spillway design for whitney dam brazos river ...spillway design for weitney dam brazos river, texas...

M RC-WES-200-10-48

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION

SPILLWAY DESIGN FOR WHITNEY DAM

BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

MODEL INVESTIGATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 2-263

WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION

VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI

OCTOBER 1948 FiLE OPY

.RETllliN ?_'lfJ BEACH EROSION BOABO

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302 Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number

1. REPORT DATE OCT 1948 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-1948 to 00-00-1948

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Spillway Design for Whitney Dam, Brazos River, Texas: Model Investigation

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Waterway Experiment Station,3903 HallsFerry Road,Vicksburg,MS,39180

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

104

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a REPORT unclassified

b ABSTRACT unclassified

c THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

CONTENTS

SYNOPSIS

PART I: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART II : THE MODEL • . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . PART III: TESTS AND RESULTS . . .

Spillway Weir • . Conduits • • • • Stilling Basin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART IV: DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

TABLE 1

PHOTOGRAPHS 1-12

PLATES 1-58

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

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

1

5

9

9 12 14

24

SYNOPSIS

A model study of the spillway for Whitney Dam, Brazos River, Texas)

was conducted on a 1:30-scale section model to determine the performance

of the gated crest and the stilling basin. Particular emphasis was

placed on selection of a stilling basin which would operate satisfac-·

torily with taihrater depths insufficient for ideal performance of a

bucket-type basin and excessive for ideal performance of a conventional

hydraulic-junw type basin. Test results indicated that, while the spill-

way weir as originally designed functioned satisfactorily, the bucket-·

type energy dissipator was inadequate. Three alternate basin designs

were then investigated, incorporating an apron-type basin with two rows

of baffle piers and an end sill. Tests of these designs indicated that,

while tailwater conditions were slightly higher than required for ideal

basin performance, flow conditions in the basin and exit area were

superior to those observed vrith the bucket-type basin. The horizontal

apron-type stilling basin found most satisfactory from a hydraulic and

economic viewpoint, and designated type 3 design in this report) con-·

sisted of an apron 126 ft long, two rows of baffle piers 10 ft highy and

an end sill 10 ft high.

SPILLWAY DESIGN FOR WEITNEY DAM BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

Model Investigation

PART I: INTRODUCTION*

1. vThitney Dam, proposed for construction on the Brazos River ap-

proximately 38 miles upstream from Waco, Texas, and 81 miles southwest of

Dallas, Texas, will be one unit of

a thirteen-reservoir system for the

control of floods in the Brazos

River Valley, and the production of

hydroelectric power. Figure 1 is

a vicinity map of the area. The

project will involve construction

of a compacted earthen embankment

section, a concrete gravity-type

spillway, and two saddle dikes.

The dam will have an over-all length

. N E W

MEXICO

c 0

SCALE

'i:-._~~OM•U:S

KLArlOMA

Fig. 1. Vicinity map

of about 17,800 ft and will rise to a height of about 163 ft above the

river bed. The reservoir created by the dam will have a total storage

capacity of 2,017,500 acre-ft at the top-of-gate elevation. Of the total

storage capacity, 1,630,500 acre-ft are for flood control, 131,700 acre-

ft for povrer and 255,300 acre-ft for dead storage.

* Information on the prototype was obtained from the "Definite Project Report on Whitney Reservoir, Brazos River, Texas."

2

2. The spillway portion of the dam will be a gravity-type ogee

section, 824 ft in length, located in the main river channel adjacent to

the power intake structure (see plate 1). The spillway, with crest at

elevation 533*, is designed to pass a maximum discharge of 660,000 cfs

under a head of 40 ft; the maximum flood of record is 214,000 cfs. Dis-

charges over the spillway will be controlled by seventeen tainter gates,

each 40 ft wide and 38 ft high. The piers supporting the gates will be

9 ft thick, which will reduce the spillway from a gross length of 824 ft

to a net length of 680 ft. The profile of the spillway, designed for a

head of 40 ft, will follow the curve of X2 Y2 = 1 upstream from the 121 + 25

crest and Y ~ 0.023579Xl.B33 downstream from the crest. Sixteen con-

duits will be provided for passage of all normal flows of the river and

as a means of emptying the flood-control pool prior to the beginning of

the next flood season. Each conduit vill pass through the base of the

spillway directly below a crest pier and will have an invert elevation of

449, a width of 5 ft, and a height of 9 ft. Combined capacity of the con-

duits with the pool at spillway crest level (elev 533) is 42,200 cfs.

Details of the spillway and conduits are shown on plate 2.

3. The following data pertain to the structural and hydraulic

features of the spillway and stilling basin:

a. Structural

Length of spillway (gross) Length of spillway (net) Elevation of spillway crest Maximum height of spillway Number of crest gates (tainter)

---------------------------------------------* All elevations are in feet above mean sea level.

824 ft 680 ft 533.0 111 ft

17

3

Size of gates Elevation of top of gates Elevation of energy dissipator Number of conduits

40 ft wide by 38 ft high 571.0 422.0 16

Size of conduits 5 ft wide by 9 ft high

b. Hydraulic

Maximum spillway discharge Maximum head on spillway crest Maximum pool elevation Design head on crest Tailwater elevation (maximum discharge) Conduit discharge (pool at spillway

crest)

660,000 cfs 40 ft 573.0 40 ft 497.6

42,200 cfs

4. The powerhouse will be located inunediately downstream from and

adjacent to the nonoverflow section on the right of the spillway. Con-

tained in the structure will be two turbines and generating units with a

capacity of 17,250 kilovmtts each. There also will be a small station

service turbine and generating unit installed in the powerhouse. Two

steel penstocks 14.66 ft in diameter will supply water to the turbines.

5· Although the design of the Whitney Dam structures was based upon

sound theoretical design practice, it was desired to check by means of a

model study the adequacy .of the spillway, and select either a horizontal

apron or bucket-type basin to dissipate spillway and sluice di~charges.

The determining factor in the selection of the stilling basin was the

most economical use of the rock underlying the dam site. This rock, lo-

cated at elevation 422, will provide i11sufficient tailwater depth for the

satisfactory performance of a bucket-type basin and excessive tailwater

depths for a standard hydraulic-jump type basin. As a result of these

conditions, no predictions could be made as to the individual performance

of the two ty~es of energy dissipators. Therefore, selection of the most

satisfactory stilling-basin design was to be determined by experimentation.

4

Authority to undertake the model study was granted by the Chief of Engi-

neers in a teletype dated 7 September 1945 to the District Engineer,

Galveston District, CE, Galveston, Texas. The model study was conducted

at the Water~rays Experiment Station during the period April 1946 to April

1947.

6. During the course of the model study Messrs. M. A. Dillingham,

w. E. Wood, and M. J. Newman, of the Galveston District, and Mr. H. w.

Feldt of the Southwestern Division visited the Waterways Experiment Sta-

tion at frequent intervals in an advisory capacity. Engineers of the

Experiment Station actively connected with the model study were Messrs.

E. p, Fortson, Jr., F. R. Brown, T. E. Murphy, J, c. Goodrum, E. s.

Melsheimer, and J. H. Klinck.

PART II: THE MODEL

7. The model of the spillway of Whitney Dam was constructed to a

linear-scale ratio of 1:30 and reproduced 500 ft of the approach area,

5

one central gate bay plus adjacent half gate bays, a 98-ft-wide section

of the stilling basin and 600ft of the exit channel (figure 2). For

investigation of conduit discharges , three conduits were reproduced and

the width of the stilling-basin section increased from 98 ft to 147 ft

(figure 3). The model was contained in a reinforced concrete flume. A

glass panel was provided in the right wall of the flume in order to ob-

serve and photograph the subsurface action of the energy dissipator . That

portion of the model upstream from the spillway was molded in cement

mortar. The surfaces of the spillway and stilling basin were shaped,

Fig. 2 . General vie"Yr of model, type 1 bucket installed

6

for the most part, of cement mortar to templets mounted on a steel frame

set in concrete. Care was exercised to obtain the proper shape of all

surfaces and to make them as smooth as possible. A ~ection of the spill-

way 4 in. wide, containing the piezometers, was accurately machined of

brass in order to insure the exactness of the crest shape, and the

piezometers were set precisely at right angles to the surface. The gate

piers, apron, baffle piers, and end sill were modeled in wood and treated

with a waterproofing compound to prevent expansion . The tainter gates

were of machined-metal construction. Conduits through the spillway were

fabricated of sheet metal. That portion of the model below the spillway

was molded in sand . For veloci ty measurements the sand bed was rendered

immovable by the application of a thin coating of cement mortar.

8. Water used in operati on of the model was supplied by pumps with ~

measurement of quantity being made by venturi meters. Flow from the supply

lines spilled into a headbay where it •ras stilled by baffles prior to its

Fig. 3. Type l bucket

7

entrance into the model. After passing through the model the water flowed

through a return line to the storage sump. The tailwater elevation in the

downstream end of the model was controlled by means of an adjustable tail-

gate. Steel rails, set to grade along either side of the medely provided

a datum plane for the use of measuring devices. Water-surface elevations

were measured both by means of portable point gages (mounted on an alumi-

num beam supported by the steel rails) and by means of piezometers.

Velocities were measured by means of a pitot tube. Pressures over the

spillway were measured in manometers connected by tubes to piezometer

openings in the model. Soundings over the sand bed downstream from the

basin were procured by means of a portable sounding rod.

9. The accepted equations of hydraulic similitude) based upon the

Froudian relationships, were used to express the mathematical relation-

ships between the dimensions and hydraulic quantities of the model and

the prototype. The general relationships are presented in the following

table:

Dimension Scale Ratio

Length Lr = 1:30

Area Ar 2 1:900 = Lr =

Velocity Vr = L l/2 r = 1:5.477

Discharge Qr = L 5/2 r = 1:4929

10. Measurements in the model of discharges, water-surface eleva-

tions, velocities, and pressures (all positive pressures and negative

pressures corresponding to pressures above the cavitation range in the

prototype) may be transferred quantitatively from model to prototype by

means of the preceding scale relationships. Evidences of scour may be

8

considered only as qualitatively reliable since it has not yet been proven

possible to simulate quantitatively in a model the resistance to erosion

of a prototj~e bed material. Actual depths of scour in the prototype can

only be estimated from the magnitude and direction of bottom velocities

(which are quantitatively determinable).

