GR-8 1-10

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT D A M - SOUTH SPILLWAY

May 1981

Engineering and Research Center

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation

Division of Research Hydraulics Branch

7 - 2 0 9 0 ( 4 - 8 1 ) W:l le l ' ;111('1 P o w e r

1. R E P O R T NO. [2. GOVERNMENT hCCIE~lO~l. NO,

! GR-81o10 4. T I T L E A N D S U B T I T L E

Hydraulic Model Studies of Theodore Roosevelt Dam - South Spillway

7. AUTHOR(S)

Marlene F. Young

9. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N NAME A N D ADDRESS

Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center Denver CO 80225

12 S P O N S O R I N G A G E N C Y N A M E A N D A D D R E S S

Same

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD T ITLE PAGE 3. R E C I P I E N T ' S C A T A L O G NO,

5. R E P O R T D A T E

May 1981 6. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N C O D E

8. P E R F O R M I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N R E P O R T NO.

GR-81-10 10. W O R K U N I T NO.

11. C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NO.

13. T Y P E OF R E P O R T AND P E R I O D C O V E R E D

14. SPON*SORI t JG A G E N C Y C O D E

1S S U P P L E M E N T A R Y N O T E S

Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colo.

Editor RDM

16. A B S T R A C T

During a spillway discharge, to Theodore Roosevelt Dam near Phoenix, Ariz., in February 1980, water overtopped the right wall of the south spillway causing extensive damage to the powerhouse and destroying a downstream protective wall. A 1:36 scale model was used to develop protective measures for this powerplant, the highly jointed downstream canyon wall, and other structures. Also determined from the model study were spillway and radial gate discharge capacity curves. The model showed that a 15-ft (4.57-m) high extension to the right training wall would provide full protection for the powerhouse. A 200-ft (61.0-m) long wall was found necessary to provide adequate protection for the lower canyon wall. An extension to this wall, angled toward the river channel, was also recommended to protect a downstream warehouse. Dynamic pressure measurements were obtained to aid in the structural design of the walls.

17, K E Y WORDS AND DOCIJMEt ,~T A N A L Y S I S

a . D E S C R I P T O R S - - / h y d r a u l i c s / * h y d r a u l i c m o d e l s / * s p i l l w a y s / d i s c h a r g e measurements / flood damage/ erosion/ *wall protect ion/ spillway gates/ *radial gates/ pressures/ impact pressures

b. IaE~T~FIERS-- /Salt River Project, Arizona/ Theodore Roosevelt Dam

~. c o s A - r ~ c . n ~ o u ~ 13M C O W R R : 1302 SR/M

18. D I S T R I B U T I O N S ' ] A T E M E N T

t 19 S E C U R I T Y ~ L A S S

[THI~ - REPoRr'

UNCLASSIF IED 20. S E C ' U R I T ~, C L A S ' S

r T .,,', PAGE ~

U N C L ASSIFIED 1 21. O. OF P A G E

39 2 2 . P R I C E

GPO 8 3 t - 3 1 6

I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I !

I

.m SI METRIC

GR-81-10

1

HYDRAULIC MODEL• STUDIES OF

THEODORE ROOSEVELT D A M -

SOUTH SPILLWAY

by M. F. Young

for Salt River Project Phoenix, Arizona

Hydraulics Branch : Division of Research

Engineering and Research Center Denver, Colorado

May 1981

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

As the Nation's principal conservation agency,•the Depart'ment of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources.

This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation.

The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people.

The Department also has a major responsibilit~ for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration.

In May of 1981, the Secretary of the Interior approved changing the Water and Power Resources Service back to its former name, the Bureau of Reclamation.

I I I I

m

P J~J i tr~

J

Frontispiece.-Theodore Roosevelt Dam near Phoenix, Arizona. P801-D-79556

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The studies were reviewed by T. J. Rhone, Hydraulic Structures Section Head, ~¢hose

considerable help was greatly appreciated. The final designs were developed through the

cooperation of the Salt River Project and the Hydraulics Branch, Division of Research,

Engineering and Research Center.

The information in this report regarding commerical products or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes, and it is not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of Reclamation.

I I. I

I I I i I ,

I I t I I I I I

C O N T E N T S

/

P u r p o s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .

I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M o d e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I n v e s t i g a t i o n ....................................... S p i l l w a y d i s c h a r g e c a p a c i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

U p p e r t r a i n i n g wal l .................................. L o w e r t r a i n i n g wal l ..................................

A p p e n d i x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F i g u r e

1 2

3 4

9 10

11

12

13 14 15 16

F I G U R E S

L o c a t i o n m a p . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G e n e r a l p l a n a n d s e c t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T o p o g r a p h i c m a p a n d m o d e l l a y o u t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S p i l l w a y c r e s t a n d p ie r s i n s t a l l ed in m o d e l

b 6 f o r e t o p o g r a p h y was p l a c e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R e s e r v o i r t o p o g r a p h y s u p p o r t s in m o d e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S p i l l w a y c u t f r o m S t v r o f o a m to a c h i e v e b l o c k y

e f f e c t o f p r o t o t y p e c h u t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C o m p l e t e d h y d r a u l i c m o d e l in o p e r a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . D a m a c c e s s b r i d g e o v e r s o u t h sp i l lway a p p r o a c h

c h a n n e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . F i r s t p h a s e h y d r a u l i c m o d e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S p i l l w a y c h u t e , r e s e r v o i r t o p o g r a p h y , a n d

p o w e r h o u s e - f i r s t p h a s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . View l o o k i n g t o w a r d s o u t h sp i l lway c r e s t d u r i n g

f i r s t p h a s e t e s t i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V iew f r o m sp i l lway c r e s t l o o k i n g a t d a m access

b r i d g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S o u t h s p i l l w a y c a p a c i t y c u r v e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . View o f m o d e l sp i l lway ga te s in o p e r a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . S t r a i g h t u p p e r t r a i n i n g wal l a d d i t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A n g l e d u p p e r t r a i n i n g wall a d d i t i o n - p r e f e r r e d

des ign ....................................

