Text

Model Testing of Safety Injection Sys Sump
	ML20054J900
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	06/30/1982
From:	; WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES, LTD.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20054J898	List: ML20054J900; W3P82-1755, Forwards Model Testing of Safety Injection Sys Sump. Grating Cages Will Be Installed to Protect Intakes from Vortex Formation;
References
	13050, NUDOCS 8206300181
	Download: ML20054J900 (100)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:5 .,+,,i 1 i O LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY j WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 3 i i MODEL TESTING OF TFE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SUMP l C i FOR i EBASCO SERVICES INC. b I i i j BY WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. i PORT COGUITLAM, B.C. l 13050 JUNE 1982 O. J 8206300181 820628 PDR ADOCK 05000382 PDR A E

.c e n o tTo

v. t,T t u, t a,r,rir e m a, l

{ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. l.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY l 2.0

SUMMARY

2

3.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4

4.0 INTRODUCTION

5

5.0 DESCRIPTION

OF SIS SUMP AND INTAKES 7 6.0 FACTORS AFFECTING ECCS RECIRCULATION SUMP PERFORMANCE 8 6.1 Regulatory Guide 1.82 Requirements 8 6.2 Factors Cousing increased Entrance Losses 8 6.3 Factors Affecting Vortex Formation 8 7.0 RATIONALE FOR MODEL CONFIGURATION AND TEST PROGRAM iI 7.1 Model Scale iI 7.2 Model Boundary Selection 12 i 7.3 Containment Flow Distribution 13 8.0 TEST FACILITY I4 8.1 General 14 i I 8.2 Model Construction 14 f 8.3 Intoke Description 15 8.4 Screen Blockage 16 8.5 Test Observations 17 [ 8.6 Test Measurements 17 9.0 TEST PROGRAM 19 9.1 Objectives 19 9.2 Test Conditions 19 9.2.1 Test Series 1 19 1 d 9.2.2 Test Serles 11 20 f i tj 9.2.3 Test Series ill 21 i 9.3 Test Procedure 21 L l l

,,iti, , ; t, i., ; 0,0 !. h t T r, i : <.T [ ;

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

I Page No. i l 10.0 TEST RESULTS 24 l 10.1 Calibration 24 10.2 Test Series i 24 10.2.1 Tests ! - I to 1 - 20 24 10.2.2 Tests 1 -21 to I - 28 25 10.3 Test Series ll 26 10.4 Test Seiies ill 28 10.S Experimental Accuracy 28 REFEREN S l l l TABLES ' C FIGURES I I l l APPENDIX A t l f O i i w

t I f, ..i' f.';, r i'. ( .(, C LIST OF TABLES TABLEI TEST SERIES I VORTEX TESTS - TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS TABLE 2 TEST SERIES 11 HEAD LOSS TESTS - TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS TABLE 3 TEST SERIES 111 CONFIDENCE LIMITS TESTS - TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS l O l I i I l Il l I I l i i I f i s O

e ,i t, LIST OF FIGURES O l. LOCATION OF SIS INTAKE SUMP IN CONTAINMENT BUILDING 2. PLAN OF MODEL AND TEST FACILITY l 3. SECTION OF MODEL AND TEST FACILITY 4. GRATING FLOOR AND STAIRS 5. PLAN OF FLOOR AT EL. -4'-0" 6. CONTAINMENT WALL, SCREEN CAGE AND TSP BASKETS 7. TRAIN A INTAKE SHOWING SHIELD PIPE 8. VIEW OF TEST FACILITY AND SUCTION PIPING I 9. SCREEN BLOCKAGE CONFIGURATIONS 10. LOCATION OF PRESSURE TAPS FOR INTAKE LOSS MEASUREMENTS I1. VORTEX ENTERING TRAIN A INTAKE 12. CLOSEUP OF VORTEX " HEAD" 13. GRATING CAGES AWAITING INSTALLATION 14. GRATING CAGE DESIGN AS TESTED i O' l l I l I l l l = = - -

t '(+,e* APPENDIX A i Page No. { l~ METHOD FOR CALCULATING INTAKE LOSS COEFFICIENT A-l l LIST OF REFERENCES FIGURE Al l l l l l 1 r i I , O' I i i i i i i I l l l 0 I I O f.

v,t mrn;ce.y.: .e ,4 . a. t Ata mic mu, L T D 1.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY g V, I The purpose of the hydraulic model study was to test and modify, if necessary, the i Safety injection System (SIS) sump to " demonstrate that the sump design will permit operation of the Safety injection System (SIS) and Containment Spray System (CSS) without vortex formation". In addition, the head loss across the screen cage and at each intake was measured for use in the Net Positive Suction Head calculation. Authorization to proceed with the study was received by telex July 2,1981 quoting = Contract No. NY-403687. The terms of reference for the study were set out in Ebasco Specification No. LOU 1564.11I entitled Safety injection System Sump Model Test. l i I i 4 i k i 1 \\ i t l l l i i + 4 'k i 1 3 +i t l

c.; : u, : c/ w,nt. o v m estu ic tet, la 0 8 " U. L ~ ' ' 2 2.0

SUMMARY

p) v. l. Western Canodo Hydraulic Laboratories Ltd. was retained by Ebasco Services Inc. to test the design of the SIS sump for Louisiano Power and Light Company's Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 to assure vortex control and acceptable head losses. 2. A I:1 scale model was constructed of the SIS sump, intakes, screen cage and all containment geometry significantly affecting the approach flow conditions. i I 3. To investigate the susceptibility of the intakes to vortexing, the vertical and horizontal screens were extensively blocked to create sump flow conditions which l are much worse with respect to vortexing than any expected in the plant. Without l the grating cage in place, vortices originating from the sump walls were observed I in the model for various 90 percent blockage configurations. When grating cages encapsulating the intakes were installed, no vortices developed under any f!ow conditions tested. I N 4. (Jl Head losses across the screens and at the intake were measured for five rationally lJ j chosen 50 percent blockage conditions under the following test conditions: l l Postulated for plant Tested i l LOCA/MSLB Minimum Water Level, El MSL -3'-8 -3'-l I to -3'-8 Maximum Water Level, El MSL O'-6 0'-4 to 0'-7 Flow at runout, US gpm CS 2250 2898 - 3372 CS, HPSI 3140 4017 - 4906 I CS, HPSI, LPSI 8640 11084 - 13199 l Water Temperature, OF 217 159 - 179 I Intake Pipe Reynolds No. CS l.10 x 106 1.02 - 1.12 x 106 CS,HPSI l.S3 x 106 1.34 - I.66 x 106 CS, HPSI, LPSI 4.22 x 106 3.66 - 4.44 x 106 5 O m

V.EST ERN C AN AD A H VI:h M '. !C L AfW' A T ORiES LT D 5. The maximum screen loss was found to be 0.098 f t at a prototype total discharge of (j iI,780 US gpm cod 50 percent screen blockage. 6. The maximum intake head loss coefficient measured with the grating cage in place and 50 percent screen blockage corresponded to the prototype head losses shown below: Maximum Head loss, f t i Prototype Flow Rote Train A Train B US gpm l l 2250 0.063 0.064 3140 0.127 0.150 i l 8640 0.905 0.892 O! 7. A separate series of tests under one selected 50 percent blockage condition was conducted to establish the mean intake head losses and screen loss with the associated 95 percent confidence intervals. The results con be summarized as I follows: i l + { l l i i i i j i Prototype Flow Rate 95% Confidence Limits US gpm l' l Train A 8640 0.842 ft < head loss < 0.849 f t l Train B 3140 0.108 ft < head loss < 0.110 ft I t l Screens 1I780 0.030 f t < head loss < 0.03 I f t 8. The effectiveness of the grating cage in providing vortex control was demonstrated repeatedly. - ~ ' '

c. i -

.. nnn,,.i,,, nir.t,a,.c o,"ibL :4

3.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS pJ The following conc;usions and recommendations resulted from the study of the Waterford - 3 SIS sump: 1. The sump and intakes with grating cages will not develop vortices even with 90 percent of the screen cage's open area blocked and single intake discharges up to iI,000 US gpm. 2. The maximum measured intake head loss referred to a prototype discharge of 8640 US gpm and with 50 percent screen blockage was 0.905 ft for the train A intake and 0.892 ft for the train B intake. 3. The maximum measured screen loss referred to a prototype discharge of l1,780 US gpm and with 50 percent screen blockage was 0.098 f t. 4. Based on the test results, it is recommended that the intakes be protected from vortex formation by grating cages as shown in Figure 14. i O' a l 1 l O-

V.LST E RN C AN ADA tiVP4 AU L lC L A B A T G alf S L T D 5

4.0 INTRODUCTION

OG-Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 is a nuclear power plant being built by i Ebosco Services incorporated for Louisiana Power and Light Company. Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories Ltd. (WCHL) was contracted by Ebasco to test the design of the SIS sump with respect to possible vortex formation, and to measure head losses across the screens and at the intakes. The SIS sump is an important part of the emergency cooling systems for the reactor. In the event of a Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) or a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB), water is pumped from the Refueling Water Storage Pool (RWSP)into the Reactor Containment Building (RCB) to cool the reactor. The water eventually collects at the lowest levels of the RCB. Once the RWSP is emptied, the pumps switch to the recirculation mode during which they take suction from the SIS sump. The spent water lying in the RCB is recirculated after cooling through the emergency systems to remove heat from the reactor during cooldown. Although the Containment Spray (CS), High Pressure Safety injection (HPSI) and Low Pressure Safety injection (LPSI) pumps all discharge water into the RCB from the RWSP, only the CS and HPSI pumps normally p operate in the recirculation mode. l v i The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Regulatory Guide 1.79 states that "A comprehensive preoperational test program on the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) and its components should be performed to provide assurance that the ECCS will accomplish its intended function when required." Specifically, "the (preoperational) testing should include taking suction from the sump to verify vortex control and j occeptable pressure drops across screening and suction lines..." The SIS sump could not be tested in plant because flooding the RCB was not feasible. Furthermore, even if the building could be flooded, there is no access for observation of the sump during operation. Instead, WCHL proposed to construct and test a 1:1 scale model of the sump and intakes with provision to observe any vortex activity at { G the intakes. The head losses associated with the screen cage and pipe intakes would be measured directly on the model. The model included both 24 inch diameter intakes, the l SIS sump, the screen cage and the immediate geometry of the RCB to assure accurate 1 reproduction of prototype flow conditions. n i o i ? I

~L .? -,, v Model tests undertaken for the Davis Besse, J.M. Farley, ANO-2, Son Onofre, Midiond, Polo Verde and Comanche Peck nuclear plants have demonstrated the ef fectiveness of a suitably placed grating coge in preventing the development of vortex octivity at the intokes. A similar grating cage was used to preclude vortex formation at the intakes in the Waterford - 3 SIS sump model study. A description of the SIS sump and intakes, o discussion of factors which offect sump performance, the rationale for the test program, o description of the test facility, test program and test results is presented in the remainder of this report. i { .1 a 3 R I f I ? i U ~<

v,Lo um cArmc A m wouucLAtum w Er.tm 7 S.0 DESCRIPTION OF SIS SUMP AND INTAKES O) ( Waterford Unit 3 contains a single SIS sump located on the south side of the RCB, see Figure 1. The sump is 10 ft 6 in wide and 17 ft 6 in. long. The sump depth varies from 4 f t iI in. on the south side to 5 ft 0 in. on the north side. The sump contains two 24 in. diameter intakes located along the outer wall 4 ft 0 in. on either side of the sump centerline, Figure 2. Eoch intake serves one redundant half of the CSS and SIS. The CS pump draws 2250 US gpm at runout. The SIS consists of a LPSI and a HPSI pump drawing S500 US gpm and 890 US gpm, respectively, at runout. Only the CS and HPSI pumps normally take suction from the SIS sump during the recirculation mode. The SIS sump is covered by a screen cage in the form of a rectangular box, Figure 3. The cage is located symmetrically with respect to the SIS sump. Another screen divides the SIS sump and interior of the screen cage vertically along the north-south center axis. The support steel is all on the west side of the center screen. All screen used in the prototype was 18 go. square wire mesh at 8 wires per inch. ( Large debris is prevented from entering the SIS sump area by a grating floor, l } Figure 4, at elevation -4'-0 MSL supported on a grid of strue. ural steel beams, Figure 5. {'I j l The grating is rectangular, welded type with 15 in. by 3/16 in. bearing bars spaced I 3/16 I I l i e in. on centers with crossbars spaced not more than 4 in. on centers. The only opening in I the grating floor in the vicinity of the SIS sump is the stairs. The SIS sump is bounded by concrete shield walls on the east, west and north sides, l and by the containment vessel wall on the south, Figure 6. The main flow paths are through partial openings on the east and west sides. Immediately outside the screen cage the sump is surrounded by a ring of Trisodium Phosphate Dodecchydrate (TSP) baskets as shown in Figure 2. l i b i v l L____

E v.LLitan cANAr>A em, x tauonommEs tTo g 6.0 FACTORS AFFECTING ECCS RECIRCULATION SUMP PERFORMANCE 6.1 Regulatory Guide 1.82 Requirements Regulatory guide 1.82 states that: " Pump intake locations in the sump should be carefully considered to prevent degrading effects, such as vortexing, on the pump per formance". Two degrading actions are possible, ingestion of air and/or high intake head losses, which con lead to the avai! bie Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) at the pumps being less than required. 6.2 Factors Cousing increased Entrance Losses intake head losses are traditionally accounted for in the design of a pumping system by calculating the entrance loss based on published intake loss coefficients for a particular intake configuration. Such coefficients are normally based on measurements taken with near ideal approoch flow conditions. Intake head losses may be increased above design values by adverse flow conditions i 'O in the vicinity of the intake, including: i / s f ih a. increased approach velocities; k 1 3 i b. asymmetric approach flow; j i c. separated flow and/or cavitation; d. strong circulation and/or vortices. 1 The Waterford - 3 SIS intake velocity will be 2.53 fps for operation of both the CS { and HPSI pumps. In the unlikely event that the LPSI pumps also take suction from the sump, the intake velocity will increase to 6.97 fps. With the velocity head as a function f of the square of the velocity, on increase in the loss coefficient above design values will { I only result in significantly higher losses in absolute terms for high intake velocities. h Neither of the above values is considered to be a high intake velocity. I l i 6.3 ) Factors Affecting Vortex Formation I i i 1 There are two classes of vortices which occur at pump intakes, internal vortices and air entraining vortices. Intemal vortices form from solid boundaries such as the sump i l Q. floor or sidewalls. y/ Intake losses are inevitably higher when on internal vortex is present. 4 l y: I y I Air entraining vortices form from a free surface and cause the same degrading ef fects as

c.i b7 E mJ C AN ADA mN AL'UC L ABC 4 AT ONE F LT 9 intemal vortices. In addition, air entraining vortices cause air to be ingested into the q pump which could result in decreased flow. LJ Studies of vortex formation have been conducted by several investigators, see list of selected references. The majority present test results as a function of CL, the intake head loss coefficient; the depth of water over the intake; the circulation number of the flow approaching the intake; the Reynolds Number; some combination of the above parameters. The performance of an intake, as represented by the head loss coefficient C, is L usually described (Amphlett (1976) and Chang (1976)) as: CL = f (local geometry, rmax,NR, N, Nw) 7 where: j Local Geometry = f (D, h, b) 20 NR

Radial Reynolds No.

vD i Dr N

Circulation No.

l p q 2 0h o Nw

Weber No.

{ 24 nD o i I l rmax = radius of the tank (or sump in which the intake is located or maximum radius of circulation in the vicinity of the intake) D = intake diameter h = depth of submergence of intake 1 I b = height of intake above sump floor O = discharge i P = circulation strength = 2 n V r t i i l V = tangential velocity t I i j r = radial distance 1 l-v = kinematic viscosity of water 0 = density of water I i i o = surface tension of water i Studies by Dcggett and Keulegan (1974) and Anwar et al (1977) have clearly shown () that circulation is necessary near an intake for a vortex to form. Circulation is caused by j 9 asymmetric approach flows, dead zones with the associated recirculation and eddy

1 1 V.E ST E RtJ CMJ A D A HYDP, i h iC L A E:OR ATORIES L T D shedding in the wake of flow obstructions. Any increase in circulation enhances the () liklihood of vortex formation md development. The Reynolds number can be used to estimate the relative extent to which viscous forces influence the flow conditions. The effect of viscosity is twofold. On the one hand, viscosity resists the developrnent of vortices by dissipating energy near the core of the vortex. On the other hand, viscosity tends to promote circulation and hence vortex formation at irregular boundaries cnd shear zones as mentioned above. The Weber number is a measure of the relative influence of surface tension on the flow. Surface tension effects are restricted to flows with free surfaces. For approach flows characterized by a free surface, the effect of the depth of submergence, h, is expressed by the Froude number ~ NFr

1

/ gh (o) where V is the intake velocity and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The work of l Daggett and Keulegan (1974), Anwar g o_I (1977), and Zielinski and Villemonte (1968) have shown that the circulation required to initiate an air entraining vortex decreases as the submergence decreases. In other words, the required circulation for the onset of an air I entraining vortex decreases as the Froude number increases. Circulation, viscosity, surface tension and local geometry are not all of equal importance in vortex formation for the range of intake operating conditions considered. I Work by Dagget and Keulegan (1974) and others have shown that for high radial Reynolds l number (N 4 R > 10 ) and moderate vclues of circulation, typical operating ranges for the recirculation intakes, the effects of surface tension and viscosity are relatively small. For this operating range, vortex formation is essentially independent of the Reynolds and l Weber numbers. The intake performance and hence formation of vortices reduces to a j function of three parameters: the local geometry; the maximum circulation radius; the I strength of circulation of the approaching flow. J Il h i U ,t C) J q q q 'I

