Post on 15-Aug-2021
HYDRAULICS BRANCH OFFICIAL FILE COPY
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HYDRAULIC LABORATORY
. .; ....... �,-� !f oz BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HYDRAULIC ·MODEL STUDIES
FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
'SEMINOE STONEY GATE SPILLWAY
Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. 3.4
BRANCH OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DENVER.COLORADO
MARCH 15 1935
, ..
UNITED STATES DEPAR'IMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Branch of Design and Construction Engineering and Geological Control
and Research Division Denver, Colorado March 15, 1935
Laboratory Report No. 3.4 Hydraulic Laboratory Compiled by: J. N. Bradley
J. B. Drisko Reviewed by: · E. W. Lane
Subject: Hydraulic model experiments for the design of the Seminoe Stoney-gate Spillway.
SUl/.iMARY
Model tests of the original design showed the Seminoe Spillway to
have ample capacity for the maximum discharge. Flow in the chute, how
ever, was rather rough, unsymmetrical, and noisy.
Tests indicated that flow conditions could be improved by making a
few minor changes on the model. The design recommended by the Hydraulic
Research Department had incorporated in it the following revisions:
a. A revised gate section, rectangular in shape down to the
piers;
b. Pier tailpieces toed in 0.94 feet from their designed
pos{tions toward the centerline of the spillway9 c. The upper portion of the chute reshaped so as to correspond
to the revised gate section;
d. Wing-walls having radii of 16 feet on each side above the
gate section;
e 0 The outlet channel rotated so as to be on line with the
·rest of the spillway. For the sake· of economy, the floor of the approach channel was raised 12o5
feet to elevation 6294.5.
The positions of the piers in the gate section and the approach to
the gate section are very important factors in a spillway of this type.
A comparison of the original and recommended designs are shown on
Figure 5.
"
t
..
.,
Seminoe Dam will be located· on the North Platte River, 33 miles
northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, and about 25 miles above the existing
Pathfinder Dam. The Seminoe Reservoir, which will have a storage
capacity of about 910,000 acre-feet·, will provide additional storage for
the North Platte Irrigation Project and enable irrigation expansion in
in that section of the State. The 260-foot high concrete 'arch dam,
situated in a narrow granite canyon, will also enable power generation,
Figure 1.
A ring-gate or morning-glory spillway· similar to the one used on
the Owyhee Dam was originally proposed for the Seminoe Dam. Because of
the geology of the site, the spillway would necessarily have been located
in the left canyon wall. The original diversion tunnel was located in
the right cany�n wall, and in order to utilize this tunnel for the ulti
mate spillway, a Stoney-gate design for the right canyon wall was pro
posed.
A model of the ring-gate spillway was constructed in the laboratory
and a few tests made. No report was written of this work because the
tests were incomplete, and the data would have been a duplication of that . obtained on the Owyhee Spillway and described in Hydraulic Laboratory
Report No. 159.
The Stoney-gate spillway, a drawing of which is shown in Figure 2 1
will consist of a short trapezoidal approach channel leading from the
reservoir to the gate section; a gate section, the floor of which
resembles a flat crested weir with a curved upstream face; a transitional
chute, the invert of which is a flat parabola; and a 30-foot diameter
horizontal tunnel. The gate section is rectangular down to the end of
the piers, and converges slightly in a downstream direction. Flow
through the spillway will be _controlled by three Stoney gates each
measur.ing 14 feet between piers and located at the highest point on the
crest. The spillway is designed for a maximum discharge of 50,000 second
feet which -will require a head of about 50 feet on the crest. The chute
which commences as a horseshoe tunnel at the downstream end of the piers
will gradually be transfonned into a circular section 30 feet in diameter
2
1
•
at the lower end. The chute will drop the water 150 feet on a slope not
greater than 50°, measured with the horizontal, into the original 30-foot
diameter horizontal diversion tunnel. Upon completion of the dam, the
upper portion of the diversion tunnel will be plugged, and the lower
260 feet, together with 160 feet· of open cut at the downstream end, will
be utilized to carry the spillway flow.
THE LABORATORY
The laboratory in which the model of the Seminoe Spillway·was
constructed and tested is located in the basement of the Old Customhouse
in Denver where it is easily accessible to the designing staff of the
Bureau of Reclamation. A plan of the laboratory is shown in Figure 3.
Water for supplying the models is measured over a 90° V-notch weir
located in the end of a weir tank 6 feet by 12 feet by 4 feet deep, which
is partially below the laboratory floor. From here, a 6-inch centrifugal
pump having a capacity of 3 second-feet raises the measured water up into
a constant level tank located as high as the ceiling of the laboratory
will permit. A stationary'skimming weir makes it possible to maintain a
constant head of water in this tank. The water flows from the constant
level tank through two 8-inch calibrated gatevalves, then through large
expanding cones into two head tanks located directly below the constant
level tank. Water is then supplied to the models directly from these
head tanks. With this arrangement, two models can be operated simulta
neously. After passing through the models, the water is collected in
sheet metal flumes and returned to the weir tank. Thus, the same water
is continuously circulated through the syst_em. Two hookgages are used
to observe the head on the v-notch weir, and one hookgage is provided for
measuring the elevation of the water surface in each of the head tanks.
THF. MOLEL
A model of the Seminoe Spillway was constructed in the laboratory
on a scale of 1:60 0 A drawing of the model as finally revised is shown
in Figure 4 0 The approach to the gate section was located in one of the laboratory head tanks and was constructed of sheet metalo The gate section
3
'
and chute were carved in a laminated block of wood made up of 2- by 12-inch
planks. The block was split on the vertical centerline to facilitate the
carving operation, and the two halves were later.bolted together. A band-
saw cut was made just above the predicted maximum water surface line so , that the top could be removed for observation purposes. The chute and
cover can both be seen in Photograph A, F1gu:t•,·So The piers were made of
redwood and were held in place in the gate seetion by small dowels. Both
piers and chute were thoroughly oiled and varnished before water was
allowed to come in contact with them. The 260 feet of horizontal tunnel
below the chute was rolled out of sheet metal, ana the 160 feet of open
cut was shaped from the same material. As the water entering the river
from the spillway will have a supercritical velocity, a model of the river
bed was constructed below the spillway outlet in· order to observe and
remedy any undesirable effects that might be produced therein. This
portion of the model consisted of a watertight box with side slopes
similar to those encountered in the canyon below the damo An adjustable
weir located at the downstream end of the box served to regulate the tail
water elevation below the spillway outlet.
Eight piezometers were located at various intervals down the invert
of the chute in order to observe the pressures at these points. Twenty
two piezometers were installed in. the right-hand pier, as shown in the
sketch on Figure 16, in order to obtain the drop in pressure through the
gate section. These were installed on both faces of the pier, so the
readings are representative of the entire gate section. Point-gage me�s
urements of the water surfaces were also taken above the piers, through
the gate section, and at various points down the chute. The head on the
crest was observed from a hookgage which was connected to the laboratory
head tank. The tailwater elevation at the spillway outlet was registere�
directly by a piezometer connected to the tailwater box.
THE ORIGINAL SPILLWAY DESIGN
The original design of the Seminoe Spillway, Figure 5, worked fairly
well. It was quite certain, however, that a few improvements could be
made. Flow through the gates ·was not exceptionally good, and this in
turn caused the water surface in the chute to be irregular and unsym
metrical. ln the original design, the beginning of the chute at the
4
,.
"
downstream end of the piers, was of horseshoe shape with a curved
bottom, thus the center gate had a larger area than either of the other
two and a greater discharge flowing through it. This condition caused
the deeper jet issuing from the center gate to predominate in the chute.
This, together with an abrupt transition section directly below the
piers,- caused a large part of the water from the outer two gates to con
verge toward the center and ride on top of the water issuing from the
center gate. As a result, a large fin formed down the center of the
chute. Flow through the outer gates was not symmetrical, which from all
indications was due to the unsymmetrical approach to the gate section.
Flow in the chute was noisy, and this condition would be objectionable
in the prototype as vibration might result. -After reaching the vertical
curve at the lower end of the chute, the centrifugal force created in
that vicinity smoothed out the surface of the water making possible a very satisfactory flow in the horizontal tunnel. The photographs in
Figure 6 show the model as originally designed. Photograph A is a view
of the entire .model with the chute cover removed, and B shows a discharge
of 50,000 second-feet flowing down the chute. Photograph C, is a view
looking downstream at the original gate section.
