A

WATER

RESOURCES

TECHNICAL

PUBLICATION

ENGINEERING MONOGRAPH

No. 25

r

tilling Basins and
PARTMENT
REAU OF RECLAMATION

A

WATER

RESOURCES Monograph

TECHNICAL No.

PUBLICATION

Engineering

95

Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basinsand Energy Dissipators
By A.
Denver,

J. PETERKA
Colorado

United

States

Department

of the Interior

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

I

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Znterior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Zsland Territories under U.S. administration.

I

I

I

ENGINEERING MONOGRAPHS are published in limited editions for the technical staff of the Bureau of Reclamation and interested technical circles in Government and private agencies. Their purpose is to record developments, innovations, and progress in the engineering and scientific techniques and practices that are employed in the planning, design, construction, and operation of Reclamation structures and equipment.
First Second Printing: September July March January May 1963 1974 1978 1958

Printing-Revised: Third Printing:

Fourth

Printing-Revised: Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Printing: Printing: Printing: Printing:

1979 1990

October May May 1983 1984

Preface
THIS MONOGRAPH generalizes the design of stilling basins, energy dissipators of several kinds and associated appurtenances. General design rules are presented so that the necessary dimensions for a particular structure may be easily and quickly determined, and the selected values checked by others without the need for exceptional judgment or extensive previous experience. Proper use of the material in this monograph will eliminate the need for hydraulic model tests on many individual structures, particularly the smaller ones. Designs of structures obtained by following the recommendations presented here will be conservative in that they will provide However, model studa desirable factor of safety. ies will still prove beneficial to reduce structure sizes further, to account for nonsymmetrical conditions of approach or getaway, or t’o evaluate other unusual conditions not described herein. In most instances design rules and procedures are clearly stated in simple terms and limits are

fixed in a definite range. However, it is occasionally necessary to set procedures and limits in broader terms, making it necessary that the accompanying text be carefully read. At the end of this monograph is a graphic summary, giving some of the essential material covered, and a nomograph which may be used as a computation aid. These sheets are particularly useful when making preliminary or rough estimates of basin sizes and dimensions. The monograph contains essentially the information contained in the following Bureau of Reclamation’s Hydraulic Laboratory Report,s: Hyd-399 dated June, 1, 1955, by J. N. Bradley and A. J. Pete&a; Hyd-409 dated February 23, 1956, by A. J. Peterka; Hyd-415 dated July 1, 1956, by G. L. Beichley and A. J. Peterka; Hyd-445 dated April 28, 1961, by A. J. Peterka; Hyd-446 dated April 18, 1960, by G. L. Beichley and A. J. Peterka; and Hyd PAP-125 dated July 1959, by T. J. Rhone and A. J. Peterka. A previous edition of this monograph dated September 1958 contained material from Hyd-399 and Hyd-415 only. Hyd-399 was published in the October 1957 Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, in a series of six papers under the title of “The Hydraulic Design of Stilling Hyd-415 was published in the Journal Basins.” of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, October 1959, under the title “The Hydraulic Design of Slotted Spillway Buckets.” Hyd-446 was published in the Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, September 1961, under the title “Hydraulic Design of Hollow-Jet Valve Stilling Basins,” and later in Transactions for 1962, ASCE, Vol. 127, Part 1, Paper No. 3296. Hyd PAP-125 was published in the Journal of the Hydraulics Division, AWE, December 1959, under the title, “Improved Tunnel Spillway Flip Buckets,” and later in Transactions for 1961, ASCE, Vol. 126, Part 1, Paper No. 3236. Hyd-409 was rewritten for inclusion in this monograph, and new data and more extensive conclusions and recommendations have been added. Hyd-445 was also modified for inclusion in this monograph and contains additional information for chute slopes flatter than 2:l.

. .. Ill

.

....__________-.-----------------___________--__ Chuteblocks-_____-_-________-----------_-_---_-_______---Dentatedsill______-_-_______------------------------------Additional details ______________ -__--_-----_-------______--Verification Tests ____________________ -_-_-_-_-_--------_____--Tail water depth ___________________ -_-_-_-_--------______-Length of basin __________________ ---_----_---_______-______ Water-surface profiles _____________ -_-_-_-_----______________ Conclusions_----________________________-----------------------Aidsin computation______--_---------_-_-________----------Applicat’ion of results (Example 2) ...____--___-__---__-_-___-____ Introduction Section I._ _ __ _ _ __ _ _..Contents Preface..____________ -..- .._.________ Water-Surface Profiles and Pressures------------------------------Conclusions---_--------------------___________-______________--Application of Results (Example l)-------------------------------- Section I....--Practical Considerations---------_____ ---_-_------____ ._ _ _._ .-Stilling Basin Dam Spillways (Basin II) for High Dam and Earth and Large Canal Structures 19 20 20 20 23 23 23 26 26 26 29 30 V Results of Compilation-----~---~-~--------~--________________--Tail water depth----------.-____ -_-_------___________ -_ The Froude Number-----------------------------__--------__-__Applicability of Hydraulic Jump Formula-------------------------LengthofJump-------------__-____________________------------Energy Absorption in Jump-------------------------------------Forms of the Hydraulic Jump---------------------------------.___-_____________________-________________ --eneral Investigation on Horizontal Aprons of the Hydraulic (Basin I) Jump 5 6 6 6 7 14 15 16 17 17 17 Pl?pe .-G __-_ . a22 1 Hydraulic Jump Experiments ________ -_-_-_---_------____-_-_--__ ExperimentalResults-------------.

._____ ._________________ Basinlengthandendsill_______ -___-__--_.____________ ._____ ._________ --___-__ Baffle piers ____ --__---End sill________--__-_--____________________---------------Tail water depth-._ __ .._._ Recommendations _________-______________________________-----Application of results (Example 3) _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ __ _ __ Section 4.__ ._____ -___-Underpass type wave suppressor.5-.. Outlet Works and Diversion Dams (Basin IV) 43 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 52 55 Jump Characteristics-Froude Numbers 2._____ -___-Water surface and pressure profiles.5 to 4._______ -___.5 to 4.__________ Length of jump (Case D).______ Development tests-------____ ___________________ --_ ___.__ _ __ .__ _ .vi CONTENTS Page Section X-Short St%* I mg Basin Small Outlet Works.__ _ __ _ Jump characteristics (Case B) ____ ---------______ -._ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ General description_-.________ -_--__---___-----_____ ._______ --_-_-__-__________________ .______ -___--.__________________ ._____ .-Stilling Basin Design and Wave Suppressors for Canal Structures._________ --._ _ _.__________ -.____ Sloping Apron Tests-._____ --__----_________________ ._ _ Stilling Basin Design-Froude Numbers 2.______ .______ -..____ Tail water depth (Case D) _______ -------_-______ -.____ Expression for jump on sloping apron (Case D) _ _ _ ..._______ ------_--______ -.__________________ Sample problem (Example 4) _ _ ._______ ----_--_--_____ -.________ ---. and Small Spillways 33 33 34 35 35 35 37 37 37 38 38 39 Introduction_____----------------------------------------------Development_____---___----__---~~~~~~_-~~~~__~~~---~_-___-____ Verification Tests ____ ..._____ Length of basin-._____ Performanc’e_-__--_______-___-_----------------------------Alternative Stilling Basin IV-Small Drops--.__ _ .__________ Experimental results (Case B)-----____ -_--_-__---__________ Length of jump (Case B)-..____ .5------____ -..._ _ Performance_______---___-----------_----------------------Design_-____------__--------------------------------------Wave Suppressors-_____----_-_______--____---------------------Raft type wave suppressor ____ ..__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ Section K-Stilling Basin With Sloping Apron (Basin V) 57 58 58 62 62 64 65 70 Previous Experimental Work._ _ ..________ ----_..__ .._______________________ Performance_-_____------_______--~-~-~~-~--~~~~-~~~~~ General design procedure--.._ _ .____________________________ ______ -___--__ Stilling Basin Performance and Design----------__________________ Chuteblocks--__-____--____-__-_-___-____-_____-___---_____ ____ -.__ _ .._____ FinalTests--___------------------------------~----------------Deflectorblocks--__-----_____________-___________----------Tail water depth-._____ . (Basin Ill) for Canal Structures.__ _ _ __ _ _ _.__ _ __ .

Toothmodification III-------------------____________--Tooth modification IV--.._________ ._ ____ _____ -__-_ -___ _ Apron downstream from teeth._ ._ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ Effect of slope of chute---.____________________ --__.__________ -._ _ __ _ General______________--------------------------------------Toothmodification I------________ . spacing. Medium._____ --._ _ .___________ -._______ Development of basin_-------------_______________ -_._ .__ _ _ General________-------------------------------------------Development from solid bucket.__ _ __ Recapitulation of Bucket Design Procedure--.___ _ Practical Applications----_ __ _ __ ._ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _.Sample problerns______-_____--------------------------------Tail water requirements for bucket versus hydraulic jump-._.____ -_ -___ _____._ __ ._ __ _ _ __ _ __ . .._ _ ___ _._ _ __ _ . and pressures._ _ .__ _ __ ._ _ _ __ _ ______ _ ___ __ ____ ____ _-__ _..___________ Toothmodification II---------------------______r____-_.Data Analysis----------____ -__.._ __ _ ._ _ __ _ _.._ _ _ __ _____ ._.._____ Evaluation of sloping aprons--._____ -----_-_-_-_-_ Section 7.____ ____ ____ -__ Tooth shape._____ -__-__-_-___-_--___ Slotted Bucket Generalization Tests---------------------_________ Testequipn~ent______-_------------------------------------Verification of the Slotted Bucket..._ _ __ ._ __._ _ __ _ ._ _ __ _ ._.______ -._ ._______ - 73 73 76 76 77 77 Section 6.__ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ ._._____ ._________ BasinDesign______________-_-----------------------------------Conclusions andRecommendations----______ -.__ _ ._ Slottedbucket performance-._ ._ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ .__ ____ _._ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ ._ _ Sloping apron versus horizontal apron-.__ _ __ _ ._ . and Low Dam Spillways (Basin VII) 92 92 92 93 93 94 95 95 95 95 95 96 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 112 112 112 112 112 113 116 116 123 124 Performance of Solid and Slotted Buckets._______ -..._.._______ Performance of basin---_______ -_-. ___ _ _.--- ._______ ..-Slotted and Solid Buckets for High.__ _ _ _ Solid bucket_________----------------------------------BucketSizeandTailWaterLimits-___--_-_---------------_______ General______________--------------------------------------Lower and upper tail water limits._ _ _ __..__ _ _.__ _ __ _ __ _ Water Surface Characteristics--_ _ _ __ _ __ ._________ ._ .__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _.______ -._ _ __ _ Maximum capacity__---__----------------------------------Larger and smaller buckets._____ ._____ ._ _ _ .CONTENTS Paps vii Applications--_------------------------------------------------Existing structures---_____ -.._ __ ... -___ ________--___-....________.._ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _.______-__-----Safety factor-_________-_____-_-__-----------------------Evaluation of variables.______________________ ---_-__ Recommendations ____ ._____________-Slotted bucket with teeth removed._ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ .____________ -___._.-Stilling Outlets B asin (Basin for Pipe VI) or Open Channel 81 81 82 82 85 87 TestProcedure___--__------------------------------------------Hydraulicmodels_____ -_-._ Slotted Bucket Development Tests._ _ __ _ .

_ _ _ _._____ .--------------------------------Design of chute__________-___--_--_-_-------------------------Baffle pier heights and spacing-.__________ Navajo Dam-___--_----------_-_____-_-__________---------Generalization Study--__________-______ ._____ Prototype Performance------------_____ .____-_------Recapitulation____.__________ Test equipment--_-_------_-----_-___L_-____-___-_--________ Preliminary procedures _____________ ._ _ __ _ _ __ ._ __ _ ___ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _.___________________________ -__.____________ Yellowtail Dam---_____________ -___-___---________________ Trinity Dam.-Baffled (Basin Apron IX) for Canal or Spillway Drops 154 156 157 157 157 157 159 159 164 166 171 172 174 175 175 176 184 185 Development of Baffled Apron Features--._._______ Generalization Tests ____________ -_-_--.__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ Boysen Dam-----_______--____________________________---Falcon Dam-._______________ Boysen Dam-_______-_----_-___-----_-------------------------Falcon Dam________----_-_-_________-_-______-----------------------Recapitulation__________________--------------------------------------- 131 131 132 132 134 134 134 134 136 137 138 138 138 140 140 141 141 142 142 142 143 144 144 147 151 Section 9._ ____ ____ _-.-Hydraulic Stilling Design Basins (Basin OF Hollow-Jet VIII) Valve Page Development of Basin Features..____ ._________---__ -_-_-___-_-____ ---___---Valve placement ______ --.. VIII CONTENTS Section 8._ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ Wash overchute______________-_-----_--------------------------Culvert under dike-----______________ -_-_-_-__-___---_____ Outlet controlstructure-----------__________ -___-_-_-_.._ _ __ _ Design discharge..________________._ __ _ _.____ -._ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ .______ .__ ._______ .___________ Thernodels--______________----------------------------------Testing procedure___________----_-____---------------------Testresults-_______________--------------------------------Generalization of the Hydraulic Design.____-_-__ --_-------_-L_-_______ -__ Riprap size--------__-_____-------_____________------------Application of Results---------_______ --__-__--____ ----_-__---Problems__________---------L-------------------------------One-valve stilling basin design-----------____ --_-_-__---Two-valve stilling basin design._ .__ _ .____ ._____ -_-._ __ _ ._ Prototype Performance _______ -_._____ -_--__-__._______ --_-__--_________ Preliminary tests-._ _- ._________________ .__________ Center dividing wall.-----------____ ----._ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ Chute entrance__________-_._____ -__ Basin width__----__---------------------------------------Basinperformance--------___-__ -__-__----______ .___________________________ --_--._ __ __ ._____ Check intake structure_--_-____-__-_-_--------------------------Normal versus vertical pier faces ________ ---__.._____ ----L_-__________ Basin depth andlength ____________ -_..__________________-_------------------------Simplified Design Procedure.._____ ----__--_________ Final tests and procedures -_________ -_._ _ _ _ _._ .______ -_---_. ._________ ._ __ _ _.

8. (Basin I)-----------___________ Length of jump in terms of D._______________ Ratio of tail water depth to D._______________ -----. (Basin I)-------____ ._____________ -_-_-. 10.__________ Drawdown--_--___________________________----------------Effect of trajectory shape ____ . 9.________ Model and prototype tests--------___________ -_-_--_--__________ Prototype tests-------_-__---_---------------------------------Model-prototype comparison.____ -----__--Conclusions_-_-____---_-___---_-____________-_-_--------------__ Recommendations -------------_____________________ -------_--- Bibliography-------------------------------------------------Nomograph__-------__--------------------------------------Pictorial Summary---------------------------------------- LIST OF FIGURES 1.CONTENTS Section I O.-l mproved (Basin X) Tunnel Spillway Flip Buckets Pa&V ix Bucket Design Problems---------_____________ -_--_. 12. 6. 2. (Basin I)-----------___________ Loss of energy in jump on horizontal floor (Basin I) __________ ___ Jump forms (Basin I) _____________________ -------__________ Definition of symbols (Basin II) _________________ -_-----_____ Minimum tail water depths (Basins I. and III) ________ 2 3 4 6 12 13 14 15 16 20 25 27 .___________ -. 5. 3.__________ Pressures in the transition bucket ___________ --------_________ Conclusions___-___-___-_-_-------_________-___--------__________ 190 191 199 199 200 200 201 202 205 Section 1 I._________ Length of jump in terms of D.__________ Flow direction _____ -__----. II.-------_______ ---_-------__________ Riprap stability observations-----____. II. 11. 4.____________ ImprovedBucketDesigns---------________________________------Design Considerations-----------_________ -_------_-___________ Elevation of bucket invert ______ .-Size of Riprap To From Stilling Basins Be Used Downstream 208 210 210 210 215 216 217 219 222 follows 222 Stone-size determination--------___________________ ----._______________ -_-_--_. 7. Testflumes__---_____-________________________------------Test flumes _________ -_-_-_-----__-_-______________________ Test flumes _________________ . and III)--_ ____ ____ _ __ Length of jump on horizontal floor (Basins I._____ -___--_-__--_-__________ Definition of symbols (Basin I)-------_______ .

5 to 4. Case D) . Case B). Length of jump in terms of tail water depth (Basin V. Performance of solid and slotted buckets. Curves for determination of velocity entering stilling basin for steep slopes ___________________ ._ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ . Uncompahgre project.5 (alternative Basin IV) _____________ .._ _ _ _ ____ _-. South Canal chute.5 to 4. Case B)._________ 54._ _ _. Tooth shapes tested for slotted bucket. Length of jump in terms of conjugate depth._ _ _.5 to 4. Raft wave suppressor (Type IV) for Froude numbers 2. Testflumeandsectionalspillway------------______ . Typical performance of impact type energy dissipator at maximum discharges-no tail water (Basin VI)----------------44. Prototype performance of Basin VI--------------------------47.______________________ -___---__ 38._ _ .._ Page 28 29 31 34 35 37 39 40 44 45 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 58 63 64 65 66 70 71 73 74 75 78 79 83 84 85 87 88 92 92 93 94 96 97 98 100 . Diving flow condition-slotted bucket _______________________ -_ 50. Performance of underpass wave suppressor.49._ _ __ _ _._ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ 26._ ____ _ __ 39.._. Shape factor K in jump formula (Basin V. Case B)--.______ 35._____ --_ ---_-___________ 16.CONTENTS Number 13._ 43._ __._ _ __.__ _ __ _ _ _.-----________ . Tail water requirement for sloping aprons (Basin V. (Basin V. Discharge calibration of the &foot model spillway.________ 53..____________________ ---___. Existing basins with sloping aprons (Basin V.____________ 28.. Recommended proportions (Basin II) _ _ _ _________ _ ___ _____ ____ 15._ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ __ _-51. Record of appurtenances (Basin III) _ ____ ______ ____ ____ ____ _ __ 17. Case B) _ __ _ _ .5--25._______________________ 48._ _ . Ratio of tail water depth to D.__ _ __ _ _ 31._ __ _ 36. Chute stilling basin on South Canal. Erosion test on Angostura Dam spillway.____ --_-. Sloping aprons (Basin V) _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _._ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ 22. Comparison of energy losses-impact basin and hydraulic jump-45.______ _ ____ _ __ _ ___ ____ _ ___ __ _ __ 46.._ __ _ __ _ _ 30.____ --. Station 25+19. D. Colorado___-______-_________________________-------------42.____ 37.. Case B) _____ _ ___ _ _ 40._ _ ___ ________ ________ _ 18. Channel erosion and emergency operation for maximum tabular discharge !Basin VI).._. Existing basins with sloping aprons (Basin V. Uncompahgre project. Profile characteristics (Basin V. Wave height records for Carter Lake Dam No. Proportions for Froude numbers 2. Approximate water surface and pressure profiles (Basin II)------14._ _._ .. Drop-type energy dissipator for Froude numbers 2. Height of baffle piers and end sill (Basin III) _____ ____ ____ _ _____ 19._____ _ _ _ 52. Submerged buckets--. Record of appurtenances (Basin IV) . Comparison of existing sloping apron designs with experimental results (Basin V.. Hydraulic characteristics of underpass wave suppressor .5 (Basin IV) _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ 23.. Slotted bucket modifications tested ____ ----_-. (Basin V. Impact type energy dissipator (Basin VI) ___ _. Case D)34. Hydraulic performance of wave suppressor for Friant-Kern Canal 27..______________ 24.. Wave suppressor for Friant-Kern Canal-results of hydraulic model tests ____ ._ __ . Colorado____________--_-____________________-------------41... Recommended proportions (Basin III) _ . Case D) . Approximate water surface and pressure profiles (Basin III). _____ 20. Case D) __ _ _ 33. 1 outlet works---29..._ _ __ _ _ . Tail water and jump elevation curve-Example 3 (Basin III) _ _ __ 21.._ __ _ .__________ __ 32.

f.5 c._________________ Tail water depth at sweepout----____ -__----_______________ Tail water sweepout depth.._ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _._____ ----___---------____________ Water surface profile characteristics for slotted buckets only.. 60. 87.._ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Definition of symbols----------_______ --------_____________ Minimum allowable bucket radius-._ _ __ _ Hollow-jet valve stilling basin model used for generalization tests-._. valve 50 percent openBoysen Dam: left valve of outlet works basin. 74.__ __-_.-__-------____________ Flow currents for various arrangements of fixed beds ____________ Nine-inch bucket discharging 1.f.__ -. 91. 80. 71.. Falcon Dam---.CONTENTS Number Xi Page 55._ _ __ _ __ _ _.. 92.____ ----_.. Six-inch bucket discharging 1.______ ____ -___ _-__ Mexican outlet works.-looking upstream---------_______________________ Boysen Dam: left valve of outlet works basin discharging 732 c._______ Stillingbasinlength---____ ---_---_--_-________ -_.s.____ --_------____________ Dimensionless plot of maximum and minimum tail water depth limits--__---____-___. 70.f. 69.f. 86._ . 76._ _ _ _ Curves for determination of velocity entering bucket for steep slopes__----------------------------------------------Boysen Dam outlet works stilling basin and arrangement of powerplant--____--_----------------------------------------Yellowtail Dam proposed outlet works stilling basin and powerplant--___________-_----------------------------------Hollow-jet valve dimensions and discharge coefficients-.. 61.85 feet.. 93. 78.______ Falcon Dam: United States outlet works._ _ _ _ _ Eighteen-inch bucket performance.f.. (design capacity) _______ ___ Tail water limits and bucket capacities._ __ _ _ Trinity Dam outlet works stilling basin--.s-. 67. 65._ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ .. 82.s ____ __ . 79. 68. 57. 94._ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Nine-inch bucket discharging-tail water depth 1..f. 81. 83. 97. 85.Navajo Dam outlet works stilling basin---..___________ Hollow-jet valve stilling basin performance.____ -. 73._ ._ _ . 90. 96.. 59. Falcon Dam. 95.75 c.f.-looking downstream---_____ ------___----________ Boysen Dam: outlet works discharging 1._ _ __ -..____ _ _ _ Boysen Dam: left valve of outlet works basin discharging 732 c..320 c..--------------------------------Minimum tail water limit.__ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ ___ _ Maximum tail water limit--____ .._____ ____ _ Falcon Dam: Mexican outlet works--. 88. 98.._ _ __ _ _ __ . Generalized design----------_______________________________ Ideal tail water depth ________ -_-----_--_--____ -------_____ Tail water sweepout depth---------------_______ -_-_. 84.____ .Six-inch hollow-jet valve discharging-------------------------Hollow-jet valve stilling basin with and without converging walls-United States outlet works. 72.s.___ __ ____ ______ ____ _ ____ Twelve-inch bucket discharging-tail water depth 2._ _ _ __ _ _ Average water surface measurements-.._________ Basin width per valve-...sBoysen Dam: outlet works discharging 1. 89._-_ .344 c.___.___ __-_ -. 58.._ _ __ __ __ . 75. discharging 660 c._.s... 62.______ ----__-_-__-______ ._________ Falcon Dam: United States outlet works ______________________ 101 102 107 111 112 113 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 121 124 128 129 130 132 132 133 133 134 135 135 136 139 139 140 140 141 141 144 144 145 145 146 147 148 148 149 149 . valve 100 percent openHollow-jet valve stilling basin performance.s.. 64. 56.30 feet. 63._______ Developedbasin_____________------------------------------Falcon Dam: Mexican outlet works---. 77. 66.

and splash test results ____ Baffled chute studies.4.s. discharge at 61 c.._ ._ _ _ _ ___ __ __ _ 103. Drain 2A..f. 116. 1777+18-_____--_---______------_------------------------- 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 170 171 172 173 173 174 179 180 180 181 181 182 183 183 184 184 185 186 .s. Potholes East Canal.__ _--_ __ -_ __ ___ Baffled chute studies.. 120. 150 150 151 152 154 105.. 125. Discharge 60 c.. 938+00.--. Drain 2A.__ _ . 111.Baffled chute studies. Sta. Scour test results. 122. tests of various-shapedbaffles ______ -___-___-___--___-___________ Model of check intake structure as used in generalization tests---Baffled chute studies._ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ Frenchman-Cambridge Meeker Extension Canal Wasteway. 101. Baffle pier height. 129. 36$82.____ . 107. 121. 127..__ .--_______ ..xii NUmbCT CONTENTS Page Falcon Dam: United States outlet works._ __ _ _ __ _ __ Prototype installations of baffled chutes.______________ Model of check intake structure. per foot of width Baffled chute studies. Baffle pier height. 128. 126. 100.. Gila project _______________ Outlet control structure.._ ____________________ Falcon Dam: Mexican outlet works--. 110. per foot of width_--___--___-__------------.__ _ __ _ _ _ _. Sta._ _ Baffled chute studies. Sta.__ _ . 137.s. Sta.-_ _ __ _ . 113._ .4-------___________________ Stabilized banks present no erosion problem after the work was done on Bostwick Superior Canal._ _ __ _ _ _ . 131._ . H=6’0”_ ._ _ __ . Gila project--. 117. 136. _ _ __-__ _. Gila project-------------_____ Check intake structure.. Baffle piers 3’0” high---.__ _ _ __ __ _ ____ _ _ Prototype installation of baffled chute.___________________ Falcon Dam: Mexican and United States powerplants and outlet works discharging at reservoir elevation 301._.. Potholes East Canal.__._ __ Performance of baffled chute on Culbertson Canal Wasteway 3. 118. Recommended baffle pier heights and allowable velocities--. Gila 99._ ._ _ _. Sta._ _ . 119. 108. 112. Baffle pier height. Scour. 135. 28+90--Unstable banks create an erosion problem on Bostwick Superior Canal.. Baffle pier height._.... 36+82.f.-------Baffled chute studies. 130.__ _ .Baffled chute studies. 133. per foot of width.__ _ . Potholes East Canal.3-Performance of prototype structures._. 106.. 114.f..._ _._ Progress of erosion in Bostwick Crow Creek Drain.__________ Model of outlet control structure.-__ _ . Wellton-Mohawk Canal.------____________________________ Construction and performance of baffled chutes.----------------------Model of check intake structure. Sta. tests of various-shaped baffles----------------------------------Model of check intake structure.. 134. 115. project. 102. different baffle pier arrangements on 2:l sloping apronCulvert under dike. 1369+40.-Performance of prototype structures. 109._ __-_ __--__ ___ __ ___ Baffled chute studies._ . H=3’0” ... H=5’0”-------------Baffled chute studies._.83. 124.. Velocities at Point 3 on model--.Baffled chute studies. Gila project----_--_ _ _-_ _ ___ __ ____ ___ ___ _ Model studies for culvert under dike.____ __ ________ __ ___ Falcon Dam: United States outlet works--. H=4’0”__ _ . velocity. Wash overchute._ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ Prototype installation of baffled chute-._ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ ___ Prototype installation of baffled chute._____ -_--__-___. Discharges 50 and 60 c. 132... Columbia Basin project---.. Potholes East Canal----------Model of check intake structure. 123.

Flaming Gorge Dam studies___--____--------------------------------------153._ . Surge-type waves extracted fine earth material from behind coarse riprap_-----________----------------------------------- 186 187 188 191 192 192 193 194 194 195 195 196 196 197 198 199 199 200 200 201 201 201 203 203 204 204 205 209 211 212 213 213 214 214 215 215 217 . Model-prototype comparison. Impact-type stilling basin structure. Pressures at end of bucket ________ -___--__. ..._ . Recommended bucket. Baffled chute may produce channel aggradation rather than scour139.__________________ 148._ __ _ ____ _ ___ 150. Model-prototype comparison._ _ 155._____________ ----__----__-173._ ._ _ __ _ .. Model-prototype comparison.._..._ _ . Combination hydraulic jump basin flip bucket---. Trajectorylengthsandheadloss_-__---__---___-------_______ 161.. Wu-Sheh Dam--. Tail water drawdown. Tube elbow bucket produces clear-cut stable jet with little spray-157.---------------163.. Transition flip bucket with side wall deflectors. Dispersion-type flip bucket----------------________________ I144.. Michaud Flats Project. Glen Canyon Dam studies. Outlet works of Picacho North Dam. Model-prototype comparison. Fontana Dam spillway flip bucket models---... Outlet works of Picacho South Dam._______ -___----__--__---_-_--------____ -_ 158._ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ 145._. Rio Grande project______-_____-------___--------------------168. Curve to determine maximum stone size in riprap mixture._ . _ . Las Cruces Division. Picacho North Dam. Tube elbow flip bucket used on Whiskeytown Dam spillway tunnel has 3O converging walls to limit spreading of jet. Transition flip bucket---------____ --__--.. Picacho North Dam-------------170._.__ _ _. Dispersion flip bucket---------____ --__-___-___--__________ 143. Idaho__--______-----------_------___--------------140.. Transition flip bucket.. Rio Grande project____________----------------------------167. Yellowtail Dam stilling basin (preliminary design) _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ 146.to l&inch-diameter stones--_ _ _ _. Tubeelbowflipbucket----_---________ --__---_---_-----__-154. Basic proportions of a baffled chute._ _____ _________ ___ 142. Las Cruces Division. XIII 138. Pressures on side wall of transition bucket..._ 171... Hydraulic model tests using 9. Tube elbow bucket produces a narrow jet for the narrow channel below WhiskeytownDam--_-___--_____ ----__--____ -156._ _ _ _ _. Picacho North Dam. Typical jet profile for 35’ transition flip bucket. Flow conditions downstream from Picacho South Dam outlet works are entirely satisfactory ______ .. Glen Canyon Dam studies_--______---_----------------------------------151.. Fontana Dam spillway flip buckets162.. Pressures on transition bucket floor----------.CONTENTS PWC .. Picacho South Dam------------_172..166.._ __ _ _ __ _ __ 141. Kopp Wasteway on the Main East Canal. Model-prototype comparison. Glen Canyon Dam studies--. Flip bucket studies for 35” transition bucket.__ 169.__ 165._ __ _ _.____________ 147. Hungry Horse spillway flip buckets159._ . Glen Canyon Dam studies_---_____--------------------------------------152..174. Spreadingof jet-.. Standard flat-bottom flip bucket.-------------------_---------_______ 160._____ -_-_----___-164.._ _ __ 149..

Pressuresontooth-DesignIII______ -_-__--..___. Baffled chute structures in use____________ -..____ 10._______. Stilling basins with sloping aprons (Basin V.__ 20. VerificationtestsonTypeIIbasins-_________-___--___-___--__ 4.____.____.__________-__ 22.___________ 16._______._____________ 12.____.19. Data and calculated values for g-inch-radius bucket--. Case B)--. Examples of bucket design procedures.__________ 11.. Verification tests on Type III basins-----------------________5._____.. ModelresultsonexistingTypeII basins-------_____.________-__--___--._____________ 6.. Effect of underpass length on wave reduction-------------------8._ 21.__.____._______________._ 2. Stilling basin dimensions (Basin VI) ______ ----__--.. Data and calculated values for g-inch-radius bucket ______________ 15.___________-23. Description of spillway tunnels on various projects---.. Data and calculated values for 18-inch-radius bucket _________ ____ 18....__ 8 21 24 36 39 55 55 59 67 72 86 94 95 103 104 108 110 122 125 131 173 176 191 . Natural stilling basin with horizontal floor (Basin I) _ . Waveheightsinfeet-prototype _________ ----_----___-__-_-____ 7..xiv CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES NUmbU PoOe 1.__. Data and calculated values for 12-inch-radius bucket _____________ 17._____ ._. Resultsof Example 3_______________ --. Comparison of tail water depths for bucket and hydraulic jump.____. Stilling basins with sloping aprons (Basin V. Case D) _ _ _ _________ 9. Comparison of basin dimensions .._.. Existing stilling basins with sloping aprons.._____. Scour testresults----------____________ ---__--_. Pressures on tooth-Design III---.____-_--_ 3.____ 13.__________________ 14.____--..

at times. To fill the need for up-to-date hydraulic design information on stilling basins and energy dissipators. each structure having different allowable design limitations. Figure 1. With a broader understanding of this phenomenon it was then possible to proceed to the more practical aspects of stilling basin design. and canal structures. outlet works. Flumes C and D. Extensive library research into the works of others revealed the fact that the necessary correlation factors are nonexistent. attempts to generalize the assembled data resulted in sketchy and. The reason for these repetitive tests is that a factor of uncertainty exists regarding the overall performance characteristics of energy dissipators. and to establish workable design criteria. Figure 3. but it is designated as a separate flume for easeof reference. using standards established before testing began. The many laboratory studies made on individual structures over a period of years have been made by different personnel. Figure 2 . a research program on this general subject was begun with a study of the hydraulic jump. Six test flumes were used at one time or another to obtain the experimental data required on Hydraulic Jump Basins I through V-Flumes A and B. Testing and analysis were coordinated to establish valid curves in critical regimes to provide sufficient understanding of energy dissipators in their many forms. Since all the test points were obtained by the same personnel.Introduction HUNDREDS of stilling basins and energydissipating devices have been designed in conjunction with spillways. Since no two structures were exactly alike. including laboratory and field tests collected from Bureau of Reclamation records and experiences over a 23-year period. for different groups of designers. Flumes A through E contained overflow sections so that the jet entered the stilling basin at an 1 . Hundreds of tests were also performed on both available and specially constructed equipment to obtain a fuller understanding of the data at hand. was used to establish a direct approach to the practical problems encountered in hydraulic design. actually occupied a portion of Flume D during one stage of the testing. it is often necessary to make model studies of individual structures to be certain that these will operate as anticipated. inconsistent results having only vague connecting links. observing all phases as it occurs in open channel flow. Figure 3. and Flume F. and since results and conclusions were evaluated from the same datum of reference. the data presented are believed to be consistent and reliable. The arrangement shown as Flume E. ALTHOUGH Existing knowledge.

drop 5.the experiments started in one flume and completed in others. In Flume F. and the downstream face .s. Width discharge of basin 5 feet. Figure lA. The crest of the overflow section was 5.7:1.f. Flume D. Figure 2A. Flume B.s. Tests were then continued in a glass-sided laboratory flume 2 feet wide and 40 feet long in which an overflow section was installed. however. The different flume sizes and arrangements also made it possible to determine the effect of flume width and angle of entry of the flow. Later. The drop from headwater to tail water in this case . This was not an ideal piece of equipment for general experiments as the training walls on the chute were diverging. Figure 2B. B. The discharge capacity was about 12 c. angle to the horizontal.-Test flumes. B-Test flume feet. The discharge capacity was 5 c.f. Flume a. since it emerged from under a vertical slide gate. The degree of the angle varied in each test flume. 6 c. the entering jet was horizontal. 3 feet. the work was carried on at the base of a chute 18 inches wide having a slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical'and a drop of approximately 10 feet. The rapid expansion caused the distribution of flow entering the stilling basin to shift with each change in discharge. The largest scale experiments were made on a glass-sided laboratory flume 4 feet wide and 80 feet long.5 discharge 12 c. Width 2 feet.s. in which anoverfall crest having a slope of 0. Each flume served a useful purpose either in verifying the similarity of flow patterns of different physical size or in extending the range of .s.8:1 was installed. Figure 1B.vas on a slope of 0. The stilling basin had a glass wall on one side.f. FIGURE1.2 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS A-Test flume drop A.5 feet above the floor.f. having a small discharge and low velocity. this piece of equipment served a purpose in that it aided in establishing the procedures used in the research program. The experiments were started in an existing model of a flat-chute spillway.

The tail water depth was regulated by an adjustable weir at the end of each flume. The downstream end of the above flume was also utilized for testing small overflow sections 0. slope drop 10 discharge 2:1... 1S . Flume B was also used for the tests to develop the slotted-bucket energy dissipator described in Section 7. a scale for measuring the length of the jump.5 feet.f. Width 5 c. 1.veIl. Other test setups used to develop the impact basin. and the riprap size data. and the flow was controlled by a slide gate. The discharge in all cases was measured through the laboratory venturi meters or portable venturi-orifice meters. The maximum discharge used was 10 c. A- -Test feet. 4 feet. The discharge capacity was about 3 c.INTRODUCTION was approximately 12 feet.s. As stated above.s.8:1. are described in appropriate sections. flume C. and a means of regulating the tail water depth.s. the wave suppressors. B-Test feet.f.v-jet valve stilling basin. Test flumes. Basin VII. the head available was 2. this piece of equipment is designated as Flume E. the flip buckets. a 3 point gage for measuring the average depth of flow entering the jump. and the maximum discharge capacity was 28 c. a tail gage.s.f.f. and is shown in Figure 3A.5 feet. This flume was 1 foot wide by 20 feet long.5to 1.f.5 feet in height. Width S8 c. the hollo. FIGURE 2. The sixth testing device was a tilting flume which could be adjusted to provide slopes up to 12°. Flume F. flume discharge D. Each flume contained a head gage. Figure 3B. slope drop 0. The tail water depth was measured by a point gage operating in a stilling .s. the baffled chutes.

so FIGURE 3.drop 0. slape 5 c.5 feet. Width 4 feet.4 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS A-Test flume E. di8charge 10 c.5-1.f. Adjustable 12 degrees. 1 foot. B-Test maximum discharge flume F.8.f. . tilting width type.-Test flumes.

however. The first phase of this study consisted of observing and measuring the hydraulic jump in its various forms. there are: Bakhmeteff and Matzke (1. Kozeny (28). and evaluate the various forms of the jump. since the action in small jumps is too rapid for the eye to follow and. work has been performed in connection with the hydraulic jump on a horizontal apron.8). Chertonosov (IO). Forchheimer (21). Woodward (de).s. (2) to determine ’ Numbers refer to references in “Bibliography. and (3) to observe. Kennison (22). The objectives of the study were: (1) to determine the applicability of the hydraulic jump formula for the entire range of conditions experienced in design. Hinds (IQ). To mention a few of the experimenters who contributed basic information. Greatest reliance was placed on the results from the larger flumes.’ Safranez (S). A and F. The results were then correlated with those of others.Section General horizontal I of the hydraulic I) jump on investigation aprons (Basin TnEMENnous amount of experimental. Woycicki (4>. friction and viscosity become a measurable factor. there is still much to be learned. was consistently shorter than that observed 5 . and others.f.” A the length of the jump over the entire practical range and to correlate the findings with results of other experimenters where possible. from a practical viewpoint. Einwachter (II). Ellms (Id). the primary purpose being to become better acquainted with the overall jump phenomenon. also. This was demonstrated by the fact that the length of jump obtained from the two smaller flumes. catalog. this involved about 125 tests for discharges of 1 to 28 c. The number of flumes used enhanced the value of the results in that it was possible to observe the degree of similitude obtained for the various sizes of jumps. as well as theoretical. As indicated in Table 1. Rehbock (24. There is probably no phase of hydraulics that has received more attention. Hydraulic Jump Experiments Observation of the hydraulic jump throughout its entire range required tests in all six test flumes. Schoklitsch (25).

2D1 D2++ J --+9 (2) or D2= ++ J D12 2V12D12 -T+gD 1 where D. D. Table 1. The law of similitude states that where gravitational forces predominate. E which they termed the sol’ kinetic flow factor.resistance on the floor and side walls produced a short jump. indicated in Figure 4. and will not be repeated here. The expression for the hydraulic jump. The procedure followed in each test of this series was to establish a flow and then gradually increase the tail water depth until the front of the jump moved upstream to Section 1. The Froude number. 8). the Froude number should have the same value in model and prototype. and depth of flow entering jump (Col. 8). its inclusion makes the expression dimensionless. Out-of-scale frictional . Applicability of Hydraulic Jump Formula The Froude number. These depths are often called conjugate or sequent depths. Column 10. and g is the acceleration of gravity. gravity forces predominate. and the depth of flow entering the jump. . and the form shown as equation (1) is preferred. Bakhmeteff and Matzke (1) demonstrated this application in 1936 when they related stilling basin characteristics to the square of the Froude number. As the acceleration of gravity is a constant. and Column 4 shows the width of each flume. The tail water depth was then measured.6 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS for the larger flumes. The Froude Number will have the identical characteristics of a prototype jump in a stilling basin. ll). Experimental Results Definitions of the symbols used in connection with the hydraulic jump on a horizontal floor are shown in Figure 4. The results of the measurements and succeeding computations are tabulated in Table 1. tail water depth (Col. entering the jump. the length of the jump recorded. Column 7. As testing advanced and this deficiency became better understood. was computed by dividing q (Col. some allowance was made for this effect in the observations. equation (1)) is used throughout this monograph. the term g could be omitted. is: (1) where F1 is a dimensionless parameter. unit discharges (q) are shown in Column 5. 3). length of jump (Col.. However. if t#he Froude numbers of the incoming flows are the same. 5) by DI (Cal. Column 1 indicates the test flumes in which the experiments were performed. VI and DI are velocity and depth of flow. based on pressure-momentum may be written (15) : D12 2V. Figure 4. was obtained by averaging a generous number of point gage measurements taken immediately upstream from Section 1. as they do in open channel phenomena. The measured quantities are tabulated as follows: total discharge (Col. and D2 are the depths before and after the jump. and the Froude number becomes most useful in plotting stilling basin characteristics. Therefore. The velocity entering the jump VI. All computations are based on discharge per foot width of flume. 6). a model jump in a test flume The theory of the hydraulic jump in horizontal channels has been treated thoroughly by others (see “Bibliography”). Although energy conversions in a hydraulic jump bear some relation to the Reynolds number. respectively.

to the left side of the equation V12 and substituting PI2 for ----a @I D2 OF THE HYDRAULIC JUMP 7 Transposing D=-1/2+ 1 Da Jipgp (3) D= 1 l/2 (Jiqp- 1) the ratio of depths is Equation a function (3) shows that of the Froude number. In both cases the point at which the high-velocity jet beiins to rise from the floor is not fixed. where the ratio. 10) for results from the six test flumes. the end of the jump. It was the intention to judge the length of the jump from a practical standpoint. a rather complete explanation is presented regarding this disagreement. The greater portion of this curve. as shown in Figure 4. In addition to the curve established by the test points. which are experimental. Column 11. The experiments of Bakhmeteff and Matzke were performed in a flume 6 inches wide. The ratio 2 1 is plotted with respect to the Froude number on Figure 5.5 to 9. Because of the wide use this curve has experienced. are from Columns 9 and 10. it was necessary for Bakhmeteff and Matzke to decrease the gate . which is the principal advantage of these coordinates. would represent the end of the concrete floor and side walls of a conventional stilling basin. It was at first difficult to repeat length observations within 5 percent by either criterion. however. Although the first method is perhaps the better method. the second is the more common and useful. This is also true of the roller on the surface. The maximum discharge was approximately 0. is presented in Figure 7. length of jump to the conjugate tail water depth D2 (Col. This latter method of plotting will be used throughout the study. The points represent the experimental values. 12 ) is plotted with respect to the Froude number.94.. was the most difficult to determine. is plotted with respect to the Froude number (Col.” is at variance with the present experimental results. The second method of plotting. The agreement is excellent over the entire range. in other words. Special care was therefore given to this measurement. The length of jump was measured from this point to a point downstream where either the high-velocity jet began to leave the floor or to a point on the surface immediately downstream from the roller. The line. In the case of Flume F. the front of the jump was maintained just downstream from the completed contraction of the entering jet.GENERAL INVESTIGATION D. or values of F1 from 4. Table 1. but tends to shift upstream and downstream. The resulting curve is of fairly uniform curvature. the front of the jump was held at the intersection of the chute and the horizontal floor. labeled “1. Table l).5 are in agreement with the present experiments. There is an unsuspected characteristic in the curve. D1. To increase the Froude number. Where chutes or overfalls were used. which is virtually straight except for the lower end. Table 1. whichever was the longer. was sufficient to bring the front of the jump to Section 1 (Fig. 13. the points. Length of Jump The length of the jump measurement. recorded in Column 6 of Table 1. was 0. The depth of flow entering the jump was adjusted by a vertical slide gate. which is mentioned here but will be enlarged on later. The results up to a Froude number of 2. curves representing the results of three-other experimenters are shown in Figure 7. where the flow discharged from a gate onto a horizontal floor. (Col. The length of jump has been plotted in two ways.S. indicating that equation (3) is applicable when the flow enters the jump at an appreciable angle to the horizontal. the ability of the jump to remain at Section 1 for a slight lowering of tail water depth became more difficult for the higher and lower values of the Froude number. The first method is shown in Figure 6 where the ratio. 4) in each test. The jump was least sensitive to variation in tail water depth in the middle range. Although the tail water depth.f. as chosen.7 C. but with practice satisfactory measurements became possible. The best known and most widely accepted curve for length of jump is that of Bakhmeteff and Matzke (1) which was determined from experiments made at Columbia University. length of jump to D. and the thickness of the jet entering the jump. having a limited testing head. represents the above expression for the hydraulic jump.25 foot for a Froude number of 1.

98 9. 5. 0 10.98 7.691 0.412 3.712 0.74 11.04 29. 2 69. 15 15. 4 10.923 58.5 78.07 12.36 5.953 1. 99 5. 171 . 605 0.694 0. 42 15. 128 7.955 3.2 79. 07 6.814 0. 860 4.3 73. 93 . (15) (16) (17) gf. 760 1.58 17.842 4. 960 2. 088 .044 0. 125 1.392 0.25 6.03 10.79 28.000 9. 8 72. 2 69.443 3. 16 18.761 4. 20 6. 072 .0 65.4 63. 500 1.081 .033 .000 3.57 18.55 16.74 22.465 1. 73 39. 29 12. 172 . 014 2. 72 7.33 14.632 3. 04 5.39 41. stilling basfn ft.90 12.500 5.505 4. 11 1. 517 1.2 74.36 13. 582 1. 3.000 3. 5 46. 333 1.5 7. 145 . 40 17. 1 12.1 76.61 15.500 3. 92 6.44 17.078 . 03 11.090 1. 31 6. 39 17. 075 2.6 11. 1 7.48 8.38 17.633 1.967 5. 31 10. 187 0. D. 628 3.09 12.480 1.07 5.33 6.6 8. “2 EL ET % (16) a0 Qatc getp”“‘“B W Wzjb Test flume Q c.002 3.5 73.667 1.799 1. 164 3. 44 17.500 5.440 4. (1) (3) (4) ----________--------- qoywft. 51 6.551 3.47 17.500 4. 5. 301 3.259 1.471 1. 639 3.500 3. 56 7. 888 4.908 2. 050 2.21 5. 24 17.916 3.760 4. 52 17. 229 . 187 . 35 29.000 4.28 22. 08 6.016 7. 200 . 7 8.615 1. 4 6.4 64.76 14. 169 7.63 12.25 12.70 10. 264 1.000 1.110 4.8 11. 149 3.000 2. 360 3. 732 1. 921 2. 59 8. 01 6. 70 5.072 . 39 3.80 9.72 19. 07 5.TABLE l. 102 .513 1.05 63. 391 49. 7 7.750 0. 730 1.80 51.500 1. 35 9.457 165.730 1.086 .s.21 6. 117 . 100 5.380 4. 03 7. EWfT t .6 64. 633 0.26 6. 104 1.48 17. 15 6.44 20. 03 6. 4 7.087 .048 .091 . 7 11. 691 1.988 3.8 B--_-----------m 2. 56 7. 7 58.41 17. 24 6. 78 8. 4 7. 42 41 38 37 37 73 71 86 62 58 54 57 90 74 60 56 55 74 68 64 60 110 93 86 78 74 73 69 68 152 133 122 114 105 106 95 96 1.96 5. 8 58. 79 23.504 3. 639 1.78 8.08 12.48 5.675 1. 5 10.5 12.0 50.6 60. 01 7. 4.684 72. 7 60.000 1.6 68. 50 17.785 7.551 1.000 4. 500 2.90 6.000 2.463 1.62 11.500 2.95 6.852 4.58 23. 240 1. 13 0. 150 5.000 4.2 81.661 0.500 4.54 19.300 1. 354 0.500 4.916 1. 32 39 38 48 62 03) 04) A--- ____-_-_ -_-_ 3. 700 90. 08 6. 809 1. 890 2.648 117.44 17.355 3. 7 10.440 1. 04 8. 143 . 93 6.87 5.48 9.000 3. 352 1.058 . 102 . 915 0.250 1.000 3.84 10.95 8.860 6. 000 2. 64 27.000 3. 658 3. 8 10. 3 6.4 68. 117 .3 11. 8 45.030 1.48 17.253 2. ft. 100 .137 1.77 17.70 41.236 1.000 6.250 1. 37 6.811 4. 62 14. 953 2. 63 18.3 12.08 17. 910 1. 07 6.000 5.79 8.3 6.000 3.564 0. 5 75.59 17.19 11.792 62. 80 17. 96 4. 764 1.433 1.500 3.000 3.752 4.375 6.46 9. 638 1. 18 6. 2 60.435 1.878 4.%.000 4.086 3.52 12.24 5. 199 . 80 5. 8 8. 29 35.017 2. 637 1.50 8. 0 11. 235 1.010 8.96 16.649 0.47 6. 900 2.44 17.674 4.41 7.300 5. 19 14. 15 10.000 2.010 8.+v& it. 49 5. 75 9. 80 6. per sec.827 1.87 6. 24 19.70 27. 95 6. 7 10.3 69.006 4.26 9.07 6. 128 8.754 1.868 4.40 8.3 76. 40 6. 11 25.23 4.805 1.960 0. 0 6.063 . 150 2. 39 21.43 6.0 61.52 17.948 5. 348 3.282 0. 115 .54 17.000 6. 316 1.679 8. 975 7. 077 1.44 5. 51 6.40 20.250 2.918 1. 228 .809 4. 750 2.000 8.500 5.485 1.500 6.78 17. 702 4.33 5.000 7.856 4. 5. 89 5.667 2.86 13. 450 1. 45 14.56 5.54 17. 18 10.000 1.908 4.600 1. 891 2. 129 .6 83.43 21. VI ft.750 3. 24 15.48 12. 6 49.59 21.f. 336 0. 36 17.500 2. 24 17.895 4. 599 1.431 7.9 63.550 2.09 22. 5. 04 6.000 3.3 77. 2 f v1 Jai LenLgtb OfifyyP L & K (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 0 3 5 8 1 5.969 4.003 4. 170 .325 1.883 4. 46 11.76 11. 124 3. 258 1. 1 Et= d.000 2. 91 7.9 77. 3. 21 20.876 1. 2 11. 124 1.-Natural stilling basin with horizontal F1= floor (Basin I) 1 En= d. 10 6.610 0.900 1. 903 4. 158 . 5 9.4 85. 16 21.651 0.2 63.55 16.24 17.47 8.+v$ ft.0 10.500 1. 9 8.20 10. 482 1. 261 53. 3. 123 .40 10. 128 3.756 1. 201 .000 1.26 9.500 1. 07 50. 112 . 9 9.732 0.9 66.612 0.016 1.000 7. 152 8. 721 1.30 7.968 4.000 4. 61 17.94 16.667 2. 05 6.092 .7 5. 250 3. 83 7.016 1. 158 . 69 5. 119 .043 2.

58 6. 16 60.I.92 82.129 59.98 14.4 10. 35 18. 549 1.428 2.961 1.090 .827 1. 580 2. 6 72.05 5.02 5. 086 . 30 5.000 8. 763 2.11 5.89 14.181 83.833 2.000 16.96 22. 11 38. 19 6. 2 12. 6 78.083 23. 267 2. 55 21. 92 5.60 17. 22 14. 259 1. 3 8. 000 7. 657 3. 833 1.73 12.40 5. 8 73. 363 2.062 . 2 77.612 1.460 1.000 15.461 8. 73 5. 4 77.367 26. 02 6. 91 6. 128 47. 7 67.336 29. 138 . 240 . 008 1.323 5.56 21. 580 1. 31 20.000 8. 43 20. 169 79.0 5. 4 3 6 1 0 1 1 6.82 5.410 2.492 1.750 3.417 1. 77 8. 18 5. 961 1.89 20. 68 9. 833 1. 04 18. 266 6. 22 12.76 5. 24 6.74 6. 7 68. 7 18.625 7.37 5. 15 10. 780 1.236 6.25 13.644 1.250 3.721 7. 3 69.284 38. 12 11.361 1. 1 75. 7 74.30 8. 205 5.048 . 14 20. 95 6. 64 5. 14 16. 70 5. 570 1.32 11.869 25.60 25. 4 6. 74 9.376 1. 771 3. 1 10.792 1. 180 1.41 19. 6 66.20 11.712 2. 600 1. 699 6.32 16. 94 6. 29 6. 9 79. 961 1.378 21. 0 9. 4 8. 7 73. 3 21. 955 2. 76. 109 .27 12.842 2.54 14. 0 72. 5 7. 365 6.000 12.062 . 526 4.000 19. 077 . 192 . 254 2.4 80. 11 10. 37 11. 14 6.6 15.067 51. 75 13.52 10. 97 6. 023 3. 82 19. 181 83. 99 6. 84 11.907 8. 0 14. 959 6. 914 1.823 7. 4 18. 23 20.22 24.55 11. 5 12. 8 15. 354 30. 151 1.259 38.97 11.29 5.050 7. 17 6.02 15.96 5. 236 7. 1 75.000 3. 135 1. 163 . 25 11. 94 5. 56 .475 6.25 12. 228 . 752 0.038 . 563 5. 19 11.736 1.500 2. 905 3. 2 80. 720 10. 867 2. 201 . 176 39.723 5.586 2. 201 83.811 7. 93 6.091 7.495 1. 015 2. 915 9. 845 3. 68 8. 19 16.717 9. 74 24.080 11. 062 . 160 22. 074 . 181 0.000 6. 226 6.483 6. 84 20.453 28.34 6.217137.412 4. 4 68. 17 5. 0 74.48 20.56 8. 4 66. 290 6. 914 2.41 20.39 20.468 1.467 1. 63 22. 73. 106 46. 80 20. 0 9.73 5. 500 1.0 19.038 50.31 15. 0 13.99 21.00 13.56 12.71 13.849 7. 180 1.32 12. 768 1. 30 6. 50 20. 16 14. 236 6.000 9.000 26. 95 5. 18 15. 167 2.000 18. 93 14. 035 2. 01 50.000 6.750 2.202 17.65 19.23 22. 8 73.256 1.519 3.980 10. 10 6. 109 .000 5. 4 9.980 17.074 0. 930 28. 6 80. 56 20.5 11. 19 21. 9 68.370 3.980 23. 7 10. 77.220 1. 2 70. 86 6. 16 20.56 5.87 14.87 10. 220 1. 68 12. 79.612 1.000 9.51 5.433 6. 147 0. 118 . 29 21.952 2. 4 7.84 5.0 11. 65 11.267 2.000 21. 12 56. 6 76.30 17. 97 0. 15 6. 104 . 0 11. 7 10.220 2.46 20. 16 10. 01 5. 163 2. 320 1.68 12. 190 36.34 6.000 13.05 5. 50 20. 11 11. 210 .282 4.000 11.32 8. 20 6. 589 5.6 6. 177 43.417 1.330 2. 778 1. 313 34. 756 1. 66 5. 060 2. 120 . 20 19. 693 1.000 7.870 1. 95 5.969 6.05 5. 788 6. 11 20.500 4. 68 14.614 8.3 16. 77 8.89 5.243 1. 250 1.88 15. 138 42. 77. 953 2.99 21. 20 5. 167 1. 533 6.37 13.376 8.57 80. 786 5.028 7. 3 13. 30 9. 0 11. 31 20. 16 16.050 . 275 3.750 4.65 5.670 1. 29 5. 120 .041 5.997 6.55 5. 183 . 30 22. 173 . 05 5. 5 7.250 2. 37 12.662 1.39 10.34 5. 91 5. 147 64. 05 45. 56 112 105 101 101 96 93 87 130 121 114 105 99 92 36 90 87 142 119 101 96 83 93 87 80 75 77 113 92 86 82 77 111 113 76 73 70 71 78 72 72 4.98 16. 4 7. 250 1. 2 68.98 6.922 1. 99 5. 062 . 99 19.53 13.44 9. 184 70. 204 7. 120 .340 1. 0 . 637 1.784 6. 9 7. 131 .89 5. 6 68.927 1.23 12. 20 24. 534 1.259 1.030 4. 96 9. 74 6. 83 13.964 6. 1 72.02 22. 763 2. 12 23.629 5.546 6. 75 14. 84 21.000 4. 104 2. 009 2. 254 .467 1.901 7.656 3. 3 70. 142 .4 5.990 7. 14 5. 75.4 13. 062 .086 . 16 6.595 6.661 26. 962 1. 74 6. 92 6. 616 1.231 84.099 .68 18.381 3. 138 .07 8. 5 8. 4 84. 558 27. 272 . 274 2.275 2.663 1.279 5.827 1. 92 5.37 20. 224 32.32 10. 93 14. 8 9.511 1. 56 5.000 5. 123 6.43 6. 954 1.452 1. 250 0 4.080 . 5 74.08 71.05 6. 132 9. 68 10.730 10.53 6. 150 42.238 104. 56 20. 152 .32 5.4 11. 3 80. 137 59. 19 8.000 14. 291 19. 80 21.519 2.254 4.0 11. 134 .519 0. 15 21.077 1. 79 23.96 13.098 . 3 12. 998 2. 560 2. 110 1.796 4.412 1. 249 22. 16 5.000 11.20 5.

