HYDRAULICS BRANCH OFFICIAL FILE COPY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BUREAU OF RECLAtv:ATION

HYDRAULIC LABORATORY

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

Hyaraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-408

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING LABORATORIES

COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE DENVER, COLORADO

June 4, 1956

0

FUREWORD

Hydraulic model studies of Palo Verde Diversion Dam,· a part of the Palo Verde Diversion Project, were conducted in the laboratory of the Bureau of Reclamation at ·Denver, Colorado, dur­ing the period from October 1954 to December 1955.

The -final plans evolved trom this study were developed through the cooperation of the staffs of the Dams Branch, the Canals .Branch, the Mechanical Branch, the Hydrology Branch, and the Hydraulic Laboratory Branch.

~ing the qourse of the model studies, :tessrs. L. G. Puls, F. A. Houck, and E. L. Watson of the Dams Branch, and A~ v. Kidder and J. A. Hufferd of the Canals. ·Branch frequently visited the laboratory to observe t~ model tests and to discuss results with A. J. Peterka, E. J. Carlson, and G. L. Beichley of the Hydraulic Laboratory Branch,

These studies were conducted by G. L. Beichley and supervised by ·A. J. Peterka under the direction of H. M. ~in.

CONTBNTS

Sumna.ry • • • • • • • • .• • •. • • • • • • • • • • • ,.!. • • • • • •

Introduction . . , . . • . • . . .• . . •. • . • • • • • • · . . • ~ .. 'rh.e Models • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • · • • • • • • • ·

1 3 4

The 1:28.3 Scale Sectional Model ••••• The 1 : 50 Scale Overall Model • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • . , . . . .. . . . . ... .4 5

The Investigation • • • • • ·• • . • • • • • . • .• • · • • • · • • • • • • -7

Developnent of Spillway in the Sectional Model. • • • • • • • 8

The Preliminary Spillway Section •••••• , •••• - • 8 Spillway Section with. 25-foot-rad.iua Bucket. • • • • • • • • 11 Recommended Spillway Section with Horizontal Apron • ·• · • • 12

Spillway in Overall Mo~l • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • . • • • • l3

Flow Through the Approach Cpannel • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . 13 Flow Through the Spill way • • • • • • • ,. • • • • • • • • • 16 Flow Through the Discharge Channel • • • • • • • • • • • • 16

Canal Head.works Structure Rock Weir ••••.••

. ~ . . . . . .. . .... --~ . . . . . . . . ~ - . . • • • f! . . . . . . . . .

General Description. • • • • Removal of the Weir • . • • •

. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . •·.· .. . . .• . • • • • • • • • • • • •

19 20

·20 20

Spill way Capacity • • • . • • • • • • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • · 24

Sectional Model • • • • • • • •. • • The Overall Model • • • • • . • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • .• . .•. . . . . . .. · ·• . . River Currents ••• • • • . . . .. . . . • • • • • • • . . . ..

Palo Verde Diversion Project-~Location map •••••••• ·• .Palo Verde Di version Dam-:-·-Oe~rlill. plan and sections . • • • • • Palo Verde Diversion Dam--Spillway o-v:ertl.ow section ancl piers Palo Verde Diversion Dam--Spillway left abut'°'nt wall •••• Palo Verde Diversion Dam--SpiUway 50- by 24.91-foot radial

gate general installation • .• , .• · ·• • . • !' • • •. • • • • • • •

Palo Verde Di version -Dam~-Headworb., . plan., elevation., . and sections . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • ·• • ·• • . . . • • .

• • • • • • • •

• •

• •

29

Figure

1 2 3 4

5

6

CONTENTS--Continued

Figure.

Outline o~ prototype area modeled ••••••.••• ·•.• •.• • • • 7 Aerial view of temporary rock weir ••••.••••.••••• ii • 8 Temporary rock weir discharging 16,000 .secon~feet ••••• ~ • 9 Flood damage to temporary rock weir--Lookingupstream •••••• · 10 Flood damage 'to· temporary rock weir--Looking toward left bank • • ll Flood damage to temporary rock weir--Looking toward left bank .• • 12 Palo Verde Diversion Dam--Remov~l of temporary rock weir •••• 13 Palo Verde Diversion Dam--Tail water curves ••••••••••• 14 Sectional spillway model •"·. • .. ,. • • · • • . • '• • • • • ·• • •. • • • 15 Overall model • • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 Overall model layout ·· • · • •. • . • , •. · • . • • • . • • • • • ., • • • · • • 17 Preliminary 30-foot-radiils bucket· ·• • • • • • . • . • • · • • • • • • • 18 Preliminary- spillway: bucket: discharging ii .::. ~-- ·• ••.••••.• -·. 19 Preliminary spillway bucket discharging with ancJ without

modifications • • • • • • · • • • - •. • • •.•.• · ·.- • • • • • • • .• • 20 Modification of the preliminary baffle in spillway bucket • • • • 21 Preliminary spillway bucltet with baff'l:e- modifications .

discharging • • • • • • • · • • • • • , • •· • • • · • • .• -.. •.. • • • · • Spillway section with 25-foot-rad.ius bucket .•.• ·• • ~ • • •·, • • • 25-foot-radius bucket with modifications discharging •••••• 25-foot-radius solid spillway bucket • · • • .• • • • .• • • • • • • Sill and baffle· arrangements on horizontal apron ••••.•••.• Horizontal apron at elevation 245 with various end sill

·arrangements ·· • • , • - • • •.•..• · • ... • • , •.• · • • • • : •. _ • · ·• ..-- . • • • • Horizontal apron at elevation 245 with various end· sill and · baffle arrangements • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Prel~inary spillway approach area , ••••.•.• · ••••••• · •• Preliminary spillway approach area model views •••••••.•• Preli,miriary canal- head.wot-ks structure- • • • • • • • • • •••.. • • Left spillway approach training- wall · •.• · • • • • • • • • • • • • Flow patterns .in the preliminary approach •••••••••••• Flow patterns- in the preliminary approach .- •••••••.•••• Flow patterns in the se_cond spillway approach • • • • • • • • • • Flow_ patterns in the third spillway approach · • • • • • • • .• • • Reco~nded spillway approacn. • • • . • • • ,·• • • • • • • • • • • • Flow patterns in the recommended spillway' approach · • • • • -• • • Flow currents through th$, recommended· spillway approach and •

gate.section· •••••••. , .•• ·-. -~ ; ..•.•. · •.• ·• ·• ••••.••• Recommended ,Spillway' discharging • • •. • . • • . .•. • • ·.• • • • • • • Tentative curve to,aid in-determining riprap:sizes ••••••• Di•charge channel erosion trends--Recommended'- spillway: .••• • • Discharge channel waves--Recommended spillway •••• ·• •.••••

ii

.· ...

22 23 24 25 26

27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

CONTENTS--Continued

Temporary rock weir at elevation 286 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rock weir discharge and reservoir elevation curves ••••••• Uncontrolled spillway discharge curves •. • • • • • • • • • • • • Preliminary spillway calibration for reservoir elevation

283. 5 feet . . . . . . ·. . . . .. . . . • . . . . . .._ . . . . . Final spillway calibration curves for controlled ~d

uncontrolled flow •••••••••••••• ~ ••••••• Spillway discharge versus water surface elevations for

uncontrolled flow • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• . • • • • River flow currents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . .

,

:lii

Figure

44 45 46

47

48

49 50

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

~UREAU OF RECLAMATION

Commissioner's Office--Denver Division of Engineering Laboratories Hydraulic LaboratQry Branch Denver, Colorado June 4, 1956

Laboratory Report Nci. Hyd-408 Compiled by: G. L. Beichley Reviewed by: A. J. Peterka Submitted by: H. M. Martin

Subject: Hydraulic model studies of Palo Verde Diversion Dam.

SUMMARY

Hydraulic model studies· of Palo Verde Diversion Dam, including the spillway", the canal head.works, the existing temporary rock weir, and the adjacent reaches of the river channel, Figures l through. 14, were made on two models including a 1:28.3 scale sectional model of one spill­way bay, :Figure 15, and a 1:50 scale overall model, Figures 16 and 17. Mod.el data showed that the general concept · of the preliminary design was satisfactory, however, several moditications were necessary to develop the final plans. · '

The shape _of the sp_illwa.y . section, including the sti~ling basin, was developed from comprehensive tests on the 1 :28. 3 sc.ale sectional model,Figures 18_thro-ugh 28. A stilling basin with a·horizontal apron and a solid-type end sill, Figure 3, proved. to be satisfactory in preventing excessive erosion and water surface ro~ess . .-This relatively simple basin which contained no baffle piers or de~tates on the end sill will be economical to co~struct and should.require the minimum 1n maintenance.

Studies were made on the riprap to be used to protect tbe river­bed downstream from the stilling basin, Figures 41 and 42. Both mo!i,els were used in estimating the probable necessary stone size. Stone sizes

· of 24- to 36-inch diameter were recommended.·

The recommended location of the canal headworks structure in relation to spillway was determined by trial in the 1:50 scale overall moder after studying the flow ~haracteristics in· the approach area for other arrangements, Figures 29 through 39. It was found necessary to move the headworks inward tow~ the. spillway and to reshape the right ·

. b~ to ~liminate a large edgy at the headworks entrance· and nwnerous . small eddies along the right bank which would tend to deposit sediment at the head.works entrance. ·

M:,r pockets that collected along the roof of the conduits~in the canal headworks structure were eliminated by sloping the ~oofs upward.

The le:f't approach training wa.11 to the spillway was reduced in length and the curvature revised to eliminate an excessive contraction. The recommended wa.11 provided smooth ·flow along its face, Figures 4 and 32, and was more economical to construct.

Flow through the gate section was· satisfactory; however, for -the design flow the gate trurinions were submerged,. Figure 39. · It was noted, too, that airy floating debris will flow along the right side of each bq when the flow is · uncontrolle_d.

The water surface elevation in the discharge channel was higher than expected, Figure 4oB. Therefore, it was recommended that the discharge channel be widened and that its banks be elevated.

Surface waves were found to be highest for a controlled dis­charge· . of approximately 15,000 second-feet; those ·for an uncontrolled ·flow of 75,000 second-feet were nearly as·high, Figure ·43. Throughout the discharge ·range the waves aiong the'channel banks were not objection-

. able. ' · ·, ·

· The rock weir which is presently used as a diversion dam was studied: to determine· its ·backwater effect after completion of the diversion dam. The elevation to which the temporary rock.weir should be removed, Figures 7 through 13, and the method of removing it were de:termined with the a:i.d of the overaii model, Figures 44 ·and 45.

The spillway was cal.ibrated for 'both 'gate controlled and uncontrolled t'low, Figures '1'6 through 49, both; ·tor. present tail water . conditions and fOI'. lower tail water elevations to be expected as a result of channel de,gr~tion. Over. most of. the ·discharge range the spillway discharge i's of the submerged type·. · Prelilli:l.nary calibration was done on the sectional model for preliminary use by the designers, .Figures 1'6. and 47, and to aid in obtaining: final caiibration data on the overall model for ·prototype us(!, :Figure ·48.· Water surface eleva­tions at various places throughout the ·reservoir, in the discharge channel, and in the river channel were also recorded during the final calibration tests for possible prototype use, Figure 49. . . . . . , .

Flow currents in the river channel downstream from the discharge channei were investigated in the.·overall moqel and it was determined tlia.t lands of the Colorado 'I~dian Reservation along the·

. left bank would not be endarigered by excessive erosion. Velocity me~SUX'ements' and·. phot9grE1.phS .. Of. surface . currents, Figure 50, Showed. that no erosion ·of any consequence would ·occur .along the left bank.

. . .·.

2

INTRODUCTION

·Palo Verde Diversion Dain is part ·or·the Palo Verde Dive'rsion Project located on the Colorado River about 9 miles northeast of Blythe, Ca.lifornia, Figure 1. The dam, Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, will divert

• up to 1,800 second~feet of water to the Palo Verde Irrigation D:l.strict and will replace the existing rock weir diversion dam shown '1n Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The -rock weir, at present, requires frequent repair and maintenance because floodwaters remove portions 'Of the weir as shown in Figures 9, 10, 11, and l?.. ·

The dam, Figure?, an earth and rockfill structure-approxi­mately 1,850 feet long, including spillway, is approximately 40 feet high above the riverbed. On the right the earth dam butts against the rock knoll near the old intake structure for the Palo Verde Irrigation District. On the left the dam joins a levee designed to protect the lands of the Colorado River Indian Reservation. · The crest of the· dam and levee is ~O feet wide at elevation 296.

The spillway, Figures 2, 3, and 4, designed to pass 75,000 second-feet at reservoir elevation ?90 will not reach this capacity until retrogression of the river channel and the discharge channel has lowered the tail water surface in the.discharge channel a sufficient amount at some future date. Retrogression is expected to occur down­stream from.the dam,as the clear reservoir water picks up a sediment. load in the downstream channel. As a result, the tail water elevation is expected to become lower at the rate shown in Figure 14. Therefore, the capacity of the submerged spillway is expected to increase-in future years.

The spillway approach channel is excavated to slope downward toward the crest at 10:1 from eievation ~73 in the river channel to a level area at elevation :;56 which is 3 feet below the crest. The level area extends upstream from the crest as shown in Figure 2. A curved training wall on the left, Figure 4, guides the water into the spillway. On the right the canal headworks structure, Figures 2 and 6., adjoining . the spillway struc~ure :J_s designed to pass 1,800 second-feet at reservoir elevation ~83.5 with the water surface elevation at the head of the canal at elevation 28?..9.

The spillway crest is at elevation 259.0 and is equipped with three 50- by 24.91-foot-high radial gates, Figure 5. The spillway piers are 6 feet thick and extend to the downstream end of the spillway apron. Stoplog slots are provided at the upstream and downstream ends of the piers for unwatering the gate ·section and stilling basin area. The stilling basin, founded on rock, has a horizontal apron at elevation 245 with a solid-type end sill.

The headworks structure, Figure 6, consists of ~our conduits each 8 feet high by 12 feet wide and controlled by a top seal radial gate. The sill or bottom of the openings is at elevation 273.5. A

3

concrete transition section is provided.between the conduits and the canal. The canal joins the existing Palo Verde Irrigation District desilting basin near. the point where the old intake canal emptied into it.

The excavated spillway discharge channel, Figure 2, slopes upward 6:1 from the stilling basin end sill at elevation 251. 5 to elevation 260. After 100 feet of l~vel bed the channel slopes upward again at the rate of 10 :1 to elevation _270, the elev.at ion of the river channel. As the channel bottom approaches elevation 270 its breadth is gradually increased to about 500 feet.

THE MODELS

Two models were used in the investigation. Each was con­strQ.Cted and tested in the Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory at the Denver Federal Center. The first was a 1 :28. 3 scale sectional model of one spillway bay, Figure 15. The other was an overall 1: 50 scale model of the ~~h dam, spillway, canal headworks, and surround­ing topography upstream and downstream of the site, Figures 7, 16, and 17.

The 1:28.3 Scale. Sectional Model

The 1:28.3 scale sectional model, Figure 15, was installed in one of the labor13,tory's test flumes. The flume is approx.imately 24 inches wide by 43 feet 6 inches long, and is provided with a 4- by 13-foot 8-inch glass window on one side for observing and photographing flow characteristics.

The spillway crest, the radial -gate, and the bucket energy dissipater of the preliminary spillway were constructed of sheet metal. The spillway piers and energy dissipating·baffle piers :were made of wood and soldered in place by means of clip angles. The spill.way approach channel was formed with 1-1/2-inch rock which did not· move

· · during the test.a, while the river channel bed downstream from the spill­way was formed in 1/4-inch pea-gravel to provide a-movable bed for erosion tests. A sample of the gravel used had the following analysis:

Mechanical Sieve .Analysts of 1/4-inch Gravel Sample

Sieve size

3/8-inch No. 4 sieve No. 8 sieve Less than No. 8

sieve

4

Percent retained on sieve by weight

2.0 89.5 8.2 0.3

Water was supplied to the model from the laboratory's under-·· · floor reservoir·tbrough the permanently installed 12-inch supply' line. that encircles the interior of the laboratory. The ·quantity of flow was measured by use of the permanently installed venturi meters. · The elevation of the reservoir water ·surface was measured using a hook gage in a transparent plastic well attached to the flume. The head was measured at a point approximately 4.6 feet upstream ·trom the spillway crest line. A hinged tailgate controlled the elevation of the water surface downstream from the structure. Tail water elevations were measured at a point approximately 13 feet downstream from the cre~t line using an arrangement similar to the headwater gage.

The.1:50 Scale Overall Model

The 1:50 scale model, Figures 1, 16, and 17, of the earth dam, spillway, canal headworkS: temporary rock weir, and surrounding topog­raphy upstream and downstream of the site was constructed in an existing sheet-metal-lined box approximately 26 feet wide by 60 feet long and 24 inches deep.

The dam was constructed across the width of the box at about the midpoint. The interior of the model dam was provided with a sheet­metal bulkhead to prevent water passing tlirough the sand.and concrete. The .top .and downstream face of the dam were molded in concrete on metal lath to provide a walkway across the model. The upstream face of the dam was molded in sand except for a short piece adjacent to the spillway where flow velocities along the face of the da.Di might cause sloughing. The excavated. spillway approach area was also formed. in concrete.. All other topography upstream of the dam was molded in sand to simplify model construction. For some of the tests a 1/4-inch layer of fine, .,,hite sand was used to cover the concrete approach area to indicate bottom flow currents. The white sand bas a mean diameter of approxi­mately 0.2 mm with 90 percent passing the 40-mesh.and 10 percent being retained on the 100-mesh u. s. Standard acreens (0.43 to 0.15 mm).

The model topography upstream from the dam included the river channel and adjacent area for ·an overall.width approximately 1,300 feet, and extended upstream ·approximately: 1,200 feet f'rom the dam to include

. the presently used rock weir diversion dam and a short reach of' river upstream from. it. The rock weir .in the model was constructed of l-i/2-inchrock placed on top of' the sand topography to weir crest elevation.

The downstream topograp~·was of' approximately the same area as the upstream topography and included the spillway: disc\large channel and a reach of river downstream from the discharge channel. The knoll to the left of the spi1.lway wa& molded in concrete up to elevation 300.· Contours were not reproduced above elevation 300, to provide f'lat working

5

areas on the model. The riverbanks and the banks · of the discharge channel were molded. in concrete to provide bank stability but were covered with sand about 3/4 inch· thick to provide a surface that.would show bank erosion tendencies. · The river and discharge channels,. between banks, were mQlded entirely in sand· to provide a movabie bed for erosion tests. Bed. rock in the discharge channel ad.Jacent to the stilling .basin was molded in concrete, since the rock quality was sufficiently· high to resist erosive forces to be expected in the area.

~iprap in the discharge channel ·was reproduced in the model 1n various ways arid subjected to a series of tests. Sizes varied from pea-_gravel, the same as used in the 1 :28. 3 model, to 3/4--inch gravel which· represented prototype stones 36 inches in diameter.

