Scour Analysis and

Countermeasure Design
for

UNION STREET RAILROAD BRIDGE

(Trail Connection Project)
Key No. 11085

ODOT, Region 2 Local Agency On-Call

ATA 23456 WOC 1

City of Salem, Urban Development

HDR Project No. 007337: 30289

October, 2005

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1800

Portland, OR 97204-1134
503.423.3700 Phone 503.423.3737 Fax
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

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

Field Observations ...................................................................................................................... 2
Previous Studies.......................................................................................................................... 2
Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 3

Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Hydraulics...................................................................................................................................... 3
Model Review............................................................................................................................. 3
Model Refinement ...................................................................................................................... 3

Hydraulic Analysis........................................................................................................................ 4

Scour............................................................................................................................................... 5

Scour Protection............................................................................................................................ 6
Riprap Sizing .............................................................................................................................. 7
Riprap Blanket Dimensions ........................................................................................................ 7

Permitting ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 8

References...................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A HEC-RAS Output .............................................................................................. 18

Appendix B FEMA Flood Insurance Study Map.................................................................. 19

List of Figures
Figure 1. General project area....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Existing Union Street Railroad drawings, bridge profile .............................................. 11
Figure 3. Existing Union Street Street Railroad drawings, pier detail.......................................... 11
Figure 4. Union Street Railroad Bridge the "Christmas Flood" of 1964 .................................... 12
Figure 5. Aerial view of the 1964 Flood on the Willamette River, looking downstream ............ 13
Figure 6. Union Street Railroad Bridge in foreground, looking upstream towards the Marion and
Center Street Bridges .................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. Cross-sectional comparison of USACE HEC-RAS model and Underwater Inspection
Report measured pier depths......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 8. HEC-RAS Screen Capture ............................................................................................ 16
Figure 9. Approximate location of the model cross-sections ....................................................... 17

List of Tables
Table 1. Design Flows for the Union Street Bridge Hydraulic Analysis..3
Table 2. Union Street Bridge Existing Conditions....5
Introduction
This report describes the approach and presents the results of the hydraulic and scour evaluation of the
Union Street Railroad Bridge in Salem Oregon. The bridge, which crosses the Willamette River in
downtown Salem, is to be converted into a multi-use path as a part of a joint City of Salem/ODOT Rail-
to-Trails project. The ultimate goal of these analyses is to determine if scour countermeasure are required
and provide appropriate, site specific recommendations as needed.
The existing bridge, built in 1912, is composed of a five (5) span truss section crossing the river and a
timber trestle section which crosses through Wallace Marine Park on the west side.
The topics addressed in this report include:
General site description
Regulatory standards and design criteria
Site hydrology and historic flooding
Bridge hydraulic analysis
Scour evaluation
Countermeasure design

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 1 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Site Description
The Union Street Railroad Bridge is located along NE Union Street in Salem, Oregon. The bridge crosses
the Willamette River downstream of Minto-Brown Island and the Marion and Center Street Bridges that
carry Highway 22 east and west, respectively (Figure 1). The bridge itself consists of five major piers
within the bankfull channel and a trestle-style abutment on the lesser sloped western bank. The
westernmost piers, labeled in the original drawings as Piers 1 and 2, stand in a gravel bar. Piers 3 through
5 lie in the main river channel with Pier 5 approximately centered in the deepest part of the river channel
(Figures 2 and 3). The eastern abutment is concrete and sits below the intersection of SE Water Street
and Front Street near Marion Square Park. The bridge and piers are perpendicular to the river channel.
Union Street Bridge is situated in a 4,000 foot wide floodplain between historic downtown Salem, Oregon
and West Salem. Wallace Park, which is located on the west bank, makes up a large part of the
floodplain. During extreme flood events, 1964 being the most recent (Figure 4), the floodplain may have
been submerged to an elevation of 145 feet (NGVD) or greater according to both the updated US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) HEC-RAS model used for this scour analysis and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) of Salem, Oregon (Appendix B).
Figure 5 shows the floodplain during the 1964 flood, a 200-year event, inundated well into West Salem.