P a g e

1

1

2

2

4 4 5 7

2 9

9 11

13

15 15

16 16

17 18

18

19

19 20 21 22

22

Figure

17

18 19

20

21

• 22

23 24

Tab le

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

C O N T E N T S - Con t inued

Pre fe r red design of upper t raining wall, o r ien ta t ion , and p iezometer locat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original lower training wall design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P re fe r red design of lower training wall and

p iezometer locat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P re fe r red design of lower training wall opera t ing

at 20 000 f t3 / s (566 m3/s) • • • . . . . P re fe r red des ign of lower training wall opera t ing

at 40 000 ftZ/s (1133 m3/s) Pre fe r red design of lower training wall opera t ing

at 65 777 f t3 / s (1862 m3/s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warehouse wi thou t spil lway p ro tec t ion Warehouse With spil lway p ro tec t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T A B L E S I N A P P E N D I X

Model d a t a ob ta ined f o r south spil lway capac i ty curves (fig. 13) and conver t ed to inch .pound units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pressure da ta for upper training wa l l - m a n o m e t e r measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . .

Pressure da ta for lower training w a l l - m a n o m e t e r measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pressure da ta f o r lower training wal l -pressure t ransducdr measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . .

Page

23 24

25

26

26

27 28 28

Page

31

33

35

37

I I I I I: l I l I I

I l I I I i ,I I l !

i I I I I I il I

PURPOSE

These studies were made to determine a spillway rating curve for the south spillway of

Theodore Roosevelt Dam, and to test different wall configurations to provide protection

from flooding for various structures located downstream of the dam.

INTRODUCTION

Theodore Roosevelt Dam was the first major structure • built by the Reclamation Service•

(now the Bureau of Reclamation) after its formation in 1902 by the Reclamation Act.

Construction of the dam began in 1903 and was completed in 1911. Located 80 mi

(129 km) northeast of Phoenix, Ariz., on the Salt River (fig, 1), the dam is part of the t

multipurpose Salt River Project that controls floods, generates power, and stores irrigation

water.

Roosevelt Dam is a 280-ft (85.3-m) high, rubble-masonry, thick-arch structure that is

- 723 ft (220.4 m) long and impounds a reservoir of 1 382 000 acre-ft (1.7 x 109 m3). The

dam originally had two uncontrolled overflow spillways. During the 1930's, radial gates

were installed on both spillways to provide extra reservoir storage. The general plan and

sections of the dam and spillways are shown on figure 2. The spillways were cut into each

abutment with each spillway crest oriented to continue the arch shape of the dam. This

alinement creates many problems because the south spillway channels its flow directly

toward the upper right training wall instead of downstream (fig. 3).

During a flood in February 1980, the spillways operated with a combined discharge Of

approximately 73 500 fta/s (2080 ma/s). The south spillway, with a flow of about

35 000 fta/s (990 mS/s), overtopped the upper right training wall, cascaded down the

slope, and entered the powerhouse. Approximately $1 million in damage resulted. During

this same flood; a downstream training wall that protected the highly jointed canyon walls

from erosion was damaged when water overtopped the wall and eroded rock from behind

it. This caused a large section of the wall to be lifted out and deposited downstream.

Directly downsteam, approximately 300 ft (91 m) from the toe of the south spillway, a

converted warehouse was also damaged by mud and water entering the lower floors. A

wall to protect this structure was included in these studies,

CONCLUSIONS

1. The maximum discharge capacity of the south spillway is 65 777 fta/s (1862 ma/s) with

the dam access bridge in place and 66 314 ftS/s (1878 ma/s) with the bridge deck removed.

2. The most economical design for the upper right training wall would be to increase the

height by 15 ft (4.57 m). Pressures on this wall ranged up to 11.88 ft (3.621 m) of water.

3. To provide maximum protection, the lower left training wall should be 200 ft (61.0 m)

in length with a top elevation of 1975 ft (602.0 m). The minimum wall length that would

direct the Spillway flow away from the canyon wall and minimize danger of undercutting

is 125 ft (38.1 m). Instantaneous pressure readings to 1965.20 ft (598.993 m)were

measured.

4. Warehouse protection could be accomplished by a 90-ft (27.4-m) long addition to the

lower training wall, with the top elevation at 1975 ft (602.0 m) and sloping constantly to

the maximum tailwater elevation of 1940 ft (59.1.3 m). The wall extension Should make

an angle of 154 o withthe end of the lower wall and extend out toward the river channel.

MODEL

A 1:36 scale for the model was selectedas the best ratio to provide the most accurate test

results and also have a model of manageable dimension. The overall model box was 16 ft

(4.9 m) wide by 42 ft (12.8 m) long. The spillway crest width of 208.58 ft (63.575 m) h a d

a model width of 5.79 ft (1.765 m). The 15.75-ft (4.801-m) high by 19-ft (5.8-m) wide radial

gates had model dimensions of 5.25 by 6.33 in (133 by 161 mm). The total drop in

2

i ! !

!

elevation from the maximum reservoir water surface elevation of 2146 ft (654.1 m) to the

downstream "river channel elevation of 1905 ft (580.6 m) was 241 ft (73.5 m). Thi s gave

a model Change in elevation of 6.69 ft (2.039 m). The maximum discharge of 65 777 fta/s

(1862 m3/s ) was r e p r e s e n t e d by a flow of 8.46 f t3 / s (0 .239 m3/s ) in the mode l .

Photographs of the model under construction and of the completed model are shown on

figures 4 through 7.

