ML17053D771
| ML17053D771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1977 |
| From: | STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053D748 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305230701 | |
| Download: ML17053D771 (88) | |
Text
STUDIES TO ALLEVIATEPOTENTIAL FISH ENTRAPMENT AT UNIT NO 6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION May 1977 Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation Boston, Massachusetts 8305230701'305i3 i
/
(
C~~
/
l
/
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Descri tion Pacae
SUMMARY
.AND CONCLUSIONSi i a i o i s i i
~ i
~ i i o i i o
1 1
INTRODUCTION
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
2o HDDEL DESCRXPTXON y
y
~
y y
~ i y
y y
y o
y g
o s
o
\\
2 1
3 TEST PROGRAM 3
1 TEST PROCEDURE 3 2 MORT'ALXTY STUDIES 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
~ 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
1 3-1 3 2 0 o TEST RESULTS o s
o o
o
~
o o
o o
o
~
o o
o o
o o
0 1
5 DESCRXPTXON OF PROTOTYPE 5-1 REFERENCES o
o o
o o
o o
s o
o o
o o
0>
0 0
0
~
0 0
0 0
0 0 R 1
Doub1e Jet Pump Fish Transport; System
LIST OF TABLES
'able Descri on After
~acae 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-6 5-1 Double Jet Pump Model Test Parameters and Results Water Quality Tests&odel Mater Quality-Intensive Analysis Double Jet Pump Analysis of Variance for Test Mortality, Model 1
Double Jet Pump Analysis of Variance for Test Mortality, Model 2 Analysis of Variance for Control, One-Pump, and Two-Pump Mortalities Canparison of Prototype and Model Parameters 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-3 5-2
'IST. OF ILLUSTRATIONS 2-.1 5-1 5-2 5-3 Double Jet Pump System Demonstration Model Plan of Screenwell Layout U
Profile of Prim-~ and Secondary'creenwell Fiah RetLun Pipe 5-1 5-1 5-1
e
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS In order to evaluate the potential for effective application of a fish diversion and transportation system at Niagara Mohawk Power.
CorporationIs Unit No. 6, Oswego Steam Station a series of tests were conducted by Stone 8 Webster as a continuation of ongoing studies described in separate reports (Stone 6 Webster
- 1975, 1976a,
- 1976b, 1977).
Previous studies by Stone 6
Webster have shown that an
- angled, flush-mounted traveling screen and pipe
- system, incorporating a
jet pump, is'ighly efficient in diverting and transporting alewives with low resultant mortality.
The Unit No.
6 cooling water system and fish diversion system will incorporate two jet pumps to return fish to Lake Ontario.
The two-pump design is necessitated by expected high head losses in the cooling water system.
The present study utilized an existing angled screen and fish transportation model at the 2Qden Research Laboratories with a second angled screen and jet pump added to test the feasibility of using such an expanded system.
Five tests were conducted in the Double Jet Pump model during the summer of 1976 over a range of hydraulic conditions.
Statistical analyses of the results indicate
- that, under the conditions
- tested, no single variable accounted for a significant amount of the variation in test mortality.
- Further, a oneway analysis of variance showed that mortality among fish which passed through one jet pump did not differ significantly from that which occurred among fish which passed through two jet pumps; nor did either test mortality differ significantly from control mortality.
The mean mortalities and 95 percent confidence intervals for one-pump, two-pump, and control fish were 9.04 a6.4, 17.28 a9.07, and 8.04 116.14, respectively.
Therefore, to obtain an estimate of the most probable increase in mortality
. which
. might be expected to occur in a
'prototype installation, the 'mean differential mortalities (test minus control) can be computed.
These values are 1.0 percent for one pump and 9.2 percent for two pumps.
Since these values are low, it appears that
. an angled screen and double jet pump transportation system offers an effective means for reducing impingement at Unit No.
6 Oswego Steam Station.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation (SCW) has been conducting biological and hydraulic laboratory studies for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) since May 1973.
As a result. of these
- studies, an effective fish diversion and transportation system has been developed which can be used to reduce fish losses commonly resulting from entrapment in power plant cooling water intakes on the Great Lakes.
The system has three components:
an angled, flushwounted vertical traveling screen leading to a
bypass; a transportation pipe; and a jet pump which supplies the energy for inducing bypass and pipe flows.
The studies which led to the development of this system are described in separate reports (Stone 6 Webster
- 1975, 1976a, 1976b).
Due to the results obtained during earlier
prototype fish diversion and transportation system for Unit No.
6 Oswego Steam Station (Oswego
- 6).
Potential high head losses'within the cooling water system require the fish transportation system to pump against a
maximum total head of approximately 14 feet.
SSW laboratory studies have shown that driving flow nozzle velocities within a jet pump should be within a range of 30 to 45 fps to minimize potential stress'o the fish.
Within this range, a jet pump is capable of overcoming 7 feet of total head (Stone 6
Webster 1975).
Therefore, Oswego 6 will require two jet pumps to safely return bypassed fish to the lake..
Since the effects of a two~ump system on fish survival had. not been evaluated experimentally, NMPC authorized SSW to conduct a
series of tests within an existing model basin at the Alden Research Laboratories (ARL).
These tests were conducted with aLesives La.osa seudoharen us) in the summer of 1976.
The nadel incorporated all of the components of the proposed Oswego 6
fish protective
- system, including a
primary angled screen,
- bypass, pipe loop, and jet pump (previously evaluated individually as the System Demonstration
- Model, Stone 6 Webster 1977) -
A smaller, secondary angled screen,
- bypass, and jet pump were added to this model.
A comparison of the components and parameters of the prototype and model is shown in Table 51.
Studies conducted in this model facility are -described in the following sections.
1-1
SECTION 2 MODEL DESCRIPTION To evaluate the diversion and transport efficiency of the Double Jet Pump System, the large test basin incorporating the Angled Screen a'nd System Demonstration Models was
- utilized, as illustrated in Figure 21.
, Tb model a Double Jet Pump System, a second screenwell,
- bypass, and jet pump were installed in the model basin as an addition to the existing System Demonstration Model previously discussed.
'onsecpxently, the discharge from the first jet pump could be diverted into the second jet pump.
A description of the model follows.
The angled screen test flume was 5 feet 9 inches wide, 6 feet
- deep, and 40 feet long.
Flow was supplied to the model by six pumps with a total capacity of 130 cfs.
To achieve a uniform distribution of flow'n the flume, a series of turning vanes were located at the upstream end of the angled screen model.
A 1/4-inch-mesh galvanized steel inflow screen kept fish within the'est section of the flume.
A fish introduction box was installed on one wall of the flume just downstream of the inflow screen.
