ANALYSIS OF OCTOBER 1986 FLOOD IN CANEY RIVER AT U.S. 75
BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA
Volume I
Submitted to
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
and
Federal Highway Administration
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73 l 02
by
A. K. Tyagi, Ph.D., P .E.
Principal Investigator
Report No. 88-2
Water Resources Engineering
School of Civil Engineering
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078
September 1988 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
1. RIPORT NO. QOVl!RNMINT 12. ACCllllON NO. a. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA/OK gg(o4) Vol. I 4. TITL! ANO IU8TITL! 5. REPORT DATE Analysis of October 1986 Flood in Caney River Si:>n ti:>mhP r. 1q88 at U.So 75, Bart1esvi11e, Oklahoma 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(I) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT A. K. Tyag i 88-2
------...a9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. School of c iv i 1 Engineering 11. CONTRACT OR GR.ANT Oklahoma State NO. University Item 21;0 Sti 1 lwater, OK 74078 . 1a. TYPEOFFU!PORTANDPER1oocoveAEO 12. SPONSORING ..------AGENCY NAME AND .ADDRESS Interj m Report: Oklahoma Department May 1987 - of Transportation September Research and Development 1988 Divis ion 14. SPONSORING AGENCY 200 NE 21st Street CODE Oklahoma Citv. OK 73105 Item Zl50 15. SUPPLEMENT.ARV NOTES Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Hiqhwav Administration 16. ABSTRACT Hurricane Paine, extending across the Central Plains of the United States, caused flooding of unprecedented proportions in the Caney River. This storm produced a rainfall varying from 20 to 30 inches in Oklahoma during September 29 through October 4, 1986. Because of the severity of this extreme event, local residents questioned adequacy of the bridges the on the Caney River at U.S. 75. As a result, the Department of Transportution Oklahoma (ODOT) initiated this research investigation as objective study of the hydraulic an capacity of the bridges to convey floodwaters and the policies and procedures used in the design. This report presents hydrologic data, flood analysis, water surface profiles for 50-, I 00-year, and the 1986 Flood due to the old bridge and new bridge, and hydraulic damage analysis. Computer analysis indicates that the construction of the new bridge causes backwater effect in the range of I to 2 feet and maximum velocity between 6 to per second for 50- and 8 feet I 00- year floods. The computer analysis further indicates construction of the new that bridge has resulted in lowering the water surface elevation to 3 feet when compared by 2 to the old bridge without Hulah and Copan Lakes, that existed in 1930 a condition at the time of construction of the old bridge. In addition, of policies and a review procedures of ODOT and the new bridge design on U.S. River shows 75 on the Caney that the design is within the guidelines. A second containing report, Volume II, hydrologic and computer analyses accompanies this report.
H. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT WSPRO Model, backwater effect, bridge, Flood Plain, discharges No restrictions
19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS REPORT) 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS PAGE) 21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRtCE None None 36 The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was funded by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation under
Contract No. EN-87-R-37. This report represents an independent research study coordinated by Mr. Dwight Hixon, Research Engineer.
i i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A large storm system, known as Hurricane Paine, extending across the central plains of the United States caused flooding of unprecedented proportions in the Arkansas, Cimarron, and Caney Riv~rs. This storm produced a rainfall varying from 20 to 30 inches in Oklahoma during September 29 through October 4, 1986.
Because of the severity of this extreme event, local residents questioned the adequacy of the bridges that were built in 1984. As a result, the Oklahoma Depart ... ment of Transportation (OOOT) initiated this research study as an objective study of the hydraulic capacity of the bridges to convey floodwaters and the policies and procedures used in the design. This report presents hydrologic data, flood analysis, water surface profiles for 50-year, I 00-year, and the 1986 Flood due to the old bridge and new bridge, and hydraulic damage analysis.
Four hydraulic conditions are analyzed to predict water surface profiles using the WSPRO computer model. The WSPRO model has been developed by the Federal Highway Administration. The four cases include Case I - Profiles for new bridge (50- year, I 00-year and t 986 Flood), Case II - Profiles for old bridge (SO-year, I 00-year and l 986 Flood), Case 111 - Profiles without embankment (SO-year, I 00-year, and 1986 Flood), and Case IV - Profiles for old bridge without Hulah and Copan Lakes.
To determine the backwater effects due to the new bridge and the old bridge, water surface elevations between Case I and 111 and Case II and 111 are subtracted one bridge length upstream. ln addition, water surface elevations between Case I and Case IV are subtracted to determine how the old bridge, built in 1930 without Hulah and Copan Lakes, compares with the new bridge in terms of hydraulic efficiency.
Procedures and policies on bridge design for interstate highways (such as U.S.75) are developed by FHWA and adopted by the ODOT as presented in Appendix J (separ ate volume). Computer analysis indicates that the construction of the new bridge causes backwater effect on the range of I to 2 feet and maximum velocity between 6 to 8 feet per second for SO-year and I 00-year floods. Tables 3 through 8 summarize these results. The computer analysis further indicates that construction of the new bridge has resulted in lowering the water surface elevation by 2 to 3 feet when compared to the old bridge without Hulah and Copan Lakes, tJ condition that existed in the I 930's at the time of construction of the old bridge. In addition, a review of policies and procedures of ODOT and the new bridge design on U.S 75 of the Caney River shows that the design is within the guidelines.
The FHWA and ODOT policies indicate that an interstate bridge (U.S. 75) should be designed for a SO-year flood and be checked for a I 00-year flood. It is not cost effective to design the bridge for higher frequency floods because of the life of a reinforced concrete bridge (30 to SO years). To overdesign the bridge is a waste of state funds and taxpayers money. The new bridge was designed for SO-year and checked for I 00-year floods.
The siltation in the l 986 Flood occurred on the upstream side of the new bridge in the floodplain. However, limited loss of soil would occur within 150 to 180 feet upstream of the overflow structures. Depending on the right-of-way within U.S. 75 slight damage due to soil loss would be experienced upstream of the two overflow structures. As seen in Appendix K, a jet is issued out of the overflow structure along
iv the county road. Thus, scour damage is mostly limited to the road in the immediate vicinity of the highway and two county roads.
