Larry W. Mays: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona

Source: HYDRAULIC DESIGN HANDBOOK
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Larry W. Mays
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
1.1 OVERVIEW
Since the Egyptian’s and Mesopotamian’s first successful efforts to control the flow of
water thousands of years ago, a rich history of hydraulics has evolved. Sec. 1.2 contains a
brief description of some ancient hydraulic structures that are found around the world.
During the 20th century, many new developments have occurred in both theoretical and
applied hydraulics. A number of handbooks and textbooks on hydraulics have been pub-
lished, as indicated in Fig. 1.1. From the viewpoint of hydraulic design, however, only
manuals, reports, monographs, and the like have been published, mostly by government
agencies. Unfortunately, many aspects of hydraulic design have never been published as
a compendium. This Hydraulic Design Handbook is the first effort devoted to producing
a comprehensive handbook for hydraulic design. The book covers many aspects of
hydraulic design, with step-by-step procedures outlined and illustrated by sample design
problems.
1.2 ANCIENT HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES
1.2.1 A Time Perspective
Although humans are newcomers to earth, their achievements have been enormous. It was
only during the Holocene epoch (10,000 years ago) that agriculture developed (keep in
mind that the earth and the solar system originated 4,600 million years ago). Humans have
spent most of their history as hunters and food-gatherers. Only in the past 9,000 to 10,000
years have humans discovered how to raise crops and tame animals. Such changes prob-
ably occurred first in the hills to the north of present-day Iraq and Syria. The remains of
the prehistoric irrigation works in Mesopotamia and Egypt still exist. Table 1.1 presents a
chronology of knowledge about water.
Figure 1.2 illustrates the chronology and locations of various civilizations ranging
from India to Western Europe. This figure, from O. Neugebaur’s book titled The Exact
Sciences in Antiquity, illustrates the Hellenistic period the era of “ancient science,”
during which a form of science developed that spread later from Europe to India.
This ancient science was dominant until the creation of modern science dominant in
Isaac Newton’s time.
1.1
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
INTRODUCTION
1.2 Chapter One
Abbott’s Computational Hydraulics (1980) 1980
Freeze and Cherry’s Groundwater (1979)

Fischer et al., Mixing in Inland and
Coastal Waters (1979)
Graf’s Hydraulics of Sediment Transport

(1971)
1970
Streeter and Wylies’ Hydraulic Transients
(1967) U.S. Geological Survey’s Roughness
Characteristics of Natural Channels (1967)
Hendersons’ Open-Channel Flow (1966)
Daily and Harleman’s Fluid Dynamics
Leliavsky’s River and Canal Hydraulics (1966)
(1965)
Linsley and Franzini’s Elements of

Morris and Wiggert’s Applied Hydraulics Hydraulic Engineering (1964)
in Engineering (1963)
USBR Design of Small Dams (1960) 1960

Chow’s Open-Channel Hydraulics (1959)
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Hydraulic
Design of Stilling Basin and Energy
Dissipators (1958)
Stoker’s Water Waves (1957)
Leliavsky’s An Introduction to Fluvial
Parmakiams’ Waterhammer Analysis Hydraulics (1955)
(1955) Addison’s Treastise on Applied
King’s Handbook of Hydraulics (1954) Hydraulics (1954)
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Hydraulic

Laboratory Practice (1953)
Rich’s Hydraulic Transients (1951)
Rouse’s Engineering Hydraulics (1950) 1950
FIGURE 1.1 A selected list of books on hydraulics published between 1900 to 1980.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.3
1950
Allen’s Scale Models in Hydraulic

Engineering (1947)
ASCE’s Hydraulic Models (1942) Davis and Sorersen’s Handbook of

Applied Hydraulics (1942)
Woodward and Posey’s Hydraulics of
Steady Flow in Open Channels (1941)
1940
Rouse’s Fluid Mechanics for Hydraulic

Engineers (1938)
Daugherty’s Hydraulics (1937)
Muskat’s The Flow of Homogeneous
Fluids Through Porous Media (1937) Bakhmeteff’s The Mechanics of Turbulent
Flow (1936)
Bakhmeteff’s Hydraulics of Open
Channels (1932)
1930
Schoder and Dawson’s Hydraulics (1927)
Le Conte’s Hydraulics (1926)
1920
Hoyt and Grover’s River Discharge

(1916)
Hoskins’s A Text–Book on Hydraulics

(1911)
1910
Merriman’s Treatise on Hydraulics (1904)
1900
FIGURE 1.1 (Continued)

INTRODUCTION
1.4 Chapter One
TABLE 1.1 Chronology of Knowledge About Water
Prehistorical period Springs

3rd –2nd millennium B.C. Cisterns
3rd millennium B.C. Dams
3 millennium B.C. Wells
Probably very early† Reuse of excrement as fertilizer
2nd millennium B.C. Gravity flow supply pipes or channels and drains, pressure
pipes (subsequently forgotten)
8th-6th c. B.C. Long-distance water supply lines with tunnels and bridges,
as well as intervention in and harnessing of karst water
systems
6th c. B.C. at the latest Public as well as private bathing facilities, consisting of:
bathtubs or showers, footbaths, washbasins, latrines or
toilets, laundry and dishwashing facilities
6th c. B.C. at the latest Use of definitely two and probably three qualities of water:
potable, subpotable, and nonpotable, including irrigation
using storm runoff, probably combined with waste waters
6th-3rd c. B.C. Pressure pipes and siphon systems
*Indicates an element discovered, probably forgotten, and rediscovered later.
†Indicates an educated guess.
Source: Crouch, 1993.
1.2.2 Irrigation Systems
1.2.2.1 Egypt and Mesopotamia. In ancient Egypt, the construction of canals was a major
endeavor of the Pharaohs beginning in Scorpio’s time. Among the first duties of provincial
governors was the digging and repair of canals, which were used to flood large tracts of land
while the Nile was flowing high. The land was checkerboarded with small basins defined by
a system of dikes. Problems associated with the uncertainty of the Nile’s flows were recog-
nized. During high flows, the dikes were washed away and villages were flooded, drowning
thousands of people. During low flows, the land was dry and no crops could grow. In areas
where fields were too high to receive water directly from the canals, water was drawn from
the canals or from the Nile by a swape or shaduf (Fig. 1.3), which consisted of a bucket on
the end of a cord hung from the long end of a pivoted boom that was counterweighted at the
short end (de Camp, 1963). Canals continued to be built in Egypt throughout the centuries.
The Sumerians in southern Mesopotamia built city walls and temples and dug canals
that were the world’s first engineering works. It also is of interest that these people, fought
over water rights from the beginning of recorded history. Irrigation was vital to
Mesopotamia, Greek for “the land between the (Tigris and Euphrates) rivers.” An ancient
Babylonian curse was, “May your canal be filled with sand” (de Camp, 1963), and even
their ancient laws dealt with canals and water rights. The following quotation from
approximately the sixth century B.C., illustrates such a law (de Camp, 1963):
“The gentleman who opened his wall for irrigation purposes, but did not make
his dyke strong and hence caused a flood and inundated a field adjoining his,
shall give grain to the owner of the field on the basis of those adjoining.”
Because the Tigris and Euphrates carried several times more silt per unit volume of water
than the Nile did, flooding problems were more serious in Mesopotamia than in Egypt. As
a result the rivers in Mesopotamia rose faster and changed course more often.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.5
FIGURE 1.2 Chronology and location of different civilizations ranging from India to Western Europe.
(Neugebauer, 1993)
The irrigation systems in both Mesopotamia and the Egyptian Delta were of the basin
type, opened by digging a gap in the embankment and closed by placing mud back into
the gap. (See Fig. 1.4 for a comparison of the irrigation works in Upper Egypt and in
Mesopotamia.) Water was hoisted using the swape, Mesopotamian laws required farmers
to keep their basins and feeder canals in repair; they also required everyone else to wield
hoes and shovels when the rivers flooded or when new canals were required or old ones
needed repair (de Camp, 1963). Some canals may have been used for 1,000 years before

