et ct. - dtic · removing the trashrack permitted additional adverse circulation in the sump and...

Technical Report HL-94-9July 19

AD-A283 623US Army Corps lEhlIIEhIof EngineersWaterways ExperimentStation

Cypress Avenue Pumping Station

Hydraulic Model Investigation

by Bobby P. Fletcher

4 DTCL ET CT.A IU . .1993U

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited

94-26725

'94 8 22 1 18

Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington

I

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,publication, or pronmtional purposes. Citation of trade namesdoes not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the useof such commercial products.

@ lJMIiTm C cyaC IPAM

Technical Report HL-94-9July 1994

Cypress Avenue Pumping Station

Hydraulic Model Investigation

by Bobby P. FletcherU.S. Army Corps of EngineersWaterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry RoadVicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Final report

Approved for public release; distributon Is unlmited

Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington502 8th StreetHuntington, WV 25701-2070

US Army Corpsof EngineersWaterways Experiment NStatwon a-D

BoIbbAI y P F. p DistrMicNt.RWAVmIlS ý S TATIKA

am WORIOURIT lO£

Huntington.52 p. :1il. ; 28 cm. - (Technical report ; HL-94-9)Includes bibliographic references.1. Pumping stations - Ohio - Columbus. 2. Pumping machinery-

Fluid dynamics - Models. 3. Intakes (Hydraulic engineering) - Designand construction - Models. 4. Hydraulic models. i. United States.Army. Corps of Engineers. Huntington District. 11. U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station. Ill. Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.)IV. Tite. V. Series: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-periment Station) ; HL-94-9.TA7 W34 no.HL-94-9

Contents

Preface ..................................... iv

Conversion Factors. Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement .......... v

I- Introduction ................................ I

The Prototype ................................ IPurpose and Scope of Model Study .................. I

2- The Model ................................. 5

Description ................................ 5Evaluation Techniques ......................... 5Scale Relations .............................. 9

3-Tests and Results ............................. I I

Original Design .............................. I IType 2 Design .............................. I IType 3 Design .............................. 12Type 4 Design .............................. 13

4-Summary and Discussion of Results .................. 14

Photo 1

Plates 1-28

SF 298

iII

Preface

The study of the sump for the Cypress Avenue Pumping Station wasauthorized by the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(HQUSACE), on 12 January 1993, at the request of the U.S. Army Engi-neer District, Huntington (ORH).

The study was conducted during the period January 1993 to October1993 in the Hydraulics Laboratory (IL) of the U.S. Army Engineer Water-ways Experiment Station (WES) under the direction of Messrs. F. A.Herrmann, Jr., Director, HL, and R. A. Sager, Assistant Director, HL, andunder the general supervision of Messrs. 0. A. Pickering, Chief of the Hy-draulics Structures Division (HSD), HL, and N. R. Oswalt, Chief of theSpillways and Channels Branch, HSD. Project engineers for the modelstudy were Messrs. B. P. Fletcher and J. L. Leech, both of HSD. This re-port was prepared by Mr. Fletcher.

During the model investigation, Messrs. Bob Kinzel, HQUSACE;Claudy Thomas and Lyn Richardson, U.S. Army Engineer Division, OhioRiver, Russ Witten, Ken Halstead, and John Justice, ORH; Dick Morrisand Tom Russell, City of Columbus; and Dennis Long, Malcolm Pirnie,Inc., visited WES to observe the model in operation and discuss the pro-gram of tests.

At the time of publication of this report, Director of WES wasDr. Robert W. Whalin. Commander was COL Bruce K. Howard, EN.

Th cuko of Ak repm pwo mN to be mdfo adv.nbifiq, publim.w prexouae purpmu. CMdan of trd nu. d& net cmsuime anEEW .eodwammt or epp• W of AM an of c €ommmiu prodctw.

