ST0301-CS040402From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Chris,
Keith Marvin
Moorman, Chris
4/2/2004 4:50:17 PM
RE: Meeting Minutes from 3/25/04 Progress Meeting
It seems like the best option is to go with the 10x8 box.
Keith R. Marvin, P.E.
City of Coppell
(972) 304-7044
kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us
>>> "Chris Moorman" <CLM@freese.com> 4/2/2004 7:59:58 AM >>>
Keith,
I meant to get these data to you earlier, I apologize.
According to our survey data, the existing top of pavement at the
culvert on Coppell Road is as follows:
Approx. Sta. 4+40
Approx. Sta. 4+68
centerline of the creek: 504.73
apparent Iow point of ex. road 504.54
For the ease of simplicity, I would prefer to keep the current proposed
profile regardless of which culvert height we choose. I've done a small
investigation into the different culvert hieghts (7', 8', & 9'). Due to
the slope of the proposed culvert profile, the clearance on the upstream
side is what I will focus my discussion on because this yields the
smaller clearances on all scenarios. The location that these clearances
occur at the iow point of the proposed roadway profile (Sra. 4+49.94).
My findings are as follows:
The 7' height yields approximately 1.30' between the actual top of the
culvert and the bottom of subgrade. This is the thinnest that the
compacted material could be for this scenario.
The 8' height yields approximately 0.30' (same conditions mentioned
above) and the 9' height comes in just under the 8" concrete pavement
thickness. The 7 & 8 foot heights are workable options. The 9' height
is workable also, however the box would need to be a direct traffic
culvert to compensate for the loss in pavement structure.
At this time, there appears not to be any unresolved issues at the
Bethel Road culvert.
Chris Moorman
(214) 217-2221
..... Original Message .....
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:kmarvinC, ci.coppell.tx, us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:48 AM
To: Chris Moorman
Suzan .~ayior - F~l~i Me~ing M~nutes from.3/25~0~'0~-ress Me~
From;
To:
Date:
Subject:
Page 1
"Chris Moorman" <CLM@freese.com>
"Keith Marvin" <kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us>
4/2/2004 7:57:07 AM
RE: Meeting Minutes from 3/25/04 Progress Meeting
.5%
Keith,
I meant to get these data to you earlier, I apologize.
According to our survey data, the existing top of pavement at the
culvert on Coppell Road is as follows:
Approx. Sta. 4+40
Approx. Sta. 4+68
centerline of the creek: 504.73
apparent Iow point of ex. road 504.54
For the ease of simplicity, I would prefer to keep the current proposed
profile regardless of which culvert height we choose. I've done a small
investigation into the different culvert hieghts (7', 8', & 9'). Due to
the slope of the proposed culvert profile, the clearance on the upstream
side is what I will focus my discussion on because this yields the
smaller clearances on all scenarios. The location that these clearances
occur at the Iow point of the proposed roadway profile (Sta. 4+49.94).
My findings are as follows:
The 7' height yields approximately 1.30' between the actual top of the
culvert and the bottom of subgrade. This is the thinnest that the
compacted material could be for this scenario.
The 8' height yields approximately 0.30' (same conditions mentioned
above) and the 9' height comes in just under the 8" concrete pavement
thickness. The 7 & 8 foot heights are workable options. The 9' height
is workable also, however the box would need to be a direct traffic
culvert to compensate for the loss in pavement structure.
At this time, there appears not to be any unresolved issues at the
Bethel Road culvert.
Chris Moorman
(214) 217-2221
..... Original Message .....
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31,2004 9:48 AM
To: Chris Moorman
Cc: Ken Griffin; Suzan Taylor; Robert Bergeron; Tricia Hatley;
mrhobbs@transystems.com
Subject: RE: Meeting Minutes from 3/25/04 Progress Meeting
Chris,
Before we make a decision on the direction for the Coppell Road culvert
I need some additional information:
1. What is the existing top of pavement elevation of Coppell Road?
susa T~y0: REi M~eting rvlin~ies from3/25/04 Progi~ss Meeting
n r ,
Page 2
2. What would you propose for the actual top of road elevation for the
10x8 and 10x9 boxes. This elevation should take into account the
thickness of the box, a section of compacted material, subgrade, and
pavement thickness.
Since there was no issue with the Bethel Road elevations, can I assume
that issue is resolved?
Keith R. Marvin, P.E.
City of Coppell
(972) 304-7044
kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us
>>> "Chris Moorman" <CLM@freese.com> 3/30/2004 6:00:29 PM >>>
Keith,
We do have some discrepancies with the numbers that are in question.
