AIHR AIIH

XXVII CONGRESO LATINOAMERICANO DE HIDRAULICA

LIMA, PERÚ, SETIEMBRE 2016
CHALLENGES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF A LEVEE
SYSTEM TO PROTECT A COMMUNITY FROM FLOODING
Juan Carlos Escajadillo, P.E.
US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, USA
juan.c.escajadillo@usace.army.mil

ABSTRACT:

Green Brook is a tributary of the Raritan River located in north central New Jersey. Residents in the
Green Brook flood plain are highly prone to flooding which causes millions of dollars of property
damage and threatens lives. Plans to reduce the risk of flooding from Green Brook, and from its
major tributary, Bound Brook, are being designed. The plans include levees, floodwalls, closure
gates, pump stations, buyouts, flood proofing, bridge modifications, and wetland mitigation. Due to
the large size of the entire project, some levee and floodwall segments have been further divided
into smaller sub- segments which are being designed individually. This article describes the
hydrologic and hydraulic design of Levee Segment H, which is one of four segments in the levee
sub-system known as “CHBD”. Levee Segment H is designed to be built on the left bank of Bound
Brook, from Pershing Avenue, upstream to about 800 feet upstream of the South Lincoln Avenue
Bridge, in the urban community of Middlesex, Middlesex County New Jersey. The following
analyses have been done in detail: 1) A sensitivity analysis using a one-dimensional steady flow
HEC-RAS (River Analysis System) model to establish the top elevation of the levee line of
protection. 2) An analysis to determine the design of the levee freeboard, based on levee superiority
and overtopping. 3) An evaluation of several bridge modification alternatives, to select the one that
reduces backwater effects, and which eliminates flooding in the project area. These alternatives
were analyzed using a HEC-RAS model. 4) An assessment of flooding induced by partial build out
of the project, and an alternative solution to induced flooding in the study area. 5) A risk analysis
performed with program HEC-FDA (Flood Damage Analysis) to determine the conditional non-
exceedance probability (CNP), that is, the chance containing the specific frequency 0.1, 0.04, 0.02,
0.01, 0.005 and 0.002 percent (10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500-year) floods within the target elevation.
The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the challenges and considerations of
designing Levee Segment H, with the objective of protecting the urban community of Middlesex
from flooding, and to minimize flooding induced by partial build out of Levee Segment H.

KEYWORDS: Levee System Design, Freeboard, Overtopping, Superiority, Induce Flooding

INTRODUCTION

The Green Brook sub‐basin of the Raritan River is sixty‐five square miles in area, and lies
entirely in the State of New Jersey, within the counties of Union, Somerset, and Middlesex. The
Green Brook Flood Risk Management Project has been divided into segments and sub‐segments,
which are being designed and constructed, as funding permits. The segments are designated by
letters U, R, T, C, H, B‐ 1 through B‐5, and D, as shown on Figure 1. The five sub segments of
Segment B are designated with the numbers 1 through 5. The design and construction of
Segments U, R, T, and B‐1 have been completed. Design of Segment B‐2 has been completed,
but its construction has not yet begun. Plans to protect the urban community of Middlesex in
Middlesex County and the Township of Green Brook in Somerset County with the design and
construction of the levee sub‐system known as “CHBD” are now in different stages of study. One
of these is the design of proposed levee segment H, the subject of this design study.

Figure 1. - Plan Layout of Proposed Levee System

BACKGROUND

The Green Brook and Bound Brook Sub Basin are located within the Raritan River Basin in north-
central New Jersey in the counties of Middlesex, Somerset and Union. It encompasses 13
municipalities and drains approximately 65 square miles of primarily urban and industrialized
area. The most severe flood, the "flood of record," occurred in 1896 the Raritan River rose 3.96 m
(13 feet) above normal, and more recent floods in 1908, 1938, 1955, 1971, 1973, 1996, 1999, 2007
and 2011 were sufficiently devastating to warrant Federal Disaster declarations. Tropical Storm
Floyd on September 16, 1999 a near Category 5 Hurricane Floyd came off the coast of Africa,
swept up the east coast and entered New Jersey. Floyd set the Raritan River record crest at 12.8 m
(42 feet), 4.26 m (14 feet) above flood stage reaching up to a story and half inundating many one-
story homes. Floyd was considered a greater than 500 year event for river flow. The estimated
business losses in Bound Brook from Tropical Storm Floyd were 77 million dollars, April 15-17
2007 Nor’easter struck the east coast bringing with it yet another catastrophic flooding event.
Thirteen centimeters (five inches) of rain fell on the area destroying homes and business alike.
Hurricane Irene was the most recent storm to affect Bound Brook. It occurred in August of 2011
and result in a 500 year event for discharge on the Raritan River at Bound Brook. Raritan River
had crested at 12.77 m (41.90 feet). Eight deaths were attributed to these floods.
OBJECTIVE

The objective of this design study of levee segment H is to protect the urban community of
Middlesex from flooding, and to minimize flooding induced by its partial build out.

PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The project area is located in the borough of Bound Brook, Somerset County New Jersey on a
Bound Brook River. Segment H consists of approximately 746 m (2,450 feet) of levee, 97m (320
feet) of floodwall, and a ponding area. The line of protection begins on the left bank of Bound
Brook at a high point adjacent to Pershing Avenue approximately 487 m (1,600 feet) downstream
of the South Lincoln Avenue Bridge and continues upstream to the bridge. This bridge is a single,
simply supported span, 22 m (72 feet) in length between abutment back walls. From South Lincoln
Avenue the system runs to a high point approximately 243 m (800 feet) upstream of the bridge. In
addition, new reinforced concrete culverts will be added at the New Jersey Transit rail crossing
over Bound Brook.

Figure 2.- Green Brook, Bound Brook Segment C, H, B, D Levee System

TOPOGRAPHIC DATA

Topographic data from various sources were used in the development of the Green Brook Flood
Damage Reduction Project hydraulic model. Digital elevation models (DEMs) were used to
provide information on the overbank geometry, to evaluate hydraulic connections in the model,
and to analyze the areas and depths of inundation under the different flood scenarios. The
topographic data sets were primarily based on LiDAR flown within the last 10 years, with the
exception of USACE contours, which come from aerial photogrammetric survey completed in
1999. Stream cross section surveys were collected to support the upstream and downstream
extensions of the model and to provide current bathymetric data in areas that were previously
modeled. One-hundred seventeen (117) cross sections were collected in the Bound Brook
stream as a base of the HEC-RAS hydraulic analysis for the Green Brook Flood Damage
Reduction Project (See Figure 3).

Figure 3.- Topographic Survey and Cross Sections for Segments C, H, B and D

RIVER HYDROLOGY

A hydrologic model developed by the USACE using the USACE’s HEC-HMS program were
developed for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 150-, 250- and 500-year events. The USACE
150-Year storm event flows were used in the hydraulic model to calculate the proposed
protection elevation. The design storm for the flood Risk Management project is the 150-year
storm event. The design of the line of protection elevation also incorporates factored flows
(+18%), manning’s n values (+10%), and contraction coefficients (+10%) that serve to add an
additional factor of safety to the design level of protection elevation and pushing it above the
flood hazard elevation. The HEC-HMS models used for this analysis are based on the May
1997 GRR with a few notable exceptions as follows: The computation interval was decreased
from 30 min to 15 min for the entire model, and updated rainfall data was incorporated to reflect
the increased runoff as evidenced in the current rainfall data. Discharges calculated in the HEC-
HMS models are provided in Table 1.

Table – 1 Existing Conditions Peak and Coincidental Flows (m^3/s)

Frequency(Years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 150 250 500

41.0 55.2 97.22 138.71 208.3 268 345.6 386.14 443.98 522.03
(1450.0 (1950 (3460 (4900 (7360 (9470 cfs (12210 (13640 (15800 (18440
Flow (m^3/s) cfs) cfs) cfs) cfs cfs cfs) cfs)
cfs) cfs)

Table 1.- Existing Conditions Specific Frequency Hypothetical Peak Discharges.

 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Hydraulic models were developed for Green and Bound Brooks using the HEC-RAS program. The
HEC-RAS models were developed for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 150-, 250- and 500-year
events. The HEC-RAS models are comprised of dimensional input from cross section, profile, and
topographic survey data from June 2000, and supplemented data from 1993 and 1986 topography.
The existing conditions of the Green Brook and Bound Brook Rivers were modeled with steady state
HEC-RAS model to determine water surface elevation and the hydraulic parameters needed to
design Segment H Levee. A 150 year water surface profile for Bound Brook with B, C and H Levee
at both banks are shown in figure 4 and 5.

