You are on page 1of 11

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library

]
On: 14 January 2015, At: 14:53
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hydraulic Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates
a

a

Ismail Aydin , Ilker T. Telci & Onur Dundar

a

a

Civil Engineering Department , METU , 06531, Ankara, Turkey Fax:
Published online: 26 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Ismail Aydin , Ilker T. Telci & Onur Dundar (2006) Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates,
Journal of Hydraulic Research, 44:6, 822-831, DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2006.9521733
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2006.9521733

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

the downpull and the frictional resistance. Le débordement dans l’espace interne de la vanne est également inclus dans le modèle pour calculer le niveau d’eau dans la vanne et évaluer l’effort sur la face supérieure de la vanne.edu. 2006/Open for discussion until June 30. METU. The total downpull is also measured by the direct weighing method for fixed and closing gates. La fonction donnant ce coefficient est liée à un modèle mathématique unidimensionnel de écoulement instationnaire du système de prise-conduite forcée. 822–831 © 2006 International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates Calculs de l’abaissement de fermeture de vannes sous fortes charges ISMAIL AYDIN. hydraulic gate. The lip downpull coefficient function is linked to a one-dimensional mathematical model of unsteady flow in the intake-penstock system. Graduate Student. Tel. e-mail: telci@metu. The pressure distribution on the gate lip surface was measured. hydropower. METU. 06531 Ankara.tr (author for correspondence) ILKER T.tr Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 ONUR DUNDAR. The pressure on the top surface depends on the gate position (opening) and water level in the gate chamber. The spacings around the gate can be adjusted to control overflow and therefore the water level in the gate chamber. Associate Professor. The model is based on the integral energy and continuity equations.edu.edu. e-mail: dundar@metu. 06531 Ankara.tr ABSTRACT Downpull on tunnel gates installed in the intake structure of a hydroelectric power plant was studied experimentally using a hydraulic model. hydrodynamic downpull added to the dead weight of the gate minus the frictional resistance determines Vertical leaf gates are widely used high head gates for discharge control and emergency closure in large cross-sectional conduits since they provide many advantages in construction and maintenance. 1 Introduction through the spacings between the gate faces and walls of the gate chamber.: + 90 (312) 210 54 55. The flow rate is usually characterized by the average velocity in the flow section under the gate lip. Civil Engineering Department. Overflow through the gate spacings is also included in the model to compute the water level in the gate shaft and to evaluate the downpull component on the top face of the gate. Tel. downpull. facile d’emploi. Time-dependent calculation of the total downpull force acting on a closing gate is exemplified. The streamline pattern of the gate region is characterized by the gate opening. fax: + 90 (312) 210 24 38. flow rate under the gate and the streamline pattern around the lip. 6 (2006). Tel. Pressure on the lip surface mainly depends on the lip geometry. Turkey. e-mail: ismaydin@metu. Turkey. and the lip downpull was evaluated by surface-area integration of the measured pressure distribution. Turkey. et l’effort a été évalué par l’intégration de la pression mesurée sur la surface. Gate geometry is characterized by the lip angle.: + 90 (312) 210 24 19. For opening a gate. de l’effort sur la tranche a été défini en fonction de l’angle de la tranche et de l’ouverture de la vanne. 822 . dams. METU. 2007. fax: 90 (312) 210 24 38. Graduate Student. Predictions of the mathematical model compare favorably with the downpull obtained from the direct weighing method. RÉSUMÉ L’abaissement des vannes de tunnel installées dans la structure de prise d’eau d’une usine hydroélectrique est étudié expérimentalement sur un modèle hydraulique. An easy to use lip downpull coefficient was defined as a function of the lip angle and gate opening. pp. 44. Les prévisions du modèle mathématique donnent de bonnes comparaisons. L’effort total de fermeture est également mesuré par la méthode de pesée directe pour les vannes fixes et en fermeture. Civil Engineering Department. La distribution de pression sur la surface de la tranche de la vanne a été mesurée. corner roundings and the end plate. fax: + 90 (312) 210 24 38.: + 90 (312) 210 24 76. Un coefficient. When the gate is closing. Le calcul en fonction du temps des efforts agissant sur la vanne en fermeture est illustré. TELCI.Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. Le modèle est basé sur l’intégrale des équations d’énergie et de continuité. Keywords: Pressure distribution. 06531 Ankara. the hoist mechanism should resist the weight of the gate. leaf gates may cause problems in certain circumstances due to large downpull or uplift. Civil Engineering Department. Hydrodynamic downpull results mainly from the difference between pressure forces acting on the top and lip surfaces of the gate. No. However. The water level in the gate chamber is affected by overflow Revision received January 9. The hydrodynamic downpull can be defined as the total force induced by the flowing water on the gate surfaces acting in the closing direction.

