8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

1/28

Gilkey Creek AnalysisLippincott Blvd, Roat Ct, & Lapeer Rd

Group 8Paul Christner

Ryan Kunkel

Timothy Panzigrau

Silvia Sutkowski

4/29/2011

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

2/28

Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 6

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Location Maps ......................................................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX B: Flood Flow Data ..................................................................................................................... 10

APPENDIX C: Review of As-builts and Engineering Plans ............................................................................ 12

APPENDIX D: Existing Inundation and Cross Sections................................................................................. 14

APPENDIX E: Proposed Floodplains and Cross Sections ............................................................................. 21

APPENDIX F: GIS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 27

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

3/28

Abstract

Due to urbanization, the upper 7.1 miles of Gilkey Creek, located in the City of Burton, Genesee

County, Michigan, frequently floods. A location map is provided in APPENDIX A. Flow data for the

project area was used from a previous project that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along

Gilkey Creek and is attached as APPENDIX B. Engineering plans and as-builts were reviewed and

APPENDIX C contains the information gathered. A survey crew also gathered information pertaining to

the existing crossings and typical drain cross sections. The specific crossings studied were Lippincott

Boulevard, Roat Court, and Lapeer Road. All information was evaluated using ArcMAP, HEC-RAS, and

HEC-GeoRAS. Existing conditions for the 10-year and 100-year flood events can be found in APPENDIX

D. Upon analysis it is recommended that the following improvements be made:

Replace existing structure at each crossing with bridges. Excavate Roat Ct crossing to have new, lower bottom elevation. Institute a maintenance schedule to maintain flow capabilities.

Resulting outcomes with the above recommendations during the 10-year and 100-year floods for the

studied crossings can be found in APPENDIX E.

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

4/28

Introduction

Group 8 was retained by the City of Burton to analyze 3 crossings over Gilkey Creek due to its

frequent flooding. Gilkey Creek is located in the City of Burton, Genesee County, Michigan. A location

map can be found in APPENDIX A. Originally the creek and its tributaries served as a drainage route for

the adjacent farmlands. Urbanization has resulted in significant changes in the 8.7 square mile

watershed and now contains residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses. This

increase in urbanization has resulted in a runoff spike, which needs to be properly modeled to manage

flood waters. There are 43 total crossings over the main branch of Gilkey Creek. Group 8 was contacted

to analyze the existing crossings at Lippincott Blvd, Roat Ct, and Lapeer St. The location of this section of

the creek can be found in APPENDIX A. Flow data for the project area was used from a previous project

that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along Gilkey Creek and is attached as APPENDIX B.

From this data, the existing floodplains were created and are depicted in APPENDIX D. All information

gathered was evaluated and manipulated using ArcMAP, HEC-RAS, and HEC-GeoRAS.

Discussion

Methods

In order to start analysis of the creek, information was gathered from a variety of sources. A

survey crew was retained to analyze the existing crossings and typical drain cross sections.

Engineering plans and as-builts were also reviewed. The information gathered from this review

can be found in APPENDIX C. FEMA flood maps effective September 25, 2009 were studied to

understand the flood effects on the surrounding area. Existing conditions, such as land use types and

topographic data, useful in ArcGIS were obtained through Genesee County. APPENDIX F shows a

screen shot of the GIS Table of Contents with a sample layout. Flow data for the project area was

used from a previous project that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along Gilkey Creek.

The flow data is attached as APPENDIX B. Using the GIS data obtained, a concise map was created to

include only the area of interest. Through HEC-GeoRAS modeling techniques the creek geometry was

created and imported into HEC-RAS. Effectively, a model of the section of stream being analyzed was

created. Adding the flood flow data allowed for an existing floodplains map to be created in ArcMAP.

The existing floodplain maps and cross sections at the crossings can be found in APPENDIX D. Steady

flow analyses were run. The effects of different structures at the crossings were evaluated and the

most effective designs were chosen to properly manage the flood flows.

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

5/28

Findings

For the existing culverts and pipes, both the 10-year flood and 100-year flood overtopped the

roadways. The resulting floodplain and cross sections of the existing flows can be found in APPENDIX

D. Several structural options were evaluated. Size increases in the box culverts and pipes were tried

but no options were viable with the given elevations of the roadway. The only feasible options

appeared to be the construction of bridges to replace the existing structures. For Lippincott Blvd,

Roat Ct, Lapeer Rd a bridge effectively managed the flow coming through the crossing. In addition,

an excavation of the channel bottom at the Roat Ct crossing would improve the flow.