Iv

Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SIUnits of Measurement

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SIunits as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

cubic IMt 0.028 cubic meters

feet 0.304 meters

galons per minute &.78 cubic decimeters per minute

Sans (U.S. Iqid) 3.785 cubic decimeters

inches 25.4 mllimeters

miles (U.S. statu W) 1.09 kilometers

Accessioni For

NTItDTIC TAB 5

iX' caI •t ion ,

Olr•.r

S... - ..... v, ist e~iLi. .J~t/.jrV

1 Introduction

The Prototype

The proposed Cypress Avenue pumping station will be located in thecity of Columbus, Ohio (Figure 1). The protection project is located onthe right bank of the Scioto River in the western part of the city of Colum-bus, Ohio, and is generally bounded by the Scioto River on the north andeast and Interstate 70 on the south and west (Figure 2).

The pumping station will consist of three pumps (Plate 1) and have atotal capacity of 402 cfs. 1 Each pump will have a formed suction intake(FSI). Flow will enter the sump from the gravity flow chamber which willbe supplied by a new relocated section of 12-ft by 6-ft rectangular conduitfrom the existing elliptical storm sewer along Cypress Avenue and a new5-ft diam storm sewer from Nace Avenue (Figure 2, Plate 1). An 11-ft by7-ft motor-operated sluice gate will separate the pump chamber from thegravity outfall (Plate 2). Two 7-ft by 7.83-ft motor-operated outfall gateswill be provided at the downstream end of the gravity outfall (Plate 2).The outfall gates can be used as a bypass to increase cycle times. Atrashrack will be provided to screen flows during pump operation (Plate 2).Raking will be accomplished manually. The pumping station will bedesigned to operate at water-surface elevations ranging from 696.3 to703.0.2 A profile of the sump is shown in Plate 3.

Purpose and Scope of Model Study

Pump performance can be adversely affected by uneven and unstableflow distribution approaching the pump propeller. Cavitation, vibration,

A table of factors for converting non-Sl units of measurement to SI units is presented

on page v.2 All elevations (el) cited herein are in feet referred to the National Geodetic Vertical

Datum (NGVD).

Chapter I Intduction1

H HIO

F~~~ g re~~

MICH

Lo aiEad viiiy m p

2 eapu1Inr9uto

VIOL.

06

0

4-

U.

3Chapte I Iloodueton

-- - -- -

and excessive stresses on the pump can result from adverse approach flow.Research conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation (WES) resulted in the development of a pump intake design. FSI,that provided satisfactory flow to the pump.1 The pumps in the CypressAvenue Pumping Station were designed to include the FSIs. However,due to the unique and severe adverse approach flows anticipated in theCypress Avenue Pumping Station, a model study was considered neces-sary to evaluate the hydraulic characteristics of the original design and todevelop modifications, if needed, to improve flow distribution approach-ing the pump intakes.

The model reproduced sufficient approach flow to the sump to permitsimulation of currents and velocities in the sump. Hydraulic performancewas evaluated for a range of anticipated discharges and sump water sur-face elevations.

I Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (31 December 1992). "Geometry limi-

tations for the formed suction intake," ETL 1110-2-327, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.

4 Chapter 1 Inlroducuon

2 The Model

Description

The 1:11 -scale model of the Cypress Avenue Pumping Station (Plate 1,Figure 3) included 42.5 P of the elliptical and 81.3 ft of the rectangularconduit, two junction bc.j. .,44 ft of the 5-ft-diam conduit approachingthe sump, 30.86 ft of the gravity flow chamber, the sump, the trashrack,and three FSIs. The -nproach conduits, gravity flow section, sump, andFSIs were constructed of transparent plastic to permit observation of vorti-ces, turbulence, and subsurface currents. Flow through each pump Intakewas provided by Individual suction pumps that permitted simulation ofvarious flow rates through one or more pump intakes.

Water used in the model was stored and recycled in a headbox (Fig-ure 3), and discharges through each pump intake were measured by elec-tronic flow meters. Discharges through each sump inflow conduit weremeasured by orifice meters.

Evaluation Techniques

Techniques used for evaluation of hydraulic performance include thefollowing:

a. Current patterns were determined using dye injected into the waterand confetti sprinkled on the water surface. Water-surfaceelevations were measured with staff and point gauges.

b. Visual observations were made to detect surface and/or submergedvortices. A design that permits a Stage D surface vortex orsubmerged vortex with a visible air core is considered unacceptable.Stages of surface vortex development are shown in Plate 4. Atypical test consisted of documentation for a given flow condition ofthe severest vortex that occurred in a 5-min (model time) timeperiod.