1966. h2 . 2003). 1959. 2 Experimental facilities 2. Both gates are wheeled to move up and down in the gate chamber. Naudascher. as in the case of emergency closure. (1964) and Naudascher (1986) presented a one-dimensional analysis of the discharge passing under a tunnel gate and of the hydraulic downpull acting on it. ventilation shaft (section 3). 2).30 × 0. h2 is affected by the overflow through the spacings between the walls of the gate chamber and the gate (Fig. The time-dependent calculation of the total downpull force acting on a closing gate is illustrated through the numerical solution of the one-dimensional energy equation. H1 is the reservoir water surface level. pressures on the gate faces can be different than the corresponding steady-state values. Downpull force prediction methods were developed by hydrodynamic analysis of high head gates (Colgate. Available methods for determination of hydrodynamic downpull are based on steady-state measurements obtained for fixed positions of the model gates and are not verified for moving conditions (Naudascher. Four vertical Figure 1 Experimental set-up. Discharge through the intake (upstream of section 2) is indicated by QI . 1991) and have been validated by simultaneous model studies. In some cases. The time-dependent piezometric line along the intake-penstock structure and pressures on the upstream and downstream faces of the gate were computed. h3 is the piezometric head at the contracted section (section 3). transition from a rectangular to a circular cross-section. 1986. H4 ) are measured by manometer tubes for steady-state cases and by electronic transducers for unsteady cases. The second gate (without piezometer connections) is used for direct measurement of the downpull using force transducers connected to the lift mechanism. 3). and H4 is the tail water level.30 m diameter circular plexiglass pipe. h3 . Sagar (1977) and Sagar and Tullis (1979) indicated that important factors such as geometry. A mathematical model for the determination of air demand during gate closure was presented by Aydin (2002). Experimental work on downpull including lip pressure distribution measurements and direct weighing of downpull are 823 presented in this paper.24 m rectangular discharge control (gate) region (section 2). 2. and the discharge measuring channel. Water levels (H1 . negative downpull resulting in an uplift force may prevent safe closure of the gate. The gate opening is indicated by e. when the gate is fully open. and discharge in the penstock (downstream of the gate) is indicated by QP . h2 is the water level in the gate chamber. The model was based on the numerical solution of the continuity and integral form of the one-dimensional unsteady energy equations. the tunnel height. Later (Aydin et al. The studies of Naudascher showed that the downpull is significantly affected not only by the geometry of the gate bottom but also by the rate of flow passing over the top of the gate through the gate chamber. which is equal to e0 . Naudascher et al. . The accurate prediction of the downpull force acting on a gate is important to the designer to determine the capacity of the lifting system and to ensure safe closure in adverse circumstances.Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates the hoist capacity required. For partial openings of the gate.. 1991). One of the gates is equipped with piezometer connections for measurement of the pressures on the gate lip (Fig. Water discharge in the experimental set-up is measured from a sharp-crested weir located at the end of the prismatic measuring channel. Sagar developed non-dimensional formulae to illustrate the dependence of downpull on these factors and also outlined the limitations on the prediction capability. Murray and Simmons.1 Hydraulic model The hydraulic model (Figs 1 and 2) consists of a streamlining pool to represent the reservoir. When the gate moves fast. 0. boundary layers and turbulence influence the downpull on a gate and discussed various forces which play important roles during opening and closing. end valve to represent the turbine..2 Gate design Two model gates are constructed to perform pressure and downpull measurements alternately. the penstock represented by a 0. 1964. the mathematical model was improved to include the overflow for accurate determination of air demand. Naudascher et al. entrance details of the intake.

