130820 Presentation Slides NoPW

8/12/2019 130820 Presentation Slides NoPW

1/31

ASDSO Webinar August 20, 2013

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

2Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs 2

Dr. Blake P. Tullis

Utah State University

[email protected]

Dr. Brian M. Crookston

Schnabel Engineering

[email protected]

Standard Head-Discharge Relationships for Weirs

3

h

P

Energy Grade Line

V2/2g

V

Ht

Q =CLHt3/2

Q = discharge

C= discharge coefficient

L = weir length

Ht= total upstream head

Q =2

3C

dL 2gH

t

3/2

Q = discharge

Cd= dimensionless discharge coefficient

L = weir length

Ht= total upstream head

g= gravity

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs 3


2/31

How can we increase weir discharge capacity?

4

Q =2

3CdL 2gHt

3/2 Q =CLHt3/2

Ogee Crest vs. Broad Crested Weir


Increase discharge coefficient with improved crest shapes

How can we increase weir discharge capacity?

5

Q =2

3C

dL 2gH

t

3/2 Q =CLHt3/2

Labyrinth 200-600%L

Box-Inlet Drop200-400%L

Radial Weir111%L for 90

157%L for 180

Piano Key200-600%L


IncreaseL with non-linear or 3-D weirs

6

Radial Weirs



3/31

7

Box-Inlet Drop Spillway


8

Fuse Gates


9

Labyrinth Spillways



4/31


Labyrinth Weir Prototypes

Brazos Dam, Texas (USA)

Run-of-river labyrinth weir structure



Single-cycle labyrinth weir

Oneida, Pennsylvania (USA)



Yahoola Dam, Georgia (USA)


5/31



Lake Townsend, North Carolina (USA)

Staged labyrinth weir

Lower-staged cycles


Labyrinth Weir PrototypesArced Labyrinth Weir with integrated bridge piers and nappe breaker/vent pipes

Maguga Dam, Swaziland

15

Piano Key Weirs


L Etroit Dam (France)


6/31


7/31





8/31

22Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 20 40 60 80 100

HT

(ft)

Q (cfs)

QR 1 cycle P=36in tw=4.5in w/P=2.66 L/W = 3.25

Discharge Capacity

232

3

2Tc)(d HgLCQ =

)nappe,flowapproach,,,shapecrest,,,,()( dTwd HHAPtfC =


Spreadsheet Design Method


Design Method


9/31


Design Method

26

Discharge CoefficientsQuarter-Round Crests


27

Discharge CoefficientsHalf-Round Crests



10/31

28

Discharge Coefficients


29

HT/P Limits

HT/P limited by experimental data

Crookston (2010) curve-fit equations trend-basedHT/P >1


Tullis et al. (1995) and Crookston

(2010)


dP

HaC

c

P

THb

Td +=

)(

HT/P Limits


11/31

31

Crest Comparison

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Cd-HR/Cd-QR

HT/P

6 degree

8 degree

10 degree

12 degree

15 degree

20 degree

35 degree

90 degree


Rating Curve Validation


Tullis et al. (1995)

Willmore (2004) QR Crest Shape

Validation



Validation

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Cd()

HT/P

6 de gr ee H R Cr oo ks to n 8 d eg re e HR C roo ks to n 1 0 d eg re eH R Cr oo ks to n 1 2 d eg re e H R Cr oo kst on

1 5 de gr ee HR C ro ok st on 2 0 de gr ee H R Cr oo kst on 3 5 de gr ee HR C ro ok st on 7 d eg re e HR W il lm or e

8 d eg re eH R Wi ll mo re 1 0 d eg re e H R Wi ll mo re 1 2 d eg re eH R Wi ll mo re 1 5 d eg re e H R Wi ll mo re

