98270182 Hydraulic Model Studies of the Intake Outlet Structure 1971

7/29/2019 98270182 Hydraulic Model Studies of the Intake Outlet Structure 1971

1/22

16. J. RhoneEngineering and Research CenterBureau of Rec lamation


2/22

i-130 ( 8 - 70 )uesu of Reclsmsl ton TECHNICAL F

4. T T L E A N 0 SUBTlTLEHydraulic Model Studies of the 1ntake.Outlet Structure for thePumpGeneration Facility a t Mormon Flat Dam. Salt RiverProject, Arizona

7 J. Rhone9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION N A M E AN 0 ADDRESSEngineering and Research Center3ureau of Reclamation3enver. Colorado 8022512. S P O N S O R IN G A G E N C Y N A M E AN D ADDRESS

IS . SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

[PORT STANDARD T IT LE PAGI3. RECIPIENT'S C A T A L O G NO.

5. REPORT D ATEAug 71

6. PERFORMING O R G A N I Z A T I O N CODE

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NO.REC-ERC-71-31

10. WORK U N I T NO.

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

13. T Y P E OF REPORT AND PERIODC O V E R E D

-14. S P O h 5 0 R I N C A G E N C Y CCOE

16. A O S T R A C THydraulic model studies were made to determine flow characteristics in the upper intake-outlet structure ofthe Mormon Flat Dam pumpgeneration fac ili ty in Arizona. Of particular concern were the velocityjistr ibution and turbulence conditions at the trashrack location during the pumping cycle. The studies showedthat the flow was not evenly dispersed in the initial structure which had 20.5 deg diverging sidewalls andaarallel floor and roof. Auxiliary piers and horizontal and vertical deflectors improved the velocityjistribution, but the velocity distribution changed so radically for a small change in pier location that theymere not used. Three additional intake-outlet structures with lesser sidewall divergence were studied.Jltimately selected was a structure with 13 deg 10 min diverging sidewalls and 5 deg divergence in the floorand roof. Primarily for structural reasons, the structure included one pier at the penstock end and three piersi t the reservoir end. Flow distribution was adequate. Although velocities varied from 1.0 fps to about 12.5 fps


3/22

RE@-ERC-7i-3i

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OFTHE INTAKE-OUTLET STRUCTUREFOR THE PUMP-GENERATIONFACILITY AT MORMON FLAT DAMSALT RlVER PROJECT, ARIZONA


4/22

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThese studies were conducted under the supervision of W. E. Wagner,Chief, Hydraulics Branch, Division of General Research. During thecourse of the studies C. E. Whalin of the Salt River Project and E. R.Floodeen of Eechtel Corporation viewed the progress of the studies andoffered many helpful suggestions.


5/22

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .urpose 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .esults 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pplication 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .he Model 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .he Investigation 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .est Procedure 3Veloc ity Distr;but ion in Penstock and Gate Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .relimina::~Structure 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i rst Mo dification 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .econd Modificatio n 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hird Mo dification 5Fourth Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .enter Pier Altera tions 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .edges on sides of o rigin al pier 5Mo dified pier nose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

lnter~nediate iers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cheme B-1 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cheme 8-2 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cheme 8-3 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ead Loss 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .enerating Cycle 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .low Dis tr ibut ion 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .orte x Characteristics 11

LlST OF TABLESTable

1 Velocity distribution in intake structure .


6/22

PURPOSEThese studies were made t o verify th e hyd raulicdesignof the intake structure and t o d etermine the head losscoefficients o f the entrance structure and the penstock.O f primary concern were th? velocity distribution andturbulence a t the portal of the intake structure duricgthe pumpi,io cycle. The studies were Jiractcd towardfindins a configuration that would have asnearly evenvelocity distribution as possible and minirnlrmturbulenca at the trashracks.

18) Head losses in the selected intak e-ou tlet structurefor the pu mping cycie were about 0.61 of a velocityhead w ith the m inimu m reservoir and 0.77 of avelocity head with the maximum reservoir. For thegenerating cycle, losses were a bout 0.19 of a velocityhead for all reservoir levels. The velo city head wasbased o n the average velocity in the l8. fo ot (5.5-mldiameter penstock.(9)Model observations indicated that n o air mtr ain ingvortices should form during no rmal operatiorr.

RESULTS APPLICATION(1) During the pumping cycle, f low entered theintake-outlet structure symmetrically.'2)However, at the end of the intial structure, flowdistrib ution was poor. Flow velocity varied from as lowas 1.6 fee t per second [fps ) (0.5 me ters per second)Imps) on the left side to 14.7 fps (4.5 mps) near therlght side. Vertical distribution was also poor, and themagnitude of the velocity variations changed with achange in re servoir level.(31 Deflectors on the sides of the center pier failed tosignificantly improve flbw distribution.(4) Auxiliary piers in the bays on each side of thecenter pier improved the lateral flow distribution, butit was necessary to add either floor deflectors orhorizontal piers to obta in good vertical distribution.(5 ) Flow distribu tion was very sensitive to m inoradjustments in the au xiliary pier placement. Because of

Gen erally, the results of this study can be app lied as aguide in the hydraulic design of an intake-outletstructure fo r a pumped storage facility.