In order to eliminate bias toward positive test results, the box was located on the screen side of the flume rather than on the bypass side.
This placement increased the probability that fish would have to react to the screen should they have remained near the wall on the screen side.
The angled screen test device (3/8-inch mesh), located 14 feet downstream of the inflow screen, was identical to a
prototype screen except that it. could not be rotated.
The screen measured 12 feet in length, was set at a 25-degree angle to the flow, and led to a
6-inch-wide bypass.
Several feet downstream from the bypass entrance, an expanding, slopirig plate directed the flow downward at a
45-degree angle to a
connection with a short 12-inchID pipe, that was, in turn, connected to a
167foot length of 10inch-ID, PVC pipe incorporating five horizontal and vertical 90-degree bends leading into a 12-inch jet pump.
This first jet pump, whose driving flow was supplied by two separate pumps, discharged into a 13-foot-long, 12-inch-ID steel mixing tube pipe and passed through a vertical 90-degree bend into a head
- tank, which, in turn, discharged into a
secondary screenwell, containing a second, angled screen.
This screenwell was 3 feet wide, '3 feet deep, and the screen was 11 feet long.
A 4foot-long, removable section of the angled screen made it possible to divert fish away from the secondary
- bypass, after passing through one jet
- pump, into collection area No.
1 (Figure 2-'I).
2-1
FISH HOLDING TROUGH FLOW STRAIGHTENING VANES SECOND JET PUMP BYPASS MOVEABLE DIVERSION SCREEN HEAD TANK MIXINGTUBE ANGLED SCREEN COLLECTION I
AREA N0.2
/
IL
>, <<>Z>'>",.:>A>'>.'~ec0. S>.>><<>e>,':;: ~;;:.+>
' '" >>"'":.": <>>"., j"
.:,.:RETENRON~8CREKNS g)>+~A~:gW mls'
'q)p))(p()(.>my,'))gi~kkO~",~4,g(i~:.J>
FIRST JET PUMP
'COLLECTION AREA NO. I SUCTION TUBE VENTURI METERS 9%>.~5: g~>I TRANSPARENT OBSERVATION PIPE 0
FLOW qOP ~
PUMPS SUMP F ISH TRANSPORT PIPE COURTESY OF ALDEN RESEARCH LABORATORIES ELBOW METER FIGURE 2-1 DOUBLE JET PUMP SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION MODEL UNIT NO. 6" OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION STONE 6t WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
0 0
A 6-inch-wide secondary bypass made a 90-degree bend leading to the second jet pump.
This smaller 4inch jet pump (previously evaluated individually for NMPC; Stone 6
Webster 1977) had a smooth bell-mouth transition where the fish were observed entering the suction pipe.
The fish were also observed discharging from the mixing tube.
The pump discharge entered into a
large screened portion of the model designated as collection area No. 2 (Figure
- 21).
Adjacent to the model basin, an existing fish holding facility, containing two 2,500-gallon circular pools, was used to contain the fish for the study.
A new facility was constructed'y ARL to hold control fish for mortality studies.
It consisted of a
rectangular trough measuring 2 feet in width, 2 feet in
- depth, and 40 feet in length.
All the water used to fillthe model basin, the holding trough for control fish, and the pools to hold untested fish were supplied from the adjacent stream.
2-2
SECTION 3 TEST
. PROGRAM The biological testing program extended from Jug 28 to August 12, 1976.
Test support was supplied by ARL and involved establishing and documenting the hydraulic parameters specified for each test.
3 1
TEST PROCEDURE A series of five tests'were conducted for the double jet pump study.
Water quality measurements were taken prior to the start of each test.
The parameters observed were dissolved oxygen, phenolphthalein alkalinity, methyl orange alkalinity,
- hardness, ammonia
- nitrogen, and pH.
Water temperature was monitored throughout the test.
An additional intensive analysis was conducted ance during the testing program to monitor
'opper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc.
Each test lasted from 3
to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />
'and began approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> before dusk and ended about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after dusk.
Average velocities were determined for the primary approach channel and bypass prior to the beginning and at the end of each test using a
propeller&ype current meter.
Piezometer.
heads were measured at the jet pumps and screenwells to determine the pressure rise through the jet pumps.
Driving and suction flow rates of the jet pumps were also measured using venturi meters, elbow meters, and velocity traverses.
Velocity distributions at the primary bypass and along the screen were recorded..
A detailed description of the hydraulic test procedures and data are presented in the ARL report in Appendix A.
To prevent mortality associated with the handling of fish during removal from the holding pools, the fish were not counted until the end of the mortality study; at this time, the exact number of fish was recorded for the. controls, and for the fish in collection areas No.
1 and No 2.
Test fish were removed from the holding pool using a minnow seine and a shallow dip net.
They were then transferred to the introduction box in 5-gallon buckets for a 15-minute acclimation period.
During this period, an appropriate number of control fish were placed in a holding tank within the flow-~~ough trough as part of mortality studies.
A sliding gate on the flume side of the introduction box confined the test fish until the time of release.
After the fish were
- released, the sliding gate was
.replaced and maintained a relatively flush surface and desirable flow characteristics along the wall.
3-1
The primary flume area was covered with a sheet of black plastic to reduce the presence of visual keys.
As the fish moved through the transport system they.were observed through a clear section of the 10-inch PVC pipe before entering the first jet pump.
This made xt possible to estimate the numbers of fish in transit through the system.
As the fish entered the approach section of the secondary angled screen, they were diverted into collection area No.
1 by withdrawing the section of removable angled screen and placing a wall in front of the secondary bypass.
Fish were also diverted'nto the second jet pump by removal of the wall and replacement of the removable section of angled screen.
To avoid bias in the test results, the fish were randomly directed into each collection
'area in alternating cycles to avoid possible diversion of weaker or stronger fish into any one collection area Control fish were handled in an identical fashion as the test fish except, that they were placed in a
tank within the holding trough not subject to the model devices.
3 2 MORTALITY STUDIES Studies were conducted for each test.to evaluate the mortality associated with fish diversion and transport.
The results were then analyzed to determine the 'total efficiency (E ) of the system.
Mortality was monitored for the three separate groups of fish
'ested:
(1) the control group; (2) the fish that traversed the primary diversion screen, pipe loop, and jet pump; and (3) those individuals that were diverted and passed through both jet pumps.
The mortality was recorded every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following the end of a test for periods of 48 to 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />, depending on the time available for each test.
A comparison of percentage mortality for each test group within each test was statistically
- analyzed, as discussed in Section 4.
3-2
SECTION 4 TEST RESULTS Ke results of double
. jet pmp testing.
are summarized in
'&le 4-1.
