Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aliviadero Coanda
Aliviadero Coanda
July 2003
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for
Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suit 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Report (0704-0188), Washington DC 20503.
2. REPORT DATE
July 2003
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Final
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Tony L. Wahl
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Bureau of Reclamation
Technical Service Center
Water Resources Research Laboratory
Denver, CO
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
R-03-03
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Bureau of Reclamation
Technical Service Center
Water Resources Research Laboratory
Denver, CO
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Coanda-effect screens address the growing need for screening of small debris and aquatic organisms from water diversions.
These screens have large flow capacities and are hydraulically self-cleaning without moving parts, so they require minimal
maintenance. Coanda-effect screens have been commercially available for many years in a limited number of configurations.
Information needed to develop custom designs has previously been limited. This report reviews laboratory testing performed
during the past 10 years that has led to the development of a numerical model that computes flow profiles and hydraulic
capacities of Coanda-effect screens. Computer software to perform the calculations is publicly available through the Bureau of
Reclamation web site, and its use is described here. The computer model is used to develop hydraulic rating curves defining the
performance of several reference screen designs that are typical of existing installations. The model is also used to examine the
sensitivity of screen capacity to several individual design parameters varied over typical application ranges. Graphical design
aids are produced from this analysis, and design guidance is provided for project planners and screen designers. An appendix
provides an extensive list of existing screen installations with narrative accounts of operating and maintenance experience at
several projects.
14. SUBJECT TERMS--
Descriptors - fish screens, trash screens, diversion, weir, hydraulic model, Coanda-effect , wedge-wire
screens, computer program, numerical model
37
16. PRICE CODE
Identifiers - none
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
20. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
R-03-03
by
Tony L. Wahl
July 2003
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Acknowledgments
Mr. Warren Frizell of the Water Resources Research Laboratory
peer-reviewed this report and provided many helpful suggestions and comments.
Mr. Robert Weir, Mr. John Brandt, and the late Mr. James Strong gave me
invaluable assistance by supplying sample screens for laboratory testing and
providing photos and information about existing screen installations. Mr. Christof
Marti, of Knight Pisold Ltd. visited the Montgomery Creek and Forks of Butte
screen installations in May 2003 and provided the information given about these
structures in the appendix. Mr. Marti and Mr. David Vincent have worked
extensively with the software described in this report and have helped me to fix
several bugs and make significant improvements to the program. Mr. John Cerise
provided information about many small screens used in irrigation applications in
western Colorado, and showed me several of the sites in that area during a site
visit in September 2002. Operators of several existing projects provided most of
the information related in the appendix regarding operating experience with
Coanda-effect screen structures. These individuals included Mr. Dan Clark (City
Creek Intake); Mr. Chuck Aldrich and Mr. Mark Sundquist (Kanaka Creek and
Kekawaka Creek); Mr. Ed McKay, Mr. Chuck Corville, and Mr. Mike Brown
(Crow Creek and K-Canal); Mr. Jeff Krause and Mr. Tom Jackson (Rocky
Mountain Arsenal); and Mr. Lyle Curtis (Oak Springs Hatchery).
Mission Statements
U.S. Department of the Interior
The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to
our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to
Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities.
Bureau of Reclamation
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect
water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound
manner in the interest of the American public.
Federal Disclaimer
The information contained in this report regarding commercial products or firms
may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not to be
construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................
7
8
8
8
8
19
20
21
23
23
iii
FIGURES
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
Page
Features, typical arrangement, and design parameters for Coanda-effect screens ......
A prototype-size Coanda-effect screen structure tested in the hydraulic laboratory ...
Flume testing of samples of tilted-wire screen panels .................................................
Ogee crest profile shapes for different design discharges............................................
Design parameters for ogee crest accelerator plates ....................................................
Concave reference screen in English units...................................................................
Planar reference screen, English units, 35-degree incline............................................
Planar reference screen, English units, 15-degree incline............................................
Planar reference screen, English units, 15-degree incline, 0.5-millimeter slots ..........
Planar reference screen for low-head applications English units,
10-degree incline, 0.5-millimeter slots, 1.5-foot length...........................................
Concave reference screen in metric units.....................................................................
Planar reference screen, metric units, 35-degree incline..............................................
Planar reference screen, metric units, 15-degree incline..............................................
