HYDRAULICS BRANCH OFFICIAL FILE COPY
UNITED STATES ATORY HYDRAULIC LABOR DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR !f .; BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ...... �,-�
oz
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 Laboratory Report No. 3.4 Engineering and Geological Control Hydraulic Laboratory and Research Division Compiled by: J. N. Bradley Denver, Colorado J. B. Drisko March 15, 1935 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. 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, t 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 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. 1
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 difficulti es· 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,ctknC," 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 1 titled i 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 14-1, Figure 141 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 14, 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 o 94 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 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 16e 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 1 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 RE LATION 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 0 channel, namely; 10° upstream, o , 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 ° 0 10 upstream, the splash is 80 feet high, while for o , it is about 45 feet high. For the same discharge, the sp�ash is practically identical. 0 for the channel set at o 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 A:ppend.ix
SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project Log of Tests
Sheet 1 of 4 Pier settinB; . :Head on : Test: Gate L . R :Discharge: crest :Gate opening in ft. o : : L : C : no AEE,roac h : section Piers ft. . ft Q . cfs . ft. R Remarks : : . . . : C.L. : C .L. : - 1-1 :Original : Original Original : 50,000 :50o0 :All open : :Run with and without with tip : plasticine in the pier : : section. II . II II . II 2-1 : : Original • Various :Various : :Various :Demonstrated-run with and : : : without fillet o II ti : II : II II 2-1 : . None No : No . :Plasticine improved : . piers : p:i..ers : : operationo II II C .L . : C .L. 3-1 : : Original : 50,000 :50o0 :All open : : Tried various positions : . with flex . : and curvatures of the : : ible tail II ': left wing-wall. II II II II . ti 3-2 : · 57,000 :54 o0 :Runs greater than designed : II : di schargeo . : II ti II . II :Runs greater than designed 3-3 • 62,500 : 11 : : discharge. :A 16-foot semicircular 4-1 :Revised : Original Long hinged ::Va rious :Various: Various :Various : :Various . : : : left wing-wall was used o revised II II II II II II : II : : 4-2 : . :A 12-foot se�icircular . : : : : : : left wing-wall was used 0 . II II II II II II C .L . 