Chapter 2 The ModeM 5

cv,

) 0)

Co U

Chper h oe

.4-0

cmJ

cc cw

Chapter 2 The Model7

cv)

0

4-.

= co~

0I..

(.

LL

8 Chapter 2 The Model

c. Swirl angle was measured to indicate the strength of swirl enteringthe pump intake. A swirl angle that exceeds 3 deg is consideredunacceptable. Swirl in the pump columns was indicted by avortimeter (free-wheeling propeller with zero-pitch blades) locatedinside the pump column (Plate 3). Swirl angle is defined as theratio of the blade speed at the tip of the vortimeter blade V9 to theaverage velocity V. for the cross section of the pump column. Theswirl angle 0 is computed from the following formula:

0 - tan- •,V -xdn, Va = (A)Va

where

0 = swirl angle, deg

V9 = tangential velocity at the tip of the vortimeter blade, ft/sec

Va = average pump column axial velocity, ft/sec

d = pump column diam (used for blade length), ft

n = revolutions per second of the vortimeter

Q = pump discharge, ft/sec

A = cross-sectional area of the pump column, ft2

Scale Relations

The model was sized so that the Reynolds number, defined as

R=Vd (2)Y

where

V = average velocity, ft/sec

d = diam of pump suction column, ft

y = kinematic viscosity of fluid, ft/sec2

Chapter 2 The Model

is greater than I10 to minimize scale effects due to viscous forces.

The accepted equations of hydraulic similitude, based upon Froudiancriteria, were used to express mathematical relations between the dimen-sions and hydraulic quantities of the model and prototype. The generalrelations expressed in terms of the model scale or length ratio, Lr. are pre-sented in the following tabulation:

lwundaon Ratio MedohPratotype

Length Lf 1:11

Area A - Lf 1:121

Veboty V, - L01 1:3.32

Diecheip a - L" 1:401

Time FT =L11:3.32

10 •Chte 2 The Mohde

3 Tests and Results

Original Design

The pumping station sump (Plate 2) was oriented normal to the ap-proach flow from the gravity flow chamber. Dimensions of the originaldesign of the PSI are provided In Plate 5.

Tests were conducted with each Inflow conduit delivering 50 percent ofthe total flow to the forebay. Initial tests were conducted to detect thepresence of vortices. No submerged stage D surface vortices were ob-served for any test conditions. Thus, it was concluded that vortices didnot impair hydraulic performance of the sump.

Tests to determine the swirl angle were conducted with various flowconditions. Plate 6 shows the swirl angle for every combination of pumpsoperating with sump water-surface elevations of 696.3, 700, and 703. Themaximum allowable swirl angle of 3 deg was exceeded in pump 3 with theminimum sump water-surface elevation for two different conditions, asshown in Plate 6.

Removing the trashrack permitted additional adverse circulation in thesump and induced swirl in the FSIs. Thus, all tests were conducted withthe trashrack installed (Plates 2 and 3).

Type 2 Design

Some tests with the Type I design Indicated unsatisfactory hydraulicperformance in the form of swirl angles that exceeded the acceptableangle of 3 deg. In the interest of improving hydraulic performance, nu-merous baffles, baffle sizes, and baffle locations were investigated. TheType 2 design (Plates 7-10) is a culmination of the various baffle configu-rations evaluated.

Initial tests were conducted with the inflow to the sump evenly dividedbetween the rectangular and circular conduits (Plate 7). Swirl angles

Chaptr 3 Tesn ad Pesul 11

documented for various water-surface elevations aWd combinations ofpumps operating ae shown by the bar charts in Plate It. The swir anglesdescribed by the bar charts are less than 3 deg. Thus, satisfactory flow dis-tribution is provided to the cross section where the pump propeller wouldbe located.

Tests were conducted to investigate hydraulic performance with eachpump pumping more than the design pumping rate of 134 cfs per pump.Swirl angles measured with each pump pumping 157 and 179 cfs wereless than 3 deg and are shown in Plate 12. Visual observations also indi-cated satisfactory hydraulic performance.

