uis i{ oSZ n HP- v~’ . • ... ■: i 'i'x -,< 1 ”• sift $ Y ~'-i. f" • Si • _ t_ ■ l< • . .. '■ FwL < ■“• , ' ■ VS--* r"\ w - *»- -• •••..*♦ •" t! W • C.. . ; ••• . - - - -fr- - frf' ' . -. --- <-v.V- '/V .• : - ' :/ F5s •1 ■& - HYBRAL'ti'lS i ; r-qsBi'/ "r «i : j-. LYx^L ; £i - . :‘J f.APO«ATOHY/ s MISCELLANEOUS PAPER HL-84-1 ESTIMATED FLOODING FROM HYPOTHETICAL FLOW CONDITIONS ON THE LOWER FOX RIVER, WISCONSIN by Robert W. McCarley Hydraulics Laboratory U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station P. O. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 iLLuaUlO WKlEii CUikiii.1 iiwiiiihl (<4/1*1/ MAY 0 S IS *9 April 1984 Final Report Approved For Public Release. Distribution Unlim.ted o- Ou o toJ -■ . ~ T tr • ■ 1 ;t t.J ;-i '(1 U— T'7 JUH 7 934 *V. /\ 1 • “* L ?» ^ A nJ prepared w;iaWT,'^'*.4,!|M l 4<^~> "imi!, Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. Vi 4 u «o The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. .■y i The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication,orpromotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS pace (W*™ Dmim Entered) REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM ». REPORT NUMBER Miscellaneous Paper HL-84-1 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. /fit-/) 3 RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER '( 4. TITLE (And Submit) ESTIMATED FLOODING FROM HYPOTHETI TIONS ON THE LOWER FOX RIVER, WIS CAL FLOW CONDI- CON SIN 5. ~YPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED Final report 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 7. AUTHOR!*; Robert W. McCarley 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUUBLR(e) ». PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORESS U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Hydraulics Laboratory P. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA A WORK UNIT NUMBERS It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO ADDRESS U. S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Mich. 48231 12. REPORT DATE April 1984 13. number of pages 61 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a ADDRESS^// dltltronl tmn Conlrollln* Ottlc») IS. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thle report) Unclassified 1S«. DECL *SSlF|CATlON/DO*NGRAOlNG SCHEDULE 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (a 1 thlt Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol iha abstract entered In Btcck 20, It dlllarent iroen Report) l». supplementary notes Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22161. 1*. KEY WOROS (Continue on rarer j*. side // n#c*»<«ry and Identity by^ slock number) Branched Implicit River Model (BIRM) (WES) Dam failures—Mathematical models (LC) Flood forecasting (Wisconsin) (LC) Lower Fox River (Wisconsin) (LC) 20. ABSTRACT (Cffrtteun aa r»rv®» sMe ft neceae&y •*** Identify by block number) Basic hydraulic data, such as water-surface elevations, discharges, and peak arrival times, have been calculated for the Lower Fox River to aid in estimating hypothetical flows created by the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) without dam failures (Case 1), the PMF with dam failure (Case 2), and dam failures with low inflow with pools at or near the spillway crest elevations (Case 3). This study was part of a national program to conduct similar (Continued) t',zr n m /3 FDtTION or » MOV es IS OOVM.ETE _ Unclassified _ SECURITY CLASSI riCATICK or THIS PA'.t |0«'. !>•'« Enlmrod) I Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION or THIS PAGEfH’Hsn !>•»• S«1(M W) 20. ABSTRACT (Continued). -studies of all Federal dams. The selected situations are strictly hypothetical for representing maximum flooding conditions, and the results are not in any way intended to adversely reflect upon the integrity of the 13 existing dams on the Lower Fox River. Study results are reported in the form of computer printouts, tabulated data selected from the printouts, and hydrograph plots for various points along the river. Inundation maps specified in the HEC Guidelines will be developed by the U. S. Army Engineer Districc, Detroit, to clearly depict the anticipated extent of flooding, peak stages, and flood arrival and peak times at key locations in the floodplain. ^ ->A numerical model named fJranched Implicit River Model (BIRM) , which was developed by the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station for forecasting flows on the Lower Mississippi River, was employed for this study to simulate the selected hypothetical flow conditions. BIRM, developed from a parent model named FLOWSED, solves the complete one-dimensior.al equations for unsteady flow, which are derived from the conservation principle for mass and for the momentum of flows, through the use of a linear-implicit finite difference scheme. FLOWSED computes both sediment movement and flow conditions. BIRM includes only the flow computation features of FLOWSED. Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEftFNon £>«<• Enf»r»<0 I J Preface This study was performed by the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), for the U. S. Array Engineer District, Detroit. The work was ' conducted by Dr. B. H. Johnson and Mr. R. W. McCarley of the Hydraulic Analysis r ‘ Division (HAD), under the general supervision of Mr. M. B. Boyd, Chief of the HAD, and Mr. H. B. Simmons, Chief of the Hydraulics Laboratory. , This report was prepared by Mr. McCarley with assistance from Dr. Johnson. i I Special appreciation is extended to Mr. Curi Jaisinghani of the Detroit District for his cooperation in providing necessary data and helpful guidance. Commander and Director of WES during the investigation and the prepara¬ tion of this report was COL Tilford C. Creel, CE. Technical Director was Mr. F. R. Brown. t I i■ Contents Page Preface . 1 Conversion Factors, U. S. Customary to Metric (SI) Units of Measurement . 3 Authority and Background . 4 Purpose and Scope . 