PART III: TESTS .AND RESULTS

Spillway Weir

Description

11. As mentioned previously, the masonry profile of the spillway

weir was based on a design head of 40 ft. The upstream face of the weir

was joined to. the crest by an elliptical curve_with semi-major axis (X)

equal to 11 ft and semi-minor axis (Y) equal to 5 ft. Downstream from

9

the crest the masonry profile was based on the equation Y = 0.023579x1·&33

which became tangent to a 10 vertical on 7 horizontal face slope. The

profile conforms closely with Bazin's lower nappe curve for a sharp-

crested weir with vertical face under a head of 40 ft. The face slope

was joined to the stilling basin or bucket by means of a circular curve

with a radius of 50 ft. Crest piers, supporting the tainter gates, were

9 ft thick, and were semicircular in shape on the upstream end and square

on the downstream end. The gates were 40 ft wide, 38 ft high, and curved

on a radius of 38 ft; they were seated 10.75 ft downstream from the crest

of the spillway. No alterations vrere made to the spillway weir during

the model study.

Test results

12. Flow conditions. Satisfactory flow conditions obtained over

the spillway weir throughout the range in discharge. The contraction

effect of the gate piers was clearly noted, particularly at high dis-

charges where flow piled against the upstream nose of the piers and

caused an unevenness in the stirf'ace of the nappe between the piers and

10

Discharge 660,000 cfs

Discharge 660,000 cfs Discharge 250,000 cfs

Fig. 4. Flow over spillway weir

downstream therefrom (figure 4). Flm·r was marked by fluctuations which

are characteristic of discharges over structures of this type, and the 9-

ft-wide gate piers kept the jets separated throughout the greater part of

their descent toward the stilling basin .

13. \-leir calibration. Discharge over the spillway was computed by

the conventional weir formula :

Q == C(L - KNH)H3/2

where Q == discharge in cfs

C = coefficient of discharge which varies with relation between actual head and design head on weir

L = length of spillway crest (total length less pier widths)

K :::: a constant; the value of which depends upon the shape of the abutment and piers (assumed to be 0.02 for the computed coefficient curve and 0.015 for the coef-ficient curve based on model data)

N :::: the number of contractions, depending upon the number of crest piers

H = the total head on the spillway crest.

ll

Computations were based on a discharge coefficient 11 C11 which varied from

3.09 at zero head to 4.0 at the design head of 40 ft. The computed curve

indicates a discharge of 400,000 cfs with a pool at elevation 562.5 (29.5-

ft head) and a discharge of 660,000 cfs with a pool at elevation 573.0

(40-ft head). Similar discharges were passed in the model at pool eleva-

tions of 562.2 and 572.1, respectively. A plot of head-discharge rela-

tions, .both model and computed, is presented on plate 3. Also shown are

plots of coefficient values.

14. Gate calibration. Head-discharge relations determined for the

partial opening of one gate and various discharges are shown on plate 4.

The test data revealed that the discharge for one gate fully open with

the pool at elevation 571 (top of gates) was 35,200 cfs or 598,400 cfs

for seventeen gates computed on this basis. Computations indicated a

discharge of 35,800 cfs per gate with the pool at top of gate,s. For con-

ditions of partial opening where the pool elevation was such that the

spillway nappe just touched the gate lip, it was found that results varied

considerably, depending upon whether the pool was falling or rising. On

a falling pool the spillway nappe clung to the gate lip, res.ulting in

12

orifice-type flow. On a rising pool and at the same head the spillway

nappe did not impinge on the gate lip, resulting in free flow and an in-

creased discharge. As the pool continued to rise, however, the nappe

touched the gate lip, resulting in a sudden decrease in capacity. This

region of instability where the head and discharge are dependent upon a

rising or falling pool is shown as a shaded area on plate 4.

15. Water-surface and pressure profiles. water-surface and pres-

sure profiles were measured over the spillway for a complete range of

uncontrolled discharges from 660,000 cfs to 50,000 cfs. Pressures also

were recorded with the pool at elevation 571 and partial gate openings

varying from 1 ft to 24 ft. Typical plots of these data are shown on

plates 5-9 and in table 1. For uncontrolled overflow a negative pressure

of -0.5 ft of water was measured at piezometer 9 for the inaximum discharge

of 660,000 cfs; all otlllir pressures were positive. For conditions of

partial gate opening, a maximum negative pressure equivalent to -2.3 ft

of water was recorded at piezometer 9 for gate openings of 12, 15, and

18 ft.

Conduits

Description

16. To provide control of flood releases at low pool levels, six-

teen conduits will be located through the spillway directly below each

crest pier. The conduits will be 5 ft \¥ide by 9 ft high and are designed

to discharge a combined flow of approximately 42,200 cfs with reservoir

pool at the spillway crest, elevation 533.0. Plate 11 shows detailed di-

mensions. The entrance curves of the top, bottom and sides of the conduit

13

were shaped to the elliptical curve of X 2 y 2

(-) + (-) = 1 to insure 5 1.5 maximum efficiency and to help prevent cavitation. To further aid in

the prevention of cavitation, the roofs of the conduits near the exits

were depressed and the exit area reduced about 11 per cent in area to 40

sq ft or a section 8.9 ft wide by 4.5 ft high. Flow through the conduits

will be controlled by hydraulically-operated slide gates. Where the

conduits emerge in the basin the side walls will be flared to permitthe

outflowing stream to spread, thus lessening its "jetting" through the

tailwater.

Test results

17. Flmr conditions. Flow conditions at the conduit intakes,

through the conduits, and at the exit portals appeared satisfactory for

all conditions of discharge. Flow conditions as they affect stilling-

basin performance are discussed in later paragraphs.

18. Conduit calibration, The conduits were calibrated for various

discharge and tailwater conditions. Initial tests, the results of which

are shown on plate 10, were conducted without tailwater over the exit

portals. As shown on the referenced plate, model and computed results

lvere in close agreement. At the top-of-gate elevation the computed curve

indicates a discharge of 50,000 cfs through sixteen conduits whereas

model results indicated a discharge of about 48,000 cfs. However, the

use of tailwater (plate 12) set in accordance with the flovr being passed

through the conduits resulted in a steadily increasing divergence between

computed and model calibration values, Calibration data procured ~ith

the bucket-type energy dissipater in place and tailwater depths set in

accordance with the discharge are tabulated below:

14

Discharge cfs

5,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 36,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Number of Conduits

2 8

12 12 12 16 16 16

Pool Elevation Computed Model

523.5 ft 526.70 ft 523.5 ft 528.95 ft 479.7 ft 480.68 ft 523.5 ft 529.25 ft 560.5 ft 570.50 ft 488.0 ft 493-30 ft 523.5 ft 533.75 ft 570.8 .t:o.J.. l.v 587.30 ft

Tail water Elevation

431.40 ft 438.35 ft 438.35 ft 442.28 ft 444.40 ft 442.28 ft 445.60 ft 448.35 ft

19. Pressures. Measurements of pressures throughout one of the

conduits for various discharges revealed that, with the exception of a

discharge of 1,500 cfs, pressures throughout the conduit were positive.

At a discharge of 1,500 cfs a negative pressure of -5.0 ft was recorded

at the conduit int~ke (piezometer 1) and -6.5 ft on the top of the con-

duit (piezometer 6). Actual pressure measurements and piezometer location

at which they were procured are shown on plate 11. For these tests the

tailwater was lowered until the exit portals were free, thus preventing

any backwater effect of taillvater and reduction of discharge.

Stilling Basin

20. Plate 13 presents details of all energy dissipaters investi-

gated during the course of the model study. As previously explained, all

basins were located at elevatidn 422 to take advantage of natural founda-

tion conditions at that level. With the stilling basin located at this

elevation, however, tailwater depths, for the most part, were in excess

of those required for the dissipation of energy by means of·a hydraulic

jump, Plate 12 shows the estimated present tailwater depth at the dam

site, tpgether with the theoretical depth required for the formation of a

hydraulic jump with various combinations of gates in operation.

15

21. Complete investigation of each type stilling basin involved

study of spillway and conduit discharges and their effects on basin per-

formance. Since conduit discharges will occur the greatest percentage

of the time, considerable emphasis was placed on these flows in the se-

lection of a stilling-basin design.

Description -- type l bucket

22. Since tailwater depths for spillway flows were excessive for

the design of a hydraulic-jump basin, the energy dissipater originally

proposed was of the bucket type (figure 3). The bucket had a radius of

curvature of 50 ft, an invert elevation of 422, lip height of 14.6 ft,

and lip slope of l on l. For all tests the bed of the exit area was

molded to elevation 430.

Test results -- type l bucket (spillway discharge)

23. Flow conditions in the type l bucket under spillway discharges

are presented on photograph 1, vrhile -vrater-surface profiles, subsurface

currents, bottom velocities and scour patterns for various discharge con-

ditions are presented on plates 14-18. Data presented are discussed

briefly in the following paragraphs,

24. Observation of flow conditions in the bucket of original

design revealed that the action was typical of a bucket-type energy

dissipater in that a large standing vravewas formed above the bucket lip

with an elliptical surface roller above the bucket and a ground roller

downstream therefrom. The standing wave over the bucket lip was violent

and unstable at high discharges, but under no conditions could the jet

be forced by artificial means or unbalanced gate operation to dive

16

beneath the tailwater and remain along the bed of the channel. At low

discharges bucket action was good; the standing wave was smaller, more

stable and less violent. Measurement of water-surface profiles indicated

that at the maximum discharge of 660,000 cfs there was a difference in

the water-surface elevation over the bucket and the top of the standing

wave of about 30 ft; this difference was reduced to about 8 ft at a dis-

charge of 50,000 cfs.

25. From an inspection of velocity distribution in the bucket, it

would appear at first as though no energy dissipation took place, since

the flow entered the bucket and was diverted at about the same velocity

(maximum velocities were in the range of 75ft per sec). Actually, how-

ever, the high-velocity flow was divided into two parts by the bucket lip,

one part forming the surface roller and the other the gro1xnd roller. Evi-

dence of such dissipation with the surface roller and ground roller was

provided by the excessive turbulence in the bucket, and by the reduction

in bottom velocities downstream from the bucket. The maximum bottom ve-

locities occurred at a discharge of 660,000 cfs and were 30and25 ft per

sec in the ground roller and downstream therefrom. These data also re-

vealed that for discharges of 660,000 and 50,000 cfs, the downstream

limits of the ground rollers were about 120 and 20 ft, respectively,

downstream from the lip of the bucket.

26. Scour data procured indicated excessive erosion about 100 ft

downstream from the bucket at high flows. For discharges of 660,000 and

450,000 cfs the concrete bed of the model located at elevation 385 was

exposed, indicating a scour depth of 45 ft. At lower discharges the

amount of erosion was decreased. At all discharges the ground roller

17

created dovmstream from the bucket kept material banked against the lip

of the bucket. In analyzing scour data, it is desired to emphasize that

the scour patterns presented indicate the location of the scouring attack

rather than its magnitude; the magnitude of scour should be analyzed in

view of the bottom velocities and resistance to erosion of prototype bed

material. The scour data also form the basis for comparison of the

stilling effect of the various model basins.

