UNITED ST ATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE SPILLWAY

GLEN ELDER DAM

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT, KANSAS

Report No. Hyd-561

Hydraulics Branch DIVISION OF RESEARCH

OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER DENVER, COLORADO

June 6, 1966

The information contained in this report may not be used in any publication., advertising., or other promotion in such a manner as to constitute an endorsement by the United States Government or the Bureau of Reclamation., either explicit or implicit., of any material, product, device, or process that may be referred to in the report.

..

CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Abstract ••.•..•.•• Purpose ...••.•• Conclusions. ~ •••.•• Acknowledgment ...•••• Introduction .· .•.

. ............... . . . . ·- ... ................. . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............

The Model ...•..•. The Investigation .. . . . . . . . . ................ .

Approach Channel Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training dikes •..•.• Water surface profiles. Velocity measurements

. ............................ .

. ............................ . ...............................

iii 1 1 3 3 4 4

5

5 6 6

Spillway and Chute Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Water surface profiles Discharge capacity rating

••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••• ........................... Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basin--Preliminary Design ........

Basin and downstream channel flow Basin self-cleaning tests .•••...•• Downstream channel erosion test ...•• Baffle pier pressures .••.••.••..••.•.

Modified Stilling Basin Design

.................

. ............... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preliminary baffle piers with dentated end sill ••...••.•. Short baffle piers with prelirp.inary end sill .•..•.•.•.••.. Short baffle piers with dentated end sill ..••••• ~ •••.•.••• Horizontal end sill apron .••••.•.••••••..•• _ •.•••.•.•.•• Short baffle pier pressures ..••••••••••••••••••.••••••. "T" baffle piers with preliminary end sill .•••.•.•••.•.•. "T" b ffl . a e pier pressures ............................ . Baffle pier effect on hydraulic jump .••.••••..•••••••••.

The Recommended Basin .•..•••.•••..••.•••..•••• . . . . . . .

7 7

8

8 9 9

10

10

11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13

13

Table

Dimensions of Hydraulic Features . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • . • . • . • • • . • 1

CONTENTS- -Continued

Figures

Glen Elder Dam (Specifications Drawings)

Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General Plan and Sections . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Spillway Plan and Sections . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The 1: 72 Scale Model ..................................... . Tail Water Rating Curve .................................. . Flow in Spillway Approach Channel .•........•......•.....•.. Erosion of Left Side Slope of Approach Channel .....•.........

4 5 6 7

Left Training Dike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Approach Channel Training Dike Tests. . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 9 Glen Elder Dam Spillway - Float Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Water Surface Profiles at Floatwell Intake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Approach Channel Velocity Traverse ...•..•................. 12 Approach Channel Vertical Velocity Distribution

at Station 29+50 .........•......••.....•.......•....•..... 13 Water Surface Profiles at Piers ..........••.•.............. 14 Flow Through Spillway Bays and on Chute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Water Surface Profiles .•.....•....•...............•.......• 16 Discharge Capacity ...................•.•.....•.........••. 17 Velocity Head over Model Stilling Well Intake ............••.. 18 Chute and Stilling Basin Flow - Preliminary Design ........... 19 Channel Erosion - Preliminary Design .................•...•. 20 Average Pressures on Preliminary Baffle Pier ......•.....•.. 21 Dynamic and Average Pressures on Preliminary

Baffle Pier .............................. IP ••••••••••••••• 22 Stilling Basin Water Surface Profiles for

Different Baffle Pier and Sill Arrangements ......•••..•..... 23 Channel Erosion with Dentated End Sill,

Preliminary and Short Baffle Piers . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . 24 Channel Erosion - Short Baffle Piers and

Dentated End Sill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Average Pressures on Short Baffle Pier ...................... 26 Comparative Erosion Test - Preliminary and "T"

Baffle Piers 27 ········,·r··································· Average Pressures on ' T ' Baffle Pier ....................... 28 Effect of Different Baffle Piers on Basm Flow ...........••.. 29

ii

ABSTRACT

Model studies indicated that the initial design of the Glen Elder Dam spillway was adequate for flows up to and including the 264, 500 cfs · maximum discharge. Spillway discharge is controlled by twelve 50-foot-wide by 21. 76-foot-high radial gates and the energy is dis­sipated by a hydraulic jump stilling basin (Type III). Total drop in elevation from spillway crest to basin floor is 84. 4 feet. ·· Tests per­formed and results recorded include velocity and water surface pro­files in the approach channel, water surface profiles throughout the structu:['.e, pressures on the baffle piers, erosion in the approach and downstream channels, and discharge capacity and coefficients for the spillway. Training dikes for the approach channel, and five different baffie pier and end sill arrangements in the stilling basin were tested. The shortened baffle pier was used in construction.

DESCRIPTORS-- *dentated sills/ hydraulic structures/ *stilling basins/ discharge coefficients/ discharge measurement/ flow/ Froude number/ hydraulic jumps/ hydraulic models/ open channel flow/ spillway crests/ *water surface profiles/ velocity distribution/ erosion/ radial gates/ IDENTIFIERS-- *baffle piers/ hydraulic design/ Glen Elder Dam, Kan./ Missouri River Basin Project

iii

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Office of Chief Engineer Division of Research Hydraulics Branch Denver, Colorado June 6, 1966

Laboratory Report No. Hyd-561 Author: W. F. Arris Checked by: T. J. Rhone Reviewed by: W. E. Wagner Submitted by: H. M. Martin

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE SPILLWAY GLEN ELDER DAM

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT, KANSAS

PURPOSE

Model studies were conducted to determine the hydraulic operating characteristics of the low-head, radial gate-controlled spillway in­cluding the approach channel, hydraulic jump stilling basin, and down­stream excavated channel.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Approach channel flow was smooth for discharges up to about 200, 000 cfs (cubic feet per second). Some turbulence occurred at higher discharges from flow over the approach channel side slopes~ Figure 6. Erosion of the approach channel side slopes may occur, at or near maximum discharge with the gates fully opened, Figure 7. Training dikes, placed along the sides of the approach channel, did not eliminate the turbulent flow or erosion of the channel sidewalls, Figure 9. The average flow velocity in the approach channel was about 12. 5 feet per second at Station 29+50, Figure 12.

2. The velocity head at the floatwell intake was about 1 foot and equal to the drawdown at that point for maximum discharge of 264, 500 cfs and fully open gates, Figure 11.

3. Free flow through the bays was generally smooth except that more water surface drawdown was observed on the left side than on the right side of all piers. Gate-controlled flow was smooth for all dis­charges. The minimum clearance between the water surface and the gate trunnion pilasters at maximum free flow was 5 feet, Figure 14.

4. The toe of the hydraulic jump surged upstream to Station 33+00 at 264, 500 cfs discharge and normal tail water. This information was used for the placement of the prototype outlets from the drainage galleries.

5. The maximum discharge of 264, 500 cfs was obtained at reservoir elevation 1492. 2, Figure 17. The coefficient of discharge at 264, 500 cfs was 3. 59.

6. The hydraulic jump was contained within the stilling basin at all discharges, for all the basin designs tested. The height of the chute and basin sidewalls was adequate to contain nearly all flows. With the "T" baffle piers instaHed, sur.ging of the hydraulic jump over­topped the basin walls at maximum discharge and normal tail water.

7. Flow in all basin designs tested moved most foreign material out, and no bed material was brought into the basin from the downstream channel for any discharge. The hydraulic jump did not sweep out with the minimum model tailwater elevation of 1427, or 3. 6 feet below normal.

8. Baffle pier pressures ranged from 76 feet of water above atmos­pheric to 10 feet below atmospheric in the preliminary pier for maximum discharge and normal tailwater; 60 feet above to 4 feet below atmospheric on the short pier; and 32 feet above to 13 feet above atmospheric on the "T" pier.

9. All baffle piers produced a hydraulic jump which stayed within the length of the basin, Figure 29. The short piers caused a more gradual rise of the hydraulic jump. The "T" piers caused a very steep, tur­bulent jump.

10. Erosion in the downstream channel was minimum when the pre­liminary baffle piers were installed; slightly more erosion occurred with the short piers; and the "T" type piers caused extensive erosion immediately downstream of the basin.

11. The truncated or short baffle piers were used for the prototype design primarily for structural considerations.

12. All end sills tested produced satisfactory flow conditions which either allowed bed material to remain, or move upstream and lodge against, the end sill, Figure 24A. The solid end sill was used in the prototype design.

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The model study was accomplished through the cooperation of Spillway and Outlet Works Section of the Dams Branch, Division of Design, and the Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research. Model photography was by W. M. Batts; Office Services Branch.

INTRODUCTION

Glen Elder Dam, situated immediately upstream from the city of Glen Elder, Kansas, on the Solomon River, Figure 1, is the principal fea­ture of the Glen Elder Unit, Solomon Division of the Missouri River Basin Project. The purposes of the dam are flood control and conser­vation, including irrigation, pollution abatement, and municipal water supply. The earthfill dam embankment is approximately 15, 200 feet long at the crest and has a height of approximately 115 feet above the river bed, Figure 2. The principal hydraulic features of the dam are a radial gate-controlled spillway and an outlet works.

The spillway, the subject of this report, includes an excavated approach channel, a concrete gate structure, chute, hydraulic jump stilling basin, and an excavated outlet channel, Figure 3. The discharge is controlled by twelve 50-foot- 'de by 21. 76-foot-high radial gates, and the total drop in elevation from the spillway crest to the stilling basin floor is 84. 4 feet. The energy of flow from the reservoir is dissipated by a hydraulic jump stilling basin. The excavated outlet channel extends for about 4, 400 feet in a gentle ogee curve to the Solomon River.

The maximum design discharge of the spillway is 264, 500 cfs at reser­voir water surface elevation 1492. 9. The normal reservoir water sur­face elevation will be 1455. 6 and the top elevation of the flood control pool will be 1488. 3. The gates are provided with individual automatic control.

The foundation material at the spillway contains bentonitic shale seams which could reduce the stability of the structure by increasing the sliding factor. This affected the design of the structure, as noted in appro­priate sections throughout the report. Dimensions of important quan­tities used in this report are listed in Table 1 for both English and metric units.

3

THE MODEL

The tests were conducted with a 1: 72 scale model which contained the 12 bays of the overfall spillway, the excavated approach channel, about 1, 040 by 1, 870 feet of the surrounding reservoir topography, the sloping chute, the stilling basin, and about 2, 000 feet of the excavated downstream channel, Figure 4.

The reservoir topography and approach channel were formed in con­crete, except for a portion of the left approach channel side slope which was reformed with sand for erosion tests during the study. The spillway crest and downstream sloping chute were constructed of con­crete screeded to sheet metal templates. The approach sidewalls, radial gates, and one baffle pier were made of galvanized sheet steel. The piers, chute walls, stilling basin floor, chute blocks, end sill, and remaining baffle piers were made of wood and painted to resist swelling. The outlet channel was formed of sand, with a median diameter of 0. 8 mm, so that erosive tendencies of the flow could be determined.

Reservoir elevations were measured by means of a hook gage installed in a stilling well having an inlet located approximately 540 feet up­stream from the spillway crest on the centerline of the approach chan­nel. Tailwater elevation staff gages were installed at Stations 36+50 and 50+50 on the downstream channel centerline. Tailwater elevations, Figure 5, were controlled by an adjustable tailgate. Channel bed degradation was not considered in the model study.

