Looks like an old light pole ;-)
Square base - curved top ...
Sounds about right.I'm not an engineer or a hydrologist so I didn't appreciate what 100k CFS meant and what the dam engineers are dealing with. So I looked at Mississippi flow https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/current/?type=flow At Saint Louis the median flow of the Mississippi is 121,000 cfs. Holy cr&p that's a LOT of H2O, unless I have missed something. I kept checking to see if I had an order of magnitude error but I don't think so. Did I miss something?
I'm saying 1" of rain isnt going to wipe out the weir. (maybe, hence 'the math'). And they should take their time if that is the case.Correct me if I am wrong here, but if by a dry spillway you mean just rainfall and not another overflow over the lip, then continuing this work should be OK. Assuming that they will fill the area with rocks and boulders and pour concrete over it in order to mitigate erosion effects, then this should be fine for the weeks to come.
Thanks for bringing up hydraulic mining, which was another form of man-made stripping down to bedrock. I'm looking forward to reading the report. Thanks for posting.There hasn't been this much hydraulic excitement here since the heyday of hydraulic mining. "Hydraulic mining in the Sierra Nevada" covers the environmental impacts of that mining as well as other human activities such as logging and grazing, on the draininges including the Feather and Yuba, all the way to the Sacramento delta and San Francisco Bay navigation. This extensive report was commissioned by Congress to the USGS when petitioned by the miners, who had been enjoined from mining, partly because of damage to farmlands and other lands downstream of the mining. Marysville was particularly hard hit by floods which strew gravel all over their lands. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0105/report.pdf
Peaked at 902 ft regarding elevation. Currently at 889. To reach 852ft, 50ft lower than the peak, the lake will need to drop another 37ft. With the current flow of the main spillway stable at 100,000cfs, will they be able to reach this goal before the rains begin to increase inflows?
There is so much spam on youtube now I can't find reliable current video or images of the spillway. And even news articles are using old images. Does anyone know of a reliable source that is releasing current images or video?
Probably not with a straight line extrapolation, but they will keep drawing down as the inflows increase, so the level will keep falling until inflow reaches 100K cfs. Heavy rain will arrive Wednesday night, with moderate rain for a week. Expected to be less than last time.
A solid 100K outflow is far more total water than the storms bring. Have a look at the last two months on inflow
View attachment 24589
The volume of water coming is in the area under the blue line - so pretty much just the two peaks in Jan and Feb.
If they had been running 100K out the whole time, the volume of water outflowed would be the area of the red rectangle, which is several times more than the inflow.
So I think they will be fine, if they can keep up 100K.
Do you think the main spillway could become more problematic, such as the failure area creeping upward?
for anecdotal perspective, the CFS i experienced on a three week Grand Canyon trip was 6,000 -12,000 which is in the very lowest range, and not anywhere near the high range...still...it felt like a boatload world of water and I keep that experience in mind here thinking about having that or some high multiple of that coming across that frsh hill face....at minimum, the debris field at the discharge point will increase.I'm not an engineer or a hydrologist so I didn't appreciate what 100k CFS meant and what the dam engineers are dealing with. So I looked at Mississippi flow https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/current/?type=flow At Saint Louis the median flow of the Mississippi is 121,000 cfs. Holy cr&p that's a LOT of H2O, unless I have missed something. I kept checking to see if I had an order of magnitude error but I don't think so. Did I miss something?
The key point here being that "ripping" (essentially excavating with large-toothed buckets or large clawed attachments) implies softer rock. I'm not entirely sure this is correct, as even the quote above notes the rock was so hard it wore out the ripping claws.External Quote:
I've been following your discussion of the Oroville situation (https://www.metabunk.org/oroville-dam-spillway-failure.t8381/page-9). In thinking about the structural properties of the "bed rocks" into which the spillway is built, I found http://www.petersoncat.com/history/oroville-dam to be of interest:
"The scope and difficulty of the project really put Peterson to the test in terms of whether to supply the traditional means or really step up and be progressive and offer new solutions to head-scratching problems. According to Western Construction magazine's October 1966 issue, "Buster's Quad D9s were the star of the show on the $20 million spillway. Excavation of some 4 million cubic yards of solid rock made it one of the biggest ripping jobs in the West at the time. One million yards of that material had to be ripped using various methods, including Peterson's new Quad D9 arrangement, outfitted with two 10-ft shanks, each with 4-ft extensions. The rock was so hard that when points and shanks wore out, they simply replaced rather than rebuilt them. Also new on the dam portion of the project was CAT's new hydraulic 660 tractors pulling Buster's 97-ton Athey rock wagons [patent # 3185528] designed especially with hydraulic actuating hopper doors for Oroville".
