Ubc 2004-0713

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF PLUNGE POOL PERFORMANCE
AT FOUR OF BC HYDRO DAM SITES

AND ASSESSMENT OF SCOUR EXTENT
by
MARYSE MONFETTE
B.A.Sc. (Geological Engineering), Universite Laval, 1999
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
CIVIL ENGINEERING
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
June 2 0 04
® Maryse Monfette, 2004

ABSTRACT
The plunge pool performance at four of BC Hydro dam sites is reviewed.

The sites of Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project, and
Revelstoke Dam are described in terms spillway design, plunge pool geology,
and historical spillway outflows. The main factors susceptible to affect
plunge pool scour are examined and the importance of each is established
through a comparative analysis between sites.
The spillway layout affects the plunge pool scour development mainly
through the design unit discharge and total head drop for a given outflow and
reservoir level. The plunge pool scour configuration is affected by the
prevailing geological conditions. The magnitude of spillway flows appears
predominant over the frequency and duration of spills. Observations support
the concept of equilibrium conditions.
A total of 14 sets of scour data were assembled from the review of

plunge pool performance at the four sites of study. This information was used
to evaluate the conventional methods of scour assessment such as hydraulic
model studies and empirical equations in comparison with a new approach
called the Erodibility Index Method. Ten well-known empirical formulas were
tested. The Erodibility Index Method was applied methodically to the four
sites of study and a sensitivity analysis was performed.
The results of downstream scour tests from small-scale model studies

were comparable to prototype observations in one of the four study cases. The
empirical equations were seen to provide on average conservative values for
design, but the great variability in results for a single data set and the
inconsistency of a given formula from one site to another are problematic.
The expression by Damle (1966) was seen to give the best combination of
precision and accuracy with a standard error of estimate of 16 ft.
The performance of the Erodibility Index Method in the assessment of

maximum scour depth was disappointing and did not outclass the conventional
methods. The Erodibility Index Method was characterized by a tendency for
underestimation and a standard error of estimate of 53 ft. The main weakness
of the approach is that the vertical distribution of power available for
scour in the plunge pool is essentially related to the submerged jet velocity
profile which do not reflect the changing magnitude of spillway discharges.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Acknowledgements viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 PHYSICAL PROCESSES 5

2.1.1 Free-Trajectory Jets 6
2.1.2 Jet Diffusion and Hydraulic Action Within the Plunge Pool. . 8
2.1.3 Scour Mechanisms 10
2.2 PLUNGE POOL SCOUR ASSESSMENT 12
2.2.1 Hydraulic Model Studies 13
2.2.2 Empirical Formulas 14
2.2.3 The Dam Foundation Erosion Study 16
CHAPTER III DAM SITES DESCRIPTION 22
3.1 PEACE CANYON DAM 22

3.1.1 General Arrangement 22
3.1.2 Spillway Characteristics 23
3.1.3 Plunge Pool Geology 24
3.1.4 Historical Spills 25
3.1.5 Scour Hole Development 26
3.2 SEVEN MILE DAM 28
3.3 PORTAGE MOUNTAIN PROJECT 35
3.3.3 Plunge Pool Geology . 37
3.4 REVELSTOKE DAM 40
CHAPTER IV COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING PLUNGE POOL SCOUR . 88
4.1 SPILLWAY CHARACTERISTICS 88

4.2 PLUNGE POOL GEOLOGY 91
4.3 SPILLWAY DISCHARGES 93
4.4 SCOUR RATE 96
4.5 TAILRACE IMPROVEMENTS 99
CHAPTER V CONVENTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF PLUNGE POOL SCOUR 105
5.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES 105

5.1.1 Peace Canyon Dam 105
5.1.2 Seven Mile Dam 106
5.1.3 Portage Mountain Project 107
5.1.4 Revel stoke Dam 108
5.2 SCOUR DEPTH EMPIRICAL FORMULAS 110
5.2.1 Descriptive List of Equations 110
5.2.2 Performance of Empirical Formulas 113
CHAPTER VI THE ERODIBILITY INDEX METHOD 13 6
6.1 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH 136

6.2 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 13 8
6.2.1 Erodibility Index Characterization 138
6.2.2 Jet Hydraulics - Computational Methods 139
6.2.3 Maximum Scour Depth 141
6.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 143
6.3.1 Erodibility Index 144
6.3.2 Jet Velocity Profile 145
6.3.3 Jet Impact Velocity 146
6.3.4 Jet Air Concentration at Impact 148
6.4 EVALUATION 14 9
CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION 177
7.1 LIMITATIONS 177

7.2 CONCLUSIONS 180
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS 182
Selected Bibliography 185
Appendix I Erodibility Index Charts 193
Appendix II Plunge Pool Surveys 197

Table 3.1: - Peace Canyon Dam/Spillway Characteristics 46
Table 3.2: Peace Canyon Dam/Historical Spills 47
Table 3.3: Peace Canyon Dam/Scour Hole Development 48
Table 3.4: Seven Mile Dam/Spillway Characteristics 49
Table 3.5: Seven Mile Dam/Historical Spills 50
Table 3.6: Seven Mile Dam/Scour Hole Development 51
Table 3.7: Portage Mountain Project/Spillway Characteristics 52
Table 3.8: Portage Mountain Project/Historical Spills 53
Table 3.9: Portage Mountain Project/Scour Hole Development 54
Table 3.10: Revelstoke Dam/Spillway Characteristics 55
Table 3.11: Revelstoke Dam/Historical Spills 56
Table 3.12: Revelstoke Dam/Scour Hole Development 57
Table 4.1: Comparison of Spillway Characteristics 101
Table 5.1: List of Empirical Formulas for Ultimate Scour Depth Prediction . 116
Table 5.2: Scour Data Sets 118
Table 5.3: Statistical Analysis of Scour Depth Empirical Formulas
Performance 119
Table 6.1: Peace Canyon/Erodibility Index Characterization 151
Table 6.2: Seven Mile/Erodibility Index Characterization 152
Table 6.3: Portage Mountain/Erodibility Index Characterization 153
1
Table 6.4: Revelstoke/Erodibility Index Characterization . . . . 154
Table 6.5: Jet Hydraulics - Computational Steps 155
Table 6.6: Jet Hydraulics - Basic Parameters 157
Table 6.7: Sensitivity Analysis of Erodibility Index 158
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Free-Trajectory Jet Issued from a Typical Ski-Jump Spillway at Seven
Mile Dam (Trail, B.C.) 5
Figure 2.1: Main Parameters and Physical Processes Involved in Plunge Pool
Scour 19
Figure 2.2: Jet Behaviour in the Atmosphere 20
Figure 2.3: Jet Behaviour in the Plunge Pool 20
Figure 2.4: Erodibility Threshold for Rock and Other Complex Earth Materials . 21
Figure 3.1: Geographic Location of Dam Sites 58
Figure 3.2: Peace Canyon Dam/General Arrangement 59
Figure 3.3: Peace Canyon Spillway 59
Figure 3.4: Peace Canyon Dam/Spillway Foundation Geology 60
Figure 3.5: Peace Canyon Dam/Spillway Outflow Hydrograph - 1979 to 2001. . . . 61
Figure 3.6: Peace Canyon Dam/Plunge Pool Topography Before Spillway Operation. 62
Figure 3.7: Peace Canyon Dam/Plunge Pool Topography As Surveyed
on 15 April 1980 63
on 5 September 1981 64
on 4 August 1996 65
Figure 3.10: Seven Mile Dam/General Arrangement 66
Figure 3.11: Seven Mile Spillway 66
Figure 3.12: Seven Mile Dam/Plunge Pool Bedrock - Geological Mapping 67
Figure 3.13: Seven Mile Dam/Photographs of Plunge Pool Bedrock 68
Figure 3.14: Seven Mile Dam / Spillway Outflow Hydrograph - 1979 to 2001. . . . 69
Figure 3.15: Seven Mile Dam/Plunge Pool Topography Before Spillway Operation. . 70
Figure 3.16: Seven Mile Dam/Plunge Pool Topography As Surveyed
on 14 December 1979 71
on 11-12 August 1982 72
on 20 September 1984 73
on 21-26 October 1997 74
Figure 3.20: Portage Mountain Project/General Arrangement 75
Figure 3.21: Portage Mountain Spillway 75
Figure 3.22: Portage Mountain Project/Right Cliff Rock Strata 76
Figure 3.23: Portage Mountain Project/Plunge Pool Geology 77
Figure 3.24: Portage Mountain Project/Spillway Outflow Hydrograph -
1972 to 2001 78
Figure 3.25: Portage Mountain Project/Plunge Pool Topography
Before Spillway Operation 79
As Surveyed on 15-16 May 1973 80
As Surveyed on 4 August 1996 81
Figure 3.28: Revelstoke Dam/General Arrangement 82
Figure 3.29: Revelstoke Spillway 82
Figure 3.30: Revelstoke Dam/Plunge Pool Geological Information 83
Figure 3.31: Revelstoke Dam/Spillway Outflow Hydrograph - 1983 to 2001 84
Figure 3.32: Revelstoke Dam/Plunge Pool Topography Before Spillway Operation. . 85
Figure 3.33: Revelstoke Dam/Plunge Pool Topography As Surveyed on 15 May 1984 . 86
Figure 3.34: Revelstoke Dam/Plunge Pool Topography As Surveyed
Following Spillway Tests on August 1986 87
Figure 4.1: The Latest Plunge Pool Scour Configuration at Peace Canyon Dam
and Seven Mile Dam 102
Figure 4.2: The Latest Plunge Pool Scour Configuration at Portage Mountain
Project and Revelstoke Dam 103
Figure 4.3: Spillway Flow Duration Curve of Each Site of Study 104
Figure 5.1: Peace Canyon Dam/Comparison of Prototype Scour and Model Scour . 120
Figure 5.2: Seven Mile Dam/Model Scour Patterns in Non-Cohesive Bed 121
Figure 5.3: Seven Mile Dam/Model Scour Patterns in Cohesive Bed 122
Figure 5.4: Portage Mountain Project/Plunge Pool Scour From Model Tests. . . 123
Figure 5.5: Revelstoke Dam/Scour Configuration From Model Studies 124
Figure 5.6: The Veronese Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation. . . 125
Figure 5.7: The Jaeger Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation. . . . 126
Figure 5.8: The Damle Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation . . . . 127
Figure 5.9: The Chian Min Wu Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation. 128
Figure 5.10: The Martins Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation . . . 129
Figure 5.11: The Taraimovich Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation ! 130
Figure 5.12: The Mason A Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation . . . 131
Figure 5.13: The Mason B Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation . . . 132
Figure 5.14: The Wang Shixia Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor Elevation . 133
Figure 5.15: The Yildiz & Uzucek Equation/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor
Elevation 134
Figure 5.16: Comparison Between Predicted Versus Observed Plunge Pool
Scour Depth 13 5
Figure 6.1: Conceptual Approach of the Erodibility Index Method in the
Assessment of Plunge Pool Scour 159
Figure 6.2: The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Peace Canyon
Plunge Pool 160
Figure 6.3: The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Seven Mile
Plunge Pool 161
Figure 6.4: The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Portage Mountain
Plunge Pool 162
Figure 6.5: The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Revelstoke
Plunge Pool 163
Figure 6.6: The Erodibility Index Method/Predicted Plunge Pool Floor
Elevation 164
Figure 6.7: Peace Canyon/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Velocity Profile. . . . 165
Figure 6.8: Seven Mile/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Velocity Profile 166
Figure 6.9: Portage Mountain/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Velocity Profile. . 167
Figure 6.10: Revelstoke/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Velocity Profile 168
Figure 6.11: Peace Canyon/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Impact Velocity . . . . 169
Figure 6.12: Seven Mile/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Impact Velocity 170
Figure 6.13: Portage Mountain/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Impact Velocity . . 171
Figure 6.14: Revelstoke/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Impact Velocity 172
Figure 6.15: Peace Canyon/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Air Concentration . . . 173
Figure 6.16: Seven Mile/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Air Concentration . . . . 174
Figure 6.17: Portage Mountain/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Air Concentration . 175
Figure 6.18: Revelstoke/Sensitivity Analysis of Jet Air Concentration . . . . 176
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge BC Hydro for providing access to all

information needed to perform this study and for their permission to use the
gathered sets of data. The financial contribution of BC Hydro through the
Professional Partnership Program is also gratefully acknowledged.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Free-trajectory jets are commonly used in large dam operation as a

means of releasing excess water from dam reservoirs. Included are
classical overfalls of overtopping dams, pressure outflows through the dam
itself, and deflected discharges at the toe of overflow structures. The
ski-jump or flip bucket device is an economical way of throwing the jet
away from the structure, thus enhancing the energy dissipation before it
reaches the downstream riverbed. Such spillway arrangement is shown in
Figure 1.1 at Seven Mile Dam in Trail, British Columbia. The remaining
energy is dissipated through the excavation of a scour hole, or plunge
pool. Plunge pools are effective if the tailwater level is uncertain, the
resultant scour hole does not endanger surrounding structures, and space
limitations preclude use of a conventional stilling basin (Hager, 1998).
Breusers and Raudkivi (1991), in their book on scouring, note the

following adverse effects of scour due to plunging jets: 1) The
endangering of the stability of the structure itself by structural failure
or increased seepage; 2) The endangering of the stability of the
downstream riverbed and side slopes; and 3) The formation of a mound of
eroded material, which can raise the tailwater level at the dam.
Experience has shown that free-trajectory jets can create unforeseen and
dangerous erosion of scour holes, leading to costly remedial measures.
Documented cases of such situations include the Grand Rapids Generating
Station (Canada) (Manitoba Hydro, 1970), Tarbela Dam (Pakistan) (Lowe III
et al., 1979), Kariba Dam (Zimbabwe) (Whittaker and Schleiss, 1984),
Cahora-Bassa Dam (Mozambique) (Whittaker and Schleiss, 1984; Quintela et
al., 1979), and Picote Dam (Portugal) (Da Cunha and Lencastre, 1966).
The potential for excessive downstream scour should be addressed early

in the feasibility studies in order to establish the viability of the
layout, and even the project itself. The engineer must be able to assess
the most probable scenario of plunge pool development resulting from the
expected use of the spillway. Throughout the life of a project, the plunge
pool response to changes, in spillway operation must also be foreseen. Over
the past decade, the reevaluation of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) at
some sites has led to the recognition of insufficient spillway capacity.
The problem of scour in dam foundations is considered so critical in the
US that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires owners of
hydro-electric plants to demonstrate that scour resulting from overtopping
under PMF conditions will not endanger their dams (Annandale, 1994).
The difficulty in estimating plunge pool scour remains in the numerous

interrelated physical processes involved. In the analysis, one must
consider the plunging jet diffusion and inner core decay coupled with air
entrainment in both the atmosphere and plunge pool, the mean and
fluctuating pressures distribution on the plunge pool floor, the
fracturing and progressive dislodgment of the plunge pool material, the
abrasion process, the downstream sediment transport capacity, and the
induced shear on the scour hole boundaries caused by secondary currents.
This is further complicated by the changing scour hole geometry and the
accumulation of material forming a mound at the downstream margin of the
hole. Although the physical processes are generally recognised and
addressed by many authors, most research to date has focused on developing
empirical formulas for ultimate scour depth, based on experiment and
prototype observations. Physical models that respect the Froude law
scaling are used in laboratory to simulate scour downstream of overflow
structures. Both the theoretical approach and the laboratory test approach
to scour depth forecasting have met with considerable difficulties (Yildiz
and Uziicek, 1994). As an attempt to improve technology for the prediction
of scour caused by overtopping flows, the Dam Foundation Erosion Study
Team was formed in 1993 under the management of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. The new technology is based on a threshold relationship
between the rate of energy dissipation of flowing water and a
geomechanical classification of earthen materials (Erodibility Index)
using 150 field observations (Annandale, 1995).
The main objective of this study is to evaluate new technology for

estimating plunge pool scour and determine whether there is an improvement
in accuracy when compared to conventional methods such as empirical
formulas and small-scale model studies. The second objective is to
establish the influence of factors such as spillway design, geological
conditions, and spillway discharges upon plunge pool development. Four dam
sites were selected which are all owned and operated by B.C. Hydro, public
corporation of British Columbia: Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage
Mountain . Project, and Revelstoke Dam. Plunge pool performance data were
gathered for each site along with spillway characteristics, plunge pool
geology, and spilling history. The sites chosen feature both gated
overflow and long chute spillways. Plunge pool geology varies from nearly
horizontal sedimentary rock strata to metamorphic argillite, gneiss, and
quartzite. The history of spillway discharges is unique to each site.
Chapter II includes a review of the physical processes involved in

scour formation as reported in the literature and documents the main areas
of research in the evaluation of scour extent. Chapter III is a
descriptive summary of each of the four selected dam sites (Peace Canyon
Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project, and Revelstoke Dam) given
the context of plunge pool scour investigation. A discussion of the main
factors affecting plunge pool performance at each site is presented in
Chapter IV. The conventional methods of plunge pool scour assessment are
evaluated in Chapter V through a comparison between scour configurations
from hydraulic model studies, computed scour depths using empirical
formulas, and actual scour development on sites. The Erodibility Index
Method is presented in Chapter VI and the new approach to the assessment
of plunge pool scour is applied to the four sites of study. Chapter VII
summarizes the limitations and conclusions of the study with qualitative
observations on the most probable scour progression to expect at each site
in the event of the Inflow Design Flood.
To facilitate describing the sites and the plunge pool configuration,

a standard convention of reference is used: the right and left sides of
the river channel are defined from the perspective of someone looking
downstream of the dam. The use of imperial units throughout this study was
motivated by the available data and the existing dam reference grid (in
the Imperial system of measurement) which was the basis for the plunge
pool scour configuration.
Figure 1.1. Free-trajectory jet issued from a typical ski-jump spillway at
Seven Mile Dam (Trail, B.C.)
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The study of plunge pool scour covers several disciplines. Erosion

phenomena downstream of spillways involve complex interactions between
mechanical and hydraulic processes (Simoes and Vargas JR, 2001) . Although
the physical processes are generally recognised and addressed by many
authors, these processes have usually been isolated and investigated
separately. All these factors intervene, in a more or less marked manner,
in the erosive process, but our knowledge of the phenomena that occur in
the erosion zone is insufficient, so that there are no formulations that
enable theoretical models to be prepared for forecasting the behaviour of
failure of the mass under the action of jets from flood spillways (Ramos,
1982). Instead, the main stream of work was centred on developing
empirical formulas for ultimate scour depth, based on experiment and
prototype observations. In laboratory, physical models that respect the
Froude law scaling are used to simulate scour downstream of overflow
structures. In the mid 1990s, a new approach to scour was proposed by
Annandale (1994, 1995) which formed the working basis of the Dam
Foundation Erosion Study started in 1993 under the management of the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation.
First, background theory on the physical processes related to scour

including jet hydraulics and mechanical interaction with the rock mass is
presented, followed by a brief overview at the most documented methods on
the assessment of scour downstream of spillways.
2.1 PHYSICAL PROCESSES
The power (kW/m2) available to erode material is a function of the jet

hydraulics (Annandale, 2002c) . The more energy dissipated along the jet
trajectory the less the scouring potential. The energy of the jet is
dissipated in three phases:
(i) during the aerial phase, when the reach of the jet is decreased
by air resistance;
(ii) during the submerged phase, where diffusion processes in the
water cushion attenuates the erosive power of the jet. This phase
is more efficient as the depth of the scour zone increases;
(iii) in the rock mass after impact, causing the erosion (Simoes and
Vargas JR, 2 001).
The main physical processes associated with the energy dissipation of the
jet through air, water, and rock mass are summarized in Figure 2.1 and
described herein.
2.1.1 Free-Trajectory Jets

