HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDY OF WATER-INTAKE STRUCTURES FOR MEIZHOU WAN POWER STATION, PUTIAN CITY, FUJIAN PROVINCE, THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA by Tatsuaki Nakato and Darian De Jong Sponsored by Bechtel Overseas Corporation 9801 Washingtonian Boulevard Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878-5356 JIER Technical Report No. 402 Towa Institute of Hydraulic Research College of Engineering The University of lowa Towa City, Towa 52242-1585 March 1999ABSTRACT A physical model, built at an undistorted geometrical model scale of 1:8, was used to refine the original design of the two-pump circulating water intake with dual-flow screens for the Meizhou Wan Power Station. Modifications developed in the present study included use of a pyramidal floor splitter and pyramidal sidewall floor-comer fillets whose dimensions increase linearly while maintaining a triangular shape; relocation of the curtain wall for free- surface vortex suppression; the backwall floor-comer fillet; the backwall splitter; and the vertical backwall-sidewall comer fillets. These modifications yielded satisfactory hydraulic conditions on the swirl angle and pump-throat velocity distributions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The model study reported herein was conducted for and sponsored by Bechtel ‘Overseas Corporation in Maryland. The authors are grateful to Drs, Adnan Alsaffar and Mahmood Naghash and Messrs. Charles Worthington and David Denison of Bechtel ‘Overseas Corporation for their unfailing cooperation throughout the course of this study. IHR shop crew led by Mr. James R. Goss built and modified the model numerous times and demonstrated their skilled craftsmanship. Mr. Michael Kundert also contributed to this project with his skilled CAD draftsmanship.1 TABLE OF CON’ INTRODUCTION A. Background B. Scope of Study THE INTAKE MODEL A. General B. Test Equipment and Procedure C. Model Similitude and Scale Ratios D. Criteria for Satisfactory Pump Operations Ml. TEST RESULTS A. Baseline Tests of Intake Under the As-Designed Conditions B. Description of Developmental Tests C. Verification Tests with Final Pump-Bay Modifications ie RECOMMENDATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Test cases with different water levels and pump-discharge conditions Table 2 Summary of test results including head losses, vortex types, and swirl angles LIST OF PHOTOS: Photo 1 Meizhou Wan Plant intake model Photo 2 As-designed Pump-2 intake model Photo 3 Pump-approach flow pattern in Test No. 1 Photo 4 Water-surface condition in Test No. 2 Photo 5 Water-surface condition in Test No. 3 Photo6 Recommended pump-bay layout with Pyramidal Scheme 2 Photo 7 Pump-approach flow pattern in Test No. 2F (dye injected above floor splitter) Photo 8 Pump-approach flow pattern in Test No. 2F (dye injected on floor splitter E 19 Page 20 20 21 2 2 2 23 23Figure | Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 LIST OF FIGURES Plan and section of model Detailed plan of model Detailed longitudinal section of the model Upstream elevation and section of bar screen Plan and section of traveling screen Detail of intake bay with fillets and splitters Section of pump bell Classification of pump-intake vortices Calibration curves for orifice and elbow meters Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 1 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 3 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 4 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 5 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 6 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2A Pyramidal pump-bay modifications (Pyramidal Scheme 1) Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2B Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2C Pyramidal pump-bay modifications (Pyramidal Scheme 2) Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2D Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2E Layout of three-row bafile bars Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2F-NF Layout of two-row baffle bars Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2G Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2H Recommended pump-bay modifications Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. IF Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2F Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 4F Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. SF Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 6F Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 9F Page 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 37HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDY OF WATER-INTAKE STRUCTURES FOR MEIZHOU WAN POWER STATION, PUTIAN CITY, FUJIAN PROVINCE, THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA L INTRODUCTION A. Background. The Meizhou Wan Power Station is located on the north shore of Meizhou Wan in Putian City, on the central coast of Fujian Province of The People's Republic of China. The power-generating facilities designed by Bechtel Overseas Corporation (BOC) are under construction. The two-unit, power-generating station employs once-through Circulating Water (CW) systems. Each CW system withdraws water from Meizhou Wan Bay through an independent offshore intake via a 3-m diameter pipe. Sea cooling water enters, first, a transition section, and is then diverted to two separate pump bays through a horizontal baffle wall. Each pump bay is equipped with a bar screen, a dual-flow (double-entry and center-exit) traveling screen, a curtain wall, corner fillets, a floor splitter, etc., as shown in Figure 1. ‘Common to many pump-vibration problems at large pumping facilities are submerged, unstable, subsurface vortices known as floor-, backwall-, and sidewall-attached vortices which are produced by a poor geometrical layout of the pump sump, and poor pump- approach-flow distributions, and swirls resulting therefrom. Unfortunately, these subsurface vortices cannot easily be detected in the prototype condition although air-entraining free- surface vortices are usually visible. In order to improve pump approach-flow distributions, flow-straightening devices, such as an array of deep vanes or bafile bars and/or a perforated plate, are commonly used, and floor- and backwall-attached vortex splitters and various comer fillets are employed to suppress formation of subsurface vortices (Dicmas 1978; Bauer and Nakato 1997; Ettema and Nakato, 1990; Nakato 1984, 1988, 1989, and 1990; Nakato and Weinberger 1991; Nakato and Yoon 1992; Nakato et al. 1994 and 1996; Sweeney et al., 1982; Tullis 1979). The pump sump design for this power station includes curtain walls for free-surface vortex suppression, floor and backwall splitters, and floor- and backwall-comerfillets for subsurface vortex suppression. However, due to the large capacity of CW pumps and nonuniform pump-approach-flow conditions that are anticipated with the dual-flow traveling screens, a physical model study was needed for this CW intake installation. B. Scope of Study. The primary objective of this study was to examine the performance of the