The following guidelines are intended to provide examples of
“experimental development” projects which would qualify for Canadian SR&ED
(Scientific Research & Experimental Development) tax credits.
Content Summary:
Project Name: Development of a divide wall for a
diversion dam.. 2
Project Name: Analysis of river flow properties. 8
Project Name: Sedimentation Study (Ineligible) 11
Project Name: Dam Apron Repair 14
Project Name: Pipeline - cracking mitigation. 17
Project Name: Development of river diversion dam
to power canal 20
Project Name: Development of a
divide wall for a diversion dam
Scientific or Technological Objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease bed load deposition (%)
|
50
|
75
|
Yes
|
|
Reduce downstream scouring (%)
|
80
|
99
|
Yes
|
|
Minimize production cost ($ per unit)
|
30000
|
25000
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[NOTE: THIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS REPRODUCED FROM
FACTS OUTLINED IN THE TAX COURT OF CANADA Docket: 97-531-IT-G, Date:
1998/05/01]
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: IDEALLY THE TAXPAYER WOULD ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY THE OBJECTIVES THEY ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE. A QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ADDED ABOVE, TO
ILLUSTRATE.]
The problems were to maintain a low flow channel
near the intake during the dry season, to exclude sediment from entering the
intake and reduce downstream scouring (erosion of materials due to high
velocity).
The concept of a divide wall is not new, but this
is an entirely different application when the following are taken into account:
it's a highly braided river, the
shape of the intake works, the alignment and the length and the height of the
wall in combination with the gates that were used. Also the development of methods for
maintaining this low-flow channel for the intake in this highly sediment laden
river is an advance.
Technology or Knowledge Base Level:
Benchmarking methods & sources for citing:
·
Internet searches: 21 sites / articles -- No
solution found
·
Patent searches: 5 patents -- various methods
did not meet the performance requirement
·
Similar prior in-house technologies: 1 products
/ processes -- The concept of a divide wall is not new, but this is an entirely
different application.
·
Queries to experts: 3 responses -- from sediment
specialists
The East
Rapti River
is 1,800 meters wide and carries large amounts of sediment. The channel is "braided", that is
to say it consists of a number of channels.
The bank of the river in subject to erosion and is highly unstable. Moreover, the slope is steep giving rise to
unusually high velocity.
[NOTE: EACH CHARACTERISTIC TAKEN ALONE AND IN
ISOLATION WOULD UNQUESTIONABLY HAVE PRESENTED DIFFICULTIES. CUMULATIVELY THEY
MAGNIFIED EACH OTHER.]
Field of Science/Technology:
Civil Engineering (2.01.01)
Project Details:
|
|
|
|
Intended Results:
|
Develop new materials, devices, or products
|
|
Work locations:
|
Analysis, Research Facility, on-site, on-site, on-site,
on-site, on-site
|
|
Key Employees:
|
Alexander Bell (Unknown / Unknown), Isaac Newton (Unknown
/ Unknown), Jack Welch (Unknown / Unknown)
|
|
Evidence types:
|
None.
|
Scientific or Technological Advancement:
|
Uncertainty #1:
Environmental Factors
|
|
How will the properties of the river affect
the proposed dam? The unknown effect
of heavy sediment movement and complicated structure combination (including
weir, sluiceway, head gate, ejector, settling basin, fish ladder, log passage
and river training works).
In the result three models were required:
(a) A model of the river; this required a
distortion of the scale;
(b) an intake model; and
(c) a settling basin model.
For this purpose it is necessary to develop
geometry for upstream training dikes and spurs, and an alignment for the
intake structure. The capacity of the
sluice gate has to be increased and a flow divide wall has to be added. A downstream scour protection scheme has to
be devised and a settling basin has to be modified to improve flushing.
The most significant underlying key variables
are:
properties of the river, sediment movement,
structure combination, shape of the intake, alignment and length and the
height of the wall
|
|
Activity #1-1:
Testing (Fiscal Year 2008)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Analysis / simulation: 1 alternatives - A model
was used to simulate the effects of the weir design.
·
Process trials: 60 runs / samples - 10 tests
each in 6 categories of tests, as outlined below.
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: THE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW WERE PROVIDED IN THE EXAMPLE. THE DATA ABOVE (#
TRIALS/ALTERNATIVES) IS PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS
THAT WOULD IDEALLY BE INCLUDED.]
Baseline tests
- The baseline tests conducted before installation
of the weir showed good simulation of a braided river.
- The high flow rates eroded the incised narrow
channel system generated by low flows.
Downstream Degradation
- Extended tests with the weir indicated that
degradation downstream from the weir will occur during the early years of the
project when bed load transported by the Rapti River
is trapped behind the weir, and sediment-free flow passes downstream. This
degradation resulted in water surface elevations lowered by approximately 1.5
m.
[NOTE:
IDEALLY, THE TESTS DONE WOULD BE EXPLAINED AND CONCLUSIONS COULD BE
DRAWN FROM EACH TEST]
Upstream Aggradations and Water Levels
- Aggradations occurring upstream from the weir
was exaggerated in the model with the result that water elevations measured far
upstream from the weir are conservatively high. Water elevations measured
upstream near the weir agree closely with levels computed with the assumption
that their weir functions hydraulically as a broad-crested weir. The difference between computed and measured
elevations 1,800 m upstream from the weir for 2.250 m3 / s was 1.7 m.
- Water elevations measured upstream near the weir
agree closely with levels computed with the assumption that their weir
functions hydraulically as a broad-crested weir.
Crest
- The crest shape for the weir produces smooth
flow conditions. Tests with a simplified
crest for the gated sections showed flow separation for the higher flows with
some accompanying instability. This was
eliminated for the undersluice with a change to a curved shape.
[NOTE:
IDEALLY, THE TESTS AND RESULTS FROM EACH ONE WOULD BE EXPLAINED. IT WOULD ALSO BE EXPLAINED WHY THE CREST WAS
ELIMINATED AND WHAT THE RESULT WAS.]
Stilling Basins and Launching Aprons Downstream of
Gates
- Stilling basins and launching aprons were tested
downstream from the gated sections. The
launching aprons were tested in both level and sloping positions. Velocities and water levels were
measured. The sloping launching apron
reduces or eliminates the drop in water from the apron to the river,
particularly for degraded conditions. A
launching apron design is proposed for final design.
[NOTE:
IDEALLY, THE TESTS AND RESULTS FROM EACH ONE WOULD BE EXPLAINED. IT WOULD ALSO BE EXPLAINED WHY A LAUNCHING
APRON WAS PROPOSED.]
Sediment Ejector
- Tests with the sediment ejector indicated effective
removal of bed sediments for 6 and 8 m3 / s.
The location and size of the ejector may require further consideration,
as they do not conform to published recommendations. It may be more efficient if it is located
with a long straight upstream reach to allow for uniform flow to be
attained. The recommendations suggest
that ejected flow be limited to approximately 25 percent of the canal flow
rate.
Results:
No results have been recorded for this
Activity.
