,- ..

., ... V ..

. r

UNIT 1' p STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

HYDRAULIC DOWNPULL STUDIES

OF THE FIXED-WHEEL SPILLWAY GATES FOR

RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

Hydraulics Branch Report No. Hyd-511

DIVISION OF RESEARCH

OFFICE OF CHIEF E NGINEER DENVER, COLORADO

April 25, 1963

The information contained in this re -port may not be used in any publica­tion, advertising, or other promotion in such a manner as to constitute an endorsement by the Government or the :3ureau of Reclamation, either explicil or implicit, of any material, product, device, or process that may be re­ferred to in the report.

CONTENTS

Purpose ................................................ ·.•e:••

Conclusions .............. · .. · .... · ............... : ... · ... ~ .

Conclusions Based on Preliminary Tests .

Page

1 1

and Inve sti ga tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . .. . . . · 1 Conclusions Based on Fixed-mod~ Tests ...... ; ..... ; . ~ . · 1 Conclusions Based ori Freely Suspended

Mode Tests .................... ~ ......... · ~ ........ : . . . . 2

Introduction ......................................... ·. . 3 Acknowledgments ..... ~ ......... ~ :, ........ ._ ..... • ........ ,: Cl • • •• .3 The Model ........... ~ ............... ." ... · ........ o •••• ." 4

Selection of Model Sc ale ......•.. • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 4 Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Flume and Head Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Piers and Overflow Spillway Crest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . 4

Instrumentation and Technique .... , ................. -.. · • . . 5

Suspension System .......... · ..........• • ..... ~ ...•.. ~ . . .5 Discharge Measurements ........... : .......• _ .· ... ." .'. ,· . .'., .· 6

Testing Pro gram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

General .............................. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Preliminary Tests and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Buoyancy determir~.ation ............•.......... : . . . . 7 Consideration of surf ace tension ...•.......•... · ....• ·• 7 Consideration of vibrations ......•..•... ~ .•.... , • . . • . • 7

. :, .

Fixe9,-mode T~_sts o ••••••. o •• : •••••••••••••.• _ •• · ~ ·~· ••• ·_;. •. • 8:

Coefficient of discharge. • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . 9-Submer.gence parameter •....•.•.•....... '· ...•. ·. ,' .- . . 9 Interrelationship of submergence ·and

pressure head on. lip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .. . 9 Lip pressure head coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 9 Forces that .can be determined from · .

fixed - mode tests . . . . . . . . ........ -. · ... .-...... ; .· .. -~ ~- . . . 10.

i

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Freely Suspended Mode Tests ...•.................... 10

Horizontal fore es on gate ..•• , .•. , ... , ... , . , , .• , •. 10 Effect of slot jetting on vertical force

measurements .. .. 0 ••••••• , ••••••••••••••••• , •• o 10 Submerged vertical force measurements ...... , , .•. , 11 Free discharge vertical force

measurements. o o ••••••••••••••• o •••••• o ••••• o •• 11 Maximum downpull .......... 0 ••••• o • o •• g ••••• o o •• 12

Evaluation of Instrumentation and Model Technique 12

APPENDIX

Table

Fixed Mode Model Data- -Hydraulic Properties of Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

Freely Suspended Mode Data--Vertical Force on Gate during Submerged Flow, , •.••............ , . . • • • II

Freely Suspended Mode Data- - Unsubmerged flow • • . . . . • . • III

LIST OF FIGURES

Loe ation Map ....................................... . General Plan, Elevation, and Plan of Prototype ......••• Prototype Gate Assembly •••.....•....•....•••••..•...• Model Drawing of 60-foot by 18-foot Fixed-wheel Gate •••. Model of the Open Truss Fixed-wheel Gate • , ..•........• Model Arrangement.for Study of 60- by 18-foot

Fixed-wheel Gate .................................. . Prototype Overflow Weir and Piers .•.................. Vertical Suspension Used for Model Weighing

Technique .................. , ...................... . Instrument Circuits for Force Measurements .......... . Buoyant Force on Prototype Gate .•...................• Hydraulic Properties of Gate ••...•..............•.•.•• Vertical Forces on Gate for Two Gate Openings .....•....

ii

Figure

1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Flow Conditions at Slot for Different Methods of Suspending and Sealing Model Gate-

Opening 1. 2 feet ................ _, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Flow Conditions at Slot for Different Methods of

Suspending and Sealing Model Gate-Opening 2. 6 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

DownpuU Force for Free Discharge . • • . . . . • . . . . • . . • • . • . 15

iii

\ ...

UNITED ST ATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Office of Chief Engineer Division of Research Hydraulics Branch Denver. Colorado April 25. 1963

Laboratory Report No. Hyd-511 Compiled by: R. A. Dodge. Jr. Checked by: W. P. Simmons Reviewed by: W. E. Wagner Submitted by: H. M. Martin

Subject: Hydraulic downpull studies of the fixed-wheel spillway gates for Red Bluff Diversion Dam- -Central Valley Proj­ect. California

PURPOSE

Studies were conducted to determine the downpull forces on the 60-foot-long by 18-foot-high upstream seal. bow truss. wheel­mounted spillway gate during free and submerged discharge operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions Based on Preliminary Tests and Investigation

1. The buoyant characteristics of the gate were determined with respect to depth of submergence (Figure 10). This relationship is complicated because of the structure of the gate.

2. Surface tension did not interfere in the measurement of vertical forces on the model gate during flow tests because the oscillating water surface tended to average out tension forces.

3. Vibration phenomena cannot be scaled from the model because the equivalent gate mass was not represented in the model and it was impossible to scale all forces applied to the vibrating system.

Conclusions Based on Fixed-mode Tests

1. The coefficient of discharge of this gate was conveniently ex­pressed as a function of the headwater parameter (H1 /b) and the tail water parameter (H2 /b). The interrelationship of these param­eters as determined from the model is shown in Figure 1 lA.

2. The submergence characteristics of the gate are given in di­mensionless form in Figure 1 lB. In this plot the submergence parameter (S/b) is related to the tailwater and headwater parameters.

3. The pressure head on the bottom of the gate lip is eqyal to the submergence head at the downstream face of the gate. This phe­nomenon is clearly demonstrated in Figure 1 lC.

4. Using the relationship as stated in Paragraph 3, the lip pres­

sure head coefficient ( p~Jg -_Sb) was computed. The interrelation­ship of this coefficient with respect to the headwater and tailwater parameters is given in Figure 11 D.

5. The combined vertical forces of buoyancy and gate lip pressure were computed and plotted as solid lines in Figure 12. The effects of truss drag. skinplate drag. slot jetting. and compartmentation of air or water cannot be determined from the fixed-mode data,

Conclusions Based on Freely Suspended Mode Tests

1. Horizontal forces. as measured, agreed closely with those normally computed by' designers.

2. Slot jetting had considerable influence upon the magnitude of the total vertical forces on the gate and was highly sensitive to headwater. gate opening and submergence. Forces from slot jet­ting can be e-ither upli:f.t due to impingement on the underside of the web membranes or downpull due to compartmentation of water on top of the web membranes.

3. The slot jetting was caused mostly by the expansion and deflec­tion of the main flow into the slot region below the gate lip rather than by leakage necessary to keep the gate free and floating for vertical force measurements.

4. Comparison of the fixed-mode data with the floating-mode data in Figure 12 shows that the net result of slot jetting contributes uplift. The two sets of curves in Figure 12 show$ that maximum downpull will occur during unsubmerged flow. '

5. The maximum downpull force for the design head of 18 feet, measured by the weighing method was 13. 000 pounds at a gate opening of about 5-1/4 inches prototype and occurred at free dis­charge (Figure 15).

2

INTRODUCTION

Red Bluff Diversion Dam is on the Sacramento River in the Central Valley Project, California, and is located about 2 miles downstream from the town of Red Bluff (Figure 1). The dam will control the up­stream water surface elevation by means of 10 spillway gates 18 feet high and 60 feet long (Figure 2).

