Laserfiche WebLink
<br />volume excluded. The peak energy at Martins Fork Dam was 4 feet higher <br /> <br />in the first case because the additional storage volume reduced the <br /> <br />peak discharge and, consequently, the rate friction loss. <br />The results of a sensitivity study in which the composite n-values <br />were varied is shown in figure 5. For Condition I failure, n-values <br />of .05,.07 and .10 were assigned and the flood wave calculated and <br />routed to Martins Fork Dam. The results show that total energy remain- <br /> <br /> <br />ing in the flood wave when it reaches Martins Fork Dam is highly dependent <br /> <br /> <br />upon the hydraulic roughness value. The determination of these values <br /> <br /> <br />should, therefore, receive a great deal of consideration in planning a <br /> <br />routing study. <br />Routing the Dam-Break Flood for Condition II <br />The flood that would result from a failure when both reservoirs <br />are at normal. summer operating pools (Condition It) is represented <br />in figure 6. Under this condition, the entire contents of Cranks Creek <br />Reservoir would be stored in Martins Fork Reservoir and maximum pool <br />elevation would be well belOW the spillway crest, even including the <br />impact of the flood wave. <br />This condition was used to test for continuity by calculating the <br />vohane under the hydrograph at Cranks Creek Dam and comparinp; the result <br />with the elevation-storage curve of figure 3. The comparison indicated <br />that the volumes were within 15 percent of one another, with the routing <br />method tending to produce an excess of water. This conformed with the <br /> <br />12 <br />