Water was supplied to the model reservoir through a 12-inch-diameter pipe connected to the permanent laboratory water supply system. Model discharges were measured by Venturi meters permanently in­stalled in this system. The flow was stilled by passing it through a 6 -inch-thick rock baffle.

THE INVESTIGATION

The flow conditions in the approach area, through the bays, on the chute, and in the hydraulic jump stilling basin were observed over the full range of discharges. Erosion tests were made in the approach and outlet channels; pressures on the baffle piers were measured; and a spillway discharge capacity rating was obtained. Performance of the preliminary structure was generally satisfactory. Several modifica­tions were tested but not used in the prototype design, with the ex­ception of the baffle piers which were eventually reduced in height.

4

Approach Channel Flow

The approach channel flow was generally smooth up to 75 percent of maximum discharge (about 200, 000 cfs), Figure 6. The 644-foot-wide approach channel excavated to elevation 1456 was adequate to provide smooth flow for these discharges, and the velocities were sufficiently low to permit the flow to follow the gradually curving channel. At near-maximum discharges, a portion of the water ap­proached the spillway from the sides of the r:p.ain channel an:d created some turbulence as it entered the deeper approach channel. This turbulence originated about 500 feet upstream from the spillway crest on the left side and about 600 feet on the right side at 140, 000 cfs discharge, and moved closer to the spillway as the discharge increased toward maximum.

Because most of the side flow entered the main channel from the right,. the flow direction at the bay entrances was slightly to the left and caused a drawdown of the water surface on the left side of the piers. The water surface drawdown was greatest at both end bays which were the first to flow free as the gates were raised. The turbulence in the approach channel and drawdown at the piers were not severe enough to cause adverse flow conditions in the spillway bays. However. the side flow into the main channel could conceivably cause erosion of the 3:1 side slope of the main channel. To determine the erosive tenden­cies of the side flow. the left approach channel side slope was formed from sand and an erosion test was run, while holding the reservoir water surface elevation at approximately 1492, and opening the gates by increments. No erosion of the side slopes occurred for gate open­ings up to 12 feet. Some of the top layer of sand started to form a drift along the top edge of the channel side slope when the gates were opened 16 feet. Severe erosion occurred at maximum discharge (gates fully open) and the eroded material either passed over the spillway or was deposited in the approach channel upstream from the spillway crest, Figure 7. By closing the end gate. the side flow was reduced to the extent that no erosion occurred.

Training dikes. --The side slopes of the approach channel were built ~up to above maximum reservoir water surface and a dike on each side was extended about 500 feet upstream from the spillway crest to prevent the flow from spilling over the channel sides, Figure 8. Flow around the upstream ends of the training dikes created a drawdown in the water surface, and the velocities reached 9 fps (feet per second) near the upstream ends of the dikes, and 20 fps about 10 feet upstream from the ends of the dikes. Riprap 1 to 4 feet in diameter would be required to prevent erosion of the ends of the dikes and the adjacent channel side slopes .. !__/ Further tests on the left dike indicated that

1 / "Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators, " Engineering Monograph No. 25, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 1963, pp 207-217.

5

placement of the upstream end of the dike at different angles changed the !low patterns. The flow was smoothest when about 180 feet of the upstream end was placed about 306 away from the approach channel, Figure 9.

Although the training dikes prevented the side flows from entering the channel near the spillway and created smooth flow at the bays, erosion would probably occur at the upstream ends of the dikes. Due to the expense of installing the dikes, the lack of complete protection afforded by them, and the infrequency of operation at near-maximum discharge, the training dikes were not included in the recommended design.

Water surface profiles. --Profiles of the water surface in the approach channel were measured to determine the water surface elevation at the intakes to floatwells which are located in the piers to automatically operate the spillway gates. The intakes are located in the approach channel 4.00 feet upstream from the spillway crest, Figure 1 0. The drop in water surface between the reservoir and floatwell intakes was needed to properly adjust the automatic gate control mechanisms. Water surface profiles at 50-foot intervals in the approach channel for maximum discharge were recorded, Figure 11. The maximum drop in water surface at the floatwell intakes due to velocity head was about 1 foot.

Velocity measurements. --A velocity traverse across the approach channel at Station 29+50 or 101 feet upstream from the crest axis was recorded for the maximum uncontrolled discharge of 264, 500 cfs, Figure 12. The mean velocity measured at 0. 6 of the flow depth 2/ was about 13 fps across most of the approach channel. Erratic -velocities were recorded in the turbulent region at the right end of the traverse where the side flow entered the main approach channel flow.

Vertical velocity profiles were recorded for maximum discharge at four locations, 106 and 232 feet on either side of the approach channel centerline at Station 29+50, Figure 13. The profiles indicated velo­cities from 11 to 16 fps throughout the measured depth.

Spillway and Chute Flow

The flow through the spillway bays was generally very smooth. The pier noses, which were slanted about 37° from vertical and rounded in section, Figure 14, caused no turbulence. Excessive approach flow from the right side of the approach channel affected the amount of drawdown along the sides of the piers, as previously described.

2/D. M. Corbet, et al, "Stream Gaging Procedure," U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 888, 1943.

6

Water surface profiles. --Water surface profiles along both sides of five piers and along the right wingwall were obtained for maximum discharge, Figure 14. These profiles show the smooth flow and extent of drawdown along the 4-foot-wide piers. Drawdown at the piers varied from about 0. 5 foot at Pier 6 to a maximum of 5 feet. about 4 feet below the average flow surface. at Pier 11. Drawdown along the right wingwall was negligible. 'The maximum differential head across the piers was 6 feet. The profiles also showed a clearance of about 5 feet between the trunnion pilaster and the maximum water surface under the trunnion. The flow was smooth around the down­stream end of the piers. A mild diamond pattern of standing waves on the chute was created where the flow rejoined at the blunt 18-inch­wide pier ends, Figures 15A, B, and 19, but this did not cause adverse flow conditions.

Water surface profiles were also measured along the right sidewall from just upstream of the piers, to the downstream end of the stilling basin, for the maximum discharge of 264, 500 cfs and for 19, 25, 50, 75, and 125 percent of maximum discharge, Figure 16. Spot checks of the water surface along the left sidewall showed similar profiles, indicating symmetrical flow in the chute and stilling basin. The height of the chute sidewalls was adequate to contain all flows. Tests with various combinations of gates controlling the flow at maximum reservoir water surface elevation showed sufficient freeboard along the chute walls. The flow rose highest on the chute walls when the left gate was closed and all other gates were fully open, Figure 15C.

The toe position of the hydraulic jump surged upstream to Station 33+00 for maximum discharge, normal tailwater. This test indicated where th~ prototype subdrain outlets from the drainage galleries should be positioned.

Discharge capacity rating. --Discharge versus reservoir water surface elevation data were obtained for free flow and controlled flow at gate openings of 4, 8, 12, and 16 feet, Figure 17. The gate openings were measured circumferentially along the arc of gate travel, from the gate seat to the bottom of the gate. The seat was at Station 30+56. 25 or 5. 5 feet downstream from the crest and at elevation 1466. 54 or O. 86 foot vertically below the crest. The discharge curve showed that 264, 500 cfs could be passed at a measured reservoir water surface elevation of 1491. 4, or elevation 1492. 2, including velocity head.

A discharge coefficient curve was computed from the free flow discharge rating model data and included in Figure 17. The coefficient of dis­charge (Cd) is defined as Q where L equals the total crest

Cd= LH3/2 length of 600 feet; H equals the head in feet measured from the crest,

7

elevation 1467. 40, to the reservoir water surface, measured 540 feet upstream from the crest in the approach channel, plus the velocity head at this point, Figure 18; Q equals the total discharge. The max­imum discharge coefficient was about 3. 63 for a discharge of 150, 000 cfs, while the coefficient at maximum design discharge of 264, 500 cfs was 3. 59. The slightly lower coefficient at maximum discharge was probably due to the turbulence of the side flow into the main approach channel which moved closer to the spillway crest as the head increased.

Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basin--Preliminary Design

The energy of the spillway flow was dissipated in a Type III 3 / hydraulic jump stilling basin which is relatively short and contains chute blocks, baffle piers, and an end sill. This basin type was selected on the basis of infrequent anticipated usage and maximum construction savings. The incoming flow in a Type III basin is usually limited to velocities of 50 to 60 fps and unit discharges less than 200 cfs. The basin is satisfactory for values of Froude number above 4. O. The Glen Elder design entrance depth (D1) at the bottom of the chute, was 5 feet with an entrance velocity (V 1) of 82 fps resulting in a Froude number of 6. 5 and a maximum unit discharge of 411 cfs per foot of width. An actual model incoming flow depth (D1), measured close to the toe of the jump for 261,400 cfs discharge, reservoir water surface elevation 1492. 2, was 6. 5 feet. For this con­dition, the entering velocity was 62 fps; the Froude number 4. 3; and the unit discharge 406 cfs/foot.

The depth (D2), from the basin floor to the downstream water surface, was designed to be greater than normal minimum. The minimum rec­)mmended tailwater depth for the Glen Elder operating conditions is ibout 31 feet but the design tailwater depth was about 48 feet. The higher tailwater depth was designed to help maintain the jump within the basin to raise the pressures on the baffle pier surfaces and to avoid a basin which would be above the river channel elevation at its junction with the spillway outlet channel. The chute blocks, baffle piers, and end sill were in general designed according to Mono-graph 25. 4/

Basin and downstream channel flow. - -The preliminary basin operated satisfactorily for all discharges, Figure 19. The hydraulic jump was contained well within the basin for all discharges and corresponding tailwater depths. Although some splash overtopped the basin walls at maximum discharge, the sidewalls were adequate in height to contain the flow. Flow entering the downstream channel was smooth and well

3 /Ibid. 4/Ibid.

8

distributed across its entire width. There was about a 3-foot fluctua­tion in the water surface at maximum discharge.

Tests run at maximum discharge with the minimum tailwater elevation that could be set in the model (about 1427) showed that the jump would remain in the basin for all basin configurations tested in the studies.

Basin self-cleaning tests. --No sand, rock, or other material moved into the stilling basin from the downstream channel during any operating condition. Several tests were run to determine how effectively the flow would remove rock and debris that might be accidentally deposited in the basin. Gravel representing 3-inch-diameter prototype material. placed on the chute in the high-velocity flow at maximum discharge moved out of the basin immediately. Material which represented 1. 5-foot-diameter prototype rock accumulated for a short time just upstream of the end sill and then moved downstream out of the basin. Three-foot-diameter material stayed upstream of the end sill and did not leave the basin. Floating material placed in the flow tended to concentrate in the center of the basin where it lingered in the jump for a short time and then moved downstream. As long as the material stayed in the jump. it moved about and occasionally hit the chute floor.

