. . . .. . . . . . . - . .,.I , ,.... P L . ~ ~ ~ ~ : , - ~ Y ! , ,....,,.-7 .I . ,;v~ ".._ : , . . . . . . . REC-ERC-74-3 . . . .,

: : : ' , . . : . . > - - d..: . I . .

,-

JAMES;BAY ENERGY CORPORATION

LG-2 Development, Quebec. Canada

James ~;ay Energy Corpora ;' Queoec. Canada

ring and energy. dissipator walls.

-. ,

the assistance of Mr. T. J. lsbester in the Applied Hydraulics Section. Hydraulics Brmch, Division.of General Research, under the general supervision of D. L. King. Hesd, Applied Hydraulics Sectlon. W. E.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c, Test Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Calibration of Model Valves . .$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . , . . . . . . . Tailwater Elevations . . . ;. ; . . . . . . . 2 Model Configuration . ,: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

, .- The Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~re'liminary Design . . . . . . . ' . . . . Effectiveness of Baffle Piers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . Recommended Design . . Jump Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Air Demand Velociq Distrihution . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . Wall and Ring 6ressures Wall Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Observations .: . . . .

LlST OF TABLES

Table :!, - ,, . . . , ,, 3.-

Wall and ring pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 all and ring pressures . . . .? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

. . Wall and ring pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 7

7

LlST OF FIGURES

Figure ,* /9"

1 Prototype design and location . i / ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 2 Discharge coefficients for model va!ves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Head.discharge relationships for various valve discharge

/i coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Tailwaterelevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Preliminary design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6 Overall view of the model, looking upstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 Slat.type water level contml gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8 View of the upstream portion of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 Velocity measuring station 185 feet 156.4 meters) downstream

r-.. from t h e valves . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 Air demand measuring station above the valves . . . . . . . . . . . .- 15 11 Preliminary design, side view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12 Preliminary design, looking upstream . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . 16 13

- Preliminary design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

dissipator for the,Howell-Bunger valves in the low-level design of the low-level outlet works for the LG-2 outlet works for the LG-2 Power Development at- Power Development, the results should have general James Bay in the northern part of the province o Quebec, Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The deflector ring in the preliminary design was Corporation, now under construction on the LaGrande 2 located too close to the valves (35 feet (10.7 meters) River in the northern part of the province of Quebec, i s from the valves) and was moved 8 feet (2.4 meters) expected to generate 8.3 mdlion kilowatts of downstream. The model verified the acceptabil~ty of hydroelectric power. Th this naw location. powerhouse i s the largest in

complex, with an installed capacit 2,;lnstead of two rows of large floor baffles in the kilowatts. . preliminary design, the final design included one row o: three small baffles which proved to be adequate to The LG-2 development is loc prevent sweep out during operation at minlmum from the mouth of the river, which empties into James tailwater and to malntain a relatively smooth water Bay, Figure 1. The low-level outlet works for LG-2 surface downstream. includes two Howell-Bunger valves, each 6 feet (2.4

meters) in diameter, and an energy dissipation chamber 3. Velocities in the unllned portion of the tunnel were with a deflector ring and baffle piers, Figure 1. The within acceptable limits. The maximum wall velocity outlet works will be installed downstream from a plug of about 20 feetlcec (6.1 mettrs/sec) for one valve in the diversion tunnel in the south (left) abutment of operation wa65lieved to present no threat to the the dam. An air vent tunnel will provide ventilation stability of the rock. from the downstream tunnel to the energy dissipation

chamber on the upstream side of the deflector ring. 4. Data were obtained to allow computation of The valves will have a maximum discharge capacity of required air supply for the tunnel based on air pressure 7.000 d s (198.2 meters3/sec) each.The static head on a t the tunnel-plug bulkhead. the valve> will vary from 240 to 420 feet (73.2 to

128.0 meters). The energy dissipat~on chamber will 5. Ring and wall pressures were obtained to aid in discharge i n to an unlined, rock-excavated, structural design. Steel lining is recommended for the flat-bottomed tunnel. entire barrel upstream of the deflector ring, the , deflector ring itself, the baffle piers, and a portion of the barrel to the baffle piers. Determination of the THE MODEL frequencies of pressure fluctuation were not possible because of v~bration of the model. Test Requirements

6. The elevation of the valves was set at 123.0 feet The following tes t requirements were specified under (37.5 meters) in the original design. Based on the negotiated contract agreement, wlth deletion of a experience in previous designs, the valves were lowered few Items which were later mutually agreed upon as to 120.66 feet (36.78 meters) in the model. This unnecessary: location was verif~ed as satisfactory during model testing. Valve spacing remained the same as In the 1. Optimization of the location and dimensions of preliminary deslgn. the deflector ring. .