'/,'EST E hf 4 C AN ADA HYCH AULIC L ABOR AT ORIES LT D 7.0 RATIONALE FOR MODEL CONFIGURATION AND TEST PROGRAM (o) 7.1 Model Scale it had been found in previous studies by WCHL for the Davis Besse NGS that the vortex formation process cannot readily be modelled at scales below I:l; that is, reliable predictions as to presence or obsence of vortices cannot be made below this scale. A 1:1 scale model was used for this study to minimize scale effects in modelling vortex formation. The model flow rates were based on the following prototype flow rates for three pmp suction combinations: Pumps Prototype Flow Rate US gpm i T I CS 2250 CS + HPSI 3140 i CS + HPSI + LPSI 8640 4 j Vortex formation was evaluated in the model at various flow rates for both cold water and water heated up to 1800F. Increasing the water temperature reduced the viscosity and hence its retarding effect on vortex formation. i Within the prototype Reynolds number range, the variation of the intake loss coefficient with temperature and small changes in flow is small. For test purposes the intake loss coefficient was measured at the prototype Reynolds number corresponding to i the maximum postulated containment temperature. Water temperatures in the containment after a postulated LOCA could reach as I high as 217 F. The maximum water temperature attainable in the facility was 180 F with testing at lower temperatures (150 - 180 F) of ten desirable. To overcome the p difference in fluid kinematic viscosity between prototype temperature and model y A

v.t ~ m.L:.r.,v: w : ~, t us

w i2 temperature for the purpose of achieving the prototype Reynolds number range, the fl model flow rates in each intake were enhanced beyond prototype flow rates in the following manner:

QM=OPx vM "P where: QM = model flow rate OP = prototype flow rate VM = kinematic viscosity of water at model temperature vp = kinematic viscosity of water at 2170 F. The degree of subcooling has an important effect on the prototype NPSH since the j vapor pressure changes significantly with temperature below the saturation point. However, the SIS sump study only investigated the head loss associated with the intakes. Since the degree of subcooling has no significant effect on the intake loss coefficient, the effect of subcooling on the NPSH was outside the scope of the SIS sump model study. s I i 7.2 Model Boundary Selection i I i l in section S.2 the factors offecting head loss and vortex formation were discussed. Intake head losses are mainly a function of circulation and non-uniform flow in the I vicinity of the intake. Thus to successfully model intake losses and vortex formation, the far-field conditions must be duplicated only so for as they influence the f near-field flow. In most ECCS sump designs, the screen cage is constructed of one or more layers of grating as well as screens to act as a trash rack. WCHL has demonstrated in the past that grating is an effective flow-straightener and largely decouples the flow conditions in the containment area from the flow conditions in the sump, especially with the trash rock in a blocked condition. On this basis, the trash rack itself may of ten be considered as the model boundary, and it is therefore unnecessary to model details of the containment i outside the trash rack. i i ? The screen cage design for the Waterford - 3 SIS sump does not include any grating, so no credit can be taken for flow straightening by the cage. The grating floor installed above the cage does not affect flow below this floor level. Therefore, the containment

,m , : e. %, "., 13 area in the vicinity of the SIS sump must be included in the model since it could offect Q flow conditions in the SIS sump. Q. l The dominant effect on opproach flows is provided by the interior shield walls to the east and west of the SIS sump, particularly the west wall which provides only two relatively small flow paths, Figure 2. The flow occelerating effect of these two walls on the opproach flow will remove any influence of conditions outside the immediate vicinity of the SIS sump. Therefore structural members, piping, volves, etc. on the upstream sides of the east and west shield walls were not modelled. Only a single 3 in. NPS pipe crossing both flow openings in the west wall was included, Figure 2. The reactor drain tank was also not modelled; instead a vertical wall was installed, Figure 2, to simulate the dead zone created by the tank. i All electrical boxes, piping and conduit larger than 2 inches in diameter were modelled in the area between the two shield walls and the sump. The IS prototype TSP baskets which surround the screen cage are constructed of 80 mesh screen. Since flow through these baskets would be negligible, the baskets were modelled as solid boxes constructed of galvanized sheet metal, Figure 6. This approach is conservative. 7.3 Containment Flow Distribution l i I There are only two flow paths to the SIS sump in the Waterford - 3 containment area, Figure 2. The distribution of flow in these paths will depend on a number of factors including location of any pipe breaks and flow blockage in the containment area. There are three extreme conditions: a) flow evenly distributed b) flow all from east c) flow all from west i These extreme cases are expected to lead to the worst hydraulic conditions and thus were L i i l tested on the model. [ l O

. v. i m n c m.;% m :.. u i c v., + - i v % s t 7 0 ,4 8.0 TEST FACILITY (h v 8.1 General The test facility consisted of a 1:1 scale model of the SIS sump, two intakes, screen cage with sump dividing screen and containment geometry as shown in Figure 2. The sump model was bounded on the south side by the containment vessel wall and included both the east and west shield walls. The shield wall separating the containment and SIS sumps was located just beyond the model boundary represented by the tank wall. Plan and section views of the test facility are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The concrete tank is 60 f t long, 25 f t wide and 14-l/2 ft deep. A 24 in, diameter diffuser at each end of the tank provided approach flow to the model. These diffusers were independently controllable via butterfly valves on the outside of the tank. Two gas furnaces, each rated at 2.4S x 106 BTU /hr, were used to heat the water in the facility. 8.2 Model Construction All items such as electrical boxes, TSP baskets, stairs, piping and conduit greater than 2 inches in diameter - referred to hereafter as bric-a-brac - were modelled in the 3 i i vicinity of the SIS sump. As explained in Section 7.2 only items located between the east l I and west shield walls and the SIS sump were reproduced in the model. The water level j detector was located in the northeast corner of the SIS sump as shown in Figure 2. i i The screen cage, grating support steel, handrails, stairs and other bric-a-brac were i all constructed from prototype drawings. In some cases the structural members on the t model were thinner than but of the same major dimensions as the prototype, e.g., 3"x3"x3/16" angle iron was used instead of 3"x3"x3/8". The conduit and piping were i modelled with galvanized sheet metai duct. The interior shield walls and containment j j vessel wall were constructed of galvanized sheet metal on an aluminum angle frame. l Installation details for minor bric-a-brac items conformed to information collected on a i } site visit to the Waterford - 3 plant during construction in July 1981. l l r 1 During model construction the location of the TSP basket directly north of the n (j screen cage door on the east side of the SIS sump was found to conflict with the electrical j r l I

l

. c u m c :, a :, w ' u m m i t '

~ -.T g box along the east shield wall. Af ter consultation with Ebasco the TSP basket in question was moved approximately 2 inches further west, nearer the SIS sump. 8.3 Inteke Description The sump was formed of welded steel plate with clear acrylic viewing windows set flush into two sides. The intakes themselves were modelled in nominal 24 in. diameter FRP pipe. The actual ID of this pipe was 24-l/4 in while the ID of the prototype intake is 22-l/2 in. (24 in. OD with 3/4 in. woll). The difference between the pipe sizes is not significant in terms of their approach flow conditions and vortex formation. A correction for the difference in diameters was made in the calculations of prototype velocity head and head loss, see Section 9.3. For test purposes the west and east intakes were designated train A and train 3, respectively, Figure 2. The original design called for the intake pipes to be mitered at an angle of 45e. However, based on previous experience with intake designs, WCHL recommended that the ends of each intake be left squa're unless model testing indicated modifications were O required. The lengths of train A and train B intake were 52 5/8 and 52 3/4 in., respectively, measured from the face of the south SIS sump wall. The shield pipes which enclose the 24 in. suction lines were modelled by 36 in. l fiberglass pipe with a 375 in. OD, Figure 7. An ellipsoidal pipe cap completed the shoulder of each shield pipe. The model shield pipes terminated at the SIS sump wall. The two intake suction lines were reduced to 16 in. diameter outside the SIS sump (see Figures 2 and 3). These lines then exited the tank via pipe sleeves mounted in the steel tank door. l I To accomodate the postulated failure condition of a LPSI pump taking suction from the SIS sump either through train A or train B, a piping system was developed permitting the largest of the three recirculating pumps in the facility to draw from either intake, i with a pair of butterfly valves controlling the suction source. This piping configuration is shown in Figure 8. Discharges from the three recirculating pumps were measured by mecns of stainless steel orifice meter plates and U-tube monometers. These meters were O iedividueiix caiibreted in site egarest a re8cretery standard erifice before the test projram commenced. 1

a i m u ww w. ., + a.u n tw !C 8.4 Screen Blockoge f The Waterford - 3 screen ccge uses screen on the top as well as on the sides. l However, according to Regulatory Guide 1.82, "no credit should be taken in computation of the available surface area for any top horizontal screen". Therefore the top of the screen cage was completely blocked for all tests except those specifically designed to create vortices by testing extreme blockage conditions. Fifty percent blockage j configurations were calculated on the basis of the vertical screen area only. In order to simulate screen blockage by floating debris, neutrally buoyant debris and sinking debris, different sections of the screen cage could be fitted with blockage panels of various configurations, see Figure 9. The blockage panels were constructed of sheet metal and attached directly to the screens using sheet metal screws inserted into the wire mesh. The 3 in. vertical strips were connected at top and bottom to form panels which were then attached in the same manner. The design of the model required provision for changing the blockage on the screen n) cage without draining the water from the tank. This was accomplished by building the ( grating floor directly above the screen cage in two removable sections which could be i stored on a rack at the end of the tank. One section included part of the stairway i adjacent to the sump. A single hook was carefully located on each floor sections so that it could be engaged by a ring on the monorail crane which runs above the tank centerline. l t With these floor sections removed, the screen cage itself could be lif ted out and blockage i plates changed. I Four guide-posts were welded to the steel floor just outside the SIS sump and inside l the corners of the screen cage. These posts leaned inwards at the top for easier positioning and guided the screen cage as it was lowered so that it would always be accurately located with respect to the SIS sump af ter every change in blockage. Removal of the two sections of grating floor - the grating along with its support l steel - necessitated the introduction of structural members not present on the prototype. Two 12 in. by 3 in.1-beams were used to frame the sections of grating to be removed on f their north and south sides, as shown in Figure 5. l Ine presence of the guide posts for the cage and two additional structural members (~ I l V further obstructed the flow. The flow disturbances thus created make the results of these l t \\ o* tests conservative.

m ' IE lh LIO ,,I t m - dd?At1't i*

o. r i I

g7 8.5 Test Observations (v) Surface flow phenomena were observed from the v,alkways surrounding the model. Flow phenomeno within the SIS sump could only be observed from the observation chamber which formed the north and west walls of the SIS sump. The chamber, constructed of 3/16 in. steel plate on a channel frame, was of rectangular cross-section measuring 5 f t 2 in. x 3 f t 2 in. inside. Access to the chamber wns via a ladder in a vertical shaf t built into the west interior shield wall. The six windows in the viewing chamber were each 34 in. x 14 in. and were mounted vertically in pairs, one pair directly facing each intake and one pair in the SIS sump wall adjacent to the train A intake, Figure 7. The windows employed 5/8 in. toughened glass as the pressure giczing and a 3/4 in. acrylic safety window on the chamber side, as well as a second 3/4 in. acrylic panel mounted in the sump wall. All three panes were mounted within a single frame. O Lights were set up at unused windows in the viewing chamber to provide illumination for photography and videotoping, and for vortex observation. 8.6 Test Measurements intake and screen losses were determined from the piezometric pressure measurements indicated on Figure 2. l l l Tops I and 2 on the diffusers at the ends of the tank were connected to either side l of a U-tube monumeter and, after individual calibration, were used to balance the flow distribution from each end of the tank as required. l l Top number 3 terminated on the inside of the steel door in the tank wall, and was used to determine the reference water level outside the screen coge. The static head inside the screen cage was determined by four interconnected pressure tops in the floor of the SIS sump, close to the walls and removed from any impinging flow paths. These lines were combined into one, designated number 4.

t, t./

The standard method for intake loss measurement required that sets of pressure Y, taps be mounted on straight runs of suction line a minimum of 20 to 30 pipe diameters

_to u. L u i: uc .,v, w,: gg downstream of any bends or other flow disturbances. The pipe friction factor and hence friction losses were calculated from these piezometric readings. Bend losses were O caiceieted esimo enoineeries desien seides. sebtrecting the frictioe iesses, bend iosses, and velocity head from the measured piezometric head loss gave the head loss associated with the intake. The difficulty with this method is that interactions between piping components must be carefully calculated, allowing for different axial planes, spacing, etc.. In addition, the sum of these component losses is often larger than the intake loss resulting in a large uncertainty in the intake head loss measurement obtained. Since numerous bends in different planes were required to bring the suction lines from the model SIS sump outside the tank, a different approach to intake loss measureraent was taken on the Waterford - 3 model. Pressure taps were installed in the walls of each intake pipe directly downstream of the lip, Figure 7; tops 5 to iI on train A and tops 12 to 18 on train B as shown in Figure 10. Th6 pressure readings from these taps were used to determine the location of the vena contracta downstream of the intake lip, (} and to derive values for the pressure and hence the velocity at the vena contracta. Knowledge of the velocity at the vena contracta and the mean pipe velocity derived from the discharge allowed the intake head loss to be obtained. For a detailed discussion of the intake head loss calculation, see Appendix A. Tcps 3 through 18 were all connected to a vertical manometer board mounted on i the outside of the tank. The scale of this board was carefully referenced to the model so that prototype elevations could be accurately derived from the readings. 1 Additional taps were located upstream and downstream of the discharge orifice on I each of the three pumps. U-tube monometers filled with Mercury (SG 13.55) were connected to these tops to enable the discharge of each pump to be measured. t l l I i O 4 f (

, J. n n c t.. e. c;,.,, . t.. t..- mts tm 9.0 TEST PROGRAM 0 9.i objectives The purpose of the hydraulic model studies was to test the Waterford - 3 SIS sump and to modify the design, if necessary, to assure vortex control and acceptcble head losses. This objective was achieved through the following test program: i. Series I - Vortex Tests k Ascertaining any modifications to the intakes required to ensure that the ~ intakes will be free of vortices and other unacceptable hydraulic conditions. i Documenting the effectiveness of any modifications and of the grating cage over the intakes in preventing vortices and other poor hydraulic conditions. i /G ii. Series 11 - Headioss Tests %J Directly measuring on a full scale model the head losses incurred by the screen cage, grating cage and intakes during a variety of postulated flow conditions with 50 percent of the screen area blocked by simulated debris. I iii. Series ill - Confidence Limits Tests Establishing, through the repeated performance of a single test from Series l 11, the repeatability and standard deviation of error of the results obtained i in the intake loss measurements. 9.2 Test Conditions The test conditions for Series I,11 and 111 are tabulated in Tables I, 2 and 3. A description of each test series appears below. [ t i 9.2.1 Test Series i O wits tse imtewe vmoretected s e oretim9 ccoe. verievs scree" siecuc9es -ere x imposed. SIS sump flow conditions much worse with respect to vortexing than any m

.ou : Au - ' aia! .7 m ?n expected in the plant were obtained by blocking approximatelv 90 percent of the screen cage area including both horizontal and vertical screens. Sht. t metal panels were fitted ,C over the cage leaving one panel open to reproduce blockage configurations A to K in Figure 9. Each blockage condition was tested without the grating cage at minimum water level, El - 3 f t 8 in. MSL, with cold water and flow from both ends of the facility. Train A and B flows were first set to 8640 and 3140 US gpm, respectively, and then reversed for each blockage condition. The two flows, 8640 and 3140 US gpm, represented the largest prototype intake flow rates, and as such, the most favorable conditions for possible vortex formation. These tests are tabulated in Table I, Tests I - 20. The two " worst-case" conditions chosen from the twenty tests were then repeated with hot water and grating cages over the intakes to verify vortex suppression. Approach flows from both ends of the facility were tested to determine any flow distribution effect. The ef fect of flow discharge was demonstrated by testing at the facility maximum for each intake. -/s / 9.2.2 Test Series !! l This test series was carried out to establish loss coefficients for the screens, grating cage and intakes, with 50 percent vertical screen blockage in four rationally determined configurations, namely: debris which is uniformly distributed throughout the water column; a. b. floating debris; c. non-buoyant entrained debris; d. a combination of floating and non-buoyant debris which is directed at a particular location on the screen cage by the approach flow, i.e., from the east or from the west, Figure 2. In addition tests were carried out with no blockage of the vertical screens. Blockage configurations are shown in Figure 9 L-R, and do not take credit for the horizontal screen area. i Series 11 tests considered seven different intake discharge combinations bt m () four postulated prototype flow rates: 0, 2250, 3140 and 8640 US gpm. In each ca. i h 'I

Et'D ,.i it a e,,,, ..4 4,, u' 7; i water temperature was close to the facility maximum, and the model flow rates were t augmented to achieve the prototype Reynolds number range, see section 7.l. i exb l Series ll tests were carried out with water at 159 to 179 0F; at the minimum water level of El -3 f t 8 in. MSL; of the maximum water level of El + 0 ff 6 in. MSL; and with flow from the east, west, and evenly distributed. Test conditions are tabulated in Table 2, Tests 11-1 to 11-252. The grating cages were in place throughout Test Series ll to provide vortex suppression. 9.2.3 Test Series Ill Reproducibility in the test results was assessed by the determination of the mean I head loss coefficient and 95 percent confidence limits obtained from a series of 20 tests carried out at one of the 50 percent blockage conditions chosen from Series 11. The configuration chosen was M, Figure 9; the test was a repetition of test il - 31. p V Test Series til was carried out with water at 174 - 175 oF. Test conditions are tabulated in Table 3. l 9.3 Test Procedure g The procedure used in operating the model was as follows: With the relevant combinations of blockage, flow origin, grating cages and operating intakes set as required, the pumps were started. l Manometer lines were bled, and flow meter manometer readings were checked to ensure correct flow in the two intakes given the operating tcnk water temperature. Af ter necessary adjustments, the flow was allowed to stabilize before the required measurements were taken md flow observations made and recorded. Video and/or j photographic records were taken if required. l l \\ During a sequence of tests for a given blockage configuration, discharges werc chcnged without shutting off the pumps in between tests. However, for Test Series ill, all .i /,i V three pumps were throttled down to shutoff af ter each test cad the discharge monometers [ were bled. i ~ ~~