05 26.04 m r 3 Measurements and analysis 3.01 m θ Figure 3 Gate lip details.02 0. Corner roundings and end plate variations are not considered in the experimental program. the piezometric line may fall below the tunnel ceiling. The record duration is decided as 10 mins.7 44. In the pressure measurements. When the discharge in the system is high. the gate is positioned at a desired opening and the discharge is adjusted by the end valve. The gate slot spacings are minimized to reduce leakage from the sides and subsequent vortex formations. which prevents accurate measurement.824 Aydin et al. 3). Transducers are connected to HBM MC55 amplifier system for electronic amplification.3 Data acquisition system An electronic data acquisition system is used to measure the instantaneous pressures at five measuring points on the gate lip and the water level in the reservoir simultaneously. Figure 2 Gate region parameters. respectively. Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 Table 1 Gate lip parameters. which causes the entrance of air into the gate region from the ventilation shaft.03 0. Overflow is also prevented in the pressure measurements. four different lip angles are considered.5 36. The digital data sampling rate is fixed as 20 Hz. Lip symbol n (m) Lip angle θ (◦ ) A B C D 0. Piezometer tubes 0.04 0. . The gate is designed such that the lip section on it can be de-mounted and another one can be plugged in. The upper and lower limits on the frequency axis of the spectrum are determined as 2 Hz and 0.1 Experimental procedure n s r = 0. Electronic pressure transducers (HBM type PD1) are capable of sensing time-wise fluctuations accurately. Plastic manometer tubes are used to connect the copper pipes to electronic pressure transducers. On the lips there are five piezometer tappings (Fig.6 the measuring points and to help the arrangement of copper pipes along the gate width. faces of the gates are wheeled to minimize friction and to ease motion of the gate in the gate chamber.7 51. Air in the gate region is entrapped into the measuring tubes due to the strong mixing action of the vortices around the gate lip. The piezometer tappings were shifted in the transverse direction to avoid any streamwise interaction at Pressure recordings from the gate lip surface contain timedependent fluctuations due to vortex structures and turbulence around the gate lip. which provides 10 discrete data points for a fluctuation component at the highest frequency level.01 Hz. To start a pressure recording. The gate lip angles used in the present study (Table 1) are selected to cover the complete practical range. which enables recording six consecutive fluctuations from the lowest frequency band. Analog signals obtained from the amplifier system are directed to a computer equipped with an analog-to-digital converter for digitization. Discharges causing low piezometric levels are not considered to avoid any air entrainment into the measuring tubes. Record duration and data sampling rate are determined from power density spectrum analysis of the pressure records. 2. each of which is connected to a vertical copper pipe in the gate chamber.

02 0. Uc2 /2g where Uc is the average velocity at section 3. The discharge is replaced by the Reynolds number. video records showed that large separation vortices are formed spontaneously for very short duration causing intermittent spikes in the pressure records. of the gate lip and divided by the same area to obtain the average piezometric head. a new definition is introduced: 1 p/γw (m) Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates 0. Therefore. Rg . the downpull coefficient given by Eq.05 s (m) 1. all variables are made dimensionless. To observe variations of the pressure distributions.03 s (m) 0.2. The pressure on the upstream edge is lower than the pressure on the downstream edge for lip A.04 Rg 0. Ke is the head loss coefficient for the intake section (excluding the conversion of potential energy to velocity head) and Ut is the average velocity in the tunnel Lip A 0.5 140724 264983 342956 409177 474008 0 -0.06 . It was not easy to identify any separation vortices in the photographs. 4 for y = 0. hp .2 Pressure distributions on the gate lip 3. (2) is dependent on the characteristics of the model on which the measurements are performed.4.3 Definition of lip downpull coefficient Piezometric levels from five points arranged on the gate lip are measured to obtain pressure head distributions and to evaluate the lip downpull coefficients.01 0.03 0. defined by using the hydraulic radius of the cross-sectional area and the average velocity under the gate lip. 0.  hp dAhL h = (1) AhL 1.05 -0. i. The measured piezometric head distributions are used to evaluate the dimensionless downpull coefficient for the gate lip.5 0 0.04 -0.4. However. which has a lip angle of 26. five gate openings (y = 0. To reduce the influences of the specific experimental set-up on the lip downpull coefficient.8) and (for each opening) five different discharge values are considered for the four gate lips described in section 2. and the discharge under the gate (Qg ).5 0.5 -0.04 0. and 0. Ug .5 0 0. 0.5 Rg 141915 256994 352679 449653 494544 0 0. are considered as variables of the experimental investigation.01 0.01 0.825 3. is integrated over the horizontally projected area. acting on the gate lip.04 s (m) Figure 4 Gate lip pressure distributions at y = 0.1.5 161458 241071 328423 399702 472867 0 0. Pressure head distributions as a function of the inclined distance. h . The piezometric head. the downstream edge pressure is lower than the upstream edge pressure for large lip angles (lip D).02 0. AhL . Three parameters.5◦ . Thus. in the streamwise direction along the gate lip are shown in Fig.. s.5 0 (2) where h∗2 (= H1 − (1 + Ke )Ut2 /2g) is the piezometric head just upstream from the gate.03 0. To visualize the flow pattern around the gate lip.02 s (m) 1.2. the downpull coefficient for a gate lip is defined as KB = KL = (3) Lip B 1 p/γw (m) p/γw (m) h∗2 − h Ug2 /2g 1. As the lip angle increases (lip B and lip C). 0. At high Reynolds numbers. the lip angle (θ). dimensionless gate opening (y = e/e0 ).5 In the literature (Naudascher. color photographs and video records were taken by dye injection from the most upstream piezometer tapping.5 0 h − h 3 . 1991). are both dependent on the gate region and gate design details.5 Rg 100694 190873 320387 358681 470089 0 0. pressure on the upstream edge increases.02 0.4. The reference piezometric head h3 and the reference velocity Uc .e. 0.6.5 Lip C Lip D 1 p/γw (m) 1 Rg 0.

