Draft Hydrology and Hydraulics Report · Hydraulics Report for the replacement of the Eramosa River (Ospringe) Bridge (B124135). This report details the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations

APPENDIX

D HYDRAULIC

ANALYSIS

County of Wellington

B124135 Replacement of Eramosa River

(Ospringe) Bridge – Wellington Road 124

Hydrology and Hydraulics Report

August 7, 2018 Public

WSP Canada Inc.

B124135 Replacement of

Eramosa River (Ospringe)

Bridge – Wellington Road

124

Hydrology and Hydraulics

Report

County of Wellington

FINAL

Public

Project No.: 13M-00225

Date: August 2018

WSP

Suite 300

2611 Queensview Drive

Ottawa, ON, Canada K2B 8K2

Tel.: +1 613 829-2800

Fax: +1 613 829-8299

wsp.com

WSP Canada Inc.

Suite 300

2611 Queensview Drive

Ottawa, ON, Canada K2B 8K2

Tel.: +1 613 829-2800

Fax: +1 613 829-8299

August 7, 2018

Public

County of Wellington 74 Woolwich Street Guelph, ON N1H 3T9

Attention: Don Kudo, P.Eng., County Engineer

Dear Sir:

We are pleased to submit 2 copies and 1 electronic copy of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report for the replacement of the Eramosa River (Ospringe) Bridge (B124135). This report details the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations used to assess the existing and proposed bridges.

We trust the submission of this document meets your requirements. Should you have any comments we look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Bryan Orendorff, P.Eng.

Project Manager, Water Resources

BDEO/mjn Encl. cc: WSP ref.: 13M-00225

Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks Draft Final

Date May 10, 2018 August 7, 2018

Prepared by Mahdi Esmaeili Mahdi Esmaeili

Signature

Checked by Bryan Orendorff Bryan Orendorff

Signature

Authorized by Isabelle Hemmings Isabelle Hemmings

Signature

Project number 13M-00225 13M-00225

Report number

File reference

B124135 Replacement of Eramosa Bridge - Wellington Road 124 WSP Project No. 13M-00225 August 2018 County of Wellington Page i

S I G N A T U R E S

Prepared by

Mahdi Esmaeili, EIT

Reviewed by

Bryan Orendorff, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.

Project Manager, Water Resources

This report was prepared by WSP for the account of the County of Wellington, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the intended recipient. The material in it reflects WSP’s best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This limitations statement is considered part of this report.

B124135 Replacement of Eramosa Bridge - Wellington Road 124 WSP Project No. 13M-00225 August 2018 County of Wellington Page iii

P R O D U C T I O N T E A M

Client

Project Manager Don Kudo

WSP

Manager Isabelle Hemmings

Project Manager Bryan Orendorff

EIT Mahdi Esmaeili

Structural Project Manager William van Ruyven

Proof (non-technical) / format Melinda Nowak

B014005 Replacement of Eramosa Bridge - Wellington Road 124 WSP Project No. 13M-00225 August 2018 County of Wellington Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction .............................................................. 1

2 Site Description ........................................................ 2

3 Hydrologic Assessment .......................................... 3

3.1 Hydrologic Model ........................................................ 3

4 Hydraulic Assessment ............................................. 5

4.1 Hydraulic Performance Standards .............................. 5

4.1.1 Design Storm ........................................................................5

4.1.2 Top of Road Freeboard ........................................................5

4.1.3 Relief Flow ............................................................................6

4.1.4 Clearance (Bridges)..............................................................6

4.1.5 Temporary Works .................................................................6

4.1.6 Summary of Performance Standards ...................................6

4.2 Model Preparation ...................................................... 6

4.2.1 Existing Conditions Assessment ..........................................7

4.2.2 Proposed Conditions Assessment........................................9

5 Conclusions ............................................................ 12

WSP B124135 Replacement of Eramosa Bridge - Wellington Road 124 August 2018 Project No. 13M-00225 Page vi County of Wellington

Tables

Table 3-1 Peak Flow Comparison .................................. 4

Table 4-1 MTO Drainage Design Standards .................. 7

Table 4-2 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary – Existing Conditions ..................... 8

Table 4-3 Hydraulic Performance Summary – Existing Conditions ........................................ 8

Table 4-4 Flood Elevation Comparison – Preferred Alternative .................................... 10

Table 4-5 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary – Preferred Alternative ................. 11

Table 4-6 Hydraulic Performance Summary – Preferred Alternative .................................... 11

Appendices

A Hydrologic Modelling

B HEC-RAS Input (Cross-Sections and Longitudinal Profile)

C HEC-RAS Output – Existing Conditions

D HEC-RAS Output – Proposed Conditions

B124135 Replacement of Eramosa Bridge - Wellington Road 124 WSP Project No. 13M-00225 August 2018 County of Wellington Page 1

1 Introduction WSP was retained by the County of Wellington to undertake the design services for the replacement of the Eramosa River (Ospringe) Bridge (B124135) on Wellington Road 124. The location of the site is shown on Exhibit 1.

As part of this project, a hydrologic and hydraulic assessment was completed for the existing structure and the proposed replacement structure. This Hydrology and Hydraulics Report outlines the required performance standards, documents design flows, and details the development of the hydrologic methodology and hydraulic model used to evaluate the existing structure and proposed replacement.

WSP B124135 Replacement of Eramosa Bridge - Wellington Road 124 August 2018 Project No. 13M-00225 Page 2 County of Wellington

2 Site Description Structure B124135 is located on Wellington Road 124 near the community of Ospringe and crosses over the Eramosa River. The structure crossing is within the jurisdiction of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).

A site investigation was undertaken on Nov 22, 2013 to document site conditions and photograph the existing structure. Observations indicate the stream banks are generally in good condition. Refer to Exhibit 4 for the photo inventory.

The current Eramosa River (Ospringe) Bridge is a single span reinforced concrete rigid frame (solid thick slab). The span opening is 15.24m and an overall deck width of 14.3 m. Eramosa River flows from north to south across Wellington Road 124. As part of a bridge inspection, the bridge structure was found to be in an advanced state of deterioration.


