FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, HOOSIC RIVER ADAMS ...Tophet Brook also was added to the model (plate 13)....
Transcript of FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, HOOSIC RIVER ADAMS ...Tophet Brook also was added to the model (plate 13)....
-
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, HOOSIC RIVER
ADAMS, MASSACHUSETTS
REPORT NO. t
MODEL INVESTIGATION OF P~ASE I OF IMPROVEMENT WORKS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2-339
CONDUCTED FOR
NEVv YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ARMT·MRC VICKS8URC Mil$
BY
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI
FEBRUARY 1952
-
Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302 Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number
1. REPORT DATE FEB 1952 2. REPORT TYPE
3. DATES COVERED 00-00-1952 to 00-00-1952
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Flood Control Project, Hoosic River, Adams, Massachusetts: Report No.1: Model Investigation of Phase I of Improvement Works
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Waterway Experiment Station,3903 HallsFerry Road,Vicksburg,MS,39180
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as
Report (SAR)
18. NUMBEROF PAGES
70
19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON
a REPORT unclassified
b ABSTRACT unclassified
c THIS PAGE unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
-
PREFACE
Model investigation of the Hoosic River at Adams, Massachusetts,
was authorized by the Chief of Engineers in 2nd indorsement, dated
3 April 1950, to bas:i.c letter, dated 28 March 1950, from the New York
District through the North Atlantic Division to the Office, Chief of
Engineers. The first phase of the investigation, reported. herein, was
conducted by the Waterways Experiment Station during the period April
1950 to June 1950. An additional phase of investigation to study fur-
ther channel improvements upstream from those reported herein will be
conducted at a later date.
During the course of the first phase of the study Mr. P. H.
Jaenichen of the North Atlantic Division, and Messrs. F. L. Panuzio
and s. S. Haendel of the New York District, visited the vlaterways
Experiment Station at frequent intervals to discuss test results and
correlate these results with design work concurrently being carried
on in the District Office.
Personnel at the Experiment Station actively connected with the
model study were Messrs. F. R. Brown, T. E. Murphy, T. J, Buntin, G. B.
Sims, Jr., and C. M. Wright.
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
SUMMARY
PART I: INTRODUCTION
PART II: THE MODEL
Description . . • . . Scale Relationships • . . . . Appurtenances and Their Application
PART III: NARRATIVE OF TESTS •
Original Design Plan 2 .... Plan 3 Plan 4 . . . . Tophet Brook.
- Plan 1
PART IV: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PHOTOGRAPHS 1-30
PLATES 1-23
. . ......
11
i
iii
1
3
3 3 4
5
5 5 6 7 8
10
-
iii
SUMMABY
Model investigations of the Hoosic River at Adam.s, Massachusetts,
were conducted to vertfy the hydraulic design and to determine what
changes, if any, should be made for safety, for greater hydraulic effi-
ciency, or for economy. Particular attention vas given to the flow con-
ditions around the superelevated curves, in the stilling basins, and at
the junctions of the culvert flume with Tophet Brook, and Tophet Brook
with the Hoosic River. A 1:20-scale model reproduced approximately
2800 ft of the main channel of the Hoosic River and about 1300 ft of
the lower portion of Tophet Brook.
Flow conditions around curves were satisfactory as was the dis-
tribution of flow at the entrance to the drop structure on the main
channel. However, for reasons of economy the stilling basin was moved
downstream approximately 500 ft and the width of the channel upstream
from the stilling basin narrowed from 75 to 40 ft. The removal of
baffle piers from the stilling basin improved flow conditions, especially
at capacity discharge of 13,000 cfs.
Flow conditione at the original junction of the main channel of
the Hoosic River and Tophet Brook were unsatisfactory. However, a change
in radius of curvature of the right wall alignment effected the desired
improvement. The angle of intersection at the junction of the culvert
flume and Tophet Brook as originally designed was such that transverse
waves were set up in the channel below the junctlon. These waves were
carried into the drop structure downstream in Tophet Brook and caused
the flow to be confined to the left side of the bas:ln with an eddy on
-
the right side. A change in radius of curvature of the right wall
alignment of the culvert flume improved flow conditions.
iv
-
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, HOOSIC RIVER, ADAI'1S, MASSACHUSETTS
MODEL I~NESTIGATION OF PHASE l OF I}~ROVEMENT WORKS
PART I: INTRODUCTION
l. The Hoosic River rises in northwestern Massachusetts (plate 1),
flows generally north and northwest, ,crossing the south~·rest corner of
Vermont to the vicinity of Eagle Bridge, New York, where it turns west
and joins the Hudson River about 16 miles above Troy, New York. It is
66 miles long and has a drainage area of 713 square miles. Adams,
Massachusetts, is situated on the south branch of the Hoosic River,
about 8 miles below the source of the river.
2. The flood-control project for Adams provides for local im-
provement of the channel of the Hoosic River through the town (plate 2).
The upstream portion of the improvement works will consist of a rec-
tangular concrete channel varying from 40 to 75 ft in width. The down-
stream portion will consist of an excavated earth channel supplemented
by concrete walls and levees, with paving at proposed check dams and
critical sections; width of the channel will vary from 65 to 90 ft.
Over-all length of the improved river section will be about 12,000 ft.
