Final Report

TH 93 AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD BRIDGE
PROJECT
City of Le Sueur, MN
Minnesota State University, Mankato

Senior Design Class of 2010
Final Report
May 7, 2010
Minnesota State University Mankato
205 Trafton Science Center E.
Mankato, MN 56001
This report was composed by the following civil engineering seniors at Minnesota State University,
Mankato:
Project Manager - Jake Schoelerman
Transportation Captain - Christopher Bower
Environmental Captain - Chandani Malla
Water Resources Captain - Daniel Anderson
Geotech Captain - Ahmad Afifeh
Structures Captain - Jared Schrempp
Economics Captain - Greg Mitchel
Andrew Brown
Joe Chudyk
Kyle Barnes
Mankato, MN 56001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) bridge overlying Minnesota Trunk Highway 93 (TH 93) has
endured frequent high load impacts during its design life. MavTek Engineering was contacted
by Dr. Patrick Tebbe, PE, Minnesota State University professor and City of Le Sueur resident to
explore potential designs for the bridge. The current railroad bridge has several existing design
concerns. The current bridge has a substandard clearance of 12'- 8" and does not allow
pedestrians to pass underneath to access the TH 93 river bridge due to insufficient span length.
MavTek’s design includes raising the grade of the railroad 5' and installing a new railroad bridge
that achieves a vertical clearance of 17'-6" to prevent future high load impacts underneath the
bridge. The proposed bridge will be significantly longer with a span length of 60 feet to allow a
pedestrian trail to pass underneath the railroad at an elevated surface adjacent to TH 93.
Several alternatives such as an at-grade intersection and a possible TH 93 river bridge
relocation were explored and dismissed based on safety concerns and project costs.
In conjunction with the proposed railroad bridge and its longer span length was the proposal to
modify the existing TH 93 river bridge to facilitate a trail and the beginning of a trail head. This
trail head would allow access from Main Street underneath the proposed railroad bridge and
the only crossing of the Minnesota River in the area. The trail will turn northeast after passing
underneath the railroad bridge and continue running parallel to Grove Street for 2000 feet.
This design will allow for safer pedestrian travel along TH 93 and divert bicyclists around Main
Street.
With these added pedestrian trails the existing river bridge will have to be modified to allow
pedestrians access across the Minnesota River. A layout for the existing bridge was designed to
allow adequate room for two lanes of traffic and shared use trail. To reduce traffic speeds, a
traffic calming median will be implemented on the west side of the river bridge. This will help
to reduce speeds in advance of the bridge to provide a safer environment for pedestrians using
the trail.
The raising of the railroad will change the topography in the parking lot area of the project.
Currently storm water flows overtop of the railroad and down the embankment. The new
design will feature a ditch on the east side of the railroad running parallel to the tracks that will
contain ditch checks to control sediment and flow. A storm water sedimentation control
structure will be used to treat the runoff on TH 93 underneath the railroad bridge.
1|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
The final report for the TH 93 and UPRR bridge describes the horizontal and vertical alignment
for TH 93, horizontal and vertical alignment for the UPRR, bridge design, environmental issues,
a geotechnical report, and all other design aspects of the proposed project.
2|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 12
Table of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 17
Project Background ................................................................................................................... 19
Project Deficiencies and Needs ................................................................................................. 20
Project Design ........................................................................................................................... 20
Construction Staging ................................................................................................................. 21
Union Pacific Railroad Alignment .............................................................................................. 24
Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................................. 24
Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................................................. 26
Shoofly Alignment ................................................................................................................. 27
Ballast .................................................................................................................................... 29
Typical Cross-Section ............................................................................................................. 30
Ditches and Retaining Walls .................................................................................................. 31
Rail Design Standards ............................................................................................................ 31
Trunk Highway 93 Alignment .................................................................................................... 36
Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................................................. 36
Vertical Alignment ................................................................................................................. 39
Trunk Highway 93 Standards ................................................................................................. 40
Trunk Highway 93 Pavement Design......................................................................................... 43
Grove Street Alignment............................................................................................................. 47
Trail Design Standards ........................................................................................................... 47
Through Plate Bridge ................................................................................................................. 48
Driven Pile Design...................................................................................................................... 49
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 49
Soil Profile .............................................................................................................................. 50
3|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
Water Resources ....................................................................................................................... 55

Introduction and description of water resources issues ....................................................... 55
Drainage Areas (both pre and post construction) ................................................................. 55
Northern Drainage Area ........................................................................................................ 57
TH 93 Drainage Area .............................................................................................................. 58
Parking Lot Drainage Area ..................................................................................................... 61
Drainage Summary ................................................................................................................ 64
Economics.................................................................................................................................. 64
Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................................... 64
Funding Sources..................................................................................................................... 65
Union Pacific Railroad ............................................................................................................ 65
Federal Funds ........................................................................................................................ 66
Area Transportation Partnership ........................................................................................... 66
MNDOT District 7 ................................................................................................................... 66
State Trail Money .................................................................................................................. 66
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 67
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A, Transportation Alternatives ..................................................................................... 69
Project Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 70
Alternative I – No Build Alternative ....................................................................................... 70
Alternative II – At-grade Railroad Crossing ........................................................................... 71
Alternative III – Raise Railroad to accommodate clearance and keep existing TH 93 profile
(preferred) ............................................................................................................................. 73
Alternative IV – Raise RR to provide adequate clearance and fix profile of TH 93 ............... 74
Alternative V – Depressed railroad alternative ..................................................................... 76
Alternative VI – Move Minnesota River crossing to Ferry St. ............................................... 77
Prefered Alternative .................................................................................................................. 78
Raise Railroad Grade ............................................................................................................. 78
4|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
Construction Staging.............................................................................................................. 81
Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................................... 84
Right of Way Cost Details ...................................................................................................... 86
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 89
Pedestrian Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 89
Alternative I –Shared-use paths connecting Bridge Street to the Park. ............................... 89
Alternative II–Trail along Grove Street .................................................................................. 90
Alternative III–Trail along Grove Street as well as a shared used path on Bridge Street ..... 91
Alternative IV–No built .......................................................................................................... 91
Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 92
Examination of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 92
Option to construct a new exclusive pedestrian river crossing ............................................ 94
Option to widen the existing bridge ...................................................................................... 95
Option to use the existing bridge width to accommodate a shared use trail ....................... 96
Preferred Option.................................................................................................................... 97
Prefered Alternative – Pedestrian trails.................................................................................... 97
Appendix B, Structural Design ...................................................................................................... 99
Reasons For Replacement ....................................................................................................... 100
Railroad Bridge Alternatives.................................................................................................... 101
Rolled Beam Span ................................................................................................................ 101
Deck Plate ............................................................................................................................ 103
Through Plate Design .............................................................................................................. 105
Railroad Loadings................................................................................................................. 105
Structural Loading Calculations ........................................................................................... 111
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 116
Loading ................................................................................................................................ 119
Floor Beam Design ............................................................................................................... 122
Girder Design ....................................................................................................................... 127
5|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
Temperature Expansion/Contraction .................................................................................. 135

Elastomeric Bearing Pad Design .......................................................................................... 136
Appendix C, Intersection Control Evaluation and Inspection Reports ....................................... 141
Intersection Control Evaluation .............................................................................................. 142
What is an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)? .............................................................. 142
What is the Current Intersection Control? .......................................................................... 142
Do nothing alternative ......................................................................................................... 143
Analysis of alternatives ........................................................................................................ 145
Traffic Signal Warrants ........................................................................................................ 145
Roundabout Analysis ........................................................................................................... 153
Eliminate Access to Westside Drive .................................................................................... 154
Revised Stop Control at Intersection ................................................................................... 154
Appendix D, Geotechnical Report ............................................................................................... 159
Retaining Wall Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 160
Gabion Wall ......................................................................................................................... 161
Cantilever walls.................................................................................................................... 167
Slope Stability Selection .......................................................................................................... 176
Direct Shear Testing ................................................................................................................ 177
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 177
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 177
Apparatus ............................................................................................................................ 178
Experimental Procedure ...................................................................................................... 178
Data Analysis Procedure ...................................................................................................... 179
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 185
Soil Profiles .............................................................................................................................. 186
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 186
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 187
Results.................................................................................................................................. 188
6|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 191

Slope Stability .......................................................................................................................... 191
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 191
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 191
Results: ................................................................................................................................ 194
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 195
Sheet Piling .............................................................................................................................. 195
Material and Equipment ...................................................................................................... 198
Cost Estimating .................................................................................................................... 200
Bowery .................................................................................................................................... 201
Project Information ............................................................................................................. 201
Design-I ................................................................................................................................ 202
Design-II ............................................................................................................................... 204
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 210
Bowery Foundation Reactions ................................................................................................ 211
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 211
Abutment Design..................................................................................................................... 222
Appendix E, Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 228
Storm Water Control for Trunk Highway 93 ........................................................................... 229
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 229
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 232
DESIGN OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 232
DRAIN DESIGN ..................................................................................................................... 233
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS .................................................................................................. 235
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 235
Sedimentation Control Structure ............................................................................................ 235
Theory .................................................................................................................................. 236
Structure Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 237
7|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
Apparatus and Procedure .................................................................................................... 238

Analysis and Discussion of Results ...................................................................................... 240
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 240
Summary of Data ................................................................................................................. 243
Storm Water Control of Union Pacific Railroad ...................................................................... 246
INITIAL INFORMATION......................................................................................................... 246
CULVERT DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 246
Erosion Control .................................................................................................................... 251
Northeast Section ................................................................................................................ 252
Appendix F, Environmental Impact Statement........................................................................... 253
Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................... 254
Regional Economic Impacts ................................................................................................. 254
Safety and crashes ............................................................................................................... 254
Public recreational areas ..................................................................................................... 254
Noise Concerns ........................................................................................................................ 255
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 255
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 255
Results.................................................................................................................................. 257
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 258
Flood Plain ............................................................................................................................... 258
Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 258
Assessment and Mitigation ................................................................................................. 260
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 262
Wetland Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 262
Hazardous Waste .................................................................................................................... 262
Minnesota Pollution Control agency (MPCA) ...................................................................... 262
Demolition Concerns ............................................................................................................... 268
Background .......................................................................................................................... 268
8|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
Concerns .............................................................................................................................. 271

Summary .............................................................................................................................. 272
Endangered Species ................................................................................................................ 273
Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 273
Results.................................................................................................................................. 274
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 276
Historical Buildings .................................................................................................................. 276
State Historic Preservation Office ....................................................................................... 276
Site Investigation ................................................................................................................. 277
Mapping .................................................................................................................................. 277
History/Architecture Inventory ........................................................................................... 279
Historical significance of bridge .............................................................................................. 280
Reasoning ............................................................................................................................ 280
State Historic Preservation Office ....................................................................................... 280
MN/DOT Cultural Resources Unit........................................................................................ 280
Common Historical Criteria ................................................................................................. 282
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 282
Appendix G, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ................................................................. 283
Section 1: Site Evaluation, Assessment, and Planning ............................................................ 285
1.1 Project/Site Information ........................................................................................... 285
1.2 Contact Information/Responsible Parties ................................................................ 285
1.3 Nature and Sequence of Construction Activity ........................................................ 286
1.4 Soils, Slopes, Vegetation, and Current Drainage Patterns ....................................... 286
1.5 Construction Site Estimates ...................................................................................... 287
1.6 Receiving Waters ...................................................................................................... 287
1.7 Site Features and Sensitive Areas to be Protected .................................................. 288
1.8 Potential Sources of Pollution .................................................................................. 288
1.9 Endangered Species Certification ............................................................................. 288
9|Page
Mankato, MN 56001
1.10 Historic Preservation ................................................................................................ 289

1.11 Applicable Federal, Tribal, State or Local Programs ................................................. 289
Section 2: Erosion and Sediment Control Bmps ..................................................................... 290
2.1 Minimize Disturbed Area and Protect Natural Features .......................................... 290
2.2 Phase Construction Activity ...................................................................................... 291
2.3 Control Storm water flowing onto and through the project .................................... 291
2.4 Stabilize Soils ............................................................................................................ 291
2.5 Protect Slopes ........................................................................................................... 292
2.6 Protect Storm Drain Inlets ........................................................................................ 294
2.7 Establish Perimeter Controls and Sediment Barriers ............................................... 294
2.8 Retain Sediment On-Site .......................................................................................... 297
2.9 Establish Stabilized Construction Exits ..................................................................... 297
2.10 Additional BMPs ....................................................................................................... 298
Section 3: Good Housekeeping BMP's .................................................................................... 298
3.1 Material Handling and Waste Management ............................................................ 298
3.2 Establish Proper Building Material Staging Areas .................................................... 300
3.3 Designate Washout Areas ........................................................................................ 301
3.4 Establish Proper Equipment/Vehicle Fueling and Maintenance Practices .............. 302
3.5 Control Equipment/Vehicle Washing ....................................................................... 303
3.6 Spill Prevention and Control Plan ............................................................................. 303
BMP Description: ....................................................................................................................... 303
3.7 Any Additional BMPs ................................................................................................ 304
3.8 Allowable Non-Storm water Discharge Management ............................................. 304
3.9 Uncontaminated Water Line Flushing ...................................................................... 304
Section 8: Certification and Notification ................................................................................. 305
Appendix F, Economics ............................................................................................................... 306
Appendix H, Plan and Profile Sheets........................................................................................... 312
Appendix I, In place Plans ........................................................................................................... 317
10 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Appendix J, References ............................................................................................................... 343

Appendix J, Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 345
11 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - TH 93 and Union Pacific Railroad Intersection ............................................................. 19
Figure 2 - Existing TH 93 bridge, looking south alongside former siding...................................... 22
Figure 3 - Rail traffic will be maintained during construction on a shoofly east of the current
mainline bridge ............................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 4 - Temporary sheet piling will be used while the new abutments are being excavated
behind the existing abutments ..................................................................................................... 23
Figure 5 - The new mainline grade will be approximately 15' west of the current mainline
centerline ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 6 - The new bridge may then be placed and after rail traffic is restored to the new
mainline, the old bridge abutments and superstructure may be removed and the new TH 93
retaining walls may be completed ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 7 - Proposed Vertical Alignment ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 8 - Proposed Alignment of UPPR in Le Sueur, Mn ............................................................. 26
Figure 9 - Overview of new alignment .......................................................................................... 27
Figure 10 - Overview with new alignment and shoofly ................................................................ 28
Figure 12 - Ballast Gradation ........................................................................................................ 29
Figure 11 Ballast Limit Values ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 13 - Typical Cross-Section of the Railroad ......................................................................... 31
Figure 14 - Main Street to River Bridge Layout ............................................................................ 37
Figure 15 - River Bridge Layout ..................................................................................................... 38
Figure 16 - TH 93 Median Layout .................................................................................................. 39
Figure 17 – Design Chart ............................................................................................................... 44
Figure 18 - Pavement Design ........................................................................................................ 45
Figure 19 - Driven piles ................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 20 - Mn/DOT Boring Locations .......................................................................................... 51
Figure 21 - Soil Profile at R.R. Bridge Location.............................................................................. 52
Figure 22 - Northern Drainage Area ............................................................................................. 57
Figure 23 - TH 93 Drainage Area ................................................................................................... 59
Figure 24 - Stormceptor ................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 25 - Parking Lot Drainage Area .......................................................................................... 61
Figure 26 - Parking Lot Drainage Weirs ........................................................................................ 62
Figure 27 - Proposed Ditch and Culvert Layout ............................................................................ 63
Figure 28 - Hydraulic Design and Analysis .................................................................................... 64
Figure 29 - No Build Alternative .................................................................................................... 70
12 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 30 - At Grade Crossing Diagram ......................................................................................... 72

Figure 31 - Proposed railroad bridge, at a higher elevation ......................................................... 74
Figure 32 - Alternative IV Diagram................................................................................................ 76
Figure 33 - Relocation of TH 93 bridge to Ferry Street ................................................................. 78
Figure 34 - Existing TH 93 bridge, looking south........................................................................... 81
Figure 35 - Rail traffic will be maintained during construction east of the current mainline bridge
....................................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 36 - Temporary sheet piling will be used while the new abutments are being excavated
behind the existing abutments ..................................................................................................... 83
Figure 37 - The new mainline grade will be approximately 15' west of the current mainline
centerline ...................................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 38 - The new bridge may then be placed and after rail traffic is restored to the new
mainline, the old bridge abutments and superstructure may be removed and the new TH 93
retaining walls may be completed ................................................................................................ 84
Figure 39 - Approximate construction limits ................................................................................ 88
Figure 40 - Parcel Details in affected area .................................................................................... 88
Figure 41 - Aerial View .................................................................................................................. 93
Figure 42 - View looking west across TH 93 river bridge .............................................................. 93
Figure 43 - Looking west underneath Union Pacific Railroad bridge ........................................... 94
Figure 44 - Section of TH 93 River Crossing .................................................................................. 95
Figure 45 - Pier Cap Plan for TH 93 River Crossing ....................................................................... 96
Figure 46 - Preferred Pedestrian Alternative ................................................................................ 98
Figure 47 - Rolled Beam Span ..................................................................................................... 101
Figure 48 - Girder Design ............................................................................................................ 102
Figure 49 - Sketch of existing (left side) and proposed (right side) site elevations including
vertical clearances and structure depths.................................................................................... 104
Figure 50 - Cooper's E-80 loading (AREMA Guide) ..................................................................... 105
Figure 51 - AREMA Alternate Live Loading ................................................................................. 105
Figure 52 - Cooper E-80 loading on a 60' long span ................................................................... 106
Figure 53 - Shear on Right Abutment and Shear on Left Abutment........................................... 112
Figure 54 - Alternate Shear Loading ........................................................................................... 113
Figure 55 - Cooper E-80 Moments .............................................................................................. 115
Figure 56 - AREMA Moment ....................................................................................................... 115
Figure 57 - A typical simply supported girder Railway Bridge .................................................... 116
Figure 58 - A typical wide flange section W-shaped beam......................................................... 117
Figure 59 - Point Force Inspection .............................................................................................. 134
13 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 60 - Area which the force is affecting .............................................................................. 134

Figure 61 - Existing traffic control ............................................................................................... 143
Figure 62 - Intersection as viewed from the west on TH 93 (obscured by bridge) .................... 143
Figure 63 - Table 4C-1 from MN MUTCD .................................................................................... 147
Figure 64 - Figures 4C-1 and 4C-2 from MN MUTCD .................................................................. 149
Figure 65 - Approximate Roundabout Footprint ........................................................................ 153
Figure 66 - Geometric Layout ..................................................................................................... 162
Figure 67 - Soil Properties ........................................................................................................... 163
Figure 68 - Factors of Safety ....................................................................................................... 164
Figure 69 - Standard 18” Retaining Wall Block ........................................................................... 165
Figure 70 - Corbel Details ............................................................................................................ 166
Figure 71 - Overturning ............................................................................................................... 167
Figure 72 - Dimensions and Forces ............................................................................................. 168
Figure 73 - Design I Wall Characteristics..................................................................................... 172
Figure 74 – Design I Sliding Friction ............................................................................................ 172
Figure 75 - Design I Overturning ................................................................................................. 173
Figure 76 - Design I Equilibrium of Forces .................................................................................. 173
Figure 77 - Design II Wall Characteristics.................................................................................... 174
Figure 78 - Design II Sliding Friction ............................................................................................ 174
Figure 79 - Design II Overturning ................................................................................................ 175
Figure 80 - Design II Equilibrium of Forces ................................................................................. 175
Figure 81 - Design III Wall Characteristics................................................................................... 175
Figure 82 - Design III Sliding Friction ........................................................................................... 176
Figure 83 - Design III Overturning ............................................................................................... 176
Figure 84 - Design III Equilibrium of Forces ................................................................................ 176
Figure 85 - Displacement vs. Time .............................................................................................. 179
Figure 86 - Sample 01-01-04 ....................................................................................................... 180
Figure 87 - Sample 01-02-08 ....................................................................................................... 180
Figure 88 - Sample 02-01-04 ....................................................................................................... 181
Figure 89 - Sample 02-02-08 ....................................................................................................... 181
Figure 90 - Sample 03-01-04 ....................................................................................................... 182
Figure 91 - Sample 03-02-08 ....................................................................................................... 182
Figure 92 - 04-01-04 .................................................................................................................... 183
Figure 93 - Sample 05-01-04 ....................................................................................................... 183
Figure 94 - Sample 07-01-04 ....................................................................................................... 184
Figure 95 - 08-01-03 .................................................................................................................... 184
14 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 96: Mn/DOT soil boring locations .................................................................................... 186

Figure 97: Design soil profile #1 .................................................................................................. 188
Figure 100 - Excel Slope Analysis Layout .................................................................................... 192
Figure 101 - Plaxis Soil Profile ..................................................................................................... 193
Figure 102 - F.B.D. of Sheet Pile .................................................................................................. 196
Figure 103 - H&S 4450 ................................................................................................................ 199
Figure 104 - Mn/Dot Soil Boring ................................................................................................. 201
Figure 105 - Passive and Active Earth Pressure for 3 ft Diameter .............................................. 206
Figure 106 - Passive and Active Earth Pressure for 5 ft Diameter .............................................. 207
Figure 107 - The Linear Pressure Assumed in this Design .......................................................... 208
Figure 108 - Dimensions of abutment ........................................................................................ 224
Figure 109 - Free Body Diagram of Abutment ............................................................................ 226
Figure 110 - Grate Inlet ............................................................................................................... 229
Figure 111 - Curb Opening Inlets ................................................................................................ 230
Figure 112 - Combination Inlet ................................................................................................... 231
Figure 113 - Slotted Drain Inlet ................................................................................................... 231
Figure 114 - Clogged Grate inlet ................................................................................................. 232
Figure 115- Sediment Control Structure Location ...................................................................... 236
Figure 116 A & B: A) CDS (Continuous Deflection Separator) B)
Stormceptor ................................................................................................................................ 238
Figure 117 - Particle Size Distributions ....................................................................................... 239
Figure 118 - Removal Efficiencies of Storm water Treatment Devices ..................................... 240
Figure 119 - Stormceptor (normal flow conditions) ................................................................... 241
Figure 120 - Stormceptor (high flow conditions) ........................................................................ 242
Figure 121 - Critical Angle ........................................................................................................... 247
Figure 122- Design ...................................................................................................................... 252
Figure 123 - Profile Grade ........................................................................................................... 256
Figure 124 - Noise Pathway ........................................................................................................ 257
Figure 125 - FEMA Map............................................................................................................... 259
Figure 126 - Floodplain Impact ................................................................................................... 260
Figure 127 - Contaminated Sites ................................................................................................. 263
Figure 128- Grain Storage Building ............................................................................................. 269
Figure 129 - Abandoned Building 1............................................................................................. 270
15 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001

Figure 132- Historical Places ....................................................................................................... 278
16 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1 - UPRR Standards.............................................................................................................. 36
Table 2 - TH 93 Standards ............................................................................................................. 42
Table 3 - Granular Equivalent GE Factors ..................................................................................... 45
Table 4 - Trail Design Standards.................................................................................................... 47
Table 5 - Preliminary Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 86
Table 6 - Preliminary Right of Way Cost Estimate ........................................................................ 87
Table 7 - Components of live load calculation ............................................................................ 108
Table 8 - Unit weights for dead load stresses from AREMA MRE .............................................. 110
Table 9 - Signal Warrant Analysis Summary ............................................................................... 152
Table 10 - Retaining Wall Locations & Elevations....................................................................... 160
Table 11 - Results ........................................................................................................................ 165
Table 12 - Factors of Safety......................................................................................................... 167
Table 13- Tabulated Results........................................................................................................ 185
Table 14 - FE Method Input Parameters ..................................................................................... 191
Table 15 - Plaxis Inputs ............................................................................................................... 193
Table 16 - FE Method Results ..................................................................................................... 194
Table 17 - Sheet Pile Calculations ............................................................................................... 198
Table 18 - Required Material Properties .................................................................................... 198
Table 19 - Hammer Steel Product Lists ....................................................................................... 199
Table 20 - Price Listing ................................................................................................................ 200
Table 21 - Cost Breakdown ......................................................................................................... 200
Table 22 - Soil Profile .................................................................................................................. 202
Table 23 - Soil Constants ............................................................................................................. 202
Table 24 - Rectangular Footing Loads ......................................................................................... 203
Table 25 - Square Footing Loads ................................................................................................. 203
Table 26 - 3ft Diameter ............................................................................................................... 204
Table 27 - 5ft Diameter ............................................................................................................... 205
Table 28 – Pressures with a Diameter of 3ft .............................................................................. 205
Table 29 - Pressures with a diameter of 5ft................................................................................ 206
Table 30 - Calculation of the moment and depth of installation required to achieve a balanced
condition, for a 3-ft diameter shaft ............................................................................................ 209
Table 31 - Calculation of the moment and depth of installation required to achieve a balanced
condition, for a 5-ft diameter shaft ............................................................................................ 210
Table 32 - Excavation required for each of the 3 and 5 ft diameter shafts ................................ 210
17 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Table 33 - Heavy Metal Concentration in Storm water Sediment (Wilson, Gulliver, Mohseni, &
Hozalski, 2007) ............................................................................................................................ 237
Table 34 - MNDOT Road sand PSD data ..................................................................................... 243
Table 35 - NJCAT PSD Data.......................................................................................................... 244
Table 36 - OK110 PSD data ......................................................................................................... 245
Table 37 - Direct Step Method for Concrete .............................................................................. 249
Table 38 - Direct Step Method for Steel ..................................................................................... 250
Table 39 - Contaminated Sites .................................................................................................... 268
Table 40 - Species of Concern ..................................................................................................... 276
18 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
PROJECT BACKGROUND
TH 93 crosses the Minnesota River and then under the UPRR bridge as it enters the city of Le
Sueur, Minnesota. The railroad bridge does not meet vertical clearance standards (12’ 9”
clearance, standard is 17’ 6”) or lateral clearance standards (4’2”, standard is 10’). TH 93's
profile underneath the bridge fits a spline curve and does not meet design standards. No
pedestrian facilities exist to allow access under the bridge to the park east of the city. The
bridge has suffered structural damage from frequent high load impacts (see the Minnesota
Department of transportation (Mn/DOT) inspection report in appendix) and the abutment is
failing. The bridge is rated structurally deficient by Mn/DOT officials.
Within 100’ to the east of the UPRR Bridge, is the TH 93 Bridge over the Minnesota River. The
river bridge is still in good condition as it was built in the 1980’s. TH 93 intersects Main Street
approximately 250’ west of the railroad bridge. The proximity of these features will constrain
attempts at a grade change on TH 93.
Figure 1 shows the current grade separated intersection of TH 93 and the Union Pacific Railroad
from the west side of le Sueur towards the Minnesota River.
Figure 1 - TH 93 and Union Pacific Railroad Intersection
19 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS

The current railroad bridge has several existing design deficiencies. The current bridge has an
inadequate clearance of 12'-8" and does not allow pedestrians to pass underneath to access
the TH 93 river bridge due to insufficient span length. This has caused multiple high impact
collisions with the bridge. Occurring an average of twice a year. Over the years these collisions
have taken a toll on the existing bridge structure and its abutments, which are crumbling. The
main need for the replacement of this bridge is the vertical clearance underneath the bridge.
With the raising of the bridge and the rail almost all high impacts may be avoided in the future.
With the decision to address the vertical clearance comes the decision to address other issues
that the existing project processes.
Currently there is no access for pedestrians to cross underneath of the railroad bridge. If the
bridge were to be replaced this would be an advantageous time to address the issues of
pedestrian access. In conjunction with the issue of access underneath the UPRR bridge is the
pedestrian access across the Minnesota River. There is no allocated walkway for pedestrians to
cross the Minnesota River on the river bridge. Currently pedestrians navigate the bridge on the
shoulder of TH 93. With the implementation of a new bridge it gives the City of Le Sueur and
opportunity to address these problems.
PROJECT DESIGN
MavTek’s design includes raising the grade of the railroad 5' and installing a new railroad bridge
that achieves a vertical clearance of 17'-6" to prevent future high load impacts underneath the
bridge. The proposed bridge will be longer with a span length of 60' (existing 36’) to allow a
pedestrian trail to pass underneath the railroad at an elevated surface parallel to TH 93.
Several alternatives such as an at-grade intersection and a possible TH 93 river bridge
relocation were explored and discarded based on safety concerns and project costs.
In conjunction with the proposed railroad bridge and its longer span length was the proposal to
modify the existing TH 93 river bridge to facilitate a trail and the beginning of a trail head. This
trail head would allow access from Main Street underneath the proposed railroad bridge and it
will serve as the only crossing of the Minnesota River in the area. The trail will turn northeast
after passing underneath the railroad bridge and continue running parallel to Grove Street.
This design will allow for safer pedestrian travel along TH 93 and divert bicyclists around Main
Street.
20 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
With these added pedestrian trails the existing river bridge will have to be modified to allow
pedestrians access across the Minnesota River. A layout for the existing bridge was designed to
allow adequate room for two lanes of traffic and an elevated trail. To achieve this, a traffic
calming median will be implemented on the west side of the river bridge. This will help to
reduce speeds in advance of the bridge to provide a safer environment for pedestrians using
the trail.
The raising of the railroad will change the topography in the parking lot area of the project.
Currently storm water flows overtop of the railroad and down the embankment. The new
design will feature a ditch on the east side of the railroad running parallel to the tracks that will
contain ditch checks to control sediment and flow. A storm water sedimentation control
structure will be used to treat the runoff on TH 93 underneath the railroad bridge.
With the close proximity of the project to the Minnesota River special attention will have to be
paid to environmental concerns. The best management practices (BMPs) for this project are
addressed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in Appendix G.
Environmental concerns have been explored and addressed in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in Appendix F.
CONSTRUCTION STAGING
An important consideration for the design is the feasibility of maintaining railroad operations
during construction. The new railroad bridge may be built on site and placed during a 72-hour
work window, using cranes, and rail traffic can be maintained during the construction of the
new bridge on a temporary shoo-fly. We believe the utilization of the existing bridge to the
east of the current mainline as a shoo-fly will provide an economical means to maintain rail
traffic while avoiding the price premium and logistical concerns that come with a rapid
construction technique. The figures on the following pages provide a graphical representation
of the construction sequence that we are proposing for this alternative. Figure 2 illustrates the
current bridge condition, including the bridge for the former siding on the east of the existing
mainline. By constructing the new abutments behind the existing abutments as shown in
Figure 3, it is anticipated that TH 93 will remain open for most of the bridge construction,
however it may need to be closed during the construction of the new retaining walls and
widening of the highway that will take place after the bridge construction is completed.
21 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 2 - Existing TH 93 bridge, looking south alongside former siding
Figure 3 - Rail traffic will be maintained during construction on a shoofly east of the current mainline bridge
22 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 4 - Temporary sheet piling will be used while the new abutments are being excavated behind the existing abutments
Figure 5 - The new mainline grade will be approximately 15' west of the current mainline centerline
23 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 6 - The new bridge may then be placed and after rail traffic is restored to the new mainline, the old bridge abutments
and superstructure may be removed and the new TH 93 retaining walls may be completed
In order to maintain safety and slope stability during construction sheet pilling will be used
alongside the shoofly during construction. The design of sheet pilling is discussed in the
geotechnical report in Appendix D.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ALIGNMENT

Vertical Alignment
To achieve our desired Mn/DOT’s standard for vertical clearance of 16’6” we propose raising
the rail 5’. The American railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA)
define design guidelines of 0.7% maximum grade for railroads cause long approach lengths on
both sides of the railroad bridge. To the north and south we placed a 0.68% and a 1.3% grade
respectively. Due to the terrain and height requirements the south grade was not able to fall
within AREMA design standards. This is allowable since the 0.7% is to prevent slippage
between train wheels and the track during starting and stopping events. South of the bridge
trains will not be starting or stopping because the elevator is to the north except under rare
emergency events.
24 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
A total of three vertical curves were placed into the proposed vertical alignment; two sag
curves and one crest curve. The vertical crest curve length is 1168’, with a PVI 25+74.6, and a
grade change of 1.98. This does place a portion of the curve on the new railroad bridge that is
to be place over TH 93. The bridge will not be designed to fit the curve, but extra ballast will be
place on top of the bridge to give the desired curve. Both sag curves are set at a length of 200’
and are tied into the existing vertical alignment slopes.
Figure 7 - Proposed Vertical Alignment
We analyzed two different options for the horizontal alignment revision of the UPRR through Le
Sueur, Minnesota. Extending the current siding to the north, south and placing a curve to
reconnect to the existing was looked at as a possibility. This was dismissed because the current
siding would then also have to be retrofitted to meet mainline standards. The final centerline
alignment will curve out slightly west towards the river. This will align the bridge more over the
low point of the TH 93 crossing and provide adequate room for the shoofly to be place on the
east side of the current mainline tack.
25 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 8 - Proposed Alignment of UPPR in Le Sueur, Mn
Horizontal Alignment
The entire project requires new alignment to 4,925’ of rail. 2,550’ south of the rail bridge is
where the new alignment starts extending northwestward out from the existing mainline. It
continues to carry the rail out to 14’ from the existing mainline. This was to allow adequate
clearance for work to be done because AREMA Guidelines do not allow excavation within 12’ of
the centerline of an operational track. The rail continues roughly 1,300’ north of the TH 93
crossing and ties back into the existing rail line before it crosses the bridge over West Grove
Street.
Two new curves will be placed into the alignment. The southern curve has a degree of
curvature of 2˚, and an in/out spiral length of 492.9’ and the equilibrium elevation of the track
is 5.0”. The northern curve has a degree of curvature of 1˚, in/out spiral length of 246.5’ and
the equilibrium elevation of the track of 2.52”.
Both curves have been designed at 60 mph but have the ability to accommodate speeds up to
90 mph with an adjustment to the equilibrium elevation height.
26 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Southern curve Northern Curve
Figure 9 - Overview of new alignment
Shoofly Alignment
The shoofly that will provide temporary bypass around the construction site is to be centered
10’ east of the current mainline centerline. This shoofly will contain one spiral curve along with
two equilateral turnouts. The curve will be set with a design speed of 30 mph, radius of
2864.9’, and spiral in and spiral out of 61.6’. The turnouts will be set with a degree of curvature
of 5˚12’18” and in/out spirals of 154.0’. They will also use a # 11 frog.
By placing the shoofly 10’ to the east of the current mainline we will be able to utilize the
existing bridge to cross TH 93. This placement eliminates the need for additional structural
27 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
design for the shoofly crossing TH 93, lowering cost.
New Alignment
Shoofly
Figure 10 - Overview with new alignment and shoofly
28 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Ballast
The specifications of the ballast material used shall meet all current AREMA Standards. The
ballast and sub ballast will both be placed at thickness of 1’. Gradations, bulk specific gravity
and absorption, percentage of clay lumps and friable particles, degradation, soundness unit
weight and percent of flat and elongated particles shall be run on ballast material according to
AREMA standards.
Figure 11 Ballast Limit Values
Nominal Size Percent Passing

Size No.1
Square Opening 3" 2 1/2" 2" 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8
24 2 1/2"-3/4" 100 90-100 - 25-60 - 0-10 0-5 - - -
25 2 1/2" - 3/8" 100 80-100 60-85 50-70 25-50 - 5-20 0-10 0-3 -
3 2"-1" - 100 95-100 35-70 0-15 - 0-5 - - -
4A 2" -3/4" - 100 90-100 60-90 10-35 0-10 - 0-3 - -
4 1 1/2" - 3/4" - - 100 90-100 20-55 0-15 - 0-5 - -
5 1" - 3/8" - - - 100 90-100 40-75 15-35 0-15 0-5 -
57 1" - #4 - - - 100 95-100 - 25-60 - 0-10 0-5
1: Gradation Numbers 24, 25, 3, 4A, and 4 are main line ballast materials. Gradation Numbers 5 and 57 are yard ballast materials
Figure 12 - Ballast Gradation
29 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Typical Cross-Section
Typical Cross-Section
The typical cross-section of the railroad above the sub base should consist of 1’ sub ballast 1’ of
ballast 8’ties and 2 rails. The rails shall be placed 2’ ¼” from the centerline of the alignment.
The rail used shall be the 115 RE. Suitable ties well be from one of the following timber:
 Ashes  Locusts
 Beech  Maples
 Birches  Mulberries
 Catalpas  Oaks
 Cherries  Pines
 Douglas fir  Poplars
 Elms Firs  Redwoods
 Gums  Sassafras
 Hackberries  Spruces
 Hemlocks  Sycamores
 Hickories  Walnuts
 Larches
30 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
All ties shall be 8’ long with dimensions of 9”X7”.
Figure 13 - Typical Cross-Section of the Railroad
Ditches and Retaining Walls

Ditches and retaining walls will be required in several areas. The ditches will help direct runoff
flow from both the railroad and the parking lots for the First Farmers & Merchants Bank located
just south of TH 93 and east of the railroad. The ditches where given 2:1 slopes for both cut
and fill areas to prevent erosion. The retaining walls will be placed 14’ from the centerline of
the proposed centerline of the railroad. This will provide adequate safety clearance for
construction of the walls, because of the 12’ excavation limit set by AREMA.
Rail Design Standards

The following design criteria were used the new realignment of the UPRR line through Le Sueur,
Minnesota. Design criteria are based on AREMA and UPRR Standards. Both replacement and
shoofly railways will adhere to these design criteria unless stated otherwise.
31 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Design Element Proposed Condition Reference

Track class Class 5 Track http://tacnet.missouri.org/history
/railroads/fra.html
Design speed 80 mph Freight UPRR

90 mph Passenger
30 mph (Shoofly Track)
Max allowable operating AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
𝐸𝑎 + 3
speed 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
0.007𝐷
Vmax = Max allowable operating speed
(mph)
Ea = Average elevation of the outside rail
(inches)
D = degree of curvature (degrees)
Roadbed cuts/fill areas 2:1 or flatter AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 1.2
clay slopes over 10-15'in height should be
designed basis on laboratory test and slope
analysis
Superelevation of curve E=2.52” AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
E is design for 60 mph but curve is design
for future 90 mph speeds
𝐵𝑣 2
𝑒=
32.16𝑅
e = Equilibrium elevation in feet
B = Bearing distance of track level on rails
in feet
v = Velocity in feet per second
R = Radius of curve in feet
Also see Table 5-3-2 Equilibrium Elevation
for Various Speeds on Curves in AREMA
manual chapter 5
Horizontal alignment degree 1˚ AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

2˚
Radius R=5729.65 (For D=1˚)

R=2864.93 (For D=2˚)
32 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Horizontal spiral curve length 𝐿 = 1.63𝐸𝑢 𝑉 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
Lmin = Desirable length (ft)
Eu = Unbalanced elevation in (in)
V = Maximum speed (mph)
Or
𝐿 = 1.22𝐸𝑢 𝑉
Is also acceptable if construction cost are to
high with previous
Horizontal alignment key l = Length from the T.S. or S.T., to any point AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
formulas on the spiral having coordinates x and y
L = total length of spiral
S = length in 100 foot stations
k = increase in degree of curvature per 100-
foot station along the spiral
d = degree of curvature of the 𝑘𝑙 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
𝑑 = 𝑘𝑠 =
spiral at any point 100
D = degree of circular curve 𝑘𝐿 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝐷 = 𝑘𝑆 =
100
δ = central angle of the spiral 1 𝑑𝑙 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝛿 = 𝑘𝑠 2 =
from T.S. or S.T. to any point 2 200
on the spiral
Δ =Central angle of the whole 1 𝐷𝐿 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

∆= 𝑘𝑆 2 =
spiral 2 200
a = deflection angle from the 1 1 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝑎 = 𝛿 = 𝑘𝑠 2
tangent at T.S. or S.T. to any 3 6
point on the spiral
A 1 1 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝐴 = ∆= 𝑘𝑆 2
3 6
b = orientation angle from the 2 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝑏= 𝛿
tangent at any point on the 3
spiral to the T.S. or S.T.
B 2 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝐵= ∆
3
33 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Degree of curve 18000

𝜋𝑅
y 𝑦 = 0.582𝛿𝑠 − 0.00001264𝛿 3 𝑠 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
x 𝑥 = 1 − 0.003048δ2 s AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
o 𝑜 = 0.1454∆𝑆 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
Xo 1 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝑋𝑜 = 𝐿 − 0.000508∆2 𝑆
2
Ts 𝐼 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝑇𝑠 = 𝑅 + 𝑜 tan + 𝑋𝑜
2
Min length of vertical curve 𝐷 × 𝑉2 × 𝐾 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

𝐿= = 1168.74′
𝐴
A = vertical acceleration in Ft/sec2
 Freight Operation = 0.10 ft/sec2
 Passenger/transit = 0.60 ft/sec2
D = absolute value of the difference in rates
of grades expressed as a decimal
K = 2.15 Conversion factor to give L in feet
L = Length of vertical cure in feet
V = Speed of the train in mph
 For Freight Lines see figure 5-3-3
Recommended Minimum Length
Vertical Curves in AREMA Manual
 For Transit and Passenger Lines see
figure 5-3-4 Recommended
Minimum Length Vertical Curves in
AREMA Manual
Minimum distance between 100 ft AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

vertical curves
34 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Maximum grade 0.7% UPRR
Ballast section depth min. of 12” AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 1.2
Ballast section shoulder width min. 12” AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 1.2
Side slope of ballast section 2:1 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 1.2
Sub-ballast depth min 6” compacted (Common use 12” AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 1.2
compacted)
Horizontal clearance to 18’ AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter

obstructions see figure 28-1-1 In AREMA Manual 28.1
Horizontal clearance to 18’ AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter

obstructions on railway see figure 28-1-2 In AREMA Manual 28.1
bridges
Horizontal clearance on Clearances each side of the track centerline AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter
curved track shall be increased 1.5 inches per degree of 28.1
curvature. When the fixed obstruction is
on tangent track but the track is curved
within 80 feet of obstruction, the lateral
clearances each side of the track centerline
shall be increased as shown in Table 28-1-1
in AREMA manual
Vertical clearance to 23’ AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter
obstructions see figure 28-1-1 In AREMA Manual 28.1
Vertical clearance to 23’ AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter

obstructions on railway see figure 28-1-2 In AREMA Manual 28.1
bridges
35 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Rail Either 115 RE/136 RE/141 RE AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 4.1
Turnouts (equilateral #11 Frog/5˚12’18” UPRR

turnouts) (R=1100.8 ft)
Turnout speed Lateral Turnout 26 mph AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
Equilateral Turnouts 37 mph
Length of switch points 22’-0” AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3
Table 1 - UPRR Standards
TRUNK HIGHWAY 93 ALIGNMENT

Horizontal Alignment
Main Street to Minnesota River Bridge
TH 93
The proposed TH 93 alignment from Main Street to the Minnesota River bridge is similar to the
existing alignment. It is shifted to the south to accommodate the 10' trail on the river bridge.
The shoulders will be 4.5' wide from the edge of both lanes. This was done to stay consistent
with the shoulder width on the bridge. There is one curve on this part of the alignment and it
has a length of 520'. Curb and gutter will run from the intersection with Main Street to the
river bridge will be removed and replaced for the realignment.
Trail
The proposed trail alignment follows the Groove Street alignment. There is a 5' separation
from the edges of the TH 93 shoulder to the edge of the trail at the beginning of the alignment
which tapers in to 0' of separation just before the river bridge. Two curves with a 100’ radius
were used to move the alignment of the trail closer to the road.
36 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 14 - Main Street to River Bridge Layout
Minnesota River Bridge
TH 93
The centerline of the traffic way has been shifted to the south to allow for a 10' trail to be
added along the north side of the bridge. To achieve this, the shoulders had to be narrowed to
4.5' on both sides.
Trail
The trail will be separated from the roadway by a concrete barrier. The barrier will prevent any
sort of altercation from the vehicles on TH 93 and the trail.
37 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 15 - River Bridge Layout
River Bridge to US 169
TH 93
Just west of the river bridge a median will be constructed to induce a traffic calming effect. This
area of the project is a transition area, changing from high speed rural to low speed urban
typical section. It also serves as the entrance to the river park. It is important to slow down the
traffic at this point, especially with the introduction of pedestrians to the area. A median forces
drivers to slow down due to transitioning and curves along with a driver feedback speed sign
which notifies drivers of their speed. Also, landscaping will be incorporated into the median to
help calm traffic and to add aesthetic value. The median along with the proposed bowery will
serve as the entrance to the city.
The full width of the median is 4'. The tapering of the roadway transitions is at a rate of 1:50.
The tapering of the turning lane transitions at a rate of 1:15. The overall length of the median is
1000' with a full width length of 200'. The full width length of the turning lane is also 200'.
38 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Trail
For this project the trail alignment will end at the entrance to River Park. Eventually the trail
could continue up to US 169 and connect up to other trails. The purpose of this trail is to
provide pedestrian access across the Minnesota River Bridge and to River Park.
Figure 16 - TH 93 Median Layout
Vertical Alignment
Main Street to River Bridge
TH 93
The proposed TH 93 vertical alignment from Main Street to the river bridge is the same as the
existing vertical alignment. Adjustment of the TH 93 profile was evaluated in the transportation
alternatives in Appendix A
Trail
The vertical alignment of the trail is different than the roadway profile. The maximum slope of
the roadway is 10%. To comply with The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), multi use trails
must not exceed a 5% slope. However, an 8.33% slope may be used if a 5' bench is provided for
every 2.5' of vertical drop. The trail follows the slope of the road until it reaches the grade
39 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
limits where it will then be graded at an 8.33% slope for 30' horizontal. After 30' there is a 5'
bench as the ADA requires. The bench is then followed by another 30' of 8.33% slope. Pairing
between the 8.33% slope and the benches occur until just under the UPRR bridge. The grade
difference between TH 93 and the trail just under the bridge is approximately 5'. It is ideal to
provide grade separation for pedestrians by elevating the trail above the roadway under the
bridge, where there is no immediate escape in case of an emergency. The 5' of grade
separation also still allows for a clearance of 12.5' above the pedestrian trail, which is enough to
accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles. There will also be a 4.5' railing where
there is more than 2' of grade separation.
River Bridge
TH 93
The vertical alignment of the River Bridge will not be modified from its existing. The existing
alignment meets all design standards and serves its purpose just as it was intended.
Trail
The vertical alignment of the trail will follow the alignment of the existing River Bridge.
River Bridge to US 169
TH 93
The vertical alignment west of River Bridge will also not be modified from its existing. The
existing alignment meets all design standards and serves its purpose just as it was intended.
Trail
The vertical alignment of the trail will follow the alignment of the TH 93 and will end at the
entrance to River Park.
Trunk Highway 93 Standards