The results of water quality analyses are presented in Tables 42 and 4-3.
The approach velocity was set at a constant value of 1
0 fps for the five tests, while the bypass velocity, as regulated by
- jet, nozzle
- velocity, varied from 1.4 to 2.0 fps, with a mean of 1 7 fps.
The jet nozzle velocity for the 12-inch jet pump ranged fran 34.9 to 44 9 fps, with a mean velocity of 40.8.
The jet nozzle velocity for the 4-inch jet pump varied
. from 35.0 to 43.9 fps, with a mean of 39.9 fps.
The water temperature ranged fran 66o to 744F, with a mean of 70oF.
During the double jet pump
- tests, the fish were continually observed through a clear section of the transport pipe prior to entering the first jet pump, to determine approximately how many were in transit and at what time they were moving through the system.
The greatest number of fish were observed to be bypassed and transported through the system at dusk and immediately thereafter.
- They, were not observed to be bypassed before dusk.
In observing the relationship between the percentage of fish bypassed and the total number of fish in the flume during a test, it was seen that a noticeable drop in the percentage bypassed occurred within 1 to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after dusk.
This pattern was consistent in all tests.
The statistical analysis included the test results of the five double jet pump tests, and an additional six single jet pump tests from the System Demonstration Model Study (Stone S Webster 1977).
The six tests were added to the five tests of this study to increase the numbex of observations fran which conclusions could be drawn.
The tests in the previous System Damnstration Model Study were sufficiently similar to consider the conclusions from that earlier study appropriate to this study The results fran testing for single jet pump nxaWlity (11 tests) were used as a predictor of the second jet pump mortality (5 tests),
since a
portica of the second jet pump mortality is attributable to transport through the first jet pump.
The results of the five double jet pump tests were analyzed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Total mortality for each test was the dependent
- variable, and was defined as the number of fish transpar ted by the second jet pump that died (during the aertality study) divided by the total number of fish transported through the second jet pump The mortality of fish that traversed the first jet pump was analyzed as an independent vari,able and was defined as the number of fish transported by the first jet pump that. died (during the 4-1
TABLE 4-1 DOUBLE JET PUMP MODEL TEST PARAMETERS AND RESULTS UNIT NO 6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGiLEQk MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION STONE S
WEBSTER& ENGINEERING CORPORATION Test nundmr 3
7/28/76 8/3/76
'8/5/76 8/10/76 '/12/76 Approach velocity, fps 1.0 1
03 1
0 0 97 0 98 Bypass velocity, fps 12-inch get pump velocity, fps 1 52 2 02 1 82 1 95 Suction pipe Jet nozzle Mincing tube 5 96 34 86 58 8
68 8 03
. 8 69 39 12 44 93 40 61 44 62 10 20 12 50 14 40 13.10
~
14 33 Pressure rise, psi 4-inch jet pump velocity, fps 4 30 5 30 6 90 5 70 6;80 Suction pipe Jet nozzle NhcLI1g tube Pressure rise, psi 8 30 35 00 12 53 3 55 Water temperature, oC 22.2
\\
9 51 10 21 9 46 14.07 4 53 18.9 14 90 13 98 4 98, 20 6
4 48 19 4 38 70 43 40 38 40 10 27 43.70 14 98 5 00 23 3
'1 of 2
TABLE 4-1 CONTID Test, nmnbex Date B
TEST RESULTS 1 ~
2 3
7/28/76 8/3/76 8/5/76 8/10/76 8/12/76 Total No. of fish tested 1564 908 1498 '483 2467 No. fish tested through one jet pump (No.
- 1) <>> 1069 300 819 695
, 1774 Test nartality Number Percent 98 9 2 28 9 3 147 38 179 55 58 3 3 No. fish tested through tao jet pumps (Nos.
1 and
- 2) <>>
495 608 679
- 788, 693 Test mortality Number Percent 90 18 2
50 8 2 189 167 27 8
21 2 76 11 0 Control mortality Number Percent 5
2 5 3
1 5 7
2 7 1
0 4
88 33 1<~>
Notes
~>> Refer to Appendix for actual hydraulic values
<>> No. of fish divertai and bypassed through 1st jet. pump into collection area No. I
~>> No. of fish diverted and bypassed through 1st and 2nd jet pumps into collection area No. 2
~+~ High control moxMlity possibly due to rapid temperature rise in contxol holding tank during mortality study 2 of 2
TABLE 4-2 r
WATER QUALITY TESTS MODEL UNIT NO~
6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POHER CORPORATION STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Water Temperature, 4C Dissolved Oxygen, ppm Phenolphthalein Alkalinity, gr/gal Methyl Orange Alkalinity, gr/gal
- Hardness, gr/gal Ammonia N, pgn pH 23 3 9 2 0
2 0
4 0
0 03 6.8 Minixmm 18 9
8 6
0 2
0 2
0 0.03 6
6 Mean 20 9
9 1
0 2
0 3
0 0 03 6.6
T2Q3LE 4-3 WATER QUALITY INT12TSXVE ANALYSIS UNIT NO 6 OSWEGO PHWX STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK P(MER CORPORATION STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGIKHRZNG CORPORATION Date of Analysis:
July 29 to August 6, 1976 Parameter+
TOC Fluoride Aluminum Arsenic Boron Cadmium Chromium
~
Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc Stxeam 25 0
0 10 0 2
<0 005 0 35
<0 01
<0 01
<0 03
<0 01 1
15
<0.01
<0 5
<0-01
<0-01
'0 01 Model Basin 24 0
0 08 0 04
<0 005
<0 01
<0 01
<0 01
<0 03
<0 01 1
15
<0 01
<0 05
<0 01
<0 01 0 04
+Units measured in milligrams per liter
aartality study), divided by the total number of fish that passed through only the first jet pump Since impingement on the angled screen never occurred (the screen was always 100 percent effective in diverting fish), impingement loss was not a variable during the study Another possible source of variation was the number of fish in the test facility. This number was 'indexed as the number of fish bypassed in the primary test flume (those which passed through the first jet pump), since this source of variability proved to be significant for the first jet pump in the previous System Deaanstwatiau Study (Stone 6
Webster 1977).
This source of variation was analyzed in two ways.
First, a predicted total aertality of the fish'hat traversed the second jet pump was calculated based on the regression determined from the results of the previous single jet pump study.
This calculated mrtality was used as an independent variable in the analysis of the double jet pump data The analysis of the mrtality for the double jet pump was analyzed with three independent variables:
jet nozzle velocihy for both jet pumps, contxol mortality, and mortality predicted (predictor) from the previous System Deaanstration Study.
