DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 8 Open Channels Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter 8 Open Channels Contents 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Natural Stream Corridors ............................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Functions and benefits of Natural Streams ................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Natural Stream Corridors Prior to Urbanization ....................................................................................... 4 2.3 Urban Stream Corridors ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.3.1 Impacts and Constraints ................................................................................................................ 5 2.3.2 Stream Degradation....................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Preserving Natural Stream Corridors ............................................................................................ 7 3.1 Preserve Natural Streams and Riparian Vegetation .................................................................................. 7 3.2 Provide Ample Space for Stream and Floodplain ..................................................................................... 8 3.3 Manage Increased Urban Runoff ............................................................................................................ 11 3.4 Monitor and Proactively Address Channel Instability ............................................................................ 12 4.0 Stream Restoration Principles ...................................................................................................... 13 4.1 Understand Existing Stream and Watershed Conditions ......................................................................... 14 4.2 Apply Fluvial Geomorphology Principles to Manage Sediment Balance ............................................... 17 4.2.1 Aggradation, Degradation, and Equilibrium ............................................................................... 17 4.2.2 Dynamic Equilibrium and Threshold Principles in Stream Restoration ..................................... 19 4.2.3 Support the Stream’s Natural Capacity to Sustain Itself ............................................................. 20 4.3 Establish Effective Cross-Sectional Shape .............................................................................................. 21 4.3.1 Maintaining Floodplain Function ................................................................................................ 21 4.3.2 Sizing of Bankfull Channel ......................................................................................................... 22 4.3.3 Addressing Incised Channels ...................................................................................................... 24 4.3.4 Floodplain Terraces..................................................................................................................... 25 4.4 Maintain Natural Planform Geometry ..................................................................................................... 28 4.5 Develop Grade Control Strategy to Manage Longitudinal Slope ............................................................ 30 4.6 Address Bank Stability ............................................................................................................................ 35 4.6.1 Bioengineering Techniques ......................................................................................................... 35 4.6.2 Bank Protection Approaches ....................................................................................................... 35 4.7 Enhance Streambank and Floodplain Vegetation .................................................................................... 42 4.8 Evaluate Stream Hydraulics of over a Range of Flows ........................................................................... 44 5.0 Naturalized Channels ..................................................................................................................... 46 5.1 Understand Existing Stream and Watershed Conditions ......................................................................... 46 5.2 Apply Fluvial Geomorphology Principles to Manage Sediment Balance ............................................... 47 5.3 Establish Effective Cross-Sectional Shape .............................................................................................. 47 5.4 Maintain Natural Planform Geometry ..................................................................................................... 48 5.5 Develop Grade Control Strategy to Manage Longitudinal Slope ............................................................ 48 5.6 Address Bank Stability ............................................................................................................................ 49 5.7 Enhance Streambank and Floodplain Vegetation .................................................................................... 49 5.8 Evaluate Stream Hydraulics over a Range of Flows ............................................................................... 49 6.0 Swales .............................................................................................................................................. 50 6.1 Design Criteria for Swales ...................................................................................................................... 51 January 2016 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 8-i Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1 Open Channels Chapter 8 6.1.1 Stability Charts ........................................................................................................................... 51 6.2 Grass Swales ........................................................................................................................................... 52 6.2.1 Soil and Vegetation Properties .................................................................................................... 52 6.2.2 Construction ................................................................................................................................ 52 6.3 Soil Riprap and Void-Filled Riprap Swales ............................................................................................ 52 7.0 Hydraulic Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 57 7.1 Preliminary Channel Analysis................................................................................................................. 57 7.2 HEC-RAS Modeling ............................................................................................................................... 58 7.2.1 Cross Section Location ............................................................................................................... 58 7.2.2 Cross Section Geometry ............................................................................................................. 59 7.2.3 Roughness Coefficients .............................................................................................................. 60 7.2.4 Design Storms ............................................................................................................................. 63 7.2.5 Output Variables ......................................................................................................................... 64 7.3 Evaluation of Erosion at Channel Bends ................................................................................................. 68 8.0 Rock and Boulders .......................................................................................................................... 69 8.1 Riprap Sizing .......................................................................................................................................... 71 8.1.1 Mild Slope Conditions ................................................................................................................ 71 8.1.2 Steep Slope Conditions ............................................................................................................... 71 8.1.3 Design Safety Factor ................................................................................................................... 72 8.2 Boulder and Riprap Specifications .......................................................................................................... 72 8.2.1 Boulders ...................................................................................................................................... 72 8.2.2 Soil Riprap .................................................................................................................................. 72 8.2.3 Void-Filled Riprap ...................................................................................................................... 73 9.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 83 Tables Table 8-1. Maximum prudent values for natural channel hydraulic parameters ........................................ 45 Table 8-2. Minimum dimensions
Recommended publications
  • Environmental Screening Of