6 Project Site Description . 6 Approach . 7 Development of River and Lake Geometry Data and Hydraulic Elements Tables . 8 Application of BIRM. 16 Model Calibration.’. 23 Results. 23 Summary and Conclusions . 30 References.,. 33 Plates 1-28 Appendix A: BIRM Printout for Case 1, Probable Maxi, jm Flood without Dam Failures (Bound Separately). A1 Appendix B: BIRM Printout for Case 2, Probable Maximum Flood with Dam Failures (Bound Separately) . B1 Appendix C: BIRM Printout for Case 3, Dam Failures with Pools at Spillway Crest Elevations and Base Inflows to Lake Winnebago (Bound Separately) . Cl Conversion Factors, U. S. Customary to Metric (SI) Units of Measurement U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric (SI) units as follows: Multiply By To Obtain cubic feet per second 0.02831685 cubic metres per second feet 0.3048 metres miles (U. S. statute) 1.609344 kilometres square feet 0.09290304 square metres , T „ : ESTIMATED FLOODING FROM tryPOTHETICAL n,OW CONDITIONS ON THE LOWER FOX RIVER, WISCONSIN Authority and Background 1. Background, general authority, and pertinent references for flood emergency planning by the Corps are summarized in the Guidelines prepared by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC 1980). The HEC Guidelines were applied to the extent practical in conducting the study reported herein. 2. Basic hydraulic data, such as water-surface elevations, discharges, and peak arrival times, have been calculated for the Lower Fox River (Figure 1) to aid in estimating hypothetical flows created by the Pvcbable Maximum Flood (PMF) without dam failures (Case 1), the PMF with dam failure (Case 2), and dam failures with low inflow with pools at or near the spillway crest eleva¬ tions (Case 3). This study was part of a national program to conduct similar studies of all Federal dams. The selected situations are strictly hypothetical for representing maximum flooding conditions, and the results are not in any way intended to adversely reflect upon the integrity of the 13 existing dams on the Lower Fox River. Study results are reported in the form of computer printouts, tabulated data selected from the printouts, and hydrograph plots for various points along the river. Inundation maps specified in the HEC Guidelines will be developed by the U. S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, to clearly depict the anticipated extent of flooding, peak stages, and flood arrival and peak times at key locations in the floodplain. 3. A numerical model named Branched .Implicit jliver Model (BIRM) , (Johnson 1983), which was developed by the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) for forecasting flows on the Lower Mississippi River, was employed for this study to simulate the selected hypothetical flow condi¬ tions. BIRM, developed from a parent model named FLOWSED (Johnson 1982), solves the complete one-dimensional equations for unsteady flow, which are derived from the conservation principle for mass and for the momentum of flows, through the use of a linear-implicit finite difference scheme. FLOWSED computes both sediment movement and flow conditions. BIRM includes only the flew computation features of FLOWSED. U I . ' 5 LAKE MICHIGAN Purpose and Scope 4. The purpose of the study was to develop the hydraulic data required to estimate water-surface elevations, areal extent, and arrival times of po¬ tentially dangerous flows created by the PMF with or without dam failures, or by the failure of existing dams during normal low flow conditions. Although dam failures would be more likely to occur at maximum PMF flows, failures during low flow conditions could possibly result from an earthquake or sabo¬ tage. Specifically, the scope of the study included analysis of the following three hypothetical flow conditions: a_. Case 1. PMF inflows to Lake Winnebago routed through the Lower Fox River, assuming the water surface of each reservoir is initially at or near spillway crest elevation and no dam fail¬ ures occur. Case 2. PMF inflows to Lake Winnebago routed through the Lower Fox River, assuming the successive full-depth and full-width failure of all downstream dams as a result of the simultaneous failure of Neenah and Menasha Dams at maximum PMF flow. To represent the maximum possible flooding condition, each dam was assumed to fail completely so that all control of the flow is lost within one computational time-step (10 min) after initia¬ tion of a dam failure. c_. Case 3. Simultaneous full-depth and full-width failure of Neenah and Menasha Dams, followed by the failure of all downstream dams, assuming each reservoir pool is initially at or near spillway crest elevation, and a low steady inflow to Lake Winnebago. As in Case 2, the failure of each dam was assumed to occur over a computational time-step (5 min). Project Site Description 5. The headwaters of the Fox River rise in Columbia County, Wisconsin, and flow in a northeasterly direction for about 176 miles into Creen Bay. The section of the river from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay is generally referred to as the Lower Fox River and is about 39 miles long (Figure l). It has a change in elevation of about 168 ft; channel widths are generally 500 to 1,000 ft and minimum navigation channel depths are 9.6 ft below De Pere Lock and 6 ft below Menasha Lock. Along the lower 39-mile section of the Fox River, there are 17 lift locks and 2 guard locks, which have a minimum width of 35.0 ft and a minimum length of 144.0 ft. In addition, there are 13 dams across this section of the river, which constitutes the reach of Interest for this study. Four of the 13 dams are privately owned; all others are Federally owned and operated. 