The backwater effect upstream of the exit section of the bridges is computed for 500-year flood or a discharge of 108,000 cfs. Using the WSPRO model, this effect due to new and old bridge options is determined extending to 5.55 and 3.66 miles upstream from U.S. 7 5.
The residents have built dikes along the Caney River in the floodplains. Once the flood water passes over dikes from the main river, dikes obstruct drainage from floodplain to the main river. Water ponds in the flood plain until it is drained by overflow structures.
The concept of floodplain utilization is that it can be used for agriculture but it is expected that a high flood of 50 to I 00 to 500 year frequency will cause flooding in the floodplain. The 1986 flood is analyzed by the Corps of Engineers (1987) as a 500- year flood. Obviously, crop damages are expected to occur, but these are not caused by the construction of the new bridge and U.S. 75.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Disclaimer ii
Acknowledgments iii
Executive Summary iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
I. Introduction
11. Hydrologic Data and Analysis 2
111. Flood Analysis 8
IV. Scour and Siltation 18
v. Discussion 19 VI. Cone lusions 35
VII. References 36
Append ices A through K (Bound Separately)
vi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
I. Hydrograph at Bartlesville Gaging Station 3
2. Hydrograph at Ramona Gaging Station 4
3. Case I - Water Surface Profiles for New Bridge 9 (SO-Year, I 00-Year and t 986 Flood)
4. Case II - Water Surface Profiles for Old Bridge 10 (50-Year, I 00-Year and l 986 Flood)
5. Case Ill - Water Surface Profiles without Embankment 11 (50-Year, I 00-Year and 1986 Flood)
6. Case IV - Water Surface Profiles for Old Bridge without 13 Lakes (SO-Year and 100-Year Flood)
7. Backwater Effect Upstream of Exit Section of New and 21 Old Bridge Options
8. Closeup of Backwater Effect Upstream of Exit Section of 22 New and Old Bridge Options
9. Profiles for SO-Year Flood with New Bridge and without 24 Embankment (Cases I & 111)
lo. Profiles for SO-Year Flood with Old Bridge and without 25 Embankment (Cases II & 111)
I I • Profiles for I 00-Year Flood with New Bridge and without 26 Embankment (Cases l & Ill)
12. Profiles for 100-Year Flood with Old Bridge and without 27 Embankment (Cases 11 & Ill)
13. Profiles for 1986 Flood with New Bridge and without 30 Embankment (Cases I & Ill)
14. Profiles for 1986 Flood with Old Bridge and without 31 Embankment (Cases II & 111)
15. Profiles for SO-Year Flood with New Bridge (with Upstream 32 Control) and Old Bridge (without Upstream Control) (Cases I & IV)
16. Profiles for l 00-Year Flood with New Bridge (with Upstream 33 Control) and Old Bridge (without Upstream Control) (Cases 1 & IV).
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Peak Flows for SO-Year and 100-Year Frequency 5
2. Peak Flows for Ramona, Ochelata, and Bartlesville 7 Stations, Caney River
3. Case I - Water Surface Profiles for New Bridge 14
4 .. Case 11 - Water Surface Profiles for Old Bridge 15
5. Case Ill - Water Surface Profiles without Embankment 16
6. Case IV - Water Surface Profiles for Old Bridge 17 without Lakes
7. Backwater Effect on Caney River at U.S. 75 20
8. Backwater Effect of Bridges on Water Surface Elevations 30
9. Comparison of Velocities and Backwater Effect Between 34 Old Design and New Design
viii I. INTRODUCTION
A large storm known as Hurricane Paine produced a rainfall of 20 to 30 inches over the Arkansas River Basin. This large rainfall over a six-day period (September 29 through October 4, 1986) resulted in extensive flooding in the Cimarron, Arkansas, and Caney Rivers. Due to the effect of this extreme event of rainfall exceeding 20 inches, the question was raised by the local residents about the adequacy of the bridges that were built in 1984. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) initiated this research investigation as an objective study of the hydrologic and hydraulic design of the bridges and the policies and procedures used in the design. This study analyzes various hydraulic conditions for the old bridge and new bridge and determines the impact of Hulah and Copan Lakes on the water surface profile at U.S. 7 5 bridge near Bart lesv i Ile. 2
II. HYDROLOGIC DAT A AND ANALYSIS This section presents historical data on the drainage area of the Caney River at U.S. 75, occurrence of major floods including the 1986 flood, peak flows for 50-and I 00 year frequencies and for a condition before the construction Lakes. of Hulah and Copan
a) DraLngge_ Area
The Caney River flows from north to south bisecting Bartlesville. The begins in southern Kansas river and flows generally south approximately 162 miles ta confluence with the Verdigris its River. The average slope of the Caney River for the project area is 4.53 feet per mile.
A gaging station installed by the U.S. Geological Survey exists on River near Ramona. the Caney The drainage area for th is location is 1955 square miles presented in Appendix A ( 1977). as
Hulah Lake was constructed in 1951 on the Caney River about 27 miles upstream of Bartlesville. Copan Lake was completed in 1983 on the Little Caney River at miles upstream from the 7 .. 4 Caney River. The drainage areas of Hulah and Copan Lakes are 732 and 505 square miles (see Appendix B).
b) t:!Ls_t_~rical_FJoods
Floods regularly occurred in the Caney River prior to experienced 1951. Large floods were in the drainage basin with one occurring in 1885, three in 1909 and in 1908, one each 1912, and two in 1926. Major floods also took place in 1928, two in three in 1929, 1930, 1933, r 935, three in 194 t' 1942, 1943, and two in 1944. Reviewing the flooding situation in the basin, the Corps of Engineers completed Hulah Lake in 195 f. Although this lake helped contain the large floods of 1951 , 1957, and 1974, some flooding still occurred. Copan Lake was constructed in 1983 by the Corps of Engineers to further reduce flood damages in the basin. Appendix C presents peak flows in the Caney River from 1935 through 1986. The peak flow in October, 1986 was recorded at the gaging stations near Bartlesville and Ramona. These values include I 08,000 and 92,000 cfs. Figures I and 2 show hydrographs. The Corps of Engineers (I 987a, I 987b) analyzed the 1986 flood. Frequency of this flood is determined to be about 500 years.