Field Observations
The bridge was observed on September 2, 2005 and the river flow rate was approximately 7,120 cfs
according to the local USGS gage (#14191000). The tops of footings of all five piers were exposed at this
water level. On the date of the field reconnaissance, the footing of Pier 1 was exposed with the original
framing timbers still in place. The pier was sitting in a slack water pool in the gravel bar with several
driftwood trees snagged on the pier and adjacent timber trestle-style bents. Pier 2 was also on the gravel
bar, except that a semi-circular depression approximately the size of the footing has scoured out on the
west side of the pier to a depth of roughly three feet. Debris has collected in front of Pier 2 as well,
although it was much less than on Pier 1. Piers 3 and 4 were in the middle of the river channel at this
water level and had no sign of collision or debris collection. Pier 5 showed signs of a previous collision
approximately four feet above the current water level. Figure 6 shows the bridge on the date of the field
reconnaissance looking upstream.
In Wallace Park near the boat ramp on the west bank of the river, a concrete/riprap scour-control measure
was constructed there most likely to protect the picnic area from scour. A High water line was also noted
during the site visit. The eastern bank is much steeper than the western side and there are signs of
previous riprap and concrete dumping on this portion of the bank.

Previous Studies
An underwater inspection report, dated April 2004, was reviewed for pertinent information at Piers 3, 4
and 5 which are inundated essentially year-round. According to the report, riprap was installed as bridge
construction finished and consists of 2 to 6 foot diameter rock along with dumped railroad steel ; this
scour protection measure appears to collect woody and other debris. Riprap surrounds the entire footing
on Pier 5, with a higher concentration of larger rocks on the downstream side. Pier 4 has loose riprap
with a steep slope (possibly 1:1) on the upstream face, but no riprap on the downstream face. Pier 3 has a
pile of riprap on the southwest corner that tapers out at the southeast and northwest corners. Piers 2 and 1
have no riprap since their footings are embedded in the gravel bar that stretches to the west bank. The
report also describes the surface of the streambed as containing both sand and gravelly sand.

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 2 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Design Criteria
According to ODOT guidelines (Lulay, Tom. Memo: 1999), scour analyses at bridges are to utilize 500-
year flows as design criteria as it is required that bridge structures remain stable through such events.
Additional design criteria used in this analysis include average channel velocity to calculate pier scour,
the evaluation of the dominant scour types: contraction and pier, and evaluation of scour countermeasures
using HEC-11 Design of Riprap Revetments.

Hydrology
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in corporation with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), prepared a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the Willamette River in Salem, Oregon in
1977. The FIS presents streamflow estimates at various return periods for the Willamette River at Salem.
It is important to note that these estimates represent regulated flow rates in the river. That is, the USACE
owns and operates a number of large flood-control reservoirs in the Willamette River basin above Salem
that regulate flows in the lower reaches of the river. It is this regulation, and the operating rules that
govern how flows are released during periods of flooding, that has been incorporated into the statistical
streamflow estimates summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1. Design Flows for the Union Street Bridge Hydraulic Analysis
Average Return Interval 10-yr 50-yr 100-yr 500-yr
Willamette River, at Salem, Design Flows (cfs) 190,000 250,000 280,000 363,000
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study, Marion County, Oregon, and Incorporated Areas. 41047CV001

Hydraulics
The purpose of this analysis is to investigate the scour potential of the Union Street Railroad Bridge as it
currently exists. This scour analysis was analyzed using the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
HEC-RAS model (Version 3.1.3). Model input was developed using the original Marion County Flood
Insurance Study as a baseline. The model itself was supplied by the USACE Portland District. This
section details the status of the model as supplied and alterations made to perform the scour analysis.