evaluated according to the new definition. which is defined as the discharge that maintains pressurized flow behind the gate without any air volume. The maximum downpull on the lip is observed at about y = 0. 1991) θ=45o (Naudascher.6 0.5 1 1. The lip downpull coefficient. 1991) 0. is evaluated from the measured pressure data. 3 y = 0.4 Lip downpull coefficient—Reynolds number relationship The downpull on the gate lip is assumed to depend on the lip angle. both definitions of the lip downpull coefficient are evaluated. Finally. 6 together with the measurements of Naudascher (1991) for comparison purposes.Aydin et al. The highest The complete data set for the lip downpull coefficient. However. for close lip angles.4 0. KL is zero since the average pressure on the gate lip is equal to the local static pressure. (2). is shown in Fig.1 Lip A Lip B Lip C Lip D KL 2 1 3. dimensionless gate opening and the Reynolds number Rg .000. KL . The present data provides a complete description of the lip downpull coefficient near full openings of the gate that was not shown before. using measured pressure data of this study is shown in Fig. At both ends of the graph.9.6 ) θ=20o (Naudascher. It is expected that the downpull coefficient becomes independent of the Reynolds number for sufficiently high values of Rg . for a fully open gate (y = 1) and completely closed gate (y = 0). In the present study. 1 . due to the limitations on the size of the hydraulic model and the model discharge. As the gate opening increases. The scatter of data near the fully open gate cases is increased due to the pressure fluctuations induced by the vortices created around the corners of the gate chamber.4.7o) o 1 Lip D (θ=51.4 y 0.5 Comparison of lip downpull coefficients 0 -1 0 0. Naudascher (1991) reported that lip downpull coefficient becomes independent of the Reynolds number when the Reynolds number exceeds 165. 5 as function of the Reynolds number for the gate at y = 0. high Reynolds numbers may not be reached. 7 as a function of y and the lip angle. In the present study. 5). This restriction on the discharge is required to avoid any air bubbles in the pressure measuring tubes. The lip downpull increases with decreasing lip angle for a given y value. That is also the reason why the measured data of KL is not exactly zero at y = 1. indicating that the average pressure on the gate lip is greater than the static component due to the stagnation pressure that result from the constriction of the flow section by the gate.1 and y = 0.8. The lip downpull coefficient is negative for gate openings around y = 0. Since the lip angles are not identical in both data sets.2 0 -0.000 for lip A.000 for small gate openings (Fig. the values of KL independent of the Reynolds number are easily achieved at about Rg = 150. 5 -5 Figure 5 Downpull coefficient—Reynolds number relationship. it is not possible to give a measure of agreement. The results are shown in Fig. Eq.6 KB 826 0.6 Lip downpull coefficient as a function of the gate opening and the lip angle 1 0 -1 0 1 2 3 Rg x 10 4 The lip downpull coefficient. a functional representation of KL dependent on y and θ can be given.8 Lip A Lip B Lip C Lip D 2 KL Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 Reynolds number is obtained at the highest discharge.8 Figure 6 Comparison of downpull coefficients. the relationship between the lip downpull coefficient and the Reynolds number was studied. similar KB distributions are obtained. KL .8 θ=30o (Naudascher. in model studies. (3). cross-section when the gate is open.2 0. However. an asymptotic approach to a constant KL value is observed at a Reynolds number of approximately 400. defined by Eq. 3. Downpull coefficients presented in the following sections are measured at the highest Reynolds number that can be achieved for a given gate opening.2 0 0. 1991) o 0. KB . 3.5 Rg x 10 3 2 -5 y = 0.7 ) Lip C (θ=44.5 ) o Lip B (θ=36. The general form of the fitting function is assumed Lip A (θ=26. Before conducting the detailed downpull experiments.

