Time of travel of water in the Great Miami River, Dayton to Cleves, Ohio

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR

Prepared in cooperation with the Miami Conservancy District

STEWART l. UDALL, Secretary

Geological Survey

William T. Pecora, Director Abstract ___________________________ _

Purpose---------------------------- Determination of traveltimes _________ _ Traveltime comparison __ -------- __ _ Analysis of discharge ---------------- Sampling- site discharge ___________ _ Determination of Miamisburg index discharge ______________________ _

Figure 1.

Map of Great Miami River basin------------------------ __ ---------------- Graph showing traveltime of-

3. Great Miami River, mile 80 to mile 40--------------------------------
4. Great Miami River, mile 40 to mile 0---------------------------------
5. Dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami
6. Dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami
7. Dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami
8. Dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami
9. Traveltime for index discharge of 380 cubic feet per second at Miamisburg ____ _
10. Discharges at selected sites on Great Miami River and tributaries ------------
11. Municipal sewage-plant effluent ____ -------- ____ ---- ___ --------- ____ ----- __ _
12. Waste effluent from industries using ground-water supply--------------------
13. Miamisburg index discharges for mean discharges in subreaches during August run------------------------------------------------------------

River at index flow of 550 cubic feet per second, mile 80 to mile 35 ____ _

River at index flow of 550 cubic feet per second, mile 40 to mile 0 _____ _

River at index flow of 380 cubic feet per second, mile 80 to mile 35 ____ _

River at index flow of 380 cubic feet per second, mile 40 to mile 0 _____ _ CONTENTS

TABLES Traveltime prediction ---------------- Dye-cloud passage time_______________ Conclusions ------------------------- Selected references ------------------

PURPOSE

The Great Miami River, like many streams used extensively by man to carry away municipal and industrial wastes, receives large quantities of waste water from many sources. During summer low- flow periods the Great Miami River has high water temperatures and low dissolved- oxygen concentrations in some reaches downstream from Dayton, Ohio. During such periods information on time of travel is necessary to predict the passage of pollutants accidentally spilled into the river.

A time-of-travel study of the Great Miami River from Dayton to Cleves, Ohio, 71.3 river miles, was made in the summer of 196 5 to obtain basic information about water passage. The study was made with a fourfold purpose:

1. To determine the traveltime between

given sites along the stream for use in pollution studies.

2. To examine the longitudinal dispersion of

the dye cloud, expressed as passage tirr~ at selected sampling sites.

3. To compare the time of travel based on

the average velocity computed from disch::trge divided by cross-sectional area with that of the dye.

4. To examine the possibilities of predict-

ing traveltimes at different discharges.

The techniques utilizing a soluble dye tracer were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and were perfected by measurements on many streams prior to this study (Buchanan, 1964; Wilson and Forest, 1965).

The study was made under a cooperative program between the Miami Conservancy District, M. L. Mitchell, chief engineer, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Columbus, Ohio, J. J. Molloy, district chief, H. P. Brooks, U.S. Geological Survey. and L. C. Crawford, Miami Conservancy District, coordinated the field operations.

DETERMINATION OF TRAVEL TIMES

To determine traveltime, a soluble dye, Rhodamine BA, was used as a tracer. The study reach, 71.3 river miles, was divided into 7 subreaches during the July run and 9 subreaches during the August run to minimize dye concentration and total time required for the study. The dye was injected into the river as a slug at the head of each subreach. Water samples were then collected at selected sites downstrf'am from the injection site. The samples were tested for dye concentrations with an instrument called a fluorometer. From the tests the time distribution of the tracer was determined for each sampling site and plotted as shown in figure 1. From such graphs the data presented in this report were extracted. This study required a 20 -man field crew for each run.

Figure 1. -Time distribution of dye concentration, Central Avenue, Middletown.

From Dayton to Cleves (fig. 2), cumulative traveltimes of 182 and 254 hours were computed at approximate index discharges of 550 and 380 cfs (cubic feet per second). The Miamisburg gage was selected as the index station for the study reach. These traveltimes, shown in figures 3 and 4, are for the centroid of the dye-cloud mass.

The approximate peak traveltimes are listed in tables 1 and 2. Many of the concentration curves contained two or more peaks of approximately equal magnitude, particularly during the August run. The peak-time occurrence was then computed by weighting each peak time by its respective concentration magnitude. During the July run multiple peaks did not occur but some curves had poorly defined peaks: which made determinations of peak traveltime equally difficult.