The same tests were repeated for lower discharges. At 75 percent of maximum discharge. the 3-inch and 1. 5-foot diameter material stayed upstream of the end sill for a longer time but eventually moved out of the basin. The 3-foot-diameter material remained upstream of the end sill. The floating material stayed in the jump. At 50 percent of maxi­mum discharge, the 3-inch material moved out of the basin much more slowly and all larger material stayed upstream of the end sill. A dis­charge of 25 percent of maximum moved all rock material to just up­stream of the end sill, where it remained. The floating particles had very little action and would not cause damage at this flow. The larger material remained upstream of the baffle piers at 6 and 12 percent of maximum discharge, and the 3-inch material moved to just downstream of the baffle piers. The floating material moved quickly downstream of the basin at a discharge of 2 percent of maximum (5, 300 cfs) discharge and all rock material remained upstream of the baffle piers.

Downstream channel erosion test. --The main excavated channel down­stream of the stilling basin was 644 feet wide with the invert at eleva­tion 1405. 0 and was formed in sand in the model. A 100-foot-wide depressed channel with the invert at elevation 1385 (later changed to 1390) was cut in the main channel. The sides of both channels were on a 2:1 slope. A 3-foot layer of riprap on 18-inch bedding was specified in the downstream channel from the end of the basin, Sta-tion 34+85 to Station 36+25, to protect the 5: 1 invert slope between the basin and the channel. The riprap was specified after completion of the model studies, however. and was not tested in the model, Figure 20A.

9

Erosion tests with the preliminary design basin were made at maximum discharge for 2 hours with the tailwater at elevation 1431. The channel topography was leveled by these test flows forming essentially one channel. There was neither deposition nor removal of bed material at the downstream edge of the end sill. The four contour lines on Fig­ure 20B show where the initial channel floor elevations of 1385 and 1405 were located at the end of the erosion test.

Baffle pier pressures. - - The baffle pier located immediately to the right of the spillway centerline was made of sheet metal and equipped with 6 piezometers, which were located in areas where previous tests have shown that high impact pressures and subatmospheric pressures might occur. Pressures were measured with single-leg, water-filled, manom­eters at discharges of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum discharge and normal tailwater elevations. No subatmospheric pressures were measured during these tests, Figure 21.

The highest observed impact pressure was 76 feet of water and occured at the base of the upstream face of the pier at maximum discharge. The water depth over the pier at maximum discharge was about 40 feet. Since the pressure at Piezometers 4 and 5 (on the side of the pier) dropped progressively as the discharge was increased, the test was extended to include 125 percent of maximum discharge, and tailwater elevation 1434. The two pressures on the side of the pier dropped to an average 9 feet of water below atmospheric during this test and fluctuated over about 20 feet, Figure 22A.

Instantaneous dynamic and average pressures were also obtained with diaphragm-type pressure cells and electronic recording equipment. The average dynamic pressures recorded were similar to those obtained from the water manometers, Figure 22B. The range in feet over which the pressures fluctuated and frequency rate of the fluctuations are tabulated on Figure 22C. The frequencies were about 1 cycle per second (prototype) throughout the tests. The magnitude of fluctuations, however, greatly increased as the discharge increased, and was greater for Piezometers 4 and 5 than the other piezometers during tests for 50 through 125 percent of maximum discharge. The fluctuations were as much as 80 to 90 feet of water at maximum discharge, and about twice the magnitude of the pressures observed at any of the other piezometers.

Modified Stilling Basin Design

Different combinations of three baffle pier and three end sill designs were tested in the stilling basin, Figure 23. Although they produced different flow conditions in the basin and different erosion patterns in the channel downstream, none of the designs was an improvement on the initial design. However, shortened baffle piers were eventually specified for structural design reasons.

10

Preliminary baffle piers with dentated end sill. --The solid end sill was changed to one which was triangular in section and included _dentates. Although the water surface profile in the basin was nearly identical to that of the initial design, the water surface fluctuation at maximum dis­change was about 6 feet, as compared to 3 feet with the initial design.

The channel bed was shaped to the specified configuration, Figure 20A, and an erosion test flow of 50 percent :i;naximum discharge (132, 500 cfs), tailwater elevation 1423, was run for 2 hours (prototype). The channel was not greatly changed and the erosion that o_ccl,lr:.red merely rounded the tops and bottoms of the side slopes of both channels, Figure 24A. The model was operated for an additional 8 hours (prototype) at maxi­mum discharge (264, 500 cfs), tailwater elevation 1431. The erosion was quite similar to that observed for the initial design, except that the center of the channel was eroded to elevation 11382, for a distance of 100 feet downstream from the end sill, Figure 24B.

Short baffle piers with preliminary -end sill. - - The preliminary design end sill was reinstalled .and the height of the baffle piers was reduced by cutting off the tops of the initial piers by 3 feet 9 inches. The short pier was desirable to reduce the excessive sliding factor of the concrete slab on the foundation material. These piers produced a definite change in the water surface profile in the basin, Figure 23. The profile of the hydraulic jump was more gradual and less wave action occurred in the basin. Although deeper erosion occurred at the ends of the basin side­walls, the erosion pattern in the downstream channel was similar to that observed with the preliminary design.

Short baffle piers with dentated end sill. --The short baffle piers were retained and the dentated end sill reinstalled. Although the average water surface in the basin was about 3 feet higher, the shape of the water surface profile in the basin was nearly identical to that of the previous test with the shortened baffle piers, Figure 23. The erosion of material from around the downstream ends of the basin sidewalls was similar to the previous test. Four distinct shallow dunes formed immediately downstream from the end sill, Figure 24C.

Horizontal end sill apron. - -The short baffle piers and dentated end sill were left in place and the sloping downstream side of the end sill was made horizontal, Figure 23. This minor change did not affect the water surface profile and a 2-hour erosion test at 50 percent of maximum discharge caused very little erosion, Figure 25A. Eight hours additional operation at maximum discharge produced an erosion pattern similar to the previous two tests, Figure 25B. · The space im­mediately downstream from the end sill was filled with bed material level with the top of the sill which was initially 9 feet below the top of the horizontal apron. A small area on either side of the basin was eroded away from the sill, slightly exposing the footings, Figure 25C.

11

Short baffle pier pressures. --Pressures on the surfaces of the short pier were recorded while the spillway was operating at maximum dis­charge and the tailwater surface elevation was varied from normal (1431) to 8 feet higher and 4 feet lower than normal. The pressures for these conditions are compared in Figure 26. The impact pressures on the upstream face of the pier were from 7 to 15 feet lower than those measured on the full height pier. (The discharge for the full pier test was about 700 cfs higher than for this test. ) The pressures along the side of the pier again fluctuated and were as much as 4 feet below at­mospheric at normal tailwater and 15 feet below atmospheric with the low tail water. The pressure measured on the downstream side of the pier was unaffected by the change in height.

"T" baffle piers with meliminary end sill. -- The preliminary end sill and left half of the baf e piers were restored and the baffle r.iers in­the right half of the basin were changed to "Sloping 'T' Type' 5/ _piers, Figure 28. The "T" baffle piers were placed in the same position, and the upstream face was the same size as the initial piers. The flow in the half of the basin containing the "T" piers was very turbulent and the profile of the hydraulic jump was very steep, Figure 23. The surges of the hydraulic jump rose above the top of the sidewalls at maximum discharge, normal tailwater.

An erosion test at 50 percent of maximum discharge for 2 hours (prototype) at normal tail water caused very little erosion. Shallow ridges or dunes formed on the 5:1 slope downstream from the basin, Figure 27A. The ridges were evident only in the right half of the basin, downstream from the "T" piers. Maximum discharge opera­tion at normal tailwater for 8 hours (prototype) caused the ridges to greatly enlarge, Figure 27B and C. The ridges extended about 200 feet downstream from the end sill. The valleys between the ridges were eroded as much as 2 0 feet below the initial grade. Bed material adjacent to the end sill was removed exposing the end of the sill to a depth of 7 feet. No bed material was eroded from the area on either side of the basin, where erosion occurred during the test of the shortened baffle piers.

"T" baffle pier tcressures. --Pressure~ on the "T" baffle pier surfaces were recorded or maximum spillway discharge with normal (1431) and low (1427) tailwater elevations and for 50 percent of maximum discharge, normal tailwater., Figure 28, All recorded pressures were above atmospheric. The pressures were similar to those meas­ured on the preliminary pier. The pressure on the side of the "T"

5 / "Shapes for Appurtenances in Stilling Basins, " Journal of the Hydraulics Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, May 1964, by N. Narayana Pillai and T. E. Unny, pp 1-21.

12

pier was higher at maximum discharge (13 feet at Piezometer 2) than on the preliminary block (3 feet at Piezometers 4 and 5). Nearly identical pressures were observed at 50 percent maximum discharge. The pressure measured on the downstream sloping face of all three piers was essentially identical.

Baffle pier effect on hydraulic jump. - -The shape and size of the baffle piers determined the basic profile of the hydraulic jump in the stilling basin, Figure 23. The initial design baffle piers created a steep hy­draulic jump which stayed well within the basin and had some wave action. The shortened baffle piers created a flatter hydraulic jump which extended the entire len~h of the basin and also had wave action throughout this length. The 'T" block baffle piers created a very steep hydraulic jump with violently turbulent flow. Photos of the flows dem­onstrate the three conditions, Figure 29. The end sill had no effect on the profile.

The Recommended Basin

Because of their adequate hydraulic performance and for structural reasons, the short baffle piers were used in the prototype stilling basin. Changes in the end sill design produced no important hydraulic improvements, and the preliminary sill was recommended. In all other aspects, the preliminary basin was recommended.

13

Table 1

DIMENSIONS OF HYDRAULIC FEATURES

Feature

Height of dam Length of dam at crest Length of dike at crest Reservoir area Reservoir capacity Spillway design capacity Head on crest at design capacity Width of crest Drop. crest to basin floor Width of basin Length of basin Height of basin walls Radial gate dimensions

.):!;n~lish units

115 feet 15. 200 feet 1. 300 feet 35. 270 acres 976, 000 acre-feet 264, 500 cfs 25. 5 feet 600 feet 84. 4 feet 644 feet 109 feet 53 feet 50 feet wide 21. 7 6 feet high

Metric units

35 meters 4, 6 33 meters 396 met~rs 143 square kilometers 1. 204x 109 cubic meters 7,490 ems 7. 8 meters 183 meters 25. 7 meters 196 meters 33 meters 16 meters 15. 24 meters 6. 63 meters

ROCK DEPOSITS SECTION 36 1 T.14 S .• R.4 W. - SALINE CO.

SECTIONS 13 ANO 14, T 12 S, R.8 W. - LINCOLN CO.

KEY MAP

10 15 20 25

SCALE O, Ml LES

6-22-64 LOCATION OF ROCK DEPOSIT Nb.I CORRECTED, D.