Water flowing through a ski-jump spillway leaves the terminal
structure as a free-trajectory jet and falls into the river channel some
distance away from the spillway. The trajectory assumed by the jet depends
on the flow energy at the bucket lip and the exit angle in accordance with
the Newtonian laws of motion. As the jet travels through the atmosphere
and encounters air resistance, its physical characteristics evolve.
Important aspects of plunging jet behaviour are: the ability to spread

laterally; the ability to become increasingly distorted during the plunge;
and the ability to break up if the plunge length is sufficiently long
(Ervine and Falvey, 1987). Figure 2.2 illustrates the jet behaviour in the
atmosphere. Ervine and Falvey (1987) suggest that the initial turbulence
intensity determines the angle of lateral spread of the jet. The
turbulence intensity Tu is defined here as the ratio of the root mean
square value of the instantaneous axial velocity to the average axial
velocity. Turbulence intensity for free overfall jets is less than 3%, for
flip bucket jets between 3 and 5% and for orifice jets between 3 and 8%
(Bollaert, 2002, as reported by Schleiss, 2002). The turbulence intensity
enhances the breakdown of large eddies into smaller ones and the fine-
grained turbulent structure is more efficient to entrain air. As air
becomes entrained in the jet, conservation of mass requires that the jet
expand (Davies and Jackson, 1982). Hence, the jet forms an expanding
aerated outer shell with a decaying inner core of water (Figure 2.2) . The
angle of jet core decay may be as small as 15-20% of the angle of lateral
spread, ignoring core contraction due to gravity (Ervine and Falvey,
1987) . In highly turbulent jets, initial disturbances present on the
surface of the jet and associated with fine scale turbulent eddies are
propagated as transverse or sinuous wave-like disturbances (Davies and
Jackson, n.d.). Surface tension acts to resist the growth of the surface
disturbances but the protuberances are amplified by the action of
aerodynamic drag forces. As the jet falls, the undulations at the surface
of the jet increase in amplitude to reach a point where the turbulent
surface fluctuations are large enough to penetrate the core of the jet.
Instead of a core of solid water with an aerated outer shell, the jet
becomes a conglomeration of individual water drops, each having separate
acceleration vectors (Lewis et al. , 1996). The jet break-up length is the
free-fall distance before the complete dissipation of the jet inner core.
The break-up point marks the limit between two types of jets:
undeveloped and developed (Figure 2.2) . Undeveloped jets are characterized
by a solid, non-aerated water core as opposed to developed jets which are
fully aerated and composed of discrete water segments. As the jet free
falls, the internal turbulence intensity, drag due to air resistance, and
air entrainment processes cause the jet to transition from an undeveloped
to a developed condition (Bohrer et al. , 1998) . The deceleration caused by
air drag becomes a significant factor when the jet loses its coherence in
free-fall (Lewis et al. , 1996) . Surface tension and turbulence effects
determine the distance to the break-up point (Ervine et al. , 1997) .
Although a clear understanding of the air entrainment process has not

yet been developed, the direction is more towards a recognition of
turbulence as the most significant air-entraining mechanism (Ervine and
Falvey, 1987). In turbulent jets a large proportion of the entrained air
is entrained from the surface undulations on the jet surface, and the
remainder from the boundary layer surrounding the jet (Ervine et al. ,
1980) . One criterion for the onset of aeration is that the radius of the
eddies in the jet have the same order of magnitude as the surface
disturbance amplitude (ibid.).
The air entrained by the free jet during flight tends to cushion the
impact with the tailwater surface. Most authors agree that aerated water
will produce a lesser scour than unaerated, "solid" water (Mason and
Arumugam, 1985) . The result of air entering the jet is that the effective
time average density is considerably reduced and therefore the time
average jet dynamic pressure is also reduced in spite of the fact that
negligible jet deceleration may have occurred (Davies and Jackson, 1982).
Ervine et al. (1997) show that the combined effects of jet spreading and
air entrainment decrease the mean and fluctuating dynamic pressures on the
pool floor. If the mixing of the air is incomplete and the jet is not
fully established [developed] upon impact with the plunge pool, there will
be no cushioning effect in the core region (Spurr, 1985) .
2.1.2 Jet Diffusion and Hydraulic Action within the Plunge Pool
An approximate description of the hydraulic phenomena involved in the
diffusion of a free falling jet in the tailwater pool is possible when the
theory of the free jet turbulence is applied (Hartung and Hausler, 1973).
Upon impact with the tailwater surface, the trajectory of the free jet
follows a straight line sloping at the angle of penetration down to the
plunge pool invert. Gravitational effects on the j et would be minimal once
the jet entered the tailwater, and the jet would tend to follow a straight
line rather than a free-fall trajectory (Johnson, 1974) . As the jet
plunges into the pool, it diffuses almost linearly (Whittaker and
Schleiss, 1984). Because the turbulent plunging jet comprises an
expanding, undulating, and aerated outer zone, the initial boundaries of
the jet entering the pool are not clearly defined. On account of the
irregularity of the flow in the outer region, plunging turbulent jets will
produce surface waves in the plunge pool rather than well-defined
penetrating shear layers (Ervine and Falvey, 1987). The jet behaviour in
the plunge pool is illustrated in Figure 2.3.
The jet flow below the water surface may consist of either one or two
regions depending on the coherence of the jet (undeveloped or developed
conditions) at the moment of impact with the tailwater (Figure 2.2) . A
transition zone, known as the flow establishment region, exists when the
central core of the plunging jet is still present upon impingement (Figure
2.3). The region of flow establishment is where the shearing action at the
edge of the jet decreases the edge velocity, but does not affect the
velocity near the centre of the jet (George, 1980). The inner core takes a
wedge-like form as turbulence penetrates inwards towards the centreline of
the jet. This wedge of undiminished mean velocity is referred to as the
potential core. The length of flow establishment varies from 5 to 10 times
the thickness of rectangular jets (George, 1980). Beyond this distance,
the velocity remains a maximum along the jet centreline but the entire
flow velocity field is reduced by diffusion (Hartung and Hausler, 1973).
The zone of established flow (or fully developed flow) begins at the point
where the central core of the plunging jet is completely diffused. The
velocity profile in the established flow region has a very nearly Gaussian
distribution (George, 1980). A developed falling jet will diffuse in the
plunge pool and form a fully developed flow region (zone of established
flow) upon entrance. The diffusion process continues until all the initial
energy of the jet is dissipated, or until the influence of a boundary
causes an impinging flow region (George, 1980).
Ervine and Falvey (1987) summarize results of studies on the behavior

of jet diffusion in plunge pools from free-falling circular jets of
variable turbulence intensity and air concentration. In the case of rough
turbulent impinging jets with air concentrations of the order of 40% (most
relevant to prototype behavior), measurements of the outer angle of spread
in the zones of flow establishment and established flow yielded average
values of 13-14° and 14-15°, respectively (Figure 2.3). The angle of inner
core decay has been estimated to 8° based on an approximate momentum
balance between the jet at the point of impact and at the end of the zone
of flow establishment (Ervine and Falvey, 1987) .
Two-phase flow develops when a plunging jet dives through the surface
of a plunge pool or tailwater (Wittier et al., Dam Foundation Erosion,
1995) . As the jet plunges into the pool, a considerable amount of air is
entrained, corresponding to an air concentration of 40 to 60% at typical
jet velocities of 30 m/s [100 ft/s] at impingement (Bollaert, 2002, as
reported by Schleiss, 2002). Bin (1984) and Ervine et al. (1980) describe
the mechanisms of air entrainment by a plunging jet at the surface of a
plunge pool. The captured air is dispersed into bubbles by shear forces
and turbulence and forms an approximately conical biphasic region (Bin,
1984) (Figure 2.3). Air concentration decreases as the jet travels into
the pool, thereby increasing jet density (Annandale et al., 1997).
Estimates of the mean air concentration with depth can be made by assuming
that the mean air flow rate decays approximately linearly from a maximum
value at the jet plunge point to zero at the maximum air bubble
penetration depth (Ervine and Falvey, 1987). At the maximum air bubble
penetration depth, the mean water velocity approximates the bubble rise
velocity ending the jet's capacity to retain entrained air. It is
reasonable to speculate that the presence of air bubbles in the diffusing
plunge pool shear layers will result in a reduction in mean dynamic
pressures (Ervine and Falvey, 1987) . However, the presence of free air
bubbles was recently shown to be important in the propagation of fully
transient water pressures in rock joints (Bollaert, 2002) .
The impinging jet induces circulation in the plunge pool (Figure 2.1).
Both horizontal and vertical velocities cause rolling actions in the
plunge pool, the mechanics of which do not appear to have been fully
investigated to date (Sutcliffe, 1985). As discussed by Spurr (1985), the
hydraulic action within the plunge pool is largely influenced by the pool
boundaries. The formation of a "backroller" (clockwise vortex) between the
jet and the upstream boundary is common knowledge (Henderson, 1966). As
the submerged jet strikes the bed, a small stream moves upstream in the
roller region, while the main stream is deflected upwards to form a
downstream surface boil. The difference in upstream/downstream water
levels induces the formation of secondary currents at the sides of the
pool. A recent study conducted at Colorado State University (Fort Collins,
CO) on plunge pool circulation and velocity prediction in a plunge pool
basin suggests the formation of a counter-clockwise vortex in the roller
region (Hamilton et al. , 1997) . The most significant factor leading to the
counter-clockwise rotating vortex is the buoyancy force resulting from the
high degree of air entrainment in the plunging jet (ibid.).
2.1.3 Scour Mechanisms

Scouring of the rock bed downstream of a spillway is caused by the
water pressure or total water load at a particular point (Galvagno, 1998).
The three components which make up the total water load are the mean
dynamic pressures caused by the impact of the jet on the rock surface; the
truly mean dynamic time dependent water pressures (pressures
fluctuations); and the Reynolds shear stresses (Otto, 1986, as reported by
Galvagno, 1998) (Figure 2.1). The most severe hydrodynamic action on the
plunge pool bottom occurs in the impingement region, where the hydrostatic
pressure of the free jet region is progressively transformed into
fluctuating high stagnation pressures and into an important bottom shear
stress (Schleiss, 2002). The combination of forces exerted by the
submerged jet varies as the scour hole develops. Initially, the bedrock is
subjected to a large pressure gradient in the zone of jet impact. The high
dynamic pressures build-up in the bedrock discontinuities and causes the
bedrock to fracture. Hydrofracture is the mechanical destruction of the
bedrock into blocks by the dynamic action of the jet (Spurr, 1985). As the
plunge pool deepens, the mean dynamic pressure of the jet is reduced by
the increased travel distance before reaching the bed. However, the
fluctuating pressures associated with the turbulent shear flow or
developed jet impact ensure the progression of scour. The developed jet
impact and the direct jet core impact in the case of small water cushion
generate completely different pressure patterns (Schleiss, 2002) .
Recently, the propagation of pressure fluctuations through the
discontinuities in the rock mass has been considered to be the predominant
mechanism in the erosion processes (Bollaert, 2002; Simoes and Vargas JR,
2001; Liu et al. , 1998) . It has been noted that scour can be limited not
only by the ability of the jet to dislodge material from the bed, but also
by the ability or otherwise of secondary return currents to remove that
material to beyond the limits of the scour hole (Hartung, 1959, as
reported by Mason, 1989) .
Akhmedov (1988) identifies three stages to the development of a scour

hole: 1) removal of rock fragments by the hydrodynamic force of the flow,
2) destabilization of rock mass by vibration-induced hydrodynamic pressure
fluctuations, and 3) abrasion of the scour hole walls by the recirculating
trapped material:
Initially, the flow volume will break off fragments of rock. The
size of the fragments will be determined by the rock jointing and
cleavage. As the scour pit depth increases, the flow velocity near its
bed will decrease, and there comes a point where this form of erosion
ceases. Subsequent scouring will occur as a result of intensive
abrasion. (Akhmedov, 1988)
Annandale (1994, 1995) describes the removal of fragments from the rock
mass through the process of progressive dislodgment that involves three
components: jacking, dislodgement, and displacement. The jacking effect is
caused by the instantaneous differential pressures on the upper and lower
surfaces of rock blocks. Once the material is destabilized, it is
dislodged by the flowing water and displaced in the downstream direction.
When the combined effects of the plucking forces normal to the loosened
block and the tangential form drag forces induced by the local boundary
flows become sufficiently large, the block becomes dislodged and is swept
away (Spurr, 1985) . The displaced material is deposited downstream of the
scour hole as the flow transport capacity diminishes and a tailrace bar
deposit (or mounding) can form (Figure 2.1) . As the scour hole deepens,
more energy is required to remove the rock fragments and larger blocks
remain trapped inside the hole. The dislodged blocks, recirculating within
the live scour-hole, abrade through contact with the other rocks until
they are small enough to be ejected as part of the downstream wash load
(Spurr, 1985) .
The geological conditions of the plunge pool bedrock affect the scour
processes. The rate of penetration and build-up of pressure by the jet
within the bedrock is influenced by the condition and orientation of its
discontinuities (Spurr, 1985). The hydraulic breakage of the rock mass is
more efficient in rock with open joints than in sound rock with tight and
discontinuous joints. Likewise, the more closely aligned the major bedding
planes are to the angle of incidence of the plunging jet, the easier the
penetration and the more rapid will be the hydrofracture processes (Spurr,
1985) . The process of dislodgement is affected by the geometry of rock
blocks, which is determined by the discontinuity pattern of the rock
formation. Smaller size and equi-sided shape provide less resistance to
erosion. The orientation of the material relative to the direction of flow
also has an impact on its capacity to resist erosion (Annandale, 1994).
Rock dipped in the direction of flow is more easily dislodged than rock
dipped against it (Annandale et al. , 1996). The strength of rock is
determinant in the process of abrasion. The rock susceptibility to
abrasion is inversely proportional to its strength (Prochukhan et al.,
1971, as reported by Akhmedov, 1988) . The cohesive strength of the rock
formation is particularly important at the periphery of the scour hole to
resist the erosive shear forces of secondary currents. Ideally, the scour
hole is confined laterally to contain the jet and act as a dissipating
pool. The non-homogeneity of the rock in a plunge pool may significantly
affect its shape (Spurr, 1985). Asymmetrical plunge pool development
results from the bedrock heterogeneity.
2.2 PLUNGE POOL SCOUR ASSESSMENT
The Dam Foundation Erosion Study Team (DFEST) was formed in 1993 under
the management of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in an effort to improve
the current technology in the assessment of scour downstream of
overtopping dams. The need for better analytical tools for analyzing
erosion in the foundation and abutment areas of dams is increasing as
costly alternatives to overtopping come under consideration (Wittier at
al., Spillway and Foundation Erosion, 1995). Wittier et al. (1995) explain
the basis for the development of new technology:
Current methods of predicting and evaluating erosion extents have
limited applicability. Existing erosion prediction formulas do not
track erosion as a function of time, and have limited application in
hard-rock or cohesive foundation materials. (Wittier at al. , Spillway
and Foundation Erosion, 1995)
Numerous physical model studies described in the literature have

limited application due to the uncertainty of scale effects associated
with jet turbulence, jet coherence, jet air entrainment, and foundation
material properties. (Wittier et al., Dam Foundation Erosion, 1995)
The main limitations of hydraulic model studies are discussed below, a

brief account of existing empirical formulas is made, and the new
technology proposed by the DFEST for the prediction of plunge pool scour
is presented.
2.2.1 Hydraulic Model Studies