. i 22 Piezometer and manometer readings were corrected for temperature differences before final data reduction. Fitting a curve to the individual pressure measurements at Y

the piezometer taps on each intake enabled the piezometric head at the vena contracta to i be obtained. The velocity at the vena contracta was then calculated using the following l equation: l l Vvc = Cy / 29 (hs - hve) where: l Vvc velocity at vena contracta of intake = hve piezometric head at vena contracta of intake = h = s piezametric head in SIS sump i i Cy velocity coef ficient = acceleration of gravity = 32.174 f t/s2 l g = Use of the velocity coefficient in the coove expression accounts for the head losses upstream of the vena contracta. The velocity coefficient is defined as the ratio of the actual velocity at the vena contracta, Vve, to the ideal velocity, Vvc', I e-i l I l Cv = Vvc i Vve' I An overage value of Cy equal to 0.975 was used (see Appendix A). Knowing the velocity at the vena contracta and the pipe velocity downstream, the intake loss coefficient was calculated as follows: CL= l 2 +1 2 Cv Cc2 Cc i where: ,i ' i i CL intake loss coef ficient i = C contraction coefficient, by continuity equal to the ratio of the pipe e = a velocity to the velocity at the vena contracta. j 't See Appedix A for details of the intake loss calculation. I l

.,i r r n u ces.t.t v. m r av u t ic t t.uc n e.1 on f :, t T D 23 Prototype head losses were calculated from model loss data by: O Prototype head loss = model loss coefficient CL x prototype velocity head l i l l i l O 1 1 l l t 1 1 O l 1

w Tt o n w u r>A n i n <^ ht m m

i 5 L T U 24 10.0 TEST RESULTS

(--D) 10.1 Calibration For calibration of the orifice meters on the three pump discharge lines, a standard orifice plate was installed in the 24 in return line at the back of the tank (see Figure 2). Two U-tube manorneters were connected in parallel across this orifice meter. A 50 in. manometer using Meriam fluid (SG 2.95) was used for the lower discharges, and a 36 in. manometer using Mercury (SG 13.55) was used for the higher range of discharges. All three orifice meters were individually calibrated against the standard orifice meter at discharges ranging from 3,007 to 7,531 US gpm. For each discharge, O, a differential pressure head, ah, was recorded. All calibration data for each line were then combined, and a " power curve" formula derived for each in the form of Q= a ( A h)b, where o and b are constants. Af ter calibration was complete, the standard orifice was removed from the 24 in. line. These formulae were used for calculations of discharge for y the remainder of the test program. i The dif fusers at the ends of the tank were each similarly calibrated against known orifice flows. The discharge-head curves derived for each each were then combined so that balanced flow from both ends could be set for any discharge using a differential monometer. 10.2 Test Series I g Test Series I investigated the susceptibility of the intakes to vortexing by extensively blocking both the vertical and horizontal screens creating SIS sump flow cond;tions w'iich are much worse with respect to vortexing than any expected in Waterford - 3. Since the flow acceleration caused by the 90 percent blockage condition effectively removed the influence of flow conditions upstream, the grating sections above the screen cage were removed during Series i Tests to expedite testing and better facilitate model observation. 3 i 10.2.1 Tests I-I to I-20 OV Tests I-I to 1-20 were carried out with cold water at the minimum water level. A series of 90 percent blockage schemes were imposed on the screen cage without a grating

a ;i v.c y,e 1 o. 11-25 cage protecting the intakes for two discharge combinations and evenly distributed f.ow from both ends. ~ g3 V t in each test careful and thorough observations were made over a period of ten to i twenty minutes to determine the presence and severity of vortices and other unocceptable k flow phenomena. Of ten visual observation of a vapor-core vortex wa. accompanied by a l " crackling, sizzling" sound. The observations for Test Series I are summarized in Table 1. Vapor-core vortices originating from the SIS sump walls and observation windows were observed in 9 of the 20 tests. Vortices were observed on both intakes but never at the same time. The most intense vortexing occurred in Tests 1-5,1-10 and 1-13. Vortices in these tests were recorded on video-tape in addition to the written description on the test data sheets. Typically, a vortex would consist of a relatively large vapor-core head at the wall with a gradual reduction in diameter and visibility along the tail. The vortex was i observed to move within a limited region, alternately growing and decaying with time. p Depending on the vortex size and strength, the vapor-core was observed to enter the intake or terminate short of the mouth of the pipe. { Photographs of the sidewall vertex in test 1-13 appear as Figures 11 and 12. f. 1 i 10.2.2 Tests 1-21 to I-28 l l The two " worst case" vortices selected for the vortex-control tests were tests 1-10 and 1-13. Crating cages were fitted over the intakes to demonstrate the effectiveness of the grating in eliminating these " worst case" vortices. The grating cages were constructed of steel grating made from I-l/4 in. x 3/I6 in. bars,1-3/16 in. o.c., with round bar at 4 in. o.c. as shown in Figures 13 and 14. In accordance with the preference stated by Ebosco, the grating cage was supported off the SIS sump floor. e i i Af ter the grating cages were installed on the intakes, the water in the facility was heated to approximately 160 0F to reduce the retarding effect of viscosity on vortex f \\ l O P l

v.i m m cuane en r o tu o m m stin 26 formation. Four different tests were performed on each worst case blockage ~ configuration. In each of these tests, prolonged observations were made from the viewing em (V) chamber to ensure the absence of vortices. At the beginning of test 1-24, a brief bubble-core approximately 1/32 in. in diameter was observed originating from the east wall of the SIS sump. This incipient vortex core did not develop further, did not reach the grating cage and was not observed again during this test despite close scrutiny. The fact that the vortex core stopped short of the grating cage demonstrated the ability of the grating to eliminate the circulation required to sustain vortex activity. During this test the discharge on the train B intake was 1267I US gpm, the facility maximum. No vortex action was observed at any other time with the grating cages in place over the intakes. The grating cages were completely effective at eliminating all vortices at the intakes for the " worst case" conditions. No flow discharge or approach flow distribution effects were observed with respect to the grating cage performance. /~(j 10.3 Test Series 11 4 Tests ll-l to 11-252 were run with the blockage conditions and discharges noted in Section 9 and tabulated in Table 2. Blockage configurations are shown in Figure 9, L-R. For test series ll-l to 11-42, blockages L and M, the grating sections above the { screen cage were lef t outside of the model by mistake. They were in place for all other i test s. The effect of this omission on the test results is not significant since at minimum water level the ef fect of the grating floor on the approach flow is negligible. In addition, operational difficulties with the diffusers forced tests 11-64, 11-67, 11-70, 11-73, 11-76, 11-79, ll-82, ll-193, and 11-199, all with even flow distribution, to be initially postponed. These l tests were rescheduled for later in the test program. Inspection of the data, however, 1 showed no unusual head losses associated with the even distribution flow condition thus these tests were omitted from the test program which was already rather extensive. l i No vortices were observed in any test. The range of measured intake head losses, corrected tc prototype discharge are noted below: j i /m. l ~

,1o,o s t m a unn.; ; ,, or 4 iet 27 ) (V Head Loss, f t Prototype Flow Rate Train A Train B US gpm 2250 0.053 - 0.063 0.050 - 0.064 3140 0.08 l - 0.127 0.065 - 0.150 8640 0.810 - 0.905 0.788 - 0.892 The upper limit for the head loss on train B at 3140 US gpm,0.150 f t, appears to be on anomalous value. If the results for tests 10 and iI on train B are discorded, then the ] upper limit for the prototype head loss drops to 0.123 f t. This value is in close agreement with that measured on train A at the same prototype flow rate. The head loss across the screens corrected to prototype discharge ranged from 0.000 f t to 0.098 f t for combined flows of 3140 and 11,780 US gpm, respectively. The smaller screen flow represented operation of only one intake at 3,140 US gpm. The larger flow of II,780 US gpm corresponded to combined intake flows of 3140 and 8640 US gpm. At low flows, the screen loss was less than the smallest head that could be measured on the model,0.005 f t. i The highest values obtained for the screen loss occurred at blockage configurations O and R with the maximum discharge on train B and A, respectively. For these configurations, the maximum flow and 50 percent blockage were both on the same side of the SIS sump. In order to reach the intake on the blockage side of the SIS sump, the flow was required to pass through both the cage screens and the SIS sump dividing screen resulting in higher screen loss values. i l { r I

e.. n m cr.n e, n e, o u m o t t '+

28 ~ ~ 10.4 Test Series 111 ,b Test Series lil was designed to define the 95 percent confidence limits on the experimentally determined head losses using the worst condition from Series 11. Since no blockage configuration in Series 11 showed significantly larger head losses than any other configuration, Test 11-31 was arbitratily chosen for Series Ill. Test Il-31 was repeated 20 times to obtain mean intake head losses and screen loss with the associated 95 percent confidence intervals. The tests showed the following results: Prototype Flow Rate 95% Confidence Limits US gpm (o) Train A 8,640 0.842 f t < head loss < 0.849 f t Train B 3,140 0.108 ft < head loss < 0.l l0 f t i Screens I I,780 0.030 f t < head loss < 0.031 f t l 10.5 Experimental Accuracy I Discharges measured by the orifice meters were accurate to within 1 I percent. e Temperature measurements were within 1 i F, and piezometric levels and manometer readings were within 10.005 ft of water. l i The intake head loss was derived from measurement of the head at the vena i contracta and calculation of the overage pipe velocity from the pipe discharge. A l velocity coefficient of 0.975 was used. The estimated error in the head measurement at i the vena contracta was approximately 10.01 f t. The velocity derived from the discharge measurement was accurate to within 1 l%. The maximum vcriation in the velocity O coefficient is estimated to be less than 12% (see Appendix A for the range of values). t i l l _.. _ -_-- - - - - - - - - - - - =

t Ab: I T ORIES LT D v.t -T f ? *. L AN AD A in ! ' Based on the above estimates of error in the test data, the error in the maximum recorded head loss of 0.905 f t at a prototype discharge of 8640 US gpm is estimated to be 10.10 f t. At a prototype discharge of only 2250 US gpm, the error in the maximum head loss measurement of 10.064 is estimated to be 10.01 f t, a relatively larger value. The estimated error in the screen loss is 10.003 f t. Prepared By: ^ 7 4'D " v v D.J. Bergstrom, P.Eng. Project Engineer Approved By: S.R.M. Gardiner, Ph.D., P.Eng. Manager, Special Projects 5 i I i h F t t O

w n. u.r. w. w w : m m t w" :n ni s L w LIST OF SELECTED REFERENCES l I l. A j. son, H. 1948; " Centrifugal and Other Rotodynamic Pumps." (Chapman and Hall, London). 2. Akers and Crump; "The Vortex Drop," Joumal, institution of Civil Engineers, August,1960, p. 443. 3. Al'Tshul, A.D., and 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 a Horizontal Intake", Report No. OD/7, Hydraulic Research Station, Wallingford, April,1976. 5. Anwar, H.O., Wellur, J.A. and Amphlett, M.B.; " Similarity of Air Entraining Vortices at a Horizontal intake," Report # IT 166, BHR Station, Wallingford, June, 1977. 6. Anwar, H.O.; " Flow in a Free Vortex", Water Power, April,1965. 7. Anwar, H.O.; " Formation of a Weak Vortex", Joumal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 4, No. I,1966. w 8. (J Anwar, H.O.; " Vortices at Low Head intakes", Water Power, Nov.,1967, p. 455 - 457. x 9. Anwar, H.O.; " Prevention of Vortices at intakes", Water Power, Oct.,1968, p. 393. 10. 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, Jan.,1969, p. 568 - 570. fl. Baines, W.D., and Peterson, E.G.; "An Investigation of Flow Through Screens", Trans. ASME, Vol. 73,194,1948, p. 527. 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., !964. 13. Berge, J.P. "A study of Vortex Formation and Other Abnormal Flow in a Tank With and Without a Free Surface", La 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. I 15. Binnie, A.M., and Davidson, J.F., "The Flow Under Gravity of a Swirling Liquid Through an Orifice Plate", Proceedings, Royal Society, London Series A, Vol.199, 1949, p. 443 - 457. O is. Brewer, D. " vortices in eumn Sumns". The Aiien Eeeineerins Review. Merch. i957. ~^ ~~

v.twn m ctw xa oa>w an t;i~ w 'Lw 17. Chang, E.; Review of Literature on Drain Vortices in Cylindrical Tanks, Report TN1342, BHR A, March 1976. 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 Hydromechnaics Research Assoc. Research Report R.R. 465, " Experiments with Air in Centrifugal Pumps". 21. Denny, D.F., and Young, C.A.J. "The Prevention of Vortices and Swirl in Intakes", 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. Dagget L.L. and Keulegan, C.H., " Similitude Conditions in Free Surface Vortex Formations", Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol.100, No. HYI I, Nov. 1974, pp.1565 - 1581. 24. Donaldson, C. du p., and Sullivan, R.D. " Examination of the Solutions of the Novier-S tokes Equations for a Class of Three-dimensional Vortices, Part 1: (d Velocity Distribution for Steady Motion". Proceedings, Heat Transfer and Fluid 3 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, Technical Memo. No. 6, HP-14, "Some Performance Characteristics of Deep-well Turbine Pumps". I 27. Fraser, W.H. 1953 Trans. ASME, Vol. 75, No. 4, p. 643, " Hydraulic Problems ) Encountered in intake Structures of Vertical Wet-Pit Pumps and Methods Leading to Their Solution". 28. Gordon, J.L.; " Vortices at intakes." Water Power, April,1970, p.137 - 138. l 29. Guiton, P., "Covitation dans les Pompes", La Houille Blanches, Nov.,1962, No. 6. l 30.

Haindi, K.,

" Contribution to Air-entrainment by a Vortex", Paper 16-D, International Association for Hydraulic Research, Montreal,1959. l 31. Hattersley, R.T., " Hydraulic Design of Pump Intakes", HY 2, March,1965, p. 223 - l l 249. l 32. Hattersley, R.T., " Factors of Inlet Channel Flow affecting the Performance of a l Pumping Plant", Report No. 23, Water Research Lab., University of New South Wales, Australia, Sept.,1960. I 'l 1 Y l (g 33. Holtorf, G., "The Free Surface and the Conditions of Similitude for a Vortex", La 1 ) Hoviille Blanche, Vol.19, No. 3,1964, p. 337 - 384. i j "~ ~ ' ' ' i

l ..t. m ; o ce..em., s t ea

4 istm 34.

lversen, H.W.; " Studies of Submergence Requirements of High Specific Speed. Pumps", Transactions, ASME, Vol 75,1953. i 35. Kaufman, Fluid Mechanics McGraw-Hill, p. 265 and 279. 36.

Keulegan, C.H.,

and Daggett, L.L., "A Note on Gravity Head Viscometer", Miscellaneous Paper H-74-3, United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 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.,1959. 39. Lawton, F.L.; " Factors influencing Flow in 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. (]' 41. Lewellen, W.S.; "A Solution for Three-Dimensional Vortex Flow with Strong Circulation", J. Fluid Mechanics., Vol. 14, 1962. 42. Long, R.R.; "A Vortex in an Infinite Fluid", Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. II. 43. Marklund, E. and Pope, J.A.; " Experiments on a mall Pump Suction Well, with c Particular Reference to Vcrtex 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. Zielinski and James R. Villemonte, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, NO HYI, Proc. Paper 6323, Jan.,1969, p. 567 - 568. 45. Messina, J.P.; " Periodic Noise in Circulating Water Pumps", Power, Sept.,1971, p. 70 - 71. 46. McCorquodale, J.A.; 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. HYI, Proc. Paper 7323, Jan.,1969, p. 567 - 568. 47. MicCorquodale, J.A.; " Scale Effects in Swirling Flow", Joumal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, HYI, Disc. by Marco Pico, HY 1, Jan.,1969. 48. Pickford, J.A., and Reddy, Y.R.' " Vortex Suppression in a Stilling Pond Over-flow" i Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol.100 No. HYI 1, Nov.,1974, pp.1685 - 1697. 49.

Quick, M.C., "A Study of the Free Spiral Vortex", thesis presented to the p

University of Bristol, England, in 1961, in partial fulfillment of the requirements V for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. M

u:u-muu m cuouc tm

'<mi m

50. Quick, M.C.; " Scale Relationships between Geometrically Similar Free Spiral Vortices", Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, Part I, September,1962, Q Part II, 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.R., 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 Filament", Proceedings,1st National Congress of Applied Mechanics, 1952, p. 741 - 746. 54. Richardson, C.A.; 1941 Water Works and Sewerage Reference and Data, Port I, Water Supply, p. 25, " Submergence and Spacing of Suction Bells". 55. Springer, E.K., and Patterson, F.M.; " Experimental 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 Axial-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., I 957. 1 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, j pp.186 - 192. 60. Weighart, K.E.G., "On the Resistance of Screens"; The Aeronautics Quarterly, Vol. 4,1953, pp.186 - 192. 61. Weltmer, W.W.,1950, Power Engineering, Vol. 54, No. 6, p. 74. " Proper Svetion intakes Vital for Vertical Circulating Pumps". 62. Young, C.A.H., " Swirl and Vortices at Intakes", Report No. SP 726, British Hydro-Mechanics Research Association, April,1962. 63. Zelinski, P.B. and Villement, J.R.; "Effect of Viscosity on Vortex-Orifice Flow", Vol. 94, HY3, May,1968, p. 745 - 751. Disc. on above in Jan.1969, by Marklund, E., McCorquodale, J.A. and Anwar, H.O. l l 4 t , ~, ~/ I

5 k! E G O l l TABLES O l i l I i l l 1 l I l l l l i i I l O i I e ~ ' e

-- -. ~ - a 1 TABLEI TEST SERES 1 -VORTEX TESTS TEST COPOITKIN5 AtO REStLTS TRAIN A TRAIN B { Test water Wateel Flow Bikg2 '[ Vortem Description 3 Vortex Description 3 b** N8* PART I WITHOUT GRATieJG CAGES I 48 -3.650 Both A 90 8599 None observed 3196 None observed 2 48 -3.650 Both A 90 3865 None observed 8780 Intermittent fine vwor-core, facing woli 1 3 48 -3.660 'Both B 90 8476 None observed 3!82 None observed I 4 48 -3.655 Both B 90 3175 None observed 8584 None observed 5 48 -3.660 Both C 90 8533 Persistent i18" dia, vapor-core, focing wall 3182 None observed 6 48 -3.665 Both C 90 3180 None observed 864l None observed j r 7 50 -3.670 Both D 90 8649 None observed 3158 None observed t 8 50 -3.670 Both D 90 3149 None observed 8705 None observed i J i 9 51 -3.690 Both E 90 8632 None observed 3223 Persistent tneble-string, focing wall t 10 51 -3.690 Both E 90 3170 Hone observed 8749 Continuous e dia. vapor-core, focing wall il 51 -3.695 Both F 91 8697 None observed 3166 None observed 12 79 -3.715 Both F pl 3165 None observed 8564 None observed 13 78 -3.720 Both G 98 8657 Continuous 3/8* dio. vapor-core, side wall 3214 None observed 14 78 -3.720 Both G 91 3180 None observed 8769 None observed 15 78 -3.725 Both H 90 8669 Intermittent 1/8"dio. vapor-core, 3239 None ctwved facing wall i 16 78 -3.730 Both H 90 3275 Occasional l /8" dio. vopor-core. corner 8757 None observed 17 76 -3.765 Both J 91 8641 Occasional l/32" dio. vopor-core side woll 3174 None noserved ) 18 76 -3.735 Both J 91 3170 None observed 8697 None observed 19 76 -3.770 Both K 91 8704 tione observed 3158 Nom eserved i 20 76 -3.770 Both K 91 3160 None observed 8760 Occt+ano! I/16" dio. vapor-cene, i faci. : wo!! O i -=