The nature of the river downstream from the dam is such that at large flows the water surface will be above the spillway crest and will back up and submerge the gates. An upstream seal gate of conventional design with solid web beams would experience large downward forces during submerged operation because of the pres­sure differential resulting from reduced pressures under the lower beam due to the flowing water and positive pressures above the beam due to tailwater. Similarly, large downpull forces would be experienced with a downstream seal gate of conventional design for this installation. Large downpull forces were undesirable be­cause of the extra costs for gate handling equipment, hoists, cables, and operating bridges.

An unusual design was adopted for the gates using an upstream skinplate and seals, and open, free-draining trusses made of 2-7 / 8- and 2-3 / 8-inch-outside-diameter pipe on the downstream side (Figure 3). This construction was expected to greatly reduce the downpull forces when the tail water is high enough to cause sub­merged flow.

For design purposes it was necessary to know the magnitude of the downpull forces. An analytical evaluation would necessarily in­volve a number of unknowns and would be uncertain. An hydraulic model study on a 1:18. 6 scale was therefore conducted.

Because of the unique design of the gate and the expected submerged flow condition, a weighing technique was used to determine the over­all forces. Piezometric pressure measurements at selected points permitted separating those forces due to the lip and bottom se::tl from those of other sources.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The results achieved during this study were the direct outcome of close cooperative efforts between the Mechanical Branch, Division of Design, and the Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research, of the Chief Engineer's Office in Denver.

3

THE MODEL

Selection of Model Scale

The model scale was selected to keep the discharges within a con­venient range of laboratory pump capacity and to provide a large enough gate for good hydraulic similitude. The determination of the drag forces on the pipe-truss members and the separation of these forces from the lip seal forces was considered the key to the study. The exact value of 1:18. 6 was determined by these consid­eration~., and by the dimensions of the telescoping brass tubing available for modeling the truss-pipe members.

Gate

The gate was fabricated using galvanized sheet steel to form tee sections., angle iron bracing., the lip seal., and the skinplate. Hard­drawn brass tubing., sealed at their ends., represented the pipe mem­bers of the trusses (Figures 4 and 5). Only the three lower trusses were built in the model gate because the tailwater would never rise high enough to affect higher trusses. Wheels., which would. not sig­nificantly influence the downpull forces., were omitted. All other pertinent members such as deflector plates., stiffeners., etc . ., were included on the gate. Four piezometers were placed in the gate bottom., or lip seal., to determine pressures acting under this sur­face (Figures 4 and 5). Solid plate web members are at the slot ends of the gate. These members., in conjunction with the tee flanges and vertical end plates., form compartments which could trap water or air. To prevent this possibility., drain holes were drilled as shown in Figure 4.

Flume and Head Box

A 25-foot-long flume., 20 inches deep and 44 inches wide., was used to represent approach and downstream conditions for 1 bay of the 10-bay spillway. The flume was constructed of 2- by 4-inch fram­ing and 1-inch siding. The flume was lined with sheet metal to make it watertight., and was equipped with suitable piping and an 8-foot wide by 8..?foot long by 5-foot 8-inch deep head box to pro­vide good flow conditions (Figure 6).

Piers and Overflow Spillway Crest

Since the model represented one bay of the prototype., half piers made of waterproofed wood were installed at each end of the bay., Figure 6. The portion of the overflow spillway above elevation 230. 00 feet was represented in the flume and was formed of con­crete. The prototype drawing of the overflow weir and piers ap­pears in Figure 7.

4

INSTRUMENTATION AND TECHNIQUE

Suspension System

Generally, in gate downpull studies, the method of pressure deter­mination by piezometers is preferred over the weighing technique. This preference is due t9 difficulties in accounting for mechanical friction forces of rollers, wheels, seals, and for leakage if the gates are lifted clear of the tracks. However, the determination of the total vertical forces by pressure readings was considered virtually impossible for the Red Bluff gate because of the open trusses reinforcing the gate. Therefore, the weighing method was selected and pressure measurements were obtained at selected points on the gate for certain additional information.

The weighing system included a horizontal flexure bar, rigidly sup­ported at the center and connected to the gate at the ends, and strain gages to measure flexural deflections (Figure 8). The entire weigh­ing system could be lowered or raised by means of threaded rods and nuts to adjust the gate opening.

The flexing bar was milled from a 40-1/4- by 2- by 3/4-inch brass bar. The length of each cantilevered end of the bar was 13-3/8 inches and was milled down to one-fourth inch. At the fixed ends of the cantilevers were two 120-ohm, 1 /4-inch bonded strain gages; one was attached on the top surface and the other on the bottom sur­face of the flexing arm. The four strain gages were connected in an external four-way additive and self-temperature compensating bridge and connected to one channel of a recorder. A switching cir­cuit was devised so that readings of each arm could be recorded separately in half-bridge circuits in two other channels of the re­corder using internal dummies. The bridge and switching circuits are shown in Figure 9A.

The brass flexing bar and the bonded strain gages were found to be linear with respect to applied weight. The system was cali­brated so that 1 pound of vertical force deflected the stylus 10 mm on the recorder chart.

To assure that the gate was not in contact with the gate tracks or projecting seal seats during weighing (Detail P, Figure 6), a hori­zontal harness system was developed, This system consisted of tensioned piano wires attached at the wheel point elevations of the gate. The wires were kept horizontal and in line with wheel ele­vations by adjustable pulleys mounted in the head box (Figure 6). The horizontal tension in the wires was adjusted to hold the gate in an upstream position, but just free from contact with the pro­jecting seal seats. This placed the gate in its normal operating plane and avoided friction forces.

5

To measure wheel loads of the gate, a brass tube was inserted in the main wire of each horizontal harness system. Four 120-ohm, 1 /4-inch bonded strain gages were attached to each tube. The gages were paired off at 180° and connected in series. Dummy gages were made in the same manner and were placed in the head box so that they would not be strained, thus compensating for tem­perature. The pairs of gages were connected into a bridge circuit as shown in Figure 9B. Since the individual members of the pairs of gages were placed 180° with respect to each other, the measur­ing system was compensating in regard to bending forces on the tubes. The tubes were calibrated so that 1 pound of horizontal force would deflect the stylus 0. 8 mm on the recording chart.

Discharge Measurements

Discharge measurements were obtained by means of a calibrated venturi meter bank which is an integral part of the permanent hy­draulic laboratory installation.

TESTING PROGRAM

General

Before installing the model gate in the flume, preliminary measure­ments and investigations were conducted. The buoyant force on the gate was measured for the range of submergences included in the study. The effect of surface tension was investigated for scaling interference. The possibility of scaling vibration phenomena from this particular model was also investigated.

After the preliminary measurements and investigations, the gate was installed in the flume and two basic modes of testing were con­ducted. One mode was with the gate fixed or wedged into its nor­mal upstream position within the gate slot. Hydraulic characteris­tics, such as coefficient of discharge, lip pressure, and depth of submergence were determined with the gate fixed at various gate openings {Table I). The other mode was with the gate freely sus­pended on the harness system in a manner so that vertical and hor­izontal forces on the gate could be measured without interference of bearing or seal friction forces. Care was taken to insure that the gate was not allowed to move downstream far enough away from the seal seat projections to allow excessive flow around the sides. Data obtained in this manner are compiled in Tables II and III.

6

Preliminary Tests and Investigations

Buoyancy determination. There are three common methods of determining the buoyant force characteristics of a gate. The first is a detailed computation of the volume of the structural parts of the gate. This method would be cumbersome for the Red Bluff gate. The second is to actually weigh the gate in air and at various de­grees of submergence. The third is to measure the volume of water displaced at various depths of submergence. The volume displace­ment method was selected because of convenience and small influ­ence of interfering factors such as surface tension.

