1111~lllr---;32.1..-~-- · 17 18 19 Title Labora·tory Model with Original Spillway Configuration...

1111~lllr---;32.1..-~--

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY,CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

FRITZ ENGINEERING LABORATORYHYDRAULIC AND SANITARY ENGINEERING DIVISION

MODEL STUDY OF NINETY DEGREE SPILLWAY

FOR

NOCKAMIXON DAM

Project Report No. 52

Prepared by

David R. Basco

John B. Herbich

and

Paul D. Erfle

Prepared for

The General State Authority

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

March, 1967

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 326.2

i

A B S T RAe T

A hydraulic model study of an unusually designed spillway ~as

requested by the- General State Authority, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The dam is to be located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and is part of

ItProject 70" designed to increase the number of recreational facilities

in the Commonwealth. Economics and the topography at the dam site

dictated the ninety degree turn in the spillway.

A 60 to 1 scale model was constructed in the Hydraulics

Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, Lehigh University. The Con~

suIting Engineers' original design was tested and it was found that

several improvements in the hydraulic flow patterns should be made. The

flows over the control weirs, energy dissipators (hydraulic jumps) and

flow passages were all in need of hydraulic improvement. Modifications

made to the model primarily consisted of improving entrance conditions

to the first weir by use of a large streamlined dike; rounding the

corners of -the ninety degree turn to provide smoother flow; and redesig'n-

ing the second weir to produce a more efficient hydraulic jump. All

modifications resulted in totally improved flow patterns and energy

dissipation in the entire spillway structure. The model study also

resulted in some cost saving in construction which more than offset the

cost of the, rru)del study.,\"

ii

A B S T RAe T (continued)

It was therefore concluded that if the pro~otype spillway is

constructed according to the final design as determined by the model

study, the dam will adequately be protected from the Standard Project

Flood for the drainage basin.

iii

PRE F ACE

A research contract between the General State Authority,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Lehigh

University's Institute of Research provided for experimental hydraulic

studies of an unusually designed right angle spillway. Pickering,

Corts and Summerson, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Langhorne, Pennsylvania,

are responsible for the design of Project No. G.S.A. 194-12, Nockamixon

State Park, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Justin and Courtney,- Consulting

Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have been subcontracted for

the dam and spillway design. The model investigation was conducted by

the Hydraulic and Sanitary Engineering Division of Fritz Engineering

Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering.

The study was made on a dynamically similar model of the spil1-

way and was primarily concerned with checking the hydraulic performance

of the Consulting Engineer's uniquely arranged spillway design.

The project had been under the direction of Dr. John B. Herbich,

who was *Chairman of the Hydraulics and Sanitary Engineering Division at

Lehigh University. Dr. John R. Adams is currently Acting Chairman of

* Currently, Head of Hydraulic Engineering and Fluid Mechanics Division,Texas A &'M University, College Station, Texas.

iv

PRE F ACE (continued)

of the Division. Dr. Herbich was assisted by Mr. David R. Basco, Research

Instructor and Mr. Paul D. Erfle, Research Assistant.

Dr. L. S. Beedle is Acting Head of the Department of Civil

Engineering and Director of Fritz Engineering Laboratory.

TAB LEO F CON TEN T S

ABSTRACT

PREFACE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of Study

B. Model Scale

C. General Test Program

II. MODEL TEST FACILITY

A. Original Model Design

B. Modifications

1. Spillway

2. Forebay

III. INSTRUMENTATION

IV. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

A. Model Laws

B. Channel Roughness

V. RESULTS OF STUDY

A. General

B. Lower Half Spillway

C. Weirs and Forebay

i

iii

v

vii

1

1

7

8

9

9

15

15

18

24

27

28

29

33

33

36

41

v

TAB .L. E 0 F CON TEN T S (continued)

vi

V. TEST RESULTS (continued)

D. Miscellaneous Results

1. Retaining wall profile

2. Velocities

3. Channel Roughness

VI. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

VIr. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

VIII. APPENDICES

Al Lower Half Spillway - Contour Maps

A2 Weir Cross Sections

A3 References

56

56

56

60

64

66

67

68

85

107

LIS T o F ILL U S T RAT ION S

vii

TAB L E S ). AND P HOT a G RAP H S

Number

Frontispiece

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Title

Labora·tory Model with Original Spillway Configuration

Location Plan

Drainage and Reservoir Areas

Proposed Spillway Design

Proposed Spillway Sections

Original Model Plan

Original Model Sections

Model Construction

Forebay Construction

Modified Spillway Plan

Modified Spillway Section

Original Forebay Plan and Sections

Original Forebay and First Weir Plan

Forebay Modification No. I

Forebay Modification No. II

Forebay Modification No. III - Final

8 11 x 5 11 Venturi Calibration

Model Test Data Table

·Predicted Tailwater Rating Curve

First Jump at 100% Flowrate - Original Design

2

3

5

6

10

11

12

14

16

17

19

20

'21

22

23

25

34

35

38

viii

L I 'SoT OF ILLUSTRATIONS,

TAB L E S, AND P HOT a G RAP H S (continued)

Number Title

20 Vortex at Inside Corner with 100% F10wrate - Original Design 38

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Second Jump at 100% F10wrate - Original Design

Second Jump at 20% Flowrate - Original Design

First Jump at 100% Flowrate - Final Design

Elimination of Vortex - Final Design at 100% Flowrate

First Jump at 20% Flowrate - Final Design

Elimination of Vortex - Final Design at 100% Flowrate

Second Jump at 100% Flowrate - Normal Tailwater - Final

Original versu9 Final Design Comparison Contour - 100%Flowrate

40

40

42

42

43

43

44

45

29 Weir Cross Section Comparison 20% Flowrate 47

30 Weir Cross Section Comparison - 60% F10wrate 48

31 Weir Cross Section Comparison - 100% Flowrate 49

32 Original Forebay With Smooth Flow at 100% Flowrate 50

33 Forebay Modification No. I 52

34 Forebay Modification No. II at 100% Flowrate 53

35 Forebay Modification No. III (final) at 20% Flowrate 54

36 Forebay Modification No. III (final) at 100% Flowrate 55

37 F10wrate versus Forebay Water Surface Elevation Comparisons 57

38 Surface Profile Along Left Concrete Retaining Wall - Final 58Design at 100% Flowrate

39 Prototype Velocities at Critical Locations 59

40 Mesh Orientation 61

41 Effect of Mesh Orientation on First Hydraulic Jump 62

I. I N T ROD U C T ION

A. Purpose of Study

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has committed over seventy

million dollars for "Project 70" to increase the number of recreational

facilities for its people. As part of the project, a new state park

will be formed in Bucks County which will be known as Nockamixon State

Park. Originally a two-stage development was planned, as envisioned by

the Delaware River Basin Report; however, because of the small amount of

additional land required for ultimate stage development and also the

limited additional captial costs for the dam required for such develop

ment, the Department of-Forests and Waters decided for ultimate develop

ment of the Tohickon Site. The central feature of the 5000 acre park,

which is to be constructed by 1970, will be a lake seven miles long

created by a 100 foot high and 1200 foot long dam. The dam which is to

be of earth and rock fill construction will be built across the Tohickon

Creek just downstream of its confluence with Haycock Creek. The dam site

is located near the town of Ottsville, 10 miles east of Quakertown, and

about 30 miles north of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (Figure 1). The

extent of the drainage area and outline of the reservoir to be impounded

by the dam can be seen in Figure 2. The area of the reservoir will be

1460 acres and the gross storage will be approximately 41,000 acre feet~

or 13.4 billion gallons.

PLAN

OUTLINE OFRESERVOI R

j\HAGERSVILLE

To Chur~

LOCATION

~6§~e~_.~i~"'~§"~5;;;;;iio~~~~~~~~:MILE

-4

The sp~llway design, to handle the Standard Project Flood

expected in the area, was based on hydraulic requirements and construct

ion economy. It was desired to make the spillway as wide as possible

to protect the park beaches and limit the surcharge during large floods.

~The topography of the area necessitated the unusual geometric design.

As seen in Figure 3, a natural draw occurs in the terrain making an

ideal location for the return channel to the river downstream of the

dam. However, in order to take advantage of this natural site the

spillway flow will have to make a ninety degree turn after it passes

over the control weir lQcated on the west side hill. The spillway if

located and constructed as shown in Figure 3 would provide enough good

quality rock to construct the dam to the required elevation. It was

therefore decided to design the spillway with the ninety-degree turn.

Additional sectional views of the spillway design are shown in Figure 4.

Because of insufficient theoretical knowledge of supercritical

flows in open channels, exact computations ~annot be made of the surface

"elevations and velocities for flow around a sharp ninety-degree turn.

The location of areas of flow separation and vortices accompanying such

flows is also impossible to determine. The General State 'Authority

therefore requested that a hydraulic model be made to determine the

exact performance characteristics of the ninety-degree spillway, as

designed by the Consulting Engineers.

In particular the model study was desired in order to:

1. Check the overall hydraulic flow patterns in the spill

way resulting from the unusual design.

Spillway

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

Spillway

Maximum Flood Surchoroe £1. 40lUS

350'

SECTION A-A

PLANeo

100 I 0 100 2qo,......;;;; :BI •

SECTION B-B

Flr,t OQI.

400 ----..~r_t_=~--,----------=.:..W.:;.:.:.ir---=:.:;EI.:......·.:::..::39::..:::5_J_-----__r"--------_,__-------___r_---,400

380--~""""---+--------+------__---+---------+------------t--1 380

Exi,t

360-----.~~~===+================:t=============:::j-__4--------_+_----~--___t-~360Top of Rock olQno f Spill.

£1. '318

300 --+---------+------

Project No. G.S.A. 194-12Dam

Nockamixon State ParkBucks Coun ty t Pennsylvania

PROPOSED SPILLWAY DESIGN

280 -~0--------..L----------"--9-J0-O--------I~OOO~-------~110:-=0---'280

380t----t----------+---:....:.......- ~---

3601---+--------~-------____l~-_____"360

340I----+---------+----------lf.----340

320r----+---------+------,.-------1--~'320

300L-.-.-~O--------~IOO~--------J2001..-----J-i

Drawing Courtesy ofPickering t Corts and Summerson t Inc.

Langhorne 1 Pennsy 1vaniaLehigh University, Fritz Eng in. Lab.

Fig. No.3SCALE: ,If. 80'

-I ISECTION H-H

501-0.M~ I I

3401- ,.·w·, 1 ,,-.,.,,-., ~~

Strip Overburden to Compet.nt Rock

~30~ \I.

~20L IJSECTION L-L

370~i---------:..------------~

SECTION Q-Q

.370i ~

360 ~ ~ -...... \ 1 1f._----I\U-"..:L,!;~""Yz._ _

3501---------

3401 8-1 1-1-----

330 ~I-------

320L. I~

SECTION K-K

370..-.c~--

3601- ~

350

SECTION N-N

101-0.

RocII:

SECTION S-S

Project No. G.S.A. 194-12

Dam

NockamlKon Stat. ParkPROPOSED SPILLWAY SECllONS

Drawing Court•., ofJustin £ Courtn"

Phtladllphla. PennsylvaniaLahiQh Unlv,n'ly. Fritz EngIn. Lab..

FlO. No. 4 (J'\

-7

2. ,P~ovide the necessary design information for concrete

linings, wall h~ights, and the proposed protective dike.

3. Insure the overall safety of the dam under the worst pro

jected flood conditions.

B. Model Scale

Since the forebay entrance area ahead of the first agee weir

affects flow in the spillway, it must be modeled carefully. Enough of

the entrance are~ must be modeled'so that the model flow patterns

simulate as closely as possible those expected to occur in the prototype.

Modeling the tailwater area is not as critical. As long as

the correct tailwater elevation is maintained the model can deviate some

what from geometric similarity in this case.

Exact geometric similarity is important throughout the entire

spillway flow passages. In this regard the slopes of all walls, all

warped areas and all weir curvatures must be carefully scaled.

Laboratory space was the governing factor in determining the

smallest possible model scale. After a careful analysis of all possible

laboratory locations and model scales, a model of 60 to 1 waS chosen.

This scale is well within the 100 to 1 range -when surface tension forces

begin to influence the results.

Most important and unfortunately most difficult is the art of

modeling the exact surface roughness so that the frictional resistances

-8

in the model will.be dynamically similar to those in the prototype.

Since the prototype surface roughness after rock blasting is extremely

non-uniform and indeterminate, exact modeling is impossible. Details

of the model roughness calculations, methods used and tests made and

planned are given in the Theoretical Analysis Section of this report.

C. General Test Program

The original spillway design was tested with both a smooth and

artificially rough channel surface and after the latter test it became

apparent that a modification study was also necessary. The spillway

modifications were made in two steps and the second step became the

final design configuration.

The forebay was also redesigned and after a series of four

arrangements, modification No. III became the final configuration.

Some minor tests with the artificial roughness were also per-

formed.

The plan and elevation views of the model as originally con

structed in the Hydraulics Division Laboratory are shown in Figures 5

and 6. (See Frontispiece also).

II. MOD E L

A. Original Model Design

T EST F A elL I T Y

-9

The head box was constructed of steel plate, and a heavy

expanded metal lath was used to support the rocks in the rock baffle.