T ABLE I (continuca TEST SERES 1 - VORTEX TESTS TEST COtHTIOr6 Aro REstA.T5 O Test Water w aterl Flow Bthg2 Vorles Description 3 Vortea Description 3 SC ~ PART ll-wlTH CRATING CAGES 21 160 -3.720 Both E 90 3217 None observed 8817 None observed 22 161 -3.725 East E 90 3897 None observed 8776 None observed 23 161 -3.730 West E 90 3207 None observed 8861 tene observed 24 164 -3.730 Both E 90 4781 tb w observed 12826 None observed i 25 158 -3.795 Both G 94 8730 None observed 3168 None observed 26 159 3.800 East G 91 8731 None observed 3185 None observed 1 27 160 -3.800 West G 91 8714 None observed 3185 None observed 1 0 28 161 -3.795 Oct* G 91 12360 None observed 5604 None observed l NOTES l 1. Water level refers to water surface elevation, Mean Sea Level, at Waterford - 3. Maximum postulated water level is El + 0* - 6 MSL (+ 0.500 f ti, rninimum postulated water level is El - 3' - 8 MSL (-3.667 fil. 2. For blockage conditions see Figure 9. Blockage is expressed as percentoge of total screen area including both harirontal and wertical screens. 3. Terminology used to describe vortices is as follows: Continuous - continuously present, i.e., rnare than approximately 90% of observation time. Persistent - persistently present. i.e., rnore than approximately 50% of observation time but less than 90% intermittent -intermittently present, i.e less than approximately 50% of observation time but more than 10%. Occasional - occasionally present, i.e., less than approximately 10% of obwrvation time. O W W E E 'Y'

Table 2 Test Seraes 33 - Headless Tests Test Condatsons a.d fR e s u14.s l ............,v 7....... I seeo Head' Scree.. Los* lhelm 6 INiahE T6 Alm i lefaaf Test u.ter 61k n Flow no. 7een 1 Free Tan 6 5.a* nodel fectu t a s d, fa*. Head Vel Vel Lu=6 5eoto Disth 7 awe he.4 Wel 6el tes. Ites. O Dasth 6e W.C. V.C. Isee Coeff l e.t.s e Le W.C. W.C. Fsee C,eff !..t es e Lost Loss des F ft ft ft ft USs.m 144 ft fes fes ft USere E46 ft fem fes ft 0.107 1 te? L 0 bsth -3.720 -3.725 0.000 0.003 4023 1.34 -4.247 5.45 2 79 1 255 0 125 4037 1.34 -4.204 L.41 2.79 1 077 2 167 L 0 East -3.730 -3 735 0.005 0.003 4077 3 34 -4 259 5 66 2.80 1.242 0.126 4054 1.3" -4.212 5.40 2 82 1.034 0.103 3 147 L 0 best -3.729 -3.734 0.005 0.003 403 1.35 -4.241 5.48 2 80 1 269 0.1?7 4017 1 34 -4.217 5.44 2.79 1 096 0.109 4 170 L 0 toth -3.785 -3.804 0.000 0.032 4057 1.38 -4.318 5 60 2.82 1 180 0.118 11434 3.90 -7.774 15 59 7.94 1.125 0.850 5 148 L 0 East -3.788 -3.803 0.015 0.008 4040 1.37 -4.310 5.57 2 82 1.102 0 115 11979 4.03 -8.133 16 27 8.32 1.112 0.040 e 149 L 0 hest -3.782 -3.t12 0.03 0.027 4043 3.38 -4.319 5.57 2 82 1.101 0 115 st??2 3.99 -8.023 16 0; 8.18 1.124 0.851 7 170 L 0 both -3.794 -3.800 0.005 0.003 4041 t.38 -4.308 5.58 2 82 1 156 0.110 3:32 1.10 -4.094 4.20 2 25 0.981 0.000 8 171 L 0 East -3.798 -3.803 0.005 0.003 4?75. 47 -4.373 5.91 2.97 1.184 0 118 347 1.09 -4.099 4.25 2.20 1.04 0.0;5 9 172. L 0 west -3.802 -3.807 0 005 0.003 4274 1.48 -4.376 5.90 2 97 1 37e 0.317 3:48 1.10 -4.098 4 22 2.20 1.c29 0.053 10 172 L 0 both -3.793 -3.823 0.031 0.017 11752 4.06 -0.026 16.03 8 14 1.130 0.853 4264 1.47 -4.472 6 30 2 96 1.504 0.150 11 173 L 0 East -3.809 -3.830 0.020 0.012 12377 3.94 -7.777 15.54 7.90 1 134 0.857 4267 1.48 -4.474 6 28 2 94 1.483 0.148 12 174 L 0 best -3.805 -3.836 0.031 0.018 11243 3.94 -7.474 15.32 7.81 1.125 0.850 4278 1 50 -4.401 5 88 2 97 t.162 0.11e 13 179 L 0 Soth -3.773 -3.778 0 005 0.003 2940 1.07 -4.029 3.92 2 04 1.033 0.053 4044 1 47 -4.277 5.52 2.81 1 135 0.113 14 179 L 0 East -3.747 -3.772 0.005 0.003 2940 1 07 -4.028 3.96 2.04 1 075 0.055 4044 1 47 -4.235 5.32 2 81 0.983 0.098 15 179 L 0 West -3.765 -3.770 0.005 0.003 2940 1 07 -4.027 3.96 2.04 1.080 0.055 4044 1.47 -4.237 5 34 2 81 0.999 0.100 14 179 L 0 Soth -3.783 -3.783 0.000 0 000 4100 1.49 -4.304 5.ed 2.85 1.!?? 0.137 17 179 L 0 East -3.782 -3.782 0.000 0.000 4100 3 49 -4.308 5.67 2.85 1.188 0.119 18 179 L 0 best -3.787 -3.787 0.000 0.000 4190 1.49 -4.310 1.45 2 85 1.174 0 117 - () 19 179 L 0 &oth -1.787 -3.787 0.000 0.000 4073 1.47 -4.295 5.07 2.83 1.142 0.114 20 179 L 0 East -3.743 -3.793 0.000 0.000 4073 1.47 -4.293 L.03 2.83 1 114 0.stl 21 179 L 0 West -3.793 -3 793 0.000 0.000 4084 1.48 -4.300 5.57 2.84 8.328 0.813 22 174 n 50 both -3.914 -3.914 0.000 0.000 4109 1.44 -4.412 5.52 2 85 1.065 0 106 4178 1 46 -4.440 5 67 2.90 1.108 0.181 23 168 n 50 East -3.669 -3 475 0.005 0.003 4?95 3.44 -4.246 5.91 2.98 1.149 0.117 4255 1.43 -4.236 5.86 2.96 1.170 0.117 24 168 n 50 best -3.469 -3.680 0.010 0.006 4280 1.44 -4.244 5.88 2.97 1.142 0 136 42L5 1.43 -4.237 5.84 2.96 1 151 0.115 25 167 n 50 both -3.648 -3 498 0.031 0.034 4290 3.43 -4.247 5.90 2.98 8.163 0 116 12059 4.03 -8.123 16.45 8.38 1 129 0.803 26 167 n to East -3.678 -3.696 0.020 0.011 4400 1.47 -4.301 4.e7 3.06 1.180 0.818 11917 3.98 -7.981 16.19 8 28 1.111 0.839 27 167 n 50 West -3.765 -3.800 0.034 0.029 4333 1.45 -4.281 5.42 3.01 0.811 0.081 11774 3.93 -7.852 15.74 8.18 1.048 0.791 28 148 n 50 toth -3.686 -3.697 0.010 0.005 4295 1.44 -4.292 4.04 2.98 1.260 0.126 3215 1.00 -4.017 4.43 2.23 1.167 0.060 29 168 n 50 East -3.492 -3.697 0.005 0.003 4318 1.45 -4.280 5.97 3.00 1.18e 0.818 3t&* 1.0a -4.013 4.39 2 20 1.201 0.047 30 167 n 50 best -3.695 -3.705 0.010 0.005 4309 1.44 -4.278 5.92 2.99 1.160 0.116 3165 1.04 -4.018 4.37 2.20 1.185 0.041 31 tot R 50 Soth -3 713 -3.743 0.031 0.015 12312 4.37 -0.349 16.78 8.55 1 124 0.851 4268 8.45 -4.301 5.84 2.97 1.140 0.114 32 168 n 50 East -3.719 -3.745 0.026 0.014 11448 3.85 -7.730 15.41 7.95 1.128 0.852 4774 1 44 -4.303 5.84 2 97 1.137 0.113 33 168 n 50 West -3.708 -3.744 0.036 0.021 11212 3.77 -7.597 15.35 7.79 1.145 0.865 4317 1.45 -4.315 5.91 3.00 1 142 0.1 4 34 169 n 50 toth -3.727 -3.732 0.005 0.003 3103 3.05 -4.024 4.23 2.15 1.124 0.058 4294 1.45 -4.300 5 89 2.98 1.155 0.115 35 170 n 50 East -3.731 -3.736 0.005 0.003 3138 1.07 -4.038 4.30 2.18 1.347 0.009 4275 1.44 -4.300 5.80 2.97 1.16 0.114 36 170 m 50 West -3.731 -3.736 0.005 0.003 3138 1.07 -4.042 4.33 2.18 1.180 0.060 4249 1 44 -4.298 5.84 2.97 1.158 0.116 37 170 m 50 both -3.734 -3.734 0.000 0.000 4292 1.44 -4.314 5.95 2.98 1.194 0.119 38 170 n 50 East -3.734 -3.736 0.000 0.000 4270 1.46 -4.304 5.89 2.97 8 879 0.118 39 170 n 50 kest -3.734 -3.736 0.000 0.000 4270 1.46 -4.303 5.89 2 97 1.170 0.118 40 171 n 50 toth -3.733 -3.733 0.000 0.000 4282 1.46 -4.304 5.91 2 97 1.179 0.118 41 171 R 50 East -3.738 -3.738 0.000 0.000 4258 1.45 -4.299 5.84 2.94 8.164 0.13e 42 171 n 50 West -3.738 -3.738 0.000 0.000 4270 1 44 -4 299 5.86 2.97 1.152 0.115

~------

~..~..--.~.----...------, ----- - --- +----- ---- -----~----- 1 For bloc 6ase cordttsons see Favure 9. Dioc6ase aree as expressed.s terces.tase of eertas.1 scree.. are o..tv. 0 Hortrontal screens were teloc6ed throushout these tests. at heterford - 3. Alt elezoneter head me.suresents see eneressed in teres of the attual Pretutw&e elevataan, neas. See tevels 2 l l 1

Table 2 ( Cor.t'd ) Test Series II - Headless Tests Test Condations and Results ............g.-....-.............,.............. Test Water 61ks Flom Faean Need' Scree.. Los. TA6!N e INient isolo E lefant O .................-.....~... .....m...... no.

Tee, 1

Free Tare Swee model frotu Lasch Fa*= Hvas Ve1 Wel toss fruto D e st h Fnee he.d wel vel Less freto Lasch Ee U.C. v.C. Faee Coeft tr.t as e Ee v.C. W.C. Pape Coeft I. tate des Loss Loss F ft ft ft ft u5 men E46 ft fes fes ft USs.e E+4 ft f*s fr. ft 43 177 N 50 Both -3 684 -3.701 0.015 0.009 4107 1.47 -4.225 5 66 2.85 1.172 0.117 4056 1 45 -4.213 5.60 2.82 1.176 0 117 44 177 N 50 East -3.490 -3.701 0.010 0.004 4126 1.48 -4.230 5.at 2.87 1.175 0.117 4148 1.48 -4 233 5.71 2.88 1.165 0.116 45 177 N 50 West -3.690 -3.708 0.010 0.004 4111 1.47 -4.229 5 69 2 84 1.189 0.119 4341 1.48 -4.231 5.e9 2.48 1.162 0.ste 46 176 N 50 toth -3.488 -3.740 0.051 0.029 4125 1.47 -4.248 5.49 2.87 8.173 0.117 18490 4.08 -7.786 15.73 7.98 1.145 0.865 47 17e N 50 East -3.703 -3.739 0.034 0.021 4213 1 50 -4.293 5.82 2.93 1.185 0.118 11326 4.02 -7.473 15.51 7.87 1.146 0.846 1 48 17e N 50 West -3.488 -3.739 0.051 0.031 4173 1.48 -4.283 5.77 2.90 1.185 0.118 11084 3.94 -7.519 15.21 7.7C I.153 0.871 l 49 174 N 50 both -3.704 -3.715 0.010 0.006 4094 1.45 -4.239 5.66 2.84 1.189 0.119 2979 1.06 -3.997 4.14 2.07 1.228 0.043 1 50 176 N 50 East -3.710 -3.720 0.010 0.004 4029 1.43 -4.223 5.55 2.80 1.149 0.117 2943 1.05 -3.992 4.06 2.04 1.199 0.061 SI 176 N 50 West -3.710 -3.720 0.030 0.004 4025 1.43 -4.223 5.55 2.80 1.174 0.117 2943 1.05 -3.987 4.05 2.04 1 162 0.0e0 52 177 N 50 toth -3.703 -3.745 0.042 0.032 81974 4.28 -8.822 14.32 8.32 1.124 0.850 4440 3.59 -4.362 4.05 3.08 1.12 0 312 53 174 N 50 East -3.720 -3.761 0.041 0.024 1135e 4.03 -7.684 15 49 7.89 1.130 0.854 4082 1.45 -4.245 5.55 2.84 1.814 0.111 54 177 N 50 hest -3.703 -3.759 0.054 0.034 13212 4.01 -7.598 15.32 7.79 1.137 0.859 4024 1.44 -4.251 5.49 2.80 1.128 0.113 55 177 N 50 toth -3.724 -3.734 0.010 0.004 2950 1 05 -4.011 4.12 2.05 1.227 0.043 4147 1.49 -4.265 5.70 2.48 1.140 0.114 56 174 N 50 East -3.726 -3.734 0.010 0.004 2915 1.04 -4.003 4.04 2.03 1.196 0.081 4114 1.46 -4.257 5.45 2.84 1.154 0 115 57 177 N 50 West -3.724 -3.734 0.010 0.004 2981 1.04 -4.001 4.04 2.02 1.203 0.062 4109 8.47 -4.25e 5.65 2.85 1.161 0.816 58 177 N 50 toth -3.729 -3.734 0.005 0.003 4381 1.47 -4.258 5.64 2.84 1.169 0.117 59 177 N 50 East -3.729 -3.734 0.005 0.003 4091 1.44 -4.252 5 63 2.84 1.167 0.tle (]) 40 177 N 50 West -3.729 -3.734 0.005 0.003 4095 1.46 -4.252 5.e3 2.84 1.163 0.116 el 177 N 50 both -3.739 -3.739 0.000 0.000 4224 1.51 -4.295 5.83 2.93 1.182 0 818 42 174 N 50 East -3.741 -3.741 0.000 0.000 4179 1 49 -4.290 5.79 2.90 1.199 0.120 43 176 N 50 West -3.740 -3.745 0.005 0.003 4191 1.50 -4.292 5.78 2.91 1.177 0.117 44 P 50 both 45 175 P 50 East -3.774 -3.77* 0.000 0.000 4065 1.43 -4.297 5.66 2 82 1.214 0.121 4191 1.48 -4.328 5.82 2.91 I.205 0.120 44 175 P 50 West -3.749 -3.774 0.005 0.003 4041 1.43 -4.292 5.63 2.88 1.219 0.122 4171 1 47 -4.317 5 74 2.90 1.181 0.118 47 P 50 Soth 48 173 P 50 East -3.805 -3.825 0.020 0.012 4160 1.45 -4.379 5.82 2.89 1.234 0.123 18270 3.92 -7.711 15.42 7.83 1.141 2 842 69 173 P 50 West -3 795 -3.836 0.041 0.024 4183 1.46 -4.397 5 86 2.91 1.241 0.124 18352 3.95 -7.793 15.55 7.09 1.147 0.847 70 P 50 both 71 175 P 50 East -3.780 -3.780 0.000 0.000 4:49 1.46 -4.324 5.77 2.8) 1.208 0.121 2996 1.06 -4.045 4.17 2.38 1.221 0.043 72 17e P 50 West -3.773 -3.778 0.005 0.003 4158 1.48 -4.327 5.79 2.89 1.220 0.122 3049 1.08 -4.078 4.23 2.82 1.194 0.061 73 P 50 both 74 173 P 50 East -3.812 -3.847 0.034 0.021 11156 3.88 -7.462 15.28 7.75 1.145 0.845 4215 1.47 -4.389 5.74 2.93 1 134 0.113 75 173 P ~ 50 West -3.799 -3.845 0.044 0.027 18237 3.91 -7.682 15 32 7.81 1 126 0.851 4177 1.45 -4.387 5.74 2.90 1.173 0 117 74 P 50 Both 77 174 P 50 East -3.778 -3.784 0.005 0.003 2989 1.06 -4.057 4.09 2.08 1.137 0.058 4254 1.51 -4.344 5.87 2.9e 8.175 0.117 78 17e P 50 West -3.778 -3.784 0.005 0.003 2944 1.05 -4.051 4.05 2.04 1.140 0.059 4205 1 49 -4.324 5.74 2.92 1.146 0.114 79 P 50 Both 80 175 P 50 East -3.790 -3.790 0.000 0.000 4137 1.44 -4.328 5 74 2.87 1.201 0.120 81 175 P 50 West -3.790 -3.790 0.000 0.000 4121 1.45 -4.329 5.74 2.84 1.218 0.121 82 P 50 Both 83 174 P 50 East -3.797 -3.797 0.000 0.000 4209 1.49 -4.348 5.80 2.92 1.174 0.117 84 175 P 50 West -3.794 -3.794 0.000 0.000 4191 1.48 -4.340 5.77 2.91 1.170 0.117 ...... ~ ..... ~ .....,......-...........~...... ....~............~ l For bloebase condatsons see Fanure 9. Stochase ares an ese resmec es percentase of vertacal screes. area ontw. Hor:20ntal screens wete bloc 6ed throushout these tests. 2 411 Paeroe=ter head seasurements are expressed an teres of the actual protviv*e elevatsen. Pean See Levels at Wateiford - 3. y., 7-,

L Table 2 4 C o r.t d ) Test Seraes I3 - Headloss Tests Test. Condataons and Results j ........-...7_..... ...........7-...........--......................................... l .I Test W.ter 61ks Flo. Faer Mead Screen Ls.. TRAla A tufAnF TRAlm b lu1A&E (-} .....u. t me. Iree I Fros Tank Sune Model Ftoto basch Fter head Vel Vel

6. ss F rs.ti.

