Re:Areas near Sacramento evacuated as Oroville spillway coll...
by manarth on Monday February 13, 2017 @07:52AM
(#13634865)
There were concerns about the emergency spillway 12 years ago, but the request (to pave the emergency spillway with concrete) was rejected [1].
It was supposedly designed to handle 350,000 cubic feet per second, but began to fail at around 6,000 to 12,000 cubic feet per second.
Re:Areas near Sacramento evacuated as Oroville spillway coll...
by k26dr on Sunday February 12, 2017 @11:54PM
(#13633214)
The emergency spillway has never been needed before, so it's never had a chance to be tested by the looks of it
Re:Areas near Sacramento evacuated as Oroville spillway coll...
by ChefDenominator on Monday February 13, 2017 @09:21AM
(#13635342)
The rule for backups is that if you haven't successfully performed a complete restoration from backup, then you have no backup.
Same principle seems to apply to spillways.
I wonder, how do you test for something like this? I mean, you can certainly plan, and I imagine that the emergency spillway was examined at the time it was planned, but no plan survives contact with the enemy, and the best thing to do is to test.
But, to test the emergency spillway you need to fill the dam to the point where it's overflowing, and I believe it's been a few years since we've gotten close to that. Certainly not any time in the last year.
Besides, if it was tested in the past, it may be that the drought conditions--followed by all the rain--changed the soil in such a way as to enable this.
I need to make a note to read the report when it comes out; I'm sure it'll be interesting.