Most high-head hydroelectric projects require hydraulic model studies
before construction for design optimization. Generally included are
downstream scour tests. In practically all energy dissipators, gravity
forces predominate, and dynamic similarity is attained by designing the
model in accordance with the Froudian relationship (Elevatorski, 1959).
The model response to scaled spillway discharges is used to identify
possible areas of concern downstream of the hydraulic structure and assess
expected plunge pool development. Hydraulic model studies are a common way
of predicting plunge pool performance but such predictions can be very
incorrect (Whittaker and Schleiss, 1984) . The main limitations of the
assessment of plunge pool scour in laboratory are discussed.
One of the largest difficulties in modelling plunge pool scour is

representing the riverbed geology at a model scale. In order to use model
data for predicting scour depths associated with a stilling basin or
plunge pool, the model bed material type and size must be chosen carefully
to allow scaling (Whittaker and Schleiss, 1984). A typical approach is to
examine the rock on site and to estimate, from joint and fissure patterns
and from the strength of the rock, the individual block size to which the
rock will break down (Mason, 1984) . When a cohesive bed is preferred, the
difficulty of choosing the right particle size is further complicated by
the choice of the cohesive agent and the proportions of the resulting
mixture. In non-cohesive models, the fracturing process of the bedrock is
assumed to have already taken place. It follows that the modelled scour
hole is more a function of the jet momentum impact and sediment transport
capacity (Reynold's stresses), the latter being distorded at a Froude
scale. Nevertheless, "if the bed material is chosen carefully, . good
predictive results for scour depth can be obtained by using non-cohesive
material" (Whittaker and Schleiss, 1984) . The loose structure of the
material tends however to exaggerate the areal extent of erosion. Steep
slopes similar to those found in rock and a more representative shape of
the scour hole are obtained in tests with slightly cohesive material
(Whittaker and Schleiss, 1984) .
Another limitation of model scour is the failure to reproduce the

abrasion process. On prototypes, the material trapped within the scour
hole hydraulic action is being tumbled around and disintegrates with
impact until it is small enough to be displaced out of the hole. Abrasive
erosion which results from loose material being washed against the basin
boundaries in a "ball-mill"-type action can be expected to occur to some
extent at all sites (Johnson, 1974) . In any case, model tests can not
simulate the break-up of the rock blocs by the ball milling effect of the
turbulent flow in the plunge pool (Schleiss, 2002). Therefore in the model
a mound is formed which is higher and more stable than in the prototype
(ibid.). With that respect, model scour underestimates the actual scour
development on prototypes.
Other limitations include scale effects associated with jet

turbulence, jet coherence, and air entrainment. Such phenomena are largely
influenced by surface tension and viscous forces which are distorted at
the Froude scale.
2.2.2 Empirical Formulas

Whereas scour studies began with the first hydraulic structures,
plunge pool scour research is a fairly recent development (Hager, 1998) .
The depth of rock scour under free falling jets has been the subject of
continuing research, starting with the work of Schoklitsch in 1932 (Mason,
1993). Followed experiments by Veronese who in 1937 developed an empirical
formula which is recommended by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) as a
limiting scour depth. The early investigations were limited to small-scale
tests on non-cohesive beds using vertically falling jets. Subsequently,
prototype scour data sets were gathered and analyzed and experiments were
made using various outlet arrangements and simulating structural
discontinuities in bedrock. A large number of empirical equations have
been developed from physical model studies in laboratory and from
prototype observations. Few investigators have developed expressions for
the three-dimensional aspect of scour and instead efforts were directed
towards the assessment of scour depth. As well, the time progression of
scour was generally omitted and most empirical formulas target the
ultimate, or equilibrium depth of scour. The equilibrium scour depth is
the depth scoured by a given magnitude of spillway discharge beyond which
no significant increase in depth is experienced by more spills of the same
magnitude and of significant duration (Spurr, 1985) .
Mason and Arumugam (1985) made a thorough review of existing scour

depth prediction formulas and tested their performance on comprehensive
data sets from 26 prototypes and 4 7 models. The cases included free
overfalls, low level outlets, spillway chute flip buckets and tunnel
outlets, while the model cases featured both cohesive and non-cohesive,
granular bed materials (Mason and Arumugam, 1985). In total, 31 formulas
dating from 1932 to 1981 were identified and sorted in five groups. Group
I (17 equations) includes a simple form of equations in which the depth of
scour below tailwater level, D , is a function of the unit discharge q,
the head drop between reservoir and tailwater levels H , and in some cases
the characteristic size of bed material d (Figure 2.1). The equations of
Group II (2 equations) add the consideration of tailwater depth h . Group
III (3 equations) consists of highly simplified equations or rules-of-
thumb. The equations of Group IV (8 equations) are more complex
formulations proposed by Russian authors in the 1960s that include
parameters such as energy losses on spillway face, jet entrance velocity
and thickness, degree of aeration and disintegration of the jet, angle of
impingement, rock strength, and rock discontinuities characteristics.
Group V contains only one equation that relates to the time progression of
scour. It was found that the most accurate form of expression was the
relatively simple formula:
d = KOZL
dz
in which K, X, y , and Z are constants derived from each author. Mason
(1984) contributed to a major improvement in the assessment of ultimate
scour depths under free jets by developing two expressions (one for model
data and one for both models and prototypes) which are dimensionally
balanced and respect the Froude scaling law. The equation for model scour
is now considered as an upper bound for prototype scour and recognized as
the most practical and state-of-the-art equation for dam design. Even so,
Mason (1984) acknowledges that accuracy is limited to 70%.
Some theoretical approaches have been proposed for the assessment of

scour depth based on the nature of jet diffusion within the plunge pool and
the distribution and fluctuation of pressure over a rocky bed. Mason (1989)
affirms that "such aspects have been tested and analyzed in the past
without, it would appear, producing scour depth formulas any more accurate
than the ones already reviewed" . One of the main criticisms addressed
towards the mass of empirical formulas is the poor representation of
bedrock conditions. The performance of selected empirical formula is
evaluated in Chapter V.
2.2.3 The Dam Foundation Erosion Study

The Dam Foundation Erosion Study Team (DFEST) came together in 1993 to
improve technology for estimating the progressive extent of erosion caused
by overtopping flows. The main partners to the study are the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR), Golder Associates Inc., and Colorado State
University (Fort Collins, CO) . A new approach was proposed for
quantification of the extent of scour caused by a plunging jet, which
applies to the complete range of earth materials. The investigation
involved extensive research on a 1:3 scale hydraulic model and near-
prototype facility at Colorado State University. The new technology was
validated through experiments using simulated fractured rock and granular
media (Annandale et al. , 1998; Wittier et al. , Prototype Validation,
1998).
The new technology is based on Annandale's hydraulic erodibility

concept (1994, 1995) which gives equal weighting to both hydraulics and
engineering geology. Hydraulic erodibility is a threshold condition that
defines the conditions when the ability of earth material to resist
erosion is exceeded by the erosive power of the water discharging over it
or incident to it (Annandale, 1994). The erodibility threshold is a
graphical relationship between the rate of energy dissipation of flowing
water and a geomechanical classification of earthen materials called the
Erodibility Index, based on the analysis of 150 field observations and
published data on initiation of sediment motion. Figure 2.4 presents the
erodibility threshold for rock and other complex earth materials defined
as the boundary between erosion and non-erosion events.
Annandale (1995) acknowledges the fact that the fluctuating pressures

associated with turbulent flows are mainly responsible for the progressive
dislodgment of material in the plunge pool. By definition, an increase in
turbulence intensity is associated with a corresponding increase in
differential instantaneous pressures and energy loss. Therefore, the rate
of energy dissipation (or stream power) was chosen to represent the
relative magnitude of the fluctuating disturbance. Theoretical
justification of the relationship between rate of energy dissipation and
turbulence energy production rate was derived by Yang and Molinas (1982),
whereas the relationship between rate of energy dissipation and pressure
fluctuation was validated by further analysis of observations by Fiorotto
and Rinaldo (1992) (reported by Annandale, 1995). The rate of energy
dissipation per unit area or stream power P can be expressed in terms of
velocity Vand energy loss AE such as:
P = yQ&E/A = yvAE [KW/m 2 ]

where y is the unit weight of water, Q is the total discharge, and A is
the area perpendicular to the flow.
The Erodibility Index is a replica of Kirsten's (1982) Ripability

Index for excavation, which in turn is a modification of the well-known
Norwegian Rock Tunnelling Quality Index, Q. The Erodibility Index
characterization is essentially a quality assessment of earth material
through numerical rating of key parameters. The primary geological
parameters that are used to calculate the Erodibility Index are earth mass
strength [Ms], block or particle size [Kb], discontinuity/inter-particle
bond shear strength [ Kd ] , and shape of material units and their
orientation relative to the flow [Js] (Annandale, 1995). The Erodibility
Index K is the product of factors assigned to each constituent parameter:
K = Ms • Kb • Kd • Js
The mass strength Ms is the dominant factor in the resistance to erosion.
The other parameters represent, respectively, reducing effects of size,
joints conditions, and shape/orientation relative to the flow on eroding
the intact rock mass. The paper by Annandale (1995) provides standard
tables quantifying these geological parameters and the principal tables
are repeated in Appendix I. The Erodibility Index Method (Annandale, 1994,
1995) is evaluated using data collected from four BC Hydro dam sites in
Chapter VI.
PLUNGE POOL SCOUR
LEGEND
Vo: initial jet velocity 111 free-trajectory jet mean dynamic pressure
Vi: jet velocity at impact with the plunge pool
bottom pressure fluctuations
Vm: maximum jet velocity in the plunge pool |U zone of flow establishment
H: head difference between reservoir level and tailwater surface shear stresses
H zone of established flow hydrodynamic fracturing
h: tailwater depth
Ds: maximum depth of scour below original bed level El impingement region hydrodynamic uplift
surface boil-up sediment

transport
Ds
Figure 2.1. Main Parameters and Physical Processes Involved in Plunge Pool Scour
Figure 2.2. Jet Behaviour in the Atmosphere
ERODIBILITY
Rock and Complex Earth Materials
10,000
• Erosion
O No Erosion
1,000 • •
•
•
o
fM o
- o
E 0,-0
100 o O
•
<u •
•
o •
• •
CL
(D • +1
}.*
QJ
10 •
I/) •
C
3 • $ o
• •
o
• * / c / o
o Ô CD
cn o
• o yo
o° oo °
o
0.1
0.01 0.1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Erodibility Index
Source.- G.W. Annandale, "Erodibility", Journal of Hydraulic Research 33 (April 1995):

471-493, Figure 9.
Figure 2.4. Erodibility Threshold for Rock and O t h e r Complex Earth

Materials
CHAPTER III
DAM SITE DESCRIPTIONS
The four dam sites selected for this study are Peace Canyon, Seven
Mile, Portage Mountain, and Revelstoke, which are owned and operated by
B.C. Hydro (BCH), public corporation of British Columbia, Canada. The
Seven Mile & Revelstoke projects are part of the Columbia River Basin
(southeastern B.C.), whereas the Peace Canyon and Portage Mountain
projects are located in the Peace River Basin (central-eastern B.C.).
Refer to Figure 3.1 for geographic location.
The plunge pool scour investigation requires the knowledge of key

factors including spillway design, plunge pool geology, hydraulic
conditions, and historical spillway outflows. The sites chosen feature
both gated overflow and long chute spillways. Plunge pool geology varies
from nearly horizontal sedimentary rock strata to metamorphic argillite,
gneiss, and quartzite. The history of spillway discharges is unique to
each site.
This chapter is a descriptive summary of each of the four dam sites in

question given the context of plunge pool performance investigation. For
each site, the spillway main design characteristics and the plunge pool
geological conditions are defined. The history of spills from initial
spillway operation to the end of year 2001 is documented. The
chronological plunge pool development is described by means of past
sounding surveys performed at each site.
3.1. PEACE CANYON DAM
3.1.1 Project General Arrangement

The Peace Canyon Project (PCN) is located at the outlet of the Peace
River Canyon in northeastern British Columbia (Figure 3.1), 4 miles
southwest of Hudson's Hope, and 80 river-miles upstream from the British
Columbia/Alberta border. As the second hydroelectric development of the
Peace River, the Peace Canyon generating station reuses the water utilized
for power generation at the upstream Portage Mountain Project.
The Peace Canyon Project consists of a 1130 ft long by 200 ft high

concrete gravity structure built across steep canyon walls, and connected
to an embankment saddle dam on the right abutment (Figure 3.2). The saddle
dam is approximately 670 ft long with a maximum height of 75 ft. The six-
bay spillway arrangement is part of the right half of the dam and the
power intake section occupies the left side of the river width. The
Dinosaur Reservoir has a surface area of 2200 acres and a total storage
volume of 175,000 acre-ft at Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (El. 1650 ft).
The powerplant has four units with a maximum sustainable generating
capacity of 700 MW. The first two units were commissioned in April 1980
and all four units were in service by November 1980.
3.1.2 Spillway Characteristics

The Peace Canyon spillway is a gated six-bay overflow spillway with
flip buckets at the toe (Figure 3.3). The main design characteristics are
listed in Table 3.1. The spillway discharge is controlled by six 50 ft
wide and 41.5 ft high radial gates over an ogee-shaped crest at El. 1612
ft. Spillway bays and gates are assigned numbers 1 to 6 from left to
right, with Bay 1 closer to the power intakes. A training wall between
Bays 2 and 3 provides lateral flow control. The profile of the two
separate chutes follows the downstream face of the dam at a slope of
IV: 0.764 7H from the shaped crest to the 55 ft flip bucket radius. Flip
buckets for the left chute (Bays 1-2) end with a 30° flip angle and lip at
El. 1512.37 ft. The right chute buckets (Bays 3 to 6) have a 20° lip angle
and lip at El. 1522.77 ft.
To avoid possible damage to the powerhouse and right bank, the six
spillway gates should be opened in order 3, 4, 6, 5, 1, 2 and closed in
reverse order (BCH Report No. OMSPCN/03, 2001). Spillway Bays 3 and 4 were
selected for principal use because they are centered on the plunge pool
(BCH Report No. H1742, 1987).
The Inflow Design Flood (IDF) at Peace Canyon Dam is the Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) based on the Williston Lake/Probable Maximum Flood
1988 study by B.C. Hydro (BCH Report No. H2003, 1988) . Because of the
limited storage in Dinosaur lake, the Williston lake PMF outflow is the
Peace Canyon PMF inflow (BCH Report No. H2767, 1994). The Peace Canyon
spillway can pass the IDF of 330,200 cfs at reservoir El. 1652.4 ft with
all gates fully open.
3.1.3 Plunge Pool Geology
Bedrock in the riverbed downstream of the spillway consists of massive
silty shale to shaly siltstone that exhibits little or no lamination (BCH
Report No. GEO 9/85, 1985). Contacts between interbedded rock types within
the foundation shale member are gradational. The lower 3-4 ft of the shale
unit is a transition rock to the underlying massive sandstone unit at
approximate El. 1430 ft. The sandstone unit is about 30 ft thick and below
is another massive shale sequence of unknown thickness. Bedding strikes
N60° and dips about 2° implying small components of dip upstream and
towards the right abutment (approximately 1.4° or 2.5V:100H). Unconfined
compressive strengths of the actual concrete dam foundation range from
about 5000 to 13,000 psi in competent shales and about 11,000 to 20,000
psi in the basal sandstone (BCH Report No. H1742, 1987).
The most significant engineering feature in the foundation of the

project is the presence of a number of bedding planes which vary from
intact to separated, with up to an inch or more of infilling which
comprises variously decomposed shale, river silt or blast-hole cuttings
(BCH Report No. 966, 1978). From the riverbed down to a depth of about 40
feet up to five bedding planes in the shale are visually prominent in that
they separate shale from thin beds of sandstone and/or have been opened
due to upward relaxation of the beds after removal of the rock load with
the erosion of the canyon (BCH Report No. 822 - Appendix A, 1976) . The
bedding planes, which are numbered from top down at the site, get tighter
towards each abutment. The major discontinuity planes below the spillway
foundation are located in Figure 3.4 and defined below:
• B.P.2 is the most persistent bedding plane at the site with up to 2

inches of infilling.
• B.P.3 is a persistent bedding plane that overlies a thin but very
distinct ripple-marked sandstone bed. B.P.3 is generally a frozen
contact, but locally open with up to M inch of infilling.
• B.P.4 is a 3 ft thick zone of black fissile shale within which four
discontinuous bedding cracks are identified (B.P.4A/4B/4C and 4D) .
The planes are locally parted but free of infilling.
• B.P.X is described as a hairline fracture located about 5 ft above
the contact with the basal sandstone.
To date, the plunge pool is eroded down to B.P.4 downstream of two of the
six spillway bays (Bay 3 and 4).
The foundation shale member is essentially free from joints except for
a 10 0 ft wide zone oriented subparallel to the river canyon through the
left side of the spillway foundation. Jointing is generally sparse with
joints striking N30° to 40°E (i.e. at 60° to dam axis) and dipping
vertically, generally with joint spacing of 10 to 20 feet (BCH Report No.
GEO 9/85, 1985) . Joints are usually tight, discontinuous, and do not
extend upward or downward across principal bedding planes. In the Block
SI, S2 area of the spillway, there is a fractured zone termed the "hinge
zone" [Figure 3.4] where the joints have similar orientation but are more
closely spaced with tight joints at 1-3 ft spacing and with open relaxed
joints at 5-15 ft spacing (BCH Report No. GEO 9/85, 1985) . Within this
weakness zone, a sub-channel was eroded down to bedding plane B.P.4. The
fractured "hinge zone" and associated sub-channel trend downstream from
Bays 3 and 4 towards the plunge pool area but there is no subsurface
information to confirm their extent. Secondary joints are vertical, with a
strike of N110°-130°, and occur mostly in the sandstone and siltstone
beds .
3.1.4 Historical Spills

The spillway operation at Peace Canyon Dam commenced in late October
1979 while the powerhouse and generating units were still under
construction. All river flows were passed over the spillway until
commissioning of the first two units in April 1980. Following spills
occurred in 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1996. The spillway outflow hydrograph
from 1979 to 2001 is presented in Figure 3.5. Each spilling period is
defined in terms of discharge magnitude and duration in Table 3.2.
During the 1979/80 spillway operation, spilling over Bays 3 and 4

lasted for approximately four months during which Bays 5 and 6 were used
discontinuously for about three months. Outflows through Bays 3 and 4
reached a maximum of 30,000 cfs per bay and were maintained between
25,000-27,000 cfs per bay for nine consecutive days. The peak discharge
through Bay 5 and Bay 6 reached 26,500 cfs although Bays 5 and 6 were
operated mainly at 10,000-15,000 cfs per bay. Total spillway flows did not
exceed 68,000 cfs.
The following spills of 1981, 1983, and 1984 were all of a shorter
duration (maximum of two weeks in 1983) and of a lower magnitude per bay
than the 1979/80 spill. However, the previous maximum spillway discharge
recorded (68,000 cfs) was exceeded in 1983 with combined flows of 75,000
cfs through Bays 3 to 6.
The largest spill event to date at Peace Canyon Dam occurred in 1996,
from 23 June to 17 August. Spillway Gate 3 was fully open for the whole
month of July discharging approximately 47,000 cfs. Meanwhile, spilling
over Bay 4 was maintained at 31,000 cfs on two separate weeks. Outflows
through each of Bays 5 and 6 ranged between 15,000-18,000 cfs for most of
the spilling period and the peak discharge of 27,000 cfs was held for
twenty hours. The maximum spillway discharge of 116,000 cfs (35% of IDF)
recorded in 1996 remains the highest discharge recorded on site.
3.1.5. Scour Hole Development

