Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />the SLA study were based on old DCM criteria. <br />peak rtlDoff for 6-hour and 24-hour storms <br />distribution. <br /> <br />They tabulated <br />with a type rrA <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The SLA work included detailed development of runoff parameters <br />but did not use specific channel routing. Although employing <br />TR-20 and subdividing the drainage into several subbasins, <br />their runoff model apparently used aggregate Tc and cumulative <br />basin area from the headwaters to the point of interest for <br />estimating peak discharge runoff. Therefore, time of <br />concentration and drainage area progressively increased for <br />points lower in the basin. In other words, subbasin areas and <br />time of concentrations were summed up outside the model and <br />input to TR-20 as a single basin to obtain discharge at a <br />specific point. The longest Tc was greater than 4.5 hours. <br />Accommodation of channel reach routing could only have been <br />Included as a function of the Tc calculation under this <br />approach. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Results of the two previous studies are shown in Table 7.1. <br /> <br />TABLE 7. 1 .: SUMMARY OF SW PEAK DISCHARGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />DRAINAGE AREA <br /> <br />PEAK DISCHARGES ll.W <br />AT CONFLUENCE WITH SAND CREEK <br />10 YR 50 YR 100 YR 500 YR <br /> <br />REPORT <br /> <br />ml,!;!,li !!1)1e.~1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />FIS(l) <br />SLA <br /> <br />5.37 <br /> <br />3,830 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Evaluat'i on of the SLA approach found it too coarse for <br />study. As only two subbasins had been used in modeling <br />well-developed watershed, new parameters were defined in <br />to get a more accurate representation of the hydrology. <br /> <br />this <br />this <br />order <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />(1) Not tabulated In FIS as only an approximate study was done. <br /> <br />7.3 Hydrolo!;ic Analysis <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The basin was subdIvided into eleven subbasins as shown in <br />FIgure 7.1. HydrologIc parameters for these subbasins are <br />presentE!d in Table 7.2. The "general" case rainfall depth from <br />Table 1,1 was used for the 24-hour storm. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br />R€~OURC€ CON~UlTI\NT~ INC <br /> <br />I <br />