Tests were also conducted to investigate hydraulic performance withall inflow to the sump provided by either the rectangular conduit(Plate 13) or the circular conduit (Plate 14). Hydraulic performance wassatisfactory and swirl angles were less than 3 deg, as documented by thebar charts in Plates 13-14.

Hydraulic performance of the sump was documented with debris addedto the inflow to the sump. Floating debris with diameters of approxi-mately 0.25 ft and lengths of 2 and 3 ft were simulated in the model. Thedebris tended to accumulate on the left side of the trashrack upstream ofpump 3. Tests indicated that upstream of pump 3, a 2-ft width of thetrashrack from the bottom to the water surface could be blocked, approxi-mately 20 percent of the bay width, (Plate 15) without impairing hydraulicperformance. Swirl angles measured with the trashrack partially blocked,as shown in Plate 15, are documented in Plate 16. Trashrack blockages ex-ceeding 20 percent of the bay width induced adverse flow distribution en-tering the FSIs causing the swirl angles to exceed 3 deg.

The Type 2 design sump provided satisfactory hydraulic performancefor various unbalanced inflows to the sump, sump water-surface eleva-tions, pumping rates, and combination of pumps operating. No submergedvortices or air-entraining surface vortices were observed, and the mea-sured swirl angles in the pump columns were less than 3 deg.

Type 3 Design

The FSI in the Type 2 design had a throat diameter, d, equal to 4.27 ft.To accommodate a smaller pump inlet diameter, the throat diameter of theFSI was reduced from 4.67 ft to 3.94 ft (Plate 17). Since the dimensionsof the FSI were relative to d, the size of the FSI was reduced.

The Type 3 design is shown in Plates 18 and 19. The Type 3 designwas unsatisfactory due to excessive swirl (swirl angles greater than 3 deg)measured in the pump columns. Swirl angles for various flow conditionsare shown in Plate 20.

12 ChapW S TMeI And ROWAU

Type 4 Design

Baffles were installed in the sump (Type 4 design), as shown inPlates 21 and 22, to reduce the current circulation in the forebay, therebyimproving the velocity distribution entering the FSIs. The Type 4 designprovided satisfactory hydraulic performance for all anticipated flow condi-tions. Swirl angles measured with the inflow to the sump evenly dividedbetween the rectangular and circular conduits (Plate 21) and for variouswater-surface elevations and combinations of pumps operating are shownin Plate 23. Swirl angles measured with 100 percent of the flow enteringthe sump from the rectangular conduit and then 100 percent from the circu-lar conduit are shown in Plates 24 and 25, respectively. The Type 4 de-sign was also evaluated with pumping rates higher than the designpumping rate of 134 cfs per pump. Swirl angles measured with pumpingrates of 157 and 179 cfs per pump are shown in Plates 26 and 27, respec-tively. No submerged vortices or significant surface vortices were ob-served for any flow conditions. Tests were conducted to measure thesurge generated in the sump by turning a pump on or off in less than 5 sec.Turning one pump on or off with the water-surface elevation between696.3 and 703.0, regardless of the number of pumps operating, generateda surge in the sump less than 0.5 ft in height.

Debris tests similar to those conducted in the Type 2 design were con-ducted in the Type 4 design. Debris performance in the Type 4 design wassimilar to that observed in the Type 2 design. Debris tended to accumu-late on the left side of the trashrack upstream of pump 3 and hydraulic per-formance was satisfactory if 20 percent of the bay width or less wasblocked.

Tests were conducted to determine the water-surface differential be-tween the sump and gravity bay during operation of various pumps. Aplot depicting water-surface elevation in the sump versus water-surface el-evation in the gravity bay is shown in Plate 28. The water-surface differ-ential was the same regardless of the location or numbers of pumpsoperating.

Various flow conditions in the Type 4 design are illustrated in Photo 1.Surface currents are depicted by the flow vectors in Photo 1.

