The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-11-20 Replacement recommendation for Bridge 8430 on CSAH 18 � • ) _ `� November 20, 20OO � d� /� �/ � � Wayne Fingalson, P.E. e,a n,, `o � O �'� I, `V / .��j` �� Wright County Highway Department p!/ \ , � ' 1901 Hwy 25 N �J• (�� Buffalo, MN 55313, MN � � � � � n (j � r RE: Re lace a� �� p ment recommendation for Bndge 8430 on CSAH 18 Sec. 2, T-120-N, R-24-W. � � � Dear Mr. Fingalson: Enclosed are copies of calculation sheets ancl a risk asszssment for sizing culvets ta replace t�-le ahav� referenced structure. The recommended size and pertinent hydraulic data are as follows: Recommended Culverts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 12 ft x 8 ft Box Culvert * Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Co. Ditch#9 * Drainage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1.23 sq. mi. Flood of Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unlcnown Maximum Observed Highwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unknown * Design and Basic Flood (100 Year Frequency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 205 efs `oo �W L * Headwater Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 951.5 — '�' Stage Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 ft. Stage Increase for Existing Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0.25 ft. Approximate Roadway Sag Point Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 957.7 Mean Velocity Through Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2.5 fps Mean Velocity in Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1.75 fps Greatest Flood (500 Year Frequency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 350 cfs * Headwater Elevarion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 953.0 Stage Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0.3 ft Mean Velocity Through Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 3.7 fps Approximate Inlet Invert Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 944.5** Approximate Outlet Invert Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 944.3** * This information should be shown on the plan sheet(s) ** These are suggested invert elevations, if a designated ditch flowline is available, the culvert should be set at that elevation. The above design data is based on field survey data provided by Wright County for this project. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ,��– �� l �� Date: �o D Brian D. Walter, P.E., Reg. No. 13896 � 1 . .. ` � - �' � � Nlarch 16, 1992 STATE AID MAN'LTAI, Fi . A (1) 5-892,� i t-9-s t RISK ASSESS'N�.NT Date FOR --�°� Zo Z o vo ENCROACAMENT DESIGN Distnct County —'--�-- Vicinity of�, ,q��Tv,�Lt DATA �C)LTTRg tv�r.S SeC. Z T I Zc� R--_L 1. Location of Crossing: Roadway _ �S � �-� 1 O C.S. M.P. �-----�--_.. 