Lda MQP 0807

LDA-0807
PPM-0807
Morey’s Dam Restoration Project
Hydraulic and Structural Analysis of Morey’s Dam with the Implementation of a Fish Passage
A Major Qualifying Project Report:
submitted to the Faculty
of the
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science
by
Yisel Mantilla
Bethany Santangelo
Michael Butler
Date: December 20, 2007
Approved:
Professor Leonard Albano, Major Advisor
Professor Paul P Mathisen, Major Advisor

Abstract
This project includes a design for the rehabilitation of a small dam and incorporated fish
passage. It also investigates this design processes and elements that must come together for
the design of a small dam with a fish passage channel. Requiring analysis in the disciplines of
hydraulics, hydrology and structural engineering, the focus of this project was to create a
design that specifically suited the site located at the outflow of Lake Sabbatia, on the Mill River
in Taunton, Massachusetts.
i
Authorship
Bethany Santangelo, Mike Butler, and Yisel Mantilla shared the writing responsibilities of the
background of the report. Yisel and Bethany were primarily responsible for the writing
represented in the Introduction, Results, and Conclusion sections.
Each team member focused on writing specific sections. Mike Butler was responsible for the
work in 3.1 Hydrologic Analysis and 4.1 Hydrologic Analysis. Bethany Santangelo focused on
3.1.4 Fish Passage Hydrology, 3.2 Hydraulic Analysis, 4.1.4. Fish Passage Hydrology, and 4.2
Hydraulic Analysis. Yisel Mantilla focused on 3.3 Structural Analysis and 4.3 Structural Analysis.
Yisel Mantilla and Bethany Santangelo shared authorship on 3.4 Cost Analysis and 4.4 Cost
Analysis.
Yisel Mantilla
Bethany Santangelo
Michael Butler
ii
Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. I
AUTHORSHIP .......................................................................................................................................... II
CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. III
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................... IX
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Site Geography ............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Capstone Design ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Ecology Restoration ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Dams ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.4.1 Types of dams .............................................................................................................................................8
2.5 Concrete Gravity Dams ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.5.1 Forces and Stability Conditions of the Structure ........................................................................................9
2.5.2 General Design considerations for Dams .................................................................................................10
2.6 Spillway Design & Hydraulics ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.6.1 Identifying Flow Profiles ...........................................................................................................................11
2.6.2 Fish Passage Design ..................................................................................................................................14
2.7 Cost Estimating ........................................................................................................................................... 15
2.8 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 16
2.9 Implications of Background Information..................................................................................................... 19
3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 20

3.1.1 Mill River Watershed Hydrology ...............................................................................................................21
iii
3.1.2 Physical Characteristics ............................................................................................................................22
3.1.3 Meteorological Characteristics .................................................................................................................30
3.1.4 Fish Passage Hydrology ............................................................................................................................33
3.2 Hydraulic Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 34

3.2.1 Spillway Hydraulics ...................................................................................................................................36
3.2.2 Fish Passage Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................38
3.3 Structural Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 40

3.3.1 Reinforcement Design for the Structure ..................................................................................................46
3.3.2 Fish Ladder Analysis ..................................................................................................................................48
3.4 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................................... 49
3.5 Summary of Methods ................................................................................................................................. 50
4 RESULTS & ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 51
4.1 Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 51

4.1.1 Fish passage Hydrology ............................................................................................................................56
4.2 Hydraulic Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 57

4.2.1 Tailwater Analysis .....................................................................................................................................58
4.2.2 Spillway Analysis .......................................................................................................................................59
4.2.3 Fish Passage Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................64
4.3 Structural Design Calculations for the Dam................................................................................................. 66

4.3.1 Load Calculations ......................................................................................................................................66
4.3.2 Structural Analysis of the Fish Ladder ......................................................................................................70
4.4 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................................... 73
4.5 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................................... 76
5 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 80
WORKS CITED ....................................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX A. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS. ......................................................................................... A
APPENDIX B. FISH PASSAGE HYDROLOGY ................................................................................... R
APPENDIX C. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS. ......................................................................................... 5-Z
APPENDIX D. PLANS .......................................................................................................................... EE
APPENDIX E. COST ESTIMATING .................................................................................................. HH
iv
MAJOR QUALIFYING PROJECT REPORT PROPOSAL: ............................................................... LL
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Capstone Design Process .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Mill River Geography .................................................................................................................................... 2
2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 General Purpose of Dams. ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.1.1 Types of Dams. ...........................................................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Forces on Embankment Dams. ...................................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Forces in Concrete Dams. ...........................................................................................................................4
2.1.4 Forces Combination for Structural Analysis of Dams .................................................................................4
2.1.5 Settlements ................................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Reconstruction vs. Repair of Dams. .............................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Environmental Concerns. .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.4 Fish Ladder ................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4.1 Types of Fish Passages. ...............................................................................................................................6
2.5 Morey’s Bridge Dam: Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 9

2.5.1 DCR Size & Hazard Classification ..............................................................................................................10
2.6 Pertinent Engineering Data ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.6.1 Drainage Area ...........................................................................................................................................10
2.6.2 Reservoir ...................................................................................................................................................10
2.7 Constraints on Mill River Restoration Projects............................................................................................ 10
3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Define the Problem and Goals. ................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Assess and analyze existing site conditions................................................................................................. 12

3.2.1 Literature review ......................................................................................................................................12
3.2.2 Present dam assessment ..........................................................................................................................13
3.2.3 Identify design constraints .......................................................................................................................13
3.3 Hydraulic Design ......................................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.1 Dam & Spillway .........................................................................................................................................13
3.3.2 Fish Passage ..............................................................................................................................................14
3.4 Structural Design ........................................................................................................................................ 14

3.4.1 Dam & Spillway Structure .........................................................................................................................14
3.4.2 Fish Passage ..............................................................................................................................................14
3.5 Evaluate the Economic Factors. .................................................................................................................. 15
v
3.6 Write Report............................................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX A. MILL RIVER LOCATION & SOIL DATA................................................................... I
vi
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. MOREY'S BRIDGE DAM SITE RELATIVE TO TAUNTON, MA. ..........................................................................................2
FIGURE 2. BASIC WATER CYCLE. (UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2007) ....................................................5
FIGURE 3. TYPES OF SOIL PRESENTED IN THE SITE .....................................................................................................................6
FIGURE 4. SHASTA DAM IMPOUNDS THE SACRAMENTO RIVER IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (MICROSOFT ENCARTA 2007) .......................9
FIGURE 5. EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................9
FIGURE 6. SUMMARY OF LOADS ACTING ON A BASIC GRAVITY DAM. ...........................................................................................10
FIGURE 7. FLOW TYPES. A) UNIFORM FLOW; B) UNSTEADY UNIFORM FLOW; C) STEADY, UNIFORM FLOW; D) UNSTEADY, VARIED FLOW; E)
UNSTEADY, VARIED. (NED H. C. HWANG 1996) .......................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 8. FLOW PROFILES. (NED H. C. HWANG 1996) ..........................................................................................................12
FIGURE 9. HYDRAULIC JUMP. (STURM 2001) .......................................................................................................................14
FIGURE 10. DENIL FISHWAY SECTION. (QUINN 2007) .............................................................................................................15
FIGURE 11. CURRENT SPILLWAY CONDITION SHOWING GATE HOUSE SUPPORTS. ...........................................................................16
FIGURE 12. DEAD MUSSELS ON THE RIVER BED. .....................................................................................................................16
FIGURE 13. TEMPORARY COFFER DAM. ...............................................................................................................................17
FIGURE 14. FROM BENEATH THE BRIDGE AND GATE HOUSE. PVC PIPES AND GATE HOUSE SUPPORTS. ..............................................17
FIGURE 15. TEMPORARY COFFER DAM PLAN DRAWING. (PARE CORPORATION 2007) ..................................................................18
FIGURE 16. HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY FLOWCHART ..........................................................................................................21
FIGURE 17. LOCATION OF MILL RIVER WATERSHED................................................................................................................23
FIGURE 18. AUTOCAD 2007 REPRESENTATION OF MILL RIVER WATERSHED OUTLINE. ................................................................23
FIGURE 19. CN VALUES. (NATIONAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE 2004).........................................................................25
FIGURE 20. DIVISION OF LAND USE. ....................................................................................................................................26
FIGURE 21. HEC-HMS LAYOUT .........................................................................................................................................31
FIGURE 22. BASIN CHARACTERISTIC TABS. ............................................................................................................................32
FIGURE 23. METEOROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS TAB. ...........................................................................................................32
FIGURE 24. CONTROL SPECIFICATION ...................................................................................................................................32
FIGURE 25. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FLOWCHART. ....................................................................................................................35
FIGURE 26. HYDRAULIC CROSS SECTIONS, PLAN VIEW..............................................................................................................36
FIGURE 27. SHARP CRESTED WEIR (A) AND OGEE SPILLWAY (B). (HWANG, FUNDAMENTALS OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
1989) ..................................................................................................................................................................37
FIGURE 28. EXAMPLE FISHWAY. (MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2007) ........................................................39
FIGURE 29. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FLOWCHART A. ...............................................................................................................40
FIGURE 30. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS FLOWCHART B.................................................................................................................41
FIGURE 31. COFFER DAM PLAN VIEW. (PARE CORPORATION 2007) ..........................................................................................42
FIGURE 32. FORCES ACTING ON DAM. ..................................................................................................................................43
FIGURE 33. SHEAR DIAGRAM. ............................................................................................................................................47
FIGURE 34. DENIL FISHWAY DIMENSION AND HORIZONTAL BAFFLE (SPACING FOR VARIOUS FISHWAY WIDTHS). (ASCE 2003) ...........48
FIGURE 35. EXAMPLE FISHWAY. (MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2007) ........................................................49
FIGURE 36. BASIC DENIL FISHWAY DESIGN ELEMENTS. (ODEH, DISCHARGE RATING EQUATION AND HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF
STANDARD DENIL FISHWAYS 2003) ...........................................................................................................................49
FIGURE 38. MILL RIVER WATERSHED RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH AT MOREY'S BRIDGE DAM FOR PMS .................................................52
FIGURE 37. GLOBAL SUMMARY TABLE. ................................................................................................................................52
FIGURE 39. DRAINAGE AREA VS. MAXIMUM HISTORICAL FLOWS...............................................................................................53
FIGURE 41. MAXIMUM FLOW ASSOCIATED WITH HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................54
FIGURE 40. RAINFALL DATA FROM USWB TP 40 FOR TAUNTON WATERSHED. ...........................................................................54
FIGURE 42. HYDROGRAPH ASSOCIATED WITH HYDRAULIC MAXIMUM FLOW................................................................................55
FIGURE 43. GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE OF TAIL WATER CHANNEL. ..................................................................................................57
FIGURE 44. EXPANSION AND CONSTRICTION COMPARISON, LOW FLOWS. ...................................................................................62
FIGURE 45. EXPANSION AND CONSTRICTION COMPARISON, AVERAGE FLOWS. .............................................................................63
FIGURE 46. EXPANSION AND CONSTRICTION COMPARISON, HIGH FLOWS. ..................................................................................63
FIGURE 47. DENIL FISHWAY SECTION VIEWS. (ODEH 2003) ....................................................................................................65
FIGURE 48. FISHWAY HEAD AND DISCHARGE VALUES AT FIRST BAFFLE. ......................................................................................65
vii
FIGURE 49. DEAD LOAD. ...................................................................................................................................................66
FIGURE 50. UPSTREAM HYDROSTATIC LOADS.........................................................................................................................66
FIGURE 51. UPLIFT PRESSURE.............................................................................................................................................67
FIGURE 52. FISHWAY CROSS SECTION. .................................................................................................................................71
FIGURE 53. COST DISTRIBUTION. ........................................................................................................................................75
FIGURE 54. PROPOSED SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................................78
FIGURE 55. DAM REINFORCEMENT......................................................................................................................................79
FIGURE 56. FISH LADDER PLAN. ..........................................................................................................................................79
FIGURE 57. CURRENT USGS DATA REGARDING THE MILL RIVER AND ITS WATERSHED.................................................. A
FIGURE 58. LAND USAGE WITHIN THE MILL RIVER WATERSHED. ................................................................................................ D
FIGURE 59. IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN MILL RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................................ E
FIGURE 60. HMR-51 ISOPLUVIAL MAP (COMPLETE FIGURES PROVIDED IN DATA FILES) ................................................. F
FIGURE 61. MILL RIVER WATERSHED RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH AT MOREY'S BRIDGE DAM................................................................ Q
FIGURE 62. HISTORICAL DAILY MEANS DATA. (UNITED STATES GEOLOGIC SURVEY (USGS) 2007) ................................................. R
FIGURE 63. HDM CONTINUED ............................................................................................................................................. S
FIGURE 64. HDM CONTINUED. ............................................................................................................................................ T
FIGURE 65. HDM CONTINUED. ........................................................................................................................................... U
FIGURE 66. SPILLWAY CREST CONDITIONS, UNDER ALL ANALYZED FLOW RATES. .......................................................................... CC
FIGURE 67. SPILLWAY CREST CONDITIONS, FLOW RATES <350 CFS........................................................................................... DD
FIGURE 68. FISHWAY PLAN AND CROSS SECTIONAL VIEWS. ....................................................................................................... EE
FIGURE 69. PROPOSED SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................................ FF
FIGURE 70. DAM REINFORCEMENT.....................................................................................................................................GG
FIGURE 71. DAMS LOCATED ALONG THE MILL RIVER. ...............................................................................................................2
FIGURE 72. FORCES ACTING ON CONCRETE DAMS.....................................................................................................................4
FIGURE 73. MUSSELS DOWNSTREAM OF THE DAM. ..................................................................................................................6
FIGURE 74. DENIL FISHWAY .................................................................................................................................................7
FIGURE 75: PLAN VIEW OF VERTICAL SLOW FISHWAY................................................................................................................8
FIGURE 76. MILL RIVER LOCATION. .......................................................................................................................................9
FIGURE 77. SPILLWAY CONDITION BELOW THE GATEHOUSE. .......................................................................................................9
FIGURE 78. DOWNSTREAM VIEW OF CURRENT SPILLWAY STRUCTURE. ........................................................................................10
FIGURE 79. COFFER DAM. .................................................................................................................................................11
FIGURE 80. MOREY'S BRIDGE DAM........................................................................................................................................ I
FIGURE 81. BEDROCK GEOLOGY MAP A. (USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 1978) .................................................................. II
FIGURE 82. BEDROCK GEOLOGY MAP B. (USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 1978) ................................................................. III
viii
List of Tables
TABLE 1. PORTION OF TABLE 8 OF BRISTOL COUNTY SOIL SURVEY, NORTHERN PART .......................................................................6
TABLE 2. PORTION OF TABLE 10 OF BRISTOL COUNTY SOIL SURVEY, NORTHERN PART. ....................................................................7
TABLE 3. PORTION OF TABLE 11 OF BRISTOL COUNTY SOIL SURVEY, NORTHERN PART .....................................................................7
TABLE 6. WEIGHTED CN VALUE DETERMINATION ..................................................................................................................28
TABLE 7. PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION VALUES FOR SOUTHEASTERN MA........................................................................30
TABLE 8. HYDRAULIC EQUATIONS USED IN ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................38
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS. .................................................................................................................44
TABLE 10. AREAS, WEIGHTS, AND DIMENSIONS OF REINFORCING BARS .....................................................................................48
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF FISHWAY DESIGN FLOWS..................................................................................................................57
TABLE 12. TAIL WATER CHANNEL DATA. ..............................................................................................................................58
TABLE 13. MANNING'S EQUATION DATA FOR TAIL WATER.......................................................................................................59
TABLE 14. SPILLWAY EQUATION VALUES. .............................................................................................................................59
TABLE 15. MANNING'S EQUATION VALUES AT SPILLWAY TOE. .................................................................................................60
TABLE 16. HYDRAULIC JUMP CALCULATIONS .........................................................................................................................61
TABLE 17. VELOCITIES AND DEPTHS AT CREST. ......................................................................................................................64
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF ALL THE LOADS RESULTS**...............................................................................................................68
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF THE LOADS OBTAINED FROM ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................72
TABLE 20. COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEET. ..............................................................................................................................74
TABLE 21. ARBITRARY COORDINATES FOR OUTLINE OF MILL RIVER WATERSHED ......................................................... B
TABLE 22. FLOWS GREATER THAN 230 CFS. .......................................................................................................................... V
TABLE 23. FLOWS GREATER THAN 350 CFS. .......................................................................................................................... W
TABLE 24. FLOWS LESS THAN 33 CFS. ....................................................................................................................................X
TABLE 25. FLOWS LESS THAN 15 CFS. .................................................................................................................................... Y
TABLE 26. TAIL WATER CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................5-Z
TABLE 27. SPILLWAY CREST CONDITIONS, WITH SPILLWAY EQUATION.................................................................................... 5-AA
TABLE 28. SPILLWAY TOE CONDITIONS. .............................................................................................................................. BB
TABLE 29. COST WITH SIMULTANEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF FISHWAY AND DAM. CON'T ON NEXT PAGE. .......................................... HH
TABLE 30. COST OF DAM CONSTRUCTION. ..............................................................................................................................II
TABLE 31. COST OF FISHWAY CONSTRUCTION. ....................................................................................................................... JJ
ix
1 Introduction
Dams have been a vital structure to society, erected for reasons of both energy production and
flood protection. Due to the large volumes of water that pass through river systems, large
amounts of energy can be produced through hydroelectric power. Large volumes of water can
also create public safety hazards through flooding. By creating a reservoir upstream with
storage space, a dam enables society to protect communities along river systems against
flooding, while harnessing the energy carried in the water to provide electricity to these
communities.
While dams are functional and important structures, they can also impact the environment
negatively. A major environmental impact of dams is the fact that they create a barrier to
native anadromous fish species, who must migrate upstream to spawn and downstream to
feed. Dwindling fish populations due to these migration barriers have effects on habitats up
and downstream in these rivers, and impact the economy negatively through poor fishing
conditions. In the past, dams were constructed with only the flood protection and energy
production functions in mind, and without these types of ecological factors taken into
consideration. As a result, native anadromous populations have declined. Recent dam
reconstruction projects have begun to take these kinds of environmental concerns into
account.
Many dams were built during the industrial revolution to provide power to factories.
Communities have grown along the rivers, in the areas where flood protection is provided by
these aging dams. Many of these dams are around 100 years old, and their deteriorating
conditions presents serious public safety threats in the event of floods.
Many dams in Massachusetts were built during the industrial revolution and large communities
have grown in the areas downstream of these dams. Massachusetts has 2,917 dams as of 2003,
many of which are deemed unsafe by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and
Recreation. (Association of Dam Safety Officials 2007) These unsafe conditions create high risk
situations where a flood caused by dam failure could destroy communities downstream.
Morey’s Bridge Dam in Taunton, Massachusetts is an example of a dam currently in an unsafe
condition with a large community downstream. Through recent dam inspection reports, it has
been deemed to have a high hazard potential. (Massachusetts Department of Fish and Wildlife
2007) This dam is also an obstruction to anadromous species. Specifically, the anadromous
alewife (a species of river herring) is prevented from spawning in the quiescent lacustrine
habitat of Lake Sabbatia.
The goal of this project was to explore the processes and analysis required to design a small
dam and fish passage at this location. The project involved studying the hydrology of the area
to identify the volume of water passing through the Morey’s Bridge Dam site, and designing a
dam that would provide adequate flood protection to downtown Taunton. Through hydraulic
and structural design, a small overflow dam was designed to fit into the site. To address the
environmental concerns of alewife passage to Lake Sabbatia, a fish passage was designed to be
built into the dam. Due to time constraints, this process involved making assumptions where
1
adequate information was not available, and creating a final design that incorporated the
preliminary findings from each discipline. The final design reached through this project was
sufficient based on the information available; however more detailed information on the site
would allow for further refinement of the design. Areas where the design could benefit from
further refinement were identified and discussed in the Conclusions and Recommendations
section.
1.1 Site Geography

Morey’s Bridge Dam is located on the southern shore of Lake Sabbatia in the city of Taunton,
Bristol County, in the state of Massachusetts. The dam is in the latitude of 41˚ 56’ 02.684” N
and in the longitude of 71˚ 06’ 28.348” W on the Taunton USGS Quadrangle. The dam’s spillway
is located under Morey’s Bridge, which passes traffic along Bay St. In terms of the implications
due to its location, the site is a primary means of traffic flow from the city of Taunton to
Interstate-495. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the Morey’s Bridge Dam site, located
upstream of Taunton, MA.
Figure 1. Morey's Bridge Dam Site Relative to Taunton, MA.
1.2 Capstone Design

The concept of a Capstone Design project, as defined by the American Society of Civil Engineers
is one that incorporates the application of analysis and real world concerns into a final design
product. This project meets the capstone design requirements by finding a solution that meets
the requirements of economic constraints, public safety constraints, environmental and
hydraulic requirements of the site, and constructability issues.
2
By applying realistic engineering design considerations (economic, environmental,
sustainability, ethical, health and safety, and social concerns), the resulting design was a
solution that fit into the community as more than just another piece of infrastructure.
The environmental and sustainability part of the requirements were addressed through the fish
passage design and the design of the height of the dam. Controlling the water depth of Lake
Sabbatia has a direct impact on the water quality of the lake. Sustainability issues were also
addressed through the design of the fish passage; native populations must have access to
appropriate breeding habitats to maintain healthy breeding populations. This concept
addresses sustainability issues by seeking to provide native populations with the access to
breeding grounds, resulting in conditions that favor healthy populations.
Health and safety issues were relevant in the hydrologic and structural stability studies. This
ensured that in the case of extreme conditions, the structure could prevent massive flooding of
highly developed downtown areas. This also applies to the social requirements of the project.
Socially, it was very important to maintain the downtown area of Taunton, and make it a place
where the population could feel safe downstream of the dam. The structure was also designed
to maintain a reservoir elevation (Lake Sabbatia) that would allow the local community to enjoy
the lake recreationally.
This project also fit the capstone requirements though a cost estimating model. A cost
estimating model was produced to find a price for the final design based on selected materials,
size, and the amount of man-hours required to produce the design. This section addresses the
economic constraints by creating a base price for the design that can be either simplified to
decrease cost or embellished on if there are funds exceeding the budget for the design.
Ethical concerns for the project were addressed through construction methods that would
preserve the local ecosystem, and provide a dam that was both functional and welcomed by
the local community.
3
2 Background
A balanced and methodical design approach incorporates elements from many different areas.
This section highlights important areas of information for the design. The scope of this
information ranges from broadly applied design equations to site specific elements.
2.1 Ecology Restoration

Restoration ecology is the scientific study of renewing or remediating a degraded or destroyed
ecosystem through active human intervention. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER
2004) defines this topic as “an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of
an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, and sustainability. Ecological or ecology
restoration refers to the discipline of restoration ecology. In the ecological restoration field
practice there are many restoration projects included; some of these projects are:
reforestation, removal of non-native species of disturbed areas, reintroduction of native
species, and habitat and range improvement for targeted species. Natural ecosystems provide
human society with food, fuel, and timber, but their services also involve environment safety
and conservation activities such as air and water purification, climate regulation, regeneration
of soil fertility, and conservation of existing viable habitat and restoration of degraded or
affected habitats.
Restoration of degraded habitats is different from the conservation of an existing viable habitat.
The conservation of an existing viable habitat refers to the effort made to keeps the habitat in
the actual or similar condition without any disturbance; it also deals with the prevention of
species extinction on the existing ecosystem. On the contrary, restoration of degraded habitats
implies a jump start to a natural recuperative process of the ecosystem. This reparation process
starts with a target that is usually the state that needs to be strived on the site. The Morey’s
Bridge Dam project is one that seeks to restore this recuperative process of the area by
repairing the current dam such that it incorporates a fishway which will allow the native species
to restore their habitat naturally.
2.2 Hydrology
Hydrological analysis on a given site investigates the manner in which the natural water cycle
process can effect construction of structures such as dams. Hydrologic analysis incorporates
concerns such as possible storm events, rainfall accumulation, and the manner of upstream
flow contributions. Figure 2 shows how the water cycle proceeds in a systematic fashion.
4
Figure 2. Basic Water Cycle. (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2007)
2.3 Soil Characteristics

