Wind Analysis. Technical Memorandum. Wind Direction and Fetch Length. Water Depth

Similar documents
Period of Record from No data was available from 1955 to 1962, but the remaining 57 years of data was available. 2

Evaluation of June 9, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study for Town of Weymouth, Norfolk, Co, MA

Redd Dewatering and Juvenile Salmonid Stranding in the Lower Feather River,

Steven A. Hughes. Ph.D., P.E. David R. Basco. Ph.D., P.E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Plan B Dam Breach Assessment

Council Agenda Report

RESILIENCE THROUGH RESTORATION

PROFILE OF SACRAMENTO RIVER, FREEPORT TO VERONA, CALIFORNIA,

Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis Island Harbour Club, Gananoque, Ontario

RISK AND STANDARDS BASED APPROACH TO RIP RAP DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR GRAHAMSTOWN DAM STAGE 2 AUGMENTATION

Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis 129 South Street, Gananoque

APPENDIX J HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

HURRICANE SANDY LIMITED REEVALUATION REPORT UNION BEACH, NEW JERSEY DRAFT ENGINEERING APPENDIX SUB APPENDIX D SBEACH MODELING

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE NOTES AUTUMN 2018

+)) Lower Churchill Project RIPRAP DESIGN FOR WIND-GENERATED WAVES SNC LAVALIN. SLI Document No HER

Technical Report Culvert A Hydraulic Analysis

Summary of HEC 18, Evaluating Scour at Bridges FHWA NHI Should really follow HEC 18, but this summary will get you the main points.

COST EFFECTIVE STORAGE CAPACITY INCREASE FOR ALUMINA TAILINGS DISPOSAL AREA THROUGH SPILLWAY OPTIMISATION

APPENDIX D-2. Sea Level Rise Technical Memo

Colusa Basin Drain Watershed Fish Stranding Tour Concept Paper Mike Hendrick and Brycen Swart NMFS

Wave Generation. Chapter Wave Generation

Sussex County, DE Preliminary Study Overview

2016 NC Coastal Local Governments Annual Meeting

Sea State Analysis. Topics. Module 7 Sea State Analysis 2/22/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering Orson P. Smith, PE, Ph.D.

then extrapolated to larger area just based on the length of bank [that actually falls in this category].

Culvert Design for Low and High Gradient Streams in the Midwest. Dale Higgins, Hydrologist Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

OFFICE OF STRUCTURES MANUAL FOR HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN CHAPTER 11 APPENDIX B TIDEROUT 2 USERS MANUAL

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Basin 1% (100-yr) and 0.2% (500-yr) Surge and Wave Event Water Levels


3. GRADUALLY-VARIED FLOW (GVF) AUTUMN 2018

REVETMENTS. Purposes and Operational Constraints. Purposes Erosion control o o. Revetment Design 4/5/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering

Site Description: Tower Site

Juvenile Salmonid Emigration Monitoring in the Middle Sacramento River. Diane Coulon California Department of Fish and Wildlife

WIND SPEED LENGTH OF TIME WIND BLOWS (Duration) DISTANCE OVER WHICH IT BLOWS (Fetch)

Appendix E Cat Island Borrow Area Analysis

Assessing Mechanisms and Rates of Levee Erosion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

2.0 Existing Conditions

SELBY CREEK SILVERADO TRAIL CULVERT FISH PASSAGE ASSESSMENT

COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS. 454 lecture 12

MEMORANDUM. TNC Fisher Slough Final Design and Permitting Subject: DRAFT Technical Memorandum: Levee Emergency Spillway Design

PREDICTION OF WAVE RUN-UP ON A COASTAL IMPERMEABLE STRUCTURE

Name: SOLUTIONS MIDTERM 2, Spring 2019

Indiana LTAP Road Scholar Core Course #10 Culvert Drainage. Presented by Thomas T. Burke, Jr., PhD, PE Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.

Autodesk Moldflow Communicator Process settings

Modeling of Long Culverts and Stormdrains A Comparison of Different Methods

CVEN 311 Fluid Dynamics Fall Semester 2011 Dr. Kelly Brumbelow, Texas A&M University. Final Exam

Design and Installation of two Permanent Booms at La Romaine-2 to resist Ice, retain Debris and serve as Safety Booms.

