REC-ERC-73-8

Engineering and Research Center

Bureau of Reclamation

Discharge and Torque Characteristics, 198-Inch Butterfly Valve, Auburn Dam

I 7. AUTHOR151 8 PERFORMING ORGANIZAT ION

REPORT NU. D. Colgate REC-ERC-73-8 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME A N 0 ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

~nglr&rlng and Research Center Bureau of Reclamation

Il. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

Denver, Colorado 80225 13 TYPE O F REPORT A N D PERIOD

2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS COVERED

Same 13. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

6. ABSTRACT

A new cast-and-welded design has been proposed for the leaves of butterfly valves to be used as guard valves upstream from hydraulic turbines. Model studies were made to determine the head loss through the valve with the leaf fully opened for a valve wlth a straight-through bcdy, and one with an expanding-contracting body so constructed that the flow passage area through the valve gradually decreases in the direction of flow. Geometrically similar butterfly leaves were used in the test valves. Head loss coefficient for the valve wlth the expanding-contracting b d y was about 71 percent less than the loss coefficient for the valve with the straight-through body. Discharge and torque coefficient charts were determined for a filll range of valve leaf positions for the valve with the expanding-contracting body.

TKEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

I. DESCRIPTORS-- /*butterfly valves/ hydraulic turbines1 'optimum desiynl closed condultsl 'discharge oefficientsl 'aerodynamics/ "head losses/ 'torque1 model tests/ model studies1 laboratory tests/ test results/ ~enstocks/ hr/draul~csl hydraulic machinery1 hydraulic cleslgn

. IDENTIFIERS-- I converging sections .. j . . .. ..

. COSATi Field/Group 13G 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

vai labie :ram the Natianol Technical lnforniotion Service, Operotions livisioo. Springfield. Virginia 22131.

! UNCLASSIFIED

.................................... .................................... Purpose : ............... ........... 1 Resu!S ... ................................................................................ 1 ....................... Application ....................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... . ~ 1

............................................................................... The Model ........................... 2 valve Comparison Study 4 Torque and Discharge Study ................................................................ ........... 5

Typical Computation ...................................................................................... 7

. . I / ....................................................... Test cond~t~ons ................................... )! 7 :I Tes? readings ................................... .:, ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Computations ........... ; ................................................................................ 7 Coefficient of discharge .............................................................................. 8

............................................................... Coefficient of torque : ............... 8 I;

... LIST OF FIGURES '*<.., ...

Figure

Various butterfly valve proportions ...................................................... Model butterfly leaf-Wood ................................................................

................... Expandiny-contracting model butterfly valve body-Wood Model leaf and body ........................................................................ Laborarory installations ...................................................................... Flow passage areas ............................................................................

...... Head loss comparison for three instsllations .............................A Laboratory installation for torque measurements ...................... ... ....... . . Discharge coeffuent ........................................................................... Model valve. torque vs v12/2g .........................................................

. . Torque coeff~c~ents ................... ... ....................................................

.................................... Prototype valve. torque vs v1 2/2g ............. Prototype valve. torque vs AH ............................. .. ...... ... ...................

PURPOSE

These model studies were made to compare the hydraulic losses through the full open valve for three bu:terfly installations, and to determine the discharge and torque characteristics for a ful l range of valve openings for the most economical of the three installations.

RESULTS

1. The butterfly valve with the expanding-con- tracting body was the most economical of the three installations studied (Figure 1). The initial cost of this valve would be greater than either of the other two; however, the smaller head loss across the 90" open lea1 would result in increased pawer revenue t3 offset the higher initial cost.

.%... :~ :,

U A . EXPANDING-CONTRICI ING VALVE BODY

* J ' . a .L -29

U B 15' DIAYETER STRAIGHT THRWGH V U V E BOOT

13'"' 1 1 4' -. -- - -T-- .--- - l V a l r a ,

1 0 4

C. 13'4" D l l Y E T E R STRAIGHT THROUGH VlLVE BODY

Figure 1. Various bunerfly valve p:oportions. The bunerfly lsaves are geometrically similar.

2 . The expanding-contracting design produced a high coefficient of discharge at the full open posi- tion. The total head loss across the butterfly valve would be 1.370 feet wi th the turbine passing 5,000 ds.

