Time of Travel of Water 

In the Great Miami River 

Dayton to Cleves, Ohio 

Conservancy District 

Jf 

Time of Travel of Water 

In the Great Miami River 

Dayton to Cleves, Ohio 

By Daniel P. Bauer 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 546 

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Miami Conservancy District 

Washington 1 968 
United States Department of the Interior 

STEWART l. UDALL, Secretary 

Geological Survey 

William T. Pecora, Director 

Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 
CONTENTS 

Page Abstract ___________________________ _ Page 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

Traveltime prediction ---------------- 14 

Purpose---------------------------- Dye-cloud passage time_______________ 15 

Determination of traveltimes _________ _ Conclusions ------------------------- 15 

Traveltime comparison __ -------- __ _ Selected references ------------------ 15 

Analysis of discharge ---------------- Sampling-site discharge ___________ _ 

Determination of Miamisburg index discharge ______________________ _ 13 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

Figure 1. 

2. 

3-8. 

Time distribution of dye concentration, Central Avenue, Middletown----------

Map of Great Miami River basin------------------------ __ ----------------

Graph showing traveltime of3. 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 

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

6. Dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami 

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

7. Dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami 

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

8. Dye cloud and longitudinal dispersion characteristics of Great Miami 

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

TABLES 

Table 1. Traveltime for index discharge of 550 cubic feet per second at Miamisburg ____ _ 

2. Traveltime for index discharge of 380 cubic feet per second at Miamisburg ____ _ 

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

4. Municipal sewage-plant effluent ____ -------- ____ ---- ___ --------- ____ ----- __ _ 

5. Waste effluent from industries using ground-water supply--------------------

6. Miamisburg index discharges for mean discharges in subreaches during 

August run------------------------------------------------------------

III 

Pc.ge 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Page 

10 

11 

12 

12 

13 

14 

Time of Travel of Water in the Great Miami 

_River, Dayton to Cleves, Ohio 

By Daniel P. Bauer 

ABSTRACT 

A time-of-travel study of the Great Miami River from Dayton 

to Cleves, Ohio, a distance of 71.3 river miles, was made in 

the summer of 1965 to obtain basic information about water 

passage. Cumulative traveltimes of 182 and 254 hours were 

determined for approximate discharges of 550 and 380 cfs 

(cubic feet per second), respectively, at Miamisburg. 

Peak traveltimes averaged 91 percent of the centroid 

traveltimes for the entire reach from Dayton to Cleves. 

Traveltimes computed from the so-called average-velocity 

method (discharge/cross-sectional area) were somewhat shorter 

for a given index discharge than the traveltimes determined 

for the centroid of the dye cloud. 

A method utilizing a straight-line log-log plot of traveltime 

versus index discharge to predict approximate traveltimes is 

stated. The resulting equation, T=400xl02 Q-·85, is limited 

to the approximate discharge range of 300-800 cfs. 

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 predicting 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 

1 
2 TIME OF TRAVEL OF WATER IN THE GREAT MIAMI RIVER,DAYTON TO CLEVES, OHIO 

z 

0 

:J 

= 3.0 CD 

0:: 

w 

a.. 

(f) 

to: 

<{ 

a.. 2.0 z 

z 

0 

f= 

<{ 

0:: 

1-

z 

~ 1.0 

z 

0 

u 

Note: Dye injected at 

0830, July 13, at 2d 

Street in Franklin, 

6.97 miles upstream 

from Middletown 

JULY 14, 1965 

240C 

Figure 1. -Time distribution of dye concentration, Central 

Avenue, Middletown. 

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. 

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. 

TRAVELTIME COMPARISON 

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. 

ANALYSIS OF DISCHARGE 

SAMPLING-SITE DISCHARGE 

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 
ANALYSIS OF DISCHARGE 3 

EXPLANATION 

• 

Dye-injection site 

0 

Major municipality 

Time-of-travel study reach 

0 5 10 20 MILES 

Figure 2. --Great Miami River basin. 
4 TIME OF TRAVEL OF WATER IN THE GREAT MIAMI RIVER,DAYTON TO CLEVES, OHIO 

180,----------.-----------,-----------.-----------,-----------.----------,-----------,-----------. 

1601------

:::l ~Q 

0 rt' J: C)• ;(\ 

~ C)~ '(('Q -------- ui 1 rnP~ 

::2: 

140 1------;::: 00 5 10 

DISTANCE, IN MILES 

«l 

:J 

c-

:J 

~ :J 

«l 

.r: 

(.) 