6 Approach 6. BIRM, recently developed by the Hydraulic Analysis Division of the Hydraulics Laboratory of WES, was selected for routing the three hypothetical flow conditions through the complex floodplain and system of dams in the Lower Fox River Basin. Since the basic model had been applied by WES engineers in other work, including a dam-break study on the Cumberland River, BIRM was con¬ sidered the most appropriate and cost-effective model available for applica¬ tion in this study. Certain modifications to any selected computer code are often required to adapt it for a particular application. This requirement could be most efficiently met by choosing an unsteady flow model familiar to WES engineers. One requirement of the selected model was the ability to handle junctions. BIRM models the interaction of a tributary and the main river in a dynamic fashion, thus allowing flows from Neenah and Menasha Dams to be computed as part of the overall solution. 7. An auxiliary program, Geometric Elements from Cross Section Coordi¬ nates (GEDA), was used to compute geometric elements tables (incremental elevations, flow areas, flow widths, storage areas, and n values) for the lake, river, and floodplain from basic geometry data furnished by the Detroit District in HEC-2 format. The GEDA program is a modified version of one de¬ veloped by HEC (1976). No published documentation of the modified GEDA program is available at this time. 8. Hypothetical Case 1 (Plate 1) assumed an uncontrolled spillway design flood resulting from PMF inflow into Lake Winnebago. One-half of the PMF hy¬ drograph was input at each of the upstream boundaries (Neenah an.’ Menasha Dams) and no dam failures were assumed to occur in the system. The second flow con¬ dition assumed PMF flow with full-depth and full-width failure of a given dam occurring within one At after initial failure of the dam. For thLs second case, Neenah and Menasha Dams were assumed to fail at maximum computed PMF flow, which in turn initiated a chain-reaction failure of other dams. This was ac¬ complished in the following manner. At the initiation of the run the discharge passing through each of the downstream dams was about 85,000 cfs. With the breaking of Neenah and Menasha Dams the discharge downstream of course in¬ creased. Therefore, to simulate a chain-reaction type failure of the down¬ stream dams, each dam was assumed to fail over the next computational time-step 7 _ * r T :"T; as soon as the discharge immediately upstream of the dam exceeded 90,000 cfs. It should be realized that the value of 90,000 cfs is completely arbitrary and no physical significance should be attached to it. Geometry data for Lake Winnebago were included in the model for Cases 2 and 3. Since no bathymetric or topographic survey data were available, the geometry of Lake Winnebago was simulated as two identical rectangular prisms, with their lengths and combined volumes approximately equal to that of the prototype (Plate 2). The third hypothetical case simulated in this study assumed the simultaneous and complete failure of Neenah and Menasha Dams with pool elevations at the respective spill¬ way crests and a steady inflow of 6,000 cfs to Lake Winnebago. The failure of Neenah and Menasha Dams was assumed to also trigger the successive failure of the 11 downstream dams when the estimated maximum gated discharge was reached. Further discussions of the model application for the three selected hypothetical flow conditions are included later in the report. Development of River and Lake Geometry Data and Hydraulic Elements Tables 9. Basic, geometric data (cross-section coordinates in HEC-2 format) that describe the Lower Fox River and the Neenah and Menasha Channels were obtained from available punched cards and corresponding cross-sectional plots furnished by the Detroit District. The plots were used to identify the convey¬ ance channel and the right and left overbank portions of each cross section, as required by the GEDA program. Since no geometry data existed for Lake Winnebago, the required cross-section coordinate data were developed from a rectangular-shaped, prismatic representation of the lake, which was par¬ titioned into two equal prisms (Plate 2). Cross-sectional data from each prism represented one-half of Lake Winnebago upstream of Neenah and Menasha Dams, respectively. The average bottom slope of the lake was estimated from available navigation charts. After the coordinate points of every cross section were recorded, the digital model describing the lake and river was completed by combining all digitized cross sections in sequence, beginning at the downstream boundary (Green Bay) of the study. 10. Program GEDA produces tables cf hydraulic elements in the format required by the unsteady flow model, BIRM. These tables include for each 8 gy,*-? '-ry*r? s^^j-nfW9 incremental elevation the flow area, top width, incremental storage end area (for nonronveyance areas), and a Mannings n value for each cross section, together with an actual or assumed river mile for computing the distance between successive cross sections. 11. A layout of Neenah and Menasha Channels and the Lower Fox River for Case 1 is shown in Plate 1. Neenah and Menasha Dans served as the upstream boundaries in this case. As indicated in Plate 1, the study area was parti¬ tioned into 3 branches and 193 cross sections or computational nodes. For modeling the two dam-break conditions (Cases 2 and 3), the layout of the river and prismatic representations of Lake Winnebago shown in Plate 2 were used. The additonal cross sections for simulating Lake Winnebago, together with an additional cross section above both Neenah and Menasha Dams, increased the number of nodes by 32 to a total of 225 for Cases 2 and 3. The junction of the Lover Fox River with Green Bay (mile 0.00) served as the downstream boundary for all three cases. The mountains and ridges on both sides of the lake and river served as natural lateral boundaries in each case. Cross-section numbers shown in Plates 1 and 2 at the upstream and downstream boundaries and at the junction of Neenah and Menasha Channels with the mainstream define the three branches of the modeled area. All cross sections