HYDRAULICS BRANCH

OFFICIAL FILE COPY

BUR:'. .U OF R;�r,1 _
UNITED ·sTATES HYJ'1? iJJL IC L.t · - 1,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NOT 'l O LE -RE1V,OV .::,D l· itO,v1 .

BUREAU OF R..::CLAMATION

THE HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF A CONTROL

GATE FOR THE 1O2-INCH OU TLE TS IN
SHASTA DAM
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT- CALIFORNIA

Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-201

. 0
r\J
BRANCH OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
DENVER, COLORADO

MARCH 31,1946
 UNITF..D STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

• Branch of Design and Construction Laboratory Report Noo 201

Engineering and Geological Control Hydraulic Laboratory
and Research Division Compiled by: Fo C. Lowe
• Denver, Colorado Reviewed by: Jo W. Ball
March 31, 1946
Subject: The hydraulic design of a control gate for the 102-inch outlets
in Shasta Dam, Central Valley Project, California.

INTRODUCTION
The Problem
In each of the eighteen 102�inch outlets in Shasta Dam it was
desirable to use a valve which could operate at any opening. Since the
valve was to be placed in the conduit upstream from the exit, existing
types could not be used, for they would be damaged by cavitationo
Therefore, a new type of tube valve was developed. Four were built and
jJ�stalled, but they were so expensive that a more economical control, a
gate, was proposed for the fourteen remaining outlets. In December 1944,
the hydraulic laboratory was assigned to assist the mechanical section
j_n, the design of this control gate. The object of this assignment was
to develop a gate which would operate satisfactorily at any opening, or
a.t least be capable of satisfactory operation at the full open and closed
positions.
The 102-inch Outlets in Shasta Dam
The Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River, 9 miles above Redding,
California, is a multipurpose dam, It regulates the flow of the river
for flood control, irrigation storage, and power generation. The release
of water for flood storage evacuation and consumptive demand do1mstream
will be primarily through the powerhouse turbines. Releases in excess of
the capacity of the turbines will be made through eighteen 102-inch out­
lets placed at three elevations�four in the lower tier at elevation 742,
eight in the :intermediate tier at elevation S42, and six in the upper
tier at elevation 942, as shown in section and elevations of Figure 1.
The outlets, passing directly through the Dam to discharge upon the
face of the spillway, are a distinctive type originally developed for
Grand Coulee Dam as shown in Figure 2. The entrance of those outlets was
formed by a circular bellmouth set flush with the upstream face of the
Dam. The controls, located several diameters downstream, consisted of
two ring�seal gates in tandem, the downstream gate for service and the
upstream one for emergency use. Near the exit the conduit turned
 ....

downward into a trough' which faired into the face of the spillway.
A cone at the exit reduced the diameter from 102 inches to 93 inches to
create back-pressure to compensate for the drop in elevation between
..
the conduit and the exit •
.. The two ring-seal gates in tandem at Grand Coulee Dam were to be
operated only at wide open or closed positions. No regulation of flow
was contemplated, other than that which could be obtained by using the
outlets in different tiers, for in the light of past experience suc­
cessful regulation could not be obtained with a gate in the conduit up­
stream from the exit. The situation at Shasta Dam was different, how­
ever, as close regulation was desired. To accomplish this, it was
essential that the controls be improved over types hithertofore used.
Without exception, these controls, consisting of ring-seal, ring fol­
lower, and paradox gates, ensign valves, and needle valves� were being
damaged in the field, largely through pitting by cavitation.1
Once it was fully realized that cavitation was the paramount
source of trouble, the mechanical section and the hydraulic laboratory
joined in an effort to correct the faults of existing controls; and to
develop new designs in which cavitation would not persist. At the
time preliminary designs of the 1O2-inch outlets in Shasta Dam were
being made, successful efforts were being direc�ed towards revising
the shape of the passage through needle valves. During the course of
the needle valve studies a new type of control was introduced, a tube
valve (Figure 3). This valve, fundamentally a needle valve with the
downstream tip removed, was proposed for the outlets in Shasta Dam.
To assure successful operation of the proposed valve, the design was
developed through a series of hydraulic model studies. Upon obtain­
ing a desirable design four units were installed in the lower outlets
in Shasta Dam (elevation 742.0O)o However, these valves were expen­
sive, and they could not be operated at certain openings since cavi­
tation was indicated. A more economical control, a gate, was proposed
for the remaining 14 outlets pending its development in the hydraulic
laboratory.
Before commencing the discussion of the tests to design the gate,
the subject of this repqrt, a sununary of the tube valve studies will
be given, since those studies were precedent to the design of the con­
trol gate and .furnished important information for the later tests.

1/ For an outline of the performance of such controls see "High

Pressure Reservoir Outlets" by Gaylord and Savage. See also
Laboratory Report HYD 137, "Cavitation Experiences of the Bureau of
Reclamation," January 5, 1943, by J.E. Warnock.
y Laboratory Report HYD 98. "Hydraulic Model Studies for the
Design of Valves for Outlet Works Performed at Boulder Dam,"
August 1941, by N. G. Noonan, H. M. Martin, and D. J. Hebert.

2
The following section is taken from Laboratory Report RYD 180, 11Hydraulic
Studies for the Design of the Tube Valves in the Outlets in Shasta Dam, 11
August 7, 1945, by D. J. Hebert.
Hydraulic Studies of the Proposed Tube Valve
"Since no previous studies of valves discharging in a.
closed conduit were available, the hydraulic laboratory was
assigned the problem of the investigation of the hydraulic
characteristics. The scope of the laboratory studies was cir­
cumscribed by the request that they be made to determine a
design of tube valve which will operate satisfactorily at all
openings with aeration, if necessary. and with a sufficiently
high coefficient of discharge that the downstream portion of
the conduit would flow full at full valve opening. To insure
against damage by pitting due to cavitation, it was assumed
that at no point in the prototype valve and conduit should
the pressure be less than 25 feet below atmospherico
Preliminary tests on the 1 to 17 model of the original
tube valve design proved conclusively that a valve discharging
into a closed conduit must be provided with adequate air
relief for operation at partial openings and that the original
design could not be revised to perform satisfactorily at any
opening.
A new design of valve characterized by its long slim
shape and referred to loosely as the 1 Shasta Tube Va.lve 1 was
developed specifically for operation in a closed conduito
This valve when fully opened had a discharge coefficient high
enough to fill the conduit under pressure. Despit,e extensive
development of air relief measures, a valve of this type
located in the lower tier under maximum head would be inopera­
tive over nearly 40 percent of its range of opening because of
the presence of subatmospheric pressures conducive to cavita­
tion erosion. For heads less than the maximum of 322 feet the
inoperative range is reduced to some 7 percent for a head of
222 feet which corresponds to the head on the intermediate
tier of valves for maximum reservoir surface elevation.
Model tests on a 20-inch diameter valve (1 to 5ol scale)
of the Shasta 'rube Valve type were conducted in the Arizona
valve house at Boulder Dam and the results confirmed those
obtained in the tests made with the 6-inch diameter valve
(1 to 17 scale) in the Denver laboratory. The quantity of air
required to relieve the negative pressures created by the con=
dition of a valve discharging.into a conduit was measured in
both models and the -sizes of,air piping required to supply
each prototype valve were determined by using the criterion
that air velocities should not exceed 300 feet per ,second in
the interest of quiet operation.

3
 Another series of tests was conducted using two valves, a
tube valve and a needle valve, which had been developed by a
separate model study for free discharge conditions at Friant
Dam. The tests proved that, with air relief provided at a
point innnediately downstream from either of the valves, they
were as satisfa,ctory at all openings, from the standpoint of
pressures, for conduit operation as for free discharge opera­
tion. The only change due to operation of these valves in a
conduit was a minor decrease in pressure at the end of the
valves for supplying the required flow of air through the air
relief piping. The maximum amount of air relief required for
either valve was approximately equal to the amount required by
the Shasta Tube Valve so the size of the air supply piping
would be the same for all three valve designs.
The possibilities of damage to the portion of the metal­
lined conduit downstream from the valve by corrosion due to the
large amount of air mixed with the water at partial valve open­
ings, which at times may reach as high as 215 percent more air
than water, were not investigated in the studies described in
this report. The accelerated corrosion which may occur is,
however, believed to be a definite factor in any consideration
of valves for operation in closed metal-lined conduits and a
check of field conditions from time to time is recommended to
establish its importance • 11

THE INVESTIGATION
Scope of Tests
Upon completion of model studies of the tube valve, four were placed
in the lower outlets in Shasta Dam. In addition, there was installed in
each of the 14 remaining outlets a bell-shaped segment of the valve body
and a tore--shaped air vent as noted on Figure 3. When a more econqmical
gate was proposed, as the control for the 14 outlets in which tube valves
were not installed, the hydraulic laboratory was assigned to assist the
mechanical design section of the Bureau to develop this gate through model
tests. Although this gate must be placed in the outlets between the valve
segment and the air vent, it was not necessary to consider these existing
members unless they could be used to advantage. The main object was to
obtain the hydraulic design of the gate itself. The salient features of
the problem were that the gate would be placed in a conduit upstream from
the exit, and that regulation of flow was desirable. If regulation were
not possible the gate should, at least, operate satisfactorily at the
wide open and closed positionso
The tests to design the gate were restricted to studies on small
models which could be attached to a 6-:1.nch pipe, and on which it was pos­
sible to measure discharge, pressures, air demand, and to observe the

4
nature of the flow. The conditions observed in the models were inter�
preted in prototype terms by the laws of hydraulic similitude to predict
the prototype behavior. The criteria of design were simple. In previ­
ous tube valve tests the premise was that "at no point in the valve or
conduit should the pressure be less than 25 feet of water below atmos­
pheric," It was believed that this limitation was too lenient because
of the possibility of a further reduction of pressure due to local L�per­
fections of the control and conduit forming the flow passage. In the
design of the gate, therefore, it was desired that the pressure should
not be lower than 15 feet below atmospheric. A third condition was that
the hydraulic design of the gate lend itself so far as possible to a sim=
ple, easily=built structure.
§.mmn�_lX of Testra
A 1:17 model of a gate patterned somewhat after conventional types
was first. studied o Operation at the full open position was satisfactory .,
for a smooth jet passed through the slot into the conduit downstream.
At partial openings, however, the jet impinged into the slot fill:L1g it
and the bonnet above, and blocking off the air vents. Undesirable flow
conditions were observed and severe negative pressures were recorded,
This original design would not have been satisfactory for reguJ.a.tion of
flowo
The desirable features of a regulating gate �rere then formulated
by drawing upon available sources of information. The :important charac�
teristi�s included�
A simple rectangular leaf
A seal in the body of the gate to contact the leaf on its
upstream face
.J.
,..
0 A leaf with its upstream face machined to a smooth pla�e
surface so that the seal in the gate frame contacts the
leaf at all openings

'+• A single air vent with as large a cross-section as prac­

I

ticable considering the structural restrictions imposed

by existing construction
A flow of water through the gate and into the conduit
downstream which would not impinge into the gate slot in
such a manner as to fill the slot and prevent the air
vent from functioning, or against the interior surfaces
in such a manner as to create a region of intense nega=,
tive pressure.
'l'he laboratory was concerned primarily with this last condition, for the
first three considerations were essentially mechanical problems, and the
location of an air vent was secondary to a basic design e

5
 The shape of the jet which would exist under a gate of the type to
be studied was observed on a simple model consisting of a sheet metal
plate placed over the end of a pipe. With the pipe partially closed by
this plate, the flow deflected downwards and spread sidewise to form a
fan-shaped jet, unsuitable for discharging into a conduit. A sharp­
edged orifice was then placed at the end of the pipe over which the leaf
moved. The resulting jet for any position of the leaf was comparatively
level, compact, and adaptable for flow into a conduit.
·It was found possible to obtain a satisfactory gate design by
expanding the conduit upstream from the orifice to at least lo2 times
the orifice diameter. The bell-shaped upstream section of the Shasta
Tube Valve, which had been installed in all of the outlets, was suitable
for this expanding section, and was therefore incorporated in the pro­
posed gate. The orifice was beveled at 45 degrees to permit a seal to
be attached. The existing air pipes at the outlets in Shasta Dam were
to be connected directly into the conduit and gate bonnet.
Through a series of tests to improve this proposed gate, the final
design was developed (Figures 4 and 5). The model indicated that no
pressure less than 3 feet below atmospheric will exist at any point in
the gate or conduit immediately downstream. It was found that severe
negative pressures did exist at the elbow where the conduit turned
downward to fair into the face of the spillway; however, these tests
were not concerned with that condition since the outlet conduits had
been built.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This control gate for Shasta Dam has several unique features which
lead the engineers of the Bureau to believe that it is a type with which
regulation of flow in a closed conduit may be possible. Not only is the
design desirable from a hydraulic viewpoint, but it is also desirable
from structural and mechanical viewpoints because of its simplicity.
The outstanding feature of the gate was the compact well-directed jet
which could be obtained at any opening. fhis feature makes the gate
adaptable not only for regulation of flow in a closed conduit but also
for operation as a free discharge valve.
It was demonstrated that the gate could be u�ed for free discharge,
either directing the jet into the air or down a spillway apron. A
design was proposed which had the following features: The orifice diam­
eter will be the same size as the conduit diameter. Beginning one con­
duit diameter upstream from the gate, the conduit would expand, increasing
20 percent when it reaches the gate. With these features positive press­
ures should exist at all points upstream from the orifice and the dis­
charge capacity will be, when expressed as a coefficient of discharge,
=
approximately 0.80, where the coefficient of discharge is C in the rela­
tion Q = C A/2gfi, where Q discharge, A= the area of the conduit, and
H = the total head measured one diameter upstream from the valve.
6
 It was recommended that, when the control gates are installed in
Shasta Dam, one be equipped with piezometric connections at points to be
designated by the hydraulic laboratory, and that pressure measurements
be made during an operating cycle of the gate to check model results.
It was also recommended that one gate be selected for service under the
most severe condition possible to determine if any unforeseen weakness
of the design will develop. This is necessary because two questionable
conditions still exist in the final design. At partial openings the jet
deflected downwards to strike the downstream edge of the slot. No
ad.verse pressure conditions were found, but wear plates were recommended
to avoid trouble. In future installations of this gate, as a control in
a conduit, this condition may be avoided by making the conduit do�n­
stream from the gate horseshoe-shaped with a flat bottom. The second
condition concerns the effect of thin fins of water that formed where
the bottom of the leaf contacted the orifice, for a portion of these
fins struck inside the slot. No trouble is anticipated, but if erosion
does occur, a plate could be installed on the bottom of the leaf to
deflect the fin.
Should an outlet design, similar to the outlets at Shasta Dam, be
used elsewhere it is recommended that tests be made to improve the
elbow at the exit of the conduit where unfavorable subatmospheric press­
ures, discovered in the model, have been confirmed by damage in the
prototype structure in the conduits now controlled by the tube valves.
A final test was run on a model gate using a square orifice instead
of a circular one. However, there did not appear to be any advantage in
the use of a square orifice as far as the hydraulic characteristics were
concerned.

