My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD07436
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
FLOOD07436
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:11:47 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 2:59:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Arkansas River from John Martin Dam to the Colorado-Kansas State Line: Channel Capacity and Riparian Planning Study
Date
7/1/1999
Prepared For
CWCB
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Floodplain Report/Masterplan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
157
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 />the actual floodplain. Some upstream areas would, no doubt, have break-outs more confined <br />than what is shown and some downstream areas would exhibit ponding that is not indicated. <br />Hence, the term "pseudo-floodplain". It is hoped that this methodology is indicative of <br />potential surface water flooding under current operation conditions and that the graphical <br />products are useful. <br /> <br />Sediment Modeling <br /> <br />Sedimentation was modeled using Hydraulic Design Package for Channels (US ACE <br />1997), also known as SAM. This is an integrated system of programs developed to aid <br />engineers in analyses associated with designing, operating, and maintaining flood control <br />channels and stream restoration projects. SAM provides the computational capability to include <br />erosion, entrainment, transportation, and deposition of sediment in channels. The hydraulic, <br />sediment transport and sediment yield modules of the program were used in this study. <br /> <br />The results of the HEC-2 hydraulic models were imported into SAM and used to <br />describe a set of hydraulic parameters for sediment transport calculations. This was <br />accomplished by specifying a portion of each sub-reach as representative of the hydraulic <br />conditions and calculating average values for velocity, depth, width, and energy slope for each <br />discharge value. These parameters were then used, along with bed material particle distribution <br />information, to generate sediment transport rating curves for the sub-reaches. The Brownlie <br />sediment transport equation was used to calculate transport. This equation was used because <br />the Stable Channel geometries are calculated with this equation, thus preserving theoretical <br />consistency. The Brownlie sediment transport equation would not necessarily be the first <br />choice for transport calculation, but it is applicable to sand-bed rivers such as the Lower <br />Arkansas. The resulting sediment transport values for the chosen stable design discharge, <br />1,000 cfs, (discussed in Section 4) were also used to generate tables of stable channel <br />dimensions for the channel improvements. The improved channel models were similarly used <br />to generate new sediment transport rating curves. <br /> <br />The resulting rating curves were then integrated with a discharge-duration curve to <br />calculate sediment yields for each sub-reach, for each condition. The discharge-duration for <br />the post-198l period was used for this, since it was felt that this represented the current <br />operational scenario. The calculated sediment yields can then be compared to evaluate the <br />functioning of the improved channel and to assess maintenance requirements. <br /> <br />The actual yield values should not be considered definitive, by any means. Reliable <br />sediment transport rating curves would require careful selection of a transport function, <br />calibration to measured data and more detailed analysis outside the scope of this study. <br />Additionally, only two particle size distribution curves were used for the five areas, based on <br />the proximity of the problem area and the sample location. The three most downstream sub- <br />reaches show considerably higher yields than the first two. A large degree of this is due to the <br />finer particle sizes more prevalent in the downstream sample. However, the values calculated <br />do have value in that differing conditions for the same sub-reach can be compared, since they <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.