Appendix E – Civil

WP-43D BCOE 4/1/2016 DDR Pump Station, Volume 2 – Appendix E – Civil

APPENDIX E – CIVIL

WP-43D Oxbow-Hickson-Bakke Ring Levee System

WP-43D BCOE 4/1/2016 DDR Pump Station, Volume 2 – Appendix E – Civil

E1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

E2 Design Quality Control ...... ii E3 Computation Index ...... 1 C-01—Reinforced Concrete Pipe Loading and Class (Levee Section) ...... 1 C-02—Reinforced Concrete Pipe Loading and Class (Non-Levee Section) ...... 6 C-03—Reinforced Concrete Pipe Bedding and Trench Geometry ...... 10 C-04—Outfall Structure Stilling Basin and Riprap Channel Design ...... 13 C-05—OHB Ring Levee Stormwater Pipe Road Crossing Stress Analysis ...... 65 C-06—Turf Reinforcement Mat Design for Gatewell Overflow ...... 74

Attachments

Attachment E1 HDPE Pipe Design Computations

WP-43D Oxbow-Hickson-Bakke Ring Levee System i

WP-43D BCOE 4/1/2016 DDR Pump Station, Volume 2 – Appendix E – Design Quality Control

E2 DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL

Quality control for all civil design was completed in accordance with the project quality control plan.

CIVIL DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL

Civil Design Designer Calculations Check Engineer of Record Component Appendix E Mark Kretschmer Matt Metzger Matt Metzger

WP-43D Oxbow-Hickson-Bakke Ring Levee System ii

Calc# C-01 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 1 of 5 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

Reinforced Concrete Pipe Loading and Class

Method of Analysis per EM 1110-2-2902 Section 3-7

D-load Analysis FOR RCP IN TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION

(1)

Assume First Class Bedding Type for Trenches from Figure 3-1

Per Table 3-1

(2) Earth load We

Page 1 of 80 Calc# C-01 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 2 of 5 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

Unit Weight = 120 lbs / ft^3 CL Silty Clay per AASTHO T99

Bc = 73.5 / 12 = 6.13 ft per Hanson Pipe

H = 927.6 – 896.5 = 31.1’

= 31.1 – (60+6.75/12) = 25.5’

Page 2 of 80 Calc# C-01 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 3 of 5 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

= 25.5 ft (to top of pipe) Top of Levee = 927.6, Inv. at Gatewell = 896.5

We = 120 lbs/ft^3 x 6.1 ft x 25.5 ft = 18,666 lbs / ft

(3) Modified AASHTO D0.01

Hf = 1.3

Si = 5.0 ft

Bf = 1.9 (assume Trench Condition)

We = 18,666 lbs / ft

Wf = Area x Unit Weight water = ∏ x (2.5ft)^2 x 62.4 lbs/ft^3 = 1225 lbs/ft

WL = Following equation

Page 3 of 80 Calc# C-01 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 4 of 5 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

P = 32,000 lbs (HS-20 Loading)

Z = 25.5 ft (measured to top of pipe)

R = 25.5 ft (Radial Distance per Figure 2-3) (assume load directly over pipe) (measured to top of pipe)

WL = 3xP x 2^3 / (2∏R^5)

= 3 x 32,000 lbs x 25.5 ft^3 / 2 /∏ / 25.5 ft ^5 = 24 lbs/ft

Wt = 18,666 lbs/ft + 1225 lbs/ft + 24 lbs/ft = 19,915 lbs/ft

Modified AASHTO D0.01 = (Hf x Wt) / (Si x Bf) Bf = 1.9 (ACPA Class B bedding) = 1.3 x 19,915 lbs/ft / 5.0 ft / 1.9 = 2725 lbs

Page 4 of 80 Calc# C-01 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 5 of 5 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

Per ASTM C-76, D-Load Strengths =

Required Pipe Class = Class V

Reference: Cretex 60” RCP CLV max cover 27” with Class B Bedding Reference: PNPCA 60” RCP CLV install type 2 with sand to haunch – Max Cover. Silty Clay Cat III on “lower side” 25.5’ < 39’ type 2 25.5’ < 30’ type 3 Type 4 does not apply (21’)

Page 5 of 80 Calc# C-02 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 1 of 4 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

Reinforced Concrete Pipe Loading and Class

Method of Analysis per EM 1110-2-2902 Section 3-7

D-load Analysis FOR RCP IN NON-LEVEE SECTION

(1) Assume First Class Bedding Type for Trenches from Figure 3-1

Per Table 3-1

(2) Earth load We

Unit Weight = 120 lbs / ft^3 CL Silty Clay per AASTHO T99

Page 6 of 80 Calc# C-02 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 2 of 4 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

Bc = 73.5 / 12 = 6.13 ft per Hanson Pipe

H = 918 – 890.4 = 27.6’ (outside road raise)

= 27.6’ – (60 + 6.75 / 12) = 22’

= 22.0 ft (to top of pipe) Highest Existing Ground= 918, Inv. = 890.4

Page 7 of 80 Calc# C-02 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 3 of 4 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

We = 120 lbs/ft^3 x 6.1 ft x 22.0 ft = 16,104 lbs / ft

(3) Modified AASHTO D0.01

Hf = 1.3

Si = 5.0 ft

Bf = 1.9 (assume Trench Condition)

We = 16,104 lbs / ft

Wf = Area x Unit Weight water = ∏ x (2.5ft)^2 x 62.4 lbs/ft^3 = 1225 lbs/ft

WL = Following equation

Page 8 of 80 Calc# C-02 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 4 of 4 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Loading/CL By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/29/2014 Date: 10/22/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

P = 32,000 lbs (HS-20 Loading)

Z = 22.0 ft (measured to top of pipe)

R = 22.0 ft (Radial Distance per Figure 2-3) (assume load directly over pipe) (measured to top of pipe)

WL = 3xP x 2^3 / (2∏R^5)

= 3 x 32,000 lbs x 22.0 ft^3 / 2 /∏ / 22.0 ft ^5 = 31 lbs/ft

Wt = 16,104 lbs/ft + 1225 lbs/ft + 31 lbs/ft = 17,360 lbs/ft

Modified AASHTO D0.01 = (Hf x Wt) / (Si x Bf) Bf = 1.9 (ACPA Class B bedding) = 1.3 x 17,360 lbs/ft / 5.0 ft / 1.9 = 2375 lbs

Per ASTM C-76, D-Load Strengths =

Required Pipe Class = Class V

Page 9 of 80 Calc# C-03 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 1 of 3 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Bedding By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/30/2014 Date: 10/24/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) Bedding and Trench Geometry

Bedding Section:

- Within Levee Footprint (Toe-Toe) – Formed Foundation

Per EM 1110-2-1913, Section 8-8, b. Pipes crossing through or beneath levees…..