INTRODUCTION
1.6 Chapter One
FIGURE 1.3 Shadufs of the Amarna period, from the tomb of Nefer-Hotep at Thebes.
Note irrigation of date palms and other orchard trees and the apparent tank or pool (lower
right). The water pattern in the lowest margin suggests lifting out of an irrigation canal.
(Davies, 1933, pls. 46 and 47). Figure as presented in Butzer (1976).
they were abandoned and others were built. Even today, 4,000 to 5,000 years later, the
embankments of the abandoned canals remain. In fact, these canal systems supported a
larger population than lives there today. Over the centuries, Mesopotamian agriculture
began to decline because of the salty alluvial soil. In 1258, the Mongols conquered
Mesopotamia and destroyed its irrigation systems.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.7
FIGURE 1.4 Comparative irrigation networks in Upper Egypt and Mesopotamia. A. Example of linear,
basin irrigation in Sohag province, ca. AD 1850. B. Example of radial canalization system in the lower
Nasharawan region southeast of Baghdad, Abbasid (A.D. 883–1150). Modified from R. M. Adams (1965,
(Fig. 9) Same scale as Egyptian counterpart) C. Detail of field canal layout in B. (Simplified from R. M.
Adams, 1965, Fig. 10). Figure as presented in Butzer (1976).
The Assyrians also developed extensive pubic works. When Sargon II invaded Armenia
in 714 B.C., he discovered the ganãt (Arabic) or kariz (Persian), a system of tunnels used
to bring water from an underground source in the hills down to the foothills (Fig. 1.5).
Sargon destroyed the system in Armenia but brought the concept back to Assyria. Over the
centuries, this method of irrigation spread across the Near East into North Africa and is

INTRODUCTION
1.8 Chapter One
FIGURE 1.5 Details of the ganãt system. (Biswas, 1970).
still used. Sargon’s son Sennacherib also developed waterworks by damming the Tebitu
River and using a canal to bring water to Nineveh, where the water could be used for irri-
gation without the need for hoisting devices. During high water in the spring, overflows
were handled by a municipal canebrake that was built to develop marshes used as game
preserves for deer, wild boar, and birds. When this system was outgrown, a new canal 30
mi long was built, with an aqueduct that had a layer of concrete or mortar under the upper
layer of stone to prevent leakage.
1.2.2.2 Prehistoric Mexico. During the earliest years of canal irrigation in Mexico,
the technology changed little (Fig. 1.6) and the method of flooding tended to be hap-
hazard. The technological achievements were relatively primitive until about 600 or
500 B.C., and few of the early systems remain. Whereas the earlier systems were con-
structed of loosely piled rocks, the later ones consisted of storage dams constructed of
blocks that were mortared together. Some spillways were improved, and floodgates
were used in some spillways. (Some dams could be classified as arch dams.) The
canals were modified to an extent during this time: Different cross-sectional areas were

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.9
FIGURE 1.6 Regional chronology and dates of developments in various aspects of canal irrigation
technology in Mexico. (Doolittle, 1990)
used, some were lined with stone slabs, and the water for irrigation of crops was more
carefully controlled.
Between 550 and 200 B.C., the irrigation-related features and the entire canal systems
were significantly improved. The channelization of stream beds, the excavation of canals,
and the construction of dams were probably the most significant improvements. However,
the technology stopped improving after 200 B.C., and no significant developments
occurred for approximately 500 years. Around 300 A.D., a few new improvements were
initiated, but the technology remained essentially the same through the classic period
(A.D., 200 – 800/1000) and early postclassical period (A.D. 800/1000–1300). Figure 1.7 is
a map of fossilized canals in the Tehuacan Valley in Mexico.

INTRODUCTION
1.10 Chapter One
FIGURE 1.7 Map of fossilized canals on the Llano de la Taza in the Tehuacan Valley.
(Woodbury and Neely, 1972, as presented in Doolittle, 1990)
1.2.2.3 North America. The canal irrigation systems in the Hohokam and Chaco
regions stand out as two major prehistoric developments in the American Southwest
(Crown and Judge, 1991). The two systems expanded over broad geographic areas of sim-
ilar size (the Hohokam in Arizona and the Chacoans in New Mexico). Although they were
developed at similar times, they apparently functioned independently. Because the two
systems evolved in different environments, their infrastructures also differed considerably.
The Hohokam Indians inhabited the lower Salt and Gila River valleys near Phoenix,
Arizona. Although the Indians of Arizona began limited farming nearly 3000 years ago,
construction of the Hohokam irrigation systems probably did not begin until the first few
centuries A.D. Who originated the idea of irrigation in Arizona, whether the technology
was developed locally or it was introduced from Mexico, is unknown. Figure 1.8 illus-
trates the extensive system in the Phoenix area, and Fig. 1.9 provides a schematic of the
details of its major components.
In approximately 1450 A.D., the Hohokam culture declined, possibly for a combination
of reasons: flooding in the 1080s, hydrologic degradation in the early 1100s, and the
recruitment of laborers by surrounding populations. The major flood in 1358 ultimately
destroyed the canal networks, resulting in movement of the people. Among the Pima
Indians, who were the successors of the Hohokam Indians, use of canals was either
limited or absent. Although the prehistoric people who lived outside the area of Hohokam

INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 1.8 Canal building in the Salt River Valley with a stone hoe held in the hand without a handle. These were the original engineers, the true pioneers who built, used,
1.11
and abandoned a canal system when London and Paris were a cluster of wild huts. Turney (1922) (Courtesy of Salt River Project, Phoenix, Arizona)

INTRODUCTION
1.12 Chapter One
FIGURE 1.9 Schematic representation of the major components of a Hohokam

irrigation system in the Phoenix Basin. (Masse, 1991)
culture also constructed irrigation systems, none approached the grand scale of the
Hohokam systems.
In the ninth century, the Anasazi people of northwestern New Mexico developed a
cultural phenomenon, the remains of which currently consist of more than 2400
archaeological sites and nine towns, each containing hundreds of rooms, along a 9-mi
stretch. The Chacoan irrigation system is situated in the San Juan Basin in northwest-
ern New Mexico. The basin has limited surface water, most of it discharge from
ephemeral washes and arroyos. Figure 1.10 illustrates the method of collecting and
diverting runoff throughout Chaco Canyon. The water collected from the side canyon
that drained from the top of the upper mesa was diverted into a canal by either an earth-
en or a masonry dam near the mouth of the side canyon (Vivian, 1990). These canals
averaged 4.5 m in width and 1.4 m in depth; some were lined with stone slabs and oth-
ers were bordered by masonry walls. The canals ended at a masonry head gate, where
water was then diverted to the fields in small ditches or to overflow ponds and small
reservoirs.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.13
FIGURE 1.10 Hypothetical reconstruction of the Rincon–4 North water

control system in Chaco Canyon. Similar systems were located at the
mouths of all northern side conyons in the lower 15 m of Chaco Canyon.
(Adapted by Ron Beckwith from Vivian, 1974, Fig. 9.4)
1.2.3 Dams
The Sadd-el-Kafara dam in Egypt, situated on the eastern bank of the Nile near Heluan
approximately 30 km south of Cairo, in the Wadi Garawi, has been referred to as the world’s
oldest large dam (Garbrecht, 1985). The explorer and geographer George Schweinfurth
rediscovered this dam in 1885, and it has been described in a number of publications since
that time (see Garbrecht, 1985). It was built between 2950 and 2690 B.C. Although the Jass
drinking-water reservoir in Jordon and the diversion dams on the Kasakh River in Russia are
probably older, they are much smaller than the Sadd-el-Kafara (Dam of the Pagans).
It is unlikely that the Sadd-el-Kafara dam was built to supply water for drinking or irri-
gation because the dam lies too far from the alabaster quarries situated upstream to have
supplied the labor force with drinking water. Furthermore, there is a vast supply of water
and fertile land in the nearby Nile valley. The apparent purpose of the dam was to protect
installations in the lower wadi and the Nile valley from frequent, sudden floods. The dam
was destroyed during construction by a flood; consequently, it was never completed. To
date, the dam’s abutments still exist.