4-3a : . :In 0.31 : : A 20-foot semicircular fto left wing-wall was the " : best rad.iuso . 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 Oo62 :Various :Various : - :Various . - :A 16-fto semicircular left- : : . : revised : without tail-: : ft. . . . : wing-wall was usedo . : pieces : II . n . . n . II . . II : II . - . : - 4-Jc .• · . . . :Extended right side instead ...... ll . : of using radiuso Sixteen- . . . : ft. radius on left -wing- ...... : . . . . : wall . . II . - 5-1 . :Gate Secti.oo: Short" . : C .L. :50,000 :50.82 . - :All open : :Layout No. 1 demonstrated- . : B . : : : ! ft o : . . : flow bad. . u II 5-2 . . . . . :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 . II It II u II n II . . . . . - . . - :Splash �eights plotted on 6-1 . : . . . " . . . . " . " : . : ...... : contour map for discharges : . . . : . . . . : of 50,000, 30,000, and ...... : 10,000 cfso Outlet °10 . . . . . : : upstreamo II fl .. II n . . " . . :50,000 :49074 . - :All open :. - :Flow satisfactory. Floor 7-1 . . :Long hinged : . : . . . . . : ft. . : of chute entrance ...... : flattenedo . IJ n II ti . � ...... :50.1 . . . - :Raised entrance cut and 8-1 ti . . . : rt . . . : ft. to : . . : observed difference in . . : . . . : . : ! . . : 50 .6 headwater• " Appendix
SEMINOE SPIIJ..WAY Casper Alcova Project Lo g of Tests
Sheet 3 of 4 : : Pier setting . :Head on : est Gate L . R :Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft . : . . . : : R rio_1_....:..fil2Ero ach : section Piers ft. ft-. . cfs . fto . L C Remarks I : 1-la :Revised Gate :Long hinged C .L . C .L . Various :Various : :Various :Same as 6-1 except that Section B: : outlet is on centerline : of tunnel . II II II ti II II II II 9-lb: : : . :Same as 6-1 except that : : : : : outlet is 5° downstream. II II 11 :>-1 Gate . Short . : 50,000 : 50.1 :All open: :Layout No. 2. Flow poor . . Section C: . II n : ti 1-1 . :Long hinged :In 1.88 :In 3012: 50,250 : 51.12 :'funnel flow good . Chute : . . . : : : flow rough. High fin at . . . . . : : : : end of piers . II II It II : II l-2a : : : 20,000 : 50 .0 :13.36: 13.36 :13.36 : Same setup as 11-1 . Flow . : . : : bad. II II n . l-2b : : 20,000 : 50 o0 :Various : - :Same setup as 11-1 to . : . It : determine the best : : . : position of the gates Q n II .2-1 :Recommended : :In 0.94:In 0.94: 50,250 : 50.70 :All open: - :Flow through the chute is . : : : good o n II "II 2-2 n tt : : . : 34,520 : 50 .34 :21.25 : 27.81 :26 .25 :Same setup as 12-1. II 2-3 : II : · n fl . : If . : 20,380 : 50.82 :11 .88: 16.88 :13. 75 :Same setup a,s 12-l o II II 2-4 11 II n . ! 10,370 : 51.06 : 6.10 : 8.44 5.31:Same setup 12-1. :