During the course of the tube valve studies, a complete model of an

outlet at Shasta Dam on a scale of 1:17 had been built in the Denver
laboratory of the Bureau, the scale being established by the ratio of
the 6=inch dj.ameter model conduit to the 102-inch prototype conduito To
adapt this model,·tc:> the gate tests it was only necessary to alter the
conduit length to represent an outlet in the intermediate tier at Shasta
Dam and to replace the tube valve with the gate. As shown on Figure 6A,
this model included: a cyl:inderical pressure tank, representing a por�,
tion of the reservoir; a floating plate in this tank, representing the
upstream face of the dam; the bellrnouth entrance to the conduit; the
gate; the conduit; and the exit ·section consisting of the deflecting
elbow and cone at the face of the spillway. The bead tank, 36 inches in
diameter, was equipped with baffles to give satisfactory approach condi­
tions for the flow which was supplied by a 12-inch centrifugal pump
direct-�onnected to a variable speed 100-horsepower motor. In the line
between the pump and head tank there was a regulating gate and a venturi
meter. This arrangement made it possible to obtain any desired head by
ad,justments of the motor and r egulating valve, and at the same time meas­
ure discharge by the venturi meter, which had been calibrated volumetric­
ally in the laboratory.
7
 The pressures within the model were recorded from piezometers
installed at selected points in the gate and conduit. The piezometer
openings, 1/16-inch in diameter or less, were drilled normal to the
surface on which they were located. These holes led to copper or
plastic tubes soldered or welded to the outside of the model, which
were connected by rubber tubing to a manometer or differential gage.
Positive pressures were measured by an open manometer, or a mercury
differential gage, while negative (subatmospheric) pressures were
measured by a water or mercury differential gage. All measurements
were made according to accepted laboratory practice. When a posi­
tive pressure was recorded the line was bled in such a manner as to
fill it with water and eliminate all air bubbles; on the other hand,
whenever a negative pressure was recorded all water was blown out of
the line. The air demand was obtained by placing sharp-edged ori­
fices at the entrance of the air intake pipes.
Although the problem was concerned with the design of a gate in
the intermediate and upper tiers with heads of 223 and 123 feet
respectively, all tests were confined to a model of an outlet in the
intermediate tier, since those in the upper tier were similar in all
respects except shorter in length. Moreover, the tube valve studies
had indicated that any control which proved satisfactory in the lower
and intermediate tiers would be satisfactory in the upper tier by
virtue of the reduced heado
The Original Design
The tests began with a 1:17 model of an 86-inch gate designed
somewhat similar to conventional types, hereinafter referred to as
the original design (Figure 6). As this gate was short compared
with the tube valve, it was necessary to include two sections of con­
duit to extend its length to that provided for the valve. The
upstream section was in.the form of a frustrum of a cone representing
a reduction in the prototype conduit diameter f rom 102 to 86 inches.
The downstre� section represented a pipe 100 inches in diameter and
approximately 163 inches long to join the gate to the 102�inch con-
.duit downstream. This model was made of bronze except for the down­
stream conduit section and the sides of the frame which were of
Plexiglass, a transparent plastic through which it was possible to
observe the flow leaving the gate. 'I'he leaf had a projecting seal­
seat ring on its upstream face, and in the prototype a retractable seal
would be located in the upstream frame which would contact the seal­
seat ring on the leaf; however, this seal was not included in the model
since it was too delicate to construct. Air vents were connected to
the downstream frame as shown in Figure 6B, the 1/2-inch pipes repre­
senting 9-inch prototype vents. Piezometers were located in the frame,
leaf, conduit, and air vents, since the tests were to consist mainly of
measurin� pressures and air demand for various openings •.
First, the 100 percent or full open position was considered� From
the 86-inch orifice a smooth jet flowed clear of the gate slot and into
the conduit downstream. A hydraulic jump filled the conduit near the
8
point where the 100-inch pipe joined the 102-inch conduit. The discharge
capacity was 4,660 second-feet (prototype) under a 223-foot head, approx­
imately 4 percent less than that of the tube valve; however, this smaller
capacity was anticipated because the 86-inch orifice was designed to keep
the jump in the conduit downstream from the gate slot, whereas the t,ube
valve had been designed to cause the flow to fill the conduit below the
valve. Pressures on the leaf, in the slot, and in the 100=inch pipe were
slightly negative, creating a small air demand. Only one adverse con­
dition was observedo Negative pressures existed downstream. from Line A
(Figure 6D)where the conical upstream pipe joined a short cylindrical
section forming the 86-inch orifice. This discontinuity in the flow
boundary caused the negative pressures recorded at Piezometers 8 and 11
(Figure 7C). Similar conditions had been encountered before, and the
obvious remedyjwas to eliminate the discontinuity by extending the coni­
cal section ,s-ownstream to the front edge of the slot. This change was
never made since the design had unsatisfactory characteristics at partial
openings.

A summary of pressures and air demand at various openings is sho\ffl

on Figure 7. To simplify the presentation of the results, all dat� were
based on a head of 100 feet, although the tests were made at heads between
35 and 50 feet. No tests were run at the model scale head, 13ol feet,
because satisfactory pressure data was difficult to obtain at a head that
low. This procedure of testing at any suitable head and transferring the
results to a desired head was justified because the pressure at any point
in a model of this type is theoretically proportional to the head and
actually is so within reasonable limits. Moreover, it follows that the
pressure curves on Figure 7 .apply directly to the prototype. It was nec­
essary to adjust the air demand curves to the desired head by use of the
relation Qa = C A/2flla, where Qa = the air discharge, C = 0.60 the coef­
ficient of the sharp-edged orifices on t he air pipes, A= the area of the
orifices, and Ha = the pressure drop in feet of air determined by the
Piezometers below the prifices. To determine the prototype air demand a
similar procedure would have to be used.
When the gate was partially open the jet appeared to be deflected
downwards. As a result, pressures along the bottom of the conduit became
positive while those at the top remained negative. The jet also appeared
to expand sidewise, filling the gate slot and cutting off the a_ir supply.
High-velocity and whirling currents were observ,d in the slot, evidently
due to impingement of the jet on the downstream face of the slot. That
the air supply was cut off is shown by a comparison of air demand and
pressure curves in Figure 7F, In general_, -the pressure controls the air
demand, but due to conditions in the slot the maximum air demand was at
70 percent gate opening while minimum pressure in the conduit was at 40
percent gate opening. It was concluded that flow at partial openings
would not be satisfactory and that the air vents were improperly located o

Moreover, severe negative pressures were observed on Piezometers 4,

5·, 6, 23, 24, and 28 at partial openings. Piezometer 4 was located on the
upstream frame above the seal-ring, while Piezometers 5 and 6 were nearby

9
located if. it had been included in the model. Piezometers 23, 24, and
on the seal-ring itself, where the retractableooal would have been

pressure curve� for various positions of the leaf (Figures 7B, C, and
28 were located on t he upstream face of the gate leaf A study of
Q

D) showed that the minimum pressure for any position occurred at point·s
in the space between the gate frame and upstream face of the leaf where
the portion of:the extended seaJ.-seat ring on the leaf was opposite the
seaJ.-ring on the upstream frame. The gap between the leaf and the
upstream frame might be considered as a passage through which water
flowed. The extended seaJ.-seat ring formed a constriction reducing the
area of this passage, thereby inducing low pressures in the same manner
as does the throat of a venturi meter. This seal. design was definitely
unsuitable /or a gate which would operate at partial. openings.
It was concluded that the original design could be made satisfac­
tory for operation at the wide open position by minor alterations. The
conical shape of the upstream pipe would have to be extended to elimi­
nate the break at Line A (Figure 6D) . Also, the seal design would have
to be altered to eliminate the possibility of .a vacuum extending the
retractable seal while the gate is moving. However, no suggestions
were made whereby it would be possible to operate this design at par­
tial openings"
Desirable Characteristics of Remlating Gate
Before commencing further studies it was necessary to decide
whether it would be expedient to develop a regulating gate or merely
modify the original design for operation at the wide open position only.
When the uncertainties of field requirements were considered, there was
but one conclusion--the gate should have no restrictions on its opera­
tion.
Since gates hithertofore built by the Bureau of Reclamation could
not be used for regulation of high-pressure outlets, such as those at
Shasta Dam, exploratory work was necessary to ascertain a desirable
type. A library search, limited to literature available in the Bureau
library, offered no promising suggestions. However, sufficient informa­
tion was available from experience with existing structures and from
experience gained through model tests to formulate fundamental charac­
teristics of a desirable gate. The following were considered important:
1. The leaf should be a simple rectangular box, mounted on
wheels or rollers, similar to that of the original design.
Such a leaf is small compared with that in the ring­
follower-type gates as used at Grand Coulee Dam; however,
the large follower sections to fill the slot at the wide
open position offered nothing toward the possibility of
regulation.

10
 2. The leaf should seal at its upstream face. It was found
that sealing in this manner would prevent large static
pressures in the gate slot and permit the frame to be of
lighter construction, especially that portion above the
cond�it commonly called the bonnet. The possibility of
a large dynamic downpull force on the leaf is also' elim­
inated. This downpull force would occur with seals at
the downstream face of the leaf, for static pressures in
the bonnet would act on top of the leaf with a resulting
downward force, which could not be balanced when the
gate was operating because the pressures on the bottom
of the leaf would be reduced by movement of water through
the conduit.
3. The upstre.µn face of the leaf should be machined to a
smooth plane so the seal on the upstream side of the
frame could seat against the leaf at any opening. Unde­
sirable pressures .caused by flow past an extended seal­
seat ring, as found in the original design, would be
completely eli1ninated.
4. An adequate air vent should be provided. The tube valve
studies proved conclusively that air was needed when a
valve or gate was used for regulation in a closed con=
duit. The vent should be large enough to furnish suffi­
cient air so that pressures in the conduit downstream
will not drop below -15 feet of water. Also, the air
velocity should not exceed some predetermin.ed value :in
the interest of quiet operationo The minimum vent size
may be determined by care.fully considered model tests,
but where feasible it should be as large as practicable,
considering structural restrictionso
5. The water should flow past the gate and into the conduit
downstream without im.p:L.-iging against the slot in such a.
manner as to fill it and prevent the air vent from func­
tioning, nor should the flow strike any surface in such a
manner as t o create a region of intense negative pressure.
In the test program on the Shasta tube valve successful
resu.lts were obtained by using a needle valve developed
for free discharge. The smooth jet from the needle valve
did not touch the sides of the conduit for some distance
downstream, permitting a free flow of air around the jet
below the valve. This appeared to be an ideal character­
istic for a regulating controlo
As might be anticipated, the main problem resolved itself into a
study of flow past the gate. The first three considerations were mechan­
ical problems, which need not be discussed further, although the proposal

11
"that the upstream face of the gate leaf be machined to a smooth plane"
was a departure from design practice. Consideration of the air-vent was
necessarily postponed until the gate design was more definite.
Development of a Basic Design for a Regµlating Gate
To observe the character of flow past a gate leaf, the original
design was operated with the conduit downstream removed . The jet was
under the leaf it appeared to be deflected downwards, and part of it
observed to be rough at partial openings (Figure 8) . As the jet passed
struck the downstream side of the slot to be peeled off into the slot
itself . It was apparent that the gate, by its thickness, concealed the
basic nature of this flowing jet . To better observe the jet, a simple
model was built which consisted of a piece of sheet metal closing over
the end of a pipe ( Figure 9 ) . This model represented the essential
elements of the gate in that the sheet metal plate, representing the
upstream face of the leaf, closed over the conduit . The jet, now free
of obstructions, took the form shown in Figures 9B and C . In addition
to the do�mward deflection shown, the jet spread fan-shaped through an
angle of approximately 90 degrees when viewed from above. This jet,
characteristic of flow from a gate with a conventional leaf, was not
satisfactory since it was desirable that the water flow past the gate
without striking the slot.
The cause of this downward, fan-shaped deflection of the jet was
the result of a downward component of velocity along the partially
closed leaf. To explain it in another way, consider the moon-shaped
opening under the gate as an unbalanced orifice having a sharp-edge at
its top, along the edge of the leaf, which causes a contraction of the
flow; but a suppressed edge at the bottom, along the portion formed by
the pipe, with no contraction of the flow (Figure 9A) . The forces
causing the contraction on top of the jet are not offset by similar
forces underneath, and the resultant flow is downwards. It appeared
that if a force could be applied underneath the jet to cause a contrac­
tion, which would offset or balance the contraction above, the flo.w would
be improved . This was accomplished by placing a sharp-edged orifice or
nozzle in the pipe upstream, adjacent to the leaf ( Figure 10) . A solid,
comparatively level jet formed which did not spread sidewise. Fins
occurred at the point where the leaf contacted the orifice , but they
were thin, representing an insignificant quantity of water .
This use of an orifice or nozzle at the end of the pipe was con­
sidered worthy of further investigation. It was desirable to know how
the jet would be affected by different ratios of conduit diameter to ori­
fice diameter and by the shape of the orifice lip . Tests were made using
five different orifice sizes with a 6-inch pipe. · Two types of orifices
were used, one having a narrow 15-degree lip, and the other a 45-degree
lip . A third type, having a flatter lip of 60 degrees, was considered
but the jet, similar to that from a straight pipe, was not desirable .
The test with each orifice consisted of measuring the profile along the
12
bottom of the jet with the leaf at openings of 10, 25, and 50 percent,
and measuring the jet diameter at its vena contracta with the leaf removed .
A coordinometer was used, consisting of a pointed depth gage and a hor·­
izontal scale o It was possible to obtain accuracy of !O o 02 inch with
this coordinometer.