    Environmental Screening Of

    Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Avenue 54 to Thermal Drop Structure Draft Environmental Impact Report / State Clearinghouse No. 2015111067 Appendices APPENDIX C Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance Report City of Coachella and Unincorporated Community of Thermal Submitted to: Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 3 February 2016 Coachella Valley Water District C-1 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Compliance Report City of Coachella and Unincorporated Community of Thermal Riverside County, California Submitted to: Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Contact: John Criste (760) 341-4800 [email protected] Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 Contact: John F. Green Senior Biologist (951) 369-8060 [email protected] 3 February 2016 Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Improvement Project, Phase I Biological Resources Assessment & MSHCP Compliance Report February 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For the purposes of this assessment, analysis of the proposed Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC) Improvement Project, Phase I (project) could include the following: Extension of existing and construction of new concrete-lined channel/levee banks, a fully concrete-lined channel from Airport Boulevard to the Thermal Drop Structure near Avenue 58, and construction of a bypass channel or combinations thereto.
  • Chapter 10 Open Channels

    Chapter 10 Open Channels

    Chapter 10 Open Channels Chapter 10 Open Channels Table of Contents 10-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 10-1-1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 10-1-2 Design Flows .................................................................................................................... 1 10-1-3 Channel Types .................................................................................................................. 2 10-1-4 Sediment Loads ................................................................................................................ 5 10-1-5 Permitting and Regulations ............................................................................................... 6 10-2 Natural Stream Corridors ............................................................................................................... 7 10-2-1 Functions and Benefits of Natural Streams ...................................................................... 8 10-2-2 Effects of Urbanization ..................................................................................................... 9 10-2-3 Preserving Natural Stream Corridors .............................................................................. 11 10-3 Stream Restoration Principles .....................................................................................................
  • Defining Rip-Rap

    Defining Rip-Rap

    RAPPIN’ ABOUT DOT CDGRS MPAA RR 17 WARNING The following material may not be suitable for all Districts. Some of the photos used herein have come from people sitting in this room. Our intent here is NOT to offend anyone, but to promote thought and discussion. Names and locations have been withheld to protect the innocent (and the guilty). DEFINING RIP-RAP RIP-RAP: Graded distribution of large size aggregate Rip-rapped ditch DEFINING RIP-RAP The Engineer’s weapon of choice DEFINING RIP-RAP Highway maintenance manager’s idea of roadside beautification DEFINING RIP-RAP Sending interstellar communications DEFINING RIP-RAP Really Inappropriate Placement of Rock Armoring Practices DEFINING RIP-RAP GABIONS – Wire baskets filled with rip-rap RIP RAP • PROPER PLACEMENT • OVER USE • MISUSE • ALTERNATIVES DEFINING RIP-RAP RIP-RAP : A permanent erosion resistant layer made of stones intended to protect soil from erosion in areas of concentrated runoff -EPA GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES •Stone must be hard, durable and angular •Stone must be resistant to weathering and to water action •Stone must be free from overburden, spoil and organic material GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES • Must be well graded from the smallest to the largest size specified instead of one uniform size • The minimum weight of the stone should be 155 lbs/cu-ft RIPRAP SIZE CHART NSA No. MAX D50 MIN V Max R-2 3 in. 1.5 in. 1 in. 4.5 ft/sec R-3 6 in. 3 in. 2 in. 6.5 ft/sec R-4 12 in. 6 in. 3 in. 9.0 ft/sec R-5 18 in.
  • Thesis Analysis of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive

    Thesis Analysis of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive

    Thesis Analysis Of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive Equations For Maximum And Average Velocities At The Tips Of Transverse In-Stream Structures Submitted by Thomas Richard Parker Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2014 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher Thornton Steven Abt John Williams Abstract Analysis Of Riprap Design Methods Using Predictive Equations For Maximum And Average Velocities At The Tips Of Transverse In-Stream Structures Transverse in-stream structures are used to enhance navigation, improve flood control, and reduce stream bank erosion. These structures are defined as elongated obstructions having one end along the bank of a channel and the other projecting into the channel center and o↵er protection of erodible banks by deflecting flow from the bank to the channel center. Redirection of the flow moves erosive forces away from the bank, which enhances bank stability. The design, e↵ectiveness, and performance of transverse in-stream structures have not been well documented, but recent e↵orts have begun to study the flow fields and profiles around and over transverse in-stream structures. It is essential for channel flow characteristics to be quantified and correlated to geometric structure parameters in order for proposed in-stream structure designs to perform e↵ectively. Areas adjacent to the tips of in-stream transverse structures are particularly susceptible to strong approach flows, and an increase in shear stress can cause instability in the in-stream structure. As a result, the tips of the structures are a major focus in design and must be protected.
  • Rock Riprap Design for Protection of Stream Channels Near Highway Structures; Volume 1 Hydraulic Characteristics of Open Channels: U.S