a.s Appendix SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project Log of Tests
Sheet of 4 . : Pier setti ng :Head on : Test : : Gate L : R :Discharge: crest :Gate opening in ft. : ft. no. :A1:2roach : section : Piers : ft o cfs : ft� : L : C : R Remarks : : % : : : : 12-5 :Revised :Recommended : Long hinged :In 0.94 :In 0.94 : Various :Various : :Various :Coefficient of discharge : . . . ! . : : runs. ti 11 II . 13-1 : . : C.L . : C .L . : 50,110 : 51.0 . - :All open : - :High fin at center of . . . . : . . . : chute • . II II . : :In 0.47:In 0.47: 50,250 : 50.94 : - : : - :. Fin still in center of 14-1 : : . . : lf ...... : chute • II u It II : C .L. . II - . . 15-1 : . . : 50,390 : �50.94 : . . - :Flow fairly good. Fin : . . . . . : . : left side • n 11 . 11 . II - : II . - :Flow rougher than 12-lo 16-1 : . . :In Oo94 : 50,390 : 50 .94 : II II II . II" - . : - 17-l: : . :In 0.47 :In 0.94: 50,390 : 51.18 : . H :About the same as 12-l a II II . ti :In 0.94 :In 0.94 : 50,250 : 51.18 : - . . - :Pier piezometer readings. 18-1 : II II II .• II . . ! 51.24 :21025 : 20a 8 :22019 : . : 29,000 7 II 18-2 : II II · 18-3 : lt n . It : . : +0,320 : 51.36 : 6010: 9oJ8 : 5.15 : JI II . u . II . H : Various :Various : - :Various : - :Coefficient of discharge 18-4 : . : . : . . . . . : : . : runs • " "
. ._-· SPECIFltATIONS No &30 FIGURE. ., NEE.OLE VALVE. DISCHAROE. IN SE.COND FEET 1 ... 00 3+00 6+00 5+00 2+00 ' 2,00 4-,00 • S,00 6,00 4+00 3,00 1+00 . -,-- . -, 0 1000 "2000 3000 I RESEvo1� AREA - T�o usANos 'o r ACRES I 0 1- ---1-- �� , � I ' / , 6350 ' I 1 t- I I 6361 7 6361 \ il \ I F 6350 'I 6350 I I,,, l,U - Z 6300 .. , ,O,C, 6300 ' &300 ,_ 6300 0 -' . . , ', ' 'I 1Z J I � 0IVER5l0N TUNNEL \ ,,, '( I 6300 , . I \ > DISCHARGES � : I "' ·\ I ° >+I �- 6250 1,'I 62!",0 "' ·n· 1 I, \ ') 6250 No .._ : - n. : Oriqinal su'r�e ) \ Intersection downstream\/ f 14 035 \\ � upstr1ram foe _. . \ ,,. toe and oriq,r>al surface-· Dio14 Coe! . I I J ''°� El. 6351.0 ° "I I � " 6200 \ i i - tf}tkYZI Assumed bec'rrud('· 6200 4 El. 6350.0 II L 2 .0.01414- ' upstream foe······· t• '16 . , Assumed line of excavation 6'200 3 20 015 - __ , / Downstream toe ·· ·· - ---· .-'· 6'200 6 2026 014 I . 0 soo 1000 I "· . Assumed line of excavation. RESERV OIR CAPl'.CITY -TH OU SANDS OF ACl'-E FEET 5 ,03, I / upstream toe. 61 50 El. 6300.0 :....