PRELIMINARY REVISIONS ON THE ORIGINAL SPILLWAY
Extensive.tests were made on the original model with numerous minor
changes, in an effort to improve flow conditions through the gates and
in the chute before any definite measurements were recorded. This being
the case, a brief swmnary of the procedure and the results obtained
follows,
Installation .of Hinged Piers
As a first effort to improve the flow through the gates and eliminate
the objectionable fin down the center of the chute, a set of piers was
constructed identical with the original ones except that the tailpieces
(downstream of the gates) were hinged to the fore part as shown in the
sketch on Figure 7. The stationary portions of the piers were mounted on
the crest in the very same positions as were the originals. The hinged
tailpieces however, could be set in any position desired while the model
5
•
#
was in operation. It was found that spreadin£ the tailpieces outward
from their original settings produced a larger and more irregular fin.
By toeing the tailpieces in toward the centerline of the spillway, the
fin was somewhat reduced in size. If the tailpieces were toed in an
·extreme amount, the fin directly below the gate section was further
reduced in size but objectionable side fins were created in the lower
portion of the chute. An interesting but aggravating problem to the
test crew, was the fact that flow conditions changed as the water pro
gressed down the chute. In other words, when flow conditions were sat
isfactory at the upper end, they were usually unsatisfactory at the lo¼�r
end and vice versa. From results obtained on chutes of various designs
tested in the laboratory on previous occasions, it was generally found
that flow down a chute occurs with various surface forms, and if the
chute is long enough and other conditions favorable, these forms may
tend to repeat at intervalso
Floor Raised in Upper Portion of Chute
As there was a very sudden change in the slope of th8 chute floor
just below the center gate which was not true of the slope below the
outer two gates, an idea was conceived that filling in the invert in the
upper part of the center of the chute with some material would decrease
the depth of flow through the center gate and perhaps aid in correcting
the difficul tie·s encountered with surface fins. Plasticene ( a c�mrnercial
modeling clay) was pressed into place below the center gate forming the
fill shown on Figure ? a. Trial runs were then made with the long hinged
piers installed on the crest. The tailpieces were adjusted to give the
best flow conditions, and it was found that the addition of the fill made
a very noticeable improvement. flow through the outer two gates, however,
was still unsymmetrical.
Revision of Wing-walls
An investigation showed that approach conditions to the right gate
were superior to those to the left. A curved wall consisting of a
flexible piece of sheet metal which could be bent to any desired radius
was installed just above the left gate forming a continuation of the
left wall of the gate section. Runs were then made to deterrrane the
curvature which would produce the best flow through the gates. It was
6
found that the larger the radius used, the better were the resulting
approach conditions. As a conservative limit, a wing-wall having a
radius of 16 feet was adopted. A similar wall having the same radius
was installed on the right side of the gate section. The recommended
design on FiQ.1re 5 shows a plan of these walls, and Photograph c, on
Figures 6, 8, and 9 show views of the same. With the fill in the
upper portion of the chute invert and the reconstructed wing-walls, flow
through the gates and in the chute was much .improvedo
GATE SECTION B
Gate Section B was similar to the original design with the exception
that short piers were installed and the gates were moved upstream as
shown in 11 Gate Section B, 11 Figure 7. The plasticene fill was left in
the invert in the upper part of the chute. Contrary to expectations,
flow conditions were quite unsatisfactory and testing was discontinued on this setup.
The plasticene fill was removed, the gate section was dug out so
as to make the floor much flatter in cross-section without disturbing the
centerline elevations, and the long hinged piers were again installedo
Flow was somewhat better but still not very satisfactoryo
GATE SECTION C
In a further effort to improve the flow through the gates, the
Design Department submitted another gate section designated as "Gate ce,ctkn C,"
Figure 7, which was rectangular in cross-section throughout, and in which
the sudden change in slope below the center gate was eliminated. The
piers and side walls were all parallel to the centerline ef the spillway.
The model was revised to conform with the new nesign. Photograph C,
Figure 8, is a view of the gate section looking downstream. With the
short piers installed, nothing but mediocre results were obtained.
Long Hinged Piers Installed
The short piers were replaced by the original long hinged piers. In
this case, the stationary portions of the piers were set parallel to the
centerline of the spillway. Trial runs were made while the tailpieces
were adjusted to a position which gave the best flow conditions. The run
7
,.
"
in which the best flow was obtained for Gate Section C is shown plotted
as Test 11-1 on Figure 10. The ta.ilpiece on the right pier was toed in
3.12 feet toward the centerline of the spillway and the tailpiece_on the
left pier was toed in 1. 88 feet. It was found throughout these tests
that in the majority of cases, the best results were obtained when the
right tailpiece was toed in a greater amount than the left. This was
necessary in order to compensate for the lack of symmetry in the approach
structure. Approach conditions are very important in a spillway of this
type, especially when large heads are involved. · The profile of Test 11-1,
Figure 10, represents the water surface elevation on the centerline of
the spillway, and the sections shown were taken at the points indicated.
An inspection of the sections show a considerable amount of irregularity
in the water surfaces. Photographs A and B, FiBUre 8, show a discharge
of 50,000 second-feet flowing down the chute with the long piers installed
in Gate Section C. The pier tailpieces were set as shown in Test 11-1.
Approach Channel Floor Raised
The approach channel to the gate section was presumably deeper than
nec�ssary, and a series of runs were made as an investigation. The floor
of the channel was raised by means of a succession of accurately fitted
boards and the head at maxinn.un discharge measured for each condition.
The elevation of the raised channel floor is plotted against the observed
head on the crest in each case in Graph B, Figure 11. The curve shows
that for maximum discharge, the floor of the channel can be raised 12. 5
feet (up to elevation 6294.5) without affecting the head on the crest.
In all subsequent tests, the channel floor was at this elevationo
THE RECOMMENDED GATE SECTION
Resume of Pier Settings
The gate section was again revised to correspond to the drawing
titled i1 The Recommended Design" shown on Figure 5P Photograph C,
Figure 9, shows a view of this gate section looking downstream. The
floor of the approach channel is at elevation 6294.5, the 16-foot radius
wing-walls are installed, and the long hinged piers are set symmetrically
in the gate section. A plot of this layout for a run of 50,000 second
feet is shown as Test 13-1 on Figure 10. Notice the center fins in the
8
,.
..
'
sections taken at Stations 0+56.2, 0+89.0, and 1+26.5 and the side fins
at Station 2+40o5. Photographs A and B, Figure 12, are two views of the
water flowing c:i.orm the chute at maximum discharge o Photograph C, is a
. view of the water approaching the gate section.
A number of runs were made on the recommended gate section with the
pier tailpieces set in various positions in order to find a setting that
would produce the be'st flow through the gates and down the chute. Pro
files and sections of the water surfaces for a few of these settings
are included in this report in order to impress upon the reader the
importance of the pier pos�tions in the proper operation of a spillway of
this type. Tests 15-1 and 16-1, plotted on Figure 13, show the water sur
faces in the gate section and chute for the maximum discharge. when the
right tailpiece was toed in 0.47 feet and 0.94 feet respectively. The
tailpiece on the left pier r,�mained untouched during these two tests.,
Test 1 4-1, Figure 1 41 shows a plot of the water surface when both
tailpieces were toed in 0. 47 feet toward the centerline of the spillway. \
Test 17-1, Figure 1 4, shows the water surface for maximum discharge when
the right tailpiece was toed in 0.94 feet and the left tailpiece was toed
in 0. 47 feet. In the latter case, flow conditions were quite satisfactory.
The Recommended Pier Setting
The best results using this gate section were obtained when both
pier tailpieces were toed in 0 o94 feet, Figure 15. An advantage of this
setting over the last one mentioned is that the piers are symmetrical in
the gate section. Water surfaces are plotted on Figure 15 for discharges
of 50,000, 35,000, 20,000, and 10,000 second-feet. These results actually
ar� a decided improvement over those obtained in all previous tests. The
water surfac�s are quite irregular for the partial discharges, but for
these no serious consequences can result. To have excellent flow condi
tions for all ·discharges would require a spillway of different design.
Photographs A and B, Figure 9, show two views of the recommended spillway
discharging at 50,000 second-feet. Photograph C, shows the gate section,
and Dis a view of the complete spillway. A sketch of the left pier as
recommended is shown in Figure 7 •. The other pier is an exact opposite.
It is expedient to construct them in this manner in order to preserve
the symmetry of the upper portion of the gate section.
9
1
Piezometer Pressures in Chute
Pressures obtained from the eight piezometers which were located
along the invert of the chute are plotted on Fieures 10 and 15, inclusive.