Wood was used to construct the remainder of the model. Floors and walls

were cut from marine plywood sheets to eliminate warping. Cross braced

Kiln-dryed two by fours and two by sixes were used for all beams and for

the leg columns to insure against misalignment. A stiff cement grout

was used to mold the forebay ground contours between templates cut from

masonite sheets and the corner of the dam was modeled from 1/16 inch

galvanized sheet steel.

Since change is the rule rather than the exception in hydraulic

models, the model was designed for ease in adjustment and modification.

It was built in sections which were either hinged or bolted together to

allow for fast leveling to exact floor elevations and to facilitate any

necessary modifications in design. (See Figure 7) The 4 to 1 sloping

section was hinged at the first agee to readily make slope changes and

all Itwo by four legs were fitted with leveling screws so that floor

Flow FromLaboratory Sump

3. Surface roughness not shown

4. Upstream topography Constructed of

sand - cement grout

Notes:

L Model downstream of First Ogee

constructed of 3t4" marine plywood

2. Wall slopes I horizontal to 10 vertical

200' Prototype100'o

o II 2011 2 1 31 40"I !! I I'

Scale

ORIGINAL MODEL PLAN

Project 1050 - 3,26

Nockamixon Spillway Model

Fritz Engineering La boratory

Hydraulics Division, Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehi gh Un iva rsity

Fig. No.5

Return toSump

TailwaterAdjustment

A"IIIIIIIIII

"II

Tailwater Hook Gage

SIlX all Calibrated

Manifold

Dam Axis

lUx 2" Wall Supports

Second

Stilling

Basin

Ogee

Plexiglass Wall

First Stilling Basin

Warped WallSection

t-o-lo

Flow

Second Ogee

3/411 Plywood Flooring

.. I I I ";» \~); ,-

IlI x 6 11 Wood Framing

211 x 4 11Wood Legs

I / Plywood Wall

Joint BoltedTogether

Leg Adjustment Screw

Scole

ORIGINAL MODEL SECTIONS

Project 1050-326


Fritz Engineering Laboratory


Lehigh University

Fig. No.6

1001o

o 20" 4011

i ! Model2001 Prototype

No,te:

Broken Wall Shown Above on RightHand Side Looking Downstream

~::t......,,- 3/8 " Bolt

'Wood Leg

1"'""_-,1-.='"'1t-=![=J

F'07 ' J.rj ,Bearing Plate

t-'to--l

(a) Table for first stilling basin being moved into position.

(b) Second table in place with some walls attached.

Fig. No. 7 Model Construction

-12 '

-13

elevations could.be set with a Dumpy level and rod. Elevations could

thus be set to + 0.15 feet on the prototype scale.

The laboratory's main pumping system was used to provide water

to the model. Water was pumped from the laboratory sump and returned

via the second floor drain for recycling. The flow was measured with a

calibrated venturi meter and controlled by a gate valve upstream from

the head box. A six inch diameter distribution manifold with jets fac

ing upstream resulted in a uniform flow distribution into the head box.

The six inch wide rock baffle with 1/2 to 3/4 inch crushed and washed

stone insured uniform flow into the model.

Both the first and second agee weirs were precisely cut from

hardwood by the Bethlehem Model Shop, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Reverse

templates were used to insure the exactness of the "weir profiles over

their entire length.

Figure 8 shows some details of th~ method of forebay con

struction. A false floor was constructed in the head box up to the rock

"baffle. On it rand the floor extending from the steel head box, templates

cut from~"1/4 inch masonite sheet were attached to aid in contouring the

ground surface. The template profiles were cut to match the existing

topography in the area and a light weight aggregate was poured over the

entire forebay area to be contoured to within an inch of the template

surface to lighten the load on the wooden flooring. Finally, a thick

sand-cement grout was hand placed and contoured to form an exact model

of the topography in the forebay area. Surface elevations were checked

to within + 0.5 feet qn the prototype scale.

(a) View before pouring grout between templates

(b) After modeling surface contours withgrout - corner of dam in place.

Fig. No.8 Forebay Construction

-14

-15

Wall sections at the inside corner were made from 3/4 inch

plexiglass so that visual observations of the turbulence and flow pat

terns in this critical area could be made.

The tailgate.was hinged to the model and held in place by two

3/8 inch diameter, 16 threads per inch, bo1t~ fitted with hand cranks.

This arrangement permitted fast and accurate adjustment of the tail

water to values above and below the required levels.

An expanded metal lath was selected to simulate the floor and

wall roughness for reasons of economy and ease of construction.

B. Modifications

1. Spillway

The modifications to the original spillway design were made

in two steps. Step one, called Part A, involv.ed moving the left side

concrete retaining wall 50 feet (in the direction of the stream's

centerline) thereby reducing the second weir length to 250 feet. The

inside and outside radii were also added at this time. The location

and design of the second weir agee remained unchanged. All floor

elevations did not change from original design. The modified spillway

(Part A modifications as noted) is shown in Figure 9.

Part B resulted in the final design. In this second part of

the modification program the first stilling basin floor elevation was

rai~ed two feet to Elevation 320 feet, and the second ogee weir was

moved downstream ~nd completely changed in design. The modified spill

way is sqown in Figures 9 and 10 with the original outline sU,perimposed.

See Detailed

Drawing Fig. 15

I~ First Ogee.

350 1

Flow

Final Weir Location

Final Wall Location1 I .[-2nd. Ogee AXIS ~Iev. 307.5Z! I

161 1 Original Wall ------.---,Ii ~----- I

Elev. 327fDO/.'"«!\

\\L -- ---- "I 'I ' _

Note:

I. Part A of modifications included only 30' and 150' radii s-hown

and decreased width of second ogee as shown. Elevation view r€mained

as originally shown.

2. Final design of spillway shown with final forebay design.

Project 1050 - 326


MODIFIED SPILLWAY PLAN



Lehigh University

Fig. No.9

.......-"Q'\

\ Top of Dam Elev. 412

7W. •• .'... •• ==".....~ Elev. 395

First Ogee Axis STA 255

Second Ogee

Floor Elev. 320~

430

400

350

300

I I I I I J I I I I

o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

ELEVATION VIEW FIRST aGEE TO FIRST STILLING BASIN

Elev.3207

\30' Radius

\ \ Top of Wall Elev. 342

Sta.455 ct 2nd. Ogee

-Elev.326at Crest rElaV.332

£ 10 to 1.2 Slope

~Elev. 307STA 547

400

350

300

Elev.302 at

~ I Lowest Point1 I 1 I I I I I

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

ELEVA TION VIEW FIRST STILLING BASIN TO TAILRACE

Note:

See Justinand Courtne y dwg. no. 647- A for detai1s of

second ogee shape.Scale

All 20"9 I ! • Model

o 50' 1001 Prototype

Project 1050 -:3 26

Nockamixon Spillway Mode I

MODIFIED SPILLWAY SECTION



Lehigh University

Fig. No. 10

t-l'-J

-18

Note also that the floor elevation profile was also completely changed

downstream of the second weir for the modified design.

2. Forebay

Figures 11 and 12 give complete details of the original fore

bay area design. Three modifications of the original design were made

and studied. After the original tests, Forebay Modification No. I shown

in Figure 13 was suggested by the Corisu1ting Engineers (Justin and

Courtney) and appropriate model changes made to test this design. Of

primary concern was the poor hydraulic entrance conditions that ~esu1ted

in inefficient flow on the left side of the first weir. The large fill

area and warped slope seen in Figure 13 was made to streamline the flow

as it approached the first weir. Modification No. II, shown in

Figure 14, was made by Lehigh University in search of further improve

ment. However, this design proved impractical due to the length of the

rock fill warped section. Figure 15 gives details of Modification

No. III which was incorporated in the final design.

Elev. 400

~\

I Elev.3902 ....l11 W

Section E-E

2Elev. 39Q I~"~

Section A-A

Section B-B

Section C-CG

=-1

40'-011

r=G

overburd7

(FlOW

Spillway Axis7

FORBAY PLAN

Radius =350'

Assumed

ROCk~

Elev.390

75 1-0"

FFIII~ I ' ~~( iti ........ '27°-151

420

"420

Project 1050-326Nockamixon Spillway Model

501o

a IOU 20" Model

i ! PrototypelOa'400

Elev. 390...,IE

Section G-G

IIf:'

400

Section D-D ORIGINAL FORBAY PLAN AND SECTIONS


Hydraulics Division 1 Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University

Fig. No. II

......\.0

...--- l.-

Q)'

>

oa~~-----

Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODEL

Original Forebay andWeir Pion

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics DivisionLa high University

Fig. No. 12

-o_I

orei

31-~

c0, II

-cQ)

c..~

c~

c c c::> 0 ..::> __ c~ 1: 0CD Q) -~.. >'--... 0

~oJ:

51-a"

~!

350'-0"

No

Rip. Rap. Fill

WarpSection

75 1

First Ogee -A-xiS--~

~ Contour Elev.380

.., ( r Side Slope 1.5: I

Axis

~FIOW ~Concrete WallProject 1050 -326

NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODELForebey Modification - I

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics DivisionLehigh University

Fig. No. 13

N~

First Ogee Axis

WarpedSection

13811 II Elev. 412

1581


Forebay Modification· - IIFritz Engineering Laboratory

Hydraulics DivisionLehigh University

Fig. No. 14

Ntv

R= 125 1

Sta. 1+ 69 Top

of Wall Elev.401

412

~r- 412 :11:' 412410 1\\1!!I"i!\"!t\410 ~

,Rock---- L~ Original Ground

Rock~0.2__ 400

390 390II;==. III '!!!O l/I 1f11f!:.\'1B..\f!Il,

2+47 2+40

412 412_~<2...___~ 410------

1.5 Ground / Original Ground

400 ~I~- 400-I ~o'ck ----II Rock

;~~\././II 390lIi/'!!.'=/

2+10 1+80

Rock Fill

I: 1.5 Slope

Curvature to Agree

With 3501 Radius of

Modification J[

Channel

Approach

Elevation 390

3 1Wide Beam

1+75

1+55

1+85

1+65

'1+95Slope

i l<2- - -- --~,

, I

Scale

o 101 201 301

Project 1050 - 326Nockamixon Spill way Model

FOREBAY MODIFICATION

NO• .m:. - FINAL


Hydraulics Division

Lehigh University

Fig. No.15

__Original Ground~02__

390We/-\?:...\

1+66

Scale

a 10' 201

Prototype

0 2" 4" Model

Prototype

Model4" 611o 2 11

2+55

2+15

2+25

2+35

2+05

2+45

NW

-24

III. INS T RUM E N TAT ION

A minimum amount of instrumentation was needed to obtain all

the experimental data. Most important was the determination of f1ow

rate so that the correct floods could be simulated in the model. In

this regard the eight inch by five inch venturi meter in the supply

line was recalibrated prior to the test program. The results of the

calibration using the volumetric method are shown in Figure 16. The

calibration was checked during the testing program and no devitation

noted. Extreme care was used to bleed the manometer lines of air

before each test.

Two hook gages in pot-type stilling wells were used to

determine and set the head water and tailwater surface elevations.

(See Figure 5). The zero reading was set on each hook gage using a

Dumpy level and rod.

Water depth measurements were made with an ordinary point .

gage. In some cases high and low water depth readings were taken and

an average value calculated. A coordinate system had to be established

to locate each depth measurement for later plotting purposes. The

prototype stationing system used on Figure 3 was used since the results

could be easily referenced back to the prototype for evaluation. The

spillway profile stations along Section C-C of Figure 3 were designated

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

45,000' DESIGN

FLOW EQUALS 100%

Rating EquationQ =1.16 HO.495

Q-cfsH- Manometer Differentialin Feet of Water

1.6,737

11,158

5,579

o

39,053 ~o:E

33,474:::0):>~

2 7,8950 ~

o22,316 ~

(J)

61,369

55,790

50,211

""0::0'o-Io-I-<44,632 -0fT1

66,918

.72,527

20%

40%

80%

60%

a"xs" VENTURI CALIBRATIONFOR-

NOCKAMIXON MODEL SPILLWAY

SCALE RATIO 60:1

CALIBRATED BY VOLUMETRIC

METHOD ON 6-11-66 BYD.R. BASC-O AND P.O. ERFLE

MANOMETER DEFLECTION (Inches Gauge Fluid)

64o 2

2.4

2.0

2.2

2.6

Cf)

1.8u.:u·

w 1.6l-e:(0:: .1.4~0

1.2..JLL

~ 1.0w00~ 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Fig. No. 16

NLn

-26

the "Red Scale ll• Along Section D-D the term JlBlack Scale ll was used. The

point gage bar was also stationed to prototype scale and called the

IfBlue Scale". These designations were all used on the test result plots

and are referred to in the section on test results.

Velocity. measurements were made with a Leupold & Stevens

midget current meter. The calibration curve of this meter was checked

using the laboratory open-channel flume.

IV. THE 0 RET I CAL

A. Model Laws

A N A L Y SIS

-27

The model was tested according to the general practice for

open channel, free surface flows. Both the Reynolds Number and Froude

Number appear in a non-dimensionalized Navier-Stokes equation, indi-

eating that both viscous and gravity forces govern the flow. Standard

practice has been to design the model according to the predominant

Froude Law, while qualitatively noting the viscous force effects on the

results. Experience has shown that for models built for scales less

than 100 to 1 the surface tension effects at the boundary are negligible.

