Original source · versioned page text
MCU14-0039 Flood report and flood man Plan rev August 2015
The original of this document is very large (40.5 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawnComo Glasshouse P/L C/‐ Martoo Consulting P/L
Flood Impact Assessment – 305 Lake McDonald Drive Cooroy
In relation to the greenhouse structure, modelling showed that flood impacts external to the site were
unacceptable when the greenhouse was modelled as a fully blocked structure. Given the structure
construction being plastic wall sheeting, it is unlikely that the structure would in fact operate in a
manner that would preclude flooding internally and it is likely that the plastic walls would become
compromised by flood waters. Indeed, information provided from the client noted that in the most
recent historical flood event the greenhouse walls were in fact compromised with flood waters flowing
through the structure.
For the purposes of this investigation, the greenhouse structure has been modelled to allow flood
waters to pass through the structure, with the Manning’s “n” roughness increased to reflect the nature
of the internal plantings and to allow for some blockage associated with the marginal reduction in
flood conveyance associated with structure columns. Given the type of structure (plastic sheeting)
and the contents of the greenhouse (tomato plants – refer Figure 2), a Manning’s “n” roughness of
0.07 was adopted, with a sensitivity analysis also undertaken using n=0.1. This approach is considered
to be very conservative given the internal plantings currently in existence as well as the fully vegetated
conditions at full plant growth conditions likely to be encountered within the greenhouse. We
additionally note that it is intended to provide the greenhouse with lay‐down wall sections to the
height of the 1% AEP flood depth to facilitate flood water flows through the structure during times of
significant flooding. Given these aspects, the modelling approach using a higher roughness condition
is considered to be conservatively appropriate for this investigation.
Figure 2 – Greenhouse Internals
The existing case TUFLOW model was revised to include the increased roughness associated with the
greenhouse structure as well as the since constructed earthworks at the site (including bunds) to
represent the developed site conditions. The developed case model has been analysed for same
design events and used to quantify flood impacts associated with site development. Hydraulic results
are discussed in the following section of this report.
3917‐01 / R01 v02 ‐ 31/08/2015 6
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.