c) Frequency AnaJysi~ of Peak Flows
Peak flow data for the Ramona gaging station is summarized in Appendix C.. A plot of discharge, Q, with return period, T, for the Ramona station is presented in this appendix. Peak flows for the 50-year and IOO-year frequency are computed as 39,600 and 45,600 cubic feet per second (cfs). Review of the F edera I Insurance Study (1980) indicates peak flows of 42,800 5 f ,400 cfs for 50- and and I 00-year frequency as shown in Appendix D. Values of the study and the FIS study OSU are compared in Table I. Peak flow values between the study and the FIS study OSU for 50 and I 00 years are comparable. To be on the conser vative side, larger values of peak flows for 50 and I 00 years are selected and used in water surface analysis in Section Ill. w
-
.
......
-
......
;
26
Station
......
-
Gaging
......
......
. I . . . I ......
~
~
21
.....
-
......
15:29:25 ......
. ---. - ---. .
-
.
I . . . . t ......
-~
-~.
Bartlesville
16
OCT86
-
CANEY
-
-
-
.....
at
-
---
....
-
17AUG87
....
...... -
I
. . . . I . . . .
~
~
11
CUM
Hydrograph
......
-
1.
......
·\
-
......
I
. I . . . . " ......
~-
~-.
06
·t
.
Figure ...
FLOW-LOC
-
J·
-~
--
..
-
OBS
......
-
..
--
...
·
·.
l
l
I
·
·
01
.
BART
5
5
25-··
00-·-J-············f{·-~---·····-········-~·-··········-····-~·-··············-~·-······································
7 50-··l··-·········l····\···-···-·-····----~---····-··-····---~---
2
•
• •
1
1. x10
0 -.
0. 0 - 5
I
0 F L w F N c s
--- 17AUG87 15:29:25 5 X10 CANEY 1 . 0-··
. . 0. 8-·-············-··•.. ····· -·-~---·-··················------·-···-···-·--···--···-·--·----·---- F L 0 . . . w 0. 6-··i······------·~-~-·-········----~--·-·-·----·-·-~·-···-··-····--~-----····-·-·······-···-·····-············-······· ...... I . . . N .I . . o . . 0. 4-·· -r~------·--i·····-~-----·--;...... ; ...... , ...... ·------·------~--- c F s
0. C?---1-----········J·f ·~·-····~·-·············f···············f ····································-············· ' . ' . . ~: . - ~-- ~ :
0.0---....._...... _...___..._ ...... _,_...... ,._...... _...... _,__...... _...... ,.....__._.__._.._._...... 1 01 06 11 16 21 26 01 06 I OCT86 I f'IJV861 --- RAMO OBS FLOW-LOC CUM
Figure 2. Hydrograph at Ramona Gaging Station +-.. 5
TABLE I. PEAK FLOWS FOR SO-AND 100-YEAR FREQUENCY
Frequency, T, Peak Flows, Q, cfs years ------OSU* FIS**
50 39,600 42,800
100 45,600 51,400 *osU-- This study; see Append"ixC ___ _ ------** FIS - Flood Insurance Study ( 1980) 6
d) Frequency Analysis of Peak Flows without Hulah and Copan Lakes
Peak flows for 50-, I 00- and 500-year frequencies are computed to analyze the water surface profiles under natural conditions in the absence of the U.S. 75 Highway and the Hulah and Copan Lakes. The U.S. Geological Survey approach ( 1977) tech niques for estimating flood discharges for Oklahoma streams is used for peak flows for the three frequencies.
The equations used in computations of peak flows are given below: 69 50.31 p0.81 Q5o = 20.0 A0· ( 1) 7 50.32 p0.67 QIOO = 38.6 Ao. o (2) 7 50.33 p0.40 0 soo = 140.0 Ao. t (3)
where Q50' QI 00 and 0500 = discharges for 50, I 00 and 500-year frequencies, cfs
A = drainage area, mi2
s = slope from elevations at I 0% and 85% of distance along the river from the gaging stations to drainage basin divide, ft/mile p = mean annual precipitation, inches
The values of S and P are determined as 4.53 feet per mile and 37 inches, respectively. Table 2 presents peak flows for 50-, I 00-, and 500-years frequencies for Ramona, Ochelata and Bartlesville gaging stations.
In summary, the 50- and IOO-year floods for the Caney River near Bartlesville are determined as 39,600 and 45,600 cfs in this section. The peak flow of 1986 flood near Bartlesville is analyzed to be I 08,000 cfs of about 500-year frequency. Finally, peak flows from the Caney River watershed prior to the construction of Hulah and Copan lakes are evaluated as 91,011, 115,697 and 172,849 cfs for 50-, I 00- and 500- year frequencies. The data generated in this section is used in Section Ill to determine water surface profiles for four hydraulic conditions. 7
TABLE 2. PEAK FLOWS FOR RAMONA, OCHELATA AND BARTLESVILLE STATIONS, CANEY RIVER
Gaging Stations Area Peak Flows2 cfs 2 rni Qso QIOO Qsoo Ramona 1955 111,059 141,591 212, 146
Ochelata 1753 I 03,009 13l,186 196,339
Bartlesville 1465 91,011 115,697 172,849 8
Ill. FLOOD ANALYSIS Four scenarios are considered in this study. Case I determines the water surface profiles for SO-year, I 00-year, and the 1986 flood in the presence of the new bridge. In Case II, the water surface profiles are computed for the SO-year, I 00-year, 1986 and the flood with the old bridge. Water surface profiles for the SO-year, I 00-year, the 1986 and flood are presented in Case 111 without embankment (U.S. 75 Highway). Finally, Case IV shows the profiles for the old bridge without lakes (Hulah and Copan lakes). The peak flows for SO-years and I 00-years are 42,800 cfs and 51,400 cfs shown in as FJS study ( 1980) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and 1986 flood the is I 08,000 cfs as given by the Corps of Engineers ( 1987 a, t 987b).
