Fish Ladders for Lower Monumental Dam Snake River, Washington

Home , Spillway

c TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 109-1

FISH LADDERS FOR LOWER MONUMENTAL DAM SNAKE RIVER, WASHINGTON

HYDRAULIC MODEL INVESTIGATIONS

L.Z. PERKINS

DECEMBER 1973

SPONSORED BY

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT

WALLA WALLA

CONDUCTED BY

^piVISION HYDRAULIC LABORATORY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NORTH PACIFIC ^

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

BONNEVILLE, OREGON

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

PREFACE

The hydraulic model studies that are described in this report were requested by the U. S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, in a letter dated 28 December 1962 to the Chief, Bonneville Hydraulic Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer District, Portland. The model tests were made from April to November 1962 at Bonneville Hydraulic Laboratory, Bonneville, Oregon, under the general direction of the Portland District Engineer and Mr. L. R. Metcalf, who was in charge of the Hydraulic Section of the Portland District. The Bonneville Hydraulic Laboratory was renamed the North Pacific Division Hydraulic Laboratory when it was transferred to the U. S. Army Engineer Division, North Pacific, 1 July 1963. Personnel of the Portland and Walla Walla Districts visited the Laboratory to observe flow conditions in the fishway models, to discuss test results, and to correlate the test results with design work for the Lower Monumental Project. A progress report was forwarded to the Walla Walla District as each test was completed. Separate phases of the fishway studies were described in 13 memorandum reports. Mr. R. L. Johnson, engineer in charge of the fishway model studies, was assisted by Messrs. A. G. Nissila and D. E. Fox, under the direction of Messrs. A. J. Chanda, Chief, Hydraulics Branch, and H. P. Theus, Director of the Laboratory. This report was prepared by Mr. L. Z. Perkins under the supervision of Messrs. Chanda and Theus.

iii

CONVERSION FACTORS, BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

British units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric units as follows:

______Multiply______lz______To Obtain______

feet 0.3048 meters miles (U.S .statute) 1.609344 kilometers

feet per second 0.3048 meters per second

cubic feet per second 0.0283168 cubic meters per second

Contents Page PREFACE...... iii

COWERS I ON FACTORS, BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT . . . v

SUMMARY...... ix

PART I: INTRODUCTION...... 1

The Prototype...... 1 Fishway Design Criteria ...... k Need For Model S t u d i e s ...... k

PART II: THE M O D E L S ...... 6

Description...... 6 Appurtenances and Scale Relationships ...... 7

PART III: TESTS AND RESULTS ...... 9

Overflow Weirs ...... 9 Entrance Weirs ...... 10 Diffusion Chambers 2 to 6 ...... 11

FIGURE 1

TABLES A TO I

PHOTOGRAPHS 1 TO 9

PLATES 1 TO 17

vii

SUMMARY

Facilites for passing fish upstream over Lower Monumental Dam include a powerhouse fish collection system, auxiliary water-supply systems, and a fish ladder on each side of the river. The main portions of the l6-ft- wide fish ladders are constructed with a floor slope of 1 on 10. The 6-ft- high weirs have two l8- by l8-in. orifices on the floor 3 ft from the fish ladder walls, a 6-ft-long nonoverflow section centered in the ladders, and fins that extend 18 in. upstream from the ends of the nonoverflow sections. The weir crests are like those in the north fish ladder at John Day Dam.

Auxiliary water for transportation flow in the ladders and attraction flows at the fishway entrances is pumped through supply conduits and dis tributed through six diffusion chambers in the floor of each ladder. Flow control for the downstream diffuser is provided by sluice gates from the supply conduit; flow in the other five diffusers is automatically controll ed by a weir-and-orifice arrangement in the diffuser wells.

A straight, 35-pool section of the south fish ladder was reproduced in a 1:10-scale model. Tests in the model indicated that flow conditions in the typical pools would be satisfactory. Discharges of 66.0 and 69*7 cfs produced heads of 10.0 and 12.0 in., respectively, on the weirs. With l8- by l8-in. orifices in all weirs, heads of 12.2 and 13*4 in. were required to provide the above discharges at the first weir below the fish counting station.

Discharge rating data for a typical fishway entrance weir were measured in a 1:10-scale model. The quantity of flow increased with submergence and decreased with weir height. A maximum discharge of 227*5 cfs per ft of channel width was obtained with no weir and 14 ft of submergence. Discharge over a 15-ft-high weir submerged 5 ft was 28.1 cfs per ft of crest length.

Portions of the supply conduit and fish ladder at two adjacent diffu sion chambers were reproduced in a l:8-scale model. Discharges, pressures, and flow conditions were observed with both diffusers in operation and with the upstream diffuser closed. Total discharge from both diffusers was 82.5 cfs for design conditions of 2 ft of head in the conduit and with the con duit pressure grade line 4 ft above the downstream distribution weir. The downstream diffuser produced 48.9 cfs -under the design conditions. There was no significant relationship between pressures in the diffuser wells and discharges through the metering orifices. The distribution of flow thiough diffusion chambers of original design was not satisfactory. Maximum velo cities of 1.7 to 1.9 fps were directed upward along the downstream and right sides of the diffuser. Lower velocities, generally downward, existed along the left side of the diffuser. Three diffuser well plans, l4 orifice plans, and five floor plans were tested in attempts to obtain uniform dis tribution of flow into the fish ladder. Flow over distribution weirs that were normal to the orifices caused rotating flow in the diffuser wells and unequal distribution of flow through the orifices. Revisions of the well, floor, or bubbler beams had little effect. The original design, modified by placing the orifices on the side of the diffuser wells away from the fish ladder and 2.64 instead of 2.0 ft above the bottoms of the baffle beams (plan 4 orifices), was adopted for construction in the prototype.

ix FISH LADDERS FOR LOWER MONUMENTAL DAM

SHAKE RIVER, WASHINGTON

Hydraulic Model Investigations

PART I : INTRODUCTION

The Prototype

1. Lower Monumental Dam is the second of four multiple-purpose dams that are being constructed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Snake River below Lewiston, Idaho. Fig. 1 is a vicinity map of the area in which the projects are located. Ice Harbor Dam, at the head of Lake Wallula, the reservoir formed by McNary Dam on the Columbia River, creates a 31*9-mile-Iong pool that reaches upstream to Lower Monumental Dam at river mile 4l.6*. At normal pool elevation 5^0**, Lower Monumen tal Dam will form a reservoir 28.7 miles long with headwaters at the toe of Little Goose Dam at river mile 70*3* Lower Granite Dam, at river mile 107.5.? will complete the slack-water pathway to Lewiston, Idaho and Clarkston, Washington. 2. Principal features of the Lower Monumental Project (shown on plate l) include a powerhouse for six generating units (ultimate installation), a single lift navigation lock having net clear dimensions of 86 by 675 ft and a maxi mum lift of 103 ft, a gravity-type spillway with eight 50-ft-wide bays, a fish collection system along the downstream side of the powerhouse and a l6-ft-wide fish ladder on each side Fig. 1. Vicinity map of the river, concrete nonoverflow sections, and rockfill abutments.

* A table of factors for converting British units of measurment to metric units is presented on page v. ** Elevations are in feet above mean sea level.

1 3. Fish attracted by flow from the powerhouse enter the power house fish collection system and the north fishway entrance and proceed upstream via the north fish ladder. With the spillway closed, fish may also enter the powerhouse collection channel through a 6-ft-wide opening in the right training wall of the spillway. The powerhouse collection system consists of two overflow weirs at unit 6, two submerged-orifice entrances at units 1 through 5> and a 17 .5-ft- wide collection channel (invert elevation 432) over the draft tubes from unit 6 to -unit 2 Maximum attraction flow from the powerhouse collection system is about 1,780 cfs. 4. A 6-ft-wide opening through the left training wall of the spillway and two main entrances at the downstream end of the training wall provide access to the south fish ladder. Maximum attraction flow at the south fishway entrances is approximately 840 cfs. The fishway entrances were designed to provide good conditions for fish passage from minimum river discharges at tailwater elevation 437 to a river discharge of 2 25 ,00 0 cfs (approximate tailwater elevation M i-8). The fishway entrances are capable of use above 2 2 5 ,00 0 cfs, but optimum conditions for fish passage are not required at such high flows. 5. Although alignments of the north and south fish ladders differ (plate l), hydraulic features of the two ladders are similar. Both are 16 ft wide and, except at bends where the floors are level, slope 1 V on 10 H from the lowest weir (weir 437*) to weir 533* Details of the south fish ladder are shown on plates 2 to 4. The concrete weirs in sloping portions of the ladders are on 10-ft centers, have two l8- by l8-in. orifices per weir, a 5-foot overflow section on each side of a 6-foot nonoverflow section in the center of the weir, and fins that extend 18 in. upstream from each end of the nonoverflow sections. The weir crests (plate 4) are similar to those in the north fish ladder at John Day Dam. 6. The counting station in the south ladder is located in a level portion between weir 533 and the downstream nonoverflow baffle

* Weir numbers correspond to their crest elevations.