An examination of these show that all pressures measured were above
atmospheric.
Piezometer Pressures on Right Pier
Pressures registered by the 22 piezometers which were installed in
both faces of the right pier are plotted for 3 discharges on Figure 16 e
The locations of these piezometers in the pier are shqwn in one of the
sketches on Figure 16. Notice that for a discharge of 50, 250 second-feet
the water surface in the center gate is higher than that in the right gate.
Likewise, the piezometer readines in the center gate are ereater than those
in the right gate. It is necessary that the water surface be higher in
the center gate than in the outer two if fin formation is to be reduced to
a minimum. A second reason why the piezometers on the left side of the
pier read hieher than those on the right is that the general direction of
flow is not parallel to the piers. This would cause the piezometers on
the left face to register some velocity head, while those on the right
face probably read less than the actual static head. The piezometers
belo� the gates for discharges of 29, 000 and 10, 320 second-feet, Figure 16,
verify this statement as some of them show readings which are above the
water surface. The plot for 29, 000 second-feet illustrates this point in
another way. Although the right gate is open a greater amount than the
center gate and the water surface is higher below the right gate than the
center, the piezometers below the center gate indicate pressures l�rger
than those below the right gate� The indicated pressures are difficult
to analyze, however, they should be representative of those that actually
do exist at the points where measured.
GATE OPERATING SCHEDULE
A gate opera.j_ug schedule which proved very satisfactory on the
model is shown on Figure 17. It was obtained by setting the three gates
so as to give the best flow conditions for various discharges. The
three gate openings were then plotted for each dischargeo In order to
10
obtain satisfactory flow conditions in the chute, it is necessary that
the center gate be open a greater amount than the side gates for all
discharges less than 40,000 second-feet, as can be observed from Figure
17. It would seem that both side gates should be operated exactly alike,
due to the inequality of approach conditions; this is not true. The
approach to the right gate is superior to that on the left, consequently
it is necessary that the right gate be open a greater amount than the
left for discharges of less than 40,000 second-feet. This schedule was
obtained using maximum head on the gate (reservoir elevation = 635700)
as it was assumed that the Stoney gates would not be opened until the
water surface in the reservoir approached this elevation. Very poor
flow results wtien all gates are opened an equal amount for discharges of
less than 40,000 second-feet. A side gate should not be operated sepa
rately or in conjunction with the center gate except in cases of necessity.
Either the center gate alone or a combination of all gates should be used.
THE HEAD DISCHARGE RELATION AND THE COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE
The relation of head on the crest to discharge was obtained from
the model of the recommended design with all gates fully open. A curve
showing this relation is·plotted on Graph A, Figure 11. For the maximum
designed discharge of 50,000 second-feet, a head of 51 feet on the crest
is ·required o An explanation is necessary at this point as to why the
head on the crest for the maximum discharge in Graphs A and B, Figure 11,
do not agree. The reason for the difference is the curve on Graph B was
obtained from Gate Section C and the curves on Graph A were taken from
the tests made on the recommended gate section. The maximum capacity of
the spillway is 62,000 second-feet, but this would require a head of 59
feet on the crest. The coefficients of discharge for various heads on
the crest were computed using the formula Q = CLHJ/2, where Lis the
w;dth of the gate section exclusive of piets, and measured directly above
the gate slots. A curve showing the relation of the coefficient of dis
charge to the head on the crest is plotted on Graph A, Figure 11. Coeffi
cients were· not obtained for partial gate openings.
11
,.
THE ORIGINAL OUTLET CHANNEL
Water leaving the trapezoidal outlet channel was at shooting flow,
and this created considerable disturbance in the river and a.high splash
on the opposite canyon wall. The canyon walls are composed of granite
and any damage done to them or the riverbed is unimportant. It is
important, however, that the disturbance does not extend upstream suf
ficiently to interfere with the proper operation of the powerhouse. It
is also essential that the jet shall not splash high enough on the far
canyon wall to endanger a proposed road which will run along the river to
the powerhouse. As originally designed, the outlet channel made an angle
of 10°, in an upstrerun direction, with the centeI�ine of the spillway in
order to minimize on the amount of excavation in this open cut.
The model showed that the curved channel was ineffective as far as
steering the strea.in of water was concerned. The water climbed up· the
right wall, only intermittently contacting the left, and shot out into
the river as a jet concentrated in a vertical plane. This incident
again demonstrates the fact that it is impossible to successfully deflect
water in a horizontal direction when it is flowing at a velocity above
critical in an open channel. The disturbance created in the river did
not extend as far upstream as the powerhouse, so aside from appearance,
no harm can result. Photographs A and B, Figure 18, show the jet dis
charging into the river from the origino.l outlet channel. · Flow in the
30-foot horizontal tunnel was very satisfactory for all discharges. For
the �mum discharge of 50,000 second-feet, the tunnel flowed slightly
more than two-thirds full.
THE RECOMMENDED OUTLET CHANNEL
The original trapezoidal channel was replaced by one which could
be rotated in a horizontal plane. Runs were then made with the channel
set at various angles, and the height of spl�sh on the opposite canyon wail
was measured. Figure 19 consists of a topographic plot o! the west
canyon wall with splash heights interposed on it for discharges of 50,000
and 30,000 second-feet. These are plotted for three positions of the channel, namely; 10° upstream, o0, and 5° downstream with respect to the
12
centerline of the spillway. This plot should give some idea as to a
safe elevation of the road on the west canyon wall. Notice that for a
discharge of 50,000 second-feet, the splash is considerably higher with
the channel turned 10° upstream than with it set at oo. With it set at
10° upstream, the splash is 80 feet high, while for o0, it is about
45 feet high. For the same discharge, the sp�ash is practically identical.
for the channel set at o0 and 5° downstream. As the splash is much reduced
anci the general operation of the outlet more pleasing to the eye when the
centerline of the channel coincides with the centerline of the spillway,
this layout is recommended. Photographs A and B, Figure 18, show the jet
discharging into the river for maximum discharge with the channel rotated
10° upstream, and Photographs C and D show the same jet discharging into
the river with the channel and spillway on line as recommended. A com
plete summary of all test made on the Seminoe Spillway can be found in
the appendix of this report.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All laboratory work is under the general direction of E. H. Lane.
The construction and testing of the Seminoe Stoney-gate Spillway was
under the supervision of J. B. Drisko. He was assisted by Junior
Engineers H. M. Martin and L. R. Brooks, who were in charge of construc
tion, and J. M. Buswell, who directed the test crew. The office compu
tations and the figures in this report were made by H. W. Brewer, R. K.
Vierck, A. H. Neal, and E. C. Parks. The photographs were prepared by
J.E. Warnock at Fort Collins.
13
APPENDIX
Test : no o : AEE,roac h :
Gate section
1-1 :Original : Original :
: 2-1 : I I . II
: :
2-1 : II . ti
: . 3-1 : I I : I I
: . : :
3-2 : I I . II
: 3-3 . 11 : I I
: : 4-1 : Revised : Original
revised 4-2 : " . II . . : . 4-3a : II . I I
Piers
Original with tip
Original
None
Original with flexible tail
II
ti
Long hinged
II
II
A:ppend.ix
SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project
Log of Tests
Pier settinB; . : Head on : . L . R : Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft. .
ft. . ft Q . cfs . ft. : L : C : R . . . : : . . . . . : C .L . : C .L . : 50,000 : 50o0 : - :All open :
I I . I I • Various :Various : : Various :
No : No : II : II . . II
piers : p:i..ers : C .L . : C .L . : 50,000 : 50 o0 :All open : .
I I . ti · 57,000 : 54 o0 II
II . I I • 62,500 II
:Various :Various : Various :Various : :Various : : : :
I I : I I : II : II I I
: : : : C .L . : In 0.31 : II . II II
fto
Sheet 1 of 4
Remarks
:Run with and without : plasticine in the pier : section. : Demonstrated-run with and : without fillet o : Plasticine improved : operation o : Tried various positions : and curvatures of the ': left wing-wall. :Runs greater than designed : dischargeo :Runs greater than designed : discharge. : A 16-foot semicircular : left wing-wall was used o : A 12-foot se�icircular : left wing-wall was used 0 : A 20-foot semicircular
left wing-wall was the : best rad.ius o
AEE_endix
SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project
Log of Tests
Sheet 2 of 4 . . . . . ·: . . . . . . . . . : Pier set ti!!S; : :Head on : . . .
Test : . Gate . : L . R :Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft . . . . IlO o :AeEroach : section : Piers . ft . : ft o . cfs . ft . . L . C : R . Remarks . . . . . . . . . . : . . : . . . . . . .