3 Hydrologic Assessment The Eramosa River flows under Wellington Road 124 from north to south and ultimately outlets into the Speed River at Guelph. The drainage boundary contributing to the Structure B124135 is approximately 55.44 km2, which was delineated using OBM contours. The watershed consists primarily of agricultural lands with some isolated patches of treed areas and rural residential properties. The existing drainage catchment to B124135 is presented on Exhibit 2.

According to Design Chart 1.02 of the MTO Drainage Management Manual, the site is located in Zone 1 and therefore Hurricane Hazel was used as the Regulatory Storm.

3.1 Hydrologic Model

The design flows were generated using a comparison of five different methods, including:

1 The Modified Index Flood Method (MIFM) 2 Flood Frequency Analysis (FFA) 3 The Unified Ontario Flood Method (UOFM) 4 SWMHYMO, an event-based model 5 Flows in a previous Eramosa/Erin Townline model

The MFIM as described in the MTO Drainage Management Manual is also a regional frequency analysis method and is applicable for large watersheds. SWMHYMO is an event-based model widely used to determine runoff characteristics for rural and urban watersheds. This model was also used to generate the peak flow resulting from the Hazel (Regional) Storm event.

The FFA uses the GRCA’s FFA fitted curve and is referenced to the Eramosa River above Guelph (02GA029) which has a drainage area of 236km2. Using this method, flows are generated at that station using unit flow rates (in m3/s/km2) obtained from the GRCA and then interpolated to the smaller drainage area at the project site.

A newer regression method, the UOFM, has been developed for the calculation of the design flow rates in Ontario by the Ministry of Transportation. The design flows represent the peak flow estimates (flood quantiles) of various return periods for bridges and culverts, at stream and river crossings. This method uses mean annual precipitation, drainage area and lake attenuation index to generate peak flows. The UOFM method gives three sets of flow values – upper limit, mean quantile and lower limit. According to UOFM guideline:

— If the flow value from the UOFM is higher than any other applicable methods, then the UOFM mean quantile values for the different return periods shall be applied in design

— If the flow value from UOFM is lower than any other applicable methods, then the value at the upper limit of the range shall be applied in design

The SCS 24-hour storm distribution was used to determine the flows at the crossing using SWMHYMO modelling. This storm distribution represents long duration, high volume rainfall events. The parameters used in the hydrologic modelling include the Curve Number (CN),


Initial Abstraction (Ia), and the Time to Peak (Tp). The SCS Upland Method, SCS Curve Number Method and the Airport Method were used and the results averaged to calculate the Tp. For the catchment, modelling parameters were selected based on soil type, land use and topography. The parameters were then calibrated to the hydrologic method selected for the analysis to determine the Regional flow.

The summary of peak flows is summarized in Table 3-1. The hydrologic modelling files are provided in Appendix A. As the UOFM method yielded the highest flows and was most comparable with the flows on the recently approved Eramosa/Erin Townline model (for a site located nearby as shown in Exhibit 5), it was carried forward in the analysis. The regional flow was obtained directly from the previous Eramosa/Erin Townline model.

Table 3-1 Peak Flow Comparison

Calculation Method

Return Period Flow (m3/s)

2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Regional

FFA 7.35 12.19 14.11 15.55 16.64 17.72 -

SWMHYMO 2.33 4.70 6.59 9.31 11.46 13.81 61.19

MIFM 12.50 16.30 20.0 24.40 27.60 31.0 -

UOFM 12.84 - 23.60 29.07 32.40 36.17 -

Eramosa/Erin Townline Model

Flow 14.3 20.8 24.2 28.5 31.6 34.4 101.5


4 Hydraulic Assessment The hydraulic assessment was completed using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model which was compiled based on a detailed cross section and structure survey upstream and downstream of Structure B124135. The HEC-RAS model is used to generate flood elevations and determine the hydraulic performance of the existing structure and assess the proposed replacement structure.

4.1 Hydraulic Performance Standards

The following hydrologic and hydraulic performance standards were identified to evaluate the performance of the existing structure as well as proposed replacement and temporary works options:

— Design storms used to calculate flood elevations

— Minimum and desired top of road freeboard

— Minimum soffit clearance

— Maximum depth of relief flow over the road

— Maximum product of depth and velocity of relief flow over the road

— Allowable increase in flood elevation upstream of the structure

— Temporary works during construction

The replacement of Structure B124135 is not a Ministry of Transportation (MTO) project; however, the performance standards used in this study are based on the MTO Highway Drainage Design Standards (HDDS) (January 2008). The MTO standards were used since they incorporate much of the standards for watercourse crossings from the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.

4.1.1 Design Storm

In accordance with the requirements of the MTO HDDS WC-1, a new structure with a span greater than 6.0 m on a Rural Arterial or Collector roadway should be designed to convey a minimum of the 50-year design storm.

4.1.2 Top of Road Freeboard

The MTO HDDS WC-7 recommends a minimum freeboard of 1.0 m measured vertically from the design flow hydraulic grade line elevation to the edge of the travelled lane. The desirable freeboard is 1.0 m measured vertically from the energy grade line elevation for the design flow. These freeboards are recommended values. It is recognized that due to site-specific considerations it is not always feasible to meet this objective.


4.1.3 Relief Flow

According to the MTO HDDS WC-13 “design of a water crossing shall incorporate passage of the Relief Flow over the Roadway in cases where the Regulatory Flow exceeds the Design Flow of the bridge or the culvert Relief flow over the roadway.” The standard recommends that if the Regulatory Storm overtops the road, two parameters shall not be exceeded:

— The maximum depth of flow on the roadway should not exceed 0.3 metres

— The product of the velocity and depth on the roadway shall not exceed 0.8 m2/s

4.1.4 Clearance (Bridges)

As per MTO HDDS WC-2, the minimum clearance for bridges with a straight soffit shall be 1.0 metres.