7. The shape of the tunnel remained as in the 2. Determinat~on of means of forming a hydraulic preliminary design. jump immediately downstream from the deflector

I .

rino bv ootimizino the ~osition of baffles or anv will varv from a minimum value of 75 feet (22.9 " , . - other appropriate devices: investigat~on of the meters). up to a maxrmum value of 420 feet necessity of baffles; and possible modification of (128.0 meters). Head loss upstream of the valves the cross section of the conduit downstream from will be considered in determining upstream water the valves. level for the model.

, 3. Determination of ;he zones requiring lining and "3. Tests with one valve closed.- evaluation of the intensity, frequency, and I described in l..and 2. will be performed fluctuations of pressures on the barrel on the valve closed. For the purposes of this s upstream side of the deflector ring and on the south valve will be closed. Nevertheless, results deflector ring itself. obtained with the south valve closed should be

checked with the north vgve closed for the case 4. Determination of the final elevation setting of of 5,000 cfs and maximum gross head." -'

the valves. Calibration of Model Valves

5. Evaluation of the quantity of air required ,!~ through the air vent. . . The 6-ilich (152:.4-mi) model valves were calibrated as

designed for installation in the LG-2 tunnel plug. The : 6. Observation and com=fent on the general flow ' pressure head was measured and the total head was conditions and performandk ',. computed at a station 2.75 pipe diameters upstream

. , from the face o f the valves. The coefficient5f The following additional requiremeiits are quoted in discharge curve, Figure 2, i s based on the relationship: ,.

part: Q = C,A

"Tests will be performed under variable heads and discharaes. Tests will be done with two valves in where:

maximum with the valves fully open.These may the water. Therefore, the tailwater criteria were - be combined with those of 1. above to establish transposed to near the downstream end of the model. '' the rating curve for various discharges and 510 feet (155.4 meters) from the valves, to allow a different heads. Gross heads upstream of the plug more accurate measurement of the model water

surface.

2

- operation and also with one valve in operation. For the case with two valves in operation these will be Cd = the coefficient of discharge, operated synchronously so that the valves open an A = the inlet pipe area, and equal amount. H, = the total head.

'The following three tes ts will be parformed:

"1. Tests with two gstes in operation and conshnt discharge of 5.000 cfs (141.5 meters3/sec) through each valve.-Tests as described above will be performed for a constant discharge of 5,000 cfs per valve with different heads upstream of the plug (gross head). Heads will vary from the minimum value necessary to obtain 5,300 cfs up to the maximum gross head of 420 feet (128.0 meters). Upstream water level for the model will be established taking into account the head loss upstream of the valves.

i: , "2. Tests with two valves in operation with variable heads and var~able discharges.-Tests as described above will be performed for variable heads upstream of the plug (gross head). For each head, study the performance of the system with different discharges. Discharges will vary from 2.500 cfs (70.8 meters3/secl UD to the

'

Valve opening is defined in this report as t h e valve sleeve travel divided by the pipe diameter. Beyond 50 percent (0.5) valve opening, the control point tends to shift and Cd will show scattered values. Therefore, the curve in Figure 2 terminates at a valve opening of 0.5.

Figure 3 shows the computed relationships among the energy head 2.75D upstream=from the face of the valves, the valve discharge coefficient, and the discharge. The values in the chart are independent of the valve setting and may be used for any value for which the coefficient of discharge is known.

