My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04641
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04641
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:46:50 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 12:48:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Denver
Community
All
Stream Name
All
Basin
South Platte
Title
Proposed Hydrology for use in Hydraulic Analysis of FEMA Flood Studies and Restudies
Date
9/1/1989
Prepared For
State of Colorado
Prepared By
Resource Consultants
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.
/
72
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 /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />swnmary of the basin parameters is presented in Table 11.2. <br /> TABL!:; lLl -=- SUMMARY OF PC BASIN PARAMETERS <br /> DRAINAGE AREA CURVE NUMBER TIME OF <br />SUBBASIN muare miles) CN CONCENTRATION. Ic <br />C1 1.01 69 1.40 <br />C2 1.71 67 1.40 <br />C3 1. 91 57 1.18 <br />C4 0.36 61 0.48 <br />Tl 1.64 56 1.04 <br />T2 0.41 53 0.76 <br />T3 0.25 53 0.86 <br />T4 0.18 65 0.39 <br />T5 0.34 80 0.50 <br />T6 0.30 77 0.60 <br />T7 0.45 54 0.69 <br />T8 0.29 65 0.41 <br />T9 0.20 73 0.19 <br />TlO 0.93 69 0.84 <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />As-built plans for detention ponds 1 and 2 were obtained for <br />determIning the stage-volume-discharge data needed for TR-20 <br />input. The rating curve provided in the MDRCH was used for <br />Pond 3. Detention at subbasin T3 was assumed neglIgible. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The peak dIscharge values obtained In this study for the 24- <br />hour AMC II storm are presented in Table 11.3. The value of <br />1,280 cfs reported at P8 for the 100-year discharge is in close <br />agreement with the 1,252 cfs value obtained by the PCDB for the <br />24-hour storm. Both study values represent existing conditions <br />in the PC basin. <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In terms of the PCT basin, values obtained in this study are <br />significantly lower than those from the ESCC. Aside from the <br />fact that the prevIous study assumed fully developed <br />conditions, two other significant differences exist between <br />these studies. First of all, the ESCC generally assumed <br />hydrolol;ic soil types one step above those used in this study. <br />In other words; where a type "A" soil was assumed in this study <br />a type "B" soil was asstlmed in the other study and so on. The <br />second major difference Involves detention routing. It is <br />apparent from the ESCC discharge values that the storage <br />detention capability assumed in their analysis was not at as <br />high a <:apacity as presently exists. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1.9 <br /> <br />R€~OURC€ CON~UlTI\NT~ INC <br /> <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.