Reservoir elevation was measured by a pressure tap installed 38 i n (965 m m ) from the

centerline of the dam access bridge along the dam face in the model, 114 ft (34.7 m) in

the prototype, and connected to a stilling well containing a hook gage mounted on the

outside of the headbox. Even though reservoir watdr surface elevations in the model were

not measured at the same locations as in the prototype, they were both measured in areas

where no drawdown occurs when the spillways are discharging. Therefore, the model • will

reflect the same water surface elevations as the prototype. After calibration of the spillway

crest and gates using the permanent laboratory Venturi meters, the hook gage readings

were used to set spillway discharges for additional testing.

The dam access bridge(fig. 8), powerhouse, and warehouse were constructed of wood;

spi~llway crest and piers of polyurethane foam and acrylic plastic; radial gates of sheet

metal; spillway chute (fig. 6) of layered Styrofoam to achieve desired blocky effect; and

the remaining topography of wire mesh was overlaid with 0.75 in (19 mm) of concrete

mortar.

- '-3 All elevations that.appear in this report are based on sea leve !. The spillwaycrest and uppe r /

/

right training wall, designed in 1935, are based on a gage elevation and are changed t o /

sea level e levat ions by adding 1901.37 ft (579.538 m) to each gage e levat ion . T h e [

elevations shown on figure 3, the bridge elevations on figure 8, and the spillway crest and "~"~

gate elevations on figure 2 were correctly placed in the model to accurately represent the

pro to type . Because of the critical na ture of correct ly measuring the south spillway

discharge, these elevations were verified as accurate by using a surveyor's level.

3

INVESTIGATION

Because the upper right training wall modification was to be accomplished before any

additional spillway operation, the design had to be completed by the fall of 1980. For this

reason, the model construction and testing were divided into two phases. The first phase

consisted of determining the discharge capacity of the spillway crest and gates and testing

pre l iminary designs of the upper r ight t ra in ing wall modification~ The reservoir

topography, access bridge, spillway crest, piers and gates, spillway chute, existing upper

training wall, and powerhouse were then constructed for this phase (figs. 9 and 10). The

model was operated in this mode until the spillway calibration was accomplished and the

final design for the upper training wall was completed. Upon completion of the first phase

of testing, Craftsmen placed the downstream topography, and testing of the lower training

wall began.

Spillway Discharge Capacity

In determining the maximum discharge capacity of the spillway crest, all spillway radial

gates were opened to the maximum gate opening of 21 ft (6.40 m), and two capacity curves

were developed. The dam access bridge was left in place while the first discharge-elevation

curve was developed. With a maximum reservoir elevation o ~ t (653.909 m),

which is the top of the dam parapet wall, the discharge through the south spillway was

65 777 ftZ/s (1862 m3/s). Figure 11 shows a discharge of 40 700 ft3/s (1152 m3/s), where

the bridge starts to restrict the flow. At the maximum discharge of 65 777 ftZ/s, the water

backed up behind the bridge railing and a drawdown occurred on the downstream side

of the bridge (fig. 12). However, when the bridge deck was removed for the development

of the second discharge-elevationcurve, this discharge only increased 537 ftZ/s (15 m3/s)

to 66 314 ftZ/s (1878 m3/s). Also tested were gate openings of 5, 10, and 15 ft (1.52, 3.05,

and 4.57 m). The discharge capacity curves developed for each gate opening appear in

figure 13, and the raw data for the curves are given in table A-1 of the appendix.

An additional test was run to determine the capacity of the three inner (right) gates, the

four middle gates, and the three outer (left) gates operating as separate units. When

l i I

I ! !

l i ! !

I ! !

t

I I I I

referring to left and right gates, these directions are looking downstream. Discharges for

this test were measured at a water surface elevation of 2136 ft (651.0m), the top of closed

gates. The following tabulation shows the different gate openings and resulting discharges

for the test:

No. of gates Discharge fully opened ft.a/s m3/s

All 10 31 000 877 Right 3 11 000 312 Middle 4 14 500 411 Left 3 10 000 283 Left 7 22 000 623 Right 7 24 500 694 Left 3 and right 3 20 000 566

The data indicate that although the right three gates appear to be flowing only partially

full, the increased velocity makes the flow approximately the same as the other groups

of gate s .

Upper Trainin~ Wall

The approach conditions to the south spillway are not ideal because the flow mus t make

an abrupt turn to the right t o pass over the spillway crest, see figure 11. Because of this

direction change, severe contractions form on the right side of gate bays 8, 9, and 10, while

water backs up onto the left side of the gates as shown on figure 14. These gate bays flowed

only approximately 40 percent full while the remaining bays were near their capacity. On

the right side of gate bay 10, the surface of the spillway crest was visible.

After passing over the spillway crest, the water entered the spillway chute. T h e w a t e r

emerging from bays 8, 9, and 10 flowed directly toward the concrete-covered outcropping

o n the right side of the chute located just below the upper right training wall. As the water

t raveled up this outcropping, the flow fell back onto itself and a hydraul ic j u m p was

formed. This water was then directed back across the spillway over the top of the flow

from bays 1 through 7. Because of this hydraulic jump action, at discharges of 40 000 fta/s

(1133 mS/s) or greater, • water reached the top of the training wall in te rmi t ten t ly and

cascaded down the slope beyond the wall into the powerhouse. Instead of redirecting the

flow down the chut e by using•pier extensions and guide walls, it was decided that a height

addition to the upper training wall would be less expensive. Two different designs were

developed and tested in the hydraulic model.

The first design was a straight 15-ft (4.57-m) high wall with a top elevation of 2126.57 ft

(648.178 m). The wall addition began where the existing wall had this elevation, and

extended 141 ft (43.0 m) (fig. 15)~ This wall design did not follow the existing angled wall,

instead it extended straight down the side of the chute. This wall design protected the slope

and powerhouse from the spillway flow; however, tl~e 141-ft length was required because

water f lowed along •the entire length of the wall footing and over the unprotected slope

into the channel below. It was decided that another wall configuratio n might provide the

same protection while being shorter and less expensive to build.