\ _1 i. 0 20,000 I UPSTREAM ELEVATION 6100 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION E I > I " {OE: VELOPE.D) + ' (PRO.JECTE D) ' (UPSTREAM F'A C! PROvECTE. O RADIALLY ON AX/ 5) r ' >: ·. _El. 6428.0 ,._ ', - ...... _.. ): ..J" � ,s·� j z'·6"1 :-12·,: 1< 2�6· . ·· Parapet El. 6364.5 r · 6363.0 . ,,� El. 1 Max. w. s.'.El. 6357. o- //� ,,,,/ 4',,, El. 6324-. 5 -· --,( ,,.. ·• .- - .. -�· SPECIFICATIONS No. 630 FIGURE 2 Aro - -- J:?, £1 6428 ·� 7"'.l"-:f" �• - -/ � 'r .,,.,,, & ./ ,I',,...,, -, / , ', "" ' , !§'.t /// � El 6363 ' ·� ...... I. E 1 6363 · "', ' · w s ·:1 5357·. _:i 5 £1 635 -, "'" . 7; ! ;,,fur---,.-...-� ',, ""l --, �- 'I� -<: .r, ' 3-i'4''i so'S- oney qc es .r,--0 , n 53 .,0 . r_ --- ··· 0 - ',, �- - S 1,::1 6294 5 ·,,:;c_ c / -.... ,::- 1"/0 11-. -,_ <::.t '�, -- --, A-A - ,. ,.,,,------'---, �c:: . / ...... SECTION SECTION B-B ��;_ ...... , ...... F 5-J )-c20 �- L ·/-·· ' / ·--· P-' ,, A' L,ne 1 -" orrcn;;e,TJen�sfiow on � /p.":c r + r> r> -�, � < ',/ -.Jr r - /-?e. .· section of sp;'/wcy inne: Gro� o,pe co�nec�ons fo �e Concre-te "" em!JecceC0 1n CO'lc e-e or SE i." E 64 '.)• grout ho.'es crll'ed 1n concrete . :'\.. rubble _c,•, r:ressc·re ::roe ' ho.es . masonryY··· ·. � scr-ie cs SJ, 11W: Tt.: ne '; c7 cp·;o, o• :ont·acc· Pipe z'a. 1\ ..,· y · · r A + . .... /' . _, : �_3_ 63 'I C.-estof dam El 6361�==00·-. \ .J-!i'{" :i,·essu e oro" �oles spoc�d1 ,\ 5 £ ii3E.· - 20 rcx:mum lor:qn1 d?no1/y. Holes :·· TYPICAL -,:�OAD SECTIONS l{�·Z0 'deep Staccer rodio /y - · � "- NOTES · � '½-. ,, ..,_-,. ., E 63J- , . ,. "·· See :Jwo. /4�- O- 413 for grout defo1.'s sm · - befv.;een qofe sfn. cfure on�· Sec E-E -�"� ·,. rof'. See Dwq /41/· 0-409 for speC1ol grout .. TYPI CAL SECT/ON-SJi PILLWAY TUNNEL E ,r. -p detc,1s c' Ste 2+25 :1 :;29.:..5.- r-'- • 0 ·,, · \.. "'' · ' , ·t 5 0 5 10 5 25 30 � (Sechon E-E fo Outlet-'- Po o/) I A �� TYPICAL SECTION-DIVER.SI ON TUNNEL Sccle fee zo' l> ';' � ; �¾� (..,:o R-Vfe-,-o" 01:" ., . -i-,£ 1 � � 9' \.. ' b,. SIJA£A:.; -;:: .QE':.. " " 49•2 I � ' .>-(';.J",. ::::>EP.:. fN7'£.RIOII "'- -"--i., ,c� " CASPE ,,._ SHAFT DIMENSIONS � \. � \ / .:l-CCV AL :r-?AOv£C7"�"1.:.-·o.- \VYO..,M!NC ) n + " ·'. _· <:�\ =, ';- � ' j; - ... S·:· ,· . ,-· : ,>,J'(;!\ '> I SEMIN0£ PA M : •65 '3 9" 50 ,8'-10" i� 'V1o te - Re;nforcerre ncr siown 6 8900 I _ d ,. SPILLWAY -GENERAL PLAN ·.-, s s ee.., "' 'l � : .. 1:-s s ;o - ' 4 ,.I:/_; fO .., 34· 9�,r c:, '\·\a• 30 .. ; &; t. =s :;2 -s?z· ( - ,;,,. '� 8 -J£'· /;/.!, 1•3: !€ 25E5 30 - :':" Flow ( { ,-, 6.'55.0 -.. -� .__"':"_ •-1 . · ------>- , .� .. .!-.. 0 fi -4: 6 3 -'- 3-:·-i: ' I �-:;_ =_=. j . . - ,. , ... 7.00 fQA.\"- -' ..... ' ;.: ...... SL'�_•.• --!� _. El. 615734 $/ope •O oo 9 SE:CTJ ON G-G. _, T�A.C!'O '!'. SECTION.-· ALONG � TU NNEL . ' � PCIIYCR. CO.'