Text

Model Testing of Containment Sump ECCS Recirculation Intakes, Prepared for Bechtel Power Co & Util
	ML19318C979
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/30/1980
From:	; WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES, LTD.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML19318C972	List: ML19318C970; ML19318C979;
References
	73024, NUDOCS 8007070130
	Download: ML19318C979 (92)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:L 7 i) WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. CONSUMERS POWER CO. [ MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT { UNITS I AND 2 E E MODEL TESTING [ OF CONTAINMENT SUMP [ ECCS RECIRCULATION INTAKES 9 [ [ FOR BECHTEL POWER CO. l [. [ BY (' WESTERN CANADA HYDRAU' IC LABORATORIES LTD. PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. [ -73024 APRIL,1980 [1 g oo To To I bo _ - - - - - - - - = - -

L WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. ~ L E L. T ABLE OF CONTENTS [ PAGE NO. I 1. PURPOSE OF STUDY l L 2. INTRODUCTION 2 r 3.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 3 L 4. DESCRIPTION OF CONTAINMENT SUMP AND INTAKES 6 4.1 General 6 4.2 Flow Paths and Postulated Velocities 7 5. FACTORS AFFECTING ECCS RECIRCULATION PUMP PERFORMANCE 8 [ 5.1 Regulatory Guide No. l.82 Requirements 8 5.2 Factors Cousing increased Entrance Losses 8 5.3 Factors Affecting Vortex Formation 8 6. RATIONALE FOR MODEL CONFIGURATION AND TEST PROGRAM 10 6.1 Model Scale 10 6.2 Ratonale for Model Boundcry Selection 10 6.3 Selection of Single intake and Sump for Testing 12 [ 6.4 Selection of Minimum Water Levels 14 7. TEST FACILITY 15 7.1 General 15 7.2 Intake Description 15 7.3 Screen Blockage 16 7.4 Fine Screen 16 7.5 Test Observations 17 [ 7.6 Test Measurements 17 8. TEST PROGRAM 19 { 8.1 Objectives 19 8.2 Test Conditions 20 8.2.1 Test Series 1 20 8.2.2 Test Series 11 21 8.2.3 Test Series ll1 22 b 8.3 Test Procedure 22 9. TEST RESULTS 24 { 9.1 Series i Tests 24 9.l.1 General 24

WESTERM CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. g L E PAGE NO. b 9.l.2 Intake With Only Trash Rock in Place 24 9.l.3 Intake With Blocked Trash Rock and p Groting Cage 26 L 9.2 Series 11 Tests 27 9.2.1 Intake Protected by Unblocked Trash Rock [ Only, Test 11-1 27 9.2.2 Intoke Protected by Tras' acek and Groting Cage 27 9.3 Series ill Tests 28 I 9.4 Series IV And V 28 [ 9.5 Overall Losses 29 9.S.1 Trash Rock Losses 29 9.5.2 Overall Headloss 30 9.6 Reproducibility And Accuracy 31 LIST OF SELECTED REFERENCES TABLES [ FIGURES APPENDIX A - SUPPORTIVE TESTS { APPENDIX B - ERROR IN FINE SCREEN BLOCK AGE E E E E E E E

E WESTERM CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. L. I LIST OF TABLES [ 1. TEST OBJECTIVES AND TEST PROGRAM l.1 Series l Tests [ 1.2 Series 11 Tests I.3 Series til Tests Al SUPPORTIVE FLUME TESTS E E E E E E E E E E E E 5 W

L WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. L LIST OF FIGURES [ 1. CONTAINMENT AREA UNIT I 2. LOCATION OF INTAKES { 3. TRASH RACK AND SCREENS, MODEL LAYOUT 4. GRATING CAGE S. PLAN OF TEST FACILITY 6. SECTION OF TEST FAC!LITY 7. FLOW DISTRIBUT!ON AND CONTROL 8. UNPROTECTED MODEL INTAKE 9. MODEL INTAKE WITH GRATING CAGE ( 10. ASSEMBLED TRASH RACK I 1. TRASH RACK AND SCREEN 12. VIEW SHOWING Y-STRAINER AND WATER LEVEL TRANSMilTTER 13. TWO INCH MOTORIZED VALVE 14. FOUR INCH MOTORIZED VALVE 15. SUPPORT COLUMN AND SIX INCH DRAIN 16. TRASH RACK BLOCKAGE SCHEME [ 17. BLOCKAGE CONFIGURATlONS NOT PRODUCING ADVERSE FLOW CONDITIONS 18. BLOCKAGE CONFIGURATIONS PRODUCING ADVERSE SUMP FLOW CONJITIONS, TESTS l-1,1-2, I-9 AND l-10. 19. BLOCKAGE CONFIGURATIONS PRODUCING AFDVERSE SUMP FLOW CONDITIONS, TESTS l-5,1-6 AND l-8. 20. CONFIGURATION FOR TRASHRACK BLOCKAGE TESTS E E i F L

U WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. ~ L r LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDlX A Al. TEST FACILITY IN FLUME A2. FLOW STRAIGHTENING EFFECTS OF GRATING b A3. FREE SURFACE VORTEX WITHOUT TRASH RACK AND GRATING CAGE A4. FREE SURFACE VORTEX ENTERING UNPROTECTED INTAKE [ AS. VELOCITY PROFILE EL 597.04 A6. VELOCITY PROFILE EL 596.04 A7. VELOCITY PROFILE EL 595.04 p A8. VELOCITY PROFILE EL 597.04 A9. VELOCITY PROFILE EL 596.04 A I O. VELOCITY PROFILE EL 595.04 L LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX B I" Bl. FINE SCREEN BLOCKAGE E E E E E E

L WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. s 1. PURPOSE OF STUDY [ The purpose of the hydraulic model studies wcs to demonstrate that the ECCS sumps cod trash rock assemblies of the IAidland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 [ cnd 2, would not be subject to degradating hydraulic effects and modify the design, if l necesscry, to a:sure vortex control and cceeptable !atoke head losses. E E E E E E E E E E E E

' WESTERN CANADA HYORAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 7 ( 2. INTRODUCTION ( . The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Regulatory Guide 1.79 states the position that, "A comprehensive preoperational test program on the emergency core cooling system and its components should be performed to prove assurance that ECCS will accomplish its. intended function when required". Furthermore, "the (preoperational) testing should include taking suction from the sump to verify vortex control and acceptable pressure drops across trash rock with screens and in valved suction lines". And, "the testing should verify that the available net positive suction ( head is creater than that required of accident temperature". { A satisfactory in-plant test of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant - Units i and 2 containment sumps was not feasible due to logistical problems of flooding the containment and the lock of access to the sump for observation to ensure proper vortex control. (. The alternative, as presented in this report, was to construct and test a model of the sump and intake to verify vortex control and to determine the head loss { ossociated with the trash rock, grating cage and pipe inlet, including a 22 miter bend. The remainder of the ECCS system is to be tested in situ. [ Tests for tne Midlend - Units I and 2 recirculating intakes were corried out in a 1:1 scale model of a single 24 in, diameter intoke and its containment sump and l [ associated screen-grating structure at flow rates greater than maximum postulated values and at water depths equal to the minimum postulated levels. Flow circulation, { greater than that postulated for the prototype, was induced in the containment sump crec. The contoimment geometry external to the trash rock was not modelled. [ Model tests undertaken for the Davis Besse, J.M. Farley, ANO-2 and San Onofre Nuclear Plants demonstrated the offectiveness of grating in preventing the development cf adverse flow conditions which could lead to degrading effects on pump performance. Tne of ficacy for a similar grating cage over the Midland - Units I and 2 ( recirculating intake pipes was demonstrated during these tests. { The rationale for the test program is presented in this report together with a description of the intokes, o discussion of effects which could degrade pump performance, o description of the experimental facilities, test results and conclusions.

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORA - DRIES LTD. 3 ( 3. ~

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS { 3.1- . The recirculation inlets for the Midland - Units I and 2 were tested using a 1:1 scale model of a single intake and sump. The model was tested for the following conditions: 1 (' Postulated for Plant Tested LOCA [ ' Minimum water depth above 8.05 8.05 {' the centerline, of the pipe-intoke, f f Maximum flow, gpm 6000 7619 to 8956 I Water temperature, F 227 up to 175 { intake Pipe Reynolds Number 2.37 x 10 1.20 to 3.16 x 10 0 6 Blockage of screen area, 50 50 to 95 percent [ Considerable conservatism was incorporated in the test program by imposing flow conditions in the model that were potentially more degrading on intoke performance tnan any conditions postulated for the plant. h 3.2 The results of the. tests on the single sump are applicable to all four sumps and intakes because of their similar geometry, flow rates and depths of submergence. {. The differences between the sumps are: 1. o 22 miter bend in the intoke p:pe of the north sump [- l l li. - .the pipe intake in the north sump is 6'in. nearer to the sump divider ( wall { iii. . there is less screen crea in the north sump (129 sq f t compared with 'l38 sq ft for the-south sump) which results in higher opproach velocities [q + 1

1 ~ WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 4 1 0 .iv. o 2 in, and a 4 in volve in the south sump which are not present in l the north sump v. o water level transmitter in the north sump only i iv. a ladder in the south sump only [ The model configuration tested is basically that of the north sump with the l cddition of the 2 in. and 4 in drain volves. 1 (. i Only a single sump and no containment area was modelled because: l l. both sumps experience similar flow rates and depths of submergence [ i il the trash rock acts os a flow straightener cousing flow to enter the sump at a direction perpendicular to the trosh rock [. iii. the flow distribution through the trosh rock caused by. the flow in h the containment crea would be unique and not necessarily the most adverse with respect to degrading the sump and intake performance [ iv. of the infinite number of flow distributions which may be created by trosh rock blockage, those deemed most adverse were tested [.- v. any flow' interaction between sumps must pass through the trosh rock and thus is subject to the flow straightening of the trosh rock and again represents a unique flow distribution not necessarily the {' most adverse

3.3 The tests showed that without the grating cage in place, air entraining, free surface, vortices os well as vortices originating from the sump floor and walls were possible at trash rock blockages in excess of 84% No vortices developed at any of the tested blockage conditions when the intake was protected by the grating cage.

b 3.4 ' The trosh rock loss coefficient determined at lower than prototype Reynolds - number was 6.68. This value should be viewed as conservative since loss coefficients (i w i-i......r,i

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. L 5 r are generally higher at lower Reynolds numbers. Using this loss coefficient, a trosh rock head loss of 0.009 f t would develop at the runout flow rate of 6000 gpm. 3.5 The intake loss coefficient measured with the grating cuge in place, 50% [ blockage,171 F water, and prototype Reynolds number was 0.87 and includes the loss associated with 22 miter bend. The head loss of 0.247 f t represnts the intake loss c. { 6000 gpm. 3.6 A separate series of tests designed to establish the nieon intake loss coef ficient and the 95% confidence interval gave the mean intake head loss as 0.844 1 0.036. Iu 3.7 The grating cage by itself, Figure 4, was sufficient to preclude the formation { of air-entraining vortices under circulation strengths and intake discharges larger than postulated for the plant, without taking any credit for the flow straightening of the trash rock. 3.8 The effectiveness of the grating cage in providing vortex control was I demonstrated repeatedly. E E E E E E L [ l

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD.- ,6 b-4. DESCRIPTION OF CONTAINMENT SUMPS AND INTAKES ( 4.1 General {. Each unit of the Midland plant contains a single containment sump well located on the west side of the containment building in the case of Unit I and on the east side of the containment building in the case of Unit 2, Figures I cnd 2. The sump [ well configuration of Unit 2 is a mirror image of that of Unit 1. Each sump well is divided into two independent sumps by a sump divider wall which extends from the h sump floor to the trosh rock cover. The dimensions of the independent semps are 9.91 f t by 6.49 ft in cross section and 5.83 f t in depth. [ A single 24 in, intake supplying suction for both the low pressure safety injection (LPSI) and the enntainment spray is housed in each sump, Figure 3. The suction pipe from the south sump of Unit I nos a straight run from the sump to the containment wall while the suction pipe from the north sump of Unit I contains a 22 h miter bend in the some pipe reach. [ Other items, extraneous to the function of the sump and suction intake, contained within the sumps are: [ a) 4 in. drein line and y-strainer in both sumps, Unit 1. b) 4 in. moto-ized gate volve in the south sump, Unit 1. c) 2 in. motorized gate volve in the south sump, Unit 1. d) water level instruments in the north sump Unit 1. [ e) ladder in the south sump, Unit 1. f) 6 in. pipe in the north sump, Unit 1. { g) support column. Debris is prevented from entering the intakes by a trosh rock mounted above the sumps. The top of the trash roc.<, at el 597.25 f t, is covered by 1/4 in. thick steel plate. The trosh rock grating is 2-l/4 in. by 3/16 in flat bar on 1-3/16 in. centers. A ( coarse screen with 3/8 in, square open area formed from 0.12 in. wire and a fine 16 mesh screen formed from 0.023 in. ~ wire are separately supported by the grating using { strop bars. The total open area per sump is 90.89 sq. f t. [

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 7 [ A grating cage of i-l/4 in. by 3/16 in. flat bars on 1-3/16 in, centers, Figure 4, will be placed over each intake. The cesign flow rate for each intake is 4450 gam at normal operating conditions. The run out flow rate is 6000 gpm. The maximum expected temperature of the water is 227 F and the minimum expected water level is el 597.55 f t. 4.2 Flow Paths and Postulated Velocities [ There are five approach flow paths to the sump, A,B,C,D, and E on Figure 1. The maximum containment flow velocity of 0.5 fps occurs in approach path A. Based on the opcn crea of the trash rock, the overage cpproach veloc.ity to the sumps is 0.15 fps at the run out aischarge of 6000 gpm. Similarly, the average I grating cage velocity is 0.27 fps at run out. r E E E E E E E l

L WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 8 b. 5. FACTORS AFFECTING ECCS RECIRCULATION PUMP PERFORMANCE [ 5.1 Regulatory Guide No. l.82 Requirements Regulatory Guide 1.82 states the position that " Pump intake locations in the { sump should be carefully considered to prevent degrading effects, such as vortexing, on the pump performance". Two degrading actions are possible; ingestion of air ond/or intoke entrance losses which con lead to the available NPSH of the pumps being less than required. 5.2 Foctors Cousing increased Entrance Losses l l Intoke head losses are normally accounted for in the design of a pumping system by calculating the entrance loss based on published intake loss coefficients for o particular intake configuration. Such coefficients are normally based upon measure-ments taken with near ideal approach flow conditions. [ Intake head losses may be incr-osed <a Sve design values by adverse flow { conditions in the immediate vicinity of f itc.~.e, resulting in: a. increased opproach velocities, b. osymmetric approach flow, c. separated flow, [ d. strong circulation { The Midland - Units I and 2 intoke velocities will be low, being 3.17 fps at normal operating conditions and 4.3 fps for the run out flow of 6000 US gpm. Intoke losses in the recirculating systems will be small relative to the total head losses due to pipe length, bends, and volves on the smtion side of the pumps. 5.3 Factors Affecting Vortex Formation { Strong circulation in the approach flow con lead to vortex formation at the intoke with a marked reduction in flow and possibly air ingestion into the intake. E Studies of vortex formation have been conducted by several investigators, see list of selected references. The majority present test results os functions of: K, the

