My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CT2015-026 Fesability Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
0001-1000
>
CT2015-026 Fesability Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/26/2018 9:13:51 AM
Creation date
6/18/2009 8:43:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
CT2015-026 Feasibilty Study
C150291
Contractor Name
Riverside Reservoir and Land Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Weld
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.
/
137
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
Four design altematives for the spillway control section configuration were evaluated, as <br />applicable, for each alternate site: <br />IN-1. Construct an open concrete chute spillway with a broad-crested or ogee weir <br />intake section (Station 57+00). <br />IN-2. Construct an open concrete chute spillway with an ogee weir intake section <br />(Station 57+00, 9+00 and 2+00). <br />IN-3. Construct an open concrete chute spillway with a labyrinth weir intake section <br />(Station 9+00 and 2+00). <br />IN-4. Construct a concrete box culvert or pipe spillway with a weir box inlet intake <br />section (Station 9+00 and 2+00). <br />Two design alternatives for spillway chute section configuration were evaluated as <br />applicable for each alternate site: <br />CH-1. Concrete open chute spillway (all spillway site alternatives). <br />CH-2. Combination concrete open chute and box culvert or pipe spillway chute (weir <br />box spillway intake, Stations 9+00 and 2+00). <br />The locations for the spillway alternatives are shown on Figure 2. <br />Based upon the engineer's prior evaluations of energy dissipators for projects with spillway <br />discharges in the range of 2,500 cfs, the SAF dissipator was determined to be the most <br />economical design for this project. No additional energy dissipator evaluations were <br />performed for this feasibility study. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.