A summary of the results of these tests is shown in Figure lL All

data were based on an orifice diameter of 100 inches for purposes of
comparison . Such a modific ation, by changing the geometric scale of the
results , is permissible since observations of hydraulic flow upon which
the laws· of hydraulic similitude are based indicate that the flow through
a 100-inch orifice will follow a similar pattern as does the flow through
a 5-inch orifice. The 6-inch pipe on the model then represented a con­
duit which varied in diameter from 171 . 4 inches to 109. 1 inches. The jet
diameter at the vena contracta varied from 87 . 2 to 92 . 7 inches respec t­
ively . A plot of the profiles of the bottom of the jet were found to be
too cumbersome for a quick comparison; therefore, the data were simpli­
fied by considering only three significant aspects : the horizontal clear­
ance, the vertical rise above the orifice , and the angle of do.-mward
deflection, as defined in Figure 11 . In addition to the five tests by
changing the conduit diameter ( actually the orifice plates ) , a sj_xth test
was made with a straight pipe to compare the jet of a typical gate w:i.th
that of the proposed type ( Figure 11, Run 6) .

From these tests it was indicated that if the orifice were 100 inches
in diameter a pipe 120 inches in diameter would be satisfactory ( Figure ll,
Run /+a and 4b} . However , in the case of Shasta Dam, the conduit upstream
was, comparatively, much smaller o This made it necessary to consider the
possibility of using a smaller conduit with an expanding section immedi­
ately upstream from the gate o A test was made by comparing the 120-inch
diameter conduit of Runs 4a and 4b with a 10L 5-inch diameter conduit
expanded to approximately one hundred twenty-three inches at the orifice
( Figure 12) . The angle of divergence of the expanding section was 13
degrees s · minutes , the expanding section being in the form of the frus t.rum.
of a corie o For all practical purposes there was no differences in the two
designs o This was anticipated s ince the angle of divergence of the
expanding section was les s than 14 degrees , which is considered a reason­
able limiting divergence to avoid separation of flow at the boundary o
Initial Studies 9lll'.roposed Gat�

C onsidering the various phases of the study made to this point, the
next logical step was to design a gate using the criteria cited previously o
A model · of machined brass , similar to the original. design, was planned o
However, a period of several months would be required to obtain patterns
and castings , and to complete the machine work on this model , so a simple
sheet metal model was built which could be studied in the interim
(Figure 13A) . The diverging section of conduit upstream f rom the model
gate was constructed to conform to the upstream body segment of the
previously contemplated tube valves , sj_�ce this portion had been installed

13
in all of the outlets in Shasta Dam (Figure 3 ) . Thus, the passage
expanded beLl-shaped from a 6-inch diameter conduit to 7o 84 inches,
representing 102 and 133 inches on the prototype. An orifice with a
45-degree lip reduced the· diameter f rom 7 0 84 inches to 5 o 53 inches . The
5 . 53-inch orifice, representing 94 inches prototype, was selected to
give a jet diameter of approximately 86 inches (prototype), which was
comparable with that of the original design . Since the jet would deflect
downwards at partial openings, it appeared advantageous to place the
center of the orifice 0 .118 inches (2 inches prototype) above the center
of the conduit .
To observe the flow, the sides of the gate frame and the conduit
section downstream were constructed of Plexiglass . This conduit was in
the form of an inverted U, or horseshoe, at the gate, with a short
transition to the circular pj.pe o The purpose of the horseshoe-shaped
opening was to prevent the jet from striking inside the gate slot during
operation at partial openings . An air duct was placed above the transi­
tion to represent a connection to the existing prototype vents, located
a short distance downstream . The opening from the duct into the top of
the conduit extended downstream 5 0 88 inches· (model) from the gate or
about one pipe diameter o
The first test was made to observe the jet with the conduit removed
(Figure 14) . With the gate wide open, wisps of water appeared to leave
the body of the jet, evidently due to turbulence in the conduit upstream .
This was not considered as unfavorable, for a similar condition exists
when water is discharging from the end of a straight pipe o As the gate
closed the jet became smoother, except for fins forming at the side where
the leaf contacted the orifice . At an opening of 50 percent, these fins
stuck inside the slot; however, no great quantity of water was involved
for they were less than 1/16-inch thick . As the gate closed further, the
fins did not touch the slot but fell below the jet as shown on
Figures 14C and D .
A preliminary test with the conduit in place indicated t hat the
opening from the air-vent in-to the top of the conduit could not be placed
one pipe diameter downstream. When the gate was raised to its open posi­
tion a hydraulic jump filled the conduit below and moved upstream past
the air-vent opening, filling it with water . Wat,er rising to any height
in the vent could not be tolerated because in the prototype a header,
approximately forty feet above the conduit , joined all of the vents in
the tier and it was feared that water r eaching the header would interfere
with proper aeration of the units. The opening of the air-vent in t he
top of the model conduit was moved upstream within 1 inch of the gate
(model) since the jump filling the pipe did not move that far upstream.
Piezometers were located in the model as shown in Figura lJA .
Curves showing the relationship of pressure, air demand, and discharge
to gate opening, based on a l00w,foot head, are on Figure 13D . In
general , pressures inside the conduit were slightly negative
14
(subatmospheric) , not exceeding 2 feet of water (Piezometers 1, 2, 3 , 4,
and 5). Where the jet struck the conduit, pressures were positive
(Piezometers 6 through 12) . The more severe negative pressures at
Piezometers 13 and 14 were anticipated because they were located down­
stream from a step-like increase in pipe size. The step was formed
where the proposed conduit section below the gate was 100 inches in
diameter (prototype) and the main conduit was 102 inches, making an off­
set of 1 inch in the flow boundary. This . change of pipe size was
undesirable but considered necessary for structural reasons .
The change of direction of the boundary at the end of the transi­
tion was of such a nature that negative pressures were anticipated at
Piezometers S and 9 located dorm.stream from the transition. The
presence of positive pressures recorded by the Piezometers could not
be explained . Perhaps the pressure resulted from impact as the jet
. from the orifice contacted the pipe, or from the fact that there was
no sharp break at the end of the model transition. No serious consid­
eration was given to this condition for subsequent tests would involve
changes of the design which would influence these pressures .
The general appearance of the flow in the · conduit was satisfactory
except for two conditions . First, t wo waves, or layers of wat�r began
at each side of the transition and circled over the top of the conduit.
Secondly, at �he wide open position a part of the jet splashed into the
air-vent. Apparently the latter condition was a result of placing the
orifice centerline above the conduit centerline.
A second test was made by eliminating the transition and using
only a circular section downstream from the gate and lowering the
orifice to the conduit centerline (Figure lJB ) . The appearance of
flow in the conduit downstream from the gate was improved, while press­
ures were not materially changed (Figure 13E) . However, at openings
less than 50 percent the appearance of the jet in the gate slot was not
as desirable as before . As the gate closed, deflecting the jet do'Wn­
wards, a point was reached where the jet began to strike the downstream
face of the gate slot along the lower edge of the circular opening into
the conduit, peeling off water into the slot to form a roller below the
leaf. No large quantity of water was involved, and the severe
turbulence observed in the original design did not exist . Nevertheless,
it was recognized that, should the final design use a circular conduit,
this condition should be investigated carefully.

A third test involved a design using a long transition as a means

of improving the appearance of the jet both in the gate slot and in the
conduit downstream (Figure lJC) . The flow with this transition was
similar to that observed in the first test, except the waves which
tended to circle the top of the transition were not pronounced and the
tendency for water to be splashed in t he air-vent was greatly reduced .
A s far as appearance was concerned, it was the most acceptable design .
Again, pressures were, in general, slightly negative or positive, with

15

/
the exception of severe negative pressure at Piezometer g located down­
stream from the 5 . gg_ to 6-inch step in conduit size (Figure 13F). It
was r ecommended that this abrupt change in conduit diameter be elimin­
ated to prevent the unfavorable pressures downstream. Moreover, with
this break in the boundary it was not possible to evaluate the effect
on the long transition on the pressures in the conduit immediately
downstream .
The model of machined brass , which was under construction while
the tests described above were in progress , included a transition
similar to that in Test 3. In this new model , the downstream section
of conduit, including the transition, and the sides of the gate were
of Plexiglass. Photographs of the gate are shown in Figures 15 and
16 . As may be seen in Figure 15B, a solid jet flows past the gate
slot with no part striking the slot except the small fin originating
at the point where the leaf contacts the seat. The entire slot, includ­
ing the space surrounding the jet and under the leaf, and the conduit
downstream were aerated by a single vent. This design was proposed for
the outlets in Shasta Dam.
High Head. Tests
0

The pressure curves shown on Figure 13 were based on a 100-foot

head, although the actual test heads did not exceed 60 feet . It was
desirable to study the model under a greater head to verify the rela­
tionship that pressure was proportional to head since this study was not
only concerned with the flow of water, but also with the flow of air
into the vent at the g ate and to the conduit downstream to relieve
negative pressure. As stated previously, the phenomena associated with
the air requirements of an outlet are not sufficiently known at present
to predict precisely the prototype behavior . The factors of uncertainty
include : the effect of expansion of air under subatmospheric pressure;
the effect of insufflation of air into the water as velocities increase;
and the exact nature of the mechanical action causing the air demand ,
which is partly by a shear action along the surface of the jet, partly
by insufflation into the water, and partly by a pumping action where the
jet fills the conduit, generally near the elbow at the outlet exit . It
was believed , however, t hat if high head tests verified the results
obtained in the laboratory, the relationship that pressure was proper=
tional to head could be considered as reliable.
One of the needle-valve outlets at Boulder Dam had been extended by
a 20-inch line for high head tests on a 1:5. 1 model of the tube valve
originally planned for all of the outlets at Shasta Dam. With an
adapter flange to this 20-inch line, it was possible to study the 6-inch
model of the proposed gate under heads up to 350 feet of water
(Figure l ?A). The model was altered to withstand the high pressure by
replacing the Plexiglass transition with one of brass. At this time
several minor revisions were made in the design and the model was testEd.
before taking it to Boulder Dam. The length of the transition was
16
shortened and the pipe size at the end of the section was increased from
5 . 88 to 6 . 00 inches to eliminate the change in diameter w here it joined
the conduit ·aownstream . Twenty-seven piez-ometers were installed in the
gate, transition, and conduit downstream to obtain pressures in this
model (Figure l?B) .
The preliminary test in th.e Denver laboratory ·revealed negative
pressures downstream from. the transition . This was not the case in the
former test on the model shown on Figure 13A, where pressures downstream
from the similar short transition were positive . Logically, the press­
ures downstream from the transition should be negative, and it was
concluded that the former design, Figure 13A, was a special case, and
that a transition such as that in the high head model might not be sat­
isfactory. Therefore, a circular conduit downstream from the gate,
similar to Figure lJB but 6 inches in diameter, was also considered as
a probable final design and this alternate model was prepared for tests
at Boulder Dam (Figure 17C ).
The tests at Boulder Dam consisted of pressure and . air demand
measurements (Figures 17D and 17E) . The head varied from 320 feet,
when the gate was wide open, to 349 feet when closed. This head was
determined from the pressure at Piezometer A (Figure 17A). However, a
correction was required to account for an excess length of pipe in the
model, the correction being the difference in pressure between
Piezometers B and 1 . The velocity heads in the 20-inch pipe at
Piezometer A were not included in these computations since they were
found to be negligible . The high pressures at Piezometers A, B, 1, and
2 were measured on a fluid pressure scale . Other pressures were
measured by a mercury differential gage.
With the transition section (Figure l ?B) pressures in the conduit
above the j et were not more than 11 feet below atmospheric , but at the
same time pressures 25 feet below atmospheric were observed at
Piezometers 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27, all downstream from the transition •
.In reading the pressures , it was noted that the mercury in the manometer
would often drop to a certain value, pause , and then drop further.
From past experience on similar models it was known that this was an
indication that an air pocket formed at the piezometer opening when the
tube was connected to the manometer, to persist for a few seconds, then
disappear .
With the circular section instead of the transition, no pressure
more than 9 feet below atmospheric was observed except at Piezometer 15
(Figure 17E) . This was unexpected, for Piezometer 15 was too far_ down­
stream to be critical. A later inspection revealed a burr at the edge
of the opening to be the cause .
In observing the model at Boulder Dam, it was noted that a spray
filled the gate slot, obscuring it from view . This was attributed · to

17
the high head causing a leak between the frame and leaf at the seal .
This does not infer that a prototype seal would leak, for the model seal
was simplified .
When measuring air demand, the pressures recorded by the manometers
were not steady, suggesting a fluctuation in air quantity. This condi­
tion was more noticable with the circular section than with the
transition. It might be a source of vibration in the prototype, but in
the model there was no undue vibration . The entire model vibrated under
the high head at a fr��uency which could not be determined, probably at
15 or 20 cycles per second, slightly less than a sonic frequency. The
air-vent tended to whistle, causing considerable noise during testing.
In the light of available information, it is imP,ossible to predict the
intensity of vibration which will occur in the prototype or the noise
which will be produced in the vents. It is only possible to state that
there will probably be a roar from the movement of air .
Comparison of Pressures. at High and Low Heads
Upon returning to the Denver laboratory the pressure measurements
were repeated to obtain comparative data at lower heads, about 5 0 feet
of water . The tests at high and low heads were compared bf referring
all pressures to a common head of 100 feet (Tables 1 and 2 ) . Table 1
concerns the pressures with the transition section downstream from the
gate ( Figure l ?B ) while Table 2 is for the model with a circular
section downstream (Figure 17C). In general, the comparison in t his
manner was sufficient to show that the pressure may be assumed to be
proportional to the head, since the differences in most readings could
be attributed to errors of observation . Large differences at some
piezometers occurred because the pressures fluctuated, mald.ng accurate
readings difficult . However, there was a tendency for the negative
pressures to be more severe under the high heads o There were several
reasons why this should be soo The jet trajectory at high heads was
flatter at any point, reducing the boundary pressure under some circum­
stances . Also, the turbulence of flow was more intense. More
important , however, there existed an unavoidable error in the measuring
technique. In blowing water from the piezometer lines, preparatory to
recording the negative pressure, there was a tendency for a bubble to
persist at the piezometer opening, causing separation of flow at the
boundary thereby relieving the negative pressure to some extent . Such
bubbles tend to persist at low heads, while at high heads the turbu­
lence of flow is usually sufficient to remove them . As aforementioned,
this condition was observed in the tests at Boulder Dam .
A study was made to show that the unfavorable negative pressures
recorded by Piezometer 15 in the second high-head test using the
circular conduit did not indicate a true condition (Figures l ?C and l?E) .
Examination of the piezometer opening revealed a burr at its upstream
edge which tended to confirm that the pressures recorded were too low .