Approximately 1200 ft of Tophet Brook, which joins the Hoosic River at
Adams, also will be improved by construction of a rectangular concrete
channel 35 ft in width. Similar improvement works on the Hoosic River
are to be made downstream at North Adams, Massachusetts, and are de-
scribed in Waterways Experiment Station Technical Memorandum No. 2-338,
entitled "Flood Control Project, Hoosic River, North Adams, Massachusetts, 11
-
2
dated February 1952.
3. Flow will be carried through the paved portions of the improve-
ment works at velocities 11p to about 35 ft per sec. It was necessary to
design the channel bends with spiral transition curves and superelevated
inverts since existing structures fixed channel alj .. gnment. A stilling
basin will be used on both the main stream and Tophet Brook at the down-
stream end of the paved channel sect:Lons to reduce the high velocities
of the flow before it enters the improved earth channel which has a rip-
rapped bed for a short distance. The main river channel is designed to
pass a maximum flow of 13,000 cfs above Tophet Brook and Tophet Brook is
designed to pass a maximum flmv of 5,000 cfs. The project design flood
is 8,200 cfs in the main channel and 2,000 cfs in Tophet Brool~. Water-
surface elevations in the riprapped section of tbe improved channel are
controlled by an overflow weir located about 1,000 ft downstream from
the junction of Tophet Brook and the main channel.
4. Although the original design of the channel improvement plan*
was in accordance with good hydraulic design practices, the results ob-
tained from the North Adams model tests indicated the desirability of
verifying computations by means of a model study. Specifically, informa-
tion was desired as to possible changes in bottom grade, wj.dth of channel,
superelevation at bends, and junction sections.
* Prototype design based on "Hydraulic Model Study, Los Angeles River Improvement, Whitsett Avenue to Tujunga Wash,n Los Angeles District, CE, July 1949.
-
3
PART II: THE MODEL
5. The model was constructed to a scale ratio, model to proto-
type, of 1:20 and reproduced the ma.in channel of Hoosic River from
station 35+00 to station 63+00 and To:phet Brook from station 0+00 to
station 12+37.2. Photographs land 2 show the model area reproduced
while plates 3 and 5 shovr the original and recommended designs, respec-
tively, of the improvement works included in the first phase of the
construction program. The doYTnstream 217 ft of a culvert flume joining
Tophet Brook also was added to the model (plate 13). One additional
phase of construction and testing, to be accomplished at a later date,
will involve tests of channel lmprovements upstream from those described
herein (plate 2).
6. Tne channel was built of plywood supported by timbers and a
steel frame which could be adj1lsted to provide a variation of longi-
tudinal slope. The bottom and walls of the improved channel sections
were constructed of 1/8-in~-th:ick, plastic-coated plywood to permit
ready alteration.
Scale Relationships
7. The accepted equations of hydraulic similitude, based upon
the Freudian relationships, were used to express the mathematical rela-
tionships between the dimensions and the hydraulic quantities of the
model and the prototype. The general relationships are presented in the
following tabulation:
-
4
Dimension Scale Relationship -· -Length Lr = 1:20
Area Ar = L 2 = 1:400 r Velocity vr = L l/2 = 1:4.472 r Time Tr = T l/2 ·Jr = 1:4.472
Discharge Qr = L 5/2 = 1:1789 r Roughness coefficient N = L l/6 = l :1.648 r r
Appurtenances and Their Applicatton ----8. The vmter used in the operation of the model was supplied by
centrifugal pumps. The quantities of water entering Tophet Brook and
the main channel were measured by 8-in. and 10-in. elbovr meters, respec-
tively. Flovr entering the culvert flume v1as measured by a 6-in. Van
Leer weir. After passing through the model, the water was returned to
the sump through an underground conduit. The tailwater elevations in
the downstream end of the model were controlled by means of an adjustable
tailgate. The initial water depths at the entrance to each channel were
adjusted in accordance w1 th des:i.gn computations by means of slide gates.
Steel rails, set to grade along either side of the mod.el, provided a
datum plane for the use of measuring devices. Water-surface elevations
were measured by means of portable point gages mounted on aluminum
channels supported by steel rails. Velocities were measured by means
of a pitot tube.
-
5
PART III: NARRATIVE OF TESTS
Original Design - Plan 1
9. The model of the Hoosic River at Adams, Massachusetts, was
originally constructed as shown on plate 3. The drop structure and
stilling basin on the main channel were located at station 55+25. Con-
struction of Tophet Brook extended only to station 4+31.98. Immediately
following its completion, the model was demonstrated to representatives
of the North Atlantic Division end New York District Offices. Certain
alterations were requested and accomplished while representatives of
the above offices were still in Vicksburg. Therefore, data on the
original design of the proposed improvement works were confined to a
few photographs of flow conditions (photographs 3-7).
10. Flow condi tiona in the improved channel section and around
the superelevated curve upstream from the drop structure were excellent.
The stilling basin (plate 4) functioned satisfactorily for a discharge
of 8,200 cfs, but for a discharge of 13,000 cfs the hydraulic jump was
swept from the basin. Flow conditions in the improved channel down-
stream from the stilling basin were unsatisfactory as a result of the
~ave action set up by the turbulent stilling·basin action. The flow
from Tophet Brook into the main channel also created large waves in
the main channel which were considered objectionable (photographs 8
and 9).