Using the Froude Law therefore, the following relationship

were used in all calculations:

LLength ratio, L --E 60

r Lm

VVelocity ratio, Vt

--EV

m

( 1)

(2)

Discharge ratio,Q

Q =--Er Q

m

7.745

27,850

(3)

-28

where: L len.gth

V velocity

Q volumetric flowrate

g gravitational constant, g = 1.0 on earthr

p subscript referring to prototype

r = subscript referring to ratio

m subscript referring to model

Pressure, force, power, etc. relationships were not involved.

Using conventional methods the water surface profiles for the

spillway can be predicted only in the ,straight sections of the channel.

Chow(4) gives methods for predicting surface elevations and losses

around bends in smooth curved channels. However, there is no accurate

information to the writer's knowledge about open> channel flow around

sharp, ninety-degree turns.

B. Channel Roughness

According to the best estimates of the Design Engineers,

(Pickering, Carts and Summerson, Inc.) the rock floor of the spillway

will vary between six and nine inches above ot below the design grade

line. The rock walls will also project about four inches above and below

the design slope. Scaling geometrically this prototype roughness becomes

in terms of the model scale:

1. floor, + (0.00833 - 0.0125) feet,

2. walls, + (0.0055) feet.

-29

For complete similitude the roughness should be modeled both

geometrically a~d dynamically. From the tables and photographs in

Chow(4) , Mannings I "n", is estimated to be about 0 .035. Chow also

gives an empirical equation for estimating lin" if the absolute rough-

ness, k, is known. Thus from the expression:

n = (4)

where: n = Manning roughness coefficient

Ro (k) = a constant of about 0.0342 (Strickler's Constant)

k = absolute surface roughness

If a value of nine inches is used for k in equation (4), IInlf is calcu-

lated to be 0.033 for the prototype. This value is the range of those

selected from tables and photographs.

From Manning's equation based on the Froude Law the relation-

ship between model and prototype "nil is

Using np

L1/6 1/6

n ( --!!!) (1-.)r L L

p r

11/6

n (60) 0.506 .r

0.033 (lin" for prototype)

(Sa) .

(Sb)

nill

0.0165 ("nll for model) (6)

-30

Now using equation (4) for the model with a model "n" of 0.0165, Iem

for the model can be obtained.

nm

C/J (R/k)(7a)

k 0.0127 feet for model (7b)

This value compares very favorably with the upper limit obtained by

geometric scaling of the floor roughness. Note however that the

assumption of 0 (R/k) being equal to Strickler's Constant for the model

must be made. As mentioned previously, an expanded metal lath was used

to model the roughness. The metal lath was stapled to the wood channel

and only the positive side of the plus or minus elevation was modeled.

The exact size and shape of the two types of lath used ~s given below.

Lath Floor Walls

Style Designation 1/2" No. 16 1/2" No. 18

Strand Width 0.078 in. 0.081 in.

Approximate Size of Mesh-Width 0.462 in. 0.462 in.

Center to Center of Bridges - Length 1.2 in. 1.2 in.

Strand Thick.ness 0.060 in. 0.048 in.

(Daub led) 0.120 in. 0.096 in.

Approximate Size of Opening 0.375 x 0.906 in. 0.392 x 0.920 in.

Percent Open Area 64 to 68% 70 to 75%

The doubled strand thickness was a good indication of the absolute ~rough-

ness. In this case the floor roughness was 0.010 feet which corresponded

to a prototype value of "about 7-1/2 inches and within the expected rough-

limits. The walls were about 5-1/2 inches rough on the prototype scale.

-31

In any. hydraulic model there are a number of limiting factors

that prohibit e~act geometric and dynamic similitude. These must be

kept in mind at all times. Surface tension effects although minimal,

are still present especially during low depth flows in the forebay area.

As a consequence prototype forebay water surface elevations will be

slightly lower than predicted. Also since the complete randomness of the

prototype roughness can never be modeled, the simulated roughness material

used is at best a good engineering approximation to the prototype. And

lastly, it must always be kept in mind that viscous forces are ever

present and also influencing the flow patterns to a limited extent.

v. T EST RES U L T S

-32

A. General

In order to intelligently judge the results of the model study,

the criteria for good hydraulic spillway design should be clearly under

stood. Therefore before beginning a detailed analysis of the test

results, the salient points of good hydraulic spillway design will be

presented.

The purpose of any spillway is simply to safely convey flood

flows around, through, or over the dam. The potential energy of water

behind the dam must be safely and efficiently controlled as it changes

to kinetic energy in its journey to the river downstream. The assurance

of complete safety for the dam under the waist possible flood conditions

is the ultimate goal for the design of any flood spillway.

In order for flow control weirs to perform as designed they

must have uniform depths and velocities over their entire length. This

means ,that great care must be taken in providing smooth entrance condi

tions. Inefficient weirs will result in higher reservoir surface

levels than expected, resulting in less freeboard on the dam and reduced

dam safety factors.

Hydraulic jumps, if. used as energy dissipators must be stable

and occur at the desired location. They must also be of a strong nature

if effective energy loss is to be realized. Unstable jumps cause

-33

undesirable su~ges and resulting shocks elsewhere in the spillway. The

high degree of turbulence and bottom eddies created must occur where

damage to the spillway floor surface is tolerable. Flow separated areas

and their accompanying vortices are undesirable in that they reduce

the efficiency or conveyance of the flow passages, resulting in higher

velocities in these areas which could result in erosion.

In general, all velocities in tailwater regions and other

critical areas must be low enough to prevent surface erosion. One

critical area would be the flow in the forebay area past the earth dam

itself. Erosion of the dam is most undesirable and dangerous.

Lastly, surface waves created downstream of hydraulic jumps

should be small and steady so that resulting wave impact forces and

possible erosion are insignificant.

The original spillway design as shown in Figures 3 and 4'was

studied at five different flowrates. The spillway design flood of

45,000 cfs was the maximum flowrate tested and thereby designated the"

100 percent flow. The other flowrates were called the 80, 60, 40,

and 20 percent flows. These prototype and model flowrates are shown

in Figure 17. The wide range of tests prevented any unusual quirks in

spillway performance from going unnoticed. The predicted tailwater curve

used in the tests is shown in Figure 18 and the first agee rating curve

is part of Figure 3. Elevations from these curves for the five flow

rates studi·ed for model and prototype are also shown on Figure 17.

Project 1050-326Nackomixon Spillway Test Data

Model Scole 60 1 I

Percent of Design Flood

20% 40~/o 60% 80% 100.%

Proto'typeFlowrat 9,000 18,00b 27.000 36,OOQ 45,000(cfs)

ModelFlowrate 0.326 0.646 0.968 1.290 1.613( cfs)

ManometerSetting

0.80" 2.05" 4.20" , 7.45 11 11.90"Inches ofGage Fluid

HeadWater

398.90 400.90 402.70 404.25 405.60Q) I Elev.a.

( feet)~..0

Tail..-0....

Watera..318.30 319.45 321.14 323.23 324.90

Elev.(feet)

HeadWater

1.948 1,982 2.012 2.038 2.060Rdg.-Q) (feet)"C

0Tail:EWater 1.980 1,999 2.028 2.062 2.094Rdg.( feet)

Note: Hook Gage Zero is 1.800 Feet

Fig. No. 17

34

326

35

TAlLWATER . RATING CURVE

NOCKAMIXON STATE PARKG.'S.A. 194-12

drawn by

Justin a CourtneyConsulting Engrs.

Phila., Penna.

I

321

320

319

318 '"--- L....- .L....- .&.-- .&.-- .l.-- ..L..- _

o 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

DISCHARGE· CFS

-36

Results. of the model test for the original design are pre

sented in a number of ways. Efficiency of the weirs and a resulting

indication of upstream entrance conditions is noted by plotting the

water surface profiles at the crest. Location and stability of jumps

and overall uniformity of depths along with vorticity identification has

been recorded by the use of water surface "contourll maps for the entire

lower half of the spillway. Photographs were taken of all critical

areas as a positive means of recording the exact flow patterns. Some

confetti-streak photographs were also made of the forebay entrance

flow patterns.

The results of the model test for the modification program

are presented in the same manner as for the original design with one

major exception. Only the 100, 60, and 20 percent flowrates were tested.

Therefore when comparisons are made these will be the only flowrates

presented. Velocity measurements were only made for the final design

configuration at 100 percent design flowra~e.

B. Lower Half Spillway

In order to record what occurred in this region of the spill

way, the model water depths were converted to prototype scale and

plotted at their location on a plan view of the prototype spillway.

Interpolation was necessary to construct the one foot interval water

surface contours, similar to the method used in making a topographic

map of earth surface contours. These water surface contour maps serve

then to show the location of the hydraulic jumps, depressed areas,

vortices, stagnation areas, and wave buildup areas. In effect, an

-37

indication of the flow-through efficiency can be obtained from the

contour maps. The results of all model depth measurements made are

conveniently recorded on the contour maps. The water surface contour

maps for all data taken for the entire model study are assembled in the

Appendices under A-I. A co~plete list of these contour maps appears

at the front of Appendix A-I.

The model spillway as originally tested had no simulated

channel roughness. Th{s test acted as a lower bound in viewing the

results of later tests with roughness added. Since a minimal amount

of resulting friction and energy loss occurred with the smooth channel,

this test bounded the effect of artificially adding surface roughness.

A more detailed discussion of some additional and planned tests with

the artificial roughness is given in a later section of Test Results.

Since these smooth and rough test results are only of academic interest,

the discussion of model performance will be confined to all tests with

the simulated rough channel surfaces.

In general no unexpected phenomena occurred at any of the

lower flowrates tested. In all cases undesirable hydraulic charac

teristics which occurred at 100 percent design flowrate decreased in

magnitude as the flowrate decreased.

The following undesirable flow characteristics were noted for

the original spillway design (see Figures Al-6 to AI-IO). The first

.hydraulic jump although mild'ly strong occurred on the stilling basin

floor and Qbliquely across the" basin as shown in Figure 19 for 100

percent flow. A large vortex appeared at the inside corner resulting

-38

Fig. No. 19 First jump at 100% flowrate - original design

Fig. No. 20 Vortex at inside corner with 100% flowrate - original design

-39

in a depressed region. (Figure 20). This vortex 'also caused the flow

over the second ogee weir to fluctuate approximately four feet in depth

at the worst condition. At the outside corner a pile-up took place

resulting in a net elevation difference of twelve feet over the first

stilling basin. The second hydraulic jump was very weak (undulating),

slightly oblique, and even partially submerged as shown in Figure 21

for 100 percent flowrate. The conditions at the second jump for 20

percent flowrate are shown in Figure 22. The surface contour maps in

the Appendix for the original design also reveal the unevenness down

stream of the second jump for all flowrates.

Undesirable hydraulic conditions were improved considerably

in the first stilling 'basin after modification Part A was made on the

model. These results can be seen in Figures AI-II to AI-13 in the

Appendix. However, there was not a great deal of difference in

hydraulic performance between Part A and Part B of the modification

program to warrant detailed discussion. Conditions remained poor down

stream of the second weir after the first modification.

After the s'econd modification was made (as shown in Figures

9 and 10) all undesirable flow characteristics that were associated with

the original design were either considerably improved or completely

eliminated. As shown in Figures Al-14 to Al-16 of the Appendix the

first hydraulic jump started on the slope and ended before the flow

passed around the corner as a result of moving the north side wall fifty

feet. This modification along with the thirty foot- inside radius,

completely eliminated the vortex from forming at this location for all

flowrates. The location and vigor of the first jump and elimination

-40

Fig. No. 21 Second jump at 100% flowrate original design

Fig. No. 22 Second jump at 20% flowrate - original design

-41

of the large vo~tex can be seen in Figures 23 and 24 for the 100 per

cen't flowrate. The same phenomena at 20 percent flow are shown in

Figures 25 and 26. There was practically no bulking at the outside

corner after the large radius was installed and the depth only varied

by seven feet (prototype) over the entire length of stilling basin.

The second jump although completely submerged was much stronger and

very uniform across the channel. Figure 27 shows the second jump with

normal tailwater and 100 percent flowrate. By lowering the tailwater

it was found that the second ogee jump was completely swept out at a

tailwater elevation of 321.1 feet. The water surface contour maps

also show the extremely smooth tailwater surface area with the final

design. To facilitate the comparisons between the original and final

designs, Figure 28 was prepared for 100 percent flowrate. The outline

and surface contours of the original design are shown by the dotted line.

c. Weirs and Forebay

By measuring the model water depths at closely spaced incre

ments along the weir crest centerline, a section view of the water

surface profile for each weir was obtained. These sectional views for

all flowrates and conditions studied are compiled in Appendix A2. If

uniform velocity distribution is assumed over the crest length, an ideal

weir will then have a uniform depth of flow over its entire length.

The criteria for good forebay ~nd spillway design was therefore to

determine how close the weir cross sections came to being uniform over

the entire length of crest.

Fig. No. 23 First jump at 100% flowrate - final design

Fig. No. 24 Elimination of vortex - final design at 100% flowrate

-42

Fig. No. 25 First jump at 20% flowrate ~ final design

Fig. No. 26 Elimination of vortex - final design at 20% flowrate

-43

(a) Facing south wall

(b) Facing north wall

Fig. No. 27 Second jump at 100% flowrate normal tailwater - final design

-44

Project 1050-326

NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODEL

Original vs. Final Design

Percent Design Flow: 100 0/0

20I

(\

\\

\\\ ,""

--"'"\"---1\ II II

18

III

}

I

22

"\.\

\\\\\

\l\J

//

II

IJ

\24}

('\

\\\\\\\\\IJI

/ ......,I \\ \1 \

JI\\\

700


Hydraulics Division, Civil Engineering Dept

Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.

