5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN

FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
5TH TASK SOLUTION – LAURA VALENTINA MALAGÓN LEÓN
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

ALTERNATIVES DISADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES

ALTERNATIVE 1 Through the time is possible The costs of making the
(but no surely) that the channel won’t be high
channel will erode, for Also the difference between
surpassing the limit of max the result of speed on the
speed. central section of the channel
with other situations is minor.
ALTERNATIVE 2 Considering the low The covering is supporting the
permeability, the channel speed limit surpassing on
won’t need covering, because both cases, so the erosional
its low, in order of this the part won’t be a problem for
erosion on this design is that reason.
noticeably high on the central
part (V1=2,47m/s)
ALTERNATIVE 3 Considering the low
permeability, the channel
won’t need covering, because
its low, in order of this the
erosion on this design is
noticeably high on the central
part (V1=2,45m/s)

THE CONSIDERED AND MOST VIABLE OPTION IS THE FIRST ON, IN REASON OF THE MINOR
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAXIMUM SPEED PURPOSED OF 1,2 METERS PER SECOND, WE GOT
1,54 METERS PER SECOND, SO IN ORDER OF THIS COMPARING THE VALUES OF SPEED GOTTEN
ON THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THIS ONE IS THE NICIEST, ALSO WE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THAT THE CHANNEL ISN’T COVERED, SO THE COSTS CAN’T BE HIGHER THAN THE ONES WHO ARE
COVERED.