/ 

*Index affected by rainfall on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, 1965. 

The numerical index value can vary depending on the 

method of computation 

55 50 45 

Q) 

1:10 

"0 

E C\1 ~ «l 

0 C\1 rr) 

..... ...... ,..... 

c "0 "0 E "0 ;= «l «l «l «l 

.8 0 0 0 0 

~ 0:: 0:: 0 0:: 

"0 2 2 u 2 ~ «l «l E «l 

::2: <i) ...., ~ <i) (j) 

.... "0 LL. 

...; 

Q) ~ X 

e 0 

iil .... 

«l 

"0 Q) 

C\1 z 

Q) 

1:10 

"0 

~ Q) 

-ro 

"0 

VI 

"0 

0 

0 

3: 

E 

«l 

J: 

Figure 3, -Traveltime of Great Miami River, mile 80 to mile 40, 
en 

a:: 

::J 

ANALYSIS OF DISCHARGE 5 

260.----------,----------.-----------.----------,----------,-----------.----------,----------, 

v 

240f------- 00 20 v / 

! ~:::.~~~ v/ w 

~ \ «' n----- ~$ "* 

220r---- i= 00 5 10~~'b~~"'-.:;.,..o/q---------t------+--------+----------i 

DISTANCE, IN MILES I c,'l.~ \l 

?JtOO 

200~--------~----------~~------~---------4----------~--------~----------~--------~ 

Q/ 

~180~ 

140f-------+~-e-- ~~ 

120~-----+------~-----~-----~------+--------t------~-----~ 

~ 

*Index affected by rainfall on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, 1965. 

The numerical index value can vary depending on the 

method of computation 

100r---------~-----------r----------+----------+----------~----------+----------4----------~ 

804 I I I I 

0 35 30 j 25 

RIVJR

20J ILES 

151 10 5 0 

c: 

I 

11) I ~ tlO .s c: "0 11) (/) 

0 ·;: tlO .E 11) 

:;:::; ..0 "0 > «< (/) ·;: -~ 11) :5 ..., 

(/) (ij ..0 ~ u ::J 

tlO ·;: >. N' 0 0 c: 2 11) «< U"l U"l E iio «< 0 ~ >. >. «< ~ E "iii «< «< .E tlO ~ ~ E c: c: :;:::; a:: .J::. .J::. -~ «< ~ «< (ij 0 0 (.) .!!!I .!!!I ~ ·;: Cil "0 J: J: +' 

"0 E Q) ~ c: 0 0 «< 

0 E «< Q) «< Q) 

LL. J: 0 <( z 0 ::J ::J 

Figure 4. -Traveltime of Great Miami River, mile 40 to mile 0. 
'TJ 

c)q' 

!:j 

Ill 

P' 

~ ~ 

~ er 

Ill 

a 

~ Ill 

0 

[ 

"' 5. 

g 

(J(l 

[ 

[ 

e: 

~ 

~ 8' 

0 

s ~ ~;! 

Ill 0 

~~ 

. ~: 

a 

~ ~ 

~ 

"' e. 

::0 

:;:· 

~ 

~ 

tr 

~ 

~ a 

Cl1 

Cl1 

0 

0 

F' 

s Ill 

00 

0 

g 

Dayton gaging station--~-ooo ELAPSED TIME, IN HOURS 

3d Street, Dayton ° ~ o .... 0 ~ ~ a; .... 0 ~ 

Stewart Street I~ 

Broadway Bridge-------41t- TIME, IN HOURS 1\,) 

0 0 

0~ 

fT1 0 

0 >< iii 

-1 (/) '< 

(!) 1J )> Q) r z 3 5 )> () 'C 

~ . fT1 5 [> z (J'1 

Sellars Road--------tWest Carrollton Dam----+-

~r-----~~-+~-r------+-------~~ IJtl (5' )> z (/) :::l 

::+ (/) -l ~ Ill ;: 0 r 

fT1 z (/) 

West Carrollton Road ----+-

Sycamore Street------.~ 

Miamisburg gaging station ...... 

0 

Chautauqua Dam------!-

2d Street, Franklin ~· f--~ 

Near Oxford Road----

Middletown Dam----

State Road 4.-------+-

State Road 122------+-

Armco Dam--------f.-

State Road 73 bridge ____ ..,.._ 

\ 

\\ \: ~ c. IJtl ... 

