Presentation Slides NoPW

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs
ASDSO Webinar August 20, 2013
Dr. Blake P. Tullis Utah State University blake.tullis@usu.edu

Dr. Brian M. Crookston Schnabel Engineering brcrookston@gmail.com

2
Standard Head-Discharge Relationships for Weirs

2 Q = Cd L 2 gH t3/2 3
Q = discharge Cd = dimensionless discharge coefficient L = weir length Ht = total upstream head g= gravity
Q = CLH t3/2
Q = discharge C = discharge coefficient L = weir length Ht = total upstream head
V2/2g Energy Grade Line Ht
V
P
How can we increase weir discharge capacity?
2 Q = Cd L 2 gH t3/2 3
Q = CLH t3/2
Increase discharge coefficient with improved crest shapes Ogee Crest vs. Broad Crested Weir
How can we increase weir discharge capacity?
2 Q = Cd L 2 gH t3/2 3
Q = CLH t3/2
Increase L with non-linear or 3-D weirs
Radial Weir
111% L for 90 157% L for 180
Box-Inlet Drop
200-400% L
Labyrinth
600% L
200-
Piano Key
200-600% L
Radial Weirs
Box-Inlet Drop Spillway
Fuse Gates
Labyrinth Spillways
Labyrinth Weir Prototypes

Run-of-river labyrinth weir structure
Brazos Dam, Texas (USA)
10

Single-cycle labyrinth weir
Oneida, Pennsylvania (USA)
11
Yahoola Dam, Georgia (USA)
12

Staged labyrinth weir
Lower-staged cycles
Lake Townsend, North Carolina (USA)
13

Arced Labyrinth Weir with integrated bridge piers and nappe breaker/vent pipes
Maguga Dam, Swaziland Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

14
Piano Key Weirs
L Etroit Dam (France)
15
Labyrinth Research Timeline

Taylor (1968) Hay & Taylor (1970) Megalhes & Lorena (1989) Falvey (2003) Tullis et al (2007) Crookston & Tullis (2012a,b,c)
Darvas (1971) Houston (1983)
Lux & Hinchliff (1985)
Lopes et al. (2006, 2008) Crookston (2010)
Crookston & Tullis (2013a,b)
Tullis et al (1995)
16
17
Terminology
18
19
20
21
Discharge Capacity
2 32 Q = C d ( ) Lc 2 g H T 3
C d ( ) = f ( , t w , P, A, crest shape, H T , H d , approach flow , nappe)
1.2
QR 1 cycle P=36in tw=4.5in w/P=2.66 L/W = 3.25
1.0
0.8
HT (ft)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
20
40
Q (cfs)
60
80
100
22
Spreadsheet Design Method
23
Design Method
24
Design Method
25
Discharge Coefficients
Quarter-Round Crests
26
Half-Round Crests
27
28
HT/P Limits
HT/P limited by experimental data Crookston (2010) curve-fit equations trend-based HT/P >1
29
Tullis et al. (1995) and Crookston HT/P Limits (2010)

C d ( ) = a HT P
H b T P c
+d
30
10
Crest Comparison
1.20
6 degree 8 degree 10 degree 12 degree
1.15
15 degree 20 degree 35 degree
Cd-HR / Cd-QR
90 degree
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
HT/P
31
Validation Rating Curve Validation

Tullis et al. (1995) Willmore (2004) QR Crest Shape
32

Willmore (2004)
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
HR Crest Shape
Cd()
0.4 0.3 0.2
6 degree HR Crookston 8 degree HR Crookston 20 degree HR Crookston 10 degree HR Willmore 35 degree HR Willmore 10 degree HR Crookston 35 degree HR Crookston 12 degree HR Willmore 12 degree HR Crookston 7 degree HR Willmore 15 degree HR Willmore
0.1 0 0.0
15 degree HR Crookston 8 degree HR Willmore 20 degree HR Willmore
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
HT/P
33
11
34
Nappe Behavior
35
Nappe Behavior
36
12
Nappe Behavior
37
Nappe Behavior
38
Nappe Vibration
39
13
Nappe Vibration
40
Nappe Instability
41
Nappe Instability
42
14
43
Nappe Interference & Local Submergence
44
45
15
46
1.307 Bint 1 H + 0.03916 = 2.038 (5.155E - 7 ) T B P
47
48
16
Q & A Break
49
Labyrinth Weir Submergence
50
Ogee crest weir, Iowa River, Iowa City (USA) Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs
51
17

