Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A number of solution techniques have been advanced over the past <br /> <br />few years, but the method presented by Garrison, Granju and Price <br />(reference 1) has been used in this study. It is, however, based on <br />a solution of the gradually varied unsteady-flow equations through the <br />use of an explicit finitl!difference scheme developed by Stoker. Terzidis <br />and Strelkoff (reference 5), in studies involving a hydraulic bore, <br />demonstrated that such a solution technique calculated the wave height <br />correctly, but failed to maintain continuity in that an excess water <br /> <br />volume was developed for the wave. The problem was corrected by accounting <br /> <br />for energy losses resulting from flow conditions in the wave front. On <br /> <br />the other hand, Martin and De Fazio (reference 3) studied cases of rapidly <br />varied flow involving an undular type of flood wave movement rather than <br />a bore type, and they found the solution developed by Stoker to be <br />adequate for their design studies. Because of the depth of water down- <br />stream from Cranks Creek Dam, the flood movement in this study was <br />expected to be more like the undular wave than a hydraulic bore. There- <br />fore, Stoker's solution technique was considered satisfactory. However, <br /> <br />continuity checks were made to insure a reasonable volume was being <br /> <br />maintained during the routing. <br />Numerous assumptions were necessary in order to route the dam-break <br /> <br /> <br />flood. Generally, they can be divided into two categories: (1) those <br /> <br /> <br />basic to establishing the problem and method for solution, and <br /> <br />5 <br />