INTRODUCTION
1.14 Chapter One
The dam had an impervious core consisting of rubble, gravel, and weathered materi-
al. On both the upstream and downstream sides, the core was bordered by sections of
rockfill that supported and protected the core. The diameter of the stones ranged from 0.1
to 0.6 m. One remarkable construction feature is the facing of the section of rockfill
where parts of the facing on the upstream side are still well preserved. The dam had an
approximate crest length of 348 ft and a base length of 265 ft and was built straight
across the wadi at a suitably narrow point, with a maximum height of 32 ft above the
valley bed. See Smith (1971) and Upton (1975) for more on dams.
Dam building in the Americas began in the pre-Colombian period in the civilizations
of Central and South America: the Aztecs in Mexico, the Mayans in Guatemala and
Yucatan, and the Incas in Peru. Where as old-world civilizations developed in the valleys
of the big rivers, the Nile River, the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers, the Indus River, and
the Yellow River, most of the early civilizations in the New World were not river civiliza-
tions. In South America, the civilizations appeared in the semiarid highlands and the arid
coastal valleys traversed by small rivers. In Central America, the Mayans, the Aztecs, and
the predecessors of the Aztecs were not river civilizations.
The Mayans did not practice irrigation; however, they did provide efficient water
supplies to several of their large cities. They developed the artificial well (cenote), the under-
ground cistern (chultun), and the large open reservoir (aguado). The Mayans’ failure to
develop irrigation may have accelerated their decline. In the Yucatan, the aguados are still
found in some places, but the cenote was the major source of water for drinking and bathing.
1.2.4 Urban Water Supply and Drainage Systems
Knossos, approximately 5 km from Herakleion, the modern capital of Crete, was among
the most ancient and unique cities of the Aegean and Europe. The city was first inhabited
shortly after 6000 B.C. and, within 3000 years, it had became the largest Neolithic
Settlement in the Aegean (Neolithic age, circa 5700–2800 B.C). During the Bronze age
(circa 2800–1100 B.C.), the Minoan civilization developed and reached its culmination as
the first Greek cultural miracle of the Aegean world.
The Minoan civilization has been subdivided into four periods: the prepalatial period
(2800–1900 B.C.), the protopalatial period (1900–1200 B.C.), the neopalatial period
(1700–1400 B.C.), and the postpalatial period (1400–1100 B.C.). During the prepalatial
period, a settlement at Knossos; was leveled to erect a palace. Little is known about the
old palace because it was destroyed in approximately 1700 B.C. A new palace was con-
structed on leveled fill from the old palace. During the neopalatial period, Knossos was at
the height of its splendor. The city covered an area of 75,000 to 125,000 m2 and had a pop-
ulation estimated to be on the order of tens of thousands.
The irrigation and drainage systems at Knossos were most interesting. An aqueduct
supplied water through tubular conduits from the Kounavoi and Archanes regions and
branched out into the city and the palace. Figure 1.11 shows the type of pressure conduits
used within the palace for water distribution. The drainage system consisted of two sepa-
rate conduits: one to collect the sewage and the other to collect rain water (Fig. 1.12).
Unfortunately, the Mycenean palace was destroyed by an earthquake and fire in approxi-
mately 1450 B.C., as were all the palatial cities of Crete.
Anatolia, also called Asia Minor, which is part of the Republic of Turkey, has been the
crossroads of many civilizations during the past 10,000 years. During the last 4000 years,
going back to the Hittite period (2000–200 B.C.) many remains of ancient urban water-
supply systems have been found, including pipes, canals, tunnels, inverted siphons, aque-
ducts, reservoirs, cisterns, and dams. (see Ozis, 1987 and Ozis and Harmancioglu, 1979).

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.15
FIGURE 1.11 Water distribution pipe in Knossos, Crete. (Photograph by L.W. Mays)
FIGURE 1.12 Urban drainage system in Knossos, Crete. (Photograph by L.W. Mays)

INTRODUCTION
1.16 Chapter One
An example of one such city is Ephesus, which was founded during the 10th century
B.C. as an Ionian city out of the Temple of Artemis. In the sixth century B.C., the city set-
tled near the temple, and subsequently was reestablished at its present site, where it devel-
oped further during the Roman period. Water was supplied to Ephesus from springs at dif-
ferent sites. Cisterns also supplied well water to the city. Water for the great fountain, built
between 4 and 14 A.D., was diverted by a small dam at Marnss and was conveyed to the
city by a system 6 km long consisting of one large and two small clay pipe lines. Figure
1.13 shows the type of clay pipes used at Ephesus to distribute water.
FIGURE 1.13 Water distribution pipe in Ephesus, Turkey. (Photograph by

L. W. Mays)

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.17
The latrine, or public toilet shown in Fig. 1.14, was built in the first century A.D. at
Ephesus. The toilets were placed side by side with no partitions. In the middle was a
square pond, and the floors were paved with mosaics.
The Great Theatre at Ephesus, the city’s largest and most impressive building, had a
seating capacity for 24,000 people. Built in the Hellenistic period, the theatre was not only
a monumental masterpiece but during the early days of Christianity, one major con-
frontation between Artemis and Christ took place there. Of notable interest from a water-
resources viewpoint is the theatre’s intricate drainage system. Figure 1.15 shows a
drainage channel in the floor of the theatre.
Public baths also were a unique feature in ancient cities: for example, the Skolactica
baths in Ephesus had a salon and central heating; a hot bath (caldarium), a warm bath
(tepidarium), and a cold bath (frigidarium); and a dressing room (apodyterium). In the
second century A.D., the first building had three floors. In the fourth century, a woman
named Skolacticia modified the baths, making them accessible to hundreds of people.
There were public rooms and private rooms, and people who wished to could stay for
many days. Hot water was provided by a furnace and a large boiler.
Perge is another ancient city in Anatolia that had a unique urban water infrastructure.
The photographs in Fig. 1.16 illustrate the Majestic Fountain (nymphaion), which con-
sisted of a wide basin and a richly decorated architectural facade. Because of its architec-
ture and statues, the fountain was one of Perge’s most magnificent edifices. A water chan-
nel ran along the middle, dividing each street and bringing life and coolness to the city.
The baths of Perge were magnificent. The first photograph in Fig. 1.17 shows one of the
baths of Perge; the second photograph illustrates the storage of water under the floor to
keep the water warm. Like the baths in other ancient cities in Anatolia, the baths of Perge
had a caldarium, a tepidarium, and a frigidarium.
FIGURE 1.14 A latrine, or public toilet, built at Ephesus, Turkey, in the first century B.C.
(Photograph by L. W. Mays)

INTRODUCTION
1.18 Chapter One
FIGURE 1.15 A drainage channel on the floor of the Great Theater at Ephesus,
Turkey. (Photograph by L. W. Mays)
The early Romans devoted much of their time to useful public works projects, includ-
ing roads, harbor works, aqueducts, temples, forums, town halls, arenas, baths, and sew-
ers. The prosperous early Roman bourgeois typically had a 12–room house, with a square
hole in the roof to let rain in and a cistern beneath the roof to store the water. Although
the Romans built many aqueducts, they were not the first to do so. King Sennacherio built
aqueducts, as did the Phoenicians and the Helenes. The Romans and Helenes needed
extensive aqueduct systems for their fountains, baths, and gardens. They also realized that

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.19
FIGURE 1.16 Two views of the Majestic Fountain (nymphaion) in Perge, Anatolia, Turkey.
(Photographs by L. W. Mays)
water transported from springs was better for their health than river water and that spring
water did not need to be lifted to street level as did river water. Roman aqueducts were
built on elevated structures to provide the needed slope for water flow. Knowledge of pipe

INTRODUCTION
1.20 Chapter One
FIGURE 1.17A View of the baths at Perge, Anatolia, Turkey. (Photographs by

L.W. Mays)
making–using bronze, lead, wood, tile, and concrete–was in its infancy, and the difficulty
of making strong large pipes was a hinderance. Most Roman piping was made of lead, and
even the Romans recognized that water transported by lead pipes was a health hazard.
The source of water for a typical Roman water supply system was a spring or a dug
well, which usually was equipped with a bucket elevator to raise the water. If the well

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.21
FIGURE 1.17B View of the baths at Perge, Anatolia, Turkey. (Photographs by L.W. Mays)
water was clear and of sufficient quantity, it was conveyed to the city by aqueduct. Also,
water from several sources was collected in a reservoir, then conveyed by an aqueduct or
a pressure conduit to a distributing reservoir (castellum). Three pipes conveyed the water:
one to pools and fountains, one to the public baths for public revenue, and one to private
houses for revenue to maintain the aqueducts (Rouse and Ince, 1957). Figures 1.18 and
1.19 illustrate the layout of the major aqueducts of ancient Rome. Figure 1.20 shows the
Roman aqueduct in Segovia, Spain, which is probably among the most interesting of
Roman remains in the world. This aqueduct, built during the second half of the first cen-
tury A.D. or the early years of the second century, has a maximum height of 78.9 m. See
Van Deman (1934) for more details on Roman aqueducts.
Irrigation was not a major concern because of the terrain and the intermittent rivers.
However, the Romans did, drain marshes to obtain more farmland and to eliminate the bad
air, or “harmful spirits,” rising from the marshes because they believed it caused disease
(de Camp, 1963). The disease-carrying mechanism was not the air, (or spirits) but the
malaria-carrying mosquito. Empedocles, the leading statesman of Acragas in Sicily dur-
ing the Persian War in the fifth century B.C., drained the local marshes of Selinus to
improve the people’s health (de Camp, 1963).
The fall of the Roman Empire extended over a 1000-year period of transition called
the Dark Ages during which the concepts of science related to water resources probably
retrogressed. After the fall of the Roman Empire, clean water, sanitation, and public health
declined in Europe. Historical accounts tell of incredibly unsanitary conditions: polluted
water, human and animal wastes in the streets, and water thrown out of windows onto
passersby. As a result, various epidemics ravaged Europe. During the same period, the
Islamic cultures on the periphery of Europe religiously mandated high levels of personal
hygiene, highly developed water supplies, and adequate sanitation systems. For furthen
reading see Needham (1959) Payne (1959), Reynolds (1970) Robbins (1946), Sarton
(1952-59) and Wittfogel (1956).