00 3. 815 0.400 0.401 0. 6. 44.266 . 44 2. 5. 164 . (4) W OIW per ft.000 9.= Et= r L is d.000 5. 295 0.78 8.080 1. 260 0. 31 1.753 1. 4. 5. 4. 7 25.30 3. 94f 0. ft. per sec. 5. 57 . 540 1.781 0. 5.44 5. 82 4. 188 1.098 . 874 0. 960 0. 1. 805 2.69 . 2 Dam 10” 25.653 0. D2 i% F. 900 0. 873 0.445 0.40 5. 796 1. 5.68 6. 064 1. 17 10.09 8.000 4. 5. 880 1.63 2. 3 54.57 10.763 2. 3.5’ 9 high. 266 2. 62 5. 77 7. 70 8. 000 7. 162 . 3. 5.576 0. 6 54.23 6.000 6. 6.258 . 34 4. 5. 5.205 . 970 1. 4.75 10.274 1.59 10. 266 2. 84 5. 22 3. $ F __--__ . 5. 5.815 0. 5. 173 . 1 55. 2.000 0. 5. 726 0.079 . 770 0.04 5. 189 n 1. 120 . 97 5.00 6.208 .248 .220 1.000 4. 200 0. 5 44. 160 1.79 4. 3.410 0. 104 2. 3.660 0. 69 5.511 1. 47. 680 0. 24 3.675 2. 2 28.755 1. 079 .48 6. 2.. 0.513 1. 26 0. 95 5.Ea A 0 2 c.990 1. 014 2. 792 0. 686 0. (15) (16) EL= Erf. 286 1. 10 3. 1.= VI &El (10) (11) (1) (2) (3) -- (5) -------__---- 03 0. 2.570 0.000 7.400 1.085 . 42. 173 .000 6.11 4.0 0. 95 96 96 83 69 63 10 66 56 50 21 22 24 39 61 79 19 90 36 90 06 05 59 44 25 81 14 98 61 28 34 17 (13) (19) 7. 70 8.57 6. 518 2.08 5.04 5. 26 4. .83f 0. 0.21 2. 5. 620 0. 5.000 8. 42 39 36 34 28 32 48 30 21 21 22 22 24 25 28 33 12 15 19 9 10 51 35 30 46 32 40 42 30 20 18 16 1.080 1.281 . 5.481 0. 218 0. Width Of stilling basin ft.712 0._--__ -- 0. 281 0. 86 5. 960 0. 128 0.. 2 Y F z 0 g 5 0.5 27.029 2. 00 7.35 5. 221 . 37 3.03 7. 12 5. 960 0. 690 (7) (8) (9) (12) 0 6 9 3 6 1 7 9 0 5 0 7 3 1 7 3 6 5 2 0 8 0 0 4 2 3 4 3 2 4 1 3 5. 4.029 0.413 1. 214 . 5. 135 .638 7. 3. 770 1. 335 0.002 9. 644 1.556 0.536 1. EWfT v. 4.79 4. 72 3. 85 2. 2.677 0.80 5. 5.69 5.003 1.05 5. 770 1.9% 0.66 5. 01 19.90 65.384 0.05 3. 3. 6. 000 0. 39. 39. 5.f. 3.985 0. 5. 6.21 4.67 4.702 0.082 0.581 0. (14) a*+‘% ft.820 0. 615 1. 9 high. 185 . 33 1. 815 0.Test flume i=ta1 ‘Yl% -.75 7. 168 . 2. 5. 340 . 135 .901 0.362 1. 130 .008 2. 81 3. 1.573 0.565 1. 371 1.- TABLE l. DI ft. 2.8 43.250 1.377 0.49 10. 4. 42 84 9. 143 . 740 1. 67 1. 134 1. 164 1. 250 0. 934 1. 1 53. 64 1. 02 0.46 4.000 8. 84 7.765 0.36 3. 15 9. 580 0.269 1.48 3. 230 0. 61 4. 5. 852 0. 5. 135 .65 6.06 2.961 0. 180 . 5. 47. 210 7. 90( 0.511 1. 5.581 1. 80 5.28 11. 3 31.39 7.04 3. 4. 7. 102 1. OOC 0.89 10.014 1. 5.981 0.36 3.080 1.272 0. 6._.440 7. 37. 919 1. 85: 0. 665 1. 173 . 5.400 2. 9. 400 0.86 3. 5.680 6. 261 1. 8 Dsm 6” high.48: 0. 6.230 1.46 4.230 2. 2 24.40 3.561 0. 803 0. 88 4. 05$ 0.921 0. 4. 768 2. 2 Dam 1. 150 0.70 2. 3. 3.-.220 1. 4.940 0. 4. 860 0.031 0. 150 1. 56 8. 008 0.333 .s. 5. 17 20 85 72 93 5. 6. 85 26 09 13 24. 113 . 4. 0.730 1. 26 2. 840 0.56 4. 08 7.000 1.597 0.457 1.99 8.+‘& ft.580 1. 4._-__-- 5. 139 1.000 5.24 8.68 12. 259 1. 760 0.200 1. 697 0.230 . 7. 125 5 T g 2 u z v. 6.680 1. 17 4.000 3.05 11.511 10. 54.59 8.4 42.742 2. 926 0.745 0. 763 1.23 1. 30 6.744 0.89 10.875 0. 992 1. 259 1.007 0. 92 4.518 2. 7 49.039 1. 97 29 62 84 32 44 65 76 52.831 1.084 3. 927 1. 27.960 2.365 0. 173 . 82 2. 2 34.280 . 3.88: 0.308 0. 866 0. 980 1. 2.95 5. 89: 0. 52 7. 13 3.219 1.000 3.-Natural stilling basin with horizontal floor (Basin I)-Continued E. 46 1.89 11. 283 0. 6. 4. 730 0.61 11.lOO .230 1. 3 21. 37 12.000 0. 88fI 1. 880 2.56 4.227 .015 0. 9. 76 8. 0 1 1 0 3 9 I 3 Et r E. 510 0. 642 0.

210 .61 6.53 12.219 1. 9 40.016 1.42 2.36 11.29 3.882 1.854 1. 1 44. 3. 251 . 251 .8 0.92 2. 47 5.410 1.611 1. 8. 8.56 3. 77 6.36 4.694 2.67 8. 78 24 30 39 14 22 29 33 11 19 25 29 1.44 3.314 0.427 0. 68 32.00 4.216 0.91 10.39 4. 65 5. 850 1.076 0. 285 4.69 2.976 0.48 13. 210 .6 21.704 1.525 1.231 1.56 4. 22 5.05 7.444 1. 285 .84 0.504 1. 6.55 5.506 2.94 3. 21 3.3 26. 89 4.845 0.915 1.753 1. 90 3. 92 5.950 0. 105 0.405 2. 140 0. 159 1.6 40.5 50.1.518 1.415 0.01 5.843 2.007 1.850 0.56 1.47 3.5 31.81 10.075 1.396 1458 . 7 16. 210 .20 5. 251 .775 2.14 .04 3.20 2.574 1. 67 5.049 2. 3.40 3.02 3. 0 2 2 5 6 2 4 2 3 0 3 5.235 1. 157 1.7 34.817 0. 285 .48 4. 10 4. 720 1. 7. 5.69 6. 7. 83 5.113 0.313 0.29 9.435 8.08 12.023 1.28 5.02 2. 74 5.4 39.12 6.465 1. 285 .88 0. 8.345 0.08 4. 251 .03 5. 5.44 2.

= &ir FIGURE 5. (Basin I).--Ratio of tail water depth to D.12 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS I F. .

10.14 c. for F. In laboratory language.-Length of jump in terms of D1 (Basin Z). .032 foot. In fact. which is much smaller than any discharge or value of D. which was 1 foot wide. of 0. 13 To confirm the above conclusion. portray the same trend as the recommended curve. labeled “3” and “4. became erratic when the value of D.” on Figure 7. The two remaining curves.9. Figures 6 and 7 show three points obtained with a value of D.s. It is quite certain that this was the case for the major portion of curve 1. The criterion used by each experimenter for judging the length of the jump is undoubtedly responsible for the displacement. Thus. frictional resistance in the channel downstream increased out of proportion to that which would have occurred in a larger flume or a prototype stru&ure. the jump formed in a shorter length than it should.=8.085.GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF THE HYDRAULIC JUMP The extreme case involved a discharge opening. used in the present experiments. Bahkmeteff and Matzke were somewhat dubious concerning the small-scale experiments.” and is construed to mean that prototype action is not faithfully reproduced. of 0. The curve labeled “3” was obtained at the Technical University of Berlin on a flume X meter wide by 10 meters long. it was found that results from Flume F. of approximately 0. =- VI Gq FIQURE 6. approached 0.f. this is known as “scale effect. in the g-inch-wide flume. and a value of D. The curve labeled “4” was determined from experiments performed at II I I I II I III I II I I I III1 I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I III I I] c 4 0 o L l Flume Flume Flume Flume A B C D F. Thus. it is reasoned that as the gate opening decreased. The three points are given the symbol IXI and fall short of the recommended CUTVB.

For a Froude number of 2. As can be observed from Figure 7. which is the depth of flow plus the velocity head at Section 2. list the computations. EL.he curve to the left on Figure 8. plus the velocity head computed at the point of measurement. appear somewhat erratic and plot to the i!ight of the general curve. the test results from Flumes B. E. The five points from Flume A. E. to the total energy entering the jump. D1. Columns 14 through 18. Table 1. The energy leaving the jump. Henceforth. reference to Figure 7 will concern only the recommended curve. entering the jump at Section 1 for each test. which would correspond to a relatively thick jet entering the jump at low velocity. which is considered applicable for general use. Column 18 lists the percentage of energy lost in the jump..0.-Length of jump in terms of D2 (Basin I). on a flume 0. denoted by squares. E.. Column 16. The differences in the values of Columns 14 and 15 constitute the loss of energy. Energy Absorption in Jump With the experimental information available. in feet of water.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS I i i i Zurich Tech. C. Zurich. Loborotory Univ of Berlin 0 L 4 6 6 F=‘GT 10 VI 12 14 I6 16 20 FIGURE 7. the Federal Institute of Technology. is tabulated in Column 15. and F plot sufficiently well to establish a single curve. D. This percentage is plotted with respect to the Froude number and is shown 88 t. Switzerland. the curve shows the . and the symbols may be defined by consulting the specific energy diagram in Figure 4. attributed to the conversion. the energy absorbed in the jump may be computed. This is simply the depth of flow. The curve numbers are the same as the reference numbers in the “Bibliography” which refer to the work. Column 14 lists the total energy.6 of a meter wide and 7 meters long.

Table 1) plotted against the Froude number. can be cataloged conveniently with respect to the Froude number.. in terms of D. EL.. some of which are desirable and some undesirable. the absorption by the jump would amount to 85 percent of the energy entering. Another method of expressing the energy absorption in a jump is to express the loss. All of these forms are encountered in practice. When the Froude number is unity. The hydraulic jump may occur in at least four different distinct forms on a horizontal apron. This corresponds to Point 0 on the specific energy diagram of Figure 4. as shown in Figure 9. for a Froude number of 19. The curve to the right on Figure 8 shows the ratio 2 1 15 Forms of the Hydraulic Jump (Column 17.7. there is only a slight difference in the conjugate depths D. the hydraulic jump can perform over a wide range of conditions. which would be produced by a relatively thin jet entering the jump at very high velocity. A slight ruffle on the water surface is the T--r-tm --I- FIGURE %-Loss of energy in jump on horizontal floor (Ba&z Z). Thus. thus a jump cannot form. . The internal characteristics of the jump and the energy absorption in the jump vary with each form. the most satisfactory occurring over the center portion of the curve. Losses in feet of head are obtained from this method. Considering the other extreme. There are poor jumps and good jumps.GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF THE HYDRAULIC JUMP energy absorbed in the jump to be about 7 percent of the total energy entering. the water is flowing at critical depth. For values of the Froude number between 1.O and 1. as shown in Figure 9. and D. Fortunately these forms.

’.‘.: .~.. the form of the jump gradually changes to that shown in Figure 9D .::..:::.’~~..‘......‘...: :.. The PracticalConsiderations entering jet oscillates from bottom to surface and Although the academic rather than the practical has no regular period... As the Froude factors. .‘.‘. it is found that number approaches 1.~. This -.... .. two changes are manifest. the form shown in smooth..‘.‘.: .“.‘. . :.~.~.‘. .. shown in Figure 9B.5. Figure 8 shows that the energy dissipation FIGURE O. As the Froude number increases above 9...~..’..( .-Jump forma (Basin I)..: .. .(... which might better be is fairly uniform. A-Pre-jump-very low energy loss A well-stabilized jump can be expected for the .. Figure 8. .‘.. The high-velocity jet no longer carries C-Least affected by tail water variations through for the full length of the jump .:. be encountered at values of the Froude number from 2.( :.:.0-range of good jumps large. ... a few of the bottom at one instant and entirely on the the practical aspects of stilling basin design surface the next. :. the water surface is quite problem involved .. has been devoted to the pracF1=1.5 tical aspects of design.I y-----.‘. Slugs of water rolling down the front face of the jump intermittently fall into the high-velocity jet.... of the curve to the left definitely indicates an In this range there is no particular stilling basin internal change in the form of the jump.. but to less extent.’ .~. The limits of the Froude number given above for the various forms of jump are not definite only apparent feature that differentiates this flow values but overlap somewhat depending on local from flow at critical depth.-... Turbulence occurs near viewpoint is stressed in this section.’ ...‘... the downstream extremity of the surface roller now becomes the determining factor in judging the length of the jump.‘.:. . . . 20 percent. I . for these jumps is high and may reach 85 percent...y 2 / /-. .. Returning to Figure 7.:.‘. . In this range.G ‘.5...‘.‘..’...0 upward waves downstream.~.‘.:..._..5 to 9 ranges from 45 to 70 percent. which the high-velocity jet tends to leave the ..... . Each oscillation produces a y-z=. The right end of the curve on Figure 7 also indiFigure 9B indicates the type of ‘jump that may cates a change in form.. the velocity throughout the cross section Figure 9A and the form. . range of Froude numbers between 4. The energy absorption in the jump for Froude numbers from 4.. the jump. and the difference in conjugate depths is F1=4.::.‘.‘~. Figure 9C.‘. 1. F1=2.7..7 to 2. .‘. 5..5 and 9. ..5 to 4. floor occur in practically the same vertical plane.. .. that is.. the downstream exgyL$~~* tremity of the surface roller and the point at -~-.. :.‘. (.‘...‘..: . D1 is comparatively small. ..~.16 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS large wave of irregular period which in prototype structures has been observed to travel for miles causing damage to earth banks and riprap. and the energy loss is less than called a transition stage.‘.-/=. problem is of sufficient importance that a separate section.‘. The steep portion further intensification up to a value of about 2. This type has a pulsating action and is usually seen in low head structures.‘...(.: .~. and a rough surface can preD-effective but rough vail. . .-..--.-e-I/ / .5 The jump is well balanced and the action is thus B-Transition-rough water surface at its best.:. a series of small rollers the length curve catalogs the various forms of develop on the surface as indicated in Figure 9A.‘...‘. ..5 to 9._.‘.. In fact.. fiJ/ 1 /-/-.5 to 4..::: . :.. ..::.:‘..... Figure 8.. ‘. .‘..~. generating additional F1=9. V1 is very high._. .‘.. The flat portion of the curve indicates and this action remains much the same but with the range of best operation.‘.. Section 4.~..:..~~.‘.‘.

Newman and LaBoon (19). the jump becomes more sensitive to tail water depth. provide the solution. Entering Figure 5 with this value :=8. Determine the conjugate tail water depth. and determine the probable performance characteristics from relatively simple and rapid calculations. The average velocity and the depth of flow after contraction of the jet is complete are: VI=85 ft. This can be obtained from Figure 7. in more detail in the following sections. Considering the four forms of jump just discussed.5 to 4. For numbers as low as 8. The only requirement is to provide the proper length of pool. No particular difficulty is encountered in the form shown in Figure 9C. 18). 6. Waves are the main source of difficulty and methods for coping with them are discussed in Section 4. The principal advantage of this form of presentation is that one may analyze the problem.5 Froude number range. and the type of jump to be expected. 5. The form in Figure 9B presents wave problems which are difficult to overcome. This is discussed in Sections 2 and 3.6 feet. 3. High Froude numbers will always occur OF THE HYDRAULIC JUMP 17 for flow through extremely small gate openings on even the smallest structures. and the losses involved have all been related to this number. When the Froude number is greater than 10. diversion or low dam spillways. a very deep basin with high training walls is required. As the Froude number increases. which is relatively short. Baffle piers or appurtenances in the basin are of little value.5 1 . the effectiveness of the basin to dissipate energy. 4. On lower head structures the action in the basin will be rugged in appearance with surface disturbances being of greatest concern. The ratio of conjugate depths. and D1=5. This jump is frequently encountered in the design of canal structures. A bucket-type dissipator may give comparable results at less cost. generally speaking. Arrangements of baffles and sills will be found valuable as a means of shortening the length of basin. Application of Results (Example 1) Water flowing under a sluice gate discharges into a rectangular stilling basin the same width as the gate. and even outlet works. It has been shown by several experimenters that the vertical pressures on the floor of the stilling basin are virtually the same as the static head indicated by the water-surface profile. and. the high Froude numbers have no significance. On high spillways the cost of the stilling basin may not be commensurate with the results obtained. the following are pertinent: 1.GENERAL INVESTIGATION should be discussed. per sec. the length of jump. Water-Surface Profiles and Pressures Water-surface profiles for the jump on a horizontal floor were not measured as these have already been determined by Bakhmeteff and Matzke (I). 7. and Moore (27. The present information may prove valuable in that it will help to restrict the use of jumps in the 2. the type of jump to be expected. All jump forms shown in Figure 9 are encountered in stilling basin design. 2. The form in Figure 9A requires no baffles or special devices in the basin. Unless the discharge for these conditions represents an appreciable percentage of the design flow. a tail water depth greater than the conjugate depth is advisable to be certain that the jump will This phase is discussed stay on the apron. Conclusions The foregoing experiments and discussion serve to associate the Froude number with the hydraulic jump and stilling basin design. but in others the jump may be brought into the desirable range by altering the dimensions of the structure. the length of basin required to confine the jump. In many cases the critical range cannot be avoided. the difference in conjugate depths is great.

By consulting Figure 9.13X47.6=292 feet . it is apparent that a very satisfactory jump can be expected.18 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Entering Figure 8 with the above value of the Froude number. The conjugate tail water depth I&=8. such as modifying the jump by baffles and sills to increase stability and shorten the length.6 feet Entering the recommended curve on Figure 7 with a Froude number of 6. The following sections deal with the more practical aspects of stilling basin design. it is found that the energy absorbed in the jump is 58 percent of the energy entering. &=6.34.5X5.13 a Length of basin necessary to confine the jump L=6.6=47.

and will be denoted as Basin II. Column 1 lists the reference material used in compiling the table. Column 5 the elevation of the stilling basin floor. Only structures on which firsthand information was available were used. constructed.Section Stilling spillways basin 2 for high dam and earth canal structures dam (Basin II) and large basins are seldom designed to confine the entire length of the hydraulic jump on the paved apron as was assumed in Section 1. a mini19 . showing a maximum fall from headwater to tail water of 179 feet. most of the symbols used in Table 2 are self-explanatory. The use of baffle piers is limited to Basin III. and Column 6 the maximum discharge Column 4 indicates the height for each spillway. The object of these tests was to generalize the design. and large canal structures. The basin contains chute blocks at the upstream end and a dentated sill near the downstream end. because there are means for modifying the jump characteristics to obtain comparable or better performance in shorter lengths. and operated. It is possible to reduce the jump length by the installation of accessories such as baffles and sills in the stilling basin. some of which were checked with models. No baffle piers are used in Basin II because of the relatively high velocities entering the jump. Results of Compilation With the aid of Figure 10. Column 2 lists the maximum reservoir elevation. Since many basins of this type have been designed. Column 3 the maximum tail water elevation. and second. first. of the structure studied. In addition to shortening the jump. and determine the range of operating TILLING S conditions for which this basin is best suited. Section 2 concerns stilling basins of the type which have been used on high dam and earth dam spillways. Figure 10. for economic reasons. the accessories exert a stabilizing effect and in some cases increase the factor of safety. the principal task in accomplishing the first objective was to tabulate and analyze the dimensions of existing structures.

Column 8. a minimum of 0. Column 7 shows that the width of the stilling basins varied from 1.5 to 20 feet. Column 31. Chute blocks at the upstream end of a basin tend to corrugate the jet. The tabula- is measured tb’the illustrated downstream 10.80 to 0. The shape of the dentates and the angle of the sills varied considerably in the spillways tested. the following proportions are recommended: (1) height of dentated sill=02Dz.67. tail water depth for each stilling basin.08. varied from 760 to 52 C. The wide variation shows that these dimensions are not critical. The conjugate depths. a minimum of 0. a block equal to D. 11) varied from 22.97. and an average of 1. This is somewhat higher than was shown to be necessary by the verification tests discussed later. The distance.15Dz. a minimum of 0. as ratio e II in Figure varied from 1 to 0. The ratio of height of block to the conjugate tail water depth is shown in Column 28.31. mum of 14 feet. and an average of 1. The value of the Froude number (Col. The width to height ratio.f. which varied from 60 to 12 feet.00 to 4.0. It is recommended that the dentated sill be placed at the downstream end of the apron.65.73.37.. The edge of the sill. with 265 as an average.20 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS tion of Columns 19 through 24 of Table 2 shows the sizes which have been used. The ratio of width of block to spacing. Column 12 shows the actual depth of tail water above the stilling basin floor. entering the stilling basin (Col. 10) varied from 8. entering the basin (Col. and (3) spacing of blocks=0.44.91. average 0. while Column 21 gives the ratio of height of block to the depth. . FIQURE lO. The position of the dentated sill also varied and this is indicated by the ratio $ in Column 26. DZ. and an average of 0.67. VI (hydraulic losses estimated in some cases). 9) varied from 108 to 38 feet per second. The heights of the dentates are given in Column 27. For the purpose of generalization. D1. These blocks also reduce the tendency of the jump to sweep off the apron at tail water elevations below conjugate depths. a minimum of 0. basin was either solid or had some form of dentated arrangement.99. the basin floor was set to provide a tail water depth equal to the conjugate or necessary depth. in height is sufficient. Column 30.60 feet.l5D. and Column 14 lists the computed.13. Some basins contained nothing at this point. others a solid step.197. A dentated sill located at the end of the apron is recommended. D. and an average of 1.S. X. a minimum of 0. and an average of 85 feet. where Dz is the conjugate tail water depth.97. Column 20 shows the height of the chute blocks. The proportioning of chute blocks has been the subject of much discussion. The computed velocity.35.76. a minimum of 0. resulting in a shorter length of jump than would be possible without them.20. The width of the blocks is shown in Column 2.81. The ratio of the actual tail water depth to the conjugate depth is listed for each basin in Column 15. indicate a maximum of 2. as designated in column 25. Tail water depth. with a maximum of 1. or conjugate. and average of 0. Columns 26 through 31. tabulated in Column 24. lifting a portion of it from the floor to create a greater number of energy dissipating eddies.15. The three ratios indicate that the proportion: height equals width. These ratios show a maximum of 0. equals spacing. This means that.-Dejinition of symbols (Basin IZ). Chute blocks. were obtained from Figure 5.72. and an average of 0. The sill in or at the end of the Dent&d sill.33. The ratios of height of block to D. and the depth of flow. shows a maximum of 1. on the average. but in the majority of Chute cases ordinary chute blocks were utilized.. The ratio of width of block to spacing.. equals DI should be a satisfactory standard for chute block design.95. The chute blocks used at the entrance to the stilling basin varied in size and spacing. The discharge per foot of basin width. The ratio of actual tail water depth to conjugate depth shows a maximum of 1. and an average of 0. Column 23 gives the ratio of width of the block to height. shows a maximum of 1. (2) width of blocks=O.91. a minimum of 1. blocks bear some resemblance to baffle piers but their function is altogether different. shows a maximum of 1.25.

5 7.130 ----- 37. 7 . 0 7.80 9.5 12. 66 2.3 T-------7. a 8.2. 8 12. 13 48 816. 5 21.961 150.285 4.771 5. 26i2 3. 19 1. 74 3 0. 99 46 59 25 56 51 40 60 58. 4E 6. 0 T _______ -2. 7 !6.0 T _______ -8.32 12 *92 .074.33 5. 22 4. 5 T _______ . 28 .653 179 523 179 2. -4 . 37‘1 6. 5 1. OE 13. 74 3.5 3. 95 2. 743. 6 Wasteway #2------1 .605 Fresno-__-------_ -2 . 75 2.623 2.5 T ________.752 Scofield _____ -_-_-_ -7 .528 5. 88 . 25 2.60 7. 93 3.54 6. 90 6. 70 40 *80.035. 7.600 46. 04 2. 0 8. 3114 . I _ 20 ___-__ --.60 4.805 Caballo _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ -4 . 0 12. 79 175 84 2. 7 !6.8.---_(737.30 6.7 Pilot Knob._ _ -2 .20 5.000 33.80 30 *59 1. 8 9. a 9.000 110 00.630 Boca.340 Davis--_---_----647 Bonny-----. 87 11.275 Enders--------_--3 ) 129.005 132 5.287 118 2.4 Pine View--------4 .-. 5 7. 7 85. 7 .558 4. 63 19. 0 None . 90 _-_ I -_-. 67 0.309 35 8. 73 0. 7 !6. 6 i5 5.3 Cherry Creek-----5 . 100 3. 9 10.-__---I_-__ losses. O()4 :5. 9E13 9. 7414 7. 0 9.200 40 8. 0 6.27 18.000 248. 1. 16i4 2.000 50 75. 67 3. 09 34 853. 92 . 46 32 *59 3. 7 15 #3.2 5.0 T ____ _ _ _ _ 3.100 40 7.1. 5 5. 89 1._______ 4. 2 < 8. 15 22 622.- TABLE 2 -Model results on existing I Type II basins Chute blocks (1) - -- (2) -- (3) -- (4) (5) 07) (13) 53 26. 0 .000 75 56.5 Medicine Creek. oa I1 1. 61 2. 118 73 3.000 66 62. 163 3.820 Alcova---_____ -_ -5 ) 500 Shadow Mt _______ -8 .______ 2.014.0 T-. 86 3.75 Big Sandy #2.000 322 54. 67 1. a 13. 84 39 97 2. 68 7.5. 182 Moon Lake-------8 .086 108. 42 32 663.85 6. 98 46. 725 64 4.. 7 83.7._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -5 . 04 2. 01 .800 262 87.5 4.. 81i2 12.594 105.234 131 460 114. 00 6.632. 00 25 45 965. 50 5. 3 7. OC 14. 88 . 87 .313 124 4.000 116 9.5 !6. 68 2.500 40 2.40 5.42 45 98 3. 9 Cedar Bluff--. 80 5. 94 3. 5 T-.000 400 97.7 $6. 4( )3 . 61 2. 07 1.500 50 45.518 53 4. 5 T _______ . 75 8.702 5. a 14. 70 3._____ -4. 5132 r5.000 200 -_--.752 Boysen (Prelim) __ _ -4 .90 . 13 3. 51$3 . 68.31 6.______ 6. 0 60 12 6. 97 .33 41 796. 92 .2 7. 82!6 IO.____ 7. 3 T---me-. 0 1 1.84 15 *40 1. 2 .027. 44 3 8.4 6.014.6 T-.508 2. 700. 0 T _______ . f 13._____ 8.___ T. 80 5. 0 7.60 60 86 8. 0 Teeth---3.80 22.400 200 56._____ 7. 0 6. 76 *82 2.000 40 10.6 Cle Elum-------_. lt 55 IO.062 49 3.---_ -6 .197. 70 6. 4 1 6. 00 1.. 185.000 150 10.60 5. 00 2.g Imperial Spillway.797 23 150 26 140 110 7. 5 !6. 73 3.8 2. 89 . 5 18.191 Imperial Sluiceway 181 Grassy Lake-----_ -7 .2. 60 Solid----4. 3 8.785 Cachuma--------757. 0 13.!$2 Il. 40 2. 23 2. 8 8. 64 6 2. 00 87 1: 07 . 5 r2 !4. 85 .34 16 *40 1. 66 2.591 Bull Lake _____ .50 4.7 13.30 7. 0 8. 591.000 125 6.367 Boysen (Final) _ _ _ _ -4 .000 1.250 200 50. 612. 3 T-------3.55 7.589 110 2.5 None---_-__ None.000 108 10._ __ ___Solid _____ 2. 76 56 108 4.87 81 1: 00 1. 99 .0 T ________ 4. 81$1 8. 7 L4 !6.0 TV-.086 53 3. 47 2.4.74 86 1.75 Vanes ____ _-__ T-.417 Alamogordo------.6 T&r-________ -_ -3 ..21.9511. 3f 2.700 118 2.8. 10 1.44 15 *382.2.46 __ 108 8. 123 Unity-----------_ -3 .53 28. 0 !8 14 $3. 52 2.5 3.118 8. 75 T-m.946. 42 r2 7.000 75 12. t 85 75 78.55 41 39 934. 59 6. 3: 14 8.328 2._ __ _-__ 4. 31i2 II. 0 T-. 33 2.26 16 *49 2.. 9E .47 10. 7 t6. 5 11 4. 7e 2.016 81 2.014 Siphon Drop-----169.2 1. 96 3. 93 a------~ 1.000 70 20. 5 10. *53 3. 9( )2 r3.g 168 155 7. 5t $3 . Minimum--Average---*Estiiated hydraulic _ 4.31 14 63 . 5 4.26 AA Canal Drp l--43. 2.785 74 3. 0 T ________ 4.91 . 000 75 51.4a 16 2. 197.354 8. ! 55.3 235 2.60 8. 7 13.3.000 246 64.95 1.487 63 2. 6 3.41 34 843. 5 Solid----4. 82 56 *97 7.761. 6 5. 0 10. 628 4. 16 2. 57 2. la 2. 3t $4 6.29 23. 63 2.028. 159 1.2 Trenton--_-------2 . 3i ‘2 18.155 140 8.057 2.266.63 8. ! 24. 7 !6.22 6. 564 97 5. 73I1 4.200 20 2. 192 Falcon-----_____ . 95 .210 Box Butte----4 .14._____ 6. 73 .6022. a : 12.60 6. 0 6. 14 13..74 21 73 1. 137 Deer Creek-------5 .5 7.7 12 !2 8. 7 1 7.______ 5. lf il 8.5 515. 60 7. 24 7.097 179 --_---_ ! f t : ! 20. 74 1. 10.7 (19) mo Rye Patch-_ _ _-_ _ _ -4 . . 01 1. 68 3.000 110 10.646. 25 T--..41 15 56 1. 260 112 4. 61 4 ________-___-_ 2. 90 6.! 61.54 806. 0 T ________ 6.00 23 66 2. 90 5. 55 4.000 100 33.7 124 29. 7 13. 7 4 10 ‘3. 7: !2 r3. 4 7.000 600 33. 7 18.----2 .40 9. 583.000 266 61.32 5.33 T-------1. a 8.______ 3.870 Agency Valley-----3 .240 Maximum. a . 19 . 5 7.0 T ______ -.80 5.332 4. : 60 75 25 15 25 41 80 25 53 17 41 69 45 50 36 60 27 45 75 20 96 10 DO D2 D8 40 27 2.70 7.085.8. 66 4._ _ _ -5 .97 32 724.00 38 0.95 89 1: 30 1.749 146 5. 04 .33 T---e---w 3. 8E ._ -314.0 None. 7 8 4 4 !6. : 1.5 4.89 1. 5 T--m. 89I1 2.700 215 40. 6 578._____ 2.408. 19 136 46 94.____ 182 180 367 143 303 496 155 107 268 100 306 133 160 509 500 373 437 760 500 500 271 125 97 60 62 60 94 74 52 150 388 225 200 711 301 200 ----760 52 23.000 55.679 74 5.000 190 10.88 19 552. a I.499.835. 79 10._ _ _ _ _ _ 170.817 3.0 T.5.

14 1. 5 5. 8! 1. 0 1.--R----R----R----- Wingoall& end (26) 1.05 1. 0 4.0 _-_. 0 4. ---do--.0 10.1 ____ . ---do--.13---_ _----_-_-_ ___-_. ---do--. 0 1.22 .0 5. 25 1. ---do--. 0 1.671. .831.19 . 12 19 : 37 . 71 3.9i 2. 0 1.17 .0 Fresno.. Normal. 0 1.0 Cle Elum ____ -_. 0 6.97 1. 0 10.0 Bull Lake--------_-____ ____ -.0 4.--do--.lg. ---do--. 91 1.81 __ ___.Ht G bsfee blocks .941. 0 1.561. 0 Cedar Bluff---______ 1. 0 1.---T-----R----T-----T.0 _--.----1.O*---. 25 1. 91 ____-_ -_ .0 Alamogordo ______ -_. 0 1.________ 1.---.TABLE 2. Normal.______ __-_ __-__. 0 3. 16 4.95 5.0 6.pron on $j T. 0 __-.891. ---do--.601._-___ _--_ .0 Imperial Spillway.89 1. 8 1.08 . 9( . 0 8.1. 0 . ---do--._-_.72 3. ---do--. Normal. Normal. 49 Imperial Sluiceway--1.. -_-______- _--- .671. 3 8.661.---_ _--_________----_-_ . 0 I.9: 1. Normal.56 2. 0 1. !!! D¶ W%h ft. 0 . 0 1.0 Bonny--------_---.44 1. Normal.75 1. Normal. 0 91 1. 0 10.5 3. 0 --_._-_-____.0 ____ . 20 . Big Sandy #2_ _______ 1. Normal. .22 . 0 1. Normal.21 .601. . 0 5.--R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R----R---_R----R----R----R----R.0 l.0 3.9E _---_-_.00---._ __ _ _ _ . 25 Pilot Knob---------1.. 0 1. .08 Tiber--------------2. 67 1.38 3. R= Rectangular. . 18 . 45’ warp. 75 . (30) (31) --- (32) -- c-3 (34) - (38) (40) Rye Patch---------1.49 6.37 . 0 1.421. 90 2. 65 1.51 3.28 .0 ____ . 0 . 45O warp.0 Moon Lake---------1.331. 0 09 _---__ _-_.0 Falcon--------. 0 5. T=Trapezoidel.. 6: . 33 1.ff cm R----R----R.73 5.01 1.0 ---. 7 5. 0 1. 0 9.h -. 25 Boysen (Prelim)_--_-1. ---do--.712.91 10.-__ ____ ______. 45’ vert. .081. 67 1.0 72 1. 0 5..50 1. 25 Cherry Creek-.0 1.0 Trenton_. 0 1. 2 5.8 ___.0 -_-_ 1. 0 __-_ ___1.9613. 41 5.___ _--_ T’tl 1. 62 1.______ 1.____ -_-_ .0 5.--_ 1. 91 ____ . 0 .26 .--do--Solid--.____ ____ ___-_.86 1.94 5.83 _ _ .____ -_-_--_1.3% 3.0 _-_.21 .0 Medicine Creek-----1. Normal. .-____---_ -73 ___:71-___ 45’ warp. Caballo _______ --_-_1.0 -__.--. 0 1. -____. 45O warp. Normal.----1. .0 1. 0 0.0 1.0 5. 0 -_-. ---do--._ _ _ . 71 1. 25 1..0 -_-. li 5. ---do--.0 2. ---do--. 13 5. 0 T’tl 1.0 : 71 1. 02 1.0 ---_ . .--__ __-____--_ _--_ _-___-_ 2. ---do--. 1: 1.__.5 3.29 .__-_ T’tl L.0 1: 0 1. 18-----. 0 2.______ 3. 91 1. 0 1. 0 6..____ .___ -_ ___.17 .0 Grassy Lake--._____-_______ 1.19 . Pine View------____ _--._-__. 0 1. 5 Scofield-_--------__. 1.__- D.20 . . ---do--. ---do--. Shadow Mt. 0 . 12 3. 22 . 33 3.421. 18 .19 . 0 3.08 2._________ ---__ 2. 0 9.___ . 0 12. _ Solid--.0 Siphon Drop--. 91 1. 0 1. None. I.33 13.0 ---. 7: 1.5 AA Canal Drp l----. __------_ -_____---. 0 92 1. . 2i 5.831. 0 1. .-Model results on existing End sill Type II basins-Continued -i Chute blocks-Con. . Normal.5 Boca. ___-_----_ -_-___ -___-_--_-_-_ _____.0 ___. 20° warp.0 . 0 9. 23 . cm Pos . 25 . None.--do-----do--1. 6: 1.0 4.50 2. 0 5._-. 0 .15-_---. 05 7.0 Boysen (Final)------1. Teeth___. 1.--_ .0 . 0 1.16 . 12 .60 3. Normal. 19 5.17 .0 ____ 1.44 1.---. None. 72 1.201. 39 1. 0 1.0 .-. 81 5. 12 . 07 6. 0 1.621. 14 .04 4.0 3. 67 Box Butte----------2. 0 . Warp curve.41 . Solid--.0 .751. 5 10._ _ Davis--. Normal. 97 1.--do--.0$ 5. 0 14. 0 4.0 10.0 5. 36 . 0 3.0 6._-_ --__ ____--__-_--_ 1.75 Wasteway #2-.1.--_ R----R-. 0 3. .21 1.__-__---_ ____ -_ -_-_ ___--.0 ___. 1. None. 0 1.06 3. -Maximum-------_2.-_1.. . Normal. 0 Solid--.19 .621.---.Nidl .75--m. 0 8.78---.0 ____ .25 _-_--_ 6.17 . 91 .3 -(24) _--. Teeth.--do-----do--. 0: . 7 8. 0 12.--do--. .0 _-_. 86 -. 0 1.0 4.. Unity ______ ._-_.72 ----_. 30 1.751.0 3.0 ____ :751.______ ____ __--_.19 . 25 1. ---do--.0 5. 0 2.21 . 0 ____ 621. 0 1. 0 1.-_.---R----R----R-.33 -.90 ..25 5.-_-_ . Average-_----_____1. 87: Deer Creek---------1.0 4. 0 1. 30” warp. St ---do--_ . .51 5.44 .. None.0 ____ 1.07 4.5 Enders _____ -_--_-_-. 0 1. 31 1. Normal. 20’ warp. Minimum______ -_ . 5 8..--_ 1.0 -__-_--_--_ ____--- _-_____--_ ____--_ __-- _-__--_ _--_ ____-__ _-__-_--__ _-_- ___--. 0 1.0 ______ .331.83 Alcova----. Normal. 21 .--do--.---_____ 1. 52 1. 2: 7. 0 1.0 1.0 ___--L. Normal.441.0 __-_ . 69 1. cm WI hs WI x TYP apron Intermediate Poson x E Ht ft._______ --__ . ’Widtl Spat Ht w Type (2. ---do--. ---do--.23 .35-----.0 1. Normal.0 -___ . 72 3. 0 .0 Cachuma-_ _ _______ 1. 0 3. 30’ warp.13 1. . 0 1.0 . 0 . 50’ warp. 9: 1. Normal. 0 1.91---.761._-_.-_-_ 1. 0 12. ---do--. 25 __-___ ____ . 0 1. 0 (27) cm -I.881. 0 1. . Teeth. 0 __-_ 1.0 5.______ Agency Valley.0 1: 0 1. .

instead a rock fill was used. The maximum angle was 34’ and The effect of the vertical the minimum 14’. For the two extremes of the curve it is advisable to provide tail water greater than conjugate depth to be safe.5 percent. and for a number of 16 it is 2. Table 2. and the information available is of little value for generalizing the problem of determining water-surface profiles. thus wing walls are not amenable to generalization.he Froude number. it can be observed that the margin of safety for a Froude number of 2 is 0 percent. etc. (Col. any additional lowering of the tail water would cause the jump to leave the basin. Where trapezoidal basins are contemplated a model study is strongly recommended. Additional details. The solid line in Figure 11 was obtained from the hydraulic jump formula :=I/2 (&+8F2--1) and represents conjugate An inspection of the data shows that the structures listed in Table 2 do not cover the desired There is insuffirange of operating conditions. The type of wing wall is usually dictated by local conditions such as width of the channel downstream. D. The three cross sections that were trapezoidal had side slopes varying from l/4 : 1 to l/2 : 1. obtained from Column 14 of Table 3. of course. is shown in Figure 11. 13). the angle with the horizontal at which the highvelocity jet enters the stilling basin for each of the spillways. is to build the cheapest wing wall that will afford the necessary protection. C. In other words. Tail water depth. These are not necessary and are not recommended for this type of basin. The points shown as dots were obtained from Column 13 of Table 2 and constitute the ratio of actual tail water depth to D1 for each basin listed.975D.94D2 for a number of 6. proportioned according to the above rules. The experiments were made on 17 Type II b&sins. The remaining basins utilized angling wing walls or warped transitions downstream from the basin.nd the tail water depth at which the jump just began to sweep out of the basin was recorded (Col. From a practical point of view this means that the jump will no longer operate properly when the tail water depth approaches 0. It can be observed that the majority of the basins were designed for conjugate tail water depth or less. The object. The margin of safety is largest in the middle range. for a number of 6 it increases to 6 percent. The latter are common on canal structures. Table 3). However. or 0.0 it diminishes to 4 percent. The minimum tail water depth for Basin II. and E (see Columns 1 and 2. degree of protection needed. and installed in Flumes B. this factor will be considered in Section 5 in connection with sloping apron design. angle of the chute on the action of the hydraulic jump could not be evaluated from the information available. The basin operation was also observed for flows less than the designed discharge and found to be satisfactory in each case. depth to foundation rock. The dashed lines in Figure 11 are merely guides drawn for tail water depths other than conjugate depth. or 0. For bhese reasons the Type II basin should never . there is little or no information on the tail water depth at which sweepout occurs. 11) was determined by experiment.96D2 for a number of 10. Verification Tests 23 the range and to supply the missing data. Laboratory tests were therefore performed to extend tab water depth.. a. Column 18 indicates. It is the same as the line shown in Figure 5. for a number of 16. Five basins were constructed without wing walls. . The generalized designs presented in this monograph are for stilling basins having rectangular cross sections. the length was adjusted to the minimum that would produce satisfactory operation. Consult<ing Figure 11. for a number of 1. and the absolute minimum tail water depth for acceptable operation was measured. indicates that in the majority of basins constructed for earth dam spillways the wing walls were normal to the training walls.98D2 for a Froude number of 2. cient inform&ion to determine the length of basin for the larger values of t. Column 39 designates the cross section of the basin. The curve labeled “Minimum TW Depth Basin II” indicates the point at which the front of the jump moves away from the chute blocks. In all but three cases the basins were rectangular. Each basin was judged at the discharge for which it was designed.STILLING BASIN FOR HIGH DAM AND EARTH DAM SPILLWAYS Columns 32 through 38 show the proportions of additional baffle piers used on three of the stilling basins. Table 3 is quite similar to Table 2 with the exception that the length of Basin L. or 0. Column 40.

98 . 37 1. 00 6. 0 1. 0 1. 46 4.070 1. 73 1. First.93 . 00 1.00 5. (4) 1 c. 73 1. 11 14. 94 .201 . 122 . 1. w= Flume (1) Test (2) Q cf. 153 .49 17.00 2.062 . 37 4. 32 1.073 . Second.030 1. 09 1. 00 1. 120 .221 m -- (24) B _. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1. 0 1. tail water curves are usually extrapolated for the discharges encountered in design..219 . 37 (10) (11) (13) B~~~~~~~~-~~~~~--m C~~~~~~~~~. 16 7. 1. -- (5) -- _-- NV 1. 54 6. the actual tail water depth usually lags. 10 2.750 1. 0 1. 114 . 01 1. 00 1.65 17. 00 1.86 17.~~~~ D--w. 00 4.48 11. 31 4.24 15. 04 - - - - 0.95 .120 1. 12.20 11.39 23. 00 1. 1. 1. in a temporal sense. 0 1. DI ft.21 9.219 . 77 3.078 . that of the tail water curve for rising flow and leads the curve for a falling discharge. 89 14.235 1. 00 8. 113 . 0 1. 83 2. 1.30 20. a tail water curve may be such that the most adverse condition occurs at less than the maximum designed discharge. 50 4. 51 4.75 11. 10 = WS IG rest _- - -- (15) 0. 10 7. 10 4. 00 1.97 . 17 3. 1. 100 .750 2.21 19.250 . 66 5.227 11. 65 1. 36 1. Third. 27 5.21 11. 84 21. 1.229 . 70 8.250 .39 10. 94 4.200 .. 00 1.97 .41 21. 30 4.074 . 00 1. 10. 88 1. 48 0. 09 1.04 15.15 21.62 19. 0 1.260 .270 400 : 396 400 : 517 . 33 4. 00 6._ . 15 4. 5 0 6 0 3 8 5 0 4 0 2 0 2 3 5 5 3 0. VI ft. 198 . 82 1. 1.49 11. 185 .00 10. 80 11. 0 1. 131 153 : 319 . 1. 1. 02 0. 00 1.-Verification c I g+p tests on Type II basins T. 0 1. 60 12. 10. 45 4. Extra tail water should therefore be provided if reasonable increasing increments of discharge limit the performance of the structure because of a lag in building up tail water depth. 30 4.29 9. 170 224 :OSl 078 : 096 .98 . 5.840 1. 00 1.7:1 2:l 0. 52 = I = = = =I = = = -T.220 _ (7) (9) 15.__ __ _. 07 1.. 13 4. 0 1.-_-__- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 - 15. 60 3. 785 1.--------~-~~- E~~.f. 02 1. 80 8. 97 . 0 1.36 20.400 1. 10. 16 13. 32 1. 1.80 7.00 13.~~~~~-~-~w~~~- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2.446 .96 .75 13. 00 9. 97 3. 10.__ __.32 6.91 18. 75 1. 9. 02 1.32 10. (16) == WI T.95 6. 02 1. 9. 8. 40 1. 58 9. 00 5.54 15. so they can be in error.430 1. 10 5.60 13.12 13.350 1. 114 . 80 7.286 .54 10. 00 3. 1. 40 5.89 12. 75 . 1. 10. 26 1.300 . 00 1.24 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE 3.00 13.355 1. 51 2.072 . 0 0. 64 8. E _---__ ._ _- C _. 27 4. 0 1.229 . 00 4.35 17. 6.310 .210 .200 . 30 8.54 17. 0 1. 67 1.585 0. 26 2. 1. 10 8. 70 6. 00 1.203 . 60 2..240 1. 1. 21 4. 90 -- _- (18) 1.36 17. 70 0. (17) I 17. 97 1._ _ __ D _____ .221 . 95 2.270 0.. 63 2. 36 4. 91 14.75 75 : 75 75 : 75 75 : 75 .96 .200 .99 .200 . 47 2. 75 10.97 .09 0.94 18.~~. 00 1. 10 4. 1. 79 1. 100 .200 . 214 . 20 1. 60 5. 04 1. 75 4. 11. 153 .97 . 18 1.50 14. 35 1.97 . 0 1.250 . 13 12.75 .26 18. 10.02 9. 131 . 00 .39 9. 9.45 10.062 . temporary or permanent retrogression of . 70 SlOpe water fig-0 1. 131 . 10.062 .. (8) TW at SWf%P out ft. 04 1. and fourth. DI (14) hl Ht ft. 6:l Varied be designed for less than conjugate depth.94 .% (3) -( E2: ft. 39 17.38 13. 06 17.31 13.. and a minimum safety factor of 5 percent of Dz is recommended. 196 . 11. 00 1. 50 3.42 4. 00 3. 33 20.75 75 : 75 .83 15.00 20.238 . 64 12. 25 2.97 .00 5.020 2.-____.855 2. 00 1. 131 . 0 1. 23 7: 40 5. 105 . 00 10.235 1.29 9. 170 . Several precautions should be taken when determining tail water elevations./set.074 .s.75 1. 35 4. 0 1.352 406 : 320 .

STILLING BASIN FOR HIGH DAM AND EARTH DAM SPILLWAYS 25 I~~~~lll~l~ll~~~l~i~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l 0 6 8 F.=- IO vs I2 14 16 IS 20 FIGURE Il.-Minimum tail water depths (Basins I. and III). ZZ. .

A minimum margin of safety of 5 percent of D. Conjugate depth was used in the ordinate ratio rather than actual tail water depth since it could be computed for each case. This was found to be true when the approximate water-surface profiles obtained were plotted. Beginning at the point of intersection. Baffle piers and sills are only partly successful in substituting for tail water depth.5 limit discussed for Basin I. Set apron elevation to utilize full conjugate tail water depth. However. The necessary length of Basin II. 4. Figure 14: 1. it appears that in practice a basin about 3 times the conjugate depth has been used when a basin about 4 times the conjugate is recommended from the verification tests. In Figure 12. a horizontal line is drawn at conjugate depth on a scale drawing of the basin. The verification tests repeatedly demonstrated that there is no simple remedy for a deficiency in tail water depth. Conclusions the riverbed downstream may be a factor needing considerat’ion. superimposed oii the tail water curve for each basin to determine the most adverse operating condition. 2. This procedure will be illustrated later. as the jump may be unstable at lower numbers. . The black dots represent existing basins (Cols. Lacking definite knowledge of this type in designing a basin for field construction without model tests. is shown as the intermediate curve in Figure 12. flood duration and other factors were all used to justify reducing the basin length. plus an added factor of safety if needed. The angle increases with the Froude number. will not compensate for deficiency in tail water depth. Water-surface profiles in the stilling basin were measured during the tests to aid in computing uplift pressures under the basin apron. constructed as recommended in this section. determined by the verification tests. Table 2). care should be taken to consider all factors that may affect the tail water at a future date. For these reasons. then generalized. To use the curve in Figure 13. 4 for values less than 4. An additional factor of safety is advisable for both low and high values of the Froude number (see Fig. or D. some of which are difficult to evaluate. The following rules are recommended for generalization of Basin II. The extent and depth of bed erosion. It was found that the profile in the basin could be closely approximated by a straight line making an angle (Y with the horizontal. These factors. The above procedure gives the approximate water surface and pressure profile for conjugate tail water depth. A vertical line is also drawn from the upstream face of the dentated sill. is recommended. 11). 24. Jncreasing the length of basin. a sloping line is constructed as shown. the angle remains unchanged. are all important in stilling basin design. It is advisable to construct a jump height curve. the shorter basins were all model tested and every opportunity was taken to reduce the basin length. favorable flood frequencies. The Type II basin curve has been arbitrarily terminated at Froude number 4.5). Length of basin. and suggest that an adequate factor of safety is essential. As the water surface in the stilling basin tests fluctuated rapidly. Table 3) observed in each of the verification tests has been plotted with respect to the Froude number in Figure 13.. The squares indicate the test points (Cols. The dots scatter considerably but an average curve drawn through these points would be lower than the Basin II curve. Basin II may be effective down to a Froude number of 4 but the lower values should not be taken for granted (see Sec. 3.5 see Section 4. This information applies only for the Type II basin. This line can also be considered to be a pressure profile. wave heights. The angle LY (Col. For basins having Froude numbers below 4. The chute blocks have a tendency to stabilize the jump and reduce the 4. which is the remedy often attempted in the field. 10 and 12 of Table 3). the profile will resemble the uppermost line in Figure 13. the longer basins indicated by the verification tests curve are recommended. Should the tail water depth be greater than Dz. it was felt that a high degree of accuracy in measurement was not necessary. therefore.26 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Water-surface projiles. The length of basin can be obtained from the intermediate curve on Figure 12. The height of chute blocks is equal to the depth of flow entering the basin. 11 and 17.

STILLING BASIN FOR HIGH DAM AND EARTH DAM SPILLWAYS II I hl I I I I I I I I I’(1 I I I I I I\1 I I I I I I I I I I I J w I I I I I I I .

this practice is usually inadvisable from a construction standpoint. which contain only a few dentates according to the above rule. The height of the dentated sill is equal to 0. 6. chute varied from 0. Figure 14. widths and spaces should remain equal.. Figure 14. . however. the slope of the chute does have an effect on the hydraulic jump when the chute is nearly horizontal. Reducing the width and spacing actually improves the performance in narrow basins. be replaced with a curve of reasonable radius (R 54D. For narrow basins. The verification tests on Basin II indicated no perceptible change in the stilling basin action with respect to the slope of the The slope of chute preceding the basin. However.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Proflle for greoterthon -Pressure profile for conjugate depth FIGURE 13. 5. 7. It is recommended that the sharp intersection between chute and basin apron. On the sill a dentate is recommended adjacent to each side wall. The width and spacing should be equal to approximately D.l5D. In fact..) when the slope of the chute is 1 :l or greater. The slope of the continuous portion of the end sill is 2 : 1. This subject will be discussed in more detail in Section 5 with regard to sloping aprons. thus. Chute blocks can be incorporated on the curved face as readily as on the plane surfaces. . Column 25.-Approximate water surface and pressure projiles (Basin II). A space equal to + is preferable along each wall to reduce spray and maintain desirable pressures.6:1 to 2:l in these tests. Actually. and the maximum width and spacing recommended is approximately O.2D. this may be varied to eliminate fractional blocks. Figure 14. it is advisable to reduce the width and the spacing. the minimum width and spacing of the dentates is governed only by structural considerations. Table 3. It is not necessary to stagger the chute blocks with respect to the sill dentates.

The value of D. computation. where computation is a difficult and arduous procedure. while the abscissa is the ratio of actual to theoretical velocity at the entrance to the stilling basin. As is reasonable. provided the jet entering the basin is reasonably uniform both as to velocity and depth. on the crest of the spillway. however. The actual velocity is the term desired. with a head of 10 feet on the crest the actual velocity would be 0.-&comd proportions (iSsin II). a chart will be presented which should be of special value for preliminary computations. may then be computed by dividing the unit discharge by the actual velocity obtained from Figure 15. the actual velocity at the base of the dam would be 0. The ordinate in Figure 15 is the fall from reservoir level to stilling basin floor. per foot of basin width. There is much to be desired in the way of experimental confirma- 29 tion. and a limited amount of experimental information obtained from prototype tests on Shasta and Grand Coulee Dams. H. larger unit discharges. Before presenting an example illustrat. For example.STILLING BASIN FOR HIGH DAM AND EARTH DAM SPILLWAYS Following the above rules will result in a safe.8 : 1 or steeper. the larger the head on the crest. represents a composite of experience. The chart.f. the chart is sufficiently accurate for preliminary design. or possible asymmetry. a model study of the specific design is recommended. Aids in computation.s.. The chart is not applicable for chutes flatt’er than 0. Figure 15.75 V. with H=40 feet and Z=230 feet. The curves represent different heads.ing the method of proportioning Basin II. For greater falls. The theoretical velocity VT= J2g(Z-H/2). The chart makes it possible to determine V1 and D1 with a fair degree of accuracy for chutes having slopes of 0. .6 : 1 as frictional resistance assumes added FIGUBE 14.95 of the computed theoretical velocity. the more nearly the actual velocity at the base of the spillway will approach the theoretical. conservative stilling basin for spillways up to 200 feet high and for flows up to 500 c.

the stilling basin apron should be positioned for a tail water depth of 52.. the solid line gives . are synonymous in this case.44 The length of basin can be obtained by entering the intermediate curve in Figure 12 with the Froude number of 9.6=234 feet The Froude number Entering Figure 11 with a Froude number of 9. LII=4.6 feet The minimum tail water line for the Type II basin on Figure 11 shows that a factor of safety of about 4 percent can be expected for the above Froude number. the conjugate tail water depth &=12. having a downstream slope of 0. per sec. Entering Figure 15 with a head of 30 feet over the crest and a total fall of 230 feet.f.04 The tail water depth at which sweepout is incipient: T.6 feet Adding 7 percent to this figure. TW D= 1 11. L) VT 92 * (230-q>= y= 12.7 : 1.92=108. per foot of stilling basin width. and the width and spacing of the dent&es can be 0. The height.7=56. The crest of an overfall dam. Figure 11.s.=11. the following procedure may be followed: Consulting the line for minimum TW depth for the Type II basin.04. Proportion a Type II stilling basin for these conditions. It is usually not possible to construct walls sufficiently high to confine all spray and splash.2 ft. thus the dimension can be 4 feet 6 inches.85X4. width. and spacing of the chute blocks as recommended is Dr .HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS importance in this range.28 a feet (see Fig.04 41 D=4. 480 Jh=$=m=4.2Dz or 11 feet. Insufllation is important principally in determining the height of chute and stilling basin walls. Application of results (Example 2).6-j-3.15D2 or 8 feet 3 inches. The head on the crest is 30 feet and the maximum discharge is 480 c. feet or l.44=52.28X54. produced by air from the atmosphere mixing with the sheet of water during the fall. need not be considered in the hydraulic jump computations. is 200 feet above the horizontal floor of the stilling basin.3 1 As TW and D. wall heights are usually chosen commensurate with the material and terrain to be protected.6X0.03Dz The actual velocity VA=V1=117.3X4. Therefore.85 for a Froude number of 9. Should it be desired to provide a margin of safety of 7 percent.3 The theoretical velocity VT= +g 117. it will be necessary to compute the hydraulic losses starting at the gate section where critical depth is known. Insufllation. per sec. thus.44=54. 14). The height of the dentated sill is 0.6 ft.

-Curves for determination of velocity entering stilling basin for steep slopes 0. .STILLING BASIN FOR HIGH DAM AND EARTH DAM SPILLWAYS 31 PROTOTYPE x Shasta o Grand TESTS Dam Coulee Dam " (octuol) f T (theoretical) FIGURE 15.8:1 to O&:1.

.

arrangements tested are shown in Figure 16. Arrangement “a” in Figure 16 consisted of a solid curved sill which was tried This sill in several positions on the apron. Development The most effective way to shorten a stilling basin is to modify the jump by the addition of appurtenances in the basin. the incoming velocity and discharge per foot of width must be limited to reasonable values.Section Short stilling 3 basin for canal works. In this section a minimum basin is developed for a class of smaller structures in which velocities at the entrance to the basin are moderate or low (up to 50-60 feet per second) and discharges per foot of width are less than 200 cubic feet per sec. is that they must be self-cleaning or nonclogging. Development tests and verification tests on 14 different basins are used to generalize the design and to determine the range over which Basin III will perform satisfactorily. One restriction imposed on these appurtenances. required an excessive tail water depth to be 33 B ASIN . and small outlet Ill) structures. spillways small (Basin Introduction II often is considered too conservative and consequently overcostly for structures carrying relatively small discharges at moderate velocities. This restriction thus limits the appurtenances to baffle piers or sills which can be incorporated on the stilling basin apron. Numerous experiments were therefore performed using various types and arrangements of baffle piers and sills on the apron in an effort to Some of the obtain the best possible solution. A shorter basin having a simpler end sill may be used if baffle piers are placed downstream from the chute blocks. however. the second row staggered with respect to the first. The blocks were positioned in both single and double rows. Because of the possibility of low pressures on the baffle piers and resulting cavitation.