The equation for the predicted mcMMlity (m) was:
m = 0.1188 8.1 x 10-~
(B 717) where:
B is the numbex bypassed through the first jet, pump based an results of the System Denxmstration Study.
Refer to Stone 6
Webster (1977) for the derivation of the constants in this equation.
The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4-0.
The independent variabies did not explain a
significant (a<0.05) amount of the variability in the aertality.
I The second method of looking at this relationship was to apply the nuaher of fish bypassed by the second
- jet, pump.
The jet nozzle velocity of the second jet pump was also included in this analysis o These two independent variables, the number of fish bypassed and jet nozzle velocity, were analyzed singly and together.
In all
- analyses, they did not account for a significant amount of the variation in test anrtality (Tables 0-4 and 0-5)
Therefore, since -ncae of the independent variables accounted for observed mortality, the performance of the double jet pm@ can be described as the average performance of all tests Por the five double jet pump tests, the mean test mortality and 95 percent 4-2
TABLE 4-4 DOUBLE JET PUMP ANALYSIS OF VAEG2QCCE FOR TEST MORTALITYF MODEL 1
UNXT NO>>
6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATXON STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATZON Source Jet Velocity Pump No 2
Predictor Control Mortality Residual D.F 1
1 1
1 Sums of S uares 0 0012 0 0037 0.0138 0 0109 0 0249 Mean hll 0 0012 0 0037 0 0138' 109 0 338 1 266 0 7973 0.6648 0.4626 TABLE 4-5 DOUBLE J'ET PUMP ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEST MORTALITY'ODEL2 UNIT NO 6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATXON STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINFKRING CORPORATZON Source Sums Mean Kl No. Bypassed 1
0.0036 Control Mortality 1
'0. 0126 Residual 2
0 0110 0 0036 0 661 0 5017 0 0126 2 291 0 2693 0.0055 Total 4
0 0249
confidence intevral for fish that were diverted by the angled screen and traversed both jet pumps was
.17.28 i9.07 percent, while the mean.
test mortality for the fish diverted and transported through the first jet pump only was 9.04 16.40 percent.
The mean test mortality and 95 percent cxefidence interval for the control group (the fish contained in the holding trough that were
. not exposed to the model devices) was 8.04 a16.14 percent,.
A anemay ANOVh, for the contxol ane~ump, and two~ump mortalities was canducted.
The results of this analysis indicated that. these three mortalities were not significantly different, as shown in Table 46.
Therefore, under the conditions.
- tested, the mortalities associated with
. passage
'hrough the single or double jet pump system were not greater than mortality of control fish.
The results of the statistical analyses conducted indicate that, under the conditions tested, variables which might be expected to influence test fish mortality (second jet pump nozzle velocity, predictor, contxol uaxMlity, and number of fish tested) were not found to be significant (u50.05) factors in aertality.
Other variables which might contribute to mortality,
- namely, angled screen approach'elocity, first jet pump nozzle velocity, water temperature, and dissolved
- axygen, were not included in the double jet pump analysis since these factors were not found to he significant in System Demonstration Model studies (Stone 6
Webster 1977).
In those studies, the only variable found to be significant.. was the number af fish bypassed (a=0.-025).
Accordingly, this variable was included in the douhle jet pump analysis in two ways:
(1) as the actual number of fish which passed thrmxgh,the two jet pumps (5 tests),
and (2) as a
predictor of t~ump martality based on one~ump mortality,in the System Dea6nstration studies (11 tests).
The fact that the number of fish bypassed was not found to be significant in either analysis may he a
result of the reduced number of tests (5) available for analysis
- Fiaally, to determine whether a significant difference occurred between test aartalities (one-pump and twc~ump) and cantrol
- mrtality, an ANOVA of the three mortalities (9.04, 17.28 and 8 04 percent, respectively) was conducted.
As might he suspected hy the confidence intemrals given ahcme, the means were not.found to be significantly different.
Therefore, under the aaditicms
- tested, there is no statistical difference (ph0.95) in mrtality
,due to passage threagh one or two jet pumps relative to control fish.
However, i,t is possible to obtain an estimate of the most probable increase which might be expected to occur in a prototype installation by computing the differential mortalities (test aartality minus control mortality) of the means observed during the study program.
These values are 1
0 percent for one pump and 9.2 percent for two pumps. 't is expected that the potential for mortality associated with passage-through two jet pumps in the prototype will he lower since the diameter of the pumps will be suhstantia13.y larger than those tested during the study program.
4-3
Since the sizes of the fish tested mme the same as those comnonly impinged in Lake Ontario ~er plants~
the larger diameter of the prototype pumps will reduce the probability that fish vill enter the areas of high shear forces at the jet nozzle exit, thereby reducing the potential for injury or stress.
On the basis of the test results and the low mortalities observed, it appears that an angled screen and double jet pump transportation system offers an effective means for reducing impingement at the Unit No.
6 Oswego Steam Station.
The proposed prototype system is described in Section 5
SECTION 5 DESCRIPTION OF PROT(ÃVYPE The Unit No.
6 screenwell and associated fish guidance and transportation systans are shown in Figures 51, 5-2, and 5-3.
It will consist of a primary and secondary screenwell and two jet pumps.
There will he two screenbays in the primary sczeenwell, each 17 feet wide with a water column depth that varies from 24 to 33 feet.
Fish entering the screenwell will pass through trash racks with 3-inch clear spacings
~
and be guided by angled flush-munted, traveling water screens into a 6-inch-wide bypass.
Each hay will be sized to accept three 10-foot-wide traveling screens separated by 3foot 3-inch-wide, an crete piers.
Initially, each hay will be equipped with two screens and the third opening will be blocked off with stop gates for a possible future screen.
The screens will be angled 25 degrees to the direction of flow with their downstream ends converging hut separated by a 5-foot-wide pier.
Two dzy-pit circulating water pumps will draw the flow thzough the screenwell.
Each pump will take its suction from a
10 5-foot-by10 5-foot opening located in the south wall of the screenwell approximately 20 feet downstream fran the bypass.
Each pump suction opening will he ca the centerline of a
'creenbay and level with the screenwell floor.
The location and proximity of these pump suctions will cause a skewed vertical velocity distribution at the traveling water screens with a
higher velocity at the lower section of the screens Also, due to the blockage of the third screen opening and the location of the
- pump, a non-unifozm velocity distribution would exist along the face of the screens.
The bypass suction flow is
- designed, such that the ratio of the average snxenwell approach velocity to the average bypass entrance velocity is 1:1.
Each 6inch-wide bypass slot extends the full depth of the water column.
The two slots converge in the horizontal plane while at the same time converging in the vertical plane at a 45-degree angle to two 24-inch-diameter pipes.
