Laserfiche WebLink
<br />20,000 <br /> <br />16,000 <br /> <br />o <br />z <br />o <br />u <br />w <br />~ 12,000 <br />w <br />.. <br />I- <br />w <br />w <br />.. <br />u <br />iii <br />::> <br />u <br />ill <br />aU 8000 <br />'" <br />0: <br />< <br />" <br />u <br />Ul <br />is <br /> <br />DAM.BREAK MODELING <br /> <br />53 <br /> <br />EXPLANATION <br /> <br />~ <br />!\~ <br />1\ I <br />: \ I!\:: <br />1\ <br />: \ 1\ <br />I \ i\ <br />: \ f \t 1\ <br />I \ I \ <br />I \ ! \ II <br />I \ I \ II <br />I \ I \ ~'" <br />: \'1' \ j/ ~.t[>.,.. I!"'''!~'.t <br />I 1 \ ~, ' "'-.. <br />: 1\ "1" "" <br />I I, :" . "- <br />I' i" I <br />, " "1/ '-"--... <br />I I' rc ....... <br />I " ......-..: <br />I ........., <br /> <br /> <br />4000 <br /> <br />4,7 MILES DDWNSTREAM FROM <br />LAWN LAKE DAM <br /> <br />. OBSERVED LEADING EDGE <br />ARRIVAL TIME <br /> <br />X OBSERVED PEAK TIME <br /> <br />o <br />01530 <br /> <br />0630 <br /> <br />::--~ <br />0730 0830 0930 <br />TIME OF DAY IMOUNTAIN DAYLIGHT TIME I. JULY 15. 1982 <br /> <br />1030 <br /> <br />1130 <br /> <br />FIGURE 46.-Selected modeled and observed hydrographs. <br /> <br />of breach width were made for Lawn Lake dam. Hypo- <br />fuetical breach (bottom) widths of 25 ft and 200 ft were <br />compared with model results of the actual breach width <br />of 55 ft. For consistency, these scenarios were compared <br />to the calibrated model results. This range in breach <br />widths was suggested by McMahon (1981). Outflow <br />discharges for hypothetical breach widths for a time of <br />failure of 10 min for Lawn Lake dam are shown in figure <br />48. This figure demonstrates how much greater <br />discharge could have been. Results of these model <br />simulations are summarized in table 10 for a breach <br />width of 25 ft, and in table 11 for a breach width of <br />200 ft. <br />Data in table 10 indicate that, for a breach width of <br />25 ft. peak discharges would have been 7,000 ft'/s less <br />downstream from Lawn Lake dam, to 1,300 ft'/s less <br />at the downstream end of the study reach at mile 12.5. <br />Maximum flood depths averaged 0.6 ft lower. Flood <br /> <br />wave traveltime was the same. Model results also in- <br />dicated that. even with this hypothetical breach width <br />of 25 ft, the resulting flood would have overtopped <br />Cascade Lake dam by 4.2 ft and would have resulted <br />in the failure of the dam, <br />For a breach width of 200 ft, peak discharges would <br />have been 22,600 ft'/s greater downstream from Lawn <br />Lake dam, to 5,400 fts/s greater at the downstream <br />end of the study at mile 12.5 (table 11~. Maximum flood <br />depths averaged 2.7 ft higher. The flood wave would <br />have reached Estes Park 0.4 hour earlier. Model results <br />(tables 10 and 11) indicate that hydraulic differences as <br />a result of breach-width size decrease in the doWnstream <br />direction. and with sufficient distance. would converge <br />to similar flood hydrographs. <br />The model also was used to evaluate a worst-case <br />scenario for the failure of Lawn Lake dam that would <br />reflect a very abrupt and almost complete breach of the <br /> <br />4-7 <br />