The volume of water displaced by the gate at various depths of sub­mergence was determined by a pressure cell that was calibrated to trace the volume of water displaced as the gate was slowly low­ered into a tight-fitting prismatic tank. A wetting agent was added to the water to reduce the surface tension effects. A' continual rec­ord of the gate elevation was concurrently obtained by a linear po­tentiometer geared to the gate. The buoyant force was then com­puted from the volume of displaced water and was plotted versus the depth of submergence (Figure 10).

Consideration of surf ace tension. In the preliminary stages of this model study, surface tension was expected to have significant

. effects on the vertical force measurements of the model gate. Sur­face tension was significant for measurements obtained with the water surface static or for the condition when the water surface was continually moving in one direction with respect to the gate trusses. However, when flow is passing through the trusses, as it will in the Red Bluff gates, the water surface is continually oscillating. This surface fluctuation causes the surface tension force on any part of the gate to oscillate between receding and ascending regimes, re­sulting in negative and positive forces. If the water surface oscil­lation is symmetrical with respect to the mean water surface ele­vation, the positive and negative surface tension forces are nulli­fied. This condition prevailed in the tests and surface tension forces were not a significant factor.

Consideration of vibrations. The possibility of undesirable vibra­tions is of concern in the design of a gate. It is impossible or ex­tremely difficult to predict by design calculations the magnitudes of the vibration forces in a structure as complex as these gates. Two types of vibration are possible; vibration of the gate as a unit, and vibration of individual gate components. In most studies, com­ponent vibration is not considered. When vibration as a unit is considered, the mass of the system must scale as the cube of the length ratio and the spring constant of the vertical suspension sys­tem must scale as the square of the length ratio. The sum of the

7

mass of the model gate and flexing bar could not be scaled because of the limitations of materials for fabrication. A further hindrance to scaling was the necessary absence of guide rollers, the flap­type gate seals, and wheel friction during weighing. For the Red Bluff gate studies, therefore, the possibility of scaling of vibration was sacrificed.

Another source of scaling discrepancy is the problem of scaling viscous dampening. This problem is accentuated by submergence of the pipe members of the bow trusses. A Reynolds correction must be interjected into the study in order to scale viscous damp­ening forces. Consequently, no inference of the response of the prototype gate to flow induced oscillations can be made from the model gate. However, no troublesome surging of the flow was ob­served visually nor detected during piezometer readings.

Fixed-mode Tests

The hydraulic characteristics of the gate were determined from analyses of the fixed-mode model data in terms of dimensionless parameters (Figure 11).

These parameters were Cd, Hi /b, H2/b, S/b, and ( H1 - 8 ) . Pavg - b

The coefficient discharge, Cd, is defined by:

C - Q d - bB J2gH1 ••• (1)

where Q is the discharge, b is the gate opening, B is the crest length or width between piers, g is the acceleration of gravity, and H1 is the depth of headwater with the crest as the datum and measured one bay width upstream from the skinplate.

The parameter, H1 /b, is called the "headwater parameter, " H2 /b is designated the "tail water parameter, " where H2 is the tailwater depth above the crest measured two bay widths down­stream from the skinplate. S /b is called the "submergence param­eter" where S is defined as the depth of water above the crest at the downstream face of the skinplate. The ratio (p Hi --Sb)· is the

avg "lip pressure head coefficient" where (Pavg - b) is the average pressure head on the bottom of the gate lip and (Pavg> is the aver­age piezometric pressure on the gate lip with the overflow crest at the datum.

8

Coefficient of discharge. The coefficient of discharge for free­flow conditions, as defined by Equation (1), follows the upper dashed lined curve in Figure llA. However, for submerged fl.ow conditions Cd becomes a function of both the headwater and tail­water parameters, H1/b and H2/b and takes the form of a series of curves (Figure llA).

Submergence parameter. Because the buoyancy of the downstream ~tructural members was to be separated from the other vertical forces, the relationship of submergence on the downstream face of the gate with respect to the headwater and tailwater had to be de­termined. To do this, the headwater parameter H 1 /b was plotted versus the tailwater parameter H2/b with the submergence param­eter S/b as the third variable (Figure llB). The 45° line passing through the origin represents the no-flow condition when the three parameters are equal to each other. The determination of the con­dition of when free discharge is first attained as the submergence approaches a value equal to the gate opening is difficult because of the fluctuating water surface in the downstream roller. Therefore, a shaded parabola was used and designated as S /b approximately equal to one. Any combination of H1 /b and H2/b below the shaded parabola represents a definite free-fl.ow condition.

Interrelationship of submergence and pressure head on lip. Early in the fixed-mode testing program, it was noted that.the pressure heads on the gate lip were nearly equal to the depth of submergence on the downstream face of the skinplate. To substantiate this ob­servation, average values of the pressure head were computed and plotted in the form of (Pavg - b) versus (S - b) (Figure 1 lC). The plot clearly demonstrates that the downstream submergence and the pressure head on the gate lip are equal and identical for the Red Bluff gate.

Lip pressure head coefficient. It was assumed that the pressure head coefficient is a function of the headwater and tailwater param­eters, i. e ••

(H1 - S) = <J>( H1. H2) (Pavg - b) b b ••• (2)

This assumption was verified directly from the model data. How­ever, since it was previously established that (S - b) is equal to (Pavg - b),' values of H1 /b were computed and plotted for assumed values of S/b and pressure head coefficient (Figure 11D). Values of H2/b were determined from Figure llB. The 45° line passing through the origin represents zero pressure head coefficient or the no-fl.ow condition. The zone of definite free fl.ow is below the shaded parabola.

9

'\.

Forces that can be determined from fixed-mode tests. At this stage of the study it was possible to compute the resultant vertical forces on the gate due to buoyancy and lip pressures for any com­bination of headwater, gate opening. and submergence. The head­water was used to compute the force on the top of the gate lip pro­jection. The amount of submergence was determined by using the gate opening and headwater in conjunction with Figure 11. The sub­mergence head, being equal to the bottom lip pressure, was used to compute the vertical force on the gate lip seal. The difference of absissa between the two curves in Figure 10 was used to deter­mine buoyant forces due to structural members on the downstream face of the gate. These computations were done for arbitrary gate openings of 1. 65 and 2. 58 feet prototype and plotted in Figure 12 as examples of how the combined forces of the gate lip and buoyancy vary with respect to submergence. The c"Urves of these computa­tions are shown as solid lines.

It should be noted that other information is needed to truly evaluate the vertical forces on the gate. In the fixed-mode tests other possi­ble sources of vertical forces have not been taken into account. These are deflection of flow from the gate slot, drag on the skin­plate. drag of downstream roller passing through bow trusses and compartmentation of air or water in or on parts of the gate structure.

To more fully evaluate vertical forces on a complicated structure like Red Bluff Diversion gate it was necessary to use the weighing technique in which the gate was freely suspended so that the total vertical force could be measured.

Freely Suspended Mode Tests

Horizontal forces on gate. In the earlier stages of the freely sus­pended mode tests it was noted that the measured horizontal forces agreed closely with those normally computed by designers. Any differences between the measured and computed values could rea­sonably be attributed to sealing differences between the prototype and model and to model measuring devices which are discussed subsequently under "Evaluation of Instrumentation and Technique." Consequently, no analyses of horizontal forces are presented in this report.

Effect of slot jetting on vertical force measurements. Slot jetting had considerable influence upon the resultant vertical forces meas­ured on the model gate. Therefore, it was necessary to establish qualitatively the difference in jetting in the model when the gate was floating in the slot and when it was completely sealed on the up­stream face as is the case for the prototype. It was questioned whether the jetting in the model was caused more by the leakage necessary to keep the gate floating so that downpull could be meas­ured, or caused more by the expansion and deflection of the main

10

flow in the slot below the gate lip. To obtain a better insight of the jetting action, the model was operated at two gate openings in the free-flow condition. For both openings the headwater elevation was maintained at 18 feet. For each of the gate openings, closeup photo­graphs were taken of the downstream slot region for three conditions of sealing, Figures 13 and 14. The first condition was with the gate freely suspended in the slot and just clearing the slot seal projection; the second condition was with the gate pulled upstream with the skin­plate fixed against the seal projection; and the third was with the gate fixed against the projection and completely sealed with model­ing clay.