(!) ~ 

Woodsdale Bridge-----+-

Hamilton Canal headgate 

Ford Dam---------+-

Main-High Street, Hamilton 

0) 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 0 

'TJ 

~ ~ 

1:'<1 

::0 

z 

~ C) 

~ ~ 

~ ~ 

::0 

~ ::0 

b 

~ ~ 

~ 

~ 

0 

() 

§ 

~ 

~ 5 
ELAPSED TIME, IN HOURS "'1 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... 1\) 1\) 

dQ' 

"""~ m (X) 1\) 

""" m (X) 0 1\) 

~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

rtl 0 

f" 

I 

~ < Ford Dam 

I I ~ ~ I TIME, IN HOURS ~ Main-High Street, Hamilton~ 1\) §' 0 0 

rtl Hamilton gaging station e. 

~ 0 

rtl en 0 -1 

0 )> 

2 §. () 

IU .f'1 (.]'1 ::s 

Q.. American Materials bridge 2 

I s:: 

g' r 

ITI Q.. (/) 

;;;· 

E.. 

Q.. 

50 Bridge--- o~~r 0 )> ~· 

:il 

rtl ? ~ ,,, " ~ ?- I? I:'"' o· >-<: ::s ~ \1£ ~ 0 ::0 

~ ' Cll 

8.g < 0 

ro-l=: New Baltimore ITI " ~ 'Tl 

Or1' ::01\) ''-- g • g_ C and 0 Railway bridge - ~ 0 

~ I 

Cll 

~ n r ~· ITI ~ ~ \ (/) ::0 a ~ \ C) 

C) tT:I 

.... 

rtl 

~ 

~ U.S. Highway 52, Miamitown IU 

8. ITI ::0 0 >< < '< ~ (/) "U cp I» r ~ 3 :;· )> ..... ~ (b' 

:;· 0 :;· [> ~ . z Q.. 

rtl OQ o· )> >< VI ::J -I :::l VI 

~ U.S. Highway 50, Cleves ;: ;::;: 

CD 0 

a I z Cl1 

Cl1 

0 (Jii 1\) 

""" F 0 0 

TIME, IN HOURS 

s 

1::.: 

~ 

~ 

0 

s Great Miami, mouth 01 -.J 
8 TIME OF TRAVEL OF WATER IN THE GREAT MIAMI RIVER1DAYTON TO CLEVES, OHIO 

180,----------,----------,----------,----------,-----------,------~---,-----------,----------.---~----~ 

160~-----~ 20~--------~~----------~----------~-----------+----------~------------~~~------~~~----~ 0:: 

:::::> 

0 

I 

~ 

u.i 

:2 140 ~----- i= 5 DISTANCE, IN ,'/11LES 

10 

120r----------+----------+---------~----------~--~ 

EXPLANATION ~ 

~ . ~ 100 ~----------+----- Dye-injection site -----+-----

~ 

u.i 

:2 

i= 

0 

w 

Sampling site 

~ 80~----------+------------+-----------~~ 

<( 

...J 

w 

0 80 

I 

c 

0 

.;::; 

(0 

.... c r./) 0 

tlll .... c » ·- (0 

tlDO 

~i c Q) 

0 ..... 

>,Ci5 

m-e 

OM 

Q) 

tlD .... -c Q) 

~ ~ -c 

(0 

Ci5 » 0 

(0 0:: 

:: (0 -c ~ :: (0 .!!! Q) 0 Qj 

Ci5 eli ~ 

Q) 

tlD 

-c 

E -c 

(0 

(0 tlD ~ 0 0 0:: c -c Qi 'D"o (0 

c c 0 E ~ (0 

_g _g tlD 0:: (0 

Ci5 

~ g ~ (0 0 

Q) ::J ::J r./) 

0' tlD (0 (0 "-..C 

0 r./) ::J c (.) (.) E ·- (0 -

+>..c .... tl m E ::J () r./) (.) (0 (0 .... Q) Q) 

3: 3: » ·- ..c ::J ~:2 UI 

RIVER 

I c -c E (0 

(0 ::;;:: 0 c 0 0:: 

(0 ~ LJ... -c ::J 

0' .... .8 ::J Q) X 

2 ~ 0 ::J 

(0 Ci5 ~ ..c -c Q) 

(.) N z 

55 50 MILES 

I 

2l 

(0 

tlD Q) -c tlD (0 

-c Q) Q) 

E ·;::: tlD ..c 

N ..c -c (0 iii 0 ~ <t ...... 