INTRODUCTION
1.22 Chapter One
FIGURE 1.18 Termini of the major aqueducts in ancient Rome. (Evans, 1993)
FIGURE 1.19 The area of Spes Vetus showing the courses of the major aqueducts entering the
city above ground. (From R. Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae), as presented in Evans (1993).

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.23
FIGURE 1.20 Roman aqueduct in Segovia, Spain. (Photograph by L.W. Mays)
1.3 DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRAULICS

The historical development of hydraulics as a modern science has been described by
Biswas (1970), Rouse (1976), and Rouse and Ince (1963). More recently, the book titled,
The Science of Water (Levi, 1995) presents an excellent history of the foundation of
modern hydraulics. The reader is referred to these excellent books for details on the devel-
opment of hydraulics.
1.4 FEDERAL POLICIES AFFECTING HYDRAULIC DESIGN

Federal legislation contains policies that can affect the design of various types of
hydraulic structures. These policies are listed in Appendix 1.A, where they are categorized
into the following sections: environment, health, historic and archeological preservation,
and land and water usage. The appendix also lists the abbreviations used in the policies,
(adapted from AASHTO, 1991).
1.5 CONVENTIONAL HYDRAULIC DESIGN PROCESS

Conventional procedures for hydraulic design are basically iterative trial-and-error proce-
dures. The effectiveness of conventional procedures depends on an engineer’s intuition,
experience, skill, and knowledge of hydraulic systems. Therefore, conventional procedures
are closely related to the human element, a factor that could lead to inefficient results for the
design and analysis of complex systems. Conventional procedures are typically based on

INTRODUCTION
1.24 Chapter One
using simulation models in a process of trial and error to arrive at an optimal solution. Figure
1.21 presents a depiction of the conventional procedure for design and analysis. For exam-
ple, determining a least-cost pumping scheme for an aquifer dewatering problem would
require one to select the required pump sizes and the site where the aquifer would be dewa-
tered. Using a trial set of pump sizes and sites, a groundwater simulation model is solved to
determine whether the water levels are lower than desired. If the pumping scheme (pump
size and site) does not satisfy the water levels, then a new pumping scheme is selected and
simulated. This iterative process is continued, each time to determine the cost of the scheme.
Optimization eliminates the trial-and-error process of changing a design and resimu-
lating it with each new change. Instead, an optimization model automatically changes the
design parameters. An optimization procedure has mathematical expressions that describe
Data collection to describe system
Estimate initial design of system
Analyze system design using

simulation
Check results of simulation

to check performance
No Is design
Change design
satisfactory?
Yes
Compute cost or benefits
No Are costs or Yes

Stop
benefits ok?
FIGURE 1.21 Conventional procedure for hydraulic design and analysis. (Mays and Tung, 1992)

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.25
the system and its response to the system inputs for various design parameters. These
mathematical expressions are constraints in the optimization model. In addition, con-
straints are used to define the limits of the design variables, and the performance of the
design is evaluated through an objective function, which could be used to minimize costs.
An advantage of the conventional process is that engineers use their experience and
intuition to make conceptual changes in the system or to change or add specifications. The
conventional procedure can lead to nonoptimal or uneconomical designs and operation poli-
cies. Also, the conventional procedure can be extremely time consuming. An optimization
procedure requires the engineer to identify the design variables explicitly, the objective func-
tion of the measure of performance to be optimized, and the constraints for the system. In
contrast to the decision-making process in the conventional procedure, the optimization pro-
cedure is more organized because a mathematical approach is used to make decisions. Refer
to Mays and Tung (1992) for more detail.
1.6 ROLE OF ECONOMICS IN HYDRAULIC DESIGN
1.6.1 Engineering Economic Analysis
Engineering economic analysis is an evaluation process that can be used to compare alter-
native hydraulic designs and then apply a discounting technique to select the best alterna-
tive. To perform this analysis, the engineer must understand several basic concepts, such
as equivalence of kind, equivalence of time, and discounting factors.
One first step in economic analysis is to find a common unit of value, such as mone-
tary units. Through the use of common value units, alternatives of rather diverse kinds can
be evaluated. The monetary evaluation of alternatives generally occurs over a number of
years. Each monetary value must be identified by amount and time. Because the time
value of money results from the willingness of people to pay interest for the use of money,
money at different times cannot be directly combined or compared; first, it must be made
equivalent through the use of discount factors, which convert a monetary value at one date
to an equivalent value at another date.
Discount factors are described using the following notations: i is the annual interest
rate, n is the number of years, P is the present amount of money, F is the future amount
of money, and A is the annual amount of money. Consider an amount of money P that is
to be invested for n years at an interest rate of i percent. The future sum F at the end of n
years is determined from the following progression:
Amount at beginning Plus Amount at

Period of year interest end of year
Year 1 P iP (1+i)P
Year 2 (1+i)P iP(1+i) (1+i)2P
Year 3 (1+i)2P iP(1+i)2 (1+i)3P

Year n (1+i)n–1P iP(1+i)n–1 (1+i)nP
The future sum is then

F P(1 i)n (1.1)
and the single-payment compound amount factor is

INTRODUCTION
1.26 Chapter One
F F 
(1 i)n , i%, n (1.2)
P P 
This factor defines the number of dollars that accumulate after n years for each dollar
initially invested at an interest rate of i percent. The single-payment present worth factor
(P/F, i%, n) is simply the reciprocal of the single-payment compound amount factor.
Table 1.2 summarizes the various discount factors.
Uniform annual series factors are used for equivalence between present (P) and annu-
al (A) monetary amounts or between future (F) and annual (A) monetary amounts.
Consider the amount of money A that must be invested annually (at the end of each year)
to accumulate F at the end of n years. Because the last value of A in the nth year is with-
drawn immediately on deposit, it accumulates no interest. The future value F is
F A (1 i)A (1 i)2 A (1 i)n–1 A (1.3)
TABLE 1.2 Summary of Discounting Factors
Type of Discount Factor Symbol Given* Find Factor
Single-payment factors:
  P = $1 F
Compound-amount factor F, i%, n P F (1 i)n
 P 
  P F = $1
Present-worth factor P, i%, n F P n
1
F  (1 i)
Uniform annual
series factors:
F = $1
 
Sinking-fund factor A, i%, n F A
i
 F  (1 i)n 1 A A A A A
P = $1
  i(1 i)n
Capital-recovery factor A, i%, n P A
 P  (1 i)n 1 A A A A A
A = $1 F
  (1 i)n 1
Series compound-amount F, i%, n A F
A  i A A A A A
factor
P A = $1
  (1 i)n 1
Series present-worth factor P, i%, n A P
A  i(1 i)n A A A A A
Uniform gradient series

factors:
P G = $1
(n-1)G
  (1 i)n 1 (1 ni i)
Uniform gradient series P,i%,n G P
2G
3G
i2(1 i)n
G
G
present-worth factor 
*The discount factors represent the amount of dollars for the given amounts of $1 for for P, F, A and G.
Source: Mays and Tung, 1992.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.27
Multiply Eq. (1.3) by (1 i); then subtract Eq. (1.3) from the result to obtain the uni-
form annual series sinking–fund factor:
A i  
A, i%, n (1.4)
F (1 i)n 1  F 
The sinking-fund factor is the number of dollars A that must be invested at the end of
each of n years at i percent interest to accumulate $1. The series compound amount fac-
tor (F/A) is simply the reciprocal of the sinking-fund factor (Table 1.3), which is the num-
ber of accumulated dollars if $1 is invested at the end of each year. The capital-recovery
factor can be determined by simply multiplying the sinking fund factor (A/F) by the sin-
gle-payment compound-amount factor (Table 1.2):
A 
,i%, n A F (1.5)
P  F P
This factor is the number of dollars that can be withdrawn at the end of each of n years
if $1 is invested initially. The reciprocal of the capital-recovery factor is the series present-
worth factor (P/A), which is the number of dollars initially invested to withdraw $1 at the
end of each year.
A uniform gradient series factor is the number of dollars initially invested to withdraw
$1 at the end of the first year, $2 at the end of the second year, $3 at the end of the third
year, and so on.
1.6.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis
Water projects extend over time, incur costs throughout the duration of the project, and
yield benefits. Typically, the costs are large during the initial start-up period of construc-
tion, followed by operation and maintenance costs only. Benefits typically build up to a
maximum over time, as depicted in Fig. 1.22. The present values of benefits (PVB) and
costs (PVC) are as follows:
b1 b2 bn
PVB b0 (1.6)
(1 i) (1 i)2 (1 i)n
and
c1 c2 cn
PVC c0 (1.7)
(1 i) (1 i)2 (1 i)n
Benefits (B)
and
Costs (C) C
Time
FIGURE 1.22 Illustration of how benefits (B) and costs (C) build up over time. (Mays and
Tung, 1992)