The front of the jump was almost vertical and the water surface downstream was quite flat and smooth. Thus. spacing. In addition to experimenting with the baflle piers. width. in each case was of little value. For certain heights. The chute blocks aid in stabilizing the jump and the solid type end sill is for scour control. it was used throughout the remaining tests to determine a general design with respect to height.” both for single and double rows. spacing. the dimensions of the basin. The cube “e” was effective when the best height. The conditions under which the tests were run.34 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS effective. 17. Block “g” is the same as block “f” with the corners rounded. This basin is principally an impact dissipation device whereby the baffle piers are called upon to do most of the work. a set of verification tests was made to examine and record the performance of this basin. there is no need for a dentated end sill and almost any type of solid end sill will suffice. and position on the apron. The headings are identical with those of Table 3 except for the dimensions of the baffle piers and end sills. The foregoing blocks and others not mentioned here were all tested in single and double rows. and the water surface downstream was very turbulent with waves. if possible. widths. variations in the size and shape of the chute blocks and the end sill were also tested. to prevent the chute blocks from directing the flow over the baffle piers.” Even slight rounding of the corners tended to streamline the block and reduce its effectiveness as an impact device. or “f. was much the same as “c”. Block “f” performed identically with the cubical block “e. and spacing. and position on the apron were found. Verification Tests At the conclusion of the development work. In fact.” Figure 16. which will be designated as Basin III. a double row of blocks which had rounded corners did not perform as well as a single row of blocks “b. block “b” performed well. width. over the entire range of operating conditions that may be met in practice. .” The important feature as to shape appeared to be the vertical upstream face. The end sill had little or no effect on the jump proper when baffle piers are placed as recommended.-Recod of appurtenances (Basin III).” “e”. The basin as finally developed is shown in Figure a h FIGURE 16. The only purpose of the end sill in Basin III is to direct the remaining bottom currents upward and away from the river bed. no larger than D. sketch “h. It was found that the chute blocks should be kept small. The solid sill was then replaced with baffle piers. Stepped block “d. The high-velocity jet passed over the block at about a 45” angle with little interference. and E. Block ‘V’ was ineffective for any height. The second row. As block “f” is usually preferable from a construction standpoint. resulting in a water surface similar to that shown in Figure 19. The tests were made on a total of 14 basins constructed in Flumes B. It was found that rounding the corners greatly reduced the effectiveness of the blocks. D. C. like the water surface shown in Figure 19. and the results are recorded in Table 4.

\ . Larger heights were tried. in some designs D. and spacing of the chute blocks are equal to D. The most effective position of the baffle piers is 0. the total width of the blocks. The width and spacing of the blocks should be the same as the height. \ \ a---u \\. However. width.“ > . Table 4. The blocks may be made 8 inches high. Basin III has a large factor of safety against jump sweepout and operates equally well for all values of the Froude number above 4. Basin II should be used or hydraulic model studies should be made.I:\ Slope FIGURE 17. The width and spacing may be varied but the total of the spaces should equal the total width of blocks.. . The height.8Dz downstream from the chute blocks as shown \ End sill -. Chute blocks. This may be varied but the aggregate width of spaces should equal. 35 Stilling basin action was very stable for this design. It is not necessary to stagger the baffle piers with the chute blocks as it is often difficult to avoid construction joints and there is little to be gained from a hydraulic standpoint. as can be observed from Column 18.0. The front of the jump was steep and there was less wave action to contend with downstream than in either of the former basins. approximately. is less than 8 inches. but are not recommended. The larger chute blocks tend to throw a portion of the high- velocity jet over the baffle piers.-Recommended proportions (Basin ITI).375h.. Table 4. In addition. The height of the baffle piers increases with the Proude number as can be observed from Columns 22 and 10. piers \ // \ s3 = 0: 75h.--Baffle I 0. which is considered by some designers to be the minimum size possible from a construction standpoint. The height. For velocities above 50 feet per second. . The recommended proportions for Basin III are shown in Figure 17.ETC. in terms of D. in fact. can be obtained from the upper line in Figure 18. the same as for Basin II. Basin III should not be used where baffle piers will be exposed to velocities above the 50 to 60 feet per second range without the full realization that cavitation and resulting damage may occur. Bafle piers.SHORT STILLING BASIN FOR CANAL Stilling Basin Performance and Design STRUCTURES. The most satisfactory width and spacing was found to be threefourths of the height. more so than for either Basins I or II.

167 . The corners of the baffle blocks should not be rounded. 135 12 . 03j 1.36 1.36 20..850 .81 3. 03( 1. 219 14 . 120 1. 100 14.64 1. 74 2..56 1.59 2.0 1.396 .38 3. and spacing of the baffle piers on the apron should be adhered to carefully. 21 9. 75 0.38 13. For example.20 6.0 1.. 25( 1. 00 2. 170 10.54 17. 500 3. 2! . There exists a reasonable amount of leeway in all directions.90 . 78 74 : 77 .000 1. 58 7. 0 1. 0 0. 82 . as the edges are effective in pro- . 794 .0 . 001 3.75 0.69 2. O( 0.000 2. 83 . 156 13 ._..96 1. either shape is effective.19 1.. 21 10. 131 14. 78: 1. 70 13. 7: .42 1.00 10. 83 Varied Flume S) Distame bat@ cw r.59 1.0 1. 10 (12) 2. If the baffles are set farther downstream than shown. 8( . 32 1. 125 .0 1. 35( 1. 70 10. 150 cw (29) (30) B . 83 .80 2.90 3. 581 0.680 . 11 1. 66: 1.50 1. 86( 2..00 1. 12 1.74 2. 70 5. 000 1. 35( 1.51 . 36 17..50 2.57 2. & 3D2 Sill !!! Dl D&h upstresm from baFss Z is ft (17) ---- (18) (19) c-3) (21) ----1.430 1. 17 1. 75 2. 13 11.0 1. 0 1. l( .41 21. Ot .0 1. 75( 2.45 10.04 1. 122 1. 7‘:l . 072 15.65 95 1: 05 1..822:1 . 06: 1. The actual positions used in the verification tests are shown in Column 25.24 1.60 .250 1.00 3.0 1.000 3 6. if too low.__ _ E------- 1 2.0 1.80 2.48 . 12 1._ C--_--- D .80 . 5 (W “lofp” ChUte (2) ---- (3) (4) (6) (6) 1. however. 29 1.0 1. 187 .. 229 5 . 224 9.77 2.0 1.25 0.800 1. The baffle piers may be in the form shown in Figure 17. 2( .02 1. 125 .40 23._ - D .80 .91 14.354 .55 0.__ E ..78 9.81 2. 70 .00 12 13.. 083 11 .215 @a 2.000 1111. 672 .218 . the position or height of the baffle piers are not critical if the recommended proportions are followed. 500 2 4.073 2 . 333 4 .240 250 1312 .75 1.208 .94 1.84 .00 3.0 1. 67 2.271 .56 .80 4. 75: 1.59 2.50 2.52 . 0 1. 65 .00 13 20.750 8 4. 0 1.800 . 061 17.660 .-Verification tests on Type III FI= s basins T. one cannot place the baffle piers on the pool floor at random and expect anything like the excellent action otherwise associated with the Type III basin.833 (27) 0.35 1. 7: .65 2.830 .86 17. 920 1. 114 3 .302 . 6: . 12( 1. 001 1.43 1.48 10.56 2. a longer basin will be required. 714 .60 . 062 6 . The recommended position.219 .6 1. or they may be cubes.78 1. 219 11.05 9.630 7 2. 146 8 . TW at sweep out ft (13) Flume OfW (1) TW ft 4 (11) 4II TG T.. 7: 1. 200 1. 0 .000 . 7: .000 5 1.02 1. 153 13. 70 4.08 11.643 . 600 6 2.59 . 64 12. 0 .0 . 64 8. if the baffles are too high they can produce a cascade.42 12. 131 13.20 . 50 . 120 7. 741 .84 16. 54 6.0 1. height. 90 3.03 2.49 18.91 1.83 0.00 5.31 2. 83: 2.0 E (14) T.0 . 146 .02 1.832 .000 4 8.0 1. 0 1. 2r . 29 9. 57 2. 074 18.970 1.49 0. 57 88 1: 16 1. 33 2.77 15.15 21..86 .801 .81’ ..00 1. O( . 51 . 84 0.. 686 .82 5.51 1. 54 .. 153 .20 3..03 1. 0 1. 83 0.30 20. 01 . 187 9 . 74 1. 95 1.01 1.65 in Figure 17. 75 1.82 1. 062 10 . 114 12. 66 5.0 1. Likewise. 833 . 001 4.0 0. 25( 2.39 10. 771 3.340 . 0 1. 07( 1.65 17.302 . 00 14. 20 5. 54 . 41 2.02 1.46 1.02 1.41 9.0 1.47 1. 672 1. 250 .00 1. 15 0._ __ 1 0. 7: .188 208 :302 . Table 4. 274 5. 431 1.25< 17. 511 2. 60 . 7! (24) ------- (26) 0.00 14 5. 970 3. 02( 2. 135 . 5‘ ..36 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE 4. 0 1. 73 7. 096 14. 062 20. On the other hand. 50 2.48 ._. 5~ . as these dimensions are important.56 . 25! 1.31 2.50 .0 1.479 .0 6 1: 0 1. 40( 1. 0 1. 0 0.52 1. if the blocks are set appreciably upstream from the position shown they will produce a cascade with resulting wave action. 0 1.7t 1.46 2. 210 ..50 .26 18. 2( . 7: 1.79 m 1.0 1. 16 7.092 .208 . 84( --- (7) (8) (9) (10) ---P-F11.6:1 . 156 . 50 4.48 .04 1.33 20.000 9 5. 864 . 167 . 000 10 6. 100 7 .0 1. 0 1. jump sweepout or a rough water surface can result. 50 03) B------- C .30 .0 1.75 1.

were obtained from the verification tests. which is related to the Froude number. End sill. Again. if the baffle blocks erode with time.2h. from which the line was drawn. can be . In this position the jump is not fully developed and the stilling basin does not perform properly.h. The points. The height of the solid end sill is also shown to vary with the Froude number. full conjugate depth. \---Slope I:I End sill FIGURE lg. but rather the tail water depth at which the front of the jump moves away from the chute blocks. A slope of 2:l was used throughout the tests since previous sill experiments indicated that minimum wave heights and erosion could be expected with this slope. although there is nothing critical about this dimension. measured above the apron.-Height of bafle piers and end sill (Basin III). Columns 10 and 14. 37 -7 4I d--i A. As in the case of Basin II. and there is greater chance for scour downstream. The margin of safety for Basin III varies from 15 to 18 percent depending on the value of the Froude number. the best operation for this stilling basin occurs at full conjugate tail water depth. the jump action is impaired. The same precautions should be considered when determining the tail water for Basin III that were discussed for Basin II. if less than the conjugate depth is used. it is not advisable as a general rule for the reasons stated above. second. 1 F0. there is no hydraulic advantage in using greater than the conjugate dept. On the other hand. There are several reasons for this: First. as can be observed by the dashed line labeled “Minimum Tail Water Depth-Basin III. Small chamfers on the pier edges of the type used to obtain better forming of the concrete may be used.” in Figure 11. Tail water depth. is also recommended for Basin III. Length of basin. In special cases it may be necessary to encroach on this wide margin of safety. the surface velocities leaving the pool are high. however. this line does not represent complete jump sweepout. The height of the end sill in terms of D. The heights of the sills used in the verification tests are shown in Columns 27 and 28 of Table 4. Table 4. and third. is plotted with respect to the Froude number and shown as the lower line in Figure 18. the additional tail water depth will serve to lengthen the interval between repairs.SHORT STILLING BASIN FOR CANAL STRUCTURES. ducing eddies which in turn aid in the dissipation of energy. The length of Basin III.ETC. as the action in the pool will show little or no improvement.

by extending the diagram to full tail water depth beginning at the upstream face of the baffle blocks. D. As can be observed. or D. The information in Figure 19 applies only to Basin III. The slope is 2 :l upward in the direction of flow..8D. D. prove to be less than 8 inches.5). these measurements were the tail water depth and the depth upstream from the baffle piers. In narrow structures where the specified width and spacing of blocks do not appear practical. Streamlining of baffle piers may .0. The front of the jump was so steep. as was true of Basin II. or baffle piers. the upstream face should be vertical and in one plane.. A half space is recommended adjacent to the walls. The length is -measured from the downstream end of the chute blocks to the downstream end of the end sill. Approximate water-surface profiles were obtained for Basin ID during the verification tests. Recommendations The following rules pertain to the design of the Type III basin. A reasonable factor of safety is inherent in the conjugate depth for all values of the Froude number (Fig. Thus it will be assumed that the depth upstream from the baffle blocks is one-half the tail water depth. The profile represented by the crosshatched area. 3. 4. end sill. Figure 19. Should D. Figure 17: 1. can be obtained by consulting the curve for Basin III in Figure 12. The tail water depth is shown in Column 6 and the upstream depth is recorded in Column 29 of Table 4. were obtained from Columns 10 and 12. Figure 19. The height of the solid sill at the end of the basin is given in Figure 18. 5. more or less. Although this curve was determined conservatively. 11) and it is recommended that this margin of safety not be reduced. It is undesirable to round or streamline the edges of the chute blocks. tbe upstream depth would be %* approximately I& For a tail water depth less There appears to be no than conjugate. Width of blocks may be decreased. but this cannot be stated for certain (consult Sec. it will be found that the length of Basin III is less than one-half the length needed for a basin without appurtenances. is for c0njugat. This dimension is also important. The height of the baffle piers varies with the Froude number and is given in Figure 18. that only two measurements were necessary to define the water surface profile. thus the length curve was terminated at this value. The length of basin. 17). 6. but this has been taken into account.52. D. As a reminder. 8. The width and spacing of baffle piers are also shown in Figure 17. The upstream face of the baffle piers should be set at a distance of 0.e tail water depth. Table 4. The ratio of the upstream depth to conjugate depth is shown in Column 30. The average of the ratios in Column 30 is 0. block width and spacing may be reduced. provided both are reduced a like amount. may be effective for values of the Froude number as low as 4. 4 for values under 4. the upstream depth would be particular significance in the fact that this ratio is one-half. It can be assumed that for all practical purposes the pressure and water-surface profiles are the same. The points. proportioned according to the rules set forth. an excess of tail water depth does not substitute for pool length or vice versa.. provided spacing is reduced a like amount.. Water surface and pressure profles.5. The stilling basin operates best at full conjugate tail water depth. the ratio is much the same regardless of the value of the Froude number. The vertical face is important. The blocks may be cubes or they may be constructed as shown in Figure 17. width. Basin III. the blocks should be made 8 inches high.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPAORS obtained by consulting the lower curve of Figure 12. which is less than one-half the length of the natural jump. There will be a localized increase in pressure on the apron immediately upstream from each baffle block. indicated by circles. For a greater tail water depth. Stilling Basin III may be effective for values of the Froude number as low as 4. Figure 17. and spacing of chute blocks should equal the average depth of flow entering the basin. from the downstream face of the chute blocks (Fig. 7. 2. and indicate the extent of the verification tests. Height.

25 and the tail water curve for the river. FIGURE 19.f. 5 1. 75 16.45 13. identified by the solid line in Figure 20.642 .33 6. TABLE Application of results (Example 3).5 603. Small chamfers to prevent chipping of the edges may be used. proportion Basin III for the most adverse condition.80 15. (The purpose of this example is to demonstrate the use of the jump elevation curve.-Results .0 612. 10.130 .54 12. This phase will be considered in Section 5 on sloping aprons.6 15. Since Basin III is a short and compact structure.900 3. 37 . 39 \Shaded area represents profile for conjugate tailwater depth. are given.900 3.5 615.090 2.02 13.130 . below: of Example . f& 9 69 66 63 51 1.260 3.s. 642 .DI ft (4) 3 Jump elevstion Q cfs .7 609. Given the following computed values for a small overflow dam: Q 9 cfs I CfS . As a general rule. the Froude number is computed and tabulated in Column 2.936 . the above rules should be followed closely for its proportioning.260 17. Arbitrary limits for the Type III basin are set at 200 c. 0 606. As V1 and D. result in loss of half of their effectiveness. 2 612. 1 (1) 3. If the proportioning is to be varied from that recommended.-Approximate water surfaceand pressure profiles (Basin III).20 24. It is recommended that a radius of reasonable length (RF 4DJ be used at the intersection of the chute and basin apron for slopes of 45’ or greater.022 662 co 11.936 .85 17. 9. per foot of basin width and 50 to 60 feet per second entrance velocity until experience demonstrates otherwise. Table 5.ETC.62 (3) curve8’ (7) 615.) The first step is to compute the jump elevation curve which in this case is D.60 19.42 12. The flow is symmetrical and the width of the basin is 50 feet. the slope of the chute has little effect on the jump unless long flat slopes are involved.SHORT STILLING BASIN FOR CANAL STRUCTURES. or if the limits given below are exceeded (as in the example below). plus the elevation of the basin floor. 8 40. 0 61.022 662 78.090 2. a model study is advisable.Dt ft (4) B.DI D1 curve * (6) 617.

El. Entering number. it is necessary to shift the jump elevation curve downward to match the tail water curve for a discharge of 2.7.900 c.850 c. The tail water curve is unusual in that the most adverse tail water condition occurs at a discharge of approximately 2.617. Plotting Columns 1 and 6 in Figure 20 results in Curve a.s.f.-Tail water and jump elevation curve-Example S (Basin III). DISCHARGE IN HUNDREDS-cfs FIGURE 20.S. With the apron at elevation 599.f. Column 5. . rather than maxiAs full conjugate depth is desired for the mum.4ox.5~.900 c. If it is assumed that the most adverse operating condition occurs at the maximum discharge of 3.5-17. Figure 11 with these values of the Froude values of y 1 are obtained from the solid are also g and are shown *These values listed in Column 3 of Table 5: The conjugate depths for the various discharges.s. 20).s. as shown in the sketch in Figure 20. The coordinates for Curve a’ are given in Columns 1 and 7. Although the position of the basin floor was set for a discharge of 2. Fig.40 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS P.. or elevation 597.2 feet. which shows that the tail water depth is inadequate for all but the maximum discharge. the remaining stilling basin details are proportioned for the maximum discharge 3.f. (see Curve a’.f. most adverse tail water condition. 850 c.s. Table 5.8 or elevation 599. were obtained by multiplying the values in Column 3 by those in Column 4. the stilling basin apron should be placed at elevation 617..W.7. line.850 c. This will place the basin floor 2. 1 \\4.f.s.5 feet lower. the tail water required for conjugate depth for each discharge would follow the elevations listed in Column 6.

is (Notice that conjugate depth was used.825 (use 34 inches). of the basin are shown . not tail water depth.81 (use 22 inches).SHORT STILLING BASIN FOR CANAL Entering 11.4 The height 1. width.) The height. and spacing of chute blocks are equal to D1 or 1.5 inches. ha=2. 41 Figure 12 with a Froude number of The width and spacing of the baffle piers are preferably three-fourths of the height or 0. L 5=2. 18.42. required LIrI=2. feet of the solid end sill.ETC. Figure feet hl=1. the upstream face of the baffle piers should be O.5D1. 18) is 2.2.60X1.130=2.60D. 2 STRUCTURES. or 0. The height of the baffle piers for a Froude number of 11.5X1.75X 17.42 (Fig.130=1. The final dimensions in Figure 20.SD2 from the downstream face of the chute blocks.96 From Figure 17. and the length of basin feet.8X17.80=48.75..80=14.75X34=25. or feet.130 feet (use 13 or 14 inches).

.

such as canals. These latter devices are described under the heading Wave Suppressors. In the 2.5 to 4.5 and the design of an adequate stilling basin. turnouts. As they encounter obstructions in the canal. but occasionally low dams and outlet works fall in this category. The low Froude number range is encountered principally in the design of canal structures. such as bridge piers.5 to 4. and transitions. Four means of reducing wave heights are discussed. Also. as indicated in Figure 9B. Figure 9B. T These types are discussed as a part of the stilling basin design. In narrow structures. making the design of a suitable wave suppressor a part of the stilling basin problem. The first is an integral part of the stilling basin design and should be used only in the 2. basin design and wave for canal structures. The main problem concerns the waves created in the unstable hydraulic jump. with Each oscillation generates no particular period. they may be used in any open channel flow-way without consideration of the Froude number. a wave which is difficult to dampen. The second may be considered to be an alternate design and may be used over a greater range of Froude numbers. reflected waves may 43 .5 Froude number range.5 and 4. Jump Characteristics-Froude Number 2.5 to 4.5. checks. The third and fourth devices are considered as appurtenances which may be included in an original design or added to an existing structure. dams (Basin outlet IV) suppressors and diversion HIS section concerns the characteristics of the hydraulic jump for Froude numbers between 2.5 For low values of the Froude number.5 to 4. the jump is not fully developed and the previously discussed methods of design do not apply.Section 4 Stilling works. designated as Basin IV. waves may persist to some degree for miles. the entering jet oscillates intermittently from bottom to surface.5 Froude number range. 2.

.44 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS FIGURE 2l.-Record of appurtenances (Basin I 1’).

The object was to direct a jet into the base of the roller in an attempt to strengthen it and thereby stabilize the jump. b. to preferably O. FIGURE 22. c. a model study of the stilling basin is imperative.6 to 4. The best way to combat a wave problem is to eliminate the wave at its source by altering the condition which generates the wave. were placed on the chute. This conclusion was based on tests in which various shaped baffle and guide blocks were systematically placed in a stilling basin in combination with numerous types of spreader teeth and deflectors in the chute. Approximations of these curved top blocks were then tested to make the field construction as simple as possible. or intensify the original wave. After a number of trials. The extreme Stilii. Waves are destructive to earth-lined canals and riprap and produce undesirable surges at gaging stations and in measuring devices. The tests showed that it was desirable to place as few appurtenances as possible in the path of the flow. Structures in this range of Froude numbers are the ones which have been found to require the most maintenance. thus requiring higher training walls. using blocks with a curved top. yielded better results. that of attempting to intensify the roller. as volume occupied by appurtenances helps to create a backwater problem. The number of deflector blocks shown in Figure 22 is a minimum requirement to accomplish the purpose set forth. a. The second approach. From a hydraulic standpoint it is desirable that the blocks be constructed narrower than indicated.. Large blocks. Where outlet works operating under heads of 59 feet or greater fall within the range of Froude numbers between 2.STILLING BASIN DESIGN AND WAVE SUPPRESSORS be generated which tend to dampen. Sketches d and e in Figure 21 indicate the only schemes that showed promise. and h. The width of the blocks is shown equal to D. by directional jets deflected from large chute blocks. A model study is the only means of including preventive or corrective devices in the structure to assure proper performance. A few of the basic ideas tested are shown in Figure 21. random placement of blocks is apt to create a new wave problem in addition to the original problem. The combined action produces some dampening effect but also results in a choppy water surface. no changes were made in the stilling basin proper.5. and not until all possible ideas were tried was this approach abandoned. The first method was unsuccessful in that the number and size of appurtenances necessary to break up the jet occupied so much volume that the devices themselves posed an obstruction to the flow.5 to Development tests.75D. For the stilling basin preceded by an overfall or chute. On wide structures. The program involved dozens of tests. The first was to break up the entering jet by opposing it with directional jets deflected from baffle piers or sills. The second was to bolster or intensify the roller.g5Basin . and this is the maximum width recommended.6 . f. the roller was actually intensified and the jump action was improved. g. Design-Froude Number 9. numbers 8. These waves may or may not be dissipated in a short distance. although many variations were tried. modify. The dimensions and proportions of the adopted deflector blocks are shown in Egure 22. The ratio of block’width spacing should be maintained as 1:2. Also. shown in the upper portion of Figure 9B.-Proportions for (Basin Froude Z V) . two schemes were apparent for eliminating waves at their source. 45 Final Tests DeJEector blocks. such as diversion dams. similar to but larger than chute blocks.5 and 4.5. wave action is not as pronounced when the waves can travel laterally as well as parallel to the direction of flow.

and y is the depth of flow in the canal upstream (see Fig. as these will prove a greater detriment than aid. Basin IV is applicable to rectangular cross sections only.s. The suggested device accomplishes nearly as much energy loss and provides a smooth water surface in addition. S is the width of a space in feet. 23). A series of steel rails. Alternative Stilling Basin IV-Small Drops FIGURE 23. channel irons. The addition of a small triangular sill placed at the end of the apron for scour control is desirable. Design. can be obtained from the upper curve in Figure 12. C is an experimental coefficient. N is the number of spaces. a slight deficiency in tail water depth may allow the jump to sweep completely out of the basin. The use of this device is particularly justified when the Froude number is below 3.f. Since the jump is very sensitive to tail water depth at these low values of the Froude number. the spacing was equal to the width of the beams.. thin sheets of water which fall nearly vertically into the canal below. If use of a jump were possible the maximum energy loss would be less than 27 percent.-Drop-type energy dissipator for Froude bers 8. The latter was the more effective. the horizontal top length of the blocks should be at least 2D. The overfalling jet is separated into where Q is the total discharge in c..6 to 4. The blocks may appear to be rather high and. Two spacing arrangements of the beams were tested in the laboratory: in the first. the spacing was two-thirds of the beam width. In the first. above the floor of the stilling basin. The value of C for the two arrangements tested was 0. If designed for the maximum discharge. If the rails are tilted downward at an angle of 3” or more. Tail water depth.6~. Perjormunce. is particularly applicable to small drops in canals. Waves downstream from the stilling basin will still be in evidence but will be of the ordinary variety usually encountered with jumps of a higher Froude number. The following expression can be used for computing the length of beams: L= CSN&i&- Q (4) Pedormance.6 (Alternative Basin Iv).9 times the depth of flow (y) in the canal upstream.. extremely long. as indicated in Figure 8. the grid may be made . especially for discharges lower than the design flow. Basin length and end sill. Figure 18. An alternative basin for reducing wave action at the source. The jump performs much better and wave action is diminished if the tail water depth is increased to approximately 1. which is relatively short. in the second. in the second. it was necessary to increase the length to approximately 3.245. the grid is self-cleaning. No baffle piers are needed in the basin. Basin IV will perform satisfactorily for lesser flows. Energy dissipation is excellent and the usual wave problem is avoided. The Froude number in this case is computed for flow at the top of the drop rather than at the bottom and should be about 0.5 and 4. The length of Basin IV. or timbers in the form of a grizzly are installed at the drop. as shown in Figure 23. An end sill of the type used on Basin III is satisfactory. the length of beams required was about 2. To accommodate the various slopes of chutes and ogee shapes encountered. for values of the Froude number between 2. num- a number of long. but this is essential as the jet leaving the top of the blocks must play at the base of the roller to be effective.0.46 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS tops of the blocks are 2D. g is the acceleration of gravity.5. The upper surface of each block is sloped at 5’ in a downstream direction as it was found that this feature resulted in better operation. Should it be desired to maintain a certain level in the canal upstream. in some cases.lD. A tail water depth 5 to 10 percent greater than the conjugate depth is strongly recommended for Basin IV.5.

the two types discussed below may prove useful. depending on the head behind the gate and the gate opening. thin rafts made of perforated steel plate. measured from trough to crest.6 to 4. Velocities in the canal ranged from 5 to 10 feet per second.STILLING BASIN DESIGN AND WAVE SUPPRESSORS adjustable and tilted upward to act as a check. resulting in submerged flow at the gate for the larger flows. but rafts do not provide the degree of wave reduction obtainable with the underpass type. however. and in turn.ourse of the experiments a number of rafts were tested-thick rafts with longitudinal slots. or other cross-sectional shapes. the capacity.--B. Raft-type wave suppressor. this arrangement may introduce a cleaning problem. The Froude number varied from 3 to 7. there are no means for eliminating waves at their source.6./C-- W --7 /--. /C- W -+--I 3 W Y IN. or if a wave suppressor is required to be added to an existing flow-way. Waves were 1. Wave Suppressors 47 The two stilling basins described above may be considered to be wave suppressors. Submerged flow reduced the effective head on the structure.-Raft wave suppressor (Type IV) for Froude numbers 6.5 feet high. The first or raft type may prove more economical than the second or underpass type. Tests on several suggested devices showed that rafts provided the best answer to the wave problem when additional submergence could not be tolerated. Both are applicable to most open channel flow-ways having rectangular. . In a structure of the type shown in Figure 24. 3%6” SLABS FIQIJRE 24. The general arrangement of the tested structure is shown in Figure 24. During the c. Both types may be used without regard to the Froude number. Tests showed that appurtenances in the stilling basin merely produced severe splashing and created a backwater effect. trapezoidal. although the suppressor effect is obtained from the necessary features of the stilling basin. If greater wave reduction is required on a proposed structure.

These intensified waves overtopped the lining at 4. Underpass-Type Wave Suppressor and others. which is economical to construct and effective in operation. The rafts should perform equally well in trapezoidal and rectangular channels. each having different flow conditions and wave reduction requirements. However. (2) that there be some depth to these holes. The rafts must have sufficient thickness so that the troughs of the waves do not break free from the underside. indicating that the prototype performance was as good as predicted by the model. Rigid and grticulated rafts were tested in various arrangements. over the raft dissipate themselves by flow downward through the holes. including a sample problem. Several essential requirements for the raft were apparent: (1) that the rafts be perforated in a regular pattern. consideration should be given to the type of wave suppressor discussed below. Figure 25 shows one of the hydraulic models used to develop the wave suppressor and the effect of the suppressor on the waves in the canal. The height of the roof above the channel floor may be set to reduce wave heights effectively for a considerable range of flows or channel stages.by g-inch timbers. Thus. The first raft decreases the wave height about 50 percent. the rafts can then be a Should it be desired to permanent installation. The effectiveness of the underpass wave suppressor is illustrated in Figures 25 and 26. the rafts may be made adjustable. Under certain conditions wave action is of concern only at the maximum discharge when freeboard is endangered. Figure 24. or a second set of rafts may be placed under the first. or if a moderate increase in depth in the stilling basin can be tolerated. if it becomes necessary to make General description. (3) that at least two rafts be used. waves produced by the starting and stopping of pumps.48 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS the rafts adjustable or portable. placed in the canal down-stream from the stilling basin. measured parallel to the flow. suppress the waves at partial flows. made from 6. The position of the down-stream raft is then very important. The top surfaces of the rafts are set at the mean water surface in a fixed position so that they cannot move. A space was left between timbers and lighter crosspieces were placed on the rafts parallel to the flow. The name “short-tube” is used because the structure has many of the characteristics of the short-tube discussed in hydraulic textbooks. and (4) that the rafts be rigid and held stationary. in Figure 24. It was found that the ratio of hole area to total area of raft could be from 1:6 to 1:8. Below 3. however.000 cubic feet per second and became a serious prob- . waves were in evidence but did not overtop the lining. By far the most effective wave dissipator is the short-tube type of underpass suppressor. and the Surges second raft effects a similar reduction. For this specific case the waves were reduced from 18 to 3 inches in height. determines the amount of wave suppression obtained for any particular roof setting. the structure consists of a horizontal roof placed in the flow channel with a headwall sufficiently high to cause all flow to pass beneath the roof. Placing it at a full wave length could cause both rafts to be ineffective. however. Figure 26 shows before and after photographs of the prototype installation. etc. This wave suppressor may be added to an existing structure or included in the original construction. for narrow canals it may be advisable to make the second raft portable. The second raft should be positioned downstream at some fraction of the wave length. W. giving the appearance of many rectangular holes. both floating and fixed.000 cubic feet per second. The recommended raft arrangement is also applicable for suppressing waves which have a regular period such as wind waves. In either case it provides a sightly structure. The length of the roof. is a minimum dimension. The most effective raft arrangement consisted of two rigid stationary rafts 20 feet long by 8 feet wide. Performance. For larger discharges. Essentially. The recommendations for this structure are based on three separate model investigations. The g-foot width. In this instance it was desired to reduce wave heights entering a lined canal to prevent overtopping of the canal lining at near maximum discharges. The design is then generalized and design procedures given. the stilling basin produced moderate waves which were actually intensified by the short transition between the basin and the canal. Spacing between rafts should be at least three times the raft dimension.

3 D2.-Performance of underpass wave suppressor .s.STILLING BASIN DESIGN AND W A YE SUPPRESSORS 49 Without suppressor-waves overtop canal. Suppressor in place-length 1. Discharge 5. submerged 30 percent. FIGURE 25.f.000 c. 1 :32 scale model.

.s.s.000 to 5. the suppressor effect was then determined for other discharges. Tests were made with a suppressor 21 feet long using discharges from 2. Test 1.50 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Q=3. wave suppressor Q=3.-after installed. it may be seen that an opening of from 10 to 12 feet produced optimum results.900 c.500 cubic feet per second.f. With a 14-foot opening.f. Thus. shows the results of tests to determine the optimum opening between the roof and the channel floor using the maximum discharge.f.900 c. These results are shown in Figure 271 Test 2. 5. Waves were reduced to less than 2 feet with an opening of 11 feet.000 c. Smaller openings produced less wave height reduction because of the turbulence created at the underpass exit.-before was installed. The suppressor was located downstream from the stilling basin. lem at 4. With the opening set at 11 feet. waves were reduced from about 8 feet to about 3 feet. Figw-e 27.000 c.s.f.s. wave suppressor was FIGURE 26.-Hydraulic performance of wave suppressor for Friant-Kern Canal.

-Wave suppressor for Friant-Kern Canal-results of hydraulic model tests. WATER SURFACE . \ ‘\\ cfs +---21l---* SECTION VERTICAL WITH FLUCTUATION UNDERPASS. .Q-5000 CfS.-APPROX. MOST ROOF I EFFECTIVE . 2 OF EFFECT ON WATER TEST NO. FLUCTUATION AT Q=5000 TEST TO DETERMINE ELEVATION FOR NO. .STILLING BASIN DESIGN AND WAVE SUPPRESSORS 51 PLAN 6 0 VERTICAL FLOOR OF IO DISTANCE CANAL I2 AND BETWEEN ROOF . I / I 1000 I I 3000 IN CUBIC I FEET PER I 5000 SECOND DISCHARGE TEST NO. 3 LENGTH FLUCTUATION TO DETERMINE EFFECTIVENESS UNDERPASS AT VARIOUS DISCHARGES OF UNDERPASS SURFACE FIGURE 27.

In terms of a 20-foot-long underpass. other factors were held constant while the length was varied. submergence and the percent reduction in wave height will become less. Figure 28 shows actual wave traces recorded by an oscillograph. and 2. Here it may be seen that the maximum wave height. For less submergence.000 c. This fact makes it possible to provide a practical solution from limited data and to eliminate the wave period from consideration except in this general way: waves must be of the variety ordinarily found downstream from hydraulic jumps or energy dissipators. it is desirable to eliminate this factor from consideration.000. and 5.000 c. increasing to about 34 percent at 2. The device became ineffective at about 1.f. will provide from 60 to 75 percent wave height reduction. Dz. Teats were made on suppressors 10.500 c. Submergences .f. With an underpass 3. Fortunately. Fortunately. 30. this tends to offset the characteristics of the device to give less wave reduction for reduced submergence at lower discharges. in general. 21. there are three main considerations: (1) how deeply should the roof be submerged.52 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS greater than 33 percent produced undesirable turbulence at the underpass outlet resulting in less overall wave reduction. waves best described as a choppy water surface. If it is suflicient to obtain a nominal reduction to prevent overtopping of a canal lining at near maximum discharge or to prevent waves from attacking channel banks.f.f. wave action below a stilling basin usually has no measurable period but consists of a mixture of generated and reflected.f.31Dz. The lower curve shows a near constant value for less submergence because the wave heights for less than maximum discharge were smaller and of shorter period.000.5D2. 3. Since the suppressor provides a greater percentage reduction on shorter period waves.e. there generally is a tendency for the wave period to become less with decreasing discharge.62D2. halving the roof length almost doubled the downstream wave height and doubling the %O-foot length almost halved the resulting wave height.s. It is known that the wave period greatly affects the performance .. measured from minimum trough to maximum crest. The minimum length of underpass required depends on the amount of wave reduction considered necessary. Figure 27. for smaller-than-maximum discharges.of a given underpass. The same type of wave suppressor was successfully used in an installation where it was necessary to obtain optimum wave height reductions. Test 3.5Da long and set as shown in Figure 28.5D.000 c. it has been found that maximum wave reduction occurs when the roof is submerged about 33 percent. the wave reductions were as shown in Table 6. l. but it was necessary for the underpass to function for low flows as well as for the maximum. the wave reduction can be estimated from Figure 29C. (2) how long an underpass should be constructed to accomplish the necessary wave reduction. The capacity of the structure was 625 cubic feet per second. when the under side of the underpass is set 33 percent of the flow depth below the water surface for maximum discharge.s.s.. since flow from the underpass discharged directly into a measuring flume in which it was desired to obtain accurate discharge measurements.s. and on other experiments. Longer period waves may require special treatment not covered in this discussion. and (3) how much increase in flow depth will occur upstream from the underpass. To design an underpass for a particular structure. Roof lengths in terms of the downstream depth. Thus. General design procedure. These considerations are discussed in order. a longer underpass is necessary. Figure 29C. when the depth of flow became less than the height of the roof. were 0. With the usual tail water curve. The greatest wave reduction occurs for short period waves. Under ideal conditions an underpass 2Dz to 2. It is therefore advisable to submerge the underpass about 33 percent for the maximum discharge. Since the wave periods to be expected are usually not known in advance. These usually have a period of not more than about 5 seconds. the water surface will appear smoother to the eye than is indicated by the maximum wave heights recorded in Table 6. To obtain greater than 75 percent wave reductions. for 5.000. respectively. This is illustrated by the upper curve in Figure 29C. a length lDz to 1.5Q in Wave height reduction was about 78 percent at 5.s. did not occur on successive waves.000 c. and 40 feet long for discharges of 2. 4. Based on the two installations shown in Figures 27 and 28. i.. To determine the effect of suppressor length on the wave reduction. too.

.33 A- sm.sa SECTION I I 143 I I h-l-rmmm ml7r-l (MODEL SCALE I: 16) FIQURE 28.-Wave height records for Carter Lake Dam No. 1 outlet works.STILLING BASIN DESIGN AND WAVE SUPPRESSORS 53 i-em. wss. 12+14.

. *... . ....::.:..::. h’ YE--------‘1-----y I A = Flow area beneath underpass h = Flow-producing head hV=Velocity head in approach --_‘-.-. ..*.._. .“.K 4..:. . ...... IN UNDERPASS B % SUBMERGENCE OF UNDERPASS - K D2 C FIGURE 29. ..:... . 1 . .54 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS VI 2 F ------n . . ....:‘._ .. ..... . .. . _. . . ..... .. .. A AVERAGE VELOCITY . .. :.‘. ..a .. . ..:. .... . ..... .. .: .V...v===rT -> - -v-> 4 .. .. . . ......Hv=x -. :. .. *. .. . ...-v.-Hydraulic characteristics of underpass wave suppressor. -: . . ....:. .. ....*.... .

to 4Dz long. probably because factors other than those considered also affected the depth of water upstream from the underpass. Figure 29B shows two curves of the discharge coefficient “C” versus average velocity beneath the underpass. length may provide up to 88 percent wave reduction for wave periods up to about 5 seconds.400 c.5D2-. and there is a slight resultant force tending to hold the underpass down. Slopes flatter than 4 : 1 provide better draft tube action and are therefore desirable. 10 feet per second and a length of channel 3 to 4 times the length of the underpass downstream from the underpass which may be used as a quieting pool to still the turbulence created at the underpass exit. It is estimated that waves will be 5 feet high and of the ordinary variety having a period less than 5 seconds. gave an added lo-percent wave reduction advantage over one underpass 2Dz long. 5 400 D 0. Included in this length is a 4 : 1 sloping roof extending from the underpass roof elevation to the tail water surface. .there is only a slight tendency (except for the force of breaking waves which was not measured) to move the underpass downstream.8 plus 2. f Upper limit only with draft tube type outlet.STILLING BASIN DESIGN AND WAVE SUPPRESSORS TABLE 6. Pressures along the underside of the roof were found to be 1 to 2 feet below atmospheric. to 2Dz and the other for lengths 3Dz to 4Dz.5D2-----m-m-____ --_-___-__3. SW U ----~~--4. one for underpass lengths of ID. A rectangular channel 30 feet wide and 14 feet deep flows 10 feet deep at maximum discharge._ _ _ _ . Pressures on the underpass were measured by means of piezometers to determine the direction and magnitude of the forces acting. Intermediate values may be interpolated although accuracy of this order is not usually required. Although the test points from which the curves were drawn showed minor inconsistencies. Data from four different underpasses were used to obtain the two curves shown. 2 D 0. However. with a length 5Dz between them. Since slopes greater than 4: 1 do not provide the desired draft tube action they should not be used. Since the greatest wave reduction occurs in the first D. the submitted curves are sufficiently accurate for design purposes. 3 U 4. 2. upstmml 1 Wave heights in feet.5 to 4. Downstream station is in measuring flume. 4 U 3. for design purposes they may be considered to be atmospheric. 7 100 55 D 0. 6 200 D 0. say. I Recorder pen reached limit of travel in this test only. Example 4.-Wave Discharge in c. it may appear advantageous to construct two short underpasses rather than one long one. 3 626 Downstream~ heights in feet-prototype._ _ _ _ _ _ 3._ 0. 4 U 1.0D2-------------------------1For wave periods up to 5 Seconds.f. Sample problem. Wave height reduction up to about 93 percent may be obtained by using an underpass 3. 90 to 93. Pressures on the downstream vertical wall were equal to static pressures. Table 7 summarizes the amount of wave reduction obtainable for various underpass lengths. In the one case tested. To determine the backwater effect of placing the underpass in the channel.S. The sloping portion should not exceed about one-quarter of the total length of underpass.s.f. It is desired to reduce the height of the waves to approximately 1 foot at maximum discharge by installing an underpass- . TABLE 7. In other words. Figure 29B will prove helpful. two underpasses each lDz long. per second] Underpass length Percent w*ve reduction 1 60 to 75. Ideal conditions include a velocity beneath the underpass of less than. 3 1Upstresm station is at end of stilling be&.-Eflect of underpass reduction length on wave [For underpass submergence 33 percent and maximum velocity less than 14 ft. of underpass length._______ -__-__-_______ -_ 2D2t02. the extra cost of another headwall should be considered. Average pressures on the headwall were found to be distributed in a straightline variation from zero at the water surface to static pressure at the bottom.2 1D2 to 1. 80to88. To illustrate the use of the preceding data in designing an underpass. a sample problem will be helpful.5 D.

67 feet with a corresponding velocity of 12 ft.07 for 2D. reduce the height of the waves from 5 feet to 1 foot. and h=1. a longer underpass is required. represents the increase in head. per sec. measured from crest to trough.95 feet h+h. of 1.7)2 6440. the average water surface upstream from the underpass is 1. channel approach velocity. per sec. h+hv= 2 =1.1 ft. and. From Figure 29B.25 feet. type wave suppressor without increasing the depth of water upstream from the underpass more than 15 inches. A close inspection of the submitted data will reveal that slightly better results were obtained in the tests than are claimed in the example.400 =6. If the flow entering the underpass contains entrained air in the form of rising air bubbles. Thus. the depth beneath the underpass is 6. . a 4 : 1 sloping roof should be provided at the downstream end of the underpass.5 foot high and creating a backwater. encountered in flow channels. The sloping roof will help reduce the maximum wave height and will also reduce the frequency with which it occurs. from Table 7. In highly turbulent flow the underpass is only partly effective. In providing freeboard for the computed backwater. The determination of values for h and hv is done by trial and error. per sec. The length of the underpass is 2D.17 feet. the above computation is repeated using the new head v1=(lo49~5)30=7.7 ft. is the total head required to pass the flow. making the downstream waves approximately 0.61 feet. Full wave height would provide a more conservative design for the usual short period waves. assume that h+ h. and a velocity of 12 ft. as indicated in Figure 28.95-0. An alternative method would be to place a cover. or 20 feet. and the waves are reduced 80 percent to a maximum height of approximately 1 foot. =(10+1. an go-percent reduction in wave height is indicated. Using Table 7 and Figure 29B as in the above problem. and h represents the backwater effect of increase in depth of water upstream from the underpass.95)30 h =o”=(6. One-half the wave height or more. providing in all respects a better appearing water surface. h. allowance should be made for waves and surges which.70 foot O2g . h.=0.5 to 4. say 2D2 long. the underpass should be submerged 33 percent. This slope may be considered as part of the overall length. Figure 29A. a few small vents in the underpass roof will relieve the possibility of air spurts and resulting surface turbulence at the underpass exit. If the underpass is to be used downstream from a stilling basin the underpass must be placed sufficiently downstream to prevent turbulent flow. an underpass 3. should be allowed above the computed surface. The headwall of the underpass should be extended to this same height and an overhang. As a first determination. To obtain maximum wave reduction at maximum discharge. From the equation given in Figure 29B: Total head. requires an underpass approximately 2Dz in length.56 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS If it is desired to reduce the wave heights still further. are above the computed water surface. from entering and passing through the wave suppressor. V1=zQ 2. in effect.72 foot and h=1. h. Therefore. To insure obtaining the maximum wave reduction for a given length of underpass.70=1. This was done to illustrate the degree of conservatism required. Further refinement is unnecessary. Then. C= 1.2 feet higher than the tail water which satisfies the assumed design requirement of a maximum backwater of 15 inches. since it should be understood that the problem of wave reduction can be very complex if unusual conditions prevail. per sec..0D2 or 35 to 40 feet in length reduces the waves 90 to 93 percent. should be placed at the top to turn wave spray back into the basin. such as occurs at the end of a basin. upstream from the underpass headwall. To refine the calculation.

B. and F. namely: the discharge. the sloping apron was investigated sufficiently to answer many of the debatable questions and also to provide more definite design data. and the slope of the apron.167). Department of Agriculture supervised a series of experiments on the hydraulic jump on sloping aprons. Bakhmeteff (1) and Matzke (6) performed experiments on slopes of 0 to 0. H. Yarnell of the U. therefore. but the dissipation is as effective as occurs in the true hydraulic jump on a horizontal apron. The tail water . In 1934. AA The jump on a sloping apron takes many forms depending on the slope and arrangement of the apron. floors were installed to the slope desired. the value of the Froude number. has been said concerning the advantages and disadvantages of stilling basins with sloping aprons. the late C. G. B. namely: 1:6 (tan 0=0. The slope in this discussion is the tangent of the angle between the floor and the horizontal and is designated as “tan 0. 2. the average depth of flow entering the jump. the tail water depth.Section Stilling basin UCH 5 with sloping apron (Basin V) I Es. Previous Experimental Work Previous experimental work on the sloping apron has been carried on by several experimenters. the length of the jump. Four flumes. and D. the jump may occur in several ways on a sloping apron. Hickox (5) presented data for a series of experiments on a slope of 1:3 (tan 0=0.S.333). and 3. as out57 . both experimentally and theoretically. In this study. From an academic standpoint. or. Figures 1. Carl Kindsvater (5) later compiled these data and presented a rather complete picture. A. for one slope. L. In Flumes A. Flume F could be tilted to obtain slopes from 0’ to 12”. in the case of the tilting flume.was adjusted so that the front of the jump formed either at the intersection of the spillway face and the sloping apron. D.07 in a flume 6 inches wide. at a selected point. were used to obtain the range of Froude numbers desired for the tests. Previously there were not sufficient supporting data available from which to draw conclusions.” Five principal measurements were made in these tests. and the concentration of flow (discharge per foot of width).

.33" (tan 0=0. Column 2 lists the tangents of the angles of the slopes tested. was computed by dividing the unit discharge. q (Col. was measured at the beginning of the jump in each case. Case A has the jump on a horizontal apron. As the tail water depth is further increased.. The velocity at this same point. and Cases D and B will be considered here in order. 5).. lined by Kindsvater. Sloping Apron Tests From a practical standpoint. For example.217). Figure 30. the scope of the test program does not need to be as broad as outlined in Figure 30. the toe of the jump forms on the slope. The first experiments described in this section are for Case D.58 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS FIGURE 30. V. the action in Cases C and D is for all practical purposes the same. Rindlaub (7) of the University of California concentrated on the solution of Case B. but need some explanation. and the jump ends over the horizontal apron. and the end is at the junction of the slope and the horizontal apron. corresponding to Section 1. In Case C. The headings are much the same as those in previous tables. D. The length of jump. Data obtained from the four flumes used in the sloping apron tests (Case D experiments) are tabulated in Table 8. Column 7. Tail water depth (Case 0). Bakhmeteff. In Case B. D.~Sloping aprons (Basin V). Column 11. that of 12. The results of Case A have already been discussed in the preceding chapters. The second set of tests is for Case B. Messrs. the entire jump forms on the slope. Case B is virtuallycase A operating with excessive tail water depth. was measured in the flume. bearing in mind that the object of the test was to obtain practical . Figure 30. Column 8. With so many possibilities. Kindsvater. Case B approaches Case C. it is easily understood why experimental data have been lacking on the sloping apron. SuEicient tests were made on Case C to verify the above statement that Cases C and D can be considered as one. Yarnell. and Matzke limited their experiments to Case D. the toe of the jump is on the slope. if it is assumed that a horizontal floor begins at the end of the jump for Case D. B. in Case D. presenting separate and distinct problems. The depth of flow entering the jump. but his experimental results are complete for only one slope. It represents the average of a generous number of point gage measurements. by D.

790 .57 .540 . 43 3. 57 7.830 4. 85 3.5.4. 111 13.15 2.065 8. 07 2.750 1. 40 3. 01 9. 71 6. 09 5. 03 2.64 9.523 . 10 6. 50 3.68 19. 99 5.53 9. 26 1.835 .575 . 52 4.50 2.621 . 64 6. 98 5. 75 10. 55 7. 81 1. 44 8.310 1. 70 10.628 .00 9. 32 6. 118 15. 74 1. 08 2. 55 3.629 . 15 9. 58 . 31 1. 71 .660 . 37 5. 33 6. 72 1.33 : 075 13. 60 7. 65 . 64 6. 642 . 54 072 8.250 1.o. 74 3. 71 4. 33 5. 23 1. 09 8. 82 9.500 3. 99 2. 102 14.500 1.586 . 97 . 30 9. 00 2.41 23. 75 4. 73 1. 60 6. 75 10. 20 9. 20 8. 40 3.350 2. 03 2.512 . 60 1.42 14. 89 7.07 16.65 20.065 14.500 3.895 . 75 6.387 . 25 6.092 13.000 2. 30 3.50 2. 484 .737 1. per se0 aprons (Basin V. 70 6. 65 6. 05 4. 51 1. 50 3. 44 6. 10 6. 21 1.345 .500 2.500 1.88 . 10 6. 73 6.805 414 : 518 .37 18.575 . 28 6.461 .000 3.000 2. 92 3.000 5. 51 6. 12 6. 39 6.000 3.300 2. 15 4. 88 1. 34 6. 20 6. 50 7.03 15. 56 1. 00 2. 38 6. 45 7. 87 3. 61 7. 78 1. 17 9. 00 8. 98 3.450 1. 213 2. 73 1.45 16.500 5. 08 2. 15 6.000 3.750 2. 00 3. 70 9. 150 2. 07 10.454 1. 15 4. 60 7. 59 1.500 2. 50 6.06 10. 67 . 00 .500 1.750 2.500 3. 67 1. 65 077 8.520 .490 . 00 8. 40 . 22 1. 90 6. 70 9.090 .750 1. 18 5.512 . 11 7.500 2.900 2.880 4. 67 6. 40 6. 40 6. 09 057 8. 152 16.420 2. 26 4. 44 6. 60 1. TW is- L TK (‘3) 0. 15 5. 90 4. 50 8. 2. 30 3.000 3.000 5.38 . 70 6. 96 3.750 3. 85 9. 82 9.500 4. 62 6.096 0.250 3. 30 8.350 4.067 0. VI DI ft. Q TW ft. 60 3. 95 2. 50 2.881 984 1: 077 1. 85 091 7. Case D) -iTW D1 (9) -1 L TW Dt E Test flume Total 0.750 1.2.74 19.o. 40 6.-Stilling 9 fEf c. 60 4. 22 1.500 3. 75 6. 52 1. 50 1. 052 8. 90 3.270 2. 91 10.70 9.33 10. 042 1. 83 3.500 2. 10 6. 79 10.86 185 13.052 7. 20 7. 985 . 38 3.652 .236 1. 84 4. 135 0.374 1. 00 2. 80 8080 8.o. 128 1.- (8) (12) 2. 164 0. 78 4.940 620 : 710 .728 . 85 4. 152 B---_--------- 0. 10 3.426 . 45 6. 40 0.564 .090 8. 73 5.000 1. 00 2. 93 .536 1. 02 2.744 . 30 5.19 1. 694 .415 .000 0. 30 4.450 486 : 516 . 40 3. 10 1.04 2. 93 9. 71 3.51 . 88 0. 45 2. 67 1.000 4.500 2.544 .810 4. 26 1. 16 6.570 . 06 4. 26 062 8.416 .02 17.000 2. 89 3. 65 8. 27 055 6. 00 6. 60 2. 45 6.725 . 30 6. 74 082 7. 63 : 096 6.15 2.750 2. 60 6.85 1.000 2. 19 8. 26 5. 60 2. 39 9.589 .466 . 00 0.460 .06 10.410 .l. 47 5. 86 4.396 .537 1. 85 5.75 5o 2.590 .069 7. 53 085 8.520 . 905 . 51 5.250 2.000 2.940 2.084 14.75 2. 97 5.000 2.97 17. 28 075 8.745 . 20 8. 04 2.832 .426 . 129 13. 33 3. 75 6.500 4.51 .168 14. 37 5.076 7. 102 0.097 6.TABLE 8. 21 1. 27 6. 38 6. 20 3. 76 1.22 2.59 . 61 1.345 .33 21. 148 10. 01 2.624 . 25 6.341 . 19 (13) __ 0.500 2. 61 1.792 . 60 3.567 . 97 4. 90 7.f.560 . 10 6. 67 6. 90 8. 31 4.77 10.540 1.28 2. 70 . 151 14. 44 6. 97 3. 40 2.250 2. 11 6. 85 7. 35 . 30 6. 04 . 40 1. 90 7. 22 1. 67 . 09 . 10 8. 133 14. 58 1. 49 5. 06 4. 50 2. 18 .560 . 120 2. 01 6. 82 9.000 7.590 . 71 2.f. 86 23.474 .40 2: ii 2. 90 2. 50 9. 46 . 20 3.88 . 170 15. 42 1. 05 6. 17 6. 86 3. 35 1. 10 2.000 2.500 4. 22 1. 15 6.39 10. 71 1. 00 5. 96 . 20 6.370 2. 23 3. 97 3. 57 1.590 2. 34 4.500 3. 72 5.532 . 87 7. 20 7. 61 5. 10 9.068 8.000 4. 76 1.000 2.000 1.29 10. 0.S. 81 6. 57 4.00 15. 90 .000 3.37 17. 41 6. 161 1.00 2.045 8.57 6. 76 1.500 2. 20 4.828 .250 1.690 2.600 (7) . 45 3.000 5.79 A _--_-------_ -. 41 6. 84 5. 40 7.517 . 05 . 97 3.03 9. 45 2.500 2.000 2. 54 1. 25 5. 42 067 8. 89 6.952 1. 54 . 24 1. 20 6. 94 2. 215 1. 60 7. 05 8. 663 . 624 .000 1. 20 11. 78 6. (1) (3) (6) basins with sloping ft.10 2. 15 6.500 3. 35 y i= r 5 m & z < 2 F 0 x is B 2 0 z g .060 7.83 . 500 4.615 666 : 717 . 70 7. 13 14.621 . 80 3. 06 4. 76 : 068 . 10 3.80 2.