The second wall design was also 15 ft (4.57 m) in height but followed the existing 63-ft

(19.2-m) Straight wall and 21-ft (6.4-m) angled end section (fig. 16). This design deflected

the flow back into the spillway chute and protected the hillside and • powerhouse below

it. Because this design•provided the same protect ion as the first, it was r ecommended

because of the cost savings involved.

Pressure measurements were taken on both the existing training wall and the preferred

angled wall ex tens ion using water manomete r s . The highest pressure, measured at

piezometer 3, was 11.88 ft (3.621 m) which is equivalent to a water column rising to

elevation 2122.14 ft (646.828 m) at the maximum discharge. Appendix table A-2 lists the

complete water manometer pressure data from piezometers 1 through 6, and figure 17

shows • the upper training wall orientation and the piezometer locations.

6

N D II I

N L!

! a i

I I It I I

il il

Lower Trainin~ Wall

..

After complet ing pressure measurements on the upper t ra ining wall, the topography

downstream of the dam was installed and the second phase of testing began.

The preliminary design and location •of the lower training wall was supplied by the Salt

River Project . The upstream end of this 200-ft (61.0-m) long wall was located near the

toe of the slope between the spillway chute and the lower channel, and generally followed

the canyon wall. For the first 100 ft (30.5 m), the top of the wall was a te leva t ion 1975 ft

(602.0 m) and was approximately 80 ft (24.4 m)high . The wall then sloped down for 50 ft

(15.2 m) to elevation 1935 ft (589.8 m) and retained this elevation for the remaining 50 ft.

The model for this wall (fig. 18) was constructed'of Styrofoam sheets for ease of installation

and removal. ~

Initial tests indicated the 1935-ft (589.8-m) elevation was too low and that an elevation

of 1975 ft (602.0 m) was required along the full 200-ft (61.0-m) long wall. As the spillway

flow fell into the basin in the downstream channel, the flow impinged on the lower training

wall approximately 75 ft (23 m) from the start of the wall and.churned alo~l~ the remaining

125 ft (38 m ) o f the wall.

Another wall, constructed of wood, was then placed in the model with a top elevation of

1975 ft (602.0 m) along its entire length, and 19 piezometers were instal led at critical

locations to determine impact pressures (fig. 19). The piezometers were connected to water

manometers and pressures were measured for discharges of 15 000, 30 000, 45 000, and

65 777 fta/s (425, 850, 1275, and 1862 m3/s) , see appendix table A-3. The seven most

act ively f luc tuat ing piezometers were then a t t ached to pressure t ransducers and the

dynamic pressures were recorded electronically, see appendix table A-4. The transducers

allowed the pressure fluctuations to be permanently recorded so the pressure peaks could

be seen readily. The maximum pressure measured was located at piezometer 14 with a

pressure elevation of 1965.20 ft (598.993 m), which is equivalent to 52.37 ft (15.962 m)

7

of water. This wall design, with the dimensions as shown on figure 19 and located as shown

on figure 3, contained all spillway discharges (figs. 20, 21, and 2•2).

After completion of the model testing, the Salt River Project began excavation for the

lower t raining wall footing. Hazardous working conditions were encountered because Of

a highly fractured rock overhang over approximately 100 ft (30 m) of•the downstream

portion of the lower training wall.

To miminize this problem, additional tests were performed to determine the shortest length

of wall that would contain the spillway flow. After viewing the model at the maximum

discharge, it was decided that 125 ft (38.1 m) was the minimum wall length that would

direct t h e spillway flow away from the canyon wall and minimize danger Of undercutting.

An extension to the lower training wall was also tested to determine its effectiveness in

protecting the warehouse downstream of the south spillway from spillway releases. The

test configuration had an interior • angle of approximately •154 °, was 90 ft (27.4 m) long,

and had a top elevation of 1975 ft '(602.0 m) for the full length. Model operation showed

this elevation was required to contain the flow at the beginning of the extension, but that

the water surface dropped off sharply into the river channel and it would•be satisfactory

to slope the top of the wall downward to the maximum tailwater elevation• of 1940 ft

(591.3 m). Figures 23 and 24 show how the wall extension deflects the flow away from

the warehouse.

Piezometer 19 was installed in the impingement area of the wall addition. The highest

result ing pressure measurement reached an elevat ion of 1958.36 ft (596.908 m) , see

appendix table A-4.

i I I I I i I I !

I I

I I I I I I

i ~ ROOSEVELT ~--" ~ _ "~

T ~'Y • I f . I I " (( S T E W A R T H O R S E M E S A / / • '

- ~ FLAT

P H O E N I X ~ . D A M

5o t~ , o , ~ , o - '

SCALE OF MILES

F i g u r e l . - ~ t i o n m a p .

9

" - - . ' - Z - . ~..-In/erseci/on l ine-diversion

\

-- -----

/,2// ' - - . . " ~ " \ " " , " . , ' "~

i

" " ',.:-, ,,7 ,%i'.Roc~ "', " " - ,,--'"-'X ---~,~. ___~ " - . ,,,

7 , , , ' , , ",X " . . . . . - _ .

t ~ . % - ) ,,° ~.

i

hol'st mounfings, etc. on v sp i l lway 6ridges, see ~ , l Dwgs. 2s.D-735 and " t 2 25-D-7#2

P L A N ' S O U T H S P I L L W A Y " , ,7..o, ? ,0,o, ~ ~ . t' ,

Scale of Feet "~ '

;', Io' Concrete p l a t f o r m In tool house ....

~ F a c e oC ne x t higher masonry I / - [ - - ' ~ ~ COUrSe -. L J ~ I ' ~

• "',,, F - - ~ I ~ - - - - ?