Mormon Flat Dam i s on the Salt River Project, about51 miles northeast of Phoenix, Arizona. Figure 1. Thedam i s a thin arch concrete structure, 224 feet (68.3m) high, and creates a reservoir o f abou t 57,900acre-feet (72 million cu m) capacity. The dam,constructed i n the period 1923.26. is owned by theSalt River Valley Water Users Association and isoperated by the Salt River Project AgriculturalImprovement and Power District. The initial powerfacilities at the dam consisted of two 8-foot (2.4-m)diameter penstocks leading to a single generator wi th anameplate capac ity of 7,000 kw, at 25 hz.


7/22

unit.T o supply flow to the new generator/motor unit, an18-to ot (5.5-m) diameter penstock through the existingdam w ill be tied t o a new powerhouse a short distancedownstream from the existing powerplant. A n intakestructure for the penstock will be constructed on theupstream side of the dam. The designs for the newstructure were prepared by Bechtel, Incorporated.Bechtel, through Salt River Project officials, requestedthe Bureau of Reclamation to perform hydraulic models tudies of the intake-o~~tlettructure and penstock.Studies were conducted at the Bureau's Ensheeringand Research Center, Denver, Colorado.

'THE MODELTh e model, constructed t o a scale ra tio o: 1:18.78,included the entrance structure and the penstock downt o th e sp iral case, Figu re 2. Th e spiral case and

constructed of wood and styrofoam. The transitionfrom the gate structure to the penstock and thepenstock were constructed of clear plastic. Bothmitered elbows o f the penstock were represented toscale. The model was installed in a 1 2-foot ( 3 . 7 4square by 1Cfoot (4.3-m) high tank. Water wassupplied t o the tank fro m the permanent laboratorysystem for the generating cycle tests and from aportable p um p at the downstream end of the penstockfor the pumping cycle tests.Water surface e levations and pressures were measuredby water manometers and by electronic preu: e cellsthrough a carrier-amplifier, digitized by an integratingdigital voltm eter. Velocities were measured w it h apygmy Price current meter and a miniature propellermeter. The miniature propeller meter has a1-centimeter-diameter. 5-blade prapeller made ofplastic suspended i n jewel brarings on a stainless steelsupport. A gold e le ct r~ db n the same support ismounted near the passing tip of the propeller. A


8/22

resistance change caused by the short water pathbetween the electrode and ti p produce s a voltage pulsein a count ing uni t . The count ing u n ~ t ounts thevoltage changes fo r a period of t ime. The ou tpu t fro mthe comput ing uni t i s transferred to a counter-t imerand displayed on a 6di gi t in-l inz i-dicstor panel or to atape p rinter for a digital printout.

THE INVESTIGATIONTest ProcedureTh e i n it ia l intake-outlet structure' and eachmodification were evaluated on the basis of thevelocity distribution at the portal for the pumped flo wcondition. The vertical and horizontal piers at the endof the structure divided the area into eight segmentseach about 10 feet (3.0 m; wid e by 9.25 feet (2.8 m)high, Figure 3. For each configuration. the velocity att h i center o f each segment was measured at LI pumpedflow discharge of 4.620 cfs (130.8 cu mlsec) withreservoir elevations 1632.5 and 1660.5. I f thesevelocity distributions indicated a promising structure,m ore d~ ta i l edmeasurements were obtained. The mo redetailed measurements consisted of nine velocityrea dl~ gs n each wjm en t, five along the vertical andhorizontal centerlines and one in each corner. Thesteadiness of flow was observed during velocitymeasurements, bu t the magnitude o f any fluct ua tion inthe flow was no t evaluated.

The single-velocity measurements were made with apygmy current meter. The velocities thus obtainedrepresented a i s to 150-second average. Thecomprehensive measurements were made w it h a midge tcurrent meter w it h an electronic counter. Usually three

Figure 3. Looking into trashrack end of initialintake-outlet structure. Numbers identify sections wherevelocity measurements were taken. See Table 1. PhotoP20.0-69192

slightly higher than in the rest of the crosssection bu tthe increase was so slight that it was consideredunimportant, Figure 4. The velocity distribution shownon Figure 4 was obtained at the maximum pumpeddischarge and high reservoir elevdtion; the velocitydistribution for the low reservoir elevation was almost


9/22

N O T E SY P I O C ~ I ~ ~ ~n e e t pe r recond an d ( m e t e r s pe r recond I~ ~ s c h a r g er am c f r 113lcrnrlR e s er v o ir E i t u . = 1660.5section l o r ing in di rec t ion of f low

Figure 4. Velocity distribution in penstock betweenintake structure and upper elbow-pumping flow.

Figure 6. Preliminary intake.outlet structure,

(from the end of the gate section). Both sidewallsdiverged at an angle o f 20' 30 '. A p ier along thecenterline for the fu ll iength divided the structure intotw o com partments. A t the reservoir end of eachcompartment a short pier divided the compartmentin to t wo 1 0- to or (3.0.m) wide passages. Th e struc turewas 20 feet (6.1 m) high throughout i t s fu l l length. A t