The plunge pool at Peace Canyon Dam has been surveyed by echo depth
sounding following each spill since reservoir filling in 1979. A grid
survey of the plunge pool area before spillway operation was also
performed. Drawings of plunge pool soundings from 1979 to 1996 are
presented in Appendix II. Table 3.3 summarizes the scour hole development
based on each survey data points and interpreted elevation contours. The
erosion of the plunge pool confirms the expected erosion from the two
distinct zones of flow observed during spilling, the flow from the higher
discharge from Bays 3 and 4 and the lower discharge from Bays 5 and 6 (BCH
File No. C-PCN-12 06.12, 1997).
The scour hole downstream of the spillway flip buckets has formed for
the most part during the 1979/80 spillway operation. Prior to the 1979/80
spill a shallow circular hole with invert at El. 1477 ft was centred about
240 ft downstream of the centreline of Bay 4 and plunge pool floor
elevations were essentially above El. 1490 ft (Figure 3.6) . Overburden
conditions were however unknown. In particular, foundation construction
records indicate that an overburden infilled sub-channel (related to the
hinge zone) extended downstream from Bays 3 and 4 towards the plunge pool
area but its extent was unknown (BCH Report No. H1879, 1986). Remnants of
the downstream construction cofferdam could also have been left in place.
Following the passage of river flows through the spillway in 1979/80, the
volume of material removed below El. 1490 ft approached 1 million cu.ft
(Table 3.3) . Tailrace dredging was performed in July 1980 to remove the
accumulated debris downstream of the scour hole. The survey of 15 April
1980 showed a scour hole with invert at El. 1458 ft and the El. 1480 ft
contour extending over 310 ft in the direction of spillway flows and 220
ft across the spillway bays (Figure 3.7) . Although Bays 3 and 4 were
usually operated jointly during the 1979/80 spill, the lowest elevations
were recorded downstream of Bay 3. Maximum scour of about 45-50 ft
extended some 180-280 ft downstream of the flip buckets. Downstream of
Bays 5 and 6, the plunge pool floor was lowered to El. 1482-1484 ft for a
maximum scour depth of approximately 3 0 ft.
As expected, no clear progression of scour was observed from 1981 to

1987 since spillway discharges per bay were all of a lower magnitude and
shorter duration than during the 1979/80 spill. Successive surveys
sometimes indicated a change in location of the deepest part of the plunge
pool and even a regression of plunge pool depth and/or dimensions (Table
3.3). The shifting location of the plunge pool suggests there are areas in
the pool where the bottom intact rock is covered by loose material (BCH
Report No. GEO 9/85, 1985) . The following is noted from the surveys
performed between 1981 and 1987:
• Although spillway Bay 3 was operated alone on five days during the
1981 spill, the plunge pool invert shifted about 60 ft laterally
downstream of the centreline of Bay 4 (Figure 3.8). An area of loose
rock deposit was mapped downstream of Bays 2 and 3 next to the
deepest part of the hole and large rock blocks were also identified
over the plunge pool floor (Appendix II, BCH Drawing No. 1007-C14-
U8440). The major axis of the scour hole showed a slight inclination
with respect to the direction of spillway flows.
• From 1983 to 1987, the plunge pool invert location remained
relatively constant at some 200 ft downstream of spillway Bay 3.
• The minimum plunge pool elevation recorded in April 1983 (El. 1450
ft) was about 10 ft below the lowest data point of the September
1981 soundings (El. 1461 ft) despite the fact that the spillway did
not operate between these two surveys. The April 1983 and October
1983 sounding results (before and after the 1983 spill) were similar
and the plunge pool invert elevation of both surveys (El. 1450 ft)
was the deepest observed to date. Records of the two surveys data
points could not be found, and therefore the interpreted elevation
contours are questionable.
• The 1985 and 1987 soundings of the plunge pool were both obtained on
a grid. The plunge pool as surveyed on 9 October 1985 showed
infilling by the reduced volume of the scour hole (Table 3.3). Video
camera inspection carried out in 1985 indicated that the bottom of
the scour hole was covered by cobbles and boulders in the area
downstream of Bay 3 and that bedrock was exposed along the right
side of the scour hole (BCH Report No. H1879, 1986) .
The plunge pool survey following the largest spill to occur at Peace
Canyon Dam in 1996 indicated a progression of scour, but longitudinally
rather than vertically. The plunge pool as surveyed on 4 August 1996 was
no deeper (invert at El. 1459 ft) but the El. 1480 ft contour extended
over 410 ft in the direction of spillway flows and 240 ft across the
spillway bays (Figure 3.9). The total volume scoured below El. 1480 ft
since the beginning of spillway operation in 1979 had reached 581,000
cu.ft. The major axis of the scour hole showed a definite inclination of
about 25° to the right of spillway flows. Despite the use of spillway Bay
3 at full capacity during the 1996 spill event, the scour hole maximum
depth remained unchanged. Interestingly, the scour hole invert had
migrated upstream to be located some 170 ft downstream of the limit
between Bays 3 and 4. Downstream of the spillway Bays 3 and 4 typically 4
m [13 ft] of rock had been eroded from the upstream slope of the plunge
pool (BCH File No. C-PCN-12 06.12, 1997). The eroded area downstream of
Bays 5 and 6 was more defined laterally but not significantly deeper
(minimum El. 1481 ft) . As part of a diving inspection, six large rock
blocks "the size of a Volkswagen buses" were identified down the base of
the slope and at the deepest part of the plunge pool.
3.2. SEVEN MILE DAM

The Seven Mile hydroelectric facility (SEV) is located on the Pend
d'Oreille River, in southeastern British Columbia (Figure 3.1),
approximately 6 miles upstream from its confluence with the Columbia
River, 9 miles downstream of the Canada/United States border, and about 10
miles southeast of the City of Trail. Seven Mile is operated as a run-of-
the-river plant (no storage) between Seattle City Light's Boundary Dam
upstream and Cominco's Waneta Dam downstream.
The Seven Mile Project consists of a concrete gravity dam with a crest
length of 1138 ft and a maximum height of 262.5 ft above the foundation.
Gravity blocks are adjacent to both abutments followed by a four-unit
power intake section on the right and a five-bay spillway arrangement on
the left (Figure 3.10). The Seven Mile reservoir has a total capacity of
85,000 acre-ft at Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (El. 1730 ft) for a
surface coverage of 1000 acres. Currently, three generating units are in
service for a maximum sustained capacity of 600 MW. Site preparation for a
fourth unit is underway. The powerplant came into service in December 1979
and the third generating unit was commissioned a year later. In May 1988,
the reservoir was raised from El. 1715 ft to the current maximum normal
operating level of 1730 ft after extensions were added to the spillway
gates.

The Seven Mile spillway is a gated five-bay overflow spillway with
flip buckets at the toe (Figure 3.11) . Table 3.4 summarizes the
characteristics of design. Five 50 ft wide by 54.42 ft high vertical lift
gates control the spills over an ogee-shaped crest at El. 1679 ft.
Spillway bays and gates are numbered from 1 to 5 from right to left, with
Bay 1 next to the power intakes. A training wall between Bays 2 and 3
divides the chute in two independent sections. The left chute profile
(Bays 3 to 5) goes from the ogee crest to the dam backslope of 1V:0.8H and
merges into a 60 ft radius flip bucket with a lip angle of 30°. The right
chute profile (Bays 1 and 2) is similar, but with the addition of a 75 ft
long downward sloping section in between the curved section of 60 ft
radius. The split chute design was adopted as a compromise between
minimizing spillway costs by having as short a bucket as possible and
preventing impingement of the spillway jet on the powerhouse (BCH Report
No. H1743, 1988). The bucket lip elevations for the left and right chutes
are El. 1565.54 ft and El. 1555.54 ft, respectively.
Spillway Gates 1, 2, 3, and 4 are to be used under normal conditions

with preferential use of Bays 1 and 2 for spills up to 17,400 cfs. Gate 5
may be opened only if there is a danger of the dam or gates being
overtopped (BCH S.0.0. 4P-36, 1997). Under normal operation, flows through
Bay 3, Bay 4, and Bay 5 are restricted to 27,000 cfs, 13,000 cfs, and
8,000 cfs, respectively. These limitations for spillway gate operation aim
at minimizing damages to the left bank.
The Inflow Design Flood (IDF) for the Seven Mile Dam is the Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) as established by a recent study (1997) by Morrison
Knudsen Corporation for Seattle City Light's Boundary Dam and B.C. Hydro's
Seven Mile Dam (BCH Report No. MEP507, 1999). The peak PMF flow (376,900
cfs) can be passed through the spillway at maximum reservoir El. 1732.0 ft
with all gates fully open.

The Seven Mile plunge pool bedrock consists mainly of argillite in
sharp contact with granite intrusions. The granite/argillite contact is
tight although adjacent argillite is somewhat fractured and altered (BCH
Report No. H1743, 1988). Minor diabase and lamprophyre dykes and sills
occur. Figures 3.12 and 3.13 show photographs and geological mapping of
the plunge pool bedrock as exposed above normal tailwater conditions. The
granite intrusion that forms the dam foundation extends 50 to 100 ft
downstream of the flip buckets across the width of the spillway. Another
granite dyke cuts into the argillite further downstream, just before
Church Creek (Figure 3.12). The granite is a massive, medium grained,
light colored igneous rock. This is a very sound rock type when fresh with
uniaxial compressive strength in the range of 30,000 psi (BCH Report. No.
H1743, 1988). The argillite is a grey-black, fine grained, metamorphosed
sedimentary rock with weak to well developed foliations parallel to
bedding. This is a moderately sound rock type with uniaxial compressive
strength of about 20,000 psi in solid rock (BCH Report No. H1743, 1988).
As a result of shearing and contact metamorphism, the mass of argillite is
locally contorted in the vicinity of granite intrusions. Based on the
extent and nature of deformation, two classes of argillite have been
identified in the plunge pool area: rehealed and massive (BCH Report No.
PSE362, 2001) . The rehealed argillite is characterized by a slight
foliation/bedding, a chaotic fabric and numerous healed shears. The
massive argillite exhibits a lack of foliation.
The structural features of the argillite in the plunge pool area are
the result of contact metamorphism and shearing deformation. The mass of
argillite is locally contorted in the vicinity of granite intrusions and
passive folds are present. The massive argillite is cut by tight and
discontinuous randomly oriented joints with spacing from 2 to 12 inches.
The rehealed argillite is also affected by random joints and exhibits
tight and non-pervasive foliation joints with spacing of 2 to 8 inches.
The foliation/bedding of the argillite was mapped at N110-120°/45° over an
extended part of the plunge pool (Figure 3.13, Plate 2). Healed shears are
a common feature of the argillite and have been mapped throughout the
plunge pool area. Healed shears are particularly abundant in the rehealed
argillite, between Line 1300 and Line 1400 (Figure 3.12), with a typical
orientation of N135° and a dip of 50° to 60°. The features range in width
from 0.6 to 4 inches and occur every 5 to 25 ft. Healed shears are also
found along the contacts between the granite and argillite. The depth of
weathering is generally shallow in the argillite rock mass (BCH Report No.
H1743, 1988) .
The granite is generally massive with randomly oriented joints and

occasional healed shear features. From the 1988 drilling investigations of
the dam foundation, the predominant joint patterns were identified as
striking northeasterly and having moderate to steep dips to the southeast
and northwest (BCH Report No. H2062, 1990). An important joint set
oriented N40° and dipping 30° towards the left abutment was identified in
the granite intrusion just downstream of the flip buckets (Figure 3.13,
Plate 1). Joint spacing varies from a few inches to tens of feet, with the
most highly fractured zones occurring near argillite contacts (BCH Report
No. PSE401, 2001). In specific locales, moderate to heavy weathering is
present along penetrative jointing (BCH Report No. H1743, 1988).
No geological information is available on the eroded riverbed

downstream of the spillway right chute (Bays 1 and 2) . By continuity, the
scour hole probably developed in massive argillite cut by a granite dyke.
Past plunge pool performance (Section 3.2.5) suggests that the protruding
bedrock downstream of the spillway left chute (Bays 3 to 5) is more scour
resistant than the eroded riverbed downstream of Bays 1 and 2. Downstream
of Bays 3 and 4, scour occurred along the contact with massive and
rehealed argillite.
The Seven Mile spillway became operational in early November 1979 and
has been operated every year since. Figure 3.14 presents the spillway
outflow hydrograph for the past twenty-three years of operation (1979-
2001). The characteristics of the most significant spills relatively to
the progression of scour are summarized in Table 3.5 and discussed below.
For a detailed record and description of spillway releases from 1979 to
2001, the reader should refer to BCH Report No. N1926, March 2002.
From 1979 to 1982, the spill events were increasing in magnitude every
year:
• Initial spillway discharges, before the powerhouse was functional,
ranged between a few thousand cfs to about 3 0,000 cfs. Releases were
made through Bays 1 and 2 almost exclusively. On 5 November 1979,
the first day of spillway operation, Gates 1 and 2 were fully open
for approximately half an hour resulting in a peak outflow of 48,000
cfs .
• The first major spill occurred in the spring of 1980, from 20 April
to 23 July. Spillway flows were maintained around 70,000 cfs on
three consecutive days. Bay 3 was used along with Bays 1 and 2 for a
seven-week period at an average discharge of 12,000 cfs.
• During the 1981 spring freshet, Bays 1 to 4 were used so that flows
through the right chute (Bays 1 and 2) did not exceed the previous
year maximum. Average daily flows from Bay 3 ranged between 24,000-
26,000 cfs for twelve days and Bay 4 released a steady discharge of
8,000 cfs for nineteen days. During spillway testing on 26-28 May
1981, a peak outflow, of 98,000 cfs through Bays 1 to 4 was
maintained for over an hour.
• The 1982 spill event exceeded previous spills by magnitude and
duration. The spillway was in continuous operation from 28 April to
31 July 1982 during which discharges were maintained around 100,000
cfs for two consecutive days. Bays 1 and 2 spilled a maximum of
34,000 cfs per bay during forty hours. The operation of Bays 3 and 4
was similar in magnitude and duration as in 1981.
The subsequent spills up to 1996 were all of a lower magnitude and

shorter duration than the 1982 spill. In 1996, the spillway was in
operation for nearly half the year and average daily flows reached 100,000
cfs. The maximum spillway discharge of 116,000 cfs (31% of IDF) recorded
in 1996 remains the highest discharge recorded on site.
The spring freshet of 1997 caused the largest spill event at Seven
Mile Dam since completion of the dam. Each of Bays 1, 2, and 3 spilled a
minimum daily average discharge of 29,000 cfs (and up to 36,000 cfs for
Bays 1 and 2) for four weeks. A steady discharge of 9,000 cfs was released
through Bay 4 for nine weeks. Overall, Bays 1 to 4 spilled together
continuously for nearly ten weeks.
Due to gate restrictions, Gate 5 has never been operated for more than
three consecutive hours and the maximum discharge tested was 16,000 cfs in
July 1983.
3.2.5 Scour Hole Development

The Seven Mile plunge pool and tailrace have been monitored over time,
especially during the early years of spillway operation. A total of nine
topographic/bathymetric surveys have been conducted between 1979 (prior to
spillway operation) and 1997 (following the spring freshet). The plan view
drawings of the plunge pool surveys and tailrace soundings are presented
in Appendix II. Table 3.6 quantifies the scour hole development based on
the elevation data points and interpreted contours of each survey.
Successive surveys of the plunge pool have shown the formation of a scour
hole gradually increasing in size, although at a decreasing rate.
The core of the scour hole has formed within six weeks of initial
spillway operation (5 Nov. to 14 Dec. 1979) with relatively low outflows
through Bays 1 and 2 (refer to Section 3.2.4). The plunge pool bedrock
surface before spillway operation (Figure 3.15) was gradually benched
downstream of the left chute, from El. 1565 ft at the left end of the
spillway to El. 1550 ft at the limit between the two separate chutes.
Downstream of the right chute, the bedrock sloped abruptly in a northwest
direction to El. 1495-1500 ft near the tailrace excavation limit (Station
8 + 70) . Photogrammetry of the riverbed based on 1958 and 1972 aerial
surveys indicated a shallow depression with invert at El. 1475 ft some 400
ft downstream of the powerhouse. The survey of 14 December 1979 indicated
elevation points as low as 1465-1467 ft where the pre-spill survey showed
a bedrock surface at approximate El. 1500 ft (Figure 3.16). The maximum
scour depth of 35-40 ft was located 325 ft downstream of Bay 1 flip
bucket. An estimated 74,000 cu.ft of rock was scoured below El. 1490 ft
and the resulting scour hole was relatively narrow in the direction of
spillway flows (Table 3.6). The shallow depression in the river channel
observed prior to spillway operation appeared to have been filled with
shattered rock.
Tailrace soundings were performed on 7 August 1980 following the first

spring freshet at Seven Mile Dam during which spillway Gate 3 was used
along with Gates 1 and 2. The few elevation data points taken from the
scour hole area suggested additional scour (roughly 8 ft) in the deepest
part of the plunge pool as surveyed on 14 December 1979. No ground survey
was performed downstream of the left chute but observations during
spilling indicated that flows from Bay 3 were deflected in part by the
massive rock slab. Blasting and excavation of a focussing hole down to El.
1535 ft across the spillway left chute was undertaken in the fall of 1980
to contain future spills from Bays 3 to 5. The volume of scoured rock as a
result of the 1980 spill cannot be evaluated accurately (poor
densification of soundings) but the 1980 soundings showed a tailrace
accumulation of material up to El. 152 0 ft (Appendix II, Ref. BCH Drawing
No. 224-C17-X7016) . Tailrace dredging was carried out in the fall of 1980
to restore the riverbed to El. 1500 ft.
The tailrace sounding survey of August 1982 followed the 1981 spillway
tests at large flows and the 1982 spring flood which exceeded previous
spills in terms of magnitude and duration. A clear progression of scour
was observed, mainly downstream of the existing minimum elevation points.
The scour hole as surveyed in August 1982 showed a rather circular
configuration with an approximate length of 175 ft and width of 200 ft
(El. 1490 ft contour) (Figure 3.17) . The amount of material removed below
El. 1490 ft had reached 368,000 cu.ft (Table 3.6). A minimum elevation of
1450 ft was recorded facing the centreline of the right chute at a
distance of 380 ft from the buckets. This represents a maximum scour depth
of 60-65 ft from the original plunge pool topography.
From 1984, the plunge pool surveys showed a rather stabilized scour
hole downstream of the spillway right chute. The scour hole surface (El.
1490 ft contour) was approximately 300 ft long and 200 ft wide and the
maximum volume of material removed below El. 1490 ft was estimated at
550.000 cu.ft. The scour hole invert (El. 1440-1450 ft) was located 350 to
400 ft downstream of the right chute and confined between the centrelines
of Bay 1 and Bay 2. An upstream progression of the scour hole towards the
left chute was observed in 1984 (Figure 3.18), which could have resulted
from the 1980 blasting and not been covered by the 1982 survey (Figure
3.17). The lowest plunge pool elevation (El. 1440 ft) was recorded in
October 1988 following the June 1988 spillway tests during which Gate 1
was fully open. No additional scour downstream of the right chute was
observed from the October 1997 survey after the passage of the largest
flood (May-June 1997) since construction of the dam (Figure 3.19).
The plunge pool bedrock downst ream of the left chute was surveyed in
1984 for the first time after the 1980 remedial works. The 1980 design
level of excavation (El. 1535 ft) was still intact in 1984 (Figure 3.18).
The following survey of the area was performed in October 1997 after Bays
3 and 4 were used extensively to pass the 1997 spring freshet. The
excavated focussing hole (El. 1535 ft) was 25-30 ft deeper over a 1200
sq.ft area downstream of Bay 3 (Figure 3.19). Scour was maximum opposite
to the limit between Bays 3 and 4 with a recorded El. 1503 ft. The minimum
elevation downstream of Bay 4 was El. 1523 ft.
3.3. PORTAGE MOUNTAIN PROJECT