2. I�1ame of Stream: _Co, �)j<,}I � 9 Bridge No. ��3� 3. Current ADT _ 2. �17 � 2 000 � ; Projected ADT ��6 Zb' �Z d L0� ---�_ 4. Type of Traffic: a. Practicable detour available No Yes � If there is no praccicable detour available, then the use of the road must be analyzed. Consideraaoas such as emergency vehicle access, emergency su�ply and evacuation route, and the nxd for school bus, mi11c and mail routes should be studied. Faccors to coasider for this analysis include design frequency, depth, duration, and fir,quency of inundadon if appropriate, and avaiIable fi�ding. 5. Hydraulic Data: (Fill in as appropriate) Approximate Flowline Elevation 9 y y. 3 �, Q2 �2 Elevation QS — �S Elevacion Q 10 — �10 Elevation , Q25 — TDJ25 Elevacion I QSO ' � TWSQ Elevation I � ZO 5.cT1 Tw100 Elevation —' . Z 7 Circle Design Frequencx � Reasons for selectcng Design Frequency: }-� )�N �p,r� U W,�Y �12 V�)L�; R�.:'L,A'Tl /C� Tu �YC:�� 7�4 I L A"T�12 CLCl/,dT).��.) 6. Magnitudo and Frequency of the smaller of"Overtopping"or "500 yr."(Greatest) flood: 3 S� cfs 5 v� ear fre y quency 7. L.ow member elevadon _ N . A. � 8. Minimum roadway overflow elevation if appropriate _ �. �. 9. Elevation of hi risk ro e �/ 5 Z . S�7 � � P p rty, i.e. resid�nces Other buildings ��1 M )�,A R � 10. Horizontal location of overflow: At structure �.A. {S�� t�L_; Not at structure �/ ,� . 11. Type of proposed structure: Bridge ��er 12�L_; Culvert(s) — X 12. If the proposed slru�ctwe is a bridge with ti�e sag point located on the bridge and there is ice aad debris potential,strong cAnsideration should be givea to t�sing QSp a,y design di�arge with 3'of clearaace between the SO year tailwater yKage and law member. , ( _'.� (-_` , � ` � / Fig. A (2) 5-892.205 STAT'E AID MA,NUAI, March 16, 1992 11-1s-81 RISB ASSESSMENT . LTF,C DESIGN 1. BACKWATER DAMAGE-Major dood damage in chis contcxt refers to shopping centers, . hospitaL9, chemical plants, power plants, housing developments, etc. 1 a. Is the overtopping flood gceater than the 100 yr. flood? Yes�(Go to lb.); No (Go to lo.) • lb. Is the ovcrtopping flood greater thaa thc "greatest" flood(S00 yr, frequoncy)? Yes�(Go to ld.); No (Go to lc.) . la Is there major flood damage poten6al for the overtopping flood? � No (Go to le.) (Go to le.) ld. Is there major flood damage potendal for the groatest flood(500 year frequency)? No (Go to le.) � y��_ (Go to le.) 1 e. Will there be flood damage potential to residence(s) ar other buildings during a 100 yr. flood? Y�s (Go to lf.); No �(Go to 2) 1 f. Could this flood damage occur even if the roadway crossing wasn't there? � Yes (Go to lg.); No (Go to lh.) lg. Could this flood damage lx significantly increased by tho backwater caused by the pro- posed crossing? Yes (Go to lh.); No (Go to 2) lh Could the streaul crossing be designed in such a manaer so as to minimi�r �,y po�ntial flood damage? Yes (Go to li.); No • (Go to 2) li. Does the value of the building(s) and/or its contents have sufficient value to justify fur_ . th�r evalvation of risk and potential IIood damage? � No (Go to 2) (Go to 2) 2. TRAFF'IC RELATID LOSSES . 