HYDRAULICS BRANCH OFFICIAL FILE COPY

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HYDRAULIC LABORATORY

. .; ....... �,-� !f oz BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

HYDRAULIC ·MODEL STUDIES

FOR THE DESIGN OF THE

'SEMINOE STONEY GATE SPILLWAY

Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. 3.4

BRANCH OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DENVER.COLORADO

MARCH 15 1935

, ..

UNITED STATES DEPAR'IMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Branch of Design and Construction Engineering and Geological Control

and Research Division Denver, Colorado March 15, 1935

Laboratory Report No. 3.4 Hydraulic Laboratory Compiled by: J. N. Bradley

J. B. Drisko Reviewed by: · E. W. Lane

Subject: Hydraulic model experiments for the design of the Seminoe Stoney-gate Spillway.

SUl/.iMARY

Model tests of the original design showed the Seminoe Spillway to

have ample capacity for the maximum discharge. Flow in the chute, how­

ever, was rather rough, unsymmetrical, and noisy.

Tests indicated that flow conditions could be improved by making a

few minor changes on the model. The design recommended by the Hydraulic

Research Department had incorporated in it the following revisions:

a. A revised gate section, rectangular in shape down to the

piers;

b. Pier tailpieces toed in 0.94 feet from their designed

pos{tions toward the centerline of the spillway9 c. The upper portion of the chute reshaped so as to correspond

to the revised gate section;

d. Wing-walls having radii of 16 feet on each side above the

gate section;

e 0 The outlet channel rotated so as to be on line with the

·rest of the spillway. For the sake· of economy, the floor of the approach channel was raised 12o5

feet to elevation 6294.5.

The positions of the piers in the gate section and the approach to

the gate section are very important factors in a spillway of this type.

A comparison of the original and recommended designs are shown on

Figure 5.

"

t

..

.,

Seminoe Dam will be located· on the North Platte River, 33 miles

northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, and about 25 miles above the existing

Pathfinder Dam. The Seminoe Reservoir, which will have a storage

capacity of about 910,000 acre-feet·, will provide additional storage for

the North Platte Irrigation Project and enable irrigation expansion in

in that section of the State. The 260-foot high concrete 'arch dam,

situated in a narrow granite canyon, will also enable power generation,

Figure 1.

A ring-gate or morning-glory spillway· similar to the one used on

the Owyhee Dam was originally proposed for the Seminoe Dam. Because of

the geology of the site, the spillway would necessarily have been located

in the left canyon wall. The original diversion tunnel was located in

the right cany�n wall, and in order to utilize this tunnel for the ulti­

mate spillway, a Stoney-gate design for the right canyon wall was pro­

posed.

A model of the ring-gate spillway was constructed in the laboratory

and a few tests made. No report was written of this work because the

tests were incomplete, and the data would have been a duplication of that . obtained on the Owyhee Spillway and described in Hydraulic Laboratory

Report No. 159.

The Stoney-gate spillway, a drawing of which is shown in Figure 2 1

will consist of a short trapezoidal approach channel leading from the

reservoir to the gate section; a gate section, the floor of which

resembles a flat crested weir with a curved upstream face; a transitional

chute, the invert of which is a flat parabola; and a 30-foot diameter

horizontal tunnel. The gate section is rectangular down to the end of

the piers, and converges slightly in a downstream direction. Flow

through the spillway will be _controlled by three Stoney gates each

measur.ing 14 feet between piers and located at the highest point on the

crest. The spillway is designed for a maximum discharge of 50,000 second­

feet which -will require a head of about 50 feet on the crest. The chute

which commences as a horseshoe tunnel at the downstream end of the piers

will gradually be transfonned into a circular section 30 feet in diameter

2

1

•

at the lower end. The chute will drop the water 150 feet on a slope not

greater than 50°, measured with the horizontal, into the original 30-foot

diameter horizontal diversion tunnel. Upon completion of the dam, the

upper portion of the diversion tunnel will be plugged, and the lower

260 feet, together with 160 feet· of open cut at the downstream end, will

be utilized to carry the spillway flow.

THE LABORATORY

The laboratory in which the model of the Seminoe Spillway·was

constructed and tested is located in the basement of the Old Customhouse

in Denver where it is easily accessible to the designing staff of the

Bureau of Reclamation. A plan of the laboratory is shown in Figure 3.

Water for supplying the models is measured over a 90° V-notch weir

located in the end of a weir tank 6 feet by 12 feet by 4 feet deep, which

is partially below the laboratory floor. From here, a 6-inch centrifugal

pump having a capacity of 3 second-feet raises the measured water up into

a constant level tank located as high as the ceiling of the laboratory

will permit. A stationary'skimming weir makes it possible to maintain a

constant head of water in this tank. The water flows from the constant

level tank through two 8-inch calibrated gatevalves, then through large

expanding cones into two head tanks located directly below the constant

level tank. Water is then supplied to the models directly from these

head tanks. With this arrangement, two models can be operated simulta­

neously. After passing through the models, the water is collected in

sheet metal flumes and returned to the weir tank. Thus, the same water

is continuously circulated through the syst_em. Two hookgages are used

to observe the head on the v-notch weir, and one hookgage is provided for

measuring the elevation of the water surface in each of the head tanks.

THF. MOLEL

A model of the Seminoe Spillway was constructed in the laboratory

on a scale of 1:60 0 A drawing of the model as finally revised is shown

in Figure 4 0 The approach to the gate section was located in one of the laboratory head tanks and was constructed of sheet metalo The gate section

3

'

and chute were carved in a laminated block of wood made up of 2- by 12-inch

planks. The block was split on the vertical centerline to facilitate the

carving operation, and the two halves were later.bolted together. A band-

saw cut was made just above the predicted maximum water surface line so , that the top could be removed for observation purposes. The chute and

cover can both be seen in Photograph A, F1gu:t•,·So The piers were made of

redwood and were held in place in the gate seetion by small dowels. Both

piers and chute were thoroughly oiled and varnished before water was

allowed to come in contact with them. The 260 feet of horizontal tunnel

below the chute was rolled out of sheet metal, ana the 160 feet of open

cut was shaped from the same material. As the water entering the river

from the spillway will have a supercritical velocity, a model of the river­

bed was constructed below the spillway outlet in· order to observe and

remedy any undesirable effects that might be produced therein. This

portion of the model consisted of a watertight box with side slopes

similar to those encountered in the canyon below the damo An adjustable

weir located at the downstream end of the box served to regulate the tail­

water elevation below the spillway outlet.

Eight piezometers were located at various intervals down the invert

of the chute in order to observe the pressures at these points. Twenty­

two piezometers were installed in. the right-hand pier, as shown in the

sketch on Figure 16, in order to obtain the drop in pressure through the

gate section. These were installed on both faces of the pier, so the

readings are representative of the entire gate section. Point-gage me�s­

urements of the water surfaces were also taken above the piers, through

the gate section, and at various points down the chute. The head on the

crest was observed from a hookgage which was connected to the laboratory

head tank. The tailwater elevation at the spillway outlet was registere�

directly by a piezometer connected to the tailwater box.

THE ORIGINAL SPILLWAY DESIGN

The original design of the Seminoe Spillway, Figure 5, worked fairly

well. It was quite certain, however, that a few improvements could be

made. Flow through the gates ·was not exceptionally good, and this in

turn caused the water surface in the chute to be irregular and unsym­

metrical. ln the original design, the beginning of the chute at the

4

,.

"

downstream end of the piers, was of horseshoe shape with a curved

bottom, thus the center gate had a larger area than either of the other

two and a greater discharge flowing through it. This condition caused

the deeper jet issuing from the center gate to predominate in the chute.

This, together with an abrupt transition section directly below the

piers,- caused a large part of the water from the outer two gates to con­

verge toward the center and ride on top of the water issuing from the

center gate. As a result, a large fin formed down the center of the

chute. Flow through the outer gates was not symmetrical, which from all

indications was due to the unsymmetrical approach to the gate section.

Flow in the chute was noisy, and this condition would be objectionable

in the prototype as vibration might result. -After reaching the vertical

curve at the lower end of the chute, the centrifugal force created in

that vicinity smoothed out the surface of the water making possible a very satisfactory flow in the horizontal tunnel. The photographs in

Figure 6 show the model as originally designed. Photograph A is a view

of the entire .model with the chute cover removed, and B shows a discharge

of 50,000 second-feet flowing down the chute. Photograph C, is a view

looking downstream at the original gate section.

