mmmmmm, - dtic · i 'll _ mmmmmm,!hhoneelmli' in el lii iijiiiiiifii...

rADA119 311 ARMY ISINEERt WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSSJRS-ET FtS 13t,BLUE WATERS DITCH PINS STATION. EAST ST. LOUIS. ILLINOIS. Y--ETC(U)JU s S T MAY a

U14CLASSZFIED w[S/TRT -U-13 NLI 'll _ mmmmmm,I' !HhONEElml

In El liiIIJIIIIIIFII

IIIhhhhhhhhmhllllllllEII

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

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wan Date Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFOREOMTING ORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3- RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report HL-82-13

4. TITLE (and Subtitl.) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

BLUE WATERS DITCH PUMPING STATION, EAST ST. LOUIS, Final reportILLINOIS; Hydraulic Model Investigation

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

Stephen T. Maynord

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10- PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKAREA 6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment StationHydraulics LaboratoryP. 0. Box 631. Vicksburg. Miss. 39180

,I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT OATS

U. S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis June 1982

St. Louis, Mo. 63101 is. NUMBER OF PAGES

8814. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRES(Ifdllffrent from Conorolltr Office) IS. SECURITY Ct. AS$. (of thi vrop.t)

Unclassified

IS&. DECLASSIFICATIONIDOWNGRADINGSCHEOULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (o this Reporl)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

1?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20. I diferemt f1rom Repot)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Va. 22151.

1t. KEY WORDS (Cottinue on reverse ide If neeesary and Idenify by block number)

Blue Waters Ditch Pumping Station (Ill.)

Hydraulic modelsPumping machineryPumping stations

X&. ASIRITACT (Cm.. om.em OI NO.fne.N7 410t111y by block nauisbr)

.. A model study of the Blue Waters Ditch pumping station was conducted to

develop a sump design which was free of adverse flow distribution, excessive

circulation, and air-entraining vortices. Operation of the model with the

original design sump resulted in severe vortices for many of the anticipated

operating conditions because the opening in the divider wall allowed sub-

stantial crossflow between pump bays. Also, the relatively large distance be-

tween the pump bell and the backwall permitted substantial circulation of flow

(Continued)

*A 00 79jTh 1 ETo oOSSOUOISTE UnclassifiedSECURTY CLASSIFICATIOR OF THIS PASS (b 0ate UAtmw

h*r

A.-.'~,-. q ~ .. . . . . . . . . . .

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOQ(Ih Date Entm*

20. ABSTRACT (Continued).

)in the original design sump.- A continuous divider wall and a 0.5-ft spacingbetween the pump bell and the backwall resulted in substantial improvement offlow conditions at the pump intakes. However, the 90-deg change in flow direc-

tion that occurs just upstream of the sump resulted in an adverse distributionof flow approaching the pump intakes. Many modifications were tested to re-distribute the approaching flow. Only converging sidewalls in conjunction withthe continuous divider wall and the 0.5-ft spacing between the pump bell andthe backwall were) considered acceptable modifications to significantly improveflow conditions.:-. Most modifications of the approach to the sump were ineffec-tive because of the many possible combinations of flow direction that may enterthe sump. Performance was investigated with velocities higher than the ap-propriately scaled Froudian velocities.

UnclassifiedSCUAITY CLASSIFICATION OF THS PAGEIWhe s Ds.1 ntetd)

PREFACE

The model investigation reported herein was authorized by the

Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, on 17 April 1978, at the request

of the U. S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis. The studies were coa-

ducted by personnel of the Hydraulics Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station (WES), during the period April 1978 to

January 1980 under the general supervision of Messrs. H. B. Simmons,

Chief of the Hydraulics Laboratory, and J. L. Grace, Jr., Chief-of the

Hydraulic Structures Division. The tests were conducted by Messrs. S. T.

Maynord and H. R. Smith under the supervision of Mr. N. R. Oswalt, Chief

of the Spillways and Channels Branch. This report was prepared by

Mr. Maynord.

During the course of the model investigation, Mr. Joe Harz of the

Lower Mississippi Valley Division and Messrs. Doug Hoy, Ron Dieckmann,

2im Cronin, Wayne Miller, Jr., Fred Bader, Jim Lamkins, and Jim Luther

of the St. Louis District visited WES to observe model testing and dis-

cuss test results.

Commanders and Directors of WES during this testing program and

the preparation and publication of this report were COL John L. Cannon,

CE, COL Nelson P. Conover, CE, and COL Tilford C. Creel, CE. Technical

Director was Mr. F. R. Brown.

0%0

I t • * .

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ............... .............................. 1

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ........... ...................... 3

PART I: INTRODUCTION .......... ........................ 4

The Prototype ............ ........................ 5Purpose of Model Study ......... ................... 6

PART II: THE MODEL ............ ........................ 7

Description ............ ......................... 7Scaling Relations ........... ...................... 8

PART III: TESTS AND RESULTS ....... ................... ... 12

Original Design ......... ....................... ... 12Alternate Designs ......... ...................... ... 15Recommended Design ........ ..................... ... 19Increased Velocities ........ .................... .. 22

PART IV: DISCUSSION ........... ....................... 23

REFERENCES ............ ............................ ... 27

TABLES 1-18

PHOTOS 1-11

2LATES 1-24

2j

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be con-

verted to metric (SI) units as follows:

Multiply By To Obtain

cubic feet per second 0.02831685 cubic metres per second

feet 0.3048 metres

feet per second 0.3048 melces per second

inches 25.4 millimetres

miles (U. S. statute) 1.609347 kilometres

square feet 0.09290304 square metres

square miles (U. S. 2.589998 square kilometresstatute)

3i3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

______ II

79 16 16

66?W

rA 100 ill

ILLINOISWinfieldAlton

140 4

70 St Charles 43

40 270 66

61 Ssoo 70 3 Ill 40

S L U East St LouisMISSOURI 244 50

kferamec50 Belleville66

30 460158

New Athens1321

Crystal CityRed Bud

67 61 3 43

Figure I. Vicinity map

4

BLUE WATERS DITCH PUMPING STATION

EAST ST. LOUIS, ILLINOIS

Hydraulic Model Investigation

PART I: INTRODUCTION

The Prototype

1. The Blue Waters Ditch pumping station will be located on the

left (east) bank of the Mississippi River across from the city of

St. Louis, Mo. (Plate 1, Figure 1).

2. The drainage area of 13.1 square miles* consists entirely of

Mississippi River floodplain which is highly urbanized and developed.

The present ditch systems and pump installations are capable of handling

only normal drainage requirements. During periods of above normal rain-

fall within the area, runoff accumulates in the bottoms so that existing

ditches and adjacent banks are overtopped and water flows into surround-

ing areas. This flooding causes extensive damage and has plagued the

area for years.

3. The plan of improvement for the Blue Waters Ditch area con-

sists of a 600-cfs pumping station and approximately 4.4 miles of new

and improved ditching. Runoff from the drainage area will flow to the

pumping station via open channel. The proposed station will be of the

wet-pit (sump) type and will employ three vertical shaft pumps to pro-

vide a total pumping capacity of 600 cfs. Trashracks will be provided

to protect the pumps from debris. The pumps will discharge into a still-

ing basin on the opposite side of the levee. Minimum and maximum water-

surface elevations under which the pumping station will operate are

396.0 and 403.8 ft NGVD,** respectively.

* A table of factors for converting U. S. customary units of measure-

ment to metric (SI) units is presented on page 3.* All elevations (el) cited herein are in feet referred to National

Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).

i5

Am

Purpose of Model.Study

4. The model study was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic charac-

teristics of the original design pumping station and to develop modifica-

tions, if needed, for improving flow conditions in the sump.

6I

PART II: THE MODEL

Description

5. The model of the Blue Waters Ditch pumping station (Figure 2),

constructed to a scale ratio of 1:13.5, included 200 ft of approach chan-

nel on each side of the pumping station, the sump, the trashracks, and

the pump intakes. Flow through each model pump intake was provided by

individual suction pumps that permitted simulation of various flow rates

through one or more pump intakes.

6. Water used in the model was stored and recycled in a head box,

and discharges were measured with turbine flowmeters. Water-surface

elevations were measured with staff gages. Velocities were measured

with an electromagnetic velocity probe. Current patterns were determined

by observation of dye injected into the water and confetti sprinkled on

the water surface. Pressure fluctuations directly beneath the pump

too#

Figure 2. The 1:13.5-scale model

7

intakes were measured with 3-1/2-in.-diam (prototype) electronic pres-

sure cells (Figure 3) mounted flush with the floor of the sump.

--- PUMP INTAKEPRESSURE CELL0DM - 3-1/2 In. (PRTOTYPE)

F PRESSURE CELL.

PLAN ELEVATION

Figure 3. Pressure cell location

Rotational flow (swirl) in the pump intakes was measured with vortim-

eters (freewheeling propellers with zero-pitch blades) located inside

each pump intake at the approximate location of the prototype pump

impeller (Figure 4).

Scaling Relations

7. Evaluation of the proposed pumping station was achieved by

using a physical model sufficiently large to have a relatively high

Reynolds number of flow and scaled according to the Froudian criteria.

The model is sized so that the Reynolds number defined as

Vd

where

V = average velocity in pump suction column

d = diameter of pump suction column

y = kinematic viscosity of fluid

8

Figure 4. Type I (original) pumping station sump and pump intakes

is greater than 105 to minimize scale effects due to viscous forces.

Accepted equations of hydraulic similitude based on the Froudian cri-

teria were used to express the mathematical relations between the dimen-

sions and hydraulic quantities of the model and prototype in terms of

the model scale or length ratio L :r

Model:PrototypeCharacteristic Dimension* Scale Relation

Length L 1:13.5r

Area A L2 1:182.3r r

Velocity V = L1/2 1:3.67r r

Discharge Qr L5/ 2 1:669.6r

Volume V = L3 1:2460.4r r

Weight W = L3 1:2460.4r r

Time T = L1/2 1:3.67r r

Dimensions are in terms of length.

9

Model quantities were transferred to the pr4..type using these scale

relations.

8. In addition, the St. Louis District asked that the U. S. Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) evaluate the performance of

the recommended sump design with velocities higher than the appropri-

ately scaled Froudian velocities. Numerous investigators (Fraser and

Harrison (1953), Iversen (1953), Denny (1956), Denny and Young (1957),

Hattersley (1960), Zajdik (1977), Dicmas (1978), Dexter and Zeigler

(1978), Chang (1979), and Chang and Larsen (1980)) have used velocities

greater than Froudian velocities to achieve better similarity with re-

spect to vortex formation. However increased velocities in the model

may introduce nonsimilarities between model and prototype in the form of

(a) increased surface disturbance which can inhibit vortex formation and

(b) a distorted flow distribution that results from violating the proper

ratio of inertial to gravitational forces (Froude number) in the model.