included in the model layouts are listed in Table 1 by number, river mile, and dam or bridge name, as appro¬ priate. These are the computational node numbers given in the printouts of the BIRM computer runs. 12. The hydraulic elements tables for BTRM include roughness coefficients in terms of Manning's n values for each incremental elevation. Many parameters influence channel and floodplain roughness, e.g., season of the year, urban areas versus farmlands or wooded 'areas, percent of cultivated land versus woodlands, density of forests, etc. Although many intangibles are involved, n values had to he assumed for each cross section in the model layout. The weighted composite n values shown in Table 2 were estimated from channel and overbank n-values provided by the Detroit District, with the exception of the Thilraany pool where the value was increased to 0.08 for model calibration. Weighted n values were computed by the equation n w n l*l + n 2^° + n 3^3 8 ~C +8 1 2 3 9 Table 1 Lower Fox River Cross-Section Descriptions and Locations Cross- No Section 9 * River Mile (1- 16) — 1 (17) 39.095 2 38.964 3 38.955 4 (20) 38.945 5 38.936 6 38.850 7 38.846 8 38.837 9 (25) 38.818 10 38.667 11 38.658 12 33.649 13 38.630 14 (30) 37.537 15 (31) 37.480 16 37.471 17 37.462 18 37.404 19 (35) 36.893 2C 35.416 21 34.796 22 34.186 23 34.006 24 (40) 33.856 25 33.586 26 33.456 27 33.356 28 33.167 29 (45) 32.977 30 32.837 31 32.828 32 32.809 Description Branch No. 1 Prismatic representation of 1/2 of Lake Winnebago plus 1 cross section upstream of Neenah Dam Neenah Dam (Note: Cross sections at dams are lo¬ cated immediately downstream) C f. NW RR bridge Commercial St. Bridge S. Saint Marie RR bridge Branch No. 2 C & NW RR bridge CM St. P & P RR bridge (Contlnued) * Cross-section numbers not in parentheses correspond to Cass 1 hypothetical flow conditions. Cross-section numbers in parentheses correspond to Cases 2 and 3. (Sheet 1 of 5) - Table 1 (Continued) Cross-Section No. River Mile Description 33 32.689 34 (50) 32.607 Upper Appleton Dam 35 32.500 36 32.401 37 32.300 C & NW RR bridge 38 32.202 39 (55) 32.171 Middle Appleton Dam 40 32.162 Oneida Bridge 41 32.153 42 32.103 43 32.094 C & NW RR bridge 44 (60) 32.085 45 31.905 46 31.794 47 31.785 Lawe St. Bridge 48 31.766 49 (65) 31.676 50 31.667 C & NW RR bridge 51 31.658 52 31.569 53 31.484 54 (70) 31.324 55 31.274 Lower Appleton Dam 56 31.194 57 31.184 College Ave. Bridge 58 31.165 59 (75) 30.975 6C 30.745 61 30.355 62 30.175 63 30.035 64 (80) 29.705 65 29.308 66 28.929 67 28.689 68 28.509 69 (85) 28.130 70 27.840 * 71 27.740 Cedars Dam 72 27.507 73 27.090 74 (90) 27.081 Maes St. Bridge (Continued) __ (Sheet 2 of 5) 11 - ' W g UjlL^ ii , J,J.yww » wnt'!‘ h —-r Table 1 (Continued) Cross-Section No. River Mile Description 75 27.072 76 26.922 77 26.882 Little Chute Dam 78 26.824 79 (95) 26.416 80 26.004 81 25.951 Combined Locks Dam 82 25.624 83 24.714 84 (100) 24.403 85 24.214 86 24.193 Kaukauna Dam 87 24.112 88 24.103 Lawe Ave. Bridge 89 (105) 24.094 90 24.085 91 23.964 92 23.955 Island Bridge 93 23.939 94 (110) 23.869 95 23.859 C & NW RR bridge 96 23.850 97 23.840 98 23.689 99 (115) 23.680 Elm St. Bridge 100 23.661 101 23.401 102 23.371 Thilmany Dam 103 22.941 104 (120) 22.591 105 21.862 106 21.002 107 20.712 108 20.172 109 (125) 19.682 110 19.212 111 19.172 Rapide Croche Dam 112 18.762 113 18.592 114 (130) 18.142 (Continued) _ (Sheet 3 of 5) 12 - ».■ » « v i r -- ' -. . y «- 4 v-—^^•- .- rr -r—~ - "T 5 ®! Table 1 (Continued) Cross-Section River No. Mile 115 17.782 116 17.301 117 17.292 118 17.275 119 (135) 17.240 120 16.880 121 16.671 122 15.733 123 15.335 124 (140) 14.862 125 14.331 126 13.792 127 13.413 128 13.083 129 (145) 12.847 130 12.515 131 12.051 132 11.483 133 11.170 134 (150) 10.545 135 9.750 136 9.210 137 8.680 138 7.932 139 (155) 7.411 140 7.402 141 7.393 142 7.384 143 6.521 144 (160) 6.322 145 6.104 146 5.432 147 5.015 148 4.996 149 (165) 4.987 150 4.978 151 4.475 152 3.850 153 3.376 154 (170) 3.367 Description Ferry St. Bridge Little Kaukauna Dam De Pere Dam George St. Bridge State Highway 172 Bridge C & NW RR bridge (Continued) (Sheet 4 of 5) 13 * ^ ■A / . /. 4 a < if A 1 ! (J Table 1 (Concluded) Cross Section No. River Mile Description 155 3.358 156 3.017 157 2.657 158 2.648 C. M. St. P & P RR bridge 159 (175) 2.634 160 2.606 161 2.274 162 2.265 Mason St. Bridge 163 2.256 164 (180) 1.820 165 1.811 W. Walnut St. Bridge 166 1.802 167 1.602 168 1.593 Dousman St. Bridge 169 (185) 1.584 170 1.223 171 1.074 172 1.055 173 1.050 C & NW RR bridge 174 (190) 1.045 175 1.026 176 0.977 177 0.485 178 (194) 0.000 Branch No. 3 (195- -210) — Prismatic representation of 1/2 of Lake Winnebago plus 1 cross section upstream of Menasha Dam 179 1.258 Menasha Dam 180 1.114 181 1.102 C & NW RR bridge 182 1.093 183 (215) 0.885 184 0.875 Tayco St. Bridge 185 0.862 186 0.677 187 0.667 188 (220) 0.658 C & NW RR bridge 189 0.649 190 0.601 191 0.550 C. M. St. P. RR bridge 192 0.250 193 (225) 0.060 (Sheet 5 of 5) 14 i -.-j i-t, - Table 2 Table of Weighted Composite n-Values Reach Description Average Hanning's n Values Lake Winnebago (Sections 1-15 and 195-209 on Plate 2)* 0.030 Neenah Channel (Sections 1-14) 0.032 Upper Appleton Pool (Sections 15-33) 0.040 Middle Appleton Pool (Sections 34-36) 0.035 (Sections 37-38) 0.049 Lower Appleton Pool (Sections 39-44) 0.035 (Section 45) 0.047 (Sections 46-47) 0.035 (Section 48) 0.047 (Sections 49-51) 0.041 (Section 52) 0.068 (Section 53) 0.046 (Section 54) 0.063 Cedars Pool (Sections 55-71) 0.035 Little Chute Pool (Section 72) 0.049 (Sections 73-75) 0.035 (Section 76) 0.039 (Section 77) 0.C67 Combination Locks Pool 0.035 Kaukauna Pool (Sections 81-85) 0.035 Thilmany Pool (Sections 86-101) 0.080 Rapidr Croche Pool (Sections 102-110) 0.028 Little Kaukauna Pool (Sections 111-127) 0.026 De Pere Pool (Sections 128-129)) 0.023 (Section 130) 0.044 (Sections 131-138) 0.023 Below De Pere Pool (Sections 139-142) 0.023 (Section 143) 0.037 (Sections 144-147) 0.042 (Sectior 148-150) 0.026 (Section 151) 0.041 (Sections 152-159) 0.040 (Sections 160-169) 0.075 (Sections 170-177) 0.070 (Section 178) 0.035 Menasha Channel (Sections 179-193) 0.032 * Other cross-section numbers listed in parentheses on this table coincide with the numbers in Plate l, the layout of the study area for computing the PMF without dam failures. 