My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD03601
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
FLOOD03601
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:27:45 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:54:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Stream Name
All
Basin
Statewide
Title
Evaluation of and Recommendations for Drop Structures in the Denver Metropolitan Area
Date
12/1/1986
Prepared For
UDFCD
Prepared By
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
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.
/
27
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 />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 />I <br /> <br />page XI-3, 3rd paragraph, change heading to read <br />"Impact and Drag Forces" <br />and replace the paragraph and equation XI.2 with: <br />"Water flowing down the drop will directly impact any abrupt rock faces or concrete structure <br />projecting into the flow. Technically this is a type of drag force which can be estimated by <br />equation XI,!. Also, the user should compare calculated drag force results with the forces <br />shown in the revised structures section for baffle chute blocks, A drag coefficient, Cd, of <br />0.333 was assumed in Equation XI,2 for the drag force of the shape projecting into the flow: <br />The assumption made under previous paragraph allows the rock to project 25% of the grout <br />thickness, Dg, <br /> <br />FD = CD P (V2/ 2) (0,25 Dg) <br /> <br />XI,2 <br /> <br />Note that this drag is similar to the shear stress discussed earlier, but it differs in that it is a <br />drag related to the sudden projection into the flow. Impact force caused by debris or rocks, <br />is more difficult to estimate because ofthe unknown size, mass and time elapsed while contact <br />is made, Therefore it is recommended that a conservative approach be taken with regard to <br />calculating water impact (drag force) which generally will cover other types of impact force, <br />Specialty situations where impact force may be significant must be considered on an individual <br />basis," <br /> <br />page XI..4, add after the 3rd paragraph <br />Dvnamic Pressure Fluctuation <br />Refer to addendum for discussion. <br /> <br />page XI -4, insert below 4th paragraph, <br />"Refer to addendum for discussion of safety factor and recommendation to use a minimum <br />surplus force (weight) as a more meaningful and practical approach." <br /> <br />page XI-4, 5th paragraph, replace last sentence with: <br />With the toe drain provided, the analysis illustrated that the design would be stable with a <br />downward surplus force of no less than 30 pounds if the criteria in Table XI-I is satisfied. <br /> <br />page XI-4, 6th paragraph, first line, replace "Figure XI-2" with <br />"Table XI-I". <br /> <br />page XII-I, 3rd paragraph, insert at the end of the first sentence: " <br />", and Smith (ref, 69)," <br /> <br />2-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.