- Trench should be excavated to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the pipe and at least 4 feet wider than the pipe. - After the trench has been excavated, it should be backfilled to the pier invert elevation. In impervious zones, the backfill material should be compacted with mechanical compactor to 95 percent standard density. - Check to PNPCA Type 2 installation – OK (CL V max cover 39’)

Page 10 of 80 Calc# C-03 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 2 of 3 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Bedding By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/30/2014 Date: 10/24/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

- Non-Levee Footprint – Sand Cushion

Per EM 1110-2-2902 - Assume First Class Bedding Type for Trenches from Figure 3-1

Trench Width

Per American Concrete Pipe Association, Concrete Pipe and Box Culvert Installation Manual, Page 18

Page 11 of 80 Calc# C-03 Date: 9/29/2014 Sheet No. 3 of 3 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – RCP Bedding By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 9/30/2014 Date: 10/24/2014 Date: 1/16/2015

Total trench width wider than pipe = 8.5’ – 5.0’ (pipe) = 3.5’

Per EM1110-2-1913, 8-8b. Use 4.0 feet wider than pipe.

Page 12 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 1 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

Outfall Structure Stilling Basin and Riprap Channel Design

Description The outlet structure of the Oxbow Outfall is comprised of:

• An expanding stilling basin made of reinforced concrete structure • A riprap lined channel • Launchable riprap for revetment toe protection The invert of the outfall is at elevation 890.1 feet. The outlet is equipped with a TIDEFLEX check valve, which opens up with the flow rate. The length of the valve with a maximum flow of 169 cfs through the pipe is 8 feet.

Design Parameters Design Flow Rate and Velocity Case 1 - Gravity outlet from North Pond - see Table 1 from Moore H&H model dated 10/1/20104

Table 1

←

Case 2 - Pumping Rate Discharge from operating pump station – approximately 60 cfs

Use Case 1 for design (see Table 1): Q = 169.5 cfs, V = 9.3 ft/s

Manning’s n Value Following form of Stickler’s equation (EM 1110-2-1601)

(3-2)

Stone Specific Unit Weight Per St. Paul District Standard Riprap Design, Rev No. 1 – June 2014, specific unity weight of stone is 165 pounds per cubic foot.

Page 13 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 2 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

Summary of Design Basis References

- Stilling Basin Design – W. H. Hager. 1992. Energy Dissipators and Hydraulic Jumps. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht - Channel Sizing – EM1110-2-1601 Section 2 Open Channel Hydraulic Theory - Riprap Sizing o Riprap Lined Channel Section – Sturm. 2001. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw Hill NCHRP Report 108. 1970. Tentative Design Procedure for Riprap Lined Channels o Riprap along the Red River Bank – EM1110-2-1601 Section 3-7 Stone Size, Equation 3-5 - Riprap Gradation – St. Paul District Standard Riprap Design, Revision No. 1 – June 2014 - Launchable Riprap – EM1110-2-1601 Section 3-11 Revetment Toe Protection Design

Comparison to HDC-712-1 – The designed riprap lined channel is more conservative with a larger factor of safety than the HDC-712-1 procedure which is based on average velocities in the channel.

Figure indicating specific design elements included in computations.

Stilling Basin The stilling basin invert is at elevation 887.0 feet, i.e. there will be a 3.1-foot drop from the invert of the pipe/Tideflex check valve to the bottom of the stilling basin (887.0). The stilling basin is designed as an expanding basin to dissipate flow energy, decrease the conjugate depth of the hydraulic jump and help contain the hydraulic jumps within the basin. The upstream width is 8 feet and downstream width is 12 feet. Using the momentum equation and the trajectory of the jet leaving the gate, the length of the stilling basin is determined to be 18 feet. The length of the jump for a maximum flow rate of 169 cfs and an upstream Froude number of 3.5 is estimated from Equation 1 to be 16 feet (Hager, 1995). The effect of end sill is ignored in the following equation1.

Page 14 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 3 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

In the previous equation, is the jump length, y2 is the downstream depth of the jump, and b and b2 Lj are the upstream and downstream widths of the stilling basin, respectively. Given the drop and trajectory of the flow from the TIDEFLEX check valve, an 18-foot length will be adequate for the stilling basin.

A 1.4-foot high vertical end sill at the downstream end of the stilling basin has a top of sill elevation of 888.4 feet. For all flow rates less than 169 cfs, the hydraulic jump is contained within the stilling basin.

The median stone size of the riprap downstream of the stilling is determined to be D50=14 inches, which fulfills the USACE guidelines (HDC-722-1) for stilling basins. The design is based on the average velocity and depth in the riprap lined channel. The D50 becomes 11 inches according to HDC-722-1.

Computations:

In this equation, D50 is the median size of stones (ft), V is average flow velocities in outlet channel (fps), D is depth of flow in outlet channel (ft) and g is gravity.

Riprap Lined Channel Water leaving the stilling basin enters a trapezoidal riprap lined channel with an invert elevation of 888.4 feet. A transition is designed between the downstream end of the stilling basin and the designed riprap lined channel.

Page 15 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 4 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

The riprap lined channel is designed to maintain the shear stresses below the critical shear stresses on the bed and the wall. The bottom width of the riprap lined channel is 5-feet, the side slopes are 5 (i.e., 5H:1V). The normal depth for a maximum flow rate of 169 cfs is 2 feet. A freeboard of 0.6 feet is considered for extending the riprap lining of the channel per EM1110-2-1601. The maximum capacity of the riprap section of the channel, including the freeboard is 280 cfs. The channel banks above the freeboard will be protected with a permanent turf reinforcement mat (TRM). Following is the designed channel cross section.

The channel bed slope is 2% and extends with the same slope to the Red River with a downstream invert elevation of 885 feet, which is the normal water depth in the Red River. Note that more than 75% of the time in April, May and June, and at least 65% of the time in July, the water level in the Red River is equaled or exceeded 885.0 (see following figure).

The Froude number in the riprap lined channel during a 169 cfs flow is 0.97, i.e. a subcritical flow regime. For all flows from 10 cfs to 169 cfs, the flow regime stays subcritical in the channel. With a

Page 16 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 5 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

median (D50) stone size of 10 inches (angular shape), the critical shear stresses on the bed and the wall are determined to be 3.3 and 3.2 lb/ft2, respectively. The maximum shear stress on the bed and the wall are estimated to be 2.2 and 1.7 lb/ft2, respectively.

To account for the forces from the ice cover in the Red River, the thickness of the riprap has increased by 6 inches based on the recommendations in EM 1110-2-1601. Note that no attempts were made to increase the stone size because the method used to size the stones of the riprap lined channel is more conservative than the design method based on flow velocity in the channel as presented in EM 1110-2-

1601. The design minimum thickness of the riprap lining proposed is 26 inches, i.e. larger than 2D50. (Riprap thickness Per EM 1110-2-1601:3-2.e shall be minimum D100 or 1.5XD50, whichever greater)

The riprap gradation was determined from the St. Paul Standard Riprap Design Revision No. 1 – June

2014 (see Attachment C-04A). Knowing Dxx, the relationship between size and weight of stone was calculated using the following equation in EM1110-2-1601.

The riprap gradation was determined from Table 1.

For D50 = 14”, W50 = 135lbs, use R80, Thickness is 2D50 + 6” for ice consideration = 34” (Riprap downstream of sill). Add factor of safety for scour at sill to channel transition. Use 48”

For D50 = 10”, W50 = 50lbs, use R45, Thickness is 2D50 + 6” for ice consideration = 26” (Riprap from sill to el. 885.0)

Page 17 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 6 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

Manning’s n is estimated to be 0.039 and the average flow velocity during a 169-cfs flow is 6 feet per second. Since the flow is subcritical in the channel, there will be a drawdown profile in the channel with normal water level in the Red River. However, the Froude number is very close to critical, therefore, the drawdown will be very small and has no adverse effect on the stability of the stones in the channel. During high water levels in the Red River, the channel will exhibit backwater effects (an M1 profile), which reduces the flow velocity and shear stress in the channel. The channel will not exhibit any hydraulic jumps.