..CAAOO, > ,. '' . - '\ ...l :t-f �; '· •i 'Z CEILING · '•-CEILING -4� PRES'SURE PIPE ,.-·VALVE FLOOR LINE k]Ji• ;I II l, SECTION Y-Y SECTION X-X t'r------:r ----- ,, '• I , ·,. 8" STEAM MAIN , , , :, ::_-_i_��:-�!��-�--��!�_-_-_-_-_-:_·:_- , , , - o:� -- :::::_- ,1, , OFFICE i AUXILIARY RETURN FWME T , , r2.ll I " ,, , � F"ut:!,,..:w: - , , , , � I .,_. 0l , , MAIN MODEL LABORATORY " , , I MOO€L LABORATORY ANNEX ,, , ,, ,: SUPPLY PIPE ,, , , ', , ,, THREE WAY VALVE , -FLOOR DRAIN , , E , , i,�-----� AM_MAIN UNO£R ��u_·_· ,\ ,.-:FLOOR DRAIN , , --- 4" PRESSURE PIPE ' , , T L PHON� : , , . E E ll, , CO T RACK� � A : , 1////////; 1//J///h 1///d , ' $;J. , , "' ', ,' "' , , IiiI , , STORAGE "' :,ll WATER :c0 ,, CARPENTER SHOP "f ii � WORK BENCH ELEVATOR '-' ,: � , , 4" PRESSURE PIPE • \-\, [I]- , , ' , l l :: Df:P'NITMOft o, THE UfTUtJOII IIUAUIJ Of lll[CUIUTIOlil DENVER - �L u.... ,ro � ----�--- --L 16TH. AND AR 'STRUTS � ci ""�""'GENERAL �UT c BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SI I O I ! 3 4 !) I 7 I -.-.... � SCALE OF FEET 11 r �.fal---·--···: .. "'Q .,,,a ) Sand Box ------c,. A �I) , � El._615?.P - - - Jt. ..::. -WA A f): - 1 E, 62945 l-1---"' J;,-_ ---- - M - -6 " 2' PLAN --- SM- D·D Laboro10ry --ieod Tonk. r --,------3f- A - � 10:: , sL B '-h' :.,.. ·���;\�\j: 8 I ) L§.J '=!�·-�1� : .. ' '! ·: -11·� a:_ -. 3 ji,,.- '·-'- __ J_ -1 9'� · I �� � ... -3f. ; ' �:, 0 ;,e ci• PLAN OF GATE SECTION o SECTION 8-8 2·- t--- �. 2·.:r· ---�- - 2·-s.:· . \�-� �-- 2· a�;. Sand Box 4·-0;; _E_L _�l�_Q !!_ -.: NOTE OEPARl!,ll[NT OF THE !NT[R!OR · [) 1'.lm�· e r .-, ore perpendicular to invert 1n Chu te ��L� �-�-..�� �·�··-::.,..� ., · ·.:::s.9.o_g_____;:_· .:�-.. ...�- -•. •. SECTION ALONG CENTER LINE (S ECTION A-A) SVREAU OF R[C1. AMAT1QN _ CASPER ALCO\/P. PROJECT•WYOM1NG HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES � 12 18 MODEL OF SEMINOE SPILLWAY ,. � SCALE IN INCHES {MODEL) MODEL SCALE I ·so :0 r'Tl QAAWN EC P SU8N1T f[O j,}! �� lR Mrw ORS II CO"lN[NOED� � ACEO E /'-;(a,, .. ._ CHECKED IV< V. APPROVED ,/.,;,: /4.-�t .,f_.,:; OEN VEA ,C01.ll., F ES. 19,19}!> - 1i.Z.-0·31tl ·r ,f Mfl./ W', �I r, "3')/ :[ - ..- - ,JD·>- I 8 E: I, C r "' ,, l r--� "'" "'.., f "'" 0 "' i1 111: l G 0 "' I, 0 (':.. ·II ---��� 11 1 I ii, . cf 0 ElC3070· ,.1 J ,cs° Elc3o;,o El 6302 ,, -� ' I �� .-..,� }• _E:1. 6294 5 .t! !) -���t� � �6'o!: :� El 6?:_E!.2_0 I ,, ,. 20'·0 ; . � )', /. i Y. ,,I 'e /·-. . El 6302 1b·()R El.6294.5 El 6282 0 ···, 6':o �-. RECOMMENDED DESIGN ···18'-5·---� � ORIGINAL DESIGN --- i"'"" ···········41 10'!.... -, ,; "' 1· .;; ,. 1· I:, '-'c>:o�, ·- 11�6· - � � --, -- 47�0· 42'-2" <7'•-r: _,, � ·:; - 44'-o" ·_, . . , .,.... "* ''·o· I 32�0·,q. . i".;:l··r · 66'-0�R I « �t ·i ·o "' _L v I f'm ,;; .._ ... _."