10/22

Similar flow distribution was present at the lowresewoir elevation. The major difference was th at therewas very l i t t le f low in the lower left side passage; theflow through the upper passage just to the left of thecenter increased. There was no apparent explanationfor this shift in f low pattern but it was repeated insuccessive tests and was n o t a ra ndom occurrence.First ModificationSince the flow was concentrated on either side of thecenter pier, wedge-shaped deflectors were installed oneach side of the center pier to deflect the flow towardthe outside. The four deflec tors tes ted had 6 9- 1/ 2~ ,12O, and 14' de flec tion angles. Th e 12' and 14'deflectors provided good vertical distribution butforced too much .?ow toward the outside. The 6deflector provided'good lateral distribution. The bestdistribution was obtained with the 9.112 ~ deflector,but this distribution was no t very even on the righ t sidewhere the upp er section adjacent to the pier carried avery small amount of f low and the lower right se c~ lr ncarried an excessive amount of flow. The velocitydistributions for the various wedge arrangements areshown in Table 1.Second ModificationIn a further at tempt to def lect the f low toward theoutside, 8' wedges were placed on either side o f thecenter wall and the outside walls were moved towardthe center so as to fo rm a 6.5-foot (2.0-m) widepassage about 2 4 feet (7.3 m ) long. A t rhe end G I the2 4 feet, th e outside walls and center pier diverged tothe original width at the end of the structure. Thisarrangement did no t improve the velocity distribution

However, the vertical distribution was inadequate;there was some instability in the flow; and the flowdistribution changed beween the high and lowreservoir elevations. Moving the intermediate piers 0.4foo t (0.1 m ) closer to the center pier improved thelateral, b ut no t the vertica!, distribution.Fourth ModificationAn upward sloping floor was installed to improve thevertical distribution. The intermediate piers of thesecond trial of the third modification remained inplace. The floor sloped upward 3.8 feet (1.2 m) n adistance of 19.5 feet (5.9 m), followed by a 3.4-foot(1.0-m) long horizontal section and then a downslopeto the original floor elevation at the end of thestructure. This arrangement improved the vertical andhor izon tcl distribution, as shown in Table 1. b u t therewas still less flow in the outside lower left section andin bo th upp er rig ht sections.Increasing the height of the upward slope to 4.3 feet(1.3 m) improved the vertical distrib ution and providednearly equal distributio n in al! sections except in thebottom section on the left side of the center pier,Table 1.Wi tho ut the intermediate piers the vertical distributio nwas adequate but the horizontal distribution was verypoor. The upward sloping floor seemed to provide themost promiting arrangement for good vertical flowdistribution. Many mod ifications to improve the lateraldistrib ution were studied. In all tests in this series the4.3-foot (1.3 rn) high upward sloping floor was used.The modifications, in addit ion to the sloping floor, fa l linto tw o categories:


11/22

dis tribu tion in the right side was changed considerably.A t the high reservoir elevation, flo w was concentratedin the bottom section adjacent to the center pier wi thvery little flow in the top outside section. For the lowreservoir elevation, most o f the f low was deflected toboth outside sections wi th very l i tt le flow in thebot tom section adjacent to the pier.f ?creasing the angle of the center pier deflectors t o10.75' did n ot materially change the flo w distributiona t either reservoir elevation.It was noted that with the center pier deflectors theaverage measured velocity in the structure was about40 percent higher than a Q/A computation wouldindicate. This was an in dica tion that the single.velocitymeasurement taken in the center of some of thesections was in a high-velocity area and that muchlower velocities would be found in other areas of thesection. Since unequal flow distribution in a sectionwas as undesirable ;; unequal flow distr ibutionbetween sections, no further tests were made withdeflectors on the sides o f the original center pier.Modif ied pier nose.-The nose of the center pier wasreplaccd with a 3.foot (0.9-m) radius semicircle.Downstream from the spring point of the semicirclethe nose sloped back to the original pier in a length of4.5 feet (1.4 m). Flo w distribution was s t i l l no tadequate, Table 1. It was also noted that the flow wasvery un stable at the exit; surges o f high -velocity flowwere followed by periods of almost stagnantconditions.The 6-foo t (1.8-m) widt h o f the semicircular pier nose

placement that, combined wit h the sloped floor, wou ldprovide adequate flow distribution at the end of thestructure.Intermediate PiersThe original center pier and the intermediate piers ofthe fourth modification were reinstalled, except thatthe upstream ends of the intermediate piers were set2.35 feet (0.7 m) away from the center pier and theintermediate pier wid th was increased t o 14 inches (0.3m). Flow distr ibution wi th thisarrangement wasgood.Table 1, bu t was still s lightly less in the tw o upper rig htsections and the outside lower left section. There werealso some differences in the flow concentrationsbetween the high and low reservoir.Many minor modifications in location of the upstreamend o f th ? piers and elevstion of the high portio n ofthe floor were tr ied witivxt materially aiding thedistribution. Also tried were longer piers, up to the fu lllength of the structure, placed along the centerline ofeach bay. These resulted in extremely poo r distr ibu tionand very unsteady flow .Some concern was expressed about h ~ wensitive theflow distribution was to minor variations in pierplacement. It was felt that if the model did not trulyrepresent pro toty pe flow entering the intake structureduring the pump ing cycle, pier placement determinedfrom the model might be ineffective in the prototype.A t the request of Bechtel, a new series of tests wasinitiated to evaluate three additional configurations forthe intake structure. Basically this was the original


12/22

II SECTION a-ASCHEME NO 8- 1

, ,

SECT IONAL PLAN 8'-8'SCHEME N0.8 -3

\ S E C T I O N A- ASCHEME NO. %2

Figure 7. AlternativeSchemes 8-1.8-2. and 8-3.


