My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C153629 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
C153629 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2011 10:25:18 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:36:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153629
Contractor Name
Colorado River Water Conservation District, The
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
50
County
Grand
Bill Number
SB 87-15
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
292
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />il <br />I <br />I II <br />I <br />I I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Typical ratios of RCC dam to arch dam unit prices for total volumes in <br />the ranges considered are 25 percent to 35 percent. An RCC dam at the <br />site would therefore be considerably cheaper and the arch dam alterna- <br />tive was dropped from consideration. <br /> <br />C. Preliminary Comparative Costs <br /> <br />Quantities for the major cost items were computed for each layout and <br />incremental costs were determined based on assumed unit prices. The <br />unit prices used were based on experience and unit prices bid for <br />similar recent projects adjusted by judgment for differing site condi- <br />tions. Total project costs are sensitive to the unit prices of RCC or <br />embankment materials because these items comprise a significant per- <br />centage of the total cost. The cost estimates were therefore prelimi- <br />nary and for comparative purposes only. <br /> <br />Preliminary comparative dam construction cost estimates for the alter- <br />native layouts are shown on Table 3-1. A 20 percent contingency was <br />included in the estimates to cover minor items which were not esti- <br />mated, uncertainties in foundation conditions, and uncertainties in <br />unit prices. The costs do not include other project costs including <br />road and power line relocations, access road construction (except for <br />the access road between the upstream site and downstream site which <br />affects the cost comparison and is included), recreation facilities, <br />interest during construction, administration, and engineering. These <br />other costs would be fairly constant regardless of the type of dam <br />selected or dam height. Figure 3-1 shows a plot of dam construction <br />cost vs. reservoir storage capacity. <br /> <br />Examination of Figure 3-1 shows that an RCC dam at the downstream site <br />is considerably cheaper than an ReC dam at the upstream site, except <br />for reservoir storage capacities of less than 25,000 acre-feet where <br />the curves appear to converge. An RCC dam at the downstream site with <br />a reservoir storage capacity of 60,000 acre-feet would cost over <br />$2,000,000 less than a similar dam at the upstream site. <br /> <br />3 - 5 <br /> <br />6819W/502OW <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.