Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />REPORT <br /> <br />FIS <br />SlA <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />8.3 <br /> <br />TABLE 8.1- ,3UMMARY OF ,')11 PEAK DISCHARGES FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS <br /> <br /> <br />DRArNAGE AREA <br />llJrJare mIles) <br /> <br />PEAK DISCHARGES ~ <br />AT CHICAGO ROCK ISlAND S. PACIFIC RR <br />10 YR 50 YR 100 YR 500 YR <br /> <br />16.3 <br />16.3 <br /> <br />1,640 <br /> <br />3,470 <br /> <br />4,450 <br />8,520 <br /> <br />6,870 <br /> <br />Hydrologic Analysis <br /> <br />The SM drainage basin was subdivided into 47 subbasins in the <br />SlA study. This was considered a level of detail too fine for <br />floodplain mapping. Under the current analysis, the drainage <br />was subdivIded Into 15 subbasins keeping the maIn basin <br />boundary in tact. Runoff and routing parameters were developed <br />for existing conditions. <br /> <br />A slight discrepancy in contributing area was apparent along <br />Powers E,oulevard near Constitution Avenue and along the eastern <br />boundary of the drainage. These areas were assumed to be <br />noncontributing to the flow upstream of the railroad. This <br />accounts for the difference in total basin area between this <br />study and the previous study. <br /> <br />Runoff parameters of Area, eN, and Tc are presented in Table <br />8.2. <br /> <br />TABLE 8.2 .:. SUMMARY OF SM BASIN PARAMETERS <br /> <br /> IlRAINAGE AREA CURVE NUMBER TIME OF <br />,')UBBASIN muare mUm CN CONCENTRATION . Ie <br />1 2.09 67 0.87 <br />2 1.17 70 0.83 <br />3 1.00 60 0.87 <br />4 0.67 64 1.03 <br />5 0.50 55 1.15 <br />6 0.59 55 0.85 <br />7 0.25 65 0.59 <br />8 0.20 75 0.44 <br />9 1. 75 55 1.47 <br />10 0.77 65 0.75 <br />11 0.65 75 0.86 <br />12 0.56 75 0.86 <br />13 0.69 78 0.81 <br />14 1.89 87 0.65 <br />15 2.22 85 0.65 <br /> <br />Peak discharge results at the hydrologic discharge points <br />indicated on Figure 8.1 are shown in Table 8.3 for the 24-hour <br />AMC II storm. The 100-year flow of 7,880 cfs at the Chicago <br />Rock Island and Pacific Railroad is lower than the 8,520 cfs <br />obtained by SLA. As SLA assumed full development, one might <br /> <br />36 <br /> <br />R€~OURC€ CON~ULTI\NT~ INC <br />