CHANNEL DESIGN (Riprap) Given Selected Definitions Information Computed discharge Q 169 cfs bed slope So 0.02 median size riprap d50 254 mm angle of repose φ 42 degrees side slope angle θ 23.5 degrees side slope z 2.300 side slope z 5.0 select side slope angle θ 0.197 radians side slope angle θ 11.31 degrees Ratio of wall to bed shear stresses Κ 0.956

critical shear stress at bed τc 3.33 lbf/ft2 τc critical shear stress at walls wall 3.18 lbf/ft2 hydraulic radius R1 1.78 hydraulic radius R2 2.13 selected hydraulic radius R 1.15 ft Manning's n n 0.039 average velocity V 5.96 fps cross-sectional area A 28.3 ft2 wetted perimeter P 24.7 ft Z- para 5.198 Depth (normal) y 2.0 ft Bottom width Bw 4.7 ft Bw/y 2 OK

Page 18 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 7 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

Top width no freeboard B 24.3

Froude number at normal depth Frn 0.97 Subrcritical

Channel downstream invert elevation 885.0 ft Channel Length 170 ft

Channel upstream invert elevation 888.4 Channel bottomwidth 5.0 ft Side Slope 5 d50 10 inches Thickness 26 inches Freeboard 0.6 ft Total depth 2.6 ft Channel Top width 31 ft

Riprap along the Red River Bank At the downstream end of the riprap lined channel, the bank of the Red River channel will be armored with riprap to prevent erosion of the bank and potential under-cutting of the downstream end of the riprap lined channel. Since the likelihood of the tailwater in the Red River being below the normal level of 885 with water flowing through the drain pipe is extremely low, the riprap will be designed based on the flow velocities in the Red River. Model information provided by Moore Engineering on February 6, 2015 in a document labelled RRN Velocity near Oxbow.xlsx indicates a maximum velocity of 1.88 feet per second for an anticipated 100 year event (see Attachment C-04B). The average flow velocity in the Red River at the bend was assumed to be approximately 6 feet per second to be conservative.

Using the guidelines of EM-1110-2-1601, the side slope velocity (Vss) of the Red River at the bend is estimated to be 10 fps for an average flow velocity of 6 fps (R/W ≈ 2). The D30 stone size for the bank is estimated to be 8 inches. Under rare occasions when water level in the Red River is lower than elevation

885 feet, and approximately 60 cfs discharge from the outfall, the D30 of the stone size can be estimated assuming a rock-lined chute according to equation 3-5 in EM1110-2-1601 as follows. The D30 is then determined to be 8 inches.

Page 19 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 8 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

A factor of safety of 1.2 is included to account for potential irregularities in flow direction and velocity within the river. The D30 is then determined to be 10 inches.

The riprap gradation was determined from the St. Paul Standard Riprap Design Revision No. 1 – June

2014. For D30 = 10”, determine equivalent W30 by using equation 3-1 of EM1110-2-1601.

Per the above equation W30 = 50lbs. Per Table 1, with a corresponding minimum W30 = 50lbs, choose R140. Thickness is per Table 1 = 24”. Assume underwater placement since riprap is below NWL-885.0, Per 1110-2-1601, 3-2,e(2) increase thickness by 50%, 24” x 1.5 = 36” + 6” for ice consideration = Total 42”

Launchable Riprap for Revetment Toe Protection Houston-Moore Group (HMG) reviewed potential scour depths around bridges as part of the Fargo- Moorhead diversion channel in a technical memorandum dated 8/3/2012 (see Attachment C-04C). Per Table 4 included in the memorandum, scour depths were determined as follows:

Page 20 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 9 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

Scour depth is therefore assumed as 6.9 feet.

The launchable riprap design is based on EM1110-2-1601 Section 3-11 Revetment Toe Protection Design using Method D (see figure below).

Design Parameters

L ≥ T, H = 2.5 to 4.0 X T

Include FOS for cohesive soils (consider consequence of failure). Assume 1.5 .

For Vertical Launch Distance ≤ 15, from Table 3-2, Assume underwater placement

Page 21 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 10 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

T required = 2.5 ft (Required Riprap Thickness)

Required Stone Area = 1.5 (T) (Scour Depth) √5 (1.5 accounts for lost stone per Table 3-2)

= 3.35 (T) (Scour Depth)

= 3.35 (2.5ft) (6.9ft)

= 57.8 SF

FOS (assume 1.5) = 57.8 * 1.5 = 86.7 SF

Launchable Stone Dimensions

H = 8.0

L = 11.0

Area = 88.0SF

Parameter Check…

L ≥ T…… 11.0 ≥ 2.5 OK

H = 2.5 to 4.0 X T…..6.3 < 8.0 < 10.0 OK

Overall Outfall stilling basin and riprap lined channel

Page 22 of 80 Calc# C-04 Date: 3/17/2015 Sheet No. 11 of 11 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: OMM By: MAK2 By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 1/19/2015 Date: 3/17/2015

Page 23 of 80

St. Paul District

Standard Riprap Design

Original Document

March 2014

Revision No. 1

MVP_Riprap_Design_REV-1_JUNE 2014.docx Revision No. 1 – June 2014 Page 24 of 80 DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version # Description of Revisions Date

Original x Initial document March 2014

1 x Corrected the “Area” label on the R740 gradation curve 6/19/2014

MVP_Riprap_Design_REV-1_JUNE 2014.docx 1 Revision No. 1 – June 2014 Page 25 of 80 INTRODUCTION

The St. Paul District Corps of Engineers (MVP) has developed standard riprap gradations based on stones having specific unit weight of 165 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This document summarizes how MVP completes the design for riprap.

HYDRAULIC REQUIREMENTS

The first step in designing the riprap is to determine the required minimum riprap size. There are many different methods that can be used. The hydraulic engineer shall use the most current approved U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Manual (EM) when determining the minimum riprap size and layer thickness. If conditions exist that warrant a different method, the hydraulic engineer, in consultation with the hydraulic section chief, may select a different, more suitable method.

Stone Size

The required minimum stone size is determined using the methods described in section 3-7 of EM 1110-

2-1601 (30 Jun 94). Typically D30 is calculated. Once the D30 size is obtained, it is converted to an equivalent stone weight, W30, using equation 3-1 of EM 1110-2-1601 (30 Jun 94). This assumes the stone is spherical. The saturated surface dry specific weight of the stone shall be 165 pcf. It should be noted that EM 1110-2-1601 (30 Jun 94) recognizes situations where the older hydraulic design charts

(i.e. HDC 712-1) should be used. In this case D50 is calculated and again equation 3-1 is used to convert to a W50 stone size.

Layer Thickness

Turbulence, underwater placement, ice, debris, and other considerations provided in EM 1110-2-1601 (30 Jun 94) are used to determine the riprap layer thickness.

RIPRAP GRADATION

Once the minimum W30 (or W50) stone weight is determined, the required riprap gradation shall be selected from MVP’s standard riprap gradations as shown in Table 1. The gradation curves are included as attachments.