The two pipes manifold into a
single 32-inch-diameter pipe which becomes the suction pipe of the primary peripheral jet pump The arcing tube of the primary jet pump is 36 inches in
- diameter, resulting in an area ratio of driving nozzle to amcing tube of 0 18.
The primary jet pump discharges to a 5foot S-inch-wide, secandazy fish diversion bay within the screenwell The secondazy bay contains one angled traveling water screen identical 'n design to the main screens except for the depth of the bay.
The water column depth in the secondary bay varies from 8 feet to 15 feeto
- The majority of the water discharged from the primary pump flows through the secondary screen and is returned to the sczeenwell through a 42-inch-diameter pipe The fish are guided by the secondazy screen into another 6-inch-wide bypass slot The secondary bypass slot converges in the vertical plane
. to an 5-1
~r
4'.
TII'.
DRIVINGFLOW SUPPI.Y PIPE FROM C,W. PUMPS
~dg
'4
~
~ 1,'f
~ 1 SERVICE WTR PUMP BAY d
do" dpi PRIMARY JET PUMP
~ORIVIHG FLOW INLET 36" I
RLMARY JET PUMP BAY RIFE GATE VALVE P ~
~l ed,>4 EL.23I 0
,'d~
I.:b" o,d'ECONDARY FIB
. <.d.F~
.'IVERSION YIPS 10 SECONDARY FISH DIVERSION BASIN KNIFE GATE VALVE 20
~ SECONDARY JET PUMP DRIVING FLOW INLET SECOHDARY JET PUMP BAY 30 FISH RETURN PIPE PUMP DISCHARGE SLUICE GATE 32 SUCTION PIPE
- P a.
'Ps.
'd. p
'D SLUCE GATE STOP GATE
'h <.
~ g'V, 1
~
CIRCULATING WATER PUMP g.ao
à ACCESS PORT 0;
d 4gq "4
T'RIMARY FISH S
DIVERSION DUCT 6"BYPASS(TYP) g,T, TRAVELINGISCREENS EL.2II -0 TRASH RACK
~JF'd
~ Yd'f'0 MANHOL INTAKE TUNNEL PUMP DISCNARGE SLUICE GATE II TRAVELING SCREENS
'A ~
D ~ 1' STOP GATE
, d.PP, 1
TRASH RACK V ~ d
~
S LUICE G ATE UITAKE SHAF'T I
I 4.4
'A
.b'
~ A t'IRCULATING
'WATER PUMP J
g
~ 1 $..
~ p SCALE-FEET FIGURE 5-I PLAN OF SCREENWELL LAYOUT UNIT NO.6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION.
0
)~
ag SA SS SC SO SF SH TRASH RAKE HOsSt PLATE EL. 25S 0 SKRVICK WTR PUMP SAY sLvcE GATE opERatoR SP.6I SP'62 I
I TRAYKLINGwtR.
SCREEN HEADSSSAF T ItYP)
SVCE. WTR.
STRAINER SP.63 REFU5E TROUGH HOtPKR
~
~
~ l I
~
STORED STOP GA'ZES EL. 258'0
- PLATE, EL 240'0 sl SCREEN PUMP KL WASH 235'0~
0'0 EL 23 L
U fc:
s I
I~si/i I/ / //
~
Cpt~
sss L
TURNING l L ~VANES
~9'6 CCES PORT STOP GAZE STORAGE SLOTS s
I ss 24 WPFS I
ItYP) l26a I26 5LUlCE GAZE ass s) FOOTS H
I)
I)
STOP GATE ls.
SLOT I[I EL244'0 PRI MARYsF IS DIVERSION DUCT
,-)I EL 233 ~ Ilg II II z
I)
II II O
)I
~s II
- -J(
RRIL0$ I EL I
II
,Il HA IL' asz sss sa I
FUTURETWS GUIDE BULKHEAD Q EL 2I3 -52 ITYP)
I sJ s
~
CATCH g
BASIN TRASH RACK TRASsl RAKK sIII I
I I l
II I L
IIIIIIIII)I) 1)I)
II)
I)IIII II IIIIII Is IIIIII)I)
STOP GATE STORAGE SLOTS STOP GATE SLOT I)II I)IIII IIIIII
)I)IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIlIIII Dl INTAKE SHAFt qr I~)STOP GATE SLOt
)II GRADE EL. 253.6 MAX LAKE LEVEL EL 248.05'IN LAKE LEVEL EL 243.07 PRIMARY SCREENWELL ZWS 60 HEADSHAFT EL. 258 0 C EL 243.0 36 W OF l2l s
,o+
snye
~
\\
CV s'!
t'Cs 'O I
s
~
ZA "a
L<3050 32.W PFS IRI
~ a I
~ ~
s g 6
~36 VVF.5A-GO 36 RUBBER EXP. JOINt IREJ.33)
.0.
36 RUBBER EXP. JOINT 36 KNIFE GATE VALVE f TESt CONNITYP)
~ ~ ~
~
~
I 36.W PFD IRI DFFUSER NOZZLK FW EL 224 '0 22 WALLTHIMBLE 18 W DF IRI EL.24650 SLEL 248 6
/
as a ssass sss IS VVF.5A4)0i RE J-32 II,
~ ~i Ys '0, SECONDARY FISH DIVERSION DUCT FISH DIVERSION TRAVELING,SCREEN STOP GATE SLOZ O
EL, 230 30+
.~
PRIMARY FISH OEFUSER NOZZLE FOOTSHAF EL 230.SARI EL 228 0
4 2.W. OFR. I R I 23 I.0 42 VVF 5A GO 42 EXP JT 22 WALLTHIMBLE g VOT-206 ZEST ITYP)
RO-W.SFD IRI 20 RUBBER EXP JOUIT 20 KNIFE GATE VALVE 30.W SFO I s6EL 23556 30 a20 REO.
EL 228LO FIGURE 5-2 PROFILE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCREENWELLS UNIT NO 6.-OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION STONE S WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION SECONDARY SCREENWELL
)
l
OFFSHORE INTAKE 0 FISH OISCHARGE NOZZLE INTAKE TUNNEL R SCREENWELI.
33424 -20
'Po o.
3I7.62 KEY PLAN CIRC WATER INTAKE TUNNEL NO SCALE BOTTOM OF LAKE EL 22I.C'+
>42 Q EL 226-0 FISH DISCHARGE NOZZLE INTAKE SHAFT WP EL I21-0 FISH RETURN SHAFT 30 PIPE WP EL l3I -6 WP EL II3-0 EL I0 I.B SLOPE BOTTOM INTAKE TUNNEL 0
3 I0 IS SCALE -FEET FIGURE 5.3 FISH RETURN PIPE UNIT NO. 6 OSWEGO STEAM STATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
(
0
18-inctx-diameter pipe At the secondary jet
- pump, this 18-inaa-diameter pipe reduces to a 17-inc2Wiameter suction pipe.