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. ( intoke head loss coef ficient; ' the depth of water over the intoke; the circulation number of the flow opproaching the intake; the Reynolds Number; some combination h of the above parameters. {- The performance of on intake, as represented by the heodloss coefficient K, is usually described (Anwar (1968), Amphlett (1976), Chong (1976) os: T l K = f (local geometry, rmax,R, . W) R where: ( Local Geometry = f (D, h, b) R = Radial Reynolds No. = E R = Circulation No. = D r VD [. p14 9 W = Weber No. = O* h g ] = r dius of the tank (or sump in which the intake is located or 1 rniox maximum radius of circulation in the vicinity of the intake) D = intake diameter [ h = depth of submergence of intake b = height of intake above sump floor ( 0 = discharge r = circulation strength = 2n V,r { V, = tangential velocity l r = radial distance v = kinematic viscosity of water .p . density of water o surface tension of water [ Work by Dagget and Keulegon (1974) and others have shown that for high { radial Reynolds number (RR >.10b and moderate values of circulation (r N 2), typical operating ranges for the Midiond - Units I and 2 recirculation intakes. the ef fects of surface tension and viscosity are relatively small, i.e. W and R [ ' " I R important. In this case, the intake performance, and hence the formation of vortices, is a function of three parameters: the local geometry, the maximum circulation b radios, and the strength of circulation of the approaching flow. {- These foch iare discussed in the following section and were accounted for in the test program and procedure for the Midland - Units I and 2 recirculation intake ~ . tests. L

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD-10 h 6. RATIONALE FOR MODEL CONFIGURATION AND TEST PROGRAM { 6.1 Model Scale it had been found in previous studies for the Davis Besse Nuclear Generating Station that the vortex formation process cannot be readily modelled at scales below 1:1. b { I A 1:1 model using water of up to 180 F was selected for this study. The 1:1 j { model was chosen to avoid scale effects in modelling vortex flows. The high water temperature of 180 was required to reduce the vlscosity so that prototype Reynolds numbers could be achieved at reasonoble flowrotes. This is particularly important relative to predictably modelling the effects of the trash rock, grating cage, and trash rock blockage on the flow to the intake and measuring the prototype trash rock and intake head losses. Prototype water temperatures could not be achieved without pressurizing the test facility ced are not required providing prototype Reynolds ( numbers are attained. 6.2 { Rationale for Model Boundary Selection in section 5.2, the factors offecting head loss were discussed. Intake head losses are mainly a function of circulation and non uniform flow in the vicinity of the intoke. Thus to successfully model intake losses, the for field conditions must be ( duplicated poly so for os they influence the near field flow. { Tests on ECCS sumps for the J.M. Farley - Unit 2, Arkansas Nuclear One-Urit 2 and San Onofre - Units 2 and 3 generating stations indicated that the trash roc' and standard deviation of error of the results achieved in the intake loss measurements. [ iv.) Document in a program of supportive tests described in Appendix A the effectiveness of a single layer of trash rock grating in: removing angular momemtum in the approach flow present a. 'in the form of swirls and eddies, [ b, cousing the flow to exit of right angles to the grcting irrespective of the angle of the opproach flow. [ v.) Documenting at full scale, in a prcyo n of supportive tests described in Appendix A, the effectiveness of the grating cage by

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. [ [- itself over the intake in straightening the approach flow and removing imposed ongularity or circulation which without the ( grating cage led to on air-entraining vortex. { 8.2 ' Test Conditions The main test program to examine flow conditions of the intake and to [.- determine loss coefficients for the trosh rock'ond for the combination of grating coge, intoke and 22 rniter bend was carried out in three test series,1,11 and 111. The ( primary objectives of each series are listed in Tobles 1.1,1.2 ond 1.3. { Minimum water levels were employed in all tests os discussed in section 6.4. Supportive tests listed in Table Al and described in Appendix A, were carried out to [ demonstrate the vortex elimination and flow straightening capabilities of both the trash rock grating, Test Series IV, and of the grating coge, Test Series V. F t 8.2.1 Test Series I { With the grating cage removed, vcrious trosh rock blockages were imposed. -This was accomplished by dividing the open trash rock crea into 8 segments, Figure 16. Various blockage panels were fixed over the segments thus promoting a range of f 8ow distributions entering the near vicinity of the intake. The blockage configuraticas were altered until those which produced air entraining or internal vortices were identified. All tests were performed at the minimum water level and intake discharges up to 8900 gpm. [ The b!ockage configurations tested 'cre shown in Figures 17,18 and 19. The { blockages of Figure 17 were hydraulically benign with respect to vortices while 'those of Figures 18 and 19 produce some sort of vortex action when the grating cage was not in place. The blockcge configurations con also be correlated with approach flow ( conditions in the containment area. There are five major flow paths, identified in Figure 2 as A, B, C, D and E. The following table idientifies simulated containment { flow conditions in these tests: [

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 21 h A. NORTH SUMP OPERATING ONLY [- Maior Flow Path Blockage Configuration Test A BL-1-7,BL-I-8 l-7,1-8 6 BL-1-5,BL-l-6,BL-l-7 l-5,1-6,1-7,1-15.1-26,1-27 C BL-l-3,BL-t-4 1-3,1-4 [ D BL-l-2 1-2,1-14,1-21,1-22,1-23 E BL-l-9,BL-I-10 1-9,1-10,1-24,1-25 [ AE BL-l-1,BL-l-1 I l-1,1-17,1-18,1-19,1-20 AD BL-t-l I l-17,1-18,1-19,1-20 8. SOUTH SUMP OPERATING ONLY [ Malor Flow Path Blockage Configuration Test [ A BL-1-5,BL-i-6,BL-l-7, I-5,1-6,1-7,1-8,1-15,1-26, l BL-l-8 l-27 { B BL-l-7,BL-l-8 l-7,1-8 O BL-l-9,BL-I-10 1-9,1-10,1-24,1-25 E BL-l-2,BL-l-9,BL-1-10 1-2,1-9,1-10,1-14,1-21,1-23 [ AE BL-l-1,BL-l-l I l-1,1-17,1-18,1-19,1-20 [ These tests simulate severe containment flow conditions in that the trash rock sees the majority of the flow from the paths identified. The ef fectiveness of the grating cage in suppressing internal vortices produced by the above selected blockage conditions was tested at temperatures of cpproximately 175 F, at augmented design discharges sufficient to produce prototype Reynolds numbers in the model, and at augmented discharges to demonstrate the b conservatism of the design. [ 8.2.2 Test Series 11 Flow conditions of the intake were examined and loss coefficients were {. . determined at minimum postulated water levels and a temperature of opproximately { -.

WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. g 175 F, with the unblocked trosh rock, with the grating coge in place, and with five rationally determined 50 percent trash rock blockage conditions, Figure 20. The 50 ( percent trosh rock blockages represented conditions produced by: { debris which is uniformly distributed throughout the depth of the o. water column, b. floating debris, ( c. non-buoyant debris, 1 { d. o combination of floating and non-buoyant debris which is directed l of a particular location on the trosh rock by the approach flow. [- t Discharges were augmented above prototype flows to produce pipe Reynolds I 6 numbers equivalent to or greater than that of 2.73 x 10 occurring at a single intoke b discharge of 6000 USgpm in prototype. [. 8.2.3 Test Series ill Reproducibility in the test results was assessed by the determination of the standard deviation and confidence limits for the loss coefficients obtained from a series of 20 tests corried out at 50 percent blockage, configuration BL-il-1 of Figure [ 20, at discharges giving prototype Reynolds numbers and at minimum postulated water levels, Table 1.3. For each test the pump was shut down and restarted between [ measurements. Also, the piezometers were checked for zero and the monometers were bled. [ 8.3 Test Procedure i The procedure used in setting flows in the model during the main test Series I,11 and 111 was os follows: [ The relevant sump elements such as trash rock, blockage { configuration and, grating cage were placed in position. The water in the tank was heated to' the desired temperature. The pumps were started, {.

'.tNESTERN CANADA HYDRAOLIC LABORATORIES L1D 23 r. U monometers and piezorneters bled, and the model intake flow set using control gate volves and pressure readings taken acrcss Orifice meters No.1 ( and 2, Figure. 7. Flow was allowed to stabilize before the required measurements were taken from the pipe piezometer tops and flow { observations were made and recorded. The~ intake loss coefficient was calculated from the piezometer readings using the following equation: 2 2-8 -h -V /2g H Intake Loss Coefficient K= f 2 { V /2g where K = loss coefficient including intake and 22 miter b bend. {- H = difference in piezometric head between top 2, 2-8 located in the sump and top 8, located 18.26 pipe diameters downstream of the intake pipe { entrance, f t. V = velocity of flow in pipe, fps. ( h = pipe friction loss from intoke entrance to top 8, f based on a friction factor of f = 0.0106, {' obtained from Moody diagram for smooth pipe and a Reynolds number of 2.73 x 10, and a length of 18.26 pipe diameters. E [ E

' WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 24 h 9. TEST RESULTS { 9.1 Series i Tests 9.l.1 General The objective of Test Series I was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the r~ - l [~ .; rating coge in suppressing vortices by determining several trash rock blockage conditions that induced vortex formation in the sump and then by showing that the { vortices were eliminated through installation of the grating coge. With the grating cage removed from the sump, experimental blockage conditions were imposed on the trash rock. Blockage was achieved using metal plates placed arour.d the periphery of the trash rock, Figure 16. Velocities and flow [. distributions through the trash rock were effected by the blockages, producing free surface and internal vortices during some blockage configurations and flow rates. The { grating cage was then installed and observations recorded for the identical conditions which prevously had produced free surface and internal vortices. 7.i.2 Intoke With On'f Trash Rock In Place initial experimentation showed that vortices cocid only be produced in the sump when blockages were imposed which were in excess of 85 percent of the trash ( rock crea. Eleven experimentally determined blockage configurations as shown in Figures 17,18 and 19, were documented. Vortices were observed in 70 percent of the tests conducted at blockage conditions in excess of 84 percent. Air entraining vortices which entered the intake were observed in several tests where a free surface formed under the trash rock top. The air to support the free surface was introduced to the trash rock by: surface turbulence entraining air bubbles into the trash rock flow, a. b. air entraining, free surface vortices breaking up of the trash rock i with the air forming small bubbles which were subsequently corried into the sump.

y WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. g in several cases where no free surface formed within the trash rock, non-air - entraining. vortices originating from the floor or wall of the sump were observed to enter the intake. { The results of Series I cre tabulated in Table 1.1. c. Floor Vortex Floor vortices were observed in tests 1-1, I-9 and 1-10 at ( blockages of 85.3 percent, 90.7 percent and 85.3 percent {~ respectively. The consistent feature in all three tests was that the open areas were at the ends of the trash rock, segments 5,6, 7 or 8, Figure 18. A vapour core appeared in tests I-9 and 1-10 which were at slightly higher temperatures than test 1-1. [ b. Wall Vortex For the 91.9 percent blockage condition 1-2 of Figure 18, { on air-entraining vortex originated at the west sump wall and entered the intake. The air source was bubbles in the mean flow and [. these bubbles also created a free surface within the trosh rock. c. Free Surface Vortex [ Shortly offer pump startup, on air-entraining vortex { formed from o free surface within the trash r N for the 92.4 percent blockage condition of test I-5, Figure 19. This vortex was short lived but appeared twice more before disappearing for the duration of the test. The core diameter was smaller on each successive occurrence. A similar but persistent air-entraining vortex formed in test I-8, Figure 19. The core was a maximum of 3/8 in. in diameter, diminishing to just a thread at the intake. h in test I-6, small vortices formed drawing air down to the { trash rock. These vortices did not penetrate the trash rock but . broke up into bubbles which.were then entrained in the main flow. h .y

C-WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. I A free surface was created inside the trash rock with the result that a stable air-entraining vortex formed. c [- .The trash rock ~headioss increases significantly at high { . trash rock blockages. -It.is probable that the major component of the trash rock head loss.is due to the fine screen. A comparison of the trash rock headlo'ss between Series 11 (see Table 1.2) which was [.- performed without the fine screen and Series I gives some experimental verification of this conjecture. Wieghart (1953) cnd (- Cornell (1958) found that screen loss coefficients are independent of - Reynolds number ' of sufficiently large Reynolds number. The ~ {- relationship between the headioss and percentage of trosh rock blockage is therefore: [ H l I-2 W "I - % blockage-2 (j ~ 100 ~ (. The trosh rock beadloss at 90 percent blockage con be expected to be o l factor of 25 larger than at a trash rock blockage of 50' percent. I {'