as-designed pump bays and to develop means to rectify any hydraulically objectionable features found so as to attain satisfactory operations of pumps under different pump combinations and hydraulic conditions. Some preliminary hydraulic concems on the Meizhou Wan Station intake layouts included nonuniform velocity distributions and poor pump-approach flow conditions as intake flow enters the common forebay through the offshore conduit, flow circulation within each intake bay as flow passes through the travelling screen toward the pump, and formation of free-surface and boundary-attached subsurface Vortices. The ultimate goal was to devise simple and cost-effective corrective measures for some of the flow deficiencies which were found during the course of the study. Because of the symmetry in pump-bay layout, only the Pump 2 bay was investigated in this study (see Figure 1 for pump identification). It should be noted that model modifications were limited by the contract primarily to areas downstream from the dual flow screens. Il. THE INTAKE MODEL A.General. The Meizhou Wan pump-intake model was built in the IIHR's Model Annex at an undistorted geometric scale of 1: . Photo 1 shows a general view of the model. ‘The model basin framework was welded steel construction fabricated from cold-rolled tube and angle members. The basin measured 4.250-m long, 1.432-m wide, and 1.930-m high, as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Note that in these figures both model and prototype dimensions in mm are given in this order, within parentheses. Figures 2 and 3 show the detailed plan and elevation of the model. The interior of the framework was sheathed with 19.1-mm thick high density overlay (HDO) plywood, fastened in place with 6.35-mm diameter stainless steel fasteners. The basin walls surrounding the pump bays, extending from the backwall to the curtain walls, were sheathed with 19.1-mm thick cast acrylic to facilitate flow visualizationfacilitate flow visualization and lighting. All basin wall joints were sealed with silicone caulk. General construction tolerances were +3.2 mm, near-pump details were within +1.6 mm, and pump-bell details were +0.13 mm. The sea-water offshore pipe was a rolled steel pipe whose model dimensions were 375 mm in diameter and 3.66 m in length. All the intemal features of the intake structure were accurately modeled. The horizontal baffle wall immediately inside the intake structure, shown in Figures 1 and 3, was fabricated from structural steel and 19.1-mm thick HDO plywood. The sloped floor in the upstream intake area was modeled with poured concrete. ‘The trash racks were built to scale using tinned steel members to represent vertical bars as well as the supporting structural members, as shown in Figure 4. The traveling screens were modeled using 4% mesh 0.889-mm diameter stainless steel wire cloth with an opening area percent of 70.8%. The traveling screen cross members were also modeled to accurately replicate head losses across the screen assembly, as shown in Figure 5. The original design of floor and backwall fillets and floor and backwall splitter is shown in Figure 6 and Photo 2. The floor fillets and splitters in the pump bay were initially fabricated from redwood lumber. Upon testing and modifying of the geometry of fillets and splitters numerous times, the final fillet and splitter members were fabricated from formed tin. The test bay pump bell (Pump 2), whose configuration is shown in Figure 7, was made of cast acrylic, machined on a lathe. ‘The pump bell for Pump 1 was not fabricated in this study. Instead, a pump bell previously used in another model study was utilized. Pump 1 was activated only to simulate two-pump flow conditions. Two 914.4-mm long pump columns were modeled with clear 203.2-mm diameter lucite pipes and connected to 203.2-mm LD. PVC pipes, Dual 203.2-mm butterfly valves were used in each suction line to accurately set flow rates and to quickly shut off flows. The mode! was supplied by a 356-mm diameter pipe connected to a 75-hp, vertical, single stage, mixed-flow pump with a variable frequency drive (VFD) controller. B. Test Equipment and Procedure. The model inflow rate was measured using a 152.4-mm orifice meter in a 203.2-mm steel pipe. The orifice meter was calibrated using the IHR’s weighing tank. The calibration curve is shown in Figure 9. Discharges from twomodel pumps were measured with the use of 203.2-mm elbow meters. They were also calibrated using the ITHR’s weighing tank. The calibration curve is included in Figure 9. ‘The differential head across the orifice and elbow meters were read using precision two-tube manometers with a resolution of 0.31 mm of water. ‘Velocities in the pump throat were measured using a custom fabricated Prandtl type, four-probe Pitot tube. This was attached to a precision differential manometer. The Pitot tube was designed so as to read velocities at the pump-throat center and three adjacent radial locations spaced evenly between the center and edge of the throat. The distance between the two adjacent Pitot-tube locations was set to 21.06 mm in model dimensions and the clearance ‘between the pump-throat wall and the outside Pitot-tube location was set to 4.00 mm. ‘These four velocities were read at a given planar angular position and then the complete pump bell, suction pipe, and Pitot-tube assembly was rotated by 45 degrees. In this manner, velocities were able to be taken at every 45 degrees for a complete, 25-point velocity distribution in the pump throat. ‘The angular speed of the pump-suction line flow was measured with the vortimeter mounted 406.4 mm above the bell mouth. This vortimeter consisted of four, 19.1-mm wide zero-pitch blades, supported by low friction bearings. Vortimeter rotations were determined for a period of five minutes. The direction of vortimeter rotation was also recorded. ‘Water surface elevations were determined through the use of four piezometric taps located at (1) the offshore pipe outlet, (2) between the trash rack and traveling screen, (3) immediately downstream of the traveling screen, and (4) in the pump bay. The piezometric taps were connected to a bank of single tube manometers read by a vernier having a resolution of 0.31 mm. Flow visualization was achieved by means of blue-color food dye injected through a wand tipped with a hypodermic needle and placed at desired locations in the flow field. This technique was used extensively to locate the possible origin of submerged vortices and toidentify objectionable pump-approach flow patterns. Flow pattems were photographed and videotaped, and selected color photos are included herein. The test procedure involved, first, slowly filling the model basin approximately one third of the full depth. Then the main inflow valve was closed, Air was then purged from the two model pump-suction lines using a shop vacuum attached to valved air vents at the top of the suction lines. The 355.6-mm diameter discharge manifold valves were closed during this time, resulting in the suction lines as well as the discharge manifold being drawn completely full of water. Next, all the orifice-meter, elbow-meter, Pitot-tube