Plan 2
11. The first revision tested (plan 2) involved the movement of
-
6
the drop structure and stilling basin on the main channel downstream to
station 51+50 (plate 5). The channel upstream was flared from a width
of 40 ft at station 55+25 to 75 ft at station 53+50; the 75-ft-wide
channel was maintained to the drop structure at station 51+50. Movement
of the drop structure downstream from its original position was desired
because of construction details involved rather than because of hy-
draulic considerations. No changes were made in either the main river
section downstream from the drop structure or ·in Tophet Brook, although
revisions had been indicated by tests of the original design. Flow
conditions with the stilling basin moved down~tream were identical
with those described for the original design. Therefore no photographs
or other data were procured.
Plan 3
12. The channel of plan 3 involved the maintenance of the 40-ft
width upstream from the drop structure to station 53+25, from thence
it flared to a width of 75 ft at station 51+50, the beginning of the
drop structure (plate 5).
13. Flow conditions in the main channel and through the flared
section upstream from the drop structure were very smooth (photographs
10 and 11). Velocity distribution at the entrance to the drop struc-
ture also was fairly uniform (plate 6), Flow condi tiona in the stilling
basin were identical with those observed in the basin of original design.
Removal of the baffle piers from the stilling basin, however, resulted
in improved basin action (photographs 12 and 13). A good hydraulic jump
resulted for discharges of 8,200 and 13,000 cfs. Flow conditions in the
-
channel immediately downstream from the stilling basin are shown in
photographs 14 and 15. Velocities over the end sill of the stilling
basin and in the channel downstream are shown on plates 7 and 8. Relo-
cation of the drop structure had no effect on flow conditions at the
junction with Tophet Brook (photographs 16 and 17) or upstream from
the fixed overflow weir at the lower end of the model (photograph 18).
Plan l~
7
14. Plan 4 embodied all the impx•ovement s made to the drop struc-
ture and channel upstream of plan 3 and included, in addition, a revised
alignment of Tophet Brook at the junction with Hoosic River (plate 5 and
photograph 19).
15. Flow conditions at the junction of the main river channel and
Tophet Brook were improved considerably by realignment of the right wall
of Tophet Brook (photographs 20 and 21). The distribution of velocities
in the main channel at and downstream from the junction was more uniform
with the revised wall alignment (pla·bes 9 and 10). Velocities were all
downstream in direction, whereas with the original alignment, some up-
stream flow existed adjacent to the right wall of the maj.n channel down-
stream from the junction. Water-surface profiles measured in the main
channel for design (8,200 cfs) and capacity (13,000 cfs) flows supple-
mented by discharges of 2,000 ofs and 5,000 cfs, respectively, from
Tophet Brook are shown on plates 11 and 12. Also shown for comparative
purposes are computed water~surface profiles. Observed water~surface
elevations, in general, were below the computed elevations in the area
downstream from the drop structure. The model coefficien·t of roughness,
-
8
"n" in Manning's formula, was found to average about 0.0097 in the lower
part of the main channel. This roughness value is equivalent to a proto-
type n value of 0.016. Model coeff1.cients of roughness :tn the Hoosic
River upstream from the drop structure and in Tophet Brook averaged about
0.0085 which is equivalent to a prototype roughnesB value of 0.014.
!ophet Brook
16. The original model limits reproduced. only the lower 4 32 ft
of Tophet Brook. The proposed plan of channel improvement was revised
by the New York District .• during the course of the model study, re-
quiring the extension of the Tophet Brook channel and the addition of
a culvert flume junction (plate 13) . Total design flow in Tophet Brook
was 2,000 cfs with 360 cfs contributed. by the culvert flume and 1,640
cfs contributed by Tophet Brook. Total oapac:tty flow was 5,000 cfs
with 900 cfs contributed by the culvert flume and 4,100 cfs contributed
by Tophet Brook, Flow entering Tophet Brook from the culvert flume of
initial design caused a series of transverse waves downstream from the
junction (photographs 22 and 23) . These waves continued into the
Tophet Brook drop structure, station 2+62 ,O!.J., causing the flow to pile
up along the left wall with resulting eddies along the right wall
(photographs 21~ and 25) . Velocity measurements at var~.ous cross sec-
tions in Tophet Brook indicated. the effect of culvert flov1 (plates 14 -17) .
Velocities immediately upstream from the junction (plate 14) were fairly
uniform across the channel whereas velocities downstream from the junc-
tion were dependent upon the location of the waves created by culvert
discharge. Water-surface p:rofiles in Tophet Brook ;.rit}l the culvert
-
flume discharging are shown on plates 18 and 19.
17. The alignment of the downstream end of the culvert flume as
it joined Tophet Brook was revised as shown on plate 13 in an effort to
improve flow distribution. Tests of the revised alignment indicated
that the desired effect had been obtained (photographs 26 and 27) . The
transverse wave action noted in the original design was reduced. Flow
conditions in the drop structure and s~illing basin were improved
(photographs 28 and 29). Velocity d~stribution in Tophet Brook also
was more uniform (plates 20-23). Flow conditions at the junction of
Tophet Brook and the Hoosic River for the recommended design with
capacity flows in both streams are shown in photograph 30,
9
-
10
PART IV: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
18. Tests of the flrst phase of im:rrovement works on the Hoosic
River at Adams, Massachusetts, indicated that the superelevated inverts
of the high velocity channel upstream from the d.rop structure functioned
satisfactorily. The drop structure and stilling basin operated satis-
factorily at either station 55+25 (original location) or station 51+50
(revised location) provided the baffle piers were eliminated. Elim-
ination of the baffle piers improved basin performance at the maximum.
discharge of 13,000 cfs. Some economy in constru.otion was effected
by location of the drop structure at statlon 51+50 as the channel
width was reduced from 75 ft to 40ft for a distance of 200 ft.