The Portage Mountain Project (PMD) is located at the head of the Peace
River Canyon, in northeastern British Columbia (Figure 3.1), 100 river-
miles upstream from where the Peace River crosses the British
Columbia/Alberta border and 13 miles west of Hudson's Hope. Fourteen miles
separates the Portage Mountain Project of the downstream Peace Canyon Dam.
The Portage Mountain Project includes the W.A.C. Bennett embankment

dam, the Williston Lake, the G.M. Shrum Generating Station, and a long
spillway chute on the right abutment (Figure 3.20). The W.A.C. Bennett Dam
is one of the world's largest earthfill structures with a 6,700 ft stretch
across the head of the Peace River Canyon and a maximum height of 600 ft.
At Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (El. 2205 ft), the dam impounds a 684
square mile reservoir, the Williston Lake, for a total capacity of 60.2
million acre-ft. The G.M. Shrum Generating Station consists of a ten-unit
underground powerplant of a maximum sustainable generating capacity of
2730 MW. Power generation began in September of 1968 and all ten units
were in service by February 1980.

The Portage Mountain spillway consists of an approach channel,
headworks including gated overflow bays and gated sluices, a long
discharge channel, and a steep chute with a downstream flip bucket (Figure
3.21). Overall spillway length from the ogee crest to the bucket lip is
2400 ft. Details on design are provided in Table 3.7. Spillway releases
are controlled by three 50 ft wide by 61 ft high radial gates over ogee
crest at El. 2145 ft. Below are nine 6 ft wide by 8 ft high vertical lift
gates in sluices with sill at El. 2105 ft. The sluice gates are in groups
of three, one group under each overflow bay. From the headworks, the water
is conveyed to the main discharge channel via a 350 ft long transition
section of gradient 0.0421. The main discharge channel is a concrete lined
trapezoidal channel with a base width of 100 ft and a slope of 0.003 over
a length of 1460 ft. At the downstream end, it merges to a 380 ft long and
40° steep chute with an asymmetrical spoon-shaped flip bucket. The bucket
has a 30° flip angle and a curved lip (135 ft long) at El. 1890 ft. The
terminal structure of about 100 sq.ft in plan was developed by trial on a
small-scale hydraulic model in order to maximize the jet dispersion and
energy dissipation. The differential head between the ogee crest and the
flip bucket exit is 255 ft, including a 196 ft drop downstream of the
discharge channel. Under normal conditions, there is an additional fall of
about 24 0 ft from the bucket lip to the Peace River. Just upstream of the
impact zone, a spur dyke projecting out from the left bank separates the
tailrace channel from the river (see Section 3.3.5).
The radial gates are the primary means of spillway releases. To

provide the smoothest flow through the channel, a three-gate operation
with the two outside gates higher than the center gate is required (BCH
Report No. H2417A, 1992). A ratio of 0.7 to 1, center gate to outside
gates is the optimum gate arrangement (ibid.). The nine sluice gates are
considered out-of-service and have not been operated since 1984 (BCH
Report No. QMSGMS/03, 2001) .
The Inflow Design Flood (IDF) for W.A.C. Bennett Dam is the Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) based on the Williston Lake/Probable Maximum Flood
1988 study by B.C. Hydro (BCH Report No. H2003, 1988). The IDF is 992,300
cfs and can be routed with a maximum reservoir level of El. 2209.5 ft for
a peak spillway outflow of 307,200 cfs.

The scour hole at PMD has formed in sedimentary rocks, mainly thick-
bedded massive shale separated by thin beds of sandstone. The rock
sequence extends down to approximate El. 1500 ft where the proportion of
sandstone increases and the shale/sandstone strata become equivalent in
thickness. It [zone] contains nearly equal amounts of shale and sandstone
and some of the shales are quite sandy in composition, and therefore
similar in strength to the sandstones (B.C. and B.B Power Consultants Ltd.
- Appendix A2.3, 1959). Below, at approximate El. 1440 ft, is located a 7
to 10 ft thick sequence of coal and shaley interbeds identified as the
Peace River Coal Seam. The coal is hard and strong but exceedingly brittle
and, therefore, badly broken in some places (B.C. and B.B Power
Consultants Ltd. - Appendix A2.3, 1959). The underlying formation is
composed principally of thick beds of massive, compact sandstone with a
lesser amount of shale interbeds. Minor coal beds occur at about 5%.
Figure 3.22 is a photograph of the right cliff rock strata surrounding the
spillway bucket whereas the riverbed stratigraphy in the jet impact area
is presented in Figure 3.23. In general the contacts between the various
beds of the different rocks are tight (B.C. and B.B. Power Consultants
Ltd. - Appendix A2.1, 1959). The strata strike relatively uniformly around
N132° and dip roughly at 10° in the downstream direction. Overall, the
plunge pool bedrock increases in strength with depth and in the upstream
direction as the sandstone becomes predominant. Laboratory testing yielded
average compressive strengths of 20,200 psi dry to 14,000 psi wet on
intact core samples of sandstone and 21,400 psi dry to 2,800 psi wet on
intact core samples of shale.
The most common discontinuities are the joints and bedding plane
fractures typical of bedded sedimentary rocks (BCH Report No. H175S,
1988) . Fracturing in the shales occur at depths less than about a 100
feet. Under relief of pressure they tend to exfoliate along and across
their bedding and break down mechanically into hard buttons and cubes
(B.C. and B.B. Power Consultants Ltd. - Appendix A2.1, 1959). Also found
within shaly and coaly strata are several bedding plane seams of gouge and
breccia termed mylonites. The mylonite seams are believed to be planes of
weakness along which small shearing strains have taken place (BCH Report
No. H1756, 1988) . The seams occur as discontinuous lateral patches with
thicknesses from % inch to 4 inches. The underlying sandstones are
sparsely jointed rocks. The only joints of any significance in the thick
sandstone beds are local discontinuous bedding plane cracks (BCH Report
No. H1756, 1988). Cross fracturing is however present in the thinner
sandstone beds separating the shale units. The two predominant sets of
joints both dip steeply with one striking northwest and the other
northeast. A third, weaker set also dips steeply and strikes northerly.

In the thirty-four years since completion of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam in
December 1967, excess water from the Williston Lake has been released
through the spillway for just over 300 days. The radial gates were
operated in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1996. The spillway
outflow hydrograph for the years 1972 to 2001 is presented in Figure 3.24.
Table 3.8 summarizes each spill event in terms of magnitude and duration.
The first spill event in 1972 was the most important in terms of
duration and daily peak outflow. The spillway was in continuous operation
for eighty-three days (13 June to 3 Sept. 1972) during which a total of
7.4 million acre-ft of water were spilled. The spillway discharge was
increased to 175,000 cfs (3 radial gates opened at 31.2 ft) and maintained
for eleven hours as part of spillway performance tests conducted on 10-13
July 1972. This is the highest discharge recorded at the site since the
beginning of operation and represents 57% of the radial gates capacity at
the Inflow Design Flood Level (El. 2209.5 ft).
The latest flood at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam in 1996 caused the largest
spill event to date with reference to the volume of water released. From
24 June to 17 August 1996, an approximate 9.3 million acre-ft of water was
discharged through the spillway radial gates. The daily average spillway
flows were maintained between 100,000 and 120,000 cfs for a total of
thirty days. The maximum discharge recorded during the 1996 spill was
124,000 cfs (two outside gates open at 29 ft and centre gate at 20.5 ft).
The radial gates are the primary means of spillway release. The
sluices gates were tested in June 1972, April 1983, and April 1984. The
sluices have never been operated with the radial gates open, nor have more
than three sluices ever been opened at the same time (BCH Report No.
H1756, 1988). The nine sluice gates are considered out-of-service and have
not been operated since 1984 (BCH Report No. OMSGMS/03, 2001) .

Surveys of the plunge pool at Portage Mountain were made in 1973 and
1996 by echo depth sounding. Drawings of the two plunge pool surveys are
included in Appendix II. Table 3.9 summarizes the scour hole development
based on each survey data points and interpreted elevation contours. The
scour hole has developed mainly during the 1972 spill event and the 1973
and 1996 sounding surveys expose a similar plunge pool bathymetry.
Before spillway operation, the riverbed in the zone of jet impact was
gently dipping downstream from approximate El. 1640 ft to El. 1630 ft
(Figure 3.25) . A spur dyke was built along the left side of the excavated
tailrace channel with a rockfill weir extending from its downstream end to
the right bank. The dyke was designed to contain spillway flows and
minimize the impact of the jet upon the tailrace flow. The weir was
provided as a temporary means of maintaining tailwater levels above the
cavitation limit of the generating units until the erection of the
downstream Peace Canyon Dam.
The plunge,pool was surveyed for the first time a year after the first
spill event at the site in 1972. The soundings of May 1973 showed a scour
hole more than 100 ft deep with the invert located near the centre of the
channel (Figure 3.26) . The hole, with the outer edge taken as the El. 1620
ft contour, measured about 750 ft in the direction of spillway flows and
600 ft across, in the direction of river flows. An approximate 260,000
cu.ft of material was removed from the riverbed below El. 162 0 ft
including about 12,000 cu.ft below El. 1540 ft (Table 3.9). Much of the
scoured material appears to have been deposited between the center and the
left bank of the river channel about 500 ft downstream of the center of
the scour hole (IPEC Report No. H692, 1973). The 1973 survey did not
include soundings of the weir area but photographic records indicate that
the weir sustained damage due to the 1972 spill event. The toe of the
tailrace channel dyke was, however, eroded during spilling.
The plunge pool was surveyed again in August 1996 following the
largest spring flood to occur at the site. The 1996 scour hole
configuration was essentially the same as in 1972, with the invert roughly
4 ft deeper (Figure 3.27). However, scour had progressed towards the left
bank so that the volume of material removed below El. 1540 ft was
increased to approximately 36,000 cu.ft. The 1996 soundings indicated that
the tailrace weir was for the most part eroded. To date no debris has been
removed from the river channel downstream of the scour hole.
3.4. REVELSTOKE DAM

The Revelstoke Project (REV) is located on the Columbia River in
southeastern British Columbia (Figure 3.1), about 3 miles north of the
City of Revelstoke. The powerplant operates as a run-of-the-river plant.
The upstream and downstream projects are Mica and Keenleyside,
respectively.
The Revelstoke Project consists of a concrete gravity dam within the

river canyon with a long spillway chute on the right edge, an embankment
dam on the right bank terrace, and a downstream four-unit powerhouse
(Figure 3.28) . The concrete - dam has a maximum height of 575 ft and a total
length of 1550 ft, whereas the earthfill structure extends over 3800 ft
and reaches a maximum height of 260 ft above original ground. At Maximum
Normal Reservoir Level (El. 1880 ft) , the two main dams impound a 28,500
acres reservoir for a total storage volume of 4.3 million acre-ft. The
Revelstoke generating station has an installed capacity of 1980 MW and
provisions for two additional generating units. The first three units were
in service during the summer of 1984 and the fourth unit was commissioned
in January 1985.

The Revelstoke spillway includes headworks comprising two gated
overflow bays and two intermediate level outlets, a long chute with a
steep initial portion, and a terminal horizontal ski-jump structure
(Figure 3.29). Overall spillway length from the ogee crest to the
downstream end of the ski-jump is 1300 ft. Design characteristics are
summarized in Table 3.10. Spills are controlled by two 45 ft wide by 59 ft
high radial gates over ogee crest at El. 1825 ft. Below and between the
overflow bays, two 17.5 ft wide by 25 ft high sector gates in outlets with
invert at El. 1700 ft allow drawdown of the reservoir below spillway
crest. Surface flows follow the downstream face of the dam at a slope of
IV: 0.76H from the ogee-shaped crest to a 100 ft radius transition down to
the beginning of the chute at El. 1690 ft. The outlets discharge onto the
chute directly at this level. The concrete lined chute comprises two
straight portions: an approximate 300 ft with a gradient of 0.1715 and
another 472 ft at a slope of 0.002. From a minimum width of 120 ft, the
chute enlarges to 150 ft and ends with a horizontal invert ski-jump. The
differential head between the ogee crest and the terminal structure lip is
205 ft, including a 135 ft drop down the overflow bays. Under normal
conditions, there is an additional fall of about 160 ft to the river
channel. A pre-excavated plunge pool below the ski-jump was part of the
final design based on recommendations of hydraulic model studies (see
Section 3.4.5) .
The spillway operating gates [radial gates] are the preferred method
of release of non-power-related discharge (BCH L.O.O. 3P03-47, 2000).
Under normal operating conditions, the spillway radial gates should be
opened first and both radial and outlet gates should be opened or closed
in pairs by the same amount simultaneously.
The Inflow Design Flood (IDF) for the Revelstoke Dam is the Probable
Maximum Flood as established in 1975 as part of the preliminary design
studies (BCH Report No. 746, 1975) . The spillway (overflow bays and
outlets combined) can pass the flood peak of 251,000 cfs at reservoir El.
1885 ft.

The plunge pool bedrock at Revelstoke Dam consists of a succession of
highly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks including mainly micaceous gneiss
and quartzite with minor schist and marble. Quartzite contains less than
5% micas and mafic minerals, quartzite gneiss from 5 to 20%, mica gneiss
from 20 to 50% and mica schist more than 50% micas (BCH Report No. H1864,
1988). Bedding is pervasive, contacts between beds are generally
gradational and compositions may change laterally within a particular bed
(BCH Report No. 786, 1976). The main graphic drill logs of the plunge pool
area (with respect to the depth of bedrock logged) are presented in Figure
3.30. The unconfined compressive strength of the metasedimentary rocks at
the dam site ranges typically between 3000 and 20,000 psi.
The structural features of the bedrock result from repeated ductile

regional folding followed by brittle fracturing associated with the
Columbia River Fault. Geological investigations indicated that the bedrock
would likely fracture into 10-foot to 15-foot blocks which would in turn
break up to 2 to 8 cubic feet pieces after being dislodged (BCH Report No.
H1624, 1983). The main discontinuities affecting the mechanical properties
of the rock are here defined:
• Bedding, foliation and gneissosity in the rocks of the damsite are
generally parallel (BCH Report No. 786, 1976) . In the plunge pool
area (as excavated) , the rock present foliation planes oriented in
higher concentration at azimuth N56° and with a dip of 26° (Figure
3.30); the main component of dip is oriented perpendicular to
spillway flows towards the left hand side of the plunge pool. As a
result, some of the unsupported rock composing the right wall of the
plunge pool relaxed and became unstable after excavation.
• Shears are a prominent feature of the bedrock at the dam site and
can be classified as foliation shears (parallel to foliation) , sub-
normal (to foliation), or steep. Steep shears in the plunge pool
area strike around N80°. The foliation shears, which formed along
weak graphite-rich layer parallel to foliation, are the most
developed. Shears generally have smooth to rough and undulating
surfaces with up to 2 inches of clay infilling. Spacing varies from
10 ft to 100 ft.
• Small scale shears and joints occur in a wide variety of
orientations throughout the site (BCH Report No. H1864, 1988).
Jointing is more important in quartzite and adjacent to steep
shears. Conjugate sets, i.e. discontinuities with same dip but
opposite dip direction, are common.
During construction, it was revealed that bedrock immediately

downstream of the plunge pool, particularly near the right side, did not
extend as far downstream as expected (BCH Report No. H1864, 1988). Bedrock
elevations are shown in Figure 3.30 for different drill holes and seismic
lines in the plunge pool/right bank area. The extent of the bedrock is
limited by the presence of a buried channel which underlies the right bank
terrace. In the plunge pool area, overburden consists mainly of sand,
gravel, cobbles, and boulders.