INTRODUCTION
1.28 Chapter One
The present value of net benefits is

(b1 c1) (b2 c2) (bn cn)
PVNB PVB PVC (b0 c0) (1.8)
(1 i) (1 i)2 (1 i)n
To carry out benefit-cost analyses, rules for economic optimization of the project
design and procedures for ranking projects are needed. The most important point in plan-
ning a project is to consider the broadest range of alternatives. The range of alternatives
selected is typically restricted by the responsibility of the water resource agency, the plan-
ners, or both. The nature of the problem to be solved also may condition the range of alter-
natives. Preliminary investigation of alternatives can help to rule out projects because of
their technical unfeasibility or costs.
Consider the selection of an optimal, single-purpose project design, such as the con-
struction of a flood-control system or a water supply project. The optimum size can be
determined by selecting the alternative so that the marginal or incremental current value
of costs, ∆PVC, is equal to the marginal or incremental current value of the benefits,
∆PVB, (∆PVB ∆PVC.)
The marginal or incremental value of benefits and costs are for a given increase in the
size of a project:
∆b1 ∆b2 ∆bn
∆PVB (1.9)
(1 i) (1 i)2 (1 i)n
and
∆c1 ∆c2 ∆cn
∆PVC (1.10)
(1 i) (1 i)2 (1 i)n
When selecting a set of projects, one rule for optimal selection is to maximize the cur-
rent value of net benefits. Another ranking criterion is to use the benefit-cost ratio (B/C),
PVB/PVC:
B PVB
= (1.11)
C PVC
This method has the option of subtracting recurrent costs from the annual benefits or
including all costs in the present value of cost. Each option will result in a different B/C,
ratio, with higher B/C ratios when netting out annual costs, if the ratio is greater than one.
The B/C ratio is often used to screen unfeasible alternatives with B/C ratios less than 1
from further consideration.
Selection of the optimum alternative is based on the incremental benefit-cost ratios,
∆B/∆C, whereas the B/C ratio is used for ranking alternatives. The incremental benefit-
cost ratio is
PVBAj PVBAk
∆B    
(1.12)
∆C PVC Aj PVCAk
  
where PVB(Aj) is the present value of benefits for alternative Aj. Figure 1.23 is a flowchart
illustrating the benefit-cost method.
1.6.3 Estimated Life Spans of Hydraulic Structures
The Internal Revenue Service bulletin gives estimated average lives for many thousands
of different types of industrial assets. The lives (in years) given for certain elements of
hydraulic projects are listed in Table 1.3. Although such estimates of average lives may be
helpful, they are not necessarily the most appropriate figures to use in any given instance.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.29
Compute B/C Ratio of Each

Alternative
Keep Alternatives With B/C > 1
Rank Alternatives in Order of

Increasing Cost
Compare Two Least-Costly

Alternatives
Select Next Select Next

Compute Incremental B/C Ratio
Alternative to Alternative to
∆B/∆C
Compare Compare
Choose Less Costly No Yes

∆B
> 1 Choose More Costly Alternative
Alternative ∆C
FIGURE 1.23 Flowchart for a benefit-cost analysis. (Mays and Tung, 1992)
TABLE 1.3 Lives (in years) for Elements of Hydraulic Projects

Barges 12 Penstocks 50
Booms, log 15 Pipes:
Canals and ditches 75 Cast iron
Coagulating basins 50 2-4 in. 50
Construction equipment 5 4-6 in. 65
Dams: 8-10 in. 75
Crib 25 12 in. and over 100
Earthen, concrete, or masonry 150 Concrete 20-30
Loose rock 60 PVC 40
Steel 40 Steel
Filters 50 Under 4 in. 30
Flumes: Over 4 in. 40
Concrete or masonry 75 Wood stave
Steel 50 14 in. and larger 33

INTRODUCTION
1.30 Chapter One
TABLE 1.3 (Continues)

Wood 25 3-12 in. 20
Fossil-fuel power plants 28 Pumps 18-25
Generators: Reservoirs 75
Above 3000 kva 28 Standpipes 50
1000-3000 kva 25 Tanks:
50 hp-1000 kva 17-25 Concrete 50
Below 50 hp 14-17 Steel 40
Hydrants 50 Wood 20
Marine construction equipment 12 Tunnels 100
Meters, water 30 Turbines, hydraulic 35
Nuclear power plants 20 Wells 40-50
*Alternating-current generators are rated in kilovolt-amperes (kva).
Source: Linsley et al., 1992.
1.7 ROLE OF OPTIMIZATION IN HYDRAULIC DESIGN

An optimization problem in water resources can be formulated in a general framework in
terms of the decision variables (x), with an objective function to optimize
f(x) (1.13)
subject to constraints
g(x) 0 (1.14)
and bound constraints on the decision variables
x x x (1.15)

where x is a vector of n decision variables (x1, x2, …, xn), g(x) is a vector of m equations
called constraints, and x and x represent the lower and upper bounds, respectively, on the
decision variables.
Every optimization problem has two essential parts: the objective function and the set
of constraints. The objective function describes the performance criteria of the system.
Constraints describe the system or process that is being designed or analyzed and can be
in two forms: equality constraints and inequality constraints. A feasible solution of the
optimization problem is a set of values of the decision variables that simultaneously sat-
isfies the constraints. The feasible region is the region of feasible solutions defined by the
constraints. An optimal solution is a set of values of the decision variables that satisfies
the constraints and provides an optimal value of the objective function.
Depending on the nature of the objective function and the constraints, an optimization
problem can be classified as (1) linear vs. nonlinear, (2) deterministic vs. probabilistic, (3)
static vs. dynamic, (4) continuous vs. discrete, or (5) lumped parameter vs. distributed
parameter.
Linear programming problems consist of a linear objective function, and all constraints
are linear, whereas nonlinear programming problems are represented by nonlinear equa-
tions: that is, part or all of the constraints or the objective functions or both are nonlinear.
Deterministic problems consist of coefficients and parameters that can be assigned
fixed values, whereas probabilistic problems consist of uncertain parameters that are
regarded as random variables.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.31
Static problems do not explicitly consider the variable time aspect, whereas dynamic
problems do consider the variable time. Static problems are referred to as mathematical
programming problems, and dynamic problems are often referred to as optimal control
problems, which involve difference or differential equations.
Continuous problems have variables that can take on continuous values, whereas with
discrete problems, the variables must take on discrete values. Typically, discrete problems
are posed as integer programming problems in which the variables must be integer values.
Lumped problems consider the parameters and variables to be homogeneous through-
out the system, whereas distributed problems must account for detailed variations in the
behavior of the system from one location to another.
The method of optimization used depends up the type of objective function, the type
of constraints, and the number of decision variables. Optimization is not covered in this
handbook, but it is discussed in detail in Mays and Tung (1992).
1.8 ROLE OF RISK ANALYSIS IN HYDRAULIC DESIGN
1.8.1 Existence of Uncertainties
Uncertainties and the consequent related risks in hydraulic design are unavoidable.
Hydraulic structures are always subject to a probability of failure in achieving their
intended purposes. For example, a flood control project may not protect an area from
extreme floods. A water supply project may not deliver the amount of water demanded.
This failure may be caused by failure of the delivery system or may be the result of the
lack of supply. A water distribution system may not deliver water that meets quality stan-
dards although the source of the water does. The rationale for selecting the design and
operation parameters and the design and operation standards are questioned continually.
Procedures for the engineering design and operation of water resources do not involve any
required assessment and quantification of uncertainties and the resultant evaluation of a
risk.
Risk is defined as the probability of failure, and failure is defined as an event that caus-
es a system to fail to meet the desired objectives. Reliability is defined as the complement
of risk: i.e., the probability of nonfailure. Failures can be grouped into either structural
failures or performance failures. Water distribution systems are a good example. A struc-
tural failure, such as broken pipe or a failed pump, can result in unmet demand. In addi-
tion, an operational aspect of a water distribution system, such as the inability to meet
demands at required pressure heads, is a failure despite the lack of a structural failure in
any component in the system. Uncertainty can be defined as the occurrence of events that
are beyond one’s control. The uncertainty of a hydraulic structure is an indeterministic
characteristic and is beyond rigid controls. In the design and operation of these systems,
decisions must be made under various kinds of uncertainty.
The sources of uncertainties are multifold. First, the ideas of natural uncertainties,
model structure uncertainties, model parameter uncertainties, data uncertainties, and
operational uncertainties will be discussed. Natural uncertainties are associated with
the random temporal and spatial fluctuations that are inherent in natural processes.
Model structural uncertainties reflect the inability of a simulation model or design pro-
cedure to represent the system’s true physical behavior or process precisely. Model
parameter uncertainties reflect variability in the determination of the parameters to be
used in the model or design. Data uncertainties include inaccuracies and errors in mea-
surements, inadequacy of the data gauging network, and errors in data handling and