19. The original junctions of Tophet Brook with Hoosic River
and the culvert flUllle with Tophet Brook were unsatisfactory. Reallgn-
ment of the right wall of Tophet Brook and the culvert :flume at the
junction points provided the desired flow conditions.
-
PHOTOGRAPHS
-
Downstre8lll viev, Ad.a.ms model. Hoosic River, original design
-
1\)
Upstream view, Adams model. ·Hoosic River, original design
-
w
Original design, main channel. Station 63-1-00 to station 55+00 Discharge 8,200 cfs
-
Original design, stilling basin Discharge 8,200 cfs
-
Original design, main channel. Station 63..00 to station 55-+00 Discharge 13,000 cfs
-
Original design, stilling basin D~scharge 13,000 cfs
-
Original design, stilling basin with baffle piers Discharge 13,000 cfs
-
Original design, junction Tophet Brook Discharge: Hoosic River 8,200 cfs; Tophet Brook 2,000 cfs
-
Original design, junction Tophet Brook Discharge: Hoosic River 13,000 cfs; Tophet Brook 2,000 cfs
-
Plan 3 design, main channel. Station 63+00 to station 55+00 Discharge 8,200 cfs
-
Plan 3 design, main channel. Station 63+00 to station 55+00 Discharge 13,000 cfs
-
Plan 3 stilling basin Discharge 8,200 cfs
-
Plan 3 still ing basin Discharge 13,000 cfs
-
Plan 3 design, main channel. Station 47+50 to station 50+00 Discharge 8,200 cfs
-
Plan 3 design, main channel. Station 47+50 to station 50+00 Discharge 13,000 cfs
-
Original design, junction of Tophet Brook with Plan 3 channel Discharge: Tophet Brook 2,000 cfs; Hoosic River 8,200 cfs
-
Original design, junction of Tophet Brook with Plan 3 channel Discharge: Tophet Brook 2, 000 cfs; Hoosic River 13,000 cfs
-
Plan 3 design, overflow weir lower end of model Discharge: Tophet Brook 2,000 cfs; Hoosic River 8,200 cfs
-
Plan 4, revised junction of Tophet Brook Yith Plan 3 channel PHOTOGRAPH 19
-
Plan 4, revised junction of Tophet Brook with Plan 3 channel Discharge: Tophet Brook 2,000 cfs; Hoosic River 8,200 cfs
PHOTOGRAPH 20
-
Plan 4, revised junction of Tophet Brook with Plan 3 channel Discharge: Tophet Brook 2,000 cfs; Hoosic River 13,000 cfs
PHOI'OGRAPH 21
-
Original design, junction culvert flume with Tophet Brook Discharge: culvert flume 360 cfs; Tophet Brook l,64o cfs
PHOTOGRAPH 22
-
Original design, culvert flume with Tophet Brook Discharge: culvert flume 900 cfs; Tophet Brook 4,100 cfs
PHOTOGRAPH 23
-
Original design, culvert flume with Tophet Brook Discharge: culvert flume 360 cfs; Tophet Brook 1,640 cfs
PHOTOGRAPH 24
-
Original design, junction culvert flume with Tophet Brook Discharge : culvert flume 900 cfs; Tophet Brook 4, 100 cfs
PH
-
\ Revised design, junction cul vert f l ume with Tophet Brook Discharge : culvert flume 360 cfs; Tophet Brook 1,64o cfs
-
\ Revised design, junction culvert flume with Tophet Brook Discharge: culvert flume 900 c~s; Tophet Brook 4,100 cfs
-
Revised design, junction culvert f l ume with Tophet Brook Discharge: culvert f l ume 36o cfs; Tophet Brook 1,640 cfs
PHOTOGRAPH 28
-
Revised design, junction culvert f~ume with Tophet Brook. Discharge : cul vert f l ume 900 cfs ; Tophet Brook 4 , 100 cfs
PH
-
Recommended design, junction Tophet Brook with Hoosic River Discharge: Tophet Brook 5,000 cfs; Hoosic River 13,000 cfs
PHOTOGRAPH 30
-
PLATES
-
NEW
HUDSON
10
VERMONT
PITTSFIELD
MASSACHUSETT
BARRfNCTON 0
CONNECTICUT
VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES 0 10 20
~ -N -
~
PLATE I
-
PLATE 2
~ ------LOCATION MAP
SCALE
-
--3Q,O 0 300 600 900FT
-
780
_l.l52
770
760
7~~ tOO 6 1 rOO
3~
~ ~ "-LEFT -~ II ~
7S7.o ll I'~
ST/LJ.JNG BASIN
MAIN CHANNEL ·---+---
CU~V~OATA d • 2 ..PS0' R• 1$0.00' T • J J.OJ' L • 65.0/'
59 too 57 tOO 55 tOO 531-00 511-00 49t00 4 7!00 45 t00 STATIONS IN FEET ALONG CENTERL INE
FLOOR ELEVAT IONS ALONG MAIN CHANNEL _j
-
75'
43'
~
:Q ~ "" .... ~ 't II) ~ ;! II) II)
SCALE 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 FT.
