WSP11510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-:::J - , }~ ','00 c.,) ~ averages of 14 samples taken from range 5 to range 13 is 16 percent clay, 40 percent silt, and 44 percent sando The analysis of these 14 samples, when divided into channel and overbank, shows a wide differenceo The channel samples contained 6 percent clay, 23 percent silt, and 71 percent sand I~hereas the overbank samples contained 26 percent clay, 58 percent silt, and 16 percent sando 360 To secure samples of the reservoir deposits for size and density analysis a steel tube was forced into the depositso The depth of the -- sample depended on the ability of the sampler to penetrate the depositso M some locations, this was almost to the depth of prior depositiono Samples secured from the reservoir were taken at locations that would indicate trends in size distribution for the most recent depositso No '--. attempt.~ made to compare the size distribution of the latest samples with tllat of prior samples because of the many factors involved in select- ing comparative samples and conditions of depositiono Grain size and density of samples at range lines are graphically illustrated on plates 24 and 250 370 Density and consolidation of reservoir depositso The sediment retention in John Martin Reservoir is presented in table 80 The effects of consolidation on the retained sediment were calculated by using the method described in "Determination of Unit Weight of Sediment for Use in Sediment Volume Computations," by Carl Ro I-filler, using the Lane and Koelzer values of initial weight and the coefficient for the type of reservoir having "considerable drawdown"o The size distribution was taken from represent- ative samples of the reservoir depositso Table 12 presents the results of these computations 0 17