4.1.5 Temporary Works

The MTO HDDS TW-1 identifies the return period required for the sizing of temporary flow passage systems during construction. The return period is selected based on the duration of construction and potential consequences (low, medium or high) in terms of public safety, traffic delays, property damage due to flooding, and environmental impacts. The worst case impact from the four categories shall be used to select the return period that shall guide design. Assuming an in-water construction period of up to 3 months (to meet the July - September construction window due to the fish species present) and a medium consequence of capacity exceedance, the 5-year design storm event will be used for temporary works sizing for this project.

4.1.6 Summary of Performance Standards

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the MTO Drainage Design Standards applied to this assessment.

4.2 Model Preparation

A hydraulic model did not exist for the watercourse at the site location; therefore, an existing conditions model was created based on field survey data. The topographic survey and watercourse survey were completed by MMM Group in March 2013. Exhibit 3 illustrates the locations of HEC-RAS surveyed cross-sections for the watercourse. Graphical representations of the cross-sections and longitudinal profile of the channel is provided in Appendix B.

A boundary condition must be established for each hydraulic model. Boundary conditions are required to perform steady flow calculations and to establish the starting water surface at the upstream and downstream limits of a river system. Ideally, a HEC-RAS model should originate far enough downstream so that it accounts for any downstream influence on upstream water levels. For this analysis a normal depth based on survey information (i.e. slope and nearest cross-section) was used as the downstream boundary condition.


Table 4-1 MTO Drainage Design Standards

Item Design Standard Description Standard Section

1 Design Flow Storm 50-Year WC-1 1.1.1

2 Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) >1.0 m (Top of Road Low Point – Design Flow Water Surface Elevation )

WC-7 3.1.2

3 Top of Road Freeboard (Desired) >1.0 m (Top of Road Low Point – Design Flow Energy Grade Line Elevation )

WC-7 3.1.1

4 Relief Flow (Max. Depth over roadway)

Max. depth over roadway should not exceed 0.3 m for Regulatory Storm

WC-13 3.2.1

5 Relief Flow (Velocity x Depth) Velocity x Depth should not exceed 0.8 m2/s for Regulatory Storm

WC-13 3.2.2

6 Soffit Clearance Design Flow Water Surface Elevation – Soffit Elevation ≥1.0 m

WC-2 3.2.1

7 Soffit Clearance (Nav. Waters) >1.5m above 2-Year NWPA

4.2.1 Existing Conditions Assessment

The 2-year through 100-year as well as the Regulatory Storm events were analysed in HEC-RAS; the 50-year storm event is the design storm for the structure replacement. The existing top of road freeboard, flood depth, and other hydraulic performance parameters as they pertain to the MTO HDDS are identified in Table 4-2. Table 4-3 illustrates whether the existing structure meets current hydraulic standards.

Refer to Appendix C for the existing condition HEC-RAS output.


Table 4-2 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary – Existing Conditions

Description 2-Year 25-Year 50-

Year 100-Year

Regional

Water Surface Elevation 379.56 380.00 380.08 380.16 381.54

Energy Grade Line Elevation 379.59 380.06 380.15 380.25 381.55

Top of Road (Low Point) 381.32

(2+4) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.)

1.76 1.32 1.24 1.16 -0.22

(3) Top of Road Freeboard (Desired)

1.73 1.26 1.17 1.07 -0.23

Top of Road Velocity - - - - 0.52

(5) Top of Road Velocity x Depth

- - - - 0.11

Soffit Elevation (Upstream) 381.06

(6) Soffit Clearance 1.50 1.06 0.98 0.90 -0.48

Table 4-3 Hydraulic Performance Summary – Existing Conditions

Criteria Description Criteria

Storm Event Meets Criteria

(Yes or No)

(2) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) 50-Year Yes

(3) Top of Road Freeboard (Desired) 50-Year Yes

(4) Relief Flow (Max. Depth over roadway) Regional Yes

(5) Relief Flow (Velocity x Depth) Regional Yes

(6) Soffit Clearance 50-Year No

(7) Soffit Clearance (Nav. Waters) 2-Year Yes

As summarized in Table 4-3, the existing structure fails to meet the soffit clearance criteria, but does meet the remaining criteria.


4.2.2 Proposed Conditions Assessment

A single 22.8 m clear span with a soffit elevation at 381.01m was selected as the preferred alternative. Tables 4-4 through 4-6 summarize the hydraulic performance of the preferred alternative.

— Tables 4-4 compares the flood elevations for the alternatives to those of the existing condition

— Tables 4-5 summarizes the top of road freeboard and other hydraulic performance criteria for the preferred alternatives as they pertain to the MTO Design Standards identified in Table 4-1 in Section 4.1.6

— Table 4-6 indicates whether the alternative meets current hydraulic standards.

The hydraulic model output files for the preferred alternative are included in Appendix D.

As summarized in Table 4-6 the preferred alternative meets all the applicable design

standards. The preferred alternative shows a clearance deficiency for Navigable Waters.

However, it should be noted that the table uses the lowest soffit elevation whereas the Act

uses a clearance envelope. The soffit in the center of the channel is about 0.15 higher,

meeting the clearance standard. Therefore, the preferred alternative meets all the

requirements.


Table 4-4 Flood Elevation Comparison – Preferred Alternative

Section Number

2-Year 50-Year 100-Year Regional

Ex. Prop. Diff. Ex. Prop. Diff. Ex. Prop. Diff. Ex. Prop. Diff.