Since the beginning of operation in 1983, the Revelstoke spillway has
been used for less than 300 days. The spillway outflow hydrograph for the
period of 1983-2001 is shown in Figure 3.31 and a summary of discharges
recorded is presented in Table 3.11.
The only extended spill goes back to initial reservoir filling. During
initial reservoir filling, from October 1983 to April 1984, the outlets
were operated at discharges varying from a few hundred cfs to about 35,000
cfs (BCH Report No. H1864, 1988). Discharge was increased up to 48,000 cfs
for a short period to test the spray condition in the river downstream of
the dam (ibid.). From April 1984, the excess water from the reservoir was
released primarily through the overflow bays.
Prototype spillway tests were conducted on 11-14 August 1986 to

observe the effects of air entrainment on the freeboard along the chute
walls. Testing involved a maximum spillway discharge of 70,000 cfs held
for about 15 minutes, one spill up to 60,000 cfs within an hour, and two
spills up to 50,000 cfs within an hour, all this over a four-day period.
The spillway discharge was increased to 70,000 cfs using both the overflow
bays (55,000 cfs) and the outlet gates (15,000 cfs). The peak flow of the
1986 tests, which represents 28% of the Inflow Design Flood, was
maintained for a few minutes only to let the flow stabilize.
The spill of August 1991 did not exceed the 70,000 cfs experienced in
1986 but caused considerable damages to the plunge pool and right bank
(see Section 3.4.5). The spillway discharge was increased from 16,000 cfs
to 59,000 cfs within a two-hour period, maintained at 59,000 cfs for eight
hours, and then cut back to 52,000 cfs for a further thirteen hours.
Spilling in 1991 lasted for a maximum of five consecutive days.

Echo depth soundings of the Revelstoke plunge pool have been performed
following important spills. Drawings of sounding surveys conducted in
1983, 1984, 1986, and 1991 are presented in Appendix II. The scour hole
progression is quantified in Table 3.12 based on each survey data points
and interpreted elevation contours. The pre-excavated plunge pool lost its
original shape soon after the beginning of spillway operation and
gradually deepened while the right bank was sloughing into the pool.
The plunge pool at Revelstoke Dam was pre-excavated based on

recommendations of hydraulic model studies. The pre-excavated plunge pool
was provided to control scour hole development on the right bank and to
minimize undesirable backwater effects from shoaling in the powerhouse
tailrace (BCH Report No. H1864, 1988). The excavation comprised a minimum
level at El. 1425 ft covering an approximate 16,500 sq.ft area with a
downstream level at El. 1450 ft (Figure 3.32).
After an approximate two months of spillway operation, a line survey

of the plunge pool topography was performed on 2 0 December 1983 (Appendix
II, BCH Drawing No. 212-C14-B4371). A profile survey along the centerline
of the plunge pool indicated that the rock sill forming the downstream
edge of the pre-excavated plunge pool had been eroded approximately 25 ft
down to about El. 1400 ft (BCH Report No. H1864, 1988). The invert of the
plunge pool had also been eroded by an average of 5 ft below pre-excavated
levels (ibid.). Photographic records indicated that the plunge pool had
elongated towards the downstream end with a gravel bar built up
immediately downstream of the pool.
A first sounding survey covering the bulk of the plunge pool was
carried out on 15 May 1984. The lowest elevation recorded was El. 1392 ft
some 330-340 ft downstream of the concrete apron at the right of the
spillway centreline (Figure 3.33). This represents a maximum scour depth
of 58 ft since the beginning of spillway operation. The initial spilling
period of October 1983 to May 1984 removed an estimated 5 million cu.ft of
material from the plunge pool.
Soundings of the spillway plunge pool and tailrace were undertaken

following spill tests on 11-14 August 1986. The invert of the plunge pool
had reached El. 1380 ft facing the.left half of the spillway at a distance
of 300 ft from the concrete apron (Figure 3.34) . Scour had progressed
laterally towards the left while the existing invert facing the right half
of the spillway was covered with overburden from sloughing of the right
bank. The bathymetric survey showed a tailrace accumulation of material up
to El. 1450 ft comparatively to the design level of excavation at El. 1440
ft. As part of a tailrace improvement project, the channel downstream of
the plunge pool was excavated to nominal invert El. 1432 ft in 1989.
During the flood of August 10-11 [1991], the right bank protection
work failed resulting in a section of the powerhouse access road collapsed
into the plunge pool (BCH Report No. HYD.943, 1991). The following
bathymetric survey (22 Sept. 1991) reflected the accumulation of material
in the plunge pool with a minimum elevation (El. 1403 ft) more than 20 ft
higher than the previous survey lowest point (El. 1380 ft) (Appendix II,
BCH Drawing No. 212-C14-C5579). Overburden thicknesses range up to 50 ft
opposite the spillway with minimum thickness of 2 0 feet near the spillway
and rock shoreline (BCH Report No. N1315, 1992). Results of geotechnical
investigations after the August 1991 flood showed that there was no
significant change in the depth of the scour hole for most part of the
plunge pool since the 1986 spillway tests, except that the downstream
corner on the right side of the plunge pool has eroded to significant
depth due to the presence of a weak joint in the bedrock at that location
(BCH Report No. HYD.943, 1991). It is believed that the deep erosion in
the right corner of the plunge pool caused the jet to deflect towards the
right bank and undercut the underlying material thus resulting in the
collapse of the bank protection work (ibid.).
Table 3.1. Peace Canyon Dam / Spillway Characteristics
| GENERAL
Type of Spillway ! Gated Overflow Spillway
Total Spillway Width I 440 ft across Blocks SI to S7
Overall Spillway Length1 | 240 ft (Bays 1-2)
I 220 ft (Bays 3 to 6)
HEADWORKS
Overflow Bays i
!
Number of Bays 1 6
Piers Width 10 ft
Ogee Crest Elevation El. 1612 ft
Gates | 6 Radial Gates
Gates Dimension j 50 ft wide x 41.5 ft high
TERMINAL STRUCTURE
Energy Dissipation Flip Bucket
Bucket Radius 55 ft
Bucket Invert Elevation El. 1495 ft (Bays 1-2)
El. 1510 ft (Bays 3 to 6)
Bucket Lip Angle 30° (Bays 1-2)
2 0° (Bays 3 to 6)
Bucket Lip Elevation El. 1512.37 ft (Bays 1-2)
El. 1522.77 ft (Bays 3 to 6)
Bucket Width 116 ft (Bays 1-2 combined)
234 ft (Bays 3 to 6 combined)
HYDRAULICS
Normal Conditions !
Maximum Normal Reservoir Level El. 1650 ft
Tailwater Level with Four El. 1518 ft
Units Rated Discharge2 I
s
Flood Conditions
Inflow Design Flood | 330,200 cfs
Maximum Flood Level j El. 1652.4 ft
Maximum Tailwater Level2 j El. 1532 ft |
Notes. 1
1. Estimated from structural drawing of spillway sections (BCH Drawing No. 1007-C14-U4798). i
2. Estimated from current tailwater rating curve (BCH Drawing No. 1007-C14-D4954). i
Year Bays Total | Maximum Max daily Max daily Max daily
Period of days of discharge average average average
continuous operation discharge discharge discharge
spill sustained sustained
1 week 4 weeks
[cfs] i Ws] [cfs] [cfs]
1979 Total f 65 68,000 j 56,000 50,000 f 42,000
28 Oct.
to 3 - 4 | 62-64 21,000 | 15,500 12,500 11,000
31 Dec. 5 - 6 52 - 54 | 17,000 ! 14,000 12,500 | 11,000
1980 Total 107 | 60,000 I 60,000 49,500 | 36,000
1 Jan.
to |3 - 4 76 - 78 30,000 27,500 | 24,500 | 18,000
2 Apr. 5 - 6 48 - 51 26,500 j 18,000 | 13,500 9, 000
| Total 12 67,500 [ 47,000 [ 15,000 1
1981
• 24 July
to
1
I
3 12 25,000 j 22,500 15,000
|
4 7 | 25,000 22,500
5 Aug.
6 2 f 22,500 j 9,500 i
1 1 I
Total 15 | 75,000 f 45,000 | 29,000 1
1983
3 - 4 15 19,000 j 15,000 11,000 1
4-18 July
5 - 6 12 19,000 I 11,000 6,000
|
1984 [ Total 1 6 | 25,000 j 15,000 j
10-15 Oct. I 3 - 4 6 | 13,000 | 7,000
1 1 1
Total | 55 | 116,000 | 116,000 109,000 53,000
1996 i
23 June [ 55 [ 47,000 j 47,000 47,000 [ 47,000
1 3
to 4 54 31,000 j 31,000 31,000 8, 000
17 Aug.
5 - 6 40 - 41 27,000 21,000 18,000
Note.
1. The daily average discharge is the 24-hour average of spillway flows
(12:00AM to 11:59PM).
2. "Total" refers to total spillway flows without distinction for the bays in operation.
1" Survey- No. of Scour Scour : Maximum Scour Scour
| Approximate Volume Scoured Below:
Date Survey Hole Hole Scour Hole Hole
Data Invert Invert Depth2 Maximum Maximum | El. El. El. HiiT"
Points1 El. Location Length3 Width 4 I 1490 ft 1480 ft 1470 ft 1460 ft
[ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] j [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft]
i
Oct. 1700R
176 1477.4 28,000 100
1979 15 + 2 ON
15 Apr. 1 1635R
165 1458.2 50 310 220 997,000 318,000 79,000 300
1980 1 15+45N
5 Sept. 1700R
188 1461 45 300 305 1,080,000 335,000 67,000
1981 15+35N
Apr. -162 OR
N/A 1450 60 310 190 998,000 382,000 137,000 24,000
1983 -14+90
Oct. -1620R
N/A 1450 60 350 220 982,000 388,000 116,000 9, 800
1983 -14+95
9 Oct. 164 OR
230 1462 50 310 160 865,000 261,000 44,000
1985 14+80N
22 July 164 OR
130 j 1458 50 330 | 190 1,110,000 373,000 110,000 600
1 1987 14+75N
4 Aug. 1665R
434 | 1459.3 50 410 | 240 1,480,000 581,000 175,000 600
1996 14+45N 1
--
Notes.
1. Within the area of interest (600 x 600 sq.ft): Station 1300R to 1900R (Easting) by Station 14+00N to 20+00N (Northing).
2. Maximum difference in elevation with respect to the original plunge pool topography (Oct. 1979).
3. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 1480ft contour; length in the direction of spillway flows.
4. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 14 80ft contour; width across spillway bays.
i
GENERAL
| Type of Spillway ! Gated Overflow Spillway
Total Spillway Width j 322 ft across Blocks SW1 to
i SW4
Overall Spillway Length1 [ 330 ft (Bays 1-2)
| 2 50 ft (Bays 3 to 5)
HEADWORKS ,
Overflow Bays r
i
Number of Bays || 5
| Piers Width i 12 ft
| Ogee Crest Elevation fEl. 1679 ft
| Gates 5 Vertical Lift Gates
| Gates Dimension | 50 ft wide x 54.42 ft high
TERMINAL STRUCTURE
j Energy Dissipation Flip Bucket
Bucket Radius 60 ft
Bucket Invert Elevation El. 1545 ft (Bays 1-2)
El. 1555 ft (Bays 3 to 5)
Bucket Lip Angle 30° (all bays)
Bucket Lip Elevation El. 1555.54 ft (Bays 1-2)
El. 1565.54 ft (Bays 3 to 5)
Bucket Width 115.5 ft (Bays 1-2 combined)
17 7.5 ft (Bays 3 to 5 combined)
HYDRAULICS
Normal Conditions
Tailwater Level with Three El. 1523 ft
Units Rated Discharge2
Flood Conditions
Inflow Design Flood ["376,900 cfs
Maximum Flood Level | El. 1732 ft
2
Maximum Tailwater Level j El. 1556 ft
Notes.
1. Estimated from structural drawings of spillway sections (BCH Drawing Nos. 224-C14-
D677/D678).
2. Estimated from current tailwater rating curve (BCH Drawing No. 224-C14-B1740).
Table 3.5. Seven Mile Dam / Historical Spills
Year | Bays Total { Maximum Max daily {Max daily Max daily
Period of days of | discharge average | average average
continuous | operation discharge {discharge discharge
spill ! sustained sustained
| 1 week 4 weeks
1
[cfs] [cfs] I [cfs] [cfs]
1979
5 Nov. Total1 30 48,000 29,000 26,000 15,000
to
2 8 Dec.
! Total 188 77,000 71,000 47,000 31,000
1980
20 Apr. 1 163 34,000 26,000 j 18,000 9,000
to I 2 116 33,000 33,000 | 17,000 11,000
23 July
| 3 I 4 7 15,000 12,000 j 12,000 11,000
Total [ 124 98,000 76,000 71,000 37,000
1981 j 1 | 124 30,000 24,000 16,000 7, 000
1 May
to 1 2 I 85 26,000 25,000 19,000 7, 000
14 July | 3 41 40,000 27,000 J 24,000
I 4 28 13,000 10,000 I 8,000
1982
| Total
I 1 - 2 | 141 - 93
141
| 34,000 100,000
33,000
| 64,000
j 24,000
j
|
40,000
11,000
2 8 Apr.
to | 41 | 26,000 25,000 ! 21,000 r
31 July 1 3
i !
I 4
| 39 j 8,000 8, 000 | 8,000
| Total 175 | 116,000 99,000 ! 82,000 | 60,000
1996 ! i [ 174 52,000 34,000 i '
27,000 J 21,000
12 Feb.
to 2 j 159 48,000 31,000 27,000 21,000
12 July 3 | 132 31,000 30,000 | 18,000 9,000
4
[
1 Total
[
1 128
88
|
10,000
114,000
9,000
112,000
9,000
j 107,000 F
9,000
99,000
! i
1997 I 1 | 127 40,000 36,000 | 34,000 | 30,000
15 Apr. _
to j. 103 37,000 36,000 J 34,000 j 30,000
17 July j 3
r~ "
| 31,000 31,000 i 31,000 29,000
1 86
! f
i 4
1 75 | 10,000 9,000 | 9,000 | 9,000
Notes.
1. Gate Operations Record incomplete for the year 1979. Spilling occurred over Bays 1 and 2
primarily.
2. Flows through Bay 1 and Bay 2 reached 64,000 cfs and 47,000 cfs, respectively, during
spillway testing on 30 May 1990.
(12:00AM to 11:59PM).
Table 3.6. Seven Mile Dam / Scour Hole Development
!
Survey- No. of Scour Scour Maximum Scour Scour
Approximate Volume Scoured Below:
f
Data Invert Invert Depth2 Maximum Maximum El. El. El. El.
Points1 El. Location Length3 Width 4 1490 ft 1480 ft 1470 ft 1460 ft
[ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft]
Before
-Line 1730
30 Oct. N/A 1475 . . . 29,000 2 , 100
1979 -Sta 8+50
14 Dec. Line 1600
71-45 1465 35-40 90 150 74,000 17,000 700
1979 Sta 9+30
7 Aug. Line 1615
25 1461.9 33-38 190 >175 196,000 43,000 3,200
1980 Sta 9+05
11-12
Line 1660
Aug. 42 1450 60-65 175 200 368,000 171,000 52,000 5,200
Sta 9+50
1982
20 Sept. Line 1680
N/A 1455 55-60 290 160 418,000 201,000 75,000 8,400
1984 Sta 9+60
15 Oct. Line 1660
55 1448 62-67 250 160 339,000 156,000 53,000 7,000
1986 Sta 9+55
Oct. Line 1635
61 1440 65-70 280 200 550,000 301,000 145,000 53,000
1988 Sta 9+35
21-26
Line 1670
Oct. 65-209 1450.1 55-60 280 210 520,000 269,000 116,000 31,000
Sta 9+25
1997
Notes.
1. Within the area of interest (350 ft x 200 ft): Line 1450 to 1800 by Station 8+00 to 10+00 (bathymetry)
(if second number) (600 ft x 200 ft): Line 1200 to 1900 by Station 10+00 to 12+00 (ground survey)
2. Maximum difference in elevation with respect to the original plunge pool topography (Before 30 Oct. 1979).
3. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 1490 ft contour; length in the direction of spillway flows.
4. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 1490 ft contour; width across spillway bays.
5. The survey performed on 30 April 1981 was not considered because taken after plunge pool blasting and biased by debris accumulation.
| GENERAL
1 Type of Spillway j Long Chute Spillway
Total Spillway Width [2 05 ft across Headworks
| Overall Spillway Length1 2400 ft
HEADWORKS
| Overflow Bays
Number of Bays 3
Piers Width 15 ft
j Ogee Crest Elevation El. 2145 ft
Gates | 3 Radial Gates
1 Gates Dimension [50 ft wide x 61 ft high
| Sluices
| Number of Sluices
Piers Width 3
8 ft
Sill Elevation El. 2105 ft !
| Gates [ 9 Vertical Lift Gates
Gates Dimension 6 ft wide x 8 ft high
TERMINAL STRUCTURE
Energy Dissipation Asymmetrical Flip Bucket
Bucket Radius Variable j
j Bucket Invert Elevation El. 1876 ft !
| Bucket Lip Angle 30° 1
Bucket Lip Elevation El. 1890 ft— — 1
i
Bucket Width 135 ft (lip length) |
!
| HYDRAULICS
| Normal Conditions
Maximum Normal Reservoir Level El. 2205 ft j
Tailwater Level with Ten El. 1655 ft j
Flood Conditions l
Inflow Design Flood 307,200 cfs !
Maximum Flood Level El . 2209.5 ft I
Maximum Tailwater Level2 El. 1664 ft
Notes.
1. Estimated from structural drawings of spillway profile (BCH Drawing Nos. 1006-C14-U812,
1006-C21-U16/U32).
2. Estimated and extrapolated from Power Records data for the years 1996 to 2001.
Year Bays Total | Maximum Max daily Max daily Max daily
Period of days of discharge average average average
continuous operation discharge discharge discharge
1 week 4 weeks
[cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs]
1972
13 June
Total 85 175,000 167,000 85,000 15,000
to
3 Sept.
1974
23-31 July Total 36 27,000 25,000 18,000
3-29 Aug.
197 6
7-16 July Total 36 36,000 36,000 30,000
3-27 Aug.
r i98i
24 July
Total 13 49,000 45,000 14,000
to
5 Aug.
1983
10-30 May
2 8 June Total 68 87,000 80,000 60,000 7,000
to
11 Aug.
r 1984
7-13 Aug
Total 25 23,000 23,000
7-11 Sept.
10-15 Oct.
1996
2 4 June
Total 56 124,000 122,000 117,000 59,000
to
17 Aug. !
Notes.
1. Spillway discharges were released through the overflow bays primarily.
(12:00AM to 11:59PM).
1 Survey No. of Scour Scour Maximum 1 Scour Scour
Date Approximate Volume Scoured Below:
Survey Hole Hole Scour 1 Hole Hole
Data Invert Invert Depth2 j Maximum Maximum El. El. El. El. El.
1 Points1 El. Location Length3 Width 4 1620 ft 1600 ft 1580 ft 1560 ft 1540 ft
[ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft]
Dec.1967
N/A 1634
May 1969
15-16 160,150E
103 1519.6 -115 750 600 260,000 171,000 116,000 66,000 12,000
May 1973 5,22 ON
4 Aug. 160,190E
609 1516.2 -118 700 650 280,000 174,000 110,000 70,000 36,000
1996 5, H O N
Notes.
1. Within the area of interest (1000 ft x 1000 ft): 159,700E to 160,700E by 4,800N to 5,800N
2. Maximum difference in elevation with respect to the original plunge pool topography (Dec. 1967 & May 1969) .
3. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 1620 ft contour; length in the direction of spillway chute (Northing).
j 4. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 1620 ft contour; width perpendicular to spillway chute (Easting).
Table 3.10. Revelstoke Dam / Spillway Characteristics
| GENERAL
Type of Spillway [Long Chute Spillway
Total Spillway Width | 224 ft across Blocks SI to S3
Overall Spillway Length1 1300 ft |
I HEADWORKS
Overflow Bays
Number of Bays 2
Pier Width
Ogee Crest Elevation El. 1825 ft
Gates 2 Radial Gates
| Gates Dimension 45 ft wide x 59 ft high
Outlets |
Number of Outlets 2
| Pier Width
| Sill Elevation
1 10 ft
El. 1700 ft
Gates [ 2 Outlet Sector Gates
1 Gates Dimension 17.5 ft wide x 25 ft high
TERMINAL STRUCTURE
Horizontal Ski-Jump
J Energy Dissipation
| Bucket Radius 0°
Bucket Invert Elevation El. 1620 ft
| Bucket Lip Angle 0°
Bucket Lip Elevation El. 1620 ft
Bucket Width fiio ft
HYDRAULICS
1 Normal Conditions
Tailwater Level with Four El. 1459 ft
Flood Conditions
| Inflow Design Flood 251,000 cfs
[ Maximum Flood Level El. 1885 ft
| Maximum Tailwater Level2 El. 1481 ft
Note.
1. Estimated from structural drawings of spillway profile (BCH Drawing Nos. 212-C21-
U11/U4 7/U4 8) .
2. Final design values based on improved tailrace channel.
Year 1 Surface | Total Maximum 1 Max daily Max daily Max daily
Period of 1 Bays/ I days of discharge average average average
continuous | Outlets | operation discharge discharge discharge
1 week 4 weeks
[cfs] [cfs] [cfs] [cfs]
19831 r
i
Oct. to Outlets 1 -90 48,000 N/A N/A N/A
31 Dec.
19842 Outlets 124 40,100 30,500 29,600 20,300
1 Jan. ? — ' — —
to ! Surface 1
9 May
3 2 24,200 24,200 8,000
| Bays
1985 Surface
! 6 33,600 31,100
14-19 Feb. j Bays
1986
25-28 July
Total 8 70,000
| ...
Spillway | Outlets j 5 15,000 i 10,800
Testing: f
11-14 Aug. Surface 1
l 55,000
Bays
| 3
1990 Surface !
j 5 18., 700 17,100
14-18 June Bays !
!
1991 j Surface
! 12
9-14 Aug. 59,200 35,500
18-21 Aug. 1 Bays
1997 Surface
| 4 18,400 | 18,300
2-5 Oct. Bays
j 1
Notes.
1. Gate Operations Record missing for the year 1983.
2. The spillway discharges were released through the overflow bays from 17 April to 9 May
1984 .
(12:00AM to 11:59PM).
4. "Total" refers to total spillway flows without distinction for the bays/outlets in
operation. ,
Survey No . o f Scour Scour Maximum Scour Scour
Approximate Volume Scoured Below:
Data Invert Invert Depth2 Maximum Maximum El. El. El. El.
Points1 El. Location Length3 Width 4 1425 ft 1410 ft 1400 ft 1390 ft
[ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu.ft] [cu. ft]
As
Excavated
114 1425
Extended
Area
110 210
| -
15 May
|"N/A 1392
44,52 0E
58 N/A 290 >1,345,000 310,000 50,000
;
1984 42,060N
Following j
44,63 0E
spill tests N/A I 1380 70 . 480 370 1,158,000 293,000 107,000 30,000
42,010N
on Aug.1986
22 Sept. 44,590E
1991
141 1403
42,170N
60 350 430 442,000 5, 000
! —
Notes.
1. Within the area of interest (700 ft x 500 ft): 44,300E to 45,000E by 41, 900N to 42,40ON.
2. Maximum difference in elevation with respect to the original plunge pool topography (As Excavated).
3. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 1425 ft contour; length in the direction of spillway chute
4. Outer edge of scour hole taken as the El. 1425 ft contour; width perpendicular to spillway chute.
NORTH11
T ERR
PORTAGE
MOUNTAIN
PROJECT
( W.A.O. BENNETT
DAM)
•PEACE CANYON
DAM t
Figure 3.1. Geographic Location of Dam Sites