A curve computed by using the averagevelocity method for an index discharge of 394 cfs at Miamisburg was available previous to this study. The average velocity was computed by dividing the average dischan{e in a subreach by the average cross-se.ctional area. Traveltime was then obtained by dividing the average reach length by the average velocity. A curve using average velocity traveltime is shown in figures 3 and 4. Data for the curve were obtained from the Miami Conservancy District. It plots between the curves developed from the traveltime of the dye clC"lds and indicates a traveltime too short for the discharge.

In the entire reach, Dayton to Cleves, for the July and August runs, the peak traveltimes averaged 91 percent of the centroid traveltimes (figs, 5-8), Curve characteristics for the two runs appear to agree fairly closely.

To compute the discharges for sampling sites shown in tables 1 and 2, a point-source method was used. By this method any contributing tributary discharge and industrial- or municipal-sewage effluent were added to the streamflow. For most sites, a true balance of discharge at the downstream end of the reach was not achieved, To refine the discharge further, a discharge -drainage-are2. computation was applied for each sampling site.

Because of the lack of knowledge of flow diversion at the Hamilton diversion canal, it was assumed that most of the flow would travel through the canal, During the July run a sampling station was located on the river within the canal-river complex. Results of the run indicated that only a small portion of the flow took the river route; most of the flow traveled through the canal, During the Pugust run no samples were taken at this river site,

No canal-discharge measurements were made at Franklin. However, a canal-discharge estimate of 225 cfs was made using dye-cloud mass recovery at Franklin, This estimate was made by dividing the area under the dye -cloud concentration curve for the canal outfall by the area under the curve for Franklin; this quotient was then multiplied by the total discharge at Franklin, The computation assumed

Figure 2. --Great Miami River basin.

e 0

u

Dayton gaging station--~-ooo

a

e:~

a

a; .... o ....

z

b

I I

e.

g'

o· 8.g <

a

a

r

z

o~~r

en

s::

g

Ic I

g

Figure 7. -Traveltime of dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami River at index flow of 380 cfs, mile 80 to mile 35.

J

"E Ta'ble 1.-Traveltime for index discharge of 550 cubic feet per second at Miamisburg, July 13-15, 1965

Figure 8. -Traveltime of dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami River at index flow of 380 cfs, mile 40 to mile 0.

Distance from Location mouth (miles)

3d St., Dayton ________________________ Stewart St., Dayton ------------------- Broadway Bridge, Dayton4 _____________ Sellars Rd ___________________________

West Carrollton Dam----------------- West Carrollton Rd ___________________ Sycamore St., Miamisburg 4____________ Chautauqua Road Bridge_----------- ___ Chautauqua Dam ________ ------------- 2d St., Franklin, via canal _____________ Chautauqua Dam ______________________

2d St., Franklin, via river------------- Near Oxford Rd ______________________ Middletown Dam_---- __ ------ __ ------- Middletown Canal, at State Route 4 ----- Middletown Canal south, at State Route 122 ------------------------- Middletown Dam_---- ____________ ----_ River-State Route 4 ___________________ River-State Route 122----------------- Middletown Dam ___________ ----------- 500 ft upstream, State Route 73 bridge4__ Woods dale Bridge ____________________ Hamilton Canal headgate ______________ Canal outfall------------------------- Main-High St., Hamilton4 _ ------------- 1,000 ft downstream Hamilton gage----- American Materials bridge------------ U.S. Bypass 50----------------------- New Baltimore4 ---------------------- Chesapeake and Ohio Railway bridge ____ U.S. 52, Miamitown __ ----------------_ U.S. 50, Cleves _______________________

Total mileage=71. 3 miles.

