - T EX R/W a ; �� MONUMENT WITH P. 98+57.0 CASE & COVER SINGLE SPAN EXISTING R/W LINEJ/ �' m s t �� 14*33'02' b+, w Fj- 600.00' 6 r ` CITY OF RENTON . r' SCALE IN FEET ^ z x /' ,T e 76.60':j�,�'� L a 152.37' DEPARTMENT OF PVBLIC WORKS L� MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE INCA ENGINEERS W. PLAN & PROFILE (INTERIM) DESIGNER CEP DATE: FILE MAME. DRAWN: DAN 1'�20•NDRIZ CHECKED: CLIP SCALE:1•=10',fRT. FIELD BOOK PAGE. By AFPR. DATE APPROVE& SHEET, r OF: i , ' . 1 I i • I i _. i 1_.�_..._.... E_.. - ._.'�._-._..__.._ i t i ! i -• - - 1 ' i 3 ; { i t { {.._.. R ! { 11 .._ _. ...._j__.... ..__ ._.. ..._ _. ..._ _ .- _. - _._ .. y : : 1 I 1 i I "r- _._..._.. . _ ... . .._ .... _.. —i I i_ -4 { .... ._._ .._ .... ... _._ _ i E 1 c^ Ol l 1 i i i t i — _..50___..d --t + 00 i ' _ _ 40 n ; 2 _ T . _. I-. _ ... ._.. .... _._._ .-..F�._.-.. -_ -. _. ... .. ... 8 18R 20 00.. X I.- io I (:0 i^lip .s 32.06 r �6 i 00 97 I-00 08-�-00 994.00 v 9 .'t`tt' vt; �/ f i •'/ j''!/ / CL LINE .!n !:i P.L=103+43 3s Ry -` �< tL LINE a;.r r ' f / R = 600.00' 1 ' RAIL CROSSING RUBBER. �' / v / i TRACT 30 T = 100.81' �^ i g f P.I.-100+76.57 2 / ' l 199.75 \ REPLACE WITH I ri 22 54.40" SOLID COVER R 589.00' L - 23553 ROP•�}N :' rti0ti l.i /./ ' DINING W .: / S 0.04 F ./F ri �� / .' / u1 40ULD rtP TRACT 31 Ety CB Sc5 �. '\\ _�•.- ,� - / P f/1 _- IO yam; kd, .r NEW.SS`M�1 O i l " _PROPOSED R/W 00, A. r - 1004 X STR i CON % LINE `'.t`•f 'x3, "�,��:, 'v% A�tORAI{i:_ •/'l 7#.� � `;� .. - Y� s•' ,j/' �• •• ---u'JVAiWIVG IN , "��` ...` ( _. � .�s•' -.a,� -a*. f � %` '�q ^_• .� ..�- ,' QUA«" •-` �', PLUG ARORAIL_-- -_.�.>.,.* '1` '~ .\w '��•�+_"`«.:` L .>.,. ' aA- __.r' g .�"' '16 VALVE • J' I •.. -• .�s.`` � .�.• ¢- �__�:J- .-:�-' ,RE�AtNIb6,IMAd-��•=� -''• :''•-,-'';.-'l',� ..-k=, 31 / ' r•.., sac .�i�x '`" — -,.'- ,,, •�. . }(tJ�SEpYpIpC{T/A/U��7�G`p• FLING / :, �`` I .`- %?=•' .a• m 5 10 o m 40 �! ,.....1 •,.�� xt?E)f _ ,":S' NoG� :".•. -` �,.;:.;...._,...,. /'• .y/ ,ri'' '- w/. •et- SCALE IN FEET JEMOVE-1a water ' WIDENING- ,f awG=•� SINGLE SPAN srK r CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT Or' PSIHLIC WORKS MONSTE ROAD BRIDGE PLAN &PROFIILE (INTERIM) l DESNSNED:CLP DATE. FILE NAME: DRAWN: OAN I'"�D•NORIL CHKED. SCALE: FIELD -,, _—.�.—T NO. REVISON B7 APPIL DATE APVRO�VED+� SHEET: 2 OF AGE, .—. _— "ID VMT ....._-.-_ f i ... ..._ .... _. .-. .. .._... ._.._..... ._ ......._�.... ._.......................... .....i ` .. ...... ... .. ... 70 + I ( j I 1 } } + i i 1 i 7 t I i .._. i I i � -�-- Vi:STA 00. PVIi ELEV� 31.34 160 I I t ( I i I i i , i : i T i fi -T' _ I / i s } w1 . 50�_ i _:� 50 i O i { T { i { f i t N!o - cr i i I i N I I I i i T __ III+ � i ! ! _ _ , 1 I i �7— —T— rn 3n • i : • < 3 __ ZQ_ ___ -. — - —-- r -F -- 100 YR. FLOOD' —FL 23.20 _ .... 1 .. .._......:. __ _..._t. !...... .:- } MOST EASTERLY BRIDGE GIRD ER < EL - Q —... ....... _ m , =20 3 s _/ l0_ v' �' CLEAR LINE EL=230 > w 32:Oti 31;97 31.88 31.79 31.70 31.61 31.52 31,17 30.30 28.92 27.01. i 99+00 100+00 102+00 _ 103 1-00 1044-00 :�;;:.�41G.�:c,c -: E c WFTiCAL N7JM: NCO 29 101+00 _ _ _ 1'799+ 'bll!i`;9l098\CADD\=BANS\IRPP1003.DWC DIF 1.0 I O 0 I � I MATCH U NE STA. 104f00 1 i —_� MATCH LINE STA. 104+00 ( I 1! 1 p j '. ; �Y' y{ p ( 10' PT104+16.29 R/W 40' LEFT OF CENTOLINE is I � i : I I: 7 1 i PT 104+42.30 -� DRIVEWAY RT' AHEAD �..... .......................:................. .........'..................... ? ...... ..... ...... ............. Ij s ' IPOT 104+49.95BACK i I. } _.. ... :..............................._......... j r I VCS;°104. .75 ...... ..... _ t ; rn X � o ... ....... ... ............. .. ................ i ..... g'. i • I �• 1 s 00 0 � 1 ,,•ts. F II .�. ..._. i I 1 -- i JA , I_ ................L. }....... ... ........_f......._. ...... ! 1 I .... ........ } 4 STA. 105+75 f+ EV St...70547 ............... .. E> 1 TEND INTERIM PROJECT �111 I ",) - } w `1-t IM ATCH EXIST. PAVEME NT E ............_ ..._....... I ; M. TCH;EXIS . PANEME T �.�.......': . .. i ........................:........................ _ 1 i I , _ ... t .. ; I : ... f t11I � # }� i ' > I f - { t I r� lix I I IL I .............�............ _... __ }......_. .. _I.._ ...............�...... t I ` 1 #' ! i ;...... ; ....................... ....._.... .... ................ ...... ... ... ; i , i , � PC 10;'+22.5500 : 1 i I , I t atv i L_............._................. r II I ;......_..... _ I j I I Ito i I 1 f • II t ( _ } <� j 1 I' b , CID f I } I g1 I I -- , 1 i I +o MATCH LINE SAT, 108k 00 ! t j....._ .....' I I O 1 L............