WSPRO computer model (1986) developed and adopted by the Federal Administration Highway (FHWA) is used in this investigation to analyze the hydraulic conditions of the 1986 flood at U.S. 75 Highway on the Caney River. Details of this program are presented in a research report published by the FHWA (1986). Water surface profiles for the four cases are presented below using the WSPRO computer program.
Case I - Profiles for New Bridge (50-year, IOO-year and 1986 Flood). The computer program computes water surface profiles at one bridge length upstream, at the bridge location on U.S 75, and at one bridge length downstream along the Caney River. The water surface elevations at the three locations are 649. computed as 73, 648.40, and 648.24 above mean sea level (MSL) for the SO-year flood. I 00-year For the flood, the water surface elevations are determined as 650.61, 648.98 648.83 and feet. The elevations for the 1986 flood are 655.59, 651.74 and 651.58 These feet. profiles are compared in Figure 3 for SO-year, I 00-year and the 1986 flood. Case II - Profiles for 0 Id Bridge (SO-year, I 00-year, and 1986 flood). Water surface profiles are determined with the old bridge at U.S. 75 on the Caney River. For SO-year flood, elevations of water surface on upstream, bridge, at the old and downstream of the bridge are determined as 648.99, 648.40, and respectively. 648.24, The water surface profile elevations for the I 00-year flood include 649.68, 648.99, and 648.83. For the 1986 flood, the elevations of the water surface profiles are computed as 653.27, 6S I.7 5, and 65 I .S8, respectively. Three profiles of the water surface are shown in Figure 4. Case 111- Profiles without Embankment (SO-year, 100-year, and 1986 Flood). This scenario represents the natural condition where no bridge and no highway exist on the Caney River. Elevations of the water surface profiles for the SO-year flood are 648.45, 648.40 and 648.24 feet, respectively. For the IOO-year flood, water surface elevations are 649.05, 648.99 and 648.83 feet. Water surface elevations for the 1986 flood are determined as 651.8'2, 651.75 and 6Sl.S8 feet, respectively. Figure S priesents water surface profiles for the SO-year, I 00-year and 1986 flood. '°
FhorJ)
ream
.2
t
1
1'.)86
Dovms
years
::mrJ
50
1
100-yc,-:ir
o
(ft)
(50-year.
0.8
Bridge
New
Bridge
years
Location
for
New
6
lcs
100
(T~~usondD1stance
Profi
+
Surface
0.4
Flood Flood
\Jatcr
year
1 -
50
100-year
Case
0.2
Flood
3.
Upstream
1986 Figure
0
....j
D
660 659
657 658 655 656 653 651 654 652 649 650 648 645 647 646
0 c 0 > Q) 0 0 Q) 0 Q) :J '-
...,,,
'it-
t ...,,, w ~
:;:; (/)
,,,-..... '-"" I--'
0
.2
1
rearn
t
1986
Dm·ms
anrl
years
1
50
100-year
<>
(ft)
(SO-year,
0.8
.
Bridge
Distance
01d
nds)
for
years
0.6
Bridge
USC
lPs
Location
00
Old
1
(Tho
Profl
+
Surface
0.4
Flood
Flood
Water
Flood)
-
I
I
50-year
100-year
0.2
Case
Flood
4.
Upstream
Figure
1986
0
D
659 658 660 657 651 654 65.3 652 655 64-9 656-, 64-8 650
647 645 646
> v ::) .._ Q) 0 0 v 0 c 0 0
...... ,
...... , ~ :;::; ....._ (/) w 't
~
'-" ......
1986
. T
A
I .2
1
and
Downstream
years
I
100-year
50
I
1
(SO-year,
(ft)o
'
I
0.8
Embankment
1
I
1
- ......
'V
years without
6
I
OO
1
(T~~usandD?stance
Profiles
ood
I
Flood
+
r 1 F
Flood
1
Surface
0.4
SO-year
1986
100-yea
Flood) Water
I
-
I
I
I
I
0.2
Case
Flood
1 5.
.
A
,...
...., -
986
1
Upstream
Figure
• ------~------~-, - 0 - - - -I
------
5
a
660 659 658 657 65 656 65+ 653 652., 651 650 649 648 647 646 645
0 c:: a > v u a :J v L.. v 0
~ ...... ~ LU V> ...., :.;;:; t: 3: 12
Case IV - Profiles for Old Bridge without Lakes (SO-year and 100-year Flood)
This scenario presents SO-year and I 00-year water surface profiles for the old bridge on the Caney River at U.S. 75. The 50-year profile elevations include 652 .. 37, 651.07 and 650.90 feet, respectively. Elevations of the water surface for the I 00-year flood are determined as 653.67, 652.04 and 651.87 feet, respectively. These profiles are compared in Figure 6.
Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 summarize water surface elevations and velocity values at approach, bridge, and exit sections...... w
f
.2
JOO-year
1
--El
---r-
and
Downstream
lakes)
(SO-year
1
(w/o
Lakes
yrs
without
50
o.a
') '
s
+
Bridge
nd
Bridge
(ft)
--r----,--
01d
so
Location
Old
for
------t-----
o.6
-···-,--
(Thou
---
Distance
--T·
------B------
Profiles
--
Flood
Flood
o.+
Surface
SO-year
100-year
Flood)
Water
-
lakes)
2
IV
.------.r--·--r--
0.