There are 13 critical design elements for highway design. Each element is listed below with a
brief explanation. For more detailed explanations of each design element please refer to the
Mn/DOT Road Design Manual. The standards document follows with specific design
information.
 Design Speed: The design speed for the existing project was attained from Mn/DOT.
The current speed limit for the project area is set at 30 mph but the design speed will be
35 mph.
40 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
 Lane Width: The lane width is currently 12', which is the Mn/DOT standard. This will
not be modified.
 Shoulder Width: Shoulder width is currently at 8' west of the river bridge, 9.5'on the
river bridge, and about 1' from under the railroad bridge up to the intersection with
Main Street 4.5' shoulders will be used from just before the river bridge all the way up
to the intersection with Main Street. There are two reasons for this: 1) to allow for a
pedestrian trail to be added across the Minnesota River bridge and 2) to induce a traffic
calming effect on vehicles traveling through this area.
 Bridge Shoulder Width: The bridge shoulder width, as stated above, will be 4.5' on both
sides.
 Horizontal Clearance to Obstructions: The bridge abutment will be approximately 1.5'
from the edge of the traveled way.
 Bridge Structural Capacity: The existing river bridge was designed using HS-20 design
loading. The existing bridge will not be modified.
 Stopping Sight Distance: The existing stopping sight distance is 530'. The minimum
required stopping distance for a 35 mph design speed with a steep grade is 287'.
 Horizontal Alignment, Radius: The existing curve has a radius of 520 ft. This is a design
exception and will not be modified. Modification would require replacement of the
existing river bridge or realignment of the Bridge Street and Main Street intersection.
This would require purchase and or relocation of businesses and buildings.
 Grades, Percent: 10% was found to be the maximum grade assuming that this section
of TH 93 is an urban collector with rolling terrain. The maximum grade on TH 93 just
east of the UPRR is 10% and does not meet standards.
 Vertical Alignment, K value: The vertical alignment does not and will not meet the
Mn/DOT standard for new construction. The existing alignment will not be modified as
the sub standard sag curve serves for more clearance under the UPRR bridge. More
grading changes to the railroad and a bridge replacement over Groove Street would be
required for this curve to meet design standards.
 Normal Cross Slope: A standard 2% cross slope will be used for this design. The existing
cross slope on the MN River bridge is 1.5%.
 Superelevation: The standard maximum super elevation for MN is 6%.
 Vertical Clearance: The existing vertical clearance is 12.8'. This will be raised to 17.5'
based on the UPRR grade separation guidelines for clearance under a through plate
girder railroad bridge.
41 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Mn/DOT Road
Existing Proposed Mn/DOT Standard for Design Manual
Critical Design
Condition, Condition, New Construction/ or
Element
Minimum Minimum Reconstruction Mn/DOT LRFD Bridge
Design Manual
Design Speed selected for this project is 35 mph.
Use this to look up the values in this table for:
 Stopping Sight Distance
 Horizontal Sight Distance
Design Speed Table 2-5.06A
 Vertical Alignment, K value; Crest and Sag
The design speed should fall within the ranges given in
Table 2-5.07A, and should equal or exceed the posted
speed limit.
Lane Width 12 ft 12 ft 12 ft
4-3.01.02
Shoulder Width
Table 4-4.01A, or
Right varies ft 4.5 ft 7.5 ft
Table 4-401C
Left N/A N/A N/A Table 4-4.01B
Bridge Shoulder Width

Match usable shoulder
Right 9 ft-5 in 4.5 ft width of approach
roadway
Table 9-2.03A
Left N/A N/A N/A
Horizontal Clearance to
N/A 1.5 N/A Section 4-6.05
Obstructions
All new bridges: Mn/DOT LRFD Bridge
Bridge Structural HS 20 HS 20
HL-93 Design Manual
Capacity Design load Design load
Minimum design load Section 3.4
Stopping Sight Distance 530 ft 530 ft 386 ft min. Section 2-5.08.01
Horizontal Alignment, Table 3-2.03A or
520 ft *520 ft 732 ft min.
Radius Table 3-2.03B
10% 10%
Grades, Percent 10% maximum Table 3-4.02A
maximum¹ maximum¹
Vertical Alignment,
K value
Crest 130 ft/% min. 130 ft/% min.² 72 ft/% min. Figure 3-4.04A
Sag 6 ft/% min. ¹ *6 ft/% min. ¹ 86 ft/% min. Figure 3-4.04D
Normal Cross Slope 0.02 0.02 0.02 Table 4-3.01A
0.59 0.59
Superelevation 0.06 maximum Section 3-3.0
maximum maximum
Vertical Clearance
12.8 ft 17.5 ft 16 ft-4 in
> Highway under bridge
N/A N/A 23 ft-0 in Table 9-2.01B
> Railroad under bridge
N/A N/A 17 ft-4 in
> Highway under sign
* An asterisk preceding proposed condition indicates a Geometric Design Exception.
Table 2 - TH 93 Standards
42 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
TRUNK HIGHWAY 93 PAVEMENT DESIGN

For the realignment of TH 93 much of the existing pavement will be used and areas that require
new pavement built up then milled and overlaid with the existing to provide a uniform surface
and no change in grade elevation. Areas that will need to be built up are mostly along the
shoulder to make room for future medians. Currently west of the river bridge along TH 93 is
bituminous pavement and to the east is concrete. Due to the heavy construction traffic that
will be using the highway during construction the concrete will be milled and overlaid with
bituminous pavement so that there will be no change in grade elevation.
Design for Buildup of Shoulders

Since a portion of the buildup of the shoulders will become lanes they will have to be designed
like a mainline pavement. The soil that is placed underneath a pavement has an important
property for design called a R value. This value measures the response of a compacted sample
of soil or aggregate to a vertically applied pressure under specific conditions. TH 93 is placed on
soils with an R value of 12. Using the Figure 17 and the estimated 20 year Equivalent Single
Axle Load (ESAL) values the minimum bituminous Granular Equivalent (GE), minimum base GE
and total GE values. Then from Table 3 the granular equivalent factors can be calculated into
the GE values to determine the actual depth for each bituminous, base aggregate, and selected
granular material layers. The pavement data analysis is shown below:
ESAL 20 years =5,180,931

Total GE = 38
Minimum Bituminous Line GE = 15
Minimum Base Line GE = 21
GErequired for base aggregate Class 5
21 − 15 = 6 = 𝐺𝐸𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑
Class 5 aggregate equivalent =1
6
= 6" 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 5 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
1
GErequired for bituminous
Mn/DOT spec.2360 Bituminous Pavement equivalent = 2.25
15
= 7" 𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
2.25
GErequired for sub-base
Selected Granular Material equivalent =0.75
43 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
17
= 23" 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
0.75
Figure 17 – Design Chart
44 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Table 5-3.4. Granular Equivalent (G.E.) factors. Material Specification G.E. Factors
Bituminous Pavement 2350/2360 2.25
Cold-Inplace Recycling (CIR) 2331* 1.50
Pavement Breaking/Rubblized Concrete Pavement 2231* 1.50
Bituminous Pavement Reclamation (FDR) 2231* 1.00
Aggregate Base 3138 (Cl. 5, Cl. 6) 1.00
Aggregate Base 3138 (Cl. 3, Cl. 4) 0.75
Selected Granular Material** 3149.2B2 0.50
Table 3 - Granular Equivalent GE Factors
Figure 18 - Pavement Design
Mix Design
The mix that will be used for the bituminous pavement is the Mn/DOT mix designation
SPWEB440B (58-28) specification 2360. It is a wearing and shoulder wearing course gyratory
mix design. The maximum aggregate size is ¾”. This mix is designed for traffic levels with 20
year design ESAL’s of 3x106 to 10x106. Since it is a gyratory mix design the air void
requirements will be set at 4.0%. The asphalt binder a will be of a PG 58-28 grade. Based on the
aggregate the minimum lift thickness for this asphalt mix will be 1 ½”. Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement (RAP) can be used up to 20% of the mixture. Below shows the gradation limitation
for the aggregate used in the mix design.
Size % Passing
¾” 100%
½” 85-100%
3/8” 35-90%
#4 30-80%
#8 25-65%
#200 2-7%
45 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Overlay
The existing GE value is assumed to be the same as that of the design above, GE = 38. This GE
value has to be adjusted by 67% since that pavement and material has aged. TH 93 however
was recently worked with a 3 ½” overlay so that portion GE value will be maintained at 100%.
This gives a GE value of 29. From our traffic study it is estimated that a 26% increase in heavy
commercial vehicle traffic will be experienced, increasing the percent heavy vehicle traffic from
11% to 13%. This increases our 20 year design ESAL’s to 7x106. Using Figure 17 the new GE
value is 39.
39 − 29 = 10 = 𝐺𝐸 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑦
10
= 4.5" 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑕
2.25
Both new and existing pavements are designed to be milled 4.5” to provide adequate clearance
for a 4.5” over of asphalt. The same mix design as discuss previously is designed and be placed
with two lifts (1st lift 2.5” & 2nd 2”).
46 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
GROVE STREET ALIGNMENT

Trail Design Standards
These shared used paths are designed for pedestrian, bicyclists, skaters, adult tricycles, bicycle
trailers and wheel chair users. Table 4 below summarizes the design standards that will be used
for the design.
T.H 93
Critical Design Grove street
Shared used MN/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual
Element Trail
path
Design Speed 20mph 20 mph Section 5-3.2
Lane Width 10 ft 10 ft
Table 5-8
Recommended
Path separation from
5ft N/A Table 5-2
Roadway with curb
Minimum radius of
100 ft 100 ft Table 5-4A
Horizontal curvature
Horizontal Clearance to
3ft 3 ft Section 5-3.6.2
Obstructions
Bridge Structural
N/A N/A
Capacity
Stopping Sight
140 ft 140ft Table 5-6
Distance(downgrades)
Grades, Percent
(Dependent on the 5% 5% Table 5-5
length )
Vertical Alignment
Crest 170ft 170ft
Sag 110ft 110 ft
Normal Cross Slope 0.02 0.02 Section 5-3.3
0.03 0.03
Superelevation Section 5-3.3
maximum maximum
Vertical Clearance
10 ft 10 ft Section 5-3.6.3
Design Vehicle Emergency Emergency

vehicles vehicles
Table 4 - Trail Design Standards
47 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
THROUGH PLATE BRIDGE

After examining several different design options for the replacement of the Union Pacific
Railroad bridge over TH 93, a 60’ through plate girder was identified as the preferred
alternative.
The bridge design was conducted in accordance with the specifications of the Union Pacific
Guidelines for Grade Separation Projects and the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering. Also consulted was
the AREMA Practical Guide to Railway Engineering.
In their Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects, the Union Pacific Railroad lists the
acceptable superstructure types in order of preference in section 6.8.1. We chose to start
evaluating the different options with their most preferred structure type, a rolled beam design
with a steel plate deck.
In order to fit the desirable highway cross section underneath the bridge and to accommodate
the slight skew of the existing railroad alignment, it was necessary to construct a 60’ span.
According to the AREMA Practical Guide to Railway Engineering, the maximum practical length
of a rolled beam span is 54’. We conducted our own analysis and determined that using the
largest wide flange beams specified in the AISC Steel Construction Manual, the deflection of the
bridge under loading exceeded what was allowed under AREMA guidelines in a computer
analysis with SAP 2000. While the AREMA Practical Guide suggests that longer rolled beam
spans have been constructed, we chose not to evaluate a built-up beam design due to the
additional expense and difficulty associated with construction of such a beam.
The second most preferred design by the railroad are steel plate girders with a steel plate deck.
Because the steel plate girders are of custom manufacture they can be designed to any
structure depth required, and would not be subject to the deflection problems that ruled out
the rolled beam design. To analyze this option, it was assumed that a maximum of 5 girders
could be used for the bridge. Then taking the design loading and making some additional
design assumptions, a preliminary structure depth was determined at over 5’. In order to
maintain the 16’ 6” clearance underneath required by the railroad and Mn/DOT it would have
been necessary to raise the railroad grade to the north across the Grove Street bridge; it is not
possible to alter the highway profile underneath the bridge without replacement of the TH 93
river bridge. Replacing the Grove Street bridge would have been a significant expense to add to
the project, so this option was dismissed.
48 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The UP Railroad Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects then lists several alternatives
for concrete superstructures, because a concrete superstructure requires a thicker deck than a
steel superstructure and additional feet of clearance, these alternatives were dismissed
because they also would have required replacement of the Grove Street bridge to
accommodate the needed grade raise.
The least preferred superstructure type according the railroad guidelines (other than a truss
design) is a steel through plate girder span with a steel plate deck. Their guidelines state that
this option will only be considered when conditions preclude any other structure type. MavTek
Engineering believes this to be the case. While the UP guidelines don’t specify why this design
is least preferred, it is assumed to be due to the fact that a through plate girder is a fracture
critical design. See Appendix B for design details of this design.
DRIVEN PILE DESIGN

Introduction
The objective is to design a suitable and economical foundation for supporting the railroad
bridge. The railroad bridge design has a loading of 1213.8 kips per each side of bridge. 1213.8
kips is a large load in terms of foundation loadings. This substantial loading cannot be
supported by a shallow foundation for two reasons: 1) Not economical and 2) Settlement issues
imposed by large loadings and weak topsoil. The ideal foundation is a deep foundation based
on the large loadings and site investigation. A driven pile is a long and slender column which is
constructed of material having a wide range of shapes and sizes. Piles provide bearing capacity
by skin resistance or friction with soil in contact with pile and toe resistance. Driven piles can be
steel, concrete, or timber. The design pile for this application is a 20' closed end circular steel
pipe, 12" diameter pile. The advantages of driven piles are as follows:
 Quality – Driven piles maintain their shape and are made of preformed materials
(known properties)
 Cost Effective – Typically, the most cost effective deep foundation due to the amount of
concrete in a shallow foundation.
 Adaptability – Driven piles are installed to accommodate compression, tension, or

lateral loads. Can select from a variety of materials and shapes that meet design needs.
 Reliable and Available – Driven pile contractors are found all over the country. High
lateral and bending resistance throughout length.
49 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
 Tested Pile –Installation procedures are based on blow counts, knowing the installation
blow count can confirm the calculated pile capacity. Static and dynamic testing of driven
piles can also ensure capacity.
 Environmentally Friendly – Driven piles displace soil; therefore, no potential hazardous

material is transported to alternate site. No cleanup necessary.
Figure 19 - Driven piles
Soil Profile
The soil profile was created using Mn/DOT boring T-2 data. General observation of the soil
profile reveals loose topsoil sand/gravel to a depth 14', overlain very dense fine sand to a depth
of 52'. The very dense fine sand has blow count values N=55-150 blows/ft in the lower layers.
These high blow counts begin at a depth of 14', so it is safe to say that a driven pile beyond this
depth will act as a toe bearing pile. Most of the capacity will come from the toe resistance as
opposed to skin resistance. Given the blow count values for each layer, the internal friction
angle for each corresponding layer was found using Figure 9.6 (Reese, p.245).
50 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 20 - Mn/DOT Boring Locations
51 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 21 - Soil Profile at R.R. Bridge Location
Railroad Bridge
The required loading including the structural factor of safety for the railroad bridge is 285.5 kips
per side of bridge, the geotechnical factor of safety is 2.5, resulting in a final design load of
1213.8 kips per side of bridge. The width of the bridge is 24'. The study of railroad bridges
shows that it is preferred to use more piles to provide a uniform loading and also use angled
52 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
pile orientations to provide lateral resistance. The design foundation formation for the railroad
bridge will be a total of 8 driven piles on each side of bridge. The formation will be 4 by 2. The
outermost piles will be angled inward at a 1 to 6 slope. The middle two piles in the first column
will be angled towards the bridge at a 1 to 6 slope. Based on the design pile an additional 8.8
kips perpendicular and 4.4 kips parallel to track resistance is provided from this pile formation.
Data Analysis
Driven 1.2 software was used to evaluate different pile lengths, diameters, and capacities. The
Driven software inputs are as follows:
 Up to 8 layers (based on pile length)
 Soil profile blow counts, Driven used blow counts to calculate internal friction angle
 Worst case scenario unit weight of material equal to 107.5 lbs/pcf (loose sand) for each
layer. This has the potential to drastically underestimate the overall pile capacity
50ft Driven Pile Diameters and Capacities 40ft Driven Pile Diameters and Capacities
Skin End Total Skin End Total
Diameter Capacity Capacity Capacity Diameter Capacity Capacity Capacity
in kips kips kips in kips kips kips
18 396.03 967.43 1363.46 18 246.02 775.61 1021.63
24 598.76 1719.88 2318.65 24 371.74 1378.86 1750.6
36 1009.98 3000 4009.98 36 626.69 3000 3626.39
30ft Driven Pile Diameters and Capacities 20ft Driven Pile Diameters and Capacities
Skin End Total Skin End Total
Diameter Capacity Capacity Capacity Diameter Capacity Capacity Capacity
in kips kips kips in kips kips kips
12 43.78 259.46 303.24 12 15.74 174.21 189.94
18 129.03 583.79 712.82 18 45.06 391.96 437.02
24 194.68 1037.84 1232.52 24 67.59 696.82 764.42
Table 7 – Pile Capacity Calculation
As previously explained, to account for the design capacity, formation and number of piles, and
hammering capability a 12" diameter, 20' length pile was chose for the design pile.
The capacity of the design pile was checked manually using the Federal Highway Administration
Method (FHWA Method; Reese, 291). Detailed calculations and figure of soil profile can be seen
in Appendix A: 2-3). 5 layers, blow counts, internal friction angles, and unit weights were used
to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity. The toe capacity was calculated using the following
equation:
53 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Q p  Ap qN 'q
The toe capacity, Qp = 139.97 kips. The skin resistance for each layer was calculated using the
following equation:
f s  ca   h tan 
The soil profile is all sand, which is a cohesion less soil, therefore, the cohesion is assumed to be
zero. The coefficient of lateral stress was assumed to be 1, vertical and lateral stresses equal.
The sum of the skin capacities, Qs = 21.9 kips. The total ultimate bearing capacity of the pile is
the sum of the toe and skin capacity, QT = 161.9 kips. The FHWA Method is a more conservative
method. Using the same values as the Driven software the ultimate capacity was decreased 28
kips.
The formation and angling of the piles will change the vertical axial resistance of the pile;
therefore a static analysis of the pile at a 1 to 6 slope was analyzed. The results were that a pile
at a 1 to 6 slope has a vertical capacity of 159.7 kips and a lateral capacity of 2.2 kips. Applying
these results to the design formation results in a final vertical capacity of 1282 kips is greater
than the design load 1213.8 kips.
The final step in the pile design is to check settlement. Settlement in homogeneous sand can be
calculated using the following equation:
0.96 p f B I f
s(mm) 
N'
The settlement was found to be .3 in. This settlement is within an acceptable magnitude.
Discussion And Results

The design pile is a 20' closed end steel pipe, 12" diameter. This pipe was chosen for the
following reasons: 1) Penetrated suitable material with high blow count to offer great
capacities, 2) Closed end pipe to take advantage of the high toe resistance, 3) Longer pile was
not considered due to bigger equipment potential and limited space on site for equipment, 4)
The railroad pile formation decided upon called for 8 piles, and 5) Provide lateral resistance and
stability. The foundation pile group has a total vertical capacity of 1282 kips, which exceeds the
ultimate design load of 1213.8 kips. The pile group also has 13.2 kips lateral resistance. 6D
spacing is used for the piles to provide a uniform loading over the 24' width of bridge. At 6D
spacing the piles acts as individual piles, there is no need to evaluate block failure of soil.
54 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Conclusion
The final design meets the loading requirements. The design pile sizing was determined with
respect to the very dense soil, taking machinery/hammering capabilities into consideration.
Overall, this design will serve its purpose of supporting the railroad bridge.
WATER RESOURCES
Introduction and description of water resources issues
There are many guidelines for construction storm water permitting; however the water
resource team focused more on the logistics, problems, and permanent sediment control. The
goal of the water resource team and MavTek Engineering is to implement best management
practices to reduces or impact to the area.
Storm water sediment control is always an important especially with this project because of the
close proximity to the Minnesota River. Suspended sediments in storm water attract and
transport heavy metals and phosphorous to rivers, lakes, and streams. This causes pollution
such as algae blooms in low flows and turbidity in high flows. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements state that projects that disturb more than 1
acre of land must develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in
construction and post construction. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was
developed for this project and can be found in the Appendix G.
Drainage Areas (both pre and post construction)

The drainage areas for this project were broken up into 3 different areas. They are as follows.
1. Northern drainage area

2. TH 93 drainage area
3. Parking lot drainage area
Descriptions of drainage areas can be found below. Drainage area delineation was done using
AutoCAD Civil 3D 2010. A digital terrain model was created from the survey data acquired in
the field. There were three sources of survey data that were used for this project. Mn/DOT
survey data from a previous TH 93 project was used, as well as data collected for us by South
Central College, and data collected by MavTek Engineering. Even with all of this there are still
some gaps in the data.
55 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Drainage areas were outlined assuming that all of the area highlighted flows to the same outlet.
Assumptions were made based upon slopes, soil types, land use, as well as manmade flow
control structures such as curb and gutter.
All drainage areas, for both pre and post construction, were modeled using HydroCAD.
56 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Northern Drainage Area

The Northern Drainage Area consists of mostly gravel parking lot, some yards, a few houses,
and some adjacent buildings. This equated to a total of approximately 3.7 acres, 12.5% of
which is impervious. Storm water from the highlighted area flows to a grate inlet, shown in
Figure 22 as a red x, and then through a 24” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) underneath the
railroad to a marshy area which drains to the Minnesota River.
There will be little change to this drainage area due to construction. The railroad grade will be
higher but the storm water currently flows away from there into the grate inlet.
Figure 22 - Northern Drainage Area
57 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis

Upon inspection, the culvert in the Northern Drainage area was discovered to be partially
clogged with sediment. This is most likely due to flooding; however it is likely that the pipe
could have been designed to clean itself out. Ideally we would install a new culvert with a
greater slope. This would increase the velocity of the storm water through the pipe not
allowing sediment to settle and would also clean out the culvert as it flows. If this culvert were
to back up it could potentially cause damage to some of the homes and buildings near the grate
inlet. With that being said, it was important to model this drainage area to ensure that this will
not happen even during an extreme storm event.
HydroCAD models an existing culvert that is clogged. Analysis was done assuming that the pipe
had 4 inches of fill in the bottom of it. There were no flooding problems with any of the storm
events, including the 100 yr storm event. The 10 year discharge through the culvert was found
to be 12.0 cfs.
Recommendations
The existing culvert can handle the capacity from an large event even though it is clogged. We
recommend that the Culvert be cleaned out using a pressure washer and a vacuum. The
process should be simple and much less expensive than replacing the culvert. Replacement of
the culvert would require a great deal of excavation due to the distance between the top of the
grate inlet and the invert of the culvert. MavTek engineering estimates this to be
approximately 20'.
TH 93 Drainage Area
TH 93 drainage area consists of all of TH 93 west of the middle of the river bridge in the project
area, a portion of the bank parking lot, the existing TH 93 RR Bridge, an adjacent building, and a
portion of the gravel parking lot. This equated to a total of approximately 2.1 acres, 51% of
which is impervious. Storm water from the highlighted area flows to one side of the road or the
other, and then flows along a gutter and into a catch basin. This runoff then discharges directly
into the Minnesota River through a 30” Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP).
58 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 23 - TH 93 Drainage Area

The proposed TH 93 trail will be graded to drain towards the road. The amount of impervious
surface will increase with the addition of the trail, and the increased bituminous shoulder
width. This equates to a total post construction impervious area of 55%, an increase of 4%.
The 10 year discharge will also increase slightly from 9.3 cfs to 9.8 cfs. The existing storm sewer
system was modeled and found to be adequate.
Recommendations
Due to the widening and realignment, curb and gutter will need to be replaced from the river
bridge up to the intersection with Main Street. Currently there are grate inlets underneath the
bridge, which can clog easily and provide no means for drainage if this occurs. Combination
inlets will be installed instead of the grate inlets. Combination inlets are grate inlets with side
inlets as well. These combination inlets can handle enough capacity for extreme events.
A Stormceptor sediment control structure will be installed just before the 30 “ CMP outlet.
Four different structures were analyzed including a standard catch basin sump. The
Stormceptor was found to have the best removal efficiency.
59 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 24 - Stormceptor
60 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Parking Lot Drainage Area

The parking lot drainage area shown in Figure 25 consists of mostly bituminous parking lot,
some small lawns, and some adjacent buildings. This equated to a total of approximately 3.3
acres, 83.5% of which is impervious.
Figure 25 - Parking Lot Drainage Area
Storm water from the highlighted area currently flows through bituminous v notch weirs at the
edge of the parking lot shown in Figure 26, over the UPRR, and eventually into the Minnesota
River. Due to the proposed raising of the railroad grade this will no longer be possible.
61 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 26 - Parking Lot Drainage Weirs
MavTek Engineering is proposing a ditch to transport rainfall runoff from the parking lot, with a
culvert at the end to discharge the storm water underneath the UPRR in Figure 27.
62 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 27 - Proposed Ditch and Culvert Layout

The existing drainage area was modeled using three separate drainage areas. The parking lot
was divided into three portions, each with a v notch weir outlet. The total 10 year discharge
from these weirs was found to be 16.6 cfs.
The proposed drainage area was modeled assuming that these weirs discharged to a 2' ditch
running adjacent to the edge of the parking lot. The addition of the ditch decreased the
amount of storm water runoff from the parking lot due to infiltration. The post construction 10
year discharge was found to be approximately 13.3 cfs.
Recommendations
As discussed before, a 2' wide ditch will be installed adjacent to the parking lot. This will
facilitate all of the storm water runoff from the parking lot. Three 1' ditch checks will be
installed to increase the amount of infiltration. 1' was chosen based upon the infiltration
characteristics of the soil, such that no standing water will be left in ditch 24 hours after a rain
event. During higher rainfall events the ditch checks will overtop and flow to the culvert at the
end of the ditch.
63 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Culvert design was done to assure that ditch itself will not overtop during a 10 year rainfall
event. A 24” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) will be used to facilitate the discharge.
Drainage Summary
The following table is a summary of the pre and post construction hydrologic analysis.
Area % imp. % imp. Runoff Coeff. Runoff Coeff. 10yr discharge 10yr discharge
(ac) before After Before After before (cfs) after (cfs)
North Drainage Area 3.71 12.49% 12.49% 0.493 0.493 11.97 11.97
TH 93 2.13 51.02% 55.05% 0.694 0.718 9.34 9.84
Parking Lot 3.25 83.45% 83.45% 0.734 0.734 16.65 13.92
Total/weighted 9.09 46.87% 47.82% 0.639 0.645 37.96 35.73
Existing Conditions Proposed conditions

Area Runoff Weighted Runoff Weighted
Desription (ac) Coefficient CA Runoff Coeff. Desription Area (ac) Coefficient CA Runoff Coeff.
PL North 0.587 0.85 0.499 PL North 0.587 0.85 0.499
Parking Lot
Parking Lot
Bank 0.570 0.90 0.513 Bank 0.570 0.90 0.513

pl Middle 0.367 0.85 0.312 pl Middle 0.367 0.85 0.312
Grass Area 0.250 0.13 0.033 Grass Area 0.250 0.13 0.033
Building 0.387 0.75 0.290 Building 0.387 0.75 0.290
pl South 0.797 0.85 0.677 pl South 0.797 0.85 0.677
Railroad 0.287 0.20 0.057 0.734 Railroad 0.287 0.20 0.057 0.734
Bridge North 0.131 0.90 0.118 Bridge North 0.131 0.90 0.118
TH 93 Before
TH 93 After
Bridge South 0.086 0.90 0.077 Bridge South 0.086 0.90 0.077
Grav pl 1.134 0.75 0.851 Grav pl 1.134 0.75 0.851
TH 93 n 0.176 0.9 0.158 TH 93 n 0.262 0.9 0.236
Th 93 S 0.142 0.9 0.128 Th 93 S 0.142 0.9 0.128
Grass Area 0.181 0.35 0.063 0.694 Grass Area 0.181 0.35 0.063 0.718
building 0.123 0.8 0.098 building 0.123 0.8 0.098
North Drainage
North Drainage
Area
Area
grain bins 0.340 0.8 0.272 grain bins 0.340 0.8 0.272
gravel pl 0.900 0.75 0.675 gravel pl 0.900 0.75 0.675
Railroad 0.421 0.3 0.126 0.493 Railroad 0.421 0.3 0.126 0.493
Weighted 0.639 Weighted 0.645
Figure 28 - Hydraulic Design and Analysis
ECONOMICS
Cost Estimate
The final Estimate for the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad over TH 93 is just over $4.6
million. This is broken down into seven main categories as can be seen Error! Reference source
not found.. The most expensive part of the projects is the track relocation and the new bridge.
64 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Assuming a 20 year bonding with 3% interest this works out to be approximately $310,500 per
year for the city or $183 per household per year for 20 years.
Final Cost Estimate

Category Cost
Bridge $1,381,328
Bridge and Piling $1,086,928
Land Acquisition $294,400
Railroad Alignment $2,212,760
Track Relocation $1,138,346
Earthwork $100,000
Retaining Walls $157,848
Water Resources $43,660
Sheet Piling $722,906
Landscaping and
$50,000
Aesthetics
TH 93 $451,607
Shared Use Path $20,238
TH 93 Reconstruction
$223,904
Water Resources $47,465
Traffic Control $10,000
Landscaping and
$150,000
Aesthetics
Grove Street Trail $38,644
Land Acquisition $2,131
Construction $36,513
Wetland Mitigation $209,000
Sediment Control $26,441
Project Administration $300,000
Total $4,619,780
Cost estimates were done by separate teams using RS Means Construction Cost Data books,
MNDOT bid prices, and local construction companies. These cost estimates were then
compiled into spreadsheets that represented the different project portions.
Funding Sources
Because of the large cost of this project The City of Le Sueur would also be interested in
additional funding sources. MavTek Engineering did preliminary analysis into possible additional
funding sources.
Union Pacific Railroad

The first choice to look for funding would be the Union Pacific Railroad. The railroad would not
likely cover the cost of the entire bridge since the city is pushing to expand the bridge to 60’
instead of 36’. The cost of a 36’ bridge is $630,600 while the cost of a 60’ bridge is roughly
65 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
$1,090,000. This is a difference of $460,000 plus the cost of additional land acquisition and the
additional re-grading that would need to take place.
Federal Funds
There are federal funds available for railroad projects however these funds are normally used
to rehabilitate shorter rail lines or dangerous grade crossings.
Area Transportation Partnership

The state and federal highway trust fund that is used to fund local projects goes through the
Area Transportation Partnership (ATP) where projects are discussed and funds are then
allocated based on needs. Since there is a relatively low accident rate and no fatal accidents, it
would be hard to convince the ATP to spend such a large portion of their budget on one project
when it could be better spent on maintaining current infrastructure.
The city would need to market this project as a Regional and Community Improvement Priority
(RCIP) project. Since there is other nearby routes for trucks to use and the life of the current
bridge can be extended through a continued maintenance, there is not an immediate
engineering need for this project. However, since the community feels that it is necessary to
improve the entrance into their city as well as provide safe pedestrian access across the river,
the project would fall into the RCIP category. This also has to go through the ATP.
MNDOT District 7
Each year MNDOT District 7 is required to spend ten percent of their annual surface
transportation budget on regional enhancement projects such as trails and landscaping. This is
limited to $400,000 per project however. This would be a great funding source for the traffic
calming measures on the West side of the Minnesota River. Once the traffic is slowed down,
the bridge could then be restriped for a pedestrian trail if a longer railroad bridge was ever built
or a different trail route was established. This would also be a great funding source for the
additional aesthetic features on the bridge and retaining walls.
State Trail Money

Since the city of Le Sueur is interested in expanding the bridge to allow a trail clearance, the
project could also be eligible for state trail money, or Legacy Funding. The new railroad bridge
could be marketed as the gateway for a regional trail system into the city of Le Sueur. Thus the
bridge would provide the necessary connection to a future trail to the North and South through
the city. It is cheaper to plan ahead then to think back and wish it was wider.
66 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Conclusion
With early coordination with the Union Pacific Railroad, Area Transportation Partnership,
MNDOT District 7, and local trail groups the city of Le Sueur can find multiple funding sources
for the project. Expressing the community desire to the railroad early is a must however that
way when the railroad does decide to replace the bridge they can work with the community to
fulfill everybody’s needs.
SUMMARY
MavTek proposes raising the grade of the railroad 5' and installing a new through plate railroad
bridge that achieves a vertical clearance of 17'-6". The bridge will set on a gravity abutment
with a footprint of 10.5’ x 24’ that sits on a pile cap that contains eight closed end piles with
depths of 20’ and diameters of 12”. The proposed bridge will be longer with a span length of
60' to allow a pedestrian trail to pass underneath the railroad at an elevated surface parallel to
TH 93, this will allow for separation between traffic and pedestrians. In conjunction with the
proposed railroad bridge and its longer span length was the proposal to modify the existing TH
93 river bridge to facilitate a trail and the beginning of a trail head. The trail will turn northeast
after passing underneath the railroad bridge and continue running parallel to Grove Street
ending at the Groove Street railroad intersection. With these added pedestrian trails the
existing river bridge will have to be modified to allow pedestrians access across the Minnesota
River. A layout for the existing bridge was designed to allow adequate room for two lanes of
traffic and an elevated trail. To achieve this, a traffic calming median will be implemented on
the west side of the river bridge to help reduce speeds in advance of the bridge to provide a
safer environment for pedestrians using the trail.
A ditch on the east side of the railroad running parallel to the tracks will collect and contain the
flow and sediment form rain events. A Stormceptor sedimentation control structure will be
used to treat the runoff on TH 93 underneath the railroad bridge. It will have to be monitored
and maintained periodically with regards to sediment removal.
With the close proximity of the project to the Minnesota River special attention was paid to
environmental concerns. The best management practices (BMPs) for this project are addressed
in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in Appendix G. Environmental concerns
have been explored and addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and can be
found in Appendix F.
67 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
During the course of our design we have found that this project will require a relatively complex
and costly solution to raise and lengthen the Union Pacific Railroad bridge. While the existing
bridge is owned by and is the responsibility of the Union Pacific Railroad, it is unlikely that they
will have the resources or the desire to take on the project by themselves. To make this design
a reality, it will require years of planning and fiscal contribution from three entities; Mn/DOT,
the City of Le Sueur, and the Union Pacific Railroad. The City of Le Sueur could have support
from the State Trail Fund or Legacy Funding if they are deemed eligible. In summary MavTek
Engineering would like to stress that while we’ve identified deficiencies in the existing bridge, it
still has many years of safe service life remaining with proper maintenance and repair. The
implementation of the project will be the combined decision of the City of Le Sueur, Mn/DOT,
and the UPRR.
68 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX A, TRANSPORTATION
ALTERNATIVES
69 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative I – No Build Alternative
The easiest alternative is to build nothing and make no adjustments to the current situation.
This would eventually lead to the removal of the TH 93 river bridge, which in turn eliminates
the westerly entrance and exit to Le Sueur. This causes traffic to be rerouted north through
Trunk Highway 112. There are many different pros and cons to this alternative but it is
apparent that the cons heavily out weigh the pros.
Figure 29 - No Build Alternative
Pros
 Initial cost is zero

 Customer foot traffic would not be altered for businesses like the First Farmers and
Merchants, the grain elevator, and other local businesses along N. Main Street
70 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
 No adverse environmental effects to the wetlands in the area
Cons
 Railroad bridge would continue to lack adequate vertical clearance of 16’6” by Mn/DOT
standards
 Frequent impacts by heavy vehicles into the bridge would still cause problems like
structural damage and delayed traffic
 There will be no pedestrian accommodations underneath the railroad bridge
 Trunk Highway 93 underneath the bridge also fails to meet Mn/DOT Road Design
Manual Standards
 Eventual closure of TH 93
o Traffic would double along TH 112 creating an additional maintenance cost of
$132,528.53 (Mn/DOT 1980 study)
o The city would lose its westerly access creating adverse socio-economic impacts
to downtown businesses
o Drivers trying to access the town from the west would be required to drive an
extra 3.4 miles to reach their destination
o Emergency vehicles would also be forced to go north on TH 93 then back south
on U.S. 169
o With an average American automotive fuel economy of 22.4 miles per gallon (2)
the extra distance traveled would require 337,951 gallons of gas more per year
for the 6100 ADT on TH 93
o At $2.544/gallon as Minnesota’s average gas prices as of November 30, 2009(1)
it would cost $859,747 more a year for motorist
This alternative will not be an acceptable selection for this project. Yes, it is initially economical
but in the long run, considering the consequences the cost is merely too great.
Alternative II – At-grade Railroad Crossing

The second alterative considered would lower the railroad profile, and elevate TH 93 to
intersect the railroad at an at-grade crossing. This alternative would cost a lot of money, only
to be less efficient and more dangerous. Figure 30 shows the location of the at-grade crossing.
71 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Pros
 There would be no bridge over TH 93 leaving no clearance issues

 Raising the TH 93 profile would allow for realignment of the spline curve under the
current RR bridge
Cons
 River bridge would need to be replaced, which would be very expensive

 At grade crossings can be very dangerous for pedestrians, trains, and vehicles
 Crossing lights and gates cost about $300,000
 Extensive grading of TH 93 would be very expensive
 Would cause traffic delays
After a preliminary cost-benefit analysis it has been determined that the significant
construction costs, operational and safety deficiencies that this alternative would entail makes
it less feasible than other alternatives. It would cost about the same to raise the railroad Bridge
and fix the TH 93 profile while keeping the grade separation. It was determined that this
alternative would cost more than $3.5 million to construct.
Figure 30 - At Grade Crossing Diagram
72 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Alternative III – Raise Railroad to accommodate clearance and keep

existing TH 93 profile (preferred)
The third alternative analyzed was to raise the railroad grade to accommodate the 16’ 6”
clearance to meet Mn/DOT standards for vertical clearance, as well as modify TH 93
underneath the bridge to provide accommodation for pedestrian movements underneath the
bridge. The profile of TH 93 would not be altered. The grade raise of the railroad would be
dependent on the type of bridge used, likely 3 to 6', we’ve assumed 6' for our estimate. TH 93
would be widened underneath the railroad, sufficient to provided standard horizontal clearance
along with sidewalks or trail, to be determined by analysis of pedestrian alternatives. A
detailed analysis of the elements of this design is discussed in the preferred alternative memo.
Pros
 New design would meet Mn/DOT standards for vertical and horizontal clearance
 Would provide accommodations for pedestrians
 Would reduce heavy vehicle traffic on Main Street
 Would reduce track and bridge maintenance costs for UPRR
 Structurally deficient bridge would be replaced
Cons
 Requires the purchase and demolition of two buildings, and acquisition of 5.5 acres of
right of way
 Grade raise along the railroad may require slope stability measures
 Would require additional retaining wall along TH 93
 Costs to raise railroad grade are somewhat higher than cost to replace bridge at current
elevation
 Will require coordination and cooperation with the railroad, which may be difficult
 Does not fit the profile deficiencies on TH 93
 Siding north of the bridge may need to be shortened or removed, and likely would not
be able to maintain run around capability
After careful consideration, this alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative to
address the structurally deficient and substandard bridge number 4629. It offers the most cost
effective approach to address the problems identified in the project background, when
73 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
considering costs to the public along with construction costs. It will improve safety for both
motorists traveling under the bridge and trains traveling over the bridge. This design will also
maintain allow drivers to maintain their current travel routes while providing a more direct
route for some trucks that may have needed to avoid the bridge. While this design will require
the cooperation and perhaps some concessions from the railroad, it should reduce inspection
costs and delays after truck hits, reduce track maintenance costs after the mainline is realigned,
and reduce bridge maintenance costs, ultimately providing the railroad a more cost effective
solution over the life of the structure.
Figure 31 - Proposed railroad bridge, at a higher elevation
Alternative IV – Raise RR to provide adequate clearance and fix profile of

TH 93
This alternative involves raising the railroad a great deal to accommodate both the clearance
issue, as well as the profile change. Currently the profile of TH 93 just east of the river bridge is
a spline curve. The two different methods of raising the railroad grade to fix the TH 93 profile
are discussed below as alternative IV-A and IV-B.”
74 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Alternative IV-A
Alternative IV-A involves lowering the profile of TH 93 at the intersection with Main Street and
possibly other intersections. There will no longer be any access from TH 93 to Main Street and
vice versa. This will require extensive slope stabilization and retaining walls along TH 93 from
the railroad bridge up to just past Main Street, and possibly further. The new profile will meet
RDM standards.
Pros
 Profile will meet RDM standards, making it safer and more comfortable to traverse
 Will divert heavy vehicle traffic from Main Street
 RR bridge will not need to be raised more than what is required for truck clearance
Cons
 Retaining walls and slope stability issue will be expensive to address

 Main street traffic will be cut off from TH 93 and vice versa
 Bank would need a new access
 May possibly extend even further than Main Street intersection, other streets would be
cut off from TH 93
 Will create some sight distance issues
It was determined that this alternative would cost more than $4.5 million to construct. It was
dismissed for this reason as well as because of the lost access to Main St. More analysis would
need to be done to determine if other access roads, entrances, or intersections with TH 93
would need to be closed.
Alternative IV-B
Alternative IV-B involves raising the river bridge, the railroad bridge, and the profile of TH 93 to
accommodate the design requirements.
Pros
 Profile will meet RDM standards, making it safer and more comfortable to traverse
 Vehicles will still have full access to Main Street and vice versa
 Replacement of bridge could accommodate pedestrian access
75 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
 Sight distance issues will be addressed
Cons
 Railroad bridge would need to be more than 5'

 Fairly new river bridge would need to be replaced, which is also very expensive
 Extensive grading would be required
 Traffic would need to be diverted for some time to allow for regrading
Because this alternative was estimated at a cost of more than $10 million to construct, it was
dismissed from consideration. If money and temporary inconvenience were not an issue, then
this would likely be the ideal alternative. This alternative fixes all of the issues with this
intersection, but was determined infeasible due to its cost.
Figure 32 - Alternative IV Diagram
Alternative V – Depressed railroad alternative

Realigning the UPRR line to travel underneath TH 93 is a possible solution to the project. The
estimated cost of the construction of this project is $3.8 million.
76 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Pros
 Clearance issues would be addressed

 Pedestrians would be accommodated by the structure over the rail to the park across
the river
 The new highway and bridge would be designed using current Mn/DOT standards
Cons
 Current river bridge on Trunk Highway 93 crossing the Minnesota River was built in the
1980’s and is still considered in good condition
 TH 93 would have to be closed for an extended period of time
o Limiting the access to the city and causing long detours
 UPRR has also stated the lowest they would like to lower the rail is 9 feet which would
not allow proper clearance for the road to pass without additional work to redesign the
Main St. intersection
 Lowering the rail would also require retrofitting the current service lines to the grain
elevator nearby
This alternative will not be accepted mainly due to the policies issued by the UPRR.
Alternative VI – Move Minnesota River crossing to Ferry St.