Either of these can invalidate the results of testing with increased

velocities.

9. Other investigators have found a limiting Reynolds number or

other factors at which Froudian models must be operated to achieve simi-

larity with respect to vortex formation. Daggett and Keulegan (1974)

conducted vortex similarity tests using drain vortices in cylindrical

tanks and defined a limiting Reynolds number

Ay

where

Q = discharge

A = orifice radius

y = kinematic viscosity

which must be greater than 5(10)4 to yield viscous effects negligible.

The Reynolds number as defined by Daggett and Keulegan (1974) for the5

Blue Waters Ditch model is 1.6(10) , thus indicating minimal viscous

effects in the model. Jain, Raju, and Garde (1978) found that the condi-

tions at which viscous forces become negligible in vertical downward

10

pipe intakes is dependent on both Reynolds and Froude numbers. The Jain,

Raju, and Garde (1978) criteria indicate that viscous scale effects in

the Blue Waters Ditch model should be negligible. The work of Anwar and

Amphlett (1980) with inverted pipe intakes shows that surface tension

and viscosity effects become negligible when the radial Reynolds number

Rr =Qyh

where h equals submergence above bottom of intake pipe, is greater4than 3(10) . The results of Anwar and Amphlett (1980) show the Blue

Waters Ditch model [Rr = 2.2(10) 4 - 4.3(10) 4 1 to be free of viscous andsurface tension effects at all elevations except the highest sump eleva-

tion. Hecker (1981) reviewed available model-prototype comparisons of

free surface vortices and found 16 projects where model flows were run

at equal Froude numbers in model and prototype. Fourteen of these proj-

ects had model and prototype vortices essentially equal and five of the

projects had vortices weaker in the model than in the prototype. Three

projects were evaluated in which the Froude number in the model was

2 to 4.5 times the Froude number in the prototype. Two of these proj-

ects had essentially equal vortices in the model and prototype, while

one of the projects had stronger vortices in the model than in the

prototype. Hecker concludes from the model-prototype comparisons that

designs that were developed from Froude-scale model tests to be vortex-

free were indeed vortex-free in the prototype, and those having weak

vortices in the model had weak vortices in the prototype. No cases

were found where a weak model vortex corresponded to a strong prototype

vortex resulting in operating problems.

PART III: TESTS AND RESULTS

Original Design

10. The 1:13.5-scale model of the original design is shown in

Figures 2, 4, and 5 and Plate 2. The pumps are numbered as shown in

Figure 5. Each of the three 54-in.-diam pumps has a discharge capacity

ranging from 200 cfs at sump el 396.0 to 225 cfs at sump el 399.5 and

403.8. Pump bell details are shown in Plate 3. Performance of the sump

was evaluated by visual observation of flow conditions and measurements

of velocities, pressures on the floor of the sump directly below the

vertical axis of the pump columns, and rotation of flow at the approxi-

mate position of the impeller in the prototype.

11. Inflow to the station can come from either direction and in

various combinations from the two directions (see Figure 2). During the

model study, inflow directions of 100 (percent) left (looking down-

stream), 100 right, and 50 left-50 right were tested to evaluate the

sump design. Various flow conditions in the approach to the sump are

illustrated in Photos 1-8. The eddies in the approach to the sump

31

Figure 5. Type 1 (original) pumping station

12

i II

resulted in uneven flow distribution entering the sump bays. These

eddies were caused by the 90-deg change in flow direction that occurred

just upstream of the sump. Even though velocities were low, the flow

was severely contracted by the 90-deg change in direction and relatively

short approach. Note the relatively less severe eddy action at sump

el 403.8 (Photos 6-8).

12. Various flow conditions within the sump are shown in

Photos 9-11. With all three pumps operating (Photo 9), the flow ap-

proaching the pumps was relatively uniformly distributed. With one or

two pumps operating (Photos 10 and 11), the crossflow through the open

divider wall caused an uneven distribution of flow approaching the pumps.

Also, this open divider wall at the backwall caused the flow to approach

the pumps from the side and rear. These factors resulted in air-

entraining vortices (Figure 6) during many of the flow conditions with

the original design. Figure 7 shows the stages in the development of an

air-entraining vortex from a small depression in the water surface to a

continuous air core extending into the pump intake. Prototype values of

pressure fluctuations on the sump floor (expressed in feet of water) and

rotational flow tendencies (expressed as the speed of revolution of the

fixed-vane vortimeter and the rotational flow indicator, Ri*) are given

Rotational flow indicator is the ratio, Ri , of the blade speed,

U , at the tip of the vortimeter blade to the average velocity, Vfor the cross section of the suction column. The rotational flow aindicator is computed according to

UR. SV

where a

U = nndn = revolutions per second of the vortimeterd = suction column diameter (used for blade length), ftV = average suction column axial velocity = Q/Aa

Q = pump discharge, cfs 2A = cross-sectional area of suction column, ft

The rotational flow indicator is a dimensionless method of expressing thespeed of revolution of the vortimeter and has the advantage of havingthe same value in model and prototype. The rotational flow indicator isa relative measure of the approach flow symmetry and is equal to thetangent of the swirl angle as used by some investigators.

13

*: FLUU -.... : __ -- -'----

Figure 6. Air-entraining vortexdeveloped in type I (original)

design sump

' (A)

(E)

Figure 7. Stages in development of air-entraining vortex

14

in Table 1. Many times the vortimeter would rotate first in une direc-

tion and then the opposite direction. Vortimeter readings shown in the

tables reflect the net rotation of the vortimeter over 1 min (model

time) of observation.

13. Also shown in Table 1 are the most severe surface vortex

types observed in the original design. The locations of the most severe

vortices in the original design were at 4:00 to 5:00 o'clock and/or

7:00 to 8:00 o'clock with 12:00 o'clock being upstream along the center

line of the pump bay. Velocities measured in the approach and within

the sump are shown in Plates 4-6.

Alternate Designs

14. Many modifications to the original design were investigated

to develop one that would uniformly distribute flow to the pump intakes.

The first series of tests was directed at modifying the sump. Original

and alternate designs are shown in Plates 7 and 8. Some of the modi-

fications tested are not shown because they involved only minor changes

to designs shown and were ineffective. Initially, only a few of the

63 tests listed in Table 1 were run for each alternate design. Many

times, the problems associated with a given alternative were apparent

from these tests; consequently running the remainder of the 63 tests

would have been wasted effort. Other times, a given alternative would

appear promising and additional tests were run for further evaluation.

15. In the type 2 design sump (Plate 7), the backwall was moved

forward to within 0.5 ft of the suction bell; and the divider wall

between the pump bays was made continuous from the backwall to the loca-

tion of the 18-in.-diam column in the original design. This modifica-

tion resulted in improved flow conditions at the pump intakes, but cross-

flow through the upstream and open divider wall concentrated flow along

one side of the pump bay during I- and 2-pump operation. Pressure

fluctuations and rotational flow indicators were higher than acceptable;

prototype values are given in Table 2.

16. In the type 3 and 4 design sumps (Plate 7), the divider wall

was continuous so that crossflow would not occur during 1- or 2-pump

operation. Significant decreases in rotational flow indicators, pres-

sure fluctuations, and vortex formation were observed with the type 3

and 4 design sumps and 1-, 2-, and 3-pump operation. With the backwall

0.5 ft away from the pump bell (type 3 sump), pressure fluctuations were

low, but rotational flow indicators and the tendency for vortex forma-

tion were higher than desired; thus, this design was not recomended for

use in the prototype. Prototype values of pressure fluctuation and rota-

tional flow indicators are given in Table 3 for the type 3 sump. With

the backwall located 0.07 ft from the pump bell (type 4 sump), rota-

tional flow indicators and tendency for vortex formation were low, but

pressure fluctuations at the lower sump elevation were higher than de-

sired for use in the prototype. In addition, too small a distance be-

tween the backwall and pump bell can affect pump efficiency (Chang

1977a). Prototype values of pressure fluctuation and rotational flow

indicators are shown in Table 4 for the type 4 sump.

17. In the type 9 and 10 design sumps (Plate 8), the effects of

the vertical gate and protruding gate slots were evaluated. Without the

gates (type 9), flow conditions in the sump were significantly worse

than in the type 3 or 4 sumps. Dye injected in the model showed that

contraction of flow at the vertical gate had a stabilizing effect on

flow approaching the pump intake. Recessing the gate slots (type 10

design sump) had no significant effect on flow at the pump intakes. Pro-

totype values of pressure fluctuation and rotational flow indicators for

the types 9 and 10 sumps are given in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

18. Flow separation occurred at the upstream abutments and pier

noses for most flow conditions, particularly with the lower water-

surface elevations. Quadrant walls and rounded pier noses were added in

the type 12 design sump (Plate 8) in an attempt to reduce flow separa-

tion. The separation was reduced, but no decrease in rotational flow

indicators, pressure fluctuations, or tendency for vortex formation was

observed in the model. Pressure fluctuations and rotational flow in-

dicators are shown in Table 7.

19. Baffle walls were located upstream of the vertical gates in

16 I

the type 13 design sump (Plate 8). These walls were tested with the

quadrant walls and the rounded pier noses and were intended to evenly

distribute the flow approaching the pump intakes. Prototype values of

pressure fluctuation and rotational flow indicators are given in Table 8.

Adding the baffle walls resulted in relatively low values of rotational

flow indicators and pressure fluctuation for the conditions shown in

Table 8. However, turbulence and boiling action occurred in the area

between the vertical gate and the pump, particularly at the lower sump

elevation. The possible adverse effects of this turbulence are not

known, and problems with sump clean-out would occur with the baffle

walls. For these reasons the type 13 sump was not recommended for the

prototype.

20. At this point in the study, emphasis was shifted from the

sump to modifying the approach to the sump. The four different ap-

proaches tested with the type 3 sump are shown in Plate 9. In the

type 2 approach the original (type 1) iV-on-6H bottom slope was changed

to a milder iV-on-10H slope. Although no significant improvement was

observed at the pump intakes, this modification was retained in subse-

quent designs because of the gradual approach it provided to the sump.

Pressure fluctuations and rotational flow indicators for the type 3 sump

using the type 2 (recommended) approach are shown in Table 9.

21. The original approach had a IV-on-3H slope on the ]eft side

of the station (looking downstream) and a IV-on-8H slope on the right

side. In the type 3 approach, the right side was changed to a IV-on-3H

slope to correspond to the left side, and a short radius was used on

both sides where the approach channel enters Blue Waters Ditch. Flow

conditions within the sump were significantly improved with 50 percent

flows from each direction. However, with 100 percent flow from right or

left, conditions within the sump were not improved.