_. ...... ..... .... ...... ...... I ..... ..... ..... + . i ........... ..... ..... ............I .......... ...... ......._'..... . i _ I I { I _. .. - r ; I ......._F........ I ..... i m � i > N ; _ ro { I I I � RO$ r 6 g { !I i Fn ro t I �R . _ z;ao z i p P b j .. WL APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC REPORT INCA i 7 "Y Citv of Renton Monster Road Bridge r - HYDRAULIC REPORT z November,1994 i' r- IF s "+q t: Prepared by: INCA Engineers,Inc. Contact: Dave Cole,P.E. c , Address: 11120 NE 2nd Street Bellevue,Washington 98004 Phone: (206)635-1000 H:UOBS197099,MUNTADML,%MONSBRO.DOC I IF_9A4 09,43 AM 1; TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE HYDRAULIC REPORT 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 i 6� 2.0 EXISTING HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS 1 3.0 BLACK RIVER HYDROLOGY 1 4.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PERFORMED 4.1 HEC lI 3 4.2 Wetland Mitigation 3 4.3 Backwater Calculation 4 y 5.0 BACKUP INFORMATION 5.1 Corp of Engineers Letter Defining Water Surface Elevation 3 5.2 Hec II Output 3 105 foot Span 80 foot Span 40 foot Span 5.3 Backwater Calculation 4 r LIST OF FIGURES Project Site Map 2 Hydraulic Plan View 5 H:UOBb193DM%f,%TADMMlMONSBRO.DOC Page i I U09 .Ovso xw HYDRAULIC REPORT FOR THE MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 1.0 Project Description (See Project Site Map) The existing Monster Road Bridge built in 1950, is a two lane, three span bridge over a body of water commonly referred to as either the P-1 Channel or the Black River. The existing bridge surface elevation varies between 26 feet and 31 feet. This project proposes construction of a new bridge to the northeast of the existing bridge with an elevation varying from 31 feet to 33 feet. The existing bridge is being replaced because it t was found to be structurally and geometrically substandard when compared with current day design requirements. ' The proposed bridge structure consists of three spans totaling 180 lineal feet and is 45 feet wide including an 8 foot sidewalk. The bridge will be designed to accommodate future widening to a 58 foot, 5 lane roadway with sidewalks on both sides. 2.0 Existing Hydraulic Conditions f� (See Hydraulic Plan View) The P-1 Channel enters the Green River approximately 900 feet downstream of the existing Monster Road Bridge. The P-1 Channel has a very flat bottom from its confluence with the Green River approximately 1500 feet upstream to the P-1 dam and pumping station. The P-1 pumping station is part of a flood control levee system for the Green River which lifts water approximately 5 feet (information received from FEMA) up to the downstream side of the dam. The pump station has a maximum capacity of 2500 cfs although the agreed upon maximum pumping rate is 400 cfs (information received from the COE). The P-1 Channel has an average 100 year flow cross sectional area of about 1100 sf which would convey the 400 cfs flow at a velocity of less than 0.4 fps. At this velocity, we expect the bridge structure to have very little effect on the water surface profile. 3.0 Black River Hydrology Much of the Black River(P-1 channel) is lower than the Green River and is heavily influenced by the water surface profile of the Green River. For this reason the P-1 dam and pumping station was constructed to control the backwater effects from the Green River. The upstream basin tributary to the Black River has a calculated peak flow of 1200 cfs during the 100 year event (information received from the COE). The difference between this 1200 cfs and the 400 cfs pump capacity is stored behind the P-1 dam. H:WBM9309(WNr,ADNL;U-40NSBRG.DOC Page 1 :;.�9M09.43,-„ 3 10 1994 4:52 P.M. H: JOBS 93098 CADD STRUCT TRSPOOO1.DWG O1F 1.0 �r 4 / Ae�w Aye j r? TT N O $l VK CT POA `J ~ d na.sr[�cu sv � wwiwcraiinn+un w± T A _ � y L04GACRcs DIUVE i A O (n U ;;o 0 Q (�' w o > D m � ' 0co 0 N V 0 V / P EAST VACCCT CACCVAY { m os �r+ulnivY 4.0 Hydraulic Analysis Performed 4.1 Hec II The existing bridge has three spans totaling approximately 140 feet lying outside of the flood plain with the exception of the bridge piers. Different bridge scenarios were input into HEC II to model the effects to the water surface elevation of the P-1 Channel.For each of the HEC II models, assumptions were made as summarized below. 1) We received information showing the 100 year water surface elevation (WSEL) at the confluence of the Green River to be elevation 19 (from FEMA), and elevation 21 (from a COE study). After discussion with the COE, it was decided to assume a WSEL of 20 for our modeling purposes (see 5.1, October 17, 1984 letter from the COE in the appendix). 