The sixth alternative considered was to move the TH 93 river crossing south, across from Ferry
Street as shown in Figure 33. This option was originally considered by Mn/DOT in their 1980
draft environmental impact statement for the replacement of the TH 93 river bridge, and was
dismissed then primarily due to the substantial cost of relocating the highway. We chose to
update their cost estimate and include this option with our alternative analysis as it provides a
more direct access for most of the automobile traffic.
Pros
 Allows most traffic to follow a more direct route to TH 112

 With new construction it would solve all geometric deficiencies with TH 93 and would
eliminate structurally deficient bridge
77 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Cons
 Existing TH 93 river bridge would be replaced well before the end of its service life
 Would require significant quantities of fill in floodplain and in wetlands
 Would cost $13 million, much more than any other alternative
This alternative was dismissed because the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A requires that
any project receiving federal aid that requires “significant impacts” to a floodplain demonstrate
that there is no other practicable alternative to have a “Finding of No Significant Impact” in the
environmental documentation process. Since we have proposed several practicable
alternatives with much less floodplain impacts, this alternative may not be built.
Figure 33 - Relocation of TH 93 bridge to Ferry Street
PREFERED ALTERNATIVE
Raise Railroad Grade
This alternative would involve raising the grade on the UPRR over TH 93 in order to provide
vertical clearance underneath the railroad. A new bridge would be constructed to carry the
78 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
railroad over the highway at the higher elevation. This alternative would not require any
revision to the alignment or profile of TH 93, which would be widened to accommodate
pedestrian traffic under the bridge.
This option was considered by Mn/DOT in their 1980 analysis of a new river crossing over the
Minnesota River (State Project 7213-02 & 04), in a draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS). In their analysis they considered a minimum 3’ grade raise of the railroad while leaving
the road profile in its current state, while replacing the river bridge with a new one at the same
location. By their estimates, the railroad grade raise would have required the taking of one
commercial building, 30,000 yd3 of embankment and 2.2 acres of additional right-of-way (2 for
the railroad, .2 for the roadway). Their proposal forecasted 0.7 acres of wetland impacts to
type II and type III wetlands adjacent to the railroad, and some impact to the 100-year
floodplain, although their study noted that the option of raising the railroad grade on the same
alignment had the least amount of floodplain impact when compared to their other
alternatives. Their analysis proposed a 14’ clearance underneath the railroad, which at the
time was the largest height permitted by a vehicle; today the Mn/DOT standard for vertical
clearance is 16’6”. Some of the advantages noted by Mn/DOT at the time include: a separated
railroad crossing is not maintained, existing traffic patterns are not disturbed, minimal or
nonexistent socio-economic impacts. Some of the disadvantages noted include: the low
elevation of the river bridge would leave the bridge and highway prone to flooding, the 14’
vertical clearance under the railroad was less than an emerging trend toward 16’ that was
beginning to emerge, there was no provision for a sidewalk, raising the railroad would require
additional fill to be placed longitudinally along the floodplain and would require the acquisition
of a commercial structure.
In the end, Mn/DOT chose this option, to replace the existing river crossing at the same grade
and alignment, except they chose not to raise the railroad grade. Their DEIS notes that bridge
funding was very limited in 1982 (the projected year of construction) so the lack of available
funds may have played a role. Also their proposed railroad bridge with a modest raise of 3’
retained several design deficiencies, including a steep spline grade following the bridge, a lack
of sidewalks, and vertical clearance that was smaller than the emerging standard of 16’. The
railroad had at the time expressed concern about this option, having spent a significant amount
of their own money on a grade lowering study, the railroad representative at the time stated
that he was not interested in spending more money while Mn/DOT had a practicable
alternative on the table, which at the time involved rerouting the river channel, which was later
dismissed as it caused too many impacts.
79 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
When comparing the Mn/DOT analysis in 1980 to the bridge as it exists today, there are many
parallels. While Mn/DOT had considered raising the bridge to 14’, our alternative would
provide 16’6” clearance underneath. For our preliminary design purposes, we will assume that
the prior Mn/DOT estimates are scalable, where they had projected a 3’ raise in the railroad,
we will assume a 6’ raise to provide the clearance required underneath the railroad, and thus
double the quantity of our estimates.
Other than the vertical clearance under the bridge, we are proposing a few other differences
from the Mn/DOT option. We believe that instead of keeping the railroad on the existing
alignment and providing a temporary shoo-fly, we can save cost by providing a shoo-fly to the
southeast of the current mainline, across TH 93 on an existing bridge along a former railroad
siding alignment (removed after 1980). The mainline would then be permanently relocated to
the northwest of the existing mainline, along another former railroad alignment (which has
been dismantled since at least 1970). While this option will require some additional expense
due to the construction of two separate alignments, while not making any use of the existing,
we will gain separation between the two tracks which will provide more room for construction
to occur. Since both the shoo-fly and the permanent mainline relocation will lie on top of
former railroad alignments, we don’t anticipate much grading to be required other than what is
necessary to provide for a grade raise. By moving the mainline to our proposed location we will
also eliminate a set of reverse curves that currently exist on the mainline approximately 1500’
north of the existing bridge, providing a more favorable horizontal alignment for the railroad as
rail on curves requires more frequent replacement than rail on tangent. At this time,
accommodations for the existing siding at Le Sueur have not been considered, likely the siding
would not be able to be used during construction, and the feasibility of replacing the siding
post-construction would need to be analyzed in greater detail than we can today. Providing
runaround operations on the siding with turnouts on both ends will be difficult due to the grade
raise, however maintaining a single turnout on the north end of the realignment and using the
shoo-fly to provide for a siding adjacent to the grain elevator would be a feasible option.
For profile changes, the current railroad is on a 0.2% grade, sloping downward to the south.
The UPRR has an internal standard of a 0.7% maximum grade where trains are projected to be
starting and stopping. By a preliminary analysis we believe that we can accomplish the 6’ of
grade raise on the railroad by reconstructing approximately 1500’ of track both to the north
and the south of TH 93. The raise in grade along the slope between the railroad and the
Minnesota River has some potential for slope stability problems, the geotechnical team will be
80 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
looking into this in the spring semester and for purposes of our cost analysis we have assumed
that the slope can be stabilized without retaining walls.
Construction Staging
An important consideration for this alternative is the feasibility of maintaining railroad
operations during construction. The new railroad bridge may be built on site and placed during
a 72-hour work window, using cranes, and rail traffic can be maintained during the construction
of the new bridge on a temporary shoo-fly. As noted above, we believe the utilization of the
existing bridge to the east of the current mainline as a shoo-fly will provide an economical
means to maintain rail traffic while avoiding the price premium and logistical concerns that
come with a rapid construction technique. The figures on the following pages provide a
graphical representation of the construction sequence that we are proposing for this
alternative. Figure 34 illustrates the current bridge condition, showing the bridge for the
former siding on the east of the existing mainline. By constructing the new abutments behind
the existing abutments as shown in Figure 36, it is anticipated that TH 93 will remain open for
most of the bridge construction, however it will likely have to be closed during the construction
of the new retaining walls and widening of the highway that will take place after the bridge
construction is completed.
Figure 34 - Existing TH 93 bridge, looking south
81 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 35 - Rail traffic will be maintained during construction east of the current mainline bridge
82 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 36 - Temporary sheet piling will be used while the new abutments are being excavated behind the existing abutments
Figure 37 - The new mainline grade will be approximately 15' west of the current mainline centerline
83 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 38 - The new bridge may then be placed and after rail traffic is restored to the new mainline, the old bridge abutments
and superstructure may be removed and the new TH 93 retaining walls may be completed
Cost Estimate
Cost estimate quantities were based off of some data from the prior Mn/DOT analysis and
engineering judgment as described under the column “Basis for assumption”. Unit costs were
obtained primarily from Mn/DOT’s historical bid price index and inflated to 2009 dollar values,
using an annual construction cost inflation index of 3%, as provided by the Economics team
leader. RS Mean’s estimates were also available but were not used for this analysis as the
Mn/DOT data should be a better estimate as their estimates come directly from companies
experienced in transportation bidding only on transportation projects. We also had newer data
available from Mn/DOT, the latest RS Mean’s estimates were from 2002. One of the nice things
about the Mn/DOT bid price data is that in includes all indirect components associated with a
certain bid item, for example their 2008 cost of $36.80 for a linear foot of 24” concrete pipe not
only includes the cost of the pipe, but the costs to transport it to the site, excavate and replace
the cover material at an average depth, and all of the costs associated with placement and
joining of the pipe. This allows for a much more efficient preliminary cost estimate when
compared to the RS Means values. It is also worth noting that Mn/DOT when performing
engineer’s estimates for transportation projects bases them on prior bid estimates and does
84 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
not use the RS Means books. Mn/DOT’s State Aid office requires the use of the AASHTO
TRNSPORT database for estimates and plans, rather than the RS Means books.
Item Quantity Basis for assumption Total Unit Cost Total Cost
inflated to ’09 $’s
Bridge required 60’, Measurement of span $17,510/ft; from $1,050,600
through Mn/DOT study (assumes
plate 60’)
Common 90,000 yd3 Mn/DOT prior, tripled to $1.67/ yd3 from $154,800
embankment accommodate 6’ vs. 3’ railroad Mn/DOT ’08 avg. bid,
required grade raise inflated to $1.72
Select granular 25,000 yd3 Assumed top 1’ of grade raise $9.91/ yd3 from $250,500
embankment would need to be select Mn/DOT ’08 avg. bid,
granular, also 10,000 yd3 for ret inflated to $10.02
wall backfill
Right-of-way 5.5 ac, 2 See table below From Le Sueur $294,400
required buildings County assessed
property values
Wetland impacts 1 ac Mn/DOT estimate, rounded up CH2MHILL Estimate $300,000
from .7 ac (wetlands may have
changed significantly since
1980)
Relocate 2500’ From measurement in ArcGIS, $150/linear foot $386,250
mainline track assumes length from Grove St. from Olsson
overpass south to midpoint of Associates (OA) ’08
1st curve. Assumes in place estimate, inflated to
track material can be salvaged $154.50/ft
and relocated
Length of shoo- 2500’ From measurement in ArcGIS, $475/linear foot $1,223,125
fly track same length as above from OA ’08, inflated
to $489.25
Turnout 2 ea For siding $35,000 ea from OA $72,100
relocation ’08, inflated to
$36,050
Excavation 7,500 yd3 Assumes a triangular slice 20’ $1.88/ yd3 from $14,500
deep x 500’ long x 20’ wide, Mn/DOT ’08 avg. bid,
times 2 for both sides of TH 93 inflated to $1.94
Temporary sheet 10,000 Assumes triangular shape at $9.16/sq ft. in ’08 $’s $94,300
pile square most 20’ deep and 500’ on each from Mn/DOT,
feet side of TH 93 inflated to $9.43/sq.
ft.
Retaining wall 9,000 Assumes triangular shape 18’ at $60/sq. ft. of face, $556,200
85 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
square deepest and 500’ long, x 2 sides from ’08 OA, inflated
feet of of TH 93 to $61.80/sq. ft.
face
Standard width 1955 sq. Assumes 400’ length x 44’ width $21/sq. yd., ’08 $42,300
8” depth yd. Mn/DOT, inflated to
concrete $21.63/sq. yd.
pavement
Sub grade 500 linear Assumed length of $29/linear foot, ’08 $14,935
preparation feet reconstruction of road surface, Mn/DOT, inflated to
(highway) assumes no additional $29.87/linear foot
aggregate or subgrade material
needed
Curb and Gutter 1000 Assumes 500’ x 2 sides of the $10.95/linear foot, $11,280
linear feet road, Mn/DOT B624 design ’08 Mn/DOT, inflated
to $11.28/linear foot
24” Reinforced 1000 Assumes same length as curb $36.80/linear foot, $37,904
concrete storm linear feet and gutter ’08 Mn/DOT, inflated
sewer to $37.90/linear foot
Total Cost $4,496,000
Table 5 - Preliminary Cost Estimate
Right of Way Cost Details

Because project construction is to occur in an urban area it was assumed that the construction
of the new bridge and highway widening would have a significant right of way cost component.
To determine the preliminary right of way costs, it was necessary to assume preliminary
construction limits for the project, which are shown in Figure 39. The widening taper along the
railroad is for the increased width to build the additional grade needed up to the railroad
bridge. Detailed construction limits based off of proposed cross sections will be determined in
the spring semester. By looking at Figure 39, it can be determined that two buildings will need
to be purchased and demolished, one on the west side of the railroad, owned by Kevin J.
Sprague, and one on the north side of the railroad, owned by the Le Sueur Farmers Elevator
Company. Land values and building values were obtained from the Le Sueur County website
property information search tool (available at: http://www.co.le-sueur.mn.us/). The building
owned by Kevin Sprague had a surprisingly low value, presumably because it is located within
the 100-year floodplain of the Minnesota River. The storage building owned by the Le Sueur
Farmers Elevator Company did not have its value broken out separately from the elevators
themselves; we assumed a value of $50,000. There is some element of risk of damages from
impacting this structure; we assume that there is sufficient space on the parcel to rebuild the
structure, but if there is not we may be forced to pay damages for the full value of the parcel.
86 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
This will be examined in more detail in the spring semester. The details of the affected parcels
and their values are shown in Table 6 on the following pages.
Property ID Owner Land Building Parcel Acres Cost

Value Value Acreage Impacted
(2009-
2010)
21.800.3530 Kevin J $24,000 $14,400 N/A 1 $5,000 for land,
Sprague $14,400 for
building
21.800.3480 Le Sueur $28,400 $250,700 N/A 1 $10,000 for land,
Farmers $50,000 for
Elevator storage building
Company
21.800.3385 Valley $31,600 None N/A 1
$15,000 for land,
National provided $200,000 for loss
Bank of Le of parking for
Sueur staging and
damages
21.999.0220 City of Le $24,900 None N/A .5 None (assumes
Sueur permit to
construct)
21.999.0250 City of Le $58,800 None N/A .5 None (assumes
Sueur permit to
construct)
N/A Union Pacific Unknown None N/A 1 None (assumes
Railroad permit to
construct)
Unknown Unknown Unknown None N/A .5 None (assumes
not privately
owned)
Total R/W Costs and Impacts $294,400
Table 6 - Preliminary Right of Way Cost Estimate
87 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 39 - Approximate construction limits
Figure 40 - Parcel Details in affected area
88 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Conclusion
When compared to the other alternatives, this alternative seems to be the most cost effective
and we are proposing it as our preferred alternative. More detailed analysis will be needed for
final design.
PEDESTRIAN ALTERNATIVES
This portion of the technical memo will go over different pedestrian alternatives that were
analyzed for the project involving the replacement of the UPRR Bridge over TH 93, and highway
realignment in the Le Sueur area. The topics discussed will be the pros and cons of different
Pedestrian alternatives, the cost analysis and preferred alternative.
Alternative I –Shared-use paths connecting Bridge Street to the Park.

This alternative involves widening of TH 93 to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic on
Bridge Street and retrofitting the railroad bridge to provide crossing underneath it. This will be
grade separated, 10' wide shared path with traffic barrier separating the roadway and the path.
For this option the access to Westside Drive from Bridge Street will be closed.
Pros
 This alternative will provide a solution to pedestrian problem.

 This will be direct route to the park.
 It will improve recreational activity.
Cons
 It will be within the main traffic area where the ADT for heavy vehicle traffic is high.
 The path will have a steep grade, which is undesirable for safety reasons.
 Need to buy ROW from Farmers Elev. Company, which will be costly.
 Embankment cost, retaining wall cost and slope stability cost will be higher.
 Signalization and intersection improvement cost.
89 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Alternative II–Trail along Grove Street

This alternative involves construction of a half mile long pathway along Grove Street by
connecting Grove Street to TH 93. This will be a reopening of the path that was obliterated
while constructing the River Bridge in 1980’s. The 6 ft wide sidewalk will still be constructed
along the grove street for pedestrian traffic only. This alternative will be better option since it is
safer and aesthetically pleasing than the previous option considered. It will require purchase of
bigger ROW and it also impacts the flood plain area.
Another option would be to close the Grove street railroad crossing for motorized vehicles and
use it only for bicycle and pedestrian. This option would also include creating a trail along
Grove Street and connecting it to TH 93 by reopening the obliterated path. It would be a very
safe option for pedestrian and bicyclist since it minimizes the conflicts with motorized vehicles
and the trail would be out of the traffic area. It would also solve the sight distance issues
created due to minimum vertical clearance underneath the railroad crossing. It would be
aesthetically pleasing too. This option would balance safety, mobility and meet the community
goal but the residents in Grove Street would most likely object to this option. The vehicles
turning into Grove Street would have to go further north and turn back from Division Street
(extra 0.75 miles).
Pros
 It will solve existing pedestrian problem

 It will be away from main traffic so would be safer for the general public
 It will be aesthetically pleasing too
 It will improve recreational activity
Cons
 It will be a longer detour than Bridge Street.

 It will impact wetland temporarily (Construction Impact)
 It will impact the floodplain
 Might have safety issues due to the conflicting traffic underneath the bridge in Grove
Street (safety Issues)
90 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Alternative III–Trail along Grove Street as well as a shared used path on

Bridge Street
Another option would be to build a shared used path along Bridge Street as well as trail along
the Grove Street. This option would give residents of Le Sueur complete mobility, safety,
aesthetic and choices. The park can be easily accessed by pedestrians in all directions. It could
be an expensive choice for a small town like Le Sueur.
Pros
 It will solve existing pedestrian problem

 It will be aesthetically pleasing and safe because pedestrians would have the options to
choose between which trails to take to get to the park
 It will improve recreational activity
Cons
 It would be expensive to do both projects
 It will impact the flood plain area
 It would impact wetland
Alternative IV–No built

One of the other options would be to build nothing and leave it as it is in present condition. It
would be one of the cheapest and easiest alternatives but it would not solve the existing
problem in that area.
Pros
 Saves money
 No detours for construction
 No impact on local business due to construction
91 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Cons
 There will be no access for pedestrians/bicyclists to get to the park
 It has social impact on the community
 Lack of recreation opportunity
Cost Analysis
The cost estimation for each alternative was done using the cost prices from award winning
bids for the MN/Dot projects. The inflation ratio of three percent was used for each year. The
MN/Dot Bikeway facility Design Manual was used for estimating the pavement specifics. The Le
Sueur County accessor website was used to estimate the Right of way Accessed value.
EXAMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES
One of the project goals was to provide a safer pedestrian crossing from the city of Le Sueur
across the Minnesota River west to River Park. Currently, pedestrians may use the existing 9.5’
shoulders on the TH 93 bridge over the river, but some may feel uncomfortable in doing so as
there is no sidewalk and vehicles speeds often exceed the 30 MPH posted limit for the bridge as
vehicles decelerate or accelerate from the 55 MPH zone immediately west of the river bridge.
See Figure 42 for an image of the existing highway crossing.
92 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
River
Park
Existing
TH 93
Bridge
Existing
UP RR
bridge
Figure 41 - Aerial View
Figure 42 - View looking west across TH 93 river bridge
Directly underneath the railroad bridge, there is only 2’ of gutter width outside of the travel
lanes, see Figure 43. Sight distance is also severely restricted as the vertical curve under the
bridge does not meet Mn/DOT Road Design Manual standards for sag vertical curves for a 30
MPH design. The combination of these factors creates a potentially hazardous pedestrian
crossing. A search of Mn/DOT crash history for that segment of highway indicated no
pedestrian crashes within the past 8 years, however pedestrian crashes are a relatively
infrequent and random event, so previous crash history (or lack thereof) is not necessary a
good indication of hazard. During a site visit, a “goat path” or beaten-down trail was seen going
93 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
down the side of the Union Pacific Railroad embankment down towards the TH 93 bridge on
the south side of TH 93; anecdotal evidence that pedestrians were choosing to trespass across
the railroad property from the bank parking lot to the river crossing. This is also a very
hazardous behavior.
Figure 43 - Looking west underneath Union Pacific Railroad bridge
While pedestrian crossings of the river across the TH 93 bridge appear to be relatively
infrequent (no counts were made), this crossing is the only across the Minnesota for miles and
could serve as an important link in any future trail networks in the river valley. And while there
is no current pedestrian crash history, the Mn/DOT Traffic Safety Fundamentals handbook gives
an average cost of $6.8 million dollars per fatal crash, the possibility of which may justify some
expense to provide safer pedestrian accommodation across the river in order to prevent a
future crash. MavTek Engineering considered three different options to provide safer
pedestrian travel across the Minnesota River which are described below. Each alternative
would include reconstruction of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge to accommodate an exclusive
pedestrian trail underneath the railroad.
Option to construct a new exclusive pedestrian river crossing

One alternative would be to provide a new exclusive pedestrian river crossing north of the
existing T 93 river crossing. Due to a bend in the river south of the TH 93 bridge, it was
determined that a perpendicular crossing north of the TH 93 bridge would require a shorter
length (and thus cost less) and provide better hydraulic flow underneath. For a preliminary cost
94 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
estimate, a former Minnesota State Senior Design cost estimate was examined, for a similar
crossing of the Minnesota River at St. Peter. By scaling their estimate on a cost per foot basis, it
was determined that this option would cost approximately $1.5 million. Based on the relatively
low volumes of pedestrians that would be using the new structure, an effort was made to
determine a more cost effective solution.
Option to widen the existing bridge

During the design of the TH 93 Minnesota River crossing in 1981, the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) requested that Mn/DOT add a sidewalk to their bridge plans. Mn/DOT
responded to the DNR in their final study report for the bridge, stating that “a trail may be
easily added to the bridge at a later date by extending the pier caps”, going on to say that they
did not want to construct the sidewalk in 1984 because of concerns that it would encourage
pedestrian travel underneath the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, which did not have
accommodation for safe pedestrian travel and which was not to be modified with the river
crossing. Shown below in figures 4 and 5 are a section view and pier cap plan, respectively,
from the 1984 bridge 72007 (TH 93 over MN River) plans. By looking at Figures 4 and 5 one can
note that the existing bridge deck is 46’ 2” wide, and the pier caps are 47’ wide, leaving no
additional width for a trail or sidewalk to be added.
Figure 44 - Section of TH 93 River Crossing
95 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 45 - Pier Cap Plan for TH 93 River Crossing
In order to determine the ease of which the pier caps could be extended, Dr. Reza, structures
professor at Minnesota State University, Tom Styrbicki, Nancy Daubenberger, Dustin Thomas,
and Dan Prather, all with the Mn/DOT Bridge office, were consulted on what it would take to
lengthen the pier caps to accommodate a 10’ shared use trail. They suggested that it could be
done by drilling something to anchor the trail to the piers and cantilevering the trail off of the
side of the existing highway bridge, however by adding the weight all on one side it may
introduce a twisting moment in the bridge for which it was not designed and may lead to
differential settlement as the foundations were not designed to accommodate an uneven load.
Another option would be to remove the deck entirely and construct a new one, such that it
would be balanced across the top of the piers and would not introduce a twisting moment or
differential settlement. Neither of these options were desirable to the MavTek Engineering
staff, and a third option was examined.
Option to use the existing bridge width to accommodate a shared use

trail
With the existing 42’ 10” deck width MavTek has determined that it is possible to
accommodate 2 12’ travel lanes with 4’ outside shoulders and a 10’ shared use trail, the
remaining 10” could be used for either curb or barrier to provide some feeling of separation
between the trail and the highway. This would be in accordance with Mn/DOT Road Design
Manual standards for a 30 MPH design, which is the current posted speed across the bridge.
Currently, compliance with the 30 MPH speed limit is low on the west side of the bridge where
vehicles are slowing from a 55 MPH speed. In order to encourage compliance, traffic calming
measures are proposed west of the bridge consisting of landscaped medians and a driver
96 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
feedback speed sign. According to the Mn/DOT Traffic Safety Fundamentals handbook, a driver
feedback sign has been proven effective at reducing vehicle speeds on average by 5 MPH. The
landscaped medians are to provide a visual cue that drivers are entering a lower speed zone
and encourage reductions of speed.
Preferred Option
After examination of the three alternatives described above, the most cost effective option was
determined to be the option to use the existing bridge width to accommodate a shared use
trail. This option would require no modification to the existing bridge structure and will save
the expense of construction of a new separate bridge, while still providing safer pedestrian
accommodation across the Minnesota River.
PREFERED ALTERNATIVE – PEDESTRIAN TRAILS

We looked at each alternative and found that if the trail along Grove Street was created, the 6ft
sidewalk along Bridge Street still had to be constructed. The cost of constructing both the 10ft
shared used path along Grove Street and the Bridge Street trail would be $97,000 more. The
shared used path construction in future would cost much more now because the cost of
construction will also be shared with the Railroad Bridge replacement and Highway
realignment. Having a trail at both locations would accommodate pedestrian traffic in all
directions. Also it would create future links to other trails around that area. Therefore the
preferred alternative would be Alternative III, to build a trail along Bridge Street as well as
Grove Street. The pedestrian/ bicycle traffic would be accommodated to cross the river by
either retrofitting the River bridge or adding new pedestrian bridge adjacent to river bridge.
This will be decided by the structures team during the design phase of the project. The picture
showing the preferred alternative location is as follows.
97 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 46 - Preferred Pedestrian Alternative
98 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX B, STRUCTURAL DESIGN
99 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
REASONS FOR REPLACEMENT

To begin the analysis of this bridge a reason for replacement had to be recognized. This
railroad bridge passes over TH 93 into Le Sueur, MN. The bridge structure that passes over this
highway does not have an adequate amount of clearance for passing semi trailers and large
trucks. These trailers are not directly hitting the bridge structure but are becoming wedged
underneath when the trucks start to ascend the curve after the bridge. The AREMA book
specifies that “the replacement of railroad bridges is necessary when the economic rehab and
strengthening of the bridge is not a feasible solution.” In this case the recommended clearance
is not met and the structure is considered as functionally obsolete. The AREMA guide defines a
fracture critical member as “those tension members or tension components of members in
which are expected to fail and the result would consist of the collapse of the bridge or the
performance of the bridge would not meet its design function.” This fracture critical aspect
means the bridge would be non-redundant. Even though the railroad bridge that is the focus
of this memo is still serviceable and is still used today, it is considered to be fracture critical and
must eventually be replaced.
According the AREMA practical guide for railroad engineering, most steel structures are
designed with simple spans for the ease of construction and maintenance. The following is a list
of acceptable structure types for the bridge. The list is given in order of most preferred to least
preferred bridge structure, according to the Union Pacific Guidelines for Grade Separation
Projects.
1. Rolled Beams with Steel Plate Deck. There shall be at least five beams per track.
2. Steel Plate Girders with Steel Plate Deck. There shall be at least four girders per track.
3. Rolled Beams with Concrete Deck. There shall be at least five beams per track.
4. Steel Plate Girders with Concrete Deck. There shall be at least four girders per track.
5. Railroad Standard Prestressed Precast Concrete Double Cell Box Beam.
6. Prestressed Precast Concrete Box Beams, single or double cell for span of 50 feet or less.
7. Prestressed Precast Concrete AASHTO Type Beam, with Concrete Deck for spans of 50
feet or less.
8. Steel Through Plate Girder with Steel Plate Deck will be considered by the Railroad when
conditions preclude any other structure type.
100 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
RAILROAD BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES

Rolled Beam Span
As shown their number one preference by the UP Railroad Guidelines is a rolled beam span
with a steel deck. This is considered the most preferred option for several reasons. First of all
the structure is located underneath the bridge and the passing train. If the train were to derail
somehow (eg. A truck trailer hits the bridge and causes the rails to be thrown out of line) it
would not take out the structure that holds the bridge in which case the bridge would still
stand. If a truss bridge was the chosen design a derailed train could possibly damage some of
the members holding the structure in place. Also a rolled beam span may offer some
redundancy in its design, depending on the number and size of girders used. This allows there
to be some factor of safety if one section of the bridge were to fail. Railroad bridges must
accommodate a much larger load than a highway bridge so much larger beams must be used.
The rolled beam span design was the first structure that was analyzed by the structures team.
Figure 47 shows a typical rolled beam span.
Figure 47 - Rolled Beam Span
If this rolled beam span is the structure chosen for design, it will have to cross over a two lane
highway with 12' lanes, 4.5' shoulders, and a 10; pedestrian trail. After these aspects are taken
into consideration, the length of the bridge will span nearly 60'. Rolled beam spans are typically
designed for shorter spans up to 50' even though spans of 70' have been constructed using
101 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
rolled beams. The mill that rolls the beam has restrictive sizes and do not typically make them
for spans more than 50' because it is not economically feasible. According to the AREMA
manual sections that span more than 50' do not offer sufficient section modulus to control
deflection. When this is the case, built up sections are the desired design. The following figure
is an example of a built up section.
Figure 48 - Girder Design
This built up girder can be either welded or bolt plated and can reach spans of 180'. This built
up section is a possible solution to deal with the deflection. However structure depth is the
number one issue with the design of the bridge and built up section will add significant depth to
the structure. The required clearance for a steel structure with 5 or more beams per track is
16’–6” as specified by the UP Railroad Guidelines. The significant structure depth would
require the transportation team to drastically raise the grade of the track and may not be
economical to pursue.
Since steel is material of choice for this bridge, there are several steel requirements that must
be met. These requirements are found in the UP Railroad Guidelines and are listed below.
1. All major elements subjected to railroad live loads shall conform to the following
minimum specifications.
a. Painted Structures: ASTM A709 Grade 50 steel.
b. Unpainted Structures: ASTM A709 Grade 50W steel.
2. All bolted connections shall be made with high strength bolts.
3. Material over 4 inches in thickness that is subjected to railroad live load shall conform to
the following specifications:
a. Painted structures: ASTM A572 or ASTM A588 steel.
b. Unpainted structures: ASTM A588.
4. Elements not subjected to direct railroad live loads (intermediate stiffeners, lateral
bracing, diaphragms, ballast curbs, etc.) shall conform to the following specifications:
102 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
a. Painted Structures: ASTM A572 Grade 50, ASTM A36 or ASTM A992.
b. Unpainted structures: ASTM A588.
5. Steel bridge deck shall conform to A709 specifications, Grade 36.
6. Deck cover plates and closure plates may be per ASTM A36 specifications.
7. Anchor rods/bolts shall conform to ASTM F1554 specifications.
8. End welded studs shall be C1015, C1017 or C1020 cold drawn steel, which conforms to
ASTM A108 specifications.
9. Cover plate, closure plates and anchor rods/bolts shall be galvanized after fabrication in
accordance with ASTM A123, thickness Grade 100.
10. Anchor rod washers shall be zinc coated in accordance with ASTM A153 specifications.
Conclusion
With the assistance of the SAP 2000 software, the structures team was able to do some analysis
on the rolled beam span possibility. The largest beam size was inputted into SAP 2000 along
with all its properties and an analysis on the beam was run. It was discovered that the
deflection of the bridge from the E-80 loading was more than allowed by AREMA standards.
There were also several combinations of the amount of beams placed under the track and
failure was still the result. With this information the structures team found it necessary to
dismiss the rolled beam span as an option for the replacement of the railroad bridge.
Deck Plate
Site Restrictions
The railroad bridge has many different clearance issues associated with it. The urban setting of
the railroad limits the amount of grade change that is permissible. Highway standards also
mandate the clearance under the railroad. The close proximity of the TH 93 Bridge over the
Minnesota River and the location of the Le Sueur Main Street also limit the adjustment of the
highway profile. These factors all come together to limit the viability of a deck plate girder
bridge for the railroad.
The current bridge has a clearance of 12'-6" to the bottom of the deck. With a structure depth
of 3', a total distance from roadway to top of track is 15'-6". The grade restrictions on the
railroad limit the elevation change of the rail to seven feet. This gives a total distance from the
roadway to the top of track to be 22'-6". This can be seen mathematically in Equation 1 and
also on the left side of Figure 49.
12′ 6"+3'+7'=22'6"
103 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The current roadway standards require a minimum of 16'-6" underneath a bridge. With another
2' required for the railroad track, ties, and ballast, the maximum depth of the beam would be
4'. This can be seen mathematically in Equation 2 and also on the right side of Figure 49.
22′ 6"-16'6" − 2′ = 4′
Equation 2 - Mathematical description of maximum structure depth maximum elevation above roadway, highway vertical
clearance, and railroad ballast.
Figure 49 - Sketch of existing (left side) and proposed (right side) site elevations including vertical clearances and structure
depths.
Deck Plate Limitations

Deck plate girders depend on a large structure depth to effectively carry weight and minimize
deflections. A deck plate girder with a structure depth of 4' is not typically built because it is
cheaper to use a rolled beam. A deck plate girder could be fabricated to withstand the
moments and deflections but would not be an economical choice because it does not have
adequate structure depth to be efficient. So an economically designed deck plate would also
fail in deflection.
Conclusion
Site restrictions limit the depth of a deck plate girder to four feet. An economically designed
four foot deck plate girder would fail in deflection just like a rolled beam bridge does. Since
both rolled beam and deck plate girder bridges fail to meet the deflection design criteria, the
structures team is moving to a through plate girder. Since a through plate girder bridge has the
104 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
main supports on the side of the bridge, the structure depth is greatly reduced. This reduction
in structure depth will help the team to meet the design criteria.
THROUGH PLATE DESIGN

Railroad Loadings
For live loading, we checked two different loading cases as recommended by AREMA. The first
is the Cooper E-80 loading, which according to the AREMA Practical Guide to Railway
Engineering (AREMA Guide) a standard adopted in 1905 which consists of two 4-driving axle
steam locomotives and tenders followed by a uniform load, see figure 1 below. The in place
bridge 4629 was designed with a Cooper E-65 load; the number designating the weight in kips
applied for each driving axle. The AREMA Guide goes on to say that even though the Cooper E-
series loadings are not representative of today’s equipment, the loadings produced are not
entirely unlike the loadings produced by modern equipment despite the fact that the vehicles
are very different.
Figure 50 - Cooper's E-80 loading (AREMA Guide)
The second loading case checked was the AREMA alternate live loading, which consists of four
axle loads of 100,000 lb (25% greater than the E-80) with spacing similar to those found in
typical 4-axle coupled cars. This standard was introduced in 1995 and reflects the loading
produced by heavy modern double stack freight cars with capacities of 125 tons (AREMA
Guide), and is only to be used for loading on a steel superstructure.
Figure 51 - AREMA Alternate Live Loading
105 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
In order to accommodate design revisions, we created a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel to

compute the moments and shear forces developed by these loadings on our structure. We first
calculated an influence line for each loading case moving across a simply supported beam with
a variable length, then inserted this equation into excel. We created a table displaying the load
applied at each length of bridge based on the given loading case. We then modified the loading
based on the impact loading as prescribed in the AREMA MRE 15.1.3.5. By applying these
loadings into the equation for our influence line, we were able to develop a table of load vs.
location along the bridge for both moment and shear. An example of a Cooper E-80 loading
result is shown below in Figure 52.
Figure 52 - Cooper E-80 loading on a 60' long span
The two peaks of the E-80 moment loading occur when the 80-kip driving axles of the steam
locomotive are centered over the bridge. The second peak comes when the second locomotive
is directly over the middle of the bridge, the driving axles of the first locomotive having already
crossed the span, and it is slightly higher than the first peak, as it has part of the tender wheels
(the 52-kip load) of the first locomotive still on the bridge.
106 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
When comparing the Cooper E-80 loading to the AREMA alternate live loading, the E-80 will
govern our maximum loading for both shear and moment when the bridge span is above 53'.
This matches the AREMA Guide’s recommendation that the alternate loading will control the
design of bridges longer than 54'(approximately). The reason the Cooper E-80 will control
design for spans longer than 53' is that while the Cooper has several axles with smaller loadings,
it has a trailing distributed load of infinite length, whereas the alternate loading while higher is
only 16' long. It would then make sense that the shear loading for the Cooper would climb with
length until it ultimately overtakes the alternate loading, and also the moment both due to the
increasing shear value with more weight on the bridge and the increasing moment arm that
would come with a longer span.
Impact
Impact loading was evaluated for both a steam hammer and diesel hammer, according to the
formulas in the AREMA MRE 15.1.3.5.
We first calculated the rocking effect, RE, to be 10% of the live loading applied to the rails. The
AREMA MRE states that the rocking effect is applied as a vertical force couple, each being 20
percent of the wheel load without impact, acting downward on one rail and upward on the
other. For our analysis, we assumed that the axle loading given by the E-80 loading was divided
evenly between the two rails. Thus, the rocking effect was taken to be 10% of the live loading.
We assumed the rocking effect to be always acting downward on the rails in the direction of
the live loading, neglecting the upward action from our analysis to design for the highest
possible loading scenario.
The impact loading takes the rocking effect and adds it to an impact factor that is dependent on
bridge length. AREMA specifies two different calculations for impact, one based on rolling
equipment with hammer blow and one without. The calculation for hammer blow is a larger
value based on the impact force created when the connecting rod on a steam locomotive
oscillates downwards in its action of driving the axles of the locomotive. While steam
locomotives are no longer used in mainline service, we felt it appropriate to design for such, as
there are still a few used in recreational service. In 2008, the heaviest operating steam
locomotive (owned by the UPRR) in North America crossed the in place bridge we are designing
a replacement for. Also, according to the AREMA Guide, the impact produced by modern
rolling stock may be as severe as 200% of the axle load for out of round or flat spots on wheels,
leading the more conservative value to seem to be the more appropriate guideline to use.
107 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
3𝐿2
Impact for rolling equipment without hammer blow: 𝐼 = 𝑅𝐸 + 40 − 1600
𝐿2
Impact for rolling equipment with hammer blow: 𝐼 = 𝑅𝐸 + 60 − 500
Where:
I = Impact, in percentage of live loading
L = Length of bridge, in feet
Multiplying the live loading by the impact factor by the equations shown previously, and then
multiplying by the factor for a ballasted deck, we came up with a total design maximum live
loading as shown in Table 7.
Design value calculated Result Discussion of procedure

Shear created by E-80 loading 382.8 Kips -
Shear created by alternate 346.7 Kips -
loading
Moment created by E-80 loading 5176.0 Kips -
Moment created by alternate 4900.0 Kips -
loading
Rocking effect 20% of live loading Per AREMA 15.1.3.5 (d)
Impact for rolling equipment 33.25% Equation shown on prior page,
without hammer blow (does not not used for loading
include rocking effect)
Impact for rolling equipment 52.8% Equation shown on prior page,
with hammer blow (does not worst case scenario and was
include rocking effect) used for loading
Factor for live loading based on 90% Per AREMA MRE 15.1.3.5,
ballasted deck ballasted deck takes 90% of live
load vs. 100% for an open deck
Modified impact loading (value 65.5% 90% of impact, with rocking
applied to live loading) effect included
Total maximum shear generated 599.16 Kips Shear created by E-80 loading,
by live loading, impact adjusted with 56.5% of E-80 added for
impact
Total maximum moment 8101.47 Kips Moment created by E-80
generated by live loading, impact loading, with 56.5% of E-80
adjusted added for impact
Table 7 - Components of live load calculation
108 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Distribution of Loading (Ballasted Deck)

According to AREMA MRE, the designated lateral and longitudinal distribution of live load is
based on the assumption that the crossties are a minimum of 8’ wide and spaced at 24” on
center. It is also based on the assumption that 6" of ballast are provided under the track and
the width for lateral load distribution is not to exceed 14'.
The load distribution along longitudinal steel beams or girders shall be distributed equally to all
beams or girders whose centroids are within a lateral width equal to the length of tie plus twice
the minimum distance from bottom of tie to top of beams or girders. For our bridge design this
means that any beams whose centroids are more than 5' from the centerline of the track will
be carrying a lesser load and will not be efficiently utilized (assumes 6” from bottom of tie to
top of beams).
Dead Loading
Dead loads are based on the material used in the construction of the bridge. Since the details
of the bridge design are not known in the preliminary design phase, it was necessary to make
some assumptions when calculating the dead loading on the bridge. Assuming that the
material used in the construction of the bridge is uniformly distributed transverse to the bridge
and constant across the length of the bridge, we will assume that the dead loading is evenly
distributed along the beams or girders of the bridge, using the same constraints as were laid
out for the live loading in the prior section.
Since the details of the design were not known at this point, we chose to be reasonably
conservative in our estimation of our dead loads. The dead loads used in for our calculations,
along with the basis for those values, are shown in Table 8.
Type Pounds per Cubic Quantity Used Basis for Weight per
Foot per Linear Foot Quantity linear foot, in
Length of Bridge Kips
Steel 490
Concrete 150 0 No concrete
used in bridge
design
Sand, gravel, and 120 20 ft2 Assumes 2.4
ballast maximum 2’
depth and 9’
width with 1:1
side slopes
Asphalt-mastic and 150
109 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
bituminous macadam
Granite 170
Paving bricks 150
Timber 60 2 ft2 From steel 0.12
structure design
manual
Track rails, inside guard 200 lb per linear foot .2
rails, and rail fastenings
Table 8 - Unit weights for dead load stresses from AREMA MRE
Wind Forces
On a loaded bridge, the AREMA MRE gives the wind force as 300 lb. per linear foot applied
normal to a train on one track at a distance of 8 feet above top of rail. On the bridge while
loaded, the AREMA MRE gives lateral wind pressure to be 30 lb. per square foot normal to the
bridge span, not to be less than 200 lb. per foot. On an unloaded bridge the wind loading is to
be taken as 50 lb per foot.
Lateral Forces from Equipment

The AREMA MRE specifies the lateral loading from equipment to be equal to one-quarter of the
weight of the heaviest axle of the specified live load.
Longitudinal Forces
Force due to braking for an E-80 loading according to the AREMA MRE is to be taken, in kips, as
the sum of 45+1.2 times the length of the bridge in feet.
Force due to traction for the same loading is to be taken as 25 times the square root of the
bridge length in feet.
For our design, the controlling longitudinal force will be 193.6 Kips, from a traction force
applied by the E-80 loading.
Preliminary Design Controls

Of course in the detail design of the bridge, it will be important to consider all of the different
loadings specified by AREMA when designing the bridge. However, to expedite the design of
our preliminary bridge we are only considering forces acting in the vertical direction with
respect to the bridge deck surface, in a downward direction. By a cursory preliminary analysis
these forces will by multiple orders of magnitude be the largest forces acting on our bridge, so
we are assuming that these vertical forces will control the design of our bridge and we will
leave the analysis of the lateral and longitudinal loads for the detail design phase.
110 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Structural Loading Calculations

Shear
To calculate shear values for the railroad bridge, influence lines were calculated. Influence lines
are determined by placing a unit load at locations along the structure and then finding the
reactions at a known point. This relationship can then be turned into an equation and used to
find the reaction for different loads at different points along the structure. For a simply
supported bridge, such as we have, the shear influence lines are a simple triangle and the
equations can be based off of geometry.
𝑆0 𝑥 𝑆0
𝑆𝑅 =
𝐿
x 𝑆𝑅
L
𝑆0 𝑆0 (𝐿 − 𝑥)
𝑆𝐿 =
𝐿
𝑆𝐿 x
L
Shown are the influence lines for each abutment. Since both the Cooper E-80 loading and the
AREMA alternate loading have multiple parts to each, an excel spreadsheet was developed to
calculate the shear. This was done by using “if” statements and the influence lines. The load
position was based off of the position of the front axle and the distance to the load. The load
was moved from left to right on the diagrams above. The criteria for the “if” statement was that
if the position of the load was less than 0, shear was 0 since it was past the bridge, if it was
between 0 and the length of the bridge, is was calculated using the shown equations, and if the
position of the load was greater than the length of the bridge it was 0 since it had not yet
111 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
reached the bridge. Separate rows were used for each load and then summed for each position
of the front axle. Shear calculations were done for each abutment with the Cooper E-80 loading
because the load is not symmetric. Shear calculations were only done once for the AREMA
alternate loading because it is a symmetric loading. These were then graphed to find the
maximum load.
Shear on Right Abutment