2 in the regulatory section (see plate 2). The counting station in the north ladder is located in the pool between weirs 467 and 468. Upstream from baffle 534, the floors slope upward 1 on 32 to the respective fishway exits. Although the designations "weir" or "baffle” are used, the six bulkheads in each regulatory section are designed for orifice flow only. Each bulkhead contains two orifices l8 in. wide and 31 in. high. The orifices were sized to furnish about 90 percent of the ladder flow required with a 10-in. head on the typical weirs at pool elevation 541. 7. Since flow through the regulatory sections will vary with forebay levels (usually between elevations 537 and 540), a diffuser was designed to add the additional flow required to provide uniform dis charge and constant head on weir 533 and subsequent weirs down the ladders. The discharge through the diffuser will vary from a minimum of 20 cfs at pool elevation 541 to a maximum of 45 cfs for a pool elevation of 536. A float control, installed just upstream from weir 533 in each ladder, will regulate the amount of flow through these diffusers and maintain the desired head on weir 533« 8. Flow in addition to normal discharge down the ladders is needed to maintain desired velocities in pools where depths fluctuate from tailwater variations and to provide attraction flows at the fishway entrances. The auxiliary water required for operation of the fish ladders and powerhouse collection system is supplied by three turbine- driven pumps that deliver up to 850 cfs each into a chamber under the tailrace deck at the north end of the powerhouse (see plate 1 for location of pump intakes). The pump chamber discharges into a pressure conduit that serves fish facilities on both sides of the river. Pressure in the conduit is about 4 ft higher than tailwater. 9 . The pumped auxiliary water is distributed by means of diffusion chambers at each powerhouse unit and by six diffusion chambers in the floor of each ladder. The downstream diffuser (No. 1, plate 2) supplies up to 465 cfs of attraction flow at the south fishway entrance. Flow control for these diffusers is provided by sluice gates from the supply conduit. Diffusers 2 through 6, of the "distribution weir and control

3 orifice” type, function to maintain desired transportation velocities over submerged weirs in the lower reaches of the fish ladders. These diffusers are supplied by a conduit underneath this portion of each fishway. The system is designed so that each diffuser comes into operation when needed. A flow of approximately 60 cfs (except for diffuser No. l) is automatically controlled by the weir-and-orifice arrangement in the diffuser wells. The 4.0-ft-long distribution weirs are 2 ft higher than the overflow crest of the adjacent up stream weir within the fish ladder (plate 3).

Fishway Design Criteria

10. The following criteria, established by agreement with the fisheries agencies, were used to design fish facilities for the Lower Monumental Project:

a. velocity at fishway entrances 4 to 8 fps b. minimum transportation velocity 2 fps c. maximum average velocity through gross area of diffusion chambers 0.33 fps d. maximum water-surface drop at any weir 12 in. e. head on each unsubmerged weir 12 in. f. minimum velocity over a submerged weir 2 fps g. width of ladder 1 6 ft h. height of weirs 6 ft

Need For Model Studies

11. Many details of typical portions of the fish ladders at Lower Monumental Dam had been developed during hydraulic model studies of the 24-ft-wide north fishway for the John Day project. However, the John Day ladder is 8 ft wider and the two overflow sections of the weirs are 1 ft longer than those proposed for Lower Monumental. Hydraulic model studies of the l6-ft-wide Lower Monumental fish ladder were necessary to determine a discharge rating curve, surge characteristics within a long, straight section of ladder, and velocity distribution within the pools.

4 12. Flow into diffusion chambers of the John Day fish ladders is regulated by a weir-and-orifice arrangement in the diffuser wells. A pair of 2 .5-ft-high, 3 .3-ft-wide openings admit water to each diffuser well from a tapered conduit beneath the respective fishways. To reduce construction costs at Lower Monumental Dam, two adjacent diffusers were to be supplied by one opening leading from a rectangular conduit to a common distribution well. Hydraulic model studies of a typical pair of diffusion chambers were necessary to determine the most desirable size and location for the metering orifices, discharge rating curves for various heads and submergences, effects on diffuser dis charge of varying conduit flow while head on the diffusers was constant, and distribution of diffuser discharge across the floor of the fish ladder. Data from the model study were to be used for design of diffu sion chambers in both ladders at Lower Monumental, the north ladder at Ice Harbor, and at subsequent Corps of Engineers1 dams on the Snake River.

5 PART II: THE MODELS

Description

Fish Ladder Model

13. A straight, overflow-weir portion of the l-on-10-slope, l6-ft-wide south fish ladder between weirs 486 and 521 was reproduced in a plywood flume for studies of flow conditions, surge characteris tics, and discharge ratings of typical weirs and weir 533 (simulated by 52l). Details of the 1:10-scale model are shown in photograph 1 and on plate 4. The pools between weirs 506 and 508, with plastic viewing windows, were used as test pools in which water-surface eleva tions, flow directions, and velocities were measured. Piezometers in the floor 5 ft upstream from weirs 506, 507? and 521 were used to determine heads on the weirs. Tailwater control in the model was maintained by an adjustable tailgate downstream from weir 486. Dis charge through the model was measured over a V-notch weir.

Fishway Entrance Model

14. Following tests in the sloping portion of the fish ladder, the upstream end of the model was revised as shown in photograph 2 and on plate 5 to determine head-discharge relations for a submerged weir in a typical fishway entrance. Reproduced were a forebay, a 25-ft-long bellmouthed transition, a 5-ft-wide, 25-ft-long level channel upstream from a vertical, 6-in.-thick, flat-crested weir from 0 to 15 ft high, and a 30-ft-wide tailbay with a minimum depth of 4 ft below the base of the weir. A tilting tailgate 30 ft downstream from the test section was used to maintain a 1-ft drop between water-surfaces at three piezometers in the floor of the model 25 ft upstream and 15 ft downstream from the test weirs. Water used in the tests was measured over the V-notch weir of the fish ladder model.

Fishway Diffuser Model

15« A pair of typical Lower Monumental diffusion chambers (Nos. 3 and 4) and a section of l6-ft-wide fish ladder were reproduced

6 in an existing John Day fishway diffuser model. Details of the 1:8- scale model are shown in photograph 3 and on plate 6. Flow down the fish ladder was not reproduced in tests of the diffusion chambers, and weirs ^39 to kk-2 were not placed in the model. However, these weirs are shown on some of the accompanying plates to help the reader visualize the data that are presented. To save time and expense, the John Day diffuser supply conduit was not changed for tests of the Lower Monumental diffuser. Since the conduit between diffusers 3 and 4 was Vf percent larger than at Lower Monumental, model discharges were adjusted to simulate prototype velocities in the conduit. For example, to provide flow conditions equivalent to a flow of 136 cfs in the Lower Monumental system, a simulated conduit discharge of 200 cfs was required in the model. A vane-type gate at the downstream end of the conduit and an adjustable weir in the flume were used to control head differentials between the conduit and forebay. Provision was made for measuring pressure gradients and discharges in the model.

Appurtenances And Scale Relationships

Appurtenance s

16. Water used in the models was recirculated from large sumps through systems of pump and pipelines. Baffles in the upper reaches were used to establish uniform distribution of flow into each model. Tailwater elevations were controlled by adjustable tailgates. Water- surface elevations were measured by staff gages, by point gages in stilling wells, and by water manometers. Velocities were measured by a midget current meter. Floodlights were installed so that certain flow conditions in the models could be recorded photographically.

Scale Relationships

17« The accepted equations of hydraulic similitude, based on Froudian relationships, were used to express the mathematical relations between the dimensions and hydraulic quantities of the models and the prototype. The general relationships, expressed in terms of the model scale or length ratio (L^) are as follows:

7 D im ensions R a tio Diffuser Model Fish Ladder Model

Length L 1:8 1:10 r evi l-q A rea A 1! 1:64 r r 1:100 H V e lo c ity V ii 1:2.83 r 1:3.16 01 D ischarge •Q II r 1:081 1:316 Time T = L V2 1:2.83 r r 1:5-16

P re s su re P ii 1:8 r 1:10

8 PART III: TESTS AND RESULTS

Overflow Weirs

Discharge Requirements

18. Constant flows down, sloping portions of the fish ladders at Lower Monumental Dam are maintained by diffusers that admit auxiliary water into the pool upstream from weir 533 (plate 2). Because approach conditions are different, the heads required to produce the same amount of flow over the first overflow weir 533 and over typical weirs in sloping parts of the fish ladders also differ. Since discharge will be regulated at weir 533.? heads were measured on the first overflow (weir 521) and on weir 506 in the model. Two sizes of orifices in the first overflow weir were investigated. The first discharge measurements were obtained with standard l8- by l8-in. orifices. Then the orifices were sized to provide the same discharge for a head of 12 in. on the first and subsequent weirs. 19. Since plunging flow over the weirs is desirable during normal operation of the fish ladders, the upper limit of this type of flow and the lower limit of full shooting slow were observed. Plunging flow is characterized by downstream currents along the floor of the fish ladder (where most fish swim) and upstream currents at the water surface. The flow pattern becomes unstable and varies from upstream to downstream currents at the water surface in adjacent pools as discharge increases above the limit of plunging flow. An additional increase in discharge will cause a stable condition in which high-velocity flow is directed downstream at the surface and bottom currents are in an upstream direc tion. These types of flow are called plunging, intermediate, and shoot ing , re spe ct ive ly. 20. Discharge rating curves obtained during tests in which all orifices were l8 by 18 in. are shown on plate 7 . Head requirements at weir 521 were greater than those at weir 506. For example heads of 10.0 and 12.0 in. on weir 506 required heads of 12.2 and 13.4 in., respec tively, on weir 521. Discharges for these heads were 66.0 and 69.7 cfs. With 19 1/4-in.-high by 20-in.-wide orifices in weir 521, the. capacities

9 of these two weirs coincided at heads of 3-2, 12.0, and approximately 15.6 in. (plate 8). The varying approach flow to typical weirs is reflected in the rating curve for weir 506. Plunging flow in the pools existed for heads less than 15.6 in. and discharge less than 83.6 cfs. Full shooting flow developed when the discharge was increased to 95«5 cfs.