At
the upstream face of the culvert at Coppell Road, our model indicates
a
WSE of 505.24 (as opposed to 505.16) and our proposed roadway grade at
this location is 507.40 (as opposed to 506.8). The 506.80 elevation
is
in the model but should be changed to 507.4 in order to match the
attached design. We have re-run the model with this change and it
makes
no difference in water surrace elevation of the design storm. I
apologize if I gave you an incorrect plan/profile sheet of the culvert
area and am attaching a copy of the most current plan/profile sheet
for
your convenience.
WSE Soffit Top of Road (2'
freeboard)
10x7 box 505.24 503.62 507.24
10x8 box 504.86 504.62 506.86
10x9 box 504.12 505.62 506.12
NQTE: Based on the Transystems model the top of bank immediately
upstream of Coppell is approximately 505.00. Therefore, the 10x9 box
would be higher than the channel (comparing soffit at 505.62 to t/bank
at 505.0) and not all of the culvert would be utilized in the design
storm (comparing WSE at 504.12 to soffit at 505.62). For those
~0 C
preliminary '
analysis looking at larger (i.e., taller) culverts and the following
are j" ~''
the results. As you can see the taller culverts do lower the water
surface. However, they only lower it about 1 foot in the extreme case
of the 10x9 box and less than 0.5' using the 10x8 box. The 10x8 box
design appears to be a viable option while the 10x9 does not (see note
below table).
~an T~ior - REE: M~eting~Min~t~3/2~/0-4 Progress Me~tin~_~ -- - Page 3 [
reasons
this does not appear to be a desirable option.
The culvert design does appear to contribute to the backwater
condition
but a larger culvert does not eliminate the situation. Furthermore,
even the 10x9 box scenario causes water to escape the proposed channel
at XS16+50 where the adjacent natural ground is only around 503.5.
Generally, these preliminary findings are consistent with our previous
comments that we can lower the headwater somewhat but not
significantly.
Please let us know which direction you would like us to proceed with.
Thank you,
Chris Moorman, E.I.T.
Freese & Nichols, Inc.
1701 N. Market St.
Suite 500 LB 51
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 217-2221 - voice
(214) 217-2275 - fax
..... Original Message .....
From: Keith Marvin [mailto:kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:18 PM
To: Chris Moorman; Tricia Hatley
Cc: Ken Griffin; Suzan Taylor; Tony Diaz; Alan Greer; Bow Lin; Bill
Cotten; Chris Bosco; Scott Fisher; Melinda Polley; Mark Criswell
Subject: Re: Meeting Minutes from 3/25/04 Progress Meeting
I have discussed the water surface elevation and top of pavement
elevation with Transystems as well as Rob Bergeron of FNI. It seems
that the discrepancy in the models has been resolved and that all
parties are in agreement with the results.
The information I received from Transystems is the following:
The water surface at the upstream face of the culvert under Bethel is
507.2
The proposed grade of Bethel at this location is 509.2
This structure should be fine.
The water surface at the upstream face of the culvert under Coppell is
505.16
The proposed grade of Coppell at this location is 506.80
City of Coppell requires 2' of freeboard above the water surface for
the top of pavement. This does not appear to be met.
Let me know if there is a discrepancy with any of the above numbers.
Both models/modelers also agree that there is a backwater condition
between Bethel and Coppell Roads. It appears that a portion of that
issue is a result of the culvert design at Coppell Road. Can anything
be done at this point with the Coppell Road crossing to eliminate this
S, uza~ 'l'3yior Z~'Ei ~3~ i~i~t~? from 3/~5/04 Progress-Meeting .... Page
situation?
Please let me know if you concur with the model numbers, and if so,
address the two outstanding issues.
Thanks.
Keith R. Marvin, P.E.
City of Coppell
(972) 304-7044
kmarvin@ci.coppell.tx.us
>>> "Chris Moorman" <CLM@freese.com> 3/30/2004 11:29:44 AM >>>
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Here are the meeting minutes from our last progress meeting on March
25,
2004. If there are any discrepancies or omissions please feel free to
contact me and I will adjust the minutes accordingly. If there are no
responses, then I will assume the meeting minutes are complete and
accurate.
If there are any questions or comments, feel free to contact myself or
Tricia Harley.
Thank you,
Chris Moorman, E.I.T.
Freese & Nichols, Inc.
1701 N. Market St.
Suite 500 LB 51
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 217-2221 - voice
(214) 217-2275 - fax
<http://www.freese.com/>
CC: "Ken Gr fin" <KGR FF "~
r~L~.ci.coppell.tx.us>, "Suzan Taylor"
<STAYLOR@ci.coppell.tx.us>, "Robed Bergeron" <rpb@freese.com>, "Tricia Hatley" <thh@freese.com>,
<mrhobbs@transystems.com>