Cooper E-80
700
600
500
400
Shear (kip)
300
200
100
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Position of Front Axle (ft)
Figure 53 - Shear on Right Abutment and Shear on Left Abutment
112 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Shear on Right Abutment

Alternate Loading
700
600
500
Shear
400
300
200
100
0
-15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55
Position of Front Axle
Figure 54 - Alternate Shear Loading
The controlling shear value for a 60’ bridge was 634 kips on the right abutment when the train
is moving from right to left.
Moment
To calculate the maximum moment values for the beam, influence lines were again used. Since
the maximum moment in a simply supported beam occurs in the middle of the span, a unit load
was placed at that location. The equations for the influence lines were then developed for
these values. P
P/2 𝑃𝐿 P/2
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
4
113 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑃𝐿 𝐿 1 𝐿
𝑀= 𝑀=𝑃 − 𝑥−
2 4 2 2
P/2 P/2
x
L/2
L
The Excel spreadsheet was used to calculate the moments created by each load. An “if”
statement was used to determine the moment for each load. The load was assumed to move
from left to right on the above diagrams. If the load position was less than 0, the moment was 0
since the load was past the bridge. If the load position was between 0 and L/2, then the
𝑃𝐿
equation 𝑀 = was used. If the load was on the second half of the bridge, then the
2
𝐿 1 𝐿
equation 𝑀 = 𝑃 −2 𝑥−2 was used. If the load had a position greater then the length of
4
the bridge the moment was 0 since it had not yet reached the bridge. The moments were then
summed for each front axle position and graphed.
114 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Moments at Center of Beam

Cooper E-80 9000
8000
7000
Moment (k-ft)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-70 -20 30
Figure 55 - Cooper E-80 Moments
Moment at Center of Beam

AREMA Alternate
9000
8000
7000
Moment (k-ft)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-15 5 25 45
Figure 56 - AREMA Moment
The maximum moment created in our 60’ bridge is 8110 kip-ft from the Cooper E-80 loading.
115 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Verifying Calculations
Hand calculations were initially done to verify that the Excel Spreadsheet was set up correctly
for each portion of the spreadsheet. The calculations were also compared to values found in
the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering and were found to be in agreement. The
calculations were also verified using SAP 2000 software.
Introduction
Steel and Bridge Type
The use of structural steel in bridges takes advantage of the steel properties of economically
carrying heavy loads over long spans. Many existing railway bridges are fixed to ties, which then
may be connected to the bridge structure in an open-deck design, but more frequently use a
ballast pan between the ties and the bridge structure. Girder depths for railway bridges are
generally greater than those used in highway bridges due to the heavier loading that railway
vehicles produce relative to highway vehicles. In cases where construction depth is restricted;
simply-supported spans becomes preferable for railway bridges because the spans can be
replaced quickly during temporary track possession, and uplift is more likely to occur if spans
are unequal under heavy railway loading. One of the problems with simply-supported spans is
the amount of deflection caused within the beams.
Figure 57 - A typical simply supported girder Railway Bridge
Deflection and Specification

One of the limiting principles in a bridge design is the deflection that the bridge can experience.
Excessive deflections within bridge structure can cause rails to become misaligned, which can
impair the proper function of the structure and lead to a hazardous situation on the bridge.
Luckily the rate of change of the curvature of the rails is slight for our bridge. It is only 2", over
a span length of 60', which is not nearly enough to cause a derailment. The restriction on
deflection for our bridge is likely more of a fatigue concern than anything else.
For our bridge design the specific guidance of railway bridges deflection and specification are
governed either by AREMA or by the UPRR. In our case the limiting value for the maximum
116 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
allowed deflection is found to be 1/800 of the bridge span length, according to the AREMA
Manual for Railway Engineering.
Part of our senior design is to decide which type of bridge was most economical to support the
train loading. Three types of deflection analysis were carried to check for the deflection within
the bridge structure. The first method of analysis was done using tabulated results, the second
method was done by using the double integration method, and finally the third method was
done using structural engineering software, SAP-2000 volume 14. Following is a brief
explanation of each method and its procedure.
An assumption has been made the beams will be uniformly spaced under the bridge, so that all
of beams will carry the same amount of load, which means that all of the beams will deflect by
the same amount. It was also assumed that the beams will have a wide flange section (W-
Shapes) as shown by Figure 58 below
Figure 58 - A typical wide flange section W-shaped beam
Methods of Analysis
The first method of analysis: Tabulated Results

Draw the beam and find the loading that will give the maximum internal moment within the
beam. Find an equivalent uniform load that will give the same value of internal moment if
applied to the beam; use the equation given below to determine the maximum deflection in
the beam, max (ft or m)
5 𝑊𝐿3 12
𝛥𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 10
384 𝐸𝐼
W = total load in (kips or KN)
117 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
E = Young’s modulus (Psi or N/mm2)
I = second moment of area, or moment of inertia (in4 mm4)
L = the beam span length (ft or m)
This method, while the easiest to perform, may underestimate the bridge deflection. As such,
any design that meets the minimum deflection requirement would require further analysis, any
design that did not could be dismissed.
The second method of analysis: Double Integration Method

The double integration method of analysis makes use of the elastic beam theory, which is an
important differential equation that relate the internal moment in a beam to the displacement
and slope of its elastic curve by the equation.
𝑑2 𝑣 𝑀
=
𝑑𝑥 2 𝐸𝐼
M = Internal moment in the beam
E = Young’s modulus, modulus of elasticity
I = second moment of area, Moment of inertia
After drawing the beam and finding the loading that will give the maximum moment within the
beam, establish an x axis. The x axis must be parallel to the undeflected beam; the x axis origin
should be consistent for all of the applied forces at the beam.
Integrate the above equation to get the slope of the beam at any point throughout the span
length. Integrate the slope of the beam one more time to get the displacement of the beam at
any point throughout the span length.
Use the continuity equations to solve for the two constants of integration those results from
the two steps of integration done previously. Recall that the points of zero displacement occur
at pin and roller supports
Find the deflection at the mid span of the beam.
This method is a favorable method; because it offers flexibility in applying different beams sizes
and checking for the deflection by changing moment of inertia with respect to size of the beam
118 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
used, on the other hand solving for the constant of integration is very challenging because of
the many concentrated loads being applied
Loading
Dead Loading
The deadweight has been calculated into the floor beam design. Since the floor beams are
evenly spaced with concentrated loads that are relatively close together, they are treated as a
uniform load evenly distributed across the whole beam.
Floor beam concentrated load is 4.4 k/beam every 2.5'.
4.4𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
Uniform loading = 1.76 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2.5 𝑓𝑡
𝑘
1.76 ∗60 𝑓𝑡
𝑓𝑡
Reaction from dead loading 𝑅𝐷𝐿 = = 52.8𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
2
𝑘
1.76 ∗ 60𝑓𝑡 2
𝑓𝑡
Moment from dead loading 𝑀𝐷𝐿 = = 792 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡
8
Live Loading
Moment from live load had been calculated previously. This has included a Cooper E-80 loading
and also includes the impact loading.
8567 𝑘 − 𝑓𝑡
𝑀𝐿𝐿 = = 4283.5 𝑘 − 𝑓𝑡
2 𝑔𝑖𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠
Longitudinal Forces
Consideration was given to the additional forces that a train would apply to a bridge in the
horizontal direction. This includes when a train would be stopping or starting over top of the
bridge.
Braking Force = 45 + 1.2𝐿 = 45 + 1.2 ∗ 60 = 117𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
Traction Force = 25 𝐿 = 25 60 = 193.65 𝑘
119 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
193.65
Traction Force controls = = 96.825 𝑘/𝑔𝑖𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟
2
Wind Transverse to Bridge

The wind acts on the live load in a horizontal direction. Wind load should be taken as a moving
load of 0.3 k/ft acting 8’ above the top of the rail which is the same as acting 12’ above the
bottom of the girder. This is then distributed across the width of the bridge, w=24’.
𝑘 12 𝑓𝑡
= 0.3 ∗ = 0.15 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
𝑓𝑡 24𝑓𝑡
0.15 ∗ 602
𝑀𝑤𝐿𝐿 = = 67.5 𝑘 − 𝑓𝑡
8
0.15 ∗ 60
𝑅𝑤𝐿𝐿 = = 4.5 𝑘
2
Horizontal Transverse load acting at each of the four girder supports,
0.3 60
𝐻𝑤𝑙𝐿 = = 4.5𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
4
Wind load on structure should be taken as 0.03 k/ft2 acting on 1.5 times the vertical projection
of the span. Transverse wind on a projection of 6' of structure.
= 0.03 ∗ 6 ∗ 1.5 = 0.27 𝑘𝑖𝑝/𝑓𝑡
The wind load acts at the center of the bridge structure (6/2=3’). The resulting overturning
moment.
𝑘 3
0.27 = 0.03375 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
𝑓𝑡 24
Mid-Span bending moment
0.03375 ∗ 602
𝑀𝑤 = = 15.1875 𝑘 − 𝑓𝑡
8
0.03375 60
𝑅𝑤 = = 1.0125 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
2
120 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Transverse horizontal force at end of girder supports
0.27(60)
𝐻𝑤 = = 4.05 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
4
Longitudinal wind
Longitudinal wind transmitted to girders = 25% of lateral wind force acting 12.0 ft above
bottom of girder
0.27
= 0.25 ∗ = 0.03375 𝑘/𝑓𝑡
2
Vertical and horizontal longitudinal forces at the supports
0.03375 ∗ 60 ∗ 12
𝑅𝑤 = = 0.405𝑘
60
𝐻𝑤𝐿 = 0.03375 ∗ 60 = 2.025 𝑘
Wind on unloaded Bridge

Structure should also be investigated for a transverse wind load of 50 lb/ft 2 on 1.5 times the
vertical projection of the span. Since calculations for loaded bridge were based on 30 lb/ft 2 a
ratio between values can be used.
15.1875 ∗ 50
𝑀𝑤 = = 25.3125 𝑘 − 𝑓𝑡
30
1.0125 ∗ 50
𝑅𝑤 = = 1.6875 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
30
Loading Combinations
Three loading cases are investigated
Case I: DL+LL+I+R at full basic allowable stress
121 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Case I
Loading Moment (ft-k) Shear (kips)
DL 792 52.8
LL +I 4283.5 317
C none
Total 5075.5 369.8
Case II: Case I +wind on loading bridge + longitudinal force at 125% of basic allowable stress
Case II
Case II 5075.5 369.8
Wind 67.5 4.5
LF - 96.825
Total 5143.0 471.1
125% 4114.4 376.9
Case III: Dead Load +wind on unloaded bridge at 125% of basic allowable stress.
Case III
DL 792 52.8
Wind 25.3125 1.6875
Total 817.3 54.5
125% 653.85 43.59
Conclusion
The design assumed a 6' structure and used grade 50 steel. Case I was found to control the
design, however design was done using calculations from Case II loading before it was taken at
125% of the maximum stress. The design was also changed later to a 20’ wide bridge instead of
a 24’wide bridge. This change reduces the dead load and means that the loadings that have
been calculated will lead to a more conservative bridge design. This will help to extend the life
of the bridge to meet the long term goals of the railroad.
Floor Beam Design

With the assistance of Dr. Farhad Reza of Minnesota State University and working under the
AREMA guidelines for railway structure design along with a draft plan from a TH 60 preliminary
design and a Structural Steel Design Handbook, we were able to determine the design of the
floor beams for this bridge.
122 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
INITIAL INFORMATION
 The design length of this bridge spans 60' that will cross TH 93 into the city of Le Sueur,
MN.
 Loading for this bridge was controlled by the COOPER E80 train.
 Design Speed for the train will be 79 mph.
 Width of the bridge will be 24' as specified by UPRR Manual for a typical bridge.
 Material will consist of ASTM A709 Grade 50W steel in accordance with the Guidelines
for Union Specific Railroad Grade Separation, section 6.1.6.
 Bottom flanges must be bolted (Guidelines for Union Specific Railroad Grade
Separation, section 6.6.1).
 The floor beams will be spaced 2.5' center to center with a minimum depth of floor
beam of 21"(Guidelines for Union Specific Railroad Grade Separation, section 6.8.6).
 The ballast plate will cover a width of 16' where all the track and fastenings, railroad ties
and ballast will be located.
FLOOR BEAM DESIGN
Dead load weights

Several aspects have to be taken into account just for the self weight of the bridge. Self weight
aspects include; track and fastenings, railroad ties, ballast, ballast plate and waterproofing.
There is also an initial assumed weight of the floor beam to get the design started. These
weights are shown in the following calculations.
Track and Fastenings = 200 lbs/ft. (Structural Steel Design Handbook, table 12.49).
𝑙𝑏 2.5𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑠 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

200 ∗ = 31.25 = 0.03125
𝑓𝑡 16𝑓𝑡. 𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡
Railroad ties = 0.16 kips (Structural Steel Design Handbook, table 12.49).
0.16 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

= 0.01
16 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑡
Ballast = 0.120 lbs/ft3 (1' minimum ballast – typical railroad section in Guidelines for Union
Specific Railroad Grade Separation)
123 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
0.120 ∗ 1𝑓𝑡.∗ 2.5𝑓𝑡. = 0.3
𝑓𝑡 3 𝑓𝑡
¾ inch Ballast Plate = 0.0306 kips/ft2 (Structural Steel Design Handbook, table 12.49).
𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
0.0306 2
∗ 2.5 𝑓𝑡. = 0.0765
𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡
Waterproofing = 0.01 kips/ft. (Guidelines for Union Specific Railroad Grade Separation).
Adding all the dead weights of all the material included that the floor beams will be carrying is;
𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
0.03125 + 0.01 + 0.3 + 0.0765 + 0.01 = 0.43
𝑓𝑡
The assumed self weight of the floor beams must be included in this calculation. The floor
beams span the entire width of the bridge ballast plate. This implies that it must be added
separately in the calculation of the reaction. The reaction for each floor beam on each
individual girder is as follows. Figure 1 on the next page shows all the imposed loading and the
reactions occurring on the beam.
0.43∗16 0.08∗24 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
𝑅𝐷𝐿 = + = 4.4 𝑔𝑖𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟
2 2
16 ft.
CL
0.43 k/ft
0.08 k/ft
4.4 kips Floor Beams 4.4 kips
24 ft.
Figure 36 – Floor beam imposed dead loading and reactions
The point of maximum moment is going to occur at the mid-span of the beam specified by the
dotted line in Figure 1. The calculation for the maximum dead load moment is shown.
124 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑘 𝑘
Σ𝑀𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 = (4.4𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 ∗ 12𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡) − 0.43 8 𝑓𝑡 4 𝑓𝑡 − 0.08 12 𝑓𝑡 6 𝑓𝑡
𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡
= −33.28 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑡.
Live Load Weights

The live load P, kips, carried by the floor beams can be computed from the following equation
found in the Structural Steel Design Handbook, section 12.10.
1.15𝐴𝐷
𝑃= 𝑆≥𝑑
𝑆
Where:
A = Axle load, kips
S = Axle spacing, ft
D = effective beam spacing, ft
d = actual beam spacing, ft
With D taken equal to d and the axle spacing taken as 5', the max axle load found on the
COOPER E80 is 80 kips.
1.15 ∗ 80 ∗ 2.5
𝑃= = 46 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
5
The reaction under live loading that each floor beam exerts on each girder is half of the live
load.
46 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
𝑅𝐿𝐿 = = 23 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
2
The following figure demonstrates this loading.

CL
23 kips 23 kips
9.65 ft. 4’-8” 9.65 ft.

23 kips 23 kips
Spacing of
Tracks 125 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
For the live loading case the maximum moment is going to occur underneath each of the rails
and the entire distance in between. The moment is constant in this area.
𝑀𝐿𝐿 = 23 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 9.65 𝑓𝑡 = 221.85 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑡.
There are several other forces that must be accounted for besides the dead and live loading. A
railcar also creates an impact force as it passes over the rail. Along with impact, a railcar also
rocks side to side between the rails as it enters onto the bridge. This rocking affect must also
be accounted for.
According to the AREMA manual section 15.1.3.5, the impact force must be accounted for by
using a percentage of the live loading for steam locomotives that cause a hammer blow. The
following circumstance is considered.
𝐿2
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑕𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑕𝑎𝑛 100 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡: % = 60 −
500
602
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 60 − = 52.8% 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
500
=> 𝑀𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 0.528 ∗ 221.85 = 117.14 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑡
The rocking effect is also accounted for in the same way. According to the AREMA manual
section 15.1.3.5d, there is a 20% increase of total moment due to the rocking effect.
𝑀𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 0.20 ∗ 221.85 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 = 44.37 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑡
However, because we are using a ballasted deck, 10% of the moment caused by the rocking
effect and impact is absorbed through this ballasted deck giving the following reduction in
moment.
𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑕 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑘 = 0.9 117.14 + 44.37 = 145.36 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑡
Now the total live loading moment can be calculated.
𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿 = 145.36 + 221.85 = 367.21 𝑘𝑖𝑝 ∗ 𝑓𝑡
When using grade 50W steel the max yielding strength is 50 ksi. However a factor of safety of 2
is used in the design which implies that σmax=0.5 σ. This means that the max stress the beams
126 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
can carry is 25 ksi. According to the Structure Steel Design Handbook, the section modulus for
the floor beams can now be calculated.
𝑀𝑇 367.21 ∗ 12
𝑆= = = 176.3𝑖𝑛3 ≈ 177𝑖𝑛3
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 25
According to the Steel Construction Manual, a W24 X 68 beam or a W21 X 83 beam would have
an adequate section modulus for this design.
W21 X 83 yields a section modulus of 196 in3 (p. 3-54 Steel Construction Manual)
W24 X 68 yields a section modulus of 177 in3 (p. 3-52 Steel Construction Manual)
Girder Design
With the assistance of Dr. Farhad Reza and working under the American Railway Engineering
and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) guidelines for railway structure design along
with a draft plan from a TH 60 preliminary design and a Structural Steel Design Handbook, we
were able to determine the design of the floor beams for this bridge. Assistance was also given
by the bridge office of the Mn/DOT section in Oakdale, MN.
INITIAL INFORMATION
 Case I controls the design with a total moment of 5075.5 k-ft and a shear of 369.8 kips.
This loading includes the dead load of the bridge along with the live load and impact
from the train.
 There was a 6' structure depth assumed at the beginning of the loading calculations that
used grade 50 steel.
 The original design of the bridge called for a width of 24 feet but was later changed to a
20'width because of concerns that came about with the under passing road. None of
the sizes were changed because this shortening of the bridge means that it will be
overdesigned and will help extend the life of the bridge.
THROUGH PLATE GIRDER DESIGN
Girder Design
To begin the design of this through plate girder the thickness of the web must first be
calculated with the following equation.
127 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
max 𝑠𝑕𝑒𝑎𝑟 369.8 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = = = 0.103 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕
𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 ∗ 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑕 50 𝑘𝑠𝑖 ∗ 72 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
However to prevent buckling to occur in the beam the thickness should be at least 1/160 of the
clear distance.
72
𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = = 0.45 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠 ≈ 0.5 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
160
So for this design the web thickness will be ½".
Overall Girder Design => 72". depth X ½" thick.
However in the AREMA manual it states that the vertical clearance must not be violated due to
deflection of the bridge. After modeling our bridge in SAP2000 software the girders were found
to deflect 1.28" which would surpass our 17'-6"vertical clearance under the rail. Since the
deflection is a serviceability requirement and not a design requirement, the design does not
need to be changed, but only altered. The bridge can be cambered so that the self weight of
the bridge will deflect the same amount that the bridge has been cambered so that the bridge
will be level. This will keep the vertical clearance at 17'-6". The girders will be cut so that the
center of the girder will be 1.28" higher than each of the ends.
Flange Size
When using grade 50 steel, a factor of safety of 2 was used. This implies that the allowable
stress in the flange is 50/2 = 25 ksi. The maximum moment for Case I was found to be 5075.5 k-
ft. From here the moment of inertial can be solved for using an allowable bending stress
equation.
𝑀𝑦 𝑀𝑦 5075.5 ∗ 36 12𝑖𝑛
𝜎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 = => 𝐼 = = ∗ = 87704.6 𝑖𝑛4
𝐼 𝜎 25 𝑓𝑡
Where,
M = maximum moment, kip-ft.
y = distance from flange to neutral axis, inches
I = moment of inertial, in4
σ = maximum allowable stress of steel, ksi
The moment of inertial of the flange can be calculated using the following equation.
1
𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝑏𝑕3 + 𝐴𝑑2
12
128 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Where,
b = base of flange, in
h = height of flange, in
A = area of flange, in2
d = distance from flange centroid to overall centroid, in
Since there is a flange on the top and bottom sections of the girders, the total moment of
inertial needed must be calculated in the following manner.
𝐼𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝐼𝑤𝑒𝑏 + 2𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
1 1 1
𝐼𝑤𝑒𝑏 = 𝑏𝑕3 = 723 = 15552 𝑖𝑛4
12 12 2
Solving for the moment of inertia that is needed for the flange:
𝐼𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝐼𝑤𝑒𝑏 87704.6 − 15552

𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = = = 36076.3 𝑖𝑛4
2 2
This is the moment of inertia that is needed for the flange. Now the base of the flange must be
solved for assuming the height of the flange is 2 ½" using the same equation specified above.
The area of the flange can be determined as A = bh = 2.5b:
1
𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝑏𝑕3 + 𝐴𝑑2
12
The distance, d, from the flange centroid to the overall centroid goes as follows:
1 1 1 1
𝑑= 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑕 + 𝑤𝑒𝑏 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑕 = 72 + 2.5 = 37.25 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
2 2 2 2
Now the base can be solved for.
1 𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 36076.3
𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝑏𝑕3 + 𝐴𝑑 2 => 𝑏 = = ≈ 10.5 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
12 1 3 2 1 3 2
12 𝑕 + 𝑕𝑑 12 2.5 + 2.5 ∗ 37.25
Checking to see if the flange size is adequate by comparing the allowable bending stress:
129 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
1
𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 10.5 2.53 + 2.5 ∗ 10.5 37.252 = 36437.2 𝑖𝑛4
12
Recalling that the moment of inertia for the web of the girder was 15552 in 4, the total moment
of inertia can be solved for using this design.
𝐼𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 15552 + 2 ∗ 36437.2 = 88426.4 𝑖𝑛4
Now that the moment of inertia is known for the entire girder, the allowable bending stress can
be checked.
𝑀𝑦 5075.5 ∗ 38.5 12 𝑖𝑛.

𝜎= = ∗ = 26.52 𝑘𝑠𝑖 > 25 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝐼 88426.4 𝑓𝑡.
The stress found in the girder under the maximum moment was found to be more than the
maximum allowable stress for the steel. This means that the flanges must be resized so that
the stress is less than the allowable stress.
Trying a 12" wide flange and repeating the above process:
1
𝐼𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 12 2.53 + 2.5 ∗ 12 37.252 = 41642.5 𝑖𝑛4
12
Finding the total moment of inertia with this newly sized flange:
𝐼𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 2 ∗ 41642.5 + 15552 = 98837𝑖𝑛4
However there must be bolt holes in the beam to connect to the floor beams. This will take
away from the girder which will yield a lower moment of inertia. The moment of inertia for
four, 1" diameter bolt holes was found to be Ibolt holes = 1763 in4.
𝐼𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 98837 − 1763 = 97074 𝑖𝑛4
Checking the stress in the girder with the new flange:
5075.5 ∗ 38.5 12 𝑖𝑛.

𝜎= = 24.16 𝑘𝑠𝑖 < 25 𝑘𝑠𝑖
97074 𝑓𝑡.
130 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The stress yielded under this new moment of inertia with the newly sized flange comes out to
be less that the maximum allowable stress. This implies that the design is valid and is adopted.
Overall flange design = 12"wide X 2 ½" thick.
Transverse Stiffeners
First the depth to thickness ratio must be analyzed to find out if transverse stiffeners are
needed.
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑕 𝑑 72
= = = 144
𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡 1/2
The AREMA limit for this ratio is 60. Since 144 > 60, stiffeners are needed. The spacing should
be analyzed with the following equation;
332𝑡
𝑑= ≤ 72 𝑖𝑛.
𝑓𝑣
Where,
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑕𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 (𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝐼) 369.8

𝑓𝑣 𝑠𝑕𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = = = 10.27 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑑∗𝑡 72 ∗ 1/2
332 ∗ 1/2
𝑑= = 51.79 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠 < 72 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
10.27
This means that there is a 52" maximum spacing between the stiffener plates. However the
knee bracing must be connected to the floor beams and stiffener plates. The only way this is
possible is if the stiffener plates are placed on every floor beam. This would imply that the only
option for spacing for the stiffener plates is going to be every 30".
From here the width of the stiffener plates can be calculated.
𝐷 72
𝑊= +2= + 2 = 4.4 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠 ≈ 5 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
30 30
It is suggested by the “Structural Steel Designer’s Handbook” that a thickness of 3/8" should be
used for the transverse stiffeners. This design was adopted.
131 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Overall Transverse Stiffener Design = 5" wide X 3/8" thick.
Now our design must be checked for moment and shear capacity. Recall that the total moment
of inertia for the girder was found to be 97074 in4. From here the section modulus can be
calculated.
𝐼 97074
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠, 𝑆 = = = 2521.4 𝑖𝑛3
𝑦 38.5
The radius of gyration can also be found.
𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑦𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑟𝑦 = 0.289𝑑 = 0.289 ∗ 12 = 3.468 𝑖𝑛
The d for this calculation is the depth of the section that is perpendicular to the axis which
would be 12".
AREMA specifications limit the spacing of lateral supports for the compression flange to a
maximum of 12' for through plate girder designs. Since the knee braces have to be connected
to the floor beams, which are 30" apart, the knee braces are spaced at 10'or 120" center-to-
center.
The allowable compressive strength is found to be the larger of the following two values.
𝐼 120 2
𝐹𝑏 = 25 − 0.0004( )2 = 25 − 0.0004( ) = 24.52 𝑘𝑠𝑖 < 25 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑟𝑦 3.468
10500𝐴𝑓 10500(2.5 ∗ 12)

𝐹𝑏 = = = 34 𝑘𝑠𝑖 > 25 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑙∗𝑑 120(72 + 5)
The larger of the two values is more than the allowable stress for the steel. However the actual
compressive can be calculated and checked against this allowable stress.
𝑀 5075.5 ∗ 12
𝑓𝑏 = = = 24.16 𝑘𝑠𝑖 < 24.52 𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑆 2521.4
This implies that this section is satisfactory.
132 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Knee Bracing
The knee bracing supports the upper compressive flange of the girder. It is attached to the top
of the floor beam with bolts and welded to the girder stiffener. The knee bracing must fit inside
a certain envelope. They extend from the top of the floor beams to the upper compression
flange of the girder. The width of the brace extends from the girder to ballast pan or a
maximum of 36". In our design, the ballast pan will control the width. This is how the sizing of
the knee bracing is calculated. There is a 4' space from the top of the floor beams to the upper
compression flange. This will be height of the knee brace. The length from the girder to the
ballast pan is 18". This will be the width of the brace. The following figure shows all
dimensions for the knee bracing. Knee braces were made from ½" grade 50 steel.
51.25”
48”
18”
Figure 1. Knee Brace Dimensions
The outer edge must be cut to maximum slope of 2.8:1. Our dimensions fall within this slope.
There needs to be an extra stiffener plate on the long edge of the knee brace to transmit the
buckling force in the girder and knee brace to the floor beams. This force is assumed horizontal
and equal to 2.5% of the force in the upper compressive flange of the girder. The compressive
stress in the flange was found previously and equal to 24.48 ksi. This horizontal force is found
using the following equation.
𝐹 = 0.025 ∗ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 ∗ 𝜎 = 0.025 ∗ 12 ∗ 2.5 ∗ 24.16 = 18.12 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
The following free body diagram demonstrates the forces acting at the intersection of the
upper compression flange and the extra stiffener.
133 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
18.12 kips
2.67
1
P
Figure 59 - Point Force Inspection
2.85
𝑃= 18.12 = 51.61 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
1
The following sections must be analyzed for this force.
4”
𝑦
4”
Figure 60 - Area which the force is affecting
The area of this section is 2*4*0.5 = 4 in2. The distance from the neutral axis to the outermost
surface of the flange is found.
Σ𝑦𝐴 0.25 ∗ 2 + 2.5 ∗ 2

𝑦= = = 1.375 𝑖𝑛
Σ𝐴 4
The moments of inertia for both the xx axis and the yy axis are found.
1 1 1 1
𝐼𝑥 = ( 𝑏𝑕3 + 𝐴𝑑2 )1 + ( 𝑏𝑕3 + 𝐴𝑑 2 )2 𝐼𝑦 = ( 𝑏𝑕3 )1 + ( 𝑏𝑕3 )2
12 12 12 12
1 1 1
=( ∗ 4 ∗ )3 + 2 ∗ 1.1252 + ∗ 0.5 ∗ 43 + 2 ∗ 1.1252 = 7.771𝑖𝑛4
12 2 12
1 1
= ∗ 0.5 ∗ 43 + ∗ 4 ∗ 0.53 = 2.710𝑖𝑛4
12 12
Iy governs this design so the least radius of gyration is;
134 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
2.710
𝑟𝑦 = = 0.823 𝑖𝑛
4
52
𝑆𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = = 63.2 => 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛
0.823
Allowable stress in the T section;
𝐹𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 = 25 − 0.1 ∗ 63.2 = 18.68 𝑘𝑠𝑖
The allowable force that the extra stiffener plate;
𝑃𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 = 18.68 𝑘𝑠𝑖 ∗ 4𝑖𝑛2 = 74.72 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 > 51.61 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
51.61 kips was the capacity needed to support the compression flange.
Extra Stiffener Plate Design = 4" wide X ½" thick
Temperature Expansion/Contraction
The first aspect that needed to be considered was how much the bridge was actually going to
expand or contract under the worst case scenario. This was done by first analyzing the
temperature zone that the bridge will be placed in. All of Minnesota is considered to be in a
continental climate zone which means there are cold winters and hot summers. The average
temperature range goes from -11° F to 73° F. The expansion and contraction due to this
temperature change must be analyzed using the following equation.
∆ = 𝛼∆𝑇𝐿
Where,
Δ = expansion/contraction due to temperature change, in
α = thermal coefficient of steel, 6.5*10-6 in/in/°F
ΔT = temperature change, °F
L = length of bridge girders, 720 inches
AREMA specifies that a temperature of 68 °F can be assumed as a setting temperature for the
bridge. This is the base temperature that no movement is assumed and the
expansion/contraction amounts will be based off this temperature.
135 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
∆𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 6.5 ∗ 10−6 73 − 68 720 = 0.0234 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
∆𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 6.5 ∗ 10−6 68 − (−11) 720 = 0.370 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
0.37 > 0.0234 which implies that the contraction force will control this design.
Elastomeric Bearing Pad Design

According the AREMA, a bearing pad used for railroad loading shall be made from virgin
polyurethane with a nominal hardness of 60 durometer and added reinforcement. It also
states in section 10.6.3.1 that no part of the pad can be outside the dimensions of the girder or
abutment that the pad is in contact with. The flange of the bridge that will be in contact with
the pad is twelve inches wide and the abutment has a length of 21 inches that it supports the
bridge with. The bearing pad will be designed to cover this entire area and give it its maximum
compressive area.
Initial size of bearing pad = 12 inches wide X 21 inches long.
Compressive Deflection
The analysis can now begin for this size of pad. A shape factor must first be considered.
𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝐿𝑊
𝑆𝑕𝑎𝑝𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝑆 = =
𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑔𝑒 2𝑡𝑖 (𝐿 + 𝑊)
21 ∗ 12
𝑆= = 7.64
2 ∗ 0.5 ∗ (21 + 12)
Where,
L = length of pad, in
W = width of pad, in
ti = elastomeric bearing pad thickness, in
AREMA (11.5.1) specifies that any elastomeric bearing pad over ½ inch thick shall be reinforced
every ½ inch. This is how the elastomeric bearing pad thickness was initially designed because
reinforcement will be considered in this design. In section 10.6.3.4 of the AREMA manual, it
states that for bearings which may experience shear deformation, the average compressive
stress, fa, shall not exceed 1000 psi (1 ksi). The average compressive stress is found using the
loading for the bridge which was found to be 242.75 kips per end of girder where the pads will
be placed.
136 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
242.75
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = = 0.96 𝑘𝑠𝑖 < 1 𝑘𝑠𝑖
12 ∗ 21
This design meets AREMA standards for the average compressive stress. There will be three
layers of polyurethane in the design with 2 layers of reinforcement separating them. This is
suggested in the AREMA manual. From here the instantaneous deflection must be found.
𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑑𝑐 = Σ𝑒𝑖𝑐 𝑡𝑖
Where,
eci = compressive strain of an individual elastomeric layer
The compressive strain is found using Figure 15-10-1 graphs A and C in the AREMA manual.
This was found by first finding a value for S/k where k is a modifying factor equal to 1.0 for
internal layers of reinforced bearings. This means that S/k = 7.64. Graph A also uses the
average compressive stress which was found to be 960 psi. With these two values a value of
0.0425 was found for the compressive strain. The shear modulus was found using graph C from
this figure. Using the -11° F average low temperature and the 60 durometer strength of the
polyurethane, a value of 260 psi was found for the shear modulus. Now the instantaneous
deflection can be found.
𝑑𝑐 = 0.0425 ∗ 0.5 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠 ∗ 3 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 0.06375 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
AREMA puts a restriction on this value. It must be less than 0.07T, where T is the total
thickness of the three layers of polyurethane, or 0.125 inch, whichever is smaller.
0.07 ∗ 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 0.105 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
0.07T is the smaller of the two values and 0.06375 inch is less than 0.105 inch so the
instantaneous deflection is adequate.
Shear
The shear deformation shall be taken as the maximum possible deformation caused by thermal
effects computed between the installation temperature and the least favorable extreme
temperature (AREMA 10.6.3.7). The bearing should be designed so that
𝑇 ≥ 2𝑑𝑠
Where ds is the maximum change from the temperature variance.
T = 0.5+0.5+0.5 = 1.5 inches
ds = 0.37 inches
2*ds = 2*0.37 = 0.74 inches
This implies that 1.5 > 0.74 and T > 2ds. The shear deflection is adequate for this design.
137 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The shear force induced by shear deformation can now be found where G is the shear modulus
specified previously.
𝐴 12 ∗ 21
𝐹𝑆 = 𝐺𝑑𝑠 = 0.26 ∗ 0.37 ∗ = 16.16 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
𝑇 1.5
The average shear stress under this shear force is;
16.16
𝜏= = 0.064 𝑘𝑠𝑖 = 64 𝑝𝑠𝑖
12 ∗ 21
According to Table 15-10-2 in the AREMA manual, polyurethane 60 durometer material can
withstand a shear force of 550 psi. The design is adequate for the shear force applied.
Stability
To ensure stability of the bearing pad, the total thickness of the pad shall not exceed the
smallest of L/3 or W/3 for a reinforced bearing.
𝐿 21
= = 7 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
3 3
𝑊 12
= = 4 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
3 3
This implies that the total height of the pad must not exceed four inches for proper stability.
The stability will be checked against the total height of the pad after the rest of the pad is
designed.
Steel Reinforcement
AREMA section 11.5.1 states that steel reinforcement may not be less than 0.0598 inch thick
and will be made from ASTM A570 grade 36 steel. The minimum thickness is also restricted by;
𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙, 𝑡𝑠 ≥ 0.092𝑡𝑖 => 0.092 ∗ 0.5 = 0.046 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
𝑡𝑠 ≥ 0.046 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0.0598 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕
0.0625 inch (1/16 inch) was chosen as the design thickness because this is the smallest sheet
available for order. There will be 2 layers of reinforcement total for this design.
Stiffeners for Steel Girders

Sometimes the elastomeric bearing pads need stiffener plates between the girder of the bridge
and itself. This also applies for the abutment and the pad. Bearing pads need no additional
stiffeners if;
1/2
𝑏𝑓 𝐹𝑦
≤
2𝑡𝑓 3.4𝑓𝑎
Where,
138 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Fy = yield strength of the flange steel, 50 ksi

bf = total flange width, 12 inches
tf = total flange thickness, 2.5 inches
fa = average compressive stress on pad, 0.963 ksi
𝑏𝑓 12
= = 2.4
2𝑡𝑓 2 ∗ 2.5
1/2 1/2
𝐹𝑦 50
= = 4.28
3.4𝑓𝑎 3.4 ∗ 0.963
2.4 < 4.28 so additional stiffeners will be needed. Two bearing stiffeners will be added to each
girder (one on top and one on bottom of pad) for additional stiffeners. The stiffener plates will
be 1/8 inch thick grade 36 steel.
Total depth of pad:
𝑡𝑝𝑎𝑑 = 2 ∗ 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 + 2 ∗ 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 + 3

∗ 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑕𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
1 1
= 2 +2 + 3 0.5
8 16
= 1.875 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑕𝑒𝑠
1.875 inches < 4 inches so the stability will be adequate for this design.
139 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Overall Design
12 “
Upper
Stiffener
Plate
Polyurethane
Layer 3X
Steel
21 “ Reinforcement
2X
Lower
Stiffener
Plate
140 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX C, INTERSECTION CONTROL

EVALUATION AND INSPECTION
REPORTS
141 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION

What is an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)?
According to the Mn/DOT Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan
(http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/ice/index.html), the purpose of an ICE is to
determine the optimum traffic control for an intersection based on a technical and financial
analysis as well as political factors. Important components of an ICE report are: a traffic signal
warrant analysis (described later), safety analysis, and capacity analysis. Intersection capacity is
an important consideration with any highway project. Both current and future traffic levels
need to be considered when determining appropriate traffic control for an intersection. Safety
is also an important consideration. According to the Mn/DOT Traffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook (2008), intersection related crashes account for more than 50% of all crashes and
about one-third of fatal crashes in Minnesota.
What is the Current Intersection Control?

Currently, the intersection at TH 112/TH 93 is stop controlled. Specifically, it has stop signs for
TH 112 southbound and TH 112/93 westbound/northbound. Westside Drive is one-way,
allowing vehicles to access it from the TH 93/TH 112 intersection but not allowing traffic on
Westside Drive to access the TH 93/TH 112 intersection. TH 93 eastbound has the right of way,
with no stop sign, Figure 61. While documentation on the current traffic control is unavailable,
it may be assumed that Mn/DOT engineers chose this type of traffic control because the traffic
approaching the intersection from the west on TH 93 has a sight obstruction with a low-
clearance railroad bridge, followed by a steep hill, Figure 62. Because of this sight distance
obstruction, it would be difficult for traffic coming up the hill to see any traffic control devices
placed at the intersection, or to have sufficient reaction time to brake and avoid any vehicles or
pedestrians in the intersection, so they are provided the right-of-way.
142 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 61 - Existing traffic control
Figure 62 - Intersection as viewed from the west on TH 93 (obscured by bridge)
Do nothing alternative
The most cost-effective option would be to simply leave the intersection as it is today, with no
changes. For this to be a viable option it must be demonstrated that the intersection functions
well under current and proposed future traffic volumes, and that there are no crash problems
with the intersection or glaring safety deficiencies.
143 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Revised-stop controlled
Having two non-opposing legs stop controlled at an intersection (as is the current situation) is
somewhat counter-intuitive (violates driver expectation). The intersection will be examined to
determine if there would be any advantages to changing which legs have the right-of-way,
while still maintaining stop control on one or more legs.
Eliminate access to Westside Drive

Currently, Westside Drive forms the fourth leg of the intersection where S. Main Street used to
go through what is now a pedestrian mall (this report will not consider restoration of the
pedestrian mall to a through street – that is a complex issue that goes beyond the scope of this
analysis). Currently Westside Drive functions not as a through street but as an access to a bank
and some other commercial development. Any safety or operational improvements gained by
the elimination of this access must be weighed against the potential loss of access to those
businesses, and the desires of the public to maintain the access.
Traffic Signal Control

One option to be evaluated for consideration would be the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection. Under some circumstances, traffic signals may improve the operation of the
intersection and benefit traffic in the area. However, traffic signals are not inherently safer
than a stop control intersection. The Mn/DOT Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook states
that signalized intersections average 7 crashes per year, compared to 1 crash per year for stop
controlled intersections. The handbook also states that the density of severe crashes is four
times higher at signalized intersections than at stop controlled intersections. To objectively
compare the operational benefits of a traffic signal with the potential safety detriments,
Mn/DOT has developed a set of criteria (Signal Warrants) that will be examined as part of this
report to determine if a signal is justified.
Roundabout
A form of intersection control that is gaining widespread acceptance and being utilized more
frequently is the modern roundabout. Modern roundabouts offer the improved traffic flows of
a signalized intersection but with lower crash rates. The Mn/DOT Traffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook states that when compared to a stop controlled intersection, roundabouts: reduce
all crashes by 38% and reduce injury and fatal crashes by 76% (reduction in crashes is even
greater when compared to signalized intersection). The initial cost of building a roundabout is
higher than a signalized intersection, approximately $1 million vs. $300,000 for a signalized
intersection, however over the lifetime of the intersection a roundabout may break even due to
144 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
reduced maintenance and electricity costs. A potential obstacle to utilizing an urban

roundabout is the large footprint required, several hundred feet are typically required, which
may require acquisition of commercial properties at great additional expense.
Analysis of alternatives
To analyze the alternatives proposed to determine the most effective solution, we obtained
some information from traffic counts at the intersection (see Traffic Signal Warrants, below)
and from the Mn/DOT ADT maps of the intersection. The crash history at the intersection was
also obtained from Mn/DOT. Beyond the numerical data obtained for the intersection,
engineering judgment and observation from site visits will be important in the analysis. An
analysis of traffic signal warrants will provide a good overview of the data collected and how
the intersection operates, so this will be the first intersection control considered.
Traffic Signal Warrants

According to the 2009 Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) 4C.1;
an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical
characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic
control signal is justified at a particular location. The investigation for the need for a traffic
signal is based on 8 different analyses, or warrants. MavTek Engineering obtained the services
of the CIVE 370 class to conduct a traffic count at the intersection during the peak hour, which
was determined from tube counters to be from 12:30-2:30 PM. Counting from the CIVE 370
class were: Stephen Mullen, Thomas Klevan, Jason Scrimshaw, Justin Schulz, and Tim Setala.
For the purposes of this analysis, TH 93 will be defined as the major street, and TH 112 North
and Westside Drive will be defined as the minor street. The warrants described in the MN
MUTCD are as follows:
1. Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

2. Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
3. Peak Hour
4. Pedestrian Volume
5. School Crossing
6. Coordinated Signal System
7. Crash Experience
8. Roadway Network
145 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume

As defined in the MN MUTCD 4C.2; the eight-hour vehicular volume, Condition A, is intended
for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic signal. Condition B of this warrant, interruption of continuous
traffic, is intended for application at locations where condition a is not satisfied and where the
traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersection street suffers
excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. Conditions A and B are
defined in Table 4C-1 in the MN MUTCD. The standard in the MN MUTCD states that the need
for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the
following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:
A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table
4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher volume minor-street approaches,
respectively, to the intersection; or
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table
4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,
respectively, to the intersection.
In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8
hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same
approach during each of these 8 hours.
While we do not have complete data from 8-hours of analysis from all legs of the intersection,
we feel that with the information we had obtained from tube counters placed on two of the
four legs that we were able to properly identify the peak hour for the intersection as being
sometime between 12:30 and 2:30 pm. Knowing that the during the peak hour counted traffic
did not exceed 150 vehicles per hour, it is then reasonable to assume that traffic during the
course of any eight hours of the day did not reach the volumes listed in Table 4C-1, and that the
intersection does not meet the eight-hour vehicular volume signal warrant.
146 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 63 - Table 4C-1 from MN MUTCD
Four-Hour Vehicular Volume

The MN MUTCD states that the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an
engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points
representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the
corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor street approach (one direction
only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 63 for the existing combination of approach
147 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same
approach during each of these four hours.
The traffic counts at the intersection for the peak hour fail to meet the criteria for the four-hour
signal warrant. As in the eight-hour vehicular volume, it may be assumed if the intersection
fails to meet the warrant during the peak hour, then it will fail to meet the warrant over a
longer time interval of four hours.
148 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 64 - Figures 4C-1 and 4C-2 from MN MUTCD
Peak Hour
The MN MUTCD states that this warrant shall only be applied in unusual cases where traffic
conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic
suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. The MN MUTCD states that
149 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
some of these cases include, but are not limited to, office complexes, manufacturing plants,
industrial complexes, or high occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large
numbers of vehicles over a short time. Since no unusual cases such as listed exist and the
intersection, and the limited data available does not indicate the large discharges that would
suffice a peak hour warrant, we can conclude that the warrant is not met.
Pedestrian Volume
To meet the pedestrian volume signal warrant, the MN MUTCD states that it is intended for
application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience
excessive delay in crossing the major street. The standard states that the need for a traffic
control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study
finds that both of the following criteria are met:
A. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or mid-block location
during an average day is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any
1 hour; and
B. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow
pedestrians to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is
satisfied
The highest volume of pedestrian crossings during the peak hour is 10 crossings. Based on this
value, it is reasonable to assume that there would not be 100 or more crossings for each of any
four hours of the day. Based on the volumes of traffic through the intersection, and the
observation of pedestrian operation at the intersection, it is evident that there are ample gaps
to allow for pedestrian crossing.
School Crossing
The MN MUTCD states that the school crossing signal warrant is intended for application where
the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing
a traffic signal. There is a preschool located at the corner of TH 112 and TH 93, Le Sueur Head
Start. Because it is a preschool it is assumed that no children would be walking to the school by
themselves and would have a responsible adult to escort them. The next closest school to the
intersection, Park Elementary, is 0.3 miles away. However the lack of residential development
on the opposite side of the intersection or within a block of the intersection would indicate that
there are relatively few, if any, school children crossing the intersection.
150 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Coordinated Signal System

When there are several traffic signals in an area, the MN MUTCD states that signal installation
may be warranted where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper
platooning of vehicles. There are no other traffic signals nearby so this warrant is not met.
Crash Experience
Where installation of a traffic signal may alleviate the severity and frequency of crashes, the
MN MUTCD provides for this use, provided all of the following criteria are met:
A. Adequate trail of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed
to reduce the crash frequency; and
B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control
signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or
property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable
crash; and
C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of
the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1, or the vph in both of the 80
percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the higher-
volume minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of
pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the
Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for
the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on
the same approach during each of the 8 hours.
A review of crashes near the intersection from 2002-2008 revealed one non-incapacitating
injury crash, four possible or unknown injury crashes, and 14 property damage only crashes. It
is possible that the intersection crashes may include some of the 21 times trucks hit the UPRR
Bridge in the same time period (due to the proximity of the bridge to the intersection). Even if
one were to assume that all 19 of the reported intersection crashes actually occurred at the
intersection, it would have an average annual crash cost of $50,000 and rank higher than 2000 th
in terms of crash costs statewide (i.e. there are more than 2000 intersections statewide with a
more severe crash problem). After this review it becomes apparent that there is not a
significant crash problem at the intersection and the warrant for crash history is not met.
151 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Roadway Network
The MN MUTCD states that installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be
justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.
The standard states that the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an
engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one
or both of the following criteria:
A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at

least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year
projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of
Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday
B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at
least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non normal business day
(Saturday or Sunday).
The entering volumes during the peak hour at the intersection as shown in Appendix A are well
below 1,000 vehicles per hour as required for the warrant, thus it can be concluded that the
intersection does not meet the roadway network signal warrant.
Result of Signal Warrant Analysis

The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis are summarized below in Table 9. The
intersection of TH 93 and TH 112 does not meet any of the eight signal warrants as outlined in
the MN MUTCD, and therefore it may be concluded that the added expense and potential
safety hazard posed by the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection is not warranted.
Signal Warrant Analyzed Warrant met?

Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume No
Four-Hour Vehicular Volume No
Peak Hour No
Pedestrian Volume No
School Crossing No (assuming children going to preschool under
adult supervision)
Coordinated Signal System No
Crash Experience No
Roadway Network No
Table 9 - Signal Warrant Analysis Summary
152 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Roundabout Analysis
As stated earlier in the description of types of intersection control, a modern roundabout has
the potential to improve traffic flow and improve safety when designed and placed
appropriately when compared to a stop-controlled or signalized intersection. The biggest
potential downside to using a roundabout at the TH 112/TH 93 intersection is the large
footprint required for placement. The Mn/DOT Road Design Manual Table 12-3.04A states that
a typical urban single-lane roundabout has an inscribed circle diameter (or outside-outside curb
diameter) of 115-140'. The approximate footprint of this roundabout is shown below in Figure
65. To place a roundabout at this location, it would most likely require complete or partial
acquisitions of the Valleygreen Square, valued at $1.37 million and Oberle Ltd. Building, valued
at $232,000 according to the Le Sueur County Property Information Search tool. Also, the
Mn/DOT Road Design Manual 12-3.04 states that roundabouts typically should be constructed
on relatively level or rolling terrain with a maximum grade of 4% near the roundabout, and that
grades approaching 4% and steeper terrain may require greater transitions to provide an
appropriate flat area or plateau for the intersection. With a spline vertical curve west of the
intersection on TH 93 with a maximum grade of 10%, this would require additional right-of-way
for a landing. The right of way required for both landing and roundabout footprint makes the
cost of constructing a roundabout at this intersection prohibitive.
Figure 65 - Approximate Roundabout Footprint
153 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Eliminate Access to Westside Drive

Currently Westside Drive functions as a one-way street allowing traffic to only enter from the
TH 93/ TH 112 intersection, and not to exit to the intersection. While Westside Drive has 3
“Wrong Way” signs to indicate that vehicles are not to access the intersection from the south,
the traffic counts at the intersection indicate approximately 10 cars per hour make the wrong
way movement, during the peak hour of the day. Eliminating an access to the intersection is
one strategy to improve safety at an intersection. By eliminating a leg to an intersection, one
reduces the number of conflict points at the intersection (a conflict point is a point in which two
vehicles paths may conflict while going through the intersection), and reduction of conflict
points at an intersection is a proven method of improving safety. If access to Westside Drive
were to be eliminated, vehicles would need to travel west of the TH 93/112 intersection to S.
2nd Street, and then follow Ferry Street to access the parking lot serviced by Westside Drive, an
increased distance of approximately 750’. The drive-through service at the bank sought of the
intersection is currently designed to accommodate vehicles traveling southwest, if the Westside
Drive were closed, vehicles would need to drive past the bank windows and turn 180 degrees in
the parking lot to access the bank windows from the appropriate direction. In summary, it is
the opinion of the MavTek Engineering group that by closing Westside Drive, safety at the
intersection of TH 93/112 would be improved by reducing the number of conflict points at an
intersection with limited sight distance. The negative impacts of closing the access are minor,
primarily resulting in an extra 750’ of travel, with limited increased crash risk to rerouted
motorists as they will only be making right-hand turns at subsequent intersection, a relatively
safe movement. We are recommending this access be closed as part of our intersection control
evaluation.
Revised Stop Control at Intersection

According to the MN MUTCD, 2B.5, stop signs are warranted at an intersection when one or
more of the following conditions exist:
A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal
right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law;
B. Street entering a through highway or through street;
C. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or
D. High speeds, restricted view, or crash records that indicate a need for control by the
stop sign.
154 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
At the TH 93/112 intersection, conditions A and D (restricted view) may be considered

applicable, warranting the installation of a stop sign. Section 2B.5 of the MN MUTCD goes on to
give considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate street upon
which to install a stop sign where two streets with relatively equal volumes and/or
characteristics intersect:
A. Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing
activity or school walking routes;
B. Stopping the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require
drivers to use lower operating speeds;
C. Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching
the intersection; and
D. Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic.
At the TH 93/112 intersection, the three legs comprised of TH 93 and TH 112 all have relatively
equal volumes. Currently, the placement of the stop control seems to be taking into
consideration points C and D by stopping the north and west legs only (TH 112 and 112/93,
respectively). One thing worth noting about these guidelines is that they are referring to
stopping one direction only. The MN MUTCD provides for the use of multi-way stop control in
section 2B.7, noting that it can be useful as a safety measure if certain traffic conditions exist
155 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX D, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
159 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES

In order to create the proposed railroad alignment the rail line needs to be shifted closer to the
river and raised about five feet. In order for the new design to work one of two things has to
happen: the existing slope needs to be altered by the addition of fill material or retaining wall
needs to be installed. The addition of fill material to alter the slope is defiantly the most cost
effective solution, but it also causes the greatest impact to the floodway and/or wetlands in the
area. The use of retaining walls can support the new alignment with minimal
floodplain/wetland disruption, but is a far more costly alternative. Upon analyzing various
options, MavTek engineering decided on a design containing a combination of both retaining
walls and slope fill which provides the minimum amount of wetland/floodplain issues at the
minimum cost. This design includes three sections of retaining wall, the layout and location of
these walls can be seen in Table 10 below.
Station Elevation of wall (ft)

Wall 1
21+25 12.33
21+50 11.87
21+75 8.95
22+00 11.42
26+25 11.41
26+50 13.32
26+75 13.74
27+00 9.84
27+25 15.74
Wall 2
27+50 16.33
27+75 16.62
28+00 11.9
28+25 15.08
28+50 20
28+75 24.3
29+00 20.8
29+25 12.5
32+25 13.1
32+50 12.7
32+75 12.2
Wall 3
33+00 11.5
33+25 10.37
33+50 8.53
33+75 6.9
34+00 5.6
34+25 5.3
Table 10 - Retaining Wall Locations & Elevations
160 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Gabion Wall
With the dimensions of the retaining wall known, MavTek engineering consulted with Braun
Intertek Engineering for a retaining wall recommendation as well as a recommendation for a
design technique. MavTek engineering met with Phillip Bailey from Braun and explained the
necessary design outcomes for the project, to which he recommended the use of a block type
or gabion wall. Given the projects proximity to rail shipping, either a block or gabion wall would
be the most cost effective. In order to design a block or gabion wall, Phillip recommended the
use of Keywall 2009 software. Keywall 2009 allows for design of soil reinforced retaining walls
using a variety of block types, reinforcement types, geometric conditions, soil characteristics,
live and dead loads, and stability analysis techniques.
Procedure
The height of the retaining wall needed ranges from approximately 5 to 25 feet, so design was
completed for walls within this range in increments of five feet. Design was completed using
the AASHTO-96 design method. The rail loading was calculated based on the Cooper E80
loading factor of 80,000 lbs per axle, with these axels spaced at 5 ft on center; this corresponds
to 16,000 lbs per foot of track length. Within the software a live loading maximum is
constrained to a value of 1,000 psf, so to achieve 16,000 lbs per foot of track length a loading of
1,000 psf was disturbed over an area of 16' (8' from center line on either side). The center line
of track was placed 14 feet from the edge of the top of the wall per the railroad alignment
layout. The dead loading was calculated as the weight of track and ballast material which was
assumed to be 150 pcf placed at a depth of 2' (or 300 psf) over an 8' width. To simplify things,
the dead load was spread over 16' to match the live load, this corresponded to a dead load of
150 psf. A screen shot of the wall geometric layout and loading can be seen below in Figure 66.
161 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 66 - Geometric Layout
Once the geometry of the wall had been established, the next step was to input the soil
properties. The soil profile was based on Mn/DOT soil borings taken from the TH 93 Bridge on
the east side of the river. The Mn/DOT soil borings indicate loose sand for the first 14 feet of
depth followed by dense sand immediately beneath. At the ground surface, 5 feet of fill are to
be added to raise the grade. While the fill added will probably have better soil characteristics
than the existing loose sand, for simplicity purposes it was decided to take the conservative
approach and assume the same loose sand characteristics for the top 5 feet of fill as well. With
this simplification the design profile consists of 19 feet of loose sand on top of dense sand. For
each of the retaining wall heights the wall will be holding back loose sand, but depending on
how tall the wall segment is, the foundation material may be loose sand or dense sand. If the
wall height is 20' or 25' plus a 3' embedment depth, the wall will sit on the dense sand, so
dense sand foundation soil properties were used. If the wall is 5, 10 or 15 feet high plus the
same 3' embedment, the wall’s foundation will still be in the loose sand layer so loose sand
characteristics were used for the foundation soil. The foundation material used in design was
crushed stone; this was favored over concrete because of its cheaper price. General soil
162 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
properties were estimated from Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations by David F.
McCarthy and can be seen in Figure 67 below. Figure 67 illustrates the soil properties for the
25' high wall, for a 5, 10 or 15' wall the foundation was changed to match the properties of the
retained and reinforced soil.
Figure 67 - Soil Properties
Next, the factors of safety were established. For this design the AASHTO standard values were
maintained as seen in Figure 68.
163 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 68 - Factors of Safety
Once all of the basic parameters were entered in to the software, various combinations of block
and reinforcement (type and length) were analyzed. Throughout all of these analyses the goal
was to minimize the reinforcement length needed while maintaining stability. By minimizing
the reinforcement length, the area of excavation near the railroad is also minimized; this is very
important since no excavation within 14 feet of the centerline of the existing railroad line is
permitted.
Results
The reinforcement chosen was Tensar-SB of varying sizes and lengths depending on the wall
height. A complete report of design parameters, including reinforcement type can be seen in
Table 11. Throughout the design process it was also established that standard 18” Keystone
retaining wall block or equivalent will be used for this design. The standard 18” block can be
seen in Figure 69.
164 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Wall Height Reinforcement Primary Secondary Third Reinforcement Length

Block Type
(ft) Type Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement (ft)
5 Standard 18" Tensar-SB BX1200 BX1200 BX1200 4
10 Standard 18" Tensar-SB UX1400SB BX1200 BX1200 5.2
Table 11 - Results
Figure 69 - Standard 18” Retaining Wall Block
165 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 70 - Corbel Details
Conclusion
After completion of design the use of a reinforced block retaining wall proved to be a viable
solution for the new railroad alignment. A reinforced block wall provides a fairly cost effective
solution while maintaining all necessary factors of safety. The factors of safety can be seen in
Table 12 below. Furthermore, a reinforced block retaining wall provides an aesthetically
pleasing appearance which will enhance the already scenic river valley.
Wall Height Factors of Safety

(ft) Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Pullout
5 1.55 4.41 >10 >10 >10 >10
10 1.54 4 >10 6.29 5.57 >10
15 1.55 3.48 8.24 3.69 5.1 8.34
20 1.67 3.48 >10 3.77 5.2 6.42
25 1.85 3.9 >10 3.1 4.49 6.02
166 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Table 12 - Factors of Safety
Cantilever walls
Cantilever walls are one of the alternatives considered to support the slope next to the new track.
Cantilever retaining walls are the most common type of earth-retaining structure, and they are
often the most economical, especially when the wall height is less than 20'. The goals of this
design are to achieve a system that will perform according to stipulated criteria, can be
constructed by established methods, is capable of being inspected, and can be built at a
reasonable cost.
The design of cantilever walls must satisfy two major requirements:
 The wall must have adequate external stability. Which means it must remain fixed in
the desired location except for small movements required to mobilize the active and
passive earth pressures
 The wall must have sufficient internal stability or structural integrity so it is able to
carry the necessary internal stresses without rupturing. The left wall lacks sufficient
external stability and moves away from its desired location. The right wall has
inadequate structural integrity, and experiences a structural failure. This can be
seen in Figure 71.
Figure 71 - Overturning
Before we start the analysis of those requirements, we need to define the initial dimensions and
the forces involved, the initial dimensions are as shown in Figure 72.
167 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 72 - Dimensions and Forces
 θ: The soil friction angle

 φw: The internal friction angle between the wall and the soil
  is the soil slope angle = 0 in our design
The coefficient of the active earth pressure, Ka was calculated as shown below.
𝜃
𝐾𝑎 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45 −
2
The coefficient of the passive earth pressure, Kp was calculated as shown below.
𝜃
𝐾𝑝 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45 +
2
The horizontal force component of the active earth pressure, Pa was calculated as shown below.
ϒ𝐻 2 𝐾𝑎
𝑃𝑎 = cos ϕw ⁡
2
The vertical force component of the active earth pressure, Va was calculated as shown below.
ϒ𝐻 2 𝐾𝑎
𝑉𝑎 = sin ϕw +⁡surcharge
2
168 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Surcharge loudening will depend on the depth of installation and is selected directly from the
AREMA manual
The horizontal force component of the passive earth pressure, Pp was calculated as shown below.
ϒ𝐻 2 𝐾𝑝
𝑃𝑝 =
2
Pf: is the sum of the weight of the stem, footing, surcharge, soil behind the wall, and vertical
force component of the active earth pressure.
Analysis
Sliding Friction Factor of Safety

Using the equation below; the sliding friction along the base of the footing is estimated.
𝑉𝑓 = 𝑃𝑓 tan(𝜙𝑓 )
ϕf is the footing and the soil interface friction angle is read directly from (table 23.4 foundation
design principles and practices, by Donald P. Coduto)
Finally the slide friction factor of safety is calculated as shown below.
∑(𝑃𝑅 ) 𝑉𝑓 + 𝑃𝑃
= ≥ 1.5
∑(𝑃𝐷) 𝑃𝑎
Many methods are available for adjusting the design in order increase the factor of safety to a
minimum of 1.5. In this design we will be considering to extend the heel of the footing to
increases the weight acting on the footing, thus increasing the sliding resistance. If this method
fails we will consider one of the following
 Add a key beneath the footing to improve the sliding stability by increasing the passive
pressure.
 Use a stronger backfill soil
 Install tie down anchors to increases the normal force acting on the footing, thus
increasing the sliding friction.
 Install a tieback anchor to increases the total resisting force
Once the design satisfies the sliding stability requirements, a limit equilibrium approach will be
used in order to satisfy overturning stability requirement.
Overturning Stability Factor of Safety

Overturning factor of safety is the sum of all resisting moments divided by the sum of all driving
moments. Thus the computed factor of safety depends on the location of the point about which
169 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
we compute the moments. Usually the actual point of rotation is between 0.1B and 0.3B behind
the toe; where B is the width of the footing. To simplify our calculations we have assumed that
this point is at 2/3 of the length of the left footing; where the left footing is measured from the
stem to the toe.
∑𝑀𝑅
𝐹= ≥ 1.5
∑𝑀𝐷
 F = factor of safety against overturning

 MR = sum of the resisting moments per unit length of wall
 MD = sum of the driving moments also known as overturning moments per unit length of
wall
Location of Normal Force along the Base of Footing

During in-service conditions the force Pf must be located within the middle third of the footing
and the eccentricity, e, must be no greater than B/6 in order to maintain a compressive stress
along the entire base of the fooling.
𝑒 ≤ 𝐵/6
The equation below will be used in order to the horizontal distance from the center of
overturning to resultant force.
∑𝑀 = MD + P𝑓 𝑥 − MR − P𝑓−𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 0
Pf-ult = is the product the moment arm about the center of rotation and the ultimate bearing
capacity at a variable length less than the distance between the toe and the center of
overturning. As stated previously we have assumed that this point is at 2/3 of the length of the
left footing behind the toe.
Ultimate bearing capacity, qu’ is calculated as shown below.
𝑞𝑢 = 𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝜎𝐷′ 𝑁𝐷 − 1 + 0.5𝛶𝐵𝑁𝛶
The eccentricity, e
𝐵 2 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑒= − −𝑥
2 3
 e: is the horizontal distance from the center of the footing to resultant force.
 B = the total width of the footing
170 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
 Left footing is measured from the toe of the footing to the edge of the stem
Bearing Capacity
Using the techniques for footings with moment loads, we can insure that the footing supporting
the wall will not experience a bearing capacity failure.
′
𝑖𝑓 𝑞𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣 ≪ 𝑞𝑎′ 𝑡𝑕𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑘.
′
𝑃𝑓
𝑞𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣 =
𝐵′
′
𝑞𝑢′
′
𝐵 = 𝐵 − 2𝑒𝑞 =
𝐹. 𝑆 = 3
In conclusion three cantilever walls have been designed at a height of 9, 12, 15'. The walls, the
walls information and sizing have been done using an excel spreadsheet, please refer to design I,
II, and III below
171 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Design I: 9-ft Cantilever Wall
Figure 73 - Design I Wall Characteristics
Figure 74 – Design I Sliding Friction
172 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 75 - Design I Overturning
Figure 76 - Design I Equilibrium of Forces
173 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Design II: 12-ft Cantilever Wall
Figure 77 - Design II Wall Characteristics
Figure 78 - Design II Sliding Friction
174 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 79 - Design II Overturning
Figure 80 - Design II Equilibrium of Forces
Design III: 15-ft Cantilever Wall
Figure 81 - Design III Wall Characteristics
175 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 82 - Design III Sliding Friction
Figure 83 - Design III Overturning
Figure 84 - Design III Equilibrium of Forces
SLOPE STABILITY SELECTION

The height of cantilever retaining walls that can be achieved, while the structure still has its
design integrity is highly dependent on the footing size that will carry the wall. The base of the
structure is recommended to be one-half the height of the wall, and in our case the height of
the retaining walls at some sections is 25'. This would require a horizontal excavation of 13' in
order to install the base of the wall. The footing of a cantilever retaining wall can be reduced in
length if a tie down is installed. This solution would require drilling the soil layer to deeper
176 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
depths, it is one of the most expensive solutions, and might cause slope failure if the soil slope
is unstable. On the other hand block walls make use of sloped installation technique that will
minimize the depth of the footing required to support the wall. Also the use of synthetic
geogrid will reduce the weight of the wall which will reduce the settlement of the structure.
Even though cantilever walls have been considered to be the most economical solution for
heights less than 16'. The cost of cantilever retaining walls increase dramatically after reaching
a height of 16'. For walls that extend to more than 16 feet it is justified to use geogrid material
in construction. The use of geogrid in construction of retaining walls has increased dramatically
in recent years, because geogrid provides an economical solution, and easier to transport and
handle than steel. The use of separate blocks also allows for cheaper maintenance than cast in
place concrete. In our design the construction of cantilever retaining walls will cost three
hundred and seventy thousand dollars compared to block walls that will cost a hundred sixty
five thousand dollars
In conclusion the use of block retaining walls will minimize the excavation required, while
maintaining the structural integrity required for this design, and it provide a better economical
solution than cantilever retaining walls. Finally a reinforced block retaining wall provides an
aesthetically pleasing appearance which will enhance the already scenic river valley.
DIRECT SHEAR TESTING

Summary
In order to estimate the settlement of shallow foundations in the design phase of the project,
MavTek Engineering performed a series of elastic modulus testing in the direct shear apparatus.
MavTek Engineering found this type of testing to be appropriate since the soils in the area
consist of sand and silt with minimal clay. Since no ASTM standards exist for such testing, a
procedure was developed by MavTek Engineering utilizing direct shear apparatus. The testing
procedures as well as the testing results are outlined in this document.
Procedure
As previously stated, no ASTM standards have been established for elastic modulus testing.
MavTek Engineering’s lab procedure is outlined below.
177 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Apparatus
The direct shear apparatus contains several components that are used to determine the shear
strength of a soil sample. Since we are only using the equipment for compression testing most
of the components will not be used. The vertical LVDT devices will be used to measure the
vertical displacements. Deadweights are added to the lever-loading arm, which apply a normal
load to the soil sample. Lastly a shear box is used to hold the soil sample while the test is being
performed. The micrometer will also be used to measure initial sample heights.
Experimental Procedure
Place soil into shear box up to the interface between upper and bottom parts of the box making
sure both bottom the plate and the porous plate are in place and a circle cut out of paper towel
first.
1. Measure the distance between the bottom plates and the interface.
2. Compact soil with the 5 pound hammer by holding the top knob of the hammer in place
and gently tapping. At the end of compaction the top of soil should be just barely under
the interface of the shear box but minimal.
3. Remove the top portion of the shear box by removing the red pins.
4. Measure the distance between the top of the soil and interface with the micrometer
and record. Determine the total sample height.
5. Place loading yoke onto sample and add seating load on to lever-loading arm of 1kg.
6. Set vertical LVDT device in place to measure vertical displacement
7. Next start up direct shear program on the computer and start new test. Save test as
“(sample ID #) compression test” in our MavTek folder.
8. Change recording interval from 300 seconds to 20 seconds. (this may not play a factor
but to be safe)
9. Unlike the direct shear test do not hit the “skip consolidation” box above the start and
stop buttons. Click on the green “Start” button.
10. Place additional loads on to lever-loading arm in the following order in 2 min. intervals.
The total load will equal to 2kg, 4kg, 9kg, and 19kg.
11. After placing the last load and waiting 2 min. hit the “consolidation” button and then
“End”.
If the test ran smoothly and the loading yoke did not get hung up on the edge of the shear box
click through the rest of the 3 test by clicking “start,” “consolidation,” then “End.” If problems
occurred repeat the test.
178 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Data Analysis Procedure

Once all of the data was collected as specified in the procedure listed above, the results were
analyzed. The results were calculated using an excel spreadsheet created by MavTek
Engineering to quickly and easily obtain a soil elastic modulus. The excel spreadsheet calculated
stress for each loading based on the applied load, mechanical advantage of 10:1, and cross
sectional area of the testing cylinder. The excel spreadsheet also calculated the strain of the
sample using the initial height measurement and the displacements associated with each
individual loading. The vertical displacements were obtained from the displacement vs. time
plot as seen in fig 1; the vertical displacement for each loading corresponds to a flat portion of
the line on the plot (each time a weight was added the soil sample deformed, when the weights
were removed, the sample rebounded). From the stress and strain, the elastic modulus of the
soil was calculated by a linear best fit of the stress vs. strain relationship.
Displacement vs. Time (Sample 08-01-03)

0.01
Vertical Displacement (in)
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
3:25:55 PM 3:27:22 PM 3:28:48 PM 3:30:14 PM 3:31:41 PM 3:33:07 PM
Time
Figure 85 - Displacement vs. Time
Once a strain was found for each applied load to the soil sample the strains were entered into
excel and the elastic modulus was calculated by plotting stress vs. strain. The results can be
seen in the following figures and table.
179 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Sample 01-01-04
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Strain y = 156064x - 1431.5
R² = 0.9339
Figure 86 - Sample 01-01-04
Sample 01-02-08
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Strain y = 265119x - 2431.1
R² = 0.9438
180 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Sample 02-01-04
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Strain y = 274156x - 3689
R² = 0.9296
Sample 02-02-08
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Strain y = 218980x - 3769.3
R² = 0.959
181 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Sample 03-01-04
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Strain y = 206038x - 942.6
R² = 0.9216
Sample 03-02-08
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Strain y = 1E+06x - 1065.2
R² = 0.8339
182 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Sample 04-01-04
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Strain y = 196903x - 4576.2
R² = 0.8675
Figure 92 - 04-01-04
Sample 05-01-04
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Strain y = 354211x - 590.3
R² = 0.9751
183 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Sample 07-01-04
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Strain y = 116122x - 1185.6
R² = 0.9598
Sample 08-01-03
14000
12000
10000
Stress (ksi)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Strain y = 100257x + 427.93
R² = 0.9923
Figure 95 - 08-01-03
184 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Sample E (ksf) R2
01-01-04 156064.1 0.9339
01-02-08 265118.9 0.9438
02-01-04 274155.8 0.9296
02-02-08 218979.7 0.9590
03-01-04 206037.7 0.9216
03-02-08 1247293.5 0.8339
04-01-04 196903.0 0.8675
05-01-04 354210.9 0.9751
07-01-04 116121.6 0.9598
08-01-03 100257.1 0.9923
Table 13- Tabulated Results
*note sample 04-02-08 could not be tested as it contained a high amount of clay
As seen in the table and plots, the data is modeled by a linear relationship fairly well. Most
samples had an R2 value of 0.92 or higher, but a few were significantly lower. In an ideal sample
there would be no clay composition, but this is not necessarily the case. When there is clay in
the sample it forces the consolidation process to occur slower than a consolidation in a non
cohesive soil; this causes the curve to bend upward as seen in the plots. In some plots this
upward bend in the line is very minimal, but in others it is much more apparent.
Conclusion
As stated in the results a few of the samples yielded results which were less accurate than
desired, these samples will be looked at further next semester if the foundations designed fall
into a location representative of them.
185 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
SOIL PROFILES
Summary
In order to design the necessary deep foundations for the railroad and pedestrian bridges,
design soil profiles needed to be established. In the preliminary design phase, MavTek
Engineering obtained several soil samples from the project site and preformed several tests on
the obtained soil samples. From the soil samples tested, MavTek engineering was able to obtain
soil characteristics necessary for design; however, due to equipment limitations soil samples
were only obtained to a depth of ten feet. The ten foot soil profile obtained by MavTek
Engineering’s site investigation could easily be used for the design and analysis of a shallow
foundation, but for a deep foundation, a much deeper soil profile is necessary. To create a deep
design soil profile, MavTek Engineering contacted Derrick Dasenbrock at Mn/DOT. Derrick
provided four soil borings Mn/DOT obtained in 1983-84 in the immediate area of the TH 93
Bridge (the locations of these boring can be seen in Figure 96. From these deeper soil boring
logs, MavTek Engineering was able to create a design soil profile suitable for the design of deep
foundations.
Figure 96: Mn/DOT soil boring locations
186 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Procedure
The soil boring logs provided by Mn/DOT provided soil classification, N spt blow counts and
moisture contents of the soil at various depths. In the soil boring logs, the soil was classified
each time there was a distinct change in the soil material within the profile, however the N spt
blow counts and moisture contents were taken much more frequently (sometimes every 3-6
feet). These measurements were taken more frequently to account for variation within a
particular soil layer, but for the purposes of design, only one set of data is needed for each soil
layer. To achieve a simplified design soil profile, an “average” Nspt blow count was established
for each layer. An average Nspt blow count was found by averaging the Nspt blow counts
recorded within a particular layer and then rounding this value down to the nearest whole
number. Once these Nspt average blow counts were found for each layer the results were
plotted as three design soil profiles as seen in Figure 97 through Figure 99 on the following
pages.
187 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Results
Figure 97: Design soil profile #1
188 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
189 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
190 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Conclusion
The soil profiles established create a simplified soil profile for design purposes. The soil profiles
created minimize the layers and Nspt counts to a more reasonable number. Even though the
number of soil layers was greatly simplified, depending on the design procedure, they may
need to be simplified further. The soil profiles given above may be altered at the discretion of
the designer.
SLOPE STABILITY
Summary
In order to accommodate the new railroad track alignment it was necessary to have a fairly
steep slope. Since the new alignment was pushed closer to the river it was necessary to utilize a
2:1 slope, the slope recommended by AREMA. While this was the recommended slope by
AREMA, it was not the first choice for MavTek Engineering; a 2:1 slope begins to push the limits
of a soil slope’s stability. To ensure the safety of the slope MavTek Engineering performed two
methods of slope stability analysis; these methods included the FE method and Plaxis finite
element analysis.
Procedure
Part I: FE Method
The analysis of slope stability using the FE method was performed using Excel. A spreadsheet
was created which had inputs for degree of slope (X:1), embankment height and soil
characteristics (γ, φ and c), these inputs can be seen in Table 14. The embankment height was
entered as 14', the depth of the loose sand layer just below the surface. It was assumed that
any failure that would occur in the slope would first occur in the loose sand layer, this is why
the slope was simplified as simply 14' of loose sand.
Slope = 1: 2
Slope Angle = 26.57 degrees
Embankment Height = 14 feet
φ= 31.00 degrees
γ= 110 pcf
c= 5 psf
X1 = 28 feet
Table 14 - FE Method Input Parameters
191 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
From these inputs the spreadsheet then calculated, using trigonometry, the distance X1 as seen
in figure 1. The spreadsheet then broke the slope into various “slices” of varying distances X2
from the crest of the slope. The value of X2 varied from 1 to 30' in 1' intervals, this broad range
of values allowed a greater range of potential slope failure wedges and a more true
representation of the factor of safety. For each X2 a length of slice, L s and area of slice, As was
then calculated. The next step in the spread sheet is to calculate a weight of each slice, W m; this
was done by taking the area of the slice (1' in depth) times the unit weight of the soil and
adding the train loading on top of it. The train loading was found to be 80,000 lbs per axle
according to the Cooper E-80 loading and the locomotives axles are spaced, at closest, five feet
on center; therefore the train loading is 80,000 / 5 or 16,000 lbs per foot of slope width. Next,
the angle between the line of the slice and the horizontal, α was calculated. Finally, the factor
of safety could be calculated for each X2 using the following equation:
𝑐𝐿𝑠 + 𝑊𝑚 cos 𝛼 tan⁡

(𝜑)
𝐹. 𝑆. =
𝑊𝑚 sin⁡
(𝛼)
Where the numerator is the sum of the resistance forces of cohesion and internal friction, and
the denominator is the weight force which is attempting to pull the wedge down the slope.
The overall factor of safety is then found by taking the minimum factor of safety of all of the
factors of safety calculated for all values of X2. The value of X2 which produces the lowest
factor of safety will be the theoretical failure plane of the soil slope.
Figure 100 - Excel Slope Analysis Layout
Part II: Plaxis Finite Element Software Analysis

The FE method of slope stability provided a good starting point for the slope stability analysis,
but MavTek engineering wanted a more comprehensive analysis to compare it to, this is where
192 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Plaxis worked perfectly. Unlike the FE method, Plaxis finite element software analyzes all
possible failure modes, not just an assumed linear plane. Plaxis also allowed for a much more
detailed soil profile. With the Plaxis finite element analysis software MavTek Engineering was
able to account for variations of soil properties within each layer as well as provide a soil
foundation beneath the slope, not just an assumed “solid” soil foundation as in the FE method.
Soil profiles were created from Mn/DOT soil profiles using given Nspt values to estimate soil
properties. The soil properties were estimated from Nspt values using various tables in Essentials
of Soil Mechanics and Foundations by David F. McCarthy. The soil profile entered into Plaxis can
be seen in Figure 101 and the soil characteristics can be seen in Table 15.
Layer γ (psf) E (ksf) ν c (psf) φ
Ballast 130 10000 0.35 0.1 45
Fill Material 130 4000 0.35 0.1 40
Loose Sand 1 110 500 0.35 0.1 31
Loose Sand 2 120 500 0.35 0.1 38
Dense Sand 125 1000 0.35 0.1 45
Table 15 - Plaxis Inputs
Figure 101 - Plaxis Soil Profile
193 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Results:
The complete results for the FE method can be seen below in Table 16. Ideally, a slope design
should have a factor of safety greater than or equal to 1.6 to 1.8, but the factor of safety for this
analysis is only 1.27. Based on this analysis, the slope would not have adequate stability for the
necessary loading.
X2 Ls As Wm α FS
1 32.20 7 16770 25.77 1.27
2 33.11 14 17540 25.02 1.31
3 34.01 21 18310 24.30 1.35
4 34.93 28 19080 23.63 1.40
5 35.85 35 19850 22.99 1.44
6 36.77 42 20620 22.38 1.48
7 37.70 49 21390 21.80 1.53
8 38.63 56 22160 21.25 1.57
9 39.56 63 22930 20.73 1.61
10 40.50 70 23700 20.22 1.66
11 41.44 77 24470 19.75 1.70
12 42.38 84 25240 19.29 1.74
13 43.32 91 26010 18.85 1.79
14 44.27 98 26780 18.43 1.83
15 45.22 105 27550 18.03 1.87
16 46.17 112 28320 17.65 1.92
17 47.13 119 29090 17.28 1.96
18 48.08 126 29860 16.93 2.00
19 49.04 133 30630 16.59 2.05
20 50.00 140 31400 16.26 2.09
21 50.96 147 32170 15.95 2.13
22 51.92 154 32940 15.64 2.18
23 52.89 161 33710 15.35 2.22
24 53.85 168 34480 15.07 2.26
25 54.82 175 35250 14.80 2.31
26 55.79 182 36020 14.53 2.35
27 56.75 189 36790 14.28 2.39
28 57.72 196 37560 14.04 2.44
29 58.69 203 38330 13.80 2.48
30 59.67 210 39100 13.57 2.52
Table 16 - FE Method Results
To see if this analysis was overly conservative MavTek Engineering conducted a second slope
stability analysis using Plaxis. After running the finite element model, Plaxis came up with an
overall factor of safety of 2.0 on a near linear slip plane. This larger factor of safety is probably
due to the addition of the better crushed stone ballast material on top of the slope, whereas
the FE model assumed the loading was placed directly on the soil. The new factor of safety is
larger than the necessary 1.6 to 1.8, so according to Plaxis the slope is indeed stable.
194 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Conclusion
It is the belief of MavTek engineering that the slope will support the necessary load, but due to
the broad range in results between the FE method and Plaxis a more in depth investigation may
be warranted. The slope will most likely be structurally sound, but to be certain it is
recommended to further investigate the slope as well as the potential use of soil nailing or
some other means of artificial slope strengthening. If the slope strength were to be increased,
the factor of safety would increase and allow for more forgiveness given the uncertainty of the
true subsurface soil conditions.
SHEET PILING
For the realignment of UPRR a large amount of sheet piling will be required. Sheet piling will be
temporarily used during the construction of the block retaining walls and abutments. For
simplification of the design it was assumed that the layer of soil the sheet pile will be placed is
soft sand. Below are the geotechnical properties of this sand:
γ = 110 pcf
φ = 31°
c = 5 pcf
195 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Calculations
γ=110
pcf
φ=31°
c=5 pcf
Figure 102 - F.B.D. of Sheet Pile
The following equation where used to determine the embedment depth required to drive the
sheet pile into the earth.
196 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Calculations for 25' Calculations for 20' Calculations for 15' Calculations for 10'
L1 (ft) = 25 L1 (ft) = 20 L1 (ft) = 15 L1 (ft) = 10
880.27 528.1630 352.108
p1 = p1 = 704.21744 p1 = p1 =
2 8 7
2.8540 2.2832105 1.712407 1.14160
L3 (ft) = L3 (ft) = L3 (ft) = L3 (ft) =
1 1 9 5
12259. 7846.1127 4413.438 1961.52
P= P= P= P=
6 3 4 8
moment moment 72669.159 moment 30657.30 moment 9083.64
141932
about E about E 2 about E 2 about E 5
Z bar (ft) Z bar (ft) Z bar (ft) Z bar (ft)
11.6 9.3 6.9 4.6
= = = =
8899.5 5463.090 3744.87
p5 = p5 = 7181.3102 p5 = p5 =
3 9 2
23.283210 17.71240 12.1416
A1 = 28.854 A1 = A1 = A1 =
5 8 1
317.98 203.50904 114.4738 50.8772
A2 = A2 = A2 = A2 =
3 1 4 6
12403. 816.710
A3 = A3 = 6381.0492 A3 = 2713.469 A3 =
4 1
85986. 11382.37 2307.27
A4 = A4 = 35502.705 A4 = A4 =
3 3 2
L4 (ft) = 21.5 L4 (ft) = 17.2 L4 (ft) = 12.9 L4 (ft) = 8.6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6626.7 5299.0778 3971.430 2643.86
p3 = p3 = p3 = p3 =
6 9 4 9
197 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
15526. 12480.388 9434.521

p4 = p4 = p4 = p4 = 6388.74
3 1 3
5.3201 4.2379987 3.156051 2.07470
L5 (ft) = L5 (ft) = L5 (ft) = L5 (ft) =
9 2 1 8
18.96512 12.6276
D= 31.641 D= 25.303013 D= D=
9 1
8.9160 7.1328297 5.349622 3.56641
z' = z' = z' = z' =
4 6 3 5
46397.45 13747.3
Mmax = 214803 Mmax = 109979.15 Mmax = Mmax =
4 9
Allowabl Allowabl Allowable Allowabl
60 60 60 60
e stress = e stress = stress = e stress =
42.960 9.279490 2.74947
S= S= 21.99583 S= S=
6 8 9
Table 17 - Sheet Pile Calculations
Material and Equipment

Four different sections of the sheet pile were designed, 25’, 20’, 15’, and 10’. Each section will
be applied to appropriate locations. The table below shows the required properties for each
section.
Sheet pile height
25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0
needed (ft)
Length of embedment
31.6 25.3 19.0 12.6
(ft)
Length of sheet piled
56.6 45.3 34.0 22.6
required (ft)
Max Moment
214.8 110.0 46.4 13.7
(Kips-ft)
Allowable stress for
60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
sheet pile (ksi)
Section Modulus
43.0 22.0 9.3 2.7
required (in3/ft)
Table 18 - Required Material Properties
Material will be supplied by Hammer and Steel located in Minneapolis, Mn. They will be
providing two different high efficiency “Z” steel piles. For any section requiring 25’ of height,
piles with section designation number PZC 26 shall be used and PZC 12 for any other sections.
198 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Table 19 - Hammer Steel Product Lists
Sections will be driven into the soil with a vibratory hammer model number H&S 4450 and a
crane. The mobility and boom length of the crane will provide adequate clearance for placing
the sheet pile on exciting slopes.
Figure 103 - H&S 4450
199 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Cost Estimating
The sheet piling material and equipment will be purchased as rentals from Hammer & Steel.
The hammer and cane will be rented for a total of two months for construction and extraction
of the sheet piles. The material will be rented of a total of six months to insure completion of
the project. A total of 240 tons of sheet piling is required to complete the project which is nine
freight loads.
Number of loads 9
Weight of PCZ 12 (tons) 173
Weight of PCZ 26 (tons) 68
Total Weight of Piles (tons) 240
Cost of freight ($/load) $600
1st month rent ($/ton) $300
Additional month rent
$25
($/ton)
Additional months rented 5
Shortage cost ($/ton) $2,000
Equipment Rental ($/month) $10,500
Labor ($/ft2) $3
Table 20 - Price Listing
Additional months Shortage

Cost of freight 1st months rent Abutments Labor Cost Equpment Rental 10% Profit Total Cost Estimate
rent cost
$5,400 $72,061 $30,026 $480,410 $32,421 $72,503 $21,000 $71,382 $785,203
Table 21 - Cost Breakdown
200 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
BOWERY
Project Information
1. The structure is a welcome sign
2. Two columns will be carrying the sign that are 30 ft apart
3. The diameter of each column is 18 inches
4. The maximum moment exerted by the wind load on each column is 646 Kip-ft
5. The total load exerted of each column is 13.65 kips
We gathered information on the soil profile supporting the foundation in order to make the
necessary computations of bearing capacity and settlement. The soil profile provided by
Mn/Dot for this site location as shown in Figure 104 was used.
Figure 104 - Mn/Dot Soil Boring
Using the principal soil mechanics; the soil properties such as soil classification, and other
properties related to the shear strength and compressibility of the soil was estimated. Table 22
shows a summary of the soil properties available at this site. Notice that the location of the
water table was assumed to be on the ground surface, because the site location is next to the
river.
201 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Depth of layer Type of Soil Unit Weigh Effective Unit Weigh

Blow Counts
ft in each layer pcf pcf
5 Loamy Sand 26 130 67.6
2 Organic Fine sand 12 110 47.6
Loamy Sand and
3 12 115 52.6
Gravel
4 Fine Sand 14 120 57.6
6 Loamy Fine Sand 9 108 45.6
7 Fine Sand 22 120 57.6
6 Sand 33 130 67.6
6 Coarse Sand 27 125 62.6
11 Fine Sand 35 120 57.6
4 Sand 28 120 57.6
18 Fine Sand 47 120 57.6
Table 22 - Soil Profile
The structural engineer didn’t specify a required type of foundation; this task was left to us. Our
first approach was to create two separate shallow footings, one for each of the columns.
Design-I
Using the soil properties shown in Table 23 and the Hansen’s extended bearing capacity
formula. We assumed a factor of safety of 3, so the total load exerted from each column is
about 41 kips. A minimum depth of installation is 3' to make sure that the footing installed is
below the frost line, and to eliminate the danger of scour of soil below the footing.
soil constants
ϒ1 = 67.6 pcf
ϒ2 = 47.6 pcf
ϒ3 = 52.6 Pcf
c1 = 0 Pcf
c2 = 0 pcf
c3 = 0 pcf
1= 0.436 rad
2= 0.559 rad
3= 0.628 rad
D1 = 5 ft
D2 = 7 ft
D3 = 12 ft
Table 23 - Soil Constants
202 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Two types of footing geometries were considered. The first was a rectangular footing with
width to length ratio of 1:2 as shown in Table 24. The second was a square footing as shown in
Table 25. Note that the weighted average of the constants involved was used in the calculation
instead of the estimated values of those constants.
Table 24 - Rectangular Footing Loads
Table 25 - Square Footing Loads
With regard to eccentric loading on a shallow foundation, Hansen recommended that the
foundation be reconfigured so that the eccentricity is eliminated on the foundation to be
analyzed. The new dimensions of the footing are reconfigured as shown below.
𝐵 ′ = 𝐵 − 2𝑒𝐵
𝐿′ = 𝐿 − 2𝑒𝐿
Where the eccentricity, e is defined as shown below.