Planar reference screen, metric units, 15-degree incline, 0.5-millimeter slots ............
Planar reference screen for low-head applications, metric units, 10-degree incline,
0.5-millimeter slots, 0.5-meter length......................................................................
Effect of accelerator plate drop height on unit discharge through screen....................
Effect of screen slope on unit discharge through screen..............................................
Effect of screen length on unit discharge through screen, at a zero bypass condition.
Effect of screen curvature on unit discharge through screen .......................................
Effect of slot width on unit discharge through screen..................................................
Effect of wire width on unit discharge through screen ................................................
Effect of porosity on unit discharge through screen ....................................................
Effect of wire tilt angle on unit discharge through screen ...........................................
Effect of bypass flow on unit discharge through screen ..............................................
Computer program for estimating hydraulic capacity of Coanda-effect screens.........
Additional input screens used to define accelerator plate and screen properties and
the flow condition to be analyzed ............................................................................
Montgomery Creek intake............................................................................................
Forks of Butte intake....................................................................................................
Rocky Mountain Arsenal screen ..................................................................................
A small Coanda-effect screen provides water to a sprinkler irrigation system
near Carbondale, Colorado ......................................................................................
1
2
3
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
24
25
25
26
29
30
34
35
37
37
TABLES
A-1
iv
GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS
C
H
Ha
Hs
L
p
Q
qbypass
qinflow
qscreen
r
Re
s
V
w
0
s
Discharge coefficient
Head on weir crest
Vertical drop of accelerator plate, measured from weir crest to top of screen
Head measured from upstream pool level to top of screen
Length of weir crest
Screen porosity
Discharge, volume per unit time
Unit discharge overflowing screen panel, volume per unit time per foot of width
Unit discharge approaching screen structure
Unit discharge through screen panel, volume per unit time per foot of width
Radius of curvature of circular arc screens
Reynolds number
Slot width
Flow velocity
Wire width
Incline angle at top edge of screen
Included angle of circular arc screens
Kinematic viscosity
Wire tilt angle
INTRODUCTION
There is a growing need on water resources
projects to screen water to remove
and salvage fine debris and small
aquatic organisms. This presents significant
challenges
for
traditional
screen
technologies. As the target of the screening
effort is reduced in size, screen openings
generally must also be reduced and screen
areas increased to obtain suitably low flow
velocities through the screen. In most cases,
maintenance effort required to keep screens
clean is dramatically increased when finer
material must be screened, even if velocities
are kept low.
Figure 1. Features, typical arrangement, and design parameters for Coanda-effect screens.
at
e
Pl
n
cc
el
er
at
io
A
sc
ree
n->
<-1
8
erf
Ov
low
Screened
flow
BACKGROUND
(fig. 3). A computer program implementing this model is available from the
Bureau of Reclamation at <www.usbr.gov/
pmts/hydraulics_lab>
This research report presents the results of a
study that used this computer program to
model a variety of screen configurations to
provide planners and designers with
quantitative information about screen
capacities and the effects of varying the
many available design parameters.
Figure 3. Flume testing of samples of tilted-wire screen panels. A pitot tube (center photo)
measures the velocity across the screen surface, and a V-notch weir measures the
flow passed through the sample screen.
DESIGN PARAMETERS
A number of design parameters affect the
capacity of a Coanda-effect screen structure.