Model Review
The baseline model used in this analysis was in the original HEC-2 format and was provided by Bruce
Duffe from the United States Army Corps of Engineers on August 24, 2005. This model was used for
previous Marion County, Oregon, Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) and was originally created in 1977.
Discharges were revised from 1969 values to 1982 values and Mannings n values were updated in
1993. As provided, the model did not contain any bridges because it was assumed that they would not
obstruct flow during high water events (Marion County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas FIS 2003,
41047CV001, page 149). The model contains the 2-, 10-, 50-, 100- and 500-year frequency flood profiles
plus the profile of the December 1964 flood. The model extended from river mile 77.0 to 89.6, totaling
12.6 miles in length.

Model Refinement
To perform the scour analyses, it was necessary to first convert the model to HEC-RAS and update the
model geometry to include the Union Street Bridge and the surrounding Highway 22 bridges. The Union
Street Bridge information was added using a combination of the original as-built drawings (provided by
ODOT) and information regarding water levels at each pier from the recent underwater inspection. The

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 3 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
depths recorded in the underwater study corresponded well with the pier depths from the original
drawings. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) also completed a sounding of cross-sections of the
Willamette River up- and downstream of the Union Street Bridge in 2004. This data, along with the
underwater survey measurements and the as-built drawing section, was plotted verses the USACE cross-
sections from the HEC-RAS model. The net result of this process indicated that the USACE model cross-
sections still provide a good estimate of the channel shape in the immediate project area (Figure 7).
In addition to the cross-section geometry, the bridge itself was added to the model. Each of the five major
piers consists of a rectangular footing, 15 by 35 ft, and a rounded nose pillar that tapers from the footing
up to the steel structure. The pier systems were modeled as a round nose pier 15 ft wide from the riverbed
to the top of each footing (between 111 and 115 ft (NGVD) and 8.5 ft wide up to the low chord elevation,
153 ft (NGVD). The wood bents on the 1,000 foot timber trestle section of the bridge (west bank) were
modeled as groups of cylinders since four bents exist at each pier. The bents are spaced 15 ft on center
starting at a station of 2695 and heading west. The trestle superstructure is 19 ft wide (out-to-out) with 15
ft for the train or future multi-use path and 36.5 ft tall (out-to-out) with an interior height of 24 ft. For the
Marion Street Bridge revised 1980 drawings were used to add bridge geometry and for the Center Street
Bridge site photos were used to approximate the pier configuration. A screen capture of the HEC-RAS
model at the Union Street Bridge is shown in Figure 8.
In order to more accurately model the channel hydraulics in and around the bridges, it was necessary to
add additional cross-sections into the model. A total of 9 sections were added in the project area so that at
least four sections (two on either side) were present for each bridge with additional cross-sections added
in regions specified by the model to increase efficiency. All new cross-sections were produced using the
built in cross-section interpolation function in HEC-RAS. The approximate locations of the cross-
sections are shown in Figure 9.
Channel roughness values (Mannings n) are consistent with the previous FEMA studies and verified
by field inspection and aerial photography. The channel and overbank roughness factors varied from 0.03
to 0.1. The contraction and expansion coefficients were also revised from the original model to include
the newly added bridges. Lastly, ineffective flow areas were added to the model in the vicinity of the
three bridges as per the HEC-RAS documentation.

Hydraulic Analysis
A subcritical, steady-state flow regime was selected to model the Willamette River at the Union Street
Bridge. The model contains the steady-state flow rates for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-yr events as given
in the FEMA FIS plus the 2-yr storm, the 1964 Christmas Flood (200-yr event) and the flow on the day of
the site visit for a reference while building the bridges in the model.
The results of the hydraulic analysis are summarized in Table 2. These results represent the 500-yr flood
event, which is recommended for calculating scour by ODOT (Lulay, Tom. Memo: 1999).