4-3b :Revised :Original. :,Long hinged : C .L. :In O o62 :Various :Various : - :Various . - :A 16-fto semicircular left-. . : revised : without tail-: : ft . . . . : : : wing-wall was usedo . . . . . : pieces . 4-Jc : II . n . " . n . II . II : II . - . ll : - : Extended right side instead . . . . . . . . . . • · . . . . . . . . : of using radius o Sixteen-. . . . . . . . . . . . . : ft . radius on left -wing-. . . . . . . . . : . . . . : wall . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 . " :Gate Secti.oo: Short . II : C .L. : 50,000 :50.82 . - :All open : - :Layout No. 1 demonstrated-. . . . : B . : : : ! ft o : . . : flow bad. . . . . 5-2 . " . " . u . II . " :Various :Various : - :Various : - : Splash heights in river for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : discharges of 50,000, . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : . : 40,000, 30,000, 20,000, . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . : 10, ooo
�· and 5,000 cfs o . • . . . . .
6-1 II " .. II . u . II . n . II . - . It . - :Splash eights plotted on . : . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . : contour map for discharges . : . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : of 50,000, 30,000, and : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 10, 000 cfs o Outlet 10° . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . : : upstreamo . . . . . 7-1 II fl :Long hinged . II . n : 50,000 :49 074 . - :All open :. - :Flow satisfactory. Floor . . . . . . . : of chute entrance . . . . : ft. : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : flattened o . . . . . . . . 8-1 " II . rt . ti . ti . IJ : 50.1 . � . n . - :Raised entrance cut and . . . . . . . . . . .
: observed difference in . . . : ft. to : . . . : . . . . . . : 50 .6 . . . : headwater • . . : . . . . : ! . . .
:
est rio _1_....:..fil2Eroach :
I : 1-la :Revised
9-lb : II
:>-1 II . . 1-1 II . .
: . . l-2a : II . . l-2b : II . .
:
Gate section Piers
Gate :Long hinged Section B :
I I I I
: Gate . Short . Section C :
n : Long hinged . . . II It
It II
.2-1 n :Recommended : II
2-2 2-3 : 2-4
n
II
11
tt :
: · n II
n
fl
n
Appendix
SEMINOE SPIIJ..WAY Casper Alcova Project
Log of Tests
: Pier setting . :Head on : .
L . R :Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft . . ft . : ft-.
. cfs . ft o . L : C : R . . . C .L . C .L . Various :Various : :Various
ti : II : I I . I I . I I
: : : II . 11 : 50,000 : 50 .1 . : All open : .
Sheet 3 of 4
Remarks
:Same as 6-1 except that : outlet is on centerline : of tunnel . : Same as 6-1 except that : outlet is 5° downstream. :Layout No. 2. Flow poor .
:In 1 .88 :In 3 012 : 50,250 : 51.12 : ti : 'funnel flow good . Chute : flow rough . High fin at . : : . . . . . .
: II : I I : 20,000 :
n . " : 20,000 :
: . . : In 0 .94 :In 0 .94 : 50,250
: II . II : 34, 520 . . : If . . II : 20,380
II . II ! 10,370
. . : 50 .0 . : 50 o0
: 50 . 70
: : : : end of piers . :13 .36 : 13.36 :13.36 :Same setup as 11-1 . Flow
. .
: : bad . :Various : - :Same setup as 11-1 to
: determine the best : position of the gates Q
: All open: - : Flow through the chute is : : : good o
: 50 .34 :21.25 : 27.81 :26 .25 :Same setup :13. 75 : Same setup
as 12-1. a,s 12-l o a.s 12-1 .
: 50 .82 :11 .88 : 16.88 : 51 . 06 : 6 .10 : 8 .44 5 .31 :Same setup :
Test : : no. : A1:2roach :
Gate section : Piers
Appendix
SEMINOE SPILLWAY Casper Alcova Project
Log of Tests
: Pier set ting L : R
: ft o ft .
:Head on : :Discharge : crest :Gate opening in ft. :
cfs : ft� : L : C : R
Sheet of 4 .
Remarks : : % : : : : . .
12-5 :Revised :Recommended : Long hinged :In 0.94 :In 0.94 : Various :Various : :Various :Coefficient of discharge
13-1 : . . 14-1 :
: 15-1 :
16-1 : 17-l: : 1 8-1 : 18-2 : 18-3 : 1 8-4 :
:
ti
lf
u
n
II
II
II
lt
JI . .
11 . II . II : " . . It . I I .
: 11 . . 11
II . I I . II . . ti
" . II • n . It . II . u . .
: . . . ! . : : runs. . . . . : C .L . : C .L . : 50,110 : 51.0 . . - :All open : - :High fin at center of . . . : . . . : chute • . . . . . . : In 0.47 :In 0.47 : 50,250 : 50.94 : - : II : - :Fin still in center of . . . : . . . : chute • . . . . . . : C .L . . I I : 50,390 : �50.94 : - . II . - : Flow fairly good. Fin . . . . . . . . : . : left side • . . . . . . . II :In O o94 : 50,390 : 50 .94 : - : II . - :Flow rougher than 12-l o . . :In 0.47 :In 0.94 : 50,390 : 51.18 : - . II : - :About the same as 12-l a . :In 0.94 :In 0.94 : 50,250 : 51.18 : - . H . - :Pier piezometer readings . . . . II . II : 29,000 ! 51.24 :21 025 : 20a78 :22 019 : " . . : II . II · : +0,320 : 51 .36 : 6 010 : 9oJ8 : 5 .15 : II . . II . H : Various :Various : - :Various : - : Coefficient of discharge . . . . . : : : . : runs • . . . .
- ·
. ._
, .
-:
i-
-
,,.. ___ _ ' .
S P E C I Fl t AT I O N S No & 3 0
.,
\\
MOO N
\ il '
1Z J � : > + I .._ : � : El. 6351.0 El. 6350.0
+ El. 6300.0
I I I I \ ' I
I I I ' ' '
',
i I I I ' I
t-
\
+ Point No.3 on base linesooo N - sooo E . on coordinate syste_m.--·-···
� , · -i
� t"-
� ;.
I
I I I
\, I I I ' ' \ '
I
�\ � · \
\ I
. .. J
' 0 'f..
+
I I I '
\
\, ' ',,\
I P L A N
•M
�- 6350
&300
6250
6200°
+
1 ... 00 . -,--
1- ---1--, I ' '
I \ '
I I ,_ -' . ' .
\ 1 ,
·\
2 ,00
' I
Oriqinal su'r�e )1\ upstr1ram foe _ ... \ ,,.
\ i " I Assumed bec'rrud('·i
upstream foe · ······
:.... \
"
3+00 -. 4-,00
I I
I I ,
I
i./
't •.
I I
I I
I , / __ , I
I I
_1
U P S T R E A M E L E VATI O N {OE: V E L O P E. D)
I
, ,,,
• S,00
, /
I I I ,,,
6+00
"· .. Assumed line of excavation. upstream toe.
6350
6300
62!",0
6200
61 50
6100
6,00 5 + 0 0 4+00 3 ,00 2+00 -,
', ' I I \
\ ') Intersection - downstream\/ toe and oriq,r>al surface -·
Assumed line of excavation Downstream toe ·· ·· - ---· .-'·
D O W N S TR EA M E L E VA T I O N (PRO.JE C T E D)
1 +00
6350
6300
6250
6'200
6 1 50
& 1 0 0
N E E. O L E VALVE. D I S C H A R O E. I N S E. C O N D F E E T 0 1000 "2000 3000 I R E S E v o 1� A R E A - T�o u s A N o s 'or A C R E S I
6361
F 1 �� 7 �0636 1
Z 6300 .. l,U , ,O,C, 6300
0
� '( > "'
J
°
''° � - tf }tkYZI L �"'
" 0
0
6'200
soo 1000
R E S E RV O I R C A Pl'. C I T Y - T H OU S A N DS OF ACl'-E FEET 20,000 <o0,000 60,000
S P I L LWAY ANO D I V E R S I O N T U N N E L DI S CHARC,f.S IN SEC O N D F E E T A R E A · CA PAC I TY A N D D �S C H A R G E C U R V E S
F I G U R E. '
0IVER5 l0N T U N N E L DIS C HARG E S N o Dio
n. f 1 4
2 14
3 20 4 20 5 '16 6 26
Coe! ·n· 035 .0 1 4 015 -.0 14 -,03, 014
' ",., ·-,·
(UPSTREAM F'A C ! PROvE CTE. O RADIA LLY ON A X / 5) >:·. _El. 6428.0 ,._
E r>
' ;�t ' '1:11
...,,-!:II
- ... _ . .... ..J"
, ,,
- - l . __ . ... �
� �
'-'.."{t ) \
r�1-:
.Spillyvay qafe ( struc!ui-e : '\ �
-.