14.9 376.33 376.33 0.00 376.69 376.69 0.00 376.74 376.74 0.00 377.33 377.33 0.00

699.7 378.06 378.06 0.00 378.29 378.29 0.00 378.33 378.33 0.00 378.79 378.79 0.00

1134.8 378.98 378.98 0.00 379.25 379.25 0.00 379.26 379.26 0.00 379.61 379.61 0.00

1223.3 379.38 379.39 0.01 379.67 379.67 0.00 379.71 379.71 0.00 380.35 380.27 -0.08

Eramosa Bridge

1252.4 379.56 379.54 -0.02 380.08 379.95 -0.13 380.16 380.02 -0.14 381.54 381.22 -0.32

1304.8 379.61 379.59 -0.02 380.18 380.06 -0.12 380.28 380.14 -0.14 381.55 381.45 -0.10

2164.7 380.54 380.54 0.00 380.71 380.77 0.06 380.78 380.82 0.04 381.74 381.68 -0.06


Table 4-5 Top of Road and Soffit Clearance Summary – Preferred Alternative

Description 2-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Regional

Water Surface Elevation 379.54 379.89 379.95 380.02 381.22

Energy Grade Line Elevation 379.56 379.96 380.03 380.10 381.40

Top of Road (Low Point) 381.40

(2+4) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.)

1.86 1.51 1.45 1.38 0.18

(3) Top of Road Freeboard (Desired)

1.84 1.44 1.37 1.30 0.00

Top of Road Velocity - - - - -

(5) Top of Road Velocity x Depth

- - - - -

Soffit Elevation (Upstream) 381.01

(6+7) Soffit Clearance 1.47 1.12 1.06 0.99 -0.21

(8) Max. Increase upstream of structure

0.01 0.04 0.06 0.04 -0.06

Table 4-6 Hydraulic Performance Summary – Preferred Alternative

Criteria Description Criteria

Storm Event Meets Criteria

(Yes or No)

(2) Top of Road Freeboard (Min.) 50-Year Yes

(3) Topof Road Freeboard (Desired) 50-Year Yes

(4) Relief Flow (Max. Depth over roadway) Regional Yes

(5) Relief Flow (Velocity x Depth) Regional Yes

(6) Soffit Clearance 50-Year Yes

(7) Soffit Clearance (Nav.Waters) 2-Year No

(8) Max. Increase upstream of structure Regional Yes


5 Conclusions The current Eramosa River (Ospringe) Bridge is a single span reinforced concrete rigid frame

(solid thick slab). The span opening is 15.24m and an overall deck width of 14.3 m. Eramosa

River flows from north to south across Wellington Road 124.

A hydrologic analysis was completed to determine the peak flows. The following summarizes the steps involved.

— Delineated the catchment area drainage to the crossing and determined catchment slopes and flow lengths using 1:10,000 Ontario Base Mapping

— Defined land use characteristics using aerial photography

— Defined the hydrologic soil characteristics using the Soil Map of Wellington County Report No. 35 of the Ontario Soil Survey

— Developed a SWMHYMO model to generate peak flows for the design storms as well as the Regional Storm event.

— Developed the Unified Ontario Flow Method (UOFM) as well as MIFM method to generate the peak flows

— Used flows in HEC-RAS model for the previously approved Eramosa/Erin Townline model obtained from GRCA which is located downstream of Structure B124135 to compare the flow results

Multiple different hydrologic methods were compared to determine the most applicable peak flows. As the UOFM method yielded the highest flows, it was carried forward in the analysis. The regional flow was obtained from the Eramosa/Erin Townline model.

The results of the hydraulic assessment indicate that the existing condition fails to meet the soffit clearance criteria, but does meet the other evaluation criteria.

A single 22.8 m clear span with a soffit elevation at 381.01m was selected as the preferred alternative. The results of the hydraulic assessment indicate that the preferred alternative meets all of the applicable design standards.

Exhibits

CULVERTB124135

3RD LINE

WELLINGTON ROAD 125

WEL

LINGTO

N ROAD

124

SIDER

OAD 10

1ST LINE

ERIN-ERAMOSA TOWNLINE ROAD

EXHIBIT

1LOCATION MAP

WELLINGTON CULVERT B124135

Bridge

BRIDGE

BRIDGE

BRIDGE

LOOKING UPSTREAM

LOOKING DOWNSTREAM

DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF BRIDGE

UPSTREAM SIDE OF BRIDGE

EXHIBIT

4

GORDONVILLE BRIDGE

PHOTO INVENTORY

Eramosa Bridge

Downstream of the bridge Upstream of the bridge

Looking downstream from the bridge Looking upstream from the bridge

Inside the bridge (looking D/S) Inside the bridge (looking D/S)

CULVERTB124135

3RD LINE

WELLINGTON ROAD 125

WEL

LINGTO

N ROAD

124

SIDER

OAD 10

1ST LINE

ERIN-ERAMOSA TOWNLINE ROAD

EXHIBIT

1LOCATION MAP

WELLINGTON CULVERT B124135

Eramosa/Erin TownlineCrossing

5Erin/Eramosa CrossingEramosa/Erin Townline Crossing

BRIDGE

APPENDIX

A Hydrologic Modelling

Ex_Flow.dat2******************************************************************************** Wellington_Culvert_B124135 ** ******************************************************************************** * Date : August 16th 2017 ** Modeller : [ME] ** Company : WSP ** ** ********************************************************************************* Highway 401 at Grand River ** EXISITNG CONDITIONS HYDROLOGIC MODEL ********************************************************************************** NOTE: PERVIOUS AREA INITIAL ABSTRAcTION CAPPED AT 10mm*START TIME= 0 METOUT= 0 NSTORM=1 NRUN="002" 002SCS24.stm* READ STORM STORM_FILENAME="STORM.001"**********************************************************************************CALIB NASHYD ID=1 NHYD=["100"], DT=[5]min, AREA=[5544.26](ha), DWF=[0](cms), CN/C=[66], IA=[13.1](mm), N=[3], TP=[16.33]hrs, END=-1** HYD 100 flows via Culvert C1**********************************************************************************START TIME= 0 METOUT= 0 NSTORM=1 NRUN=005 005SCS24.stm *START TIME= 0 METOUT= 0 NSTORM=1 NRUN=010 010SCS24.stm*START TIME= 0 METOUT= 0 NSTORM=1 NRUN=025 025SCS24.stm*START TIME= 0 METOUT= 0 NSTORM=1 NRUN=050 050SCS24.stm*START TIME= 0 METOUT= 0 NSTORM=1 NRUN=100 100SCS24.stm*START TIME= 0 METOUT= 0 NSTORM=1 NRUN=150 Hazel_48.stm*FINISH