~~9. l.3 -~~
Intake With Blocked Trash Rock And Groting Cage Installation of the-. grating cage over the intake completely eliminated all internal vortices previously generated by the trosh rock blockages of Figures 18 and ( 19, and flow conditions discussed in Section 9.l.2. ' No vortices or circulation which could lead to a' vortex were observed within the grating cage for any of the blockage { conditions : tested. at dischorges up to - 8900 USgpm, water temperature of' ~ opproximately 175 and water surface elevation of approximately el 597.55 ft. IThe grating coge was on effective and positive means of eliminating internal T vortices. [.. ( r 't --a
y WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. {~ 9.2 Series 11 Tests ( The purpose of Test Series 11 was'to determine intake loss coefficients and to ~ demonstrate that no vortices occurred in the sump under the design conditions, which { . included the grating cage placed over the intoke. [ Towards the end of Series I, large trash rock losses were noted, the cause of which was traced to corrosion and subsequent blockage of the 16 mesh screen. As o result, Series 11 and Series ll1 tests were performed without the fine screen in place. 9.2.1 Intake Protected By Unblocked Trash Rock Only. Test 11-1 [ A single test, ll-1, was run v>ithout a grating cage over the intake and with on unblocked trash rock to determine the intoke loss coefficient and to demonstrate that subsequent installotion of the grating cage would not increase the intoke loss coefficient. No vortices developed inside or outside of the sump, nor was there any [ significant flow rotation inside or outside of the sump for an intake flow of 7828 USgpm and a water temperature of 174 F during this test. The water surface was at ( el 597.39 f t. The intoke loss coefficient, K, was 0.91. Results of loss coefficient calculations for this and subsequent tests are tabulated in Table 1.2. 9.2.2 Intake Protected By Trash Rock And Grating Cage ( o. Unblocked Trash Rock. Test 11-2 { The grating cage was 'nstalled over the intake and the loss coefficient remeasured. The cf., roach flow to the intake inside the grating cage was free from any rotational motion. No significant rotation inside or outside of the trash rock or sump was observed during on intake flow of 7797 USgpm at a water temperature of ( .174 F. The water surface was at el 597.56 f t. [ The loss coefficient, K, was 0.87. The reduction in intake loss coefficient when the grating cage was installed is consistent with previous observations for studies of the ANO-2, A.W. Vogtle, J
U WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD 2g (- J.M. Farley and SONGS containment sumps and con be attributed to the flow straightening property of the grating coge. This test demonstrate'd that no vortices occurred in the sump under design ~" coriditions and that installotion of the grating cage did not increw ~ (. the intoke loss coefficient. b. Blocked Trash Rock { .No floor, reof or wall vortices formed in the sump with flow of prototype Reynolds number under any of the rationally developed 50 percent blockage conditions shown in Figure 20. The h grating coge over the intoke eliminated any rotation in the flow approaching the intake which resulted from the partial trosh rock { blockage. Intoke flows ranged from 7730 to 7870 USgpm, water temperature ranged from 171 to 174 F and the water surface ranged from el 597.50 to 597.58 f t, Table 1.2. The intoke loss coefficient, K, ranged f rom 0.86 to 0.89. h 9.3 Series ill Tests { Series lil tests we e corried out to determine the mean value of the iritoke loss coefficient and to establish confidence limits with a 50 percent blocked trash rock and with the grating cage in place, at water levels of approximately el 597.55 f t. All [- 20 tests, Ill-l to 111-20, were corried out at opproximately 175 F and at prototype Reynolds numbers. Between each test, the pump was shut down and restarted to h
~~determine the effect, if any of pump shutdown and restort on the spread ;n the value of the' loss coefficient. Also, the instruments where checked and bled. All dato cre~~
{ tabulated in Table 1.3. The results of the 111-1 to !!!- O tests indicated that the intake 1.036 within 95 percent confidence limits. loss coefficient had a value of 0.844 0 9.4 Series IV And V - Documentation of Series IV and V tests is conton ed in Appendix A. 1 [ [ r
WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 29 9.5 Overall Losses ~ 9.5.-:L Tr-e* Ru&i~oTs..- es The trosh rock losses reported in Table 1.2 were obtained without the 16 mesh screen in place. Two tssts of a 50% blockage condition were performed in test Series I, one with the grating cage in place and one without. The. following table summarizes these test: Test No. Tgmp. Flow Screen Reynolds Model H Grating Cage i-2 F Rote. Velocity Reync ds Prototype in Place i y GPM Vs fps - Vs /2g l-lI 88 8956 0.44 0.66 6.68 No 1-16 100 8909 0.44 0.73 6.75 Yes As ' noted in Section 9.l.2, the major part of the trosh rock headloss coefficient can be attributed to the fine screen. In general, for o screen normal to a uniform flow, a functional relationship for the loss coefficient for the screen is (Baines and Peterson,1951): H l-2 = f (R, S, screen geometry) C = b D 2 V /2g 3 H is the headloss across the screens, V is the velocity of the approach flow to the i-2 s screens, Rb.= V b/ (1-5) is the Reynolds number of the screen elements, b is the s screen wire diameter, and S is the solidity ratio equal to 1 -(Ao/A,). The quantity A, -is the open area of the screen and A, is the total creo of the screen. The screen geometry includes the shape of the elements that make up the screen, the pattern of-the openings, and such variables as the bor width and mesh spacing. The screen loss coeffhient is often modified to make the new modified coefficient _ independent of the ',pe of screen. The modified coefficient is:
WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 30 g ' D (modified) = CD II~SI S {- Data in tables 1.1,1.2 and 1.3 have been tabulated in this form. - Wieghardt (1953) and Cornell (1958) found that for screens of a fixed geometry the loss coefficient versus Reynolds number relationship is very similar to that for a cylinder. This relationship has two features (see for instance Streeter (1971): 3 { c. In the low Reynolds number range, up to 10, the loss coefficient continuously decreases with increasing Reynolds number. ~ 3 5 b. In the Reynolds number range of 10 to 10, the loss coefficient is approximately constont. The low screen Reynolds number of 257 in test 1-1I is expected to produce a [ higher loss coefficient than would be obtained for the prototype Reynolds number of 389. A conservative estimate of the trash rock loss coefficient, therefore would be { K = 6.68. Extrapolating this value to prototype flow rates gives a trosh rock head loss 3 of Hi-2 = 0.009 f t-which again should be viewed as conservative. 9.5.2 Overall Headloss j h The average intake loss coefficient as determined in test series til was 0.844. This represents the loss coefficient at prototype Reynolds number, at 50 percent trash { rock blockage, and with the grating cage io place. Extrapolated to the runout flow rate of 6000 USgpm, the intake loss is 0.240 f t. r' The overall_ headloss for the runout flow rate of 6000 USgpm, based on the conservative trash rock loss of Test I-11, the grating coge, and intake, including 22 miter bend con be summarized as follows: E [ q
WESTERP6 CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 31 . Velocity Head 0.284 f f - Trash Rock 0.009 ff (- Intoke (including grating - cage and 22 miter bend, and corrected for pipe {. . f riction) 0.240 f t Overall Headloss 0.533 ff 9.6 Reproducibility And Accuracy ( The ability of the grating in both the trosh rock and grating coges to remove swirls, circulation and angularity of the flow, as previously noted in studies for the {. J.M. Farley, A.W. Vogtle Arkansas Nuclear One and Son Onofre Generating Stations, was also demonstrated throughout the present test program, and during demonstrations for approach flow velocities gmater than those postulated for Midland - Units I and 2. Internal vortices could be deve!oped in the sump without the grating cage but [ with trosh rock blockages greater than 84 percent. The grating cage eliminated these vortices at all times and under all conditions examined. [ Discharges measured by orifice meters were occurate to 11 percent. Temperatures were recorded to 1.5 F. Piezometric levels were measured to 4.05 in. 0 { A statistical analysis on the test series lit dato indicated that the intake loss l coef ficient for a uniformly distributed 50 pr.rcent blocked trash rock, with the grating 1.036 within 95 percent confidence limits. cage in place, had a value of 0.844 0 [- ^* Prepared by: S.R.M. G iner,fhD., P.Eng. 1 (.- Head,5 iol P,y6]ects and Hydro ic Str rg:ure j t g Approved by: uN y, P.Eng. { resident [
g ' WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. b LIST OF SELECTED REFERENCES [ 1. Addison, H.1948; " Centrifugal and Other Rotodynamic Pumps." (Chapmc. and Hall, London). 2. [' Akers and Crump;' "The Vortex Drop," Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers, August,1960, p. 443. 3. Al'Tshul, A.D., cnd Margolin, M.S.; "Effect of Vortices on the Discharge '( Coefficient for Flow of a Liquid Through an Orifice:" (translation), Gidrotekhnieheskoe Stroitel'stvo, No. 6, June,1968, p. 32. {. 4. Amphlett, M.B.; " Air Entraining Vortices at o Horizontal intake", Report No. OD/7, Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford, April,1976. 5. Anwar, H.O., Weller, J.A. and Amphlett, M.B.; " Similarity of Air Entraining ( Vortices et a Horizontal intoke," Report # IT 166, BHR Station, Wallingford, June,1977. { Anwar, H.O.; " Flow in a Free Vortex", Water Power, April,1965. 7. Anwar, H.O.; Formation of a Weak Vortex", Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 4, No. I,1966. 8. Anwar, H.O.; " Vortices at Low Head Intakes", Water Power, Nov.,1967, p. 455 - 457. [ 9. Anwar, H.O.; " Prevention of Vortices at intokes", Water Power, Oct.,1968,
~~p. 393.~~
( .l0. Anwar, H.O.; discussion of "Effect of Viscosity on Vortex-Orifice Flow:" by Paul B. Zielinski and James R. Villemonte, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE. Vol. 95, No. HY 1. Proc. Paper 6323, Jon.,1969, p. 568 - 570. [ l I.
~~Baines, W.D., and Peterson, E.G.;~~
"An investigation of Flow Through ' Screens", Trans. ASME, Vol. 73,194,1948,p.527. b-12. Berge, J.P., "Enquete sur la Formation de Vortex et Autres Anomalies d'ecoulements dans une enceinte avec ou sans Surface Libre", Societe Hydrotechnique de France - Section Machines - Group de travail No.10, .( Nov.,1964. 13. Berge, J.P. "A study of Vortex Formation and Other Abnormal Flow in a Tack [- With and Without a Free Surface", Lo Houille Blanches, Grenoble, France, No. I,1966, p.13 - 40. 14. Binnie, A.M., and Hockings, G.A.; " Laboratory Experiments on Whirlpools", ( Proceedings, Royal Society, London, Series A, Vol.194, Sept.,1948. p. 398 - 415. ~ [ 15. Binnie, A.M., ond Davidson, J.F., "The Flow Under Gravit-of a Swirling Liquid Through an Orifice Plate", Proceedings, Royal Society, London Series A, Vol.199,1949, p. 443 - 457. -{;
WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. b '16. Brewer, D. " Vortices in Pump Sumps", The Allen Engineering Review, March, -1957. { Repori TN1342, BHRA, March 1976. 17. . Chong, E.; Review of Literature on Drain Vortices in Cylindrical Tonks, 18. [ Cornell, W.G; " Losses in Flow Normal to Plane Screens." Trans. ASME, J. of Basic Engineering, Vol 80,.1958, pp. 791 - 799. 19. Denny, D.F.,1953, British Hydromechanics Research Assoc. Report, RR. 430, ( _ Preliminary Report on the Formation of Air-entraining Vortices in pump Section Wells. '20. {- Denny, D.F.,1953, British Hydromechnoics Research Assoc. Research Report R.R. 465," Experiments with Air in Centrifugo! Pumps".
~~21..~~
Denny, D.F., and Young, G.A.J. "The Prevention of Vortices and Swirl in ( intokes", Proceedings, lAHR 7th Congress, Lisbon,1957. 22. Denny, D.F., "An Experimental Study of Air Entraining Vortices in Pump {- Sumps", Proceedings of inst. of Mechanical Engineers, Vol.170, No. 2,1956. 23. . Dogget L.L. and Keulegon, G.H., " Similitude Conditions in Free Surface Vortex Formations", Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol.100, No. ( HY l i, Nov. 1974, pp.1565 - 1581. 24. Donaldson, C. du p., and Sullivan, R.D. " Examination of the Solutions of the [. Novier-Stokes Equations for o Class of Three-dimensional Vortices, Port I: Velocity Distribution for Steady Motion". Proceedings, Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute, Stanford University Press, Calif.,1960, p.16 - 30. [ 25. Einstein, H.A., and Li, H.: " Steady Vortex Flow in a Real Fluid", La Houille Blanche, Vol.10, No. 4, Aug. - Sept.,1955, p. 483 - 496. { 26. Folsom, R.C.,1940 University of California, Pump Testing Laboratories, Technico! Memo. No. 6, HP-14, "Some Performance Chorocteristics of Deep- -wel.' Turbine Pumps". ( -27. Croser, W.H,1953 Trans. ASME, Vol. 75, No. 4, p. 643, " Hydraulic Problems dncountered in Int L Structures of Vertical Wet-Pit Pumps and Methods Leading +o Their Solution". [. 28.. Gordon, J.L.; Vortices at into!:es." Water Power, April,1970, p.137 - 138. 29. Guiton, P., "Covstation dans les Pompes", La Houille Blanches, Nov.,1962, No. 6. 30. Haindl, K., " Contribution to Air-entrainment by o Vortex", Paper 16-D, [ International Associatiori for Hydraulic Research, Montreal,1959. - 31. _ Hottersley, R.T., " Hydraulic Design of Pump Intakes", HY 2, March,1965, p. ~ 223 - 249. 0-
WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 32. Hottersley, R.T., " Factors of Inlet Channel Flow offecting the Performance of a Pumping Plant", Report No. 23, Water Resecrch Lab., University of New South Wales, Austratio, Sept.,1960. 33. Holtorf, G., "The Free Surface and the Conditions of Similitude for a Vortex", La Houiille Blanche, Vol.19, No. 3, lo64, p. 337 - 384. 34. Iversen, H.W.; " Studies of Submergence Requirements of High Specific Speed Pumps", Transactions, ASME, Vol 75, 1953. l 35. Kaufman, Fluid Mechanics McGraw-Hill, p. 265 and 279. 36. Keulegon, G.H., and Doggett, L.L., "A Note on Gravity Head Viscometer", Miscellaneous Paper H-74-3, United States Army Engineer Waterways Experi-ment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss., Mar.,1974. 37. Kolf, R.C. " Vortex Flow from Horizontal Thin-Plate Orifices", thesis presented to the University of Wisconsin, at Madison, Wis., in 1956, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philisophy. 38. Kolf, R.C., and Zielinski, P.B., "The Vortex Chamber as on Automatic Flow Control Device", Journal of the Hydraulics Divison, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. HYl2, Proc. Paper 2310, Dec., I oS9. 39. Lowton, F.L.; " Factors influencing Flow ir' Large Conduits", Report of the Task Force on Flow in Large Conduits of the Committee on Hydraulic Structures. Transactions ASCE, Paper 4543, Vol. 91 HY 6 - Nov.,1965. 40. Lennart, R. " Flow Problems with Respect to intakes and Tunnels of Swedish Hydro Electric Power Plants", Transactions, of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, NR 71,1953. l 41. Lewellen, W.S.; "A Solution for Three-Dimensional b tex Flow with Strong Circulation", J. Fluid Mechanics., Vol. 14, 1962. 4' ' ong, R.P,.; "A Vortex in on Infinite Fluid", Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. II. 43. Marklund, E. and Pope, J.A.; " Experiments on a Small Pump Suction Well, with Particular Reference to Vortex Formations", Proceedings, The Insitution of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 160, 1956. 44. Marklund, E.; discussion of "Effect of Viscosity on Vortex-Orifice Flow", by Paul B. Zielinsxi and James R. Villemonte, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, NO HYI, Proc. Paper 6323, Jan.,1969, p. 567 - 568. 3 45. Messino, J.P.; " Periodic Noise in Circulating Water Pumps", Power, Sept., 3 1971, p. 70 - 71. 46. McCorquodale, J.A.; discussion of Effect of Viscosity on Vortex-Orifice F low," hv Poul B. Zielinski and James R. Villemonte, Journal of the Hydraulics DMsion, ASCE, Vol 95, No. HYI, Proc. Paper 7323, Jan.,1969, p. 567 - 568. l l i I
y WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. {' '47. McCorquodale, J.A.; " Scale Effects -in Swirling Flow", Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, HYl, Disc. b-/ Marco Pica, HYI, Jcn., 1969. [~ 48. Pickford, J.A., and Reddy, Y.R.' "Vorter. Suporession in a Stilling Pond Over-flow" Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol.100 No. HYll, Nov., 1974, pp.1685 - 1697. [ 49. Quick, M.C., "A Study of the Free Spiral Vortex", thesis presented to the University of. Bristol, England, in 1961, in partial fulfillment of the { requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 50. Quick, M.C.; " Scale Relationships between Geometricolly Similar Free Spiral [ Vortices", Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, Part I, September, 1962, Port it, Oct.1962, p.1319. 51. Quick, M.C.; " Efficiency of Air Entraining Vortex Formation at Water { intake", Journal of the Hydraulics Div., ASCE. No. 96, HY7, July 1970, p. 1403 - 1416. 52.
~~Reddy, Y.Ps., and Pickford, J.A.;~~
" Vortices at intakes in Conventional ( Sumps", Water Power, March 1972, p.108 - 109. 53. Rouse, H., and Hsu, H.; "On the Growth and Decay of a Vortex Filoment", { Proceedings,1st National Congress of Applied Mechonics,1952, p. 741 - 746. 54. Richardson, C.A.; 1941 Water Works and Sewerage Reference and Data, Part I, Water Supply, p. 25," Submergence and Specing of Suction Bells". 55. Springer, E.K., and Patterson, F.M.; "Experirnental Investigation of Critical Submergence for Vortexing in a Vertical Cylindrical Tank" ASME paper 69- { FF-49, June,1969. 56. Stepanoff, A.J.,1948 " Centrifugal and Axiol-flow Pumps", p. 963 (Chapman and Hall, London). 57. Stevens, J.C.; discussion of "The Vortex Chamber as an Automatic Flow-Control Device". by R.C. Kolf and P.B. Zielinski, Journal of the Hydraulics { Division, ASCE, Vol. 86, No. HY6 Proc. Paper 2525, June,1960. 58. Stevens, J.C. and Kolf, R.C.; " Vortex Flow Through Horizontal Orifices", Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 83, No. SA6, Proc. Paper 1461, Dec.,1957. 59. Streeter, V.L.: Fluid Mechanics, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill,1971 Weighardt, ( K.E.G., "On the Resistance of Screens", The Aeronautical Quarterly, Vol. 4, 1953, pp.186 - 192. ) J~ 60.
