Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(2) those necessary in assigning values used in the actual calculations. <br /> <br /> <br />In most cases, judgment was guided by the effort to produce the most <br /> <br /> <br />critical situation for Martins Fork Dam. The assumptions are listed <br /> <br /> <br />below : <br /> <br />a. The failure of Cranks Creek Dam is instantaneous and <br /> <br />complete. <br /> <br />b. Pressure distribution is hydrostatic at each cross section. <br /> <br />c. Velocity distribution is uniform over that portion of the <br />cross section conveying flow. <br /> <br /> <br />d. Steady flow n-values are applicable. <br /> <br /> <br />e. An existing railroad crossing just downstream from Cranks <br /> <br /> <br />Creek Dam is washed out upon impact of the flood wave and the resulting <br /> <br /> <br />energy loss is negligible. <br />f. Energy lost at the junction of Cranks Creek and Martins <br />Fork mainstem is negligible. <br />g. The effect of transient waves on energy dissipation, due <br /> <br />to sinuosity of the channel, can be ignored. <br /> <br />h. Changes in boundary geometry due to scour and fill can <br />be neglected. <br />1. The model is verified when reservoir volumes and the <br />spillway design flood outflow hydrograph matches data obtained from <br />conventional routing techniques in earlier studies. <br /> <br />6 <br />