Tailwater Elevations r _

Tailwater elevations shown in Figure 4 were iaken from a chart furnished by JBEC for a stat;& 222.9 feet (67.9 meters) downstream from the valves. As may be seen in Figure 23, the model water surface 222.9 feet from the valves (near the center of the ~hotoqraph) is affected by bulking attributed to air in

Model Confisuration THE INVESTIGATION -

The model was constructed to a geometrical scale of = Preliminary Design 1:16, and overall dimensions for the preliminary installation. Figure 5, were taken from JBEC Drawings The prelimmary design i s shown in Figures 5, 11, and No. 700-303 and 700.304. The deflector ring 12. The downstream row of large baffles qnded to dimensions and location, the valve spacing and deflect the flow upward and caused the water surface elevation, and the size, location, and number of baffles in the unlined tunnel to be quite rough for flows- were determined by referring to previous model studies greater than about 8,000 cfs (226.5 meters3/sec), for the Oroville Dam River Outlets In California' and Figure 13 Furthermore, for single-valve operation the the Portage Mountain Low Level Outlet Works in jet from the valve missed the deflector ring on the side British ~olumbia.' The oval barrel in the model was of the tunnel opposlte the opened valve, indicating that inadvertently made 10 feet (3.0 meters) (prototvpe) the r:;ly-was too close to the valves (35 feet (10.7 shorter than that shown in the drawings (which proved meters) from the valves). to be inconsequential for the model study), and-ihe unlined portion of the tunnel wss representei,\for a Effectiveness of Baffle Piers distance of 540 feet (164.6 metcrJ downstream from th2 valves. Figure 6 i s an overall view of the completed -With the downstream row of large baffles removed, an model. , excessively high boil existed in the oval sectlon, Figure

, 14. With all baffles removed, the jump swep4from the The water surface in the tunnel was controlled with a oval barrel for discharges above 12.000 d'i (339.8 slat-type control gate, which had a minimal effect on meters3/sec) and wlth minimum tailwater, Figure 15. the velocity distribution upstream from the gate. The jump was unstable in the oval barrel, and the water Figure 7. surface in the unlined tunnel was quite rough for all

flows greater than about 8,000 cfs (226.5 meters3/sec) The energy dissipator portion of the model i s shown in with minimum tailwater and about 10.000 d s (283.2 Figure 8, with the energy dissipator deflector ring near meters3/sec) with maximum tailwater. These tests the center of the photograph. A t the righf of the susgested that one row of small baffles bvould be photograph i s a pressure tank from which the two sufficient and necessary to provide satisfactory energy outlet conduits extend through the tunnel-plug dissipation. . bulkhead and lead to the Howell-Bunger valves upstream from the deflector ring. Recommended Design

I / i i i /

The effectiveness of the energy dissipator was In the recommended design, a single row of three small evaluated by measuring the velocity distribution in the baffles was installed in the oval section, Figure 16, and tunnel with a Type "A" current meter 185 feet (56.4 the deflector ring was moved 8 feet ( Z 4 meters) meters) downstream from the valves, as shown in farther downstream to a pcjnt 43 feet !,13:i,meters) Figures 8 and 9. from the valves. The elevation and spacing of the valves

and the length and shape of the ovalsection remained The air-demand measuring station just above the the same as in the preliminari. design. Howell-Bunger valves is shown in Figure 10. The air-supply tunnel was not included in the model. An Photographs of the recommended design are shown in air-supply port above the Howell-Bunger yalves wasj Figures 17 and ;G.

, . enclosed in a plenum chamber on which va;ious-sized,

. .. , - sharpedged orifices could be mounted. Each orifice The new location of the deflector ring proved to be caused a unique restriction to the airflow. For a given satisfactory for both two- and single.valve oper.ation. .- waterflow condition, various orifices were mounted on . .

the chamber and the air supply and bulkhead pressure Jl~mp perf0rmsnce:-Sweepout i s defined' as the were determined. The ring and wall pressure leafis and condition for which the high-velocity jet moves a few of the pressure cells used may also be seen in through the oval section in~fo the: unlined,.tunnei Figure 10. ,:. ~- ' section. Figure 19 includes Cweebo&Xt$ior the

'Colgate, D., "Hydraulic Model Studies of the River Outlet Works a t Oroville Dam." Report Hyd-508. October 1963. 'Beichley, G. L., "Hydraulic Model Studies of Portage Mountain Development Low Level Outlet Works," Report Hyd-562, June 1966.