It should be noted that the riprap gradation identification is based on the minimum W50 stone size of the gradation.

BEDDING REQUIREMENTS

The designers shall determine if bedding is required beneath the riprap. If so, the designers shall select bedding from MVP’s standard bedding gradations as shown in Table 2. The gradation curves are included as attachments.

MVP_Riprap_Design_REV-1_JUNE 2014.docx 2 Revision No. 1 – June 2014 Page 26 of 80 APPROVED MATERIAL SOURCES

The geotechnical engineer and geologist shall provide a list of approved material sources to include in the project specifications.

RIPRAP SAMPLE SIZE

The riprap sample size when conducting gradation tests is recommended to be not less the 25 times the maximum stone size in the specified gradation (25 * W100, max).

CONTACT

Any questions regarding St. Paul District’s Standard Riprap Design should be directed to Aaron Buesing or Kurt Heckendorf.

Aaron W Buesing, P.E. Kurt A. Heckendorf, P.E. Hydraulic Engineer Civil Engineer (Geotechnical) 651-290-5627 651-290-5411 [email protected] [email protected]

MVP_Riprap_Design_REV-1_JUNE 2014.docx 3 Revision No. 1 – June 2014 Page 27 of 80 Table 1: St. Paul District Standard Riprap Gradations

MVP_Riprap_Design_REV-1_JUNE 2014.docx 4 Revision No. 1 – June 2014 Page 28 of 80 Table 2: St. Paul District Standard Bedding Gradations

MVP_Riprap_Design_REV-1_JUNE 2014.docx 5 Revision No. 1 – June 2014 Page 29 of 80 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R1100 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 30 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R740 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______June 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 31 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R470 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 32 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R270 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 33 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R140 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 34 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R80 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 35 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R45 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 36 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R30 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 37 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 10000 1000 100 10 1 SPECIFIED GRADATION ASSUMES A SPECIFIC WEIGHT OF STONES IN POUNDS GRAVITY OF STONE EQUAL TO 2.65 (ASSUMING STONE SHAPE MIDWAY BETWEEN A SPHERE AND CUBE)

2.65 6 7 5 4 3

PROJECT ______MVP Standard Riprap Gradtion 9 8 R20 44 13 30 24 23 21 20 40 AREA ______17 16 15 14 12 11 10 38 34 32 28 26 22 19 48 46 42 36 18 SIZE OF STONE IN INCHES DATE ______March 2014 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF STONE = 2.65 RIPRAP/ROCKFILL GRADATION CURVE Page 38 of 80 ENG FORM 4055 (COMPUTER GENERATED) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

810 6 4 3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 705040 100 140 200 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SAMPLE NO. ELEV OR DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT W % LL PL PI PROJECT MVP Standard Bedding Gradation

AREA B4 BORING GRADATION CURVES DATE Page 39 of 80 March 2014 ENG FORM 2087 (COMPUTER GENERATED) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

810 6 4 3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 705040 100 140 200 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SAMPLE NO. ELEV OR DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT W % LL PL PI PROJECT MVP Standard Bedding Gradation

AREA B3 BORING GRADATION CURVES DATE Page 40 of 80 March 2014 ENG FORM 2087 (COMPUTER GENERATED) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

810 6 4 3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 705040 100 140 200 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SAMPLE NO. ELEV OR DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT W % LL PL PI PROJECT MVP Standard Bedding Gradation

AREA B2 BORING GRADATION CURVES DATE Page 41 of 80 March 2014 ENG FORM 2087 (COMPUTER GENERATED) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

810 6 4 3 2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 705040 100 140 200 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40

50 50

40 60 PERCENT FINER WEIGHT FINER BY PERCENT PERCENT COARSER WEIGHT COARSER BY PERCENT

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SAMPLE NO. ELEV OR DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT W % LL PL PI PROJECT MVP Standard Bedding Gradation

AREA B1 BORING GRADATION CURVES DATE Page 42 of 80 March 2014 ENG FORM 2087 (COMPUTER GENERATED) Q:\16400\16477\16477-255 Phase 7.1 Models\Phase 7.1 Updates\Phase 7.1 Models\Red Peak Project 100yr Project - Phase 7.1 1.88 1.88 River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Total Vel Chnl (cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 Max WS 7823.33 922.06 0.14 0.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 15MAR2006 12001417.18 890.74 0.99 0.99 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 15MAR2006 24001557.15 890.2 1.14 1.14 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 16MAR2006 12001843.85 890.63 1.3 1.3 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 16MAR2006 24002020.56 891.19 1.34 1.34 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 17MAR2006 12002073.07 891.44 1.35 1.35 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 17MAR2006 24002074.18 891.52 1.34 1.34 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 18MAR2006 12002058.54 891.5 1.33 1.33 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 18MAR2006 24002038.83 891.46 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 19MAR2006 12002019.92 891.4 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 19MAR2006 24002003.25 891.34 1.31 1.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 20MAR2006 12001988.46 891.29 1.31 1.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 20MAR2006 24001975.37 891.25 1.31 1.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 21MAR2006 12001968.93 891.23 1.3 1.3 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 21MAR2006 24001970.38 891.24 1.3 1.3 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 22MAR2006 12001981.24 891.28 1.31 1.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 22MAR2006 24002000.37 891.36 1.31 1.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 23MAR2006 12002028.55 891.48 1.31 1.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 23MAR2006 24002065.47 891.65 1.31 1.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 24MAR2006 12002110.78 891.86 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 24MAR2006 24002162.57 892.11 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 25MAR2006 12002220.95 892.4 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 25MAR2006 24002284.91 892.71 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 26MAR2006 12002350.19 893.02 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 26MAR2006 24002416.99 893.34 1.32 1.32 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 27MAR2006 12002487.84 893.65 1.33 1.33 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 27MAR2006 24002566.63 893.97 1.33 1.33 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 28MAR2006 12002732.38 894.42 1.36 1.36 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 28MAR2006 24003021.86 895.12 1.42 1.42 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 29MAR2006 12003606.89 896.27 1.54 1.54 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 29MAR2006 24004487.07 897.92 1.68 1.68 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 30MAR2006 12005620.27 899.81 1.8 1.8 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 30MAR2006 2400 7109.4 902.05 1.88 1.88 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 31MAR2006 12008832.66 904.46 1.86 1.86 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 31MAR2006 240010689.35 906.78 1.8 1.81 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 01APR2006 120012167.27 909.48 1.48 1.65 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 01APR2006 240013846.43 912.54 1.06 1.48 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 02APR2006 120017194.86 914.6 0.97 1.55 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 02APR2006 240018412.52 916.27 0.76 1.43 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 03APR2006 120017815.11 917.59 0.57 1.2 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 03APR2006 240013569.17 918.8 0.36 0.79 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 04APR2006 12009946.34 919.75 0.23 0.52 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 04APR2006 24008771.71 920.59 0.18 0.42