The mixing tube of the secondary pump is 20 inches in diameter, yielding an area ratio of drying nozzle to mhcixxg tube of 0.22.
The ratio of the average secondary bay approach velocity to the average secondary bypass velocity varies fram 1:1 to 1:1.3.
The secondary jet pump discharges into a 30-indWiameter discharge pipe ~sledded in the roof of the intake tuxxxxel for a distance of apprmcimately 1,000 feet where it rises vertically and terminates as a horizontal discharge at the lake
- bottom, as shown in Figure 5-3 Both jet pumps are designed to operate with a nozzle velocity between '30 and 00 fps and take their driving flow from the circulating water pumps The prixnary pump discharges from 60 to 70 cfs to the secondary bay.
The secondary pump discharges from 20 to 25 cfs to the lake at a transpart velocity af 0.6 to 5 2 fps A
comparison of the geometric and hydxmuli,c parameters between the mxiel and the prototype for narmal and future modes of operation is given in Table 5-1.
Utilizing the model test parameters in comparison to the prototype parameters of Unit No. 6 Oswego Steam Station fish diversion system g it appears that an ang 1ed screen and a doub 1e jet pump transportation system offers an effective means for reducing fish impingement 5-2
C' I
C
\\
('
f.
L.
KQKZ 5-1 COMPARXSON OF PROTOTYPE AND MODEL P2QUQIETERS UNIT NO 6 OSWEGO STEAM STATXON NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION STONE $ WEBSTER ENGINZZRZNG CORPORATION Parameter Fish species Protot e
Smelt, alewife (key species)
Mel Alewife Water temperature, 4F Water quality 35-75 60-75 as natura1ly occurring as naturally in Lake Ontario occurring at ARL Fi.sh transport frcxn lake to screenwell Tempering in screenwell during winter Screenwell Approach velocity, fps Yes Yes 0
8 to 1 5 No No 0
Bypass width, ft 0 5 0 5 Bypass velocity, fps 0.8 to 1.5 1
4 to 2 0 Depth, ft.
Number of screens per bay Screen length, ft Screen angle Trash First Jet Pump Suction velocity, Vsi fps 23 to 30 2 or 3 10 25 deg Yes 4.6 to 4.8 12 25 deg 6
0 to 8.7 Mixing tube velocity, 9 to 10 Vd, fps 10" 2 to 14 4
1 of 3
I II I
'T g
I
TABLE 5-1 CONTID Prot Nozzle velocity, Vn, 30 to 40
,fps Pressure rise, Pd-Ps, 3.5 to 5.5 ft Mixing Cube diameter, 36 inn Mode1 35 to 45 4 to 7 Area ratio, R Secondary Bay Entrance
'Approach velocity, fps Bypass wi.dth, ft Bypass velocity, fps Depth, ft Number of screens Screen length, ft
,Screen angle Second Jet Pump Suction velocity, Vsi fps Mixing tube velocity, Vd, fps Nozzle velocity, Vni fps'ressure rise, Pd-Ps i ft Mixing Cube diameter, in.
Area ratio, R
0 2 5Mt~de bay 08to16 0.5 0
8 to I 7 8to 15 10 25 deg 4
8 to 5 3 10 6 Co 12 30 to 40 4.5 to 7.5 20 0 2 0 2 1.4 to 2.0 0 5 0
6 Co 0 7 12 10 deg 83to103 12.5 to 15.0 35 to 44 35to5 0 2 2 of 3
4 r
r
(
I L
TABLE 5-1 CONTID Parameter Transport Pipe Velocity, fps Length, ft
- Diameter, in.
Material Pressure
- changes, psi Number of bends Exit of Fish Location Velocity, fps 4.6 to 5.2 1,300 30 Steel S fiber glass 8 to 33 Open body 4.6 to 5.2 Model 7
0 180 10 PVC Ito3 Collection area 12 5 to 15 3 of 3
r 7
t" I
1
(
L l
lL.
REFERENCES CXTED Stone S
Webster Engineering Corp~
1975 Suaanary repoxt. of studies to alleviate potential fish entrapment problems at Lake Ontario power.plant. intakes, May 1973 December
'l974.
Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Fehraaxy 1975) 1976a First interim alleviate poteritial fish entrapment power plant intake s Pxepared Corporation and Rochester Gas (April 1976) progress report,, studies to problems at Lake Ontario fox Niagaxa Mohawk Powex S
Electric Coxporation 1976b Final
- report, studies to alleviate fish entrapment problems at power plant cooling water intake s Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power ~xmtion and Rochester Gas S
Electric Corporation (November 1976).
1977 Final report,,
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Sta.-Qnit 2, studies to alleviate potential fish entrapment problems.
Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (May 1977)
~ ~
I 1
mar WJ s%
~)
~
I
APPENDIX DOUBLE JET PUMP FISH TRANSPORT SYSTEM
/
/
I r
f I
l tc I
DOUBLE JET PUMP FISH TRANSPORT SYSTEM NIAGARAMOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION STONE Ec WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Dean K. White Johannes Larsen George E. Hecker, Director ALDEN RESEARCH LABORATORIES WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE HOLDEN, MASSACHUSETTS 01520 May, 1977
f r
I
'i J
ABSTRACT A fish diversion and transportation system has been incorporated in the design of the Unit 6 screenwell at the Oswego Steam Station.
To evaluate the efficiency of the system, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation contracted Stone 5 Webster Engineering Corporation and the Alden Research Laboratories to model study the system.
The existing system demonstration model, incorporating an angled fish diversion
- screen, a transport pipe, and a 12 inch jet pump, was expanded to include a secondary angled screen and bypass leading to a 4 inch jet'pump.
The double jet pump transport system was tested with alewives to evaluate screen efficiency and subsequent fish survival. Biological testing results are discussed in the main portion of this report.
This appendix describes the system model, and contains hydraulic data obtained during biological testing,
r I
I e'
=
l I
I I
II
(
l
)i I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE.OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF TEST FACILITY Primary Bypass Transport Pipe
'First Stage Jet Pump Secondary Bypass Second Stage Jet Pump INSTRUMENTATIONAND TEST PROCEDURE P~ae Ne.
2 2
2 2'eneral Pressure Measurements Velocity and Flow Measurements Test Procedure TEST DATA REFERENCES PHOTOGRAPHS FIGURES 3
3 3
ll.
i, I"
I l.
f' l
(
r I
I
INTRODUCTION 4
The removal of fish from cooling water flow, and the return of these fish to their natural erivironment, has been investigated in previous model studies at ARL.
