Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Reservoir Elevations at Failure <br /> <br />Three cases were selected for study. These differed only in <br /> <br />elevation of the reservoirs as shown below: <br /> <br />Reservoir Conditions at Failure <br /> <br />Condition Cranks Creek Martins Fork Net Head at <br />No. Res. Elev. Res. Elev. Cranks Creek Dam Remarks <br /> -- <br />I 1441. 5 1358.3 83.2 SDF crest (1) <br /> Typical <br />II 1419.5 1309.5 llO.O summer pool <br />III 1430.0 1341. 0 89.0 Spillway crest <br /> <br />(l)Spillway Design Flood (SDF) <br /> <br />Condition I was selected because it represented the largest total <br /> <br />energy available at Cranks Creek Dam. However, it did not produce the <br /> <br />largest head differential possible at Cranks Creek Dam, nor did it <br /> <br />produce the most severe condition for impact when the flood wave reached <br /> <br />Martins Fork Dam. Therefore, Conditions II and III were selected. Con- <br /> <br />dition II corresponds to a typical summer operating policy for the <br /> <br />reservoirs and represents maximum energy head for producing the flood <br /> <br />wave at Cranks Creek Dam; whereas Condition III represents an extreme <br /> <br />condition for developing impact loads at Martins Fork Dam. <br /> <br />The study was divided into several major steps, each of which is <br /> <br />discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. <br /> <br />Establishing the Geometric Model <br /> <br />The proposed Martins Fork Dam formed the downstream boundary of <br /> <br />8 <br />