INTRODUCTION
1.32 Chapter One
transcription. Operational uncertainties are associated with human factors, such as con-
struction, manufacture, deterioration, and maintenance, that are not accounted for in the
modeling or design procedure.
Uncertainties fall into four major categories: hydrologic uncertainty, hydraulic uncer-
tainty, structural uncertainty, and economic uncertainty. Each category has various com-
ponent uncertainties. Hydrologic uncertainty can be classified into three types: inherent,
parameter, and model uncertainties. Various hydrologic events, such as streamflow or
rainfall, are considered to be stochastic processes because of their observable natural,
(inherent) randomness. Because perfect hydrologic information about these processes is
lacking, informational uncertainties about the processes exist. These uncertainties are
referred to as parameter uncertainties and model uncertainties. In many cases, model
uncertainties result from the lack of adequate data and knowledge necessary to select the
appropriate probability model or from the use of an oversimplified model, such as the
rational method for the design of a storm sewer.
Hydraulic uncertainty concerns the design of hydraulic structures and the analysis
of their performance. It arises mainly from three basic sources: the model, the con-
struction and materials, and the operational conditions of flow. Model uncertainty
results from the use of a simplified or an idealized hydraulic model to describe flow
conditions, which in turn contributes to uncertainty when determining the design capac-
ity of hydraulic structures. Because simplified relationships, such as Manning’s equa-
tion, are typically used to model complex flow processes that cannot be described ade-
quately, resulting in model errors.
Structural uncertainty refers to failure caused by structural weakness. Physical failures
of hydraulic structures can be caused by saturation and instability of soil, failures caused
by erosion or hydraulic soil, wave action, hydraulic overloading, structural collapse, mate-
rial failure, and so forth. An example is the structural failure of a levee system either in
the levee or in the adjacent soil; the failure could be caused by saturation and instability
of soil. A flood wave can cause increased saturation of the levee through slumping. Levees
also can fail because of hydraulic soil failures and wave action.
Economic uncertainty can arise from uncertainties regarding construction costs,
damage costs, projected revenue, operation and maintenance costs, inflation, project
life, and other intangible cost and benefit items. Construction, damage, and operation
or maintenance costs are all subject to uncertainties because of fluctuations in the rate
at which construction materials, labor costs, transportation costs, and economic loss-
es, increase and the rate at which costs increase in different geographic regions. Many
other economic and social uncertainties are related to inconvenience losses: for exam-
ple, the failure of a highway crossing caused by flooding, which results in traffic-
related losses.
The objective when analyzing uncertainties is to incorporate the uncertainties system-
atically into the evaluation of loading and resistance. The most commonly used method is
the first-order analysis of uncertainties. This method is used to determine the statistics of
the random variables loading and resistance, which are typically defined through the use
of deterministic models but have uncertain parameter inputs. Chapter 7 provides details of
the first-order analysis of uncertainties.
1.8.2 Risk-Reliability Evaluation
1.8.2.1 Load resistance The load for a system can be defined as an external stress to the
system, and the resistance can be defined as the capacity of the system to overcome
the external load. Although the terms load and resistance have been used in structural

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.33
engineering, they definitely have a place in the types of risk analysis that must be per-
formed for engineering projects involving water resources.
If we use the variable R for resistance and the variable L for load, we can define a fail-
ure as the event when the load exceeds the resistance and the consequent risk is the prob-
ability that the loading will exceed the resistance, P(L R). A simple example of this type
of failure would be a dam that fails because of overtopping. The risk would be the proba-
bility that the elevation of the water surface in a reservoir exceeds the elevation of the top
of the dam. In this case, the resistance is the elevation of the top of the dam, and the load-
ing is the maximum elevation of the water surface of a flood wave entering the reservoir.
Because many uncertain variables define both the resistance and loading, both are
regarded as random variables. A simple example would be to use the rational equation
Q CiA to define the design discharge (loading) for a storm sewer. The loading L Q
is a function of three uncertain variables: the runoff coefficient C, the rainfall intensity i,
and the drainage area A. Because the three variables cannot be determined with complete
certainty, they are considered to be random variables. If the resistance is defined using
Manning’s equation, then the resistance is a function of Manning’s roughness factor, the
pipe diameter, and the slope (friction slope). The two main contributors to uncertainty in
this equation would be the friction slope and the roughness factor i.e., random variables.
Thus, the resistance is also is a random variable because it is a function of the other two
random variables.
It is interesting to note that in the example of the storm sewer, both the loading and the
resistance are defined by deterministic equations: the rational equation and Manning’s
equation. Both equations are considered to have uncertain design parameters that result in
uncertain resistance and loading. Consequently, they are considered to be random vari-
ables. In the storm sewer example, as in many types of hydraulic structures, the loading
uncertainty is actually the hydrologic uncertainty and the resistance uncertainty is the
hydraulic uncertainty.
1.8.2.2 Composite risk The discussion about the hydrologic and hydraulic uncertainties
being the resistance and loading uncertainties leads to the idea of a composite risk. The
probability of failure defined previously as the risk, P(L R), is actually a composite risk.
If only the hydrologic uncertainty, in particular the inherent hydrologic uncertainty, were
considered, then this would not be a composite risk. In the conventional design processes
of water resources engineering projects, only the inherent hydrologic uncertainties have
been considered. Essentially, a large return period is selected and is artificially considered
as the safety factor without any regard to accounting systematically for the various uncer-
tainties that actually exist.
1.8.2.3 Safety factor The safety factor is defined as the ratio of the resistance to load-
ing, R/L. Because the safety factor SF R/L is the ratio of two random variables, it also
is a random variable. The risk can be written as P(SF 1) and the reliability can be writ-
ten as P(SF 1). In the example of the storm sewer, both the resistance and the loading
are considered to be random variables because both are functions of random variables.
Consequently, the safety factor for storm sewer design would also be a random variable.
1.8.2.4 Risk assessment Risk assessment requires several phases or steps, which can
vary for different types of water resources engineering projects: (1) identify the risk of
hazard, (2) assess load and resistance, (3) perform an analysis of the uncertainties, (4)
quantify the composite risk, and (5) develop the composite risk-safety factor relationships.
1.8.2.5 A model for risk-based design The risk-based design of hydraulic structures
potentially promises to be the most significant application of uncertainty and risk analy-