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 4 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Table 2. Union Street Bridge Existing Conditions
500-yr Event
Total Discharge (cfs) 363,000
Recurrence Interval (yrs) 500
High Water Elevation at Upstream Face of Bridge (ft) 145.84
High Water Elevation at Downstream Face of Bridge (ft) 145.38
High Water Elevation at 250 ft Downstream of Bridge (ft) 145.50
Average Velocity at Upstream Face of Bridge (ft/s) 11.10
Average Velocity at Downstream Face of Bridge (ft/s) 11.16
Average Velocity at 250 ft Downstream of Bridge (ft/s) 10.09
Channel Depth at Upstream Face of Bridge (ft) 48.84
Channel Depth at Downstream Face of Bridge (ft) 48.38
Channel Depth at 250 ft Downstream of Bridge (ft) 48.14

Scour
Based on field observations and survey data, no evidence of significant channel or bridge-induced scour
was apparent at the existing bridge structure. The extent of long-term aggradation or degradation at the
project site is unknown. According to the underwater inspection report, the riprap appeared to have been
placed soon after the bridge was constructed has remained fairly static and has been an adequate amount
of protection although the diver concluded that the riprap was minimal in amount, crudely placed, and
ranged in diameter from 2 to 6 feet.
Scour for the Union Street Bridge was calculated using the HEC-RAS model based on FHWA 2001
(HEC-18) criteria/methods. The equations utilized by the model are expounded upon in this section. As
per ODOT requirements, scour depth were calculated using the 500-yr event, which correspond to a flow
of 363,000 cfs, and normal depth as the downstream boundary condition. The model output is tabularized
in Appendix A.

Bed Material
Bed material in the vicinity of the project area was assumed to be very coarse gravel with a D50 and D90
of 45.3 and 60.0 mm respectively. This bed material was specified on both the original Union Street
Bridge drawings and revised Marion Street Bridge drawings with test hole details; the corresponding
grain size distributions were estimated from the HEC-RAS users manual (Table 12-6, chapter 12). The
bank material was approximated as a coarse silt with a D50 and D90 of 0.045 and 0.06 mm respectively
using the same table.

Pier Scour
Pier scour was calculated assuming 5 reinforced concrete piers with a width of 15 feet plus the 1,000-foot
timber trestle section which was modeled as grouped cylinders 1 foot wide and spaced 15 feet on center
(Figure 8). A maximum pier scour depth of 12.9 feet at the main piers and 5.3 feet for the timber bents
was estimated from the bridge pier geometry using the Colorado State University (CSU) equation
(FHWA, 2001):

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 5 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
 0.65
a
y s = 2.0 K 1 K 2 K 3 K 4 Fr 0.43 y1
y1

where K1 accounts for pier shape (1.0 for round nose), K2 accounts for flow angle (1.0 for no skew), K3
accounts for the bed condition (1.1 for clear-water), K4 accounts for bed armoring (0.42 when the D95 is
60.0 mm), a is the pier thickness (1.0 ft for the timber bents, 15 ft for the main piers), y1 is the maximum
flow depth at the upstream face of the bridge (48 ft), and Fr is the Froude number at the upstream face of
the bridge (0.33).

Contraction Scour
Contraction scour was calculated as clear water scour. The clear water approach was determined by using
Laursens equation (FHWA, 2001):

Vc = 11.17( y1 ) 6 (D50 )3
1 1

where y1 is the depth of the approach channel section (37 ft), D50 is the median diameter of bed material
(45.3 mm, 0.149 ft) and Vc is the critical velocity for incipient motion of the bed material in the approach
section (10.8 ft/s). Since the pier approach velocity (10.5 ft/s) is less than the critical velocity (10.8 ft/s),
the clear water scour equation was used to compute contraction scour.
A contraction scour depth of 1.1 feet was estimated using the clear water contraction scour equation
(FHWA, 2001):

37
Q2 2
y2 = 23 2
CDm W2

where y2 is the average depth in the contracted section (35.6 ft), Q2 is the flow within the contracted
channel (363,000 cfs), C is a constant (130 for Standard units), W2 is the bottom width of the contracted
channel excluding the pier width (864 ft) and Dm is the diameter of the smallest non-transportable particle
(1.25 * D50, 0.186 ft). The contraction scour (ys) is then y2 y0 where y0 is the existing depth at the
downstream cross-section (34.5 ft) and ys is 1.1 feet.