2) It was assumed that the 100 year peak flow is 400 cfs to match the maximum f T pump station output as agreed upon by the CORPS and King Co. The model t was also run at 2500 cfs which is the actual pump station capacity. 3) It was assumed that the 1971 topography maps received from a SCS study 1 - were adequate to use as a basis for channel cross sections HEC H was used to model single span bridges of 105 feet, 80 feet and 40 feet. The HEC H output is in 5.2, backup information and the results are summarized in the table below. HEC II Summary Table Bridge Span Flow Area of Opening *MaxWSEL 40 400 764 20.02 2500 775 20.66 80 400 1338 20.01 2500 1362 20.54 105 400 1543 20.01 2500 1575 20.54 *WSEL 610 feet upstream of bridge As the summary above indicates, moving the bridge abutments closer together and reducing the flow width of the P-1 channel will not significantly effect the WSEL until we approach a bridge span of 40 feet at 2500 cfs flow. 4.2 Wetland Mitigation Moving the bridge abutments closer together and reducing the span would require filling in the existing channel area. This area currently contains standing water and is a class II wetland. Eliminating any of the wetland would most likely require mitigation by constructing wetland at a minimum replacement ratio of 2:1. Filling in H:WBS93098V,M,NIUDMIMMOVSBRG.DOC Page 3 11/09M 0943 qM the wetland would also require a Corps of Engineers nationwide 404 permit as well as a Shoreline permit from the City of Renton. 4.3 Backwater Calculation A backwater calculation was completed by hand as a check to verify the HEC H model. This calculation is shown in 5.3 supporting information and the results showed that the WSEL does not change from the confluence of the Green and Black Rivers back to the existing bridge. This is consistent with our HEC II analysis. r k. s f' l Page 4 i 1ARM4 09:43 M, RR , ct R�ER� �� I ccpro z SCALE: I.--1.00. 0 P-1 CHANNEL R R CHANNEL / \2 / \ EXISTING NEO \tom G BRIDGE / Ahh P-1 DAM AND 3 PUMP STATION N 400 cfs o MAXIMUM ALLOWED , PUMP OUTPUT ' (2500 cfs CAPACITY) z z 0 o � \G� RENTON WASTEWATER o v TREATMENT PLANT �ti o INCA ENGINEERS INC. MONSTER ROAD HYDRALIC REPORT HYDRAULIC PLAN VIEW i 5.1. CORP OF ENGINEERS 4 . LETTER DEFINING WATER t.. SURFACE ELEVATION � z r— e H:WBS1970"l.Mt1'MDMM%40NSBMDOC 11/09/94 *43AM DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY \ SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9 8 1 24-22 5 5 October 17, 1994 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch RECEIVED James Zandia /N OCT 2 5 1994 j INCA Engineering CA ENGINEERS f 11120 NE 2nd St. r- Bellevue, WA 98004-5849 Dear Mr. Zandia: This letter is in response to your request for information on the 100-year flood levels for the Black River at Monster Road. I am enclosing a photocopy of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM #'s 53033CO326 and 328) for this area. It shows that the Black River 100- year water surface elevation is 19 feet at Monster Road. I am also enclosing a copy of the water surface elevation (WSE) profile of the # Standard Project Flood (SPF) for the Green River at the confluence with the Black River. These WSE's were initially computed around 1980 and were reconfirmed in 1990 as part of a Tukwila levee improvement study. It assumes a flow of 12,000 cfs at the gage near Auburn and local flows with SPF magnitude. The WSE is 20.5 feet at the Black River confluence. Our studies have shown that local inflows of 100-year magnitude will generate a WSE about one half-a-foot lower than the SPF generated WSE at the Black River. We conclude that the 100-year water surface elevation of the Black River at Monster Road is 20 feet (NGVD). We recommend using this value which is one-foot higher than the FIRM shows. The fee for this service is $55.00, your canceled check will be your receipt. Please call Joe Weber at (206) 764-3661 or myself at (206) 764-6701 if you need further assistance. Sincerely, Christopher J. nch Flood Plain Management Services Enclosure -2- Copies furnished (without) enclosures: Mr. Tim D'Acci Flood Planner. Department of Ecology, HQ PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 1 Mr. Carl Cook ' Natural Hazards Officer Mitigation Division r Federal Emergency Management Agency I Federal Regional Center 130 - 228th St. S.W. Bothell, WA 98021-9796 i I P: 5.2 HEC H OUTPUT ILOWN 0"3AM kj i i rMUi 1 1ryl.n cr iy a iccr5 i U h'.U12 I �t MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BLACK RIVER: GREEN RIVER TO P-1 PUMP STATION 3 SUBCRITICAL RUN, 