My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD06632
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
FLOOD06632
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:09:31 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:25:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Rio Blanco
Community
Rangely
Stream Name
Rangely area rivers and streams
Basin
Yampa/White
Title
Description of Hydraulic Analysis for Section 22 Study at Rangely
Date
9/1/1993
Prepared For
Rangely
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Data (general)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />According to the FIS te){t, the cross section geometry <br />was digitized from the 1982 aerial photography. This method <br />did not include any of the channel ':;reometry below the water <br />surface and the water surface was used as thE~ channel bed. <br />To account for the lesser HEC-2 model channel capacity, the <br />10-, 50-, 100- and 500-year discharges used in the FIS HEC-2 <br />files were adjusted by subtracting 't:he White River discharge <br />on the date of the photographY, which was 2300 cfs. <br /> <br />The stream channel reach lengths used fClr the FIS follow <br />the channel centerline, including bends. To get the <br />cumulative channel distance from the original HEC-2 data to <br />agree with the stream stationing on the work map, a <br />correction of 2400 feet needed to be added to the HEC-2 <br />cumulative distances. The stream stationing in the published <br />FIS flood water surface profiles differs from that on the <br />work map. <br /> <br />The roughness values used for the White River (Mannings <br />"n") were 0.04 for the channel and 0.06 for the overbanks. <br />It is not known if any data was used to calibrate the <br />roughness values. <br /> <br />The White River starting wa-ter surface e!levations were <br />at normal depth based on the slope-area method. <br /> <br />Two bridges were modeled in thE~ FIS HEC-'2 file. The <br />Highway 64 and White Avenue bridges were modeled using the <br />HEC-2 Special Bridge method. <br /> <br />The hydraulic effect of the levee at the, filtration <br />plant on the left bank conveyance was include,d in the <br />original model. The geometry of cross sections in this area <br />were set with no conveyance area available landward of the <br />levee below the levee top elevation.. <br /> <br />The FIS hydraulic analysis did not include any ice <br />effects. <br /> <br />HEC-2 INPUT FILES <br /> <br />Each of the HEC-2 files used in the Rangrely Section 22 <br />file is described in detail below. The HEC-2 input and <br />output for each file are included as an attachment to this <br />report and are also furnished on a diskette. The 10-, 50-, <br />100- and 500-year water surface profiles werE! plotted for <br />each file. The profile plots for the section 22 study reach <br />are attached. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.