Total Scour
Total scour depth was calculated at the proposed bridge crossing by summing the contraction scour depth
with the pier scour. Output from the HEC-RAS model indicates a total scour depth of approximately 14
feet at the main piers and 6.4 feet at the timber trestle.

Scour Protection
A HEC-11 (FHWA 1989) analysis was conducted to examine the size of riprap that could be used to
protect the Union Street Bridge piers if revetment protection were to be selected. Given the location of
the five primary piers in the Willamette River and expected average channel velocities of up to 11 ft/s,

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 6 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
other less-traditional pier protection measures would not likely be feasible or economical. ODOT
guidelines require that bridge structures be stable during 500-yr events. Furthermore, the Highway 22
bridge piers located just upstream of Union Street Bridge each use riprap as scour protection measures.
As-built drawings indicate that the middle piers in the main channel have riprap blankets of 100 feet by
130 feet and 3 feet deep (1450 yd3 per pier) of Class 700 Standard. HEC-RAS model results for these
bridges estimate an average channel velocity of 9.6 ft/s.

Riprap Sizing
An evaluation of the appropriate riprap class for the Union Street Bridge was completed assuming ODOT
and HEC-11 criteria using the 500-yr flood and the following equation for sizing riprap on bridge piers in
fresh water:

1 1.384V 2
D50 =
2 ( S 1)2 g
where D50 is the median riprap diameter (1.8 feet), V is the expected channel velocity plus safety factor
(11 ft/s x 1.5), S is the specific gravity of the riprap material (2.65), and g is the force of gravity (32 ft/s2).
The above calculations estimate that the median diameter of riprap for the Union Street Bridge be 1.8 feet
(22 inches) or, according to the ODOT riprap classification, Class 2000 Standard. This calculation is
sensitive to changes in velocity. Consequently the 1.5 ft/s difference between the average channel
velocities upstream of the Highway 22 bridges and Union Street Bridge is enough to changes the riprap
class for the Union Street Bridge to Class 2000.

Riprap Blanket Dimensions

The HEC-18 manual suggests that the top width of the scour hole be calculated using the following
equation for which W, the calculated top width (30 ft), is equal to 2 times yS, the scour depth (15 ft).

W = 2 ys

The HEC-11 manual suggests that riprap be placed no less than 1.5 x D95 in thickness. For the Union
Street Bridge this results in a 30 foot radius, 4 feet deep, riprap blanket surrounding each pier, totaling
980 yd3 for each of the five primary piers.
For the timber bents, the estimated scour is 6.5 feet which results in Class 50 Standard riprap in a
continuous blanket 1 foot thick. There may be other more ecologically appropriate scour
countermeasures such as the placement of woody debris or geotextiles. Specific design of these
countermeasures would need to occur in parallel with the permitting process.

Discussion
The riprap sizing presented to this point has been designed as required by ODOT to maintain bridge
stability through the 500-year event. To date there is little evidence of scour at the bridge piers.
Additionally, the flood of 1996, which had an approximate return period of 50 years, does not appear to
have created any long-term scour or undermining of the existing structure, although scour holes may have
developed during the crest of the flood and filled in later as the river levels receded.
That said, extreme flood events that may cause scour or failure of the existing bridge cannot be predicted.
Consequently, the long term scour protection solution should reflect an acceptable level of risk; the 500-
year event according to ODOT. And to meet this criterion, placement of appropriately sized riprap is the

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 7 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
recommended approach. In the interim, if the city chooses not to place riprap, an effective way to
evaluate the immediate need for additional scour protection could be to monitor the condition after high
flow events. If significant scour is observed, either via scour holes or missing riprap, immediate
placement of new riprap is recommended.

Permitting
Permitting for scour countermeasures has been addressed in a separate memorandum (Regulatory
Compliance Technical Memorandum) and is summarized as follows:
A [Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,] Section 10 permit from the Corps is required for any
construction in or over navigable waters of the United States which could affect the course, location,
condition or capacity of these waters. This includes any excavation or dredging in the Willamette River,
placement of rip rap, or construction and repair of piers and pilings. The permit is issued by the Corps,
based on information provided in the CWA Section 404/Removal Fill joint application.

