Call Application Report Project ( Culvert Mini Scope)

5/31/2017

Page 1 of 3

Call Application Report Project ( Culvert Mini Scope) Updated 05/06/2017

Date: Work Type: Score:Proposed FY: Work Category:

DES:

Hint: To get the Main CV Code (without RP)Select: CV Select County

Route

Or: CV Main Code

Asset Code: C00-001401

Asset ID: 55212

District Laporte RP: 144

County Pulaski Offset: 90

Sub Winamac Latitude 40.91647797

Description Longitude -86.52696939

Route US 35 CV Map

Location

Year Built * Barrel/Box rating

* Structure Add. Desc.

CV Main Material Under Fill

Struct. Length 165

Span 5

Vertical Opening 5

Cover 4

Skew

Inspection Date 03/15/2017

* Channel-Channel Prot.

# of Projects within: 5 Miles 2 Projects ( 0 Awarded, 2 Others )

FY Awarded To Let Call Prop. Prov.2015201620172018 12019

2020 - 25 1

CN $

47

County Map

Moderate to major deterioration or disintegration, extensive cracking and leaching, or spalls on concrete or masonry walls and slabs.

CV Overall 5

(Route No - County No - RP)

Countermeasures have been installed to correct a previously existing problem with scour. Bridge is no longer scour critical.

Not Applicable

Not ApplicableSub Structure N

NSuper Structure

Scoure Critical

Small Structure ReplacementDistrict Small Structure Project

05/17/20172022

7

CV 035-066-144.90

3.71 N JCT SR 16

035-066-144.90

1701494

5/31/2017

Page 2 of 3

Intent/ Purpose Of Project (Initial Statement Of Essential Project Purpose:

Completed Full Scope:

Own It: AlternativesPreliminary Alternatives That Are Contemplated (Analysed) With Costs:

Consequences If No Action Is Taken (Do Nothing Alternative Is Selected):

Secondary Considerations Or Goals With Costs:

Attach extra sheets as necessary to fully describe the alternatives.Will Further Analysis/Assessment be required beyond this form?

CV 035-066-144.90

The s tructure has rusting at the water l ine and below.

The intent of this project i s to replace the culvert.

Liner options were cons idered, but a replacement i s more cost effective and el iminates the need for a jack and bored pipe.

Doing nothing wi l l resul t in further deterioration of the s tructure, caus ing more corros ion and eventual ly s inkholes and col lapse.

5/31/2017

Page 3 of 3

Solve it: Project Recommendations and CostsQuantifiable Primary Goal(S) Of Project (What Are We Purchasing Such As Condition, Service Life, LOS, Or CRF): Potenital design exceptions and open roads ideas

Amount Right of Way Purchase (RW1):Right of Way Services (RW2):

Preliminary Engineering 1 (PE1): $30,750.00Preliminary Engineering 2 (PE2):

Maintenance of Traffic:Railroad PE (RR1):Railroad PE (RR2):

Environmental Study: $15,000.00Utilities PE (UT1): $10,000.00Utilities CN (UT2):Construction (CN): $205,000.00

Construction Engineering (CE): $20,500.00Relinquishment Payment (RQP):

Other Considerations:$281,250.00

Miscellaneous NotesAntcipated Number Of Construction Seasons To Complete(1, 2 Or 3 Seasons): 1

Antcipated Number Of Years To Complete Design (1, 2 Or 3 Fiscal Years): 2

Tree Clearing Fish Bats Historical CE Type

Call History trees fish spans and bats and other envir CE type

CECrash History:

Asset Team Scoring Sheet: Pathway Data:

Engineer Assessment: Mobility History:Bridge/Culvert Inspection Report:

Additional Comments

Report Prepared By and Approved By

Prepared by:

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Reviewed by:

Approval by:

Reviewed by:

CV 035-066-144.90

District Scoping Engineer

Estimated Total Project Costs: COMMENTS

Signature

Included in CN

Title:

Steven Vanes District Asset Engineer

Other items relevant to the project not specifically listed elsewhere.