" i l. ..v:u~___~___!___: ~ - - r - - m - - 1 . "rLine oFconcre/e~L_-- T ~ l

~ " ° L _ L I ',oppositesi~.r~al%~

-i: . . . . . . . . . . . . -.< . . . . . .L . . . . 1 .... -I- S E C . O - O E L E V A T I O N E-

/ crete, see Dwcl.Zs-D-73~

..-Steps

~J El. zz#.

Th~ p a r l o r c res t to be removed- -

_~'~'<Delall X( 73"l),/ ," , • ',5ee £ordd~l'L~

;°r e"ttin?,"__Z/_~_. .. "-Pla't£orm a/EL o r : " s p i l l w a y bmdge.

Anchors,

,Fill be hlhd plate with concrete- • •Anchor bol ls - see

Dwg. ?5-D-760 / f o r spacing

" //" " \ / ~ ' O r i g ~ h a l wal l / y / plates to be

' /Y. removed I£L" "-,~: . • / . Fdl groove with Gunlfe

/ . . . . •

",,~.. -c {

S E C T I O N A - A S E C T I O N A* 'A ' OPPOSITE H A N D

For cull ing of original p ier before placing shell see ', Owg.- ~ . . . . . . ...... 7- ~-D-733-;; ...... "'-..

: .~, j

£/. ~3@.o ..% . . . . . . ~. .{ El. 233.17 "'.~ ..... '.:.

...~ . . . . . . . -.

./ El. 2/8.Z5....~,~..:

/ /<,,~- " ~ ' , "6ate stop

" 'EI . 2 3 0 . 2 E

t

i

i

I

FROMT ELEV. SEC. C - C / SECTION A 'A S A M E ~ "

, "'Or/Final posit/on of 'gale

. . . . . . . Gate extension t ..Om'ginal ~ate a l tered

' as showd on Ow~ . 25-D-738 to 7~1 incl.

:"FI Z~6.bZ South spi l lway i-> ,' ~ El. 2~6,36 ; . N. spi l l B rocke f s to be cut-see Dwg.?5-D-733:

.~~ .~" ~ " ....... "-C..= - -.'.."

P A R T 5 E C . B - B REMAINDER S A M E AS TY~°ICAL PIER

,'to #his line o'r belo~ ~ / ~ - : " c=p~n e~eU";->~i ' $ ' 7 : i ' " , ' o ,, o oe ~'e,c<

. li~..>"L~" .,z~.5,6and7"~. . . . . HoleSon crestf°r anc-ho~r ..d;. "._ G 1"

S E C T I O N A L E L , E V A T I O N - - ' ~

T Y P I C A L I N T E R M E D I A T E P I E R T Y P I C A L FOR A L L PIERS E X C E P T S E C T I O N C'C

" - - -~ -~ - t • jNew t imber sl'l l "Line o£ new~-5"~ '

"Hewpin plate

9ate

Face of piers'} 19 ~/1~ "NON/ to wal l ~ Spil lway plate on ~19:3~ 5oufh abutments,'. 5pd/way

t N

FL~.[. : .", "', scc. ~-r .-:;-.'.:~:~tL~d_~,ne of" n~w con~ all other ga ,e~

".Concrete f i l l / lo be carr ied to good cock or masonry and to have a min imum thickness of'6"

S E C T I O N C - C

I , I ~1

Scale of' Feet

• .Pier #o be incased with new ./ re~7~l'orced qunite shell "'"k

i ~l'~{~'~ ~ . . . . /3'-.~ .... K~ ........ ~-~:]~,/ wall with abutment ' " ,, ' r ~ T->- , E-:EI 2~6.aO(F~eld dole) ' ~ : . . . . . l - - - x ' - . . . . .

'- <~ ,\~/"xc ~ J- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~, F . . . . . --I~ ~ F ' ~ ~ E C K - K \d~'~J/ IExislin~conc. b~ ~ 1 1 L I ~ - I ~--I \\\~.

" ~ / , , , . I pa~ap0~- , ' - -~ c ~ t o t ~ - , ~ ~ ~J \\~\

d d a ~ ~ : ; _ _ ' t \ \ ' 7

7uf masonry Flush with abutment.-'" PAR T SECTION C L C' sub£ace to this h'ne RZMAINO£R OPPOSITE HAFlD TO SEC. C'C

/~111 ~ - < - . . . . • , , , , ~

/ . . . . / ~ , / ." ,,~/% / - - " • I," - "

' ' , , . . . . . . . *.-_-:.Rock "~.~.

6'~ I0' 'Concrete p la t - form in tool house ....

_° i ~ i ; I

, ~ ~ ~~ k " : ' ' I I ,

i~ - -- --=-~-'C '":k - /

b- ~ ;'-Wa. ii I ='- " p / a l e s • ',is

ra,e to raee-,, ' ,r.. ~1,~ :; .< piers ,'. ,o,Tw,,y I ~ l l s EC._..H -N

i •1 , i

,!