18
 TABLE I TABLE 2
VARIATION OF PRESSURE ?/ITH HFJ.D FOR OONTROL GATE VARIATION OF PRESSURE WITH HEAD FUR CONTROL GATE
llITH TRANSITION SECTION DOWNSTREAII FROII GATE WITH cmcULAR SECTION D(l'INSTREAII FROII GATE
ALL PRESSURE.S REFERRID TO 100-FOOT HEAD ALL PRESSURE.S REFERRID TO 100-FOOT HEAD
(a) Test. at approximately 335-foot head (Boulder Dam) (a) Toot at approxi...tely 335-foot hoed (Boulder Dam)
(b) Test. at approximately 50-foot head (Denver Laboratory) (b) Toot at appraxl..5tol7 50-foot hoad (Denver Laborator7)
For piezometer locations aee Figure 19B For piezom.eter locations see Figure l9C

Piez. :Test Percent gate openings Pies. :Teat : Percent gate openings
No. : index: 10 20 40 50 60 80 100 No. : index: 10 20 30 11J 50 60 70 80 90 100
l (a) � :95.0 :90. 7 :84.4 :67.J :48.6
99.8 :99.3 : 9�9 1 : \&) :9y."(y :YY.28 :Y"/,86 :Y) .08 :W,"/4 :84.2'/ no.J� :o·,.10 : 57.3) ,,..,.U)
99.9 :99.1 :98.J :94.9 :90.1 :85.J :68.5 :49,8 : (b) :100.00:99.20 :97.67 : 92.45 :96.14 :87.75 :77.82 :68.JO : 58.96 :50,42
.. .. .. ..
(b)

.. .
2 (a) 99, 5 :99.1 :96,J :93.1 :89.1 :85,4 :75,1 :62,7 2 (a) :99.79 :98.95 :96.J2 :93,27 :89,51 :85.09 :79.88 :74.10 :68,49 :62.79
(b) 99-9 :98.9 :97.0 :92.6 : 88 . 6 :85,3 :75,J :64.4 (b) : 99 , 50 :98.79 :96,63 :90.42 :94,84 :BB.BJ :81,34 :74.70 :69.74 :64.79
..

. . ..
(a) -0.17 :-0.66 :-1.29 :-1. 76 :-2.08 :-2,07 :-0,81 :-0,06 (a) :-0 ,18 :-0 , 54 :-1.01 :-1.30 :-1.46 :-l.21 :-1.28 :-0,87 :-0.Jl :-0,04
-0 , 10 :-0.40 :-0.79 :-1.05 :-1.48 :-l.22 :-0.54 :-0.0J (b) :-0,12 : -0.45 :-0,80 :-l.14 :-l.23 :-1.15 :-0,95 :-0, 56 :-0,20 :-0,0J
.. . .. .. .. ..
(b)

4 ( a) -0.09 :-0.43 :-0.39 :-0.94 :-1.18 :-1.19 :-0.90 :-0,06 4 (a) :-0.15 :-0,39 :-0.90 :-0,72 :-1.05 :-0.60 :-0,78 :-0,87 :-0.55 :-0,04
(b) -0,12 :-0.40 : -0 . 79 :-1.14 :-1.27 :-1.22 : -0,IIJ :-0.0J (b) :-0,12 :-0.48 :-0.89 :-1.08 :-1.30 :-1.25 :-0.95 :-0,56 :-0,27 :-0.20
(a -0.09 :-0 ,43 :-0. 55 :-1,02 :-1.18 :-1 .19 :-0,90 :-0,12 (a) :-0,21 :-0.63 :-1.17 :-1.47 :-1,56 :-1,47 :-1.54 :-0.99 :-0,42 :-0.14
(b l Plugged : - : - : - : - : - : - (b) :-0.14 :-0.54 : -0,96 :-1.34 :-l.40 :-1.34 :-1,05 :-0.77 :-0.22 :-0,12
:
6 (a) -0,16 :-0. 72 :-1.37 :-1.88 :-2.22 :-2.22 :-0.90 :,4).12 (a :-0.39 :-0.90 :-1.80 :-2.48 : -2,49 :-2.24 :-2.06 :-1.3,6 :-o.62 :,'4.02
(b) -0,16 :-0,42 :-0.91 :-1.23 :-1.59 : -1.41 :-0./IJ :,4),03 (b l :-0,18 :-0, 72 :-1.37 :-1.54 :-1.86 :-1. 73 :-1.34 :-0. 77 :-0 ,25 :,'4.04
7 (a) -0.35 :-1.17 :-2.0J :-2. 75 ;_3_33 ;_3.27 ;_1,30 ;,'2,5 (a) :,'0,15 :-0,90 :-l.41 :-1.49 :-2.06 :-1,78 :-1,94 :-1,45 :-1.01 :-0.72
1 : : : : : : : : :
7
(b) -0.20 :-0,56 :-1.18 :-1. 70 :-1,91 :-1.95 :-0 ,90 :,'16,9 (b) :-0.28 :-1.21 :-0,80 :-1.08 : -1.49 :-1,34 :-1.15 :-0.68 :-0,35 :-0,41
: : : : : : . : : :
8 (a) -0.22 :-0.27 :-1,JO : - :-2,00 :-1.30 :-0.70 ;,4).73 8 (a) :,'o,22 :-1.13 :-1,76 :-1,91 :-7.24 :-1,78. ,-2.04 :-1,45 :-l.01 :-0,72
(b) -0.18 :-0.52 :-1.09 :-1.48 :-1,59 :-0,56 :-0.59 :-0.40 (b) :-0.45 :-1.51 :-1,21 :-1.93 :-1.86 :-J..54 :-1.24 :-0.66 :-0.JJ :-0,41
: : : : : : : :
-0.26 :-0.95 :-1.56 :-2.29 :-2.00 : -1.90 :-0.78 ;,io.48 (a) ;,t1s.75; - : -0 .23 :-1.JO :-1.96 :-1.60 :-1.86 :-1,42 :-0.96 :-0.81
9
):l -0.18 :-0.52 :-1.09 :-l.J6 :-1.13 :-1.46 :-0.67 :-0,54
:
9
(b) :,'19 ,14:lJ . 50 : o.oo :-1.54 :-1,49 :-1.34 :-1,05 :f-0,64 :-0.35 :-0,Jl
10 (a) -0.62 :-1.12 :-l.69 :-2,31 :-2,72 :-2.53 :-1,17 :-0 .97 10 (a) :-2,54 :-2.27 :/-0,69 :,'7,0J :,'18.14:,'8.32 :-o.80 :-1,33 :-1,15 :-0.56
(b) I -0,12 :-0,48 :-0,95 ,-1,25 :-1,54 :-1.39 :-0. 74 :,te.21 (b) :-1,34 :-1.51 ,1-1.61 : /-6.48 :,'1J .15:,'8.J2 :-0,38 :-0,53 :-0,35 ,-0.14
t : : : : : : : s : : : ' :
ll (a) ' -0,66 : -1.17 :-1,97 :-2,55 :-2,76 :-2,97 :-1.17 :-0 ,91 11 (a) :/-0,37 :f{J,ll :-0,Jl :,'o.JB :I-J,69 :/-9,87 :,'9.�J :-0,07 :-0.67 :,'2,36
(b) -.23 :-0,46 :-1.01 :-1.25 :-1,57 :-1,44 :-0.76 :-0 .71 (b) :/-0.60 :,'o.47 :-0.24 :,'1.47 :,'J,44 :l-9,32 ,,'9.25 :f{),96 ,/-0.1" :,l,2.66
t t : t :
12 -0,48 ,-1.0J :-1.80 :-2 , 55 :-2.76 :-2.97 :-1./IJ ,-1.24 12 (a) ;/-0 ,23 :-1.56 :-o,7s :-1.41 :-1.03 :1-1.34 :1-1.20 :l-4,61 :-0,41 :M,47
[:l 1-1.47 :-0,56 :-0.97 : -1,38 :-1.50 :-1,44 :-0,79 :-0 ,85
: t : ' :
(b) :/-0,58 :/-0.22 :-0,18 :-0 ,34 :-0,39 :,'2.29 :,'6, 74 :/-5.36 :/-0,95 :,ts.BJ

13 (a) I ,'4.44 :l-17,85:-0,80 :-2,Jl :-2.80 ,-2 ,83 ,-1.22 :-l.41 13 (a) :-0.39 :-o.68 :-1,25 :-1.16 : -2 .14 :-2.02 :f{),45 :h,41 :/-0.69 :,'29,65
(b) I Plugged: - : - : - : - : - : - : - (b) :,to.01 :-0.18 : -0 . 56 1-1.02 :-0.74 :-0,15 ,1-1.12 :l-5,36 ,1-2.48 :,'24.83
: t t : • :

'
14 f,l,09 :,'4,JO : - :,'20,00:,'J,95 :,'o,61 :-0.90 :f{),57 14 (a) :-0.55 :-1.09 :-1.68 :-1,85 :-1,19 :-2.JO :-1,56 :/-J , 56 :,'2.lJ :I-JJ,06
,'l.56 :l-4,10 1,'9,94 :l-15.90:,'6,67 :-0,36 :-0,47 ,,tl,28 (b) :-0.16 :-0 . 77 :-l.51 :-1.70 : -l.49 :-0.13 :-0.28 :,'a.68 •l-4,14 :,'29 ,88
I

t I : : : : t : : : : : :
15 (a) ,'o.73 ,-0.77 :,'o.24 :,'6,01 :,'ll,98:,'ll.90:f{J,20 ,,'4,77 15 , (a) :-0,31 :-3,57 :-4,11 :-3,64 :-5,17 :-4.0J :-4,27 :-2.98 :,':1,oJ •l-32,90
(b) ,'1,05 :,'l.21 :,'2.87 :,'ll.66:,'9,36 :,'ll.OO:,'o,11 :,'1.86 (b) :-1.15 :-2.ll :-2.10 :-2,51 : -2 . 23 :-2.00 :-1,52 :-0.21 :,l,2.84 :l-31.76
I

: : : : :
16 (a) -0,17 :-0.15 ,-0.27 :,'7,77 :,'16 .12:,'7.14 :-0,90 ,,tJ.37 16 (a) :-0,55 :-1.07 :-1,76 :-2,36 :-2,36 :-0,85 :-2.15 :-2.61 :,'1./IJ :1-34,26
-0,17 ,,'o.29 :,'o.20 :,'6.99 ::/-7,56 :,'2.93 :,'o,44 :,l,10 ,64 (b) :/-0.55 :-0,18 :-1.61 : -0.46 :-0,28 :-0,10 :-0,17 :,'l,07 :l-2,60 :,'JJ .11

i:l
I

t
(b)
17 -0,56 :-1.0J :-2. 70 :-0.65 :,'4,07 :,'10,00:l-4-43 :,'20.07
I : : , , •

-0,25 :-0;02 :,'o.20 :,l,l,59 :,'4,32 :,'7 ,16 : ,l,4.85 :,'26.68

i:l
I : • : : : :
18 -0,52 , -1.13 ,,t4.08 :,'5,09 :,'4.68 ,,'6.97 :,'1.32 :,'29 ,55
/:J.,99 :-1,98 :,'o,99 :f{),20 :-0.ll :,'l.34 : ,l,9,26 :,'J0,80
: . : : : . .
19 (a) ,'o,46 ,,'a.41 :,'l,'57 :,l,4,25 :,'2,25 :,'5,85 :,116,06:,'29.Bl
,'o.92 :,'a.JO :,'o. 79 :-0,88 :-l,82 :,'o.17 :,'ll.05:,'JO ,OO
: : : :
(b)
: : :
20 (a) -0,12 :-0.62 :-0,78 :-0,51 :-0,79 :,'l,96 ,,'lJ,89:/29 ,73
I (b) 1 -0.16 ,-o.08 ,-0.16 ,,to.22 :-1.56 :-0.93 ,,'6.J, :,'JO ,oo
21 , (a) -2,60 ,-J.43 :-0.29 : -2,57 : -l.47 :-0.00 ,,is.20 :,'29,0l
' l : : : :

(b) /-0,63 :-0,42 ,-l,58 ,-2.96 :-4.09 :-J.42 :l-4,00 :,'29 .Jl

/-0.t,8 ,,tl..13 ,-2.97 : -2.JO .-.7.08 ,-6.11 :l-3.16 :,'27.82

a , : : : :
22 (a) , -0.01, :-5 ,44 :-7.00 :-6,48 1-2.54 :-5-51 :l-4-39 :,'29 ,41
I (b) 1
.!J (a) -o.16 :-o.89 :-1.17 :-6.11 ;_7,30 :-6.75 :1-1.97 :12a .99
(b) -0.12 :-0.08 :-0,28 :-0,54 :-4,09 : -6,11 :/-0.90 :,'27 .82
I

24 (a) I -0.62 : -1 .14 :-5 . 06 :-4,56 :-4,34 ;_J.47 ;1-3,41 :,'28.BO

-0.22 :-1.50 :-J.17 : -4,10 :-5.24 :-5 ,ll :,'o,74 :,'28.94
I : : :
' (b)

25 (a) 0,00 1-7,83 :,4).JJ i-6 . 68 :-7,10 :-6.61 :/-13 .JB:,'29,Bl

(b) /-0.14 :-0,58 :,'l.,22 :I0,91 :-6.83 :-1.47 :,'J,04 :/-J0,00
26 (a) -0,JB : -1,07 :-2.23 :,'4,29 :-7,85 1-8.15 :-J,80 :,'JQ.21
I I : : : : :