35 3.500 2.-Stilling 9 fEf basins with sloping TW apron (Basin DI ft.57 21. 22 1. 27 7.303 1. 87 2.191 1.720 1. 132 .45 11.59 2.620 675 : 752 855 1: 010 1. 50 1. 26 5.293 2.500 2. 20 6.110 . 80 0. 33 4.693 1. 42 1. 34 -_ 6.750 2. 50 7.000 10. 20 9. 23 1.200 . 65 2.053 1.517 . 24 6.750 1. 83 1.20 3.33 23. 862 . 40 2.63 15. Case D)-Continued - L TW TW Dt (13) (14) (15) - Teat flume Total Q c. 630 1. 20 7. 840 . 40 4.49 20.575 .354 1. 117 . 45 1.39 17.55 11. 50 8. ooa 2. 50 7. 15 1:3.350 2.086 . 71 6. 16 17. 12 17. 44 1.530 1.048 .000 2.750 3. 60 1.78 2. 95 1:2.708 .500 2.250 2.900 2. 90 8. 50 1.81 16. 10 1 5. 95 29.41 16.40 12.06 17.558 1.174 1.982 1.04 19.350 4. 100 A ____ .250 1.079 .750 1.967 1. 50 1 6.000 1.402 . 80 1.39 14. 50 7. 102 .121 1. 34 (17) I B ____________ 0.40 11. 85 2. 000 1.000 4. 17 6.59 13. 70 1. 90 21. 92 30.441 .321 1. 42 1.70 s w > F E x x z 4 Y E $ $ 2.054 . 82 7.000 5.830 . 77 4. 20 5.90 10. 08 4. 26 5. 218 0. 166 .280 0.30 16.250 1.250 2.00 10. 38 4. 29 6.720 .750 2. 75 2.38 12.30 16. 162 . 90 7. 27 6.350 4. 95 1 3.920 2. 06 6. 59 1.091 .057 070 : 082 . 89 6. 36 4. (3) W&b +fiIl (4) ft. 31 2. 60 7. 29 5.000 5. 60 9. 27 6.95 18.088 . C.36 16.202 1243 . 36 6. 95 12. 22 2. K9 (6) ft. 45 1 6. 80 2. 500 1. 80 1. 65 7. 81 2. 40 6.27 22.500 4. 25 6.300 1.052 0.10 3.90 6.263 De---- _------- 0. 27 5. 79 17. 41 4. 98 5. 45 1. 20 1:2.55 13.05 10. 14 18. 00 5.70 2. 250 1.029 046 : 061 . 53 10. 44 1.63 15. 01 6. 10 5.75 20.000 1.270 3. 59 4. 20 9. 70 5. 19 3. 46 1. 34 6.69 11.75 1. 102 . 102 5. 23 4.40 4.31 24. 30 6. 20 1. 80 2. 31 4. 47 8.073 . 65 2 1. 21 4.345 . 10 9. 129 . 107 FI= VI &s (10) 5.23 16. 24 10. 29 6. 80 1 9. 00 8.345 .543 1. 10 6.5Oa 3.518 .030 . 42 1. 5oa 2.35 18. 90 9.680 .48 16. 24 6.092 . 44 6. 63 12.063 . 75 f 6 c. 75 2 6. 000 0. 80 5. 31 6.500 750 1: 000 1. < 0 g g . 19 1.000 . ooa 3. 96 3. 41 4. 10 15. 61 3. 10 5.5oa 2. 00 4.14 11.01 17.849 .500 1.000 3. 95 2.57 11.35 12.8. 67 2. 35 1 3. 65 2. 60 8. 51 2.460 . 41 4. 18 1. 99 6. 80 8. 26 5.47 13. 46 8. 20 0. 00 6.000 1.48 21. 70 4. 12 19. 70 . 56 2.007 1. 37 3.416 1. 96 2. 09 2.890 3. 30 0.500 2.492 1.l. 91 17. 15 2. 10 9. 15 2. 60 0.02 17. 57 7.29 10. 31 4. 15 6.500 1. ooa 3.55 1.000 2. 16 9.000 1. 85 4. 58 3.500 750 1: 000 1._--_ ---- 0. 60 6.032 . 250 1. 57 3. 85 7. 17 6. 20 3. 34 2.TABLE Slope Of apron tan + 8. 40 6.14 10. 44 2.45 2.813 . 09 2. 56 1. 58 2. 161 . 09 6.04 18.380 1.642 1. 56 1.303 1. 160 1.64 19.s.500 3. 10 6.303 1. 23 1.82 28. 60 11 1’ 0. 05 6.987 1.05 17.888 2.v& set (7) TW D1 (9) (1) (2) - (8) . 80 7.57 1. 30 6. 63 9. 50 14. 79 5. 10 9. V.426 1.000 6. 41 14.04 40.406 467 : 365 . 16 10. 83 1. 40 6. 21 5.f.05 3.500 3.71 15.890 13. 81 1 (11) -- (12) -3. 51 2.067 . 60 3. 10 1 1.570 1.200 1. 63 4.000 4. 200 2.015 2.720 2. 69 5. 58 2.63 11. 53 1.99 10.250 1.30 9. 30 l<5. 50 2.85 13. 78 1. 18 6. 86 5. 77 1. 500 3. 51 4. 24 1. 47 4.000 2. 32 3.287 .088 1. 65 2. 39 2. 55 4.500 2. 13 2. 45 5. 00 6. 00 2.072 . 80 6. 94 6.f.08 16. 90 5. 81 1.020 2. 44 1. 177 .500 1. 30 2.95 15.970 1.203 .000 2.402 .330 2. 50 4. 500 5. 30 6.820 3. 184 .511 2. 98 6. 34 4. 25 1’7. 25 4. 10 6.000 5.500 2.000 4.100 1.05 17. 10 1.09 18. 44 6. 58 5.718 .000 8.13 9. 42 6. 70 5. 05 5. 5Oc 6. 19 1. 70 2 4.70 17. 45 7.433 . 95 4. .700 .96 19. 55 Il. 602 1.600 . 35 1‘4. 40 1. 50 8.078 . 38 8. 719 801 : 336 . 19 14. 24 16. 15 2.077 . 70 5. 75 I 8. 42 1.06 12.525 1. 30 2. 125 . 85 1 2.79 1.500 1. 813 1.750 2. 180 1. 724 1. 147 . 19 1. 17 1.87 16.213 4.09 17. 58 21. 85 1.39 15. 20 5. 01 6.409 1.78 1.218 1. 50 2.92 3. 16 1.000 6. 10 5. 45 5. 34 3.084 . 99 2.061 . 79 4. 29 3.259 292 :311 . 93 6. 96 6.73 13.970 4.000 3.20 15.000 2. 00 5. 92 1. 36 2.000 2. 06 7. 28 6. 185 0.66 9.567 .

780 1. 70 2. 77 1. 126 1. 81 2. 85 6.109 1.850 1. 63 1.035 2. 19 4.54 7. 72 2.764 1. 850 1.870 3. 45 2. 00 2. 3. 9.780 1. 02 2. 05 2.475 . 69 1. 3.800 2.980 2. 38 7.500 6.460 2. 35 7. 4. 86 1. 62 12.663 2. 124 1. 99 5.67 2.29 19.087 .620 1.58 24.095 1. 50 5. 2.86 15.152 1. 38 6. 5.60 17. 03 6. 4. 41 3. 10 2.300 2. 91 5. 67 2. 00 2.000 2.018 1.276 364 : 358 . 4. 820 3. 89 4.820 3.38 6.357 1. 95 5. 2. 940 3. 2. 33 4. 88 1. 80 40 80 10 30 00 80 70 90 00 70 80 30 80 60 80 4. 48 1.4. 14 2. 6.524 . 54 1. 57 5. 4.42 18. 72 1. 5.850 3. 24 2.248 1. 63 1.910 2. 00 . 86 8.800 2.750 1. 3. 250 1. 87 .303 .870 3. 75 2.000 2.180 1.53 16. 82 12.121 . 80 3.392 16. 2. 80 1. 26 4. 55 3.000 4. 93 2.400 1828 1. 32 8.291 . 65 1. 89 3.620 1. 75 1. 37 4.092 1.90 16. 4. 31 37 56 33 96 01 85 72 82 17 14 91 17 21 79 97 11. 100 1.257 . 2. 137 . 9.94 11. 2. 147 . 3. 90 2.71 27. 183 771 : 757 1. 76 1. 22 1. 50 2. 88 2. 943 16. 6.500 4. 05 3. 23 6. 3. 41 2. 48 1.040 2. 19 4. 7.452 1. 97 1. 940 3. 42 4. 17 7. 69 8. 95 1. 31 5. 22 1. 46 1. 48 7.379 1.306 1. 4. 80 1.850 3. 4. 14 5. &5 8.700 1. 53 1.300 3.483 .910 2. 116 1.260 1.587 . 16 1.970 1. 56 1. 37 7. 45 3. 3. 15 2. 40 7. 00 2. 41 2. 2. 22 2.980 2.980 3. 93 6.134 1.452 1. 66 5.062 .454 . 78 1. 5.057 . 47 7. 2.40 10. 90 3. 97 6. 68 5.10 3.710 2. 20 2. 05 1. 50 1.980 3. 5. 26 3. 41 8.648 1.

a dimensionless parameter called the shape factor. to conjugate depth for a horizontal apron. Table 8) is plotted with respect to the Froude number (Col. Kindsvater and Hickox evaluated this coefficient from the profile of the jump and the measured floor pressures. was plotted with respect to the Froude number in Figure 32 for All symbols have been referred to previously. The current experiments indicate that the Froude number has little effect on the value of K. Bakhmeteff (I). and data from Hickox on a slope of 0. The length of jump Length of jump (Case D).HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS data for stilling basin design. First.10. Table 8. will be used throughout this discussion on sloping aprons. Assuming this to be true. The conjugate depth. The length of the jump. is the depth necessary for a jump to form on an imaginary horizontal floor beginning at Section 1. 9. The agreement is not particularly striking nor do the points plot well. the ratio length of jump to the conjugate tail water depth.30 in Figure 31. listed in Column 14. but it should be remembered that the value K is dependent on the method used for determining the length of jump. The points show a wide spread. The small chart. as a matter of interest. shows the extra depth required for a jump of a given Froude number to form on a sloping apron rather than on a horizontal apron. 5. Dz.05 to 0. for a horiD2 zontal apron. and shows. for a range of apron slopes. if the slope is 0. has been plotted with respect to the Froude number for the same range of slopes in Figure 33. Although not evident in Figure 32. the ratio 4 varies from 6.333. for a Froude number of 8.25. Superimposed in Figure 34A are data from Kindsvater for a slope of 0. used in connection with a sloping apron is merely a convenient It reference figure which has no other meaning. for an apron having a slope of 0. the tail water depth at the end of the jump will be 2. if the tangent of the slope is 0. it can be seen in Figure 33 that the length of jump on a sloping apron is longer than the same jump which occurs on a horizontal floor. Second. 10) for sloping aprons having tangents 0. The conjugate depth. For example.167. and are shown plotted with respect to the Froude number for the various slopes in Figure 34A. The end of the jump was chosen as the point where the high velocity jet began to lift from the floor. values of individual points for each slope were averaged and K is shown plotted with respect to tan 0 in Figure 34B. Column 12. An expression presented by Kindsvater (5) is the more common and perhaps the more practical to use: (Col. Expression for jump on sloping apron (Case 0). the ratio of tail water depth for a continuous sloping apron. The agreement is within experimental error. and Matzke (6). Superimposed on Figure 31 are data from Kindsvater (5). The small chart on Figure 31 was constructed using data from the larger chart. K was computed from Equation 5 by substituting experimental values and solving for K. Figure 30.25. Dz and TW are identical for a horizontal apron. The tail water depth. The .30.0. D. The ratio y 1 sloping aprons having tangents from 0 to 0. except for the coefficient K. for the Case D experiments has been presented in two ways. 6. Several mathematicians and experimenters have developed expressions for the hydraulic jump on sloping aprons (2. a tail water depth equal to 1. The resulting values of K are listed in Column 17 of Table 8. but.. is the horizontal distance from Sections 1 to 2. to 7. whichever occurred farthest downstream. Surface profiles and pressures were not measured in the current tests.4 times the conjugate depth (Dp for a horizontal apron) will occur at the end of the jump.8 times the conjugate depth. the ratio length of jump to tail watter depth. Column 16. Table 6. or a point on the level tail water surface immediately downstream from the surface roller.167 are also plotted in Figure 32. Hickox (5). is the depth measured at the end of the jump. as tabulated in Column 11. corresponding to the depth at Section 2 in Figure 30. Dz.1. therefore. tabulated in Column 6. Length determinations from Kindsvater (5) for a slope of 0. Figure 31. For example. 1s) so there is no need to repeat any of these derivations here. which varies with the Froude number and the slope of the apron. The plot for the horizontal apron (tan O=O) is the same as shown in Figure 5.

21 0.BBF ABB & Matzke 8 Motzke 8 Motzks I I 0 2 4 6 FIGURE 31.050-0.150-0. I 00 0.167 0.164 0.135 0.B8F A&D&F A A.174 0.88F F A A.333 0.260 0.-Ratio of tail water depth to D1 (Basin V.STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON 63 26 6 I61 T TAILWATER DEPTH RELATED TO CONJUGATE DEPTH FOR SLOPING APRONS m TAN b SOURCE I 0.070 Flumes Flumes Flume Flumes Kindsvoter Flume Flume 6 Flumes Flumes Hickox Bokhmebff Bakhmeteff Bakhmteff A.046 0.200-0.263-0.067 0.0 0.165 0. . Case D).

Although this form of jump may appear quite complicated..200 -.pron unless the entire length of the sloping portion is utilized.PIO Flumes A B and F FIGURE 32. say AYz. evaluation of K is incidental to this study but it has been discussed to complete the data analysis. which is several times AY1. AY1. the front of the jump moves up the slope to Point 1.3Dz. B ond F F FlumesA.64 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Flumes A. AY4. and varies with the degree of slope. as in Figure 35B. This distance is noted as 1. Flumes A. it would be reasonable to assume that the front of the jump would raise This is not true. The primary concern in sloping apron design is the tail water depth required to move the front of the jump up the slope to Section 1. moves the front of the jump up the slope an equal vertical distance AY’. from Point 3 to 4. Increasing the tail water depth a second increment. jump profile undergoes an immediate change as the slope becomes part of the stilling basin. Jump characteristics (Case B). Referring to the sketches in Figure 359. for an increase in tail water depth. or moves a vertical distance . the a corresponding increment. For greater tail water depths. Should the slope be very flat. a short distance up the slope. If the tail water depth is increased a vertical increment. the relationship is geometric. Case B is the one usually encountered in sloping apron design where the jump forms both on the slope and over the horizontal portion of the apron (Fig. Thus. Case D).Dand 0. Figure 3OB. and this continues until the tail water depth approaches 1. it can be observed that for tail water equal to the conjugate depth.B. ISO-. 30B). produces the same effect to a lesser degree. Da.AY’l.B and F 0. an increase in tail water depth.-Length of jump in terms of tail water depth (Basin V. the horizontal . There is little to be gained with a sloping a. it can be readily analyzed when approached from a practical standpoint. the front of the jump will occur at a point 0. AY1. Additional water depth produce the same effect but to a still lesser degree. moving the front of the increments of tail jump to Point 2.

The tail water was then set at conjugate depth (Point 0. thus compensating for frictional resistance on the slope. The tests were made for slopes with tangents varying from 0. and the tail water depth were measured. and in some cases. 7). Case D). and the Froude number (Col. moving the front of the jump to Point 2 while the length. and the tail water depth were recorded. lo. In each case. V. A sloping floor was placed in the flume as in Figure 30B.. Both the distance. in each instance. The tail water was then raised. 6)) was measured immediately upstream from the front of the jump The velocity entering the jump.30. Experimental results (Case B) . 8) were computed.05 to 0.. the ratio 2 (Col. Table 9) and the depth of flow. Ds (Basin V.-Length of jump in terms of conjugate depth. and these are recorded in Columns 11 and 12. A discharge was established (Col. Entering Figure 31with the computed values of F. The tail water was then increased.. 9) was obtained I from the line labeled “Horizontal apron. and the Froude number were computed at the same location. measured from the break in slope. The distance.. The velocity. l. The following studies were made to tabulate the characteristics described above for conditions encountered in design since it has been necessary in the past to check practically all sloping apron designs by model studies to be certain that the entire sloping portion of the apron was utilized. l. and the results are recorded in Table 9. several lengths of floor were used for each slope. gives the position of the front of the jump on the slope. FIGURE 33. (Col.” Multiplying this ratio by D1 gives the conjugate depth 65 for a horizontal apron which is listed in Column 10 of Table 9. . was measured immediately upstream from the front of the jump. moving the front of the jump up to Point 1.STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON movement of the front of the jump is even more pronounced. 3. V1 (Col. of Table 9. lZ.respectively. Figure 35. for conjugate depth. The experiments for determining the magnitude of the profile characteristics were carried out on a large scale in Flume D. measured and tabulated. as indicated in Column 15 of Table 9. Figure 35) and the distance. D.. D. The same procedure was repeated until the entire apron was utilized by the jump.

in jump formula (Basin V. Tan 4 0.-Shape factor.215 :260 263 167 Kindsvater ----Tan $I Above curve is bosed on assumption thot K is independent of F.I74 165 .66 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS K 2 K 2 SYMBOL L 0 * A 0 5 0 t A X .I35 . .067 .100 . . Case D).333 Hickax B FIGURE 34.200 . K.I50 164 .052 .

20 7.750 2. 80 8.090 11. 79 18. 139 .339 1.32 20. 29 1. 16 1.555 5. 38 1.% Q W&l tliflu (4) ft.280 1. 1.564 1. 30 6. 70 80 0’ 2.904 1.098 . Case B) Test flume sp apron tan 0 (2) ---___ 0. 139 . 15 16. 94 19.97 10.48 11.510 1.890 1. 70 14. 00 1.068 .19 19. 22 1.02 8.79 19. 180 1.98 14.49 20.057 11.564 1. 80 4.035 2.069 .70 13. 70 4. 104 . 232 1.545 1.49 21.390 1.904 1.70 10.20 16. 00 4.745 2. 02 1.535 5.335 1.564 1.37 18. 20 4. 65 17. 625 1. 101 102 : 075 . 02 39 0’ .040 1.000 1.410 2. 20 1.876 1. 00 .029 .58 19. 196 1.255 8.TABLE 9.32 19.545 1. 20 1. 03 1.87 9.970 1.029 2.98 19.970 1. 30 12. 3. 05 Total Cf. 10 5.80 14. 30 4.555 1. 40 8.19 20. 42 4.04 19. 24 1.976 1. 13 1.86 10.530 1.810 2.76 19.50 1. 13 20.00 13.660 1. (11) TW ft.89 20. 30 4. 25 13.564 1.560 1.40 15. 1.070 .905 1.825 6.545 1.057 2.064 065 : 067 . 00 6.070 1.324 2. 253 19.70 9.910 1. 24 1.98 12.96 11. VI F.37 . 15 1.f.200 1.66 11.99 10. 00 1. 69 13.35 18. 21 1. 38 12.272 2.27 18.60 18. 90 1.85 17.57 20.410 1. 13 1. 5. 62 19.499 1.60 15.21 12.09 19.40 18. 104 141 : 064 .560 5.099 . 23 11.67 19.868 1. 02 1.29 20. 11 1. 27 .S.82 38 : 77 26 : 79 3.099 .70 12. 15 12.515 1.910 1.155 1.01 20. 15 20. 80 2. 20 .70 20.940 1. 2.50 15. 3. 85 15.067 . 02 1. 20 5.080 11.46 12.494 1. 37 1. 30 5.050 8. 102 .46 10.511 2.99 .88 19.64 19.51 17. 51 1.340 1.530 1.600 1. 04 1.00 1.568 1. 5. 3.75 18. 37 1. 02 1. 08 1. 39 1. 80 4.88 12.078 .210 1.000 3. 00 6.080 1. 90 13.80 15.57 19. 00 4.880 1. 101 .30 13. 140 . 3.260 2.00 14. 193 1. per SW.529 1.= VI &ax c& ft.51 15. 183 1.321 1. 00 1. 03 1.850 1.90 18.375 1.065 .246 1.077 . 218 2.482 1.585 1.033 2.911 1.60 1.000 8. 18 11.89 19. 169 1. 40 1. 50 4.330 1. 28 1.066 (7) (8) 03) (14) .365 1.511 20. 61 9. 150 1. (10) L&h of jump on slope ft. 27 3. 53 1. 103 .32 13. 25 2. 80 6.31 11.770 2.340 2.553 4.----Stilling 9 fEf W C.85 14. 2. 64 13. 75 2. 4. 2. 15 17. 3. 3. 6.816 1.305 1. 60 60 0’ 50 1: 10 .310 1. 3. 20 4. 01 .80 12.40 17. 00 1.977 11. 103 .038 2.440 1.063 .818 1.00 14. 00 3. 41 9.550 1.229 1.00 15.259 7. 141 142 : 076 . 33 1.50 11.333 2. 80 13. 19 1.295 8. 4. 54 10. 101 .905 1.37 20.39 9. 2.50 17.79 20. 13 1.98 1. 26 1.80 15. basins with sloping aprons (Basin V.828 1. 00 5.99 1.14 10. 16 9. 100 .070 11. 136 .25 18. 18 1.830 1.00 17.660 1. 25 4. 88 88 17 85 11 56 69 26 97 42 77 15 00 55 96 54 41 64 65 28 61 0’ 1.70 13.36 19. 188 6.505 4. 16 1. 80 16.50 14. 10 6.50 17. 5 1 TW DI (1) D --________ (3) (5) (6) 0.38 19. 60 15.590 1. 3.339 1. 10 4.600 1.48 10.80 17. 15 6. 32 1.330 1.

940 1.60 12. 60 4.866 3.089 11.490 1.280 2.580 2.253 18. 20 1.860 1. 85 14.512 1. 21 1.420 1.70 12. 05 1. 30 4. Of W C.037 2. 178 1.86 12. 13 1. 176 1.068 (7) (12) 1. 21 1.358 19. 30 1. 70 14. 40 1.55 17. 60 4. 1.067 . 15 17. Case B)-Continued T Total Test flume C. 45 1.70 11.680 1. 11 1. 13 12. 17 1.350 1.518 1. 09 1.212 1.80 12.523 1.875 1. 90 21 89 54 46 81 48 84 45 79 2: 85 2. 143 19. 17 2. 40 3.720 1.310 2. 17 1. 73 3.45 10.53 10. 30 4. 08 1.913 . 18 2. 13 8. 25 2.43 19.f. 2.54 19. 05 1. 105 . 17 .800 1.35 17.915 .214 2. 18 1. 103 .420 1. 36 1.900 2. 70 14.670 2.230 1. 56 2. 50 1.073 18. 2.45 10.35 17.529 1.60 14.215 1. 175 1.42 19. 44 2.55 9. 14 1. 142 . 10 13. 58 3.523 1. 20 4. 12 1.85 14. 523 1.S.573 2. 09 2.f. 85 14. 90 3. 31 1. (5) *% Dt a (8) (9) wo (11) TW ft. 24 1. 36 1. 02 2. 10 2.035 .62 10.50 14.856 1. 104 19. 30 4. 80 5. 105 . 70 3.25 20. Q wrLl.232 1. 40 4.166 1. 37 1.228 1.890 1. 27 I.80 12.35 17. 20 1. aprons (Basin V. 03 1.232 1.-Stilling basins with sloping VI ft.705 1. 15 14.529 1. 105 . 65 .860 1. 80 2. 10 2.530 2.856 1. 00 3. 60 4. 14 2.S.232 1. 64 1. 80 4. 1.010 1.260 2.70 14.021 . 50 1. 30 3.57 10.TABLE 9.605 1. 60 3.970 1. 12 1.518 1.565 1. 99 1.071 5.215 1.74 12.393 1. 955 1. 20 1. 640 1. 94 3.99 3. 104 19. 05 1. 10 17.605 1. 24 .60 14. 80 2.62 12.176 1. 18 1.80 18. 2. 30 3. 57 11. 00 3. 50 17.530 1.080 2. 120 1. 1. 22 1. 30 3. 10 9.730 1. 790 1.37 13.375 1. 12 1. 1 52 TW D: (3) (6) . 60 2. 31 1.530 1.50 14.228 1. 30 3.60 16.27 19.40 . 64 1.65 16.025 2.230 2. 28 1. 24 1. 20 5.063 20. 17 1.40 13. 32 1.820 8.60 14.70 18. 523 1.860 1. 25 1.47 9.77 8.904 .50 14. 70 3. 190 2. 10 13.530 1. 78 3. 00 2.05 17. 856 ‘1. 26 1.305 1.55 17. 60 2.529 1. 93 2. 23 1. 63 2.05 1.40 20. 90 1. 976 3. 20 1. 180 (13) (14) 4.830 1.228 1.50 13. 166 1. 145 . 3. per sec.05 17.3 l+iflu (4) ft.550 1. 1.38 10.072 18.05 16.

03 3. 150 . 105 5.-I43 3. 242 1.503 1.517 1.074 .553 2. 42 1.832 4. 60 2.485 1.40 .025 2.07 20. 10 9.840 2.070 2. 86 2. 140 2.650 1. 242 1. 39 12. 40 2. 37 1.079 .300 1. 27 1. 38 . 225 1.300 3.21 19.85 . 32 1. 20 2. 09 1. 49 2.306 1.25 17.25 12. 91 1.30 14. 106 . 71 1. 23 1. 71 2. 20 80 3: 60 3.510 1. 60 . 146 19.65 .755 1.080 2.950 1. -. 83 11.225 1.20 10. 100 1. 29 .410 11.40 19.300 2.090 2. 86 11.40 19.346 .38 19. 85 1.17 18.410 2. 13 1. 840 1. 910 .00 10. 24 .50 16. 29 1.830 1. 850 1. 107 .825 1.60 12. 37 1.242 1.50 4. 21 1. 40 1. 60 1.041 1. 15 1.028 2.079 .06 19. 54 . 50 4.81 8.55 .906 .93 20.05 16.85 13.50 12. 20 9. 43 1.010 1.25 17.80 19. 74 1.680 1.029 2.035 . 242 1.057 11. 050 11.523 1.550 2.55 18.45 14. 16 1. 30 . 76 2.75 17.87 . 19 1.570 1.43 2. 62 2.230 2.808 1. 60 4.445 1. 40 3. 320 2.54 9. 30 1.290 2.516 1.45 12.92 8. 20 4. 86 2. 90 2. 02 1. 30 4. 18 17.070 19.50 14. 14 19. 42 2. 22 1.362 2.90 10.840 1. 147 .512 2.849 1. 26 - - .05 14.910 1.525 1.850 1. 37 9.980 8.071 18. 34 1.32 20.535 8. 42 1.22 12. 05 1. 77 1.740 1.553 5. 10 1.344 1.90 4. 106 19.214 1. 95 3.36 9. 26 1.50 14. 25 17. 40 1.72 2. 50 3.40 12.145 .02 19. 35 2. 85 16.25 5.538 1.375 1.849 1. 20 1. 35 1. 24 1. 144 . 105 11.75 14. 40 3. 09 1. 905 2. 11 1.30 1. 49 1. 60 3. 925 2. 10 3. 55 1. 146 . 50 3.45 12. 225 1.516 1. 16 1. 30 3.95 10. 50 4.506 2. 25 10. 10 3.850 1.51 9.30 14.523 1. 29 1. 96 12.760 1. 110 .75 17.960 1.13 19.30 14..75 12.860 1.75 17. 08 1. 29 9. 144 6. 23 1. 105 .33 2. 25 1.242 1.005 8.516 1. 04 1.600 1. 00 2. 35 2. 75 17.210 2.

divided by the conjugate depth. but these lengths can be applied to Case B with but negligible error. data for Case D (Table 8) can again be utilized. On the other hand. By assuming t’hat a horizontal floor begins at the end of the jump in Case D. Figure 36 shows that the straight lines for the geometric portion of the graph tend to intersect at a common point. This is especially true when sloping aprons are used in conjunction with medium or high overfall spillways where the rock in the riverbed is in When sloping aprons are fairly good condition. Actually. The agreement of the information from the three sources is very satisfactory. the riverbed downstream must act as part of the stilling basin. In some cases the length of jump is not of particular concern because it may not be economically possible to design the basin to confine the entire jump. Figure 33.70 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS FIGURE 35. . are shown in Columns 13 and 14 of Table 9. D. when the quality of foundation material is questionable. Case B). The change in the profile of the jump as it moves from a horizontal floor to the slope is evidenced by the curved portion of the lines. designed shorter than the length indicated in Figure 33. indicated by the circle on D2 2 the graph. Case C. and as there is practically no difference in the performance fo. it is advisable to make the apron sufficiently long to confine the entire jump. TW L=l and D= 0.217. AY. In addition. Figure 33 is for continuous sloping aprons. It is suggested that Length of jump (Case B). and these values have been plotted in Figure 36. is the upper extreme of Case B . Rindlaub of the University of California. Columns 15 and 16 of Table 8 can be plotted in Figure 36. data from experiments by B. have been plotted in Figure 36.92.r Cases D and C. The horizontal length has been used rather than the vertical distance. Figure 30. as the former dimension is more convenient to use. the length of jump for Case B be obtained from Figure 33.-ProJile characteristics (Basin V. The resulting lengths and tail water depths. for a slope of 0.

&o and F Flumes A.185 0. .&D and F Flume A Flumes A$ and F Flume B Flume F Flume p1 Flumes D and F Flumes pi and B Flume D Flume B Flume A Flume D Rindlaub 71 0.200 0.263 0.217 FIGURE 36.067 0. Case B).280 0. TAN 6 0 050 0.174 0. I50 0.-Tail water requirement for sloping aprons (Basin V.O and F flumes A.STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON SYMBOL A # 0 v x z * ” D + n * * 0 .250 0.216 0.400 0 135 SOURCE Flumes B.300 0.164 0.

7:1______ .416 570._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ do _______ .82 101 . 10 10.__ _ __ Canyon Ferry. 19 Gw -6._ Olympus----_------British Columbia--. Bhakra (final) __ _ _ _ __ Madden _______ --___ Folsom------------._____ _-.5:1______ .0 18.65: l.0 604.__ Capilano-.475 570 888 578 587 2.3 88. 03 6. Keswick--____ -_-_.41 4.. 000 320.5 60.O 246.580 3.0280.. 36 6. 15 3.39 1.600 872. C 57.f d.9 142.0 18..0 36.0250.60 -C cI G % & + 0 z - . f.0 48.5 28.000 1._ _ ___ .042 166 4.117.85 96 .0 7.0 98.0 70. 18 1.6 60.5 98.S:l__---_ 0.9 63.065 1._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ California_ _ ____ .59 . __ _ _ _ India-----------____ Bhakra (final)----_-Canal Zone----------Madden.36 3.09 5. 6.--do--.08 1. 56 2.0 90.20 14.4 3.047 1. 5.O 274.196.0 189._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ British Columbia-__ India ___________ -__ California _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -..23 1. C 74. 42 5.LOC&. (9) Qcy~ Ma.9 28.5 805. 9 22.685 250 466 7.6 106 10 125 23 9._ -___ North Dakota ________ O. sloping apron ft.15 1.00 2.S:l______ 0.5 128 325 97 105 51.------North Dakota----.09 1.88 4.0250.C 75.. Slopeofdamface Slope a~.8 34.70 74.33 1.6 20.70 15. 15 2.95 135 87 117 : 92 133 81 69 1: 00 51______ 141 106 136 96 156 87 133 54 117 108 108 69 48 375 332 300 271 260 448 242 120 80 664 330 240 200 667 595 632 738 1.0 488.0 549. 30 40 45 00 (x0 -469 422 450 413 646 382 578 384 155 413 266 330 120 Average (W -6 0.4 33.404.-Existing stilling basins with sloping aprons. 18 5.6 175. 11 1. 100 0.0 20.0 200.0 240.5 F c 1 n 0 z 5 z 0 -I-I y i= h I D8Ul Location 1p L Do L Actual length Of jyp F _Shasta------_-_----Norris-e--m_____ --_ Bhakra (prelim) _ _ _ . i 23._ _ _ __ _ _ California.c 81..91 140 .380. Fa’ HW oEfpt .0 58.OOO 141.5 152.50 6.2 3.5 15.73 11.60 9.73 3.112.139.7: l. 99 2.5 1.0 647.766 1.4 282.062 0.81 116 .405.460 547 852 560 537 2. 35 6.0455.21 2.OOO 631.91 166 . (14) zontal apron ft.67:1_____ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .61 7.94 1.0 282.45 7. 14 0.0 290.417.0 440.75:1----. 55 6.34 7.670. ( 66. _ _ _ _ _ -.000 330. &% apron ft.6 60.5 50.000 541. 110. 150 324 92.20 7.39 .6 2. of Res el ft Crest ft el E’“pend Of apron ft.6 296.5 27. 3 65.76 8.800 1. 11 7.50 4.95 188 .000 3.0 1.44 1.4 221. 250 0.11 1.077 0._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ India _________ -_--___ Rihand. El down end of SPrOn ft._ Capilano--____ -_-_.222 0.2002.72 7.-.645 232 418 7.0 40.5 483.388.205.25 8.12 3.OOO 205. 0 137.431.0 296.0 197._ Canyon Ferry------._ -__ _ _ _ _ Colorado. 17 2._______ Dickinson _____ .O 494.97 15.95 57 .63 2.p% .1 224 272 194 389.250 0.O 64.69 6.5 15 57 165 8 147 43..53 11. C 26.08 1. Tennessee _____ -_--___ Norris------------India-----________-Bhakra (prelim)----Montana-__ __ .- (16) 308. California_ _ ___ __ __ Tennessee _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ India--___________ Montana----------India _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Canal Zone-. 62 6.0 567.59 0.428 1..30 13._ __ .60 39 :56 .41 3.552 3.00 5.8 2. 85 86 6.25 16. 1 101. 250 . 7 81. 15 1.6 826.___Friant-----________ Keswiok. 125 Varies ______ .44 15._ _ _ _ . 70 11.5 257 137 224. Rihand----_____ -_. E 77. 15 10. 30 7.75 10.4 40.27 7.0 43._____ . 100 Varies____ _ .083 .600 1.625.0 250. Dickinson---. 10 7.2 12. Friant _____ .65 11.0 23. 66 > x3 :47 z g . 167 OS:1 ______ .0 3.0 41.7:1______ O. 6.5 55. C 47.037 1.0 329.57 1.5 142 177 48. 90 6.45 4.600.O 1.5 90. 143 Varies. (15) I s (1) -- (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (3) (10) w --------p (12) --- (13) California-_______-__ Shasta----_______.020 1. 234 335 222 128 71 176 0._ _ _ _ _ _ Folsom------------California _____ -___--_ Colorado---_ __ __ _.0 1. Olympus-.115 625 1.0 7. C 83.033 167 538 685 273 1.fOXl TABLE IO.02 1.OOO 679.000 7. ( 70.61 82 :83 . 125 1. 12 5.5 115. 0 256.095.

if the length of the slope is correct the tail water is insufficient to move the jump upstream to 14 73 FIGURE 37. and the total discharge is shown in Column 11. the elevation of the end of the apron is listed in Column 8. or front of the jump. redesigned using the current experimental information. existing basins employing sloping aprons were. Each point in Figure 37 has been connected with an arrow to the tan 0 curve corresponding to the apron slope. Points which lie to the right and below the corresponding tan $3curve indicate that if the tail water depth is correct the sloping portion of the apron is excessively long. that discharge has also been included in the total. The length of the sloping portion of the apron is given in Column . The lower portions of the curves of Figure 36 have been reproduced to a larger scale in Figure 37. is listed in Column 7. The coordinates from Columns 26 and 27 of Table 10 have been plotted in Figure 37 for each of the 13 spillways. the elevation of the upstream end of the apron. Longitudinal sections through the basins are shown in Figures 38 and 39. the length of the horizontal portion of the apron is given in Column 15. the tangent of the sloping stilling basin apron is listed in Column 4. and the overall length is given in Column 16. . Pertinent data for 13 existing spillways are tabulated in Table 10.STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON Applications To determine the value of Existing structures. Case B). Where outlets discharge into the spillway stilling basin.-Comparison of existing sloping apro in designs with experimental results (Basin 17. in effect. Columns 17 through 27 show computed values similar to those in the previous table. the methods given for the design of sloping aprons. the fall from headwater to upstream end of the apron is tabulated in Column 9. The slope of the spillway face is listed in Column 3 .

74 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 7 T I i 0 A .

STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON 75 .

The total apron length ranges from 39 to 83 percent of the length of jump. Longer basins are needed only when the downstream riverbed is in very poor condition. Evaluation of sloping aprons. that the slope itself has little effect on the performance of the stilling basin. It is not necessary that the front of the jump form at the upstream end of the sloping apron for low or intermediate discharges. except for the maximum discharge condition. By the time the tail water is dropped to 0. the jump will probably be Section 1 on the slope. beyond a doubt. All other points indicate that the tail water depth is insufficient to move the toe of the jump upstream to Section 1. the basin will operate satisfactorily for conjugate tail water depth. the designer is free to choose the slope he desires. It will be found that the tail water depth usually exceeds the required jump height for the intermediate discharges resulting in a slightly submerged condition for intermediate discharges. or considering the 13 structures collectively. The horizontal apron tests demonstrate this to be true for the larger values of the Froude number. This procedure results in what has been designated a “tailormade” basin. This is the prime consideration. or reverting to a horizontal apron. Some of the existing basins shown in Figures 38 and 39 were designed in this manner. Should the tail water depth be insufficient for intermediate flows. for example. for the maximum discharge and tail water condition. it will be necessary to increase the depth by increasing the slope. If a horizontal apron is designed for a Froude number of 10. Many sloping aprons have been designed so that the jump height curve matches the tail water curve for all discharge conditions. the minimum . With this method. The extra depth will provide a smoother water surface in and downstream from the basin and greater stability at the toe of the jump. Considering all aspects of the model tests on the individual structures and the sloping apron tests it is believed that 60 percent is sufficient for most installations.76 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS amount of concrete. The slope and overall shape of the apron must be determined from economic reasoning. but as the tail water is lowered to 0. The first consideration in design should be to determine the apron slope that will require the minimum amount of excavation. and the length must be judged by the type and soundness of the riverbed downstream. The overall lengths of aprons provided for the above 13 existing structures are shown in Column 16 of Table 10. but performance will be very acceptable. provided the tail water depth and the length of basin available for ehergy dissipation are considered adequate.98 D. All structures listed in Table 10 and shown in Figures 38 and 39 were designed with the aid of model studies. The rather large chute blocks on Keswick Dam may compensate for the discrepancy indicated by the point in the margin of Figure 37. Matching of the jump height curve with the tail water curve should be a secondary consideration. The ratio of total length of apron to length of jump is shown in Column 30. Shorter basins may be used where a solid bed exists. The degree of conservatism used in each case was dependent on local conditions and on the judgment of the individual designer. greater individual judgment is required. the average total length of apron is 60 percent of the length of the jump. the front of the jump will begin to move. Only the points for Capilano and Madden Dams show an excess of tail water depth for the length of slope used. The length of jump for the maximum discharge condition for each caseis tabulated in Column 29 of the same table. Sloping apron versus horizontal apron. It has been the consensus that the hydraulic jump on a horizontal apron is very sensitive to slight changes in tail water depth. or both. The existing structures shown in Figures 38 and 39 should serve as a guide in proportioning future sloping apron designs. Only then is the jump height checked to determine whether the tail water depth is adequate for the intermediate discharges. Friant and Dickinson Dams show almost perfect agreement with the derived curves while Bhakra (final) and Norris Dams show agreement within practical limits. The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed very few stilling basins with horizontal aprons for its larger dams. It is not possible to standardize design procedures for sloping aprons to the degree shown for the horizontal aprons. As a result of the sloping apron tests it was discovered that this course is not the most desirable. On both these aprons the jump will occur upstream from Section 1 as shown in Figures 38 and 39. but this characteristic can be remedied.96D2. since the sloping apron tests showed.

and excessive divergence of the chute in the steepest portion. In either case the surface of the jump is unusually rough and choppy and the position of the front of the jump is not always predictable. Bringing an asymmetrical jet into the stilling basin at a steep angle usually helps to redistribute the flow to stabilize the jump. A definite improvement can be accomplished in future designs where long flat chutes are involved by utilizing the Type III basin described in Section 3. The foregoing experimentation was sufficiently extensive to shed some light on this factor. This same effect is also witnessed when the angle of divergence of a chute is too great for the water to follow properly. Two factors contribute to the rough operation: the unbalanced velocity distribution in the entering jet. then increase the slope to 2:1. When long chutes precede a stilling basin the practice has been to make the upstream portion unusually flat.0392. but it will serve as an illustration. Determine an apron arrangement which will give the greatest economy for the maximum discharge condition. The above chute is approximately 700 feet long and has a slope of 0. with either horizontal or sloping apron. however. Colorado. 3. With the additional tail water depth. The following rules have been devised for the design of the sloping aprons developed from the foregoing experiments: 1. The tests showed that the slope of chute upstream from the stilling basin was unimportant. provided the velocity distribution in the jet entering the jump was reasonably uniform. immediately preceding the stilling basin. A factor which occasionally affects stilling basin operation is the slope of the chute upstream from the basin. Figure 1A. The most adverse condition has been observed where long canal chutes terminate in stilling basins. Position the apron so that the front of the jump will form at the upstream end of the slope for the maximum discharge and tail water condition by means of the information in Figure 37. a lo-percent factor of safety may be advisable as this will not only stabilize the jump but will improve the performance of the basin. however. the horizontal apron will perform on a par with the sloping apron. where very long flat slopes have caused the velocity distribution to be completely out of balance. Difficulty is experienced. . to design a stilling basin in this range the tail water depth must be known with certainty or a factor of safety provided in the design. as far as jump performance was concerned. Uncompahgre project. Several trials will usually be required before the slope and location of the apron are compatible with the hydraulic requirement. A typical example is the chute and basin at Station 25+19 on the South Canal. Referring to the minimum water curve for Basins I and II in Figure 11. 2. the margin of safety can be observed for any value of the Froude number. and has a great amount of splash and spray. resulting in an overall improvement in operation. or change the original slope entirely . The action is of the surging type. with long flat chutes where frictional resistance on the bottom and side walls is sufficient to produce a center velocity greatly exceeding that on the bottom or sides. This is a governing factor and the only justification for using a sloping apron. To guard against deficiency in tail water depth. which can be constructed at the least cost is the most desirable. the primary consideration in design need not be hydraulic but structural. The operation of this stilling basin is not particularly objectionable. which shows the model spillway for Trenton Dam. The length of the jump for maximum or partial flows can be obtained from Figure 33. When this occurs. the same procedure used for Basins I and II is tail suggested here. For values of the Froude number greater than 9. A photograph of the prototype basin operating at normal capacity is shown in Figure 41. Thus. the velocity distribution can be considered normal. The baffle piers on the floor tend to alter the asymmetrical jet. Thus. the jump is unusually rough. The basin. The stilling basin at the end is also shown in Figure 40. greater activity results in the center of the stilling basin than at the sides. This is not effective. Figure 40. or that corresponding to the natural trajectory of the 77 jet. For steep chutes or short flat chutes. It may be necessary to raise or lower the apron.STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON completely out of the basin. It is recommended that the tail water depth for maximum discharge be at least 5 percent larger than the minimum shown in Figure 11. Recommendations. illustrates this practice. producing an asymmetrical jump with strong side eddies. Efect of slope oj chute.

it may then be necessary to try a different slope or reposition the sloping portion of the apron. If the tail water depth is deficient. 4. it should then be determined that the tail water depth and length of basin available for energy dissipation are sufficient for.78 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS FIGURE 40. If the apron is set on loose material and the downstream channel is in paor condition. the front of the jump may remain at Section 1 (Fig. Sta. In other words. With the apron designed properly for the maximum discharge condition. The portion of the jump to be confined on the stilling basin apron is a decision for the designer. It is not necessary that! the front of the jump form at the upstream end of the sloping apron for partial flows. M+ 19.-South Canal chute. g. Horizontal and sloping aprons will . say. The average overall apron in Figures 38 and 39 averages 60 percent of the length of jump for the maximum discharge condition. and Ti capacity. Uncompahgre QTOjcXt. Figures 38 and 39 may be helpful. 5. %. it may be advisable to make the total length of apron the same as the length of jump. the design is acceptable. or move down the slope for partial flows. provided the tail water depth and length of apron are considered sufficient for these flows. move upstream from Section 1. In making t’his decision. 30B). Colorado. depending upon the quality of the rock in the riverbed and other local conditions. The apron may be lengthened or shortened. If the tail water depth is sufficient or in excess of the jump height for the intermediate discharges.

s. Its dimensions are not critical. Colorado. (This applies to all stilling basins. the most effective height is between O. 9. A small solid triangular sill. It serves to lift the flow as it leaves the apron and thus acts to control scour. and for the higher values of the Froude number where stilling basins become increasingly costly and the performance relatively less acceptable. circulated by the eddies. can abrade the apron and appurtenances in the basin at a very surprising rate.Chute stilling basin on South Canal. The slope of the chute upstream from a stilling basin has little effect on the hydraulic jump when the velocity distribution and depth of flow are reasonably uniform on entering the jump. 6. FIGURE 41 . placed at the end of the apron. Asymmetrical operation is expensive operation. 8.O5D2 and O. 7. This material. is the only appurtenance needed in conjunction with the sloping apron. Eddies can also undermine wing walls and riprap.f. Uncompahgre project. Where the discharge over high spillways exceeds 500 c. 38 and 39).10D2 and a slope of 3:1 to 2:1 (see Figs.) Asymmetry produces large borizontal eddies that can carry riverbed material on to the apron.STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON 79 perform equally well for high values of the Froude number if the proper tail water depth is provided. The spillway should be designed to operate with as nearly symmetrical flow in the stilling basin as possible. per foot of apron width. . where there is any form of asymmetry involved. and operating personnel should be continually reminded of this fact. a model study is advisable.

.

Although the emphasis in this discussion is placed on use with pipe outlets. which requires no tail water for successful performance. and was equipped with a slide gate well upstream from the basin entrance so that the desired relations between head. The pipe was transparent so that backwater effects in the pipe Discharges of over 3 cubic feet could be studied. Basins 1. The inlet pipe was 6% inches. The efficiency of the basin in accomplishing energy losses is greater than a hydraulic jump of the same Froude number. Generalized design rules and procedures are presented to allow determining the proper basin size and all critical dimensions for a range of discharges up to 339 cubic feet per second and velocities up to about 30 feet per second. determine the discharge limitations. Greater discharges may be handled by constructing multiple units side by side. and obtain dimensions for the various parts of the basin. Test Procedure Hydraulic models.Section 6 Stilling (Basin basin VI) for pipe or open channel outlets HE stilling basin developed in these tests is an impact-type energy dissipator.6 to 2. contained in a relatively small boxlike structure. per second and velocities up to 15 feet per second 81 . inside diameter. The need was for relatively small basins T providing energy dissipation independent of a tail water curve or tail water of any kind. The development of this short impact-type basin was initiated by the need for some 50 or more stilling structures on a single irrigation project. tests were made on a single setup which was modified as necessary to generalize the design for the range of expected operations. depth.0 feet wide were used in the tests. Since individual model studies on 50 small stilling structures were too costly a procedure. Hydraulic models were used to develop the stilling basin. and velocity could be obtained. the entrance structure may be modified for use with an open channel en trance.

It is evident that the center photograph (B) represents a compromise between the upper limit operation which is very mild and the lower limit operation which is approaching the unsafe range. requires no tail water for energy dissipation as is necessary for Tail water as high as a hydraulic jump basin. The outlet channel bottom was slightly wider than the basin and had 1: 1 side slopes. These tests are discussed briefly to show the need for the various parts of the adopted design. judgment. Using the middle range of basin widths. the velocity of the incoming flow does affect the performance of the basin. could be obtained during the tests. Had this not been done. The Froude number of the in- . and it was found that for velocities 30 feet per second and below the performance of the structure was primarily dependent on the discharge. Figure 42. The basin was tested in a tail box containing gravel formed into a trapezoidal channel. For velocities of 30 feet per second or less the basin width W was found to be a function of the discharge. Accuracy of this degree is not justifiable. and made minimum by means of trial and error tests on the several models. erosion test results. These should not be arbitrarily reduced since in the interests of economy the dimensions have been reduced as much as is safely possible. some of the variables were eliminated from the problem. d+$ Figure 42. The exact line is not shown because strict adherence to a single curve would result in difficult-to-use fractional dimensions. Various basin sizes. Dimensions for nine different basins are shown in Table 11. When the upper and lower limit lines had been established. Based on depth and velocity measurements made in the approach pipe and in the downstream channel (no tail water). on the other hand. but from a practical point of view it could be eliminated from consideration. Excessive tail water. providing a smoother water surface. With the many combinations of discharge. Actually. The effect of velocity alone was then investigated. other basin dimensions were determined. Development of basin. and reducing tendencies toward erosion. Hydraulic model-prototype relations were used to scale up the results to predict performance for discharges up to 339 second-feet and velocities up to 30 feet per second. discharges. wave heights. The shape of the basin evolved from the development tests was the result of extensive investigations on many different arrangements. it was however. velocity. This should be avoided if possible. and the advice of laboratory and design personnel was used to obtain the finally determined limits. and velocities were tested taking note of the erosion. the change in momentum was computed as explained in Section 1 for the hydraulic jump. To determine the necessary width. shown in Figure 42 as the upper and lower limits. A tail gate was provided at the downstream end to evaluate the effects of tail water. Figure 42. energy losses. therefore. in vertical eddies. The structure. The vertical hanging battle proved to be this device. will cause some flow to pass over the top of the baffle. Since no definite line of demarcation between a (‘too wide” or “too narrow” basin exists. Energy dissipation is initiated by flow striking the vertical hanging baffle and being turned upstream by the horizontal portion of the baffle and by the floor. Regardless of the depth or velocity of the incoming flow (within the prescribed limits) the flow after striking the baffle acted the same as any other combination of depth and velocity. The effectiveness of the basin is best illustrated by comparing the energy losses within the structure to those which occur in a hydraulic jump. Thus. and depth possible for the incoming flow. a line about midway between the two was used to establish the proper width of basin for various discharges. modified. Other basin dimensions are related to the width. an excessive amount of testing would have been required to evaluate and express the effect of velocity. Performance of basin. These lines required far less judgment to determine than a single intermediate line. and operating experiences were all used. The size of the gravel was changed several times during the tests. it became apparent during the early tests that some device was needed at the stilling basin entrance to convert the many possible flow patterns into a common pattern. and general performance.a2 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS necessary to work between two more definite lines. Figure 43 shows typical performance of the recommended stilling basin for the three limits discussed. will improve the per- formance by reducing outlet velocities.

. r... .4.~~~...:~~~::..~. \ \ ..~..~:.. s STILLING SECTION BASIN DESIGN Bedding a’ I SECTION ALTERNATE END SILL DISCHARGE IN C. .“.::d. DISCHARGE FIGURE 42..~..(minj--7 PLA’ N l ry .:...STILLING BASIN FOR PIPE OR OPEN CHANNEL OUTLETS / .....F.. ..i.~...4 Dia.*.-Impact-type LIMITS energy dissipator (Basin VI).:..’ (equals tw with 8”maxJ . . ....’ a 83 .-t.‘...S.::f7:. * . I I &----------------L------------P- 9 ---.....~.

FIGURE 43. Corresponds of maximum disto tabular values.84 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS A-Lowest va1ue of maximum discharge. B-Intermediate value charge. Corresponds to lower limit curve.-Typical performance of impact-type energy dissipator at maximum discharges-no tail water (Basin VI). C-Largest value of maximum discharge. Corresponds to upper limit curve. .

A vent to the atmosphere. basin coming flow was computed using D1. except that it should not greatly exceed 30 feet per second. these may be changed as necessary. .-Comparison and of energy losses-impact hydraulic jump. a further understanding of the design limitations may help the designer to modify these dimensions when necessary for special operating conditions. For greater slopes use a horizontal or sloping pipe (up to 15~) two or more diameters long just upstream from the stilling basin. However. say one-sixth the pipe diameter. the above conclusion is valid. When the basin has silted level full of sediment before the start of the spill. Although performance is obviously not as good. However. Compared to the losses in the hydraulic jump.STILLING BASIN FOR PIPE OR OPEN CHANNEL OUTLETS 85 0' 0 / u 2 ' ' 4 ' 6 8 Fa= 10 & 12 14 16 18 ' 20 FIGURE 44. should be held at the elevation shown on the drawing of Figure 42. Basin Design Table 11 and the key drawing. The basin dimensions. However. a vent may be necessary to prevent pressure fluctuation in the system. the notches provide concentrated jets of water to clean the basin. For submerged conditions a hydraulic jump may be expected to form in the downstream end of the pipe sealing the exit end. but the relation between structure size and discharge should be maintained as given in the table. obtained by converting the flow area in the partly full pipe into an equivalent rectangle as wide as the pipe diameter. The basin operates as well whether a small pipe flowing full or a larger pipe flowing partially full is used. A limit of 15’ is a suggested maximum although the loss in efficiency at 20° may not cause excessive erosion. The entrance pipe may be tilted downward somewhat without affecting performance adversely. Figure 42. The invert of the entrance pipe. a pipe need not be used at all. Figure 45C. regardless of the size of the pipe selected. or open channel. the impact basin shows greater Inasmuch as the basin efficiency in performance. in line with the bottom of the baffle and the top of the end sill. should be installed upstream from the jump. Figure 44. over the top of the baffle if for any reason the space beneath the baffle becomes clogged. Columns 1 and 2 give the pipe sizes which have been used in field installations. an open channel having a width less than the basin width will perform equally as well. The pipes shown would then flow full at maximum discharge or they would flow half full at 24 feet per second. would have performed just as efficiently had the flow been introduced in a rectangular cross section. shown in Table 11. Column 3. The pipe size may therefore be modified to fit existing conditions. In fact. are a function of the maximum discharge to be expected. may be used to obtain dimensions for the usual structure operating within usual ranges. If cleaning action is not considered necessary the notches need not be constructed. If the upper end of the pipe is also sealed by incoming flow. The suggested sizes were obtained by assuming the velocity of flow to be 12 feet per second. Velocity at the stilling basin entrance need not be considered. Columns 4 to 13. The notches shown in the baffle are provided to aid in cleaning out the basin after prolonged nonuse of the structure. the basin is designed to carry the full discharge. it is acceptable.

(1) AWa ($9 ft) MU discharge Q (3) Il. K r __kggested iprap size (19) 3 L) Z t. 90 19.0 14.0 9. 07 9. 91 7. CJ Inches T --- -1 -- w (4) II (5) L (6) a (7) b (8) c (9) 2-4 2-10 3-4 3-10 4-5 4-l 1 5-5 5-11 6-11 d W e (11) O-6 O-6 O-8 O-8 O-10 O-10 1-o 1-o l-3 f (12) g _(13) -. . 14 4. 77 3.0 r zi m > v. obtain 1 Determination of riprap size explained Other dimensions 4’ 3’ in Sec.- (2) 1. lI=e L=e for other wlocities I . is 12 feet per second or half full when velocity basin width from curve of Fig. 27 Q I? i= (15) _.05 8. 9. Impact-type energy dissipator. 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 4.-- 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 72 !- 2 21 38 59 85 115 151 191 236 339 5-6 6-9 8-O 9-3 10-6 11-9 13-o 14-3 16-6 4-3 5-3 6-3 7-3 8-O 9-o 9-9 10-9 12-3 7-4 9-o 10-8 12-4 14-o 15-8 17-4 19-o 22-o 3-3 3-11 4-7 5-3 6-O 6-9 7-4 8-O 9-3 4-1 5-l 6-l 7-l 8-O 8-11 10-O 11-o 12-9 o-11 1-2 l-4 1-7 1-9 2-o 2-2 2-5 2-9 l-6 2-o 2-6 3-o 3-o 3-o 3-o 3-o 3-o 2-1 2-6 3-o 3-6 3-11 4-5 4-11 5-4 6-2 6 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6)/z 6$/2 6% 73. d& 6’ etc.5 12.-Stilling basin dimensions Feet and inches (Basin 1’1). proportional Size may be modified to TV. ts (16) .TABLE Suggested pipe size 1 Dia in.tw (14) t.0 13.-__ (17) -- (18) -. but relation between Q and basin 1 For discharges less than 21 second-feet.5 10. 42. 10. -p z u 1 Suggested pipe will run full when velocity dimensions shown must be maintained. 82’2 9% 10% ll$ 12g by Q=AV.0 7. 62 12. 63 28. 57 15. z v. is 24 feet per second.

Conclusions and Recommendations The following procedures and rules pertain to the design of Basin VI: 1. but if the best possible performance is desired.Channel erosion and emergency operation for maximum tabular tail u. Figures 45B and 42. 2. Columns 3 to 13. scour tendencies. determine the stilling basin dimensions. Figure 45A. . using Table 11.. are suggested sizes based on a velocity of 12 feet per second and the desire that the pipe run full at the . and the height of waves in the downstream channel. designeJifor a maximum discharge of 165 secondfeet. From the maximum expected discharge. ~ . The use of multiple units side by side may prove economical III some cases. Columns 1 and 2. is shown discharging 130 second-feet at a higher than recommended entrance velocity of about 39 feet per second. Performance is entirely satisfactory. B-Less erosion occurs wall with alternative end sill and design. The basin. C-Flow passes appearance over top of when bajfle entire during maxim1Jm emergency discharge operation.. . discharge-impact type energy dissipator-no With the basin operating normally. Figure 46 shows the performance of a prototype structure designed from Table 11.STILLING BASIN FOR PIPE OR OPEN CHANNEL OUTLETS 87 ~ A-Erosion of channel bed-standard wall and end sill. 3. Riprap as shown on the drawing will provide ample protection in the usual installation. The values in Table 11. Compute the necessary pipe area from the velocity and discharge. it is recommended that the alternate end sill and 45° end walls be used. resulting in some tendency to scour. The extra sill length reduces flow concentration.ater (Basin VI) . Use of Basin VI is limited to installations where the velocity at the entrance to the stilling basin does not greatly exceed 30 feet per second. the notches provide some concentration of flow passing over the end sill.. FIGURE 45.

(80 percent of maximum) FIGURE 46. Although tail water is not necessary for successful operation. per- formance . Figure 42. Regardless of the pipe size chosen. 4.88 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS discharge given in Column 3. a moderate depth of tail water will improve the performance. maintain the relation between discharge and basin size given in the table.s. For best performance set the basin so that maximum tail water does not exceed d+~. Discharge 130 c.f.-Prototype of Basin VI. An open channel entrance may be used in place of a pipe. The approach channel should be narrower than the basin with invert elevation the same as the pipe.

The entrance pipe or channel may be tilted downward about 15” without affecting performance adversely. 6. most of the riprap should consist of the sizes given or larger.=bottom velocity in feet per second d=diameter of rock in inches The rock is assumed to have a specific gravity 89 of about 2.STILLING BASIN FOR PIPE OR OPEN CHANNEL OUTLETS 5.65.=2. Maintain proper elevation of invert at entrance as shown on the drawing. 7. is given below V. which appears from a limited number of experiments and observations to be accurate.. An equation (34).6& where V. Erosion tendencies will be reduced as shown in Figure 45. If a hydraulic jump is expected to form in the downstream end of the pipe and the pipe entrance is sealed by incoming flow. 8. . (S5) for determining minimum stone sizes. given in Column 19 of Table 11. an alternative end sill and 45’ wall design are shown in Figure 42. possible operation of basin use. show the minimum size of individual stones which will resist movement when critical velocity occurs over the end sill. The suggested sizes for the riprap protective blanket. Table 11. Suggested thicknesses of various parts of the basin are given in Columns 14 to 18. Since little is known regarding the effect of interlocking rock pieces. 9. The accuracy of the equation is not known for velocities above 16 feet per second. install a vent about one-sixth the pipe diameter at any convenient location upstream from the jump. For best. For greater slopes use a horizontal or sloping pipe (up to 15”) two or more diameters long just upstream from the stilling basin.