Case
(w/o
6.
yrs
Upstream
0
-I
Figure
100
660 659
655 654- 658 656 657 653
652 651 649 650 648 645 647 646
0
0 > c 0
t> v ::J u 0 L....
v 0
...... '+-
t w
...... l./) s
,--,,...... __.,. 14
TABLE 3. CASE I -WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOH NEW BRIDGE
--·------·------~---
Frequency :::: 50 years Peak Flows :::: 42,800 cfs
Location Distance, ft. WSE,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 649.73 0.661 2 3 Bridge 676 648.40 5.10 ,S.98 ,5.54· Exit 1218 648.24 1.66
Frequency :::: I 00 years Peak Flow = 51,400 cfs
Location Distance, ft WSE,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 650.61 0.70 I 2 1 Bridge 676 648.98 5.82 ,6.85 ,6.37 Exit 1218 648.83 1.72
Frequency :::: 500 years Peak Flood = I 08,000 cfs Location Distance, ft WSE,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 655.59 0.881 2 3 Bridge 676 651.74 9.99 ,11.64 ,11.00 Exit 1218 651.58 2.08
------~------I - velocity at Main Structure 2 - velocity at Overflow Structure I 3 - velocity at Overflow Structure 2 15
TABLE 4. CASE II - WATER SURF ACE PROFILES FOR OLD BRIDGE
------~--- Frequency = 50 years Peak Flows - . 42,800 cfs
Location Distance, ft. WSE,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 648.99 0.741 2 3 Bridge 591 648.40 4.04 ,3.27 ,3.12 Exit 1151 648.24 1.66
Frequency = 100 years Peak Flow = 51,400 cfs Location Distance, ft WSE,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 649.68 0.801 2 3 Bridge 591 648.99 4.50 ,3.75 ,3.60 Exit 1151 648.83 1.72
Frequency = 500 years Peak Flood = I 08,000 cfs
Location Distance, ft WSE,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 653.27 1.091 2 3 Bridge 591 65 t.75 6.82 ,6.33 ,6.12 Exit 1151 651.58 2.08
I - velocity at Main Structure - velocity at Overflow Structure I 3 - velocity at Overflow Structure 2 16
TABLE 5. CASE Ill - WATER SURF ACE PROFILES WITHOUT EMBANKMENT
Frequency = 50 years Peak Flows = 42,800 cfs Location Distance, ft. WSE,ft Velocity, fps Approach 0 648.45 0.81 Bridge 676 648.40 Exit 0.94 1218 648.24 1.66
Frequency = I 00 years Peak Flow = 51,400 cfs
Location Distance, ft WSE,ft Velocity, Approach fps 0 649.05 0.88 Bridge 676 648.99 Exit 1.01 1218 648.83 1.72
Frequency ::: 500 years Peak Flood = I 08,000 cfs Location Distance, ft WSE,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 651.82 1.27 Bridge 676 651.75 1.41 Exit 1218 651.58 2.08
______'_'_ ----'- --~ ------17
TABLE 6. CASE IV - WATER SURF ACE PROFILES FOR OLD BRIDGE WITHOUT LAKES
Frequency = 50 years Peak Flows = 91,011 cfs Location Distance, ft. WSE,ft WES* ,ft Velocity, fps
Approach 0 652.37 651.13 1.01 3 2 5 43 Bridge 591 651.07 651.07 6.16 1,5.63 , • Exit 1151 650.90 650.90 l .97
Frequency = 100 years Peak Flow = 115,697 cfs Location Distance, ft WSE,ft WES* ,ft Velocity, fps
Approach a 653.6 7 652.1·1 1.12, 2 3 Bridge 591 652.04 652.04 7. I I ,6.63 ,6.4 I Exit 1151 651.87 651.87 2.13
*WSE without embankment. I - velocity at Main Structure 2 - velocity at Overflow Structure I 3 - velocity at Overflow Structure 2 18
IV. SCOUR AND SILTATION
A floodplain area is defined as an area that is inundated by floods when waters move beyond the banks of the river. Resident properties are in the floodplain of the Caney River. Properties in the floodplain are subject to the probability of flooding depending on the frequency of the flood.
Because of limited backwater effects from the old bridge and new bridge, the water surface profile will gradually approach the normal depth of flow. On the upstream side of U.S. 75 along the Caney River, values of the flow velocity fall to less than I foot per second at one bridge distance upstream (see Tables 3 through 6).
Except within one bridge length upstream near the bridge, the flow velocities are less than 2.5 fps and thus lead to sedimentation or deposition of soil. When velocities increase above 2.5 fps, the soil is likely to erode. Erosion is expected on the downstream side of the overflow structures. Appendix K presents an aerial photo graph during the 1986 Flood. A jet is issued from the overflow structure as seen in the photograph (COE, I 987b). The jet fol lows the county road on downstream of the overflow structure. Thus, the damages from scour on the downstream side of the overflow structure are limited along the county road. On the upstream side, silt brought by flood waters is deposited in the floodplain. 19
V. BACKWATER ANALYSIS
An analysis of water surface elevations was performed for the 1986 flood using WSPRO computer model. A peak flow of I 08,000 cfs was used in the analysis for the new bridge and old bridge options. Tobie 7 presents water surface elevations (WSE) in feet with distance, X, in feet or miles upstream of the exit section selected in previous WSPRO runs for corresponding options. When the difference in water surface elevations in between two successive cross-sections in upstream direction and is within 1 percent, water surface is considered to be free of the backwater effect.