22. Long-radiu3 vertical training walls were used in tie type 4

approach in lieu of the sloped riprapped banks used in types 1-3 ap-

proaches. Flow conditions within the simp were excellent with 50 per-

cent flows from each direction. However, 100 percent flow from right or

left resulted in significant levels of rotational flow indicators,

17

V ___1 I,

pressure fluctuations, and a tendency for vortex formation.

23. A submerged rock dike was added to the vertical training

walls in the type 5 approach, but it was not effective in straightening

100 percent flow from the left or right.

24. Further modifications of the sump were model-tested in an

attempt to improve flow conditions. Trashracks blocking a large flow

area were tested. Initial testing was conducted with trashracks block-

ing 33 percent of the flow area. These racks did not create enough

restriction to distribute the flow evenly into the pump bays. The

blockage was increased to 66 percent of the flow area in the type 25

design sump (Plate 10). These racks were effective in redistributing

the flow into the sump. However, the head loss across the trashrack was

1 to 2 ft at sump el 396.0, and any trash buildup would greatly increase

this loss and possibly cause operation problems. For this reason, the

trashrack concept was not studied further.

25. Baffle blocks were tested in the model to determine their

effectiveness in evenly distributing the flow approaching the pump in-

takes. The first blocks tested were 5 ft high and 2 ft wide and spaced

2 ft apart in two staggered rows. These blocks did not provide enough

restriction to the flow. The blocks were enlarged to 11 ft high and

2 ft wide with a 2-ft spacing. These blocks were more effective in re-

distributing the flow, but rotational flow indicators and pressure fluc-

tuations observed at the pump intakes were still considered too great.

The blocks were enlarged to a width of 2.25 ft and spaced only 1.33 ft

apart in the type 29 design sump (Plate 10). The quadrant wall was

added on one side only to reduce the separation caused by flow across

the 1V-on-8H slope of the right bank (looking downstream). These blocks

were effective in redistributing the flow approaching the pumps for many

of the operat~ng conditions. However, sump el 396.0 and 100 percent

flow from the right resulted in adverse pressure fluctuations and/or

rotational flow indicators; prototype values are given in Table 10.

26. The St. Louis District has expressed concern over operational

problems with the closely spaced baffle blocks. Clogging by debris and

difficulty in cleaning the sump can be created by the blocks.

18

Recommended Design

27. Converging sidewalls and rounded pier noses were tested in

the type 33 design sump (Plate 11, Figure 8). (Note that only the

upstream distance (10.0 ft) and the sidewall and backwall clearance

(0.5 ft) are given in Plate 11. The backwall distance is not given

because the exact bell diameter dimension is not known until the pump

selection has been made for the prototype. The backwall distance is

determined after the exact bell diameter is known.) The type 33 sump

resulted in the best flow conditions and overall hydraulic performance

of all sump designs tested.

28. Pressure fluctuations and rotational flow indicators measured

with this design sump are given in Table 11. A comparison of the pres-

sure fluctuations and rotational flow indicators for the original and

recommended designs are shown in Plates 12-17. Generally, the rota-

tional flow indicators were less than 0.09 and pressure fluctuations

were less than or equal to 3 ft of water. Minor surface depressions

occurred intermittently in the model around the pump columns at the

minimum sump el of 396.0 but are not considered sufficient to indicate

severe vortices in the prototype. However, lowering the upstream verti-

cal gate so that the bottom of the gate lip was at el 393.0 signifi-

cantly reduced the presence of the surface depressions. Velocities in

the recommended design sump for various operating conditions are shown

in Plates 18-23.

29. In an attempt to improve upon the type 33 sump, further modi-

fications were tested. Quadrant walls were added to the converging side-

wall design in the type 34 design sump (Plate 11). These walls were

intended to reduce separation at the upstream corners of the pump sump.

The separation was reduced, but flow conditions at the pump intakes were

not improved. Prototype values of pressure fluctuation and rotational

flow indicators are given in Table 12.

30. The height of the pump bell above the floor was varied in

the model. The height tested in the original and type 33 sumps was

equal to 0.33 times the bell diameter above the sump floor. The bell

19

-7%

Figure 8. Converging sidewalls, type 33 design sump

was raised to a height of 0.48 times the bell diameter above the sump

floor in the type 35 sump. Water levels within the sump remained the

same, and raising the pump bell resulted in a decrease in the submer-

gence of the pump. This resulted in decreased pressure fluctuations but

increased the tendency for formation of the intermittent surface depres-

sions. To maintain the same submergence, water depths within the sump

would have to be increased the same amount as the pump bell was raised.

20

This could be accomplished either by raising the minimum operating

levels in the station, which might adversely affect its operation, or by

lowering the floor of the sump, which would increase cost. Maintaining

maximum submergence and reducing the occurrence of the surface depres-

sions were considered more important than the reduction in pressure

fluctuations; therefore, a pump bell height of 0.33 times the bell diam-

eter is recommended for the final design. Prototype values of pressure

fluctuation and rotational flow indicators are shown in Table 13 for the

type 35 sump design.

31. The effect on station performance of maintenance openings

between the pump bays was tested with the type 37 design sump. These

openings would be 2 ft wide by 5 ft high and would be located downstream

of the vertical gates as shown in Plate 11. The openings were kept as

small as possible to limit the amount of crossflow entering the pump bay

when the adjacent pump(s) is not operating. Pressure fluctuations and

rotational flow indicators for the design are given in Table 14. Pres-

sure fluctuations were slightly greater, but rotational flow indicators

remained the same as that observed with the type 33 sump.

32. Modifications to the approach (Plate 24) were tested in con-

junction with the type 33 sump. The vertical approach walls (type 6

approach) worked well with 50 percent of the flow from each direction.

However, 100 percent flow from right or left resulted in no improvement

of sump flow conditions. Pressure fluctuations and rotational flow in-

dicators are shown in Table 15. The riprap dike in the type 7 approach

(Plate 24) was intended to break up the large eddies and to direct flow

straight into the station. No improvement in flow conditions at the

pump intakes was noted with the type 7 approach. Pressure fluctuations

and rotational flow indicators are shown in Table 16 for the type 7 ap-

proach. The deepened approach (type 8) proposed by the St. Louis

District did not result in improved flow conditions at the pump intakes

either. Pressure fluctuations and rotational flow indicators are shown

in Table 17 for the type 8 approach. Therefore, the recommended type 2

approach and the type 33 sump were retained.

21

Increased Velocities

33. A series of tests with increased velocities was conducted by

observing the level of surface disturbance present around the pump

columns and the type of vortices present for various operating condi-

tions. The classification system for surface conditions is rather sub-

jective, but no alternative was available. For surface conditions

ranging from smooth to small ripples, the project engineer felt that the

surface disturbance was not strong enough to significantly hinder the

formation of vortices. For surface conditions of ripples, the effect of

the surface disturbance was considered "borderline," and for rough condi-

tions the surface disturbance was considered as definitely hindering the

tendency for vortex formation. The classification of vortex types is

illustrated in Figure 7.

34. Results of the tests are given in Table 18. At sump eleva-

tions of 396.0 and 398.0, the surface condition remained smooth or rip-

pled up 2.0 to 2.25 times the Froudian velocities. Severe vortexing

(type D or E) was present only at these lower sump elevations with

velocities greater than 2.0 times Froudian. At sump el 399.5, the sur-

face condition remained smooth or rippled up to 2.5 times the Froudian

velocities, and no vortices or surface depressions were present at any of

the increased velocities. At sump el 403.8, the surface condition re-

mained smooth or rippled up to 3.0 times the Froudian velocities. Again,

no vortices or surface depressions were present at any of the increased

velocities.

35. These tests were conducted to obtain data for a range of in-

creased velocities and operating combinations for future comparisons

with prototype performance. Since vortex similarity is the prime con-

sideration in using increased velocities, data concerning pressure fluc-

tuations and rotational flow indicators were not taken in the increased

velocity tests.

22

PART IV: DISCUSSION

36. The model indicated the need for modifications to the origi-

nal design to improve flow conditions in the pump intakes. The first

major hydraulic problem found within the sump was the crossflow between

pump bays which was a result of the open divider wall configuration.

This was eliminated by making the divider wall continuous. The second

problem was caused by the relatively large distance between the pump

bell and the backwall of the sump. This leaves a large area for circu-

lation around the pump column which leads tn significant rotation of the

flow entering the pump bell and a greater tendet~cy for vortex formation.

The optimum suction bell location was found to be 0.5 ft upstream of the

backwall. At closer positions, rotational flow indicators and the ten-

dency for vortex formation were reduced, but pressure fluctuations were

increased. With the suction bell located about 6.5 ft away from

the backwall, pressure fluctuations were decreased, but rotational flow

indicators and the tendency for vortex formation were increased.

37. The third major hydraulic problem was the uneven distribution

of flow entering the pump sump. Flow entering the pump sump must make

a 90-deg change in direction in a relatively short distance. Surface

current patterns, indicated ly confetti, showed that the result of this

abrupt change in flow direction was severe eddy action in front of the

pump sump. These eddies concentrated flow on one side of the pump bay,

and the uneven flow distribution continued downstream to the pump in-

takes. Guide vanes or dikes could solve this problem if flow entered

the station from one direction only. However, with flows from either

direction or any combination of flows from the two directions, develop-

ment of a successful system of guide vanes or dikes is difficult. Con-

tributing to this third major problem of uneven flow distribution were

the nonsymmetrical abutments. It should be noted that none of the sym-

metrical abutment configurations tested in the model resulted in good

performance with flow from one direction only. However, the concept of

a symmetrical abutment was not pursued in detail because the St. Louis

District expressed a need for the IV-on-8H abutment slope on the right

23

.1

side for vehicular access. Comparing pressure fluctuations and rota-

tional flow indicators for 100 percent flow from the right and left did

not indicate that one approach was more severe than the other.

38. Baffle walls, baffle blocks, and restricted trashracks were

tested in the pump sump to redistribute flow approaching the pumps. The

restricted Lrashracks were successful but pose potential operational

problems. Only the converging sidewalls were considered successful in

improving flow conditions at the pump intakes without potential opera-

tional problems. The converging sid balls reduced the uneven distribu-

tion of flow entering the pump intakes. In conjunction with the converg-

ing sidewalls, rounded pier noses and an approach slope of IV on 10H are

proposed for the recommended design. Pressure fluctuations were reduced

from a maximum of 20 ft of water with the original design sump to 3 ft

of water with the recommended design sump.

39. Minor surface depressions occurred with the recommended

design sump at the minimum water-surface elevation of 396.0. These de-

pressions were absent with higher water-surface elevations (399.5 and

403.8).