Fig. No. 2.8

600500

Final Design - Solid Lines

Original Design- Dashed Lines.

400300

18

200lOao

r Start of Jump

,--Hydraulic Jum,E.._,-,---- ....

,...,......-,..,..",....""..,..,..,....

0 600 ..J->-'I

0- 20 -<...................-.J"...JZ W ....... ,,

"o 0 ," ~~~ 650 \

"-\

....- I 16w ..... 18 "C/) Z .......20 \0 \

(!) ..... 1Z w 700 "- \ Io ...J " \ 20 I"...J <t

" \ "- \<! (J

" \C/)\ \

C/) ::::r::: 750 " 1 \Z 0

,..... 20... \

o <t ...........22 18- ...J

\\ Il- aJ<t_ Il- 800 Ien I

22\ I 20\ ........ ~.. I

850'L ___""'-_

STATIONS ALONG SECTION D-D

(RED SCALE ON MODEL)I I I I J I 1

700 800 900 1000

+'"l.J1

-46

In order to easily compare the results for all forebay and

spillway modifications, Figures 29, 30, 31 were prepared for 20, 60,

and 100 percent design flowrates, respectively. No large differences

were evident at the 20 percent flowrate for either the first or second

agee. However, improvement in the flow patterns over the second weir

is quite apparent at the other two flowrates. At 100 percent flowrate

the depth varied from eleven to four feet over the crest or a difference

of seven feet for the original design. The final design varies only

four feet from eleven to seven on the crest. (Note that the Ilsuper

elevation" effect for flow around an open channel corner is still

apparent in the final design). This same improvement can also be seen

for 60 percent flow in Figure 30.

Comparisons of forebay modifications for the flow over the

first ogee can also be readily made in these figures. Once again the

20 percent flowrate shows little differences. The large improvements

made on the east side (facing upstream) by·;the forebay modifications

are quite evident in Figure 31 for 100 percent flow. It can also be

seen that although impractical from a constructional point of view,

Modification No. II (dotted line) gave the best profile on this side.

In Modification No. III there was slightly more of a dip in this area.

However, because of construction ease, Modification No. III became the

final design configuration. As shown in the time-streak photographs

taken (Figure 32) the water approached the spillway on the east side

along a line parallel with the dam axis. This resulted in a buildup in

the center of the first weir with a depressed area on the east side

(facing downstream). The small berm on this left side in the original

405~_~_~__~~~~~ ~~~~~~=~~=~~=_=~405I

.-L------ -_. ~-- .

I

1395395 E.~==~--=============:F:ir=s~t+1~o:g:e:e==--=--==----------'-------~O _~ ~;~~~~j400

II I

::: ~_:~~~:~+.~;~~~~;=~~=~~;~~~g~~-:~~:: :::~_ ~ ~~.~_~~ ~ .~_.__ ~_~~r.~ ~~~ _.~_~~.___ ------;---~~_&_~ __._.~.~_ - _

-----.-..------L-.____ ------ -- ~ .. -~----_. - - - - --~----_.~~~--- ----

323 1 I 1323Second I Ogee

Both Views Looking Upstream

-- Unmodified Original Design- - - Foreboy Mod. I Original Design

Forebay Mod.]I Mod. Part A-.- Forebay Mod. 1JI Final

Project 1050- 326NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODELWeir Cross Section Comparisons

Design Flow - 20 %

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division, Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem 1 Penna.Fig. No. 29

.po

........

405 ~----~----.---.-----.--- ---~---.-.-.-- .._---~_._-~-------~----~,~-- ~ ---.-------~- - -~-_. -------------~~--------------I-~--

_.- _._--- .._---_._-~---_ ..-:----._--_._._---_.----- ----------,--+-_._---_._-~----~--------,--------_._--_.-----_.._---_..._-.---

405

400~~- ~~~~~~---~=~.:~.~:~~~~.~.~~.~:.~.~.~ --~~400___ ~__._ ..._. ----L., _,•.• ~ • _.• . ._ •• . . •__~ . ._. .~_ ---.