CALCASIEU SALINITY STRUCTURES. HYDRODYNAMIC MODELING (To Support Design of Salinity Barriers)

Structure and discharge test cases

Annex E Bridge Pier Protection Plan

Beach Profiles. Topics. Module 9b Beach Profiles and Crossshore Sediment Transport 3/23/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering

VIRGINIA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DAM BREAK INUNDATION ZONE AND INCREMENTAL DAMAGE ANALYSIS AND MAPPING PROCEDURES

Washington State Fish Passage Barrier Removal Projects. Casey Kramer, PE WSDOT State Hydraulics Engineer

Chapter 10, Part 1. Scales of Motion. Examples of Wind at Different Scales. Small Scale Winds

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) is pleased to submit this assessment of the wave climate at Lazo Road, Comox.

PENNDRAIN.rep. HEC-RAS Version May 2005 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street Davis, California

Experimental Investigation on Changes of Water Surface Profile with Gaussian Shaped Bottom and Side Roughness

The History of Coastal Flood Hazard Assessments in the Great Lakes

6.6 Gradually Varied Flow

Exercise (3): Open Channel Flow Rapidly Varied Flow

OCEAN WAVES NAME. I. Introduction

Baraga County, MI Coastal Hazard Analysis Flood Risk Review Meeting. July 12, 2018

St. Louis County, MN Coastal Hazard Analysis Flood Risk Review Meeting. May 2, 2018

Culvert Design An Overview of the NYS Highway Design Manual Chapter 8

Name: Form: 2.To know the difference between Constructive and Destructive wave # $

HARBOUR SEDIMENTATION - COMPARISON WITH MODEL

NordFoU: External Influences on Spray Patterns (EPAS) Report 16: Wind exposure on the test road at Bygholm

Illinois State Water Survey

CHAPTER 4 SPALDING COUNTY, GEORGIA 4.0 CULVERT DESIGN

Bayfield & Ashland Counties, WI Coastal Hazard Analysis Flood Risk Review Meeting. June 05, 2018

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO SELECTION AND DESIGN TIDE CALCULATION

The Hydraulic Design of an Arced Labyrinth Weir at Isabella Dam

A.21 SACRAMENTO SPLITTAIL (POGONICHTHYS

Wave Breaking. Wave Breaking

HEC 26 Aquatic Organism Passage Design Manual Evolution & Application

Wave Overtopping of Seawalls. Design and Assessment Manual. HR Wallingford Ltd. February R&D Technical Report W178. R&D Technical Report W178

Impact of New ANSI/TIA-222-H Standard on Broadcast NAB * ERI Breakfast * Apr 11, 2018 James Ruedlinger, P.E

The Discussion of this exercise covers the following points: Pumps Basic operation of a liquid pump Types of liquid pumps The centrifugal pump.

SECTION 2 HYDROLOGY AND FLOW REGIMES

APPENDIX C. Fluvial and Tidal Hydraulics Report

Basis of Structural Design

Managing floodplain productivity: Slow it down, Spread it out, Grow em Up

COASTAL PROTECTION AGAINST WIND-WAVE INDUCED EROSION USING SOFT AND POROUS STRUCTURES: A CASE STUDY AT LAKE BIEL, SWITZERLAND

REPORT GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BLOCK-7 SUB-STATION SY NO-225, NEAR RAYACHERLU VILLAGE

Low-crested offshore breakwaters: a functional tool for beach management

Undertow - Zonation of Flow in Broken Wave Bores

USING A LABYRINTH WEIR TO INCREASE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. Dustin Mortensen, P.E. 1 Jake Eckersley, P.E. 1

2. Water levels and wave conditions. 2.1 Introduction

Lake Oroville Coho Salmon Stocking Program Present. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) December 2009

Volume and Shoreline Changes along Pinellas County Beaches during Tropical Storm Debby

IMO REVISION OF THE INTACT STABILITY CODE. Proposal of methodology of direct assessment for stability under dead ship condition. Submitted by Japan

Evaluating the Design Safety of Highway Structural Supports

REPORT GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BLOCK-1 SUB-STATION SY NO-44, NEAR KYATAGANACHERLU VILLAGE

The API states the following about tube rupture for a shell-and-tube heat exchangers:

Ellis Y. Byeon, PE Bryan VanderGheynst, PE 1

FEMA Region V. Great Lakes Coastal Flood Study. Pilot Study Webinar. Berrien County, Michigan. February 26, 2014

HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION

A Review of the Bed Roughness Variable in MIKE 21 FLOW MODEL FM, Hydrodynamic (HD) and Sediment Transport (ST) modules

Door County, WI Coastal Hazard Analysis Flood Risk Review Meeting. August 21, 2017