Test results -- type 1 bucket (conduit discharge)

27. Observation of flow conditions in the bucket with conduit

discharge and pool elevation at tap of gates revealed that spray con-

ditions existed unless the tailwater was set to simulate the flow from

sixteen conduits (photograph 2). For low pool elevations flow was con-

fined to the bucket. In the analysis of test results of the type 1

bucket and all other energy dissipaters described in succeeding paragraphs

serious consideration should be given to basin performance under conduit

flow, since the basin will be subjected to these flows the greatest per-

centage of the time.

28. Water-surface profiles, velocities, and scour data procured

for conduit discharges are presented on plates 19-26. The water-surface

profiles indicated the existence of spray conditions at high pool levels,

as shown by the photographs. Velocity and scour data revealed that when

spray conditions existed velocities and erosion in the exit area were

increased considerably. For a discharge of 30,000 cfs through twelve

conduits and a pool elevation of 529.25, it was possible for spray or

roller action conditions to exist_, depending upon whether the pool was

18

rising or falling. Data procured under both conditions of bucket action

revealed that velocities were increased from 3 ft per sec under conditions

of roller action to as much as 28 ft per sec under spray conditions.

Description -- type l apron

29. Since flow conditions with the bucket-type basin were inadequate

for high spillway discharges and unsatisfactory for low conduit discharges

at high pool levels, attempts were made to effect improvements by use of

an apron-type stilling basin (plate 13). Although the apron "i·Tas below the

theoretical elevation required for hydraulic-jump formation, it was

planned to dissipate the energy of flow from the spillway and conduits by

roller action abetted by baffle piers and an end sill. The type 1 apron

design consisted of a horizontal apron 200 ft in length at elevation 422,

tvro rows of baffle piers 10 ft high and a 10-ft stepped sill.

Test results -- type 1 apron (spillway discharge)

30. Flow conditions for discharges of 660,000, 250,000, and 50,000

cfs over the spillway are shown by photograp~ 3. Due to the limited

length of the glass panel, only action over the apron between the toe of

the spillway and the downstream row of baffle piers is shown. However,

water-surface profiles and subsurface currents presented on plates 27-29

indicate excellent stilling-basin performance. As planned, the baffle

piers and end sill served to deflect all bottom currents away from the

bed of the exit area. This method of energy dissipation resulted in

the deflected currents being spread over a large portion of the basin

instead of being concentrated in the form of a high vrave as was the case

with the bucket-type basin. Impact of flow on baffle piers or end sill

19

did not appear excessive,

31. Examination of the velocity data shovm reveals the effective-

ness of the type 1 apron in reducing velocity of flow at all discharges.

The highest velocity measured in the exit area at the maximum discharge

of 660,000 cfs was 8.5 ft per sec, For discharges of 250,000 and 50,000

cfs the highest velocities measured were 5.5 ft per sec and 1.0 ft per

sec, respectively. A comparison of these velocities with those of the

type 1 bucket (plates 14, 16, 18), where velocities of 30, 18, and 3ft

per sec were recorded for similar discharges, clearly indicates the

superiority of the apron-type basin.

32. Scour data were in agreement with velocity data in that

little erosion of the model bed occurred. At the maximum discharge of

660,000 cfs the greatest depth of erosion recorded was 14 ft as com-

pared to 45 ft recorded below the type 1 bucket. For discharges of

250,000 and 50,000 cfs scour was negligible, ranging in depth from 2 ft

to zero, respectively.

Test results -- type 1 apron (conduit discharge)

33. Observation of flow conditions in the type 1 apron design with

conduit discharges (photographs 4 and 5) revealed satisfactory performance

for all conditions of discharge and combinations of conduits in operation.

For the most part, all energy was dissipated by the time the jets issuing

from the conduits had reached the vicinity of the baffle piers.

34. Water-surface profiles, velocities, arid scour measurements are

shovm on plates 30-34. It is to "be noted from these data that conditions

in the exit area were more critical than with spillway discharges. The

20

maximum velocity recorded was 10.5 ft per sec with three conduits in

operation.

Description -- type 2 apron

35. Although the performance of the type 1 apron w-as very satis-

factory in the dissipation of spillway and conduit discharges, it was be-

lieved that a reduction in apron length would permit comparable basin

performance and at the same time effect economies in construction. There-

fore, the type 1 apron was reduced in length from 200 to 146 ft and

designated the type 2 apron. The baffle piers and end sill also were

moved upstream by the decrease in apron length. Plate 13 presents details

of the type 2 apron design.

Test results -- type 2 apron (spillvTay discharge)

36. Flow conditions existing over the type 2 apron for discharges

of 660,000, 250,000, and 50,000 cfs are shown on photograph 6. Observa-

tions indicated equal, if not more satisfactory, performance than was

noted with the type 1 apron installed. Location of the baffle piers

nearer the toe of the spillway resulted in more deflection of flow away

from the bed of the exit area.

37. Water-surface profiles, velocity, and scour data for various

discharges are presented on plates 35-37. Comparison of these data with

those procured with the type l apron shows a decided similarity. Although

the shorter apron resulted in a slightly higher water-surface elevation

over the end sill, the maximum bottom velocity recorded at the maximum

discharge ·was 7 ft per sec as compared to 8 ft per sec recorded below the

type l apron. Erosion tests indicated that the type 2 apr~n afforded

21

about the same degree of protection as the type 1 apron, although slight-

ly more material was deposited behind the end sill with the type 1 apron

installed.

Test results -- type 2 apron (conduit discharge)

38. Flow conditions, water-surface profiles, velocity and scour

data with conduit discharges are shown on photographs 7 and 8 and plates

38-42. These data indicate results somewhat comparable to those observed

below the type 1 apron when subjected to similar conditions. Velocities

below the type 2 basin tended to be 1 to 2 ft per sec greater and about

2 ft more erosion of the model bed occurred.

Description -- type 3 apron

39. In an attempt to further reduce the length of the apron-type

basin, the type 3 apron design was evolved. The design was similar to

the type 2 apron with the exception that the length was reduced about 20

ft and the basin elements rearranged. Tests included study of the ef-

fectiveness of different size baffle piers and end sills in dissipating

energy of spillway flow; the baffle piers also were removed from the

apron to determine their effect on basin performance.

Test results -- type 3 apron (spilhmy discharge)

40. Flow conditions for discharges of 660,000, 250,000, and 50,000

cfs over the spillway are shown on photograph 9. Observations indicated

that basin performance with the shortened apron of type 3 design was

equally as efficient as the performance of types 1 and 2 designs. Also

it was observed that a reduction in the height of the baffle piers and

22

end sill from 10 ft to 6 ft did not have any appreciable effec.t (photo-

graphs 9 and 10), Moving the baffle piers upstream resulted in a more

effective use of the piers in deflecting bottom currents away from the

exit area (plates 43-45). With the baffle piers eliminated entirely,

flow was deflected from the bed of the exit channel by the end sill.

Photograph 10 shows flow conditions with the baffle piers omitted for t1-ro

end-sill heights and an intermediate discharge.

41. CoJl!.parison of the velocity data shovm on plates 43-45 with

similar ,data obtained with other basin designs installed reveals that all

basins of the apron ty~e investigated afforded about the same degree of

protection. The highest velocity measured in the area downstream from ·

the end sill vras 7 ft per sec in an upstream direction at the maximum

discharge of 660,000 cfs. No velocity measurements were made vPith the

type 3 basin and baffle piers and end sill reduced in height to 8 and 6

ft or eliminated entirely. Study of the effect of reducing the height of

baffle piers and end sill should be predicated upon the scour results

presented in the following paragraphs.

42. Results of erosion tests (plates 43-53) indicated that at the

maximum discharge scour was less than observed previously with the longer

basins. This is attributed to the greater effect of the baffle piers in

their upstream position on the dissipation of spillway flows. For lower

discharges the amount of scour was about the same as observed with pre-

vious apron designs. As the height of the baffle piers and end sill was

reduced the amount of erosion progressively increased. Elimination of

the baffle piers entirely, however, resulted in less scour than was ob-

served below the bucket-type energy dissipater.

23

Test results - - type 3 apron (condui t di schar ge)

43 . Observation of flm.; conditions in the type 3 apron design with

conduit discharges revealed that, as

in previous instances, di ssipation

of conduit flo~r ~ras more critical

than spillway flovr. Fl ow- condi t i ons

for various discharges and combina-

tions of conduits in operation are

show~ on photographs 11 and 12 and

on figure 5. The photographs indi-

cate that for conditions of one con-Fig. 5. Type 3 apron

dui t in operation the baffl e piers 1 conduit, dischar ge 3,000 cfs

in the upstream rovr are subject to impact. Hm·rever , for all condit ions

flow was confined to the basin and no spray action resulted as was the

case with the bucket- type energy dissipator.

44. Water- sur face profiles, vel ocity and scour measurements are

shown on plates 54- 58. The maximum velocity recorded was 13.5 f t per

sec for conditions of one condui t discharging 3,000 cfs . Vel ociti es and

scour conditions ,.,ere about the same wi th one conduit in operation or

with three ad jacent conduit s dischar gi ng 9,000 cfs .

24

PART IV: DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

45. From the test results described in preceding paragraphs it

will be noted that the model indicated the desirability of revising the

stilling-basin design while confirming the adequacy of the original spill-

way weir. The spillway demonstrated by model tests to operate most satis-

factorily consisted of an agee-type weir with a gross crest length of 824

ft at elevation 533, and a stilling basin with ~ horizontal apron 126 ft

long at elevation 422, two rows of baffle piers and a stepped end sill

each 10 ft high.

46. Flow over the ogee-t·ype spillway section of original design

appeared to be satisfactory for all conditions of free and controlled

overflow. The spillway rating curve, as determined in the model, indi-

cated that more flow could be passed at high pool stages than was expected

from computations. At the maximum discharge of 660,000 cfs the pool ele-

vation in the model for conditions of free overflow· was 572.1 as compared

to the computed elevation 573.0. Pressures over the weir surface were for

the most part positive. For conditions of maximum flow a negative pres-

sure of .• o. 5 ft of water 1-ras recorded at one point and for conditions of

large partial gate openings a negative pressure of -2.3 ft was recorded.

These negative pressures are not excessive, however, and should cause no

concern.