395 1 I '395First I Ogee

333---

328

II

~~~-~~~~:~lf

----.- ..L.---

333

328

323' I '323Second I Ogee


--- Unmodified Original Design--- Forebay Mod. I Original Design••••••••• Forebay Mod. 1I Mod. Part A-.- Forebay Mod.lJI Final

Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODELWeir Cross Section Comparisons

Design Flow - 60 %

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydrouiicsDivision, Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem 1 Penna.Fig. No. _30

+'"co

405 ~--._ ....--.-.-.-----.- .--- -- ------. ----. ~ ..- ~_ ..--, -....-.._- -.--.-.-,.-.---..----~-------~-------- ..--~ ---.---+--.-------~~_._----_.. - .---..~---~---~.-.--.--.-.- _.. ----- --,._-~---_. --.-

--~.

405

400

'--~~:~~;;:'~~':~;-~~~:~~-=-'=--=~~~'I'- ~_==r7:==,:.~·~-:~·tr-=.....~~~~~ ..~._"· ----- ~ 400

395' I 1395First Ogee

II ... > •• >.L--...~.~.~-......I

333

328

--_. --- - - -~~-- - - ----

- --- -.----- t

L - ·1.....• "•••.••.... "'. I........:: "-"'-:~: - .----~..~...-..-"-....j

'- - --- - I

-- -l-~-

---- . - -t----·~·-·······lI - . -I' . ===-_'- --.----··r -__..__._ - ._.. .__

,-

333

328

323' I '323Second I Ogee


Unmodified Original DesignForebay Mod. I Original Design

.... ..... Forebay Mod. 1I Mod. Part A--- Forebay Mod.]I[ Final

Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODELWeir Cross Section Comparisons

Design Flow - 100 %

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division t Civi I Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem t Penna.Fig. No. 31 -

+:-\.0

(a) Depressed region in flow over first weir

(b) Time-streaks show flow entrance pattern resulting in depressed area at left over weir

Fig. No. 32 Original forebay with smooth floor at 100% flowrate

-50

-51

design also caused a small hydraulic jump to form (Figure 32a). The

objects of the forebay modification program were therefore to stream

line the flow patterns and to reduce the dip on the east side of the

weir and to minimize the boundary disturbances along the dam structure.

The results of flow improvement over the first agee weir have already

been discussed.

In Figu~e 33b the patterns along the boundary of the first

modification are evident. Although the hydraulic jump is no longer

present there was considerable IIbac,kup" behind the modification result

ing in a deep drop in surface level around the tip (arrow) of forebay.

By adding more fill material the flS" flow pattern around

Modification No. I was improved and a more streamlined flow around Modi

fication No. II was obtained (Figure 34).

Figures 35 and 36 show surface patterns around the final

design at 20 and 100 percent flowrates respectively. The 20 percent

flowrate (approximately the 200 year flood) showed an extremely smooth

surface profile around the modification. At 100 percent the surface +

was considerably rougher and some drop in surface elevation occurred.

Some of the backup behind the modifications for all' those tested was

felt to be due to the proximity of the inlet rock baffle to the edge

of the modification structure. Thus it is expected that the prototype

will experience a far lesser drop in surface elevation at this point.

Forebay surface elevations were measured for all test~ by the

hook gage with inlet located at approximately the spillway centerline

(a) At 20% flow extremely uniform around modification structure

(b) At 100%, dam addition caused "SII flow pattern resulting inlarge surface dip at tip of modification (arrow).

Fig. No. 33 Forebay Modification No. I

-52

(a) Flow has more uniform approach around modified area

(b) Bulking behind modified area causes somedrop down in surface elevation.

Fig. No. 34 Forebay Modification No. II at 100% flowrate

-53

(a) View of extremely tranquil surface profile at' this 'flowrate.

(b) View upstream of flow around modification

Fig. No. 35 Forebay Modification No. III (final) at 20% flowrate

" ';~"l

-54

(a) View partially downstream - some surface irregularities still present around modification.

(b) View of drop down in surface elevation at modification

Fig. No. 36 Forebay Modification No. III (final) at 100% flowrate

-55

-56

at the 390 floor elevation. (Figure 5). The resulting prototype

elevations were plotted against flowrate in Figure 37. Also shown is

the Consulting Engineers' predicted spillway rating curve. At the

higher flowrates, all tests were in fair agreement with the predicted

curve except for Modification No. I. The hook gage was believed to be

in error in zero reading for this test. At the lower flowrates surface

tension may account for some of the increase in surface elevation from

that predicted.

D. Miscellaneous Results

1. Retaining wall profile

As an aid in design of the left side concrete retaining wall

a water surface level profile was constructed for the final design at

100 percent flowrate. (Figure 38).

2. Velocities

As requested by the Consulting Engineers, model velocities

were measured for the final design configuration at 100 percent ,flow

rate. Only those areas of critical interest were investigated. As

shown in Figure 39 the maximum velocity around the edge of the forebay

modification was found to be about 23 ft/sec (prototype scale). In the

tailwater area a maximum of about 11 ft/sec was measured. These

velocities are felt to be very reasonable and should not result in

erosion in these areas, provided the rock fill is used to protect the

embankment.

57

407 Flowrate vs. Forebay Surface Elevations

.:''-Predicted by Justin ~ Courtney

401

405.60 a 45,000 cfs406

£Design Flow

Forebay Mod. n:" # It~b /

/IJ.~ I "--Foreboy

M f Mod. IIII /

Forebay Mod.:m: !"~/(Final Design) ~h, /

h :'1/. /

h :/h ./.

!J :I

hh'; Origina I Design

h rh /.'

II I.~:

/

1.f:

I ..399

402

405

400

4-03

404

zot<t>W-.JW

WU<tlL.0:::::>en

c::wte:(

~

><tCDlLJc:::oLL

398 '---_--L----""""-----------------.l'--------........----

o 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

SPILLWAY DISCHARGE, cfs

Fig. No. 37

Project 1050- 326

Nockomixon Spillway Model

Water Surface Profile Along Left

Concrete Retaining Wall


Hydrau lies Division I Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University.

Fig. No. 38

Spray on Wall7at Corner RadiusAbout 201 High

410

400

390

380

370

360

350

dJ)'.Xi201::

Top of WallElev.342,

Ld=4~feetin Cross Wave at5to. 480 BlackSection C-c

(Black Scale on Model)

1"""---~ First Ogee

I /Elev.412

"wi. 8.405.6 ~W.S.Elev.400.3~ 1/~Elev.395

Elev. 390

400

Section 0-0Red Scale on Model)

600I350

340

330

320

310

300

J700650

550

v

~ Floor Elev. 307.5~

600

500

550

c

~Top of Wall Elev. 332

450

500455

350

Crest Elev.326

200 250 300

350t~ CornerRa~ius ____ Top of Wall Elev. 342

340

330~I1111 Floor Elev. 320

320

310

300

'L300 350 400

rTOP of Wall Elev. 332~

I

600t

650I

700

End of Concrete Wall/Elev.327 Top of Dike

~ Floor Elev. 307.5~

Section 0-0(Red Scale on Model)

I "I I

750 800 850

Note - Waves Formed Along Left

Wall About 5 feet High-1340

-1330

-1320

-1310

I IJ300

900 950 1000

Ln(X)

7.71/sec.~

IO.61/sec.~

Note:L Velocities measured with midget current meter.

2. Velocities measured at particular cross sectionshown were maximum in that area.

Project 1050 - 326


Prototype Velocities at Critical

Locations

Final Design -100 % Flowra~e


Hydraulics Division t Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University

Fig. No. 39

7.71/sec.

~ 2nd. Ogee

14..1/sec.

15.51/sec.::!!:=

Note:

This measurement was

slightly out of range of

the measuring equipment

although felt to be accurate

to within ± 10 %

ForebayModificationNo.:m::(Final~

,

~DamAXiS

I 1ll50'/sec.~

I

~:V.320<: _

Elev.390

/I

II

I

~.31/sec.

~ I sf. Ogee J

PLAN WIEW

In\0

-60

3. Channel' Roughness

As mentioned previously the original model design was tested

first without simulating the roughness to determine the upper bound on

the worst possible spillway performance (least natural energy dissi

pation due to roughness). The size of wire mesh was then determined

land installed in the model. This was mesh orientation No. I and was

installed with the long dimension of the diamond in the direction of

the flow on the sloping section of the spillway (Figure 40). The

location of the hydraulic jump in the first stilling basin has been

shown in Figure AI-lO and is reproduced in Figure 41. To determine

the effects, if any, of the orientation of the diamond pattern in the

mesh, orientation No. II was set-up in the model as shown in Figure 40.

The location of the resulting first hydraulic jump for 100 percent

flowrate has been superimposed on the original orientation in Figure 41.

The jump now occurs straight across the channel and starts on the slop

ing section well ahead of the original jump location. Thus mesh orient

ation No. II resulted in improved channel performance. Undoubtedly

channel hydraulic performance could be improved even further by decrea~

ing the size of the mesh opening (increasing number of roughness

elements). Therefore it may be assumed that mesh orientation No. II

placed an upper bound on channel performance. Since channel roughness

modeling could not exactly duplicate the prototype roughness, anyway,

it was felt that by using roughness orientation No. I for all model

tests, the results obtained would lie somewhere between a smooth chan

nel and extremely rough channel and therefore be somewhat represent

ative of what degree of roughness might be experienced on the prototype.

Flow

~tilling Basin

MESH ORIENTA TION I

Note: Mesh Orientation I- Long MeshDimension Runs Parallel toDirection of Flow

Floor MeshThickness 0.060"

0.375 11 IO~46211

0.906"1.2 II

~ Stilling Basin

MESH ORIENTATION][


Mesh OrientationFritz Engineering Laboratory

Hydraulics Divisio.n, Civil Engi~eering Dept.Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.

Fig. No. 40

0\t---l

0\N

ctz nd. Ogee

Project 1050-326NOCKAMrXON SPILLWAY MODEL

Effect of Mesh Orientationon First Hydraulic Jump

Original Design -100 % FlowrateFritz Engineering Laboratory

Hydraulics Division, Civil Engineering Dept.Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.

Fig. No. 41

16

1718

18

19

Stable Straight Jump WithMesh Orientation ][

850

800

550

650

750

700

600

-63

In this regard, the area of roughness modeling in relation

to the Manning's IInll will be the topic of a Master's Thesis by one of

the co-authors, Paul D. Erfle.

-64

VI. SUM MAR Y OF RES U L T S

AND CON C L U S ION S

By way of summarizing the model test results, the reader is

again referred to Figures 28 and 31. In general, all those salient

features of good hydraulic spillway design.which were found lacking or

worthy of improvement in the original design were incorporated in the

final design. Both weirs were much improved in efficiency as measured

by uniform depths over their lengths. Both hydraulic jumps were

"straightened Dutil and located in better positions in the spillway.

The energy dissipation of the second jump was much improved over the

original design. The flow separated areas and accompanying vortices

were eliminated in the final design. This provided more efficient flow

passage through the spillway. Surface wavi(l.e.ss, especially in the north

side tailwater region w&s also improved by the final design.

Velocities were found to be sufficiently low in critical areas

to minimize erosion.

In summary, therefore, it was felt that the model study acco~

plished the purpose for which it was intended by:

1. Checking the overall hydraulic flow patterns in the origin

ally, uniquely designed spillway and finding them unsatisfactory, modify

ing the spillway design until good hydraulic performance was achieved.

-65

2. Proyiding the necessary design information to adequately

specify concrete linings, wall heights, protective dikes, etc.

3. Insuring. the ultimate safety of the dam under the worst

flood conditions.

However, besides accomplishing these intended purposes, the

model study also enabled t~e design engineers ~o reduce the cost of the

prototype structure to such an extent that more than the cost of the

model itself will be saved in construction costs.

In conclusion it is felt that the prototype spillway structure

if constructed to the final design configuration and with the design

information provided from the model study will adequately handle the

Standard Project Flood expected in the area. Therefore, also adequately

protect the dam from failure by this flood.

-66

VII. A C K NOW LED G MEN T S

The cooperation and assistance of t;he following people and

their organizations involved in the project are gratefull appreciated.

Mr. C. H. McConnell, Chief Engineer and the Staffof the Pennsylvania Department of Forests andWaters

Mr. A. P. Scheich, Pickering, Corts and Summerson, Inc.,Consulting Engineers, Newtown, Pennsylvania

Mr. J. J. Williams, Justin and Courtney, ConsultingEngineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mr. C. Lynn and his Staff of Bethlehem Pattern andModel Shop, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Mr. W. Miller and his Staff, Department of Buildingand Grounds, Lehigh University

Appreciation is also extended to Dr. John R. Adams for his

timely hints and suggestions and to Mr. E. Dittbrenner for his efforts

in model construction. Miss Linda Nuss typed the report.

A P PEN DIe I E S

-67

Figure No.

Al-l

AI-2

AI-3

Al-4

Al-5

Al-6

AI-7

AI-8

AI-9

AI-IO

Ai-Ii

Al-l2

Al-13

Al-14

AI-IS

Al-16

A P PEN D I X Al

LOWER HALF SPILLWA":( - CONTOUR MAPS

List of Illustrations

Title

Original Design, Smooth Channel, 20 Percent Flowrate

Original Design, Smooth- Channel, 40 Percent Flowrate

Original Design, Smooth Channel 60 Percent Flowrate



Original Design, Rough Channel, 20 Percent Flowrate




Original Design j Rough Channel, 100 Percent Flowrate

Modification Part A, Rough Channel, 20 Percent Flowrate



Final Design, Rough Channel, 20 Percent Flowrate



-68

Project. 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHSForebay Modification: Original

Spillway Design; Original- Smooth Channel

Percent Design Flow; 20 0/0

17

17 16

/ /17 16

700

18

18

600



Lehigh University; Bethlehem f Penna.

Fig. No. Al-l

500400

<t12 nd. Ogee Spillway

300200

First Stilling Basin

100o

(.)Iu_z-JOW_0~o(.)~lLJenZ

oC)ZW0....1....1«<t(.)

(J)

en~zu0«-....1~CDf--en

STATIONS ALONG SECTION D- D(RED SCALE ON MODEL)

I I 1 I I I I700 800 900 ' 1000

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE .CONTOURS- PROTOTYPE DEPTHS

Forebay Modification: Original

Spillway Design: Original- Smooth Channel

Percent Design Flow: 40 °/0

13

13

14

14

14

16 15

16 15

17

17

700



Lehigh University; Bethlehem t Penna.

Fig. No. AI-Z

600500

2nd. Ogee Spillway

ct

400 '"300200

12

'-First Stilling Basin

100

g850

UIu_

-1ZlLJ00-0~~W(f)Z

o(!)W2-1:3«« g 750(f)~

2U0«

~ ~ 800«~(f)

STATIONS ALONG SECTION C-C(RED SCALE ON MODEL) I I I I I I I

700 800 900 1000

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTQTYPE DEPTHS



Percent Design Flow: 60 %

1516171819

19


Hydraulics Division I Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University I Bethlehem 1 Penna.

Fig. No. AI- 3

600500400300200100

Front Oscillates~

~lIcM14~"h ~ \J (),?~I

(15 ~~(~C2J ~~1514~~:

)\~~~:14 W

15

Hydraulic Jump

o

850

<..>Iu_

..JZ W00-0~:EIJ.JU>Z

o(!)zlJJo ...J...J ex:<:( 0

enen ~

z c.> 750o c:!-...JI- CD<:(-I-en 800

STA TIONS ALONG SECTION C-C

(RED SCALE ON MODEL)

I I I I 1 _~I

700 800 800 900 1000

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTI:"IS


Spillway Design: Original-Smooth Channel

Percent Design Flow: 800/0

1819

2021

2223

600


Hydraulics Division J Civil Engineering Dept

Lehigh University j Bethlehem J Penna.

Fig. No. AI-4

500400300

Basin

200100o

UIu_

Z -oJ

o~~ou~lJJCf) z I \ ~IO""'3--- .Icin1\\ " \ 'V////V//// I 22 21 20 '19 18

0~zwo .....J.....J ««uenen :x: 750 t \ \ r ,\ \ \ (\ ( ~14 ___ ~b~7-s~ ~\. \ ~ \ II./ _24z u0«i=~«-I- 800Cf)

850

ST ATIONS ALONG SECTION C-C


I I I I I I __ I_--i700 800 900 1000

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHS




20

21

21

22

2223

25

700600

.25

Fritz Engineering Labora tory


Lehigh UniversitYi Bethlehem, Penna.

Fig. No. At-S

500400300200100o

850

UIu_z...Jo~i=ou::!WCJ)Z

oC)ZWo...J..J<[«u

CJ)

~ [5 7500<[

i=a$«-~ 800

STATIONS ALONG SECTION C-C(RED SCALE ON MODEL)

1 I 1 I I I L_:

700 800 900 1000

Project 1050-326




Spillway Design: Original- Rough Channel


850

I I I I 1 1 I700 800 900 1000

Fritz. Engineering Laboratory


Lehigh UniversitYi Bethlehem, Penna.

Fig. No. AI-6

2 nd. agee Spillway

~

300

ST ATIONS ALONG SECTION D-D


200100

Hydraulic Jump-

)'10

~II

~ . ()II

o

W.J«oen 750

(f):::S::::200«i=.J« ~ 800.....CI)

oI0_

z~00

~~WC/)2

(!) 0 7002o...J«

Project 1050-326




Spillway Design: Original-Rough Channel

Percent Design Flow: 40%

1415

700600500


Hydraulics Division J Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem J Penna.

Fig. No~ AI ..7

'2 nd. Ogee Spillway

~

400

II

o

I?

300200

13

100

Hydraulic Jump

(!) 700ZW0...J...Jc::(c::(U

enen~

750zuOC::(~...J«mt; - 800

850

L0

UIu_z-'o~~ou~I.JJen z

o


(RED SCALE ON MODEL)I I I I I 1 I

700 800 900 1000

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHSForebay Modification: Original

Spillway Design: Original-Rough Channel


15

16

1611

11

18

18

19

1920

20

700

GI

600500



Lehigh Un iversity; Bethlehem , Penna~

Fig. No~ AI-8

~

I 2 nd~ Ogee Spillway

400300

14

14

200

15

Hydraulic Jump

()I<.)-

....JZWo 0-0~:!W zen 0

~ ~ 700o <{....J ()«en

~ 6 750OC:{-....JI- CD«-I-

8°°1 \ "-16

en

850


(RED SCALE ON MODEL)I I I I I I I

700 800

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SUR'FACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHS


Spillway Design: Original Design -Rough Channel


700600



Lehigh University i Bethlehem t Penna.

Fig. No. AI-9

500

~

400300 .200100

UI

I~\ ~~:::1~\\ \ \!6WjjJ t I I ,U _?I "1"'1. 19

...J 23 ""Zw00 23i=0u:Ew(f)Z

0(!)wZ...J3««0

(f)

(f)~

zo0«-...JI-- m«-f0-CI) 1 I 1:::1 "

, \ IlIIll \. I \ 111'1,...... I ".11 IJ 20 19

ST ATIONS ALONG SECTION 0-0(RED SCALE ON MODEL)

1 I 1 I I 1 .1

700 800 900 1000

Project 1050- 326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHSForebay Modification: Original Design

Spillway Design: Original Design - Rough Charinel


21

2223

24

24

Q

700600




Fig. No. AI-IO

500

2 nd. Ogee Spillway

<l

400300200100

()I

() -.....J

Z Wo 0- 0I- :Euw zen 0

(!) IJJZ .....Jo <:t.....J U<:t en(/) ~

z uo <t- .....JI- m<[

I-(J)

.... vv

850

L0


(BLACK SCALE ON -MODEL)I 1 I I __~ I 1

700 800 900 1000

I I I I I I 1 I

700 800 900 1000



Lehigh University; Bethlehem t Penna.

Fig. No. At-If

Project 1050-326



Foreboy Modification: No.2

Spillway Design: Modification Port A


~

300

. STATIONS ALONG SECTION D-D


II

II

200100

Weak Hydraulic Jump

a

850

UIu_z..Jo ~ 650

E~Wenz(!) 0 700ZW0..J.J««u

en 750Cf)~

zo0«

~ ~800~'f)

VIV_z-JOW_0~OV~WenZ

oC)ZWO..J..J<{<tVenen::::c:ZVO<t~..J<tID~en

700

750

800

850

o

Hydraulic Jump

16

100

~



Project 1~50-326


PLAN VIEW..- WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHS

Forebay Modification: Finol No.2

Spillway Design: Modification Port A

Percent Design Flow; 60 0/0




Fig. No. A\-(2.

I I I I I I I

700 800 900 1000

19

19

19

24

23 22 21 20

24ff~)20

700600


Hydraulics Division 1 Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem 1 Penna.

Fig. No. AI-13

,500

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW - WATER~ SURFACE CONTOURS- PROTOTYPE DEPTHS

Forebay Modification: Final No.2

Spillway Design: Modification Part A


~

400300200

2021

100

(!)ZW0...J...J««Uenen ~ 750ZUo «

~~t; - 800

850

La

UIu_

...JZ--w00-0t:EI.JJ zCf)o

STATIONS ALONG SECTION 0-0(RED SCALE ON MODEL)

I I I _----.l. I I I

700 800 900 1000"

~ All Depths -\0 Feel

\n This Area~

700

T _11

600




Fig. No. Al- \4

Project 1050.. 326


PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS- PROTOTYPE DEPTHSForebay Modification: Final No.3

Spillway Design: Final


500

I Length of IBottom Roller

2 nd~ Ogee Spillway

~

~

400

12

12

300200100

Hydraulic Jump

o

850

'-'I

'-'Z-'o~-0G~w(j)Z

o~ w 7000-'J<:(<to

(j)

(j) ~ 750Z'-'0<:(--'h--<o4..;"..._~ - 800

STATIONS ALONG SECTION 0-0

(RED SCALE ON MODEL)1 I I I I I I J

700 800 900 1000

- 14

~AII About 13' /~ Deep~

700

14

14

600500

Project 1050-326


PLAN VIEW·- WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHSForebay Modification: Final No.3

Spillway Design t Final

Percent Design Flow.: 60 %


Hydraulics Division J Civil Engineering Dept

Lehigh University; Bethlehem J Penna.

Fig. No. AI-IS

CL

1\;c

'C-cCD >Ct:J:QiE.c=t

C/)

1 Length of IBottom Roller

2 nd. Ogee Spillway

<k.

13

400

14

15

15

300

l6

16

200100o

850

u \Ju_

Z....JOW_0..... 0u~wCf)Z

0

~ W 7000....J....J««u

en~ [5 7500«-....Jf- m«-~ 800


(RED SCALE ON MODEL)f I I I 1 _~ f (

700 800 900 1000

18

o

600


Hydraulics Division) Civil Engineering Dept..

Lehigh University; Bethlehem. Penna.

Fig. No. Al-16

Project 1050-326

NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODE~

PLAN VIEW - WATER SURFACE CONTOURS - PROTOTYPE DEPTHSForebay Modification: Final ·No. 3

Spillway Design: Final


500

2nd. Ogee Spillway

~

400

17

(}s

18

300

18

1718

200

1920

100

rstart of Jump

Hydraulic Jump

o

850

UI

0_z...Jo~~oo~IJJC/)Z

o~ ~ 700Set«0

C/)

~ n 7500«-...J1- 00«-~ 800


(RED SCALE ON MODEL)I I I I I I I

800 800 900 1000

A P PEN D I X A2

WEIR CROSS SECTIONS

List of Illustrations

-85

Figure No. Title

A2-l Original Design, Smooth Channel, 20 Percent Flowrate

A2-2 Original Design, Smooth Channel, 40 Percent Flowrate



A2-S Original Design, Smooth Channel, 100 Percent Flowrate

A2-6 Original Design, Rough Channel, 20 Percent Flowrate





A2-11 Forebay Modification No.1, Rough Channel, 20 Percent Flowrate



A2-l4 Forebay Modification No.1, Rough Channel, 80 Percent Flowrate

A2-lS Forebay Modification No.1, Rough Channel, 100 Percent Flowrate

A2-l6 Forebay Modification No.II, Rough Channel,20 Percent Flowrate

A2-17 Forebay Modification No.II, Rough Channel ,40 Percent Flowrate

A2-18 Forebay Modification No.II, Rough Channel,60 Percent Flowrate

A2-19 Forebay Modification No. III,Rough Channel,20 Percent Flowrate

A2-20 Forebay Modification No. III ,Rough Channel,60 Percent Flowrate

A2-21 Forebay Modification No.III,Rough Channel,lOO Percent Flowrate

4051---- -- ~-~--- --.~----~----- ~405

1-----_. - --. ~ - -,-

400~ --~400

-395 I I 1395

First Ogee

3331- -I 333

328~ -L--_ -I 328

..l

'323323 tl------------:s=-e-c-=o-=n-:d+l-;:o:g:e~e-----------====

Both Views Loo king Upstream

Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON SPILL WAY MODEL

First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Mod ification - OriginalSpillway Design - Original UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 20 % No Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem , Penna.Fig. No. AZ.-I

405~-~-~-~------------ - .. I ··---·-------------·----1405

------------- +---_._----~-------~._------~.-_._-----

400C--- - m ! ~ __ .--1 400

1395395'~---~-------~--==~====-=F~ir~st+1~o=g:e~e===--......:.:~=---------.:....-----

333 _._~_.~~-~._~~~-~--~-~_._--~._~------_. ~-----~.. _. ~-- 333

328 - ---_ .."--- - - -.---.---- - .-. --- _n_ _ I - -. ------ ------ .- ---.--~---------I 328

---~1323----Second I Ogee

Both Views Looking UpstreamProject 1050-326

NOCKAMIXON SPILL WA Y MODELFirst and Second Weir, Cross Sections

Forebay Modification -UnmodifiedSpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 40 % - No Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.Fig. No. A2.-2

405

400

405

400

395' I '395

333

First Ogee

333

328 ~- - l ~o _.0 • • 0 0 0 -~ 328

---'323323 I Second I Ogee


Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY· MODEL

First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - OriginalSpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 60 °/0 - No Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division t Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem , Penna.Fig. No. A'2..-3

4051 I 1405

~ ...............

400 I I ="-~ 1400

~~------- -_..__..._-~.-~~-~---_._--_._--- - ~ ---~------------I

1---------- - ----.-... -~--.. -------------- ... ---~----~-~--~------ I 1

395 1 I '395

First Ogee

~------ -=q 1333333 -. -- --._. -_~--~ __ -~ __ =- -s;:::: =:-:----.- ----l-----

"""

