My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD01621
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
FLOOD01621
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2009 10:40:28 AM
Creation date
10/4/2006 10:10:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Title
Flood Hazard Delineation on Alluvial Fans and Urban Floodplains
Date
1/1/2001
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
J.S. O'Brien
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.
/
54
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 />sediment which bulk the peak discharge. A concentra.tion of 40 <br />percent by volume would result in bulked peak discharge 1.67 times <br />greater than that for a water pea}~ discharge. In addition to <br />bulking the discharge, high sediment: concentrations can result in <br />a significant variation in the fluid properties of viscosity and <br />yield stress that control the floYl depth and velocity. <br /> <br />* FEMA I S methodology USElS the log Pearson <br />type III probability distribution to assess <br />peak discharge return periods. <br /> <br />Applicability of the log Pearson type III probability <br />distribution to alluvial fan flows i:s unproven. Its USE~ for flows <br />with high sediment concentration is questionable. Mudflows and <br />water floods can have substantially different peak discharges for <br />the same magnitude rainfall. <br /> <br />Summarizing, hazard delinea'tion on alluvial fans with <br />sUbdivisions, levees or otherwise al'tered flow paths requires more <br />detailed analyses than that prescribE!d by the FEMA guidelines. The <br />FEMA method is applicable only to idealized, uniform topography <br />alluvial fans, but there are no published guidelines on the limits <br />of its applicability. The method has numerous limitations and <br />caution should be exercised in applying it for the prediction of <br />hydraulics on urbanized fans, fans that have flood containment <br />structures such as levees or debris basins, or fans that exhibit <br />mud and debris flow characteristicf;. FEMA' s method should not be <br />used in the design of flood mitigat:ion. <br /> <br />Flood insurance which fails to reflect ac.tual levels of flood <br />hazards may encourage unsound devHlopment in flood-prone areas. <br />Addi tionally, poorly delineated flood hazard areas may require <br />disproportionately high payments from those in less flood-prone <br />areas. FEMA suggests that alternative methods should be applied in <br />the analysis of alluvial fan flooding where development or modified <br />flow paths will affect flow hydraulics. Accordinq to FEMA <br />Guidelines (page AS-I, 1985), <br /> <br />"In portions of alluvial fans in which natural alluvial <br />fan processes may not occur, such as in areas of <br />entrenched channels, areas protected by flood control <br />works, and heavily developed areas the study contractor <br />should exercise good engineering judgement in determining <br />the appropriate methodoloqy or combination of <br />methOdologies." <br /> <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.