EL.1522.77 FT
figure .3.3. Peace Canyon Spillway

E! /6/2.00
SECTION ©
k
Im 1600
§
Uj
Uj 1500
B.R2
1400
El. 1612.00
SECTION ©
k
1600
[H
£
Sections A & B: 1007-C14-D4243
Section C: 1007-C14-U4321
SECTION © o
£
ki
I500
I400
19+00R 18+00R 17+00R 16+00R 15+00R
Station [ft]
Figure 3.4. Peace Canyon Dam / Spillway Foundation Geology

H-
IQ
£
i-i Spillway Discharge [cfs]
(t>
13
m
OJ
n
cu 28 Oct. 1979ltO_2Apr. 1980
o
pj Qmax != 68,000 cfs
P Q = 50,000 60,000 cfs for 37 days
•c
o
3 25 July to 5 Aug.!. 1981
Qmax i= 67,500 cfs (Bays 3 4-6)
a Q = 40,000 - 47,000 cfsfor 4 days _(Bays 3-4-6)
si)
3
CO 4-18 July 1983
>d Qmax 75,000 cfs
H-
M A 40,.000 - 45.00C cfsfor 3 day;
M
s: 10-15 Oct. 1984
^pj Qmax 1= 25,000 cfs for 3 hr (Bays 3-4)
o
c
rt
l-h
M o
0
S
20 Jan 1987
Qmax = 25,000 cfs tor 1 hr (Bay 3)
ffi
(jd
o oo
o
113
ii ISJ
SD o
•O o
13*
vo
<1
vo
rt
O
to
o
o
24 June to 17 Aug.
U Qmax 115,000 -
C5
I Q > 110,000 cfsfor
June 2001: Low Flow Spillway Tests

Qmax |= 18,1000 cfs (Bays 3-4 and Bay 3 only)
PEACE CANYON DAM I PLUNGE POOL
BEFORE SPILLWAY OPERATION
1s
I o#
3
1
53 14Sn
^ <
^sv
-V
• Survey Data Points

Ref. BCH Drawing No. 1007-C14-X8423
SURVEY OF 15 APRIL 1980
Ref. BCH Drawing No. 1007-C14-X8423

SURVEY OF 5 SEPTEMBER 1981
>

Ref. BCH Drawing No. 1007-C14-U8440
PEACE CANYON DAM / PLUNGE POOL
SURVEY OF 4 AUGUST 1996
Q)
UJ 145q

Ref. BCH Drawing No. 1007-C11-D1983
Figure 3.10. Seven Mile Dam / General Arrangement
Figure 3.11. Seven Mile Spillway

SEVEN MILE DAM
PLUNGE POOL BEDROCK - GEOLOGICAL MAPPING
1200
1100
c
o 1000
-t—>
03
CO
1 1 1 1 1 1
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Line [ft]
Notes. ROCK TYPES SYMBOLS
1. Geological Mapping Completed in August & October 1999
(Ref. BCH Drawing No. 224-C14-C1599) ARGILLITE - REWORKED, MASSIVE TO SLIGHTLY LAMINATED JOINT; INCLINED, VERTICAL
2. Topography As Surveyed in October 1997
ARGILLITE - REWORKED, HEALED SHEARS, GRAPHITIC \ V FOLIATION OR BEDDING
GRANITE - PYRITIC, MED-GRAINED HEALED SHEAR (APPROXIMATE)
-S, GEOLOGICAL BOUNDARY;

DIABASE - ALTERED V DEFINITE, APPROXIMATE
LAMPROPHYRE - ALTERED 120/45 ORIENTATION STRIKE / DIP (RIGHT HAND RULE)
Figure 3.12. Seven Mile Dam / Plunge Pool Bedrock - Geological Mapping
SEVEN MILE DAM
PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLUNGE POOL BEDROCK
PLATE 2 -
ARGILLITE (MASSIVE)
Facing Right Abutment
Figure 3.13. Seven Mile Dam / Photographs of Plunge Pool Bedrock

SEVEN MILE DAM
Spillway Outflow Hydrograph - 1979 to 2001
•8
<u
cn
u
tn
>-
(D
J
'5.
CO
Years of Spillway Operation

Ref. BCH Drawing No. 224-C11-U217
SPILLWAY
WAC BENNETT DAM
PLUNGE
POOL
Figure 3.20. Portage Mountain Project / General Arrangement
ROCKFILL
GROINS
PLAN AND PROFILE

0 200 400 FT
SCALE: fa - I I H—I
1890 FT
EL.2145 FT_
HEADWORKS U/S ELEVATION CHUTE SECTIONS

0 100 200 FT
SCALE: fa - I I I 1
Figure 3.21. Portage Mountain Spillway
Figure 3.22. Portage Mountain Project / Right Cliff Rock Strata
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN PROJECT
PLUNGE P OOL PLAN
U
oJ
o
o
<o
6.000N
5.000N
LEGEND
Note. Peace River Coal Seam
Reference BCH Drawing Nos. Shale
Plan: 1006-C11-U6
Section A: 1006-C11-U14
Section B: 1006-C11-U19 Sandstone Water Line (~EI. 1650 ft)
Figure 3.23. Portage Mountain Project / Plunge Pool Geology

SECTION A
SECTION B
Spillway Discharge [cfs]
•Ts-
27 Aug. 1976
cfs for 11 days
ui
CO
•g
o
I
«< -o
u>
o
o g
24 July to 5 Aug. 1981
45,000 cfs for 1 day 0 CD
§ m
. 28 June to H Aug. 1983

1 o
:Q = 75,000- 80,000 cfsfor 3 day;; 3 l
IQ H
Sept., & 10-15 Oct. 1984
S £
, "O
K 2
m
o ^
N)
O
O
24June to 17 Aug. 1996
Qmax : 124,JOOcfs;
Q > 100,000 cfs for 30 days
-J
oo
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN PROJECT I PLUNGE POOL
~W BEFORE SPILLWAY OPERATION
Ret. BCH Drawing Nos. 1006-C11-U6/U144

1006-C14-C1261
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN PROJECT / PLUNGE POOL
SURVEY OF 15-16 MAY 1973

Ref. BCH Drawing No. 1006-C14-B1262
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN PROJECT I PLUNGE POOL
SURVEY OF 4 AUGUST 1996
G
1
o0
^ 65 0
•S 160Q
1
U 55(K
UJ
°Oo

PLUNGE
CHUTE
iL
TERMINAL
STRUCTURE
HEADWORKS-
SURFFACE BAYS PLAN A N D PROFILE
„ 0U.I 80
SCALE: 160
I I=J FT
El. 1425
SECTIONS
El.1700 FT „„„ ,, 0h- I 80
SCALE: I | 160
t FT
HEADWORKS-OUTLETS CHUTE
Figure 3.29. Revelstoke Spillway

Easting [ft] REVELSTOKE PLUNGE POOL - GRAPHIC DRILL LOGS
44,300 44,400 44,500 44,600 44,700 44,800 44,900 45,000
Z
42,400- z ia:
d- i
3 ^
o i I- > -
t- UJ UJ UJ cc
a: a: t a. uj
or 9
3 ^ UJ o§
_i a. UJ
o >- o
42,300- 1 Grovel, cobbled
and boulders
with some sond
Sond, grovel, Gr
Coo
bvbe^lgro
Bveslond
cobbles 8 boulders
M If") send WL
i withsom^
42,200-
p i bou>lbdbeiress,agrsaavnedl
SuortzTte V
(GW) Sandy grovel gneiss
cn with some cobbles
Ouarl12 feldspar sw
a M&
H l ! Quartzite
^ I
I
'Hl'lU'I'I'll
Ouorlzite gneiss
iiif OH 74-2
42,100
DH 7 3 - 9
42,000-
>
oz o o „ IE
<<r> a: UJ
>
o o
CO o
UJ O
o u. 0
41,900-
Overburden IOO 1
Broken, loose,
weathered
v C v - 3 Quartzite gneiss
50 1538
Thick bedded
Quartzite gneiss
•Altered
'Quortzite gneiss
IOO t h i n bedded
Quartzite gneiss
\Morble
Thick bedded
Quartzite gneiss
Thin bedded
150 1437
Quartzite gneiss
D.H. 7 5 - 18
2QO
Note.
Reference BCH Drawing Nos.
Plan: 212-C14-U5499
Drill Logs: 212-C14-D499/D500
D502/D508
Figure 3.30. Revelstoke Dam / Plunge Pool Geological Information

l-1-
IQ
C
i-i Spillway Discharge [cfs]
n>
(
<1)
fD
M Oct. - pec. 1983: Outlets
01 Qmax = 48,000 cfs
rt
O 1 Jan. to 16 Apr. 1984: OuJets
W 17 Ap . to 9 lay 1904: Overflow Says
fD June & July 1984: Outlets, Overflo w Bay:
D
0) 14-19 Feb. 1^85: Overflow Bays
3 Qmax 33,000 - 34,000 cfs for 30 hrs
to
p- 25-28 July 1986: Outlets 11-14 Aug. 1986: Spillway ;reeboard Te:ts
Q = 10,800 :fs for '3 da^fe Qmax = 70,,000 cfs for < 15 min [Overfl 3w Bays & Outlets)
£
flj
O
e cn
rr T3
l-h 1
I-
O CD
£
W
><
&
O 14-18 June 1 390: Overflow Bays o
IQ -< Q = 17,000 f )r 2 days
H fD c
(1) Q)
-1 3 to
tr
9-14, 18-21, & 25 Aug. 1991: Overflow Bays
Qmax = 59,000 cfs "or 8 hrs
o m
LT) Q-52,000 cfs for 13 hrs * £
vo
•g. f 5
CO
u> W 5
QJ _
§
rt -ai
<
O O -a P
T3 ui IT >
to fD o
o O
o =3 UD
00
U)
NJ NJ
O
o O
o
o
2-5 Oft. 1997: Overflow Bays

Qmax 18,000 cfs for 48 hrs
S 8
8. sm
1
I S
REVELSTOKE DAM I PLUNGE POOL
BEFORE SPILLWAY OPERATION End Ski-Jump

Ref. BCH Drawing Nos. 212-C21-D7126/7127
REVELSTOKE DAM I PLUNGE POOL
SURVEY OF 15 MAY 1984
End Ski-Jump