2a. Is the ovcrtopping flood greater than the "gceatest"flood(S00 yr. frequency)7 Ycs �(Go to 3); No (Go to Zb.) 2b. Does the ADT ezceed SO vehicles per day? Yes (Go to Zc.); No (Go to 3) Zc. Would the(duration of road closure in days) muldplied by the(length of detour minus the length of normal route in miles)ezceed 20? _ Yes (Go to 2b.); No (Go to 3) 2d. Docs the annual risk cost for traffic relatod costs ezceed 10% of the annual capikal costs? No (Go to 3) yES (Sx figures A aad B for assistaace) (Go to 3) � - �> - . ' - 1 �� . 1�Iarch 16, 1992 STATE A,ID MANLIAi, Fi . A (3) 5-892.20:. 4-20-83 LTEC � � DESIGN 3. ROADWAY AND/OR STRUCTURE REpqIR COSTS 3a: Is the overtopping flood tess than a 100 year frequency flood? � Yes (Go to 3b.); No�(Go to 3i.) 3b. Compare the tailwater('�'W) elevation with tho roadway sag point e(evation for the over- topping flood. Check the appcopriate category. When TW is above the sag point(Go to 4) When TW is becween 0 and .5' below sag point(Go to 3c.) When TW is between.5' and 1.0' below sag point(Go to 3d.) When TW is betwoen 1.0' aud Z.0' below sag point(Go to 3e.) When TW if more than 2.0' below sag point(Go to 3g.) 3c. Dces the embaakment have a good erosion resistant vegetative cover? Yes (Go to 3i.); No (Go to 3d.) 3d. Is the shoulder constructed from erosion resistaat material such as paved, coarse gravel, or clay type soil? Yes (Go to 3i.); , . No (Go to 3e.) 3e. GVill the duration of overtopping for the 25 year flood exceed 1 hour? Yes (Go to 3f.); No (Go to 3i.) 3f. Is the embankment constructed from erosion resistant material such�s a clay type soil? � Yes (Go to 3i.); No (Go to 3g.) ', 3g. Is the overtopping flood less than a 25 year frequcncy flood? I� Yes (Go co 3h.); No (Go to 3i.) 3h. Will the cost of protecting the roadway and/or embankment from severe dama e caused b overto in e . Y pp g xceed the cost of providing additional culvert or bndge capac�ty? No (Go to 3i.) �S 3i. Is there damage potentia! to the structure caused by scour, ice, debris or other means (Go to 3i) during the lesser of the overtopping flood or the 100 yoar flood? Yes (Go to 3j.); No�(Go to 4) 3j. Will the cost of protecting the structure firom damage oxceed the cost of providing addi- tional culvert or bridge waterway capacity? No (Go to 4); � (Go to 4) . � , -�,� � �� • . Fi . A (4) 5-892.205 STATE AID MAiYLTAI, March 16, 1992 l 1-9-81 LTEC DESIGN 4. V✓ill th capita!cost of the structure exceed�500,000? ` No�(Go to S); YES S. In your opinion, are there any other factors which you feel should require further study (Go t—o S—) t ou a nsk analysis? No Go to 6) YES 6. If there are no A's ia the LTEC Design columa on the right, proceed with the design, se- (Indicate) lecting the lowest acceptable grade line and the smallest waterway opening consistcnt with the constraints imposed on thc pro'ect: The risk assessment has demonstrated that potential flood damage costs, traffic rc�ated costs� roadway and/or structure repair costs are minor,and therefore disregarded for this project. Onc or more A's in the LTEC Design column indicates further analysis in the category - - checked may be required ufilizing the LTEC design process or jusfification why it is not re- quired. i��n� � s ��o>> DA M A6l_ n�-��- � ,�` �-o A w o�s ,�� EI/tLc��r�t�.N� �—oC,dTEU UPS?I��AM, �v� 7�}L �l S k �S �A 1R�.Y �O Wc n A N ll 1 }-l�: �1Zu Pc7 .S C:1� S't'� �c.