Transcription:

standardized to a 10m observation level and corrected for increased overwater wind speed. The CEM procedures for adjusting observed winds were used to correct for the elevation of the CIMIS weather station from 4m using CEM Figure II-2-6. For fetch lengths less than 16km, the CEM recommends a factor of 1.2 to increase the wind speed for over water conditions. The ILDC also states that the wind speed duration to be used in these calculations should be less than one-hour duration. The CEM notes that the wind duration that generates maximum wave runup is a function of the fetch length and the wind speed. When the fetch is limited, as in a river application, CEM Figure II-2-3 can be used to provide an equivalent duration for wave generation. For the fetch lengths analyzed in this study, the equivalent wind speed durations ranged from 60 to 90 minutes. To meet the requirements of the ILDC, a one-hour wind speed duration was selected for all conditions. This selection represents a conservative approach to the calculation of wind setup and wave runup. and Fetch Length The fetch is defined as the region in which the wind speed and direction are reasonably constant. In river settings, the fetch is limited by surrounding landforms. nder these circumstances, the SPM recommends determining the fetch length by extending 9 radials from the point of interest at 3-degree intervals (centered on the maximum wind direction) until they intercept the opposite shoreline. The average of the 9 radial lengths represents the fetch length for a given wind direction. Water Depth The water depth at the toe of the levee at the design surface water elevation is used in the calculation of wave runup. The average water depth across the entire fetch length is used in the calculation of wind setup. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the design surface water elevation is the median 200-year still water elevation. Wind Analysis The wind data from the CIMIS Nicolaus #30 weather station is recorded as an hourly average wind speed with the prevailing wind direction in degrees. For this analysis, the wind speeds were separated into wind direction categories: North (337.5 to 22.5 degrees) Northeast (22.5 to 67.5 degrees) East (67.5 to 112.5 degrees) Southeast (112.5 to 157.5 degrees) South (157.5 to 202.5 degrees) Southwest (202.5 to 247.5 degrees) West (247.5 to 292.5 degrees) Northwest (292.5 to 337.5 degrees) 2 January 10, 2011

The wind speed data was then analyzed using HEC-SSP to perform a generalized frequency analysis to determine the 72.6-year return period wind speed for each wind direction. The resulting wind speeds represent the 72.6-year return period 60-minute wind speed at an elevation of 4m over land. For use in the wind setup and wave runup, these wind speeds must be corrected for an elevation of 10m over water. Table 1 presents the HEC-SSP output wind speed for each wind direction category along with the necessary elevation and over water corrections. Note that for the remainder of the wind setup and wave runup analysis, the wind speeds presented in the corrected for over water wind speed will be used. Table 1. 60-minute Wind Speed by Wind direction 72.6-year Return Period, 60-minute Wind Speed (mph) Observed at CIMIS Corrected for 10m Corrected for Over Water Weather Station Elevation Wind Speed North 26 29 35 Northeast 17 19 23 East 16 18 21 Southeast 37 41 49 South 35 39 47 Southwest 19 21 25 West 20 22 27 Northwest 26 29 35 Fetch Length Determination Figure 1 presents the water surface profile for the median 200-year stage along the Feather River. Due to the configuration of the river, the wind setup and wave runup calculations will vary for each segment of the west levee. The majority of the Feather River west levee is susceptible to wind generated wave action from the east. There are also several segments where wind from the northeast and southeast will generate waves perpendicular to the west levee. There are even fewer segments where wind from the north, south, or southwest will generate waves that are, at best, 45 degrees angles into the west levee. There are no segments where wind from the west or northwest will generate waves that will impact the west levee. In the calculation of wind setup and wave runup, a longer fetch results in greater values. To evaluate the worst case wind setup and wave runup values, the longest fetch for each of the 8 wind directions was determined. Table 2 presents a summary of the worst case fetch length for each wind direction. The wave approach angle also impacts the calculation of wave runup with perpendicular wave generating the greatest wave runup. In addition, Table 2 presents the wind direction relative to the Feather River flow. While there is no guidance for calculating a reduction in wind setup and wave runup, the effect of river flow on upstream wind should reduce the values of wind setup and wave runup. 3 January 10, 2011