13/22

center pier was replaced with short piers at each end,Figure 7. The piers in the center of each bay at thedownstream end were not moved, which resulted innarrow outside bays. N o au xiliary piers a t the upstream(penstock) end were installed for the initial tests.lateral f low distribution was poor in the lower baysbu t good i n the upper bays: however, the verticaldistrib ution was very poor except for the l eft outsidebays, Table 1 .To improve the distribution, mo difications to thestructure were made based on th e results of p revioustests. Horizon tal and vertical auxiliary piers wereinstal l& and the opt imum p l a c e ~ ? w as determined,after several trials, to p rovid ego od flo w distributio n atthe outlet of the structure. Table 1.Scheme 8-3The intake structure was rebuil t to incorporate thefeatures shown as Scheme 8-3 on Figure 7. Thesidewalls diverged 13' 10 ' on each side arid the floo rand roo f d iverged abou t 5 A sho r ten te r p ie r waslocated at each end of the structure and an additionalpier was placed in the center of each bay at thereservoir end.Velo city measurements taken at the center of each haydid not indicate good distribution, Table 1, althollghthe d ist rib ut io n was no t as uneven as had been fcu ndin earlier versions. Several modifications were made inan atcempt to improve the flow distribution. Theseincluded reinstalling the fullJength center pier andmany combinations of vertical end horizontal pierswi th and wit ho ut the ful l- length center pier. The flow

low reservoir levels. Scheme 8-3 as selected for thepro toty pe structure and comprehensive velocitydistrib ution measurements were made to obtain mo recomplete data to aid i n the structural desigr o f thetrashricks. These data w ere obtained wit h and with ou tthe fuhlength center pier and at maximum andminim um reservoir elevations, Figure 8.These measurements indicated that in a given sectionthe flow was generally equally distributed and flowinsta bility was minimal. However, i n some bays, flowvelocity as high as 12.5 fps (3.8 m) was encountered.w t ~ i l en othe r bays the veloc ity was as low as 1 fps (0.3m). There were no significent differences in flowdistribution wi th o r witho ut the ful l- length center wall.Velocities in the center of each section, ar shown inFigure 8, do n o t necessarily agree wi th the velocitiesshown in Table 1 for Scheme B-3 because of thedifference i n instrumenta tion. The small velocity m eterused in the comprehen sive n!easurements, Figu re 8,sampled a smaller area over a shorter period of timethan the larger velocity meter used in the generalmeasurements shown on Table 1. I n general, thevalu esshown on Table 1 are an average :or th e entir e ,%%tionwhile the values shown on Figure 8 are spotmeasurements.Head LossEnergy loss measurements were made for the pumpedflow cycle. Thc losses were obtained for the systemfrom the spiral case to the reservoir and for theentrance which included the gate section and theentranc e structure. The energy o r head losses have beenreduced to loss coefficients in terms of the velocity


14/22

6.2 2.9 4.1 4.7 3.6 2.1

4.5 6.1 5.1 2.7 3.7 2.7SECTION I SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4

10.371 10.461 10.431 (0.701 10.551 10.821 (2.68) (2.191 11.651 12.771 (2.531 (1.59)

3.8 5.6 6.5 5.2 5.8 4.410.431 Id4691 1oiG1 10.371 10.461 10.491 11 . 16 ) (1.7 1) 11.9 8) 11.58) 11.771 (1 .3 4)SECTION 5 SECTION 6 SECTION 7 SECTION 8

R E S E R V O I R EL. 1660.5

(1.491 (1.68) 11.831 12.591 (2.63) 13.351 10.731 10.611 10.551 10.581 10.58) (0.701

4.9 6.0 7.7 7.9 12.5 9.5 7.0 5.5 11.5 3 .6 2.811.491 11.861 12.35) 12.41) 13.611 12.901 (2.13) 11.68) 13.511 (1.101 10.651 (0.551

2.4 2.6 ' 1.6 3.5 2.6 4.9 6.3 6.6 3.7


15/22

3.3 5 .2 4.9 5.8

SECTION I SECTION 2 SECTION 3 SECTION 4

1.9 1 .8 1.3 2.0 1.4 1.9 2.9 4.0 3.6 4.8 3.3

SECTION 5 SECTION 6 SECTION 7 SECTION 8RESERVOIR EL. 1 6 6 0 . 5

1.6 12.1


16/22

appxoximately 9.5 feet (2.9 m) downstream from theend of the lower bend. In both cases the lossesincluded friction loss and form loss.The loss coefficients, in terms of th e velocity head inthe 18-fo ot (5.5 m) co ndu it were 0.19 f or the entrancestructure and 0.32 for the system.Generating CycleStudies of flow characteristics during the generatingcycle were made wi th the Scheme 8.3 structure.Conditions investigated included flow distribution inthe penstock, head losses through the entrance andthrough the system, and vortex characteristics in there se ~o ir ver the entrance.Flow distribution.-Flow distribution in the conduitbetween the entrance and the first bend was verysymrnetrical, indicating smooth convergence from thereservoir to the cond uit, Figure 9A. A second veiocitydistrib ution in the straight section midwa y between thetwo elbows showed the effect of the flow passingaround the upper elbow. Although the velocitydistribu tion on either side of th e vertical centerline wassymmetrical, the velocity near the crown increasedwhile the veiocity near the invert was lower, Figure 98.Velocity distribution at the approximate location ofth e entrance to th e spiral case showed a redistrib utionof flow near the inve rt and crown caured by the lowerelbow. A t this location the velocity near the crow n was