It seems from this bit of history that the main spillway channel was excavated by ripping and not by blasting, indicating that - despite the story of the rock of the embankment being so hard that it wore down the points and shanks of the rips - the spillway bedrock really isn't all that hard and competent; see pg. 6-7 of http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotec...rences/31_Handbook_of_Ripping_Caterpiller.pdf (extract summary attached). That the native rock could be excavated by ripping may perhaps might suggest that it can also be rather easily eroded by stream flow, which might account for the deep, narrow channels cut during the emergency spillway flow (attached picture from your site). Notice I said "may perhaps might suggest" since I really don't know. My local expert on rock excavation geophysics is busy retiring this week, but I intend to pester for an answer as I can.
I'm keeping an eye on the waterfall at the end of the upstream intact portion of the main spillway. Judging by pictures from 4 to 6 days ago, it seems that damage first appeared at a location where the concrete transitioned from resting on ripped bedrock to resting on base fill above earth materials. After rapidly removing the dirt, base and concrete, the waterfall seems now to be working its way upstream through the bedrock, with portions of previously supported concrete panels perhaps now hanging over the edge. Hard to see or measure when enveloped in mist and spray (attached picture), but the rate at which the waterfall works its way upstream – if any - is something to keep track of.
The key point here being that "ripping" (essentially excavating with large-toothed buckets or large clawed attachments) implies softer rock. I'm not entirely sure this is correct, as even the quote above notes the rock was so hard it wore out the ripping claws.
Over. The parking lot is essentially part of the spillway (by design) and was underwater.View attachment 24595
I am curious, the helicopters started working on a hole yesterday at the entrance to the parking lot, WAY to the left of the spillway. Where did that water/hole come from. Water over the parking lot, or under?? thoughts?
Edit: Hmm. Interesting. Look on our right side of the spillway. Gravel on the new concrete. That rock has broken down enough that there were too many bits of rock to remove it all during construction.
Expected to be less than last time.
Gravel? I think you are looking at the fill behind the concrete side walls?
Trying to forecast how fast they will be able to drop the lake based on elevation is more challenging because the lake is wider as the was rises so the same amount of water released will have different results at different elevation.
Yes, the lake will drop more rapidly as the level goes down, as less water needs to be removed, probably not that significant though, for the first 50 feet.
I don't think that's a "layer" it's just what's on top of the ground at that point. Possibly just a gravel road for inspection of the spillway wall.
I believe what you see is a weathered rock slope that was originally blasted using the standard controlled blasting method. The "gravel" is the continued rockfall from the weak zones in the slope. The weak zones have a higher degree of soil in between each rock fragment and when the soil erodes out, the remaining rock fragment falls.Gravel? I think you are looking at the fill behind the concrete side walls?
View attachment 24598
Loose rock up there isn't really an issue. It's what lies beneath.
Yes, the lake will drop more rapidly as the level goes down, as less water needs to be removed, probably not that significant though, for the first 50 feet.
hat are this?
air bubbles coming up to the surface,maybe
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqEU2X6yBPk
around 40 second
![]()
That's the most significant risk right now. It looked solid yesterday, so I await pics of the "waterfall" area from today with great interest.
#1 as i was going to sleep last night it dawned on me... they won't be putting out any new pics... cuz thats how things tend to work nowdays... secondly to Joe... i fish the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.. there's no way in hell to my mind that the feather river/oroville spillway put out anywhere near the volume of the missouri or the mississippi... but they are the same numbers.. hard to believe it... very hard.I'm not an engineer or a hydrologist so I didn't appreciate what 100k CFS meant and what the dam engineers are dealing with. So I looked at Mississippi flow https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/current/?type=flow At Saint Louis the median flow of the Mississippi is 121,000 cfs. Holy cr&p that's a LOT of H2O, unless I have missed something. I kept checking to see if I had an order of magnitude error but I don't think so. Did I miss something?
Looks like sun glint to me. You can see it picking up the ripples.What are this?
air bubbles coming up to the surface,maybe
![]()
maybe just trapped methane... or better insects on the surface and/or glint ...indication of a sink forming... ? maybe not so much but good eye! could be..That's what it looks like. The video is from yesterday though, I think if this was a sink/boil it would have developed by now.
I stabilized the video a bit here:Looks like sun glint to me. You can see it picking up the ripples.
Any idea what this "river valve" system could have released, flow-wise? http://www.abc10.com/news/local/riv...-fourth-way-to-release-excess-water/408086236
Any idea what this "river valve" system could have released, flow-wise? http://www.abc10.com/news/local/riv...-fourth-way-to-release-excess-water/408086236