<"> ~ c 

c E (0 

:: -c -c (0 -c Q) (.) 

(0 (0 (0 ro E .B 0 0 0 0 c -c _g (0 

~ 0:: 0:: 0 0:: r./) 0 

-c 2l 2l () 2l -c '§ -c -c E 0 (0 (0 (0 0 0 ~ Ci5 Ci5 ~ Ci5 3: (0 

I LJ... 

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. 

.... 

Q) 

~ 

Ci5 

..c 

.!!!I 

I 

c 

'iii 

::2 
ANALYSIS OF DISCHARGE 9 

260r----------.-----------,----------.----------.----------~----------~--------~----------~ 

/ 

/ 240~-----~ 20r---------~~----------~----------~-----------+~·£_ ______ -4----------~~--------~ 

cr: 

:J 

0 

I 

z 

u.i 

~ 

220r----i= 

• 

Dye-injection site 

!:::. 

Sampling site 

140~----------~--------~-----------4-----------+-----------+----------~----------~-----------

120~----------+-----------4------

100~----------+-------

80 

40 

Q) 

tiD t: -o 0 ·;: 

:;; .0 

.!!! (/) 

....; (/) (ij Q) tiD ·;: 

~ t: 2 

Ul "50 Ill Ill ~ .r:: tiD 

E -~ t: t: Ill 0 Ill 

0 I = (.) 

C: ·;: 

"E .E Q) 

0 "(ij Ill E IJ.. ~ I <( 

0 

:J 

(/) 

(/) 

Ill 

c. 

>. 

[I) 

~ 

cr: 

:J 

0 

I 

,£~---~----~~-~--~~~------20 z-------

0 

Q) 

tiD 

"0 

5 

J ·;: 

.0 

>. C\i Q) Ill LO 

0 .! >. 

E "(ij Ill 

cr: ~ :;; .r:: (ij 0 -~ [I) "0 I 

~ t: 

Q) Ill 0 z u :J 

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

Distance Traveltime of Mean velocity of 

Time leading Traveltime 

Mean centroid of centroid between Persist- of peak 

Location from discharge mass from present and edge precedes ence after 

mouth 1 centroid 3 centroid a concen-

(cfs) previous site2 previous sites tration (miles) (hr) (mph) (hr) (hr) (hr) 

3d St., Dayton ________________________ 79.32 340 ------------- --------------- ------------- -------- ---------- Stewart St., Dayton ------------------- 77.95 360 3.2 0.42 0.9 0.7 2.7 

Broadway Bridge, Dayton4 _____________ 76.36 370 8.8 .18 4.4 6.1 7.0 Sellars Rd ___________________________ 72.90 490 12.3 .28 3.6 5.5 9.9 

West Carrollton Dam----------------- 71.48 490 10.0 .14 6.2 8.0 11.2 

West Carrollton Rd ___________________ 69.00 520 3.1 .79 5.7 6.0 4.4 

Sycamore St., Miamisburg 4 ____________ 66.44 540 6.0 .43 5.8 5.2 4.6 

Chautauqua Road Bridge_----------- ___ 63.84 540 11.6 .22 4.5 9.6 9.0 

Chautauqua Dam ________ ------------- 61.70 520 8.4 .25 7.0 9.0 9.6 

2d St., Franklin, via canal _____________ 59.71 510 7.8 .25 ------------- -------- 5.5 Chautauqua Dam ______________________ 61.70 520 ------------- --------------- 7.0 9.0 ---------- 2d St., Franklin, via river------------- 59.71 510 9.8 .20 ------------- -------- 10.8 Near Oxford Rd ______________________ 57.93 540 4.2 .42 1.9 3.2 3.0 

Middletown Dam_---- __ ------ __ ------- 55.82 570 8.9 .24 3.9 6.2 9.0 

Middletown Canal, at State Route 4 ----- 54~24 240 4.6 .34 4.1 6.4 3.2 

Middletown Canal south, at State 

Route 122 ------------------------- 52.74 240 3.3 .46 4.6 7.0 4.0 

Middletown Dam_---- ____________ ----_ 55.82 570 ------------- --------------- 3.9 6.4 