INTRODUCTION
1.34 Chapter One
sis. The risk-based design of hydraulic structures integrates the procedures of economics,
uncertainty analysis, and risk analysis in design practice. Such procedures can consider
the tradeoffs among risk, economics, and other performance measures in the design of
hydraulic structures. When risk-based design is embedded in an optimization framework,
the combined procedure is called optimal risk-based design. This approach to design is
the ultimate model for the design, analysis, and operation of hydraulic structures and
water resource projects that hydraulics engineers need to strive for in the future. Chapter
7 provides detailed discussions on risk-reliability evaluation.
REFERENCES
Abbott, M.B., Computational Hydraulics, Pitman, London, 1980.
Adams, R.M., Heartland of Cities, Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central
Floodplain of the Euphrates, University of Chicago Press.
Addison, H.A., A Treatise on Applied Hydraulics, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1954.
Akurgal, E., Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey, 8th ed., Net Turistik Yaylinlar A.S.,
Istanbul, 1993.
Allen, J., Scale Models in Hydraulic Engineering, Longman, Green, London, UK, 1947.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Model Drainage
Manual, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1991
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Hydraulic Models, ASCE Manual 25, ASCE, New
York, 1942.
Bakhmeteff, B.A., Hydraulics of Open Channels, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1932
Bakhmeteff, B.A., The Mechanics of Turbulent Flow, University Press, Princeton, NJ., 1936.
Binnie, G.M., Early Victorian Water Engineers, London: Thomas Telford Ltd., 1981.
Biswas, A.K., History of Hydrology, North-Holland Publishing Amsterdam, 1970.
Butzer, K.W., Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976.
Chow, V T., Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.
Crouch, D.P., Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities, Oxford University Press, New York,
1993.
Crown, P.L. and W.J. Judge, eds., Chaco and Hohokam Prehistoric Regional Systems in the
American Southwest, School of American Research Press, Sante Fe, NM, 1991.
Daily, J.W. and D.R.F. Harleman, Fluid Dynamics, Addison-Wesley Reading, MA, 1966.
Dart, A., Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona: A Context for Canals and Related Cultural Resources,
Technical Report 89-7, Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, AZ, 1989.
Daugherty, R.L., Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill New York, 1937.
Davies, N., The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep at Thebes, Vol. 1, Publication 9, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Egyption Expedition, New York, 1933.
Davis, C.V., and K.E. Sorensen, Handbook of Applied Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1942.
de Camp, L.S. , The Ancient Engineers, Dorset Press, New York, 1963.
Doolittle, W.E., Canal Irrigation in Prehistoric Mexico, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1990.
Evans, H.B., Water Distribution in Ancient Rome, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1994.
Fischer, H.B., E.J. List, C.Y. Koh, J. Imberger, and N.H. Brocks, Mixing in Inland and Coastal
Waters, Academic Press, New York, 1979.
FitzSimons, N., Engineering Classics of James Kip Finch, Cedar Press, Kensington, MD, 1978.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1979.
Garbrecht, G., Wasserversorgung im Antiken Rom, (Water Supply in Ancient Rome), R. Oldenburg
Verlag München, Vienna, 1982.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.35
Garbrecht, G., “Sadd-el-Kafara: The World’s Oldest Large Dam,” International Water and Power
Dam Construction, July 1985.
Garraty, J.A. and P. Gay, The Columbia History of the World, Harper & Row, New York, 1972.
Graf, W., Hydraulics of Sediment Transport, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.
Henderson, F.M., Open-Channel Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.
Hoskins, L.M., A Text-Book on Hydraulics, Henry Holt, New York, 1911.
Hoyt, J.C. and N.C. Grover, River Discharge, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1916.
King, H.W., Handbook of Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954
King, H.W. and C.O. Wisler, Hydraulics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., N.Y., 1922.
Kolupaila, S., Early History of Hydrometry in the United States, Journal of Hydraulic Div, ASCE,
86: 1–52, 1960.
Le Conte, J.N., Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1926.
Leliavsky, S., An Introduction to Fluvial Hydraulics, Constable, London, UK, 1955.
Leliavsky, S., River and Canal Hydraulics, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 1965.
Levi, E., The Science of Water: The Foundation of Modern Hydraulics, ASCE Press, New York
1995.
Linsley, R.K., and J.B. Franzini, Elements of Hydraulic Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1964
Masse, W.B., The Quest for Subsistence Sufficiency and Civilization in the Sonovan Desert, in
Chaco and Hohokam Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, P.L. Crown and
W.J. Judge, editors, pp. 195-223 School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, 1991.
Mays, L.W., “Introduction,” in Water Resources Handbook edited by L.W. Mays, ed., pp. 1.3-1.35,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.
Mays, L.W. and Y.K. Tung, Hydrosystems Engineering and Management, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., N.Y.,
1992.
Merriman, M., Treatise on Hydraulics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1904.
Morris, H.M., and J.M. Wiggert, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, 1st ed, Ronald Press, New
York, 1963
Muskat, M., The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1937.
Needham, J., Science and Civilization in China, Vol. I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, UK, 1954.
Neugebauer, O., The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2nd ed, Barne & Noble, New York, 1993.
Ozis, U., “Ancient Water Works in Anatolia,” Water Resources Development, Buttermorth & Co.
Publishers Ltd. 3(1): pp. 55-62 1987.
Ozis, U., and N. Harmancioglu, “Some Ancient Water Works in Anatolia,” in Proceedings of the
International Seminar on Kaust Hydrogeology, IAHR, Anatalya, Turkey, pp. 380-385 1979.
Parmakiams, J., Waterhammer Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1955.
Payne, R. The Canal Builders, Macmillan New York, 1959.
Reynolds, J., Windmills and Waterwheels, Praeger, New York, 1970.
Rich, G.R., Hydraulic Transients, McGraw-Hill, New York., 1951.
Robbins, F.W., The Story of Water Supply, Oxford University, London, UK, 1946.
Rouse, H., Fluid Mechanics for Hydraulic Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1938.
Rouse, H., ed., Engineering Hydraulics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1950
Rouse, H., Hydraulics in the United States, 1776–1976, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Iowa
City, 1976.
Rouse, H., and S. Ince, History of Hydraulics, Dover, New York, 1963.
Sarton, G., A History of Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1952–59.
Schoder, E.W., and F.M. Dawson, Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1927.
Smith, N., A History of Dams, Peter Davies, London, UK, 1971.

INTRODUCTION
1.36 Chapter One
Stoker, J.J., Water Waves, Interscience, New York, 1957.

Streeter, V.L. and E.B. Wylie, Hydraulic Transients, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
Turney, O.S., Map of Prehistoric Irrigation Canals, Map. No. 002004, Archaeological Site Records
Office, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tuscon, 1922.
Upton, N., An Illustrated History of Civil Engineering, Crane Russak, New York, 1975.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, U.S. Government Printing Office, Denver,
1960, 1973, 1987.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basin and Energy Dissipaters, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1958, 1963, 1974, and 1978.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Hydraulic Laboratory Practice, Monograph 18, Denver, 1953.
U.S. Geological Survey, Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels, Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper No. 1849, Arlington, VA, 1967.
Van Deman, E.B., The Building of Roman Aqueducts, Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1934.
Vivian, R.G., “Conservation and Diversion: Water-Control Systems in the Anasazi Southwest, in
Irrigation Impact on Society, Anthropological papers of the University of Arizona, No. 25, T.
Downing and M. Gibson, eds., pp. 95–112, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1974.
Vivian, R.G., The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
1990.
Wittfogel, K.A., The Hydraulic Civilization: Man’s Role in Changing the Earth, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956.
Woodburg, R.B. and J.A. Neely, “Water Control Systems of the Tehuacan Valley,” in The
Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley: Vol. 4, Chronology and Irrigation, R.S. MacNeish and F.
Johnson, eds., pp. 81–153, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1972.
Woodward, S.M., and C.J. Posey, Hydraulics of Steady Flow in Open Channels, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1941.

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.37
APPENDIX 1. A
INTRODUCTION
A.1 POLICIES BY CATEGORY
A.1.1 Environment
National Environmental Policy Act: 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347 (P.L. 91–190 and 94–81).
Reference - 23 CFR 770–772, 40 CFR 1500–1508, CEQ Regulations, Executive Order
11514 as amended by Executive Order 11991 on NEPA responsibilities. The purpose is to
consider environmental factors through a systematic interdisciplinary approach before
committing to a course of action.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act: 23 U.S.C. 138, 49 U.S.C. 303 (P.L.
100–17, 97–449, and 86–670), 23 CFR 771.135. The purpose is to preserve publicly
owned public parklands, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and all historic areas.
Economic, Social, and Environmental Effects: 23 U.S.C. 109(h) (P.I. 91–605), 23
U.S.C. 128, 23 CFR 771. The purpose is to assure that possible adverse, economic,
social, and environmental effects of proposed highway projects and their locations are
fully considered and that final decisions on highway projects are made in the best over-
all public interest.
Public Hearings: 23 U.S.C. 128, 23 CFR 771.111. The purpose is to ensure adequate
opportunity for public hearings on the social, economic, and environmental effects of
alternative project locations and major design features as well as the consistency of the
project with local planning goals and objectives.
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987: Section 123(f)
Historic Bridges 23 U.S.C. 144(o) (P.L. 100-17). The purpose is to complete an invento-
ry of on-and-off system bridges to determine their historic significance and to encourage
the rehabilitation, reuse, and preservation of historic bridges.
A.1.2 Health
Safe Drinking Water Act: 42 U.S.C. 300f–300;f-6 (P.L. 93–523 and 99–339), FHPM
6–7–3–3, 23 CFR 650, Subpart E, 40 CFR 141, 149. The purpose is to ensure public
health and welfare through safe drinking water.
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976: 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq., see especially 42 U.S.C. 6961–6964 (P.L. 89–272,
91–512, and 94–580), 23 CFR 751, 40 CFR 256–300. The purpose is to provide for the
recovery, recycling, and environmentally safe disposal of solid wastes.

