Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,,' <br /> <br />-' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />PRELIMINARY <br />SUBJECT TO RE.V~ION <br /> <br />a <br /> <br />location makes maintenance access somewhat easier and maximizes the head for <br /> <br /> <br />power production. The centerline of the exit portal is located about 400 feet <br /> <br /> <br />south of the North Adit access road. This conduit is also the c10~est conduit <br /> <br /> <br />to the existing transformer station which perhaps could be utilized in any <br /> <br /> <br />power development. <br /> <br />(:'~-l <br /> <br />(> <br />c.o <br />U1 <br />t~ <br /> <br />4. This powerhouse location will require the installation of steel <br /> <br /> <br />penstock between the existing steel liner and the intake to the turbine. A <br /> <br /> <br />four-foot diameter penstock was selected as a result of a comparison of <br /> <br /> <br />discharge-head10ss-diameter relationships. A transition section from the <br /> <br /> <br />6-foot by 7.5-foot liner to the 4-foot diameter penstock would be required. A <br /> <br /> <br />detailed feasibility should scruitinize the requirements of this p~nstock and <br /> <br /> <br />should optimize the final selected diameter. <br /> <br />5. A basic assumption of this project arrangement is that a minimum <br /> <br /> <br />level of weather proof housing of the generator and associated electrical <br /> <br /> <br />equipment would be required at this site. No operation would occur during <br /> <br /> <br />winter months. The hoisting or removal of equipment would be ponsib1e with <br /> <br /> <br />the use of a portable crane operated from the roadway at the top of the dam. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />6. Plate 3 shows a <br /> <br />view of the proposed powerhouse arrang"ment. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />B. <br /> <br />Tllrhinfl: Splpction. <br /> <br />1. The turbine type best suited for any proposed hydropow"r addition <br />at John Martin is dependent on the physical constraints impolled by the <br />existing outlet works and on the hydrologic variables of flow and head. <br /> <br />2. Standardized tube turbines were considered as these can <br /> <br /> <br />accommodate the flow and head conditions at the site. However. the existing <br /> <br />- . <br />conduit sizes precludes the standardized tube turbIne as a preferrod type. <br /> <br />3. The Kaplan turbine is also well suited to the range of hydraulic <br /> <br /> <br />head and flows to be encountered at John Martin Dam. Francis an~ crossflow <br /> <br /> <br />turbines are more expensIve than the Kaplan turbine and they each require more <br /> <br /> <br />powerhouse space which is a major cost consideration at this site. <br /> <br />7 <br />