Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> Table n <br /> Initial Hydraulic Analysis Results <br /> For a Single Whitewater Chute <br /> at a 4-foot Dam <br /> (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) <br /> Flow Depth Velocity Froude Average Estimated <br /> at Bottom at Bottom No. Rise to Maximum <br /> of Chute of Chute Pool Tai!- Wave Height <br />Flow (cfs) (ft.) (fps) water (ft.) (ft.) <br />100 0.6 11.1 2.4 0.3 0.5 <br />1,000 1.3 16.5 2.5 1.4 2.5 <br />3,000 2.3 19.7 2.3 2.6 4.6 <br />5,400 3.2 21.8 2.2 4.7 .6.4 <br /> <br />As is readily evident, we anticipate fairly severe differentials at the higher flows, <br /> <br /> <br />which would likely be very risky for open deck canoes and very challenging for <br /> <br /> <br />whitewater kayaks. These are figures on the order of situations typically encountered <br /> <br />on major whitewater rivers and somewhat less than 3rd Avenue (a single 5-foot drop <br /> <br /> <br />there). Considering that these are large magnitudes and that modeling could <br /> <br />demonstrate fairly well secondary treatments to smooth out less desirable charac- <br /> <br /> <br />teristics, and would also allow examination of general scour patterns, we believe <br /> <br />modeling is prudent in this case. Only one drop really needs to be modeled, with <br /> <br /> <br />varying tail water conditions modeled by adjusting tailwater flashboards and installing <br /> <br />inserts for small er drop heights (if at all). If modeling is not selected, then much <br /> <br /> <br />more extensive field changes should be anticipated. Having worked with the Federal <br /> <br /> <br />Government process, we would see the entire process as more manageable and cost <br /> <br /> <br />effective if the model was done, although certainly the field changes could be made <br /> <br />(as we have worked with the Corps on such change orders). <br /> <br />Accordingly, our Scope of Work entails the following steps: <br />