My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD01419
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
FLOOD01419
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 10:40:06 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 9:59:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Title
Colorado Association of Storm Water and Floodplain Managers 7th Annual Conference
Date
9/18/1996
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
CASFM
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.
/
130
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 />to a stable configuration is critical to the hydraulic performance of the structure. <br /> <br />For drops less than 0.6 m (2 feet), graded riprap with a dso of 0.3 m (1 ft.) <br />minimum (Type M per UDFCD) must be used. For 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 feet) <br />drops the minimum <Iso must be 0.45 m (1.5 feet) minimum (Type H per UDFCD). <br /> <br />UDFCD GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION <br /> <br />The UDFCD (UDFCD, 1990) presents guidelines for the selection of grass lined <br />channels based on channel bed stability, drop height, safety considerations (to <br />minimize or avoid vertical drops in public areas), and flow. <br /> <br />OTHER DROPS UTILIZED <br /> <br />As previously mentioned, numerous other drop types are used (and mis;Jsed). <br />Some are used for special situations and may portray future trends. <br /> <br />Slopinll Riprap Drops <br />Riprap drops continue to <br />be utilized for small flow -=:::. ~ _ <br /> <br />~~~~:: st~!e ~~~~ -'~.' ::--::~ ~:;~ <br /> <br />structures. UDFCD's ~~ <br />drop research study <br />(Taggart. 1986) <br />established a strong correlation to the Smith work (1965), and recommended <br />similar guidelines for rock sizing, stringent material gradation testing, and <br />construction quality control. With this improved guideline riprap drops generally <br />were more expensive than the other standards. Many of the riprap structures <br />completed after the research project in the Denver Metropolitan area (Taggart, <br />1986) do not conform to those guidelines and have developed problems. The <br />UDFCD no longer helps maintain such drops. <br /> <br />Dr. S. R. Abt, of CSU (1988, 1991) has conducted extensive research :me; <br />development of riprap design criteria. In rural, highway, and mining situatior.s <br />such drops are often used because of cost considerations, and because the <br />inevitable rock movement can be tolerated. <br /> <br />St~ped or SIQping Drops <br />Utilizinll Inverted Jump <br />Technology <br />Conventional hydraulic <br />jumps, where the reverse <br />current and turbulence <br />largely occurs on the <br />surface, form a hazard to <br />the inadvertent swimmer and the recreational boater. One of the most successfu7 <br />and versatile technologies to address this issue is called a hydraulic jump 3.1: a.::: <br />abrupt drop. The abrupt drop refers to a deep underwater drop off in the }j3.s;n <br />where the supercritical flow is directed horizontally at the surface Gf r:he <br />downstream pool and the current reversal is underneath (Taggart, 1984). The ;Jew <br />South Platte River Dam and whitewater bypass at Confluence Park was constructed <br />by UDFCD using this technology. <br /> <br />--. <br /> <br /> <br />~- <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Taggart, et al <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.