Assessment

The mapped inundation using the existing results differed from the provided FEMA floodplain

data, both in APPENDIX D. The differences mainly exist due to the programs predilection for linearly

connecting cross-sections. Some of the curvy features of the creek were not correctly depicted in the

model and therefore allowed for a slightly skewed map of the inundations.

Comparing the existing conditions to the proposed conditions shows a significant change in the

management of the flood waters. With existing conditions, each crossing was overtopped during

both the 10-year and 100-year flood events. By changing the structures at each crossing from box

culverts and pipes to bridges, the flood flows were adequately managed at all three crossings. The

effectiveness in managing the 10- and 100- year flows can be seen by comparing the cross-sections in

APPENDIX D and APPENDIX E.

The impacts of the proposed changes are social, environmental, and economic. Some of the

social impacts will occur during construction. Unfortunately many travel routes will be temporarily

alternated to accommodate for construction at the crossings. The outcome of this construction will

end up being socially beneficial due to the decrease in flooding. Homes, businesses, and roadways

will no longer be affected by the overflowing waters and therefore will allow for people to still travel

and live without worrying about their homes flooding. The reduction in flooding will also be

economically beneficial. Businesses and roadways will be able to stay open instead of closing due to

flooding. One downside of the flooding will be the reduction in nutrients provided to surrounding

farmlands and wetlands. Also, by not allowing the creek to naturally flood, downstream crossings

may be adversely affected because more flow will go through the studied cross sections.

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

6/28

Environmental impacts can be vast. With the decrease of floods, less loose sediment from

surrounding lands will be taken downstream and affect other crossings and the creek in general.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Upon analysis it is recommended that the following improvements be made:

Replace existing structures at each crossing with bridges. Excavate Roat Rd crossing to have new, lower bottom elevation. Institute a maintenance schedule to maintain flow capabilities.

Resulting outcomes with the above recommendations during the 10-year and 100-year floods for the

studied crossings can be found in APPENDIX E. Flooding conditions for both the 10-year and 100-year

predictions may be slightly inaccurate due to the cross-sections being drawn somewhat small. This

eliminated some of the possible flooding that should occur, therefore making it look less expansive.

Also, more cross sections along the stream would have provided a more accurate map of the inundation

compared to the actual stream. However, by comparing the flooding extent from before and after

modifications, it is easy to see that the newly implemented bridges significantly help contain the

majority of flood water from overtopping the banks and corresponding roadway. The first attempt was

to increase the dimensions of the culverts, but it was quickly realized for them to accommodate the

flooding the culverts had to be so large they resembled bridges. For this reason three bridges were

implemented to solve the flooding problem of the Gilkey Creek over Lapeer, Roat and Lippencott roads.

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

7/28

APPENDIX A: Location Maps

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

8/28

Genessee County, Mighigan

Approximate Watershed of Gilkey Creek

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

9/28

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

10/28

APPENDIX B: Flood Flow Data

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

11/28

STA (ft)

10-YR

(cfs)

100-YR

(cfs)

-1+66 866 1256

0+79 887 1282

24+39 854 1243

26+98 854 1243

37+03 868 1307

58+38 864 1321

67+94 689 1043

112+89 683 1052

116+29 666 1155

127+39 670 1159

148+78 662 1137

169+44 580 981

219+39 511 996

237+54 410 780

269+81 325 602

283+25 304 563

326+48 248 450

348+77 58 114

373+21 35 71

0+00 located 306 ft downstream of Center Road

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

12/28

APPENDIX C: Review of As-builts and Engineering Plans

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

13/28

Crossing Type Surface Structure Type

Span

(ft)

Rise

(ft)

# of

Openings

Length Parallel to

Flow (ft) Skew Condition Headwall Type

Headwall

Condition

Sediment in

Culvert (ft)

Center

RoadRoad Bituminous

Corrugated Metal

Pipe Arch13 9 1 80 90 Fair 90-deg Concrete Wingwalls Fair 4

Railroad Rail Rail,Ballast

Concrete PipeCMP

CMP

79.5

9

79.5

9

3 243 90 Poor d/s - steel and concretewingwalls

u/s - projecting

Poor 1.5

I-69 Highway Bituminous

Concrete Box

Concrete Pipe

Concrete Pipe

10

8

8

7

8

8

3 262 90 Fair

90-deg Concrete Wingwalls

for Box Culvert, Projecting

for Concrete Pipes

Fair --

Lapeer

RoadRoad Bituminous Concrete Box 13.3 7 1 45 90 Poor 90-deg Concrete Wingwalls Poor --

Roat Court Road DirtCorrugated Metal

Pipe7.5 7.5 1 54 90 Good Mitred to Slope Fair --

LippincottBlvd.