[NOTE: IF THERE WERE ANY TEST RESULTS FROM THIS
ACTIVITY THAN THESE SHOULD BE STATED HERE]
Conclusion:
[NOTE:
THE CONCLUSIONS FOR THESE TESTS WOULD BE STATED HERE]
Most significant variables concluded on:
structure combination
|
Activity #1-2:
Upstream Training Works (Fiscal Year 2008)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Physical prototypes: 1 samples - An upstream
training scheme consisting of three open dyke elements plus T-spur dykes both
upstream and downstream from the open dyke sections was developed.
Tests with the weir indicated that upstream
left-side training works are needed to protect the guide bank immediately
upstream from the weir from erosive attack, prevent erosion of the left bank
(Chitwan Park), and to direct approach flow to the intake.
An upstream training scheme consisting of three
open dyke elements plus T-spur dykes both upstream and downstream from the open
dyke sections was developed.
Results:
No results have been recorded for this
Activity.
[NOTE: SIMILARLY, IF THERE WERE ANY TEST RESULTS
FROM THIS ACTIVITY THAN THESE SHOULD BE STATED HERE]
Conclusion:
The training scheme provided the required
protection, helped direct low flows to the intake, and allowed the area behind
the dyke to be preserved as wetlands.
This system performed well, but the three spur
configuration was also adequate. The
final layout will be the decision of the project designers. A minimum of two spurs is recommended, if
limited funding does not permit construction of the tested schemes.
Most significant variables concluded on:
alignment and length and the height of the wall, sediment movement
|
Activity #1-3:
Low-Flow Channel (Fiscal Year 2008)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 10 runs / samples
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: THE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW WERE PROVIDED IN THE CRA'S
EXAMPLE. THE DATA ABOVE (# TRIALS/ALTERNATIVES) IS PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE SOME
OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS THAT WOULD IDEALLY BE INCLUDED.]
Bars built up in the 400 m wide approach channel
during floods that isolated the intake during low flows. A series of tests [HOW MANY?] were conducted
using submerged inner guide banks to create a low flow channel. A 1 m high guidebank forming a channel 1/4
the width of the weir achieved acceptable results [NOTE: A DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE RESULTS WOULD BE
BENEFICIAL]. Because the inner guide
bank scheme concentrates flow and causes higher upstream water levels, a scheme
using floodway gates was adopted for further study.
Results:
No results have been recorded for this
Activity.
Conclusion:
A modified design using two 20 m wide gated
floodways and one 20 m under sluice was effective in producing a low flow
channel to the intake [NOTE: CITING MAX
FLOW RATES WOULD HELP]. This was
accomplished primarily with open floodway gates and a closed under sluice.
A larger radius right-side guide wall
[NOTE: CITING HOW MUCH LARGER WOULD BE
HELPFUL IN ADDING A DEGREE OF QUANTIFICATION TO THE TESTING] improves flow
conditions when flow is guided by the right guide wall.
Most significant variables concluded on:
structure combination
|
Activity #1-4:
Performance of Canal Intake (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 10 runs / samples - 5 tests with
each of the two orientations.
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: THE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW WERE PROVIDED IN THE EXAMPLE. THE DATA ABOVE (#
TRIALS/ALTERNATIVES) IS PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS
THAT WOULD IDEALLY BE INCLUDED.]
Tests with canal intakes oriented at 140 and 90
degrees indicated more uniform [NOTE: A
DEFINITION OF UNIFORM FLOW WOULD PROVIDE CONTEXT] flow distribution with the 90
degree intake, although both intakes had more flow enter through the left side
of the intake. The 90 degree intake was
adopted for final design.
Results:
·
Decrease bed load deposition: 80 % (120% of
objective)
Conclusion:
Although both orientations were studied for bed
load deposition, only the results of the 90 degree intake will be discussed
herein. Flow conditions with the
floodway and under sluice gates open 0.5 m resulted in considerable [NOTE: "CONSIDERABLE" IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM
UNLESS DEFINED BY QUANTIFIABLE/MEASURABLE PARAMETERS] bed load entering the
canal headwork’s area. Flows with the
floodway gates open 1 m and the under sluice closed also resulted in
considerable deposition in the headwork area.
The addition of a 40 m long divide wall that
extended above the water surface effectively prevented bed load from entering
the canal headwork’s area when tested for the 1 m floodway gate opening with
the under sluice closed. When canal flow
is also eliminated, prevention of bed load entering the headwork’s area is
further enhanced. [NOTE: BY ADDING AN ENHANCEMENT FACTOR, IT WOULD
HELP PROVIDE A MEASURABLE BENCHMARK INDICATIVE OF R&D]
Flushing tests
conducted with a wide open under sluice indicated that flushing with the divide
wall is much more effective than without the wall. [NOTE:
AGAIN, BY QUANTIFYING THE DIFFERENCE, IT PROVIDES A QUANTIFIABLE CONTEXT
TO THE WORK]
Most significant variables concluded on:
sediment movement, shape of the intake, structure combination
|
Activity #1-5: Log
Passage (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 7 runs / samples - Different log
diversion wall designs.
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: THE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW WERE PROVIDED IN THE EXAMPLE. THE DATA ABOVE (#
TRIALS/ALTERNATIVES) IS PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS
THAT WOULD IDEALLY BE INCLUDED.]
Log passage tests were conducted with the premise
that log accumulation in the pocket area upstream from the under sluice should
be minimized [NOTE: IS THERE A MAX
LIMIT?]. This was accomplished to a large
extent by closing the under sluice but operating the floodway. This operation resulted in log accumulation
upstream from the floodway, but minimal accumulation in the pocket.
Logs of 20 m size were capable of being flushed by
completely opening the gates (floodway or under sluice). Larger logs of 30 m size frequently became
jammed.
Several log diversion walls were tested to explore
the potential for improving the effectiveness of diverting logs into the
floodway. The best scheme involved a
solid skimmer wall that allowed flow to pass underneath the wall and the logs
were re-directed away from the pocket area.
[NOTE: IDEALLY, THESE DIFFERENT LOG DIVERSION
WALLS THAT WERE TESTED WOULD BE QUANTIFIED AND EXPLAINED]
Results:
No results have been recorded for this
Activity.
Conclusion:
The elimination of all canal flow combined with
no under sluice flow resulted in more favorable conditions for diverting logs
from the pocket.
Most significant variables concluded on:
properties of the river
|
Activity #1-6:
Stilling Basins Downstream of Weir (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 4 runs / samples - Stilling
basin designs.
Four stilling basin designs were tested downstream
of the weir: Types 3 and 4 at basin elevations of 224.7 and 226.7 m. The two higher basins produced downstream
water levels that were much higher [NOTE:
QUANTIFY "HIGHER"] than the tail water level. This caused scouring conditions downstream as
high velocities were generated by the drop in water level. The Type 3 basin at 224.7 m elevation was
adopted for final design.
Results:
No results have been recorded for this
Activity.
Conclusion:
The adopted basin was tested with and without
stone accumulation in the stilling basin.
The presence of stones caused some additional mounding of the water
above the floor blocks for the higher flows and an exaggerated vertical eddy
that tended to rotate stones back to the face of the spillway, where they may
accelerate erosion of the concrete. Many
of these stones, however, will wash out at the higher flows.
Most significant variables concluded on:
structure combination
|
Activity #1-7:
Settling Basin (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 5 runs / samples - 2 different
flushing schemes, followed by 3 different elevation drops tested.
Flushing with the
four-channel scheme was unsuccessful because insufficient downstream channel
capacity resulted in subcritical flow through much of the downstream section of
the basin. This scheme would function adequately if more downstream capacity
were provided.
Flushing with the
single-channel scheme with the slope through the flushing ports continuing at
the 1:100 basin slop was not satisfactory as a hydraulic jump formed in the
basin. Elevation drops of 20, 30 and 45 cm through the ports were then tested.
Supercritical flow through the ports, and thus effective flushing, was
maintained for flow rates from 2 to 6 m3 / s for the three tested drops.
Results:
·
Decrease bed load deposition: 75 % (100% of
objective)
·
Reduce downstream scouring : 91 % (57% of
objective)
·
Minimize production cost: 27000 $ per unit (60%
of objective)
Conclusion:
Approach flow patterns to the settling basin
appear satisfactory as the upstream transition adequately spreads the flow so
that all basin segments are used effectively. There is slower moving flow along
the diverging sidewall that would be improved by rounding the upstream corner
of the transition. Deposition in the basin was fairly well distributed among
the basin segments.
Most significant variables concluded on:
sediment movement, shape of the intake
Project Name: Analysis of river
flow properties
Scientific or Technological Objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downstream velocity increase (%)
|
25
|
0
|
Yes
|
|
Minimize erosion (inches per year)
|
2
|
1
|
Yes
|
|
Ability to operate during navigation (%)
|
0
|
100
|
Yes
|
|
Minimize environmental impact (%)
|
0
|
100
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[NOTE: THIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS REPRODUCED FROM
FACTS OUTLINED IN THE TAX COURT OF CANADA Docket: 97-531-IT-G, Date:
1998/05/01]
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: IDEALLY THE TAXPAYER WOULD ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY THE OBJECTIVES THEY ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE. A QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ADDED ABOVE, TO
ILLUSTRATE.]
Specific ACOE objectives included the following:
- Establish baseline performance of the existing
configuration including navigation conditions, water surface profiles, and
sediment transport characteristics in the vicinity of the lower lock
approach. Also, document velocities over
the entire modeled reach of the river, in the lock approaches, near the
affected structures and adjacent bank lines (navigation model).
- Ensure that the proposed hydropower project,
under steady-state operation, does not have an adverse impact on either the
navigation conditions or the bank line velocities. Develop modifications required to eliminate
any unsatisfactory conditions during and after construction (navigation model).
- Assess the backwater effects of the project
modifications, both during and after construction, and develop designs to
eliminate any unsatisfactory conditions (navigation model).
- Investigate the magnitude of upstream and
downstream surges (water levels and velocities) resulting from powerhouse
start-up and shut-down (navigation model).
- Determine the effect of any site excavation or
soil disposal on the upstream flood stages and flow distribution, and
investigate designs required to eliminate unsatisfactory conditions (navigation
model).
- Provide a qualitative assessment of the movement
of sediment into the lower lock approach for the proposed powerhouse conditions
and compare with the baseline conditions.
Develop design modifications to eliminate adverse conditions as required
(navigation model).
- Ensure that the flow over and around the
powerhouse does not induce erosion or threaten the integrity of the existing
dam (navigation and section models).
- Assess the environmental aspects of the project.
In particular, the velocities and flow patterns produced by powerhouse flows in
the downstream river channel (navigation and section models).
In addition to the concerns of the ACOE, the model
study was also used to:
- Aid in the layout of the recreational facilities
downstream of the proposed powerhouse with input from the appropriate resource
agencies (navigation model).
- Evaluate the hydraulic performance of alternative
approach channel configurations designed to minimize unsymmetrical flow
conditions that would adversely affect plant efficiency (navigation and section
models).
- Evaluate the hydraulic performance of alternative
tailrace channel geometries with emphasis on minimizing head losses and draft
tube instabilities (navigation and section models).
[NOTE: THIS
IS A GOOD LIST OF OBJECTIVES SINCE MOST INCLUDE QUANTIFIABLE PARAMETERS SUCH AS
VELOCITIES, FLOW RATES, ETC. ADDING
SPECIFIC NUMERICAL TARGETS OR CRITERIA WOULD BE IDEAL]
Technology or Knowledge Base Level:
Benchmarking methods & sources for citings:
·
Internet searches: 36 sites / articles -- no
solution found
·
Patent searches: 6 patents -- Current methods
did not reveal the solution
·
Similar prior in-house technologies: 1 products
/ processes -- Previous work did not have to deal with effects on navigation.
·
Potential components: 1 products -- The
technological problem and the hypotheses formulated to solve the problem are
set out in the draf
This project was owned and operated by the U.S.
Corps of Engineers. It is located on the Ohio River at Belleville, West Virginia. The river was primarily used for navigation.
A private developer proposed the construction of a hydroelectric powerhouse on
the opposite bank of the river. The
appellant was retained to evaluate the initial design and, if necessary, to
develop design modifications to improve the performance. The objective was to develop a design that
would permit the powerhouse to be constructed and operate in a manner that
would not interfere with navigation. The
technological problem and the hypotheses formulated to solve the problem are
set out in the draft report prepared by the appellant.
Field of Science/Technology:
Civil Engineering (2.01.01)
Project Details:
|
|
|
|
Intended Results:
|
Improve existing materials, devices, or products
|
|
Work locations:
|
Research Facility
|
|
Key Employees:
|
Isaac Newton (Unknown / Unknown), Jack Welch (Unknown /
Unknown), Alexander Bell (Unknown / Unknown)
|
|
Evidence types:
|
None.
|
Scientific or Technological Advancement:
|
Uncertainty #1:
Environment
|
|
Need to determine the effect of cofferdam
works and powerhouse discharge on navigation, stage, surge and sedimentation that
was observed. The powerhouse is
located in a deep recess in the left bank.
Conventional engineering will not be adequate
to deal with the variables and the uncertainties that are inherent in the
major disruption and diversion of the flow of the river resulting from the
construction.
The most significant underlying key variables
are:
navigation, stage, surge, sedimentation
|
|
Activity #1-1:
Modeling (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 4 runs / samples - 3 series of
tests on the first model, and a subsequent series of tests on the second model,
as outlined below.
·
Physical prototypes: 2 samples - Scale models
used to test effect of proposed design.
Three test series were performed using the 1:120
scale navigation model. The first series
of tests addressed ACOE concerns regarding the effect of the proposed
powerhouse addition both during and after construction on existing navigation,
sedimentation, stage, erosion, and surge.
The second series of tests used upstream and downstream flow patterns to
develop a hydraulically-efficient and cost-effective design of the civil
works. The third series of tests
collected additional velocity data to help layout an appropriate recreational
facility downstream of the powerhouse.
Two models were required. One problem that emerged
was the flow pattern that would have resulted from the initial design would
have adversely affected the navigation downstream. As a result the tailrace channel was
realigned to obviate the problem with the initial design and the approach
channel was realigned. It would be easy
to say, after the event, that these solutions are obvious and routine. They are not.
They required a number of methodical and systematic experiments and
progressive modifications to meet problems that could not have been predicted.
[NOTE: IDEALLY, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH MODEL
WOULD BE DESCRIBED AND CONCLUSIONS COULD BE DRAWN. MOREOVER, PROVIDING KEY SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
AND NUMERICAL BOUNDARIES WOULD HELP TO SOLIDIFY THE DESCRIPTION.]
Results:
·
Downstream velocity increase: 0 % (100% of
objective)
·
Minimize erosion: 0.9 inches per year (110% of
objective)
·
Ability to operate during navigation: 100 %
(100% of objective)
·
Minimize environmental impact: 100 % (100% of
objective)
Conclusion:
Each river is different and each project of this
sort adds to the body of knowledge.
With this, and pretty much every project, we
learn something. Some of the earlier
lock and dam projects; for instance, we had used a different type of feature to
help spread this flow. In this case we
developed a feature in this direction, which we hadn't
used in previous ones. In our early part
of our development testing we tried to take that knowledge from our previous
projects and apply it here. It didn't prove as beneficial as it did in the previous
cases, so we had to develop some other modifications. In this case, for
example, this feature here was able to meet the objectives.
High left bank velocities and increased bed
mobility were noted downstream from the powerhouse, requiring design changes in
the powerhouse tailrace channel.
Design improvements were made, the uncertainties
were removed and project development facilitated.
[NOTE:
THE CONCLUSION COULD BE TIGHTENED UP BY SPECIFYING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE
RESULTANT CONCEPT FROM PREVIOUS CONCEPTS.]
Most significant variables concluded on:
navigation, sedimentation, stage, surge
Project Name: Sedimentation
Study (Ineligible)
Scientific or Technological Objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sediment Discharge (%)
|
35
|
0
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[NOTE: THIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS REPRODUCED FROM
FACTS OUTLINED IN THE TAX COURT OF CANADA Docket: 97-531-IT-G, Date:
1998/05/01]
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: IDEALLY THE TAXPAYER WOULD ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY THE OBJECTIVES THEY ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE. A QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ADDED ABOVE, TO
ILLUSTRATE.]
The problem was to devise a solution that would
eliminate the deposit of sediment in front of the club. It was decided that the best way of doing so
was the construction of a physical model.
Technology or Knowledge Base Level:
Benchmarking methods & sources for citing:
·
Similar prior in-house technologies: 1 products
/ processes -- But sedimentation can not be explained by traditional modeling.
This study was conducted by the appellant for the
City of Philadelphia. The problem was that the Schuylkill River,
which flowed in front of Boathouse Row, a rowing club, was depositing sediment
in front of the club. As the river
flowed around a bend immediately upstream from the club the surface water
flowed fairly uniformly, following the contours of the right-hand bank of the
river and over a dam downstream on the right.
The water near the bed of the river went into a helical flow and veered
off to the left toward the rowing club, which was situated on the bank of a
river in an indentation or recess in the left bank that could be described as a
bay or perhaps more accurately as a cove.
The water in the cove is virtually still. The below surface water in the current of the
river that goes into a helical flow after coming around the bend moves much
more slowly with the result that suspended sediment that was carried along so
long as the river was moving rapidly, drops down to the bed from the slower
helical flow of the below surface water and is deposited in front of the club,
making access difficult or impossible.
Field of Science/Technology:
Civil Engineering (2.01.01)
Project Details:
|
|
|
|
Intended Results:
|
Develop new materials, devices, or products
|
|
Work locations:
|
Research Facility
|
|
Key Employees:
|
Alexander Bell (Unknown / Unknown), Isaac Newton (Unknown
/ Unknown), Jack Welch (Unknown / Unknown)
|
|
Evidence types:
|
None.
|
Scientific or Technological Advancement:
|
Uncertainty #1:
Water Flow
|
|
- The particular characteristic of the flow
of current around a bend in a river, the formation of a helix and the
differing velocities of the surface and below surface water were well known
in the profession.
- Need to determine the cause of existing
sedimentation problems at Boathouse Row, and remediation measures needed to
correct the existing undesirable and unsafe conditions.
[NOTE: SINCE THE FLOW PATTERNS ARE 'WELL KNOWN IN THE PROFESSION' THIS IS NOT A GOOD UNCERTAINTY. WOULD BE IMPROVED IF THE SECOND ITEM WAS
EMPHASIZED, I.E., THE EXISTING SEDIMENTATION PROBLEMS OBSERVED AT BOATHOUSE
ROW CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY TRADITIONAL MODELING. IT WAS UNCERTAIN WHAT COMBINATION OF
FACTORS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SEDIMENTATION. THIS REQUIRED DETAILED INVESTIGATION AND
MODELING OF THE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TO DEVELOP A REMEDIATION PLAN.]
The most significant underlying key variables
are:
sedimentation
|
|
Activity #1-1:
Solutions (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 6 runs / samples - Six different
potential remediation scenarios were developed and tested using bench-scale
hydrometric equipment.
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: THE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW WERE PROVIDED IN THE EXAMPLE. THE DATA ABOVE (#
TRIALS/ALTERNATIVES) IS PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS
THAT WOULD IDEALLY BE INCLUDED.]
- One obvious solution was dredging. This was considered expensive and
impermanent. Others were the
construction of river training walls - spurs or rock fills off the shore - to
intercept the flow pattern or the construction of a river dividing wall
parallel to the bank to create scour and prevent sediment from reaching the
area.
- The river training walls were rejected because
of the degree of the bend and velocity of the current. Such structures would have had to be excessively
large.
- The creation of a division in the river by means
of a parallel wall was the most promising idea.
It fell into three alternatives:
- The flushing concept which involved a parallel
dividing wall which would increase the velocity.
- The dead pond concept, which involved the
building of a long wall that would in effect isolate the area in front of the
club. This was rejected for both safety and aesthetic reasons. A large wall in the middle of a river in front
of a rowing club is unattractive.
- The extended peninsula. Essentially this
involved the extension of the existing peninsula which combined the features -
and results - of the other two ideas - the isolation of the area and the
counteracting of the helical effect by a redirection of the main flow and the
increase of the velocity.
[NOTE:
WHILE THESE PROVIDE AN INDICATION OF THE DIFFERENT REMEDIATION
SCENARIOS, IT DOES NOT OUTLINE THE TESTING WHICH WAS CONDUCTED. CITING SPECIFIC TESTS USING SMALL-SCALE MODELS
(FLOW TESTS, SEDIMENTATION, RANGES OF PARTICLE SIZES MEASURED) ETC. WOULD HELP
TO PROVE SR&ED ELIGIBILITY.
FOR EXAMPLE:
SIX DIFFERENT POTENTIAL REMEDIATION SCENARIOS WERE
DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING BENCH-SCALE HYDROMETRIC EQUIPMENT. THESE INCLUDED: CITE THE SIX SCENARIOS
THEN ADD A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST MATRIX (RANGE OF FLOWS,
SEDIMENT LOADINGS AND SEDIMENT
PARTICLE SIZE
RANGES) OR THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE BENCH-SCALE TESTS TO BETTER ILLUSTRATE THE EXPERIMENTAL WORK CONDUCTED.]
Results:
·
Sediment Discharge: 0 % (100% of objective)
Conclusion:
There was no doubt a measure of uncertainty as
to the best method of dealing with the problem and there was also methodical
experimentation. However the solutions
that were tested and the one that was ultimately adopted were well within accepted
engineering techniques. There was
nothing particularly innovative. It
could not have failed to be obvious that sooner or later, using established
techniques, a solution would be found.
The sedimentation pattern caused by the bend
effect was corrected by a dividing wall.
[THEREFORE THIS PROJECT IS INELIGIBLE FOR
SR&ED CREDITS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF
THE UNCERTAINTY IS EXPRESSED IN PHYSICAL QUANTIFIABLE TERMS (e.g., acceptable
ranges of flow rates expressed as +/- sediment loads) AND ONE ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIO WAS SELECTED AS BEING SUPERIOR BASED ON QUANTIFIABLE TARGET
PARAMETERS/CRITERIA, THIS WOULD BE
ACCEPTABLE. IN SHORT, THE PROJECT DOES
NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE INNOVATIVE; AS LONG AS IT DEMONSTRATES THE
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO DETERMINE THE BEST MEANS TO MEET TARGET
SPECIFICATIONS (COULD BE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE APPROACH).]
Most significant variables concluded on:
sedimentation
Project Name: Dam Apron Repair
Scientific or Technological Objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growth of crack (ft/yr)
|
2
|
0
|
Yes
|
|
reduce the uplift on the apron slab (psi)
|
1200
|
600
|
Yes
|
|
Maximum cost of remediation plan ($)
|
0
|
30000
|
Yes
|
|
Time to accomplish remediation plan (days)
|
0
|
5
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[NOTE: THIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS REPRODUCED FROM
FACTS OUTLINED IN THE TAX COURT OF CANADA Docket: 97-531-IT-G, Date:
1998/05/01]
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: IDEALLY THE TAXPAYER WOULD ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY THE OBJECTIVES THEY ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE. A QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ADDED ABOVE, TO ILLUSTRATE.]
It was unknown what corrective action would be
suitable to prevent further damage to the apron. To determine the best means to develop a
remediation plan, the engineering characteristics of the system had to be determined.
The primary objectives of the model study:
1. Reproduce the conditions that led to the apron
damage.
2. Determine the maximum uplift pressures.
3. Determine the water flow and/or gate opening
combination which results in the maximum uplift pressure.
4. Document if the maximum uplift is a transitory
phenomenon.
A secondary objective for the study would be to
document the effect of a plunge pool.
While this is a potential approach to reduce the uplift on the apron
slab, the design and construction of a downstream weir is probably not
justifiable when compared to an anchored slab.
Technology or Knowledge Base Level:
Benchmarking methods & sources for citings:
·
Internet searches: 12 sites / articles -- No
solution found
·
Patent searches: 3 patents -- different
enviroment
·
Competitive products or processes: 2 products --
Previous repairs, which had both failed to eliminate the problem.
The Walters dam was built in 1930 and the damage
from the falling water was repaired in 1972 and 1990. The Dam is an arched dam with 14 gated bays. Water passes over a short crest section at the
top through the gates and plunges 180 feet into a concrete basin. During periods of flooding when large volumes
of water pass over the dam, the concrete apron on which it falls is damaged.
Analysis of Failure
The damage-producing processes:
- High pressure created by the impact of the water
falling 180 ft on the concrete apron finds a path to the underside of the apron
through both open grout pipes and construction joints.
- The original uplift has a perimeter bounded by a
large crack, having an approximate diameter of 40 ft, and occurred as a result
of excessive shear stresses.
- The crack was produced by vertical uplift forces
that exceeded the combined tensile strength of the concrete, the weight of the concrete
slab, and the impact force of the water.
- The uplift either delaminated the apron from the
foundation, or of the newer, upper apron slab from the original lower
apron. This resulted in uplift of the
slabs at the downstream end of the apron with the uplift force transmitted from
one slab to the next through the steel reinforcing bars.
- The average pressure required to generate this
uplift is estimated to be slightly more than half the reservoir pressure.
Field of Science/Technology:
Civil Engineering (2.01.01)
Project Details:
|
|
|
|
Intended Results:
|
Improve existing materials, devices, or products
|
|
Work locations:
|
Commercial Facility
|
|
Key Employees:
|
Alexander Bell (Unknown / Unknown), Isaac Newton (Unknown
/ Unknown), Jack Welch (Unknown / Unknown)
|
|
Evidence types:
|
None.
|
Scientific or Technological Advancement:
|
Uncertainty #1:
Modeling
|
|
Determine the cause of the failure of the
existing apron, and the nature of corrective action required to avoid future
problems.
Our primary objectives for the model study
are as follows:
1. Reproduce the conditions that led to the
apron damage.
2. Determine the maximum uplift pressures.
3. Determine the water flow and/or gate
opening combination which results in the maximum uplift pressure.
4. Document if the maximum uplift is a
transitory phenomenon.
The most significant underlying key variables
are:
uplift pressures, water flow, gate opening
|
|
Activity #1-1:
modeling (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 4 runs / samples - Proposed solutions
tested using our scale model.
·
Physical prototypes: 1 samples - A 1:40 modeled
was constructed to test design modifications considered.
A model on a scale of 1:40 was constructed.
- The first solution considered was to construct
radial divide walls, the purpose and effect of which was to simulate the effect
of opening all of the gates at once in that it deflected the falling jet of
water.
- The second solution was simply to change the
sequence of the gates, or pass the water through more gates. Essentially the purpose of this solution was
to dissipate the water falling on the concrete.
- Other solutions involved the reshaping of the
apron and the sealing of apron joints.
The idea of repairing the apron in itself is hardly innovative. Repairs are an inevitable concomitant of
damage. The solution suggested went
beyond mere repair. It involved not
merely the construction of four foot layers of concrete, but rather a large
mass of concrete which pressures from below could not move.
Results:
·
Growth of crack: 0 ft/yr (100% of objective)
·
reduce the uplift on the apron slab: 800 psi
(66% of objective)
·
Maximum cost of remediation plan: 31000 $ (103%
of objective)
·
Time to accomplish remediation plan: 5 days
(100% of objective)
Conclusion:
There was clearly a technological uncertainty
that conventional engineering could not remove. Imaginative and innovative
hypotheses were tested methodically and a technological advance was made in
understanding the effect of the falling jet, and the spreading of flow through
the change in the sequence of opening the gates as well as through the divide
wall system.
The technological advance was not spectacular
but, what may seem routine in hindsight involved innovative hypotheses as well
as considerable experimentation.
[NOTE:
IDEALLY CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE DRAWN FOR EACH SOLUTION - IT IS IMPORTANT
TO EXPLAIN FAILURES AS WELL AS SUCCESSES]
The apron failure was caused by uplift pressure
related to the design and operation of the existing structure.
A gate sequence operation to reduce uplift force
on the apron was determined, and a set of radial divide walls was devised for
the basin to improve flow distribution.
Most significant variables concluded on: gate
opening, uplift pressures, and water flow
Project Name: Pipeline -
cracking mitigation
Scientific or Technological Objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCC predictive model accuracy (%)
|
0
|
95
|
Yes
|
|
ability for predictions various models (#)
|
1
|
20
|
Yes
|
|
Maximum cost of study ($)
|
25000
|
12000
|
Yes
|
|
Maximum duration of study (days)
|
13
|
5
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[NOTE: THIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS REPRODUCED FROM
FACTS OUTLINED THE TAX COURT OF CANADA Docket: 96-4369-IT-G I, (TCC), Date:
1999/09/15]
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: IDEALLY THE TAXPAYER WOULD ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY THE OBJECTIVES THEY ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE. A QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ADDED ABOVE, TO
ILLUSTRATE.]
The objective was to determine the cause of stress
corrosion cracking (SCC) and meal corrosion in 24" steel pipeline based on
evaluation of SCC site specific characteristics (soil type, pH, drainage
conditions, cover depth, topography, etc.) and thereby develop methods to
prevent such occurrences.
The company claimed that its "process"
was determining the cause and effect of SCC even if there were only
"incremental improvements" to that process. And that it performed, "work with
respect to engineering, operations research, data collection and testing
commensurate with the needs, and directly in support, of its [experimental
development] work."
Technology or Knowledge Base Level:
Benchmarking methods & sources for citing:
·
Internet searches: 11 sites / articles -- search
resulted with no solutions
·
Patent searches: 7 patents -- different
conditions
·
Similar prior in-house technologies: 1 products
/ processes -- Although the company is confident SCC is occurring, it does not
have a good model of this process.
·
Queries to experts: 5 responses -- to identify,
by aerial survey, sites that might be SCC susceptible, and characterize SCC
·
Other: 1 current status -- inspection discovered
523 defects, which were caused by SCC and/or metal corrosion.
Rainbow Pipeline Company Ltd. (Rainbow) had
operated the 24-inch trunk line (approximately 300 km long) for 26 years (1967
to 1993) without any pipeline ruptures.
In February and July 1993, it had two significant ruptures in the
24-inch portion of its pipeline. Those
two ruptures were believed to be caused by a combination of Stress Corrosion
Cracking ("SCC") and metal corrosion. Further inspection discovered
523 defects, which were caused by SCC and/or metal corrosion.
Rainbow had also retained an expert consultant to
identify, by aerial survey, sites that might be SCC susceptible, and
characterize SCC at such excavation site using onsite investigation
techniques. In several instances dig
sites believed to be susceptible to SCC, additional soil, environmental and
other data [NOTE: IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
(PREFERABLY QUANTIFIABLE PARAMETERS) TO PROVIDE CONTEXT TO CRA] was gathered to
enhance knowledge about how soil type, drainage, and topography might influence
the existence of SCC.
The company identified about 140 different
expenditures where they had consulted with subcontractors to determine what
portion of their work was SR&ED vs. non-SR&ED repairs.
In its taxation year ending December 31, 1994, the
company spent $19,600,000 on projects connected with and resulting from
pipeline leaks. In addition to issues
as to whether certain payments were current expenses or capital outlays, the
CRA contested the taxpayer's claim
that $2,081,325 of these expenditures were "scientific research and
experimental development," with a resultant federal investment tax credit
of $416,265.
[NOTE: IT
WOULD BE EXPECTED THAT 26 YEARS OF EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WOULD
RESULT IN DETERIORATION OF THE PIPELINE.
CITING SPECIFIC SR&ED EXPENDITURES ON CHARACTERIZING THE INTRINSIC
PROPERTIES OF THE SCC SITES (AS PER A LIST OF TANGIBLE PARAMETERS) AND SUBSEQUENT
EVALUATION OF THE DATA WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CRA AS SR&ED
ELIGIBLE. HOWEVER, COSTS ON REPAIRING OR
IDENTIFYING AREAS REQUIRING REPAIRING WOULD BE CONSIDERED INELIGIBLE (I.E.,
AERIAL SURVEY OF SUSCEPTIBLE SITES) AS THE WORK WOULD BE THE RESULT OF THE
DEVELOPED RESEARCH INFORMATION AND EXPENDED ON CONTINUED PRODUCTION.]
Field of Science/Technology:
Civil Engineering (2.01.01)
Project Details:
|
|
|
|
Intended Results:
|
Improve existing materials, devices, or products
|
|
Work locations:
|
Analysis, Commercial Facility, on-site
|
|
Key Employees:
|
Alexander Bell (Unknown / Unknown), Jack Welch (Unknown /
Unknown), Isaac Newton (Unknown / Unknown)
|
|
Evidence types:
|
None.
|
Scientific or Technological Advancement:
|
Uncertainty #1:
Pipeline issues
|
|
There are technical uncertainties as to the
exact cause(s) of the Stress Corrosion Cracking. The evaluation process could be developed
based on known engineering/environmental chemistry precepts, however, it is
unknown if a standard application of these factors would be successful in
identifying the specific cause or combination of causes. This may require consideration of
multi-discipline concepts. The initial evaluation process includes:
- characterize the chemical and/or physical
environments responsible for SCC;
- evaluate the underlying engineering
principles related to physical stresses;
- develop a valid database on the
environmental/physical conditions which may be responsible for SCC:
- assess and identify areas which may be
susceptible to SCC based on the conclusions of the database.
The most significant underlying key variables
are:
chemical environments, physical environments
|
|
Activity #1-1:
Current and past studies (Fiscal Year 2010)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Analysis / simulation: 7 alternatives - Analysis
of 7 studies, assessing effect of soil type, pH, drainage, topography on SCC.
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: THE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW WERE PROVIDED IN THE EXAMPLE. THE DATA ABOVE (#
TRIALS/ALTERNATIVES) IS PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS
THAT WOULD IDEALLY BE INCLUDED.]
Rainbow's
evidence included studies from the late 1980's
suggesting "significant" SCC on a pipeline was strongly related to
the terrain conditions where there was the potential for pipe coatings to have
disbonded. In 1995-1996, the NEB [National Energy
Board] held an inquiry into SCC on Canadian oil and gas pipelines.
[NOTE: THE
EXAMPLE ABOVE IS TOO VAGUE. THIS REQUIRES
MORE TECHNICAL INFORMATION. The SUMMARY OF THE PARAMETERS ASSESSED (e.g.,
identification of soil type, pH, drainage, topography, etc.) [OUTLINE OF THE
PROCESS USED TO EVALUATE THE CRITERIA, AND THE RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD
BE ADVANTAGEOUS.]
Results:
No results have been recorded for this
Activity.
Conclusion:
The inquiry confirmed that, "there was very
little research on SCC failures in pipelines prior to 1993-1994." Rainbow was invited by the NEB to participate in its public inquiry
concerning SCC on Canadian oil and gas pipelines. Rainbow participated in the
SCC inquiry and made available the results of its research into SCC as a result
of the pipeline ruptures in February and July, 1993.
[NOTE: A
SUMMARY OF WHAT THE RESEARCH CONCLUDED SHOULD BE PROVIDED]
Most significant variables concluded on:
chemical environments, physical environments
|
Activity #1-2:
Predictive models (Fiscal Year 2010)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 14 runs / samples - Developed 2
different models that were each tested at 7 different site locations, which
were selected to cover the range of environmental conditions.
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: THE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW WERE PROVIDED IN THE CRA'S
EXAMPLE. THE DATA ABOVE (# TRIALS/ALTERNATIVES) IS PROVIDED TO ILLUSTRATE SOME
OF THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS THAT WOULD IDEALLY BE INCLUDED.]
At the time of the Inquiry, six CEPA (Canadian
Energy Pipeline Association) member companies were using predictive models to
assess the SCC-susceptibility of their systems, or portions thereof, and five
other member companies were developing predictive models.
[NOTE: THE
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING THE PREDICTIVE MODELS IS TO PREVENT OR MINIMIZE SCC OVER
LONGER PERIODS OF TIME. THE WORK
INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THE PREDICTIVE MODELS, INCLUDING ANY TESTING OR
EXPERIMENTATION UNDER SPECIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF
THE DESCRIPTION.]
Results:
·
SCC predictive model accuracy: 65 % (68% of
objective)
·
ability for predictions various models: 1 # (no
improvement)
·
Maximum cost of study: 15000 $ (76% of
objective)
·
Maximum duration of study: 5 days (100% of
objective)
Conclusion:
These models had further established that, while
the information on terrain conditions known to promote SCC susceptibility may
be applied to all pipelines in the same area, because the data about each
pipeline -- its coating, its year of construction, its operating history - an
accurate predictive model can be used only for the pipeline for which it was
developed.
[NOTE: IN
SHORT, BY IDENTIFYING THE SITE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS DEEMED RESPONSIBLE, THERE IS
DIRECT CONTEXT TO THE SR&ED WORK.]
Most significant variables concluded on:
chemical environments, physical environments
Project Name: Development of
river diversion dam to power canal
Scientific or Technological Objectives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sediment Discharge (%)
|
35
|
0
|
Yes
|
|
Ability to divert the river to an intake (%)
|
0
|
100
|
Yes
|
|
minimize operational restrictions (%)
|
0
|
100
|
Yes
|
|
fish facilities to operate successfully (%)
|
0
|
100
|
Yes
|
|
Improve the intake flow distribution (%)
|
0
|
100
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
[NOTE: THIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS REPRODUCED FROM
FACTS OUTLINED IN THE TAX COURT OF CANADA Docket: 97-531-IT-G, Date:
1998/05/01]
[AUTHOR'S
NOTE: IDEALLY THE TAXPAYER WOULD ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY THE OBJECTIVES THEY ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE. A QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ADDED ABOVE, TO
ILLUSTRATE.]
The purpose of the dam is to divert the river to an
intake that leads to a power canal for the purpose of generating hydro electric
power. Dr. Babb put the purpose as follows:
Developing an engineering design to keep the bed material, the sands and
the gravels, out of the intake, and also the establishment of favorable fish
attraction currents to these entrances.
There are fish facilities at the diversion dam on
both banks, which must continue to operate successfully with the new
design. These include a fish trap
facility on the left bank operated by the Corps of Engineers to collect
upstream migrants and transport them above Mud Mountain Dam and a fish hatchery
on the right bank operated by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. In addition, the fisheries agencies have
imposed operational restrictions on the diversion related to: minimum flow
releases, and the rate at which flow changes are imposed (ramping rates), and
may impose operational restrictions on sediment releases.
Operation requires an attendant 24 hours per day.
The facility is to be automated.
Technology or Knowledge Base Level:
Benchmarking methods & sources for citing:
·
Internet searches: 5 sites / articles -- search
resulted with no solutions
·
Patent searches: 6 patents -- Insufficient
info. Different conditions
·
Competitive products or processes: 1 products --
Existing structure is allowing unacceptable sediment deposition.
·
Similar prior in-house technologies: 1 products
/ processes -- The existing dam is a timber crib structure with 7-foot high
flashboards
This involved the modification of the design of a
diversion dam on the White River.
The White River Diversion Dam was constructed in
1910. It is owned by the Puget Sound Power and Light Co. NHC was retained by a firm of engineers, HDR
Engineering Inc. of Bellevue,
Washington
The existing dam is a timber crib structure with
7-foot high flashboards that maintain water levels during normal flows but can
be removed or will wash out at high flows.
These are to be replaced by operational gates of some kind.
The river transports a significant bed load of
sand, gravel and cobbles that collects upstream of the diversion dam and enters
and deposits in the intake and interferes with the operation of the intake
gates and obstructs the flow. According
to samples taken from the bed below any armouring, this material is composed of approximately
75% gravel, 20% sand and 5% fines. The
median size of the gravel fraction is about 80 mm. The largest size sampled is
about 100 mm. The river also transports,
in suspension, a large quantity of sand that is transported through the intake
along with the flow going to the Lake
Taps storage
reservoir. This sand is deposited in
intermediary basins and is removed periodically. The river transports significant quantities
of floating debris that collects in front of, or enters the intake and disrupts
operations.
The existing dikes that protect development along
the right bank of the river from flooding during high flows need to be raised
and upgraded and protected from erosion by floods.
Field of Science/Technology:
Civil Engineering (2.01.01)
Project Details:
|
|
|
|
Intended Results:
|
Improve existing materials, devices, or products
|
|
Work locations:
|
Analysis, Commercial Facility
|
|
Key Employees:
|
Alexander Bell (Unknown / Unknown), Jack Welch (Unknown /
Unknown), Isaac Newton (Unknown / Unknown)
|
|
Evidence types:
|
None.
|
Scientific or Technological Advancement:
|
Uncertainty #1:
environmental uncertainty
|
|
The primary uncertainties are:
- What constitutes the optimal combination of
weirs, radial gates & walls to control sediment and debris flows at the
intake?
- How to ameliorate the problems associated
with flood passage during construction?
The most significant underlying key variables
are:
weirs, radial gates, walls
|
|
Activity #1-1:
Project design 1-3 (Fiscal Year 2010)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Analysis / simulation: 5 alternatives - Initial
analysis of 5 design options.
·
Physical prototypes: 3 samples - Of the 5 design
alternatives outlined above, 3 were selected for physical modeling. Details of
these 3 designs are outlined below.
Identified 5 project design options for evaluation
[NOTE: IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PROVIDE AN OUTLINE OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA] -
3 for physical observation with respect to effects of these choices on various
performance parameters of the overall system.
The 3 options examined included the optimal
integration of:
1 - radial
sluices & free ogee crest
2 - flow
release control by collapsible rubber dams
3 - the use
of sediment sluices separated by an overflow section with gates
[NOTE: THE
DESCRIPTION ABOVE LACKS AN OUTLINE OF THE TARGET PARAMETERS FOR DEFINING AN
"OPTIMAL DESIGN". IF TARGET
PARAMETERS OR RANGES ARE PROVIDED, IT PROVIDES TECHNICAL BENCHMARKS THAT ARE
INDICATIVE OF ELIGIBLE SR&ED PROJECTS.]
Additionally, the company identified specific
technical uncertainties with respect to optimal layouts & which supported
the "need for physical vs. numeric modeling."
Design I
This option includes radial gated sluices and a
free ogee crest arranged from left to right across the dam as follows:
- 3 sluice bays, each 50 feet long with floor at
El 660 ft controlled by 11-foot high radial gates on a sill at El 660.5 ft.
These bays would be separated upstream and downstream by training walls
extending vertically to El 666 ft.
- free ogee crest El 671.5 extending from the
sluice bays to the right abutment to operate only if flows exceeded 18,000 cfs.
[NOTE: THIS CITING OF SPECIFIC FLOW CAPACITIES HELPS TO PLACE BOUNDARIES ON THE
ASSESSMENT]
Design II
This option includes flow release control by
collapsible rubber dams with arrangement from left to right across the dam as
follows:
- a narrow sediment sluice with floor at El 660 ft
and a 20-foot sluice gate 11 feet high.
- 3 bays, each 50 feet long with floor at El 660
ft controlled by 11-foot high collapsible rubber dams fastened to a sill at El
660.5 ft. These bays are separated, downstream only, by training walls.
- free ogee crest to El 671.5 extending to the
right abutment.
Design III
This option was included in the FERC license application
and includes four sediment sluices separated by overflow sections with bascule
gates with arrangement from left to right as follows:
- overflow section 28 feet long with crest at El
666 ft and controlled by a bascule gate to El 671 ft.
- a narrow sediment sluice with floor at El 660 ft
and a 20-foot sluice gate 11 feet high.
- overflow section 28 feet long with crest at El
666 ft and controlled by a bascule gate to El 671 ft.
- a narrow sediment sluice with floor at El 660 ft
and a 20-foot sluice gate 11 feet high.
- overflow section 65 feet long with crest at El
666 ft and controlled by a bascule gate to El 671 ft.
- a narrow sediment sluice with floor at El 660 ft
and a 20-foot sluice gate 11 feet high.
- overflow section 65 feet long with crest at El
666 ft and controlled by a bascule gate to El 671 ft.
- a narrow sediment sluice with floor at El 660 ft
and 20-foot sluice gate 11 feet high.
- overflow section 65 feet long crest at El 666 ft
and controlled by a bascule gate to El 671 ft extending to the left abutment.
[NOTE:
THESE OUTLINES PROVIDE CONTEXT TO THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. HOWEVER, AN OUTLINE OF THE TESTS USED TO
MEASURE PERFORMANCE IS LACKING. IT WOULD
BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO PROVIDE AN OUTLINE OF THE WORK CONDUCTED AND THE LIST OF
EVALUATION CRITERIA.]
Results:
·
Ability to divert the river to an intake : 100 %
(100% of objective)
·
minimize operational restrictions : 90 % (90% of
objective)
·
Improve the intake flow distribution: 100 %
(100% of objective)
Conclusion:
The result of the numerous tests that were
performed was that a design was developed that resolved the uncertainties
associated with the initial design.
Sediment entering the canal was reduced, the intake flow distribution
was improved, the accumulation of debris was reduced and downstream scour was
reduced. Significant benefits of the
physical model included: design refinement, gate sizing, scour prediction, bed
load behavior prediction, and agency demonstration and consensus building.
The most significant difference in the final design
from the initial design was the construction of radial gates, the inflatable
rubber weirs, and three walls, (excluder, divide and deflector) adjacent to the
intake to the power canal.
[NOTE:
THESE "CONCLUSIONS" PROVIDE AN OUTLINE OF THE END RESULT. CAREFUL ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO ENSURING
THAT THE CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW DIRECTLY FROM THE RESULTS IN THE ACTIVITY SECTION.]
Flow patterns and bed load movement for several
gate alternatives and intake arrangements were observed, and downstream scour
patterns were observed. A divide wall was required for the intake structure.
The cofferdam arrangement for construction was
devised and the gate sequence operations for sediment evacuation were
determined. The uncertainties were removed.
While it is true that any one of the features of
the final design may have been known - rubber weirs, radial gates and walls of
different types were known - it was the innovative combination and alignment of
these factors that makes this project unique.
Most significant variables concluded on: radial
gates, walls, weirs
|
Activity #1-2:
Modeling (Fiscal Year 2010)
|
Methods of experimentation:
·
Process trials: 36 runs / samples - 12 series of
tests performed on each of the 3 models, as outlined below.
The performance of the three structure options
were evaluated on the basis of a model testing program. The program was designed to determine:
- Capacity of the structure to pass bed load
without allowing it to enter the canal, deposit in the vicinity of the canal
intake, or interfere with the downstream fish passage facilities [NOTE:
SPECIFYING THE QUANTIFIABLE TARGETS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL];
- Capacity of gated outlets to remove sediments
deposited immediately upstream from the dam [NOTE: SPECIFYING THE SIZE OF
SEDIMENT PARTICLES AND FLOW RATES PLACES CONTEXT ON THE EVALUATION];
- Capacity to release flows downstream from the
structure that produce acceptable scour and deposition patterns [NOTE: CITE MAX
OR MIN FLOW RATE REQUIREMENTS] and safe, controlled dissipation of kinetic
energy [NOTE: RANGE
OF ACCEPTABLE FLOW RATES TIED TO VOLUMETRIC FORCES
WOULD BE HELPFUL];
- Sensitivity of structure performance to shifts
in upstream approach-flow direction caused by channel instability;
- Water levels corresponding to floods;
- Uniformity of flow entering canal. Any tendency for uneven flows producing dead
areas or upstream-directed currents are conducive to settling of suspended
sediment and increased head loss, and should be avoided.
- Head losses for flow entering through the canal
intake, to determine if the required off take capacity can be achieved within
design water-level differences between fore bay and canal;
- Capability to manage floating debris by
preventing it from entering the intake area, and guiding it to preferred
collection areas.
[NOTE: THE
3 OPTIONS EVALUATED SHOULD BE OUTLINED]
In addition to the above criteria established for
comparison of the options, the following model objectives will be achieved for
the preferred option:
- Measurement of velocities for use in upstream
dike design;
- Establishing a detailed strategy of dam gate
operation for effective passage of bedload;
- Determination of number, extent, alignment and
top elevation of any needed divide walls;
- Assessment of feasibility of near-field sediment
excluder near canal intake (optional).
Results:
·
Sediment Discharge: 5 % (85% of objective)
·
Ability to divert the river to an intake : 100 %
(100% of objective)
·
minimize operational restrictions : 95 % (95% of
objective)
·
fish facilities to operate successfully : 100 %
(100% of objective)
Conclusion:
The appellant is very familiar with numerical
modeling and rejected it as a reliable form of testing its hypotheses.
Numerical modeling is an alternative to physical modeling only where "flow
conditions and sediment - transport processes are simple enough to be
represented by a numerical simulation".
In a complex project of this sort a form of testing that is essentially
two-dimensional is simply inadequate and in fact risky.
[NOTE: SUGGEST THAT NUMERICAL MODELING IS
SIMILAR IN CONTEXT TO ECONOMIC MODELING.
WOULD ARGUE THAT COMPARISON OF A MATRIX OF MODELED DATA TO
EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED CRITERIA IS NECESSARY TO VALIDATE THE MODEL AND MAKE
IT SR&ED ELIGIBLE.]
Most significant variables concluded on: radial
gates, walls, weirs
