Report 08-20 Sao Francisco - RESUMO

hydrotec
consultants ltd
RESUMO
SAO FRANCISCO RIVER PROJECT
PHYSICAL HYDRAULIC MODEL TESTING OF

PUMPING STATIONS EBV-1 AND EBV-2
FOR
SULZER BRAZIL S.A.
FINAL REPORT
Moorfield Close, Moorfield Estate, Yeadon, Leeds LS19 7YA, England
Telephone : 0113 2500370

Facsimile : 0113 2500230
Reg. No. : 3685901 England,

VAT No. : 721 6911 47
Directors : M Jones, R Sinclair, T Thornton, S MacCarthy, D Jones Report 08-20, September 2008
hydrotec
consultants ltd
CONTENTS
SUMMARY..............................................................................................................3
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................6
1.1 Description of scheme..........................................................................6
1.3 Purpose of testing................................................................................9
1.4 Description of model...........................................................................10
1.5 Testing the composite model..............................................................14
1.6 Flow rates and control levels..............................................................15
1.7 Coarse Screen details........................................................................15
3.00 TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PUMPING STATION EBV-1................16
3.10 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................16
3.20 Initial testing of EBV-1 - Introduction.................................................16
3.21 Initial testing of Pumping Station EBV-1...........................................16
3.30 Development EBV-1 - Introduction...................................................22
3.31 Development of Pumping Station EBV-1..........................................23
3.40 Final testing of EBV-1 - Introduction.................................................26
3.41 EBV-1 – Final testing - Operating range and control levels..............27
3.42 EBV-1 – Final testing - Pump intake conditions................................27
3.46 EBV-1 – Final testing - Conclusion...................................................29
4.00 TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PUMPING STATION EBV-2................29
4.10 Introduction.......................................................................................29
4.20 Initial testing of EBV-2 - Introduction.................................................29
4.21 Initial testing of Pumping Station EBV-2...........................................30
4.30 Development of EBV-2 - Introduction...............................................34
4.31 Development of Pumping Station EBV-2..........................................34
4.40 Final Testing of EBV-2 - Introduction..................................................37
4.41 EBV-2 – Final testing - Operating range and control levels..............38
09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 1

hydrotec
consultants ltd
4.42 EBV-2 – Final testing - Pump Intake conditions................................38

hydrotec
consultants ltd
SUMMARY
This report covers the testing and development work undertaken on a composite
physical hydraulic model of three individual proposed pumping stations, designated
Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2, that each form part of the Sao Francisco river water intake
scheme.
The composite model was used to develop arrangements that worked well under all of
the potential operating scenarios. EBV-1 and EBV-2 were simulated at a scale of
1:12.9 full size, whilst maintaining fully turbulent conditions at the inlet to each of the
eight suctions under both scales, which can be confirmed by calculation of the model
Reynolds Number, ensuring it exceeds the recommended minimum values.
Testing was undertaken on each pumping station arrangement in turn and the results
of the initial testing, development and final testing programmes may be summarised
as follows.
Pumping Station EBV-1 - Initial testing
The initial testing programme undertaken on Station EBV-1 demonstrated that pump
intake conditions were similar to those exhibited on Station EBI-1 and were therefore
compromised by the presence of submerged side wall vortices generated where
opposing approach flows to the suction intake were forced to mix and a rotational
element, sufficient to form a fully coherent and penetrating vortex core, was generated
as a result. In addition, a strong and stable fully penetrating free surface vortex was
also noted, when operating at lower water levels, when the top of the vertical vane
was exposed. Despite the presence of these adverse hydraulic features, the general
pump intake conditions were characterised by a uniform approach flow and smooth,
radial draw at the suction. Pre-swirl rotation was maintained within acceptable limits,
with no bulk rotation identified.
As the approach flow entering the individual pump cells were considered acceptable
and the variations in pump combinations and designation had no measurable effect
on intake conditions, it was not considered necessary to develop the inlet
arrangement in any form. The adverse features were all a function of localised
disturbances in the region of the suction intakes of each individual pump cell and as
they were common in both form and intensity, in each case, similar modifications were
anticipated for each of the four pump cells.
The initial testing programme for Pumping Station EBV-1 is documented in Section
4.20 of this report. The initially proposed arrangement is detailed Drawings 03 and
04, located in Appendix 2.0.
Pumping Station EBV-1 - Development
Further development of the initially proposed arrangement was required local to the
pump suctions only and no alteration was necessary around the inlet to each of the
cells or within the distribution bay. The modifications developed for Pumping Station
EBV-1 were similar in concept to those developed for Station EBI-1 and consisted of
45-degree infill fillets located at base, level local to the pump suction intakes. A
vane/cone hybrid was also installed in addition to a rear profiled (45-degree) vane,
extending vertically upwards, terminating below the minimum water level. Testing
demonstrated that no further modifications were required to ensure satisfactory pump
intake conditions could be achieved.

