Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />II <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 />14 <br /> <br />Decrease In Depth <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 3 indicates that for a flow of 5,000 cfs, the water surface elevation wlll be <br /> <br /> <br />reduced about two feet If the entrance to the existing concrete arch rallroad culvert <br /> <br /> <br />is improved as shown in Figure 4. <br /> <br />With the Ketner Reservoir improvements In place, the pea~ flow rate upstream of <br /> <br /> <br />tho railroad 10 oi,5<tO efo. Uoing Flgur" 3, thla flow rat" tranelat"s to a water sur- <br /> <br /> <br />face elevation of 5362.8, based on the Improved Inlet curve. This is the same elev- <br /> <br /> <br />ation given by the the 1986 stUdy results. All this means Is that the HEC-2 model <br /> <br /> <br />formUlation is not as accurate as the hand calculated depth-outflow relationship. ~/ <br /> <br /> <br />The HEC-2 model uses only the orifice equation to estimate the upstream depth. <br /> <br />STORAGE YOLUf1E UPSTREAf1 OF THE C&S RAILROAD <br /> <br /> <br />There is another Improvement that should be made to the models used In the 1986 <br /> <br />FHAD study. The existing HEC-I model does not incorporate the storage volume that <br /> <br />presently exists upstream of the railroad culvert, which wlll tend to reduce the <br /> <br />depth of water upstream of the culvert. <br /> <br />If the 10o-year flood event had occurred at the time that the 1986 study was being <br /> <br /> <br />conducted, the water surface elevation upstream of the rallroad culvert would not <br /> <br /> <br />have been 5365.0, but would have been several feet lower. <br /> <br />This is because a portion of the runoff volume would have been temporarily detained <br /> <br />upstream of the rallroad culvert. This water would be used to form the temporary <br />