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 />capacity curves for a 36 inch <br />For the size of pipe considered <br />will be controlled by the inlet <br /> <br />diameter concrete outlet conduit. <br />and the expected slope, the flow <br />conditions. <br /> <br />D. Structure Plans <br /> <br />1. Embankment. The embankment sections considered are at <br />slopes of 3 to 1 and 4 to 1. These slopes are considered to be <br />the minimum face slopes feasible for an earth dam. Thicker riprap <br />sections, problems with the downstream slope erosion control, and <br />stability under drawdown conditions become problems on slopes <br />steeper than 3 to 1. <br /> <br />For the stability analyses conducted, only 3 to 1 slopes were <br />analyzed as the factors of safety were all greater than the <br />minimum required and would be even greater for the 4 to 1 slopes. <br />The stability analyses are presented in the Geotechnical Report in <br />Appendix G and the minimum factors of safety for the cases <br />analyzed are summarized in Table 3 of Appendix G. <br /> <br />The 4 to 1 upstream slopes were considered due to the <br />practical consideration for long term maintenance and longer <br />riprap life. Riprap will last longer and less displacement and <br />less long term erosion will take place on a 4 to 1 slope than on a <br />3 to 1 slope. This is due to the wave energy or force on the <br />riprap being less on the flatter slope, and due to less likely <br />hood of the riprap rolling off the flatter slope. Having a 4 to 1 <br />slope on the upstream slope is not required from a structural <br />stand point but is an alterative that needs to be considered due <br />to the high cost of riprap and long term riprap replacement costs. <br /> <br />Appendix H contains typical drawings of the <br />sections analyzed and considered feasible in this <br />three alternatives presented are as follows: <br /> <br />various cross <br />study. The <br /> <br />1. Rehabilitate the existing dams to 3 to 1 upstream <br />and downstream slopes and maintain the maximum <br />decreed water elevation of Gage Height 24 feet. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Rehabilitate the existing dams <br />and 3 to 1 downstream slopes <br />maximum decreed water elevation <br />feet. <br /> <br />to 4 to 1 upstream <br />and maintain the <br />of Gage Height 24 <br /> <br />3. Raise the dam to a crest height of 34 feet, five <br />feet higher than alternatives 1 and 2, to increase <br />the storage capacity. The upstream slope was <br />considered to be 4 to 1 with 3 to 1 downstream <br />slopes. <br /> <br />For the studies conducted, a small clay filled core trench <br />approximately five foot deep along with an upstream clay blanket <br />covering the entire upstream dam face was considered to cut off <br />any possible seepage between the existing embankment fill and the <br /> <br />V-3 <br />