Total centroid traveltime=182 hr; average velocity=0.39 mph. 79.32 77.95 76.36 72.90 71.48 69.00 66.44 63.84 61.70 59.71 61.70 59.71 57.93 55.82

52.74 55.82 54.24 52.74 55.82 48.47 42.36 40.68 36.00 35.52 34.46 29.30 25.56 20.84 19.64 14.90 7.98 Mean discharge mass from (cfs) Traveltime of Mean velocity of centroid of

previous site2 previous sites (hr)

Computed for 10 percent of peak concentration. Dye- injection points. centroid between present and

(mph)

Time leading edge precedes ence after centroid 3 (hr)

.35 .59 .60 .78 .30 1.47 .52 .48 .37 .81 .48 .57 Persist-

centroid a (hr)

.2 3.3 8.7 Traveltime of peak concentration (hr)

d

Table 2.-Traveltime for index discharge of 380 cubic feet per second at Miamisburg, Aug. 31 to Sept. 2, 1965

Distance from Location mouth (miles)

Stewart St., Dayton ------------------- Broadway Bridge, Dayton ------------- Sellars Rd West Carrollton Dam ____ ---- ___ ----- _ West Carrollton Rd ___________________ Sycamore St., Miamisburg------------ Chautauqua Road Bridge _______________ Below Hutchings Dam ---------------- Chautauqua Dam ______________________ 2d St., Franklin, via canal 4 _____________ Chautauqua Dam ______________________

2d St., Franklin, via river------------- Near Oxford Rd ---------------------- Middletown Dam ___ ----- ___ ------ _____ Middletown Canal south, at State Route 122-------------------------- Middletown Dam ________ -----_-------- River-State Route 122----------------- Middletown Dam _________ ---- _________ State Route 73 bridge ---------------- Woodsdale Bridge ____________________ Hamilton Canal headgate ______________ Hamilton Canal outfall---------------- Main-High St., Hamilton -------------- American Materials bridge------------ New Baltimore 4 ______________________

U.S. 52, Miamitown------------------- U.S. 50, Cleves-----------------------

Total mileage=71.3 miles.

Total centroid traveltime=253.6 hr; average velocity=0.28 mph. 79.32 77.95 76.36 72.90 71.48 69.00 66.44 63.84 63.50 61.70 59.71 61.70 59.71 57.93 55.82

52.74 55.82 52.74 55.82 48.37 42.36 40.68 36.00 35.52 29.30 20.84 14.90 7.98 Mean discharge mass from (cfs) Traveltime of Mean velocity of centroid of centroid between

previous site previous sites (hr)

(mph)

Computed for 10 percent of peak concentration. Dye-injection points.

Time leading edge precedes ence after centroid (hr)

.35 .32 .15 .80 .80 .34 .44 .33 .41 Persist-

centroid (hr)

5.3 3.4 13.6 3.4 16.3 8.9 10.6 9.2 7.8 9.5 14.2 6.0 8.80 Traveltime of peak concentration (hr)

no dye loss for the 1, 20D-foot distance between the canal outfall and Franklin.

Adequate discharge measurements were made at Middletown to determine flow in the river and in the canal.

Table 3 gives representative discharges for selected sites along the Great Miami River and its tributaries. For most sites, tributary discharges were adjusted for discharge from the intervening drainage area between the gage site and the mouth.

Great Miami at Dayton------------- Wolf Creek----------------------- Bear Creekl ______________________

Great Miami at Miamisburg -------- Great Miami at Franklin ---------- Clear Creek2 --------------------- Twin Creekl ---------------------- Great Miami at Middletown, canal ___ Great Miami at Middletown, river2 __ Elk Creek------------------------ Dicks Creek---------------------- Four Mile Creek------------------ Great Miami at Hamilton----------- Indian Creekl ___________ ---- ______ Great Miami at New Baltimore ______ Great Miami at Cleves3 ------------ -------- -------

Discharge adjusted for drainage- area change between gage site and mouth.

Nonrecording gage; discharge computed from 8:00 a.m. reading each day.

Measurements, July 15 at 10:00 a.m. and Sept. 2 at 9:00 a.m.

Dayton _ ----- _____________________ Hamilton _________________________ Miamisburg_______________________ Middletown _________ ----- _________ Franklin __________________________

Miami Shoresl -------------------- Totals __________________________

Approximate effluent by graphical comparison.

Table 3.-Discharges at selected sites on Great Miami River and tributaries

Stream 7-13-65 7-14-65 7-15-65 8-31-65

City 7-13-65 7-14-65 7-15-65 8-31-65

100.8 2.2 9.7 .1 1.0 1.0 waste effluents is given in tables 4 and 5. Industrial- and municipal-waste effluents were computed on the assumption th2.t the flow rate was constant over the entire 24-hour day. Besides the industries which utilize ground water, there are also industries whicl' use the river water for cooling. Industries utilizing the river water for this purpose are not listed, for most of the water is returned to the stream.