47. Tests of the stilling basin demonstrated the superiority of the

horizontal apron-t;y"""Pe energy dissipater over the bucket type, especially

for the dissipation of conduit flow. With the bucket-type energy dissi-

pater installed, it was observe~ that spray action resulted for most

25

conditions of conduit flolv. Similar conditions of conduit flow into the

horizontal apron-type basin caused all flm.r to be dissipated -vlithin the

basin proper. Conditions in the apron-type basin were most critical for

one or three adjacent conduits operating, in that energy dissipation was

accomplished in part by impact on the upstream row of baffle piers. How-

ever, the baffle piers were cushioned somewhat by the overlying taihrater

and no damage should result. Bottom velocities recorded in the exit chan-

nel did not exceed 13 ft per sec. Although for spillway discharges the

bucket-type energy dissipater operated as planned, energy dissipation was

not as corqplete as with the horizontal apron-ty-pe basin installed. Flow

conditions over the bucket and in the exit area also were violent and

marked by high waves. For maximum discharge conditions bottom velocities

in the exit channel, although upstream in direction, reached a magnitude

of 30 ft per sec. For similar discharge conditions, a maximum bottom ve-

locity of 7 ft per sec was recorded below the apron-type basin (type 3). I

Whether economies to be effected by construction of the bucket-type energy

dissipater 1-rill offset the greater protection to be secured through use

of an apron-type basin is not known.

48. The various tests on the apron-type basin demonstrated that it

was possible to shorten the apron of initial design by 74 ft without re-

ducing its efficiency in the dissipation of either spillway or conduit

flows. With the shortened apron, the 10-ft baffle piers and end sill were

rearranged to more fully utilize the baffle piers in stabilizing the po-

sition of the hydraulic jump. The tests also indicated that satisfactory

basin performance could be obtained with baffle piers and end sill as low

as 6 ft in height; fair performance was obtained with the baffle piers

26

removed from the apron entirely. However, it was observed for conditions

of tailwater slightly above normal that spillway flow had a tendency to

submerge and attack the bed of the exit channel. Therefore, it is recom-

mended that baffle pier and end sill heights on the type 3 apron be at

least 8 ft and preferably 10 ft for completely satisfactory basin per-

formance. Although all tests were conducted 1-rith stepped-type baffle

piers and end sill, it is believed that vertical-faced piers or end sill

would function equally well.

TABLES

24-Ft Opening

Piez. Piez. Discharge = 27,300 cfs No. Zero Pool Elev = 571.0

Piez. Pressure Reading

1 528~0 565.5 37.5

2 530.0 557.0 27.0

3 531.5 557.3 25.8

4 532.5 555.8 23.3

5 533.0 551.6 18.6

6 532.5 545.8 13.3

7 530.5 536.7 6.2

8 527.0 531.1 4.1

9 521.0 519.9 -1.1

10 513.0 513.6 0.6

11 504.0 505.3 1.3

12 491.0 491.1 0.1

13 476.0 481.3 5.3

14 460.0- 466.0 6.0

15 445•0 464.2 19.2

Discharges based· on flow through one gate. Pressures shown in prototype feet of water. Piezometer locations shown on plate 5.

~

CRZST PRESSURES FOR PARTIAL GATE OPENINGS

18-Ft Opening 15-Ft Opening 12-Ft Opening 9-Ft Opening

Discharge = 21,000 ofs Discharge = 18,000 ofs Discharge = 14,000 cfs Discharge = 10,550 cfs Pool Elev = 571.0 Pool Elev = 571.0 Pool Elev = 571.0 Pool Elev = 571.0

Piez, Pressure Piez. Pressure Piez. Pressure Piez. Pressure Reading Reading Reading Reading

568.0 40.0 569.4 41.4 570.1 42.1 571.0 43.0

562.5 32.5 564.9 34.9 567 •. 1 37.1 569.6 39.6

562.5 31.0 564.8 33.3 566.9 35.4 569.0 37.5

560.5 28.0 562.8 30.3 565.4 32.9 568.0 35.5

556.3 23.3 558.7 25.7 561.4 28.4 564.8 31.8

548.6 16.1 550.2 17.7 552.3 19.8 . 555.8 23.3 535.8 5.3 535.3 4.8 534.5 4.0 553.7 23.2

529.2 2.2 528.6 1.6 527.9 0.9 527.4 0.4

518.7 -2;3 518.7 -2.3 518.7 -2.3 518.9 -2.1

513.4 0.4 513.1 ·o.l 513.0 o.o 513.1 0.1

504.7 0.7 504.4 0.4 504.2 0.2 504.3 0.3

491.0 o.o· 490.3 -0.7 490.7 -0,3 490.4 -0.6

481.0 5.0 480,0 4.0 479.7 3.7 479.2 3.2 '

465.5 5.5 464.7 4.7 464.0 4.0 463.8 3.8

461.3 16.3 460.0 15.0 458.3 13.3 455.8 10.8

6-Ft Opening

Discharge = 6,930 cfs J>iez. Piez, Pool Elev ~ 571,0 No. Zero

Piez. J>ressure Reading

1 52S.O 571.5 43.5

2 530,0 570.5 40.5

3 531.5 570.5 39.0

4 532.5 570.0 37.5

5 533.0 56S.5 35.5

6 532,5 561.0 28.5

7 530.5 532,0 1.5

s 527.0 527.0 0,0

9 521.0 519.2 -l.S

10 513.0 513.0 \ o.o

ll 504.0 504.1 0,1

12 491.0 4q0,3 -0.7

13 476.0 477.8 1.8

l4 460.0 462.8 2.8

15 1.45.0 452,0 7.0

Discharges based on f1'J?J through one gnte. Pressures shown in nr0totyre feet, r>f wnter. Piezometer l'lcBt~r>ns shr>wn on plate 5.

TABLE l (Continued)

CREST ~SSURES FOR PARTIAL GATE OPENINGR

4-Ft Openi,ng 3-Ft Opening

Discharge = 4,700 cfs Discharge = 3,500 cfs Pool Elev = 571.0 Pool Elev = 571,0

Piez, PrelSsure Piez. Pressure Readi,ng Reading

571.9 43.9 571.9 43.9

571.2 41.2 571.4 41.4

571,0 39.5 571.3 39.S

570,9 3S,4 571.2 3S.7

570,3 37.3 571.1 38.1

565,S 33.3 568.2 35.7

531.2 0.7 530,6 0,1

527.6 0,6 527.3 0.3

519.9 -1.1 520,0 -1.0

513.3 0,3 513.4 0.4

504.6 0,6 504.5 0,5

490.7 .O,J 490.8 -0.2

477.8 1.8 477.5 "

1.5

462.6 2.6 462.4 2.4

!,50.1 5.1 449.1 4.1

2-Ft Opening 1-Ft Opening

Discharge = 2,400 c:t;'s Discharge = 1,400 cfs Pool Elev = 571,0 Pool Elev = 571.0

Piez, Pressure Piez, Pressure Reading Readi,ng

572.1 44.1 572.1 44.1

571.9 41.9 572.0 42.0

571.9 40.4 572.0 40.5 -571.9 39.4 572.0 39.5

57l.S 3S.S 572.0 39.0

570,6 38.1 571.7 39.2

530.2 -0.3 530.4 -0.1

527.3 0.3 527.6 0,6

520.4 -0.6 521.0 o.o

513.3 0,3 513.5 0,5

504.6 0,6 504,6 0.6

400,9 -0,1 491.2 0.2

477.0 1.0 476.8 0,8

462.0 2.0 461.8 1.8

448.2 3.2 447.0 2.0

PHOTOGRAPHS

Discharge 660,000 cfs; TW elev 497.6; pool elev 572.12

Discharge 250,000 cfs; ~f elev 475.4; pool elev 555.03


PHOTOGRAPH 1. Flow canditions - - type 1 bucket and various spillway discharges

16 conduits Discharge 50,000 cfs; tailwater elev 448.3

Pool elev 587.30


Pool elev 529.25

12 conduits Discharge 36,000 c""'s; tailwater e·lev 444.4

Pool ~lev 570.50


Pool elev 528.95

PHOTOGRAPH 2. Flow conditions -- type l bucket and various conduit discharges


Discharge 250 ,000 cfs; TW elev 475.4; pool elev 555.03


PHOTOGRAPH 3. Flow conditions -- type 1 apron and various spillway 4ischarges

16 conduits Discharge 46,400 cfs; TW elev 448.0; pool elev 571.0


8 conduits Discharge 20,000 cfs; TW elev 438.4; pool elev 528 . 9

PHOTOGRAPH 4. Flow conditions -- type 1 apron and various conduit discharges

3 conduits Discharge 9,000 cfs; TW controlled by end sill

Pool elev 571.0

1 conduit Discharge 3,000 cfs; TW controlled by end sill

Pool elev 571.0



Discharge 250,000 cfs; TW clev 475.4; pool clev 555.03


PHOTOGRAPH 6. Flow conditions -- type 2 apron and various spillway discharges

3 conduits Discharge 9,000 cf's; TW controlled by end sill

Pool elev 571.0

1 conduit Discharge 3 ,000 cf's; TW controlled by end sill

Pool elev 571.0

PHOTOGRAPH 8. Flow conditions - - type 2 apron and various conduit discharges




PHOTOGRAPH 9. Flow conditions - - type 3 apron and various spillway discharges

6-ft end sill and baffles Discharge 660,000 cfs; TW elev 497.6; pool elev 572.12

8-ft end sill, no baffles Discharge 250,000 cfs; TW elev 475.4; pool elev 555.03

6-ft end sill, no baffles Discharge 250,000 cfs; TW elev 475.4; pool elev 555. 03

PHOTOGRAPH 10. Flow conditions -- type 3 apron with and without baffle piers , with end-sill height varied, and with

various spillway discharges

3 conduits Discharge 9,000 cf s; TW controlled by end s ill

Pool elev 571.0

1 conduit Discharge 3,000 cfs; TW controlled by end sil.l

Pool elev 571.0


PLATES

PLAN

EXISTING OROUNb AT AY.IS Of o .. ~~~~Ti~~!i ::'::'::0"=""::'-"'~-J

TO:~=~ :~:: =~ :::: :: ~"·--==-=~=,~~~~

DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION

NON-CVERF"!..OW

MODEL STUDY OF SPILLWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

SPILLWAY PLAN AND ELEVATION

TYPE I APRON -ORIGINAL DESIGN

I· AXIS OF DAM AXIS OF SPILLWAY

CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY

-· f----'2,.,.3.,3,__' -

MAXIMUM POOL 1 ==_~E~L§E=V.~. _5::o7~3~.0~~==l ~ L TOP OF GATES ELEV. 571.0

SPILLWAY CREST ELEV. 533.0

i '~,380, CENTERLINE OF TRUNNION l ELEV. 544.0 ' ... 4083' ~ ELEV. 531.25 P.T. ELEV. 528.0 ~ · ~

i2i+25= I . ·~ . ~

-~ 567 1 • ~

X" Y2 .-~: A.· 50.8' ~· -Y=0023579X 1833

' • - ~- . A

-~

"' 6~.85' .o , '-~ ~ MAXIMUM TAILWATER

ELEV. 497.6

FLOW A

... 4

4 .• \ P.T. ELEV. 481.16

4 • ft- .• ·• ~~71

.• .. - •. 10 .8730'. ;/

" INVERT ELEV. 449.0 P.C.