3. The maxlmum possible torque forcmg the leaf to close would occur with the leaf 70" open. The torque would be 1.2 x 10' foot-pounds w ~ t h maxi- mum reservoir and a fully open penstock down- stream from the valve.

The results of this study may be used tn the evalu- ation of butterfly valves w h ~ c h are geometrically s ~ m ~ l a r to the ones tested

INTRODUCTION

-'The power penstocks at Auburn Dam wil l be 1 5 feet in diameter through the dam, and will reduce to 1 3 feet 4 inches just upstream from the turbines. A new cast-and-welded design was proposed for butterfly guard valves to be used upstream from the turbines. Three possible valve proportions and leaf diameters were proposed for the guard valves (Fig- ure 1):

a. An expanding-contracting valve body with a 15-foot-diameter valve &trance, a 16-foot 6-inch diameter butterfly leaf, and a 13-foot 4-inch diameter valve exit.

b. A 15-foot-d~ameter, straight-through valve body and butterfly leaf in the 15-foot-diameter penstocks.

c. A 1 %foot 4-inch diameter, straight-through valve body and butterfly leaf in the 13-foot 4-inch diameter portion of the penstock.

The butterfly leaves were geometrically simdar in each of the locations.

This model study was made to measure the head losses through the fully open butterfly valves for each of the proposed installations, and to determine the discharge and torque characteristics for a full range of leaf settings for the most economical of the three.

The equivalent metric values for relevant Br~tish values in this report are:

Br~tish value Metric value

Leaf diameter 73 feet 4 inches 4.064mm Leaf d~ameter 15 feet 0 inch 4,572mm Leaf d~ameter 16 feet 6 inches 5,029mm Maximum head 585 feet 178.3 meters Design discharge 5.000 6 s 141.6 m3/sec Maximum torque 12x10' ft-lb 1.66x108 cm kg

THE MODEL

These mode7 studies were made using air as a test fluid. For simplicity of model construction, and since the model would not be subjected to liquid flow, a butterfly leaf was fabricated of wood. The leaf was 7.000 inches in diameter, and fabrication was meticulous with dimensions being held to very close tolerances (Figure 2). Although the leaves in the three proposed installations were of different diameters, they were geometrically similar, thus the same leaf was used for all three tests with the model scale being changed to reflect the various valve sizes.

A model valve body 6.91 1 inches long. with a 6.364-inch-diameter inlet. 7.000 inches in diam- eter at the leaf trunnion centerline, and a 5.656- inch-diameter exit was fabricated of wood to repre- sent the 16-foot 6-inch butterfly valve at a model scale of 1:28.29 (Figure 3).

One straight-through valve body with a 7.000- inch inside diameter and 7.000 inches long was fabricated of wood to represent the 15-foot-diame- ter butterfly valve at a scale of 1 :25.71. and the 13-foot 4-inch diameter butterfly valve at a scale of 1 :22.86.

Figure 4 shows the model butterfly leaf used in all three tests and the leaf installed in the expanding- contracting valve body.

FACE V I E W E O ~ E V I E R

Flgure 2. Model butterfly leaf-Wwd

3.482 - Port ing Line

EXPANDING-REDUCING VALVE BODY The butterfly valve to be studied was installed in

N o t e - The st robpht through body W O E the laboratory air test facility (Figure 5). In Figure 7.00 tncher l n r i d e d lomeler and 7 .00 5A the blower and air intake are enclosed behind inches long. The some b u t t e r f l y l e a f

the model. The blower is capable of a maximum was used f o r a l l t e s t s .

discharge of 1.800 cfm of free air, and a maximum pressure of 9.9 inches of water. A 6.045-inch- Figure 3. Expanding-contracting model bunsrfly valve diameter sharp.;edge orifice is between two flanges bidy-Wwd.

2 . ; ' : ; I,

1 ,! 1 .

!

Leaf rnounled in the expanding-conlracting body.

Edge view. Face view.

[Leal

Figure 4. Model leaf and body. Photos P801.D-73229. P801.0.73230, and P80107322a

on the far left of the photograph. Flow straightening vanes upstream and downstream from the orifice assured uniform flow into the orifice and into the test valve. A manometer capable of displaying pressures, either differential or direct, to 1 /1,000 inch of water, is in the center foreground. The wooden test valve representing the 13-foot 4-inch diameter valve is to the right of the manometer.