The photographs clearly show that for a gate opening of 2. 6-foot prototype, the jetting action in the slot region is essentially the same for all three conditions of sealing. However, for the smaller gate opening (1. 2-foot prototype), the deflected jet was impinging upon the underside of the bottom truss web membrane slightly more than when the gate was floating in the slot than when fixed or when fixed and sealed. There are other combinations of headwater, gate openings, and submergence where part of the deflected jet folded around the end of the gate and collected on top of the web membranes in the compartments at the slot ends of the gate.

During the course of both the fixed and freely suspended mode tests, it was found that the variation in jetting action was highly sensitive to the headwater, gate opening, and submergence. These factors predominated over the condition of sealing.

Submerged vertical force measurements. To obtain a better in­sight of the effect of the sources of vertical force that could not be measured by the fixed-mode tests. freely suspended mode data were obtained for the same gate openings and range of submergences that were plotted from fixed-mode data (Figure 12). These sources are, slot flow, skinplate drag and compartmentation of air or water. The freely suspended mode data points were also plotted in Figure 12 and their curve trend denoted by dashed lines. Comparison of the two modes of testing shows that the freely suspended mode data are off­set in the uplift direction. Therefore, contrary to expected results the drag of the downstream roller passing through the bow trusses was minor relative to uplift caused by the deflected slot flow imping­ing on the underside of the web membrane. Furthermore, the two sets of curves show that downpull continually increases as the flow conditions approach free discharge and maximum downpull would occur at some gate opening during unsubmerged flow.

Free discharge vertical force measurements. Runs were made to determme the gate opening that results in the maximum downpull

11

force on the gate for free discharge conditions. The gate was set to represent a 1. 16-inch prototype opening and the discharge was adjusted until the headwater was at the design operation level. The horizontal tensioning was adjusted to assure that the gate was just free of the slot seal projection and the measurement of the down­pull was recorded. The gate opening was increased in 2. 33-inch prototype steps, the water surface was maintained at full operat­ing head, and records were made of the vertical force. The re­sults of these tests are in tabulated form in Table III and as a curve of gate opening versus vertical force (Figure 15).

Maximum downpull. The maximum downpull occurred with free­discharge conditions and was about 13, 000 pounds. This downpull occurred at an opening of about 5-1 / 4-inch prototype.

EVALUATION OF INSTRUMENTATION AND MODEL TECHNIQUE

The instrumentation and model techniques were adequate for ob­taining the information desired from the model study. However, they were cumbersome and time consuming for small openings and/or for small submergences. The source of the most trouble was the difficulty of maintaining the gate in a stable floating con­dition while headwater was being adjusted and while measurements were being obtained. It is recommended that in future studies of this type that a thorough survey be made of the present knowledge of the use of air as in "almost frictionless" bearings and "near surface vehicles. " By this means. dependency on horizontal wires might be eliminated. The air jets could possibly be designed to prevent undesirable water leakage that might effect vertical force measurements. Ease and fineness of adjustment might be increased by valve controls on the air supplies. In the event horizontal wires are necessary, consideration should be given to using four parallel wires, thereby giving a parallelogram-type movement as the gate shifts from side to side rather than the pivoting movement obtained with the yoke and two-wire system used in this study (Figure 6).

The flexing bar and its strain gages worked very well for measur­ing vertical forces. However, changing the gate opening was cum­bersome. This fault could be overcome by quick-acting and syn­cronized powered raising and lowering mechanisms.

The horizontal strain gage tubes used to measure wheel loads on the gate worked satisfactorily provided great care was taken in assuring that no torsion was applied to the strain gage tubes during measurements. The strain gages were arranged to be compensating for bending and for temperature.

12

The Sanborn multichannel recorder operated satisfactorily during this study. However, better use could have been made of it, and more complete data could have been obtained if additional automa-tic equipment had been available. As an example, downpull read­ings were taken with the gate set at specific, essentially fixed open­ings. Average values of downpull were obtained visually from the record charts, and a plot of downpull versus openings was developed. A better system would have been to continually move the gate through opening and closing cycles, maintaining appropriate head and dis­charge conditions by automatic controls, and obtaining readouts from data averaging electronic equipment. In this manner, very accurate, descriptive, and complete downpull histories would be relatively quickly obtained .

13

APPENDIX

Table I

b* Q Hi ¾ s Cd

0.30 0.327 0.999 o.451 o.423 o.423 0.505 0.30 0.328 0.928 0.381 0.357 0.351 0.525 0.30 0.329 0.863 0.318 o.280 o.280 0.546 0.30 0.330 0.742 0.199 0.158 0.155 0.591

0.56 0.762 1.030 0.270 0.197 0.620 0.56 o.4oo 0.910 0.660 0.659 0.348 0.56 o.4oo 0.655 o.420 o.403 o.4oe) 0.56 o.4oo 0.510 0.280 0.257 o.463

1.20 1.090 1.078 00691 0.653 0.650 o.405 1.20 1.095 0.889 0.511 o.452 o.455 o.448 1.20 1.097 0.799 o.425 0.359 0.358 o.474 1.20 1.100 0.679 0.318 0.243 0.235 0.515

3.00 2.00 o.415 0.325 0.230 o.465 3.00 2.00 0.575 o.44o 0.376 o.407 3.00 2.00 0.703 0.550 o.496 0.368 3.00 2.00 0.855 0.690 o.645 0.334 3.00 2.00 0.980 0.810 0.775 0.312 3.00 4.30 1.170 o.46o o.264 0.614 3.00 1.00 J..050 1.010 1.010 0.151 3.00 1.00 0.863 0.790 0.787 0.169 3.00 1.00 0.660 0.620 o.6u 0.190 3.00 1.00 o.46o o.435 o.424 o.228

o.4oo 0.348 0.985 0.560 0.539 0.540 o.409 o.4oo 0.348 0.815 0.390 0.,361 0.363 o.450 o.4oo 0.348 0.690 0.270 0.236 0.233 o.490 o.4oo 0.346 0.588 0.170 0.127 0.130 0.523

0.780 0.136 1.050 0.613 0.569 0.575 o.426 0.780 0.736 0.885 o.453 o.401 o.4oo o.465 0.780 0.742 o.,ro 0.345 0.285 0.283 0.502 0.780 0.742 0.682 0.260 0.197 0.200 0.533

5.00 6.25 1.015 0.585 o.423 0.576 5.00 3.00 1.085 0.970 0.932 0.267 5.00 3.00 0.900 o.800 0.760 0.292 5.00 3.00 0.740 0.658 0.603 0.323

15

~2le ;L--Continued

b* Q H1 ~ Pavg s Cd

0.60 0.605 lo0,30 0.561 0.530 0.530 o.46o 0.60 0.607 0.944 o.464 o.427 o.425 o.482 0.60 0.609 o.841 0.377 0.327 0 • .330 0.512 0.60 o.6u 0.740 0.275 0.219 0.215 0.550 0.60 0.614 0.720 0.250 0.2ll 0.200 0.559

1.00 1.03 0.600 0.238 0.087 0.617 1.00 1.03 o.aoo 0.372 o.3u 0.533 1.00 1.03 0.953 0.513 o.464 o.488 1.00 1.02 1.050 0.610 0.565 o.462 1.00 1.42 1.o40 0.280 0.090 o.645 1.00 o.440 0.210 0.160 0.121 o.446 1.00 o.44o o.435 0.348 0.344 0.308 1.00 o.44o 0.580 o.495 o.486 o.268 1.00 o.44o 0.740 0.650 0.656 0.236

*See definition sketch, Figure ll, for symbol defiDitions.

16

Table II

FREELY SUSPmDID MODE DATA Vertical Force on Gate during Submerged Flow

*H1 = 18-foot prototype

in.