.. ELEV. 417.0

128.16'

169.58'

TYPICAL SPILLWAY SECTION

SCALE

2t!?--..::.I:::JM-=Oill--lllllli2t:0====4=-0---~~~~6pFT.

ELEV. 472.0

ELE~ 4300

MODEL STUDY OF SPILLWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM

PLATE 2

CONDUIT IS LOCATED ALONG CENTERLINE OF PIER. BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

SPILLWAY AND BUCKET

ORIGINAL DESIGN

574

572 / ~~ 570

568

566

564

562

560

558

556 ...1 ., ::l1

/ ';/ ,/ /

/ ~ / ~~~

'

I .. -

--

GAT£ OPENING IN FEET

I' 2'1 3'' 4' I J ,1 I .21' v 24~ .?/ l-:::: ~--::---: ' ,I ' fl r-------:;· /f ~ 1 ll I I ,' Y' I I -~ I I . .-~ ~=--555

I l v J:~ ~ / / RATING CURVE GAT£ OPENED FULL " n I I ON FLOW 'THROtJ_GH ON£ BAY 560 j I l I ~:J ~~ :...--I ': P' 555 I

I

L ~~ f v ,.___~ODEL RATING CURVE- GATES OPENED IFULL I BASED ON FLOW THROUGH THREE BAYS 550

;/ I J--v '

EQUATIONS

545 x2 y2

'~')v / UPSTREAM FROM CREST 121 + zs= 1

LEGEND DOWNSTREAM FROM CREST Y=.023579XI.833

- ' --- GATE OPENING CURVES BASED ON 540

jY FLOW THROUGH I BAY. GATE OPENING CURVES BASED ON FLOW THROUGH 3 BAYS. 535

~ ac;,;,~ "'' T'""" ·T"' 30 35 40 MODEL STUDY OF SPILLWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM 530

0 5 10 15 20 25 RA B ZOS RIVER TEX AS

NOTE: GATE OPENING IS THE VERTICAL DISTANCE IN FEET BETWEEN.THE GATE LIP AND THE GATE 'sEAT.

SHADED AREAS INDICATE DISCHARGE RANGE IN WHICH POOL ELEVATION IS DEPENDENT UPON A RISING OR FALLING RESERVOIR.

DISCHARGE IN 1000 C.F.S.

RATING CURVE FOR ONE GATE ORIGINAL DESIGN

580

'"

560

555

'"

_j

.J IU .J IU

5&0

580

570

\ 1-560 . ...._ LEGEND

550 ~ 1\ ----WATER-SURFACE

f---f----+-!IIH++--+----l--~~c----IH'-c---1-l---f----f---l -------PRESSURE PROFILE 1------11---1

"' -540 530

520

510

500

490

480

470

460

450

440

430

420 40 30 20

PIEZ NO.

I

2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9

10 II 12 13 14 15

u.l,.,.,.,,_ ..... _ .......... ,.·.··:·:·:··.·.·.· .. ,.,.

\ \ , /

\

:·/ • .v ..

;. ·/ v

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM

PIEZ PIEZ PRESSURE ZERO READING

528.0 552.5 24.5 53.0.0 531.5 1.5 531.5 53Q.5 8.0 532.5 540.5 s.o 5330 539.0 6.0 532.5 536.5 40 530.5 532.5 2.0 527.0 530.5 3.5 521.0 520.5 -0.5 513.0 515.0 20 504.0 505.0 1.0 491.0 492.0· 1.0 476.0 492.0 16.0 460.0 492.5 32.5 445.0 504.5 59.5

PRESSURE DATA

NOTE: PRESSURES ARE RECORDED IN FEET OF WATER IN PROTOTYPE TO THE NEAREST 0.5 FOOT


WATER-SURFACE AND PRESSURE PROFILES

DISCHARGE POOL ELEV TAILWATER

660,000 CFS 572.12 497.60

PLATE 5

590

580

5 70 )~

\ -560 ----...:.:: 1\ LEGEND 550

~ I\ ----WATER-SURFACE J-----j----t-fi1tt+t,'---f----1"""~--ir-,.f--+-\~=±-=---.J---4---J --- ---- PRESSURE PROFILE f-------jl-----1

...... , '--"'-540

530

_J 520

"' ::; >-w w 51{) "-!;

z 0 500

~ > w _J 490 w

480

470 -

460

450

440

430

420 40 30

PLATE 6

.v

••• f

•••••• < •

20 10 0

PIEZ PIEZ PIEZ NO ZERO READING

I 528.0 553.5 2 530.0 540.0 3 531.5 544.5 4 532.5 544.5 5 53 3D

I

542.5 6 532.5 540.0 7 5305 535.0 6 527.0 532.0 9 521.0 522.0

10 513.0 515.5 II 504.0 505.5 12 491.0 491.0 13 4 76.0. 483.0 14 460.0 479.5 15 445.0 466.5

.V

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF. DAM

PRESSURE

25.5 10.0 13.0 12.0 9.5 75 45 5.0 1.0 25 1.5 0.0 7.0

19.5_ '• 41.5




PRESSURE DATA DISCHARGE POOL ELEV TAILWATER ELEV

450,000 CFS 564.19 488.20

590

580

5 70

560

550

540

530

J 520

"' :::; 1-UJ UJ 510 ... !; z 0 500

~ UJ J 490 UJ

480

470

460

450

440

)l \

LEGEND 1\ ----WATER-SURFACE !---t---t-lltH+f""-"""'+---t--+--H'-----~-+,__---1-----+----l -------PRESSURE PROFILE 1-----J--_j

-..._, ~'--.."'

PIEZ NO.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JO II 12 13 14 15

....

• .• f

.P'

PIEZ PIEZ ZERO READING 528.0 550.0 530.0 544.0 531.5 545.0 532.5 544.5 53:>0 542.5 532.5 540.0 530.5 535.5 527.0 532.0 521.0 523.0 513.0 515.5 504.0 505.5 491.0 491.5 476.0 4 79.5 460.0 468.0 445.0 4 71.5


PRESSURE

22.0 14.0 13.5 12.0 9.5 7.5 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 0.5 3.5 8.0

26.5

NOTE: PRESSURES ARE RECORDED IN FEE:r OF WATER IN PROTOTYPE TO THE NEAREST 0.5 FOOT


PRESSURE DATA

WATER-SURFACE AND PRESSURE PROF1LES

DISCHARGE 250,000 C F S POOL ELEV 555.03 TAILWATER ELEV 475.35

PLATE 7

_j

II)

::;

f-w w "-:1: z 0

~ w _j

w

590

580

5 70

560

550

540

530

520

510

500

490

480

470 r--

460

450

440

430

420 40

PLATE 8

30 20

PIEZ NO.

I 2 3 4 5

7

8

10

" 12 13 14 15

lh ) l \ \

LEGEND

WATER-SURFACE

'-----, -------PRESSURE PROFILE

::--- r--...___ ' ' ~ ' .... ·.·:·:··!'-' .·~ ~

,3 s-c 5 .. 'j.'> ~ ' "-! ,. p v :· v /~ 4 ~ .... . V , . h " : ' v v

v p v ~ ~ p 4 ~

.10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

PIEZ PIEZ ZERO READING 528.0 547.0

530.0 543.0 531.5 543.5 532.5 543.0 533.0 541.5 532.5 539.0 530.5 535.0 527.0 531.0 521.0 522.5 513.0 515.5 504.0 505.5 491.0 491.5 476.0 478.5

·460.0 463.5 445.0 46'0.5


PRESSURE

19.0 13.0 12.0 10.5 8.5 6.5 4.5 4.0 1.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 3.5

15.5



PRESSURE DATA


DISCHARGE 150,000CFS POOL ELEV 548.93 TAILWATER ELEV 464.85

590

580

5 70

560

550

540

530

...J 520 < " J>

>• .. ... ~.

·~

(·

PIEZ PIEZ PIEZ PRESSURE NO. ZERO READING

' 528.0 541.0 13.0 2 530.0 540.0 10.0 3 531.5 540.0 8.5 4 532.5 539.5 7.0

5 533.0, 538.5 5.5 6 532.5 536.5 4.0

7 530.5 533.0 2.5 8 527.0 529.5 2.5 9 521.0 522.0 1.0

10 513.0 514.5 1.5 II 504.0 505.5 1.5 12 491.0 491,5 0.5 13 476.0 4 77:5 1.5 14 460.0 462.0 2.0 15 445.0 447.0 2.0

PRESSURE DATA

~\. A s·~

v.,~-




DISCHARGE POOL ELEV TAILWATER ELEV

50,000 C F S 540.86 448.3

PLATE 9

450

0 5 10 15

NOTE' FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, NO TAILWATER WAS SET ON THESE CALIBRATION TESTS.

PLATE tO

-

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 DISCHARGE IN 1,000 CFS


BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

RATING CURVES FOR FLOOD CONTROL CONDUITS

0

tAXIS Of DAM ELEV. 449.0

TABLE OF PRESSURES

DISCHARGE 1500CFS DISCHARGE 2000CFS DISCHARGE 2500CFS DISCHARGE 2970CFS

r=:z~~TERfr~TER POOL ELEV. 471.7 POOL ELEV. 495.2 POOL EL.EV. 526.8 POOL E.LEV. 568.8 ~~~PRESSURE~~~ PRESSURE ~~R PRESSURE p'k~f~~ ~SSURE

458.0 453,0 -5.0 463.5 5.5 478.0 20.0 497.5 .39.5

453.5 453.0 -rO.S 464.0 10.5 478.5 25.0 497.0 43.5

449.0 453.5 4-5 464.0 15.0 479.5 30.5 499.0 50.0

453.5 452.5 -1.0 462.5 9.0 476.5 23.0 494.5 41.0

453.5 450.5 -3.0 460.0 6.5 472.5 19.0 489.0 35.5

458.0 451.5 -6.5 461.0 3.0 474.5 16.5 492.0 34.0

453.5 449.0 -4.5 457.0 3.5 468.0 14.5 482.5 29.0

449.0 446.0 -1.0 455.0 6.0 465.0 \6.0 478.0 29.0

443.9 447.0 3.t 453.0 9.1 462.0 18.1 473.5 29.6

10 447.9 447.0 -0.9 454.0 0.1 453.5 15.6 475.0 27.1

II 451.9 449.0 -2.9 455.5 3.0 466.0 14.1 479.0 27.1

12 444.7 447.0 2.3 4540 9.3 463.0 18.3 475.5 30.6

13 44SO 448.5 5,5 456.0 13.0 466.5 23.5 481.0 38.0

436.1 449.5 13.4 458.0 21.9 470.0 33.9 485.5 49.4

15 441.1 451.0 9.9 46(,).5 19,4 473.0 31.9 490.0 48.9

16 446.1 455.5 9.4 46.!:1.5 19.4 481.5 35.4 500.5 54.4

4440 456.5 12.5 471.0 27.0 489.0 45.0 514.0 70.0

16 436.1 450.0 ( 1.9 456.5 20.4 470.5 32.4 487.0 46.9

19 436.3 446.0 9.7 452.0 15.7 461.0 24.7 472.0 35.7

20 432.6 443 . .5 10.9 448.5 15.9 455.0 ~2.4 465.0 32.4

21 434.6 441.0 B.4 444.5 9.9 449.0 14.4 454.0· 19.4

22 4~6.9 438.0 1.1 439.0 2.1 441.5 4.6 440.0 3.9

23 426.6 436.0 7.4 435.5 0.9 434.0 5.4 433.5 4.9

24 430.0 436.0 60 435.0 5.0 435.0 5.0 435.5 5.5

25 424.6 439.0 14.4 441.0 16.4 442.0 17.4 443.0

b II

ELEVATION

NOTES: Al.L TOP AND BOTTOM PIEZOMETERS ARE ON CENTERLINE OF CONDUIT.