15 ■W-.UtJU r»;«7rr^'' where - the weighted composite n value *■ n values for the left overbank, channel, and right overbank, respectively ?!» 82*^3 " maximum width of the left overbank, channel, and right over¬ bank, respectively The weighted n-values corresponding to cross sections at bridges were in¬ creased by 10 percent to allow for the increased roughness of bridge piers and abutments. Although BIRM allows for n to vary with water depth, insuf¬ ficient field data precluded application of this feature. Application of BIRM 13. One-dimensional, open-channel flow behavior is described in BIRM by the Saint-Venant partial differential equations of unsteady flow. The solution technique is a linear-imp!icit, finite difference scheme. Background information on the theoretical aspects of BIRM can be found in the referenced reports by Johnson. BIRM computes water-surface elevations (ft NGVD), dis¬ charges (cfs), and velocities (fps) as functions of time at each cross section. Primary input data are initial flow conditions at eac' cross section, boundary conditions (e.g., inflow hydrographs and rating curves), and tables of hydraulic elements. 14. The model was first set up to simulate PMF without dam failures (Case 1). Neenah and Menasha Dams served as upstream boundaries (see Plate 1) with the combined PMF outflow hydrograph (Table 3) from these struc¬ tures furnished by the Detroit District. The flows given in the PMF hydro¬ graph were equally partitioned to represent identical flows through Neenah and Menasha Dams. Table 3 gives the hydrograph used at both of the upstream boundaries, i.e. the total PMF flows are double the quantities shown. Since PMF flows at Neenah and Menasha Dams were essentially steady for the first 3 days, time zero in the model was set at the beginning of day 4 (see Note on Table 3). 15. A table of water-surface elevations with corresponding discharges (i.e. a rating curve) was specified at the downstream boundary (located at mile 0.00 near the junction with Green Bay) for all three cases (Table 4). 16 Table 3 Hydrograph Used as Upstream Boundaries at Neenah and Menasha Dams for Case 1: PMF Without Dam Failures Clock Clock Clock Time Q Time 0 Time q (Day) cf s (Day) Cf 8 (Day) cf S 4.00 3,000 11.50 35,661 19.00 41 ,286 4.25 6,538 11.75 36,452 19.25 41,071 4.50 6,681 12.00 37,182 19.50 40,841 4.75 6,919 12.25 37,854 19.75 40,600 5.00 7,216 12.50 38,471 20.00 40,347 5.25 7,573 12.75 39,034 20.25 40,082 5.50 7,991 13.00 39,547 20.50 39,807 5.75 8,470 13.25 40,010 20.75 39,522 6.00 9,016 13.50 40,428 21.00 39,227 6.25 9,795 13.75 40,801 21.25 38,924 6.50 10,647 14.00 41,132 21.50 38,613 6.75 11,566 14.25 41,422 21.75 38,295 7.00 12,677 14.50 41,673 22.00 37,969 7.25 14,017 14.75 41,887 22.25 37,637 7.50 15,408 15.00 42,065 22.50 37,300 7.75 16,833 15.25 42,210 22.75 36,957 8.00 18,295 15.50 42,323 23.00 36,609 8.25 19,768 15.75 42,405 23.25 36,257 8.50 21,244 16.00 42,458 23.50 35,901 8.75 22,710 16.25 42,484 23.75 35,541 9.00 24,154 16.50 42,483 24.00 35,177 9.25 25,564 16.75 42,457 24.25 34,811 9.50 26,931 17.00 42,407 24.50 34,442 9.75 28,249 17.25 42,334 24.75 34,073 10.00 29,511 17.50 42,240 25.00 33,701 10.25 30,710 17.75 42,126 25.25 33,329 10.50 31,841 18.00 41,992 25.50 32,955 10.75 32,399 18.25 41,841 11.00 33,888 18.50 41,672 11.25 34,807 18.75 41 ,486 Note: Since the PHF hydrograph indicated essentially steady flow for the first 3 days, the model run was initiated at Time * 0 , on Day 4. Flows are shown for each 6-hr time increment and represent upstream boundary conditions assumed to occur simultaneously at both Necnah and Menasha Dams. Flows must therefore be doubled to obtain total PMF inflow to the bower Fox River. 17 4 . --wrr.^ The rating curve furnished by the Detroit District was only for discharges up to about 42,000 cfs. Discharges associated with higher stages were estimated from normal depth calculations using Hanning's equation Q K49 ar 2/3 s 1/2 where n = coefficient of roughness estimated to be 0.035 A - flow area, sq ft R = hydraulic radius, ft S =* slope, ft per ft 2/3 The values of A and R , for specified depths (elevations), were taken from GEDA output for the most downstream channel cross section (mile 0.00). An approximate average slope was computed using the furnished values, Q = 42,000 cfs at el 587.4 ft NCVD, in Manning's equation. An n-value of 0.035 at the river mouth was assumed. Table 4 Downstream Boundary Conditions Discharges Versus Water-Surface Elevations Discharge cfs Water-Su rface Elevation, ft NGVD 3,000 577.0 21,000 583.5 27,500 584.5 34,000 585.1 42,000 587.4 52,000* 590.0 64,000* 593.0 78,000* 596.0 94,000* 598.0 * Estimated by using Manning's equation as described above. 18 ■ 16. The major input (in terms of quantity) required by BIRM is the geometry data describing the lake, river, and floodplain system. \s explained earlier, these data were obtained from punched cards and corresponding cross- sectional plots provided by the sponsor. The geometric elements for each sec¬ tion are input to BIRM as follows: £. First, a descriptive title, the river mileage, and the bank and bed elevations. _b. Next, the flow area, top width, and Manning's a versus eleva¬ tion for the channel. £. Finally, the floodplain cross-sectional area and Manning's n versus elevation are input for elevations above the top of the channel. It might be noted that the river mileage of a tributary must be zero at its Junction with the main river. Thus river mile designations for the cross section defining Menasha Channel (Branch No. 3) must begin with mile zero. Mileage information is used to compute the distance between consecutive cross sections. 