Conclusion
Due to the velocities expected in the Willamette River during a 500-yr event (11 ft/s), addition of riprap
should be considered as a scour countermeasure on the main bridge piers (Piers 1 through 5). Current in-
situ countermeasures will likely provide adequate protection during lesser flood events, however during
the design conditions (500-yr) they may not be adequate. Consequently, it is recommended that new
riprap with a median diameter of 22 inches (Class 2000) be placed in a 30-foot radius surrounding the five
major piers, to a depth of 4 feet.

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 8 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 3.1, January
2001.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Study, Marion County and
Incorporated Areas, Oregon. Community Number 41047. Revised January 2, 2003.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Design of Riprap Revetment. Hydraulic Engineering Circular
No. 11, Fourth Edition. March 1989.
_________. Evaluating Scour at Bridges. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, Fourth Edition. May
2001.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Hydraulics Manual, 1990.
_________. Hydraulics Unit. Hydraulic Design and Report Writing for Projects Designed by
Consultants. June 1994.
_________. Scour Guidelines.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Soil Survey for Marion County, Oregon, accessed
September 10, 2005, http://ice.or.nrcs.usda.gov/website/marion/viewer.htm.
OBEC Consulting Engineers. Willamette River Union Street Railroad Bridge Underwater Inspection
Report for The City of Salem April 2004.
Lulay, Tom. Memo: Use of Riprap as Embankment Armoring Material, December 22, 1999.
Historic Photographs. Salem Public Libraby Collection, accessed September 21, 2005, Figure 4, photo
ID: HSTC122; Figure 5, photo ID: SJ340; http://photos.salemhistory.org/.

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 9 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Figure 1. General project area

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 10 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Figure 2. Existing Union Street Railroad drawings, bridge profile
Source: Waddell and Harrington Consulting Engineers, Kansas City, MO.
File No. 2-102, Sheet No. 12; 1912

Figure 3. Existing Union Street Street Railroad drawings, pier detail

Source: Waddell and Harrington Consulting Engineers, Kansas City, MO.
File No. 2-102, Sheet No. 2; 1912

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 11 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Figure 4. Union Street Railroad Bridge the "Christmas Flood" of 1964
(~308,000 cfs, ~200yr Flood)

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 12 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Figure 5. Aerial view of the 1964 Flood on the Willamette River, looking downstream

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 13 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Figure 6. Union Street Railroad Bridge in foreground, looking upstream towards the Marion and
Center Street Bridges

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 14 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
 3000

Underwater Inspection Report Profile

Profile Comparison

2000
Station

USACE HEC-RAS Profile

1000
0
160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

Elevation (ft)

Figure 7. Cross-sectional comparison of USACE HEC-RAS model and Underwater Inspection

Report

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 15 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
 USRRB Existing conditions Plan: WithBridge 9/20/2005
Union Street Bridge

160 Legend

WS 500-y r
Ground

Union Street Railroad Bridge

150 Inef f
Bank Sta

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final
140

Figure 8. HEC-RAS Screen Capture

130

Elevation (ft)
120

110

100

90
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Station (f t)

Page 16 of 19
Figure 9. Approximate location of the model cross-sections

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 17 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge
Appendix A HEC-RAS Output
HEC-RAS Output - Bridge: Union Street RR Profile: 500-yr
Min Ch W.S. E.G. E.G. Avg. Channel Top
River Discharge Total El Elev Elev Slope Velocity Flow Area Width Channel
Mile (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Froude #