PLAT E 4
109.5'
16 1 18.5'
ii, li)
" C'") _,_liT_r- ~
[J .;nll§ [I) ID
;;, [I) (lJ " _ft"""
~ ........
[I)~, ..... [JJ "';
IIJ o::JT ~ [JJ. ID
-"- rn -=~14' ii, ~l II) IIi " .... ....
~ ~ II)
PLAN
757.0
ELEVATION
STILLING BASIN ORIGINAL DESIGN
-
""'0 r ~ rn (]1
·"'-.
_j (/j
~ I-
~ .... ~
§ I- w _J w
PLAN
780
ZZ§:.g_ ~ L£fT FLJoR'\,.
770 lZJM. ~ 7700 ~ \RIGHT FLOOR ~
760
750
63+00 61+00 59+00 57+00
NOTE:: PI.Afl 2 DESIGN SHOWN BY DASHED UN£ 8£GINN!NG AT $TAT!ON$$f2$ ANO OVOING AT STATION SUS().
~ 100t::.-==-=="o---':o:oo===2oo;;;. __ 3_.oo rT
T6M '
\ \
759.,5<
- 754-3
53+00 51t00 49t00 47+00 45+00 STATIONS IN fEET ALONG CENTERL INE
FLOOR ELEVATIONS ALONG MAIN CHANNEL
NOT£: SPIRIAL DATA SAM£ AS ORIGINAL DESIGN.
" - 47" .].)1 $1JN R • T!UO' T • 33.14' L • 62.42~
43+00 4 1+00
757.9
39t00
CURV£lWTA 4 • 21• J.$'()()# R - 865.00' 7 ~ 165.00' ' - JJO.OO'
7598
\ 7SO.Jl _r-
?2§..
780
770
760
750
37+00 35+00
_j (/j
~
l;j w IL
:;::;
!11 Q ~ ~ w
HOOSIC RIVER BASIN ADAMS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
RECOMMENDED DESIGN
-
~ 77S 77S ~ ~ ~ G) G)
~ )~ 42 43 43 39 rf ;j 2 .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s:: 32 42 40 40 38 YJ 38 32 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 710 32 lU 42 lU 39 YJ hl 32 770 •ri ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ > 28 36 36 36 34 3~ > Q) 0 0 0 0 0 ~ r-i ~ f:r;:l
0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Distance in Feet £rom Left Bank
Discharge 13,000 c£s
t4 i ~ 775 775 ~ ~ Q) (I)
~ Water SUrface ~ 1=: ·rl ~ s:: 30 37 3$ 38 35 34 33 32 26 s:: 0 0 :p 770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 770 ...... ~ CIS 28 32 32 35 .33 31 24 t 30 29 > Q) rf 0 o · 0 0 0 &1 f:r;:l
0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Distance in Feet £rom Left Bank
Discharge 8,200 c.fs
VELOCITIES NOTE: Velocities are in feet HOOSIC RIVER
per second in prototype. RECOMMENDED DESIGN STATION $1 + $0
PLATE 6
-
Water Surfaoe
13 14 11 9 8 12 11 8 775 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0
..:I ..:I I 770 16 18 l6 14 13 11 14 18 770 I .p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i • :. r... !! ~ '" g
~ 8 ..... 765 18 25 19 16 16 17 20 19 765 '" ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
t t ri ri 5Q ~
760 16 18 760 0 0
0 5 15. 25 35 41.e 55 Diitanoe in Feet from tt Bank 65 75
Discharge 13,000 ofs Water Surface
TTO 9 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 8 770 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M I I
! ll 12 11 9 8 8 12 12 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :. ~
765 765 !! '" 6 B "" ~ 1~ '" ~ 15 18 17 12 \1 11 11 i t 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., ri t"1 ~ Ja1
7~ 25 7~
0 5 15 25 35 45. 55 DiStance in Feet from Lett B&nk 65 75
Discharge 81 200 eta
VELOCITI:!S NOT:!s Velocities are in feet HOOSIC RIVER
per second in protot~. RECOMMENDED DESIGN STATION 50 + 00
PL ATE 7
-
775 Water Surface
775
12 lh lh 13 12 11 10 10 9 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 13 13 13 11 10 9 9 9 770 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 770 H H
~ ~ ~ ..., Q) Q)
~ ~ !i 765 11 13 13 13 11 10 10 10 8 765
s= ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
§ § :P ......
Cll ~
~ t ~ r&l IZl
76o 9 10 10 9 8 8 8 8 8
76o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Dist ance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 13,000 cfs
Water Surface
770 11 12 12 12 170 H 0. 0 0 0 0 0 ...:! ~ ~ ~ 10 12 12 11 10 9 9 10 8 ~ Q) ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ;!
765 765 s= ......