90 − 2. or KL 0. The total downpull acting on the gate is the sum of the forces acting on the lip and on the top surface of the gate. (5) is utilized together with the water level in the gate chamber to be estimated by the model. 5 0 -0. Qs .000355θ )y 2 + (−17.394θ + 0.111 − 0.030452θ 2 )y3 + (14. Time-dependent total downpull can be computed for a closing gate when the lip downpull coefficient given by Eq. the mathematical model described in the previous works is summarized below. The correction coefficients αu and αd are determined from a series of steady-state measurements . and the inflow from the ventilation shaft. underflow beneath the gate lip.246 − 1.03056θ 2 ) + (−1485.2 0. 3.0974 + 1. Previous works (Aydin.5 Lip A Lip B Lip C Lip D Eq.8 1 Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 Figure 7 Downpull coefficient as a function of the gate lip angle and the gate opening. 2003) on the determination of air demand provide time-dependent flow rates and pressures on both upstream and downstream faces of the gate.8 as shown in Fig. 2) is a junction point of overflow.0217θ 2 )y4 (5a) For 0. f is the Darcy’s friction coefficient.01065θ )y 2 2 + (−9.5 FdT = (h2 − zgT )γw AhT (8) 1 where zgT is the averaged elevation of the gate top surface and AhT is the horizontally projected area of the gate top face.8 ≤ y ≤ 1: KL = (316.584 − 0. 7.Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates 827 the top surface of the gate can be expressed as: 1. Aydin et al.708θ − 0. Hu and Hd . can now be determined from Eq..772θ − 0.8: 4. 2002.7 Determination of lip downpull from known KL The average piezometric head is computed from the KL definition: Ug2 Ut2 − KL 2g 2g (6) The downpull component on the gate lip can be written as: FdL = (zgL − h )γw AhL The flow section in the tunnel after the gate (Fig. (5) for given values of y and θ.75 − 12.91 + 2. Overflow is formulated in terms of piezometric heads at upstream and downstream points on the tunnel ceiling (see Fig.926θ − 0.5 Fd = FdL + FdT (9) 4 Mathematical model -1 0 0.22213θ )y 2 + (2605. The head loss coefficients are written in analogy to steady pipe flow:    f Ls dx Kmu 1 Kou = (11a) + α u 2 2gw2 aum 2 0 au3    f Ls dx Kmd 1 Kod = (11b) + αd 2 2gw2 adm 2 0 ad3 where w is the width of the gate. x is the streamwise distance along the gate face and Ls is the length of the gate inside the gate chamber.643θ + 0.4 y 0. respectively. and the downpull on the gate lip can be evaluated. au and ad are the spacings. For the sake of completeness.1243θ − 0. 2).6 0.56784θ 2 )y3 h = H1 − (1 + Ke ) Prediction of the time-dependent downpull is possible when unsteady flow around the closing gate is simulated. The downpull acting on where Qou is the inflow into the gate chamber through the upstream face.1 Modeling of overflow KL = (14. Therefore. Qg . KL .153θ + 0.21069θ 2 )y4 (5b) Equation (5) is valid for 26◦ ≤ θ ≤ 52◦ . Kmu and Kmd are the loss coefficients for the limiting case of Ls = 0. Qod .54872θ )y 2 + (569. and Qod is the outflow from the gate chamber through the downstream face. to be: KL = c1 + c2 y + c3 y2 + · · · + cn yn−1 (4) where ci are considered as functions of θ. (7) where zgL is the averaged elevation of the inclined gate lip surface and γw is the specific weight of water.2296θ + 0. aum and adm are the minimum values of au and ad along the upstream and downstream faces. Head losses are written in terms of head loss coefficients Kou and Kod along the upstream and downstream spacings in the gate chamber: Hu − h2 = Kou Q2ou (10a) h2 − Hd = (10b) Kod Q2od 2 + (−2006.95 + 4.3353θ + 0.89 + 6. The curvature of KL over y changes sign at about y = 0. the curve fitting is accomplished in two steps: For 0 ≤ y < 0. respectively. The lip downpull coefficient. The loss coefficients Kmu and Kmd are taken equal to unity since they represent exit losses for the case of Ls = 0. αu and αd are the correction coefficients for non-uniform flow as a result of variations in the spacings.

