Laserfiche WebLink
<br />flood waves in this study could also be used to analyze the dam-break <br />flood wave in terms of the other effects mentioned above. However, <br /> <br /> <br />special situations developed which required simplification of the <br /> <br /> <br />problem in order to use this method, and these limitations are <br /> <br /> <br />discussed also. <br />Interest in this analysis was stimulated by a difference in the <br />design criteria used for two projects. The projects are awned by <br />different agencies, and the criteria used to develop extreme hydrologic <br />events to establish spillway requirements and the hei~ht of the dam <br />for the proposed downstream structure produced a flood that would <br />completely overtop the existing earthfill dam. Therefore, assumptions <br />regarding failure had to be considered to adequately define loading <br />conditions for the proposed dam. (At the present time, both the existing <br />earth dam and its operating policy have been modified to reflect the <br />same criteria being used for the proposed dam.) <br />Reservoir outlines of both the existing and proposed reservoirs are <br />shawn in figure 1. <br />Figure 2 shows a profile of the streambed from the site of the pro- <br />posed Martins Fork Dam up Martins Fork of the Cumberland River to the <br />confluence with Cranks Creek and thence up Cranks Creek. Pertinent <br /> <br />elevations are shawn for each dam. <br /> <br /> <br />Also, figure 2 illustrates a primary point of concern in the study. <br /> <br /> <br />Cranks Creek Dam stands some 85 feet higher than the proposed Martins <br /> <br />2 <br />