River-State Route 4 ___________________ ---------- 54.24 330 4.8- .33 4.3 7.1 4.0 

River-State Route 122----------------- 52.74 330 7.4 .20 6.9 10.7 6.5 

Middletown Dam ___________ ----------- 55.82 570 ------------- --------------- 3.9 6.4 ---------- 500 ft upstream, State Route 73 bridge4 __ 48.47 590 21.2 .35 9.8 13.9 20.5 

Woods dale Bridge ____________________ 42.36 620 10.3 .59 3.1 4.6 8.7 

Hamilton Canal headgate ______________ 40.68 610 7.6 .60 3.2 4.7 7.4 

Canal outfall------------------------- 36.00 610 6.0 .78 3.5 6.1 5.5 

Main-High St., Hamilton4 _ ------------- 35.52 620 1.6 .30 3.2 5.1 2.3 

1,000 ft downstream Hamilton gage----- 34.46 640 .7 1.47 .1 .1 .6 

American Materials bridge------------ 29.30 680 10.0 .52 4.6 7.2 7.8 

U.S. Bypass 50----------------------- 25.56 680 7.7 .48 6.8 11.4 6.8 

Chesapeake 

New Baltimore4 

and ----------------------Ohio Railway bridge ____ 

20.84 

19.64 

710 

720 

8.2 

1.5 .81 

.37 7.0 

.6 15.1 .2 u4 1.0 

U.S. 52, Miamitown __ ----------------_ 14.90 710 9.9 .48 3.9 3.3 8.1 U.S. 50, Cleves _______________________ 7.98 690 12.0 .57 6.3 8.7 12.2 

1Total mileage=71. 3 miles. 

2Total centroid traveltime=182 hr; average velocity=0.39 mph. 

3Computed for 10 percent of peak concentration. 

4Dye- injection points. 

...... 

0 

>-! 

~ 0 

...., 

>-! 

$! 

~ 0 

...., 

~ >-! 

tTl 

:;tl 

2 

>-! 

~ 

C) 

:;tl 

~ >-! 

~ ~ 

:;tl 

~ ):J 

0 

~ >-! 

@ 

d 

p 

tTl 

~ 

~ 0 
Table 2.-Traveltime for index discharge of 380 cubic feet per second at Miamisburg, Aug. 31 to Sept. 2, 1965 

Distance Traveltime of Mean velocity of Time leading Mean centroid of centroid between PersistLocation from discharge mass from present and edge precedes ence after 

mouth1 centroid 3 centroid 3 

(cfs) previous site 2 previous sites (miles) (hr) (mph) (hr) (hr) 

3d St., Dayton 4 _______________________ 79.32 200 ------------- --------------- ------------ --------- Stewart St., Dayton ------------------- 77.95 200 4.8 0.28 1.0 0.9 

Broadway Bridge, Dayton4 ------------- 76.36 290 13.2 .12 8.0 10.7 

Sellars Rd

4

-------------------------- 72.90 350 18.2 .19 4.8 7.3 

West Carrollton Dam ____ ---- ___ ----- _ 71.48 290 17.5 .08 3.2 5.0 

West Carrollton Rd ___________________ 69.00 300 5.7 .44 5.2 6.8 

Sycamore St., Miamisburg4 ------------ 66.44 440 5.5 .47 3.9 4.6 

Chautauqua Road Bridge _______________ 63.84 350 17.7 .15 5.2 6.5 

Below Hutchings Dam4 ---------------- 63.50 420 1.8 .18 4.9 5.3 Chautauqua Dam ______________________ 61.70 290 12.8 .14 3.9 6.2 

2d St., Franklin, via canal 4 _____________ 59.71 300 4.0 .50 Chautauqua Dam ______________________ ------------ --------- 61.70 290 ------------- --------------- 3.9 6.2 

2d St., Franklin, via river------------- 59.71 300 13.0 .15 ------------ --------- Near Oxford Rd ---------------------- 57.93 300 4.7 .38 1.5 1.6 

Middletown Dam ___ ----- ___ ------ _____ 55.82 340 14.8 .14 4.5 3.4 

Middletown Canal south, at State 

Route 122-------------------------- 52.74 230 7.5 .41 4.2 5.3 

Middletown Dam ________ -----_-------- 55.82 340 ------------- --------------- 4.5 3.4 