Flow Conditions

21 . Maximum surge action, with waves 0.7 ft high in the pools, occurred when a head of 7 or 8 in. was simulated in previous model studies of the 2U-ft-wide John Day fish ladder that was similar in design. However, this was of little concern because the operating head will equal or exceed 10 in. on the weirs. There was no tendency for surge action to develop at any normal operating head that was reproduced in the Lower Monumental fish ladder model. Flow in the ladder was stable, and no unsatisfactory condition was noted except during the transition from plunging flow to full shooting flow (83.O to 95*5 cfs). In this range, which is outside planned operating limits, a wave of shooting flow moved down the ladder, increasing in depth in each pool, until it overtopped the 2-ft-high nonoverflow section on the downstream weir. Plunging flow existed between successive waves. 22 . Flow conditions with a head of 12 in. on the typical weirs are shown in photograph k and on plate 9. The pattern of velocities within successive pools were fairly symmetrical, and velocities in the orifices ranged from 8 .L to 8.7 fps. Forty-two percent of the veloci ties were lower than 1 fps. These flow conditions were considered to be satisfactory.

Entrance Weirs

23. Discharge data for fishway entrance weirs that ranged in height from 0 ft (top of weir level with floor of fishway channel)

10 to 15 ft were measured in a 1 :10-scale model (see paragraph 14 and plate 5 )* A 1-ft-drop in water surface was maintained across the weirs, and the effects of submergences of 5 to 14 ft were determined. Weir heights (W), submergences (D), unit discharges (Q), and discharge coefficients (C) are shown in table A. Discharge coefficients were Q computed from the equation: C = ------in which H equalled the D */2iTf difference between energy gradients measured 25 ft upstream and 15 ft downstream from the downstream side of the weirs. Photographs 5 and 6 show typical flow conditions in the model. 2k. The relationship between submergence of the top of the weirs below the downstream, water surface and unit discharge, and a graph in which the discharge coefficient is substituted for unit discharge are shown in plate 10. Discharges over the weirs increased with submergence and decreased with weir height. The maximum discharge of 227*5 cfs per ft was obtained with 0 weir height and it- ft of submergence (C = 0.958); the minimum discharge of 28.1 cfs per ft occurred when a 15-ft-weir was submerged 5 ft (C = O.691).

Diffusion Chambers 2 To 6

Basis For Design

25. As explained in paragraphs 8 and 9, auxiliary water supplied through diffusion chambers 2 to 6 will maintain transportation veloci ties of about 2 fps in downstream portions of the Lower Monumental fish ladders that are submerged by tailwater. Profiles and details of these diffusers are shown on plates 5 and 6. In operation of the diffusers, water pumped through an 8- by l6-ft supply conduit enters a vertical well, flows over a distribution weir, passes through a metering orifice and bellmouthed opening, flows along a sloping floor, and rises into the fish ladder through bubbler beams and metal grating. To satisfy design criteria, the discharge must not exceed the flow that will produce an average velocity of 0.33 fps over the gross area of the diffusion chamber.

11 26. Design computations by the Walla Walla District showed that orifices O .58 ft wide by 8.67 ft long would provide 48 cfs each at diffusers 2 through 6 (average velocity 0.J0 fps through gratings)*. This discharge was to be obtained with a pressure gradeline in the conduit approximately 2 ft higher than tailwater in the fish ladder and 4 ft above the distribution weir of a typical diffusion chamber. The distribution weirs were installed to establish the tailwater elevations at which flow will enter each diffuser but not to control the quantity of discharge.

Discharge Ratings

27. Discharge capacities of diffusers 3 and 4 of original design (plate ll) were measured with both diffusers in operation and also with diffuser 4 closed. Heads of 0.5 to 6.0 ft, flows of 50 to 4o8 cfs in the supply conduit, and submergences of 1.0 to 14.0 ft on the distribution weirs were reproduced. Head in the conduit (H,) was the ' d' pressure gradeline at piezometer P-2 (see plate 6) less the tailwater elevation. Submergence (S) equalled the pressure gradeline at piezo meter P-2 minus the elevations of the distribution weirs at diffusers 3 or 4, elevs 442 and 444, respectively. 28. Discharge rating curves for diffusers 3 and 4 of original design are shown on plates 12 and 1 3 . The data used to construct the curves are presented in tables B to D. The curves for S=1 and S=2 were obtained with a single diffuser (No. 3) in operation; diffuser No. 4 was not usable at these submergences. Diffuser flows were reduced slightly when large discharges were passed through the supply conduit because the increased conduit velocities increased the well entrance losses. The maximum reduction in discharge was about 7 cfs. Because of uneven flow distribution and excessive turbulence, the relationship between discharges through the metering orifices and pressures in the diffuser wells (piezometers D-4, D-W, and D-3) was not consistent or suitable for prototype metering.

* Maximum discharges for diffusers 2 to 6 were increased to 52 and finally 60 cfs (average velocities through gratings 0.33 and 0*375 fps).

12 29.. With flow through both diffusers, discharges for heads between 0.5 and 6.0 ft were not affected by submergences greater than 12.0 ft. With 136 cfs in the supply conduit, dual diffuser discharge at the design head of 2.0 ft and submergence of 4.0 f t on d if f u s e r 3 was 8 2.5 c f s ; 49.0 cfs passed through one diffuser under the same head and submergence. With submergence maintained at 4.0 ft, total discharge ranged between 59 and 97 cfs for heads of 1.0 to 3.0 ft in the supply c o n d u it.

Flow Conditions and Velocities

30 . Plan A (Original Design) : Flow conditions at the distribution weir of diffuser 3 (diffuser 4 closed) are shown in photograph 7. Photographs 8 and 9 show both d iff u s e r s in o p e ra tio n . There was no evidence of entrained air below the orifices or in the fish ladder. Flow directions and vertical components of velocities just above hiffuser gratings in the floor of the fish ladder were measured by means of a midget current meter with the axis of the meter in a vertical plane parallel to the direction of flow. Current directions in areas where velocities were too low to be measured were determined by observing the action of small bits of yam that were attached to a wire probe which was held in the flow. Velocity data for the diffusers of original design were measured in diffuser 4 a t th e lo c a tio n s shown on p la te s 14 and 15. Diffuser outflows of 51 and 60 cfs and submer gences o f 4 , 6, and 12 ft were reproduced. 31 » A ll test conditions produced high-velocity upward currents along the downstream end (left wall of ladder) and along the right side of the diffusion chamber. Lower velocities, generally downward, existed along the left side of the diffuser (tables E and plates 14 and 15). Flow distribution was not improved when baffles were placed above the metering orifice {plate 14).

.13 32. Orifice Plans 2 to 12, Floor Plans A and B : Numerous revi sions of the original design were tested in efforts to improve flow distribution. Details of the revisions that were tested are shown on plate 11. Velocity patterns for most of these plans are listed in tables E to H.* The first major change of design consisted of moving the orifice from the inside to the outside of the diffuser well (plan 2 orifice) and then changing the elevation of the orifice from 3.5 ft to 5.33 or 2,64 ft above the bottoms of the baffle beams (orifice plans 3 aucl 4 respectively). 33* With orifice plans 2 to 4, there was little change in velocities along downstream end of the diffuser (tables E and F). However, with orifice plan 3* the pattern of flow along the sides was reversed from that of plan 1. Upward velocities occurred along the left side, and downward flow existed along the right side of the diffusion chamber. The plan k orifice produced a random pattern of upward, downward, and reversing flows along both sides of the diffuser. 34. Changing the shape of the orifice (plans 5 to 12) did not improve flow distribution. With some plans, the head required to pass 60 cfs was more than twice the head available in the prototype supply conduit. Although there was no major change in overall patterns of flow, the most balanced distribution was obtained with the plan 4 orifice and with the floor slope steepened slightly by raising the downstream end 1 in. (plan B floor, plate 11). The range of velocities through the downstream end of the diffuser varied from 0.7 to 1.9 fps with the original design and from 0.7 to 1.6 fps with the plan B floor and plan A orifices (compare plates Ik and 15 with plate l6).

Dual Diffuser Operation

Plan B Orifices and Plan B Floors

35* Since performance of the plan k orifice and plan B floor in

* Flow directions were observed, but no velocities were measured for orifice plans 7 to 12.

Ik diffuser ^ was the best combination tested thus far, these elements were installed in diffuser 3 also and both diffusers were operated simultaneously. Data were observed with 136 cfs in the supply conduit with grade lines ¿4-, 6 , and 12 ft above the distribution weir of diffuser 3 . Velocities and flow directions (table G and plate 17) were similar to those when one diffuser was operated (tables F and G and plate 16 ) . Velocities in diffuser 3 were higher because' head on the two diffusers differed by 2 ft. In tests of a single diffuser, the discharge and submergence were set; in dual operation the head and submergence were set. Discharges obtained with the plan 4 orifices and plan B floors were higher than those in the diffusers of original design. With a head of 2.0 ft in the conduit, dual discharges were 85.5> 106.0, and 115.0 cfs for submergences of 4 , 6 , and 12 ft (plate 17). Discharges of 82.5, 98.0, and 102 cfs were measured with the original design (plate 13).

Other Plans Tested

36. Details of other revisions that were tested, diffuser well plans B and C, orifice plans 4 , 13 and 14, and floor plans C to E are shown on plate 11. These plans were studied in a single diffuser, with discharges of 60 and 136 cfs in the diffuser and supply conduit, respec tively, and with the distribution weir 2 to 3-5 ft below tailwater in the fish ladder. Flow directions and velocities (table H) indicated that further consideration of these designs was not warranted.

Conclusions

37« An analysis of flow distribution for selected designs that were tested is presented in table I. The plan A well with the plan 4 orifice and plan B floor produced the lowest maximum velocities, the minimum percentage of downward velocities and velocities greater than 1 fps, and the best distribution of flow. Although areas of reversing flow were smaller with some of the other combinations, areas of predim- inately downward or high upward velocities were produced.

