Objective Thinker

Denver, CO USA

Voicemail:  303.362.8425

www.geocities.com/gpdenp

Contact information available on website

My Desire: What I wanted to accomplish

Develop a computerized model to propose an optimized (economical) non-standard floodwater retarding structure alternative.  This alternative was to be presented within a Watershed and Environmental Assessment (P&EA).

Some kind of obstacle or restraint I faced

There was no national technical support due to the concurrent shutdown of National Technical Centers.  Regional or national engineering software support was temporarily suspended until technical institutes were developed to replace engineering software support activities.  Consequently, the search for expert consultation on the use of NRCS Structure Site Analysis Computer Program (dams2) for non-standard sites became a daunting prospect.  Support was needed after the discovery that dams2 produces erroneous reservoir routing results for the non-standard site.

There was no office technical support as the Hydraulic Engineer was on a two-week vacation.

The high complexity and intensive labor of iterative manual hydrologic analyses by one individual (me) necessitated computer-assisted analyses.

What I did step-by-step

Became familiar with Mathsoft, Incorporated Mathcad mathematical and text computer software.  This software was purchased and installed in my office computer about a week before it was used to complete this activity.  This software features live document interface (text, equations, and graphs appear “what you see is what you get”), numeric and symbolic calculations, graphics, and word processor.

Consulted the NRCS National Engineering Handbook, Part 630--Hydrologic Engineering, Chapter 17--Flood Routing, and pages 17-22 to 17-31.

Developed a ninety-six-page Mathcad document featuring non-Mathcad set units, watershed project sponsor objectives, applicable federal technical and/or financial assistance programs, and engineering analyses.  Engineering analyses included a summary of alternatives, assumptions common for all alternatives, and alternative analyses.  Each viable alternative having practice standards featured definitions, purposes, tools, boundary conditions, and methods.  Each viable and selected method showcased assumptions, constants, plan engineering policy and criteria, sedimentation, principal spillways, storage volume, and emergency spillways.  Demonstrated numeric activities included columns, matrices, increments, maximum and minimum values, formulas, calculations, interpolations, decision statements within formulas, and range or iterative curve graphs.

Description of the result

Presented two engineering alternatives that satisfy project objectives.  Only one alternative proved to be a viable engineering practice given the relative high value of downstream government, residential, business, and agricultural lands.

Presented existing “plan” principal pool drawdown capability for four open principal outlet(s) scenarios.  Scenarios were two-soil infiltration and two structural open gate possibilities.

Presented Engineering Alternative #2 optimized top of structure and emergency spillway system dimensions for three soils infiltration possibilities.  Presented site items, units, and quantities of boundary conditions and results.  Developed a cost estimate versus structure height graph showing cost ranges for each possible soil infiltration boundary condition.

Any measure or quantities to prove my accomplishment

Estimated $1.4 million dollars optimized cost after consultation with NRCS-AZ Hydraulic Engineer.  This cost and supporting information was presented to the NRCS customer (project sponsor).