Figure 58 shows the installation for the model valve representing the 15-foot-diameter valve, and Fig- ure 5C shows the installation representing the 16- foot 6-inch diameter valve. Tests were made with the butterfly leaf fixed in the 90" open position for all three installations.

A plot of the variation in flow passage areas through the fully open valves is shown in Figure 6. The flow passage area in the straight-through valve contracts 33 percent between the valve inlet and

the leaf trunnion centerline, and expands to the full pipe area at the exit. In the expanding-contracting body valve, the flow passage area gradually con- tracts 23 percent between the 15-foot-diameter valve inlet and a station 87 percent through the valve, and expands 3 percent 1.0 the 13-foot 4-inch diameter valve exit. Since the butterfly leaves in the three valves are geometrically similar, the head loss differences in the three installations would be due mainly to the contraction-expansion losses, and would be exqected to be a minimum in the expanding-contracting body valve.

A. 13-loot 4-inch diarneler straight-lhmugh body Photo P a 0 1 - D - 7 3 2 3 1

VALVE COMPARISON STUDY

8. 1 5 - f w [ 0-inch diameter straight-through body. Photo Pa01 -D.73232

C, Expanding-contracling body. Pholo PBOl -0.73233

Figure 5 . Labora:ory installations.

Ffgure 6. Flow passage areas.

A series of test runs was made to evaluate the losses due to flow through the model conduits. and through the cones in the case of the straight- through valve bodies. For the tests with the ex- panding-contracting valve body, the valve was removed and replaced with a cone to permit the isolation and evaluation of the losses due solely to the butterfly valve body and leaf.

The prototype dime~;sions and scaled model di- mensions for the three installations are shown in Figure 7. Computations were made to evaluate the bead losses due only to the valve body and leaf. A ccafficient of loss "K" was determined for each installation where:

AH i s the head loss across the butterfly valve (ft)

K i s the loss coefficient V, i: thevelocity in the 15-foot.diameter

upstream pipe (fpsl.

The values are: - Valve leaf diameter

16-foot 6-inch 15-foot 13-foot 4-inch

for Q - 5,000 cfs (Auburn Dam turbine

(See Figure 7) -- For the 13-foot 4-inch diameter valve, when the loss coefficient is based on the velocity in the 13- foot 4-inch conduit, the coefficient "K" is 0.41 8. Since the same model butterfly valve body and leaf were used for both ~traight~through valve iests, it apoears that the loss coefficient for the two valves should be identical when based on the velocity in the section of penstock in which the valve is in- stalled. However, it is felt that the location of the 13-foot 4-inch diameter valve body one-half pipe diameter downstream from a reducing cone created a small additional loss through the 90"open valve.

.:*.. ..~. .: . ..

, EXPLNDING.REOUC1HG VALVE BOD?

AH - K V L Note dlntenriDnr rho"" a r e 2Q

AH heod l o s s osrorr the model >"shes obovs

90' w e n ( e m f & r o l r e and C.ro,otype v0,uer

bod" 8 " 1 1 V I = Velocltl i n the up3treo.

cond", t

Figure 7 . Head loss comparison 'or three installations. The same model valve leaf was used in all tests.

Design engineers computed the projected power :evenue loss over the life of the project due to the head loss across each oi the three valves, and considering the initial installation costs, it was de- termined that the expanding-contracting valve body was the most economical design.

The necessary model modif~cat~ons were made to continue the study on the chosen valve to deter- rnme the d~scharge and torque charactertstlcs for the full range of valve openings.

TORQUE AND DISCHARGE STUDY

,: The torque on the model butterfly lea: as initially constructed, operating with air as a test fluid, was not great enough to overcome the friction between "

the wooden trunnions on the leaf rotating in the fixed wooden bearing surfaces in the valve:body. To reduce this source of error for the torque i?easure- ments, the model was modified by counterborin the valve body bearing holes and machining th leaf trunnions to receive two free rotating metal bearings. The insertion of the bearings, with $Ctme slight additional dressing down of the leaf.>;i;b body, allowed the leaf to rotate practically fri'tlion- free. The valve was reinstalled in the model pen- stock as shown in Figure 7A, but with the trun- nions mounted horizontal. A centered and balanced leaf position indicator, with readings as small as 3 0 seconds of arc, was mounted on the end of one trunnion. An arm 12 inches long was clamped t r the other trunnion. A platform ?.tale, %Zing to 0.01 pound, was placed beneath the valve in such a position and elevation that one end of a vertical rod could be placed in the center of the platform, and the other end would support the 12-inch rod exactly horizontal. The top 'of the vertical rod was shaped to a knife edge (Figure 8).