Page 1

Ex_Flow.sum=================================================================================

SSSSS W W M M H H Y Y M M OOO 999 999 ========= S W W W MM MM H H Y Y MM MM O O 9 9 9 9 SSSSS W W W M M M HHHHH Y M M M O O ## 9 9 9 9 Ver 4.05 S W W M M H H Y M M O O 9999 9999 Sept 2011 SSSSS W W M M H H Y M M OOO 9 9 ========= 9 9 9 9 # 4313781 StormWater Management HYdrologic Model 999 999 =========

******************************************************************************* ***************************** SWMHYMO Ver/4.05 ****************************** ********* A single event and continuous hydrologic simulation model ********* ********* based on the principles of HYMO and its successors ********* ********* OTTHYMO-83 and OTTHYMO-89. ********* ******************************************************************************* ********* Distributed by: J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc. ********* ********* Ottawa, Ontario: (613) 836-3884 ********* ********* Gatineau, Quebec: (819) 243-6858 ********* ********* E-Mail: [email protected] ********* *******************************************************************************

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++ Licensed user: McCormick Rankin Corporation +++++++++ +++++++++ Kitchener SERIAL#:4313781 +++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

******************************************************************************* ********* ++++++ PROGRAM ARRAY DIMENSIONS ++++++ ********* ********* Maximum value for ID numbers : 10 ********* ********* Max. number of rainfall points: 105408 ********* ********* Max. number of flow points : 105408 ********* *******************************************************************************

***** DESCRIPTION SUMMARY TABLE HEADERS (units depend on METOUT in START) ***** *****---------------------------------------------------------------------***** ***** ID: Hydrograph IDentification numbers, (1-10). ***** ***** NHYD: Hydrograph reference numbers, (6 digits or characters). ***** ***** AREA: Drainage area associated with hydrograph, (ac.) or (ha.). ***** ***** QPEAK: Peak flow of simulated hydrograph, (ft^3/s) or (m^3/s). ***** ***** TpeakDate_hh:mm is the date and time of the peak flow. ***** ***** R.V.: Runoff Volume of simulated hydrograph, (in) or (mm). ***** ***** R.C.: Runoff Coefficient of simulated hydrograph, (ratio). ***** ***** *: see WARNING or NOTE message printed at end of run. ***** ***** **: see ERROR message printed at end of run. ***** ******************************************************************************* *******************************************************************************

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

*******************************************************************************

*********************** S U M M A R Y O U T P U T *********************** ******************************************************************************* * DATE: 2017-12-01 TIME: 14:14:10 RUN COUNTER: 000221 * ******************************************************************************* * Input filename: C:\USERS\SHAHRZ~1.SAM\DESKTOP\Mahdi\Ex_Flow.dat * * Output filename: C:\USERS\SHAHRZ~1.SAM\DESKTOP\Mahdi\Ex_Flow.out * * Summary filename: C:\USERS\SHAHRZ~1.SAM\DESKTOP\Mahdi\Ex_Flow.sum * * User comments: * * 1:__________________________________________________________________________* * 2:__________________________________________________________________________* * 3:__________________________________________________________________________*

Page 1

Ex_Flow.sum *******************************************************************************

RUN:COMMAND# 001:0001---------------------------------------------------------------------------- START [TZERO = .00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 1 ] 001:0002---------------------------------------------------------------------------- READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 16.00:PTOT= 40.07] 001:0003---------------ID:NHYD-----------AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01:100 5544.26 2.329 No_date 26:35 4.61 .115 [CN= 66.0: N= 3.00] [Tp=16.33:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 4

*******************************************************************************


*******************************************************************************

RUN:COMMAND# 010:0001---------------------------------------------------------------------------- START [TZERO = .00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)]

Page 2

Ex_Flow.sum [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 10 ] 010:0002---------------------------------------------------------------------------- READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 16.00:PTOT= 61.40] 010:0003---------------ID:NHYD-----------AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01:100 5544.26 6.589 No_date 26:10 13.02 .212 [CN= 66.0: N= 3.00] [Tp=16.33:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 24

*******************************************************************************


*******************************************************************************

RUN:COMMAND# 050:0001---------------------------------------------------------------------------- START [TZERO = .00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 50 ] 050:0002---------------------------------------------------------------------------- READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=10.00:SDUR= 16.00:PTOT= 80.00]

Page 3

Ex_Flow.sum050:0003---------------ID:NHYD-----------AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01:100 5544.26 11.460 No_date 26:00 22.63 .283 [CN= 66.0: N= 3.00] [Tp=16.33:DT= 5.00] ** END OF RUN : 99

*******************************************************************************


*******************************************************************************

RUN:COMMAND# 150:0001---------------------------------------------------------------------------- START [TZERO = .00 hrs on 0] [METOUT= 2 (1=imperial, 2=metric output)] [NSTORM= 1 ] [NRUN = 150 ] 150:0002---------------------------------------------------------------------------- READ STORM Filename = STORM.001 Comment = [SDT=15.00:SDUR= 12.00:PTOT= 212.00] 150:0003---------------ID:NHYD-----------AREA----QPEAK-TpeakDate_hh:mm----R.V.-R.C.- CALIB NASHYD 01:100 5544.26 61.192 No_date 25:30 119.97 .566 [CN= 66.0: N= 3.00] [Tp=16.33:DT= 5.00] 150:0002---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINISH-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 4

Ex_Flow.sum************************************************************************************* WARNINGS / ERRORS / NOTES ------------------------- Simulation ended on 2017-12-01 at 14:14:10=====================================================================================

Page 5

APPENDIX

B HEC-RAS Input (Cross-

Sections and Longitudinal

Profile)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

3213095-ExCond Plan: new flow - Jan 2018 1/25/2018

Main Channel Distance (m)

Ele

vation (

m)