hydrotec
consultants ltd
The development of Pumping Station EBV-1 is documented in Section 4.30 of this
report. The proposed revisions to the arrangement are detailed in Drawings 10 to 12,
located in Appendix 2.0.
Pumping Station EBV-1 - Final testing
Following the development and installation of the modifications within the four
individual pump cells, as detailed in Drawings 10 to 12, the initially defined maximum
and minimum operating levels maintained and the pump discharge retained at
7000 l/s, the final proposed arrangement of the Sao Francisco Pumping Station EBV-
1 ensured a satisfactory operating environment could be achieved.
Acceptable pump intake conditions were maintained under all anticipated station
inflow rates, sump water levels and approach profiles. Pump intake conditions were
free from surface and submerged vorticity, jetting flows, the ingestion of entrained air
and pre-swirl rotation was maintained at zero degrees. The swirl meter vanes were
generally characterised by very minor bi-directional fluttering, which is indicative of
stable flow passing the position of the prototype impeller.
Undertaking velocity scans, using a pitot static tube array, at the minimum and
maximum water levels on Pump 1, confirmed our visual assessment and determined
that a radial draw was achieved with an acceptable velocity distribution across the
plane of the intake, at the position of the prototype impeller.
The maximum deviation from the mean velocity occurred when operating at the
minimum water level of 298.64 m, with a peak value of 3.13 % recorded. This was
within the limiting value of 10 % total, or 5 % plus or minus from the mean as defined
in the ANSI standards (Ref : 9.8.5.6 - Acceptance Criteria) and confirmed that
acceptable pump intake conditions were maintained. A second velocity scan
undertaken demonstrated slightly improved intake conditions, with a maximum
variation of 2.40 %. This could be attributed to the increased cross sectional area of
the pump cell and the reduction in forward flow velocity as a result.
The modifications proposed were again kept as simple as possible and were
conceptually very similar to those installed in Station EBI-1. No alteration to the main
structure or pump locations was necessary. The modifications are detailed in
Drawings 10 to 12 in Appendix 2.
The Final confirmatory testing programme for Pumping Station EBV-1 is documented
in Section 4.40 of this report.
Pumping Station EBV-2 - Initial testing

Initial testing of Station EBV-2 demonstrated that while acceptable pump approach
conditions were maintained, intake conditions were compromised by relatively strong
submerged side wall vortices and free surface vortices. The adverse hydraulic
features were consistent in form and intensity with Station EBV-1. In addition, the
individual cell width, cell length and pump flow rate are also all similar. On this basis,
it was considered that similar modifications should be installed.
The initial testing programme for Pumping Station EBV-2 is documented in Section
5.20 of this report. The initially proposed arrangement is detailed Drawings 05 and
06, located in Appendix 2.0.
Pumping Station EBV-2 - Development

hydrotec
consultants ltd
Due to the success of the modifications implemented on Pumping Station EBV-1, a
similar arrangement both dimensionally and in terms of suction flow rate, and the
similarity of the adverse hydraulic features noted, it was considered that similar
modifications to the pump cell arrangement should be adopted. On this basis, the
sump was modified to include 45-degree infill fillets, a vane/cone flow conditioning
module and a rear wall, vertical vane, profiled back from the central point at 45-
degrees. In each case, the modifications were of similar dimension and form to those
implemented on Station EBV-1.
The development of Pumping Station EBV-1 is documented in Section 5.30 of this

report. The proposed revisions to the arrangement are detailed in Drawings 13 to 15,
located in Appendix 2.0.
Pumping Station EBV-2 - Final testing
in the ANSI standards and confirmed that acceptable pump intake conditions were
maintained. A second velocity scan undertaken demonstrated slightly improved intake
conditions, with a maximum variation of 2.24 %. This could be attributed to the
increased cross sectional area of the wetted sump area and the reduction in forward
flow velocity as a result.
The modifications proposed were again kept as simple as possible and were
conceptually very similar to those installed in Stations EBI-1 and more significantly,
EBV-2. No alteration to the main structure or pump locations was necessary. The
modifications are detailed in Drawings 13 to 15 in Appendix 2.
The Final confirmatory testing programme for Pumping Station EBV-2 is documented
in Section 5.40 of this report.

hydrotec
consultants ltd
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Description of scheme
As part of the Sao Francisco River Intake Project it is proposed to construct three new
pumping stations, designated Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2. Each pump
station will draw flow directly from the Sao Francisco River via dedicated trapezoidal
channels.
Station EBV-1 will ultimately be fitted with four vertical spindle mixed flow pumps,
specifically Sulzer type BK 1400-1870-1s/033. The four pumps will be operated on a
fixed speed basis and will deliver a nominal maximum flow of 7.00 m 3/s each to the
downstream system. Up to four pumps will be operated simultaneously, resulting in a
maximum potential pumped outflow of 28.00 m 3/s. The pumps will be initiated on a
demand basis and will be operated between levels of 298.64 m and 304.09 m (the
minimum and maximum anticipated levels accordingly), resulting in a total potential
band width of 5.45 m and a maximum and minimum station depth of 11.69 m and 6.24
m appropriately. The actual station level will be determined by river level and on this
basis, is likely to fluctuate seasonally, rather than on a regular daily basis.
Each of the four pumps will draw centrally from individual 5160 mm wide pump cells
with the pump centreline being off-set from the rear sump wall by 2500 mm. Each
pump cell will be fitted with coarse screens and isolation stop logs at the upstream
end. It is assumed that ultimately, the station will be operated with all pump cells
open, except during periods of maintenance, when the stop logs will be introduced.
We understand that the intention is initially to install two of the four pumps units; the
remaining two pump cells will be isolated using the proposed stop logs.
The proposed coarse screens will consist of a 5.160 m x 6.312 m screen face with
vertical bars of 12.7 mm x 150 mm profile and 100 mm spacing’s. In addition,
horizontal support bars with a similar profile and approximately 1050 mm spacing’s will
also be installed.
Figures 1.13 and 1.14 that follow illustrate the individual cell geometry in plan and
section for Station EBV-1, according to the originally proposed design.
Pump suctio n in take

13800 N.T.S. 1:1 SLOPE
20590
35
R1 3
2094 1123 500 3372 600 11900 1000

1000
A A
2580
5160
3160
2580
1000
1200
R105 0
2500
12900
Coarse screen positio n Sto p log positio n
Figure 1.13 – Plan of one of four similar pump cells on Station EBV-1, of the Sao
Francisco River Intake Scheme.

