My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Letter to CWCB Members May 10 2005 Re RICD For Buena Vista and Salida, Caffee County, Arkansas River
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Letter to CWCB Members May 10 2005 Re RICD For Buena Vista and Salida, Caffee County, Arkansas River
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2014 4:55:04 PM
Creation date
5/1/2014 3:15:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Recreational In-channel Diversion
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
5/10/2005
Author
Taggart, Willaim, ASCG Inc
Title
Letter to CWCB Members May 10 2005 Re RICD For Buena Vista and Salida, Caffee County, Arkansas River
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br />Mr. Thomas Browning, P.E., CWCB <br />Review of Lacy Report for Chaffee County Whitewater RICD <br />May 10, 2005 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />The report doesn't present data, documentation or address these issues and questions. These <br />issues and needs are commonly addressed by whitewater design, planning, and engineering. <br />5. Design drawings and specifications are not provided including an overall plan with access and <br />parking, general existing and design bed and bank topography, detailed whitewater facility design <br />topography and features, plan and profiles drawings, sections across the waterway and features, <br />general and specific details, flow patterns and water surface profiles, The plans should designate <br />location of various materials. No construction drawings were provided for the whitewater facilities, <br />river stabilization, or hydraulic controls. The sketches in the report have no elevations, <br />dimensions, specificity necessary for construction, or analytical proof of their performance. <br />The reference to "Roman Arches" is a misleading, as the primary loads applied to an arch are <br />typically in the vertical plane with uniform loads above the arch. In the proposal there are not rigid <br />abutments to pick up the load, and the load that is faced by a river grade control structure is <br />primarily due to uplift, hydraulic forces such as drag and impact, and scour of the bed which <br />destabilizes the structure by undermining. All of these loads are to the side of the arch, which <br />cannot be resisted by arching action. Stability of the grouted boulder structure is achieved by the <br />buoyant mass overcoming the uplift and various drag forces, and having sufficient protection <br />against scour and undercutting. Further, there are numerous grade control and whitewater <br />features which have no "arch ". Many successful hydraulic structures are constructed of grouted <br />boulders with cutoff, seepage, and erosion control measures. Where are the calculations for the <br />loads, forces, and stability? <br />6. Analysis and design refinement of the facilities should be provided. At minimum, a one <br />dimensional, mixed flow (sub - critical and supercritical) hydraulic model should have been <br />provided, with adaptations to account for water flow patterns. In simple terms, exact water surface <br />profiles, velocity characteristics, and flow patterns should be determined. <br />C13 <br />12596 WEST BAYAUD AVENUE, SUITE 200, LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 <br />303.458.5550 FAX 303.480,9766 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.