PROJ00527

• Contract/PO #: FS0024X
• Contractor Name: Florida Water Conservancy District
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 0
• County: La Plata
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

)\1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

downstream of the gates. The manhole
from the chamber, but if necessary,
through the 742-foot long tunnel.

is for access to the gates
equipment could be hauled

7.2 PIPING CONFIGURATIONS
The piping in the gate chamber needs to be modified to obtain
the best turbine location and the maximum turbine output. There
are four maj or considerations when evaluating al terna ti ve piping
configurations. They are: 1) velocity of water, 2) head loss
through the piping, 3) location of the turbine in the chamber, and
4) cost of the piping. Three alternative piping plans IC, B, A)
were evaluated and are shown in Figures 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3.

The piping configuration is not a major cost item compared to
the turbine, generator, and electrical equipment, but it is ex-
tremely important because of potential friction loss through the
pipe. For instance, piping Plan A has the least friction loss and
allows an additional 90,000 kWh to be produced over piping Plan C.
Each of the piping plans is described in detail beginning with
Plan C which requires the fewest changes to the existing piping.
Plan B provides a better position for the turbine and is an
interim step to the best plan, Plan A. Plan A is the best con-
figuration but requires that the outlet be dewatered to remove the
concrete block around the first bend. Plans B or C would have to
be used if the outlet were not dewatered.

Piping Plan C (Figure 7.1) would allow the existing piping to
the first a-inch gate valve to remain. After the gate valve, an
a-inch to 10-inch reducer would be needed to enlarge the pipe
diameter because the inlet to the turbine is 10-inches in dia-
meter. With a flow of 13 cfs, the maximum velocity would be
reduced from 37 feet per second lfps) for the a-inch pipe to 24
fps for the 10- inch pipe.

7.0-3