Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' .. <br /> Human Stability in a High Flood Hazard Zone <br /> TABLE 2. Data Summary ror 0.6 Percent Slope. <br /> Flow Flow Hydraulic Ht. X Wt. <br /> _""". VelDeity Depth Racnu. Produc~ Weillh~ <br />Subject Type rp. mi. ft em ft em Number (1nchea,lba) <br />11 C 4.86 1.48 2.88 87.78 1.67 60.90 14.02 10,767 <br /> T 4.46 1.36 2.86 87.17 1.67 60.90 14.02 10,767 <br /> G 4.07 1.24 3.13 96.40 1.76 63.64 12.74 10,767 <br /> S 2.07 0.82 3,72 113.39 1.93 68.83 10.24 10,767 <br />.2 C 6.04 1.54 2.76 83.82 1.63 49.88 13.87 8,466 <br />'3 C 4.69 1.40 2.76 83.82 1.63 49.88 12.54 6,400 <br /> T 4.10 1.26 2.73 83.21 1.62 49.38 11.20 6,400 <br />.4 T 6.46 1.66 2,60 76.20 1.54 46.94 13.63 13,230 <br /> G 4.18 1.27 3.30 100.68 1.81 66.17 13.78 13,230 <br /> S 2,86 0.87 3.80 116.82 1.96 69.44 10.83 1,230 <br />.6 T 6.32 1.62 2.63 77,11 L66 47.24 13.47 9,360 <br /> G 3.97 1.21 3.96 120.40 1.99 60.66 12.10 9,360 <br /> S 4.03 1.23 3.62 107.29 1.87 67.00 14.19 9,360 <br />'6 C 9.80 2.99 2.33 71.02 1.47 44.81 22.80 14,271 <br /> T 9.54 2.91 2.40 73.16 L60 46.72 22.84 14,271 <br /> G 4.66 1.39 3.20 97.54 1.78 54.26 14.66 14,271 <br /> S 4.40 1.34 3.60 106.68 1.87 67.00 16.40 14,271 <br />17 C 14.47 10,948 <br />.8 S 6.80 1.77 3.60 106.68 1.87 67.00 20.30 14,270 <br />'9 S 6.60 1.68 3.40 103.63 1.64 66.08 18.70 11,634 <br />110 S 6.60 1.68 3.60 106.68 1.87 67.00 19.26 13,126 <br />.11 S 6.70 1.74 3.60 106.68 1.87 67.00 19,96 13,024 <br />112 S %.03 L63 3.40 103.63 1.84 66.08 17.11 11,743 <br />Monolith C 2.16 0.68 1.96 69.44 1.31 39.96 4.21 7,060 <br /> T 1.71 0.62 1.87 67.00 1.27 38.84 3.08 7,050 <br /> G 1.18 0.36 1.97 60.06 1.32 40.23 2.32 7,050 <br />. C-Concrete <br />T-Turf <br />G-{lravcl <br />S-Stccl <br /> <br />surface condition significantly impacts the product <br />number at toppling for the 0.005 slope tests. The mono- <br />lith toppled at product numbers of 2.32 and 4.21 on a <br />loose gravel and concrete surfaces, respectively, When <br />the flow velocity exceeded 1 fps (0.305 m3/s) the mate- <br />rial under the edges of the monolith was eroded, which <br />reduced the footing area and monolith stability. <br />It is observed that a larger product number was re- <br />quired to topple the monolith on the 0.005 slope than on <br />the 0.015 slope for a similar test surface. The lower <br />product numbers that result from the 0.015 slope are <br />attributed to the point through which the monolith <br />weight acts. When the monolith is sitting horizontal, <br />the weight acts through the centroid down through the <br />center of the foundation. However, as the slope in- <br />creases, the weight continues to act through the foun- <br />dation, but at a location closer to the downstream edge <br />of the monolith, The result is that as the bed slope in- <br />creases, the product number necessary to topple the <br />monolith decreases, <br /> <br />In an attempt to verilY the analysis, the depth and <br />velocity values at which the 117.5 lb monolith toppled <br />in the laboratory experiments for both the 0.005 and <br />0.015 slopes with concrete surface was plotted on the <br />hazard envelope as shown in Figure 2. For a channel <br />slope of 0.005, the flow velocity of 2.16 feet per second <br />and flow depth of 1.95 ft plotted adjacent to the toppling <br />envelope curve. When the channel slope was 0.015, the <br />flow velocity was 1.40 feet per second and the flow <br />depth was 2.11 ft, plotted immediately outaide of the <br />toppling envelope curve. The discrepancy of the point <br />obtained from the 0.015 slope may be due to the slight <br />difference in the monolith weight, 117.5Ibs, and the <br />theoretical analysis performed with an ideal weight of <br />120 lbs. Further, the monolith was tested on the 0.005 <br />slope first resulting in a slight wearing of the down- <br />stream edge of the monolith base. The slightly worn <br />edge may have contributed to a premature toppling. It <br />is evident that the toppling envelope curve developed <br /> <br />885 <br /> <br />WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN <br />