𝑀 646 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 − 𝑓𝑡
𝑒= = = 45.5 𝑓𝑡
𝑃 14.2 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
Where,
203 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
e = eccentricity in ft
M = bending moment kips-ft
P = the axial load kips
After designing the footing the problem with eccentric loading became obvious, because
eccentricity depends on the total vertical load and the bending moment, and in this case the
binding moment is too large compared to the axial load. And new dimension cannot be
reconfigured. So we decided to disregard the shallow footing and to design drilled shaft system
instead.
Design-II
The second design considered was a frilled shaft system. Two different drilled shaft sizes were
considered, 3 and 5' diameter straight drilled shafts. Table 5 and 6 summarizes the calculation
involved in determining the side resistance in each soil layer. Notice that those tables don’t
contain the final strength of the drilled shafts, or the end bearing in any of the layers. The side
resistance obtained in those layers is more than enough to support the weight of the columns,
but our main objective in this design is to create a system capable of resisting the moment
exerted. To resist the moment the drilled shaft was treated as a sheet pile.
Depth Effective Effective

A Qs Qs
Interval Unit Weigh Stress β
ft ft2 pcf psf lb kips
5 47.124 67.6 169 2.077 16539.2 16.54
2 18.850 47.6 385.6 0.914 6645.2 23.18
3 28.274 52.6 512.1 0.858 12430.1 35.61
4 37.699 57.6 706.2 0.929 24720.9 60.34
6 56.549 45.6 958.2 0.538 29138.3 89.47
7 65.973 57.6 1296.6 0.799 68306.3 157.78
6 56.549 67.6 1701 0.724 69687.6 227.47
6 56.549 62.6 2091.6 0.657 77699.3 305.17
11 103.673 57.6 2596.2 0.545 146798.5 451.97
4 37.699 57.6 3028.2 0.508 57988.6 509.95
15 141.372 57.6 3575.4 0.379 191370.2 701.32
Table 26 - 3ft Diameter
Effective
Depth Effective
A Unit Qs Qs
Interval stress β
Weigh
ft ft2 pcf psf lb kips
5 78.540 67.6 169 2.077 27565.3122 27.57
204 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
2 31.416 47.6 385.6 0.914 11075.3147 38.64

3 47.124 52.6 512.1 0.858 20716.8185 59.36
4 62.832 57.6 706.2 0.929 41201.5375 100.56
6 94.248 45.6 958.2 0.538 48563.8776 149.12
7 109.956 57.6 1296.6 0.799 113843.809 262.97
6 94.248 67.6 1701 0.724 116146.002 379.11
6 94.248 62.6 2091.6 0.657 129498.795 508.61
11 172.788 57.6 2596.2 0.545 244664.239 753.28
4 62.832 57.6 3028.2 0.508 96647.6008 849.92
13 204.204 57.6 3517.8 0.379 271970.382 1121.89
Table 27 - 5ft Diameter
To treat the drilled shaft as a sheet pile we first had to adapt a specific theory. Several earth
pressure theories are available for estimating the active and passive lateral earth pressures that
can develop in a soil mass surrounding a wall. We decided to use the Scotsman W. J. M.
Rankine theory
Table 28 – Pressures with a Diameter of 3ft
205 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 105 - Passive and Active Earth Pressure for 3 ft Diameter
Table 29 - Pressures with a diameter of 5ft
206 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 106 - Passive and Active Earth Pressure for 5 ft Diameter
Note that the values in Table 28 and Table 29 were obtained as follows:
𝜃
The coefficient of the active earth pressure, 𝐾𝑎 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45 − 2
𝜃
The coefficient of the passive earth pressure, 𝐾𝑎 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 45 + 2
The horizontal force component of the active earth pressure 𝑃𝑎 = 𝐻ϒK a dshaft
The horizontal force component of the passive earth pressure𝑃𝑝 = 𝐻ϒK p dshaft
The pressure distribution of both the active and passive earth pressure was assumed to be linear,
as shown in Figure 106 - Passive and Active Earth Pressure for 5 ft Diameter.
According to Rankine theory of pressure distribution, it is reasonable to assume that the active
and the passive earth pressures are linearly distributed, starting from 0 at the ground surface
and reaching their maximum values at the bottom of the shaft, as shown in figure 4
207 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 107 - The Linear Pressure Assumed in this Design
Notice if the pressure distribution is linear, the magnitudes of the active and the passive at any
point below the ground surface is equal to the slope of the pressure distribution line times the
length of that point; measured from the top of the shaft. L is the point where the passive and
the active earth pressures get reversed in position due the existing moment M. notice that even
if the passive and the active earth pressures get reversed in position their magnitude doesn’t
change at that point. Knowing the magnitude of the pressures at any installation depth, H, we
can sum the forces in the X direction to find L as a function of the installation depth.
𝑃𝑝 𝑃𝑎
1 𝑃𝑝 2 𝑃𝑝 + 𝐻 𝐿 1 𝑃𝑎 2 𝑃𝑎 + 𝐻 𝐿
∑𝐹𝑥 = 0 ⤇ 𝐿 − 𝐻−𝐿 − 𝐿 + 𝐻−𝐿 =0
2 𝐻 2 2 𝐻 2
𝑃𝑝 2 𝑃𝑎 2 𝑃𝑝 𝑃𝑎
⤇ 𝐿 − 𝐿 − 𝐻+ 𝐻=0
𝐻 𝐻 2 2
208 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝐿2 𝑃𝑝 − 𝑃𝑎 𝐻
= 𝑃 − 𝑃𝑎
𝐻 2 𝑝
𝐻
𝐿=
2
Once we defined L as a function of H we can sum the moment around point L to determine the
installation depth H.
𝑃𝑝 𝐿3 𝑃𝑝 𝐻 − 𝐿 2 𝐿 𝑃𝑝 𝐻−𝐿 2
𝑃𝑎 𝐿3 𝑃𝑎 𝐻 − 𝐿 2 𝐿
⤾ ∑𝑀𝐿 = 0 ⤇ 𝑀 − − − 𝑃𝑝 − 𝐿 + +
6𝐻 2𝐻 𝐻 3 6𝐻 2𝐻
2
𝑃𝑎 𝐻−𝐿
+ 𝑃𝑎 − 𝐿 =0
𝐻 3
After combining the following equations and performing basic arithmetical calculations are
shown below.
⤾ ∑𝑀𝐿 = 0 ⤇ 𝑀 − 0.86366𝐻 2 (𝑃𝑝 − 𝑃𝑎)
Using equation Table 30 and Table 31 were created to determine the required installation
depth of each proposed shaft.
Table 30 - Calculation of the moment and depth of installation required to achieve a balanced condition, for a 3-ft diameter
shaft
209 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Table 31 - Calculation of the moment and depth of installation required to achieve a balanced condition, for a 5-ft diameter
shaft
Finally our results were as follows; note that 1 foot has been added to the installation depths
below as a factor of safety.
Using a 3 ft diameter drilled shaft would require a depth of installation at 12 ft
Using a 5 ft diameter drilled shaft would require a depth of installation at 10 ft
To decide which shaft is more the economical design choice, Table 32 was created.
Shaft diameter Installation depth Volume of excavation

ft ft ft3
3 12 84.82
5 10 196.35
Table 32 - Excavation required for each of the 3 and 5 ft diameter shafts
It is obvious that the 3- ft diameter shaft minimize the volume of excavation required, and using
linear interpolation in Table 39 gives a skin friction capacity of 47 kips at 12 ft depth of
installation was obtained, so there is no need to calculate the end bearing capacity of the
shafts.
Conclusion
Two drilled shafts will be installed in this site; both are 3 ft in diameter, and each will be
installed to a depth of 12 ft below the ground surface.
210 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
BOWERY FOUNDATION REACTIONS

Assumptions
 The height of the column of the sign is 40 feet
 The column will extend throughout the sign
 The column will be made of ASTM-A572 Structural steel
 The column holding the sign will be a steel tube
 The outer diameter of the sign, do will be determined
 The wall thickness of the column is 1/8 of the outer diameter
 The specific weight density of steel, = 490 pcf
 The young modulus of steel E =29X106psi
 The Sign size = 30X20 ft2
 The sign will be made of aluminum alloys 2014-T6
 2014-T6 Aluminum alloy has a weight density, = 175 pcf
 The thickness of the sign will be 3/16 in
 The sign will be posted on 2 steel column
Start by applying the wind loading equation from the ASCE manual
q i = 0.00256K z k zt k d V 2 I where,
 q = velocity pressure in psf

 0.00256 = constant for density of air and dimensions
 Kz = velocity pressure exposure coefficient
 Kzt = topographic factor
 Kd = wind directionality factor
 V = basic wind speed in mph
 G = gust effect factor
 Cf = pressure or force coefficient
 Kd = 0.85 for open signs and lattice framework
q = 0.00256 1 1 1 902 1 = 20.736 pfs
The gust effect factor G is typically recommended to be taken as 1.2 for open flat structures
211 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The pressure or force coefficient factor for a 3/2 width to clearance ratio is = 1.42 taken from the
ASCE manual
q = q i GC
q = 20.736 1.2 1.42 = 35.334 psf = 0.000246 ksi
Calculating the wind load force acting on the sign
Ft = q A where,
 Ft = Total wind load imposed on the sign, lb

 A = Area of the sign in square feet
Ft = 35.334 psf 20 x 30ft 2 = 21200.48 lb = 21.20 kips
Each of the columns will carry ½ of the wind load F
Ft 21.2 lb
F= = = 10.60 kips
2 2
The wind will exert a uniform load on the column, FC,
FC = q. psf do L
do
FC = 35.224 psf x 20 x = 58.89do lb
12
FC = 0.000245 ksi x do in = 0.000245do kips/in
 Assuming that the force of the wind load acts at the center of sign at a height of 30 feet
from the ground surface.
 The maximum bending moment, Mmax. that each of the steel column will need to
withstand is calculated as the product of the force and the moment arm.
The moment acting at the steel column will be defined as follows
The moment caused by the wind load on the sign, MS
MS = FL
MS = 10.60 kips 30ft = 318 kip. ft = 3816 kip. in

212 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The moment caused by the wind load on the column, MC, is a cantilever moment.
WL2
MC =
2
0.000245do x 2402
MCmax = = 7.056do kip. in
2
The total maximum moment, Mmax will be
Mmax = 7632 + 7.056do kip. in
Using the equation of the section modulus
Mmax
S=
σallow
7632 + 7.056do kip. in

S=
25 ksi
Knowing that the Section modulus of a tube is S also equal to
I
S= , where
c
 C = do/2 inches
 I is the moment of inertia of the steel column
Calculating the moment of inertia of the steel column, I

π
I= d4 − d4i
64 o
π
I= d0 4
− 0.75d0 4
= 0.03355583d40 in4
64
Setting both side of the Section modulus equations equal to each other and solving for the outer
diameter
213 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐼
𝑆= =
𝜎𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑐
0.03355583𝑑04 7632 + 7.056do kip. in

𝑆= =
𝑑0 25 ksi
2
𝑑𝑜 = 16.657 𝑖𝑛 ≈ 17 𝑖𝑛
𝑑𝑖 = 0.75 16.657 = 12.493 𝑖𝑛 ≈ 13𝑖𝑛
Calculating the shear
𝑉𝑄
𝜏=
𝐼𝑡
𝑄 = 𝐴1 𝑌1 − 𝐴2 𝑌2
𝜋 3 𝜋 3
𝑄= 𝑑 − 𝑑
4 𝑜 4 𝑖
𝑉 = 0.035do + 10.60
𝜋 3 3
𝑄= 𝑑 − 0.75𝑑0
4 𝑜
0.578125𝜋 3
𝑄= 𝑑𝑜 = 0.454𝑑𝑜3
4
π
I= d4o − d4i
64
π
I= d0 4
− 0.75d0 4
= 0.03355583d40 in4
64
1
𝑡= d = 0.125do
8 o
𝑉𝑄
𝜏=
𝐼𝑡
214 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
0.0589do + 10.60 𝑥 0.454𝑑𝑜3

𝜏=
0.0335d40 𝑥 0.125do
0.016𝑑𝑜4 + 4.813𝑑𝑜3
𝜏=
0.00420d50
0.0267do + 4.813
𝜏=
0.00420d20
0.0267do + 4.813
0.6𝜎 =
0.00420d20
Assuming ASTM-A572 structural steel is used σyield = 50ksi solving the equation above yields an
outer diameter of 8.364 inches
Recalculating the forces
FC = 0.000245 ksi x do in = 0.000245do kips/in
kips
FC = 0.000245 ksi x 17. in = 0.004165 = 50lb/ft
in
𝑉 = 0.035do + 10.60
𝑉 = 0.035 17 + 10.60 = 11.195 kips
Mmax = 7632 + 7.056do kip. in
Mmax = 7632 + 7.056(17) = 7752 kip. in = 646 kip. ft
Calculating the weight of the sign
 Calculate the volume of the steel column
215 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝜋𝑕 2
𝑉𝑐 = 𝑑0 − 𝑑𝑖2
4
 VC = Volume of the steel column

 do = the outer diameter of the steel column
 di = the inner diameter of the steel column
 h = the height of the steel column
40𝜋
𝑉𝑐 = 172 − 132 = 26.20 𝑓𝑡 3
4𝑥122
 Calculate the weight of the steel column, Wc
𝑊𝑐 = 𝑉ϒ𝑠
𝑊𝑐 = 26.20 490 = 12828 𝑙𝑏 = 12.83 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
 Calculate the volume of the sign, Vs
𝑉 = 𝑕𝑖𝑔𝑕𝑡 𝑋 𝑊𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑕 𝑋 𝑡𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
3
𝑉 = 20 𝑋 30 𝑋 = 9.375 𝑓𝑡 3
16 𝑥 12
Calculate the weight of the sign, Ws
𝑊 = 𝑉ϒ𝑎
𝑊 = 9.375 175 = 1640.6 𝑙𝑏 = 1.641 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
Assuming that each column will carry half the weight of the sign
1
𝑊1/2 = 1.641 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠 = 0.821 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
2
Calculate the total weight of the sign
𝑊 = 𝑊𝑐 + 𝑊𝑠
𝑊 = 12.83 + 0.82 = 13.65 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
216 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Calculating the deflection
⤉ ∑𝐹𝑦 = 0 ⤇ 𝑃 − 𝑅𝑦 = 0 ⤇ 𝑃 = 𝑅𝑦
⤇ 𝑃 = 𝑅𝑦 = 13.65 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠
⟶ ∑𝐹𝑥 = 0 ⤇ 50 𝑥 20 + 10600 − 𝑅𝑥 = 0 ⤇ 𝑅𝑥 = 11600 𝑙𝑏
217 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
20
⤾ ∑𝑀 = 0 ⤇ 50 𝑥 20 + 10600 30 − 𝑀 = 0 ⤇ 𝑀 = 328000 𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡
2
𝑥
⤾ ∑𝑀 = 0 ⤇ 50𝑥 + 11600 𝑥 − 𝑀 = 0
2
𝑀1 = 25𝑥 2 + 11600𝑥 𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡
⤾ ∑𝑀 = 0 ⤇ 50 20 (𝑥 − 10) + 11600 𝑥 − 𝑀 = 0
218 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑀 = [12600𝑥 − 10000] 𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡
⤾ ∑𝑀 = 0 ⤇ 50 20 𝑥 − 10 + 11600 𝑥 + 11600(𝑥 − 30) − 𝑀 = 0
𝑀 = 24200𝑥 − 338000 𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡
𝑑 2 𝑣1
𝐸𝐼 = [25𝑥 2 + 11600𝑥] 𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 20𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝑥12
𝑑𝑣1
𝐸𝐼 = 8.33𝑥 3 + 5800𝑥 2 + 𝐶1 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 20𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝑥1
𝐸𝐼𝑣1 = 2.083𝑥 4 + 1933.3𝑥 3 + 𝐶1 𝑥 + 𝐶2 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 20𝑓𝑡
𝑑2 𝑣2
𝐸𝐼 = [12600𝑥 − 10000] 𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡 20𝑓𝑡 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 30𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝑥22
𝑑𝑣2
𝐸𝐼 = 6300𝑥 2 − 10000𝑥 + 𝐶3 20𝑓𝑡 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 30𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝑥2
𝐸𝐼𝑣2 = 2100𝑥 3 + 5000𝑥 2 + 𝐶3 𝑥 + 𝐶4 20𝑓𝑡 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 30𝑓𝑡
𝑑2 𝑣3
𝐸𝐼 = 24200𝑥 − 338000 𝑙𝑏. 𝑓𝑡 30𝑓𝑡 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 40𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝑥32
219 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑑𝑣3
𝐸𝐼 = 12100𝑥 2 − 338000𝑥 + 𝐶5 30𝑓𝑡 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 40𝑓𝑡
𝑑𝑥3
𝐸𝐼𝑣3 = 4033𝑥 3 + 169000𝑥 2 + 𝐶5 𝑥 + 𝐶6 30𝑓𝑡 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 40𝑓𝑡

π
I= d0 4
− 0.75d0 4
= 0.03355583d40 in4
64
π 4 4
I= d0 − 0.75d0 = 0.03355583(17)4 = 2802.6 in4 = 0.135ft 4
64
E =29X106psi =4.176X109
I =0.135ft4
𝑑𝑣1
𝑎𝑡 𝑥 = 0, 𝑣1 = 0, =0
𝑑𝑥1
C1 and C2 = 0
2.083𝑥 4 + 1933.3𝑥 3 + 𝐶1 𝑥 + 𝐶2
2.083(20)4 + 1933.3(20)3 1.58𝑥10 7 𝑥 12

𝑣1 = = = 0.336 𝑖𝑛
𝐸𝐼 4.176𝑥109 𝑥 0.135
At x = 0-20.0 ft
𝑑𝑣1 𝑑𝑣2
=
𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑥2
8.33𝑥 3 + 5800𝑥 2 = 6300𝑥 2 − 10000𝑥 + 𝐶3
8.33(20)3 + 5800(20)2 = 6300(20)2 − 10000(20) + 𝐶3
𝐶3 = 3.867𝑥106
At x = 20.0-30.0 ft
220 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝐸𝐼𝑣1 = 𝐸𝐼𝑣2
2.083𝑥 4 + 1933.3𝑥 3 = 2100𝑥 3 + 5000𝑥 2 + 3.867𝑥106 𝑥 + 𝐶4
2.083(20)4 + 1933.3(20)3 = 2100(20)3 + 5000(20)2 + 3.867𝑥106 (20) + 𝐶4
𝐶4 = −8.033𝑥107
𝐸𝐼𝑣2 = 2100𝑥 3 + 5000𝑥 2 + 3.867𝑥106 𝑥 − 8.033𝑥107
𝐸𝐼𝑣2 = 2100(30)3 + 5000(30)2 + 3.867𝑥106 (30) − 8.033𝑥107
9.689𝑥107 𝑥12
𝑣2 = = 2.1𝑖𝑛
4.176𝑥109 𝑥 0.135
At = 30-40.0ft
𝑑𝑣2 𝑑𝑣3
=
𝑑𝑥2 𝑑𝑥3
6300𝑥 2 − 10000𝑥 + 3.867𝑥106 = 12100𝑥 2 − 338000𝑥 + 𝐶5
6300(30)2 − 10000(30) + 3.867𝑥106 = 12100 30 2

− 338000(30) + 𝐶5
𝐶5 = −2.13𝑥105
𝑣2 = 𝑣3
2100𝑥 3 + 5000𝑥 2 + 𝐶3 𝑥 + 𝐶4 = 2154.92𝑥 3 + 95561.4𝑥 2 − 8.64𝑥106 𝑥 + 𝐶6
1118.08(30)3 + 2246.4(30)2 + 3.867𝑥106 (30) − 8.033𝑥107

= 2154.92 30 3 + 95561.4 30 2 − 8.64𝑥106 (30) + 𝐶6
𝐶6 = 1.462𝑥108
𝐸𝐼𝑣3 = 2154.92𝑥 3 + 95561.4𝑥 2 − 8.64𝑥106 𝑥 + 1.462𝑥108
𝐸𝐼𝑣3 = 2154.92(30)3 + 95561.4(30)2 − 8.64𝑥106 (30) + 1.462𝑥108
3.11881𝑥107 𝑥12
𝑣3 = = 0.121 𝑖𝑛
4.176𝑥109 𝑥 0.135
221 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Finally buckling has been checked from the steel design manual and was satisfied by the column
size.
The final values the sign’s columns will each be 40' long with an outer diameter of 17" and an
inner diameter of 13".
ABUTMENT DESIGN
For the abutment design of the replacement of the existing of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge,
MavTek Engineering is proposing a breast type gravity supported abutment. The AREMA
Practical Guide to Railway Engineering states that abutment design is based off of designer
experience, and did not provide typical dimensions or detailed design guidance. Due to the
limited abutment design experience of the MavTek Engineering firm, it was decided to use a
breast type gravity supported abutment to simplify design. The AREMA Practical Guide lists
several types of abutments that have been used for railway design in addition to gravity
abutments, these include:
 Breast abutment, which consists of a vertical face with no wings

 Wing abutment, consists of a breast abutment with wings extending to the sides of the
abutment
 U abutment, consist of two wings extending backwards from the face at a right angle
 T abutment, consists of a breast abutment with a stem extending backwards from the
abutment
 Hollow or box abutment, consists of a concrete box with solid floors, walls, and ceiling;
typically used in grade separation projects and spans a sidewalk
The AREMA Guide notes that these abutment types may be gravity supported or semi-gravity
supported. A breast gravity supported abutment is simpler to design than these other
abutment types as it contains no structural reinforcement, the only reinforcement needed is for
temperature effects. This will allow MavTek to come up with a suitable design within time
constraints. A gravity abutment serves to support the bridge, soils behind the abutments, and
the weight of trains passing overhead by relying on the weight of the concrete in the abutment
to resist the overturning moment of the soil pressures behind the wall. Because it is dependent
on the weight of the concrete, a gravity abutment will require much more concrete than
another type of abutment, but requires much less reinforcing steel than other types of
abutments. To support the railroad embankment on approach to the bridge on the west side of
222 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
the railroad, the geotechnical team’s recommended embankment stabilization method will be
carried to the back of the breast wall. On the east side of the railroad the retaining wall along
TH 93 will provide support for both the railroad embankment on approach to the bridge and for
the structures and parking areas on the north and south side of TH 93. In order to determine
the most cost-effective type of abutment, several different designs should be compared to find
the most economical design.
Although AREMA did not provide any guidance on abutment design, MavTek took some design
cues from “Design of Highway Bridges: An LRFD Approach” by Barker and Puckett. While this
book was written for highway bridges (and much lighter highway loads as opposed to the
heavier railway loads) it gave some basic dimensional relationships for a gravity abutment,
based on the height of the abutment which served as a good starting point for our design. The
final dimensions of the abutment are shown below in Figure 108. After the dimensions were
determined, the centroid of the abutment was found by dividing the abutment into several
simple shapes, each of which with a determinate centroid location and area, using the
equations shown below:
∑𝑖 𝑥 𝑖 𝐴𝑖 ∑𝑖 𝑦 𝑖 𝐴𝑖
𝑥= ∑𝑖 𝐴𝑖
and 𝑦 = ∑𝑖 𝐴𝑖
where:
xi, yi = centroid of the individual shape with respect to x or y axis, respectively
Ai = area of the individual shape
223 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 108 - Dimensions of abutment
The horizontal earth pressure acting on the abutment was also determined. The geotechnical
team suggested a conservative estimate for the unit weight of the backfill material of 130 lb/ft3.
In order to find the Rankine earth pressure coefficient, an angle of internal friction of 20° was
assumed based on the input from the geotechnical team, again a conservative estimate.
Having solved for the Rankine earth pressure coefficient it was possible to determine the
resultant earth pressure acting on the abutment. The calculations used are shown below:
224 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Rankine earth pressure coefficient - Ka
∅ 2 20 2
𝐾𝑎 = tan 45 − 2 ; 𝐾𝑎 = tan 45 − = 0.490
2
Resultant earth pressure - Rs
𝑅𝑠 = 1 2 𝐾𝑎 𝐻 2 𝛾; 𝑅𝑠 = 1 2 0.490 212 130 = 14048.85 lb/ft length of wall
where:
H = height of face earth pressure acting against
γ = unit weight of soil
The vertical earth pressure acting on the back of the abutment was also calculated. For ease of
calculation, it was determined in two parts, Ws1 acting on the slope of the abutment and Ws2
acting against the 1.5’ length of flat part of the abutment. The weight of these two forces were
based on the unit weight of the soil, average height of the soil above the abutment, and the
length across the width of the abutment the pressure is acting across, as shown below:
𝑊𝑠 = 𝛾𝐻𝑎𝑣𝑔 𝐿
Ws1 was found to be 3867.5 lb and Ws2 was found to be 3412.5 lb.
The weight of the abutment was calculated using a unit weight of 150 lb/ft3 and based on the
total area of the abutment was found to be 14,800 lbs.
The vertical loading of the bridge on the abutment was found to be 485,500 lbs and the
horizontal loading from the bridge was found to be 117,000 lbs, we assumed this horizontal
force due to braking from the locomotives to be acting in the same direction as the horizontal
earth pressure to give the worst case scenario.
This information was put into a free-body diagram and the moments of the forces were
summed about the toe of the abutment. This is an idealization that neglects the action of the
piles against the bottom of the abutment. As long as the net moment about the abutment
shown in Figure 109 is clockwise, then the piles supporting the abutment will be solely in
compression and can utilize both skin friction and end bearing. If the net moment is
counterclockwise, some of the piles will be resisting uplift forces, and will not be able to utilize
their end bearing strength.
225 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 109 - Free Body Diagram of Abutment
226 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The forces shown above are defined and were found to act at the locations shown below:
Force Description Weight (kips) X-coordinate Y-coordinate

(ft.) (ft.)
Lv Load due to bridge and live loading 485.5 4.975 21
LH Load due to train braking force (thermal 117 4.975 21
expansion taken up by bearing pad)
Wc Weight of concrete 14.8 5.544 7.143
WS1 Weight of soil on slope 3.9 7.3 8.75
WS2 Weight of soil on base 3.4 9.75 3.5
RS1 Resultant horizontal earth pressure 14 7.5 7
Taking the sum of the moments about the toe of the abutment, or the origin in Figure 109, the
resultant moment was found to be -4.0337 kip-ft.
In order to examine this preliminary design within the timeframe we had available, it was
necessary to make several assumptions and neglect some details. Prior to construction a more
detailed analysis will be necessary to examine these details; and as the AREMA Practical Guide
recommends, abutment design is based primarily off of previous experience, of which MavTek
Engineering has little. This design did not take into account any exclusive factor of safety.
Conservative values were estimated for earth pressures, and depending on the values of the
actual fill material there may be some factor of safety there. The earth pressures were not
examined with a live load surcharge and the loadings from the bridge included the live loading
of a Cooper E-80 loading, the unloaded weights were not examined. Both of these factors may
contribute to additional counterclockwise moment which may serve to place some uplift forces
on the piling that supports the abutment. These moments will serve to place the bridge in
compression, and may offset each other, another detail that we had insufficient time to
analyze.
227 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX E, WATER RESOURCES
228 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
STORM WATER CONTROL FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 93

INTRODUCTION
Roadways can absorb a modest amount of water, but for the most part are considered to be
impervious. Impervious surfaces are great at collecting water. The accumulation of water within
a roadway is dangerous, therefore, we must design for the removal of storm runoff. Inlets are
drainage structures utilized to collect surface water through grate or curb openings. The water
is then conveyed to a storm drain or direct outlet to culvert. Inlets are an important design
variable. Inlets allow the accumulating water within the roadway to drain. Without proper
drainage the roadway would fill with storm water. This creates many potential hazards for
motorists. Ponding water can make roads and centerlines invisible, make passage difficult,
decrease vehicle's tire to surface friction, and at fast enough speeds hydroplaning can cause
accidents.
There are four categories of inlet types: 1) Grate inlets; 2) Curb-opening inlets; 3) Combination
inlets; and 4) slotted drain inlets. Grate inlets consist of an opening in the gutter covered by a
grate which has a screen like appearance. They are best suited for use on continuous grades.
They are susceptible to clogging with debris, and if not maintained and cleaned out regularly
they can fail to operate at designed capacity.
Figure 110 - Grate Inlet
229 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Curb-opening inlets are vertical openings in the curb covered by a top slab. They are best suited
for use at sag points and flat grades since they can convey large quantities of water and debris.
Figure 111 - Curb Opening Inlets
Combination inlets combine the grate inlet and curb-opening inlet. Combination inlets are ideal
for sags because the grate alone has a tendency to clog due to debris, in which case, the water
can still drain through the curb-opening. A redundant design which is desirable for drainage in
sags.
230 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 112 - Combination Inlet
Slotted drain inlets are a long slender drain with bars perpendicular to the opening. They can be
used to accommodate roadway widening or increased runoff, reduce ponding depth, and
reduce spread at grate inlets.
Figure 113 - Slotted Drain Inlet
231 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
The vertical sag curve of the roadway lies directly beneath the railroad bridge. There are two
grate inlets, one on each side of the roadway beneath the bridge. There is also two flanking
inlets 30 ft closer to the river. A flanking inlet is a backup inlet which supports the main inlet.
The current grate inlet performs adequately, but tends to clog occasionally, which creates
problems. A local resident informed us that around spring and fall time the drains tend to clog
with ice/snow and leaves, respectively. As mentioned previously, grate inlets are known to clog
if debris is present.
Figure 114 - Clogged Grate inlet
DESIGN OBJECTIVES
The objective of this design is to meet the necessary drainage requirements for the roadway
and reduce and or fix the clogging issue. The widening of the roadway creates additional
impervious area which will increase the required inlet flowrate capacity. The longitudinal slope,
cross slope, and shoulder slope of the roadway is 10%, 2%, and 4%, respectively. The length of
roadway with 10% slope is approximately 250'. Adding additional inlets within this distance is
not economical. The relatively high slope will cause the majority of the water to run along the
axis of the roadway, spilling into the gutter near the sag point. The sag point has a drainage
system already emplace consisting of the four inlet grates which convey the runoff water to a
culvert and discharge it directly to the Minnesota River. The economical design in this situation
is to upgrade the current drainage system to handle the additional capacity required by the
widening of the roadway.
232 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
DRAIN DESIGN
The Mn/DOT Drainage Manual recommends a combination inlet be used in the presence of a
vertical sag curve. As mentioned previously, these are the inlet of choice in sags because if
grate becomes clogged the curb-opening is still able to drain the storm water. The combination
inlet alone does not provide the required capacity. In addition to the combination inlet we will
use an eight foot slotted drain inlet to account for the additional drainage.
DATA ANALYSIS
The rational method was used to determine the required capacity of the inlet. A weighted curve
number was calculated using the following equation:
𝐶𝑁1 𝐴1 +𝐶𝑁2 𝐴2
𝐶𝑁 = Equation 3.15 Mn/DOT Drainage Manual.
𝐴𝑇
𝐶𝑁 = 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔𝑕𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝐶𝑁𝑖 = 𝑖𝑡𝑕 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟
𝐴𝑖 = 𝑖𝑡𝑕 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝐴𝑇 = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
The total drainage area for the inlets was calculated to be 1.5 acres, determined from
geographic map and observed delineation. The area was assumed to be 40% streets/roads and
60% open space (lawn in fair condition). The Mn/DOT curve numbers for streets/roads and
open space is 98 and 84, respectively. Applying these values to Equation 3.15 results in a
weighted curve number of 89.6.
The Rational Method, Q=CIA, was used to determine the required flowrate capacity for the
inlet. The sag vertical curve is classified as a minor sag, according to Mn/DOT Drainage Manual.
A minor sag represents a roadway with <6000 ADT, relatively low speed highway, and not a
crucial route of transportation (there are two connections to Highway 169). The minor sag
classification requires that we design for a 10yr storm event. The 10yr/24hr event was the
chosen design event. This event had a depth of 4.3" in a duration of 24hrs, corresponding to an
intensity of 0.1792in/hr. The Rational Method resulted in a Q=12.04ft3/s per drain on each side
of roadway.
The required flowrate capacity for the inlet is known, now we can design the drain. The drain
design is dependent upon the allowable spread. Allowable spread is the distance ponding water
is allowed to fill into the roadway. The roadway has the following dimensions: 1) 2' wide gutter
at 0.5% grade; 2) 4.5' wide shoulder at 4.0%; and 3) 12' wide lane at 2.0% grade. Basic geometry
is used to solve for the allowable spread, equal to 12.5'. The allowable depth is 0.31'. The
calculations and figure depicting the allowable spread and depth can be seen in Appendix: A:2.
233 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The design inlet is a combination inlet, which includes a grate and a curb-opening inlet. At the
maximum allowable depth of 0.31' the inlet acts as a weir. A combination inlet has the same
weir capacity as a grate in a sag. The grate inlet capacity in sag for weir conditions was
calculated using the following equation:
𝑄 = 𝐶𝑊 𝑃𝑑1.5 Equation 8.13 Mn/DOT Drainage Manual
𝐶𝑊 = 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 3.0
𝑑 = 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑕 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑡
P=perimeter of grate disregarding side against curb (ft)
The dimensions of the grate are length equal 2.5' and width equal 1.5'. The capacity of the
combination inlet at the maximum allowable depth equals 2.85 ft3/s. The required capacity is
12.04ft3/s. To make up for the difference, a slotted inlet was used to accompany the
combination inlet. The slotted inlet capacity in sag was calculated using the following equation:
𝑄 = 0.8𝐿𝑊(2𝑔𝑑).5 Equation 8.20 Mn/DOT Drainage Manual
𝐿 = 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑕 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑡
𝑑 = 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑕 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑡
𝑊 = 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡𝑕 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑡
𝑔 = 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 (32.2𝑓𝑡/𝑠 2 )
The slotted inlet has dimensions of 4in wide and 8ft in length. The resulting slotted inlet
capacity is 9.52ft3/s.
The total drain capacity is 12.37ft3/s the required capacity is 12.04ft3/s. The gutter capacity has
to be checked to ensure that the runoff water can be contained within the gutter. The gutter
capacity was calculated using the following equation:
0.56
𝑄= 𝑆𝑥1.67 𝑆 0.5 𝑇 2.67 Equation 8.5 Mn/DOT Drainage Manual
𝑛
𝑛 = 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔′ 𝑠 𝑛
𝑓𝑡
𝑆𝑥 = 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒
𝑓𝑡
𝑓𝑡
𝑆 = 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒
𝑓𝑡
234 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑇 = 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑡
The gutter capacity was found to be 15.6ft3/s. This capacity is the allowed capacity
corresponding to the allowable spread on the roadway. Since the gutter capacity exceeds the
drain capacity, the runoff storm water will remain in gutter.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS

The final drain design includes: 1) combination inlet, 2.5' x 1.5', capacity = 2.85 ft 3/s; 2) slotted
inlet, 4" x 8', capacity = 9.52ft3/s; 3) flanking inlet with same design as combination inlet; and 4)
existing 30in CMP. The existing 30" CMP had no data pertaining to the layout or the flows which
it was responsible for, therefore, we were unable to check the capacity of the CMP due to the
additional flow. The results are straight forward and laid out in the data analysis section. See
CONCLUSION
The objective of the drain design was to meet roadway drainage requirements and resolve the
current clogging of the drain issue. This design meets the drainage requirements and
implements a better suited inlet which has a secondary inlet in the event that the grate
becomes clogged. The design is also economical. The new drainage system will be installed and
connected to the existing drainage culvert. Overall, the design meets and or exceeds the
objectives and is economical. The drain design is a success.
SEDIMENTATION CONTROL STRUCTURE

There is very limited space on TH 93 to incorporate sediment control means. This was the main
driver for BMP (Best Management Practice) selection. Several different alternatives were
considered but ultimately a structure was chosen because of the limited space and the fact that
it can be cleaned out periodically. It is important that the collected sediment can be removed
with relative ease, because it will be located near the flood plain. The figure below shows the
approximate location of the proposed sediment control structure. This was chosen so that the
structure is in line with the existing outlet. This was done to maximize treatment and minimize
cost.
235 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 115- Sediment Control Structure Location
Theory
Sediment is deposited in many different ways, including: sand from de-icing, new construction,
runoff from lawns, vehicle deposition, etc. There are two issues associated with sediment in
storm water. The first being turbidity, and the second being pollutants including heavy metals,
such as: Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn, floatables (trash, etc.), phosphorus, oils and grease, organic
material, and pathogens.
During high flows, sediment is stirred up creating a “cloudy” effect in the water. This is called
turbidity. Suspended sediments in storm water prevent organisms from being able to breathe.
Suspended sediments also absorb sunlight and diffuse heat. This increases the temperature of
the water and prevents sunlight from penetrating past the surface of the water.
Sediment particles attract heavy metals and phosphorous due to opposite charges. It is
important to relate particle size to the type and/or amount of pollutants that they may carry.
In general, heavy metals and phosphorus association increases with decreasing particle size
(Wilson, Gulliver, Mohseni, & Hozalski, 2007). The reason for this is because the specific surface
236 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
area relative to the diameter of the particle increases with decreasing size. Table 33 shows
heavy metal concentration related to particle size diameter. This table was developed from
several different studies and assembled by Wilson et al. It can be assumed that phosphorous
would have a similar association.
Table 33 - Heavy Metal Concentration in Storm water Sediment (Wilson, Gulliver, Mohseni, & Hozalski, 2007)
Structure Alternatives
We chose to analyze 4 different structures, 3 of which are hydrodynamic separators. We also
analyzed a standard catch basin sump as a control. Hydrodynamic separators are flow-through
structures with a settling or separation unit to remove sediments and other pollutants that are
widely found in storm water. Each structure that was analyzed is shown below.
237 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 116 A & B: A) CDS (Continuous Deflection Separator) B) Stormceptor
Figure 3 A & B: A) EcoStorm B) Standard Catch Basin Sump
These structures were chosen based on two important factors, the first of which being the
limitations of the design software, the second being the overall footprint of the structures.
Some of the structures analyzed in the software were very large, and would not fit into the
small project area.
Apparatus and Procedure

Analysis was done using the SHSAM (Sizing Hydrodynamic Separators And Manholes) software
developed by BARR Engineering and St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Currently the software is
238 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
limited by the number of structures that have been tested. It can however predict removal
efficiencies of non-tested models with decent accuracy.
The SHSAM software was developed from experimentation and dimensional analysis. The
software uses the approximate watershed characteristics along with recorded rainfall data for
up to 17 years. It also allows you to input a desired particle size distribution for the storm
water runoff. Finally, a structure is chosen and the analysis is done.
3 different particle size distributions were used to simulate different seasonal and site
conditions. They are: The Mn/DOT Road Sand particle size distribution, which consists of
mostly coarse to fine sands, the OK110 particles size distribution, which consists of medium to
fine sands with some silt, and the JCAT particle size distribution, which consists of coarse to fine
sands, silts, and some clays. The particle size distributions can be seen below in Figure 117.
Particle Size Distribution

100
90
80
70
JCAT PSD
Percent Finer
60
Mn\DOT Road
50 Sand PSD
OK 110 PSD
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Grain Size Diameter (microns)
Figure 117 - Particle Size Distributions
The OK 110 particle size distribution was used as our design particle size distribution, but all
were analyzed. Our desired design removal efficiency is 80% or more.
239 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Analysis and Discussion of Results

The chart below shows the approximate removal efficiencies for each particle size distribution.
It is important to note that all of the hydrodynamic separators are at or near the 80% target
removal efficiency for the OK 110 particle size distribution. As you can see from the chart, the
standard catch basin sump falls quite short of the 80% target removal efficiency. In fact it
achieved a removal efficiency that is half of the removal efficiency of the hydrodynamic
separators.
Removal Efficiencies Mn/DOT Road Sand

OK 110 PSD
100
NJCAT PSD
90
80
70
% Removal
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Stormceptor CDS ecostorm Standard Sump
BMP Device
Figure 118 - Removal Efficiencies of Storm water Treatment Devices
Conclusion
The Stormceptor device was chosen because it had the highest removal efficiency and because
of its protection from scour. Figure 119 shows the device operating at normal flow conditions.
During normal flow the storm water runoff enters the structure and hits a circular weir. This
weir creates a vortex forcing the water downward. The sediment then settles to the bottom
240 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
and the oils and floatables float to the top. The treated water then flows over, up, and out into
the Minnesota River.
Figure 119 - Stormceptor (normal flow conditions)
Figure 5 shows the Stormceptor device operating at high flow conditions. Rainfall runoff is
greatly increased during extreme rainfall events. This can cause re-suspension of particles into
the storm water. This is called scouring. The Stormceptor device prevents this by bypassing the
area where the sediment is stored. Some of the runoff is still treated during extreme events,
however, some of the runoff must bypass over the vortex weir and out the other side because
of the increased discharge. This is shown in Figure 6.
241 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 120 - Stormceptor (high flow conditions)
It was estimated that the approximated cost for the structure and the installation will be just
under $40,000.
242 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Summary of Data
MNDOT Road sand
Total
Total Load Removal
Load Removed Efficiency
Name Model (lbs) (lbs) (%)
Stormceptor 450 27506 21305 77.5
Stormceptor 900 27506 22929 83.4
Stormceptor 1200 27506 23886 86.8
Stormceptor 1800 27506 25078 91.2
Stormceptor 2400 27506 25499 92.7
Stormceptor 3600 27506 26131 95
Stormceptor 4800 27506 26354 95.8
Stormceptor 6000 27506 26504 96.4 Ave Max
Stormceptor 7200 27506 26563 96.6 90.6 96.6
CDS 2014 27506 21500 78.2
CDS 2015 27506 24011 87.3
CDS 2020 27506 24284 88.3
CDS 2025 27506 24427 88.8
CDS 3020 27506 24979 90.8
CDS 3030 27506 25255 91.8
CDS 3035 27506 25380 92.3
CDS 4030 27506 25966 94.4
CDS 4040 27506 26085 94.8 Ave Max
CDS 4045 27506 26138 95 90.2 95.0
ecoStorm 21 27506 26078 94.8
ecoStorm 22 27506 26324 95.7
ecoStorm 31 27506 26369 95.9
ecoStorm 32 27506 26681 97 Ave Max
ecoStorm 41 27506 26673 97 96.1 97.0
StandardSumps 66 27506 22771 82.8
StandardSumps 63 27506 20930 76.1
StandardSumps 44 27506 17828 64.8 Ave Max
StandardSumps 42 27506 14765 53.7 69.4 82.8
Table 34 - MNDOT Road sand PSD data
243 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
NJCAT PSD
Total
Total Load Removal
Stormceptor 450 27506 8012 29.1
Stormceptor 900 27506 9214 33.5
Stormceptor 1200 27506 10085 36.7
Stormceptor 1800 27506 11422 41.5
Stormceptor 2400 27506 12005 43.6
Stormceptor 3600 27506 13175 47.9
Stormceptor 4800 27506 13740 50
Stormceptor 7200 27506 14447 52.5 42.9 52.5
CDS 2014 27506 8622 31.3
CDS 2015 27506 10791 39.2
CDS 2020 27506 11098 40.3
CDS 2025 27506 11269 41
CDS 3020 27506 11991 43.6
CDS 3030 27506 12429 45.2
CDS 3035 27506 12647 46
CDS 4030 27506 13946 50.7
CDS 4040 27506 14312 52 Ave Max
CDS 4045 27506 14493 52.7 44.2 52.7
ecoStorm 21 27506 12792 46.5
ecoStorm 22 27506 13237 48.1
ecoStorm 31 27506 13319 48.4
ecoStorm 32 27506 14027 51 Ave Max
ecoStorm 41 27506 14001 50.9 49.0 51.0
Standard
Sumps 66 27506 8666 31.5
Standard
Sumps 63 27506 7368 26.8
Standard
Sumps 44 27506 5715 20.8 Ave Max
Standard
Sumps 42 27506 4578 16.6 23.9 31.5
Table 35 - NJCAT PSD Data
244 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
OK 110 PSD
Total
Total Load Removal
Stormceptor 450 27506 10042 36.5
Stormceptor 900 27506 12523 45.5
Stormceptor 1200 27506 14392 52.3
Stormceptor 1800 27506 17234 62.7
Stormceptor 2400 27506 18410 66.9
Stormceptor 3600 27506 20533 74.6
Stormceptor 4800 27506 21449 78
Stormceptor 7200 27506 22490 81.8 64.3 81.8
CDS 2014 27506 11436 41.6
CDS 2015 27506 15855 57.6
CDS 2020 27506 16465 59.9
CDS 2025 27506 16799 61.1
CDS 3020 27506 18186 66.1
CDS 3030 27506 18977 69
CDS 3035 27506 19358 70.4
CDS 4030 27506 21444 78
CDS 4040 27506 21965 79.9 Ave Max
CDS 4045 27506 22211 80.8 66.4 80.8
ecoStorm 21 27506 19572 71.2
ecoStorm 22 27506 20348 74
ecoStorm 31 27506 20494 74.5
ecoStorm 32 27506 21632 78.6 Ave Max
ecoStorm 41 27506 21596 78.5 75.4 78.6
Standard
Sumps 66 27506 11187 40.7
Standard
Sumps 63 27506 8656 31.5
Standard
Sumps 44 27506 5862 21.3 Ave Max
Standard
Sumps 42 27506 4232 15.4 27.2 40.7
Table 36 - OK110 PSD data
245 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
STORM WATER CONTROL OF UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