lines, and manometers were urged with the use of the shop vacuum. In order to change the flow condition from this static condition to a dynamic flow condition through the model, the inflow valve and 355.6- mm outflow valves were quickly opened in that order. The pump speed was then adjusted to oughly the desired test water level. In order to set a given pump bay water level and flow rate, the 203.2-mm suction line butterfly valves were adjusted to achieve desired flow rate. Simultaneously, the pump speed was adjusted to achieve a similar flow rate and correct pump-bay water level. These adjustments of the suction line valves and pump speed were repeatedly made to ensure the proper model-operating conditions. It required approximately one half hour to obtain stable model-operating conditions. C. Model Similitude and Scale Ratios. The model was operated in accordance with the Froude-similarity law. Undistorted geometric similarity requires that the ratio of all corresponding dimensions in model and prototype be equal. Thus, all geometric length ratios are given by L,=LwLp a where L;, Lm and Ly are the length ratio, model length, and corresponding prototype length, respectively. Subscripts, r, m, and p hereinafter will be used to denote the ratio, model, and Prototype, respectively. Flow processes involving a free surface, as is the case in this study, are controlled predominantly by gravitational and inertial forces. Therefore, it is importantthat the prototype-model ratio of gravity forces to inertial forces be preserved. This requires that Froude number, F, be the same in model and prototype: F,=Fe/Fp=1 Q) where F=Vi(g)'* @) where V is a characteristic flow velocity; g is the gravitational constant; and Lis a representative length. The scale ratios for velocity, discharge, and time resulting from (1), (2), and (3) for L;= 1/8 in the present case are Ve=VolVp = 12 = 1/2.83 i = 1)? L17= 125 = 1/181.02 i and = Ly? = 1/2.83, ° ‘The rotational flow indicator in the suction line is generally expressed in terms of the angular velocity of the vortimeter tip and the average axial velocity. The swirl angle, 0, is defined by = tan'(Vo/V.) where Vo = 2nrc/60 = tangential velocity at the tip of the vortimeter blade; r= radius of Pump column; @ = angular velocity of vortimeter in rpm; and V, = average axial velocity of pump-column flow.‘The traveling screens were modeled based on the work by Papworth (BHRA 1972) for a flow condition with the lowest water level. The prototype wire-cloth dimensions of the traveling screens are such that the opening is 5 mm, the wire diameter is 1.19 mm, and the Percent open area is 65.2%. A modified Reynolds number defined by Papworth is given by @) vd=s) where V = mean approach screen velocity; b = wire diameter; v = kinematic viscosity of ‘water; and s = solidity parameter = 1 - (screen percent open area) = | - 0.652 = 0.348 in this case. This modified Reynolds number is given by Papworth in terms of K(1-s)"/s, where K = head-loss coefficient. In order to maintain the head-loss coefficient equal both in model and prototype, Papworth's empirical relationship was utilized in this study. D. Criteria for Satisfactory Pump Operations. IIHR's experience with numerous studies of this type has led to the following model criteria for satisfactory operations of prototype pump installations: (1) No free-surface vortices stronger than Type 2, as shown in Figure 8(a); (2) No organized boundary-attached vortices extending into the pump bells, as shown in Figure 8(b); (3) No pump-throat velocities measured that vary by more than +5%, along each concentric circle of the pump-throat cross section, from the average of all velocities measured along the concentric circle; and, () Vortimeter-tip velocity angles (swirl angles) no greater than 5 degrees. According to Eq. (7), the critical model vortimeter speeds corresponding to a swirl angle of 5 degrees for Test Nos., 1, 2, 3, and 4, for example, are 10.4 rpm, 13.5 rpm, 12.0, and 14.2 rpm, respectively. Those for Test Nos. 8 and 9 are 20.2 rpm and 22.8 1pm, respectively.Ill. TEST RESULTS A. Baseline Tests of Intake Under the As-Designed Conditions. As stated previously, tests were conducted on only Pump 2 because of the symmetry in the pump-bay layout, and Pump 1 was operated merely to simulate the required flow conditions. For the ‘two possible pump-operating combinations under this scenario, both low- and high-water levels were simulated in Test Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, as listed in Table 1. Test Nos. 5 and 6 were conducted under 50% screen-blockage conditions. Baseline tests were conducted with the as-designed pump-bay layout shown in Figure 6 to identify the test case which produced the worst pump-bell inlet-flow conditions, judging from vortimeter speed, pump-throat velocity distribution, and vortex formation as detected through flow visualization assisted by injection of food dye into the flow. In each test, a five- ‘minute-long vortimeter reading was taken, and the swirl angle was computed according to Eq. (7). Clockwise motion of the vortimeter when viewed from above was defined as Positive, and counterclockwise, negative. Table 2 summarizes the test results obtained in the present study. Test No. 1 was run with two pumps running at a full-scale discharge of 7.40 m’/s with a low water level of -4.80 m downstream from the curtain wall. Downstream from the curtain wall, weak Type 1 surface swirl was observed; Type 2 and occasional Type 3 free- surface vortex formation was detected upstream from the curtain wall. Type 3 vortex appeared every 5-10 seconds, As shown in Table 2, these Type 2 and Type 3 vortices were present in all the test cases. Type 3 vortices, however, extended only about 150 mm sporadically in the model and never extended below the curtain wall to the pump bay. These vortices were confined upstream from the curtain wall. There were also no organized subsurface vortices observed in the general area surrounding the pump in any of the tests. Measured individual head losses through the trash rack, traveling screen, and curtain wall are listed in Table 2 for reference. The head loss through the traveling screen under Test 1conditions was estimated to be 12.2 mm in full scale by the screen manufacturer. The model test yielded the same loss as predicted. Twenty-five pump-throat velocities measured were normalized by the average of the measured velocities and plotted, as shown in Figure 10. As can be seen in this figure, velocities in the upstream half of the pump-throat section were much smaller than those in the downstream half of the section. The maximum difference amounted to 10% (0.99 versus 1.09). This indicates that the pump-approach flow velocity ‘was too high to be drawn into the pump suction bell, resulting in the flow passing under the pump bell and bouncing at the backwall. Ideally, the velocities along each concentric circle in this figure are desired to be distributed uniformly. Percentage deviations from the means for individual concentric circles were also calculated for each test case and shown in parentheses. For example, in reference to Figure 10, the average