17. The dams downstream of Ncenah and Menasha Dams are handled by prescribing an internal boundary condition at each dam. These boundary con¬ ditions .nay consist of the specification of pool elevations, discharges through the dam, or a rating curve. a. Case 1 - PMF without dam failure. Initially, the internal boundary condition prescribed at each dam was the rating curve data in Table 3. However, even though the rating curves were handled in a fully im¬ plicit manner, oscillations in the solution developed. To alleviate this problem, the time-varying pool elevation of each dam (except Middle Appleton) was computed from a weir equation for flow over the spillway. This elevation was then prescribed as the in¬ ternal boundary condition at the dam. Since no spillway exists at Middle Appleton, it was assumed that gates would be opened as long as possible to maintain a normal pool condition. Each dam was as¬ sumed to control the flow, as reflected through the computed pool elevations, until the tailwater rose to match the pool elevation. Control was then assumed lost and flow computations were made as in any open river reach. _b. Case 2 - PMF with dam failure. For Case 2, Neenah and Menasha Dams were assumed to fail simultaneously at maximum PMF flow. Flow conditions (discharges and elevations) throughout the bower Fox River, as the maximum PMF occurred upstream, were saved from the Case 1 run for use as initial conditions in Case 2. Continuation of the falling PMF hydrograoh was input as lateral inflows to Lake Winnebago at the confluence of the Upper Fox River. As described earlier, the layout shown in Plate 2 was 19 ■ 03 B CO O «u x 03 <0 c 0 5 : T3 C CO X CO C 0 0 SZ Uh 0 c *t-4 B cc CO c 0 0 u 0 4-1 w cn t-4 P :* m 5 0 r- 0 c: u H 0 .£3 CO > cO 6 ■H H co cc C X k 0 O b. Uh <0 CO O k 0 3 c 4-3 0 > k 3 CJ CO c CO C£ uh o >4 k CO I 3 m TJ •K ■K * 4C 1 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 X Ml <0 1 ao CO 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 B CO 3 0 CO u CM O in CNJ 0 0 co vO CN O O E a- •H co CJ E < —4 E co Q X 0 r-H m O H CN ‘. O c c ■tc * 1C 4C k k 03 t-4 03 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O C3 • CX E 1 00 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O > Ml Cl Ml X E CO k CM 0 CN ON m NO CO in CO CN O CO a 0 X> CO t-4 CO 0 » m • * #> #» m c t-« X CO 03 O O X 0 r 4 c O co LH O 0 a • • • • • • • • • a) r—4 O X r—4 Ml £> . O' x vD vO vO NO NO NO NO NO NO O r—4 co c k CJ 3 c0 Ml Ml r—4 r—4 * * * * 4c C3 0 r—4 CO Q. 0 E 03 kl cm O 0 * m nO CN m CN NO in G3 0 03 Ml O co ‘t-4 CO CJ M X X X 0 0 .c 0 NO N 0 c Ml Ml (U (D M> u Csl CNJ CNJ CN -» E Ml t-4 t-4 4-1 c X O E X 3 CO ON r—4 r— ^ CN 4-1 Uh 0 CO ON ON O' ON ON O' 0 0 03 r~ "O 0 0 x nO NO NO vO NO vO NO 0 - k 03 O k •M Ml CO 0 c O 3 0 * * -K ■*5 U k CO O Ml 03 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 /-s k r—4 fr 1 00 CO 0 c O O 0 O 0 0 c UH M» Cm 3 CO 03 k CM 0 O CO 0 r^- r-H CO 0 G3 cr X O Q tk C3 CJ 3 03 O r—1 Q x cc 0 CO k M» CO k c 0J 0 0 r— * »■ 4 CNJ CO nC CO 0 N/ M aJ Uj 0 ON 0 0 0 0 O O 0 r—4 Q3 c CO 0 E ‘/* nG r^. r-. X *rH as u 3 Ml M 3 *r-4 b CO O t-4 •K -K * 4t »■ k c r—4 X E , 0 r—t O » 4 CO vO ON rH CO 0 0 0 0 k IM k r—4 TO Ck p 03 *M r—! T3 a, r—4 Ml B» f^- O* ON 0 0 —< m O' w 1 4 c •o 0 3 CO G3 bC X bC cx w CM 0 n- C30 co O r 4 X *7-4 a 0 < z —X —4 rH CN CN Ml 0 a *H Ml r>. r— r- n* r— to «0 c e co t-4 t-4 M 0 co k 4: * ■{c * c k a. C. E 03 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T) •H VM 0 CO 1 o< CO 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 C3 c 3 k 0 CO k CM m CN in CO CO CN NO CO Ml 0 T3 0 CL k -r-4 CO CJ c0 c. 0 »—4 a. a c c jc CNl 0 NT in oc ON CN CO O' E 0 Ml Uh rj a- 0 CJ •M CNJ CN CN CN CO 0 cn Ml E r3 O r-4 CN u t-( Uh a — 1 Ml > vO 0 r-^ CO O CN nO < U3 CM c. CO CO CO ro CO co On o o t—. CNI co NT in NO W 4-4 CJ CO CO 00 on ON On On O' o> ON On m m m m in m m m m in in * * * * s a> o o o o o o o O O o cti 1 CO (0 o o o o o o O o o o Q co ki W-. o o m m ON in o MO o 9 —* •H CJ u C3 C j: nC CNI On NT co *■—4 m o c u •—< CM CNI CNI ro NT m NO CO 3 3 CO a rH NT NT >3- CNJ MO m MO o o o *-» c •H > co OC On ON o »■ ^ co m r^» •H UJ 4-4 C.3 ON ON O- ON O' o o o o c -3 is m m m in in nO nO nO NO NO u c o u m ■K * -X a. 1 0) o o o o o o O o O rH E 1 tiO CO O o o c o o o O o X) cj CO u 4-4 o ON m NT in in o 00 CO C3 a *H c3 u H Q jc m r-H m o CM CNI co MO a U »H CM CM CM CO NT m NO -c u o u u X «H cc NT ON MO CM o o o C- c a? *—4 •M CNJ m OC ON •— 4 co m cs u 4-4 o o o o O o o t—4 •——4 9 4 MO M0 NO NO NO nO vO VO NO * * * * o o o o o o O o o o i 00 CO O o o o o o o o o o CO V- 4-4 o in CM c in o NT o T m NO 00 C CTJ E H *H MT t- NT m CO ON CNI in CO o o o c —- 4 H > ON o O o 9 4 ■■ 4 CM CO NT in U3 4-4 Ci CNI co CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO is NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 21 ■^rr^T'T^rr'r set up in the model for simulating Case 2 and following the failure of Neer.ah and Menasha Dams, each downstream dam in the system was assumed to fail completely within the next computa¬ tional step after initiation of dam failure. Initially, the time-varying dam-break routines in BIRM were applied to compute the flow through each dam after failure was initiated. In other words, a time-varying discharge was the internal boundary con¬ dition applied at each dam. This approach worked well at some dams but not at others. There appeared to be two problems. The first was related to the fact that as the initial dam-break discharge was computed at some dams, the flow conditions were not compatible with the predam-break conditions, i.e. the initial dam-break discharge in some cases was less than the dis¬ charge computed before the initiation of the dam failure. The other problem was related to the fact that once dam failure occurs, bottom slopes in the vicinity of dams such as Thilmany probably result in