ChaW S Tess and Rasui 13

4 Summary and Discussionof Results

Normally the FSIs would compensate for the adverse approach flow tothe pump Intakes by providing a transition that accelerates flow from un-stable and uymmetrical distribution entering the PSI to stable and sym-metrical flow distribution at the cross section where the pump propellerwould be located. The PSI design developed at WES In previous researchperformed satisfactorily in the laboratory with a variety of approach geo-metrics subjected to various adverse approach flow conditions that in-cluded flows approaching normal to the entrance of the PSI. However,nothing similar, or as adverse, to the approach flow and geometry of thesump in the proposed Cypress Avenue storm water pumping station wuaddressed In the PSI sump research. The initial design (Type I) tested per-formed satisfactorily for most anticipated flow conditions but was unsatis-factory due to excessive swirl in the pump column that occurred at certainflow conditions. Satisfactory hydraulic performance for all anticipatedflow conditions was obtained by adding baffles (flow deflectors) in thesump. The baffles (Type 2 design) reduced current circulation In thesump, thereby improving the velocity distribution entering the PSIs and re-ducing the swirl approaching the pump propeller.

Tests were conducted to Investigate flow conditions with a PSI at-tached to a pump having a mailer inlet diameter and the baffles removedfrom the sump (Type 3 design). Since the dimensions of the PSI were rela-tive to the pump inlet diameter, d, the size of the PSI was reduced. TheType 3 design performed similar to the Type I and was also unsatisfactorydue to excessive swirl in the pump column.

Baffles were installed In the sump (Type 4 design) and hydraulic perfor-mance was satisfactory for all anticipated flow conditions. Tests also indi-cated that partial blockage of the trashrack would not impair hydraulicperformance.

Tests conducted to evaluate surges In the sump due to a sudden shutdown of one pump indicated a maximum surge height of 0. ftL

14 Chapu 4 Sunimw luid DWAmiin of RANhib

Tost results to determine the water surface differential between thesump and gravity bay during operation of various pumps are shown inPlate 28.

The Type 4 design will provide satisfactory hydraulic performance andis recommended for the Cypress Avenue Pumping Station.

The sump design for the Dodge Park Pumping Station was reviewed byWES engineers and is similar to the sump design proposed for the CypressAvenue Pumping Station. The Type 4 design is also recommended for theDodge Park Pumping Station.

Cha@P 4 Summary and Dscuss of Res 15

a. Water-surface el 696.3

Photo 1. Type 4 design; discharge per pump 134 cfs; 3 pumps operating(Sheet 1 of 3)

A--'

b. Water-surface el 700.0

Photo 1. (Sheet 2 of 3)

c. Water-surface el 703.0

Photo 1. (Sheet 3 of 3)

itt

4W

.Ph" II

39..W

MG,41'

103

1..0'

SUP 34.4!

• 25.5'

EL 69O4 D ~ ~

27.8 7012.W

T.5' OUTFALLGIIAMTY GATES

l0.7" CHAMBER 5"

E 3.

Phate 2

rd

pw 3

STAGE 0 NOl VERTEX

STAGE A

STAGE B

STAGE C

STAGE D

STAGE E

STAGES IN SURFACE VORTEX DEVELOPMENTFORMED SUCTION INLET

Pe 4

I

BREAST WALL

6.02'-4.95

-,9' --47- I F1.03'

T.C.S4.39'229' 364' '68 9511' * 4.95' 5.98'

K 6.7'-15.41'

ELEVATION

T.C. - TRUNCATED CONES = MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE

R0.37' 0.75'

RO4.67'10. 7197 //////

5.04SECTION A-A

CYPFU8M AVENUE PUMPINO STA11ONF6 (d - 4,67')

Ph" 5

LLL

5 -ptI

4 PU- a

3 D PtAV 3

0-I 2 3 L,. L3 Po3 L23

WATER SURFACE EL 700.0

4

3

I z

01 2 3 X.2 Z3 2.3 J.23

WATER WURACE EL 703.