(b) -0,78 :-1.02 :-1.19 :-1,36 :-1.36 ,-0,97 ,1-1.12 :I-J0.28

I

27 (a) I -2.15 :-J.70 :,'2.80 :-7 .62 :-7. 77 :-7 ,63 :-5 ,49 ;1-31.01
' (b) ,'o , 49 :-0.39 :,'o,02 :-0,27 :-J.18 :-0.05 :,'l.58 :,'J0 ,28
 By placing the pipe containing Piezometer · l5 in a continuous conduit and
�•scertaining the normal pressure gradient, an error of 2 o 5 percent of
the velocity head was found . This error disappeared when the burr was
removed. Assuming a velocity head of 320 feet past Piezometer 15 , the
error would be -8 feet , which would make the pressures on Piezometer 15
compare favorably with other pressures in the conduit .
Development of the Final Design
A gate with a -circular conduit downstream, similar to Figure 17C,
was recommended as the final design for Shasta Dam. However, further
tests were necessary to study certain details before a final design
could be claimed o These studies included : (1) A final test to verify
that a transition should not be used downstream from the gate; (2)
Modifications of the design to increase the discharge capacity; (3)
O bservations to study the effect of the Jet striking the downstream
side of the gate slot; (4) Observations to consider the effect of the
fin originating at points where the leaf contacts the circular orifice;
and (5) A survey of pressures in the proposed final design.
An opening at the downstream side of the gate slot in the form of ,,_ ·
an inverted U, or horseshoe, was desirable. When the gate closed,
deflecting the jet downward, the jet would continue to flow dir,ectly
into the conduit; whereas , with a circular opening, the bottom of the
jet would strike the edge of the slot and some flow would peel off into
the slot . However , with the horseshoe-shaped opening, a transition
section was required to join it to the circular conduit downstream .
Negative pressures below the model transition shown in Figure 17B made
that design unsatisfactory. An air-vent between Piezometers 22 and 23
was suggested as a remedy , but it did not offer complete relief .
Moreover, it was under pressure at the full open position . Undoubtedly,
a satisfactory venting system could be designed, but a solution of this
type would not be acceptable for the outlets in Shasta Dam because of
structural difficulties o
A short transition, similar to that shown on Figure 13A, was tried,
but i n contrast with the results of a former test (Figure 15D) negative
pressures were found below the transitiono There were two important
differences in the models. First , the orifice was above the centerline
of the conduit in the former test , tending to make the jet contact the
pipe further downstream; and secondly, in that test the change from the
transition to the circular section was on a curve, whereas in the new
design the change was a sharp break .
Although an acceptable transition could be designed through model
tests, in the light of satisfactory pressure conditions with the more
simple circular section (Figure l?C) further studies using a transition -
were not justified. The disadvantage of a circular opening at the
first because the quantity of water striking the edge of the slot and
downstream side of the gate slot was not as critical as it seemed at

19
peeling off was not large . It was not until the capacity of the outlet
was increased by enlarging the orifice that this flow into the slot was
seriously considered .
When the gate was recommended for use at Shasta Dam , the discharge
capacity was questioned. Measurements on the model indicated a
discharge of 4, 540 second-feet under a head of 223 feet , compared with
a discharge of 4,890 second-feet for the tube valve fonnerly proposed o
This reduction of capacity was not acceptable and it was necessary to
enlarge the orifice from 94 to 96 inches (prototype). The larger
orifice increased the disch�ge to 4, 750 second-feet o A suggestion
that the 96-inch orifice be increased further was not acted upon because
the conduit filled completely when the gate was opened fully. Under
this condition there was a hydraulic jump next to the gate and 1/2-inch
air-vents (model) in the sides of the gate slot were required to keep
the jump out of the slot itself . In fact with runs at heads higher than
the scale head the jump filled the slot .
This enlargement of the orifice from 94 to 96 inches required that
the floor of the slot be r ecessed next to the orifice to permit install­
ing a larger seal in the prototype . A test with the floor of the model
lowered 3/8 inch revealed that a recess on the floor next to the orifice
woµJ.d not affect the flow and that a washing acticn in the recess by
sJ�k water would prevent detritus from lodging :in it.
With this larger orifice the peeling off of the jet on the
downstream side of the slot became pronounced , and high-velocity whirl­
pools formed, filling the portion of the slot under the leaf with an
air-water mixture . Piezometric measurements revealed only slight
negative pressure at the core of these whirlpools where they touched
the sides o f the frame. In terrninology of fluid mechanics, these
whirls were rrforced vortices " with neb.ural pressure at the core and
positive pressure outside . The negative pressures prevalent in the
better known "free vortex" were absent. Therefore, it was believed that
these whirlpools would not cause . material damage. The effect of these
whirls could not be ascertained in the small model, so the following
recommendations were made as a matter of caution:
1. The dom1st.ream side of the gate slot , below the centerline
o f the pipe, be faced with wear plates which can be eas­
ily replaced . If such plates are not necessary they may
be dispensed with in later designs.
2. These plates be flush with the tracks, and all connecting
bolts be countersunk and the holes filled .flush to the
surface with lead , "Smooth on, " or a similar material .
A projecting bolt or surface may induce local cavitation,
which cannot be detected in the small model.

20
 3. The corner where the 102-inch pipe connects to the wear
plates in the slot be ground to a smooth edge.

4. All unnecessary projections on the sides and bottom of

the slot be eliminated o

It was found possible to �void much of the peeling off action of

the jet by extending the bottom of the circular pipe upstream into the
gate slot to catch the jet when it was deflected downwards , and to
guide it into the conduit. It was proposed that a portion of the pipe
bounded by a 60--degree arc (30 degrees each side of the vertical
centerline) be extended into the slot . Although tests indicated that
a design of this type would function in a satisfactory manner, it was
not desirable as a special bottom shape on the gate leaf would be
r equired .
C onsideration was given to the effect of the two fins originating
at the points of c ontact of the gate with the c ircular orifice·. In
the prototype, these fins or jets should be about one inch thick. i'}le
effect of a jet of this size striking the sides of the gate slot under
a 223-foot head was a matt.er of c onjecture o As far as known, if water
is free of silt no erosion should occur . From the theoretical press­
ure distribution of a jet striking a plate, it also follows that cavi­
tation should not occur . However, if it be desirable to prevent fins
from striking in the gate slot, a deflector might be used. In the
model, the fins were deflected to a large extent by placing two
vertical plates parallel to the direction of flow on the gate-leaf
bottom. These plates were approximately 100 inches ( prototype) apart.
The test indicated that the vertic al height of the plates should be
at least 8 inches to be effective o This would require a special
chamber in the floor of the slot, thus a deflector was not considered
as a solution at Shasta Dam.
The final design of the model (Figure 18) was that tested
previously at Boulder Dam ( Figure 15C ) except the orifice diameter had
been increased from 5o53 to 5o65 inches representing a change in the
prototype from 94 to 96 inches . Als o, two 1/2-inch air vents repre­
senting 8-inch pipes were installed in the Plexiglass sides of the
frame o Twenty-seven piezometers were installed to measure pressures o
A series of measurements of pre ssure , air demand, and discharge
capacity was made at each 10-perc ent opening o A head of approximately
50 feet was used. Also, at 100-percent opening a head approximating
the scale head of 13 ol feet was used to c onsider properly the effect
of the siphon action in the elbow do�mstream, for the c onduit below the
gate was full at that opening . Regardless of the heads used in the
tests , all data were referred to a head of 100 feet for convenience in
making comparison at other heads ( Figure 18C ) .
The pres sure at Piezometer 6 ( Figure 18B ) was considered as the
base pres sure in the outlet at openings of 80 percent or les s , because
I

21
this Piezometer was located in the conduit above the jet . The base
pressures for various openings are enumerated on the graph of Figure 18C .
From the indications of the high-head tests , the minimum pressure, - 1.34
feet per 100 feet of head, will probably be lower in a prototype struc­
ture, perhaps as much as -2 . 50 feet per 100 feet of head. As far as can
be ascertained by the model, this base pressure should be virtually the
minimwn in the outlet, except for the unfavorable conditions found in the
outlet elbow at the exit . A subatmospheric pressure of 25 feet of water
was measured on the bottom of this elbow; however, the outlet conduit and
elbow were built at the t ime the tests to design the gate were in progress,
and since pressure conditions in the elbow were independent of the gate
design, they did not become part of this problem.
Appl:i£ation of Gate as a }'ree Discharge Valve
During tests to improve the shape of the jet (Figures 9 and 10) , it
was suggested that the gate be considered as a freedischarge valve in
future installations where it would be attached at the exit end of a
conduit. Although the jet was rough compared with the circular synnnet­
rical jet of the more common needle valve , it nevertheless discharged
water in a given direction , which is the essential requirement for a
free discharge valve. Figure 14 shows the flow characteristics when a gate
of this type discharges into the atmosphere . Discharge on a parabolic
apron into a stilling pool was also demonstrated (Figures 19 and 20) . This
apron and pool were profiled after that for the Friant-Madera Canal Outlet
at Friant Dam, in C alifornia, but the model could represent any similar
structure. It will be noted that the gate has the unique feature of
placing the jet of the floor at small openings ( Figure 19) . In contrast,
the jet of a needle valve at small openings is above the floor and remains
so at the design head for some distance downstream. When a reservoir
elevation is near low storage level often it is necessary to operate the
control gate or valve at its wide-open position to maintain the canal
discharge e The high fins or waves shown on Figure 20B are characteristic
of any type of control . discharging on the apron at low -heads. These waves
may be eliminated by the use of undercut piers similar to those shown in
Figure 21 . From these tests it was recorrunended that this type of gate be
considered as a free discharge valve and that a design be developed
through future tests .
Since the model shown on Figure 14 was available and it was desirable
to establish an initial design for a future test program, several tests
were conducted . The model was revised by reducing the upstream conduit
diameter to the same diameter as the orifice , for in the practical case it
was believed that the conduit diameter should be as small as possible and
that the matching of the orifice and conduit was the practical limitation .
This was done by moulding a wax liner inside the 6-inch model conduit
shown on Figure 13C. At a point one diameter upstream from the gate, the
conduit diameter began to expand at a ratio of l: l o 20, similar to the
expanding section shown in Figure 12 0 In other words , if the model repre­
sented a gate attached to a 100-inch diameter conduit, the orifice diameter
22
/

would be 100 inche s, the length of the expanding section 100 inches ,
and the diameter of conduit at the gate 120 inches . Two piezometers
were placed in the expanding s ection to ascertain pressures', one
near the beginning, and one at the center.

The shape and appearance of the j et was nearly identichl to that

for the Shasta model (Figure 14) . Pressures in the expanding section
were· positive, the pressure near the beginning being somewhat less than
that further downstream. Measurements of discharge indicated a coeffi­
cient of discharge of approximately 0 . 80, based upon the relationship

C =
A H ·
� , where C - the coefficient, Q = the discharge, A = the area

of the conduit, and H = the total head one diruneter upstream from the
valve . In this case, however, the expanding section had to be con­
sidered as pa.rt of the valve ( control) and the piezometer to measure
static head in the conduit was located one diameter upstream from that
section . These characteristics should be checked on a more carefully
built model and more elaborate tests made if this type of control is to
be used as a free· discharge valve in future installations . It should
be noted that this discharge capacity compares favorably with other
valves studied in the laboratory, as shown in Table J . It must be
recognized that such a comparison is not completely fair because other
considerations enter into the selection of the valve. Nevertheless, the
discharge coefficient has been an important criterion in the development
and improvement of valves for high-pressure outlets .

23
 Table 3
DISCHARGE COEFFIC IENTS OF VALVES STUDIED IN THE HYDRAULIC LABORATORY

� Coefficient
Howell-Bunger Valve4 0 . 74 Y, ,./

Hollow Jet Valve 5 0. 70

Needle VaJ.ve 6
(old style )-i� 0 . 50
( Friant type) 0. 59
Tube Valve (Shasta)*? 0 . 72
(Friant type) 6 0.52

Proposed Control Gate 0 . 80, approximately

* These types unsatisfactory for free discharge

Flow Through Gate Having Square Orifice

As a final test it was suggested that there might be some advantage
in the use of a gate having a square orifice . Therefore, the model shown
in Figure 12 was revised by placing it in an orifice 5 inches square with
corners cut on a 3/4-inch radius. The jet f rom this gate, shown in
Figure 22, was not as smooth as anticipated; nevertheless, such a design
should work satisfactorily . It was concluded that this square orifice
did not possess any advantages over a circular type and was therefore not
to be recommended unless there existed definite structural or mechanical
advantages.

1J
Properties of the Revised Howell-Bunger Valve, " April 24, by Fred Locher.
See Laboratory Report HYD 168, "Investigations of the Hydraulic

October 14, 1944, by Fred Locher and J . N. Bradley.

Also, HYD 1 5 6, "Laboratory Study of 6-inch Howell Bunger Valve, 11

2,/ See Laboratory Report HYD 148, ''Model Studies for Development of
Hollow Jet Valve, " September 12, 1944, by Fred Locher .
Y See Laboratory Report HYD 133, "Hydraulic Model Studies on Needle
and Tube Valves for Friant Dam and Celebration of Sluice Outlets at
Bartlett Dam, " July 15, 1943, by F. C. Lowe .
1/ See Laboratory Report 180, "Hydraulic Studies for the Design of
the Tube Valves in the Outlets in Shasta Dam, " August 7, 1945 , by
D. J . Hebert.
 .-Gale service and
ereclian plat form
/ow,r - ----
______ ___ Ele ,olor
- ··125 - Ton gonfry crone 0 un, / pens tock o,r ;n/ets ,-
-·Hoisl lower
Top of dom _ El 10115� '"

I0 I I 35
Crone siding recess···

'', '\�
?,.TT7
:
', , , : I•

-i.li;}}h,::,.\,_ t.·.
-,�l;�t{J:;t; 1
'�.:.::._\ ·\··· .l=···Transverse galleries

TT ff
Conloct between concrete '\(\ I
dom and backfill '� 1
-
-- -...) .... \ ,..,I

'--l,,\ \ \
' '
Rock f1fr " I.. , \ ,

V
,

Line af excovol1an - -\7 _ 1.. _ J. - ..J __ .,L _ .J - - L - J

V
I I \ I

far concrete dam . .

Portal of diversion and .-

temporary ra,Jrood funnel·····
Power plant·:

D O WNSTREAM EL E VA T I O N
PRO.JECTED

i
·Mox. W.5. -£1. 1065
Mox WS. - - 1065··, .-110', 28' Drum gate
-�

.. ! .
. Crest - El
. 103700
.. r. \ .>:··Crest - fl. 1031.00
m' gate gallery �- -Orum gate gallery
fl. 9ll 19- -. Aif if/let
- -'L
f [I_ 942.00---- - · Oullef gate, wheel lype
� -��
·- 102· Dia. ouflet conduit Outtel works lroshrack .
--- .J _

Outlet works . . · ·Air iii/el

lroshrack . . . -· ·

Axis of dam •... - ·

..
-
-.:-:_
l�i _ . if - , .... �:>·J02· Dio. oullel conduits

_lI ._..�_- 1 . - 1 - [; _
· ··Drainage gallery '--rj
I-'·
>­
�

�
L ine of
�-

�-:SPIL L WA)- Y
··control coble gqlfery. 5,1 to El 580.0-.,
- I I
_ _,j.,
12:I-·. El, 54-9. 50 ·· · :·2:f
(1)

foundotion gallery .. .- ·· -- -L ine of t'xcoval,on I-'

{ Upstream • �- SECTION- STA. 2 3 + 29
BLOCK 42 BLOCI< JS

THE 102-INCH OUTLETS IN SHASTA DAM

 r-···

·\��1,1, .,
;<· · · 7'·9· · · >:

-,\·---,I:__, ,
:, �
..
�..
'-��/ v ·
,: · . .
G-G
� ·
SECTION
-

P: C;;Ht'l-t,Hi1H+I
r
f,e/1 wilded
· • joints

ri'1"1'... ,
, 3711

===. .
1 .,·fl. /03667

(-
1667/ � SECTI ON H-H

·11· );�:·� .�����::t�;i�;·f\o· .

