The current course – a hydrodynamic glimpse

To tell if changes to the whitewater course at Holme Pierrepont will be an improvement, you need something to compare them with. In the past this meant a physical model, built to a certain scale so planners and paddlers could look at it and get a clear idea of what the water was doing, and where.

Though this approach is still popular, but an alternative is to use a hydrodynamic computer model as the basis for your changes.

Download the hydrodynamic modelling report here – 200kb PDF

That’s what this is. In layman’s terms, it shows the water depth in the concrete channel as it is at the moment. It’s effectively a computer model of what you’ll see if you walk down the course top to bottom, looking at how deep it is at certain cross sections all the way down.

EPD, the design consultants, have been using this model to take the user group‘s feedback and make some changes to the original proposals. It’s the foundation that the new proposals are built on – which you’ll be able to see at the public meeting on Wednesday 22nd October.

So download the modelling report, have a look and if you’ve got any thoughts, you can either post a comment below or discuss it online at the UK rivers guidebook community.

Advertisements

8 responses to “The current course – a hydrodynamic glimpse

  1. Pingback: Who are the whitewater course user group? « Nottingham HPP whitewater course users group

  2. Can users turn off Snap on this site if are irritated by it?

  3. I have not read the report properly, but that wont stop me making some hasty comments. First up is there a model for the course unmodified (Shipley’s model seems to refer to the current modifications)? This model is also analytic and not descriptive, the river features (marked eddylines and their orientations, stoppers and their depths, green wave features, their angles, pitch and turbulence) so whether or not it is written for the layman it is open to wide interpretation in relation to what can actually be seen on the course.

  4. I will give the document some time to digest soon… but it is almost obvious to me that the original water tank scale modeling is the ideal (possibly only) way to appreciate and communicate the real (not interpreted) outcomes of modification.

  5. Lets ignore the opening page of propaganda in Scott’s report.

    I don’t believe this report is terribly technical, Scott goes out of his way to explain his methodolgy, critical flow sections and suchlike. It’s a flow and depth study (of the partially modified course), that’s all.

    I can see how this would be directly useful in serving the aims of the racers who’s goals are simple, increased velocity and more aggressive eddies. It can also be directly useful for maintaining depth required for wacky racers and raft clients.

    However it is not a description of the features of the course (just look at the Muncher detail). No real inference can be directly drawn from such a study as the nature and quality of water features to be found on the course, the focus instead will be on several hydraulic jumps through which the angle and width of flow can be adjusted with Omniflots.

    What about, cushion waves, apexing green waves, retentive sweet spots, stable deep eddylines and all the other things that made the original course satisfying.

    Where is the wave modeling? I don’t doubt that this was not part of the commissioned aims of the study, which is simpler for it.

    I suppose that it’s up to Andy to model the waves and features, but we’re talking Omniflot here, not Wave 6.

    A starting point for Andy this may be, but it’s entirely unilluminating as to the development of a plan for change! We all know what the course looks like (and looked like), when are we to be shown the planner’s vision for the course?

    I suppose a scale model when the initial plans are drawn is out of the question… because it wouldn’t serve the agenda for change.

  6. I thought that the plans had be promised to be published before the meeting so that appropriate responses could be made? The model means nothing.

  7. I’ve been promised the plans before next week’s meeting, so I’m hoping to get them up here before the weekend.

  8. Can someone please explain how this report is meant to show me the changes that are being proposed? I’m sure its all good science, but I’m none the wiser about what changes are being proposed. Could they do a before and after picture so I can compare & see how significant the changes being propsed are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s