supercritical flow conditions. Specifying only a dis¬ charge boundary condition in such reaches is mathematically incorrect. Since the solution scheme in BIRM was developed to only handle subcritical flow conditions, it should be realized that flows in the vicinity of regions possessing extreme bed slope (Plate 3) cannot be accurately computed. However, it is believed that if the computations are made to remain stable through short supercritical flow regions, the computations should be reasonable away from such regions after the flow again becomes subcritical. Since the specification of a time-varying internal discharge proved fatal, the treatment of a dam failure over several computational time-steps could not be achieved. Therefore the next approach tried was to treat each dam failure as occurring over one At , once the discharge upstream exc aded 90,000 cfs, with a subsequent loss of control over the flow during that time-step. Once again problems developed in the computations at locations such as Thilmany Dam. These were finally overcome by setting an internal boundary condition such that the water depth over the extreme slope was uniform after the failure of the dam. Physically, such a flow condition does not exist. However, this type of boundary condition did result in stable computations in the supercritical flow regions and, as dis¬ cussed above, it is believed tie computations in the sub¬ critical regions are reasonable. Case 3 - Dam failures with pools at or near spillway crest elevations and steady inflow to Lake Winnebago. Due to the same problems that were discussed for Case 2, Neenah and Menasha Dams were assumed to completely fail within one computational time-step as the result of earthquakes, explosions, or other unforeseen catastrophic event. As the resulting flood wave progresses downstream, other dams in the system were assumed similarly to fail as maximum gate flows (determined from the rating curves in Table 5) were reached at each dam. The model layout is shown in Plate 2. Pool elevations were ini¬ tially set at or near spillway crest elevations. A low steady inflow of 2,000 cfs into each half of Lake Winnebago was input 22 . at each upstream boundary and a lateral flow of 1,000 cfs was input at the confluence of the Upper Fox Fiver for each half of Lake Winnebago, i.e. for a total steady inflow of 6,000 cfs. The program terminated computations 22 hr (simulated) after initial dam failure, when the computed water-surface elevation in Lake Winnebago dropped to lake bottom at one of the cross sections. The run was considered sufficient, however, because run termination did not occur until peak stages and flood wave arrival times resulting from the dam failures had been computed throughout the Lower Fox River. Model Calibration 18. Hypothetical flow conditions simulated in the study are far greater than any ever recorded in the Lower Fox River. Calibration of BIRM for the full range of flows is therefore not possible. The only significant adjust¬ ment of n values from those given by the Detroit District involved raising the values throughout the Thilmany pool to 0.08. Comparisons were made with selected h 3 'draulic data furnished by the Detroit District. For example, peak estimated discharge and water-surface elevation measured by the Chicago District (1974) at Rapide Croche Dam during the flood of April 1951 were 20,400 cfs and 605.7 ft NGVD, respectively. A computed discharge of 20,903 cfs at el 606.4 for the Rapid Croche Dam compares reasonably well with these recorded data. Also, a comparison of selected computed data with the corresponding rating curve data furnished by the Detroit District is shown in Table 6. As indicated in the table, the elevations computed by BIRM are consistently higher than the computed rating curve elevation. In most cases, the comparable discharges computed by BIRM also are somewhat higher, thus compensating for some of the elevation differences. It should be emphasized, however, that the rating curves furnished by the Detroit District are also computed values and, as far as known, were computed without any calibration to recorded data. Therefore the comparison of computed results from BIRM with the computed rating curves should be viewed with caution. Resu1ts 19. The printouts produced by BIRM for the three hypothetical study Cases 1, 2, and 3 are given in the separately bound Appendices A, B, and C, . aOM T- Table 6 Compcrtson of Model Computations with Rating; Curves Furnished by the Detroit District De Pere Dam Little Kaukauna Dam Rapide Croche Dam Thilmany Dam Kaukauna Dam Combined Locks Dam Little Chute Dam Cedars Dam Lower Appleton Dam Upper Appleton Dam Neenah Channel Menasha Channel Rating Curve Discharge cf s El f : NCVD 29,950 590.8 29,900 599.6 30,500 608.6 21,500 30,000 630.5 631.5 21,500 30,000 41,700 655.0 656.9 659.0 29,600 40,300 677.7 680.2 29,600 40,200 692.5 694.5 20,600 29,000 700.3 702.4 22,800 710.6 20,900 28,300 736.4 738.4 22,800 746.4 14,800 746.2 BIRM Compu tations Discharge cfs El ft NGVD 29,593 591.3 30,336 600.8 30,829 609.0 22,180 32,689 630.9 631.9 21,231 31,622 43,559 655.7 658.1 660.0 30,137 42,342 679.3 681.5 31,182 43,497 693.9 695.8 21,173 32,003 701.4 703.4 22,123 711.7 21,786 32,988 737.9 739.9 18,295 746.4 12,677 745.7 Difference (BIRJi versus Rating Curve El Discharge ft Percent NCVD - 1.2 + 0.5 + 1.4 + 1.2 + 1.1 +0.4 + 3.1 +0.4 ♦ 8.2 +0.4 - 1.3 +0.7 + 5.1 + 1.2 + 4.3 + 1.0 + 1.8 + 1.6 + 4.8 + 1.3 + 5.1 + 1.4 + 7.6 + 1.3 + 2.7 + 1.1 + 9.4 + 1.0 - 3.1 + 1.1 + 4.1 + 1.5 + 14.2 + 1.5 -24.6 0.0 -16.8 • o I respectively,, The appendices primarily include certain input data plus the computed water-surface elevations, discharges, and velocities for each cross section. The computations were printed for selected time intervals ranging from 5 min for Case 3 to 1 day for Case 1. Flood arrival and peak times and peak flood elevations for the three study cases are summarized for key locations in Table 