7.38 9.35 7.30 6.95 6.15 5.90 5.40 5.15 4.55 4.00 3.65 3.70 3.15 1.65

7.5 6.8 6.5 5.6 5.4 5.4 4.9 3.65 3.75 2.30 1.01

0.98 0.75 0.70 0.60 0.75 0.65 o.4o o.45 0.52 0.30

":'

1.10 0.75 0.56 0.90 o.68 0.72 0.38 o.4o 0.15

0.10 0.10 0.20 o.4o

0.29 0.30

ft

12.1 14.5 11.3 10.8 9.5 9.1 8.3 8.o 7.1 6.2 5.7 5.8 4.8 2.6

11.6 10.5 10.0 8.7 8.4 8.4 7.6 5.7 5.8 3.6 1.6

*See Figure 11 for symbol definitions.

17

6,310 4,830 4,500 3,860 4,830 4,18o 2,570 2,900 3,350 1,930

1,oao 4,630 3,600 5,790 4,38o 4,630 2,440 2,570

965

643 643

1,290 2,570

1,870 1,930

----.

Table III

FREELY SUSPENDED l«)])E DATA Unsubm.erged :flow

b* Down- H* 1 in. lb ft lb

1 0.97 1/32 o.8 18.0 0.581 5,150 1 0.97 5/32 1.1 18.0 2.90 . 7,o8o 1 0.97 9/32 2.0 18.0 5.23 12;900 1 0.97 13/32 1.25 18.0 7.55 8.,o4o 2 0.97 1/32 1.0 18.0 0.581 6,435 2 0.97 5/32 1.4 18.0 2.90 9,010 2 0.97 9/32 2.0 18.0 5.23 12,900 2 0.97 13/32 1.5 18.0 7.55. 9,650

*See Figure 11 for symbol definitions.

18

R.7 W.

KEY MAP

SYMBOLS -- U.5.AND STATE HIGHWAYS = OTHER ROADS

1('

FIGURE I .RE;PORT HYO. 511

IW, IE,

SCALE OF MILES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

If

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT - CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO RIVER DIV.-SACRAMENTO CANALS UNIT

RED B~UFF DIVERSION DAM LOCATION MAP

ilO

29

T • •• N.

ORAWN- --- __ @.~-"'!: •• -----BUBMITTIIO •• - _&.,;I_.~ ___ • _____ _

TRACtrO ••••• @:..'!•.'!• •••••• RtlCOMMllNOl!O.Q~------------­

CHllCl<llO~,:';_~o:l,..,_APPROV.lfO.

OllNVIER. COU,RADO O sliPT. ,a. 1961

FORMERLY OWG. 602-0-3

~_)

;" 261

l

260~

"<),,~ =~->v' /. ~~Iv! 'v-t \ \ ~ ("""-yt\ I I

,"bl: ' '·,'. ,---</7

Stairway fa operating

I I :'.'

'.,,,--Sta. 0+80 at axis of dam 6~0~~ ~----------------------

deck----, : i -·Pier t

\~

[~

Original ground surface,, ',~

Line of excavation-(Assumed upper limit of silt and clay layer)--· -

River bed material--. ',,

6"Layer of concrete sand--··- , _,-,,:1

Assumed limits of silt / and clay layer---------

\ EJ.263.0·-,, _j_

'r-<--15!7".>1 f Crane rails-------.. l,t{l_!._6-'>i ~-£_~::_.2"Sfd. handrail

Gate ha1st-· · · ·---,~~'l6:EI. 292.50

SECTION B-B I Typical far piers 2 thru IOI

20

~~ \-,) j i ~~ l. 1

PLAN

- - -- - -- - - --140' o" --- -------- -- ---- - --- ----- --- --- ----

t Ci: ti.J ;;:. ... 0::

-<- --''-----Handrail and gate hoists not shown·-·,:,---

,-e'.o"

Q 20

,-t'1+-5o'x18' Fixedf / h-j wheel gates- -

ELEVATION A-A

50

40

SCALE OF FEET

,·Et. 253.00

0 50

SCALE OF FEET

IOI (El. 26l00-,, I" _y_ 12'.d'-"'-

'·-Line of excavation-El 2!5t (Assumed lower limit of

silt and clay layer) 100

"' -1

FIGURE 2 REPORT HYD 511

End of existing west

regulating gotes

•• -Canal dike

000\ OC,

0_e,ol~"

/ side access road - Sta. 31+50 N 297 ,§34./3 L

E l,94~,696.01; '',

\1;)

~ \ '

·t; \~ -~-

z 0

I-

" > w _J

\

,.g,7

260

250

W 240

-

/

V

'id~ ,/11.io

' ,I, _t.."',.. --~J

~--

)---.,.-,-r' ~G"

-~\- i

--.,,..---./"" r

/ 'PRESENT TAILWATER

1--

/ (Estimated future retrogression 2 ft)

/

~

2 :30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

DISCHARGE IN 1,000 CFS.

NOTES Dimensions are ta center line of Joints, unless other-

wise noted. 3

,, All exposed edges of concrete ta be chamfered ;;: unless

otherwise shown. (D-Selected clay, silt, sand, and gravel compacted by

tamping rollers or by special compaction methods to 6" layers.

®-Selected sand and gravel campac ted by crawler­type tractor ar by special compaction methods fa 12" layers.

@-Well graded gravel wmpacled by crawler-type tractor or by special compaction methods to 12' layers.

TAILWATER CURVE

I - 28.:-63,ti ADDED FIFTH BAY TO CANAL HEADWORKS. 0,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLA MAT/ON

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION-SACRAMENTO CANALS UNIT

RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM GENERAL PLAN, ELEVATION, AND SECTION

DENVER, COLORADO, SEPT'. l!!S, 1961

FORMERLY DWG. 602-D-6

':tf ::t:t:t:.tt:t:t

<£ Splice--tJ7-t -;

0) _, -.... @Wheels,

' -, .. .'f' r--.

~

I

l

/ L' ,---1- "1

:'i' Other side of 4.­<>,

END ELEVATION

Otha s,da of¢.

SECTION D-O

----------63'-aJ 'c to c. Outside webs of vertical girders.----------------.