.:l. 1 ,,

_
· · ··· 50"·0"· .. ·· SO'· O� --For defails of conduit openinq

u;.
.
" Block ·c (hiqh) Block 'D" (/ow) dtflecfor see Dwq. 21Z·D·JB6J.
Sicti' of bCRckouf·· >- _
. ) [onfrocfton .. ... · l90.I6' to oxis
11• !., \ " '.:·
\
· ···· J oint
11 ir1. 10ZQO··� ., ·-�
-1-· .
SECTION B-B
··-..�.• 102" Rinq seal
c i ror;,,::k�i1 f:;.'��;;���:tY
222·0· 1991 ·· ·· ··
· · 9afrs
Dwq.

-·-- ·
't 6'·6"•/r· 6· Gale 901/uy

-,--.
6" L1qhf mefcl pipe.
Jl'· O· . Trcnsfr,r track

1
I
-1
�
i
I-

SEC.-K-K
OICPART"4/l.HT o, TH£ IHTIUIIIOR
NOTES lrURICAIJ OF RICCUUIIATJON

l' l.
COLUMBIA BASIN PRO,JE.CT• WASH!NGTOH
Crone and trolley beams ore removable GRAND COULEE DAM
and ore lo be msfolfed in one qole OUTLET WORKS
PLAN, ELEVATION AHO SECTIONS
)
chamber only.
E L E V A T I O N /050
Jkro,es ior terminal boxes and electrical
N· -�; · ll'·Jf'- .Qt ,;,;,_· �· . ,:,.�·j ·'.� equipment not shown.
S ECTION O-D REFERENCE DRAWINGS
BOLT S(r1/NG PLAN f'OR GATC fRAIA£ ANO TRACKS••• ••• lll•O•i?SOl
Showing blocXouls for qo fe BOLT S(TTING PLAIJ rOR TROLLEV 8tAt.15. ................. ..lll·D·JOti4
frame and !rocks 101" 6AT£ PIPING • �rNERAL ARRAN(,CMCNT. ............. 222-D•ll/6
TroshrocXs not shown

1O2-INCH OUTLETS IN GRAND COULEE DAM

 F igure 3

A r· f • - -

�
�
:>

<:t:
;::i
E--<

<:t:
E--<

ITT
CJ)

::r::
ril
E--<
·�
/;

/�"
l Iir� . J
I (

· ··· ········ · · · · · ··

I
1

�\
ii ,I r _,
dl'ij t-_--·---- -1.'!':! �--0i�·::::__-··· ············
--
' I ·1 ...
I
I

· ···_J_ �
· ··� .,lJt1
I. I

\y
_ _ _ _ _Jj
 Figure 4

l
------------ 1--� --------------- -- - -- -----

. JJ _f. : ,. ,·: .- �-:.:.- .-�:.

j

!
1 l #f
------r----------------
------+------------------ .- - �= =:·:=�--· -
:' ':
. ,. - - - - 1I __.-?i', i
f

!'
i
i'
T
• l\··- '
--- - ---- 3 -4"B"
36' Air inlet

:
'

j�
i
1

20' Air
inlet "<c

I
..,
.,,
_,

'
'
'

-----------------++ ------ -- - ·- � . - r .- . ·- .
L· . . . · : :
.
·
"" _ 1 v.- · . . 1· .
. ,/_ .
.·r
: . r. · 1.· . 17

..,,I ·
. 0 .

I :
.
{7
·I
<l .
rJ - 1. · . . .
. • .· • . • . ·a .
I · . 1·
·
1-'.a.--'-'-�-'-'-'if-'����
· 1. ' ,fil'
· . /7 ·
.

· .1 · ·
a <7 _

_,.,,
'
'
'

::

I
I

..,
"c,
\ I I
I \ / .

_,
I I ,.. I (I : / I
I 1 l ' -... ,.,. ,, I I

� t:
/ ·_v ·

,.,.
I
I 1 1 I
._ _
:( /
1 • .
1 •. .

· · ·.·. - ·< 1fr - -------- --

I 1 1 -...
/' I • I //

, 11
0 : V
'·
I I I . (. · ·
. · · I·

) I: , ,·
I I
1
I
1
. 1·
I
· o. ·_

---�-�� �� �� · -
1 1 1 · . .

- . Jo-� _:_ � ��J . .

i
I I (7 .
I
·, .
·

. :i. · .<. . -j-f_- :---·,

· :

-
.

"
. . .
. . . o·

-� t�·:--c-+. .
· . ·-;, · . .

· ·,, .
,,,._
· ·O
· · O. . .
(7 .
.
.1 .
L .
. .
0
fJ •

. /? . 0.
17
. · -'>--·. . �: . -_ . .
\ . . . /
. . ;J

,·

. . . _J4,�f+�·:tf ·r
I

,.
I.

��·�"hi
·I
o .

.
0�
. ��(}�
. ��
· v�.-'----rT
.

or'-;,
. 7TTT77
.

__ j_____ _ v · -'j--'; . "T, ···h

····�

.J e i i
U N I TE D S TA TE S

- f

,.:·-ij'"• H A L F SEC TION B - 8

_.--4"Drain
�'!!.�_- :!�(:=---_-_ :-_-_--!'- 6f------ �--::t. -
DEPA RTMENT O F THE I N TERIOR

-
,.;9· To 11,;, of dom {El >�QQ),;........ ..... ... ,·- ,£···· ..... H A L F SEC T I O N A - A
:t:-;;:�;:::-_ _ _-:::�·�-�:·::,-:::::-_-_:':':"_-:: - �:- _:__:::J
:
BUREAU OF RECL A M A TION

z5·-o· T0Ax1s ofdam(El.842-00) :c?3 ·

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJEC T-' CALIFORNIA

.
KENNETT DIVISION
. S H A S TA DAM
�-6" Drain
- R I V Eft O U T I. E Tl!I
96• O U T L E T GA TE - WHEEL TYPE
----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --linr-- - ----- -.- - - - - - - - -----lf}--" /
I
I NSTA L L A T I ON A SSEM B L Y
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :__ - - - -'ill'--- - .:..- - .,-- - '- - - - - - - - - -'!l}-- -
:

-�1,�
· --6" Pressure supply

LONGI TU D I N A L S ECTION
TRACED. . �:"."·.�· .-: !°': ':·.'-:·. . . .1'EC0MMEND�
CHECKEO. r.
�;. . , Al"l"llfOVEO . .

01£NVI£"', COl..0/ltAOO,. trEa. Ill,

SHIEET I 01" 10
 5
,---------
20" - - - - - - - - - - - - r- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -- - ---- �
3•
194
F igure

with center punch

32

S EC. E- E
-Lock with center punch

r-== ,t
-------------- !
S EC TION A -A II
' ,=':·· :� -< 8
I . .

+
+ + +

·· } :
+ + + +
D E TA I L X

""
+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + +

·r: _- _- : : :-_ -_:- : : : : : : : 2

::
+ :: ,s· +o"
:i/ :::::::::::::::_-_-_-_::::::::
+ + + +

:;.
- o·
+ + + + + + S EC TION C - C
(CLEA RANCE D I M ENSIONS)

+ + +
r ·- - - -
T YPICAL SECTION D - D
r
+ + +
l,

� ) \
'I
+ + + + + +
+ + +

+ +
:
-�

/ !, ),

r
+

z: =

l=,c.'--i"'zz_=_'"=
_ _=_..=
_ _=_..=
_ _=_.._=
_=_"*""'_=_"'_=_=_,._=
_s:,=
_ _=_=_,._=_.,=
_ _=_.::lzz:z_u_=_=_.._=_:z=
_ _=_:z_=_"_JJ, .bz=====!.-- -j
T Y PIC A L SEC TION
THRU TAPER DOWEL U .

i
15

I
r
L I S T OF D R A W I N G S
E INSTA L L A TION ASSEMBLY. . . . . . . . . . 2/4 - D· /162/
ASSEMBLY - LI S T OF DRA WINGS. . . . . 214cD- ll622
. .
LIST OF PARTS - MATERIALS . . . . . . 2/4-0-11623

l
BODY. . . .
..
2/4 - 0 - 1 1624
BONNE T - FLANGE RING. . . . . 2/4-0-,1625

FLOW
CONDUIT SECTIONS - MANHOLE COVER . . . . . . . . . . . 2/4-0 - 1 /626
CONDUIT SECTION-ADAPTER FLANGE. . . . . 2/4-0- 11627
SEAL PARTS. . . 2/4-D- 1/62B
LEAF. . .
: . 2/4- D - 1 1629
SEAL PLATE- WHEEL - TRACK . . . 2/4-0- 11630

I
R E FER EN CE DRA W I NGS
HOIST-ASSEMBLY- L I S T OF DRA WINGS. . 214 · 0 - /1631
POSITION INDICATOR-ASSEMBLY- LIST OF PARTS . . 214- D- //637
. .

LIM I T SWITCH-ASSEMBLY- US T OF PARTS. . . 2/ 4 - D- //639

I '. U I ATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO R
BUREA U O F RECLAMATION

���pz_
=_
=-i
� =��=====��""""' �•====� =4r-J r ��
===== ===
91"=
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT- CAlJFORN/A

44
KENNETT DIVISION

30 34 30
S HA S TA

,---._� I i ;: DRAWN. . l>Y,J-!,!'( :- . l, ..L_. q.,

.. . .,· ,r.·.·••••-·•.·••..., ·.·.· •••·· • ' ':•. ����i�,l�•i ' '. ,., ,.,.-" �;z�:i,}
L

-c B
�- - - - - - - - - - - - - ::;:::� :.;;;
� APPROVED. .
E L E VA TI O N
HALF OF PARTS J. AND � REMOVED
 F I GURE . 6

- - - - - - - 2 .f - - - -- - - - ,
- - -Baff le

Supply 36" L D. Steel head tonk

---
', i.
''

-4<-------- -. :
--+------- -: - ra9"-�;
'

-----� i :
�-- - 1 2 . 00"- - 5 6 . 44" -- - - - - - 2 0. 1 3"
: 9"
- 9.91"- - + 4 .74"l. - - - - 17. 0 6 " rc- i6

I
Upstream face
of dam-- - - - - - - -
Flow spreader- - - A PROFI L E OF MODEL
--124.f
INTERMEDIATE TIER
OF I O Z. � OUTLETS '
� ---- - ---- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - 7. 000 "
PIEZO M E T E R LOCATIONS

G BASE

'
'' ·
0
0
PYRA L I N S I D E/

�
'o,

0 �

'
'
'''

f P I P E·.,
''
' '

=-i.. _ _ i_tJ_____ J!I

;�,.,..C"'-----=• .-1 "'-/N
-,- -'
,-A I R VE NTS ' I

,- -
I

f:::=,p:=:=:::ll+i!�U!�.=.J�=� "'f-' --.�;;,------i i i--' *" - J.

DOWNSTREAM FRAME·. OR IFICE I : 26-17 ° • :
I

,,
5 15' 30;·

- �� !".k .,
:'
'-4 -­

I
' Q
1

'
I

i
'
SECTION AT ''

"'' --16.
G AT E LEAF '
'
1
I
\0.5074':
UPSTREAM FRAME - - - . , : 0.147."
,, ·L I NE #: -"--
I
I
I

,DOWNSTREAM CONDUIT
UPSTREAM CONDUIT,, 0. 124"

·-t!!·
,' PYAALIN

r--,-..�·,b,,-�

"'· 17

,;�
oo
. a.
�,-�
00
0 >,

Q")e
' "'
"' a.
'

t<' - --- - ---- --- -- ---- - --- - --- 7 ' :..C- --- - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - 7" - -
�a. o.
,ri W
:9 ' a, '

t UPST R E A M
I 0. 2

- - ----- 5. 10 6 " - -- � - -­

:... --------2 ¼ - - - - - ---- �

''
I I _1_ _ _ 1 , I

L_
�. 7 1 7 �J
'
L_ S E CTION AT i i DOWNSTR E A M FACE FACE SECTION AT l I • '

D UPSTRE AM FRAME E DOWNSTREAM F R A M E F PYRA L I N SIDE

''
'' Base - - -
' C E NTR A L VA LLEY PROJECT- CA LIFORNIA
:.C- . - - - - - - - - ------ - -- - - - - - - ----- - - - --- 1 7. 0 6 " - - - - - - - - - -- - ------ - - - - - - ----- -- ----� S H A ST A DAM
8 SECT ION OF GAT E ASSEMBLY C ONT R O L GATE FOR 102- INCH OUTLETS
1:17 MODEL OF 86-I N C H GATE - OR I G I N A L D E S I G N
 F I G URE 7

1-----r-------... / "
100 90

\
90 8 0 - --- - -- - ---'- - - -- -
5
J
I

I
80 70

•,
I
I \
70 - 60

N OT E S
L.b-

' \ j /)1 \
I . A l l data b a s e d o n 1 0 0 foot reservo i r h e a d. 60 50
0:
2. Pre s s u re a nd a i r d e m a n d cu rves o re a ppro x i ­ ' w

\
t-­
0:

//' \ \I
mate b e c a u s e o f f l u c t u a t i o n s. <{
� 50 ;< 4 0
3. A i r d e m a n d b a s e d on the relation Q • C. A � "-

,./ I
<{
;:
' ,\\ 0

I ;' " X \
Where C • 0.6, A • a re a c t 0.65 6"+ Orifi c e ,

,\ \ \
a n d H . • H e a d of a i r • 1000 H., . Where H w �40 � 30
w
is dete r m i n e d b y P i ezometers 5 6 o r 5 7, t-­ "-

I
I
w

\
,l
\ \ \\
58 or 59,

,,--h0\
w

"
"- 30 � 20
4. For pressures at h e a d s other t h a n 100 feet
".'