normalized velocity along the outside circle was 1.0! erefore, the normalized velocity of 0.99 observed near the upstream end (roughly at 11:55 o'clock location ) was 6% lower than the mean value and that observed at roughly 6:35 o'clock was 4% higher than the mean value, It should be noted that velocities near the center of the pump throat are generally much smaller than those along the outer circles because of the stagnation point present at the sump floor below the pump- suction bell. The swirl angle was 3.0 degrees which is smaller than the critical value of 5.0 degrees. Prerotational direction was predominantly counterclockwise throughout the tests conducted in this study. This is caused by an asymmetric flow issuing from the dual traveling screens. It was observed in the model that more flow passes through the left screen (looking downstream) than the right screen, resulting in a screen-effluent flow directed toward the right sidewall, which caused the counterclockwise prerotation. This general flow pattern is, considered to be produced by the ocean-conduit flow which must enter two pump-intake bays separated by the dividing wall. Through flow separation at the nose of the dividing wall, flows in the two bays tend to move toward the outer sidewalls, resulting in counterclockwise prerotation in Pump 2 and clockwise prerotation in Pump 1. A typical pump-approach flow pattern in Test No. 1 is shown in Photo 3. Test No. 2 was run with one pump operating at a discharge of 9.60 m°/s at a water level set at -4.12 m. The swirl angle was 3.8 degrees which is slightly larger than that in TestNo. 1. The pump-throat velocity distribution is shown in Figure 11. The velocity distribution was very similar to that in Test No. 1, but slightly more nonuniform in this case. The total head loss was estimated to be 114.6 mm in full scale, as listed in Table 2. Because of the low water-level condition in this case, a strong turbulent free-surface condition was produced when the offshore conduit flow impinged against the bafile wall, as shown in Photo 4. However, the curtain wall installed immediately above the trash rack effectively suppressed this turbulent flow condition (see Figure 3 for the inclined curtain wall above the trash rack), Test conditions for Test Nos. 3 and 4 were similar to those for Test Nos. 1 and 2, except for higher discharges and higher water levels in Test Nos. 3 and 4. Test results are summarized in Table 2 and the pump-throat velocity distributions are shown in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. The measured swirl angles in these cases were 3.2 and 3.0 degrees, respectively. , The maximum deviation of velocities along the outer velocity-measurement Circle in Test No. 4 was 12% and that in Test No. 5 was 11%, as shown in Figures 13 and 14, respectively. These deviations were observed to occur between the upstream and downstream portions of the pump-throat section. Photo 5 shows a less turbulent free-surface condition in Test No. 3 in comparison with that shown in Photo 4. Potential screen blockage patterns were explored by dye injection in the model. Flow patterns indicated that the downstream half of each of the dual-flow traveling screens would be potentially clogged by debris under the present intake layout. Therefore, Test Nos. 5 and 6 were conducted with both screens blocked 50% over the downstream halves. Pump-throat velocity distributions for these tests are shown in Figures 14 and 15, respectively. The other test results on prerotation measurements and vortex classification are shown in Table 2. Under this 50%-blockage traveling-screen condition, velocities were also found to be much higher near the backwall than those in the upstream half of the pump throat. The distributions were very similar to those observed in Test Nos. 1 through 4. When screens are Partially blocked, the two effluence flows exiting from the dual-flow screens have higher ‘Velocities compared with cases with the clean screens, resulting in better mixing of the two 10flows. Consequently, the effect of the asymmetric screen-effluent flows, described above for Test No. 1, on prerotation became slightly less important. Therefore, the swirl angles in these test cases were slightly smaller than 3.0 degrees, as listed in Table 2. After having completed all the baseline tests (Test Nos. 1 thorough 6), it was decided to use the test conditions of Test No. 2 in developing corrective measures to improve pump- approach-flow distributions for the as-designed pump-bay layout. It should be noted that among the four criteria specified by IIHR for satisfactory pump operations — criteria (1) through (4), there were only two minor violations observed in Test Nos. 4 and 5 ~- excessive velocity deviations in criterion (3). However, it was judged to be necessary to improve pump-approach flow distributions, B. Description of Developmental Tests. The next phase of the program involved testing of various fixes step by step. Modifications tested in this phase are Test No. 2A through 2H, as listed in Table 2 together with resulting hydraulic features and measured swirl angles. All the tests in this phase were conducted for one pump operating at a discharge of 9.60 m3/s and a pump-bay water level of -4.12 m; the same hydraulic parameters used for Test No. 2. Every effort was made to devise a simple, economical, and yet practical scheme that would be easy to construct and maintain. In an attempt to improve nonuniform pump-throat velocity distributions, the height of the original floor splitter and the floor comer fillets were first increased from 597 mm to 749 mm -- an increase of 25.5% from the original design. With this new near-pump configuration, Test No. 2A was conducted; however, no significant improvement in the Pump-throat velocity distribution was observed, as shown in Figure 16. Only 13 velocity measurements were taken in Test No. 2A. In order to accelerate the pump-approach flow under the pump bell, a linearly- enlarging pyramidal floor splitter and floor comer fillets (Pyramidal Scheme 1), as sketched in Figure 17, were tested in Test No. 2B. As shown in Figure 18, no improvement in the upump-throat velocity distribution was gained under this scheme. It should be noted that velocities were measured only along one diameter in some test cases including this case. It ‘was apparent by taking velocity data along one diameter that no improvement in reducing nonuniformity in pump-throat velocity distributions was achieved. The swirl angle was 3.9 degrees. In the next test (Test No. 2C), the curtain wall was lowered by 406 mm from the original location and Pyramidal Scheme 1 was employed as in Test No. 2B. The swirl angle was reduced slightly to 3.4 degrees compared with that in Test No. 2B. However, no improvement was found in the pump-throat velocity distribution, as can be seen in Figure 19, The pyramidal floor splitter and floor-comer fillets were enlarged both in width and height (Pyramidal Scheme 2), as sketched in Figure 20, and they were tested as Test No. 2D. The curtain wall was maintained at the as-designed elevation in this test. ‘The swirl angle was 3.8 degrees. An improved velocity