baffles; the jet swept through the oval barrel at the deflector ring and tunnel wall upstream from the minimum tailwiter for 12,000 cfs (339.8meters3/sed ring, Figure 26. were used to determine the local . , and at 2.5 feet (0.8 meter) above minimum tailwater pressure in critical areas during operation and to for,-14,000 cfs (396.5 meters3/sec). At lower flows ' evaluate dynamic pressure fluctations. Water column without baffles. the flow in. the,:oval barrel was pressures were measured for all taps for one flow unstable and tended to oscillate longitudinally causing condition, Table 1, to. define needs for closer rough water surface conditions in the unlined tunnel. examination, then pressure cell recordings were made

for several conditions for those taps which appeared to With the recommended design, the three small baffles generate erratic or fluctuating results. Considerable air : retained the jump in the oval barrel for all design entered the piezometer lines from the heavily aerated discharges with minimum tailwater in the tunnel. flow;. therefore, lines were purged just biifore the Under anticipated tailwater conditions the water oscillograph records were made. The pressureiirecorded surface in the oval barrel was rough, but stable, Figures for the taps ip the deflector ring were repeatable and 21 and 22, and was tranquil in the unlined portion of indicated realistic response. The recorded pressures for ., the tunnel, Figure 23. Figure 20showsflow-conditions the taps in the plastic tunnel wall were yratic and in the barrel as the hydraulic jump was swept from the violent, indicating excessivcly high and low peaks. barrel a t nearmaximum discharge with tailwater less Measurements of the wall vibration in the jet impact

. , than minimum. ,, area, using both a linear variable differential transducer

and a strainrgage-equipped cantilever beam, indicated

Ai r demand.-Bulkhead pressure versus air supply>for various waterflow conditions is presented in Figure 24. These charts may be used to de,;,ign the air-supply tunnel desired to maintain an accepable tunnel-plug bulkhead pressure. The designer must choose the bulkhead pressure. Then t l ~ e air demand for that pressure w ~ t h a specific valve discharge i s determined from the curves. The air quantity is then used, along with the desired maximum air velocity, to size the air-supply tunnel. The curves indicate that the maximum air demand will occur with maximum two-valve d~scharge and minimum tailwater.

that the wallwas vibratmg violently and rapidly (150 '1 hz plus or minus). Obviously. the wall vibration was responsible for the violent high and low peaks indicated on the pressure cell charts. These chart peaks 5

were therefore considered excessive and were elimmated from the data to give the results shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Excessive vibration of the model also made determination of the probable frequency of prototype pressure fluctuations impossible. A model r~gid enough to be free of vibration would not allow use of important materials such as plastic, which makes viewing of the flow conditions possible.

Furthermore, the curves show that the air demand can impact.-The jet impact on the wall of oval be minimized by allowing negative bulkhead air section is as shown in Figure 27, Variations in valve pressures to exceed about minus 3 feet ( 1 meter) of opening and head had negli+ble effect on the location water. Although scaling relationships for air demand

of impact. Steel lining is recommended for the entire i? have not been conclusively defined, the approach

barrel upstream of the deflector ring, the deflector r i ig described herein has .hew used previously without any

itself, the baffle piers, and the portion of the reported proh:.-,~s. -

downstream barrel shown in Fiqure 16. Because of the fluctuating forces in the barrel, the steel lining should

Velociw distriburion.-The velocity distribution with be well anchored and.completely grouted to minimize the recommended design and both valves operating was the possibility of vibration. excellent for all design flow c&ditions. Figure 25. The flow with a single valve operating was concentrated on General observations.-Test runs were made a t heads the tunnel side opposite the opened valve. Velocity and discharges over the full range of expected distributions were the same for one-valve operation operation, including conditions somewhat greater than whether using the large baffles, no baffles, or the maximum and somewhat less than minimum. The recommended small baffles. ~ o w & ~ ~ w i t h o u t baffles, recommended design performed satisfactorily for all the waier surface was quitgC;ough and the point conditions. velocities tended to vary with time. No attempt was made to improve conditions for one.valve operation Flow conditions in the energy dissipator and tunnel since this mode of operation would be employed only with the north valve closed were similar to those with in extreme emergencies. the south valve closed.

4

Piezometer No.

Piezometer No.

0 WALL AND RING PRESSURES

Gate opening Gate opening Right-0.50D Right-0.30D Left-O.5OD Left-0.30D

Discharge 10.000 cfs Discharge 10,000 d s Tailwater-El. 11 7 Tallwater-El. 117

Pressure transducer readings feet of water

leter elevation Peak

224

80 44 -

90

32

104 96

See Figure

. -.