DISCHARGES BASED ON FLOW THROUGH ONE CONDUIT.

PRESSURES ARE RECORDED IN FEET OF WATER 1N PROTOTYPE.

PLAN OF OUTLET PORTAL

MODEL STUDY OF SPIL,LWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS AND PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS

~ i 10 •rn.

~w ~ ~ 435~~#-~----~--4----4----+----+----+---~----~--~---4----+----++-~=

--

430~--~----~--4----4----+----+----+---~----~--~---4----+----+--~ ----

425~---+----~--~---4----+----+----+----+----~--~--~~--+----+--~ r -r ELEVATION 4220 STILLING BASIN ::

r1 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

DISCHARGE IN I 000 C F S

NOTE: TAILWATER CURVE ASSUMES SCOUR TO BEDROCK IN CHANNEL.

PLATE 12


TAILWATER AND JUMP CURVES

TYPE I BUCKET - ORIGINAL DESIGN

TYPE I APRON- ORIGINAL DESIGN

TYPE 2 APRON

TYPE 3 APRON

ALL OUTSIDE CORNERS

CHAMFERRED 0.25'

SECTION THROUGH lOFT X lOFT BAFFLE PIER AND END SILL


BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

STILLING BASIN DESIGNS

PLATE 13

.J V)

::;

520

500

1- 480 w w "-~ 460

z 0

~ 440 w _j w

420

400

\\\-~'\

N h, ?'?

:_e.. . ..

-;-;.-;::~ ..

~ -( \ ~

--=...__

' ~~ ~--~ ~ ~ ~ :;§~

.·.: .'.t>. p

~ --- ) __ ""\ l l::-/ v~ ) / / v " )/ / ( __) I

v,~ %~\ \ '~ • ~ --..,.__ 0 .~! g."-

-··~· .. ,•.:

> ~ ---!"--""' ~ ~ ~ !-------- 1::::=_ -) --------1\ ..._,___ 1-- - I--

) :\ - ·--. / L "' - ~

J -c--JO 20 ~JcJL- £~ ~ 17 25 21

t8'" CC§§' =~~- ·"~"F''"§§" ~"~-' C'§ F'"'· '· '''~'-' ~~~

NOTE: WATER SURFACE PROFILES MEASURED ALpNG CENTEijLINE _?F GATE BA";_

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

w z J 0: w f-z w u :;;; 0 0: "-f-w w "-;!: w u z

520

500 -' U)

::;

1- 480

"' "' ... !': 460 z 0

~ 4 ~) y r- <

~ - ""--r----- ..--- --'I- - ----- -~~~ _{1 ~ --::: ~-- // / ;__ r-- ~ ~ -- ~ - - -)/ /I 1------, I\ -r 1--.. ' /.., ~ (

I

I " - ----- r------ -~ ~ 440 "

N ~\~ ~,, "'' ) R r=.- /11; "' ~ o .. 'J -== ,,~'? ~ l ~ f(il~-; h~ v ·«--.. "' -' "'

"' z J 0:

"' 1-z "'

500~--+---4---~--~---+--~--_J~--t---+---4---~---+---+---1----r---t---t---~--~

-I--- -!---:-- -f---

NOTE: WATER-SURFACE PRO~,LES,~EAS~vREO ALONG CENTERLINE yF GAlE BA1.

I~

400 60 80 !00 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

DISTANCE JN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM

WATER-SURFACE PROFILE AND CURRENTS

I

C] 80 w z J a: 60 w

_,...-MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS----..._ .... z w 0

:; 40

C}-- ~ ___!J_ __!! -----!? .L..- !!....___ !L_ z__._ • -0 a: ... .... 20 w 1:'

"' 0 ~ ~ I __.§._ __!Z -----!? .L..- 'L.,.... !L._ ·-~ !:. w 0 z

c:}-- ~ __!2 ~ ~~'2 .L..- lL_ !Q__._ '----- •

_j

"' ::;;

520

500

!;; 480 w .. ~ 460

z 0

~ 440 ~ ..J w

420

40 0

I"~ N ""'

{( r:? "'::"'-~ .. r.. .. ..... ~: ... : .. : .. ,,,,,

...... ~~

j--= / w ,_co;: rc ~ .?

~ ~~ ~ l0;]"~? F~ .~. :::?.·. . ·.'· .. ,/J

/- ]'... ~ y I'·-\ ( [) t-- ~ ~ 1---- - ~

/e'-

_j

"' ::;:

520

500

ti 48 w u. 0~

~ 460

z 0

~ 440 ~

R ~ ~ fo~ :::----. c--.- __:: ~ ~ = = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~(_ '-- ~ ~- ~

~::-----= f-..:; ~ - 1---- ~ g__ ~ c--+-- iL---~

~ w .. ~ ~ ~ ty& ~~' F"' '""j;\~c '~ fF~/i: ~¥A~ f§WF E .. ... .. . v· , . 7: NOTE: WATER- SURFACE PROFILES MEASURED 420

AuONG CENTERLINE Of GATE BAY 40 0

60 80 4 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 4 0


w z :J "' w 1-z w u ::;: 0

"' u. 1-w w "-

"' w u z

sool---1---~--~---+---+--~----~--+---~--~--~---+---4----r---t---t---i---;r--~

NOTE: WATER-SURFACE PROFILES MEASURED 25FT LEFT OF CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY.

400 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 2eo 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440

DISTANCE IN FEET PROM A~IS OF' DAM

w z J

eo

:5 60 f-z w u ::; 40

~ .. t;j 20 w .. ;;; w !;!

0

~ 20 Q

40


I I I 60 eo 100 120 140 ISO 180 200 220 240 260 2e0 300 320 340 360 3eo 400 420 440


BOTTOM VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION

80 C] 60

40

20 C] 0

20 C] 40

60 80 100 120 140 ~ ~ = ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

TEST CONDITIONS DISCHARGE 50,000 CFS 16 CONDUITS OPERATING POOL ELEVATION 587.30 TAILWATER ELEVATION 448.30 BUCKET RADIUS 50 FT LIP SLOPE I ON I BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION .430.0


SCOUR PATTERN


FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE I BUCKET-ORIGINAL DESIGN

CONDUIT FLOW

PLATE 19

w ~ ...J 0: w 1-z w u

" 0 "' .. 1-w w .. ~ w u z ;': "' 0

w z :::i

"' w 1-z w u

" 0 :: 1-w w .. ~ w u z -- _3_ .L_.....

~ -

f?t~ -5 ~ "------ ~3- "--->-- _3_ ~ -

__..!. ---" .§____..._ ;;______ ~~ _3_ "------

KE- _...§. -5 _3_ _,!_____... "------ _3 _ _,!_____... ~ I I I

80 100 120 [40 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440



C]

C] 80 roo

TEST CONDITIONS DISCHARGE

16 CONDUITS OPERATING POOL ELEVATION TAILWATER ELEVATION BUCKET RADIUS

40,000

533.75 445.60 50FT

LIP SLOPE I ON I BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.0

~ = = ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DISTANCE IN FEET FROM, AXIS OF DAM

SCOUR PATTERN

MODEL STUDY OF SPILLWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM BRAZOS RIVER. TEXAS

FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE I BUCKET-ORIGINAL DESIGN

CONDUIT FLOW

PLATE 20

_J VJ ::;;

520.---~---.---.----.---,----,---.----.---.----,---,----,---,----,---,----,---.---,----.

500~--+---~--~----~--+---~---+----~--+---~---+----~--+---~---+----~--+----r--~

~ 480i~\

~ 460~~~~~-···~-•. --~--+---~---+------~~---+----~--+---~---+----~--+---~---+----~--+----r--~

~ 44o I ::>~ ~ ~c_: ~ Tib:~ ~: --:-:§ ,, ~~ ;~ 'FW§ ;f@'f&~Yh ~ 420 1·.··

sooL---J---~--~---t---f--~----~--+---+---~--~---+---4----~--t---t---i----r--~

NOTE: WATER-SURFACE PROFILES MEASURED 25FT LEFT OF

1CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY.

40000L_ __ alo __ _j,0_0 __ .J12lo---14L0--~16o~~~a~o--~~~0--~2~20~~2~40~~26~0--~200~~3~00~~3~2;~0--3~4~0--03~60,-~3~00o-~4~0~0--~42~0~~440

.OISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM

w z J

80

ei 60 1-z tJ

~ 40

... t 20 ~ ~

0

~ ;': V) 2 0 0

4 0


I I '

CJ2: ~· __ , __ 7

........-2- L........ -__,! ........-2- __....2 ----2 -

"v"-]....--" _____,; ~5- L_.----" sz__.. ~ 1L..._ z._____

~ -

" ...;;. _____,; --...-2 .._._!!. ..........J!. :0... ~ I~ IL.....__ / \~ v--1 --· L.- z........----"

w z J a: w f-z w ·0

:;; 0 a: u.

·>-w w u.

~ w ·u z -"' 0

w z J a: w f-z w u :;; 0

·e: f-.w w u.