Desca. Fnee h..d Wet Wet loss Frute b a sel. Ee U.C. W.C. Fare Coeff Intake Re v.C. W.C. Fa*e Cveff Ini.6 e des toss tes. F ft ft ft ft USnes E46 ft fes fes ft uss,e E+6 ft fes tes ft i I 85 175 0 50 Both -3.787 -3.802 0 015 0.009 4255 1.50 -4.341 5 85 2.96 1.141 0.11e 4191 1.48 -4.354 5.81 2.91 1.398 0.120 ( 84 175 0 50 East -3.787 -3.797 0.010 0.006 4157 1 47 -4.336 5 74 2.89 1.181 0.118 4127 1.46 -4.335 5.74 2.87 1.210 0.124 87 175 0 50 mest -3.782 -3.797 0.015 0.009 4145 1.46 -4.331 5 71 2.88 1.173 0.117 4114 1.45 -4.331 5.71 2.06 1.205 0.120 88 173 0 50 both -3.810 -3.912 0 102 0.058 4156 1.45 -4.394 5 43 2.89 0.958 0.096 18552 4.02 -8.019 15.85 8.02 1.153 0.871 89 173 0 50 East -3.825 -3.923 0.097 0.055 4156 1 45 -4.394 5.37 2.89 0.919 0.092 11517 4.01 -7.958 15.71 B.00 1 129 0.853 t i 90 173 0 50 best -3.815 -3.948 0.133 0.078 4119 1.43 -4.399 5 25 2.86 0.872 0.087 11317 3.94 -7.879 15.51 7.86 1.148 0.847 91 175 0 50 both -3.787 -3.297 0.010 0.004 4157 1.47 -4.336 5.74 2.89 1.18 0.118 3066 1.08 -4.096 4.28 2.13 1.226 0.063 l 92 175 0, 50 East -3.792 -3.802 0.010 0.004 4341 1.46 -4.332 5 69 2.88 1.161 0.186 3031 1.07 -4.092 4.21 2.11 1.2c8 0.062 L I 93 174 0 50 West -3.794 -3.804 0.010 0.006 4132 1.45 -4.333 5 49 2.87 1.170 0.117 3031 1.04 -4.098 4.24 2.13 1.237 0.0o3 94 173 0 50 both -3.812 -3.878 0.067 0.035 12065 4.20 -B.292 16.43 8.38 1.122 0.848 4208 1.44 -4.439 5.84 2.92 1.214 0.171 95 173 0 50 East -3.827 -3.873 0 046 0.026 11423 3.98 -7.831 15 56 7.94 1.123 0.848 4234 1.47 -4.443 5.90 2.94 1.225 0.122 96 173 0 50 West -3.817 -3.878 0.061 0.034 11246 3.91 -7.734 15 34 7.81 1.133 0.856 4183 1.46 -4.437 5.85 2.91 1.233 0.123 97 174 0 50 both -3.800 -3.810 0 010 0.004 3054 1.07 -4.092 4.15 2.12 1.116 0.057 4253 1.49 -4.384 5.94 2.95 1.230 0.123 98 174 0 50 East -3.799 -3.809 0.010 0.004 3011 1.06 -4.082 4.09 2.09 1.106 0 057 4203 1.47 -4.363 5.82 2.92 1 193 0.119 99 174 0 50 West -3.794 -3.809 0.015 0.009 2999 1.05 -4.081 4.08 2.06 1.114 0.057 4184 1 47 -4.363 5.82 2.91 1 213 0.121 100 174 0 50 both -3.812 -3.812 0.000 0.000 416! 1 44 -4.350 5 74 2 89 1.175 0.117 () 101 174 0 50 East -3.807 -3.807 0.000 0.000 4140 1.45 -4.345 5 74 2.88 1.19e 0 119 102 174 0 50 West -3.807 -3.807 0.000 0.000 4136 1.45 -4.345 5.74 2.87 1.201 0.120 103 174 0 50 toth -3.799 -3.809 0 010 0.004 4151 1.45 -4.353 5.77 2.88 1.209 0.121 104 174 0 50 East -3.805 -3.810 0 005 0.003 4139 1.45 -4.350 5.74 2.88 1.203 0.120 105 174 0 50 West -3.807 -3.812 0.005 0.003 439 1.45 -4.355 5.74 2.88 1.217 0.171 106 174 R 50 both -3.400 -3.694 0.015 0.009 4152 1 46 -4.244 5.79 2.88 1 277 0.122 4190 1.47 -4.238 5.76 2.91 1.163 0.116 107 874 R 50 East -3.686 -3.701 0.015 0.008 4184 1.47 -4.255 5.82 2.91 f.214 0.121 4328 1.52 -4.270 5.90 3.01 1.874 0.112 108 174 R 50 West -3.686 -3 707 0.021 0.011 4161 1.46 -4.2

77 2.89 1.197 0.119 4303 1.51 -4.270 5.87 2.99 1.129 0.113 109 173 R

50 toth -3.702 -3.763 0.061 0.035 4356 1.45 -4.1 '4 2.89 1.179 0.318 11494 4.00 -7.788 15.49 7.99 1.131 0.854 110 173 R 50 East -3.711 -3.762 0.051 0.029 4204 1.46 -s .82 2.92 1.188 0 819 11428 3.98 -7.732 15.58 7.94 1.827 0.852 5 78 2.87 1.180 0.118 11422 3.98 -7.717 15.5e 7.93 1.124 0.849 111 173 R 50 West -3.701 -3.757 0.054 0.032 4835 1 44 112 174 R 50 Soth -3.686 -3.707 0.028 0.011 4222 1.48 -4.246 5 85 2.93 1.194 0 119 3048 1.07 -3.982 4.10 2 12 1.075 0.055 113 174 R 50 East -3.691 -3.707 0.015 0.009 4141 1.46 -4.245 5 74 2.89 1.17e 0.117 3014 1.04 -3.974 4.05 2.09 1.064 0.054 134 174 R 50 West -3.486 -3.701 0.015 0.009 4152 1 46 -4.245 5 77 2.88 1.20e 0.120 3014 1.06 -3.979 4.12 2.09 1.137 0.0.8 115 173 R 50 both -3.708 -3.836 0.128 0.073 11406 3.97 -7.824 15 62 7.92 1.144 0 866 4183 1.46 -4.303 5.33 2 98 0.872 0.0R7 116 173 R 50 East -3.724 -3.842 0.110 0.068 11330 3.94 -7.759 15 48 7.87 1.13e 0.858 4158 1.45 -4.296 5.27 2.89 0.854 0.085 117 173 R 50 West -3.714 -3.842 0.128 0.075 11234 3.91 -7.682 15 33 7.80 1.130 0.853 4106 1 43 -4.279 5 18 2.85 0.834 0.083 118 174 R 50 both -3.687 -3.702 0.015 0.009 3038 1.04 -3.987 4.17 2.11 1.157 0.059 4158 1.46 -4.229 5 68 2.89 1.132 0.113 119 174 R 50 East -3.692 -3.702 0.010 0.004 3038 1.06 -3.989 4.19 2.11 1.178 0.060 4728 1.48 -4.254 5.81 2.94 1.158 0.116 120 174 R 50 West -3.692 -3.707 0.015 0.008 3033 1.04 -3.989 4.15 2.11 1.147 0.059 4221 1.48 -4.254 5.78 2.93 1.140 0.114 128 174 k 50 toth -3.698 -3.708 0.010 0.006 4199 1.47 -4.242 5.02 2 92 1.200 0 120 122 173 R 50 East -3.699 -3.780 0.010 0.004 4183 1 44 -4.258 5 79 2.91 1.192 0.119 123 173 k 50 West -3.700 -3.710 0.010 0.004 4179 1.45 -4.259 5 79 2.90 1.19e 0.119 124 174 R 50 toth -3.693 -3.698 0.005 0.003 4209 1 47 -4.246 5.79 2.92 1.165 0.116 125 174 R 50 East -3.693 -3.693 0.000 0.000 4196 8.44 -4.240 5.79 2.93 1.17e 0.187 12e !?4 R 50 West -3.692 -3 692 0.000 0.000 4190 1.46 -4.239 5.79 2.91 1.182 0.118 ' - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - " - - - - O 1 For blochase conditions see Fasure 9. Bioc6 ase area as expressed as cercentase of vertical st reer. area ontw. Horazontal screens were blocked throushout these tests. 2 All enerometer head esasurements are empressed an teres of the actual esolvtc e elevataune Pean See tevel, at batee f oed - 3. ,v

_ _ _ _, ~. _ _. l L Tab 3e 2 < C or.t ' d > [ f Test Seraes 3I - Head 3oss Tests Test Cond6tions and Results ---**-------*- ----'-'utanE 7..... ........... 2 ' ' 'S'- *r eee. L o s s* --**--'"----~~~~~~~~~~~'1m a In'iskE- --

- - ~~~

f TE61m 9 l 166 p 8lae Flo. Fiero head c e Ieat eater me.

ten, 1

From T ara Eve

nooe t f-rote 6,sch Face h 44 Wel Vel Less trote tasci. fae heaa vel wel Los.

t,eto j ..........,.........._..~....m....., Dasch 6e U.C. U.C. Pace Cceff Int.se 6e U.C. W.C. 8 nee Cveff int.6 e J m.. L..s 5s e E46 ft fe, tes ft ft U e F ft ft ft ft U$see E46 ft fes fes .e4 ......1970.119 4301 1 48 -0.074 5.93 2 99 1.171 0.117 127 171 L 0 toth 0.504 0.500 0.005 0.003 4275 1 47 -0.073 5922.97 1 128 172 L 0 East 0.502 0.497 0.005 0.003 4371 1.49 -0.087 5 98 3.00 1.189 0.119 4302 1.49 -0.077 5.92 2.99 1.149 0.317 F 129 172 L 0 best 0.502 0.497 0.005 0.003 430s 1.49 -0.082 5.95 2.99 1.285 0.338 4289 1.48 -0.071 5.90 2.98 1.143 0.116 130 172 L 0 Doth 0.477 0.462 0.015 0.000 4302 1.49 -0.!!2 5.'2 2.99 3.149 0 317 11872 4.10 -3.839 16.22 8.25 1.136 0.858 133 172 L 0 East 0.484 0.458 0.026 0.014 4352 1.50 -0.130 4 00 3.02 1.175 0.317 11691 4.04 -3.704 15.96 8.12 1.131 0.855 l 132 172 L 0 best 0.492 0.464 0.026 0.0le 4283 8.48 -0.to? 5 92 2.78 3.388 0.119 11567 4.00 -3.603 15.78 8.04 1.129 0. B*.2 133 172 L 0 toth 0.501 0.496 0.005 0.003 4359 1.51 -0 098 d.03 3.03 1.189 0.339 3083 1.07 0.200 4.25 2.14 1.179 0.060 134 172 - L 0 East 0.502 0.497 0.005 0.003 4283 3.48 -0.077 5 93 2.98 1.189 0.119 3047 1.05 0.207 4.21 2.12 1.184 0.064 135 172 L 0 best 0.502 0 497 0.005 0.003 427e 1.48 -0.072 5 90 2.97 1.177 0.117 3039 1.05 0.207 4.22 2.11 1.201 0.062 l 134 172 L 0 both 0.472 0.457 0.015 0.009 11472 3.97 -3.544 15 45 7.97 1.129 0.853 4259 1.47 -0.106 5.87 2.94 1.173 0.117 i 137 172 L 0 East 0.476 0.445 0.031 0.017 11454 3.96 -3.519 15.57 7.9e 1.334 0.842 4258 1.47 -0.114 5.86 2.96 1.164 0.116 l 138 172 L 0 best 0.474 0.445 0.031 0.018 1134: 3.92 -3.437 15 48 7.88 1.183 0.841 4220 1 46 -0.098 5.76 2.93 1.134 0.113 139 172 L 0 both 0.501 0.496 0.005 0.003 3070 1.04 0.208 4.20 2.33 1.239 0.058 4351 1.50 -0.088 5.98 3.02 1.160 0.116 f 140 172 L 0 East 0.501 0.496 0.005 0.003 3010 1 04 0.218 4 12 2 09 1.247 0.059 4289 a.48 -0.078 5.93 2.98 1.183 0.118 141 172 L 0 best 0.501 0.494 0.005 0.003 3030 1 04 0 218 4.12 2.09 1.14e O.C59 4277 1 48 -0.071 5.89 2.97 1 169 0.117 i i42 $72 0 9 ia a <'s a *95 a *** a aaa asia

' -a a

59' 2 99 i>" a >2a 1 143 172 L 0 East 0.493 0.493 0.000 0.000 4283 1 48 -0.084 5.95 2.98 1.208 0.121 i O 144 172 L 0 best 0.493 0 493 0.000 0.000 4283 1 48 -0.084 5.95 2.98 1.208 0.121 145 172 L 0 both 0.495 0 495 0.000 0.000 43?0 1.49 -0.085 5.95 3.00 1.172 0.117 144 172 L 0 East 0.496 0 496 0.000 0.000 4302 1 49 -0.078 5.93 2.99 1 170 0.117 [ 147 372 L 0 best 0.495 0 495 0.000 0.000 4296 1.49 -0.077 5 91 2 98 1 166 0.116 [ 148 172 M 50 both 0.482 0.472 0.010 0.005 4304 1 49 -0.105 5.94 2.99 3.374 0.317 4289 1.48 -0.092 5.87 2 98 t.144 0.114 f 149 172 m 50 East 0.483 0 473 0 010 0.005 4291 1 48 -0.097 5 91 2 98 1 147 0.116 4338 1.50 -0.111 5.98 3 01 1 170 0.117 150 !?! n 50 best 0 481 0.471 0.010 0.005 4275 1 47 -0.098 5.90 2 97 1 178 0. !!7 - 4326 1.49 -0.806 5 94 3 00 1 159 0.116 151 172 M 50 toth 0.461 c.441 0 020 0.081 4298 1 49 -0.138 5 95 2 99 3 392 0. 19 11565 4.01 -3 680 15 68 8.05 1 148 0.867 152 173 m to East 0 463 0.427 0.036 0.019 4299 1.50 -0.147 5.92 2 99 1 272 0.117 11489 4.07 -3.731 15.95 8.12 1.130 0.854 l 153 173 n 50 best 0.443 0 427 0 036 0.019 4329 1 51 -0.157 5.98 3.01 3 300 c.118 11468 4.04 -3 708 15.91 8 11 1 124 0.850 154 172 n 50 toth 0 483 0 478 0.005 0.003 4317 1 49 -0.10e 5.98 3 00 1 193 c.319 342 1.09 0.167 4.36 2 18 1 202 0.062 l f 155 172 M 50 East 0.483 0 478 0 005 0.003 4344 1.50 -0.111 a 00 3.02 3 386 0.318 3116 1.00 0.167 4.36 2 16 3.240 0.064 l 15e 172 n 50 best 0 482 0.477 0.005 0.003 4337 1 50 -0.113 4.00 3 01 1 197 0.189 3314 1.08 0 868 4.34 2 16 1.223 0.043 157 373 n 50 both 0 448 0.412 0.036 0.018 12496 4.35 -4.311 17.00 8.48 1 117 0.844 4273 1.49 -0.145 5.04 2.97 1 137 0.113 f 158 173 n 50 East 0.458 0.417 0.041 0.023 11408 3.97 -3.517 15.53 7.92 1 116 0.043 4244 1.48 -0.141 5 84 2 95 1 165 0.116 159 373 m 50 West 0.463 0.417 0.046 0.027 11238 3.91 -3.399 15.28 7.81 1 125 0.842 4195 1.46 -0.124 5 75 2 91 1.158 0.115 [ 140 172 n 50 Both 0.477 0.472 0.005 0.003 3092 1 07 0.884 4.20 2.15 3 109 0.057 4338 t.50 -0.111 5 97 3.01 1.144 0.184 tot 172 M $0 East 0.477 0 472 0.005 0 003 3037 1.05 0.190 4.15 2.11 2 13M 0.058 4264 1.47 -0.092 5.87 2.94 1.168 0.117 162 172 n 50 West 0.482 0.477 0.005 0.003 3024 3.05 0.194 4.14 2 10 3 1&> 0.040 417e 1.44 -0 049 5.78 2.90 1.189 0.119 i 163 172 M 50 both 0.474 0.474 0.000 0.000 4306 3.49 -0.110 5.98 2.91 1.;&4 0.120 J 164 172 n 50 East 0.473 0.473 0.000 0.000 4779 348 -0.101 5.92 2.9711 0.119 l 145 172 m 50 West 0.474 0.474 0.000 0.000 4279148 -0.100 5.92 2.97 1 153 0 119 l lee 372 n 50 toth 0.477 0.477 0.000 0.000 4244 1.47 -0.090 589294 1 181 0.118 l 147 172 n 50 East 0.4?S 0.475 0.000 0.000 4239 t.47 -0.083 585 2.94 1.175 0.117 168 172 M SO hest 0.475 0.475 0.000 0.000 4314 1.49 -0.104 5.95300 1.177 0.117 j I .....,.........o.... area ents. Dioch ase area as ens sessed as Perceret ese of vertical st rees. I f or blockase condations see Fisurg 9. Nortrontal screens were bloc 6ed throushout 14ese tests. been Se. Level, at h. ten f ord - 3. 411 pierceeter heae seasurements are empressed an teres of the actual protetwee elevatione 2 _,,v., 1 t i

Table 2 ( C or.t ' d i Test Seraes II - Headloss Tests Test Conditions a rid Results ,.....~....g..................7............. 16 elm a InfenE 16 elm ) Int e> E Test Water Bits Flo. faero Mead Steeen tems 7 nosel frote Dasch face m.ad Wel Wet L6ss fruto Dasch Pape mead vel wel Loss freto no. Teen 3 From fare Swee S a se t. Ee U.C. U.C. Fame Coeff

Intee, se w.C.