Figure 7 shows the VvSE I and WSE2 for the new bridge and old bridge options, respectively. The river bottom is also plotted in the figure. A close-up of Figure 7 is presented in Figure 8. For the new bridge, the backwater effect is experienced for about 5.55 miles upstream of the exit section. With the old bridge, the backwater effect extends up to 3.66 miles upstream. In both figures, the backwater effect upstream of the exit section is approximated as Ml curve which generally extends to a long distance upstream. 20
T.ABLE 7. BACKWATER EFFECT ON CANEY RIVER AT U.S. 75 Discharge = I 08,000 cfs
L• n! u~ ! ta H WSE 2 H2 Oelta H
~ ( \ ; if ti { ' .i 'L. l mi. 0LC
'P t'._·.J,L ? 7 (.!Q s1 7 t 0c 3s. 5g 6 6.: 5CDO 0.82 6 l 8. 51 ?7.22 3. 68 653. 53 35.02 IO)CC 62 c. ~ i 5S6.0\ E .5C 4t 8s 654. i 0 33. 5s 4. 26 15:00 62:. 5l 656.Si 34. 00 4. 4 ! 555.06 32.55 2000C 65 ~. L 65US 3 . 1 9 4 Q~llJ 0. ; ~ 2500( 6SS.60 't ~ / 6SS.: D 3 1.69 u.Ji HO, G D. ~ • 0. 4 1 : <. o~ 31. 5E 0' j( 0. I 6 t: ; (! f 56S.~6 3 ':, 5 C.G: H.Oe O.GG l • ~ E i : · 6E: . C: ? 5: G.OC ; : '5 5 ~.oo s: .os ) 1 • ~ ~ (, ; f' ~ • l" c.oo 5?~.06 D.OC
* • • f' ' . ; ' c;:: ;.., J L ' ' C.CC 67£.CE 61.6' 5; &~S.05 : .. ~ 5 0' :
: ·' v' ! : . c: i/4 ( ' } ' ,. ..., .. ~. (".,.,. ,: ~ l) '... ~ '... 65 J. 5 ; u J \,.. v
G.OG ~86.0: C.OC c8S;GE ·:,oo osc.os 0.0G G.GC '1:··. , I "' ~ .,; !.; 21 • 35 3 : . 5~ : : . 5: C.GG 69~.. 06 Q.OG
. ,, " i.: ... \:,,;.;
'°'; :"": ~ ~"' g ;j. 0c 'I.I"" f \; ',.;
... t ,. - ~ : i_: L~ ~ f'-.)
24
Options
Bridge
20
Old
and
New
br.
16
of
Old
0
Section
(mi)
Exit 12
of
Distance
Upstream
B
br.
Effect
New
+
4
Backwater
7.
section
Bridge
Figure Exit
of
Bed
I
0
River
610
630
620
650
640
660 680
670
690
700
710
>
0 0 c w ...... +;; ...... ,,, r-. f'V N 10 Options Upstream Bridge Old 8 and New of br. Section 6 Old Exit of (~i) Upstream 4 Distance Effect br. ~-- New Backwater 2 of 2 + +- WSE / Closeup Section Ba Bridge WSE1 Bed Exit of ./. Figure 0 -+---~--~------.-----~------~~------~~------~----~--~~---t -.---~--~~~~~~~----~~~~--~~~------~~~~~~~~---- River 610 630 640 620 660 670 650 690 710 680 700 c: 0 > 0 Q.} ...... w +; ...... ~ ...... ,,, 23 VI. DISCUSSION Four cases of hydraulic conditions are considered to evaluate the impact of the new bridge and the old bridge on water surface elevations in Caney River near Bartlesville. Section Ill presents these cases---Case I through Case IV. Backwater effect of water surface behind the new bridge may be defined as the difference in elevations of water surface profiles of the new bridge (Case I) and the water surface profiles without embankment (Case Ill} for 50- and I 00-year floods and the 1986 Flood. It should be noted that Case Ill represents water surface elevations assuming that U.S. 75 and the bridge do not exist. This is a natural condition prior to construction of the bridge and U.S. 75. Similarly, the backwater effect is computed for the old bridge by comparing Case II with Case Ill after 50- and 100-year floods and the 1986 Flood. Finally, SO-and I 00-year water surface profiles of Case I for the new bridge are compared with those of Case IV. Case IV includes profiles for the old bridge without Huloh and Copan Lakes. Figures 9 and I 0 present the backwater effect for SO-year flood. Comparing Cases I and Ill and Cases II and Ill indicates that the backwater effect is 1.28 feet with the new bridge and 0.54 feet with the old bridge. See Figures I I and 12 for the l 00- year flood backwater effect. The backwater effect due to the 1986 flood of about 500-years frequency is 3. 77 feet for the new bridge and 1.45 feet for the old bridge as shown in Figures I I and 12. Table 8 summarizes the backwater effect for 50-year, I 00-year, and the 1986 flood. Appendix J presents the policies and procedures of bridge design adopted in 1969. These policies have been adopted by the commissioners of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Policies of flood frequency indicate that bridges on primary highways should be designed for 50-year flood or the greatest historical flood, whichever is greater. Design frequency is the frequency of the design discharge and is fixed by design policy. In addition, bridges should be checked for l 00-year flood frequency to evaluate the damage if a higher runoff should occur. Policies further indicate that allowable velocities should average between 6 to 8 feet per second and that allowable backwater depth should be between I and 2 feet. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducted extensive studies and outlined procedures to conduct cost-risk evaluation and design frequency and check frequency for primary bridges. The SO-year design frequency for interstate highways such as U.S. 75 is based on the recommendations of FHWA and is adopted by ODOT as shown in Appendix J. Table 8 indicates that the backwater effect due to the new bridge and the old bridge is within the range of I to 2 feet for the 50-year flood, which is the design frequency for interstate highways set by the FHWA and ODOT (Appendix J) Further more, for the check frequency of I 00-years, the backwater effect is also within I to 2 feet range. ln addition, Tables 3 through 6 present values of the flow at approach, bridge and exit sections for SO-year and I 00-year floods. The range of velocity values is from 0.66 to 7. I I feet per second (fps), well within the criteria of allowable limits adopted by FHWA and ODOT. It may be noted that for the 1986 Flood of about 500- ,.