Laserfiche WebLink
<br />determined by successive approximations using two routing models. <br />Briefly, this technique was to be the following: The primary model <br />would extend through Cranks Creek Reservoir to Martins Fork Dam. The <br />secondary model would extend from the upstream end of the Martins Fork <br />arm down to the confluence with Cranks Creek. The first routing <br />would he made with the primary model, and would assume zero inflow from <br />the Martins Fork mainstem. The second step would utlize elevations <br />calculated for the junction in the first step and route down the <br />Martins Fork arm of the reservoir to determine the discharge entering <br /> <br /> <br />the junction. Step 1 would be repeated. This alternating between the <br /> <br /> <br />primary and secondary routing models would continue until the same <br /> <br /> <br />junction elevations and discharges resulted in two successive steps. <br /> <br /> <br />Such "convergence" would indicate that a solution had been reached. <br /> <br /> <br />This technique proved to be unsuccessfuL The changes in discharge <br /> <br /> <br />and elevation were so rapid that convergence of results from the two <br /> <br /> <br />models could not be achieved. Fortunately, the peak of the flood <br />wave required only a minute to travel from the confluence to the dam. <br />During this time, the wave would travel only a short distance up Martins <br />Fork mainstem. Therefore, that wave travel distance could be neglected <br />and the spillway design flood hydrograph could be entered as local <br />inflow. <br />Critical Depth Controls <br /> <br />A sudden failure of a dam results in a negative wave which travels <br /> <br />14 <br />