W.C. f lee Coeff te.t aa e des Loss Less F ft ft ft ft U5see E46 ft fes f>s ft USeen E+6 ft fps fes ft 149 177 m 50 toth 0.389 0.379 0.010 0.006 4178 1.49 -0.144 5.77 2.90 1 184 0.118 4186 1.50 -0.141 5.75 2.98 1.154 0.115 170 177 u 50 East 0.386 0.376 0.010 0.004 4087 1 46 -0.143 5.63 2.84 1 175 0.117 4:22 1.47 -0.152 5.49 2.84 1 17e 0.117 171 177 m 50 best 0.386 0.376 0.010 0.006 4070 1.46 -0.138 5.41 2 83 1 173 0.317 4128 1.48 -0.842 5.63 2.87 1 128 0.113 172 17e N 50 bott 0.372 0.341 0.031 0.015 45e4 3.42 -0.316 e.34 3.17 1.204 0.120 12289 4.37 -4.271 te.8s 4.54 1 137 0.859 173 176 m 50 East 0.381 0.340 0.041 0.024 4217 1 50 -0.214 5.83 2.93 1.185 0.110 11234 3.99 -3.538 15.40 7.81 1 149 0.848 174 177 m 50 best 0.389 0.348 0.041 0.024 4159 1.49 -0.191 5.74 2.89 1.180 0.118 11270 4.03 -3.400 15.14 7.83 1 047 0.004 175 175 m 50 toth 0.358 0.353 0.005 0.003 4242 1.50 -0 207 5.86 2 95 1 179 0.118 340 1.12 0.045 4.34 2 20 1 159 0.0* 9 176 176 m 50 East 0.347 0.354 0.010 0.004 4173 1.48 -0.185 5.75 2.90 1.173 0.117 3118 1.11 0.059 4.27 2.17 t.141 0.058 177 174 m 50 mest 0.372 0.341 0.010 0.006 4158 8.48 -0.172 5.71 2.89 1 160 0.116 3110 1.10 0.067 4.24 2.16 1 131 0.058 178 17e u 50 Doth 0.432 0.391 0.041 0.024 11339 4.03 -3.447 15.72 7.88 1 197 0.905 4723 1.50 -0.146 5.73 2.93 1.109 0.113 179 176 N 50 East 0.442 0.396 0.044 0.024 11475 4.04 -3.601 15.e4 7.94 1.143 0.863 4134 1 47 -0.128 5.64 2.87 1.144 0.114 180 176 m 50 best 0.458 0.406 0.051 0.029 11292 4.01 -3.457 15.37 7.84 1.121 0.847 4286 1.52 -0.140 5.78 2.98 1.082 0.108 181 17e N 50 both 0.478 0.473 0.005 0.003 2950 1.05 0.211 4.00 2 05 1 105 0.057 4160 1.48 -0.061 5.72 2.89 1 161 0.116 182 174 m 50 East 0.478 0.468 0.010 0.004 2904 1.03 0.215 3.93 2.02 1.096 0.056 4108 1.44 -0.048 5 62 2.8% t.137 0.113 183 175 N 50 best 0.470 0.465 0.005 0.003 2898 1.02 0.212 3.93 2.01 1 103 0.054 4094 1.44 -0.052 5.42 2.84 1 154 0.115 184 17e N 50 both 0.468 0.468 0.000 0.000 4158 1 48 -0.071 5.74 2.89 1.180 0.118 185 17e N 50 East 0.473 0.448 0.005 0.003 4134 1.47 -0.041 5.49 2 87 1.164 0.11e O 184 376 m 50 West 0.473 0.468 0.005 0.003 4134 1 47 -0.041 5 69 2.87 1 144 0.:16 187 176 h 50 Both 0.483 0.483 0.000 0.000 4172 1.48 -0.058 5.75 2.90 1 17L 0.117 188 17e N 50 East 0.483 0.483 0.000 0.000 4153 1.48 -0.056 5.74 2.88 1 184 0.118 189 174 N 50 best 0.483 0.483 0.000 0.000 4153 1.48 -0.053 5.73 2.88 8 174 0.!!? 190 tee P 50 both 0.414 0.404 0.010 0.005 4428 1.47 -0.215 4.15 3.08 1.208 0.121 4431 1.47 -0.207 6.11 3.00 1 177 0.117 191 144 P 50 East 0.409 0.399 0.010 0.005 4425 1 47 -0.211 4.11 3.07 1 178 0.118 4491 1.49 -0.224 6.17 3.12 1 162 0.114 192 See P 50 West 0.409 0.399 0.010 0.005 4425 1.47 -0 215 4.13 3 07 1 193 0 819 4474 1.48 -0.214 4.14 3.13 1 151 0.115 193 P 50 toth 194 149 P 50 East 0.402 0.348 0.041 0.017 4904 1.e4 -0.397 e.81 3 41 1 203 0.120 13122 4.44 -4.887 17.92 9.12 1 133 0.854 195 168 P 50 best 0.404 0.368 0.036 0.019 4329 1 44 -0.224 4.02 3.01 1.200 0.121 11795 3.97 -3.689 15.75 8.19 1.043 0.789 19e See P 50 both 0.404 0.399 0.005 0.003 4439 1.47 -0.222 4.16 3 08 1.203 0.120 3230 1.07 0.073 4.46 2.24 1 185 0.041 197 lee P 50 East 0.409 0.399 0.010 0.005 4480 1.49 -0.233 4.22 3.11 1.204 0.120 3334 1.11 0.050 4.42 2.32 1.191 0.061 198 lee P 50 West 0.409 0.399 0.010 0.005 4466 1.48 -0.230 e.20 3.10 1.207 0.120 3319 1.10 0.054 4.58 2.31 1.180 0.040 39, P 50 toth 200 170 P 50 East 0.383 0.353 0.031 0.016 11898 4.06 -3.834 16.03 8.27 1 072 0.810 4294 1.46 -0.206 5 89 2.98 1.119 0.112 201 170 P 50 West 0.387 0.346 0.041 0.024 18253 3.84 -3.504 15.35 7.82 1 128 0.852 4275 1.46 -0.180 5.47 2.97 1.018 0.102 202 167 P 50 toth 0.407 0.402 0.005 0.002 3234 1.08 0.074 4.48 2.25 1.190 0.061 4597 1.54 -0.253 4.33 3.19 1.149 0.117 203 167 P 50 East 0.407 0.397 0.010 0.005 3158 1.05 0.090 4.33 2.19 1.154 0.059 4527 1.51 -0.235 e.22 3.14 1 159 0.814 204 147 P 50 best 0.402 0.397 0.005 0.003 3221 1.08 0.079 4.43 2.24 1.144 0.059 4383 1.46 -0.195 4.02 3.05 1.154 0.815 205 148 P 50 both 0.400 0.400 0.000 0.000 4445 1.49 -0.221 6.14 3.09 1.197 0.119 204 148 P 50 East 0.400 0.400 0.000 0.000 4415 1.48 -0.214 4.13 3.07 1.204 0.120 207 168 P 50 West 0.405 0.400 0.005 0.003 4418 1 49 -0 214 4.13 3.07 1.201 0.120 i 208 168 P 50 toth 0.400 0.400 0.000 0.000 4492 1 51 -0.222 4.17 3.12 1.155 0.115 1 209 148 P 50 East 0.400 0.400 0.000 0.000 4457 1 50 -0.216 4.14 3.30 1 171 0.117 l 210 168 P 50 best 0.400 0.400 0.000 0.000 4451 1.50 -0.216 6.14 3.09 1.177 0.117 ...............................,...--.-----.~ ----..---- O I For blockase condations see Fasure 9. Dioc6ase area as expressed as percentase of weitical st reer. area ents. Horazental screens were blocked thsouchout these testh. 2 ell piezometer head measuresents are expressed ar. teres of the actual prototver elevation. riean S., tevele at baterford - 3. e=yv"-=gr y,, p 1 j - -1 2

T at> 3 e 2 4 Cont'a n Test Series 31 - Headloss Tests Test Condetions and Resu3ts a ..... 7. 2'" Screen Lossl****- TEelm A IntAst ~~~~******-----***-**-----***-*--**-*---- ---*~~~~~-~ Fsero Head Thats 6 letant Test Water bit s Flo. No. Teme I Fece Tank Swee Mo6el Proto basch Fsee Me.d Vel Vel Lust Fruto latch Fnee head Vel Vel Loss Preto $ s set. Le U.C. W.C. Pape Coeff 1s.t ak e be U.C. v.C. Fe,e Coeff Intat e des Lots Loss F ft ft ft ft U$sen E46 ft fra fes ft US *e E46 ft fas fes ft 211 159 0 50 toth 0.415 0 605 0.010 0.005 4557 1.44 -0.048 4.32 3.17 1.200 0.120 45ctit.44 -0.049 e.32 3 17 1.193 0.119 282 159 0 50 East 0.415 0.405 0.010 0.005 4545 1.44 -0.053 4 35 3.17 1 210 0.121 463:'t.44 -0.080 6.47 3.22 1.233 0.123 213 159 0 50 West 0.615 0.605 0.010 0.005 4550 1.43 -0.048 6.32 3.14 1.204 0.300 4425 1 46 -0.075 4.45 3.21 1.222 0 122 214 143 0 50 both 0.584 0.453 0.133 0.059 4489 1.46 -0.078 5 70 3 12 0.859 0.084 13199 4.28 -4.853 18.02 9.17 1.132 0.855 215 te2 0 50 East 0.597 0.490 0.107 0.054 4400 1.42 -0.044 5.73 3.04 0.944 0.094 11875 3.83 -3.905 14.40 8.25 1.181 0.892 214 142 0 50 West 0.60 0.514 0.087 0.044 4329 1 40 -0.027 5.75 3.01 1.024 0.102 11819 3.81 -3.777 16.20 8.21 1 150 0.848 217 140 0 50 both 0.612 0.401 0.010 0.005 4591 1.46 -0.057 4.35 3.19 1.187 0.188 3356 8.07 0.748 4.45 2.33 1.198 0.0At 218 160 0 50 East 0.413 0.603 0.010 0.005 4612 1.44 -0.041 6.37 3.20 1.182 0.118 3372 1.07 0.244 4.48 2 34 1.208 0.042 219 159 4 50 West 0.410 0.400 0.010 0.005 4593 1.45 -0.058 4.35 3.19 1.183 0.118 3354 1.04 0.?45 4.45 2.33 1.200 0.041 220 143 0 50 both 0.580 0.534 0.046 0.021 12631 4.10 -4.280 17.14 8.77 1.112 0.840 4649 1.52 -0.142 6.43 3.24 1.149 0.117 221 143 0 50 East 0.591 0.540 0.051 0.027 18469 3.72 -3.412 15.55 7.97 1.103 0.833 4423 1.50 -0.121 6.34 3.21 8 145 0.186 222 163 0 50 West 0.590 0.534 0.056 0.031 11286 3.64 -3.326 15.34 7.84 1.121 0.847 4564 1.48 -0.107 4.26 3.17 1.152 0.115 223 140 0 50 Both 0.408 0.403 0.005 0.002 3318 1.05 0.259 4.58 2.30 1.181 0.061 4534 1.44 -0.043 6.29 3.15 1.199 0.120 224 160 0 50 East 0.408 0.403 0.005 0.002 3323 1.04 0.259 4.58 2.31 1.175 0.060 4592 1.44 -0.044 e.40 3.19 1.219 0.822 225 160 0 50 West 0 408 0.598 0.010 0.005 3313 1.05 0.259 4.55 2.30 1.154 0.059 4587 1.44 -0.044 e.34 3.19 1.200 0.120 226 let 0 50 Both 0.411 0.406 0.005 0.002 4626 1.48 -0.048 4.42 3.21 1.203 0.120 227 141 0 50 East 0.411 0.406 0.005 0.002 4591 1.47 -0.053 e.35 3.19 1.18e 0.118 ([) 228 160 0 50 West 0.408 0.603 0.005 0.002 4587 1.46 -0.054 6.35 3.19 1.390 0.119 229 141 0 50 toth 0.411 0.404 0.005 0.002 4478 1.49 -0.084 6.51 3.25 1.212 0 121 230 tot 0 50 East

0. ell 0.604 0.005 0.002 4456 1.48 -0.001 6 48 3 23 1 217 0.121 231 tot 0

50 West 0.411 0.606 0.005 0.002 4654 1.48 -0.083 6 48 3 23 1.217 0 121 232 172 R 50 loth 0.474 0.443 0.031 0.017 4204 1.45 -0 110 5 82 2 92 1.189 0.119 4251 1 47 -0.094 5.73 2 95 1.081 0.108 233 172 R 50 East 0.474 0.438 0.036 0.019 4248 1 48 -0.130 5.90 2.96 1.185 0.118 4302 1.49 -0.109 5.79 2 99 1.072 0.107 238 172 R 50 West 0.475 0.440 0.036 0.019 4259 1.47 -0.119 5.84 2 94 1 154 0.115 4263 1.48 -0.099 5.74 2.98 1.055 0.105 235 172 R 50 toth 0.447 0.385 0.041 0.033 4263 1.47 -0.183 5.90 2.94 1.187 0.118 11898 4.11 -3.903 16.20 8.27 1.120 0.844 236 172 R 50 East 0.445 0.373 0.072 0.040 420e 1 45 -0 184 5.84 2.92 1.207 0.320 11425 4.02 -3.704 15.79 8.08 1.112 0.840 l' 237 172 R 50 West 0.445 0.379 0.067 0.037 4217 8.46 -0 174 5.81 2 93 1.175 0.317 11434 4.02 -3.724 15.84 8.06 1.121 0.847 ( 238 172 R 50 both 0.474 0 443 0.031 0.017 4214 1.44 -0.110 5.82 2.93 1.180 0.118 3064 1.04 0.171 4.08 2.13 1.030 0.053 l 239 172 R 50 East 0.474 0.443 0.031 0.016 4217 3.46 -0 115 5.84 2 93 1.197 0.119 3201 1.11 0.149 4.24 2.22 3.015 0 052 240 172 R 50 West 0.474 0.443 0.031 0.016 4204 1.45 -0.110 5.82 2 92 1.188 0.139 3192 1 10 0.149 4.24 2.22 1.026 0.053 241 173 R 50 both 0.433 0.249 0.184 0.092 12414 4.35 -4.482 17.01 8.68 1.121 0.847 4221 1.47 -0.160 5.00 2 93 0.648 0.045 242 173 R 50 East 0.443 0.269 0.174 0.098 11454 3.99 -3 709 15.40 7 96 1.121 0.847 4244 1.48 -0.169 5.17 2.95 0.729 0.073 243 172 R 50 West 0.445 0.284 0.159 0.092 11241 3.09 -3.568 15.35 7.82 1.127 0.851 4239 1.47 -0 164 5.25 2 94 0.778 0.078 244 172 R 50 both 0.444 0.444 0.020 0.011 3113 3.08 0 149 4.24 2.te 3.145 0.059 4418 1.53 -0.14e 4.02 3.04 8.127 0 112 i 245 172 R 50 East 0.444 0 446 0.020 0.011 3059 1.04 0 159 4.19 2 13 1.144 0.059 4345 1.50 -0.130 5.93 3.02 1.133 0.113 246 172 R 50 West 0.448 0 442 0.024 0.014 3048 1.05 0 145 4.12 2 12 1.089 0.056 4324 1 50 -0.12 5.87 3.01 1.106 0.110 247 173 R 50 toth 0.462 0.448 0.020 0.011 4238 1.48 -0 117 5.84 2 94 1.175 0.117 248 173 R 50 East 0.442 0.44I 0.020 0.011 4215 1.47 -0.112 5.82 2 93 1.179 0.118 249 173 R 50 West 0.448 0.448 0.020 0.011 4210 1.47 -0 104 5.82 2 92 1.183 0.188 250 172 R 50 both 0.444 0.461 0.005 0.003 4227 1.47 -0.090 5.81 2.94 1 160 0.316 251 172 R 50 East 0.464 0.441 0.005 0.003 4202 1.44 -0.088 5.80 2 92 1.17e 0.117 ( 252 172 R 50 West 0.444 0.441 0.005 0.003 4202 8.44 -0.088 5 80 2 92 1 174 0 117 l ...... -...... ~.. -..... ~.... l I 1 For biochase condittons see Fasure 9. Blochase area as expressed as tercentase of vertical screen area entw. Mortrontal screens were blocted thrsushout these tests. 2 All Pterometer head seasurements are eurressed in teres of the actual Protutwar elevatnon. Mean Sr.: tevel, at baterford - 3. -., n 4 3