�
w

----
C,2 ""

> P I EZOMETER ��------ �

assume pressure is proportional to the head. 0:

-. � ------- �� •<K\... �., - �----

::,

---+_: +
"-
10

"'-1-..
� 20
I
� '7�\
<I)
'-'

'- 01/
:?"':" 3"-'-,..----

_ ,2------ ,XlZ
<I)

w
LOCATIONS " "-\-
::,

� ".._,��-��
T-1 1 --

,_ -� ;----- � � v
0:

"
<I)

-�
.......___

�
__L_
··-- ---r;,
, "' ------------- s�
<I)

= = = +) w 10 '- 0
, o 0: =-4 2 '\

"""�\ -
' a,

------- "\';I,< ,)\ � \

a.

- ··- ---.,-": �<Do

?
H--------1.I
For model details a n d piezometer

,�;f-
Ice at ions see Figure 6 .
0 -10 14

----._�
I< H- ?J-
' _ -; .

, �
\ \ I 77 \I
--- "-.,_
-7- 4
6 15 -

�
.,
-1 0 � /
f�
L/
I
-

': "'o
------------
- --- ···r�
6

\ \ 'f--____-·
-30

I
V

- -\-\ -�I
5

---/I
\/
- 30
- -- - - --- 'O 10 20 30 - 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00
1 M i nimum pressure - 32'- - __---:.-r -
GATE OPEN I N G IN P E R CENT
I I I I
P RE S S U R E S ON D O W N ST R E AM F RA M E , B A S E , A N D P Y R A LI N S I D E

, . r--
E.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1, 7 0 80 90 / 100
P I E Z O M ETERS ( 1 3 - 19,

/
34- 42)
GATE O P E N I N G \I N P E R c/E � T /

.: for hea.d s less than 100'

, ; R el at ive p r e ssure curves

',_j
B. S E C T I O N A - A S H O W I N G P O S I T I O N C. PRESSU R E S ON u PS.I�fa'A M \F R A }.4 £- - ,

----,�------,--,"'-----,----- - �--�- -�-��

=------,.=-----------
r-,------
OF S E A L R I N u a P I E Z O M E T E R S ON G A T E P l E Z OM E T E R S ( 1 - 1 2 1 \ ....,
\ /
30 r------,-----,---,---,------,---�--�--� - �--� 3 .0
AT V A R I O U S GATE O P E N I N G S
100

�n--- 1
, '-.

;<· o. 656", Orif i c e

26

---------I'---...
,,.--
�� "- 2 .-- 0_
0 - - -
1 -
->l 9 - 27 "
-+- I � \ -h-- -+----f

9
0 o f-------1--+---------+� -�q......_---1-\---..:::,.,J......\�

\
1

. LJ 5 7 o s i d e e ll-Jl 59 o�i d e
�p posi t:=ii �posite \ / \ 0:
7 0 r----t---+-----lr--7+- -+--\-1-+ - -++--+1r--1----l---1
! I O 1----- ----::::=l-....,"J:.a�""";:\-,4rl� 0:
� - +-----¥---+"s;;-;;,''--f----t--,I-----J-

6 0 1------- +---+--+---+-+---t- \) \
--------,f--------+--+----+-+--+--+- -4
<{
;::
"-
<{

;:
0: t-­

•• -r---.....
w
� 50 1-------t-----r-----t----t-+-- -t---------,,----+--+-+-++-+--4 w
<{ "- 0

; �� _ \ \
6 40 f ---- --l--'""'--¾----- -+----++--------,---1---+--+-+-+++- -----< w
0:
::,
<I)

: 30 1-----1----+--..µ.... f---+---i----1----+--+-+-----l\++-----I
� - 1 0 1-------+- - ----r-tsc'"-:-+...o,,,s:--+---7'f'---f---,C7"J'Al,-;.4.�4--- -+--..j
<I)

Q.
, r--------..
--------,l-,:;-_/
\
� 2 0 1--------i\--- +-- +--''s+-t-- t- " � - "<+ -+--��--+---�
::, \ ""-_,__-
___,- 2 1 -- \

�
-

\ ,,,--------
'-- 22
--
; I O f-----l-�.-+---l---- ---/--l---l-r/
L._�f--��-
-=i::::�-'"4-
�,l;;:=:::j:+�
::,,___j

1
1-------:k---''t----r+--+-h+-+7==!=�::\E��"'.:'.=""�
L20 _ /� ::-- �

��-t--=--J-t-----7"1b--
( /�F-- '/'""-l--l-;f-J
�r-�/-- Al+l-
____
0 44

..,
_/:
"-�� �r\
- 2 •� """

\�-\�I!� °'-JY�� �v1

- , o 1-----p
� �
._.,.,::,
2 - 30 1-----�- --1---+--+----+---+---- l---l---+---+---I

ll/
1/;v V I
-20 I :.
,;-
-p-
>-M -
!m
s--'-
suu
___ _
_2' -

t-
00 ": e 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

a
G A T E O P E N I N G I N P E R CENT

-
3
0

_ I
-- - - - - • --\ - --
�
2 0----:-
..........J....
-/ ----..:. ::- /4-
R l at, ve pressure curves
j e
/<------ - _::.:�# " for heads less than too'
F. P R E S S U R E S O N D O W N ST R E A M C O N D U I T, I N A I R VE NTS
P I EZOM E T E R S (43 59)
A I R D E MA N D C U RVES

-
.A. S E CT I O N OF M O D E L 0 10 ,"2.o', 30 1 40 so so 10 80 0 00 C E N T R A L V A LL E Y PR O J E CT - C A L I F O R N I A
/ \ GATE OP E N I N G I N P E R C E NT
I \ I 9
1 SHASTA DA M
\
a A I R D E M A N D FO R 1 : 1 7 M O D E L O F O R I G I NA L D ES I G N
I I CONTRO L GATE FOR 1 0 2 - I NCH OUTL E T S
'-'D. P R E S S U R E S O N G A T E
P l E Z O M E T ERS (20 - 3 3 )
P R ESSURES
 Figure 8

A. Gate approximately 50� open

B. Gate approximately 2 5� open

C. Gat e approximately 10% open

CONTROL GATE F O R SHASTA DAM

JET P ROFILE OF 1 : 17 MODEL OF THE ORI GINAL DES IGN
 Figure 9
I/,e- _ .L_::_::,,,,_
' II Sl t
0
II II

r = == = = = = = = = = = = = = 4
Gate Le of-,11 11
,: -H-
"'
II

I
\
I

\
\
\
F l ow
, - C o ntraction of J et
\ ': a t Gate
\
\

'
I
U n obstructed path

I
/
of Jet -

'=- - --
I

- -
= = = �'-::: ::- � - - -=--=---fl
� (..-- -No contract ion of Jet
a t Pipe

A. Flow through a gate

B. Gate a ppr oximately 5 0% open . ¼h en vi ewed

f rom a b ove this j et s p reads th rou gh an
a r c of a p p roximat ely 90 d e g r ees .

C. Gate a p p r oxima tely 2 5% open

CONTROL GATE FOR SHASTA DAM

SHAPE OF JET OF C OMMON GATE DES I GN
 F' i gu r e 10
Gate

"
II

Orif ice D i a . 4 "

p - = === = = = = = === ==�
16
NOTE: In phot ographs below
I Pipe D i a . 5 "
I
I
I ''
I

'
I

'
I
I

'
I

.,
I

-�
i5
0
Flow
\

.,
I '·
I

I
0

--i--;r
D
U n o b sr ructed Pot h 0 0..
I of Jet-. I

L � = = ---------------
I Q._
I I i

--
I ----- ',; I
I
I
I
I
,

L e af

A. Modification of common gate d e s i gn - Orifice

and large r condu it u pst ream

B. Gat e approximat ely 50% open . J e t does not

spread sidewi s e .

C. Gate approximately 2 5% open

CONTROL GATE F O R SHASTA DAM

IMPROVED JET WITH LA RGER CONDUIT UPSTREAM AND ORIFICE AT GATE
 F I GURE 1 1

y--· �------�-
"'
"'
'
'

t "
a:

a:"'
>-
b

"' "' "'

0 :i;

"0
POSITION 0

�
>- a: OF GATE >­
5 0 ¾ OPEN

i
>-
UJ
:i;

r l
>- 0
3 UJ
0 u
z
0 u:
ii: 2 5 ¾ OPEN
0

-------------' --
, : ' 1 0 % OPEN
j ,---JET HORIZONTAL WITH GATE 1 0 0 ¾ OPEN

--r
---- 7r -
JET DEFLECTED DOWNWARD
,
1,

-I AS GATE CLOSES ·.
_,:

3':!=========ct=��=� J _
_.. . t__VERTICA L RISE i

�-HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE---�
: /
(·ANGLE OF DOWNWARD
DEFLECTION
-
ANGLE OF ORI FICE LIP--···

SUMMARY OF M EASUREMENTS OF PROFI L E OF B O T T O M OF J E T

FOR VARI OUS APPROACH CONDUITS A N D GATE OPENINGS
ALL DATA BA SED ON 1 0 0 - INCH OUT.LET DIA M ETER
J ET G AT E 5 0 % OPEN G A T E 25 ¾ OPE N G A T E 1 0 ¾ OPEN
DI A M ETER HORI Z ONTAL! VERTICAL ANGLE O F HORIZONTAL VERTICAL ANGLE OF HORIZONTAi VERTICAL ANGLE OF
CLEARANCE! R I SE DEFLECTION CLEARANCE RISE DEFLECTION CLEARANCI RISE DEFLECTION

r a
45
°

2f.1;-tTc\
ON
1 7 1 . 4" s1.2" I
SMOOTH J E T WITH GATE
68 " I 3. 5 "
100%
I 4° 3 5 • 26" I 1 .9 " I 6 ° 3 5'
OPEN - LIGHT F I N S AT SIDE OF JET AS GATE C L O S E S
I 1 0" 0. 5 " IO0 5 5'

l b 45° 1 7 1 . 4" 8 8.0" 51 " 2.8 " 6 ° 4 0' 2 2" 1.0" 8 ° 1 O' 6" 0.3" 1 0 ° 5 5'
1-----+-- -+
- - ---+- --+---- 1- -- � ---- --1------1-----1----+----+-- --+- -
4 11
2a I 5° 1 5 0. 0 " 8 5 .0 " 8 9" 3. 8 11
4 35'
°
3 2.7" 7 °2 0' 1 4" 1 .0" 7 ° O'

2b 4 5° 1 50 . 0" 8 8 .0 " 50" 2.6" 6° 1 5 ' 2 2 11 I. 3 11 8 ° 40' 7" 0.3" 1 0 ° 3 0'

3a I 5° 1 3 3. 3" 86.9" 6 7" 3.6" 5° 05 ' 33" 2.0" 6

°
3 5' 1 2" 0. 7 " 7 ° 3 0'

* 4a
3b 4 5° 1 3 3 . 3" 8 9. 6" 43
11
2. 4 " 5 ° 5 0' 2 1" 1.2 " 8 ° 1 O' 6" 0.2" 1 0 ° I 5'

* 4b
1 5° 1 20 " 88.8" 4 9 11 3.0" 6 ° 4 5' I 7" 1.0" 8 ° 30 ' 6" 0. 3 " 9° 30'
4 5° 1 20 " 9 1 .6" 3 3" 2.0" 7° 5 0' I 5" 1.0" 9 ° 1 5' 6" 0.2" 1 1 ° 5 5'
5a 5° 1 09 . 1 " 9 2. 7 " 3 O" 2 . 0" 7° 1 5' 17"
I I
I 1.2" 9 ° 5 0'

I
ROUGH JET W I T H GATE I 00 % OPE N

5b 4 5° 92. 1 " I 2 s" 1 7'' s 3 5'

I I
109 1 " 1 7 ,, 1.0 " 1 0 ° 0'
0

ROUGH JET W I T H GATE 1 0 0 % OPEN

6 100" 1 00 " O" O" J 1 6 45 1 ' 0" O" 2 1 ° 3 5'

* R ecommended
_
°
ORIFICE
R E MOVED - STRAIGHT CONDUIT - ROUGH JET W I T H GATE 1 0 0 % OPEN-HEAVY F I N S AT S I D E S OF J E T AS GATE C L O S E S

for design

NOTE
Measurements based o n model o n 6 - inct. 1 . D. pipe
A c c u r a c y of measurement s :
Hor i z o n t a l c l e a ranc e ! 1 "
Vert i c a l rise ! o. 2 "
A n gle of d e f l e c t i on :t 0 ° 30 '

CENTRAL VA LL E Y PROJ E C T - C A L I F ORNIA

S H A STA DA M
CONTROL GATE F O R 1 02 - I N CH OUTLETS
J ET S H A PES FOR VAR I O U S GATE D E S I G N S
 FIGURE 1 2

' · · - - - --- •
-- - - 1 00 DIVE R GING SECTION - - - -- - - - - - - - - · ·
r ;

- T - - - -r--....
: - - - - - - - - - .,_ --t

_______
_
r'
"'"' '
I

a:
w
>< a: POSITION
>­
w
0 w 2,
a: >- OF GATE <l
a. w ci
s o ¾ OPEN

I
a.
� _
2,
>­

"'
<l
<l
ci w
w 7'
0
z w

-
w 0
;;:

...
I
a: ii:

�
'I w
>
0
ci 2 5 ¾ OPEN
·o �
0

!'
'L-!:--: -·- t ·-===----==-- �d:::==- ==-.......
• , : w � _ 1 0 ¾ OPEN '

: i to '
V
i
@J
1 a:
1 UJ �JET HORIZONTAL WITH GATE 1 0 0 % OPEN

b=====k============,.;;;;;:;�� �� - "".�
---==-=----=--
--,Jz.i ' __ y___�r-::--r - --=�-=r����---
---- - -�>;aa;�
'···VE RTICAL RISE : ,
; / ANGLE OF DEFLECTI ON'
,�
- -�
i<- HOR I ZONTAL CLE ARANCE ', JETS DEFLECTED DOWNWARD
ANGLE OF ORIF ICE LIP · - -_ _.--'
AS GATE CLOSES

SUMMARY OF M EASUREMENTS OF PR OFI L E OF B OT T O M OF J E T

FOR STRAIGHT AND DIVERGING APPROACH CONDUITS
ALL DATA BASED ON 10 0- INCH OUTLET DIAM ETER

GATE 50 ¾ OPEN GATE 2 5 ¾ O P E N GATE 1 0 ¾ OPEN

*
APPROACH ANGLE OF CONDUIT JET
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL ANGLE OF 1-tORIZONTAL VERTICAL ANGLE OF HORIZONTAL VERTICAL ANGLE OF
CONDUIT ORIFICE LIP DIAMETER DIAMETER CLEARANCE R I SE DEFLECTIOliCLEARANCE R I S E OEFLECTION CLEARANCE RISE Dl':FLECTION