~ w ;W

w z J 0: w 1-z w u ::; 0 0: ... 1-w w ... ~ w u z

520

500 _J II)

:;:;

1- 480 w w "-!" 460

TS li\ /- 1--- t---< f.-ROLL NG W. VE AT NTER ECT/0 Or S U/CE z 0

~ 440 > w _J w

w z ::; a: w 1-z w

w z J 0: w 1-z w u :;; 0 0: "-1-

t:l "-~ w u z

" 1-VJ 0

w z J 0: w 1-z w u :;; 0 0: "-1-w w "-~ w u z f' "' 0

sooL---1----l--~----~--+---~---+----~--+---~---+----~--+----r---t----r---t---~---"

420 •• 1:.; ••

40000L~_j80----10l0~_j12-0 --~14~o~~~oo~~~aho~~2~o~o--~22ho~~2~4o~~26~0~~2~00~~3o~o~~3~2°0--3~4~o~~3~6o~~3oo~--4~oon--4i2~o~~440 DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM

ad

60

40

20

0

20

40

60

80

60

40

20

0

20

40

60


r-- \ ~ /

\_ )) c:t/ \~ ~ ....... /

)

~ SURFACE RUN-OFf-

80 100 120 140 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM


C]

C] ao 100 120 140

TEST CONDITIONS

DISCHARGE . 5,000 CFS 2 CONDUITS OPERATING POOL ELEVATION 526.7 TAILWATER ELEVATION 431.4

DISTANCE ·IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM

SCOUR PATTERN


- BUCKET RADIUS 50FT FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE I BUCKET-ORIGINAL DESIGN

CONDUIT FLOW

LIP SLOPE ION I BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.0

PLAIE 26

DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS Of DAM

WATER- SURFACE PROFILE AND CURRENTS

w z ::; 0: w 1-z

801- C] . I I

tj MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS----...._

~ 40 liD ~ j4£.- ~ __JQ_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C] :; ao ~ _:..M_ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ £ID :; fS-~ 0 liD liD ~ ---J!:Q ~ ~ ~ ...M..- ~ w liD no ~ !;I C] liD liD ~ --.§2_ __...3Q .:..2- ...£!'._ ~ ~ ~ liD liD NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN FT PER SEC IN ~ 40 ~ liD PROTOTYPE I FT ABOVE BOTTOM.

ro~~--~~o-o--~~~4~o--~~~s~o--~~2~2o--~~2ro~~~3~oo--~~3~~~--3~s~o--~~~~o--~-4~ro=-~~s~oo--~-s~4o

DISTANCE IN fEET fROM AXIS .OF DAM

BOTTOM VELOCITY DISTRIB.UTION

w z ~ 80 w 1-z tJ ~ 40 "-

!;; w "-;; 0

C]

C]

ro

TEST CONDITIONS

DISCHARGE POOL ELEVATION

660,000 CFS 572.12

TAILWATER ELEVATION 497.60 BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.00


SCOUR PATTERN


FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE I APRON -ORIGINAL DESIGN

SPILLWAY FLOW

PLATE 27

DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AlCIS OF DAM


"' I z J 80 0: "' 1-z C] "' 0 MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS-----....._ li

40 0 0: ... 1-

"' "' ... .~ 0

"' 0 z ~ V)

40 0

llD ULJ

~

C] llD llD

~ __J!!_ M_ ~~ ~ ~ llD llD

llD f!'-llD llD

ao ~ _!:!L ~ ~~ ~ ~ ao

llD llD p.o-.

C] llD llD ao ~ ---cY2- ~ M-M.- ~ ~ liD NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN FT PER SEC IN llD

llD PROTOTYPE I FT ABOVE BOTTO,. ITT'""l.

60 100 140 ISO 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540

C]

TEST CONDITIONS

DISCHARGE POOL ELEVATION TAILWATER ELEVATION BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION

PLATE 28




250~000 CFS 555.0~

475.35 430.00

SCOUR PATTERN


FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE I APRON -ORIGINAL DESIGN

SPILLWAY FLOW



w I I I I I I I z ::;

80 0: ~ z

f- C] -w u MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS~ ::l!

40 0 0: ... ... w w ... ~ 0 ... u z ~ !!! 40 c

liD I1LJ

~ C] liD

liD ..1.:2_ ---1!2- ..E2_ _E__ --.!:!?_ ____!!!_ liD liD liD ~ liD liD liD

110 --l:2_ _!2- __!!!_ --.!:!?_ _!2- ___!!!_.__

liD liD ~ C] liD liD liD __!!!_ _f:S4_ _f:S4_ --.!:!?_ _E__ --.!:!!_

liD liD NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN FT PER SEC IN

""' liD PROTOTYPE I FT ABOVE BOTTOM.

60 100 140 180 220 280 300 340 380 420 460 500 540

D.ISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM


... I I I I I z ::; 80 0: w t-

C] z w u MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS--....,

::l! 40 0 0: ... ... w w ...

"" 0

... u z

DISTANCE 'IN ·~EE'l" ·rROM AXIS OF DAM

WATER -SU'RFACE PiROFfUE AND CURRENTS

w i I d [![] •I I z ;::; eo;r- c:] liD

[![] --' ·0: iiD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·Ill liD 1- [![] z liD ·"' 'liD IJ iiD ~ _2,Q__ ~ --.M_ ~ ~

~ 4oir-

liD 0 [![] [J[J

~

a: I !C] [![] u. iiD ~ -B-- ~ ~ ~ ____!:3_ 'I- 1!0 w 1!0 "' [![] ·u. [J[J

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -' ~ 0[ liD liD ',tj [![] 1!0 z C] [![] m::J p2-. E..- ~ ~ ____M,_ ~ .. I 110 'I- [![] "' ·40 'I [![] .., 0 'I = I :1

60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540

DfSl'ANCE 'IN 'FEET ;FRONA kXIS OF 'DAM

BOTirOM VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION

w I 'I 'liD liD I I ·I

z sol 1!0 ;:; C] liD ~ .e; . . 1!0 [![] 'f- 1!0 z liD ·tj

~~ 110

liD

·,~ ·liD liD a: C] liD

iiD u. [![] 1-

'

'1!0 NO SCOUR OCCURRED IN w [![]

7 ·W liD THIS AREA u. liD ~

·o iiD 1!0 liD "' CJ [J[J

llD u llD z

1-rBO!., L40f..~"". ¥&>..-. --f-+-+---+-+-f---+-+-t--+-+--f--+-+-~--f-+-+---+-+-f---t-+-J

~w ~···.~~0=··.·~~2~~C.:~r!5_~1---~__....~c:~(~~EP-~ ~~.--;:;~5----~lfril""~~~~~ .....-~.·~· ~ .o 14.o_ ,.... ~ - "·§.... 2.~. z.o_r" ~ ~ ~· r' I lf"'U r rlJ . :~ .. ''' ~§.:>', ..• ,[§'' '§.;;;;~ .. 'ChLi":i . ·.. .. ...... ;.":.o,c.;: .·."""' NOTE: WATER-SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED 25FT

LEFT OF CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY. 400

60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



w I I ur::JI ao I I I z :J 80 C] ao

ao ~-"' ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ao 1- ao z ao w ao u ao ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ::;; ao

0 40 f- ao ao "' C] ao ~ ~ ~ "- ao #'- ~ ~ 1- ao w ao w ao "- ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -?.!2..- -~ 0 ao ao

w ao ao u C] ao z ao ~ ~ ~ __ll__. -.:E:2_ ~ --

520

_J

"' ::; ,_. ~480

1:\ L z z ~ ·~ 0 ~440

·-:~> .. ~ ~ --- Fe 0:1 :;-:_ nr - ,.,.-, .. 0.0 8~ 15 6.0 .p_ ~ ~ > v-::::_ w · .. •: . - -~ 1--- .;jf: _, '. ,,~;!!'if"~§ , •. - :\'4~~ ,_ g, ~~~~ ,,4_~~ _J w .. ::J·.··. " . .P.-.::·; NOTE: WATER SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED 25FT

LEFT OF CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY: 400

60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



w I ar:::il [][JI I I I I I z J 80 r- C] liD

liD ~~~~ ~~~ ~ "' liD w liD >- liD z liD w liD ~~-E-.-E-~~~ u liD ~

::; liD 0 40 liD

"' C] liD liD

"- liD pe-~ 22-~ ~2:Q,._ ~ ~ ,_. liD w liD w liD "- liD ~ E.-~ ..E2_ ~ ~ .E- ~ ~ 0

liD liD

w liD liD u C] liD ~~~~~~~ ~ z liD "' liD >- liD ~ 40

I liD

liD I 0 ,.,--,j 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



~.fi-~.~~( w

liD liD

z liD J 80 C] liD "' liD

~ w liD ,_.

liD

~cg ~~ z liD w liD u liD ::;

40 liD liD

0 liD "' C] liD !) ·~ ,~· "- liD " ,_. liD liD f~ ~ w w liD "- liD ;': 0 liD liD w liD liD u C] III] ~~~21 z liD "' liD ,_. liD ~ 40 III] liD 0

60 100 140 lBO 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540


SCOUR PATTERN

TEST CONDITIONS

DISCHARGE 24,000 CFS 8 CONDUITS OPERATING POOL ELEVATION 571.0

TAILWATER ELEVATION ' 440.4 MODEL STUDY OF SPILLWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.0 BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

FLOW CHARACTERISTICS

TYPE I APRON -ORIGINAL DESIGN CONDUIT FLOW

PLATE 32



I I I

DISTANCE IN FEET fROM AXIS OF DAM


TEST CONDITIONS

DISCHARGE ~000 CFS 3 CONDUITS OPERATING

POOL ELEVATION 5 71.0 TAILWATER ELEVATION 437.0 BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.0

DISTANCE IN FEET F.ROM AXIS OF DAM

SCOUR PATTERN


BRAZOS RIVER. TEXAS


TYPE I APRON-ORIGINAL DESIGN CONDUIT FLOW

PLATE 33

520

..J

"' :,; t-t!J480

1-\ L.. z z ts2 ~ 0 ~ ~ 440

·:~~ -1---;(1 .....--::' m __......,~ > 1------' w 1., .. \:1~~1 ~~~~ \':1- ,A§~~ ~(~,~ ,':',§ F=li ..J _, ~' '-' w . >~·.: NOTE: WATER SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED 25FT LEFT OF CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY.

400 60 100 140 ISO 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



w liD

flDI ~I I I I z ::;

80 liD liD .3- ~ ~ ____!:!!_ ____!:!!_ w liD " ~ liD liD '!: 0

110 110 liD w liD liD L) d NOT 110 z < OPERATING liD t-liD 110 ~ 40

0 liD 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540


SCOUR PATTERN

TEST CONDITIONS

DISCHARGE 3,000CFS I CONDUIT OPERATING POOL ELEVATION 571.0 TAILWATER ELEVATION 436.0 MODEL STUDY OF SPILLWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.0 BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS


TYPE I APRON -ORIGINAL DESIGN CONDUIT FLOW

PLATE 34

J U)

::l;

....