With this arrangement, the lever a r m through ,, which the twning force of the leaf was applied to tho platform was the horizontal distance between thc centerlines of the trunnions and>,Ihe vertical rod. p.11 torque and discharge measdrements were made k i th a length of conduit downstream from the butterfly valve. Care was taken to prevent stray air currents from blowing on the platform of the scale.

For each valve leaf position tested, the leaf was positLo?ed by clamping the horizontal rod to the trun:r~on at the desired rotation of the leaf. A check . ,

Butterfly valve wilh an expanding-conlracting body. Photo PX-D-72575

Figure 8. Laboratory installation lor torque measurements.

was made to be certain that the two rods were horizontal and vertical, respectively. The lever arm was measured and the platforw scale was balanced to ascertain the tare caused by the rods.

Three test runs were rnade for each leaf position tested: the maximum discharge possible with the laboratory blower, and about two-thirds and one- third the maximum discharge controlled by restrict- ing the exit end of the dwnstream conduit. For each test run, the air pressure was measured up- stream and downstream from the orifice for dis- charge determinations. The pressure was measured at selected locations upstream and downstream from the butterfly valve. The leaf position was determined during each test run, and the platform scale was balanced and read. The local barometer was recorded every half hour, and the air tempera- ture was read at the model for each test run. The tare was read after turning off the airflow and checked against the beginning tare as assurance that nothing had changed during the test run.

test run k i t h the expanding-contracting body butterfly valve are as follows:

Test conditions:

Valve leaf settlng 70° Barometer 24.58" Hg Temperature 75.a0 F Lever arm 3 mches

Test readings (pressures in inches of Hz01 ..

Tare (pounds: Orifice pressure Valve pressure Scale

Before I After US 1 DS US 1 DS (poundsl

0.20 0.20 9.171 6.073 5.880 3.632 1.54

Computations

Ambient air pressure corrections (barometer plus line pressure)

Orifice 9.171

24.58 + - = 25.26" Hg abs. 13.57

Valve, US 5.880

24.58 + -- = 25.01" Hg abs. 13.57

Valve, DS 3.632

24.58 + - 13.57 = 24.85" Hg abs.

Discharge corrected for ambient pressure:

Orifice 18.401 cfs air \ Valve US 18.555 cfs air

\\

Valve DS 18.690 cfs air , ~ ,+., . . , V;'/2q =.(18.555/.219)'/2g = 111.47' air

\\...- i'i'22/2g -- = (18.690/.173)212g = 181.23' air

.. .. .. . . . . Ratio, f t o i k f t of H 2 0

US from valve 1,009.0 DS from valve 1,016.0

Total head a t US piezometer. -

HT = (pressure head) (ratio) + VtZ/2g -

Head loss-piezometer t o valve (see Figdre 7A)

*L = L I D f V'12g L I D = length t o dlameter ratio of pipe

f = friction factor, determined from previous study v,'/2g = pipe ve loc~ty head, fps

Total head US = 605.88 - 2.46 = 603.42 f t air

Total head a t DS pelzometer:

H~ = ) (1.016.5) + 181.23= 488.89 ft air

Head loss-valve t o piezometer:

= ( ) LO1 1, (181.231 = 7.00 f t air

Total head DS = 488.89 + 7.00 = 495.87 ft. air

AH = 603.42 - 495.89 = 107.53 ft air

Coefficient computation:

Q = c , A & ~

Q = 18.555 cfs air

The coefftcient of discharge (Cd) values were computed and averaged :or each o f the several test runs for each leaf position. The averaged Cd values were plotted against the leaf position and a best f i t curve determined. The result is !he coefficient o f discharge curve, Figure 9

,. Coefficient of torque (for the example aboue). i

Measured torque = t1.54-0.20) = 0.335 fr-lb

A = Area o f upstream conduit AH = Tot01 head d r o p across

the b u t t e r f l y v a l v e .