8 ALWAYS TNlnK SAHTV UNIT£0 STATE:S

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BIJR£AU OF' RECLAMATION

MISSOURI RIVE:R BASIN PROJE:CT

SOLOMON DIV. - GLE:N E:LDE:R UNIT- KANSAS

GLEN ELDER DAM LOCATION MAP

ORAWN __ ~:_~._jt, ________ $U8MITTEO ____ J~:..J,_~--------TRACEO __ .!}._L.,:_,!; _______ RCC0MMCNOEO_..:i!f._~ ~~~-CHECKEoJ/..f.K.1.t:::.'r/ _____ APPROVEO ~

OEN VCR. COl.ORADO, MAY Its, 1964 495-0-28

z 0

I

i

(

,,. a­

---,.-,-~-£ crest of darrr'--

,,_ \-,). -~----Sto. 75 +JS.54

I\ N 4f8, 000.00 r/_:-..:.:::f fl /, 911,307 95

--Measurement points-, -- • Toe drain

-~-9-

-=-

52 + 15.19 N 415, 680 41

E. I. 911, 409. 22

'--'11-1------------ ---,-_ 1~r,oo"o~~-,-------------'c

I' Sto 46 + 20-~ ,, ,,

..-::::-- -

g • •

Et 1-,20

---l~- -Disposal

2j:1/

Area-

,1

I .. ,

/ Sto. 66+00----s~ ,~-Er 1so2

- - - -- - _:::,,--

S=0.0005-,

L;.;;---30'..-,-I

(

I

\

.. '\ \ ~

\'\

SECTION s-s STA !i4 + 00 ~ TO STA 98 +50 (TRANSITION-STA. 98 +!iO TO sr A f04 +00±!

' ' L--------, ' ' '

,/

Sp111woy Sto Jo + 79 0(): Dom Sta. 28 + 7i 1e N 4/J, 440 00 E I, 9!2,00900

-----,t'\ !

:: _......,...---~ : r---1

' ' ~ ____ JL__ --- \._ ---- ---~--=-1 ,--- -----------=------=---=-- __ ,-ff CountY rood connection

11 20+00 --N o•o'E ___ -f~~.--·_..s:,3,, ~.::----P.1. Sto-: + 14_21

. 1"0D N 411, 940.00 fr, 912, OO'J.00 __ ----.._,,_ -~

= ===-§===-' • - -1-c

1 E. 1,!i112,ooo

Cutoff trench and qro ut cop

/- ' / ',

! I ', \ Stock pile oreo-, \

"'· t

~­--· ,,/ ~~! .6=45° /

l l I I I l I

s~o.ooos-, Sto. 36 -t-00-------~ -El 1500.5

CAMBER ON CREST OF DAM

I l

/ I I

' I

I

' ' ' GENERAL PLAN

200 ;?OO

s-o.oor

SCALE OF FEET

.,,.---Sto J1 + oo El 1500

I I " I' II

I I I I

--------,-~ft) ,,/+' ,~ I I

/ :: :-s-o.oo

~: L = l85.4p' i-: T ,,,,414_21 /

4~~~~~--~) __________,cc;"~

'- I ________ _,

Sta. a roo "· 410, 940.00 [, /, 911,009.00

Ber:;mninr:; of dom----

E!. 1500---- -7

LI(

,.o ,.o 0.0

------------ -- ------- -------------,1~00

PROFILE ON CREST OF' OAM

20 I ,

• r •l--..-" ;-i-

Orir:;mol ground surface

15' Min. hor1zonlol width-

=ic,,..,-,""'7'-C

Grout ho/es @ 10· crs. approx

A-A

ff Crest af dom

/-Crest Er. 1500

width

--Varies from o' at Sta. J5 -t 68 to 45' ot Sto. 50 +oo

'--Assumed formation surface

STA. oo+oo TO STA 46+20 (TRANSITION-SrA 46+-20 TO S(A !i4+00} NOTE- For zoning adjacent to spillway walls, see Dwr:; 495-0-41.

SCALE OF FEET

0

" • >

g

0

0 ,000

CAPACITY IN THOUSANDS CF ACRE-FEET

FIGURE 2 REPORT HYD-561

400 800 1200 1600 2000 THOUSANDS OF ACRES

10 :30 40

Copocify-.

s,o ,)

---~Max W.S I r, 1492_9

s. ~ 147D

0

~ . a 0:: 14401-f--,,'-------j-----i--,,~

" • • e ~ 141oll.---+-=="'1~ ~ • w .

1300~----"c---~~--~ O ~ 100 150 200 250 :JOO

SPILLWAY DISCHARGE IN THOUSANDS OF G.F.S. 2 :3 4 5

OUTLET WORKS DISCHARGE IN THOUSANDS OF C F.S.

AREA-CAPACITY-DISCHARGE CURVES

RESERVOIR CAPACITY ALLOCATIONS

PURPOSE ELEVATION I

CA PII CITY IICRE-FEET

Flood contra/ 1455.6 to 1488.J ' 1J6, 'JOO __

Irrigation ond Munic Inactive

ipal 1425.o ta 1455.6

1401.8 to .'425.0 21J, JOO

i 24, 280

Deod Streombed to 1401.8 I /, 520 -

Toto/ capacity I 976,000

A surchorr:;e of li'J, 000 o.f* ,n combination with o spillway copocrly of 263,000 c f.s. is provided to protect or:;oinst the mf/ow desir:;n flood havinr:; o peok af 4Jl,OOO c.f.s ond o J-doy volume of 900, ooo o f.

*Max. ws El 1492.9

0

0 0

EMBANKMENT EXPLANATION Selected cloy, silt and sand compacted by tamping rollers

to 6-rnch layers Selected topsoil campocted by tampinr:; rollers to 6 - inch layers Sand compacted by crow/er type tractors to 12" layers Selected sand or sand with same silt compacted by tamping

rollers to 6-inch /ayers Limestone ond shale fragments to ia-inch Max size placed in

18-inch foyers ond compacted by pneumatic tired roller M1scelloneous material placed in .'2-inch layers and compacted

by trove/ af equipment.

ALIIAYS TMlnK SAKTV uN,rEo srArEs

OEPARrMENr OF rHE INrERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMAr!ON

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT SOLOMON DIVISION - GLEN ELDER UNIT- KANSAS

GLEN ELDER DAM

GENERAL PLAN AND SECTIO-NS

D/!:,..Vl<,., COLO,..O.DO, J<.MIE 2.11:,1 ... 4 SH~ET I 01" I! 495-D-44

\

"'-

\

-ff. Crest of dam

El 14900,

'

;;1 '

--Contraction

~-~

' ' ',

' ' '

Formed dr oin • _

,lf----+----+----+----tt----+---cl---_-_-_+---~ 0---+---_s,¾c

' -~

' ' '

Sta. 30+00.0C-

:'N 413,44G 00 / 1,912.(XJ9DO

,0r--+----ti.Sp1/lwoy Sta. 30+7900 :_:equals Dom Sta

gallery

R = 1500'----··-sto. 29+5000

50

-E/.1456.0---'

J '·-Sta. 29•C0.0 .j. __ _ - B---+---------~~-----~---+-,~-'-----+--

P LA N ~ ,o 00 150

SCALE OF FE ET

Spillway

-- --644'-o~---,Top of gates El. /488.Jo

EC TION A- A

'--,,FJaotwell intake structure

,:

'--3' Riprop on 18" bedding

Sta 29+50.00- •• ~

Mox w s ' [/.1492.9--,

12· Chain link

:Sia. ; 29+81.82

I .fl 149350

,( Crest o.F dam J Sta 30+79.00

fence--.,.,_ r ,Sta ,42' Cham link fence

~)3o•335a::1 ; _,!",Sta. 30•99-50 El.150000.

