Laserfiche WebLink
For each segment, the minimum design criteria are as follows: <br /> Segment 1 <br /> A triangular channel, at least .81' deep, with 3:1 sideslopes. This portion of the channel would <br /> not require channel lining. <br /> Segment 2 <br /> A triangular channel, at least 1.22' deep, with 3:1 sideslopes. This portion of the channel will <br /> require stabilization. Either the channel must be vegetated, or a rip rap liner installed. If the <br /> rip rap liner is the chosen method, the D. of the rock should be 1', and the depth of the ditch <br /> increased accordingly. <br /> Segment 3 <br /> A triangular channel, at least 1.3' deep,with 3:1 sideslopes. This portion of the channel will also <br /> need stabilization. Again, either vegetation or rip rap would work. If rip rap is chosen, the D50 <br /> of the rock should be 1', and the depth of the ditch increased accordingly. <br /> Old Refuse Area Diversion <br /> I reviewed the existing designs for this ditch, from the minor revision (the one you said was <br /> incorrectly labeled No. 38) submitted in July of 1993. Their assumptions were valid, and as such <br /> the discharge of 1.03 cfs is acceptable. Using that value, I looked at the required capacity and <br /> stability of the ditch. I divided the ditch into two segments, according to slope. The segments <br /> are shown in red on Map II-B-7. Again, this ditch location is based on the assumption that the <br /> ditch would be on the refuse/natural ground interface. If this is not the case, the design would <br /> have to be reworked if the upland area to be diverted would be larger. The first segment is on <br /> a roughly 1% grade, and should be acceptable as constructed, provided it was constructed as <br /> designed. Segment 2 is on a 23.4% slope, and will need to be stabilized. Stabilization can be <br /> achieved using vegetation or rip rap. The D50 of rip rap in the ditch should be 1'. If rip rap is <br /> installed, the ditch may have to be cut deeper. <br /> I was unable to prepare a design for conveyance of runoff off of either pile, since there are no <br /> maps of the existing topography available. If you are able to get this, let me know and I will do <br /> the designs. <br /> You also requested that the Sutey Pile diversion be reviewed again, since the gradient of the <br /> ditch was incorrectly reported for the initial review. The slight change in grade will not affect <br /> the stability or capacity of the diversion. <br /> I have enclosed copies of the SEDCAD+ and Oklahoma Technical Press printouts I generated. <br /> SLB\021595C.WP <br /> Steve Renner 2 February 22,1995 <br />