GB Segment H_Design Condi tion_New Lidar Plan: RD_GBP_LidarGeoOvB k_BCH_44Br_LvCMov_4CRR 4/22/2016

BOUND BROOK BCH
60
Legend

WS 150-YR
WS 100-YR
Ground
Left Levee

55

50

45
Elevation (ft)

40

35

117 NEW MARKET AVENUE - DOWNSTREAM FACE

113 PROSPECT AVENUE - DOWNSTREAM FACE
30
86 LiDAR Adde d - Wid ening Chan nel -feb29 2016

92 SOUTH AVENUE - DOWNSTREAM FACE

88 Pe nn Central Rail Ro ad (Bridge #3 )
74 DS S. Lin coln Ave -->L iDAR Ad ded

90 Widening Ch annel -feb 29201 6

50 LEVEE ENDS, FLOODWALL...

25
66 LiDAR Adde d

67 LiDAR Adde d

68 LiDAR Adde d

69 LiDAR Adde d

70 LiDAR Adde d

71 LiDAR Adde d

72 LiDAR Adde d

73 LiDAR Adde d

77 LiDAR Adde d

78 LiDAR Adde d

79 LiDAR Adde d

80 LiDAR Adde d

81 LiDAR Adde d

82 LiDAR Adde d

83 LiDAR Adde d
84 LiDAR Adde d
85 LiDAR Adde d

101 Bridge #5
63.5
64.5

104

105

106

107
108

109

110

111

112

115

116
49

51
52

53

54

55

56

57

58

62
63

65

91

94
95

96

97

98
99

20
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Main Channel Distance from Confluence (ft)

Figure 4. - Water Surface Profile, Bound Brook with B and H Levee on Left Bank, 100 and 150 Year Flood
 GB Segment H_Desi gn Condition_New Li dar Plan: RD_GBP_LidarGeoOvB k_BCH_44Br_LvCMov_4CRR 4/22/2016
BOUND BROOK BCH
60
Legend

WS 150-YR
WS 100-YR
Ground
Left Levee
Right Levee
55

50

45
Elevation (ft)

40

35

117 NEW MARKET AVENUE - DOWNSTREAM FACE

113 PROSPECT AVENUE - DOWNSTREAM FACE
30

86 LiDAR Added - Widening Channel -feb292016

92 SOUTH AVENUE - DOWNSTREAM FACE

88 Penn Central Rail Road (Bridge #3)
74 DS S. Lincoln Ave -->LiDAR Added

90 Widening Channel -feb292016

50 LEVEE ENDS, FLOODWALL...

25
66 LiDAR Added

67 LiDAR Added

68 LiDAR Added

69 LiDAR Added

70 LiDAR Added

71 LiDAR Added

72 LiDAR Added

73 LiDAR Added

77 LiDAR Added

78 LiDAR Added

79 LiDAR Added

80 LiDAR Added

81 LiDAR Added

82 LiDAR Added

83 LiDAR Added
84 LiDAR Added
85 LiDAR Added

101 Bridge #5
63.5
64.5

104

105

106

107
108

109

110

111

112

115

116
49

51
52

53

54

55

56

57

58

62
63

65

91

94
95

96

97

98
99
20
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Main Channel Distance from Confluence (ft)

Figure 5. - Water Surface Profile, Bound Brook with BCH Levee on Both Banks, 100 and 150 Year Flood

LEVEE OVERTOPPING

The least hazardous overtopping location for the Segment H line of protection is located at River
Station 71 on Green Brook, downstream of South Lincoln Avenue Bridge. This area was chosen
for its ponding capacity; its location at the low point in the interior drainage area; Upstream interior
areas along Segment H do not exhibit sufficient ponding areas to provide a buffer for overtopping
flows. The line of protection Minimum Freeboard Profile for Segment H was established with a
superiority analysis using the ponding location at River Station 71 as the least hazardous
overtopping location for the Segment H Project (See Figure 6). The superiority analysis was
performed in accordance with ETL 1110-2-299. A sensitivity analysis of peak flow and stage
conditions was conducted as input to the Overtopping analysis to determine conservative top of
levee elevations.