INITIAL INFORMATION
Southeast Culvert
 Initial flow into the culvert is 13.91 cfs.
 Initial slope of culvert, S = 0.1%
 kn = 1.486 (US Units)
 ke = 0.5 (Entrance loss coefficient)
 Ditches at entrance of culvert have a 2:1 slope.
 Distance from East Side of rail to West side of rail is 48.85'. The culvert must
accommodate this length.
 Option for pipe would be a concrete culvert of a corrugated metal culvert.
o nconcrete = 0.013 (Table 11.4 in Gupta textbook)
o ncorrugated metal = 0.024 (Table 11.4 in Gupta Textbook)
 There is a fairly large drop-off at the exit of the culvert. The drop-off is 20' that occurs
over a 40' span. This implies that erosion prevention must be considered.
CULVERT DESIGN
To begin the design of the culvert passing underneath the railroad on the southeast end of the
tracks, a flow from that region must first be analyzed. The area was modeled using Hydrocad
software and was discovered to be 13.91 cfs after a ditch was installed. After the railroad was
raised to the desired height, several parameters of the culvert could be discovered. First a
slope of the culvert had to be analyzed. A typical slope for this type of hydraulic structure is
0.1% which is the slope that the water resources team decided to go with. There also had to be
an initial inside diameter of the pipe assumed to analyze the flow. According to Hydrocad the
average flow depth through the ditch with this amount of flow was 1.02', which lead to initial
diameter assumption of 2' for the culvert. Also the distance between the two opposite sides
underneath the rail where the culvert will be placed is 48.85'. An adequate length of pipe for
this distance would be 50'.
The design begins by deciding on a material to cast the culvert from. The two types of materials
analyzed were concrete and corrugated metal. The chosen material will be discussed later on
after all the analysis is complete for both materials. Since there is a mild slope of the culvert
traveling under the rail and the distance is short, the culvert can be considered outlet
controlled. The beginning of the design starts by finding the critical angle, θc, which the water
surface will create with the center of the pipe.
246 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 121 shows this angle.
Figure 121 - Critical Angle
The angle θc must also initially be assumed to find an exact value later on. This value for θc can
be found using the following equation.
3/2
2
(𝜃𝑐 − sin 𝜃𝑐 ) 𝑑 8
𝑄
=
𝑔1/2 𝜃𝑐
(𝑑 sin 2)
Where,
θc = critical angle, °
Q = flow rate, 13.91cfs
g = gravitational acceleration, 32.2 ft/sec2
d = diameter of pipe, feet
Since Q/g1/2 is a constant parameter, this side of the equation will have a value and the critical
angle can be solved for using the solver function in excel.
2
[(𝜃𝑐 − sin 𝜃𝑐 ) 2 8]3/2
2.451 = => 𝜃𝑐 = 220.12°
𝜃𝑐
2 ∗ sin 2
247 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Now that this critical angle has been achieved, the critical depth of the water flow can be found
using the following equation:
𝑦𝑐 1 𝜃 𝑦𝑐 1
= 1 − cos 𝑐 2 => = (1 − cos 220.12 2) => 𝑦𝑐 = 1.343 𝑓𝑡.
𝑑 2 2 2
Now that the critical depth has been found, a water surface profile through the pipe must be
analyzed. This is done using the direct step method. Both types of materials for the culvert are
analyzed to find the best design.
Concrete
Since the culvert is outlet controlled, the outlet is where the water surface profile analysis must
begin. To begin, the beginning water height must be a small amount larger than the critical
depth.
𝑦 = 𝑦𝑐 + 𝜖 = 1.343 + 0.001 = 1.344 𝑓𝑡.
This small addition is down to signify that the water level is increasing as the analysis is working
upstream toward the inlet of the culvert where the headwater needs to be found. Now the
actual angle that the water surface makes with the center of the pipe needs to be found. This
angle is shown in figure 1 and it will be very close to the same value as calculated previously.
2𝑦 2 ∗ 1.344
𝜃 = 2 cos −1 1 − = 2 cos−1 1 − = 220.242° = 3.844 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠
𝑑 2
Now the area of flow can be calculated using the following equation.
𝑑2 22
𝐴 = 𝜃 − sin 𝜃 = 220.242 − sin 220.242 ∗ = 2.245 𝑓𝑡 2
8 8
The next step is finding the wetted perimeter of the pipe so that the hydraulic radius can be
calculated by dividing the area by the wetted perimeter.
𝜃𝑑 3.844 ∗ 2
𝑃𝑤 = = = 3.844 𝑓𝑡.
2 2
248 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 2.245
𝑅= = = 0.584 𝑓𝑡.
𝑃𝑤 3.844
After the hydraulic radius is discovered, the velocity of the flow at this section of the culvert
needs to found. This is found by dividing the flow rate by the wetted area of the section.
𝑄 13.91
𝑉= = = 6.196 𝑓𝑡/𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝐴 2.245
The velocity is a parameter used to find the energy of the water at the specified point in the
pipe that will be specified later on. The equation for the energy line is shown.
𝑉2 6.1962
𝐸 =𝑦+ = 1.344 + = 1.94 𝑓𝑡.
2𝑔 2 ∗ 32.2
Now the slope of the water surface can be found.
𝑛2 𝑉 2 0.0132 ∗ 6.1962
𝑆𝑓 = 2 4/3 = = 0.006
𝑘𝑛 𝑅 1.4862 ∗ 0.5844/3
Multiple trails of this analysis must be run to find the y value at the entrance of the culvert. So
the same process is repeated again to get the next position value. The y values in are assumed
but must be higher than the previous value because we are moving backward (upstream
toward the inlet) in the pipe and the water elevation is increasing. This process is continued
until the length of the culvert of 50 feet is achieved. Table 37 demonstrates the process.
Table 37 - Direct Step Method for Concrete
The Δx value is found using the following equation for each elevation of the water surface:
𝐸2 − 𝐸1 2.1425 − 2.0709
𝛥𝑥@ 𝑦 =1.805𝑓𝑡. = = = −29.33 𝑓𝑡
𝑆0 − 𝑆𝑓 (𝑎𝑣𝑔 ) 0.001 − 0.00344
The value is negative because we are moving backwards through the pipe. At this elevation the
position of the water in the pipe is:
𝑥 = 𝑥 + ∆𝑥 = −20.67 − 29.33 = −50 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡.
This is the length of our pipe which implies we are at the inlet position of the culvert. The
elevation of the water surface is 1.805' at this point. Now the headwater can be calculated.
249 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑉2 4.662
𝐻𝑤 = 𝑦 + 𝑘𝑒 = 1.805 + 0.5 = 1.97 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡.
2𝑔 2 ∗ 32.2
Where,
Hw = headwater, ft.
ke = entrance loss coefficient, 0.5
V = velocity of water at this position, ft/sec
g = gravitational acceleration, 32.2 ft/sec2
The headwater does not exceed the diameter of the culvert so the design is adequate.
However this cannot be the adopted design without analyzing the corrugated steel culvert.
This is the next design.
Corrugated Steel
The same process is followed for corrugated steel as is a concrete culvert. The beginning
critical depth and angle are the same for corrugated steel. Using all the same equations and the
same process, Table 38 was established for this new material. An initial diameter of 2.5' was
assumed for this process. Also the Manning’s n value for corrugated steel is 0.024.
y θ θ A P R V E ΔE Sf Sf (avg) Δx x Hw
1.344 3.29 188.6 2.69 4.12 0.65 5.17 1.76 - 0.012 - 1.55
1.4 3.38 193.8 2.83 4.23 0.67 4.92 1.78 0.016 0.011 0.012 -1.52 -1.52 1.59
1.5 3.54 203.1 3.08 4.43 0.69 4.52 1.82 0.042 0.009 0.010 -4.83 -6.35 1.66
1.6 3.71 212.5 3.32 4.64 0.72 4.19 1.87 0.055 0.007 0.008 -7.98 -12.80 1.74
1.7 3.88 222.2 3.55 4.85 0.73 3.91 1.94 0.065 0.006 0.007 -11.58 -19.55 1.82
1.917 4.27 244.5 4.04 5.34 0.76 3.44 2.10 0.164 0.004 0.005 -38.42 -50.00 2.01
Table 38 - Direct Step Method for Steel
As noticed in Table 38, even with a larger diameter pipe the headwater is larger at the inlet of
the pipe for corrugated steel.
With the given grade raise of the railroad, there is limited clearance from the bottom of the
ditch to the top of the railway. A 2.5' culvert will not fit underneath the railroad with adequate
clearance. Therefore the 2' concrete culvert must be adopted as the design.
250 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Culvert Design
2 ' diameter concrete culvert with a length of 50' at a slope of 0.1%
Erosion Control
The velocity of flow at the outlet of culvert must also be analyzed to find if erosion is going to
be a problem for this scenario. The velocity at the outlet of the culvert was found previously in
the calculations and is equal to 6.20 ft/sec at the outlet.
With a velocity of this magnitude, an erosion control method must be considered. Two things
were considered during this analysis. The first would be to extend the culvert all the way down
the hill to where the slope is not so extreme. This would initially be the cheapest and easiest
way to control the erosion near the railroad. However the culvert would not extend all the way
to the river and having the water flow through the pipe all the way down the extreme slope of
the hill would drastically increase the head of the water. With these considerations the velocity
of the water would increase and an erosion control method would be needed anyway. This
design was dismissed.
The second consideration would be to design an erosion control system at the exit of the
culvert that would carry the flow down the slope of the hill. The hill depressed down 20' over a
length of 40'. A stepped spillway that carries a nappe flow is the design of choice for this
situation. To design a stepped spillway to carry nappe flow, the spillway must have
appropriately sized steps. To have nappe flow the following must be considered.
𝑦𝑐 𝑕
< 0.89 − 0.4
𝑕 𝑙
Where,
yc = critical depth of flow, 1.343'
h = height of the step, ft
l = length of the step, ft
To begin this analysis a height and length of the steps must be assumed. Since the hillside
declines 20'over a 40'horizontal length, and initial guess for the h and l would be 2'and 4',
respectively. This would give exactly 10 steps.
𝑦𝑐 1.343
= = 0.6715
𝑕 2
2
0.89 − 0.4 = 0.69
4
251 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
𝑦𝑐 𝑕
=> 0.6715 < 0.69 => < 0.89 − 0.4
𝑕 𝑙
This means that the dimensions of the steps are adequate for nappe flow. The width of the
steps would be 3' to accommodate the entire diameter of the pipe and therefore, all the flow
from the pipe. The following figure shows the design.
h S0 = 0.001
L = 50 ft.
Figure 122- Design
d = 2 ft.
l
There also must be some type of material k that covers the steps so they do not erode. There are
several options for this which include; variety of plants and trees, mulch riprap and rock rip rap.
If plants were chosen the high velocity would destroy them and would not allow for any growth
to occur. Also mulch would more than likely be washed down the steps and eventually serve
no purpose. In accordance with Dr. Omid Mohseni of Minnesota State University, rock with a
median grain size, d50, of 6" was recommended. This was the rip rap chosen for the erosion
control of the side slope on the Northwest side of the railroad.
Northeast Section
The railroad will also be raised on the North side of the rail bridge. There is a flow of 9 cfs on
the Northeast side of the rail. There will need to be some sort of runoff control for this section
as well. However there is already a culvert in place that is somewhat clogged and can still
accommodate the runoff for this section of the railway. If the culvert was cleaned there would
be no need for design for this section of the railway. The in-place culvert is adequate for the
flow. TH 93 alignment
252 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX F, ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
253 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Any projects in Minnesota should undergo special review procedures and permits to avoid and
minimize damage to Minnesota’s environmental resources. For any project, the thorough
study of project’s environmental impacts, how they can be avoided or minimized is carried and
review documents are created. One of these review document is known as environmental
impact statement and this document aids the government units to determine whether the
project is environmentally acceptable or not and what mitigation measures are needed.
This Environmental Impact statement for RR and T.H realignment project goes over Economic
impacts, lists of contaminated sites, location of archeological sites, Endangered and threatened
species in the project area, Noise Impacts, Air quality Impacts, Flood plain and wetland impacts.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are both beneficial and adverse impacts in any highway construction. Some of these
impacts related to are outlined below.
Regional Economic Impacts

TH 93 is one of the vital links between 169 and Le Sueur. After this project is completed, there
will be increase in truck traffic travelling through TH 93 because the travelling trucks will have
enough vertical as well as lateral clearance through the bridge, the same holds for opposite
travel movement. This realigning of existing alignment is not expected to pose any adverse
economic impacts on the regional economy. It will decrease travel time and improve safety
which would contribute to positive economic growth.
Safety and crashes

The need for this proposed project is also to improve the safety of TH 93. Over six year period
this segment of TH 93 has reported 19 crashes. Raising the RR clearance would accommodate
the clearance required for heavy vehicles which will minimize the traffic crashes occurring in
this area.
Public recreational areas

This TH 93 project area includes recreational opportunities (river, parks) within close proximity
to the project. Since the 10 ft shared used path is added on TH 93 and Grove Street to
accommodate the pedestrian and bikers, this project adds positive impact on recreational
areas.
254 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
NOISE CONCERNS
Summary
In order to improve vertical clearance of the railroad bridge over TH 93, the existing railroad
profile grade will have to be raised by approximately 5'. With a change in grade comes the
potential for an increase in noise levels for the surrounding communities. Given the fact that a
grade change of five feet is a relatively small change there will most likely be little or no impact
to the surrounding areas, but to make sure that there is not an excessive increase in noise
MavTek engineering conducted a study of the existing profile grade compared the proposed
profile grade and how the clear path for sound to travel changes.
Procedure
The first step in analyzing the noise in the area is to establish the existing profile grade. The
ideal method for establishing the profile grade is to use AutoCAD profile data to generate a
computer-drawn profile, this allows for a very precise profile in a small amount of time.
AutoCAD was used for a portion of the profile (about 220'), but due to a lack of profile data, this
was the only portion which could be drawn. To fill in the remainder of the profile, MavTek
engineering used USGS topographic maps. USGS topographic maps contain a much lower
resolution of data than an AutoCAD profile, but for the purposes of this study they are
adequate. The USGS topographic maps used had a contour line every 10' and created an
approximate profile. As seen in the profile grade in Figure 123, the profile grade is very smooth
from 0 – 220' and then begins to get rough.
255 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 123 - Profile Grade
To model the possible increase in noise in the area, Mavtek engineering used the book
“Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science”, second edition by Davis and Masten.
Within the text there is a chapter on noise, from this particular chapter there is a noise
relationship as follows:
𝑊
𝐼=
4𝜋𝑟
Where:
 I is noise intensity
 W is sound of power source in watts
 r is radius in meters
From this law it can be concluded that the ratio of I1 to I2 is equal to the ratio of r2 to r1.
Where I2 and r2 are coresponding to pre construction and I1 and r1 corespond to post
construction.
To model the sound pathway on the profile grade more than just the grade was needed. At
aproxomately 300 feet from the railroad line there are several two story buisnesses; these
buisnesses were drawn on the profile grade since most sound will have to travel over them.
Another factor in the sound travel is the height at which sound leaves the train. The loudest
part of the train is the locomotives horn which sits up aproxomately 16 feet from the ground.
256 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Lastly, there is the location and height of homes in the area. The nearest homes in the area are
located at 800 feet from the rail line, these homes were included in the profile grade drawing at
an assumed 20 feet tall or two stories. These additional factors, as well as the noise paths
before and after construcion can be seen in Figure 124. As seen in this figure, the existing noise
path is labeled in blue and the increased noise path after construction is shown in red.
Figure 124 - Noise Pathway
Results
From the profile seen in Figure 124 it is easy to tell that the increase in railroad elevation does
not create a significant increase in noise. In fact, it seems that there is no apparent difference at
all. The locations where there may be some difference would be much farther up the profile. At
this point the slope may have picked up enough to create some additional noise affected areas,
but by the time this happens the areas affected would most likely be outside of the town of Le
Sueur. Also, the newly affected areas would most likely be several thousand feet away; at this
point the noise intensity would only increase by a slight factor (r 2 / r1) as discussed previously.
As the distances r2 and r1 increase, the ratio of r2 / r1 decreases significantly. With distances r2
and r1 in the thousands of feet, there is a very small percentage increase in noise intensity.
Additionally, the possible affected areas are located far enough away that most of the noise
energy will have dissipated whether or not the railroad grade is raised; that is the outer areas of
town may have a small percentage increase in noise intensity, but a small percentage increase
of an already small noise intensity is insignificant to the human ear.
257 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Conclusion
Due to the fact that there will be no significant increase in noise for the surrounding areas from
an increase in railroad grade, MavTek engineering does not believe there is a need for noise
barriers. However if the city of Le Sueur wishes to improve existing conditions they may do so
through the addition of dense plantings. Plantings will cost much less than a noise barrier and
will provide a decrease in the noise intensity that is currently experienced in Le Sueur.
FLOOD PLAIN
Floodplains are vital part of river and ecosystem. Floodplain is an area around the stream that
frequently floods during heavy rain. Floodplains are important because they act as flood
buffers, water filters, nurseries and they are also major centers for biological life. Presidential
Executive Order 11988 – “Floodplain Management” and Minnesota Statutes 103F.101 to
103F.155 require any agencies, in carrying out their proposed projects, to provide leadership
and action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impacts of floods on human safety
by floodplains.
Affected Environment
Floodplains have been designated and mapped for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. The most recent Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) was used for this study: Le
Sueur County maps 27079C0110 D, dated July 21, 1999. This map is shown in Figure 125.
A floodplain assessment, consisting of an analysis of flooding risks, excavation/fill impacts and

impacts of activities that would occur in the floodway and floodplain was performed for this
project. It is found that the existing river bridge crosses the floodway at Minnesota River. Since
the river bridge will remain in its present location and only the sidewalk would be added to the
existing bridge, there will be no affect on the floodway from this proposed project. However,
there will be small encroachment of longitudinal (alignment is located adjacent to the stream or
river, but never crosses it) 50 -year floodplain. The impact on this floodplain area will be due to
realignment of the RR Bridge for which fill is required. The floodplain area that will be impacted
is shown in red outline in Figure 126.
258 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 125 - FEMA Map
259 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 126 - Floodplain Impact
Assessment and Mitigation

There are state and federal laws and rules in addition to Presidential order on floodplain
management which requires any project to check following issues.
 There will be no significant interruption or termination of a transportation facility that

is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route due
to high floodwaters.
The proposed design would not affect the roadways needed for the evacuation during
the periods of the high floodwaters. Since the new alignment for TH 93 will be on same
260 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
existing profile, it does not increase the risk of flooding. Instead to minimize the flooding
risks, the project will be designed such a way that the waterway openings of the
structure will provide sufficient capacity for the floodwaters. All the structures
constructed as a part of project will be designed to accommodate 100 year flood
volume.
 No significant adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values

should result from the construction of any alternative.
There will be longitudinal encroachment and some addition of fill required to
accommodate the RR realignment .The only potential adverse impact that will occur
due to adding of fill on natural and beneficial floodplain is seasonally flooded
ecosystems. However when compared to total floodplain area within watershed, the
area of fill required is insignificant. Also, the temporary and permanent erosion
control measures would be used where appropriate and would be designed to
accommodate 100 year flood volume. There are some endangered and threatened
species identified in this area but they are not directly related to floodplain. They
are in the river. Therefore no significant adverse impacts on natural and beneficial
floodplain values should result from this proposed project.
 No significant increased risk of flooding will result.

The floodway is not impacted anyway so there will be no change in flood stage due
to this project. And the project will be designed such a way that the waterway openings
of the structure crossing the floodplain will provide sufficient capacity for the
floodwaters. Therefore there is no increase of risk of flooding.
 This project will not result in any incompatible floodplain development.
261 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
No incompatible floodplain development will result from constructing this project

since this project does not provide local access in floodplain areas.
Conclusion
Even though there will be some longitudinal impacts on the floodplain area due to proposed
project, the impact is insignificant. Also, there will be mitigation measures taken to minimize
the impact as minimal as possible.
WETLAND IMPACTS
According to Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas." Wetlands are very important part of ecosystem because they are responsible for flood
control, maintaining vegetation and aquatic habitat, replenishing water quality and supply.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency maintains the quality and integrity of wetlands within
Minnesota.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
As a part of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation for the project involving
replacement of the UPRR Bridge over the TH 93, Highway realignment and trail construction in
Le Sueur, comprehensive research on different topics was done. The following sections will go
over the researched hazardous waste sites near the proposed construction site. The topics
discussed will be the procedure for acquiring the hazardous waste information and details
found.
Minnesota Pollution Control agency (MPCA)

Several contact attempts were made with Mankato Minnesota Pollution Control agency. After
many unsuccessful attempts were made, contact with Joshua Burman, Hazardous Waste/PCB
Compliance and Enforcement Coordinator was made over the phone.
262 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Through MPCA’s website the potentially contaminated sites in any area were easily viewable in
map form. The Arc GIS map, when directed to the required area, would show all the sites of
contaminated air, solid waste, tank and leaks, contaminated water, hazardous waste and
feedlot around that area. The map showing all the potentially contaminated sites around the
project area is shown below in Figure 127.
Figure 127 - Contaminated Sites
The potentially contaminated sites recorded in these maps were sites contaminated since the
1980s.When major federal and state cleanup programs were created, the MPCA searched all
the possible contaminated properties from very small to large to assist the federal and state
agencies in their cleanup programs. These maps were created using the information found
during their search.
MPCA has given all the contaminated properties a unique MPCA Id number. If these MPCA ID
numbers are known, all the information regarding those sites could be retrieved. For any
contaminated sites, MPCA lists information like quantity of waste, type of waste, name of
company producing the waste. It also gives information if the site has been already cleaned up
263 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
or currently being investigated or in cleanup process. If the sites are cleaned up MPCA also lists
the method used for cleaning purposes.
For the railroad project, using the retrieved map and all the hazardous waste sites
found, the MPCA ID for each site was found. Using the MPCA ID, the information for every
single forty six contaminated site was retrieved. The spreadsheet table was created using
information found and is shown below as Table 39.
Name of
Hazardous Amount Management
Name of Company MPCA ID Activity Waste Reported Method Used
US Army Reserve MN00005 Small to

Center 94440 Minimal
Minnesota Valley MND0702 Small to Laboratory

Health Center 64593 Minimal Wastes 4 Gallons Silver Waste
14832569 Small to Recycled Off-

Le Sueur Electric Co 9 Minimal site
14832483 Small to
Siehndel Const 3 Minimal
Demolition 4096
Isd 2397 Le Sueur MN00000 Small to

Henderson 36079 Minimal
079-
John Sunderman Farm 99690
MN00252 Wastewater
Waterville WWTP 08 Discharger
MNR0000 Small to Laboratory On-Site

Le Sueur-Henderson 03277 Minimal Wastes 1 Pounds Accumulation
Elementary School Tank Site 6 Gallons

Paints/Thinne On-Site
264 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
rs Accumulation
MND9824 Small to
Osborn Auto Body 27312 Minimal
14832488 H W, Small
Dennis L Wavrin DDS 2 to Minimal
Valley Dental 14832659 H W, Small Photographic

Associates 8 to Minimal Wastes 6 Pounds Sewered
MND9857 H W, Small without

Le Sueur City Of 58796 to Minimal Treatment
14832582 H W, Small
Trustworthy Hardware 2 to Minimal
Winters Plumbing & 14832671 H W, Small Used Oil Oil Filter

Heating Inc 3 to Minimal Filters 5 Pounds Recycling
Oil
10 Hauler/Servic
Used Oil Gallons e Station
Isd 2397 Le Sueur MN00000 H W, Small

Henderson 36079 to Minimal
Tank Site
Waterville Auto MND1227 H W, Small

Center 13613 to Minimal
Mainstream MND0061 HW, Small

Publications LLC 82802 to Minimal
MNR0000 HW Small to Parts Washer Hazardous

Lake County Sales Inc 55574 Minimal Solvent 0 Gallons Waste Hauler
Tank Site
265 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
14832490 HW, Small

Bruce W Hultgren DDS 8 to Minimal
14832627 H W, Small
Riveredge Auto Repair 5 to Minimal
MNNONG H W, Small
Kline Photographic EN483 to Minimal
United States MNE2000 HW, Small

Marshals Service 00044 to Minimal
MN00009 H W, Small
Superamerica 4082 75839 to Minimal
Us West MND9857 H W, Small

Communications 68217 to Minimal
MNNONG HW, Small

Reaume Pontiac Buick EN885 to Minimal
MNS0001 H W, Small
United Farmers Coop 18802 to Minimal
Tank Site
Air Permit
Hubbard Milling
Company 7657 Tank Site
MND0669 HW, Small Hazardous

Mars Petcare US Inc 09896 to Minimal Video Jet Ink 5 Gallons Waste Hauler
Air Permit
14832642 H W, Small
St Anne School 4 to Minimal
266 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Tank Site
MND9826 H W, Small
J & K Auto Repair 51317 to Minimal
ISD 2397 Le Sueur MNR0000 H W, Small Laboratory Hazardous

Henderson School 01552 to Minimal Wastes 4 Gallons Waste Hauler
MND1264 H W, Small Paints/Thinne 500 Hazardous

Yancey's Brothers Inc 02650 to Minimal rs Pounds Waste Hauler
MND9857 H W, Small Laboratory 30 Hazardous

Davisco Foods 68480 to Minimal Wastes Gallons Waste Hauler
Air Permit
MNR0000 H W, Small
Union Pacific Railroad 21725 to Minimal
Le Sueur Veterinary 14832586 H W, Small Photographic 50

Services PA 3 to Minimal Wastes Pounds
Silver Waste
MND9809 H W, Small Recycled Off-
Your Sterling Cleaners 92002 to Minimal site
MND9856 HW, Small Laboratory 25 Hazardous

Le Sueur Cheese Co 93373 to Minimal Wastes Gallons Waste Hauler
Leak Site
REM0444 Unpermitte
Le Sueur Dump 3 d Dump Site
Davisco Intl Cheese

Division 52279 Tank Site
Blahas Body Shop

MNR0000 H W, Small
267 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
14027 to Minimal
Oil
MND9826 H W, Small 100 Hauler/Servic
D & E Auto Sales 22334 to Minimal Used Oil Gallons e Station
Used Oil 50 Oil Filter

Filters Pounds Recycling
HWLIC10 H W, Small
Pillsbury Green Giant 02758 to Minimal
MNR0000 H W Small
General Mills Inc 58537 to Minimal
MND9806 H W, Small
ADC
77504 to Minimal
Telecommunications
Inc Tank Site
Wastewater
Discharger
Table 39 - Contaminated Sites
The sites listed in the above table are possibly contaminated at some point in the past. It was
found that most of these sites had small to minimal hazardous waste. These contaminations
were because of oil, paints, laboratory wastes etc. Even though most of the sites mentioned
had minimal hazardous waste, it had already been cleaned up using different waste
management method. The tanks mentioned in these areas were reported to be not leaking and
were in compliance with current state, federal, and local regulations and zoning.
DEMOLITION CONCERNS
Background
The two buildings to be demolished were located on either side of the railroad property. The
first property is owned by the Le Sueur Farmers Elevator and is a building used to store grain. It
appears to be a typically designed pole shed construction with steel siding. It also appears to
268 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
have a large concrete floor. This can be seen in figure 1 below. This building will be referred to
as the grain storage building. The second building seems to be an older industrial building. This
building is a mixture of a masonry, timber, and steel structure. This building will be referred to
as the Sprague building.
Figure 128- Grain Storage Building
269 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Figure 129 - Abandoned Building 1
270 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Concerns
The environmental concerns for the buildings come from three different categories; hazardous
material, construction debris, and site conditions. Each category will need its own consideration
on how to handle the concerns.
Hazardous Material
There is little concern for hazardous materials to be found in the grain storage building, but the
Sprague building has a higher likely hood because of its age and mixed usage. The hazardous
materials that should be of main concern are materials that would have been common when
the building was being built but are now known to be hazardous. The most likely hazardous
material to be on site is mercury. Mercury is common in many fluorescent lights or older
electrical switches. The next most likely material is lead. This would be contained in the paint
that is used on the timber or metal portions of the building. Another likely material would be
asbestos. This was commonly used in different floorings and also as insulation. A type of
material that has a lower likely hood of being present is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These
would be contained in caulk, paint, electrical transformers, and specialty oils. Each type of
271 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
hazardous material has its own safety concerns and should be addressed with the common
industry standards for handling them.
Construction debris
The second concern is for construction debris. Both the grain storage building and the Sprague
building have many recyclable components to them. The grain storage building would be easy
to save the siding as well the roof trusses and much of the dimensional lumber. This is would be
practical due to newer age of the building. The Sprague building also contains many metal
beams that could be easily salvaged from the wreckage and sold as scrap metal. There is also a
possibility of some of the wood having a market as rustic lumber to be used for finishing
purposes. The concrete and other masonry material may also be crushed onsite to be used for
granular material or backfill. Special consideration will need to be given to treated lumber for
disposal because of different chemicals used to treat it could be hazardous. The rest of the
debris would need to be trucked away to a construction demolition landfill.
Site Conditions
The third concern is for site conditions. This includes dust, vibration, noise, and rodent control.
The dust from crushing of masonry material and building demolition will need to be controlled
due to the urban location of the project. The close proximity of the historic Mayo House and
other downtown buildings will require that attention be paid to the amount of vibration is
created. This could possibly damage the buildings or their foundations. The urban setting of the
project will also create noise restrictions which will be governed by local ordinances. The
demolition of a partially abandoned building and a grain storage facility also creates a risk of a
large rodent disturbance. This should be considered before demolition begins and preventative
measure should be taken, such as poisoning, to exterminate rodents.
Summary
The three main environmental concerns are from hazardous materials, the construction debris,
and the working conditions created by the demolition. The hazardous materials should be
identified before demolition begins and handled in accordance with industry standards. The
construction debris should be recycled when possible or transported to an appropriate landfill.
Consideration for site conditions will include the dust, noise, and vibration reduction
techniques as well as pre-demolition rodent extermination.
272 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
ENDANGERED SPECIES
To ensure the proposed TH 93 RR Bridge realignment project does not adversely affect any of
the critical habitats in the immediate area of the project, MavTek Engineering performed
background research on the possible endangered species in Le Sueur and Sibley counties. This
research will be used in the design phase of the project to identify and minimize any impacts to
the endangered or threatened species found in the area. The following sections include a
summary of both the research procedures used by MavTek Engineering and the results
obtained.
Procedure
To research species of concern in the project area, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Rare Species Online Database was used. The Rare Species Database can be accessed
through the DNR’s website and allows searching by the use of various filters; these filters
include:
 Group (mammal, mussel, reptile, etc)

 Status (federal or state level, threatened, endangered, special concern)
 Counties in Minnesota
 Ecological Classification System
 Minnesota Watershed
 Habitat Type
At the time of this research not a great deal of project specific details were available, so, for the
purposes of this preliminary research, only the county filters were used. This procedure
probably tends to overestimate the species of concern in the project area since the project
does not involve all of Le Sueur and Sibley counties, but was the best procedure available at the
time.
Once the list of various species was found, research was done on each individual species to
obtain more information specific to each individual species. MavTek Engineering performed
273 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
research as indicated above and listed the results in tabular form. The specific points of interest
of each species included the following:
 Common Name
 Scientific Name
 Group
 Federal Status, if any
 State Status
 Habitat
Results
Upon completion of research of species of concern in Sibley and Le Sueur counties, 43 species
were identified. Research identified one federal status endangered species, six Minnesota
status endangered species, 13 Minnesota status threatened species, and 23 Minnesota status
special concern species. These species were researched independently, and the results were
tabulated in Table 40 seen below.
Common Scientific Federal State

Group Habitat
Name Name Status Status
Acadian Empidonax special
bird none Mesic hardwood forest
Flycatcher virescens concern
American Panax vascular special
none Mesic hardwood forest
Ginseng quinquefolius plant concern
Arogos Atrytone special Native prairie habitat, generally where conditions are mesic or
insect none
Skipper arogos concern dry-mesic.
Haliaeetus special Sites near lakes and rivers in forested areas where tall, large
Bald Eagle bird none
leucocephalus concern diameter trees are available for nesting
Beaked Eleocharis vascular
none threatened Non-forested Rich Peatland
Spike-rush rostellata plant
Black special Sloughs, impoundments, and both fast- and slow-flowing
Ictiobus niger fish none
Buffalo concern portions of rivers
Black special Riffle and run areas of medium to large rivers in areas
Ligumia recta mussel none
Sandshell concern dominated by sand or gravel
Blanding's Emydoidea
reptile none threatened Wetland complexes and adjacent sandy uplands
Turtle blandingii
Cycleptus special
Blue Sucker fish none Deep swift moving waters with sand or gravel bottom
elongatus concern
Cerulean Dendroica special
bird none Mature deciduous forrest w/ diverse canopy
Warbler cerulea concern
Fusconaia
Ebonyshell mussel none endangered Large rivers in sand or gravel
ebena
Alasmidonta
Elktoe mussel none threatened Medium to large rivers, sand or gravel substrates
marginata
274 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Hair-like Rhynchospora vascular

Beak-rush capillacea plant
Henslow's Ammodramus
bird none endangered Uncultivated Grasslands, old fields
Sparrow henslowii
Obovaria special
Hickorynut mussel none Large Rivers, sand and gravel substrates
olivaria concern
Jumping special
Phidippus pius spider none Unplowed upland prairie sites
Spider concern
Jumping Habronattus special
spider none Dry prairie slopes
Spider texanus concern
Etheostoma special
Least Darter fish none Small Rivers and Streams, Littoral Zone of Lake
microperca concern
Common Scientific Federal State
Group Habitat
Name Name Status Status
Loggerhead Lanius
bird none threatened Upland Prairie
Shrike ludovicianus
Quadrula
Monkeyface mussel none threatened Medium Rivers and Streams, Large Rivers
metanevra
Actinonaias
Mucket mussel none threatened Medium Rivers and Streams, Large Rivers
ligamentina
North
Coluber special Fire Dependent Forest, Mesic Hardwood Forest, Cliff, Rock
American reptile none
constrictor concern Outcrop, Upland Prairie, Subterranean, Talus, Savanna
Racer
Polyodon
Paddlefish fish none threatened Large Rivers
spathula
Tritogonia
Pistolgrip mussel none threatened Large Rivers
verrucosa
Powesheik Oarisma special
insect none Upland Prairie, Lowland Prairie
Skipper powesheik concern
Pugnose Notropis special
fish none Small Rivers and Streams, Littoral Zone of Lake
Shiner anogenus concern
Rattlesnake- Eryngium vascular special
none NA
master yuccifolium plant concern
Red-
special Fire Dependent Forest, Mesic Hardwood Forest, Floodplain
shouldered Buteo lineatus bird none
concern Forest, Wet Forest
Hawk
Red-Tailed
Aflexia special
Prairie insect none Upland Prairie
rubranura concern
Leafhopper
Regal Speyeria special
insect none Upland Prairie, Lowland Prairie
Fritillary idalia concern
Rock Arcidens
mussel none endangered Large Rivers
Pocketbook confragosus
Small White
Cypripedium vascular special
Lady's- none Upland Prairie, Lowland Prairie, Wet Meadow/Carr
candidum plant concern
slipper
Smooth Apalone special Lake Shore, River Shore, Medium Rivers and Streams, Large
reptile none
Softshell mutica concern Rivers, Littoral Zone of Lake
Species of
Buellia nigra lichen none endangered Non-calcareous rock in exposed sunny areas
Lichen
Sterile vascular
Carex sterilis none threatened Non-forested Rich Peatland
Sedge plant
Sullivant's Asclepias vascular
none threatened Upland Prairie
Milkweed sullivantii plant
Trumpeter Cygnus
bird none threatened Marsh, Littoral Zone of Lake
Swan buccinator
Cladium vascular special
Twig-rush none NA
mariscoides plant concern
Wartyback Quadrula mussel none endangered Large Rivers
275 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
nodulata
Whorled Scleria vascular
Nut-rush verticillata plant
Winged Quadrula
mussel endangered endangered Medium Rivers and Streams, Large Rivers
Mapleleaf fragosa
Yellow Lampsilis
mussel none endangered Large Rivers
Sandshell teres
Yellow-
Carex vascular special
fruited none Upland Prairie, Lowland Prairie, Savanna
annectens plant concern
Sedge
Table 40 - Species of Concern
Conclusion
Upon looking at each of the species table 1 it is clear to see that most of the species are in some
way tied to the river. To minimize any adverse effects to these species, sediment, and pollution
runoff into the river needs to be minimized. To help prevent unnecessary discharge into the
river, MavTek Engineering developed a storm Water pollution Prevention plan in appendix G.
HISTORICAL BUILDINGS
State Historic Preservation Office
Initially contact was made with the Le Sueur County Historical Society. After multiple
unsuccessful attempts were made, efforts were shifted to the Historical Society library because
of their larger size. The staff at Historical Society library directed us to contact the State Historic
Preservation Office.
Contact with the State Historic Preservation Office was made over the phone. We were
directed to contact Tom Cinadr, the Survey and Information Management Coordinator, by
email with the location of our project. The project location was to be given in township, range
and section coordinates for all areas within the project limits.
Our project was limited to the Southeast ¼ of Section 35 of Township 112 North, Range 26
West. The state’s historic structure inventory search came back with a list of 28 structures that
had been identified as being possible historical structures. The search showed that no
archaeological sites in our search area had been previously identified.
Four structures on the states list are also on the National register of Historic Places. Three of
these houses are far enough away from the proposed construction that no special concerns are
deemed necessary. The Dr. William Mayo House however is very close to our proposed
construction site. Our construction will not have any contact with this historic structure but we
276 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
feel that it would be necessary to take it into account when planning the construction
processes. These concerns mainly come from vibrations that would be associated with the
driving of pile during abutment construction.
The states historic structure inventory report also included our project bridge, Bridge No. 4629
TH 93 under C&NW Railroad. The reasoning for this bridge to be included on the report is
currently being researched further. Current research is leading researchers to conclude that the
bridge is listed as historical because of the railroad’s importance in the settlement of the area
and not because the bridge has unique characteristics. If this assumption is correct, the bridge
can be replaced without ruining the historical importance of the railroad itself. More research
will be carried out to determine the exact reasoning for Bridge No. 4629 to be listed on the
historical structures inventory report and the actions needed.
Site Investigation
A site investigation was used in determining the historic structures along with the information
received from the State Historic Preservation Office. The document from the state located
specific structures that were deemed significant but was not a complete list. From our own site
investigation, we realized that all of Main Street contained many older commercial buildings
that would be in close proximity to our site and had been left out of the states inventory.
Impacting these structures could happen in many ways. Like the Mayo House, the building
could be subjected to damage during construction activities such as pile driving. These activities
will be considered and minimized to reduce the chance of such damage. The grouping of these
of these buildings also creates a historic atmosphere to the downtown. By replacing the
railroad bridge and raising the railroad grade we are not predicting any change in the
downtown atmosphere. Replacing the railroad bridge is not predicted to change the
atmosphere because it is not visible from the area of concern. Raising the railroad grade will
not affect the atmosphere because the amount of trains traveling through the area is not
changing, the grade change is very slight, and the railroad is located on the backside of the
historic district. The railroad will also maintain the same appearance as it currently has or will
be modeled to fit in with the historic atmosphere.
MAPPING
Mapping of the historic sites were done with the use of an online maps and ARC GIS. Online
mapping sites Google and MapQuest were used in identifying locations of the described
277 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
properties that had addresses listed on the Historical Structural Inventory report. These
locations were then marked on a GIS map of the downtown Le Sueur area. This made for easy
comparison between the location of the historical structure and our proposed project location.
This could not be done with 5 buildings because an incomplete address was given for the site. A
future site investigation is planned to confirm the locations on the historic structures and to
hopefully identify the locations of structures with incomplete addresses.
Figure 132- Historical Places
Mapping of the sites was used to visually confirm the locations of the listed structures. This was
used in the team’s decision as to whether or not special consideration for the structure had to
be taken. It was also used to identify which structures would need the most consideration
during construction planning. Considerations are given to any structural damage that might be
done and also changes in the properties location atmosphere. Since none of the mapped
properties lied directly on the railway, it was determined that none of the building’s
atmospheres would be changed by the bridge renovation or regarding of the railroad.
278 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
History/Architecture Inventory
Inventory
PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS Sec Quarters Report NRHP Number
COUNTY: Le Sueur
CITY/TOWNSHIP: Le Sueur
bridge xxx Bridge St. 35 SW-NW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-001
Le Sueur Co-op Elevators xxx Mill St. 35 E-NW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-002
Le Sueur Depot xxx Oak St. 35 SE-SW-NE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-003
house NE corner Risedorph St. & Main St. 35 SW-SW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-005
house SE corner Main St. & Smith St. 35 NW-SW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-006
house 318 Main St. S. 35 NW-SW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-007
Smith-Cosgrove House 228 Main St. S. 35 NW-SW-SE LE-80-1H Y LE-LSC-008
Le Sueur Theater 209 Main St. S. 35 NE-SW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-009
house xxx Main St. S. 35 NW-NE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-010
Park Hotel 208 Main St. N. 35 NE-NW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-011
Dr. William Mayo House 118 Main St. N. 35 SE-NW-SE Y LE-LSC-012
house xxx Main St. 35 NE-SE-NE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-013
house 317 2nd St. S. 35 SE-SW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-015
Snow House NE corner 2nd St. & Ferry St. 35 NE-SW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-016
George W. Taylor House 103 2nd St. S. 35 SW-NE-SE Y LE-LSC-017
William H. Patton House NE corner Bridge St. & 2nd St. 35 SW-NE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-018
house 221 2nd St. N. 35 NW-NE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-019
St. Anne's Convent &

Boarding School 125 Oak St. 35 NW-NE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-020
St. Anne's School NE corner Oak St. & 2nd St. 35 NW-NE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-021
Methodist Church SE corner Maple St. & 2nd St. 35 SE-SE-NE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-022
house 503 2nd St. N. 35 SE-SE-NE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-023
Union School NE corner Jane St. & 2nd St. 35 NE-SE-NE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-024
279 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
house NW corner Smith St. & 3rd St. 35 SE-SW-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-025
house 227 4th St. S. 35 SW-SE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-029
house NE corner 4th St. & Ferry St. 35 NW-SE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-030
Le Sueur Public School xxx 5th St. 35 NE-SE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-035
United Brethren Church SW corner 5th St. & Swan St. 35 SE-NE-SE LE-80-1H LE-LSC-036
C.N. Cosgrove House 228 2nd St. S. 35 NE-SW-SE LE-80-1H Y LE-LSC-037
COUNTY: Sibley
CITY/TOWNSHIP: Le Sueur
Bridge No. 4629 TH 93 under C & NW Railroad 35 SE-NW-SE SB-LSC-001
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BRIDGE

Reasoning
Additional research was needed on the railroad bridge because it was listed on a Historic
Structure Inventory Report, Report LE-80-1H, from the State Historic Preservation Office, SHPO.
Additional concern over the historic value came about because it was built in 1922. During this
time period the railroad was vital to the growing economy of the region.
State Historic Preservation Office

Chris Bower went and met with SHPO and discussed the Historic Structure Inventory Report
and the historic value of the railroad bridge. Report LE-80-1H contained little conclusive
information about the bridge. The report was compiled for the replacement of the TH 93 Bridge
over the Minnesota River when it was being analyzed in 1980. It documented that there was a
railroad bridge there and that it was built in 1922. It did not mention anything about the
railroad bridge having a historical value. Since the report made no conclusion further
investigation was required into different documents.
MN/DOT Cultural Resources Unit

Searching of the MN/DOT website found that the cultural resources section of the Office of
Environmental Services was found to have multiple documents concerning historic structures.
This was found online at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/cultural_res/index.html.
The Programmatic Agreement Concerning Pre-1956 Historic Bridges conducted in March of
280 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
2008 documented information about Minnesota’s historic bridges that MN/DOT would deal
with. As stated on page 2 of the Programmatic Agreement that would cover the Historic value
of the railroad bridge.
Bridges that this study looked at are clearly defined on page 3, Stipulations Section 1:
Applicability and Scope, Part B: Definition of Eligible/Listed Bridges, paragraph 1.
According to this, the Programmatic Agreement does not include railroad bridges that are not
crossing highways, but would include Bridge No. 4629 since it crosses a state highway.
The Programmatic Agreement included a list developed in 2006 with the 24 bridges that
MN/DOT has a Historic Bridge Management Plan for or the list of 227 Bridges it wishes to
preserve. The railroad bridge was on neither of these lists or on the Minnesota Historical
Society’s website. The only two bridges that are on either of these lists from Sibley or Le Sueur
Counties are Bridge 4930, TH 99 over the Minnesota River, and Bridge 4846, a pedestrian
bridge over Shanaska Creek.
281 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Common Historical Criteria

The reason for the railroad bridge not being on either of these lists is because it does not meet
the historical criteria. The first criterion is Typological, or the type of bridge. Since steel beam
bridges are still being built there is no risk of not having bridges with this design around
anymore. The second criterion is Aesthetics. The only aesthetic feature of the bridge is the
limestone abutments which are common in the region. These are in disrepair and show little
chance of being repaired. They can also be replicated on the new bridge to maintain the same
feeling to observers. The third criterion is Exceptional Engineering. The steel beam bridge is a
common design which can be found all over the area. There is a bridge 1000’ away that has the
same design. The final common criterion is if the bridge is part of a historical district. This
bridge is not part of a historical district. A new bridge can be built to better enhance the nearby
historical building better then what the current bridge does.
Conclusion
The railroad bridge should have no problem being replaced because of its historical value. The
bridge was listed on one State Historic Preservation Office report during the evaluation
processes for the replacement of the adjacent TH 93 bridge over the Minnesota River. This
report did not specify that it was historic or had any other conclusive information in it. The
railroad bridge is also not listed on either of the states Historic Bridge Management Plan or the
Bridges to Preserve lists. The bridge also does not seem to meet any of the four common
criteria for it to be listed at a historical bridge.
282 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX G, STORM WATER

POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
283 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan

For:
Replacement of Railroad Bridge 4629
Le Sueur Minnesota 56058
SWPPP Contact(s):
MavTek Engineering
Minnesota State University
Mankato, MN, 56001
SWPPP Preparation Date:

May 7, 2010
284 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Section 1: Site Evaluation, Assessment, and Planning

1.1 Project/Site Information
Project/Site Name: Bridge 4629 Replacement
Project Street/Location: Trunk Highway 93
City: Le Sueur State: MN ZIP Code: 56058
County or Similar Subdivision: Le Sueur
Latitude/Longitude
Latitude: Longitude:
44 º 27.7' N 93 º 55.0' W
Method for determining latitude/longitude:
USGS topographic map (specify scale: ) EPA Web site GPS
Other (please specify): http://www.satsig.net/maps/lat-long-finder.htm
Is the project located in Indian country? Yes No
If yes, name of Reservation, or if not part of a Reservation, indicate "not applicable."
Not applicable
Is this project considered a federal facility? Yes No
NPDES project or permit tracking number*: TBD
*(This is the unique identifying number assigned to your project by your permitting authority
after you have applied for coverage under the appropriate National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) construction general permit.)
1.2 Contact Information/Responsible Parties

This SWPPP was Prepared by:
285 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
MavTek Engineering
Greg Mitchell, Chandani Malla, Joe Chudyk
205 Trafton Science Center East
Mankato, MN 56001
Subcontractor(s):
To Be Determined
Emergency 24-Hour Contact:

To Be Determined
1.3 Nature and Sequence of Construction Activity

Describe the general scope of the work for the project, major phases of construction, etc:
The project will include the demolition of railroad bridge No. 4629 over Minnesota Trunk
Highway 93 and the associated regarding and realignment of the railroad and trunk highway.
What is the function of the construction activity?