NOTE: Appropriate environmental and assessment process need to be followed.

Report Prepared By and Approved By

Pictures

Spreadsheets (calcs):

Solution Schematic:Cost Calculations:

Location Map:

Systems Assessment Manager

Capital Prog. Manager

Technical Services Director

Approved On:

The primary goal of this project i s to replace the exis ting 5' CMP.

www.in.gov/dot/ An Equal Opportunity Employer

100 North Senate Avenue Room N642 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

PHONE: (317) 233-2096 FAX: (317) 233-4929 Michael R. Pence, Governor

Brandye Hendrickson, Commissioner

December 24, 2016

TO: Steve Vanes INDOT – LaPorte District Highway Assessment Engineer

FROM: James Emerick, PE Hydraulics Engineer

THRU: David Finley, PE Hydraulics Engineer

SUBJECT: Hydraulic Design Status: Des. #: Str. #: County: Location:

Final Design 1701494CV 035-066-144.90 Pulaski US 35, 0.46 miles north of Cass County Line

The following memo summarizes the design of liner and replacement options for structure CV 035-066-144.90. The drainage area was delineated using the state LiDAR data. The curve number was determined from the aerial images and NRCS soil maps. The drainage area consisted mainly of crop fields with HSG B and C soils. The peak flow rate was calculated using TR-20 which resulted in 612 cfs. Because the results from TR-20 have been known to be high in this area the IDNR tool was used as a comparison. The IDNR tool incorporated the nearby coordinated discharge rates and nearby streams in the IDNR database. The results showed that the TR-20 discharge rate was significantly higher than the information in the IDNR. This is likely due to the flat terrain and in this part of the state. It was decided to use the discharge rate from the IDNR spreadsheet. The tables below summarize the hydrologic and hydraulic parameters.

Site Parameters Drainage Area 1.28 mi2 Q100 Discharge 279 cfs

Q100 Tailwater Depth 5.14 ft.

Legal Drain Yes

CIF Permit Needed No





Culvert Properties – Liner Options Parameter Existing Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

Structure 5’ Diameter CMP

HDPE Liner 50.7”ID/54”OD 2.5’

Smooth Interior Bored Pipe

CIPP Liner (3” Reduction in Diameter)

5” Paved Invert with 2.5’ Smooth Interior

Bored Pipe

Road Overflow Area Below Q100 Elevation Yes Yes Yes Yes

Backwater 6.40 ft 6.30 ft 6.37 ft 6.39 ft Q100 Headwater Elevation 718.32 ft 718.22 ft 718.29 ft 718.31 ft

Q Through Culvert at Overtopping 224.36 cfs 247.60 cfs 231.34 cfs 226.97 cfs

Outlet Velocity (Q25) 10.67 ft/s 13.14 ft/s 13.77 ft/s 11.70 ft/s Scour Countermeasures Energy Dissipator Energy Dissipator Class 2 Riprap

The existing structure verified with the hydraulic data collection is a 5 foot diameter corrugated metal pipe with a projecting ends. The existing culvert is significantly deteriorated and district has requested options for lining of the existing culvert. Several options have been analyzed and presented in this letter for lining and replacement of the existing culvert. The elevations given are approximate as they are tied to field data and LiDAR; but are considered adequate for hydraulic analysis.

Prior to installation of the pipe liner the existing pipe should be inspected and measured to ensure there is no excessive deflection of the existing pipe. If the existing pipe has signs of excessive deflection repairs may be required to allow for the lining of the structure. The following options are proposed for the lining of the existing culvert using the “Pipe Lining Criteria” in the INDOT Design Manual:

Proposal 1 – HDPE Liner 50.7”ID/54”OD with 2.5’ Smooth Interior Bored Pipe The first proposed lining option is a 50.7” ID/ 54” OD HDPE liner and 2.5’ smooth interior bored pipe. The HDPE lining reduces the area of the existing pipe while improving roughness. The result is a reduction in the overall capacity of the pipe. The HDPE lining option requires 2.5’ bored pipe to improve the capacity and prevent increase to the backwater from