89.61 363,000 98.9 152.88 153.14 0.000079 5.6 154,373 8,800 0.15

89.22 363,000 105.5 152.7 152.95 0.000128 6.57 164,386 10,842 0.18

88.8 363,000 98.5 152.54 152.72 0.000095 5.54 188,443 12,167 0.16

88 363,000 101.5 151.82 152.23 0.000123 6.78 131,702 9,228 0.18

87.63 363,000 100.5 151.67 151.97 0.000128 6.6 135,454 9,148 0.19

87.23 363,000 106 151.53 151.74 0.000078 5.14 152,398 8,969 0.15

87 363,000 101 151.35 151.63 0.000083 5.93 143,849 8,758 0.16

86.88 363,000 102.3 151.3 151.57 0.000101 6.4 144,725 8,388 0.17

86.73 363,000 102.3 151.19 151.49 0.000119 6.57 136,477 8,109 0.19

86.58 363,000 105.3 151.14 151.38 0.000102 5.72 136,830 7,643 0.17

86.49 363,000 108.5 151.05 151.33 0.000116 6.25 134,526 7,518 0.18

86.35 363,000 104.7 150.97 151.23 0.000117 5.68 121,586 6,765 0.17

86.24 363,000 104.7 150.93 151.16 0.000096 5.14 136,135 6,894 0.15

85.94 363,000 103.7 150.75 151 0.000101 4.99 126,155 6,181 0.15

85.58 363,000 104.2 150.65 150.82 0.000065 4.31 153,856 6,095 0.13

85.2 363,000 102 150.38 150.62 0.000142 5.21 114,629 4,889 0.15

84.45 363,000 99 149.3 149.83 0.000287 7.34 76,928 5,187 0.21

84.2 363,000 92.25 147.6 149.14 0.00049 9.97 37,107 4,115 0.28

84.11 363,000 90 147.61 148.8 0.000341 8.77 41,370 3,752 0.24

84.1 363,000 90.35 147.56 148.78 0.000351 8.86 40,950 3,733 0.24
84.09 Center Street Bridge

84.08 363,000 90.74 147.32 148.58 0.000368 9.01 40,312 3,707 0.25

84.05 363,000 91.93 147.14 148.49 0.000429 9.33 38,933 3,644 0.26

84.02 363,000 92.91 146.95 148.38 0.000468 9.61 37,777 3,582 0.27
84.01 Marion Street Bridge

84 363,000 93.5 146.65 148.15 0.0005 9.83 36,916 3,541 0.28

83.95 363,000 95.6 146.21 147.92 0.000605 10.51 34,553 3,404 0.31

83.91 363,000 97 145.84 147.72 0.000693 11.01 32,965 3,310 0.33

Union Street Railroad
83.9 Bridge

83.89 363,000 97 145.38 147.31 0.000723 11.16 32,540 3,302 0.33

83.85 363,000 97.36 145.5 146.97 0.000593 10.09 49,721 3,314 0.3

83.6 363,000 99.5 144.82 145.99 0.000505 9.08 55,127 3,387 0.28

83.31 363,000 102 144.17 145.07 0.000411 8.03 62,016 3,434 0.25

82.33 363,000 98.7 141.62 142.21 0.000636 7.58 81,144 7,595 0.23

81.22 363,000 94 139.26 139.82 0.000337 7.37 105,890 11,445 0.23

80.9 363,000 89 138.76 139.31 0.000268 7.39 112,309 11,727 0.22

80.12 363,000 77.3 137.73 138.08 0.000339 5.78 120,368 14,851 0.17

79.33 363,000 89 134.57 135.72 0.001257 9.49 66,712 11,754 0.32

79.02 363,000 94.6 133.39 134.4 0.000552 8.98 72,514 12,061 0.29

78.66 363,000 96 131.89 133.14 0.000902 9.45 54,092 7,377 0.32

78.25 363,000 93.5 130.56 131.3 0.00072 7.94 78,943 13,305 0.27

77.48 363,000 83.5 127.25 128.52 0.000702 9.99 68,254 13,737 0.31

77 363,000 86.9 125.45 126.66 0.000748 9.46 63,751 12,517 0.36

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 18 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge 10/28/2005
Appendix B FEMA Flood Insurance Study Map

UnionStreetBridgeScourReport_Final Page 19 of 19
Union Street Railroad Bridge 10/28/2005