Overtopping Location RS-71

Figure 6.- Segment H Levee Overtopping Location on Left Bank of Bound Brook
LEVEE SUPERIORITY ANALYSIS

The superiority analysis normally involves factoring HEC-RAS model parameters in the direction
of effecting conservatively higher water surface elevations. Manning’s ‘n’ values are increased
10%, channel expansion/contraction coefficients are increased by 0.1 and the 150-year river flow is
increased usually by 10%. In the case of Segment H overtopping analysis, a risk based approach
was taken using the conditional non-exceedance analysis in HEC-FDA in combination with the
uncertainty in the hydrology. The target was to identify the 95% confidence band for the 100-year
storm to assure the project would meet FEMA risk based Certification criteria. As part of the
sensitivity to establish the top of line of protection, the 150-year design flow was then increased to
insure that it met or exceeded this 95% confidence band; an 18% increase in the 150-year flow. The
HEC-RAS model was then run with the increased Manning’s channel “n” coefficients, the 0.1
increase in expansion/contraction coefficients and 118 % times the 150-year flow and the resulting
water surface elevation at the chosen location of least hazardous overtopping (Bound Brook River
Station 71) was calculated to be elevation 51.38 feet. To this calculated water surface at River
Station 71, an additional one tenth of a foot was added. This set the elevation of 51.48 feet as the
overtopping elevation and established the reference elevation of minimum freeboard profile. The
HEC-RAS model was then run with the original un-factored “n” and expansion/contraction
parameters and a series of incrementally higher flows until the calculated water surface matched the
51.38 set point elevation at the overtopping location. This overtopping discharge was computed to
be 8,264 cfs or 131.6% of the 150-year design storm. Once this flow was determined, the resulting
river water surface profile was established as the Minimum Freeboard Profile. To establish the line
of protection elevation over the remainder of Segment H, a minimum of one half foot was added to
all locations upstream of the South Lincoln Avenue Bridge and 0.75 feet downstream of the bridge
to provide “levee superiority” over the overtopping location and this became the Line of Protection
Elevation Profile. The minimum superiority downstream of the bridge was increased the 0.25 feet
to insure a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard. This minimal increase was deemed warranted due to the
unique condition where in the drainage patterns behind the line of protection drain in an upstream
direction so overtopping in the lower extremities of project would actually flood a large portion of
the protected area. Additional profile adjustments were made at bridges to assure a minimum
freeboard of 4 feet from the 100- year event. Utilizing the results developed in Segment H, a
discharge 131.6% greater than the Peak 150-year discharge on Green Brook and the coincidental
discharge on Bound Brook (the Controlling Condition) was computed to establish the Minimum
Freeboard Profile on Bound Brook. The superiority set up, minimum freeboard profile and the
proposed elevation for the top of the line of protection are presented in Table 2.