Culvert Properties – Replacement Options Parameter Proposal 4 Proposal 5 Proposal 6

Structure Smooth Replacement Option 6.5’ Diameter

Sumped 6”

Semi-Smooth Replacement Option

6.5’ Diameter Sumped 6”

Corrugated Replacement Option 7’ Diameter Sumped 6”

Road Overflow Area Below Q100 Elevation No No No

Backwater 2.75 ft 2.66 ft 2.33 ft Q100 Headwater Elevation 714.67 ft 714.60 ft 714.25 ft

Outlet Velocity (Q25) 7.64 ft/s 7.64 ft/s 7.11 ft/s Scour Countermeasures Class 1 Riprap Class 1 Riprap Class 1 Riprap





the existing condition. The bored pipe should be installed one foot above the inverts of the existing pipe. The outlet velocity increases with the HDPE lining and bored pipe. The scour countermeasures require an energy dissipator installed in accordance with Figure 203-2K of the IDM. The following are the required dimensions for the energy dissipator:

Proposal 2 – CIPP Liner The second proposed lining option is a CIPP pipe liner. The CIPP lining reduces the area of the existing pipe while improving roughness. The result is an increase in the capacity of the structure and an improvement to the backwater. The outlet velocity increases with the CIPP lining. The scour countermeasures require an energy dissipator installed in accordance with Figure 203-2K of the IDM. The following are the required dimensions for the energy dissipator:

Proposal 3 – 5” Paved Invert with 2.5’ Diameter Smooth Interior Bored Pipe The third proposed lining option is a paved invert. The paved invert reduces the area of the existing pipe while improving roughness of the bottom of the pipe. The result is a decrease in the capacity of the structure and an increase to the backwater. It was necessary to include a 2.5’ diameter bored pipe to provide additional capacity to maintain the backwater from the existing condition. The inverts of the bored pipe should be set 1 foot above the existing pipe. The outlet velocity decrease with the paved invert. The scour countermeasures required is Class 1 riprap in accordance with Figure 203-2J of the IDM.





The following are proposed replacement options for the existing pipe. The replacement options have been designed to meet the in-kind replacement requirements which include meeting the backwater depth of less than 3 feet and meeting the serviceability requirements for the road. Proposal 4 – Smooth Replacement Option 6.5’ Diameter Sumped 6” The first replacement option is a smooth structure that consists of a 6.5’ diameter pipe. The circular pipe replacement is proposed to be sumped 6” below the flow line. This options reduces the backwater below the 3 feet for the 100 year (1% EP) storm and provides the serviceability for the 25 year (4% EP) storm. The scour countermeasures required is revetment riprap in accordance with Figure 203-2J of the IDM. Proposal 5 – Semi-Smooth Replacement Option 6.5’ Diameter Sumped 6” The second replacement option is a semi-smooth structure that consists of a 6.5’ diameter pipe. The circular pipe replacement is proposed to be sumped 6” below the flow line. This options reduces the backwater below the 3 feet for the 100 year (1% EP) storm and provides the serviceability for the 25 year (4% EP) storm. The scour countermeasures required is revetment riprap in accordance with Figure 203-2J of the IDM. Proposal 6 – Corrugated Replacement Option 7’ Diameter Sumped 6” The third replacement option is a corrugated structure that consists of a 7’ diameter pipe. The circular pipe replacement is proposed to be sumped 6” below the flow line. This options reduces the backwater below the 3 feet for the 100 year (1% EP) storm and provides the serviceability for the 25 year (4% EP) storm. The scour countermeasures required is revetment riprap in accordance with Figure 203-2J of the IDM. A Construction-in-Floodplain (CIF) Permit is not required. The culvert is part of a county legal drain. The options presented in this memo have been reviewed with the county surveyor and the drainage board. The contact information for the county surveyor is listed below: Jenny Keller [email protected] 574-946-3253 If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (317) 232-2770. JFE Cc: Kate Francis

mailto:[email protected]