_.,:j t SECTIONu.,�., .D·D j : 'tC7. :;'f1 ···-·· �-� STA. 0+25 SECTION F·F SECTION G-0 STA. 0•45 STA, 0•55 -� SECTION E-E SECT ION C-C SECTION BB STA. 0+315 SECTION A-A STA 0+45 STA. 0•35 DEPARTMENT Of THE 1N TER10F1 STA 0+25 . BUREAU Of RECLA,,.ATION ""T1 CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT•W1'0r.llNG G) HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES C SEMINOE SPILLWAY :o COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL ANO r"l RECOMMENDED DESIGNS OI A H DRAWN N SU8MITTEO J II C EE TRACED. FP !l RECOMMENDED ��- �R • CHECKED Q. K.V APPROVED ')_ •• .;;� DENVER COLO F{"Ei 3°, 1 9H 1 I Jt+,ft.- 0-3.f+'Z. FIGURE 6 A. Complete model. B. Looking up chute, (Chute cover on left) discharge 50,000 cfs. C. Original gate section (looking downstream) with revised wing-walls. ORIGINAL DESIGN ..- -,. ····--{- 43· 9"" 1 11 , ' ,1 I 1 ' 11·-n· •I--H'12'-S!i,;. I 11, 1 I I ,j . 2,�o . o o N N Plosticcne fill. �30 7 0 N E1 6302 0 ..3 •R 5• .. i- 10· � :-- 15· 20· 25· .... 30' ., ,� I El 62820 J(�� < A. r- E"i 6302 + �2 J � �- ; �� r ; - -u-- -� ? ·-.c. y-=+- 1 ,. f E 62820 : '-E"' . . DETAIL OF PLASTICENE FILLET IN ORIGINAL GATE SECTION GATE SECTION C GATE SECTION 8 .. � 3'-l·�·· ...... ,2·-9" ·I-,-· · - ,._�.,-',--,--,-- *··· 5'·0" '7"- 5·-0�·-·1"""··· 5'-0"···� � � I J,'' 'w. ; ...... 21·-o--- ? N I 1�:::t= l • t--=-1I PIER USED IN GATE SECTION C . 1 : - ....i.... ---- 1 ' "···· ··· · 18 -9- . �t7r--- - 3·-0;.,., 22·-o"-- -- -� . . 0 -0 - 1 ·-o· 4 · .-1 1 I- 14·-d' -1.:11 ii-- 14·-o"· 53·-9" ...,.; I ,, . -"& ·� ORIGINAL HINGED PIER .. 4 I •.3�� .,. ''• I � t ·c;i -:.. PIER USED IN GATE SECTION 8 OEPARTMENT OF THE INTER!� BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT-WYOMING HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES ..,, 20'-Q'' ..J -- ,-� 10·-9" � :3'·3�,L._ •...... 1G'-9" .•. . 5-0 ··'i ' SEMINOE SPILLWAY so··o" F 3'-9" G', � 4 MISCELLANEOUS DRAWINGS Of C - VARIOUS GATE SECTIONS ANO PIERS � SECTION A·A RECOMMENDED LEFT PIER rT1 � OAAllfN. . �, �: fl! . SU8M1TTED � . )I . �� ..., Tft.t.CE0.1:--.H. N. 0.�--�- RECOM!'ll(NOED � � : �- ·-�· CHECICEO �K.V. APPROVED ?X � ,__ r.-� � 1 11 A. Looking up chute, B. Another view of same run, C. View of revised Gate Section C. discharge 50,000 cfs. discharge 50, 000 cfs. 1 I"%_) H Q C ::u GATE SECTION C ti::! 11 11 � FIGURE 9 A. Piers toed in 0.94 feet , B. Another view of same run, discharge 50, 000 cfs. discharge 50, 000 cfs . c. Final gate section with D. Complete model as approach floor raised . recommended. RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY DRSTr.N FIGURE IO I 1 •'�;;0 1 c..,.._ __ __ I ' .. AA•BO V·STA 2•40 & ,,o -o------2 STA. 1+62.8 Q•&0,250 C.F.S. 0 C 0 C L. ' _j____ _ -� £1 628 0 IN FT p ror E SCALE :: :: � l!O J? 70 .