Sampies of_t~movab1e bed sand and the 3/4-inch ripr~p gravel had.the following size analysis:

Mechanical Sieve Analysis of the Sand Sample

Sieve size

No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100 Pan

Percent retained on sieve by weight

3 27 36 27 7 0

Mechanical Sieve Analysis of the 3/4-inch Gravel Sample

Sieve size

3/4-inch 3/8-in,ch. No. 4

Percent retained on .sieve by weight

4.6 .75.3 20.1

The spillway crest and stilling basin were constructed of concrete •. Five sheet-metal templates were cut to the exact. shape of the crest and basin. The templates were . equally spaced and soldered to a supporting framework which in turn was soldered to the floor of the model box. Gravel was placed between templates to within 3/4 inch of the final profile. Concrete :was placed over. the gravel and screeded smooth to the sheet-metal templates. ~ end sill and piers were made of wood, soaked in linseed oil, and_painted to prevent warping. The

6

radial gates were constructed of sheet metal and pivoted on a 1/8-inch. rod that. extended across the full width of the spillway at the gate pin location. The vertical face of the left approach ·training wall. _ was also constructed of sheet JJJetal and was fitted into the adjacent concrete parts of the structure. ·

The canal headworks structure, including the radial control gates, was constructed mostly of sheet metal and soldered to the floor of the model box. The roof of :the conduits was of transparent plastic so that flow through the conduits could be observed. The· walls between conduits were made of treated and painted wood.

Water was supplied to the model from a portable vertical pump through an 8-inch pipe. An orifice venturi meter in the pipe was used to measure discharges. Flow entered the upstream end of the head box and was quieted by an 8-inch rock baffle before it entered the model· reservoir upstream o:f' the dam. Flow entering the model reservoir had the same relative direction as in the prototype.

The water surface elevation in the river channel downstream from the dam was controlled by a hinged tailgate across the downstream end of the model. A sand trap was constructed immediately upstream of the gate to prevent loss of sand from the model.

Flow through the canal headworks emptied into a separate wasteway channel along the inside of the model box. A 90~ V-notch weir, preceded by a rock baffle, was installed in this wasteway to measure the canal headworks discharge.

Point gages were used to measure water surface elevations at many places in the model. The location of these gages is shown in Figure 17. -

THE INVESTIGATION

In the sectional model the investigation was concerned with developing the spillway and @Jtilling basin to provide optimum perform­ance with a minii;num o:f' structure. In the overall model the investigation was concerned with checking the spillway and stilling basin performance particularly :f'or side effects, waves, and riprap sizes required, and, in addition, developing the design o:f' the entire arrangement of structures from the hydraulic v:l.ewpoint.

To complete the entire· stuqy in the. overall model _extensive tests were made to (1) ~termine the most effective location o:f' the . . canal head.works st~ture in relation to the spillway to reduce the . amount of silt entering.the canal intakes, (2) determ1ne·the effect of

7

the. rock weir for tull and partial heights on water·surface elevations both upstream and downstream of the welr so that weir removal recommen­dations could be made, ( 3) study flow currents in the spillway approach to determine their effect on spillway· and canal head.works performance, (4) determine the capacity of the spillway. for the changing tail water levels expected over a period of years as a result of river channel degradation, (5) calibrate the spillway. for the range -of submergence to be expected, .including the effect of the riprap in the discharge channel in preventing a lowering of the tail water in the discharge channel, and (6) study the downstream flow conditions for a range of flood flows to determine the possibility of riverbank erosion.

The spillway was designed to pass 75,000 second-feet or 25,000 second-feet per bay at reservoir elevation 290. Normally- the reservoir would be controlled at elevation 283.5 by means of a radial gate in each bay.

Tail water elevations for the design flow and the lower discharges used in the model tests were determined from the tail water curves in Figure 14, which. show the expected rate of riverbed degrada­tion in tel"IDS of tail water elevations. Tail water references in this report, therefore, contain the year in·which the elevation is first expected to occur.

Development of Spillway in the Sectional Model

Tests to develop the shape of the spillway and the stilling basin were conducted on the 1:28.3 scale sectional model of one·spill­way bay, Figure 15. The section developed from these ·studies was- then installed in the 1: 50 scale overall mode_l and tested to verify the capacity and performance of the entire spillway.

·The Preliminary Spillway Section

The preliminary spillway consisted of .an ogee section, shown in Figure 18, and a 30.;.foot-radius Angostura-type s'iotted buck.et energy dissipator. The spillway crest was at elevation 259 and the invert qf the buck.et at elevation- 24.o. The radial gate1:1, 50 feet wide by 25.5 feet high, were placed between spillway piers 6 · feet th~ck that extended downstream to the bucket invert. The gravel in the movable bed was molded on a 6 :1 slope upward from the buck.et lip. ·

The model was operated for a range of uncontrolled flows up to 25,000 second--feet, :first, with the present expected tail water elevation and then with the lower ta.il water expected in year 1972. When present expected tail water elevation was used with each . of these flow conditions, the water surface throughout the model was smooth and no· erosion of the riverbed occurred for any discharge, probably because

8

of the relatively deep tail water.' Flow did ~ot follow the spillway profile into the bucket but rather passed over the crest and expanded gradually to fill the flow area _at ··the :end of' the stilling basin. · The fall from reservoir to tail water under these conditions was hardly· enough to require an energy dissipator •

The model discharging the design flow uncontrol,.led with present tail water is shown in Figure 19·. The water surface down·stream shows only smaJ.l standing waves which are less harmful to the channel banks than traveling waves.

Th,e model showed the need for an energy dissipator for gate controlled -flows, particularly when the tail water elevation was at the expected year 1972 elevation. For this operation the flow currents followed the crest shape into the buck.et. However, water surface roughness and erosion of' the river channe1 were still not considered excessive. The most severe o~rating condit-ion occurred f'or a gate .. controlled flow of' 8,000 second-feet at normal. reservoir elevation 283.5 and low tail.water, Figure 20A. Retrogression is expected to lower the tail water 8 feet to elevation 272 by the year 1972. Elevation 271, however, was ·used in the model test to represent the most severe operat­ing condition.

The water surface was rough in the bucket but smooth in the channel. Bed erosion stabilized at elevation 245 after a 30-minute model scour test, as shown in Figure 20A. The elevation of' the eroded. hole is the same as the. bucket invert elevation. The material adjacent. to the bucket lip was eroded only slightly.

A series ot 30-minute model erosion tests was then made to determine whether the baffles in the Angostura-type bucket energy dissipator could be eliminated or modified to provide a more economical design without sacrificing good·bydraulic performance. The tests were all conducted using the most severe operating condition described above.

In the first modification the baffles, Figure 20B, were removed. As the flow currents passed over and left the apron they 43coured the channel bed for quite some distance downstream. The

. currents then turned upward producing a rise in the water ·surface. Sin,ce the ~in current followed along the channel bed, the water sur­face was smooth except-for the slight rise in the water surface but erosion of' the channel bed was excessive.

It was concluded that the baffles were valuable in that they directed part of the flow currents in the basin upward without producing excessive disturbances in the water surface. Only the currents that passed through the slots reached the end of :the apron to erode the channel bed. Therefore, erosion of the channel bed ·was reduced by the use of baffles.

9

In the second modification a solid sill replaced the baffles, Figure 200. With this arrangement none of the currents re.ached the ·end of the apron; instead, all currents were directed upward. As a resu;it, the water surface was . very rough and an upstream ground roller developed downstream from the sill 'Which depos;!.ted bed. iJJa,terial on the apron. · Performance was considered to be very poor. It was concluded from these two modifications that slots we;i-e beneficial in-minimizing water surface roughness and that battl.~s ·· were heipf'ul in minimizing the · erosion of the channel bed. , · · · ·

A simpler and perhaps more economical version of the Angostura­type battles, shown in Figure 21, was tested. It was believed that the curved faces or rounded edge!:! of the ba,ttle piers were not necessary since they would not be subJe.cted to high velocity nows·. Also·, it was believed that fewer baffles might be used it the same ratio of solid to open spaces could be, maintained. . Therefore, modified baffles nearly · twice the width of the Angostura battle and spac~d tllice as tar apart as in ~he Angostura design were. tested •. Operation tor a range of dis­charges showed that the. flow currents throµgh the slots caused deeper and more extensive erosion than that in. the preliminary design. Water surface roughness was about the S8.11"3. . ~o further consideration was given to this design.

Modified battles tour times the _width of the Angostura baffles and spaced about 1-1/2 titres farther apart, EJhown_in Figure 22C, did not pe~torm satisfactorily either for two reasons. First, because of the fewer number ot slots the water surface was rougher than in the prelim­inary design. Second, the slots, were 80 far apart .that side eddies carried bed material back onto the apron and swirled the material around behind the bafnes. In the prototype structure, material moving back and forth onthe apron ~ouldcause severe damage tQ the concre~.

The battles 7.reet wide, shown in Figure 21, were ~ain tested. Tb.is time, howeve~; 18-inch spacing, as shown in Figure 18, was used. The erosion and water surface roughness were about the same as tor. the prelimi~ ®Sign-without modification.· Since this 7-toot-wide modified battle, Figure 21, was:more economical to construct than the preliminary Angostura-type baffle, this. design was considered to be the best tested thus tar •

. :To improve .. OD this arrangement, the battles were. tapered, Figure 22C. In tapering the 7-toot-wide baj;'tles the spacing was·increased ttheo abdownout lt-1/2 timed. s tdhe Angalo1stura spacding ~ to1palrovtidebelower ~lociittiites at

s ream en an .to ow trappe ma11er o. come u~e once started through the slot. The battles ~re tapered· from 7 feet wide upstream to 6 feet 9 inches down11tream:, .making the upstream slot width 24 inches and t~ downstream width 27- inches. Erosion tests showed that the

10

tapered slots were almost as good.as the narrower slots (compare F-igure 22B witll 220). Sinc.e the, water surface was smooth this arrangement was indicate4 as suitable f'or use in the prototype. However., at this same time., the designer!' decided that the spillway piers.should be extended·to the ·end of' the bucket f'or structural reasons. This decision., combined with the opinion in ~he laboratory that the entire stilling basin could be made smaller., led to tests on another design.

SpillW!;Y Section with 25-f'oot-radius Bucke~

. Before discussing the next tests a brief' discussion of' the findings of' the earlier. tests may be ot interest. The tests showed that the baf'f'les aid in breaking up the f'low currents in the bucket. Some of' the currents pass through the slots unobstructed., while others are turned upward at a steeper angle by the baf'f'les. The currentll that pass through the slots are spread out on the apron and are the cause of' the erosion ot the channel bed. The currents turned upward by the baf'f'les cause water surface roughn,ess. If' the slots are,too wide exces­sive erosion occurs while if' the baf'f'les are too wide the--f'low through the slots will not spread to the f'Ull width of' the baf'f'les at the end of' the apron., producing eddies which move bed material on and off' the apron. Wider baf'f'les direct more water upward and the water surface becomes rougher. If' the slots are eliminated completely., be~ material is depos,ited on the apron by the induced ground roller and the water surface is still rougher. It is therefore necessary to determine the. best balance between baf'f'le and slot width. ·

·In testing the 25-f'oot-radius Angostura-type bucket., Figure 23., the modified baf'f'les., Figure 21, were used. Since the spillway piers in these next designs extended to the end of'. the apron., the spacing of' the baf'f'les was adju~ted to place five baf'f'les in each bay. The baffles tapered f'rom 7 f'eet to 6'f'eet 9 inches and the slots f'rom 32 to 35 inches.

Scour occurred along th~·apron lip-and was deeper than f'or the preliminary design., which indic~ted that the slots were too wide. This was also evident f'rom tlie fact that the water surface was quite smooth •

Tests using six b·attles per bay were then made. The slots tapered from 18 to 21 inches wide. With this ·~p~ing no scour occurred

· along the apron lip and very little in the bed downstream but the water surface was a little rougher and a f'ew particles of' bed material swirled onto the apron.

For the next test, . the slot width was increased to 24 inches at the upstream.end and 27 inches at the downstream end, Figure 24A., which is the same as recommended with-the preliminary ·

11

30-:f'oot-radius bucket. To accomplish this it was necessary .to use six · baffles, tapering -from 5 :f'eet 9 inches upstreani. to approximately 5 feet 6 inches downstream, in each bay:. . Erosion was· negligible along the apron lip and in the river channel. ·· The water surface was fairly stnooth. Performance in both respects was considered to be better than for the preliminary design.

A solid end sill, shown in Figure 25, was placed in the 25-foot-ra.d.ius bucket for the next tests. With the horizontal top, Figure 25, very little erosion occurred, Figure 24B, and there was no general movement of material along the apron. However, a considerable amount of' bed material did swirl on and off'. the apron which was objectionable. Also, the water surface was rougher than when ba.f'f'les were used.

The horizontal. top was changed to a sloping top as.shawn in Figure 25. For this arrangement very little· erosion occurred, as shown in Figure 24c;· practically no movement of material occurred along the lip, and no material swirled. onto the apron. The water surface was rougher than· when baffles were used, but the designers believed that the waves in evidence would be tolerable in the prototype.

This· design was-recommended for prototype use, however, data. receivedfromthe field by the designers indicated that the elevation of good foundation rock was sufficiently high to allow placing the · invert of the bucket as. high as elevation 245. This information, com­bined with the laboratory's suggestion' that a hori-zontal apron and end sill could be substituted for the bucket and sill, led to the final tests.

Recommended Spillway Section with Horizontal.Apron

·· A horizontal apron at elevation 245, shown in Figure 3, with spillway piers extending to the end of the apron was tested to deter­mine the shape of the end sill and whether the horizontal apron could be substituted for the bucket. · The most severe operating condition was used in the tests--a. gate controlled flow of 8,000 second-feet with reservoir elevation 283. 5 and tail water elevation 271. ·

The first sill tested had a 2:1 upstream slope, as shown. in Figure 26A. Erosion of' the bed material was ·very minor, Figure 27A, and very 11 ttle movement of' material occ·urred along the lip of the apron. The water surface was a little rough, with .wave heights from crest to trough reaching 3 to 4 feet. Although the design appeared adequate, it was felt that improvements could be made.

A sill with a double slope, shown;in Figure 26B, similar to the one tested with the 25-foot-radius · bucket was investigated. Results were practically identical to those for the 2:1 sloping sill, Figure 27B.

12

A 4 :l sloping sill, Figure 26c, was:· tested. Again, practica1ly the same· results were obtained, Figure ·27C.

Six·ba:ffles 5 feet 6 inches wide and spaced 27 inches. a.part:, previously used in the 25-foot-radius bucket, were placed on the 4:1 sloping sill as shown in Figure 26D. Erosion was reduced and wat~r surface roughness was improved as shown in Figure 28A. When the baffles were moved upstream onto the apron, as shown in Figure 26E, some of the water surface roughness was moved upstream into the basin between the spillway piers. Erosion was the SSJIE as with the piers on the slope, Figure 28B.

Since in the previous arrangement the 4.:1 slope appeared to be of little benefit, it was replaced by a 2;1 sloping sill as shown in Figure 26F. Bed erosion and water surface roughness results were better than for any arrangenent tested, Figure 28c. .Erosion was negligible and wave heights were reduced to about 1-1/2 to 2 feet. Tests for otheir operating conditions also showed good results.· For maximum discharge, 25,000 second-feet per bay, the water surface was smooth and appeared similar to that for the preliminary bucket. Standing waves occurred in both cases but were not considered objectionable. A horizontal apron at elevation 245, with a 2:1 end sill and intermediate baffles, as shown in Figure 26F, was recommended for prototype use on the basis of the sectional model studies.

Spillway in Overall-Model

The designers found it necessary to alter the end sill of the reconmended basin., as shown in Figure 3, to provide a horizontal bear­ing surface for the stoplogs. It was also their opinion that the baffles in the recommended design did not add sufficient improvenent to warrant their extra cost. Consequently, it was decided to test tl:1-e spillway section without baffles in the overall model., Figures 16 and 17. The spillway crest section was also modified at this ti!E., as shown in Figure 3, to provide a better seal between stoplogs and crest upstream of the crest.

Flow Through the Approach Channel

The preliminary arrangement of the spillway, canal head.works., and approach channel is shown in Figures 29 and 30. The center line of the headworks is at an·angle of 60° to the center line of the spillway.­Between the two structures is a 30-foot-radius training wall tangent to the right wall of the spillway and joining the left wall'of the head­works. The sill of the -head.works; Figure 31, is at elevation 275.5., 16. 5 feet above the spillway crest and the spillway approach ch~l bed.

13

During the tests on the appro~h area it was necessary to modify the left approach wall, the right bank, and the location of the canal headworks structure. These modifications are discussed as they occurred during the testing program in the following sections.

A-discharge of 15,000 second-feet was expected to be a comm.on occurrence in the prototype with the reservoir controlled to elevation 283.5, therefore, the model study '\f&S concerned with the spillway discharging 15,000 second-feet as well as with discharges up to and including the design flow of 75,000 second-feet. The design flow approaching the spillway is shown in Figure 30B. A flow disturb­ance occurred along the left spillway·approach wall and mild eddies occurred in front of the headworks structure and along the right bank upstream from the headworks.

Flow at left wall. The flow disturbance along the left approach wall occurred for uncontrolled discharges of 34,000 second­feet or greater and increased with the higher flows. The drawdown water surface caused by an excessive flow contraction is shown in Figures 30A and 32A as it occurred for 75,000 second-feet. This action caused a visible as well as measurable reduction in discharge. To remedy the flow conditions and reduce the cost of this long wall, two revised walls were tested. The first had a 24-foot-radius section with one end tangent to the left wall of the spillway and the other extended parallel to the dam axis as shown in Figure 32B. The 24-foot-radius turn proved to be too sharp and the drawdown in the water surface was even more pronounced, as shown in Figure 32B. The 120°, 51-foot-radius curve, shown in Figure 4, was found to be very satisfactory, as shown in Figure 32c. At maximum discharge the drawdown was barely noticeable. The latter wall was therefore recommended for prototype use.

Flow at right bank. The eddies near the canal intake structure occurred for all discharges tested including 15,000, 34,000, and 75,000 second-feet, as shown in Figures 33 and 34A. Although the eddies were mild they indicated inefficient use of the approach channel. To deter­mine whether other objectionable flow patterns occurred below t~e water surface, a layer of the fine, white sand 1/4 inch thick was placed on the concrete surface of the approach channel before each test for 15,oeo, 34,000, and 75,000 second-feet. For 15,000 second-feet the white sand did not move sufficiently to clearly define a flow pattern, but for 34,000 and 75,000 second-feet sufficient sand was moved to · establish the direction of the bottom currents, as shown in Figure 34B and C. The riffles in the sand in front of the headworks structure and along the warped transition showed the bottom currents to be in an upstream direction. Therefore, the eddy action was concluded to be general throughout the depth of the flow.