I n l e t d iam f t . o f f l u i d

Leo f diom Leof t h i c k n e s s = 0 ~ 3 0 0 D

BUTTERFLY LEAF POSITION - DEGREES (90' I S FULL OP Y

Figure 9. Discharge coefficient-Butterfly leaf position-Degrees (90° is full ope

v12/2g (corrected to feet of water)

(111.47)/(1.009.0)= 0.110 ft

Anaveragecurve, Vl2/Zy vs torql;e, was drawn for each leaf position tested (Figure 10). A coefficient of torque for each leaf position wasdetermined where:

T = c . ~ D ~ AP

T = torque, ft-lb CT = coefficient o f torque

D = diameter of the upstream pipe, f t Ap = pressure drop across the leaf, Ib/ss f1 AP = (v,'/Zg) ( l /CdZ) (W) w = sp.weight of test fluid

.:

The computed values for CT vs leaf position were plotted and a best fit curve determined. The 5+~l i i s the coefficient of torque curve. Figure 11.

- , 9 .. .

~ -

2 Fagure 10. Model wlve. torque vr VI 129.

The prototype values for torque and L., '129 may be computed from the values in t l~e above example: 7

where (P) denotes prototype (MI denotes model (NI i s the scale ratio. 1 :28.29

Torque(p) = N4 torque(^) Torquecp) = ( ~ 8 . 2 9 ) ~ 10.335)

= 214,574 ft-lb

A family of curves showing Auburn Dam prototype values of torque vs V12/2g was drawn, Figure 12. (Note: The torque shown on the chart. Figure 12, for vI2/zg = 3.112 i s slightly higher than that shown in the example due to the averaging of all data to produce the chart.)

9 0 8 0 LEAF PC

T = CT 03 AP T = Torque . F t . Lbs CT = Torque coefficient 0 = Upstream condui t d iameter ~p = Head drop across t h e l e a f .

I b s / s q . f t .

AP = ( v I 2 / 2 g ) ( l / c d 2 ) ( w ) V , = V e l o c i t y i n upstreom condui cd = C o e f f i c i e n t o f d i s c h a r g e w = S p e c l f ~ c weight of f l u i d

Figure 11. Torque coefficient-Leaf porition,degreer, 90' i s full open

2 Figure 12. protofype value, torque vs V1 /Zg. 15-footdiameter upstream penstock-13foor 4-inch

diameter downstream penrtock-l6foot &inch diameter leaf.

Using the CT curve, a fanlily of curves was drawn plotting torque vs AH where:

T = torque, h- lb CT = coefficient of torque

D = upstream pipe diameter (15 feet) AH = total head drop across the valve W = sp. weight of water-62.4 Iblcu fr

The results ot the computation are shown on Figure 13.

The maximum torque which could be expected at Auburn Dam was computed using the maximum reservoir head. 585 feet above the ralve centerline, and the penstock downstream from the valve flowing full. The computed valuer are shown as the limiting curve (dotted line) on Figu!;s 12 and 13.

12

.,. . ..

CONVERSIOR FACTORS-BRITISH TO METRIC UAITS OF ;\IEASUREblENT

The follov, ng ronrcrllcn ldstorr ao011:rd oy the B ~ r e l u 01 Redomalion are thore wbl.shed oy the Amerfcan bc:etv for Terl ng and 12arer;sir iASTM Metric Prart.oe Guide. E 380.581 except tnal addlriona lactorr i'i comrnany ~ r d an m e a - r e a ~ hare oezn aooed. F d h e r 0 rc.rr on of oef i . r onr 01 g~dnt'1:esand in8:s $5 g e n in the ASTM Metric Practice ,?tide.

The metric unitr m d mnvb:iion factors adopted Dy the ASTM are bared an the "International System of Units" (derignared 51 for Syrteme International d'Uniterl, fixed by the international Comminee for Weights and Measurer: thir ryrtem is alw, known at me Giorgi M MKSA (meter-kilogram Imsrrl-recond.amllerel ryrtcm. Thir rynem has been adopted by the International Organization for Standardmtion ill IS0 Resommendation R.31.