• &O O 1 2 7: 9 tO II 111 II 14 10 10 3 •�SCALE�N INCHES � DISCHARGE IN C.F. S. CJ) LL.: 10,000 20,000 30,0 00 40,000 50,0 00 60,000 v (j -� A 50.6 60 v� g L q ..J< .• Id"' � 50.5 I w ,.V !I I � 50 -....;:;...,50.4 r � 0 � , rw I r ..,,,,,.V w 0 \ � � u.. 50.3 . I/. a. .,/ z ..,- I - I DI SCHARGE CURVE_)- /:l r 40 50.2 J w /D. � w v w V IJ... V a:: �v - z .... v I U 50.1 v - ,v l z l- 0 )" w 30 aso.o )" I .� .. . � FIGURE 12 A. Piers set as designed, B. Another view of same run, discharge 50,000 cfs . discharge 50,000 cfs . c. Flow approaching gate section, discharge 50,000 cfs, head on crest 51 feet ; FINAL GATE DESIGN FIGURE 13 0 0 0 . i A···"o LJ•rno SECTION A-A El 6294 5 ,,,, ,,,,,.,, / ,.---....._ / ...... _ ,,, ,. -t==f>I"'" v,snnoN 2+4o. , ... , - ...i:-- . ',<;iezometers - /, El 6294 5 TEST 15-1 Q • 50,390 C F. S .0 ; 0. 0 " 0 0 "'1 "'1 "'j i -i- El 6294 5 Olr THt: O•Tl;A1i,A , TEST 16-1 Q• 50,390 CFS SCALE IN FEET 20 :so "0 a II ,o " 0 m 0 0 ui l I ----,-1 . t P1ezometers TEST 14-1 Q• 50,250 CS,S g 0 g 0 . 0 0 ; 0 0 0 0 ,E1 6294 !t (I 6:\�0 ?� i �� -;,,ez:Jmpters TEST 17-1 Q• �0.390 CFS SCAl. [ t, � EE 1 .,le F I GURE 15 "' P1ezometers STATION 1+62.8 12-1 0•50,250 CFS TEST 12-3 a, 20,300 cFs 0 <0 El 6282 0 STATION 0+89 . ---� ____ f_ · P1ezometers .- El 6294.!i TEST i2-2 Q •34,�12 CFS. (l[PARUl(l'f 0F Tt1E HIT[RIOR 81JR[A,J OF "ECLAf,IA'fl01" (ilt,$PfR Ai.COY" PROJ{CT-..YOMIN<. TEST 12-4 Q• 10,370 CFS. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES SEMINOE SPILLWAY WATER SURFACE PROFILES ANO INDICATED RECOMMENDED DESIGN SCALE IN FEET PROTOTYPE PRESSURE HEADS FOR TESTS 12-1,12· 2,12-3,12"'4 DflA'"'" """ 4 � 6 7 8 9 10 II ,Z 15 HI I� 16 TAACEO AE.1. DRS MODEL SCALE IN INCHES Clll!CKliO IV< V: • ...... »-- �-. ··=· .. ·-�-� Mean water surface ' . �...__Meo, water surface -Center gote -----'-.. Mean water surface- Right gate �- --: "'1:::::., · Left foce _ ...... ____ ·in -�" � ,s -:::;�:.:_-A._ __ ... '"1-- -...... ---.....__ � ...... -, ·Left- � -...... _ � ',,. ace ',, -...... ,.._____, • t--...... � , ...... �' , •1 ' , ... ·' ', '" ' ' \ \ 0 "'., ', J5 15 If, I 0 22 �.!{. o1�, 019 c,e 020 22 o'9 ;.-e 020 ::2 tl7 i-,7 018 ,,. pe 2 \ 017 ,::7 olB 1 "\ "'·5 I • ', \ I <( \ I I I P.ezometers _P1ezometers I 0V 0 I V I I I Center gate··· I "'9 ,a ,a .. 1 ()4 014 . , ...014 4 .2 611 .:;3 0 2 ,,, �. .: otL . ,t-. : " 1s;• +o11 ,')3 ol2 013 " \.:=) i2 \ '\ "I,_, "-·, ,, ws R1ght 0 ...,..._____ .....