'1

5 e e d e l a l ' l - " ~ . ~ , ~ / v ~ C - s ; - - . : - ~ 7 /

~ / # 0

d , / [

~ x . / / N

,..-Top oF paro

PL A N" NOR TH SPIL L W A ~

l i - " ~ -" i I #; : ' I I ; ~l 1 ' , ~ ' ~ ,pillwoy , " " I . . . . I I ! - ~ /

= . 7 . _ - T ! , : i : i ]..f',~ i _L ~. L~ .

i ° ,~,%3~ ' I ;,i :1 li T-~-F

.................. " ~'> ~'~_Li' , , . !' ' ' : '

~ 7 - '0 ' '0" _~ _~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~-~ +-

' w . . . . . . . ] , ~ - - . -

• . ~.:.. ,, -~ ' ," ,~ , q ~ i , ,

=LJzd "/ ~ ~ I ' i :-; : I o,', xji', !t i it -F • . , . - , . ' ' , i I i ; . . . . , : . :': ,'.'.~: . . . . I . , ! [ i J . ' . L - I . . '

5 0 100 150 20

~ / S P I L L W A Y D ISCHARGE - T H O U S A N ~ OF SECOND rEE" ., ~>//~$f .~ oIsc.~R~E cu.vE sEc. ~-~ SEc. d:u - -

,/Jill( For deta i l5 of" p i e r incasing, c res t cap

• and re inforcement , see Owg. ZS-D- 73#

D,~p~R.rMEN T ' OF THE INTEF;tlOR BURE,,~U OF RECLAMATION

S A L T RIVE,C( • P F ~ O ' J E C T - A R I Z O N A

ROOSEVELT DAM S P I L L W A Y S

G E N E R A L P L A N A N D S E C T I O N S

oR,,w,~..¢~.r~.. ..... s~,s~,rrE~ ..... ~=,~.,,.~/..~.4 ¢ ~¢t,~ ....

c.~c~Eo~s,~. : ' ~ , . ! . . APPROV¢O . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . ~ . . . . .

l~gure 2.-General plan and sections.

11

i - J

/

, / , / / //"

/ /

!

i i 2250 ~

/ ~ ~ . . . . . ~ ' ' ' / ~

//

-C~

L Io

Upper ?reining

I • I

I

' l

I I

/ / v /

L3

. - - . .

---- ;\\-c - J' ,"

2/,

->L

/ . . '

/

/

I

\

~ Lower tro/n/ng we// extension worehouse protect/on

\ \

SALT RIVER PROJECT -- ARIZONA

THEODORE ROOSEVELT DAM

GENERAL PLAN .3- 5 - 80 SURVEY

5' CONTOURS 2' SUPPLEMENTS I"-- 50'

Figure 3.-Topographic map and model layout.

13

I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I

Figure 4.-Spillway crest and piers installed in model before topography was placed. P801-D-79557

Figure 5.-Reservoir topography supports in model. P801-D-79558

15

Figure 6.-Spillway cut from Styrofoam to achieve blocky effect of prototype chute. PS01-D-79559

Figure 7.-Completed hydraulic model in operation. PS01-D-79560

16

I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I L I

--4

P 1

t tt r I t

i i "

!

,I

/ I

I

,/

~ , ' " ~

/

/

- - ~ - - - - ' - ; ,,- . . . . 'm F - -

"",'",,,,,,,,~ ~ ~ i , ~

~ - ~ ........ so.,.ov'~:-°":

I f t . = 0 . 3 0 4 8 m

i i

EL. 213 7. 95

EL. 2143.75

SALT RIVER PROJECT -- ARIZONA

T H E O D O R E R O O S E V E L T D A M

D A M ACCESS B R I D G E

J

Figure 8.-Dam access bridge over south spillway approach channel.

Figure 9.-First phase hydraulic model. P801-D-79561

Figure 10.-Spillway chute, reservoir topography, and powerhouse - first phase. P801-D-79562

18

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

Figure 11.-View looking toward south spillway crest during first phase testing. Q = 40 700 fta/s (1152 ma/s) free flow. PS01-D-79563

Figure 12.-View from spillway crest looking at dam access bridge. Q = 65 777 fta/s (1862 ma/s) maximum discharge. PS01-D-79564

19

2150 . , I I . ,5 / Ii0 I 15 1 I

/ " _Zl

2145 ~ 1 / / / ~ 1

' / " • .

z __ J ~ ...... u.j> / ~ - B 5' Gore." opening

• ~1 ~ /:~ '_0,' Gore opening] . / ~ v '5'.Ooteopen~ng

n- " ~ / ' ~ Go~e opening, bridge deck

J . removed, Omox = 66,300 ft.3/s ,,C/'--j~ / ~ 21'Gore opening, bridge deck

" F Do~ ~o~ope, o, 2,45.37 , -

2125 / • " Note: I foot = 0 .3048 meter

I ft.3/s = 0.02831685 mS/s

2120 =-----Cress 2119.62

2115 I 0 I01000 701000

I I I I 20,000 30,000 40,000 501000 60,000

DISCHARGE ( f t 3 / s )

SPILLWAY CAPACITY CURVES FOR SOUTH SPILLWAY ONLY

Figure 13.-South spillway capacity curves.

20

80,000

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Figure 14.-View of model spillway gates in operation. Q = 65 777 ftS/s (1862 mS/s). Note severe contract ions in bays 8, 9, and 10. PS01-D-79565

21

Figure 15.-Straight upper training wall addition. P801-D-79566

Figure 16.-Angled upper training wall addit ion- preferred design. P801.D-79567

22

l l I i i I I

I I

I I I I i I I I I

i

b~ CO

.., /

I , " ' "" '"H III I ~ / ~ PLAN VIEW

®L ®i'"'" ' ' | . , 4 , , 5 '

, 7 , 5 '

/

-~- -FLOW

Existin 9 wall

• ~ ~ 7 ~ El. 2111.57 - 2 1 1 0 0 7

.66'

7.59 .f

DETAIL OF CIRCLED AREA

Wall Ex tension

ELEVATION VIEW

UPPER TRAINING WALL AND PIEZOMETER LOG'ATIONS

Figure 17.-Preferred design of upper training wall, orientation, and piezometer locations.

Figure 18.-Original lower training wall design. PS01-D-79568

24

I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I

mm mm mm BIB m mm mm mm mm mm roll m l i b mm

t~ ¢.n=.

ELEV. 1975

E L E V 1 9 4 0

E L E V 1895

o ~° d C q O .