The soil characteristics of the site were found in the soil survey of the northern side of
Bristol County, Massachusetts(1978), provided by the United States Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station.
For our project, sheets 12 and 13 of the maps section of this soil survey were used to identify
the type of soil presented in the site. According to this information Table 8-Building Site
Development, Table 10-Construction Materials, Table 11-Water Management, Table 12-
Recreational Development, Table 13-Wildlife Habitat Potentials, Table 14- Engineering
Properties and Classification, and Table 15-Physical and Chemical Properties of Soils were used.
Highlights from these tables are shown in the following abbreviated tables.
5
Figure 3. Types of Soil Presented in the site
Table 1. Portion of Table 8 of Bristol County Soil Survey, northern part
Soil Name Shallow Dwellings Dwellings Small Local Roads and Lawns and
without Commercial Streets Landscaping
and Excavations Basements with Buildings
Map Symbol Basements
Hinckley-HfC Severe: small Moderate: Moderate: Severe: Moderate: Moderate:

stones, cutbanks
cave slope slope slope slope slope
Medisaprists-MC Severe: small Moderate: Moderate: Severe: Moderate: Moderate:

stones, cutbanks
cave slope slope slope slope slope
Windsor-WnA Severe: Slight Slight slight Slight Severe: too

sandy,droughty
cutbanks cave
Windsor-WnB Severe: Slight Slight Moderate: slight Severe: too

sandy,droughty
cutbanks cave slope
6
Table 2. Portion of Table 10 of Bristol County Soil Survey, northern part.
Soil Name Road fill Sand Gravel Topsoil

and
Map Symbol
Hinckley- Good Good Good Poor: too sandy,

HfA, HfB, HfC Area reclaim
Medisaprists- MC Fair: large stones. Good Good Poor: large stones,

too sandy.
Windsor-WnA, WnB Good Good Poor: excess fines Poor: too sandy.
Soil Name and Pond reservoir Aquifer-fed Drainage Irrigation Terraces and Grassed
diversions waterways
Map Symbol areas excavated ponds
Hinckley- Slope, No water Not needed Slope, droughty, Slope, too sandy Slope,
fast intake droughty
HfA, HfB, HfC seepage
Windsor- Seepage, slope No water Not needed Slope, droughty, Piping, slope, too Droughty,
fast intake sandy. slope.
WnA, WnB
Soil name and map Camp areas Picnic areas Playgrounds Paths and Trails Golf faiways
symbol
Hinckley-HfC Moderate: slope Moderate: slope Moderate: slope Slight Moderate: slope
Windsor- Moderate: too sandy Moderate: too sandy Severe: too sandy Moderate: too sandy Severe: too sandy,
droughty
WnA, WnB
Soil Name and Grain Grasses Wild Hardwood Coniferous Wetland Shallow Openland Woodland Wetland
map symbol and and herbaceous trees plants water wildlife
seed Legumes plants plants areas wildlife wildlife
crops
Hinckley- Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Very Very Poor Poor Very
poor poor
HfC poor
Medisaprist- Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Very Very Poor Poor Very
poor poor
MC poor
Windsor- Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Very Very Poor Poor Very
poor poor
WnA, WnB poor
7
2.4 Dams
Dams are concrete or earth barriers built across a drainage course to impound water that
creates lakes called reservoirs. They provide flood control, fresh water storage, and
hydroelectric power between other benefits. Dams are grounded on abutments, right
abutment on the right side of the dam and left abutment on the left side, and are supported by
foundations, which may be pervious or impervious depending on the type of dam used.
2.4.1 Types of dams

Once the required height of the dam has been set by the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, the
dam type can be selected. As mentioned before a dam can be classified as a concrete dam or an
earth dam. A concrete dam consists of a cast in place massive concrete structure between the
two abutments. There are three principal types of concrete dams; they are: concrete gravity
dams, concrete arch dams, and concrete buttress dams. The gravity or mass concrete dams
require a site where there is hard rock at or near the surface, the depth of soft material above
the rock should not exceed 20 ft, and the rock should be able to support 8 to 10 tons per square
foot. Gravity dams are particularly well suited where the length of the crest of the dam is at
least five times its maximum height. This type of dams is used where a height of less than 40 ft
is required. These characteristics made the concrete gravity dam a feasible selection for
Morey’s Bridge Dam’s restoration project
2.5 Concrete Gravity Dams

Gravity dams are classified as solid, hollow, overflow or non-overflow. The selection of the type
of dam for a specific project depends on the conditions. Hydrostatic pressures from the
reservoir and tail water loads, nappe forces in case there is an overflow spillway, and uplift
pressures and loads from the soil, foundation or earthquake effects are all taken into
consideration when selecting the type of dam. A gravity dam’s stability is secured by designing
its shape and size such that it resists overturning, sliding and crushing at the toe. Gravity dams
are considered one of the most confident as far as they are situated in a suitable site and over a
carefully designed foundation. For this type of dam, an impervious foundation with high
bearing strength is recommended. The type of material used for the dam also depends on the
loads that have to be resisted by the structure; the material has to provide the strength needed
to resist the forces applied. There exist gravity dams constructed out of wood, earth, and
concrete. However, concrete gravity dams have proved to be more stable, and secure than the
rest. An example of a concrete gravity dam is shown in Figure 4.
8
Figure 4. Shasta Dam impounds the Sacramento River in northern California (Microsoft Encarta 2007)
Concrete gravity dams usually have a triangular shape; however the design of a concrete gravity
dam depends on the purpose of the structure and the configuration of the site where the
structure will be placed. The design of a concrete dam involves an extensive range of disciplines
and technical professionals such as geologists, environmental engineers, seismologists,
geotechnical engineers, hydraulic engineers, computer analysts, cost analysts, and mechanical
and electrical engineers. The overall design of the structure is made in a team composed by all
these professionals, whom interchange data and analysis with each other to get a final and
unique design that meets the requirements and purposes stated at the beginning of a project.
2.5.1 Forces and Stability Conditions of the Structure

Forces acting on a structure are usually classified as internal and external forces. Internal forces
such as stress exist within the member because molecular resistance of the material. External
forces act at the boundary of the member’s structure, such as hydrostatic forces, weight
supported by the structure, nappe forces, earthquake and wind forces or loads, and any other
force applied to the structure.
In any structural analysis of a member the first step after the calculation of the forces acting on
the structure would be the stability or equilibrium analysis of the structure. Through a stability
analysis, the structure is determined to be stable or unstable. In order for a structure to be
stable, the external forces applied to the members have to meet the six equilibrium conditions
listed below in Figure 5. A representation of the forces acting on a dam’s structure is shown
below in Figure 6.
 Fx  0
 Fy  0
 Fz  0
 Mx  0
 My  0
 Mz  0
Figure 5. Equilibrium conditions.
9
Although a structural design meeting these
conditions is considered to be in equilibrium, its
stability must be checked according to
engineering design codes and regulations. In this
design, the American Concrete Institute Code
(ACI), and the Army Corp of Engineers design
standards were used for the stability analysis of
the structure.
2.5.2 General Design considerations

for Dams Figure 6. Summary of loads acting on a basic gravity
dam.
In the design of a dam structure stability criteria
for a particular loading combination depend upon the foundation of the structure, site geology,
and the method of analysis used. This design is also based on a series of assumptions, which
have been used on previous similar structures under similar loading conditions. The basic
requirement for the stability analysis of the structure subjected to static loads is that force and
moment equilibrium be maintained without exceeding the limits of concrete and concrete/
foundation interference. This means that the allowable unit stresses for concrete and
foundation materials should not be exceeded.
Through the design of the dam considerations regarding internal stresses in concrete should be
taken. In the majority of the cases the stresses on the body of a gravity dam are relatively low,
but in cases where stress is a concern it is necessary to follow the codes, requirements and
considerations to be included in the design. For example, ACI 318 specifies that the ultimate
shear strength of concrete along a pre-existing crack in monolithically cast concrete is 1.4 times
the normal stress on the crack, and that shear failure of intact concrete is governed by the
tensile strength of concrete normal to the plane of maximum principal axis tension. Another
example is the Reinforcement Design Standards of the Army Corps of Engineers, USACE EM
1110-2-2104.
In this type of structure (concrete gravity dam), it is always expected that earthquakes will
induced stresses that will exceed the strength of the materials. For this reason, earthquake
analysis should be included in the static and dynamic analysis of the structure.
According to the Army Corp of Engineer, in the design of a concrete gravity dam the tensile
strength of rock- concrete interface should be assumed to be zero. Small gravity dams are
usually constructed on impervious soil foundations. Pervious foundations consists of sands,
gravels and alluvial deposits, which increases the under seepage effects and the any force
caused by the seepage. In hydro electric dams under seepage may result economic, but on
gravity dams under seepage affects the stability of the structure. This is the reason why is
recommended an impervious foundation for this relatively small hydraulic structures.
2.6 Spillway Design & Hydraulics

There are many types of spillway structures, most involving either a gate to control the
discharge and elevation of both the reservoir and tail water. On large reservoirs, the gate
10
structure is most common for the spillway, as the gate offers the most control on discharge
flow rates, and can be adjusted to handle high or low flow situations.
The overflow spillway, which is a spillway design typical to the Northeast, is essentially a large
weir that spans a river. The height of this weir dictates the upstream elevation of the reservoir.
This type of spillway not only fits well into the landscape of the site, it is also the most
inexpensive option, requiring no power or gate apparatus.
Open channel hydraulic analysis is based on analyzing characteristics of water flow such as
depth, velocity, and flow rate, and the relationships among these parameters through given
cross sections of the channel. Relationships are analyzed through equations such as Manning’s
Equation, Froude number, and energy balances. Through identifying relationships between the
depth, velocity, flow rate, and cross sectional area, flow profiles can be assigned to each cross
section to identify the nature of the flow through that cross section. This is the basis of
predicting whether a flow will be rapid and shallow (termed supercritical flow) or slow and
deep (termed subcritical flow). Incorporating barriers such as weirs and channel constrictions
and expansions have impacts on the flow through the changes in cross sectional areas.
2.6.1 Identifying Flow Profiles

Flow conditions can be identified through uniform flow, gradually varied flow, or rapidly varied
flow. Figure 7 shows different types of flow, and how they can be characterized. In an
application such as a spillway, flow
type C fits the profile. Flow type B
would characterize flow travelling
down the spillway structure and
through the tail water channel, and
flow type E would characterize a
hydraulic jump, which typically occurs
somewhere near the toe of spillway
structures.
Cross Sectional area, velocity, and
flow rate are all related through the
following equation.
𝑄 = 𝑉𝐴
The cross sectional dimensions of a
channel have a great impact on the
velocity and depth of the water
passing through it. Though flow rate
remains constant throughout a Figure 7. Flow Types. a) uniform flow; b) unsteady uniform flow; c)
channel, velocity and cross sectional steady, uniform flow; d) unsteady, varied flow; e) unsteady, varied.
(Ned H. C. Hwang 1996)
area of the water varies. As one
increases, the other will decrease.
11
Figure 7 is a rough guide to characterizing flow types. More accurate analysis of flow depths
and velocities will yield flow profiles, as shown in Figure 8. These profiles characterize how the
surface elevation of an open water channel fluctuates as the flow changes from one regime to
another. Changes between flow regimes are identified through the application of a series of
equations. Values of Manning’s Equation, Froude number, and critical depth are all found to
put the flow into a profile type.
Manning’s Equation and Normal Depth

1.49 2/3 1/2
𝑄= 𝑅 𝑆0
𝑛
Normal depth is the depth that would be
expected in a channel under uniform flow
conditions. This equation is used to relate
the flow rate (Q), cross sectional area, and
channel slope. The variable R is used to
express the ratio of the wetted perimeter
and cross sectional area of the water,
which takes the water depth and channel
base width parameters into consideration.
The normal depth found through this
equation is compared to the critical depth
to characterize whether the normal water
surface elevation is above or below the
critical water surface elevation. This is the
first step towards identifying whether the
flow is in a state of sub or supercritical
flow. Manning’s equation also takes head
losses into account through the n, the
Manning’s roughness coefficient. This
value is based on experimentally
determined head loss factors based on the
materials of the channel boundaries. For
example, a channel constructed of
concrete would have a different n value
than a channel of natural pebbles, grasses,
or silt. The n values also vary with the
condition of the channel material: good,
fair or poor. Materials in poor condition
have greater n values than those in good Figure 8. Flow Profiles. (Ned H. C. Hwang 1996)
condition.
12
Critical Depth
3 𝑞2
𝑦𝑐 =
𝑔
Critical depth is the water surface elevation that acts as the boundary between slow, deep
water and shallow, fast flow. This calculation is a function of the flow rate and the channel
base width, expressed through q, which is the unit flow rate, and of gravity which is expressed
as g.
Froude Number
𝑉
𝐹𝑟 =
𝑔𝑦
The Froude number is an expression of the momentum versus the force of gravity. A Froude
number less that unity (Fr<1) expressed subcritical flow, where the forces of gravity dominate
the flow regime. A Froude value greater than unity (Fr>1) expresses supercritical flow, where
the velocity and momentum of the water create a flow regime where the flow is shallow and
fast. A Froude value of 1 is an unstable, uniform flow condition. Froude values are the basis of
analysis for much of the spillway flow, where flow regimes are expected at certain cross
sections of the channel, and Froude values are used to find flow velocities and depths that can
satisfy regime requirements.
Energy Balance
𝑉2
2𝑔 2𝑔 + 𝑦1 − 𝑦2 + 𝑧1 − 𝑧2 + 𝐶𝑉12
𝑉2 =
1+𝐶
The energy balance is used to identify flows where the channel characteristics have a significant
influence on the flows through head loss. This equation is an adaptation of the conservation of
energy, where energy in the approaching flow is either carried through to the tail water in a
different form (perhaps through varied depths or velocities) or some of it is dissipated through
head loss due to friction.
Hydraulic Jump
1
𝑑2 = 𝑑1 1 + 8𝐹𝑟 2 − 1
2
The hydraulic jump is a rapid regime change from supercritical to subcritical flow, where much
energy is dissipated through turbulence in the transition. Frequently, hydraulic jumps occur
near the toe of a spillway, where the energy of the supercritical discharge coming down the
spillway is rapidly changed to subcritical flow. This is largely a factor of the change in slope,
from the steep slope of the spillway face to the gradual slope of the tail water channel. The
above equation was developed using a ratio of initial (y1) and subsequent (y2) depths. This
equation, however, does not prove that a hydraulic jump occurs. If tail water conditions inhibit
13
the natural transition, the subsequent depth and location of the hydraulic jump can be
inaccurate. The hydraulic jump subsequent depth must be compared to tail water conditions
determined through Manning’s equation or the energy equation to accurately predict the
location of the jump. Figure 9 shows the transition from initial to subsequent depth with
energy dissipation.
Figure 9. Hydraulic Jump. (Sturm 2001)
2.6.2 Fish Passage Design

Fish passage structures are designed to allow species to pass barriers such as dams or areas of
turbulent flow, of that they can migrate upstream to spawn. This is accomplished by providing
a channel where water velocities are low enough that the target species is able to swim
upstream. The water is slowed by a series of obstructions within the fishway channel. These
structures are installed at site such as dams because the velocities and slope at the spillway are
too high for native species to pass. As such, these structures are designed with dimensions and
flow characteristics unique to the target species to be passed.
A common setup of fishway channels is a channel with a gentle slope where the flow is slowed
by obstructions in the channel. These obstructions vary with the type of fishway. Different
obstruction patterns are best applied in certain flow scenarios. One technique is pool and weir,
which is similar to the lock system used to pass large ships and barges through channels such as
the Panama Canal. Another type is a slot fishway, where the obstructions create a maze
through the channel. A Denil fishway uses a baffle that obstructs the flow from the bottom and
sides of the channel. The Alaskan steeppass fishway is similar to the Denil fishway, but the
slope of the channel is greater, the baffles are configured differently along the base of the
channel, and it is the only fishway that is commonly pre-constructed and placed on site. Pool
and weir fishways and Denil fishways are the most common designs.
14
The Denil type fishway is
best for variable flow
patterns. Figure 15 shows
the cross section and
dimensions of the Denil
fishway. This type of fishway
is commonly designed and
built on site, so it can be
applied to the specific to the
needs of the target species.
(Quinn 2007) This type of
fishway is also the most
appropriate fishway for the
Morey’s Bridge Dam site.
This design is the most
effective because of the
Figure 10. Denil fishway section. (Quinn 2007) dimensions of the site
(approximately 25 feet
between the dam structure and a downstream bridge), and the water depths that can be
achieved from one pool to the next.
Pool and weir fishways are a common type of fishway, but would not be appropriate for the site
because of the spatial constraints, and the large capacity of the pool and weir fishways is
unnecessary for the seasonal flow rates characteristics of the Northeast. These types of
fishways are more appropriate for the West Coast, where seasonal fluctuation in flow rates is
high.
Target Species
The target species in the Mill River are alewife, a type of river herring, who spawn in lake
environments. (Bigelow and Schroeder 2002) These particular fish seek the spawning
environment of Lake Sabbatia. These river herring are a swimming species, meaning that they
cannot leap out of the water from pool to pool. This necessitates a design like the Denil
fishway, where a deep stream of water spilling over each baffle is characteristic. Adult alewife
have been observed swimming at speeds of 4.9 ft/s. (Haro, et al. 2004) This parameter requires
that the velocity of the water in the fish passage channel not exceed 5 ft/s.
2.7 Cost Estimating

In civil engineering projects, cost estimating is one of the most important issues. It plays an
important role in the decision making process between two or more project’s alternatives. At
the beginning of the project rough overall estimates of the project is made just for the purpose
of this comparison. However, more detailed estimates involving quantities and unit costs are
also needed for the completion of a feasible report. Estimates for dams and reservoirs should
also include construction costs of the dam or any auxiliary structure such as temporary coffer
dams, permitting costs, costs involved in clearing the reservoir areas, costs of relocation of
15
public highways or other properties, engineering design costs, and administrative costs for the
entire project.
2.8 Existing Conditions

The Morey’s Bridge Dam project site is being considered for rehabilitation. The poor condition
of the site was the main cause of habitat destruction of the zone. According to the city’s
conservation agent, it was important to keep the lake at a certain level to minimize flooding of
the surrounding community’s septic systems, but also remain high enough to maintain the
surrounding wells. The main purpose of Morey’s Bridge Dam currently is to control the
quantity of water flowing from Lake Sabbatia to Mill River. The spillway is in poor condition.
Figure 11 shows the existing condition of these supports. The previous spillway was a gate
across the area shown.
Figure 11. Current spillway condition showing gate house supports.
Contamination released when the spillway is fully open, and high seasonal variation in the Mill
River water depth has caused death to many of the species inhabiting the river near the dam
such as mussels, and algae. Figure 12 shows dead mussels found downstream of the current
dam structure.
Figure 12. Dead mussels on the river bed.
The orientation of the spillway (directly under the gate house) was one of the reasons why it
was necessary the introduction of a temporary coffer dam to the site. This approach retains the
water coming from the reservoir without affecting the gate house support, which were built
into the deteriorating spillway. Figure 13 shows the current coffer dam, designed by Pare
Corporation, and its proximity to the gatehouse. Figure 15 shows the limited area of the site
16
for rehabilitation construction. There is approximately 25 feet between the current cofferdam
and the gatehouse.
Figure 13. Temporary Coffer Dam.
However, the temporary structure had some negative consequences, specifically the dry out of
the Mill River. As a quick solution, some polyethylene pipes were added to increase the
amount of flow going over the coffer dam. These pipes are shown in Figure 14. Currently, these
pipes are not meeting the expectations either since they are (getting stuck) with debris from
the site contamination. Morey’s Bridge dam’s site has been classified as a high hazard zone.
Figure 14. From beneath the bridge and gate house. PVC Pipes and gate house supports.
17
Figure 15. Temporary coffer dam plan drawing. (Pare Corporation 2007)
18
2.9 Implications of Background Information
A wide variety of information was taken under consideration while designing the dam and
fishway structures. Environmental conditions at the site are of concern to define parameters
for the design in areas of structural stability. Soils information, meteorological information, site
geometry, and the characteristics of the target species for the fish passage had to be
researched to reach a design that catered to the specific needs of the site. As time was a
limiting factor in the analysis, it was important to use background information to eliminate
certain designs. For example, due to the limited are for construction on site, certain types of
dams and fishways were immediately eliminated. The overflow spillway concrete gravity dam
was a relatively compact design which could fit well into the existing boundaries of the site, and
allow space for a fishway. The Denil fishway was selected for reasons of seasonal flow variation
and a baffle design which was conducive to the swimming capabilities of the target species.
The following section explains the approach taken after certain designs were eliminated from
consideration. The Hydrologic study completed on the area using produced flow values that
were used to estimate the conditions that could be expected on site under Probable Maximum
Flow conditions. This was applied through the hydraulic and structural analysis to design a
structure that would keep the town of Taunton safe under the highest flow conditions expected
on site. The Hydraulic analysis was applied through the structural design to create a structure
that could withstand the forces of the flow passing through the Mill River at the site, while
keeping constructability issues in mind. Cost and constructability issues were also addressed
through a cost analysis and constructability plan, where the expected materials and time for
construction were used to come up with a final cost for the project, and a plan was made for
location of construction materials and activities was made.
19
3 Methodology
The approach to the problem started with the hydrologic characteristics of the area. This
entailed a detailed analysis of the soils characteristics, weather patterns, and topography of the
watershed surrounding the site. Next, a hydraulic analysis was needed to take the flow values
found through the hydrologic analysis and apply them to the geometry of the site. This
involved looking into the shape and characteristics of a spillway and fish passage that would fit
the needs of the geometry of the site, ensuring that major flooding could be avoided to protect
the surrounding community. Lastly, the structural analysis took the information found through
the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to find a design solution where the dam and fish passage
could be constructed out of a material that was appropriate for the site and followed design
guidelines of the ACI and USACE.
3.1 Hydrologic Analysis

When looking at the reconstruction or replacement of structure along a water body, the design
requires proper analysis of different fields of study that characterize the surrounding areas of
the proposed site. In doing so, certain pieces of information were needed to be determined in
an orderly fashion to progress to a final design. Once those aspects are taken into account, a
justifiable design can begin to be formulated. For the Morey's Bridge Dam, it was necessary to
take such steps. Figure 16 below follows the process in a condensed and organized fashion.
Hydrologic aspects of the upstream area are of great concern when performing site work along
a water body. Within this analysis various techniques were implemented to ensure that the
information used for the analysis had the closest characteristics to the Mill River and its
surrounding watershed as possible.
To present the hydrologic analysis of the site effectively, there were certain considerations
taken into account. These considerations influenced the character of the storm water flow rates
used for the design of the dam. Physical characteristics of the Mill River Watershed basin were
of great importance. These physical features both upstream and downstream greatly
influenced the manner of certain design flow rates and velocities of the water. Another
consideration was the meteorology and precipitation associated with the southeastern
Massachusetts and the watershed itself. Again, this data allowed us to understand the
influences of the design flow rates. In order to obtain results of these flow rates, the
information gathered was then utilized in certain computer programs dealing with storm water
analysis. This section provides information gathered regarding these vital considerations.
20
HMR-51 Report Data Data Points along
(Locations East of 105th Watershed Mill River Watershed
Meridian) Boundary Boundary
(AutoCAD 2007) Coordinates
Mill River
Watershed Input
HMR-52 Data (43.5 mi2)
Loss Changes through Sub basin

Exceedance Probability (1%) Rainfall Characteristics watershed Attributes
Amounts for
[Denotes 100 year storm] Probable
Maximum
Storm (PMS)
Basin Model
Time Interval
Start/End Date
HEC-HMS
Meteorological Model Control Specification
Output:
Peak Flow Discharges at Morey’s Bridge Dam (PMF)
100-Yr Frequency Hydrographs
Figure 16. Hydrologic Methodology Flowchart

3.1.1 Mill River Watershed Hydrology
The main computer program used for the hydrologic analysis was HEC-HMS v. 3.1.0. The
program, created by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, allowed the user to produce
results that "simulate precipitation-runoff processes of dendritic watershed systems." (United
States Army Corps of Engineers 2006) These results included hydrographs for different types of
storm events and flow rate patterns throughout the storm. By incorporating hydrological
characteristics associated with the Morey's Bridge Dam site into the HEC-HMS program, design
flow rates could be determined in an effective manner.
21
The first flow that was needed was the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) flow rate. Establishing
this flow rate allowed structural features of the proposed dam to be designed. The main
structural feature that incorporated this maximum flow rate is the outlet works of the dam.
Ensuring that a proper PMF is calculated enables the design of the dam to be designed safely
and effectively.
A high population exists in close proximity to the Mill River downstream of the Morey’s Bridge
Dam. Furthermore, historical occurrences surrounding the Mill River and the series of dams
along it have shown the problems that the site could pose. Due to the situation, this is the
Inflow Design Flood that was used for this site. Using the PMF as the Inflow Design Flood will
also imply that average annual storm flows will be properly controlled.
The second type of flow that was needed to be determined was a maximum flow for a hydraulic
analysis. This maximum flow used for this type of analysis would ensure that the structure
would be able to withstand a high flow situation in terms of passing the water flow from Lake
Sabbatia to the Mill River. This would include protection of the structure, its surroundings, and
public safety in proximity to the site area. For analysis, this flow rate will be applied to
equation’s that look at discharge volumes, spillway design, and water levels at certain points
through the system.
Ensuring the structure to be structurally and hydraulically sound is extremely important when
redesigning, reconstructing, or analyzing a structure that establishes societal protection against
naturally occurring situations. As stated, the manner in which these maximum flows were
determined account for safety as much as functionality.
Basin Characteristics
3.1.2 Physical Characteristics