and in the penstock region. which is controlled by the computer of the data acquisition system. The correction coefficients are obtained from Eqs (10) and (11) by utilizing the experimental data: aum αu = 3. When there is no flow. The total hydrodynamic downpull is evaluated as the force measured during the experiments minus the dry weight measured at the same gate opening. 8.9 (12b) max(ad ) Equations (10)–(12) give a closed form solution for overflow from known values of Hu and Hd . h2 and Hd for various spacings on the upstream and downstream faces of the gate for no underflow (Qg = 0).189.985y+13.45y4 −13. Some example calculations as functions of lip angle θ (a). Increased initial discharge produces larger downpull and shifts the occurrence of the maximum downpull to larger gate openings (Fig. the total downpull is equal to the negative of the lifting force due to water. 1 ≤ αu ≤ 3. (14). The one-dimensional formulation of unsteady flow in the intake–penstock system. gate spacing adm (c) and closure time Tc (d) are shown in Fig. 5 Direct measurement of total downpull The volume of the structure between the reservoir and section 3 is called the intake region (I). the gate was moved in the gate chamber with no water in the intake. For lip C (θ = 44. Larger downstream spacings cause larger uplift forces (Fig.893 − 0.14y5 (16) The piezometric head on the downstream side of the gate. Hd . The upstream piezometric head at the top corner of the tunnel is obtained from: 2 Ustg U2 Hu = H1 − (1 + Ke ) t + (14) 2g 2g where Ustg is the stagnation velocity such that.1 < y < 0. Hu . evaluation of model parameters and the solution method were presented in Aydin (2002). The water level in the gate chamber is determined from the unsteady continuity equation written for the gate chamber: Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 ∂h2 Qod − Qou = ∂t Agc (13) where Agc is the cross-sectional area of the gate chamber. (5). . The gate closure time has a significant influence on the downpull only when the upstream spacing is small and downstream spacing is relatively larger (Fig.5 and negative (uplift) for the other gate openings (Fig. The stagnation velocity is assumed to be proportional to the tunnel velocity through a function of the gate opening: Ustg = fs (y)Ut (15) The function fs is obtained as a polynomial fitted to the experimental data: fs = 1−2. in the gate region. which is the buoyancy for a totally submerged gate. Downpull weighing was performed with lip C only. and the dry weight of the gate-chain system was measured as a function of the gate opening.6◦ ). The link between the intake and the penstock is completed by the continuity equation written at the interface of the two volumes: (18) where Hcg is the total head of the underflow fluid in the contracted section. In this iteration cycle.7 (12a) max(au ) adm αd = 10. of Qo . in dynamic head form.73y2 −30. the subscript s indicates the ventilation shaft. positive downpull is observed only around y = 0. Measurements of Hu as function of Qg were performed for variable gate openings to determine the stagnation velocity from Eq. and he . 8c).2 Unsteady flow due to closing gate ∂ ∂t   p (17)  U2 + z γw d∀ = Hcg Qg γw + Hd Qod γw + Hs Qs γs 2g − hj Qg γw − hd Qp γw − H 4 Q p γw Qs = Qp − Qg − Qod (19) The model equations are solved iteratively starting from full gate opening to complete closure. Detailed description of the mathematical model. due to hydraulic jump. is taken as the elevation of the tunnel ceiling plus the pressure head at the ventilation shaft exit on the tunnel ceiling.32 − 0. it represents the head converted into pressure near the tunnel ceiling due to blockage of the partially closed gate.and hd are head losses at the intake section. initial discharge Qm (b). 4. 1 ≤ αd ≤ 9. the hydrodynamic force is always negative (uplift) for all gate openings.7◦ ). respectively. hj . and the volume between section 3 and the end valve is called the penstock region (p). together with the lip downpull coefficient given by Eq. 8b). 5.1 Measuring system The gate was hung on a chain-gear system actuated by a variable speed electric motor. and digitized data was recorded. Tension on the lift chain was measured by electronic force transducers. hg .42. The integral form of the modified energy equation is applied to the intake and penstock regions to compute the time-dependent volume flow rates of water and air:    2 ∂ U + z γw d∀ = H1 QI γw − he QI γw − hg Qg γw ∂t I 2g − Hu Qou γw − Hcg Qg γw Hs is the total head at the exit from the shaft into the penstock.25 for small downstream spacings.828 Aydin et al.05y3 +31. 8a). 8d). provide a complete mathematical model for determination of total downpull on the gate. The friction force from the gate wheels for both fixed and moving gate cases is small and neglected. when the ventilation shaft discharge is evaluated. For lip A (θ = 26◦ ). For lip D (θ = 51. the pressure at the bottom end of the ventilation shaft can be obtained by writing the unsteady energy equation for the flow in the shaft. Before the downpull measurements. the net hydrodynamic force is positive (downpull) for 0.

Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates 40 20 Fd (N) 60 aum = 0.8 1 Figure 9 Comparison of measured (symbols) and predicted (lines) downpull on fixed gate.030 0.4 y adm (m) αd 0.001 m α u = 2.074 0. Computed and measured values are in satisfactory agreement. It must be noted that the most difficult component to model is overflow in the unsteady cases.004 1. However.4 y 0.0088 m adm = 0. (b) variations with initial discharge. 45 test cases were considered.8 (d) 0 Fd (N) (c) -60 -80 5 10 20 -120 ∞ -140 1 -160 Lip A aum = 0.2 0.2 0.6 0. Different overflow spacing configurations are studied for different initial discharges by measuring the total downpull at six gate openings.0 3 Qm = 0. 5.8 1 Figure 8 Downpull obtained from the mathematical model.001 m adm = 0.6 0.2 0.55 2.2 Measurement of downpull on fixed gate The measurement of total downpull at static positions of the gate is important to compare with the results of the pressurearea integration.4 y 0.060 0. based on averaged -60 0 0.2 0.2 0.00 α d = 3.53 3.0 α d = 1.005 m adm = 0.003 0. A fast closing gate creates secondary currents in the gate chamber that interact with the overflow and affect the resultant downpull on the gate.0032 m are shown in Fig.090 m /s (a) Lip A Lip B Lip C Lip D 0 20 -20 -40 -40 0 0.4 y 0. experimental data obtained at the steady-state conditions.005 m adm = 0.001 0.70 α d = 2. Measured and computed downpull data for aum = 0.6 0. .090 0.090 m /s 0 -100 0. (c) variations with downstream spacing and (d) variations with closure time.3 Measurement of downpull on closing gate -50 Downpull measurements for the closing gate were performed for different closure speeds.050 0.004 m α u = 1. (a) Variations with the lip angle.120 0 -20 -60 Lip A aum = 0. 3 10 Qm (m /s) 0 0. In general. Example records of measured and computed downpull are presented in Fig.51 3 Qm = 0.004 m α u = 1. 10.002 0.0032 m α u = 3.58 3 Qm = 0.4 y 0. The one-dimensional mathematical model. In total.090 m /s Tc (s) -100 0 0.119 -10 Fd (N) Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 0 20 Lip C aum = 0. test cases with large initial discharges and smaller downstream spacings (small overflow discharge and higher water levels in the gate chamber) show better agreement between the model predictions and measurements. 9.6 0.0088 m and adm = 0.6 0.0 α d = 1.51 0.8 1 -20 -40 -40 -60 -80 0 0.0 3 Qm (m /s) (b) 40 Fd (N) 60 829 θ = 44.73 -20 -30 -40 5.8 -60 1 20 -20 Fd (N) 0. is not expected to reproduce the complex unsteady flow characteristics around the gate. comparisons of model predictions and measured quantities for both steady and unsteady cases give confidence for use of the model results when detailed downpull measurements are not available.00 1.001 m α u = 2.70 aum = 0.