102.3 A summary of industrial- 2.nd municipal-

Mean discharge (cfs)

Mean discharge (cfs)

50 (r: eak)

Table 5.-Waste eff1uent from industries using ground-water supply

Plant 7-13-65 7-14-65 7-15-65 8-31-65

National Cash Register Co., Dayton __ Howard Paper Div., St. Regis Paper Co., Daytonl -------------------- Frigidaire Corp., Daytonl ---------- Frigidaire Corp., Moraine City ----- Parchment Co., West Carrollton ---- Oxford Paper Co., North Carrollton __ Kimberly- Clark Corp., West Carrollton _____________________ _

Miamisburg Box Board Div., Interstate Folding Box Co.,Miamisburg.. Cheney Pulp and Paper Co., Franklin_ Miami Valley Coated Paper Div., Millen Industries, Franklin ______ _ Logan Long Co., Franklin ---------- Stone Container Corp., Franklin ____ _ Harding Jones Paper Co., Middletown ___ .... ______ ---- _____ _ Sorg Paper Co., Middletown -------- Wren Paper Div., Mead Paper Corp., Middletown .. _ .............. _ .. __ ...... __ .. __ Crystal Tissue Co., Middletown ........ - Armco Steel Corp., Middletown _ .... __ U.S. Plywood, Champion Paper, Inc., Hamilton ___ .. _ .. ____ .. ________ .. __ _ Nicolet Industries, Inc., Hamilton ___ _

Tied in with city sewer.

During the July run, discharges at Miamisburg remained nearly constant during the run. Over this time span, an average index discharge of 550 cfs was computed for Miamisburg. The index discharge is defined as the average discharge at Miamisburg for the traveltime occurrence.

During the August run, a rainstorm occurred covering the entire reach under consideration with approximately 1-1 i inches of rainfall. Generally, peak dye-cloud concentration occurred at all sampling sites before the effects of the rainfall were noted. Many of the tailing ends of the time-concentration curves were affected and caused a dilution effect in some places. In a few of the more critical situations, the concentration curves were extended by estimating the recessions. To determine the effects of the rain more thoroughly, a discharge -drainage -area relation was computed 9.5

for each concentration curve, based on the time of occurrence of the centroid. Results of computations showed discharge per square mile to range from 0.078 to 0.241 cfs with an average of 0.128 cfs. Eighty-seven percent of th<7. values ranged from 0.100 to 0.179 cfs witl: only one extreme of 0.241 cfs. It was therefore concluded that the rainfall had minor effect.

August run was determined by considering sampling-site discharge, drainage area, and mean discharge at Miamisburg. (See tal:le 6.) To arrive at a representative value, the follow- ·ing pr0cedure was used: A discharge factor was computed for each sampling site, th<?. discharge factor being defined as the quotient of the mean Miamisburg discharge and the mean sampling-site discharge. Discharge r'?.sults from the July run were used to compute the discharge factors. Mean sampling-site discharges were then computed for the !.ugust run. Next, Miamisburg index discharges for Mean discharge (cfs)

The computation of index discharge for the 10.4

88.2 Table 6.-Miamisburg index discharges for mean discharges in subreaches during August ru~

Location discharge (Q)

3d St., Dayton2 --------------------------- Stewart St., Dayton ----------------------- Broadway Bridge, Dayton ________________ .. _ Broadway Bridge, Dayton2 ________________ _ Sellars Road ____________________________ _

West Carrollton Dam--------------------- West Carrollton Road ___ -----------------_ Sycamore St., Miamisburg ________________ _ Sycamore St., Miamisburg 2______ -------- __ Chautauqua Road Bridge ______ ---- __ ------- Below Hutchings Dam ___ ------------------ Below Hutchings Dam2 -------------------- Chautauqua Dam _________________________ _

2d St., Franklin-------------------------- 2d St., Franklin2 ___ ----- _____________ ---- _ Near Oxford Road------------------------ Middletown Dam ________ ------------------ State Route 73 Bridge--------------------- State Route 73 Bridge -------------------- Woodsdale Bridge ------------------------ Hamilton Canal headgate ------------------ Hamilton Canal outfall ------------------ __ Main~High St., Hamilton __________ --------- Main-+High St., Hamilton 2------------------ Amer-ican Materials bridge---------------- New Baltimore--------------------------- New Baltimore2 _________________________ _

U.S. 52., Miamitown----------------------- U.S. 50, Cleves __ -------- _______________ ....

lMean discharge at the time of dye-cloud passage or at the time of dye injection.