 River Improved Conditions Superiority Setup n+10%, Cc+0.1, Minimum freeboard Profile River Proposed Propoposed Freeboard Freeboard
Station HEC-RAS Plan 36 Ce+0.1, Q+18%, plan40,g39,f08 Design n & C with Factored Q to match RS-71 Water Station Levee Protection Over 100-Yr Over 150-Yr
Surface Elevation +0.1 from Superiority Setup, Superiority Elevation (ft) WS (ft) WS (ft)
Factored Q 131.6% _Improve Plan 36 (ft)
150-Yr WS 150- WS 100- 150-Yr WS EGL Incr.over Factored WS EGL Incr.over Incr.over
Q Yr Q Yr Q Q+18 % (ft) (ft) Q (cfs) (FT) (FT)
(cfs) (ft) (ft)
(cfs) 150-Yr 150-Yr 100-Yr
Improve Improve Improve
48 13710 46.39 45.35 16177.8 49.66 3.27 18042 49.66 3.27 4.31 48 0.5 50.16 4.31 4.07
49 13710 46.84 45.80 16177.8 50.17 3.33 18042 50.47 3.63 4.67 49 0.0 50.47 4.67 3.63
50 13710 47.21 46.16 16177.8 50.5 3.29 18042 50.8 3.59 4.64 50 0.6 51.3 5.14 4.09
51 13710 47.37 46.31 16177.8 50.68 3.31 18042 50.98 3.61 4.67 51 0.5 51.48 5.17 4.11
52 13710 47.48 46.42 16177.8 50.71 3.23 18042 51.01 3.53 4.59 52 0.5 51.51 5.09 4.03
53 6280 47.50 46.44 7410.4 50.72 3.22 8264 51.02 3.52 4.58 53 0.5 51.52 5.08 4.02
54 6280 47.53 46.48 7410.4 50.74 3.21 8264 51.04 3.51 4.56 54 0.5 51.54 5.06 4.01
55 6280 47.55 46.50 7410.4 50.77 3.22 8264 51.07 3.52 4.57 55 0.5 51.57 5.07 4.02
56 6280 47.56 46.51 7410.4 50.81 3.25 8264 51.11 3.55 4.6 56 0.5 51.61 5.1 4.05
57 6280 47.58 46.53 7410.4 50.84 3.26 8264 51.14 3.56 4.61 57 0.5 51.64 5.11 4.06
58 6280 47.60 46.55 7410.4 50.86 3.26 8264 51.16 3.56 4.61 58 0.5 51.66 5.11 4.06
59 6280 47.56 46.50 7410.4 50.89 3.33 8264 51.19 3.63 4.69 59 0.5 51.69 5.19 4.13
61 6280 47.62 46.57 7410.4 50.93 3.31 8264 51.23 3.61 4.66 61 0.5 51.73 5.16 4.11
62 6280 47.65 46.61 7410.4 50.95 3.3 8264 51.25 3.6 4.64 62 0.5 51.75 5.14 4.1
63 6280 47.73 46.70 7410.4 51.02 3.29 8264 51.32 3.59 4.62 63 0.5 51.82 5.12 4.09
63.5 6280 47.78 46.76 7410.4 51.03 3.25 8264 51.33 3.55 4.57 63.5 0.5 51.83 5.07 4.05
64 6280 47.79 46.77 7410.4 51.04 3.25 8264 51.34 3.55 4.57 64 0.5 51.84 5.07 4.05
64.5 6280 47.79 46.76 7410.4 51.09 3.3 8264 51.39 3.6 4.63 64.5 0.5 51.89 5.13 4.1
65 6280 47.83 46.82 7410.4 51.11 3.28 8264 51.41 3.58 4.59 65 0.5 51.91 5.09 4.08
66 6280 47.94 46.95 7410.4 51.13 3.19 8264 51.43 3.49 4.48 66 0.5 51.93 4.98 3.99
67 6280 47.97 46.98 7410.4 51.19 3.22 8264 51.49 3.52 4.51 67 0.5 51.99 5.01 4.02
68 6280 47.98 46.99 7410.4 51.23 3.25 8264 51.53 3.55 4.54 68 0.5 52.03 5.04 4.05
69 6280 48.02 47.03 7410.4 51.29 3.27 8264 51.59 3.57 4.56 69 0.5 52.09 5.06 4.07
70 6280 48.10 47.12 7410.4 51.35 3.25 8264 51.65 3.55 4.53 70 0.5 52.15 5.03 4.05
71 6280 48.13 47.15 7410.4 51.38 3.25 8264 51.68 3.55 4.53 71 0.0 51.68 4.50 3.55
72 6280 48.17 47.20 7410.4 51.41 3.24 8264 51.71 3.54 4.51 72 0.6 52.31 5.11 4.14
73 6550 48.26 47.31 7729 51.43 3.17 8264 51.73 3.47 4.42 73 0.59 52.32 4.51 4.06
74 6550 48.21 47.25 7729 51.46 3.25 8264 51.76 3.55 4.51 74 0.58 52.34 5.09 4.13
76 6550 48.58 47.73 7729 51.49 2.91 8620 51.79 3.21 4.06 76 0.5 52.29 4.56 3.71
77 6550 48.69 47.88 7729 51.5 2.81 8620 51.8 3.11 3.92 77 0.5 52.3 5.01 3.61
78 6550 48.89 47.06 7729 51.51 2.62 8620 51.81 2.92 4.75 78 0.5 52.31 5.25 3.42
79 6550 48.93 47.09 7729 51.52 2.59 8620 51.82 2.89 4.73 79 0.5 52.32 5.23 3.39
80 6550 48.96 47.12 7729 51.53 2.57 8620 51.83 2.87 4.71 80 0.5 52.33 5.21 3.37