To reduce the eddies in the spillway and canal intake approach, the right approach bank line was made straight, as shown in Figure 35. To do this the projecting point upstream of the headworks, sh.own in Figure

14

30, that extended out into the approach as far .as the right spillway pier was excavated a'bout 50 feet, while the bank.just upstream of' the headwo~ks was · filled in the model ·( not excavated in the prototype) to .. form a straight line,. Operatio:Q. with this revision showed that a large eddy persisteq. for all discharges·, both on the . water surface and on the approach bed, as shown in Figure 35, for 75,000 second-feet.

10 improve the approach conditions, the headworks structure was. moved out into the spillway approach channel so that th~ upstr.eam face of' the intake was at an angle of' 10° with the right training wall. of' the spillway, eliminat;l.ng the CUJ;'Ved wall between the structures. T.he entire right bank was also moved inward to form· a smooth spiral curve, as .. shown in Figure 36A. To accomplish this in the prototype, part of' the bank would have to be constructed with fill material. A warped transition was ueed between the vertical intake face an,d the sloping bank.

The purpose in curving the right bank was to provide a flow with a "roping action.ti This action may be described as follows.· Surface water should roll off' the main· flow approaching the spiliway and enter the headworks. Thus, water with the least amount of suspended material would enter the canal system.while the heavier silt laden currents would pass through the spillway. • · ·

The flow currents observed for a range of' discharges occurred very much as anticipated. ·Flow _was smooth along the right bank an.d no eddies occurred, as shown in Figure 36B. However, the narrower approach channel created by realigning the right bank produced higher veloci~ies; as a l"eeult, the f.'low around the left training wall was again disturbeci,. as .shown in Figure 36A and C. · · .

To compensate for the narrower approach channel, the right bank was realigned as shown in the recommended layout in Figures 16B, 37, and 38. The position of' the head.works was not changed, but the right bank was excavated in a straight line to the right of' the prelim­inary bank line, similar to the second trial layout shown in Figure 35.

While these modifications were being made, other changes were made in the headworks structure itself' mainly for structural reasons. The principal change was to move the conduit entrances and control gates downstream along the headworks center line so that the entrance to the conduits was recessed 13 feet from the face of' the structure, as shown in Figures 6 and 16B. Also, the sill crest and floor of the structure wer.e lowered from elevation 275. 5 to 273. 5.

15

In the recommended arrang~nent, flow currents, shown in Figure 38, approached the spillway and-headworks in a very satisfac­tory· manner. No large eddies occurred near _the headworks. Surface currents flowed directly to the spillway and headworks, as shown by . the confetti streaks in Figure 38, for uncontrolled spillway flow, while dye injected along the approach bottom showed that bottom currents flowed directly to the spillway. Similar flow conditions also_ occurred when the spillway flow was gate controlled. This was a very desirable flow pattern since the ... currents along the bottom that either carried or might move sediment passed through the spill­way, while the surface currents passed through the headworks.

General flow conditions. For one operating condition, 50,000 second-feet with tail water expected in 1967, a very rough water surface in the form of standing waves occurred in the spillway approach area, as shown in Figure 39A. This condition might occur in future years when the tail water elevation is low and the spillway discharge is, therefore, greater at normal reservoir elevation 283.5 than at present. '.\he rough water surface evident in the approach &rea was caused by the high areas located just upstream from the excavated slope in the approach channel. In this reach, almost the entire width of the approach channel is above elevation 270 with a high point at elevation 273. Waves formed just downstream from the high areas and were estimated to be 3 to 4 feet high. Since the waves were standing waves, however, and did not extend into the downstream channel, they were not particularly harmful. It is also possible that waves of this type will never occur in the prototype because the prototype bed "is erodible and probably will degrade sufficiently to provide a deeper channel. No recolDillendations for relieving this ccndition were there­fore made.

Flow.Through the Spillway

Flow currents through the spillway structure were photographed for the design flow of 75,000 second-feet and are shown in Figure 39B. The gate trunnions will be submerged; floating debris will flow along the right side of each bay. If the debris is large enough, the right side of the radiai gates or trunni-ons might be damaged. However, this is not c9nsidered to be very likely.

Flow Through the Discharge Channel

The model is shown in Figure 4oA discharging 15,000 second-feet equally distributed between the thre~ bays, and reservoir elevation 283.5 with present expected tail water elevation: The water surface in the dis­charge channel was not rough and very little erosion occurred. The cha:nnel bed of the model had been molded in sand for these early tests, and the

16

foundation rock that·extended along the.toe -of the basin and along the left training wa1i. had been molded in cqncrete.· ·- Riprap w~s not µ.sed in these :firsttests·except along the left bank of the discp.aige channel to prevent sloughing' of' the· sm.id in th~ model. ·. ·'

The model discharging 75,000 second-feet with the e~ected present tail water elevation is shown in Figure 40B. The water. surface in the di_scharge channel was· not very rough; however, the flow washed . · over the discharge channel banks as shown and the flow eroded the ch~el bed from elevation 260 to 227 in a very short while, ~s shown in Figure ·.· 4oc. · ·

Channel erosion. Erosion of the magnitude shown in Figure 4oc· did not occur in the sectional mo·del nor did the sectional model indicate excessive turbulence along the level bed for the design discharge of 75,000 second-feet.·· Therefore, it was apparent that the relatively fine sand was too small for the averag~ velocity of flow in the overall model. The sand represents, on a linear scale basis~ loose gravel in.the proto­type ranging in size from 3/4 inch to 2_-1/4 inches in di~ter.· In the sectional model the velocity of flow for 75,000 second-feet discharging . under present tail water conditions was not sufficient to move the 1/4-:- ··· inch pea-gravel which represents, on a linear scale basis, appro_ximately 7-inch-diameter stones in the prototype.

To determine the size of riprap necessary in the discharge channel for the most severe operating condition, the maximum anticipated velocity was COJllPUted and the riprap_size determined by use of Figure 41. It was anticipated that a discharge of 75,000 second-f'e·et with tail water conditions for the year 1972 would produce the greatest velocity of' flow.­The average velocity of' flow for this condition was computed to be about 18 feet per second, with an e.stimated bottom velocity of' 3/4 of the average, or about 13~5 feet per second. Figure 41 shows that individual rock pieces should be about 27 inches in diameter. However, if' it is · · assumed that the velocity may not be uniform across the channel width or that velocities might become even greater after year 1972, the maximum bottom velocity might become sufficient to move riprap greater than 3 feet in diameter.

As a result of' the above analysis, gravel from 3/8 to 3/4 inch (analysis shown on page 6) was used in the model. This material repre­sented prototype riprap ranging in size f'rom 18 to 36 inches in diameter. It was placed as shown in Figures 2 and 42A about 0.1 of' a foot deep to represent a 5-f'oot depth in the prototype.

Tests were begun with 151000 second-feet and tail water at the elevation expected in year 1962~ Discharges were then increased in increments of' about 15,000 second-f'eet up to 75,000 second-feet. Each discharge was tested tor about 30 minutes. No erosion of' the riprap

17

occurred, even for the design discharge of 75,000 second-feet. A discharge of 75 ,ooo . second-feet with tail water elevation for wear 197~ could not be set in the model without partial removal of the riverbed,· but it appeared from the other tests that 36-inch rock pieces and probably even 24-inch pieces would be sufficient.

The tests also showed that for 45,000 second-feet with the 1962 expected tail water, the channel. bed downstream from the riprap. began. to. erode. In 30 minutes of model operation the unprotected part of the bed. eroded to . the pattern shown in Figure 42B. It was noted that heavier soour occurred along the right bank and t~at sand was deposited along the

.. left bank and along the left training wall of the stilling basin. Bottom currents along the left wall of the stilling basin were apparently in an upstream direction, but no serious consequences. appeared. When the dis­charge was increased to 75,000 second-feet for 30 more minutes of operation

· (73,000 second-feet through spillway, 2,000 through canal headworks), · · ~rosion of the sand continued,. producing the pattern shown in Figure 42C. This scour pattern, as .well as the one in Figure 42B for 45,000 second-feet, shows the velocity of flow to be greater near the right bank of· the che.nri;el, probably caused oy more water being discharged by the right bay ·of the spillway. However, riprap along the right channel bank or on the channel bed did.not move.

Tests were then made on the 1: 50 scale model with the sand bed of the discharge channel, downstream from the riprap area, covered with ·a 1/2-inch layer of 1/4-inch pea-gravel to elevation 270. The gravel was·

· the. same as used. in the 1 :28. 3 scale model. In the 1 :50 model the pea­gravel represented prototype stones approximately 12 inches inidia.meter. Using present expected tail water elevations with each discharge, a stone here and there began to move only when 50,000 second-feet was reached. The stones that did move were smaller than tb,_e average and probably repre­sented stones about 6 inches in diameter. The water surface directly above the gravel for 50,000 second-feet was at elevation 284, and the channel width was approximately 250 feet so that the average velocity that moved these stones was approximately 14 feet per second. This test shows again that 36-inch riprap is probably more than ample to protect the channel.

!

Channel water surface. The model discharging 75,000 second-feet with the expected present tail water elevation 287.5 feet in the river channel is shown in Figure 40A. The water surface in the discharge channel was not very rough; however, the flow washed over the discharge chanhel oanks.

The top of the training wall along the left side of the dis­charge channel and extending downstream from the stilling basin was at elevation 280 and was submerged by the design flow. The riprapped banks of the discharge channel at elevation 290 were also submerged and it was decided to·raise the banks to elevation 296 and widen the prel:ilminary

18

I. . . . .· . . dischargei channel. _ Increasing the channe\ width Eilso impfo~ed 'the flow _ conditions for smaller discharges since they showed a tendency to: c,ut _ across the downstream end of the right bank of the discharge channel. · As a result of these studies the preliminary channel, beginning at the downstream end of the basin, was widened to the dimensions shown in Figure 2 .

_. Widening the channel reduc_ed the water surface elevation in the _4ischarge channel below elevation 29q·; however' the designers .. wished 1;;0 maintain the banks of the. ~ischa.rge channel at elevation 296. ·

Water surface roughness in the discharge channel was investi­gated in the 1 :50 model to determine the maximwn wave heights to be expected in-the prototype. Tests sb,owed that the highest waves occurred just downstream of the center bay for 15,000 second-feet, Figure 43A, ·with reservoir elevation 283._:5 and tail water at the 1962 expected elevation •. · Tb.e wave heights measured _along the l~ft and right tra.ining walls were 1-1/2 an~ occasionally 2 feet high. It was estimated that the waves in the middle of the channel downstream from the center bay were 3 to 4 feet high, which is in agreement with the waves measured in the 1:28.3 scale model~ ·

As the spillway gates were opened and the discharge increased, maintaining the reservoir at elevation 283.5, the wave heights became less and less until the water surface became very smooth for uncontrolled flow at reservoir elevation 283.5, measured near the headworks. Even with the tail water lo~red to ·the expected 1962 elevation, the water. surface in the discharge channel was smooth. · ·

As the· disc;harge ·was increased still further to 75,000 second-feet, the waves again became higher. For 75,000 second-feet with tail water expected in year 196a, the waves from crest to trough measured 2 to 3 feet high downstream from the right bay, as shown in Figure 43]3. Exact wave · measurements were not made _since no severe waves appeared to exist along the channel banks.

Canal Headworks Structure

No extensive tests were made on the hydraulic characteristics of the 1 : 50 scale model of the he a.a.works structure 1 tself, Figure 30; but while•operating the_ headworks structure, it was noted that air pockets collected along the roof of the conduits. Since these might affect the acc-uracy of any type of meterii_lg device, the roof of the conduits was sloped up:ward to pr~Vide a 3-inch rise, as shown in Figure 6. ·Thus, a.ir entering from the upstream end will flow along the roof and exit at the · downstream end.

19

A vortex·was noted above the entrance to the right conduit when the gate was open.· No serious consequences from the vortex could be contemplated however. ·

Rock Weir

General Descript~on

The rock we:tr, Figures 7 through 13, is located in the reser­voir area of the new dam Approximately 800 feet upstream from ~he spillway and is approximately 550 feet long. It was modeled as shown in- Figures t6A and 44. -

The elevation of the rock weir crest could not be determined precisely from available prototype data; however, it was known ! that the reservoir surface upstream from the weir is at elevation 288 when the river is discharging 15,000 second-feet. The approximate elevation of the .roc_k weir ~n the model was,- therefore, determined by building up the weir crest until the wate:r surface upstream reached elevation ~88 for a discharge of 15,000 second-feet. The prototype weir crest elevation was thus determined to be at elevatfon 286. The proto~ype weir might, how­ever, be more or less porous than the model which would affect the crest elevation determined above. fiince the determined elevation agreed with the best estimates of the prototype elevation, crest elevation 286 was used in all tests. ! ·

It is interesting to note in Figure 44A the two rather large slow moving eddies that occur downst~am from t'he weir near the right and left banks. These two eddies are probably responsible for the two major depressions in the _prototype riverbed topography shown i~ Figure 13. The depressions are scoured holes· with bottom elevation 240 and are located directly beneath the eddies. Note, too, that the large eddy on

·· the right · creates another smal.l eddy rotating in reverse direction. These facts are pointed out here to indicate that the model is

1capable

of representing flow characteristics which may or may not have;been observed with even care-ful study of the prototype. For example, the scour holes which were molded in sand during the model construction could not be explained until the model was operated.

Removal of the Weir

In the planning ·of the permanent dam, lt was proposed that the rock weir be removed sufficiently, after completion of the dam and spillway, to prevent backwater effects. Backwater effects in the form of increased reservoir elevations were to be avoided since theltop of the Indian levees ·aiong the· left bank upstream are at elevation 296 and it is important that they not be overtopped.

20

Breaching the weir. The designers proposed to. remove the weir by breaching it near the right bank :for a. length of 50 to 100 feet which · would lower the water surface behind the weir sufficiently to d.ri ve equipment out on the weir to remove the· remainder. To follow this plan it would be necessary to have assurance that the initial breach could be ma.de wide enough to lower the water surface upstream of the weir below · weir crest elevation so that a temporary road could be built on top of the weir out from the left bank.

It was apparent that if the spillway gates could be fully opened during the weir removal operation the elevation of the water sur­face both upstream and downstream of the breach would be lower than if norma.l·reservoir elevation 283.5 was maintained at the headworks. How­ever, with a lower resel.'Voir elevation the full quot~ of 1,8oo second-feet of irrigation water could not be delivered to the Palo Verde Irrigation District. Model studies were therefore made to obtain data. for this and other weir removal plans.

'lhree arrangements of the rock weir were tested. The first· was with the entire weir in place with weir crest elevation 286, the second was with a 50-foot-wide breach excavated to elevation 270, and the third was with a 100-foot-wide breach exeavated to elevation 270.

The tests were run with the spillway gates fully open so that the water surface elevation at the canal intake structure was for uncontrolled spillway flow. Curves plotted from this data for the three different weir condi tiqns are shown in Figure 45A. ·

For 15,000 second-feet the 50-foot breach reduced the water surface elevation upstream of the rock weir from elevation 288 to .285. 3 feet which is · slightly below the estimated rock weir crest elevation •. The water surface ne.ar the canal intake was found to be at elevation 278.5,.3 feet above the preliminary.sill elevation of the headworks which was the established floor elevation at the time of the weir removal tests. The irrigation district, therefore,· would receive about one-third of the full water quota; _or 600 second-feet, during the removal operation. .The 100-foot breach reduced the water surface upstream of the weir further to ele1Vation 283. 3, but the water surface near the canal intake remained at elevation 278.5.

When the spillway gates 'ifere closed to control the flow and maintain reservoir elevation 283. 5 . at the headworks . during the 'Weir removal, the 50-foot breach lowered the water surface upstream of the , weir from elevation 288.4 to 286.3. This may or may not be sufficiently low tor the proposed method of construction of a temporary road on the weir.

21

These tests indicated that a 50.-f'oot b:reach would lower the water surface sufficiently to remove the weir as planned if' .the 15,000 second-feet was passed through the spillway with the gates · f'ully open •. During weir removal, howeve:r, _the available irrigation water W?uld be reduced. On the other hand, increasing the 'breach width would not increase the available irrigation water. ~e next tests were therefore made to determine the elevation to which_ the remainder of' the ~ir should be removed.

Lowering the weir. Assuming the 50-f'oot breach to be sufficient, the water surface elevations upstream and downstream of' the weir f'or"a djscharge of' 75,000 second-feet were determined with the remainder of' the weir lowered to ,elevation 282, elevation 278, and elevation 272.. · The water surface eleva~ians upstre8,pl of' the wejr, on the upstream face. of' the· dam and near the canal intake, for the · three weir elevations are plotted in Figure ~JB. The curves in Figure 45B show that as the weir is lowered, the water surface elevations both upstream and downstream of the weir are reduced, but little is gained by lowering the weir below elevation 278. With the weir at elevation 278 the water surface upstream of' the weir was reduced . to approximb.tely ele­vation 293. 2 and to about 291. 3 on the dam, which is higher than desirable. However, .since· 1:J_ttle · additional.. reduction in water surface elevation can be obtained, removing the weir below elevation 278 becomes an;uneconomical. operation.

As a check. on the data above, further tests were conducted with most of' the staff' gages replaced with water surface point gages and additional. point gages installed at new locations as shown in Figure 17. The river channel upstream of the weir ~as filled to elevatio~ 278, since. it is believed that sediment has probably depqsited behind the rock weir to make the channel at or near the elevation of the excavat.ed weir crest. For previous test runs the channel bed was at about eleva­.tion 272. The check tests showed the water surface at gage "G," upstream of the. weir, at elevation 293 and at gage "F," on the dam, at

1290.9.

Both elevations were still higher than the proposed maximum water surface elevation 290. · ·

Lowering the tail water. To determine how much of' the back­water effect was caused by tail water, the tail water downstn;am from the diversion dam at gage 11A" was lowered to the predicted elevation for the year 1962, shown in Figure 14. The water surface at gage "G" upstream from weir was then at elevation 292. 0 and at gage "F" 289. 7. The latter figure is satisfactory, but at gage . "G" · the surface Wf!.S still , 2 feet higher than desirable. For 1972, tail water tests showed that gage 11G" would be at elevation 291.4 and gage "F" at 288.8. 1

Further tests showed that if the weir crest and channel bed upstream from weir were lowered to elevation 272, the water surface at

22

gage "G" would be ·a.t elevation ·29~h5 for 75;000· second-feet with present::· tail wate:r. · For-- i962 titil -water/ gage., "G" . would- .. be, at elevation; 291 · ~d ·. for 1972 at 290. , .. '· · .- , .. · · · ·

An appraisal·of the data and conclusions,' up to :this<tine, indicated-a general belief among all persons concerned in the tests that. the year t972 was ·too far -in the future: to depend on retrogression to · produce tuli design capao-ity at the· design .head. It was fel't that .a severe flood might· ·develop prior to 1972 which might endanger the dikes. · On the other hand, it was felt that to lower the weir to'. elevation 272 '·'­would be a· very costly operation. · General feeling, however, was. that· 1962 woulti not be too ··10:ng to wait for· a sat;l:Sf'actdry condition to -· develop and that elevat-ion 278 was an economical· -elevation to which· to lower ·the crest of the rock weir. Other nethods of reducing the up- . stream water surface elevations for the design capacity were then inves .. tigated •.