26 for piezomete~

"Left-0 Discharge-7,000 cfs

Piezometer Tailwater-El. 116

16 0 (Not submerged! 17 I 0 (Not submergedl 18

SECTION 0-D TUNNEL TYPICAL SECTION LOCATION MAP :

Flgure 1. P r o t o t y p e derlgn and locat ion . ,-

DISCHARGE IN CFS x lo-'

Figure 6. Overall view of the model. looking upstream. Photo P801-D.74263

Figure 7. SIatwPe water level control gate. Photo P601.D-74264

Figure 8. View of the upstream portion of the model. The right valve i s opened 0.30D discharging 5.000 cfs (141.6 cubic meters per second). Photo P801 -D-74265

Figure 9. Velocily measuring station 185 feet 156.4 meters1 downstream from the valves. Photo P801-D.74266

14

Figure 10. Air demand measuring station above the valves. Photo P801.D-74267

Figure 11 . Preliminary design. ride view. Photo P801.D-74268

15

Figure 13. Preliminary design. Valves opened 0 .50D discharging 12.600 CIS

135fi.8 cubic rnetcrr ~ c r rccondl. Similar conditions for flows greater than about 8.000 cls 1226.5 cubic mcters pcr sccandl. Photo P801-0.74270

Figure 12. Preliminary design. looking upstream. Plmto P801.0.74269

Figure 14. One row a t large baHles. Valves opened 0.50D discharging 14.000 cis 1396.5 cubic meters per rocondl. Photo P801-D-74277

Figure 15. No boflles. Valvcr opened 0.3eD discharging 12.000 cfr 1339.8 cubic rncters per iccondl. Tunncl WSclcvafion 117.5 (35.8 rncterrl-lncipicnr sweetmu[. Photo P801.D.74278

17

Figure 17. Recommended design. side view. Photo P80l.D.74271

Figure 18. Rccommended design. looking upstream. Photo Pa01 0 7 4 2 7 2

Figure 20. Recommended design-Valves opened 0.40D discharging 12,260 cfs (347.2 cuhic meters pcr secondl. He = 41 1 feet 1125.3 meters). Tunnel WS el.-varion 115 135.1 rnelersl-Incipient swnt~p.out. Photo PBOl.D.74273

Figure 21. 1Same conditions ar Figure 20.1 Tunnel WS elevation 11s 136.0 meters1 Iminimuml. Photo P801-D.74274

Figure 22. (Sam* conditions as Figurc 20.1 Tunnel WS elevation 123 (37.5 meters1 [maximuml. Photo P801-D-74275

8 . MAXIMUM TAILWATER - GATES EQUALLI OPEN

Figure 24. Bulkhead pressure in feet of water.

LARGE BAFFLES I VALVE - .50 D OPEN

DISCHARGE = 7,000 CFS T W EL. = 1 1 9 . 5 '

HT = 400'

NO BAFFLES 2 VALVES - . 5 0 D OPEN

' I

DISCHARGE = 14,050 CFS T W E L . = 125'

HT = 4 0 1 '

SMALL BAFFLES SMALL BAFFLES 2 VALVES - . 6 D OPEN 2 VALVES - .468 D "OPEN DISCHARGE = 9,011 CFS DISCHARGE = 14 ,000 CFS

TW EL. = 117' TW EL. = 1 2 5 ' HT = 4 2 0 ' H T = 4 3 2 '

Flgure 25. Veloaty dlftributron for various energy dirrtpator configurations.

SIDE E L E V A T I O N

Flgure 27. Location of let impact In oval Section.

