Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br />-8- <br /> <br />Input data for the <br />in Table 1. Design <br />Information," and <br /> <br />unit hydrograph techniques are summarized <br />rainfall was taken from "Rainfall/Runoff <br />is summarized in Table 2, while assumed <br /> <br />Channel and overbank vegetal cover ranges from nothing in <br /> <br />areas <br /> <br />of <br /> <br />new <br /> <br />construction, <br /> <br />to <br /> <br />native <br /> <br />grasses in most open <br />some channel reaches. <br /> <br />areas, <br /> <br />and <br /> <br />to <br /> <br />dense <br /> <br />brush <br /> <br />along <br />estimated <br /> <br />on <br /> <br />a <br /> <br />reach by <br />typical. <br />points. <br /> <br />reach <br />Peak <br /> <br />flood volumes are summarized in Table 4 <br />select hydrographs are shown on Figure 2. <br />for other design points are on file at the <br />Flood Control District. <br /> <br />and <br /> <br />discharges <br />Figure l, <br /> <br />and <br /> <br />Roughness <br /> <br />coefficients <br /> <br />were <br /> <br />rainfall <br /> <br />losses <br /> <br />are <br /> <br />shown <br /> <br />in Table <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Peak <br /> <br />and <br /> <br />basis, <br /> <br />with <br /> <br />a <br /> <br />range of n ~ .03 to n <br />were interpolated between <br /> <br />.05 <br />design <br /> <br />Flood hydrographs <br />Urban Drainage and <br /> <br />discharge data <br /> <br />Hydraulic Analysis <br /> <br />The potential for blockage was assessed for each of the 15 <br />major and the many minor crossing structures and the culvert <br />area was reduced accordingly. Consideration was given to <br />structure size and shape, and the potential for debris <br />generation in the reach above each one. Schematic details of <br />the structures are shown in the profile portion of the Plan <br />and Profile drawings. Photographs of the major crossing <br />structures are on file at the Urban Drainage and Flood <br />Control District. <br /> <br />The lOa-year flood hazard area, and the 10-, 50- and lOa-year <br />flood profiles were computed with the aid of the U.S. Army <br />Corps of Engineers' backwater program HEC-2. This was <br />supplemented with hand computations where required. Input <br />data for the hydraulic analysis was taken from detailed <br />topographic mapping, field surveys of crossing structures, <br />field inspection and engineering judgment. All backup data <br />are on file with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control <br />District. <br /> <br />The lOa-year flood hazard area, and the 10- and lOa-year <br />flood profiles are shown on the Plan and Profile drawings. <br />The 50-year flood profile could not be distinguished from the <br />lOa-year profile, so it was omitted. The calculations are on <br />file at the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Cross- <br />sections used in the analysis are located on the drawings, <br />and typical sections are illustrated to give information on <br />channel and overbank flooding depths. Channel velocities <br />average 7. 1 fps and overbank velocities, where they exist, <br />average 2.8 fps. Flood hazard data are referenced by <br />cross-section number and summarized in Table 5. <br /> <br />Except for short reaches immediately upstream of major <br />crossings, where flood water backs up, most of Weaver Creek's <br />slopes are "hydraulically steep," for the lOa-year flood. <br />This results in a condition characterized by relatively <br />shallow and fast moving water. Flow is classified as mildly <br />supercritical, a condition which is unstable. Small <br />obstructions can cause large fluctuations in the water sur- <br />face profile. Flow can change rapidly from supercri tical to <br />subcritical, where depths are greater and velocities slower. <br />For this reason, the flood profiles for Weaver Creek were <br />computed with the assumption of subcritical flow. In the <br />HEC-2 backwater program this forces a critical flow profile <br />solution. The critical flow profile and the resulting flood <br />hazard area arc more conservative and more realistic than the <br /> <br />In most reaches, flood waters are confined within channel <br />banks. Tn some areas, however, when the lOa-year flood <br />overtops a bank or a road, an area of shallow overland flow <br />is formed. Where appropriate, it has been included within the <br />flood hazard area. In such cases, the outside limit of the <br /> <br />C\> <br /> <br />technically correct <br />Leonard Rice ConsultlOg Water EnglOeers, Inc. <br /> <br />supercritical flow profile. <br /> <br />more <br /> <br />C\> Leonard Rice ConsultlOg Water Engineers, Inc <br /> <br />~ <br />