105 FT r4 PREPARED BY: JAMES ZANDIAN ALL RIVER CROSS SECTIONS WERE RETRIEVED FROM THE " P-1 CI�ANNEL IMPROVEMENT PLANS-- BLACK RIVER EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER W.P.P. THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED BY SCS (1971) AND PROVIDED TO ZNCA BY * THE CITY OF RENTON (SCOTT WOODBURY) • THE CITY INVESTDGATZONN N IF THESE PLANS WERE THE AS BUILTS. THE FIELDE 10/18/94 REVEALED THAT THESE PLANS REFLECT VERY CLOSELY ITH EXISTING CONDITIONS. * THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS STUDY SHOWS THE WATER SURFACE ELE ATION (WSEL) AT 21.0' AT THE CONFLUENCE OF BLACK RIVER AND GREI�N RIVER.; THE CORPS OF ENGINEER (CHRIS LYNCH) HOWEVER RECOMMENDS USING THE * WSEL=20.0' . THE FEMA MAP SHOWS THE WSEL AT THE CONFLUENCE TO BE 19 . 0' . ' BRIDGE SPAN 105 FT l 0 2 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 20. 0 0 J2 1 1 0 0 0 0 '3 150 j 5 -1 -10 DU RING THE FIELD INVESTIGATION ON 10/18/94 THE RIVER SURFACE COVER WAS * OBSERVED AND THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS WERE MADE: NO APPARENT MAINTENANCE, THE SURFACE OF BOTH BANKS WERE DENSELY COVERED WITH LONG J GRASS, LONG SHRUBS, AND SOME TREES. THE CHOW'S HANDBOOK OF OPEN CHANNEL FLOW; DESIGN RECOMMENDS * USING n=0. 05. PHOTOS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PROJECT FILE. ° VC 0. 05 0. 05 0. 05 0. 6 0. 6 * ACCORDING TO THE COPRS OF ENGINEERS THE P-1 PUMP STATION IS REGULATED TO * DISCHARGE. MAXIMUM OF 400 CFS TO THE GREEN RIVER. * THE 1280 CFS IS PEAK DISCHARGE FROM HYPOTHETICAL BLACK RIVER HYDROGRAPH * PROVIDED BY THE COE. THE 2500 CFS IS THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF THE P-1 PUMPS * ALSO PROVIDED BY THE COE. QT 3 400 1280 2500 * THIS INPUT IS PREPARED FOR SINGLE SPAN BRIDGE ALTtRNATI�E DESIGN. SPECIAL * BRIDGE METHOD IS USED TO ANALYZE LOSSES THROUGH THE STRUCTURE. X1 74700 12 100 177 0 0 0 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15. 0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 1 107 12 . 0 112 GR 0 . 05 133 0. 05 147 15. 0 172 15 . 0 177 22 . 0 220 GR 22 . 0 220 22 . 0 220 X1 74400 12 100 174 300 300 300 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15. 0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 112 12 . 0 117 GR 0.08 133 0. 08 147 12 . 0 169 12 . 0 174 15. 0 180 GR 15. 0 195 22 . 0 225 X1 74430 12 100 174 30 30 30 0 0 1 - GR 22 . 0 55 15. 0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 112 12 . 0 117 GR 0. 083 133 0. 083 147 12. 0 169 12 . 0 174 15. 0 180 GR 15. 0 195 22 . 0 225 X1 74450 8 100 187 20 20 20 I 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15. 0 85 15.0 100 0. 085 133 0. 085 147 GR 21. 0 187 21. 0 207 22 . 0 247 X1 74000 10 100 177 450 450 450 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15 . 0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 I 105 12 . 0 110 1GR 0 . 13 133 0. 13 147 12.8 172 12 .8 177 23 . 0 230 X1 73960 8 100 185 40 40 40 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 50 15. 0 80 15. 0 100 0134 135 0. 134 157 GR 13 . 0 185 13 . 0 190 23 . 0 210 X1 73920 8 100 220 40 40 40 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 55 16. 0 85 16.0 100 0 : 138 135 0. 138 170 GR 21. 0 220 21 . 0 225 23 . 0 230 Xl 73860 8 100 235 60 60 60 0 0 1 GR 21. 0 100 12 . 5 120 12 .5 125 0. 144 j 150 0. 144 20E GR 21. 0 235 21 .0 240 23 . 0 245 I X1 73800 8 100 204 60 60 60 i 0 0 GR 23 . 0 100 12 . 8 120 12 .8 125 0. 150 150 0. 150 165 GR 21. 0 204 21 . 0 209 23 . 0 214 .. VV GGl 1 Wl i i,vt.rf Cny lrirtr-s ,U j1c19GbJ511�k7 F ,b$ I I 7378C 14 122. 5 227 .5 20 20 20 j 0 0 1 32.7 80 32 .0 185 93 25.0 215 13 .;0 227.5 13 . 0 227.6 0 . 152 165 0.152 p 283 31. 0 I295 =R 18.0 240 21.5 260 23 . 0. 025 0.025 0. 050 0.6 0.8 73760 20 20 20 25.0 24 . 4 ;8 10 1 � 5 2 .7 0 14 0 1544 I 2 0. 157 0. 152 73710 50 500 1 24.4 31.0 2.2 31.4 ,S 10 7T 14 80 32 .7 32.7 93 32.5 32: 0 110 32.3 23 . 0 --3 22 .5 32 .2 17.0 122. 6 32. 0 25.0 1�5 J2 .0 25.0 185 r 1 i r 22 . 215 31. 6 24 . 6 227.5 31l.4 24.4 227.6 31.4 . 32 BT 13 . 0 240 31.3 18.0 260 31.2 21.5 1283 31.0 23.0 295 31. 0 31.0 C 0.05 0. 05 0. 05 0.6 0.8 i 0 1 _1 73660 8 100 204 �50 50 '50 I 0 GR 23 . 0 100 12.8 120 12.8 125 O. !57 j150 0. 157 164 R 21. 0 204 21.0 209 23. 0 214 0 1 1 73300 4 0116 150 0.16 164 2360 � 200 ,,R 23 . 0 100 P-1 PUMP STATION :l 73100 4 100 320 100 10000 0 1 0 R 23 .0 100 0. 