15 3 8 . Efforts to obtain uniform distribution of velocities failed because flow over the distribution weirs was normal to the orifices. This created rotating flow in the diffuser wells and nonuniform dis tribution of discharges through the orifices and diffusion chamber. Since none of the orifice and well plans significantly improved dis tribution of flow into the diffusion chamber, changes of the floors and bubbler beams had little effect. 39* After reviewing the test results, the Walla Walla District adopted the original design, modified by plan k instead of plan 1 orifices, for use in the prototype. Velocities and flow directions above the adopted diffusers should be similar to those shown on plate 17. Observations since completion of the project indicate that per formance of the auxiliary water-supply system is satisfactory and that head losses in the supply conduit are lower than expected. With tailwater at elevation kk-6 in the south fish ladder, 2.7 ft instead of

* 2.0 ft of head is available in the supply conduit at upstream diffuser Wo. 6.

16 TABLE A

DISCHARGE RATING DATA FOR FISHWAY ENTRANCE WEIRS

1.00

FLOW _ r ,Q.5Q DOWNSTREAM APPROACH , { - 1 WIDTH = 30.00' WIDTH =5.00 W

~ T ~ n ~ 1 ~ fV\-GAGE POINT 4.00* 32 4.47' 1 1 ♦

^ 25.00' ------15.00 J^-GAGE n POINT

Weir Unit Discharge Height Submergence Discharge Coefficient MWM in FT "D" in FT ”Q" in CFS/FT "C" = Q/D>/2gAh

0 5.0 66.25 0.976 0 8.0 120.00 0.972 0 11.0 172.50 0.961 0 lU.O 227.50 0.958

2 5-0 38.50 0.826 2 8.0 66.25 0.829 2 11.0 99-25 O.8U7 2 lU.O 13U.50 0.859

5 5.0 31.15 0.73U 5 8.0 53.00 0.750 5 11.0 78.25 0.772 5 lU.O 107.00 0.796

10 5.0 28.88 0.703 10 8.0 U7.50 0.705 10 11.0 68.75 0.726 10 lU.O 96.00 0.77U

15 5.0 28.12 0.691 15 8.0 U6.25 0.700 15 10.0 59.75 0.716

NOTES: 1. Ah = difference in energy grade line at gage points.

2. Details of model are shown on plate 5«

TABLE A TABLE B

DISCHARGE RATING DATA FOR DIFFUSION CHAMBERS OF ORIGINAL DESIGN

One Diffuser (No. 3) Operating; Supply Conduit Flow 136 CFS

Tailwater Submergence Head on Diffuser Piezometer Numbers Discharge

Elevation (S) in Feet (Ha) in Feet P-1 to P-3 D-W D-3 in CFS

Pressure Grade; Elevation at Piezometer

442.50 1.0 0.50 443.00 442.98 442.50 10.2 441.50 1.50 442.95 441.50 10.6 440.20 2.80 442.95 440.20 11.0

443.50 2.0 0.50 444.00 443.95 443.70 18.2 443.25 0.75 443.95 443.50 23.4 443.02 O .98 443.95 443.30 26.0 442.60 1.40 443.95 443.00 31.0 442.20 1.80 443.95 442.65 34.3

441.80 2.20 443.90 442.60 37.2 441.00 3.00 443.90 441.45 39-0 439.80 4.20 443.90 440.55 39.0 438.65 5.35 443.90 439.55 39.0 437.80 6.20 443.90 438.85 39.0

444.50 3-0 0.50 445.00 444.95 444.80 21.7 444.30 0.70 444.95 444.70 26.0 433.55 1.45 444.95 444.35 37.5 442.75 2.25 444.95 443.90 46.4 442.30 2.70 444.95 443.65 50.7

441.90 3.10 444.95 443.45 53.8 441.00 4.00 444.90 442.95 59-8 440.45 4; 55 444.90 442.55 64.7 439.50 5.50 444.90 442.25 70.2 439.10 5.90 444.90 442.20 72.6

445.48 4.0 O .52 446.00 445.95 445.90 25.5 445.10 0.90 445.95 445.80 32.9 444.70 1.30 445.95 445.70 37.4 444.60 1.40 445.95 445.65 40.0 444.30 1.70 445.95 445.55 45.2

444.00 2.00 445.90 445.45 49.0 443.30 2.70 445.90 445.30 57.0 442.10 3.90 445.90 444.70 68.4 4 4 o .4 o 5.60 445.90 444.10 82.1

447.50 6.0 0.50 448.00 447.95 447.90 24.4 446.95 1.05 447.95 447.85 35.6 446.40 1.60 447.95 447.80 45.4 446.25 1.75 447.95 447.75 47.7 445.30 2.70 447.90 447.60 59-3

444.55 3.45 447.90 447.55 67.2 443.95 4.15 447.90 447.45 76.1 443.20 4.80 447.85 447.30 82.6 442.15 5.85 447.85 447.10 92.6

451.20 10.0 1.80 452.00 451.95 451.85 48.3 448.85 3.15 451.90 451.70 65.7 447.25 4.75 451.85 451.55 82.2 445.90 6.10 451.85 451.40 9^.7

452.15 12.0 1.85 454.00 455.95 453.85 48.4 449.15 4.85 453.95 453.60 83.1

NOTES: 1. Details of diffusion chamber are shown on plate 11.

2. Piezometer locations and details of model are shown on plate 6.

3 . Readings at piezometers P-1, P-2, and P-3 were similar.

4. (Ha) = pressure grade elevation at piezometer P-2 in model supply conduit minus tailwater elevation. (S) = pressure grade elevation in supply conduit minus elevation of distribution weir for diffuser 3 (elev 442.0).

TABLE B TABLE C

DISCHARGE RATING DATA FOR DIFFUSION CHAMBERS OF ORIGINAL DESIGN

Diffusers 3 and 4 Operating; Supply Conduit Flow 136 CFS

Tailwater Submergence Head on Diffuser Piezometer Numbers Discharge

Elevation (S) in Feet (H^) in Feet P-1 to P -3 D -4 D-W D -3 in CFS

Pressure G[rade Elevati'on at Piezoineter

4 44 .50 3 .0 O.5O 445.OO 4 4 4 .5 0 4 44 .95 4 44 .75 31.3 4 44 .00 1.00 4 4 4 .OÖ 444 .95 4 44 .50 4 l.O 4 43 .55 1 .45 443.6O 444 .95 4 4 4 .30 4 8 .5 4 43 .10 I.9O 443.IO 444.90 4 44 .00 5 3 .3 4 42 .70 2.3O 4 42 .70 444.90 443.80 5 7 .1

4 42 .20 2.80 4 42 .30 444.90 443.20 61.8 4 41 .30 3.7O 4 41 .30 444.90 441.80 68.5 4 40 .25 4 .7 5 4 4 0 .30 4 44 .85 4 41 .70 75-2 439.40 5.6O 4 99 .40 4 44 .80 4 41 .50 80.8 439.OO 6.00 439.IO 4 44 .80 4 41 .45 8 3 .3

445.50 4 .0 O.5O 4 46 .00 445.70 4 45 .95 445.90 4 4.2 4 45 .00 1.00 4 45 .35 445 .95 4 45 .75 59.0 4 44 .10 I.90 444.70 445.90 4 45 .35 81.2 443.30 2.7O 4 43 .95 4 45 .85 445.OO 9 3 .6 4 42 .05 3 .9 5 4 42 .95 4 45 .85 4 44 .50 1 04 .5

4 41 .55 4 .4 5 4 42 .50 445.80 444.30 108.0 44 o .60 5 .4 0 4 41 .40 445.80 4 43 .85 1 14 .1 439.80 6.20 4 41 .30 445.80 4 43 .55 119.5

4 46 .85 5-0 0.50 447 .00 4 46 .75 4 46 .75 4 46 .95 4 4 .6 4 4 6 .65 1.25 4 46 .70 4 46 .70 4 46 .90 7 2.4 4 46 .40 1.95 4 46 .60 4 46 .60 4 46 .90 91.O 4 46 .25 2.75 445.50 445.50 4 46 .85 107.8 445.90 4 .1 0 4 44 .70 4 44 .70 4 46 .75 131.0

445.85 5.00 4 44 .50 4 44 .50 4 46 .70 145.0 445.30 5 .8 5 443.90 443.90 4 46 .65 155.O 445.20 6.20 443.50 443.50 4 46 .50 160.5

447.85 6.0 O.50 4 48 .00 447.80 447.80 4 47 .95 4 6 .5 447.80 1.10 447.60 447.60 447.90 71.2 447.70 1.60 447.50 447.50 447.85 8 7 .5 447.50 2.35 447.15 447.15 447.80 IO6.5 447 .35 3 .4 0 4 46 .65 4 46 .65 4 47 .75 128.0

447.15 4 .2 5 4 46 .25 4 46 .25 447.70 1 42 .0 447.OO 5.20 445.80 445.80 447.65 I57.O 4 46 .90 5.80 445.60 445.60 447.60 I67.O 4 46 .70 6.15 4 45 .40 4 45 .40 4 47 .55 I72.O

449.45 8.0 0 .5 5 4 50 .00 449.85 449.95 449.90 4 9 .8 448 .55 1 .4 5 449.65 449.90 449.85 85.O 447.60 2 .4 0 449.60 449.85 449.80 IIO.5 4 46 .50 3.5O 4 49 .35 449.80 449.50 1 35 .8 455.60 4 .4o 449.10 449.70 449.30 154.2

444.90 5.10 448.90 449.60 449.20 I67.O 444 .45 5-55 4 48 .75 449.55 449.15 1 73 .8 4 44 .10 5.90 4 4 8 .7 0 449.50 449.10 I79.O

453.50 10.0 0.50 454.OO 4 53 .95 453 .98 4 53 .95 4 7 .3 453.10 O.90 453.90 4 53 .95 453.90 6 5 .7 452.OO 2.00 4 53 .75 4 53 .85 4 53 .75 102.0 4 51 .40 2.60 453.70 453.80 453.70 II7.2 450.75 3 .2 5 453.60 ^53-75 453.60 I32.5

449.85 4.15 453.50 453.70 453.50 I5I.2 449.15 4.80 453-40 4 53 .65 453-40 I63.6 4 48 .40 5.60 453.20 4 53 .55 453.20 I78.O 4 48.05 5 .9 5 453.15 453.50 453.15 I83.5

4 52 .55 12.0 3 .45 456.OO 455.50 455.70 455.50 136.8 450.80 5 .4 0 4 55 .25 455.60 4 55 .25 I7I.O

NOTES: 1 . Details of diffusion chamber are shown on plate 1 1 .