Legend

WS Regional

WS 100 yr

WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

WS 10 yr

WS 2 yr

Ground

EramosaRiverCL EramosaRiver

0 100 200 300 400 500378

379

380

381

382

383

3213095-ExCond Plan: new flow - Jan 2018 1/25/2018 Wellington Road 124

Station (m)

Ele

vation (

m)

Legend

WS Regional

WS 100 yr

WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

WS 10 yr

WS 2 yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.1 .035 .1

0 100 200 300 400 500378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386


Station (m)

Ele

vation (

m)

Legend

WS Regional

WS 100 yr

WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

WS 10 yr

WS 2 yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.1 .035 .1

0 100 200 300 400 500378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386


Station (m)

Ele

vation (

m)

Legend

WS Regional

WS 100 yr

WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

WS 10 yr

WS 2 yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.07 .035

.07

0 100 200 300 400 500378

379

380

381

382

383


Station (m)

Ele

vation (

m)

Legend

WS Regional

WS 100 yr

WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

WS 10 yr

WS 2 yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.07 .035

.07

APPENDIX

C HEC-RAS Output – Existing

Conditions

HEC-RAS Plan: Jan 2018 River: EramosaRiverCL Reach: EramosaRiver

Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl

(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)

EramosaRiver 14.9 2 yr 12.84 374.77 376.33 375.94 376.44 0.003403 1.66 18.03 82.27 0.48

EramosaRiver 14.9 10 yr 23.60 374.77 376.56 376.46 376.67 0.003402 1.86 39.38 103.69 0.49

EramosaRiver 14.9 25 yr 29.07 374.77 376.64 376.53 376.75 0.003401 1.94 48.80 112.24 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 50 yr 32.40 374.77 376.69 376.56 376.80 0.003400 1.98 54.28 116.92 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 100 yr 36.17 374.77 376.74 376.60 376.85 0.003406 2.02 60.24 121.81 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 Regional 101.50 374.77 377.33 377.00 377.43 0.003405 2.48 148.76 179.37 0.53

EramosaRiver 699.7 2 yr 12.84 377.07 378.06 377.96 378.08 0.001713 0.97 55.52 276.42 0.35

EramosaRiver 699.7 10 yr 23.60 377.07 378.20 378.05 378.22 0.001536 1.02 93.83 278.05 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 25 yr 29.07 377.07 378.26 378.08 378.27 0.001486 1.05 110.20 278.66 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 50 yr 32.40 377.07 378.29 378.10 378.31 0.001465 1.06 119.68 291.41 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 100 yr 36.17 377.07 378.33 378.11 378.34 0.001443 1.08 130.24 298.77 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 Regional 101.50 377.07 378.79 378.80 0.001254 1.28 285.18 367.59 0.33

EramosaRiver 1134.8 2 yr 12.84 377.81 378.98 378.63 379.09 0.003335 1.57 17.99 105.55 0.48

EramosaRiver 1134.8 10 yr 23.60 377.81 379.14 379.14 379.28 0.004321 1.95 43.34 223.02 0.56

EramosaRiver 1134.8 25 yr 29.07 377.81 379.23 379.23 379.34 0.003726 1.90 65.54 293.92 0.53

EramosaRiver 1134.8 50 yr 32.40 377.81 379.25 379.25 379.36 0.003973 1.98 71.35 296.00 0.54

EramosaRiver 1134.8 100 yr 36.17 377.81 379.26 379.26 379.38 0.004423 2.10 75.75 297.56 0.58


EramosaRiver 1223.3 2 yr 12.84 378.60 379.38 379.25 379.48 0.006110 1.43 9.40 127.64 0.63

EramosaRiver 1223.3 10 yr 23.60 378.60 379.59 379.44 379.76 0.006614 1.86 13.39 147.41 0.70

EramosaRiver 1223.3 25 yr 29.07 378.60 379.63 379.52 379.86 0.008192 2.16 14.25 151.67 0.78

EramosaRiver 1223.3 50 yr 32.40 378.60 379.67 379.57 379.93 0.008687 2.29 14.96 155.18 0.81

EramosaRiver 1223.3 100 yr 36.17 378.60 379.71 379.62 380.00 0.009000 2.42 15.83 157.95 0.84


EramosaRiver 1238 Bridge

EramosaRiver 1252.4 2 yr 12.84 378.41 379.56 378.98 379.59 0.000719 0.73 17.76 137.40 0.24

EramosaRiver 1252.4 10 yr 23.60 378.41 379.87 379.17 379.92 0.000953 1.02 23.62 158.82 0.29

EramosaRiver 1252.4 25 yr 29.07 378.41 380.00 379.26 380.06 0.001038 1.14 26.11 167.95 0.31

EramosaRiver 1252.4 50 yr 32.40 378.41 380.08 379.30 380.15 0.001071 1.20 27.63 173.50 0.32

EramosaRiver 1252.4 100 yr 36.17 378.41 380.16 379.35 380.25 0.001098 1.26 29.31 186.63 0.32


EramosaRiver 1304.8 2 yr 12.84 378.69 379.61 379.62 0.000327 0.46 51.92 106.03 0.16

EramosaRiver 1304.8 10 yr 23.60 378.69 379.95 379.96 0.000286 0.54 91.21 128.33 0.16

EramosaRiver 1304.8 25 yr 29.07 378.69 380.09 380.11 0.000271 0.57 110.56 137.99 0.16

EramosaRiver 1304.8 50 yr 32.40 378.69 380.18 380.19 0.000260 0.58 122.87 143.80 0.16

HEC-RAS Plan: Jan 2018 River: EramosaRiverCL Reach: EramosaRiver (Continued)


(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)

EramosaRiver 1304.8 100 yr 36.17 378.69 380.28 380.29 0.000248 0.59 137.10 150.23 0.15


EramosaRiver 2164.7 2 yr 12.84 379.77 380.54 380.54 380.63 0.005494 1.57 24.64 160.20 0.61