Tailwater submergence definition: S = H * / H d
Key Terms:
Ho: free-flow upstream total head (relative to crest elevation) ho: free-flow upstream water depth (relative to crest elevation)
H*: submerged upstream total head (relative to crest elevation) h*: submerged upstream water depth (relative to crest elevation)
Hd: downstream total head (relative to crest elevation) hd: downstream water depth (relative to crest elevation)
Alternative Tailwater submergence definition: Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs
s = h * / hd
52

Modular Submergence Limit (H*=Ho)
Free-flow conditions no longer apply (H*Ho)
53
54
18

Submerged Labyrinth Weir Head-Discharge Calculations Inputs: Q (hydrology) H d (HEC-RAS)
Calculate Q vs. HT (H o) Using design method
Calculate Hd/H o Determine H*/Ho using Submergence Curve Figure to determin
Repeat
H*= (H*/ Ho)* Ho Output: (Q, Ho) submerged rating curve data point
55
Discharge Efficiency vs. Labyrinth Weir Cycle Geometry Cycle Efficiency ()

1. Cd decreases with decreasing *smaller Cd = smaller unit discharge 2. L increases with decreasing *assuming cycle width w remains constant *assuming no longitudinal footprint restrictions
56
Cycle Efficiency ()
'=
Cd Lcycle w
4.5
6 degree HR 8 degree HR
4.0
3.5
'=Cd()Lc-cycle/w
3.0
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
HT/P
shows relative change in efficiency between values for a given HT/P
57
19
Cycle Efficiency ()
15-degree labyrinth vs. linear weir
2.50
2.00
Cycle Efficiency (Cd x L/W)
1.50
1.00
.90 .80 .70 .60
0.50
Straight Weir 15 Labyrinth
0.00
.50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Cd
H/P
.40 .30 .20 .10 .00
Straight Weir 15 Labyrinth
Ht/P
58
Debris / Sediment
59
Biological Growth on Crest
Labyrinth weir crest shape: ogee crest profile Run-of-the-river dam: crest always wet Ogee crest profile used to keep nappe attached (clinging flow): improve discharge efficiency Algal growth on the crest caused the nappe to separate from crest: benefit of ogee crest not fully realized Biological growth on the crest likely not an issue for spillways that are typically dry (emergency spillway, etc.)
60
20
61
High Headwater Ratios
62
CFD
63
21

0.7 0.6
0.5
0.4
Cd(15)
0.3
0.2
Model 1 Model 2
0.1
CFD Model Crookston (2010) Curve Fit
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
HT/P
64
65
HT/P 2.1
C d ( ) = a HT P
H b T P c
+d
66
22
Configurations/Abutments
67
Configurations/Abutments
68
Arced Labyrinth Weirs
Arced Labyrinth Weir Geometry
69
23
Arced Labyrinth Weirs
70
Reservoir vs. In-channel

1.20 1.15 1.10
Cd-Res / Cd-Channel
1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.0

=12 Normal in Channel =12 Flush =12 Rounded Inlet =12 Arced Projecting, =10 =12 Projecting (Linear, =0)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
HT/P
71
Residual Energy
2.5 2
1.5
Hds/P
1 L/W = 2 L/W = 3 L/W = 4 L/W = 5 Drop (Chanson, 1994) 0.5 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Unit Discharge, q (l/s/m)
Lopes, Matos, and Melo (2006, 2008)

72
24
Scale Effects
P = 6 inches P = 12 inches
P = 36 inches
73
Scale Effects Partially Aerated
74
Q & A Break
75
25
Sectional Model Studies
76
Sectional Model Studies
77
Full-Width Model Studies
78
26
When is a Model Recommended

Prototype hydraulic/geometric conditions fall outside published design conditions Wall height effects (w/P) Approach flow angle Approach flow topography and abutments Energy dissipation Wall thickness & apex details
79
Arced Labyrinth Weir Model

Approach Channel Details
80
Arced Labyrinth Weir Model

Approach Channel Details
81
27
Labyrinth Weir Model

Significant Approach Flow Angle
82
Advantages/Limitations
Physical Model
Very visual Quick changes Handles complex flow patterns Scale Effects Cost/construction schedule Data limited to specific measurement locations Calibration (roughness models) Lab space/flow capacity
83
Composite Modeling
Numerical Model
Easy streamline visualization Data available anywhere in domain Easily stored Cost/simulation time Calibration to physical model data required Results vary with userdefined boundary conditions and turbulence simulation model selection
Non-Linear Weirs with Footprint Restrictions Piano Key Weirs
84
28
Non-Linear Weirs with Footprint Restrictions Piano Key Weirs
85
PK Weir History
Lemprire 2003, 2005, 2009 Laugier 2007, 2009 Ribeiro et al 2007, 2009 Machiels et al 2009 Anderson and Tullis 2012 Abdorreza et al. 2012 Labyrinth PK-Weir Workshops Belgium 2011 New Delhi, India May 2012
86
Discharge
Cd = f (HT, L, Wi, Wo, B, P, Tw, Ramp Angle, Parapet)
87
29
PK Weir Submergence
channel applications
free-flow PK weir
tailwater submergence
local submergence
Dabling and Tullis (2012) Piano Key Weir Submergence in Channel Applications Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
88
PK vs. Labyrinth Weir