I 3 5 7 9 I I 13 0 0 0 0 [ ] 0 0

b s 8 ,o , 2 . ,,~ 0 0 0 0

15 16 17 18

. 0 0 0 0 0 PRESSURE TRANSDUCER 0 WATER MANOMETER

I I I . I I I I I I I I 1 o o o o o ~ o o oo o ~ oo ooo g 0

; " g ; * + . + * . + + + _ _ ¢~l O

;i~O. 00' 9 0 . 0 0 '

L O W E R T R A I ~ I N G ' W A L L A N D P I E Z O M E T E R L O C A T I O N S

I f t = 0 . 3 0 4 8 m

EXTENSION

Note. Piezometer elevations oppeor

to=

in oppendix tobies A- 3 ond A-4.

F'gure 19.-Preferred design of lower training wall and piezometer locations.

I I I

Figure 20.-Preferred design of lower training wall operating at 20 000 ftS/s (566 mS/s). P801-D-79569

I I I

I I I I

Figure 21.-Preferred design of lower training wall operating at 40 000 ftS/s (1133 mS/s). PS01-D-79570

I I I

26

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Figure 22.-Preferred design of lower training wall operating at 65 777 fts/s (1862 mS/s). PS01-D-79571

27

Figure 23.-Warehouse without spillway protection. Q = 65 777 ft3/s (1862 ma/s). PS01-D-79572

Figure 24.-Warehouse with spillway protection. Q = 65 777 fts/s (1862 m3/s). P801-D-79573

28

i I

I i I I i I I i I I I I I I

I i

APPENDIX 1

As requested by the Salt River Project, the data collected directly from the model appear in this appendix and are converted to prototype values in inch-pound units.

29

Table A-1.-Model data obtained for south spillway capacity curves (tTg. 13) and converted to inch-pound units

Measured Measured Prototype model Prototype model reservoir

discharge, discharge, reservoir elevation, fta/s ftZ/s elevation, 1 ft

ft

• Comments

I I I l I I I l I I I I I I

0.482 O.942 1.613 2.121 3.009 3.702 2.618 1.826

1.340

1.578 2.197 2.924 3.565 4.3O9 5.188 4.718 3.848 0~935

1.857 3.218 5.378 6.243 7.052 3.900 4.681

5-ft (1.52-m) gate opening, bridge in place

3 748 7 325

12 543 16 493

123 398 28 787 20 358 14 199 10 420

12 17 22

27 33 40 36 29

7

lO-ft

0.132 2124.37 .191 2126.50 .294 2130.20 . 4 4 1 2135.50 .605 2141.40• ~734 2146.04 .534 2138.84 .373 2133.05 .260 2128.98

(3.05-m) gate opening, bridge in place

14 25 41 48 54 3O 36

270 0.260 2128.98 084 .321 2131.18 737 . 376 2133.16 72i .455 2136.00 507 .572 2140.21 342 .730 2145.90 687 .643 2142.78 922 .503 •2137.73 271 .187 ~ 2126.35

15-ft (4.57-m) gate opening, bridge in place

440 0.287 2129.95 023 .392 2133.73 819 .552 2139.49 546 .640 2142.66 836 .736 2146.11 326 .446 2135.68 400 .505 2137.80

31

Gates overtopped

Gates overtopped

G a t e s overtopped

Table A.1 . -Mode l data obtained for south spillway capacity curves (~qg. 13) and converted to inch-pound units - Cont inued

Measured Measured Pro to type model P r o t o t y p e model reservoir

discharge, discharge, reservoir elevation, f ta /s f ta /s elevation, x ft

ft

Comment s

4.388 5.897 8.459 7.894 7.351 6.658 6.062 5.457 4.889 4.264 4.085 3.748 3.377 3.007 2.495 1.553

21-ft (6 .40-m)ga te opening, bridge in place

34 121 0.479 45 855 . 5 7 9 65 777 .719 61 384 .698 57 161 .664 51 773 .618 47 138 .584 42 434 .544 38 017 .503 33 157 .461 31 765 . 4 4 8 29 144 .422 26 260 .397 23 3 8 2 .367 19 401 ~ .326 12 076 .245

2136.86 2140.46 2145.50 2144.75 2143.52 2141.87 2140.64 2139.20 2137.73 2136.22 2135.75 2134.81 2133.91 2132.83 2131.36 2128.44

.21-ft (6.40-m) gate opening, bridge removed

8.525 66 290 0.718 2145.47 7.347 57 130 .648 2142.95 6.285 48 872 .594 2141.00 4.563 35 482 .484 2137.04

1 Model crest elevation equals zero.

I I I I l l I I I

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m 1 f ta /s = 0.0283 ma/s

32

Table A-2.-Pressure data for upper training w a l l - manometer measurements

Piezometer No.

Elevation, ft

South spillway

discharg e , f ta /s

Pressure, ft

Pressure elevation,

ft

I I I I !

I I I I I i I I I

4

2110 .26

2110.26

2108.57

2110.07

3O 62O 35 850 41 330 45 725 50 170 53 640 57 450 60 810 65 777

30 620 35 850 41 330 45 725 50 170 53 64O 57 45O 60 810 65 777

30 62O 3 5 8 5 0 41 330 45 725 50 170 53 64O 57 450 6O 810 65 777

30 620 35 850 41 330 45 725 50 170 53 64O 57 450 60 8 1 0 65 777

33

0.036 0~864 1.764 3.276 4.320 5.148 5.760 6.336 9.830

0 .072 0.216 1.116 2.196 2.988 3.564 3.996 4.356 7.056

1.080 3.24O 5.180 6.732 7.884 8.496 9.360 9.972

11.880

0.576 0.864 1.116 1.944 2.664 3.132 3.492 3.672 5.364

2110.30 2!11.12 2112.02 2113.54 2114.58 2 1 1 5 . 4 1 2116.02 2116.60 2120.09

2110.33 2110.48 2111.38 2112.46 2113.25 2113.82 2114.26 2114.62 2117.32

2111.34 2113.50 2115.44 2116.99 2118.14 2118.76 2119.62 2120.23 2122.14

2110.65 2110.93 2111.19 2112.01 2112.73 2113.20 2113.56 2113.74 2115.43

Table A-2.-Pressure data for upper training w a l l - manometer m e a s u r e m e n t s - Cont inued

Piezometer No.