~~Weighart, K.E.G., "On the Resistance of Screens";~~
The Aeronautics Quarterly, Vol. 4,1953, pp.' 186 - 192. u l 61. Weltmer, W.W., 1950, Power Engineering, Vol. 54, No. 6, p. 74. " Proper Suction intakes Vital for Vertical Circulating Pumps". _m
r WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. L l [ 62. Young, C.A.H., " Swirl cnd Vortices at intakes", Report No. SP 726, British Hydro-Mechanics Research Association, April,1962. F 63. Zelinski, P.B. and Villemont, J.R.; "Effect of Viscosity on Vortex-Orifice L Flow", Vol. 94, HY3, IAoy,1968, p. 745 - 751. Disc. on cbove in Jan.1969, by IAarklund, E., McCorquodole, J. A. and Anwar, H.O. r L E E E E [ [ [ [ l [ [ L [ [ [
TABLEI 1.0 TEST OBJECTIVES AND TEST PROGRAM 1.1 Series l'- Primary Objective: To demonstrate the ef fectiveness of the g[dting coge to suppress vorlices. ~ Procedure: 1. Without the grating coge in place experimentolly determine blockoge conditions that generate vortices from either the sum walls, floor or ceiling. 2. For selected blockage conditions from (l), repeat test to show ef fectiveness of grating coge. OBSERVED VALUES PIEZOMETRIC HEAD Discharge Structures US gpm Test Water Temp. Kine-Blockage Vortex Number Surface 'F matic condi-Blockage Observed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 el(ft) Vis-Trash Crot-tion cos. rock ing 2 ft / Coge sec x 5 10 I I 597.70 68 1.05 Yes No BL-t-I 85.3 Floor-2.905 2.650 1.525 1.495 1.470 1.460 1.430 1.390 8857 1 2 597.73 68 1.05 Yes No BL-t-2 91.9 Wall 2.940 2.250 1.080 1.050 1.025 1.010 0.970 0.930 .'957 1 3 597.74 68 1.05 Yes No BL-t-3 92.8 No 2.950 2.220 1.010 0.980 0.950 0.940 0.910 0.880 8837 1 4 597.74 68 1.05 Yes No BL-i-4 92.8 No 2.950 (2.255) 1.050 1.010 0.990 0.975 0.940 0.900 8857 I 5 597.73 68 1.05 Yes No BL-t-5 92.4 Free Sur. 2.940 2.285 1.120 1.090 1.070 1.060 1.020 0.990 8857 1 6 597.71 68 1.05 Yes No BL-l-6 84.7 Free Sur. 2.920 2.650 1.380 1.350 1.320 1.310 1.270 1.240 8857 1 7 597.93 68 1.05 Yes No BL-t-7 85.3 No 3.140 2.895 1.780 1.750 1.730 1.715 1.680 1.640 8857 I 8 597.93 68 1.05 Yes No BL-1-8 90.7 Free Sur. 3.140 2.590 1.370 1.335 1.300 1.285 1.250 1.220 8857 ~ I 9 597.91 80 0.90 Yes No BL-1-9 90.7 Floor 3.120 2.600 1.460 1.430 1.405 1.390 1.360 1.325 8798 l 10 597.91 84 0.86 Yes No BL-l-10 85.3 Floor 3.120 2.880 1.700 1.670 1.640 1.625 1.595 1.560 8876 I il 597.91 88 0.82 Yes No B1.-11-1 50.0 No 3.115 3.095 1.940 1.920 1.895 1.885 f.860 1.815 8956 1 12 597.91 89 0.81 Yes No none O No 3.115 3.100 1.940 1.920 1.900 1.885 1.860 1.820 8956 1 13 597.55 100 0.73 Yes Yes none 0 No 2.765 2.755 1.600 1.580 1.565 1.560 1.535 1.490 8931 1 14 597.61 100 0.73 Yes Yes BL-1-2 91.9 No 2.815 2.170 1.025 1.000 0.975 0.965 0.945 0.900 8848 1 15 597.58 100 0.73 Yes Yes BL-t-6 84.7 No 2.785 2.530 I.350 1.330 1.305 1.295 1.265 1.225 8873 1 16 597.55 100 0.73 Yes Yes BL-II-I 50.0 No 2.765 2.745 1.590 1.575 1.555 1.545 1.520 1.480 8909 1 17 597.63 80 0.90 Yes Yes BL-t-i l 95.1 No 2.840 1.095 -0.10 -0.13 -0.15 -0.16 -0.19 -0.22 8767 1 18 597.61 178 0.39 Yes Yes BL-l-l l 95.1 tb 2.825 1.105 0.140 0.120 0.105 0.095 0.075 0.040 7782 1 19 597.63 178 0.39 Yes Yes BL-l-l l 95.1 tb 2.840 0.925 -0.215 -0.235 -0.325 8656 1 20 597.59 178 0.39 Yes Yes BL-t-i l 95.1 No 2.800 1.185 0.260 0.240 0.220 0.210 0.190 0.165 7746 1 21 597.55 177 0.39 Yes Yes BL-t-2 91.9 No 2.755 1.295 0.445 0.430 0.405 0.395 0.375 0.345 7619 1 22 597.55 177 0.39 Yes Yes BL-t-2 91.9 No 2.755 1.250 0.320 0.310 0.28S 0.270 0.250 0.210 7999 1 23 597.55 170 0.41 Yes Yes BL-l-2 91.9 No 2.755 1.045 0.015 -0.010 -0.030 -0.040 -0.065 -0.100 8464
TABLEI OJECTIVE5 AND TEST PROGRAM e PIEZOMETRIC HEAD DERIVED VALUE5 D (I-5/ Discharge Trosh Pipe Pipe intoke intoke Screen C US gpm . Rock Vel. Reynolds Loss Loss Reynolds T Loss Head No. Coeffi-No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.650 1.525 1.495 1.470 1.460 1.430 1.390 8857 0.255 0.62 1.20 1.260 0.84 674 2.01 2.250 1.000 1.050 1.025 1.010 0.970 0.930 8857 0.690 0.62 1.20 1.320 0.94 1230 1.63 2.220 1.010 0.980 0.950 0.940 0.910 0.880 8857 0.730 0.62 1.20 1.340 0.97 1382 1.37 2.255) 1.050 1.010 0.990 0.975 0.940 0.900 8857 0.695 0.62 1.20 1.355 0.995 1382 1.30 2.285 1.120 1.090 1.070 1.060 1.020 0.990 8857 0.655 0.62 1.20 1.295 0.90 1301 1,38 2.150 1.300 1.350 1.320 1.310 1.270 1.240 8857 0.270 0.62 1.20 1.410 1.08 651 2.28 2 895 1.780 1.750 !.730 1.715 I.680 l.640 8857 0.245 0.62 1.20 1.255 0'83 674 l.93 2.590 1.370 1.335 1.300 1.285 I.250 1.220 8857 0.550 0.62 1.20 1.370 1.02 1067 1.73 2.600 1.460 1.430 1.405 1.390 1.360 1.325 8798 0.520 0.61 1.39 1.275 0.89 1236 1.65 2.880 1.700 1.670' l.640 1.625 1.595 1.560 8876-0.240 0.62 1.47 1.320 0.93 826 1.87 3.095 1.940 1.920 1.895 1.885 1.860 1.815 8956 0.020 0.63 1.55 I.280 0.83 257 1.77 3.100 1.940 1.920 1.900 1.885 l.860 1.820 8956 0.015 0.63 1.57 1.280 0.83 130 5.32 2.755 1.600 1.580 I.565 1.560 1.535 1.490 8931 0.010 0.63 1.74 1.265 0.82 144 3.57 2.170 1.025 1.000 0.975 0.965 0.945 0.900 8848 0.645 0.62 1.72 1.270 0.86 1768 1.53 2.530 1.350 1.330 1.305 1.295 1.265 1.225 8873 0.255 0.62 1.73 1.305 .0.91 938 2.I4 2.745 1.590 1.575 1.555 1.545 1.520 1.480 8909 0.020 0.63 1.74 1.265 0.83 287 1.79 1.095 -0.10 -0.13 -0.15 -0.16 -0.19 -0.22 8767 1.745 0.61 1.39 1.315 0.97 2356 1.53 1.105 0.140 0.120 0.105 0.095 0.075 0.040 7782 1.720 0.48 2.84 1.065 1.04 4826 1.91 0.725 0.215 -0.235 -0.325 8656 f.715 0.59 3.16 1.250 0.92 5369 1.54 1.185 0.260 0.240 0.220 0.210 0.190 0.165 7746 -1.615 0.47 2.82 1.020 0.96 4804 1.81 1.295 0.445 0.430 0.405 0.395 0.375 0.345' 7619 1.460 0.46 2.78 0.950 0.88 2850 4.66 1.250 0.320 0.310 0.285 0.270 0.250 0.210 7999 1.505 0.51 2.92 1.040 0.87 2991 4.36 1.045 0.015 -0.010 -0.030 -0.040 -0.065 -0.100 8464 1.710 0.57 2.94 1.145 0.83 3011 4.42
TABLli1 1.0 TEST OBJECTIVES AND TEST PROGRAM OBSERVED VALUES PIEZOMETRIC HEAD Discharge Trc Structures US gpm Ro Tcst Water Temp. Kine-Blockoge Vortex Lo Number Surfoce F m atic condi-Blockage Observed i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 el (f t) Vis-Trash Grot-tion cos. rock ing 2 it / Coge sec x 5 10 1 24 597.51 171 0.41 Yes Yes BL-l-9 90.7 No 2.720 1.260 0.220 0.195 0.180 0.160 0.140 0.105 8472 1.4 1 25 597.50 171 0.41 Yes Yes BL-l-9 90.7 No 2.710 1.335 0.470 0.450 0.430 0.415 0.395 0.365 7766 13 1 26 597.47 172 0.41 Yes Yes BL-l-6 84.7 No 2.680 1.515 0.630 0.615 0.595 0.580 0.565 0.530 7807 1 27 597.48 172 0.41 Yes Yes BL-1-6 84.7 No 2.690 1.400 0.350 0.335 0.315 0.295 0.275 0.235 8474 '.2 1 28 597.43 173 0.405 Yes Yes None O No 2.635 2.530 1.485 1.460 1.445 1.440 1.425 1.380 8619
~~0. !~~
I 29 597.43 173 0.405 Yes Yes None O No 2.635 2.540 1.660 1.645 1.630 1.620 1.605 1.565 7920 0.0 1.2 Series II - Primary Objectives: For the unblocked trosh rock and five rationally selected block conditions determine intoke loss coef ficient and demonstrate that no vortices occur. Determine the effect of the grating cage on the intoke loss coef ficient. Il l 597.39 174 0.40 Yes None O No 2.600 2.594 1.700 1.680 1.660 1.640 1.615 1.575 7828 0.0 11 2 597.56 174 0.40 Yes Yes None O No 2.767 2.762 1.885 1.870 1.850 1.835 1.810 I.775 7797 0.0 11 3 597.58 171 0.41 Yes Yes BL-ll-1 50.0 No 2.785 2.775 1.885 1.870 1.855 1.840 1.815 1.775 7836 0.0 !! 4 597.57 174 0.40 Yes Yes, BL-II-2 50.0 No 2.775 2.765 1.875 l.860 1.840 1.825 1.800 1.765 7825 0.0 11 5 597.58 173 0.405 Yes Yes BL-il-3 50.0 No 2.785 2.775 1.900 1.885 't.865 1.845 1.825 1.790 7797 0.0 I! 6 597.52 174 0.40 Yes Yes BL-il-4 52.0 No 2.730 2.720 1.850 1.835 1.820 1.805 1.785 1.745 7741 0.0 ll 7 597.53 174 0.40 Yes Yes BL-ll-5 48.0 No 2.740 2.730 1.855 1.840 1.825 1.810 1.790 1.750 7730 0.0 11 8 597.50 122 0.59 Yes None
~~0 No 2.690 2.685 1.780 1.760 1.745 1.725 1.700 1.660 7870 0.0 1.3 Series ill -~~
Primary Objective: Repeat a 50 percent blockage test to show test results reproducibility, and subsequently determine the mean loss coefficients, stondord deviation and confidence limits. 111 1 597.52 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-il-1 50.0 No 2.730 2.720 1.830 1.820 1.805 1.795 1.780' l.745 7845 0.1 til 2 597.51 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-l 50.0 No 2.720 2.710 1.810 1.800 1.785 1.775 f.760 1.720 7918 0.G lli 3 597.55 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-l 50.0 No 2.760 2.750 1.865 1.855 1.840 1.830 1.815 1.775 7815 0.E 111 4 597.55 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-I 50.0 No 2.755 2.745 1.845 1.835 1.820 1.810 1.795 1.755 7863 0.@ 111 5 597.54 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-l 50.0 No 2.750 2.740 1.850 1.840 1.825 1.815 1.800 1.760 7826 0.E
rABLEI VES AND TEST PROGRAM PIEZOMETRIC HEAD i* DERIVED VALUES Discharge Trash Pipe Pipe Intake intake Screen C 45/ D US gpm Rock Ye!. Reynolds Loss Loss Reynolds 5 Loss Head No. Coeffi-No. 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.220 0.195 0.180 0.160 0.140 0.105 8472 1.460 0.57 2.94 1.155 0.85 2627 4.96 0.470 0.450 0.430 0.415 0.395 0.365 7766 1.375 0.48 2.69 0.970 0.84 2408 5.56 0.630 0.615 0.595 0.580 0.565 0.530 7807 1.165 0.48 2.71 0.985 0.85 1469 12.65 0.350 0.335 0.315 0.295 0.275 0.235 8474 1.290 0.57 2.94 1.165 0.86 1594 li.89 1485 1.460 1.445 1.440 1.425 1.380 8619 0.105 0.59 3.03 1.150 0.77 250 40.23 1.660 1.645 1.630 1.620 1.605 1.365 7920 0.094 0.50 2.78 0.975 0.78 230 43.ll 1.700 1.680 1.660 1.640 1.615 1.575 7828 0.006 0.48 2.78 1.019 0.91 836 8.11 1.885 1.870 1.850 1.835 1.810 1.775 7797 0.005 0.48 2.77 0.987 0.81 832 6.82 1.895 1.870 1.855 1.840 1.815 1.775 7836 0.010 0.48 2.72 1.000 0.87 1633 3.37 1.875 1.860 1.840 1.825 1.800 ' l.765 7825 0.010 0.48 2.78 1.000 0.88 1671 3.38 1.900 1.885 1.865 1.845 1.825 1.790 ' 7797 0.010 0.48 2.74 0.985 0.86 1645 3.41 1.850 1.835 1.820 1.805 1.785 1.745 7741 0.010 0.47 2.75 0.975 0.87 1723 3.18 i.855 1.840 1.825 1.810 1.790 1.750 7730 0.010 0.47 2.75 0.980 0.89 1586 3.76 1,780 1.760 1.745 1.725 1.700 1.660 7870 0.005 0.49 1.90 1.025 OJO 570 6.69 11830 1.820 1.805 1.795 1.780 1.745 7845 0.010 0.49 2.79 0.975 0.81 1676 3.36 1.310 1.800 1.785 1.775 1.760 1.720 7918 0.010 0.49 2.82 0.990 0.81 1691 3.30 1.865 1.855 f.840 1.830 1.815 1.775 7815 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.975 0.83 1669 3.39 1.845 1.835 1.820 1.810 1.795 1.755 7863 0.010 0.49 2.80 0.990 0.84 1680 3.35 1.850 1.840 1.825 1.815 1.800 1.760 7826 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.980 0.83 1671 3.38
TABLEI 1.0 TEST OBJECTIVES AND TEST PROGRAM i* OBSERVED VALUES PIEZOMETRIC HEAD Structures Discherge 1 cst Water Temp. Kine-Blockage Vortex US gpm Number Surface F m atic condi-Blockage Observed i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 el (f t) Vis-Trash Grot-tion cos. rock ing 2 ft / Coge seC X 5 10 til 6 597.54 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-l 50.0 No 2.750 2.740 1.845 1.835 1.820 1.810 1.795 1.755 7831 Ill 7 597.54 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-I 50.0 No 2.745 2.735 1.850 1.840 1.825 1.815 1.800 1.760 - 7809 til 8 597.53 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-l 50.0 No 2.740 2.730 1.845 1.835 1.820 1.810 1.795 1.755 7812 Ill 9 597.52 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-Il-l 50.0 No 2.730 2.720 1.830 1.815 1.800 1.790 1.775 1.735 7839 lil10 597.52 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-!!-l 50.0 No 2.730 2.720 1.830 1.820 1.805 1.795 f.775 1.740 7813 til 11 597.52 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-ll-1 50.0 No 2.725 2.715 1.820 1.805 1.790 1.780 1.760 1.720 7846 lil12 597.56 174 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-I 50.0 No 2.770 2.763 1.875 1.860 1.845 1.835 1.815 1.775 7795 til 13 597.56 173 0.405 Yes Yes BL-II-I 50.0 No 2.767 2.760 1.900 1.885 1.870 1.860 1.840 1.800 7703 Ill14 597.55 174 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-I 50.0 No 2.765 2.755 1.880 1.860 1.845 1.835 1.815 1.775 7778 til 15 597.55 174 0.40 Yes Yes BL-il-1 50.0 No 2.762 2.754 1.870 1.855 1.840 1.825 1.805 1.765 7623 til 16 597.55 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-l 50.0 No 2.755 2.745 1.870 1.855 1.840 1.825 1.805 1.765 7772 Ill17 597.54 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-il-l 50.0 No 2.750 2.740 1.855 1.840 1.820 1.805 l.785 1.745 7839 lil 18 597.53 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-I 50.0 No 2.740 2.730 1.860 1.845 1.825 f.815 1.795 1.755 7769 Ill 19 597.53 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-ll-1 50.0 No 2.740 2.730 1.845 1.830 1.815 1.800 1.780 1.740 7823 11120 597.53 175 0.40 Yes Yes BL-II-l 50.0 No 2.740 2.730 1.845 1.830 1.815 1.800 1.780 1.740 7831
~~Fine Screen Removed for Series 11 and Ill.~~
~~TABLEI~~
~~CTIVES AND TEST PROGRAM e~~
PIE 7.OMETRIC HEAD DERIVED VALUE5 Discharge Trosh Pipe Pipe intake intake Screen C U -S D US gpm Rock Vel. Reynolds Loss Loss Reynolds S 3 4 5 6 7 8 Loss Head No. Coe f fi-No. O l.845 1.835 1.820 1.810 1.795 1.755 7831 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.985 0.84 1673 3.38 15 1.850 1.840 1.825 1.815 1.800 1.760 7809 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.975 0.83 1668 3.40 i l<845 1.835 1.820 1.810 1.795 1.755 7812 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.975 0.83 1669 3.39 10 FO I l.830 1.815 1.800 1.790 1.775 1.735 7839 0.010 0.49 2.79 0.985 0.84 1674 3.37 P L830 1.820 1.805 1.795 1.775 1.740 7813 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.980 0.84 1669 3.39 li 1.820 1.805 1.790 1.780 1.760 1.720 7846 0.010 0.49 2.79 0.995 0.85 1676 3.36 i3 1.875 l.860 1.845 1.835 l.815 l.775 7795 0.007 0.49 2.77 0.988 0.87 1665 2.39 LO l.900 1.885 1.870 1.860 1.840 1.800 7703 0.007 0.47 2.70 0.960 0.86 1642 2.44 >5 1.880 1.860 1.845 1.835 1.815 1.775 7778 0.010 0.48 2.77 0.980 0.86 1661 3.42 >4 i870 1.855 1.840 f.825 1.805 1.765 7823 0.008 0.48 2.78 0.989 0.85 1671 2.71 65 1.870 1.855 1.840 1.825 1.805 1.765 7772 0.010 0.48 2.76 0.980 0.86 1660 3.43 60 1.855 1.840 1.810 1.805 1.785 1.745 7839 0.010 0.48 2.79 0.995 0.86 1674 3.37 10 1.860 1.845 1.825 1.815 1.795 1.755 7769 0.010 0.48 2.76 0.975 0.85 1660 3.43 10 1.845 1.830 1.815 1.800 1.780 1.740 7823 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.990 0.86 1671 3.38 10 1.845 s.830 1.815 1.800 1.780 1.740 7831 0.010 0.48 2.78 0.990 0.85 1673 3.38
l <; 1 r" ,..,.,1..f .b. C - x :n. s .4 k. "I i b ~ I
~~i.A 0: '. i:.{. t ;'O g~~
~~,,..' J 7. P r-D ~ g, i f....c< ~'2 Y/ I .T~ l ' 4 ). ( 3" i. L.... p.] 3: "y. g-Ll . g, sf. ~ y ti p i, d', ,ct. ,'I. ], .h 4 .A, 4 i y. .#...31 i e a. j5 .-# ^. i l y,~~
~~t L'~~
~~l, 6, 'h j. ? ~ * -l..* j.; Y g Q: ',e ,u l t .. d 4 } .a "d~~
~~p A g.~~
~~,' ?.~~
~~'h'.~~
' ' *. p'. l. '{ ? _* *. f ' '.} V ' <, e-T.' a,. .~. L r, f iJ l b 7, I WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. tril6440b WCH
/ s 0 l ..<.s....- ...s. h~/. '.g.,,h.
4:
~~4- _4,3 4-4 fd~~
~~f vW";>~~
e. ~* : @d @ j p g ..'s. ; [: ) h- +- ll....;,. : %.., r,,-, ( r [ +. & f e-.9 / f \\ .y ' pa,.' b ' I MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP i t l l CONTAINMENT AREA UNIT 1 I
F t i 4 L' \\ 3/ /* -,r er r e . / e' TRASH RACK ,J' s s n A ATER tTER s 9-LEVEL f or.7. sui / ,/ s o o- \\ --onnu /,' A e a i l NORTH SUMP \\ 2 COLuuN 4" DIVIDER WALb omaind y cR Aim v4 Lvt vaLv E 5 -[ 9 SOUTH SUMP - r N f- %g LADOEn - C@ I . N s' N y ~ - ~ ' V ) x u 9 9 e 64 C es V V-y - yw-ps .N' PLAN WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. bcileo40b-WCH SW79
FIGURE 2 i s p.' [ g/h o e e COLUMN .o t' c COVER PL ATE j 1 Et 597N P" F I I - TRASH p- 's i RACK l CON TAlldMENT FLOOR 3 rt ws s L I a gs - y I c-i__.=3 g 6' o m DTAINMENT ~#
~~===~~
~~EE. 588 5 l DALL~~
~~..___-______._.________)~~
et ser s. ~ n c, g SECTION A-A SCALE: 3/ s = l ' - 0 " i I MIDL AND L"ilTS l AND 2 ' FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP t i LOCATION OFINTAKES } , -1
EL ~ FIGURE 3 1L \\ F L F TRASH RACK GRATING BARS 2 %" x /s" { 3 i ON I 34s" CENTERS F / Et. 597 25 [ j' H HHH H'il T hl " li ' ; .djii""' 4 Hin't.' .iW id :9 .:d"I.H'04 8, ii,,,o, ,,,9 ?, ..J 9" ..o , on l, 3y n.!.. 3y B _L + 'm B ,o u FL ELEVATION A-A j [ DIVIDER WALL i 17 '- 7 %" l / A@ l QO j -} c a a ' ~ ---O-oR A,u _./ \\ -16 MESH [ g { p WGRATING _ga SCREEN 24 i CAGE l 'nl l" "l COLUMN o INTAKE n [ "' "' ) _? i NORTH SUMP E i o "co e' i ---TRASH R ACK I L",- WATER LEvtL f /l CRAkN + YF L1/ ,-'1 o-o-L,. I [ l u s w os.- i A - l A i A I A [ ~_ w u a { SECTION 8-8 1 E SCALE' l/4" : l ' - 0" MIOL AND UNITS I AND 2 FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP 1 l [ TRASH RACK AND SCREENS MODEL LAYOUT WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. f I . beis.62,4 wcn s 7, t
l F M3 cum
~~T F~~
S 2 l T E D S r E N E P G L G A TM U A N LS R I E C A D T SO N TME G I a N M T U N N S E ~ R "a LI I E F T '/ AA D T T C N l N SN A E A O X C L L C R "a D R "e 8/ I L G M l MU F I 1 N O N + F "e M ~ N 1 n s f \\ I R I S G N TA R G Q n F' 7 f o n ,,h l 0 0 7 4 f / I L D T l I' i i S i E x I + R n A h' O T c D R 7 O / n B A L 0 1 C I L =}~ n 1 U A R L Y. E D b =$ e L Y A H n f. D C S A j L '.n A N n AC H C N W + R A E 6 n T 8 6 S 5 E l W i C i S ll
1I l 5 E g G 4 A C N E E R L C E S N N 8 f U o T K c, C S _3 A R S R R O ) E O '4 O H C D O S C L A \\- A a F R L "I T E D E e A E T E s i* S h P L O A L g.' C S S R 0 = ( i O 4 = N O 7 'S u L t t L A . D,N S. o F c L 2 P E r D l r N O 2 M s. N j d,c -[,- ~ N' / F O s P T s N M \\ 4 S '5 E U 2 g T g x X .s ,~ E E A G s d 'f N s C N G c, s i N TI /t s A s e ,s R u s ( 2 o / G N,s 3 s s j !x s o ,s E s \\,o i ,9 ,o 's
~~g gn gw~~
/_ / / s ... r /- i s r [ N l . f. f l ys g 4 s = o I '4 Fl$ / A / =- D P T A L T S E E R I U R e gw o S O S T g E A R R P O C B I A e TA L T S C IL s U O A R D Y H A D A N A C N R E T S E s Wrus
I Y T I 5 S L 2 T I D S C R I d NE P TM A E A F U LS U I E T D T G SO N S TME E I I F _11 D AA N M U E T ES$. N LI N C T F S N a A O O 8 L LC D L IMU N F SL A A L V E E PI P R P TN S I A = '5 L 7 G TA E R h B P I F A "4 T 2 E R U S S E i n R 6 P 5 E n G 4 A C N E E R L C E S NN g U o T K w3 C 1. S R J. A S O
4
) R R E O O H C C D O S L A _ N A s x_ L 'l F R E T / E r D e ^ E P T E s S L b O s A L C \\ S S 'o . N Q ( N "o _ R Jy n . _ a N / O O w A 'e _ t L L s o 4 F c >l r P L x E r D ,4 O IO 2 }' M s N 5' / \\ F O s P N s T s M N s, !U 7 - : 2, E s [.
'l R R R R R R R R R 6 R R .R R R R R D l EL. 599'- 6" --COLUMN EL. 597* ~11 '/4 MIN. W. L. _E,L. 597.55_ -EL. 597'- 3" l
~~x. -~~
~~-] j[ f. N.F TR ASHR ACK -- -+~~
!l