• I :Sta. 32+2 3 oo

< ol490

~ 14 B5

~~

~~~

I

I

Tai/water·

-

""' Re> ij 5. J, ).J2k-

---~ - / - V

FIGURE 3 REPORT HYD-561

' , I - --,, I ~ - I

'

I 430

1420 f-;- - ~

~~ ,, ,,/ :

,, ' ' : ,1.,.__ -··-_, '·sta 50.0o'x21.76' Radio/ gate ---t' / ·,r, 1451,5 El 146000

+n ___ ,--.,,.1 / ·----<,, '~service gaflery Sta. 30 .,c.oo ...i·Sp1l/woy crest-.··orainoge holes

Grout holes @ to'.!- crs _: Sta. 30+51.00 \ @ ,o':t crs to U/467.40 \ El. !430

Apply concrete pratecti'ie ' , coating to Freshly excavated surface-'

,5:· -,s~

Drams and anchors ,: not shown -

Drainage blonket-

Apply protective coating excavated surfaces--

,-Sta. 33' + 76.oo

"' ; _,-Bock fill line

i / ,-£1.1436.00

I-'-- Sta. 341-85.00

a -263.000 c.fs. T.W El 14310

(·Sta 361-25.0

' '··-3' R1prap on 18" bedding

u

" ~ 1480

~

0 > ~

~1470

< V r '

- ~ -0

/' " - -SpillwaJ dischor e

f , " 1410 >

J w

I , --~ _, '

~

w

1400 " . •

V

I+ .

11 l:390 •'>: ,l>j 1df~ ,.. •..

~~/-Welde~ w(re ~ 10

E1 13'66.oo--- ~ ~ I/ r1,.,rest El. 1467. 4() ,_

~'.:;,1:s:C:~/ ii',• , ,o SECTION B-B 0

J' Riprop an 1811 bedding

OETAIL OF FORMED ORA/IV

-£ Crest of dam

U/500.0--•od-J'.' - ._15 _0 ,

:---J--.}-~ surfaci~9

r--t~ -- Compacted pervious Z O NI N G OF EM BA N K M E NT backfill

AJ).JACENT TO SPILLWAY. WAL.LS TQ EKTENO A MINIMUM QF 50 FEET FROM HEEL QF WALLS

"-.~!NIMUM ALLOWABLE EXTENT STA. 24+00 TO STA. JJ+50 ------- -- --- -

,-Original ground surface-

__ ,t__

;·--- -'•Drainage gallery

'Concrete protective cooting :_Sprayed protective

coating SECTION D-D SECTION

Ongrnal ground surface-,

---- -- --- -- - -- _ _j _

\o -.,

SECTION

·Drainage blanket

E-E

,-Limits at special CtJmpactian

,-3' Riprop on / /Bu bedding

c-c

Provide two measurement pomts ,r" x ,f' Bross carriage in each won panel at 6" :, bolts on It:. of wall. from each end. and one , measurement point 1n the f--c,o" -0""1 southeast corner of ___ 7 f each inlet, chute ti" i o and st1/!,ng basin,. ,. floor slob - / "', •

,-Top of wail f

1 MEASUREMENT POINT DETAIL

Original ground surface--, ------ _________ :'.'\._ -- --- -+--- ---- ----- -----

/--[! 1436.00

Campcx:ted pervious bockfili

Concrete protective coating/

i·-->-".P-; \_ ·---Drains

·~sprayed protective

322-0·-

t ' '""'"'' anchors not shown

coating

SECTION F-F

El. !436.00--

----------322'0"

SIii u 1389. 75·,,

-7 \-//

-- : ----: _____ : •/ -- : ____ l/

'·Apply protective coating to freshly excavated surfaces where directed

/

/ /

/

on 18" bedding

I I

50 100 150 200 250 300 SPILLWAY DISCHARGE JN THOUSAND C. F.S

DISCHARGE -TAI LWATER CURVES

CONCRETE FINISHES Surfaces covered by fill. Formed r-1. unformed u-1. Exposed surfaces af control house which ore not o continuation of the spillway wall, F-3

All other exposed surfaces: Formed F-2, unformed U-2.

NO TES

For general concrete out fine notes see Owg. 40-0-5530. Eiectricai conduit, control piping and apparatus. miscef­

loneaus metal work and reinforcement not shown. *Indicates true slope (normal fQ excavation contours). For details of the spillway inlet and outlet channels see

Owg. 495-0-122

REFERENCE DRAWINGS DAM-GENERAL PLAN ANO SECT!ONS _____________ 495-0-44

DAM-LOCATION OF E)(PLORATIONS FOR

BORROW AREA "11" AND SPILLWAY BORROW AREA __ 495-0-122 SPILLWAY

INLET FLOOR SLAB________ __495-0-48 INi..ET WALLS__ __495-D-49 GA TE ST RUG TUR£ ___________________ .495- 0-50, 51,52 ,53 CHUTE WALLS STA 30-+90 TOSTA.Jl-+86--------495-0-54 CHUTE WALLS STA. 31-+86 TO STA. J2+97 ________ 495-D-55 CHUTE WALLS STA 32+97 TO STA. 33-+76 _________ 495-0-56 Sr/LL/NG BASIN WALLS STA. 33-t76 TO STA. 341-85 __ .495-0-5 7 CHUTE SUlB STA. 30+90 TO STA 32+23 ________ .495-0-58 CHUTE SLAB STA. 32-t-23 TO STA.JJt-J6.5 _______ 495-D-59 STILLING BASIN SLAB STA. J3+36.5 TO STA.34-t-85 ___ 495-D-60

1-5-58

o-mFi~/· ADDITIONAL GRAVEL S/JffFACrNlii SliDWIN. llf:VjSf"D

BACKFILL 1../J'IE:,

....... nnnoi SAFETY LJNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT QF THE 11\/TERIQR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PRO.JECT SOLOMON DIVISION - GLEN ELDER UNIT- KANSAS

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

PLAN AND SECTIONS

ORAWl\/ ___ :;!:...!:ic.!I~-- __ ..3Ut1..,,TTEO _t:fii?.M~-. RECOMMENDE:D _R,,~,.~--

PX-D-45813 NA

View facing downstream

P495-D- 54384 NA,'------~----

The approach channel showing 10 of the 12 spillway bays

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

The 1-72 Scale Model

Figure 4 Report Hyd - 561

--t= LI.I !&I IA.. ......

z 0

I-ct > w ...I w

!JJ 0 <I LL a:: => (/)

a: IJ.! I-<[

3:

143 5 I I

P'--TA I LWATIE R

1430

I 42 5

1420

1415

1410

I 405

/ /

V I I

I 400 . I

1395 I I

1390 I , I 3 85

0 20 40

I I I I I I EL. 1430.S (FOR MAXIMUM DISGHARGE)

~ -------------~

i----

~ _,,

V ~

/

NOTE

THIS RATING CURVE IS FOR THE SPILLWAY THROUGH THE RIGHT ABUTMENT WITH AN EXCAVATED CHANNEL BETWEEN THE STILLING BASIN AND THE SOLOMON RIVER.

PREPARED BY J.C. PETERS DIV. OF PROJ. INVESTIGATIONS.

BOTTOM WIDTH OF EXCAVATED CHANNEL= 100 FEET.

CHANNEL WIDTH AT BERM LEVEL= 655 FEET.

STA.50+46.64(STAFF GAGE).

,, MAXIMUM DISCHARGE 264,500 C.F.S.---"'

I I I I I I 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

DISCHARGE ( 1000 CFS)

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

TAILWATER RATING CURVE (AT UPSTREAM END OF EXCAVATED CHANNEL)

I : 72 SCALE MODEL

-- ---

280 300 320

::0 l"1 "'g .,,

o­::0 G') ... C: :i: :a -< l'T1 0 <11 I

(JI a,

Discharge 66,125 cfs (25% of maximum) Gates fully opened, Res. W. S. El. 1477. 3

Discharge 264, 500 cfs (Maximum) Gates fully opened, Res. W. s. El. 1492. 2:

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Flow In Spillway Approach Channel

1-72 Scale Model

Figure 6 Report Hyd - 561

Figure 7 Report Hyd - 561

A. Material eroded from the left approach channel side slope and deposited in the low-velocity areas of the two adjacent end bays and at the stilling basin end sill after 264,500 cfs discharge for 4 hours (prototype)

P49S·D·54398 NA

B. The eroded area along the left side slope extended about 350 feet upstream from the spillway crest after operation at the above discharge

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Erosion of Left Side Slope of. Approa ch Channel

1-72 Scale Model

Training Dike on left side of Approach Channel---------

----,_-Y

r( __ -----Approach Channel

Floor El. 1456 -----------y ~

' Cf F I l--------------------------------------- soo' ~~ -- - ----- - -- --- - - - __ :~~-

3~-+~:~~-:~~~-~:: PLAN - LEFT SIDE OF APPROACH CHANNEL

( Left side shown - Right side similar l

0 00

Natural Topography------.

Training

100 150

SCALE OF FEET

SECTION A- A Scale (see above)

200

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY LEFT TRAINING DIKE

I• 72 SCALE MOOEL

-----El. 1456.00 ,, "' ... .,, o-,, Ci)

.... C: ::0 l'1

Figure 9 Report Hyd - 561

P495- D-54383 NA

The preliminary left training dike

The upstrea m end of the l e ft dike placed 30° away from the approach channel. Discharge 264, 500 cfs ; fully ope ned gates; r eservoir water surface El. 1492. 2

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Approach Channel Training Dike Tests

1 - 72 Scale Model

f ,1"0:a.. rloafn,e// r1fers. Sf,,. 3o +.i7. oo - - - -

f' Jp,//,.,.,y flrvcf,.,,-,-., ---'--- - --- - -- .J'. __ ,...

,,t::"l.,o,,,.,,

11P/ers---

-• ---.1:0--s.,. 111 fo/re

'""1--; 'I I A

C

PLAN

,, <::, -. , "' ; -~

"' 1

, \">

~

:~ ~

=~ ~

SPILI...W4V' SrRucruRE

f 4" 0,4. r/ool-,,-,1/­

~ P,pc suppoi"f-.

_.--·"SEC. F-F '.,?" 5/d.p,pc <1nd ~o·

Screwed e/~o#'V.S.

. . ., .

OETAll M

SeCTION B·B (EX recM£ Lcl"T l"ICR ONLY}

SECTION C·C (TV'P/CAL)

El HIJ,.77

. () .

- -2·0,',,.r,i;;;,91,,;,. Jfq, .3of,~.oo

?/Pf; SUPPORT (rwo /i'.E'ot.11Rc(J J

\. _ Coner-ere- encaserne,?-r Ow:,, -1-,,.0--;18--- -

SC:CTION A·A

i "_jf,I, ndd/n? fu ( Sec. A-A)"

,·-10·,r-,/q/r,9. (.· elbo,w (5cc. A:A'j/

0

".l II ..J." C ...

R1~79 - - -

.; ".5';,I-./, .flu/ p/pe - - - - - -

£i Pipe $'-'pparf-.s-- --- _c, ~-

f: ~- _- _- ~~'.~~----_ -_· --_--~: -~~~;;;;t;~;~ _-:: : --~:-:-_::: ;;:;:·; ~ ~ 1----1,-'4/'. - j\ £ P,~r a,,d s'' ' -· -£ P/cr o-,d e'· I

, d/a. rlool-wc// .,;,;,. //oofwc// ' r1 fir - - - - - - - -

;f"-'10° ffel. elht>A/ '; 1

,- -,l'"J/d. ,,,~;el,·,,:, rec - _,\.. __

,0

'--- -,r",o/c,. :/loaf,-,,c1/ , fransver5e hec,c/er- ~-" f' g ·.o,"a. rloa /,Ye// . i

5Uf'f'/'j pipe• ... ,_,

!FIGURE 10 REPORT HYD-56i

r··F<1rnisi, p/pe connect/on.s for Svn-1p p,;,,-,p.

: r -/; ..fvmp p,;rnp

~Yo.:~~. I'

;·.= "'j .... -SqLlare block­. o~f ,Cor­

Jump pu,,-,p,1

0 l • ,•-E/./•1,4-, ftJ

· :e:;,.,··o. o. x ":o· ,I', /4.on9 ,::u)~e 1

"' /09q. /'Y'QI/ .·I · -.Cl./-lf,O.?i '>

-~:·-: ;;~U~tq:~f--:t·--~:- ~ -- ·o-v- \', -~

-----------k ' . - :·c --,~ £.'10. )( J"r/2,'ck j

, · plot'~ f-appc-d \: /or /"pipe ·.._

,·)rrop c-0,.,p/1',,9 ,,,,.;;..;, ha/,- n-lf, SECTION D-0 ~ l/e- an .w-/rA l'-ho°ne. Corer n,-/fh \ Qfl)half en1u/s/on, -· .... ,

k- - - -/~4"-- -- -~

OE TA IL N TY-PIC41..,

{Tw£lY£ e~at.11~~0 J

--S/ecyc-rype Cot.1pl/n9

5£C. £- £

ALWAYS rw,nK SAfl:TV UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IJUREAU OF RECLAMATION

,,/?IS'.Sov~I Rt 11"£R 4A$/A' PR0..1£c r $01.0MON l)Ji/'/.$10#-GJ.,e.lv £1..0£~ UIV/r•KANSAS

GLE:N E:LOER DAM SPU. L Wr'I V

rL.. OA rw&L.i. ANO SUMP PUMP PIPING PLANS· S£C7"/0NS ·,0£TAli..S

I-I.LI I.LI IL

z 0 I-<t > I.LI ...J I.LI

1495

1490

1485 20

-~

19 18

RESERVOIR I I

WATER SURFACE EL. 1493.1- -"""

-............. - r---.. WATER SURFACE- _r

·---- -

17 I 2 3 4 5 6

ct. OF

7

FIGURE I I REPORT HYD-561

CREST--+

8

POSITION NUMBER (SEE DIAGRAM)

