My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE128459
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE128459
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:25:35 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 6:10:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
Determination of Hydrologic Consequences, Simons, Li & Associates
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 07 Part 2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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).
View images
View plain text
• 60 <br />the stream power exceeds five pounds per second per foot. Because half the anti- <br />dune wave height is due to degradation and the other half aggradation, only one <br />half of the calculated antidune wave height is added for diversion depth <br />requirement. The resulting increase in depth due to antidune formation is con- <br />sidered in the design of minor diversion channels T2, E1, Roadl, and Road2. <br />Superelevation occurs in channel bends when the velocity is high and the <br />radius of curvature is small. This effect can be estimated by the equation <br />2 <br />E ~ V T (2) <br />~c <br />in which z is the superelevation, V is the average flow velocity, q is <br />the acceleration of gravity, T is the top width of the flow, and rc is the <br />' radius of curvature for the centerline of the channel. There were no signifi- <br />~- cant bends, flow velocities were small, and top widths are small. As a con- <br />sequence, superelevation will be negligible for these proposed channels. <br />By suamiing the rigid-bed flow depth, aggradation, one half the antidune <br />• height, and the required freeboard, the required maximum diversion depth is <br />obtained. Table 17 presents the required design diversion depths. <br />Another factor to be considered is whether the diversions will be stable in <br />terms of the erosion and sedimentation process. This requires sediment trans- <br />port to be nearly equivalent in all reaches so that neigher aggradation nor <br />degradation are excessive. In addition, flow velocities must be low enough to <br />prevent damage to the aide slopes of the channels. <br />Flows in the channels are relatively small due to the small drainage areas <br />involved in most cases. As a result, most velocities and flow depths are also <br />small and sediment transport capacity is not high. In addition, flow durations <br />are short. Combine this with infzequrent flows, the channels should not, erode <br />excessively. Maintenance may be required for long-term use at critical locations, <br />but it will not be excessive. <br />The other problem to look at when considering channel stability is flow <br />velocity. As stated earlier, according to Chow (1954), the permissible flow <br />velocity is 3.75 feet per second or less to provide a stable channel. This is <br />based on the channel being located in material of graded loam to cobbles, <br />. noncolloidal. Also, these diversions are only temporary and long-term stability <br />is r.c= as important as for permanent designs. Maintenance can correct small <br />stability problems. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.