- ---DIVIDER WALL
.!.U. EL. 593'- 9 ef " [ ,;j j; l FLOOR EL 593'- 6" SUMP ,7-----a 'n ACCESS TUNNEL AND ,-,,___s 7 -5/ 'CN l VIEWING CH AMBER j EL. 589'- 6." _. j t qf \\ EL. 587*- 11 %"_ E L. 5 87*- 6" / L-L ABORATORY FLOOR SECTION A-A (SCALE: I": 4') ~n O MIDL AND UNITS I AND 2 C FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS ~D CONTAINMENT SUMP TU 0) SECTION OF TEST FACILITY WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. BCIL 5686 A WCH
q s r_ 3 h 3n r T R E r NE T L H G O m I R A 1 R r o T T N S P N E W M 7 M.1 I O U O N o L P L F S C 1 ~ON 2 r ( ( ] T ) ~ / L D S N E P D TM N T P A AE U LS A (' R TV l E T S E L R T E RA D T I E V SO N N T M A T TME o L O ( E E I M O H E M N C R U E I O N T LI T I P F Z N AA. U M I E D T 2 R O C U N 7 P O I C S N B o P 2 A O ( \\L I =. : L LC R ] = T ) ~ / [ M3 D M. 0 X I L T ,sOM MU 3,sA O F S I 7 D -F "I euk 5 W O O n L F O n O n O n O D l O T n O L SE 1 I 0 R n 2 O TA 2 R O B n A L 2 10 C IL n UAR l o DYH n AD 4 A I. N ) n m5 AC H C N W R A E 6 n T 8 6 S 5 E t W i C S R ) ll1
L ( h 1 mg;tykNfhY;Sae 9 c;g f.Wg cg.,M ~N.~;,ahth. o.E %y # Ari 7I<;M... ~ s$b". nANb fbb as d;igy/@. i u~ ny -- vO ~ necyih Og ? AQ yig;K., ' 5% v> up:ylly' t3: u k% ftt:,. L f* v,,~ y%:,s.7.:j; 7 a x m. c. .a k p m[L > e}(y[Q yI. ', ,a mKg 4 ? yy - +. 'ftf. \\,?)* ? ' A, nim.., : e% i a ;,'i f g-. Lt s [ifi [h:hG, 3 ' - 1 dl M syn,%en%.. '.;w..< n ,w.4 'l %$a w;>e. ff ,* l,. y s ' s. ' ' 'e? N',,- r.- u e, g
~~}k}p,s%sh~~
~~gsQiltd,N'+~~
~~, w F1 m--e(l. u ~ + ' MMQp;it = 1 .El .ng4 c4v : w- - .,9 % u. c..g,( me? ~,. .:,w,+tva .t~~
~~/h)T W*(-~~
~~NU.?.c b b '; ?JG h& % [ ...s-r I jki%77jf;N3M, ^ Uht%%;*[$ff M,.. 1 s*5 " 9 f G. ~ ,k, p i s~~
o
~~,,~Y,.,. Wed"4 c... ..? E.W ?'. $%21 5 m we.e :., .t. :. g sov m= r~~
~~p,w$~ffh?h;;f: '~~
~~,,,h. m %.3' Y~~
~~' (f i.( 5 'x p.a,, - m ;;.. ' y.,p*h$y i ' ' pg W~~
~~4%,,, '; '~~
~~I.j?? c 4"J jp @(t T. l'se+. 54 w:it4 >h, (a%..[. k$a%h hlh j 4D..$% sNnayt,q;,j ggtw# if4A T- [ hhhh was nesgree+~ - em '#44A'n:mge' a % ks%; my~ w%#G-p - u 52T$ swinwgg:rk:63~~
~~gp-msa m~~
4 I I i ( ) un +.a<t nw
1 l [ ( h a r . ~ _p. ~ ire; - l \\ r ( + L._. g l . ~,, r d" .A l 4: e l 5 v ,ej w '.*e g a ,3 e t s. T 4 l 7 - i.. - - a i l c:
~~# -. 4 y~~