P1WP t, OPRTING

ORIGINAL DESIGN

DISCHARGE PER PUMP 134 CFS

Pbb 6

.44

44.4

"O"P

"1 L JL •a

1 I 7

ii PI 7

10 0

MAW

CYPRSS AVENLE PUWIIO SATMlOTYPE 2 DE9IM

pIPLAN

114

IPh 9

ISI Ii�

Elk II�

II ___________________

rn -J

II I �- IL

V '�V /

/

S

d d

pI� 10

4

3PUNP 3

33 Le W.3 .J33

VATER SURFACE EL 69,3

5

4

d3 -

01 e 3 Le 13 R.3 2.2.3


5 -

4

3

2 -

1 e 3 Le 3 2.3 X.3

VATE SURFAC EL 7030

MWI Mm UPERATDM

6VAFL. ALETYPE 2 DESIGN

DISCHARGE PER PUMP 134 CFSFLOW THRU RECTANGULAR CONDUIT - 50%

FLOW THRU CIRCULAR CONDUIT - 50%

phfw11

5 -- •Ptw 1

4 --Fm

EliF3 -

I -

1 I 3 12 13 23 L•

4

3

01 2 3 3.2 193 1,2,3

DISCHARGE PER PUW 179 US

PtM N. OPERATNGI

TYPE 2 DESIGNWATER SURFACE EL 700.3

FLOW THRU RECTANGULAR CONDUIT - 50%FLOW THRU CIRCULAR CONDUIT - 50%

P;mt 12

5 p-- 1

4 PMP 2

3 -P-U3

3 1,2 1,3 Z.3 23

VATER SIMAEC EL. 69&3

5

4

3

a

1

o 171, P

1 2 3 Le2 23. 3 3 2..3VATER SURF'AC EL 700.0

5

4

3

0

1 2 3 2.2 W. P.3 2.23

WATER SURACE EL 703.

PU MEL )PEMATNG

8WlR ANGLTYPE 2 DESIGN



Phat 13

3 El P,3 3

I

012 3 Le2 L3 P.3 1.13

VATER MUWACE EL 6093

S

4

3

0e 3 12 L.3 2.3 13

VATER SUWACE EL 7U00.

5

4

3

2

0

1 2 3 Le2 1.3 2.3 3

WATER SURFACE EL 7M3~

P19 NM OPERATDG

TYPE 2 DESIGNDISCHARGE PER PUMP 134 CFS


Pkat 14

(.4s

idiLIZIt 1

5 -- •J 1

4 - 0PuNP2

3 - •l PU,,3

0 ---

01 2 3 1A t,3 P.3 L3

WATER SURFACE EL 69&3

5

0 4

w 3

I e e 13 . A

VATER SURFACE EL 700.0

5 -

4

3

01 2 3 1. 1,3 ,33

VATER SURFACE EL 703.0

PUMP NL, OPERATING

SWHfL ANGLETYPE 2 DESIGN

DISCHARGE PER PUMP 134 CFSTRASH RACK PARTIALLY BLOCKED


Plate 16

I

BREAST VALL I5.0'A

4.17'-_• v_,o° .0 , -3.94 0o.87'

5.71

ELEVATION

T.C. - TRUNCATED CONES = MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE

R .032' 063'

SECTION A-A

CYPREWS AVBEUE RUING STATION

F9 (d - 3•94)

PlatN 17

34.S.

la.' - 130 -

OAG

t gL --e.s 3-

2.91'

MW 234.C*EL 1W14o

TRASH RAO(41

1.0' -10.0W

_ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ -I

).5'5

21V 2.vT

T GRAVITY10.7" C0.AMBE 1l.5

CYRW AV&E Pt• N f"TATIONMYE 3 DE"I

PLAN

Plate 18

7

4

3

0 r1 21,31A W A.3

a WATER SUFACE EL 69&3

43

2

I

01 3 %e2 163 AA 123

VATER SU=PACE EL 9693

4

3

0 1 23 %e.3 IA3

WATER SURVAC EL ~693PUP Nl OPERATDI"



PIft 20

.4

_ _ -iii"IC-

61.S'

42.5

Pk% 21

404

EL Ofto

CYPr6SB AVBILE PILWH SrATMOTYM 4 CW

LP;Ws22

5m

4 VA 3u 1, , u

!2 3 te %3 IU 4

5

4

3

1 a 3 Le1 163 3

VATE SWAM 0.E n

0 pwn ffir. r-."

1 1.32L 163 V JA3

WATER SMACE EL 7063.