{::- N I) I I & .2 I , Downstream ~~---- (Cases ' 1 Embankment (ft) ------~- ... brtdge - .... without 0.8 and Distance without Bridge EB Flood + Bridge ------ New Location -=::::,,,,,, ~--ttt---~~~~------~~----~~~---EB "-...... - 0.6 50-year --- (Thousands) with ----- Flood ------~- ----- 0.4 50-year for bridge Bridge Embankment 0.2 Profiles with New 9~ 0 Without With Upstream Figure . 0 645 660 648 649 658 659 646 655 656 651 650 652 654 653 647 657 t> u I> I> 0 0 :J c: 0 L. 0 > ....., 't- Ul ....., ~ 3: w t: If"""'...... , N N V'1 V'1 2 2 --i --i 1. 1. I) I) I I I I ~ ~ "" "" & & I I -1 -1 I I Downstream Downstream . . l l 1 1 (Cases (Cases r r Embankment Embankment (ft) (ft) bridge bridge 1 1 0.8 0.8 without without r r and and - Distance Distance without without Flood Flood Bridge Bridge r r + + ~ ~ 0.6 0.6 _tr_ _tr_ Old Old ---- Bridge Bridge -- Location Location SO-year SO-year (Thousands) (Thousands) with with ----1 ----1 - Flood Flood 4 4 r·- 0. 0. SO-year SO-year -r -r for for bridge bridge 0.2 0.2 with with Bridge Bridge Profiles Profiles Embankment Embankment Old Old 100 100 0 0 With With Upstream Upstream Without Without Figure Figure . . 0 0 645 645 646 646 647 647 648 648 649 649 652 652 651 651 650 650 659 659 660 660 653 653 657 657 658 658 654 654 655 655 656 656 CL> CL> 0 0 QJ QJ '- 0 0 :J :J u u QJ QJ > > 0 0 0 0 c c ...... ~ ~ (/) (/) t: t: +' +' w w '+- ...... ·- ~ ~ '-' '-' 660 T 100-year Flood -1 659 --1 658 ~ 657 ~...,_, ...... ,,""- 656 c c 655 :;::; 0 > 654 CJ w 653 ~ ru u 652 J 't0 Upstream :l 651 New Bridge Bridge ({) Location ...... 650 4) ...... Downstream 0 ~ .. 649 - EB ~ Without Embankment 648 647 646 645 i ·-r 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 (Thousands) Distance (ft) 0 with bridge + w!thout brrdge N Figure 11. Profiles for 100-year Flood with New Bridge and without Embankment (Cases I & 111) °' 660 100-year Flood 659 658 657 ,,..-...... , 656 c 0 655 ~ 0 > 654 cu w 653 ... ·1 645 . I I' I 1 -· ·-r ··T··- - 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 .2 (Thousands) Distonce (ft) 0 with bridge + without bndge N Figure 12.. Profiles for 100-year Flood with OJd Bridge and without Embankment (Cases 11 & 111) '-J 28 TABLE 8. BACKWATER EFFECT OF BRIDGES ON WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS T,years Cases Backwater Effect, ft 50 t & Ill 1.28 50 II & Ill 0.54 50 IV 1.24 100 I & Ill l.56 100 II & Ill 0.63 100 IV t.56 1986 I & Ill 3.77 1986 II & Ill 1.45 -----~--·------29 year frequency the range of velocity of flow is from 0.88 to 9.99 fps. old bridge Of course, the or new bridge were not designed for a 500-year flood be cost-effective because it would not to spend taxpayer's money on such a high frequency design. A question is raised regarding the hydraulic efficiency of the new structed in 1984. bridge con Cases I and IV are compared in Figures 15 and 16 for 50- yeor floods. Case and I 00- I represents water surface profiles for SO-year and I 00-year and Case JV includes floods, water surface profiles for old bridge without Hulah and Lakes (a condition that Copan existed for the old bridge prior to construction of the lakes in the I 940's). The two construction of the new bridge in 1984 lowers the water surface by 2.64 and 3.06 feet for 50- and I 00-year floods. A comparison of discharges, velocities, and bridge backwater effect between old design (Case IV--no the controls upstream) and the new design (Case I upstream and reduced - Controls overflow structures) is presented in Table 9. Although and I 00-year discharges the 50- for the old design are much higher than those for design, the velocities the new and the backwater effects between the two designs close indeed and are very are within the policies and procedures of FHWA and ODOT. In summary, the new bridge constructed in 1984 is hydraulically more effective than the old bridge constructed in the I 930's without the two lakes. In addition, water surface profile analyses for Cases I through IV indicate effect that allowable backwater ranges within I to 2 feet and allowable flow velocity is year within 6 to 8 fps for 50- design frequency and I 00-year check frequency for U.S. established 75. These criteria are for interstate highways by FHWA and adopted by ODOT Appendix J. as shown in w 0 I) I I & Hl I 1.2 Downstream (Cases 1 Embankment \ft) -T--i bridge without l 0.8 and Distance without l Flood dge Bridge + Location 1986 New I 0.6 with (Thousands) l Flood 1986 I 0.4 for 1 Jes bridge Bridge Embankme~- Profi l New 0.2 with 13. Without With I o Figure Upstream . 0 ~ 657 658 649 648 659 656 655 654 647 660 653 652 651 650 ::: Q.) 0 ..... CJ) 0 OJ 0 c 0 > :J 0 ....., 3= Ul ....., ..._ ~ 't w ...... ~ ...... w 2 I) 1. I I EB & r fl Downstream (Cases 1 Embankment (ft) bridge I 0.8 without and I Distance without - Flood Bridge I + a. Bridge 0.6 . Location Old 1986 (Thousands) with Flood I 0.4 1986 for t -· -· bridge ·-··· Bridge Embankment Profiles 0.2 Old with 14. ---- Without With o Figure Upstream 0 ~r----- - ''60 658 657 655 651 649 653 646 656 652 648 645 654 647 650 :59 0 c Q) Q) I.... 0 0 :J lU 0 u > ...... , ...... , ..._ w ~ U1 't ::: ,.-...... ...... , w N Bridqe Old 1.2 and Downstream kE~ lo control) 1 w/o upstream bridqe (with - 0.8 IV) Old & Flood Bridge I r----r----,-----,~---r----T---- ge nds) .d + New (ft) r1 so 6 u Location (Cases 6 50-year with 0. (ThQ control) Flood Distance cont-;=;-n------s------E] control) upstream r----T 50-year o.+ upstream no upstream for no (with (with yrs (with Profiles 50 ------~-~------ 0.2 Bridge Bridge 15. New Old bridge With Figure Upstream With ------....