16 150 0.16 270 2 .0 320 EJ 1 INPUT FOR PEAK DISCHARGE FROM HYPOTHETICAL HYDROGRAPH t 1 3 ' 20.0 2 2 -1 i T1 INPUT FOR° MAXIMUM P-1 PUMP OUTFLOW 20.0 rl 4 I i f2 3 -1 ZR i I t ( j i t { I i t � � 1 , i I i � I I i l�-��-��1=► bl �rri rKun 1rVLH Cng sneers i u r.U4 *-----------------------------------* �- S U M P 0 Interactive Summary Printout for MS/PC-DOS micro computers May 1991 *---------------------------- NOTE Asterisk (*) at -------* left of profile number - indicates message in summary of errors list r - SUBCRITICAL RUN 105 FT SPAN Summary Printout SECNO CWSEL Q TOPWID AREA H DEPTH f- 74700. 00 20. 00 400.00 144 . 14 1200.51 . 37 19. 95 74700. 00 20. 00 1280. 00 144. 14 1200. 51 1. 18 19 .95 74700 . 00 20. 00 2500. 00 144 . 14 1200.51 2 .�31 19 . 95 74400. 00 20. 00 400. 00 1280.00 153 .01 1266.22 1.115 19. 94 74400. 00 20.02 F. 74400. 00 20. 08 2500. 00 153 . 44 1273 .90 2 .123 20 . 00 74430. 00 20 . 00 400.00 152 . 90 1264. 16 f ]15 36 19 , 9274430. 00 20. 02 1280. 00 153 . 04 1266.73 1 1 74430. 00 20. 08 2500. 00 153 .57 1276.22 2 23 20. 00 ` 74450 . 00 20 . 00 400. 00 121.54 1198. 24 �35 19 . 92 74450 . 00 20. 02 1280. 00 121. 66 1200.50 ; 1113 19 . 94 74450 . 00 20. 09 2500. 00 122 . 06 1209.43 2119 20. 00 74000. 00 20. 00 400.00 150.89 1309.53 134 19. 87 74000. 00 20. 05 1280.00 151.29 1315.98 1 10 19 .92 74000.00 20. 18 2500. 00 152 .55 1336. 12 2Ill 20.05 73960. 00 20 . 01 400. 00 145.48 1487. 17 29 19 .87 t 73960 . 00 20. 06 1280. 00 145.75 1493 .25 94 19 .92 73960. 00 20. 22 2500. 00 146.78 1517 .40 ' 1 81 20.08 73920. 00 20. 01 400. 00 149 . 81 1681.22 25 19 . 87 73920. 00 20. 06 1280. 00 150. 14 1688 .53 :78 19 . 93 73920.00 20 . 24 2500. 00 151.29 1714 .48j 1 51 20. 10 73860. 00 20. 01 400.00 131.25 1822.87 . 22 19 . 86 73860. 00, 20. 07 1280. 00 131. 45 1829.80 70 19 .92 73860.00 20. 25 2500.00 132 . 14 1853.62 1�. 35 20. 11 { * 73800. 00 20. 01 400. 00 96. 25 1082 .02 . 37 19 . 86 * 73800. 00 20. 06 1280. 00 96 .47 1087 .42 ! 1. 18 19 . 91 * 73800 . 00 20. 24 2500. 00 97 . 17 1105. 02 21.26 20 . 09 r * 73780. 00 20 . 01 400. 00 135. 24 1620.28 125 19 .86 * 73780 . 00 20 . 08 1280. 00 135.75 1629 . 16 1.81 19 . 93 * 73780 - 00 20. 31 2500. 00 137 . 61 1661.74 11.55 20 . 16 1 73760 . 00 20 . 01 400. 00 105. 00 1542 .71 1. 26 19 .86 73760. 00 20. 08 1280. 00 105. 00 1550. 66 1. 83 19 .93 12-08-2214 01:35FM FROM INCR Engineers TO 312066351150 P.05 73760. 00 20. 31 2500. 00 105.00 1574 .99 1. 9 20. 16 73710 . 00 20 . 01 400.00 105. 00 1543 . 18 6 19 .86 73710. 00 20. 08 1280. 00 105. 00 1575.21 i 1. 9 20. 17 73710. 00 * 73660. 00 20. 01 400. 00 96.25 1081.76 7 19. 85 * 73660. 00 20. 08 1280. 00 96.53 1088 .73 1. 8 19. 93 * 73660 .00 20. 32 2500. 00 97: 45 1111. 64 2. 5 20. 16 .00 20 . 01 400. 00 88 .75 1019 .82 9 19 .85 73300 7330000 20. 11 1280. 00 89 .08 1027 .81 1. 5 19. 95 73300. 00 20. 41 2500.00 90.25 1055.51 2 •� 7 20. 25 73100. 00 20.01 400.00 206.91 3244 .75 ; .;12 19. 85 19.99 * 73100. 00 20 . 15 1280.00 207 .50 3272 .78 ' . 39 20 . 38 * 73100. 00 20. 54 2500.00 209 . 23 3354 . 82 .75 s i i i t 3 I � i lc-UO-.:•=1-+ Jl J.:r11 rrt Vl'I 114L1-'1 =ny ineers I U 71_17bb.:z:11�U Y'.ub r T1 MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT '2 BLACK RIVER: GREEN RIVER TO P-1 PUMP STATION $3 SUBCRITICAL RUN 80 ft SPAN T4 PREPARED BY: JAMES ZANDIAN ALL RIVER CROSS SECTIONS WERE RETRIEVED FROM THE " P-1 CHANNEL EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER W. P.P. " IMPROVEMENT PLANS-- BLACK RIVER THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED BY SCS (1971) AND PROVIDED TO NCA BY * THE CITY OF RENTON (SCOTT WOODBURY) . THE CITY DID NOT KN W IF THESE PLANS WERE THE AS BUILTS. THE FIELD INVESTIGATION N 10/18/94 REVEALED THAT THESE PLANS REFLECT VERY CLOSELY ITHE EXISTING CONDITIONS. r-- * THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS STUDY SHOWS THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION { k (WSEL) AT 21.0' AT THE CONFLUENCE OF BLACK RIVER AND GREEN RIVER. i k THE CORPS OF ENGINEER (CHRIS LYNCH) HOWEVER RECOMMENDS USING THE * WSEL=20. 0' . THE FEMA MAP SHOWS THE WSEL AT THE CONFLUENCE TO BE * 19 . 0' . * BRIDGE SPAN 80 FT J1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1. 0 i 0 20. 0 0 J2 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 + 0 0 0 " J3 150 *5 DURING THE FIELDINVESTIGATION ON 10/18/94 THE RIVER SU FACE COVER WAS * OBSERVED AND THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS WERE MADE: � NO APPARENT MAINTENANCE, * THE SURFACE OF BOTH BANKS WERE DENSELY COVERED WITH LON GRASS, LONG SHRUBS, i * AND SOME TREES. THE CHOW'S HANDBOOK OF OPEN CHANNEL FLO DESIGN RECOMMENDS * USING n=0.05 . PHOTOS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PROJECT. FILE. NC 0. 05 0. 05 0. 05 0. 6 0. 