·7 > .'f' "" ~

I ~ i1 .'f ~ Spl/ce plate

FIGURE 3 REPORT HYD -511

J SECTION M-M

.5S: SECTION A-A

ffi, Other side of t.

~~~r--~~:n- I i :f . <..s,

* -l ' ~·---- -----~ 63'-,of f. to f Guide shoes.----~--~

®-ii!± ,, . ' .f M 'f

'' ••

lit 11 :r-- • .__..t,__a_ 1' 1- . 't' .. ,.i ....... _._. ~=·"~- .:':._I __ L_.'.'Jj M

,: •~~ .-.-H777 ,,. ' ...... I LJ • ..---W •-1 I ·'

11 "

2

-<.J l

j->Symmttrical about { .SECTION L-L

._ ~-i:;·r0----~·· ~78

PLAN - 6a'-10J 'Overall skinplafe.

DETAIL H ~:_:,:,:,:,:,~:=;;::,:,:,:,-:~--------63'-,of Overall skinplate

Lifting beam~ . - . ·- --~ 62'- 2/!;~~oc~e~::::d)

SECTION K-K

----.-=-~elf---~===::-- ·rr-====---~=-~-rr==-~==---~==i:c;

11 :I I: !1\ 1: II 11 1

11

II 11 lj

'i 11 11 ls

UPSTREAM ELEVATION

Other sids of

b SECTION G- G

~'<I-

Other s1dt of {

TYPICAL RIBBED BOLT 'O"RING SEAL INSTALLATION

(Ft£LD)

DETAIL N

~:1!1 I t--:=t:==i: ~ ~ V ~~

DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION

NOTES For held nofes see Dwr;- 602-D-444. for other nofes see Dw9- 602-0-443.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION- SACRAMENTO CANALS UNtr

RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM OVERFLOW WEIR AND SLUIC£WAY

60'• t8' FIXED WH£EL GATE

ASSEMBLY- GATE

O"RAWN. EJ._S.. ___ -______ SUBMITTED. _______ ...,.,,

TRACED •••••• - - ••• _____ ..RECOMMENOEO- -

CHECKEO_J',~ Jt ... M.lt/.Af>f>ROVl!O!:l!f,

'ENVE'R, COif::l/~ OJ# Y,VNE II, '";a,

~- - 20. 60" C -<7 ' I

' I

0.1411

~

1

"--'!-~-:~o gage ,~-:. ,_,._

Drain- hole-------

Note: All Drain holes

~ ? - ;: : , I_____ 2. 7

' I - 96" ------------ ~-054'!./ ...1 ..,. __ .,._ -<i

!_,' C

drilled by No. 39 Drill

24 gage x o. 75", Drain holes-) ,,

SECTION C-C

\ I I I

'

,,,-- - Piezometer

SECTIONAL

=st

"' '?

0.35", 26 gage , sheet metal --

PLAN A-A

/ ,, 24 gage sheet metal

r1

LJ

0.22", 20 gage sheet metal-----

r7

LJ

,rr

"' N

"'

Piezometer- - - - - -,

n

LJ

B -<7

'1 I

24 gage ---.,,_--

-<FLOW

-T I I

I I I I

:I

0

I

-~--18 gage sheet metal ' I

I I I I I I I

I

I

'--L--1-------'--i-It Piezometers -----

DETAIL A

FIGURE 4 REPORT HYO. ~II

------------------~ 14 Spaces@ 1.24"= 17.36"---------------------------------- ~--Symmetrical about Ii. 24 go ge sheet meta 1---- _

I' 1'

p ,1 11 11

i'­i'

II I\ 11 r--+----1

lc-.:1~=== I

,-, ,, - ~~ U' I

-=====-~=1~=---1-~-~======--=====~--~----------~---===-~====:'<....~-=---====-~J[;_=======----·-ili. __ ~~---~--= 5"

,1 ,1 11 11

11 11 1' 11

I I I I

11

1: L~i===--1- , 11 I 11 I

Ar\il : ~ 1

1 I I i' I

657

i' I i' I i' L 1/ -=i=-==--==: I- I 11 I II I I I

'·, I

I

I I I I I I I I

( I I /

'Piezometers-'

',

',

---~=-;= --=---=---=-----=---=-0""--;::_-=-- \...)

8. 12

~---r ' ' ', ' '

',

--'==";:::: =-~-=----=-=---=--=--/~--=----=-~----=--=---=--=-==-~ ---=--=-=--=-===--=---==- ~~=======--=--=--A~====---=----=---==-=--=--~~=-----=-------=----=---=- - - - - --11 ,A.._ ,1

', ', ', ',

- - I!_ V IL ~ .. ,,

I ,1 a, N

I I

: -I j__

--1 ,-

_i7 A

·= 't' :

.:..:J __ J __ ,..\..c'._ ~' "---f \ ~ ' ( I "'

=·--==~~~~==~=-..., =i.e......------:-,-====~~---~==~==== '"'-- --~=- --,,,.-~~~--:crt~=~~711,~~=--- ~==~-r,== '~~ I_) u j_) / ,.., ,.., (-1 t_.} ,,..,...1n !~n; r:r 1,JH MP

/ ' / !11 l1i' 111 1/li I I ' ', ,/ [' li1i 11 1111 II \ '-~"o.o. brass telescoping tubing@ 2.48" spacing ,, Ii 1111 [I ill1 /I

', _ -' 11 i'II 11 1111 I ''·½'' o.o. brass telescoping tubing@ 2.48"spocing----- q 1i11 ,1 1111 ,1

11 \ 111 1 II 1111 11 ii \ ,.,.jlll 11 1111 11 11 : - 1111 II .ilJ II . ~-- 'ir 'ii'

I

----Piezometer '~¼" o.o. bro ss telescoping tubing @ I. 24" spacing Piezometer------~ ~

DOWNSTREAM ELEV AT ION OF GATE

~

I I I

I

I

I I

I I

I I

I I ,, "' a,

a,

"'

I ,

:I :

'.-20 gage X 0.78" .'-r-~O.O. : 1 sheet metal , I I

\ ,0.34"x 24~oge , / \ ,' sheet meta I 0.43 x 24 gage / : ,' sheet metal•\ / / - , ... iuo.o. \

I ..,..,,,~ ~" o /,/ ~.,,,,,,.- ,...,-32 0.0. ' .

o.32"x2ogoge x 1.92" sheet metal---­

-g:, \ 0.84" x 16 gage sheet meta I

----- 4.19" ----- ---­Mox. depth

-L _t_

RED

See Detail A----'

ELEVATION B- B

BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

MODEL DRAWING OF 60 FOOT BY 18 FOOT FIXED WHEEL GATE

1: 18.6 SCALE MODEL

A. Upper bow truss

B. Lower bow truss

C. Assembled gate viewed from top rear

D. Assembled gate viewed from bottom

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

Model of the Open Truss Fixed-wheel Gate 1:18. 6 Model

Figure 5 Report Hyd-511

657

T----

0 I

-<X)

' I I I I I I

I 2" Pipe/

t __________ _

r---, ' ' ' '

<X)

I

"' '

)'.

Crest-- --

Flow :::--

I ,1 ->-I r<-- - 4.03/----1 A I ' I I

I I

I =a, I <D

',

':-' I ,,,

. .,, <X)

C>

2.0" j_ =~

ci :1.

Floor of flume,, \

'o <X)

ci 1.

:"' :'.:

2.0'' i 2.0'' T 2 09" 1

N N

.,.., C'!

I " r<--------- 5.81 ------,-l I

I ' I

,,--4" Rock baffle /

._,, ______________ --------r----- ---- 11 go" ---- - -- - -- - - --- -- -- - - -- - - - - --- __ ,....

I I I

,Well point I

I I

DETAIL N

,,-------Inside of flume and headbox lined

,-6"R ,' with sheet meta I.

Flow

'-,P,ano wires-/-"

------2"x 6" Framing far headbox

PLAN

r-=- ----- ---81-011

--- - - --- ---+--- ----- -- ---------- ----251-0 11 -- - - - - - - -- - --- -- -- - - -

I ,1 I 1

-------~

rc-18 - I I I r----- 31-d'---1 : i / _.-+Tensioning bolts : : ,,,,- ,-~---Adjustable pulleys I I .,, I 1

_I _ I , I __ .:J. =~

' I

'

'

/Pier detail M

(Crest Detail N

.--Piano wires-,

I

;~

f{ol

1

10:~

=' :~. C\J ?::

·--2'', 4"

·,,. I

-"'

1

°'--2"x 4" Framing for flume

SIDE VIEW

A 7

.... J A

I I I I I I I I I I I

I

uL_ ->17 1 ,-Adjustable