Page 43 of 80 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 05APR2006 12008311.52 921.19 0.16 0.37 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 05APR2006 24007902.65 921.61 0.15 0.34 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 06APR2006 12007611.81 921.92 0.14 0.31 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 06APR2006 2400 9310 921.94 0.17 0.38 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 07APR2006 1200 9746.8 921.5 0.18 0.42 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 07APR2006 24009695.64 921 0.19 0.44 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 08APR2006 1200 9292.9 920.5 0.2 0.45 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 08APR2006 2400 9625.7 919.9 0.22 0.49 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 09APR2006 120010032.65 919.19 0.25 0.56 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 09APR2006 240010263.81 918.44 0.29 0.62 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 10APR2006 120010623.07 917.68 0.33 0.7 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 10APR2006 240010354.62 916.91 0.38 0.75 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 11APR2006 12009893.43 916.15 0.42 0.78 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 11APR2006 24009357.83 915.45 0.45 0.79 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 12APR2006 12008963.91 914.71 0.49 0.8 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 12APR2006 24008833.47 913.88 0.56 0.85 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 13APR2006 1200 8422.5 913.06 0.6 0.86 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 13APR2006 24008103.62 912.36 0.64 0.88 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 14APR2006 12008130.61 911.44 0.73 0.95 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 14APR2006 24008245.85 910.27 0.89 1.05 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 15APR2006 12008507.16 908.53 1.18 1.25 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 15APR2006 2400 7991.7 906.62 1.37 1.37 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 16APR2006 12007255.77 905.53 1.38 1.38 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 16APR2006 24006804.62 904.68 1.41 1.41 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 17APR2006 12006485.92 903.94 1.44 1.44 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 17APR2006 24006223.91 903.32 1.47 1.47 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 18APR2006 1200 6009.2 902.79 1.49 1.49 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 18APR2006 24005832.09 902.35 1.5 1.5 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 19APR2006 12005686.23 901.96 1.52 1.52 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 19APR2006 24005575.68 901.64 1.53 1.53 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 20APR2006 1200 5484.8 901.38 1.54 1.54 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 20APR2006 24005412.78 901.16 1.54 1.54 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 21APR2006 12005354.82 900.98 1.55 1.55 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 21APR2006 24005308.57 900.83 1.56 1.56 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 22APR2006 12005270.16 900.7 1.56 1.56 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 22APR2006 2400 5237.2 900.59 1.57 1.57 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 23APR2006 12005207.16 900.49 1.57 1.57 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 23APR2006 24005178.58 900.4 1.58 1.58 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 24APR2006 12005150.46 900.31 1.58 1.58 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 24APR2006 24005123.48 900.23 1.58 1.58 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 25APR2006 12005097.38 900.15 1.58 1.58 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 25APR2006 24005071.72 900.07 1.59 1.59 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 26APR2006 12005041.29 899.99 1.59 1.59 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 26APR2006 24005001.64 899.89 1.59 1.59 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 27APR2006 12004945.08 899.78 1.59 1.59 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 27APR2006 24004868.71 899.63 1.58 1.58 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 28APR2006 12004782.69 899.45 1.58 1.58

Page 44 of 80 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 28APR2006 24004693.69 899.25 1.57 1.57 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 29APR2006 12004614.58 899.06 1.57 1.57 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 29APR2006 2400 4556.2 898.89 1.58 1.58 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 30APR2006 12004525.78 898.76 1.58 1.58 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 30APR2006 2400 4524.1 898.68 1.59 1.59 Red River Breck to Wolv2541269 01MAY2006 12004543.84 898.65 1.6 1.6

Page 45 of 80 ATTACHMENT C-05A

Page 46 of 80 Page 47 of 80 Page 48 of 80 Page 49 of 80 Page 50 of 80 Page 51 of 80 Page 52 of 80 Page 53 of 80 Page 54 of 80 Page 55 of 80 Page 56 of 80 Page 57 of 80 Page 58 of 80 Page 59 of 80 Page 60 of 80 Page 61 of 80 Page 62 of 80 Page 63 of 80 Page 64 of 80 Calc# C-05 Date: 9/23/2014 Sheet No. 1 of 2 Project Name: OHB Ring Levee Road Crossing Computed Checked Submitted Pipe Stress By: BRE By: JDW2 By: BRE Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: Date: 9/11/2014 Date: 9/12/2014 01/19/2015

1.0 Purpose:

The purpose of this calculation was to determine the required material and wall thickness for the storm water pipes crossing US 81 at the Oxbow, Hickson, Bakke Ring Levee and verify the pipe’s suitability for the application. Based on the geotechnical analysis of the site, the added weight of the levee and road at this location will cause the soil at the location of the crossing to settle approximately six inches (at the center of the road) over time. Based on this settling, the pipe needed to be able to handle a permanent deformation without exceeding stress limits.

2.0 Reference:

1. USACE EM 1110-2-2902. Engineering and Design: Conduits, Culverts, and Pipes. US Army Corps of Engineers, 1998. 2. API RP1102. Steel Pipelines Crossing Railroads and Highways. 7th Edition. American Petroleum Institute, 2014. 3. API RP 1117. Recommended Practice for Movement in In-Service Pipelines. 3rd Edition. American Petroleum Institute, 2009. 4. ALA – Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe. American Lifelines Alliance, 2005.

3.0 Assumptions:

1. The ground settling profile will be a smooth “S” profile beneath the road embankments. The settling will taper off at the edge of the embankments and will peak in the center at a maximum of 6” based on gatewell preconsolidation geotechnical work performed by Barr Engineering in 2014. There will be no discontinuities in the settling. 2. The highway loading above the pipe was assumed to be H20 loading and was calculated per API 1102. The soil properties used to calculate these loads were assumed to be the worst- case values per API 1102. 3. The temperature of the pipe in the ground will not vary more than +/-30°F from the ground temperature at backfill. 4. The welds will be full-penetration per API 1104 and will have the same strength as the surrounding material. 5. A design factor of 0.75 was applied to reduce the allowable stresses for the material.

4.0 Equations:

No one standard was available to address this specific situation, so the calculations from several different standards were used to verify the suitability of the design. API 1117 was used as a reference due to the methods provided for calculating the stresses during a line lowering. In the case of this pipe, the settling soil performs similar to a pipe with the bedding intentionally lowered to change the profile. The standard provides methods for determining the bending stress

Page 65 of 80 Calc# C-05 Date: 9/23/2014 Sheet No. 2 of 2 Project Name: OHB Ring Levee Road Crossing Computed Checked Submitted Pipe Stress By: BRE By: JDW2 By: BRE Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: Date: 9/11/2014 Date: 9/12/2014 01/19/2015

from the lowering and elongation stress due to the pipe stretching to follow the new, slightly longer, profile.

The allowable loads were calculated per the USACE EM 1110-2-2902 and compared with calculated loads and the stresses due to the highway loading and line lowering from API 1102 and API 1117, respectively, were combined to determine the total stresses and compared with the allowable material stresses.

All of the equations and variables used for this analysis are included in the Mathcad file attached.

5.0 Conclusion:

The table below shows a list of the primary values that were checked and compared to allowable values to determine the suitability of the pipe for this particular design. As noted, the allowable stresses used in the calculations include a design factor of 0.75.