- ...........
j �
� ,s· � z'· 6"1 :-12·,: 1< 2�6· .··· Parapet El. 6364. 5
. ,,� r
El. 6324-. 5 -·
_/ ..
,· · . • . . 0
, . . . .
.,
;t .' i· . . 0 �
"> • 0 "' . . ()
j VJ
Pensfock trasnrack · ---. -�
El. 6208. 66 ···-. El. 6203. 40,.
-- '· £/. 6{97. 1 2 · ... :. ,, ...
.c o, • �
� . I . Q. f,!? • . O � 'll) Q • ,:·.· .
r> C.· El._ 6250,f ) , !- - · ·t··.JJ'-0"- J f: .. za: . . zo · ·· · 45 · 6 l
0 . )1 . . · . . _. _ · · � 1: � ."_0· z- 1 2,5 o o Kta.
� ... - .,
.
oo Ton crane • Generators.. . f.·El. 6/198.86-,
j ' ·.. ·Generator floor /
: -I --(_..., ___ _,_ . . ... ·-,r·
·"· . � P. T.-.�,'· !'64-.25�.---.. y, 1·� . -. . . . ' . . . · . _ . ;I
· \ £1. 6190. 0 f \ El. 6186.34-·� I
,.f Turbine ,: El. 61 68.5 i ----------
· --"Z /4,000 H. P. Turbines ':'-,-:::...,......1 ,... -El. 6150.S
_ _ n --Assumed � v,:: � f rock surface (UI
Berm os directed by / contracting off/cer····
.. :�>� . . . · . . ·> ·1:> .- : :. - -��\.
[. Q
. •· . . O · .
. . "' \
·. r� . �·- o' -." ' , . · . • %�
. �·r:�.t.:, . qates
.. ·, .•. .-
--.... -. - .. ,• .
IZ ,. ........ 4-z · · · · · · · · · ·· · • 4-7 ........• ..,/2
�-,.,')( / M UM .S'E � TI O N OF D A M � £CTION A - A
-;. I , � .... ,
- p
1-- ,, - •i � 1
. .,...� .. ·•
r�; J...""�· l\
/
.• ' ..., :;.
I •
I .i (
(
. -,,...-
lh •
• ' C
V) I o ·-• ><
j ) :
El. 6363.0 1 Max. w. s.'. El. 6357. o -
...
4 : 1./ S E CTI ON E - E
///�
,,,, 4',,, El. 6294 .. 5 - -,(<Jt;:j.
/. �: ' � ' r v. ,/ . � .� r/:" "'
,/ L> �: Floatwell ',, Ground surface on / ,,,,.. ,-' E a .--· shaft '-'f. spillway inlet ,...-· ,_.,/ � E/. 6227.4-6··� ll: \,
·• ,,,.,
\f) 0 • ., ',, Ground surface on proposed ,/ 50 00 oo ·�.- : G ,, diversion tunne1 -�- - . . _ __ • ..,.A�--....... 1n1e���: �-.;,,.--• ..-�--�===-��:��=����;�:-:.�.-:..�_,· : r
>
.................... ... . , :, , • __ > C: I! ---- ---- --- -- �- I I
.,...,...,_._ _ -----, ... -..
----::.�::_-_:-_______ !r.--�-.____,._..._.,._�---=---....=-�----�--.....--J ____ � ___ .. J ________ ::--_ -- -- --+----
, ... � .. : 7 :'.sta. 2 � 40.34- I.,..
G
--------... • .;,···Oru,inal ground surface S PILLWA-Y S E C TI O N D - D -.... __
-.. -- Generofor floor - El. 6190. 0 , 12;., ,., 12
.· I · ·"- - 6 ",: :-">:' :<· - - - - - 12 ·- o� - · - - - � "� "- 6" •
--·· 2 - 60' Needle valves L ;.: : f -� :O : , J., i "? r. .). - • "' C ·1 -s-:• ,.. ---,�--· •• 'I'. Valve - El. 6168.:, 5' 0:� :-· • � -- .· +:-:ii· · rone ra, s ·· · :i�l . • . � ' ·, Z' 6. M S
10 , •• � ' ' " 0 0 Road El. 6�61.0 --: ·n :· . ... . El.��5�0
. .·· ·· . �L 1 ,·£/. 636lO;f ...,_._1 :_;.
WOR K S
,11,-_ .-,�i:/\ .. --·�\ - " �---- /G,· -f.:-� ·,..:. ·- �·:···: i:O. · - ·:.::-� · ?· ·½X� - -,.1 Backfill ·<r·· ·,,,. :!/· 4-" Drain pipe··· u i: .. : "' ·. · . . . Et. 6358.5:i_.':7 �
.. , <i,' .• of! • • 0 • • -. " · a - - - - -- r
6'Dio. sewer-pipe · ··. 'I)· :_- t � · .0 · :-:, · •
�rain embedde� ... .,.·i'. ��Q,
: • . § ·.,;1· "b ·.' · .; : .; in gravel -· .• ,. · =if · · . • 0 t ·: ..__
· . .:,t·�.·�0· .. \ r.r::..; Q O .. ••
0
, ., ...;' !'·:J-i
\'"""
. .,;
/44 ·D - 6 95 !
\ --t
THIS ORA Wl/'IG SUPE.ll.5E.DE.D BY D WG 144·0·695.
O�PAR.TMC.NT OF THC l NTf:RIOR BUREAU OF Ai:CLAMATION
CASPf: R-ALCOVA PROuECT - WYOMING
;=-'
S E C TI O N B - B .,
�- . · o. - -::5<·� 1� · \ . " �- · ,� " - .� _ - . · O. · <>-' SEMI N O £ DAM AND POWE!R. PLANr
PLAN, E.L..E.VATIONS AND SECTIONS ,r(l!r /
,- ./ t
{1 .. _ .. ,� � � ! ·"'1 " ... , :' .s l �·· '
\
,.._ l\ • • . ........ --. .
-�· '-
T
• 4\ ......
·,-s:: .S E C TI ON C - C
l
l .
... R OA D WAY AND ' PA R A P E TS
J, . . ... ' _,
�
·�·- \ � ' -.r.•�• -�-�--------..
-:t • ..i. ;l,:...r � ..... _.,.. �
S P E C I F I C AT I O N S No. 6 3 0
-
S,:; ·,c_c,::-
/ / /
. / /
,I',,...,,.,,.,,,
<::.t '�, �c:: . / - ,. ,.,,,-
·/· -·
�c '.t:. -.,-
--
/
__,
�"'-/ / �:: ( / - -
-<..
,\ 5 £ ii 3 E . ·
[,' 5L28 ., E 64 '.) • . . :'\..
: - �_3_6 3 'I
A r>
B r>
E 63 J - , . ,. E sm · - -�"� :1 :;29.:.. 5 . -
SHAFT D I MENS IONS S·:· ,· . ,-· : J ' (; : • 6 5 '3 9 " 50 , 8'-10" · . - , s s ee ,>,!\"'
: .. 1:-s s ; o .., 34·- 9�,r .. ; &; t..., =s :;2 -s?z·
1 • 3: !€ 2 5 E5 30 - : ':· " . - 4 : 6 3 -'- 3-:·-i:
0 l> ';'
A o
(..,:
�
'½-. ,, ..,_-,."-
·, . . rof'
"' ,r.
'-p · �
�� � ; �¾� � ., �
>
"'- -"--i., � \. '; �- '>
AroJ:?, 7"' .l"-:f"
\ �_%,, -�, �
P L A N
</-?e .
C.-est of dam El 6361. 00 ·-. �==\
-,
F I G U R E 2
',, ',
£1 6428 ·�
� ...I.·
El 6363 ·· ..
�- - / r •
� ' & ""
t ' " ', -,
',,
.,0 -<:""l.r, .r,--0
--
1"/011-.
10 0 so 100
Sca l e of fee�
--, '
-.... ',,
',,
' w s ·:1 535 7·. E 1 6363_:i
3-i'4''i so' S-on e y qc"'"es
-,_ �- 'I�
�- --, n 530 -. r_ - - · · · 1, ::1 6294 5
� . !§'. 5. £1 635 7; ! ;,,fur---, .-...-�
--, /
' ..... ..... ,, ...