To begin our analysis, physical characteristics were needed from the Mill River Watershed
Basin. Once acquired, they were used to advance the process of determining the runoff and the
precipitation characteristics. The information included the watershed outline, soil type
associated with the watershed, and its land use characteristics. These watershed attributes
were key factors in determining these characteristics of the watershed, which in turn could
allow a PMF to be associated with the Morey’s Bridge Dam site.
The outline of the watershed was the first piece of information that was determined. The total
drainage area was known, however, the area relative to the profile of the drainage area was
needed. This outline was needed to understand the precipitation values for the Mill River
Watershed.
To understand the shape of the watershed, the first step was to acquire a map of the sub-
basins within the Taunton Watershed. Multiple smaller watersheds, such as the Mill River
Watershed, are located within this larger watershed. Figure 17 illustrates the location of both
the Taunton Watershed Basin and the Mill River Watershed within it.
22
Figure 17. Location of Mill River Watershed.
Once the profile was found, the outline of the

watershed needed arbitrary (X, Y) coordinates
that were relative to the Mill River Watershed.
These were needed so that a set of data points
could be input into the Hydrometerological
Report No. 52 (HMR52), which will be
discussed more in depth in the meteorological
section. This set of coordinates allowed for the
program to represent the watershed. In order
to obtain these coordinates, AutoCAD 2007
was utilized to determine these coordinates
along the watershed boundary.
The view of the watershed was transposed
onto enough Mass GIS orthographic
quadrangles so that they encompassed the
entire Mill River Watershed. Upon transposing
the outline to the quadrangles, the outline
was traced onto the quadrangle images
relative the delineation of the towns that the
Mill River Watershed fell within. These
Figure 18. AutoCAD 2007 Representation of Mill River
Watershed Outline.
quadrangles were acquired from the Mass GIS
website. (Massachusetts Geographical
23
Information System 2007) When the outline was completed, the area of the watershed was
determined in the AutoCAD 2007 program to verify that the drainage area matched up with the
drainage area that the United States Geographical System (USGS) had calculated (Appendix A).
Once the watershed was delineated, the coordinates were applied to the delineation. An
arbitrary origin was created at the base of the set of Mass GIS quadrangles. Points were placed
along the outline. Figure 18 shows the delineation of the watershed boundary and the points
associated with it. The coordinates associated with the watershed (Appendix A) were now
established for input into the HMR52 computer program.
Loss Method
Once the outline of the watershed was determined, the next step was to obtain information
that allowed us to represent the flow losses associated with the watershed. There is a certain
method of determining the amount of water that will be retained by the land and will not
contribute to the overall flow regime. The method that was chosen to find these losses was the
SCS (Soil Conservation Service) Curve Number method.
Other theoretical methods include the Initial and Constant Loss method, Soil Moisture
Accounting, and the Green and Ampt method. The SCS Curve Number method is a widely
accepted method when looking at a single storm event such as this analysis. This method is also
able to represent a wide variety of situations, especially surrounding large areas of interest,
such as basic watershed analyses. (Purdue University Research Foundation 2004)
There were certain reasons that the other methods were not utilized in determining the runoff
characteristics of the watershed. For instance, when applying the Green and Ampt method,
there is an important assumption made in that for a given watershed, the soil is primarily dry.
This method was not used due to the upstream conditions of Lake Sabbatia and the fact that
the site location was within New England, a geographical area with varied weather conditions.
(Alan A. Smith Inc. 2007) Another popular runoff method that was deemed unfeasible was the
Initial and Constant method. For this method, the continual loss associated with the system
only ended up occurring when the system was already saturated. This would require a more
specific piece of information on the watershed than was available. This piece of information
was the constant rate at which the rainfall is lost throughout the watershed after the soil is
totally saturated. This was unavailable due to fact that extremely accurate soil data was
needed. It is for these reasons that the SCS Curve Number method was used for the runoff loss.
(Texas University Research Foundation 2001)
When applying this method to the HEC-HMS program, there are three key pieces of information
are needed for input in order for the program to run effectively. They include the determined
Curve Number (CN), Initial Abstraction, and the Percentage of Impervious Area. For this
theoretical method, it can be assumed that the initial loss coefficient is 0.1 for developed land
and 0.2 for undeveloped land. (A. Osman Akan 2003) For the Mill River Watershed, a value of
0.15 was used. The reason by which this value was used is that the ratio of developed land to
undeveloped land was relatively equal throughout the watershed.
The first piece of information, the CN value of the entire watershed, was needed. Due to the
many different types of soil and different land uses, a certain technique to obtain a weighted
24
value of the entire area was used. This value is calculated by incorporating the soil type and
land use throughout the entire watershed.
In order to represent the entire watershed effectively, a weighted CN value needed to be
determined. The first step was to determine a CN value for each land usage. The land uses were
applied as close as possible to the given land uses in Figure 19. The soil type associated with a
land use was coupled with the land use to obtain a CN value for a certain land use within the
watershed. The weighted CN value for the entire watershed could now be determined by
applying an equation that would proportionally integrate each land use’s CN value:
𝐶𝑁1 𝐴1 + 𝐶𝑁2 𝐴2 +. . . 𝐶𝑁𝑛 𝐴𝑛
𝐶𝑁𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 ℎ𝑒𝑑 =
𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡
Where:
CNwatershed = CN value for entire watershed
CN1,CN2 ,CNn = CN values for various land uses
A1,A2 ,An = Total areas for respective land uses
Atot = Total area of incorporated land uses
In order to obtain the information on
the soil and land use of the Mill River
Watershed, Mass GIS data layers were
needed. For a reference point, layers
such as sub basin areas and town
boundaries were downloaded and
uploaded onto ArcGIS v. 9.2. (Figure 18)
Once the watershed was located, land
use and soil type data layers were
transposed over the watershed and
were clipped to determine the land use
and soil types within the Mill River
Watershed. Appendix A illustrates the
land use within the watershed and
Appendix A illustrates the soil types
throughout the watershed.
These data layers were all found within
the Mass GIS website. (Massachusetts
Geographical Information System 2007)
Due to the complexity of the process for
analyzing data within the ArcGIS
program, the attributes associated with
these new layers were exported into
Figure 19. CN Values. (National Resource Conservation Service 2004) Microsoft Excel 2007 where the data
could then be examined in a workable
25
fashion. Percentages of land usage within the watershed were determined by calculating the
amount of land area taken up by each respective land use.
The next step in the process for finding the CN value was to take the data acquired from the GIS
process and transfer it to data that can be compared to similar land uses and soil types to
determine CN values (Figure 19). The land uses that were found from the GIS data layers were
matched as best as possible with similar land uses from Figure 19. To determine what soil type
each land use was, the soils data layers were cut and joined to fit within the watershed
boundary. (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 2004) . Figure 20 below shows a pie chart that
related the different land uses within the Mill River Watershed as well as the actual area for
each land use in acres.
Area (Acres) Land Use
505.18 Cropland Land Usage Within Mill River

430.23 Pasture Watershed
20504.76 Forest
Cropland
685.49 Wetland
1% 1% 1%0% 1% Pasture
0% 2% 2% 1%
67.05 Mining Forest
10% Wetland
551.10 Open Land
Mining
Participation
51.56 Recreation 7% Open Land
Water Based
Participation Recreation
0%
4.82 Recreation Water Based Recreation
1%
215.01 Residential 0% Residential
137.72 Residential
0% Residential
2% Residential
2306.06 Residential 0%
2% Residential
3105.17 Residential
66%
Commercial
84.63 Commercial Industrial
370.19 Industrial Urban Open

Transportation
406.28 Urban Open
402.53 Transportation
Figure 20. Division of Land Use.
5.83 Waste Disposal
Due to the nature of the watershed, some of the land uses were
765.27 Water
simplified and condensed to ensure that the CN values could be
represented effectively over the watershed. All residential uses were
271.35 Woody Perennial
combined into one total area and allocated as 1/3 acre lots. This was due
to the fact that data on the size of residential lots throughout the
26
watershed could not be specifically determined. Therefore, the lot size was set at an average lot
size. Another way the data was altered to determine CN values was to combine woody
perennial and forest uses. Incorporating these two into the forest land allowed for the woody
perennial land to be represented, rather than totally omitting it.
It was determined that the soil type to be used for the hydrologic analysis within the Mill River
Watershed was all Type C soil. By using ArcGIS, there was a substantial area within the
watershed where the actual soil types were in fact determined. However, the nature of this
incomplete data lied in concentrated areas. Due to this, accurate data reflective of the
watershed could not be obtained.
Due to this, the soil characteristics were considered on a much broader scale. In terms of the
watershed overall, Lake Sabbatia lies within a sizeable section of the watershed. There are also
various locations of wetland areas that lie along the forested areas. Also, the slope of the
watershed is relatively small, at approximately 1%. From the basic layout of the Mill River
watershed, it was deduced that the water table has the opportunity of being quite high. The
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) is not solely based on the makeup of the soil, but also on other
factors such as water table elevation and saturation rates. In understanding this idea,
regardless of what exactly the soil consists of, it was applied to distinguishing between soil
types. (National Resource Conservation Service 2004) The soil type that best represented the
watershed as a whole was type C soil, with a CN value of 73.99. Table 6 below illustrates the
difference in weighted CN values from type B soil and Type C soil. As you can see, the difference
in CN value is substantial due to the range of values available. It should also be noted that the
“CN Value (B)/(C)” represents the portion of the total CN value that accounts for each individual
land use.
27
Table 6. Weighted CN Value Determination
% AREA CN SOIL TYPE CN Value(B) CN Soil Type CN Value(C )
Cropland 2% 72 B 1.44 79 C 1.58
Pasture 1% 61 B 0.61 74 C 0.74
Forest 66% 60 B 39.6 73 C 48.18
Wetland 2% 58 B 1.16 85 C 1.7
Mining 0% - B - - C -
Open Land 2% 69 B 1.38 79 C 1.58
Participation
0% - B - - C -
Recreation
Water Based
0% - B - - C -
Recreation
Residential 18% 72 B 12.96 81 C 14.58
Commercial 0% - B - - C -
Industrial 1% 88 B 0.88 91 C 0.91
Urban Open 1% 69 B 0.69 79 C 0.79
Transportation 1% 98 B 0.98 98 C 0.98
Waste Disposal 0% - B - - C -
Water 2% - B - - C -
Woody Perennial 1% 60 B 0.6 73 C 0.73
62.16 73.99
97%
Weighted CN value for

Weighted CN value for Type C Soil
Type B Soil
Once the weighted CN value of the watershed was determined, the next piece of information
needed was the initial abstraction, or the loss associated prior to runoff beginning. For our case,
this outlet was the Morey’s Bridge Dam site. Once this was determined, the information
needed for the “loss” tab within HEC-HMS would be complete. The initial abstraction was
calculated by applying the weighted CN value of the watershed. The next equation yields the
total potential abstraction of the watershed:
28
By taking 20% of the value (S), (Alan A. Smith Inc. 2007) the initial abstraction was determined
to be 0.703.
The last piece of information that was to establish the percent that was impervious throughout
the entire watershed. This was needed for input into HEC-HMS. Again, ArcGIS was used to
determine this number. Appendix A illustrates the impervious area within the Mill River
Watershed. The percent impervious was estimated to be 10%.
The aspects of loss associated with the watershed that were needed for the HEC-HMS program
were now available. These three pieces of information were then entered into the loss tab
associated with the basin characteristics of the watershed.
Transform Method
The next calculation was in determining the response time for the flow within the watershed to
reach a given site, which in our case is the Morey’s Bridge Dam site. This response time is
known as the standard lag time. The standard lag time is needed to represent the flow intensity
at given times in the single storm event. This lag time was determined using the SCS Lag Time
Equation, expresses in the equation below.
Where:
Tlag = Standard Lag time (hrs).
L = Hydraulic length of watershed (ft).
S = Maximum retention in the watershed in inches as defined by:
Y = Watershed slope (%).

CN = SCS curve number for the watershed (determined in the Loss Method section).
To determine the hydraulic length of the watershed, the ruler tool on ArcGIS was used. This
allowed us to find a length of approximately 77,257 feet. Once this was determined, the only
other unknown variable was Y. This value is the calculation of the watershed’s overall slope. It
was determined by taking the elevation change over a known length that appropriately
exemplified the watershed. These values were then calculated to determine the slope. A slope
of 0.07% was calculated. A factor of safety was included, which increased the slope variable to
become 1%. This was done to ensure that the overall slope of the watershed was within the
calculated percentage, as well as allowing for steep areas within the watershed to be accounted
for.
29
By applying information obtained in the previous paragraph, Tlag was determined to be 12.29
hours. This value was entered into the HEC-HMS software.
Base Flow Considerations

The Mill River Watershed model, which will be run in HEC-HMS, will not incorporate a base flow
condition. There are two main reasons for this. The first reason is for simplicity to simplify the
HEC-HMS program. The second reason is in the nature of the watershed. Upstream of the
Morey’s Bridge Dam site, the water characteristics are more static in the sense that the flow
entering Lake Sabbatia is minimal. (Shaw 1994)
3.1.3 Meteorological Characteristics

At this point, the physical characteristics of the Mill River Watershed had been analyzed
effectively. Once the watershed’s physical characteristics were investigating, the
meteorological traits then needed to be determined. It should be noted that the physical
components of the watershed are not dependent on the meteorological data needed for the
hydrologic analysis.
Precipitation Characteristics
Table 7. Probable Maximum Precipitation values for Southeastern MA.
There are a few different methods

by which the HEC-HMS program
PMP From HMR51
accounts for the precipitation
AREA DURATION characteristics of a storm event.
These methods include the
6- standards project storm method,
(SQ. MI.) HR 12-HR 24-HR 48-HR 72-HR the SCS hypothetical storm
method, the user-specified
10 25 29 32 36 38 hyetograph method, and the
frequency storm method. The
200 17 20.5 23.5 27 28.2 frequency storm method was
chosen due to the fact that the
1000 12 15.5 19.5 23 23.5 design flow called for a 100-year
PMF, and the frequency storm
5000 7.5 11 14 17.5 18.5
method includes an exceedance
10000 5.8 9.1 12 15 16.1 probability which the group could
utilize. (United States Army Corps
20000 4.2 7.2 9.9 13.1 14.1 of Engineers 1994) Also, the
weighted CN value was needed as
part of the input. These pieces of information from the frequency storm method better
exemplifies the characteristics of the Mill River Watershed.
Along with the watershed coordinates, data from the Hydrometeorological Report No. 51 was
needed to produce an input that determined the maximum precipitation amounts for a single
storm event. The data from this report consisted of isopluvial maps that estimate the probable
30
maximum precipitation (PMP) in inches that would fall within a certain area over a certain time
period. The precipitation amounts were estimated from the graphs in Appendix E. The values
that were determined to be suitable for southeastern Massachusetts are listed in the Table
below.
The next step was to enter certain pieces of information into the HMR52 program such that
rainfall amounts from the probable maximum storm could be determined. The two key pieces
of information that were input into the program were the data from the HMR51 and the
coordinates of the watershed that were determined.
Another piece of information that was needed for the program to successfully run was what the
storm area would be. In this case, because we were designing for “worst case scenario,” the
total drainage area of the watershed (44.3 mi2) was used. Appendix A shows the data that was
entered for the program to successfully run.
In order to use the program efficiently, The United States Army Corps of Engineers created a
basic tutorial that explains the basic steps to run the program successfully. Appendix F presents
the tutorial in depth.
The output data consisted of the precipitation amounts over a three day period for every six
hours. This data can be seen in the later section of Appendix A. The data generated from this
program was then inserted into the precipitation characteristics HEC-HMS. Because a three day
storm with six hour intervals could not be entered into the precipitation table in HEC-HMS, the
data up until a two day storm was used. This limitation was determined to not be an issue due
to the fact that the dramatic increase in rainfall occurred prior to 24:00 on the second day of
the storm. Therefore, total rainfall accumulation on the last day (day three) was no more than
two inches, with the accumulation occurring at a steady rate. This enabled the values up
through day two to be sufficient.
Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS)

The analysis was performed using the HEC-HMS v. 3.1.0, which had been discussed in previous
sections. Figure 21 illustrates the interface layout of the program.
Figure 21. HEC-HMS Layout
31
The pieces of information determined for the program to run both successfully and sufficiently
were entered. Proper data of the basin characteristics and the nature of the basins
meteorology were determined for such input. Figure 22 and Figure 23 below list the input data
for the basin characteristics in tab format, as it appears within the program.
Figure 22. Basin Characteristic Tabs.
Once this critical data was input into the HEC-HMS program,
the program model was run using all the characteristics
previously entered. The program required a control
specification for the model to run successfully. The HMR52
output data gave precipitation amounts over a 3 day period
with 6 hour intervals. These parameters were used to control
the Mill River watershed basin model, which were inserted
into HEC-HMS under the control specification tab. The tab,
along with what
was inserted can
be seen in
Figure 24.
Figure 23. Meteorological Characteristics Tab.
Figure 24. Control Specification
32
3.1.4 Fish Passage Hydrology
The hydrologic approach for the fish passage was based on recommendations from Dick Quinn,
Hydraulic Engineer for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Quinn, Intro to Fishway Hydrology &
Hydraulics -FERC Fish Passage Training Course 2007). The hydrologic design of the fish way
differs from the design of the spillway significantly in that the flows of concern were only the
flows within the migration period of the target species, alewife. The main migration month is
April, but many individual fish may pass earlier or later for unknown reasons, so the migration
period to be applied here was determined to be the months of April and May. This period was
extended by 10 days into March and June, to allow for individual fish that may pass early or
late. Data were found through the USGS website, under Massachusetts Surface Water Data
(United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 2007).
It was necessary to determine maximum, minimum and average (day-to-day) flows to find a
hydraulic operating range for the ladder. It was important to use as many years of stream
gauging data as possible to correcting flow patterns from year to year. The Wading River,
located in Norton, Massachusetts, is a nearby river of similar size to the Mill River in both
drainage basin area and streamflow statistics. Wading River flow data was used because data
from the Mill River only went back only 6 years and the Wading River had 17 years of recorded
daily flow data. These maximum and minimum flows of operations were determined through
statistical analysis of the last 17 years of gauge data within the migration period. Considering
the 3 day window of passage, it is important that under extreme high or low flow conditions
that may occur within 15-20 years are taken into account. These extreme conditions may
persist for an excess of 3 days. These flows may represent an unusually wet year (rain and
snow) or an unusually dry year. If fish are not able to pass under these conditions, it could
result in a dramatic reduction in the population counts for the following years.
The operating flows were established based on the Wading River data from 1990-2007. The
primary flow calculations were based on the month of April only. Then, these numbers were
compared to the entire period of interest, March 10 through June 20 of each year 1990-2007.
Establishing the average flow conditions, which is a flow rate that would be expected on an
average day in a season of typical temperatures and precipitation, involved calculating the
mean of the mean daily flows for March 20- June 10, and the highest median for April.
Establishing the maximum flows, which is a flow rate that would be expected during a rainy or
snowy year, involved calculating the annual mean flow and multiplying it by 3. This was a
recommendation of Mr. Quinn to get a basic maximum flow rate that was compared later on in
the analysis to actual daily flow data.
The minimum design flows were determined by finding the 99% flow (99th percentile) for the
latest month on record (May 2006). Similar to the maximum flow procedure, the minimum
flow procedure started with establishing a low flow and then comparing it to collected daily
data. (Quinn 2007)
Since the fishway must be passable for individual fish within three days of entering the passage,
the daily data were checked for periods where the minimum or maximum design flows were
exceeded for 3 or more days. This involved a process of elimination, where the first minimum
33
or maximum flow was compared to the daily data, and flows that exceeded the flow were
crossed out. A period of more than 3 days was counted as an impassable flow period, and the
number of these periods was counted. If the number of impassable events in the last 17 year
exceeded 3, the boundary value has to be changed to reflect these flows. (Quinn 2007) In this
way, the maximum and minimum flows were established, until flow values were reached such
that they were not exceeded more than 3 times. Tables showing USGS data and analysis of this
data can be found in Appendix A.
3.2 Hydraulic Analysis

The analysis for the nature of the flows travelling over the spillway were calculated using a
series of hydraulic equations found from the USACE hydraulic design manual, Hwang’s
Fundamentals of Engineering Hydraulics, and Sturm’s Open Channel Hydraulics. Flow data used
to estimate high, low, and average design flows stems from the Hydrologic Analysis. The
approach for estimating these flows involved statistical analysis of gage station data.
Estimation of the probable maximum flood incorporated the USACE HMR51 and HMR52
programs. Figure 25 shows the steps that were taken to analyze the section hydraulically, after
the design flows were determined through the Wading River historical data and hydrologic
analysis. First, hydrologic data was collected from the Wading River and compared to current
hydrologic data from the Mill River. Next, Google Earth was used to obtain measurements of
the Mill River’s length and width characteristics through the tail water channel and the site
location.
The flow data from the hydrologic analysis and the dimension data from Google Earth were
used to start the analysis. This data was analyzed through a series of hydraulic equations.
These equations are explained in Table 8. These equations (Manning’s Equation, Froude
Number, and critical depth) were applied and compared to identify the flow profile of the
channel. These equations were applied to all sections of the channel between the spillway and
the next dam downstream.
The spillway dimensions were found next to analyze the nature of the flow down the spillway.
This was based primarily on the reservoir level that had to be maintained, and the flow volume
that was expected during high, low, and average flow conditions. The Spillway Equation was
applied here, as well as Manning’s Equation, Froude number, and critical depth.
34
Using Wading River historical flow data for
estimating Qlow, Qavg, and Qhigh, and USACE
method for checking Qhigh.
Use Google Earth to find length and average

width of tail water channel.
Determine the Froude number, normal and

critical depths, and flow profile of the tail
water under Qlow, Qavg, and Qhigh.
Apply the energy balance

Find head and spillway height equation using tail water
dimensions. Set spillway length and velocity and depths. Apply
slope. this equation to
subsequent hydraulic jump
depths and velocities ( at
different channel widths).
Using Manning’s equation, calculate Plot these equations and
water velocity and depth at toe. interpret graphs.
Apply force- momentum balance

equation spillway toe velocities and Compare to conditions
depths to find subsequent hydraulic for hydraulic jump from
depths. momentum equation.
Figure 25. Hydraulic Analysis Flowchart.
35
To locate expected changes in the flow profile between the toe of the spillway and the bridge
channel, a momentum balances was applied and the results were used to generate a graph for
the possible flow conditions as the flow entered the bridge channel (constriction). This plot was
compared to another plot of the flow conditions as the flow exited the bridge channel
(expansion). This plot was generated using tail water flow values. These plots were compared
to predict flow conditions through the bridge channel.
The first step in the hydraulic analysis was to segment the channel of water between Morey’s
Bridge dam and the next dam on the river into sections for analysis. This was necessary to
apply the correct hydraulic equations to each section to predict the flow profiles at each
section. Next hydraulic design equations
were applied.
3.2.1 Spillway Hydraulics

The tail water channel dimensions were
measured using Google Earth. The length
and the width were used to model
channel dimensions. The channel,
though somewhat winding, was modeled
as a straight channel for simplification
purposes. Next, Manning’s equation was
applied, Froude numbers were found,
and critical depths were identified in the
tail water channel. Equations used to
calculate water depths, velocities, etc.
are explained in Table 7.
Dimensions closer to the site were Figure 26. Hydraulic cross sections, plan view.
estimated based on plan drawings for the
temporary cofferdam that was built on the site. The dimensions shown on the plans included
some elevations of the bridge and current cofferdam structure, the widths of the channel on
the head and tail water sided of the bridge, and the distance between the coffer dam and the
bridge.
Next, the spillway velocities and depths were found. The spillway calculations were based on
the shape of the spillway structure. This particular spillway was modeled as a sharp crested
weir, or an ogee spillway. This means that the nappe of the tail water travelling over the crest
of the spillway has a similar shape to free discharge over a sharp crested weir. This is illustrated
by Figure 27. A calculation to estimate the flows over this type of spillway was found in
Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engineering. (Hwang 1989)
36
After velocities and depths were
established at the toe of the spillway and
in the tail water section, the hydraulic
jump section, and constriction/ expansion
sections were analyzed. First, it was
assumed that the hydraulic jump occurred
near the toe of the spillway, or between
the spillway and the bridge. The initial and
subsequent depths of the jump were
found through application of a force-
momentum balance applied to the water
depths and velocities calculated at the toe
of the spillway. Next, the subsequent
depths were used in an energy balance to
determine possible flow conditions in the
channel passing under the bridge. This
channel occurs after the constriction. The
possible depths and velocities here were
plotted and compared to the possible
depths and velocities of the tail water
Figure 27. Sharp crested Weir (a) and Ogee Spillway (b). (Hwang,
Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engineering Systems 1989) section, also plotted using the energy
balance. Comparing these two plots
established where the hydraulic jump can be expected to occur, and what depths and velocities
can be expected in the channel passing under the bridge.
37
Table 8. Hydraulic Equations used in Analysis
EQUATION: PURPOSE: APPLIED TO: SOURCE:
Manning’s equation Relates normal depth, flow Spillway (Hwang 1989)

rate, cross sectional area,
1.49 2/3 1/2 Tail water
𝑄= 𝑅 𝑆0 and channel slope.
𝑛
Critical depth Finds the depth where All analyzed sections. (Hwang 1989)
transition from sub to
3 𝑞2 supercritical flow occurs.
𝑦𝑐 =
𝑔
Froude number Ratio between forces of All analyzed sections. (Hwang 1989)
velocity and gravity.
𝑉
𝐹𝑟 = Determines whether flow
𝑔𝑦 is sub or supercritical.
Force/ Momentum Balance Given initial depths, finds Spillway toe, entering (Hwang 1989)
subsequent depths constricted flow energy
through hydraulic jumps. balance.
1
𝑑2 = 𝑑1 1 + 8𝐹𝑟 2 − 1
2
Spillway Equation Relates spillway height, Spillway crest. (Hwang 1989)

shape, head, frictional
𝑄 = 𝐶𝑑 𝐿𝐻𝑎 losses, and velocities to
𝐻 find head at spillway crest.
𝐶𝑑 = 3.22 + 0.40
𝑃
Energy Equation Sum of energy in potential Constriction/ expansion (Foronda 2004)

and kinetic form. Also section.
𝑉2 takes head loss into
2𝑔 + 𝑦1 − 𝑦2 + 𝑧1 − 𝑧2 + 𝐶𝑉12
2𝑔 consideration. Used to
𝑉2 =
1+𝐶 plot & compared bridge
channel conditions.
Fishway Discharge Rating Equation Relates flow rate, passage Fish passage channel. (Odeh 2003)
slope, baffle opening, and
𝑄= 𝐶𝑑 ℎ1.75
𝑢 𝑏
0.75 2
𝑔𝑠0 head losses due to baffles
throughout fishway
channel to establish depth
at first baffle.
3.2.2 Fish Passage Hydraulics