EramosaRiver 2164.7 10 yr 23.60 379.77 380.64 380.64 380.76 0.006952 1.94 42.40 184.86 0.70

EramosaRiver 2164.7 25 yr 29.07 379.77 380.68 380.68 380.80 0.007582 2.09 49.71 193.61 0.74

EramosaRiver 2164.7 50 yr 32.40 379.77 380.71 380.70 380.83 0.007418 2.12 55.53 200.31 0.74

EramosaRiver 2164.7 100 yr 36.17 379.77 380.78 380.87 0.005673 1.95 69.19 225.07 0.65


APPENDIX

D HEC-RAS Output – Proposed

Conditions

HEC-RAS Plan: new flow River: EramosaRiverCL Reach: EramosaRiver


(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)

EramosaRiver 14.9 2 yr 12.84 374.77 376.33 375.94 376.44 0.003403 1.66 18.03 82.27 0.48

EramosaRiver 14.9 10 yr 23.60 374.77 376.56 376.46 376.67 0.003402 1.86 39.38 103.69 0.49

EramosaRiver 14.9 25 yr 29.07 374.77 376.64 376.53 376.75 0.003401 1.94 48.80 112.24 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 50 yr 32.40 374.77 376.69 376.57 376.80 0.003400 1.98 54.28 116.92 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 100 yr 36.17 374.77 376.74 376.61 376.85 0.003406 2.02 60.24 121.81 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 Reg 101.50 374.77 377.33 377.00 377.43 0.003405 2.48 148.76 179.37 0.53

EramosaRiver 699.7 2 yr 12.84 377.07 378.06 377.96 378.08 0.001713 0.97 55.52 276.42 0.35

EramosaRiver 699.7 10 yr 23.60 377.07 378.20 378.05 378.22 0.001536 1.02 93.83 278.05 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 25 yr 29.07 377.07 378.26 378.08 378.27 0.001486 1.05 110.20 278.66 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 50 yr 32.40 377.07 378.29 378.10 378.31 0.001465 1.06 119.68 291.41 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 100 yr 36.17 377.07 378.33 378.11 378.34 0.001441 1.08 130.30 298.80 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 Reg 101.50 377.07 378.79 378.80 0.001254 1.28 285.18 367.59 0.33

EramosaRiver 1134.8 2 yr 12.84 377.81 378.98 378.63 379.09 0.003335 1.57 17.99 105.55 0.48

EramosaRiver 1134.8 10 yr 23.60 377.81 379.14 379.14 379.28 0.004321 1.95 43.34 223.02 0.56

EramosaRiver 1134.8 25 yr 29.07 377.81 379.23 379.23 379.34 0.003726 1.90 65.54 293.92 0.53

EramosaRiver 1134.8 50 yr 32.40 377.81 379.25 379.25 379.36 0.003973 1.98 71.35 296.00 0.54

EramosaRiver 1134.8 100 yr 36.17 377.81 379.26 379.26 379.38 0.004423 2.10 75.75 297.56 0.58


EramosaRiver 1223.3 2 yr 12.84 378.60 379.39 379.25 379.48 0.005843 1.34 9.74 128.30 0.61

EramosaRiver 1223.3 10 yr 23.60 378.60 379.59 379.43 379.74 0.006245 1.73 14.06 147.35 0.67

EramosaRiver 1223.3 25 yr 29.07 378.60 379.63 379.51 379.83 0.007579 1.99 15.08 151.75 0.75

EramosaRiver 1223.3 50 yr 32.40 378.60 379.67 379.56 379.89 0.007955 2.11 15.89 155.28 0.77

EramosaRiver 1223.3 100 yr 36.17 378.60 379.71 379.60 379.96 0.008175 2.22 16.88 157.97 0.79



EramosaRiver 1252.4 2 yr 12.84 378.41 379.54 378.99 379.56 0.000757 0.73 18.38 135.49 0.25

EramosaRiver 1252.4 10 yr 23.60 378.41 379.80 379.17 379.85 0.001085 1.03 24.26 153.72 0.31

EramosaRiver 1252.4 25 yr 29.07 378.41 379.90 379.25 379.97 0.001226 1.16 26.65 161.12 0.33

EramosaRiver 1252.4 50 yr 32.40 378.41 379.96 379.30 380.04 0.001291 1.23 28.09 165.58 0.34

EramosaRiver 1252.4 100 yr 36.17 378.41 380.03 379.35 380.12 0.001355 1.31 29.65 170.44 0.35


EramosaRiver 1304.8 2 yr 12.84 378.69 379.59 379.60 0.000372 0.48 49.13 104.27 0.17

EramosaRiver 1304.8 10 yr 23.60 378.69 379.88 379.89 0.000364 0.58 82.58 123.77 0.18

EramosaRiver 1304.8 25 yr 29.07 378.69 380.00 380.02 0.000361 0.62 98.33 131.97 0.18

EramosaRiver 1304.8 50 yr 32.40 378.69 380.08 380.09 0.000355 0.64 108.23 136.86 0.18

HEC-RAS Plan: new flow River: EramosaRiverCL Reach: EramosaRiver (Continued)


(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)

EramosaRiver 1304.8 100 yr 36.17 378.69 380.16 380.17 0.000348 0.66 119.43 142.20 0.18


EramosaRiver 2164.7 2 yr 12.84 379.77 380.54 380.54 380.63 0.005494 1.57 24.64 160.20 0.61

EramosaRiver 2164.7 10 yr 23.60 379.77 380.64 380.64 380.76 0.006952 1.94 42.40 184.86 0.70

EramosaRiver 2164.7 25 yr 29.07 379.77 380.71 380.81 0.006007 1.90 55.38 200.14 0.66

EramosaRiver 2164.7 50 yr 32.40 379.77 380.76 380.84 0.005158 1.83 65.39 214.91 0.62

EramosaRiver 2164.7 100 yr 36.17 379.77 380.81 380.88 0.004464 1.77 77.22 245.18 0.58