�'v�z� I�/i�� d� �N 1M��U�M �� C7vc R �l�-l:. LX} S�')� c� Cp � D )i 10 ?.1. TH�TZE�oYZE� �'��2�NL}Z AUA�Ys �s U7��z� � � 7'H�� L►t�. ��.s1�� PnocL-ss ls � 1�0� �vS"TIF� Ell . � , Risk Assessment by ��,� /�� Gi2� Registration Number /3��6 Date ///L o �bv . '� � : - / • � ' � . � ^ � '��f; ,l��•.��"---1 :.a�• • ��i� , �� - . � • � + �l �� • , ■ .1 �: �- I� ■■� '��■■■.■■■S■■■■■�■■�■■■ ■ ��Ji7��iIIC��■■■..■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ��►=L:�:�'��.■■.■■�■■.■■■�■■■�■■ ■��■■■■■.■■■■■■ ��i��s�� • ---��----,--`�� . , . e��ee�r�� = ��m��.�� -� . . . .��.�� n��o��a�� : a ' l �■■■■■■■�■■■■■.■■ ��a��n��o�� N • ��v ��n��n�� :l�I�r.l�i��n�� '�1l��!�� _ ,�c��r� , . - � ��r�e�� dC•�-��l��i3��i�r�� = ��oc�� . ��s�� u�e� .. r�c��r��r�� i�� ■��e��a�:,�.. �� .�.a�r�.��rr�� or��s�� !� :1�.,�!��.!��!'�!�#�� ■�—n��nr�� .i��l�.��1l.��!!.►�'�� i�� r��6�-��fi��■ � ■��l��C ,-. �:�J�l��r.�;. .�!�i.al��■�� ■��e. . � ��r��■�� ■��s��s ��+��s��e�■ ■��i�e��i�sii�o��■�e�■ ■v■v��.��0��i � :� `� .: . : � • � ' i . / 1�� Ii .I�l'L��'I. -- ' � � ��. • `�� ' � � �� . . � � � � � � . /• ri/ ■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ . , � � ■■� ■.��_��%1►7�i/�1��..■■■■■■■.■■■■■■ �i��■�i�i��i��■ ■��r�i�`��'I/.L`_7��■■■■■■�■■■ �■■■■■■�■■�■■■■■�■■■■■■�■■.■ � ■ � . .��r��a�� ■ ■■■■■■■m■■■■■..■.�� = ■��.�� ■ ■ ,. . �� ; c��mm�� e _ �� .��■�� '�� v�� n■��rr�■��c�� : �.��,�� ,: ��i�s� . � e�r�� ■��e� � ��n�� -�� + � .�i►7i.r�ii►iif�'LdEr�� = ��a��r��■ � ��■��r�� ■ � �c-��a��a��. , ,�!�rza.��v�� ■��■�■■■■■■��v�� r��:�� l0�[i�Ei��, �:�a�� v■��a�ra�� a��e�� c�c�� .��r��a�� = ��e� !, ��■��►��ca��■ � ■��r��s�� •��c�� ..�r�� ■��o��a�� !��-. ��c�t��r��■ ■��r��r��■ ��■ ■ v ' . � . : .: . � • � . � :�� i��- _ ----------) I�, ..I�l.�'�:l. . �� , . _ a � �� - . . , r : , • � • " � l ��■■��■��■��■ ' � �� . . ■■■■■■�� Z�� i�� '��c'�i�i��W��#��;��E��'. : l�� F��Ot-�'J�'%��■��nJ- ►.�1�t�3'�5�� .�!��a�r�.��o�i�c ., �� e��r�� ■ . . .�� .. ��v�o�� v��v�� .��e��o�r��. �.��+ . .�� ■■m■�� ns - � .:��o��s��v�� r,� .� �r��nin�� n��r��r��.�a��s�� e�� ,. , . . •�� '' ' ri �� ■��■��■��■�� = ��c.�.�. .�..��a��i�� o�e��r,�� _ - ■ �� nv�� , � �� e�� . . �� .. � �� e�� c��!��r��n.��r�� .�� I�!l��Cl�l�1��l�!'��5! • :�'-�.�t�!l�� v�■��O�r�� = �� ■��s��e�� e�� v ..�.�■ ... � ' ) .� FLOOD FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIPS Based on U.S. Geological Survey 1977 (old) and 1987 (new) publications '?echniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Fioods in Minnesota" The following data is for Bridge 8430 on CSAH 18, Wright County Minnesota. Sec. 2, T-120-N, R-24-W . INPUT DATA Drainage Area = 1.23 sq. mi. Channel Slope = 12.12 ft./mi. Total Storage = 0.00 % Lake Storage = 0.00 % Mean Annual Runoff 6.50 inches OLD REGIONS 1977) Recurrence Years A B C D E F G H Q 2 33 18 31 22 21 92 34 65 Q 5 62 57 53 59 47 230 78 144 Q 10 84 100 70 97 71 357 116 227 Q 25 115 181 93 158 108 541 176 327 Q 50 141 262 112 215 140 646 229 42g Q 100 169 365 132 281 176 849 287 540 � Q 500 Q 100*1.7 288 620 225 477 299 1,443 487 918 NEW REGIONS (1987) I�� Recurrence ears A B C D Q 2 32 19 50 61 Q 5 71 36 75 119 Q 10 105 49 89 168 Q 25 158 67 105 241 Q 50 203 81 114 302 Q 100 254 96 114 367 Q 500 Q 100'`1.7 432 163 194 624 15-Nov-2000 �, . , ' . . -� _ ,� ENTER region where site is located: A B C D E F d ENTER basin characteristics for site Drainage area (sq. mi . ) 1. 