2 . Piezometer locations and details of model are shown on plate 6.

3. Readings at piezometers P-1 , P-2 , and P-3 were similar.

4 . (H^) ;= pressure grade elevation at piezometer P -2 in model supply conduit minus tailwater elevation. (S) = pressure grade elevation in supply conduit minus elevation of distribution weir for diffuser 3 (elev 4 4 2 .0 ).

TABLE C TABLE D

DISCHARGE RATING DATA FOR DIFFUSION CHAMBERS OF ORIGINAL DESIGN

Diffusers 3 and 4- Operating; Supply Conduit Flow 272 and 408 CFS

Tailwater Submergence Head on Diffuser Piezometer Numbers- Discharge

Elevation (S) in Feet (Hd ) in Feet P -1 to P-3 D-4 D-W D-3 in CFS

Pressure Grade Elevation at Piezoineter Supply Conduit Flow 272 CFS

442.63 6.0 5.35 448.00 445.70 447.70 446.90 158.7 441.80 6.20 445.40 447.60 446.55 169.6

445.00 8.0 5.00 450.00 448.90 449.60 449.10 I65.I 444.00 6.00 448.70 449.20 449.00 181.6

449.30 12.0 4.70 454.00 453.20 453.50 453.15 159.5

451.00 14.0 5.00 456.OO 454.60 455.55 455.05 I65.5

Supply Conduit Flow 408 CFS

443.80 3.0 1.20 445.00 443.80 444.85 444.40 44.5 442.55 2.45 442.55 444.85 443.00 57.7 440.90 4.10 441.00 444.80 442.80 69.7 440.50 4.50 440.60 444.80 442.65 72.6

440.25 4.75 440.30 444.80 442.60 73.6 439.20 5.80 439.20 444.80 442.00 77.2 439.00 6.00 439.20 444.80 442.00 79-2

444.90 4.0 1.10 446.00 445.10 445.82 445.60 62.0 444.70 1.30 444.95 445.80 445.50 66.5 443.80 2.20 444.20 445.75 445.15 82.5 442.95 3.05 443.40 445.70 444.80 90.0 442.00 4.00 442.70 445.70 4 4 4 .30 98.7 441.00 5.00 441.70 445.70 444.00 103.3 439.70 6.30 440.50 445.70 443.30 112.8

445.35 5.0 1.65 447.00 446.00 446.70 446.50 83.5 444.45 2.55 445.50 446.70 446.25 101.5 443.70 3.30 445.10 446.65 446.00 114.0 442.65 4.35 444.50 446.65 445.55 129.8

441.95 5.05 444.00 446.60 445.30 136.8 441.00 6.00 443.50 446.55 445.10 147.0 440.90 6.10 443.30 446.50 444.70 148.2

447.00 6.0 1.00 448.00 447.60 447.85 447.70 65.9 445.90 2.10 447.10 447.80 447.50 98.2 445.15 2.85 446.80 447.75 447.30 114.8 444.30 3.70 446.30 447.70 447.10 131.0

443.00 5.00 445.80 447.60 446.80 151.2 442.00 6.00 445.30 447.50 446.50 164.8

448.80 8.0 1.20 450.00 449.70 449.80 449.70 74.3 448.00 2.00 449.50 449.70 449.60 97.5 447.05 2.95 449.25 449.60 449.35 120.5 445.70 4.30 448.90 449.55 449.10 151.2 445.10 4.90 448.70 449.50 449.00 162.0 444.20 5.80 448.60 449.50 448.90 176.2 444.00 6.00 448.40 449.50 448.75 177.8

452.80 12.0 1.20 454.00 453.70 453.80 453.70 72.5 451.80 2.20 453.60 453.70 453.60 103.5 450.70 3.30 453.40 453.60 453.40 130.0 448.60 5.40 453.10 453.50 453.10 170.5

451.60 14.0 4.40 456.00 455.20 455.50 455.20 151.5 451.00 5.00 455.15 455.50 455.10 163.O 450.40 5.60 455.00 455.45 455.00 173.5

NOTES: 1. Details of diffusion chamber are shown on plate 11.

2. Piezometer locations and details of model are shown on plate 6.

3. Readings at piezometers P-1 , P-2, and P-3 were similar.

4. (H ) = pressure grade elevation at piezometer P-2 in model supply conduit minus tailwater elevation. (S) = pressure grade elevation in supply conduit minus TABLE D elevation of distribution weir for diffuser 3 (elev 442.0). TABLE E

VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION ABOVE BUBBLER BEAMS OF DIFFUSION CHAMBER NO. h

Plan A Well and Floor; Orifice Plans 1 to 3

Diffusion Chamber Discharge 60 CFS

Location of Plan 1 Orifices Plan 2 Orifices Plan 3 Orifices

Velocity Tailwater Elevations Observation

Row Space ¡*53.5 1*1*7.5* 1*1+6.0 i»53.7 1*1*7.7 1* 1*6.0 >*53.6 1* 1*7.1* 1*1*6.0

Velocity in FPS

1 < 0.1 -0.3 < 0 . 1 -0.5 -0.6 < 0. 1 -0,1+ 0.2 0.9 0.7 2 <0.1 ”0.5 < 0. 1 -0.1+ -0.5 < 0 . 1 -0.5 0.3 0.8 0.7 3 < 0 . 1 -0.7 < 0.1 -0.1* -0.3 <0.1 -0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 £ 1+ -0.2 -0.5 -0.3 -0.5 -0.3 0. 1 -0.5 0.9 0.9 5 -0.1+ -0.3 -o .i* -0.5 -0.3 -0.1* -0.1* 0.3 1 . 0 1.2 W 6 “0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5 0.9 1.1 7 < 0 .1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 < 0 .1 0.1* 0.2 1 . 0 1.3 1.1* 8 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.Ô 0.7 1.2 1 . 0 1.1* 1.7 2.0

1 ±0.3 ±0.3 0.6 ±0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.9 1 . 0 2 0.1+ ±0.U 0.5 ±0.3 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.1* 0.3 0.2 3 0.6 -0 .1* 0.5 ±0.3 1.1* 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1* CD 1+ 0.8 ±0.1* 0.1* ±0.3 1.1* 0.8 ±0.3 1.1 0,7 0.1* ti 5 0.7 ±0.3 0.7 0.3 1.1* 0.6 ±0.5 1 . 0 0.9 < 0 . 1 CD Ü 6 -0.3 0.8 -0.5 0.3 1.1* -0.5 0.7 0 .1* -0.3 0.7 7 0.9 0.5 0.8 ±0.3 ±0.3 0.3 ±0.3 1.2 0.7 0.5 8 1.6 1.7 1 . 0 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.2 1 . 0 1.7

1 0.7 1 . 0 0.3 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.5 -0.2 -0.3 2 1.2 1.3 0.3 1.1* 0.5 0.7 1 . 0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 3 l.k 1.8 1.1 1.7 0.9 0.8 1 . 0 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 £ 1+ 0.9 1.8 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.8 1 . 0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.6 5 0.9 1 . 0 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.9 1.2 ±0.5 -0.5 -0.7 « 6 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.3 1.7 ±0.1 0.8 ±0.5 -0.7 -0.5 7 1.3 ±0.1* 0.5 ±0.7 ±0.3 0.7 ±0.1* -0.5 -0.1* -0.2 8 1.7 1.9 1.7 1 . 0 1.2 0.9 1 . 0 0.6 1.1 1.1

* With baffles in diffuser -well

NOTES : 1. Details of diffuser plans are shown on plate 11.

2. Locations of velocity observations are shown on plate 11*. Space 1 is upstream (at right wall of fish ladder).

3. Velocities represent vertical components of flow.

1*. The symbols - and 1 indicate downward and reversing flows, respectively.

