My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD01242
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
FLOOD01242
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 10:39:42 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 9:52:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Stream Name
All
Title
Hydraulic Design of Improved Inlets for Culverts
Date
9/1/1981
Prepared For
USDOT
Prepared By
Federal Highway Administration
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
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 />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,. <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-; <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The general benefits of good culvert design procedures include <br />reduction of upstream flooding and highway damage due to underdesign <br />and lower culvert construction costs by avoiding gross overdesign. <br />If site conditions permit the use of an improved inlet, construction <br />costs may. be reduced still further. At times, improved inlets may <br />also be installed on existing culverts with inadequate flow capacity, <br />thus avoiding replacement of the entire structure or the addition of <br />a new parallel structure. <br /> <br />A field survey (14) of highway culverts with improved inlets <br />constructed in the United States before 1971 produced detailed <br />information on 66 installations which were estimated to have saved <br />a total of over two million dollars in capital outlay. Many <br />variations of the improved inlet designs discussed in this Circular <br />have been built but were not included in the survey. If a full <br />accounting of all improved inlets had been possible, the savings <br />would likely have been many times the amount reported. <br /> <br />Savings were reported ranging from $500 (12.5 percent), <br />resulting from reducing the diameter of a 200 ft. long reinforced <br />concrete pipe from 54 inches to 48 inches, to $482,000 (38.7 percent) <br />by reducing a 2,700 ft. box culvert from a triple 13 ft. by 14 ft. <br />to a double 12 ft. by 12 ft. The latter case illustrates that the <br />greatest savings usually result from the use of improved inlets <br />o~ culverts with long barrels. Short barrels should also be checked, <br />h6wever, especially when an improved inlet might increase the <br />capacity sufficiently to avoid replacement of an existing structure. <br />For instance, a $9,900 (72.2 percent) benefit was realized by <br />installing a variation of an improved inlet on an existing 60 inch <br />corrugated metal culvert 140 ft. long rather than replacing the <br />entire culvert with an 84 inch diameter culvert. <br /> <br />In the following sections, a short review of conventional <br />culvert hydraulics, a discussion of the types of improved inlets <br />suggested with definitions of the terms used, and design procedures <br />for box and pipe culverts with improved entrances will be presented. <br /> <br />13-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.