23 Main-channel slope (ft . /mi . ) 12 . 12 Lakes percent area + 1 1 Flood frequency estimates for Bridge 8430, Wright Co. , RRE Region D RECURR. PEAK FLOW SEP (�) EQ. YRS . 90� PRED. INTERVAL INTERVAL (cfs) 2 26. 50. 3 .30 12 . 57 . 5 54 . 45 . 5.42 26 . 111 . 10 79 . 46. 7. 11 38 . 163 . 25 116 . 49. 8 . 82 54 . 250 . 50 148 . 52 . 9 . 70 66 . 334 . I 100 184 . 55 . 10 .29 78 . 434 . ! Do you want to perform another analysis (y or n) ? �� Storage percent + 1 1 -�.- Lakes percent area + 1 1 Generalized runoff ' 5. 5 � Enter option for selecting stations List of gaging stations (G) Proximity criterion (P) Similarity criterion (S) s Flood frequency estimates . for � _ Bridge 8430, Wright Co. , ROI-SIM RECURR. PEAK FLOW SEP (�) EQ. YRS . 90% PRED. INTERVAL INTERVAL (cf s) 2-year 26 . 59 . 2 . 63 10 . 66 . S-year 57 . 51 . 4 . 56 25 . 129 . 10-year 84 . 53 . 5 . 87 37 . 195 . 25-year 127 . 58 . 6 . 85 51 . 316 . 50-year 164 . 64 . 7 . 16 61 . 440 . 100-year 205 . 70 . 7 .27 70 . 600 . Do you want to perform another analysis (y or n) ? . - � � � ) . � CULVERT FILE : 86-8430 FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS DATE: 11-20-2000 TAILWATER FILE: 86-8430 HYS , VERSION 6 . 0 CULVERT NO. 1 OF ], IRREGULAR CHANNEL FILE: 86-8430 NO. FLOW ELEVATION DEPTH VELOCITY SHEAR (Using R) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (fps) (psf) 1 0 . 00 944 .45 1 . 17 0 . 00 0 . 00 2 35 . 00 947 . 66 4 . 38 1 . 10 0 . 06 3 70 . 00 948 . 80 5 . 52 1 .31 0 . 07 4 105 . 00 949. 65 6 . 37 1 .45 0 . 09 5 140 . 00 950 . 33 7 . 05 1 . 55 0 . 10 6 175 . 00 950 . 87 7 . 59 1 . 66 0 . 11 7 ' 205 . 00 951 .27 7 . 99 1 . 75 0 . 11 8 245 . 00 951 . 75 8 .47 1 . 85 0 . 12 9 280 . 00 952 . 11 8 . 83 1 . 92 0 . 13 10 315 . 00 952 .41 9 . 13 1 . 99 0 . 14 11 350 . 00 952 . 62 9 .34 2 . 04 0 . 14 PRESS <D> FOR DATA TO PLOT RATING CURVE <ESC> FOR CHANNEL SHAPE MENU <ENTER> TO CONTINUE 1-Help 2-Progr 3 4 5-End 6 7 8 9-DOS 10 �x� sT, ,v� C��v��T PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR CULVERT NO. 1 - 1 ( 10 . 30 ft by 8 . 10 ft) RCB DIS- HEAD- INLET OUTLET ANALYSIS ASSUMES NO OVERTOPPING CHARGE WATER CONTROL CONTROL FLOW NORMAL CRIT. OUTLET TW OUTLET TW FLOW ELEV. DEPTH DEPTH TYPE DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH VEL. VEL. (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) <F4> (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fps) 0 944 .58 0 . 00 -0 . 13 0-NF 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 1 . 17 0 . 00 0 . 00 35 947 . 78 1 . 08 3 .20 3-Mlt 0 .24 0 . 71 4 . 38 4 .38 0 . 78 1 . 10 70 948 .96 1 . 70 4 .38 3-Mlt 0 .49 1 . 13 5 . 52 5 .52 1 .23 1 .31 105 949. 83 2 . 23 5 .25 3-Mlt 0 . 73 1 .48 6 .37 6 .37 1 . 60 1 .45 ' 140 950 .55 2 . 70 5 . 97 3-Mlt 0 . 90 1 . 79 7 . 05 7 . 