~~~========t~=====-------=== '323Second I Ogee

~---~- .. ---,.- .. ----- ---._ ..~---.--- I

328 E~===--==-=- .- -------- _ ~ 328


NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODELFirst and Second Weir Cross Sections

Forebay Mod ification - OriginalSpillway Design - UnmooifiedDesign Flow - 800/0 - No Roughness


Lehigh University i Bethlehem , Penna.Fig. No. A2.-4

405--·...~.- -~. ~- -~~ .. ~~- ._--~-~-- -- --- ~ ~.~._~~ ~~~ -~~-~~ ~-~-- -- -- ._- -~- - .. _-

405

400 400

395' I '395First Ogee

338

333 l------ ---- ~~,-,-,------ - ---.'- ---------r ---- ... ,.---'..----.....---.. -.,.-,.--.----.--.-.-.-~--,-.------- --._-"---.,'-'---~-----------., 333


First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - OriginalSpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 100 % - No Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem , Penna..Fig. No .. A?.-5


1323323--,E-------------=---------s~e=c=o=n~d11~o=g=e~e====------:--~===~

328~ ..L ~ .-/ ~ 328

405

400

.. ·······:-:---:-~~=:~===-==:--~-----:====L---------------______ -I 405____________ ~ • ............. o o_ .0. • 0 - • ._._~ _

I -- -.--- -- ------ -----------._---- ---0 .. --.

400

395 [ - -"-0 _H • ' 0- 0- --r . -.- 0- -~--.-- ---·-on-_- _On OO -0-_- --. - -- n_O mo -~-~- -0-0- 0 ---- -----_.- J 395

First I Ogee

333

328

~333

328

323 1 I 1323

Second I O-gee



First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - OriginalSpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 20 % - Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Divisio:n J Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem • Penna.Fig. No. A2.- "

405 ~~t 405

400 I-- l _ --1400

.......--------.-1395...... _---395 J First I Ogee

333 I- I .--1 333

328 F- I·~ --4 328

1323323

1l-------------=s~e~co~n~d+1~o~g:e:e~-----~--~===Both Views Looking Upstream


First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - OriginalSpillway Design- UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 40 % - Roughness


,Lehigh University; Bethlehem t Penna.Fig. No. A'Z.-1

405 -=:------=-==--=-d=.----==--==-==-~~=~=--- -=-=~===--~--- ---- -- 405-.----.- --- "to .

400 400

'3953951E=----------------:F~ir~st~tl~o~g:e:e-----.:--------~---

333 333

~__---' 328

~. ~~-~ _._~-~-~~- ~-_.----..~- ---~-~~._._._-~

328

323' I 1323

Second I Ogee

Both Views Loo king Upstream

Project 1050-326_

NOCKAMIXON SPJLLWAY MODELFirst and Second Weir Cross Sections

Forebay Modification - OriginalSpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 60 % - Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division, Civil Engineering Dept..


Fig. No. A2.- 8

405 ----~-----.---~ -----1 405

400 t---- -_.~--~-----.._----- 400

395 ' I '395

333

First Ogee

333

3 28 I----------~-~~-_..------------ 328

323 I I '323SecondlOgee

Both Views Looking Upstream Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODEL

First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - OriginalSpillway Design - Original Unmod ifiedDesign Flow - 80 % Rough


Lehigh University; Bethlehem, J Penna.Fig. N-o. - A2-9

405

400 ~,--,--,-----,--

l--====-====~=-=---====:-~==----1405

---~---------~----~l--~-~--:~=~_:_-=~~~~-~..... ~ ~--~ 400

395 I I '

First I Ogee

395

I'. --. I

333

328

333

328

323' I '323

Second I Ogee

Botb Views Looking Upstream


First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - OriginalSpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow- 100 %-Roughness


Lehigh University j Bethlehem t Penna.Fig. No. A2.-IO

405---

400__ ~I

405

400

395 1 I 1395

First Ogee

View Looking UpstreamProject 1050-326

NOCKAMIXON . SPILLWAY M,ODELFirst and Second Weir Cross Sections

Forebay Mod ification - Modification ISpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 20 % - Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydra ulics Division J Civil Eng4neering Dept.

Lehigh. University j Bethlehem , Penna.Fig. No. A2.-1I

405

400 t I --,--

405

400

395 I I 1395

First agee

View Looking Upstream Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODEL

First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - Modification ISpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow- 40 0/0- Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem , PennOaFiga NOa A2.-fa

405~-

400~

:- -_~~~_~~-_._~--~_~-_--~~~~~~==~~~ .__._. --=1 .~ 405

~400

- - -- -- ~- --~ -- --~-~~~-~••~-~----~~----.--.--------.---~~~~&~--

Project 1050-326NOCKAMIXON_ SPILLWAY MODEL

First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - Modification ISpillway Design '- UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 60 % - Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division, Civil- Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.Fig. No. A2.-13

395 I I '395First Ogee

View Looking Upstream

405 ~---~-------~---_.~~-_.__.--~--_._---~-~~~_.-----~.-, ...- .--.-.~-----.-.-~---~-.----.---.

400I'"

405

400

395' I '395First Ogee

View Looking Upstream


First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification - Modification ISpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow - 80 % - Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem , Penna.Fig. No. A2.- ~4

405 405

400 400. - -,,-._-- -----1.

1395395

1E=-----=-=~-------==-==-=-=-=-~F~i=rs~tJI~o~:ge:e~----==-=--------------View Looking Upstream


First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForeboy Modification - Modification ISpillway Design - UnmodifiedDesign Flow- 100 %-Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.Fig. No. A2..-15

405 l- I --I 405

400 ~ I --I 400

1395395'r===--~----------F~.I-rs~t~l~o=ge=e:-------------"----

336 t- I --I 336

331 t-- I --f 331

326 I Second I Ogee

Both Views Loo king UpstreamProject 1050-326


Forebay Modification - Modification ]I

Spillway Design- Modified Part ADesign Flow - 20% - Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division J Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.Fig. No. A'2--l6

405

400

_.._-~--!, ...._.. - ~,

t-

405

400

395 1 I 1395

336

331

First Ogee

336

331

326' I 1326Second I Ogee

Both Views Looking UpstreamPrOject 1050-326

NOCKAMIXON SPILLW AY MODELFirst and Second Weir Cross Sections

Forebay Modification - Modification ]I

Spillway Design - Modified Part ADesign Flow - 60 % - Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division i Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University; Bethlehem , Penna.Fig. No. A2..- \1

405 I -+----~----.-------~---.------------.- .-.~---------~- ------ 405

400 400

395 1 I '395

336 ~----------

331 ~-------- ..-_..---------------

First

-t

Ogee

336

331

1----._--------------------.----- -. ------.-.----------- .._-- ---~-.-.--+--.---- -- ---- -------- -- .~----. -------'----------- ..-...

1326326 i Second IOgee

80th Views Looking UpstreamProject 1050-326


Forebay Modification - Modification n:Spillway Design - Modified Part ADesign Flow - 100 % - Rroughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem t Penna.Fig. No. A2.-18

405 ......I------------~, ~-- ~-~--1405

I ~~. =~---~-------~--~~.~-====--=..==~~-.~~--400 I---- I -.--,---- ----1400

395' I '395 .

First I Ogee

336 ~--~~---~=~-=-~~-=~=E=~:==~=--=-==_=~=:-----n----n-------l336

I

331 L ~~~-.--..---~.-. ------=t===-~-----.--'-,.---.-.-'------.----~---.------.------ ..--- --I 331

326' I 1326

Second IOgee


NOCKAMIXON SPILLWAY MODELFirst and second Weir Cross Sections

Forebay Mod ification - Modification]l[Spillway Design - Modified - FinalDesign Flow - 20 % - Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem, Penna.- Fig. No.. A't. -19

405~-'- --I 405

400 r 1 --------:i 400

395' I '-395

336

331

First Ogee

336 -

331

326' I '326-Second I agee


Project 1050-326'NOCKAMIXON SPILLW AY MODEL

First and Second Weir Cross SectionsForebay Modification- Modification ]I[

Spillway Design - Modified FinalDesign Flow - 60% - Roughness


Lehigh University; Bethlehem , Penna.Fig. No. A2.. - 20

405 -~ -~-, ._----~- --- .--- ----~-------~----~.-----~~-~---.--- -- --------.--.-t------ -~---------~- ------ ----------- -- -- -- ..----~~~-- .--- --_. 405

400

-~-~--

r

400

~~ -~ ~~Y_I ._~ ~ ~ •• _._ ••• __~••_~••__~~_ ~ __

13953951l----------------=----=-------=~-=--~F~ir=s:t 11~o~g:e:e----..:..----------:-----

336__J

--_.-- 336

331 331

I

326 ' I 1326

Second I OgeeBoth Views Looking Upstream


First and Second Weir Cross Sections .Forebay Modification - Mod ification :m.Spillway Design - Modified - FinalDesign Flow- 100 % - Roughness

Fritz Engineering LaboratoryHydraulics Division. Civil Engineering Dept.