Culvert Inspection Report

CV 035-066-144.90US 35

over

Inspection Date: 03/15/2017

Inspected By:

Inspection Type(s):

Cristin Gimbel

Culvert

LOCATION MAP 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

CULVERT INSPECTION OUTPUT REPORT 5

PICTURES 7

MISCELLANEOUS ASSET DATA 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NUMBER

Latitude: 40.91647797314817

Longitude: -86.52696938773158

Cristin GimbelInspector:


Asset Name: CV 035-066-144.90


Facility Carried: US 35

Page 3 of 10

On March 15th 2017, Cristy Gimbel, Nate Pfeiffer, and Justin Brown inspected CV 035-009-144.90. Rusting atwater line and below, no other issues noted. (CMG NP JB 3/15/2017)

Executive Summary



Structure Number:



Page 4 of 10

7Shoulder Rating

Embankment/Side Ditches Rating 9

9(72) Approach Roadway Alignment

7(58) Wearing Surface Rating

Coping Rating

Headwall Rating

Wingwalls Rating

Culverts and Pipes

Barrel/Box Rating Rusting at water line and below, no other issues noted. (CMG NP JB 3/15/2017)5

This culvert has OBSTRUCTED flow

Roadway Related Items

Non-Entry of Structure

Abutment Bent Cap Rating

Abutments Rating

Footings Rating

Substructure

N(60) Substructure

(61) Channel and Channel Protection 7

8Bank Erosion Rating

Pile Rating

Channel Related Items

(36A) Bridge Railings

7

1

Overtopping Frequency

Settlement Rating

(113) Scour Critical Bridges

7

N(59) Superstructure

Concrete Slab Rating

Beams/Girders Rating

Structures

Superstructure

over at

RP

3.71 N JCT SR 16

-86.52696938773158

Lat Long

US 35Location

0 - Structure/Route is NOT on NHS 02 - Rural - Principal Arterial - Other

Additional Location Desc.

90+144 Milepoint Ramp ID0

40.91647797314817

-03/15/2017 24 TeamMonths

CV 035-066-144.90Large Culvert Inspection Report - Culvert #

Last InspectionCV 035-066-144.90

4600 - WINAMAC SUBDISTRICT- - at066 - PULASKI

Inspector04 - La Porte Gimbel, Cristin

04District

WEST END OF THE STRUCTURE IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE OLD RAILROAD EMBANKMENT.

165Length Span Vertical Opening5

0000Year Built

Openings LatitudeDirection Openings Longitude Openings Remarks

Cover5 4.00

Measurement Remarks

Adjacent to Roadway

Corrugated Metal Pipe- - (62) Overall Rating

Original Culvert Description (not additional treatment)

Under FillMaterial / Size / Type

Degrees:On Skew RoundShape

Recommend Replacement5

Corrugated Metal PipeStructure Additional Desc.

Page 5 of 10

Channel Alignment Rating 9

6Drift/Sediment Rating

Page 6 of 10

PHOTO 1 Condition

Description East end (2)

PHOTO 2 Condition

Description East end looking West

Pictures



Structure Number:



Page 7 of 10

PHOTO 3 Condition

Description East end

PHOTO 4 Condition

Description Looking North

Pictures



Structure Number:



Page 8 of 10

PHOTO 5 Condition

Description West end (2)

PHOTO 6 Condition

Description West end

Pictures



Structure Number:



Page 9 of 10

Paint YearPaint Rating

Rating (Lowest Rated Joint):Joints

RP 144 90Offset

Original RP Data Source

Asset Type Has Changed

Scour POA?

N - No Birds and/or Nests Visible

U - US RouteInv Type

Birds/swallows/nests seen? Empty nests present?

CV 035-066-144.90Miscellaneous Asset Data - Asset #

N - No evidence of batsBats: seen or heard under structure?

Location: Type:

9035Inv # Reference Post Offset144

Page 10 of 10

Documents

Call Application Report Project ( Culvert Mini Scope)