Elevat ion, Pressure, ft ft

South spillway

discharge, fta/S

Pressure elevation,

ft

5

6

7

2107.63

2114.57

30 620 35 850 41.330 45 725 50 170 53 640 5 7 4 5 0 60 810 65 777

45 55 60 65

000 000 000 777

1.332 2.340 3.168 4.104 4.644 4.86O 5.4OO 5.508 6.876

0.360 0.610 1.440 3.420

2114.57 45 000 55 000 60 000 65 777

0.430 0.830 1.550 3.600

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m

2108.96 2109.97 2110.80 2111.73 2112.27 2112.49 2113.03 2113.14 2114.51

2114.93 2115.18 2116.01 2117.99

2115.00 2115.40

2 1 1 6 . 1 2 2118.17

I I I I I I I

1 f l3/s = 0.0283 ma/s

34

Table A-3.-Pressure data .for lower training w a l l - manometer measu remen ts

Piezometer No.

South Piezometer spillway elevation;

discharge, ft ft3/s

Average pressure

elevation, ft

Pressure, ft

l I I I I I I I l I I I I I

8

10

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

15 000 3 0 0 0 0 45 000 65 777

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

15 000 30 000, 45 000 65 777

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

1919.01

1911.71

1918.46

1911.89

1921.08

1912.26

1912.83

35

1924.41 1929.09 1930.89 1934.13

19!7.47 1922.15 1933.31 1936.19

1922.78 1928.90 1928.90 1931.42

1924.13 1928.45 1938.53 1942.85

1923.96 1930.08 1932.24 1939.44

1922.70 1927.74 1929.18 1936.02

1923.27 1930.83 1932.99 1941.27

5.40 10.08 11.88 15.12

5.76 10.44 21.60 24.48

4.32 10.44 10.44 12.96

12.24 16.56 26.64 30.96

2.88 9.00

11.16 18.36

10.44 15.48 16.92 23.76

10.44 18.00 20.16 28.44

Table A.3.-Pressure data for lower training w a l l - manometer measuremen t s - Cont inued

Piezometer No.

South spillway

discharge, f t3/s

Piezometer Average elevation, pressure

ft elevation, f t

Pressure, ft

11

12

15

16

1 7

15 3O 45 65

15 30 45 65

15 30 45 65

15 30 45

6 5

0 0 0 000 000 777

000 000 000 777

000 000 000 7 7 7

000 000 000 777

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

1 9 2 1 . 6 4

1913.39

1920.33

1921.08

1920.89

1923.80 1933.88 1937.84 1943.24

1924.55 1934.27 1937.15 1943.27

1923.93 1935.45 1937.97 1941.93

1927.56 1937.28 1940.88 1946.64

1920.89 1934.57 1940.69 1947.89

2.16 12.24 16.20 21.60

11.16 20.88 23.76 29.88

3.60 15.12 17.64 21.60

6.48 16.20 19.80 25.56

0.00 13.68 19.80 27.00

I I I II I I

I I

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m 1 f t3/s = 0.0283 ma/s

36

Table A-4.-Pressure data for lower training w a l l - pressure transducer measurements

Piezometer No.

South Piezometer spillway elevation, p ro to type

ft discharge, f ta /s

Pressure elevation~ ft Min. Avg. Max.

Maximum pressure,

ft

I I I I i I ,I I I I I I I I

5 1921.83

6 1912.83

9 1921.83

13 1921.83

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

15 •30 45 65

15 30 45 65

14 1921.83

18 1912.83

1 9

(warehouse protect ion)

1940.31

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m 1 fta/s = 0.0283 mS/s.

000 000 000 777

1921.83 1921.83 1925.24 3.41 1921.83 1925.60 1932.44 10.61 1922.00 1929.20 1934.60 12.77 1925.24 1934.60 1951.16 29.33

1914.80 1919.48 1922.00 1914.44 1923.80 1929.20 1914.60 1925.60 1938.20 1914.80 1932.44 1950.44

000 1921.83 1921.83 1925.96 000 1927.04 1932.08 1940.72 000 1929.56 1934.60 1958.00 777 1924.88 1940.00 1957.70

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

1921.83 1921.83 1931.00 1936.40 1931.20 1938.20 1934.16 1947.20

1924.88 1941.80 1948.64 1959.80

15 000 1918.40 1923.08 1925.60 30 000 1929.20 1933.52 1943.96 45 000 1927.40 1936.40 1947.20 65 777 1927.7•6 1943.60 1965.20

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

1921.83 1923.80 1932.44 1935.68 1934.56 1940.00 1936.40 1950.80

15 000 30 000 45 000 65 777

1925.60 1938.92 1947.56 1959.80

Atmospher ic Pressure

1936.76 1945.76 1950.44 1940.00 1952.60 1958.36

37

9.17 16.37 25.37 37.61

4.13 18.89 36.17 35.87

3.05 19.97 26.81 37.97

12.77 31.13 34.37

5 2 . 3 7

3.77 17.09 25.73 37.97

0 0

10.13 18.05

G P O 8 3 3 - 4 3 3

I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I

A free pamphlet is available from the Bureau of Reclamation entitled, "Publications for Sale." It describes some of the technical publications currently available, their cost, and how to order them. The pamphlet can be oblained upon request to the Bureau of Relcamation, Engineering and Research Center, P O Box 25007, Denver Federal Center, Building 67, Denver CO 80225, Attn D-922.