05 1 . 93 1 . 55 175 951 . 12 3 . 13 6 . 54 3-Mlt 1 . 02 2 . 08 7 .59 7 . 59 2 . 24 1 . 66 205 951 .56 3 .48 6 . 98 3-Mlt 1 . 13 2 . 31 7. 99 7 . 99 2 .49 1 .75 245 951. 95 3 . 92 7.37 1-Slf 1 .28 2 . 61 - 8 . 10 8 .47 2 . 94 1 . 85 280 952 .37 4 . 30 7 . 79 1-Slf 1 .41 2 . 85 8 . 10 8 .83 3 . 36 1 . 91 315 952 . 74 4 . 66 8 . 16 4-FFt 1 . 53 3 . 08 8 . 10 9 . 13 3 . 78 1 . 99 350 953 . 03 5 . 01 8 .45 4-FFt 1 . 65 3 . 30 8 . 10 9 .34 4 . 20 2 . 04 , INVERT ELEVATIONS--> Inlet - 944 . 58 ft Crest - 0 . 00 ft ' ,� FILE• 86-8430 Outlet - 943 .28 ft Throat - 0 . 00 ft � �I PRESS : <KEY> TO CONTINUE <W> FOR PROFILE TABLE I TO PLOT FOR IMPROVED INLET TABLE I 1-Help 2 3 4-Type 5-End 6 7 g 9-DOS 10 _� � � , . --� ,- � .,,'` � � � � � � . CULVERT FILE : 86-8430P FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS DATE: 11-20-2000 I', TAILWATER FILE : 86-8430 HYB , VERSIOIV 6 . 0 CULVERT NO. 1 OF 1 ' IRREGULAR CHANNEL FILE: 86-8430 NO. FLOW ELEVRTION DEPTH VELOCITY SHEAR (Using R) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (fps) (psf) � 1 0 . 00 944 . 45 0 . 15 0 . 00 0 . 00 2 35 . 00 947 . 66 3 . 36 1 . 10 0 . 06 3 70 . 00 948 . 80 4 .50 1 . 31 0 . 07 4 105 . 00 949 . 65 5 .35 1 .45 0 . 09 5 140 . 00 950 . 33 6 . 03 1 . 55 0 . 09 6 175 . 00 950 . 87 6 . 57 1 . 66 0 . 11 7 205 . 00 951 . 27 6 . 97 1 . 75 0 . 11 8 245 . 00 951 . 75 7.45 1 . 85 0 . 12 9 280 . 00 952 . 11 7 . 81 1 . 91 0 . 13 10 315 . 00 952 .41 8 . 11 1 . 99 0 . 14 11 350 . 00 952 . 62 8 . 32 '1 . 04 0 . 14 PRESS <D> FOR DATA TO PLOT RATING CURVE <ESC> FOR CHANNEL SHAPE MENU <ENTER> TO CONTINUE 1-Help 2-Progr 3 4 5-End 6 7-Edit 8 9-DOS 10 Q�o pas�� 3ax Cv��t� PERFORM�INCE CURVE FOR CULVERT NO. 1 - 1 ( 11 . 7 ft by 8 . 00 ft) RCB DIS- HEAD- INLET OUTLET ANALYSIS ASSUMES NO OVERTOPPING CHARGE WATER CONTROL CONTROL FLOW NORMAL CRIT. OUTLET TW OUTLET TW FLOW ELEV. DEPTH DEPTH TYPE DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH VEL. VEL. � (cfs ft ft ft < > ? ( ) ( ) ( ) F4 (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fps) 0 944 . 50 0 . 00 -0 . 05 0-NF 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 15 0 . 00 0 .00 35 947 . 78 1 . 16 3 . 28 3-Mlt 0 . 61 0 . 65 3 .36 3 .36 0 . 89 1 . 10 70 948 . 95 1 . 78 4 .45 3-Mlt 1 . 01 1 . 04 4 . 50 4 . 50 1 . 32 1 .31 105 949 . 82 2 . 33 5 .32 3-Mlt 1 .32 1 . 36 5 . 35 5 . 35 1 . 67 1 .45 140 950 . 53 2 . 81 6 . 03 3-Mlt 1 . 63 1 . 64 6 . 03 6 . 03 1 . 98 1 .55 175 951 . 09 3 .27 6 . 59 3-Mlt 1 . 88 1 . 91 6 . 57 6 . 57 2 . 27 1 . 66 205 951 . 52 3 . 63 7 . 0?. 3-Mlt 2 . 09 2 . 12 6. 97 6 . 97 2 . 50 1 .75 245 952 . 04 4 . 08 7 . 54 3-Mlt 2 . 37 2 . 39 7 .45 7 .45 2 . 80 1 . 85 280 952 .43 4 .44 7 . 93 3-Mlt 2 . 59 2 . 61 7 . 81 7 . 81 3 . 05 1 . 91 315 952 . 69 4 .79 8 . 19 4-FFt 2 . 80 2 . 82 8 . 00 8 . 11 3 . 35 1 . 99 350 952 . 97 5 . 13 8 .47 4-FFt 3 . 02 3 . 03 8 . 00 8 . 32 3 . 72 2 . 04 INVERT ELEVATIONS--> Inlet - 944 . 50 ft Crest - 0 . 00 ft FILE: 86-8430P �Outlet - 944 . 30 ft Throat - 0 . 00 ft PRESS : <KEY> TO CONTINUE <W> FOR PROFILE TABLE TO PLOT FOR IMPROVED INLET TABLE 1-Help 2 3 4-Type 5-End 6 7 8 9-DOS 10