26

.611e~ ioled!SS!p Afilaua pue . ,~ . h ,

6u!i lo loa lpp aql4o ufi!sap l e l n lmnr lo, pue Alddns J!e lauunl p a ~ ! n b a ~ 4 0 uo!lelndwoa lo, p a u y q o a d m elea 'sl!u!l alqcldame U!~I!M alaM lauunl aql 40 uo!llod pau!lun aql u! sa!lpolan pue Aml~ep! ler aq 01 pau!wJalap reM (ama!ladxa WSn sno!AaJd 01 Su!plaaae lar Ee] ranlen aql $0 uo!lenala aqL 'uS!rap Areu!w!la~d aql $0 ral44eq aSlel a q l q sa144eq mol4 llewr Su!~n~!nqnr pue ruo! le~ol leu!S!m sl! wod4 weansuMop Su!l ~013al$ap 8ql 6u!now Aq panoldw! aeM uo!le~adO 'lauunl pawolloq-lel4 e Aq paMol!a$ E! uqmes ~o~ed!rs!p ASmm a q l .ranlen l a f i u n g - l l a ~ ~ ~ ( u ~ - ~ ~ c ~ ' z ) q a ! g ~ OMI aql ' : w o ~ , weamuMop uo!iDar leno pa"!(-laal e u! sqd q#eq pue Sup l0ual)ap e rapn(3u! mled!rs!p ASlaua a q l 'epeue3 ' 3 a q a n ~ $0 aau!nold aql u! luaudolanap mMod 2-97 aql10, ~ I O M lal lno lana( -~o l aql 40 lapow alms g l : 1 e Su!m 'pawlogad alaM sa!pnlS *

5 'qeM mled!rr!p Afilaua pue

Su!, ,ol lalpp aql 40 uS!rap le ln l ln l l r lo4 pue Alddnr r!e l r l u n l pa>!nbaa 40 uo!ielndwo= JO) paqelqo alaM a e g 'sl!w!l alqeldame U!~I!M alaM lauunl aql 40 uo!uod pau!lun aqx u! ra!l!Jolan pue Amuep!les aq or pau!wmap reM (aJua!ladxa UaSn sno!Aa~d 01 Su!pm==e lar re) s a n p aql $0 ua!lenala a q l 'uS!rap AJeu!w!la~d aql lo sa1~4eq aSm aqr do) saljleq ~0014 IleLur Su!ln~prqns pue r u q e m l leu!S!m n! ruoq weallruMOp Su!, doualpp aql Su!nou Aq panoldw! r m uo!lelado .lauunl pauollaq-lei) e Aq PaMollal E! m u a s ~oaed!ss!p AS~aua a q l 'sanlen ~ a f i u n g - l ~ a ~ o ~ (UI~-V~EV'Z) qaq.96 o ~ 1 am w o ~ j b a n r u n n o p uo!lms fen0 pau!l-pals e u! sm!d al$,eq pue 6u!l l o l 3 a p p e rapnl3u!

-> ' 7 o l e d ! s ! p ASlaua a q l 'epeue3 ' laqano 40 alu!nold aql u! lua~wdolanap laMod i-97

aqx 104 q m ~ wpno !pa(-MO! aql 40 lapow alms 9 1 : ~ B Su!sn 'pawIo4~ad aIaM ra!pnls

-;j :