2 0 de gr ee H R W il l mo re 3 5 de gr ee H R Wi ll mo r e

Willmore (2004) HR Crest Shape


12/31



Validation

35

Nappe Behavior


36

Nappe Behavior



13/31

37

Nappe Behavior



Nappe Behavior


Nappe Vibration


14/31


15/31


44

Nappe Interference & Local

Submergence


45


Submergence



16/31

46


Submergence



( ) 03916.07-E155.5038.2307.1

1+

=

P

H

B

BTint

48


Submergence



17/31


Q & A Break

50

Labyrinth Weir Submergence


51



Ogee crest weir, Iowa River,

Iowa City (USA)


18/31

52



Tailwater submergence definition: S=H* /Hd

Key Terms:

Ho: free-flow upstream total head (relative to crest elevation)

ho: free-flow upstream water depth (relative to crest elevation)

H*: submerged upstream total head (relative to crest elevation)

h*: submerged upstream water depth (relative to crest elevation)

Hd: downstream total head (relative to crest elevation)

hd: downstream water depth (relative to crest elevation)

s = h* /hdAlternative Tailwater submergence definition:

53



Modular Submergence Limit (H*=Ho)

Free-flow conditions

no longer apply (H*Ho)

54




19/31

55



Submerged Labyrinth WeirHead-Discharge Calculations

Inputs: Q(hydrology)Hd(HEC-RAS)

Calculate Qvs.HT(Ho)Using design method

CalculateHd/HoDetermineH*/Housing Submergence Curve

H*=(H*/Ho)*Ho

Output: (Q,Ho) submerged rating curve data point

56

Discharge Efficiency vs. Labyrinth Weir Cycle Geometry

Cycle Efficiency ()

1. Cddecreases with decreasing

*smaller Cd = smaller unit discharge


2.L increases with decreasing

*assuming cycle width w remains constant

*assuming no longitudinal footprint restrictions

57

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

'=Cd()Lc-cycle/w

HT/P

6 de gr ee H R 8 de gr ee HR

1 0 de gr ee H R 1 2 de gr e e HR



Cycle Efficiency ()

' =CdLcycle

w

shows relative change in efficiency between values for a given HT/P



20/31

. 0

.

.

. 0

. 0

. 0

. 0

.

.

. 0

Straight Weir

15Labyrinth

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

H/P

CycleEfficiency(CdxL/W)

Straight Weir

15Labyrinth

Cycle Efficiency ()15-degree labyrinth vs. linear weir

Cd

Ht/PHydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs 58

59

Debris / Sediment


60

Biological Growth on Crest


Labyrinth weir crest shape: ogee crest profile

Run-of-the-river dam: crest always wet

Ogee crest profile used to keep nappe attached (clinging flow): improve discharge efficiency

Algal growth on the crest caused the nappe to separate from crest: benefit of ogee crest not fully realized

Biological growth on the crest likely not an issue for spillways that are typically dry (emergency spillway, etc.)


21/31


62

High Headwater Ratios


CFD



22/31

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Cd(15)

HT/P

Model1

Model2

CFD Model

Crookston (2010) Curve Fit






HT/P 2.1

dP

HaC

c

P

THb

Td +=

)(


23/31


Configurations/Abutments


Configurations/Abutments

69

Arced Labyrinth Weir Geometry


Arced Labyrinth Weirs


24/31


Arced Labyrinth Weirs


Reservoir vs. In-channel

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Cd-Res

/Cd-Channel

HT/P

=12 Normal in Channel =12Ar ced Projecting, =10

=12Flush =12Pr ojecting (Linear, =0)

=12 Rounded Inlet

72

Residual Energy

Lopes, Matos, and Melo (2006, 2008)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Unit Discharge, q (l/s/m)

Hds/P

L/W = 2

L/W = 3

L/W = 4

L/W = 5

Drop (Chanson, 1994)



25/31

P = 6 inches

P = 12 inches

P = 36 inches


Scale Effects

Partially Aerated


Scale Effects


Q & A Break


26/31

Sectional Model Studies


Sectional Model Studies


Full-Width Model Studies



27/31

When is a Model Recommended


Prototype hydraulic/geometric conditions fall outside published design conditions

Wall height effects (w/P)