Hydraulic analysis in the fish passage section was similar to the hydraulic analysis of the
spillway. However, the passage was analyzed at the target design flows, which were different
38
than those specified for the spillway. This was because the fishway was designed for optimal
operation under migration period flows. The process for calculating design flow rates and
depths for the fishway was based on the design that the fishway channel would essentially be
incorporated into the spillway, but separated by a wall.
Important areas of concern for the fish passage were the entrance conditions, water velocity
and depths through the passage channel, and exit conditions.
Under the flows that could be expected during the
migration period the velocities in the passage channel
were checked to make sure that the conditions were
passable for the target species. To check the depth of
water traveling through the passage, dimensions and
flow rates were calculated using the flow discharge
equation developed by Mufeed Odeh in the Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering (Odeh 2003). Incorporating the
fish passage into the spillway by setting it in and
separating the fish passage channel from the spillway
Figure 28. Example Fishway. (Maryland channel by a tall wall, Odeh’s flow rate calculation was
Department of Natural Resources 2007) used to find the depths of water passing through the
channel. As flow rates and water depths at the crest of
the spillway can fluctuate, a graphical approach was used to approximate the water depths at
different flow rates. This approach was based on comparing velocities and depths possible for
a given flow rate to Froude numbers that were expected at the exit channel. Appendix C
shows these plots of depths versus velocities for different flow rates, compared to Froude
numbers of 0.9 and 0.1. Since it was assumed that flows at the crest of the spillway
(immediately before the flow starts to accelerate down the spillway) is in a subcritical state,
depth and velocities near the intersection of the 0.9 Froude number plot were used in the
analysis. Since the baffles are incorporated into the fishway channel to decrease the velocity of
the flow, the depths through the fishway can be expected to increase as the flow approaches
the entrance channel. This equation is shown in Table 8.
The entrance jets were of concern because the velocity of the water exiting the fish passage
had to be greater than the velocity of the water discharge over the spillway. A target value for
this jet was set at greater than 5 fps. This high velocity jet is what attracts fish to pass through
the fish way channel, instead of continuing towards the dam. The flow conditions throughout
the passage were important because the target species (alewife) is a swimming species, not a
jumping species. Therefore, the depth of the water passing over each of the baffles had to be
deep enough for the fish to swim. The exit channel is upstream of the spillway structure. These
conditions had to be analyzed to find the flow conditions in the fish way channel.
Figure 28 is an example of what the Morey’s Bridge Dam Fishway may look like. The entrance
channel is labeled in the figure. This is the area where the flow velocity must be high enough to
attract alewife towards the passage channel.
39
The flow velocity travelling across the first baffle (near the exit channel) will be the highest
velocity through the entire passage. This velocity was checked and compared to velocities that
alewife were capable of swimming through. If this velocity was too high for alewife to pass,
none would be able to pass through the fishway. The target velocities for the passage were
between 3-5 feet per second (Maine Department of Transportation 2004).
3.3 Structural Analysis

The structural design of the concrete gravity dam and the incorporation of the fish ladder were
based on the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that were performed in previous sections. With
the determination of design flows and flow characteristics the height of the dam was stated
and then the structural analysis was performed. As stated in the background section, once the
required height of the dam was set, the dam type could be selected.
Figure 29. Structural Analysis Flowchart A.
Since gravity concrete dams require a site where there is hard rock at or near the surface, the
depth of soft material above the rock should not exceed 20 ft, the rock should be able to
support 8 to 10 tons per square foot, and they are well suited where the length of the crest of
the dam is at least five times its maximum height, this type of dams is was a good choice for
Morey’s Bridge Dam’s restoration project. A concrete gravity dam was chosen over a roller
compacted concrete dam or an embankment dam mainly because of the characteristics of the
spillway, the future incorporation of a fish passage to the site, and the space needed for
construction process. The spillway used in this project was an overflow spillway, which
produces nappe forces that act against the structure, affecting its stability. The weight of the
water flowing over the crest of the dam and the nappe forces are not resisted by embankment
dams as well as by concrete gravity dams. The functions and strengths of roller compacted
concrete gravity dams are similar to those of concrete gravity dams. However, concrete gravity
dams can be precast or cast in place while roller compacted concrete dams can be only
constructed in the site. This option offers a benefit through the cost of construction. Roller
compacted concrete dam’s construction might be faster than the concrete gravity dam’s
40
construction, but it is usually used in big sites since the amount of equipment and
transportation used for the construction of roller compacted concrete dam would not fit
comfortably in a small site like the one under consideration. Although precast materials often
can be less expensive, cast in place is usually used when the structures are relatively small. One
of the main advantages of precast materials, such as beams is that it accelerates the
construction process of a project. If the project involves a multistory building this would be a
good consideration, but since the concrete dam designed in this project was a very small
structure that requires a relatively short construction period, the cost difference between cast
in place and precast process is not relevant. These reasons made the gravity concrete dam the
most feasible solution for the design.
Figure 30. Structural Analysis Flowchart B.
The structural design for the structure of the dam was made assuming that there was not a fish
ladder included. According to the hydraulic analysis results for the spillway design, the
downstream face of the dam needed to be sloped at 0.85 %, which is still under the maximum
base/ height ratio limit of 1.0, stated by the Army Corp of Engineers. Taking into consideration
the site elevations provided by the Coffer dam plan drawings shown in Figure 15 on page 18,
the height of the structure had to be at least 3.5 ft to maintain an adequate depth for well
recharge, while minimizing the chance of flooding septic systems surrounding the lake. The
length of the dam for the design is considered to be 100 ft; this value is taken from the site plan
and taking the existing temporary coffer dam as a second reference. All these dimensions are
41
involved in the geometry of the dam. The other important consideration in the design was the
properties of the material, in this case concrete. For this design, it was assumed normal weight
concrete with a density of 150 lb/cfs and strength of 3500 psi would be used to construct the
dam.
The overall design of the dam was based on the purpose of the structure, site characteristics,
and a detailed hydrologic analysis. The purpose of Morey’s Bridge Dam is to control the water
flow from the reservoir to the river. However, it also acts as a barrier in case of a flood in the
area. The site and soil characteristics (abbreviated form can be found in the background
section) were the source of an overall view of the site and its surrounding areas. Through the
data collection phase, the site plan of the existing conditions at the site was obtained, which
included a topographic survey made by PARE Corporation. The following figure is a
reproduction of this plan at a smaller scale (a bigger scale plan is included in the background
section of the report).
Figure 31. Coffer Dam plan view. (Pare Corporation 2007)
This plan provided the spot elevations of the site. Some of the elevations used for the design
were the pool elevation, the top of the temporary coffer dam elevation, and the existing
elevation of the gravel section located between the temporary structure and the gatehouse.
According to Dick Quinn the actual pool elevation, which is 58.9 feet, is 3.4 feet below the
normal pool elevation. However, the actual pool elevation was considered for the design. The
top of the coffer dam elevation was approximately 61.6 feet, while the elevation of the gravel
section was about 60 feet. The difference between the current pool and the gravel section was
about 1 foot and the height of the coffer dam was about 3 feet. These values served as a guide
42
for the height of the structure. This structure was designed with a height of 3.5 feet, which also
agreed with the required height from the hydraulic analysis.
For the structural design of a dam, the main issue is stability. A detailed stability analysis was
completed in order to ensure that the dam was stable and safe. For the structural analysis of
the dam, the structure stability, reinforcement, and cracking on the base of the dam were
checked to assure that the structure was stable and met the requirements of the American
Concrete Institute Code (ACI) and Army Corp of Engineers design standards.
For the stability analysis of the dam it was necessary to calculate all the loads acting on the
structure, and their different combinations for the design. On this concrete gravity dam with an
overflow spillway, the loads acting were: Dead Load, which is considered the weight of the
structure, the hydro static pressure and forces, which are the loads that the reservoir and tail
water exerts on the structure, Uplift force, Nappe Force, which is a function of velocity and flow
rate of the water coming from the reservoir downstream, and Earthquake Loads, which are
base on the ground acceleration on the base of the dam. For the dead load of the structure, the
cross sectional area was and multiplied by the concrete density. For the Hydrostatic Loads, the
pressure distribution about both faces of the dam was converted. This results in the
corresponding hydrostatic forces. To find the hydrostatic pressure, the Equation 2 was used. In
the reservoir case, this force was acting only in the x-axis direction, while downstream the
hydrostatic force acting normal to the dam’s face was decomposed into x and y components.
For the calculation of the uplift force acting on the base of the dam, the procedure subjected by
the Army Corp of Engineers, article EM 1110-2-2100 Dec 05 was followed.
A representation of all the forces acting on the structure under normal conditions is shown in
Figure 32 and Table 9 includes all the equations used to calculate these loads.
Figure 32. Forces acting on dam.
43
Table 9. Summary of Structural Equations.
Load Description Equation
Equation 1
Dead Load
BH
DL  *150lb / cf
2
Equation 2
Hydro Static Load
HsLoad  w * H
Uplift Load U1  w * H1
U 2  w * H 2
Equation 3
L2
U 3  (1  e)(U1  U 4) * U 4
L1  L2
Equation 4
Nappe Load
F  QV
Equation 5
Earthquake
ae H
E c * B *
g 2
After all these forces were calculated, the stability analysis of the structure could be started.
For the stability analysis, the gravity Analysis Method using basic loadings was used, for which
the minimum sliding safety factor (SF) was considered to be 2.0. The Army Corps of Engineers
uses a sliding safety factor of 1.6 but ACI code suggests a value of 2.0 or greater. For the
purposes of this project, it was decided to be more conservative and use a safety factor of 2.0
or greater.
Gravity Method Analysis using Basic Loadings
The gravity method analysis using basic loadings was based on all the loadings calculated
before. The sum of all moments divided by the sum of all vertical forces would yield the
resultant location of the force at the base of the dam. In Table 4-1 of EM 1110-2-2200 from
Army Corps of Engineers there are stability and stress criteria for the analysis. In this case, there
was an unusual loading condition, where the resultant location at the base is “middle ½”, which
means that the resultant must remain within the middle half of the base for overturning
stability. The sliding factor of safety related to failure is the ratio between the shear strength
and the applied shear stress along the failure planes of the specimen; this is the same as the
following equation from EM1110-2-2200 from Army Corp of Engineers.
44
Equation 6. Sliding Factor related to failure
N tan   cL
FS 
T
The Equation 7 was used for stability factor of safety was:
Equation 7. Sliding factor equation based on vertical and horizontal loads
Fy * tan(   )
FS 
Fx
Where α = 0, and   45
And the thirdly, Equation 8 was used to check the sliding safety factor:
Equation 8. Sliding factor equation based on hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
CA  (W  UI tan 
FS 
W
 Hs  Hd  ( )a
g
If the sliding factor of safety is 2.0 or greater, the dam is stable; if not, other considerations
such as changing the dimensions of the dam have to be taken.
Figure 29 and Figure 30 illustrate the approach involved in applying the hydrologic and
hydraulic considerations to the structural analysis and design.
Unfactored Loading
According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the stability analysis of hydraulic structures must be
performed using unfactored loads in accordance with EM 2101 Stability Analysis of Hydraulic
Structures. With these unfactored loads, the unfactored moments and shears could be found at
the most critical sections of the structure. These unfactored loads are then multiplied by load
factors and hydraulic factors to determine the required nominal strength of the section. The
required minimum design strength shall resist the dead loads and live loads acting on the
structure. In this case they were the weight of the structure and the nappe forces respectively.
The hydraulic factor was used for the determination of the required design strength for all axial
load combinations and shears and moments combination. The difference between the
hydraulic factored ultimate shear force and the shear strength provided by the concrete would
give the excess shear, for which the shear reinforcement should be designed.
The design shear for reinforcement is Vs, which is given by the following equation:
Equation 9
Vuh  1.3Vc
Vs 

45
For the loading combinations we combined dead load and live load using the single load factor
of 1.7 for both, as shown below
Equation 10
Uh  Hf  1.7( DL  LL ) 
Here Hf is the hydraulic factor considered to be 1.3 and Uh is the factored load for the hydraulic
structure.
For hydraulic structure where earthquake loads are present, this equation becomes
Equation 11
U  Hf (0.75Ue)
The other loading combination equation is using more than one load factor, in this case we use
a load factor of 1.4 for dead load and a load factor of 1.7 for live load. The Hydraulic factor is
also included in this equation.
Equation 12
Uk  Hf (1.4DL  1.7 LL)

The fourth loading equation is considered for operational basis earthquake, and is:
Equation 13
Ue  0.75[ Hf (1.4( DL  LL)  1.5E)]
3.3.1 Reinforcement Design for the Structure

The design for reinforcement was based on ACI 318 code for building structures, and ACI 350
code for environmental engineering structures. However, the specifications of ACI 350 include
the ACI 318 reinforcement specifications. This is the reason why there is reference to both
sections of the ACI manuals.
ASTM Grade 60 Reinforcement for the structure was assumed, which has yield strength of 60
ksi. Considering temperature changes and shrinkage, the minimum reinforcement for walls 48 “
thick or less is 0.00015Ag, but not less than ½ or more than 2/3 of the total quantity of
reinforcement should be placed in any one face.
For cracking, the required area of steel is f’t *A/fs. When considering reinforcement for cracking
the minimum bar size and spacing is #6 at 12” on center. To design reinforcement for maximum
tension, the recommendations by Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-2104, Aug 2003 were
followed. These are: “for singly reinforced flexural members and for members subject to
combined flexure and compressive axial load when the axial load strength is ΦPn is less than
the smaller of 0.1* f’c*Ag or ΦPb”. The ratio of tension reinforcement should meet the
following requirements:
Recommended Limit = 0.25 ρb
Maximum permitted upper limit not requiring special study or investigation = 0.375 ρb
46
Maximum permitted upper limit when excessive deflections are not predicted when using the
method specified in ACI 318 is 0.50 ρb
For the reinforcement design, we used ultimate moment at the structure and Equation 14.
Figure 33 represents the shear
distribution throughout the beam.
This shear diagram for the beam is
using unfactored load combinations,
and it shows the maximum shear at the
two ends of the span and at midspan,
which is very low.
The ultimate moment is found by the
following equation:
Figure 33. Shear diagram. Equation 14
Wu * l * l
Mu 
8
With this value, the total area of steel needed for the structure could be found using Equation
15. However, the reinforcement of a concrete gravity dam is divided into horizontal and vertical
reinforcement and its design is considering the structure as a wall. The minimum vertical and
horizontal reinforcement ratios can be written in terms of the maximum spacing between the
reinforcement bars. According to ACI code sections 14.3.2 and 14.3.3 the maximum horizontal
and vertical reinforcement spacing is s(h)  Av /(0.0012t ) for horizontal reinforcement and
s(v)  Ah /(0.0020t ) for vertical reinforcement.
The required minimum areas are 0.0012 Ag and 0.0020 Ag for vertical and horizontal
reinforcement respectively. The reinforcement bars can be chosen from Table 10.
Equation 15
Mu
As 
 * fy * jd , where   0.9, fy  60ksi, jd  2.8
This area of steel is used to find the size and number of the steel bars to be used in the
structure. For this step, Table 9 was used.
47
Table 10. Areas, Weights, and Dimensions of Reinforcing Bars
Bar size designation No Grades Weight (lb/ft) Diameter(in) Cross-sectional Area (in²)
3 40,60 0.376 0.375 0.11
8 60,75 2.67 1.000 0.79
9 60,75 3.40 1.128 1.00
10 60,75 4.30 1.270 1.27
11 60,75 5.31 1.410 1.56
Cracking Considerations
Crack length and width was also checked for the stability analysis, part of these calculations
were done in the gravity method analysis. It was important to know that when the crack size is
0.2* Height of the structure, the maximum moment can occurs and the structure could suffer
an overturning moment, which would also affect the stability of the structure.
3.3.2 Fish Ladder Analysis

The steps for the stability analysis of the fish ladder were the same as the one used for the
dam; the only difference were the loads acting on the fish ladder. In this analysis, the fish
ladder was considered to be a concrete channel with a length of 12 ft and a height (exterior
walls) of 5 ft. according to the hydraulic design, the height of the pool had to be 2 ft. One end of
the structure will be located at the top of the dam and it will expand 12 ft at a slope of 6 to 1.
However, this structure was analyzed individually from the dam.
The fish ladder structure was designed

independently from the dam’s
structure. The fish ladder was not found
on the base of the channel, it spans
from the dam, much like a ramp. This
would influence the cost of the
structure since there is less concrete
used for the walls without affecting the
safety of the structure. An example of a
similar structure is shown in Figure 35.
The concrete channel has wooden slats,
Figure 34. Denil Fishway Dimension and Horizontal Baffle (Spacing
for Various Fishway Widths). (ASCE 2003) which are supported by steel plates
connected to the walls of the channel.
These wood slats were not designed in this project. However, the force transferred from them
48
to the plates and then to the concrete walls should be considered in further analysis of the
structure. The connections should be also considered in this design.
For the reinforcement design, we separated the channel in three sections, the two exterior
walls and the bottom of the channel, and then found the area of steel needed for each section.
The figure below shows the basic characteristics of our channel. The process is the same used
for the dam.
Figure 36. Basic Denil fishway design elements. (Odeh, Discharge Figure 35. Example Fishway. (Maryland
Rating Equation and Hydraulic Characteristics of Standard Denil Department of Natural Resources 2007)
Fishways 2003)
3.4 Cost Analysis

The cost analysis for this project involved general requirements costs, site construction costs,
concrete costs and reinforcement costs. The general requirements costs included the overhead
and profit, which according to the RS Means 2007 manual for heavy construction is 25 percent
of the total quantity costs. Scheduling cost is about 1 percent of these costs while cost control
represents 0.08 percent of this total; these values are also from the RS Means 2007 manual for
heavy construction. All the costs used in our cost estimate were obtained from this manual.
However, the final cost of each element included in our cost estimate depended on the number
of units, such as days, hours, weeks, linear foot, and cubic yards, for each of them. The number
of units was estimated according to the type and size of construction. Some elements such as
temporary fencing and signs number of units were estimated according to the size of the site.
The structural elements such as concrete and steel’s costs were based on the final structure’s
design and requirements. The cost of each element included in the analysis was found by
multiplying the cost per unit of the specific element by the number of units of the same
element.
After all the numbers of units or quantities were established, an excel spreadsheet including all
these elements, their costs per unit and the number of units, was created. This spreadsheet
facilitated the calculation of the total cost of the project including the general requirement
costs of the project.
49
The cost analysis included two structures, the dam and the fish ladder. The analysis was used to
show the price difference of constructing only one of the elements at a time.
3.5 Summary of Methods

The methodology presented the approach of the project. It was important that the hydrologic
analysis be completed first because the hydraulic and structural components of the project
depended on the high flow values estimated under the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
calculations.
The Hydrologic approach to estimate the PMF was based on the methods of the USACE and the
HMR-51 and HMR-52 reports. The approach for the fish passage hydrology was primarily based
on the presentations of Dick Quinn, however the hydraulic approach for the channel
incorporated these presentations with studies focused on the swimming abilities of adult
alewife. The hydrologic estimates for the required flowrates in the fishway channel were based
on statistical analysis of seasonal and annual flow data collected through the USGS gauging
stations. The spillway hydraulic approach was focused on the application of a series of related
hydraulic equations. These equations were found in hydraulic textbooks and applied to low
and high flows estimated through the USGS gage station data. The PMF flow was analyzed with
the hydraulic equations to find water velocity, and depth information critical for structural
analysis and design. The structural method was based on design codes, ACI codes design codes
for environmental engineering and structures (ACI 350) and the USACE design standards for
gravity dams. This analysis incorporated the results of the hydraulic analysis and the spatial
limits of the site. A cost estimate was completed to compare the costs of building both the fish
passage and dam at the same time, or building one before the other. The next chapter
presents the calculations and results of the project.
50
4 Results & Analysis
Following the approach presented in the Methodology chapter, the preliminary results of the
analysis are presented in this chapter. An overflow spillway was designed for the site based on
a combination of background information collected on the site and analysis through the
methodology of the design approach. Locating the dam was the first and most important step
in the design. It was critical that the dam be in a location that had the potential to allow room
for both the fishway channel and for the PMF flows that were calculated through the hydrologic
analysis. The PMF flow data used to calculate safety factors for the dam was the priority design
information. Flows estimated for the fishway analysis were important to the design, but
secondary to the overall design where public safety was the most important aspect.
The results presented in this chapter include hydrologic analysis, hydraulic analysis, and
structural analysis. A plan view and elevations are presented in section 4.5 and shown in Figure
54. The resulting dam was sited at the maximum distance from the gatehouse that was
allowed by the existing coffer dam, approximately 25 feet from the bridge. Although this
location may constrict to construction activities, it offered the best area for overflow volumes
over the spillway, and adequate room to site the fishway channel on the east side of the dam.
The fishway channel was designed to be set 1.5 feet into the dam, allowing adequate depths of
water to travel over the first baffle in the spillway, even under low flow conditions. The
fishway, in turn, was also designed to withstand the forces of flood waters in the event of the
PMF.
Since the fishway and dam were considered to the two separate structures that were
incorporated through this design, cost estimates were completed comparing the construction
costs of installing both structures simultaneously, or completing one and then completing the
second at a later time. It was found to be most cost effective to construct both structures at
the same time. According to estimates, this would save approximately $ 86,500.
4.1 Hydrologic Analysis

HEC-HMS Output Data
Once the model was run, provided there were no issues with incorrect parameters, a “Global
Summary Table” was produced. This table listed the peak discharge (cfs) for the given
conditions. The Global Summary Table also lists the time at which this peak discharge took
place throughout the simulated storm. Figure 37 captures this information.
This information, primarily the peak flow that results from this analysis, can now be utilized in
the hydraulic and structural analysis and design. As shown below, the final peak flow
determined by the HEC-HMS software was calculated to be 6,211 cfs.
51
Figure 37. Global Summary Table.
By running the HEC-HMS model, a unit hydrograph was produced that represents the flow
patterns associated throughout the Probable Maximum Storm. (PMS) The figure below
illustrates the maximum flow associated with the Probable Maximum Storm.
Figure 38. Mill River Watershed Runoff Hydrograph at Morey's Bridge Dam for PMS
The hydrograph shows that the peak discharge for the PMS over the Mill River Watershed
occurs at approximately 06:00 on day 3 of the storm. Initially, the peak flow is increasing at a
steady rate due to the fact that less and less rainfall is retained by the watershed. Upon
reaching its first peak at 18:00 on Day 1, it can be seen that there is a slight decrease as the
storm enters day 2. One possible reason for this is that the storm intensity decreased slightly. If
the intensity had stayed the same or decreased, the peak flow would have continued to stay
the same for a longer period of time, and decreased as the storm was ending. However, due to
the dramatic increase in rainfall on Day 2, the flow again began to increase. Once the intensity
had subsided, the peak flow at the Morey’s Bridge Dam site began to decrease as there was less
and less rainfall for the watershed to retain.
52
This flow is a reasonable value in terms of designing for a Probable Maximum Flow (PMF).
Historical data of the nearby Wading River, which has similar characteristics, does not have a
daily maximum flow above 2,000. However, compared to other historical floods along other
gauged stations, this value is relatively low. Figure 39 below illustrates the historical maximum
flow conditions along certain rivers in the northeastern United States. By plotting these flow
values with respect to the drainage area, a maximum flow over a certain drainage area can be
estimated. The maximum flow of 6,211 cfs with the given drainage area that determined for
the Mill River Watershed by HEC-HMS is relatively low. It was concluded that this value is
represented effectively given the historical data and the conditions represented throughout the
Mill River Watershed. (United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 2007)
Figure 39. Drainage Area vs. Maximum Historical Flows
53
The subsequent maximum flow that needed to be determined was the maximum flow in order
for the hydraulic design of the dam to function properly. Through historical maps, a flow of
2000 cfs was initially used when analyzing the dam hydraulically. Using historical rainfall data
from a technical paper produced by the United
States Weather Bureau, frequency rainfall
amounts of the Taunton Watershed were input
into HEC-HMS to determine what the peak flow at
the Morey’s Bridge Dam site would be given this
rainfall data. This data was entered rather than
taking the data obtained from the HMR52
software. When the model was executed, both the
basin characteristics and control specifications
remained the same. Figure 40 shows the rainfall
data entered into HEC-HMS.
The model was run in HEC-HMS and a summary
table and hydrograph was produced with the peak
flow being 2051 cfs. Figure 41 shows the summary
table of from the HEC-HMS model. Figure 42
illustrates the hydrograph produced from the
running the model. This flow of 2051 cfs is
reasonable when looking at historical data from
the Wading River gauge station. Analyzing the site
Figure 40. Rainfall data from USWB TP 40 for Taunton in terms of this maximum flowrate will ensure that
Watershed. the dam will safely and effectively pass flows
under normal high flow rates.
Figure 41. Maximum Flow Associated with Hydraulic Analysis
54
Figure 42. Hydrograph Associated with Hydraulic Maximum Flow
From the graph, it can be seen that the peak flow occurs around the same time as the Probable
Maximum Storm flow rates. Although the peak flow is considerably lower than the flow for the
PMS, the rate at which the flow increases is initially slower than that of the PMS flow. The
reason for this is that the intensity of the rainfall occurs at a much steadier rate than during the
PMS.
The rainfall values that were produced from the HMR-52 software were relatively high. The
average amount of total precipitation for Massachuestts is 43.84 inches per year. (The World
Almanac 1988) The total precipitation produced is almost half of this value. This high value is
possibly correlates to the values entered from the HMR-51 isopluvial maps. This value may be
high due to the fact that the majority of the HMR-51 rainfall values represent too large of areas
seen in Table 7. On the other hand, the calculated peak flow of the PMS is a reasonable value.
So although these initial precipitation values seem extremely high, it may still be a fair
representation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation during a high intensity storm such as
the PMS.
It should also be noted that in both hydrographs, the flow decreases at a much slower rate than
it was when it was increasing. The reason for this is that the watershed is saturated. Therefore,
the rainfall has nowhere to go other than into the system and to the point of discharge. Over
time, the flow rate will decrease and eventually return to its normal condition once the
watershed is able to retain the rainfall as it was able to prior to the storm condition.
In addition, the starting date of January 1 and the ending date of January 3 are only reflective of
the time that elapsed during the storm. It is not indicative of the weather characteristics
surrounding this time.
55
The CN value of 74 used for the HEC-HMS model included all the land uses containing a Type C
soil. The model was run a second time, using the CN value determined from all land uses with
Type B soil. Keeping all other factors the same, the peak flow decreases from 6,221 cfs to 5,784
cfs. It can be deduced from the explanation in the methodology, that Type C and Type B soil
effects the peak flow enough to alter the peak flow by about 430 cfs for the Morey’s Bridge
Dam site. Further investigation could follow to determine a more exact value regarding a better
understanding of the soil type. For our design, the higher peak flow was used due to the
uncertainty of the actual soil type within each land use.
By having justifiable hydrogeological characteristics regarding the Morey’s Bridge Dam site, the
next steps can be addressed in terms of design criteria, planning, and so on. Additionally, the
information obtained through the hydrologic analysis allows for a better understanding of the
surrounding area of the site.
4.1.1 Fish passage Hydrology