~ § 0 10 11 11 10 9 8 9 9 8 ...... ...... ...,
~ Cll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > Q) Q) r-i &{ rzl
760 8 9 9 8 8 7 7 1 7 760
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 .15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Distance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 8,2oo cfs
VELOCI TI ES NOTE: Veloci t ies are in feet HOOSIC RIVER
·per second i n pr ototype. RECOMMENDED DESI GN STATION 47 + 75
PLAT E 8
-
Water SUrface 775
~ 12 21 21 21 20 ~ X 0 0 0 0 .p 770 70 .p Q) Q) ~ G)
l!o 18 20 20 20 19 19 19 18 G) r-t r-t r:il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l!oll
760 18 0
0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Di stance i n Feet from Left Bank
Discharge: 13,000 cfs Hoosic Ri ver 5, 000 cfs Tophel Brook
Water Surface
770 70 ...:! ~ ~ 15 17 17 17 16 1} 13 12 X .p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .p Q) Q) G> Q) lit.
4 16 16 16 lit.
s:l 765 17 17 1~ 1J s:l .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... s:l s:l 0 0 .... 15 16 16 16 15 1~ 13 lJ .... .p .p ~ 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 ~
G> Q) r-t r-t l!oll
760 4 15 14 14 13 1~ 14 12 IZl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 Di stance i n Feet from Left Bank
Di scharge: 8, 200 cfs Hoosic River 2, 000 cfs Tophet Brook
VELOCI TI ES NOTE: Velocities are in f eet HOOSI C RI VER
per second i n prototype. REOOMMENDED DESIGN STATION 46 • 00
PLATE 9
-
Water Surface
12 2 20 0 0 0
~ tiJ ~ ~ .., ~
-
ul 790 :::! l;j 780 w 11--
~ no z Q
~ > w .J w
.J 1/)
760
750 63 tOO
790
61+00
:::!! .... w w II-
780 1-----
~ z 0
~ > w .J
"'
.J 1/)
f-.
770
760
750 63+00
790
780
61+00
-
59+00 57+00
59+00 57+00
-- --
--""'::: "'--=-, ~~ -MODEL PROFILE -..... \ -~
55+00 53+00 51+00 49+00 47+00 45+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG LEFT WALL OF MAIN CHANNEL
~MODEL PROFILE
--- -L. L'-.. ---, -~ ~
55+00 53+00 51+00 49+00 47+00 45+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG CENTERLINE MAIN CHANNEL
/MODEL PROFILE
790 .J 1/) ::0
780 .... w w "-
770 ~
_,.-coM)UTED PR~JF/LE r-- -- z
780 0
~ >
750 w .J
\ 43+00 41+00 39+00 31+00 35+00 w
790 .J 1/)
::0
780 .... w w .... 770 ~
f..-- COMPUTED PRaFtLE _/'
-- = -- z 760 0
~ >
750 w .J 35+00 w
\ 41+00 39+00 37+00 43+00
790 .J 1/)
::!i 780 ....
:::!! .... w w II- - -I
-
"U r ~ rn ..J
"' :::; 1\) 1-w
w 1L
~ z Q ~ > w ..J w
..J
"' :::; 1-w w 1L
~
z 0 i= w ..J w
..J Ill :::;
1-w w "-
~ z 0
~ > w ..J w
790
780 t--
770
760
750 63tOO 61+00
-- --......_
----
59+00 57+00 55+00
I
..--MODEL PROFILE
"'~J '--
\ ~
53+00 51+00 49+00 47+00 45+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG LEFT WALL OF MAIN CHANNEL
790
'"""---~---- ----- -----780 f-
770
760
750 63+00 61+00 59+00 57+00 55+00
r--MODEL PROFILE
....................... ~ \.---- f-.- --\
c.__]
53-tOO 51+00 49+00 47+00 45+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG CENTERLINE MAIN CHANNEL
790
780 -770
7.60
750 63+00
-
61+00
"'"""' ---- ----~ ---59+00 57 tOO 55+00
,._-MODEL PROFILE
...... ~~ '---- - -
\ c.__]
53 tOO 51+00 49+00 47+00 45+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG RIGHT WALL OF MAIN CHANNEL
NOTE: TAILWATER CONTROLLED BY ELEVATION OF OVERFLOW WEIR
DISCHARGE OF 13,000 CFS IN HOOSIC RIVER SUPPLEMENTED BY DISCHARGE OF 5,000 CF S FROM TOPHET BROOK
790 ..J
"' :::; 780 1-w
w 1L -',--COMPUTED PROFILE --- - 770 11; z
760 Q ~ >
750 w ..J
35+00 w
\ 43+00 39+00 37+00 41+00
790 ..J
"' :::; 780 1-w
w ... 1,.---COMPUTED PROFILE - -- 770 ~
z 760 0
~ >
750 w ..J \
43+00 41+00 39+00 37+00 35+00 w
790 ..J
"' :::; 780 1-
w w ... ~ -COMPUTED PROFILE - 770 ~ z
760 0
~ >
750 w ..J 35+00 "'
\ 43-tOO 39+00 37+00 41+00
WATER-SURFACE PROFILES RECOMMENDED DESIGN DISCHARGE 18,000 CFS
-
'1J r )> -1 rn
..i
~ 1-
"' "' ... ~ z 0
~ ~ w
ORIGINAL JUNCTION TOPHET 9ROOt< & CULVERT FLUME
790
>A, --.::: t- 782.12
782.84
I /jLEFT fLOOR
r8a4t I
790
.J
760 ~ w
9t00 StOO 7t00 6t00 5t00 4+00 STATIONS IN FEET ALONG CENTERLINE
3+00 2t00 ltOO OtOO
FLOOR ELEVATIONS ALONG TOPHET BROOK
Ls UNGrH ar SPIRAL · ds CCFI.£C'TION OF SPiRAL . U LONG iANGrNT L£NGrH. V SHORT TANGENT L,tNGTH.