.

dimensionless curves were plotted which may be used in the hydraulic design of slotted buckets for most combinations of spillway height and discharge capacity without the need for individual hydraulic model tests. and the maximum and The 1945 and minimum tail water depth limits. The spillway is designed for 247. extensive hydraulic model tests. 2 Angostura Dam is a principal structure of the Angostura Unit of the Missouri River Basin project. 91 . is a major feature of the Columbia Basin project. and is an earthfill structure having a concrete overfall spillway 274 feet wide by 117. (d) eddies appear to be possible at the ends of the spillway.l In 1945. Strict adherence to the charts and rules presented will provide the designer with the smallest possible structure consistent with good performance and a moderate factor of safety. VII) a medium.2 feet high from the bucket invert to crest elevation. T general relations between bucket size. that confirming hydraulic model tests be performed whenever: (a) sustained operation near the limiting conditions is expected. and rejected for one reason or another. on the Columbia River in northeastern Washington. Several types have been proposed. covering a complete range of bucket sizes and tail water elevations.f. and (e) waves in the downstream channel would be a problem. It is on the Cheyenne River in southwestern South Dakota. It is a cancrete gravity-type dam having an overfall spillway 1. It is suggested.2 In 1953 and 1954. the Bureau of Reclamation developed a solid bucket of the type shown in Figure 47A for use at Grand Coulee Dam.650 feet wide by 390 feet high from the The spillway is designed for 1 million cubic bucket invert to crest elevation.000 cubic feet per second. spillways HE development of submerged buckets has been in progress for many years. discharge capacity. (b) discharges per foot of width exceed 500 to 600 c.. were conducted to verify the bucket dimensions and details obtained in 1945 and to establish 1 Grand Coulee Dam. height of fall. feet per second. 1953-54 studies are the subject of this section.Section Slotted and low and dam 7 solid buckets for (Basin high. tested. In 1933. a submerged slotted bucket of the type shown in Figure 47B was developed by the Bureau for use at Angostura Dam. with the aid of hydraulic models. Using the 1953-54 data. however. (c) velocities entering the bucket are over 75 feet per second.s.

particularly for lower ranges of tail water depths. all of the flow is directed upward by the bucket lip to create a boil on the water surface The and a violent ground roller on the riverbed. diving does not occur. showing flow currents have been traced from A-Solid type bucket B-Angostura type slotted bucket Bucket radius= 12”. sweepout occurs at a slightly higher tail water elevation than with the solid bucket.0’ 48. 48 and other drawings one or more photographs. Performance of Solid and Slotted Buckets --v-------/ The solid and slotted buckets are shown operating in Figure 4EL3 The hydraulic action and the resulting performance of the two buckets are quite different. the flow may dive from the apron lip to scour the channel bed. FIGURE . providing less violent flow concentrations than Bed material is neither occur with a solid bucket. duces the most violent boils and ground rollers. part of the flow passes through the slots. the slotted bucket is an improvement over the solid type. is dispersed and distributed over a greater area. carried away. The constant motion of the loose material against the concrete lip and the fact that unsymmetrical spillway operation can cause eddies to sweep the piled-up material into the bucket make this bucket undesirable in some installations. With the slotted bucket. deposited nor carried away from the bucket lip. as shown in Figure 49. 0. and is lifted away from Thus. bucket was solid bucket tests. The upstream current in the ground roller moves bed material from downstream and deposits it at the bucket lip. however.92 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS slotted bucket. are in the following paragraphs. 47.-Submerged General. Trapped material can cause abrasion damage in the bucket itself. general. In With the solid bucket. made summarized The basic concept of the slotted the result of tests made to adapt the These for use at Angostura Dam.0% radius-7 r ‘.3’ Crest elevation to bucket invert = 5. severity of the high boil and the ground roller deLow tail water propends upon tail water depth. it is picked up. With the a Fig. Slotted Bucket Development Tests A-Grand Coulee type solid bucket See Figure 50 for tooth detail .-Performance of solid and slotted buckets. on a 1: 42 scale sectional model. the flow the channel bottom by the apron. Discharge (q) =3 c. Debris that might get into the bucket is immediately washed out. Tailwater depth=2. and dropped again. Here. spreads laterally. and if the tail water is extremely high. bucket.f.s. Both types require more tail water In the solid depth than a hydraulic jump basin.05’ B-Angostura FICIUBE type slotted bucket buckets.

Best performance occurred when the bucket invert was 77 feet below tail water elevation. but for the higher flows loose material piled deeply over the tube exits. The first slots tested were 1 foot 9 inches wide. The second stage in the development was to modify the bucket to prevent bed material from Tubes were placed in the piling along the lip. upward slightly steeper than the slope of the slots. a ground roller. With Tooth Design I. Therefore. per foot of width and a velocity of 75 feet per second. However. however. The 42-foot-radius bucket was found to be the smallest bucket which would provide satisfactory performance for 1. The material remaining between the slots then became known as teeth.-Channel bed a=aw bexfare dives flzs Channel Note: only The diving flow condition when the tailwater depth FIGURE 49. since the slotted bucket had not yet been anticipated. and pressures. an upward sloping apron was installed downstream from the teeth to help spread the jets from the slots and also to keep loose material The apron was sloped away from the teeth. to provide better contact with the jets and thus The apron was found to spread the jet laterally. perform as intended.010 c.f. the slots were made just wide enough to prevent deposition at the bucket lip. Figure 48A. However.-Diving occurs becomes with the slotted too great. spacing. bucket $0~ condition-slotted t Development from solid bucket. the energy dissipating action of the bucket and the elimination of piled material along the bucket lip were both satisfactory. were tested. The slots were found not only to keep the bucket lip free of loose material. For all invert elevations tested. Three tooth designs. small eddies. virtually closing them. the best degree of slope for the apron and the shortest possible apron length were investigated after the tooth shape and spacing were determined. The slot bottoms were sloped upward on an 8’ angle so that the emerging flow would not scour the channel bottom. bucket. lifted loose gravel to produce abrasive action on the downstream face of the teeth. shown in Figure 50. and were made tangent to the bucket radius to prevent discontinuities in the surfaces over which the flow passed. bucket lip through which jets of water flowed to sweep away the deposited material. moved bed material from downstream and deposited it against the bucket lip.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS 93 Tailwater surface -. Results were satisfactory at low discharges. -----+--zL -. Slots in the bucket lip were then used instead of larger tubes.s. Solid type buckets were used in the model to determine these approximate values.he bucket invert for the existing tail water conditions. Tooth shape. formed by the jets leaving the slots. The first tests were undertaken to determine the minimum radius of bucket required for the maximum flow and to determine the required elevation of t. spaced three times that distance apart. but also to provide exits for debris that might find its way into the bucket during unsymmetrical operation of the spillway. To maintain the effectiveness of the bucket action in dissipating energy. .

significant cavitation should not occur for velocities up to about 75 feet per second. was made to conform to the radius of the bucket. 4. when the radius on the tooth edges was increased to 15 inches. the spaces may be too small for convenient construction.6 inches prototype) was found to be the most desirable.-----2 ______ -___ 3 .. Figure 50.f. and spacing 0..000 cubic feet per second per foot of width in a 1:42 scale model having a 42-foot-radius bucket.-Tooth shapes tested for slotted bucket. Figure 50.---7---------8 ----___ -__ $1 to +5to -2 to -13 to -9 to +8 to $16 f13 $15 $16 $11 +16 Pressure Piezit!Yter ._ __ ___ _ 4 ---_ ._ _ _ __ _ +58 +42 +68 f49 $11 +13 +21 $34 +39 ]c’ DESIGN FIGURE DESIGN II Ill-Recommended 50.000 c. A 16” upward sloping . the teeth should be safe against cavitation for velocities over 75 feet per second. per foot.l25R.. A smoother water surface occurred downstream from the bucket.l25R width. Apron downstream from teeth. In other respects. and between the limits shown. The most favorable pressures consistent with good bucket performance occurred with Tooth Design III.. and 5 to positive values. Pressure measurements showed the necessity of rounding Model radii ranging from the edges of the teeth. Subatmospheric pressures occurred on the downstream face of the teeth at Piezometers 3. Reducing the tooth spacing to 0. but were above the critical cavitation range. tooth width O. Pressures on the tooth are shown in Table 13 for a discharge of 1.3 inch were investigated. the 0.f. 4. According to the pressure data.ft.05R spacing. The short apron downstream from the teeth serves to spread the jets from the slots and improve the stability of the flow leaving the bucket.1 to 0.-. 1.. 0. showed improved pressure conditions on the sides and downstream face of the teeth. tail water depth] 77 feet 0 END Piezeter l---.s.s.. per foot of width in a 1:42 scale model having a 4%foot-radius bucket.. 5 showed subatmospheric values. velocity computed from the difference between headwater and tail water elevations. For 1. For small buckets. 0.000 c.e.035R spacing.-Pressures on tooth-Design ZZZ [O.035R raised the pressures at Piezometers 3. it is unlikely that damage would occur as a result of cavitation.-----15.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE 12. i. The larger radius (12.._ -_ _ _ 13._____ 5---------6---. and 5._ _ _ __ _ 16------v 17. Piezometers 1 through 6 fluctuated Piezometers 3. For 0. Tooth Design III. The profile of Tooth Design II. _ _ __ __ 14. of water 9 ____ -___ DESIGN l +22 +62 lo------11 ------_ 12. Table 12 shows the pressures in feet of water at the piezometers..05R at the downstream end. but since these piezometers are on the downstream face of the teeth.035R tooth spacing is satisfactory. eliminating the discontinuity in the flow passing over the teeth. Preliminary tests had shown that pressures on the teeth varied according to the tooth spacing. 4.

The bucket was also tested at a scale of 1:72 on a wide spillway where end effects of the bucket could also be observed and evaluated.f. The slotted bucket thus developed. With a 12” slope. was found necessary to accomplish lateral spreading of the jets and produce a uniform flow leaving the apron.f. erosion after 20 minutes of operation. Slotted bucket performance.by 13-foot glass window on one side. The discharge end of the flume was equipped with a motor-driven tailgate geared to raise or lower the tail water level slowly so that continuous observations could be made. 77 I PE!SSUD2 ft.000 c. feet tail water depth] II Pressure ft. 0.035R spacing. operated well over the entire range of discharge and tail water conditions in the sectional model.s. scale 1:42. In the 1:72 model. The bucket assembly was made detachable from the spillway face. was supplied by two vertical-type portable pumps equipped with two portable g-inch orifice venturi meters. The bucket radius was changed from 42 to 40 feet. and used in all subsequent tests. were tested to determine the minimum length required for satisfactory operation.f. The generalization tests began by first verifying and then attempting to improve the performance of the slotted bucket.l25R width. shown in Figure 47B.5R in length. The gravel analysis: Percent Retained Retained Retained Retained on on on on j&inch screen ________________ -_ j&inch screen __________________ No.__ _ _ _._. Verification of the Slotted Bucket +36 -l-27 -t-30 +26 $14 +27 +39 +64 / II I $63 +a1 += +40 +47 +5s Ckneral. and the performance of the slotted and solid buckets was compared.000 c. The longer apron.000 c. Four interchangeable buckets having radii of 6.s. beyond the capacity of the 12-inch pump. the flow was unstable. 1. longitudinal spreading of the flow was counteracted to some degree by the directional effect of the steep apron. were designed so that they could be installed with the bucket inverts located 5 feet below the spillway crest and about 6 inches above the floor of the flume. constructed according to the dimension ratios shown in Figure 47B. minor changes were made before the bucket was constructed and installed. 12. I Piezometer 95 G enerali&on Tests Slotted Bucket Test equipment. The test flume was 43 feet 6 inches long and 24 inches wide. 4 screen ___________________ Pan. TABLE l3. The sectional spillway model was constructed to fill the flume width with an ogee crest at the top of a 0. For all discharges. per foot. All flow surfaces were constructed of galvanized sheet metal with smooth joints. Figure 51 shows the 1:72 model operation for 247. - i $62 +57 +71 Flow was supplied to the test flume through a 12-inch centrifugal pump and was measured by one of a bank of venturi meters permanently installed in the laboratory. The head bay was 14 feet deep and the tail bay was 6 feet 3 inches deep and had a 4. per foot of width). as shown in Figure 52. of water II Piezometer No. of water NO. . and the maximum discharge was lowered from 277.000 to 247. Additional water.s.s. With a 20 ’ slope. one 10 feet and one 20 feet.7 sloping spillway face. Water surface elevations were measured with hook gages mounted in transparent plastic wells. The performance of the slotted bucket with the teeth removed was evaluated. 9. intermittently diving from the end of the apron to scour the riverbed. A testing flume and sectional model were constructed. Two apron lengths. The downstream channel was a movable bed molded in pea gravel. (900 c.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS apron was found to be most satisfactory. and erosion after lj< hours of operation.-Pressures [O. Performance was excellent in all respects and was better than for any of the solid buckets or other slotted buckets investigated. All venturi meters were calibrated in the laboratory. the water surface was smoother and the erosion of the riverbed was less._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 66 25 3 on tooth-Design III 0. and 18 inches. The 20foot apron on a 16” slope was therefore adopted for use.f.

just below the bucket apron lip. Since little bed erosion occurred with this bucket. with the tail water 2. the bucket performed much the same as the original. test on Angostura Dam spillway. Investigations were undertaken of four modifications of the bucket teeth.f. as shown in Figure 53. improvements in bucket performance were directed toward reducing wave action in the downstream channel.s. at the start of each test. a 12-inch radius slotted bucket was used. and of a solid bucket. Tooth Modification I. Figure 48B. Waves were also slightly higher . The modifications tested are shown in Figure 53.040.96 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF sTI1LLING BASINS AND ENERGY DIssIPATORs ~ ~ Maximum di8charge 900 C. per foot of bucket width. To determine whether practical modification could be made to improve performance. The Angostura type shown in Figure 47 and Figure 53 was tested first to establish a performance standard with which to compare modified buckets. Each modification was subjected to a standard test of 3 c. For the standard test. a boil occurred about 6 inches farther upstream and was slightly higher. and IV proved to be of no value.8. The teeth were extended in height along the arc of the bucket radius from 45° to 600. . The movable bed was molded level. III.114 width.ted bucket I: 72 Scale Model Erosion after 20 minutes ~ Erosion after 90 minutes FIGURE 51 Erosior. 3. 3. Tooth Modifications I. Recommended slot. of the bucket with teeth removed.3 feet above the bucket invert. but was not considered to be of practical use for large buckets. Tail water El.f. per foot of Bucket invert El. This was judged to be bucket capacity at a normal tail water. However. Tooth Modification II was an improvement.

SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS 97 .

-Slotted bucket modiJications tested.5” and space between teeth = 0.21”. .98 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS ANGOSTURA TYPE SLOTTED BUCKET SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATION I SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATION IIt SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATION IX ANGOSTURA TYPE BUCKET WITHOUT TEETH Dimensions applicable to all designsBucket invert to downstream edge of structute = 15. Bucket radius = 12:’ Where shown. Approach chute slope = 7: IO.72’: SOLID BUCKET FIGURE 53. tooth width = 1.

a radius. shown in Figure 53. was tested to compare the action with that of a slotted bucket. but the trend in performance was the primary purpose in making the test. Tooth Modijication IV. The tests also suggested that should the teeth in a prototype slotted bucket deteriorate over a period of time. The bucket without teeth is shown in Figure 53. as shown in Figure 53. Operation was satisfactory for flows up to 2 c. as shown in Figure 53. For a few seconds. The teeth are suggested for possible use in small buckets. However. about two-thirds maximum capacity of the bucket.05 of the bucket radius. In the third modification. as shown in Figure 55A. the flow leaving the bucket was unstable and the water surface was rough.f. Solid bucket. was used as shown in Figure 53 to extend the teeth to a height of 90’. The relationship between head and discharge on the spillway is shown in Figure 54. The tests indicated that the primary function of the teeth is to stabilize the flow and reduce water surface fluctuations in the channel downstream. Bucket Size and Tail Water Limits General. The sweepout depth considered to be too low for proper bucket performance was a limiting tail water depth and was recorded in Tables 14 to 17 (line 2) and plotted in Figure 56. and overfall height was accomplished by testing 6-. Performance was excellent for the standard test. Tests showed that the shorter teeth were not effective in lifting flow to the surface. discharges. erosion of the riverbed was negligible for all flows. the head on the spillway was measured and recorded. the degree of deterioration could be evaluated from the appearance of the surface flow. Only a slight boil could be detected over the teeth. The downstream water surface was smooth and the channel bed was not disturbed.s. Flow passed over and through the teeth to form a high boil downstream similar to the first modification. Tests were made to indicate the value of the teeth and slots in dissipating the energy of the spillway flow. half that of the bucket radius. Lower and upper tail water limits. when the high boil would create objectionable waves. The teeth were extended in height along the arc of the bucket radius to an angle of 90°. per foot of width. The solid bucket. The performance was similar to that shown in Figure 48A and described previously. The bucket also performed well for high and low tail water elevations. In fact. provided the improved performance. Tail water depth is the difference in elevation between the bucket invert and the tail water surface measured at the tail water gage shown in Figure 52. The investigation to determine the minimum bucket size and tail water limits for a range of structure sizes. Testing began with the bed molded slightly below the apron lip at a distance of approximately 0. These tests confirmed the earlier conclusion that a solid bucket may not be desirable when loose material can be carried into the bucket. and l&inch-radius buckets. The flow passing between the teeth provided uniform distribution of velocity from the channel bed to the water surface in the channel downstream. or tihe 90’ curvature of the teeth. the range of tail water depths for which the bucket operated satisfactorily was greater than for any other slotted bucket tested. 12-. R. q in cubic feet per second per foot of width. Performance tests showed that the teeth turned some of the flow upward but the performance was no better than for the Angostura design. the tail water depth was lowered slowly until the flow swept out of the bucket. Slotted bucket with teeth removed. or when a deep erosion hole located from 1 to 3 bucket radii downstream from the bucket lip would be objectionable. the 99 boil would be quite high then suddenly would become quite low. For each test. This modification was made to determine whether the height of the teeth. 9-. The teeth from Modification III were placed on the apron at the downstream end of the bucket. Tooth Modijication III. It wa$ realized that the teeth would be too tall to be structurally stable in any but a small bucket. For each discharge. Figure .SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS Tooth Moo?i&ation II. A large portion of the flow was turned directly upward to the water surface where it rolled back into the bucket. Each bucket was tested over a range of discharges and tail water elevations with the bed molded in two different positions. For larger discharges. Discharges up to about half maximum would be satisfactory if the teeth were entirely gone. The bail water depth in the bucket was about the same as the depth downstream.

7I.--.100 1. The tail water depth just safely above the depth required for the sweepout will henceforth in this monograph be called the lower or minimum tail water limit. At the sweepout depth.6 L 0 a 0. !5~37 I I I 0. 55B shows the 6-inch bucket operating with tail water depth just safely above sweepout.6 I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 5 DISC-IARGE ‘$‘pllU SECOND PER FOOT OF WIDTH calibration FEET FIGURE 54.1 : I I I I Desian head=0-.-Discharge of the 5-foot model spillway. the flow left the bucket in the form of a jet. The jet scoured .6 1 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I = I 0. Figure 55A.

For each discharge. In analyzing the data. diving occurred in spurts not sufficiently long to move bed material. and a rough downstream water surface was in evidence. the upper tail water limit was also investigated. because it was a definite point. was a more definite point. At the same time. the momentary spurts occurred more often. a deep hole was scoured in the channel bed near the bucket.s. the tail water depth required to cause sustained diving was used. in the latter case. normal operating range.f. Diving jet is lifted by ground roller. However. but when the flow was directed toward the surface. Cycle repeats...05 to 0. Flow diving jrom apron D-Tail water same as in C. At the tail water depth required for diving to occur. it was noted that after 3 or 4 minutes (model time) diving suddenly ceased and the flow rose to the surface as shown in Figure 55D. As the depth approached that required for sustained periods of diving. The tail water depth just safely below the depth required for diving will henceforth be called the upper or maximum tail water limit. T. Within C-Tail water above maximum. When the flow was diving. Five or six minutes were required for one cycle as a general rule. In the test data recorded in Table 14 and plotted in Figure 56.5 foot from the tail water depth at which sustained diving occurred. causing excessive erosion and water surface roughness.) FIGURE 55. Figure 55C. The tail water was raised slowly until the flow dived from the apron lip. The changeover occurred only after the movable bed had become sufficiently scoured to allow a ground roller to form beneath the jet and lift the flow from the apron lip to the water surface. In approaching the upper tail water limit. An unstable condition developed in the bucket. B-Tail water below average but above minimum.. . scours channel.76 c. an additional safety factor was included in the design curves. energy was dissipated on the surface. Therefore. The tail water depth for diving. A safe lower limit. the upper tail water limit.3 inch below apron lip at start of test. as shown in Figures 49 and 55C. part of the energy was dissipated on the channel bed.15 foot above the sweepout depth. (Bed level 0. a more undesirable flow pattern occurred just before sweepout.-Six-inch bucket discharging 1. was established at the conclusion of all model testing by adding 0. At the conclusion of all model testing.. the water surface was very smooth.. When diving occurred. considered to be too high for proper performance of the bucket. it is undesirable to design a bucket for both submerged and flip action because of this transition region. a boil formed. Only the sweepout depth was actually measured since it. the strength of the ground roller was reduced until it was no longer capable of lifting the flow to the water surface and the flow dived again to start another cycle which was repeated over and over. Scour hole backfills similar to B. Flow sweeps out. In the former case. was also recorded in Tables 14 to 16 (line 12) and plotted in Figure 56. the channel bed at the point of contact but did not cause excessive water surface roughness downstream. per foot of width (design capacity). as is explained later. was established by subtracting 0.2 foot to the sweepout tail water depth.. Very little bed material was moved downstream out of reach of the ground roller even after several cycles.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS 101 A-Tail water below minimum. T. The ground roller then moved the deposited gravel upstream into the scoured hole until the riverbed was nearly level with the apron lip. The lower tail water limit was found to be from 0.

.7 1.7 0. Cap.toilratrr depth for satisfactory performance of the bucket.L PI I I : I I i i i i P --I! I /- d I/ Minimum depth performonce for sotisfoctory. e.05R below apron lip --. appror.Mox. lip.3 (T) A.7 3. ARRANGEMENT aO5R 0. Min.’ PerfOrmOnCe of bucket when bed / is opprox. I I I I l-t I I’ =-6 -4 c-3 Ff /b cl. ‘\ Approx. tailwoter depth at which diving occursd.__ fl / II 7. lip.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I III A . U”“.4 1.-’ -\ 6 .3 3.5 1. Ert.9 1.e BED S5d Bed Gad G5d G5d Bed G5d approx... . lip. / I : Q 4 / *<. 111.-Approx. * le Q . I .’ %‘I #’ 1 I-r0-x bl -. I .of l0”-Bucket with bed opprox.05~ below apron lip.~ with bed approx. i I I . I’ I d 0 n---^. . . . lip.0 TAILWATER e.05~ below apron lip . toihotw d5pth at which divini occured..toilrater depth for sotisfoctory performance of th5 buckat. -4 --7 1-e I -*a* Appmr Cop.5 1.~ of ttw bucket. 1 Min.. ==~---A.iuilwahr depth ot which diving occurrd Toilwater sweepout depth and Min.06R O.05R 0. .5 A.= --- ‘\ -‘-Minimumtoilwotsr diving oppro: depth for 1 1 I 1 1 I fflinimum tailwater when bed slopes d5pth for up from diving epron to occur lip. Min.a e.9 3. * \ 0 . 0.5 3.1 1.0 3. tailwater depth ot which diving occured Tailwater swapout depth ond Min. \ \ . lip. of ~‘-Bu~. 1 FIGURE 56.5 0.9 2.^I Ir-mYc”eT with bed approx.---M~~!“*.r-_ “.0 I.’ \. a .g5R 0. lip.4 0.O5R below apron lip. opprox opprox.05R 0.toilwatsr depth at which diving occursd. I I i-t A I 0._l_. of B’-Bucket with bed approx.-Maximum depth for satisfactory . x BUCKET RADIUS IR) INCHES 5 0 Is? I5 I.4 FEET e.1 / -m-.\ n . lip. Est.4 3. Cop. 0..7 ?.-Tail water limits and bucket capacities. opprox.X-L I II’1 -tY--1. DESCRIPTION OF TEST DATA SYMBOLS 65d rloprd 1 Ld rloprd apron apron Tailwater swe3pout depth and Min. 0.. O..1 3.05R 0. . lip.5 13 3. Toilrater rweapout depth Est.5 0. .5 A.e DEPTH A.05~ below apron lip. 0.- .5 0.05R up from up from klow blow bebw below b&w below below apron apron apron apron apron apron apron lip.3 1..Max. . oppro~ opprox.5 1. toilwater depth for ratirfoctory performanceof the bucket.s d ho TEST DATA SYMBOLS 0 0 . P \ D &. _c “I .5 3.e 1.

12 4.. 076 2.332 . 84 45. 55 . 86 108 7. 335 .075 16. . 62 2. 1. 2 51. 107 8. 19 2. 20 2. 66 4.) T.019 F=&-e----h-9 10 11 ____ --_ 21. 58 . 223 4. per ft. 983 13.449 12. 983 17 2.)= sweepout depth+0.964 2.) F=Froude number of flow entering bucket computed at TW el. 062 11. 1. 31 16. 187 16. 62 29. 581 203 75 403 0. 043 1. 92 2. 939 2. 54 4. V.) Dr=depth of flow entering the bucket computed at TW el. 526 139 50 339 0. 009 17 2. 89 .026 12. 78 4.417 12. . T msx=max. 678 1. 178 16. 12 0.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS TABLE 103 bucket et beginning of each run 14. 21 4. 02 10.82 2. 81 . 78 . 163 6.31 . 42 15. 352 826 81 026 0. TW depth for good performance (ft. 12 0. 700 2. of crest above bucket invert=5 ft. 243 22 2. 72 18.f. 023 1. 603 4. 413 943 03 143 0.) X= ht. 06 19._ _ _ VI2 2. 10 4.-Data and calculated Bed w&s values rtpprox 14 for B-inch-radius apron lip 0. 40 21. 11 4. 1. 20 18. 50 .935 2. 128 . 70 13. 685 . 85 13. .032 16. 767 . 1. 326 16. 1. 897 2. 198 11. 481 081 30 281 0. 159 .65 .198 . q=discharge per ft.5 to 1. 285 12 Tmin DI D. 72 .72 2.=velocity of flow entering the bucket computed at TW el.464 1.54 . 257 16.) H= ht. . 079 10. 245 12 0. 36 21. 048 13. 47 065 8. 43 4. 1.75 c.05R below 16 Run No.+~----------------. 26 2. 50 14. 541 12. 25 1. of model crest length (c. 16 4. 643 . 279 12 4. 1. 70 . 200 16. of reservoir above the crest (ft. 1.51 3.s. 20 .576 2.i. 101 7.2 ft.90 .=min.213 1. 62 . 20 2. 139 7. 278 . 397 1.200 1. 045 9. 42 . 19 2. 16 R=bucket radius (ft._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .565 2.f. l( 2 13 16 17 18 II Sweepout Conditions 0.5 ft. 1. 965 13.480 1. Maximum capacity of bucket estimated to be 1. 42 14.)= diving depth0. 56 .967 4. 765 . (ft.274 . 12 4. 713 2. 341 . 538 . 23 2. 965 4.s. 309 16. 40 4. 67 77. 231 16. 45 .065 2.06 2. R Diving Flow Conditions 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 T (diving depth)_---_ __ _ T mar . of width. 41 . per sec. 214 . TW depth for good performance (ft. 102 7. 584 12. 133 11. 091 9. 57 4. 374 . 76 2. 270 16. 543 2.881 13.439 1. 1.089 7. 30 1. 12 4.435 1. (ft. 128 6.) T=depth of TW above the bucket invert (ft. 1.486 . 1. 31 29. 23 3. 65 11. 078 10._ .403 2.

5. 53 1. 39 2. 262 .38 . 01 2. 46 1. 238 . 154 7. 35 2. 1. 2. 18 0.14 . 064 4. 170 5.476 1. 072 16. 90 1. 12 4.f. 18 4. V12 2g---------____-_---___--______----. 36 3. 2. 33 093 9. 106 3. 2. 1. 49 18. 18 4. ____-____--___---________ 0. 25 F=&-e-vT mar T‘---- ______-_____-____--_---. 1.+~----------------------------------_-----__----___----2g -&---’ - Diving Flow Conditions - 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 T (diving depth) _______________________ T. 156 5. 212 .43 . 244 . 34 2. 072 16.-Data and calculated values for g-inch-radius bucket of each run 5 6 Bed spprox. 46 NOTE: - See Table capacity 14 for definition of bucket of symbols. 166 16. 682 13. 141 7.782 13. Maximum estimated . of width. 682 41 28 61 0.104 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE 15. 18 D. 226 . 11 1.20 . 09 12. 133 5. 62 11. 112 16. to be 2. 126 8.20 . 07 2. 18 4. per ft. _---______-______--_--------.05R below apron lip at beginning Run No. 44 14. 31 4. 625 . 1.40 . 72 11. 13 2. 078 10.s. 44 4. 1 -7 2 3 4 Sweepout Conditions 0. 15 4. 1. 26 2.969 . 82 2. 85 12.45 . 519 9. 27 10. 060 . 1.733 1.0 to 2. 40 2. 642 33 05 53 0. 946 11. 1. 1. 3. 0. 89 . 44 1. 187 5. 154 .40 .5 c. 93 4. 03 2.28 . 972 . 199 16. 20 . +f---_-------_-----__---_-------- 11. 84 22. 1. 531 19 52 39 0.77 4. 51 2.. 46 10. 1. 56 2. 234 . 722 45 50 65 Tmin--------------------------------- 419 02 05 22 VIZ 2g--------- 4. 1.. 38 1. 114 5. 94 2.___-_____________________________.49 19.802 13. 25 2. 838 . 18 F=~___-__________-_-_-__________ JgD. 28 1. 96 2. 141 16. 1.34 16. 021 11. 69 4. 88 2.

._ .+~~_____--___--------- Diving Flow Conditions 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 T (diving depth) _____ ---___T.--_---------------------. _____ . 9-------------------------. 24 2. D. 63 4.852 1. 192 . 89 2. 38 13.884 1. 51 2. 89 8. 52 1. 985 13. 188 . 37 1.38 2.-. 892 13. 03 8. 11 17. 90 3. F=&. 2. 18 2.22 .-___-._----____-----____-----__________ ______---___------_ ______-_-_ -0._ ___.02 . 22 9. 60 3. 87 .48 . 170 6. 16 .+?. 87 2. 201 .. 26 9. 23 2. 68 2. 37 1. 30 1.08 4.715 13._. 92 10.. 16 . 578 1.688 13. 56 9.242 4.480 .. T (sweepout depth) ____.____-___----~-~~-~~----F=&-9 10 11 +-_ ____ _____-----______--_____---0.982 16.819 . 71 4. ________-. 31 .-------_. 27 2. 00 1. 135 6. 41 14. 534 ______---1.--.. 216 5. I7 8 Bed approx. 0.26 D. 30 2. 077 .____ ----_-__--..94 . 44 1. 89 7. 126 6.- D.___. 87 2. 585 .. 25 8.805 1.. ___--_-__..220 6. 78 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ .764 1.. 89 2.%---------V. 134 .65 .. ___-_. 94 2.984 16.005 16. 07 4. 18 0.____----________.. 18 0. DI_-----------------------. 28 2. 39 1. VI2 _ _ ____ _ . 53 _.-Data and calculated values for 9-inch-radius bucket-Continued of each run 12 13 Run No. 70 3. 80 4. R - - - - . 204 . 74 1. 54 3. T. 014 13.05R below apron lip at beglnnlng 9 10 11 -Sweepout Conditions H_____-----~~-~~----------. 18 -0. _________ ___. T _ _____ ___-_. 354 12. 64 4. 87 3. 2. 187 6._____. 67 3.054 16. 96 2.02 . 131 6. 54 ____________________. 10 3.266 . 46 1.i.206 6. 82 2. 73 0._______-1. 18 0.-. 40 3._--. 824 13.____-----------------VI2 _________--___ %---------V .850 . 203 5. 25 2. 32 1. 224 .23 2.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS TABLE 105 15.06 . 252 4.

19 14. 108 1. 53 13. 57 1. 527 0.55 . 29 .~ 2..47 2. 46 2. _____________---_________-_________- *yl __________-___-_-___ _-_____---_______-__ ._________ __________________ --_ 12. T mar -Jr----DI+~ -& ’ 2g --------__-_______ __________ -. 69 2. 23 2. 86 1.67 2. 23 1. 723 __________ __________ 1. 187 5. 02 1.054 . 60 3. 0.093 8.793 13. 96 1. 40 .909 .in ______________--_--____-___--_____-__-_-_-__-__-_____ DI D.980 .84 . 15 18.00 3. 12 1. 55 2.____ ______-___ -----_____ . 26 .. 138 4. Bed spprox.106 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE E.. 19 2. 73 2.485 T (sweepout depth)-----~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___~~~~~~~_____~~~~~ q~~-___~~~~__~~~~~~~~~~~~. 36 3. 55 2. 081 8.-Data and calculated values for Q-inch-radius bucket-Continued Bed slopes up from apron lip Run No.433 0. 218 . 125 14._________________________----__-___--__-_______________-_____-______-__----_________ D~~~_~~-~~~~_-~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~___~~~~~~~_~____~~~~~~~____-~~~~~~______~~~~_______-~ F=&.. 26 ____________ -_-___ 5. 50 __.+~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------. 43 1. 25 1.._______-----_-----_______----________-_-___-_________-__-______-________-_. 50 2. 790 13._____ % Diving Flow Conditions 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 F=& dgD. 604 2. 01 2.-9 10 11 ----__---------------__--------__---------_____---------_-_-----_-___-_ __________ T. 0. 59 18.--_ .. 32 Tmin _-______-____________ -_ _____-____ ____-_ -___ __________ _____--___ VI2 G _ _ _ _ .35 . 634 0.. 54 0._ __ ____---___ _______-__--________ ----______ ----_-____ v. 56 1.05R below spron lip at beghmlng of each run 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 Sweepout Conditions Hi_________________________ 0.444 12..970 11. 08 15.-.. 07 2. 25 .866 . 42 .. 34 2. 633 0. 46 10. 112 7. 160 5. 26 2._______ _____ . 93 2.. 95 3..797 13.18 .

Testing showed that it was important that the channel bed be below the apron lip elevation to prevent the diving flow pattern from occurring at a much lower tail water elevation. This arrangement proved unsuccessful. Thus.O5R.O5R below the lip. in testing the larger radius buckets a sloping bed was included in the investigation. It was diflicult to obtain consistent results for the tail water depth at which diving occurred. Depths for sweepout and diving were difficult to determine precisely for the larger buckets. and again no upper limit could be found. Upper and lower tail water limits were also determined with the bed sloping 16’ upward from the apron lip to approximately 6 inches above the lip. The flow followed along the floor for a greater distance with higher tail water. Figure 57B.75 c. consistent upper limit results were difficult to obtain. In fact.o the surface. the performance was not as good but was still satisfactory. Tests showed that sweepout occurred at the same depth. The gravel was removed completely so that the floor of the $est flume was the channel bed. No other changes in flow pattern occurred at high tail water elevations. Since it was difficult to maintain the bed shape during the starting of a run. Figure 57A. the sustained diving condition could not be reached at any discharge. the tendency to dive waR present. when the tail water depth above the bucket invert was less than the bucket radius. or 0. However. arrangements of NOTE: Bucket radius (R) is 6 inches. diving occurred at about the same tail water depth as for the 6-inch bucket with bed level O. and momentary diving occurred. Less desirable tail water C-Fixed bed at apron lip level Design discharge. since diving did not occur.-Flow currents for various $xed beds. Figure 57C. FIGURE 57. Therefore. for the 18-inch bucket. For the la-inch bucket it occurred at about the same tail water depth as for the O-inch bucket with bed level 0. . 1. this test showed that excellent performance occurred.f. even when the tail water was raised to crest elevation.3 of an inch. Desirable tail water depth B-Fixed depth bed below bucket invert. the effect of the sloping bed was to reduce the operating range between minimum and maximum tail water depth limits by lowering the upper tail water limit. It was necessary to reshape the bed before each test to obtain reasonable upper limit results. but diving occurred at a much lower tail water depth. For the g-inch bucket. below the apron lip of the bucket at the beginning of each test. represented by a wood floor at the elevation of the apron lip. per foot of width. With deeper tail water. the bed was maintained at approximately O. produced flow currents that followed along the floor for quite some distance before rising t.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS 107 A-Fixed bed below bucket invert. because the upper tail water limit was affected by the shape and elevation of the channel bed with respect to the apron lip. since this type of installation may be desirable in order to reduce excavation costs in many instances. Despite every effort. but in no case was it sustained. However. the gravel was removed from the model in anticipation that the upper tail water limit could be determined from observations of the flow pattern. However. Testing was continued with the gravel bed molded level slightly below the apron lip. The channel bed.05R below the lip.s.

03 1. 60 4. 930 3. 92 .811 1. 140 . 14 10. 52 2. 1. 850 72 28 92 0. 16 3. 63 . 1. 24 6. 961 89 06 09 1.86 15. 126 .25: 6. 24 7.637 1. 163 0.565 0. 00 2.______ -_-___ ---____-_-__-_---_-____ . 1. 062 0. 21 -_-_-_____---_-_-----___---__-_----_------ 4.839 _____ -_______--____-_-1. 166 0.38! 5. 05 1. 25 1.06 15. 93 8. 41 9.221 2. 887 78 54 98 0. 176 0. 3. 33 1.765 1. 791 0. 56 2. 17 0. 24 15. 96 4. 67 2. 136 0. 009 1. 1. 31 4. 24 8. 24 4. 1. 60 4.28 4. 112 . 029 0. 871 16. 4. 88 3. 53 4.592 1. 54 27 58 47 0. 68 3.679 1. 11 16. 08 2. 50 3.________ -__-_ _--------_---1 6. 75 1. 24 5. 169 0. 1. 45 2. 133 0. 53 1. 20 .02 1. 13 4. 24 5. 1. 40 2. 07 16. 037 0. 82 1. 77 15. 48 2. 651 0. 25 --___-_-__---__-------_-____-_-_-_-. 10 -1 4._-_-- . 76 4. 24 .223 . 22 7. 121 0. 24 5.723 0. 3. 860 1. 144 0. I 0.___-0. 91 4.91 15. 12 16. 07 6 7 8 F=L d\/gD. 192 8.05R 6 below 6 values for l&inch-radius apron lip 7 st begimiw 8 of each NII bucket r? Bed 10 ) 11 1 12 1 13 slopes 1 I4 up from ) apron 15 1 lip 16 F lz W Run No. 65 4. I 1 2 I 3 1 9 1 -_ Sweepout Conditions 0. 43 3.93 4. 175 0.+z ____ -_. 1. 729 0.42 6. 51 13.284 .81 4. 931 0. 907 3. 72 4. 60 11.17 16. 171 .___---___---------------------- 9 10 . 18( . 2.79 . 18 9. 01 12. 157 .60 4. 49 8.___-__-__-__--_-___-__----__-____------------ 4. 12: 0.TABLE 16. 84 10.71 4. 23 6. 24 6. 24 7. 24 3. 005 0.-Data Bed was 4 and calculated approx.09 9. 87 4.206 .81 4. +jf----D.

Maximum estimated - I I - . 77: s 2.98 14. 53 ____ -9. 33 2.51 4.364 3. 85 1. 01 .20 -----. 75 1. 46C . 50 2.45 _-_--.482 .093 15 16 F=& dgD1 18 19 +Y---D.228 3.092 8. of width. 81 11. 302 .315-w-m-. 96( ) .253 3.39 .78 16. 96 7.90 .45 1. 154 . 72 12. 12 1.237 8. 37 2. 41 3. 517 3.____ 8. to be 3._____ .217 3.299-e---2.39 . 44 4.95 3.34 4.50 c.889 12. 91 1. 25 2. 42 2. 54 .36 1 3.279 9. 71 13.278 .92 . 181 .95 3.95 3. 2. 00 2.45 1.43 5.37 8. 440 . 63 1. 50 2. 579 .17 3. 52 2.262 4.l 2.02 3.465 . 815 3.62 -_--__ NOTE: See Table capacity 14 for definition of bucket of symbols.50 1. 714 .45 1.00 3.68 14.64 11.39 7.279 3. 04 2. 131 2.s. 61 2. 17 2. 64 .86 17. 64 2. 7 .54 10. 18.614----em .42 4. 35 12. 95 2. 87 2.309 .95 3.f.188 3.281 .11 3. -----.67 12. 36 1. 54 3. 25 3.558 . 171 . 35 1. 702 .+z _____-_-______-_-_________ ._____ 2. 00 2.30 .90 3. per ft. 72 2.29 3. 19 2. 85 1.25 to 3. 721 3.338 4.96 . 35 1. 9. 969 .Diving Flow Conditions 3. 23 10. 241 3.235 3. 31 2. 45 1. 41 2. 31 ____ -_-________ -__ 8.72 14. 36 8. 795 .229 8. 22 2. 87 1. 91 2. 67 2.40 1. 37 5.07 .

734 ___-_-_ 2.771 15. 98 2. 828 15.700 15. 106 . 37 1.________. 27 . 37 0.-Data and calculated Bed 1 ( 2 values for 16inch-radius was 13 approx. > No Data Taken. 15 3. 37 0.230 6. Tmin----------------------------. 0. 2. 24 8._ _.884 15. % 13. 763 15. 161 6. to be 5. 35 2. 99 1. 055 . 98 _ *--DI+$ R DI+- ____-__----___--____---. 56 6.. 277 5.---_ . 631 45 00 65 0. 02 . 083 4. 61 2. ._ _ ____--.045 . 00 4.s.110 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE I?.898 _-----._--___--._____________ ~-__-______-_-_____-____________. 32 3. 80 2._____ -___. 37 H___________-_____-____________. 33 10.39 4. 70 . 824 15. 318 4. 70 . 18 19 20 NOTE: - See Table capacity 14 for definition of bucket of symbols. 23 3. 88 7. X----- depth). 70 4..249 5. 37 1. 07 3. per ft. 68 .776 15. 76 9. 45 3.5 c. V. 355 4. ______ . 058 . 043 . 1. __-___-_ 3.37 1. 081 .__ __ __ _ _-_-_ _-__. 64 4. 39 8. 014 .3.37 - Diving Flow Conditions - - 12 13 14 15 16 17 T (diving T. 22 4. 981 _ 116. 94 11. 7. VP 2g---------___---__-____-_____-_ -_ __ . 56 1. . 025 . 67 . 30 4.~-------------------------.44 . -V? %3---------- ___-__-__-_____--_-. 1. 190 6.--_. 85 3. 78 2. 48 2.f. 3. 125 F=& 9 10 11 _______ __-___-_____-__-_. 03 4.. Maximum estimated ... 98 3. 001 4. 926 .0 to 5.86 . 37 0. -- Sweepout Conditions 0.804 1. of width.05R 14 below apron ( bucket lip 5 at beginning ( 6 of each I-7 run 18 Run No. T (sweepout depth).__-.150 5. 46 4.

f. .5 c.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS 111 A-Flow is about to dive from apron lip-maximum tail water limit has been exceeded B-Flow is diving from the apron.lip-maximum FIGURE 58.-Nine-inch tail water limit has been e:&ceeded bucket discharging 1.s.

sweepout depth and minimum tail water depth and between maximum tail water depth and the diving depth.f. were definitely established.f.8.3 feet. and it was not intended at this time to investigate a bucket downstream from a submerged spillway crest. Figure 56.8.f. per foot of width (design capacity) D-q=%0 c. measurements were made for a range of flows with the tail water at about halfway between the upper and lower limits.f. The performance of the M-inch bucket is shown in Figure 62 for unit discharges ranging from 3 to 5. The performance of the bucket for 1. These values were sufficient . The capacity of the bucket was determined to be 5 to 5. with normal tail water depth of 2. Larger and smaller buckets. the data for the four buckets were surveyed and the margins of safety. Water water A-q=1. Therefore.5 cubic feet per second with normal tail water depths. It was unnecessary to test smaller buckets because very few.f.25 to 3.85 feet are shown in Figure 59.f.s. The maximum capacity of the bucket was determined to be from 3. As the discharge capacity of the bucket was approached.-Nine-inch bucket depth=1.5 foot. The maximum capacity of the bucket was judged from its general performance and by the range of useful tail water elevations between the upper and lower tail water limits. with normal tail water elevation is shown in Figure 55B.and 12-inch buckets.s. At the conclusion of the testing.5 to 4 c. with some extrapolation.f. The maximum capacity of the 6-inch bucket was found to be 3 to 3.112 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS was determined to be 2 to 2. per foot of width Surface Characteristics (Bed level 0. maximum tail water depths would either have submerged the crest or closely approached that condition.75 c. if any. The maximum capacity of the g-inch bucket Figure 60 shows water surface characteristics for the 9. per foot of bucket width. To aid in defining water surface profiles.s. found to be s&&Gent.2 foot and for the upper limit 0.8. Data Analysis Safety factor. the available data were analyzed and. per foot of width C-q=%6 c. In addition.5 cubic feet per second. prototype structures would use a bucket radius smaller than one-tenth the height of the spillway. An ample margin of safety for the lower limit was 0.5 cubic feet per foot of width. Increasing diEiculties in determining bucket capacity and tail water depth limits for near capacity flows made it inadvisable to test larger buckets on the 5-foot spillway. the difference between the upper and lower tail water limits became smaller. A short radius bend is usually avoided on high structures where velocities are also high.5 cubic feet per second.5 c. Figure 61 shows the performance of the 12-inch bucket for unit flows ranging from 2. perfoodof width B-q=%0 c.5 to 1.f.5 inch below apron lip at start of test) FIGURE 59. Maximum capacity.6 c.86 &charging-tail feet.5 to 3 cubic feet per second with a normal tail water depth of 1.s. between.s. Discharges of 1.75 c. or 1.

f. H. . C.:. the sweepout depth... FIGURE 60. R.0 . T maX.h. from the spillway crest to the tail water elevation. Tail water . and T.Yii. per foot of width (Bed level 0.-Average for both the level and sloping movable beds previously described and are included in items T. per foot of width I I I I I I I I I NOTE: Dimensions *Design capacity...‘.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS F------c -------7 . and minimum tail water depth limit. water depth=930 feet. Figure 56 shows that.=f(h..6 inch below apron lip at start of test) FIGURE 61.. per foot of width C-q=%5 c. it is necessary to determine the relation of the variables shown in Figure 63. The available data are shown in Tables 14 through 17 and are plotted in Figure 56..Twelve-inch bucket discharging. A. and 17. for a given height of structure having a particular overfall shape and spillway surface roughness.f. d 113 in the model.s.. ?“. A BUCKET B (R) c 0 E A-q=%6 c.~..f.---+ ~~~~ --d -tl:~~~~~~:.~ii..O c. and may be expressed as q. D. per foot of width (design capacity) D-q=g. B.~. T. h.is a function of the same variables. are functions of the radius of the bucket. they were not considered in the effects are discussed in a subsequent section of ~~~~B~~~~ua~~~~ ~~~~~~~ that the elevation or shape of the movable bed did not affect the minimum tail water limits. 16. Evaluation of variables. 15.s..O c. R. The overfall shape and H determine the discharge per foot. and the head on the crest. To generalize the design of a bucket from the available data.I . T-ft.f. q-cfdft T-ft.I. The height of structure may be expressed as the height of fall. of spillway width. k-----.s.s. of Tables 14. or T. and q> invert (R) c ‘lx”=5 feet) BUCKET s D E Similarly.: . Since the spillway surface roughness and the spillway slope had negligible effect on flow B-q=b..‘_ (Crest elevation to bucket B-INCH Q-cfs q-ds/ft. and E are in inches.14 .i. water surface measurements. but since the slope and elevation of the movable bed IL-INCH Q-cf. the maximum tail water depth limit. T.

=f (F) C-q=4.s.f. are functions of h and q. and 17.+$. tail water depth=%46 (design capacity) feet (Bed level 0.114 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS The Froude number is a function of velocity and depth of flow and may be expressed A-q=3. the bucket is expected to operate over a range of tail water depths. therefore. To express T mlm ‘Lx. Rmti=f (h and q) is plotted against the F&de number in Figure 64. as shown in Figure 63.f. Since VI and D. the minimum bucket radius is a function of only h and q. However. was divided by D. Tmln and T. At these points. tail water depth=930 feet in which VI and D.8. In computing the tabular values. Substituting.f.. T.+= %c D-q=55 c. per foot of width.s. as dimensionless numbers so that they may also be used to predict prototype flow conditions..0 c.=f and (R.. a numerical value expresses a prototype as well as a model flow condition.9 inch below apron lip at start of test) FIGURE 62. 16.. the bucket radius dimensionless ratio R TT2 D. and channel bed). computed from test data. tail water depth=830 feet R. F) (R.-Eighteen-inch bucket performance. and Rmi. frictional resistance in the 5-foot model was considered to be negligible. using only maximum capacity discharge values. R. per foot of width.f.. per foot of width. per foot of width.. The maximum capacity of a bucket is slightly greater for intermediate tail water depths than for the extremes. tail water depth=%80 feet \\ Numerical values for the Froude number were computed from the available test data in the tables for points on the spillway face at the tail water elevation. discharge. are at tail water elevation.=f T. and tail water elevation.= f (h.. were divided by D. then T minand T. These dimensionless ratios and the Froude number. they may be replaced by the Froude number F. are shown in Tables 14. R.. with respect to the apron lip does affect the tail water at which diving occurs. the depth of flow plus the velocity head at tail water elevation on the spillway face. since the Froude number and . ..0 c. Since the Froude number expresses a ratio of velocity to depth and is dimensionless. q. all necessary information for computing velocity and depth of flow can be determined from the available test data which include headwater elevation.. F and channel bed) B-q=%6 c. 15.s. The maximum capacity discharge values are plotted for both the sweepout and diving tail water elevations. To provide data that are useful for determining the minimum bucket radius for a given Froude number.

The solid line. Then. which were obtained by cross-plotting the curves of Figure 65.75 c. includes a factor of safety which is measured by the distance between the solid line and the test points. and since each discharge has two tail water limits. the maximum capacity of the 6-inch bucket is q=1. including the safety factor incorporated into the data as previously explained in the discussion of lower and upper tail water limits. kere plotted versus the Froude number in Figure 65. one for the sloping bed and one for the level bed. therefore.s. data from lines 8 and 11 and lines 17 and 20 were plotted on Figure 64.nd 67. In Columns 7 and 8 of Table 14. The two points obtained for each discharge were connected by a dashed line to indicate the trend in bucket size for constant discharge and varying heights of fall to the tail water surface. The 10 lower curves apply to the maximum tail water limitation and have two sets of labels. A single envelope curve was then drawn. the dimensionless ratios for tail water depth limits. Eight dashed lines were thereby obtained for the four buckets. and each point was labeled with the computed value of the bucket radius ratio. Tmin D and % for each test point in Tables 14 thr$ugh 17. Figure 67 contains similar curves to determine T 2 and includes the extra factor of safety disDl 2 1 values in terms of the . Figure 66 contains a family of curves to determine Froude number and R D. curves were drawn through both the minimum and maximum tail water depth limits having the same bucket radius ratio values. The lower or dashed line curves are a strict interpretation of the values in Tables 14 through 17. To provide data useful for determining tail water depth limits for a given Froude number. Two curves are shown for each value of the bucket radius ratio for the upper tail water limit. shown as the solid line to the right of the preliminary lines.-Dejinition of symbols. to indicate the minimum bucket radius.+g. a version of the same data that is simpler and easier to use is given in Figures 66 a.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS 115 FIGURE 63. The curves of Figure 65 may be used directly to determine minimum and maximum tail water limits for a given Froude number and bucket ratio.f. The upper four curves are for t.5 to 1. bucket radius ratio both vary with tail water elevation. However. four points may be plotted. The upper or solid line curves have an extra factor of safety included because of the difliculty in obtaining consistent upper tail water limit values.he minimum tail water limit and apply to an$ bed arrangement. For example.

To aid in determining approximate water surface profiles in and downstream from the bucket..116 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS . For maximum reservoir elevation 1291. Figure 68. For minimum recommended tail water.65 feet. The actual velocity is less than theoretical at this point./ft i cfs.. the head is 31.0 as D. the spillway discharge is 1 million c. was found to remain fairly constant over most of the design operating range. VT. The two abscissa scales in Figure 67 differentiate between the sloping bed and the level bed used in the tests. The tail water in the river is expected to be at’ elevation 1011 for the maximum flow. Figure 71 is believed to be reasonably accurate. The difference between sweepout depth indicated by the curves and the depth to be expected in the prototype indicates the margin of safety. the actual velocity is found to be 91 percent of theoretical. from Grand Coulee Dam spillway will be used in the example so that the resulting slotted bucket may be compared with the solid bucket individually determined from model tests and now in use at Grand Coulee Dam. T. a step-by-step procedure for designing a slotted bucket is presented.2 MINIMUM 0.6 R 0.s.0 cfs. height of fall./ft 1 “0 0. entering the tail water is 134. The depth of the water in the bucket.t 0.7 0.3 0. Using Figure 71.650 feet.the data of Figure 60 and values scaled from photographs of other bucket tests were analyzed and plotted.f. the theoretical velocity.2/eg EXPLANATION o For bucket radius (R = 6 IY For bucket radius [R = 9 A For bucket radius ‘Rj = 12 0 For bucket radius t R) =I6 Bed level approximately 0.05R lip of apron. dimension B in Figures 60 and 70. about 80 to 85 percent of the dimension T. ~CiURE inches inches inches inches below 64. the percentSage dropped to 70 percent. See Figure 63. The theoretical velocity head of the flow entering the basin is the d8erence between tail water elevation and reservoir elevation. in this example is 91 percent . Discharge data. The calculations are summarized in Table 18. The tail water sweepout depth. Then. in Tables 14 through 17 was also expressed as a dimensionless T ratio -A and plotted versus the Froude number in D. The actual velocity. The height of the boil above the tail water may be deterR mined from the Froude number and the ratio -9 X where R is the bucket radius and X is the height of the spillway from crest to bucket invert. Refinement of the curves obtained resulted in the curves of Figure 70.s. VA. Since the spillway crest is at elevation 1260. information obtained from it should be used with caution. making the discharge per foot 606 c. Sample problems.65 feet. etc. These curves were then cross-plotted in Figure 69 to provide more convenient means for determining the sweepout depth for any installation. but since only a limited amount of prototype data were available to develop the chart. To illustrate the use of the methods and charts given in this monograph. cussed for Figure 65.4 feet per second.4 ALLOWABLE a5 0.+v. V.65. and with high tail water the value increased to approximately 90 percent.-Minimum allowable bucket radius.=J2g(H+h). because of frictional resistance on the spillway face. or 280.f. Practical Applications q= 5. The width of the bucket is 1. and a curve for each bucket size was drawn.

Use these curves to determine Obtained maximum toi in Tables 14 to I 7. . 0./D.16 Maximum 14 tailwater depth limit (T max. and Tmax..05~ Use these values when bed slopes up from IU 14 lb below apron apron 20 22 24 26 28 30 46 Tmin. (Tmin.-Y. depth limit: from data shown in Figure 57 ond computed 12 Use these curves to determine minimum tailwater Obtained from doto shown in Figure 57 ond computed in Tables 14 to 17 IO U 4 0 I Use these values when bed level is approx. /D./D./DI).) including an extra factor of safety------.

-Minimum tail water limit.118 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS I For values of “F” greater FIGURE 66. .

SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS IO 119 /--9 6 For channel bed use coordinate For channel bed D. +V:/Q FIGURE 67. .-Maximum tail water limit.

0 26 water depth at sweepout. Ii I I I IYI I5 IO Ill 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I II A A Y-+I+ = 12 inches I I I I III III 8 6 2 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 2 4 6 8 IO I2 14 I6 18 20 22 24 NOTE: Bed arrangement FIGURE 68.120 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 17 16 R /’ / 1/ I’ 1 I 0. + V. .2/2g= 0.-Tail not critical for sweepout condition.

5 feet. FIGUEE 69. the minimum tail water depth limit of 73 feet provides 10 feet of margin against flow sweeping out of the bucket at the maximum discharge. Having determined D.4 as 0. from which T. 3 21 0 I 0. from which the sweepout depth is 63 feet. e is found 1 5g6 It G 5 4. is 114 feet. the sweepout dimensionless depth ratio is 12.'x I 0. The data in Figure 60 and the curves of Figure 70 may be used to obtain an approximate water IO 0 0 0. The corresponding depth of flow D. This is smaller than the 50-foot radius of the solid type bucket that was actually used at Grand Coulee. a 30-foot bucket radius probably would be used. In round numbers.7.- Tail water sweepout depth. the dimensionless ratio would be 0. Thus.. and the water surface would be as smooth as possible. For the Wfoot radius.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS to be 14.95 feet. and it may be necessary to set the bucket on bedrock so that the invert is more than 3 feet below the riverbed.13.. and VI. of 134.2 0. g or 4.4 FIGURE ‘IO. or 122. In the latter position. From Figure 69. Tail water elevation 1011 at Grand Coulee provides 111 feet of tail water depth above riverbed elevation 900. the dimensionless ratio for the minimum allowable bucket radius is found to be 0.1 I R".12 from the solid line curve. this location may not be practical.3 0. Entering Figure 66 with the dimensionT less ratio and the Froude number. I 0.7. for Tmox. T from Fiie 67. Therefore. -JS D for the bed elevation below the apron lip is fodd to be 23. However.-Water surface projib characteristics buckets only.9(T) 7 for Tmin. from which the radius is computed to be 28.4 feet per second. on the spillway face is -.6. for slotted . the bucket invert should be set no lower than 3 feet below riverbed elevation or more than 38 feet above. is 73 feet. Vl the Froude number is computed to be 9. Entering Figure 64 with Froude number 9.4. 121 from which Tmi.6 B =.3 R 01 'vp 29 0.7. Similarly.7(T) B=. there would be no bed scour.