Allowable Vertical Load per USACE EM 1110‐2‐2902 Checked Parameter Calculated Value Allowable Value* Vertical Load ‐ Pipe Wall Bending Stress 26.3 psi 36.5 psi Vertical Load ‐ Pipe Wall Deflection 26.3 psi 88.8 psi Pipe Stress Due to Highway Loading and Line Lowering per API RP11102 and API RP1117 Checked Parameter Calculated Value Allowable Value* Effective Combined Stresses Tension Side of Pipe 48,086 psi 48,750 psi Compression Side of Pipe 45,534 psi 48,750 psi Principal Stresses Circumferential 15,060 psi 48,750 psi Longitudinal ‐ Tension Side 38,750 psi 48,750 psi Longitudinal ‐ Compression Side 36,092 psi 48,750 psi Fatigue Stress Girth Welds 469 psi 9,000 psi Longitudinal Welds 656 psi 9,000 psi *The allowable value is based on a 75% design factor applied to the specified minimum yield strength for API‐5L X65 PSL2 pipe. The 75% design factor was chosen to account for possible variation in the actual settling of the pipe versus the predicted settling.

6.0 Calculation:

Calculations were performed using Mathcad and can be found in the attached file.

Page 66 of 80 OXBOW, HICKSON, BAKKE RING LEVEE ‐ STORMWATER PIPE DATE: 1/16/2015 CASS COUNTY, ND NAME: BRE 34091004.10 CHECK: JDW2 CALC #: C‐05

OHB Ring Levee Storwater Pipe Road Crossing Stress Analysis

Estimate the stress in a stormwater pipe crossing US 81 as part of the Oxbow, Hickson, Bakke Ring Levee, utilizing methods described in USACE EM 1110-2-2902, API 1102, API 1117, and ALA - Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe.

Begin defining design parameters of pipe:

 starting wall thickness, twAct  corrosion allowance, CA Per discussion  wall thickness after corrosion allowance, tw  external diameter, D  operating pressure, p  Specified minimum yield strength, SMYS  design factor, F Per discussion  Young's modulus, Es  Poisson's ratio, vs  Longiudinal joint factor, E ASME B31.4 for PSL2 Line Pipe  Section modulus, Zpipe  Area moment of inertia, Ipipe  Distance of soil settling, Lsettle Per Geotechnical Analysis  Vertical drop at pipe center as a result of settling, ∆pipe Per Geotechnical Analysis

Pipe Material Design

twAct 1.0 in SMYS 65000psi F 0.75

CA 0.125 in Es  29000000psi E 1.0 3 tw  twAct  CA  0.875 in νs  0.3 Lsettle 150 ft  1.8 10 in

D42in Δpipe 6in

p 0 psi ΔT30R Temperature change in pipe from 4 4 4 4 install to operation (possibly        Ipipe .0491 D D2tw  2.392 10 in tensile or compressive)

.0982  4 4 3 3 Z   D  D2t  1.139 10 in pipe D  w   6 1 α  6.5 10  s R

Page 67 of 80 OXBOW, HICKSON, BAKKE RING LEVEE ‐ STORMWATER PIPE DATE: 1/16/2015 CASS COUNTY, ND NAME: BRE 34091004.10 CHECK: JDW2 CALC #: C‐05

Pipe Stress at Road Crossing Using Combined Methods from API 1102 and API 1117

Define installation and site characteristic variables (per API 1102):

 Depth, H  Bored diameter, Bd  Modulous of soil reaction, Eprime  Unit weight of soil, γ  Design wheel load from tandem axles, Pt (Critical configuration)  Excavation factor, Ee  Burial Factor of Earth Load Circumferential Stress, Be  Contact area for application of wheel load, Ap  Live load, w  Stiffness factor for cirumferential stress from earth load, KHe  Highway axle configuration, L  Highway pavement factor, R  Stiffness factor for cyclic circumferential stress from highway vehicular load, KHh  Stiffness factor for cyclic longitudinal stress from highway vehicular load, KLh  Geometry factor for cyclic circumferential stress from highway vehicular load, GHh  Geometry factor for cyclic Longitudinal stress from highway vehicular load, GLh

Soil Soil properties (conservative Site Conditions estimates from API 1102) H 31.5ft Per profile on drawing CJ104 Eprime  200psi For trenched construction Bd  D lbf lbf γ  0.0694444 120 3 3 B  1.3 API1102 - Figure 4 in ft e  API1102 - Figure 3 External Load KHe 3800  API1102 - Figure 5 API1102 - Table 1 Ee 1.0 Pt  10000lbf R 0.9 API1102 - Table 2 2 Pt Ap  144in w  Ap L 1.00 API1102 - Table 2

Determine t /D and H/B to API1102 - Figure 14 w d KHh  21 obtain information from API API1102 - Figure 15 charts. GHh  0.5

H K  15 API1102 - Figure 16 tw  9 Lh  0.021 B D d API1102 - Figure 17 GLh  0.5 API1102 - Figure 7 Fi  1.0

Page 68 of 80 OXBOW, HICKSON, BAKKE RING LEVEE ‐ STORMWATER PIPE DATE: 1/16/2015 CASS COUNTY, ND NAME: BRE 34091004.10 CHECK: JDW2 CALC #: C‐05

Calculate the maximum allowable stress, Smax

4 Smax  SMYS FE  4.875 10 psi

Calculate circumferential stress due to internal pressure, SHi using the Barlow formula

pD SHi 0 psi 2t w

Calculate circumferential stress due to earth load, SHe 4 SHe  KHeBeEeγD  1.441 10 psi

Calculate the cyclic circumferential stress from highway vehicular load, ∆SHh

ΔSHh  KHhGHhRLFiw 656.25 psi

Calculate the cyclic longitudinal stress from highway vehicular load, ∆SLh

ΔSLh  KLhGLhRLFiw 468.75 psi

Calculate the circumferential stress from the internal pressure, SHi

pD tw SHi  0 psi 2t w

Calculate the bending stress from the settling, Sb, per API RP1117

384 EsIpipeΔpipe lbf ω  152 t 4 in Lsettle

2 ωtLsettle Sb   36089 psi 12 Zpipe

Calculate the elongation stress from the settling, Selong, per API RP1117 2  Δpipe  Selong  2.67 Es   860 psi  Lsettle

Page 69 of 80 OXBOW, HICKSON, BAKKE RING LEVEE ‐ STORMWATER PIPE DATE: 1/16/2015 CASS COUNTY, ND NAME: BRE 34091004.10 CHECK: JDW2 CALC #: C‐05

Calculate the principle stress, S1, S2, and S3

Circumferential (changes from tension to compression within the pipe wall):

4 S1tens  SHe  ΔSHh  SHi  1.506 10 psi

4 S1comp  SHe  ΔSHh  SHi  1.506  10 psi

Longitudinal (adjusted for compression (-) and tension (+); added bending and axial stresses from line settling). Longitudinal stress is calculated on both the tension side and the compression side of the bent pipe:

S2comp  ΔSLh νs SHe  SHi  Selong  Sb αsEs ΔT 36092 psi

S2tens  ΔSLh νs SHe  SHi  Selong  Sb αsEs ΔT 38750 psi

Radial:

S3  p

Calculate the effective stress, Seff. The worst case for the effective stress occurs when the pipe is in tension in one direction and compression in the other. This would occur where the pipe circumferential stress is in tension from the earth load and in compression from the bending from settling at the top of the pipe or when the circumferential stress is in compression from the earth load and in tension from the bending from settling at the bottom of the pipe.