The metric technical unir of fwce ir the kilogram-force: thir ir the force which. when applied to a body hwing i mas 01 1 kg, gives i t an scceleration of 9.80665 m i~e l rec . the standard acceleration o f free fall ioward the earth's Center for sea level a t 45 deg latitude. The metric unit o f force in SI unitr is the newton (Ni. whish irdefinedas thai force whish, when applied to a body hhrinpa m a r of 1 kg, giver i t an acceleration 01 1 mireslvx. Thereunit5 mu* be distinguished from the iinconstantl local weight of a body having a mas of 1 kg. that is. theweight of a body is that force with which a body is altracted 10 the earth and is equal t o the mars of a body multiplied by the acceleration due t o gravity. Howwer. tecauoe i t ir general practice to ure "pounr rather than the technically correct term '~pound- far~. " the term "kilogram" lor derived marr unit) has been used in this guide inswad of "kilogram-farce" in e~pres ing the eonverrion factors for forces. The newton unit of force will find increasing "re. and is errential in 51 unirr.

Where ap~rorimats or naminal English unitr are used to exores s value or range of valuer. the converted (metric in parenihern are also appraxima:e or nominal. Where precise English units are used. the converted meIris

unilf are expressed rr equally significant valuer.

QUANTITIES AND UNITS OF SPACE

Multlply BY Toobtam

LENGTH

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 (exactiyl Micron

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,4(exoctlyI Millimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . incher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.54 iexscllyl' Cenlimererr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !; 30.48 lexmly l Csntimeterr

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.3048 iexsctiyl' Meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feer 0.0003048 (cxactiyl' Kilometerr

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9144 iexanlvl Meters .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milei (smt~te l . . . . . . . . . . 1.609.344 Ieexatlql' Mererr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.609344lexactlyl Kilometers

' AREA - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square inches 6.4516 (exactly1 Square centimeters

Square feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '929.03 Ssuare ccntimeterr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square feet 0.092903 Square meters

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Square yards . . . . . . . . . . . 0.836127 Square meters Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4MS9 Hectares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asrer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '4.048.9 Square meterr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asrer '0.0040469 Square kilometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Squrre miier . . . . . . . . . . . 2.58999 Square kilometers

VOLUME

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubic inches . . . . . . . . . . - 16.3871 Cubic centimeters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubic feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02631 58 Cubic meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cubic yards . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.764555 Cubic meters

Fluid ounces U S . )

. . . . Ouanr lU.S.1 Gallons IU.S.1 . . . . Gallcnr iUS.i . . . .

. . . . sa1ions (U.S.1 GallOnT (U.S.1 . . . .

. . . Gallons (U.K.i Gallons (U.K.1 . . .

. . . . . . Cubic feet Cubic yards . . . . . Acrefeet . . . . . . Acrefeet . . . . . .

. . . Cubicsentimeterr

. . . . . . . . Millilirerr

. . . . Cubic desimeterr

. . . . . . . . . . Liters

. . Cubic centimewm

. . . . . . . . . . Literr

. . . Cubic centimeters - . . . . Cubicdecimeters j/'

. . . . . . . . . . Liters ', . . . . . . Cubic meters

. . . . Cubic decimererr

. . . . . . . . . . Liters

. . . . . . . . . . Liters

. . . . . . . . . . Liters . . . . . . Cubicmeterr

. . . . . . . . . . Lite1.r

. . . . . . . . , x z g " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . p,~h",Dnbl,adruollc9 r" oxnuhi . . . . . . . . r;nauJ,lnbl.adrla,!, " ' " ' ..." " " '

>.tau aXn& radrdue!ll!yl ' ' . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' KESLOI. " ' ' . . ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' ,ooJa,cn&r@~u.!l(!W ' u " ~ , ! y " . ' " " " " " " " " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . miau y,",Jadra!ln,!,l!,, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

,a,au,drl.,.u!;,Iu.1B"~.uilO ' " " ' L991W.0 ' ' ' . " ' ' ' ' '

. a r s u a m n a i ~ l u s w n , . . " " . ' " . . ' p g l . o , ~ ~ I P W - L D O I ] w q a m ~ r a d r u a u n i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LEKm'O pYo s,ibu*! M t 9 0 ' 0 - - " " a~nu!w lad I ' S n i r u o ~ l ~ ~ . . . . ; a ~ w i , , ! " ~ * l ~ o , ! ~ . . . . . . . . . . I ! w a d = l o ~ puom ladl,a,!, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

./ibYWJJ W18aP i ! V W W j . . . . . . . . . . . . .,"U.W lad ,w, qqn3 .138raq>l 3aai6ap "!WW 10 m ! V 3 ' ' Anlnra 615 slrb'o ::::::: , . . puoUI,silrra,alu nenbs ' ' ' ' ' ' ' EOKZSGO. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' I hi!lox! nlDuol*,~la.lB,PCbS p ~ o ~ ~ ~ l d ~ ~ w a u l : ! q n ~ ' ' ' " " ' - - ' ' ' " ' " . . LIEBLO'O.