Suggested modifications. It was suggested that the spillway be widened, but model tests Showed,·.: the:~ it would be necessary to inc~ase the spillway width by about 33 percent in addition to lowering the weir to elevation 278 and the downstream· tail water to the 1962 anticipated elevation. · The model spillw~ discharged only about 67 percent .of . 75,000 second-feet when the reservoir water. surface upstream· of' the weir was at elevation 290 and the tail water· -was set f'or the 1962 anticipated elevation. To widen the spillway 33 percent was not economically possible because foundation rock ·was laclting, therefore, this idea was abandoned..

Further modifications to the rock weir. were suggested and tested'. using the 1962 anticipated water sur~ace elev~tion in the channel. down­stream f'rom the dam at gage "A". Vi th 450 f'eet of' the 550-f'oot-long weir removed to· elevation 278- and 100 feet of it removed to elevation 272, the water surface upstream of th~ dam was at. elevation 291.5 f'or 75,000 second-feet and at elevation 289.4 on the upstream face of the dam. By widening the channel to 800 f'eet and excavating to elevation 278. except for 100 f'eet at· elevation 272, the water surface upstream of' the ·weir was reduced to elevation 291.0. At the same tine·, the water surface increased at the upstream f'ace of' the dam to elevation 289~9. · Further . experiments showed, however, that 'if' the channel.widening is accomplished entirely on the right-hand si~,the water surface elevation at the 0dam is affected very 11 ttle, if any. -

Recommendations. It· was conc·luded fr.om these tests that it was impossible to lower the reservoir surface toeievation 290 for a discharge of' 75,000 second-feet 'by any practical and C!conomical means. The designers and field representatives: of the project therefore decided to lower the weir a· reasonable and economical amount. It was decided .

23

that the river channel cross section (.or an equivalent. area) that existed in 1954, prior to the construction of rock weir, should be ~re-established at the present weir site.

An equivalent· cross section, shown in Figure 13, was agreed upon. About 250 feet of weir and part_ of the left bank~ to _be removed to elevation 278, about 250 feet in the center of the ch.annel and 50 feet near the right bank to elevation 275, and 100 feet near the right bank-to elevation 272. The deepest excavations, at elevation 272, nea.J:" the right bank provided a direct flow line to the spillway which probably offers some advantages. This· arrangement, according to tests previously described, will-maintain water surface elevations along th.e upstream face of dam at a slightly lower level than . if the deep excavation was on the left. .Another advantage is that the remaining material near the left bank may wash out o~ its own accord during flood times since the model indicated that the left end of the rock weir washed out more easily than the right end~

Spillway Capacity

Both models were used to determine the ult·imate .cape.city. 9f the spillway and calibrate the spillway for the.full range of reservoir elevations, gate openings, and tail water elevations. The 1:50 scale overall model was particularly useful in determining suitable locations for measuring the reservoir and tail water elevations in the prototype.

Since the sectional model was constructed and tested first, discharge calibration data obtained from it were used to give approxi­mate results and curves that coul_d be refined using the more reliable data taken on the overall model. . It was known that the sectional model could. not give reservoir and tail water elevat.ions which would occur in areas where. they .could be measured in the prototype. The· sectional model· gives correct values, however, only if :i.t can be assumedi that all water approa.chtng and leaving the spillway is moving at the same velocity as the water approaching and leaving the center bay of the spiµ.lway.

Sectional Model

Uncontrolled flow. . Data from the sectional model lleI$ used to obtain the preliminary uncontrolled discharge curve, Curve (A)i, in Figure 46 since the overall model was not yet constructed. ~sent expected tail water elevations, shown in Figure 14, were used :with· the

' I

discharge and approach channel beds at elevation 259. For the; design flow of 75,000 second-feet (25,000 per bay), the reservoir water surface was at· ·elevation 289.96. However, the velocity head at the re:servoir gage was computed to be 3,0 feet which, when added to 289.96, :gave the static reservoir elevation as 292.96 feet. This preliminary data on the

24

sectional.model~ indicated that the capacity of the spillway m:ight not be sufficient to discharge the .d.es1gh ·flow: at the 'design reservoi"r:'eleva.tion · 290 if the reservoir elevation·-was· to be ··rreasured 'outside" the-'limits of the approach channel. · · · · ·

The preliminary a.pproach bed at elevation 259 was lowered to elevation 256 to inc:r;-ease the efficiency of the spillway and tor other design reasons. The lower approach bed was installed in the -sebtlonal · model and the spillway recalibrated tor uncontrolled flow. ··The reservoir water surface was found to be at elevation 290.37 for the design f'iow of 75,000 second-feet. The velocity head "!'as 2. 51 feet which gave the static reservoir as elevation 292.88 feet. Therefore, the efficiency of the submerged crest was increased by very 11 ttle by lowering the eleva­tion of' the· approach bed; the headwater elevation necessary to pass 75,000 second-feet was reduced only 0.08 foot. ·

Gate controlled flow. In the prototype, the reservoir eleva- · tion at the canal headworks is to be maintained at elevation 283.5 whenever possible; therefore, all gate controlled flow will occur with headwater elevation 283.5. The gate controlled discharge curves shown in Figure 47 were obtained from the sectional model. The anticipated tail water curves of' Figure 14 for the present, year 1962, and year 1972 are also shown in Figure 47 so that discharges for future year.s as well as the present may be estimated. With fixed reservoir elevation 283. 5, the discharge should depend on the gate opening and the tail water eleva­tion. However, the elevation of the discharge cha,nnel in the sectional model was also found to affect the quantity of now for any given tail water elevation. With the discharge channel bed at sill elevation 251, the spillway discharged more water for the same reservoir and tail water elevations than when the bed sloped up to elevation 259. The higher bed submerged the flow over the spill'lr(aY to a greater degree in the stilling· basin, and, therefore, reduced the discharge. The elevation of water surface at the tail water gage was not · affected by the higher bed, how­ever, because the water surface sloped downstream from the basin to the tail water gage located approximately 300 feet downstream from the end of the basin. When the channel bed was ·molded level at sill elevation 251, the water surface from the stilling basin to the gage was more nearly level. ·

The curves in Figure 47 were also used· to determine the safe gate opening increment for operating the prototype gates. If' the proto­type gates are opened rapidly or if the increment is too large, the increased discharge maybe to~ great for the existing tail water eleva­tion, resulting in ~weep out and the possibility of serious erosion downstream from the apron. In · tuture years when the tail water is expected to be lower than at present this type of operation._ is more likely to occur.

25

The curves of Figure 4 7 show discharges for 5-foot i~rements of gate opening. Arter _the three gates have been opened 5 ff:et, the . tail water should be al.lowed to stabilize before .increasing the gate opening. This might take a matter-of minutes or hours, depending on downstream conditions. With 1972 tail water, a 5-foot increment from a 5-foot opening to a 10-foot opening produces a discharge of about 18,000 second-feet with tail water elevation 270. 2. - Opening 8.n9ther 5-foot increment before the tail water had risen would result in near ·. sweep out conditions. The tail water should be all.owed to rise to about_ elevation 274.6 before a second 5-foot incre:nent is attempted. As the tail water rises, the discharge will be reduced according to the slope of' the gate opening curves which also adds to the margin of safety in open~ng the next increment. It is therefore recommended that gate opening i increments do not exceed 5 feet and that successive 5.,foot increments -be made only after the tail water elevation has reached a safe elevation. The dotted horizontal lines on Figure 47 show the maximum discharge and lowest tail water that will result from this procedure for the 1972 tail water conditions. For present and 1962 tail water the increment would not be critical.

The Overall Model

Gate controlled and uncontrolled flow. Before disc_harge cali­brations were started, the locations.for measuring headwater and tail water elevation in the model were seiected, keeping in mind that these locations had to be duplicated in the prototype. The water surface along

I the right.bank upstream from the headwor~s was fairly quiet for all discharges, therefore, location "E" in Figure 17 was selected for the headwater or reservoir gage. In the downstream area, the water surface to the right of t~ downstream right-hand corner of the stilling basin was stable for .all discharges, therefore, a ·gage was installed at location . "C" in' the model .to measure tail water. elevations. Both of · • . I

these gages could be constructed into the walls of the -prototype struc-ture and could easily be piped to a location convenient for the gate operator.

Using an erodible sand bed downstream from the riprap in the discharge channel that eroded as shown in Figure 42A, the spil+way was calibrated for gate controlled flow with reservoir at elevation 283.5 and for uncontrolled flow with higher reservoir elevations. These dis­charge curves are shown in Figure 48 and may be used for protot-ype operation of the spillway. All three gates are to be opened the same amount.

To determine the reliability- of the discharge c·urves, in Figure 48 for varying conditions, the erodible sand bed in the discha.t'ge channel was replaced to about elevation 270, as shown in Figure 2, and' covered · w1 th a· layer of 1/4-inch pea-gravel to prevent erosion of the discharge

channel bed. Discharge calibration tests were then made to determine whether the curves in Figure 48, which were obtained with an erodible sand bed downstream from the riprap that did erode as shown in Figure 42, were still reliable. No measurable differences in the discharge curves could be detected. It was therefore concluded that the curves of Figure 48 were reliable for any anticipated condition of the dis-charge channel bed.. ·

The 20-foot gate opening curve, in Figure 48, had a shape somewhat different from the other gate opening curves. This appeared. to be due to a pileup in the water surface at the headwater gage that · occurred only for this gate opening. AB the tail water elevation was lowered, the pileup became more pronounced. Since the same condition is expected to occur in the prototype, the 20-foot gate opening curve is reliable for determining the discharge in the prototype; but the true reservoir water surface near the intake will not be quite as high as elevation 283.5.

The gate controlled discharge curves from the overall model, Figure 48, agreed quite well with those from the sectional model, Figure 47. The 5-foot gate opening curves from the two models are nearly identical while the larger gate openings show less discharge in the overall model. The reason for this is that the tail water gages were not in the same location in both models and this becomes an important factor as the discharge is increased. The tail water gage at point "C, " in Figure 1 7, measured a lower water surface · than the tail water gage in the sectional model because in the overall model the water surface in the center of the channel was slightly higher than at the banks.

The uncontrolled discharge data from the 1:50 scale overall model also shows close agreement with the sectional model data. The uncontrolled discharge Curve (A) in Figure 1i6 was obtained from the sectional model. The uncontrolled discharge Curve (C) in Figure 46 was obtained from the overall model, using tail water and bed elevations in the overall model similar to those used in the sectional model. The two curves check very· closely. In the overall model the reservoir elevation · for 75,000 second-feet is about 1 foot higher than in the sectional model; however, -t;;he velocity of approach at reservoir gage "E'' located near the headworks in the overall model is not as great as at the reser-. voir gage in the 2-foot flume of the sectional mod.el. Ma.king allowances for the different velocity heads, the static reservoir elevations are about the same.

Although the gages at "C" and are used to determine the discharge through the spillway, gage "C" does not reflect the ta:U water elevation as it occurs in the river channel since the discharge channel acts as a

27

constriction to make gage "c·" read higher than- gage "A." Figure 49 -· includes five pairs of curves· showing elevations· for gages "A" j:md "C~' with the gage at "E" held at ·reservoir elevations 283. 5, 285·, 287. 5, 290, and 292 .• 5 (left-hand ordinate). Intermediate headwater elevation may be interpolated. · In · all cases the curves show the elevation at gage "C" to be- higher than· at : gage "A" when· the discharge ·channel bed. is at elevation 270. When the discharge channel bed erodes, however/gages "A" and "C" read practically the same and the spillway will pass more discharge at the same headwater·. · Tb.us··, Figur.e 49 may- b.e used to estimate· the probable ~apacity of ·the spillway for a range of tail· water elevations and discharge channe;I. bed elevations. With a given reservoir e~evation at ·gage "E" (lett.;.ha.nd ordinate··-1n· Figure 49) intersect the gage "A" curve- with the tail water curve for any particular year~ Tb.is 'gives the· spillway capacity with discharge channel bed at eievation 270 •. When the discharge channel bed has eroded to elevation 260, gage "A" will read approximately the same as gage '1C11 because· of the increased diicharge; therefore, intersect curve "C" with tail water curve for the particula;r year to obtain increased spillway capacity._ For example, for reservoir elevat"ion 283. 5 at gage 11E1' near the canal headworks, with the discharge channel bed at .elevati_on 270, the maximum uncontrolled discharge through the spillway is 29,·ooo se·cond-feet for present tail water- elevdtion in

- the ·river ·channel as shown at Intersection· (1)· in Figure 49. However, if sufficient erosion in the discharge channel occu;rs, the water surface elevation at gage ire'' in the discharge channel will becone practically the same as in the river channel at gage "A," and Intersection (2) in Figure 49 shows that the uncontrolled discharge for present tail water elevation will be increased to -36-,000 secohd~feet. For tail water eleva-

. tion in year 1962 the difference would be between 34,ooo and 45,000 second-feet as shown at Intersections (3) and (4) in Figure 49.,

The same c~mparison for reservoir elevation 290 at gage "E". is shown at Intersections (5), (6), (7), · and (8) in Figure 49. For present· tail water con4it1on:s the spillway discharges 59,000 second-feet, Intersection (5), ·and in 1962 it will discharge 64,ooo second-feet, Intersection ( 6) ;- if the tail water elevation in the discharge channel is reduced by erosion to elevation 260, the spillway will discharge about 70,000 second-feet, Intersection (7), with present tail water and 78,000 second-feet, Intersection (8), in 1962. Curves "(B), (c), (D), and (E) in Figure 46 can be used to verify the comparison made above in Figure 49. · .

It may therefore be concluded that the maximum capacity of the spillway with present·expected t~il water elevation will be 59,000 second,­feet. An ad<l:itional l,8oo se_cond-feet may be discharged through the canal headwopks, making the ·total capacity of the structures- about 61,000 second.;.feet. Additional capac.ity ·w111 be available Only after

1

erosion · of the discharge channel and degradation of the river channel have reduced the. subnergence effect on the spillway.. .

28

Reservoir elevations upstream from the headworks. With the maximum_discharge conditions -described above, the reservoir water surf'&.ce will be at elevation 290 at· the headworks, gage ~'E," but will be higher in the reservoir upstream,- as shown in Figure 49. For example, for 59,000 second-feet, Intersection.(5) in Figure 49, the elevation at gage "F" on the upstream face of the dam; see Figure 17, is at elevation 290.6 and upst;z:eam of the rock weir at gage "G" the elevation is 291.3. For 70,000 second-feet, Intersection (7)·, the water surface on the face of the dam is at elevation 290.8 and upstream of the weir at elevation 291.6 feet.

By interpolation between curves, figure 49 also shows that if the design spillway flow of 75,000 second-feet occurs with present tail water elevation and before· erosion of the 4ischarge channel ~ed occurs, t,he elevation at the head.works, gage- "E," will be about 292.4; at the dam face, gage "F," aboµt 293.6; and upstream of the weir at gage "G,". about 294.6. Extensive excavation of the discharge channel bed to below elevation 270.when constructing.the prototype would be required to lower these elevations. The designers believed, however, that natural erosion o.f the bed would accomplish this within a few years •.

River Currents

The intensity and direction of flow currents in the downstream river channel were investigated to be sure that Indian reservation lands along the left bank were not endangered by flow currents crossing the river near the discharge channel exit. The ~irection and relative intensity of flow currents for discharges of 15,000, 34,ooo, and 75,000 second-feet are shown in Figure 50. Paper confetti and a 1/5-second exposure were used to show the currents. Therefore, the longer streaks indicate faster velocities.

For 15,000 second-feet through the spillway with tail water at the present expected elevation, flow currents from the discharge channel cross the river channel from right to left in a diagonal direc­tion, as shown in Figure 50A. The main current is near the left bank. However, the currents leaving·~he discharge channel are spread to the full width of the river, and cutting.velocities do_ not occur adjacent to the left bank. The velocity of flow.was measured near the left bank, right bank, and center of tne channel by use of a Bentzel tub.e and are shown in Figure 50. Along the left bank the velocity-did not exceed 3 prototype feet per second.

For 34,000 second-feet, Figure 50B, with tue river tail water at about elevation 282, the flow was not directed into the left bank. Veiocities measured near the left bank did not exceed 4 feet per second.

29

For 75,000 second-feet, Figure 50C, with the river tail water . at elevation 285.5, which is the expected elevation· in 1962,. tl:le main

current was near the center of the channel and measured about· 7 feet per second. Velocities near the left bank did not exceed ·4 feet per second;. these occurred 50 to 100 feet from the shoreline. Water along the shore­line was dead water, but 'When the tail water elevation was increased to 287. 5 feet the velocity had ~ upstream direction.

For 34,000 and 75,000 second-feet the ends of' the discharge channel banks are submerged and therefore do not turn the flow toward the left bank. Instead, tlie f+o:w cuts across the right bank as it leaves the discharge channel. The main flow, therefore, is nearer to the right bank than the left as indicated in Figure 50C and by the scour pattern in Fjgure 50D. In tact, the scour pattern shows a ten~ency for material to deposit along the left bank rather than to scour material from it. Therefore, it is believed that the left bank is not in danger · of extensive erosion.

30

i

=

- -- . -~·t- ·------t ;j'

FIGIJRE 1.

- z' I 1· t ~ - 1-- ; ., Jl ;\ . / ~ J t~

BEPORT tlYD.__408

I

_L ' .. i ~-1-·:

-t-·

2 • '"

I I I~ ..

si \-

z! .. '"'

.. " I'

I'

~

I I_· I ri ; / t/ I , <.

-- 1 - . --J -- / Ji o;J ! l ii ( ~----·· ·x~ z!

,.;

C 0

.. ..

L

+ -0 i 0

I __ _,_ __

~--- -::l/~-- ~

i

~. ,--~, GRAVEL AREA -~~chedufe II

' ' L L--

I

z

0 ;-I-z

N 6 l)

4 :l; ::,

.-I>-

p;:! ~

~---i <

l I I I I I I : I : 1 +---:-:~-R

i

E R V 1 --+---4-

<

r=f,wcKAND GRAVE

::1 1

I I , I I I ,-----· MATERIAL ARE~,

· \ : : '"Sp1flUICJ1tr It

,. .:,

0

~

.r · _J.--tf-tt=ttf ~· 1 ~I I I · :f-.. --1-.... ~ ,,• ... .. '

~ --~l---:.K-~ 1 ~~- R:fl 11 "'\ -_-··, I I

' I N A N

..\.\,:..:.: i!.'f, I t. __ L-... -, R

~., ,.. ... -

"~ ~o

E s E

I, --,t.w t J~ M~nMh •.

1 ''~t• I.

"l'--~1--+--~"Rfock-:ii No ... i , . ft!ATEfUA

-,----...J.2-.,.-...• ---··"'' , ... ,, .. ,$,1;,/Jl,~1

--+-~. -- ,---

--~ -t--y,~­~ ··-!-+-' ---t-----;- -t--+--p--: ., ' I I i I ' -I 1

...........

" DOME.