1  2 2 2 Tension side of settled SeffTens  S1comp  S2tens  S2tens  S3  S3  S1comp  48086 psi 2 pipe

1  2 2 2 Compression side of SeffComp  S1tens  S2comp  S2comp  S3  S3  S1tens  45534 psi 2 settled pipe

Check that effective stress and principal stresses are lower than maximum allowable stress:

SeffTens  Smax  1 S1comp  Smax  1

SeffComp  Smax  1 S2tens  Smax  1

S1tens  Smax  1 S2comp  Smax  1

Page 70 of 80 OXBOW, HICKSON, BAKKE RING LEVEE ‐ STORMWATER PIPE DATE: 1/16/2015 CASS COUNTY, ND NAME: BRE 34091004.10 CHECK: JDW2 CALC #: C‐05

Fatigue per API 1102

Define fatigue parameters:

 Cyclic longitudinal stress from highway vehicular load, ∆SLh  Fatigue resistance of girth weld SFG  Cyclic circumferential stress from highway vehicular load, ∆SHh  Fatigue resistance of longitudinal weld SFG

SFG  12000psi

SFL  12000psi

Check for Fatigue on Girth Welds

3 SFGF 910  psi

ΔSLh SFG F  1

Check for Fatigue on Longitudinal Welds

3 SFLF 910  psi

ΔSHh SFG F  1

Maximum Allowable Vertical Load - USACE EM 1110-2-2902

Check bending loads and deflection by USACE methods per EM 1110-2-2902

Determine pressure due to soil load, Pv and surface load, Pp

Pv γH 26.25 psi

Per ALA H20 loading at given depth (Table 4.1-1) Pp 0 psi

Page 71 of 80 OXBOW, HICKSON, BAKKE RING LEVEE ‐ STORMWATER PIPE DATE: 1/16/2015 CASS COUNTY, ND NAME: BRE 34091004.10 CHECK: JDW2 CALC #: C‐05

Determine total pressure, Ptotal

Ptotal  Pv  Pp 26.25 psi

Determine maximum allowable trench load based on wall bending and allowable deflection:  Bending moment coefficient, Kb  Deflection coefficient, Kx  Minimum manufacturing thickness, tm  Allowable ratio of design deflection/diameter, ∆xlim/D, 0.05 for plastic line pipe

Kb  .157

Kx  .096 tm tw .08 in

Deflection limit for 22" diameter pipe Δxlim 2.1 in

Δxlim Defl   0.05 lim D

S max Maximum allowable vertical load Pv1  48.363 psi  2  K  to prevent pipe wall bending  D D   x 3  Kb    2 tw Es tw       8  Eprime   .732 3   D      1    tw  

Ptotal  Pv1  1

Δx  lim    D   8Es  P   .732 E  133.188 psi Maximum allowable vertical load v2  12 K  3 prime  x   D   to prevent excessive deflection   1   tm  

Ptotal  Pv2  1

Page 72 of 80 Page 73 of 80 Calc# C-06 Date: 3/13/2015 Sheet No. 1 of 3 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 3/10/2015 Date: 3/13/2015 Date: 3/13/2015

Turf Reinforcement Mat Design for Gatewell Overflow

Description Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) is required to protect the overflow channel proposed on the levee slope from erosion. The channel conveys flow from the gatewell overflow on the proposed 5H:1V slope to a proposed interceptor ditch.

Design Parameters - Design flow assuming pump operation of 63 cfs with a peak flow period of 12 hours - Gatewell overflow elevation 926.5 - Gatewell overflow opening size – 2’3” x 4’ - Proposed channel slope – 5H:1V - Proposed Channel section (as shown in figure below)

- Levee toe top of interceptor ditch elevation - 914 (approximate) - Manning’s n value – (see following page) o Chow 1959 – n = 0.030 (low range value for design) o Per Tensar Product Design for P550 TRM – n = 0.040 (high range value for design)

Page 74 of 80 Calc# C-06 Date: 3/13/2015 Sheet No. 2 of 3 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 3/10/2015 Date: 3/13/2015 Date: 3/13/2015

Channel Design Design flow is 63 cfs with an overflow opening size of 2’3” x 4’. Total cross sectional open area of 9.0 square feet. The channel was designed with a depth of 2’3” and bottom channel width of 5’ with 3H:1V

Page 75 of 80 Calc# C-06 Date: 3/13/2015 Sheet No. 3 of 3 Computed Checked Submitted Project Name: OHB Ring Levee – Phase D By: MAK2 By: MRM By: MAK2 Project Number: 34091004.10 Date: 3/10/2015 Date: 3/13/2015 Date: 3/13/2015 side slopes for a total cross sectional flow area of 26.3 square feet. Per Manning’s calculation, channel capacity exceeds the gatewell overflow capacity.

TRM Design Based on the previously stated design parameters, the TRM was designed using Tensar Erosion Control Materials Design Softward ECMDS Version 5.0. North American Green P550 TRM was selected for the design. Computations and material information is included in Attachment C-06A. For the final vegetation established condition, the TRM and underlying soil are stable.

Page 76 of 80 Page 1 of 2

Tensar International Corporation 5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Road Poseyville, Indiana 47633 Tel. 800.772.2040 Fax 812.867.0247 www.nagreen.com Erosion Control Materials Design Software Version 5.0

Project Name: OHB - Gatewell Overflow Project Number: 56977 Project Location: Oxbow, ND Channel Name: Gatewell Overflow

Discharge 63 Peak Flow Period 12 Channel Slope 0.2 Channel Bottom Width 5 Left Side Slope 3 Right Side Slope 3 Low Flow Liner Retardance Class C Vegtation Type Sod Former Vegetation Density Excellent >=95% Soil Type Clay Loam

P550 - Class C - Sod Former - Excellent >=95% Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Normal Mannings Permissible Calculated Safety Remarks Staple Depth N Shear Stress Shear Stress Factor Pattern

P550 Straight 63 cfs 11.36 0.76 ft 0.04 3.25 lbs/ft2 9.5 lbs/ft2 0.34 UNSTABLE E Unvegetated ft/s P550 Straight 63 cfs 11.36 0.76 ft 0.04 12 lbs/ft2 9.5 lbs/ft2 1.26 STABLE E Reinforced ft/s Vegetation Underlying Straight 63 cfs 11.36 0.76 ft -- 3.25 lbs/ft2 0.387 lbs/ft2 8.39 STABLE -- Substrate ft/s

Page 77 of 80 http://www.ecmds.com/print/analysis/56977/56978 12/1/2014 Page 1 of 2

Tensar International Corporation 5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Road Poseyville, Indiana 47633 Tel. 800.772.2040 Fax 812.867.0247 www.nagreen.com Erosion Control Materials Design Software Version 5.0

Channel Computations

Project Parameters Specify Manning's n: 0.04 Discharge: 63 Peak Flow Period: 12 Channel Slope: 0.2 Bottom Width: 5 Left Side Slope: 3 Right Side Slope: 3 Existing Channel Bend: 0 Bend Coefficient (Kb): 1.00 Retardance Class (A - E): C Vegetation Type: Sod Former Vegetation Density: Excellent >=95% Soil Type: Clay Loam Channel Lining Options Protection Type Permanent