(*1°.J!1) LO., wsnm id ipumar-pmd i s m u a m b e lad pvmar u l e d o u ' ' ' ' ' ' ' b288P. " ' . .

~ P P ~ d m a l u a m n m ~ d r n ! i . . . . . . . . . . . maq . . . . l a d = ) ~ s p la0 ~ m j acnbr l s e 1-1 ~ 1 n 3 M6-W

. . . . . . . . . . . " ! D W 01 -, ,ads*llaN... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zP- lad la, z S11Nn ONV S 3 I l I J N V n D H 3 H I O

- I I33SNVHL 1V3H

-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z85SE'I ' ' " VPIUX lad .P""OClmd Inam . . . . . . . . . . . . . , LOE6r0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,noq lad rn8 nLM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oo('s*L . . " a r n d ~ m H

* S3MW

. . . . . . . . . . . . . a,"w . . . . . . . " . . . . z85scL. IpY"Od.,oD* ,* ralnor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !*,"exal !,zC'z . - ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' . Pmod lid ma

y,"T . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9U550'1 ' ' ' . ' i n m w n leuuaux w ! ~ , l , , 6 0 , n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZSL'O. " " . I"IBI n'un ~ o u m p v ! w a

.AgH3N3 ONV Y I l M h

u!mq" 01 A8 hld!ww

pa""!l"03-,, a w l

. . . . -.-. ....... : ....,.?... --- :- . . . . . . . . . . . . .I gq 01 Sanlen ~ ~ p a m q lo same& a41 101 pasodo~d uaaq seq us!& paplim-&e-lses A& v

\: . 1 3 V U S B V 13VHlSBV

.........................................................................................................................................................................

--. - . - , - DISCHARGE AND TORQUE CHARACTERISTICS. 198-INCH BUTFEUFLY VALVE. AUBURN D I~HARGE AND TORQUE CHARACTERISTICS. 198-INCH BUTTERFLY VALVE, AUBURN

DAM Bur Reclam Rep REC-ERC-73-8. Div Gen Res. May 1973. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver. Bur Reclam Rep REi-ERC-73-8. Div Gen Res. May 1973. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver,

13p. 13f ig

DESCRIPTORS-/ 'butterfly valves1 hydraulic turbines1 %ptimum design1 dosed con- DESCRIPTORS-I *butterfly :.alves/ hydraulic turbines1 'optimt:m design1 closed con- du i t r l *discharge coefficizntsl "aerodynamics1 *head losses1 'torque1 model tests1 model duitsl *discharge coeificients 'aerodynamics/ 'head losses1 'torque1 model tests1 model n ~ d i e s l lawratory tens1 test results1 pnstocksl hydraulics1 hydraulic machinery1 hydrau- studies1 laboratory tests1 test results1 penstacks1 hydraulics1 hydraulic machinew1 hydrau-

IDENTIFIERS-I converging sections IDENTIFIERS-I converging sections

- - Colgate. D DISrUARGF ANn TOROllF CHARACTERISTICS 198-INCH BUTTERFLY VALVE. AUBURN

Colgate. D DISCHARGE AND TORQUE CHARACTERISTICS. 198-INCH BUTTERFLY VALVE. AUBURN

DESCRIPTORS-/ 'butterfly ualvssl hydraulic turbines1 'optimum design1 clcsed m- DESCRIPTORS-/ 'butterflyvalves1 hydraulic turbines1 'optimum design1 closed con-

duits/ 'discharge coefficients 'aerodynamics1 'head losses1 *torque/ model tests1 mcdel duitS1 'discharge coe~cient*;\'aerodynamicsl 'head lmsesl 'tqrquel model tens1 model studies1 laboratory tests1 lest resrrltd penstack$/ hydraulics1 hydraulic machinevl hydrau- studies1 laboraton/ fens1 test results1 penstaksl hydraulics1 hydraulic machinery1 hydra"--,

lic design lic design IDENTIFIERS-I mnvzrging sections IDENTIFIERS-/ converging sections

.-.-~ L , . '