Some of these parameters are primarily
related to the structure:
Drop
height
from
upstream
pool
to
start
of
screen
(or from upstream weir crest to start
of screen)
Screen slope
Curvature (arc radius) of screen
Length of screen
Slot width
Wire width
Wire tilt angle
Bypass flow
Backpressure beneath the screen
surface
Tailwater depth against screen
Q0 < Q1 < Q2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
75
2
70
65
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
30
60
55
50
45
0.3
Drop Height, ft
0.9
20
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
40
0.2
35
30
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
25
20
0.03
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Screen slope = 15
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
Drop Height, cm
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.003
0.002
0.001
10
REFERENCE SCREENS
To provide a starting point for the selection
and sizing of Coanda-effect screens, detailed
capacity curves are presented for several
reference screens. The capacities of these
reference screens can be adjusted to account
for other design variations using the
7
10
15
1
6.5
0.9
6
0.8
5.5
0.7
5
0.6
4.5
0.5
0
5
0.4
3
0.3
2.5
2
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.5
10
0
15
3.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
2.5
0.6
0.5
0
5
3.5
2.5
2
0.3
1.5
0.2
1
0.1
0.5
10
0.4
0.9
3.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
2.5
0.5
0
5
2.5
2
0.3
1.5
0.2
1
0.1
0.5
11
0.4
2.8
0.9
2.6
0.8
2.4
0.7
2.2
0.6
2
0.5
0
5
2.5
2
0.3
1.5
0.2
1
0.1
0.5
12
0.4
1.2
0.9
1.15
1.1
0.8
1.05
0.7
1
0.95
1.25
0.6
0.9
0.5
05
1.5
1
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
13
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0
5
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.5
14
0.4
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1
0.33
0.9
0.32
0.31
0.8
0.3
0.29
0.28
0.7
0.27
0.34
0.26
0.6
0.25
0.24
1
0 23
0.5
05
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
15
0
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.35
0.7
0.45
0.3
0.6
0.25
0.5
0
5
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
16
0.8
0
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1
0.29
0.9
0.28
0.27
0.8
0.26
0.25
0.7
0.24
0.23
0.3
0.6
0.22
0.21
0.5
05
1
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
0.6
17
0.8
0.2
0.3
1
0.12
0.9
0.11
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
05
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0.3
18
0.09
Accelerator Drop, ft
0
0.5
1.5
0.3
3
10
60
0.2
35
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0
0.5
Accelerator Drop, m
Figure 16. Effect of accelerator plate drop height on unit discharge through screen.
0.3
0.2
2
0.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
Length, ft
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10
30
45
60
0
0
0.5
1.5
Length, m
Figure 18. Effect of screen length on unit discharge through screen, at a zero-bypass
condition. For all four slopes, the discharge is approximately proportional to L1.24, where L is
the screen length.
Arc Radius, ft
5
0.4
10
15
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
Arc Radius, m
Figure 19. Effect of screen curvature on unit discharge through screen.
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.30
0.25
0.20
2
0.15
0.10
10, no bypass
35, no bypass
60, no bypass
35, with 20% bypass
0.05
0.00
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0
2.0
Slot Width, mm
Figure 20. Effect of slot width on unit discharge through screen.
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.30
0.25
0.20
2
0.15
0.10
1
10, no bypass
35, no bypass
60, no bypass
35, with 20% bypass
0.05
0.00
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
3.0
Wire Width, mm
Figure 21. Effect of wire width on unit discharge through screen.
24
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
2
0.15
0.10
1
10, no bypass
35, no bypass
60, no bypass
35, with 20% bypass
0.05
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0
0.6
0.5
Porosity
Figure 22. Effect of porosity on unit discharge through screen.
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
2
0.15
0.10
1
10, no bypass
35, no bypass
60, no bypass
35, with 20% bypass
0.05
0.00
0
0
10
Figure 23. Effect of wire tilt angle on unit discharge through screen.
25
0.5
5
10
0.4
35
0.3
3
60
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
50
Bypass %
Figure 24. Effect of bypass flow on unit discharge through screen.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
DESIGNERS
The information provided in this report can
be used by designers to quickly estimate
screen capacities.
Three items of
information are needed as a starting point,
the available head, the total flow required,
and the available length for the screen
structure (i.e., crest length).
The first
choices the designer must make are the
slope of the screen and whether to use a
planar screen or a concave panel.
Structure information
Accelerator plate properties
Screen properties
Flow condition to be evaluated
Figure 25. Computer program for estimating hydraulic capacity of Coanda-effect screens.
Figure 26. Additional input screens used to define accelerator plate and screen properties
and the flow condition to be analyzed.
31
REFERENCES
Bestgen, Kevin R., Jay M. Bundy, Koreen A. Zelasko, and Tony L. Wahl (2001). Exclusion
and Survival Rates of Early Life Stages of Fathead Minnows Released Over Inclined
Wedge-Wire Screens, final report submitted to Metro Wastewater Reclamation District,
Denver, Colorado, August 15, 2001.
Buell, J. W. (2000). Biological Performance Tests of East Fork Irrigation Districts Sand Trap
and Fish Screen Facility: Phase I 1999. Buell and Associates, Inc., 2708 S.W.
Bucharest Ct., Portland OR 97225, <buell@interserv.com>.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (1987). Design of Small Dams, 3rd edition,
pg. 365-371.
