Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I 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 />The 1986 Big Ory Creek FHAD, however, calculated a water surface of 163.4 (MSL) <br />(Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc., Nov. 1986). The profile point plotted in the study is <br />165.4 feet, which is the energy grade line elevation. <br /> <br />The current water surface does not agree with the previously published UOFCO FHAO at <br />1-25 for four reasons. First, the 1-25 bridge deck in the UOFCO study was modeled with <br />an elevation of 163.0 feet, while a current field survey determined the elevation to be <br />163.4 feet (corrected to MSL datum). Second, 2.7-foot-high concrete (Jersey) barriers <br />that cross the deck were not modeled in the UOFCO study. Third, the field survey <br />showed a bridge open area of 641 square feet, compared to 634 square feet used in the <br />UOFCO study. Finally, the orifice coefficient used in the UCFCD study is different from <br />that used in this study. The orifice coefficient used in this study was calculated <br />according to the method described in the HEC-2 Users Manual. <br /> <br />A separate HEC-2 run was made using the orifice coefficient that was identical to the <br />UOFCD study. The bridge open area was set at 634 square feet and the barriers were <br />modeled in place. The calculated water surface was 166.6 feet (MSL). The difference <br />between this water surface and the UOFCD FHAD is 3.2 feet, which is close to the <br />difference in calculated water surfaces due to the bridge deck and barriers 0.1 feet). <br />Therefore, not modeling the barrier results in a water surface that is significantly lower <br />than for actual conditions. The other bridge parameters account for about a 0.7-foot <br />difference. Since the UOFCO 100-year water surface calculated in this study is 3.9 feet <br />higher than that used in previous studies, a water surface match occurred at Huron <br />Street rather than at 1-25. Cross sections used between 1-25 and Huron Street were <br />obtained from Greiner's (Nov. 1986) model and the sections were corrected to this <br />project's datum. This study recommends using a 100-year water surface of 167.3 feet at <br />1-25, because it is based on an actual field survey with the barriers in place. <br /> <br />Federal Emergency Management Agency <br />The current Westminster FIS begins just upstream of 1-25. The elevation shown is 163.9 <br />feet at a flow of 8,839 cfs for the 100-year event at Section 1010 +90, which is 545 feet <br />upstream of 1-25. The 100-year elevation calculated for this study at 1-25 is 166.5 feet <br />(165.6 MSL) at FEMA's 100-year flow of 8,839 cfs. The difference in water surfaces is <br />again because the concrete (Jersey) barriers were not modeled for the FIS study. <br /> <br />II1-11 <br />