~ a:

', ..._________,, ·_ . ! ~. ... . ~- (---· I \., TT /t ' ,' ' ,_ - ·., \ - ' - :::,1

\ ; ' .. . . • ".. ·, , ' ·- ·.\ I \ ' '. I \ )L-+--J--+---i-11 / r.J, !'.J

/ /. .. w=

.ci= _,+-"

iliJ_!D_

Rock

l

~ il I

\ // '- / ... \ ,' ..

f!

_To /Yuma/..,.

0

·i

V. ·~o Ufv T

/,,... 41,_,~

I ,ii' ·'"' .. ,.;

//'

l ~'!;/

0

-.-, / \

\ \ f I

l

l~ .,

INDEX MAP

• • SCA LE OF ,.ILES

... .,,

... . -- I ,,,r·7 t• • I _! - I ; f p ~- < (< 1---.-.--r~,.-~ ,,1. =tr-1·· JJ=-l411hf=J-+-+-l=ttt~t~ttt;t;t:;~~~1u~1:t '- ' ' • ' . . - • ' . . I/ . I ! ·+--·-t----,- --'--+-r-,- - --- :--~

J_i~+-+--t-t--itfj-rr-11 T

• ·1 Ll., jf, I s Ir·· ·- • I ' '

I . ' --- - •. ,., 11111..,_,.._

" . I . I ,,, I I I I I

, • I I I I ,,

' . I I V' I _)' : I ,..-l-' : l : --,ti" I O I I I s IT I R I I I C

1 1 _ I- ,_ 1

, 1 , 1 1 1 .Y · ~1 I ' j : I I ' t 1

-;-c I I l I I _.- ~ -~rrll:Wb++;V;i s ~i''TTlT, '$1. j a, I I LJ L~ z ..

-----1-! ~ -~

l-t--

C

r.. ~

"' <

I ,/i i ' - .. ~

i ~

I

. ../ I

~

·:;i

;

.... ./ /"

/ /

... ..1..--1-

i

- i

- t -\

I I

I u

i r-=---=-F--=:::f,

~--+---+--!---t•i·--;- ~ I UNITED STATES I . .., DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

r·t---..i

~-i - .l I~

.. · a!

T .~ .. ~ j £ /

/

/ -. : /~

-'--1 r [~ . - \- --, -

r, ) '

/ -·.J \ l..,i

oi

"'

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

~Al-0 vaRoa DIVERSION PROJacr

CAI-IFORNIA - ARIZONA

I j /

/ /

/ / ' f f'i MT •-/ : .

.. I

y- =1 ~I~ - ~e : L .. ,----""~:--~~ . ·o • I' :." ,,,.

/'-f ~ I 1 , .n I ,C

• .....1- -- ~-~ I

"

I . tlW '\ / '.___~--\ r ; \

\ I -~ . ., .,

LOCATION MAP

I l~\i'il-

I I ~il .. .. . ~ .. ..

o. ....

DRAWN _______ -~:."!·9.: _____________ .sUBMITTEo.OJ .. ~----

:::::~:::::;,_:,:::.·.·.::::····-:::::~rht/~: OHIEF -DESIG(YI~~ EN6IN£t!'R

~OULDER CITY• NEV. 7-29-00 385-300-19

.~ A 10 ·~o foq.1 ..

..,?,·

l Q:: ~ ~ .... ~

C) Q ~ Q:: C) ~ C) ~

,z, ..... I? . .s-o ~o_o.

. .o ~ 'l,,ro°'

"' "'1--. ~

~ -----,,. 2 96. 0 __ ,:, __ ..,.

• I Begin I levee---'t'·End of dam f-,:---Sta. /5 -1-00

!""- ----,-- -- ------>j

·--Transition-4-:I to 2:1 slopes \ )

,,,,# \,0' I ~ ~ di~ 'v -}/; , r :"' ... <;

:(

} ',El 270.0- .. 'f'

ij Warp from , ,f:1 to 2:1-----'

/

=

C

f

/,,,6

,,'>Existing settling basin

29

z ~ 280 1-

,! "' --' "'

270

260

I J I, Nor WS. El. 283.5--\

~- +--- --~ ./

V ..... ,.....,..... ~~-

/ /

/

FIGURE 2 REPORT HYD. 408

,-Anticipated reservoir elev. for 1962 channel conditions i (C, -·· -· ~ . ' --- ..... ,.,.,

l [j/ ,.... ,---

_s.. -- f--,-..... -

~ ~-,,....~ __. --P1esen( tailll(ater 1elev. ..

Estimated 1tailwdter e!ev. fJ 1962

channel conditions

60 80 100 120

DISCHARGE -1000 C.F.S.

Top of riprap level with ground or El. 296.0

Top of riprap level with ,--Original ground surface-, maximum.-,

ground or El. 280.0 / l L i ----------/----. max,mum.----

1 ~ ___ j_______ --------- - ·'·

----~ ·-- El 270.0,)

SECTION A-A

RESERVOIR AND TAILWATER ELEVATIONS (El. 296.0

:;'j' , ~ 1

~:~ I ">

/Steel sheet piling

.--El. 290, 00

I

@-<~:24"L~y;r of riprap

'6" Layer of bedding

"'

& -....:::"'

El. 285. 5-------, ~!4-'-o;,.;

_,varies from 4-0' to 70't ..h-..J : i·'

~Y-------~ ,lj;;i! .1

"\'

NOTES

0 Selected clay, silt and sand compacted by power tampers or other approved equipment in layers not exceeding 6-inches in thickness.

® Selected sand, gravel and cobbles placed in 12-inch layers and compacted by crawler type