40. The upstream vertical gate caused flow to concentrate along

the floor and created a roller at the higher water-surface elevations as

shown below:

EL 395.0

This roller produced a vertical upward velocity in the vicinity of the

pump which tended to inhibit any vortex formation. These flow patterns

were verified by dye injections in the model. Positioning the bottom

24

of the vcctical gate at the original elevation of 395.0 had little effect

on outflow conditions with minimum water-surface levels as seen in the

diagram below:

je- ."EL 395.0

The roller was small, velocities in the vicinity of the pump were

downward, and a greater tendency for circulation of flow and vortices

existed. Lowering the gate lip down to el 393.0 tended to eliminate the

surface depressions that occurred with the minimum water-surface eleva-

tions. The roller strength became large again, and velocities in the

vicinity of the pump were directed upward to inhibit vortex formation.

Alternate vertical gate locations at el 392.0 and el 394.0 were tested

in the model, and gate elevations at or below el 392.0 resulted in

significant head loss across the vertical gate and/or turbulence that

resulted in large pressure fluctuations beneath the pump column. The

vertical gate at el 394.0 did not significantly affect flow patterns,

and no improvement in flow conditions was observed at the pump intakes.

However, operation requiring that the vertical gate be extended down into

a significant portion of the flow did have its drawbacks. The abrupt

expansion introduced instabilities in the flow which could be seen by

observing the fluctuating water surface in the model upstream of the

pumps. The measured levels of rotational flow indicators and pressure

fluctuation were slightly increased when the gate bottom was moved from

the original location at el 395.0 down to el 393.0. Prototype testing

at various gate bottom locations would provide valuable sump design

guidance relative to the effects of an upstream vertical gate. This

testing could include comparing pressure fluctuations, velocity

251

distribution, and pump noise or vibration for various gate bottom eleva-

tions at various sump water levels. With either gate location, small

floating debris which passed through the trashracks was trapped in front

of the vertical gate.

41. Increased velocities were tested in the model and provide a

basis for comparison with the prototype. With these increased veloci-

ties, the model pump sump is free of vortices up to velocities of 2.0

times the Froudian velocities for low water-surface elevations in the

sump. The model was free of submerged vortices up to 3.0 times the

Froudian velocities for the higher sump levels.

26

REFERENCES

Anwar, H. 0., and Amphlett, M. B. 1980. "Vortices at Vertically In-verted Intake," Journal of Hydraulic Research 18, No. 2.

Chang, E. 1979 (Jan). "Scaling Laws for Air-Entraining Vortices,"British Hydromechanic Research Association Report RR1519.

Chang, E., and Larsen, J. 1980 (Feb). "Investigation of Flow Condi-tions in a Cooling Tower Pump Sump Killen Electric Generating StationUnits 1 and 2," Alden Research Lab.

Daggett, L. L., and Keulegan, G. H. 1974 (Nov). "Similitude in Free-Surface Vortex Formations," Journal, Hydraulics Division, AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, No. HYI1.

Denny, D. F. 1956. "An Experimental Study of Air-Entraining Vortexesin Pump Sumps," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,Vol 170, No. 2.

Denny, D. F., and Young, G. A. J. 1957 (Jul). "The Prevention of Vor-tices and Swirl at Intakes," VIIth Congress of the I.A.H.R., Lisbon.

Dexter, R. B., and Zeigler, E. R. 1978 (Jun). "Penstock Intake Vortexand Related Turbine Operation Model Studies," Proceedings of the ASCE/ASME/International Association of Hydraulic Research Joint Symposium onDesign and Operation of Fluid Machinery, Colorado State University, FortCollins, Colo., Vol 1, pp 425-436.

Dicmas, J. L. 1978 (Jun). "Effects of Intake Structure Modificationson the Hydraulic Performance of a Mixed Flow Pump," Proceedings of theASCE/ASME/International Association of Hydraulic Research Joint Symposiumon Design and Operation of Fluid Machinery, Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colo., Vol 1, pp 403-412.

Fraser, W. H., and Harrison, N. J. 1953. "Hydraulic Problems En-countered in Intake Structures of Vertical Wet-Pit Pumps and MethodsLeading to Their Solution," Transactions, American Society of MechanicalEngineers, Vol 75, No. 4, p 643.

Hattersley, R. T. 1960 (Sep). "Factors of Inlet Channel Flow Affectingthe Performance of Pumping Plant," Water Research Laboratory ReportNo. 23.

Hecker, G. 1981 (Oct). "Model Prototype Comparison of Free SurfaceVortices," Journal, Hydraulics Division, American Society of CivilEngineers, Vol 107, No. HYI0.

Iversen, H. W. 1953 (May). "Studies of Submergence Requirements ofHigh-Specific-Speed Pumps," Transactions, American Society of MechanicalEngineers. Vol 75, pp 635-641.

27

Jain, A. K., Raju, K. G. R., and Garde, R. J. 1978 (Oct). "Vortex For-mation at Vertical Pipe Intakes," Journal, Hydraulics Division, AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, Vol 104, No. HYIO, pp 1429-1445; Discussionby Amphlett, Hebaus, and Blaisdell in Journal, Hydraulics Division,American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 104, No. HYIO.

Zajdik, M. 1977 (Aug). "New Checking Mode of Model Parameters forVortex Formation in Pump Tanks," International Association of HydraulicsResearch, 17th Congress, Baden-Baden, West Germany, Vol 5, pp 379-386.

28

Table I

Pressure Fluctuations, Rotational Flow Indicators, and Surface Vortices at

Pump Intakes, Type I (Original) Design

RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure IndicatorPumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R S

Pump Operating Percent f rpm ft of Water i Vortices1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 10- 7 0.19 B2 1, 2, 3 6+ 3 0.11 83 1, 2, 3 13+ 8 0.24 B1 1, 3 6- 6 0.11 E3 1, 3 10+ 10 0.19 E

1 1, 2 4+ 3 0.07 E2 1, 2 5+ 3 0.09 E2 2, 3 9- 3 0.17 E3 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 E1 1 3+ 1 0.06 E

2 2 1+ 1 0.02 E3 3 2- 1 0.04 E1 1, 2, 3 100 R 5+ 7 0.09 E2 1, 2, 3 1- 3 0.023 1, 2, 3 8+ 9 0.15 D

1 1, 3 9- 8 0.17 E3 1, 3 7+ 11 0.13 E

1 1, 2 3+ 11 0.06 E2 1, 2 5+ 3 0.09 E2 2, 3 5- 5 0.09 E

3 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 E1 1 3+ 2 0.06 E2 2 1+ 1 0.02 E3 3 1+ 8 0.02 E1 1, 2, 3 1OO L 6- 7 0.11 E

2 1, 2, 3 11+ 10 0.21 E3 1, 2, 3 1+ 8 0.02 D1 1, 3 8- 5 0.15 E3 1, 3 10+ 10 0.19 E1 1, 2 1+ 3 0.02 E

2 1, 2 8+ 5 0.15 E2 2, 3 18- 7 0.34 E3 2, 3 2- 6 0.04 E1 1 1+ 1 0.02 E2 2 2- 1 0.04 E

3 3 1- 1 0.02 E1 1, 2, 3 50-50 399.5 1- 6 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 2- 4 0.03 --3 1, 2, 3 4- 13 0.07 ""1 1, 3 17- 12 0.28 --

3 1, 3 20+ 14 0.33 --1 1, 2 18- 15 0.30 A2 1, 2 4- 8 0.07 --2 2, 3 5+ 7 0.08 A3 2, 3 16+ 15 0.27 A

(Continued)

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents. Discharge perpump = 200 cfs at sump el 396.0 and 225 cfs at sump el 399.5 and 403.8; + = clock-wise rotational flow; - = counterclockwise rotational flow; surface vorticesseverity as illustrated in Figure 7.

-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.(Sheet 1 of 3)

A4W

Table 1. (Continued)

RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure IndicatorPumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R. Surface

Pump Operat_n Percent ft, NGVD rp ft of Watcr i Vortices

I I 50-50 399.5 4- 5 0.07 E2 2 50-SC 1- 6 0.02 E3 3 50-51) 11+ 4 0.18 E1 1, 2, 3 100 R 3+ 5 0.052 1, 2, 3 ?+ 4 0.05 --

3 1, 2, 3 1+ 14 0.02 --1 1, 3 17- 15 0.28 --3 1, 3 14+ 14 0.23 B1 1, 2 19- 11 0.32 A2 1, 2 7- 5 0.12 D

2 2, 3 7+ 5 0.12 A3 2, 3 16+ 14 0.27 A1 1 5- 3 0.08 E2 2 7- 7 0.12 E3 3 8+ 4 0.13 E

1 1, 2, 3 100 L 5- 15 0.08 --2 1, 2, 3 9- 8 0.15 --3 1, 2, 3 5- 14 0.08 --1 1, 3 21- 15 0.35 A3 1, 3 16+ 14 0.27 A

1 1, 2 24- 15 0.40 B2 1, 2 8- 6 0.13 A2 2, 3 6+ 7 0.10 A3 2, 3 13+ 14 0.22 A1 1 7- 9 0.12 D

2 2 2- 4 0.03 E3 3 8+ 8 0.13 E1 1, 2, 3 50-50 403.8 1- 7 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1- 6 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 2- 6 0.03 --

1 1, 3 15- 13 0.25 --3 1, 3 14+ 13 0.23 --1 1, 2 14- 13 0.23 --2 1, 2 19- 11 0.32 A2 2, 3 20+ 10 0.33 --

3 2, 3 12+ 13 0.20 --1 1 16- 7 0.27 A2 2 8- 4 0.13 C3 3 17+ 9 0.28 A1 1, 2, 3 I00 R 2+ 5 0.03 --

2 1, 2, 3 1- 4 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 2+ 13 0.03 --1 1, 3 16- 17 0.27 --3 1, 3 14+ 18 0.23 --1 1, 2 13- 14 0.22 --

2 1, 2 18- 10 0.30 A2 2, 3 13+ 12 0.22 --3 2, 3 11+ 13 0.18 -1 1 8- 14 0.13 A2 2 10- 4 0.17 A3 3 15+ 9 0.25 B1 1, 2, 3 100 L 4- 12 0.07 --

(Continued)-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed. (Sheet 2 of 3)

Table 1. (Concluded)

RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure a uicator SurfacePumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R.

Pump Operating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water I Vortices

2 1, 2, 3 100 L 403.8 2- 5 0.033 1, 2, 3 1- 5 0.02 -1 1, 3 19- 19 0.32 --

3 1, 3 9+ 20 0.15 --1 1, 2 15- 15 0.25 --

2 1, 2 15- 11 0.25 A2 2, 3 19+ 13 0.32 A3 2, 3 l1+ 8 0.18 --

1 1 14- 10 0.23 B2 2 9- 4 0.15 A3 3 16+ 10 0.27 A

* -indicates that no surface vortices were observed. (he f3

(Sheet3 of 3

~ --.-- '~v~ -.