~~[ - ' E 1.. ~ ^ '*? g-E, a ;% g: J 1; l~~
~~6..\\ g..~~
~~f.. v -..~~
~~. v i~~
~~,= -. ,y s 9 - '~ 4 .p 'l) ' - L ) o m _,~~
~~f. 4_ _~~
~~s [.;,*' - _ g.; Q t 1 ,G Q _ ~. +p x n; .w 'n p.,.. g \\ V b. ' gl\\.. e Vy ? g. i ' 'A. f.' \\ .\\{ g l ' ',bI '- aAompN g j. n, e s: . mh y :. >. c... ,J tMe_._..93.. s~~
~~1.. s 34 g~~
~~.3 i-q . ' ' 'p. i J.*. j. y' .J L -l L' p ,I ,f]'y \\,.y-t .I J '- ( y l - -_ ),, v...-:-- x<- i _.i. - _. y (O.Q. .s,., J. .r ..','..J 4, t [ f ',... . fiQ.S. = ,. f. y i ... j t - -' 1 g ,g f, -)~~
~~l f'~~
~~_l' e_ l _ u. J~~
~~- l, l~~
(
~~?. '. f:- [~~
~~[ * ')- l~~
~~=,:[ .. __, [= c. w., F. 'e~~
~~(i e2,~~
~~,+ .u .[ g ' - 6, ; l .,. y "'.# j. t, y '~ ~ ' ' .. : - m :, -['d- . iI" d g ' '. '. {. ~ ~ + e I ..~~
~~I,W~~
~~t....,.. - :.~~
J
1 l . w.o r m l s.; . 3;
~~. g-~~
~~-.:.. y :v 1 .c ~ .w ~ 2; i ,1 1 g, .j-,- 4~~
~~h y~..........,:~~
~~- g .R. <f. '. + w....... f. l [, f ;p, } ^ ;; ! 'I l~~
I
,: n. s; xmc. l -p i; . (s y a: ~ ~ t i 7ane nuS m 1 - ~ .w r'anumme u ' 4 - N 9 y. _.., ~ g - ' ~ - ' = _ _. w.. b' i s 2 J g ' + 6-- - -i 1 - - ~p ^ I j 1 g ) v , ' Q. 4; .w w 4 j f . L, '.. 1 -j - i e i .-a. -l ...A m4 l .d l a _ f o -_ y 3; M g ,g n m. em 3. ~. .3 c.p; w je a w., d- =,r ; 4-F- {," %+ 'f i t-i 4 ($ \\" l .. (.- L W9ep ox g .p . g y. 4 %,;< g; a : l I.[ va. j ......i,. s.. j 7- ' ;. -. '.,. ~. g .f3 " ~ f.v - q [' c -14;f i yj j 1.y
~~x.,~~
)
,o. c c Nf m enz w n [ $N$m$g O;@a!4p % yad d)$ %n W;du %gg e u wr l w,%;gne=dm*' y'"'r - %y:r$u:;:lR.?nmi QT y + ce Q..y;4) Afrfy, ~ *?* w>. -Af( ' i -', ' " $eza49. w :e v, " ;;[li {b "l))',0 l ?$Y WA jj@ l '< g-5
~~.;{t t rd.;.~~
~~~ h l ( R" sininiinistillinl%:nM~~
e4
~~( R1111111111lll ?1 9 L 111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 i k@M 9~~
~~111111llllllllllll331 L~~
L 111111111111llll11 Wi111111111111 5 f ~ Illilli c t [ E } J m uo m m l J
I 1 ) l J l l 5 -l 1 N_ 'M lL la l o n l l b E L ) 1 1u l ~ ( otx. a m<,ws = o. n ut
~~, c. a m s~~
___j
R o b.. D m t. [~ ql ^ A. -( q v '.' n '. ~ .)?. ... s 4., !. 4 ., e,s.; e ;, < '..,..1. -Q,y,s.f, f..... ;r, f= >..,, l v... s. (+ l s m 4 ..w fh .. -.. 'f s.. . - x.. p_ r'. +.".s.' c. m . p'.&.. + gf. g .4 ,c. - y t .,4).. I f . $ 4 '. I - k J T2 s k.. +%; ~ 4 .g p .t ,
c
~~.,. p.~~
~~,y, & ~~~
~~- e +..~~
~~g. '~~
s- ~ g, _. ,g me -. *7 g . g 4 - } v3 3 . '; ( - +. y: y., - 4 e 3 p t e.... .~.g,... p.., + ,,,,...y = 1 8 . y% p ;~,. ,s. .: z s.- a a*. .%s -, s '2 .x n .o g ,g, ;. ,... 3 o w: , ; - - n... i 3 w. g r L 97. - y .. s ~ . ~ +- w h
q
~~.4- %.M, ~ ) ...i,... y9.. _y.. 1. J ~ ... + . ?'3 L.. 'e~~
~~i.,~~
.c; 4 + t R (: c .y. .g g:,., ,j J. 9 y,c. .+ ' r. s. _L^'. .. r p ~ i x:rx s A&"s4%_mw m ;.m . pr U,h... n } t' s.4 E ,qa, t S' f f h P, s, r M,. w a,a 1.h. %g*;. ,.y ] h E c 1gw ru: - a s i r E l Ihhdk. J I' ' j 4 Q Q Q;; % -y gay ,p.. t F yv v. sw.a.,f - - ..r, ,L*' a. s ^s m n =- 1 s.u. r - 94 4 s eq < l. n g @x N R, +,l,,:%;h,,y.,i ,r . g. +; L-F. M L - [., _Y', g. 91h,..mr ig M,N7D.At q:b h, w.- } e-s A [DDQ -?[' 45} ; 4 1. . J.. s a l w;g>+..w y;y)TW"Ik11D. r ' @w@$'N. g $2P' N ,a,, ~ r- %, L. y %* W, 2.KQ.& d.mT L r 6hN$p"; :% em,# . u, ~ r* 4 **,* l M /g,e - l x i g t* "g i - y 4.;av, v&e.m,...r<w: v - n.M7 W;bu< & ;g !Ah..g 7.~.gwp % n< m m n w%m;:>n,,,:g-W t 5 . JJ 3d-r Aw ~.. w % p s.,. = -W'[b : g, b..(pW. < -4".*;
~~+-M C,P i\\*s Q.,p.. Q. ;&m.my wp 3W9;g& &.N, ~py. & ' -~~
', +,:. p. m yy'*Q,Q;p.;&ml Q ; &a k%?y ~ m g %e gi.pT;;p;bsum.n w,QW? ~.. e twas M g %,h:%m @ h.::'byy,a:es NrMN <p-. - t % s.a g.NOY M' p fMMM 7 e re3 1 . MhN. - m% W -l s - ~ D % 6 W $ % @ h @$ h f f h, - ' %m ~ @khYhh W Q?y;db f %CG. ' 4.,. ' O 4 s W89 ) 4 L f
e.

%fy'YWe;.him:bphM+4..".
~~l,. rj % L* + R \\ 7 2 -wc. C gj fn.f W ss. w,Q Qq n'pg 8 m_ D 1 c a g 4q qn g j ydQg g f~~
~~s. :3 s,jg 5 a..g s gx%"m,ynyj.'A g,e..,, g g, s,.~~
~~.g., :,, s,n . j c - ,' ^ 4 %,+ f. h ', ,24. Ww(x. fi c.,; M. '.. '~~
o
~~.c W I, [' l [ m ( \\ ~.<,\\ ,v. 4. a. ~ .y m [g* d{ [ b ^7. ' >,' _-$. ' I.. ,.f:.m$ j w. . %{.. :.. - p/p,.,y. l., E ,.p P'. .,(: ,v .. 4 :.g M,,, ;.?.y[.f KA, f~~
~~j,,~~
~~3. 3 .t e e m~~
~~.. ((. -~~
o, A g ~ 4 ., p ; A fv 3.' 5 ' tM g N' k',- '3 g r. i _ _ ? r. n y.. l l ~ 1 I l l J
i 1 [ ' .[ ,/., i' d h ff '*P 'N '( j, b'. s t?;' e,. y , ; ;.cth t
~~.; 3 - --}s~~
~. .u -,. ~ e y- ~ p. 4 -, 's, ? :...b@. I- . 'gi x '.1 ~,; ' ': - L ~ ~ ' I g, + 4 ,..2: ) ,t ,m e y, +q n.. g g ~ 4 s a v; i ,e m , t. ', .y. w ;. . g =, 35 " ~ ' f ^ T + W .y g ~ ? 7 'y g. 4 A, y .t_
~~z [ ;~~
~~},_ er . f j.g , h' k~~
~~-d eq 4~~
~~4 (+ ' 4 ..( r .;. L .n. - : . 4.. < - m ' 4 - j -f ?. Y 'f l H a [g 4.. 4. ~ 1._ T - r l' _. *- a v. ) , c.- g m e. [ L *. .s ^ ^ pN I,~~
~~4..,~~
~~I r ;, r 9 e, I e, g T T M# e L . -i t. t. j. Os ' i ? _ *l l-k ll. c a, y.+ f h.- 1 p.. + u J. '.I ' [' S' .l d ' Y u 'w 'N' ' + g. P - [, ) W^ T. ., f.' g~~
~~j....~~
'i f N- .g u I s c--~' '~ .s ~ j' _ f._ ,., 4 ,~ : - '- '%.p l ' f, g. - ' -- .-l_ ' $1 h '..' a - 'z., y' l s J 4t ',' y s + }.,,.3 . g. K, '. f 5, 's ; -.f? %" "'. kl. ' - - f.- I ,,?g-,=, .._x,, 4 4 ~ 1 m
I m r I my .-w, 3j ._f, - 3 g 4..,. a 4:' s - t 4 ' p 4 ' l Je if.3 ~, 9: l h I ... + - 1 y .I <=: W m. g I , ~,,,. = e; "' g E+
.(

i f b
- m m m M*Wa/cJq.' M d, . i :w ~=4 w W wk ' i g"(%., t k 4 w. f.2 :-t.f. '. A"% *A W^o ~g, * - A $M'i 4:fR"Wl%: 'ip &. ' s a k.{.pr' i M b 4 p S.*'y % t s-M- r *w, ;M... y.6 ' '1- ~ 9 l a. .: W:4 Q _. ' 3.,;g. E 'l 5 ff ' ,Y + 4 Qv.s;
~~Q y~~
~~'p,m'... s.,. -74~~
~~LhR '.".,.~~
~~s eu 9 UbE.W 4l. 1 mg,Y.g,r? a. 9. Y I w q, n.e? i. t:4 " @@,.yy., i y< gWa t 4 t lg?... 1 W* N' , fJ. ; er 4 $^h ,l1 } ?R R~~
~~,.3 7,.,~~
l s.. 5. f (.. . < r .-..tw., f .. -,. 4 i.mt. k.,' Y ~ + N ,. -jt.$ . ' +. l f_ w. i 3;.g. ' _4 -_ a.... _,, , r., g C j :. } } ~ 4... o - { ^ 'n% a a '. i - 71 - _ _ -. 1,. (,; v ',L:4 . M 4...-.. 3._ C.s f.?. g ; ; f.. 41 4,y.q t: ;* - i i., a ,- ;' W A-i i-s- (f ' ^ -9 y g 7,. g 4{ -y. 4 in & A.W.:;;, y u ,.m a, c.h 'f..= s 'S p j l _. ',. MtifyI'.*-).N. q, sp )
~
~~w y~~
~~q.. -.~~
~~... lM4 4 G.,. ~ J. .m 4%44. ;. g. n.~~
t
~~.v x,,. > dP,h [4--+.' hl ,;.: l ;. .4~~
~~5. '-.~~
~~d.k),,. - 4 R$ e'.' -= W g. g, . g f.W '..y.. d 4 - A-4 i., - c.. n ,e '.'_'g*,., s .y E;,.'-. W., -A, s. . y ,, g,, 4. c j *. 4 .. - - ^ l....,. _.. ' g*,,,,._ 3., .rj i _, : = -. s k , -{. 5. l~~
1. * -

s..
~~V ~. 2 sc'. _. ' : y8 ^ ,,, 4 4 y.. ~ ~ e t S 5 d W a.,y; e +~~
~~4. y,. 7 19 p g-1,~~
~~.,--.......,,,,,..;q- , j7~~
r
~~,j,, ,f e .?. a {,. q. b,.,.(,,,' Q'3..~ - =. dj ...... a.. l 3;.- . ;. f. w g p-p i -}.? j 3:]y_"...]'" . yl_jLaw : n F' r. -V ; ;m - - + ~L a r. ~. .. v : A I'.' A: (' . g~~
~~e -~~
?..r, y- ~' '- h *9...,. Ys. / gr 2,..x v y, a
m _m m m m m m m m m rm rm ra ra ra. ca ra rn ca. c' _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 0'_ 50' 5.0* 4 3 2 1 7 5 k TRASHRACK BLOCKAGE SEGMENTS I O SUMP DIV! DING WALL f m / ~~ s /s ~ //i ~ .s /// / * ~ s /[,, 'i/.. s s ' s '_ fi/ / s / f['/,////,f/,' %,'Q,/,', M,@,,' ;'j/M'i//4 9 Ik hh,h J '/ ' k :Q,6'l7/,%' , X.,%'9 '/' '/ /,;,, ,;f,,'//,fp' ' I',- p'C k p; /,' / 'y'% i/ ::: ,@ /n.. $l h g[kl,'/i'{k3hl,0,??('A. '/ N ' ?;) N & .;/ ]y l% $;?:'?:$;'!;g'fllp':-ggy '< h,? ;t9: %:ws' kh'khh,('f,,I,9,-f4 hk5$h,.h'::: N/ i FULL TOP HALF BOTTOM HALF SLOTTED 3 61 TYPES OF BLOCKAGE PANELS C MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 g FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS m CONTA!NMENT SUMP TRASH RACK BLOCKAGE SCHEME WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. BCIL So84 A WCH a
c FIGURE 17 L y BL-I-3 TEST I-3 4 3J 2 1 - OPEN AREA 6.52 ft 2 UPnaLIsYoc"nto 7 l 5 L - WATER LEVEL EL. 59 7.55 - WATER TEMPERATURE 68 'F r - NO VORTICES OBSERVED L 8 6 F L 0I-4 V TEST I - 4 r L a 4 3 2 1 - CPEN AREA 6.52 f r g g MALF - FLOW R ATE 8857GPM - WATER LEVEL EL. 597.55 ' - WATER TEMPERATURE 68 F - NO VORTICES OBSERVED E BL-I-7 TEST I - 7 4 3 2 1 - OPEN AREA 13.39 f t.2 4 - FLOW RATE 88.57GPM 7 5 - WATER LEVEL EL. 597. 55' - WATER TEMPERATURE 68 'F - NO VORTICES OBSERVED l b B L - I - 17 TEST I - 17 - OPEN ARE A 4.42 f t 2 i 1 y - FLOW RATE 87.69 G P M 7 5 - WATER L EVEL EL.597.5 5' - WATER TEMPERATURE 80 F - NO VORTICES OBSERVED 8 6 - TEST WITH GRATING CAGE ONLY k MORE SEVERE CASE OF BL-I-1 - IN0iCATES SOLID WALLS MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 INDICATES TRASH R ACK BLOCKAGE CONTAINMENT SUMP [ BLOCKAGE CONFIGUR ATIONS NOT PRODUCING ADVERSE FLOW CONDITIONS WE STERN CANADA HYORAULIC LABORATORIES LTD.
FIGURE 18 ll et-r-1 TEST 1-1 2 4 3 2 1 - OPEN AREA 13.39 ft lI - FLOW RATE 8857 GPM - WATER LEVEL EL. 59 7.55' - WATER TEMPE4ATURE 68 'F - STRONG FLOCR VORTEX OBSERVED N 8 6 l V TEST I - 2 - OPEN AREA
~~7. 33 f ta 4~~
3 2 i - FLOW R ATE 88F~GPM - WATER LEVEL E L. 5 97. 5 5 ' i f - WATER TEMPERATURE 68 'F - AIR ENTRAINING WALL VORTEX 08 SERVED 8 6 l BL-I-9 TEST I - 9 4 3 2 l - OPEN AREA 8.41 f,2 - FLOW R ATE 8798 GPM - WATER LEVEL EL. 597. 55' i - WATER TEMPERATURE 80 0F - FLOOR VORTEX OBSERVED l BL - I - 10 TEST I - 10 l - OPEN ARE A 13.39 f t a i 1 - FLOW R ATE 8876 GPM 7 5 - WATER L EVEL EL.597.55' - WATER TEMPERATURE 84 F l ~ OCCASIONAL FLOOR VORTEX CBSERVED g 8 6 I MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 INDICATES SOLID WALLS FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS INDICATES TRASH RACK BLOCKAGE CONTAINMENT SUMP BLOCKAGE CONFIGUR ATIONS PRODUCING ADVERSE FLOW CONDITIONS 1 WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. 1 J
L l FIGURE 19 L TEST I-5 E BL-I-5 L V 4 3 2 l1 - OPEN AREA 6.93 f,2 I - FLOW RATE 8857GPM - WATER LEVEL EL. 59't.55' OCKED - WATER TEMPERATURE 68 F L - FREE SURFACE VORTEX OBSERVED 8 6 ) [ BL-I-6 TEST I-6 4 3 2 1 - CPEN AREA 13.8' 12 - FLOW R ATE 8857 GPM - WATER LEVEL EL. 597.55' - W4TER TEMPER ATURE 68 F - FREE SURFACE VORTEX CBSERVED 8 6 [ TEST I" BL-1-8 - CPEN ARE A 8.41 f t2 i i i - FLOW R ATE 8857 GPM 7 5 - WATER LEVEL EL. 597.55' - WATER TEMPERATURE 68 *F ~ ~ - FREE SURFACE VORTEX CBSERVED 8 6 I m INDICATES SOLID WALLS INDICATES TR ASH RACK BLOCKAGE l ( MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP E BLOCKAGE CONFIGUR ATIONS { PRODUCING ADVERSE FLOW CONDITIONS WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. WI 6439 A WCH
FIGURE 20 r L B L - II - 1 F 4 3 z i - DEBRIS UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED L l l - TRASH RACK BLOCVED 50 9/o OVER f 5 FULL HEIGHT BY..LTERNATE 3" WIDE OPEN AND BLOCKED STRIPS. " I l" e a r B L - Il - 2 r - TOP HALF BLOCKED BY FLOATING DEBRIS 3 L - TRASH RACK BLOCKED OVER UPPER ONE H ALF AROUND PERIPHERY. F u s I L B L - II - 3 - LOWER HALF BLOCKED BY SUBMERGED DEBRIS 3 - TRASH RACK BLOCKED OVER LOWER 8 ONE HALF AROUND PERIPHERY. e a B L - II - 4 - UPSTREAM HALF BLOCKED BY DEBRIS 4 3 2 -TRASH RACK BLOCKED OVER FULL HEIGHT 7 s OVER 50% OF ITS AREA IN THE FLOW PATH. a e a F L BL-H- 5 - UPSTREAM HALF BLOCKED BY DEBRIS - TRASH RACK BLOCKED OVER FULL HEIGHT OVER 50% OF ITS AREA IN THE FLOW PATH. M M ( e e [ MIDLANL UNITS 1 AND 2 FULL SCAoE MODEL TESTS m INDICATES SOLID WALLS CONTAINMENT SUMP INDICATES TRASH RACK BLOCKAGE CONFIGUR ATION FOR TRASH RACK BLOCKAGE TESTS { WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. F bcil 6639 A-WCH i I
~ FIGURE Al l r L L VIEWING WINDOW 7 L Y ['////// //, L S t Nh'//////// B L'O C K ' WAli.',///O//////// \\ i g l \\ d Y 2, \\ 4, = FLOW 3' y g .gGRATING }l,'////i, BLOCK WALL //// '////,'// /// '~llV 0g f 6 i 's(i ll l//llffll.'s j,' + l ///i si,j;jfl;/ i,', / //j fjj j //, ;) !ll, /jfj, y',,, '.- j,, j //., ijj, j ;jj,, j, 1 ( ~ i 4' i- - e' i L 1 J i [ j y,, i l li l / / / ; /1, filj, *lllll t/ /i/l/,' ' I,///; /j j I/////ll j';} ~ [ ofwwastg stoex AGE To.Ncuct Eocits 4' 2' MW C*l 's"titser-- 1 nUnt GR ATING l PLYWOOD GulCE g 7 '////// // '//////'/l l'////////////////// / 1 I -. < ?;ni,; yty;pt;;it,-//// ;in,i/// / ? it;;;7 ti},,/! / - i, ,y ,,i; ;g,;;,it ;i i:, l_ v a r. _ l _ 2' _l i SCALE 1 ** : 3 ' [ MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 [ FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS L, CONTAINMENT SUMP [ TEST FACILITY IN FLUME WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. l nenn monmuen m-a -
i l Figure A2 l l I
~~Y f~~
l ..) Approach velocit, 0.10 f;w b) Approach velocity 0.10 fps Grating, at ~30 ' to flow Grating at 60 to flow i i I Grat ing at 10 " to flow Grating at 60 to flow j Il m l I I G r:i t i n c,.i t 3 0 to flow Grat ing.it 60" to flow All flows from left to right Fl.0W 5TR ; I i.!!'l LN I NG E FFECTS OF GRATING I
n I i ] t j . m,. .s.. - t..:, ~ g .+ -. 4' _ ^
~~< +~~
~~>- Q , -, e < g +... .r. i~~
g
~~~', 4 .y a = y..; \\ f- .'I' e y f w a. d.,.,~~
~~3.. ' -~~
~~.v r =e ,~,,_,,, 3 p',. - -~~
e r