520

~460

1!' z 0

~440 > ~

,\ :~ ~J ~ ~ ·-~~

:.- .. ·:·:· ' r> ..

-- ::__ ~· ~:;; ~

:___.... J,v

~ 64.o -V.m

f-. -~ ~) I/ ~ v ;/I r{ ;, ·/ .I /( 2 /_, 9"/ 0 5.0 .;_:

,~,

/9;;- f---20.0 = fJ,o- - - - -/5.0 /4.0 14.0 ~ - -, ~ -- - - - - ~ -!?.. ~ ---- -_-:;:::- 1)\ " ....__, 1- ---- .....- ~ -- --'!: ~ J' ~0 .. 1:.: .....,_ ..!!;_0 -\.,- "' _, ' ~ '=I ,;Y~ ~ ~ '0 §§,\'¥, ~\¥,§ 'C,§ "' .···· .. · ... : ~ .. '.'.~·;·:',; NOTE: WATER SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED

400 60 100 140 180

ALONG CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY.

220 260 300 340 380 420



"' z ~ eo "' .... z "' ()

C] ~ 40 [[] :!: C] [[] [[] ~ [[] [[] ~ [[] [[]

ULJ [[]

0 [[]

~ [[] ~

MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS----...._

500

~

W,§

540

!;! C] liD ([[] -dL --M- --Z2- --12.2.- ~ _.1:!2,_ ~ ~ [[] [[] NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN FT PER SEC IN

~ 40L-~-~-~~-~~~~~-~~-+-~-~~-~~~~-~P-R~O_T_O_TY~P_E_~ii_F_T~A-B_O~V~E_B_O~T_T_O~M-·~-~ 60 100 140 160 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



"' z ~ 80 C] z l'J ::l;

~ .... ~ "' .... ~

"' u ~ a

40

0

40

C]

C] 60 100 140

TEST CONDITIONS


660,000 CFS 572.12

TAILWATER ELEVATION 497.60 BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.00


SCOUR PATTERN


FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE 2 APRON SPILLWAY FLOW

PLATE 35

...J U)

~

~~~~~t--1--!---t--t--1-~t:~~~~~~==*=~===F==~~~=F==f.=~~3===S==f~~~ ~ :~ .,_ -:::~"'), 'r _,_ -- -- - -r- - - --~ L4o ~[R \_ ~ ~ ~~ ) ~~- / ~f-- - ~ -- --- ~ :::= - ::::_ --

520

-' "' "' 1-~480 ... ~ z 0

~440 > "' ..J "'

:~ K: ···~':". . ·····

400 eo

~ _..... ,v~

~-~ I-- 23:0 '~ 1Z£' ..... .. : .·.·.

100 140 180

~f- -1---- - I- - - t- - ~ - - 1-- -~0 ~ L ... - r-- - 1-- 1-

,_ f-- :-- -'-+--

' :CkW£ ~~ f:\~.~~ !§.~ '"' "'"' """ ~y~ ~"".!!: ,~[,: WA:

NOTE: WATER- SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED . ALONG CENTERLINE Of' GATE BAY.

220 260 300 340 380 420 4eo 500



"' z ::; 80 0: "' 1-z c:J "' u MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS----...... "' 40 0 0: ... 1-

"' "' ... -~

0

"' u z < 1-~ 40 0

UD ULJ f-12.-UD

c:J UD UD ~ ____yz__ ---.12_ ___!:f?,._ ~ ---.12_ ~ UD UD ___..!2_ liD UD liD

liD --.-!:!!__ --.!:SL ___f:!!._ ___..!2_ ~ ~ --.lS!.-

UD UD 2!!_...

c:J UD liD UD __!:!!_ ~ _____!:!2_.. 2!!_... ___f2_. ~ ~ UD NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN FT PER SEC IN I

UD liP PROTOTYPE I FT ABOVE BOTTOM. .,-,I

eo 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM


"' z ::; 80 0:

"' 1- c:J z "' u MODEL LIMITS DURING SPILLWAY TESTS---..,_ "' 40 0 0: ... 1-

"' "' ... ~ 0

"' u z < 1-"2 40 0

UD ULJ·

c:J liD liD

UD UD

liD liD UD

f- liD UD NO SCOUR OCCURRED IN THIS AREA liD

liD

c:J UD UD UD UD f- liD UD ,...,

eo 100 140 180 220 2eo 300 340 380 420 460 500 DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM

SCOUR PATTERN

TEST CONDITIONS


50,000 CFS 540.86

540

-

540

-

540

TAILWATER ELEVATION 448.30 BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.00 MODEL STUDY OF SPILLWAY FOR WHITNEY DAM

BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS

FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE 2 APRON SPILLWAY FLOW

PLATE 37

...J

"' ::; 1-

reo,,

~- _~0~??hl~--+-4--+--~~-+~--+--r~--+-4--+--~~-+~--+--r~--+-4-~

,._~:Fo"'. rt::• v- - -=!:::::. -=C!:::::::_ r 40 ~-::-;:~ c_ ~-V.Il __-;-V ~ 4.o -~ 3.s J.s 3.:- 2.s zo _ .o 0._ ..J · ·. ·l.v ~ . . . .. ':: ~~"='"'' E§='f~ ·' ' ' "'~§~!''"'"~ "'' '~ §"'hi"l.\?i"' '~ . ~' w . .. . ·.,:... NOTE: WATER-SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED 25FT

LEFT OF CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY. 400

60 100 140 leO 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



w ·aol UUI I z ao :J eo C] ao f'4-~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _!:Q__ -0: ao w ao 1- ao z liD w liD ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ---.!:2..-u liD

::; liD liD

0 40 liD -0: C] liD -~~~ ... liD ____M_ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1- liD

w liD

liD w

ao ... liD pq__ ~~ ~ ~ ~ --E.- ~ !!: 0 liD

w liD

liD u C] liD ~ ~~ ~ ~ !!.S ~ /.0 z liD

400 60 100 140 180 220 260

- 5.0 5.0 4. ~ r---- ~ -I--~ -,-5~ ..,., 8~ \/ \~~~~-/ ~\~~. \OO/- 7/__:_.\,- \::"~ ~:.§~ \""---~~

NOTE: WATER SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED 25FT LEFT OF CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY.

300 340 380 420 460 500

DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF .DAM

540


w I I liD' UUI I I I I I z liD ::; eo C] IIIJ ~ ....!2_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0: liD w liD 1- liD z liD w liD ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ u liD

" liD 0 40 liD liD 0: C] liD ~ _22._ .2:2_ 2Q,.._ ~ ~ ~ "- liD 1- liD w

liD liD

w liD ~ ~ "- liD ~ ~ ~ _§:!!._ ~ ;!: 0 liD

w liD liD u C] liD ~ -.M_ ~~ ~ 2.0 ~ z liD < liD NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN FT PER SEC IN 1- liD ~ 40 liD liD PROTOTYPE I FT ABOVE BOTTOM. 0 I rrnl

60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



w z ::; 80 0: w 1-z w u

" 40 0 0: "-1-w w "-;!: 0

w u z < 1-

"' 40 c

liD ULJ

C] liD liD

liD liD IIIJ

liD liD

liD liD

liD

C] liD liD liD

liD liD

liD liD

liD liD

liD liD

C] liD liD liD liD I- liD liD ITrll

60 100 140 180

TEST CONDITIONS

Dl SCHARGE 36,000 CFS 1'2 CONDUITS OPERATING POOL ELEVATION 571.0 TAILWATER ELEVATiON 444.4 BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.0

I

-

J ., ::l;

1-

rso.\ ~ ~~~~-4-+-+~~~~4-+-+-~~-4-+-+~~~4-+-+-~

~> 440 .··.····"".· .. '" / ,.,.--- -~ :-'~~ :7.~£1. ./,~

~ .,._ ~ .2::?.. ~ - I~ =~ ~ ~ ,_ ""'1'=, ~ ~ _,-, "'\'-~-' ~\"'~- ,,, - "' ,, ~·% !"'-@I§ '"'4- W4 w . . .

NOTE: WATER-SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED 25FT

400 ~-L--J_~---L--~~~~--L-~---L--L--L--~--~L=E~F~T~O~F~CE=N~T~E=R~L=I~N=E~O~F_G~A~T=E~BA~Y~·----__J 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540



"' ao ULJ z ao :J C] ao ~ a: 80 ao J:Q,_.~~~ ~ ~ ~ w ao 1- liD z ao "' ao u ao !9,;§_ ~~~~ __LQ__ ~ .....E2_ ::l; ao ao 0 40 ao a:

C] ao ~ "- ao ~~.Y.___g_ ...!:9__ --.M_ .....E2_ 1- ao "' ao "' no "- ao (P.J- ~~~ ___.!:§..__ ____1:2_ ~ ~ !'!' 0 ao ao "'

ao ao u C] ao z ao ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ao ao NOTE: VELOCITIES ARE IN FT PER SEC IN ~ 40 ao UD PROTOTYPE I FT ABOVE BOTTOM. 0 rrrol

60 100 140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540

DISTANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS oF DAM


"' ao z :J 80 C] UD a: "' liD 1- UD z UD

UD "' u UD ::l; UD

UD 0 40 UD a: C] UD "- UD 1- liD "' UD UD "' UD "- liD ~ 0 UD liD "' liD liD u z

liD "' 1-., 40

0 60 100 140 180

TEST CONDITIONS

DISCHARGE 24,000 CFS 8 CONDUITS OPERATING POOL ELEVATION 571.0 TAl LWATER ELEVATION 440.4 BED MOLDED TO ELEVATION 430.0

PLATE 40

~ ~ ~

220 280 300 480 500 540

D)STANCE IN FEET FROM AXIS OF DAM

SCOUR PATTERN


FLOW CHARACTERISTICS TYPE 2 APRON CONDUIT FLOW

.J

"' ::; 1-

reol:\. ~ rr~~~-.+-+-~~-+-r-r~+-+-~~-+-r-r~+-+-~~

~440 ·.:~':".,S ~ :·, .. "' . -· .. · ... ··

.,~,., ~'@~. \~' '~ !§\,, """'L"' '~ NOTE: WATER SURFACE PROFILE MEASURED 25FT

LEFT OF CENTERLINE OF GATE BAY. 400~~-~-~~~~-~-~~-~-~-~~-~-~~-----~-._---~------~-~

60 100 140 160 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500 540


WATER -SURFACE PROFILE

spillway design for whitney dam brazos river ...spillway design for weitney dam brazos river, texas...

Documents