Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Verifying the Digital Mode~ <br />Before routing the dam-break flood, the Spillway Design Flood for <br />Martins Fork was routed through both reservoirs. The results compared <br />favorably with those from earlier studies in which conventional routing <br />techniques were used. Also, water surface profiles were calculated for <br />the peak discharge of the spillway design flood. These profiles were <br />compared with profiles calculated using a steady flow, backwater computer <br /> <br />program. The comparisons from these tests were considered sufficient <br /> <br />to verify the model for 'the proposed study. <br />Establishing Boundary Conditions and Initial Conditions <br /> <br />A discharge rating curve was used for the downstream boundary <br /> <br />condition at Martins Fork Dam. It included flow over the top of the <br />dam, as well as through the spillway. <br />The Spillway Design Flood discharge hydrograph was used at the <br />upstream boundary in Condition 1. In the other two cases, inflow <br />was assumed to be zero. <br />Local area inflow entered the model at the confluence of Cranks <br />Creek and Martins Fork mainstem. No other local inflow points were <br />established. <br />For all three conditions of failure, Cranks Creek Dam was considered <br />as a finite disconti~uity in the initial water surface profile. Using <br />this approach, as opposed to treating it as an end boundary, the increase <br /> <br />in tailwater elevation accompanying the dam-break flood wave could <br /> <br />10 <br />