lowe r than average and near th e inv ert was higher thanaverage, Figure 9C. Flow distribution was symmetricalon either side of the vertical centerline.Vortex characteristics.-Observations were rnade t odetermine if vortices would form over the entrance.Th e tests were made using the scaled penstock velocityof 4.73 fps (1.4 m ps) and min im um reservoir elevation,representing20.5 fps (6.2 mps) and elevation 1632.5 inthe prototype. With these model conditions there wasn o detectable vortex action.I n some model investigations, where a very small modelis used to represent a prototype structure, an "equalvelocity" test procedure is used to determine ifair-entraining vortices mig ht occur in the prototype.Th is procedure requires th at th e velocity in the modelcondu it b e the same as the velocity in the prototype.Fo r the M orm on F lat model, the discharge wou ld havet o be increased t o ab ou t 14.8 cfs (0.4 cu misac) insteadof the 3.4 d s (0.1 cu rn/secJ used in the rest of thestudy. It was n o t possible t o increase the discharge th ismuch in the existing model facility. However, testswere made in which the model velocity was 12.5 fps(3.8 mps), corresponding to abou t 5 4 fps (16.5 mps) inthe prototype. The re was considerable turbulence overthe entrance with this test but no air-entrainingvortices formed. It should be mentioned that th e waterdepth over the entrance w it h th is test was aboutdoub le the d epth used in the regular tests.


17/22

A . BE TWE E N UP P E R E LBO W ANDI N T A K E S T R U C T U R E

N O T E Su- 5200 cf s (147cms)S c h e m e 8- 3 intoke i t r uc t u re w ~ t h o f t I 3 0 5 m l


18/22

Table 1V E LO C I TY D I S TR I B U TIO N I N I N TA K E S TR U C TU R EFeet per Second

I I Section number (see Figure 3)Structur e Reservoir elevation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Preliminary 1632.5 1.6 13.5 2.8 1.9 1.5 8.6 14.7 6.11660.5 2.6 2.1 2.4 1.7 8.3 14.5 14.8 8.2Modification No. 1 1632.5 4.6 12.5 4.0 2.6 3.1 9.7 14.2 8.36 Wedges 1660.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 2.2 5.2 11.8 14.8 8.8Modification No. 1 1632.5 5.6 12.3 3.2 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.3 10.49 . 1 1 ~ ~edges 1660.5 5.7 7.2 2.0 8.4 6.2 9.5 7.4 11.6Modification No. 1 1632.5 13.0 1.6 2.4 11.8 10.2 2.1 3.2 11.812 Wedges 1660.5 12.5 2.2 3.0 11.0 11.2 1.7 3.4 12.5- -Modification No. 1 1632.5 10.8 2.4 3.0 13.6 11.0 2.1 2.4 11.714' Wedges 1660.5 13.8 2.3 2.6 12.1 10.9 2.2 2.7 13.6Modification No. 3 1632.5 4.3 10.8 4.6 3.4 3.4 8.8 10.9 10.0Auxiliary Piers 1660.5 6.2 3.2 2.9 2.8 8.9 11.4 13.0 10.2Modification No. 4 1632.5 6.9 9.7 3.5 4.4 3.6 6.5 7.7 8.33.8-foot hump 1660.5 8.6 8.4 3.3 3.5 2.9 8.6 12.3 11.8-- --Modification No. 4 1632.5 6.6 4.7 5.8 9.7 4.1 1.1 1.5 15.24.3-foot hump 1660.5 7.8 3.6 5.1 9.3 7.5 1.1 1.5 13.9Modification No. 4-1-A 1632.5 9.5 13.6 10.4 10.2 5.1 8.1 15.9 10.0Wedges o n pier 1660.5 10.6 14.8 7.6 4.4 5.3 7.2 5.5 7.8Modification No. 4-1-8 1632.5 7.3 8.9 3.2 2.5 2.1 8.9 13.3 7.6


19/22

CONVERSION FACTORS-BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENTTne fol or in p mn rerr lon faslora adopted oy the B ~ l s a U l Recamat on are thar. p- br he d by the AmericanS a ; e l v for Tedng and Materials IASTM Me t r c Praccoe G u o e E 380.6Ei except mat ao d't m~ ai ano rr 1'1common v ur w n rhc Bureau harc menado-. Fmoe , 6% \o n of oef.n'tioos of a.antdcr and ~ n i t r o..n :".........the AST M M etric Practice Guide.The metric unitr and mnv errion factors adopted by the ASTM are bored on the "internafiooaiSyrtem of h i e "(designated SI for Svrteme International d'Unites1. fixed by th e International Committee far Weighu andMeawres: thir system is also known as the Giorgi or MKSA (m eter-kilo gram (mars)-second-amp re) system. Thisv n e m has been adopted by the International Organization for Standardization in IS 0 R~ om me nd ati on 3.31.The metric technical un it of force is the kilograrn.force: th ir is the force which. when applied to a body having am 8 s of 1 kg, giver i t an acceleration of 9.80665 mlreclrec. the standard acceleration of free fall toward t he earth'scenter for sea level at 45 deg latitude. The metric un it of farce in SI unit r is the newton IN), which is defined asthat force which, when applied to a body having a ma rrof 1 kg, giver it an acceleration of 1mlreclrec. Th weu nitrmust be distinguished from the i in co nr m ti local weight of a body having a m as of 1 kg, that is. th eweig ht of abody is that farce with which a bod" ir attracted to the earth and is eaual to the mars of a b od " m u i t i o i i d bv the~ - ..........acceleration due to gravitv. ~ o w & , b r a ~ . t is general practice io ur. "pound" rather than the technicallycormwt term "pound-fo re." the term "kilogram" (o r derived morr unit ) has been usad in t hi l guide innead o f"kilogram-force" in exprening the conversion factorr for forcer. The newton unit of force wi l l f in d increasinguse.