**Actual velocity._ _. 66 * 43 39 40 . 61 DI+~ _______ -__ _-__-___________ 93. 157. 88 3. 23 9. 095 86. 3 274 365 3.----- -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12. 4 81.38 . 42 76. 49 --+-‘Z ___________-____---____ R~__~_~~~~_~_~~~____-~~~~~~~-~~~ R (used)-_____-____-_____________ R (ret) ____________ . ___________________-____ DI ----- 5. .. 69. 4 24 1 3. 65 134 4 . 65 1. 157. 0 3. 6 89 8. 6 20 8. 5 100 210 14 4 30 14.. 5 49 13. 170.30 . 25 75. 7 71 5. 5 81. 2 80. 0 45 5.98 72. 46 -Missold Diversion D8lll Angosturs Dam 247 3.45 -. . 65 . 7 73 23 114 12. 8. 55 1. 1 46 17. *Theoretical velocity. 06 3. 2 41 15. 0 98 6. 1 40. 43 14 -__ 35 ._ . 5 . 9 32 5.l _________________________ DI+% 56 40 ---___ -__ . 0 62 6.43 .260 31. 3 32.000 1. 181.____ .4 233. 4 5. 70 27. 13 33 133 2.98 72. 5 . 2 24. 4 73. 3 68. 4 2.97 72... 44 . 95 2.650 606 1. 8 274 657 3. 018. 5 74 6 .95 . 5 .98 39.084 86. 24 5. 3 74. 2 13. 4 3. 48 3. 198.84 . 9 274 901 3.785 2. 0 54 9. 4 74.106 85.i.. 043.-Examples of bucket design procedures t -* -_ 1. 6 63 6. 157. 4 644 140 2. 11 1. 4 67 5._______ -___-_ R (used) v. 65 1. 44 ----- ---_ .743 42 266 500 2. 3 25. 53 3. 6 84. 0 74 .114 84 1 73. 60 180 3.52 90 2. 12 28. 700. 70 237. 7 . 2 274 146 3.011 280. 91 122. 3 7. 2 33. 2 . 68 86. 93 . 1 3. 54 2.0 4.71 . 291. 16 12 40 ___. 30 26 40 40 3. 191. 6 2. 5 3. 157. 46 T.__ _66. 2 40. 6 .032 11. 45 . 01 4 25 90. 6 9.122 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE 18. 5 59 7. 2 18 NOTE: See Table 14 for definition of symbols. 04 2. 9 12.-----_ 100 3. 9 72 6. 75 4.

This is a desirable feature when hydraulic model studies are not contemplated. These computations show that the bucket radius obtained for the maximum flow is larger than necessary for the smaller flows and that the tail water depth range for satisfactory performance is greater for smaller flows than for the maximum flow. In this case. the minimum tail water limit would be higher. Discharges for maximum and less than maximum design were investigated for the Angostura installation in Table 18. for the buckets worked out in the section Line 7 shows the conPractical Applications. the bucket invert can be placed below the riverbed. hydraulic model studies make it possible to explore regions of uncertainty in particular cases and help to provide the absolute minimum bucket size consistent with acceptable performance. In general.7 and :=&=0. a bucket-type dissipator requires a greater depth of tail water than a stilling basin utilizing the hydraulic jump. Tail’water requirements for bucket versus hydraulic jump. The 50-foot bucket would provide a smoother water surface profile than the 30-foot bucket as is shown by comparing the 11-foot high boil with the 33-foot high boil. indicating that the methods presented in this monograph provide a factor of safety. large or sudden increases in spillway discharge and effects of discharges from outlet works or powerplant. Other examples in Table 18 . jugate tail water depth required for a hydraulic . or approximately 100 feet. If V. the flow from the apron might scour the channel bed because the tail water depth above the bucket invert is greater than the maximum limit. the ratio F is 20.. or 144 feet above the bucket invert and 33 feet above the tail water.l. Thus. all factors which might affect the tail water range should be investigated. and a still larger bucket radius would be required. Before adopting a design.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS surface profile if the bucket channel bed elevation 900.3. i. On the other hand. Figure 67. which reduces the factor of safety against flow diving. too. the depth of water B would be 90 percent of 111 feet. be estimated from the data in Figure 60.05R. would be 89 feet deep. 80 percent of 111. using the methods presented in this monograph. If frictional resistance is neglected in the velocity computations. In this example. If the 50-foot radius bucket is placed below riverbed elevation so that the bed slopes upward from the T apron lip. and D. and sweepout depth is 67 feet. In the bucket.3X111. The 123 ~ maximum height of boil A is then 1. The water in the bucket. the tail water depth limits are 78 and 183 feet. and the upper depth limit islcomputed to be only 101 feet. or 2. Other means must therefore be used to obtain V.5.. where pertinent data from Table 18 are summarized to compare the minimum tail water depth necessary for a minimum radius bucket with the computed conjugate tail Line 6 shows water depth for a hydraulic jump. For F=9. but the apron lip should be set about 0. the data were ideal for an example. or 11 feet above tail water. for the bucket design. bucket radius.5 feet above riverbed elevation. Another solution would be to use a larger For a 50-foot radius bucket. This is illustrated in Table 19. that the bucket radius determined from the Angostura model study is smaller than the radius shown in the table. though Trenton Dam spillway utilizes a hydraulic jump stilling basin. The Angostura analysis in Table 18 shows. is more than 75 feet per second.e. But the maximum tail water limit would also be higher. losses are considerably higher than would occur on the steep spillways for which Figure 71 was drawn. Tail water elevations for flows less than maximum should also be examined. If the invert of the 50-foot radius bucket is placed at bed elevation to provide 111 feet of tail water. providing a greater factor of safety against sweepout. :=0. invert is placed near $=1. pressures on the teeth should be investigated on a hydraulic model. which is the radius of the solid bucket actually used at Grand Coulee. actual velocity measurements taken from a model were used.include an analysis Alusing the data from Trenton Dam spillway.14 and $=l. This spillway utilizes a long flat chute Friction upstream from the energy dissipator. T. The height of the boil then would be about 122 feet above the bucket invert.093. The maximum difference (A-B) would be about 44 feet for the design tail The length and location of the boil may water.

Enter Figure 67 as in Step 3 above to find maximum tail water depth limit. Enter Figure 66 with pe and F to find DI+~ T.. 2.6 0.124 jump for the HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS same Froude number and D..2 0. dimensions. deter1 Recapitulation of Bucket Design Procedure mined from the equation g= 1/2(dm- 1). Complete the design of the bucket. Use Figures 60 and 70 to estimate the probable water surface profile in and downstream from the bucket. & for maximum flow and intermediate flows. some cases V1 may be estimated from Figure 71.6 0. set bucket so that the tail water depth is nearer Tmi. q (per foot of bucket width).. 6. Keep apron lip and bucket invert above riverbed. spacing. 4. Determine Q. T..6:1..:.o VP.. and T. 240 The slotted bucket. Figure 53.3 0.1 0.9 I . if possible.. R 3. 7. T from which miniium tail water depth limit V..7 0. . For best performance. may be used as an energy dissipator at the base of an overfall.-Curves for determination bucket for steep slope+-0. may be computed. Enter Figure 64 with F to find bucket R radius parameter ~ from which minimum DI+~ allowable bucket radius. ( actual ) F ( theoretical 1 FIGURE 71. Check setting and determine factor of safety against sweepout from Figure 69 using methods of Step 3.5 0. compute Froude number from F=- g---I + = 140 I I I I Y I\ I\ 60 0 0.. Set bucket invert elevation so that tail water curve elevations are between tail water depth limits determined by T. A simplified version of the seven steps required to design a bucket is given below: 1. Wherever practicable. entering T. The sample calculations in Table 18 may prove helpful in analyzing a particular problem.8:l of velocity to 0. 5.4 0. the higher teeth recommended in Design Modification II. R. should be used. 1. Figure 47B. Tests showed the slotted bucket to be superior to the solid bucket in all respects. etc. D. may be computed. using Figure 47 to obtain tooth size.

4 5. the required shown for the two Grand Coulee bucket radii. as . NOTE: If a larger than minimum bucket radius is used. 1 8.- 90 39 3. 1 4. 0 5. 5 1 Proposed diversion dam on the Missouri River Basin project. 0 9. 7 32 20 16 12. 3 72 59 52 39 100 73 5. 000 122. 2 98 49 40 35 - . 6 4.SLOTTED AND SOLID BUCKETS TABLE 19.4 5. 5 3.-Comparison 1 125 jump of tail water depths required for bucket and hydraulic 1 _- 1 _247 72 12. 6 71 67 57 47 180 72 9. 7 183 78 66 50 133 66 7. 6 3. 7 89 46 38 26 40 70 2. minimum tail water depth becomes greater. 7 114 73 66 30 1. 0 9. 5 210 32 24 12 1.000 122.

.

The hollow-jet valve was developed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the early 1940’s to fill a need for a dependable regulating valve. controls and Regardless of the valve openregulates the flow. These difficulties have been eliminated by careful foundry and installation practices. Cavitation damage. the valve has been proved to be a satisfactory control device. the stilling basin is usually constructed within or adjacent to the powerhouse structure as shown in Figures 72 and 73. ing or head. found on a few of the many prototype valves in use. a 24inch-diameter valve was tested at Hoover Dam under heads ranging from 197 feet to 349 feet. The stilling basin is designed to take advantage of the hollow-jet shape. It was found that the hydraulic characteristics of the larger valves could be predicted from the performance of the smaller model valves. thrust determinations on the valve needle. On one installation. To reduce cost and save space. solid jets cannot be used in this basin. To evaluate the valve characteristics at greater than scale heads. the outflow has the same pattern. was minor in nature and was caused by local irregularities in the body casting and by misalinement of the valve with the pipe.Section 8 Hydraulic design VIII) of hollow-jet valve stilling basins (Basin HE hollow-jet valve stilling basin. Figure 75. about 50 percent shorter than a conventional basin. and were tested in the Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory. From these tests and from investigations of prototype valves up to 96 inches in diameter. and rates of discharge were studied in both field and laboratory tests. A complete 6-inch-diameter hydraulic model and a sectional 12-inch-diameter air model aided the design. Piezometer pressure measurements. an annular or hollow jet of water of practically uniform diameter throughout its length. Figure 74. The hollow-jet valve. damage that occurred on the cast 127 . is used to dissipate hydraulic energy at the 1 downstream end of an outlet works control structure.

W.W POWERHOUSE SECTION-THROUGH OUTLET STlLLlNG BASIN 10%” I.128 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS HORIZONTAL SECTION THROUGH POWERHOUSE Reservoir normal 1.-Boy~n Dam outlet works stilling basin and arrangement of powerplant.00 S I both pipesl=o.46lS.D. El. Normal T.gotes--v FIGURE 72.00 Ou?let Works discharge 1320 cfr rtth valva9 100 percent open. EIA621.oo351--*’ 49’ Ring PIPE LAYOUTPLAN follower . El.8. 4619. PenstocksEl. 4725. .

. STILLIN BASIN SECTION THROUGH OUTLET STRUCTURE SECTION A-A ‘84’ Hollow-Jet Volvn PLAN AT EL..: ._‘.------------. .- Yellowtail Dam proposed outlet works stilling basin and powerplant.---.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-JET VALVE STILLING BASINS 129 -..3. 3190 FIGURE 73...-.. .-.-...‘. .

When two valves were used side by side. iron valve support vanes may have been caused by abrasive sediment in the water. a stilling basin is In usually required downstream from the valve.-Hollow-jet valve dimensions and discharge coejicients.000 horsepower. twice or more the length of the basin recommended herein. . the valve was discharged horizontally onto a trajectory-curved floor which was sufficiently long to provide a uniformly distributed jet entering the hydraulic jump stilling pool.OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS DETAIL “B” I I N VANES ALTERNATE AT 45O APPROX. early designs. a long. The design itself is cavitation free.130 HYDRAULIC DESIGN. Because a large valve operating at high heads can discharge flows having an energy content of up to 150. NOTE : All INNER SURFACE in terms OF JET” dimensions of diameter PERCENT OF FULL VALVE OPENING FIGURE 74. This resulted in an extremely long structure.

73. For flat angles of entry.__________ Coefficient C __-_-___________-___ Percentage valve open _____ _ _ __ _. 70 100 30 6 35 24. optimum performance resulted. Yellowtail._____ Depth Length Width D. 835 Valve diameter. The size and intensity of the boil were further reduced when converging walls were placed on the 30’ sloping floor to protect the sides of the jet until it was fully submerged. 5d 25 W :3 L 2:l 1 Upper values in each box were celculsted from Figs. 3 Special case. 72. 6 24 103 6 110 16. they compress the hollow jet between them to give the resulting thin jet greater ability to penetrate the tail water pool. and 82. 5d . ’ Special case.________ W. 70 100 16. Thorough breaking up of the valve jet within . 6 14 60. 5 38 31. 2 19. 9 4. The submerged path of the valve jet was then sufllciently long that only a minimum boil rose to the surface. a series of basic tests was made to de- termine the optimum angle of entry of a hollow jet into the tail water. 7 16. 9d . (3) (2) 4 86 660 . 70 100 38. Therefore._ _ _________ .3:1 3. a testing program was initiated to provide the necessary data. U. and a 30' sloping floor was placed downstream from the valve to protect the underside of the jet from turbulent eddies. accounts for most of the energy losses in the flow. for diversion flow requirements (dentsted sill used and basin size increaeed). 8 19. 6 18. Mexico Yellowtail (4) (5) Trinity Navajo (7) (6) Boysen Falcon. lower values in each box were developed * Valve tilt 24’. and Navajo Dams. A brief description of the individual model tests made to develop the basin type is given in the following section.. in ft. 9 2I._ _ ________________ Converging wall height ___________ Converging wall gap. (9 3. 5 17.._ ___________ Center wall length-. 80. 9 3 2:l 3. 6 104 102. The converging walls have another function.________ . 2 20. In the Boysen Dam model studies. 78. in c. Od . 2 19 13. 22. 4 73.25 W 7L 2: 5:l - . 7 25.4 L 4:l - 6 217 2. 2 18. however. Hydraulic model tests showed that the basin length could be reduced more than 50 percent by turning the hollow-jet valves downward and using a different energy dissipating principle in the stilling basin. It became apparent at this time that generalized design curves could be determined to cover a wide range of operating heads and discharges. costly dividing wall was also required. Sudden expansion of the jet as it leaves the converging walls. the jet did not penetrate the pool but skipped along the tail water surface._ Depth D.460 . for structural reasons. and discharges for these structures. Development of Basin Features Boyszn Dam. 82 through 86. 2 3 3 2:l 4. 5 .65 W . in ft ____________ -_ Design Q. 5 81. When the valves were depressed 24' from the horizontal. 4 17. valve sizes.__ ___ _ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ 6 81. 9 25.50 W 4 1. 6 25. in ft _-___________ Head at valve. Trinity.f.-Comparison - of basin dimensions 12 a F&On. 7 3. 0 1:. 4d .. Id .5 L 6 6:l 41 52’ 31. 2 6 18. inclined floor 30° in all cases. in ft _________ . 1 3 2:l 3. Table 20 gives a summary of basin dimensions. 3 See Figs.S. 77. The first stilling basin of this type was developed for use at Boysen Dam. test heads.340 .5 L (‘1 -- -7 380 2I.52 W 5L 4’:l 7. 8 129 123 19. 70 100 24.________ L. For steep angles.___ __ __ _ _-_-_ Channel slope-. 2 3. a relatively low-head structure.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-JET VALVE STILLING BASINS TABLE Basin Dimensions (1) 131 20. 5 74. 285 . 5 86.8 5 2:l 3. Basins for larger discharges and higher heads were later developed from individual hydraulic models of the outlet works at Falcon. in ft __________________ _ _ ___________ _ _-_ End sill height- End sill slope. in ft. 9 14. 2 12 3 4 4 3. 5 31. from individual model studies. 79. 5 32. 500 -7 315 3.70 100 21. 2 94 18 16. Figure 72.23 W .s _____ . 4 58 10. the jet penetrated the pool but rose almost vertically to form an objectionable boil on the water surface. plus the creation of fine-grain turbulence in the basin.

Scour was not excessive.-Hollow-jet valve stilling basin with and without converging walls. Maximum pressures did not exceed one-fourth of the total head at the valve. the basic concepts of the Boysen design were proved to be satisfactory for greater discharges. Scour downstream from the end sill was mild and prototype wave heights were only 0. somewhat greater than found in the Boysen tests. but still not excessive. The lowest pressure. (a) Stilling action without converging walls (b) Stilling action with short converging walls (c) StiUing FIGURE action with recommended converging waUs 76. one for the United States outlet works and one for the Mexican outlet works. A low 2: 1 sloping end sill was sufficient to provide minimum scour and wave heights. Because of the high-velocity flow from the valves. was 3 feet of water above atmospheric. Falcon Dam. and to reduce the wall gap to about one quarter of the basin width.5 foot in the river channel. the head and discharge were both considerably higher than in the Boysen and Falcon tests. Pressureson the converg- the basin and good velocity distribution over the entire cross section of the flow account for the low velocities leaving the basin. Maximum pressureson the floor beneath the impinging jet were found to be about one-third of the total head at the valve.132 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS (a) Valve fully open (b) FIGURE Valve 50 percent hollow-jet open valve discharging. In the Yellowtail Dam model studies.-Six-inch In addition. Figures 77 and 78. 75. . it was confirmed that dentils on the end sill were not necessary and that the center dividing wall need not extend the full length of the basin. decreasing uniformly to about 2 feet per second near the floor . In the Falcon Dam tests. In these tests. Figure 76(c). and made it possible to further reduce the basin length. and under and near the impinging jet. Figure 73. A verti~al traverse taken near the end sill showed surface velocities to be about 5 feet per second. therefore. Yellowtail Dam. cavitation should not occur. These refinements improved the stilling action within the basin. two separate basins were developed. Pressures on the inside face and downstream end of the converging walls were measured to detennine whether low pressures which might induce cavitation were present. were all above atmospheric. it was found necessary to extend the converging walls to the downstream end of the sloping floor . measured on the end of the wall. Figure 76 shows the perfonnance of a hollow-jet basin both with and without the converging walls. Pressures measured on the sloping floor. and the water surface in the downstream channel was relatively smooth.

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-JET VALVE STILLING BASINS

SECTIONAL

PUN-EL.

196.00

II

1

1

FIGURE

77.-United

States outlet works, Falcon Dam.

SECTIONAL

PLAN-EL.195.00

FIGURE 78.-Mexican

outlet works, Falcon Dam.

134

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 9

PLAN

VIEW

ELEVATION

B-B

SECTION

A-A

FIGURE 79.-Trinity

Dam outlet works stilling

basin.

ing walls and other critical areas in the basin were found to be above atmospheric. Trinity Dam. The Trinity Dam outlet works developed a head almost four times greater and a discharge five times greater than at Boysen Dam. In the development tests, it was found that the performance of this type of basin would be satisfactory for extremely high heads and discharges. Although several variations in the basin arrangement were investigated, no new features were incorporated in the design. Figure 79 shows the developed design. Navajo Dam. The experimental work on the Navajo outlet works was complicated by the fact that the hollow-jet valve basin, Figure 80, first had to serve as a temporary diversion works stilling basin. Since the diversion works basin was larger than required for the outlet works basin, it was possible to insert the proper appurtenances in the temporary basin to convert The it to a permanent outlet works basin. development tests indicated t,hat a larger-thannecessary basin does not in itself guarant#ee satisfactory performance of the hollow-jet valve basin. Best outlet works performance was obtained when the temporary basin was reduced in size to conform to the optimum size required for the permanent structure. Since the Navajo Dam outlet works model was available both

during and after the generalization tests, the model was used both to aid in obtaining the generalized data and to prove that the design curves obtained were correct. Generalization Study

When development work on individual basins had reached a point where the general arrangementi of the basin features was consistent, and the basin had been proved satisfactory for a wide range of operating conditions, a testing program was inaugurated tlo provide data for use in genThese tests were to eralizing the basin design. provide basin dimensions and hydraulic design procedures for any usual combinations of valve size, discharge, and operating head. This section describes these tests, explains the dimensionless curves which are derived from the test data, and shows, by means of sample problems, the procedures which may be used to develop a hydraulic Prodesign for a hollow-jet valve stilling basin. totype tests on the Boysen and Falcon Basins are included to demonstrate that, hollow-jet valve basins that fit the dimensionless curves derived in the general study will perform as well in the field as can be predicted from the model tests. Test equipment. The outlet works stilling basin model shown in Figure 81 was used for the generali-

HYDRAULIC
--f

DESIGN OF HOLLOW-jET

VALVE

STILLING

BASINS

135

SECTIO

FIGURE

80 -Navajo

Dam

outlet

works

stilling

basin.

FIGURE

81.-Jlollow-jet

valve

8tilling

ba8in

model

u8ed for

generalization

te8t8.

136

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS

,,--Hollow I’

jet

valve-Sire

“d”

t

I

---I v..: ----7 .

’ ,’ 43 w L. ol);d

4 +,
V

I --.-walls - .________ ,’

<- Slope D;;;H.kt??E

<-------------3/4L ‘.-----‘--Converging

PLAN

VIEW

--Converging

walls

AzInlet

Area

of valve

0 = Design discharge per valve C = Coefficient of discharge for design valve opening.( See Figure 74) H= Total Head ot. valve = h + V2/2g h ond V = Pressure head and velocity computed at one valve diameter upsteam from valve for design reservoir elevation

SECTION

A-A

24-Inch or larger Riprap------’

,”

z= 7 io Ob

FIGURE 82.-Generalized

design.

zation tests. The glass-walled testing flume contained two stilling basins separated by a dividing wall. The right-hand basin, having the glass panel as one wall, was operated singly to determine the basin length, width, and depth requirements; both basins were used to study the performance with and without flow in an adjacent basin. The glass panel permitted observation of the stilling action and the flow currents within and downstream from the basin. The length, width, and depth of the basin were varied by inserting false walls or by moving the basin within the test box. The tail box contained an erodible sand bed to represent the discharge channel bed. The test valves were exact models of a prototype valve in that the flow surfaces were exactly reproduced, and could be opened and closed to any partial opening. The models were &inch valves machined from bronze castings. The pressure head at each model valve was measured, using a piezometer located in the &inch supply pipe one diameter upstream from the valve flange. Calibrated Venturi meters permanently

installed in the laboratory measured discharges. The tail water elevation in the discharge channel was controlled with a hinged tailgate in the tail box and tail water elevations were determined visually from a staff gage on the tail box wall located approximately 62 valve diameters downstream from the valves. Preliminary procedures. The investigation began with tabulating the important dimensions of the Boysen, Falcon, Yellowtail, and Trinity outlet works basins and expressing them in dimensionless form, as shown in Table 20. Based on these dimensions, a model was constructed as shown in Figure 82, using the s-inch valve dimension to establish the absolute model size. More weight was given to the Yellowtail and Trinity basins because they were developed for higher heads and contained refinements in the converging wall design which improved the basin performance at high heads. Also, the latter basins had been model tested over a greater operating range than were the earlier low-head basins.

000 c.000 to 4. For a given discharge. To produce these discharges. the point at which shorter than ideal. Discharges of 2. and 50%. If the tail water depth was decreased further. With a shorter dividing wall. This increased the flow velocity entering the discharge channel and increased the tendency to produce bed scour. it was found that the tail water could be raised or lowered about 3 feet (0. Increasing the tail water depth beyond this margin reduced the efficiency of the stilling action and allowed the jet to flow along the bottom of the basin for a greater distance 137 before being dissipated. indicating that the stilling action had been completed and that the paved apron and training walls need not extend farther. Confirming tests were then conducted successively on a representative group of basins having the apron lengths previously determined and having an end sill at the end of the apron. In the latter tests.000 to 4. the minimum length of concrete apron was estimated after an inspection of the flow currents in the model had indicated where an end sill should be placed in the prototype. of the basin apron. D. tail water determination. the 3-inch model was assumed to represent an %-inch prototype valve. This also produced surges in the basin and increased the wave heights in the discharge channel.ests open 75a/.ion in the basin and on the smoothness of the tail water surface.000 c. the desired discharge was set by means of the laboratory venturi meters and passed through the hollow-jet valve or valves opened 100 percent.s. tail water depth D in Figure 82. Figure 82. was determined to be the optimum lengt’h of apron.f. In a typical test. The tail water elevation was adjusted to provide the best energy dissipating action in the basin.. These tests were made with the dividing wall extended to the end of the basin. The apron length was taken to the point where the bottom flow currents began to rise from the basin floor of their own accord. Uncovering of the stilling action also produced objectionable splashing at the upstream end of the basin. the height of the valve above the maximum tail water elevation was adjusted to simulate a typical prototype installation. plus the additional length required for an end sill. the scouring velocities minimum and any scouring tendencies would be reduced by the sloping end sill to be added later. the currents turned upward from the apron. was made to determine the ideal width of stilling basin and the range of widths over which satisfactory performance could be expected. It had also been found that scour tendencies in the discharge channel were materially increased if the basin was appreciably Therefore. the action in the basin was examined to determine the ideal length. Preliminary tests.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-JET VALVE STILLING BASINS To provide practical discharge limits for the tests. it had been found that when the basin was appreciably longer than ideal. The latter tail water depth was measured and recorded as the sweepout depth. without assistance from an end sill. The optimum value. Preliminary values were then adjusted as necessary to obtain final ideal tail water depths and apron lengths. since this provided the least factor of safety against jump sweepout. Initial tests were made with the stilling basin apron longer than necessary and with no end sill in place. making the model scale 1:28. was judged by the appearance and quality of the stilling act. the ideal depth of tail water was determined from visual inspection of the stilling action as it occurred over For each ideal a range of tail water elevations. Similar tests were then made with the valve a series of t.s. The water surface directly above and downstream from this point was fairly smooth. were a At this point. With the ideal tail water depth set for a desired flow. Finally.f. in the model) from the ideal tail water elevation without adversely affecting the basin performance. For discharges of 2. sweepout occurs at a tail water elevation slightly less than D..1 foot. Decreasing the tail water depth below the 3-foot margin moved the stilling action downstream in the basin and uncovered the yalve jets at the end of the converging walls. If this action should occur in a prototype structure the deposited material would swirl around in the downstream end of the basin and cause abrasive damage to the concrete apron and end sill. heads of 100 feet to 345 feet of water at the valve would be required. Figure 76(c). L. In the individual model studies that preceded the generalized tests. the flow swept through the basin with no stilling action having occurred. the ground roller at the end sill carried bed material from the discharge channel over the end sill and into the basin. with one valve open 100 percent were considered to be the usual design discharges for a valve of this size. .

138

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS
water was lowered for the sweepout tests. Test procedure was essentially as described for the preliminary tests. Basin depth and length. The preliminary depth curves for both ideal tail water depth and sweepout tail water depth needed but little adjustment. The preliminary basin lengths were found to be too long for the high heads and too short for the lower heads, although both adjustments were relatively minor. The adjusted and final curves are shown in Figures 83, 84, and 85. It was observed that a longer apron than that indicated by Figure 85 was necessary when the tail water depth exceeded the tail water depth limit in Figure 83. As the stilling action became drowned, the action in the basin changed from fine-grain turbulence to larger and slower moving vertical eddies. The bottom flow currents were not, dissipated as thoroughly or as quickly and were visible on the apron for a greater distance, thereby increasing the necessary length of basin. The action is similar to that observed in hydraulic jumps which are drowned by excessive tail water depths. A moderate amount of drowning is tolerable, but it is important that the ideal tail water depth be maintained within stated limits if the best performance is desired. The tail water depth limits-O.1 foot above and below the ideal depthexpressed in dimensionless form is 0.4 d. If this limit is exceeded, a model study is recommended. Basin width. To determine the effect of basin width, tests on several basins were made in whit h only the basin width was varied. It was found that the width could be increased to 3.0 times the valve diameter before the action became unstable. The width could be decreased to 2.5 times the valve diameter before the stilling action extended beyond the ideal length of basin. However, the H/d ratio and the valve opening were found to affect the required basin width as shown for 100 percent, 75 percent, and 50 percent valve openings in Figure 86.. Basin width is not a critical dimension but certain precautions should be taken when selecting a minimum value. If the tail water is never to be lower than ideal, as shown by the curves in Figure 83, the basin width may be reduced to 2.5 d. If the tail water elevation is to be below ideal, however, the curve values for width in Figure 86 should be used. In other words, the lower limits for both tail water and basin width should not be

Practical difliculties were experienced in determining the exact length of apron required, however. Surges in the currents flowing along the basin floor caused the point of upturn to move upstream and downstream a distance of l/4 to l/2 D in a period of 15 to 20 seconds in the model. An average apron length was therefore selected in the preliminary test. The depth D, sweepout depth D,, and length L were then determined for the range of discharges possible with the hollow-jet valve first open 75 percent, and finally 50 percent, using the testing methods described in the preceding paragraphs. Partial openings were investigated because the valve size is often determined for the minimum operating head and maximum design discharge. When the same quantity is discharged at higher heads, the valve opening must be reduced. It may be necessary, therefore, to design the basin for maximum discharge with the valves opened less than 100 percent. When the relation between head and discharge through the valve is changed materially, the minimum required basin dimensions will be affected. The data for the partially opened valves are also useful in indicating the basin size requirements for discharges greater or less than the design flow conditions. Final tests and procedures. The final tests were made to correct or verify the dimensions obtained in the preliminary tests and to investigate the effect of varying the basin width. Scour tendencies were also observed to help evaluate the basin performance. D, D,, and L for the three valve openings are functions of the energy in the flow at the valve. The energy may be represented by the total head, H, at the valve, Figure 82. Therefore, to provide dimensionless data which may be used to design a basin for any size hollow-jet valve, D, D,, and L values from the preliminary tests were divided by the valve diameter d, and each variable was plotted against H/d. The resulting curves, similar to those in Figures 83,84, and 85, were used to obtain dimensions for a group of model basins which were tested with the end sill at the end of the apron and with the valves placed the proper vertical distance above the tail water. For each model basin, a 3:l upward sloping erodible bed, composed of fine sand, was installed downstream from the end sill. The bed was kept sufficiently low that it did not interfere with tail water manipulation, even when the tail

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-JET VALVE STILLING BASINS

IO

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

'-'id
NOTE: Best hydraulic performance is for ideal depths shown. Good performance occurs over range of depths 0.4 (d) greater D, H, and d are defined in Figure 82. “ 0” represent data points shown in Figures 87 and 88. FIGURE 83.-Ideal

or less than

D.

tail water depth.

NOTE: D, is the depth of tail water of the basin. H and d are defined in Figure 82.

above the basin apron when the flow from

the valve

first begins to sweep out

FIGURE 84.-Tail

waler sweepout depth.

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS
and converted to prototype dimensions by multiplying the scaled distances by the model scale. To determine the model scale, the prototype valve diameter in inches should be divided by 3 (the model valve diameter). To determine which of the six photographs represents the prototype in question, the H/d ratio should be used to select the photograph which most nearly represents the design problem. It is permissible to interpolate between photographs when necessary. Center dividing wall. Prototype stilling basins usually have two valves placed a minimum distance apart, and alined to discharge parallel jets. It is necessary, without exception, to provide dividing walls between the valves for satisfactory hydraulic performance. When both valves are discharging without a dividing wall, the flow in the double basin sways from side to side to produce longitudinal surges in the tail water pool. This action occurs because the surging downstream from each valve does not have a fixed period, and the resulting harmonic motion at times becomes intense. When only one valve is discharging, conditions are worse. The depressed

/

/’

Y

/

/

H/d

NOTE:

‘I 0”

H, L, and d are defined in Figure 82. represent data points shown in Figures 87 and 88.
FIGURE 85.--Stilling

basin length.

used in the same structure. The combined minimums tend to reduce the safety factor against jump sweepout and poor overall performance results. The basin width should not be increased beyond 3.0 d to substitute for some of the required length or depth of the basin. If unusual combinations of width, depth, and length are needed to fit a particular space requirement, a model study is recommended. The six model basins Basin performance. shown operating in Figures 87 and 88 illustrate the performance to be expected from the recommended structures, The operating conditions in Figures 87 and 88 correspond to points shown in Figures 83, 85, and 86. Figure 87 shows the operation for 100 percent valve opening; Figure 88 shows the operation for 50 percent opening. The photographs may be used to determine the model appearance of the prototype basin and may help to provide a visual appraisal of the prototype structure. Wave heights, boil heights, or other visible dimensions may be scaled from the photographs (using the scale shown in the photographs)

H/d

NOTE: Best hydraulic performance is for widths shown. Good performance occurs over range of width 2.5 d to 3.5 d. W, H, and d are defined in Figure 82. I* 0” represent data points shown in Figures 87 and 88. FIGURE 86.-Basin

width per valve.

HYDRAULIC

DESIGN OF HOLLOW-jET

VALVE

STILLING

BASINS

141

(a) H/d=16, D/d=3.7, L/d=12.9, W/d=2.5

(b) H/d=40, D/d=5.2, L/d=17.8, W/d=2.7

other arrangements of the center wall are required, a model study is recommended. Valve placement. A hollow-jet valve should not operate submerged because of the possibility of cavitation occurring within the valve. However, the valve may be set with the valve top at maximum tail water elevation, and the valve will not be under water at maximum discharge. The valve jet sweeps the tail water away from the downstream face of the valve sufficiently to allow usual ventilation of the valve. However, as a general rule, it is recommended that the valve be placed with its center (downstream end) no lower than tail water elevation. Riprap size. A prototype basin is usually designed for maximum discharge, but will often be used for lesser flows at partial and full valve openings. For these lesser discharges, the basin will be larger than necessary, and in most respects, the hydraulic performance will be improved. However, at less than design discharge,particularly

(c) Hld=63, FIGUR.E 87.~Hollow-jet

Dld=6.2,

L/d=20.3,

W/d=3.0 basin performance,

valve stilling

valve 100 percent open.

(a) H/d=22, D/d=3,3, L/d=10.0, W/d=2.5

water surface downstream from the operating valve induces flow from the higher water level on the nonoperating side. Violent eddies carry bed material from the discharge channel into the basin and swirl it around. This action in the prototype would damage the basin as well as the discharge channel. In addition, the stilling action on the operating side is impaired. To provide acceptable operation with one valve operating, the dividing wall should extend to threefourths of the basin length or more. However, if the two adjacent valves discharge equal quantities of flow at all times, the length of the center dividing wall may be reduced to one-half of the basin length. The margin against sweepout is increased, but the stability of the flow pattern is decreased as the dividing wall is shortened. In some installations, a fu1l-length wall may be desirable'to help support the upper levels of a powerplant, Figure 72. If

(b) H/d=56,

D/d=4.5,

L/d=15.0,

W/d=2.7

(c) Hld=91, FIGURE

Dld=5.3,

Lid=

17.8, W/d=3.0 performance

8S.-Hollow-jet valve stilling basin valve 50 percent open.

in which d is the inlet diameter of the valve and also the nominal valve size. Figure 85 shows the length ratio L -@1. Since nominal valve sizes are usually graduated in 6-k increments. regardless of structure size. and d=5. therefore. the riprap should extend from the end sill to the top of the slope. Having determined the valve size and therefore the diameter of the supply conduit. However.f. for 100 percent valve opening: c=o. the apron is placed 20.142 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS to be 80 percent of the total head of 108 feet. the computed losses are assumed to be 20 feet. or more. d=6 ft. would be selected. from the end sill.67. In both problems. The depth of the basin is D=20.he upstream velocity of the ground roller. C is computed to be 0. or 86 feet. Riprap having 50 percent or more of the individual stones 24 inches to 30 inches or larger in diameter should provide a stable channel downstream from the end sill. and (b) a double basin for two valves discharging 650 c. The basin depth. and width may be determined from Figures 83. it would not be necessary to open the valve fully to pass the design flow at the maximum head. the average velocity leaving the basin will seldom exceed 5 feet per second.300 c. For 83 percent valve opening. Then A=25 sq.f. in u-hich Q is the design discharge. Model tests showed that graded riprap up to 24 inches to 30 inches in diameter was sufficient to provide bed stability.s.4 feet below the maximum tail water elevation. Design a stilling basin for (a) one hollow-jet valve discharging 1. The riprap should extend a distance D. the usable head at the valve is estimated . g is the acceleration of gravity. If the channel is excavated and slopes upward to the natural river channel. the critical velocity for riprap stability is t. The riprap should not be terminated on the slope.67 ft.7.4. and H is the usable or total head at the valve with the valve center placed at maximum tail water elevation. stones 10 inches to 12 inches in diameter would be ample. the valve opening necessary to pass the design discharge at the design head is 83 percent. from Figure 74. and movement of material may be prevented by placing riprap downstream from the end sill. The justification for choosing riprap as described is as follows: Because of the fixed relationships between depth and width of basin. C is the coefficient of discharge. Figure 83 shows the depth ratio $3. One-valve stilling basin design. Using the equation. Application OF Results Problems. In this example. To protect against these velocities. From Figure 74. ft.88 6 -14. and 86 using the head ratio H ---d . the probable head losses in the system from reservoir to valve may be computed. The valve size should be determined from the equation: Q=CA. 84. 85. which leaves 88 feet of head at the valve. which has a curved path and tends to lift the stones out of place. or more. A is the inlet area to the valve.61.4 ft. Because the selected valve is larger than required.s.2. the reservoir is 108 feet above maximum tail water elevation..k@. the ground roller will tend to carry some bed material upstream and over the end sill into the basin. each. The intensity of this action is relatively mild over most of the discharge range. In this example. in instances close to the design discharge. Surface velocities will therefore seldom exceed 7 to 8 feet per second and bottom velocities 3 to 4 feet per second. length. For 83 percent valve opening.

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-JET VALVE STILLING BASINS The length of the basin is L=67 ft.2 ft. Wave heights in the downstream channel will be considerably The tail water depth for sweepout is therefore 3. the basin has a safety factor against sweepout of 4. The discharge per valve is 650 c. Figure 74. 100 percent valve opening will be necessary to pass the design flow. If the tail water depth from Figure 83 is adopted.s. the inlet area of the valve is found to be 12. 86 shows 143 For 83 percent valve opening. the water surface profile will be moved up or down accordingly. the depth sweepout ratio g=2. If more or less insurance against the possibility of sweepout is desired.f.=13.5 :=4. the apron elevation may be lowered 0.2 D $=3.4 feet of depth is provided.4. If tail water depth 2 feet greater or less than the ideal is adopted for the prototype. turbine.7.4 ft.4(d) = 1.2 feet of tail water depth..=21.6 ft. from Figure 85.5. The dimensions of other components of the basin may be determined from Figure 82. then L=58 W -d=2. Using the methods given in detail in the first example: . L -d=14. as indicated in other photographs showing downstream conditions. and D=16. Water surfaces may be estimated by multiplying the variations shown in Figure 87(a) by the quotient obtained by dividing the prototype valve diameter of 72 inches by the model valve diameter of 3 inches. The tail water depth at which the flow will sweep from the basin may be determined from Figure 84. less.= 16. Figure the width ratio .. the water surface profile will be similar to that shown in Figure 87(a). ft.300 c. below the ideal tail water depth. from Figure 86.f.06. For this example. If greater economy and less margin of safety are desired.6.4 ft.0 ft. but if a greater margin of safety is desired. . Two-valve stilling basin design. and at 100 percent valve opening the valve coefficient is 0. The sweepout depth is D. The width of the basin is w=15 ft. a double basin with a dividing wall is required. To aid in determining the apron elevation.67 in this example. then w= 10. from Figure 84. as in the first example.3. In most installations this is sufficient. or other discharges on the tail water range may need to be considered.4 feet higher to provide only 18 feet of depth. then D. the apron may be set lower or higher by the amount 0. Therefore. since the H/d value of 16 in Figure 87(a) is comparable to 14. The head on the valve is estimated to be 86 feet.=2. A 48-inch valve provides practically the exact area required. from Figure 83.2 ft.7. the basin floor may be placed 2. If two valves are to be used to discharge the design flow of 1. ft. Since 20.4(d)=2. For 83 percent valve opening. From the equation used for one-valve stilling basin design.s. it is assumed that the computations to determine head losses have been made and that the estimated head of 86 feet at the valves is correct. the effect of spillway.48 square feet.

320 .-modelscale: 1:16.616. dischar{Jin{J 1. Since two valves are to be used.f. the water surface profile for determining wall heights may be estimated by interpolating between Figure 87 (a) and (b). The hydraulic design of the basin may be completed using Figure 82. The length of the center dividing wall should be three-fourths of the apron length or 43. hollow-jet valves 100 percent open at reservoir elevation 4. The prototype tests.s. The outlet works baSin at Boysen Dam is designed for 1.725.144 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS FIGURE 89.00.723.-Boysen Dam: left valve of outlet works basin. and have been field tested and found to perform in an excellent manner. Boy8enDam.5 feet long. fI:om two 48-in. Figure 82. Figures 91. and 93. or 29 feet long.-model outlet scale: u'orks 1 :16. and 78. If the tail water depth determined from Figure 83 is adopted.s.f. Water surface variations may be predicted by multiplying values scaled from the photographs by the ratio 48/3. Design tail water elevation at the basin is 4. If it is certain that both valves will always discharge equally. Table 20 shows the important dimensions of these basins and indicates that the values computed from the design curves of this section are in good agreement with those obtained from the individual model tests. the total width of the basin will be 2 (W) plus the thickness of the center dividing wall.00.-Boysen Dam: c. discharging 660 c. The model performance of this basin is shown in Figures 89 and 90.s. 92.320 c.5 and with the powerplant both operating FIGURE 90. Prototype Performance The Boysen Dam and Falcon Dam outlet works stilling basins. were conducted with the reservoir at elevation 4. 77. Figures 72. the wall need be only one-half the apron length.f. fit the design curves derived from the generalized study quite well.

s.5.s. Both valves fully open. Tail water elevations were read on the gage in the powerhouse. A comparison of the model and prototype photographs.-lookiny downstream. This caused the prototype flow to appear more bulky. Greater air entrainment in the prototype is usually found when making model-prototype comparisons.f. FIGURE 91.-Boysen Dam: left valve of outlet works basin discharging 732 c. the prototype basin was as good or better than predicted from the model tests. Compare with Figure 89. and shut down.f. However. the field structure entrained more air within the flow than did the model. Figures 90 and 93. illustrates this difference. In other respectsl however. particularly when the difference between model and prot0type velocities is appreciable. using a current meter to determine the discharge. Dashed lines show the outline of converging walls located beneath spray.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-jET VALVE STILLING BASINS 145 Both valves fully open. The prototype performed as well as predicted by the model and was considered satisfactory in all respects.-Boysen basin Dam: left valve of outlet discharging 732 c.5. Compare with Figure 89. FIGURE works 92. Reservoir elevation 4723. . The spillway was not operating. and "white water" ex:tended farther into the downstream channel than was indicated in the model.-looking upstream. Reservoir elevation 4. The outlet works discharge was measured at a temporary gaging station about 1/2 mile downstream from the dam. 723.

344 c.s. no adverse effect on the performance of the outlet works stilling basin or on flow conditions in the powerhouse tailrace could be found.617. Figure 72. At the gaging station. The flow leaving the structure caused only slightly more disturbance in the tailrace than the flow from the draft tubes when the turbines were operating at normal load.. With the inspection cover.f. FIGURE 93.f. the right valve was discharging 612 c.723.146 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Both valves fully open and both turbines operating at normal load.s. The right valve is supplied by a separate 66-inch-diameter pipe extending to the reservoir. which indicated that ample air could circulate from the partially open end of the stilling basin.Air movements through the inspection opening and in the powerplant structure were negligible. only the left outlet valve was operated.5.5.f. For the initial prototype test. Reservoir elevation 4. the discharge was measured to be 732 c.) It was possible to descend the steel ladder. Compare with Figure 90. greater hydraulic head losses occur in the right valve supply line. When both valves were discharging fully open.f.s. 4.614. Tail water elevati.s.s.344 c. after the tail water stabilized at elevation 4. the tail water stabilized at elevation 4615. Operation of the prototype provided an opportunity to check the air requirements of the structure. to closely observe and photograph the flow in the stilling basin.f. removed. There was no noticeable vibration at the valves or in the basin. The reason for the difference in discharge is that the 57-inch-inside-diameter outlet pipe to the left valve is short and is connected to the 15-footdiameter header which supplies water to the turbines. The outlet works basin performance was also observed with the turbines operating and the tail . the basin was open to the rooms' above. Figures 91 and 92. Figure 92. Figure 72. The basin was remarkably free of surges and spray and the energy-dissipating action was excellent. Although it was apparent by visual observation that the left valve was discharging more than the right valve. It is presumed that valve overtravel caused the valve opening to exceed 100 percent even though the indicator showed 100 percent open. Therefore. Figure 93. . A discharge measurement at the gaging station disclosed that both valves were discharging 1. Since the left valve had been found to discharge 732 c. which accounts for the lesser discharge through the right valve. which could not be done on the model.-Boysen Dam: outlet works discharging1. (This is a greater discharge than can be accounted for by calculations. the powerhouse was not operating. Figure 72.

. this basin is shown in Figures 95 and 96.600 c. W. The outlet works basin on the United States side at Falcon Dam is designed to discharge 2. from two go-inch valves or 2. ELEV. and / .920 c.f. and 99. W.s. or 1. the reservoir was at elevation 301. with the valves 100 percent open and the reservoir at elevation 300.i.400 c. Since the tests were made at normal reservoir level and maximum discharge.f.5 when one valve is operating. from one valve. . .s.570 c.GOOD PERFORMANCE . the stilling basin was subjected to a severe test.8.f. with the valves 100 percent open and the reservoir at elevation 310. 101. were conducted at near maximum conditions. No adverse effects of the outlet works discharge on powerplant performance could be detected.f. and 102.2 when the powerplant is discharging 5. Figures 100.f. The prototype tests at Falcon.400 c./q \\ b “-0. HOLLOW SIZE JET d VALVE CENTER WALL T.s. from one valve.IDEAL #SWEEPOUT T. 98. Falcon Dam.s. Flow conditions in t/he tailrace area were entirely satisfactory. from two 72-inch valves. The outlet works basin on the Mexico side at Falcon Dam is designed to accommodate 4.-Developed basin.83.8 when two valves are operating and 180. The model performance of this basin is shown in Figures 97. Figure 93. The tail water elevation is 181.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-JET VALVE STILLING BASINS water at about elevation 4617.1250 FIQURE 94. Tail water is at elevation 180. in conjunction 147 The model performance of with both valves. ELEV.

FIGURE 95.s.2.-Falcon Dam: Me. 90-inch left valve fully open. approx.f. Reservoir elevation 300. Tail water elevation 181. . discharging 4.-Falcon Dam: Mexican outlet works-model scale: 1 :30.148 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DissiPATORs 90-inch valves fully open.400 c.f. approx. Tail water elevation 181.570 c.s. discharging 2. FIGURE 96. Reservoir elevation 300.2.:I:ican outlet works-model scale: 1:30.

JET VALVE STILLING BASINS 149 72-iIich valves fully open. approx. discharging 2.s. FIGURE 97.-Falcon Dam: United States outlet works-model scale: 1 :24. Tail water elevation 180. approx. discharging 1.s. 72-inch right valve fully open. FIGURE 98. Tail water elevation 180.f.600 c.f. Reservoir elevation 310.-Falcon Dam: United States outlet workB-model scale: 1 :24. .5.8.920 c. Reservoir elevation 310.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW.

0. FIGURE 99. approx.-Falcon Dam: Mexican outlet works. discharging 2. Compare with Figure 95. Reservoir elevation 310.150 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 72-inch valves open 100%.83.s. 90-inch left valve 100% open. Tail water elevation 183.f. discharging 2. approx.300 c. ~ .-Falcon Dam: United Statesoutlet works-model scale: 1:24. FIGURE 100.s.8.f.. Reservoir elevation 301.920 c. Tail water elevation 180.

. Here. It is permissible to increase or deci"ease D by as much as 0. The prototype valve discharges were determined from discharge curves based on model test data. * * * Recapitulation The schematic drawing. the valves were operated together and individually.7. All turbines at both powerplants were operating at 72 percent gate and 100 percent load durin~all tests. and the hollow-jet valve discharge coefficient C from Figure 74. However. Figure 94. solve the equation Q=CA. Use the Hid ratio to select the proper photograph in Figures 87 and 88 to see the model and help visualize the prototype per- .s. Use Hid in Figure 83 to find Did and thus D. Complete the hydraulic design of the basin from the relationships given in Figure 82. gives the margin of safety against sweepout.ld and thus D. Determine the elevation of the basin floor .J2gH for the valve inlet area A and compute the corresponding diameter d which is also the nominal valve size. the prototype basin performed as predicted by the model. In other respects. 5. the tail water depth at which the action is swept out of the basin. the total head at the valve H. The greater amount of air entrainment in the prototype. Single-valve operation represents an emergency condition and subjects the stilling basin to the severest test.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF HOLLOW-jET VALVE STILLING BASINS 151 72-inch left valve 100 percent open. tail water elevation minus D. Using the design discharge Q.-Falcon Dam: United States outlet works. the length of the horizontal apron. the prototype tail water is 3 feet to 4 feet higher than shown in the model photograph. the ideal depth of tail water in the basin. Figures 100 and 101. D minus D.f. caused bulking of the flow at the end of the stilling basin and a higher water surface than was observed in the model. shows the developed basin and the relationships between important dimensions..83. A brief description of the seven steps required to design a stilling basin is given below: 1. Compare with Figures 98 and 99. the width of the basin for one valve.4 (d). 4. evident in the photographs. Reservoir elevation 301. 7. In each outlet works. 182. 6. Use Hid in Figure 85 to find Lid and thus L. FIGURE 101.750 c. approx. too. Use Hid in Figure 86 to find Wid and thus W. 3. 2. Use Hid in Figure 84 to find D. Tail water elevation the valves were 100 percent open. discharging 1. more white water was evident in the prototype than in the model. and this probably helps to produce a higher water surface boil at the downstream end of the basin by reducing the efficiency of the stilling action.

elevation 183. Yellowtail. Turbine gates 72 percent open.W.f.000 c. it is believed that satisfactory future projects may be hydraulically designed from the material presented herein. multiply the scaled values by the ratio d (in.-Falcon 72-inch outlet works valves 100 percent open.500 c. Since the Boysen and Falcon basins performed satisfactorily during prototype tests.1.152 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 90-inch outlet works valves 100 percent open. discharging 4.f. Table 20.)/3.. elevation 184..s.W. Trinity. FIGURE 102. 100 percent load. Stilling basin dimensions calculated in this manner are in close agreement with the dimensions obtained from individual model tests of the basins for Boysenl Falcon. .s. The water surface profile may be scaled from the photograph.6. Dam: Mexican and United State8 powerplants and outlet works discharging at reservoir elevation 301. T. 100 percent load. formance of the design. discharging 3. and Navajo Dams.83. To convert to prototype dimensions. approx. Turbine gates 72 percent open. approx. T. using the scale on the photograph.

A number of baffled chutes have been constructed and tested in the field. struct. successive rows of baffle piers are exposed to. extending to below the channel bottom. Some of the existing structures were developed from designs obtained from hydraulic model tests made for the Other designs for existing particular structure. 2:l or flatter. Since flow passes over. When scour or downstream channel degradation occur. it is not possible to define the flow conditions in the chute in usual terms. and around the baffle piers. stabilizing the scour pattern.Section 9 Baffled spillway apron drops for canal or IX) (Basin aprons or chutes have been in use on irrigation projects for many years. between. The fact that many of these structures have been built and have performed satisfactorily indicates that’ they are practical and that in many cases they are an economical answer to the problem of dissipating energy. the scour creates a stilling pool at the downstream end of the chute. If excessive degradation occurs. The multiple rows of baffle piers on the chute prevent excessive acceleration of the flow and provide a reasonable terminal velocity. Lower unit discharges result in lower terminal velocities on the chute. prevent excessive acceleration of the flow entering the channel. regardless of the height of drop. The chute is constructed on an excavated slope. The flow appears to slow down at each baffle pier and accelerate after passing the pier. If degradation does not occur. it may become necessary to extend the chute. They require no initial tail water to be effective although channel bed scour is not as deep and is less extensive when the tail water forms a pool into which the flow discharges. Baffled chutes are used to dissipate the energy in the flow at a drop and are most often used on canal wasteways or drops.ures were obtained by modifying model153 . Backfill is placed over one or more rows of baffles to restore the original streambed elevation. the degree depending on the discharge and AFFLED B the height of the baffle piers.

NO..--------------125n.. Culvert Under Dike. these features were considered to be standard and did not need to be evaluated as variables. had been utilized in each installation. such as the 2 :l chute slope. .______ SUrfOCe for 0 =1875. when a series of tests to generalize the overchute design was begun.Gila project.-. -.-_ rfc. . Wellton-Mohawk Canal. -_-_ nnd cc-.154 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS spacing was determined for slopes flatter 2:l. Gila Project. A study of the existing baffled chutes showed that certain features of the design. &a. DESIGN INO JUMPIN BAFFLE AlBIG t5.e +s. 9SS+OO. Thus. . “Hydraulic Model Studies of the Outlet Control Structure. However. UPSTREAM FACE I 2 *!t&” k BAFFLE Fw------I Water PIER DETAIL 9~-7~1-..7 PRESSURES WATER DESIGN IA (JUMP IN BASIN1 BAFFLE PIER AlBlC +4.e +.cl OF I BASIN) PIER +2. I SECTION FIGURE 103. Development of Baffled Apron Features tested designs to the extent believed necessary to account for local changes in topography and flow conditions.. the baffle pier row than Prior to the generalization tests. Hyd-359. in a concluding series of tests. and Wash Overchute at Station 938+00Wellton-Mohawk Division.” A fourth study. individual models were constructed to provide a stilling basin upstream from the baffled chute and to develop the baffled chute and stilling basin as a complete unit.s +s.-Wash overchute.. Arizona. “Hydraulic Model Studies of PLAN PIEZOMETRIC IN FEET P.s . Three models that were tested are described in detail in Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. The generalized design procedures discussed in this section were obtained from test results on several models of baffled chutes and from one model which was modified as necessary to obtain information of value in designing a chute for any installation.EZ. - ___________..

- A. (Without (With DESIGN baffles I 0” Crest) 6. different sloping apron. bafle pier arrangements on ??:I . &a. Wellton-Mohawk Canal.-Wash overchute.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILLWAY DROPS 155 Symmetrical about f. DESIGN 4 7 spaces @ 2-T'= 15'-9". DESIGN 2A DESIG’N batflag IA on crrst) Symmetr. DESIGN 6 104. Gila project. 938-i-00. E. DESIGN FIGURE 5 F. DESIGN 3 D. I :II scale model.cal about E--- C.

” is the subject of Hydraulic Laboratory Report No.s. and the chute was 36 feet wide. In Design 3.\‘---‘<3”FilIets . A -A PIEZOMETRIC IN FEET OF PRESSURE WATER . Flow appearance was good and scour depth was 5. strike the second row. Washington. 5 feet less than for Design 1.5 feet. The structure shown in Figure 103 was developed from hydraulic model tests on a 1:12 scale model. Flow appearance was good and scour depth was 7 feet. the upstream row of baffle piers was reduced to 2 feet in height. This resulted in no apparent difference in the operation of the structure. the resulting scour depth in the sand bed at the base of the chute was 7 feet. for 1250 c. In Design 2A. a greater number of narrow baffle piers was used. making the unit discharge about 35 c. In Design lA.f. the spacing of the rows was reduced from 6 feet to 4 feet 3 inches.s. For. and jump over the third row of piers. six different arrangements of baffle piers on the chute were tested. Hyd-411. In Design 6. Flow appearance was poor and scour depth was 9 feet. the Check Intake Structure-Potholes East Canal. Columbia River Basin Project. Wash overchute. These produced a rougher water surface and a scour depth of 8 feet.156 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS the top row of baffle piers was in place. discharge.s.f. Gda project. Scour depth was 7 feet. Figure 104. _ --3&l”-------& ---- SECTION A-A FIGURE 105. A brief summary of the parts of the individual studies which influenced the generalization test procedure is given below. Stepped face baffle piers were substituted in Design 4. the missing row of baffle piers at the top of the chute permitted the flow to continue to accelerate.f. After tests had been made to develop the stilling basin upstream from the chute. For Design 1. The design discharge was 1. . SECTION B-B UPSTREAM FACE -* 2’-4”+- BAFFLE PIER DETAIL W.250 c.S.-Culvert under dike. baffle piers 6 feet high and 2 feet square in cross section were used.Design 5.

BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL

OR SPILL WAY DROPS

157

Considering all factors, including stilling basin performance, flow appearance, scour depth and extent, and structural problems, it was concluded that the arrangement shown in Figure 103 was most desirable. The piers were 3 feet high and 4 feet 6 inches wide, placed in staggered rows 6 feet apart. Water surface profiles and baffie pier pressures for this arrangement are shown in Figure 103. Culvert under dike. The culvert structure developed from 1:12 scale hydraulic model tests is shown in Figure 105. The design discharge was 1,250 c.f.s. and the chute width was 31 feet 6 inches, making the unit design discharge approximately 40 c.f.s. After tests had been made to develop the culvert and the stilling basin upstream from the chute, scour tests were made with baffie piers 3, 4, and 5 feet high on the chute. Results of these tests disclosed the depth of scour for the 4- and 5-foot piers to be approximately the same as that obtained for the 3-foot-high piers. Piers 3 feet high provided the best overall performance. The appearance of the design flow and the resulting scour pattern are shown in Figure 106. Water surface profiles and baffie pier pressures for the recommended structure are shown in Figure 105. Outlet control structure. The outlet control structure stilling basin and baffied chute were developed from 1 :24 scale hydraulic model tests on a half model and are shown in Figure 107. The chute width is 140 feet and the design dis-

charge is 7,000 c.f.s., making the unit discharge 50 c.f.s. Tests showed the stilling basin to be adequate for the design flow released through the control notches, Figure 108A. Baffle piers 3 feet high in rows spaced 6 feet apart provided satisfactory flow in the chute. Scour depth was about 5 feet, as shown in Figure 108B. Check intake structure. A 1: 16 scale model was used in this study. Figure 109 shows the developed design which includes the gated control structure, stilling basin, and baffled chute. The chute is 64 feet wide and the discharge is 3,900 c;f.s., making the unit discharge about 61 c.f.s. Baffle piers 4 feet 6 inches high were tested in horizontal rows spaced at intervals of 9 and 6 feet. No differences in the appearance of the flow were apparent for the two spacings, but the scour depth over most of the area was 2 feet less with the larger row spacing. Figure 110 shows the structure in operation and the scour test results. Figure 111 shows the flow appearance and the resulting scour for a unit discharge of 50 c.f.s. and the 9-foot row spacing. The scour depth is about 1 foot less than for 60 c.f.s. Figure 111 also shows flow conditions for unit discharges of 31 and 16 c.f.s. Normal versus vertical pier faces. Tests were made to determine the effect of constructing the pier faces vertical rather than normal to the chute, Figure 112. For a unit discharge of 35 c.f.s. there was very little difference in performance between vertical and normal placement. Figure

158

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS

Protective

Dfke No.I,Sta.Otl5.