' r l l e ~ ~oled!rs!p ASlaua pue q m ~oled!sr!p AS~aua pue S U ! ~ m ~ ~ a l ~ a p aql $0 ufi!sap ~ e ~ n w n m lo, pue Alddnr i!e 16uun1 pal!nba~ 40 uo!lelndwoJ fiuy ~ o i ~ a l p p aql 10 ufi!rap l e ~ n u n n s lo, pua Alddns i!e l auun~ pa,!nba> 40 uo!lelndwol 104 pau!elqo aJaM elea y w ! l alqeldame u l q l ! ~ am+ lauunl aql $0 uo!uod pawun 101 pau!elqo a>aM elea y w ! ! a~qeadame U!~I!M amM lauunl aql 40 ua!uod pau!lun aql u! ra!l!30lan pue AJope4r!les aq 01 pau!wJalap reM (aJua!ladxa wsn Sno!naJd aql u! ra!l!~olan pue A~oue)s!aes aq 01 pau!lulalap re^ (ama!mdua m s n sno!na~d 01 Su!p~oale jar r q ranlen aql $0 uo!lenala a q l 'uS!sap Aleu!w!la~d aql $0 saljleq aSx2 01 Su!pmlle Jar re) sanlen aq l 40 uo!lenap a q l 'ufi!sap AJeu!w!la~d aql $0 ~al4)eq a61el aql lo, sa l lpq 40014 p u s Su!~ni!~rqnr pue ruo!leJq leu!S!~o st! WOJJ weamuMop SU!J aql lo, sa14,eq JOOl4 llewr Gu!in~!lrqnr pue ruo!imol leu!S!do rl! w o q ruealrruMoP 6u!l ~ o ~ a l p p a q ~ Su!now Aq pano~dw! s p ~ uo! le~ado '~auun l pawo~loq- leu e Aq paMollo1 mmal)ap aql Su!now A q pano~dw! SeM uo! le~ado 'lauunl pawoilaq-lel j e Aq p a ~ o l l o $ $1 uo!was Joled!n!p ASlaua a q l 'ranlen lafiung-llaMoH ( w w - ~ 8 ~ b . z ) r13u!+6 OM$ aql s! uo!l3ar laled!a!p Abaua a q l 'ranlen m S u n g - l l a ~ o ~ ( w w - p . ~ ' z ) qsu!+g OM1 aql w o q w e a m u ~ o p uo!l~as IMO pau!l-laaw e u! rm!d al44eq pua Su!, lolaallap e sapnllu! w o y w e a ~ l s u ~ o p uo!l3ar leno pau!l-laair e u! sm!d a l p q pue 6u!l lo l~a14ap a r a p n ~ u ! mled!sr!pA61sua a q l ~ p a u e 3 'saqang )o alu!nold aql u! luawdo~anap laMod Z -91 mled!ss!p ASmm a q l 'speue3 'aaqang 40 a ~ ! n o d d aql u! wawdo~anap mMod Z-91 a q l q S Y ~ M la l lno l a n a l - ~ q a01 $Dlapow alms g t : L e Su!m ' pawrowd a d a ~ sa!pnlS aq%.mj %)(>OM ial lno l a n a l - ~ ~ l aql 4 0 lapmu alms ~ L : L e 6u!m 'pawdopad a>aM sa!pnls

L ~ V U ~ S ~ W 13VtllSBV

REC-ERC-74-3 REC-ERC-743 Colgate. D Colgate, D

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE LOW-LEVEL OUTLET WORKS, LG-2 HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE LOW-LEVEL OUTLET WORKS, LG-2

DEVELOPMENT, QUEBEC, CANADA ~JEVELOPMENT. QUEBEC, CANADA

~ u r Reclam Rep REC-ERC-74-3, Div Gen Res, Jan 1974. Bureau of Reclamation. Bur Reclam Rep RCC-ERC-74-3, Dw Gen Res. Jan 1974. Bureau of Reclamatlon.

Denver 26 p, 29 f~g, 3 tab. 2 ref Denver 26 p. 29 fig. 3 tab. 2 ref

DESCRIPTORS--/ 'outlet work$/ hydrauhc models/ *energy dirripationl stllling basins1 ' DESCRIPTORS-/ 'outlet works/ hydrauhc models1 'energy dirripat!on/ stilling basins1

p t s l baffled model studler/ hydraullc valves1 deflectors1 hydraulic structures/ eneW jets/ baffles/ model studted hydraulic val

dirslpatord structural design dissipatord structural derlgn

IDENTIFIERS-/ Howell-Bunger valve IDENTIFIERS--/ Howell.Bunger valve

REC-ERC-74.' REC-ERC-74-3 Colgate, D Colgate, 0

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE LOW-LEVEL OUTLET WORKS. LG-2 HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE LOW-LEVEL OUTLET WORKS, LG-2

DEVELOPMENT, QUEBEC, CANADA DEVELOPMENT, QUEBEC,CANADA Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-74-3. Dw Gen Res, Jan 1974. Bureau of Redamation. Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-74-3, DVJ Gen Rer, Jan 1974. Bureau of Reclamation.

Denver 26 p. 29 fjg, 3 tab. 2 ref Denver 26 p, 29ftg. 3 tab. 2 ref

DESCRIPTORS-/ 'outlet works/ hydraulic models1 *energy dsulpation/stilling basins/ DESCRIPTORS-/ *outlet works1 hydraulw models1 'energy d ~ r r ~ p a t ~ o n l stllllng baslnd jets/ baffles1 model rtudles/ hydrsul~c values/ deflectors/ hydraulic structured energy jets/ baffled model studtesl hydraultc valves/ deflectors1 hydraulrc structures/ energy

dnrrtpatarr/ structural desm dm6patarsl structural destgn

IDENTIFIERS-/ Howell-Bunger valve IDENTIFIERS-/ Howell4unger valve