Each model study has yielded specific information related to possible stress upon the fish induced by the particular device tested.
In this study, devices were combined to form a complete fish diversion, bypass and return system as required for a specific application; The results of this test program, and previous studies, willform the basis for evaluation of the fish transport capabilities of a double jet pump system as it would be applied to the Oswego Steam Station, Unit 6 screenwell structure.
Results from biological testing of this model are presented in the main body of this report.
This appendix includes a description of the model and the associated instrumentation and presents hydraulic data obtained during testing.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST FACILITY To simulate the diversion and transport system proposed for'he Oswego Steam Station, Unit 6 scr'eenwell structure, the existing System Demonstration model
'Reference
- 1) was modified by the addition of a 4 inch peripheral jet pump.
The two jet pumps, operating i'eries, simulated the proposed fish transport system.
Table 1 shows the prototype design parameters, and the corresponding model parameters tested.
Figure 1 shows the model arrangement with the primary angled screen and bypass,'ransport pipe, first stage jet pump, and the secondary angled screen and bypass, and second stage jet pump.
Two large fish collection areas contained the discharge from each jet pump.
The individual parts of the system have been described in detail in previous reports:
the primary screenwell and fish bypass, Figure 2 and Photograph 1, were described in Reference 2, the transport system, with the secondary screen and the second stage jet pump were discussed in References 1 and 3, respectively.
Changes which were made to the system for this study are given below:
The bypass roof angle was changed from 28 to 45 for this study in an attempt to simulate the prototype bypass section.
The resulting bypass geometry is shown in Figure 3. The model bypass roof geometry differed from the prototype in that the inclination of the roof started further downstream from the beginning of the bypass than in the prototype.
This was 'done for ease of model modiQcation.
The transport pipe was modified by lowering the elevated section of the pipe four feet to reduce the tendancy for air leakage at the joints.
First Sta e Jet Pum The first stage jet pump as described in Reference 1, was not altered.
The pump is shown in Photograph 2.
The driving flow was provided by two twelve inch supply pumps.
Secondar 3
ass The secondary bypass was Gtted with a 90 curved transition leading from the secondary angled screen to the second stage jet pump.
Second Sta e Jet Pum The second stage jet pump, Photograph 3, as described in Reference 3, was located immediately downstream of the transition from the secondary bypass.
The pump discharged into fish collection area number 2, as shown in Figure l.
INSTRUMENTATIONAND TEST PROCEDURE General
~
g Instrumentation was provided to monitor the operation of the transport system.
Data obtained were used to check the operation of the two jet pumps against their operating curves.
Pressure Measurements S
The piezometric heads were measured on manometers using the jet pump centerlines as datum.
Figure 4 shows the location of the various piezometer taps.
Velocit and Flow Measurements Velocities were measured across the approach channel ten feet upstream of the primary angled screen and in the bypass entrance with a propeller type current meter.
Flow rates in the two supply lines for the 12" jet pump were measured by 12" x 8" Venturi meters.
The flow rate to the 4" jet pump was metered by an orifice plate installed in.the pipe supplying the driving flow. Both venturi meters and the orifice section were calibrated before being installed in the model.
Suction flow for the 12" jet pump was metered by use of an elbow meter which was calibrated in place.
The mixing tube flow in the 4" jet pump was calculated from a velocity profile obtained by a pitot meter.
The suction flow was calculated as the difference between the mixing tube flow and the driving flow.
Test Procedure Fish test procedure is discussed in the main portion of this report.
The hydraulic test procedure was governed by the Quality Assurance Program to assure consistency and accuracy of. the acquired data.
This program specified meter calibration procedures, dimensional checks of the model, data retrieval procedures and evaluation of the acquired data.
The test basin was filled and the approach low started.
The driving flows to the two jet pumps were set to establish predetermined jet nozzle velocities.
When the system was stabilized, pressure data were obtained at the locations shown on Figure 4.
The measurements of approach and bypass;.locities of the primary angled screen were obtained before and after each test.
Driving flows were moni-tored hourly during the entire test.
TEST DATA Table 1 presents operating conditions for the 10 tests performed.
Tests 1 through 5
were biological tests with alewives, and tests 1H through 5H were hydraulic tests to verify the velocity in the system.
A comparison of pressure and flow data for each pump to previously obtained data are show'n in Figure 5.
The data indicated thatboth pumps were seemingly less efficient than during previous testing.
Since the primary purpose of this testing was biological, elbow meters and pitometer traverse were used to obtain suction and discharge flow rates.
These measurement procedures were less accurate than previous flow measurement procedures used during hydraulic performance testing.
e Velocity distribution in the screenwell is shown in Figure 6.
The isovels shown are based on the average of the normalized point velocities in tests 1 through 5.
The distribution shows good agreement with previously obtained data (Reference 2).
The absolute approach velocity at the traverse location was maintained at approximately one foot per second for all biological tests.
A velocity traverse was taken along the upstream face of the screen.
The traverse shown in Figure 7 was obtained with an approach velocity of 0. 73 feet per second and a bypass velocity of 1. 08 feet per second.
The isovels indicate a uniform velocity distribution slightly higher at the bypass end of the screen.
The bypass velocities varied according to the transport pipe flows as governed by the nozzle velocities in the primary jet pump.
Bypass velocities were obtained in two traverse locations as s'bown in Figure 3.
The normalized velocity distribution at the bypass entrance is shown in Figure 8.
The fat profile is due to the con-tracting flow as it enters the bypass channel.
The normalized velocity'distribution at the 45 bypass roof shown in Figure 9 is a more fully developed profile of the flow moving toward the pipe inlet.
REFERENCES 1.
Screenwell Fish Guidance and Transport Systems Demonstration, ARL Report, April, 1977.
2.
Fish Diversion Studies for Screenwell Structures, Angled Screen, ARL Report December 1975.
3.
Peripheral'et Pump Study, ARL Report, December 1975.
']
0
.I i
I I
I r
'f 1
TABLE 1 TEST NUMBER ~
Screenwell Prototype 1
1H 2H 3H 4H 5H Approach Velocity Bypass Velocity Depth 0 8 -
1 5
1 03
0 97 0 98 0.8 - 1.5
1.52 2.02+
1,82 1.95 2.0+
1.63+
1.62+
1.34+
1.04+
23 30 5.58 5.56 5.45 5.42 5.43 5.53 5.85 5.55 5.50 Suction Velocity, V Mixing Tube Vel., Vd Nozzle Vel., V Pressure
- Rise, Pd Ps Second Jet Pum 4.5ll 40 7
6.17++
7.52 10.20++
12.50 34.86 39.12 4.30 5.30 8.61 7.97 8.62 14.40 13.10 14.33 44.93 40.61 44.62 6.90 5.70 6.80
.-8. 79 14.47 45.00 7.01 6.91 6.97 5.66 4.40 12.26 11.42 9.54 7.71 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 5.38 4.15 4.15 '.15 Suction Velocity, V Mixing Tube Vel.,
Vd Nozzle Vel., V Pressure Rise Pd - Ps 11 15.3 40 5
8.30++
9.51++ 10.21++.