6 Conclusions Acknowledgments The hydrodynamic downpull acting on a vertical tunnel gate has two main components on the top and bottom faces of the gate.830 Aydin et al.8 1 Figure 10 Comparison of measured and predicted downpull on closing gate.8 1 -20 Lip C aum = 0.6 0.4 y 0. (5) as a function of the two most significant variables (the gate opening and the lip angle) is used in the prediction of the lip downpull. All loss coefficients and expressions based on the experimental data are specific to the physical model used in this study.8 -80 1 Measured Computed Measured Computed 0 0. The mathematical model developed for this purpose requires the energy loss coefficients of the intake–penstock system. Notation A = Cross-sectional area a = Spacing between the gate and walls of the gate chamber e = Gate opening e0 = Tunnel height f = Functions of gate opening g = Gravitational acceleration H = Total head h = Piezometric head (water surface elevation) K = Head loss coefficient L = Lengths p = Pressure Q = Discharge R = Reynolds number t = Time Tc = Closure time U = Average velocity w = Tunnel width x = Axial distance y = Dimensionless gate opening (e/e0 ) .2 0.0088 m adm = 0. 20 0 -20 -40 Measured Computed -60 -80 0 0. contract no.0028 m Qm = 0. The force on the gate top requires more detailed modeling of the flow around the gate.0088 m adm = 0. they can not be directly used for any other intake structure.0028 m Qm = 0. INTAG-831.6 0.2 0.120 m3/s Tc = 7 s -40 -60 0 0.8 1 -80 0 0. Therefore.4 y Lip C aum = 0.2 0.119 m3/s Tc = 34 s -20 -40 Measured Computed -60 0. which can easily be determined from steady-state measurements of piezometric line on a hydraulic model.4 y 0. Both components are dependent on numerous geometrical parameters of the gate and its surroundings.075 m3/s Tc = 7 s 0 Fd (N) Fd (N) -40 20 0 Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 -20 -60 20 -80 Lip C aum = 0. gate spacings in the gate chamber and operational conditions.0042 m Qm = 0. It is then possible to run the computer code to investigate the downpull for varying gate lip geometry. Experimental data summarized by Eq. The methodology described above can be efficiently used to predict downpull from hydraulic models for variable design considerations from easy to measure experimental data such as discharge and piezometric levels.4 y 0.0088 m adm = 0.074 m /s Tc = 34 s 0 Fd (N) Fd (N) 20 Lip C aum = 0.6 0. This study was supported financially by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).2 0. It is not practical to develop a downpull prediction formula covering the full range of all variables due to the large number of parameters encountered.6 0. Measurement of the total downpull either by direct weighing or by pressure integration may not be convenient in model studies for each specific application.0042 m 3 Qm = 0.0088 m adm = 0.

E. “Hydraulic Downpull Forces on High Head Gates”. A.T. A. 35–41. 5.R. Water Power Dam Construct.P. (1991).E. ASCE 85(HY11). I. 4. and Telci..I. 83–93. D. (1964). O.A. Hydraul. Res.A. Aydin. (2002).. Hydraul. 831 2. Rotterdam. Intag 831. Colgate. Hydrodynamic Forces. “Air Demand Behind High Head Gates During Emergency Closure”. February 2003. Department of Interior. and Simmons. METU. “Hydrodynamic Analysis for High-head Leaf Gates”. (3). 9. 41. and Rao. J. Div. 52–55. 39–52. (1977). (5). H. 2. E. 155–192. B. I.T. 8. 4. Balkema. 3. 3”. Div. Hydraul. “Hydraulic Downpull Forces on Large Gates”. The Netherlands. Sagar. Naudascher.Prediction of downpull on closing high head gates Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 14:53 14 January 2015 z= α= ν= γ= h = ∀= Elevation Overflow correction coefficient Kinematic viscosity Specific weight Head loss Volume Subscripts c = Vena contracta d = Downstream side e = Entrance g = Gate I = Intake o = Overflow p = Penstock s = Quantities in the ventilation shaft t = Tunnel u = Upstream side w = Water 1 = Reservoir 2 = Gate section 3 = Ventilation shaft 4 = Tail water References 1. Ankara. Hydraul. B. 6. W.P.S.T. J. IAHR 40(1). 38–39. . (1979). J. Naudascher. Murray. Project no. 392–416. Sagar. Water Power Dam Construct. (1986). “Downpull on Vertical Lift Gates”. Naudascher. p. R. Aydin. Dundar. (4). I. (1959). ASCE 112(5). and Tullis. 7. 12. Engng. Report submitted to the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey. “Downpull in High-head Gate Installations. Research Report No. Bureau of Reclamation. U.P. Hydrodynamic Loads on Closing Hydraulic Gates (in Turkish). Parts 1. “Prediction and Control of Downpull on Tunnel Gates”. ASCE 90(HY3). R. Kobus. J. E. (1966). J. 29–35. (2003).