TYPE 4 DESIGNDISCHARGE PER PUMP 134 CFS;

FLOW THRU RECTANGULAR COINDUIT - 50%FLOW THRU CIRCULAR CONDUIT - 50%

Sbt2

4 • •

3 1 112

1

0PL1 2 3 1.2 0. . ..

WATER SUACE EL 69&3

5

S 4

d 3

0I a 3 e 1%3 2.3 123

WATER SLMACE EL 700.

5

4

3

2

01 2 3 Le W P.3 1.3


PL94P ND. OPtA

P1WL ANGLETI



Pti- 2 4

4 pulpi•

17 E"] ,,N 3

I a 3 2 1,3 33 .3

VATER SUM'ACEL 69&3

5 -

4

3

1

0a 3 Le 0 .3 3,3A13

WATER SmWACE EL 70060

5

4

3

2

0 p -- 3 Le 3

WATER 3URFACE EL 702.3

PUWP NI OPERATM

8*V ANGLETYPE 4 DESIGN

DISCHARGE PER PUMP 134 CFSFLOW THRU RECTANGULAR CONDUIT - 0%FLOW THRU CIRCULAR CONDUIT - 100%

Phfi 25

5

4 -- •PUIW1

1 2 3~ws. Le 3 P.3 L&23

3

a

1 2 3 L1e 1.3 Z.3 13VATER SLWACE EL 7060o

5

4

3

a

I

a

1 2 3 1L2 1,3 2.3 1.2.3

VATER SRFACE EL 7060

PLW NEL OPMATDIG



26

4 PUMP 1

3 m

D ,PUMP 3

0I 2 3 Le2 L3 P.3 5.23

WATER SURMACE El. 6963

5 -

2 -

01 2 3 Le L3 P.3 W.3


5

4

3

01 2 3 1.2 1,3 2.3

VATER SMRFACE EL 703.0

PUWP NL OPERATINM

&AN ANOLETYPE 4 DESIGN



PhMm 27

706

70-

703- - - - - - - -- -

702--

70t- - - - - -

//

//

6"

697------ - -

695-

69469 5-- -- -1

6;93-

693 694 695 696 697 696 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706

VATER SRNACE EL IN SUMP

NOTEDISCHARGE / PUMP = 134 CFSNUMBER OF PUMPS OPERATING CYPESS AVE. PULO STA.

3 PUMPS TYPE 4 DESIGN2 PUMPS -WATER SURFACE DIFFERENTIAL1 PUMPS IN SUMP AND GRAVITY BAY

PNO nn 28

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I No. 070ov1d

Pi~iic r nhfoti r i th €o4lecto oE nfonnaaon I epomated to avare1 o . m d tme Vr r m rci o. ar n ellrg da t

~otledonof normatin.1,0tlMdig - for redcngthburen, toWHinleadquaenmSfcDiclat for Inormaton OW&twn & ROM 121 S

Oewl sigwa. Sute 1204. AgtO. VI 22202402. and to the Of e of Management ad mudge, Pepework et Po (0704-01W). Wahnon. DC 2050

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blnkJ) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

I July 1994 7 Final renort4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS

Cypress Avenue Pumping Station; Hydraulic Model Investigation

6. AUTHOR(S)

Bobby P. Fletcher

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) I. P`ERFORMING ORGANIZATION

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station REPORT NUMBER

3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Technical Report HL-94-9

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

502 8th StreetHuntington, W V 25701-2070

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The model study was conducted to evaluate the characteristics of flow in the sump and pump intakes andto develop modifications required for reducing swirl in the flow approaching the pump intake. The threepumps were fitted with formed suction intakes (FSI).

The 1:11-scale model indicated the need for a minor modification (baffles in the sump) to reduce currentcirculation in the sump, thereby reducing swirl in the flow approaching the pump propeller.

For all anticipated flow conditions, the recommended sump design will enable the FSIs to deliver stableand evenly distributed flow to the pump propellers.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGESPump intake Sump 52Submerged vortex Swirl 16. PRICE CODESubmergence Vortices

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 12. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LmimATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPOR4T OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED I INSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-49)

Prevcrdd by ANSI Std Z39-111298- ¶02

et ct. - dtic · removing the trashrack permitted additional adverse circulation in the sump and...

Documents