distribution, as compared with Test No. 2, was obtained, as shown in Figure 21. Free surface surrounding the pump column was very calm and pump- approach flows around the pump bell were streamlined and well defined. Test No. 2E was run with the test conditions similar to Test No. 2D except that the curtain wall was raised from the as-designed location by 813 mm (in full scale). Decreasing the pump-approach-flow velocity under the curtain wall was found to be beneficial in improving the flow distribution at the pump throat, as can be seen in Figure 22. The swirl angle was 3.2 degrees. In addition to the Test No. 2E testing conditions, three rows of baffle bars shown in Figure 23 were installed in Test No. 2F-NF (NF refers to "Not Final"). The purpose of using baffle bars was to reduce the swirl angle that is caused by nonuniform flow distributions within the pump sump. These baffle bars are rectangular in shape and their dimensions were 203-mm wide, 152-mm long, and 7,315-mm tall in prototype dimensions. These blocks were very effective in re-distributing nonuniform flow within the pump sump. The swirl angle in this case was only 1.8 degrees. However, no significant improvement was achieved in the pump-throat velocity distribution, as shown in Figure 24. A significant head loss occurred through the baffle bars and the total head loss was estimated to be as much as 439 mm. 2In order to reduce the head loss through the baffle bars, the upstream row of the bars were removed next, as sketched in Figure 25, and Test No. 2G was conducted. The swirl angle was only 2.8 degrees and the pump-throat velocity distribution was quite good, as can be seen in Figure 26. The total head loss was 224 mm in full scale. Because of expected large head losses, a bafile-bar approach was abandoned. Test No. 2H was conducted with Pyramidal Scheme 2 with the curtain wall raised by 1,499 mm from the as-designed elevation. The bottom of the curtain wall was set flush with the top elevation of the expanding sidewalls. Excellent velocity profiles were obtained with this pump-sump layout, as shown in Figure 27. The total head loss was 805 mm in full scale and the swirl angle was only 2.2 degrees. At this stage, it was concluded by BOC and IIHR that no further modifications would be necessary and the pump-bay layout tested in Test 2H should be adopted as final. C. Verification Tests with Fin: Bay Modifications. After having developed the final pump-bay modifications for the Pump 2 bay, some minor geometrical adjustments were made to the top of the backwall splitter and vertical backwall-sidewall comer fillets. The detailed full-scale layouts of the final pump-bay modifications developed in this study are shown in Figure 28 and Photo 6, The final series of verification tests were conducted for Test Nos. IF, 2F, 4F, 5F, 6F, SF, and 9F ("F" affixed to the run number signifies "Final"), Velocity distributions obtained in Test Nos. 1F, 2F, 4F, SF, and 6F, are shown in Figures 29 through 33, Tespectively. As can be seen in these plots, significant improvements in the pump-throat velocity distributions over the original design layout were achieved with the recommended modifications. Neither objectionable free-surface nor boundary-attached subsurface vortices were observed within the pump bay during these final verification tests. The head losses and swirl angles measured in these tests are listed in Table 2. All the swirl angles were below the critical value of 5 degrees. Typical streamlined pump-approach flow patterns observed in Test No. 2F are 2Bshown in Photos 7 and 8. Dye was injected just above the floor splitter in Photo 7 and it was injected on the floor splitter when Photo 8 was taken. Test No. 8F with a discharge of 14.40 m’/s operated at a water level of -4.12 m was intended to be run under a 1.5*Froude number. However, the model siphon system was not able to withdraw the full discharge for the 1.5*Froude number, due to a very low siphon head. The model was able to withdraw a discharge equivalent to a 1.36*Froude number (discharge = 13.07 m’/s). Since the 1.5*Froude number is rather arbitrary, Test No. 8F run under the 1.36* Froude number is believed to represent an adequate test condition for the scale effect. No adverse scale effect, such as vortex development, was observed in the model. The swirl angle was determined to be only 1.4 degrees. Test No. 9F was conducted next with a discharge of 16.25 m’/s at a water level of 1.9 m. The pump-throat velocity distribution shown in Figure 34 is practically the same as that obtained in Test No. 4F (see Figure 31 for the 1.0*Froude number test condition). ‘The swirl angle in this test was 1.7 degrees, which is very close to that in Test No. 4F (1.3°). Therefore, it can be concluded that no distinguishable scale effect was presented in this model study. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS The final recommendations derived from the present model investigation are summarized as follows: * Recommendation 1: Itis recommended that the curtain wall be raised by 1,499 mm from the original design elevation so that the bottom of the curtain wall is flush with the top elevation of the expanding sidewalls. As shown in Figure 28, the curtain-wall clearance above the pump- sump floor is 4,496 mm. The increase in the curtain-wall clearance helps reduce the pump-approach flow velocities, resulting in a uniform distribution of the pump-throat velocity, and reduction in swirl angles. 4* Recommendation Itis recommended that a 4,597-mm long pyramidal floor splitter be installed in each pump bay, as shown in Figure 28. The height of this triangular splitter increases linearly from zero at the beginning to 1,143 mm at the backwall. Photo 1 is provided herewith to help understand the geometrical layout of each modification component Proposed. The proposed floor splitter not only suppresses formation of floor vortices, but also functions as a flow accelerator for pump-approach flows. * Recommendation 3: It is recommended that two 4,597-mm long, triangular floor-corner fillets be installed along the sidewalls in each pump bay, as shown in Figure 28. The height of these triangular floor-corner fillets increases linearly from zero at the beginning to 1,470 mm at the backwall. These floor-corner fillets eliminate dead-water areas along the sidewalls and accelerate pump-approach flows. They also suppress formation of sidewall vortices, + Recommendation. Itis recommended that two 1,470 mm by 1,470 mm triangular, vertical backwall- sidewall corner fillets be installed in each pump bay, as shown in Figure 28. The top of these fillets is located 3,988 mm from the sump floor. These vertical fillets eliminate dead- water areas around the sump corners, ‘+ Recommendation 5: Itis recommended that a 4,800-mm long, and 1,143 mm by 1,143 mm triangular backwall floor-corner fillet be installed in each pump bay, as shown in Figure 28. This {fillet eliminates stagnant areas along the sump backwall floor corner. * Recommendation 6; Itis recommended that a 1,860-mm wide and 583-mm deep, triangular, vertical backwall splitter be installed in each pump bay, as shown in Figure 28. The top of this backwall splitter is 3,988 mm from the pump-sump floor. This splitter suppresses formation of backwall-attached subsurface vortices. 