Table 2


Pump Intakes, Type 2 Sump, Type I (Original) Approach

RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure Indicator SurfacePumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R.

Pump Operating Percent ft'NG _ rpm ft of Water I Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 4- 10 0.072 1, 2, 3 50-50 2- 6 0.04 --

3 1, 2, 3 50-50 5+ 2 0.09 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 6+ 1 0.11 --2 1, 2, 3 100 L 3+ 5 0.06 --

3 1, 2, 3 100 L 3- 1 0.06 AI I 100 R 1- 3 0.02 A1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 14- 10 0.23 A3 1, 3 50-50 13+ 5 0.22 A1 1, 3 100 R 13- 9 0.22 A

3 1, 3 100 R 14+ 3 0.23 4I 1 100 L 8- 6 0.13 A1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 17- 16 0.28 --3 1, 3 100 R 19+ 7 0.32 --1 1, 3 100 L 17- 17 0.28 --3 1, 3 100 L 19+ 5 0.32 --1 1 50-50 6+ 10 0.10 --

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents. Discharge perpump = 200 cfs at sump el 396.0 and 225 cfs at sump el 399.5 and 403.8; + = clock-wise rotational flow; - = counterclockwise rotational flow surface vorticesseverity as illustrated in Figure 7.

* -- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.

Table 3



RotationalFlow


Pum Operating Percent ft NGVD rpm ft of Water 1 Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 2+ 3 0.042 1, 2, 3 2+ 2 0.04 --3 1, 2, 3 6+ 2 0.11 --1 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --

1 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 2+ 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 4- 2 0.07 --3 2, 3 4+ 1 0.07 --1 1 1- 1 0.02 A

2 2 2- 1 0.04 --3 3 1- 1 0.02 A1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1+ 1 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 2- 1 0.04 --3 1, 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --

1 1, 3 4- 1 0.07 --3 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 2 5+ 1 0.09 --2 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --2 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --

3 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --1 I 1+ 2 0.02 --2 2 7- 1 0.13 --3 3 7- 3 0.13 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 8+ 2 0.15 --

2 1, 2, 3 2+ 1 0.04 --3 1, 2, 3 3+ 3 0.06 --1 1, 3 6. 2 0.11 --

3 1, 3 5+ 1 0.09 --1 1, 2 7+ 1 0.13 A

2 1, 2 1- 1 0.02 A2 2, 3 6+ 1 0.11 --3 2, 3 4+ 1 0.07 A1 1 9+ 2 0.17 --2 2 6+ 1 0.11 --

3 3 7+ 1 0.13 --1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 2+ 1 0.03 --3 1, 3 50-50 4- 2 0.07 --1 1, 3 100 R 4- 1 0.07 --3 1, 3 1OO R 1- 1 0.02 "-

1 1 100 L 10- 1 0.17 --1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 1+ 1 0.02 --

3 1, 3 I00 R 5+ 1 0.08 --1 1, 3 100 L 3- 1 0.05 --3 1, 3 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 50-50 1+ 1 0.02 --


-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.

At

Table 4

Pressure Fluctuations, Rotational Flow Indicators, and-Surface Vortices at

Pump Intakes, Type 4 Sump, Type 1 (Original) Approach

RotationalFlow


Pimp Operating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water i Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 2- 5 0.032 1, 2, 3 50-50 2+ 1 0.03 --3 1, 2, 3 50-50 1+ 5 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 1+ 3 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 100 L 4- 1 0.07 --

3 1, 2, 3 100 L 2- 3 0.03 --1 1 100 R 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 2- 1 0.03 --3 1, 3 50-50 / 1+ 2 0.02 --1 1, 3 I00 R I+ 1 0.02 --

3 1, 3 100 R 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 100 R 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 L 2- 1 0.03 --3 1, 3 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 50-50 1+ 1 0.02 --

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents. Discharge perpump 200 cfs at sump el 396.0 and 225 cfs at sump el 399.5 and 403.8; + = clock-wise rotational flow; - = counterclockwise rotational flow; surface vorticesseverity as illustrated in Figure 7.


• I |

Table 5



RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure IndicatorPumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R Surface

Pump Operating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water _ i Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 4+ 2 0.072 1, 2, 3 50-50 3+ 3 0.06 --3 1, 2, 3 50-50 2+ 1 0.04 --1 1, 2, 3 1O0 L 3+ 4 0.06 --2 1, 2, 3 100 L 4+ 3 0.07 --

3 1, 2, 3 100 L 9+ 4 0.17 --I 1 100 R 2- 2 0.04 --1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 1- 3 0.02 --3 1, 3 50-50 4+ 1 0.07 --1 1, 3 I00 R 1- 3 0.02 --

3 1, 3 1OO L 3+ 1 0.05 --I 1 100 L 1- 3 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 2+ 3 0.03 --3 1, 3 100 R 8+ 3 0.13 --1 1, 3 100 L I 1- 3 0.02 --3 1, 3 100 L 2- 6 0.03 --1 1 50-50 1- 3 0.02 --

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents. Discharge perpump = 200 cfs at sump el 396.0 and 225 cfs at. sump el 399.5 and 403.8; + = clock-wise rotational flow; - = counterclockwise rotational flow; surface vorticesseverity as illustrated in Figure 7.

-- indicates that no survace vortices were observed.

Table 6


Pump Intakes, Type 10 Sump, Type 1 (Original) Approach

RotationalFlowFlow Sump Vortimeter Pressure Indicator

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R. SurfacePump Operating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water i Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 1- 1 0.022 1, 2, 3 50-50 1- 2 0.02 -3 1, 2, 3 50-50 3+ 1 0.06 -=1 1, 2, 3 100 L 4+ 3 0.07 --2 1, 2, 3 100 L 3+ 3 0.06 --

3 1, 2, 3 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 100 R 2- 3 0.04 --1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 3 50-50 2- 1 0.03 --1 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --

3 1, 3 100 R 2- 1 0.03 --I 1 100 L 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 L 5- 2 0.08 --3 1, 3 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 50-50 1+ 1 0.02 --

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents. Discharge perpump = 200 cfs at sump el 396.0 and 225 cfs at sump el 399.5 and 403.8; + = clock-wise rotational flow; - = counterclockwise rotational flow; surface vorticesseverity as illustrated in Figure 7.-" indicates that no surface vortices were observed.

Table 7



RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure nco S

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation Indicator SurfacePump perating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water R Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 3- 4 0.062 1, 2, 3 50-50 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 50-50 5+ 2 0.09 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 5+ 3 0.09 --

2 1, 2, 3 00 L 5- 3 0.09 --

3 1, 2, 3 100 L 1- 2 0.02 --1 1 100 R 1+ 2 0.02 --

1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 5- 4 0.08 --3 1, 3 50-50 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --

3 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --

I 1 100 L 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 3- 1 0.05 --3 1, 3 I00 R 2+ 1 0.03 --1 1, 3 00 L 7- 2 0.12 --3 1, 3 00 L 1- 1 0.02 --1 1 50-50 1+ 1 0.02 --


S-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.

3

Table 8



RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure Iior

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R. SurfacePump Qperating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water 1 Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 2+ 1 0.042 1, 2, 3 50-50 3+ 2 0.06 --3 1, 2, 3 50-50 1- 2 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 3+ 2 0.06 --2 1, 2, 3 100 L 2- 2 0.04 --

3 1, 2, 3 100 L 2- 1 0.04 --1 1 100 R 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 2- 2 0.03 --3 1, 3 50-50 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --

3 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --1 1 100 L I 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1,300 R 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 100 L 3- 1 0.05 --3 1, 3 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 50-50 1+ 1 0.02 --



Table 9


Pump Intakes, Type 3 Sump, Type 2 (Recommended) Approach

Rotationalflow; -

flow; - Sump Vortimeter Pressure IndicatorPumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R Surface

Pump Operating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water R Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 4- 2 0.07 --

2 1, 2, 3 50-50 2- 1 0.04 --3 1, 2, 3 50-50 7+ 1 0.13 --

1 1, 2, 3 100 L 7+ 1 0.13 --2 1, 2, 3 100 L 2+ 1 0.04 --

3 1, 2, 3 100 L 5- 1 0.09 --

1 1 100 R 2+ 1 0.04 --

1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 50-50 4- 1 0.07 --

1 1, 3 100 R 2- 1 0.03 --

3 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --I 1 100 L 1- 1 0.02 --

1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 100 R 2+ 1 0.03 --

1 1, 3 100 L I 1- 1 0.02 --

3 1, 3 I00 L 2+ 1 0.03 --

1 1 50-50 1+ 1 0.02 --


S-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.

Table 10


Pump Intakes, Type 29 Sump, Type 2 (Recommended) Approach

Rotational

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure Flow

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation Indicator SurfacePum Operating Percent ft NGVD rpm ft of Water Ri Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 1+ 1 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 3- 2 0.06 --3 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 6+ 1 0.113 1, 3 5- 2 0.09 ""

1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 ""2 1, 2 2- 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 6- 4 0.11 ""3 2, 3 2- 1 0.04 -"

1 1 4+ 1 0.07 ""

2 2 5- 2 0.09 --3 3 5- 2 0.09 --1 1, 2, 3 100 R 4- 4 0.07 --2 1, 2, 3 7- 3 0.13 --3 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --

1 1, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 5- 3 0.09 --1 1, 2 2- 3 0.04 --2 1, 2 2- 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 10- 5 0.19 --

3 2, 3 4- 2 0.07 --1 1 1- 1 0.02 --2 2 8- 2 0.15 --3 3 11- 5 0.21 A1 1, 2, 3 100 L 1- 1 0.02 -

2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 3 5- 2 0.09 --1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --

2 1, 2 2+ 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 3- 2 0.06 --3 2, 3 3- 2 0.06 --I I 1+ 3 0.02 --2 2 1- 1 0.02 -=

3 3 7- 3 0.13 --1 1, 3 50-50 399.5 2+ 1 0.03 --3 1, 3 50-50 j 2+ 1 0.03 --1 1, 3 I00 R 1+ 1 0.02 -3 1, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --

I 1 100 L 2+ 1 0.03 --1 1, 3 100 R 403.8 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 100 R 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 I00 L 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 I00 L 1- 1 0.02 --1 1 50-50 1+ 1 0.02 --



Table 11


Pump Intakes, Type 33 (Recommended) Sump, Type 2 (Recommended) Approach

RotationalFlow


Pum Operating Percent ft NGVD rpm ft of Water i Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 2- 2 0.042 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, Z, 3 4+ 1 0.07 --1 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --

1 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 3+ 1 0.06 --2 2, 3 3- 2 0.06 --3 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --1 1 1+ 1 0.02 --

2 2 2- 1 0.04 --3 3 2- 1 0.04 --1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1+ 2 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --

1 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --1 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 3+ 1 0.06 --2 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --

3 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --1 1 1+ 2 0.02 --2 2 3- 2 0.06 --3 3 1- 2 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 2+ 1 0.04 --

2 1, 2, 3 2- 2 0.04 --3 1, 2, 3 4+ 1 0.07 --1 1, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --3 1, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --1 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 --

2 1, 2 2- 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 2- 1 0.04 --3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --1 1 1- 2 0.02 --2 2 2- 2 0.04 --

3 3 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 50-50 399.5 5+ 2 0.08 --2 1, 2, 3 4- 1 0.07 -"3 1, 2, 3 6- 2 0.10 --1 1, 3 2- 1 0.03 --

3 1, 3 2+ 1 0.03 --1 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 4- 1 0.07 --2 2, 3 2+ 2 0.03 --3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --

(Continued)


-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.(Sheet I of 3)

~ ~ ?"'W


RotationalFlow Sump Vortimeter Pressure Flow

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation IndicatorPump e Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water R. Vortices1 1 50-50 399.5 1- 2 0.022 2 50-50 1- 3 0.02 --3 3 50-50 3+ 1 0.05 --1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1- 1 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --1 1, 3 4- 2 0.07 --3 1, 3 2+ 1 0.03 --1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --2 1, 2 5- 1 0.08 --2 2, 3 3+ 2 0.05 --3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --1 1 2- 2 0.03 --2 2 2- 2 0.03 --3 3 4- 3 0.07 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 1- 2 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 5- 2 0.08 --3 1, 2, 3 5- 2 0.08 --1 1, 3 4- 1 0.07 -3 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 --1 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 5- 2 0.08 --2 2, 3 4- 1 0.07 --3 2, 3 2- 2 0.03 --1 1 5- 1 0.08 --2 2 5- 1 0.08 --3 3 3+ 3 0.05 --1 1, 2, 3 50-50 403.8 1- 1 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 -3 1, 2, 3 3+ 2 0.05 --1 1, 3 2- 2 0.03 --3 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 --1 1, 2 1- 1 0.02 --2 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 --2 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --I 1 1+ 2 0.02 --2 2 1+ 2 0.02 --3 3 2+ 2 0.03 --1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1+ 2 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 2+ 2 0.03 --1 1, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --3 1, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --1 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 2- 1 0.03 --2 2, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --3 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --I I 1- 1 0.02 --2 2 2- 2 0.03

(Continued)-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.

(Sheet 2 of 3)

I


RotationalFlow


Pum Operatin Percent ft, NGVD _r= ft of Water 1 Vortices

3 3 100 R 403.8 1- 2 0.021 1, 2, 3 100 L 1- 1 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --

3 1, 2, 3 2- 1 0.03 --1 1, 3 2- 1 0.03 -

3 1, 3 4+ 0.07 --

1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --2 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 --2 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --3 2, 3 6+ 3 0.10 --

1 1 3+ 1 0.05 --2 2 2+ 3 0.03 --3 3 6+ 3 0.10 --

* -- indicates that no surface vortices were observed. (Sheet 3 of 3)

Table 12

Pressure Fluc.uations, Rotational Flow Indicators, and Surface Vortices atPump Intakes, Type 34 Sump, Type 2 (Recommended) Approach

RotationalFlowFlow Sump Vortimeter Pressure Indicator

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R. SurfacePump Operatin Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water i Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 399.5 4- 1 0.072 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --2 2 7- 2 0.12 --2 2, 3 IO0 R 2+ 1 0.03 --

3 2, 3 100 R 3- 1 0.05 --3 3 100 L 11+ 4 0.18 --1 1, 2, 3 3- 1 0.05 --2 1, 2, 3 7- 2 0.12 --3 1, 2, 3 5- 3 0.08 --

1 1 6- 1 0.10 --2 2 5+ 3 0.08 --3 3 403.8 9+ 4 0.15 --2 2, 3 [ 1- 2 0.02 --3 1- 2 0.02 --

2 2 1+ 3 0.03 --3 3 2+ 3 0.03

Note: All magnitudes are expressed in terms of prototype equivalents. Discharge perpump = 200 cfs at sump el 396.0 and 225 cfs at samp el 399.5 and 403.8; + = clock-wise rotational flow; - = counterclockwise rotational flow; surface vorticesseverity as illustrated in Figure 7.


Table 13

Pressure Fluctuations, Rotational Flow Indicators and Surface Vortices atPump Intakes, Type 35 Sump, Type 2 (Recommended) Approach

RotationalFlow


Pump Operating Percent ft, NGVD rpm ft of Water _ Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 4- 1 0.072 1, 2, 3 2- 1 0.04 --3 1, 2, 3 6+ 1 0.11 --1 1, 3 3- 1 0.06 --3 1, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --

1 1, 2 2- 1 0.04 --2 1, 2 3+ 1 0.06 --2 2, 3 5- 1 0.09 --3 2, 3 4+ 1 0.07 --1 1 2- 1 0.04 --

2 2 3- 1 0.06 --3 3 2- 1 0.04 --1 1, 2, 3 1O0 R 2+ 1 0.04 --2 1, 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --3 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 -

1 1, 3 1- 1 0.02 -3 1, 3 2+ 1 0.04 --1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --2 1, 2 4+ 1 0.07 --2 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --

3 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --I 1 1+ 1 0.02 --2 2 3- 1 0.06 --3 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 I00 L 2+ 1 0.04 --

2 1, 2, 3 5- 1 0.09 --3 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --

2 1, 2 2- 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 1- 1 0.02 --2 2 2- 1 0.04 --3 3 2- 1 0.04 --



is OW *t...

Table 14

Pressure Fluctuations, Rotational Flow Indicators, and Surface Vortices atPump Intakes, Type 37 Sump, Type 2 (Recommended) Approach

Rotational

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure Flow

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuatio Indicator SurfacePum Operating Percent ft. NGVD rpm ft of Water R Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 2- 2 0.042 1, 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 6+ 2 0.11 --1 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 3 3+ 2 0.06 --

1 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 1- 1 0.02 --2 2, 3 2- 2 0.04 --3 2, 3 3+ 2 0.06 --1 1 1- 2 0.02 --

2 2 1- 1 0.02 --3 3 1+ 2 0.02 o°1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1+ 2 0.02 -"

2 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 4+ 1 0.07 -

1 1, 3 1- 3 0.02 --3 1, 3 2- 2 0.04 --1 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 A2 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --2 2, 3 1- 3 0.02 --

3 2, 3 2+ 1 0.04 --1 1 2- 2 0.04 --2 2 1- 4 0.02 --3 3 1- 3 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --

2 1, 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --1 1, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --3 1, 3 4+ 2 0.07 --1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --

2 1, 2 3- 1 0.06 --2 2, 3 2+ 1 0.04 --3 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 --1 1 1- 2 0.02 --2 2 1+ 1 0.02 --

3 3 4+ 1 0.07 --

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 399.5 1- 2 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 3- 2 0.05 --3 1, 2, 3 7- 2 0.12 --1 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 --

3 1, 3 5- 2 0.08 --1 1, 2 2- 1 0.03 --2 1, 2 5- 2 0.08 --2 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --3 2, 5- 1 0.08 --

(Continued)


S-- indicates that no surface vortices were observed.(Sheet I of 3)

II


RotationalFlow

Flw Sump Vortimeter Pressure Indicator SufcPumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation R. Sufc

Pump Operating Percent ft NV rpm ft of Water I_____ Vortices

1 1 50-50 399.5 1- 3 0.022 2 50-50 3- 2 0.05 -

3 3 50-50 6- 2 0.10 -

1 1, 2, 3 100R 3+ 2 0.05 -

2 1, 2, 3 3- 2 0.05 -

3 1, 2, 3 6- 2 0.10 -

1 1, 3 2- 2 0.03 -

3 1, 3 5- 2 0.08 -

1 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 -

2 1, 2 3- 1 0.05 -

2 2, 3 5- 2 0.08 -

3 2, 3 3- 2 0.05 -

I 1 1+ 2 0.02 -

2 2 3- 4 0.05 -

3 3 5- 2 0.08 -

1 1, 2, 3 100 L 1- 2 0.02 -

2 1, 2, 3 5- 2 0.08 -

3 1, 2, 3 4- 2 0.07 -

1 1, 3 2- 2 0.03 -

3 1, 3 1- 3 0.02 -

1 1, 2 2- 2 0.03 -

2 1, 2 1- 1 0.02 -

2 2, 3 2- 2 0.03 -

3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 -

1 1 4- 2 0.07 -

2 2 4+ 1 0.07 -

3 3 6+ 2 0.10 -

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 403.8 1- 2 0.02 -

2 1, 2, 3 2- 1 0.03 -

3 1, 2, 3 1-1 0.02 -

1 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 -

3 1, 3 .2- 2 0.03 -

1 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 -

2 1, 2 1- 1 0.02 -

2 2, 3 3- 2 0.05 -

3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 -

1 1 1- 2 0.02 -

2 2 1- 2 0.02 -

3 3 1- 2 0.02 -

1 1, 2, 3 100R 2+ 2 0.03 -

2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 -

3 1, 2, 3 1r+ 2 0.02 -

1 ,31+ 2 0.02 -

1 1, 22- 2 0.032-

2 2 2- 3 0.03 -

(Sheet 2 of 3)


RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure nior

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation Ri SurfaceSOperating Percent ft NGVD rm ft of Water I Vortices

3 3 100 R 403.8 2- 3 0.031 1, 2, 3 100 L 2- 2 0.03 --2 1, 2, 3 2- 2 0.03 --3 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 --

3 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 -

1 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 --2 1, 2 2- 1 0.03 --2 2, 3 2- 2 0.03 --3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 --

1 I 1- 2 0.02 --2 2 2- 2 0.03 --3 3 3- 3 0.05 --


(Sheet 3 of 3)

ii| a ! ! | lI

Table 15


Pump Intakes, Type 33 (Recormnended), Type 6 Approach

RotationalFlow


P O Percen_ ft t NG pr ft of Water i Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 1- 1 0.022 1, 2, 3 3- 1 0.06 --3 1, 2, 3 3- 1 0.06 --

1 1, 3 1- 1 0.02 A3 1, 3 1- 2 0.02 A

1 1, 2 3- 1 0.06 -=

2 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --2 2, 3 3- 1 0.06 --3 2, 3 2- 2 0.04 -

1 1 1- 2 0.02 A

2 2 2- 1 0.04 --

3 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1- 2 0.02 -

2 1, 2, 3 2- 2 0.04 --3 1, 2, 3 5- 2 0.09 --

1 1, 3 1- 3 0.02 --3 1, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --1 1, 2 2- 2 0.04 --

2 1, 2 2- 1 0.04 -

2 2, 3 3- 1 0.06 --

3 2, 3 4- 2 0.07 --1 1 1- 2 0.02 A2 2 1- 1 0.02 A3 3 1+ 2 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 6+ 3 0.11 --

2 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 A3 1, 2, 3 5+ 2 0.09 --

1 1, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 3 3+ 1 0.06 A1 1, 2 2+ 1 0.04 A

2 1, 2 3+ 2 0.06 -=

2 2, 3 2+ 2 0.04 A3 2, 3 3+ 1 0.06 -

1 1 4+ 2 0.07 A2 2 3+ 2 0.06 --

3 3 1+ 1 0.02 --



S . --.'