H OOSIC RIVER BASIN ADAMS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
TOPHET BROOK AND CULVERT FLUME
RECOMMENDED DESIGN
-
ti! 780 X ~ Q) G)
flq
s:: ....
80
s:: 775 -R!..-~-~~ 28 7.5 0 0 .... ~
~ G) rl fit
ti! X .p Q)
CD
"" s:: .... s:: 0 .... .p
~ CD rl fit
780
27 0
o .5 io 1.5 20 2.5 JO 3.5 Distance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge: 4, 100 cfs Tophet Brook 900 cfs Culvert Flume
0 5
Water Surface
24 0
24 0
10 1.5 20
2 0
2.5
21 0
JO 35 Distance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge: 1,64o cfs Tophet Bro6k 360 cfs Oul vert Flume
NOTE: Velocities a re in feet per secQnd in prototype.
VELOCITIES TOPHET BROOK
ORIGINAL CULVERT FLUME STATI ON 4 + 75
PLAT E 14
-
780
~ ~ • rf s:: .... s:: 0
:J .. ... a 0
7
8 0
0
22 6
23 0
Water Surface
24 .
-
...:l ~ ..... +) (1)
& Q
...... Q 0
•M
~ > ~ ~
...:l
~ of.) (1)
& Q ..... ~ 0
:d C1l
a> &1
775 775 ~ ~
Water Surface Q)
& Q
770 . .... Q
29 33 35 0 ~ 0 0 0
0(!) ~3 i5 lio C1l > 0 4o ~ 30 32 32 ~7 0
27 0 0 57 . ril 30 ~3 38 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 5,000 cfs
775 775 ...:l ~ ~ Q)
& s::
770 170 . ....
Water Surface Q 0 .....
1i1 > ~ CZI
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance i n Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 2,000 cfs
NorE: Velocities are in feet per second in prototype.
VELOCITIES TOPHET BROOK
ORI GINAL CULVERT FLUME STATION 2 + 62.04
PLATE 16
-
Water Surface
0
~ ~ .p .p Q) Q)
& 770 21 21 20 18 12 6 6 4 110 & .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r:= •ri 8 r:= 0 :fj ~
CIS "' t > · r-f 765 19 17 17 17 13 7 5 4 765 ~ rzl - 0 0 0 0 0 6 r,q 0 0
76o 11 11 10 12 12 12 5 5 760
0 5 10 15 20· 25 30 35 Dist ance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 5,000 cf s
770 Water Surface t-1 t-1 ~ ~ .p 13 13 3 3 3 of.) Q) Q) &
0 0 0 0 0 0 & 0 0 r:=
765 12 11 9 8 4 3 4 3 765 r:= ..... •ri r:= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
•ri •ri .p 10 9 8 1 4 3 4 3 ~ "' > 0 0 0 > a 0 0 0 0 0 Q) r-1 ~
760 9 8 . 7 4 3 4 376o
0 5 10 15 20 .25 30 35 Distance i n Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 2, 000 cfs
VELOCITIES NO'fE : Velocities are in feet TOPHET BROOK
per second in prototype. ORIGINAL CULVERT FLUME STATION 1 + 50
PLATE 17
-
~ ~ > ILl ...J ILl
I-ILI ILl ... ~ z 0
~ ILl ...J ILl
...J Cl)
~
I-ILI ILl ... z z 0
~ ~ ...J
·ILl
790 .... _ --- t:-----.... -- r-::....-----~ ~, - 1---~,
L ~
780
770
780
12+00 10+00 8+00 6+00 4+00 2+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG LEFT WALL OF TOPHET BROOK
790
~---....... r--=...-780
770
760
750 12+00
790
-----~ ...:::::::::._- 1'-. ~ . R
L f---J
10+00 8+00 6 +00 4+00 2+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG CENTERLINE Of TOPHET BROOK
~ ' ---........... -... 780 --.......:...---~ - -~"--- .... ---~·
l -'
770
760
750 12+00 10+00 8+00 6 +00 4+00 2+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG RIGHT WALL OF TOPHET BROOK
NOTE: TAILWATER CONTROLLED BY STAGES OF HOOSIC RIVER.
790
780
770
760
750 0+09
790
780
770
760
750 0+00
790
780
770
760
750 0+00
TOPHET BROOK
~ Cl)
~
I-ILI w ... ~ z Q
~ ILl ...J UJ
;?; z Q ~ > UJ ...J w
...J Cl)
~
t;; , UJ ...
DISCHARGE OF 1,640 CFS IN TOPHET BROOK SUPPLEMENTED BY 360 CFS IN CULVERT FLUME. WATER-SURF ACE PROFILES
ORIGINAL DESIGN DISCHARGE 2,000 CFS
PL ATE 18
-
..J II)
:1
l;j w ... ~ z Q
~ > w ..J ILl
..J II)
:1
t; w ... ~ z 0
~ > ILl ..J ILl
..J II)
:1 1-w w ...