1sLIST OF REFERENCES . Bauer, D.L., and Nakato, T., "Subsurface vortex suppression in water intakes with multiple-pump sumps," IIHR Report No. 389, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of lowa, Iowa City, Iowa, October, 1997. . Dicmas, J.L., "Effect of intake structure modifications on the hydraulic performance of a mixed flow pump," Proceedings of the Joint ASCE/IAHR/ATHR/ASME Symposium on Design and Operation of Fluid Machinery, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, June, 1978, pp.403-412. Ettema, R., and Nakato, T., "Hydraulic model studies of circulating-water and essential- service-water pump-intake structures: Korea Electric Power Corporation Yonggwang, Station, Units 3 and 4,” IHR Limited Distribution Report No.173, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, June, 1990. |. Nakato, T., "Model investigation of intake-shoaling and pump-vibration problems: lowa Generation Council Bluffs Unit 3 Circulating-Water intake," ITHR Report No.283, lowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa, October, 1984. . Nakato, T., "Hydraulic-laboratory model studies of the circulating-water pump-intake structure, Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Units 4 and 5," IIHR Report No.320, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of lowa, March, 1988. . Nakato, T., "A hydraulic model study of the circulating-water pump- intake structure: Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1, Comision Federal De Electricidad (CFE)," IIHR Report No.330, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Towa, May 1989. . Nakato, T., "Recommendations on lowa Power Council Blufis Unit-3 circulating-water intake-bay modification," a letter report to Iowa Power on use of suction scoops developed by hydraulic model studies, lowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of lowa, Iowa City, 22 November, 1989. . Nakato, T., "A hydraulic model study of the proposed pump-intake and discharge flume: Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River Helper Cooling-Tower Project," IIHR Report No.339, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of lowa, Iowa City, lowa, April, 1990. Nakato, T., and Weinberger, M., "Improvement of pump-approach flows: a hydraulic model study of Union Electric's Meramec plant circulating-water pump intakes,” IIHR Report No. 348, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Towa, June, 1991. 1610. Nakato, T., and Yoon, B., "A model study of the proposed St. Louis County Water Company's water intake near River Mile 37 on the Missouri River," IHR Limited Distribution Report No. 187, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of Towa, lowa City, Iowa, January, 1992. 11. Nakato, T., Weinberger, M., and Ogden, F.L., "A hydraulic model study of Korea Electric Power Corporation's Ulchin Nuclear Units 3 and 4 Circulating-Water and Essential- Service-Water intake structures," IIHR Report No. 370, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, The University of lowa, Jowa City, Iowa, June, 1994, 12, Nakato, T., Rosenberger, H., and Ettema, R., "Inverted draft tubes to improve suction performance of vertical pumps," Final Report, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI TR-106266, Research Project 3456-01, May, 1996. 13. Papworth, M., "The effects of screens on flow characteristics," British Hydromechanics Research Association (BHRA), Report No. TN 1198, November, 1972. 14, Sweeney, C.E., Elder, R.A., Hay, D., "Pump sump design experience: summary," Jounal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol.108, No.HY3, March, 1982, pp.361-377. 15. Tullis, P., "Modeling in design of pumping pits," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol.105, No.HY9, September, 1979, pp.1053-1063. 711/27/98 Test | Sea Water | Water | Water Level | ‘CW Pump Discharge No. Level Level at at Pump. Q) (m/s) & Q,, (m/s) in parentheses | Pipe Outlet T (mYSLD) | (mYSLD) | (mYSLD) Pompt =| Pump2 Low Water Level Baseline Tests 1 | 0330 | Esso 4.80" 7.40 (0.0409) 7.40 (0.0409) 2 | 0330 | 3.80 4.12% 0.0 [__9.60 (0.0530) ‘Water Level Baseline Tests @279' | 139 | 107 | 8.56 (0.0473) 8.56 (0.0473) 4 | 2.79 (2.23 G@sor | 0.0 10.83 (0.0598) ‘50% Screen Blockage Sensitivity Tests § | 330" | O450 04.85 7.40 (0.0409) 7.40 (0.0409) 6 | 6330 | O3.80 417 0.0) 9.60 (0.0530) ‘Test to be Determined Based on the Laboratory Findings | 7 Did not exist (See Note 4) 1.5*Froude Number Tests § | 63.30 i (24.12* 0.0 14.40 (0.0795) 9 | M279 2 1.90" 0.0 16.25 (0.0898) Model scale: 1:8 (geometrically undistorted) Qi: Prototype discharge per pump in m/s Qu: Model discharge per pump in m°/s rscril ions: ‘Two pumps in operation (single-unit full load) with 1.0*Froude number ‘One pump in operation (pump-runout condition) with 1.0*Froude number Test for dual-flow screens (50% clogging) with 1.0*Froude number Test to be determined based on findings from the baseline and other tests Test at low water level with 1.5*Froude number Test at high water level with 1.5*Froude number Water level at the pump with clean screens ‘** Water level at the pipe outlet is to be set in the laboratory based on the water level at the pump Table 1 Test cases with different water levels and pump-discharge conditions 18SLAYMs Jo a{8ue pus uopa24p pue ‘sadA} x9}104 ‘sosso] peay Suypnyouy synsea ysa9 Jo AavuUNg 7 2IqUI, (oxoge woy wsop Buryoo}) sa}ouIOA Jo ywoUDAOUL asIAD}POFDIAIUNO — :maD 1980) jou8U0 ut Se suopemBigu09 MOY YUM HZ US sisaopys Buypuodya jo uoweayp do uw 9p Aa posamoy 1% wren yas az x 'VE"ON 194, 48°57 9 po8seua sy pur sonny 941 SON mers | mar [ euou [ zoredm | wu [vos | ou zai [oo | 36 wavs | manos |” ouou | eiozeda | zioredm | ooo | sue zszi_| ooo | se _| nao 2 | mao ge | euou vedi [eer | ose oss | ooo | a9 wcogo | moogi | ovou ‘vou | ez | cor ore | ove | as | “noo e's | moog | euou —ovou | “e26 | se ewor | ooo | | moove | moose | euou evou | _z26 ox6_| 000 moog | _acoet | ovo uu | veo ore_| owe nooz2 | moos | euov | cwzedn os6_| 000 10 2 00h ove | 000 ew zada | | oss | oo ewzedh 096 | 000 0 z0dh, os | 000 10 zedh oss | ooo | e102 odh ove | 000 “096 [000 soa _| 0001 os8 | 000 veor_| sas ove [ome noe | | wver_| ooo. esor | ooo | wooze | moor, | euou | z06_|~ #59 ose_| 58 “moog | woogor | ovou “srs | si oss | oo wooo | mooe9 | —ovou z05_| 999 ore | ove so0i9p ea dung Te ou rims | wei @pon | e2euns-ans Jeoeung eel] elo | ueung | uaeing zdung | 1 dung ae - eaKoroig wa Te, wyaree wos | wojeioiie 528501 PeoH edsioiag [on ison 19Photo 2 As-designed Pump-2 intake model 20Photo 4 Water-surface condition in Test No. 2 aiPhoto 5 Water-surface condition in Test No. 3 Photo 6 Recommended pump-bay layout with Pyramidal Scheme 2 2Photo 7 Pump-approach flow pattern in Test No. 2F (ye injected above floor splitter) Photo 8 Pump-approach flow pattern in Test No. 2F (dye injected on floor splitter)[epour jo uopas pue wea 1 24n3IL [isinose-# TOud 29828 VMOI'ALIO VIO! \yMOl 40 ALISHAINA SH, ‘9NEZENIONS 40 3037100 3H HOUW3SIH OTINVEGAM 30 31NLISMI VOL ver as a Tos carwruonalnoaeo (woisaq WNI1uO) ‘SMBIA NOI “FaGOWN 40 LOS ONY MIA NYT. 24Pppow jo uvjd payee 7 oan8yy Z)e2s VON ALIO VIMOI ‘SNOGNEWIG B4ALOLOWS TSGON “an SorwooNaLRES ‘WMI 4O ALISHBAINN 3HL 8:4 » 31V08 THGON (NOISAG TYNIDIHO) ‘oNtaaNIONS 40 353TIOO 3A ‘duoo svasuanoTaino3s | TIWM.AN3NTANI JO Waa HUM HOWVaSSH ONNWUGAH JOSLNLUSNI vO! pouWus HaMOa NYMNOHZEN | _OS'HI-Ta LV T3CON 40 MBIA NVI os s1-73 AV MIA Ns caren F-serres—| - a, 5 war — raat war FeaT 28Jepour Jo uoyaas jeupny!Suoy poyeyeq ¢ any 24225 VOL ALO VOL ‘SHOISNaINO 3aALOL0ua 1300 Soy YMOI 40 ALISUAAINA 3H. saws acon ea ee) ‘oNHZSNION 40 3037100 3H “dd09 SvaSWENO TALM Houvasay onnvwaAH 30 aLnusN MOL] youvis waMoatMnoHZIN | HONOBHL NOLOSS TYNIGNLIONOT NOLLO3S TWNIANLIONOT To ‘core ta a a Troe 0007 26uaou9s 1eq Jo wop2as pue UOHEAd]a weasdy pean [Tano30 7 Tous] reds VMONALIO WMO) ‘SNOGNSNG SaAIOIOUS THON Tier aos uvaRRMNOSRLORTONAWE [scan [ea ral YMO1 JO ALISHAAINA 3HL = JOS 13008 Yo om poon) eBhobd out 005340 TO nays ua 20 Wain ESSERE] vowsenvonnmarsosiniisn vier | youmsuaosmnenizan] NOUS3S GAW NOUWAaTa WISN 12a40 wv 40 SOV VHGA ¥ WV NOUOaS (owas (owas = euserar unions wan. i a! ace S oman L if agi OMS eo v 27Wire cloth with wire diameter of 0.888 mm and 70.8% of pening on frame 600.1 4801) (27,82, ie] 23 cans ny 982. 127] | sis > a 220, 1028) be 8 PLAN VIEW OF TRAVELING SCREEN LOCATION 20,2578 074 1395, — 07, 174, 19958) et wa RANE Figure 5 Plan and section of traveling screen 28sraynds pue syoqryy yar Keq oyepuy Jo [7e}9q_ 9 aANBpy [sHo3e # rows] 29225 WMOI‘ALIO VIO! 'SNOISNSVIIG 3AALOLOU “1300 Poa Le aol Coal MOI 40 AUISUSAINN 3HL 9 oho} Ad Nua} ‘ONRIZANION 40 3037100 3HL [e5ec-1sivo | HOMVaSaH ONNYUGAH 30 SUNLILSNI VMI (NOIS3 TYNIDIHO) vv NoUoas oo @anouoas nan aNa (eexeve SoaNy 44 8NoUoas om ‘od shNOLoaS: om nl : N [Ah Gaon (928 1109) SSNOUWOT HEN LOLI aNY ecu USLSWULIOR ONIMOHS Ivi30_ H1 ONV3'3 SNOUDAS ron cn fate Grew 29eq dund jo wopaag 1 o1npy [arose myn Mio wn: SNOIaING 3aNTOLOU "SOON | pay cos yaoomomionauona pomaeetses cee pow pead vou SOMA 3S LNT YO ving nuRL NOUS te on 2 See 30SURFACE SWIRL TYPE 1 ‘VORTEX PULLING cere DEBRIS UTNOT AR = S t = t TYPE VorTexuLLine SURFACE DIMPLE 2 yorTecsuLung TYPE 5 en INTAKE al = YS ' = ‘ORGANZED CORE AS TYPE 3 orTex punting TYPE 6 (OBSERVED BY OYE TRACE ‘A CONTINUOUSLY TOINTAKE = ‘Ny t t (a) Classification of free-surface vortices TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 Weak swim ‘ORGANIZED DYE CORE ORGANIZED AIR CORE. (NOT COHERENT CoRE) (COHERENT DvE Con) (im COMING OUT OF SOLUTION) Ls (b) Classification of boundary-attached subsurface vortices Figure 8 Classification of intake vortices 31Discharge, Q (ms) Discharge, Q (m*/s) 0.08 TT T T T T T 0.07 152.4-mm Orifice in 203.2-mm Pipe q 0.06 F q 0.05 F 4 0.04 F q 0.03 F q 0.02 4 0.01 Q = 1.065"10*SQRT(H) -- 7 = 0.999 4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Square Root of Manometer Head, H (mm) 0.08 0.07 F Elbow Meter for 203.2-mm Pipe q 0.06 F q 0.05 F 4 0.04 F q 0.03 F 4 0.02 F 4 Q=9.67710°*SQAT(H) - P= 1.000 0.01 F q 0.00 Et n eevee] ! ! 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Square Root of Manometer Head, H (mm) Figure 9 Calibration curves for orifice and elbow metersCW PUMP 2 Not: Values in parerneses indcte | | | centage evar am he Geos anesslconenre FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT DiBectit THROAT TEST devon FW 765-738 (0298) CW PUMP |.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 1 on | oN UNDER AS-DESIGNED CONDITIONS TWO-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.80 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 7.40 M°/S Figure 10 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 1 33CW PUMP 2 | Note Vas pateneses nate | | percentage deviaions ttm the ‘means for ida) concentic one FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT DigeeteTHROATTEST 2 devaton FO 755.1386 (2288) CW PUMP I.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 2 oF To UNDER AS-DESIGNED CONDITIONS (ONE-PUMP OPERATION SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M/S Figure 11 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2 4CW PUMP 2 te: Ves in peretess nica | | | rig covaure home ees ernewailcocene | EL OW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT DiBecttehTHROATTEST 3, dovaionFOW 789-19. (8-498) CW PUMP 1.D. PNP [PuNPe TEST NO. 3 ont on UNDER AS-DESIGNED CONDITIONS ‘TWO-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = +1.07 MYSLD DISCHARGE = 8.56 M3/S Figure 12 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 3 35CW PUMP 2 Note: Values in parentheses indicate Percentage deviations trom the ‘means for ingvigual concentc rales FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT ‘sBachsTHROANTEST 4 devon FCD 79°18. (9-498) CW PUMP 1.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 4 oF toe UNDER AS-DESIGNED CONDITIONS ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = +1.90 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 10.83 M°/S. Figure 13 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 4 36CW PUMP 2 Note: Values in parentheses indicate | | | ‘percentage deviations trom the fess erindesicorerss ry Oyy INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT (001 1.06 y DiBecttehTHROATTESTS. devatonFOw 055K 898) CW PUMP I.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 5 on} on UNDER AS-DESIGNED CONDITIONS ‘TWO-PUMP OPERATION (50% SCREENS CLOGGED) ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = ~4.85 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 7.40 M3/S Figure 14 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 5 37CW PUMP 2 mecueeee| | Dercemae devon fore Goes Nawlonenre FLOW INSIDE FACE OF Pn THROAT CW PUMP I.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 6 oF Tos UNDER AS-DESIGNED CONDITIONS. ONE-PUMP OPERATION (50% SCREENS CLOGGED) ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP =-4.17M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M°/S Figure 15 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 6 38CW PUMP 2 FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT SBectehTHROATTEST2A deviation FOw 782-1886" (1688) CW PUMP 1.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 2A oF oe HEIGHT OF SPLITTER & FILLETS:INCREASED BY 25.5% ONE-PUMP OPERATION SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP =-4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M°/S Figure 16 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2A. 39Y — (0.45D (1017 mm) D = 2261 mm PUMP BELL 1983 mm, 1508 mm FLOOR SPLITTER, BACKWALL FLOOR FILLET | - | 0.45D (1017 mm) 4 ' tr SIDEWALL FLOOR FILLET | VERTICAL FILLET tBecotmosstinenc Pyramidal 0175 | ‘SKIMMER WALL ' V7 <—> le! is il Tele | E\/€ 5 Ss 30 mm 1017 mm. t 4597 mm PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 1 Figure 17 Pyramidal pump-bay modifications (Pyramidal Scheme 1) 40CW PUMP 2 FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT DABectelTHROATITEST:-28,FCD 0.55X (2.1886) CW PUMP 1.