Table 2. - Superiority Water Surface Comparisons_Segment H

LEVEE PERFORMANCE AND RELIABILITY (HEC-FDA)

HEC-FDA requires inputs from the hydrology, hydraulics, geotechnical, and economic analyses.
The best estimate or the most likely values of water surface profiles, flow-exceedance frequency
curves, flow-stage (elevation) curves, levee elevations, were input into an HEC-FDA model. In
addition other information that help determine the degree of uncertainty such as hydrologic period
of record, standard deviation in the flood stages and the levee fragility curves were also input into
the HEC-FDA model to determine the conditional non-exceedance probability (levee performance
or reliability) for the 100 year or 1% annual exceedance event The proposed line of protection on
segment H Levee is on the left bank of a straight reach of Bound Brook. The reach was assigned an
index cross-section RS-71, RS-73 and RS-77 to assess the entire length of the levee section. The
risk and uncertainty analysis was completed with the assumption that the minimum increment
between the preliminary levee elevation and the best estimate of the 1% chance exceedance event
water surface elevation is 3 feet. HEC- FDA determines the degree of "assurance" (i.e., conditional
non-exceedance probability) that each frequency event will be contained by the levee in each reach.
A value of at least 90% assurance with 3 feet of freeboard or 95% assurance with 2 feet of
freeboard is required to meet COE levee certification requirements. The HEC-FDA analysis was
performed for the Segment H Levee, which consists of a line of protection along the left bank of
Bound Brook to reduce flood damages at Bound Brook Borough in Middlesex County from a 1%
annual chance flood event. Table 3 below presents Bound Brook Segment H proposed top of levee
(i.e., elevation 53 and 52 upstream and downstream South Lincoln Avenue Bridge respectively) and levee
Performance HEC-FDA results. As shown in the table, the conditional non-exceedance probability is
above the required 90% for the Bound Brook segment H stream reach and for the 1% annual chance
flood event. Therefore, the Bound Brook segment flood damage reduction plans meet the levee
certification requirements for assuring that it provides a 1% annual chance level of flood protection
(See Figure 7).

River Section Location Levee Proposed Top Elev. of Toe Estimated Levee Height 100 Yr Performance
of Levee Freeboard(ft) Probability

Upstream S. 77+00 53.00 42 3.35m (11 ft.) 5.0 98.8%

RS 77 Lincoln Bridge
Downstream S. 73+00 52.00 41 3.35m (11 ft.) 4.5 98.6%
RS 73 Lincoln Bridge
Downstream S. 71+00 52.00 41 3.35m (11 ft.) 4.5 98.4%
RS 71 Lincoln Bridge

Table 3.- Bound Brook Segment H Levee Performance HEC-FDA results

Figure 7. - Segment H Top of Levee and Water Surface Profile for 100 through 500 Year Flood
CHALLENGES TO MINIMIZE INDUCE FLOODING

The Green Brook, Bound Brook BCHD Levee System has been divided into sub‐segments, which
are being designed and constructed, as funding permits. The segments are designated by C‐1 through
C‐6, H, B‐1 through B‐5, and D, as shown on Figure 2. To minimize induce flooding the design and
construction of the BCHD components should occur from upstream to downstream. This approach
will enable completion of comparable components on each bank to reduce induce flooding caused
by subsequent completion of upstream Green Brook and Bound Brook components and reduce the
public perception induced flooding on one bank or another. Below is a preliminary construction
sequence for BCHD: Construction of segment B-1, B2 , flood proofing of structures in Piscataway
township, construction of segment C1, flood Proofing of structures in Green Brook township,
construction of segment C2 and H occurring at the same time on opposite banks of the Bound
Brook tying into South Lincoln Avenue through the use of closure gates, construction of segment
C3 and Segment B5 at the same time on opposite banks of the Bound Brook, construction of
segment C4 and B3 closing gaps on segment B-3 and closure gates on Route 28 at the same time on
opposite banks of the Bound Brook, construction of segment B4 and segment C5 at the same time
on opposite banks of the Bound Brook and finally construction of segments C6 and D at the same
time on opposite banks of the Green Brook. This construction sequence was simulated using HEC-
RAS. Several construction sequence combinations were simulated, the induced flooding on this
particular sequence was determined to be in the range of [6.1 cm (0.2ft.) – 19.81 cm (0.65ft.)].

CONCLUSIONES

The top of protection profile has been set in accordance with current superiority analysis
procedures and checked and adjusted to comply with known COE criteria for levee certification.
As shown in the table, the conditional non-exceedance probability is above the required 90%
assurance with 3 feet of freeboard or 95% assurance with 2 feet of freeboard required. The non-
exceedance probability much larger than required, which indicates that a lower top of protection
may be possible.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A design of levee system should be evaluated thoroughly in the aspects of hydrology, hydraulics,
geotechnical and economics, in the long run, you can achieve the guarantee of a levee of long life
with no failures. A levee failure could cause a catastrophe and could have a devastating effect not
only on the community but also in the region which results in significant damage to property,
injuries, suffering, illness, and possible loss of life.

REFERENCES

USACE, HEC-RAS, River Analysis Systems Version 4.1, 2008.

USACE, HEC-FDA Flood Damage Analysis Program Version 1.4, 2008.
ETL 1110-2-299. Levee Overtopping of Flood Control Levees and Floodwalls, 1986.