______Vl. 5. �------ TEST 18·1 TEST 18·2 TEST 18-3 DISCHARGE 50,250 C.F. S DISCHARGE 29,000 C.F. S. DISCHARGE 10,320 C.F. S. I GATES - ALL OPEN GATE OPENING - LEFT 21.3' CENTER 20.8' RIGHT 22.2' GATE OPENING - LEFT 6.1' CENTER 9. 4' RIGHT 5.2' o Piezometer location on nght face of pier P1ezometer lacat1on on left face of p r ,p; P1ezometer locat1on on bath s1des. r - PROTOTYPE SCALE IN FEET ---,----- t� 0 5 10 15 20 25 1, ,,, • I ,· I I· · I· I 0 I 2 3 5 M : � t l ... 9 (j -6 6'- - ·¥-3 l'?oi-'- • ···70'------9.4� ·- ____,. :--·· !,'•Q ••>-; r� ,-- MODEL SCALE IN INCHES < 7 P,ezometers i '--rr DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOA 6UA[AU 0F RECLAMATION �;-, 3rt-,;}- CASPER ALCOll'A PROJ[CT-.,..YONING ,� HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES SEMINOE SPILLWAY ,\. 62' .. ,,- 6, ' INDICATED PRESSURES ON PIER 9 0 - 66� - FACES FOR RECOMMENDED DESIGN � � OAAWN H "fl 6 SUONITTED l• ), . IS.-\_� ::0 LOCATION OF PIERS IN PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS IN RIGHT PIER r"1 TRActD T J K. 0 A S AECONMENOED CC,// a/.,,..� RECOMMENDED DESIGN CHECKED R . P E �-'-'.'� ..���: ::� : O.-r: CJ' •. Q ,,.-o.:;'v.;._ •• ',,-'"",.., .,. • // / VjVJ V II l 30 / V / V ,.v / I/V V 25 j 1- -�-t "'y w I '<:': w �� ,_r :J "'� LL / {V z <.!) 20 / V z / / V / 1/ z .,/' ,./ �/ / / w V / /v /v 0 /,v/ / ' Q.. / W 15 / l- .. v ,.v ... V <1: / / CD / / / V / ;' V / v / / /V 10) ., V / i/ / 40,000 VV DEPARTMENT OF THE Ir TERIOR V BUREAU OF RECLAMJ TION /� ,., CASPER ALCOVA PROJE CT-V·� YO. 1/' HYORAULI C M_ODEL STUDIES ,., � SEMI NOE SPIL LWAY o 5 GAT E OPERATING PROGRAM C 20,000 30,000 10,0 00 WHEN RESERVOIR ELEV. IS 6357 :::0 - . � rn DISCHARGE IN GFS. - -....J NOTE: These curves were obtained with maximum CHECKED. R._K-�- APPROVED . head on the crest . . • " A. Outlet channel discharging into river, B. Splash on canyon wall, discharge 50, 000 cfs. discharge 50;000 cfs. ORIGINAL DESIGN JET DIRECTED 10° UPSTREAM Outlet channel discharging into river, D. Splash on canyon wall, c. discharge 50,000 cfs . discb�rge 50,000 crs� '"J:J H RECOMMENDED DESIGN 0 C JET ON LINE WITH SPILLWAY :::0 ti::I f--' OUTLET CHANNEL 00 .. / / v"' e;,'< 1/ / -<..'<'. ;.__ V �� Splash height 0 tilt a= 50,000 Y 'y-.� ° )0 0 �- Splash height 0 tilt a=30 ,000 "/ � ° " 0 --x.-- Splash height 10 u.s. Q=5o,ooo / ,p ° / DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION � CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT-WYOMING ..,, /1/' HYDRAULICSEMINOE MODEL SPILL STUDIEWAY S SPLASH HEIGHTS ON WEST CANYON WALL G') ____---.-.-.---__-_____U_ ),_�-..--_ ---_ CJT1 DR AWN A H N susM 1TTE D --i1;o r cvrJ cJ\L,____--.N TRACED .ORS . R ECOMMENDEl!J.V . · (a APPROVED .1. coc . , o:;- 2-�o-'3<1 1 J4lt·D-35 I Y.1/o�,:_