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 2B opt os PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 1 ONE-PUMP OPERATION SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M°/S Figure 18 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2B alCW PUMP 2 FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT (DaBechtehTHROATTEST-2C FOD 0.55x (918-96) CW PUMP 1.D. Pump 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 2C orr [ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 1 ‘SKIMMER WALL LOWERED BY 406 mm ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M°/S Figure 19 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2C a2tBectetmodel matical 2 ew (0175-100) RS 583 mm AXA D = 2261 mm ESS PUMP BELL fT cenprure fe FLOOR SPLITTER BACKWALL FLOOR FILLET S s_| (0.650 (1470 mm) 930 mm 1860 mm 930 mm 0.65D (1470 mm) 4 4496 mim SIDEWALL CORNER FILLET FLOOR SPLITTER, oO 3454 mm 4597 mm PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 VERTICAL FILLET PROTOTYPE IN mm Figure 20 Pyramidal pump-bay modifications (Pyramidal Scheme 2) 4BCW PUMP 2 Note: Values in parentheses incite | | | Percentage deviations trom the meansterncealcoreare ey Oy INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT 1.00 (01) 0.98 (0.00) (0.01) 41.08 DiBectisTHROATTEST.20_deviaton FOW 7, TEST NO. 2D PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: AS-DESIGNED ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP =-4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 MS (922.20) CW PUNP 1.D. PUMP 1_| PUMP 2 OFF ON Figure 21 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2D 44CW PUMP 2 Note: Values in parentheses indicate percentage deviation from the means for individual concartc ‘orcles FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT DaecttelTHROATTEST-2E deviation FOW 7.69713 8" (8-22-88) CW PUMP 1.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 2E oF Ton PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 813 mm ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M3/S Figure 22 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2E 45s16q aygeq Mox-901y) Jo NOKET EZ aANBI Saqyeg MOY-da1y) (wu pet x wus p16 +4 alld W3A00 8 BSvE ee oe i Z 7 ee 7 Fy. 3 —L prairie Iw (dAL wus gee x wu 26t x wu g0@) wisetl] Suva 314¥a Pee fap bam} uw g9@ un soe 46CW PUMP 2 FLOW /- iBactehTHROATITEST.2F.Notinal FOW 7 8-13.88 (8288) INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT TEST NO. 2F-NF CW PUMP 1.D. PUMP t | PUMP 2 OFF ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 813 mm Wi3 ROWS OF BAFFLE BARS ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M 9S Figure 24 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2F-NF "7Sieg ayyeq Mos-om4 Jo mmOKe'T Sz 24nd sowed (ww Er61 X wu p16) eat TI a SallVid W3A09 8 3Sve 3 MOY-OM | ciate wavs wu gro or aa (aAL ww gtez xu 2s} x wu en2) suva 3144V8 Pi ella wu goe WU S0e 48CW PUMP 2 FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT DaBecttoliT HROATITEST-26.FCW 7.69°13.88" (9-29-98) CW PUMP I.D. PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 TEST NO. 2G oF Ton PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 813 mm W/2 ROWS OF BAFFLE BARS ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M2/S Figure 26 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2G 49CW PUMP 2 Ne: Vas in presence | | | percentage devon forthe Grass Aalereenee FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT DieohehTHROATITEST-2H_ deviation FOW 7.69°-1865" (105-28) CW PUMP I.D. TEST NO. 2H PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 OFF ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 1,499 mm ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M°/S Figure 27 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2H. 50sero vermica, CORNER FLLET SIOEWALL, eo ‘SeuTTER { e200), 14705 200, — XQ \ FLo0R SPUTTER | i came 35080) 36880 SECTION AA SECTIONS-B DIMENSIONS IN FULL SCALE boca 0 Figure 28 Recommended pump-bay modifications shCW PUMP 2 "Noe: Values in parentheses indicate | | | percentage deviations tom the meas fondu cancers yy INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT. 0.97 (001) 00) 9 oY, CW PUMP 1.D. TEST NO. 1F PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 (FINAL CONFIGURATIONS) ON ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 1,499 mm TWO-PUMP OPERATION SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.80 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 7.40 M°/S Figure 29 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 1F 32CW PUMP 2 Noe: Values in parentheses indicate | | | percentage deviations frm tho Sears nua concent FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT Drosenar THROAT TEST oF cevatonFow 7-138 "028 CW PUMP 1D. TEST NO. 2F PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 (FINAL CONFIGURATIONS) orr {ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 1,499 mm ‘ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.12 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M°/S Figure 30 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 2F 3CW PUMP 2 Note: Values in parentheses indicate | | | percentage deviations trom the Tans fornia concene FLOW INSIDE FACE OF crcles PUMP THROAT 1.00 0.02) 0.97 (0.00) Bec HROATITESTAF. devon FOW 759-19 85 (10788 CW PUMP 1.D. TEST NO. 4F PumP 1 [PUMP 2 (FINAL CONFIGURATIONS) ON ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 1,499 mm TWO-PUMP OPERATION SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = +1.90 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 10.83 M‘°/S Figure 31 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 4F 34CW PUMP 2 Note: Values in parentheses inciate | | | Detcentage deviations from the ‘means for individual concertic = ELQW. res INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT 108 (0.00) 0.98 (0.00) OsBectte\THROKTITEST-5F_doviaion FOW 765-1386" (10898) CW PUMP 1.D. TEST NO. 5F PumP 1 | PUMP 2 (FINAL CONFIGURATIONS) ‘ON ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 1,499 mm ‘TWO-PUMP OPERATION WITH 50% SCREEN BLOCKAGE SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = -4.85 M YSLD. DISCHARGE = 7.40 M5/S Figure 32 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. SF 35CW PUMP 2 "Note: Vales in parentheses indicate | | | ‘percentage deviatons from the meas ern comerte EL Oy INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT o\ ZV Sea RSE [\ ~ iBeciehTHROATITEST.F.sevason FW 7 18.88 (10-12.86) CW PUMP |.D. TEST NO. 6F PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 (FINAL CONFIGURATIONS) orr [ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 1,499 mm ONE-PUMP OPERATION WITH 50% SCREEN BLOCKAGE ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP =-4.17 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 9.60 M'/S Figure 33 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 6F 56CW PUMP 2 Note: Values in parentheses indicate | | | percentage deviations ftom the ears rindvaulcoeenre FLOW INSIDE FACE OF PUMP THROAT (002) 4.08 DiBeottehT HROATITEST-9F_ deviation FCW 7.63°13.88" (10-19-98) CW PUMP 1.D. TEST NO. 9F PUMP 1 | PUMP 2 (FINAL CONFIGURATIONS) corr | ON PYRAMIDAL SCHEME 2 ‘SKIMMER WALL: RAISED BY 1,499 mm ‘ONE-PUMP OPERATION ‘SUMP WATER LEVEL @ PUMP = +1.90 M YSLD DISCHARGE = 16.25 M°/S Figure 34 Pump-throat velocity distribution for Test No. 9F 37