Differing from the hydrologic approach to estimate the PMF for the safe design of the dam, the
fish passage hydrology was based primarily on flow data from the migration period of the
target species. Data were taken from daily, monthly, and annual flow averages of the last 17
years (between 1990- 2006) at the Wading River Stream gauging site near Norton, MA. This
data is accessible through the USGS.gov website, where many other stream gauge data can be
found and compared to the stream analyzed in this project. An abbreviated form of these flow
data can be found in Appendix B, where dates that are not of interest are crossed out in red.
Maximum, minimum and normal flow was determined to define an operating range of flows for
the ladder. These flows define the boundaries of the flows under which fish should be able to
pass the ladder. Considering the 3 day window of passage, it is important that under extreme
high or low flow conditions that may occur within ranging from 15 to 20 years are taken into
account. These extreme conditions may persist for an excess of 3 days. These flows may
represent an unusually snowy or rainy year, or at the other extreme may represent an
unusually dry year. If fish are not able to pass under these conditions, it could result in a
dramatic reduction in the population counts for the following years.
Preliminary maximum flows were determined by multiplying the annual average flow by 3. This
preliminary high flow value (Qmax) was compared to the daily flow records for the last 17 years,
and days where Qmax is exceeded were noted. These data are recorded in Appendix A. Periods
of more than one day were of specific interest, because a high frequency of the preliminary
Qmax meant that Qmax was too low. The goal was to have a final Qmax for design that would
allow fish to pass regardless of average storm events. After reviewing the recorded high flow
data, Qmax was set at 350 cfs. At this flow rate, the data collected from the past 17 years show
two periods of time longer than 3 days for which the flows exceed 350 cfs.
Likewise, preliminary minimum flows were determined by taking the minimum (99 th percentile)
flows for the last month of the latest migration period analyzed, or May 2006. This preliminary
minimum flow value (Qmin) was compared to the last 17 years of daily flow records, similar to
the analytical method of determining an accurate Qmax. Tables showing the process of
elimination to determine Qmin can also be found in Appendix A. Qmin was set at 15 cfs.
56
While maximum and minimum flows were found to define the operating boundaries of the
fishway, an average flow value (Qavg) was defined to find the average operating conditions for
the passage. These were the flows that are primarily designed for, under the assumption that
these flows are the closest to day-to-day flows that fish will have to be passed through. These
flows were also intended to model the most common migration time period, so calculations for
Qavg were based only on flow records for the month of April. Average operating flows were
determined by taking the average of April’s average daily means and highest median for the last
17 years of daily flows. By taking the mean of April daily medians for the years between 1990
and 2006, Qavg was determined to be 140 cfs.
Table 11. Summary of fishway design flows.
Qmin 15 cfs
Q avg 140 cfs
Qhigh 350 cfs
It is important to note that the fishway design flows differ from the approach and values of the
dam design flows and PMF. These flows were intended to find the design flowrate for only the
migration period of the target species and not for year round flows or unusually high flows
(such as the PMF).
4.2 Hydraulic Analysis

Hydraulic analysis involved applying the design
equations to find depths and velocities of the water at
different sections of the channel under different flow
scenarios. For the dam design, this consisted of a low
flow of 10 cfs, and average flow of 100 cfs, a high flow
of 2000 cfs, and a PMF flow of 8000 cfs. The equations
from Table 8 were applied through a spreadsheet in
Microsoft Excel. Detailed calculations through this
spreadsheet can be found in Appendix C.
The tail water section was analyzed first because the
heights and flow conditions of the tail water have an
effect on the conditions at the spillway. Key
information to find was the low, average, and high
flows for this section. These flows were estimated by
reviewing gauge station data along the Wading River.
USACE HMR-51 and HMR-52 were used to estimate
Probable Maximum Flows. The maximum flow data can
be found in Section 3.1 of this report.
Figure 43. Google Earth Image of tail water
channel.
57
4.2.1 Tailwater Analysis
The tail water channel cross section was measured using Google Earth. The length was
measured to be roughly 4000 feet, and the width averaged at 180 feet under high flows, were
used to model channel dimensions. The Google Earth images were not dated, therefore the
flow condition was estimated to be at high flow, based on observations of water elevations
made at the site under low flow conditions. The channel, though somewhat winding, was
modeled as a straight channel for simplification purposes.
Table 12 shows a summary of data for the tail water. The critical depth was calculated based
solely on the flow rate, channel width, and the force of gravity. Water velocity was also
determined by channel dimensions and flow rate.
Table 12. Tail water Channel Data.
Tail water Data
Low Flow Average Flow High Flow PMF Flow
Channel width (b) (ft)= 20 100 180 280
Channel length (ft)= 4000 4000 4000 4000
Flow rate (Q) (cfs)= 10 100 2000 8000
Unit flow rate (q)= 0.5 1 11.1 28.57
Critical depth (yc) (ft)= 0.198 0.314 1.565 2.937
Velocity (V) (ft/s)= 1.98 2.63 6.86 9.99
Next, Manning’s equation was applied and Froude numbers were calculated for the tail water
channel using Excel. Manning’s equation was applied to find the normal depth of the water.
The Froude number was found to determine whether the depth was sub or supercritical. The
comparison of Froude number, normal depth, and critical depth yield and estimate of the flow
profile, and whether it is slow deep flow (subcritical) or fast shallow flow (supercritical).
The slope of the channel was estimated based on readings from a topographic map and the
length measurement from Google Earth. The topographic map showed a maximum elevation
difference between Morey’s Bridge dam, and the Mill River Dam (both highlighted in Figure 43)
to be 3 meters, converted to 9.68 feet. Using this elevation difference and a channel length of
4000 feet, the average channel slope was calculated as 0.00246 ft/ft. This average slope was
used for all hydraulic calculations except for the spillway calculations. The roughness
coefficient was found from Manning’s Roughness Coefficient tables (Hwang 1996). The
roughness was based on a natural channel, with pebbles, sand, and some grass. The unit flow
rate is simply a value of flow rate per unit width of the channel. The channel was modeled as
rectangular. These findings for all three flow conditions are summarized in the following table.
58
Table 13. Manning's Equation Data for Tail water.
Manning’s Equation Data for Tail water
Unit flow rate (q)= 0.504 1.002 11.115 28.572
Roughness coefficient (n)= 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Normal depth (yn) (ft)= 0.254 0.381 1.621 2.859
Slope (S0)= 0.00246 0.00246 0.00246 0.00246
Flow rate (Q) (cfs)= 10 100 2000 8000
Froude Number (Fr)= 0.492 0.463 0.362 0.329
4.2.2 Spillway Analysis

Next, the spillway conditions were calculated. These calculations were based on the
dimensions of the spillway structure. Design information found in the Sturm text (Sturm 2001),
was used to model the spillway was modeled as a sharp crested weir. This translates into the
slope of this spillway following the nappe of the discharge, termed an ogee spillway. This
design information will be used in the Structural analysis. Using this spillway model, the
discharge conditions calculated at the crest of the spillway were applied to Manning’s Equation
to find the flow conditions at the toe of the spillway. Table 14 shows the head conditions
calculated with the spillway equation. Head values shown for low, average, and high flows
were calculated assuming a negligible approach velocity at the crest of the spillway.
Considering that during the probable maximum flood, it is unreasonable to consider the
approach velocity to be zero, it was set at a value between 15 fs and 20 fs to allow for
fluctuations in the velocity. This change in approach velocity increased the H a but the actual
height of water traveling over the dam is more likely to be closer to 3 feet, which is used in the
structural calculations.
Table 14. Spillway Equation Values.
Spillway Equation Data (sharp crested weir/ ogee spillway)
Head (Ha) (ft)= 0.1 0.45 3.166 7.97
Coefficient of Discharge (Cd)= 3.23 3.27 3.55 3.56
Length of crest (ft)= 100 100 100 100
59
Using the flow values from the spillway equation, Manning’s Equation was applied to find
normal depths and velocities under all three flows, and compared to the critical depths
calculated for this section. The steps for applying Manning’s Equation to find the normal depth,
and calculating the Froude number and critical depths is similar to the process described for the
tail water analysis. The slope for the spillway was set at 0.85. The value of 0.85 was initially set
during the hydraulic analysis, and checking the value against structural design guidelines
specifying that the ratio of dam height to base width must be between 0.75 and 0.95, the
spillway slope of 0.85 is a reasonable value. (For purposes of this analysis, the spillway slope
was simplified as straight, and not exactly following the curved nappe that can be expected
with a free discharge.) A spillway of this slope has a 3.5 foot elevation from the base to the
crest, and a base that is approximately 4 feet wide. Other specific spillway characteristics are
described in the Structural Analysis section. Table 15 shows calculated values for the toe of the
spillway under all three flow conditions.
Table 15. Manning's Equation Values at Spillway Toe.
Manning’s Equation Applied at Toe of Spillway
Unit flow rate (q)= 0.10 1.00 20.05 80.25
Roughness coefficient (n)= 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Normal depth (yn) (ft)= 0.015 0.06 0.364 0.839
Slope (S0)= 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Flow rate (Q) (cfs)= 10 100 2000 8000
Velocity (V) (ft/s)= 6.6 16.63 55.08 95.51
Froude Number (Fr)= 3.697 2.934 2.168 1.880
Critical Depth (yc) (ft)= 0.069 0.312 2.316 5.848
Calculation of Hydraulic Jump Location

As the width of the channel passing under the bridge presented a constriction on the channel, it
was necessary to calculate flow conditions underneath the bridge. The width of the spillway is
100 ft and the width of the channel passing underneath the bridge is 40 feet.
The depth of the water flowing beneath the bridge was calculated using plots showing the
depths and velocities calculated using the energy equation from downstream and upstream.
The constriction depths and velocities were graphed, using the subsequent hydraulic jump
depth, and the expansion depths and velocities were calculated and compared on the same
plot. These two curves would intersect at the conditions expected under the bridge, as long as
60
the subsequent hydraulic jump depths were correct. The intersection of curves in Figure 44 is
an example where the subsequent hydraulic depth yielded an accurate representation of the
flow profile of the channel. This plot indicates that the depth of the flow under the bridge can
be expected to be 0.275 ft. The constriction curves differ by the location of the hydraulic jump.
Intersection between curves in these plots indicates that the method used to model the
hydraulic jump was correct. Lack of intersection among these curves indicates that the
subsequent hydraulic depth is greater than calculated through the force/ momentum equation.
The location of the hydraulic jump is specified in Figure 44, Figure 45, and Figure 46 by the
width of the channel where they occur. For example, a hydraulic jump occurring at 70 ft occurs
where the channel is 70 feet wide, between the toe of the spillway and the bridge.
Using a force and momentum balance, the hydraulic jump subsequent depths and water
velocities were calculated, assuming that the jump occurred in a location between the spillway
toe and the bridge. The initial depth was assumed to be the depth at the toe of the spillway.
Since the Froude Number is part of the Hydraulic Jump Equation, the channel width has an
impact of subsequent depths. Curves were plotted for channel widths of 100 feet, 90 feet, 70
feet, 60 feet, and 50 feet, depending on the flow rate.
Table 16 shows subsequent depths for hydraulic jumps occurring at a point where the channel
width is 70 feet (approximately halfway between the spillway toe and the bridge channel).
These were the starting values for the hydraulic jump analysis.
Table 16. Hydraulic Jump Calculations
Hydraulic Jump Depths and Froude Numbers
Initial depth (d1) (ft)= 0.015 0.06 0.364 0.839
Subsequent depth (d2) (ft)= 0.071 0.221 0.949 1.850
Froude Number (Fr) 3.697 2.934 2.168 1.880
Using the subsequent depths and velocities, plots were made to compare these values to the
Froude values were applied to predict the flow conditions for the channel underneath the
bridge. These values were applied to the constricted side of the channel, utilizing a constriction
coefficient of 0.5 for head loss. On the tail water side, the energy equation was applied utilizing
the expansion head loss coefficient on 1.0. These values differ from the head loss coefficient
values found in the USACE hydraulic guidelines of Cc=0.1 and Ce=0.2 because it was suspected
that the flow could be more accurately modeled by increasing these values. However, setting
Ce=1.0 is still twice the head loss that is experienced through the constriction (Cc=0.5). These
two balances were plotted on the same chart (per flow rate) and compared.
61
Expansion & Constriction Comparison, 10 cfs
4
3.5
3
Velocity (ft/s)
2.5
expansion
2
constriction, HJ @ b=70
1.5
constriction, HJ @ b=60 ft
1
constriction, HJ @ b= 50 ft
0.5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Depth (ft)
Figure 44. Expansion and Constriction Comparison, low flows.
As shown by the intersection of the expansion and constriction curves in Figure 44, it was most
likely that the hydraulic jump occurred where the channel is 50-60 feet wide, before the bridge.
This was interpreted through the intersection of the expansion curve with the constriction
curves calculated with the subsequent hydraulic jump depths at locations where the channel is
50 feet wide and 60 feet wide, at a depth of approximately 0.275. Under low flow conditions,
the conditions in the channel passing underneath the bridge can be expected to be under 0.3
feet deep, with velocities under 3 ft/s.
Using the same procedure, Figure 45 and Figure 46 can be interpreted in a similar manner to
deduce the location of the hydraulic jump. Figure 45 and Figure 46 show the comparison of
depths and velocities under high and average flow conditions.
The fact that these curves do not intersect as they did under low flow conditions suggests that
it is likely that a hydraulic jump does not occur with a subsequent depth as modeled with the
force momentum equation, and the spillway discharges into a channel with the water backed
up in it.
Under these conditions, there is still a high energy dissipation at the toe of the of the spillway
before the flow reaches the bridge, however it cannot be modeled with the force/ momentum
balance applied because the energy dissipation does not occur through a hydraulic jump where
force and momentum energies balance. This energy dissipation can be modeled more
accurately by free discharge, where much energy is lost where the discharge stream meets the
pool of water below it, and there is a more gradual transition to the tailwater conditions.
62
Expansion and Constriction Comparison, 100 cfs
8
6
Velocity (ft/s)
5
expansion
4
3
2 constriction, HJ @ b=90 ft
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Depth (ft)
Figure 45. Expansion and Constriction Comparison, average flows.
Expansion & Constriction Comparision, 2000 cfs

35
30
25
Velocity (ft/s)
20
expansion
15
10 constriction, HJ @ b=100 ft
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Depth (ft)
Figure 46. Expansion and Constriction Comparison, high flows.
63
4.2.3 Fish Passage Hydraulics
Critical flows to analyze in fishway design are the head at the entrance and exit of the fishway
channel. These values are important to compare to the depths and velocities that the target
species is capable of swimming.
The first value to be established was the head at the exit channel. Values shown in Table 17
were selected from Figure 67 (located in Appendix C), approximately halfway between the plots
for Froude number 0.9 and Froude number 0.1. These Froude values were selected as a basis
for estimating flow conditions under a subcritical flow. As these conditions can vary
significantly, these values for depth and velocity were selected as a starting point for analysis.
The resulting depths from this analysis would be used to design how far the fishway would be
set into the dam.
These depths would occur in the fishway channel if the floor of the channel were set flush with
the crest of the spillway. By setting the channel deeper into the spillway, greater depths can be
achieved in the exit channel. This significantly impacts design because alewife are primarily a
swimming species, not a jumping species, and the depths flowing through the fishway channel
must compliment the alewifes’ swimming capabilities.
Letting the width of the fishway channel equal 4 feet sets the flow travelling through this
channel at approximately 4 percent of the total flow travelling over the spillway. Thus, at flow
rates of concern, namely 15 cfs, 140 cfs, and 350 cfs, the flows expected in the fishway channel
are 0.45 cfs, 4.2 cfs, and 10.45 cfs, respectively. Reading these values from Figure 48, expected
depths (hu) at the fishway exit are 0.3 feet, 1.85 feet, and 2.25 feet, respectively. These depths
are summarized in Table 17.
Table 17. Velocities and Depths at Crest.
Likely Depths at Crest of Spillway and Fishway Entrance
Flow Velocity Depth at Hu values from flow Depth with set Velocity at first
(ft3/s) (ft/s) crest (ft) rate equation (ft) in of 1.5 feet baffle (f/s)
15 0.6 0.2 0.3 1.7 1.3
140 1.6 0.8 1.1 2.3 2.2
350 2.7 1.2 1.85 2.7 2.6
Setting the channel 1.5 feet into the spillway structure (from the crest) results in greater depths
at the fishway exit. These depths will become greater at the base of the fishway channel,
where energy dissipation will have occurred through the series of baffles set into the channel.
64
Figure 47. Denil fishway section views. (Odeh 2003)
The velocity of the water flowing over the first baffle was of concern. Figure 48 was plotted
based on the flow rate equation (Odeh 2003) where the flow rate values were plotted versus
the head over the baffle, denoted as hu in Figure 47. Since it can be expected that the flow
travelling through the fishway will be a fraction of the flow travelling over the entire spillway,
and this ratio can be found by finding the percent of the width of the fishway out of the span of
the entire spillway, that
Head and Discharge Values portion of the flow will
be searched for on the
40 chart to find the
35
corresponding head over
30
Flowrate (cfs)
the v-notch of the first

25
20
baffle (hu).
15 The velocities of the
10 water in the fishway
5 channel will be highest at
0 the first baffle. Using the
0 1 2 3 4 flow equation, these
Head (hu) (ft) values can be calculated.
Figure 48. Fishway Head and Discharge Values at first baffle. By reading the plot, the
flowrate at a head of 1.7
ft is approximately 7 cfs. This had a velocity traveling through the fishway of 1.3 feet per
65
second. The velocities at the first baffle under the other two flowrates of concern were 2.2 ft/s
and 2.6 ft/s. As these are the highest velocities throughout the fishway, it was not a concern
that the alewife would be able to travel through the fishway because the species is capable of
traveling through water up to 5 ft/s.
4.3 Structural Design Calculations for the Dam

The structural analysis of the dam and fish passage structures was based on the results of the
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, as well and the guidelines presented through ACI and USACE.
Although some information was available through the coffer dam drawings, some assumptions
had to be made to complete the structural design analysis. These assumptions are:
The structure is supported by an impervious foundation
The structure is a concrete gravity dam with an overflow spillway
Dam structure is assumed to be triangular for design
Concrete density is 150 lb/cf
Concrete strength is 3500 psi
Water density is 62.4 lb/cf or
Velocity is uniform over the entire 100’ length
Slope of the base of the dam =0
Height of water flowing over the crest of
the dam is 3 ft ( for MPF)
Maximum Probable Flood (from hydrologic
analysis) = 8000 cfs
4.3.1 Load Calculations

After all these assumptions were taken into
consideration, we calculated all the loads.
Dead Load
Figure 49. Dead load.
BH
DL  *150lb / cf
2 = 788 lb/ft
Hydrostatic Loads
Upstream
P1 =62.4 lb/cf * 3 ft = 188 lb/sf
P2= 62.4 lb/cf *6.5 ft = 405.6 lb/ft
F1= 188 lb/sf * 3.5 ft = 655 lb/ft
F2= (405-188)* 3.5 ft /2 = 382.2 lb/ft
F1+F2 = 1037.4 lb/ft Figure 50. Upstream hydrostatic loads
66
Downstream
P=175 lb/sf
F=245 lb/ft
Uplift Loads
U1  w * H1  405.6lb / sf
F1  228.4 *1  228.4lb / ft
U 2  w * H 2  174.7lb / sf
F 2  (405.6  228.4) *1  177.2lb / ft
U 4  larger of U2 and 72.4 lb/sf
F 3  174.7 * 2  355.4lb / ft ; F 4  53.7lb / ft
1
U 3  0.7(405.6  174.7) *  174.7 Figure 51. Uplift pressure.
3
Assuming e = 30%
F1+F2+F3+F4 = 814.7lb/ft
Nappe Force
For the nappe force, the velocity of the water flowing over the top of the dam had to be
considered, but taking into account that the velocity at 3ft over the crest of the dam is not the
same as the one right at the crest. The nappe force is a momentum force based on upstream
and downstream conditions. For this calculation the flow Q=8000cfs, which was the maximum
probably flood obtained in the hydraulic analysis, was divided by the cross sectional area of
300sf, which was based on the 100 ft length times the 3 ft of water flowing over the structure.
This gave us a velocity of 26 ft/s at 3ft over the crest. The velocity throughout the entire height
of the dam is 0 since the structure acts as a retaining wall.
To calculate the nappe force on the structure, it was necessary to apply the momentum
principle. The following equation is the momentum principle. With this condition, the velocity
difference was found and then the hydraulic equation for the nappe force could be used.
F1  F 2  Fx  QV (hydraulic equation for nappe force using momentum principle)
F1= upstream hydrostatic pressure
F2=downstream hydrostatic pressure
Fx= force of the structure on water
Momentum Principle
H1V1=H2V2= 6.5 ft*26ft/s=2.8ft*V2; so V2 = 60 ft/s, and V  34 ft / s
Using the hydraulic equation for nappe force:
67
F1  F 2  Fx  QV = 1037 lb/ft-245 lb/ft- Fx
Fx = 266 lb/ft, so the nappe force is equal to -266 lb/ft .The nappe force can be considered as a
live load.
Earthquake Load (E)
The ground acceleration for the earthquake loads is a=0.1g
a
Pe  * c * B
The Earthquake pressure is g ;
H
E  Pe *
And the earthquake load is 2
In this case E= 78.75 lb/ft acting at 0.1ft up from the heel of the dam.
Table 18. Summary of all the loads results**
Force X- Distance(ft) Y- Distance(ft) Moment@0,0

Description direction(lb/ft) direction(lb/ft) Lb-ft
Dead Load -788 101 -79588
Reservoir Load 1037 101.1 -104841
Tailwater -245 101.4 -24843
Uplift 814 101.2 -82377
Nappe -266 103.5 -21321
Earthquake 78.75 100.1 7882.88
** Heel of the dam is at 100,100 intercept
Gravity Method Analysis (Sliding factor of Safety)

Fy tan(   )
FS 
Fx ; where α is the slip plane angle and φ is the internal friction
angle for the foundation. The Army Corps of Engineers recommends to use α=0 and φ=45: for
stability analysis of gravity dams. (United States Army Copr of Engineers 2005)
1602
FS   2.64  2.0 ; this shows that the structure is stable.
606
The total momentum acting in the upstream direction (negative momentum) is greater than the
total momentum acting in the opposite direction (downstream direction), which means that the
structure is stable against overturning.
68
When the FS equation that considers earthquake loadings was applied,
CA  (W  U ) tan(  )
FS  , with C=0, and   0 , FS= 8.01 was calculated. This also shows that
W
 Hs  Hd  ( ) * a
g
the structure is stable.
Unfactored Loading Combinations

Using equations 16 to 19, the unfactored loads were calculated to choose the combination that
controls the design.
Equation 16
U  1.3 *1.7( DL  LL)  2022.15lb / ft