    Rock Riprap Design for Protection of Stream Channels Near Highway Structures; Volume 1 Hydraulic Characteristics of Open Channels: U.S

    ROCK RIPRAP DESIGN FOR PROTECTION OF STREAM CHANNELS NEAR HIGHWAY STRUCTURES VOLUME 2 ~ EVALUATION OF RIPRAP DESIGN PROCEDURES By J.C. Blodgett and C.E. McConaughy U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4128 Prepared in cooperation with FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CNo I <r m o oo Sacramento, California 1986 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information, Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch Federal Building, Room W-2234 U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Cottage Way Box 25425, Federal Center Sacramento, CA 95825 Denver, CO 80225 Telephone: (303) 236-7476 CONTENTS Page Abstract -- - - --- --- - -- -- -- - _______ _ ]_ Introduction - -- --- -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - 2 Review of riprap design technology - -- -- - - - -- ---- -- - 4 Shear stress related to permissible flow velocity -- - --- - 5 Shear stress related to hydraulic radius and gradient ----------- -- 7 Characteristics of riprap failure - --- - - ---- _____ -- 9 Classification of failures ----- - - _____ - - - 10 Particle erosion --- __________________________________________ 10 Translational slide - ---- -- - - ______ - ___ 15 Modified slump -- - ----- __-- ___ ___ ____ __ ____ \& Slump ---------------------------------------------------------- 18 Hydraulics associated with riprap failures of selected streams -- 19 Pinole Creek at Pinole, California ----___
  • Drainage and Erosion Control Design Manual

    Drainage and Erosion Control Design Manual

    City of West Lake Hills Drainage and Erosion Control Design Manual May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Applicability .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Waivers ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Amending the Manual .................................................................................................. 1 1.5 References and Definition of Terms ............................................................................ 1 Chapter 2 Drainage Criteria .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Permit Submittal Components ..................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Preliminary Drainage Plan ......................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Type I Development Submittal ................................................................................. 4 2.1.3 Type II Development Submittal ................................................................................ 4 2.1.4 Type III Development Submittal ..............................................................................
  • Dayton Valley Development Guidelines Final Draft

    Dayton Valley Development Guidelines Final Draft

    FINAL DRAFT Dayton Valley Development Guidelines Supplement to the Dayton Valley Area Drainage Master Plan prepared for August Lyon County | Storey County | 2019 Carson Water Subconservancy District i FINAL DRAFT Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Rationale ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 More Frequent Flooding ....................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Larger Flood Peaks ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.3 Scour and Erosion ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1.4 Flow Diversion ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.5 Flow Concentration ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1.6 Expanded Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 3 1.1.7 Reduced Surface Storage ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.8 Decreased Ground Water Recharge ....................................................................................
  • Upper Susquehanna River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Study

    Upper Susquehanna River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Study

    Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Upper Susquehanna Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Study Prepared For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared By: Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office Cortland, New York Preparers: Anne Secord & Andy Lowell New York Field Office Supervisor: David Stilwell February 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Flooding in the Upper Susquehanna watershed of New York State frequently causes damage to infrastructure that has been built within flood-prone areas. This report identifies a suite of watershed activities, such as urban development, wetland elimination, stream alterations, and certain agricultural practices that have contributed to flooding of developed areas. Structural flood control measures, such as dams, levees, and floodwalls have been constructed, but are insufficient to address all floodwater-human conflicts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is evaluating a number of new structural and non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the watershed. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the “local sponsor” for this study and provides half of the study funding. New structural flood control measures that USACE is evaluating for the watershed largely consist of new levees/floodwalls, rebuilding levees/floodwalls, snagging and clearing of woody material from rivers and removing riverine shoals. Non-structural measures being evaluated include elevating structures, acquisition of structures and property, relocating at-risk structures, developing land use plans and flood proofing. Some of the proposed structural measures, if implemented as proposed, have the potential to adversely impact riparian habitat, wetlands, and riverine aquatic habitat. In addition to the alternatives currently being considered by the USACE, the U.S.
  • CHAPTER-6 Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures 6.1 Aqueducts and Canal Inlets and Outlets 6.1.1 Introduction

    CHAPTER-6 Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures 6.1 Aqueducts and Canal Inlets and Outlets 6.1.1 Introduction

    Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures CHAPTER-6 Cross-Drainage and Drop Structures 6.1 Aqueducts and canal inlets and outlets 6.1.1 Introduction The alignment of a canal invariably meets a number of natural streams (drains) and other structures such as roads and railways, and may sometimes have to cross valleys. Cross drainage works are the structures which make such crossings possible. They are generally very costly, and should be avoided if possible by changing the canal alignment and/or by diverting the drains. 6.1.2 Aqueducts An aqueduct is a cross-drainage structure constructed where the drainage flood level is below the bed of the canal. Small drains may be taken under the canal and banks by a concrete or masonry barrel (culvert), whereas in the case of stream crossings it may be economical to flume the canal over the stream (e.g. using a concrete trough, Fig. 6.1(a)). When both canal and drain meet more or less at the same level the drain may be passed through an inverted siphon aqueduct (Fig. 6.1(d)) underneath the canal; the flow through the aqueduct here is always under pressure. If the drainage discharge is heavily silt laden a silt ejector should be provided at the upstream end of the siphon aqueduct; a trash rack is also essential if the stream carries floating debris which may otherwise choke the entrance to the aqueduct. 6.1.3 Superpassage In this type of cross-drainage work, the natural drain runs above the canal, the canal under the drain always having a free surface flow.
  • Lower Long Tom River Haibtat Improvement Project

    Lower Long Tom River Haibtat Improvement Project

    Lower Long Tom River Habitat Improvement Plan 2018 Developed by: Confluence Consulting, LLC and Long Tom Watershed Council Lower Long Tom River Habitat Improvement Plan January 2018 1 | P a g e Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Study Goals and Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Stakeholders and Contributors ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Background on the Lower Long Tom River .................................................................................................................................... 9 Long Tom Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Fishery Background (excerpted from the US Army Corps of Engineers report “Long Term on the Long Tom,” February 2014) ...............................................................................................................................................................................
  • Slope Stability 101 Basic Concepts and NOT for Final Design Purposes! Slope Stability Analysis Basics

    Slope Stability 101 Basic Concepts and NOT for Final Design Purposes! Slope Stability Analysis Basics

    Slope Stability 101 Basic Concepts and NOT for Final Design Purposes! Slope Stability Analysis Basics Shear Strength of Soils Ability of soil to resist sliding on itself on the slope Angle of Repose definition n1. the maximum angle to the horizontal at which rocks, soil, etc, will remain without sliding Shear Strength Parameters and Soils Info Φ angle of internal friction C cohesion (clays are cohesive and sands are non-cohesive) Θ slope angle γ unit weight of soil Internal Angles of Friction Estimates for our use in example Silty sand Φ = 25 degrees Loose sand Φ = 30 degrees Medium to Dense sand Φ = 35 degrees Rock Riprap Φ = 40 degrees Slope Stability Analysis Basics Explore Site Geology Characterize soil shear strength Construct slope stability model Establish seepage and groundwater conditions Select loading condition Locate critical failure surface Iterate until minimum Factor of Safety (FS) is achieved Rules of Thumb and “Easy” Method of Estimating Slope Stability Geology and Soils Information Needed (from site or soils database) Check appropriate loading conditions (seeps, rapid drawdown, fluctuating water levels, flows) Select values to input for Φ and C Locate water table in slope (critical for evaluation!) 2:1 slopes are typically stable for less than 15 foot heights Note whether or not existing slopes are vegetated and stable Plan for a factor of safety (hazards evaluation) FS between 1.4 and 1.5 is typically adequate for our purposes No Flow Slope Stability Analysis FS = tan Φ / tan Θ Where Φ is the effective
  • 1 Isaac River Condition, Condition Trajectory and Management

    1 Isaac River Condition, Condition Trajectory and Management

    Memo Subject Response to information request from DEHP From Rohan Lucas Distribution BMA Date 12 February 2016 Project Broadmeadow EA amendment – Watercourse Subsidence 1 Isaac River condition, condition trajectory and management 1.1 Request The administering authority requires more information relating to the proactive management strategies that BMA will adopt to ensure the condition trajectory of the diversion is not negatively impacted by subsidence. 1.2 Response Understanding the incremental risk posed by subsidence The Isaac River diversion, constructed in the mid 1980’s was undertaken to a different standard to that which would be adopted today. The diversion underwent major erosional adjustment in the 1980’s and 1990’s (see Figure 2). Following some management intervention in the mid-late 1990’s (including timber pile fields) and a period without any major flow events from 1991 to 2007 (refer to Figure 1), the diversion underwent substantial recovery. This recovery included the deposition of benches against toe of bank and colonisation of those benches with riparian vegetation, providing a near continuous coverage along the diversion. These vegetated benches protect the near vertical, erodible upper banks from erosion in the majority of flow events (refer Figure 3). The diversion, which reduced river length by several kilometres, was constructed with two drop structures to compensate for the increase in gradient. One of these structures is now largely redundant and the other has been subject to damage from flow events and repair on numerous occasions. The remaining functional structure performs its design intent during smaller flows but is ineffective in larger flows in reducing energy conditions sufficiently.