STRAIGHT 5• I 20" 88. 8 " 4 9" 3.0" 6°4 5 ' I 7" 1 .0 " 8° 3 0 ' 6. 0.3 " 9 °3 0 '
t
DIVERGING 50 1 0 1. 5 " 89.5" 4 4" 2. 4 " 6 °4 o · 2 o" .o" 8°3 5 ' 6" 0 .2 " 9 °3 0 '

STRAIGHT 4 5° I 20" 91. 6" 3 3" 2.0 · 7°5 0 ' I 5" .o· 9° I 5 ' 6" 0.2" 1 1 °5 5 '

DIVERGING 4 5° 1 0 1.5 " 9I . 5" 4 I " 2. 1 " 7 °0 5 ' I 8" 1 .3" I 0 °0 5 ' 8" 0.3" 1 1 °4 5 '

* Doto
t
for straight conduit from 6" 1. D. m o d e l - s e e f i g u r e 5
Doto for d i v e r g i n g conduit f r o m 4 . 0 6 " I . D. model

CENTRAL VA LLEY P R OJ E C T - C A L I F OR N I A
S H A S TA DA M
CONTROL GATE FOR 1O2 - I N CH OUTLETS
CO M PARISON O F JET WITH STRAIGHT AND D I V E RGING CON D UIT UPSTREAM
 FIGURE 13
°0
;.. 2 Dia Orif_,.; 40
\\\\�
r %'%'§"')
� \\
\\,
9" D ia. Plate ./ =�-
\\
\\
· r

Piezometer Locotions Air demand piezometer ··· ··· · · · · ·'

L ..

a:
w
30

I- ui
<t
;;:: ...:
u
u..
l----+--- --JL.---+--�_+-�--,,!-c.__-- -t-- --i----t----;,V--f--j 5
"'a:
0 20
I w
-
w
w
u.. <t
_.··· Existing Transition :x:
� u
(/)
w 10 0
a:
'­

0
"' 1"
::,
(/)
(/)
.::: - - - - - - - - 5 .;: - - - - - - - - - :-1
-7A:
w
a:
a.
0

· This section odded after �---�--- - - -J 90

:�
- - - preliminory run- - - - · - ""i ''

·�
NOT E: This edge - 10
GATE OPE N I NG IN PERCENT
0 10 20 0 40 50 60 70 80 100
I is roundei!. ' 3
5.8 8 " Transition , .,
100··· p��t;t-ype· · - ->i "' .:
D. D E S I G N SHORT TRAN SITION
C. a.
>- c ,E
o
C :a"::
� �0
I
__L 40
- "' =
00 '-

I
<X>•
u 00 a..
d�
g
I I
, o
,r,=

.J .i
0
0 0
c;l a: 3
w
11 · I ui

u
<t
...:
15�
;;::
12 14 5
u..

· - - - - -- 4''. _ _ _ _ _ _ _J ------ -- ------- af' . - - ------------- -----�' "'a:

w
0 20
' I
!-<-- - - -
w
w
u.. <t
H A L F S EC. A - A HALF END VIEW :x:
� u
(/)
w 10 0
a:
::,
(/)
(/)
w
a:
a.
0 0
In
00
0
'

t
,, 2
� - 10 90 100
GATE OPEN I NS IN PERCENT
20 0 40 50 60 70 80
3

cS E
. ci . �
C >-
E. D E S I G N 2 C I R C U L A R (No Tronsitionl
= a..
Q--= Q 40 .....----.....-----,,-- - --,-- --,-----.--- -.---,-----,---
---00----U - t ----- - -,-----,
0= � -
-
QN 00 a..
<D Q lf> ·o
Q

0
a: 3

u
w
ui
...:
i II 12 t
<t
8

;--f'>-L.c
;;::
10
5
5 6
-:"!,J 7
u..

, ..
"'
C 0 20
1" · >-< - 2 '' 3 · · - -- -· I- w

I1
. 3 " - --� w
B. DESIGN 2 C I RCULAR a:
-<7 0
w
u.. <t
:x:
3 ,.
� u
(/)
0

-?==============""f==��======="re,j
w 10
a:
/'• ::, 3
(/)
(/)

·-+ 2 .
w IQ ..
a:
a. 1 2 ··
0 -1 0

-� �
'. 8.

-- · =oo
:�

-------�1+---- +t--t-UIII-N ------

_o a..
---- --- - -- ·--· - · -----·- -- - - 90
-- .,
GATE OPEN I N G
o= - 10 20 0 40 100
�Q 3
�� NOTE
F. D E S I G N 3 LON G T R A N S I T I O N
All pressure-discharge curves

I
based on 100 ft. head. P R E S S U R E - D I SC H A R G E C U R V E S
C E N T R AL VALLEY P R O J E C T - C A L I FOR N I A

_Jo : s
10 I ii SHASTA DAM

C,
CONTROL GATE F O R 1 0 2 - I N C H O U T L E T S
- 3" · · · · - · +· P R E S S U R E, D I SCHA R G E A N D A I R D E MAND CURVES F O R
HALF SEC. D - 0 HALF E N D V I E W
00
LO N G T R ANS I T I O N TRANSI T I O N S A N D C I R CULAR SECT I O N S DOWNSTREAM FROM GAT E
 P i gu r e 14

A. G a t e 100% open

B. Gate a pp roximately 50� open

C. Ga t e app roxima t ely 2 5% open

D. G a t e a p p r oxima t e l y 10% open

CONT ROL GATE F O R SHASTA DAM

JET PROFILE FROM 1 : 1 7 MODEL O F PROPOSED DES I GN
 Figure 1 5

A. The model

B. Di scharge with gate 50� open

1 : 17 MODEL OF C ONTROL GATE

P ROPOSED FOR OUTLETS IN SHASTA DAM
 rigu re 16

A. Dis cha r g e with gate 100% open

B. Di scharge with gate 10% open

DISCH ARGE TH ROU GH MODEL OF C ONT ROL GATE

P ROPOSED FO R O UTLETS IN SHASTA DAM
 F I GURE 17

·Adoplor flange

\
20" Conduit -- -
�;

:
-·>-f<·

-J
,, :
--- 8B .5t'---- - +- - ·- · I 0.56't •.>' /
>;-< -- - 17.06"

i middle tier . ->;:

9 6"

, �·
/
A �To simulate :
&
,,

•
I I /

Head ' pressure on A -(press;re en 8 - pressure on I )

since velocity head 1 n 20" conduit may be neglected .
r 4�:'.?�-/
>/'
150
<
.:
U)

0 0
- :- - 0�1 i1;�-���� �:
u.

-- - 6" Dia - - --
: A. P R OFI L E OF MODE L ,-.
-<- 1 91411 D � IS 0D20 FT. 2 i 100

' i :
u
.
<
;,:
�'
w
0
ti
w

'
NOTE
::,
y a:
� 11.
50

Air demand p1ezometer _,'

- -q]3--- -� _· a:
Piezometer Locations

�: �
0
,, '10

"
>,
--IN 0

-10

- •o

' -t -
·, :., .
i,' ' 80
40 ,o 60 70 90

,�
100

·� ;E
GATE O P E N I N G IN PERCENT

-· ________ _._ _ _ - -- ,a -r ----

�!it
D_ TEST B - 1 T R AN S I T I O N

-r
···------- l:------elk" Transition
�\I
��
32

�,
- 1 .4 12''

�:;Q�
_ '(
�o:�

-------:.-··-·
100
See curves above for Air Demond,
,:0 02 Head, ond piezometers I a 2 .

!mi
.

- 16 -
�------ 6"- !- -- - -- -
_y ___ -
50

15 I 17

PROPOSEO GATE -:--. -f' -�

-- - 1 ¾"- - ->+< · - -- 2"--- --1- - - -2"

i ··... .
�-------------- - ,
J
---- -------------- u 0
�
: - ------- ----------------
. ½.>k
w
.

i --EXISTING PROTOTYPE CONDUIT HALF SEC . A-A HALF END V I E W

+10
CONDUIT �olo'srn --------
TRANSITION
- --- ---SECTION
--- --------- -------->t<- --- ---------- - - - - - --- --- -
EXISTING PROTOTYPE
-- - -- - - --------• - - -- ------------- --------?T<- - .'3... ---1:
-- --·
-

'
;,:
e. T E S T e - 1 · T R A N S ITION D·o w N s T R E A M F R O M GAT E w ,9
a: 0
3 �- -- 16,14•

-----
,o
w
U)
U)
12
a:
a.
.,.....A--
6 -10
This pietometer woa
1, ----
Air Vent --··O.,.
__ .,,.. found defective.
Approx. error"' -0.02,fo,
- -
-20 o'c - -- -,L
1o---�,"'o�--· -=,o
' 40 ,0 60 70 80 90 100
GATE OPENING IN PERCENT

E. T E S T B - 2 C I R CU L AR CON D U I T
: X. ci �
��
o _ _ ___ PRESSURE - AIR D EM A N D CURVES
o � -+----- -
c - -+---1---+l-
;:; · --- - �
:;;_:;:: �
(Q

I C E N TRAL VA L L E Y PROJ E C T - CA L I FO R N I A

}t, CONTROL
S H ASTA DAM
GATE FOR 1 O 2 - I N C H O U T L E T S
P R E S S U R E AND A I R DEMA N D C URVES F O R H I GH H E A D TESTS
1 : 1 7 M O D ELS OF P R O P OS E D GATE
C. TEST B-2 C O N D U I T D OW N S T R E A M F R O M GAT E
 F I GURE 18

0 '
DISCHARGE
90 1-----\�--l--- ----+-

� · ---· -+l+---+-ll--l+H-t-
� \
- --+ - - - --+ 0

-�
80 0.8
r

1!;;
>--- - -----<
g

-9.91 ''. .,_;.4_74;.;.. . - - - - 1 7. 0 6 " - - - - - - - - - - - 8 8. 57 '' · · · · • . .

,,.,
70 0.7
'·Jc-
:.- -To stimulote

---j
middle tier Gone ··

.,.."-
. <,·
• <:,' 60 6 0.6

"
w w
A. P R O F I L E O F M O D E L "' Cl'. D

f- <( Cl
w
:; 0:

u. D I

50 5
0 (.)
0: O .S <J>
0
w
f-
w
<(
NOTE u.

+
u. z
D
0

�
a" D i a. - - - - - - - - - - - - z <( >-
i<.- - - - - - -- - - - - - · · -- - · - :,,...
z

:
--=IP-
w

! i
Orifice area , : 40 4 w 0. 4 w
Piezometer Locations
-
·>-: 1.914 D i a . :-c - 0.0200 ft' :
Cl
:g
-
: Cl'. 0:
u.
A I R DEMAND OF u.
IY,f'@P,?'��
� (/////,17/(A
::, <(

w
<11 I
: 0 <11 (.) w
(.)
<11 0
Cl'.
a. 0
30 0. 3
T° :
A i r demand p,ezometer .: :
,,
' '
' ', 2 0.2

I- '
z,
W,
>, 0. 1
er '

�:
<( '
<!> '
z,
• .L" Air vent on each s,de ,

" ... 3, 4,5, 7, 8 ,9,

• 2 Orifice area , 0 0033 ft

1¾" - + - - 2f-··'1 "' �

x, 0 0 0
.,.
W,
"' "' z "' :!;
? -----
0 0 1 1, 1 3 , 14
_
a,

' '
a,
0 0 6 6 0
' T -· I I '
5 ·--Piez.• 4 .f
Base pressure i n gote, piezometet·6' ···
-, 0
<:-:; . . A i r v e n t - - ·" 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
G I\ T E O P E N I N G I N P E R C E N T

1o i "-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­
C. P R E S S U R E - DI SC H A R G E C U R V E S

�
- · · · 11) - - -.- - - -
1

"' a::
, a
.
0. - -
- -
- - 0 �-___t_
' 0

;iote , Pi�zometers 1 6, 1 7, 1 8 , 19,

Note s • ( I ) A l I pressure - d i schorge curves based on 100 ft. head

The coefficient of discharge "c" is based on the rela -

and 20 shown for side in this
view, near side i n other views (2) Model heads approximatel y 5 0 ft. e x c e p t at 100% open
(3) At 100% open mode head 16.9 ft. ( Scale head ' 13.1 f t )
( 4)
tion C , __g__ where O ' d ischarge , A , the area of
A\/'2g'H

" " ". - +-" �

the conduit, and H , the reservoir head o bove t h e
21 22 valve 't.

f.,- - - - - - 6"- - - - - - � 1¾ - -+ - - 2" - - -+- -- 2" - - - -+- - 1 r - -+ 1" + - - 2" - 3" -,J

H A L F S EC. A - A HALF E N D VIEW

E X I S T I N G P R O TO T Y P E CO N D U I T , P R O P O S E D G A T E AN D C O N D U I T : EXI ST I N G P.ROTOTY P E C O N D U I T

-;j � - -- - - - .. - - . - . . - -. - -. - - - - ---- - -
-

C E N T R A L V A L LEY P R O J E CT - CALIFORNIA
. . . .
- - - . - - - .- .
. • • • • • - • • • • • • -• • •• • • • - • • - • • • - ->,<- - - • • • • - -- - -- - - - ->;<- . - - . . . .

E LE V AT I O N S H A S TA DAM
CONTROL GATE F O R 1 0 2 - I NCH O U T LETS
B. D E T A I L S O F G A T E PRES S U R E, D I S CHARGE AND A I R DEMAND CURVES
1 : 1 7 M O D E L OF T H E FI NAL DESIGN
".. �

A. Gate 10% open B. Gate 2 5% open

PROPOSED CONTROL GATE DISCHA RGING INTO A STILLING POOL

°"C:
AT GATE OPENINGS OF 10 and 25 PERCENT
..,en
"'l
f-"

'°I-'
"' . •

A. Gate 50% open B. Gate 100% open . Note waves on

sidewalls because of low head

PROPOSED CONTROL GATE DISCHARGING INTO A STILLING POOL

AT GATE OPENINGS OF 50 and 100 PERCENT ,_..
"'l
Oil
C:
'1
(1)
N
0
'> • ..

A. Gate 50% open B. Gate 100% open

PROPOSED CONTROL GATE DISCHARGING INTO A STILLING POOL

WAVES ON SIDEWALLS ELIMINATED BY UNDERCUT PIERS ..,,,
.....
(7Q
i:;
'"1
Cl)

N
I-'
 Fig ure 22

A. Gate 100� open

B. Gate 2 5� open

PROPOSED CONT ROL GATE USING SQUARE-T YPE O RIFICE