Lehigh University'; Bethlehem • Penna.Fig. No. AZ. - 2J

-107

A P PEN D I X A3

REFERENCES

1. "Preliminary Report - Site Investigation", by Pickering, Carts,and Summersorr, Inc., October 15, 1964 for Project No. GSA 194-12,Nockamixon State Park.

2. "Recommended Design of Dam ll, by'Pickering, Corts and Summerson,

Inc., May 17, 1965 for Project No. GSA 194-12, Nockamixon StatePark.

3. IIInterim Report - One Stage Construction", by Pickering, Carts,and Summerson, Inc., November 9, 1965 for Project No. GSA 194-12,Nockamixon State Park.

4. "Open-Channel Hydraulics", by V. T. Chow, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1959.

McPherson, M. B. DESIGN OF DAM OUTLET TRASH-LIKE VERIFIED BY MODELTESTS

Civil Eng1neering

LEHIGH UNIVERSITYDepartment of Civil Engineering

FRITZ ENGINEERING LABORATORY

HYDRAULIC DIVISIW

STAFF PUBLICATIONS

Herbieh, J. B..

1950

Discussion on: TRANSLATIONS OF FOREIGN LITERATUREON HYDRAULICS

Proe. ASCE, Jour. of Hydr. Div. Paper 2349, BY 1 1960

McPherson, M. B.

White, W. K.McPherson, K. B.

Macnaughton. M. F.Herbich, J. B.

AN INEXPENSIVE DEMONSTRATION FLUID POLARISCOPECivil Engineering

Discussion on Paper: DETERMINATION OF PRESSURECONTROLLED PROFILES

ASCE Proceedings, Separate No. 491

ACCIDENTAL AIR IN CONCRETEJour •• ACI, Vol" 26, No.3Proc., Vol. 51. Title 51-13

1950

1953

1953

Warnock, R. G.Howe, J. W..

Herbich. J. B.

Herbieh, J. B.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE RALSTON CREEK HYDROLOGIC RECORDBulletin No.. 16, Iowa Highway Research Board 1960 •

THE EFFECT OF SPUR. DIKES ON FLOOD FLOWS THaDUGHBRIDGE CONSTRICTIONS

Paper presented at ASCE National Conventionat Boston, Mass. 1960

FLUID MECHANICS LABORATORY MANUALLehigh University 153 pages 1960

SOME NarES ON COMPARISON OF .BRITISH AND AMERICANUNIVERSITIES

Edinburgh University EngineeringSociety Year Book 1962EdJ..nburgh. Scotland pp. 26-29 1962

Taylor, D. C.McPherson. M. B.

Macnaughton, M. F.

McPherson, K. B.Strausser, H. S.

ELBOW METER PERFORMANCEJour. AWWA, VoL 46, No. 11 pp. 1087-1095

ACCIDENTAL AIR IN CONCRETEEngineering Journal Vol. 38. No.

• BUTrERFLY VALVE FLOW CHARACTERISTICSFroc. ASCE, Jour" of Hydr. Div"Paper 1167, HY 1 28 pages

1954

1955

1957

Herbich, J. B.

Herbich. J. B.

Discussion on: LATEST DREOOING PRACTICEFroc. ASCE.- Jour. of Waterways and HarborsDivision, Paper 2914 1961

McPherson, M. B.Dittig, R. G.

McPherson, M. B.Karr. M. H.

McPherson, M. B.Morel, A. R. R.

Straub, L. G.Herbich, J. B"Bowers, C. E.

Straub, L. G.Bowers. C. E.Herbich, J. B"

Herbich. J. B,,·

Herbich, J. B.

DISCUSSION OF SEVEN EXPLORATORY STUDIES INHYDRAULICS

Froc. ASCE, Journal of Hydr. Div. Paper 1230

A STUDY OF BUCKET -TYPE ENERGY DISSIPATORCHARACTERISTICS

Froc. ASCE, Jour. of Hydr. Liv.Paper 1266, HY 3 12 pagesCorrections: Paper 1348, BY 4, PP 57-64

OurLET PORTAL :mESSURE DISTRIBUTIONPaper presented at ASCE Convention at Chicago

AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF HYDRAULIC BREAKWATERSCoastal Engineering Chap. 43; pp. 715-728

LABORATORY TESTS OF PERMEABLE WAVE ABSORBERSCoastal Engineering Chap. 44; pp. 729-742

Discussion on: SHIPBOARD HYDRAULIC BREAKWATERFroc. ASCE, Jour. of Waterways and Harbors Div.Paper 1765

Discussion on: WAVE FORCES ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURESFroe .. ASCE. Jour. of Hydr. Div. Paper 2076

1957

1957

1958

1958

1958

1958

1959

Adams. J. R.

Herbich, J. B.

Herbich. J .. B.

Herbieh. J. B.Sorensen. R. M.Wil1enbroek. J. H.

Warnock. R. G.

Herbich, J .. B.Christopher, ,R. J.

SEDIMENT TRANSPORTATIONSpartan Engineer, March 1962

DIKES CURE SCOURING AT ABUTMENTSThe American City Magazine. Vol. 77. No. 12

p. 11 - 1962

EFFECT OF IMPELLER DESIGN CHANGES ON CHARACTERISTICSOF A MODEL DREDGE PUMP

ASHE Paper No. 63-AHGr-33 1963

EFFECT OF BERM ON WAVE RUN-UP ,ON COMPOSITE BEACHProc. ASCE, Jour. of Waterways and Harbors Div.Paper 3525 1963

VIBRATION FREQUENCIES OF A CIRCULAR CYLINDER OFFINITE LENGrH IN AN INVISCID FLUID

Part 3 of final report, Contract No. 3271(01) (x) Institute of Hydraulic Research,Universi ty of Iowa 1963

USE OF HIGH SPEED PHOTOGRAPHY TO ANALYZE PARTICLEMOTION IN A MODEL DREDGE PUMP

Proe •• I.A.H.R." Paper_ 4.12, London, England 1963

Herbich, J. B.

Herbich, J. B.

Herbich, J. B.Shulits, S.

Herbich, J. B.Sorensen, A. M.Willenbrock, J. H.

Shindala, A.

Herbich, J. B.Murphy, H. D.

Mariani, V. R.Herbich, J. B.

SIMULATED SILT STARS IN HIGH-SPEED MOVIES

IMIROVING DREDGE P1.1MP IMPELLER DESIGN

DIKES CURE SCOURING AT ABUTMENTSNews of the Sanitary Engineering Div. ofASCE, Vol. 89, No. SAl, Part 2

EFFECT OF LARGE -SCALE ROUGHNESS ELEMENTS ON FLCNIN OPEN ClLANNELS

"Dissertation Abstracts, Volume XXV, Number 2.

LARGE-SCALE ROUGHNESS IN OPEN-CHANNEL FLOWProc • .ASCE, Jour. of Hydr. Div. Paper 4145

EFFECT OF BERM ON WAVE RUN-UP ON COMPOSITE BEACHESTrans. ASCE, Vol. 129

MIXED CULTURE INTERACTIONS COMMENSALISM OFPROTEUS VULGARIS WITH SACCHARafiCES CEREVISIAEIN CONTINOOUS CULTURE

Jour. of Bacteriology, Vol. 89, 693

SCOUR. OF FLAT SAND BEACHES DUE TO WAVE ACTIONIN FRONT OF SEA WALLS

ASCE, Coastal Engineering Conference, SantaBarbara, California, October

EFFECT OF VISCOSITY OF SOLID-LIQUID MIXTURE ONPUMP CAVITATION

Prepared for 50th Anniversa,ry of CentralWater & Power Research Station, Poona, India

LEHIGH UNIVERSITYDepartment o£ Civil Engineering~TZ ENGINEERING LABORATORY

HYDR.AULIC DIVISION

STAFF PUBLICATIONS

1963

1964

1964

1964

1965

1965

1966



HYDRAULIC DIVISION

RtOJECT REPORXS

McPherson, M. B. STUDY OF MISALIGNMENTS IN AN OPEN CHANNEL McPherson, M. B. BUTTERFLY VALVE RESEARCHProject Report No. 16 12 pages 1950 Strausser, H. S. (Sponsored by CDC Control Service, Hatboro,

Mostert, J. G. Pennsylvania)McPherson, K. B. MODEL STUDY OF HILLS CREEK DAM SPILLWAY Colleville, P. J. Project Report No. 25, 48 pages 1953

Project Report No. 17 43 pages 1950Colleville, P. J. 6" BUTTERFLY VALVE HEAD LOSS TESTS

Eagleson, P. S. CONTINUATION OF MODEL STUDY OF HILLS CREEK (Sponsored by W. S. Rockwell C·o., Fairfield,DAM SPILLWAY Connecticut)

Project Report No. 18 75 pages 1951 Project Report No. 26 14 pages 1953

McPherson, M. B. MODEL STUDY OF A CORRECTIVE DESIGN FOR THE Reid, A. W. HODEL TESTS FOR SHAWVILLE DAMStrausser, H. S. LITTLE CREEK OurLET STRUCTURE (Sponsored by Gilbert Associates, Reading,Liebig, J. O. (Sponsored by Justin and Courtney, Pennsy1vania)

Consu1ting Engineers, Philade1phia , Pa • ) Project Report No. 1427 1953Project Report No. 19 41 pages 1952

Reid, A. W. MODEL TESTS FOR CONDENSING WATER OurLET STRUCTURE -William, J. C. TESTS OF A SIX-INCH BUTTERFLY VALVE DISCHARGING FRONT STREET STATION, Erie, PennsylvaniaMcPhers on, M. B. UNSUBMERGED (Sponsored by Gilbert Associates, Reading,

(Sponsored by Fluids Controls Company Pennsylvania)Phi lade1phia, Pa.) Project Report No. 1429 1953Project Report No. 20 23 pages 1952

McPherson, M. B. MOVABLE BED MODEL STUDY OF GREENSBCll0:J NORTHMcPherson, K. B. MODEL TESTS OF PROPOSED DESIGN OF ANTIETAM Strausser, H. S. CAR,pLINA. DAM

(WAYNESBORO) n.~ SHAIT SPILLwAY STRUCTURE (Sponsored by William C. Olsen and(Sponsored by Gannett, Fleming, ,Corddry and Associates, Raleigh, North Carolina)Carpenter, Inc., Harrisburg, Pa~) Project Report No. 27 20 pages 1955Project Report No. 21 76 pages 1952

McPherson, M. BOo 3 to 100 SCALE MODEL STUDY OF CHUTE SPILLWAYMcPherson) M. B. TESTS OF A 1:32 MODEL OF A mOPOSED OurLET Strausser, H. S. PENN FOREST DAMStrausser, H. S. STRUCTURE FOR FIRST FORK SINNEMAHONING, DAM (Sponsored by Bethlehem Authority, Bethlehem,

(Sponsored by Gannett, Fleming, Corddry and Pennsy1vania)Carpenter, Inc., Harrisburg, Pa~) Project Report No. 28 10 pages 1956Project Report No. 22 16 pages 1952

Reid, A. -W. MODEL TESTS - NEW DIVERSION ~Williams, J. C. REPORT ON TESTS OF BUTTERFLY VALVES DISCHARGING (Sponsored by Pennsylvania Electric Co.)Herbich, J. B. INTO A MODEL DISCHARGE CHAMBER AND FLUME Project Report No. 29 10 pages 1956

(Sponsored by Fluids Controls Company, Inc.,Philade1phia , PaOo) Dittig, R. G. TESTS OF A WIRE MESH FILTERProject Report No. 23 39 pages 1952 Herbich, J. B.. (Sponsored by Purolator Products, Inc~

Rahway, New Jersey) •McPherson, M. B. ADDITIONAL STILLING BASIN TESTS WITH A 1:32 Project Report No. 30 18 pages 1958Strausser, H. S. MODEL FOR FIRST PORK, SINNEMAHOnNG, DAM

(Sponsored by Gannett, Fleming, Corddry and Herbich, J. B. CHARACTERISTICS OF A MODEL DREDGE PUMPCarpenter, Inc., Harrisburg, Pa.) (Sponsored by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,Project Report No .. 24 46 pages 1952 Philadelphia District)

Project Report No. 31 110 pages 1959



HYDRAULIC DIVISION

PROJECT REPORTS

Brach~ P. L.Herbich, J. B.

Waddington, W. M.Herbich, J. B.

Herbich, J. B.

Herbich. J. B.Vallentine. H. R.

Patel, M. S.Herbich. J. B.

Herbich, J. B.Vallentine, H.. R.

Herbich. J. B ..Vallentine, H.. R..

Herbic\.l. J .. B.

Ap:nann, R. P ..Ali~ S .. M..

Sorensen. R. M..Willenbrock. J. H.

Herbich, J .. B.