6 * ACCORDING TO THE COPRS OF ENGINEERS THE P-1 PUMP STATIOl I IS REGULATED TO * DISCHARGE MAXIMUM OF 400 CFS TO THE GREEN RIVER. QT 3 400 1280 2500 * THIS INPUT IS PREPARED FOR SINGLE SPAN BRIDGE ALTERNATIyz DESIGN. NORMAL * BRIDGE METHOD IS USED TO ANALYZE LOSSES THROUGH THE STRUCTURE. X1 74700 12 100 177 0 0 0 0 0 1 .- GR 22. 0 55 15. 0 85 15.0 100 12 . 0 107 12 . 0 112 GR 0. 05 133 0.05 147 15. 0 172 15. 0 177 22 . 0 220 GR 22 . 0 220 22 . 0 220 Xl 74400 12 100 174 300 300 300 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15. 0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 112 12 . 0 117 GR 0. 08 133 0. 08 147 12 . 0 169 12 . 0 174 15 . 0 180 GR 15. 0 195 22 . 0 225 X1 74430 12 100 174 30 30 30 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15.0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 112 12 . 0 117 GR 0. 083 133 0. 083 147 12 . 0 169 12 . 0 174 15. 0 180 GR 15. 0 195 22 . 0 225 X1 74450 8 100 187 20 20 20 0 0 1 GR 22. 0 55 15. 0 85 15. 0 100 0. 085 133 0. 085 147 GR 21. 0 187 21 . 0 207 22 . 0 247 X1 74000 10 100 177 450 450 '450 j 0 0 1 GR 22. 0 55 15. 0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 105 12. 0 110 GR 0. 13 133 0. 13 147 12 . 8 172 12 . 8 ( 177 23 . 0 230 XI 73960 8 100 185 40 40 40 0 0 1 GR 22. 0 50 15. 0 80 15. 0 100 0., 134 1 135 0. 134 157 GR 13 . 0 185 13 . 0 190 23 . 0 210 X1 73920 8 100 220 40 40 40 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 55 16. 0 85 16. 0 100 0. 138 135 0. 138 170 GR 21. 0 220 21. 0 225 23 . 0 230 X1 73860 8 100 235 60 60 60 0 0 1 GR 21. 0 100 12 . 5 120 12 .5 125 0: 144 I 150 0. 144 205 GR 21 . 0 235 21. 0 240 23 . 0 245 X1 73800 8 100 204 60 60 60 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 100 12 . 8 120 12 . 8 125 0. 150 150 0. 150 164 GR 21. 0 204 21. 0 209 23 . 0 214 X1 73780 14 135 215 20 20 20 0 0 1 GR 32 . 7 80 32 . 0 93 23 . 0 110 12 . 0 135 12 . 0 135. 1 GR 0. 152 165 0. 152 185 5. 0 215 5 . 0 215. 1 17 . 0 235 01.37PM FROM INCR Engineers TO 912066351150 P.07 ,GR 18.0 240 21.5 260 23. 0 283 31. 0 295 VC 0. 025 0. 025 0. 050 0. 6 0.8 K1 73760 20 20 20 X3 10 5.2 24 . 6 P- SB 0 1.5 2.7 0 14 0 1260 1.5 0. 157 0. 152 X1 73710 50 50 50 i ` X2 1 24 . 6 31.0 X3 10 2 .2 31.2 ` � BT 14 80 32.7 32.7 93 32 .5 32. 0 110 32 . 3 23 .0 BT 135 32.2 12.0 135. 1 32.2 25.2 165 32 . 2 25. 0 185 BT 32 . 0 25.0 215 31. 6 24. 6 215.1 31. 6 j5.0 235 31.4 BT 17 .0 240 31.3 18. 0 260 31.2 21.5 283 31.0 23.0 BT 295 31.0 31.0 NC 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.6 0.8 X1 73660 8 100 204 50 50 50 I 0 0 1 - GR 23 . 0 100 12.8 120 12.8 125 0. 157 150 0. 157 164 GR 21. 0 204 21.0 209 23. 0 214 Xl 73300 4 100 200 360 360 360 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 100 0.16 150 0. 16 164 23 .0 200 * P-1 PUMP STATION X1 73100 4 100 320 100 100 100 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 100 0.16 150 0. 16 270 23 .0 320 Ej I �^ T1 Jl 3 20. 0 J2 2 -1 T1 I J1 4 20. 0 J2 3 -1 ER I I l i f 01;3TPrl FFOM INCR Engineers TO 912066351150 P.08 (f *------------- - - - --------------- S U M P * f ' Interactive Summary Printout for MS/PC-DOS micro computers I May 1991 *-----------------------------------* {� I NOTE - Asterisk (*) at left of profile number indicates message in summary of errors list 1 t SUBCRITICAL RUN 80 FT SPAN Summary Printout SECNO CWSEL Q TOPWID AREA CH DEPTH r 74700. 00 20. 00 400. 00 144 .14 1200. 51 137 19 .95 74700. 00 20. 00 1280. 00 144 . 14 1200. 51 1118 19. 95 74700. 00 20.00 2500. 00 144 . 14 1200. 51 231 19 .95 74400.00 20. 00 400. 00 152.87 1263 .80 ' 36 19 . 92 74400. 00 20. 02 1280. 00 153. 01 1266. 22 1115 19 .94 �v 74400. 00 20. 08 2500. 00 153 .44 1273 .90 2123 20.00 74430 . 00 20. 00 400.00 152 . 90 1264 . 16 136 19. 92 74430. 00 20. 02 1280. 00 153 . 04 1266. 73 1� 15 19 .94 74430. 00 20. 08 2500. 00 153.57 1276. 22 2 � 35 23 20. 00 74450. 00 20. 00 400 . 00 121.54 1198 . 24 19 . 92 74450 . 00 20. 02 1280. 00 121. 66 1200. 50 1,r13 19 . 94 74450. 00 20 . 09 2500 . 00 122. 06 1208 . 43 2 ,r19 20 . 00 74000. 00 20. 00 400. 00 150.89 1309 . 53 134 19 .87 74000. 00 20. 05 1280. 00 151.29 1315. 98 1L10 19 . 92 74000. 00 20. 18 2500. 00 152.55 1336. 12 21. 11 20. 05 73960. 00 20. 01 400. 00 145.48 1487 . 17 , 29 19. 87 73960. 00 20. 06 1280. 00 145. 75 1493 . 25 i94 19 . 92 73960. 00 20 . 22 2500. 00 146.78 1517 . 40 1Ii. 81 20. 08 73920. 00 20 . 01 400. 00 149.81 1681. 22 1. 25 19 . 87 73920. 00 20. 06 1280. 00 150. 14 1688 . 53 . 78 19 . 93 73920. 00 20. 24 2500. 00 151. 29 1714 .48 1;.51 20 . 10 73860 . 00 20. 01 400. 00 131. 25 1822 . 87 1. 22 19 .86 73860. 00 , 20. 07 1280. 00 131. 45 1829 .80 1.70 19 . 92 73860. 00 20. 25 2500. 00 132 . 