-----Controetlon

joints

PLAN

SECTION

A-A HEAD DISCHARGE CURVE

,.-Symm. v

about

q

ELEVATION

B-B

DlSTdNCE

FROM CHECK WLL

IN FEET

WATER

SURFACE

PROFILES

-Fmfile ----Profile

along centerline of slot. along left trolnlng Wll

---Profile o,ong 0 line 4 fee+ fmm left training WI,.

WATER

SURFACE

PROFILES

FIWJRE 107.-Outlet

control structure,

Gila project.

BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL

OR SPILL W A y DROPS

159

112 shows that the splash was about 5 feet lower with vertical face piers as indicated by the darker wetted area in the photographs. Figure 112 shows the scour patterns obtained after},: hour of model operation. There was slightly less scour in the vicinity of the wing wall when normal pier faces were used. The scour pocket {elevation 906) along the wall of symmetry in the model probably would not have occurred if the full width of the model had been built. The same scour tendencies were prevalent for a unit discharge of 61 c.f.s., Figure 113. There wa.'3 less overall erosion with the pier faces normal to the slope although the scour depths were the same. Generalization Tests

The models. A 1: 16 scale model of a 171-foot length of the Potholes East Canal between stations 1367+69 and 1369+40 was used for the generalization tests. Included Were a reach of approach canal, the gate control structure upstream from the baffled apron, the 2:1 sloping apron, and approximately 80 feet of outlet channel. To make the model features as large as possible, only one-half of the structure was built and tested, Figure 114. The wall on the right in the photo-

graph is the wall of symmetry and is on the centerline of the full-sized structure. The gate structure, shown in Figure 109, was made removable so that studies could be made for low as well as high velocities at the top of the baffled chute. A painted splashboard was installed along the wall of symmetry to record the height of splash. The paint on the board absorbed the splash and showed the splash area as a darker color. The channel downstream from the baffled chute was molded in sand having a mean diameter of about 0.5 millimeter. Discharges were measured through calibrated venturi meters and velocities were measured with a pitot tube. On an entirely different model, a series of tests, scale 1: 10 to 1: 13.5, was conducted to determine the required baffle pier heights and arrangements for chutes constructed on 3: 1 and 4.5: 1 (flatter) slopes. Testing was started using the chute and baffle pier arrangement recommended for 2:1 sloping chutes. Each, variable was investigated in turn and it was determined that only the baffle pier row spacing needed modification. In these tests some of the baffle piers were equipped with an impact tube (piezometer) installed in the upstream face of the pier. The tubes, one in each row on the pier nearest the centerline of the chute, were transparent and were extended

160
I Curtain wall.,

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS

Recommended minimum length of wall and slope--, ‘\ Length of walland

SECTION

A-A

b

,T--Symmetrical

about

%

FIGURE 109.-Check

intake structure,

Sta. iS60+40,

Potholes East Canal,

Columbia

Basin project, 1 :I6 scale model.

BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL

OR SPILLWAY DROPS

161

Baffie piers 4'6" high, row spacing 9'0",

NOTE: Bed was at elevation 914 at start of 30-minute test.

Baffle piers 4'6" high, row spacing 6'0",

FIGURE 110.-Model

of check intake

structure,

discharge at 81 c.f.s. per foot of width.

See details in Figure 109.

162

HYDRAULIC

DESIGN OF STILLING

BASINS AND

ENERGY DISSIPATORS

Flow. Discharge 3,200 c.f.s.-unit discharge 50 c.f.s. per foot width.

Scour. Baffle piers 4'6" high, row spacing 9'0",

31 c.f.s. per foot width. FIGURE 111.-Model of check intake structure, Potholes East Canal, of width. discharges

16 c.f.s. per foot width. at 50 c.f.s., 31 c.J.s., and 16 c.J.s. per foot

BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL

OR SPILLW A y DROPS

163

Flow
Note splash
N ormal-face

area

on wall.
piers.

Discharge 35 c.f.s. per foot width.

Flow.
Vertical-face FIGURE 112.-¥odel of check intake structure, piers. test8 of various-shaped bajftes

Potholes East Canal,

For the free flow tests. 4.3 feet of depth was maintained upstream from the gates.s.f. 3.f. Potholes East Canal. and 118. NOTE: Bed was at elevation 914 at start of 30-minute test. 50. tests of various-shaped baffles through the pier and bent at right angles to rise above the top of the flowing water surface. per foot of width of chute. measured normal to the 2 :1 sloping chute. Vertical-face piers. after which the erosion in the channel bed was measured. after the model was operating.164 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Normal-face piers. The tubes were filled.5 feet.0. and by the height of splash shown on the splashboard.f. Testing procedure. For tests with gate-controlled flow. 117. The tailgate setting was not changed for larger discharges. and 6 feet. The resulting depths for discharges of 35. Each height was tested . per foot width. Four baflle pier heights were included in the original testing program: 3.s. FIGURE 113. For each test. therefore. respectively. The tests on the 2 :1 sloping chute were concerned primarily with the effectiveneBS of the baffled chute in preventing acceleration of the flow down the chute. were 2.5. Relative depths were made visible with contour lines of white string. These tubes were especially useful in determining the most effective spacing of the baffle pier rows. The tailgate in the model was set to provide a tail water depth of 2 feet (elevation 916) in the downstream channel for a discharge of 20 c. and 3.s. Figures 115. the gate structure was removed and the normal depth for the particular flow being tested was maintained in the canal. the channel was molded level at the base of the chute at elevation 914 and the model was operated for 30 minutes. and 60 c. This was judged by the appearance or profile of the flow in the chute. the tail water depth did not build up as much as it normally would in a field structure. The elevations shown in the drawings and photographs are compatible and apply for a model scale of 1 :16. 15. with colored water so that the impact pressures on the pier faces could be evaluated visually. Discharge 61 c.-Model of check intake structure. 116. 5. the depth and extent of scour in the downstream channel.

-Model of check intake structure as used in aeneralization tests. .BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILL WAY DROPS 165 FIGURE 114.

The curves shown in Figure 119 are believed to be reasonably accurate and were found useful in evaluating the height of the baffle piers in terms of general performance. with the spacing between rows fixed at twice the baffle height. per foot of width. The average velocity at the top of the chute was 3 feet per second. individual tests were made for 20. At Point 3..1 feet per second. the velocity was dependent on the baffle pier height. At Stations 0 and 1. Velocity measurements were attempted in the locations shown in Figures 115 through 118.f. Even these showed some inconsistencies.s. The baffle pier widths and spacing within each row were equal to one and one-half times the baffle height. Water surface measurements were made with a point gage and a scale.8 feet per second and reached a maximum of 5.60 per foot of width ---- BAFFLE PIER HEIGHT-3’0”sH -5 -l-J--l 0 5 q=so q”35 ----q-20 -------I 10 15 HORIZONTAL 90 DISTANCE 25 -FEET 30 35 40 45 1 10 FIGURE 115. The average velocity V=Q/A. Since the water surface at any point on the chute varies with respect to time. For all baffle pier heights and a test discharge of 60 c. On the slope. the initial bottom velocity was about 1. The velocities in themselves . per foot of width.166 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 1 WATER BAFFLED CHUTE STUDIES SURFACE PROFILES cfs 4. but velocity curves for the range of discharges were determined by using general knowledge and judgment to adjust the obviously incorrect measured values. and was reduced at Point 3.s. taking the maximum water surface at each measured point. the profiles obtained are higher than the profiles shown in a photograph of the same test.5 feet per second at Point 2. For a unit discharge of 20 c. 50. at the top of the chute was 7 feet per second. reached a maximum of about 4. where turbulence and unsteadiness are characteristic of the flow. as shown in Figure 119. H=S’O”. the flow was smooth and uniform.s. and 60 c. For each baffle pier arrangement. which portray the appearance of the flow at a particular moment. The velocity measurements in other parts of the chute are summarized in the notes of Figure 119.f. the data are accurate. The measured profiles of Figures 115 to 118 are believed to be more dependable for estimating necessary wall heights than are the photographs in the report. 35.-Bajled chute studies. Test results. the flow entering the chute had a bottom velocity of about 1. only the measurements at Point 3 were considered to be dependable.5 feet per second at Point 2. Ba$le pier height.f.

f. The 4.f. At 35 c. The deepest erosion hole with the 5-foot . is considerably higher than when higher baffles are used with the same discharge. the deepest erosion being to elevation 906.-Bafled chute studies. exposing the end of the chute. the bottom velocity at Point 3.s. per foot. Appearance of the flow on the chute and in the downstream channel for the 5-foot baffles. Although the velocity at Point 3. but do help the reader to visualize the velocity distribution on the chute.20 --------- FIGURE 116. When the 6-foot baffles were used: erosion was to elevation 900. per foot with the 4.and 4-foot baffles.and 4-fo. are not important in generalizing the design of the baffled chute. When the S-foot baffles were used.f. With low baffles and high discharges.f. for 60 c. erosion was only to elevation 905 and the extent of the erosion was also less.s. The most favorable erosion patterns occurred with the 3.and 5foot baffles.s. was better than for the g-foot baffles. The same relative performance was evident for the 50 c. but the appearance for the 4-foot baffles was still better.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILLWAY DROPS 167 WATER BAFFLED CHUTE STUDIES SURFACE PROFILES cfs per foot q=60 of width BAFFLE PIER HEIGHT-4’O”=H qz!jl) ---q-35 ----q. Figure l2lA. per foot flow.s. was considerably less than for the 3-foot baffles. Base pier height. Figure 120. The erosion patterns for the 4and 5-foot baffles were better than for the 3. the flow patterns were all satisfactory in appearance. the erosion was more severe.or 6-foot baffles. per foot and the 6-foot baffles.ot baffles. This is because a larger volume of water passes over the tops of the low baffles and the decelerating effect of the baffles on the entire volume of flow is less. H=/t’O”.and 5-foot baffles produced the best flow appearance and the 5-foot baffles produced the most favorable scour and splash patterns. Figure 121 shows the flow for 50 c. Figure 119. Figure 121B. The least splash occurred with the 3.

although scour depths were about the same as found for the 3-foot-high baffles.s. end of the chute. with the 5-foot baffles to elevation 905.f. too much high velocity flow passed over the tops of the piers.s..168 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS I .s.a. Listed are the lowest scour-hole elevations (1) at the wing wall visible in the photographs. The deepest erosion hole was to elevation 908. Figure 122B shows the flow pattern and erosion for the 3-foot baffles and 20 c.s. flow appearances were all good but the S-foot baffles showed a slightly better flow pattern. per foot. the scour depth exceeded that for the S-foot baffles and the flow appearance was not good . The scour pattern was also most favorable with the S-foot baffles.-Bajled chute studies. but the splash for the 6-foot baffles was somewhat greater.f. Figure l22A shows the flow pattern and erosion for the 3-foot baffles and 35 c. The 4-foot baffles produced the least erosion near the wing wall at the The splash patterns for 3-. per foot of width. and with the 6foot baffles to elevation 906. and 5-foot baffles were almost identical. Splash was minimum with the 4-foot baffles but was not much greater with the 3-foot baffles.f. Bafle pier height.f. H=6’0”. Scour tests showed this to be true. per foot. For a discharge of 35 c.s. (2) downstream from chute.f. A summary of scour test data is given in Table 21. Erosion with the 4-foot baffles was to elevation 907. per foot of width. For 20 c. Scour along the wall of symmetry was not con- . baffles was to elevation 905. and (3) the average of the elevations in (1) and (2). it was apparent that baffles 2 feet high might provide ample scour protection for a design discharge of 20 c. After partial analysis of the test dat.Jelocitv measurina I I / I iI \ \ I BAFFLED CHUTE STUDIES BAFFLE PIER HEIGHT- 5?0”=H HORIZONTAL DISTANCE - FEET FIGURE 117. per foot of width. 4-.

D.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL q:50 q=60 OR SPILLWAY DROPS 169 Water flows Water flows WATER over the wall from over the wall from SURFACE PROFILES dlstancet22 distoncet22tot4o tot34 c.8. per foot of width q=50 w-eq. A. In Groups B and C. in all cases to 3.f.. and at 60 c.and 4-foot piers show minimum scour for the maximum design discharge of 60 c. the depth of scour at the end of the chute and the average of the maximum depths show the same general trend.s. plotted from the velocity curves of Figure 119 and one group. the pier heights would vary from 2 feet for 20 c. In Group A.-Based chute studies. the 3. . the scour depth at the wing wall is a minimum for the 2and 3-foot-high piers for a discharge of 20 c. At 35 c. one group. and C.s. plotted from the splash tests. 3. Since g-foot piers produce maximum scour depth.s. Base pier height.. 3 feet high for design discharge 35 c.and 4-foot piers provided the minimum scour depth. An envelope curve drawn on the velocity curves to determine the height of pier to produce the lowest velocity on the chute would indicate baffle piers 6 feet high for all discharges.f.s. E. Figures 123 and 124 show three groups of curves.f..f. a compromise must be made.f.ts.s.s.f.s. and since the water surface profiles of Figures 115 to 118 favor the lower baffle piers. the 4and S-foot piers provided minimum scour depth. Scour depth is more important than the velocity on the chute. except that the 3. B. The circles have been plotted on each set of curves and represent baffle piers 2 feet high for design discharge 20 c.f.8 feet high for . H=fYO”. If envelope curves were drawn in A.35 ----- 4=60 q=2#J ---------- BAFFLED CHUTE STUDIES BAFFLE PIER HEIGHT-610”H HORIZONTAL DISTANCE - FEET FIGURE 118.f. and C to determine the height of baffle pier which produces the least scour. B. 4 or 5 feet in the other cases for 60 c. sidered because the adjacent wall affected the scour depth adversely. plotted from the data in Table 21. the most practical height for the baffle piers is indicated by the circles in Figures 123 and 124.

t« > tu 0 -. FIGURE 120.2 were between 4 and 5. Baffle piers 6'0" high..170 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Velocities at pt.J I&J > . Velocities at pt. <3 I&J (1) Q: I&J 0.O varied uniformly from 1.for all discharges. z ~" 8\Oc\C... I I') .-Baffled Baffle piers 3'0" high. per foot of width. chute 8tudies-di8charge 60 C.8 for 60 cfs to 1.-: 0. .f8.-Baffled 30 IN chute 40 PER FOOT OF W I DTH 50 : q 60 70 CFS studies. Velocities at pt.' There was no apparent trend regarding block size . Velocitie8 at Point 3 on model.5 ft. were between 3 and 4 ft. . --~ 6' Block 0 10 20 DISCHARGE FIGURE 119. per second. .l...0 for 20cfs. per sec.-: 11.

Finally. Baffle FIGURE 121.f. Bame piers 41011high. prototype experiences.f.-BaJIled chute piers 5'0" high. 50 c. per foot of width.f. an inspection of the photographs made of each test (only a few representative photographs are reproduced in this report) show that the flow appearance is satisfactory for each of the recommended piers.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILLWAY DROPS 171 50 c.s.f.8. per foot of width. Generalization of the Hydraulic Design The general rules for the design of baffied overchutes have been derived from tests on individual models.f. 8tudieB-di8charge8 60c.s. Piers of this height produce near minimum depths of scour for all design discharges and near minimum velocity on the chute. they produce near minimum splash for all discharges as shown by Curves E of Figure 124. per foot of width. Figure 125. 60 c.s.8 Do where Do=.\ff=Critical depth on the chute. design discharge 50 c. The height of bafHe piers shown by the circles in Figures 123 and 124 may be expressedas 0. per foot of width.f.s.s. and 4. Curve B. and on the verifi- . . shows the recommended height of bafHe piers.s. per foot of width.f. 60 and 60 c.3 feet high for design discharge 60 c. In addition.

s. For slopes flatter than 2:1. The chute should be designed for the full capacity expected to be passed through the structure. The maximum unit discharge may be as high as 60 c. cation tests described in detail in this section. the baffle pier row spacing should be modified as discussed on page 175.s. NOTE: Bed at elevation 914 at start of 30-minute test. Generally .f.-Bajfted chute studies-bajfte piers 3'0" high.f. per foot of width. FIGURE 122. Discharge 20 c.s. an attempt has been made in the following discussion to indicate how rigidly eaqhrule applies. Since many of the rules are flexible to a certain degree.172 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Discharge 35 c.f. The rules apply to chute slopes in the range 2:1 (steep) to 4:1 (flat). Design discharge. per foot of width.

5 906.5 905. splash test results.5 906.f. and a unit discharge of 20 c.5 908 907 906.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILLWAY DROPS 173 01scnm6E OO L IN 12~s I IO I I 20 11 IN CFS 30 11 PER FOOT 4011 OF WIDTH = q 50 11 I PER c FOOT OF WIDTH = 9 -- DISCHARGE A DISCHARGE IN CFS PER D FOOT OF WIDTH = q --x 5 930 OISCHAROE o’s Show IN CFS PER B performance of recommended baffle piers o’s FIGURE Show performance FOOT OF WIDTH = q 5 w925i ’ ’ IO ’ DISCHARGE ’ 20 ’ IN CFS ’ ’ ’ 40 30 PER FOOT OF WIDTH E of recommended baffle ’ = q piers 0 .5 905 906 903.lng- -20 35 20 35 50 60 20 35 50 60 20 35 50 60 20 35 50 60 910907910 908 906 905 909 908 907 906 908 907 907 906 906 903 902 900 908906 908 907 906f 906907 906 906905 905 905 904 904 906 904 904 904 .s. Reports have been received from the field that baflled aprons designed for a unit discharge of 60 c. and Baftlepier height ft. A wider chute with a correspondingly reduced unit discharge may provide a more economical structure. for short periods without excessive .909906. design maximum unit discharge may be limited by the economics of baffle pier sizes or chute training wall heights. more acceptable operation for a unit discharge of 60 c.f. provide less severe conditions on the chute and in the downstream channel. velocity. will occur than will be the case in steeper The channels where no energy dissipation occurs. - - 3’3 ’ 50 ’ ’ 123. have operated at estimated values up to 120 c. In installations where downstream degradation is not a problem and an energy dissipating pool can be expected to form at the base of the chute.5 903 902 - - speaking.s.s. unit discharges in the range of 35 c. FIGURE 124.f.5 906 905./’ c.f.-Baned TABLE chute studies-scour 21.f. provides a relatively mild condition.5 909 907. however.~SCOUP test results Elevation test results.s.1 905.s.-Bafled chute studies-scour. - of deepest - erosion (1) Att.

The velocity should be well below the critical velocity. A basin length of twice the sequent depth will usually provide ample basin length. Velocities near critical or above cause the flow to be thrown vertically into the air after striking the fist baffle pier. it is intended only to prevent excessive acceleration of the flow passing down the chute. The sequent or conjugate depth in the basin should be maintained to prevent jump sweepout. it is not intended to suggest that baffled aprons should be underdesigned as a matter of general practice. since the primary purpose of this pool is to reduce the average velocity. The critical velocity in a rectangular channel is V. and 109. To insure low velocities at the upstream end of the chute. it may be necessary to provide a short energy dissipating pool similar to the ones shown in Figures 103. Chute entrance. 107. as shown in Figures 103. 105. A hydraulic jump stilling basin may be suitable if the flow is discharged under a gate as shown in Figure 109. This is accomplished in the upstream portion of the stilling basin.-Based chute studies-recommended bafle pier heights and allowable velocities. the flow has been observed to pass completely over the next row or two of baffle piers in a model. since the purpose of this portion of the basin is to complete the jump action and provide a smoother water surface. and 109. This is mentioned only to indicate that a baffled apron can discharge more than the design flow without immediate disaster. The baffled apron is not a device to reduce the velocity of the incoming flow. When the initial velocity is high.174 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 20 60 70 DISCHARGE3:N FIGURE GFS PER?OOT OF d&i = q 125. rather. 105.=qFq. preferably the values shown in Curve D of Figure 125. Flow entering the chute should be well distributed laterally across the width of the chute. The downstream third of the basin may therefore be eliminated. but the basin length may be considerably less than a conventional hydraulic jump basin. 107. The end sill of the pool may be used as the crest of the chute. . erosion and spillage over the walls.

etc. Alternate rows should be staggered to provide a space below a block and vice versa. If unusual entrance problems are encountered or if any doubt exists.0018 is then used. satisfactory performance of the entire structure may hinge on whether entrance flow conditions are favorable. The greatest tendency to overtop the walls occurs in the vicinity of the second and third rows of baffles. To determine the depth below channel grade to which the chute should be constructed.. may be obtained from Curve B. Curve A of Figure 125 shows the critical depth in a rectangular channel. it may be desirable to increase the wall height near the top of the chute. narrower widths do not intercept enough of the flow at one place and also may result in slots too narrow for easy passage of trash. However. Design of chute. Extensive tests made to determine the baffle pier sizes. To prevent overtopping of the training walls at the second row of baffles. is also shown. for chutes flatter than 2:l indicated that the only modification required to produce optimum performance was in the baffle pier row spacing. the row spacing may be increased but should not exceed 6 feet. a partial bafl3e (one-third to two-thirds of the width of a full baffle) should be placed against the training walls in the top or first row. is usually constructed on a 2: 1 slope. the baffle pier heights are not critical and the height may be varied by several inches to provide a convenient dimension. a curve for 0. the slope distance between rows of baffles (measured face to ‘face on the 2:l slope) should be twice the baffle height. It was found that a chute on a slope flatter than 2: 1 should contain the same number of rows of piers as a 2:l chute constructed between the identical top and bottom elevations.8 D.f. since half of the water will not be intercepted until the flow strikes the second row of baffles. Usually. spacing.s.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL Again. As a general rule. It is important that the first row of baffles be placed as high on the chute as practicable. measured normal to the chute floor. The width of the baffle piers should equal the width of the spaces between baffles in the same horizontal row and may vary between one and one and one-half times the block height-preferred width is one and one-half times the block height. the radius should be sufficiently small that the curved surface does not interfere with the placement of the first row of baffles. The curve was plotted from the equation Curve B gives values for 0. (Rows 1.3. 8. Greater baffle widths may result in too few baffles to break up the flow thoroughly. Alternate rows are then made identical. a hydraulic model study is recommended.7.015 is much too steep. etc. are identical. When the downstream channel has a control. If a stable downstream control does not exist. Baffle pier heights for unit design discharges up to 60 c. data are not available or sufEcient to compute a stable channel grade. the probable stable channel must be determined by estimating the amount of material which will be moved during the maximum design flood.. Walls of this height will contain the main flow and most of the splash. 4. 5. . This will place a space of the same width adjacent to the walls in the second row. as indicated in the profiles and photographs. In fact. are identical.) Four rows of baffles are necessary to establish the expected flow pattern at the base of the chute. The drop section.. a slope of 0. The upstream end of the chute floor should be joined to the horizontal floor by a curve to prevent excessive vertical contraction of the flow. As indicated by the tests.9 D. the slope of a stable channel from the control upstream to the structure should be used to determine the OR SPILLWAY DROPS 175 elevation of the end of the chute. Rows 2. etc. If it is important to keep the adjacent area entirely dry. it is very important that proper flow conditions be provided at the entrance to the baffled apron. Experience has shown that a slope of 0. Greater spacing with small baffles allows the shallower flows to accelerate excessively before being intercepted by a baffle pier. the following methods have been used. In these instances. Several rows of baffle piers are usually constructed below the channel grade and backfill is placed over the piers ta restore original bottom topography. Base pier heights and spacing. or chute. 6. The upstream face of the first row should be no more than 1 foot (vertically) below the high point of the chute.. The height of the training walls on the chute should be three or more times the baffle height. When baffles less than 3 feet in height are used.

.. Where deficiencies in performance have been noted.. Table 22 contains data on other structures which have been built following the general rules.. Also shown are completed baffled aprons which have operated for several years and structures performing for various fractions of Each structure shown has been the design tlow. Figures 126 through 138 show a variety of installations in the field and indicate construction techniques. for the vertical faces to produce more splash and less scour than the normal faces. feet Designc. Although no reports on the performance of the tabulated aprons have been received. a smooth floor consisting of the tops of the piers would result.--10 Trap-----32 Rect. The forces on a baffle pier may be estimated from the baffle pier pressure measurements shown in Figures 103 and 105. or both. reported as satisfactory..-Bafled Location Franklin DC-3720 DC-3720 DC-3720 DC-3720 DC-3720 DC-3891 DC-3891 DC-3891 DC-3891 DC-3891 271-D-549 271-D-549 271-D-550 271-D-550 271-D-551 271-D-648 271-D-649 271-D-650 271-D-651 271-D-653 Canal 0+50 1+10 1+25 2+00 84+68+ 1+44 5+20 23+20 5+00 2+80 8 Trap------8 Trapw-mmmmm 6 Trapm-s--m6 Trap-mmmm.8--------------------------. No. designed and constructed according to the suggestions given in this section....--85 80 64 51 625 100 1. The proportions shown in Figure 115 have been found acceptable for both structural and hydraulic requirements and are recommended for general use. chute structures in me station I Chute width. This has been verified by inspection teams working out of design ofices and by field personnel responsible for operating the structures..i~harge.. Each structure was built according to the general rules given in this section.9 --------.-------------------DrainF-lO.- Courtland DC-4501 271-D-1031 Drain C-42. however..-----------------DrainF-1. either at the outset of operation or after bank stabilization had been accomplished.. the difference in performance is hardly measurable in a model. It was also determined that.9-D------------------------DrainF-10. The only difficulties reported have been associated with unstable channel banks. 1-D -----. Proper bank protection has resulted in a satisfactory structure in all cases... the cause was as obvious as the deficiency and simple remedial measures have resulted in satisfactory performance.. has been excellent at most TABLE Spcc. Prototype Performance Field performance of baffled chutes. 1-U -----... The baffles may be constructed with their upstream faces normal to the chute or truly vertical. Figure 112.l------------------------Drain F-14.. .m 18 Rect--.----------------Drain F-15.3-U --------------. whether on slopes of 2:1 or flatter. lack of riprap. Too many rows reduce the efficiency of the stilling action which occurs in the spaces between rows. and no energy dissipation could be expected. wall heights... spacing and arrangement.------.--------Canal 2+80 10 Trap-----120 .------. there is a disadvantage in supplying a greater number of rows than specified. For example. There is a tendency. 1-D ---.--------.--------Drain F-14. and other rules for baffled chutes on a 2:1 slope were followed precisely.. . the vertical fall distance between rows should be the same for all chutes.. 22.---14 Rect-----23 Rect-----10 Trap..~D------------------------Drain F-10. Drain F-14..176 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS installations. Baffle pier dimensions.. In other words.9-D -----. 100 280 800 100 Drain F-l. it is believed that they are operating as expected. Drain F-23. 5-U. No adverse comments on their performance have been forthcoming. if a sticient number of extra rows were added. Drawing No. Other dimensions of the blocks are not important except from the structural standpoint..

--. .--.-. 17 938+00 113+00 133+00 84 Rect..----~ ----. 5 Rect-.-.. Wellton-Mohawk Canal ----.-.. 6-U------..--.7 Rect.-... ..-.-...0--------------------------.000 Eden Project 1 Basin Project 36+90 564+95 280+ 10 286+60 18 Rect..-.---..... 5 Rect---14.--.-..---------------..----65 Rect-----39 Rect-----65 Rect-----62 Rect-----200 Rect----.--.. per foot of width.. 71 660+00 822+ 17.--... 19.f. 5 Rect---11.Mohawk Dike No... 35 c...-.-.-. No.35 c... Wellton-Mohawk Canal ----.. ....--. Texas Hill Floodway.-.-. . Airport Wasteway ----..-...47 1546+90 179+84.Wellton-Mohawk Canal...---..---...... l---------..-.--..Wellton-Mohawk Canal----.. feet 177 22.-Wellton-Mohawk Canal ----..25 234+60 o-k00 12+30 1125+95.--------------.-Based Location chute structures Designc .-.-.-----180 Rect----124 Rect----46 Rect-----8 Rect ------18 Rect-----90 Rect.. Airport Wasteway.... l----------------Mohawk Canal -------..-----------------...9 -----------.-. Drain S-21.48 151+39.-.-.. .Wellton-Mohawk Canal -----..-..-. 226 85 85 127 7+30.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL TABLE Spec..----------.--.---------------. 5 Rect---17 Rect-----17 Rect--. Courtland DC-4874 DC-4874 DC-4874 271-D-1344 271-D-1344 271-D-1344 Drain Drain Drain West Canal 3+00 2+00 8+00 10 Rect-v---6 RecL . . 5 -----------Sargent Canal --- DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 DC-4681 499-D-263 499-D-263 499-D-264 499-D-264 499-D-229 499-D-230 499-D-248 499-D-249 499-D-250 499-D-260 . 7-D--------~-~----------------CW-1.s.91 661+ 16 489+21..--.74 1406+22. 11 Rect-----. 36 Rect-----11 Rect-----28.-...4-U--------------.--11 RecL---12.------CW-10. . .-.-. Gila Project 16+00 36+50 51+20 98+00 11+25 13+00 4+60 4+00 0+60 29+35 11.-.. 5 Rect---... .-.-.77 1 18Rect------i 630 DC-3558 1 153-D-152 1 Means Canal-----~~------~-. Big Oak Drain ----.6-----. .--.s per foot of width. .... .----Golumbia DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 222-D-19589 222-D-19596 222-D-19596 222-D-19596 .....-------Mohawk Dike No.. 5 Rect--.--. 25 1479+ 78.-... Drain S-22.52 Rect-----36 Rect.-6 Rect------123 123 46 CW-0.----140 Rect----25 Rect.-.. .-.--Wellton-Mohawk Canal ---. DC-2688 DC-2688 DC-2688 DC-2972 DC-2972 DC-2972 DC-2972 DC-2972 DC-2972 DC-3683 DC-4983 DC-2822 DC-2822 DC-2822 DC-2822 DC-2822 DC-2822 DC-5019 DC-5019 50-D-2417 50-D-2432 50-D-2438 50-D-2668 50-D-2679 50-D-2646 50-D-2654 50-D-2659 50-D-266 1 50-D-2982 50-D-3359 50-D-2446 50-D-2453 50-D-2456 50-D-2459 50-D-2470 50-D-2473 50-D-3366 50-D-3368 Wellton-Mohawk Canal ---..---------------Radium Hot Springs...-25.---. .-.-------Mohawk Canal------------------------MohawkCanal-----------------------Mohawk Canal ------.......... OR SPILLWAY DROPS in use-Continued station I Chute width..--..-. .--..-.. .Wellton-Mohawk Canal---. Drain S-38.15 Rect------ 130 130 300 300 220 150 800 650 165 180 7+ 14.--. Airport Wasteway-----.-.--.-.--7 Rect..Fhargs...--.-Wellton-Mohawk Canal-. Big Oak Drain-------------------------. Airport Wasteway ----. -. Drawing No. Texas Hill Floodway.-. 71 563+50 614+21.f.-. Drain S-22.--. 200 1. 5 Rect.-.-----------.....-..

- 156 48 .--. 10 Dike No.--. Vrain Supply--------Boulder Creek SupplyBig Thompson Project 513+86 667+78 18 Rect-----lO*Rect-----575 200 DC-3657 DC-4150 245-D-6645 245-D-7137 ---------. 11 Dike No..-. .--.---. .-- 1099+79 263+ 50 13 Rect-----6 Rect.Solano Project DC-4881 DC-4555 413-D-513 413-D-317 Putah Putah South South Canal--Canal--- . 7 Dike No.--.70 551+07AH 202+02 Dike No. 14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect-----18 Rect-----. 13 Dike No.--.-.. 9 Dike No. 6 Dike No. 5 Rect---127 127 127 127 127 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 146 450 365 96 198 198 198 198 313 363 414 220 220 220 172 172 770 3.14 Rect-----14 Rect.-.---..-11 Rect-----. . 4 Dike No.178 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS TABLE 22.-.--.-. Spec. . Drawing No. 14 531+ 17. No.. 5 Dike No.-14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect.. 14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect----w14 Rect-----14 Rect-----14 Rect---..-. feet Deslmc cllharge.-Bafled hol3tion cIwte structures &z we-continued station I Chute width...-. 11 Rect-----11 Rect--.900 Colorado St.-.--. 20 Rect-----22 Rect-----11 Rect-----11 Rect-----11 Rect----.----22 Rect-----18 Rect-----9 Rect------14 Rect-. DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4888 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4696 DC-4571 DC-4749 222-D-19596 222-D-19596 222-D-19596 222-D-19596 222-D-19596 222-D-19597 222-D-19597 222-D-19597 222-D-19597 222-D--19597 222-D-19597 222-D-19597 222-D-19598 222-D-19598 222-D-19598 222-D-19598 222-D-19598 222-D-19598 222-D-19598 222-D-18763 222-D-18817 222-D-18775 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-18776 222-D-19601 222-D-19601 222-D-18422 222-D-19090 Columbia Basin Project-Continued 303+ 10 329+ 10 346+25 363 + 10 396+60 410+ 10 420+60 432+ 10 441+45 456+75 465+70 472+90 481+85 489+60 497+ 10 505+ 10 513+40 520+40 527+60 321+55.-. 12 Dike No.....-----22 Rect-----46.-.-... 1 Dike No.. 53 535+80 1594+63 1369+ 11 11 Rect-----11 Rect-----.--.

1.f. otherwise. A relatively small quantity of riprap has been placed to achieve the maximum benefit. It appears that grass has stabilized the banks sufficiently for the . 3 + 35 of Wasteway 10. from Helena Canal.s. As a result. the wetted area (darker color) adjacent to the training walls starts at about the second row of baffles. and (upper right) compacting backfill at Sta. Soft earth bank is eroded. flowing into Helena Valley Regulating Reservoir. a small quantity of riprap on the earth bank would have prevented undermining and sloughing of the soft earth at the downstream end of the right training wall. Figure 126 shows construction techniques used on two baffled chutes and operation of another at partial capacity. The baffled chute shown in Figure 127 is on the Boulder Creek Supply Canal and has operated many times over a range of discharges approaching the design discharge. In the latter photograph. performance is excellent.-Construction and performance of baffled chutes. a shallow pool has been scoured at the base of the structure. Also. FIGURE 126. No reports have ever been received that this splash or water loss is of any consequence. smce the pool tends to reduce surface waves and make bank protection downstream from the structure unnecessary.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILLWAY DROPS 179 (Above) Setting forms for baffled chute at Sta. This is caused by a small amount of splash which rises above the walls and is carried by air currents. Missouri River Basin project. Figure 128 shows a low-drop baffled chute on the Bostwick Courtland Canal. This is desirable.7. (Lower right). Missouri River Basin project. 2+85 of Wasteway 11. Culbertson Canal. A discharge of 63 c.

s.s. Colorado-Big Thompson project.s. 6+08. .-Prototype installation of baffled chute.f.f.f. Drain A. (lower left) show excellent performance in both instances. Discharges of 150 c. in8tallation of baffled chute.f. designed for 924 c.s. FIGURE 128. the structure performs well.s.180 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Dark rock area adjacent to training walls is wet from spray. Extension Boulder Creek Supply Canal. Sta.-Prototype With a discharge of about 5 c.f. (upper left) and 100 c. FIGURE 127. Baffled chute at Sta. designed for 200 c. It is reported that larger flows are handled satisfactorily. No flow through structure on Bostwick Courtland Canal. 667 + 78..

Design discharge 277 c. Performance been satisfactory. grass has stabilized the downstream channel banks sufficiently to prevent bank erosion. Field reports indicate that trash tends to collect during a falling stage and is removed by the water during the rising stage.s. It may be noted that between October 1956 and September 1957. Figure 130 shows two batRed chutes on the Bostwick Franklin Canal which have been in operation for over 4 years. the coarse material that resembles riprap was left in place as shown in the photographs. 5+20. has installation8 01 baf1ledchutes. Generally speaking.f. Bostwick Franklin Canal.s.s. scouring occurred which exposed one row of the buried blocks. Bostwick Franklin Canal.1 Structure after 4 years of operation. In each case.1. Figure 129 shows another structure on the Bostwick Courtland Canal. . riprap is evident and the structure has performed satisfactorily for a number of years with little maintenance.r~.100 c. The series of photographs in Figure 131 show the progress of downstream scour from October 1956 to the spring of 1959 at a drain on the Bostwick Division. Sta. ~~. Drain A. Performance has been satisfactory. Missouri River Basin project. height of fall indicated. 84+88. There is a shallow scoured pool at the base of the apron. installation of baffled chute. Little. Trash has accumulated at foot of chute. ---~ ~. Trash has accumulated near the base of the structure. Sta. Wellplaced riprap at the base of the structure contributes to bank stability.1ti?'.f. if any.f. Sta. Design discharge 625 c. FIGURE 130. FIGURE 129. 67+93. Design discharge 1.f. Drain F-10. Reports received indicate that structure performs well for large discharges. The bed material which was carried away consisted of fines. -Prototype Discharge about 3 c. Drain F-14.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILL W A y DROPS 181 No flow in structure on Bostwick Courtland Canal. trash is not a problem on bafHed chutes and does not contribute materially to maintenance costs.-Prototype Structure after 5 years of operation.9.s.

182 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS No flow in October 1956.3 is ~ . Erosion did not continue at original rate. and is no more severe after 2Y2years of operation in Apri11959. stabilization of the banks with a grass cover eliminated sloughing of the banks. there is no maintenance problem. Rocks were sorted from finer material which moved. Figure 132 shows the Bostwick Superior Canal Drain after only a few months of operation. both upstream and downstream from the structure. The left photograph in Figure 134 shows Frenchman-Cambridge Drain 80 after 4~ years of operation.s.-Progress of erosionin Bostwick Crow CreekDrain. Erosion after a year of operation has exposed one more row of blocks. The small amount of riprap placed downstream did much to protect the structure from complete failure. Performance has been excellent. Figure 133shows the same structure 6 years later. FIGURE131.957. N ow that the banks are stable. Sta. Riprap originally placed at the base of the walls is covered by weed and grass cover. The soft earth banks were badly eroded. the Culbertson Canal Wasteway 3. The shallow energy-dissipating pool has helped to reduce bank maintenance downstream. Design discharge2. 28+90. In the right photograph.000 c.f. Rubbish has collected by September ). operating satisfactorily for a fraction of the design discharge.

f. FIGURE 132.s.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILL W A y DROPS 183 Unstable banks collapsed after only 6 months of operation. 36+82. ero8ion problem after the work was done on BO8twick Superior Canal.s.) . particularly if the discharge is greater than 75 c.f.-Unstable Upstream banks were badly eroded. Sta. 36+82. Figure 135 shows closer views of this same structure and indicates how energy dissipation is accomplished on the chute.s. shows the RoblesCasitas Canal discharging 500 c. Figure 137 shows a drop on the FrenchmanCambridge Wasteway. Action in hydraulic models of bafHed chutes is identical to that shown here. Sta.4. (See Fig. in May 1959. right photograph. It appears that additional riprap protection would be desirable. Drain 2A. Drain 2A. The left photograph in Figure 136 shows the wasteway after the discharge was stopped.s. FIGURE 133. Operation is excellent. Protection was afforded by downstream riprap. The need for riprap at the waterline near the base of the bafHed apron is beginning to become apparent. The right photograph Stabilized banks in April 1959 show no evidence of erosion. shown in operation shortly after construction was completed. banks create an erosion problem on Bostwick Superior Canal. into a baffled chute. bank8 present no.4.-Sabilized Performance of structure during rainstorm. Design discharge 400 c.f.f. 132. The riprap . Discharge 81 c. Figure 136.affords adequate protection to the structure.

Design discharge 400 c. Excellent performance.s.s. Good performance.-Performance Same tlow in midportion of chute. shows the North Branch Wasteway-Picacho Arroyo System discharging at about half capacity after a violent rainstorm. Figure 138. photo- of baffled chute on Culbertson Canal Wasteway 3. See right-hand graph in Figure 134 for general view. FIGURE 134. shows how wingwalls can be used to protect the structure and how a small amount of riprap can be used to protect the wingwalls from undercutting. After the flood. * * * Recapitulation Baffled aprons or chutes are used in flow ways where water is to be lowered from one level to The second row of baftles is completely covered because of acceleration of tlow between the first and second rows with a tlow of 75 c.000 c. In this case.f. left photograph.3. the reduction in velocity at the base of the apron caused sediment to settle out of the wasteway water.184 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Frenchman-Cambridge Drain 8-C after 4~ years of operation. . FIGURE 135.-Performance Baffled apron of Culbertson Canal Wasteway 3. of prototype structures.3 discharging 75 c.f. it was found that the downstream channel had aggraded rather than scoured.f. at top of baftled chute.s.s.f. The left photograph shows the action of the water on the bafHed chute for a very small discharge. There is practically no turbulence at the base of the apron (seeright photograph also). Design discharge 1. right photograph. The water is carrying a high concen- tration of sediment. partially covering one row of blocks which had been more exposed before the runoff.

f. Robles-Casitas Canal between Sta. 107.f.s. and the drop may be as high as structurally feasible. The lower end of the chute is constructed to below stream-bed level and backfilled as necessary. should be as low as practical. Ideal conditions exist when V I = ~-5. Simplified Design Procedure 2.s.s. Figure 125. may be designed to discharge up to 60 c. . The unit design discharge q=~ may be as 1. The chute. discharging into Santa Ana Creek. in May 1959.f. VI.. and less. high as 60 c. Place the first row of bafRe piers close to the top of the chute no more than 12 inches in elevation below the crest. and 109 show various types of approach pools. per foot of chute width. Figures 103. Since the flow velocities entering the downstream channel are relatively low. does not adversely affect the performance of the structure.B. Degradation or scour of the stream bed. and a relatively mild condition occurs for unit discharges of 20 c. on a 2:1 slope or flatter.s. Less severe flow conditions at the base of the chute exist for 35 c. 298 with ~ 500 c. W. 294 and Sta. FIGURE 136. Waves'. Flow conditions are not acceptable when Vl=~.s. Curve D. Q. More detailed explanations have been given in the text. Curve 0. Use a short radius curve to provide a crest on the sloping chute. another. The vertical offset between the approach channel floor and the chute is used to create a stilling pool or desirable V I and will vary in individual installations.-Performance I of prototype structures.f. The simplified hydraulic design procedure given in the numbered steps refers to Figure 140. The baffled apron should be designed for the maximum expected discharge.3 after a discharge of 75 c. Entrance velocity. in canal section occasionally splash over top of canal concrete lining. no stilling basin is required. 3. therefore. per foot of width. 4. 105.f . Figure 125. The baffie piers prevent undue acceleration of the flow as it passesdown the chute.f.BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILL W A y DROPS 185 Culbertson Canal Wasteway 3.

f. should be about 0. Channel after fiood-material was deposited rather than scoured. A small amount of riprap provides excellent protection ~ to foot of chute. Estimated discharge 15c. Other baffle pier dimensions are not critical.-Baffled chute may produce channel aggradation rather than scour. Baffle pier height is not a critical dimension but should not be less than recommended. Picacho Arroyo System. dischargeS69c.-Frenchman-Cambridge Meeker Extension Canal Wasteway. Figure 125. Rio Grande project. per foot width (half capacity).f. ..186 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Stilling action of blocks is most effective for small discharges. 1777+18. Curve A. .9 Do. 6. The baffle pier height. Dischargeabout 5 c.. preferably about 3/2 H.Sta.s.fig.8 De. The height may be increased to 0. H. FIGURE137.f. design 5. FIGURE 138...s. Figure 125. but not less than H. The critical depth on the rectangular chute is Dc='. North Branch Wasteway Channel. Curve B.s. Baffle pier widths and spaces should be equal.

Additional rows beyond the fourth maintain the control established upstream. although fewer rows have operated successfully. however. piers with vertical faces may be used. Idaho.-Kopp Wasteway on the Main : 1 slope. but differences are not significant. discharging 25 c.s. spaces. 9. 6'0". 5. alternating with spaces of the same width in Rows 2. (one-third East Canal. Four rows of baffle piers are required to establish full control of the flow. Row spacing. When the baffle height is less than 3.The chute should be extended to below the normal downstream channel elevation as explained in the text of this section. 4. etc. should be placed against the training walls in Rows 1. 6. 7. Michaud capacity) .f. Vertical face piers tend to produce more splash and less bed scour. twice the baffle height H. and at least one row of baffles should be buried in the backfill. For slopes flatter than 2:1. 3. the row spacing may be increased to provide the same vertical differential between rows as expressedby the spacing for a 2:1 slope. and as many rows may be constructed as is necessary .BAFFLED APRON FOR CANAL OR SPILL W A y DROPS 187 Baffle piers 18" high and 18" wide-18" Chute 9' wide and 90' long-2 FIGURE 139. Flats project. etc. the row spacing may be greater than 2 H but should not exceed 6 feet. feet. The slope distance (along a 2:1 slope) between rows of baffle piers should be 2 H. 7. Training walls 5' high.. Partial blocks. suggested cross section is shown. . width 1/3 H to 2/3 H. 8. The baffle piers are usually coI:lstructed with their upstream faces normal to the chute surface.

. ~ .. Figures 126 to 139 show effective and ineffective methods of placement on field structures. '-~". It is impractical to increase the wall heights to contain all the splash. -3°j~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ QCIt " ~~ ~:~. 0' u L FIGURE 140.188 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS f ~ .to 12-inch stones should be placed at the downstream ends of the training walls to prevent eddies from working behind the chute.:i~ ~ ~---~~ : t . . The chute training walls should be three times as high as the baffle piers (measured normal to the chute floor) to contain the main flow of water and splash. The riprap should not extend appreciably into the flow area.Basic proportions of a baffled chute. Riprap consisting of 6. 10.£:~~~ .'. 11. ~ f ~~ "\ "\ ~ I I I .

It is therefore necessary to keep flow velocities high and to prevent turbulent areas in the tunnel. but the tunnel is never allowed to flow full because of the possibility of siphonic action producing dangerous flow conditions.p. such as baffle piers.. the energy per foot of T width is only 15.OOO. tunnel spillway flip buckets (Basin X) ~~ HE two basic parts of a tunnel spillway are an upstream spillway crest.. 165 f..s. Basin appurtenances. The cost of a structure this size would be prohibitive. In some cases..f.s.-... could not be used effectively because the high entrance velocity.000 feet and would require a basin 700 ft..000 hp.y. part of which is sloping and part near horizontal... the upturn was too slight to produce a measurable effect on a thick jet. From the standpoint of economy the tunnel diameter must be kept to a minimum.000 c. As an example. If it were feasible to construct an efficient hydraulic jump stilling basin at the end of one of the Glen Canyon tunnels.. or one-tenth that on Glen Canyon (Table 23). Buckets have been the most common of t!hese structures and were probably derived from the slight upturns placed at the base of early overfall spillways.s. making the outflow at the tunnel portal relatively deep. would produce cavitation problems. The combination of depth and velocity produces the highest possible concentration of energy and increases the difliculty of obtaining satisfactory flow conditions where the flow spills into the river. ‘..‘. and it is readily seen why other types of structures are used at the end of tunnel spillways. from apron to tail water elevation.. would need to be 170 feet.. where the maximum discharge is l. the basin depth.Section Improved IO .:. but probably the intended purpose was to 189 . It is not clear whether the designers intended that these buckets operate free or submerged.e’. The hydraulic jump length would be more than 1. . the maximum discharge of 276..650 hp. and a downstream tunnel. On Grand Coulee. free or controlled. an overfall spillway. produces 159. per foot of width at the tunnel portals. .f.OOOc. to 800 feet long or more. . on the Glen Canyon tunnel spillways. Spillway tunnels are usually designed to flow from $%to yi full at maxi&m discharge.

High-velocity flow in the tunnel makes it difficult to design a short transition. powerplant. The jet trajectory is modified as necessary to cause the jet to impinge on the tail water surface at the desired location. High velocity flow passing over the sharp edges may produce cavitation damage on the concrete surfaces. deflector. Flip buckets are not a substitute for energy dissipators because such a bucket is inherently The incapable of dissipating energy within itself. becomes in the corners. which is usually certain to occur. Bucket Design Problems It is usually difficult or impossible to predict the flow pattern to be expected from a particular bucket by mere inspection of the bucket shape. the term flip bucket will be used in this section. The bucket inverts are circular. The buckets are placed downstream from a transition that changes the circular or horseshoe shaped tunnel to a flat bottom in order to correspond to the flat bottom of the bucket. the spreading and trajectory characteristics of a given bucket can be determined only by testing in a Because of the opportunity to hydraulic model. but the methods necessary to convert the model dimensions at a scale of 1:lOO to prototype dimensions Because of the highwere quite laborious. and checked by model studies. a number of difficulties have been found and overcome. or ot. and long transitions are usually costly. the steepness of the jet trajectory at the point of impingement is selected to produce horizontal and vertical velocity components that produce most favorable flow conditions in the river channel. buckets are also designed to spread the flow across as much of the downstream channel as is considered desirable in order to reduce riverbed damage as much as possible. The drain must be placed in a surface Even though it is exposed TV high-velocity flow. velocity flow in the bucket. deflect the jet downstream to prevent undermining of the spillway structures. does not endanger the safety of the dam. The Fontana Dam spillway buckets do nob have an upstream transition (Table 23). the same as the tunnel inverts. to convert the corrected dimensions to a 1:l scale. respectively. and when possible.her structures. as much of a design problem as the bucket. are similar (Table 23) and are what may be called a “standard” type. The buckets were shaped by trial in a 1:lOO scale model tested in the Tennessee Valley Authority Hydraulic Laboratory. In accomplishing this primary function. On some buckets. there is the possibility of dangerous subatmospheric pressures occurring The transition. or flip buckets. The problem of draining a tunnel that has a flip bucket at the downstream end provides a challenge in design. Figure 141. buckets were well designed has been proved by subsequent operation of the structure. it is intended that certain basic facts that have been found to be true as a result of extensive hydraulic model testing and prototype observation be presented.190 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS The flip buckets on the tunnel spillways at Hungry Horse Dam and Yellowtail Dam of the Bureau of Reclamation projects. The following examples indicate the problems that may be encountered in bucket design and that may not be generally known. test various types of buckets find to observe first hand their performance in the field.ly. If the transition is not carefully designed. . diffuser. Because of variations in velocity and depth. The teeth are to provide greater dispersion of the jet before it strikes the tail water surface. therefore. therefore. and Bhumiphol Dam and Wu-Sheh Dam being built in Thailand and Formosa. Any small irregularity or misalinement when multiplied by 100 could have been sufficiently large to produce cavitation in the prototype bucket. For uniformity. Although with the present state of knowledge it is impractical to generalize the design of flip buckets. trajectory. the findings of these tests should be of interest to designers who must often select a bucket type before the hydraulic-model tests are made. The curved surfaces of the finally developed buckets could not be defined by ordinary dimensioning or That the even by mathematical equations. and after smoothing these. purpose of a flip bucket is to throw the water downstream where the riverbed damage. including the flip bucket itself. In the course of developing and improving bucket designs. a serrated or toothed edge has been placed at the downstream end of the bucket. particularly those on dams outside of the United States. dimensions taken from the model could not be scaled up direct. Buckets of this type are referred to variously as ski-jump. necessary to convert the dimensions to a 1:lO scale bucket. It was.

the Bucket used at Tunnel 1 outlet. Yellowtail Dam. Carolina China Trinity Dam. Washington. Hungry Horse Dam project.IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILLW A y FLIP BUCKETS TABLE 23. Improved Bucket Designs A number of tunnel-spillway flip buckets have been developed in the Bureau Hydraulic Laboratory that seem to offer simple but efJ-ective methods of directing the flow away from the structure and which also overcome. Columbia Basin project. An ideal bucket design would be self-draining and would not present a cavitation problem at the drain structure. in part. North Taiwan. Grand Coulee Dam. Colorado River Storage project.-Fontana Dam spillway flip Bucket used at Tunnel 2 outlet. Thailand- Wu-Sheh Fontana Dam. FIGU~E 141. Missouri River Basin project. Central Valley project. possible to design or develop a drain opening in the laboratory that will not produce cavitation pressures. Montana. Dam. California. Bhumiphol Dam. Hungry Horse Dam. Montana. bu£ket models. Arizona. . it is difficult to obtain field construction to the necessary tolerances to prevent cavitation from occurring.-Description of spillway tunnels on various projects 191 Name and location (I) Glen Canyon Dam.

and consequently the flow can vary from a few second-feet to a maximum of 24. Some of the buckets described are unique and probably cannot be generally used without some adaptation. . or land side. of the bucket.8. even small flows are thrown downstream well away from the base of the bucket.Dispersion flip bucket. In order to place the bucket near riverbed level. Figure 142. to fit the existing topographic condiliions..000 c. a hydraulic jump forms in the bucket for small flows and the water dribbles over the bucket end and falls onto the riverbed. Thus. the foundation conditions at the end of the tunnel were such that it was deemed necessary to protect against the possibility of erosion and undermining. and the flip-bucket structure was placed at the end. (2) a bucket shape that can be defined and expressedin prototype size by ordinary dimensioning on ordinary drawings. On the other hand. an ideal bucket should provide (1) easy drainage of the tunnel. The spillway tunnel enters one Bide of a wide. difficulties previously described. In the usual flip bucket. The flip-bucket surface consists of three plane surfaces so placed that they spread and shape the jet to fit the surrounding topography. the use of the principles to be described will help the designer to provide an improved bucket on a particular structure.f. the others are basic in type and need only minor additions to accomplish some specific function. Large flows are spread into a thin sheet having a contact line with the tail water surface a considerable distance downstream. At flows less than 1.f. shallow river channel and the flow tends to cross the river diagonally. it was desirable for low flows to leave the bucket as close to the riverbed elevation as possibl~ to prevent excessive erosion near the base of the structure. the semicircular channel constructed downstream from the tunnel portal was curved downward in a trajectory curve.s. Although no single bucket eliminates all of the undesirable features. The velocity at the bucket is 122 f.OOO C. The spillway is an uncontrolled morning-glory . There was no wall on the low or river side of the bucket. A unique design was the Trinity Dam spillway bucket (Table 23) developed on a 1: 80 scale model. Because small flows may occur for days. It was necessary to discharge the flow into this channel without creating excessive eddies that might erode the riverbanks or cause disturbances in the vicinity of the powerhouse tail race. a hydraulic jump formed over the horizontal surface and part way up the slope of the bucket and the flow spilled out of the low side of the bucket into FIGURE 143. (3) no need for an upstream transition. by simple additions to a basic bucket. and (4) an impingement area that may be shaped.s.f. the jet usually lands near the structure and erosion and undermining of the structure may still occur . However. Figure 143. At Trinity Dam. This could cause erosion that would undermine the structure. -Di8per8ion-type flip bucket-Q=24.p. large flows should be flipped downstream away from the structure with as much dispersion as possible to prevent erosion and induced eddies from damaging the structure. A training wall was used to prevent spreading of the jet on the high. When the jump is first swept out of the bucket. . However.192 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS FIGURE 142.s.000 c.

to change the direction of the flow entering the river channel. Wu-Sheh Dam . the jet was flipped farther downstream and became increasingly dispersed. and a fillet at the junction of the left wall and floor to smooth up or control the jet undernappe. it was found necessary. as determined from model studies.W ALONG CENTERLINE NC6 Refer +o Pwom?+ers NM L-18 C” \ef+ wall. As the discharge increased. the bucket Other advantages of this design is self-draining. as a result of model tests. Had the flow been conflned on both sides and forced to spill out the end. NO 19 I” r.gtl+ WOII PLAN see table FIGURE 144. are that the bucket may be detied for prototype construction with a few simple dimensions. Since one side of the bucket is entirely open. The tests showed that it was undesirable to turn the tunnel and that all turning should be accomplished in the bucket. a batter in the left wall to prevent congestion in the bucket and reduce hydraulic loads at the larger discharges.IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILLWAY FLIP BUCKETS the river channel.f . the jump swept out of the bucket without hesitation and with sufficient velocity that the flow was carried well downstream away from the structure. the drop would have been more than 40 feet and additional protection of the bucket foundation would have been required.000 c. used curved walls to turn the flow. Earth and rock slides during the diversion period made it necessary to construct retaining walls in the tunnel portal area which restricted the length of the flip bucket. Another unusual type of flip bucket was developed for the Wu-Sheh Dam tunnel spillway. The resulting bucket was “tailormade” to direct the flow to impinge PRESSURES IN FEET OF WATER ELEVATION A-A SECTION STA .. The open side of the bucket was only 4 feet or 5 feet above the river.-Recommended bucket. At discharges greater than 1. The long contact line between the jet and the tail water reduced the unit forces on the tail water and the eddies induced at the ends of the contact line were thereby found to be a minimum. Construction schedules and geologic conditions in the field made it necessary to modify this bucket from the standard type previously described. After the line of the tunnel had been established and construction of the tunnel started. The final bucket. Figure 144.s.o+ 26. Hydraulic model studies were made to determine how much turning of the jet was required and whether the turning could be accomplished in the tunnel. and no curved or warped forms are necessary for prototype construction.