Equation 17
U  1.3 *1.7 * E  174lb / ft

Equation 18
U  1.3(1.4DL  1.7 LL)  1714lb / ft

Equation 19
U  0.75(1.3(1.4( DL  LL))  1.5E )  1337.6lb / ft

The loading combination that controls the design is the equation 10, with 2000.15 lb/ft; this
value is used for the reinforcement design.
For the design, the ultimate moment was Wu*L²/8, and the area of steel required is:
Equation 20
Mu
As 
fyjd
The ultimate strength Vu has to be less than or equal to the nominal shear strength Vn times
the reduction factor Φ =0.75, and ΦVn has to be less than or equal to shear strength of
concrete divided by 2.
Wu * l * l 2022*100*100
Mu    2527.5lb  ft
8 8
Mu 2527 .5
As    0.12 sf  16.72
fyjd 0.9 * 60 *144 * 2.8 in²
Considering the structure as a wall, vertical and horizontal reinforcement is designed.
The required minimum areas for these reinforcements are 0.0012 Ag and 0.0020 Ag for vertical
and horizontal reinforcement respectively. The minimum thickness for the wall is 1/25 of the
shorter of the unsupported height or the length, so the minimum thickness for this design is
69
1
* 3.5 ft *12in  2" , but because the minimum thickness given by ACI section 14.5.3.1 is 8”,
25
the design is governed by this thickness.
According to Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-2104, Aug 2003, when considering
reinforcement for cracking the minimum bar size and spacing is #6 at 12” on center, so Number
6 steel bars are chosen for reinforcement.
Assuming that vertical reinforcement is placed in a single layer of vertical No 6 bars,
Av = 0.44 in², and the spacing is s(v)  Ah /(0.0020t ) = 0.44 in²/ (0.0012*8 in) = 27.5 in, and
s(h)  Av /(0.0012t ) = 45.8 in.
If we try a smaller size bar, like No 4 bars, Av = 0.20 in² and the spacing is s(v)  Ah /(0.0020t ) =
0.20 in²/ (0.0020*8 in) = 20.8 in, and s(h)  Av /(0.0012t ) = 0.20 in²/(0.0012*8in) = 12.5 in on
center.
The gross area of the wall (Ag) is 5.25 ft² and 0.01Ag is 7.56 in², so the area of vertical steel
(Av = 0.20 in²) is less than 0.01 Ag, which means that the steel provided has an area of :
As = 0.20 in²/(8 in * 18 in) = 0.0014 times the gross area of the wall, so it is a good idea to
provide a No. 5 bar vertically at each end of each curtain of wall steel.
The concrete gravity dam structure was designed to be supported by an impervious foundation,
which means that the structure won’t be affected by seepage. If seepage effects are negligible,
the uplift pressure on the structure won’t be influenced by seepage effects and the forces
created under the structure. According to the Army Corp of Engineers’ Gravity Dams Design’s
standards, in relatively small concrete gravity dams impervious foundations with high bearing
strength are essential to prevent the structure from stability failure , that’s why we chose this
type of foundation for our dam. If the dam’s foundation is designed to be impervious the design
done in this project won’t be affected.
4.3.2 Structural Analysis of the Fish Ladder

The fish ladder starts at the top of the dam (crest) and ends at 11.5 ft from the heel of the dam,
which is the same as 8.5 ft from the dam’s toe. It is at a slope of 6 to 1, and it is being
considered as a continuous singly supported beam or channel in this case. The following is the
sketch of the structure.
Max. Q going through the fishway plus Q going through the spillway = 350cfs
Max. Q going through the fishway plus Q going through the spillway = 10.5cfs
70
Figure 52. Fishway cross section.
Crest of the dam
The dimensions for this cross-section were based on the equations provided in the Figure 34
from ASCE (included in the methodology section).
7 1 1 2
b W ; c  W ; c'  W ; s  W
12 2 4 3
The fish way is 4 ft wide, so W=4 = 4 % of the spillway span, so b=2.3 ft, c= 2 ft, c’= 1 ft.
As in the analysis for the dam, the first step was to determine the loads. In this concrete
channel the loads are as follows;
Dead Load
(c'c) * b
DL  (W * H )  (b * ( H  c' ))  ( ) *150lb / cf  1533lb / ft
4
Hydrostatic Pressure
Hydrostatic pressure on the walls of the channel
71
Hspressure w * H , in this case H=1.5 ft and the hydrostatic pressure on the walls of the
structure is 62.4lb/cf*1.5ft=93.6lb/sf, which yeilds a load of 93.6 lb/ft since analysis is based on
a unit (1ft) strip of the channel.
The hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the channel is 71.76 lb/sf, and the hydrostatic load is
71.76lb/ft. This load is decomposed into x and y components, yielding 50.74lb/ft in the negative
x direction and 50.74lb/ft in the negative y direction.
Table 19. Summary of the Loads obtained from Analysis
Load Description X-direction(lb/ft) Y-direction(lb/ft)
Dead Load -1533
Hydrostatic Load@wall1 -93.6
Hydrostatic Load@wall2 93.6
Hydrostatic Load@bottom1 -50.74 -50.74
Hydrostatic Load@bottom2 50.74 -50.74
ΣF 0 -1634
The sum of the forces in the x-direction was zero, and the weight of the structure is greater
than the sum of the rest of the forces acting on the y-axis, which indicates that the structure is
equilibrium. The structure is also stable because it spans from the dam to the channel
foundation.
Since the structure is an open channel, it is recommended that bracing be installed at the top of
the channel to hold the two walls together. The force needed to hold each wall is 94 lb/ft.
Nappe Force
This is the most important load for this analysis since uplift forces and earthquake loads are not
a big concern when the structure is considered a continuous simply supported beam.
For the nappe forces, the momentum principle was also applied and the maximum flow of 350
cfs was used, which gives a velocity of 19.44 ft/s at the top of the structure.
The velocity difference was 40.5 ft/s , which produces a nappe force of 27.5 lb/ft
After all these loads are found, the structure can be checked against the sliding; this is done
using the sliding safety factor equation (Equation 7 in the structural analysis methodology)
For the reinforcement analysis, the channel was divided into three sections, the two walls and
the bottom of the channel. For this section, the unfactored loading equations used in the
previous analysis were considered.
72
Since the main forces are Dead load, Live Load, and Hydrostatic Loads, are only using Equation
21 and Equation 22.
Equation 21
U  1.3 *1.7(842)  1860.8lb / ft
Equation 22
U  1.3((1.4 *1533)  (1.7 *132))  3728lb / ft

In this case, Equation 21 controls again, and Mu= 37.7 kips.
The area of steel required is :
Mu 37.7
As    0.0024 sf  0.3si
fyjd 0.9 * 60 *144 * 2.04
Referencing Table 10 from the structural analysis methodology, three #3 bars are appropriate
for each wall.
For the bottom of the channel, there is a dead load of 710 since it carries the load of the walls
and the live load at the bottom of the channel is (10cfs/(1.5*12))=0.6 ft/s; this results in a
nappe force at the bottom of the channel of 0.11lb/ft
U  1.3((1.4 * (1533 50.74)  (1.7 * 0.11))  2882lb / ft
Since Mu was used at the end of the span for the reinforcement of the wall and the end of wall
is connected to the end of this section, Mu=33.5kips is used.
Mu 37.7
As    0.005 sf  0.7 si
fyjd 0.9 * 60 *144 * 0.96
For the bottom section of the channel six #3 bars would be appropriate, aligned in one row.
The total reinforcement area for the channel is 1.4 in² +0.3 in² =1.7 in². Three #3 bars in each
wall and six No. 6 bars at the bottom could be used. This results in a total of twelve No. 3 bars
for the entire channel.
Since this analysis was made independently from the dam analysis, it is recommended that a
more detailed analysis combining the two structures together to see the implications.
4.4 Cost Analysis

For the cost analysis, some values were estimated, such as the time that each activity would
take during construction phase. The cost for the general requirements division was based on a
percentage of the total cost. Overhead and Profit were assumed to be 25 % of the total cost,
progress and documentation was assumed to be 1% while cost control costs were based on a
0.08% of the total. Under this division were other elements considered such as Inspections,
equipment rentals, barriers and enclosure and signs that were also estimated according to the
number of days that each element would be utilized on the site.
73
The second division was site construction. All the elements included in this section were based
on experience in this field. A list of all the activities required to complete this type of project
was generated, and the time that each activity would take was estimated. The time that each
activity would take, multiplied by the cost/ time value given in the RS Means manual gave the
total cost per activity. Other elements such as excavation, grading and fill were evaluated based
on volume quantities and the cost per unit volume.
The last two divisions, concrete and steel, were estimated according to volume and linear foot
respectively.
A summary of all those values is revealed in the following table.
Table 20. Cost Estimate worksheet.
DIVISIONS COST/UNIT No. of Units Unit TOTAL
DIVISION 1:GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SUBDIVISION
1310 PROJET MANAGEMENT/ COORDINATION
620 Overhead & Profit(25%) $25,649.67
700 Field Personnel 4935 8 weekly $39,480.00
1320 PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION
200 Scheduling 1% $1,025.99
200 Cost Control 0.08% $820.79
1321 CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS
500 Photograph 250 1 $250.00
1450 QUALITY CONTROL
500 Testing & Inspectional Service 1,868 1 $1,868.00
1590 EQUIPMENT RENTAL $0.00
100 Restrooms 159 45 per day $7,155.00
100 Concrete pump 200 2 per day $400.00
100 Manual Gas For Concrete 35 2 day $70.00
100 Vibrators 10.65 2 day $21.30
100 Concrete Batch Truck 670 2 day $1,340.00
200 Earthwork Equipment Rental 1,200 1 $1,200.00
400 General Equipment 500 45 day $22,500.00
1560 BARRIERS & ENCLOSURES
250 Temporary Fencing 6.75 250 Linear ft $1,687.50
1580 PROJECT SIGNS
700 Signs 16.4 30 sf $492.00
DIVISION 2: SITE CONSTRUCTION
SUBDIVISION
74
2110 HAZARD REMOVAL & HANDLING
300 Heavy Sludge or Dry Vacuumable Material 100 72 hr $7,200.00
2240 DEWATERING
500 Dewatering 7.85 111 cy $871.35
2260 EXCAVATION SUPPORT/ PROTECTION
200 Coffer Dams 19.8 350 sf $6,930.00
2310 GRADING
100 Finish Grading 2.37 2400.03 sy $5,688.07
2315 EXCAVATION & FILL
110 Backfill, General 15.25 l.c.y
DIVISION 3 CONCRETE
Mass concrete cy
Fish Ladder 75 4.7300591 $354.75
Dam 75 1050.0131 $78,750.98
DIVISION Metals $0.00
Reinforcement lb $0.00
Fish Ladder 0.45 450 $202.50
Dam 0.45 5780 $2,601.00
Total $206,558.90
The cost distribution chart is as follows:
Cost Distribution Chart
Metals
1%
CONCRETE
31%
GENERAL
GENERAL REQUIREMEN
REQUIREMEN TS
TS SITE
SITE 60% CONSTRUCTIO
N
CONSTRUCTI
ON
8%
Figure 53. Cost distribution.
75
The total cost of the project is assuming that both, the fish ladder and the dam are being
constructed at the same time. This would save money to the owner since it would only have to
pay to general requirements and site construction once.
This cost estimate is also based on the assumption that the location of the current coffer dam
leaves sufficient space for construction of the new dam and fishway structures. It is likely that a
new coffer dam will be needed to provide more space for dam construction. This step would
increase the cost significantly.
4.5 Summary of Results

This section summarizes provides a summary of drawing specifications, strength, stability,
durability and service life, and cost. The main disciplines involved in this project were
Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Structural Engineering. Determination of the ideal spillway and dam
configuration were deduced through background research, where the spatial constraints of the
site were taken under consideration. The ideal location for the dam was as close to the coffer
dam as possible to allow for utilization of this temporary structure in the construction of the
new dam and fishway. Determination of the fishway location and type was deduced in a similar
manner, through researching requirements of the target species (alewife) and appropriate
conditions for certain types.
It was concluded that an overflow spillway spanning 100 feet with an incorporated Denil
fishway would be optimal for the site.
Analysis in the Hydrology of the area was conducted first, to determine the PMF flow that
would have to be designed for in the structural analysis for public safety factors. The hydrologic
study took into account factors such as the watershed basin area and soil characteristics of the
watershed to determine runoff volumes and flooding potential. This value was also used
through the Hydraulic analysis to find the velocities and depths of water around the dam under
PMF conditions. The value applied though Hydraulic and Structural analysis was 8000 cfs.
Hydrologic analysis data can be found in detail in Appendices A and B.
A different hydrologic approach was used to find the design flows for the fishway. This
approach involved statistical analysis of the flow rates during only the migration period of
alewife. Low, average, and high flows were determined to be 15 cfs, 140 cfs, and 350 cfs,
respectively. A similar approach was used in combination with the PMF value to determine
normal operating conditions of the dam structure. Annual estimates of low, average, and high
flows were made to estimate these conditions that can be observed more often at the dam
structure. These low, average, and high operating flows were determined to be 10 cfs, 100 cfs,
and 2000 cfs. It should be noted that 4 flows were taken under consideration in the Hydraulic
analysis. Based on this analysis, the optimal height of the dam was determined to be 3.5 feet,
and the fishway would measure 4 feet wide, and be set into the dam structure 1.5 feet.
Hydraulic data can be found in Appendix C.
Through the Structural Analysis, all of the loads and forces acting on the structure were found,
which were used to determine the sliding and overturning stability of the structure. The
reinforcement needed to support shear forces in the structural was also designed.
76
As a final design, the proposed structure consists of 3.5 feet high concrete gravity dam, with an
overflow spillway with 0.85 slope. The concrete used to construct the structure should be
normal weight concrete, with a strength of 3500 psi and a density of 150 lbs/cf.
The stability of the structure depends on the maximum upstream and downstream hydrostatic
loads of 1037 lb/ft and 1062 lb/ft, respectively. The water velocity difference between
upstream and downstream of 34 ft/s, and a ground acceleration of 0.1 times the three foot
base of the structure. If, however, these values are altered, the stability of the structure may
not meet the factor of safety required by ACI 350, Environmental Structure Engineering, of 2.0.
The structure proposed would have to include No. 4 vertical Grade 60 bars spaced at 18 inches
on center and No. 4 horizontal Grade 60 bars spaced at 12 inches on center for the shear
reinforcement of the structure. These values also meet the minimum crack reinforcement of
No. 6 Grade 60 bars spaced at 12 inches on center, as stated in ACI 350. It is also
recommended that one No. 5 Grade 60 vertical bar to be added at each end of the structure.
The structure is proposed to be supported by an impervious foundation to avoid the forces
caused by underseepage under the structure. The type of foundation was also determined
based on the size, type, weight of the structure, and loads supported by it.
This project also included the implementation of a fish passage to the site. For the analysis of
the structure, the target species were essential to find the type and dimensions of the
structure. For this structure, it is proposed that concrete Denil fish ladder 5 feet high, with a
pool depth of 3 feet inside the channel for the fish passage. These dimensions also depended
on the maximum and low flows found through the hydrologic analysis. The fish ladder was also
determined to be stable, and it must include a total reinforcement area of 1.7 in 2 of steel, 0.7
in2 of steel in each wall and 0.3 in2 of steel at the bottom section of the channel.
The durability and service life of the concrete depends on the concrete mix design, which
includes aggregate type, proportions, mix, place, and cure. After the aggregate and the
proportions are designed, they should be mixed thoroughly, transported and placed without
segregation, and cured to minimize cracking and optimize long term strength and durability of
the concrete. The environmental conditions of the site that the concrete will be used are also
important. For example, exposure to freezing, thawing, sulfates, acids, and variation of
moisture should also be considered in the mix design. The service life of the concrete used in
the structure depends majorly on these design elements, which were not within the scope of
this design. However, the strength of the concrete under this design is considered to be 3500
psi.
Through the cost estimates, it was found that when the structures were built independently,
the total cost was higher than if the structures were built at the same time. This increase in
cost can be attributed to the repetition of some construction elements, such as site cleaning,
dewatering, transportation of materials, renting facilities, and excavation. Built independently,
the total cost would be $293,086, while built together the cost would be $206,559. The cost
savings where the structures are built simultaneously is approximately $90,000. Because of the
large savings, it is recommended that the structures are built at the same time.
77
The following figures show the site plan including the proposed structures, cross section of the
structures, and reinforcement for the dam structure. It should be noted that the fish ladder is
located on the western side of the channel, as concrete connected to the dam.
Figure 54. Proposed site plan.
78
Figure 55. Dam reinforcement.
Figure 56. Fish ladder plan.
79
5 Conclusion & Recommendations
In summary, this project included the design of a small dam and Denil fish ladder to replace the
deteriorating dam at Morey’s Bridge Dam in Taunton, Massachusetts. The dam was designed
through a hydrologic study of the area to estimate Probable Maximum Flood volumes that the
dam would be exposed to, hydraulic analysis of the site to determine optimal dimensions of the
dam and fishway, and structural analysis to determine public safety factors and structural
stability.
The hydrology of the area was analyzed using techniques of the USACE HMR-51, HMR-52, and
HEC-1 programs. These methods are iterative. Due to time constraints, the value expressed
through the hydrologic analysis as the PMF is less than the value used in the hydraulic and
structural analysis. The hydraulic and structural analysis were made based on preliminary
hydrologic data, with a PMF equal to 8000 cfs. Considering that the final PMF value was 6200
cfs, this design is conservative.
The hydraulics of the site was analyzed using common hydraulic modeling techniques and
equations. Principal factors in the fish passage design were adapted from presentations and
information generously provided by Dick Quinn, a Hydraulic Engineer from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The hydraulics analysis of the site concluded with calculated depths and velocities for the flows
expected under low, average, normal, and PMF conditions. This led to the design of the dam
structure to meet the sliding and overturning stability requirements. Since historical flow data
for the site was limited, historical USGS flow data was used from an analogous river (Wading
River) to estimate seasonal flows.
The constriction of the bridge abutments on the channel is of concern under PMF conditions.
Despite efforts to design a dam structure that meet public safety requirements, the current
condition of the bridge abutments suggest that they may not be structurally stable under PMF
flows. Reconstruction of this bridge is beyond the scope of this project. However, upon
reconstruction of this bridge, expansion of the bridge abutments should be considered to
remove the constriction and expansion section of the channel. This would allow for greater
flood protection and public safety in the area immediately downstream.
A key difference between suggested design techniques and the one used in this design is the
orientation of the fishway channel. This channel could be termed a “straight shot", and under
the spatial constraints presented by the landscape of the site, it seemed the best option. Other
orientations for the fishway, relative to the channel, may be more effective in moving fish over
the barrier. It is recommended that more flow measurements be made seasonally at the site
for more accurate modeling. In addition to more frequent flow measurements, more accurate
seasonal channel dimensions would be beneficial in producing a more accurate model.
Time was a significant constraint in this design. The constraints for the hydraulic design of the
dam’s spillway and fish passage, such as time and limited flow data, influenced the structural
design of the structures, since this design was based on the results obtained in the hydraulic
design. Detailed gauging data and revisitation of the hydraulic parts of this analysis may yield
80
more accurate results for the site at hand. At the very least, more detailed streamflow data
from the project site would reinforce the conclusions of the hydraulic analysis. In particular,
revisitation of the hydraulic analysis utilizing a hydraulic modeling program would improve the
accuracy of tailwater depth calculations. As the tailwater channel was modeled as a straight,
uniform channel in this analysis, modeling the channel with more detailed characteristics of
elevations, channel path, and floodplain areas would improve the accuracy of predicted water
depths at design flows. Physical modeling of the fishway is always the most accurate way to
test the design, so it would be beneficial to create a physical model of this passage to insure
effective passing of native alewife.
The goals expressed in the scope of this project were reached. The dam and fishway structures
were designed following Capstone Design guidelines to meet the needs of the community and
the target species. A cost evaluation was also completed to conclude that there is a significant
financial benefit in constructing both the dam and fishway structures at the same time.
81
Works Cited
A. Osman Akan, Robert J. Houghtalen. Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Stormwater Quailty:
Engineering Applications and Computer Modeling. John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
Alan A. Smith Inc. Hydrological Theory. 2007. http://www.miduss.com/theory-Calculating-
Effective-Rainfall-The-Green-Ampt-Method.htm (accessed 12 18, 2008).
ASCE. "Fishway design ." The Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2003.
Association of Dam Safety Officials. Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 2007.
http://www.damsafety.org/map/state.aspx?s=21 (accessed December 18, 2007).
Bigelow, Henry B., and William C. Schroeder. "Alewife." Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 2002.
http://www.gma.org/fogm/Pomolobus_pseudoharengus.htm (accessed October 30, 2007).
Calvert, J. B. Open Channel Flow. June 6, 2007. http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/tech/opench.htm
(accessed September 30, 2007).
Castro-Santos, Theodore. "Optimal swim speeds for traversing velocity barriers: an analysis of
volitional high-speed swimming behavior of miigratory fishes." Journal of Experimental Biology
(The Company of Biologists), 2005: 421-432.
Chow, Ven Te. Open Channel Hydraulics. York, PA: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1959.
Engineers, Army Corps of. Gravity Dams. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002.
Foronda, Erna. "Archived Hydraulic Engineering Topics." Flood Control Division Resources and
Management Department, Oroange County, California. 2004. http://www.ocflood.com/
(accessed November 11, 2007).
Gilbert, R.I. "Shrinkage, cracking and deflection- serviceability of concrete structures." Electronic
Journal of Structural Engineering, 2001.
Haro, Alex, Theodore Castro-Santos, John Noreika, and Mufeed Odeh. "Swimming performance
of upstream migrant fishes in open-channel flow: a new approach to predicting passage
trhough velocity barriers." Candian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science (NRC Canada),
2004: 1590-1601.
Hotchkiss, Rollin H., Eric R. Rowland, and Michael E. Barber. Modeling Hydrology for Fish
Passage. Research Report, Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2002.
Hwang, Ned H. C. Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engineering Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1989.
—. Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engineering Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.
Institute, American Concrete. "ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 2005." Part1, Part 3, Part4.
Farmington Hills, MI: Rebecca A. Hartford.
Janes, La Londe and. Concrete Engineering Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1961.
Lotfi, Vahid. "seismic analysis of concrete gravity damsby decoupled modal approach in time
domain." Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 2003.
82
MacGregor, James G. Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design. Upper Saddler River: Pearson
Education,Inc, 2005.
Maggenti, Ric. "Mass Concrete Report." 2001.
Maine Department of Transportation. Fish Pasage Policy and Design Guide. Design Guide,
Agusta, ME: Maine Department of Transportation, 2004.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Maryland's Rivers and Streams Fish Passage. April
7, 2007. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/freshwater_fisheries.html (accessed December
10, 2007).
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Wildlife. Riverways Program: Program and Projects.
April 2007. http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/programs/priorityprojects/millriver.htm
(accessed August 30, 2007).
Massachusetts Geographical Information System. The Commonwealth's Office of Geographical
and Environmental Information. 12 18, 2007. http://www.mass.gov/mgis/ (accessed 12 18,
2008).
Microsoft Encarta. Concrete Gravity Dam. 2007.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461551342/Concrete_Gravity_Dam.html (accessed January 9,
2008).
Mikhelson, Ilya. Structural Engineering formulas. New York: RR Donnelley, 2004.
National Resource Conservation Service . "NRCS." National Engineering Handbook Section 4:
Hydrology. 2004. http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/Default.cfm?xSbj=59&xAud=24 (accessed 12
18, 2008).
Ned H. C. Hwang, Robert J. Houghtalen. Hwang's Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engineering
Systems. Third Edition. Prentice Hall, 1996.
Odeh, Mufeed. "discharge Rating equation and Hydraulic Characteristics of standard denil
fishways." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2003.
Odeh, Mufeed. "Discharge Rating Equation and Hydraulic Characteristics of Standard Denil
Fishways." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129, no. 5 (May 2003): 341-348.
Pare Corporation. "Morey's Bridge Dam Temporary Coffer Dam." May 2007.
Pippard, Alfred John Sutton. The analysis of engineering structures. New York: Longmans, Green
and Co, 1936.
Plizzari, Giovanni. "Centrifugue Modeling and Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams." Journal of
Structural Engineering, 1995: 1471-1479.
Purdue University Research Foundation. "SCS Curve Number Method." 2004.
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/runoff/documentation/scs.htm (accessed 12 16, 2008).
Quinn, Dick. Intro to Fishway Design -Denil Fishways (.ppt presentation). February 16, 2007.
Quinn, Dick. Intro to Fishway Hydrology & Hydraulics -FERC Fish Passage Training Course.
January 25, 2007.
83
Reclamation, United States Bureau of. Design of small dams. Washington, 1977.
Shaw, Elizabeth M. Hydrology in Practice. Taylor & Francis, 1994.
Sturm, Terry W. Open Channel Hydraulics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001.
Texas University Research Foundation. Subbasin Loss Methods. 2001.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/maidment/gradhydro2001/soilwater/HMS.ppt. (accessed 12
18, 2008).
The World Almanac. Annual Rainfall for U.S. States. 1988.
United States Army Copr of Engineers. Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures. December 1,
2005. http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/em1110-2-2100/toc.htm
(accessed January 9, 2008).
United States Army Corps of Engineers. "EM 1110-2-1601 (1 July 1991/30 June 1994)." United
States Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Manuals. June 30, 1994.
http://www.usace.army.mil/publications (accessed October 8, 2007).
—. "Hydrologic Engineering Center." Hydrologic Engineering Center. 2006.
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/ (accessed 12 16, 2008).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Water Resources. December 20, 2007.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/water/cycle.html (accessed January 9, 2008).
United States Geologic Survey (USGS). USGS Real-Time Data for Massachusetts_Streamflow.
September 27, 2007. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ma/nwis/current? (accessed September 27,
2007).
Walters, Rupert Cavendish Skyring. Dam Geology. London: Butterworths, 1962.
84
Appendix A. Hydrologic Analysis.
Figure 57. CURRENT USGS DATA REGARDING THE MILL RIVER AND ITS WATERSHED
A
Table 21. ARBITRARY COORDINATES FOR OUTLINE OF MILL RIVER WATERSHED
x y
5.4 17.5
7.4 17.9
7.8 16.9 Basin Area = 44.8 Square Miles
8.6 14.8
9.2 14.2
9.5 13.2
9.6 11.8
10.7 9.7
10.3 9.4
Centroid Coordinates = (8.4,