Where approximate or nominal Engl ih unitr are used to exprerr a value or range of valuer. th e converted merricun in n parenrherer are aim approximate or nominal. Where precise Engiirh unitr are used, the converted metricunitr are expressed ar wualiy significant values.Table I

QUANTITIES AND UNITS OF SPACEMul t ip ly BY To obtain

M il . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 1exactlyl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micronl o c h s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 (exactly1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MillimetersI n r h s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.54 iexacnyl' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CentimetersFeet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.48 lexactlyl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CentimetersFeet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3048 (eractlyl' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MetersFeet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q.OW3048 lexactiyl' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KilometersYards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9144 lexaetlyl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MetersMiles lrtatutel . . . . . . . . . . 1.609.344 (eractlyi' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,609344 (exa nlvl Kilometer:Square inches . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .quare feetSquare feet . . . . . . . . . . . .Square yards . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . ..4516 (exactly1 Square centimeters'929.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Squarecentimeters0.092903 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square meterr0.836127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square mste rr


20/22

Table I1OUANTITIES AND UNITS OF MECHANICS

Multiply BY To obtain- MASSGrrinr 1117.000 lbi . . . . . . . . . 479891 Iexwl lyi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i l l igamrTray Dunce9 l48Ogalncl . . . . . . 31.1035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .rarnrOunces lrvdp l . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2495 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mmrPounds lavdpl . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.45359237 (sxa cllyl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i logram9Shon ton112.000 1bl . . . . . . . . 907.195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i logramsS M n ons 12.000 bl . . . . . . . . 0.807186 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . etrictons~ o n g t o m2,240 lbl . . . . .016.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i logramr

FORCEI/\REAPoundroar muare inch . . . . . . . 0.070307 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ilotlramr wr rouarscentimeisr~ o u n d r b r r m u a r ench . . . . 0.889478 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e & o n ~ ~ r d u a r a c e n t i m e t t t~ ~ n d rer square foot . . . . . . . 4.88243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ i l a g r a m rer rquarc m n s r% m d ~er ~ Y B Ww t . . . . . . . 47.8803 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N w r m r p m w a r e meter

MASSNOLUME IOENSlTYl

MASSICAPACITY

BENDING MOMENT OR TORQUEIrrh-pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.011521 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meier.l~illoprsml. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hh-ooundr . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12985 x lo8 Centimclerdyner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oot-pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.138255 MeterkilogramsFooipound? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35582 x lo7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m t i m e t c r d y n ~ ~Fmip oun dr per inch . . . . . . . 5.4431 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centimeter-kilogramsper centmsler0unrc.inrher . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.W8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ramcmtimeters-

Table 11-ConlinucdMulliply BY Too blsi n

WORK AN0 ENERGY'8 r i m h er ma l v n i u I E ru l . . . . '0.252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i l og iamca lo r l e rB r i t i h t he rm al u n ir r I h ) . . . . . 1.055.@8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oule9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .tu perp wnd 2.328 I r xa rW Joulcr par gram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .oot-wund. '1.3558 2.. Joules

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .or rp aw cr 745. 700 Wens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .tu pcr hour 0.293071 Wanr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .aot .pu nd3 er wmn d 1.35582 Wanr8tu 1n.Ihr h2degree F It. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hermal conducriviryl . . . . . . . 1.442 Milliwanslcm dcgreeCBl u in./hrf12dcgree F Ik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hcrmal condurt ivi lyl . . . . . . . 0.1240 KO allhr mdcgree C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .ru f l l h r f i2 dwc c F -1.4880 ~g cal mlhr m2 dqre r cBrulhr f12degf f F IC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .h er ma l m n du r fa n ce i 0 .5 68 ~ i l l i w a t i r i c m ~ d c g ~ e ~Btulnr ~ ~ ~ P F C PIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .ham rl mnducl lncel 6.882 Kgcal lhr m2 dag ree ~Degree F hr h218fu IR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .hermal rerinancel 1.761 ~e gi ee rm2/milliwart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .!ullb&gree F Ic. hear capacity) 4.1888 l l g d e ~ e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .tullbdcgree F -1.000 Callgram degree C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .1 ~ l h rtharrnai diffusiv iiyl 0.2581 Cm2 1r=. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .t ~ l h rt he rm al d i ff u iv i ly l .0.09 29 0 ~ ~ l h r

WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSIONGrainrlhr n2 (water " a w l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .snrmir rionl 18.7 Grams124 hrm 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .C . ~ ~prmea nce) 0.659 Metric perms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....~ r r n . i n ~ h e ~permeabilityl 1.67 Melr icpe rm4 snti mf=n