hydrotec
consultants ltd
MAX W.L. 289.64m
R8000
577
MIN W.L. 289.64m
12400
1000
4973
6600
5000
150
1050
292.40m
3470 2126 7900 2500 2500
6646 12900
Figure 1.14 – Section A – A through the centre of one of the similar four pump
cells on Station EBV-1, of the Sao Francisco River Intake Scheme.
Station EBV-2 will ultimately be fitted with four vertical spindle mixed flow pumps,
specifically Sulzer type BKn 1400-1470-1s/030. The four pumps will be operated on a
fixed speed basis and will deliver a nominal maximum flow of 7.00 m 3/s each to the
downstream system. Up to four pumps will operate simultaneously, resulting in a
maximum potential pumped outflow of 28.00 m 3/s. The pumps will be initiated on a
demand basis and will be operated between levels of 359.68 m and 361.80 m (the
minimum and maximum anticipated levels accordingly), resulting in a total potential
band width of 2.12 m and a maximum and minimum station depth of 8.12 m and 6.00
m appropriately. The actual station level will be determined by river level and on this
basis, is likely to fluctuate seasonally, rather than on a regular daily basis.
Each of the four pumps will draw centrally from individual 5160 mm wide pump cells
with the pump centreline being off-set from the rear sump wall by 2400 mm. Each
pump cell will be fitted with coarse screens and isolation stop logs at the upstream
end. It is assumed that ultimately, the station will be operated with all pump cells
open, except during periods of maintenance, when the stop logs will be introduced.
We understand that the intention is initially to install two of the four pumps units; the
remaining two pump cells will be isolated using the proposed stop logs.
The proposed coarse screens will consist of a 5.160 m x 6.312 m screen face with
vertical bars of 12.7 mm x 150 mm profile and 100 mm spacing’s. In addition,
horizontal support bars with a similar profile and approximately 1050 mm spacing’s will
also be installed.
Figures 1.15 and 1.16 that follow illustrate the individual cell geometry in plan and
section for Station EBV-2, according to the initially proposed design.
Pump suction intake
17985
3 35
500 500 3485 600 11900 1000

R1
1000
A A
2580
3160
5160
2580
1000
R1050
2500
12900
Coarse screen position Stop log position

hydrotec
consultants ltd
Figure 1.15 – Plan of one of four similar pump cells on Station EBV-2, of the Sao
Francisco River Intake Scheme.
MAX W.L. 361.80m
1420
MIN W.L. 359.68m
1000
6600
353.68m
2600 2400
1192 6110 12900
20202
Figure 1.16 – Section A – A through the centre of one of the similar four pump
cells on Station EBV-2, of the Sao Francisco River Intake Scheme.
The detailed general arrangement drawings of the three proposed pumping station
arrangements are shown on Drawings 01 to 06 in Appendix 2, at the back of this
report.
1.2 Acceptance standards
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI/HI 9.8 - 1998) publication ‘Pump
Intake Design’ has been adopted to provide the following minimum acceptance
standards for the model testing programme. Acceptance criteria for pre-swirl rotation,
free surface and submerged vorticity stated by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI/HI 9.8 - 1998) publication is stated below:-
Pre-swirl
Pre-swirl angles both the short term (10 to 30 second model) maximum and long term
(10 minute model) average indicated by the swirl meter rotation, must be less than 5
degrees. Maximum short term (10 to 30 second model) swirl angles up to 7 degrees
may be acceptable, only if they occur less than 10% of the time or for infrequent
pump operating conditions.
The swirl meter rotation should be reasonably steady, with no abrupt changes in
direction when rotating near the maximum allowable rate (angle). The maximum
permitted swirl angle should be 5 degrees for both short term and long term average
conditions. Whilst 7 degrees has been defined as acceptable as a short term
maximum value for infrequent occurrence (<10% time).
Free surface vortices
Free surface vortices entering the pump must be less severe than vortices with
coherent (dye) cores, Type 3 classification, see Appendix 1 – Section A1.4. Dye core
vortices may be acceptable only if they occur for less than 10% of the time or only for
infrequent pump operating conditions.
Submerged vortices
Submerged vortices entering the pump must be less severe than Type 2 classification,
see Appendix 1 – Section A1.4.
Air Intake

hydrotec
consultants ltd
Air ingestion to a pump intake may cause a reduction in pump capacity. It is widely
recognised (Reference M.J. Prosser – The Hydraulic design of pump sumps and
intakes) that ingestion of air concentrations in excess of 4% by volume may cause a
significant reduction in pump capacity. In a typical case a centrifugal pump ingesting
3% free air can result in a drop in efficiency of up to 15%. The expansion of ingested
air bubbles within the pressure regions of the pump impeller may result in mechanical
imbalance forces, which may result in vibration and an acceleration of mechanical
wear. In addition, prolonged air ingress may result in air pocket development within
the rising main, which may cause instability and blockage.
In view of the potentially destructive nature of air ingress to a pump intake, we would
seek to prevent all bulk air passage to a pump intake. Bulk air is defined within the
model test down to small but discreet air bubbles.
1.3 Purpose of testing
The purpose of the model test was to establish the operating characteristics of the
three proposed pumping station arrangements and to develop the designs, where
considered necessary, to achieve a satisfactory hydraulic environment over the full
range of inflows and potential water levels. There are several specific hydraulic
phenomena that can adversely affect the performance of pump operation. It is
important that these phenomena are minimised or eradicated on the prototype to
ensure the pump performance and reliability can be optimised. The key areas of
interest on these three particular models may therefore be summarised as follows :-
 Ensuring that flow presentation to the pump intakes is acceptable.