,i ,,I Table 3 Test Seraes III - Confadence Limats Tests Test Conditions and Results I ......,............g....... ............ 7 6 rest Water Die s Flom Paeza Head Screen toss 1&olu e INient 16 elm 6 ImTest ' O No. Tes* 1 Free Ianh Swee nodel Proto Desch Fape head Vel Vel toss Frete Basch Pape Head Vel vel Loss prete Disch ne W.C. V.C. Ia*e Coeff 1 s.t at e ne v.C. v.C. F ee coeff Intane des Lost Loss F ft ft ft ft USame Ete ft fem fes ft U$see E+6 ft fes frs ft I 174 n 50 both -3.780 -3.832 0.051 0.029 11587 4.04 -7.875 15.73 8.05 1.10P 0.837 4215 1.48 -4.367 5.72 2.93 1.108 0.131 2 174 n 50 toth -3.787 -3.838 0.051 0.028 11621 4.07 -7.916 15.00 8.07 1.114 0.841 4228 3.48 -4.373 5.72 2.94 1.096 0.109 3 174 n 50 toth -3.789 -3.840 0.051 0.028 11577 4.04 -7.bse 15.73 0.04 1.113 0.841 4241 1.49 -4.382 5.76 2.95 1.109 0.181 4 174 n 50 toth -3.789 -3.841 0.051 0.028 11565 4.05 -7.871 15.70 8.03 1.109 0.8 38 4246 1.50 -4.387 5.78 2.94 1.102 0.110 5 174 n 50 both -3.790 -3.846 0.054 0.031 11552 4.05 -7.844 15.68 0.02 1.108 0.837 4247 1.49 -4.384 5.74 2.95 1.089 0.109 a 174 n 50 toth -3.797 -3.848 0.051 0.028 18602 4.07 -7.912 15.77 8.06 1 183 0.841 4209 1.48 -4.379 5.70 2.92 1.100 0 110 7 874 n 50 toth -3.797 -3.854 0.056 0.031 18452 4.08 -7.948 15 83 8.09 1.111 0.039 4171 1.44 -4.377 5.44 2.90 1 106 0.110 e 175 n 50 toth -3.807 -3.863 0.054 0.031 11542 4.08 -7.897 15.71 8.03 1.112 0.840 4359 1.54 -4.437 5.93 3.03 1.114 0.111 9 175 M 50 both -3.807 -3.844 0.056 0.031 11e?8 4.30 -7.943 15 80 8.08 1.117 0.840 4171 1.47 -4.388 5.44 2.90 1.108 0.111 to 175 r n 50 both -3.812 -3.849 0.054 0.031 18635 4.11 -7.953 15.83 0.08 1.112 0.840 4247 1.50 -4.408 5.74 2.95 1.090 0.109 il 175 n 50 loth -3.838 -3.874 0.054 0.031 11654 4.11 -7.974 15.84 8.10 1.113 0.841 4159 8.47 -4.387 5.60 2.89 1.077 0.107 12 175 n 50 both -3.818 -3.874 0.054 0.031 11580 4.09 -7.933 15.74 8.04 1.118 0.845 4261 1.50 -4.416 5.76 2.94 1.090 0.109 13 175 n 50 Both -3.823 -3.879 0.054 0.030 18605 4.09 -7.953 15.79 8.04 1.117 0.844 4414 1 54 -4.443 5.88 3.07 1.030 0.103 14 175 n 50 both -3.833 -3.889 0.054 0.031 18636 4.11 -0.010 15.88 8.08 1.130 0.853 4310 1.52 -4.442 5.82 2.99 1 084 0.108 35 175 n 50 toth -3.833 3.889 0.054 0.031 18635 4 11 -0.010 15.88 8.08 1 130 0.854 4133 1 46 -4.398 5.58 2.87 1.085 0.108 14 175 a 50 toth -3.838 -3.894 0.054 0.032 11422 4.03 -7.871 15.40 7.93 1.133 0.854 4185 1.48 -4.417 5.45 2.91 1.088 0.109 17 175 m 50 toth -3.848 -3.905 0.056 0.032 18440 d.04 -7.887 15.41 7.95 1.129 0.853 4133 1.46 -4.411 5.54 2.87 1.075 0.107 18 175 n 50 both -3.848 -3.905 0.056 0.031 11411 4.10 -0.020 15.87 8.07 1.134 0.858 4235 1.49 -4.442 5.73 2.94 1.098 0.110 O^ 19 175 M 50 toth -3.848 -3.905 0.056 0.031 11411 4.10 -0.020 15.87 8.07 1 134 0.858 4396 1.55 -4.480 5.93 3.05 1.085 0.108 20 175 n 50 Both -3.849 -3.904 0.054 0.031 31749 4.15 -0 127 14.07 0.18 1.133 0.854 4171 1.47 -4.428 5.45 2.90 1.102 0 110 ,..................~. 1 For blochase condations see Fisure 9. Slockase area is expressed as percentaae of wertical screen area ontu. Horazontal screens were bloc 6ed throushout these tests. 2 ell piezonete" head esasurements are espressed in teres of the actual prototwee elevatione nean Sea Levele at Waterford - 3. O m.y..,.. 1

v. - i f r.r; c e N r. n is n. + f,u o c. t. r :. t m i I l l 1 l l l

)

i. i t i i i i 4 l p 1 l FIGURES { 6 i i i i l .t i 9 1 t t l 9 tr L O' m i n ^

FidURE I b, PLANT 4 Tv-If ' ', 1 i e REACTOR CAVITY l I O r l I S.I.S SUMPq l t I ~ l E_ I 'l [i f_ ',L _ _ _ MODEL BOUNDARY d y TRAIN A TRAIN 8 INTA K E INTA K E SCALE : I" = 20'- 0" WATERFORD STEA M ELECTRIC STATION i UNIT 3 1 O LO C ATION OF S. I.S. INTAKE SUMP ) IN CONTAINMENT BUILDING 1 WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. exil 6639 A-wCH sm 82

jt l1 .'Jl) )(T - P. - D v E T VO M E E ns A R O a F e O s O i R lI g E G I A l l C 0 N _ j.'M E 4 E I d I 5 R ) s.1 C "0 I L h B+ S E h 1 VR R O __ D *5 EU O LT 1 N C ) L _ R [- ,. iP( I R "I E [ cI A = E P. F I TT Y R AE r T E _ I wD 4 J. O D A ( N o O E X U r i,l l i L L O t' R _ 0 F A B L E 4 M _ I 4 I l. B _ C L A l ilU iI. 4 G S N C A _ I 3.;e 1 i$,: I ( A RI N l A T C _ E 5 I: il T G 7lE A C N _ A R A ,1T E I x C) l- .i\\- G L O 1 E T I G P. NY f cl l A _ IT i i H V R I T A( R T E S G 4 I B _ g W O R I s OO N i iU L D A a/ ~ - [ L E P ) g,J' l !1l1 , 3 ] E T FITI EG S CN ~ I S RE OT ~ R N OO i A IF TAD Y RE w N w'O AG B V O IO nO LM RNLA OEEL A E N OPBE CR O DO S p(/ I P TA A VR T R ESR O E, /l g-Os C R BE T A U u LE OA LR S TN A n S N\\ h SC WF E O R A S E L T P C AE C CC N IAI E D A TLA T T I I E RPR A L E D VN C S D I N R \\\\w1l E O I O \\ ,g3i-Q 'O O A T D R %t R B L E A O B L R M C T N) U I O. N L P U C Y A T R R E( D SE Y UV H FL FiA A T Dw D N E-A N A i A L C P 2-N R E T S E W h g f t 1 l i I' l

Y T I L I N C O A I T F AT S T C S RI E 3 T T C oN P E H L3 D P E M 5 N hi } 2 T P 1 MI A U A N 3 V EU L T S E (P D D O i R M O M F 2 R o P E F N H ( TA O O} i W P 5 N 7 M U A 3 vP } L P ) P. M Y T ( I ) A E P V Y L T A ( ( S V R R E L T E O T A R E E T M H N FI l, O E C C G RI 1 E S D L o p O N LI R H OA A FT H W0 I E N D S } U 6 C A S P MR l T v O O } LF l (" t_ R O TS.S R ~ E NE Ov Cl U A G l EV IF K H A TE T lE ( NaS I'? g X. [ ,= E5 o z / D ) P. E Y T V O ( T E \\ M K E S R A o B F P O S O T R rf E G N I I AC WO N D l 0 E f 4 E R I I I C "0 I pE B tf !;l S f I 1 D '5 Yo m R - O N i O - I ' iVL R "I P. I Y"C E A = ) L - F E y Y R T E - I 7E J_ O D ( 1 N' O E N x U L L _I il!l ' i 0 !I F A R - IrI[l B Il I I I

/ s I l WA X. W. L. + O*- 6

7 e

4 s (:. -g um. w. L. - s'. e" v. __________.9___.....__.__ E le 1 l ~ A . ~, r_ - h \\ 3' 9 7 -m '.. ~.. *. 08S. ..h'~ ... +. CHAMBER J .,e , ' ~.. Ik L_. //..; ~- .,J . ; -) q.....;.

;... ;: :e.,

SECTION A - A (SCALE : I"= 5'-0") ,1 WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION O C NOTE : Grc. ting cage, details of sump screen UNIT 3 and bric-o-broc not shown, 7g SECTION OF MODEL AND TEST FACILITY WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. ta b616638 A-WCH sm 82 -~ ~ -- - - ~...

i?j 44 W" Tl<j g@k j .h ? 5 f h at + g -# g g-f!-flgll!,!:' i Ns l a N!i! A sEadi w' a 3 ,o,a3" = y,%24E74%

2nyc, ill is y

? 7 s Ja h S -s 4 1 h..wg,cr

i

, :s: WM l h l 2 O . w_ L h 'se k +BMw. j aj E th l !! ljj .9 ]' 2 N(3b4[/ nt! j.I j lIl I fhi ! &M. %y. 97-pa:.f ;.. tu ' n; y m 43 29.., st u 3.- .{ 7 l l l \\ 2 y 7 in ',n* xe 1 11 E' kip;ga. }'}y - gg NW 1m - wm i hM3E.d g m$ w .q$6h [h! f k. = w w w" "y " y * ; + au w:4 9 D r : ' ' ': s u n w@ 01 I e we &dI??WhiM5k*?3 eg Mg' d;;;NE'9 FUlt;ig:?n ' 4 25 it 4 K '~" 0 t ~ " - O J q =_ L

i / l ll "O N 4 '4 0 TA T L S C E IR TC T E A L 3 l E T R le MI A N O cp EU O ty i T L S a F tG D -l" [/ m R F A O M F O R E T N AW A L _NP IN I I P 0-I j I .f 7 w:.T* .I' e I1!liIii8l1_ HIl l9

H.
~

u .I T .} Z N W i O ,il,!i1l-_ H 6 S T) Y O "0 xc N '5 a G N *s 6 G L I l T A : RE A - C S NI A L .I

i'!

I ,e etl* lt P ~ .l = tl. illll \\'j l. d r e D e n T oe l-

n. H L

=e s ,.N S e l. e E en I s te R dc O e e es T

k. s'l e

A eg. R _lr n yt e O i e a e .l [i'llt' l!l-s r h

B ag e

A 1 s ap e L e n . lee f .os IL v e C .m, e e U sr 6 A R t D L T Y L o H A m w A s D m A a N T AC a e ms N R E T S a. EW u h g f

FIGURE 6 i O

f.,,n

. QiVb: 0,%%.1:: I".V.24' 8 ?.h.i.e. fnE '[h ' {??A.5kk' v$..h.th.i'M

N&t-f k R. b??,' :l. qs -

n-k A ' > m.i . 0 c es, $ ' bq,. m y $ ;! $ i k N S Y N~ & p W e E' I

t

_$..&,.._.k ah_. mYhhh b 3 .m c.; 5.'? '.. .~,' 6,' 2,g.y. 3 mm. -., e.L.. ..1 it,5

',h, N.. kg,4

.3. ,r s ' ~, 6.IF,ff i #',Y,' { ul ps y '+ ...:*. Ja ?, ~ .. c: ; *, m ;... r

,y eg. g,9;*,

y .y e y,,., .vg u. 5,,$; (...,,.m :. c. "f

Ys Ii s

-t.m e-

L..

~w y_- ,p g n >

c.,3 T , -

.. h . s.' ;.W ?'; j! y c n ,. i. 1 j, r ...g ,4 = [ fjj " ([1y ff r_t..., 3"b, -

;, z. ;

y,1 gt:1 1 4 .ie: t, , i'_ f tn-2:~ + .Q 4' / ; ' A'~ : I',s y 4I .y. .? Qf},j)' f & y$p y?? //

}f&e'f-[p

';,n:. m .Q v }n, -. 99 jay q!U,?Uf:{:h. ?. ~1 f ..., 'I spln - v i gn s s,t 4s' L.x. ~ s's ?;;W t*l t?f !' ;., ' { M L,j'{ g,L ? l-cx,n...e , 5 4(, M M& ' H km %), l%r e ' g:l.[ffr::, t V' > - ji G 5{kn-Y \\. 't p/tC/2'#f7 W '(. i hfAN jf l^ M.%$f} ~. *:- ',',j N f.'k$ }$h?'./ $ ~ I %,e s..o,r +;;,,. s i:hk y

l}=@.

- ~ ~ ~.. _ _ _. c. ' Sp- ~ j ~ +t vE = <s.-n t<,. .v 2, 8 . : sy.. 4 f

v' s.p r r..

~- w )r e. ? ..e.tr e < Ns"uMf Ff* ~ 4 6fe dW > " s a 'd % :1 N' hth.d w ~s h,%-#e w ~&,) M t- - ~ =' O CONTAINMENT WALL, SCREEN CAGE AND TSP BASKETS WATERFORD-3 SIS SUMP MODEL STUDY

---A--- + --. FIGUPE 7 o s.n. ue,,mp28$ w n.L.a < ~, fd%" 1 Y ,r 5,-y p. (:: ~ *,

i,i.Y f

t

q %

y-

/ .. w a s-l 2 is r-WW.,,'C N L a :sps, q, e .. n') -h - L.J t I l A, a. .b,?j. \\ ~ 1 I I-, '. + t"J ". ? b c C l .b o r t c. D l e.

f b

y 'id'f M..'af.A ' - ,8%***'9 - 3' [... ~f 1 o rdi I'. N' ./; 9 3 5 j M r m' -g C;D. C,,d. g 1 o . e ,. /, ..n. w - ' 52 s-( N 'L '. ( .k *' ' g w-O a m wg .s. L =,, m +-. d%. '- .I9 m,; m i RQy'..' P, '].(.,. *

m 4r gh m,.k f.

nl(. 7 ,o g e +-er .y, w w t u m ,.1 = .. - _ = g. .b 4'=f'g't -. ' h ;.-.. ' _ ','*E.-( ' 4 e ',k r J/ ;.

v.

g m +- h d l,,'

t r

d .a 5 2 !M b,-~TG,4.. _ '., q. ...{f. " gi,.S.: m s s y .r_ - E ,. fy p w43 ,pY L.J P g '; f, g, f.,' f. 5's

i sta=.w~ -
sf,-

W Y ,A I y " w, ..s.' .q n x t .~.- r s i :~i /g.' 4-I H 3 [ J%s.w,pp s., tM 42.'. a t! Q '.%q -t .R c',,; u-v. / .N ( g l.1 Y!q,, 4.', T;,'~ t t. c. .Y f) } .i. s. .a,-. , 9 >,. k .s ( #h "hgQ..w' 4m \\* h'. ! yrs ~ ' ' V} j l Eq lf-h? s 5,'" l Q.'in *..,f. ,'- l y s ,1 i e;y 4.Q. >m.m 9; -;c s &.,a{f kh h;; w:h.,b h.

\\.

n n.;,:$n:$h E w w m' it f 't. ' Rf < *; ..' A'\\ ' & <. ~ ry . N'fyt: h$ u+., n.hh0h,n...,..kB, h 0 - ~.. w.., j. .m www.. y a.u lhp_ gog ?j,f ^. f f~'). r e,&~~.%_..~e~s;t T;. ..; 1 f *. c ~ * * ' - ~L - ff 'i'.'T 4%.,.kp w$b.h' p.$*.' w(;M'd> "(*-sm &y;e. ?) -..,..>s~:n ?,.

e-v g-t

&*;OG3/~ % 4.sw. h.At**,mt. f ', 3 cA+ g.* 'p N p - [%, Y -p~ y ,.,Q y:.Q t se k,,,.p t ,W. ;.r. Y Y? ~ m, -s y.y n! 4 t, e,:. ~ ' ~,#WAYU??k s. Y .?Y? . c: + an.;. :.aag;a

v..t. q g.,,%[v. v..,...a..

e> u A .. c w... Q.}; 73LTsh ;.@TQW 1 m'm'7%DMU,Q.j t'W 4 0'5'L5,1 - i...,.,. .{ g -A y'['p::T.?Qi %.,. 4: ~ f

a

a FIGURE 8 7

.s i e f =~ , ;gn ' d ' ;,'.h$0 w } a 2 ran c 8 ( N'/ /' L,'? f *3n';l. 1 ", J, e ju -wd lTH. i':. . - ?:45 X. Gb i \\,M 3 mc. s ~ 4 Wd..' ,7j E =y _n, fi.; 3 .a. A L O. % g,p ' "g- -h g3 l %se h 8 z r; l -. 5 z. b_bkk i kw LW.i ....a au 1 s - m. L w g-t @w. e e 1 / TS, ~f, E c. L A r.a. I 1 j n, ..i u- -,w a,n,,, - )vd g., _.., 3 e , A ;,

k t w.

m m ch ~1 4 mQ4 . \\.y J ]M:,b}' s--. i!: NA/ bh! g g (h h ;"'*g 4.t): j. i 2 3. : ; g-, m 8g 9' n ny i 4' 9 -.- 4: o w l j '.Q h w'.n. ]. n r l MD waw ..:.c. uu xp, NN kh kk$a i swux 6 ig. s fl fki gal ~ u npuruxw tb..,,- k g}j[32 & f 4 4 -r ~ g*'q s ef addk &,4 n J.:p$fW$a$;ymsw,n$Mi@ a -w., e $ s6fM60 i O $$$: @ d- _ _ = - - - 1 i

~ ~ FIGURE 9 TEST SERIES 1 CONFIGUR ATIONS A - VERT: CAL SCREENS secCutD soo % E - MoeJONTAL SCNEE% SLOCsED 00% H SawE As E PLANT O o eo 'A' $c ir a'oc ro 'is >+. TOTAL SCREEN e.0CnAGE 90 *,e ~ a' cA sc << > 'oc ro i s TO TAL SCREEN SLOCAAGE 90 % .,,.,, f ' g, f,', y/G' ' '7'.;'/' %.'ff-{ l

