Laserfiche WebLink
<br />experience reported by Terzidas and Strelkoff. The discrepancy in <br /> <br />continuity was not considered to be unreasonable when evaluated with <br /> <br />respect to the uncertainties associated with other aspects of the <br /> <br />study. <br /> <br />Routing the Dam-Break Flood for Condition III <br /> <br />The results of routing Condition III are shown in figure 7. <br /> <br />The full impact loading of the flood wave is reflected in the 24-foot <br /> <br />increase in water surface elevation at Martins Fork Dam. The reservoir <br /> <br />outflow which was zero initially reached a maximum of 100,000 cfs under <br /> <br />this condition. <br /> <br />The results from the three conditions are shown in table 2. <br /> <br />Table 2. Comparison of Results <br /> <br />Cranks Creek <br /> <br />Martins Fork <br /> <br />Total Energy Head <br />at Martins Fork Dam <br />Prior to Impact <br />of Flood Wave Peak <br /> <br />Condition <br /> <br />Peak Outflow in cfs <br /> <br />I <br />II <br />III <br /> <br />1,400,000 <br />1,100,000 <br />1,200,000 <br /> <br />190,000 <br />o <br />100,000 <br /> <br />1358 <br />1310 <br />1341 <br /> <br />1386 <br />1332 <br />1364 <br /> <br />Several special situations which developed during the analysis are <br /> <br />discussed in the following paragraphs. <br /> <br />The Junction Problem <br /> <br />In planning for the study, a technique was proposed whereby flows <br /> <br />at the junction of Cranks Creek and Martins Fork mainstem would be <br /> <br />13 <br />