------.. --~---·-----~------~------~------~------ 0 - - 1----y-----y New 5 5-;,r c:....., ;JJ.._J 658 660 659 6 656 651 650 4 6 655 647 646 654 F 649 648 652 o - > _, u L Q) Q) '""I 0 0 L it:· 0 c a - .._. ...... :~ ....,_.. "+- '+- LLJ l/) ~-, ,_.Iii~ w w Bridge 1.2 Old Downstream and lcJke Control) 1 w/o . Upstream bridge (with 0.8 Otd ood IV) Bridge r + & (ft) Bridge I ----!------·------+ Location New 100-yea 1 F 0.6 with (Cases (Thousands) control) trol1----E}----·------El Distance Flood ------ con Control) -- 4 upstream -r---,-----.---.----T---..,.-----,----r----,---- 0. no 100-year upstream for Upstream th (with i yrs 'w no . ------ 00 bridge 0.2 1 (with Profiles bridge old lb. new .--,-- th with i bridge Upstream ------ w Figure 0 New 660 659 658 657 656 655 654 653 652 651 650 649 648 647 646 645 0 c 0 0 > v Q) u D :3 L v 0 ...... '+- ...... w ..-...... ....__,,. 't (/} ...... 3: 34 TABLE 9. COMPARISON OF VELOCITIES AND BACKWATER EFFECT BETWEEN OLD DESIGN AND NEW DESIGN ------Old Design New Design ------..-----·------ SO-year flood discharge (QSO) 91,011 cfs 42,800 cfs l 00-year flood discharge (QI oo) l 15,697 cfs 51,400 cfs SO-year velocity at Main Structure (V 50) 6.16 fps 5. l 0 fps SO-year velocity at Overflow Structure l (V so) 5.63 fps 5.98 fps SO-year velocity at Overflow Structure 2 (V so> 5.43 fps 5.54 fps 100-year velocity at Main Structure (VI oo) 7. I I fps 5.82 fps I 00-year velocity at Overflow Structure I (VI oo> 6.63 fps 6.85 fps I 00-year velocity at Overflow Structure 2 (VI oo> 6.4 l fps 6.37 fps Backwater effect for SO-year flood 1.22 ft 1.28 ft Backwater effect for SO-year flood I .SS ft 1.56 ft 35 VI. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are drawn based on this investigation. l. The 1986 flood that occurred during September 29-0ctober 4 was of obout a 500-year frequency, an unusually high flood frequency .. 2. A review of the Flood Insurance Study and the OSU Study reveals the magnitude of SO- I 00-year floods. The magnitudes are 42,800 and 51,400 cubic feet per second. 3. Four hydraulic conditions were analyzed to determine the backwater effects due to the old and new bridges at U.S. 75. 4. A review of procedures and policies developed by the Federal Highway Admin istration (FHWA) and adopted by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) recommended that the bridge be designed for SO-year floods and checked for I 00-year floods. 5. The backwater effect due to the new bridge is 1.28 and l .56 ft. for SO-year and I 00-year floods. 6. The backwater effect due to the old bridge is 0.54 and 0.63 feet for SO-year and I 00-year floods. 7. The backwater effect due to the old bridge with Huloh and Copan Lakes, the condition present at the time of construction of the old bridge, is 1.23 and 1.55 feet for 50-year and I 00-year floods. 8. The backwater effects in Conclusions 5, 6, and 7 are within 1-2 ft. and the velocity values in the range of 6-8 ft. per second. 9. The backwater effects due to the old and new bridges as well as the velocities of flow range are within criteria of bridge design adopted by ODOT as devel oped by FHW A. I 0. A design frequency of 50-year and check frequency of I 00-year floods is based on the cost effectiveness and the expected life of a reinforced concrete bridge (30-50 years). l I. If a bridge is desjgned for a frequency of more than SO-year and checked for I 00-year floods, it would be a waste of the taxpayers money and public funds. 12. The siltation in the flood occurred on the upstream side in the flood plains of the new and old bridges. A limited loss of soil would occur within 150-180 feet upstream of the overflow structures. Slight damage would be experienced due to soil loss, depending on the right-of-way from U.S. 75. The scour due to high velocity on the downstream side is limited to the county roads and may damage them. 13. The backwater effect upstream of the exit section of the bridges is computed for 500-year flood or a discharge of I 08,000 cfs. Using the WSPRO model, this effect due to new and old bridge options is determined extending to 5.55 and 3.66 miles upstream from U.S. 75. 14. Residents have built dikes along the Coney River in the flood plain of the main bridge. When the floodwater passes the main bridge, the dikes hold water on the resident's properties in the flood plain. It takes a long time to drain ponded water thru the overflow structures which have a limited capacity to discharge water, unlike the main bridge. 15. The concept of floodplain utilization is that it can be used for agriculture but is expected to flood at high frequency of floods such as 50-100-, and 500-year (the 1986 flood) frequencies. Obviously crop damages are expected to occur, but these are not caused by the construction of the new bridge and U.S. 75. 36 REFERENCES Federal Emergency, Management Agency, "Flood Insurance Study, City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma," January l 980, p. 31 • U.S. Geological Survey, "Techniques for Estimating Flood Discharges for Oklahoma Streams," Water Resources Investigation 77-54, June t 977. Corps of Engineers, "Water Management Analysis Report, Flood of September-October 1986," Tulsa District, August l 987a. Corps of Engineers, "Water Management Analysis report, Flood of September-October 1986, Appendix B, Aerial Photographs of Flooded Areas and Flood Profiles," Tulsa District, August I 987b. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, "Oklahoma's Water Atlas," Publ. No. 120., Nov. 1984, pp. 52, 53, 72, 73. Federal Highway Administration," Bridge Waterways Analysis Model: Research Report," Report No. FHWA/RD-86/108, July 1986, 112 pp. Corps of Engineers, "Hulah Dam and Reservoir,", May 1948, 15 pp.