River-State Route 122----------------- 52.74 510 17.6 .17 9.9 13.6 

Middletown Dam _________ ---- _________ 55.82 340 ------------- --------------- 4.5 3.4 

State Route 73 bridge 4 ---------------- 48.37 750 20.9 .35 10.6 16.3 

Woodsdale Bridge ____________________ 42.36 400 19.0 .32 6.3 8.9 

Hamilton Canal headgate ______________ 40.68 500 10.6 .15 5.4 10.6 

Hamilton Canal outfall---------------- 36.00 620 5.8 .80 6.3 9.2 

Main-High St., Hamilton4 -------------- 35.52 570 .6 .80 6.7 7.8 

American Materials bridge------------ 29.30 420 18.5 .34 9.5 9.5 

New Baltimore 4 ______________________ 20.84 590 19.2 .44 10.2 14.2 

U.S. 52, Miamitown------------------- 14.90 450 17.8 .33 4.3 6.0 

U.S. 50, Cleves----------------------- 7.98 550 16.7 .41 7.3 8.80 

1Total mileage=71.3 miles. 2

Total centroid traveltime=253.6 hr; average velocity=0.28 mph. 

3Computed for 10 percent of peak concentration. 

4

Dye-injection points. 

Traveltime 

of peak 

concentration 

(hr) 

---------- 4.2 

11.4 

15.9 

16.3 

5.2 

6.7 

16.0 

2.6 

10.9 

6.0 

---------- 14.0 

3.7 

13.4 

8.3 

---------- 14.0 

---------- 16.9 

15.6 

11.4 

7.0 

.8 

12.1 

19.8 

16.5 

15.0 

> 

~ 

~ ~ Cll 

0 

"rl 

0 

Cii 

() 

~ 

~ t"r:l 

1-' 

1-' 
12 TIME OF TRAVEL OF WATER IN THE GREAT MIAMI RIVER,DAYTON TO CLEVES, OHIO 

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. 

A summary of industrial- 2.nd municipalwaste 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. 

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

Mean discharge (cfs) 

Stream 

7-13-65 7-14-65 7-15-65 8-31-65 9-1-65 

Great Miami at Dayton------------- 333 320 312 200 355 

Wolf Creek----------------------- 6 6 6 6 50 (r: eak) Bear Creekl ______________________ 6 6 6 2 2 

Great Miami at Miamisburg -------- 552 544 530 295 652 

Great Miami at Franklin 2 ---------- 520 510 500 290 380 

Clear Creek2 --------------------- 2 2 2 1 4 

Twin Creekl ---------------------- 24 22 21 8.1 13 

Great Miami at Middletown, canal ___ 240 240 240 230 230 

Great Miami at Middletown, river2 __ 340 330 320 50 200 

Elk Creek------------------------ 2 2 2 1 4 

Dicks Creek---------------------- 4 4 4 8 18 

Four Mile Creek------------------ 20 18 15 5 10 

Great Miami at Hamilton----------- 642 623 594 315 498 

Indian Creekl ___________ ---- ______ 1 1 1 .5 2 

Great Miami at New Baltimore ______ 720 710 680 370 480 

Great Miami at Cleves3 ------------ -------- ------- 664 ------- ---------- 1 Discharge adjusted for drainage- area change between gage site and mouth. 2Nonrecording gage; discharge computed from 8:00 a.m. reading each day. 

3Measurements, July 15 at 10:00 a.m. and Sept. 2 at 9:00 a.m. 

Table 4. -Municipal sewage~plant eft1ue!1t 

Mean discharge (cfs) 

City 

7-13-65 7-14-65 7-15-65 8-31-65 9-1-f5 

Dayton _ ----- _____________________ 75.5 76.9 74.8 69.1 75.3 Hamilton _________________________ 11.3 11.4 11.6 11.6 15.1 Miamisburg _______________________ 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.3 

Middletown _________ ----- _________ 9.7 9.7 9.7 18.3 10.7 Franklin __________________________ .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 

West Carrollton1 ------------------ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Miami Shoresl -------------------- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

- -- --- --- Totals __________________________ 100.8 102.3 100.4 103.1 105.5 

1Approximate effluent by graphical comparison. 