r.'\ tract.or where placed above water. v::.; Rockfi/1

~~~ (

/ <f i~~ 1 " ,,ttr~K-.. ,~ :lc..i \~ YI\

,,Z,

~6' Bedding_/

,--El. 230± .I::

SECTION THRU HEAD WORKS '} /i ,·'/// '~°o

s:: ., PLAN

.A 0

.;-_. -~

.00 0 100 200 300 \ SCALE OF FEET

Jl.296.0

t \W#tAWJR~'----------~296.0 \,

-- Jj \w),q/J.XhW.QXVT* :::::;;;:;;;=!,.l\,;..:.;,-l+'-L_---L--1

ELEVATION

I? 0 20 40 60

SCALE OF FEET

SECTION THRU DAM 10 0 40 80

SCALE OF.FEET

1D-n-•• M ADDED ··--•H•• -,;unrr~,,..cHM CUT-OFF WALL AND EXTENDED

D /i,181/J, ~ RIPRAP ANO IJEDDIN6 TD SPU.LWAY' APRON

7- 14 ... 66 CONCRETE HCADW°ORKS CUT-OFF WALL CHANIJED TO STR'L PILING

D ;.....JIU!J. BELOW £1 2~6

I.JNiT€0 STAT£~

OEPJ:.RTMENT OF THE /lV,"£RIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

PALO VEFfOE OIVEFfSION PFfO.JEOT-AFflZ, - CALIF:

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM GENERAL PLAN AND SECTIONS

ORAWN _____ f._Jf!._L_. ___________ .,SUBMITTEO- _____ {:;,<•'-ti:.~ TRACEO___ R.v.s. ~ - - -

CHl!C:::v·-::~·::~::::::::::END/!D_,_ 'l@;f-~- -E:R, cocORADO ~Jt!:~.--<• ;,------ • SE:PC '• ,955 SSOO. H,.,-€,iiiiiiiiii _________ _

385-0-26

,-Longitudinal contraction : joint

rT- 1 11\ -.. 1:"® .! 1

: .. , : Al. ;, : -.;, : j': ! ~ 1·

i ~ trype "A" robberJ' ,-> , : +- _ II _ LJwoferstqp_l\ij - lo'.o~ le-- J7'.o'• 1 :

-<18

--r :-El. 246. 50

' ~-.! .lA 6"c 1 pipe dmm (;~~· '. ,J. . El 245.00--y /

<> _, <1_·.·.

_q

El.25J.5Ch . ' .. :o:

-. ·O, ·. · . . '?

(El. 246.50

·.-0

FIGURE 3 8-EeQJff HYD~408

: ' . -lT--,- - 7l1 - ~ : I I : . : I 24•1:i-- I I I 1 <::) ' 11 I 1

1

! ~ i I I :: f~- -l -- J, ' 12" Split-sewer-pipe droin 1 1 t9•5p1it-sswer-pipe drain

T ~--~--~;::c,,:-.\{·· --¥- JtSplit-sewer-pipe drain} ' -4 ~io~s~;;,;;~~d~'i"' d' Split-sewer-pipe drains

El. 245.00-, -,,,

El 294 77

_: ___ (_ 12· 5i/ht-~w r·pipedroins-~ : --t-~ 5> ' · f L> 11 l / I (I) J , !.T>

f Left pier-,,-L.l.... ~ r.s- '-" , _: !f I L '-' ;;--e• Sp/if-sewer· ! i'-.-~-,.. ~ I , 1 1 i"'-\ f ]- pipe drains

El 295.81--,---r i

1

1, : : -5lppe_. / 5' : I \ II im/i£ I !_T) 1 ~ \ ,' I ~ i ~ ~ri 1 ~ I ~ .-1 I :

i Spillway- : ~ ' rN 994,620: ! ' 't> _.,r1.. ,.I_. :.:J Sta. 5 .. 00---~-t-: _ _ ·JI_ lE:26~65011, ~ !..___ __ ; : 'L_s, \

' B split-sewer-pipe drain. See notes

SECTION

----Stop-log-slot fillers - -: , not shown

: J . b~. of crest ··,;i·· .

. D: .

A-A SECTION B-B

! . I :1 , 1 • - .. __ --l ~ \ ·d, ~ ' ,,-Ax1sofcresf !Ii ® I \!.. I I-1 · :::r~ ~ ~ ...;., .

1

11 ~ ~ I ! -~ ~ -~- ..... _._-_-_;_ -.-:---'?: -:-_:-_:-_·_._ ... _ .. ::·_~ .. w~i~~:-';-~-------- .- :·::-:-.- · ·:: -.. :- .-: ·:.·:· -_ -_-._ -... -:--~-~1

I' . 1,i 4 i

!!? t."',i I - i .: -,·.,

f Right pier--, ! Jr· -·2/'i16•->1<- --~-----------:-i/'i'·6• ------ t .. i ! ~ - - -- - -- --- -- -- -- ---33'·61" - - -- -- ---- --------~--- - - - -- - -----37'- ,,,~- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - ----- - --~

~ : "' ;r_ - ,-. ,I I '-' : ~ -~ : Cb \ ... ;;,~,...,., - I I I . - -t "1-... "l:)

El 294.ll't---f.::7 17! . . . ,I • t--' ,! 8 t : __ J__ HS-D 0•1<- -----33·6/-- --, '<-----37 ·IJj----- -1-<> .9 "'

/13 finish required,/ '<:!, --- ---~ - . t'1 :l: ~ in this area----- l ·.;, ' iii "<!;, Ii 1 : t .._

: ')I : ' ill:: I -~ !! ! ' : ~ ~ I I t _ c::: ._

l ~ , 1l ~ I n! '",, I t ~ ~ ,------ _ _ ,;f" --r,r:-1; I :•! I::- -- -+ 1-F "'>

,! Jz"-,-1<-r / 111 ----i..- ---- I ~ :::,

1 5~ ,:•, : HII - I ':" I t' ;;; : ~ . s:i I )jpe'A rubber "<', \-<--,i-o"" • __ ; : · I .:. wo~rsfop., 1 -- • .i -- ' ; : ,· _.,._ I 1 \ 4:{fl ., i L__y______ - - .r. - ' __ J

ll' •• "'

PLAN le I si I I I I Gr>-

Et. 295.81 ·Leff pier-_ ~>- , ,, 4 EJridgeonchorbolfsrd F'>-- : ft----8-7--·->1 fEl.299.9 srown seer.- 395-0-17 , • r : _ .5=· ~- ,. 299.98 , "':.'!:.---------2/-6-------t----- vr:..f -----~

i ---~"-~~:!!.::) ____ j ____ ,_~-

5P

SECTION C-C

,-Stop fog-slot f ii/er _ - ~ --Anchor bolts not shown, / =--. see Dwg. 385-0-65-- ••

,', .. o::_*-:·\::.4. ·. ',,.";'.P;·: -:·_::: ~·_': ,1 I ~·: :A

K'L6".: .. . ._6" UK '---f.~ i __ .. '-stop-log and stop-log-slot- r-----52'-8'±/foce to face

fi!ler guides,see Dwg. y of stop-log slots 385-0-65

SECTION H-H

9"-. 6"-1[/-I-,

6~

r<· -----------25·-o~ -- ------ - - -- ---->t<- - - -- - --- - ---25'-o!- -- - ---------,

l \ '!> .-Type "A.rubber woterstop .•. t ' II -~

2'·6~---

_6'!.i

i Spillway, Sta. 5•00-,, I

Symmetrical about { 1 ---~~;~_-;~-~--:;-o!------- -- ----j

shown ,d, , see Dwg. 385·0-IO , (;or blockout ((' .... , concrete, see

\·Transverse contraction Joints-/ '-·-B"Split-sewer·pipe drains--'~- --- --~­

SECTION D-D

Stop-Jog-slot fillers, see Dwg. 385-0-69'

C r

---31'-9t __ ... ,........ I ,0w~

9-39

s-o-32

R:-..- - L ' ~-- -- - - !K} ' ~~---_-.:..:_:.:::.1-~=-~ · ----'/ .. s Trunnion pin

------------:so'-6.J~!=C-~==-=Tt=li =- = . i- ;r· --£1 278.00---------- ... ;-<- ·=- - ·iY'> - r>--

. __ ;-_,,,___ - ' ~ -;---A111s d crest .-,-- , ·r -- 1;, •"'i' ,_ '=' I / ::nttr-r__t___ I To - ,,

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

. Owg ""'.. f../ ' ' ,,,,,.,, __ __..

-------- · 385·0-8- ~--- I ------------·-33'·6/-:_____ ------'1-4 !.>'U :Sill plot -----------4.--'

~

, ,,,,.,,: 00''" "''" I r ----------------- a

c -E, wn, see Ow" 38

,~. "' 1 -----37'-11 ·~-- ,,,-. . '258.59 • , D·ID • -- - - L-. __ _

,-Cqntrocfion joint

M

-~3'-6" P·-:5'0

: :E':_25J.056~i:i:- ,. '

C , -El. 25/,50

,fj;/

L

El. 294.77-1·--_ 2"+'.,

.-£1. 299.98

SECTION E-E

El. 294.77 or El. 295.81·,

J-J

i~ 1.+12" 19'!.,J k-

~ ":,:'

~-TYPICAL SECTION THRU TRANSVERSE CONTRACTION JOINT

\

El. 294.27 or El.295.81-,

->; :-2" ~ ):-

rAlternotive position \ of keywoys

SECTION L-L

GENERAL NOTES Concrete design based on o compressive strength of

3000 lbs. per sq. In. of 28 days. All reinforcement shall be intermediate grade and

shall con form to the speci ficotions for high bond steel.

All dimensions to reinforcement ore to the center of bors.

Lop of/ bars 20 lbr diameters at splices unless other­wise shown or specified.

The standard pin diameter for bor bsnds is 8t- ,· for bars less than t =I• and 8t to the nearest 1; for bors wh(ln t= ,• or over. t= bar diameter.

Stop-log-slot fil/ers_i~.:- -~ not shawn-----6~:~-_-,,

fFr~,o· To axis of crest

For details of rubber waterstop, see Dwg. 40-0-2867. Chamfer i" or tool all e11posed corners unless other

wiss specifed. Split drain pipe to be placed directly on rock wherever

possible. Porous concrete to be used under split drain pipe only where necessary to maintain proper

-El. 294. 77 or : El.295.BI I

_J_ f y 2""'";,'<­~---JI

~ ·r-~;-~

It Pier,---- ·._ . : ·1

I -.

SECTION F-F

Woll plate blackout -,

-----3'-6" ----:.t,·

t' C '_:o_.·.-;;,yq:: O' Trace of crest-- - -'

SECTION K-K

N.-<l El. 278.oo-·-. ":'>1i..-1•

~~cc1t=' :::i __ /!.'Top of metalwork

· 16"

SECTION M-M

con nee tion of pipes. @ Indicates type of woterstop intersection. Bors shall be sp./iced of locations shown Additional splices

may be mode for construction purposes subject to approval of contracting officer provided that splices in highly stressed areas shall be lopped 29 bar diameters.

Finishes-Unexposed surfaces Fl or /II; all other surfaces F2 or u2 unless otherwise specified.

© Denotes type of embankment, ses Dwg. 385-0-33.

IIEVISEO STOP-L06 SLOT

\::~:.;t245jj~\: 1

1

£/.245.00 : / ,Type "A" rubber woterst1pp J ,_,. Axis of crest.) \ ·;

___ ..,, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

'BUffEAU OF RECLAMATION

PALO VERDE DIVE-,<,N PROJECT-ARIZ.~CAL/F.

/Et. 240,0:' 1

-<J D

ELEVATION RIGHT PIER AS SHOWN

LEFT PIER IDENTICAL EXCEPT AS NOTED

~""~ g ~ 1p AL!F FEE

.•

SECTION G-G \'<···

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM SPILLWAY

SECTION N-N OVERFLOW SECTION AND PIERS

DETAIL Z

DlfAWN. ____ ~·-"·-'=-·-------•uaMITTEO.-----~~-----~~-------------

1"1fAC£0 ____ !".:.!'.:~.1..------lf£COM~NDEa...~ 1. ____________ _

CHt!Cl<t!D-"#----~~l'l'ffOVt!D •• --:7. __ . _ . ____ _ ___ CH!_./1 __ 0~•1eNJ#e ~Ne1NWa1t _

ot!NV1£1t;co~o"'"°"· SEPTEMiu ,, ,.., I 385-D - 27

6" Selected surfacing ~

El. 260.0:~\ a. · · /.0'-~

El. 251.0) - -:r.)11'~:

14"6-~ SECTION D-D

,-P.I. El. 300.00 .r_ ____ _

..

DETAIL

Handrail : not shown-•. .;_

I I

.,- ' ~ .. - I

,:Embankment i not shown-. \

y

-- -See recess detail

\>

/'"'

_J4!d~ Fixed hondro/1--J,__ Ii .

L::;ll tJl.·P. t. Elev. vortes

• I \ I \ I \ I

-,_ ..... :.,2'' -··-Type ii "rubber woterstop

y I I I

' g'

c-c

!6-4" Dia. we!p (~;..,, _ . holes@ eio crs.-f·· ·,,-/._ ~

D~ ·\----E Sta. 5+83.oo,

Top of wall, El. 280.00·1 ••• , ••• , r

---1 W-> :.tJI

Face of spillway wall,

. ;__....--.,,.,..)

·---~

,, .. ,;---El.~ / ~

El. 255:t ":\._-T f ~

.... f

r.:·P. I. El. 300.00 ·>i4'-o:,E· __ ··-El. 296.06 n~ El. 294.29, c~

12"

~ T · · '/ -~---Type A· rubber

rE mbankmerrt ', not shown

9,. woterstop r I

\ /811

Contraction joi ~!-_ J;rf~ ,,-{Chamfer

-,K V

l!·256.0

El. 251.0·-. ll',1 l!dJI f,?_ __ S 12" Min. .:\.~--T

~.0·"1

SECTION E-E TYPICAL KEYWAY ANO WATERSTOP DETAILS

FOR GRAVITY ANO LINE DRILLED WALLS

'Alternative position of keywoys

SECTION K-K

, r<··IB~---i ·B.296.06 _y__ I • • •• _'Jf:.. 1,.- --

r ··~ -~ .. 3_

SECTION R-R

Gj

-<18

_jH

~ -~· . ~ ---=----- --~_..lA

-- -- --, --- ---= == = =-~;;.=;;i;~""i: ~~ -_-_-_-_-_-_ ~~-_-_j~?-BLOCK 7

----

I.Handrail not shown

'-Slope to ) L>-match bridge1 F

PLAN 10 •o

SCALE OF FEET

_J5'Lc.. L.. 0 ~ I I C)..C:::l't) '1-. C:::

ELEVATION B-8 ..., "' ~ ~ SECTION H-H

____ f __ -1+:--t--~ ~ .1. l ,-·El. 273.92 T_IL

12· Min,--il:~rT I I ~ f...sd,.; V'"'!

Contraction iaint:----~ ·Et. 240·0

SECTION F-F

,P.l. El. 285.71 _.t___ ,,1

Slope-·-,>f ....... :..,-£1. 200.00

_.f~£1. 260±

S SECTION G- w.,._-EI. 255± .S:- G·""' so·' , T h--------n ' · r-'" s

FIGURE 4 REPORT HYR, _ _408

c .. trodm_ •• Rp- ~: ~ •. ·Coo"'"""' Li ! ii nl joint----· , , .. J_ JOmt , ,---L lLJ

-~ ,,__ ______ 3'-6'!.·---·,.:.6·re--Face of wall , 2!>-i ~------3!..9!. _____ ,,.; k-2" fil>- , ' Sta. 5+83.00__, '' , ''

SECTION L-L SECTION N-N 1Btap-lO(J ond stop-log-slot-filler ,·SfrJp-lO(J guides, see

~des, 5

~ 7~:~7,:~:_jf ::', ~ ,Aoc!KJr bdfs I : ,/:?:..~5

~o.-~

,' ,, ·< · : not shown, 1:irJ ~ ) < .:~: .. !,.' see ~~D-65f~ t ' ~ Stop-log-slot "")~,_l!ii_,~1 _-1.11-L---+: '---i"i "il'-l:---Face of wall, } i i !

filler not shown, /J •I ______ , ,,_: ____ ~6-~_ Sta. 5+83.00-'' L, ______ :_

3!..

6!. ____ ~

see Dwg.JM0-69, ·6

i""' 3 6 'f·---l-52~B·tj"Face to face ' --1 ·

t of stop-log slats-------· t SECTION M-M SECTION P-P

El. 296.06- - f-<------3'-,o"------~ L \ : '

. !. 1

'

El. 295.0Vi-)I

------3'6" ----

L El.2

-~----3·~~~-;~ Construction t joint------- --

=-Construction · --El. 27,1001, ___ t_ I

i1·T joints------- ·--/

6~

M 7

ii-<-- ----ih!. __ _ I I

El. 2M5q]:_ 11 I! I ' Ii

ELEVATION OF UPSTREAM STOP-LOG SLOT

STOP-LOG-SLOT FILLERS NOT SHOWN

~------i-6!_! ___ :~

ELEVATION OF DOWNSTREAM STOP-LOG SLOT

. ..,.

~ 7,

il 18~---t _____ =m::

)--2"Std pipe handrail NOTES

' '

~ ' -----~ .. , 5~°/1"Ta axis a crest·, -<--<----1--~

Et. 290.0~.t i ...._ ,-Top of wall

: ~ j --------- -- -5~0,1:_ ---' ·, , --

L.{El.280.00 Q~ - ~

'•/:/ _..,. • '-El. 296.06·-. ..... ' ..., y

' ' ' ' /b·> -~ .... .• :_-,-_9:

1 ·Tye '.i( rubber canstructlonjoint---. "F.-\+:,---::--;'-;t.:,.c~ _,.._ll.l'»,'4..._,._

11 waterstop------

11,construction joint

El. 296.06}_

El. 294.50\

,,5f Deep wall plate blockout, / anchor bolts not shown El. 25/.0-·'i_\ __ .,,.,,m,,r,Ew,;~',)'1111 __ .li.J (/ ,__--~---ev----+-

rEl.258.94 _ _y_

,--El 258.59 _ _y_

,,-Trace of spillway crest

g, El. 245. 0 --- :\._ _ • ..

II# ~---~A Type A rubber ! ___ J .. --.=:·:::.~, , ...

waterstop------+------ • i El. 240.0,.J : 6~h-·;!.; •' ' '..-15'-l()~---21!.7f:..--~ -.:.~- (a~

2"Sfd. pipe handrail 1 ' 1_ 1 ' :12·

I J 4 1

x ·----d 6' For fixed handrail *to ~-.. : :

ELEVATION A-A DEVELOPED

I ..,., I

~--2~0'!-~

4-6"Tol1xis afcrest-~"i .,---t-7f ~ ----:Y-i-----+-~ 'face ofwo/1

10 0 •o ------------- '""'---\-18-----

, ... - ,.1 '

:.Cut slats in wote;stap -----Shift waferstap to clear blackout

for sill plot,, anchor bolts DETAIL Z

Spillwaybridge' SECTION s-s

SCALE OF FEET

-- --____ _:_c:_;_"-'El. 255±

,-Type "/."rubber 1 waterstop

, - . . ... ,.,-=~Alternative El. 250.0 ---, . · -~. ;·.· I!!• position of keyways

_'J.,. •. :~. 1-'f' i.o-....i · ¥-'. 1-L 12"MI

El.·245.o--:,._ ,~·+ :ff_[ n.

SECTION J-J

-L---

·'·

:·-·-·r ,. , -. ---Face of wall---------

SEC TION Q-Q

DETAIL X

,··4"Dia.

• -:~.-

4"Dia.:

FIXED HANDRAIL REMOVABLE HANDRAIL

RECESS DETAILS FOR HANDRAIL POSTS

For general notes see Dwg. 385-0-27. Slope all horizontal surfaces at top of walls f" in 12• unless

otherwise specified. All structures shall be founded on sound rack as determined

by the contracting officer and may vary widely from assumed excavation lines shown.

9-19-56

8-14a6f 08,1114#

ADDED SECTION OF HANDRAIL AT6RIOSE

REVISBJ $TOP-LOS SLOT

UNITED STATES DEPARTltlENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF REOL AMA TION

PALO VERDE DIVERSION PROJEOT-ARIZ.-OALIF.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM SPILLWAY

LEFT ABUTMENT WALL

TRACED ___ ~:..1!:9!..- _____ RECDMIIENDED-.J:2Cj_! .!~- _________ _

DRAWN _____ J.c_A~----··-·SU/J/tllTTEO __ ~~-_z,:--~ ·-----

CHECKED~--~Pl'ROVEO ___ ;! __ _ ~~ CHIWI' ()~.,. l#e Dlel#°i.i - -- - -

.,._ ... ~- • ,..,__ I DENVER, OOLORA...,v, ~er,.,,,~;;,;;, 385-D-29

/ 51~ q I,

r- 1--,__ ,__ ,__

I 1

~ '- I ·- ~ ~ ;, - ~ ,..".: 1--,__ ·----< rro,T ,,,, _____ . ~ .__

I,

,__ ,__ (50'x 24.9!' jadia/ gate .__ 1--

~ -- ~ ,-t--

. I . r,._l -

i---LJ lJ.-----f Intermediate piers-------- . : ' '

j~ Side seal---------

-'-7 I I

If Intermediate pier--·--, I

~~ 3 --'

-

l

I LL-

<i

i ~

9 ~

<o ~

::·?·--·

!f.t) . ' '-<;): -I!! ~1: t;:: I<>•.., 'I-: <>

yl:: .~

~ ~

"6 <:, "' /If Arm

.~.... ~--{£ Arm <;) \

~ -----Between pier faces

• t

SECTION B·B (With orm in horizontal position)

c:::-_-::::-_-_-_·:~~:~~:::~-_-_:-_-_-:_-:_-=~~~:;.:~-:~~;~~~~;:;~~-~~-~~~-~~;;/:~i-~~---_-_-_-:_-::::-_·:_5~~-~-:-.-.-__ -_-_::::-_J

If ;;~'."-~~~~!~------J ~----=~A

-JI-.

_.,!'-..?.=.=:°¥:'!.. -rir

: :1 J ,-~~, ~ i_r

PLAN OF SPILLWAY (Operating deck not shown)

..m..

~- -----------

' ..J. I I I

In 11 I ij" . i

-ll-

-~111 n--E1.29J_s, • • _ ---------11--1-> EL294.77' 1111 I . I I -------------------------------------------•----50-0------------------------ --

r-

HIii I I I

y 1111 I I I

~

1. i -- -- ---- 46'-3" c. to c. hoist ropes ·--til'·/0#

I'-~

I ,--Top of gate

t

[.,,,,-If Gate and spillway

Hoist ropes--·"<1.1

II "I :: I

111:: I ,, !: ,, ,, 1'

" ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 1' ,1 1' ,1 1' ,: 11 11

" ,, I

·!lli 11g--1 .1-4----+----..;-i--t---l---t- -+--1- I I

I • • I ~- -! +- 1 I t 1 : /; ---Skin plate

- .. ---1- ----L + 1 I supports

: • ( I I --

l I I I I I ! 1--7----i I } ,, I : : I

I t t I I ' q I --t---: : l I : : : I

-+-- - I t--.:---i . I

t- ' i- d I I 1 11 I \ :

- --t - +--+ -4---i 1---L._ i I I j ~ • \ I -r I

-t---r 4 __ J___ _J._TII I : •

• I . I : I l '

II'~ I I ' I -- -t--i-1\ • • 1, • j

i :1 I ---r--~-=-T ---=-4==

! 11,..,. L--t--~ ,.JI..-.,,.._.,.. ~- ~ --_.._ __ j __ .J ' --r

--->

~' ,,---\{ ' ,.. .. .,.

!··w,i"' fr ,puw

--,rs,;, 'T),.,

~ & ~

! -8 ~ o;

~ '

v

-j

(Gate hoist

~--If Intermediate pier

, .--Deck rafting not shown l ~ I

ll' ]I El 295 Bl--. ff i"-'---' ' I c'. >,~

. . I~ I~ IJJP 7

--Et. 294. 7 7

Maximum WS. Et. 290. 0o---, E!.29000-,

I-

__ y-;rN--

Bottom of gate _,, (raised position)-----

Top )gate \ normal ws. El.283.sq_-L_

B y

FLOW

Axis

~ ·0

----Gate in maximum raised position

\_Anchor girder (Final placement

f upstreom skin pf ____ ,,

FIGURE 5 _B_EPORT _HYD. 4_08

/ not shown) DETAIL C

i_!f Trunnion pin Side seal ond guide shoe assembly

Symmetrical about If intermediate pier-------1

t _, SI-

i-----1• ·' • I 111 ; Pier face-/

~ Anchor girder-/

"'

i ~~Am I J:.J:_·--+- ~ - . ,Final

\ placement

~ ,--If Trunnion pin . ,, tyt ,,If Trunnion pin ·, / El 278. 00

,, ·/ . B

~-~--- 7" DETAIL D

Section through hub ,,.,,.

&~-

i ,.-Et. 273.92

• • 11 ~ I · l l

,f"Upstream skin plate __ _,,

Bottom seal---­

,:;t

Sill plate-------'>---------

I-- II I-- ··. -~ ..