Finch, H. E., and Strong, J. J. (1983). Self-Cleaning Screen. U.S. Patent 4,415,462. November
15, 1983.
Fontein, F. J. (1965). "Some Variables Influencing Sieve-Bend Performance." A. I. Ch. E. I.
Chem. E. Joint Meeting, London, June 13-17, 1965.
Ott, R. F., Boersma, E., and Strong, J. (1987). "Innovative Intake Protects Both Aquatic Life and
Turbine Equipment." Waterpower '87, Portland, Oregon, Aug. 19-21, 1987.
Reba, I. (1966). "Applications of the Coanda Effect." Scientific American, June 1966.
Stine, G. H. (1989). "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda." Air & Space Smithsonian,
September 1989.
Strong, J. (1989). Innovative Fish Barrier for Waterfowl Lake Restoration. Proceedings of the
Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Association of Conservation Engineers,
Lexington, KY, October 8-12, 1989.
Strong, J. J., and Ott, R. F. (1988). Intake Screens for Small Hydro Plants. Hydro Review,
vol. VII, no. V, October 1988.
Wahl, Tony L. (2001). Hydraulic Performance of Coanda-Effect Screens.
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 6, pp. 480-488.
Journal of
Wahl, Tony L., Coanda-Effect Screens Research at the Bureau of Reclamation and CoandaEffect Screen Software,< http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/twahl/coanda/>.
Wahl, T. L. (1995). "Hydraulic Testing of Static Self-Cleaning Inclined Screens." Water
Resources Engineering, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Water
Resources Engineering, ASCE, San Antonio, Texas, August 14-18, 1995.
32
Appendix
APPLICATION EXPERIENCE
in 2002. That company is expected to
continue operations in the future after a
period of reorganization, and other
manufacturers also offer similar screen
structures. The Aqua Shear screens were
available in two standard configurations.
Both utilized a concave screen panel and
had the screen inclined at 60 from
horizontal at the top edge. One design had a
total drop height of 40 inches, while the
other had a total drop height of 47 inches.
The screens were reported by the
manufacturer to accept 1.0 and 1.5 ft3/s/ft of
crest length, respectively, but actually
accepted much more at most sites.
Flow
(ft3/s)
4
70
120
30
30
120
35
70
60
55.8
New
Zealand
California
May-91
50
Sep-91
210
Utah
Oregon
Utah
Wales
Oct-91
Sep-93
May-95
Sep-95
26
15
30
3
Scotland
Switzerland
Oregon
Oct-95
Oct-95
Sep-96
3
3
90
Oregon
Sep-98
Three Forks
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
California
Colorado
Apr-00
25
Colorado
Colorado
Project Name
Prather Ranch
Bear Creek
Montgomery Creek
Blueford Creek
Baker Creek
Crow Creek
Kanaka Creek
Kekawaka Creek
Lost Creek
Nyklemoe Wildlife Refuge
Location
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
Minnesota
Wahianoa Intake
Forks of Butte
Beaver City
Falls Creek
City Creek Intake
Center for Alternative
Technology
Stand-Alone Hydro Intake
Swiss Govt. Research
East Fork Hood River
Sand Trap
Oak Springs Hatchery
Owner
TKO Power
TKO Power
Sithe-Energies USA, Inc.
Mother's Energy, Inc.
Western Energy Assoc.
BIA
STS Hydropower Ltd.
STS Hydropower Ltd.
Mega Renewables
Minnesota Dept. of
Natural Resources
Electricity Corp. of New
Zealand
Synergics (Energy
Growth Partnership I)
City of Beaver Creek, UT
Frontier Technology, Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT
Private
Engineer
Ott Water Engineers, Inc.
Ott Water Engineers, Inc.
Tudor Engineering Co.
owner
Tudor Engineering Co.
owner
owner
owner
Ensign & Buckley
owner
Private
Swiss Govt.
East Fork Irrigation
District
Oregon Dept. of Fish &
Wildlife
Ross Burgess
USFWS
Dulas, Ltd.
ENTEC
SJO Consulting
Engineers
Harza
City of Empire
Various
33
owner
RTA Associates, Inc.
Joens & DeMille Engr.
CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill
Dulas, Ltd.
Foster-Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
John Cerise
34
37