PRELIMINARY REVISIONS ON THE ORIGINAL SPILLWAY

Extensive.tests were made on the original model with numerous minor

changes, in an effort to improve flow conditions through the gates and

in the chute before any definite measurements were recorded. This being

the case, a brief swmnary of the procedure and the results obtained

follows,

Installation .of Hinged Piers

As a first effort to improve the flow through the gates and eliminate

the objectionable fin down the center of the chute, a set of piers was

constructed identical with the original ones except that the tailpieces

(downstream of the gates) were hinged to the fore part as shown in the

sketch on Figure 7. The stationary portions of the piers were mounted on

the crest in the very same positions as were the originals. The hinged

tailpieces however, could be set in any position desired while the model

5

•

#

was in operation. It was found that spreadin£ the tailpieces outward

from their original settings produced a larger and more irregular fin.

By toeing the tailpieces in toward the centerline of the spillway, the

fin was somewhat reduced in size. If the tailpieces were toed in an

·extreme amount, the fin directly below the gate section was further

reduced in size but objectionable side fins were created in the lower

portion of the chute. An interesting but aggravating problem to the

test crew, was the fact that flow conditions changed as the water pro­

gressed down the chute. In other words, when flow conditions were sat­

isfactory at the upper end, they were usually unsatisfactory at the lo¼�r

end and vice versa. From results obtained on chutes of various designs

tested in the laboratory on previous occasions, it was generally found

that flow down a chute occurs with various surface forms, and if the

chute is long enough and other conditions favorable, these forms may

tend to repeat at intervalso

Floor Raised in Upper Portion of Chute

As there was a very sudden change in the slope of th8 chute floor

just below the center gate which was not true of the slope below the

outer two gates, an idea was conceived that filling in the invert in the

upper part of the center of the chute with some material would decrease

the depth of flow through the center gate and perhaps aid in correcting

the difficul tie·s encountered with surface fins. Plasticene ( a c�mrnercial

modeling clay) was pressed into place below the center gate forming the

fill shown on Figure ? a. Trial runs were then made with the long hinged

piers installed on the crest. The tailpieces were adjusted to give the

best flow conditions, and it was found that the addition of the fill made

a very noticeable improvement. flow through the outer two gates, however,

was still unsymmetrical.

Revision of Wing-walls

An investigation showed that approach conditions to the right gate

were superior to those to the left. A curved wall consisting of a

flexible piece of sheet metal which could be bent to any desired radius

was installed just above the left gate forming a continuation of the

left wall of the gate section. Runs were then made to deterrrane the

curvature which would produce the best flow through the gates. It was

6

found that the larger the radius used, the better were the resulting

approach conditions. As a conservative limit, a wing-wall having a

radius of 16 feet was adopted. A similar wall having the same radius

was installed on the right side of the gate section. The recommended

design on FiQ.1re 5 shows a plan of these walls, and Photograph c, on

Figures 6, 8, and 9 show views of the same. With the fill in the

upper portion of the chute invert and the reconstructed wing-walls, flow

through the gates and in the chute was much .improvedo

GATE SECTION B

Gate Section B was similar to the original design with the exception

that short piers were installed and the gates were moved upstream as

shown in 11 Gate Section B, 11 Figure 7. The plasticene fill was left in

the invert in the upper part of the chute. Contrary to expectations,

flow conditions were quite unsatisfactory and testing was discontinued on this setup.

The plasticene fill was removed, the gate section was dug out so

as to make the floor much flatter in cross-section without disturbing the

centerline elevations, and the long hinged piers were again installedo

Flow was somewhat better but still not very satisfactoryo

GATE SECTION C

In a further effort to improve the flow through the gates, the

Design Department submitted another gate section designated as "Gate ce,ctkn C,"

Figure 7, which was rectangular in cross-section throughout, and in which

the sudden change in slope below the center gate was eliminated. The

piers and side walls were all parallel to the centerline ef the spillway.

The model was revised to conform with the new nesign. Photograph C,

Figure 8, is a view of the gate section looking downstream. With the

short piers installed, nothing but mediocre results were obtained.

Long Hinged Piers Installed

The short piers were replaced by the original long hinged piers. In

this case, the stationary portions of the piers were set parallel to the

centerline of the spillway. Trial runs were made while the tailpieces

were adjusted to a position which gave the best flow conditions. The run

7

,.

"

in which the best flow was obtained for Gate Section C is shown plotted

as Test 11-1 on Figure 10. The ta.ilpiece on the right pier was toed in

3.12 feet toward the centerline of the spillway and the tailpiece_on the

left pier was toed in 1. 88 feet. It was found throughout these tests

that in the majority of cases, the best results were obtained when the

right tailpiece was toed in a greater amount than the left. This was

necessary in order to compensate for the lack of symmetry in the approach

structure. Approach conditions are very important in a spillway of this

type, especially when large heads are involved. · The profile of Test 11-1,

Figure 10, represents the water surface elevation on the centerline of

the spillway, and the sections shown were taken at the points indicated.

An inspection of the sections show a considerable amount of irregularity

in the water surfaces. Photographs A and B, FiBUre 8, show a discharge

of 50,000 second-feet flowing down the chute with the long piers installed

in Gate Section C. The pier tailpieces were set as shown in Test 11-1.

Approach Channel Floor Raised

The approach channel to the gate section was presumably deeper than

nec�ssary, and a series of runs were made as an investigation. The floor

of the channel was raised by means of a succession of accurately fitted

boards and the head at maxinn.un discharge measured for each condition.

The elevation of the raised channel floor is plotted against the observed

head on the crest in each case in Graph B, Figure 11. The curve shows

that for maximum discharge, the floor of the channel can be raised 12. 5

feet (up to elevation 6294.5) without affecting the head on the crest.

In all subsequent tests, the channel floor was at this elevationo

THE RECOMMENDED GATE SECTION

Resume of Pier Settings

The gate section was again revised to correspond to the drawing

titled i1 The Recommended Design" shown on Figure 5P Photograph C,

Figure 9, shows a view of this gate section looking downstream. The

floor of the approach channel is at elevation 6294.5, the 16-foot radius

wing-walls are installed, and the long hinged piers are set symmetrically

in the gate section. A plot of this layout for a run of 50,000 second­

feet is shown as Test 13-1 on Figure 10. Notice the center fins in the

8

,.

..

'

sections taken at Stations 0+56.2, 0+89.0, and 1+26.5 and the side fins

at Station 2+40o5. Photographs A and B, Figure 12, are two views of the

water flowing c:i.orm the chute at maximum discharge o Photograph C, is a

. view of the water approaching the gate section.

A number of runs were made on the recommended gate section with the

pier tailpieces set in various positions in order to find a setting that

would produce the be'st flow through the gates and down the chute. Pro­

files and sections of the water surfaces for a few of these settings

are included in this report in order to impress upon the reader the

importance of the pier pos�tions in the proper operation of a spillway of

this type. Tests 15-1 and 16-1, plotted on Figure 13, show the water sur­

faces in the gate section and chute for the maximum discharge. when the

right tailpiece was toed in 0.47 feet and 0.94 feet respectively. The

tailpiece on the left pier r,�mained untouched during these two tests.,

Test 1 4-1, Figure 1 41 shows a plot of the water surface when both

tailpieces were toed in 0. 47 feet toward the centerline of the spillway. \

Test 17-1, Figure 1 4, shows the water surface for maximum discharge when

the right tailpiece was toed in 0.94 feet and the left tailpiece was toed

in 0. 47 feet. In the latter case, flow conditions were quite satisfactory.

The Recommended Pier Setting

The best results using this gate section were obtained when both

pier tailpieces were toed in 0 o94 feet, Figure 15. An advantage of this

setting over the last one mentioned is that the piers are symmetrical in

the gate section. Water surfaces are plotted on Figure 15 for discharges

of 50,000, 35,000, 20,000, and 10,000 second-feet. These results actually

ar� a decided improvement over those obtained in all previous tests. The

water surfac�s are quite irregular for the partial discharges, but for

these no serious consequences can result. To have excellent flow condi­

tions for all ·discharges would require a spillway of different design.

Photographs A and B, Figure 9, show two views of the recommended spillway

discharging at 50,000 second-feet. Photograph C, shows the gate section,

and Dis a view of the complete spillway. A sketch of the left pier as

recommended is shown in Figure 7 •. The other pier is an exact opposite.

It is expedient to construct them in this manner in order to preserve

the symmetry of the upper portion of the gate section.

9

1

Piezometer Pressures in Chute

Pressures obtained from the eight piezometers which were located

along the invert of the chute are plotted on Fieures 10 and 15, inclusive.

An examination of these show that all pressures measured were above

atmospheric.

Piezometer Pressures on Right Pier

Pressures registered by the 22 piezometers which were installed in

both faces of the right pier are plotted for 3 discharges on Figure 16 e

The locations of these piezometers in the pier are shqwn in one of the

sketches on Figure 16. Notice that for a discharge of 50, 250 second-feet

the water surface in the center gate is higher than that in the right gate.

Likewise, the piezometer readines in the center gate are ereater than those

in the right gate. It is necessary that the water surface be higher in

the center gate than in the outer two if fin formation is to be reduced to

a minimum. A second reason why the piezometers on the left side of the

pier read hieher than those on the right is that the general direction of

flow is not parallel to the piers. This would cause the piezometers on

the left face to register some velocity head, while those on the right

face probably read less than the actual static head. The piezometers

belo� the gates for discharges of 29, 000 and 10, 320 second-feet, Figure 16,

verify this statement as some of them show readings which are above the

water surface. The plot for 29, 000 second-feet illustrates this point in

another way. Although the right gate is open a greater amount than the

center gate and the water surface is higher below the right gate than the

center, the piezometers below the center gate indicate pressures l�rger

than those below the right gate� The indicated pressures are difficult

to analyze, however, they should be representative of those that actually

do exist at the points where measured.

GATE OPERATING SCHEDULE

A gate opera.j_ug schedule which proved very satisfactory on the

model is shown on Figure 17. It was obtained by setting the three gates

so as to give the best flow conditions for various discharges. The

three gate openings were then plotted for each dischargeo In order to

10

obtain satisfactory flow conditions in the chute, it is necessary that

the center gate be open a greater amount than the side gates for all

discharges less than 40,000 second-feet, as can be observed from Figure

17. It would seem that both side gates should be operated exactly alike,

due to the inequality of approach conditions; this is not true. The

approach to the right gate is superior to that on the left, consequently

it is necessary that the right gate be open a greater amount than the

left for discharges of less than 40,000 second-feet. This schedule was

obtained using maximum head on the gate (reservoir elevation = 635700)

as it was assumed that the Stoney gates would not be opened until the

water surface in the reservoir approached this elevation. Very poor

flow results wtien all gates are opened an equal amount for discharges of

less than 40,000 second-feet. A side gate should not be operated sepa­

rately or in conjunction with the center gate except in cases of necessity.

Either the center gate alone or a combination of all gates should be used.

THE HEAD DISCHARGE RELATION AND THE COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE

The relation of head on the crest to discharge was obtained from

the model of the recommended design with all gates fully open. A curve

showing this relation is·plotted on Graph A, Figure 11. For the maximum

designed discharge of 50,000 second-feet, a head of 51 feet on the crest

is ·required o An explanation is necessary at this point as to why the

head on the crest for the maximum discharge in Graphs A and B, Figure 11,

do not agree. The reason for the difference is the curve on Graph B was

obtained from Gate Section C and the curves on Graph A were taken from

the tests made on the recommended gate section. The maximum capacity of

the spillway is 62,000 second-feet, but this would require a head of 59

feet on the crest. The coefficients of discharge for various heads on

the crest were computed using the formula Q = CLHJ/2, where Lis the

w;dth of the gate section exclusive of piets, and measured directly above

the gate slots. A curve showing the relation of the coefficient of dis­

charge to the head on the crest is plotted on Graph A, Figure 11. Coeffi­

cients were· not obtained for partial gate openings.

11

,.

THE ORIGINAL OUTLET CHANNEL

Water leaving the trapezoidal outlet channel was at shooting flow,

and this created considerable disturbance in the river and a.high splash

on the opposite canyon wall. The canyon walls are composed of granite

and any damage done to them or the riverbed is unimportant. It is

important, however, that the disturbance does not extend upstream suf­

ficiently to interfere with the proper operation of the powerhouse. It

is also essential that the jet shall not splash high enough on the far

canyon wall to endanger a proposed road which will run along the river to

the powerhouse. As originally designed, the outlet channel made an angle

of 10°, in an upstrerun direction, with the centeI�ine of the spillway in

order to minimize on the amount of excavation in this open cut.

The model showed that the curved channel was ineffective as far as

steering the strea.in of water was concerned. The water climbed up· the

right wall, only intermittently contacting the left, and shot out into

the river as a jet concentrated in a vertical plane. This incident

again demonstrates the fact that it is impossible to successfully deflect

water in a horizontal direction when it is flowing at a velocity above

critical in an open channel. The disturbance created in the river did

not extend as far upstream as the powerhouse, so aside from appearance,

no harm can result. Photographs A and B, Figure 18, show the jet dis­

charging into the river from the origino.l outlet channel. · Flow in the

30-foot horizontal tunnel was very satisfactory for all discharges. For

the �mum discharge of 50,000 second-feet, the tunnel flowed slightly

more than two-thirds full.

THE RECOMMENDED OUTLET CHANNEL

The original trapezoidal channel was replaced by one which could

be rotated in a horizontal plane. Runs were then made with the channel

set at various angles, and the height of spl�sh on the opposite canyon wail

was measured. Figure 19 consists of a topographic plot o! the west

canyon wall with splash heights interposed on it for discharges of 50,000

and 30,000 second-feet. These are plotted for three positions of the channel, namely; 10° upstream, o0, and 5° downstream with respect to the

12

centerline of the spillway. This plot should give some idea as to a

safe elevation of the road on the west canyon wall. Notice that for a

discharge of 50,000 second-feet, the splash is considerably higher with

the channel turned 10° upstream than with it set at oo. With it set at

10° upstream, the splash is 80 feet high, while for o0, it is about

45 feet high. For the same discharge, the sp�ash is practically identical.

for the channel set at o0 and 5° downstream. As the splash is much reduced

anci the general operation of the outlet more pleasing to the eye when the

centerline of the channel coincides with the centerline of the spillway,

this layout is recommended. Photographs A and B, Figure 18, show the jet

discharging into the river for maximum discharge with the channel rotated

10° upstream, and Photographs C and D show the same jet discharging into

the river with the channel and spillway on line as recommended. A com­

plete summary of all test made on the Seminoe Spillway can be found in

the appendix of this report.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All laboratory work is under the general direction of E. H. Lane.

The construction and testing of the Seminoe Stoney-gate Spillway was

under the supervision of J. B. Drisko. He was assisted by Junior

Engineers H. M. Martin and L. R. Brooks, who were in charge of construc­

tion, and J. M. Buswell, who directed the test crew. The office compu­

tations and the figures in this report were made by H. W. Brewer, R. K.

Vierck, A. H. Neal, and E. C. Parks. The photographs were prepared by

J.E. Warnock at Fort Collins.

13

APPENDIX

Test : no o : AEE,roac h :

Gate section

1-1 :Original : Original :

: 2-1 : I I . II

: :

2-1 : II . ti

: . 3-1 : I I : I I

: . : :

3-2 : I I . II

: 3-3 . 11 : I I

: : 4-1 : Revised : Original

revised 4-2 : " . II . . : . 4-3a : II . I I

Piers

Original with tip

Original

None

Original with flex­ible tail

II

ti

Long hinged

II

II

A:ppend.ix

SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project

Log of Tests

Pier settinB; . : Head on : . L . R : Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft. .

ft. . ft Q . cfs . ft. : L : C : R . . . : : . . . . . : C .L . : C .L . : 50,000 : 50o0 : - :All open :

I I . I I • Various :Various : : Various :

No : No : II : II . . II

piers : p:i..ers : C .L . : C .L . : 50,000 : 50 o0 :All open : .

I I . ti · 57,000 : 54 o0 II

II . I I • 62,500 II

:Various :Various : Various :Various : :Various : : : :

I I : I I : II : II I I

: : : : C .L . : In 0.31 : II . II II

fto

Sheet 1 of 4

Remarks

:Run with and without : plasticine in the pier : section. : Demonstrated-run with and : without fillet o : Plasticine improved : operation o : Tried various positions : and curvatures of the ': left wing-wall. :Runs greater than designed : dischargeo :Runs greater than designed : discharge. : A 16-foot semicircular : left wing-wall was used o : A 12-foot se�icircular : left wing-wall was used 0 : A 20-foot semicircular

left wing-wall was the : best rad.ius o

AEE_endix

SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project

Log of Tests

Sheet 2 of 4 . . . . . ·: . . . . . . . . . : Pier set ti!!S; : :Head on : . . .

Test : . Gate . : L . R :Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft . . . . IlO o :AeEroach : section : Piers . ft . : ft o . cfs . ft . . L . C : R . Remarks . . . . . . . . . . : . . : . . . . . . .

4-3b :Revised :Original. :,Long hinged : C .L. :In O o62 :Various :Various : - :Various . - :A 16-fto semicircular left-. . : revised : without tail-: : ft . . . . : : : wing-wall was usedo . . . . . : pieces . 4-Jc : II . n . " . n . II . II : II . - . ll : - : Extended right side instead . . . . . . . . . . • · . . . . . . . . : of using radius o Sixteen-. . . . . . . . . . . . . : ft . radius on left -wing-. . . . . . . . . : . . . . : wall . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 . " :Gate Secti.oo: Short . II : C .L. : 50,000 :50.82 . - :All open : - :Layout No. 1 demonstrated-. . . . : B . : : : ! ft o : . . : flow bad. . . . . 5-2 . " . " . u . II . " :Various :Various : - :Various : - : Splash heights in river for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : discharges of 50,000, . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : . : 40,000, 30,000, 20,000, . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . : 10, ooo

�· and 5,000 cfs o . • . . . . .

6-1 II " .. II . u . II . n . II . - . It . - :Splash eights plotted on . : . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . : contour map for discharges . : . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : of 50,000, 30,000, and : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 10, 000 cfs o Outlet 10° . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . : : upstreamo . . . . . 7-1 II fl :Long hinged . II . n : 50,000 :49 074 . - :All open :. - :Flow satisfactory. Floor . . . . . . . : of chute entrance . . . . : ft. : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : flattened o . . . . . . . . 8-1 " II . rt . ti . ti . IJ : 50.1 . � . n . - :Raised entrance cut and . . . . . . . . . . .

: observed difference in . . . : ft. to : . . . : . . . . . . : 50 .6 . . . : headwater • . . : . . . . : ! . . .

:

est rio _1_....:..fil2Eroach :

I : 1-la :Revised

9-lb : II

:>-1 II . . 1-1 II . .

: . . l-2a : II . . l-2b : II . .

:

Gate section Piers

Gate :Long hinged Section B :

I I I I

: Gate . Short . Section C :

n : Long hinged . . . II It

It II

.2-1 n :Recommended : II

2-2 2-3 : 2-4

n

II

11

tt :

: · n II

n

fl

n

Appendix

SEMINOE SPIIJ..WAY Casper Alcova Project

Log of Tests

: Pier setting . :Head on : .

L . R :Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft . . ft . : ft-.

. cfs . ft o . L : C : R . . . C .L . C .L . Various :Various : :Various

ti : II : I I . I I . I I

: : : II . 11 : 50,000 : 50 .1 . : All open : .

Sheet 3 of 4

Remarks

:Same as 6-1 except that : outlet is on centerline : of tunnel . : Same as 6-1 except that : outlet is 5° downstream. :Layout No. 2. Flow poor .

:In 1 .88 :In 3 012 : 50,250 : 51.12 : ti : 'funnel flow good . Chute : flow rough . High fin at . : : . . . . . .

: II : I I : 20,000 :

n . " : 20,000 :

: . . : In 0 .94 :In 0 .94 : 50,250

: II . II : 34, 520 . . : If . . II : 20,380

II . II ! 10,370

. . : 50 .0 . : 50 o0

: 50 . 70

: : : : end of piers . :13 .36 : 13.36 :13.36 :Same setup as 11-1 . Flow

. .

: : bad . :Various : - :Same setup as 11-1 to

: determine the best : position of the gates Q

: All open: - : Flow through the chute is : : : good o

: 50 .34 :21.25 : 27.81 :26 .25 :Same setup :13. 75 : Same setup

as 12-1. a,s 12-l o a.s 12-1 .

: 50 .82 :11 .88 : 16.88 : 51 . 06 : 6 .10 : 8 .44 5 .31 :Same setup :

Test : : no. : A1:2roach :

Gate section : Piers

Appendix

SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project

Log of Tests

: Pier set ting L : R

: ft o ft .

:Head on : :Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft. :

cfs : ft� : L : C : R

Sheet of 4 .

Remarks : : % : : : : . .

12-5 :Revised :Recommended : Long hinged :In 0.94 :In 0.94 : Various :Various : :Various :Coefficient of discharge

13-1 : . . 14-1 :

: 15-1 :

16-1 : 17-l: : 1 8-1 : 18-2 : 18-3 : 1 8-4 :

:

ti

lf

u

n

II

II

II

lt

JI . .

11 . II . II : " . . It . I I .

: 11 . . 11

II . I I . II . . ti

" . II • n . It . II . u . .

: . . . ! . : : runs. . . . . : C .L . : C .L . : 50,110 : 51.0 . . - :All open : - :High fin at center of . . . : . . . : chute • . . . . . . : In 0.47 :In 0.47 : 50,250 : 50.94 : - : II : - :Fin still in center of . . . : . . . : chute • . . . . . . : C .L . . I I : 50,390 : �50.94 : - . II . - : Flow fairly good. Fin . . . . . . . . : . : left side • . . . . . . . II :In O o94 : 50,390 : 50 .94 : - : II . - :Flow rougher than 12-l o . . :In 0.47 :In 0.94 : 50,390 : 51.18 : - . II : - :About the same as 12-l a . :In 0.94 :In 0.94 : 50,250 : 51.18 : - . H . - :Pier piezometer readings . . . . II . II : 29,000 ! 51.24 :21 025 : 20a78 :22 019 : " . . : II . II · : +0,320 : 51 .36 : 6 010 : 9oJ8 : 5 .15 : II . . II . H : Various :Various : - :Various : - : Coefficient of discharge . . . . . : : : . : runs • . . . .

- ·

. ._

, .

-:

i-

-

,,.. ___ _ ' .

S P E C I Fl t AT I O N S No & 3 0

.,

\\

MOO N

\ il '

1Z J � : > + I .._ : � : El. 6351.0 El. 6350.0

+ El. 6300.0

I I I I \ ' I

I I I ' ' '

',

i I I I ' I

t-

\

+ Point No.3 on base line­sooo N - sooo E . on coordinate syste_m.--·-···

� , · -i

� t"-

� ;.

I

I I I

\, I I I ' ' \ '

I

�\ � · \

\ I

. .. J

' 0 'f..

+

I I I '

\

\, ' ',,\

I P L A N

•M

�- 6350

&300

6250

6200°

+

1 ... 00 . -,--

1- ---1--­, I ' '

I \ '

I I ,_ -­' . ' .

\ 1 ,

·\

2 ,00

' I

Oriqinal su'r�e )1\ upstr1ram foe _ ... \ ,,.

\ i " I Assumed bec'rrud('·i

upstream foe · ······

:.... \

"

3+00 -. 4-,00

I I

I I ,

I

i./

't •.

I I

I I

I , / __ , I

I I

_1

U P S T R E A M E L E VATI O N {OE: V E L O P E. D)

I

, ,,,

• S,00

, /

I I I ,,,

6+00

"· .. Assumed line of excavation. upstream toe.

6350

6300

62!",0

6200

61 50

6100

6,00 5 + 0 0 4+00 3 ,00 2+00 -,

', ' I I \

\ ') Intersection - downstream\/ toe and oriq,r>al surface -·

Assumed line of excavation Downstream toe ·· ·· - ---· .-'·

D O W N S TR EA M E L E VA T I O N (PRO.JE C T E D)

1 +00

6350

6300

6250

6'200

6 1 50

& 1 0 0

N E E. O L E VALVE. D I S C H A R O E. I N S E. C O N D F E E T 0 1000 "2000 3000 I R E S E v o 1� A R E A - T�o u s A N o s 'or A C R E S I

6361

F 1 �� 7 �0636 1

Z 6300 .. l,U , ,O,C, 6300

0

� '( > "'

J

°

''° � - tf }tkYZI L �"'

" 0

0

6'200

soo 1000

R E S E RV O I R C A Pl'. C I T Y - T H OU S A N DS OF ACl'-E FEET 20,000 <o0,000 60,000

S P I L LWAY ANO D I V E R S I O N T U N N E L DI S CHARC,f.S IN SEC O N D F E E T A R E A · CA PAC I TY A N D D �S C H A R G E C U R V E S

F I G U R E. '

0IVER5 l0N T U N N E L DIS C HARG E S N o Dio

n. f 1 4

2 14

3 20 4 20 5 '16 6 26

Coe! ·n· 035 .0 1 4 015 -.0 14 -,03, 014

' ",., ·-,·

(UPSTREAM F'A C ! PROvE CTE. O RADIA LLY ON A X / 5) >:·. _El. 6428.0 ,._

E r>

' ;�t ' '1:11

...,,-!:II

- ... _ . .... ..J"

, ,,

- - l . __ . ... �

� �

'-'.."{t ) \

r�1-:

.Spillyvay qafe ( struc!ui-e : '\ �

-.

- ...........

j �

� ,s· � z'· 6"1 :-12·,: 1< 2�6· .··· Parapet El. 6364. 5

. ,,� r

El. 6324-. 5 -·

_/ ..

,· · . • . . 0

, . . . .

.,

;t .' i· . . 0 �

"> • 0 "' . . ()

j VJ

Pensfock trasnrack · ---. -�

El. 6208. 66 ···-. El. 6203. 40,.

-- '· £/. 6{97. 1 2 · ... :. ,, ...

.c o, • �

� . I . Q. f,!? • . O � 'll) Q • ,:·.· .

r> C.· El._ 6250,f ) , !- - · ·t··.JJ'-0"- J f: .. za: . . zo · ·· · 45 · 6 l

0 . )1 . . · . . _. _ · · � 1: � ."_0· z- 1 2,5 o o Kta.

� ... - .,

.

oo Ton crane • Generators.. . f.·El. 6/198.86-,

j ' ·.. ·Generator floor /

: -I --(_..., ___ _,_ . . ... ·-,r·

·"· . � P. T.-.�,'· !'64-.25�.---.. y, 1·� . -. . . . ' . . . · . _ . ;I

· \ £1. 6190. 0 f \ El. 6186.34-·� I

,.f Turbine ,: El. 61 68.5 i ----------

· --"Z /4,000 H. P. Turbines ':'-,-:::...,......1 ,... -El. 6150.S

_ _ n --Assumed � v,:: � f rock surface (UI

Berm os directed by / contracting off/cer····

.. :�>� . . . · . . ·> ·1:> .- : :. - -��\.

[. Q

. •· . . O · .

. . "' \

·. r� . �·- o' -." ' , . · . • %�

. �·r:�.t.:, . qates

.. ·, .•. .-

--.... -. - .. ,• .

IZ ,. ........ 4-z · · · · · · · · · ·· · • 4-7 ........• ..,/2

�-,.,')( / M UM .S'E � TI O N OF D A M � £CTION A - A

-;. I , � .... ,

- p

1-- ,, - •i � 1

. .,...� .. ·•

r�; J...""�· l\

/

.• ' ..., :;.

I •

I .i (

(

. -,,...-

lh •

• ' C

V) I o ·-• ><

j ) :

El. 6363.0 1 Max. w. s.'. El. 6357. o -

...

4 : 1./ S E CTI ON E - E

///�

,,,, 4',,, El. 6294 .. 5 - -,(<Jt;:j.

/. �: ' � ' r v. ,/ . � .� r/:" "'

,/ L> �: Floatwell ',, Ground surface on / ,,,,.. ,-' E a .--· shaft '-'f. spillway inlet ,...-· ,_.,/ � E/. 6227.4-6··� ll: \,

·• ,,,.,

\f) 0 • ., ',, Ground surface on proposed ,/ 50 00 oo ·�.- : G ,, diversion tunne1 -�- - . . _ __ • ..,.A�--....... 1n1e���: �-.;,,.--• ..-�--�===-��:��=����;�:-:.�.-:..�_,· : r

>

.................... ... . , :, , • __ > C: I! ---- ---- --- -- �- I I

.,...,...,_._ _ -----, ... -..

----::.�::_-_:-_______ !r.--�-.____,._..._.,._�---=---....=-�----�--.....--J ____ � ___ .. J ________ ::--_ -- -- --+----

, ... � .. : 7 :'.sta. 2 � 40.34- I.,..

G

--------... • .;,···Oru,inal ground surface S PILLWA-Y S E C TI O N D - D -.... __

-.. -- Generofor floor - El. 6190. 0 , 12;., ,., 12

.· I · ·"- - 6 ",: :-">:' :<· - - - - - 12 ·- o� - · - - - � "� "- 6" •

--·· 2 - 60' Needle valves L ;.: : f -� :O : , J., i "? r. .). - • "' C ·1 -s-:• ,.. ---,�--· •• 'I'. Valve - El. 6168.:, 5' 0:� :-· • � -- .· +:-:ii· · rone ra, s ·· · :i�l . • . � ' ·, Z' 6. M S

10 , •• � ' ' " 0 0 Road El. 6�61.0 --: ·n :· . ... . El.��5�0

. .·· ·· . �L 1 ,·£/. 636lO;f ...,_._1 :_;.

WOR K S

,11,-_ .-,�i:/\ .. --·�\ - " �---- /G,· -f.:-� ·,..:. ·- �·:···: i:O. · - ·:.::-� · ?· ·½X� - -,.1 Backfill ·<r·· ·,,,. :!/· 4-" Drain pipe··· u i: .. : "' ·. · . . . Et. 6358.5:i_.':7 �

.. , <i,' .• of! • • 0 • • -. " · a - - - - -- r

6'Dio. sewer-pipe · ··. 'I)· :_- t � · .0 · :-:, · •

�rain embedde� ... .,.·i'. ��Q,

: • . § ·.,;1· "b ·.' · .; : .; in gravel -· .• ,. · =if · · . • 0 t ·: ..__

· . .:,t·�.·�0· .. \ r.r::..; Q O .. ••

0

, ., ...;' !'·:J-i

\'"""

. .,;

/44 ·D - 6 95 !

\ --t

THIS ORA Wl/'IG SUPE.ll.5E.DE.D BY D WG 144·0·695.

O�PAR.TMC.NT OF THC l NTf:RIOR BUREAU OF Ai:CLAMATION

CASPf: R-ALCOVA PROuECT - WYOMING

;=-'

S E C TI O N B - B .,

�- . · o. - -::5<·� 1� · \ . " �- · ,� " - .� _ - . · O. · <>-' SEMI N O £ DAM AND POWE!R. PLANr

PLAN, E.L..E.VATIONS AND SECTIONS ,r(l!r /

,- ./ t

{1 .. _ .. ,� � � ! ·"'1 " ... , :' .s l �·· '

\

,.._ l\ • • . ........ --. .

-�· '-

T

• 4\ ......

·,-s:: .S E C TI ON C - C

l

l .

... R OA D WAY AND ' PA R A P E TS

J, . . ... ' _,

�

·�·- \ � ' -.r.•�• -�-�--------..

-:t • ..i. ;l,:...r � ..... _.,.. �

S P E C I F I C AT I O N S No. 6 3 0

-

S,:; ·,c_c,::-

/ / /

. / /

,I',,...,,.,,.,,,

<::.t '�, �c:: . / - ,. ,.,,,-

·/· -·

�c '.t:. -.,-

--

/

__,

�"'-/ / �:: ( / - -

-<..

,\ 5 £ ii 3 E . ·

[,' 5L28 ., E 64 '.) • . . :'\..

: - �_3_6 3 'I

A r>

B r>

E 63 J - , . ,. E sm · - -�"� :1 :;29.:.. 5 . -

SHAFT D I MENS IONS S·:· ,· . ,-· : J ' (; : • 6 5 '3 9 " 50 , 8'-10" · . - , s s ee ,>,!\"'

: .. 1:-s s ; o .., 34·- 9�,r .. ; &; t..., =s :;2 -s?z·

1 • 3: !€ 2 5 E5 30 - : ':· " . - 4 : 6 3 -'- 3-:·-i:

0 l> ';'

A o

(..,:

�

'½-. ,, ..,_-,."-

·, . . rof'

"' ,r.

'-p · �­

�� � ; �¾� � ., �

>

"'- -"--i., � \. '; �­- '>

AroJ:?, 7"' .l"-:f"

\ �_%,, -�, �

P L A N

</-?e .

C.-est of dam El 6361. 00 ·-. �==\

-,

F I G U R E 2

',, ',

£1 6428 ·�

� ...I.·

El 6363 ·· ..

�- - / r •

� ' & ""

t ' " ', -,

',,

.,0 -<:""l.r, .r,--0

--

1"/011-.

10 0 so 100

Sca l e of fee�

--, '

-.... ',,

',,

' w s ·:1 535 7·. E 1 6363_:i

3-i'4''i so' S-on e y qc"'"es

-,_ �- 'I�

�- --, n 530 -. r_ - - · · · 1, ::1 6294 5

� . !§'. 5. £1 635 7; ! ;,,fur---, .-...-�

--, /

' ..... ..... ,, ...

---------------'---, ��;_

<?}�

' ', ,

·, ',,

',

',,, __ __

.......... ...... ......

S E C TI O N A -A

SEC T I O N B -B

...... ... ...... ..... ',,,

,

L 5 -J ) -c 20 ., F · --· � �- P-' ;- .t:-

� _?!:, �- �� � ,

'

;#

,j,. "� ."" <'o-�

· . �

A Lino ··· · , · J. ... f'.,.," ..,., 9� 'f •• i7'" ';(· - -� - � ... ' '

s;...

. . \ � � · r · 5 ·55

.... _ .... -,. . . � -�� �---u - · - • � ,s,'6'°t. . d, .�-1J' · · F . q,,"jf:_ 1:

.E/ _630 1 53 4_.\.__!];,hEl 6Z97.95

/',"7�"-�'�.

�- .. .. .. . . , ,,,.,,,, e 1 _6_�,_3!? , � . '""

. " " ' 6'�0 '\ �

�------ ' ' ( '

S E CTI O N C - C S E:: C T I O N D · D S E CTI O N £-� SE CTI O N F-F. s - ::: 0 .,. 3 5 Sto. 0+ 45 Sfo. 0+55

Venf /10/e ··. · !..?w p:-essu·e qrouf �o ·es --. sJcced ot ZIJ'ceryfffs

-.Jr

Sta. I + 4:1

,.-Low pressure qrouf hole

. - · · · · Prov1s1onol h1qh . pressure"qrout ho1es

,/ . .J1gh and low ; ·ess.: -e ;ro:1 ''nc :f

clivers:on t:nre' wc 1!s to conforrr ..1.0 orrcn;;e,TJen� sfiow 1 on � /p.":c 1 section of sp;'/wcy inne:

Jc-:q ·J.udtrc ' 1y

Loi.- :Y?ss:;re Fout ho/P. ·-.. -¼."-" -

Gro� + o,pe co�nec�ons fo �e em!JecceC 1n CO'lc re-e or SE+ i." grout ho.'es crll'ed 1n concrete c7 cp·;o,0 o• :ont·acc· Pipe z ' a. · ·

I to be drilled and qrouf· ed if re quired

� ::.>A' L,ne

Concre-te

Y..

. · '1 -"

rubble masonry · · · · . �

1\ ,·

_c ,•, r:ressc· re ::roe ' ho . es scr-ie cs SJ, 1 1W:y Tt.:"" n e ';

r

.J-!i'{" :i,·essu re oro" + �oles spoc�d . . . . . 20 rcx:mum lor:qn1d?no1/y. Holes _,: · ·

A

TYPICAL - ,:�OAD SECTIONS l{� · Z0 'deep Staccer rodio 1/y - · · �

NOTES

,c� " " 49 •29 ' �

.-· El. 615734 $/ope •O oo 9 '

SECTI O N ALON G � TUN NEL

'·

"··

'

Flow 'c:, -- - - - - - - >-

·,, ·,

TYP ICAL SECTION-DIVER.S I O N TUNNEL

i� 'Vote - Re ;nforcerren + nc r s i o_wn ' l

4 , ./ I :_;

( 1 I

( { ' I

.. . ,. l

See :Jwo. /4 � - O- 4 13 for grout defo1.'s befv.;een qofe sfn.., cfure on�· Sec E-E

See Dwq /41/ · 0 -409 for speC1ol grout detc, 1s c' Ste 2 + 25

Ji

T YPI CA L SE C T/ ON - SPI L L W A Y TUN NEL ·t.

(Sechon E-E fo Outl e t Po r-'-o/) • 5 0 5 10 5 zo 25 30

\..

Scc l e o" fee-'-

'

\.. ' b,. \ 1 / ·'._· ;.J",. I � ' .>-('

" I <:�\ =, 6 8900 " ' j; - .. .

·\a,;,, � 8 -J· fO '\ • 30-d . ' ,- , 6 .'55.00 , .� .. . .!-.. £' /;/.!, 7.00 �-:;_ =_=. j . . - ,. , . ..

SE:CTJ O N G - G

•i :t-f''

_, �

. ,. �

::::>EP.:. R-Vfe-,- 01:" -i-,£ fN7'£.RIOII S IJ A £ A :.; -;:: .QE': .. �"1.:.-·o..., )

CASPE .:l- ALC C V:r-?AOv£C7" - \VYOM!NC

S EM I N 0 £ PA M S PILLWAY - GENERAL PLAN

fQA.\"- -' fi . .... ' ;.: . . . . . . . . SL'�_•.• --!� _ . T�A.C!'O-.. -� .__"':"_ '!'.

PCIIYCR. CO.'..CAAOO,

� ; . - '\

/'

. . I

,,._

•-1

I­"' "' "' Iii "' 0 :c f " �

'•-CEILING

-4� PRES'SURE PIPE

,.-·VALVE

FLOOR LINE

WEIR TANK

SECTION Y-Y

t'r- - - ---:r - - - - -, , '• I , ·,. 8" STEAM MAIN , , : , , , , , , 1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , :

OFFICE

�

, , , , i,�--- - -�EAM_MAIN UNO£R ��u_·_·---,\

TELEPHON� : � COAT RACK�

.

$;J. , ' 1////////; 1//J///h1///d i i

ELEVATOR -' -' ' ,:

, , , , ' ' , , , , l l , , : , , , l l

'

- �L

CEILING ·

k]Ji• ;I II l,<LOOR LINE

SECTION X - X

::_-_i_��:-�!��-�---��!�_-_-_-_-_-:_·:_-o:�--:::::_ -T , ,

MAIN MODEL LABORATORY

� r2.ll i IF"ut: :w: AUXILIARY RETURN FWME I I .,_. !,,.. - 0l l l " " , ,

, .- :FLOOR DRAIN

CARPENTER SHOP

SUPPLY PIPE

THREE WAY VALVE

WATER

WORK BENCH

4" PRESSURE PIPE •

----�--- --L BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

I O I ! 3 4 !) I 7 I

SCALE OF FEET

" MOO€L LABORATORY ANNEX , , , , , ,

-FLOOR DRAIN

' , , , , , , , , , , , 4" PRESSURE PIPE ' , , ,

�

STORAGE

, , , , : ,

\-\ [I]-, , , , , , : :

Df:P'NITMOft o, THE UfTUtJOII IIUAUIJ Of lll[CUIUTIOlil

DENVER

1 1 ""�""' u .... ,ro�

r 16TH. AND AR� 'STRUTS ci

GENERAL �UT c

SI -.-.... � �.fal---·--··· :

'Z

..

-

Q a"' .,,, ) I

�) , c,. A f): -

1 E , 6 2 9 4 5

)

\

Laboro10ry --ieod Tonk.

L§.J

-. 3 ji ,,.- - 11 ·� -1 9'� ·

�� 0 ci•

�-� �--

- ------ ..::.

- - - Jt. �

D·D

r

l-1---"'- J;,- _ - - - --

P L A N

El._615?.P

" 2 '-6M

3f-

Sand Box

- - - SM-

A -WA

--,---------- - --

2·- t---

2· . :r·

- 2·-s.:· .

2· a�; .

4·-0;;

NOTE [) 1'.lm� · e r .-, ore perpendicular to invert 1 n Chu t e

A sL -

:.,..

�B '-h'

;,e �. P L A N OF GATE S E C T I O N

SECTION ALONG CENTER L I N E (SECTION A-A)

12 18

SCALE IN INCHES {MODEL) ,.

_E_L _�l�_Q

10:: , ·���;\\j

�: 8 I · -� : '=!��1 .. a:_ ! ' ' · : . ' :, ' · - ' - __ J_

I � . . . -3f; �

- --�-

o SECTION 8-8

Sand Box

��L�!!_�-�-.. ���·�··-: :., .. � ., · ·.:::s.9.o_g_____;: _ _ ·-.:.:� -.. � ... - · -•. • .

OEPARl!,ll[NT OF THE !NT[R!OR SVREAU OF R[C1. AMAT1QN

CASPER ALCO\/P. PROJECT•WYOM1NG HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES �

M O D E L OF S E M I N O E S P I LLWAY � MODEL SCALE I ·so :0

QAAWN E C P SU8N1T f[O j , }! �� r'Tl

l RACEO M rw O R S IIE CO"lN[NOED� /'-;(a,, .. ._ �

CHECKED IV< V. APPROVED ,/.,;,: /4 .-�t.,f_.,:; O E N V E A , C 01.ll., F ES. 19,19}!> 1i.Z.-0·3 1t l

/· -.

El 6282 0

'-'c>:o� - 11�6· - � , ·

·i f 'm

,;;

47�0·

SECT ION A-A STA 0 + 25

Mfl./ W ', � I r, "3 ') /

E l C3070·,. 1

Elc3o;,o

El 6?:_E!.2_0

' . .., -�

- : [ ·r

I I I I , · I I I

J

20'·0 ;

ORIG INAL DESIGN

-,

·:; 66'-0�R

- 44'-o"

« ·o

-�

SECTION B B STA. 0•35

,f

"'

"*

8

"' " 0 "' 0 "' ii, 0

''·o· I

.. _ ... _ ."_.,:j ·_, . . , �t "'

C

. cf }•

.t! �

42'-2" 32�0·,q. .

S E C T I O N C-C STA 0+45

---��� .. - -

El 6302

_E:1. 6294 5

El 6302

El.6294.5

I , , ,

i 1 111:

! ) -���t� �6'o!: :�

. . � i Y .

1b·()R

·· ·,6':o�-.

,JD ·>-

1 1 1

, , I "' .., "' "

0

E: r­l ,,

r--� f

RECOMMENDED DESIGN

G (':..

l

,cs° -� ��

,, / ' e ,. )', .

·· ·18'-5·---� --- i"'"" ······· · ···4

1�

10'!. . . .

- - , -- 1· I:,,;

I u _L t .,�., . j

�

v I SECTION D·D

STA. 0+25

<7'•-r: _,,

.;;

�

"'

;.: ··r ., ....

i" l · : 'tC 7.:;'f1 ···-·· �-�

S E C T I O N E-E STA. 0+315

1 ·

SECTION F·F STA. 0•45

, .

SECT ION G-0 STA, 0•55

DEPARTMENT Of T H E 1N TER10F1 . BUREAU Of RECLA,,.ATION ""T1 CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT•W1'0r.llNG G)

HYDRAULIC MODEL S T U DI E S C S E M I N O E SPILLWAY :o

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL ANO r"l RECOMMENDED DESIGNS OI

TRACED. FPC E E !l RECOMMENDED �- �R • DRAWN A H N SU8MITTEO J II

�

CHECKED Q. K. V APPROVED ')_ • • .;;� DENVER COLO F{"Ei 13°, 1 9H I J t+, ft. - 0-3.f+'Z.

FIGURE 6

A . Complete model . (Chut e c over on left )

B . Looking up chu t e , discha rge 5 0 , 000 cfs .

C . Ori ginal gate s e ction (looking downst ream) with revis ed wing-walls .

ORIGINAL DESIGN

+

f E1 628 2 0

? �

· I-,-· ·

. . --,.

11·-n·

. 2 ,�o

1 , ' H' I •I-- 12'-S!i,;.

I

43· 9""

�307 0

····--{-

1 1 ,

E 1 6302 0 J(��<<q,. 11 1 ,

A . r-

El 6 2 8 2 0

E"i 6302

GATE SECTION C

- ,._ �.,-',--,--,--

14·-o·· .-1 1 I- 14·-d' -1.:11 ii-- 14·-o"· I

20'-Q'' ..J so··o"'

SECTION A·A

GATE SECTION 8

.... ·��., .,.

*··· 5'·0" '7"- 5·-0�·-·1"""··· 5'-0"···�

'' • ? J,'' I � 'w. ; � I � .

�t7r------� 1�:::t=N t--=-1

1 I l : • I · 18 -9- . - - 3·-0;.,., 22·-o" -- . ....i.. ... ---- 10'-0"····-···

5 3·-9"

ORIGINAL HINGED P IER

I t -- ,-�F� -� 10·-9" � :3'·3�,L._ •. ..... . . . . 1G'-9" .•. . 5 -0 ··'i

43'-9"

RECOMMENDED LEFT PIER

... ,.;

· -�·

,, . . .

. o o N N

N

.. 3•R 5• ..

1 1

, 11' I 1

I ,j

Plosticcne f i l l .

i- 10· � :-- 15·

20· 25·

30' ,� 40·-

05· 50'

J II

. � 2 . J �- ; � � r

; - -u-- -� : '-E "' · - .c. y -= +-,.

DETAIL OF PLASTICENE F I LLET

IN ORIGINAL GATE SECTION

.. � 3'-l·�·· ..... . ,2·- 9"

...... 21·-o---

P I E R USED IN GATE SECTION C

-"& ·� ·c;i -:..

4•.3�� . ,.

PIER USED IN GATE SECTION 8

OEPARTMENT OF THE INTER!� BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT- WYOMING HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES ..,, SEMINOE SPI LLWAY G',

MISCELLANEOUS DRAWINGS Of C VARIOUS GATE SECTIONS ANO PIERS �

OAAllfN . . �, �: fl! . SU8M1TTED � . )I . �� rT1

Tft.t.CE0.1:--.H. N. 0.�--�- RECOM!'ll(NOED ���-: ...,

CHECICEO � K.V. APPROVED ?X�

,__ r.-� �

A . Looking up chute, discharge 50 , 000 cfs.

B. Another view of same run, discharge 50, 000 cfs.

GATE SECTION 11C11

C. View of revised Gate Section 11 C. 11

I"%_) H Q C ::u ti::! �

A . Piers toed in 0 . 94 feet , discharge 50 , 000 cfs .

c . Final gate s ection with app roach floor raised .

FIGURE 9

B . Another view of same run , discharge 50 , 000 cfs .

D . Complete model as recommended .

RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY DRS T r.N

..

C

C

'

_j__ __ _ -�

£1 628 0

L .

I 1 •' �;;0 1c..,.. ____ _ I '

0 0

-o------2

Q • &0, 250 C.F.S .

SCALE IN FT p::ror::E 70 .• &O

S TA. 1 + 62.8

� l!O J? 7 : 9 tO I I 111 II 14 10 10 O 1 2

3 • � SCALE �N INCHES

F IGURE I O

AA•BO

V·,,o S TA 2•40 &

D I S C H A R G E I N C.F. S.

1 0,00 0 2 0,0 0 0 3 0,0 0 0 4 0,000 5 0,000 6 0

L

w ,.V �

50 r � � 0 V r ..,,,,,. 0 \ � a:: � a. .,/ I I DI S C HAR G E CURVE_)-..,- /:l r 40

w v / D. w V IJ...

z .... v I - ,v l l- )" Cf) 30 w )" a:: I

(.) r../ I , f--.COEFF I C I E NT CURVE z ,/ b ,/i,

' a

,/i, J <t 2 0 /" I w •

:c p l J

'

• 1 0 3 .0 3 . 1 3. 2 3 .3

C O E F F I C I E N T O F D I S C H A R G E

G R A P H A

� CJ) LL.:

6 0,0 0 0 v (j v� A g 50.6 -�

. .J< q I , � 50.5 .•

Id"' I !I

-....;:;...,50.4 r I w w /. u.. 50.3 . I z -

J � 50. 2 V w a:: �v -

U 5 0. 1 v z 0 a so.o <t 6 2 8 0 6 2 90 6300 w

E GE VAT I O N OF FLO O R :c I N AP PROAC H C HANNEL

G R A P H B

D E PARTM E NT OF THE INTERIOR BU REAU OF R ECLAMATION

C A S P E R ALC OVA P R OJ E CT- W Y O. H Y DRAUL I C M O DEL STU D I E S

SE M I N O E S P I L LWAY RELATION OF HEAD ON CREST TO DISCHARGE COEFFIC IENT OF DI SCHARGE AND ELEV. O F ·

A P P R OA C H C H A N N E L D R AWN ,-. w e _ S U B M , T T ED i-1'��

TRAC E D . _O. R_ $-. . R E C O M M E N DED . . . . . -�- . C H EC K ED R.K.V • . . A P PR OVE D . . j .. . � . . . �

DENVE R, COLO., 1 - 2 9 -35 1 l+-4-- D-350

,, G') C ::0 fTl

FIGURE 12

A. Pi ers s et as designed , di s charge 50 , 000 cfs .

B . Another view of s ame run, dis charge 50 , 000 cfs .

c . Flow approaching gat e s ection, discharge 50 , 000 cfs , head on c rest 51 feet ;

FINAL GATE DESIGN

; " "'1

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

0

0

0 .

.

0

0

"'1

E l 6294 5

E l 6 2 9 4 5

-i - El 6294 5

0 .

i

0

0

"'j

i

- ...i:--',<;iezometers - /,

T E S T 1 5- 1 Q • 50,390 C F. S

TEST 1 6 - 1 Q • 5 0 , 3 9 0 C F S

A ···"o LJ • rno

SECTION A-A

F I G U R E 1 3

,.---....._ /

............ /

....... _

,,, .,. -t==f>I"'" v, .... , snnoN 2 + 4o. ,

Olr THt: O•Tl;A1i,A ,

SCALE IN FEET

:so "0 20

a II ,o "

; 0

0 m

0

0

uil

I

-- --,-1

g 0

0

0 .

0

0

, E 1 6 2 9 4 !t

g 0

0

(I 6 :\ � 0

. t P1ezometers

T E ST 1 4 - 1

Q • 50, 2 5 0 CS,S

?� i �� - ; , , e z:Jmpters

T E S T 1 7 - 1

Q • �0.390 C F S

S C A l. [ t, � EE 1 ., l e

"'

0

<0

El 6 2 8 2 0

. ---� ____ f_

El 6294.!i

P 1 ezometers

1 2 - 1 0 • 50, 2 50 C F S

T E S T 1 2 - 3 a , 20,300 c F s

STATION 0 + 8 9

· P1ezometers .-

T E ST i 2 - 2 Q • 34,� 12 C F S.

T E ST 1 2 -4 Q • 1 0,370 C F S.

RECOMMENDED DESIGN SCALE IN FEET PROTOTYPE

4 � 6 7 8 9 10 I I , Z 15 HI I� 16 MODEL SCALE I N I N CHES

STATION 1 + 62 . 8

F I G U R E 1 5

(l[PARUl(l'f 0F Tt1E HIT[RIOR 81JR[A,J OF "ECLAf,IA'fl01"

(ilt,$PfR Ai.COY" PROJ{CT-.. YOMIN<. HYDRAU L I C MODEL STUDIES S E M I N O E SP ILLWAY

WATER SURFACE PROFILES ANO INDICATED PRESSURE HEADS FOR TESTS 12-1, 12·2 , 1 2-3,12"'4

DflA'"'" " " " TAACEO A E.1. D R S

Clll!CKli O IV< V:

-�" � .

' . �

...__ Meo, water surface -Center gote -----

�- - -: "'1:::::., '-.. Mean water surface- Right gate

� ,s -:::;�:.:_-A.____ ......................... ...____ ·in

• t--........... '"1----...... ---.....__ �

::2 "' 15 If, <( •

9 ,a

......-, ·Left � -............._

',,�ace ',,,

-......,.._____,

.... ..... � ',, •1 ' ... ' ' ·' ',

tl7 i-,7 018 ,,.

P.ezometers

'"

pe 120

0 V

0 ., "'

.2 \ '\ 611 .:;3 012 ,,, � . .: otL . ,t-. :

I �-- ----

T EST 1 8·1 DISCHARGE 50,250 C.F. S

GATES - ALL OPEN

---,- - - -- -

: �t l < r� ,--'--rr

�

•. 6,

LOCATION O F P I E R S IN RECOMMENDED DESIGN

t�

22

"

.......

Mean water surface

_P1ezometers

1s;•

. . . 9 (j

9 0'

,a "I,_,

· Left foce

\

\

0 V

', �.!{. o1�, 019 " \

', \

\

+o1 1 ,')3 ol2 013

0

TEST 1 8·2 DISCHARGE 2 9,000 C.F. S.

c,e 020

()4 014

GATE OPENING - LEFT 21 .3' CENTER 20.8' RIGHT 22.2'

-6 6'- - ·¥-3 l'?oi-'- • ···70'-- - - - - - - - - - -9.4� ·- _ _ _ _ ,. :--·· !,'•QM• •>-;

7 P,ezometers

�;-3rt-,;}-,,�

,\. 6 2' . . - 6 6� -

PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS IN RIGHT PIER

22

"

i

•

»-- �-. ··=· .. ·- �- �

J5

"'·5

I \ 017 ,::7 olB I

I I I I I I I I I

o'9 ;.-e 020

Center gate···

... I \.:=­) i2 "-· ,

R1ght

, ... 4 014 ,, w s

...,...__ ___ .....__ ___ __ Vl.5.

TEST 1 8 - 3

DISCHARGE 10,320 C.F. S.

GATE OPENING - L E F T 6.1 ' CENTER 9. 4' R I G H T 5 . 2'

o Piezometer location on nght face of pier P1ezometer lacat1on on left face of p

rr

,p; P1ezometer locat1on on bath s1des.

PROTOTYPE SCALE IN FEET 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 , ,,, • I ,· I I· · I· I 0 I 2 3 5

MODEL SCALE IN INCHES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOA 6UA[AU 0F RECLAMATION

CASPER ALCOll'A PROJ[CT-.,..YONING HYDRAULIC MODEL S T UDIES S E M I N O E SPILLWAY ,,

INDICATED PRE SSURES ON PIER -FACES FOR RECOMMENDED DESIGN �

OAAWN H "fl 6 SUONITTED l • ), . IS.-\_� ::0 TRActD T J K. 0 A S AECONMENOED CC,// a/.,,..� r"1

CHECKED R .�-'-'.'� .. ���:P

::�:EO.-r: Q , , .-o.:;'v.;._ •• ',,-'"" ,.., .,. CJ'

30

I 2 5 1-w w LL

z <.!) 20 z

/v /

/ / V

,.v

�/

-�-t "'y � ,_r:J

'<:': "'�

/ � {V / 1/

/ V

•

l ///

Vj VJ V II

/ V / V I/ / V

j

V

z w

.,/' ,./

' Q.. 0

W 1 5 l-­<1: CD

) 1 0

5

/

/

� 1/'

1 0,0 0 0

/v ., i/

V V �

V

V / / /

/,v / / /

.. v ,.v ... V /

/ /

/ / ;'

V / V / ,.,

/ V V /

2 0 ,0 0 0

D I SC H A R G E I N G F S.

/v

/

NOT E : These curves we re obt a i n e d w i t h m a x i m u m

h e a d o n t h e c r e st .

3 0,00 0

4 0,0 0 0

DEPARTM E NT O F TH E I r

BUREAU O F RECLAMJ CASPER ALCOVA P ROJE

H Y O R A U L I C M_O D E L

SEM I N O E S P I L G AT E O P E R AT I N G

TE R I O R

T I O N

CT-V·�YO. S T U D I E S

,., LWAY o

P R O G RAM C W H E N R E S E R VO I R E LEV. I S 6 3 5 7 :::0

C H ECKE D . R._K-�- A PPROVED . .

- . � rn --....J

•

A . Outlet channel discharging into river, discharge 50, 000 cfs.

ORIGINAL DESIGN JET DI RECTED 10° UPSTREAM

"

B. Splash on canyon wall, discharge 50 ; 000 cfs.

c . Outlet channel discharging into river, D. Splash on canyon wall , discb�rge 50, 000 crs � discharge 50, 000 cfs .

RECOMMENDED DESIGN JET ON LINE WITH SPILLWAY

OUTLET CHANNEL

'"J:J H 0 C :::0 ti::I

f--' 00

-<..'<'.

v"'

e;,'<1/ /

Y 3/ ;.__V �� 'y-.� 0 0 � -

) / �

/

"/

<v" 0 ,p��

-<._'v 0 , 0

0 " � -- <v �<y,. 0-<._'v

/ ---- 6160 0 v ,, 01/ --- --� r�

/

/1/' cJ\L,____--.N

�

--x.--

..

/ /

Splash he ight 0° t i l t a = 50,000 Spl ash height 0° ti l t a = 30,000 Spl ash he ight 1 0°u.s. Q = 5o,ooo Sp l ash he i ght 1 0° u.s Q= 30,000 Sp lash he ight 5° D.S. Q= 50,000 Sp l ash heig ht 5° D.S. Q = 30,000

DEPARTM ENT OF THE I N T E R I O R BUREAU OF R E C L A M ATION

CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT-WYOMING H Y D R A U L I C M O D E L S T U D I ES

SE M I NO E S P I L LWAY S P L A S H H E I G H T S ON WEST CANYON WALL

..,, G') C ;o

rD_

R_A_W_N

--A-.H-.-N.--s-u_s

_M-1T_

T_

E_

D __ U _

),_�-. . --_---_ --i1 JT1

TRACED .OR S . R ECOMM ENDEl!J.V . cvrJ · (a A P P ROV E D . .1. Y.1/o�,:_

,coco:;- 2-�o -'3<1 1 J 4lt·D- 3 5 I