My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD03313
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
FLOOD03313
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:26:55 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:38:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Denver
Basin
South Platte
Title
Drop Structures in the Denver Metropolitan Area
Date
12/1/1986
Prepared For
UDFDC
Prepared By
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
259
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 />1I-4 <br /> <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 />I <br />'1 <br /> <br />This project also illustrates the need for trickle channel provisions. Originally <br />designed with a low flow!underdrain pipe, it soon became apparent that such a <br />system had capacity and maintainability problems. Figure 1I-4 shows the upstream <br />aggradation and the natural trickle channel that was created, much like Niver Creek <br />(Case 2). The aggradation is greater as one moves upstream. A similar trickle <br />channel was created downstream (Figure lI-S), and aggradation there was even mOire <br />significant. Originally, a loose riprap basin was constructed downstream per USBR <br />guidelines. The UDFCD executed a maintenance project which included a hard-lined <br />trickle channel and a gl"Outed riprap basin. It directs flow back into the trickle <br />channel, thereby helping to reduce aggradation caused by low flows spreading out <br />in the channel bottom. One can also observe that aggradation downstream is still <br />likel y because of the wide channel which will carry flow having less velocity than <br />most upstream channels. <br /> <br />Case 5 - Tulsa Small Vertical Drop <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 11-6 shows one way of configuring a baffle chute for a smaller vertical drop. <br /> <br /> <br />A row of baffles is constructed on the horizontal basin below the drop. <br /> <br />The USBR reports that some designs have successfully used less than 4 rows of <br />baffles for low drops. It is also practical to use the same basic configuration, but <br />a flatter slope. <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />The baffle apron drop is an excellent choice for a grass-lined channel except for <br />situations where there are heavy debris flows. Once the hydraulic principles are <br />clearly understood, the concepts can be applied and modified for many situations. <br />For example, baffle aprons can be used for small drops and are especially suited to <br />shallow tailwater and variable bed conditions. <br /> <br />It is important to incorporate a trickle channel into the design. This can be <br /> <br /> <br />accomplished by locating the trickle channel between two baffles in the middle of <br /> <br /> <br />the apron crest. An 18 to 24-inch depth is recommended. Rock placement in the <br /> <br /> <br />stilling basin should be configured for positive drainage and to direct flows into the <br /> <br /> <br />trickle channel downstream. When the conventional rock placement guidance by the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.