|
<br />
<br />710 JULY 1971
<br />
<br />are controlled by a two-part, 17-ft, 2-in.-long (5.2-m) flap gate hinged to
<br />concrete sill at its bottom upstream edge and hinged again at a point 6 it
<br />in. (2 m) downstream [Fig. 8(e)]. Cables from overhead hoisting equip
<br />
<br />/ ,
<br />g-Io
<br />-t
<br />
<br />
<br />~..
<br />
<br />. i
<br />.. -. -( .
<br />. '"_~'~~1" '~.;,:,~I.:.:'r~T'
<br />
<br />,...~.
<br />.' '.:,} "-'.'. I . ,~--,
<br />;. -;"','--- i
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />FIG. e.-Model of Channel Entrence Showing Rediel end Flap G.tes
<br />I
<br />
<br />"{
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />FIG. 7.-"Surfing" Wa.e Created By Flap Gate with Eddy Formed by Radial Gilt
<br />
<br />attach at the intermediate hinge points at the sides of the gate to raise ...
<br />lower lhe center portions of lhe gate. When iully open, the gate lies f1al..
<br />the concrete sill. At partial closure, the gate forms an inverted V with wale:
<br />flowing over the apex and down the ronger sloping downstream section. Ace
<br />
<br />
<br />WHITEWATER CHANNEL
<br />
<br />711
<br />
<br />iogIy, boats pass over the gate, down the slolling section, and safely into the
<br />!bannel. At full closure, the apex is raised above the normal upstream pool
<br />..vation to shut off all flows. Full closure will be made if river flows become
<br />too low for safe use of the channel [i.e., less than about 150 cfs (4.25 m' / s)].
<br />. Selection 01 Control Gate Deslgn..-Before the flap gate design was accepted,
<br />
<br />
<br />~-=",
<br />
<br />,,,.- ~~
<br />~, rl"
<br />""/~'''~/'
<br />
<br />.. PIT GAT~
<br />
<br />.. Sl.UICE GATE "SIEMIU
<br />
<br />FIOW-
<br />
<br />
<br />--~-...,........
<br />
<br />':~'J{}J;5"
<br />
<br />I
<br />}
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />,
<br />
<br />C. fAIlAU)AN-IHFI.ATEO
<br />
<br />D. BAICULE ."TE
<br />
<br />-=~-=-~
<br />
<br />~...;~
<br />Flow_ . -...
<br />1 '~_~.npo.i'i'"
<br />~ --E--- - - :;l
<br />,'. ....J" ,.,.,
<br />E. HINGED Fl..... GATE
<br />
<br />FIG. a.-Control Gate. Studied
<br />
<br />'''''"''''''.-'.''''
<br />"""'I"'"
<br />
<br />-'"t,...."".."...
<br />
<br />. '\....
<br />
<br />"'l"'O""<'"''~r'''''''~'''''''''''
<br />~~ --,:,:~~--i '\ /8." ..., ..,-.......
<br />O'~~, "/=,--- ;>'1i::.-'_..~d:J-',~7~,,---
<br />I'o,,,.c..,,.I.,
<br />-I....'...' "c.."..."""....,............'
<br />(,"""1 ~..'c_....,_ ."a..IP""
<br />::---:---
<br />
<br />f
<br />t
<br />I
<br />"
<br />
<br />P
<br />
<br />,..,....t.
<br />
<br />,,~ "
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />'J,.".'-'
<br />
<br />""""'"
<br />
<br />o€>-..
<br />
<br />,.
<br />I
<br />I
<br />J
<br />,
<br />,
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />FIG. 9.-Schemati. View of Flnel Channel
<br />
<br />anumber of other concepts were considered. Anyone ofthe concepts investigated
<br />might be usable at another site, but because of the type of usage, upstream
<br />"'.lrol criteria, and flood dangers, they were not used for the Denver site.
<br />. One concept would have been to leave the existing dam in its present configuration
<br />and construct a bypass around it on the west side. This was abandoned because
<br />
<br />1
<br />~
<br />
|