Approach flow angle

Approach flow topography and abutments

Energy dissipation

Wall thickness & apex details

Arced Labyrinth Weir Model


Approach Channel Details

Arced Labyrinth Weir Model


Approach Channel Details


28/31

Labyrinth Weir Model


Significant Approach Flow Angle

Advantages/Limitations

Physical Model Very visual

Quick changes

Handles complex flow

patterns

Scale Effects

Cost/construction schedule

Data limited to specific

measurement locations

Calibration (roughness

models)

Lab space/flow capacity

Numerical Model Easy streamline visualization

Data available anywhere in

domain

Easily stored

Cost/simulation time

Calibration to physical model

data required

Results vary with user-

defined boundary conditions

and turbulence simulation

model selection


CompositeModeling

84

Non-Linear Weirs with Footprint Restrictions


Piano Key Weirs


29/31

85

Non-Linear Weirs with Footprint Restrictions


Piano Key Weirs

PK Weir History

Lemprire 2003, 2005, 2009

Laugier 2007, 2009

Ribeiro et al 2007, 2009

Machiels et al 2009

Anderson and Tullis 2012

Abdorreza et al. 2012

Labyrinth PK-Weir Workshops

Belgium 2011

New Delhi, India May 2012


Discharge

Cd=f (HT,L, Wi, Wo,B, P, Tw, Ramp Angle, Parapet)



30/31

PK Weir Submergencechannel applications

free-flow PK weir local submergencetailwater submergence

Dabling and Tullis (2012)

Piano Key Weir Submergence in Channel Applications

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering


PK vs. Labyrinth Weir

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

H/P

CdxL/W

PK 6

8 10

12 15

20 RL

Cycleefficiency


PK vs. Labyrinth WeirGeometries required for

equivalent discharge

Changes in discharge and weir dimensions

with channel width constrained

Q-specific

Q-specific



31/31

Select References for Labyrinth and PK Weirs

1. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (?). Hydraulic Design and Analysis of Labyrinth Weirs. J. Irrigation

and Drainage (two companion papers-under review).

2. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Arced Labyrinth Weirs. J. Hydraulic Engineering, 138(6),

pp. 555-562, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000553.

3. Anderson, R. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Comparison of Piano Key and Rectan gular Labyrinth WeirHydraulic. J. Hydraulic Engineering (in press), doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000509.

4. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Discharge Efficiency of Reservoir-Application-Specific

Labyrinth Weirs. J. of Irrigation and Drainage, 138(6), 564-568 , doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-

4774.0000451.

5. Dabling, M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Piano Key Weir Submergence in Channel Applications .J.

Hydraulic Engineering (in press), doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000563 .

6. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Labyrinth Weirs: Nappe Interference and Local

Submergence.J. Irritation and Drainage, 138(6), pp. 555-562, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-

4774.0000466.

7. Anderson, R. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Piano Key Weir: Reservoir vs. Channel Applications. J.

Hydraulic Engineering (in press), doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000464.

8. Erpicum, S., F. Laugier, J. L. Boillat, M. Pirotton, B. Reverchon, and A. J. Schleiss (2011).Labyrinth

and Piano Key Weirs. CRC Press, New York, NY.

9. Falvey. H. (2003).Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs. ASCE, Reston, VA.

10.Tullis, J. P, N. Amanian, and D. Waldron ( 1995). Design of Labrinth Weir Spillways. J. Hydraulic

Engineering, 121(3), 247-255.


State of Utah

Utah State University-Utah Water Research Lab

Ricky Anderson

Nathan Christensen

Tyler Seamons

Schnabel Engineering

Dave Campbell

Greg Paxson

Freese & Nichols

Idaho State University

Dr. Bruce Savage

92

Acknowledgements


Post Event Evaluation & Quiz

Please click the following link to take the Seminar

Evaluation and Quiz:

http://e02.commpartners.com/users/asdso/posttest.ph

p?id=10501

You must complete the Seminar Evaluation and Quiz

to receive PDH credit hours

and Quiz to receive PDH credit hours 93

130820 Presentation Slides NoPW

Documents

Transcript of 130820 Presentation Slides NoPW