~ f ~\IJ= (l -: \l ,-... ;~·','}t;;,,i~"""·········· J

DETAIL E Bottom seal assembly

UNITEO STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAV OF RECLAMATION

PALO VEROE OIVERSION PROJECT--ARIZ.·CALIF.

. ~-----~ · ... <l: <o. ,· .:}: .,;/.:?

-<JA ·--Controcti .'n joint

UPSTREAM ELEVATION SECTION A-A

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM SPILLWAY

50' x 24-.91' RADIAL GATE GENERAL INSTALLATION

====~~~~~~::-:-:~::::::;:~;~~~~·-_:_:_::-~:~ CHlt!P' DESI.NrN• £N.IN6Elt

·····- -- ·--- I - - -DENVER, COLORADO~ JVIVI=. ,o.,~oo 385-0-7

8 f ~,,..r 11-ff,c---....i,_

@'1 ~ I ~--'-~'-----'--'::__==_c____:--=,,...:..:----=,...,..;.;:..;..=...

TA_L -\----

::: i\ : : I I -1-: l I I i-s u,

: =: I I{;·~ 1 [

,---Top slab far face reint. ---

·~-

t'?ll§c • I L..

l ~ I I -e:: -~ ~ I ''h.ii~ui-;,1,1 r Top slab near face reinf.

l 1 I I~§ ~ ,, ~ 1rTir.rrr,-n _,

1 : ! I ::i. ~ ~ / :

:il.?Q) V,/ l 'I 1- .,-!.._ I

'J' I c,.·- ' ; -i- i--------- -·i5.~-- ---j--tffi!l-----11-

~ I I ~~ : T~ ,------- .,_g--- ---~-­

~; I I I ~ °'> I 1

1 I I io L. r 1 '

l ! ! I "t;-= i- : I ! c::j ::a I

: 9 ! : ::i;~ ! : ~ ! I ~~ : _}H ~: I I ~~ :

, I I I ·- O I ~ I I :::..- I

~ : I I ~ ~-; ' 'I I Cl.. I I I I I I I

-ti~ ~~~:~~~~ ~~:~:: ::t+111f--!--11=--=-~:4= - -+_,..,-rn,:: -==-~----==--=----_-_-..=-..=-~~ }.. 1 l I i---, ' ., \#7@12~ -­

A4 : I 1 ·-.., ~ • t 1 1

--

. ! I I ~ § ~ -~~ g__ : I I I I .s ~ ~ r-.. §- ~ I ?I I-~~ @, "'i I "'I I"' '- ., ....,., I "7'1 l~:g1b A ~ -i .. ~ I l I I~ ~1 / ~ -~1.... I ! I I°€~ =1.... :{ v, -;; ~ I : I I 0 "-'"'"' , .,., c;, #9@12i- -' I I<.:> -I ' I

/-r ,-------, ------ ---1-- --=-=-=--=-t.. ~ I I f : I ---- _.l -,n r------:,,- ------ --.- , ------t : I I ~ 6 ~ I : I I :!: ~ #6@12•L -' I I :-:: 1:: 0 I ,..,.,.....,.,TTT --Bottom slab near

' I " ·- ..., #5 12• j , •6 I I {; -~ -<> @ ·· face reinf.

:~1 l_g5 I I ' I I ·- I : / I I~~ I : : I ·:; &_ I

I I I 1 ~ ~ ,.I _-.i"n:'""if'ti....,~(IWJ,_,­' , I I ct: #5@12-1-- -- --, ' I I ' _L'lT 1f--- ____ ...L..J.-~~H- - ------- --~-(

1 ~

~_.,

i::v,....,.... I --' ·' <:) _, "' ' '

--t-: I

: ~ ' ' I C::,

:J., I ~ /~

..., _, "-@, ., "' u c:,

~ .,., I

I

+ j

? -.., ' ' '

C,

"' "' "' <:c

:S "' 5 ~ .... G: ' ' r~ ' I t

1-i---..i.;, ............

I

I I \ L-----

'

JA

300.00

I I ,- · - - - - __ #4@12"

I I __ #5@12• I I . I , . .

-1/ :: -I

IE1 #6@ 2 11.r-

1 #5@12"-'

1 1 ---Far face reinf.

I Near face , ,For details of I / reinf. I / I \ Contraction joint with

: ladder rungs see I I I 1 / I f' elastic. filler and

Dwg.40·0·3103 I I I 1 1 1 9" rubber waterstop--

.f !

•' 9 ...., ' ' ' y

18~">-

1 I I I

I I

1<--------12'-o"------->- k-18" .,,. 1-<-JB"

Jf--EI. 273.50

IY , V

s ~

'Contraction joint with J" elastic filler and jlx6" Anchors 9" rubber waterstop @24",

2x 1JxJL-------=r'l.. r..:.,--.• -..;'""\:>~ .. :...,,,: ELEVATION

117r-~ ,' '.o): .o·

4 i ___ 0 ¢,

SECT/ON H-H ~-4

8-8

Trashrack bar by ,--· others.-'

: :_"~- :.; ·~ ~

,-4 x 4 x 1 L Trash rack : seat. ·

!

:~::~o_.: • I• ' 'c:, •

#5 @) 12" A It. with #4 @) 12,"

--- !5@) 12" ,tfs@ 12:,

,•El. 300.00

! }!6@)12"

... ;-:-·1 ..... . .-. '--j 1 • 8"Anchors@ 24"

spacing. Stagger spacing.

•' IO

-.,,

: i'Jt5 @ 12" '-#4@12"

112:" ---~-----12'-3"._ __

: El. 292.50 --

DETAIL A

1Jl "4@12'·'11;5@) ,2~--/ •

#4@) 12!~:,

-+f y

FIGURE 6 REPORT HYO. 408

r< ----------------22' o"-----------~24"j< _ : ,, ... -----#5@ 12':---;---, ! :#5@12)~

az::::.;-:·s~s;::~-~--t-. I . .:, -~-x·:o.··· :.: ... :• .•: :0."·.'·_"4:·."·.:..."•"/"# ':Jr '9" R. \_#5@) 12 •:_/ ,-4@) 12-

SECT/ON D-D

#.5@(2"

~

:\ •J. • '-i"

#5 @12-· 4'@12:

.6@12

SECT/ON G-G

-=;is:,<-

R ',i )t :~l

: ••. : \-#6@12"

---#4@12"

. ----~ -~ 1

1i .Y----~ap:;F.::-"~~J;] ;;.,

~~.~

#4@12\

',-!5@12"

I, 1\ .,.

i #4@12•J

r-- .. · · ... ):~.i,; _',-#8@12"alt

#6@12"----' ) ~- -5'- O~-;;----' with#6@12"

# (0@(2!--'

SECTION F-F

#4@) 12·- .. ,

~' ,-#5@12'. Alt.with

;~ #4@12·

>-#4@12" ;,

-12"#5@12";, --,,:_

;x---­

"" ;;,

' ., ·1 '--"6@12"--/ : I ti

#4@12"-' i o. '

-I

8~;,, P L A N / -></8 ~- see Dwg. 385·0·23

I>------------- ',2• Pipe handrail, for IO

T SECTION E-E - - - - --12'-6'~ - - - - - -1 #7@12"alt. ._;_~_: >---:ih .. ~ ~.

... ~ .. .... ~

" ~ ~ ~ ~ .., c::

"

details see 40-0-4315

® ' '" ' lf- ----t / 3'•0''------->i rP~~- 8'- o"---->jlt'r-- - ------------- -- ~~-~-- - 29'-0''--- ------- ------ --->t<--- --------15'4- - - ----->j-<3'-o~

,._#6@~ I : 1 ,-EI. 300.00 ! : :

~=tt3!f:~+:i-24' . O• F..~ \ 1

~- /-Existing ground surface

' ' I '

' ' ' ' ' I

: ->1 ~-12" : 6.'.!.~ µ__ I I' I

#5@) 12:_ .

-.:., :-/2" ,, with #6@12", --'>-'/8 I

I • .,,'

: 2'-6~ ......... - - ... --

' I /6@12'~ ..

; · .o: ::: · 0 ·.:;·: ---·-·@ compacted -- - - - ...,

~ .. "'· .•.. ··:·····: ,:,,----#8~:Fh·av6@12"

t<-.--6'-o"-../....i

,24" i : 4!6@/2'~-' I

I ~- :·o·.-.~-~ -:'t;,,_-.~--

~ 18""1- ~5@12"alt wif~,:. . : I /[#6@/2". '·:· .. ' .. ··,:•

' y , - ....-- ·-, \ . I . I : -~_.·_,;?:--~:;:·~---;-~;./· ->-ff,~~ • · \4~ · M~.....,..,..__:z;;;.;;,,;~~I I , r.-,''"' 11,,

• '. · .. •-=-::, ... , . -· •. , •.... .. /,_,_ -.:"¥·"'-\.,1-~ i "T;,·:;

•IT' -,t- H _ "f · . .J,

'< #4 U bars oft. ; above ond below / water stop------

_J__l 1---l ) ) ,/El. 290.00 : .,

-------.!c------1 _____________ -:-_-;-;-: -- .. #5@1.;'Spaced ',, .

hor ,zontclly ' ~ .,--J! ·: . . ; . : -. . . ,_-, ' ' t.· - .. . d ,_,,5@) 12 ,' '})'

;,2· l£xcavation pay line

.Q .,

...: 0 .. .... " .Q

::,

:-I ~ . ,_. :j~ ~ ' "' . I ...._N') fl') I...._ • .......

' () t:h OJ

: i~ ii"i I U ,

I ... I

....... 0..,

11:5@12· ,

'··@ compocted-·' '!-

4!5@(2"

CD ~ ~~~-9.

-El. 279.50

SECTION A-A

=: '!;! 'r6" Fillet

I I

,-El. 271. 50

. ' '#6@12"-•''

;..:~ /

.. _ ~1'6@12"- --

' ' ~ : ut:t:~"Y-\;::;kt;itta:~-: .. \<\ .• ~; ;-tz: t: ___ --I- ' '

-t/ --,,,·~~-,"' ~~ri?'~ -(-_~_#5@12"Alt with #6@!2"

\~....._#6J;;'t/2'!,> ... -- ; 8111'+--r ....

I

#6 @) 12" A It. / /,f with #5@) 12·~ - •

,-rEI. 279. 75

I 0 10 15

SCALE OF FEET

·~ r c__J

'--#10@6" ····-...M~ ... ' ,#6@12";_,

Symm. oboua--=; ·--~- _ ~-;@,i" A-It .,,.i,e'-6"1<- with 6@ 12•

SECTION C-C

, '1 .., ,..,, .. , , .. I ~--s-o·~ ..... , .. ~8@1:t'A1t ""' ..,..,2 I uN,TEO STATES

Wifh #6@/2" OEPARTMENT OF THE INTE!f!OR

NOTES For General Notes see Dwg. 385-0-27 For cover requirements for

reinforcement see note on Dwg. 385-0-23.

For radio/ gate and hoist installation see Dwg. 385-0-14

For blockout details for fixed handrail posts see Dwg. 385·0· 29.

'For details of U bars at joints see Detail A and 8 Dwg. 385·0·23.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

PALO VERDE DIVERSION PROJECT-ARIZ.-CALIF.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM HEADWORKS

PLAN1_EL_g_VAT/ON AND SECTIONS

D1'AWN __ fl!.:..~-~--~D;.'!:.._susMITT£0 _ _ -- _a l<l~- ___ ---TRACED __ -~'::.~·- __ R£CDMM£ND£D_ --~-______ _

CHECK£D..I/IX.,W_ __ AP~1'0VEO- __ -z_~~- ____ _ CHltll" 0••1t1HINO ttNelJll-_l!f!!. __

DENVER, 001.0RAOO, JUN£ R•, 196$ 385-0-21

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM OUTLINE OF PROTOTYPE AREA MODELED

FIGURE 7 REPORT HYD 408

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM AERIAL VIEW OF TEMPORARY ROCK WEIR

!:C lzJ "ti 01-tj !:C .... ~G') c:: til !:C

~~ .i:-0 0)

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM TEMPORARY ROCK WEffi DISCHARGING 16, 000 SECOND FEET

= t:zJ 'tl 01-zJ ='"" ~g ~;j t:, CD

""' 0 00

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM FLOOD DAMAGE TO TEMPORARY ROCK WEIR LOOKING UPSTREAM

l:1:1 tzj

'1:J 1-tj 0,... l:l:lo t-3 c::: t:c: l:1:1 t-< ti::! t;:j .... ~o 0 00

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM FLOOD DAMAGE TO TEMPORARY ROCK WEIR - LOOKING TOWARD LEFT BANK

l:l:l t:zJ '1:l ltj o .... l:l:lO 1-3 c:: ::a l:l:l i< t:zJ ti ... ... ""' 0 00

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM FLOOD DAMAGE TO TEMPORARY ROCK WEIR - LOOKING TOWARD LEFT BANK

= t;rJ ,11%J o .... =c:i 1-3 C:

== ~~

N ~ 0 00

'

A!elZONA

. SE.CT/ON A-A

FIGURE 13 REP T HYO. 408

IINffllD BrA'IIIII IIIIPARl'MIINTO/l'1HEI­

-OP--....a.,_

?70

PAL.o VICRD£ .D1Vi£R:SION PROJECT- ARIZ.. - CAI..IP".

PALO VERDE DIVER5l0N .QAM .R.EMOVAC.-:aF 'TE.MPORARY ROCK WEIR

__ ,L.,.. ____ _ ...,. __ W!o:,......,,,,..,~~-==--1 ,.._ ______ rmcr MPIMD

---~· ? , .Sl!PT. I > lr,5./T -

CJI .,. "'

I­ILi

292

290

288

286

ILi 284 IL.

'· ..J en :E ILi :>

282

O 280 (D

<t

z 2 278 I-<[

> ILi ~76 ..J ILi

·274

272

270

··2sa 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 IQO 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

DISCHARGE IN THOUSANDS OF SECOND FEET

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

TAILWATER CURVES

:u Ill "II "Tl o­:u G). -tC

·:Z: :u -< "' !=J .,. .s=-0 CID

Test flume and equipment used to test sectional model

Single bay sectional model with preliminary bucket type energy

dissipator in place

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM SECTIONAL SPILLWAY MODEL

l :28. 3 SCALE MODEL

FIGURE 15 REPORT BYD 408

A. Looking upstream into model. Spillway discharge channel is at left.

B. Recommended arrangement of Spillway and Canal Headworks structures.

PALO .VERDE DIVERSION DAM OVERALL MODEL

1:50 SCALE MODEL

FIGURE 16 REPORT HYD 408

'·--Gage "G"

/ ./

17 ~

/' ~

'lso~

~,r.-,

l~I I

Go,

290---------------~

PLAN NOTE: Gages "A" through "G" ore water surface point gages.

PALO VEROE DIVERSION DAM

OVERALL MODEL LAYOUT 1:50 SCALE MODEL

iao

~-r'

Gage "A"·,..

. =; ... .. ..,

280---~---

,. !;"11 o­,. G) -<c ,. :u ; Pl ·-g .....

Normal W.S. El .. 283.5 "'

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

543

SEC°TION A -A

I ' J ~· ·•·. ".' • -:F:---:---i!o '.': ,s::,:j/ r .. .,:. > > .... ··.. .. . . . . .._, , ..

i-­:4> co I

~--1

:.s. _;,:!

I I I t =b '-<..,. ______ ,... ____ _

~ :-

~

.,..-Intermediate Pier

FIGURE 18 REPORT HYO. 408

~ ->+ I e" 1-<-

t_ ; '

! r1--~ f - - -- r ~

~-=~~~~~~lfl~~~~=acr-~ __ :i.

PLAN c-c - --- --- ---- --- -- ----------~

I

1 I \r:---.... --_, --- --- ---,;..j I I I I I

I~ ~3:..0" I -f----1 I I I I I A.,,,..

,1 T "' ,-: ·.!.

"' I I I I I I I I I _y __ _

+-0 II)

Cl 0

Q.

.e (/)

• ••. : .' _o._ ·:: ••• . ,: . : .. 'I. .

. p .... ·1 •••. 0 ~ . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

~ I.·.· ' ... 01 .

' • -~-- II ~I~:-:-:-~: . · .. : ... o . . ~ . . ·.. . D . . . . . . . . . . . . /)

.• 0 • • • : • : ••••• • ••• •• • • .. 'l: ..... . . p O . •.•••

. . ·. . . ·_. _:ere,; axis •. D.. ·I

• 0 •

// /

/ /

... .... :c>·.· I)

. . . . . . ,.,.,__. . . . . ,. V ..

·. ·. -:·o·.'·· ·.

. ,,-f' ~

//

• 0

/ /

/ /

/

• • {>

/ /

/

-+-.2 II)

0 0

Q. 0

~

__ 1- El. 278 ,,. I

/ /

/

I

0

'

7'A ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

I I I I

Angostura ', 10!.o"-->i

I I I

type slotted ', ~ -bucket.. , I

' ' I \ ' I

\ '-, I

\ ' I ,f ' I \ '?>~_kl

C r C

7' '·~

~~-p~

. ~. . . .·. c.·. · .. -

\,-1 ~

I I I I I I

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

PRELIMINARY 30 FOOT RADIUS SPILLWAY BUCKET

.,~ 18"

•1/·:., .r,f". ·. ~--.. •+.+. 0

. 0.

·+ +· •.• ,!>. • .• ...

4 .. • . ·. /J. :

0

:c·. · ... ·. -o-.- .. - • .. t:J . . a . · ... ·. . . .. : .· .L) . . o . ·.·o:

SECTION B-B

One bay discharging 25,000 second feet with reservoir at elevation 290

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY BUCKET DISCHARGING

1 :28. 3 SCALE MODEL

:ti t.zJ ~l'tj 0""' :x:,O t-3 i = t.zJ i< ... tl (0

.... 0 C0

FIGURE 20 REPORT HYD 408

A. Preliminary Bucket -· (slotted-baffle type -

see Figure 18).

B. Baffles removed

C. Solid sill in place of baffles.

Note: The conditions shown are at the conclusion of a 30-minute model erosion test in which the discharge is 8,000 second feet, the reservoir at elevation 283. 5, and the tailwater at elevation 271.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY BUCKET DISCHARGING

WITH & WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS 1:28. 3 SCALE MODEL

\ \ \ I \ Ii -~

\ \

----- Outline of Ango.sture type baffle Outline of Baffle mocUficatJon

x------,,

FIGURE 21 REPORT HYD. 408

1 I I .----=:--- ---- ----~I ----i

I 'en _, I _,

I ,._

L__~J ,--1 I I t ____ _

- - .

-

PLAN

-

I

I I

1 ---;-

It) I

I I ____ !

->I ,a" t<-1 I I I I I \ .

: \ i<--ao-4

-=!-1 15" k­l I I I I I I I I ----r

\ \. \ FLOW

·,. I I \ \ I • I I

. ~

, Invert El. 240

( \ ~c:::~~'.'.:---~--------, ~ I I \ \ \

/ \ ___. I / ------ o I -1 -~":_ __ _:1-,-:::-:~:::= 8 I ____ _...,

---------,;: I - ,2._1•------

543

1 \ -----~---PROFILE

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

MODIFICATION OF THE PRELIMINARY B N-FFLE ·IN THE SPILLWAY BUCKET

I I

: I a, _, 10 I I I I I

-- J_

FIGURE 22 REPORT HYO 408

A. Baffles 14-feet wide, slots 25-inches

B. Baffles 7-feet wide, slots 18-inches.

C. Baffles taper from 7-feet upstream to 6-feet 9 inches down­stream, slots from 24 inches to 27 inches.

Note: The conditions shown are at the conclusion of a 30 minute model erosion test in which the discharge is 8,000 second feet, the reservoir at elevation 283. 5, and the tailwater at elevation 271.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY BUCKET WITH BAFFLE MODIFICATIONS

1:28, 3 SCALE MODEL

SECTION A-A

El. 300.00

•' co

FIGURE 23 REPORT HYO. 408

El. 296.00J _____ ,W LI, )d, I b;tJ I ~--

Max. W. S. El. 290, oo, /

Nor. W.S. El. 283.50 '\

A r Crest El. 259.00 -

543

NOTE I I I I I

Spillway width is 166 feet.

------

+-0 .,, 0 0

a.

~

I

l I

--8!;6" --~

El.278,00 -., ........

'

_ -------- - 71 1-611 - ....._ __ - - -- -- ----

,. El. 265.00 .J __ _ /' ' /,, '

I I \ ' / I I ',

/ I I '"·;, ... · .. --·., --X2 =--49y / I 1 ', ,

~ ·o ,\, · 10i.0 ·R·: . ,, / , , , See Figure 21

:-.·.· -~- •.• ,1. •. ~ . ' / ' '1 , for baffle '. .,· ..... , . . . . . / / ' ~-" • ,',$ . · · ·, " . · · · · . 1 1 ' , detai 1-

3~6·

+-0 iii 0' 0 ~·-o· R...... 4-6 t<- 25 . . / I ' '

f . -:,- I . . . El. 1.75-, . I oi I ' I ....•. , ........... ---~-:. ,, = , ,,/ .. I a.

• • : .• ·.' • •\ \ • • • • •• • ' 0

' • • •• •• •• • I / 0 I '- .1 15 .f ;:- •• _- 11 .. o~ .. ~ . . .• • • . . o . . I· .• ·.to / ., I '< -->t ~ C/l

' . . fl· . I? . . . . . . . . . . .I.. . II I II) I , ' I I

.·/)· ,' :.- ·: · .. ·.· _: . .' .... :t: ~--:-:~-~ 1.e!.~~i~· :-~ .. ~E~-~~~~;:~(~_-.. : // QI \ Yl\, ',' i_r•'° . . .. C> . • . •• ·-·~.. \ °'

. o • • o· · · . · · . · · · · · · . · · o · :-- ~~ •. , ib . ··. · .. .:.._:.....: -·-:...:. 27!4f..:. '....: .:_ _,.:_._:. .:,_ ..:.~- . . I

... ·.:_-:-::: ::·.·. :.·.-:.·.·.· · .. ·:. \ . . · . .:.---Axis of crest · o. · . · D · : · · · · D. · . :_ __ L_l...,:::'!:'-:::-::1~7.~ .p·:·:: ·.: . .- .. ·.· .. _±:·:_:_:-_.-:_-.·_.-._·._:-_.-:·-·:-~·I .. · . .-.·.·._··.·::':':·.·.·. ·._: --- 14-6-;--- ------------ 42-7- --·------~--..:....~.:..~ . :·.: :·.·c,: : ::,:·_:~·-_·: >:·;_: __ ·~ ·:-· ·.· :_ ·.'_ ·._ ·.·. ~: .·• ·_-. :-_:._.-.:··_·. _.·_: .··. :_: .· ·.:

t,- ¥>1, ... 1 ... , .

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

SPILLWAY SECTION WITH 25 FOOT RADIUS BUCKET

/" El. 278.00 l

A

7'

FIGURE 24 REPORT HYD 408

A. Baffles taper from 5 feet 9 inches upstream to 5 feet 6 inches down stream, slots from 24 inches to 27 inches. See Figure 21 for bafflec profile dimensions.

B. Solid bucket with horizontal top on end sill. See Figure 25.

C. Solid bucket with sloping top on end sill. See Figure 25.

Note: The conditions shown are at the conclusion of a 30-minute model erosion test in which the discharge is 8,000 second feet, the reservoir at elevation 283. 5, and the tailwater at elevation 271.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM 25-FOOT RADIUS SPILLWAY BUCKET WITH MODIFICATIONS

1:28. 3 SCALE MODEL

543

I I I I I I I I

ri.

FIGURE 25 REPOR'l=.HVD, .4P8

!<"-------- ,o~o"- --- --->16"1<-1 I I I I t I T---~: FLOW 1 ,,. __ \1

---,C>- I .,.-• I I Sloping top-,-_ - - :, ) I - it> I. I .... I I

II I-<: I .. _....._. .,,,,,. .,,,,,,. I I 18 1 ~---------11-0 --------, ,.- ,-Horlzontol top , 1 ·,:. . · ..... ·,.. . . . . ~ ..... ·. c:-:: . . . . . . . . ... .