~- tailgate

i '

=~ I

-':-' '

,_,-Return channel grate

r----, I I I

I

I -,,, I -,,. I

I

I I

Flow:::--

0 N I

I I I I I I I I I

Pier nose--

.-.----.,, N

·-- - --43. 911 ---

/-Gate slot Detail P

I

I I I I

·,,, N <X)

I

I I I

2_34" 254"k\

'"'-5.81 --

I

I I

,/

~-+---8.8211 --

T

" I ----12.09 -----,..

: 1· --Axis of dam I I u II

>-<---- 10.32 --- -- - - -- - -- - -- - 26.40

DETAIL M

0

-+-I

Flow:::---

I

I I I I I

I

I I I

,-J

FIGURE 6 REPORT HYD. 511

,,wall of flume

%

l

'o 0

"' T

SECTION A-A

16 Gage projecting sea I seat---'

;;:

DETAIL P

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

MODEL ARRANGEMENT FOR STUDY OF 60 FOOT BY 18 FOOT FIXED WHEEL GATE

I 18.6 SCALE MODEL

: 10'-5" To 4" sewer pipe

FIGURE 7 REPORT 1-iYD 511

Sta.0+92·<>;<-· with 9 bays @32'-o"=648co" --<7 B

-->+<--Sta. 7+40 ' I .,;.----------Contraction joints ·36'-o'-- -

->3!o~ e'-0!->,3!0~- -a'-o'.'-~3~0~-1: 1 : ' , ' '

r IM---4 -f.i-¥·- 44f- ++ill i :, I

•' ~~

~ "'

C -.;,

L I'~ --;1: 1 e1 t

PIER NOSE GUARD

:Operating deck anchor bolts

£/_ 288. 75-, t, 'L. irt: Il:il . 3

... U.J _L ___ _

El. 287.56'

_.,)A

Symmetrical about 1£-,

.:i . -l! 'r-----,_

L

11

ii PLAN

->16/f'<­

Axis of dam

SECTION C- G

2'./~­

,:c---·/3C8#"i~ : £/. 271.00· - -

£1.267.00-, : "i\ __ ·:F= -I2"Deep ladder recess- !''--Axis of dam

, ·2'-6"

9'·/0'·,j Yi-,£1.272.00

right side of pier only

.t m: --,-,~~ I

Pier nase guard--------

Metalwork and anch<r bolts for stop-lag seats and guides not shown------ --

Type ''A" rubber wafers fop-., •.

El.230.00\ '?\

.:,-; :..:.,e"

.- El.265.00 SECTION 0-0 ~f" 4'10.;3'.3{'

!ol:c-

17'-3"- ----c-1

-A;t::;~~~-1 41'-II"

-,~Ji/:::.-~',½'!'',.::_~'

SECTION A-A

I

-<- - - y_ - .,.;,8"f< - - -- 3 Spaces @ll'-0"=33'-o' -- ...... .J,8'~ -~- '1 ·1,

--10'-5'--- -~

,'f's Handrail

4"Sewer pipe with closed joints-,\

'

!,\J·'v~I~ i:;:) ·o

'·4"Perfarated sewer pipe\ with open joints---·

I) • '~-\--:4'se~r pi;'e with o(' _ c lased joints,

-~·- 'v . 0 J1··0

TYPICAL SECTION THRU DRAINS

c-----1£ Pier

'---12" Pipe, 0.33"woll

' 'i';.--4" Threaded outlet

,·'--Type ''A"rubber waterstops-/-' 4"Std. pipe-\

[ IJ" Float well ) I I inlet pipe,' -<J B \€ Pier 10

Face of pier- ••

El.239.50·, TYPICAL ANCHOR BOLT SETTING

9'-10· -- -~2'-61\<-~ 1 :#11@12"8elow8.250 -~: -~·:tt ' # ,.

l_ ~-- - - - -- -~''·

', ____ 4", 9"0. D. screwed flange,

, -'+-- with tapped holes '·9'0.D. x {'plate flange,

with (' dia. orifice

Shift rubber wafers top

C C <ti - , - ---:-----~--~ JO@l2,,, El. 250 to El. 261

,>'£ Pier : 9@12,£1261 ta£,_ 267 ',S l#8@12 Above El. 267

FLOATWELL PIPING DETAILS El.230.00\ "' "' i;j

El. 2 39. 50-E y

-· ~ ,, L:-rs.....-1 - _j

2#';;~ · Axis of dam '·--Metal ladder and basket not shown

SECTION F-F ( All vertical reinforcement #8@!2")

Operating deck, El. 292. 50---,,

Metutladder and basket j:- LT_, __ pier 2 thru pier 10-. d dd:_r_, __ h

F y

Meta I ladder not shown-.

'

>-Metal ladder ' and basket

pier 10 only.

~~:--~

6'!.:..;,< .. -~--

#r@1f------- #9@12--------

SECTION B-B ( Reinforcement typical tor all pier bays)

(#9@6" El. 230 ta El. 237 ,l#9@ 12" El.237to £1.243 ,- .. :_i#6@ 12" Above £124~ _ _____ ---------~#8@12,, Below £1.243\------- ..

•: __ .,.-- /;'\ : l #6@12. Above El. 243 J : ·-.

~]/ ~-it '~4;-..J -- ' -~"'- -- -',t___,,.. ~' ft r·" .,,. ~ ;,,,ee ~

:~'"', _,,r"f",.i,s:,. ~,. Q~ ·"', t~ 1 0~ lo'' O

,.____ • C\. ~ ' h- r,..,...........,.--~

I '··Axis of dam

SECTION E·E ( All vertical reinforcement #8 @ 6 "J

£123000·,, '!

Axis of dam ---7'

0 ° \)".\0 ,"· ___ ,/15 @12''-./-'

.• ·{; -~- \I i:i" /· "."\) c7 0 -f-51!.:. - . 1 . o·

oy O f • /\ o _- ' G l n--~.,...L,.'i;....,,,....~ 'El 225.0

,-·£1228.00 ,.Y..

£122115·, llJ ·"J,;/-cTYPICAL CREST REINFORCEMENT

, , --<7 G #6 @ 9 "., E 7 -f >---- . .#5 @/2', Y

: : I\ r<-- -~ E""tcr---=hi ~~-' --

1,-- ·1i,::c;::;:::i:1 .I (;,

DETAIL z SEC. G- G TYPICAL RE/NF. AT WATERSTOP

'

'--Trace of adjoining crest section

-;:., ~

TYPICAL TRANSVERSE CONTRACTION JOINT

CONCRETE FINISHES Unexposed surfaces. All other surfaces. ______ _

NOTES

Fl or VI oru2

All exposed edges of concrete to be chamfered -f unless otherwise shown.

@- Well graded gravel compacted by crawler­type tractor or by special compaction methods to 12' layers.

e. f. = each face

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TNE INTER/DR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO RIVER DI VISION- SACRAMENTO CANALS UNIT

RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM OVERFLOW WEIR AND PIERS

DRAWN_ _A:9:.

TRACED. -~~l!-_G_.

CNECKEO __ _g ... a.._ __

SUBMITTE:D ... ??~~ ...... .RE:COMME:NDE:Dc!:~.~-----

APPROVED . . ACt. \~J.~DA.VS .fll'A .:c--~.- _. _____ _

DENVER. COLORADO, SEPT. 15, 1961 602·0-328 FORMERLY DWG. 602-a - 8

Flexing bar installed in model

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE OOWNPULL STUDIES

Vertical Suspension Used for Model Weighing Technique 1:18.6 Scale Model

Figure 8 Report Hyd-511

.. .. .. G

BOTTOM RIGHT GAGE ...r --i_.. TOP RIGHT GAGE

FO .... , b H FLEXING BAR

MU (~ .() K BRIDGE

TOP

~ L

C B A D r-F----1 1 1 CHANNEL I

6 6 66_66 FULL BRIDGE

A 111 A 1 Note: All dashed components ore internal parts -b- - - -b - -SWITCH of recorder. K L M H G F

CHANNEL 3 HALF BRIDGE I I I

I I I

l/\}v'\,"~ I I I

lv•Jv1\/'J

CHANNEL 2 HALF BRIDGE

A. CIRCUITS FOR MEASURING VERTICAL FORCES USING FLEXING BAR

a e

d . ,ff ~c g ~h

b ACTIVE MEMBER

B

A

C

f DUMMY MEMBER

8. CIRCUITS FOR MEASURING HORIZONTAL FORCES IN HARNESS USING TUBING

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