Table 16


Pump Intakes, Type 33 (Recommended) Sump, Type 7 Approach

Rotationa.Flew

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure nior

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation i SurfaceP 9eain Percent ft,_NGVD rpm ft of Water Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 6- 3 0.11 A2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.023 1, 2, 3 3+ 1 ^.06 -"

1 1, 3 3- 3 0.06 A3 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --

1 1, 2 3- 3 0.06 --2 1, 2 2+ 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 3- 1 0.06 --

3 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --

I I 1- 3 0.02 --

2 2 1- 2 0.02 --3 3 1- 1 0.02 --

1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1+ 2 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --

3 1, 2, 3 3+ 0.0 --

1 1, 3 1- 3 0.02 --

3 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --2 1, 2 2+ 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --

3 2, 3 2+ 1 0.04 --1 1 1- 2 0.02 --2 2 1- 1 0.02 --

3 3 1+ 1 0.02 --

1 1, 2, 3 100 L 1+ 1 0.02 --

2 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 - "3 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --

3 1, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 2 1+ 1 0.02 --

2 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 --

2 2, 3 2- 1 0.04 --3 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --

1 1 1- 1 0.02 --2 2 1- 2 0.02 --

3 3 1+ 1 0.02 --



Table 17


Pump Intakes, Type 33 (Recommended) Sump, Type 8 Approach

RotationalFlow

Flow Sump Vortimeter Pressure nco S

Pumps Direction Elevation Rotations Fluctuation Indicator SurfacePump Operatin Percent ft NGVD rpm ft of Water ___Ri Vortices

1 1, 2, 3 50-50 396.0 4- 4 0.07 A2 1, 2, 3 it 1 0.023 1, 2, 3 3t 1 0.06 --1 1, 3 2- 3 0.04 A3 1, 3 1+ 2 0.02 --

1 1, 2 4- 4 0.07 --2 1, 2 2+ 1 0.04 --2 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 -°

3 2, 3 1- 2 0.02 -1 1 2- 2 0.04 --

2 2 1- 2 0.02 --

3 3 1- 2 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 R 1+ 2 0.02 --2 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 2- 1 0.04 --

1 1, 3 1- 4 0.02 --3 1, 3 2+ 1 0.04 --1 1, 2 1+ 2 0.02 -2 1, 2 2+ 2 0.04 --2 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --

3 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1 3- 3 0.062 2 1- 1 0.02 --3 3 1- 3 0.02 --1 1, 2, 3 100 L 2- 3 0.04 --

2 1, 2, 3 1- 1 0.02 --3 1, 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --1 1, 3 2- 4 0.04 --3 1, 3 2+ 1 0.04 --1 1, 2 3- 4 0.06 --

2 1, 2 1- 2 0.02 --2 2, 3 3- 1 0.06 --3 2, 3 1+ 1 0.02 --I 1 1+ 1 0.02 --2 2 2+ 2 0.04 --3 3 1+ 1 0.02 --



10 *

Table 18

Surtace Conditions and Vortex jyp at PmpC(lumns with Increased Velocites,

.2e .3 (Re snended) Sump, lvpe 2 (Recommended) Ajprac

SumpTest Pumps How lievation Velocity Surface

No. uperat ng Direction ft NGVD x Froudian Condition Vortex lyL

1 1, 2, so-so 396 .0 1.0 Smooth Intermittent

surfa(edepression

1.5 Smooth A2.0 Small ripples B-C2.25 Rl pples C-D

3 1, 2, 3 50-50 399.5 1.0 Smooth None

1.5 Smooth None2.0 Small ripples None

IF2.25 Small ripple s None1, 2, 3 100 403.8 1.0 Smooth NoneS1.5 Smooth None

2.0 Small ripples None

225 Small ripples None

4I 00 R 396.0 1.0 Smooth None

S1.5 Small ripples A

2.0 Ripples B2.5 Rough D3.0 Rough D

5 3 100 R 399.5 1.0 Smooth None

1.5 Smooth None2.0 Small ripples None2.5 Ripples None3.0 Rough None3.67 Rough None

(Prototype)

6 6 100 R 403.8 1.0 Smooth None1.5 Smooth None2.0 Smooth None2.5 Small ripples None3.0 Ripples None3.67 Rough None

(Prototype)

1, 2, 3 50-50 398.0 1.0 Smooth None

1.5 Smooth Intermittentsurfacedepression

2.0 Ripples A2.5 Rough B

8 1 2 50- 396.0 1.0 Smooth Intermittentsurfacedepression

1.5 Smooth B2.0 Small ripples C2.5 Ripples D3.0 Rough D-E

(Continued)

Table 18 (Concluded)

SumpTest Pumps Flow Elevation Velocity SurfaceNo. Operating Direction ft, NGVD x Froudian Condition Vortex Type

9 1, 2 50-50 398.0 1.0 Smooth None1.5 Smooth A2.0 Small ripples A2.5 Rough B

113.0 Rough B

10 3 50-50 396.0 1.0 Smooth None1.5 Smooth A2.0 Small ripples C

2.5 Rough D3.0 Rough D-E

11 3 50-50 398.0 1.0 Smooth None1.5 Smooth None2.0 Small Ripples A2.5 Ripples B-C3.0 Rough C

12 3 100 R 1.0 Smooth None1.5 Smooth Intermittent

surfacedepression

2.0 Small ripples A2.5 Ripples B-C3.0 Rough D

I

C-4

14

ca0

bo

w-1-

01,

.0cc

4J000I...00.

00-4

0-4t4.d

cc0

4J0

00.0

c'J

-4

U0.U0.

0

0

C.,

-4GD

0.NU

0.

-400

cc-'-4

0

-4

C..'

04.40

.00..

4-4

4

41

0

444

F

L

LC,0-

0

C

N

~0C-ECC-

C

Cd

C-SC

C-SC

C

I-.

C,

C-

-4

C

0

I

Ku- -~ tr-t-n,- .ic't.&~~ r - ~ ~.-I~' -~. -. - C t* *i * w~-~ S~-'--t.A'4g~ -s-- - - -

C'-4

0.)C.0

C-E

0.

C

'0

0.)

C.

C-ECO

-'-4

C

0.)C-

H

~f-l

C

C

C.

C:

a) L)

cz C)-0)

-z

CC

C

4-

wC

C-,

0-

C

0-

0

0-

0

'-4

C

wC-

H

C'a

.3

A

-C-

C-

C

low-

4-,

C'.L

U)-4

Ca

0% Q

~40

CL

o

r_ C)

0-

0- C

5.-

~c5-

C

a-.

z0

0

11A

1

N4

LUU

0

z

w-

J~j

PLAT0"

9-l

(1111)-0. 1 5 1-0

PLANWVEW

4-6-

__2__ 4 __- EL \385.0

3-0- I- o- ,

ELEVATiON VIEW

TYPE 1 (ORIGINAL) DESIGNPUMPING STATION

SCA LE IN PEE'

PLATE 2

54"1_

IL VOR TIME TER

I 848"

PUMP BELL DETAILS

PLATE 3

-W (0

UL 0

0-

zJ <- zL)OSu >

Fr- FJ 0

"-S.

so- ,

'aD

o

0/

~1 00

mA

PLATE 4

rn 121

00

U-J

F- u~

06 ~ .j

0- 1

t-

so d,-

v/ 0~

po;

00

/ N

',PAT 5 i -0

cn z

Lu < -0> _z5.

5 jW,z C. L

ED 9

do--

It'-

00

0 10*0- ~t

lb,0

PLATE 6

EL 3900 EL 390.C

IV ON 6' IVON'2'.IV ON 8H IV ON 3H

EL 385.07 -,--0 - CL 385 00...

3 2.050'

a. TYPE 1 SUMP b. TYPE 2 SUMP(ORIGINAL DESIGN)

E4 3900 / CL 390.0" 'T '! V /7"

fV ON 8H IV ON H W_ ON_0HIV O_ _

EL 385 0 EL 385.0

- 11

3 22

1050' 0.07'

c. TYPE 3 SUMP d. TYPE 4 SUMP

TYPES 1-4 SUMPS

TYPE 1 (ORIGINAL) APPROACH

12:i PLATE 7

CEL0 I 390.0 7

____ EL 385.0 - - - -

3 23 2 1LZI GJ I1 1 .07'L-O007'

a. TYPE 9 SUMP b. TYPE 10 SUMP

TYPE1 (OIGINL) APROAHG

PLAT 8 4f rr ABOV

CL 390.0 E 9

IV ON a8VO H/ N3

EL. 390.0 EL 30

aTYE2(EOMNE) APPROACH b. TYPEN 3930RA

L 35.0 L 33.0

T ;

c. ~~ ~ APOC TYPE 394 AP0AHd YE5APOC

CL TYP0EL 3UM

c. YPE4 PPRACHd.TYPES 5 APPROACHE

PLATE 9k

REVISED TRSH- f10RACK. 6696BLOCKAGE OF TFLOW AREA ~

a. TYPE 25 SUMP

EL 390.0

IV~ ~ L L HVON JH

EL 1385 0 ______

2-2'X V o&.ocK CONFIGLI-T

b. TYPE 29 SUMP

TYPES 25 AND 29 SUMPS

TYPE 2 (RECOMMENDED) APPROACH

PLATE 10

a. TYPE 33 %RECOMMENDED) SUMP

IV ON dH IV 01.'N hf 1V d 'O A'Jft

OPENINGS

b. TYPE 34 SUMP c. TYPE 37 SUMP

TYPES 33 (RECOMMENDED), 34, AND 37 SUMPS

TYPE 2 (RECOMMENDED) APPROACH

PLATE 11

20 - 20

15 - 15

10 - 10

5 5

0 0

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3

FLOW DIRECTION 50-50

20 20

z

_ 15 15

D W

0

1E 0 10r

2 -I j

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3FLOW DIRECTION 100 RIGHT

20 - 20

1 15

5 5

0 0

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3COMBINATIONS OF PUMPS OPERATING

FLOW DIRECTION 100 LEFT

LEGEND

o3 ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESSURE FLUCTUATIONSO RECOMMENDED DESIGN VERSUS COMBINATIONS

OF PUMPS OPERATINGWATER SURFACE ELEVATION 396,0

PLATE 12

20 20

15 15

10 - - 10

5! 5

0 0PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3


20 20

z0S 1515

10 t 10

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 12 3FLOW DIRECTION 100 RIGHT

20 20

15- 15

10 - 10

5 , 5

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 3COMBINATIONS OF PUMPS OPERATING


LEGEND

o ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESSURE FLUCTUATIONSO RECOMMENDED DESIGN VERSUS COMBINATIONS

OF PUMPS OPERATINGWATER SURFACE ELEVATION 399.5

PLATE 13

L _

20 - 20

15 -- 15

10 - - 10

0 all 0

PUMP NO 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 12 3


20 20

0 15;. 15 -

0.