---------------'---, ��;_
<?}�
' ', ,
·, ',,
',
',,, __ __
.......... ...... ......
S E C TI O N A -A
SEC T I O N B -B
...... ... ...... ..... ',,,
,
L 5 -J ) -c 20 ., F · --· � �- P-' ;- .t:-
� _?!:, �- �� � ,
'
;#
,j,. "� ."" <'o-�
· . �
A Lino ··· · , · J. ... f'.,.," ..,., 9� 'f •• i7'" ';(· - -� - � ... ' '
s;...
. . \ � � · r · 5 ·55
.... _ .... -,. . . � -�� �---u - · - • � ,s,'6'°t. . d, .�-1J' · · F . q,,"jf:_ 1:
.E/ _630 1 53 4_.\.__!];,hEl 6Z97.95
/',"7�"-�'�.
�- .. .. .. . . , ,,,.,,,, e 1 _6_�,_3!? , � . '""
. " " ' 6'�0 '\ �
�------ ' ' ( '
S E CTI O N C - C S E:: C T I O N D · D S E CTI O N £-� SE CTI O N F-F. s - ::: 0 .,. 3 5 Sto. 0+ 45 Sfo. 0+55
Venf /10/e ··. · !..?w p:-essu·e qrouf �o ·es --. sJcced ot ZIJ'ceryfffs
-.Jr
Sta. I + 4:1
,.-Low pressure qrouf hole
. - · · · · Prov1s1onol h1qh . pressure"qrout ho1es
,/ . .J1gh and low ; ·ess.: -e ;ro:1 ''nc :f
clivers:on t:nre' wc 1!s to conforrr ..1.0 orrcn;;e,TJen� sfiow 1 on � /p.":c 1 section of sp;'/wcy inne:
Jc-:q ·J.udtrc ' 1y
Loi.- :Y?ss:;re Fout ho/P. ·-.. -¼."-" -
Gro� + o,pe co�nec�ons fo �e em!JecceC 1n CO'lc re-e or SE+ i." grout ho.'es crll'ed 1n concrete c7 cp·;o,0 o• :ont·acc· Pipe z ' a. · ·
I to be drilled and qrouf· ed if re quired
� ::.>A' L,ne
Concre-te
Y..
. · '1 -"
rubble masonry · · · · . �
1\ ,·
_c ,•, r:ressc· re ::roe ' ho . es scr-ie cs SJ, 1 1W:y Tt.:"" n e ';
r
.J-!i'{" :i,·essu re oro" + �oles spoc�d . . . . . 20 rcx:mum lor:qn1d?no1/y. Holes _,: · ·
A
TYPICAL - ,:�OAD SECTIONS l{� · Z0 'deep Staccer rodio 1/y - · · �
NOTES
,c� " " 49 •29 ' �
.-· El. 615734 $/ope •O oo 9 '
SECTI O N ALON G � TUN NEL
'·
"··
'
Flow 'c:, -- - - - - - - >-
·,, ·,
TYP ICAL SECTION-DIVER.S I O N TUNNEL
i� 'Vote - Re ;nforcerren + nc r s i o_wn ' l
4 , ./ I :_;
( 1 I
( { ' I
.. . ,. l
See :Jwo. /4 � - O- 4 13 for grout defo1.'s befv.;een qofe sfn.., cfure on�· Sec E-E
See Dwq /41/ · 0 -409 for speC1ol grout detc, 1s c' Ste 2 + 25
Ji
T YPI CA L SE C T/ ON - SPI L L W A Y TUN NEL ·t.
(Sechon E-E fo Outl e t Po r-'-o/) • 5 0 5 10 5 zo 25 30
\..
Scc l e o" fee-'-
'
\.. ' b,. \ 1 / ·'._· ;.J",. I � ' .>-('
" I <:�\ =, 6 8900 " ' j; - .. .
·\a,;,, � 8 -J· fO '\ • 30-d . ' ,- , 6 .'55.00 , .� .. . .!-.. £' /;/.!, 7.00 �-:;_ =_=. j . . - ,. , . ..
SE:CTJ O N G - G
•i :t-f''
_, �
. ,. �
::::>EP.:. R-Vfe-,- 01:" -i-,£ fN7'£.RIOII S IJ A £ A :.; -;:: .QE': .. �"1.:.-·o..., )
CASPE .:l- ALC C V:r-?AOv£C7" - \VYOM!NC
S EM I N 0 £ PA M S PILLWAY - GENERAL PLAN
fQA.\"- -' fi . .... ' ;.: . . . . . . . . SL'�_•.• --!� _ . T�A.C!'O-.. -� .__"':"_ '!'.
PCIIYCR. CO.'..CAAOO,
� ; . - '\
/'
. . I
,,._
•-1
I"' "' "' Iii "' 0 :c f " �
'•-CEILING
-4� PRES'SURE PIPE
,.-·VALVE
FLOOR LINE
WEIR TANK
SECTION Y-Y
t'r- - - ---:r - - - - -, , '• I , ·,. 8" STEAM MAIN , , : , , , , , , 1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , :
OFFICE
�
, , , , i,�--- - -�EAM_MAIN UNO£R ��u_·_·---,\
TELEPHON� : � COAT RACK�
.
$;J. , ' 1////////; 1//J///h1///d i i
ELEVATOR -' -' ' ,:
, , , , ' ' , , , , l l , , : , , , l l
'
- �L
CEILING ·
k]Ji• ;I II l,<LOOR LINE
SECTION X - X
::_-_i_��:-�!��-�---��!�_-_-_-_-_-:_·:_-o:�--:::::_ -T , ,
MAIN MODEL LABORATORY
� r2.ll i IF"ut: :w: AUXILIARY RETURN FWME I I .,_. !,,.. - 0l l l " " , ,
, .- :FLOOR DRAIN
CARPENTER SHOP
SUPPLY PIPE
THREE WAY VALVE
WATER
WORK BENCH
4" PRESSURE PIPE •
----�--- --L BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
I O I ! 3 4 !) I 7 I
SCALE OF FEET
" MOO€L LABORATORY ANNEX , , , , , ,
-FLOOR DRAIN
' , , , , , , , , , , , 4" PRESSURE PIPE ' , , ,
�
STORAGE
, , , , : ,
\-\ [I]-, , , , , , : :
Df:P'NITMOft o, THE UfTUtJOII IIUAUIJ Of lll[CUIUTIOlil
DENVER
1 1 ""�""' u .... ,ro�
r 16TH. AND AR� 'STRUTS ci
GENERAL �UT c
SI -.-.... � �.fal---·--··· :
'Z
..
-
Q a"' .,,, ) I
�) , c,. A f): -
1 E , 6 2 9 4 5
)
\
Laboro10ry --ieod Tonk.
L§.J
-. 3 ji ,,.- - 11 ·� -1 9'� ·
�� 0 ci•
�-� �--
- ------ ..::.
- - - Jt. �
D·D
r
l-1---"'- J;,- _ - - - --
P L A N
El._615?.P
" 2 '-6M
3f-
Sand Box
- - - SM-
A -WA
--,---------- - --
2·- t---
2· . :r·
- 2·-s.:· .
2· a�; .
4·-0;;
NOTE [) 1'.lm� · e r .-, ore perpendicular to invert 1 n Chu t e
A sL -
:.,..
�B '-h'
;,e �. P L A N OF GATE S E C T I O N
SECTION ALONG CENTER L I N E (SECTION A-A)
12 18
SCALE IN INCHES {MODEL) ,.
_E_L _�l�_Q
10:: , ·���;\\j
�: 8 I · -� : '=!��1 .. a:_ ! ' ' · : . ' :, ' · - ' - __ J_
I � . . . -3f; �
- --�-
o SECTION 8-8
Sand Box
��L�!!_�-�-.. ���·�··-: :., .. � ., · ·.:::s.9.o_g_____;: _ _ ·-.:.:� -.. � ... - · -•. • .
OEPARl!,ll[NT OF THE !NT[R!OR SVREAU OF R[C1. AMAT1QN
CASPER ALCO\/P. PROJECT•WYOM1NG HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES �
M O D E L OF S E M I N O E S P I LLWAY � MODEL SCALE I ·so :0
QAAWN E C P SU8N1T f[O j , }! �� r'Tl
l RACEO M rw O R S IIE CO"lN[NOED� /'-;(a,, .. ._ �
CHECKED IV< V. APPROVED ,/.,;,: /4 .-�t.,f_.,:; O E N V E A , C 01.ll., F ES. 19,19}!> 1i.Z.-0·3 1t l
/· -.