4.50 4.00 PK 8 12 20 6 10 15 RL
Cycle efficiency
3.50
3.00 CdxL/W 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 H/P 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
89
PK vs. Labyrinth Weir

Geometries required for equivalent discharge Changes in discharge and weir dimensions with channel width constrained
Q-specific
Q-specific
90
30
Select References for Labyrinth and PK Weirs

1. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (?). Hydraulic Design and Analysis of Labyrinth Weirs. J. Irrigation and Drainage (two companion papers-under review). 2. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Arced Labyrinth Weirs. J. Hydraulic Engineering, 138(6), pp. 555-562, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000553. 3. Anderson, R. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Comparison of Piano Key and Rectangular Labyrinth Weir Hydraulic. J. Hydraulic Engineering (in press), doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000509. 4. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Discharge Efficiency of Reservoir-Application-Specific Labyrinth Weirs. J. of Irrigation and Drainage, 138(6), 564-568 , doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.19434774.0000451. 5. Dabling, M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Piano Key Weir Submergence in Channel Applications. J. Hydraulic Engineering (in press), doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000563 . 6. Crookston, B. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Labyrinth Weirs: Nappe Interference and Local Submergence. J. Irritation and Drainage, 138(6), pp. 555-562, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.19434774.0000466. 7. Anderson, R. M. and B. P. Tullis (2012). Piano Key Weir: Reservoir vs. Channel Applications. J. Hydraulic Engineering (in press), doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000464. 8. Erpicum, S., F. Laugier, J. L. Boillat, M. Pirotton, B. Reverchon, and A. J. Schleiss (2011). Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs. CRC Press, New York, NY. 9. Falvey. H. (2003). Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs. ASCE, Reston, VA. 10. Tullis, J. P, N. Amanian, and D. Waldron ( 1995). Design of Labrinth Weir Spillways. J. Hydraulic Engineering, 121(3), 247-255.
91
Acknowledgements
State of Utah Utah State University-Utah Water Research Lab Ricky Anderson Nathan Christensen Tyler Seamons Schnabel Engineering Dave Campbell Greg Paxson Freese & Nichols Idaho State University Dr. Bruce Savage
92
Post Event Evaluation & Quiz

Please click the following link to take the Seminar Evaluation and Quiz: http://e02.commpartners.com/users/asdso/posttest.ph p?id=10501
You must complete the Seminar Evaluation and Quiz to receive PDH credit hours
and Quiz to receive PDH credit hours
93
31

Presentation Slides NoPW

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Presentation Slides NoPW

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

ASDSO Webinar August 20, 2013

Dr. Blake P. Tullis Utah State University blake.tullis@usu.edu

Dr. Brian M. Crookston Schnabel Engineering brcrookston@gmail.com

Standard Head-Discharge Relationships for Weirs

V2/2g Energy Grade Line Ht

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

How can we increase weir discharge capacity?

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

How can we increase weir discharge capacity?

Increase L with non-linear or 3-D weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Box-Inlet Drop Spillway

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Labyrinth Weir Prototypes

Brazos Dam, Texas (USA)

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Labyrinth Weir Prototypes

Oneida, Pennsylvania (USA)

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Labyrinth Weir Prototypes

Yahoola Dam, Georgia (USA)

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Labyrinth Weir Prototypes

Lake Townsend, North Carolina (USA)

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Labyrinth Weir Prototypes

Maguga Dam, Swaziland Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Piano Key Weirs

L Etroit Dam (France)

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Labyrinth Research Timeline

Darvas (1971) Houston (1983)

Lux & Hinchliff (1985)

Lopes et al. (2006, 2008) Crookston (2010)

Crookston & Tullis (2013a,b)

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Spreadsheet Design Method

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Tullis et al. (1995) and Crookston HT/P Limits (2010)

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

15 degree 20 degree 35 degree

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Validation Rating Curve Validation

Hydraulic Design of Labyrinth Weirs

Validation Rating Curve Validation

15 degree HR Crookston 8 degree HR Willmore 20 degree HR Willmore

Validation Rating Curve Validation