-<-----------------12 INTERVALS OF 50.8 1 EACH------------------>-

I-I.LI I.LI IL

z 0 i= <t > I.LI ...J I.LI

1495 I I I ,_ RESERVOIR WATER

SURFACE EL. 1493. 1--r-"-li.. -

i"',..., ct. OF CREST---i-, ,...___ 1490

7--WATER SURFACE-.,

1485 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

I

POSITION NUMBER (SEE DIAGRAM) -<--------8 INTERVALS OF 50.01 EACH------->-

SPILLWAY CREST STA. 30 + 51.00----,,

I I

-6 0 <t I

-------GAGE POINTS I I I I

INTAKES-'

WATER SURFACE GAGE POINT LOCATIONS

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

WATER SURFACE PROFILES AT FLOATWELL INTAKE (DISCHARGE 265,380 CFS)

I: 72 SCALE MODEL

50 FOOT SPACING

20

0 z 15 0 <.:) w (/)

0::: w Q.

I- 10 w w LL

> I-<.:)

0 5 ..J l&J >

-0

,..._ J \.

RESERVOIR WATER ..., SURFACE EL. 1492.2----). _,,,,,,

"' -ol 0.6.f:f -7 READINGS TAKEN AT 0.6 DEPTH

MAXIMUM DISCHARGE - 264,500 CFS

I "~ _,,......._ - ,,, TURBULENT

I ~

~ I ~.,/ ' ~ REGION

-'" J ' • J

I

' \

t I

• I

(

EDGE OF EDGE OF -~AN~EL CHfNN~

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

DISTANCE IN FEET FROM CHANNEL CENTERLINE AT STATION 29 + 50

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

APPROACH CHANNEL VELOCITY TRAVERSE

I: 72 SCALE MODEL

~ FTI ,, .,, o­~(i)

-I C :::0

::i:: rri -< 0 ,; UI (J)

30

25

0:: 20 0 0 ...J IL.

...J ILi z Z 15 <( ::r: 0

ILi > 0 ID

<C 10 ILi 0 z <( ... (/)

0

5

0 0

FIGURE 13 REPORT HYD-561

I I

232 Feet to left of Ci.-----106 Feet to right of Ci.---, ',, 232 Feet to right of 't_,, \ \ 106 Feet to left of ct.-, ', , ~

\ \ I \

I \ I \

,I i,:, ' ,,

\

~

~

)

ii I J

5 10 15 20

VELOCITY (FPS)

DISCHARGE 264,500 CFS - FULL OPEN GATES

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILL WAY

APPROACH CHANNEL VERTICAL VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION AT STA. 29 + 50

I: 72 SCALE MODEL

25

FIGURE 14 REPORT HYO - 1561

Mox. Reservoir w. s. E 1.1492. 2 ····,

Normal w. s. and Top of Gate El. 1480.30··:::i,

WATER SURFACE PROFILE ELEVATION Profiles in left half of spillway

Rodlol Gote·

,,···Sta. 30+32.00 ~---------------------\,,----------"'<"""<""<=~pf-•- El.1496.50

•• --··Stu. 30+87.44

s~~--l~--~P.1. ~-~~:.!..J s'~:~•~--].,,; ,...... El. 1460 :,' ,/

' ' ' r+----------••••••20.14••••-••••-••• I

••N

,..-···Stu. 30+37.65 , El. 1457.88

WL3

IIR 9\

P-11 P-10 P-9

WATER SURFACE PROFILE ELEVATION ( STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS INCLUDED)

'i. Spillwoy--

9R I

P-8 P-7 P-6 P•5 P•4 Abutment Designations

Profiles in rkjhl holf of spillway

,. SCALE OF FEET

IR WR3 I ,

WR3

,. ••

WATER SURFACE PROFILE LOCATION SYMBOLS IL Left side of Pier P•I (etc.) IR Right side of Pier P·I (etc.)

LOCATION KEY - ELEVATION ( Facing Downstream)

no scole

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY WATER SURFACE PROFILES AT PIERS

I• 72 SCALE MODEL

Mox. Reservoir w. S. El. 1492.2·-·:,,.

W. s. ond Top of Gote El.1488.30--,.

Approach Channel Floor--·

SECTION A-A

A. Flow through bays and clearance of pilaster modeled in the left end bay. Discharge 264,500 cfs; reservoir water surface El. 1492. 2

P49S-D-543 89 NA

B. Flow emerging from the two left bays. Same discharge as above

C. Maximum discharge through fully opened gates except left end gate closed, reservoir water surface El. 1492. 2

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Flow Through Spillway Bays and on Chute

1-72 Scale Model

Figure 15 Report Hyd - 561

6 — 9 —>it — II I ,

a

Aoo

/

32

+ 2

3.0

0

145

8. 9

0-

-

PE

RC

EN

T OF

MA

X.

DIS

CH

.

--- S

ta. 3

0 +

51.0

0

,

CU (r) 0

o -0 a) 3

a)4

cD

U.J O O cD I!7 .4-

LU

•

▪ cn C a) (/)

0 C

Ca, a) a) ▪ a) o -I- 4_ -- 0

E C - a.) - a) E E cu I— E O >, „, cu

0 0 O O

0 tri a)

CO C - r4, a) V

I UJ N N I a) _ -o I 0 -0 a) • - E r-)

- a • - a L • 0 C

- a.) Lr) 0 0 r--. ira°

CL) - in L op: 0 - -0

O

C\J -5

0 CV _cp 0

• o°"01 CO 0 Tr) LLJ

3-

012 o 0 + 1- .4-pr)

is 2 — 1 8 ->

O O

--S t

a. 3

3+

76. 0

0

-

SP

ILL

WA

Y

PR

OF

ILE

S

_J

0

O

0

SU

RF

AC

E

_J

0 cr)

l e% 0.0.

In 0 sr) 0 to N 0 c‘j 0 a) 10 M N - 0 6 a co- c\J al. 6 ro (I) cr) M ID 10 M N -

IO 0 Lo 0 In 01 C\I 0 N- tr) —

DIS

CH

AR

GE

1-IJJ IJJ "-IJJ 11. >-1-0 l­o a: 11.

z 0

I­<(

> IJJ -' UJ

UJ 0 <(

"­a: :::, (J)

a: IJJ I­<(

,I::

Q:'.

0 > Q:'. UJ (J)

IJJ Q:'.

1495

1490

1485

14B0

1475

!470

~ 1468

CRES EL. I

T 467.4

I

/ MAXIMUM DESIGN RESERVOIR WATER ,/ SURFACE ELEVATION 1492 9 .

I ..

I -;, :,/

!2 ,, I I

; I I

I / J I

I / I /

I " / I /

I I/ __,....,..,. J.-,-'"'

I / ~ .....

J __...,,. ....

I _,,-- ;,..,-

I ,/ V

I _/ v-

V /

/ V

/' /

/ /_

J

0 10 20 30 40 50

NOTES Gale openings measured circumferentially along the

arc of gate travel from the gale seat. The reservoir water surface elevolion was correcled

for velocity head and measured at station ?5 + 11.0

on the centerline of the approach channel.

............. ,.

--~ - - -·-

··-

-60 70 80

I I/

0o/ oq o"J ._o .,7

,v /

/ +-

~V--~ ~

...... -

----------- , .....................

90 100

!

/

V V ./

''" '""·- ................... '

/ /

._,.;,,./ V ._;o/-/ 0~ '7 o/ o"' o~(!I - ~o ~o

1/ '/v ~---/ , .................. / ~ .................... , ...

/ ,,, ~

; -- .....

~ -----,....--

- ---/ J----

/ --i---

V ---- i---

, ~

...................

.. ' __ ,. '

-+

I 10 120 130 140 150 160 17D 1B0 190 200 210

DISCHARGE (THOUSAND CUBIC FEET PER SECOND) TWELVE 50-FOOT-WIDE BY 21.76-FOOT-HIGH RADIAL GATES - EQUALLY OPEN

MAXIMUM DESIGN DISCHARGE __ -'7 ~ ~ I 264,500GFS --- ----- - ·- · -.....

-L..---"' ------~ \

\ - 1,, ... -·- \

) I

/ / ....

V /

/ / V

/ V

/ '

/ V

/ /

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE - FULL OPEN GATES

I I 220 230

I I I I 240 250 260 270

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY DISCHARGE CAPACITY

I• 72 SCALE MODEL

I 280

--- ----

'

--

3,7

I 290

FIGURE 17 REPORT HY0-561

.......

. ·--

3. 8

I 300

1.0

L&J 0.9 Q.

)-

I-0 I-0 0.8 a:: Q.

- a:: -L&J 0.7 I-<l 31: IL 0.6 0

I-L&J L&J 0.5 IL

z

NT00.4 >N

0 0.3 <l L&J ~

)- 0.2 I-0 0 ..J L&J 0.1 >

~

ft -

0

' ... ~ L --...... """'-. V ' "' ' ,/

~

/ / t,.

v' Computed (~:) from mean velocity;

7 read at o .6 depth below water surface; al I gates full open.

/ t,.

t,. .I /

/ A - --·

/ , .-·

100 200

DISCHARGE (1000 CFS)

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILL WAY

VELOCITY HEAD OVER MODEL STILLING WELL INTAKE FOR FULL OPEN GATES

I: 72 SCALE MODEL

'ft,

' -- ', ' '

300

:;o ITI "tJ 'Tl o­:;o G')

-t C ::ti

:::c ITI -< 0 ·~ (JI 0)

Figure 19 Report Hyd - 561

Discharge 50, 000 cfs with gates controlling reservoir water surface El. 1482

Discharge 132, 250 cfs with gates fully open reservoir water surface El. 1482. 9

Discharge 264, 500 cfs with gates fully open reservoir water surface El. 1492. 2

Chute and Stilling Basin Flow - Preliminary Design

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

1-7 2 Scale Model

A. Downstream channel formed in sand prior to all erosion tests

B. Erosion after operation for 2 hours (prototype) at 264, 500 cfs

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Channel Erosion - P reliminary Design

1-72 Scale Model

Figure 20 Report Hyd- 561

-i--1

-I

:I co

-!ct. I I I I

_l,_

-

--

,Jo-_,,2a1 ---- -

-- ,485 • 0 I I II I

->-I ~-20 I I I II I rc------9 -11-----"1 t I

PLAN

-r--- - -l"'l _____ I

I I I I I :I

=.J, en -~-~]---- 2

I.

I I:? I I I •:l-r- e4 I I I .l S

J_L~rx:-,--------1 I I I 11

.1 _t+t l<--6 ·co ·co , i

I

ELEVATION PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS a NUMBERS

Pressure in feet of water tfrotot;-me] Discharge . 66,700 cfs . 132,400 cfs: 198,200 cfs . 265,200 cfs . . • Tailwater Elev. . 1417 ft . 1423 ft • 1428 ft 1431 ft • . • . . . . • • Piezometer No. . . • • . . . . • •

l . 28 . 38 47 . ;4 . . • . . . . . . 2 35 . 51 65 . 74 . • . . . • 3 . 38 . 52 . 68 . 76 . . • • . . . . . . . . 4 28 . 26 . 18 . 3 . • . . . . . . . • • ; . JO . 27 . 19 . 3 . • . . . . . . . . • • 6 . 3; . 37 . :35 . Jl . . • • . . . .

• •

Notes: Pressures measured by water manometer. Maximwn fluctuations 3 feet of water except for piezameters 4 and 5, where pressures fluctuated about 20 feet and averaged 9 feet subatmospheric for 125 percent of maximum discharge (333,200 cfs). Test pier was located near basin centerline.

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

AVERAGE PRESSURES ON PRELIMINARY BAFFLE PIER

I: 72 SCALE MODEL

::0 f'TI .,, .,, o-::o en -t C: :c :::0 -< l"I 0 I l'O

UI 0)

a: ... ,_ "' 3 ... 0 ,_ ... ... ... 0

"' ... :c

"' ... ,_ "' 3 ... 0 ,_ ... ... ... 0

"' ... :c

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

+10

0

-10 0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

@ ... ~ ~

# V"" © '

/' :;.,- J--->

'?"

------_.

h

~ ' @

--

FIGURE 22 REPORT HYD-561

Normal toilwoter (See figure 9)

.,,,, - ,© w v- ---~ ,

. ,@ " 7" ~ ~

--.;

~

" ~ (4X5) ......... \

~ 50 100 150 200 250 300

DISCHARGE (1000 CFS)

A. Average pressures read from water manometers

-- --- - Piezometer numbers ( for location see figure 25)

350

Normal toilwoter (See figure 9)

+10 1----t---+---t-----=,-.::;:,--....,,_.+---t----;-- -Piezometer numbers (for location see figure 25)

0

-10

-20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

DISCHARGE (1000 CFS)

B. Average pressures read from paper record of overoging recorder connected ta pressure tronsducers.

350

OISCHARGE (CFS) 66,700 132,400 198,200 265,200 333,200 NOTES

PERCENT OF MAX. OISCH. 25 50 75 100 125 1. Fluctuation - the total magni­tude through which the pressures fluctuate ( feet of water).

II) I

"' ... 2 m

::& :::, z 3

