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