TABLE E TABLE P

VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 'ABOVE BUBBLER BEAMS OF DIFFUSION CHAMBER NO. 4

Plan A Well and Floor; Orifice Plans 4 to 6

Diffusion Chamber Discharge 60 CFS

Location of Plan 4 Orifices Plan 5 Orifices Plan 6 Orifices

Velocity

Observation Tailwater Elevations

Row Space kjk.O 448.0 446.3 444.6 443.0 P 7 .3 445.6

Velocity in FPS

1 - 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.8 2 - 0.4 - 0 .7 + 0.4 0.4 0.6 < 0.1 <• 0.1 3 0.3 + 0.3 < 0.1 0.7 0.3 < 0 . 1 < 0.1 £i 4 1.1 + 0.3 - 0.4 - 0.4 < 0.1 - 0.3 - 0.1 3 + 0.2 + 0.4 0.3 0.4 - 0.4 - 0.2 < 0.1 6 + 0.6 1 0.5 0.3 + 0.3 - 0.3 - 0.4 - 0.4 7 + 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 < 0.1 - 0.4 - 0.4 8 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.6

1 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.1 2 i.i 0.8 0.5 - 0.3 < 0.1 0.5 0.4 ÎH 3 0.8 0.7 0.5 - 0.3 < 0.1 0.7 0.8 CD -P 4 0.9 0.9 0.5 - 0.4 < 0.1 0.6 0.6 (D 3 0.8 0.5 0.6 - 0.5 - 0.3 1.2 O 1 .1 6 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.4 1.0 1.1 7 1.4 1.0 0.7 1.0 0 .7 1.0 1.1 8 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.8 2.2 1.9

1 0.6 0.8 0.5 2.4 1.8 0.6 0.8 2 - 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 + 0 .1 < 0.1 3 - 0.4 - 0.3 0.5 0.5 < 0.1 + 0.4 + 0.2 4 - 0.3 0.5 0.4 < 0.1 : 0.4 1 0.4 âQjj - 0.3 •H 3 + 0.3 - 0.7 1.3 - 0.5 + 0.2 - 0.6 - 0.3 P h 6 " 0.6 0.5 + 0.6 0.7 + 0.2 + 0.6 + 0.5 7 + 0.3 + 0.5 7 0.3 + 0.2 7 0 .1 “ 0.4 " 0.5 8 ‘ 1.7 " 1.5 “ 1.8 “ 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.7

NOTES: 1. Details of diffuser plans are shown on plate 11.

2. Locations of velocity observations are shown on plate 14. Space 1 is upstream (at right wall of fish ladder).

3« Velocities represent vertical components of flow.

4. The symbols - and + indicate downward and reversing flows, respectively.

TABLE F TABLE G

VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION ABOVE BUBBLER BEAMS OF DIFFUSION CHAMBER NOS. 3 AND 4

Plan A Well, Plan 4 Orifice, Plan B Floor

Diffusion Chamber Discharge 60 CFS

Location of Diffuser 4 Diffusers ;3 and 4 (Diffuser 4 on Left )

Velocity Tailwater Elevations Observation

Row Space 434.0 448.0 446.3 ¿(-52.0 446 .0 444 .0

Velocity in ]EPS

1 0.3 + 0.1 0.2 : _ 0.2 0.8 0.2 _ 0.3 < 0.1 0.2 2 0.3 + 0.2 0.1 < 0.1 + 0.3 < 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.1 0.3 3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 - 0.3 - 0.3 0.4 + 0.1 0.7 4 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.1 - 0.4 0.8 + 0.1 + 0.3 5 < 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.8 - 0.3 0.9 + 0.1 0.3 Left 6 - 0.3 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 - 0.4 0.2 - 0.5 < 0.1 1.0 7 - 0.3 + 0.3 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.4 0.4 - 0.3 < 0.1 + 0.3 8 0.4 0.7 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.4 1.0

1 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.3 + 0.4 1.0 + 0.3 0.6 1.1 2 0.6 1.0 0.7 1.1 ■ 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.4 3 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.4 l.l 0.2 0.8 _p(D 4 1.1 1.2 0.3 1.3 1.0 - 0.2 + 0.3 0.3 0.7 3 + 1.1 CD 5 1.0 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.3 O 6 0.4 - 0.3 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.8 1.2 < 0.1 0.7 7 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.6 1.0 8 1.3 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.2 + 0.3

1 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 0.4 + 0.3 2 + 0.3 - 0.3 0.4 + 0.4 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 < 0.1 0.4 - - - -p 3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.8 + 0.3 < 0.1 0.3 4 - 0.4 + 0.3 0.4 - 0.4 + 0.3 0.4 - 0.4 0.2 + 0.6 •H 5 + 0.4 1.1 + « 0.9 0.9 - 0.3 0.9 - 0.3 0.2 - 0.7 6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 < 0.1 0.4 7 1.2 + 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 + 0.2 8 1.2 0.9 0.8 + 0.3 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.3 1.1

NOTES: 1. Details of diffuser plans are shown on plate 11.

2. Locations of velocity observations are shown on plate 17. Space 1 is upstream (at right wall of fish ladder).

3« Velocities represent vertical components of flow.

4. The symbols - and + indicate downward and reversing flows, respectively.

TABLE G TABLE H

VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION ABOVE BUBBLER BEAMS OF DIFFUSION CHAMBER NO. 4

Miscellaneous Well, Floor, and Orifice Plans

Diffusion Chamber Discharge 60 CFS

Plan B Well Plan C Well o Location of •H u u 1 u Ch o 1 0 •H O r—1 •H o •H 0 O Plan B Floor Plan C Floor Pi 1—1 O H o Ph O ^ * < -3- o -3- n H W Pi Pi 0 Pi Pi 0 Pi Velocity Plan 13 a cd a 03 A A Plan 4 Orifice H •H A r—i "H r—1 P*

Row Space 446.0 447-5 447.0 447.5 447.0 447.0 446.0 445.8

Velocity in FPS _ 1 0.4 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.8 0.5 < 0 .1 < 0 .1 2 - 0 .1 1 .1 2.0 1.2 1.5 0.6 < 0 .1 0 .1 3 0.8 0.9; 1.2 1.4 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.4 4 1.2 0.4 1.2 1 . 1 1 .1 1 .1 0.4 0.5 5 + 0 .1 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.9 Left 6 - 0.2 1 . 1 1.3 0.3 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 < 0 .1 7 - 0.3 0.6 1.2 0.9 1 . 1 1 .1 0.5 0.7 8 0.3 1 .1 1 . 1 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.4 1.7 9 0.8 - - < 0 .1 0 .1 < 0 .1 : -

1 1 .1 1 . 1 0.5 0.4 0.2 - 0.3 0.2 0.2 2 1.0 + 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 1 .1 3 1 .1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.8 1 .1 0 4 0.6 < 0 .1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.7 a 0.6 < 0 .1 0.4 0.6 o 5 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.9 o 6 _ 0.3 0 .1 1.0 < 0 .1 0.2 + 0.3 0.6 0.8 + 7 0.3 o.k 0.8 0.7 0.8 ' 0.7 0.7 1 . 1 8 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.4 9 0.8 - - 0.5 0.2 0.5 -

- 1 0.5 0.3 0.4 < 0 .1 < 0 .1 - 0.5 < 0 .1 - 0.2 2 - 0 .1 < 0 .1 - 0.4 - 0 .1 - 0.2, - 0.4 < 0 .1 < 0 .1 < 3 0 .1 - 0.2 - 0.5 - 0.2 < 0 .1 + 0.3 < 0 .1 < 0 .1 4 o.4 - 0.4 - 0.4 - 0.2 < % - 0.7 ' 0.9 0 .1 < 0 .1 •H 5 0.3 - 0.3 - 0.7 < 0 .1 0.2 0.4 < 0 .1 < 0 .1 « 6 - 0 .1 < 0 .1 - 0.5 - 0.4 < 0 .1 - 0.4 < 0 .1 < 0 .1 7 0.2 - 0 .1 < 0 .1 0.5 0.6 0.2 < 0 .1 < 0 .1 8 1.3 0.3 0.7 < 0 .1 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.8 9 1.1 _ - < 0 .1 < 0 .1 0.3 - -

NOTES: 1. Details of diffuser plans are shown on plate 11.

2. Locations of velocities are in general agreement with those shown on plates l4 and 17. Space 1 is upstream (at right wall of fish ladder).

3« Velocities represent vertical components of flow.

4. The symbols - and + indicate downward and reversing flows, respectively.

TABLE H TABLE I

FLOW DIRECTIONS AND VELOCITIES FOR SELECTED DIFFUSER ELEMENT PLANS

Hd S D iffu ser Element Plan Percent of Flow Percent of Maximum in in Flow Velocities V elo city Feet Feet in CFS W ell O rific e F loor Down R ev ers. > 1 FPS in FPS

D iffu ser 1+ Operaitin g ; Dijrfu ser 3 Closed

2.7 12.0 6o A 1 A 17 1+ 21 1.7 2.5 6.0 6o 29 21 33 1.9 2.1 1+.0 51 29 25 38 1.7 2.3 12.0 6o A 2 A 25 8 33 1.8 2.3 6.0 6o 12 1+ 8 1.8 2.0 i+.o 51 25 17 29 2.2

2.6 12.0 6o A 3 A 21 8 29 1 . 1+ 2 . 1+ 6.0 6o 33 0 25 1.7 2.0 1+.0 51 29 0 29 2.0 2.0 12.0 6o A 1+ A 21 21 25 1.9 2.0 6.0 6o 25 17 17 1.6 1.7 1+.0 51 8 17 17 1.8

5 . 1+ 6.0 6o A 5 A 29 8 21 2.5 5.0 l+.o 51 17 8 8 1.8 2.7 6.0 60 A 6 A 33 12 21 2.2 2.6 i+.o 51 25 21 21 1.9 2.0 12.0 60 A 1+ B 21 8 29 1.6 2.0 6.0 6o 21 25 8 1.2 1.7 l+.o 51 17 12 25 1.6 3.0 6.0 6o B 1+ B 21 12 1+2 2.0 2.5 6.0 6o B* 1+ B 25 12 29 1.6 3.0 6.0 6o B 1+ C 25 0 21 1.8 2.5 6.0 6o B* 1+ C 29 0 17 l.l+

3.1 6.0 6o B 13 C 21 8 17 1 . 1+ D iffu se rs 3 and 1+ O perating

2.0 12.0 115 A 1+ B 17 19 12 1 . 1+ 2.0 6.0 106 23 10 21 1 . 1+ 2.0 l+.o 86 8 27 10 2.1 Diffuser 3 Operating; Diffuser 1+ Closed

2.0 6.0 6o A 1+ C 33 7 26 1.8

2.2 6.0 6o C 1+ D 25 12 1+ 1 . 1+ 2.2 6.0 6o C ll+ E 29 0 17 1.7

* With curtain -wall

NOTES: 1. Details of diffuser elements tested are shown on plate 11.