9-2-65 

255 

5 

2 

395 

350 

3 

12 

240 

280 

2 

7 

7 

676 

1 

900 

551 

9-2-65 

66.0 

12.8 

2.1 

12.7 

.1 

1.0 

1.0 

--

95.7 
ANALYSIS OF DISCHARGE 13 

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

Mean discharge (cfs) 

Plant 

7-13-65 7-14-65 7-15-65 8-31-65 9-1-65 9-~·-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., 

Hamil ton ___ .. _ .. ____ .. ________ .. __ _ 

Nicolet Industries, Inc., Hamilton ___ _ 

Totals -------------------------

1Tied in with city sewer. 

9.5 

30.1 

1.7 

5.6 

7.8 

.4 

.1 

.3 

.8 

1.3 

3.8 

.9 

3.6 

15.5 

81.4 

DETERMINATION OF MIAMISBURG INDEX DIS(:'HARGE 

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 

9.8 

30.3 

1.7 

5.6 

7.8 

.4 

.1 

.3 

.8 

1.3 

4.1 

.9 

3.6 

15.5 

82.2 

10.4 

30.3 

1.7 

5.6 

8.5 

.4 

.1 

.3 

.8 

1.3 

3.9 

.9 

3.6 

15.5 

20.6 

103.9 

8.2 

28.9 

1.7 

6.2 

6.5 

1.7 

.4 

.1 

.3 

.8 

1.3 

2.4 

.9 

3.5 

15.5 

19.8 

.2 

98.4 

16.5 

19.1 

1.7 

6.2 

2.5 

1.7 

.4 

.1 

.3 

.8 

1.4 

2.5 

.9 

3.5 

15.5 

19.3 

.2 

92.6 

7.7 

18.:7 

1.7 

6.2 

7.7 

1.7 

.4 

.1 

.3 

.8 

1.4 

3.0 

.9 

3.5 

15.5 

18.4 

.2 

88.2 

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. 

The computation of index discharge for the 

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 
14 TIME OF TRAVEL OF WATER IN THE GREAT MIAMI RIVER,DAYTON TO CLEVES, OHIO 

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

Location 

3d St., Dayton2 ---------------------------

Stewart St., Dayton ----------------------- Broadway Bridge, Dayton ________________ .. _ 

Broadway Bridge, Dayton2 ________________ _ Sellars Road ____________________________ _ 

Sellars Road 2 ___________________________ _ 

West Carrollton Dam---------------------

West Carrollton Road ___ -----------------_ Sycamore St., Miamisburg ________________ _ 

Sycamore St., Miamisburg 2 ______ -------- __ 

Chautauqua Road Bridge ______ ---- __ -------

Below Hutchings Dam ___ ------------------

Below Chautauqua Hutchings Dam Dam2 -------------------- _________________________ _ 

2d St., Franklin--------------------------

2d St., Franklin2 ___ ----- _____________ ---- _ 

Near Oxford Road------------------------

Middletown Dam ________ ------------------

State Route 73 Bridge---------------------

State Route 73 Bridge2 --------------------

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 __ -------- _______________ .... 

Mean 

discharge (Q) 1 

(cfs) 

203 

200 

291 

202 

310 

291 

288 

310 

388 

290 

360 

410 

293 

294 

295 

295 

295 

340 

700 

316 

404 

514 

600 

590 

315 

425 

590 

370 

420 

530 

Discharge Product 

factor QxF 

(Jr) (cfs) 

1.59 

1.50 

1.46 

1.46 

1.10 

1.10 

1.10 

1.04 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.02 

1.02 

1.04 

1.06 

1.06 

1.00 

.95 

.92 

.92 

.87 

.89 

.89 

.87 

.87 

.80 

.76 

.76 

.76 

.78 

323 

300 

437 

295 

341 

320 

317 

322 

388 

290 

360 

418 

299 

306 

313 

313 

295 

323 

644 

291 

351 

457 

534 

513 

274 

340 

448 

281 

319 

413 

Average 

Miamisburg 

index 

discharge 

(cfs) 

312 

368 

318 

318 

320 

355 

325 

389 

302 

310 

304 

309 

484 

321 

404 

496 

524 

307 

394 

300 

366 

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. 

TRAVEL TIME PREDICTIC"' 

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:400x102Q-· 85 ~ where Tis traveltime 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. 
SELECTED REFERENCES 15 

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. 

DYE-CLOUD PASSAGE TIME 

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 timeconcentration 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. 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

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. 1 

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. 

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1968 0- 285-061