11.8 7.2 10.7)
11.7 6.5
11.3 4.4
11 3.3
11.8 2.4
9.9 2
9.5 2.8
9.9 4
9.7 5.7
8.9 6.9
7.6 8.3
B
7.2 9.2
6.6 10.5
5.8 12.1
5.7 13.2
4.9 14.5
5.6 17.1
C
Figure 58. Land usage within the Mill River Watershed.
D
Figure 59. Impervious Area within Mill River Watershed
E
Figure 60. HMR-51 ISOPLUVIAL MAP (COMPLETE FIGURES PROVIDED IN DATA FILES)
F
The Hydrologic Engineering Center JONES.DAT
10 February 1988 LEON.DAT
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS OR HMR52T.DAT
MICROCOMPUTER VERSION OF WASH.DAT
HMR52 JONES.OUT
LEON.OUT
This version of HMR52 (April 1987) will run WASH.OUT
on an IBM or
README.DOC
compatible microcomputer that has the
following: Explanation of Files Included on the HMR52
Package
Diskette
* 256 Kilobytes (KB) of Random Access
Memory (RAM)
* MS DOS 2.1 or greater HMR52.EXE: The HMR52 program in an
* One 5 1/4 inch floppy diskette drive (360 executable form.
KB or 1.2 MB)
* A 10 Megabyte (or larger) hard disk is HMR52T.DAT: HMR52 table file, which
recommended
contains Hydromet Report No. 51
* A math coprocessor (8087, 80287, or
80387) is highly in tabular form (this is
recommended, but not required. The math necessary for execution of the
coprocessor program).
will greatly reduce the execution time of
the program
JONES.DAT: HMR52 example input data.
(increases computational speed by a factor
LEON.DAT: HMR52 example input data.
of 5 to 10).
WASH.DAT: HMR52 example input data.
I. PROGRAM INSTALLATION
JONES.OUT: example output file for
A. Contents of the HMR52 Diskette
JONES.DAT.
The HMR52 computer program, example
input data, and
example output are provided on a 5 1/4 LEON.OUT: example output file for
inch double- LEON.DAT.
sided 360 KB floppy diskette as follows:
WASH.OUT: example output file for

HMR52 DISKETTE: HMR52.EXE
G
WASH.DAT. * Go to the drive (e.g. C:) in which you
would like to install the software.
README.DOC: file containing this * Type MD\HMR52 then press the <ENTER>
key.
implementation guide.
* Type MD\HECEXE then press the <ENTER>
key.
B. Installation on a Hard Disk System
* Type MD\HECEXE\SUP then press the
The following set of instructions will allow <ENTER>
the
key.
user to run the HMR52 program from any of
2. Place the HMR52 diskette into the A
the
drive.
user's data directories.
3. The next step will be to copy the HMR52
input
1. You will need to create three directories. and output files. If you do not want these
One
files copied to your hard disk, go to step 4.
of the directories should be labeled
If you would like these files copied to your
\HECEXE.
hard disk, do the following:
This directory will be used to store all of the
* Type CD HMR52 then press the <ENTER>
HEC executable programs. A second
key.
directory
* Type COPY A:*.DAT C: then press the
should be labeled \HECEXE\SUP. This
<ENTER>
directory
key.
will be used to store all of the supplemental
* Type COPY A:*.OUT C: then press the
files required by the executable programs.
<ENTER>
A
third directory should be created to store key.
data 4. The next step will be to copy the HMR52
files. This dat directory can be given any program. The file is named HMR52.EXE. Use
the
name. You may want this data directory to
following commands to do so:
represent a specific project, person, or
* Type CD \HECEXE then press the <ENTER>
program. For this example, let's assume
key.
that
* Type COPY A:*.EXE C: then press the
you are going to label the data directory
<ENTER>
\HMR52. To accomplish these tasks do the
key.
following:
H
* Type CD \ then press the <ENTER> key. For more information concerning the
CONFIG.SYS
5. To allow access of the executable
programs from file, consult your DOS manual.
any directory, it will be necessary to edit
the C. Installation on a Two-Floppy-Diskette
AUTOEXEC.BAT file to include a path to the System
\HECEXE directory. The AUTOEXEC.BAT file There is no installation for a two-floppy
diskette
should be in your root (C:\) directory. The
system.
following is an example PATH command
that would II. PROGRAM EXECUTION
allow access to the \HECEXE directory as A. To run HMR52 from the hard disk do the
well following
as the root (C:\) directory: commands:
PATH C:\;C:\HECEXE * Go to the directory in which your data are
-- You may want to include a path to other stored (e.g. \HMR52).
directories on your system. If so, just add * Type HMR52 then press the <ENTER> key.
The
the names of the directories to this
command. program then will prompt you for input
For more information on the PATH filename, output filename, etc.
command and OR
the AUTOEXEC.BAT file, consult your DOS * Type HMR52 INPUT=filename
manual. OUTPUT=filename then
6. The final step will be to modify your press the <ENTER> key; where:
CONFIG.SYS file. Many HEC programs INPUT=filename: the filename where the
require the
HMR52 input data
capability to open more than eight (8) files
at resides.
any one time. Because eight is the system OUTPUT=filename: the filename where the
default, you will need to modify your output data will be
CONFIG.SYS file to include the following two written. If the user
lines: wishes the output to
FILES=20 go directly to the
BUFFERS=20 screen or printer, the
commands CON (screen)
I
or LPT1 (printer) can program by using one of the example data
files
be used in place of
provided to you. At this point you should
the output filename.
compare
B. To run HMR52 from a floppy diskette do
your output file (HMR52.ANS, for example)
the
with the one
following commands:
provided to you (LEON.OUT, JONES.OUT,
* Place the diskette containing the HMR52 WASH.OUT).
program
Comparing the two output files can be
on it in drive A accomplished by
* Type A:HMR52 then press the <ENTER> using the DOS compare command (COMP).
key. The Check your
program then will prompt you for input results to insure that they are the same,
filename, output filename, etc. except for
OR execution date and time, as to what we

provided to
* Type HMR52 INPUT=filename
OUTPUT=filename then you. This will insure that the program is
working
press the <ENTER> key; where:
correctly on your computer system.
INPUT=filename: the filename where the
IV. PROGRAM PROBLEMS
HMR52 input data
If any errors are encountered which
resides. indicate potential
OUTPUT=filename: the filename where the problems in this HMR52 package, please
output data will be contact the
written. If the user HEC.
wishes the output to
go directly to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
screen or printer, the The Hydrologic Engineering Center
commands CON (screen) 609 Second Street
or LPT1 (printer) can Davis, CA 95616
be used in place of USA
the output filename. (916) 551-1748
III. PROGRAM VERIFICATION
Using the above example, you can execute
the HMR52
J
1*****************************************
***************************************
* * * *
* PROBABLE MAXIMUM STORM (HMR52) * * U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS *
* NOVEMBER 1982 * * THE HYDROLOGIC
ENGINEERING CENTER *
* REVISED APRIL 91 * * 609 SECOND STREET *
* * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 *
* RUN DATE 10/04/2007 TIME 16:44:41 * * (916) 551-1748 OR
(FTS) 460-1748 *
* * * *
*****************************************
***************************************
H H M M RRRRRR 5555555 22222

H H MM MM R R 5 2 2
H H MMMM R R 5 2
HHHHHHH M M M RRRRRR 555555 2
H H M M R R 5 2
H H M M R R 5 5 2
H H M M R R 55555 2222222
1 HEC PROBABLE MAXIMUM STORM (HMR52) INPUT DATA
PAGE 1
LINE ID.......1.......2.......3.......4.......5.......6.......7.......8.......9......10
1 ID HMR52 INPUT DATA FOR butler PMF CALCULATION
2 BN TOTAL
3 BS 1
4 BX 5.44 7.43 7.80 8.55 9.20 9.49 9.57 10.66 10.31 11.76
K
5 BX 11.68 11.31 11.04 11.78 9.92 9.49 9.92 9.72 8.90 7.63
6 BX 7.16 6.56 5.77 5.74 4.92 5.57
7 BY 17.55 17.90 16.88 14.79 14.22 13.20 11.78 9.72 9.35 7.18
8 BY 6.49 4.40 3.26 2.36 1.99 2.76 3.98 5.72 6.93 8.25
9 BY 9.20 10.46 12.13 13.17 14.54 17.10
10 PL 2
11 ID Hydrogeologic Data From HMR-51
12 HO 208
13 HP 10 25 29 32 36 38
14 HP 200 17.0 20.5 23.5 27.0 28.2
15 HP 1000 12.0 15.5 19.5 23.0 23.5
16 HP 5000 7.5 11.0 14.0 17.5 18.5
17 HP 10000 5.8 9.1 12.0 15.0 16.1
18 HP 20000 4.2 7.2 9.9 13.1 14.1
19 ID Storm Specifications
20 SA 20.31 0
21 ST 360 .3
22 ZZ
1*****************************************
***************************************
* * * *
* PROBABLE MAXIMUM STORM (HMR52) * * U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS *
* NOVEMBER 1982 * * THE HYDROLOGIC
ENGINEERING CENTER *
* REVISED APRIL 91 * * 609 SECOND STREET *
* * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 *
* RUN DATE 10/04/2007 TIME 16:44:41 * * (916) 551-1748 OR
(FTS) 460-1748 *
* * * *
*****************************************
***************************************
HMR52 INPUT DATA FOR butler PMF CALCULATION
L
Hydrogeologic Data From HMR-51
Storm Specifications
PMP DEPTHS FROM HMR 51
AREA DURATION
(SQ. MI.) 6-HR 12-HR 24-HR 48-HR 72-HR
10. 25.00 29.00 32.00 36.00 38.00
200. 17.00 20.50 23.50 27.00 28.20
1000. 12.00 15.50 19.50 23.00 23.50
5000. 7.50 11.00 14.00 17.50 18.50
10000. 5.80 9.10 12.00 15.00 16.10
20000. 4.20 7.20 9.90 13.10 14.10
STORM AREA PMP DEPTHS FOR 6-HOUR INCREMENTS

10. 25.02 3.68 2.12 1.49 1.16 .94 .80 .69 .61 .54 .49 .45
25. 23.13 3.63 2.06 1.45 1.12 .91 .77 .66 .58 .52 .47 .43
50. 21.56 3.61 2.02 1.41 1.08 .88 .74 .64 .56 .50 .45 .41
100. 19.25 3.57 1.95 1.35 1.03 .84 .70 .61 .53 .48 .43 .39
175. 17.39 3.52 1.89 1.30 1.00 .81 .68 .58 .51 .46 .41 .38
300. 15.66 3.65 1.91 1.31 .99 .80 .67 .58 .51 .45 .41 .37
450. 14.37 3.79 1.95 1.32 1.00 .80 .67 .58 .51 .45 .41 .37
700. 12.97 3.93 1.98 1.33 1.01 .81 .68 .58 .51 .45 .41 .37
1000. 11.84 4.05 2.01 1.34 1.01 .81 .68 .58 .51 .45 .41 .37
1500. 10.73 3.93 1.97 1.32 1.00 .80 .67 .58 .51 .45 .41 .37
2150. 9.74 3.83 1.94 1.31 .99 .79 .66 .57 .50 .45 .40 .37
3000. 8.84 3.71 1.91 1.29 .98 .79 .66 .57 .50 .44 .40 .36
4500. 7.73 3.59 1.87 1.27 .97 .78 .65 .56 .49 .44 .40 .36
6500. 6.79 3.49 1.81 1.23 .93 .75 .63 .54 .48 .42 .38 .35
10000. 5.74 3.39 1.73 1.17 .89 .71 .60 .51 .45 .40 .36 .33
15000. 4.80 3.19 1.70 1.16 .89 .72 .60 .52 .45 .40 .37 .33
20000. 4.14 3.05 1.67 1.16 .88 .72 .60 .52 .46 .41 .37 .34
1
M
BOUNDARY COORDINATES FOR TOTAL
X 5.4 7.4 7.8 8.6 9.2 9.5 9.6 10.7 10.3 11.8
Y 17.5 17.9 16.9 14.8 14.2 13.2 11.8 9.7 9.4 7.2
X 11.7 11.3 11.0 11.8 9.9 9.5 9.9 9.7 8.9 7.6
Y 6.5 4.4 3.3 2.4 2.0 2.8 4.0 5.7 6.9 8.3
X 7.2 6.6 5.8 5.7 4.9 5.6

Y 9.2 10.5 12.1 13.2 14.5 17.1
SCALE = 1.0000 MILES PER COORDINATE UNIT

BASIN AREA = 44.8 SQ. MI.
BASIN CENTROID COORDINATES, X = 8.4, Y = 10.7
PROBABLE MAXIMUM STORM FOR TOTAL

STORM AREA = 20. SQ. MI., ORIENTATION =*****, PREFERRED ORIENTATION =
208.
STORM CENTER COORDINATES, X = 8.4, Y = 10.7
AREA
ISOHYET WITHIN
AREA BASIN DEPTHS (INCHES) FOR 6-HOUR INCREMENTS OF PMS
(SQ.MI.) (SQ.MI.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 10. 10. 23.93 3.73 2.09 1.46 1.13 .92 .77 .67 .59 .53 .48 .43
B 25. 17. 20.09 3.22 1.87 1.32 1.02 .83 .70 .60 .53 .48 .43 .39
C 50. 24. 14.58 2.39 1.41 .99 .76 .62 .52 .45 .40 .36 .32 .29
D 100. 33. 11.45 1.96 1.14 .80 .62 .50 .42 .37 .32 .29 .26 .24
E 175. 43. 9.33 1.58 .91 .64 .49 .40 .34 .29 .26 .23 .21 .19
F 300. 45. 7.48 1.27 .75 .52 .40 .33 .28 .24 .21 .19 .17 .16
G 450. 45. 6.06 1.07 .63 .44 .34 .28 .23 .20 .18 .16 .14 .13
H 700. 45. 4.78 .83 .49 .34 .26 .22 .18 .16 .14 .12 .11 .10
N
I 1000. 45. 3.60 .63 .39 .27 .21 .17 .14 .12 .11 .10 .09 .08
J 1500. 45. 2.42 .49 .30 .21 .16 .13 .11 .09 .08 .07 .07 .06
K 2150. 45. 1.38 .31 .19 .13 .10 .08 .07 .06 .05 .05 .04 .04
L 3000. 45. .43 .11 .06 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01
M 4500. 45. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
N 6500. 45. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
O 10000. 45. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
P 15000. 45. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Q 25000. 45. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
R 40000. 45. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
S 60000. 45. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
AVERAGE DEPTH 16.68 2.69 1.55 1.09 .84 .68 .58 .50 .44 .39 .36 .32
PROBABLE MAXIMUM STORM (PMS) FOR TOTAL
DAY 1
TIME PRECIPITATION TIME PRECIPITATION TIME PRECIPITATION TIME
PRECIPITATION
INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL
0600 .32 .32 1200 .39 .72 1800 .50 1.22 2400 .68 1.90
DAY 2
PRECIPITATION
0600 1.09 2.99 1200 2.69 5.69 1800 16.68 22.37 2400 1.55 23.91
O
DAY 3
PRECIPITATION
0600 .84 24.75 1200 .58 25.33 1800 .44 25.77 2400 .36 26.1
P
Figure 61. Mill River Watershed Runoff Hydrograph at Morey's Bridge Dam
Q
Appendix B. Fish Passage Hydrology
Figure 62. Historical Daily Means Data. (United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 2007)
R
Figure 63. HDM continued
S
Figure 64. HDM continued.
T
Figure 65. HDM continued.
U
Table 22. Flows Greater than 230 cfs.
V
Table 23. Flows greater than 350 cfs.
W
Table 24. Flows less than 33 cfs.
X
Table 25. Flows Less than 15 cfs.
Y
Appendix C. Hydraulic Analysis.
Table 26. Tail water conditions
5-Z
Table 27. Spillway Crest Conditions, with Spillway Equation.
5-AA
Table 28. Spillway Toe Conditions.
BB
Spillway Crest Conditions Under All Analyzed Flowrates
40
35
30
'@ Froude # = 0.9

25
'@ Froude # = 0.1
Depth (ft)
10 cfs
20 15 cfs
100 cfs
15 140 cfs
350 cfs
2000 cfs
10
8000 cfs
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 8 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6
Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 66. Spillway Crest Conditions, under all analyzed flow rates.
CC
Spillway Crest Conditions Under Analyzed Flowrates <350 cfs
20
18
16
14
12 '@ Froude # = 0.9

Depth (ft)
'@ Froude # = 0.1

10 10 cfs
15 cfs
8
100 cfs
140 cfs
6
350 cfs
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 67. Spillway Crest Conditions, flow rates <350 cfs
DD
Appendix D. Plans
Figure 68. Fishway plan and cross sectional views.
EE
Figure 69. Proposed Site Plan.
FF
Figure 70. Dam reinforcement.
GG
Appendix E. Cost Estimating
Table 29. Cost with simultaneous construction of Fishway and Dam. Con't on next page.
No. of
DIVISIONS COST/UNIT Units Unit TOTAL
SUBDIVISION
620 Overhead & Profit(25%) $25,649.67
700 Field Personnel 4935 8 weekly $39,480.00
200 Scheduling 1% $1,025.99
200 Cost Control 0.08% $820.79
500 Photograph 250 1 $250.00
500 Testing & Inspectional Service 1,868 1 $1,868.00
1590 EQUIPMENT RENTAL $0.00
100 Restrooms 159 45 per day $7,155.00
100 Concrete pump 200 2 per day $400.00
100 Manual Gas For Concrete 35 2 day $70.00
100 Vibrators 10.65 2 day $21.30
100 Concrete Batch Truck 670 2 day $1,340.00
200 Earthwork Equipment Rental 1,200 1 $1,200.00
400 General Equipment 500 45 day $22,500.00
1560 BARRIERS & ENCLOSURES
250 Temporary Fencing 6.75 250 Linear ft $1,687.50
1580 PROJECT SIGNS
700 Signs 16.4 30 sf $492.00
SUBDIVISION
300 Heavy Sludge or Dry Vacuumable Material 100 72 hr $7,200.00
2240 DEWATERING
500 Dewatering 7.85 111 cy $871.35
200 Coffer Dams 19.8 350 sf $6,930.00
2310 GRADING
HH
100 Finish Grading 2.37 2400.03 sy $5,688.07
110 Backfill,General 15.25 l.c.y
DIVISION 3 CONCRETE
Mass concrete cy
Fish Ladder 75 4.7300591 $354.75
Dam 75 1050.0131 $78,750.98
DIVISION Metals $0.00
Reinforcement lb $0.00
Fish Ladder 0.45 450 $202.50
Dam 0.45 5780 $2,601.00
Total $206,558.90
Table 30. Cost of Dam Construction.
No of
SUBDIVISION
620 Overhead & Profit(25%) 25559.389
700 Field Personel 4935 6 weekly 29610
200 Scheduling 1% 1022.3756
200 Cost Control 0.08% 817.90045
500 Photograph 250 1 250
500 Testing & Inspectional Servise 1,868 1 1868
1590 EQUIPMENT RENTAL
100 Restrooms 159 45 per day 7155
100 Concrete pump 200 2 per day 400
100 Manual Gas For Concrete 35 2 day 70
100 Vibrators 10.65 2 day 21.3
100 Concrete Batch Truck 670 2 day 1340
200 Earthwork Equipment Rental 1,200 0
400 General Equipment 500 45 day 22500
II
1560 BARRIERS & ENCLOSURES 0
250 Temporary Fencing 6.75 250 Linear ft 1687.5
1580 PROJECT SIGNS 0
700 Signs 16.4 30 sf 492
DIVISION 2: SITE CONSTRUCTION 0
SUBDIVISION 0
2110 HAZARD REMOVAL & HANDLING 0
300 Heavy Sludge or Dry Vacuumable Material 100 72 hr 7200
2240 DEWATERING 0
500 Dewatering 7.85 cy 0
2260 EXCAVATION SUPPORT/ PROTECTION 0
200 Coffer Dams 19.8 350 sf 6930
2310 GRADING 0
100 Finish Grading 2.37 2400.03 sy 5688.0711
110 Backfill,General 15.25 70 l.c.y 1067.5

DIVISION 3
CONCRETE
mass concrete
Dam 75 1050.0131 cy 78750.985
DIVISION Metals
reinforcement
Dam 0.45 5780 lb 2601
Total 195031.02
Table 31. Cost of Fishway Construction.
No of
SUBDIVISION
620 Overhead & Profit(25%) 0 13077.181
700 Field Personel 4935 6 weekly 29610
200 Scheduling 1% 523.08725
200 Cost Control 0.80% 418.4698
JJ
500 Photograph 250 1 250
500 Testing & Inspectional Servise 1,868 1 1868
1590 EQUIPMENT RENTAL
100 Restrooms 159 30 per day 4770
200 Earthwork Equipment Rental 1,200 7 days 8400
400 General Equipment 500 45 day 22500
1560 BARRIERS & ENCLOSURES 0
250 Temporary Fencing 6.75 250 Linear ft 1687.5
1580 PROJECT SIGNS 0

700
Signs 16.4 30 sf 492
SUBDIVISION
300 Heavy Sludge or Dry Vacuumable Material 100 72 hr 7200
2240 DEWATERING
500 Dewatering 7.85 111 cy 871.35
2310 GRADING
100 Finish Grading 2.37 2400.03 sy 5688.0711
110 Backfill,General 15.25 14 l.c.y 213.5

DIVISION 3
CONCRETE
pre cast
Fish
Ladder 60 4.7300591 cy 283.80355
DIVISION Metals
reinforcement
Fish
Ladder 0.45 450 lb 202.5
Dam
Total 98055.463
KK
LDA-0807
PPM-0807
Major Qualifying Project Report Proposal:

submitted to the Faculty
of the
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science
by
Yisel Mantilla
Bethany Santangelo
Michael Butler
Date: December 20, 2007
Approved:
Professor Leonard Albano, Major Advisor
Professor Paul P Mathisen, Major Advisor
LL
1 INTRODUCTION
Lakes, rivers and streams have been extremely important in the civil engineering field; they are
all interrelated, impacting the ecology and the economy of the society in a very direct manner.
The health of river systems has a direct impact on the surrounding communities economically,
socially, and in a public safety sense. Man communities are founded on river ways acting as
navigational routes or fishing as a livelihood. Socially, healthy river and lake systems can also
provide the communities with recreational activities, food, transportation, and the threat of
flooding. River can also provide society with energy, as is the case with hydroelectric dams.
As a consequence of the great importance of rivers, lakes and streams; engineers, scientists and
governmental agencies such as Massachusetts Department of Fish and Wildlife have been
paying special attention to restoration projects with the goals of habitat improvement, water
quality, hydrological purposes, and recreational interests; all of them contributing to the
economy.
Some of the most relevant river or stream projects include dams, which act as barriers to the
flow of rivers. This barrier can provide energy through turbines, flood protection by creating
storage space upstream for excess water in wet seasons, and can also act as barriers to the
continuity of natural habitats.
Many dams were constructed for energy purposes during the industrial revolution. These dams
are currently aging, and the failure of any of these dams could have negative consequences
downstream such as water contamination, flooding and degradation of the zone’s ecology. Of
course, the failure of any of these dams could also restore continuity to the surrounding aquatic
habitats. In the case of an aging dam close to failure, a restoration project is necessary to
restore the public safety value of the dam in its ability to hold back flood waters, and install a
structure to allow native aquatic species to pass.
One example of this type of project is Mill River Habitat Restoration Project, which includes
Reed and Barton Dams, Whittenton Dam and Morey’s Bridge Dam restoration at Taunton city in
Massachusetts. The fundamental goal of this restoration project is to restore 37 miles of
riverine and lake habitat and to provide a safe environment to the city of Taunton. The
Whittenton Dam failure in 2005 and its consequences called national attention and gave place
to a feasibility study for this restoration project in the Spring of 2007. The restoration project is
divided in three subprojects consisting of the feasibility of removing Reed and Barton and
Whittenton Dams to increase fish passage, and to improve the safety of Morey’s Bridge Dam
while incorporating a fish passage structure into the restoration design.
1.1 Capstone Design Process

This project focuses on the reconstruction of Morey’s Bridge Dam, with a fish passage designed
to be built into the dam. Environmental and structural design analysis of the existing conditions
at the site will be completed to reach a design that addressed the needs of the project as stated
by the Capstone Design requirements of the American Society of Civil Engineers. The capstone
design process requires that the final design has attributes that appeal to the economic, social,
1
and environmental needs of the community, while considering the impact of engineering
ethics, constructability, and costs of the project.
This project will meet the requirements of the capstone design process by analyzing existing
environmental and structural conditions of the site, applying hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
to define the maximum design requirements, and creating a structure that fits those
requirements. A cost estimate and constructability issues will be addressed to create a design
that is functional and reasonable for the requirements of the site.
1.2 Mill River Geography

Mill River contains a muddy shoreline of about 37 miles and runs from the 266- acre Lake
Sabbatia to The Taunton River close to the Weir Village. It connects with Winneconne Pond and
The Snake River, which is connected with the largest freshwater wetland in Massachusetts,
Hock mock Swamp. Mill River contains four dams, Taunton State Hospital Dam, Whittenton
Mill Dam, Reed and Barton Dam and Morey’s Bridge Dam. All these dams had gained special
and national attention after the Whittenton Mill Dam failure in 2005. The wooded Whittenton
Mill Dam was 173 years old at the time of failure, the same age of the other three dams.
According to the feasibility study started in spring of 2007, the Taunton State Hospital and Reed
and Barton Dams are no longer serving as barriers for fish passage, Whittenton Dam condition
ranges from fair to poor and it remains as a barrier for fish passage, and Morey’s Bridge Dam,
which is the one included in our project, was classified as a high hazard due to the condition of
the spillway gates. Although all these dams are part of Mill River restoration project, we will
emphasize on the analysis and designs of the Morey’s Bridge Dam, its spillway and a
correspondent fish passage.
Figure 71. Dams located along the Mill River.
2
2 BACKGROUND
A review of the purposes of dam structures, and the environmental implications of these
structures is a starting point for the analysis. It is necessary to complete a review of dam
structures to find a structure that fits the spatial limitations of the site, the economic limitations
of the community, and the environmental limitations of the surrounding ecosystem and
geography.
2.1 General Purpose of Dams.