2. Velocities represent vertical components of flow. 3. Percentages equal number of times a direction of flow or a velocity greater than 1.0 fps was measured divided by the total number of velocities that were observed during that test.

TABLE I Photograph 1. Drybed views, looking upstream, of 1:10-scale fish ladder model. Note piezometers in floor of test pools in right picture (+ marks are velocity observation points). Wo weir Weir crest 10 ft above floor of channel

Photograph 2. The 1:10-scale test section in which discharges over typical fishway- entrance weirs were measured. Top view showing sloping floors and Side view, looking toward fish ladder, showing bubbler beams in diffusers 3 (top) distribution weirs, metering orifices, and and 4 (bottom). Fish ladder weirs piezometers in diffuser wells. and diffuser gratings were not used during the studies.

Photograph 3. Details of 1:8-scale fishway diffuser model. Looking upstream.

Side view.

Photograph 4. Flow conditions in typical pools of fish ladder. Discharge 69.7 cfs, 12.0-in. head on weirs. 2-ft-high weir submerged 8 ft; discharge 66.25 cfs per ft of crest.

5-ft-high weir submerged 11 ft; discharge 78.2 cfs per ft of crest.

Photograph 5. Flow conditions with head differential of 1 ft on fishway entrance weirs 2 ft and 5 ft high. 10-ft-high weir submerged 14 ft; discharge 96.0 cfs per ft of crest.

15-ft-high weir submerged 5 ft; discharge 28.2 cfs per ft of crest.

Photograph 6. Flow conditions with head differential of 1 ft on fishway entrance weirs 10 ft and 15 ft high. Submergence (S) = 2 ft

S = 4 ft

Photograph 7. Flow conditions at distribution weir of diffuser 3; there was no flow through diffuser 4; head in the supply conduit was 2 ft above tailwater in the fish ladder. Head in conduit (H^) = 2 ft; S = 3 ft

Hd = 3 ft; S = 4 ft

Photograph 8. Flow conditions at distribution weirs of diffusers 3 and 4. S = 5 ft

Photograph 9. Flow conditions at distribution weirs of diffusers 3 and 4; head in the supply conduit was 2 ft above tailwater in the fish ladder. PROJECT LAYOUT PROJECT SOUTH FISH LADDER ENTRANCE © FLOATING GUIDE WALL © FISHWAY ENTRANCE,@ LOW FLOW © LOCK OUTLET ® NORTH FISH LADDER ENTRANCE 100 200 300 400 500 FT 0

PLATE OUTH SHORE FISH LADDER S SCALE 20 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 FT ____ 0 o PLATE r ■:\L25‘ FINAL DESIGN PLAN PLAN AND SECTIONS DIFFUSION CHAMBERS 2 TO 6 SECTION D-D SCALE TYPICAL SECTION AT FLOOR OF DIFFUSERS 2 TO 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 FT NOTE SECTION C-C DIFFUSER GRATING NOT SHOWN. 40 FT ______20______30 SCALE ______0 10 ECTION B-B ABOVE ELEVATION 425.0 S J

PLATE O MODEL MODEL LAYOUT WEIRS 486 TO 521 SOUTH SOUTH FISH LADDER 15 15 FT MODEL 150 FT PROTOTYPE SCALES ELEVATION

PLATE ______80 . 0 ' - < ------

20 . 0 ' w I 5. 0 ' 25 .0 ' 15. 0 ' ■ 15. 0 ' .

PLAN

SCALES

10 20 30 FT PROTOTYPE

3.0 FT MODEL

MODEL LAYOUT

FISHWAY ENTRANCE WEIR

PLATE 5 lZ_ZJ -N ^ TÎ 414.9* 438.8 433.1 419.3* 418.0* 436.8 ELEVATION POINT GAGE NOTES D4 DW D3 PI P2 P3 * SIMULATED ELEVATIONS PIEZOMETER 15— er SEPARATOR WALLS HAVE 12-IN. RADIUS. AND NUMBER OF BUBBLER BEAMS VARIED. ON PLATE 11. WERE NOT REQUIRED FOR TESTS OF THE DIFFUSION CHAMBERS. FISHWAY DIFFUSER MODEL 1. 1. ALL BELLMOUTH CURVES AND CURVE AT BOTTOM OF 3. 3. FISH LADDER WEIRS AND FLOW DOWN THE LADDER 2. 2. DIFFUSER WELL, ORIFICE SIZE AND LOCATION, FLOOR, 4. DETAILS OF DIFFUSER ELEMENTS TESTED ARE SHOWN 9.20' 4 100 100 FT PROTOTYPE SECTION B-B 10 FT10 MODEL 25 FT PROTOTYPE SCALES ELEVATION 2 3 4 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 SCALES

OR/F/ÇE — OR/F/ÇE E L E V 428.33 DIFFUSER WELL- WEIR ELEV 442

PLATE O)

ALL WEIRS NOTES RATING RATING CURVES 1 8 -BY 18-IN. ORIFICES IN ELEVATIONS 5-FT UPSTREAM FROM WEIR. FIRST OVERFLOW AND TYPICAL WEIRS 1. 1. HEAD DETERMINED FROM WATER-SURFACE 2. 2. DETAILS OF WEIRS ARE SHOWN ON PLATE 4. LADDER DISCHARGE IN CFS 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 iiO

PLATE

NOTES RATING RATING CURVES 19¿j- — BY BY — 219¿j- 0 -IN. ORIFICES IN WEIR 521 FIRST OVERFLOW AND TYPICAL WEIRS WEIR 521) ARE SHOWN ON PLATE 4. ELEVATIONS 5-FT UPSTREAM FROM WEIR. 18-BY 18-IN. ORIFICES IN WEIRS 486 TO 520 1. 1. HEAD DETERMINED FROM WATER-SURFACE 2. 2. DETAILS OF WEIR EXCEPT ( ORIFICES IN LADDER DISCHARGE IN CFS o

PLATE o 12 12 IN.

69.7 CFS FLOW ------■< OPERATING OPERATING CONDITIONS TOTAL DISCHARGE HEAD HEAD ON WEIRS VELOCITIES VELOCITIES IN TYPICAL POOLS CENTER LINE OF ORIFICES CENTER LINE OF LEFT ORIFICES

NOTES PLANS ELEVATIONS 5 5 FT UPSTREAM FROM WEIR 506. 1. 1. WEIR DETAILS SHOWN ON PLATE 4. 2. 2. HEAD DETERMINED FROM WATER-SURFACE ELEVATIONS 506 P00LS 507 5.5 5.5 FT FROM LEFT WALL METERING SECTIONS ENTER LINE OF POOLS C f>

PLATE < SUBMERGENCE "D" IN FEET

LU O z LÜ O cr 2 OQ 3 CO

DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT MC"

NOTE

data and definition sketch are SHOWN IN TABLE A.

DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIPS FOR FISHWAY ENTRANCE WEIRS

PLATE 10 4.00' 2.00'. , - ir

0.58' r - R = 1.00 : ,1.50' l.OO'(T YP) El E3 Ê3 M 13 KL

PLAN A DIFFUSER PLAN 1 ORIFICE

4.00' 2.00' m------H ~ l

PLAN A DIFFUSER WELL AND FLOOR 0.58' PLAN VIEWS OF ORIFICE PLANS 5 TO 11 à .

4.00' ÏRJ 16.00' , 4.00'. . jL,_

PLAN A DIFFUSER WELL AND FLOOR ORIFICE PLANS 2, 3, AND 4 ^ O O ' ( T Y P ) El E l E l_ El El E E E 'J DIMENSION "X" IN FEET ss ¥ — R = 0 . 5 0 ' PLAN 2 ORIFICE 2 .0 0 PLAN 3 ORIFICE 5 .3 3 PLAN A DIFFUSER WELL PLAN 4 ORIFICE 2.64 PLAN B DIFFUSER FLOOR PLAN B DIFFUSER WELL PLAN 12 ORIFICE PLAN B DIFFUSER FLOOR PLAN 4 ORIFICE

4.00'

PLAN B DIFFUSER WELL PLAN 4 ORIFICE WITH CURTAIN WALL PLAN C DIFFUSER FLOOR PLAN B DIFFUSER FLOOR PLAN 4 ORIFICE PLAN 4 ORIFICE

PLAN B DIFFUSER WELL PLAN B DIFFUSER WELL PLAN C DIFFUSER WELL WITH CURTAIN WALL PLAN C DIFFUSER FLOOR PLAN D DIFFUSER FLOOR PLAN 4 ORIFICE PLAN C DIFFUSER FLOOR PLAN 13 ORIFICE PLAN 4 ORIFICE

PLAN E DIFFUSER FLOOR DETAILS OF DIFFUSER ELEMENTS TESTED PLAN 14 ORIFICE DIFFUSION CHAMBERS 3 AND 4

PLATE ii 8

DIFFUSER DISCHARGE IN CFS

NOTES

1. Hd = SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE LINE MINUS TAILWATER ELEVATION. 2. S = SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE LINE MINUS WEIR ELEV 442 (DIFFUSER 3). 3. SUPPLY CONDUIT DISCHARGE 136 CFS. 4. DIFFUSER DETAILS SHOWN ON PLATES 6 AND i l

DISCHARGE RATING CURVES

ONE PLAN A DIFFUSER OPERATING

PLATE 12 DISCHARGE DISCHARGE RATING CURVES TWO TWO PLAN A DIFFUSERS OPERATING CFS CFS 4 0 8 1 3 6 ISCHARGE DISCHARGE D LEGEND C O N D U IT û ISCHARGE ISCHARGE IN CFS D ------û o' ■ o C O N D U IT 442 (DIFFUSER 3). ELEVATION. MINUS WEIR ELEV MINUS TAILWATER OR 408 CFS. PLATES 6 AND 11. 1 3 6 LINE LINE NOTES SUPPLY CONDUITDIFFUSER DISCHARGE 4 WEIR ELEV 444 S = SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE Hd = SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE DIFFUSER DETAILS SHOWN ON 3 . 4 . 5 . 2 . 1 .