"' ... 4 I-...

::I 0 5 N ... ;;: 6

Fluctuation I 7 18 28 40 50 Frequency 2 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5

Fluctuation 5 23 35 41 71 Frequency 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.5

Fluctuation 6 19 40 54 65 Frequency 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4

Fluctuation 5 32 57 89 94 Frequency 1.4 0.8 I.I 0.9 1.3

Fluctuation 13 38 57 83 89 Frequency 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.4

Fluctuation 5 18 44 50 65 Frequency 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.2

0. Dynamic pressures read from pressure transducers

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

2. Frequency- the overage fre­quency of fluctuations (cycles per second-prototype).

DYNAMIC AND AVERAGE PRESSURES ON PRELIMINARY BAFFLE PIER 1•72 SCALE MODEL

Sto. 33 + 76.00---,

SHORT BAFFLE PIERS - PRELIMINARY ENO SILL

SHORT

SHORT

""'~"'""'" ~ BAFFLE PIERS - OENTATED END SILL

'*'"'"~~'I--~'-~ BAFFLE PIERS - DENTATED END

( Without downstream slope) "'~ See figure 28 for 'r" block details

"T" SHAPED BAFFLE PIERS - PRELJMJN ARY

-70 - 4'-5" Wide chute blocks equolly spoced. Portiol blocks at ends. ( Some for oil tests).

...__,.......'--~--L "o -J,

PROFILE SYMBOL

.---Top of Sidewoll r' EI. 1436.00

r··-Sto. 34+10.00

I ,--42 - 7'-6" Wide baffle piers 20·-~ / equally spaced. Partial

/ blocks at ends .

~I

.---Basin floor El. 1383.00

WATER SURFACE PROFILE ELEVATION

10 20 30

SCALE OF FEET

NOTE

Measurements token on right sidewol I and checked on left sidewall. Differences were negligible ond flow wos symmetrical ocross the basin. Discharge 264,500 cf s Toil water E levotion 1431

Downstream end of Basin Sta. 34+85.00-------------

Solid end sill··---,,,

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY STILLING BASIN WATER SURFACE PROFILES FOR DIFFERENT

BAFFLE PIER AND SILL ARRANGEMENTS I• 72 SCALE MODEL

'" "' .. .., o-:u Gl -IC:

:u ~"' 0 11\)

"'"' !!?

A. Erosion after operation for 2 hours (prototype) at 132,250 cfs tailwater at El. 1423. Note bed material de­posited against the end sill (pre­liminary baffle piers and dentated end sill. )

B. Above test followed by 264, 500 cfs for 8 hours (prototype) tailwater at El. 1431

C. Erosion after operation for 8 hours (prototype) at 264, 500 cfs tailwater El. 1431. Note the four raised dunes downstream for sill. (Short baffle piers and dentated end sill. )

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Channel Erosion with Dentated End sill, Preliminary and Short Baffle Piers

1-72 Scale Model

Figure 24 Report Hyd- 561

Figure 25 Report Hyd-561

P495-D-54394 NA ___ _

A. After 2 hours (prototype) operation at 132, 250 cfs tailwater El. 1423 note sloughing of side slopes with negligible erosion

P49S-D-54395 NA

B. After 8 hours (prototype) operation at 264,500 cfs tailwater El. 1431. Erosion pattern similar to preliminary basin

C. Closeup of erosion at the end of the basin training wall

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Channel Erosion - Short Baffle Piers and Dentated End Sill

1-72 Scale Model

-x--1 I

: I co -~ct

I I I I _1 __

-

-

~-uu -

..-.--4115 • • I I L.. I II I i-- - 6 -2- -i,,,j I I I II I r=- - - - - 9 - II - - - - >j

PLAN

I : "\ L~ I

ELEVATION PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS a NUMBERS

Pressure in feet of water tProtot;mel Discharge . 264,500 cfs . 264,500 cfs 264,500 cfs . . Tail water Elev. 1431 ft (normal) 1439 ft (high) 1427 rt (low) ·· . . . . . •

Piezometer No. . . . • • . . . . • . • 2 . 59 . 60 . 57 . . . . . . . • • 3 69 . 69 66 .

: . . . . 4 -4 18 . -15 . . . 5 -4 . 19 -14 .

: . . 6 . 31 . 42 . 25 . . . . : .

Notes: Average pressures measured by water manometer. Maximum fluctuations 2 feet of water. Test pier was located near basin centerline and the water depth over the pier was about '.30 feet.

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

AVERAGE PRESSURES ON SHORT BAFFLE PIER

I: 72 SCALE MODEL

XI ,,, -0 "Tl o­::t>G'> -tC

::tJ :z: [Tl -< o"' I a, (J1

en

Figure 27 Report Hyd- 561

A. After 2 hours (prototype) operation at 132,250 cfs tailwater El. 1423. Smooth channel downstream from preliminary basin and dunes starting to form down -stream from the "T" piers (right half of basin)

B. After 8 hours (prototype) operation at 264,500 cfs tailwater El. 1431. Note dunes or ridges deeply cut in channel downstream from "T" piers

C. Above test flow - Channel bed erosion downstream from the "T" piers

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Comparative Erosion Test - Preliminary and "T" Baffle Piers

1-72 Scale Model

PlEZOMETER LOCATIONS a NUMBERS

Pressure in feet of water tProtot~-;eel Discharge . 264,;oo cfs 264,500 cfs . 132,250 cfs . . Tailwater Elev. . 1431 ft (normal) . 1427 ft {low) . 1423 ft (normal) . . . . . . . • . Piezometer No. . . .

• • . . . . • 1 . 26 . 20 . 33 • . . . . . • 2 . 13 . 8 . 29 . . . . . . . 3 21 . 11 . 26 . . . . . . . . 4 22 . 16 . 32 . . . . . . 5 . 32 24 . 34 • . . . . . • . 6 . 22 . 11 . 26 . . .

Notes: Maximum pressure fluctuations» as measured by water manometers, were 7 feet of water. Test pier was located near basin centerline and the water depth over the pier was about 40 feet.

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

AVERAGE PRESSURES ON 11 T 11 BAFFLE PIER

I: 72 SCALE MODEL

:0 l'l'1 .,, "Tl o­:0 G'> -f C

::ti :i: 111 -< 0 I\')

I (J) UI ~

Figure 29 Report Hyd- 561

Preliminary baffle piers - Discharge 264,500 cfs tailwater El. 1431 gates fully open

Short baffle piers - with above discharge

"T" baffle piers - with above discharge

GLEN ELDER DAM SPILLWAY

Effect of Different Baffle Piers on Basin Flow

1-72 Scale Model

7-1750 (10-64)

CONVERSION FACTORS-BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUIU!MENT

The t'ollowing conversion t'sctors adopted ey the Bureau ot' Reclamation nre those published ey the American Society t'or Testing and Materials (.AS'!M Metric Practice Guide, January_ 19~) except that additional t'actors (•) c01111DOJicy used in the Bureau hav:e been added. Further discussion ot' det'initions ot' quantities snd units is given on pages 10-11 ot' the ASTIA. Metric Practice Guide.

The metric units and conversion t'actors adopted ey the AS'1M are based on the "International ~stem ot' Units" (desigm.ted SI t'or ~steme International d 1Unites), t'ixed ey the International Cmmittee t'or Weights and Measures; this s,y-stem is also kn01ln as tllB Giorgi or MISA. (meter-kilogram (mass)-second-smpere) s,y-stem. Tbis s,y-stem has been adopted ey the International Organization t'or Standardization in ISO Recanmendation R-31.

The metric technical unit ot' t'orce is the kilogram-t'orce; this is the t'orce which, when applied to a boey having a mass ot' l kg, gives it sn acceleration ot' 9.80665 11!/sec/sec, the standard acceleration ot' t'ree t'all towsrd the earth's center t'or sea level st 45 deg latitude. The metric unit ot' t'orce in SI units is the newton (N), which is defined as that t'orce which, when applied to a boey having a mass ot' l kg, gives it sn accaleration ot' 111!/ssc/sec. These units must be !listinguisbed t'raD the (inconstant) local weight ot' a boey having a mass ot' l kg; that is, the weight ot' a boey is that t'orce with which a boey is attracted to the earth and is equal to the mass ot' a boey multiplied ey the acceleration due to gravi~. However, because it is general practice to ·use "pound" rather than the technic~ correct term "pound-t'orce,• the term "kilogram" (or derived mass unit) has been used in this guide instead ot' "kilogram­t'orce" in expNISBing the conversion t'actors t'or t'orces, The newton unit ot' t'orce will find increasing use, and is essential in SI units,

Mil. Inches

Feet.

Yards •• , , , , Miles (statute)

Square inches, Square t'eet.

Square :,ai,ls Acres • •••

Square ml.lea

cubic inollBs Cubic feet • CUbic nrda.

Fluid OIIIICeB (U,S,)

Liquid pillta (U.S.)

Querta (U ,S.),

Gallons (U ,S.)

Gallcms ( U ,K • )

cubic t'eet • CUbic yarcla Acre-feet.

~

QlWf'rITIJ'.S AND UNITS OF SPACE·

LENGTH

25 .4 ( e:actl:,') • 25,4 (exact:cy) •• 2. 54 ( exactl:,' )•

30 .48 ( exact:cy) • • o. 3048 ( exactl:,' )• • • 0 ,0003048 ( exact:cy )• • O. 9144 ( exactl:,') •

1,609.3" (exact:!¥)* • 1,609344 (uact]y)

6,4516 (exact:cy) 929 ,0:3 ( exact:cy )•. •

0,09290:3 (auct:cy) 0,8:36127. 0,4()4691J ••

4,046.C)lt •• 0 • 0040469* • 2.58999 ••

VOLtlMB

16.3871 •• 0,0283168 0,'764555.

CAPACITI

'S.5737. • '/9,5729 •• 0,473179. 0,473166,

9,463.58 ••• 0,9463'8.

:3,785.43* •• 3.78543 • 3,78533 , •• 0,00378543* • 4,54609 4,54596

28,3160. '764,55* •

• . 1,23:3,,-• 1.233.500*

To obta!D

• Micron • Millillleters • Cent:lD!ters • Centimeters • Meters , Kilometers .Miters • liaters • Kilometers

• Square centimeters • Square centimeters • Square meters • Square meters • Hectares • Square meters • Square kilometers • Square kilometers

• cubic centimeters • CUbic meters • CUbic meters

• cubic centimeters • Millili tars • CUbic decimeters • Liters • CUbic centimeters • Liters • cubic centimeters • cubic decimeters • Liters • CUbic meters • cubic decimeters • Liters • Liters • Liters • cubic meters • Liters

GrafDB (l/7,000 lb) •• , •• Trev' -- (480 grains). • • Omlaes (avdp) • • • • • • • •

By

64.79891 (euctl,y). :n.1035 •••••• 28.:3495 •••••••• 0.4'3'9237 (~) • PCllmds ( avllp) • • • • •

Sllort; taaa (2,000 lb) •

Lg taaa (2.2Ml lb) :

90'1.1B5 •••• • o. 907185 • • • .1.016.05 • • • • •

0aDoea per cubic :lmb • • PCllmds per cubic root • •

re... (lg) per cubic jazd •••

Omlaes per gall.cm (U.S.). 0aDDea par gall.an (U.K. PCllmds per gall.cm (U.S. PCllmds u .It.