l<-8°-;,,\ . · .• ·•· ::1, ......... ..:. : :,: · I I " • I • • -V• • • I I • .. •1' • • . . •• • ••• I \ • • : • : I • • " .... • • • 0 • I I , , , :I .. , _ . I I ' . co , , , • • o ' ' • , I I • , . -,:_ • . , • I I· . . • . . . I I , • ' , ol, ' I I ••:·.· ·.:<1-,,',-o·:.·· • • I I • 'iv' .. · · , • · .... ·1. · ' .. "'7' ' • ·, •' I \ . . . . . . . . . • I ••

1,:cnvert. 1 • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • ·I, · · I'} El. 240 \1 1 I_.:.~::....: -- -~:, - --=-' _:_._:_. _ ~~~:._.:..:~~r _-_.._. .. . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . · l:. . . . . . . . . . .

• <>•• • • • • I • • "7" • • • . • • • • • . . ..... 90 . . . . . . . ·. : . 0 0 ••

:_ . : : . · .. ·-.~ .... : : _. . . , . :.. .•.. . . . . . • 0 • • V • • • • • • • •

O o o I I f

I I o I

6 • 0 I o 0

I o 1 ., • o •

t) . • •.. •. . ....... . . . . . . .

SECTION

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

25 FOOT RADIUS SOLID SPILLWAY BUCKET

FIGUR.E 26 REPORT HY D._408·

El.245.0-..

A

El. 245.0"'

e

C

543

I I I I I+ ,13!..6'.'--.>1

I I I . I I<- ,~ s"-'>I

I

,6-Baffles l '-' ....... ....

'

D

, 6-Baffles s'-611 wide per bay ' ' ' '

I I 1 I I • I I .. I 1-c:- 12·6-i:ak---- 26-6 ---->I

E

, &-Baffles s'-s" wide per bay, 21"apart \,

', ... , ' El.245.0" ',

I

F (Recommended)

NOTE: End of basin is 11:..s" downstream from crest axis. See Figure 3 for crest shape and elevatJon.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM SILL AND BAFFLE ARRANGEMENTS ON HORIZONTAL SPILLWAY APRON

FIGURE 27 REPORT HYO 408

A. 2:1 sloping end sill. See Figure 26A

B. Double slope end sill. See Figure 26B.

C. 4:1 sloping end sill. See Figure 26C.

Note: The conditions shown are at the conclusion of a 30-minute model erosion test in which the discharge is 8, 000 second feet, the reservoir at elevation 283. 5, and the tailwater at elevation 271.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM HORIZONTAL APRON AT ELEVATION 245

WITH VARIOUS END SILL ARRANGEMENTS 1 :28. 3 SCALE MODEL

FIGURE 28 REPORT HYO 408

A. 6 baffles on 4:1 sloping end sill.~ See Figure 26D.

B. 6 _baffles on apron upstream from 4: 1 sill. See Figure 26E.

C. 6 baffles on apron upstream from 2:1 end sill. See Figure 26F. Hydraulic performance best of any design tested.

Note: The conditions shown are at the conclusion of a 30-minute model erosion test in which the discharge is 8,000 second feet, the reservoir at elevation 283. 5, and the tailwater at elevation 271.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM HORIZONTAL APRON AT ELEVATION 245 ,

WITH VARIOUS END SILL AND BAFFLE ARRANGEMENTS 1:28. 3 SCALE MODEL

--------... .... ' ' ' _,

== \ en I Anin .:ii:. L,.&n or-3 N

"O .J OLIJ Cl)

:c

-u .e 5 u

.:e.

~ ' I

------- I -----..1'..

,;r­

,,t) I \

i . .> ',, ~ _\/._ .... ,

---...... , .... ' .....

FIGURE 2g REPORT HYO. 408

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

<t LLl 0::: <t

:E :c <[ 0 C <t

0 z 0:::

~ a. (/) a. a:: <t LLI )­

~ <t C 3: LLI ...J a= a:: a. LLI Cl)

> >-0 0::: ..J <t <[ z a. -~ _J IJJ 0::: a.

A. Spillway approach channel. Note the sand deposit near the canal headworks.

B. 75, 000 second feet.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY APPROACH AREA

MODEL VIEWS 1:50 SCALE MODEL

FIGURE 30 REPORT HYD 408

541

I

=!! =co I 'f __ i:::J: ::1111r

1~---~-----,,

1r_r_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-__ -_-_-_-__ -_.,,..-1/

-21 I I I I I

*----- : _____ J -----------------------------r---- - i[:~::J -------------- ---- -I I

l ____ l ------------- ------------=--=-=---------

E 1.259.0:t-,

I I I I

! I I I

r~-----1 -

l _____ J - ---... _____________________ _ r~----- -I I I I : I I I i I I I l ______ L

I I -0./

--------------------------

PLAN

5 0 10 20 I" 11 I I I

SCALE OF FEET

SECTION A-A

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM . .

PRELIMINARY CANAL HEADWORKS STRUCTURE

0

FIGURE 31 REPORT HYO. 408

-----~--..,

----+ I I I I .,

0 -Jj "' I I I I I

----i-i I I I

•I 0

_1 ._; I I I I I I

Al I I I I I I I I I I I

•' 0 _, "' ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ____ 'J._

A. Preliminary left wall.

B. 24 foot radius wall

C. 51 foot radius wall - Recommended

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM LEFT SPILLWAY APPROACH TRAINING

WALL 75, 000 SECOND FEET 1 :50 SCALE MODEL

FIGURE 32 REPORT HYO 408

A. 15, 000 second feet (1/5 second exposure).

B. 34, 000 second feet (1 /5 second exposure).

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

FIGURE 33 REPORT HYD

FLOW PATTERNS IN THE PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY APPROACH 1 :50 SCALE MODEL

A. Flow pattern on water surface 75, 000 second feet discharging (1/10 second exposure),

FIGURE 34 REPORT HY'D 408

B. Flow pattern on approach channel bed for 34,000 second feet.

C. Flow pattern on approac:11 channel bed for 75, 000 second feet.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM FLOW 'PATTERNS IN THE PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY APPROACH

1 :50 SCALE MODEL

A. Flow pattern on water surface (1/10 second exposure)

B. Flow pattern on approach channel bed.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

FIGURE 35 REPORT HYO 408

FLOW PATTERNS IN THE SECOND SPILLWAY APPROACH 75,000 SECOND FEET

1 :50 SCALE MODEL

A. The approach area.

C. Flow around left training wall.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

B. Flow pattern on water surface (1/10 second exposure).

FLOW PATTERNS IN THE THIRD SPILLWAY APPROACH 75, 000 SECOND FEET 1:50 SCALE MODEL

~ tz:l "01-zj 0 .... ~o 1-3 c::: ~

::c: tz:l t<lc:.:, ti CJ)

~ 0 0::,

543

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY APPROACH AREA

FIGURE 37 REPORT HYO. 408

A. Water surface flow patterns 34, 000 second feet discharging (1/5 second exposure).

B. Water surface flow patterns 75, 000 second feet discharging (1/10 second exposure).

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

FIGURE 38 REPORT HYO 408

FLOW PATTERNS IN THE RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY APPROACH 1 :50 SCALE MODEL

A. Flow through the spillway approach 50, 000 second feet with reservoir elevation 283. 5 and tailwater elevation 281, expected in 1967.

B. Flow through the spillway gate section 75, 000 second feet. Present tailwater elevation 287. 5.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

FIGURE 39 REPORT HYO 408

FLOW CURRENTS THROUGH THE RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY APPROACH AND GATE SECTION

1:50 SCALE MODEL

A . . 15,000 second feet with present expected tailwater elevation 277 in river channel. Reservoir elevation 283. 5 near canal intake.

B. 75, 000 second feet with present expected tailwater elevation 287. 5 in river channel. Reservoir elevation 291. 5 near headworks.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM RECOMMEND SPILLWAY DISCHARGING

1:50 SCALE MODEL

C. Erosion after 30 min. model test at 75, 000 second feet witµ present expected tailwater elevation. = tzJ

'"Cl 1:1:J 0 ..... =g i-3= :i: tzJ i<~ t:,o ~ 0 00

FIGURE 41

40 I

.. I I

35 l I

• I

' 30

l I .

l I

l en I l&J 25 ::c 0 z

l

•

• a:: I

l&J ... l&J 20

l I

2 <t I

0 l

l&J ' z l

0 15 ... en l

' l ,

• 10

I NOTE: Curve shows minimum size

' stones necessary to resist movement.

Curve is tentative and subject ~ to change as a resu-1 t of further tests

' or operating experiences. 5 r

~

~

~

... ~ _ ....

5 10 15 20 25

BOTTOM VELOCITY - FT./ SEC.

TENTATIVE CURVE TO AID IN DETERMING RIPRAP SIZES

546

A. 18 to 36 inch riprap in discharge channel prior to erosion test.

fl

B. Erosion after 45. 000 second feet for 30 minutes with tailwater at elevation 281 expected in year 1967. Reservoir at elevation 283. 5 near beadworks.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM DISCHARGE CHANNEL EROSION TRENDS

RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY 1:50 SCALE MODEL

C. Erosion after 75, 000 second feet for 30 minutes with tailwater at elevation 283 expected in year 1970. Reservoir at elevation 288 near headworks. =

tz.l"ZJ ~ .... =@ ~= =ts.I ~t .,. 0 co

A. 15, 000 second feet. Tailwater elevation 274 in river channel for year 1962. Reservoir elevation 283. 5 near canal head works.

B. 75, 000 second feet. Tailwater elevation 286 in river channel for year 1962. Reservoir elevation 290 near canal headworks.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM DISCHARGE CHANNEL WAVES

RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY 1 :50 SCALE MODEL

FIGURE 43 REPORT BYD 408

A. Water surface upstream of weir approximately elevation 288, downstream approximately 278. Discharge approximately 15,000 second feet. (See Figure 9 for prototype comparison).

B. Discharge 15,000 second feet, water surface upstream of weir at elevation 288. 4 and water surface downstream of weir at elevation 283. 5.

C. 50 1 Breach--Discharge 15,000 second feet, water surface upstream of weir at elevation 286. 8, and downstream of weir at elevation 283. 5.

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM TEMPORARY ROCK WEIR AT ELEVATION 286

1:50 SCALE MODEL

FIGURE 44 REPORT HYD 408

.... w I.LI LL I

a:: I.LI 3

~ 0 a:: LL

~ <t I.LI a:: .... (/)

CL.

298

296

294

292

290

::> 288

j_-,

... +

+ ..

r-t..L

. ,. ,J .•.

· :t.

... 'T . , ..

4-< ... -I --··~ .. .

> ::: ±it;: :t.t .. tit I.LI •• :::::- :::-t::;l t.:. . : ...J ....... - .. :r. •- ~-L I.LI 286 ..:.:.:: .• ~ .. : .~:+. r:!: a:: '2-:: ::ti r, .. f'"

284 f 1·•·. ... 0

>· a::: Lu '1= r:r ..... (/)

w a:: 282

H·

.... .......

-!

-1·

t

.. .... •

.....

..

...

·•·

.. t

·to +·

..

... 1,.1..f. .. .. .... _, ... ,:. .... .l.1

.. It:.;. ::t1 . .., .. ;;. ··r..t . ..t·: + ,. '- i.i ~tl l-1 .•

·• ::li .

·- n~ ·:t .

. . . 1.1-, ... ...... ;.•

·:t . ~•.fR

;:t :, ·t·•.' I ~:.!:r, "· · +H .. + "1: - :±:z :..t+J.

... .... .

1-o1· -I ...

., ..

. ..

"!l.t ~.::-:.~ __ !__

0 10 20 30 40 50 · 60 70 80

a:: .... OL&J LL L&J

• LL > W 0 ...1Z wO

0 a:: IJJ _(/)

O· >0 o::O wO (/) ~

IJJ :e . a::

298

296

294

292

~ ·.t .. ,

.. ·I

... :. .:.

..

DISCHARGE-l000 CU.FT. PER SECOND

t ••·. ... . ... ,.. ... . ............ . !-+· ........ .j.. ·~· •1' •• "' ~ -~·-· •· .. ;1 .p:•· !°.;.1:. :;-; .. I . :I· ·r.~. ':° :!:t ·t ·::

.~-it" .· •. J. .. 1'"' • ·,· :t· .• . + ;l l"

t·:::, . i· . -. ,... _ _._ ..t • .

.... t·

... ...,

FIGURE 45 REPORT .. YO. 408

·.· ·t .

.;+:: T,j

. q~ 9I

· ..

.:: -'-•:::::.1,..

++,-+i-·

.....

... ... ,

...... :":l ~·n'+H-l+!-1 _..__._ .J .. L4-'- d._Ti

90 100 ·

· 1· ·+·· :r.f::.w: · I •• I,.,~ .... ~ ... ,

T.:·I · ·n !:..:':: .

.. ·f-1· ·~

. + ""T,

.... .... , 290

270 272 _274 276 278 280 . 282 284 286 288 290 WEIR CREST ELEVATION - FEET

(60Ft. Breach in Weirl NOTES

The reservoir elevation was not controlled· by the spillway gates. The tail water elevation in river channel· downstream from spillway was controi'led to the expected present tail water elevation shown in Figure 14. . . .

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

ROCK WEIR DISCHARGE AND RESERVOIR ELEVATION CURVES 1:50 SCALE MODEL

54-3

en • .ui

~ ~ i" ~~ 0-

• x~

1-LIJ LIJ 290 LL

z 0

l-<l 2eo > I.LI ..J L&J ~,.

... ...

Loi

.....It!,., I

['ti~

~

..........,..;

~ lM ,, ..,_ r-•-1

I-"

I, .l,

rai h _m

~

~ ,-: • I ...o11 11111 ., r11J• 1.1i I U IIRl.A..Jlt:LI-1 1,ia!"I~ I I_ - · ..- .- I I I I I I I I I I I

t

,..

0 I ~,IJ U ,J IS. •• LU -~- 11:,::ita >27: I I 1 ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I_ D:: I 1111·1-i·f"fllf,l.llllllll"f"fj"JIIIJII I.LI , ~· I

Cl) . 111111111111111 I I I I I I l&J I I I I · , -. I I I · I Q: Hl

" l".4

260 f I I I I I I I I I b I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I . · · 0 . . . 30 . 40 50 60 . . 70 · 80 DISCHARGE i" 1000 C.-F.S.

' Tail water ( T.-W.) elevation in the overall model was :measured in the river channel at Gage A in Figu.re 17. Bed elevation shqwn above is the hlg"'1est elevation oft-he .discharge channel bed. Reservoir elevation in the overall model was mea·sured at gage E in Figure 11.

PALO. VERD"E 0·1vE-R.S1tON DAM

UNCONTROLLED SPILLWAY DISCHARGE CURVES I: 28.3 AND I: 50 SCALE MODELS

~M 0. •m 0 m

543

290

288

286

i:r::= • -· 1-lu lu lL

I

z 0

28

280

... _,.,

+• .,.,..... ........ ........ ..-+..·~

278 ,.,. I- ,.. .... ct > lu ...J lu

276 . .,

0: 274 lu l-et -~ 272 ...J

ct I- 270

268"

266

~64

r

10

.... ,; .. -t ;-......... +---t--· .• .,. ...... ~1-7 t

~.

·. _;:: t

·• ...... ....,. .• ,.,. .. . ffl • t

+

+

20 30 DISC HA RG E

?.:: •T.,. .. :t .J..l!T

ttH . 1'.

·•

.. +t ."!.1

e: ·: •

FIGURE 47 REPORT HYD. 408

F . -··· . · ·;;:. f1· J · · ·

... .,. .. ;:j

·-•""· "l

t: ±r=· 4- .. -: .::r. .. ·:p_ . ..... +HHi4'1H:;·: rt:·. ~ -~ .,p #.,.

.t: l ·-l

+·•

't

·­+

.; ...

··.:~ ·-1 .,...,. ".l.:,.H.Ht+-IM'l-t .. ,. ·:p . ....

• 1- .. -~ .. .... i...:; •

....... ·+ i,.. ••• ;...

.......

t

.,

++ ... ... ,.

. ..

"j .,. +

, .. .,.,

~ .. ..... -~·

.;:;: •·r

...

..

:

:::t! :::t :i:r::-

:;. ,1

... .,

•

:1 -· 1--+ ···-__,., .. ,

++

.::!

...... E ... P""O"... ;.,.., .• ,.., .... "t1 ·+" t t-t·'f'

"F't• . • _., • ...... ..... ·;.ti-. -· .... .,. . ·+-

·t,; ..

n·

.,

. ..... . +··t .:;.t-1 -~-,-l§i3 .t·.t. :-!"'

!:i!. r .... .... l .. . ...

7.if ·~ .f.: --· ::. ...... .. - . , .,..

-:::i: .:.i.f.. +,:+ tt+-p:,. '-'t:;

a . ·•i· 'T ·i

+ .... .. ,. .. ~ •

., . . , ::

.1-t ....

::

40 !O 6 80 90 1000 C.F.S. -3 BAYS

NOTE . Reservoir elevation 283.5 was measur.ed at approximately 130 feet

upstream from crest; Tai lwater elevation was measured atapproximately. 370 feet downstream from crest.

PALO VERDE DIVE RSIO-N DAM

PRELIMINARY SPILLWAY CALIBRATION FOR RESERVOIR ELEVATION 283.5 FEET

1:.U.3 $CALE MODEL

FIGURE 48 REPORT HYD. 401

290

289

288 t-l&J 287 l&J IL 286 I

:<, 285

l&J 284 (!)

Cl 283 (!)

t- 282 Cl

..J 281

l&J 280 z z 279 Cl X 0 278

l&J 277 (!) ct: 276 Cl X

275 0 en - 274 0

z 273

z 272 0 t- 271 Cl > 270 l&J .J 269 l&J

ct: 268 l&J

267 t-Cl 3 266 .J

265 Cl t- 264

263

262

:t::

....

+

1'-+

-t

..

0

- ltl

rm +

• . ~~-

- t· ' T ..

+

.,. ..

~l::,+.

'ti :i:

10

t- .... -T'++ .....

.... ·-~ t -~

.. .. ' .. .

;. .. f+ ~+ ... t t~· --:: ;.-. , .. l:lt::::t.:: -~- ,. 1 rr ;- .. ! .

I-' T !"-t +·

• 20 30 40 50 60 70

SPILLWAY DISCHARGE -1000 C.F.S.

NOTE See Figure 17 tor Gage locations

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM

80 90

FINAL SPILLWAY CALIBRATION CURVES FOR CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED FLOW

1:50 SCALE MODEL 543

100

.... LI..! UJ 292 .~ LL.

I LIJ

LU (!)

<L (!)

290

I- 287.: <L

z 0 i= 2a~ <[

> UJ -1 28'3. 5 UJ

..... -foM, .4,.f

~- .:-.t ·-t-E· HF .

FIGURE 49 REPORT HVD. 408

t-;: • 1 1 r: '.1:-U:n if.E :!+r F... 1 ..... ;i :i,-.... ~ 295

.. ..: ::: ... , .....

I , ... +. • t· # . ~ .. 1•1,,..1.-,.. .... .

... , ... + ... . .a.,. ... ·t ·

:.:r.~ ... .. ..... ~ l."L~-... ... -t +-

• +

r

• -~

+ ... +

...

Ii ++

;.i:::c-:- t ... -~~

. - .. ... .-~ . ... t ..

.... -~

...

.....

1-1.1.J

290 1.1.J lL

I (!)

0 z <L u.. -

285 ~ <l Cl) I.LI (!)

<L C)

~ ~:o:: z

280 0

....

t

....

- ........ ..:- + .......

,~

..... ... '" --.. '.

DATA SYMBOLS CURVE Df;SCRIPTION

- -tr-- ELEVATION AT GAGE A _ ELEVATION AT GA-GE C D ELEVATION AT GAGE F

--0--- ELEVATION AT GAGE G

... .:..a. .. , •~-

... •'..L·

NOTE Curves show discharges and elevationsj with channel at El. 270. : • :.+.

As channel bed erodes to El. 260 discharge increases and ~ . :.-E Gage A reads approx. the S<Jme as Gage C. ~ designates curve intersections referred to in text. ·

1-<L > LIJ _,J

I.LI

I.LI 0 <L

275-~

270

::> Cl)

0: I.LI 1-<L 3

0 10 . 20 30 40 50 60 7.0 80 90 100 SPILLWAY DISCHARGE-1000 SECOND FEET

( The canal headworks discharged on additional 2000 secohd feel ·approx. ) GAGE LOCATION ("See Figure 17 for exact location)

E Upstream of spillway near canal head works A River channel C Spillway discharge channel F Upstream face of dam G Upstream from rock weir

PALO VE RD E DIVERSION DAM SPILLWAY D·ISCHARGE VERSUS WAT.ER SURFACE ELEVATIONS

FOR UNC.ONTROLLED FLOW 43 I ; 50 SCALE M-OOEL

A. 15,000 second feet

C. 75, 000 second feet

B. 34,000 second feet.

D. Erosion following 75, 000 second feet

PALO VERDE DIVERSION DAM RIVER FLOW CURRENTS

1:50 SCALE MODEL

= t:i::11'%j '"C .... Oo = c:: 1-3 = ::i:: t:i::1 i<cn t::10 ~ 0 00