790 790 --.-.. ___ .......
1--.......... ___ --r---:::::.: ~ I ',, , _____ 780 770 780 770
~ l w ~0 ~0
750 750 12tOO IOtOO 8 t00 6t00 4t00 2+00 OtOO
200-FT STATIONS ALONG LEFT WALL OF TOPHET BROOK
79_0
780
770
760
790 t--..__ --- """"'---... r---.. ... _ --r-::: ----..... ," ----:.. ... I ----... ,_ ~
l u
770
760
750 12t00 IOtOO 8+00 6t00 4+00 2t00
7~ 0+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG CENTERLINE OF TOPHET BROOK
790 790
780
770
----------......... ---= - ~ - _,......, ----~-/ '--\
l w
780
710
760 760
750 750 12+00 10+00 8 +00 6+00 4 +00 2+00 0+00
200-FT STATIONS ALONG RIGHT WALL OF TOPHET BROOK
..J II)
:1 1-w ILl ... ~
~ ~ > ILl ..J w
..J II)
:1 1-w w IL.
~ z 0
~ > ILl ..J w
NOTE: TAILWATER CONTROLLED BY STAGES OF HOOSIC RIVER. DISCHARGE OF 4,100 CFS IN TOPHET BROOK SUPPLEMENTED BY 900 CFS IN CULVERT FLUME.
TOPHET BROOK WATER-SURFACE PROFILES
ORIGINAL DESIGN DISCHARGE 5,000 CFS
PLATE 19
-
Water Surface
780 780 ~ ...:I Cll Cll ~ ~ .p .p Q)
Q) Q) Q)
""' ""' s::: 775 JO 28 25 s:: ·.-1 29 JO JO 775 .... 20 ~7 0 0 s::: 0 0 0 0 0 s::: 0 0 """ 20 28 28 25 2J 20 """ .p 25 27 .... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Q)
Q) r-1 r-1 M 0 J5 pq
Distance in Feet from Left Bank Discharge: ~100 cfs Tophet Brook
900 cfs Culvert Flume
Water Surface
~ 780 ::a: .p Q) Q)
p,..,
s:: """ s::: 775 0
""" .... ~ Q)
r-1 pq
0 5 10 15 Distance in Feet
Discharge:
NOTE: Velocities are i n feet per second in prototype.
PLATE 20
780 ...:I Cll :::0: .... Q) Q)
1'
-
780
~
~ +' Q)
~ s:l ""
775 18 0
s:l 0
•1"1
id 1~ ~ Q) ....
JoQ
0
780 ~
Sl ~ Q)
rz.
!I 775 § .... ~
~ ~ ., r-f ra:l
0
Water Surface
26 0 0
24 ~4 24 2~ 20 0 0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance in Feet from Left Ba.nlc
Discharge ;,coo cfs
Water Surface
16 22 22 22 2~ 23 0 0 0 0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 2 1 000 eta
780
75
16 0
35
75
12 0
35
NOTE: Velocities are in teet per second in prototype.
VELOCITIES TOPHET BROOK
REVISED CULVERT FLUME STATION 4 + 10
~
i ~ & s:l .... A 0 .... i Q)
r-f lil
..:I
i +' ., &. !! ft .... ~ t ~
PLATE 2 1
-
775
~
i .p
i rx. 770 ~ 8 25 ~7 oro! ~ 26 ~
0
liQ
0
775
0
Water Surface
31 32 3~ 3' 3)
0
3c? 3f> 3~ 32 28 0 0 28
0 30
0 31
0 3} 31
0 28
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance in Feet from Lett Bank
Discharge _5,000 cts
Water Surf'ace
5 10 15· 20 25 30 Distance in Feet from Lett Bank
Discharge 2,000 ofs
22 0
2c?
35
1] 17
0
35
~
i ..., ., .,
orx. .E s:l 0
~
E ..... (IIQ
5
NOTE: Velocities are in feet per second in prototype.
VELOCITIES TOPBE!' BROOX
REVISED CULVERT FLUl&E STATION 2 + 62.04
PLATE 22
-
___ -J,..;775 Boil
tool ..:I §a 770
10 14 lc? 1} 9 6 4 ~ 770 ~
-+> • 0 0 0 0 ~ CD CD CD If ~ .~ .~ r:l ~ 0 765 65 ~ or« 13 14 14 15 10 10 4 ~ iii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1d I> I> Q) Q) .... ....
llrJ litl
00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance in Feet from Left Bank
Discharge 5.000 eta
We.ter Surface
770
..:I 0 ~ 8 8 1 6 ~ 4 ..:I
~ 0 0 0 0 0 i ~ CD
~ CD
If 765
6 6 ? ~ ~ 8 ~ 6 ~ 0 0 0 65 .~ ~ ·rf r:l
~ ~ ~ 1 8 6 6 ~ § 0 •rf 0 0 0 •rf 1d i ~
CD
2 ~ ~ 6 1 ? 2 ~ ~ .... 76o 76o r:a::l 0 r.Q
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Dist ance i n Feet from Lef t Bank
Discharge 2. 000 of's
VELOCITIES NOTE: Veloci tie s are in teet TOPBET BROOK
per second i n pr ototype. REVISED CULVERT FLUME STATI ON 1 + 50
PLAT E 23