Feel per .mnd . . . . . . . . . . . 30.48 leracuul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C s n ri n et e rr p e i m m dF ee tp er r r w d . . . . . . . . . . 0. m8 l cxact ly l ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mererl per mend~ e e t p e r y w r . . . . . . . . . . . '0.955873 x 10-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . centimetsrr per m o n d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i l e r n hc .r . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.609344 (exu cllyl Kilameferr per hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iler per hr r . . . . . . . . . 0.447Cd lexac llyl Metrrr per w o n d

ACCELERATION'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .eet per w o n d : . . . . . . . . . . . '0.3048 Meren perre mnd2FLOW

C"bh f *t per , m o d1rccord . f ~~ t l . . . . . . . . . . '0.028317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ub ic meter rpar m m dCubic feel per minure . . . . . . . . 0.4719 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i terrper wmndGallons (Us.) per minute . . . . . . 0.06309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i ler%per econdFORCE'

Table IllOTHER aUANTITIES AND UNITS

Multip ly BY TO obtain

. . . . . .qUare feet per wand v i u o r ~ t y lFahrmhe l t dpgrm l chmpl ' . . . . . . . . .V ol f i pn mi1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .umens per quare foot (foot-csndleslO h r n ~ i r ~ u l ai k p e r f o m . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .i l l i cu r i e rpcrcub i c f m t . . . . . . . . . . .i l l iampr permuare fm t . . . . . . . . .allw1sperlqUare yardPound$per inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . ~ i l mer19u~remeter erday.. . Ki logramrpcondperq v a w meter. . . . . . . . Squsa meters per wo od

. Ce ltiu ~o r elvin denreet lchaoge)'. . . . . . . . . Ki i(ruOluper mi l l imsl~ r. . . . . . . . ~umensper usre m a w.. . 0hm.muam mi i l imetm per meter. . . . . . . i i l i cu r i ezper rub i c eter. . . . . . . i l l iampsprrauare meter. . . . . . . . . L l t e r l psr quare mere8........ K i l l g ramsper~cn f imef ~ rG P O 838 - 7 3 r l


21/22

ABSTRACTHydraulic model studies were made to determine flow characteristics in the upper intake-outletstructure of the Morm on Flat Dam pump-generation facility in Arizona. Of particular concernwere thr veloeity distribution and turbulence conditions at the trashrack location during thepumping cycle. The studies showed that the flow war not evenly dispersed in the initialstructure which had 20.5 deg diverging sidewalls and parallel floor and roof. Au xili aw piers andhorizontal and vertical deflectorr imprwed the velocity distribution, but the velocitydistribu tion changed so radically for a small change in pier location that they were not "red.Three additional intake-o utlet structures wi th lesser sidewall divergence were studied.Ultimately selected was a structure wit h 13deg 10mi" diverging sidewalls and 5 deg divergencein the floor and roof. Primarily for structural reasons. the structure included one pier at thepenstock end and three piers a t the reservoir end. Flow d istributio n was adequate. Althou ghve1oci:ier v aried fro m 1.0 fps to about 12.5 fps i n different trarhrack sections, the velocityd i fference in any one section was urua l ly cons is tent. Head 1 in the s truc ture were from 0.6to 0.77 of a velocity head during the pumping cycie. and ab u t 0.19 of ave locity head duringthe generation cycle.

ABSTRACTHydraulic model studies were made to determine flow characteristics in he u p p r ntake-outletrtructure of th e Mormon Flat Dam pumpgeneration facility In Arizona. Of particular concernwere the velocity dis tributio n and turbulence conditions at the trarhrack location during thepumping cycle. The studies mowed that the flow war no t evenly dispersed in the initialrtructure which had 20.5 deg diverging sidewalls and parallel floor and roof. A uxili ary piers andhorizontal and vertical deflectorr im prwe d the velocity distrih:.tion, but the velocitydistribution changed so radically fo r a m a ll change in pier location that they were no t used.Three additional intake-outlet structures with ierrer ridewall divergence were stud id .Ultimately selected was a structure wit h 13deg 10min diveqing sidewalls and 5 deg divergencein the floor and roof. Primarily for structural reasons, the structure included one pier at thepenstock end and three piers at the reservoir end. Fla w distrib ution was adequate. A lthoughvelocities varied from 1.0 fps to about 12.5 fps in differe nt trarhra ck sections, the velocitydifference in any one rection was uwa lly conristent. Head loser in the structure were from 0.6to 0.77 of a velocity head during the pumping cycle, and about 0.19 of a velocity head duringthe genera tion cycle.

Hydra ulic m odel studies were made to determine flow characteristics in the upper intake.outletr w c t u r e of the Mormon Fiat Dam pump-generation facility in Arizona. Of particular concernwere the velocity dirvib ution and turbulence conditions at the trarhrack location during thepunping cycle. The studies showed that the flow war not evenly dispersed in the initialstructure which had 20.5 deg diverging sidewallr and parallel flo or and roof. Aux iliar y piers andhorizontal and vertical deflectorr improved the velocity distribution, but the velocitydistribution changed so rd ica lly fo r a small change In pier location that they were not used.Three additional intake-outlet structures wi th lesser sidewall divergence were studied.Ultima tely relected was a structure wit h 13deg 10mindiverging ridewallsand 5 deg divergencein the floor and roof. Primarily for structural ream s, the structure included one pier at thepenstock end and three piers at the reservoir end. Flow dis tribu tion was adequate. Althoughvelocities varied from 1.0 fps to about 12.5 fps in different trarhrack sections, the velocitydifference in any one section war usually consistent. Head losrer in he structure were f ro m 0.6to 0.77 of a velocity head during the pumping cycle, and a b u r 0.19 of o velocity head duringthe generation cycle.