14 1853 . 62 11.35 20. 11 * 73800. 00 20. 01 400. 00 96.25 1082 . 02 1. 37 19 .86 * 73800. 00 20. 06 1280. 00 96. 47 1087 . 42 11. 18 19 . 91 * 73800. 00 20. 24 2500. 00 97. 17 1105. 02 21. 26 20 . 09 i * 73780. 00 20. 01 400. 00 134. 68 1615. 17 !. 27 19 . 86 * 73780. 00 20. 08 1280. 00 135. 20 1623 . 94 .86 19 . 93 * 73780. 00 20. 31 2500. 00 137. C'/ 1655 . 91 1. 65 20 . 16 73760. 00 20. 01 400. 00 80. 00 1337 . 45 . 30 19 . 86 73760. 00 20. 08 1280. 00 80. 00 1343 . 42 . 95 19 . 93 1G-��-GG14 01;jbrrl rKurl 1NlH tngineers IU 91 0bb351150 P.05 73760. 00 20. 31 2500.00 80.00 1361.72 1. 4 20. 16 73710. 00 20. 01 400. 00 80. 00 1337 . 60 . 0 19 .86 73710. 00 20.08 1280.00 80.00 1343.49 . 5 19.93 73710. 00 20.31 2500. 00 80.00 1361.52 1. 4 20. 16 * 73660.00 20.01 400.00 96.25 1081.75 .37 19.85 f * 73660.00 20. 08 1280.00 96.53 1088. 60 1. 8 19. 93 ` T * 73660.00 20.31 2500.00 97 .43 1111. 16 2.25 20. 16 f ! 73300.00 20.01 400.00 88.75 1019.82 .� 9 19.85 73300. 00 20. 11 1280.00 89 .09 1027 .83 1.125 19.95 f 73300.00 20.41 2500.00 90.24 1055.32 2.;37 20.25 * 73100.00 20.01 400.00 206.91 3244.73 .12 19.85 * 73100.00 20. 15 1280.00 207 .50 3272 . 65 .�39 19.99 * 73100. 00 20.54 2500.00 209. 22 3354 .39 .,75 20.38 I I { f f i G - I 1 i s _ i l�-ego cl=� YJ1•�i=r-i'i r'r[VI'I 11'JLH Cray lr-IC crS' i V 71 JV I-'. l✓J I i T1 MONSTER ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT -2 BLACK RIVER: GREEN RIVER TO P-1 PUMP STATION 13 SUBCRITICAL RUN 40 ft SPAN I '4 PREPARED BY: JAMES ZANDIAN -_ * ALL RIVER CROSS SECTIONS WERE RETRIEVED FROM THE " P-1 CHANNEL EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER W.P.P. " IMPROVEMENT PLANS-- BLACK! RIVER THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED BY SCS (1971) AND PROVIDED TO � NCA BY * THE CITY OF RENTON (SCOTT WOODBURY) . THE CITY DID NOT KN W IF * THESE PLANS WERE THE AS BUILTS. THE FIELD INVESTIGATION N * 10/18/94 REVEALED THAT THESE PLANS REFLECT VERY CLOSELY THE * EXISTING CONDITIONS. 1 * THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS STUDY SHOWS THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION * (WSEL) AT 21. 0' AT THE CONFLUENCE OF BLACK RIVER AND GREEN RIVER. * THE CORPS OF ENGINEER (CHRIS LYNCH) HOWEVER RECOMMENDS USING THE * WSEL=20. 01 . THE FEMA MAP SHOWS THE WSEL AT THE CONFLUENCE TO BE r. * 19 . 01 . * BRIDGE SPAN 40 FT 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 20. 0 0 J2 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 J3 150 # 5 DURING THE* FIELD INVESTIGATION ON 10/18/94 THE RIVER SUI�FACE COVER WAS * OBSERVED AND THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS WERE MADE: NO APPARENT MAINTENANCE, * THE SURFACE OF BOTH BANKS WERE DENSELY COVERED WITH LONG GRASS, LONG SHRUBS, * AND SOME TREES. THE CHOW'S HANDBOOK OF OPEN CHANNEL FLOW DESIGN RECOMMENDS * USING n=0 . 05. PHOTOS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PROJECT FILE. NC 0. 05 0. 05 0. 05 0. 6 0. 6 * ACCORDING TO THE COPRS OF ENGINEERS THE P-1 PUMP STATION IS REGULATED TO * DISCHARGE MAXIMUM OF 400 CFS TO THE GREEN RIVER. j QT 3 400 1280 2500 * THIS INPUT IS PREPARED FOR SINGLE SPAN BRIDGE ALTERNATIyE DESIGN. NORMAL * BRIDGE METHOD IS USED TO ANALYZE LOSSES THROUGH THE STRVCTURE. Xl 74700 12 100 177 0 0 0 0 0 1 �_. GR 22 . 0 55 15 .0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 i 107 12 . 0 112 GR 0.05 133 0 . 05 147 15.0 172 15. 0 1 177 22 . 0 220 GR 22 . 0 220 22 . 0 220 Xl 74400 12 100 174 300 300 300 I 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15 . 0 85 15 . 0 100 12 . 0 ; 112 12 . 0 117 GR 0. 08 133 0. 08 147 12 . 0 169 12 . 0 ! 174 15 . 0 180 GR 15. 0 195 22 . 0 225 X1 74430 12 100 174 30 30 30 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15 . 0 85 15. 0 100 12 . 0 ; 112 12 . 0 117 GR 0. 083 133 0. 083 147 12 . 0 169 12 . 0 174 15. 0 180 GR 15. 0 195 22 . 0 225 Xl 74450 8 100 187 20 20 20 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15 . 0 85 15. 0 100 0 . 085 133 0. 085 147 GR 21. 0 187 21. 0 207 22 . 0 247 X1 74000 10 100 177 450 450 450 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 55 15 . 0 85 15.0 100 12 . 0 105 12 . 0 110 GR 0. 13 133 0. 13 147 12.8 172 12 . 8 177 23 . 0 230 XI 73960 8 100 185 40 40 40 0 0 1 GR 22 . 0 50 15 . 0 80 15.0 100 0 . 134 135 0. 134 157 GR 13 . 0 185 13 . 0 190 23 . 0 210 X1 73920 8 100 220 40 40 40 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 55 16. 0 85 16.0 100 0. 138 135 0. 138 170 GR 21. 0 220 21. 0 225 23 . 0 230 X1 73860 8 100 235 60 60 60 0 0 1 GR 21. 0 100 12 . 5 120 12 .5 125 0. 144 i 150 0. 144 205 GR 21. 0 235 21. 0 240 23 . 