INTRODUCTION
1.38 Chapter One
A.1.3 Historic and Archeological Preservation
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 470f (P.L.
89–665, 91–243, 93–54, 94–422, 94–458, 96–199, 96–244, and 96–515), Executive Order
11593, 23 CFR 771, 36 CFR 60, 36 CFR 63, 36 CFR 800. The purpose is to protect, reha-
bilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and other objects signifi-
cant in American architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.
Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 470h–2
(P.L. 96–515), 36 CFR 65, 36 CFR 78. The purpose is to protect national historic land-
marks and record historic properties before demolition.
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act: 16 U.S.C. 469–469c (P.L. 93–291) (Moss-
Bennett Act), 36 CFR 66 (draft). The purpose is to preserve significant historical and
archeological data from loss or destruction.
Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities: 16 U.S.C. 431–433 (P.L. 59–209), 36
CFR 251.50–64, 43 CFR 3. Archeological Resources Protection Act: 16 U.S.C. 470aa–11
(P.L. 96–95), 18 CFR 1312, 32 CFR 229, 36 CFR 296, 43 CFR 7. The purpose is to pre-
serve and protect paleontologic resources, historic monuments, memorials, and antiquities
from loss or destruction.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act: 42 U.S.C. 1996 (P.L. 95–341). The purpose is
to protect places of religious importance to American Indians, Eskimos, and Native
Hawaiians.
A.1.4 Land and Water Usage
Wilderness Act 16 U.S.C. 1131–1136. 36 CFR 251, 293, 43 CFR 19, 8560, 50 CFR 35.
The purpose is to preserve and protect wilderness areas in their natural condition for use
and enjoyment by present and future generations.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: 16 U.S.C. 1271–1287, 36 CFR 251, 261, 43 CFR 8350. The
purpose is to preserve and protect wild and scenic rivers and immediate environments for
the benefit of present and future generations.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f)): 16 U.S.C. 4601–4 to 1–11 (P.L.
88–578). The purpose is to preserve, develop, and assure the quality and quantity of out-
door recreation resources for present and future generations.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, DOT Order 5660. 1A, 23 CFR 777. The
purpose is to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands whenever a
practicable alternative is available.
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986: 16 U.S.C. 3901 note (P.L. 99–645). The pur-
pose is to promote the conservation of wetlands in the U.S. to maintain the public bene-
fits they provide.
National Trails Systems Act: 16 U.S.C. 1241–1249, 36 CFR 251, 43 CFR 8350. The pur-
pose is to provide for outdoor recreational needs and encourage outdoor recreation.
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899: 33 U.S.C. 401, et seq., as amended and supplemented,
23 CFR part 650, Subpart H, 33 CFR 114–115. The purpose is to protect navigable waters
in the U.S.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), as amended by the Clean Water Act (1977 &
1987): 33 U.S.C. 1251–1376 (P.L. 92–500, 95–217, 100–4), DOT Order 5660.1A, FHWA

INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1.39
Notices N5000.3 and N5000.4, FHPM 6–7–3–3, 23 CFR 650, Subpart B, E, 771, 33 CFR
209, 40 CFR 120, 122–125, 128–131, 133, 125–136, 148, 230–231. The purpose is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters
through prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as amended by Executive Order 12148,
DOT Order 5650.2, FHPM 6–7–3–2, 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, 771. The purpose is to avoid
the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification
of floodplains and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains.
National Flood Insurance Act: (P.L. 90–448), Flood Disaster Protection Act: (P.L. 93–234)
42 U.S.C. 4001–4128, DOT Order 5650.2, FHPM 6–7–3–2, 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, 771,
44 CFR 59–77. The purpose is to identify flood-prone areas and provide insurance and to
require the purchase of insurance for buildings in special flood-hazard areas.
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended: 33 U.S.C.
1401–1445 (P.L. 92–532, 93–254, 96–572), 33 CFR 320, 330, 40 CFR 220–225,
227–228, 230–231. The purpose is to regulate the dumping of materials into U.S.
ocean waters.
Water Bank Act: 16 U.S.C. (P.L. 91–559, 96–182), 7 CFR 752. The purpose is to preserve,
restore, and improve wetlands of the U.S.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972: 16 U.S.C.1 1451–1464 (P.L. 92–583, 94–370,
96–464), 15 CFR 923, 926, 930–931, 23 CFR 771. The purpose is to preserve, protect,
develop, and (when possible) restore and enhance the resources of the coastal zone.
Coastal Barrier Resource Act, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 3501–3510, 42 U.S.C. 4028 (P.L.
97–348), Great Lakes Coastal Barrier Act of 1988 (P.L. 100–707), 13 CFR 116 Subparts
D, E, 44 CFR 71, 205 Subpart N. The purpose is to minimize the loss of human life,
wasteful expenditures of federal revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other nat-
ural resources.
Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981: 7 U.S.C. 4201–4209 (P.L. 97–98, 99–198), 7
CFR 658. The purpose is to minimize impacts on farmland and maximize compatibility
with state and local farmland programs and policies.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended: 42 U.S.C. 690,
et seq. (P.L. 94–580, 98–616), 40 CFR 260–271. The purpose is to protect human health
and the environment; prohibit open dumping; manage solid wastes; and regulate the treat-
ment, storage transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657 (P.L. 96–510), 40 CFR 300, 43 CFR 11.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (P.L. 99–499). The
purpose is to provide for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response when
hazardous substances have been released into the environment and to provide for the
cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 (P.L. 93–205,
94–359, 95–632, 96–159, 97–304), 7 CFR 355, 50 CFR 17, 23, 25–29, 81, 217, 222,
225–227, 402, 424, 450–453. The purpose is to conserve species of fish, wildlife, and
plants facing extinction.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: 16 U.S.C. 661–666c (P.L. 85–624, 89–72, 95–616.
The purpose is to conserve, maintain, and manage wildlife resources.


Larry W. Mays: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Larry W. Mays: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona

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

Larry W. Mays: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source: HYDRAULIC DESIGN HANDBOOK

1.2 ANCIENT HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

1.2.1 A Time Perspective

1.2 Chapter One

Abbott’s Computational Hydraulics (1980) 1980

Freeze and Cherry’s Groundwater (1979)

Graf’s Hydraulics of Sediment Transport

Linsley and Franzini’s Elements of

USBR Design of Small Dams (1960) 1960

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Hydraulic

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Allen’s Scale Models in Hydraulic

ASCE’s Hydraulic Models (1942) Davis and Sorersen’s Handbook of

Rouse’s Fluid Mechanics for Hydraulic

Schoder and Dawson’s Hydraulics (1927)

Le Conte’s Hydraulics (1926)

Hoyt and Grover’s River Discharge

Hoskins’s A Text–Book on Hydraulics

Merriman’s Treatise on Hydraulics (1904)

FIGURE 1.1 (Continued)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.4 Chapter One

TABLE 1.1 Chronology of Knowledge About Water

Prehistorical period Springs

Source: Crouch, 1993.

1.2.2 Irrigation Systems

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.6 Chapter One

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.8 Chapter One

FIGURE 1.5 Details of the ganãt system. (Biswas, 1970).

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.10 Chapter One

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.12 Chapter One

FIGURE 1.9 Schematic representation of the major components of a Hohokam

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

FIGURE 1.10 Hypothetical reconstruction of the Rincon–4 North water

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.14 Chapter One

1.2.4 Urban Water Supply and Drainage Systems

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.16 Chapter One

FIGURE 1.13 Water distribution pipe in Ephesus, Turkey. (Photograph by

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.18 Chapter One

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

1.20 Chapter One

FIGURE 1.17A View of the baths at Perge, Anatolia, Turkey. (Photographs by

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)