 Eliminating free surface and/or submerged vorticity local to the suction intakes of
the operative pumps.
 Maintaining pre-swirl rotation to within acceptable limits (see Section 1.2 –
acceptance standards).
 Ensuring no entrained air is drawn into the suction intake of the duty pump.
 Maintaining a relatively uniform spatial distribution of velocity at the position of the
prototype impeller.
 Ensuring the individual pump cells remain materially self-cleansing during normal
operation periods.
More specifically, the testing and development process will involve the following:-
 Develop control of the approach flow to the pump suctions by minimising flow
separation off the inlet nosing on entry to the pump cell, reduce bulk rotation and
eliminate any jetting effect through onto the suction intakes.
 Study the pump suction arrangements under all potential operating levels, flow
rates and pump combinations.
 Develop any necessary modifications to the pump inlet arrangements and
localised benching in order to avoid the formation of pre-swirl and both surface
and submerged vortices.
The mechanisms for air entrainment, vorticity and pre-swirl rotation are defined in
Appendix 1.
1.4 Description of model
The three proposed pumping station arrangements are conceptually very similar,
however there is some geometrical variation in individual cell dimensions and in the
number of pump cells in each case. While physical hydraulic modelling was a
requirement for all three pumping stations, it was considered that a single composite
model, which could be set up to replicate operation of any of the three pumping

hydrotec
consultants ltd
stations (EBV-1 or EBV-2), would be suitable in this case. It was considered that while
the composite model concept could accurately represent each station in turn, and be
fully compliant with the specification in each case, the testing programme could be
substantially reduced. Following consultation with the client, the composite model
concept was confirmed as the preferred option.
A composite model was constructed with a total of eight pump cells. Pump cells 5 and
6 were fitted with pump fabrications accurately representing interpretations of the
external geometry (and internal geometry as far as the impeller position) of the
proposed Sulzer BK 1400-1870-1s/033 type pump units, as proposed for Station EBV-
1, and cells 7 and 8 were fitted with Sulzer BKn 1400-1470-1s/030 type units, as
proposed for Station EBV-2.
This test rig was constructed to allow the model to be quickly adapted by inserting
blanking plates to simulate Stations EBV-1 or EBV-2. In each case, one half of each
station could be modelled accurately, with representative flows drawn off the opposing
side to generate the correct passing flow. As all three stations are symmetrical about
the centre line, each side is a handed version of the other. On this basis, the
requirements for testing and development could be achieved in each case as outlined
in the client’s specification.
Table 1.41 (below) and the associated sketch, Figure 1.41, summarises the relevant
pump and cell dimensions in addition to the individual pump capacities for each of the
three stations. In order to provide a similar cell width for each of the three sets of
cells, the model scales would be initially set for the eight pump station and the scale
adjusted for stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 to achieve a similar model width. This scale
was selected based on achieving fully turbulent conditions, local to the suction intakes
of each pump. A limiting Reynolds Number must be achieved of above approximately
30,000 to 40,000. At a scale of 1:15 th, the model Reynolds Number was calculated as
approximately 74,000, which is well in excess of the stated minimum vales.
The pump cell widths for Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 are similar at 5.16 m on the
prototype and therefore applying a scale of 1:12.9 in each case will ensure the cell
width is maintained in each case at 400 mm. The appropriate calculations were
carried out to ensure that the fully turbulent conditions were maintained at the suction
plane for the pumps in both Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2. Model Reynolds Numbers of
63,500 and 67,000 for Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 appropriately were confirmed. In
both cases these values are above the limiting value of 30,000 to 40,000 and may be
considered to satisfy the requirements for modelling.
Figure 1.41 – Typical pump cell dimensions.
Cell length L1p Cell length L2p

Cell Width Wp
SC-RW P1
Dia.
uth
l mo
RBe
Station designation EBV-1 EBV-2

hydrotec
consultants ltd
Prototype cell width – Wp (m) 5.16 5.16
Prototype cell length – L1p (m) 12.90 12.90
Prototype cell length – L2p (m) 6.72 6.72
Suction centre to rear wall – SC-RW P1 2.50 2.40
(m)
Prototype pump capacity (m3/s) 7.00 7.00
Prototype Reynolds Number 2,938,768 3,102,033
Prototype pump bellmouth diameter (mm) 2670 2520
Proposed scale 12.9 12.9
Model cell width – Wm (m) 400 400
Model cell length – L1 (m) 1000 1000
Model cell length – L2 (m) 521 521
Suction centre to rear wall – SC-RW M1 0.194 0.186
(m)
Model pump capacity (l/s) 11.71 11.71
Model Reynolds Number 63,428 66,952
Model pump bellmouth diameter (mm) 207.00 195.35
The model pump fabrications were constructed from information issued by the pump
supplier and very accurately fabricated to a scale of 1:12.9 for stations EBV-1 and
EBV-2.
Overall view of the model test rig (set up for Station EBV-1)

hydrotec
consultants ltd
Overall view of the model test rig (set up for Station EBV-2)

hydrotec
consultants ltd
Coarse screens located on the upstream end of each individual pump cell.
3.31 Development of Pumping Station EBV-1
Dimensional checks were first undertaken to confirm whether of not the key sump
dimensions were in general agreement with the “American National Standard for
Pump Intake Design” publication, as issued by the Hydraulic Institute. The sump
proved to be in general accordance with the sump cell, being approximately 2 suction
diameters wide and of sufficient length to eliminate any adverse condition at the cell
entry. On this basis, no infill sections were considered to be necessary to reduce the
width of the sump, local to the suction intake.
In an attempt to eliminate the formation point for submerged side wall vorticity, evident
in all four pump cells, connecting with both the right and left hand walls, and to
improve the transition of flow into the suction intakes by infilling potential low velocity
stall areas, 45-degree low level infill benching fillets were introduced. The sloping
angle face is critical in denying the vortex mechanism a formation point and the
optimum angle is 45-degrees. As it was important that no vertical face of the sump
side wall was exposed local to the suction, the height of the infill fillets was extended
to a similar elevation to the suction intake plane. This resulted in relatively large infill
fillets, when maintaining a slope angle of 45-degrees. The infill fillets were extended
approximately two suction diameters upstream and a profiled 45-degree transition
was installed on the upstream end, to minimise any potential for flow separation of the
approach flow off the leading edges of the benching.
While there was no evidence of a coherent floor vortex noted on station EBV-1 this
could be attributed to the reduced suction draw of the appropriate pumps. A stall zone
was generated and on this basis, it was considered that a similar cone/vane hybrid
design should be adopted. It was considered that this would eliminate the stall zone
and in addition, improve the transition of flow into the suction arrangement. The
proposed cone should have a base diameter of 2500 mm with the centre-point
elevated 1100 mm. This will result in a cone face angle of approximately 41 degrees.
A 200 mm clearance will also be maintained between the top of the cone and the
suction intake plain elevation. This will ensure that should any solid matter enter the
pump cells, it will not become trapped at the intake, minimising the risk of potential
blockage. An intermediate horizontal plate or vane should be installed between the
cone and the rear vane.

hydrotec
consultants ltd
The initially proposed vertical vane, located centrally on the rear wall of the sump,
behind the pump canister, initiated surface vorticity in all four cells, when the upper
extend of the vane was exposed above the water surface, when operating towards
the minimum anticipated level. It was again considered that the vertical rise of this
vane was excessive and in addition, the angle coincident with the rear wall was too
abrupt. Testing demonstrated that rather than improving the transition of flow into the
suction intakes, it generated adverse hydraulic features. It was clear that some form
of vane should be maintained and, based on previous experience and on the success
of modification to the similar Station EBI-1, the initially proposed vane was replaced
with a vane extending vertically 5490 mm, to a peak elevation of 297.86 m. This is
750 mm below the defined bottom water level, ensuring the vane will remain fully
submerged at all times. The vane is profiled from a central point, back towards the
rear wall at an angle of 45-degrees. It was considered that this would improve the
transition of flow towards the suction intake and limit any potential for flow separation
or shedding off any localised boundaries.
No further modifications were considered necessary and preliminary testing

demonstrated that the general pump intake conditions had been significantly
improved. Both the submerged and surface vortices had been successfully
eliminated and the transition of flow into the pump suctions was further improved.
Pre-rotation was maintained within acceptable limits.
The proposed arrangement for each cell in Pumping Station EBV-1 is illustrated in the
drawings and images that follow.
1100 5700 1000
1100 5244 356 1100
B
141
4
1000
1100
1100
1480
503
356
1580
A R 12 5 A
0
1100
2249
5160
2960
1100
1580
356
6
155
1480
1100
1100
1000
2500
B
1500 1000
Plan of the proposed modifications to each of the four pump cells on Pumping
Station EBV-1.

hydrotec
consultants ltd 5160
1500 1000 2580 2580
305.00
1000 1580 1580 1000
1480 2200 1480
298.64
BWL = 298.64
297.89
296.79
1100
1100
1100
3290
3290
293.50
292.40
1100
1100
1100 5144 356 1100 1000 1580 1580 1000
1250 1250 1250 1100 356 2248 356 1100
Section A- A Section B - B
Section A – A and B – B of the proposed modifications to each of the four pump

cells on Pumping Station EBV-1.
The proposed modified pump cell on Station EBV-1.

hydrotec
consultants ltd

Drawings 10 to 12 in Appendix 2 show details of the modified arrangement. Final
confirmatory testing is undertaken in Section 4.40 of this report. This includes
confirmatory testing, in addition to a detailed velocity scan to be undertaken when
operating under the worst case scenario of maximum pump speed with minimum
level. In addition, a second velocity scan is undertaken when operating at the defined
top water level, in each case using a pitot static tube array.
3.40 Final testing of EBV-1 - Introduction
Following the definition of the modifications (see Section 4.30) a study of the
proposed final arrangement was undertaken to confirm the pumping environment
when operated between the minimum and maximum anticipated water levels of
298.64 m and 304.09 m, with fixed individual pump rates of 7000 l/s (7.00 m 3/s) with
varying numbers and combinations of operative pumps between one and four

hydrotec
consultants ltd
(incremental station inflow rises of 7000 l/s up to a maximum inflow rate of 28000 l/s.
Both straight and oblique pump cell approach flow patterns were achieved depending
on the pump combination being studied. In addition, a detailed velocity scan at the
position of the prototype impeller was undertaken for the worst case operating
scenario, defined as maximum station inflow (4 pumps operating simultaneously) at
the minimum operating level of 298.64 m, using a pitot static tube array. In addition, a
further velocity scan was undertaken at the maximum pumping station level of
304.09 m, again, with three pumps operating simultaneously.
The programme of testing carried out may be summarised as follows:-
 Operating range and control levels
 Pump intake conditions
 Solids transportation
 Velocity scan at the impeller position
 Recommendations for the operating philosophy
3.41 EBV-1 – Final testing - Operating range and control levels
The control range is again defined by the variation in level of the Sao Francisco River,
which has been confirmed by the client as between 298.64 m and 304.09 m, a total
range of 5.45 m.
At the minimum anticipated river level of 298.64 m the depth of water in the pumping
station will be 6.24 m. With a suction height of 1.20 m above the sump base level of
292.40 m, the total suction submergence is 5.04 m. Testing demonstrated that
acceptable pump intake conditions could be maintained at the minimum level. Further
testing confirmed operation across the full anticipated range. On this basis, we do not
recommend any alteration to the pumping station base elevation and can confirm that
the operational depth in the station is acceptable, regardless of the number of pumps
being operated.
3.42 EBV-1 – Final testing - Pump intake conditions
Following the completion of the development programme a detailed evaluation of

pump intake conditions was undertaken across the defined flow and sump level range
to identify any submerged or surface vorticity, to confirm that no air will enter the pump
suctions and to determine the magnitude of pre-swirl rotation. The sump was
operated in its fully modified form, detailed in Drawings 10 to 12 in Appendix 2.0.
Testing was undertaken with various combinations of one to three pumps operating
simultaneously across the anticipated level range.
With the modifications in place, testing demonstrated acceptable pump intake

conditions could be achieved. Acceptable intake conditions were maintained
regardless of the sump operating level (in line with the control levels defined by the
client, see Section 1.60 of this report), the pump rate, (fixed speed rate of 7000 l/s per
pump, as defined by the client) and regardless of the nature of the approach flow (i.e.
straight or oblique).
In each of the defined test scenarios, there was no evidence of either surface or
submerged vorticity, air entrainment local to the intakes and pre-swirl rotation was
maintained at zero degrees, (i.e., no coherent rotation noted). The swirl meter vane
was characterised by very mild bi-directional fluttering, which is indicative of stable

hydrotec
consultants ltd
flow passing the impeller position. The transition of flow into the pump suction intakes
was, in each case, smooth, uniform and radial.
We understand that the client intends to install only two of the four pumps initially. As
testing confirmed that all pump cells operated satisfactorily, we would not recommend
any preference of which pump cells were put on-line first. We would therefore
recommend that the decision is made by the client on the basis of ease of installation,
with consideration given to future installation of additional pump units.
The images/video sequences that follow (overleaf) illustrate the model operating in it’s
fully modified form under various operating scenarios.
[Video 09] – Video sequence demonstrating intake conditions at Pumps 1 with a

station water level of 305.00 m (maximum anticipated level) with a total station
inflow of 28000 l/s (4 of 4 pumps operating, oblique entry conditions) and an
individual pump rate of 7000 l/s. No modifications installed.
[Video 10] – Video sequence demonstrating intake conditions at Pumps 1 with a

station water level of 298.64 m (minimum anticipated level) with a total station
individual pump rate of 7000 l/s. No modifications installed.
3.46 EBV-1 – Final testing - Conclusion

hydrotec
consultants ltd
increased cross sectional area of the pump cell and the reduction in forward flow
velocity as a result.
No alteration to the main structure or pump locations was necessary. The
modifications are detailed in Drawings 10 to 12 in Appendix 2.
4.00 TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PUMPING STATION EBV-2
4.31 Development of Pumping Station EBV-2
The modifications to Station EBV-2 were similar to those recommended for Station
EBV-1 and included 45-degree infill fillets local to the suction intake, a revised
vane/cone hybrid to replace the existing horizontal vane and a variation of the initially
proposed vertical vane. The modification are detailed in the drawings below. Images
of the revised arrangement follow.

hydrotec
consultants ltd
1100 5700 1000
1100 5244 356 1100
141
4
1000
1100
1100
1480
503
356
1580
A R 12 5 A
0
1100
2249
5160
2960
1100
1580
356
6
155
1480
1100
1100
1000
2500
B
1500 1000
Proposed modifications to each of the four pump cells on station EBV-2 – Plan.

hydrotec
consultants ltd 5160
1500 1000 2580 2580
305.00
1000 1580 1580 1000
1480 2200 1480
298.64
BWL = 298.64
297.89
296.79
1100
1100
1100
3290
3290
293.50
292.40
1100
1100
1100 5144 356 1100 1000 1580 1580 1000
1250 1250 1250 1100 356 2248 356 1100
Section A- A Section B - B
Proposed modifications to each of the four pump cells on station EBV-2 –

Sections A – A and B – B.
The modified pump cell on Pumping Station EBV-2.

hydrotec
consultants ltd
View of the revised vane/cone hybrid design located beneath and along the
centre-line of each pump suction intake.
View of the pump cell from above.

Drawings 13 to 15 in Appendix 2 show details of the modified arrangement. Final
confirmatory testing is undertaken in Section 5.40 of this report. This includes
confirmatory testing, in addition to a detailed velocity scan to be undertaken when
operating under the worst case scenario of maximum pump speed with minimum
level. In addition, a second velocity scan is undertaken when operating at the defined
top water level, in each case using a pitot static tube array.
4.40 Final Testing of EBV-2 - Introduction
Following the definition of the modifications (see Section 5.30) a study of the
proposed final arrangement was undertaken to confirm the pumping environment
when operated between the minimum and maximum anticipated water levels of
359.68 m and 361.80 m, with fixed individual pump rates of 7000 l/s (7.00 m 3/s) with
varying numbers and combinations of operative pumps between one and four
(incremental station inflow rises of 7000 l/s up to a maximum inflow rate of 28000 l/s.
Both straight and oblique pump cell approach flow patterns were achieved depending
on the pump combination being studied. In addition, a detailed velocity scan at the

hydrotec
consultants ltd
position of the prototype impeller was undertaken for the worst case operating
scenario, defined as maximum station inflow (4 pumps operating simultaneously) at
the minimum operating level of 359.68 m, using a pitot static tube array. In addition, a
further velocity scan was undertaken at the maximum pumping station level of
361.80 m, again, with four pumps operating simultaneously.
The programme of testing carried out may be summarised as follows:-
 Operating range and control levels
 Pump intake conditions
 Velocity scan at the impeller position
 Solids transportation
4.41 EBV-2 – Final testing - Operating range and control levels
The pumps in Pumping Station EBV-2, like EBV-1 and EBI-1, will not be operated on a
level control basis, but will react to demand rather than water level. The control range
is therefore defined by the localised level variation of the Sao Francisco River, which
the client has confirmed as between 359.68 m and 361.80 m above the datum level, a
fluctuation of 2.12 m.
At the minimum anticipated river elevation of 359.68 m, the water depth in the
pumping station will be 6.00 m above the base level of 353.68 m. The plane of the
pump suction intake is elevated 1200 mm above the base, resulting in a total
minimum suction submergence of 4.80 m. This exceeds the pump manufacturers
defined minimum submergence. Testing demonstrated that acceptable pump intake
conditions could be maintained at the minimum level. Further testing confirmed
operation across the full anticipated range. On this basis, we do not recommend any
alteration to the pumping station base elevation and can confirm that the operational
depth in the station is acceptable, regardless of the duty pump number and
designation.
4.42 EBV-2 – Final testing - Pump Intake conditions
On completion of the development programme, a detailed evaluation of pump intake
conditions was undertaken across the defined flow and level range to identify any
submerged or surface vorticity, to confirm that no air will enter the pump suctions and
to determine the magnitude of pre-swirl rotation. The sump was operated in its fully
modified form, as detailed in Drawings 13 to 15 in Appendix 2.0. Testing was
undertaken with various combinations of one, two, three and four pumps operating
simultaneously across the anticipated level range.
Testing of the proposed modified arrangement demonstrated that acceptable pump
intake conditions were achieved, regardless of the sump level (within the defined
range of between 359.68 m and 361.80 m), station inflow (between 7000 l/s and
28000 l/s), number of operative pumps (between 1 and 4) and pump
designation/combination.
A comprehensive number of operating variations, based on level, inflow, pump
combination etc., confirmed that in each case, there was no evidence of either
surface or submerged vorticity, entrained air entering the region of the suction intakes
and pre-swirl rotation was within acceptable limits, maintained at zero degrees with no
bulk rotation noted. The swirl meter vane was characterised by relatively mild bi-
directional movement, which is indicative of stable flow passing the position of the
prototype impeller. The transition of flow into the suction intakes was, in all cases,
smooth, uniform and radial and considered to be acceptable.

hydrotec
consultants ltd
We understand the client intends to install only two of the proposed four pumps
initially. As testing confirmed that all pump cells operated satisfactorily, we would not
recommend any preference of which cells were put on-line first. We would therefore
recommend that the decision is made by the client on the basis of ease of installation,
with consideration given to future installation of additional pump units.
The images/video sequences that follow, overleaf, illustrate the model operating in its
fully modified form under various operating scenarios.
[Video 13] – Video sequence demonstrating intake conditions at Pump 1 with a

station water level of 359.68 m (minimum anticipated level) with a total station
individual pump rate of 7000 l/s. Proposed modifications installed.
[Video 14] – Video sequence demonstrating intake conditions at Pump 1 with a

station water level of 361.80 m (maximum anticipated level) with a total station
individual pump rate of 7000 l/s. Proposed modifications installed.
4.46 EBV-2 – Final testing - Conclusion

hydrotec
consultants ltd
increased cross sectional area of the pump cell and the reduction in forward flow
velocity as a result.
The modifications proposed were again kept as simple as possible. No alteration to
the main structure or pump locations was necessary. The modifications are detailed in
Drawings 13 to 15 in Appendix 2.
APPENDIX 2 DRAWINGS
The following drawings form part of this report:-
General Arrangement Drawings (prior to any modifications)

Sao Francisco River Intake – Plan on cell for EBV-1 P.S. Drawing 03
Sao Francisco River Intake – Section A – A for EBV-1 P.S. Drawing 04
Sao Francisco River Intake – Plan on cell for EBV-2 P.S. Drawing 05
Sao Francisco River Intake – Section A – A for EBV-2 P.S. Drawing 06
Development Drawings
Detail of modifications – Plan – Station EBV-1 Drawing 10
Detail of modifications – Section A – A and B – B – Station EBV-1 Drawing 11
Detail of modifications – Vane/cone hybrid design – Station EBV-1 Drawing 12
Detail of modifications – Plan – Station EBV-2 Drawing 13
Detail of modifications – Section A – A and B – B – Station EBV-2 Drawing 14
Detail of modifications – Vane/cone hybrid design – Station EBV-2 Drawing 15

hydrotec
consultants ltd
08-2 0GEN-0 3
20590
R13 5
2094 1 23 500 3372 600 1 900 1000
13800 N.T.S. 1:1 SLOPE

1000
A A
2580
3160
5160
2580
1000
1200
R1050
2500
12900
09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2

hyconsudltarntoslttdec SaoFranciscoRiverIntake - Planoncel for EBV-1 PumpingStation Drawing03
26
hydrotec
consultants ltd
08-2 0GEN-0 4
MAX W.L. 289.6 4m
R8000
577
MIN W.L. 289.64m

12400
1000
4973
6600
5000
150
1050
292.40m
3470 2126 7900 2500 2500

6646 12900

hyconsudltarntoslttdec SaoFranciscoRiverIntake - SectionA-Aoncel EBV-1 PumpingStation Drawing04
27
hydrotec
consultants ltd
08-2 0GEN-0 6
17985
R13 5
500 500 3485 600 1 900 1000

1000
A A
2580
3160
5160
2580
1000
R1050
2500
12900

hyconsudltarntoslttdec SaoFranciscoRiverIntake - Planoncel for EBV-2 PumpingStation Drawing05
28
hydrotec
consultants ltd
08-2 0GEN-0 6
MAX W.L. 361.8 0m

1420
MIN W.L . 359.68m

1000
2860
6313
6600
6225
1200
353.6 8m
1050
2600 2400
1 92 611 0 12900
20202

hyconsudltarntoslttdec SaoFranciscoRiverIntake - SectionA-Aoncel forEBV-2 P.S. Drawing06
29
hydrotec
consultants ltd
1 00 5700 1000 08-2 0GEN-1 0

1 00 5244 356 1 00
B
14 14
1000
1 00
1 00
1480
50 3
356
1580
A A
1 00
R1250
5160
2960
2249
1 00
1580
356
15 56
1480
1 00
1 00
1000
B 2500
1500 1000

hyconsudltarntoslttdec Detailof modif cation- Plan- StationEBV-1 Drawing10
30
hydrotec
consultants ltd
5160 08-2 0GEN-1

1500 1000 2580 2580
305.0 0
1000 1580 1580 1000

1480 2200 1480
298.6 4
BWL= 298.64 297.89
296.79
1 00
1 00
1 00
3290
3290
293.5 0
292.4 0
1 00
1 00
1 00 5144 356 1 00 1000 1580 1580 1000

1250 1250 1250 1 00 356 2248 356 1 00

SectionA-A Section B - B
hyconsudltarntoslttdec Detailof modif cations - SectionsA-AandB - B - StationEBV-1 Drawing1
31
hydrotec
consultants ltd
08-2 0GEN-1 2
B
1250 150 1 00
A A
1 00
1 00
R1250
1400 1 00
B
1 00 1 00
41 41
1 00
1 00
150 1 00
1250 1250 1250 1250 1250

32
hydrotec
consultants ltd
1 00 5700 1000 08-2 0GEN-1 3

1 00 5244 356 1 00
B
14 1 4
1000
1 00
1 00
1480
50 3
356
1580
A R125 0 A
1 00
5160
2960
2249
1 00
1580
356
15 6
1480
1 00
1 00
1000
B 2500
1500 1000

hyconsudltarntoslttdec Detailof modif cation- Plan- StationEBV-2 Drawing13
33
hydrotec
consultants ltd
08-2 0GEN-1 4
5160
1500 1000 2580 2580
1000 1580 1580 1000

1480 2200 1480
TW L= 361.80
BWL= 359.68 359.1 7
358.07
1 00
1 00
1 00
3290
3290
354.78
353.68
1 00
1 00
1 00 5144 356 1 00 1000 1580 1580 1000

1250 1250 1250 1 00 356 2248 356 1 00

SectionA-A Section B - B
34
hydrotec
consultants ltd
08-2 0GEN-1 5
B
1250 150 1 00
A A
1 00
1 00
R1250
1400 1 00
B
1 00 1 00
41 41
1 00
1 00
150 1 00
1250 1250 1250 1250 1250

35

Report 08-20 Sao Francisco - RESUMO

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Report 08-20 Sao Francisco - RESUMO

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

hydrotec

SAO FRANCISCO RIVER PROJECT

PHYSICAL HYDRAULIC MODEL TESTING OF

Moorfield Close, Moorfield Estate, Yeadon, Leeds LS19 7YA, England

Telephone : 0113 2500370

Reg. No. : 3685901 England,

1.1 Description of scheme..........................................................................6

1.3 Purpose of testing................................................................................9

1.4 Description of model...........................................................................10

1.5 Testing the composite model..............................................................14

1.6 Flow rates and control levels..............................................................15

1.7 Coarse Screen details........................................................................15

3.00 TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PUMPING STATION EBV-1................16

3.20 Initial testing of EBV-1 - Introduction.................................................16

3.21 Initial testing of Pumping Station EBV-1...........................................16

3.30 Development EBV-1 - Introduction...................................................22

3.31 Development of Pumping Station EBV-1..........................................23

3.40 Final testing of EBV-1 - Introduction.................................................26

3.41 EBV-1 – Final testing - Operating range and control levels..............27

3.42 EBV-1 – Final testing - Pump intake conditions................................27

3.46 EBV-1 – Final testing - Conclusion...................................................29

4.00 TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PUMPING STATION EBV-2................29

4.20 Initial testing of EBV-2 - Introduction.................................................29

4.21 Initial testing of Pumping Station EBV-2...........................................30

4.30 Development of EBV-2 - Introduction...............................................34

4.31 Development of Pumping Station EBV-2..........................................34

4.40 Final Testing of EBV-2 - Introduction..................................................37

4.41 EBV-2 – Final testing - Operating range and control levels..............38

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 1

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 2

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 3

Pumping Station EBV-2 - Initial testing

Pumping Station EBV-2 - Development

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 4

The development of Pumping Station EBV-1 is documented in Section 5.30 of this

Pumping Station EBV-2 - Final testing

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 5

1.1 Description of scheme

Pump suctio n in take

2094 1123 500 3372 600 11900 1000

Coarse screen positio n Sto p log positio n

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 6

MAX W.L. 289.64m

3470 2126 7900 2500 2500

Pump suction intake

500 500 3485 600 11900 1000

Coarse screen position Stop log position

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 7

MAX W.L. 361.80m

1192 6110 12900

1.2 Acceptance standards

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 8

1.3 Purpose of testing

 Ensuring that flow presentation to the pump intakes is acceptable.

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 9

Cell length L1p Cell length L2p

Station designation EBV-1 EBV-2

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 10

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 11

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 12

09/01/2019Sao Francisco River Project – Pumping Stations EBV-1 and EBV-2 13

No further modifications were considered necessary and preliminary testing

1100 5700 1000

1100 5244 356 1100