Table 2. Fetch Length Determination by (1) Notes: (1) (2) Location (Levee Station) Fetch Length Wave Approach Angle (2) (degrees) Relative to River Flow North 270000 10,000 > 45 Downstream Northeast 441500 25,000 0 Downstream East 393000 10,000 0 -- Southeast 415000 25,000 0 pstream South 422000 30,000 > 45 pstream Southwest 217000 30,000 > 45 pstream West -- 0 -- -- Northwest -- 0 -- -- Wind direction represents the direction the wind is coming from (e.g. North wind direction represents wind out of the north) Wave approach angle equals zero for wave perpendicular to the levee. Wind Setup When wind blows over water it exerts a shear stress on the water surface. Although the wind shear stress is usually very small, its effect, when integrated over a large body of water, can result in an increase of water level at the leeward end. This effect is called wind setup. Wind setup can be estimated for small bodies of water based on Equation 15-1, SACE Hydrologic Engineering Requirements for Reservoirs (EM 1110-2-1420): S = 2 F 1400d Where S = wind setup = average wind speed (mph) F = fetch distance (miles) d = average water depth along the fetch line This equation is known as the Zeider Zee equation. More recent studies show that for shallow water (< 16 ft deep) the value from the equation above should be averaged with the Sibul equation below (Design Criteria Memorandum 2, SACE/South Florida Water Management District, 2006). 2.44 10... Where S = wind setup d = average water depth along the fetch line F = fetch distance = average wind speed (ft/sec) g = gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec 4 January 10, 2011

The average water depth along the fetch line was estimated using the ground surface profile along the fetch line in conjunction with the HEC-RAS median 200-yr water surface elevation. Table 3 presents the estimated average water depth and the calculated wind setup height for each worst case wind direction. Note that the greatest wind setup values are generated from the south and southeast wind directions the directions with the greatest wind speed and the longest fetch. Table 3. Wind Setup Height Average Water Depth Zeider Zee Wind Setup Sibul Wind Setup Average Wind Setup North 12 0.1 0.1 0.1 Northeast 13 0.1 0.0 0.1 East 10 0.1 0.0 0.1 Southeast 12 0.7 0.3 0.5 South 13 0.7 0.3 0.5 Southwest 14 0.2 0.1 0.1 West -- -- -- -- Northwest -- -- -- -- Wave Runup Wave runup is defined as the vertical height above the stillwater level to which an incident wave will run up the bank of the levee. The wave runup depends primarily on the levee bank slope, the water depth at the levee toe, fetch length, wind speed, and wave approach angle. One method to determine wave runup determines the 2% wave runup elevation, which represents the elevation above the still water level that is exceeded by only 2% of the waves. Before the wave runup can be calculated, the wave characteristics must be determined specifically the significant wave height and the peak wave period. These two parameters were determined using CEM Equation II-2-36: 0.0413 and 0.751 Where: H mo = significant wave height T p = peak wave period (sec) X = fetch length g = gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec = friction velocity (ft/sec) u f C D 10 = = drag coefficient = 0.0002 1.10.035 = wind speed at 10m elevation (ft/sec) Wave runup on a structure depends on the type of wave breaking. Wave breaker types are identified by their surf similarity parameter. With the wave characteristics defined, H mo and T p can be used to determine the surf similarity parameter per CEM Equation VI-5-2: 5 January 10, 2011

tan 2 Where: ε p = surf similarity parameter tan(α) = waterside slope of levee (assumed 1V:3H for all wind direction conditions) Now that the wave and wave breaking characteristics have been defined, the 2% wave runup elevation can be calculated per CEM Equation VI-5-3: % Where: R 2% = 2% wave runup elevation A,C = coefficients dependent on ε p (ε p < 2, A = 1.6, C = 0 for all wind direction conditions in this study per CEM Table VI-5-2) γ r = reduction factor for levee slope roughness (assumed γ r = 0.9 for 3 cm grass slopes per CEM Table VI-5-3) γ b = reduction factor for influence of a berm (assumed non-bermed fetch, γ b = 1) γ h = reduction factor for influence of shallow waves (assumed no shallow wave influence, γ h = 1) γ β = reduction factor for influence of angle of incidence, β, of the waves on the levee = 10.0022 Wave Runup Reduction Due to Vegetation The Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority Feather River Setback Levee Design Report (January 2008) addresses the presence of trees and thick brush growing along parts of the Feather River floodplain. Figure 2 shows that similar vegetation is present in the worst case wave runup levee segments subject to wind from the south and southeast. Vegetation in the vicinity of the levee hinders wind-wave formation because it shelters the water surface from the wind. More importantly, this vegetation impedes wave travel and dissipates wave energy. These effects should result in a smaller-than-calculated wave runup on the levee and a correction factor should be applied. However, there is no theoretical guidance in the literature to account for this factor, but recent project studies in the Sacramento River watershed have made empirical corrections to account for this effect: The SACE Sacramento District (Natomas General Re-Evaluation Report Wave Runup Analysis, Draft Revised May 2006) estimated vegetation correction factors based on field 6 January 10, 2011