9.46++ 10.27++ 11.20 12,53++
14.07++ 14.90++ 13.98++ 14,98++ 16.07 35.00 38.70 43.40 38.40 43.70 45.00 3.55++
4.53++
4.98++
4.48++
5.00++
5,39 9.80 8.30 7.18 6.86 14.41 12.53 10.78 9.61 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 4.88 3.55 2.71 1.87 Velocity Water Temperature Test Date 4.6 32 75 5.96 --
7.58 8.68 72.00 66.00 69.00 7/28 8/3 8/5 8.03 8.69 8.86 6.96 7.03 67.00 74.00 73.00 73.00 73.50 8/10 8/12 5.70 4.43 72.50 72.50 calculated as Average Velocity using Vs
+computed from Pump Performance
-Not measured
I I
,1 I
I l
l 0
'I I
PHOTOGRAPHS
U t
I f
I I
I 1
~'J
Photograph 1
Approach Channel to Primary Angled Screen
Photograph 2
Twelve Inch Jet Pump A
4 Ql rgb)
~r 4
Photograph 3
Four Inch Jet Pump
FIGURES
'j i
I
.l III W /
\\
f 1
, I i
I!
0,
SECOND STAGE JET PUMP DRIVING FLOW PUMP FIGuRE FISH COLLECTION AREA NO 2
BYPASS SECONDARY ANGLED SCREEN FLOW MOVABLE SCREEN HEAD TANK FISH RETENTION SCREENS MIXING TUBE~
TEST FLUME FIRST STAGE~
JET PUMP SUCTION TUBE'ISH COLLECTION AREA NO.
1
~ ~
+
~ VENTURI METERS
~Ol
+
PRIMARY ANGLED SCREEN DRIVING FLOW PUMPS BYPASS OOO O
< PUMPS SUMP FLOW FISH TRANSPORT PIPE
~
ELBOW METER MODEL'RRANGEMENT
PLAN VIEW LOCATION OF VELOCITY TRAVERSE RETURN CHANNEL TO PUMP ANGLED SCREEN 4'6" FLOW FLOW CONTROL GATE 5'-2" 12' 0" 25 APPROACH CHANNEL FLOW 5F gtt TRANSPORT PIPE FISH BYPASS FISH RETENTION SCREEN 40'-10" ANGLED SCREEN
~ I t FIGURE 3
ANGLED SCREEN 12" ELQPE BYPASS ENTRANCE 6tt 25 TRANSECT 2 TRANSECT 1
+ A 3t Ptl 45
+ Q 6'-P"
.or o.
0o
~ t
~
y
~
0 r
~
0
~ 0 ~ '0
~ ~
. Et..o' D
D +
12"
~
0
~ 0 ~
~
o
~ o PPP.
P 0 0
~
0
,PO ~
0 O
r r E
~ 0 ~
~ o o o
~
~
I 30 TRANSPORT PIPE 0 a 0
0 ~ 0 0, ~
0 ~ o
~ '
p 0 ~ p 0
0 ~
0 0
~
r 0
0
~ P 0
~
~ o ~
0 ct
~ OP po
~
P
~
0 0
~ ~ ~
0 0
~
~
~
C 0
~ 0 0 0 r
0 Op P
~
0 4t 1Ptt
~
~ 0
~
0 p~ op
~ r 0 0 rg FISH BYPASS AND CONVERGING SECTION
~
~
~ I FIGURE 4 10 11 12 FLOW 8
SCREEN. WELL
~ 7
~ VENTURI METERS
~4l
+
DRIVING FLOW PUMPS 0
g~0
+ PUMPS SUMP 1.
APPROACH CHANNEL 2.
BYPASS 3.
ELBOW METER 4.
SUCTION TUBE 5.
DRIVING FLOW 6.
DRIVING FLOW 7.
DRIVING HEAD 8.
MIXING TUBE 9.
BYPASS 10.
SUCTION TUBE 11.
DRIVING HEAD 1.2.
MIXING TUBE P IEZOMETER LOCATIONS FISH TRANSPORT~
PIPE (10")
i 3
ELBOW METER
0.8 4" JET PUMP H PRESENT STUDY
PERIPHERAL JET PUMP, REF. 3 0.8 12" JET PUMP CK PRESENT STUDY 0 SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION PUMP. REF-1 PERIPHERAL MODEL PUMP, REF. 3 0.6 0.6 0I-CL 0.4
!LD 0
IK 0.4 D
Ul CO LUK 0.2 0.2 0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 FLOW RATIO, M FLOW RATIO, M O
= SUCTION FLOW, CFS Q= DRIVING FLOW, CFS Pd TOTAL DISCHARGE FLOW HEAD MEASURED 9D DOWNSTREAM OF NOZZLE FEET P
= TOTAL SUCTION FLOW HEAD MEASURED 4D UPSTREAM OF NOZZLE FEET P
~ TOTAL NOZZLE FLOW HEAD FEET Pd-P N
n'Pd 0
M On PERFORMANCE CURVES
~
~
~ J FIGURE 6
\\
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM 1.0 0.9 0.8
~
~
NOTES:
- 1. TRAVERSE LOCATION SHOWN IN FIGURE 2
- 2. ISOVELS BASED ON NORMALIZED VELOCITY V/7 AVERAGED FOR TESTS 1
THROUGH 5
NORMALIZED ISOVEL PLOT FOR APPROACH CHANNEL (AVERAGE OF TESTS 1-5)
BYPASS END LOOKING DOWNSTREAM 1.3 1.2
~
t 1.0 0.9 0.8
~
V APPROACH ~ 0.73 FPS V BYPASS ~ 1.08 FPS NORMALIZED VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION ALONG FACE OF ANGLE SCREEN AC
FIGURE 8 1.0 B ~
0.6 C
d/0 0
0.4 0.2 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 V/V
~
NOTE:
TRANSECT LOCATION SHOWN IN FIGURE 3
BYPASS VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION TRANSECT 1
FIGURE 9 1.0 0.8 0.6
~
C 0.4
'.2 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 v/0 BYPASS VELOCITY DISTR IBUTION TRANSECT 2
k
- j I'
1 IJ
'1 f
J H
l l~