'/,

B-Sake AS A F - Mo*izomT AL SCREEN eLOCato soo% J - sauf As r vf RTiC AL SCREENS SLOCRED 84 % /e i[/4 ^' ['- 7/ ' ? ~j i j l[ ~- l TOTAL SCRifN BLOCa AGE 98 % [ ghM: fl i' ( 4 C - 5Aut as A 7 G SAME A$ F K-Sauf ASF O o -sA E As A TEST SERIES II 8 M CONFIGURATIONS ,'// 7,-[//..,. L-MORi20NTAL SCREEN eLoCato 100% 4,,fjV,' /?.5:... N - NORIZONTAL SCREEN BLOCKED 100% ,f'5 'gO/Zf@_,,., Q - NORs70NTAL SCREEN BLOCEED BOO % // VERTICAL SCREENS umstoCuto. TOP 50% or VERTICAL SCREENS stoCnEn RisnT e.Atr or VERTICAL SCREENS ,p',h ? b I '/,( g' ,/,, ',,,,i M - HORIZONTAL SCREEN BLOCKED 800% P MoRizoNTAL sCRtEN etoCmEo soo% R-nomizomTAL sCREtm stoCato soo% i y e vfRTICAL SCREENS SLOCNED 50% 80TTOne SO% OF VERTICAL SCREEDS [. LEFT MALF OF wtRTICAL SCREENS l l s SV ALTERN ATE 3" WIDE OPEN AND g gLOCKED. l : a SLOCKED STRIPS. /,/j q SLOCRED. l,.. j .no wATERFORO STEAhl ELECTRIC STATION SCREEN BLOCKAGE CONFIGURATIONS ,]ESTrqN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD

O O PRESSURE TAP NUMBERS rt TRAIN A hhhhh h h EFJB EE Liij 8 Ta^i" e e / I p-Em t -- i t- <t-e--o- \\ / l 4 \\ / n il i 14" ,/ H+H-M-1 s I IN TAKE LIP I/"= l ' - 0" SCALE I 2 WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ] UNIT 3 c) C LOCATIONS OF PRESSURE TAPS FOR INTAKE LOSS M E ASUREMENTS WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. bail 6638 A.WCH sm82 o _..., _ _..... = =. -

FIGURE 11 + 0 b O a .e w4. #g4 g 1-i, f$@M:. $$ i W}yp?'fdy'Mhe f='ptwp ' EIb De J a* s'9 u Mdesj.? fQ4 Wit /, v pry; y,r ]$k ?$ggs:;t.gN g[ E c h..y.M.k+}Wk.fi. xd i n

Mu

'L .c. I m c wy s.,.w, r s @.,.,..y R._a,b.m...a ~..s w . %,). g. e mm y-;3 g 3 o s}. y,t. : %. r. <% y' - Y';~-'.','" w,r. s q -),,g-J.c.',e:m- [*:,c n '5vs.* jksQ:2he L > s; e - Q?[i.. 8 I a- ,8 %'n.a..v,g.c% i c.* gf vh g;',44,. ~ ps *,T ir * ;t y" 4.,I k#l $$ ^.Y'3 0 ' ';N f i. l,l; - .h. - I 4' qs irfj '.,,,-D--,... ,i f v t,.> 't t Mdh y' $0 th/;'< ' 'M:.(Q~ *"? '[i ,. MF ' O h%}.CT kNh[ ', j l [ ,A. -?l%WQ,'6ll9, ( F is :- l T ~ .. ;),4 -,%s w,. ~ : 3.,9,.ted v4 w a y ,s :

?

m#, q.- , '.A 3.m,,. %,,,,.- A. . <.. m,.4:. ~;. a..u..g %. y a .,7. p; t. 4~

ix 9

pg. :. e.c.-f; s.~ \\ n 4 u eq )= f -s [.^. M.) b .g+'(*[,( D -w? [ 5 ' .i y[--k'c, ( ? .;f),9 s - ;, y; m.. w w p q,g,;>k. c.w('? v ,, N '# ,s E i w .a-cw r . k+? -...: a' k I 4jN -, v s. . ~.. t. 4.,,' t l. g ' gk'cf, r 4 w m.. i e - .= ~ ~ .s m. e .. c '" **i

r JJs s-1 x

z us O )_ H ") n w:7.,.... 7., y. m g4 = s .\\. ' 4, m. c r-s .**J. .- e Z M l 49 i 4 I E m 2. ,3.;.. W 1.,. f s m > '.* j W q e. z e 6, y;% W c ..r P l E x o i - I W t.a_

f W

W d W .F f,t (, o r 1 c= 4 ) E -n.y, a,* 3 0,, 1 .,t . '*f 8 't-6.o, n y-. 3 ;- Q,,' 4 a. [. } 3 ,s ,-w e; i ~sk +loe e ^ s .s t ', -T 3r,. ' [h , - [ a s u aa -, '., j -y,, s ,j-4,.y., [ { .6 s c....s 4 .l y-Y. ) I -.s.. i i W.,} [ L ,..L' . -7 e * (6.. k ~ t;',.- 4,*7 ?..'C.*.i ! % ,s i .g s .. / y - y,c i . e, #.% 4e,* - 'e. F, ; i* . p' i a

i. -. y.>.n.

l ,,.7.;, +1, 4 r I - ~ >.', <;., n g:% j . 4.,,= e g i 8 'l SJ,'

)

6 J,.. g , "g, # 's *

e

_,, ; 5 r,

I 1 l ', j. "lf.%, r,.., ' J-s ..^'# s ? f. .; ;y , :s:; e

.f P q'

- (,O. - d ! l s ,a..* .L.~ 5 i .s 1 I f* { gP ..., t, ;. 4 - - 0 l l n,. e..f.. -r.c.-e.m,m. _ j}, l x g;-;- y _.m 1 ..,,..v.

FIGURE 12 O ,L w,.a, m N'% y m M,4-M. W -,DM$%'MA.w M. Qd?.MDMfi-w.wv4 mC p .f xt:4f '" W % V

4s,,

y6.bIJ kNc.;..v e9 m-p;,?. ~ m e,W.w.a ,,n c.A m w y w.., 4 a.y y,h-(.1i.. Y W $ $.U W 5 Y...*:,>,. $. .q+ +,..,,. & ~ '$ j ar;- ^*je h,r .. i a +. F nM'm v. s. cf,g., - v, - r o* L. s u.v?W3 o g w L' s j

w

-r K. q's. ; s t ,,.; 4 y ..-w -. e e U.. iq,w.. u, l et . m.. u. p?,.,.. g., g.. w p o, p.;.ya,.;y u, $.;. W.m ye* -;. s p .. a. t +

jg

! 3,et;;r = y~;ysu, y.,, , s :.3 y -s m;. s q,, D.~y ; c y, wag g Q s, m;u. p & g%g,.s?~y. , Y t n w e .s , s,

4 t.

4 , = y. 3;r qy m ...,......r......,, tyl % :n.Wh+f,y&,.sngH.$dk:g, #g&.e..

s.%o.ym:n Q%

v..y

+ g. u. w.,. m. w g 'h w.. m. .o S .3 s,- i p ^* K 'sf* [ y y s .~ L. ~ F [}l t .t.. y w e. v. e.,r,9; $, y.. l c 1 7 y,,- r , y 9.s,,..-.J.w.o,: P*>,

u.

a -

.a .u. - ..3 y.,. ',_ a r l g. p y y.s. s e. nsc c.. :M..1,, 44..4. g .c} d.. h. 2 .i.s..- .,3,:,. 4;v. *. g .,.g *g .W s 1 .,w t.. ' w% ,.6y,p #-- ...-y 5,s J;gy..he.44.m e.,. n - r - ~*. w-g ,y

r m a n,g,.

4 +: n u. ( #h D k N[ gtft y. l - 9 16 yy l hd I $fjk)bGr yk ?_f5 f

G OR.n..

m.. ppd.. h y-n s .s c. e rw,}. Q.w-t.%^* *}% tn..- 4 7 m O t,po.c h ' i,vs'.4 M. ahl A fhp.67Mt.n 44'[" ? .?wp.gy W g.g.. w.. - v g ~.4 7,[..%.:.o.' +MQ.h.f (w ;i M 4 s I *.. g 4$.N l ' [ [. f ' '., g%Qbp >;; y 'Wv -"i i t ?n, %5q l . 4, --. a; , e.- n. '. ;_.;r dp x, '. .c 3 -j pa.a m, 3...wpc,.,. _ i . t. 9. e, 4 .. d,.,; 9G -, y y

Qy%%dQ4,4g

, +f wnAhur $ A... t.f ;M.;. n ; '13'.tg* .(.b! [il Ql J y&>.Q'U % Q j $$pe -p' 'k - ww c ut 'i u e.3 : p ....m w,93.w%w %.x.' amAw. 3,. _ e.. -. 4 ... y.e,.. g.m... 9,,.

4.. m,

.n w

m.f rg th.,,

.u.d,. cf, af,f.: vAs,n.g.&:r ~, ,:,.unA*, .e :. h r. ~n 3 -e' x; ;* ~w - T e'.? " X %'% Mv gh5 -4: u,yagpf e>% y nm;n., - 4,hy 3. q , -.. s -n ~R W*%. g n - - p.e. y w:bm(6 + M ::.n M. .. ae d e _. ..,..p. g c., 9i . 4'.. .= c f M -' i

.q : *.L (. L p.,f.,.,,.). es..s.A h.t A e f 9; 4. il
y c

e .. %; s.,( s n:J.V P,m, A. ,l

c,

w g ,n.. y. v.u.. w (w,:, e.

g..q g4 a

c. i oj, p.3 4 .c 4,., - ,.. ', r .. c.m %,,. g,.. igYg p u%4 r -... s'n-n w +- +

s.,q,On d y, W

-+ ~ i

t....i.

a u r 6.J 3 6 i 3, - m y.. ;, j,,. s r ? & & h h ;f@. 4 n.pqu,.w,m.wk.r. . %n .4 .,. e -...s.n...g. :. w,n, a r- >s =. , _. ~ W Q M Q.M f9 & y~f 3' u.fo iqA m q 3 4+;.QB.2 i.25~ 1 M gy. h.:,,..K, a $.w: oih h M k W N U &j f h, e $.5 . u.. w. ~ w.. aa. & v w +, . m.g' s -.Wv m.g..- T' J-w?'r4dw &a.syv4M' <S* un.yp 'm4., n n w

v. n, w:

w ms c a 4 i r J.c ,n,, w w '. 6. A e i %., m 9 r' ' ' r.y'*^5.i,-4 " K !.-a I s M - d.e 4 c&r s ^ n yr* i. ; '1 % d ; , : ? +R"'sm** * - ^ ' .s-fMSYN]Q.. (i~sD "p%; ~D k;W; G.u sulM, i.i cM p', :B'. M. I 3.:n w;'. m+ e w*r ::',:,. ?. 1y tE s ..., ;p , 'n .c ,w v n $n $n& '5 i d S. ' AY.~j ' I '. ^ . : ;;c. ^ . Y b '~ l ji 2 0 p W h.Wy%n ..e : M. ; R u n k a ._._.__Z. ..._ _ = c.1 ~ d 4 CLOSEUP 0F V0RTEX " HEAD" i i WATERFORD-3 SIS SUMP MODEL STUDY a

FIGURE 13 ...e + f.;.. h ; pi.' i g 9 ~.g '.. ' 7I'[ T 0U.' lE$'. O A ..I [ , ',7 (p '., u,. e .~4 *j J .i n. b 4 f 4 7, j s,, .. =,,,, i r.r.,or r n ,r dihf.b,fD!:E!!ENIEik / m J, m t 7'! , d,. ),,9 h d U MW A A LL AW W h N1~C - d ti L m e'! q#ca! u. 3 n 4.!bl@ Ih, 4 ir o t '. s / I ]

f. :n pf,s %,.

4 g a J1 2.. u grj pw.. e .L O 'p I d IT ' Y L.' i < nI iih !jllljL!jS;'!'ILDTid,I'.3 H,' !?. TTrrrirrff li J Wriqqqqqrjrirf";mg ily my / a 1,; i JO / J T, rrrrr*rrrrrr,rrE,rrE.rr, i,ri,:r rJ 1 N i 8 } .O . :.a s ~ I;,t. J U .d [ w

.. } u ; g f s,

d, y

f c

' N) J g a.-

y. ):y..:' y 3

..r, 0 -;' q

m.,,7. # y

' k,I ,y ~- I } ,~ t e ~ i \\ 9 M h* y < m" ~- O '] GRATING CAGES AWAITING INSTALLATION WATERFORD-3 SIS SUMP MODEL STUDY 11

e e O >B / y j-45* A [ ,'s lt s ..- #:;;;r pr. f f i ~ b

nou,

[ I PIPE is - y _ _. 9 _ _ A ( T l \\ ) >B SECTION B-B ALONG q, EL E VATION SCALEt I" : 2'-0" -~~ L'" i. n .=. 5 5 it i s.i f 24" 5 5 - 5 I t i ! If y h . k k'! ! hf hf sa" is " 'l O C SECTION A-A 0 WATERFORD STE AM ELECTRIC STATION P1 UNIT 3 b GRATING CAGE DESIGN AS TESTED WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LABORATORIES LTD. W:16638 A-WCH sm82

a w f f S g I O l APPENDIX A METHOD FOR CALCULATING INTAKE LOSS COEFFICIENT l l I l l l I l l i i I 0

APPENDIX A O seTsOo roa CALCULATING INTAKE LOSS COEFFICIENT Consider a square-edged re-entrant intake as shown in Figure Al. The momentum of the convergent flow at the lip of the intake tends to force the fluid away from the wall of the pipe. When separation occurs, the flow streamline at the lip separates from the wall of the pipe and then reattaches at some point further downstream. Along the wall of the pipe between the lip and the point of reattachment exists a " dead zone" characterized by slow recirculating flow. The point of maximum constriction of the flow is called the vena contracto. At the vena contracta the flow area is a minimum and the flow velocity is a maximum. The loss coefficient associated with the intake con be expressed in terms of the parameters characterizing the flow at the vena contracta. l The loss coefficient, K, is defined as the ratio of the head loss, h, to the velocity t head, i.e. 3(0 1 K= hL 2 V /2g l where V is the average velocity at some section of the flow. In the notation adopted, subscripts are used both to define the flow region the loss coefficient applies to, and to identify the velocity head on which the loss coefficient is based. In general, (K j)k i denotes the loss coefficient between points i and j in the flow evaluated in terms of the velocity head at k. The head loss at the intake con be broken down into two components: the head loss upstream and head loss downstream of the vena contracta. Consider expressions for the loss coefficients for these two regions of flow. 1 Let the subscripts I and 3 denote flow conditions at locations for upstream and for downstream of the vena contracta. Assume the velocity at point I upstream of the vena contracta to be negligible, i.e. assume flow from a plenum. Also let point 3 be taken far enough downstream for fully developed flow to be re-established in the pipe. Subscript 2 { I O will be used to denote flow conditions at the vena contracta. i f 4

A-2 l l First consider an expression for the loss coefficient upstream of the vena ~ contracta, (K12)2, based on the velocity head at the vena contracta. Define a velocity coefficient Cy = V2 V' 2 2 cnd V ' are the actual and ideal velocities, respectively, at the vena contracta. where V 2 Then, the loss coefficient can be expressed as (K l2)2 = l -I C 2 v i The head loss - and hence loss coefficient - upstream of the vena contracta tends to be relatively small. Typical values for the velocity coefficient range between 0.959 and O.994; on average value of 0.975 is of ten used (Benedict et al 1966). O The head loss downstream of the vena contracta is that associated with the C i expansion of the flow between points 2 and 3. Define a contraction coefficient t C=A2 e A3 where A2 s the flow crea at the vena contracta and A i 3 s the internal area of the pipe. i The loss coefficient for a sudden expansion based on the velocity head at the larger flow section is (Streeter and Wylie,1975): (K23)3 = 1 - 1 2 Cc and is much larger than that associated with a sudden contraction. l i The loss coefficient (K 12)2 given above is based on the velocity head at the vena { contracta, point 2. To obtain a loss coefficient, (Kl2)3, referenced to the velocity head O

A-3 at point 3 where the pipe is flowing full, (K l2)2 s multiplied by the ratio of the velocity i heads at points 2 and 3, i.e. O (Kl2)3=[l -I}[V }2 2 \\Cy2 j gy3 / From continuity and the definition of the contraction coefficient, Vj, =,A_1 = l V3 A2 Cc. Then, the expression for (K 12)3 ecomes b (Vl2)3= l -1 I C 2 Cc2 y Combining the expressions for the loss coefficients upstream and downstream of the vena contracta yields the following expression for the tota! loss coefficient, (Kl3)3, based on the velocity head for full flow in the pipe: (Kl3)3= I _2_ +l Cy2C 2 Ce c Using the expression above it is possible to calculate the intake loss coefficient I once the velocity and contraction coefficients are known. Since the losses upstream of the vena contracta are relatively small compared to those downstream, Cy can be approximated by its average value, 0.975, without introducing significant error. The contraction coefficient, C, is defined as the ratio of the area of the vena contracta to c the area of the pipe. From cantinuity, the ratio of the areas is equal to the inverse ratio of the velocities. I l O

i ~ LIST OF REFERENGS l.

Benedict, R.P.,

Carlucci, N. A.,

and Swetz, S.D.; " Flow Losses in Abrupt Enlargements and Contractions", Journal of Engineering for Power, Trans. ASME, Series A, Vol. 88, January 1966, p. 73-81. 2. Streeter, V.L., and Wylie, E.B.; " Fluid Mechanics", McGraw-Hill, New York, 6th edition,197S, p. 30S. O l l l O l

FIGURE A1 O ) DE AD ZONE WITH SLOW [ RECIRCULATING FLOW INTAKE PIPE STRE AM LINE =. "e t O / W~ vi IT l @VENA CONTRACTA l l WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 3 O TYPICAL SQUARE RE-ENTRANT INTAKE l WESTERN CANADA HYDRAULIC LA80RATO71ES LTD. bcil e639 A wCH}}

ML20054J900

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 INTRODUCTION

5.0 DESCRIPTION

SUMMARY

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 INTRODUCTION

Radial Reynolds No.

Circulation No.

Weber No.

Navigation menu

ML20054J900

Text

SUMMARY

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 INTRODUCTION

5.0 DESCRIPTION

SUMMARY

3.0 CONCLUSION

4.0 INTRODUCTION

Radial Reynolds No.

Circulation No.

Weber No.

Navigation menu

Search