My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150208 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
0001-1000
>
C150208 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2011 10:08:30 AM
Creation date
7/10/2007 12:48:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150208
Contractor Name
High Line Canal Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
17
County
Otero
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />SELECTED ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />given pipe material type and the associated earthworks involved in a new replacement <br />pipeline installation. The four piping configurations evaluated included welded steel <br />pipe, two configurations of reinforced concrete piping (circular pipe and elliptical- <br />shaped pipe) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and/or polyethylene (PE)pipe, all <br />pipe types and installations based on the hydraulic equivalency to thp existing 6-foot <br />nominal diameter wood stave pipeline. Based on this initial feasibility-level design <br />engineering work, a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) was determined! to be the most <br />cost-effective siphon pipeline replacement for the High Line Canaldrossing at Smith <br />Arroyo. <br /> <br />Overall, the following feasibility-level design tasks completed to date included: <br />1) Completion of siphon pipeline hydraulics evaluations <br />based on High Line Canal Comp~y input and site <br />survey data; . : <br />2) Completion of alternative replace$ent siphon pipeline <br />evaluations given the different pip~ng materials and <br />configurations; . <br />3) Telephone contacts and meetings with several pipe <br />nianufacturers/suppliers in Denvet area and from <br />out-of-state; <br />4) Estimation of project engineering pesign costs and <br />determinations of feasibility-/prel~minary-Ievel total <br />construction costs for new siphon pipeline and <br />appurtenances; and I <br />5) Preparation of interim summary design progress <br />memorandums to the High Line Canal Company <br />throughout the project duration to date. <br /> <br />Engineering design reviews were held between the TSP Design Teajm and High Line <br />Canal Company Board members in Rocky Ford, Colorado at the 351% and 65% design <br />completion review stages on April 5, 2005 and May 31, 2005, resp~ctively. The 95 % <br />engineering design completion review stage will be held at the High Line Canal <br />Company Board meeting on August 2,2005. <br /> <br />Based on the feasibility-level design engineering work, a single rei~forced concrete pipe <br />(RCP) alternative was determined to be the most feasible andcost-dffective alternative to <br />the High Line Canal Company for a siphon pipeline replacement at ISmith Arroyo. <br />Current 72-inch diameter RCP pipe material costs are less than 66-ipch diameter high- <br />density polyethylene (HDPE) or polyethylene (PE) piping. Also, given the use of any <br />plastic piping material for the siphon pipeline (existing or new), including consideration <br />to INSITUFORM lining operations for the existing pipeline system, an out-of-control <br />burning fire in the canal could possibly enter the below-grade siphqn pipeline system and <br />melt the plastic materials. Burn fires are often used by the High Lin~ Canal Company <br />ditch riders to rid the existing canal system of tumbleweeds and oth:er weeds or debris <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.