Hydraulic madel studies were made to determine flow characteristics n the v p p r intake-outletrtructure of the Mormon Flat Dam pumpgeneration facility in Arizona. Of particular concernwere the velocity dis tribution and turbulence conditlo nr at the trarhrack lacation during thepumping cycle. The studies showed that the flow war not evenly dirperred in th e initialstructure which had 20.5 degdiverging sidewalls and parallel floor and roof. Au xilia ry piers andhorizontal and vertical deflectorr improved the velocity disuibution, bu t the velocitydistribution changed so radically for a small change in pier location that they were not used.Three add itional intake-outlet structures with lesrer sidewall divergence were studied.Ultimately selected war a structure wit h 13deg 10mi n diverging sidewallr and 5 deg divergencein the floor and roof. Primarily fo r structural reasons, the structure included one pier at thepenstock end and three p ierr at th e reservoir end. Flow di strib utio n was adequate. Althou ghvelocities varied from 1.0 for to about 12.5 for in different trashrack sections. the velocit~difference in any one section was usually conristent. Head loser in he structure were from 0.6to 0.77 of a velocity head during the pumping cycle. and a b u t 0.19 o f a velocity headduringthe genera tion cycle.


22/22

Rhone. T JHYDR AULIC MODE L STUDIES OF TH E INTA KE-OUTLET STRUCTURE FOR THEPUMP.GENERATION FACILITY A T MORMON F LAT DAM, SALT RIVER PROJECT,ARIZONA.Bur Reciam Rep REC.ERC-71-31, D iv Gen Res, Aug 1971. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, 13p, 10fig.4tab

Rhone, T JHYDRAU LIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INTAKE-OUTLET STRUCTURE FOR THEPUMP-GENERATION FACILITY AT MORMON FLAT DAM. SALT RIVER PROJECT,ARIZONA.Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERC.71-31, D iv Gen Res. Aug 1971. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver. 13p. 10 ig, 4 tabDESCRIPTORS-/ eddied head lorre51 'hydraulic models1 pr ew re tunn elr l *model tert dveloc ity distrib ution1 surges/ turbu lent flow 1 hydraulics1 vortices1 pumped storage1 'modelstudied outlet works/ f low deflectors/ intake structures/ pump turbines1 f low dirtr lbut ionlpiers1 luid mechanicsIDENTIFIERS -I Mormon Fiat Dam. Arizl ' intake-outlet structures

DESCRIPTORS-/ eddies1 head losses/ "hyd rwl ic models1 preswre tunnels! 'madel tests1velocity distr ibut ion1 ~1rga61urbule nt flow/ hydr;ulic* vortices/ pumped storage1 .madelstudies1 out let works/ fl ow deflectors/ intake structure d pump turbines/ flow distribution 1p i e d lu id m echanicsIDENTIFIERS -I Mormon Flat Dam, Ari zl ' intake.outlet rtructurer

REC-ERC.71-31Rhone, T JHYDRAU LIC MOD EL STUDIES OF TH E INTAKE.OUTLET STRUCTURE FOR THEPUMP.GENERATION FACILITY AT MORMON FLA T DAM. SALT RIVER PROJECT.ARIZONA.Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERCJ131. Div Gen Rer,Aug 1971. Bureau of Reclama tion. De:Ner, 13p. 10 ig. 4 tabDESCRIPTORS -/ edd ied head lorsesl 'hydraulic modelsl presarre tunn elrl 'model tes rdveloc ity distrib ution/ rurgesl turbu lent flow / hydraulics/ vortices1 pumped rtorage l 'modelstudies/ outlet works1 f law deflectors/ intake Su ct ur ed pump turbines1 f low distr ibut ion/piers/ fluid mechanic$IDENTIFIE RS-/ Morm on Flat Dam .Ariz/ 'intake.outlet structures

REC-ERG7 1-31Rhone. T JHYDRAU LIC MODEL STUDIES OF TH E INTAKE-OUTLET STRUCTURE FOR THEPUMP.GENERATION FACILIT Y AT MORMON FLA T DAM. SALT RIVER PROJECT,ARIZONA.Bur R eclam Rep REC.ERC.71-31, Di vG en Res, Aug 1971. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver. 13p, 10 ig. 4 tabDESCRIPTORS-/ eddied head lorres/ 'hydraulic model* preru re tunnelr l "model te ndvelocity distr ibut ion1 surged turbulent f low1 hydraulics1 v or t i cd pumped storage1 'modelstudies1 outlet works1 flow deflectors/ intake rtructures/ pump turbines1 flow distribution1pier r l f lu id mechanicsIOENTIFIERS -I Mormon Flat Dam. A ri d "intake-outlet structures

98270182 Hydraulic Model Studies of the Intake Outlet Structure 1971

Documents

Transcript of 98270182 Hydraulic Model Studies of the Intake Outlet Structure 1971