Material Type Matting Type P550 Manning's N value for selected Product 0.04 Cross-Sectional Area (A) A = AL + AB + AR = 5.55 AL = (1/2) * Depth2 * ZL = 0.87 AB = Bottom Width * Depth = 3.81 AR = (1/2) * Depth2 * ZR = 0.87 Wetted Perimeter (P) P = PL + PB + PR = 9.82 PL = Depth * (ZL2 + 1)0.5 = 2.41 PB = Channel Bottom Width = 5 PR = Depth * (ZR2 + 1)0.5 2.41 Hydraulic Radius (R) R = A / P = 0.57 Flow (Q) Q = 1.486 / n * A * R2/3 * S1/2 = 63.01 Velocity (V) V = Q / A = 11.36 Channel Shear Stress (Te)

Page 78 of 80 http://www.ecmds.com/print/computation/56977/56978 12/1/2014 Page 2 of 2

Td = 62.4 * Depth * Slope = 9.5 Channel Safety Factor = (Tp / Td) 0.34 Effective Stress on Blanket(Tdb)

Te = Td * (1-CF) * (ns/n)2 = 7.75 CF = 0 ns = 0.04 Soil Safety Factor Allowable Soil Shear (Ta) = 0 Soil Safety Factor = Ta / Te = 0 Conclusion: Stability of Mat UNSTABLE Conclusion: Stability of Underlying soil STABLE

Td = 62.4 * Depth * Slope = 9.5 Channel Safety Factor = (Tp / Td) 1.26 Effective Stress on Blanket(Tdb)

Te = Td * (1-CF) * (ns/n)2 = 0.39 CF = 0.95 ns = 0.04 Soil Safety Factor Allowable Soil Shear (Ta) = 3.25 Soil Safety Factor = Ta / Te = 8.39 Conclusion: Stability of Mat STABLE Conclusion: Stability of Underlying soil STABLE

Side Slope Liner Results

Page 79 of 80 http://www.ecmds.com/print/computation/56977/56978 12/1/2014 Tensar International Corporation 5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Road Poseyville, Indiana 47633 Tel. 800.772.2040 Fax 812.867.0247 www.nagreen.com

Material and Performance Specification P550 Turf Reinforcement Mat

Description Index Property Test Method Typical 0.76 in The composite turf reinforcement mat (C-TRM) shall be a Thickness ASTM D6525 machine-produced mat of 100% UV stable polypropylene fiber (19.3 mm) matrix incorporated into permanent three-dimensional turf Resiliency ASTM 6524 95% reinforcement matting. The matrix shall be evenly distributed 3 across the entire width of the matting and stitch bonded between Density ASTM D792 0.53 oz/in a ultra heavy duty UV stabilized nettings with 0.50 x 0.50 inch 21.45 oz/yd2 Mass/Unit Area ASTM 6566 (1.27 x 1.27 cm) openings, an ultra heavy UV stabilized, (728 g/m2) dramatically corrugated (crimped) intermediate netting with 0.5 ASTM D4355 UV Stability 100% x 0.5 inch (1.27 x 1.27 cm) openings, and covered by an ultra /1000 hr heavy duty UV stabilized nettings with 0.50 x 0.50 inch (1.27 x 1.27 cm) openings. The middle corrugated netting shall form Porosity ECTC Guidelines 96% prominent closely spaced ridges across the entire width of the mat. The three nettings shall be stitched together on 1.50 inch Stiffness ASTM D1388 366.3 oz-in (3.81cm) centers with UV stabilized polypropylene thread to Light Penetration ECTC Guidelines 16% form permanent three-dimensional turf reinforcement matting. All mats shall be manufactured with a colored thread stitched 763lbs/ft Tensile Strength –MD ASTM D6818 along both outer edges as an overlap guide for adjacent mats. (11.15 kN/m) Elongation – MD ASTM D6818 10% The P550 shall meet Type 5A, B, and C specification 1134lbs/ft requirements established by the Erosion Control Technology Tensile Strength – TD ASTM D6818 Council (ECTC) and Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) (16.55 kN/m) FP-03 Section 713.18 Elongation – TD ASTM D6818 11%

Material Content Maximum Permissible Shear Stress 100% UV stable 0.5 lbs/yd2 Short Duration Long Duration Matrix Polypropylene Fiber (0.27 kg/m2) 4.0 lbs/ft2 3.25 lbs/ft2 Phase 1 Unvegetated Top and Bottom, UV 24 lb/1000 ft2 (191 Pa) (156 Pa) stabilized Polypropylene (11.7 kg/100 m2) 12.0 lbs/ ft2 12.0 lbs/ft2 Netting Phase 2 Partially Veg. Middle, Corrugated UV 24 lb/1000 ft2 (576 Pa) (576 Pa) stabilized Polypropylene (11.7 kg/100m2) 14.0 lbs/ft2 12.0 lbs/ ft2 Phase 3 Fully Veg. (672 Pa) (576 Pa) Thread Polypropylene, UV stable Unvegetated Velocity 12.5 ft/s (3.8 m/s) Vegetated Velocity 25 ft/s (7.6 m/s) Standard Roll Sizes

Width 6.5 ft (2.0 m) Slope Design Data: C Factors Slope Gradients (S) Length 55.5 ft (16.9 m) Slope Length (L) ≤ 3:1 3:1 – 2:1 ≥ 2:1 Weight ± 10% 52 lbs (23.59 kg) ≤ 20 ft (6 m) 0.0005 0.015 0.043

Area 40 yd2 (33.4 m2) 20-50 ft 0.0173 0.031 0.050 ≥ 50 ft (15.2 m) 0.035 0.047 0.057

Bench Scale Testing (NTPEP) Test Method Parameters Results Roughness Coefficients- Unveg. Tensar International Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the product furnished hereunder 50 mm (2 in)/hr-30 min SLR** = 10.79 Flow Depth Manning’s n ECTC 2 shall conform to the specification stated herein. Any other warranty including merchantability and fitness 100mm (4 in)/hr-for30 a min particularSLR** purpose, = 9.98 are hereby executed.≤ 0.50If the ft product (0.15 m)does not meet specifications0.041 on this page Rainfall and Tensar is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replaceThis product the product specification at no cost supersedes to the customer. all prior 150 mm (6 in)/hr-30 min SLR** = 9.53 0.50 – 2.0specifications ft for the product described0.040-0.013 above is ECTC 3 Shear at 0.50 inch soil ≥ 2.0 ft (0.60and is m) not applicable to any products0.013 shipped prior 5.1 lbs/ft2 Shear Res. loss to January 1, 2011. Proud Participant ECTC 4 Top Soil, Fescue, 21 day 354% improvement of: Germination incubation of biomass * Bench Scale tests should not be used for design purposes ** Soil Loss Ratio = Soil Loss Bare Soil/Soil Loss with RECP

Tensar International Corporation warrants that at the time of delivery the product furnished hereunder shall conform to the specification stated herein. Any other warranty including merchantability and fitness for a particularPage purpose, 80 of 80 are hereby executed. If the product does not meet specifications on this page and Tensar is notified prior to installation, Tensar will replace the product at no cost to the customer. This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described above is and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to January 1, 2011. Attachment E1 – HDPE Pipe Design Computations

ATTACHMENT E1 – HDPE PIPE DESIGN COMPUTATIONS

Oxbow-Hickson-Bakke Ring Levee System