Residential Commercial Industrial Road Construction Linear Utility
Other (please specify):
1.4 Soils, Slopes, Vegetation, and Current Drainage Patterns

Soil type(s)
Soils on this project are sandy soils. The soils also include fill from surrounding construction.
There may be other river soil deposits.
Slopes
Most of the project is on relatively flat ground. However, the river bank contains steep slopes
of up to nearly 1:1. These slopes will be replaced with more stable slopes nearing 2:1. This will
be achieved with the addition of fill to the area. Retaining walls will also be used to limit the
impacts to the floodplain.
286 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Vegetation
The vegetation along the railroad varies depending on the side of the track. The river side is
mostly woods on the hill side with some low lying brush. The bottom of the slope the woods
continue but are intermixed with wetlands of varying qualities. The city side of the tracks is
varying types of grass in different states of maintenance. The highway is lined with grass ditches
before entering into the mixed woods and wetland vegetation state. There will be limited
impact on the highway.
Other
The site appears to be contaminant free. The possibilities of contaminates being located in the
soil under the railroad is higher when compared to other parts of the project. This is due to the
use of rail to transport different oils and materials.
1.5 Construction Site Estimates

The following are estimates of the construction site.
Total project area: 15 acres

Construction site area to be disturbed : 12 acres
Percentage impervious area before construction: 46.87 %
Runoff coefficient before construction: 0.639
Percentage impervious area after construction: 47.82%
Runoff coefficient after construction 0.645
1.6 Receiving Waters

Description of receiving waters:
The Runoff from this site will flow directly into the Minnesota River.
Description of impaired waters or waters subject to TMDLs:

The Minnesota river has a Total Maximum Daily Load limit (TMDL) for Turbidity. The river also
has Phosphorous permitting during the summer months and a low dissolved oxygen problem
further downstream.
287 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
1.7 Site Features and Sensitive Areas to be Protected

Description of unique features that are to be preserved: The site contains many low quality
wetlands that will need to be preserved. No impact is predicted to these but should be
considered during construction. The main feature will be the Minnesota river and its floodway.
The floodway will have limited impacts. The floodway will partially be filled in the longitudinal
direction. This impact is minimized by the use of retaining walls. There will also be a trail
constructed in the floodway. This impact is minimal because it is being built along an existing
road.
There are multiple site features that will try to be preserved. The most important sensitive area
to be protected would include impacts to the Minnesota River and the associated floodplain. The
flood plain acts as a natural buffer to pre-treat water before entering the river. Minimal
disturbance is planned in this location to help prevent soil disturbance. There are also steep
banks along the railroad. These banks mark the edge of the floodplain and should be adjusted as
little as possible to prevent major floodway impacts.
1.8 Potential Sources of Pollution

Potential sources of sediment to storm water runoff:
 Construction activities
o Clearing
o Grading
o Excavating
 Construction Related Activities
o Stockpiles
o Borrow Areas
o Concrete Truck washout areas
o Fueling areas
o Material storage areas
o Equipment storage areas
Potential pollutants and sources, other than sediment, to storm water runoff:
1.9 Endangered Species Certification

Are endangered or threatened species and critical habitats on or near the project area?
Yes No
Describe how this determination was made:
288 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
The determination that our site may contain endangered or threatened species or their critical
habitat was done by researching the Minnesota Department of Natural resources Rare Species
Online Database.
If yes, describe the species and/or critical habitat:
The species critical habitat is closely linked to the river. This means that by limiting the impact
to the river, impact to endangered or threatened species can be avoided. For this reason no
impact is being done to the river channel. Bank stabilization may need to take place near
highway 93 but this will be done above the current bank stabilization and out of the water
impact.
1.10 Historic Preservation

Are there any historic sites on or near the construction site?
Yes No
Describe how this determination was made:
The determination of historic structures near the site was done by requesting a search from the
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, SHPO, as well as a site visit. These sites were then
mapped to show location relevant to the project.
It was determined the project could produce vibrations that could have an impact on the
closest of the sites. These sites will be monitored during construction to ensure that damage is
not taking place. Measures will also be taken during construction to limit the amount of
vibration that is taking place.
1.11 Applicable Federal, Tribal, State or Local Programs

No other Federal, Tribal, State of Local Programs apply to the construction site
289 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
SECTION 2: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS

2.1 Minimize Disturbed Area and Protect Natural Features
Existing Vegetation
BMP Description: The preserved areas of existing vegetation will be surrounded by orange
color plastic fence and all trees on the perimeter of protected areas will be marked with bright
colored ribbon. The fencing will be at least 3 ft tall and support post for the fencing will be at
least 4.5 ft tall with 18 to 20 inches driven into the ground and 6 ft apart. The equipments will
be kept away from protected area.
Installation Schedule: Before the construction begins at the site.
Maintenance and The preserved areas will be inspected weekly to check if the
Inspection: fence are intact and trees are clearly marked.
Responsible Staff: Contractor
Top soil
BMP Description: Top soil stripped from the immediate construction area will be stockpiled in
the designated area where there will be no interference with the construction phase and at
least 15 ft away from the area of concentrated flows or pavement. The silt fence will be
installed around the perimeter of stockpile. To prevent the soil erosion the maximum slope of
stock pile will be 2:1.
Installation Schedule: Stockpiles will be stocked during grading activity and silt fencing
will be installed immediately after stock pile has been
established.
Maintenance and The preserved areas will be inspected weekly and immediately
Inspection: after the storm to check if the fence are intact and areas are
eroded or not. The eroded areas will be stabilized immediately
with erosion controls.
290 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
2.2 Phase Construction Activity

BMP Description: With, the project area being relatively small, it is not practical to perform the
phased grading at the site. To minimize the potential erosion control, only areas necessary to
construct sediment trap, construction exits will be graded first. The areas will the cleared,
grubbed and graded during the dry season when the snow has already melted and when there
is less rainfall (late May and June) then the sediment basin, construction exits and access road
will be installed. These areas will be stabilized with hydro mulch or other erosion controls
immediately after construction or no later than 14 days after construction
Installation Schedule: For timeline of construction activity
2.3 Control Storm water flowing onto and through the project
2.4 Stabilize Soils

BMP Description: The structure needed to control storm water flow from the site needs to be
decided by water resource team.
Installation Schedule: Before site grading operations begin at the construction site.
Maintenance and Inspected for erosion and structural failures weekly and
Inspection: immediately after the storm events.
Temporary stabilization
BMP Description: The portion of the site where the construction activity will be temporarily
cease for more than 14 days and over winter months will be stabilized with the temporary
vegetative cover using hydro seeding. Hydro seeding will consists of wood fiber, seed(Smooth
brome), fertilizer and applied at rate as required(usually 8 lbs per acre).
Permanent Temporary
Installation Schedule: Where the construction will be ceased for 14 days or more ,
temporary stabilization established
Maintenance and Stabilized areas will be inspected weekly and after storm until
Inspection: dense cover of vegetation is established. If failure is noticed at
the seeded area, area will be reseeded, fertilized and mulched
291 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
immediately.
Permanent Stabilization
BMP Description: The site will be immediately or no later than 14 days stabilized permanently
after the final design grades are achieved and construction ceases. Native species of plants will
be used to establish vegetative cover on exposed soil.
Permanent Temporary
Installation Schedule: Immediately after the construction activities have permanently
ceased but no later than 14 days.
Maintenance and All seeded areas will be inspected weekly and after storm until
Inspection: dense cover of vegetation is established. If failure is noticed at
the seeded area, area will be reseeded, fertilized and mulched
immediately.
Dust Control
BMP Description: Dust from the site will be controlled by using mobile pressure-type
distributor truck to apply potable water to disturbed areas. This unit will apply water at the rate
which will be just enough to control dust and will minimize the runoff and ponding.
Installation Schedule: As needed once site grading has been initiated and during windy
condition (wind 20 mph or greater) while site grading is
occurring. It will sprayed as required depending upon the season
and whenever soil warrants it.
2.5 Protect Slopes
Geotextile and Erosion Blanket
BMP Description: Geotextile and erosion blanket will be used to provide stabilization for the
graded slopes. The bottom and side slopes will be seeded and mulched before the blanket is
applied. The blanket will be installed by digging a small trench on the upside of the slope , 12
292 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
inches wide by 6 inches deep and stapling the edge of blanket in the trench. The blanket will be
rolled down the slope slowly so that the blanket is in contact with the soil and stapled in 12 inch
intervals. The blanket will be overlapped at least 2 inches and stapled at overlapped edge
where the blanket cannot cover the entire slope. (Manufactures instruction will be always
followed for instruction and specification).
Installation Schedule: Once the slopes have reached final grade, erosion blanket are
installed
Maintenance and Erosion blanket will be inspected weekly and immediately after
Inspection: storm events to determine cracks, tears in the fabric. If cracks
and tears are found, the blanket will be replaced immediately.
Good contact between soil and blanket will be maintained to
prevent erosion. If any areas has no contact between soil and
blanket, the blanket will be repaired and replaced.
Design specification
1. Slope surface will be free of rocks, sticks and grass
2. The blankets will have good contact with soil.
293 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
3. Do not stretch the blanket. Lay it loosely and staple to maintain contact with soil.
4. Always follow manufacture’s recommendations.
2.6 Protect Storm Drain Inlets

BMP Description: Existing storm drain inlets will be protected from sediment by using fiber rolls
around the perimeter of storm drain inlets. The rolls will consist of rolled tubes of erosion
blanket (8 in diameter) and bound at each end with jute twine. It will be installed in shallow
trenches dug 2- 4 inches below the ground surface and staked into the ground using wooden
stakes 24 inches long, 3 to 4 feet apart.
Installation Schedule: Fiber rolls and check dams will be installed once the erosion
control blankets are in place and has been stabilized
Maintenance and Fiber rolls will be inspected weekly and immediately after storm
Inspection: events to replace and repair split, torn and failed rolls. Once the
sediment will be accumulated to 1/3 height of fiber rolls the
sediment will be removed and hauled to area where stock pile is
maintained.
Responsible Staff: Contactor
2.7 Establish Perimeter Controls and Sediment Barriers

Silt Fence
BMP Description: Silt fences will be used around the perimeter of the entire site except the
construction exits and the topsoil stock piles. Silt fences will be installed by excavating 12 inch
deep trench along the line of proposed installation. The silt fences will be supported by wooden
fences spaced 4 to 6 ft apart and driven 18 to 20 inched securely into the ground. The silt fences
will also be fastened securely to the wooden posts with the wire ties spaces every 24 inched at
the top, bottom and midsection. The bottom edge of the silt fence will extend across the bottom
of trench and the trench will be backfilled and compacted to prevent storm water and sediment
from discharging underneath the silt fence.
Installation Schedule: Before construction at the site and around the top soil stock
piles the silt fences should be installed.
Maintenance and Inspection: Silt fences will be inspected weekly and immediately after
storm events to ensure there is no failure(no gaps where
fence meets the ground, no tear along the fence). If failure is
294 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
noticed in the fence, it will be replaced immediately. The

sediment accumulation will be removed before it reaches
1/3 height of the fence and sediment will be hauled to
designated areas. The anticipated life span of the silt fence
is 6 months and should be replaced after this period.
295 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Design Specification
1. The silt fence should be long enough to extend across the expected flow path.
2. The support posts will be 4.5 ft tall and driven a minimum of 18 to 20 inches in the ground.
Posts will be spaced 6 ft apart. Fabric will be securely fastened to the posts with half inch
staples and wire ties.
3. 12 inch trench will be excavated along uphill side of silt fence posts. Bottom edge of fabric
will extend across the bottom of the trench and trench will be back filled to 4 inches above
ground.
296 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
2.8 Retain Sediment On-Site

Sediment Basin / Sediment Basin
BMP Description: Along the North side of the construction area the sediment basin will be
constructed to remove the sediment from the storm water runoff for the site.
Ditch will be installed along the southern side of the construction area for sediment control and
for T.H 93 downstream defender will be used.
Installation Schedule: All these structures will be installed before the site grading
begins at the site.
Maintenance and All these structures will be inspected weekly and immediately
Inspection: after the storm. Banks of the basin and ditch will checked for
erosion seepage and structural damage. The inlets , outlets and
spillways will be checked for damage and obstruction .
Accumulated sediment removed when ½ capacity of volume is
reached. Removed sediment will be hauled off to designated
areas.
2.9 Establish Stabilized Construction Exits

Stabilized construction exits
BMP Description: Stone ant tracking pads will be installed at the construction exits of the site to
prevent the offsite transport of sediment by construction vehicles. The stabilized exits will consist
of 6 inch thick layer of crushed stone(2 inch in diameter). The crushed stone will be placed over
the layer of geotextile fabric to reduce mitigation of sediment from the underlying soil. The
orange fence will be installed along the length of construction exits to keep construction vehicle
and equipment on the stone anti tracking pads.
Installation Schedule: The stabilized exits will be installed before construction begins on
the site. The ant tracking pads will remain in the place until the sub
grade of pavement is installed at the site.
Maintenance and The stabilized exits will be inspected weekly and after the storm
Inspection: events or heavy use. It should be maintained in the condition that it
will prevent sediment tracking off site. Once the sediment clogs up
the voids in the stone , the new stone will be added and when
completely filled with sediment, the new pad will be installed. The
removed stone and sediment will be hauled off to the designated
landfill.
297 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
2.10 Additional BMPs

Street sweeping
BMP Description: super sweeping will be used for sweeping and vacuuming on the T.H. 93 and
Main street to remove the sediments and other contaminants from the paved surface.
Installation Schedule: Street weeping will occur weekly and before the forecasted
storm events.
Maintenance and The accumulated sediment from sweeping will be hauled off to
Inspection: designated landfill site.
Section 3: Good Housekeeping BMP's

3.1 Material Handling and Waste Management
Designated Waste Collection Area

BMP Description: A waste collection area will consist of covered metal dumpsters placed in a
designated area not subject to significant runoff. The dumpsters are to be emptied weekly or as
necessary such that they are not overflowing. Large amounts of recyclables such as steel
copper, etc. will be placed in a separate storage bin or dumpster for recycling.
Installation Schedule: After establishment of staging areas, but before construction
begins
Maintenance and Waste collection area is to be inspected weekly or immediately
Inspection: after a rainfall event.
298 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Hazardous Waste
BMP Description: All hazardous waste found or created on site is to be stored in sealed
containers. Hazardous waste containers are to be placed in a designated hazardous waste area
separate from the general waste collection area. Employees are to be informed of the
hazardous waste area as well as any materials which should be disposed of in such a manner.
Installation Schedule: The Hazardous Waste area is to be installed before any
construction begins
Maintenance and Hazardous waste containers are to be inspected weekly, or
Inspection: immediately after a rainfall event.
Sanitary Waste
BMP Description: Temporary sanitary facilities (portable toilets) are to be established in the
general staging area. These facilities are to be placed away from direct storm flow areas as well
as direct traffic area. The temporary waste facilities are to have secondary containment of pans
at the base of each unit. If any unit has evidence of damage or leaking it is to be no longer used
and should be replaced.
Installation Schedule: The temporary sanitary facilities are to be established once the
staging area has been completed.
Maintenance and The temporary sanitary waste facilities are to be inspected daily
Inspection: and emptied as needed but at least two times per week.
Recyclable Materials
BMP Description: Any recyclable materials obtained on the construction site such as cardboard,
metal or pallets are to be placed in covered metal dumpsters in the designated waste collection
area. The dumpsters used for recycling are to be clearly labeled, and employees are to be
informed of their existence as well as materials which are to be placed in recycling.
Installation Schedule: Recycling area is to be established after establishment of staging
area, but before construction begins.
Maintenance and Recycling containers are to be inspected weekly, or immediately
Inspection: after a rainfall event.
299 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
3.2 Establish Proper Building Material Staging Areas

Staging Area
BMP Description: Construction equipment and construction materials are to be stored in the
First Farmers and Merchants Bank parking lot located southwest of the railroad bridge over TH
93. Gravel bag berms will be constructed around the perimeter of the parking lot to indicate the
parking lot as the staging area. A watertight container is to be used for the storage of tools and
small equipment. Construction materials are to be stored under a covered storage facility;
however in cases of large stockpiles which are not easily stored in such a manner a tarp may be
used for cover while wood blocks are used to elevate the materials off of the ground surface.
Any liquid or hazardous materials are to be stored within the hazardous waste area as outlined
in the hazardous waste section.
Installation Schedule: The staging area is to be installed before any construction begins
Maintenance and Storage areas are to be inspected weekly or immediately after a
Inspection: storm event.
300 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
3.3 Designate Washout Areas

Concrete Washout
BMP Description: Designated temporary below grade concrete washout areas are to be
installed. The temporary washout area can be seen below. The minimum recommended width
and length are ten feet, but may be made larger if needed to accommodate all concrete
washout temporary storage. The washout area is to be lined with plastic sheeting no thinner
than 10 mils that is free of any rips, tears or defects. Signs are to be posted to indicate the
location of the concrete washout area.
Concrete may not be poured during or before an anticipated storm event. After a concrete
pour, all remaining concrete is to be washed out in the designated washout area and allowed to
dry. Upon completion of the project, the temporary concrete washout facility is to be removed
and filled. Ground surface must then be stabilized and seeded to prevent any additional
erosion.
Installation Schedule: The concrete washout area is to be installed before any concrete
mixing is to occur.
Maintenance and The washout area is to be inspected daily for tears or leaks.
Inspection: Additionally, the washout area is to be emptied once it has
become 75% full. To clean out the washout area, concrete must
be allowed to dry, than shall be broken up and disposed of in
accordance with state and federal regulations. If any concrete is
washed out in an area other than the designated washout area it
is to be removed immediately.
301 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
3.4 Establish Proper Equipment/Vehicle Fueling and Maintenance

Practices
Vehicle/Equipment Fueling and Maintenance
BMP Description: All major equipment/vehicle fueling or maintenance is to be done off site. A
single fuel tank is to be kept on site in the staging area for necessary on site refueling. When on
site refueling is done on site it must be done in the staging area. Only minor equipment
maintenance is to be done on site. Any fluids generated from minor equipment maintenance
are to be disposed of properly, see hazardous waste section above. Spill cleanup kits are to be
on site where any maintenance or fueling is to occur. Drip pans are to be placed under all
equipment that is stored overnight.
Installation Schedule: Fuel tank and spill prevention equipment are to be installed after
completion of the staging area.
Maintenance and On site fuel tank is to be inspected weekly or immediately
Inspection: following a storm event. Any on site equipment is to be
302 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
inspected daily for leaks. Any equipment leaks are to be repaired

immediately or faulty equipment is to be removed from site. Any
used spill kits are to be replaced with new ones.
3.5 Control Equipment/Vehicle Washing

Vehicle/Equipment Washing
BMP Description: Only non-detergent washing of non-contaminated equipment is to be
performed on site. Any washing done on site is to be done in the staging area.
Installation Schedule: NA
Maintenance and NA
Inspection:
3.6 Spill Prevention and Control Plan

Spill Prevention and Control Procedures
BMP DESCRIPTION:
 Employee Training: All employees shall be trained in SWPPP procedures. All employees
shall be trained in the locations of concrete washout areas, spill cleanup kits, waste
facilities, etc.
 Vehicle Maintenance: All major vehicle/equipment maintenance is to be performed off
site. All equipment used on site is to be checked for leaking daily. Drip pans are to be
placed under equipment stored overnight.
 Hazardous Waste Storage: All hazardous waste is to be stored in watertight containers
as outlined in section 3.1.
 Spill Kits: Spill kits are to be kept near concrete washout area, staging area and waste
storage facilities as well as anywhere else a spill may occur. All spills are to be cleaned
up immediately. Spent absorbent materials are to be disposed of in accordance with
federal and state regulations.
 Material Safety Data Sheets: MSDS information will be kept and maintained onsite by
the contractor.
Installation Schedule: These procedures will be implemented before construction
303 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
occurs.
Maintenance and Training in the above procedures will occur weekly.
Inspection:
3.7 Any Additional BMPs

BMP Description: No Additional BMPs
Installation Schedule: NA
Maintenance and NA
Inspection:
Responsible Staff: NA
3.8 Allowable Non-Storm water Discharge Management

Landscape Irrigation
BMP Description: Landscape irrigation is to be performed on landscape only. Application of
water onto impervious surfaces is not permitted. Irrigation is to be performed with hoses or
sprinklers in an appropriate concentration such that runoff from the landscape does not
occur.
Installation Schedule: Irrigation schedule will vary depending on temperature and
weather conditions.
Maintenance and NA
Inspection:
3.9 Uncontaminated Water Line Flushing

BMP Description: Uncontaminated water which is flushed from the potable water system is
to be discharged into the sediment basin. In the event the water becomes contaminated,
contaminated water will be removed and treated in accordance with state and federal
regulations.
Installation Schedule: Water line Flushing will occur daily
Maintenance and NA
Inspection:
304 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Section 8: Certification and Notification

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person
or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Name: Title:
Signature: Date:
305 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX F, ECONOMICS
306 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
Bridge
Bridge Chris Bow er 2009 MNDOT Study Interest= 3%
Material cost Labor Cost Equipment cost Total cost
Super Structure Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Super Structure 60 LF $17,400.00 $1,044,000 $1,075,320 $0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $1,044,000 $1,075,320
Subtotal $1,044,000 $1,075,320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,044,000 $1,075,320
Piling Kyle Barnes 2007 Means Book Interest= 3% Material Location Factor= Installation Location Factor=
Detail Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Driven Piles 480 ft $14.55 $6,984 $7,632 $3.28 $1,574 $1,720 $2.29 $1,099 $1,201 $9,658 $10,553
Profit 1 LS $965.80 $966 $1,055 $0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $966 $1,055
compares to similar estimates on
Subtotal $7,950 $8,687 $1,574 $1,720 $1,099 $1,201 $10,623 $11,608 Contractortalk.com
Total $1,051,950 $1,084,007 $1,574 $1,720 $1,099 $1,201 $1,054,623 $1,086,928
Land Acquisition Chris Bow er

Kevin J Spraque Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
21.800.3530 Land 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
Building 1 LS $14,400.00 $14,400 $14,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,400 $14,400
Subtotal $19,400 $19,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,400 $19,400
Le Sueur Farmers Coop Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
21.800.3480 Land 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000
Building 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Subtotal $60,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000
Valley National Bank of Le Material cost Labor Cost Equipment cost Total cost
Sueur Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
21.800.3385 Land 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000
Parking lot use 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000
Subtotal $215,000 $215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215,000 $215,000
Total $294,400 $294,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $294,400 $294,400
Bridge Total $1,381,328

Mankato, MN 56001
RR Alignment
Andrew
Track Relocation Brow n 2004 Means Book Interest= 3% Material Location Factor= Installation Location Factor=
Shoofly Construction Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
100lb Rail and Ties 2850 LF $105.00 $299,250 $357,320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $299,250 $357,320
Track Ballast 2850 LF $17.60 $50,160 $59,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,160 $59,894
Turn out 2 EA $66.00 $132 $158 $0 $0 $0 $0 $132 $158
Subtotal $349,542 $417,371 $0 $0 $0 $0 $349,542 $417,371
New Track Construction Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
100lb Rail and Ties 4925 LF $105.00 $517,125 $617,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $517,125 $617,474
Track Ballast 4925 LF $17.60 $86,680 $103,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,680 $103,500
$0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $603,805 $720,975 $0 $0 $0 $0 $603,805 $720,975
Total $953,347 $1,138,346 $0 $0 $0 $0 $953,347 $1,138,346
Ahmad
Earthwork Afifeh Team Modified Interest= 3% Material Location Factor= Installation Location Factor=
Fill and excavation Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Back Fill 5500 CY $15.00 $82,500 $82,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,500 $82,500
excavation $17,500 $17,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,500 $17,500
Subtotal $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000
Total $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000
Segmental Concrete Joe

Retaining Wall Chudyk 2008 MNDOT 2010 Means Book Interest= 3% Material Location Factor= Installation Location Factor=
Detail Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Large unit, 8" high x18" wide
13-7140 7403 SF $8.85 $65,517 $65,517 $3.34 $24,726 $24,726 $0.57 $4,220 $4,220 $114,376 $114,376 Total Includes I&P (Means 2010)
x 20" deep
13-7260 Add reinforcing 7403 SF $4.59 $33,980 $33,980 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33,980 $33,980 Total Includes I&P (Means 2010)
2211.607/00050 Crushed Stone (foundation) 192 CY $46.60 $8,947 $9,492 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,947 $9,492 From MnDOT 2008 ABP
Subtotal $108,444 $108,988 $24,726 $24,726 $4,220 $4,220 $157,303 $157,848 No Fill included
Total $108,444 $108,988 $24,726 $24,726 $4,220 $4,220 $157,303 $157,848
Danny
Water Resources Anderson 2008 MNDOT Interest= 3%
Pipes and Outlet protection Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
2503.511/90122 12" RCP pipe 10 lf $22.70 $227 $241 $0 $0 $0 $0 $227 $241
2503.541/90249 24" RCP Jacked 50 lf $400.00 $20,000 $21,218 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $21,218
2301.503/00205 600 cy $27.31 $16,386 $17,384 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,386 $17,384

Concrete for stepped spillway
2511.501/00013 Class III Riprap 100 cy $45.41 $4,541 $4,818 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,541 $4,818
Subtotal $41,154 $43,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,154 $43,660
Total $41,154 $43,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,154 $43,660
Misc. Team Discussion

Misc. Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Landscaping and Aesthetics 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Subtotal $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Total $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
Mankato, MN 56001
Andrew
Sheet Piling Brow n Hammer and Steel Quote 2010
Mobilization Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Equipment 6 Month $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,500 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000
Freight 9 Load $600.00 $5,400 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,400 $5,400
Subtotal $5,400 $5,400 $0 $0 $63,000 $63,000 $68,400 $68,400
Wall 1 Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
1st Month Rent 93 Ton $300.00 $27,900 $27,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,900 $27,900
Additional Months Rent 93 Ton $25.00 $2,325 $2,325 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,325 $2,325
Shortage Cost 93 Ton $2,000.00 $186,000 $186,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $186,000 $186,000
Labor 2547 ft2 $0 $0 $3.37 $8,583 $8,583 $0 $0 $8,583 $8,583
Subtotal $225,525 $225,525 $8,583 $8,583 $0 $0 $234,108 $234,108
1st Month Rent 90 Ton $300.00 $27,000 $27,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,000 $27,000
Labor 13308 ft2 $0 $0 $3.37 $44,848 $44,848 $0 $0 $44,848 $44,848
Subtotal $218,250 $218,250 $44,848 $44,848 $0 $0 $263,098 $263,098
1st Month Rent 57 Ton $300.00 $17,100 $17,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,100 $17,100
Labor 5660 ft2 $0 $0 $3.37 $19,074 $19,074 $0 $0 $19,074 $19,074
Subtotal $138,225 $138,225 $19,074 $19,074 $0 $0 $157,299 $157,299
Total $587,400 $587,400 $72,506 $72,506 $63,000 $63,000 $722,906 $722,906
Railroad Alignment Total $2,212,760

Mankato, MN 56001
TH 93
T.H 93 Shared Use Path Chandani Malla 2008 MNDOT Interest= 3%
Trail Construction Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Excavation 2250 CY $3.62 $8,145 $8,641 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,145 $8,641
Traffic Barriers 100 LF $68.55 $6,855 $7,272 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,855 $7,272
Aggregate Base 41 CY $18.57 $761 $808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $761 $808
Type LV4 Wearing Course 2" 390 Sq YD $8.50 $3,315 $3,517 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,315 $3,517
Subtotal $19,076 $20,238 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,076 $20,238
Total $19,076 $20,238 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,076 $20,238
TH 93 Reconstruction Danny Anderson 2008 MNDOT Interest= 3%
Removals Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
2104.505/00120 bituminous removal 944 sy $2.02 $1,908 $2,024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908 $2,024
Subtotal $1,908 $2,024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908 $2,024
East of RR Bridge Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
2106.607/00080 12" select granular fill aggregate 31 CY $9.91 $312 $331 $0 $0 $0 $0 $312 $331
2211.503/00050 6" class 5 aggregate 16 CY $18.57 $292 $310 $0 $0 $0 $0 $292 $310
2301.502/00205 concrete pavement standard width 8.0" 94 SY $21.60 $2,040 $2,164 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,040 $2,164
2531.501/02320 B624 concrete curb and gutter 800 LF $10.95 $8,760 $9,293 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,760 $9,293
2106.607/00080 34" select granular fill aggregate 3778 CY $9.91 $37,438 $39,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,438 $39,718
Subtotal $48,842 $51,817 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48,842 $51,817
West of RR Bridge Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
2211.503/00050 6" class 5 aggregate 667 CY $18.57 $12,380 $13,134 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,380 $13,134
2360.503/24620 2" bituminous wear course 3333 SY $5.20 $17,333 $18,941 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,333 $18,941 2007 MNDOT
2360.503/22215 1.5" bituminous wear course 3333 SY $3.42 $11,400 $12,094 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,400 $12,094
2531.501/02320 B624 concrete curb and gutter 2000 LF $10.95 $21,900 $23,234 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,900 $23,234
Subtotal $63,013 $67,403 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,013 $67,403
Shoulders Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
2106.607/00080 12" select granular fill aggregate 1111 Cy $9.91 $11,011 $11,682 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,011 $11,682
2211.503/00050 6" class 5 aggregate 556 CY $18.57 $10,317 $10,945 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,317 $10,945
Subtotal $55,994 $60,508 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,994 $60,508
Signage Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
2401.514/06646 traffic barrier 400 LF $85.00 $34,000 $37,153 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,000 $37,153 2007 MNDOT
driver feedback sign 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 2010
Subtotal $39,000 $42,153 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $42,153
Total $94,994 $102,661 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,758 $223,904
Water Resources Danny Anderson 2008 MNDOT Interest= 3%
Inlets Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
combination drain inlet 2 LS $1,200 $2,400 $2,546 $2,270.00 $4,540 $4,816 $2,050.00 $4,100 $4,350 $11,040 $11,712
Stormceptor Structure 1 LS $16,700 $16,700 $17,717 $17,000.00 $17,000 $18,035 $0 $0 $33,700 $35,752
Subtotal $19,100 $20,263 $21,540 $22,852 $4,100 $4,350 $44,740 $47,465
Total $19,100 $20,263 $21,540 $22,852 $4,100 $4,350 $44,740 $47,465
Misc. Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000
Landscaping 1 LS $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000
Subtotal $160,000 $160,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000
Total $160,000 $160,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000
TH 93 Total $451,606
Mankato, MN 56001
Grove St. Trail

Chandani
Grove Street Trail Malla 2008 MNDOT Interest= 3%
Land Acquisition Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Mark Osbourne $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 LeSueur county Accessor w ebsite used
Daniel & Janet Distel 0.348 acre $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $631 $631
Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,131 $2,131
Trail Construction Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Aggregate Base 340 CY $18.57 $6,314 $6,698 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,314 $6,698
Type LV4 Wearing Course 2" 3070 Sq Yd $8.50 $26,095 $27,684 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,095 $27,684
Subtotal $32,409 $34,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,409 $34,382
Total $32,409 $34,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,540 $36,513
Grove St. Trail Total $38,644

Wetland Mitigation
Chandani I&S
Wetland Mitigation Malla 2010 Estimate Interest= 3%
Wetland Mitigation Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
mitigated by 2:1 ratio(Bw sr.state.mn.us)
Wetland Credits 9.5 Created $22,000 $209,000 $209,000 $0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $209,000 $209,000
Cost Estimate Obtained From I&S
acre
Subtotal $209,000 $209,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $209,000 $209,000
Total $209,000 $209,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $209,000 $209,000
Wetland Mitigation Total $209,000

Sediment Control
Chandani
Erosion Control Malla 2008 MNDOT Interest= 3%
Surface Runoff Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
Silt Fencing 11000 FT $1.47 $16,170 $17,155 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,170 $17,155
Geotextile Blanket 7450 SY $1.16 $8,642 $9,168 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,642 $9,168
Subtotal $24,812 $26,323 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,812 $26,323
Total $24,812 $26,323 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,812 $26,323
Danny
Reseeding Anderson 2008 MNDOT Interest= 3%
Seeding Quantity Unit Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Unit cost Cost 2010 Cost Total cost 2010 Cost Comments
2575.501/00010 Seeding 1 ac $110.86 $111 $118 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111 $118
Subtotal $111 $118 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111 $118
Total $111 $118 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111 $118
Sediment Control Total $26,441

Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX H, PLAN AND PROFILE

SHEETS
312 | P a g e
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
mi/hi/h= 60
0 0+00.00
mD
PE E
N =S60
TA
ED
0.0
ESIG
STA 0+0S
DESIGN DSPE
1+59.34
08.81
PC: 3+49.66
.9 4
+70
2+50 2+00
PT: 3+94.47
3+00
PT: 3+04P.3T8: 3+
P: 0+00.00
3+50 1+50
1+00
:3
PC: 1+58P.6C0:
4+50 4+00 0+50
PRC
5+00 0+00
BP: 0+00B.00

775.00
772.50
-1.94%770.00
100 ft VC
767.50
765.00
762.50
760.00
%
.13 757.50
-10
755.00
752.50
750.00
100 ft VC 1.59% 747.50
98 ft VC 745.00 1
742.50
740.00
5+00.00 4+00.00 3+00.00 2+00.00 1+00.00 0+00.00
EP: 9+58.51
PT: 9+28.36
858. .46
49
: 8++8
PC: 8+38.48
PPTC: 8
8+00 7+50 7+00 6+50 6+00 5+50 5+00
10+50 10+00 PI: 9+63.17
9+50 9+00 8+50

ML - (128)
0.02%
200 ft VC
2
10+00.00 9+00.00 8+00.00 7+00.00 6+00.00 5+00.00

15+50 15+00 14+50 14+00 13+50 13+00 12+50 12+00 11+50 11+00 10+50 10+00
PI: 13+62.43

ML - (129)
-0.78%
200 ft VC 3
15+00.00 14+00.00 13+00.00 12+00.00 11+00.00 10+00.00

ML - (131)
21+00 20+50 20+00 19+50 19+00 18+50 18+00 17+50 17+00 16+50 16+00 15+50
PC: 18+61.61
PT: 19+95.14
PC: 15+60.94
PT: 15+63.92

ML - (131)
ML - (130)
4
1+00.00 20+00.00 19+00.00 18+00.00 17+00.00 16+00.00

Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX I, IN PLACE PLANS
317 | P a g e
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX J, REFERENCES
343
Mankato, MN 56001
1. BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects
2. “Structural Steel Designer’s Handbook with AISC, AASHTO, AISI, ASTM, AREMA and
ASCE-07 Design Standards.” Roger Brockenbrough and Frederick S. Merritt.
3. Steel Construction Manual
4. Wilson, M. A., Gulliver, J. S., Mohseni, O., & Hozalski, R. M. (2007, October 16).
Performance Assessment of Underground Stormwater Treatment Devices. Retrieved
April 22, 2010, from http://home.safl.umn.edu/bmackay/pub/pr/pr494.pdf
5. “Structural Steel Designer’s Handbook” Brockenbrough and Merritt
6. Omid Mohseni – Professor of Mechanical and Civil Engineering
7. “Hydraulic Structures” Novak, Moffat, Nalluri, Narayanan
8. “Hydraulics and Hydrology book” Sam Gupta
9. Davis, Mackenzie Leo, and Susan J. Masten. Principles of Environmental Engineering and
Science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Print.
10. McCarthy, David F. Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Basic Geotechnics.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007. Print.
11. Rare Species Guide: Filter Search. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Web.
Fall 2009. <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/filter_search.html>.
12. Piledrivers.org/benefits-of-driven-piles.htm
344
Mankato, MN 56001
APPENDIX J, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
345
Mankato, MN 56001
This project would not have been possible had it not been for the help of certain individuals and
organizations. MavTek engineering would like to thank all of the people who have donated
their time and resources to the completion of this project. These people include:
The Faculty of Minnesota State University –
 Dr. Stephen Druschel – Dr. Druschel served as the advisor for the design course and
helped guide the progress of the project, he also was the advisor for the environmental
team
 Dr. James Wilde – Dr. Wilde served as the advisor for the transportation team
 Dr. Aaron Budge – Dr. Budge served as the advisor for the geotechnical team
 Dr. Farhad Reza – Dr. Reza served as the advisor for the structures team
 Dr. Omid Mohseni – Dr. Mohseni served as the advisor for the water resources team
 Dr. Patrick Tebbe – Dr. Tebbe initially suggested the idea for the project
Bolton and Menk –
 Owen Todd - As the city engineer for the city of Le Sueur, Owen provided data and
feedback on the design
South Central College -
 Dan Flatgard – Instructed MavTek students on the use of AutoCAD Civil 3D
 Jay Stencel – Helped with the surveying of the site
 Civil Engineering Technology Students – Performed additional surveying work at the
project site
Union Pacific Railroad –
 James McQuitty – Provided the railroad’s perspective on the project, donated a flagger
to facilitate surveying on the railroad right of way
Mn/DOT District 7 –
 Marcus Flygare – As a project manager on the Minnesota River Bridge project on TH 93,
Marc was able to provide a historical context to the project area and helped provide
documentation
 Chad Fowlds, Lisa Bigham and Rebecca Arndt – Provided tips for presentation and
reviewed project details
 Travis Shorter – Helped provide survey information for the area
 Deb Schmidt – Provided additional traffic counters
 Steve Schoeb – Helped MavTek with permitting to conduct traffic counts
346
Mankato, MN 56001
Mn/DOT Bridge Office –
 Tom Styrbicki – Along with all of the following staff of the bridge office, Tom met with
MavTek to provide feedback on the design of the proposed railroad bridge and offered
ideas and suggestions for funding and construction
 Nancy Daubenberger
 Dan Prather
 Dustin Thomas
Mn/DOT Materials Office
 Jerry Geib
Braun Intertec
 Philip Bailey – Philip assisted with the retaining wall design
I&S Group
 Jamie Swenson
347

Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TH 93 AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD BRIDGE

Minnesota State University, Mankato

Project Manager - Jake Schoelerman

Transportation Captain - Christopher Bower

Environmental Captain - Chandani Malla

Water Resources Captain - Daniel Anderson

Geotech Captain - Ahmad Afifeh

Structures Captain - Jared Schrempp

Economics Captain - Greg Mitchel

Water Resources ....................................................................................................................... 55

Temperature Expansion/Contraction .................................................................................. 135

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 191

Apparatus and Procedure .................................................................................................... 238

Concerns .............................................................................................................................. 271

1.10 Historic Preservation ................................................................................................ 289

Appendix J, References ............................................................................................................... 343

Figure 30 - At Grade Crossing Diagram ......................................................................................... 72

Figure 60 - Area which the force is affecting .............................................................................. 134

Figure 96: Mn/DOT soil boring locations .................................................................................... 186

Figure 131 - Abandoned Building 3............................................................................................. 271

Figure 1 - TH 93 and Union Pacific Railroad Intersection

PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS

Figure 2 - Existing TH 93 bridge, looking south alongside former siding

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ALIGNMENT

Figure 7 - Proposed Vertical Alignment

Figure 8 - Proposed Alignment of UPPR in Le Sueur, Mn

Southern curve Northern Curve

Figure 9 - Overview of new alignment

design for the shoofly crossing TH 93, lowering cost.

Figure 10 - Overview with new alignment and shoofly

Figure 11 Ballast Limit Values

Nominal Size Percent Passing

Figure 12 - Ballast Gradation

All ties shall be 8’ long with dimensions of 9”X7”.

Figure 13 - Typical Cross-Section of the Railroad

Ditches and Retaining Walls

Rail Design Standards

Design Element Proposed Condition Reference

Design speed 80 mph Freight UPRR

Horizontal alignment degree 1˚ AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Radius R=5729.65 (For D=1˚)

D = degree of circular curve 𝑘𝐿 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

δ = central angle of the spiral 1 𝑑𝑙 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Δ =Central angle of the whole 1 𝐷𝐿 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

a = deflection angle from the 1 1 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

A 1 1 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

b = orientation angle from the 2 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

B 2 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Degree of curve 18000

y 𝑦 = 0.582𝛿𝑠 − 0.00001264𝛿 3 𝑠 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

x 𝑥 = 1 − 0.003048δ2 s AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

o 𝑜 = 0.1454∆𝑆 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Xo 1 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Ts 𝐼 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Min length of vertical curve 𝐷 × 𝑉2 × 𝐾 AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Minimum distance between 100 ft AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Maximum grade 0.7% UPRR

Horizontal clearance to 18’ AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter

Horizontal clearance to 18’ AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter

Vertical clearance to 23’ AREMA Manual Vol. 4 Chapter

Turnouts (equilateral #11 Frog/5˚12’18” UPRR

Length of switch points 22’-0” AREMA Manual Vol. 1 Chapter 5.3

Table 1 - UPRR Standards