0 100 200 300 400 500378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

3213095-FutCondOpt4-5/7/2018 Plan: Opt4 5/8/2018 RS = 1238 BR Wellington Road 124

Station (m)

Ele

vation (

m)

Legend

WS Reg

WS 100 yr

WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

WS 10 yr

WS 2 yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.1 .035 .1

0 100 200 300 400 500378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

3213095-FutCondOpt4-5/7/2018 Plan: Opt4 5/8/2018 RS = 1238 BR Wellington Road 124

Station (m)

Ele

vation (

m)

Legend

WS Reg

WS 100 yr

WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

WS 10 yr

WS 2 yr

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

.07 .035 .07

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt 4 River: EramosaRiverCL Reach: EramosaRiver


(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)

EramosaRiver 2164.7 2 yr 12.84 379.77 380.54 380.54 380.63 0.005494 1.57 24.64 160.20 0.61

EramosaRiver 2164.7 10 yr 23.60 379.77 380.65 380.65 380.76 0.006902 1.93 42.55 185.05 0.70

EramosaRiver 2164.7 25 yr 29.07 379.77 380.72 380.68 380.81 0.005673 1.86 56.84 201.79 0.64

EramosaRiver 2164.7 50 yr 32.40 379.77 380.77 380.70 380.84 0.004899 1.79 66.92 219.07 0.60

EramosaRiver 2164.7 100 yr 36.17 379.77 380.82 380.72 380.88 0.004269 1.74 78.83 249.02 0.57


EramosaRiver 1304.8 2 yr 12.84 378.69 379.59 379.06 379.59 0.000375 0.48 48.94 104.15 0.17

EramosaRiver 1304.8 10 yr 23.60 378.69 379.87 379.21 379.89 0.000374 0.59 81.65 123.27 0.18

EramosaRiver 1304.8 25 yr 29.07 378.69 379.99 380.01 0.000376 0.63 96.76 131.17 0.18

EramosaRiver 1304.8 50 yr 32.40 378.69 380.06 380.08 0.000372 0.65 106.18 135.86 0.18

EramosaRiver 1304.8 100 yr 36.17 378.69 380.14 380.15 0.000367 0.67 116.85 140.99 0.18


EramosaRiver 1252.4 2 yr 12.84 378.41 379.54 378.99 379.56 0.000750 0.73 18.86 135.41 0.24

EramosaRiver 1252.4 10 yr 23.60 378.41 379.79 379.17 379.84 0.001087 1.03 25.03 153.24 0.31

EramosaRiver 1252.4 25 yr 29.07 378.41 379.89 379.25 379.96 0.001238 1.16 27.52 160.32 0.33

EramosaRiver 1252.4 50 yr 32.40 378.41 379.95 379.29 380.03 0.001310 1.23 29.00 164.56 0.34

EramosaRiver 1252.4 100 yr 36.17 378.41 380.02 379.35 380.10 0.001382 1.31 30.62 169.17 0.36



EramosaRiver 1223.3 2 yr 12.84 378.60 379.39 379.25 379.48 0.005848 1.34 9.76 128.30 0.61

EramosaRiver 1223.3 10 yr 23.60 378.60 379.59 379.43 379.73 0.006216 1.72 14.26 147.32 0.67

EramosaRiver 1223.3 25 yr 29.07 378.60 379.63 379.51 379.83 0.007528 1.98 15.33 151.73 0.74

EramosaRiver 1223.3 50 yr 32.40 378.60 379.67 379.55 379.89 0.007888 2.10 16.18 155.25 0.77

EramosaRiver 1223.3 100 yr 36.17 378.60 379.71 379.61 379.96 0.008094 2.21 17.21 157.96 0.78


EramosaRiver 1134.8 2 yr 12.84 377.81 378.98 378.63 379.09 0.003335 1.57 17.99 105.55 0.48

EramosaRiver 1134.8 10 yr 23.60 377.81 379.14 379.14 379.28 0.004321 1.95 43.34 223.02 0.56

EramosaRiver 1134.8 25 yr 29.07 377.81 379.23 379.23 379.34 0.003726 1.90 65.54 293.92 0.53

EramosaRiver 1134.8 50 yr 32.40 377.81 379.25 379.25 379.36 0.003973 1.98 71.35 296.00 0.54

EramosaRiver 1134.8 100 yr 36.17 377.81 379.26 379.26 379.38 0.004423 2.10 75.75 297.56 0.58


EramosaRiver 699.7 2 yr 12.84 377.07 378.06 377.96 378.08 0.001713 0.97 55.52 276.42 0.35

EramosaRiver 699.7 10 yr 23.60 377.07 378.20 378.05 378.22 0.001537 1.02 93.81 278.05 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 25 yr 29.07 377.07 378.26 378.08 378.27 0.001486 1.05 110.20 278.66 0.34

EramosaRiver 699.7 50 yr 32.40 377.07 378.29 378.10 378.31 0.001461 1.06 119.79 291.49 0.34

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt 4 River: EramosaRiverCL Reach: EramosaRiver (Continued)


(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/m) (m/s) (m2) (m)

EramosaRiver 699.7 100 yr 36.17 377.07 378.33 378.11 378.34 0.001442 1.08 130.25 298.77 0.34


EramosaRiver 14.9 2 yr 12.84 374.77 376.33 375.94 376.44 0.003403 1.66 18.03 82.27 0.48

EramosaRiver 14.9 10 yr 23.60 374.77 376.56 376.47 376.67 0.003402 1.86 39.38 103.69 0.49

EramosaRiver 14.9 25 yr 29.07 374.77 376.64 376.54 376.75 0.003401 1.94 48.80 112.24 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 50 yr 32.40 374.77 376.69 376.57 376.80 0.003400 1.98 54.28 116.92 0.50

EramosaRiver 14.9 100 yr 36.17 374.77 376.74 376.60 376.85 0.003406 2.02 60.24 121.81 0.50


Documents

Draft Hydrology and Hydraulics Report · Hydraulics Report for the replacement of the Eramosa River (Ospringe) Bridge (B124135). This report details the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations