COUNTY KENTUCKY; HYDRAU (U) ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYSEXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG MS HYDRA, 8 P FLETCHER

UNCLASSIFIED APR 88 NES/TR/HL-88-7 F/G 13/11 L

UNCLASI/I inIIEEEEE!IhhhhlkI InIII B I soonEIEEUEEEEOfI

I, .fllfflffllfflffllf

1.4=

II111.1 lao

II Il~l1.6

OTC riLE CUP,4, TECHNICAL REPORT HL-88-7

POND CREEK PUMPING STATIONof' EnSOUTHWESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUC

Hydraulic Model Investigation

J by

Bobby P. Fletcher

a) ,, Hydraulics LaboratoryDEPARTMENT OF tHE ARMY

Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of EngineersPO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631

HYRUIDTIC4- EILECTE

MAY 2 51988

' April 1988Final Report

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

HYDRAULICS

Prepared for US Army Engineer District, LouisvilleABORATO Louisville, Kentucky 40201-0059

88 S 23 -14 3-~ a4~ -I

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return

it to the originator.

h,"

I'

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position unless so designated

by other authorized documents.

'V :

The contents of this report are not to be used for

advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial endorsement or approval of the use of

such commercial products.

'noP J i .

SECURITY CLALSeFIC&TiON 01r- S PAGE

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo 0704"0188la REPORT SECURITY CASSi;.CATION lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIT' 3 DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b DECLASSIC' ATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Approved for public release; distributionunlimited.

4 PERFORMING ORGANIZA ON REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

Technical Report HL-88-7_

6a NAME Or PERFORM'"JG ORGANIZATION 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

USAE. WFS (If applicable)Hydraulics Laboratory WESHS-S

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State. and ZIP Code)

PO Box 631

Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631

8a NAM- nF RINDING.SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERRGANIZA ,ON j (If applcable)

USAED, Louisville

Bc. ADDRESS (City State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERSPROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT

PO Boc 59 ELEMENT NO NO NO ACCESSION NO.

Louisville, KY 40201-0059

11 TITLE (Include Security Classification)Pond Creek Pumping Station, Southwestern Jefferson County, Kentucky; Hydraulic Model

Investigation12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)

Fletcher, Bobby P.13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14 DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT

Final report FROM TO April 1988 10016. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal RoaG, Springfield,

VA 22161.17, COSATI CODES 18 SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Baffl: Llockb Sump

Gravity control VorticesStilling basin

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

A 1:20-scale pumping station model of the sump and gravity control, approach,

stilling basin, and exit channel was used to investigate and develop a practical designthat would provide satisfactory hydraulic performance.

The pumping station and gravity control structures were combined by locating thegravity rrntrol below the sump. The pumping station consisted of four vertical pumps with

a total capacity of 4,100 cfs. The gravity contcol section had a capacity for 17,000 cfs

aId consisted of an open-channel flow structure and tainter gate to maintain the pool.During operation of the pumps, surface vortices observed in the pump bays were eliminatedby surfice vortex suppressor beams. During operation of the gravity control structure,

eddies and an unstable hydraulic jump observed in the stilling basin were eliminated bydecreaing th. rat, of idwAll flare anu strategically locating and increasing the height

of the baffle blocks.

20 DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION0 UNCI.ASSIFED/UNLIMITED El SAME AS RPT [1 DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 122c OFFICE SY1V'9OL

DO Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

PREFACE

The model investigation reported herein was authorized by the Office,

Chief of Engineers (OCE), US Army, on 4 March 1976, at the request of the

US Army Engineer District, Louisville (ORL).

The study was conducted periodically from May 1978 to May 1983 as funds

were made available and as major design decisions were made. The work was

conducted by personnel of the Hydraulics Laboratory of the US Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station (WES) under the direction of Messrs. H. B.

Simmons, Chief of the Hydraulics Laboratory, and J. L. Grace, Jr., Chief of

the Structures Division, and under the direct supervision of Mr. N. R. Oswalt,

Chief of the Spillways and Channels Branch. The engineers in charge of the

model were Messrs. E. D. Rothwell and B. P. Fletcher, Spillways and Channels

Branch. The report was prepared by Mr. Fletcher and edited by Mrs. Marsha C.

Gay, Information Technology Laboratory, WES. The following personnel are

acknowledged for their special efforts on this project: Messrs. H. C.

Greer III and S. W. Guy, Instrumentation Services Division, WES; and E. B.

Williams and M. J. Tickell, Engineering and Construction Services Division,

WES.

During the course of the investigation, Messrs. Jack Robertson and Sam

Powell, OCE; Laszlo Varga, US Army Engineer Division, Ohio River; and Steve

Michel, Jim Lapsley, Larry Curry, David Beatty, Byron McClellan, and Bill

Brown, ORL, visited WES to discuss the program of model tests, observe the

model in operation, and correlate test results with design studies.

COL Dwayne G. Lee, CE, is the Commander and Director of WES.

Dr. Robert W. Whalin is the Technical Director.

• Accession For

NT T S 3?iK A e i

DTIi TAb

U..........

D~~s ~ [ tp .' V£

22i.- I-

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE................................................................... 1

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT.................................................... 3

PART I: INTRODUCTION................................................... 5

The Prototype....................................................... 5Purpose and Scope of Model Study ..................................... 6

PART II: THE MODELS..................................................... 7

Description......................................................... 7Interpretation of Model Results ..................................... 12

PART III: TEST RESULTS.................................................. 13

Scheme A........................................................... 13Scheme B.......... ................................................. 20

Scheme C (Adopted Design).......................................... 20

PART IV: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................... 36

* TABLES 1-6

PHOTOS 1-15

PLATES 1-33

I. *.2

CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (MIETRIC) - -UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to ST

(metric) units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

acre-feet 1,233.489 cubic metres

cubic feet 0.028 cubic metres

degrees (angle) 0.01745329 radians

feet 0.305 metres

feet of water (39.2°F) 2,988.98 pascals

inches 25.4 millimetres

miles (US statute) 1.609 kilometres

3-

.44**

NC 7o W

i= >

A~~

POND CREEK PUMPING STATION

SOUTHWESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY

Hydraulic Model Investigation

PART T: INTRODUCTION

The Prototype

1. The proposed Pond Creek pumping station for the Southwestern Jeffer-

son County local flood protection project is located on the east bank of the

Ohio River about 50 miles* west of Frankfort, Kentucky (Figure 1).

2. The Pond Creek pumping station and gravity flow structure form the

final link in the Southwestern Jefferson County local flood protection proj-

ect. The pumping station consists of four bays, two on either side of the

gravity flow structure (Plates 1-4). A trashrack is installed in each pump

bay to prevent debris from entering the pump intakes.

3. The pumping station's four vertical pumps have an average total

capacity of 4,100 cfs against hydrostatic heads from 8 to 27 ft. Storage of

13,200 acre-ft is provided between the pump starting elevation** of 421.0 ft

and the 100-year design el of 432,0. The pumps discharge into flumes at the

back of the combined structure which discharge into the stilling basin. Pump

discharge always occurs under submerged stilling basin conditions.

4. The gravity flow structure consists of an open-channel flow struc-

ture (Plates 1-4) and tainter gate to maintain the pool, which discharges into

a stilling basin.

5. The tainter gate is electronically controlled to permit regulation

of the lake level and discharge into the stilling basin. The stilling basin

width (54 ft) is based on a design velocity of 12.0 fps over the end sill with

tailwater at el 412.5. The length of the basin (100 ft) is about 3.5 times

D2(theoretical sequent depth required for a hydraulic jump).

*A table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement to SI(metric) units is presented on page 3.

**All elevations (el) and stages cited herein are in feet referred to theNational Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).

5

6. The exit channel is lined with riprap and has a 54-ft bottom width

and IV on 3H side slopes.

- asPurpose and Scope of Model Study

7. The model study was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic characteris-

tics and develop modifications required for a satisfactory design of the ap-

proach channel, sump, gravity outlet, and exit channel. Tests were also

conducted to determine the size and extent of rock protection required down-

stream from the gravity outlet. The model provided information necessary for

development of a design that will provide satisfactory hydraulic performance

for all anticipated flow conditions.

N.

S6

A'

O 4,

4...5,LC"An -. t6 A '-

PART I: THE MODELS

Description

8. [nitiallv, the sump and gravity flow outlet were designed to be

separate, and separate models were used to investigate the sump and gravity

flow outlet.

9. The model to investigate the sump (Figure 2a) was constructed to a

linear scale of 1:20 and reproduced a 700-ft length by 700-ft width of the

approach channel, sump, and five pump intakes. Flow through each pump intake

was provided by individual suction pumps that permitted simulation of various

flow rates through one or more intakes.

10. The model to investigate the gravity flow section was also con-

structed to a linear scale of 1:20 and reproduced a 600-ft-long and 500-ft-

wide area of approach (Figure 2b), the gravity flow section, discharge

conduit, stilling basin, and a 400-ft-long and 500-ft-wide exit channel

(Figure 2c).

11. Following tests of a separate gravity flow outlet and sump, the sump

model was modified to enable investigation of a 1:20-scale, combined gravity

flow outlet and sump (Figures 2d and 2e).

12. The pump intakes and a portion of the model were transparent to per-

mit observation of subsurface and surface vortices, current patterns, and

turbulence. A stage C, D, or E vortex (Figure 3) was considered unacceptable.

A stage E vortex is shown in Figure 4. Pressure fluctuations at each pump

intake were measured by 8.0-in.-diam (prototype) electronic pressure cells

(Figures 4 and 5) flush with -he floor of the sump directly below the center

line of the pump column. Pressure fluctuations in excess of 3.0 ft (proto-

type) were considered unacceptable. Swirl in the pump intakes was measured by

vortimeters (free-wheeling propellers with zero pitch blades) located inside

each pump intake at the approximate position of the prototype pump propeller

(Figure 4). Propeller rotation in excess of 2 rpm (prototype) was considered

unacceptable.

13. Water used in the models was recycled and discharges were measured

with venturi and turbine flowmeters. Water-surface elevations were measured

with staff and point gages. Velocities were measured with pitot tubes and

electromagnetic velocity probes. Current patterns were determined by

7

-4-4.

a. Sump

*W-

tAEL

b. Gaiyflwitk

Figure 2. The 1:0 -s emdl (he f3

I--x

c. Gravity f low outlet

K4:

4 d. Combined sump and gravity flow intake

Figure 2. (Sheet 2 of 3)

4O

'060

@ ,-"

Figure 3. Stages in development of

air-entraining vortex

PM

Figure 4. Vortimeter and pressure cell

II

,,,.PUMP INTAKE

PRESSURE CELLDIAM=8" (PROTOTYPE)

PRESSURE CELL

. PLAN ELEVATION

Figure 5. Pressure cell location

observation of dye injected into the water and confetti sprinkled on the water

surface.

Interpretation of Model Results

14. The accepted equations of hydraulic similitude, based upon Froude

criteria, were used to express the following mathematical relations between

the dimensions and hydraulic quantities of the models and prototypes:

Scale RelationDimension Ratio Model :Prototype

Length L = L 1:20.r r

0 Area A = L 2 1:400r r

Velocity V = L1/ 2 1:4.47r r

Discharge Q = L 5 /2 1:1,789r r

Time T = L1 /2 1:4.47r r

Pressure P = L 1:20r r

Weight W = L 3 1:8,000r r

12

Oj

.4 f '' V *

PART III: TEST RESULTS

15. Initially, the two structures were to be located several hundred

feet apart to ensure symmetrical inflow to the pumping station sump. Initial

model tests were conducted with separate 1:20-scale models of the gravity flow

outlet and the pumping station sump (Figures 2a, b, and c).

16. Model tests showed that the sump for the pumping plant functioned

well; however, the gravity structure required an expensive wing wall designed

to prevent vortex development (Photo 1) during major floods. Structural

studies in the prototype showed that the wing walls would be expensive and

difficult to build.

Scheme A

17. Based on high projected costs for the separate structures and dis-

cussions among personnel of the US Army Engineer District, Louisville, US Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), and US Army Engineer Division,

Ohio River, it was decided to investigate the feasibility of an over/under

pumping and gravity flow scheme. The gravity control was located below the

sump.

SUMP

18. The Scheme A type 1 sump (Figure 6) appeared to be satisfactory for

sump water elevations equal to or higher than 426.0 ft. However, unsymmetri-

cal flow distribution was later observed inside the pump bays. The submer-

gence available with sump water surface at el 426.0 appeared to be sufficient

to negate potential undesirable flow characteristics that are normally gener-

ated by uneven lateral flow distribution to the pump intakes. At the minimum

anticipated sump water-surface elevation (421.0 ft), adverse flow distribution

and severe surface vortices were observed near the pumps as shown in

Plates 5-7. Flow performance observed in the type 1 design sump with various

water-surface elevations and combinations of pumps operating is indicated by

pressure fluctuations, swirl, and vortex development presented in Table 1.

The performance indicators presented in Table 1 show that with sump water

surface at el 421.0, air-entraining vortices are the primary undesirable

hydraulic characteristic.

19. Modifications in the approach to reduce the unsymmetrical current

13

M--rVW I I

A i

7 k.' 1-

I %woo 01%

Corihnedpupin satin nd raitvcotro , chee

vortices ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "N Antepm asweentcniee

:t4lr re ohned ( pomptng suction andllravitemcontrol, Schemign

-(II~ th asoit votefaIse ink w the pmha wer ot coIdered wa

-,vwto developr a sa fac tor del g wee2irctd0owr

'tr~ fthe pnnupe ha hthyspo.hefls acw

V false hacwall, tas show s in efigure . wi, wa n te

toeedr f he sutin el(cheme A t y sg upe, 2s dshw in

lril that-c~r--ti the su mpwl withd ae top la el t t2.hea

>.A.>i tie I t usc onduete with t tomo the false backwallIo

tc~i'i 1)-ikwl 1)* .r hihe (hitScheme A tpe 3 desgsmp, asshon inm

VPT, t i r:oroveim Tit in hvdraul ic pe r formance , oc Cas1ina sup-

t- 2 ,)rt i ces) (level oped near the p ump colu mn.

i~~ - '-.Ivorttox su npress.ors, (esignetI to attenuiate or-

1" t' IA'''O ;7.oIt rA gn t i TuV QMa 1 -s1eal 1sur faceP tlir'II 1e ' We Ve

I! M c;i t i ()TI Alp ~t ream'l I rOTI t Ile P)HmI) -0 III tin t

S.

&0,

EL 421.0 EL 421.0

II 4.25'

6.35'

EL 409.75 I

EL 408.5 '

EL 405.0 EL 405.0l'I44"- 1- 6.6 6.5" ,,id 4.5"S' all.

a. Pumps 1 and 6 b. Pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5

Figure 7. Scheme A type 2 sump

EL 426.0 8. 0' EL 426.0

65'

6.35' 4.25'

EL 409.75EL 408.5

EL 405. 0 EL 405. 01 4.4'- 6.5 4-6l- -I- - 65 _ 5-

a. Pumps I and 6 b. Pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5

Figure 8. Scheme A type 3 sump

15

PIS, 5. ..l II

results indicated that 3-ft-high vortex suppressors were most effective when

p. positioned as shown in Plate 8 (Scheme A type 4 design sump). The Scheme A

type 4 design sump provided satisfactory flow conditions in the sump for all

anticipated water-surface elevations and combinations of pumps operating.

Performance indicators obtained with the type 4 sump design (Plate 8) are

tabulated in Table 2.

23. The Louisville District determined that it would be structurally

desirable to locate a pier in the center of each pump bay (type 5 sump), shown

in Figure 9 and Plate 9. Tests indicated no significant change in hydraulic

performance due to the piers. The magnitude and direction of currents ap-

proaching the pump intakes in the approach and along the approach training

wall for minimum anticipated sump at el 421.0 and maximum pumping discharge of

4,100 cfs are shown in Plates 9 and 10, respectively. Riprap (thickness =

12 in. and average size of stone (d50 ) = 6 in.) in the approach (Figure 9) was

stable for all anticipated pumped flows and headwater elevations. Various

flow conditions taken with a 100-sec (prototype) exposure time are shown in

Photo 2.

- l

RIR 1 HCKNESS -12 IN

Figure 9. Scheme A type 5 sump, type 1 riprap

16

0

Gravity control

24. The approach to the Scheme A type 1 gravity flow outlet is shown in

Figure 6. A self-regulating tainter gate (autogate) (Plate 11) located in the

upper gravity bay was designed to maintain the recreation pool within 3 ft of

el 421.0. In the prototype, the autogate automatically adjusts its opening

relative to the head on the gate. In the model the autogate was schematically

simulated. The autogate is designed to pass flows as high as 2,000 cfs. When

the pond level exceeds el 424.0, the roller gates (Plate 11) will be opened to

provide flow through the twin 15- by 15-ft conduits in the lower gravity bay. V

A divider wall was installed in the center of the entrance to the gravity con- %

trol structure (Scheme A type 2 gravity control) to provide additional support

for the bulkheads, and a quaerant wall (Scheme A type 3 gravity control) was

added to provide streamlining (Plates 11 and 12).

25. A discharge rating curve for free-flow conditions and with the

roller gates open to el 421.0 is shown in Figure 10. The rating curve indi-

cates that with the roller gates open to el 421.0, the structure will not pass

the design discharge of 15,000 cfs with pool at el 432.0. Flow with the rol-

ler gates open to el 421.0 generated severe turbulence (Plate 13) that sig-

nificantly reduced the hydraulic capacity of the structure. A representative

of the Louisville District stated that the structure could be operated with

the roller gates opened to el 405.0.

iI

FLOW THROUGH UPPEfR AND

-2G I FLOW THROUGH LOWER

I_ _ 1 4 I6

,jI4CHARGE I OCFS

Figure 10. Rating curve, Scheme A type 3 gravity flow

17 I

26. The roller gates were opened to el 405.0 and flow conditions (dis-

charge Q of 15,000 cfs) were observed as shown in Plate 11. The capacity of

the structure was significantly increased as indicated by the rating curve in

Figure 10. The increased capacity was attributed to reduction of turbulence

inside the structure (compare Plates 11 and 13). An occasional air-entraining

vortex occurred at the inlet as shown in Plate 12 and Figure 10. Figure 10

shows a range of discharges where stage D and E vortices occurred. The occa-

sional vortices did not cause any significant problems, and flow characteris-

tics throughout the Scheme A type 3 gravity control structure appeared satis-

factory for the range of anticipated flows.

27. A plot of heads on the center line of the culverts versus discharge

coefficients for the structure with the roller gates open to el 405.0 is shown

in Figure 11. Basic free-flow data obtained with the model are tabulated in

. Table 3. Various approach flow conditions taken with a 50-sec (prototype)

exposure time are shown in Photo 3. The magnitude of currents approaching the

gravity flow intake along the approach training wall for the maximum gravity

flow of 15,000 cfs and pool at el 428.0 is shown in Plate 10.

28. Tests conducted to investigate the feasibility of removing the por-

tion of the divider wall located between the gravity flow conduits (the shaded

area in Plate 12) indicated that the downstream portion of the wall is needed

to direct the flow and minimize turbulence. Flow with the divider wall in-

stalled is shown in Photo 4. Submerged flow with a discharge of 15,000 cfs

through the lower gravity bay generated turbulence and waves I ft high near

the autogate (Photo 5). Although the turbulence and waves were considered

nondamaging, the Louisville District requested that the autogate be moved up-

stream of the roller gates tc provide better access for maintenance and opera-

i* tion. The model results indicated that moving the autogate upstream of the

roller gate would not adversely affect the hydraulic performance of the struc-

ture. A discharge of 2,000 cfs passing through the upper gravity bay is shown

in Photo 6. o

Riprap

29. The Scheme A type 1 riprap (d50 = 6 in.) in the approach (Figure 9)

failed from the intake to a point 20 ft upstream as shown in Plate 14 when

subjected to a gravity flow of 15,000 cfs. Turbulence associated with the

bottom roller and vortices generated by the abutments, shown in Plate 12,

caused the riprap to fail. The riprap thickness was increased to 50 in. with

18

I0 1

40-

35 -

* .

V..

LLI30

,)

zLU

(n 250

LLj

zo 20

15

FREE-FLOW DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT C

NOTE: Q = C A 2gH

Q = DISCHARGE, CFS

A = AREA OF CULVERTS, FT2

g =ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY, FT/SEC2

H = HEAD ON (P OF 15-FT-SQUARE INTAKES

(EL 397.5), FT

Figure 11. Scheme A type 3 gravity control

19

a d 50of 25 in. for a distance of 20 ft upstream from the structure

(Scheme A type 2 riprap). Rock failure occurred from the intake to a point

about 5 ft upstream. Therefore, it was recommended that the full width of

* approach to the gravity flow section be paved with concrete for 20 ft upstream

of the entrance. The 12-in, thickness was adequate upstream from this

location.

Scheme B

30. Value engineering studies by the Louisville District indicated that

it would be cost effective to reduce the number of pumps from six to four. The

1:20-scale model was revised to simulate Scheme B, which contained four

V l,025-cfs pumps with a gravity flow section located in the center (Plate 15).The gravity flow outlet was not changed.

31. The magnitudes and directions of currents measured 1 ft above the

bottom of the approach and the sump with various pumps operating are shown in

Plates 16-19. Only minor flow contractions were observed at the pier noses.

% Rotational flow tendencies (swirl) and stages of vortex development are pre-

sented in Table 4. Submerged or surface air-entraining vortices were not ob-

served. Only occasional surface swirls or depressions (stage A vortex) were

observed with the minimum water-surface elevation.

32. Performance of the Scheme B sump was considered satisfactory for

the range of anticipated water-surface elevations with any single pump or com-

bination of pumps operating.

Scheme C (Adopted Design)

33. Engineers from the Louisville District decided, based on additional

value engineering studies, that a single tainter gate having the same width as

the gravity bay (34 ft) with the invert of the gravity bay at el 390.0 would

increase the capacity ot the gravity flow and reduce the structural costs.

Also, the length of the pump bays was reduced to 54 ft. The model was revised

to simulate the Scheme C design, which contained four 1,025-cfs pumps with a

tainter-gate-controlled gravity flow section located in the center bay

(Figure 12 and Plate 20).

20

0N

Figure 12. View from upstream, Scheme C

S ump

34. Based on test results obtained from a general research study of

sump performance conducted at WES,* a pump and vortex suppressor beam were

located in each bay of the sump as shown in Figure 13. Results from the gen-

eral research indicated that the pump location shown in Figure 13 was the

least susceptible to submerged vortices, and the vortex suppressor beams would

eliminate surface vortices.

35. The magnitudes and directions of currents measured 1 ft above the

bottom with various pumps operating are shown in Plates 21-25. Various

approach flows are shown in Photo 7. For some flow conditions, flow contrac-

tions observed at the abutments and pier noses induced unevenly distributed

curren~s as flow entered the bays. As flow passed through the bays and ap-

proached the pump intakes, currents became more evenly distributed. Pressure

fluctuations beneath the pumps, rotational flow tendencies (swirl), and stages

*Glenn R. Triplett, Bobby P. Fletcher, John L. Grace, John J. Robertson.1988 (Feb). "Pumping Station Inflow-Discharge Hydraulics, Generalized PumpSump Research Study;," Technical Report HL-88-2, US Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

21I %Q :."

13'

VORTEX EL 422SUPPRESSOR- EL 49

4(

EL 405 '1

13' .3.25

a. Elevation

('.4

b. Plan

Figure 13. Pump location, Scheme C type Isuction bell

'U". 22

of vortex development are presented in Taole 5. Virtually no surface vortices

(none worse than stage A) occurred when vortex suppressor beams were in place.

Removal of the vortex suppressors resulted in stage D and E vortices in all

pumping bays. Pressure fluctuations below the center line of the pump intake

and swirl inside the pump column were insignificant in all instances. No sub-

merged vortices occurred for anv condition.

36. The suction bell diameter was increased from 13 ft (type 1) to

16 ft (type 2). The Scheme C sump with the 16-ft-diam type 2 suction bell is

shown in Figure 14. Tests were conducted for all anticipated water-surfaceelevations in the sump and for all possible combinations of single and multi-

ple pump operation. Test results indicated that for all conditions, hvdraulic

performance in the approach and sump was satisfactory and almost identical to

that documented with the 13-ft-diam suction bell installed.

Gravity control

37. The gravity flow control structure (Plate 20) was evaluated for

discharges up to the design discharge of 17,000 cfs. Approach flows were

satisfactory and are shown in Photos 8 and 9. Approach velocities measured

near the bottom are provided in Plate 20.

38. Controlled flow. Observations indicated that an air-entraining

vortex leveloped upstream and on each side of the tainter gate (Plate 26 and

Photo 10) for all controll d flows greater than 1,300 cfs. Development of the

vortices appeared to be initiated by flow contraction at each abutment. The

vortex at the right abutment (looking downstream) was usually stronger than

the vortex at the left abutment. This was probably due to the lower elevationNof the topography in the approach on the right side which permitted more flow

to approach the structure laterally from the right and caused more flow con-

traction at the right abutment. Various heights (2, 3, 5, and 7 ft) of vortex

suppressor beams were installed at various locations upstream from the tainter%: gate. The most effective beam (typ 2 gravity flow) was 5 ft high and was

located 4 ft downstream from the nose of the abutment (Figure 15). The beam

eliminated all air-entraining vortices for all anticipated flow conditions.

Some flow conditions allowed an eddy to form on each side immediately upstream

from the vortex suppressor beam (Figure 15). The eddies were eliminated by

providing a transition (fillet) from the pier nose to the beam (type 3 gravity

flow) as shown in Figure 16.

39. The type 3 gravity flow control structure performed satisfactorily

23

4".N

416'

"A

" ""EL 422t,'.'.'VOR TEXSUPPRESSOR-A L 1

-F -i

a. Elevation

" b. Plan

~Figure 14. Pump location, Scheme C type 2

suction bell

.424

PUMP BAY

A A.1*A

GRVIYBA

PUM 425drE 45W

b. SectinA-

EL 425

EL39

5,25

- U - - ~IN; S

PUMP BAY

~ GRAPUMP BAY

a. Plan

4'[a

VORTEX SUPPRESSOR BEAMEL 425

EL 390 ---..-

b. Section A-A

Figure 16. Scheme C type 3 gravity control

26

:&PO I tZ '1:111 1

for all controlled flows (submerged and unsubmerged) but was unsatisfactory

for uncontrolled flows above 15,000 cfs. With uncontrolled flows above

15,000 cfs the vortex suppressor intersected the nappe as shown in Figure 17.

The vortex suppressor beam was moved downstream to a position where the beam

did not interfere with uncontrolled flow. However, moving the beam downstream

reduced its effectiveness in preventing vortices.

52'

VOR TEXSUPPRESSORBEAM

~SECTION A-A

o Figure 17. Uncontrolled flow, Scheme C type 3 gravity-'control

40. The vortex suppressor was removed and the tainter gate was moved

10 ft downstream (type 4) as shown in Figure 18. Moving the tainter gate

10 ft downstream reduced the frequency and intensity of the vortices

S'c 52' I0

00

EL 390.0 P, 17' 0 1 i

.1 Figure 18. Scheme C type 4 gravity con-trol, tainter gate moved 10 ft downstream

27

(Photo 11). There was no random or periodic surging of flow on the upstream

side of the gate. Tests indicated that the vortex suppressor beam and fillets

were needed to eliminate the vortices. Various positioned and sized vortex

suppressor beams with fillets were investigated, and the model results indi-

cated that a 5-ft-high beam with fillets located 7 ft downstream from the nose

of the abutments (type 5) (Figure 19 and Photo 12) provided satisfactory per-

for:7ane for n1l antiipated controlled flow conditions. The vortex suppres-

sor beam was also effective in preventing floating debris from passing through

the structure with gate openings less than 5 ft. Higher gate openings per-

mitted flow to pull the debris beneath the vortex suppressor beam (Photo 13).

41. Controlled flow rating curves are plotted in Figure 20. Basic dis-

charge calibration data obtained with the model are tabulated in Table 6. An

equation for free controlled flow was developed by plotting discharge versus

head on the center of the gate opening (Figure 21) and then plotting the

values of C versus gate opening as shown in Figure 22. The following equa-- tion describes the relations between discharge Q ,length of gate L ,gate

opening Go , and head on the center of the gate opening H00g

where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Controlled flows entering the

Scheme C type 5 gravity flow bay were considered satisfactory for all antici-

pated operating conditions.

42. Uncontrolled flow. With the design uncontrolled discharge of

'17,000 cfs, the gravity flow control structure produced flow contractions that

induced a water-surface drawdown of 4 ft (vertical) at each abutment (Photo 14

and Plate 27). Water-surface profiles along the sidewall and center line of

the gravity flow control structure measured with the design discharge-of

17,000 cfs and headwater and tailwater at el 422.0 and 414.5, respectively,

*, are shown in Plate 27. Flow control occurred at the entrance of the struc-

ture. Discharge rating curves for the gravity flow control structure are pro-

vided in Figures 20 and 23. The following equation can be used to compute

discharge with uncontrolled free flow.

Q = 2.09LH 1 .5 9 (2)e

28

Ma;N

A 62'A

774P

N a. Plan

VORTEX SUPPRE5SOR BEAMEL 427 -TP

EL 422 F

EL39

SECTION A - A

b. Section A-A

Figure 19. Controlled flow, Scheme C type 5 gravitycontrol

29

00

14J 4-4

00t(.)D

40

30

20

V)0

LU

0

C)

1 I I I I I I I I72 3 4 5 7 0 20 30 40 50

GROSS HEAD ON GATE, FT

O Cg Hg0.5

L99

O DISCHARGEV CFS

Cg FUNCTION OF DISCHARGE

AND HEAD ON THE CREST

Hg HEAD ON CENTER LINEOF GATE OPENING. FT. COMPUTED BYHe-G o /2 , wHERE He IS THE

GROSS HEAD ON THE WEIR, FT

Figure 21. Discharge versus gross head on crest, controlled flow,Scheme C type 5 gravity flow

31

4

1P 2 3 020 3 0 5

.6,000

4000

'' 3,-000

' 2o0 cg = Cg' Go0 .87

Cg = 236.2 GOO.87Cg = 6.95 L GO0.87

i,ooo

o 700 -

500

400 -

300 -

200'p.

ooI I I I I I I I I

1 2 3 4 5 7 10 20 30 40GATE OPENING, FT

C9 = C9 ' Go0 .

8 7 = 6.95 L Go087

C9 = FUNCTION OF DISCHARGE ANDHEAD ON THE GATE

Ca= FUNCTION OF C9 AND GATEOPENING

Go = GATE OPENING

L = LENGTH OF GATE, FT (34 FT)

H9 = HEAD ON CENTER LINEOF GATE OPENING, FT

Figure 22. C versus gate opening, controlled flow, Scheme CS g type 5 gravity flow

32

30

20

0 2.09 LHe'* 59

4'. 6LuT

(J 5

3

2

0J

3 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50 70 100

GROSS HEAD ON WVEIR, FT

0 = DISCHARGE, CFSHe = GROSS HEAD ON WEIR, FT

L =NET LENGTH OF CREST, FT= 34 FT

Figure 23. Discharge-head relation for free uncontrolledflow, Scheme C type 5 gravity flow

-where H is the gross head on the weir. Basic discharge data obtained withe

the model are tabulated in Table 6. Uncontrolled flows entering the gravity

N flow control structure were considered satisfactory for all anticipated dis-

charges.

Stilling basin

43. A tailwater rating curve provided by the Louisville District is

shown in Figure 24. This curve was used to set the tailwater elevations for

various discharges during tests of the stilling basin. The baffle blocks of

the Scheme C type 1 design stilling basin (Plate 28) did not provide suffi-

cient resistance and permitted an unstable and oblique hydraulic jump on the

surface with eddies in the stilling basin at a discharge of 17,000 cfs

33

41

410

405

40

,395

300 1 I

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

DISCHARGE, 1,000 CFS

Figure 24. Tailwater rating curve, Scheme C gravity flow

N

(uncontrolled flow) and minimum tailwater at el 412.5 (Plate 28). Discharges

from 3,000 to 17,000 cfs (uncontrolled and controlled) induced flow separation

along the sidewalls in the flared section and generated eddies in the stilling

basin (Plate 28) due to the unstable and oblique hydraulic jump induced in the

chute upstream of the stilling basin.

44. The baffle blocks were increased in height from 4 to 10 ft

(Scheme C type 2 stilling basin) as shown in Plate 29. This provided more re-

sistance and stability for the hydraulic jump and reduced, but did not elimi-

*nate, the eddy action. The rate of sidewall flare was decreased from IV on 3H

to IV on 5.5H (type 3 design stilling basin) and IV on 10H (type 4 design

stilling basin) as shown in Plates 30 and 31, respectively. The model indi-

cated that both IV on 5.5H and IV on 10H sidewall flares reduced the tendency

for flow separation along the sidewalls and formation of eddies in the still-

ing basin. However, for some flow conditions, there were tendencies for an

unstable and oblique hydraulic jump to form on the surface in the chute up-

stream of the stilling basin, uneven flow distribution, and occasional adverse

eddies in the stilling basin. The parabolic drop and stilling basin baffles

were moved upstream (type 5 design stilling basin shown in Plate 32), and

34

01

satisfactory hydraulic performance was observed for all anticipated flow con-

ditions. However, the type 5 design stilling bas4 n was considered unsatis-

factory by the Louisville District due to increased construction costs.

45. The type 6 design stilling basin, which was the design adopted for

use, was formed by sloping the invert of the chute from el 390.0 to 386.0 and

locating the 10-ft-high baffles 55 ft from the toe of the slope as shown in

Plate 33. The baffles were located various distances from the toe of the

slope, and a distance of 55 ft provided the best hydraulic performance. Cur-

rent patterns, maximum wave amplitude, and bottom velocities are also shown in

Plate 33. The type 6 design stilling basin provided a stable hydraulic jump

and prevented the formation of adverse eddies in the stilling basin. Various

'flow conditions are shown in Photo 15. The pier in the middle of the gravity

section (Photo 15) generates turbulence which is dissipated in the stilling

basin.

Riprap

46. Approach channel riprap (Figure 12 and Plate 20) with a d50 of

* 6 in. upstream from a 20-ft paved section as developed with Scheme A was

stable for all pumped or gravity flow discharges including the design gravity

flow of 17,000 cfs.

47. Exit channel riprap with a d50 of 6 in. failed from the end of

* the stilling basin to a point 10 ft downstream during a discharge of

17,000 cfs and tailwater at el 412.5. The type 2 design riprap was composed

of stone with a d50 of 8 in. for a distance of 25 ft downstream from the

stilling basin (Plate 33), followed with stone having a d50 of 6 in. No

failure of the type 2 design riprap was observed after it was subjected to

anticipated flows as great as 17,000 cfs and tailwater at el 412.5 for a

* period of 2 hr (prototype).

35

4

PART IV: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

48. Initially, the sump and the gravity flow outlet were designed to be

separate structures. Model tests indicated satisfactory sump performance dur-

.ig operation of any combination of the five pumps. However, the gravity con-

trol structure required an expensive wing wall design to prevent vortices in

the approach during major floods.

49. The sump and gravity control structures were combined by locating

the gravity control below the sump (Scheme A, Photo 1). During operation of

.. the pumps, unsymmetrical current distribution in the approach induced several

surface vortices in the sump. A false backwall and a vortex suppressor beam

were effective in eliminating surface vortices. A pier located in the ccnter

of each pump bay for structural purposes did not adversely affect sump

performance.

50. The Scheme A -ravity flow outlet was located below the sump and

included a self-regulating tainter gate (autogate) designed to maintain the

recreation pool within 3 ft of pool el 421.0 (Plate 11). When the pool level

exceeded el 424.0, the roller gates were opened, providing twin 15- by 15-ft

conduits. Submerged flow through the gravity bay generated turbulence and

waves I ft high near the autogate. The autogate was moved upstream of the

roller gates to provide better access for maintenance and operation.

51. Subsequent value engineering studies by the Louisville District

indicated that it would be cost effective to reduce the number of pumps from

six to four (Scheme B). The gravity flow outlet was not changed and the

hydraulic performance of the gravity flow outlet was not affected. Perfor-

mance of the Scheme B sump was considered satisfactory.

W 52. Engineers from the Louisville District decided, based on additional

value engineering studies, that a single tainter gate (Scheme C, the adopted

design, shown in Plate 20) would increase the capacity of the gravity flow and

reduce the structural costs. The total pumping capacity of the Scheme C de-

*, sign remained 4,100 cfs and the capacity of the gravity bay was increased to

17,000 cfs. The Scheme C sump performed satisfactorily for any combination of

p -ps operating and anticipated flow conditions.

53. Approach flows to the Scheme C gravity control were satisfactory.

For all controlled flows greater than 1,300 cfs, an air-entraining surface

vortex developed upstream and on each side of the tainter gate. The vortices

36

were eliminated by a vortex suppressor beam located upstream from the tainter

gate. The vortex suppressor beam was also effective in preventing floating

debris from passing through the structure with gate openings less than 5 ft.

Higher gate openings permitted flow to pull the debris beneath the beam. Con-

trolled and uncontrolled discharge rating curves were developed from the

model.

54. The initial design of the Scheme C stilling basin permitted an

unstable and oblique hydraulic jump in the stilling basin at a discharge of

17,000 cfs. Discharges from 3,000 to 17,000 cfs (uncontrolled and controlled)

induced flow separation along the sidewalls in the flared section and gener-

ated eddies in the stilling basin. Increasing the baffle block height from 4

to 10 ft provided more resistance and stability for the hydraulic jump but did

not eliminate all eddy action. Satisfactory stilling basin performance was

obtained by decreasing the rate Pf sidewall flare, sloping the invert of the

- chute from the outlet to the stilling basin apron, and locating the 10-ft-high

baffles 55 ft from the toe of the slope (Scheme C type 6 stilling basin, shown

- in Plate 33). Riprap in the exit channel was stable for all anticipated flow

- ceA.ditions.

,~ %

NS

Table I

-. Pressure Fluctuation, Swirl, and Stages of Vortex Development

Scheme A Type I Sump

Water-Surface Sump Performance Pump No.

El Tndicator* 1 2 3 4 5 6

. 421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 X X X X XSwirl, rpm 1.0+Stage of vortex development (E)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X 2.0 1.5 X XSwirl, rpm 1.0+ 1.0Stage of vortex development (D) (C)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X 5.0 2.0 2.0Swirl, rpm 6.0+ 1.0- 2.0+Stage of vortex development (B) (C) (D)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 5.0 X X XSwirl, rpm 1.0- 2.04 7.0+Stage of vortex development (D) (C) (B)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Swirl, rpm 2.0+ 1.0- 1.0 + 1.0* 1.0+ 1.0+

Stage of vortex development (B) (D) (D) (D) (D) (E)

426.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X 2.0 1.0 1.0Swirl, rpm 7.0- 1.0+ 2.0+Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A)

426.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Swirl, rpm 1.0- 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

* 432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X 2.0 1.0 1.0

Swirl, rpm 4.0+ 1.0+ 2.0+

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A)

432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X 1.0 X XSwirl, rpm 1.0+Stage of vortex development (A)

432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0. Swirl, rpm 1.0 + 1.04 1.0+ 1.0 + 1.0+ 1.04

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents.- = clockwise rotation.

= counterclockwise rotation.X pump not operating.

Discharge for pumps I and 6 = 410 cfs each; for pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5

-820 cfs each.*Pressure fluctuations beneath the pump intake are given in feet ofwater.

SNO

Table 2

Pressure Fluctuation, Swirl, and Stages of Vortex Development

Scheme A Type 4 Sump

Water-Surface Sump Performance Pump No.

.1 El Indicator* 1 2 3 4 5 6

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 X X X X X

Swirl, rpm 1.0+Stage of vortex development (B)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X 1.0 1.0 X X

Swirl, rpm 1.0+ 1.0+Stage of vortex development (A) (B)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X 2.0 1.0 1.0Swirl, rpm 3.0+ 2.0+ 1.0+

Stage of vortex development (B) (A) (B)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 X X XSwirl, rpm 2.0+ 2.0+ 3.0+

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (B)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

Swirl, rpm 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

426.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X 1.0 1.0 1.0Swirl, rpm 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A)

426.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Swirl, rpm 1.0- 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Swirl, rpm 2.0+ 1.0+ 2.0+

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A)

432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X 1.0 X XSwirl, rpm 1.0+Stage of vortex development (A)

432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

6. Swirl, rpm 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A)

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents.- = clockwise rotation.

= counterclockwise rotation.X = pump not operating.Discharge for pumps I and 6 = 410 cfs each; for pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5

V, = 820 cfs each.Pressure fluctuations beneath the pump intake are given in feet of

water.

%

5. ~.

Table 3

Basic Free-Flow Data

Scheme A Type 3 Gravity Flow

Bulkhead Open Bulkhead ClosedDischarge Discharge

cfs Pool E! cfs Pool El

3,300 400.0 8,400 412.14,200 404.1 10,000 416.85,500 403.5 11,500 419.36,200 405.6 12,600 424.17,000 406.8 14,000 426.07,300 409.6 15,100 430.07,900 413.0 15,300 428.28,400 413.8 15,900 432.49,000 417.0

10,000 417.511,200 421.011,500 423.211,700 425.412,100 429.712,200 430.912,600 432.6

Table 4

Swirl and Stages of Vortex Development

Scheme B Type I Sump

Water-Surface Sump Performance Pump No.

El Indicator 1 2 3 4

421.0 Swirl, rpm X X X +2.0

Stage of vortex development (A)

421.0 Swirl, rpm X X +3.0 +1.0Stage of vortex development (A) (A)

421.0 Swirl, rpm X 1.0+ ,2.0 +1.0

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A)

421.0 Swirl, rpm 1.0+ 2.0+ +2.0 +1.0

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A)

421.0 Swirl, rpm X 3.0+ *2.0 X

Stage of vortex development (A) (A)

426.0 Swirl, rpm X X *1.0 -1.0Stage of vortex development (A) (A)

426.0 Swirl, rpm 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+ 1.0+

Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A)

432.0 Swirl, rpm X X 1.0+ 1.0+Stage of vortex development (A) (A)

432.0 Swirl, rpm +1.0 +1.0 +1.0 +1.0Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A)

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents.+ = clockwise rotation.

+ = counterclockwise rotation.X = pump not operating.Discharge per pump = 1,025 cfs.

X*-. % .A~.' %' ~ \.%

Table 5

Pressure Fluctuation, Swirl, and Stages of Vortex Development

Scheme C Type 1 Sump

Water-Surface Sump Performance Pump No.

El Indicator* 1 2 3 4

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X X ISwirl, rpm -2Stage of vortex development (A)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X1 1Swirl, rpm +1 +1

Stage of vortex development (A) (A)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X 1 1 1Swirl, rpm +1 +2 )2Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1 1 1 1Swirl, rpm I + +1 +2Stage of vortex development (A) (A) (A) (A)

421.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X 1 1 XSwirl, rpm +2 2Stage of vortex development (A) (A)

426.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X 1 1Swirl, rpm +2 +2Stage of vortex development None None

426.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1 1 1 1Swirl, rpm +1 +1 +1 +1Stage of vortex development None None None None

432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft X X 1 1Swirl, rpm +1 +1Stage of vortex development None None

432.0 Pressure fluctuation, ft 1 I 1 ISwirl, rpm +1 +1 +1 +IStage of vortex development None None None None

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents.+ = clockwise rotation.

4 = counterclockwise rotation.X = pump not operating.

Discharge per pump = 1,025 cfs.* Pressure fluctuations beneath the pump intake are given in feet of

water.

4Z

Table 6

Gravity Control Calibration Data

Scheme C Type 5 Gravity Flow

Uncontrolled Flow Controlled FlowGate

Discharge Pool Opening Discharge PoolcfS El ft cfs El

2,900 400.5 10 6,560 408.6

3,960 402.6 10 7,570 415.1

3,960 402.9 10 8,980 420.5

4,500 404.2 15 10,500 415.3

6,000 407.1 15 11,200 418.8

7,100 408.4 15 11,400 419.9

8,400 410.5 15 12,200 424.4

8,900 411.8 15 13,400 426.2

10,400 412.6 20 15,000 420.7

11,700 415.8 20 16,100 425.5

11,800 416.4 20 17,400 429.3

12,900 416.8

14,200 417.7

16,200 420.2

16,400 422.8

17,400 421.6

w-r-.w ~r Sr p Sr ml C9~ arm, C, pnana' u, Sr - WK~*~W W Sr LWSr SrW M if - W t US.. . ~m -. . -.

0

a~ ~

.p4.

a'.

'a'

ad.:

0)

a'- .1-i"a ~

0

0)a'.

"-a 4 J

-a.,a'.. *1-4

1-40

4.J

a.,. 4J

*1-4

I-'

'a'"a' '-4

0aa~a 4-'

0

*-if..

-a'"'a.''a

4-

6.~

.'~-,~.t*' ~ ~/~a ~ a' ' a' '~ a>a' a' \..\.'aa '.J.'~~* - ",a 'p a~%~ ~ a'aa'\a' a a ~,.d gd ?

a. Pool el 421.0, pump 6 discharge 410 cfs

< '.21 nvrnp (1 ,s clirging 8201 cf'~ , pump 6 dwign!410 cf -

S.I~n

0%

I NO-

c.~~~~~ Pole 2.,pms4ad5dicagni2 f e up

pump 6 icarig41

c.Pool el 421.0, pumps 3 4, and 5 discharging 820 cfs per pump,pump 6 discharging 410 cfs

%-V

% '

- 1i- -

e. Pool el 421.0, pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5 discharging 820 cfs per pump,," pumps I and 6 discharging 410 cfs per pump

.0K

-,--°,€

f. Pool el 428.0, pumps 2, 3, 4, and 5 discharging 820 cfs per pump,

pumps I and 6 discharging 410 cfs per pump

Photo 2. (Sheet 3 of 3)

QJ.

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

a. Pool el 406.0, tailwater el 399.0, discharge 6,500 cfs

% ) ole 1., alae l480 dshre1,0.f

Plnt 3. Apoc foShmeAtp raivcnroepsr

tie5 sc(oniud

4-

-4.

-4.-.,

.4...

4'.4-4

.4.4.

'p.-'p.

-4

-4..4-.

'p

4.''4

* -4'

/4

4'

.4

".4''4-'

c. Pool el 428.0, taliwater el 412.5, discharge 15,000 cfs

Photo 3. (Concluded)

6

.4,.

'U

.4

*'

.4-4"- - 4 .v.'% * ~

C7

-4.J

cc4

CC

J0 ~ -

Cl

a)

4.

a

04_4C3

ac~ 4-I

deC

~~b.

% .t:

tr

w 4-4z

$4 -4

'no- "tm - 4

* ~cC

t"4J

'-14A 0

4-4

.0

nW '0

VJV

a

1% ' ci

0

JeU

'-IF

A. Poocl el 421.0, nump 2discharging 1,025 cfs

....... ... 41y

-%

A.0-

..

c. Poo el 42 . ,p m s 2 a d 3 o e at n ,d sh r ep rp m

4'..

I

.1

c. Pool el 421.0, pumps 2 and 3 operating, discharge per pump

1,025 cfs

Wi j ° . -

.%

-* d. Pool el 421.0, pumps 2, 3, and 4 operating, discharge per pump

Photo 7. (Concluded)

.4

V '2

V-v

0

-x 4

I At

Ga

A-i

I

Ga

t-400

0U

c-I,CC

0U

4-iH

* C-w

S

-C0~

Lw

514,

*0~

N4,

'(a-

- - A 4 - - - - 4 4 -

0

gA~£

C-.

44

UtC

0)

C

(N

-4

V

'-4

CCC..0

'4-

U

C

-4

I-

* -- (402

-4CS..4-CCU

44

CO

*

0)-CU

* -, c/t

SC.

4-C

~1

0~ -1

r

0'

? ?X&.:lart.Y.\ i§~:~. ;u~;mt~t>:~.:- .~ .y, ~ 'n%~' "~xK t%;\;~'

'4.".

U

0

C14

4) 0

4.41

) 00-

ON

U-1

0

N, P4

UC

-- - - - A - - - - - - -.

-A

6eq.

ANeq.

tC~~

It

I -'K~4;~-*4. C

C)I a9t

4CA

A-

g-At -P. ~'0 tiVt 4 a

- C-A' C-4 A

- Yeq~ '0 -. -* r~.C1*~

SW -~j 4-IC__________ I,

&

J2ir.

* CCCC

C)C-

rtK4-)

t U

a - C)I E* C)

I 4 1-~ /- C-)

Cr)N :3

* - 0

t - v-A* 4-"

I ~

0C)

-A~ C

C

4 C* p4 U

C

C-cC-

6V _P a

6

-A---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,- *A

A-- - * . - - .- ~ - - *~* -A *~ - - - - - - % '~

%-a~ t't -. - - -Ac--A-.

0

4-,

.1~

UC

U:*C01-c

C-tfl C

OJQJC-

MC 144- CL

C

C) C')-~

UUt -

C,

SrCc

-, C~- 0-

V

CI-

* C

S

*1

St

0

~ t>i$5~V\7:4~. ~ -

U')

W0

-4> ci)

4

uCI-

0W

4-

QC 0

On- -

0

CD

.4--4

-

wC1

U C

1-4 N

a. Dry bed

AaVA

Sk

* . Dischargp 4,750 cfs, gate opening 5 ft, pool el. 426.0,

tafiwater el 401.7

Photo 19. Scheme C tvype 6 stilling hasin (Continued)

,N %

T0IT

C. Discharge 13,100 cfs, gate opening 15 ft, pool el 426.0,

taliwater el 401.7

.1 P

. . . . . . .

T-~ ~ C t I TIC (ITr 0 11 f I W , pool el I2.3

:1e WI t ee le

C0 IC

6C,

4 Z

tl -T

PLATE 1

0

-V a-LUz-j

LUIF-

-~ zLUJ

K C0

P0 %

I3 Q

PLT 2'

-

I Al

cc LZZI

- III c

cc -1

PLT

C 4

z I0-09

01u

Ix-

PLAT

.J.JN.-'~~~ __ __ _ __

UJ 0

A.L

u.J~oLL

Ir U

10

-0~

V.z

4 /l

.4k

-~~ PLATE5

LU 0x Lli ~kj z

*

'c3

L4.

10

00 0 -

HL 0- I-

0 cr

cr <

0.cc

'A~ ~ itA ~ 4'30 **~~t f t tt ~ ft

'PLATE

Oa.

zOo

w 0 20 0N

m -

Q.I C) a.

cc w

00

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

-VC.

'N PLATE 8

1.

0.

A..

0. 1.3

EL 30. 00.3

02 03 05

1.

.1.

iP1.5

4400

NOTE. VELOCITIES ARE INPROTOTYPE FEET PER SECONDMEASURED 1 FT ABOVE

PUTTMPSI SCHEME A TYPE 5 DESIGN SUMP

PUMPS 2, 3, 4. & 5APR CH VL ITE0 820 CFS PER PUMP POOL EL 421.0

*PLATE 9

A-.o

405.0 445.05

a. ~ ~~ W PUPE FLOW ALL PUP0PRTN

TOTA DISCARG 4,0 0.S. POLE2.

V

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM END OF APPROACH TRAINING WALL. FT

* *b.OGAVIYFW DISCHARGE ,OO EC41.

POE4.EL 445.5

FEET0.4 0.7 E SECOD C

?' 04 . 3 -4 0 . .5 0 9

0O- .54. 0. 1 .-5 _* 0.8

4 .

025 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

DISTANCE FROM UPSTREAM END OF APPROACH TRAINING WALL, FT

a44,

ALOFAPPROACH TRA I G WL L

' ,#.~RANNGWAL ARE SIILRAVT. LW ICHRE1,0F

PLATE 10

o p

FEE E SEOD CURENTDIS

430

420 EL 421.0

ROLLER GA TES-l AUTOGATE

UPPER GRA VITY_ BA Y

EL 409.35 *:. QARN< 410 QARN

EL 405. 0

- *400 4ksOsv

------ 4-

LOWER GRA VITY BAY

E3900 'ETL390'390 A

SECTION A-A

SCHEME A TYPE 3 GRAVITY FLOWTYPICAL FLOW CONDITIONS THROUGH LOWER

GRAVITY BAY (NOT TO SCALE)ROLLER GATES OPEN TO EL 405.0

5*I

PLATE 11

1.020 2 -

1.51020 25

45 LOQUADRANT2_ 0 I Ll0o VORTEX WALL

1. 25I

A5

EL 39a

-A-

NOTE VELOCITIES ARE IN SHM YE3GAIYFO

PROTOTYPE FEET PER SECOND APPROACH VELOCITIESMEASURED 1 FT ABOVE DISCHARGE 15,000 CFSBOTTOM POOL EL 428.0

TAILWATER EL 412.5

PLATE 12

0L

4CO ROLLERGATES 1\

-AUTOGATE

EL 421.0420-

.......

ROLLER GATE

'~ 410 UADRANT

'1.5

, , 1.0 2.0 I

--- 500

.1"0

S'VORTEX,,,-.QUADRANT

PLA

NE V CT R I

..,-BOTTOMR2IPR APTE 11 2 N H C

NX J

PPLAN

NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN': PROTOTYPE FEET PER SECOND

i ' MEASURED 1 FOOT ABOVEI. BOTTOM

~FAILURE ZONE DEVELOPED%'DURING 2 HOURS (PROTOTYPE) SCHEME A TYPE 3 GRAVITY FLOW

OPERATION RIPRAP INVESTIGATION

RIPRAP 121IN. THICKd50 = 6 IN.

~DISCHARGE 15,000CFSPOOL EL 428.0

.-- " ' .TAILWATER EL 412.5

'" ' %PLATE I14

VORTEXSUPRESSOR

84'

a. PLAN

8' 4

u[PLATE 15

,""

40.2

-. A41

%= EL39./.2

-~0.0

=1 ON

.143

*PLA

NOE"EOITE R N RTTP

FEET PE ECN EAUC1 T BVEB'TM

% 105"F ERPM

\/ATR-URC E0,4

SCHEM B.YP4SM

MANIUD _N _IETO FCRET

DUIN PMPN_____ _IAIN:

PLATE 1_

-%~-~ ~ ~03 ^"

~~41

FLOW _ uJ1.

'V~~~. 4 2 E PRPM

PLAEA1

', E O IISA EI R T T P0'ETPRSCODMAUE

FTAOV OT'Mr)-102 F P RP M

054 1. 4 ''0.5

%0.2 } IGRAVITY 1 1 1~?S~Ilk,- EL 390. 0

~-.- .---- jY\~ FLOW1110b ~5 14 f

S1 O N 3 C 1.

71 --- 1.4 j

"A.A

PLAN

NOTE VELOCITIES ARE IN

1 ~ ~ ~~ ~PROTOTYPE FEET PER SHM YE1SMSECOND MEASURED SHM YE1SM

V.-1 FT ABOVE BOTTOM MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTIONPum25pSR OF CURRENTS DURING PUMPING

WATER-SIJRFACE EL 421 PUMPS OPERATING: 2 & 3

PLATE 18

.11.4

1* .5

0. 0.5

-,-

.03

1.

0.51.

~1 5

S.0 6

I0.9

1OE EOTIOES BOTTO MANTDEADDIETOPRTTP FEET CFPER

PUCNDMPEFAURENSDUINEPMPNWATER-SURFACEHEM EL 42UPPRTING: 1, 2,U3M&P

PLATE 19

0.j

25

\ \ 20 VOR TEX SUPPRESSOR(EL 419-422)-

'4T,,

200 ' 3

,WATER-SURFACE] ~ RAWOWN.4c G RA VITVFLOW

TAINTER GATIE4 40 50o 7

* WATER-SURFACE

0N3 ORAWOVV

FEET PER SECOND MEASURED FTABOVEBOTTOM.

EL 421SA

:434

1) UPSTREAM ELEVATION

SCHEME C

DISCHARGE 17,000 CFSPOOL EL 421.3

TAIIWATER EL 412.5

PLATE 20

0-

p1

1

N.

02

. 0.1

0.

9.75

0! 0

-: _54__ _

30>\ v ANERGT

PLA

. NOTE VELOCTIES ARE IN PROTOTYPE

%FEET PER SECONDOMEASURED CEECSM1FT ABOVE BOTTOM. CEECSM

0 -1O025 CFS PER PUMP MAGNITUDE & DIRECTION OF CURRENTSNWATER-SURFACE EL 421 DURING PUMPING

PUMP OPERATING: 4

PLATE 21

N' "

01:.4.\

p .,° G V T °

-0.2

GRAVITY FLOW

TAINTER GATE

-. (

o 16202 _ -4W* [3. - --- -4

-9. 9.-5'

954'

PLANA 9

NOTE. VELOCITIES ARE IN PROTOTYPEFEETFPER SECONDOMEASURED SCHEME C SUMP1 FTr ABOVE BOTTOMMANTD&DIEIOOFCRNS0 -1,025 CFS PER PUMPMANTD&DIEIOOFCRNSWATER-SURFACE EL 421 DURING PUMPING

PUMPS OPERATING: 3 & 4

PLATE 22

6%

VORTEX SUPPRESSOR 1

0.4 _ _f

0.4 - 1. 4

.

K-,,- "'' 0.2 GRAVITY FLOW- -EL 390- . -. .---9..

0.2 TAINTER GATE

1.6

... 0.5 - .- -9. - -

*-.. /.-,. - ----- - -,

0.5 734

1.9 -

• / // I-9"5-S~3' 9.75 '-.-

545

,.? PLAN

* NOTE VELOCITIES ARE IN PROTOTYPE SCHEME C SUMP* , FEET PER SECONO MEASUREO MAGNITUDE & DIRECTION OF CURRENTS

1 FT ABOVE BOTTOM.0 o,025 CFS PER PUMP DURING PUMPINGWATER-SURFACE EL 421 PUMPS OPERATING: 2, 3, 4

PLATE 23

IN.

0.6

VORTEX SUPPRESSOR10 ____ ___ ____ __I

1.9

S0.6

2 GRAVITY FLOW

."0.3 EL 390--

ww' ' 0.6TAINTER GATE

0.60

15

0-5 - 9 ----

.41. .- 03 -90.9 ---- 1.9

54'

|o, yPLAN

SCHEME C SUMPP J NOTE. VELOCITIES ARE IN PROTOTYPE

FEET PER SECOND MEASURED MAGNITUDE & DIRECTION OF CURRENTSJ1 FT ABOVE BOTTOM, DURING PUMPING0 1025CFS4PERPUMP

WATER-SURFACE EL 421 PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2, 3, 4

PLATE 24

%.

--t

0

-

0.4.

4.1.5

""O.. 2"GRAVITY

FLOW""

TAINTER GATE

r,4

0.40

0.4

------

7.O 1,25 FS P R P MP

URI5 PU PIN

0-2.

PLATEPLAN

0 11.6 0F E UPDRN UPN

WATER-SURFACE 421PU

P O ERTN :23

,. ,

5-

,

as%

-%-.

"VOR TEXA' TA IN TER• "'" / L GA TE

"- T R U N I O N

SECTION A-A

E 0 ,,

\~ ~ 52'

-L __ -- voRTEX

"V- GRAVITY BAY

E -,- -TA INTER GATE

-EL 390 TRUNNION

~-EL 390& VORTEX

/""0-EL o-.4

L0A©

PLAN

SCHEME C TYPE 1 GRAVITY FLOWCONTROLLED FLOW

VORTICESBOTTOM CURRENTS

DISCHARGE 9,800 CFSPOOL EL 426.0

PLATE 26

.9

IIjS .

.4--

N' LL Lju -i

z 00000 00 L U

C',

NO I CZ

Wir 1+1 0. 0

La A .

-0.

CL C,)Z4

U) 0

0 <

c 1)CLN

6 cro

LU L-

ccAT 28-

z

uj-

U.' C

r J-J

3ANQ

QCt

LI

% V

NU Z

ILU

000000 .OCIO D O O ZT --

~~i.NL

io .

-1'r

LU cc4i

CZ rz

PLATE 3

COUNTY KENTUJCKY; HVDRAU (U) ARMY ENGINEER WATERWdAYSEXPERIMENT/STATION VICKSBURG NS HYDRA 8 P FLETCHER

UNCLASSIFIED APR 8 ES TR/HL-88-7 F/G 03/11 NL

".3.6

,40

.1 11111 -__. ,,1,,1I llIi !. . ,II I.

1.6

I. .., - • • • • • I . ! .,

'U)

00000

LuJ

P AE3

--- >

z

-4--i;0.

0( w-a00 0 3

i2wQ) In C

L0

cc (Zi41

zC* .~..

PLAT 32

CDU9 0 zFr 4c -'

ICOL.

-Ji - _~-1

LU Lt

10 1

2 0

I..

1%41

6.610Ob

x-.nr..,.. Fw'-~ r- rr, w, - rr..rr.u wv ---------- UP W7 Wr~T

I

'~~1

- p.

V -

'

'V'V'I

0

'p..-

'A

p"'p..'A

*

7cC2

~j V U U U U U U 3 U U U U U U U U