inspection at various points of analysis. Factors ranged from 1.0 (no vegetation) to 0.2 for areas where the vegetation on the levee was so dense that wave action will have little effect. The report presented 17 different correction factors with an average reduction factor of 0.66. Mead & Hunt (SAFCA Wind Setup and Wave Runup Analysis for Natomas Levee Improvement Program, May 2007) performed a visual evaluation of aerial images of the levees and classified vegetative cover into three categories none, normal, and high and assigned corresponding reduction factors of 1.0, 0.75, and 0.6. GEI Consultants performed field observations of wind-wave action along the Feather River and Bear River levee during a high-water event in early January 2006. The average wind speed over the water was estimated at 35 mph from the southeast and the observed wave runup was less than 1 ft. The calculated wave runup was about 2 ft, so a 0.5 correction factor was applied as part of the TRLIA Feather River Setback Levee project. Based on these three studies, an average vegetative factor of 0.67 will be used in this study. Table 4 presents a summary of the 2% wave runup heights (both calculated and with vegetative correction) for each wind direction. Table 4. Wave Runup Height Calculated 2% Wave Runup Height 2% Wave Runup Height with Vegetative Correction North 1.4 0.9 Northeast 1.6 1.1 East 1.0 0.7 Southeast 3.3 2.2 South 3.2 2.1 Southwest 1.7 1.1 West -- -- Northwest -- -- Conclusions Table 5 presents the combined increase in stillwater elevation due to wind setup and wave runup for each of the worst case wind direction conditions. Note that in all cases, the impact of wind setup and wave runup is less than 3 ft. It should also be noted that in the areas with the greatest exposure from south and southwest wind, the top of levee is about 6 ft above the median 200- year water surface elevation. Table 5. Combined Wind Setup and Wave Runup Heights Average Wind Setup 2% Wave Runup Elevation with Vegetative Correction Combined Wind Setup and Wave Runup Elevation Increase North 0.1 0.9 1.0 Northeast 0.1 1.1 1.2 East 0.1 0.7 0.8 Southeast 0.5 2.1 2.7 (1) 7 January 10, 2011

Average Wind Setup 2% Wave Runup Elevation with Vegetative Correction Combined Wind Setup and Wave Runup Elevation Increase South 0.5 2.1 2.6 (1) Southwest 0.1 1.1 1.2 (1) West -- -- -- Northwest -- -- -- Notes: (1) Note that these cases are for upstream traveling waves. No reduction factor has been applied to address this situation. Based on these results, the ILDC freeboard requirement is 3 ft. 8 January 10, 2011

r rr ive at h e al Fe Ch ero ke ec an Oroville Thermalito Afterbay North Fetch Biggs South Fetch Southeast Fetch Gridley Feather River near Gridley East Fetch k Cree t u c Hon 99 þ } Median 200-Year Water Surface Butte Sink Live Oak Feather River at Live Oak ks l ou gh Sutter Bypass at Longbridge Sutter Bypass at Pumping Plant 3 Ca na Sutter rys Ma 20 þ } Wa ds wo rth Yuba River near Marysville l Butte Slough near Meridian Yuba City v ille Yu ba Yuba R Ja c Colusa Sacramento River at Colusa Feather River at Yuba City 65 þ } Grimes Tisdale Bypass Sacramento River Tisdale Bypass at Tisdale Weir at Tisdale Weir Sutter Bypass at Pumping Plant 2 North Fetch Su tte r iver Feather R Sacramento River below Wildins Slough near Grimes P Intercept Feather River at Boyd's Landing By pa ss Bear River e Yanke Southwest Fetch Feather River at Nicolaus c Sa Sacramento River at Knights Landing C R KL Woodland p 2.5 Yolo Bypass near Woodland 5 Miles JANARY 2011 1180 Iron Point Rd., Suite 260 Folsom, CA 95630 os Cr Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump Sacramento River at Freemont Weir 1.25 70 þ } e nto Rive r Phone: (916) 608-2212 Fax: (916) 608-2232 l na a sc Sacramento River at Verona Sacramento Slough near Karnak Yolo Bypass 5! h Sloug Sutter Bypass at Willow Slough r am k ree C y Dr River Bear River Bear near Wheatland at Pleasant Grove Rd 99 þ } Sutter Bypass at Pumping Plant 1 0 O B Sutter Buttes North Highlands 80! STTER BTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY FIGRE FEATHER RIVER WEST LEVEE WORST CASE FETCH LENGTH 1

Feather River West Levee Fe a e th rr r ive Map Key H p 0 0.15 0.3 reek C t u onc 0.6 Miles JANARY 2011 1180 Iron Point Rd., Suite 260 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 608-2212 Fax: (916) 608-2232 STTER BTTE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY FIGRE TYPICAL VEGITATION WITHIN THE FEATHER RIVER FLOODPLAIN 2