INSTRUMENT CIRCUITS FOR FORCE MEASUREMENTS ON MODEL GATE

I: 18.6 SCALE MODEL

:a !3"" o-:a G) -iC

:c ::a -< I'll !" 2! co

a: llJ

I-<(

3::

..,: I.I..

z

llJ 0 z llJ <.!)

a: llJ ::;; m ::::, (f)

llJ

a.. >-I-0 I-0 a: a..

657

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

0 0

I L f

~

I

FIGURE 10 REPORT HYD. 511

I I f-- r ~ -- LIP AND SKIN PLATE

I I I / I F

....

--ENTIRE GATE

I

I -V

2 3 4 5

PROTOTYPE BUOYANCY - THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

BOUYANT FORCE ON PROTOTYPE GATE.

DATA FROM I: 18.6 SCALE MODEL

6 7

. .,

1.2

1.0 I

0.8

~ CD .c 0.6 ...... a

.,, <.J 0,4 I

I­

"' "' ... .0 I

1/)

0.2 I

D 0

12

10

4

,,,.

V 0 I/

0

/FREE DISCHARGE

,_ ·- ---- --- - ,- - -- - _,_ -

-~ ... - ---i.-- r;: ,,,.

~ ... -----~ 61 -~ ---s -., .,,,. .,,.,. .... - -- \'I..---- ---I ,,,

/ .... v ..,,,... --~ ,o __ -~\o-- -..-

"' / I/ - ...,. --- I w,--j I , ; V ..,,, v _.....,..,.. ...-n)1

(o

I I J I/ / I/ ....,,,. ,,,. 'H2fb

I I , (o I V / V ----I I I ~ / /

,,, .,,.,. '1.4

I I I I ' I/ ~' V I I I

fy 'I' / ..... /1 v(° I ~~--H2/b / ~

r , V 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

( HI /b)

A. COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE

V ~

V /

./ ,If

I/ V

./ l..t

V 'r

y!

/ .,,s

I,(

/ I/

LY V

10 12 14 16 18 20

( PAVG - b } FEET

C. SUBMERGENCE HEAD VERSUS LIP PRESSURE HEAD

.0 ...... N

:c

~

.0 ...... N

:c

24

20

15

10

0

24

20

15

10

0

0 10 15 20 25 30

(H1/b)

B. SUBMERGENCE CHARACTERISTICS

L

' ,., -0

-17

c,7'\~ I/ , .....

0~ I/

, , ....

~ /

./ i

N"'V;_.I' '• y

1.,,\'t-

~/ , ....

V I

I +-1 .....

I/ I./ \~

I./ V .... I/ , 1 ..... --i/

- ,;;,.Y ,v , ....

,_, ~i , 1,...v

~i.,.

I/ 7 -

_.,..

"-'L 1....-

_,_ ,_

;;,."l ..... _,.., .......

:,

I,

'-~

1./ V V ,...... -

4

~,

1

/v ~ .... v~ y~~~~~~--':,

, ..... ~..... ,_ I '"' I I

[/1....-1 ..... ___. -- 0 ~,,.,,,,,,,'-;'''"' 'r'''''''''''

:,, .\, '''"' -:-.,,,,

I/..... ,' ' "''' i 7 I -t- I ~ l7 .... .J - l I r1 1 -- , I/ -- -- ' - ' J ' -- - _, ,'_LI I -FREE FLOW " -- -

I I

I I ZONE-I I I I I I I I I

0 10 15 20 25 30

(H1fb)

O.PRESSURE HEAD COEFFICIENT OF GATE LIP

35 40

I

1--

-v

, .....

1 ..... - -~ -

--_i-,

,,,,,,,,,

~

-

-35 40

FLOW

I

3: I I

I

Skin plate - _

lo-------w-------1

~

I

- ~ Pier nose---.

I ~

: ~ __ x ___ i _____ _

FIGURE II REPORT HYO 511

I (---Crest <t_

I

I

I

CD

I

I

I

PLAN

~-Crest 't.

1/

I -- -- - --- - -- - -- ------zw---- - -- --- -- ----'"1

I

I

I W.S. I

-_ - - ! ..=- 1N

~

- - -Crest elev. :

_,,/ --------------~-

PROFILE

DEFINITION SKETCH

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES OF GATES

DATA FROM I: 18.6 SCALE MODEL

1/

657

;:: "' "' !!: en I

"' (.) z "' "' a: "' :::;

"' ::, en :::; <l

"' a: I-en z ;i: 0 0

"' .. ,. I-0 I-0 a: ..

;:: "' "' "-

en

14

12

10

B

6

4

2

0 7

14

12

I 10

"' (.)

z "' "' a: "' :::; B

"' ::, en :::; <l

"' a: 6 I-en z ;i: 0 0

"' 4 .. ,. l-o l-o a: .. 2

0 7

I

I

....._

'

!

-

FIGURE 12 REPORT HYO. 511

' :

i I

I i I I i I I I I

' I I ·-'"--------+-·-·-------------,-- . -~---·! i---,: ~ i I r<----,--Oead weight of gate in air.

1-...._ - I

0

6

\

i

I

:

! i

j , • I I I

' "" i ! I

I ....... ' I

' I I -- --' ~ I

I

0 0 --- ....... ' i ' ,.....__ r-- i

I -·, i '

,, '-...... \ ,, c--Fixed made do to. i 1)-.. r,,. I :

I mode data,-/

/ "r---- C \....;.i_ -1- I , Freely suspended ....._ r--._ -··· ---·· __ j

............... I ....._ I ~

I

I

I Crest is datum

' ' \ ~

4 UPLIFT

I

0

THOUSAND POUN OS

--- ....... ', i

I "--...... .......

i

I

0

I 0

I

2 3 DOWN PULL

: "" ' ' i

I 4

A. VERTICAL FORCE FOR GATE OPENING OF 1.65 FEET

i I

i \:

\I' i

['\, I'-.. -~ JI'~ Fixe mode data. 0 I I i

"- 0 I \ I I --Dead weight of gate in air. t-<---

' \ I

" \_, ! 0 ' 0 '- i

" ........ ---... I

0 \ I

....... ....... , \ -

'-! 'i---J'-.. I

- . r--_ _,,.._.../' ,, 8

Freely suspended mode data,. ~ ,_ ....... 0 ,...,

"-' --

I

I

I I

j

I

'

I

I

I

I

I

~ .... N---' r--.' I I ,, I

' !>

Crest is datum, • I I I ',

I I

t

UPLIFT THOUSAND POUNDS

DOWN PULL

8. VERTICAL FORCE FOR GATE OPENING OF 2.58 FEET

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

VERTICAL FORCES ON GATE AT 18 FOOT HEAD

FOR TWO GATE OPENINGS

DATA FROM 1:18.6 SCALE MODEL

....... i\

I

I

i

A. Gate floating in slot

B. Gate fixed against upstream slot seal projection

C. Gate fixed and completely sealed on upstream face with modeling clay

RED BLUFF DIVERSION DAM DOWNPULL STUDIES

Flow Conditions at Slot for Different Methods of Suspending and Sealing Model Gate

Gate Opening (b) = 1. 2 Feet Head (H1) = 18 Feet 1:18. 6 Scale Model

Figure 13 Report Hyd-511

A. Gate floating in slot

B. Gate fixed against upstream slot seal projection

C. Gate fixed and completely sealed on up­stream face with modeling clay

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE OOWNPULL STUDIES

Flow Conditions at Slot for Different Methods of Suspending and Sealing Model Gate

Gate Opening (b) = 2. 6 Feet Head (H1) = 18 Feet 1 :18. 6 Scale Model

Figure 14 Report Hyd-511

80

60

40

20

Cl) 100 UJ :I: <.:> z 6.0

Z 4.0 (!)

z z ~ 2.0 0

UJ l-et 1.0 (!)

657

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.1

""

0

• I I I

FIGURE 15 REPORT HYO 511

FROM FIGURE 12 HEAD ON CREST= 18 FEET

~,

2

" ............... ........... -

~ ~

u/ ~ f.J

/

I . I

' u I 0

I I

I

4 6 8 ~

DOWNPULL IN THOUSAND POUNDS

RED BLUFF DIVERSION GATE DOWNPULL STUDIES

DOWNPULL FORCE FOR FREE DISCHARGE

DATA FROM I: 18.6 SCALE MODEL

0 --.....,.

-

12 13

Gi:'O,834098