^
~~( c ..g :..., e.' g 9. _-'w g, ) .Q y . ji '.. ' ** ' ~ r... g _ D ' .h _. -Q~~
~~g f.e'. #;~~
~~A. y = s % b-g. +.,., Q \\[ ', 4' .a ,. i r 4 ~ c _e.. e:- f ' .&. L ggs e,% ~ ', ',.l '.,'i-7v g.... *. ~,.. ~~~
s,
~~..G w I<*" , N ,/g~~
~~p. _ '.i l~~
s.- ye' ;. 5 y,, .+. a+ . n s.a ? l b' l. y. .,9 9, '1 ' '..,.l' E .g p. 3 k 4 Q,, 'y ,' h e - r (? q .u... y-et , J' ,i.h' o i. ,,, y v.. s v ', 2, .P 10 g k-g..- h. r. , = 7 C,,. 1' _ q ',.. .- A; y, s \\ p ? 7.. ' f.i s _ l?_",. ' ;% T y. .~ 4, '..i
{
~~- y 7. J .,ri, I , -.,.. j_ ~.t ' fG~~
~~-t.~~
~~c. s- -e. -..>*.,_y - ~ ,..*[~^" p ,a :' 2 fg 4-4 .c. a n--., { x..,. 1 -.. c,.y - N. ,. c.. y,, -- - [ ' 4 . _. ~ e. - v: a Y .i~~
~~' n.. i, i y~~
~~.. ~ .e.e. J \\ ~ l NI( (jN) OI 6 /i'N $ l~~
~~l i~~
b'i 4 [* ' * 'kN{- [ Iil : O' 2[ i 4 .N l ; i! i l I j
' Q.f. i. C' 8 ' ~' ' n M m"s:' f 1 .J'- 4 v- ~ a.= " f f..};_ ' ' Q g , k ' ,?. lJ;,[.', [ _.* ~ /4 ' * > J; J ' g. ' ', [. ;, h. Y.W. .. t . ys i P, 4i .c e l/i ~ - M' g %'T. M;,.'>A O 't '. * '., ; '. 4. e,,. 4,.' ]* , Gk &
~~.., 3 m.~~
~~n (, '. q,h.. ^... ^ .f., ..g-o ,' e *"[, k f- '8 g g y .....$0 ,,o f Y' y ".',.,'.4-f4 7.'. p. ' [ j.. ', .,e . ',i y i. ..et x z., -~~
'