2Dye- injection locations.

each sampling site were determined from the product of the mean sampling-site discharges and the respective discharge factors. Index discharges at the upstream and downstream ends of each subreach were then averaged. Instead of using an arithmetic average of the tabulated discharge, it was felt that weighting each discharge by its incremental reach drainage area would give a truer discharge index for the entire reach, Dayton to Cleves. By this method, an index discharge for the Miamishurg gage was computed to be 380 cfs. This index is limited to applications involving the entire stream reach, and if indices are desired for other subreaches, from Dayton to Middletown, for example, a similar computation would have to be followed.

(cfs)

To predict traveltimes, a linear log-log plot of traveltime versus MiamisbuJ~g index discharge was made. A straight line was drawn between the two points and an equation developed for the curve. The equation which was developed for the entire reach, Dayton to Cleves, is, T:400x10 time in hours and Q is discharge in cfs.

The above equation is applica'tle for an approximate index-discharge span of 300-800 cfs; these limits were determined from a study of varying Miamisburg index discharges and the corresponding stream cross-se~tional areas at random sites along the reach.

TRAVEL TIME PREDICTIC"'

QxF (cfs)

Q-· ~ where Tis travel-Average Miamisburg index discharge (cfs)

The two index discharges of 550 and 380 cfs represent flow durations of 76 and 90 percent, respectively, at Miamisburg. The index discharges therefore represent very low flow conditions, and the traveltimes are nearly the longest and the longitudinal spreads are nearly the greatest to be expected. An accidental spill at a discharge much greater than 550 cfs would travel faster and be less dispersed.

Passage time of the dye cloud may be determined by inspection of the curves in figures 5-8. The time intervals from the centroids of the concentration curves are plotted and are given in tables 1 and 2. Because of the uncertainty of the actual beginning or ending of many concentration curves, values were taken at 10 percent of the peak concentration. By using 10 percent of the peak concentration instead of zero concentration, the differences for the leading edges are usually slight; for most cases, the trailing edge 10-percent point is significantly short of the point of nondetectability.

As a point of interest, the Middletown canal and river longitudinal dispersion characteristics are also shown on figure 5. Only an average centroid curve is plotted; both the canal and river values were plotted from this base.

By comparing the longitudinal dispersion characteristics of the two runs, some uncommon time -concentration patterns are notECd that are similar to those reported by Godfrey and Frederick (1963). This variation can be attributed to the many controls and extensive use of the stream. Even if a rerun would be possible at discharges equal to those during this study, the resulting shape of the time-concentration curve would probably differ. CONCLUSIONS

The time-of-travel study of the Great Miami River gave representative traveltimes for the river during low streamflow between Dayton and Cleves, a distance of 71.3 river miles. The longitudinal spread of the dye cloud showed unusual effects, especially in the upper por~ion of the reach where the stream is highly controlled. Comparison of observed traveltimes with those computed by using the averagevelocity method indicated very poor correlation between the two methods. The averagevelocity method indicated a faster traveltime for a given index discharge at Miamisburg. Within the index- discharge range, 300-800 cfs, one may make reasonable estimates of time of travel for a given index discharge. However, extrapolations of the traveltime- discharge relation beyond that range should be made yrith caution.

Buchanan, T. J., 1964, Time of travel of soluble contaminants in streams: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Proc., v. 90, no. SA3, paper 3P32, 12 p .• 6 fig. Godfrey, R. G., and Frederick, B. J., 1963, Dispersion in natural streams: U.S. Geol. Survey open-file report, 75 p., 13 fig. · Stewart, M. R., 1967, Time of travel of solutes in Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to Pew Orleans, Louisiana: US. Geol. Survey Hydrol. Inv. Atlas HA-260. Wilson, J. F., Jr., and Forrest, W~ E., 1fl65, Potomac River time-of-travel measurements, itr Symposium on diffusion in oceans and fresh waters: Palisades, N. Y., Lamont Geol. Observatory, 1964, 18 p., 6 fig.

Where this page came from

This page was imported from U.S. Geological Survey. Published by the U.S. Geological Survey and, as a work of the United States government, in the public domain.

Nobody has written it yet — it is the source material at a new address, which is why search engines are asked to skip it and why no one earns from it. It is up for grabs: take it on, and it is yours to rewrite and to earn from.