~s ••

~-- .... ~ par :lmb ~--Feet; par aecard •

Feet; par 781a" • llll88 par b0Ur •

CUbic reet per secmd ( aecmd-teet) ••••••••••••

Catdo feet per mlJlllte ••••• Clallma (U.S.) per mlJlllte • • •

JORCI/Alll!A

0.1111)307 • • • 0.61194'16 ••• 4.88243 •••••

47.81103 ••••••

1.72999 ••••••• 16.01.85 •••••••• 0.016CJ1M •••••• l.328'/4 •••••••••••••

IIISS/CAP.ICM

7.4119) ••••••••• 6.2362 •••••••••

119.1129 ••••••••• 99.'779 ••••••••

BINDING IDlllll'r OR !ORl3JE 0.011521 ".!£• •••• l.l.2911, " JJI" • • • • 0.1311255 • •r,• • • • • 1.35582 z 10 • • • • • 5.4431 ••••••

72.008 I I • • • •

30.48 (~) •• 0,3048 (enctq)* o.96,873 " 10""- • • 1.609344 (~) • 0,#19' (enc:U,)

0.3Q481t •••

0.028311" •• 0.4719 •••• 0,06)09 , • •

• llf.lligzam • Grama • Grama • Kilograma .w..-• lllrtrlc tau • t11'JT!!!

• Ckam par liter • Grams per liter • Ckam per liter • Grama liter

• CmrUmetera par ll8C0IIII. • Jlatera per -Old • Centiatera per -Old ,111-teraperbollr • Jlatera par aecard

• CUldc lll8tera per aecmd • IJ.tera per aecmd • IJ.tera per NCand

!!l!!!...ll. guAirrlTIIS .AND llNITS OF lll!CIIANICS

Pounds • 0.453592* ••• 4.4482* •••• 4.4482 " 10-5* •

VII AND IHIBGY*

British tbemal units (Btu).

Btu per pound.

• 0.252* ••••.• • 1,055.06 ••••••

Foat-llCIIIDlls. • • • • • • • •

lloraepolntr • • • • • • • Btu per b0Ur •••••• Foat-po,mda :per ll8C0IIII. •

Btu in,/1,r n2 deg F (k, t11erma1 ccm4uctiv1 v >

Bt.u tt/1,r n2 deg F , • : : : Bt.u/1,r tt2 d9' F ( C, tbemal

ccmductanae) • , • • • • • •

Deg F br tt2~ (R; ~,.,;.;i • reaietanae) • • • • • • • • •

Bt.u/lb deg F ( c, heat capacity). Btu/lb deg F • • , • • , , • • • Ft2,'1,r ( tbermll dittusivity)

Grlwls/br tt2 ( water vapor tranamlaeicn). • • • • • •

Pel'IIIB (permaance). • • • • • Pem-inchee (perabilit.y) •

Cubic feet per aquare root per clq (aeepege) •• · •••••• --Old• per square raot (viacoeity) •••••••••••

Square feet per -Old (viacoeity) Fabrenhait depeea (cbange)* • Vol ts per ml.l, , • • • • • • • tumena per aquare taot (taot-

Clllllll.ea) lilml-circuJ.ar ml.ls per root • 111.llicuriaa per cubic toot • 111.lliampa per square taot CBll.cna per square yard • • POllllda per inch. • • • • ••

2.326 (enctl,y). 1.35'82* •••

P0IIIR

74'.'100. 0.293071 ••• 1.:,5582 •••

1,442 • 0,12M) • 1.488(),t

o.568 • 4.882 •

l.'161 • 4.1868 • l.OOOtt • 0.2'81 • , 0.09290* •

16.7 • o.659 1.(/1 •

By

304.8* ••••••••

4.8824• ••••• 0.02903* (enctl,y) 5/9 ezaotl,y. • • • 0.03937 ••

10.'164 •• O.OOl.662 •

35.3141" • 10.'1639* •

4.527219* O.lffiS* •

To obtain

Kilograms Nenona p.ynes

• Kilogram calories • Joules • Jmles per p,1111 • Joules

• Watts • Watts • Watts

• llf.lliatts/cm deg C • Kg cal/1,r m deg C • Kg cal m/1,r m2 deg C

• llf.lliatts/cm2 deg C • Kg cal/hr m2 deg C

• Deg C cm2/ml.lliatt • J/g deg C

:~degC

.112/\,r

• Ch-ama/24 br ,.2 • Metric perms • Metric perm-centimeters

To obtain

• IJ. tera per square meter per clq

• Kilogram seccnd per square meter • Square meters per second • Celsius or Kelvin degrees (cbange)• • Kilovolts per millimeter

• Lumma per square meter • Ohm-square millimeters per meter • llf.llicUriea per cubic meter • 111.lliampa per square meter • IJ. tera per square meter • KiJ.ograma per centimeter

GP08J3-87S

ABSTRACT

Model studies indicated that the initial design of the Glen Elder Dam spillway was adequate for flows up to and including the 264, 500 cfs maximum discharge. Spillway discharge is controlled by twelve 50-foot-wide by 21. 76-foot-high radial gates and the energy is dis­sipated by a hydraulic jump stilling basin (Type III). Total drop in elevation from spillway crest to basin floor is 84. 4 feet. Tests per­formed and results recorded include velocity and water surface pro­files in the approach channel, water surface profiles throughout the structure, pressures on the baffle piers, erosion in the approach and downstream channels, and discharge capacity and coefficients for the spillway. Training dikes for the approach channel, and five different baffle pier and end sill arrangements in the stilling basin were tested. The shortened baffle pier was used in construction.

ABSTRACT

Model studies indicated that the initial design of the Glen Elder Dam spillway was adequate for flows up to and including the 264, 500 cfs maximum discharge. Spillway discharge is controlled by twelve 50-foot-wide by 21. 76-foot-high radial gates and the energy is dis­sipated by a hydraulic jump stilling basin (Type III). Total drop in elevation from spillway crest to basin floor is 84. 4 feet. Tests per­formed and results recorded include velocity and water surface pro­files in the approach channel, water surface profiles throughout the structure, pressures on the baffle piers, erosion in the approach and downstream channels, and discharge capacity and coefficients for the spillway. Training dikes for the approach channel, and five different baffle pier and end sill arrangements in the stilling basin were tested. The shortened baffle pier was used in construction.

ABSTRACT

Model studies indicated that the initial design of the Glen Elder Dam spillway was adequate for flows up to and including the 264, 500 cfs maximum discharge. Spillway discharge is controlled by twelve 50-foot-wide by 21. 76-foot-high radial gates and the energy is dis­sipated by a hydraulic jump stilling basin (Type III), Total drop in elevation from spillway crest to basin floor is 84. 4 feet. Tests per­formed and results recorded include velocity and water surface pro­files in the approach channel, water surface profiles throughout the structure, pressures on the baffle piers, erosion in the approach and downstream channels, and discharge capacity and coefficients for the spillway. Training dikes for the approach channel, and five different baffle pier and end sill arrangements in the stilling basin were tested. The shortened baffle pier was used in construction.

ABSTRACT

Model studies indicated that the initial design of the Glen Elder Dam spillway was adequate for flows up to and including the 264, 500 cfs maximum discharge. Spillway discharge is controlled by twelve 50-foot-wide by 21. 76-foot-high radial gates and the energy is dis­sipated by a hydraulic jump stilling basin (Type III). Total drop in elevation from spillway crest to basin floo:i;: is 84. 4 feet. Tests per­formed and results recorded include velocity and water surface pro­files in the approach channel, water surface profiles throughout the structure, pressures on the baffle piers, erosion in the approach and downstream channels, and discharge capacity and coefficients for the spillway. Training dikes for the approach channel, and five different baffle pier and end sill arrangements in the stilling basin were tested. The shortened baffle pier was used in construction.

HYD-561 Arris, W. F. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE SPILLWAY--GLEN ELDER DAM MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT, KANSAS USBR Lab Report Hyd-561, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research, June 6, 1966. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 13 p, 1 tab, 29 fig

DESCRIPTORS-- *dentated sills/ hydraulic structures/ *stilling basins/ discharge coefficients/ discharge measurement/ flow/ Froude number/ hydraulic jumps/ hydraulic models/ open channel flow/ spillway crests/ *water surface profiles/ velocity distribution/ erosion/ radial gates/ IDENTIFIERS-- *baffle piers/ hydraulic design/ Glen Elder Dam, Kan./ Missou_ri River Basin Project

HYD-561 Arris, W. F. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE SPILLWAY--GLEN ELDER DAM MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT, KANSAS USBR Lab Report Hyd-561, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research, June 6, 1966. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 13 p, 1 tab, 29 fig

DESCRIPTORS-- *dentated sills/ hydraulic structures/·*stilling basins/ discharge coefficients/ discharge measurement/ flow/ Froude number/ hydraulic jumps/ hydraulic models/ open channel flow/ spillway crests/ *water surface profiles/ velocity distribution/ erosion/ radial gates/ IDENTIFIERS-- *baffle piers/ hydraulic design/ Glen Elder Dam, Kan./ Missouri River Basin Project

HYD-561 Arris, W. F. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE SPILLWAY--GLEN ELDER DAM MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT, KANSAS USBR Lab Report Hyd-561, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research, June 6, 1966. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 13 p, 1 tab, 29 fig

D_ESCRIPTORS:- *dentated sills/ hydraulic structures/ *stilling basins/ dischar~e ~oefficients/ discharge measurement/ flow/ Froude number/ ~ydrauhc Jumps/ hY:draulic mo_dels/ open channel flow./ spillway crests/ water surface profiles/ velocity distribution/ erosion/ radial gates/

ID_ENTII:"IE~S-- *baffle piers/ hydraulic design/ Glen Elder Dam Kan / Missouri River Basin Project · ' •

HYD-561 Arris, W. F. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE SPILLWAY--GLEN ELDER DAM MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT, KAN~S USBR Lab Report Hyd-561, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research, June 6, 1966. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 13 p, 1 tab, 29 fig

DESCRIPTORS-- *dentated sills/ hydraulic structures/ *stilling basins/ discharge coefficients/ discharge measurement/ flow/ Froude number/ hydraulic jumps/ hydraulic models/ open channel flow/ spillway crests/ *water surface profiles/ velocity distribution/ erosion/ radial gates/ IDENTIFIERS-- *baffle piers/ hydraulic design/ Glen Elder Dam, Kan./ Missouri River Basin Project