The construction of a dam is usually considered in rivers to provide a water supply for cities,
towns, mining sites, or irrigation of crops, to generate electricity, and to control or moderate
floods. The most typical design of a dam consists of a solid wall across the river to block the
flow of water and form a reservoir upstream to provide both drinking water for later use and
storage space in the event of a flood. Since the main purpose of this wall is to retain water, it
should be impermeable as well as its foundation to avoid the water leakage downstream.
As any other structure, dams should be stable. They should be designed to sufficiently support
their own weight, the water pressure from upstream, earthquake forces, and sediment loads.
They must also contain a way of releasing water in controlled quantities. Depending on the
specifics characteristics and purposes of the dam, the water may be released into pipelines or
into the river downstream by outlet valves. However, most of the times these outlet valves are
not sufficient release the large volume of flood water that can be held back by a dam, thus it is
necessary to install a spillway, which is usually an open channel to carry the flood water around
the dam. Small dams may not have outlet works. These dams commonly have a spillway at a
set elevation, where a small amount of water is to pass through the spillway naturally, but have
sufficient space to pass volumes of water under flood conditions.
2.1.1 Types of Dams.

There exist a diverse number of dams, each type with one or more specific function and
structural characteristics. Examples of the different types of dam are: earthen embankment,
buttress dams, diverse arch dams, rock fill dams, hydraulic fill dams, and barrages Dams. For
our project, we will focus in concrete dams with the possibility of some earthen embankment.
This is because of the limited area of the site and the small scale of this project.
Embankment dams can be made of rock, earth, or both. Spillways in these types of dams have
to be separate from the dam structure to prevent erosion. This type of dam is one of the most
suitable for soft variable sedimentary strata. Concrete dams are made out of concrete.
Spillways on concrete dams can be part of the dam structure, where either a gate controls the
volume of water passing through the spillway, or the spillway is set at a certain elevation and
water is constantly flowing over the dam and downstream. This type of design has limited
flood control, but fits well into small sites and is suitable for site where floodplain downstream
has storage space to be used during flood events.
3
2.1.2 Forces on Embankment Dams.
The most important force acting on an embankment dam is the force of the water and uplift
forces and its own weight, which will vary according to the type of soil or material used.
However, there are some other forces acting on the structure such as internal hydrostatic
pressure, silt pressure, ice and wave loads in the upstream sides, earthquake loads, settlement,
and the weight of any other structure on top of the dam.
2.1.3 Forces in Concrete Dams.

Similarly as in embankment dams, the main forces acting on the concrete dam are the pressure
of water, which will be greater the deeper the water is, the weight on the concrete, and the
uplift forces. In this case we also have some other forces like the ones we mentioned
previously. The following figure illustrates the forces acting on a gravity concrete dam.
Figure 72. Forces acting on concrete dams.
2.1.4 Forces Combination for Structural Analysis of Dams

There are some important loads combination involved in the structural analysis of a structure
such dams. The major combinations of these loadings are:
Case 1: Dead Loads effects + temperature changes effects+ shrinkage in concrete effect.
Case 2: Water pressure effect + reservoir load on the valley floor
Case 3: Case 1 or Case 2 + Earthquake Effects.
2.1.5 Settlements
For structural design considerations only the highest section of the dam is considered in
settlement analysis and calculations. Settlement depends on the fill and consolidation stages
for the entire height of the structure.
Consolidation Settlement
Consolidation settlement occurs when the soils particles are pressed together increasing the
effective stress of the soil. For this analysis, we considered the soil to be 100% saturated.
Consolidation Status in the field
4
This classification is made comparing the pre-consolidation stress with the initial vertical
effective stress of the specific soil.
Normally Consolidated Soils: if the pre-consolidation stress value is very approximate or equal
to the initial vertical effective stress value of the specific soil.
Over consolidated Soils: if the pre-consolidation stress value is greater than the initial vertical
effective stress value of the specific soil.
Under consolidated Soils: if the pre-consolidation stress value is less than to the initial vertical
effective stress value of the specific soil.
Depending on the classification of the soil, the consolidation settlement can be found or
predicted.
Distortion Settlement
Distortion settlement occurs when big loads are applied over a small area of the soils provoking
the soil to deform laterally. This type of settlement is usually smaller than consolidation
settlement.
Structure Loads in Soils
Structure loads are transferred to the ground producing compressive and shear stresses in the
soil. Sometimes, the shear stress can be enough to cause a failure on the soil and furthermore
the collapse of the structure.
2.2 Reconstruction vs. Repair of Dams.

The decision whether or not to remove a dam is based on a detailed analysis of the existing
condition of the dam, and the positive and negative consequences of removal and
reconstruction. There are some relevant independent variables affecting the decision taken,
they are: safety condition, habitat/environmental impacts, historical value, owner, regulations
and cost.
As mentioned previously, removal of a dam, partially or complete, is applied according to the
actual characteristics of the dam structure and all these independent variables. During this
process, there are some other aspects/data to take in consideration such as a stipulation of in
stream structural enhancements to support fish passage and river habitat, watershed
hydrology, changes in hydraulic conditions at bridge crossings, base and storm flows
alterations, sediment loads, the influence of machinery involved in the removal and
construction of the dam, and urban reactions to the situation.
2.3 Environmental Concerns.

A dam has many environmental impacts on the surrounding ecosystem. The dam changes the
flow patterns of a brook or river, from highly oxygenated and low temperature to little
dissolved oxygen and higher temperatures. This has impacts on the surrounding flora and
fauna, where species that thrive in a location because of its temperature and/or oxygen values
will experience a large decrease in population due to the change in habitat. For example,
5
species of mussels rely on spawning fish to transport their larvae upstream. With a barrier in
place, more species than anadromous fish suffer from the inability to spawn in different
environments.
Figure 73. Mussels downstream of the dam.
Dams also have environmental safety issues, the majority of which pertain to public safety and
the ability of the dam to hold back flood waters.
2.4 Fish Ladder

In the past, ecological impacts were not taken into account when a dam was being designed or
constructed. Migratory fish species were one major example of this ecological impact. For
years, fish species had migrated through river systems to spawn and live according to temporal
changes. Upon dam construction, these fish were unable to successfully migrate to needed
locations for spawning. Subsequently, fish species populations have declined dramatically over
the years.
To combat this problem, dam removal is not a feasible option for most areas, especially in the
northeast. The reason this option is rarely feasible is due to the fact that many cities and towns
have inhabited areas surrounding the water ways both upstream and downstream. In order to
maintain a balance between social tolerance and the ability for fish species to travel throughout
the river system, fish passages have been devised.
Fish passages have become prevalent in all areas of the world. As ecological importance
becomes more and more of an issue in the area of civil engineering as a whole, fish passage
incorporation is becoming an increased concern to dam construction and rehabilitation.
2.4.1 Types of Fish Passages.

Past dams were construction with different design criteria and constraints. It is because of this
that fish passage design can go in many directions. Main goals in the design include, but are not
limited to, to allow recognized fish species to pass effectively back and forth through the
6
system, to ensure feasible construction costs, and to maintain social tolerance. Different
strategies have been created over the years to best fit these criteria. Although the following
types of fish passages explain basic design, fish passage design can change considerably
depending on the specific needs and constraints of the proposed site.
Pool and Weir

A pool and weir design is the oldest of the fish passage designs. A pool weir design incorporates
a series of small dams or “steps” by which fish have time to rest in pooled off areas before
traversing the next barrier known as a weir.
Denil Fishway
This type of fish passage contains symmetrical closely spaced baffles on the sidewall and floor.
The fishway is usually sloped between 1:5 and 1:8. (Quinn 1990). The reason for these baffles is
so that the velocity of the water flowing downstream decreases considerably by altering the
direction of the flow. (Kamula, et al 2001). To decrease the velocity of the water, different flow
directions are involved. The first flow direction is the apparent downstream flow. The baffles
create other lateral flows. This process enables the velocity of the water to decrease. Figure 75
below shows the cut-out of a denil fishway.
Figure 74. Denil Fishway
The following equation was formulated by studies at the University of Alberta, Canada since the
1984 that have been accepted for design features of a Denil fishway passage:
Where α and β are constants depending on the structure geometry of the fishway, Y0 is the
water depth in the flume, and bo is the width of the free opening, and in Equation 2
7
where S0 is equal to the bottom slope of the fishway.
Vertical Slot Fishway

Another common type of fish passage is the vertical slot fishway. This type of fishway consists
of a number of pools of equal lengths Vertical slot fishways can have a rectangular channel with
a slopping floor or pool weir type “steps.” Narrow slots are evenly placed along one or both
sides of the sidewalls for the water to pass, where the fish climb to each pooled off area.
Vertical slot fishways are functional in the sense that the depth of the water at each pass varies
so that the fish can pass upstream at the preferred depth. This type of fish passage may or may
not have pool weir characteristics, where there are levels or “steps” to each pool.
Taken from Rajaratnam et al. (1992), the design equation for a vertical slot fishway is
where γ = -1.11 when (yo/bo) ≤ 10 , and γ = -1.62 when (yo/bo) ≥ 10.
Figure 75: Plan View of Vertical Slow Fishway
Regardless on the type of passage chosen for the proposed site, the pool volume is sized in the
same manner. The final pool volume is determined by taking the peak rate of fish passing
through the passage (fish per minute) and multiplying that by the minutes allowed for the fish
to stay in each pool. A common value for this is 3-5 minutes. This value is multiplied by the pool
volume per fish. This calculation is based on the amount of fish that would run during the peak
time of migration. The type of fish is also a concern. Common values are described below; each
determined based each fish needing 0.5 FT3 per pound that they weigh.
American Shad @ 4lbs. 2 FT3/fish
Atlantic Salmon @ 8lbs. 4 FT3/fish
River Herring @ 0.5 lbs. 0.25 FT3/fish
After this pool volume is determined, a factor of safety is added to allow for other species of
fish and difference in seasonal water levels. This factor is usually between 10 and 15% more
than the calculated pool volume.
8
2.5 Morey’s Bridge Dam: Existing Conditions
Morey’s Bridge Dam is located on the northern shore of Sabbatia Lake in the city of Taunton,
Bristol County, in the state of Massachusetts. The dam is in the latitude of 41˚ 56’ 02.684” N
and in the longitude of 71˚ 06’ 28.348” W on the Taunton USGS Quadrangle. The dam’s spillway
is located under Morey’s Bridge. The main purpose of Morey’s Bridge Dam is to control the
quantity of water flowing from Lake Sabbatia to Mill River.
Figure 76. Mill River location.
The following figure shows the poor condition of the current spillway. This spillway is located
directly under the gatehouse.
Figure 77. Spillway condition below the gatehouse.
9
2.5.1 DCR Size & Hazard Classification
Morey’s Bridge Dam has been classified as a small sized structure, according to the Department
of Conservation and Recreation Office of Dam Safety classification in the state of
Massachusetts. Morey’s Bridge Dam had been classified as high hazard zone. Oil from the
spillway gates has spilled all over the river causing death to most of the living species, such as
mussels, and algae.
2.6 Pertinent Engineering Data

2.6.1 Drainage Area
Information on the drainage area and flow rates was found using the USGS Stream Stats
program which uses information from stream gauging stations and geographic data to calculate
these values.
2.6.2 Reservoir
According to the city’s conservation agent, the current level of the lake must stay high to
maintain a water table depth that will charge some of the surrounding wells. The level that the
lake is at in a dry season (late summer) may be used as the target water level for the dam
design.
Figure 78. Downstream view of current spillway structure.
2.7 Constraints on Mill River Restoration Projects.

The main design constraint on this project is the placement of a temporary coffer dam between
Lake Sabbatia and the Mill River. As a consequence of this temporary structure Mill River has
been drying out causing death to the aquatic species and vegetation. The placement of the
coffer dam is a significant spatial constraint on the project, because such a structure would be
10
necessary to construct the new dam and using the coffer dam in place would decrease the
construction cost significantly. The figure below shows the space between the temporary
coffer dam currently in place, and the gate house of Morey’s bridge dam. It is favorable to
place the new structure in between the coffer dam and the gatehouse.
Figure 79. Coffer Dam.
11
3 METHODOLOGY
The goal is to build a new dam that can hold back flood waters, such as those observed during
2005 and 1996 in Taunton, while allowing the target species (alewife) to pass the barrier. It will
take a series of well-planned steps to collect and analyze the information required to create a
design that will satisfy the technical and aesthetic requirements of the site. The steps include
assessing the current conditions, reviewing pertinent literature and reference materials to gain
background information and technical references, designing the hydraulic and structural
aspects of the dam and passage, and assessing the costs of different construction techniques.
3.1 Define the Problem and Goals.

The deteriorating dam presents a problem, with ecological and public safety implications. By
creating a barrier to aquatic species that travel upstream/ downstream to spawn, the current
dam structure disrupts the natural cycles of the species inhabiting this section of the Mill River.
In its deteriorating state, the structure is also a threat to public safety because it may not be
structurally capable of withholding flood waters in the near future. The community
surrounding Lake Sabbatia would like to see the water elevations rise. An elevation in the
water levels, however, may lead to water quality issues concerning septic system and well
locations.
The goal is to find a solution that satisfies the ecological, structural, and social requirements of
the site. Structural rehabilitation of the dam is necessary to be sure it can withstand the
seasonal fluctuations in water level and river flows. Passage must be provided for the aquatic
species to travel past the dam. Water level of Lake Sabbatia must be considered, to find
elevations that are both environmentally safe, do not lead to septic-related pollution problems,
and satisfy the community surrounding the lake.
3.2 Assess and analyze existing site conditions

One of the first topics to be explored for the project is the volume of water passing through the
site. Expected flow rates and seasonal fluctuations are important to both the hydraulic and
structural designs of the project. The values used in this analysis are estimates made by taking
into account reliable resources of information and data collected. Hydraulic aspects such as
present flows and drainage conditions must be analyzed to design a dam that is structurally
able to withhold the force of seasonally varying flows, and a fish passage that will successfully
pass alewife.
3.2.1 Literature review

Techniques involved in dam replacement were researched to find common ways that dams are
removed and replaced. As the site already has a temporary cofferdam in place, the issue of
holding back the waters of Lake Sabbatia while the dam is replaced will not be researched.
Possibilities for the design of the incorporation of passages into dams will be researched by
both reading literature, reports, and meeting with a local expert on retrofitting dams with fish
12
ways. While the site under analysis will have a dam designed to incorporate the fish way (no
retrofitting necessary) this is a way for the team to explore many placement and orientation
options for the fish way, which will lead to flexibility in the design process.
As a dam drastically changes the landscape and ecosystem around it, the environmental
impacts of dam replacement will be researched. The release of sediments trapped by the dam
structure may become an environmental issue downstream after the dam is constructed.
3.2.2 Present dam assessment

Optimally, the dam inspection reports for Morey’s Bridge Dam will be accessible to the team to
collect data about the existing conditions of the site. It is however likely that the inspection
reports will not be accessible. In this case, the team will work from a base of assumptions,
made by a site visit and investigation, and also from drawings obtained from the plans for the
current coffer dam on the site. These drawings can provide the team with information such as
site dimensions and elevation data. Any assumptions made will be clearly defined and
explained throughout the analysis.
3.2.3 Identify design constraints

Early identification of the constraints that the current site conditions place on the structural
and hydraulic designs is important to the design process. This can help eliminate many options
sooner rather than later, and allow the team to focus the analysis on viable options.
Regulations for public safety and the construction of dams will be taken into consideration first,
along with spatial and hydraulic constraints.
3.3 Hydraulic Design

Both the spillway and fish way will be hydraulically analyzed as open channel flows. Back water
curves, hydraulic profiles, velocities, turbulence, and flow volumes will be calculated and used
to make recommendations for the structural requirements of the site. USGS has stream gauging
sites placed throughout the United States. These sites monitor the flow in various streams
daily, and the team will use this data to determine design flows for the spillway and fish
passage. Incorporating this data, along with the analysis method recommended by Dick Quinn,
and Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) using HMR-
51, HMR-52, and HEC-1 from the USACE, flow volumes will be determined for the design of the
passage, spillway, and dam elevation.
3.3.1 Dam & Spillway

Hydraulic analysis of the spillway will start with the analysis of the PMP and PMF volumes. PMF
and PMP volumes will also be used to determine the maximum design requirements for the
dam by determining the maximum force of potential flood waters on the dam. Using guidelines
set by the USACE, the spillway will be designed to accommodate approximately half of the PMF
flow. The hydraulic characteristics of the spillway outflow will be analyzed to avoid high
velocities and turbulence.
13
3.3.2 Fish Passage
The target species, alewife, has characteristics that need to be accommodated through both
the structural and hydraulic designs. One aspect of this design is the combination of the flows
and depths that these fish need to swim through, and the structure that will allow these flows
and depths to be achieved. Recommendations for the depth, velocity, and allowable waiting
time for these fish will be taken from Dick Quinn and applied to the site. For example, alewife
are primarily a swimming species, not a jumping species. Therefore, there must be adequate
overflow from one section of the fish way to the next for these fish to swim and not have to
jump over a weir.
The types of fluctuations in the flow during the migration season will determine what type of
fish way is most appropriate for the site. After design flows are established, the fish way
designs that seem most appropriate for the site will be analyzed in further detail.
After hydrologic analysis of the seasonal flows on the site, the structural and hydraulic designs
of the passage will be closely intertwined. The structure of the passage defined the profile of
the water flowing through it. Therefore, a series of trial and error calculations will most likely
lead to the final design. Basic hydraulic design equations utilizing cross sectional area, flow
volume, and structural characteristics will be used to design a passage that is passable for these
fish.
3.4 Structural Design

Structural design will focus on designing a dam that can safely control flood water and maintain
favorable water elevations on Lake Sabbatia, and designing a passable fish way to maximize
alewife passage during the migratory season.
3.4.1 Dam & Spillway Structure

Using the information obtained in the dam inspection reports, or assumed in the absence of the
inspection report, an appropriate technical design for a new dam structure will be determined.
Viable options for the dam design will be identified, taking into account the constraints of the
site. Structural design elements of the spillway may involve both the aspect of the design, and
the hydraulic qualities of the spillway structure. Depending on the amount of energy that
needs to be dissipated form the water flowing over the spillway structure, baffles may be
incorporated into the design.
The USGS soils profiles of the area will be used in determining the foundation of the structure.
The seasonal flow volumes will be analyzed to determine the structural requirements for the
dam. The materials and form of the structure will be designed after the hydraulic forces have
been analyzed also. The options determined to be most appropriate for the site will be
analyzed in detail.
3.4.2 Fish Passage

Structure of the fish passage will be determined using the hydraulic analysis of the USGS stream
gauge data. The structure and orientation will be designed under the spatial constraints of the
14
site and using the recommendations of Dick Quinn. Some of these recommendations include
keeping the passage within a certain distance of the spillway outlet. The fish way may
incorporate designs from the pool and weir style, or the denil fishway. Specific dimensions of
the passage will be specific to passing Alewife within the migration months.
3.5 Evaluate the Economic Factors.

The economic feasibility of the design is just as important as its hydraulic and structural
feasibility. Estimate for the costs involved in this design will be made using values found in the
ENR Construction and Materials Cost Indexes. As these values may fluctuate during the design
process, prices will be presented close to the end of the design period in an attempt to make
the estimates as close as possible to reality. This cost breakdown will be visually presented in
the final report.
3.6 Write Report

A final report will be presented to both summarize and explain in detail the process used to
create a design fulfilling the goals of the project. This report will include detailed analysis and
design of the final dam, spillway and fish passage structures.
15
Works Cited
Walters, R.C.S. Dam Geology. London: Butterworth’s. 1962
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Riverways Program.
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/river/programs/priorityprojects/millriver.htm (accessed
September 8, 2007).
Delaware River Foundation. "Let it Flow -Newsletter of the Delaware River Foundation." Vol.4
Issue 2. http://delawareriverfoundation.org/Nov%202004%20Newsletter.pdf. (accessed
September 13, 2007)
Golzè, Alfred R., Ed. Handbook of Dam Engineering. New York: Litton Educational Publishing,
1977.
Herzog, Max A.M. Practical Dam Analysis. London: Thomas Telford Publishers, 1999.
Houghtalen, Robert J., and Ned Hwang. Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engineering Systems.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1996.
John Muir Institute of the Environment. “Natural Fish Passage Structures in Urban Streams (Part
2: Hydrologic design and analysis).
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jmie/roadeco
(accessed September 10, 2007).
Massachusetts Department of Fish & Wildlife. "Lake Sabbatia."
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/habitat/maps/ponds/pdf/dfwsabbi.pdf. (accessed
September 13, 2007).
Nyman, David C. “Restoration for an Urban River: Some Lessons Learned.” ENSR International.
http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/proceedings/2005%20Proceedings/Conference%20Proceedings/07-
12-05%20Tuesday%20PM2/Session%2010/10.3.Nyman.pdf (accessed September 10, 2007).
River and Stream Continuity Project. “Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards.”
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/MAStreamCrossingGuidelines.pdf (accessed September
10, 2007).
Transportation Association of Canada. Guide to Bridge Hydraulics. London: Thomas Telford
Publishing, 2004.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Massachusetts Agricultural
Experiment Station. Soil Survey of Bristol County, Massachusetts, Northern Part. 1978.
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. Design of Small Dams. Second ed.
1977.
16
Appendix A. Mill River Location & Soil Data
Figure 80. Morey's Bridge Dam.
i
Figure 81. Bedrock Geology Map A. (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1978)
ii
Figure 82. Bedrock Geology Map B. (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1978)
iii

Lda MQP 0807

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lda MQP 0807

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lda MQP 0807

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LDA-0807

A Major Qualifying Project Report:

submitted to the Faculty

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Bachelor of Science

Professor Leonard Albano, Major Advisor

Professor Paul P Mathisen, Major Advisor

CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. III

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. VII

1.1 Site Geography ............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Capstone Design ........................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Ecology Restoration ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2.4 Dams ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.5 Concrete Gravity Dams ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.6 Spillway Design & Hydraulics ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.7 Cost Estimating ........................................................................................................................................... 15

2.8 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 16

2.9 Implications of Background Information..................................................................................................... 19

3.1 Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Hydraulic Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 34

3.3 Structural Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 40

3.4 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................................... 49

3.5 Summary of Methods ................................................................................................................................. 50

4 RESULTS & ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 51

4.1 Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 51

4.2 Hydraulic Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 57

4.3 Structural Design Calculations for the Dam................................................................................................. 66

4.4 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................................... 73

4.5 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................................... 76

5 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 80

WORKS CITED ....................................................................................................................................... 82

APPENDIX A. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS. ......................................................................................... A

APPENDIX B. FISH PASSAGE HYDROLOGY ................................................................................... R

APPENDIX C. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS. ......................................................................................... 5-Z

APPENDIX D. PLANS .......................................................................................................................... EE

APPENDIX E. COST ESTIMATING .................................................................................................. HH

1.1 Capstone Design Process .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Mill River Geography .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 General Purpose of Dams. ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Reconstruction vs. Repair of Dams. .............................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Environmental Concerns. .............................................................................................................................. 5

2.4 Fish Ladder ................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Morey’s Bridge Dam: Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 9

2.6 Pertinent Engineering Data ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.7 Constraints on Mill River Restoration Projects............................................................................................ 10

3.1 Define the Problem and Goals. ................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Assess and analyze existing site conditions................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Hydraulic Design ......................................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Structural Design ........................................................................................................................................ 14

3.5 Evaluate the Economic Factors. .................................................................................................................. 15

APPENDIX A. MILL RIVER LOCATION & SOIL DATA................................................................... I

1.1 Site Geography

Figure 1. Morey's Bridge Dam Site Relative to Taunton, MA.

1.2 Capstone Design

2.1 Ecology Restoration

2.3 Soil Characteristics