0 245 X1 73800 8 100 204 60 60 60 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 100 12 . 8 120 12.8 125 0. 150 150 0. 150 164 GR 21. 0 204 21. 0 209 23 . 0 214 X1 73780 14 155 195 20 20 20 0 0 1 GR 32 . 7 80 32 . 0 93 23.0 110 4 . 15 155 4 . 15 155. 1 GR 0. 152 165 0. 152 185 2 . 14 195 2 . 14 195 . 1 17 . 0 235 l�-uts-qua wi;,)yrri rmuri INCH Engineers TO 912066351150 P.11 GR 18- 0 240 21.5 260 23 .0 283 31. 0 295 NC 0. 025 0. 025 0.050 0.6 0. 88 20 20 X1 73760 20 X3 10 25.2 24 . 6 SB 1. 5 2 .7 0 40 0 970 0 0. 157 0. 152 XI 73710 50 50 50 X2 1 24 . 6 31. 0 X3 10 32 . 2 31. 2 " BT 14 80 32 .7 32 .7 93 32.5 32 . 0 ; 110 32 . 3 23.0 BT 155 32 . 0 4 . 15 155. 1 32 .0 25.0 165 !32 . 2 25. 0 185 BT 32 . 0 25 . 0 195 31.8 24 .8 195. 1 31. 8 :2 . 14 235 31.4 BT 17. 0 240 31.3 18 . 0 260 31.2 21.5 283 31.0 23 .0 BT 295 31. 0 31.0 NC 0.05 0. 05 0.05 0. 6 0.8 Xl 73660 8 100 204 50 50 50 0 0 1 -, GR 23 . 0 100 12 .8 120 12 .8 125 0. 157 ! 150 0.157 164 GR 21. 0 204 21. 0 209 23 .0 214 W X1 73300 4 100 200 ' 360 360 360 0 0 1 GR 23 .0 100 0.16 150 0. 16 164 23 .0 200 t,4 * P-1 PUMP STATION i X1 73100 4 100 320 100 100 100 0 0 1 GR 23 . 0 100 0. 16 150 0. 16 270 23 . 0 320 r EJ T1 J1 3 i 20. 0 J2 2 -1 i T1 J1 4 20. 0 J2 3 -1 ER f i 12-08-2214 01;40FM FRUM IP4(-H tngsneers iu 71CUb0J�11JrJ r.l� -------------- � -- �-- It S U M P O Interactive Summary Printout for MS/PC-DOS micro computers May 1991 ----------------------------------- NOTE - Asterisk (*) at left of profile number indicates message in summary of errors list SUBCRITICAL RUN 40 FT SPAN Summary Printout SECNO CWSEL Q TOPWID AREA VCH DEPTH 74700. 00 20. 00 400. 00 144. 14 1200. 51 i. 37 19 .95 74700 . 00 20. 00 2500. 00 144 . 14 1200. 51 2 . 31 74700. 00 19.95 74400. 00 20 . 00 400. 00 152 .87 1263 . 80 . 36 19 .92 74 20. 08 2500. 00 153 .44 1273 .90 2 . 23 20. 00 74400. 00 74430. 00 20 . 00 400. 00 152 . 90 1264 . 16 . 36 19 .92 74430 74430. 00 00 20.08 2500. 00 153 .57 1276 . 22 21. 23 20.00 74450. 00 20 . 00 400. 00 121. 54 1198 . 24 • 35 19 .92 74450. 00 20. 09 2500 . 00 122 . 06 1208 . 433 2 . 19 20.00 74000 . 00 20. 00 400. 00 150. 89 1309 . 53 . 34 19.87 74000. 00 20. 05 1280. 00 151.29 1315 . 98 1. 10 19 .92 74000. 00 20 . 18 2500. 00 152 . 55 1336 . 12 2 . 11 20.05 73960 . 00 20. 01 400. 00 145.48 1487 . 17 . 29 19.87 73960. 00 20. 06 1280. 00 145.75 1493 . 25 . 94 19 . 92 73960. 00 20. 22 2500. 00 146.78 1517 .40 1. 81 20.08 73920. 00 20. 01 400. 00 149.81 1681. 22 . 25 19 .87 73920. 00 20 . 06 1280. 00 150. 14 1688 . 53 . 78 19.93 73920. 00 20. 24 2500 . 00 151. 29 1714 . 48 1. 51 20.10 73860. 00 20. 01 400. 00 131. 25 1822 .87 . 22 19 . 86 73860. 00 20. 07 1280. 00 131.45 1829 . 80 . 70 19 .92 73860. 00 20. 25 2500. 00 132 . 14 1853 . 62 1. 35 20. 11 * 73800. 00 20 . 01 400. 00 96. 25 1082 . 02 . 37 19.86 * 73800. 00 20. 06 1280. 00 96.47 1087 .42 1 . 18 19. 91 * 73800. 00 20. 24 2500. 00 97 . 17 1105.02 2 . 26 20. 09 * 73780. 00 20. 01 400. 00 134 . 33 1506. 64 . 33 19 .86 * 73780 . 00 20 . 08 1280. 00 134 .84 1515. 11 1. 06 19.93 * 73780. 00 20. 29 2500. 00 136. 64 1545 . 26 2 . 03 20. 14 * 73760. 00 20. 01 400. 00 40. 00 764 . 09 . 52 19 .86 * 73760 . 00 20 . 07 1280 . 00 40. 00 766.94 1 . 67 19 .92 12-06-2214 01:40FM FROM INCH Engineers TO 912066351150 P. 13 * 73760 . 00 20.27 2500. 00 40.00 774 .73 3 . 23 20. 12 73710 . 00 20 . 01 400.00 40.00 763 . 67 . 52 19 . 86 73710 . 00 20.29 2500. 00 40. 00 774 . 31 3 . 23 20. 14 73710. 00 73660 . 00 20 . 01 400 .00 96.25 1081. 68 . 37 19 . 85 73b60. 00 20. 12 1280 . 00 96. 65 1091. 64 1. 17 19 . 96 73660. 00 20.44 2500.00 97 . 90 1123 . 06 2 . 23 20 . 28 20. 01 400.00 88 .76 1020. 09 .39 19. 85 73300. 00 73300. 00 20. 13 2500.00 90.73 1067 .19 2 . 34 20. 37 i 73300. 00 20. 5 * 73100. 00 20. 02 400.00 206.93 3245. 38 . 12 19 .86 * 73100. 00 20. 18 1280. 00 207 . 64 3279 . 22 * 02 73100. 00 20. 66 2500.00 209. 74 3379 . 23 .74 20. 50 r- 5.3 BACKWATER CALCULATION 11/09A0 '19-43 kA OF Q z , Z . Fa1 M /1 3 7 2t-Y-L _l-y kxa (ell 00 o / .i W U W v = U 3 � Slo oZ \� H Q 0 Z � `�` _ G6•�i p000' O� �200. -� �o o '/ �8��' •bCt' �o�p �8t �L�� o� 01�1 �� ',i� Uj ui Z m V 2 ny .�._'_' u _BIZ � , ZW _ F- m can �� ti( �1/ � - -LN9��►��'J �� 7 '� -�O (�,,7N�1��f� �3Nrrv4l� =U -�J'J ?r�i -:'��1 cl ., , . �.t i �!v �� ,/ _� i�f �t��d�4�N = :.l 'I t�T4v! ; �.� .�� \ ✓, 0 m Q � 0 Z � Z ` N \~� } \m • w \ / W • - ' U P� L.�,t. r ln� , a�� ...L�� ► FP_,,M P I LEca Hb z c ---- F LooD LEVEL, (ob`(CAK. F-JI:OT_ GorPS or I:rJ�o► W—e> PA-TA / Igelu Vz Zto Z 15m a w o w 3' -0r z - V J co ' �P iq MLF z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1