86 .< EL. near the middle of the river channel and to obtain the greatest dispersion possible at all discharges. Before the wall was battered. . The maximum pressure recorded on the left wall was 91 feet of water.000 c.f. At a distance 25o ft. and the invert drops 26 feet by means of a combination transi- (a) Q= 12.-Yellowtail Dam stilling basin (preliminary design). the maximum pressure probably would have been much larger because of a more direct impact on the converging wall.-Combination hydraulic jump basin Jip bucket. the tunnel changes to a flat bottom horseshoe conduit. FIGUEE (b) Q= 13.f. Figure 144.6. :. d-y= x2/1142. B-B \ . The Yellowtail Dam tunnel-spillway flip bucket is a dual purpose bucket similar in some respects to the standard buckets.3145 - FIGURE 145.194 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS PLAN SEC. The surfaces in this bucket could also be de&red by ordinary dimensioning.6.000 c. Piezometers placed in the side walls of the bucket showed pressures exceeding atmospheric at all discharges. The tunnel is a curved bottom horseshoe-type conduit (changed to circular in final studies). 146. upstream from the portal.

a hydraulic jump forms in the bucket. . Figure 145. The basin or bucket is placed low in solid rock so that dischargesin the unstable zone.s. cannot undermine the structure.to move if a high-velocity stream struck it. 173. .5foot-long upward sloping sill.000 c.s.000 to 13. the jump moves downstream and at 13. Glen (F=7. sweeps out of the basin.000c.f.Tran8ition flip bucket.OOO c.5 feet long.s.s.f. Figure 146(a).s. The bucket has a flat horizontal floor 130 it. For greater dischargesand up to the maximum. 12. At spillway flows up to 12. It was expected that reopening of the channel after large dis- FIGURE 148. discharges expected to be exceededonly every 100 years.b9) Q=138.f.-Standard Canyon Dam studies flat-bottom flip bucket.000 c. As the spillway discharge increases.. and acting as a flip bucket to prevent damage to the structures during large floods.000 c. The flip buckets for the Glen Canyon Dam tunnel spillways are an example of buckets developed to eliminate the tunnel transition and the need for a flat-bucket invert. Figure 146(b).f. tion-trajectory curve 172... the basin acts as a flip bucket. The buckets at the portals of the 41-foot diameter tunnels are on opposite sides of the river and are aimed to discharge at. The hydraulic jump was usec for part of the discharge range in order to protect the river channel against clogging with talus. This ba3in was developed in the laboratory to serve the specific purpose of acting as a hydraulic jump basin f')r the most prevalent spillway discharges. and relatively quiet water is discharged into the downstream channel.f. long and a 62.IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILL WAY FLIP BUCKETS 195 charges would be necessary to reestablish full power head. FIGURE 147. which was present in the canyon in large quantities and was expected .

acute angles with the center of the river.- .196 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS FIGURE 149.s. and that subatmospheric pressures would be sufficiently low to produce cavitation and damage to the structure.s. In the preliminary design. Transitionjlip bucket. Two 81terna- FIGURE 150.OOO c. a 70-foot-long transition was placed between the circular tunnel and the rectangular channel containing the flip bucket. Glen Canyon Dam studies (F=6. Glen Canyon Dam studies (F=5.64) Q=.t38. Each bucket is designed to handle the maximum discharge of 138.OOO c. .f. The left bucket is farther downstream than the right. in energy released into the riv~r during maximum discharge.Transition flip bucket with sidewall deflectors.f. Hydraulic-model studies indicated that the transition was too short. This represents more than 13.64) Q=138.000 c.000 hp.000.p. at a velocity of approximately 165 f.s.s.f.

which is preceded by a transition. Figure 147. Becausethe fiat-bottom portion of these buckets diverges in plan. and became more compact as the discharge increased.f.s.f. All of the flow elements at a given. In operation.800 c. identical buckets are placed on the twin spillways. and the other was to eliminate the transition by continuing the circular tunnel invert downstream to intersect the upward curve of the flip bucket.IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILLW A y FLIP BUCKETS 197 FIGURE 151 .s. small flows are spread laterally more than for the fiat-bottomed bucket. The lattel' scheme was developed and is used in the prototype structure. Figures 150 and 151. In the fiatbottomed bucket. the flow along the center line of the bucket is turned upward while the flow elements on either side of the center are turned upward and laterally. deflectors were added to the bucket training walls to make the jets conform to the shape of the river channel and surrounding topography. the flip curve extends across the full width of the bucket for its entire length..s. The Flaming Gorge jet was well dispersed at the lower discharges. the velocity of the flow at the portal of the 18-foot-diameter tunnel is approximately 140 f. Figure 152(a). As the discharge increases. Figure 152(b). elevation are turned simultaneously. Figure 148. Training walls may be used to limit the lateral spreading. The maximum design flow for Flaming Gorge spillway is 28. the flip curve turns the lower-flow elements in the center of the stream first and gradually widens its zone of influence as the flow moves downstream. the transition and the bucket are combined into the bucket structure without complicating the design of the bucket. In subsequent testing. tives were developed during the model studies. In effect.Typical jet profile for 3~ transition flip bucket. In the alternative bucket. the flow appearance of the Flaming Gorge bucket was entirely different than that of the Glen Canyon buckets. The energy in the jet at the flip bucket is equivalent to 1 million hp.p. The Glen Canyon jets were well dispersed for .OOO c. Figures 148 and 149 show a comparison of the flow from the two types of buckets. One was to use a 100-foot-long transition in which the change in cross section was accomplished without dangerous pressures occurring. In effect. The flip bucket used on the Flaming Gorge Dam tunnel spillway was of the same type as that used on the Glen Canyon spillways. Figure 149. Glen Canyon Dam studies-Q=75. the rate of spreading decreases so that it is easier to accommodate the jet for flood flows in a relatively narrow channel. resulting in greater dispersion of the jet.

the jet was still well dispersed.8 FIGURE 152. The differences in the Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge jets might be explained by the fact that the flow depth for maximum discharge was approximately 61 percent of the diameter of the Glen Canyon tunnel and 81 percent of the diameter of the Flaming Gorge tunnel. This can be seen in Figure 152(a). (b) Q=28. the semicircular invert is curved upward radially. Instead of changing the bucket invert to a flat bottom.}.s. Both the Flaming Gorge and Glen Canyon buckets were modified by reducing the height of the river sidewall. the water rose on the sides of the bucket at low flows.61D in Flaming Gorge.s. -Flip bucket studies for 35° transition bucket. The Flaming Gorge bucket is located well above the maximum tail water elevation so that the wall eould be cut down to the spring line of the tunnel invert curve without tail water interference.198 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS (a) F= 10. forming in effect a U-shttped sheet of water in which the bottom and sides were of equal thickness. while the bottom sheet of water had a tendency to diverge to either side.200 c. Sufficient wall remained to train the jet and little difference in the flow pattern could be detected. The flip bucket used on the Whiskeytown Dam tunnel spillway differs from both the flat bottom and transition flip buckets.3 (b) F=6. For a flow O.and in order to prevent the tail water from interfering with the jet. The vertical sides of the U followed the line of the bucket side walls after leaving the bucket. The sidewalls above the spring line of the invert . The jet spread out evenly to the right and was better dispersed than before. As the discharge increased. tending to spread or disperse it. Figure 153.f.. the size of the fins relative to the thickness of the lower sheet became insignificant and no longer had this spreading effect. the river wall could be cut down to only 5 feet above the spring line of the tunnel invert. forming in effect. The vertical fins had a shorter trajectory than the lower sheet and on falling would penetrate the lower jet. all flows.f. and the change in lateral spreading with discharge was not so apparent. Flaming Gorge Dam studies (a) Q= 7.800 c. a turned-up tube or elbow. In the Flaming Gorge bucket. The Glen Canyon buckets are located closer to the maximum tail water elevatio1. The effect was to eliminate the fin that formerly rose along the wall.

-Conv«'9in9 A walls -JA added ta madel.. and because of time limitations and construction schedules. Tube elbow flip bucket. Hydraulic model studies determined that the jet from a transition-type bucket did not "fit" the downstream river channel becauseof excessive jet divergence.-Tube-elbow-type town Dam spillway tunnel spreading of jet. flip bucket used on Whiskeyhas 3° converging walls to limit . The shape of the tail water curve will determine the exact requirements. The tube-elbow type of flip bucket was developed specifically to provide a narrow jet to conform to the topographic features in the discharge channel.--1----~-~ 199 AL PLAN Dimensions r-iO5 ft used on Whiskeytown e. If the bucket is set lower.'. Figure 154. Mox. Figures 155 and 156..25 ft 28. The downstream portion of the diversion tunnel becomes the horizontal portion of the spillway tunnel. Items that should be considered during design and that will help to provide a simple bucket structure having desirable performance characteristics will now be examined. Care in selecting the exact position and elevation of the diversion tunnel. The drawdown in tail water elevation at the bucket Tunnel spillways usually make use of part of the river diversion tunnel. are vertical. Elevation of bucket invert. Dischorge Dom R= 48. In the Whiskeytown bucket. .IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILL WAY FLIP BUCKETS ~ ---1---. As a general rule. while keeping in mind its ultimate use as a spillway tunnel. difficulty may be experienced in obtaining free flow at low spillway discharges. the greatest danger is that the tunn. it is often necessary to determine line and grade for FIGURE 154. e225.. FIGURE 153. The bucket is added after diversion needs have been satisfied. 3 ° wedges 25 feet long were placed along both sidewalls to converge the flow lines and to reduce the spreading of the jet.650cfs. It is desirable to construct the bucket and tunnel inverts at the same elevation. Because the diversion tunnel is one of the first items of construction. Because diversion requirements make it necessary to keep the diversion tunnel low in order to provide the diversion capacity.25. Design Considerations the diversion tunnels before the details of the spillway are known. will help to provide a dual-purpose tunnel that will satisfy the temporary as well as the ~nal demands with the least amount of modification when the bucket is added.el will be set too low for ideal spillway operation. maximum tail water should be no higher than the elevation of the center line of the tunnel. This will require building up the bucket lip to prevent the tail water from submerging the bucket.

and the portion of the diversion tunnel used for the spillway tunnel should be straight.s. discharge. maximum. the FIGURE 156. As the discharge increases. In most designs this is a favorable characteristic and results in improved river flow conditions for all discharges.000 . Figure 157 shows the angle of divergence of one side of the jet leaving the bucket for two types of buckets.c. and the discharge is considerably greater . The bucket center line should be a continuation of the tunnel center line. Discharge 28. The flow should be directed to minimize the diameter 6f induced eddies at the sides of the jet because these can be damaging to channel banks.s.000 c. The drawdown is maximum under these conditions.650 c.the angle of divergence is plotted against the angle of inclination fJ for a range of Froude numbers (of the flow entering the bucket). particularly when the jet occupies a large proportion of the channel width. In an ideal arrangement. The flat-bottom bucket produced little change in angle of divergence for a range of Froude numbers or inclination angles. However.650 c. The tunnel direction should be set so that spillway flows will be aimed downriver and 80 that the design discharge impinges in the center of the discharge channel. a narrow jet for the narrow channel below Whiskeytown Darn. Figure 158. the objective is to aim the diversion tunnel so that it may be used without change for the spillway tunnel. FIG \JRE 155. Flow direction. the jet will act as an ejector to lower the tail water upstream from the jet impingement area. Hydraulic model tests have indicated that up to 25 feet of drawdown may be expected. and it was recommended that a weir be constructed in the powerplant tailrace to prevent unwatering of the turbines. transition-bucket jet divergence is greatest at low flows. Drawd()W1b. Prototype tests made for 30. Discharge 28. From the Hungry Horse Dam model tests. making the trajectory relatively flat. For the conditions previously described.s. The jet is as wide as the downstream channel. the jet will be exactly as wide as the channel so that there will be little return How from the downstream tail water.-Tube elbow bucket produces clear-cut stable jet with little spray. Other hydraulic model bucket tests have shown the drawdown to be appreciable. by using measurements ob- . In both cases. maximum.200 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS caused by the ejector action of the jet may also affect the vertical placement. but the jet trajectory is steeper. At HUIlgry Horse the flow leaves the bucket at a 15° angle.f.s. At Glen Canyon the spillway jets do not occupy the entire width of channel.-Tube elbow bucket produces. Because the higher Froude numbers occur at low discharges. No means have been found to compute the amount of drawdown to be expected except by making careful measurements on a hydraulic model. Therefore.f. showed 25 feet of drawdown and demonstrated that the weir was indeed necessary. the flat-bottom type and the transition bucket used on Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge spillways. The transition bucket showed considerable change in divergence angle (from 4° to 12°) for a Froude number range of 6 to 11.f. 26 feet of draw down was predicted for 35.f. the Froude number becomessmaller and the divergence angle decreases.

EJ’ect oj trajectory shape. the two prototype tests-on Fontana and Hungry Horse Dams-showed good agreement between model and prototype test reHowever. the more the jet will be broken up andslowed down by air resistance.he energy in t. defined by the test points shown.hrown downstream. indicates with reasonable accuracy the drawdown at each dam site for which data were availgble. Furthermore. PORTAL FIGURE 159. buckets. The angle of the bucket lip with respect to horizontal determines the distance the water will be t. The river flow area is the product of the difference between the no-flow tail water elevation and the tail water elevation. The test points include various shapes and depths of channel and various types of bucket jets. 0 Q x FLAMING GORGE MODEL WU SHEH MODEL GLEN CANYON MODEL SHUMIPHOL MODEL A HUNGRY HORSE MODEL A HUNGRY HORSE MODEL 12 FONTANA PROTOTYPE & PROTOTYPE 5 A2 CROSS-SECTIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA OF RIVER ASDVE ZERO AREA OF FLOW AT TUNNEL FLOW T. (b) Model: Q=35.000 jlip c. the abscissa is the cross-sectional area of the river flow near the point of impact of the jet divided by the cross-sectional area of the . ot tunnel portal @D. in predicting drawdown at fusults. flow at the tunnel portal.W. Hungry Horse FKGURE 158. the steeper the angle. the curve in Figure 159 was derived. the bucket have been found to be a function of t. However. amount of drawdown to the depth of tail water. and the average width of the river near the point of impact. The curve. In the curve of Figure 159. The intensity of the ejector action and the resultant lowering of the tail water at. In addition to the effects of drawdown that were previously explained. the jet trajectory is important in other ways. EL.f.-8preading of jet. It is presented herein as a means of estimating the drawdown that can be expected with a tunnel spillway and flip bucket.IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILLWAY FLIP BUCKETS F= Froude a $ 2 2 2 g u 2 ANGLE 4 OF 6 6 IO OF JET I2 I4 (ONE SIDE) IN DEGREES OIVERGENCE 35 30 25 20 Number = “/& . The area of the flow at the portal is obtained by dividing the spillway-discharge quantity by the The ordinate is the ratio of the average velocity.-Tail water drawdown. ture sites the curve should be used with caution until more data are available.s. the vertical component of velocity will be greater. and the jet will tend . With a steep entry.he jet and the amount of resistance encountered when the jet strikes the tail water. The depth of tail water is the same depth used to determine the river cross-sectional area. 201 TRANSITION BUCKET FLAT-BOTTOM BUCKET FIQURE 157. Both of these effects cause the jet to enter the tail water at a steeper angle. tained on several model stidies and from limited prototype observations.-Model-prototype spillway comparison. for t)he discharge being investigated.

the trajectory length in the prototype for 20 percent of maximum discharge is believed to be 15 percent to 20 percent shorter than in the model. The prototype trajectory is shorter than the model or theoretical jet and has a steeper angle of entry into the tail water. .. Figure 160 contains a family of curves that may be used to estimate the trajectory length for inclination angles up to 45” and velocities up to 160 f. Because of the simplicity and effectiveness of the transition bucket. an assumption inferred from comparing the photographs in Figure 161. DI . From sketchy information on a few structures. from any viewpoint.and prototype-trajectorylength agreement. an energy dissipating pool will be formed. Maximum discharge is considered to occur when the tunnel is The about three-fourths full at the outlet portal. With flatter trajectories. and from actual measurements. but from measurements estimated or scaled from photographs. in which H’ is the velocity head at the bucket entrance. The results of these tests have been summarized in Figures 162. There also are indications that the difference becomes less as the prototype discharge increases.94 wz R+62. Vol. X=2H’. Some difference between model. is plotted against the percentage of maximum tunnel discharge. To estimate H’. Pressures rapidly became less toward the downstream end of the bucket and reached atmospheric at the bucket lip. The theoretical pressure Pt.5) in which V JJTzR This maximum pressure occurred a. For 19=15’. 6. The difference is believed to be caused by the greater air resistance encountered by the high-velocity prototype jet.p. J. B. June 1946. The term H’ is seen to vary from approximately 61 percent for 20 percent of maximum discharge. Extensive pressure measurements were therefore made on several buckets having two different inclination angles.Vo.3. H. X=H’. Bucket flip angles are usually constructed from between 15’ and 35’. however. the curve in the lower right of Figure 160 may be used. If the bottom erodes. maximum pressure was found to be slightly greater than given by D. “Design of Sidewalls Tmn%zctions. The envelope curve includes inclination angles from l5O to 35’ and flows in the Froude number range of 6. Angles less than 15’ do not give enough lift to clear the bucket structure. A.” to dig into the channel bottom. D.6 of the bucket length from the upstream end. X= Y sin 29 For a given angle 6 the equation may be simplified as shown by the equations to the right of the trajectory curves. the horizontal component will be greater. 1954. and flow downstream will be smoother. These curves were obtained from the simple equations for the path of a projectile. 15’ and 35O.15 to 1.and prototype-trajectory lengths may be expected to occur. in Chutes and Spillways. by increasing the angle beyond 35 ‘. H’. is expressed as Pt= (1. to about 75 percent for maximum discharge. Figure 162 shows pressures along the center line of the transition-bucket floor. for 0=45’. High-velocity flow along t’he channel banks will then occur. H/L. A bucket radius at least four times as great as the maximum depth of flow is needed. 119.9.8 to The 10. Gumensky z from theoretical considerations.s. ’ Trajectory lengths taken from these curves have been found to be reasonably accurate when checked by hydraulic models. B.l it appears that the differ1 Peterka.pproximately 0. Pressures in the transition bucket. High-velocity channel flow may persist downstream from the impingement area for a considerable distance if the channel bottom does not erode to produce a deep pool. the usual range of operating conditions. and 164. to indicate that the buckets were safe against cavitation pressures and to provide data for structural design. and the forward velocity will be higher.202 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS ences are usually not critical in nature. This provides an incline sufficiently long to turn most of the water before it leaves the bucket and provides assurance that the jet will be thrown into the desired area downstream. from 0. 163. and may be helpful in making preliminary designs. and little is usually gained. Here. 2 Gumensky. expressed as a percentage of the total head. Little is known regarding model. Vol. ASCE. points that determine the curve have ratios of vertical drop to horizontal tunnel length. it will probably be used on many future tunnel spillways. 16.. and so on. ‘%fodt?l and Prototype Studies on Unique Spillway: Part III of Symposium on Fontma Dam Spillway.” CM Engbaw~ng.

'I.L-- 300 ~ I H I I . . each (b) Both model tunnels: Q= 12. DISCHARGE FIGURE 160.f.04 o 1.. ' . each.-.~. e 0 20 40 60 80 . . :1: 370 u.. ~ .~[L 40 (/) 35 UJ UJ Q: 30 ~ UJ 025 Z 020 UJ .:~ ::')1.I C.0. 400 ." I % OF MAX.IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILLWAY FLIP BUCKETS V2/29 = H' 200 IN FEET 250 203 45.-. Fontana Dam spillway flip buckets..29H' x: H' (for 6=15°) .H.s. (a) Both prototype tunnels: Q= 10.66 [] 1.s. ELEV. FIGURE 161 -Model-prototype comparison.- Trajectory lengths and head loss.15 x 0...00 ~ 1... 50 100 150 300 350 -r. 0 60 at I 10050 :1: KEY ..f..90 . 80 ~ H/L VALUES .73H' x = 1.53H' x = 1.97H' x = 1.x i = 2H' X = 1.000 c.100 1UI ~ I~ 7 700 FEET 800 90 9 m -0 100 200 .88H' x = 1.500 c.J 15 ~ z <{ I 400 HORIZONTAL 500 DISTANCE 600 X IN 10 III) ~ I roO . :: 1<-. W.

since if o=O” the piezometer will then be upstream from the lip and a new problem will be created at the end of the extended ANGLE fi Px= Measured pressure at end of bucket Pt= Theoretical pressure (See figure 158) FIGURE 163.75.-Pressures ALONG on transition Q bucket floor. The curve indicates that for a given angle of inclination 0. The curves of Figure 164 indicate the pressures to be expected on the side walls of the transition bucket from the base of the wall to the water surface. i? I .C.Piezometers . and the maximum pressure is only four times as great as hydrostatic. where GO= V/R Developed distance from PC. and is only twice as great as static at x/l= 0.5) D. Other data are presented for different bucket radii. . It should be noted that the bucket side walls extend beyond the lip piezometer as shown in Figure 163. x/Z=O.0 includes for to 39 to IO. Experiments on model buckets showed that the pressure on this piezometer was affected by the shape or angle of the downstream portion of the bucket lip. to end of bucket Froude number. The curve of Figure 163 shows the relation between pressure and the angle /3. For 0=X0 the maximum pressure is four times greater than hydrostatic at x/1=0. indicated pressures below atmospheric. For an inclination angle 0 of 35’. however.80. At the end of the bucket. ot PC.94~~ R + 62. the maximum pressure is approximately eleven times as great as hydrostatic and occurs near the base of the wall at about the three-quarters point. i .55. x/=0.26.-Pressures at end of bucket. a phenomenon which has not been satisfactorily explained. and 0.3 Meosured pressure Theoretical pressure . For some tests a piezometer placed just upstream from the bucket lip. On the Flaming Gorge Dam spillway bucket. . computed from V and D. 0. R/Z values. Although the data are not complete. (1..99. .. to piezometer Developed distance from P. j3 should be 35’ or more to insure atmospheric pressures or above at the lip piezometer. The curve also indicates that if fl is 0’ the pressure will be atmospheric.99. sufficient information is presented to make a preliminary structural design. x/Z values.204 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS bucket. of the bucket length. This is not a practical solution. and stations along the bucket. one side -Envelope values s= l!jO and F = 6. Figure 163.% SECTION FIGURE 162.

2.-Pressures wall was cut down to the spring line of the tunnel without objectionable spreading of the jet occurring when the flow depth exceeded the height of the wall. A simplified bucket. eliminated the need for a transition to change the invert to a rectangular cross section. 1. More tests and prototype observations are needed to establish confidence in the performance of buckets used in critical locations. The spreading angle. The dynamic pressures on the sidewalls and floor of the bucket. b.IMPROVED TUNNEL SPILLWAY FLIP BUCKETS Conclusions 205 0. of the jet. 4. FIGURE 164. c. which is greatest at low flows and decreases as the discharge increases.6 hC -C phyd MEASURED HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE PRESSURE SECTION ALONG ‘72 on sidewall of transition bucket. This procedure simplified the structural design of the bucket by reducing the overall load on a wall which had no rock behind it. new ‘9. Simplified buckets formed by plane or simple curved surfaces can be made to be as effective as those using warped or compound surfaces. to flip larger flows into the river channel in an unsymmetrical pattern. The jet trajectory geometry. Flip-bucket designs need not be as complicated in concept as some which have been used in the past. Hydraulic model studies on a group of these buckets provided information to generalize the design of this type of bucket both hydraulically and structurally.ransition bucket” designs will still require hydraulic model testing if it is thought necessary to protect the downstream channel banks against damage from high-velocity flows. . geometrically formed by three planes. The “transition bucket. and to be self-draining after cessation of spillway discharges. The amount of tail water drawdown to be expected. Available data will allow the designer to establish the following: u. was developed to reduce the possibility of low flows dribbling over the lip. In the present state of knowledge. 3. d. These data are important in determining the proper vertical placement of the bucket structure.” formed geometrically by the intersection of two cylinders and developed for use on a circular tunnel spillway.

.

would be required to evaluate all of these factors. In order for the predictions to be valid. However. have been accomplished. the designer or investigator may predict within practical limits the stone sizes required for the protection of channel bottoms and banks for the usual conditions which prevail downstream from a stilling basin. the factors known to affect riprap stability are velocity. Many factors affect the stone size required to resist the forces tending to move the riprap. and only a few of the investigations needed to evaluate riprap stability characteristics P l Includesprotot~etests~~ Basin VI. prototype observations. In terms of the flow leaving the basin. both in the laboratory and in the field. these include the size or weight of the individual stones. and perhaps others.Section II Size of riprap to be used downstream from stilling basins * REVENTING bank damage caused by surges from a stilling basin and forestalling possible undermining of the structure caused by erosive currents passing over the end sill usually requires placing riprap on the channel bottom and banks downstream. and (2) a general tendency for the riprap in place to be sma. Failure has occurred because of (1) underestimation of the required stone size. the investigator can only deal with a channel relatively free of large waves and surges and having a reasonably well distributed velocity pattern. current direction. the purpose was to determine t’he 201 . despite attempts at rigid control procedures. and theoretical considerations. the shape of the large stones. the type of filter or bedding material placed beneath the riprap. Extensive tests. using the means at hand. the slope of the riprap layer.arted. When the inve&igation described in this section was st. the gradation of the entire mass of riprap. eddy action and waves.ller than specified. the thickness of the layer. In terms of the riprap itself. including laboratory tests. Experience has shown that the primary reason for riprap failure is undersized individual stones in the maximum size range. photographs of riprap failures combined with known facts which produced the failure.

but no exact method of specifying the gradation was agreed upon. Stone-size determination. The curve was then used with caution to predict the size of the large stones required in laboratory and field riprap installations. and Edward Soucek. and selected stone sizes up to 2% inches in maximum dimension indicate the lower middle portion of the curve to be essentially correct.. M. No attempt was made to specify stone shapes except to say that they should not be “flats. Other prototype observations are cited and used to help confirm the stone-size curve.” and successful. although sometimes sketchy and incomplete. Lacking more specific information. size) and should be placed over a gravel or reverse filter layer. the riprap faded. Blackwell in 1857. University of Colorado. as thick as the dimension of the large stones (curve. a tentative curve was selected and the lower end was modified from laboratory observations and field experience.574 where V. Field observations of riprap up to 18-inch size also indicated the curve to Rationbe accurate within wide practical limits. tended to confirm the derived curve of Figure 165 and helped to provide a basis for the selection of the maximum stone size in a graded riprap mixture. width. for the International Association for Hydraulic Structures Research. General field experience has shown that the riprap layer should be 1% times.=bottom velocity in channel in feet per second d=diameter of particle in inches (specific gravity 2. Berry (%5). Te Yun Liu. five points indicate that when the maximum stone size was equal to or greater than the curve value. ‘3. The tests also showed that the field performance of Stilling Basin VI agrees with the predictions made during the basin development tests. or more stable.65) Mavis and Laushey (34) proposed an equation for use with particles of any specific gravity: vt$=1/2&Js-1 where s=specific gravity of the particle d=diameter of particle in millimeters Tests made in the Bureau of Reclamation hydraulic laboratory on sands. Yun-Cheng Tu. Field tests on riprap installations that had been based on the data from Figure 165 showed the riprap to be stable and satisfactory.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS individual stone size necessary to resist a range of velocities which usually exist in open channels downstream from stilling structures. Stockholm. The lower portion of the curve of Figure 165 is an average of data reported by Du Buat in 1786. Mavis and L. T. . In a thesis by N. or more. or the stones should be of curve weight or more (weight is computed on the basis of 165 pounds per cubic foot) and should not be flat slabs. it may only be stated that most of the mixture should consist of stones having length. and thickness dimensions as nearly equal as practical. The observed field data. This may be due to compensating factors provided by the interlocking of the stones and the bounda?y layer velocity reduction produced by the rough riprap surface in contact with the flow.” The curve in Figure 165 gives the individual minimum stone size (diameter and weight of a spherical specimen) for a range of bottom velocities up to 17 feet per second. Suchier in 1874. Bouniceau in 1845. and Gilbert in 1914. Sweden. it was established that a well-graded riprap layer containing about 40 percent of the rock pieces smaller than the required size was as stable. The points shown adjacent to the curve indicate riprap failures. Thus. “F. the riprap remained stable. Sainjon in 1871. 1948. 1948. Using published material. a similar curve was determined and an equation for it presented: &=2. It checks well with results of tests made at the State University of Iowa by Chitty Ho. “A Reappraisal of the Beginnings of Bed Movement-Competent Velocity” by F.” installations observed in the field. gravels. Laushey. than a single stone of the required size. The data were assembled and discussed in a paper. Figure 165. and of curve size or larger. Prototype and model tests on Stilling Basin VI are described and indicate how prototype observations were used to help establish the validity of the stone-size curve. The gradation of the smaller stones in the riprap layer was based on judgment and experience. K. Thus! six points indicate that when the maximum stoTle size was less than the curve value.

IO00 900 c3 e 600 500 5 o n 2 Curve shows minimum size stones necessary to resist movement. F points ore prototype riprap install0 tions oints ore satisfactory 50 llc CD ii 25 3 IO 5 -0 BOTTOM FIGURE l&5.SIZE OF RIPRAP TO BE USED DOWNSTREAM FROM STILLING BASINS 209 42 The riprop should be composed of o well graded mixture but most of the stones should be of the size indicated by the curve. Riprop should be placed over o filter blanket or bedding of groded grovel in a layer I. stone size in riprap .-Curve VELOCITY to determine IN FEET maximum PER SECOND mixture. Curve is tentotive and subject to change OS o result of futher tests or operating experiences.5 times (or more) OSthick as the 36 .

. high water elevations were obtained in the ponding basins behind the dams. Prototype tests..f. feet----Maximum estimated velocity...f. is shown in Figure 166. 0 37. Following the storm. . feet------------------------Maximum head on intake. 3 27. known as the North and South Dams. 20. feet per second------------------Maximum estimated velocity on Aug. Figure 170 shows the erosion below the prototype after the August 20 flood and the erosion in the model for the maximum discharge. was also constructed according to the hydraulic model test recommendations (compare dimensions in Figure 167 with values interpolated between 236 and 339 in Col. however.. 4 20. 20.s.f. feet per second --------------North Dam Sot&h Dam 9. 29 24. 130 c. Flow leaving the North Dam outlet washed out the riprap below the stilling basin...a the following information was derived: Maximum water surface eleva.0 3931.. 0 165 130 80 3912. in that the basins dissipated the energy of the incoming tlow as expected and discharged the flow into the downstream chaIine1 in a well-distributed pattern. it was concluded that most of the riprap should consist of stones of sizes determined from the curve of Figure 165.0 125 sWth~~~ 3941. 59 48. 48 39. Flow through the two ungated detention dams.5 inch produced the first major test of the control works. Figure 42 and Table 11 on pages 83 and 86 (interpolate between 151 and 191 in Col. designed for a maximum discharge of 275 c. feet per second--Critical velocity over end sill on Aug. 1954. 1954..0 Head on intake on Aug.s.s. 0 7. 20--------------------Elevation of stilling basin floor. the riprap failure on one basin and the successful installation on the other were analyzed..-----3920. c!. Operation at 80 percent of maximum discharge. feet .-Aug. to show similarity with regard to scour below the model and prototype structures. 0 275 210 80 3895. A detailed account of the performance and scourpreventive measures later undertaken follows. 20. 20. After two of the larger prototype basins of this type had been constructed in the field and had been subjected to sizable flows. Rain over the Picacho watershed of about 0.f. Until more data and experience were available. .s -----. Closer inspection is necessary... 1954. is shown in Figure 169. Model-prototype comparison. 20.. Model and prototype tests.f.Acre-feet impounded on 1954-----------------------High water elevation on 1954-----------------------Intake elevation -----. 20.-- The North and South Dams control facilities provided flood protection up to the degree for which they were constructed.92 28.4 3921. 130 c. 71 42. 0 110 tions-.f. The North Dam and the outlet works structure are shown in Figure 168. 20. From the photographs it is apparent that the agreement between model and prototype is excellent. During the development tests for Stilling Basin VI.. and the model operating under similar conditions. The combined total discharge at both dams was in excess of 400 acre-feet. 3 of Table 11). 210 c. Observers considered that flow through the stilling basins was satisfactqy. 6 12* 10. feet--Maximum discharge. however. along with the model operating under very similar conditions. The Picacho South Dam outlet works structure. and undercut the end of the basin structure to a depth of about 2 feet.Head on Aug. Figure 172 shows the channel below the South Dam outlet.Maximum head on outlet.-High discharge on Aug. 8 6. it was decided to use the average velocity determined by dividing discharge by flow area at the end sill to find stone sizes. feet per second ------Velocity striking riprap Aug..08 18. even though many of the factors known to affect riprap sizes are not accounted for in the data... continued for almost 24 hours and was discharged through the impact-type stilling structures. 0 31. Aug.s ----------------------Percent maximum discharge on Aug. c. Figure 171 shows the performance of the South Dam outlet structure at 80 percent of maximum discharge. 1954. the placement of riprap was studied and tests were conducted on several sizes of gravel. designed for a maximum discharge of 165 c.--.-.. and from design dat. The dimensions agree closely with those recommended from the hydraulic model tests.3 3911.f. 9 5* ~. and until the interlocking etiect of the rock pieces could be determined.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS alization of all the known factors indicated that the curve might be directly applicable to the determination of riprap sizes.~th ~~~ 3938. Figure 167.s. 3 of Table 11).. The Picacho North Branch Dam outlet works.. The photographs show the remarkable similarity in the -model and prototype flow patterns leaving the outlet structures.s. 20.

166.25~-’ (Approx. Las Cmces Division.SIZE OF RIPRAP TO BE USED DOWNSTREAM FROM STILLING BASINS 211 PLAN BAFFLED OUTLET STRUCTURE ’ .3912.) SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTIONAL FIGURE ELEVATION Rio Grande project.-Outlet works of Picacho South Dam.. .-symm about C 0 =m EI.

f9w-El intake structure El 3911.s of Picacho North ELEVATION Dam. Rio Grade project. .-Baffled outlet structure SECTIONAL FIGURE 167. ground--’ ~ of Dam :-ContractIon joints @ 24"CtrS. m-------T:. Las Cruces Division.0 Ortginol 39203.-Outlet work.212 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS PLAN BAFFLED OUTLET STRUCTURE ic--Symm about % SECTION B-B ---AXIS WS on Aug 2o. .

Picacho North Dam outlet works structure discharging 210 c. The few remaining pieces near the man at the right seem to be in the upper size range and apparently these did not move. would vary from about 18. Since the prototype sill height is 31..-Model-prototype comparison. To further analyze the stone size necessary to withstand the erosive forces..-lmpact-type stilling basin structure. .5 inches. therefore. Picacho North Dam. scour depth in the prototype without riprap protection should be about 23 inches below apron elevation. Hydraulic model discharging maximum capacity similar conditions of head and tailwater . To withstand the maximum velocity to be expected when the structure is subjected to full head and . Although it is impossible from the photograph of the prototype in Figure 170 to determine the size of riprap in the channel at the start of the run. used in the model tests and recommended for the upper limit in prototype structures of this type. The estimated velocity (based on calculations) of 37 feet per second is greater than the upper velocity limit. riprap corresponding tq 9. visible as white lines. since some of the model riprap did move.to 20-inch minimum stones would have been required to prevent movement of the riprap below the North Dam outlet. under FIGURE 169.to 18-inch stones did not show excessive moiement of the rock mass. the curve of Figure 165 is used. According to construction specifications.. The pea-gravel used in the model was considered to be an erodible bed. the critical stone size is about 20 inches.f. the bank riprap indicates that there were very few rockpieces of the 500-pound size. . Picacho North Dam. th~ riprap below the outlet w~ to ". It appears that 18. but did show some erosion downstream from the end sill. (80 percent of maximum capacity).SIZE OF RIPRAP TO BE USED DOWNSTREAM FROM STILLING BASINS 213 FIGURE 168. Larger riprap would have prevented the erosion. This checks the equivalent 9. The more general erosion which occurred in the prototype is probably attributable to the higher velocity entering the protot)pe stilling basin. shown in Figure 173.s. The contours. or in weight from about 500 to 15 pounds. foUowing flood of August 20. show that the erosion depth was 19/26 of the sill height below apron elevation.'i from 1/8 cubic yard to 1/10 cubic foot. 1954. I~ the hydraulic model test made to develop this basin.to 18-inch stone size used in the model tests to a reasonable degree.consist of durable rock fragments reasonably graded in size. The individual rocks. The photograph of the model in Figure 170 shows the extent and depth of scour when there was no riprap protection provided in the channel. 30 feet per second. Using the curve for the caseat hand.to 5~inch cubes. This compares very favorably with the 2 feet measured in the prototype.

Hydraulic model indicates erosion similar to prototype when riprap size is inadequate. 1954.s.214 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS same as for the North Dam outlet (5 to 18 inches) the stones were sufficiently large to resist movement. Flow conditions below the South Dam outlet are shown in Figure 171. According to the curve of Figure 165. In contrast to the riprap failure at the North Dam the riprap at the outlet of the South Dam was relatively undisturbed.-Model-prototype comparison. the stone size required would be about 4 inches. FIGURE170. FIGURE 171. the velocity over the end sill is considerably lower than the velocity striking the riprap. . Figure 172. perhaps 24-inch minimum. discharge conditions. Note similarity both upstream and downstream from vertical batHe.f.s. The velocity over the end sill of the South Dam Basin is much lower than at the North Dam. Further acceleration of the flow by a drop over the Scour below Picacho North Dam outlet works following flood of August 20. It should be noted in Figure 169 that the tail water is low with respect to the elevation of the stilling basin. Evidence points to undersized riprap. For the North Dam basin which has a sill length of 15. No damage was found after inspection of the dry channel.5 feet.-Model-prototype comparison. a critical depth of 1.6 feet per second.. Since the riprap sizes given in specifications for the South Dam outlet are the Flow appearance in model for the same conditions. 130 c. Therefore. Picacho Sovth Dam. larger stones would be required. bejng only about 5 feet per second. According to the curve in Figure 165.Picacho North Dam. riprap about 9 inches in diameter is required. the critical velocity would be 7.5 feet over the end sill and a discharge of 210 c.f. South Dam outlet works structure discharging (80 percent of maximum) .

Thus.-Hydraulic diameter (equivalent) model te8t8 u8ing 9. Data were not always complete and FIGURE 173. end sill to the tail water surface of 2 feet. at the South Dam outlet the riprap would be expected to remain in place and did. no doubt. Figure 169. it is relatively unimportant that there is some doubt connected with the plotting of each individual point. failure occurred near water line on 1:1 slope.f. In the case of the North Dam basin. requiring riprap about 30 inches in diameter. The curve of Figure 165. There was no disturbance or loss of riprap under a discharge of 130 c. the riprap below the North Dam outlet would be expected to fail and did . Riprap stability observations. Other prototype observations.to 18-inch 8tOne8 8how 8ome movement of riprap. Even when ample data were available. appears to have merit in the determination of riprap sizes. however. it was not always clear where a test point should be plotted since the riprap size analysis was difficult to interpret. therefore. higher before the riprap was lost. interpreted and plotted on Figure 165 as "F" (failure) and "S" (satjsfactory) points to help in determining the validity of the riprap size curve. Riprap stability observations made in the field by various personnel were analyzed. However. "8" points indicate a satisfactory installation that required only routine maintenance or none. Point 1F Riprap on banks with variable slope and flat bottom. none as conclusive as the example above.s.SIZE OF RIPRAP TO BE USED DOWNSTREAM FROM STILLING BASINS 215 in some cases rock sizes had to be scaled from photographs taken prior to the riprap failure. "F" points indicate failure of the riprap installation to a degree sufficient to require extensive repairs or total loss. unknown factors are not mentioned. would result in a velocity of about 14 feet per second. Each point on Figure 165 is discussed in terms of the known factors . since allll plotted points indicate that the stone-size curve of Figure 165 is correct. . Riprap size analysis: 100 percent finer than FIGURE 172. The analysis indicates that. the tail water was.-Flow conditions downstream from Picacho South Dam outlet works are entirely satisfactory. rock sizes varied in a single reach of channel. tended to indicate the same degree of confirmation. the importance of matching the basin elevation to the probable tail water elevation is evident. or the riprap had been exposedto a range of velocities with failure occurring at less than maximum velocity. according to the curve of Figure 165.

20 percent finer than 10 pounds. required maintenance at greater unknown velocity. 40 percent finer than 45 pounds.5 feet per second. Below the South Dam outlet works the same material remained in place with an outflow velocity of about 5 feet per second. On the North Dam outlet works this material was entirely removed from the channel bottom by outflow having a velocity of about 12 feet per second.000-pound stones. Resisted 12 feet per second for a time but eventually failed. respectively. Failure at 13. Continual maintenance required above 10 feet per second and believed to be marginal et just less than 10 feet per second.to 12-inch stones below a canal headgate resisted a velocity of 6 to 7 feet per second for many years. Six-inch cobbles placed about two stones deep. Mixture of l. Point 3F Riprap failure on banks of channel. both in physical dimensions and On this in the quantity of water to be handled. Flow velocity 14 feet per second in center of channel.3 feet per second. Point 6S This is actually two points.3 feet per second. in flood. 100 pounds maximum weight.he prototype performance was as predicted by the hydraulic model tests described in Section 6. 2. smaller pieces often on surface. Resisted 12 feet per second.216 HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS Point 2S Hand-placed stone about 500 pounds each. Riprap size 90 percent finer t. The only adverse performance of these structures was ‘the loss of the riprap below the North Dam outlet works. 700 pounds. Material consisted of 1%inch-thick layer of rocks averaging 100 pounds (few larger pieces). Point 2F Riprap on banks and bottom. Subjected to velocities up to 23 feet per second. . with discharges equal to 80 percent of design capacity. 10 feet high. l. Failure occurred after sustained average velocity of 16. Point 4S Flat paving of lo. The outlet works structures at the North and South Dams appear. stood up well with only occasional maintenance. Riprap was 12-inch-thick layer. Point 4F Riprap failure on flat sloping banks. failure was general on banks and bottom-it is not known which occurred first.han 410 pounds. based on discharge divided by flow area. 40 percent finer than 35 pounds. SO percent finer than 20~1 pounds. Point 3S Dumped riprap fill. Point 1S Riprap on 1 %:l banks. Point 6F Riprap failure on bottom of channel. per second. This loss was shown to be consistent with the curve in Figure 165. as In a natural mountain stream pound stones moved under 14 velocity. 50 percent finer than 80 pounds. shown on graph. Despite the fact that the general design rules presented limit the incoming velocity to 30 feet per second. to be of about the same general size. velocity near riprap estimated at 12 feet per second. 80 percent finer than 260 pounds. Point 6F Riprap failure on steep bank projecting into current. 90 percent’ finer than 400 pounds. basis. Subjected to velocity of from IO to 14 feet per second. Failure was rapid at a velocity of 16. No filter or bedding but riprap was placed on natural sand. 50 percent finer than 80 pounds. riprap sizes for both structures were specified to consist of material from % cubic yard to $& cubic foot. Complete failure at 12 feet per second. the North and South Dams structures performed very well for velocities computed to be about 37 and 32 feet. Riprap size analysis: 100 percent finer than 500 pounds.and 2.OOO. slope 1:l approximately and flatter. 24 percent finer than 9 pounds. offhand. 50 percent of rock was 20 to 90 pounds (remainder spalls). resisted 6 to 9 feet per second for indefinite period. conTheresiderably lower than at the North Dam. 90 percent finer than 350 pounds.000-pound stones did Conclusions The passage of the flood of August 20 through the two outlet works structures of the Picacho Arroyo control indicates that t.OOOfeet per second not.

The Nomograph will be found to be extremely usefuJin solving hydraulic jump problems. A filter layer would have prevented settlement. or bedding. These factors alone provide a basis for thought in specifying riprap material. The riprap has partially failed because waves removed material from beneath the riprap layer. The top of the riprap was originally at the top of the bank. causing entire mass to seUle away from top of bank. It is a fairly well established fact that better performance of the riprEilPresults when it is placed over a filter. Place the riprap in a layer at least 1~ times as thick as the maximum stone size. The curve indicates over most of its range that doubling the flow velocity leaving a structure makes it necessary to provide riprap about 4 times larger in nominal diameter or 16 times larger in volume or weight. It is felt that this curve. Stone size in a riprap layer used for channel bank or bottom protection is indicated by Figure 165. or the average velocity based on discharge divided by cross-sectional area at the end sill of the stilling basin. will provide a starting point for the development of a more accurate method of determining stone sizes and specifying riprap mixtures. For other types of stilling basins use the bottom velocity if known. Nomograph 3: Pictorial Summary Works listed in the Bibliography supplied both source and reference material for this monograph. Bibliography 2. Recommendations FIGURE 174. Following this text are: I. to find the maximum stone size in Figure 165. Specify riprap so that most--0f the graded mi:xture consists of this size.-Surge-type waves extracted fine earth material from behind coarse riprap. Column 19. are based on the data and discussions presented here.SIZE OF RIPRAP TO BE USED DOWNSTREAM FROM STILLING BASINS 217 fore. . High water line was below elevation where man stands. Figure 174 shows an installation of oversized riprap laid directly on fine soil. The riprap sizes given in Table 11. The rate of change of the variables to be seenby manipulating a straightedge can be of definite help to both student and design engineer. it is evident that the minimum stone sizes are critical with respect to the velocity below the structure. even though only partially proven by the "F" and "Si' points. The Pictorial Summary is particularly useful in locating a particular item in the monograph or for suggesting the proper structure for a given set of conditions. although most of the material contained herein is original in nature. composed of gravel or graded gravel having the larger particles on the surface. particularly on a first-trial basis.

.

Barnes. et al. “The Hydraulic and the Discharge of Sluice Gates. Blaisdell. Also Civil Engineer. St. Translation from Russian in files of University of Minnesota. “Mechanics of the Hydraulic Jump. D. 38.. Ellms.. Rindlaub. Blaisdell. R.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. Hinds. 2. Vol.. October 1941.S. 1107. Rouse.. 5. Einwachter. December 1943. Vol. ‘(Engineering Hydraulics. 113. 6. 1932. Paper Hyd.. 483. Vol.” a translation from German by I. Bakhmeteff. p. Puls. B. Lancaster. Transadions Scientific Research Institute of Hydrotechnics. Jump in Sloping 7.. Vol. p. Bakhmeteff. P. 1950. E. Hosig. W. 630. “The Hydraulic Channels.” Transactions ASME. 111. A. B. Second Edition. and Matzke. “The Hydraulic Jump in Sloped Channels. A. Soil Conservation Service. W. 4. 11. “Hydraulic Jump in Sloping and Horizontal Flumes. Bureau of Reclamation files. 1934. with discussions by G. p. Calif. H. Hickox. 1929. Jump and Related 9. “Development sign. 368... 1948. Vol. Leningrad. A.. 54-6. ” Wossersprung und Deckwalzenlange” (The Hydraulic Jump and Length of the Surface Roller) Wasserkraft und Wasserwirtschaft. 25..” McGrawHill Book Co. W. B.. King. 85. 13. Heft. 50. Department of Agriculture. 15.” U. “Untersuchungen uber den Wechselsprung” (Research Relating to the Hydraulic Jump). “The Hydraulic Phenomena.” Transactions ASCE. “The Hydraulic Jump in Terms of Dynamic Similarity. Denver.” Transactions ASME. R. 54. Vol. Denver. B. 623. p. Minneapolis. Chertonosov. 571. 435.. 1935. J. “Field Measurements the Characteristics of Flow Down a Spillway Face with Special Reference to Grand Coulee and Shasta Dams. 17. January 1934. F.” Trunsactions ASME.Bibliography 1.” Transactions ASME. (Some Considerations Regarding the Length of the Hydraulic Jump). Berkeley. 60. Paper APM-54-l. 1932.. Safranez. Kindsvater. Vol. Colo.” Transactions ASCE. 1928. W. Vol. to Evaluate 17. 1938. Minn.” Engineering News-Record. 1944. “Handbook of Hydraulics. Vol. University of California. Jump and Critical 14.. p. “Computation of Tail-water Depth of the Hydraulic Jump in Sloping Flumes. “The Hydraulic Jump in Sloping Channels. 37. D. April 17.. Hunter.. 3. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Memorandum No. “The SAF Stilling Basin. Jump and its Top Roll 4. A. 1936. 1935. 12. p. Bakhmeteff. Denver. 262. Nov.. L. p. Wiley & Sons. 10. Translation by D. Ellms. Vol. 1929. B. 1034. NO.” Thesis for Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering. 109. A. F. M. 22. Julian. Kurt. 30. W.” Trunsu&ions ASCE. 1920. 334. K. Colo. 8.. Vol. p. Bausinginieur. Colo. Carl E. “The Hydraulic Depth in the Design of Hydraulic Structures. E.” John 18. D. and Hydraulic De16. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory. Woycicki. G. M. and Matzke. 219 . Saint Anthony Falls Stilling Basin. 54.” Bureau of Reclamation Technical Memorandum No. 101. H.

R. “Hydraulic Model Studies on the Wave Suppressor Device at Friant-Kern Canal Headworks. Papers 1401 through 1406. Newman. G. “Hydraulic Model Studies of Outlet Works and Wasteway for Lovewell Dam. Die Wasserkraft..” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd.. 430. Berry.” Master of Science Thesis. Beichley. J.” Transactions ASCE. 62. T. Schoklitsch.” Technical Monograph 68. 1921. 37. p. and Peterka..” (The Hydraulic Jump). Arizona. Kennison. “Der Wassersprung. 1 Joining the St. Wagner. 21. G. P. ‘I. “Die Wasserwalze als Regler des Energie-Haushaltes der Wasserlaufe. A. A. 40. Vol.. Simmons. 3573. A. Lancaster. S.” Journal of the Hydraulics Division. Stockholm.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Paper No. G. “Progress Report III-Section 7-Slotted and Solid Buckets for High. T. 46. Energy Dissipators.. J. 39. 414.7. K.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd.HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS 19. Beichley..” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Beport Hyd. and Wsah Overchute at Station 938+00-WelltonMohawk Division. 445. October 1957. W. Paper No. A. Rhone.. 439. 23.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Paper No. “Improved Tunnel Transactions ASCE.. 399.” Engineering News-Record. 42. 38.. “Bibliography on the Hydraulic Design of Spillways. Culvert Under Dike. Forchheimer. W. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. J. 1963. Model Studies of Yellow50. p. “Energy Loss at the Base of a Free Overfall.. Beichley. 24. HY 4. Wagner. Rehbock.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. 47.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. Vol. Woodward.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. J. Weber Basin. Rhone. Beichley.” Vol. “Hydraulic Model Studies of the Trinity Dam Spillway Flip Bucket. Peterka. Mavis. 398. 31. “Hydraulic let Control Structure. 41. B. Vol.... J. 185. and Associated Appurtenancesj” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. Central Valley Project. 51.. E. 34.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydrauhc Laboratory Report Hyd. 28.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. Bradley. “The Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins. 1948. A.. 27. A.. J. A. Rhone. Franklin Canal. 86.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. 29. T. 20. F.. 1961. and Dexter. Sweden. L. 1270.. L.” &Master of Science Thesis. HY 5. Model Studies of the Out49. and LaBoon. 21.” (The Hydraulic Jump). “Hydraulic Characteristics of Hollow-Jet Valves. “A Reappraisal of the Beginnings of Bed Movement-Competent Velocity. Tennessee Valley Authority. Kozeny. 22. Vol. N. “Hydraulic Jump and Backwater Curve. “The Start of Bed Load Movement. 101. J.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. “ Wasserkraft und Wasserwirtschaft. Moore. N. J. “Hydraulic Model Studies of the Check Intake Structure-Potholes East Canal. 22.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd.. “Hydraulic Model Studies. p. Higgins. and Peterka. A.. C.” Thesis. M. A.. August 10.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. ‘Stilling Basin Performance StudiesAn Aid in Determining Riprap Sizes. 33. T.. N.. Die Wasserwirtschaft. M. Part 1. 1918. p. and Low Dam Spillways. L. 1916. Vol. 44..” (The Hydraulic Roller as a Regulator of the Energy Content of a Stream). No. W. IJtah. “Progress Report V-Research Study on Stilling Basins. 395. 537. “Progress ReportResearch Study on Stilling Basins. Medium. and Associated Appurtenances-Section 9-Baffled Apron on 2 : 1 Slope for Canal or Spillway Drops. 1924. R. 1929.. J. J. “Hydraulic tail Dam Spillway and Outlet Works (Preliminary Studies).” ASCE Journal of Hydraulics Division. California. University of Colorado. 80. 1953. p. and Peterka. J.” Proceedings of the International Association for Hydraulic Structures Research.. J. Peterka. D.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. 30. E. “Hydraulic Model Studies of Yellowtail Dam Outlet Works (Final Studies). 1948. 409. 26. J. and Laushey. Vol. 400. 83. J. L. W. 89. Delft. “Effect of Baffle Piers on the Hydraulic Jump. “Model Studies of Davis Aqueduct Turnouts 15. 25. 467. 1926.. 411...4 and 11. “Hydraulic Model Studies of Trinity Dam Outlet Works. Vol. J. Schuster. 45..” 126. 1943. K.” Transactions ASCE. p. Vrain Canal. 446. L.” Bureau of . and Peterka. “Impact Type Energy Dissipators for Flow at Pipe Outlets. A.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. J. 99. Gila Project. B.. (‘Progress Report IV-Research Study on Stilling Basin for High Head Outlet Works Utilizing Hollow-Jet Valve Control.. Proceedings 1st International Congress for Applied Mechanics. M. 1953.. 574. Energy Dissipators. p. Spillway Flip Buckets. Bradley. “The Hydraulic Jump in Open Channel Flow. D. 1343. 1960. J. L. 1925. Beichley.. 394. 35. 48. Vol. 359. Fontana Project.. “The Direct Measure of Forces on Baffle Piers in the Hydraulic Jump.. 43. 32. ASCE. Peterka. Rhone.. and Peterka. T. 109. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. G. T. 20. 238. 108. “Ueber den Wechselsprung. F. Rhone. G. J. 415. p. “Hydraulic Model Studies of Wu-Sheh Dam Tunnel Spillway. L. “Hydraulic Model Studies of the Outlet Works at Carter Lake Reservoir Dam No. 36. J.

. New York. J. E. B.. 482. 62. February 1958. Second Meeting International Association for Hydraulic Research. of Hydraul63. Vol. CE. Stilling Basin. “Mechanism of Erosion Below 75.S. University of Minnesota. “Hydraulic Model Studies of Whiskeytown Dam Spillway Diversion Structure and Outlet Works... R.. U. “Spillways Proceedings of Hydraulic Conference. 221 52. Sweden. January 1952. and Rouse. Dai. C. and Karr. 2. Bucket-type Energy Dissipator Characteristics. October 1954.” Appendix 2. Fiola. M. Utah.. McPherson.” Journa ! ACI. Paper 2409. 4. 83. K.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd..” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. A. “Formulas for Bed Load Transport. “Chapter VIII. Hydraulic Works. No. D.” Vol. No. Drop 74.. Blaisdell. New York. John Wiley & Sons. No. pp. 1417. of Submerged Jets. Series B. July 13. “Progress in New Designs for Outlet Works Stilling Basins.” Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research.” Colorado State University Research Foundation.” Proceedings ASCE. August 1949. “Bed Load Transportation in Mountain Creek. October 1957. C. 60. Minneapolis. M. Rusho. Inc. “Straight Spillway Stilling Baeins. Ahmad. 1956. L.. G. S.. H. J. 30. State University of Iowa.. G. 64. December 1950. Simon. Department of Agriculture..” St.. Hunter and Ince. Fred C. 8. Erosion at Grand Coulee 73. W.” Proceedings ASCE. “Hydraulic Model Studies of Baffled Apron Drops-Willard Canal Pumping Plant No.. Missouri River Basin Project. August 1939. Houk. Peterka. HY 6. Vol. and Donnelly. Ivan E. 55. A.. Minn. December 1950. No. 72. Posey. and Energy Dissipators. “Hydraulic Model Studies of the Outlet Works-Boysen Dam.” Engineering News-Remvd. 61.. Beichley. Engineering Hydraulics. “Study of 65. 490.. *Jensen. Clark. A. Round. Rouse.. and Albertson. 56. HY 3. No. J. Johnson. Dam Stillin Basin Repaired 70.” edited by Hunter Rouse. J. June 1957. 331.. Warnock. Inc. Vol. 66. “Spillway Dam. “The Manifold 68. “Why Bridges Fail in Floods. 57. Washington. 54 pp. 81. “History ics. 69. 498. Paper 15. “Hydraulic Jump at an Abrupt Drop. Weber Basin Project. 1449. M.. 1.. E. September 1955. 791.. J. Vol. 53. Rusho. August 1944. R. 1950. 58. “Hydraulic Model Studies of Falcon Dam-International Boundary and Water Commission Report. W. Einstein. B.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd.BIBLIOGRAPHY Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. A..” 71. W. Ippen. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory. December 1957.... 283. No.C. T. 67. “Flow Geometry at Stmight Drop Spillways. L. Meyer-Peter..” Transactions American Geophysical Union. H. Stockholm. Keener. E. 1940. 276. HY 1.” Civil Engineering. M..” Transactions H. “Bonneville After 17 Years’ Service. February 1949.” Ciuil Engineering. and Proceedings 84. C. 1266. State University of Iowa Engineering Bulletin 20. Y. February 1962. H. W. and Discussion Proceeclings ASCE..” Soil Conservation Service. $eparate No.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. 115. L. E. July 1962. 133. “Hydraulic Model Studies of the Overflow Spillway and the Hale Ditch Irrigation OutletBonny Dam. W. 83. July 1950. Vol. “Irrigation Engineering. Rhone. 59. and Morgan. June 1958. “Diffusion ASCE. T.. 27.. 84. Albertson. Moore. and Discussion. Reinhart. Scobey. R. B.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. R. No. 39-64. HY 5. A. “Notes on the Hydraulic Jump. and Muller. A. 54. 1950. John Wiley & Sons. 1690.. F.” Proceedings ASCE. April 1956. and Tabor. “Scale Effects in Hydraulic Models Involving Wave Motion. 302. J. HY 3. Vol. June 1948.. J. 1944. No. SCS-TP-55..” Proceedings International Association for Hydraulic Research and ASCE. 2. R. W.” Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. . Mushtaq. 1558.

.222 HYDRAULIC DESIGN STILLING BASINS AND ENERGY DISSIPATORS KEY NOTES Nomograph to determine hydraulic jump stilling basin characteristics and dimensions.

.

.

Denver Federal Center.S. Department responsible for the development and conservation water resources in the Western United States The Bureau 3 original purpo~? “to provide for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the West” today covers a wide range of interrelated functions. Denver CO 80225-0007. their cost. flood control. and research on water-related design.Mission of the Bureau of Reclamation of the fnterior is of the Nation’s The Bureau of Reclamation of the U. Bureau programs most frequently are the result of close cooperation with the U. water-user organizations. other Federal agencies. P 0 Box 25007. Attn D-922. irrigation water for agricultune. construction. water quality improvement. river regulation and control: fish and wildlife enhancement. These include providing municipaland industrial water supplies: hydroelectric power generation. local governments. The pamphlet can be obtained upon request from the Bureau of Reclamation. outdoor recreation. and how to order them. materials. A free pamphlet is available from the Bureau entitled “Publications for Sale. States. . river navigation.S. academic institutions.” It describes some of the technical publications currently available. atmoqheric management. and other concerned groups. Congress. and wind and solar power.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful