Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Figures 3.9-a and 3.9-B
Two alternative locations for a playfield, with option A resulting in less cut and fill than option B
would require
Figures 3.9-A and 3.9-B compare the amount of cut and fill needed
to locate a playing field on two different slope conditions. Figure 3.9-A
positions the sports field on the more gently sloping terrain (5-10%) in
the landscape. Figure 3.9-B positions the field on steeper terrain (10-
20%). A diagrammatic section has been drawn for each option. On close
inspection, one should see that there would be perhaps twice as much
cut and fill required to accommodate the sports field in Figure 3.9-B than
in Figure 3.9-A.
The slope analysis map, in essence, provides the designer with a
guide to match the various program activities and use areas with the
most suitable terrain for each use. There may be other considerations
that necessitate locating program uses in less suitable terrain con-
ditions, although doing so might require more grading and therefore
increase construction costs. There are instances when the increased
costs are acceptable in order to achieve the desired site design intent.
For instance, a location decision may be based on exploiting outstand-
ing views.
It is suggested that a preliminary site analysis be made at the out-
set of a project, certainly before doing a preliminary site design or grad-
ing plan.