Road BituminousConcrete BoxConcrete Box

88

6.46.4

2 74 90 Fair Concrete Wingwalls Poor1.51.5

Atherton

RoadRoad Bituminous Concrete Box 11.7 6.4 1 46 90 Good Projecting Poor --

Belsay Road Road Bituminous Concrete Box 14 6 1 60 90 New 45-deg Concrete Wingwalls New --

Bristol Road Road DirtCorrugated Metal

Pipe5 5 1 43 90 Poor Concrete Wingwalls Poor 1

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

14/28

APPENDIX D: Existing Inundation and Cross Sections

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

15/28

FEMA Floodplain

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

16/28

Existing Inundation 10 yr Flood

Existing Inundation 100 yr Flood

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

17/28

Lippincott Blvd 10yr Flood

Lippincott Blvd 100 yr Flood

0 10 20 30 40 50760

762

764

766

768

770

772

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011Lippincott Blvd

Station (ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 10yr

WS 10yr

Crit 10yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

0 10 20 30 40 50760

762

764

766

768

770

772

774

GilkeyCrk Pla n: Gilkey1 4/28/20 11Lippincott Blvd

Station (ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 100yr

WS 100yr

Cri t 100yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

18/28

Roat Ct 10yr Flood

Roat Ct 100yr Flood

0 10 20 30 40 50 60761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/201 1Roat Ct

Station (ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 10yr

WS 10yr

Crit 10yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

0 10 20 30 40 50 60760

762

764

766

768

770

772

GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/2011Roat Ct

Station ( ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 100yr

WS 100yr

Crit 100yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

19/28

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

20/28

Existing Section Profile

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000750

755

760

765

770

775

GilkeyCrk Plan : 1) Gilkey1 4/28/2011

Main Channel Distance (ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 100yr

WS 100yr

EG 10yr

WS 10yr

Crit 100yr

Crit 10yr

Ground

GilkeyCreek Group8

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

21/28

APPENDIX E: Proposed Floodplains and Cross Sections

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

22/28

Inundation with Proposed Changes 10 yr Flood

Inundation with Proposed Changes 100 yr Flood

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

23/28

Lippincott Blvd 10yr Flood

Lippincott Blvd 100 yr Flood

0 10 20 30 40 50760

762

764

766

768

770

772

GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/2011Lippincott Blvd

Station (f t)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 10yr

WS 10yr

Crit 10yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

0 10 20 30 40 50760

762

764

766

768

770

772

774

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011Lippincott Blvd

Station ( ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 100yr

WS 100yr

Crit 100yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

24/28

Roat Ct 10yr Flood

Roat Ct 100yr Flood

0 10 20 30 40 50 60762

764

766

768

770

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011Roat Ct

Station ( ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 10yr

WS 10yr

Crit 10yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

0 10 20 30 40 50 60762

764

766

768

770

772

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/201 1Roat Ct

Station (ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 100yr

WS 100yr

Crit 100yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

25/28

Lapeer Rd 10yr Flood

Lapeer Rd 100 yr Flood

0 10 20 30 40 50 60756

758

760

762

764

766

768

770

GilkeyCrk Pla n: Gilkey1 4/28/2011

Station ( ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 10yr

WS 10yr

Crit 10yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

0 10 20 30 40 50 60756

758

760

762

764

766

768

770

GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/20 11

Station (ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 100yr

WS 100yr

Cri t100yr

Ground

BankSta

.045 .045 .045

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

26/28

Existing Section Profile

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000750

755

760

765

770

775

GilkeyCrk Plan : Gilkey1 4/28/201 1

Main Channel Distance (ft)

Elevation(

ft)

Legend

EG 100yr

WS 100yr

EG 10yr

WS 10yr

Crit 100yr

Crit 10yr

Ground

GilkeyCreek Group8

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

27/28

APPENDIX F: GIS Table of Contents

8/7/2019 CE 462 Project

28/28