El 6282 0
'-'c>:o� - 11�6· - � , ·
·i f 'm
,;;
47�0·
SECT ION A-A STA 0 + 25
Mfl./ W ', � I r, "3 ') /
E l C3070·,. 1
Elc3o;,o
El 6?:_E!.2_0
' . .., -�
- : [ ·r
I I I I , · I I I
J
20'·0 ;
ORIG INAL DESIGN
-,
·:; 66'-0�R
- 44'-o"
« ·o
-�
SECTION B B STA. 0•35
,f
"'
"*
8
"' " 0 "' 0 "' ii, 0
''·o· I
.. _ ... _ ."_.,:j ·_, . . , �t "'
C
. cf }•
.t! �
42'-2" 32�0·,q. .
S E C T I O N C-C STA 0+45
---��� .. - -
El 6302
_E:1. 6294 5
El 6302
El.6294.5
I , , ,
i 1 111:
! ) -���t� �6'o!: :�
. . � i Y .
1b·()R
·· ·,6':o�-.
,JD ·>-
1 1 1
, , I "' .., "' "
0
E: rl ,,
r--� f
RECOMMENDED DESIGN
G (':..
l
,cs° -� ��
,, / ' e ,. )', .
·· ·18'-5·---� --- i"'"" ······· · ···4
1�
10'!. . . .
- - , -- 1· I:,,;
I u _L t .,�., . j
�
v I SECTION D·D
STA. 0+25
<7'•-r: _,,
.;;
�
"'
;.: ··r ., ....
i" l · : 'tC 7.:;'f1 ···-·· �-�
S E C T I O N E-E STA. 0+315
1 ·
SECTION F·F STA. 0•45
, .
SECT ION G-0 STA, 0•55
DEPARTMENT Of T H E 1N TER10F1 . BUREAU Of RECLA,,.ATION ""T1 CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT•W1'0r.llNG G)
HYDRAULIC MODEL S T U DI E S C S E M I N O E SPILLWAY :o
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL ANO r"l RECOMMENDED DESIGNS OI
TRACED. FPC E E !l RECOMMENDED �- �R • DRAWN A H N SU8MITTEO J II
�
CHECKED Q. K. V APPROVED ')_ • • .;;� DENVER COLO F{"Ei 13°, 1 9H I J t+, ft. - 0-3.f+'Z.
FIGURE 6
A . Complete model . (Chut e c over on left )
B . Looking up chu t e , discha rge 5 0 , 000 cfs .
C . Ori ginal gate s e ction (looking downst ream) with revis ed wing-walls .
ORIGINAL DESIGN
+
f E1 628 2 0
? �
· I-,-· ·
. . --,.
11·-n·
. 2 ,�o
1 , ' H' I •I-- 12'-S!i,;.
I
43· 9""
�307 0
····--{-
1 1 ,
E 1 6302 0 J(��<<q,. 11 1 ,
A . r-
El 6 2 8 2 0
E"i 6302
GATE SECTION C
- ,._ �.,-',--,--,--
14·-o·· .-1 1 I- 14·-d' -1.:11 ii-- 14·-o"· I
20'-Q'' ..J so··o"'
SECTION A·A
GATE SECTION 8
.... ·��., .,.
*··· 5'·0" '7"- 5·-0�·-·1"""··· 5'-0"···�
'' • ? J,'' I � 'w. ; � I � .
�t7r------� 1�:::t=N t--=-1
1 I l : • I · 18 -9- . - - 3·-0;.,., 22·-o" -- . ....i.. ... ---- 10'-0"····-···
5 3·-9"
ORIGINAL HINGED P IER
I t -- ,-�F� -� 10·-9" � :3'·3�,L._ •. ..... . . . . 1G'-9" .•. . 5 -0 ··'i
43'-9"
RECOMMENDED LEFT PIER
... ,.;
· -�·
,, . . .
. o o N N
N
.. 3•R 5• ..
1 1
, 11' I 1
I ,j
Plosticcne f i l l .
i- 10· � :-- 15·
20· 25·
30' ,� 40·-
05· 50'
J II
. � 2 . J �- ; � � r
; - -u-- -� : '-E "' · - .c. y -= +-,.
DETAIL OF PLASTICENE F I LLET
IN ORIGINAL GATE SECTION
.. � 3'-l·�·· ..... . ,2·- 9"
...... 21·-o---
P I E R USED IN GATE SECTION C
-"& ·� ·c;i -:..
4•.3�� . ,.
PIER USED IN GATE SECTION 8
OEPARTMENT OF THE INTER!� BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT- WYOMING HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES ..,, SEMINOE SPI LLWAY G',
MISCELLANEOUS DRAWINGS Of C VARIOUS GATE SECTIONS ANO PIERS �
OAAllfN . . �, �: fl! . SU8M1TTED � . )I . �� rT1
Tft.t.CE0.1:--.H. N. 0.�--�- RECOM!'ll(NOED ���-: ...,
CHECICEO � K.V. APPROVED ?X�
,__ r.-� �
A . Looking up chute, discharge 50 , 000 cfs.
B. Another view of same run, discharge 50, 000 cfs.
GATE SECTION 11C11
C. View of revised Gate Section 11 C. 11
I"%_) H Q C ::u ti::! �
A . Piers toed in 0 . 94 feet , discharge 50 , 000 cfs .
c . Final gate s ection with app roach floor raised .
FIGURE 9
B . Another view of same run , discharge 50 , 000 cfs .
D . Complete model as recommended .
RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY DRS T r.N
..
C
C
'
_j__ __ _ -�
£1 628 0
L .
I 1 •' �;;0 1c..,.. ____ _ I '
0 0
-o------2
Q • &0, 250 C.F.S .
SCALE IN FT p::ror::E 70 .• &O
S TA. 1 + 62.8
� l!O J? 7 : 9 tO I I 111 II 14 10 10 O 1 2
3 • � SCALE �N INCHES
F IGURE I O
AA•BO
V·,,o S TA 2•40 &
D I S C H A R G E I N C.F. S.
1 0,00 0 2 0,0 0 0 3 0,0 0 0 4 0,000 5 0,000 6 0
L
w ,.V �
50 r � � 0 V r ..,,,,,. 0 \ � a:: � a. .,/ I I DI S C HAR G E CURVE_)-..,- /:l r 40
w v / D. w V IJ...
z .... v I - ,v l l- )" Cf) 30 w )" a:: I
(.) r../ I , f--.COEFF I C I E NT CURVE z ,/ b ,/i,
' a
,/i, J <t 2 0 /" I w •
:c p l J
'
• 1 0 3 .0 3 . 1 3. 2 3 .3
C O E F F I C I E N T O F D I S C H A R G E
G R A P H A
� CJ) LL.:
6 0,0 0 0 v (j v� A g 50.6 -�
. .J< q I , � 50.5 .•
Id"' I !I
-....;:;...,50.4 r I w w /. u.. 50.3 . I z -
J � 50. 2 V w a:: �v -
U 5 0. 1 v z 0 a so.o <t 6 2 8 0 6 2 90 6300 w
E GE VAT I O N OF FLO O R :c I N AP PROAC H C HANNEL
G R A P H B
D E PARTM E NT OF THE INTERIOR BU REAU OF R ECLAMATION
C A S P E R ALC OVA P R OJ E CT- W Y O. H Y DRAUL I C M O DEL STU D I E S
SE M I N O E S P I L LWAY RELATION OF HEAD ON CREST TO DISCHARGE COEFFIC IENT OF DI SCHARGE AND ELEV. O F ·
A P P R OA C H C H A N N E L D R AWN ,-. w e _ S U B M , T T ED i-1'��
TRAC E D . _O. R_ $-. . R E C O M M E N DED . . . . . -�- . C H EC K ED R.K.V • . . A P PR OVE D . . j .. . � . . . �
DENVE R, COLO., 1 - 2 9 -35 1 l+-4-- D-350
,, G') C ::0 fTl
FIGURE 12
A. Pi ers s et as designed , di s charge 50 , 000 cfs .
B . Another view of s ame run, dis charge 50 , 000 cfs .
c . Flow approaching gat e s ection, discharge 50 , 000 cfs , head on c rest 51 feet ;
FINAL GATE DESIGN
; " "'1
,,,,,.,,,,,,
0
0
0 .
.