SCALE EFFECT ON 2700

PIPE BENDS FOR BINGHAMBODY FLUID

(Sponsored by U.. S. Army Corps of Engineers.Phi ladel phia District) Fritz Lab. Re portNo .. 277-M-1O 1960

ANALYSIS OF HIGH-SPEED MOVIES OF A MODEL PUMP(Sponsored by U. S .. Army Corps of Engineers,Phila .. District) Fritz Lab .. Report No .. 277-M-ll 1960

THE EFFECT OF SPUR DIKES ON FLOOD FLOWS THROUGHBRIDGE CONSTRICTIONS

(Sponsored by American Society of Civil Engineers,Boston. Mass.) Fritz Lab .. Report No .. 280-M-16 1960

CONTROL OF BRIDGE SCOUR BY SPUR DIKES(Sponsored by Modjeski and Masters. Harrisburg,Penna.) Fritz Lab .. Report No. 280-P..R .. 32 1961

SCOUR CONTROL AT SKEW BRIDGE ABUTMENTS BY USE OFSPUR DIKES

(Sponsored by Modjeski and Masters, Harrisburg,Penna .. ) Fritz Lab. Report No .. 280-M-30 1961

EFFECT OF IMPELLER DESIGN CHANGES ON CHARACTERISTICSOF A MODEL DRED:;E PUMP

(Sponsored by U.. S. Army Corps of Engineers,Phi1a .. District) Fritz Lab. Report No .. 277-P.. R.. 33 1961

INVESTlGATIO~ OF CAVITATION OF DREDGE PUMP IMPELLER(Sponsored by Ellicott Machine Corp .. , Baltimore,Maryland) Frit~ Lab. Report No .. 1049-CT-477.34 1961

STATUS REPORTS ON IMPROVING DESIGN OF A HOPPERDREDGE PUMP

(Sponsored by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,Priila .. District) Fritz Lab .. Report No. 277 .. 34 1962

CONTROL OF BRIDGE SCOUR BY SPUR DIKES(Spons ored by Modjeski and Masters, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania) Fritz Lab .. Report No .. 280.17 1962

A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF HORIZONTAL BERM VARIATIONON WAVE RUN-UP UPON A COMPOSITE BEACH SLOPE

(Partially Sponsored by The Institute of Research)Fritz Lab. Report No. 293.35 1962

MODIFICATIONS IN DESIGN IMPROVE DREDGE PUMP EFFICIENCY(Sponsored by U. S .. Army Corps of Engineers,Philadelphia District) Fritz Lab. Report No.277.35 1962

Warnock. R.. G.Herbich. J. B.

Murphy, H.. D.Herbich, J .. B.

Isaacs, W. P.Mariani, V.. R.Murphy, R. D..Ta1ian, S .. F ..

Isaacs, W. P.

Murphy, H. D..

Isaacs, W. P ..Herbich, J. B.

Herbieb., J. B.Isaacs, W. P.

Shindah., A.Herbich. J. B..

Cassan, J. T.Herbich. J. B.

Basco, D. R..Herbich, J. B.

EFFICIENCY OF PUMPING AND PIPING lAyOUT(Sponsored by National Bulk Carriers, Inc.)Fritz Lab. Report No .. 294 .. 1

sucrION DREDGING LITERATURE SURVEY(Sponsored by Ellicott Machine Corporation,Baltimore. Maryland) Fritz Lab. ReportNo. 301.1

PERFORMANCE STUDY OF A 1: 6 MODEL DREDGE PUMP(Sponsored by Ellicott Machine Corporation)Fritz Lab .. Report No. 301.2

MEASUREMENI OF SLURRY FLOW BY USE OF 900

ELBOWMETER

(Sponsored by National Bulk Carriers) FritzLab. Report No .. 2991.

scoUR OF FLAT SAND BEACHES DUE TO WAVE ActION(Sponsored by the Institute of Research)Fritz Lab .. Report No .. 2932

MODIFICATIONS IN A DREDGE PUMP AFFEct !UGH SPEEDAND CAVITATION CHARActERISTICS

(Sponsored by Ellicott Machine Corporation)Fritz Lab. Report No .. 301.3

GAS REMOVAL SYSTEMS PART I: LITERATURE SURVEYAND FORMULATION OF TEST PROGRAM

(8ponsored by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,Philadelphia District. Fritz Lab .. ReportNo. 310 .. 3

GAS REMOVAL SYSTEMS PART II: DEVELOPMENT OFFACILITY LAyour AND FORMUIATION OF TEST PROGRAM

(Sponsored by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,Philadelphia District). Fritz Lab. ReportNo. 310.7

EFFECT OF IMPELLER MODIFICATIONS ON CAVITATIONCHARACIERISTICS

-(Sponsored by Ellicott Machine Corporation)Fritz Lab. Report No. 301.4 .

EFFECI OF IMPELLER WIDrR AND MODIFICATIONS ONPERFORMANCE AND CAVITATION CHARACTERISTICS

(Sponsored .by Ellicott Machine Corporation)Eri tz Lab. Report No. 301.5

1962

1963

1963

1964

1964

1964

1964

1965

1965

De lany, A. G.

Dawson, J. H.

Coles, D.

Jacobsen, J. T.

Becker, H. L.

Becker, H. L.

Williams. J. C.

THE FLUSH VALVE UNDER LOW PRESSUREUnpublished Thesis 45 pages

THE EFFECT OF lATERAL CONTRACTIONS ON SUPERCRITICAL FLOW IN OPEN CHANNELS

M. S. Thesis 76 pages

EXPERIMENTAL RELATION BETWEEN SUDDEN WALL ANGLECHANGES AND STANDING WAVES IN SUPERCRITlCAL FLOW

27 pages

HYDRAULIC LABORATORY MANUALAn Undergraduate Thesis

43 pages

INVESTIGATION OF mESSURE MAGNITUDES AT.MISALIGNMENTS IN AN OPEN CHANNEL

12 pages

DESIGN OF LONG-RADIUS, HIGH-RATIO FLOW NOZZLE6 pages

A STUDY OF MISALIGNMENT IN A CLOSED CONDUIT22 pages



HYDRAULIC DIVISION

SPECIAL REPORTS

VanQmmeren. W.1940

Taylor, D. C.1943

Karr. H. H.

1943Murthy. D. S. N.

1948Karr, M. H.

1949Horel. A. R. R.

1949G1o;nb, J. W.

1951

THE CHARACTERISTICS AND ACCURACY OF RECTANGULARBENDS USED AS FLail METERS

18 pages

THE CALIBRATION AND ACCURACY OF ELBOW METERSUndergraduate Study Report

BUCKET -TYPE ENERGY DISSIPATORSGraduate Study Report 30 pages

POIENTIAL FLOW IN 900

BENDS BY ELECTRICALANALOGY

Graduate Study Report 23 pages

A STUDY OF BUCKET - TYPE ENERGY DISSIPATORCHARACTERISTICS


EXIT PORTAL ERESSURE STUDY; SQUARE CONDUITGraduate Study Report 13 pages

INVESTIGATION BY ELEctRICAL ANALOGY OF POTENTIALFLOW IN A 90

0ELBOW WITH A DIVIDING VANE

Undergraduate Study Report17 pages

1953

1953

1956

1956

1956

1957

1957

Nece. R. E.

Brey. G. H.

Housley, J. B.

Williams, J. C., Jr.

Williams. J. C.

McPherson. K. B.

Wiliams, J. C. Jr.

THE CONSTRUcrION AND TESTING OF A SCALE HODELOF A DAM SPILLWAY AND STILLING BASIN (FALL RIVERDAM, KANSAS)

44 pages

EXPERIMENTAL DETERHINATION OF CIRCUIAR WEIRCHARACTERISTICS

17 pages

MODEL STUDY TO DETERMINE PitESSURE DISTRIBUTION ONTHE SPILLWAY FACES OF THE FALL RIVER (KANSAS) nAM


'lESTS OF A SIX-INCH BUITERFLY VALVE DISCHARGINGUNSUBMERGED


STUDY OF MISALIGNMENT IN AN OPEN CHANNEL AND ACLOSED CONDUIT

H. S. Thesis 61 pages

TRE DESIGN OF BENDS F03. HYDRAULIC STRUCIURESC. E. Thesis 46 pages

TESTS OF A SIX-INCH BUTTERFLY VALVE DISCHARGINGIDiSUBMERGED

Gradua te Study Roe-port 25 pages

1951

1951

1951

1951

1952

1952

1952

Brach, P.Castro, V. A.Kable, J. C.

Reimer, P.

Carle, R. J.

Carle, R. J.Kable, J. C.

Kable, J. C.

Weiss, W. L.

Hansen, R. M.

HYDRAULIC MODEL INVESTIGATION ON CHIEF JOSEPHDAM SPILLWAY


DESIGN OF A CAVITATION UNITUndergraduate Report 22 pages

THE USE OF SPUR DIKES WITH BRIIX;E AButMENTSGraduate Study Report 16 pages

THE EFFECT OF SPUR DIKES ON FLOOD FLOWSTHROUGH HIGHWAY BRIDGE ABtTrMENTS


THE DETERMINATION OF THE LENGrH OF SPfJR DIKESFOR FLOOD FLOWS THROUGH HIGHWAY BRIDGE ABurMENTS


SUGGESTED DESIGN CHANGES FOR A CENTRIFUGAL PUMPIMPELLER HANDLING DREDGED MUD

Graduate Study. Report 20 pages

THE NIAGARA POWER PROJECT: A SURVEYGraduate Study Report 17 pages

1959

1959

1959

1959

1959

1959

1960

Sweet, R. W.

Herbich, J. B.

Dwyer, T •. J.

WATER WAVESUndergraduate Study Report

46 pages

FACILITIES FCR INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH INFLUID MECHANICS AND HYDRAULICS

Fritz Lab. Report No .. 237. 16-M-23

BIBLIOGRAPHYFritz Lab. Report No .. 237.18

LEHIGH UNIVERSITYDeparment of Civil Engineering


HYDRAULIC DIVISION

·SPECIAL REPORTS

1960

1961

1962

Joshi, D. B.. STUDY OF SPUR. DIKESM.. S. Thesis 40 pages 1963

Patel, G.

Ta1ian, S. F.Vesi1ind, P. A.

Hariani, V. R.

Herbich, J. B.

REPORT ON STUDY OF GRAVITY WAVE REFLEcrICJotSFRCM FLOATING RECfANGULAR. BODIES


A STUDY OF THE EFFEcr OF HORIZONTAL BERMVARIATION IN WAVE RUN-UP UPON A CCMPOSITEBEACH SLOPE WITH DEPTH OF WATER EQUAL TO BERM.HEIGHr


CAVITATION CHARACTERISTICS OF A MODEL DREDGE PI:IIPGraduate Study Report 34 pages

EFFEcr OF LARGE -SCALE ROUGHNESS ELEMENTS ON FLOWIN OPEN CHANNELS

Ph.. D.. Thesis, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity 95 pages

1963

1963

1963

1963

Mariani, V. R. TESTS OF A CAVITATION UNITGr aduate Study Report pages 1963

Vesi1and, P. A.Ta1ian, ·S. F ..

De11eur, J. W.Herbich, .J. B.Schneib1e, D. E.Tracy, H• .1.

VanWee1e, B..

Koste, P.. L.

Anderson, C.

RESISTANCE OF ORGANIC mSECIICIDES TO BIOOXIDATION


HYDRAULICS OF BRIDGESASCE Task Force, Progress Report presentedat the ASeE Hydraulics Division meetingVicksburg, Mississippi 69 pages

SCOUR OF FLAT SAND BEACHES DUE TO WAVE ACTIONON MILD SLOPED SEAWALLS


FLOOD FLOWS AND RIVER BED SCOURINGUndergraduate Study Report

11 pages

WATER RESOURCESUndergraduate Study Report

10 pages

1963

1964

1965

1965

1965



HYDRAULIC DIVISION

TRANSLATIONS

Armanet, L.

Krisam, F.

Kinami, 1.

Sezginer, Y.Aymer, M.

Marik, M.Somogyi, M..Szabo, A.

TURBINE BUTTERFLY VALVES (VANNES - PAPILLON DESTURBINES)

Genis s iat pp. 199 -219La Houi lIe BlancheTranslated by P. J. CollevilleFritz Engineering LaboratoryTranslation No. T-l

INFLUENCE OF VOLUTES ON CHARAcrERISTIC CURVESOF CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS(DER EINFLUS DER LEITVORRICHTUNG AUF DIEKENNLINEN VON KREISELPUMPEN)

Zeitschrift des Vereines DeutscherIngenieure, Vol. 94, No. 11/12

pp. 319-366 April 1952Translated by A. Ostapenko and J. B. HerbichFritz Engineering Laborato ry Trans lation No. T-5

A STUDY ON A HOT ANEMOMETER TO MEASURE SLOWWATER VELOCITY(JOURNAL OF THE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING SOCIETY,JAPAN, Vol. 32, No.2, August 1964)

Tr ans lated by Jun Kondo, Fritz EngineeringLaboratory Report No. 320.1

INTERESTINH CONSTRUCTION OF A FORCED CONDUIT(TtlRKrYE MUHENDISLIK HABERLERI, Vol. 2. No. 124)

Translated by E. Yarimci. Fritz EngineeringLaboratory Report No. 301.5

EFFEcr OF AIR CONTENT IN FLUID ON CHARACTERISTICSOF CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS(UBER DEN EINFLUSS DER LUFTZUFthm.UNG AUF DIEKENNZAHLEN VON KREISELPUMPEN)

Periodica Polytechnica. Vol. 5, pp. 25-30Translated by John B. Herbich, FritzEngineering Laboratory Report No. 310-12

1953

1959

1965

1965

1966

1111~lllr---;32.1..-~-- · 17 18 19 Title Labora·tory Model with Original Spillway Configuration...

Documents

Transcript of 1111~lllr---;32.1..-~-- · 17 18 19 Title Labora·tory Model with Original Spillway Configuration...