7. Plate 3 is a plot of computed water-surface profiles for Case l. Plates 4-28 are plots of water-surface elevations versus time for selecced cross sections for the three cases, with the exception of Plate 21, which shows discharge hydrographs at three cross sections for Case 3. Prepara¬ tion of inundation maps required as part of the flood emergency plans for Corps dams was not included in the scope of this study. Further information on the results is given below for each study case. 20. PMF without dam failure (Case 1), Hydraulic computations were printed each day (prototype) for the 193 cross sections set up in the model to describe the Lower Fox River between Neenah and Menasha Dams and Green Bay. To route the major portion of the PMF through the system, the duration of the run was 21 days, not including the first 3 days of the hydrcgraph when flows were essentially steady. Thus 3 days should be added to the times shown in the computer printout in order to relate the computed flood arrival and peak times to the full PMF hydrograph. In other words, time zero of the computer run and time zero on the PMF hydrograph will coincide when 3 days are added to the times given in the BIRM printout (Appendix A). Flood arrival and peak times given for Case l in Table 7 have been properly adjusted to reflect this difference. 21. The times of flood arrival, as given for Case 1 in Table 7, were based on potentially hazardous pool elevations provided by the Detroit District. These pool elevations are given in Table 8. Since hydraulic computations were printed at 24-hr intervals, the flood arrival times for Case 1 had to be in¬ terpolated at some cross sections and should be considered as approximations for flood emergency planning only. Potentially dangerous stages were not available for all locations on the Lower Fox River. The elevation versus time plots (Plates 4-12) in general indicate gradually rising and failing hydro¬ graphs. Water-surface profiles with time along the reach are depicted in Plate 3. Control of flow by dams is shown on the plots as constant pool elevations for 25 v. wm 'Tjrw; Tabt# 7 loapjti-J H]ri>r«iil If Data for Selected frm« ^»rt tom nsr I 2Case V FMP Without Daa Fa( lafe pxr W/D* •* a Failure f'«B P S 1 :.. r a w*i tea Pays hCVD failure ak:vt» 1 st lore r lore MCV0 NCYD 1 (14' C 4 MW *« bridge >8.955 0.100 6.1 15.0 751.5 0 6r in a In 754.9 — 0 h 10 aln 7)8.9 745.4 1 hr 20 a 1 a 753.1 lb (12) C 1 » II bridge 37.471 1.424 6.1 15.1 751.0 0 hr W atn 754.2 — 5 h 0 aln 7)7.1 741.5 1 hr 40 aln 754.5 11 (47) Of St. P4P It bridge 17.678 4.24 7 6.1 15.2 745.4 0 hr 0 aln 745.9 — 0 h 0 aln 7)6.) 7)6. ) 0 hr 40 a 1 n 7)7.6 1 h 20 atn 7)2.8 4 h 0 aln 7)1.1 1) (49) I'pper Appleton Pea 12.68« 4.4*8 6.1 15.2 745.7 0 hr 0 aln 745.? — 0 h 0 aln 7)6.) 7)6.) 0 hr 40 ■ In n 6.6 l h 15 aln 72/.* 4 h 0 aln 7 *0.1 j; (51) C 1 nw it brldgr 12.202 6.195 8.5 15.2 77 7.2 0 hr 40 • In 712.1 — 0 h 55 aln 720.6 722.1 1 hr 0 • In 727.5 1 h 15 aln 714.0 18 (54) Middle Apple too Dan 12.171 6.924 6.5 15.7 727.0 0 hr 40 ntn 7)1 .8 0 hr 55 ala 1 h 0 ala 720.6 721.0 1 hr 0 aln 72).) 1 h 20 • In ?i 1.9 5 h 0 atn 717.1 40 (56) Oneida bridge 12.162 6.9)1 4.0 15.2 726.7 0 hr 40 aln 711.2 — 0 h 55 ■ In 709.7 720.2 1 hr 0 aln 726.9 I h 25 aln 712.9 5 h 0 • In 716.1 so (66) C 4 MW KK bridge 11.667 7.428 4.0 15.2 724.2 0 hr 40 aln 725.4 — 1 h 0 • In 707.5 712.7 1 hr 0 aln 722.8 1 h 10 aln 709.2 5 h 0 ala 712.) 5a (70) Lower Appleton Dea 11.124 7.821 4.0 15.) 721.0 0 hr 0 aln 721.0 — 0 h 0 aln 707.1 707.1 I hr 10 atn 717.7 1 h )S aln 704.1 5 h 0 aln 706.4 57 (73) College Art. Bridge 11.184 7.911 6.0 15.3 715.8 0 hr 40 air. 719.2 — 1 h 5 • In 700.0 704.) 1 hr 10 aln 716.9 6 h 0 aln 705.) 70 (86) Cedars Pea 27.840 11.155 6.0 15.4 709.2 0 hr 0 aln 709.2 — 0 h 0 aln 699.4 699.4 1 hr 10 aln 704.9 2 h 0 • In . 94.4 6 h 0 ala 695.9 76 (92) Little Cbu t e Dae 76.922 12.213 6.0 15.4 700.5 0 hr 0 aln 700.5 — 0 h 0 • In 689.9 689.9 0 hr 50 etn 694.7 1 h 15 • In 685.0 6 h 0 • In 686.0 80 (06) foaMned Loci a Das 26.004 13.144 6.6 15.4 686.8 0 l>r 0 ■ In 686.8 — 0 h 0 • In 674.8 674.8 1 hr 0 aln 679.1 1 h 20 aln 671.4 6 h 0 • In 672.) 05 (101) Kaokauna Dea 74.214 14.902 6.0 15.5 664.9 1 hr 0 aln 668.8 — 0 h 0 • In 654.0 654.0 1 hr 40 • In 664.8 i h 45 ■ In 650.4 7 h 0 • In 651.) 08 (104) Law* Av«*. Bridge 24.10) 14.49? 6.0 15.5 657.8 1 hr 0 i*!n 665.7 — 1 h 25 • In 64 1.7 649.8 1 hr 40 m l n 661.4 1 h 45 sin 648.0 7 h 0 eiln 648.9 99 (115) Fla St. Bridge l ).680 15.415 6.0 15.5 641 .9 1 br )0 aln b46.7 _ 1 h in ■ In 6)0.4 6)5.9 7 hr 0 aln 644.9 1 h 50 ■ la 6)4.7 7 h 0 aln 6)5.4 101 (117) Th 1 I nan y 1-aa 21.401 15.774 6.0 15.5 635.1 0 hr 0 aln 6)5.) — 0 h 0 aln 629.5 629.5 0 hr 50 a! n 622.6 l h 10 aln 619.8 7 h 0 • In 619.9 110 (126) Raplde Croche Dsa 19.212 19.973 6.2 15.6 617.) 0 hr 0 aln 617.3 — 0 h 0 ■ In 602.8 602.8 1 hr 0 aln 616.5 1 h 50 ■ In 600.4 9 h 0 • In 602.8 117 (1)1) Ferry St. bridge 17.292 21.80) 4.0 15.7 611.5 1 hr 20 aln 611.5 — 2 h 40 aln 594.2 598.1 ) hr 30 aln 611.9 9 h 0 aln 599.8 127 (141) 1 title k«.jt*una Dea 11.411 26.012 4.0 15.8 607.9 0 hr 0 • In 607.9 — 0 h 0 aln 593.5 59).5 1 hr 20 aln 60). ) 2 h 15 aln 590.0 9 h 0 aln 590.9 118 (154) Da Fare Das 7.967 11.684 6.0 16.0 600.B 1 hr 10 aln 601 .5 — 0 b 0 • In 587.4 597.4 12 hr 0 aln 603.4 2 h 30 aln 58).2 17 hr 0 aln 601.6 15 hr 0 • In 586.8 141 (157) George St. Bridge 7.19) 11.707 6.8 16.0 600.8 l hr 40 aln 601.7 — 2 hr 30 • In 578.7 58). 3 12 hr 0 aln 601.4 15 hr 0 • In 506. 8 17 hr 0 aln 601.6 154 (170) C 4 MW Trans. Co. 1.167 15.778 6.8 16.5 600.4 ? hr 10 • In 601.7 — 8 hr 0 aln 578.4 581.8 Br lt« i .« 4 ■ t * 4 t */* / t ) -r w n g m r w I V - B Mij l W .jlJJ.I 1 !' ■ l HBU* l t P- l! tn. i^ l' W r*. .*3SB338»| I n H h > ? r> ' i e ] i ( I / I i r f & —p ap ~r .—■ / - mse IWHKfpigr T '" 1 y*trv. ■Pll Vj% n| |fe|^ Tit Ai^a, .-i ■ * r j 1 r^T; • J f---r'. KS V-iV? UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN* 3 0112 099061068 \ ( i