0
0
"'1
E l 6294 5
E l 6 2 9 4 5
-i - El 6294 5
0 .
i
0
0
"'j
i
- ...i:--',<;iezometers - /,
T E S T 1 5- 1 Q • 50,390 C F. S
TEST 1 6 - 1 Q • 5 0 , 3 9 0 C F S
A ···"o LJ • rno
SECTION A-A
F I G U R E 1 3
,.---....._ /
............ /
....... _
,,, .,. -t==f>I"'" v, .... , snnoN 2 + 4o. ,
Olr THt: O•Tl;A1i,A ,
SCALE IN FEET
:so "0 20
a II ,o "
; 0
0 m
0
0
uil
I
-- --,-1
g 0
0
0 .
0
0
, E 1 6 2 9 4 !t
g 0
0
(I 6 :\ � 0
. t P1ezometers
T E ST 1 4 - 1
Q • 50, 2 5 0 CS,S
?� i �� - ; , , e z:Jmpters
T E S T 1 7 - 1
Q • �0.390 C F S
S C A l. [ t, � EE 1 ., l e
"'
0
<0
El 6 2 8 2 0
. ---� ____ f_
El 6294.!i
P 1 ezometers
1 2 - 1 0 • 50, 2 50 C F S
T E S T 1 2 - 3 a , 20,300 c F s
STATION 0 + 8 9
· P1ezometers .-
T E ST i 2 - 2 Q • 34,� 12 C F S.
T E ST 1 2 -4 Q • 1 0,370 C F S.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN SCALE IN FEET PROTOTYPE
4 � 6 7 8 9 10 I I , Z 15 HI I� 16 MODEL SCALE I N I N CHES
STATION 1 + 62 . 8
F I G U R E 1 5
(l[PARUl(l'f 0F Tt1E HIT[RIOR 81JR[A,J OF "ECLAf,IA'fl01"
(ilt,$PfR Ai.COY" PROJ{CT-.. YOMIN<. HYDRAU L I C MODEL STUDIES S E M I N O E SP ILLWAY
WATER SURFACE PROFILES ANO INDICATED PRESSURE HEADS FOR TESTS 12-1, 12·2 , 1 2-3,12"'4
DflA'"'" " " " TAACEO A E.1. D R S
Clll!CKli O IV< V:
-�" � .
' . �
...__ Meo, water surface -Center gote -----
�- - -: "'1:::::., '-.. Mean water surface- Right gate
� ,s -:::;�:.:_-A.____ ......................... ...____ ·in
• t--........... '"1----...... ---.....__ �
::2 "' 15 If, <( •
9 ,a
......-, ·Left � -............._
',,�ace ',,,
-......,.._____,
.... ..... � ',, •1 ' ... ' ' ·' ',
tl7 i-,7 018 ,,.
P.ezometers
'"
pe 120
0 V
0 ., "'
.2 \ '\ 611 .:;3 012 ,,, � . .: otL . ,t-. :
I �-- ----
T EST 1 8·1 DISCHARGE 50,250 C.F. S
GATES - ALL OPEN
---,- - - -- -
: �t l < r� ,--'--rr
�
•. 6,
LOCATION O F P I E R S IN RECOMMENDED DESIGN
t�
22
"
.......
Mean water surface
_P1ezometers
1s;•
. . . 9 (j
9 0'
,a "I,_,
· Left foce
\
\
0 V
', �.!{. o1�, 019 " \
', \
\
+o1 1 ,')3 ol2 013
0
TEST 1 8·2 DISCHARGE 2 9,000 C.F. S.
c,e 020
()4 014
GATE OPENING - LEFT 21 .3' CENTER 20.8' RIGHT 22.2'
-6 6'- - ·¥-3 l'?oi-'- • ···70'-- - - - - - - - - - -9.4� ·- _ _ _ _ ,. :--·· !,'•QM• •>-;
7 P,ezometers
�;-3rt-,;}-,,�
,\. 6 2' . . - 6 6� -
PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS IN RIGHT PIER
22
"
i
•
»-- �-. ··=· .. ·- �- �
J5
"'·5
I \ 017 ,::7 olB I
I I I I I I I I I
o'9 ;.-e 020
Center gate···
... I \.:=) i2 "-· ,
R1ght
, ... 4 014 ,, w s
...,...__ ___ .....__ ___ __ Vl.5.
TEST 1 8 - 3
DISCHARGE 10,320 C.F. S.
GATE OPENING - L E F T 6.1 ' CENTER 9. 4' R I G H T 5 . 2'
o Piezometer location on nght face of pier P1ezometer lacat1on on left face of p
rr
,p; P1ezometer locat1on on bath s1des.
PROTOTYPE SCALE IN FEET 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 , ,,, • I ,· I I· · I· I 0 I 2 3 5
MODEL SCALE IN INCHES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOA 6UA[AU 0F RECLAMATION
CASPER ALCOll'A PROJ[CT-.,..YONING HYDRAULIC MODEL S T UDIES S E M I N O E SPILLWAY ,,
INDICATED PRE SSURES ON PIER -FACES FOR RECOMMENDED DESIGN �
OAAWN H "fl 6 SUONITTED l • ), . IS.-\_� ::0 TRActD T J K. 0 A S AECONMENOED CC,// a/.,,..� r"1
CHECKED R .�-'-'.'� .. ���:P
::�:EO.-r: Q , , .-o.:;'v.;._ •• ',,-'"" ,.., .,. CJ'
30
I 2 5 1-w w LL
z <.!) 20 z
/v /
/ / V
,.v
�/
-�-t "'y � ,_r:J
'<:': "'�
/ � {V / 1/
/ V
•
l ///
Vj VJ V II
/ V / V I/ / V
j
V
z w
.,/' ,./
' Q.. 0
W 1 5 l-<1: CD
) 1 0
5
/
/
� 1/'
1 0,0 0 0
/v ., i/
V V �
V
V / / /
/,v / / /
.. v ,.v ... V /
/ /
/ / ;'
V / V / ,.,
/ V V /
2 0 ,0 0 0
D I SC H A R G E I N G F S.
/v
/
NOT E : These curves we re obt a i n e d w i t h m a x i m u m
h e a d o n t h e c r e st .
3 0,00 0
4 0,0 0 0
DEPARTM E NT O F TH E I r
BUREAU O F RECLAMJ CASPER ALCOVA P ROJE
H Y O R A U L I C M_O D E L
SEM I N O E S P I L G AT E O P E R AT I N G
TE R I O R
T I O N
CT-V·�YO. S T U D I E S
,., LWAY o
P R O G RAM C W H E N R E S E R VO I R E LEV. I S 6 3 5 7 :::0
C H ECKE D . R._K-�- A PPROVED . .
- . � rn --....J
•
A . Outlet channel discharging into river, discharge 50, 000 cfs.
ORIGINAL DESIGN JET DI RECTED 10° UPSTREAM
"
B. Splash on canyon wall, discharge 50 ; 000 cfs.
c . Outlet channel discharging into river, D. Splash on canyon wall , discb�rge 50, 000 crs � discharge 50, 000 cfs .
RECOMMENDED DESIGN JET ON LINE WITH SPILLWAY
OUTLET CHANNEL
'"J:J H 0 C :::0 ti::I
f--' 00
-<..'<'.
v"'
e;,'<1/ /
Y 3/ ;.__V �� 'y-.� 0 0 � -
) / �
/
"/
<v" 0 ,p��
-<._'v 0 , 0
0 " � -- <v �<y,. 0-<._'v
/ ---- 6160 0 v ,, 01/ --- --� r�
/
/1/' cJ\L,____--.N
�
--x.--
..
/ /
Splash he ight 0° t i l t a = 50,000 Spl ash height 0° ti l t a = 30,000 Spl ash he ight 1 0°u.s. Q = 5o,ooo Sp l ash he i ght 1 0° u.s Q= 30,000 Sp lash he ight 5° D.S. Q= 50,000 Sp l ash heig ht 5° D.S. Q = 30,000
DEPARTM ENT OF THE I N T E R I O R BUREAU OF R E C L A M ATION
CASPER ALCOVA PROJECT-WYOMING H Y D R A U L I C M O D E L S T U D I ES
SE M I NO E S P I L LWAY S P L A S H H E I G H T S ON WEST CANYON WALL
..,, G') C ;o
rD_
R_A_W_N
--A-.H-.-N.--s-u_s
_M-1T_
T_
E_
D __ U _
),_�-. . --_---_ --i1 JT1
TRACED .OR S . R ECOMM ENDEl!J.V . cvrJ · (a A P P ROV E D . .1. Y.1/o�,:_
,coco:;- 2-�o -'3<1 1 J 4lt·D- 3 5 I