M.
.. s' a.N p p. T < yg ,-6 . c, ~w /<,3 N,.pLe' h a,f y c. < h. f n'<j mi f,n ' ' % WMpnk;'s.' s.,' T . j ,s ..M +Qx,WEWW.%5%fj%g)%y a s+w 1 s 6.p. W ,,S,&,, p M,iVQy& ^ Nf. b@[-]p, ;g. [,%o[y 3 - 4 5 ; U j,yy 3,, -
~~n..~~
~~rqi,.. .i-*7 4 *. %+~~
~~C 4 v~~
~~ik k & Y A 9 T~~
~~n.d k nQ w q??..~~
~~.c mqw .r. Afs j~ . m;,$ .D> m"y..'.. m' I Q-wy.w'+: /~~
~~qu>~~
y . wwM % *
,,y... Wn

wMy; e
~~-.wwa sn -+. h.:. p>,y.a;.?;f} X &m&j ,,,. g' V,y.~~
2
~~.w w %~~
~~m4s~~
~~.b :y %[%w@g%m&d:s ~ ' n ,-m y - .w# T UQ. 4.M~~
~~7., r q l d '-'sp m &n y W 1~~
~~. m, A q% : ylU.y F % . J,< J a m. m' A ?? !) s T, Maw .r %..l;UN,p.c&k _g~~
~~,yf@kNWp~~
, /,.i mg Os ~ + 3 -y . ye4 p , m y 4, e NQ*
~~7 l f f d ; %. j " f ] / [ f.c m,.m,, g~, r;s. = x.&..hh $$$ MM U$};.3 A ph,y wwv,&%yi~~
~~, ' [.. m. 7ps ? m: w m.~ ws u a. .s. /- w; n~ r > ) 4(,yt w. r' 5.W g %E C. m% ;t i:,h ?.. L.n. f ' L e ' t' 1y" :':.: k. k. n{v.C m*f. , x,~,[u)2. L 4sY M~~
~~^h*,:.. W W hs L^~~
- g 'hJ(. ?.M [.d2)p4C bkQ/ i% [ ~p j'N[v, %;. ;&yg :k %yi Q 'N' RL, r ,W o n v4y a.s 'w ? s '..[ M.. n%g. Ej.1 ' .w m l bI h I h b k ' f'N k~ V g w m &,y: % n W "s&u t %n.n +*;..: ~ n .a.4 y.,1.sm a%1,dn. -n O cAMW ,... 5. ;- (i - en a 2w 'b v m v& mp ws. t
~~c l~~
Ms@v~GPg(MW WMp,mfMffQ..;s,3' 2 ~ . r J 4. 4 fp. - e . yNW W:aN, ;>!b~.a>b..~ 1 nJ ~ n pmlm liWY:"?%; - le w-,i.I-i -:.. &,. W+,.qQ y d ay .ww - GQ53% -,f $?Ny b;f5:3 q k @f.Yp- $jkN% 4.d.C I',' ' ' f;, $^ (d@g +M [ , ~ p.,.~ ~. ~ o,~, ~:... ~ Q fypqQKqi%,,u.. f: ,. J. %.n a p.;,
~~y. y w.m.s.,.~~
~~n m ~~. 4. m.,. ....2 ".i ~ oc. .y~~
'm
~~'1l L 1;.W: L I# h' y C& 8 4+ ,g.. ;...,.. .. -.. w p, . g.( '.y g y . N,e c q. 7 g . t~~
~~.b e.~~
~~u gy:;... .,, e j 3.<. ' '..- l *.. c: r \\., V...? .t 9.. g._ a, ,, }r '.~~
~~s k~~
~~-l h $ ~ k ,. ' p}'P f...l.'k.,....,, ~ q ,,,3 f, w W -. 'i** - L' y g, a a e ,j -l . g is. s 'e y: .s I Y, 4 .N -. t 9 x~~
~~c.,:,,.~~
~~y,y f.- . c ;; p~~
~~. f.~~
~~., wi] y.s., L. t u - { ,- - + '. ,e .- y<- y 7 ... rs~~
~~i. -~~
~~p. .4 s. { E' ! Y y ,v I'\\ ".. .Q .s \\ j. - h" f -h. Nl.f% A~~
~~3 j -- J_ h h,_lf (~~
~~k? &m. g,h y, l .. j N ^ m w.. m, w,,~~
~~a n~~
,. n m., w .,w .a.y i ' ! I E 4 I E l i g h, y q
FIGURE A5 r L I L i I i F L L o sa ,0 ce 057 4o so g .o s2
~~o ss o rs o rs lo rs ose 20.47 m~~
m r I l jo ss .o ss lo ss e osa o ss o rs f g I I , o ss .o re ,o se o si o se [ i [ ] [ [ [ UNPROTECTED INTAKE FLOW AT 8680 GPM W S. EL, 5 97. 5 4' [ TEM PERATURE IlO 'F VELOCITIES IN FPS j [ l MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 { [ FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP { [ VELOCITY PROFILE EL. 597.04 ~ WESTERN CANADA HYORAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. Incil ee39 A**CM J
t FIGURE A6 ( L. W r IL a u lo S3 o 75 ,o 78 o 64 oS / m w m i / i io ra f o sa
~~ose one~~
' o s, o r$ o rs m i I i i i i e si o si c c e4 lo se 4o 7: o 77 l I i m m _ oS3 o 7' I of o 88 o 7S g [ [ ~ [ [ UNPROTECTED INTAKE FLOW AT 8680 GPM WS. EL. 597.54' TEMPER ATURE 110 'F VELOCITIES IN FPS MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS [ C ON TAIN MENT SUMP VELOClTY PROFILE EL. 5 96.04 { ~ WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. but 6437 4 wCM
f ~ FIGURE A7 ~ L E L E E o rs ors o rs o so o sa / l l [ lori _c or
st
~~.o n~~
~~o ri~~
.ata lo eo L _a 7, o rs _o 9s _o.se o 9, o se r i _i u 2.. _,,, _ic. o,, 17, [ [ UNPROTECTED INTAKE FLOW AT 8600 GPM WS, EL. 597.54' TEMPERATURE llo 'F VELOCITIES IN FPS MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 [ FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS L CONTAINMENT SUMP [ VELOCITY PROFILE EL. 59 5.04 WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. ~ tuil e439 A wCH
L FIGURE A8 IL L \\ r L o 4s o so ,o ss ,o ss ,o 4 x / / l 6 foss .o 57 .os 7e e.77 o 64 m /! l l l f o re too o se a o ss o st oss .i.os l O 1 l l l , o sa .o f f s is l 100 o s4 oro E E [ PROTECTED INTAKE FLOW AT 8680 GPIA W S. EL. 597.54' TEMPERATURE I10 #F VELOCITIES IN FPS E MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP VELOCITY PROFILE EL. 597.04 { WESTERN CANADA HYORAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. twil 4439 A *
~~C M,_~~
~~L FIGURE A9 L u c L., lo se a re o re p sr gra j r L / .oe, a,s .rs~~
~~e. 7s~~
~~.o rs _o.73 m m l l l 1,,7 to.. _, o, 1, 7, _o., 1 I~~
~~0 77 g ir_~~
l I s4 o c az o so n [ [ [ [ PROTECTED INTAKE FLOW AT 8680 GPM W S. EL. 597.54' [ TEMPERATURE 110 #F VELOCITIES IN FPS [ MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 [ FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS L CON TAINMENT SUMP [ VELOCITY PROFILE EL. 596.04 ~ WESTERN CANADA HYORAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. tml 6439 A +wCH
L FIGURE A 10 rL I L L i E
~~oss o 7s o 7s~~
~~.o 7s osa m m m j m.77 ,o se o ao 1 o 77~~
~~o 7s~~
~~.cas e o se m m .o e 7 lo ss~~
~~tor~~
,too hs io es lo ao o sa g f i i _ o ri mos4 mies l I c oe 37s o o.64 1 [ [ [ PROTECTED INTAKE FLOW AT 8680GPM WS. EL. 597. 5 4' TEMPERATURE 110 *F VELCCITIES IN FPS E MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP { VELOCITY PROFILE EL. 595.04 ~ WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. kl 4439 A-*CM
FIGURE B1 r e I L o!!*. U ' '7 U I r e FLOW ~ LINE OF BLOCKAGE _ N 3, AFFECTED [ N. N w = w 2 '/4' I" l'/2 GRATING GidTING GRATING ,/ [ FINE / SCREEN OLOCKAGE j PANEL MEDIUM [ 3CREEN ,,9 ? <'os 't e i 1/4 l { ' '_ n 1 3" _l [ OVERALL WIDTM CF SCREEN CAGE l [ l SCALE : HALF SIZE MIDL AND UNITS I AND 2 FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS CONTAINMENT SUMP FINE SCREEN BLOCKAGE [ WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. bcil 6639 A.WCH
WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. L E r W EL E APPENDIX A 7L SUPPORTIVE TESTS E E E E E E E E I
(1 WESTERN CANADA HYDHAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. APPENDIX A ) ( SUPPORTIVE TESTS I Al. PURPOSE { The purpose of the supportive tests was to demonstrate the effectiveness of [ grating in directing flows and in eliminating the passage of rotational flows through such grating. [ Two independent sets of supportive studies were corried out: [ i. tests were conducted in the laboratories' fiume to demonstrate the flow straightening effects of the trosh rock grating, to show that [ vortices produced in the wake of obstructions or structural members within the containment crea would not pass through the trash rock ( and to show that any circulation which developed in flow upstream -of the sump was not transmitted through a single layer of the trash { rock grating even without the introduction of screens. These tests were octually undertaken as part of the SONGS Study but since the SONGS trash rock grote is identical to that of Midland's, the results con be applied to this study. ii. tests were corried out using flow-directing vones installed around the 1:1 scale model sump model to :,how that the grating cage by ( itself was sufficient to preclude formation of any air entraining or flow reducing vortices under conditions of flow circulation which were for more conducive to vortex formation than would ~ be { experienced of the ECCS intake following a plant LOCA. [' [ [ (; ' __.________.i.-_.__
L WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD [. 1 A2 FLUME STUDIES h A2.1 Description of Facilities { An 8 f t long by 2 f t wide channel was constructed using plywood and concrete block walls in the Laboratories 4 f t wide by 4 f t deep by 96 f t long fiume, Figure Al. A 4 f t by 4 f t section of trash rock grating with bars 2-1/4 in, by 3/16 in. at 1-3/16 in. ~ centres,' was placed vertically across the end of the chor.nel. The channel walls were arranged so that the grating could be angled between 30 to 60 across the fiume flow. b A-3 f t wide baffle was placed across the fiume downstream of the grating. { A2.2 Test Procedure A2.2.1 General A water depth of 2.4 f t was set in the flume. Currents were generated along the channel using a 20 HP recirculating pump. Floating plastic blocks, confetti, dye and light wool tracers were used to illustrate flow paths approaching the grating and { downstream of the grating. Surface and subsurface flow conditions'were recorded on video tape and by 35 mm and 4 in. by 5 in. plate cameras. [ The test program for the supportive fiume tests is given in Table A-l. The initial tests, IV-l to IV-15, were undertaken to show the flow straightening properties of the trash rock grating. Tests IV-16 to IV-18 were undertaken to demonstrate that flows possing structural member:. and blockages at the maximum postulated flow ( velocities would remain relatively undisturbed and that vorticity in the flow would be eliminated upon passing through the trash rock grating. A2.2.2 Flow Straighter.ing Tests Tests IV-1 to IV-6, Table A-1, were rua :a.it, tw g ating section placed peroujicular to the approach stream so that the 1 ', in., 1/16 'n bars were aligned b with the flow. The 3 f t wide downstream baffle was used to diveit flow towards one side of the fiume offer it had possed through the grating to demonstrate that flow { lines exited the grating parallel to the bars and retained their direction downstream of [ I
WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. the grating for on oppreciable distance despite a lateral attraction being imposed on the flow by downstream conditions. The distance from the grating to the baffle was h varied from 2 f t to 4 ft to demonstrate that this spacing was not critical to the test results. Three tests were run at flow velocities of 0.10, 0.25 and 0.50 fps for each { spacing. The grating was then oligned at 30 and 60 ceross the chonnel exit <ind flow conditions documented to examine the effect of approach flow angle on the direction of flow lines exiting the grating. The downstream opening between the baffle and the ( side of the fiume was placed on the side of the fiume towards which the flow was directed by the grating. A final set of tests, IV-13 to IV-15, were run at velocities of 0.10, 0.25 and 0.50 fps respectively with the grating lef t at 60 to the opproach flow but with the downstream opcing moved to the opposite side of the fiume. ( A2.2.3 Vortex Repression {_ Tests IV-16 to IV-18 examined the effect of the grating on the rotational motion with flow approaching directly to the grating at velocities of 0.10, 0.25 and 0.50 fps respectively, Angular momentum was imported to the flow by two methods: i. Large air-core vortices were generated by a paddle located approxi-mately 18 in upstream of the grating, j l l ( ii. A I f t by I f t blockage in the channel center produced eddy-shedding towards the grating. The 'second technique more closely simulated. the rotational motions that would be experienced in prototype. However, the blockage confined flow in the remaining port of the channel and increased overage flow velocities post the blockage. {. [ g.. M
WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. ( A2.3 Test Results { A2.3.1 Flow Streightening Tests IV-l to IV-15 showed that flow paths exited from the downstream side [ of the trash rock grating in alignment with the grating bars, Figure A2, irrespective of the approach cngle, for velocities between 0.10 and 0.50 fps. Results were found to be h consistent for all velocities and approach angles. Flow patterns were recorded both photographically and on videotape. [ A2.3.2 Flow Rotation it was shown in the fiume and documented on viaeotape that vortex cores formed by moving a large upstream paddle were broken up by the trosh rcck. Large paddle-generated vortices approached the grating and occasionally hovered on the upstream side but did not pass through the grating. Angular momentum in the { upstream approach flow was not transmitted through the trash rock grating even without screens. A weak newly formed circulation was occasionally noted on the {_ downstream side of the grating. Downstream circulation could also be produced through partial grating blockage. Surface turbulence downstream of the simulated I f t structural members was negligible at the postulated approach velocities. No air-core vortices were shed from h the blockages with flow velocities past the blockage up to I fps. It was concluded that no significant eddy formation will penetrate Midlands - Units I and 2 trosh rock at { velocities up to twice those calculated to occur following a LOCA. [ [ l l [ [
_ WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULtC LABORATORIES LTD. A3 FORCED R'OTATION INTAKE STUDIES ( The forced rotation tests were performed on the Midiond model with the trash rock remov* A3.1 Facilities [ Adjustable directional vones,18 in. by 42 in. high, were constructed on a 19.0 f t diameter circle around the Midland sump in the 1:1 scale model. The vcnes could be ( independently aligned to induce maximum circulation in the approach flew cround the sump. The entire trosh rock and sump dividing wall above the floor level of el 593.5 f t { was removed from the model. A3.2 Test Progrom [_ The objective of this series of subsidiary tests was to demonstrate the [ effectiveness of the grating cage without the trash rock in suppressing a strong pre-established air-entraining free surface vortex into the unprotected intake. [ Two test runs were made at maximum pump discharge of 8989 U5gpm, water elevation 597.55 f t and water temperature of 110 F. During the first half of the test, with both the trash rock and the grating cage obsent, the strongest possible free surface air-core vortex was established over the intake by setting the directional vones and recorded on video tape. [. The model was temporarily shut down and the grating cage reinstalled over the intake. The above test conditions were re-established on the model and surface { oction above the intake was recorded on videotape. Velocity measurements were obtained with a current meter at el 595.05 ft and 597.05 f t in both tests. The velocities were determined in a grid pottern at 2 f t intervals which was arranged above the sump as shown in Figures A5 to AIO. [ [ C-
L. WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. A3.3 Test Results ( Unarotected intake o { A free surface air-entraining vortex formed over the unprotected intake for the intoke discharge of 8680 gpm at the minimum postulated water level, el 597.55 f t, Figures A3 and A4. The largest vortex formed with the directional flow vones set at approximately 45 from the radial position. Tangential velocity measurements are l shown in Figures A5 to A7. For an intake discharge of 8680 gpm and i10 F, the air core entered the { intake for more than 70 percent of the time. The vortex cir core diameter was 3/8 in, to 3/4 in and was very unstable. Confetti was fed into the air core for better definition in the video tape records. h internal vortices also formed from the floor and from the wall but were smaller in diameter than the free surface vortex. l [ b. Intake With Grating Cage Only [ t The grating cage, Figure 4 was installed over the intake as shown in Figure 9. The grating cage completely eliminated the free surface air-entraining vortex previously present. The circulation forced by the directional vanes remained, ( but the core associated with a free surface vortex was obsent. All internal vortices were similarly absent. Figures A8 to A10 indicate the tangential velocities { encountered in this test. it was demonstrated and documented on video tape that the grating cage, without the benefit of the trash rock, precludes the formation of an air-entraining vortex and internal vortex at all flows up to maximum _of-8680 gpm tested. This ( condition was more adverse than any postulated for the plant. Circulation is a necessary and essential feature of. a vortex. The grating coge, in acting as a flow { straightener, eliminated the circulation required to support a vortex into the intake. E-
L~ r- WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. t -- h - TABLE A-l SUPPOP,TIVE FLUME TESTS - F To demonstrate in the fiume facility that L Support Series IV'- Primary Objective: the trosh rock grating will act as a flow .' straightener. Test Flow - Flow Angle, 0, of Distance from [- Number - ' Velocity Depth Grating Plates Groting to Sink fps - ft to Approach Flow ft Degrees, Fig. A-1 r-L IV-I 0.10 2.4 0 2 lV-2 0.25 2.4 0 2 [ IV-3 'O.50 2.4 0 2 IV-4 0.10 2.4 0 4 p. IV-5. 0.25 2.4 - 0 4 L-IV-6 0.50 2.4 0 4 IV 0.10 2.4 30 2 [. IV-8' O.25 2.4 30 2 IV-9 0.50 2.4 30 2 r IV-10. 0.10 2.4 60 2 L. IV-1I 0.25 2.4 60 2 IV-12 0.50 2.4 60 2 [~ IV-13 ~0.10 2.4 -60 2 IV-14 0.25-2.4 -60 2 IV-15 0.509 2.4 -60 2 -IV-16 0.10 2.4 O degrees-w/ eddies IV-17 0.25 2.4 0 degrees-w/ eddies IV-18 0.50 2.4 0 degrees-w/ eddies [. [ [ [ E
r. WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. b D SUPPORTIVE ADJUSTABLE VANE TESTS p Support Series V - Primary Objective: To demonstrate that vortices generated above the intake without the trash rocks in place will be prevented from reaching p the intoke by the grating cage. L' {~ Test Discharges Water Level Temperature Blockage Groting Coge Number USgpm Elevation, f t F Conditi.;i in Place V-I 8680 597.55 110 No Troshrach No V-2 -8680 597.55 l10 No Trashrock-. Yes [L E E-E E E E E E 9 E i
r WESTERN CANADA HVDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. I L r L F-L F L r L r L E' APPENDIX B r L ERROR IN FINE SCREEN BLOCKAGE L [ E E E L E E l
-WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. .' APPENDIX B ERROR IN FINE SCREEN BLOCKAGE The construction of the Midland screen grating is shown in Figure Bl. The fine screen blockage was simulated by placing sheet metal, I/8 inch thick, in front of the 2-1/4 inch grating. The blockage panels were placed between construction members which divided the trash rock into segments or modules, Figure 16. If an entire module of trash rock is blocked then there is no question cbout the simulation of fine screen blockage. If only a portion of a module is blocked then the 2-1/4 inch grating sees a velocity profile shown schematically in Figure Bl. The velocity profile broadens in the region between the blockage plate and the fine screen due to the action of viscosity.I The extent of the affected zone can be astimated from boundcry layer theory as: 6 0.5 x riix v 4 4 - where U and x are ~ defined in Figure I and v is the kinematic viscosity of water. ~ Assuming 50% blockage, the affected zone is approximately 0.17 inches in extent. - Compared with the overall vertical open area dimension of 42 inches, the error in f simulating fine screen blockage by panels outside the 2-1/4 inch grating is insignifi-Cant. I See. for instance Schlichting, Boundary ' Layer Theory, 6th ' edition, McGraw-Hill, '1968. f ii o w ~ y , _,,,, _ _}}

ML19318C979

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search