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3

FLOW DIRECTION 10(0 RIGHT

20 - -I 20

5 -- 1

10 - 10

) 5 5

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3COMBINATIONS OF PUMPS OPERATING


LEGENDU ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESSURE FLUCTUATIONS

( RECOMMENDED DES1GN VERSUS COMBINATIONSOF PUMPS OPERATING

WATER SURFACE ELEVATION 403.8

PLATE 14

040 040

030 030

020 n n 020

0 10 - 0 10

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 t 3 2 3 1 2 3


040 04J

0

U) 030 030

z

o 020 020

o 0 0

00 00PUMP 1 0 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 3

l. )W DIRECTION 100 RIGHT

040- 040

0 30 030

020 - 020

10 -

0 10m m rrJ[ f - 5 -a 3 02 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 3

,RO BINAT:ONS OF PUMPS OPERATING


E aENL

o ROTATIONAL FLOW INDICATOR. ... VERSUS COMBINATIONS


PLATE 15

II7

040.- -040

030 0- - 30

020 -- 020

010 i 10

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 12 3FLOW DIRECTION 50-50

040 040a

0< 030 030U

z

0 O0 1 010

cc 00 11 bII~ 00PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 12 3

FLOW DIRECTION 100 RIGHT

040 040

030 030

020 0 °20

00: 3 010

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3

COMBINATIONS OF PUMPS OPERATING


LEGEND

r ORIGINAL DESIGN ROTATIONAL FLOW INDICATORRECOMMENDED DESIGN VERSUS COMBINATIONS


PLATE 16

040 040

030- 030

020 -- 020

0101 010

00 00PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3


040 040

0

030 030

020 020

20 0 0 10

o000 LOW 121 30oPUMP NO 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3

FLOW DIRECTION 100 RIGHT

040 -- 040

030 -- 0 30

0 20 020

0 10 0 10

O0 0 1

PUMP NO 1 2 3 1 2 13 2 3 1 2 3COMBINATIONS OF PUMPS OPERATING


LEGEND

[ OPIGINAL DESIGN ROTATIONAL FLOW INDICATORI RECOMMENDED DESIGN VERSUS COMBINATIONS


PLATE 17

VELOCIEs 175'ABOVE FLOOR

/57 I0 02O

too, ,, 050,

0HIvON3 b. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2. AND 3FLOW DIRECTION: 100 R

53850

15'0.

VELOCMEV175' ;W ES 175ABOVEO FLOOOR

15 6 /87' 050'a. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2, AND 3 c. PUMPS OPERATING: 12. AND 3

FLOW DIRECTION: 50 - 50 FLOW DIRECTION: 100 LL 3850

-,_ _ L 3850 ..

;5 '' '5\ -/\.25'EA",IE ~~25A ECMS15VELOCrI'S 1715' EOfl( 5

SABO~E FORABOV'E FLOOR

o" Q /' , 050' 157' ,l 050' ,0 'l 0.50'd. PUMPS OPERATING: 1 AND2 e. PUMP OPERATING:

FLOW DIRECTON: 50- 50 FLOW DIRECTION: 50 - 50SL3

5 f,0

ABOVE FLOOR 5'VELOWES 175

..... OORABOVE FLOOR

.................. ...............15 7' 3 2 \ 050' 15 7' 31 00' 0 - x 50' 1 /0' x 0050 o

,050'

f. PUMP OPERATING:FLOW DIRECTION: 100 R g. PUMP OPERATING:FLOW DIRECTION: 100 L

VELOCITIESTYPE 33, (RECOMMENDED) SUMP

SUMP ELEVATION: 396.0PUMPS 1, 2, 3; 1, 2; AND 1

PLATE 18

1. .8 -0 5

EL 390.0 ABOVE FLOOR

TTU

15 7 1 3 2 0~ 50o

fVLN8 I' N,? -b. PUMP OPERATING: 2f, 01 8 IVON JHFLOW DIRECTION: 50 -50

VELOCITIES I 75*VL alS15- ABOV'E FLOORABVFLO

'57Q ~10'! J3 0

a. PUMPS OPERATING: 1 AND 3 c. PUMP OPERATING: 2

FLOW DIRECTION: 50 -50 FLOW DIRECTION: 100 R

1 3835 60L350

I I-0 A

VELOC rS 1 75' EOrlS15ABVTE0RABOVE FLOOR

'001 : ,050, 1 lo'l : 030,

d. PUMP OPERATING: 2 e. PUMP OPERATING: 3FLOW DIRECTION: 100 L FLOW DIRECTION: 50 - 50

__ 3850 - 33 ___

N: VEOO1 IA5 VELOOTES 175'

VEVELOCITIESTBOVE 33OO (REOMENE SUMPR

f. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UP 1,M 3;RTIG 23 AND 3UPOEAIG

PLATE 19&

EL9 _I 0

'! I 050'

cv o 8 } ~i cyON3Hb. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2, AND 3IV O ~ I ON 1/ -FLOW DIRECTION: 100 R

VELOCICMES 1755I , T

-- 2 /57__3

SI\0 'o 050'

a. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2. AND 3 C. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2, and 3FLOW DIRECTION: 50- 50 FLOW DIRECTION: 100 L

I0 8 EL 380 __ -C--

.. .. 15'-o.

VLOrTES 175'VOCES 75'ABOVE FLOOR . ABOVE FLOOR

15 7' 3 157' I 3 050

0050' to 050'

d. PUMPS OPERATING: 1 AND 2 e. PUMP OPERATING: 1FLOW DIRECTION: 50 -50 FLOW DIRECTION: 50- 50

,t

f. PUMP OPERATING: 1 g. PUMP OPERATING:1FLOW DIRECTION: 100 R FLOW DIRECTION: 100 L

VELOCITIESTYPE 33 (RECOMMENDED) SUMP

SUMP ELEVATION: 399.5PUMPS1 23: 1,2;AND1PLATE 20 j

a.PUPS1,AN 3c.PUMP OPERATiNG 2 5

OLO JIEC4O b0 FLO 50E

N:5

k 3850 50

3850 50

1 5 P25

E AN G 2

pU pSOPER~tNG 1, ND 3FLOW DIRECTION 00

FLO DIRECTION: O L 0L350 -

4 3830 --S

?5 E

A '' FL 5

fs 7' 0.50

' 5

PUMP OPERATING: 3 5

7I.PUMP OEAIG LWDR-TO 5

FLOW~ DIRECTION: 100 L 1LWDRETO3 0

vjE~oV ELO C I Is

SUMUM ()ELEVATION 39.

PUMPS 1, 3;2; AND 3

PLATE 21

L 383 0

V0CfTlES 175'EL 390.0 ABOVE rLOOR

IS?' osot157 '

0 5 0'

b. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2. AND 31v Ow 8- fK-Q JH 3FLOW DIRECTION: 100 R

T -

1 s7' 3 5 3 2 a5o"%~~ '_--050'

a. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2, AND 3 c. PUMPS OPERATING: 1, 2, AND 3FLOW DIRECTION: 50 - 50 FLOW DIRECTION: 100 L

38 0-83 1_ _ _

VELOCI U 1.75,M17.

AIAWIE FLOOR

100' /o ' so'

d. PUMPS OPERATING: I AND 2 e. PUMP OPERATING: 1FLOW DIRECTION: 50 - 50 FLOW DIRECTION: 50 - 50

S SL. 385 , .3850 1

!" VEOC/IES .75 ¢E_(viLEcyS 175'

0 /?1 00050'100' IXsl-oo

I. PUMP OPERATING: 1 g, PUMP OPERATING: 1FLOW DIRECTION: 100 R FLOW DIRECTION: 100 L

VELOCITIESTYPE 33 (RECOMMENDED) SUMP

SUMP ELEVATION: 403.8PUMPS 1, 2,3; 1. 2; AND 1

PLATE 22

L 390.0O

15-0

255'EA390.CnE VEI S 175

- - ABO,'E FLOOR

aV PUMN O8HTIG O N 3 b. PUMP' OPERA-TING: 2~~~~w -FLOW DIRECTION: 50 - 50FLWDRCIN10R

FLOW DRECTIO:100 FLOW DIRECTION 50-50

~... ..... . ..

a.PMSOPERATING: 1 ANg . PUMP OPERATING: 3FLWDIRECTION: 100- R FLOW DIRECTION: 100 L

VELO~VELOCITIES

TYPE 33RECOMMENE FLUMR

1SUM ELVAIO 4573 20 03d. UMPOPEATIG: e. PUMP S RTIG 32AN 3

FLOW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PLT 23ETO:10LFOWDRCIN 0-5

4~~w 38 0 35

EL 4000EL 400.0EL 3960

_____

3.

RAP9AP D/KA

TOP EL 400.0C

- VERTICAL IV ON 8H

A C. YE8APOC

TYP 33. (RCMEDD IUM

a. ROCHb.TYPES 7- APPROACHE

P L A T E- ----- 2 4- --I

In accordance with letter from DAEN-RDC, DAEN-ASI dated22 July [9T7, Subject: Facsimile Catalog Cards forLaboratory Technical Publications, a facsimile catalogcard in Lihrary of Congress MARC format is reproducedbelow.

Maynord, Stephen T.Blue Waters Ditch pumping station East St. Louis,

Illinois : Hydraulic Model Investigation / by StephenT. Maynord (Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station). -- Vicksburg, Miss. : TheStation, 1982.

28, [361 p., 24 p. of plates ; ill. ; 27 cm. --(Technical report ; HL-82-13)Cover title."June 1982."Final report."Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis."Bibliography: p. 27-28.

1. Blue Waters Ditch Pumping Station (111.) 2. Hydraulicmodels. 3. Pumping machinery. 4. Pumping stations.I. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. St. Louis

Maynord, Stephen T.Blue Waters Ditch pumping station East St. Louis : ... 1982.

(Card 2)

District. U1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation. Hydraulics Laboratory. III. Title IV. Series:Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation) ; HL-82-13.TA7.W34 no.HL-82-13

Ai

ATE

I L.M!

mmmmmm, - dtic · i 'll _ mmmmmm,!hhoneelmli' in el lii iijiiiiiifii...

Documents