PLATE 13 cs' 8 n 5 i ? s' 3 c 1 r

? S 's c 1 r DOWNWARD UPWARD REVERSING \ \ \ s c NOTES FLOW FLOW FLOW ? s s c LEGEND S SECTION A-A = = 7 BEAMS 0.50'x 0.83' = <0 <5 V 1.0 0 .4 0 .4 ± - n OPERATING CONDITIONS * 3 OS £ § S i WEIR ELEVATION 4 4 4 ) = 6 .0 FT S S (SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE LINE MINUS Hd Hd (SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE LINE MINUS SUPPLY CONDUIT DISCHARGE 136 CFSTAILWATER ELEVATION ) = 2.5 FT DOWN DOWN FISH LADDER DIFFUSER DISCHARGE ONLY; NO FLOW IN IN FPS. AND 11. § * TAILWATER ELEVATION 447.5 1. 1. VERTICAL COMPONENTS OF VELOCITIES SHOWN 2. DIFFUSER DETAILS SHOWN ON PLATES 6 1 1 1 PLAN PLAN A DIFFUSER; PLAN 1 ORIFICE VELOCITIES. AND FLOW DIRECTIONS SCALE SECTION ALONG CENTER LINE OF DIFFUSER 4 NO. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FT 1 2 30 4 5 6 7 8 910 ITHOUT BAFFLES IN DIFFUSER WELL WITH BAFFLES IN DIFFUSER WELL W

PLATE 14 NOTES LEGEND = FLOW UPWARD = FLOW DOWNWARD = FLOW REVERSING 1.0 0.4 0.4 OPERATING OPERATING CONDITIONS - ± S (SUPPLY WEIR CONDUIT ELEVATION GRADE LINE 444) 4.0 = MINUS AND 12.0 FT. DOWN FISH LADDER SUPPLY CONDUITHd DISCHARGE (SUPPLY T AILW 136 CONDUIT ATER CFS ELEV GRADE A T IO N ) LINE 2.1 = AND MINUS 2.7 FT DIFFUSER DISCHARGE ONLY; NO FLOW A N D 11. IN FPS. 1. 1. VERTICAL COMPONENTS OF VELOCITIES SHOWN 2. 2. DIFFUSER DETAILS SHOWN ON PLATES 6 TAILWATER ELEVATIONS 446.0 AND 453.5 PLAN A DIFFUSER; PLAN 1 ORIFICE VELOCITIES AND FLOW DIRECTIONS SCALE 01 2 34 567 8 9 10 FT 567 34 8 9 10 2 01 AILWATER ELEVATION 446.0; Hd =2.1 FT; S4.0 = FT T TAILWATER ELEVATION 453.5; Hd =2.7 FT; 12.0 FT = S

PLATE 15

LEGEND

= FLOW REVERSING = FLOW DOWNWARD = FLOW UPWARD 0.4 0.4 1.0 - ±

PLAN B FLOOR DIFFUSER 4 OPERATING

Hd Hd - 2.0 FT; FT 12.0 S= PLAN A DIFFUSER WELL; PLAN 4 ORIFICES; VELOCITIES AND FLOW DIRECTIONS TAILWATER ELEVATION 454.0 OPERATING CONDITIONS S (SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE LINE MINUS TAILWATER ELEVATION ) = 1.7 AND 2.0 FT W EIR ELEVATION 444 ) = 4.0, 6.0 AND FT 12.0 SUPPLY CONDUIT DISCHARGE 136 CFS DOWN FISH LADDER Hd (SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE LINE MINUS DIFFUSER DISCHARGE ONLY; NO FLOW NOTES 1. 1. VERTICAL COMPONENTS OF VELOCITIES SHOWN IN FPS. 2. 2. DIFFUSER DETAILS SHOWN ON PLATE 11. SCALE 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 FT 2 3 4 510 6 7 89

Hd « 1.7 FT; 1.7 « Hd S -4.0 FT Hd 2.0 g Hd FT; 6.0 S = FT AILWATER ELEVATION 446.3 TAILWATER ELEVATION 448.0 T

PLATE 16

DIFFUSER 4 DIFFUSER 3 PLAN B DIFFUSER FLOOR DIFFUSERS DIFFUSERS 3 AND 4 OPERATING PLAN A DIFFUSER WELL i PLAN 4 ORIFICE VELOCITIES AND FLOW DIRECTIONS TAILWATER ELEVATION 452.0; FT 12.0 = S SCALE DIFFUSER 3 DIFFUSER 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FT 1 2 30 4 5 6 7 8 910 TAILWATER ELEVATION 6.0 446.0; FT =■ S OPERATING CONDITIONS WEIR ELEVATION 442 = 4.0,) 6.0, AND 12.0 FT SUPPLY CONDUITHd (SUPPLY DISCHARGETAILWATER CONDUIT ELEVATION 136 CFS GRADE ) = 2.0 LINE FT MINUS S (SUPPLY CONDUIT GRADE LINE MINUS DIFFUSER DOWN DISCHARGE FISH LADDER ONLY; NO FLOW IFFUSER 4 D LEGEND NOTES = FLOW UPWARD = FLOW REVERSING = FLOW DOWNWARD 0.4 1.0 0.4 ± - TA1LWATER TA1LWATER ELEVATION 444.0; 4.0 FT = S 1. 1. VERTICAL COMPONENTS OF VELOCITIES SHOWN IN FPS 2. 2. DIFFUSER DETAILS SHOWN ON PLATE 11

PLATE 17 Unclassified Security Classification DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D (Security classification ot title, body ot abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall report is classified) 1. ORIGINATING a c t i v i t y (Corporate author) 2a . REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION North Pacific Division Hydraulic Laboratory Unclassified Bonneville, Oregon 97008 2b. GROUP

3. R E P O R T T IT L E FISH LADDERS FOR LOWER MONUMEN'EAL DAM SHAKE RIVER, WASHINGTON Hydraulic Model Investigation

4. D E S C R IP T IV E N O T E S (Type ot report and inclusive dates) Final Report 5- AUTHOR(S) (First name, middle initiai, last name)

Louis Z. Perkins

6. R E P O R T D A T E 7a. T O T A L NO. O F PAGES 7b. NO. OF REFS December 1973 55 8a. C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NO. 9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) Technical Report No. 109-1 b. PROJECT NO.

C. 9b. OTHER REPORT NO(S) (Any other numbers that may be assigned this report)

10. D IS T R IB U T IO N S T A T E M E N T This report has been approved for distribution to the public.

11. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y N O T E S 12. SPO NSO RING M IL IT A R Y A C T IV IT Y U. £>• Army Engineer District Walla Walla, Washington

13. ABSTRACTFaQiJj^gs for passing fish upstream over Lower Monumental Dam include a powerhouse collection system and a l6-ft-wide fish ladder on both sides of the river. A straight, 35-pool section of fish ladder and a typical fishway entrance weir were reproduced in a 1:10-scale model. Performance of a pair of typical diffusion chambers was studied in a l:8-scale model that included portions of the adjacent supply conduit and fish ladder. Fishway weirs of original design, with 5-ft-long overflow crests at each end of a 6-ft-long nonoverflow section, upstream fins, and l3- by l8-in. orifices on the floor, were satisfactory. Discharges of 66.0 and 69.7 cfs produced heads of 10.0 and 12.0 in. on the weirs. With standard orifices in all weirs, heads of 12.2 and 13*4 in. on the first weir below the fish counting station were required to pro vide the above discharges. The quantity of flow over a fishway entrance weir in creased with submergence and decreased with weir height. A maximum discharge of 227.5 cfs per ft of channel width was measured with no weir, 1 ft of head, and 14 ft of submergence. Discharge over a 15-ft-high weir submerged 5 ft was 28.1 cfs per ft of crest length. Total discharge from two diffusers operating from a common distribu tion well was 82.5 cfs for design conditions of 2 ft of head on the supply conduit and with the conduit pressure grade line 4 ft above the downstream distribution weir (diffuser No. 3). Diffuser 3 provided 48.9 cfs when operated alone. The distribution of flow from diffusion chambers of original design was not uniform. Velocities to 1.9 fps were directed upward along the downstream and right sides of the diffuser. Lower velocities, generally downward, existed along the left side. The original design, modified by placing the orifices on the side of the diffuser wells away from the fish ladder and 2.64 ft above the bottoms of the baffle beams was selected.

FORM RIPtACKS DO FORM 147». 1 JAN »4. WHICH IS DD f N O V I» 1473 OBSOLETE FOR ARMY USE. Unclassified______Security Classification Unclassified Security Classification

14. LINK A LINK B LINK C KEY WORDS ROLE WT ROLE WT ROLE WT

Hydraulic Models

Fishways

Lower Monumental Dam

Unclassified Security Classification