Ref. Drawing Nos. 212-C21-D7125/7127
REVELSTOKE DAM / PLUNGE POOL
FOLLOWING SPILL TESTS
ON AUGUST 1986 •
Figure 3.34. Revelstoke Dam / Plunge Pool Topography As Surveyed Following Spillway Tests on August 1986
CHAPTER IV
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING PLUNGE POOL SCOUR
Plunge pool scour is dependent upon the interaction of many factors

specific to a particular dam site. Most authors have put the emphasis on
hydraulic parameters (Mason and Arumugam, 1985), while others insist on
the importance of plunge pool geological conditions (Spurr, 1985;
Annandale, 1995) . To assess pool scour accurately, the influence of the
spillway layout, the spill duration, the geology and the relative rates of
scour development between the outer pool and the live-scour hole must be
taken into account (Spurr, 1985). In this chapter, the main factors
susceptible to affect plunge pool scour are examined and the importance of
each is established through a comparative analysis of plunge pool
performance at the sites of study.
4.1 SPILLWAY CHARACTERISTICS
One would expect that spillways with different degrees of energy

dissipation on the spillway itself and different arrangements for the
free-falling jet to exhibit different plunge pool scour depth for
otherwise equal hydraulic parameters (Novak, 1985). The ways in which the
change in dissipator could affect scour are principally by causing
variations in jet dispersion laterally, in aeration and impact angle and
also by causing varying amounts of head loss through or along the
conveyancing structure (Mason, 1985) . Key design features of the four
spillways at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project,
and Revelstoke Dam are compared in Table 4.1. The main spillway
characteristics likely to affect scour development are examined through
comparative observations between sites of study.
Empirical data from experiments and field observations indicate that

the two main parameters affecting the scour depth are the difference in
elevation between the upstream reservoir and the downstream tailwater
level (or total head H) and the discharge per unit width of flow (or unit
discharge q) . These two parameters are closely related to the spillway
design. The total head is associated with the size of the project and the
unit discharge depends on the final width of the conveyance structure. At
Portage Mountain Project and Revelstoke Dam, the spillway is separated
from the dam and located high on the right abutment of the canyon as
opposed to Peace Canyon Dam and Seven Mile Dam where the spillway is part
of the concrete dam. The total head is considerably higher in the first
case with the maximum head at Portage Mountain Project (550 ft) and the
minimum head at Peace Canyon Dam (132 ft) . Accordingly, scour depth is
maximum at Portage Mountain Project and minimum at Peace Canyon Dam. Under
normal operation, spillway flows at Peace Canyon Dam and Seven Mile Dam
are routed through four bays each about 60 ft wide. At Portage Mountain
Project and Revelstoke Dam, flood flows are released through a long
spillway chute with a terminal width of 135 ft and 150 ft, respectively
(Table 4.1). Flows through the Portage Mountain spillway have the
particularity of being contracted from a clear span of 150 ft at the crest
to 135 ft at the bucket lip. For a same spillway discharge, the flow is
generally more concentrated at the exit of the Portage Mountain spillway,
which could explain the greater scour capacity of the jet. The consensus
for the last, 60 years has been that q is far more dominant than H in
assessing scour depth (Mason, Discussion, 1989). The basis for this
argument is that for any given dam, the differential elevation between
reservoir and tailwater levels (H) remains relatively constant and yet,
major scour advances occur in response to increased spillway discharges
(q). However, the variation in scour depth between sites is probably best
explained by the relative head of each project with respect to one
another. The importance of head drop from reservoir to tailwater level is
particularly noticeable when plunge pool development in similar bedrock is
compared, for instance at Peace Canyon Dam and Portage Mountain Project.
During the 1996 spring freshet, daily average spill at the upstream
Portage Mountain Project reached 122,000 cfs (q=900 cfs/ft) and scouring
progressed slightly to a maximum depth of 118 ft while at the downstream
Peace Canyon Dam, spillway Bay 3 spilled 47,000 cfs for a month (q=810
cfs/ft) and the maximum scour depth remained stable at 50 ft. Considering
the two very distinct spillway layouts in this study (gated overflow vs.
long chute), both unit discharge and total head drop are important
parameters in the comparative analysis of scour development at the four
dam sites.
Head losses on the spillway face and air entrainment of high-velocity

flows are intimately related. Clearly, the more energy lost along the
conveyance structure, the less is available for scour processes. Most
authors agree that aerated water will produce a lesser scour than
unaerated, "solid" water (Mason and Arumugam, 1985). Energy losses on the
downstream face of a spillway occur during development of the turbulent
boundary layer and in the fully developed turbulent flow. The air
entrainment starts at a point where the boundary layer from the bottom
intersects the top water surface (Chaudhry, 1993) . For long spillway
chutes, the conditions of fully developed turbulent flow predominate and
hence the air entrainment process is maximized. Although the Revelstoke
spillway chute is shorter than the one at Portage Mountain Project, the
air slots configuration results in the entrainment of a large amount of
air and excessive bulking of flow occurs. Based on the fact that plunge
pool scour is greater at Portage Mountain Project and Revelstoke Dam, the
energy losses and cushioning effect of air entrained on the spillway
surface can be considered small relatively to the remaining energy that
dissipates into the pool.
The spillway terminal structure is a key element in the dissipation of

flow, energy before the jet impinges the pool surface. Energy dissipation
is achieved by promoting jet dispersion in the atmosphere. The fall height
adds to the energy dissipation through air resistance. At the Portage
Mountain Project, the final spillway bucket geometry was developed by
trial on a small-scale hydraulic model in order to maximize jet dispersion
and energy dissipation. The maximum depth of scour was less than 1/3 of
that obtained with the preliminary design with the resultant scour volume
reduced seven times (Johnson and Alam, 1969) . From the model studies, it
was anticipated that for prototype spill of approximately 100,000 cfs, the
flow would be so well dispersed that practically all of the energy would
be dissipated in the air, with the water reaching the riverbed in the form
of a heavy spray (ibid.). If the high spillway discharges which caused
deep scour at the Portage Mountain Project did reach the riverbed as a
fully aerated jet, than the attenuating effect of air entrainment on the
scouring capacity of free jets is questionable.
Some authors (Taraimovich, 1978; Yildiz and Uziicek, 1994) consider

that the impact angle affects the depth of scour; the steeper the impact
angle, the greater the depth of scour. The impact angle is dependent upon
the flow energy at the bucket exit, the bucket lip angle, and the fall
height to the tailwater level. When flip buckets are near the tailwater
level, bucket lip angle and impingement angle are similar. Conversely, the
angle of impingement of a jet issued from a horizontal ski-jump (e.g.
Revelstoke spillway) can be near vertical if the fall distance is
sufficiently long. With a 235 ft fall from the bucket to the river, flows
issued from the Portage Mountain spillway impact the tailwater surface at
an approximate angle of 49° with the horizontal. At Peace Canyon Dam, with
the small difference in elevation between the spillway buckets and the
tailwater level, the free jet projected upwards at 20° (Bays 3 to 6)
strikes the water surface at about the same 20° angle (downwards).
Accordingly, the scour hole at Portage Mountain Project is the deepest and
the plunge pool at Peace Canyon Dam the shallowest.
Spillway layout is observed to affect plunge pool scour development to

some extent. The influence of head drop between reservoir and tailwater
levels and jet impingement angle with the tailwater surface is
particularly noticeable when scour development at Peace Canyon Dam and
Portage Mountain Project is compared. The effects of energy losses and air
entrainment on the spillway structure, which are more important at Portage
Mountain Project and Revelstoke Dam, were not perceived. As well, the
extent to which jet dispersion and aeration through free fall attenuate
the scour processes is uncertain. The impact of spillway discharge per
unit width on the progression of scour is discussed further in Section
4.3.
4.2 PLUNGE POOL GEOLOGY
Comprehensive reviews of scour evaluation methods show that attempts

to understand the dynamic interaction of spillway hydraulics with the
plunge pool geology have been rare (Mason and Arumugam, 1985; Whittaker
and Schleiss, 1984; Schleiss, 2002). Mason (1985) recognizes that "it is a
widely held view that ultimate scour depth has little to do with rock
strength". Certainly, major scour holes have developed in massive hard
rocks such as granite and gneiss, as well as in weaker sedimentary rocks
(Mason, 1993) . Interestingly, the hole shape tends to depend more on
hydraulic factors than on geological ones (ibid.). From Spurr's (1985)
point of view, "it is evident that geometrically similar plunge pools with
identical jets will scour to different lengths over the same spill period
when the bedrocks have different erosion strengths". Both Mason (1985) and
Spurr (1985) agree that variable geology in the plunge pool can lead to
unconfined conditions and asymmetrical development. The latest plunge pool
configuration at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain
Project, and Revelstoke Dam is presented in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. From the
review of plunge pool development at each site, the effects of geological
conditions on the scour development were clearly observed.
At Peace Canyon Dam, the flat bedding planes appear to be limiting the
depth of erosion in favor of lateral expansion of the bottom of the plunge
pool (BCH Report No. HY296, 1985). Following increased spillway discharges
of the 1996 spill, the surveyed plunge pool had extended over about 80 ft
in the flow direction but was not found to be deeper. The steeped profile
and flat base of the scour hole are indicative of the influence of bedding
planes and steep joints (Figure 4.1) . As well, the scour hole orientation
clearly defined from the 1996 soundings is closely associated with the
plunge pool geological features (Figure 3.4) . Orientation of the plunge
pool axis is similar to jointing in the foundations of Blocks SI to S4 and
of the closer jointed and previously eroded "hinge zone" under parts of
Block SI [refer to Figure 3.4] (BCH Report No. H1742, 1987). The Peace
Canyon plunge pool started to form in the bedrock weakness zone downstream
of spillway Bays 3 and 4 and developed in accordance with joints and
bedding planes features.
The main scour hole at Seven Mile Dam (downstream of spillway Bays 1
and 2) is confined and rather symmetrical in the upstream/downstream
direction, but its left side slope is much steeper than the right one
(Figure 4.1) . Were the plunge pool development to occur independently of
bedrock conditions, one would expect some lateral symmetry because
spillway Bays 1 and 2 have typically been operated together. In fact, it
appears that the protruding bedrock downstream of Bays 3 to 5 is more
resistant to scour than the riverbed downstream of Bays 1 and 2. In the
first two weeks of spillway operation, flows of 25,000-29,000 cfs through
Bays 1 and 2 combined (q=220-250 cfs/ft) scoured a hole roughly 35-40 ft
deep. Contrastingly, flows through Bays 3 to 5 were deflected by the
massive rock slab and the plunge pool had to be blasted and excavated
across Bays 3 to 5 to contain future spills (1980 remedial works). In
1997, the excavated level was scoured down by 25-30 ft after Bay 3 was
operated at approximately 30,000 cfs (q=500 cfs/ft) for a month. Scour
downstream of the spillway left chute is localized, whereas the main scour
hole from the right chute spills extends over an approximate 150 ft
radius.
The scoured plunge pool at Portage Mountain Project is deep and fully
confined (Figure 4.2), as expected by the lateral homogeneity of the
sedimentary rock and the similarity in strength of the shale/sandstone
strata. The scour hole is essentially circular in shape but with somewhat
straight segments oriented northeast and northwest, equivalent to the
predominant joint patterns. The side slopes of the hole are irregular but
the effect of the downstream dip of the stratification is observed towards
the left bank. Along the dipping direction of bedding planes (Figure
3.23), the plunge pool wall is steeper on the downstream face than on the
upstream face.
The Revelstoke plunge pool is a typical case of problematic

asymmetrical development caused by the low resistance of the peripheral
rocks with respect to the bottom rock directly impinged by the spillway
jet (Figure 4.2) . In this case, the plunge pool bedrock is limited by an
adjacent buried channel and the right bank is composed mainly of sand,
gravel, and cobbles. During spilling, the flow energy is deflected by the
more resistant bedrock and return currents are formed that undermine the
toe of the right bank slope inducing failure.
Although it is clear that the geological conditions at each site have

influenced the plunge pool development, other factors, mainly the spillway
hydraulics, might have had a greater impact. Whereas plunge pool bedrock
at Peace Canyon Dam and Portage Mountain Project is comparable in geology
and structural features, the shallow plunge pool with a stepped profile
and flat base at Peace Canyon Dam contrasts markedly with the confined
Portage Mountain pool of more than 100 ft deep. In this example, the jet
impingement angle and total head associated with the spillway layout are
believed to be important factors.
4.3 SPILLWAY DISCHARGES
Plunge pool scour depths on prototypes are usually associated with

spillway outflow hydrographs and the general assumption made is that the
observed scour depth corresponds to the peak flow of previous spills.
Considering the intermittent and variable nature of prototype floods, this
simplification should be taken with care. For instance, large flows
associated with hydraulic spillway tests are generally of a duration too
short (less than an hour) to be indicative of the depth of scour. However,
they do promote hydraulic fracturing of the rock mass and enhance the
scour progression by smaller spills. It must be remembered that scouring
is a dynamic process, and so magnitudes, frequencies and durations of
spilled discharges need to be taken into consideration (Whittaker and
Schleiss, 1984) . Figure 4.3 presents the spillway flow duration curve for
each site (up to the last plunge pool survey date) with information on the
duration of main spills and historical peak flows. A comparison of spill
history at each dam site in terms of frequency, duration, and magnitude is
made and the respective effects on plunge pool development are observed.
The spill occurrence at dam sites depends on the hydrologic conditions

of the river basin and on storage regulations (Seven Mile is a run-of-the-
river plant as opposed to Portage Mountain Project which has a large
storage capacity). The Seven Mile spillway has been operated every year
since the beginning of operation in 1979 and has certainly been the most
frequently used spillway of the four dam sites. In spite of this, the
Seven Mile plunge pool downstream of the preferred spillway bays (Bays 1
and 2) has remained stable since 1984. On the other hand, the Revelstoke
spillway has been used in rare instances but each spill event seemed to
have activated the scour progression. At Revelstoke Dam, part of the right
bank protection work was eroded throughout each spillway operating period,
leaving the right slope progressively more vulnerable to failure. The
frequency of spills at Peace Canyon Dam corresponds to that of the
upstream Portage Mountain Project since there is limited storage between
the two sites. The short-term but more frequent spills do not appear to
affect the plunge pool development at Peace Canyon Dam. The same statement
probably applies to Portage Mountain Project but could not be verified
because the only two surveys of the plunge pool have been made after major
spills.
Each of the four dam sites has experienced at least one extended
spill:
• At Peace Canyon Dam, river flows were routed through the spillway
for about five months before commissioning of the generating units.
The major spill event of 1996 lasted for eight consecutive weeks.
• At Seven Mile Dam, continuous spill exceeding a month in duration
has been common during spring freshets of the 1979-2001 period. In
1996, the spillway was in operation for nearly half the year. In
1997, total spillway discharges were maintained above 100,000 cfs
for about four weeks.
• Three spill events at Portage Mountain Project have lasted more than
a month and occurred in 1972, 1983, and 1996. The 1996 spill event
was the most important in terms of continuous operation and volume
spilled.
• The only extended spill at Revelstoke Dam goes back to initial
reservoir filling, from October 1983 to April 1984. Subsequent
spills lasted at most six consecutive days.
The effect of spilling duration on the progression of scour is closely
related to the issue of scour rate. As discussed in the next section,
plunge pool performance data of the four studied sites seem to indicate
that scour progresses rather quickly and that extended spills are not a
condition to plunge pool development.
For each dam site, the spillway discharge is recorded every hour and a
daily spill value, averaged over a twenty-four-hour period, is derived.
The recorded magnitudes of peak flow and maximum daily average spill with
the associated plunge pool response are reviewed:
• The highest magnitude of spillway flows was observed at Portage
Mountain Project in 1972 with 175,000 cfs following which a scour
hole more than 100 ft deep had formed. The peak discharge was held
for eleven hours before which flow was maintained at 160,000 cfs
from which the daily average discharge of 167,000 cfs.
• The maximum flood discharge to be passed over the spillway at Peace
Canyon Dam and Seven Mile Dam is the same with 116,000 cfs (4 bays)
during the 1996 spring freshet. The discharge was maintained for
twenty-four hours at Peace Canyon as opposed to Seven Mile for which
the daily average spill was smaller. Plunge pool scour depths are
similar at both sites (50-60 ft) but were attained before 1996
following smaller spillway flows. In fact, the plunge pool bottom
elevation at Peace Canyon Dam was reached following the 1979/80
spill with a maximum recorded discharge of 68,000 cfs (4 bays). At
Seven Mile Dam, average spillway flows of 25,000-29,000 cfs through
Bays 1 and 2 combined scoured the bedrock down to 35-40 ft depth in
1979.
• The maximum discharge to be released from the Revelstoke spillway
was 70,000 cfs (held for about fifteen minutes) during the 1986
spillway tests. This is less than half the peak flow experienced at
Peace Canyon and Seven Mile dams and yet, the scour depth increased
and reached 70 ft following the tests. The maximum daily average
spill at Revelstoke Dam was 35,500 cfs in 1991, suggesting that
spillway flows greater than 40,000 cfs have been rather unusual and
of short duration.
Along with the magnitude of spillway flows, the width of flow should be
considered. Large spillway flows at Peace Canyon Dam and Seven Mile Dam
were released through four bays of about 60 ft width whereas spills at
Portage Mountain Project and Revelstoke Dam were routed through a single
chute with a terminal width of 135 ft and 150 ft, respectively. In
addition, variable spillway discharges from one bay to another are common
at Peace Canyon Dam and Seven Mile Dam due to the preferential use of
certain spillway bays. In any cases, the maximum spillway discharge per
width of flow (or unit discharge) was witnessed at Portage Mountain
Project. In Chapter V, the unit discharge is used to calculate scour
depth.
The magnitude of spillway flows seems to have a major impact on plunge

pool scour compared to the frequency and duration of spills. However, as
seen in the case of Seven Mile Dam, scour can result from relatively low
discharges, perhaps suggesting that flow velocity (associated with the
head drop from reservoir to bucket lip) is more important than the actual
discharge in the early stages of plunge pool development. At each site,
the scour hole was formed following a single spill event and not by
repetitive spills; scour progression corresponded to an increase in
spillway flows. Daily peak flows were observed to be more effective in
initiating scour than extended spills.
4.4 SCOUR RATE
As mentioned in Chapter II, most equations for the prediction of

plunge pool scour ignore time as a parameter. In fact, the time
progression of scour is one of the most conflicting aspects of plunge pool
formation. As early as 1950, Hunter Rouse commented that "scour was
proportional to the geometrical progression of time and as such a final
equilibrium depth could not be expected" (Mason and Arumugam, 1985). To
support the concept of a maximum, ultimate scour depth, Mason and Arumugam
(1985) state that: 1) Many of the major prototype scour developments
analyzed reached their measured depths after only a few days of flood
discharge; and 2) Results of the data analyses suggest that a similar
order of accuracy is available when analyzing prototype data as when
analyzing model data for which measurements are generally made after a
long period of constant flow. Spurr (1985) insists that "prototype scour
data seldom relate to the equilibrium scour condition, either because of
insufficiently long spill durations or due to a lack of progressive
surveys from which to recognize equilibrium condition." The successive
plunge pool surveys performed at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage
Mountain Project, and Revelsotke Dam allow a certain assessment of the
time progression of scour at each site.
There is a difficulty in assessing the rate of plunge pool scour at

Peace Canyon Dam because the two distinct scour episodes occurred
following an extended spill with sustained high discharges. The major
plunge pool development resulted from initial spillway operation which
extended from October 1979 to April 1980. No indication regarding the rate
of formation of the scour hole as observed on April 1980 is available,
although Bays 3 and 4 were used more extensively over a two-month period.
The following spills of 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1987 were all smaller in
magnitude and duration, and plunge pool scour was not observed to progress
until 1996 following the largest spill to occur on site. During the 1996
spill event, high flows were relatively constant for about a month and
scour cannot be associated with a shorter time interval. The time
progression of plunge pool scour at Peace Canyon Dam remains uncertain.
The progression of scour downstream of the spillway right chute at

Seven Mile Dam was observed in the early years of spillway operation
(1979-1982) after which the scour hole appeared to have stabilized. The
core of the scour hole was formed within six weeks of initial operation (5
Nov. to 14 Dec. 1979) of which only the first two were effective since
spillway discharges were then cut back. Plunge pool scour progressed
further following the 1982 spill event which exceeded the magnitude of
previous spills on a few days only. In 1982, the maximum average daily
spill through the right chute reached approximately 65,000 cfs on two
consecutive days. In 1997, when discharges of this magnitude were released
through the right chute for more than two weeks (3 0 May to 14 June) , the
scour hole remained stable. These observations support the concept of
equilibrium conditions and suggest that the maximum scour depth for a
given discharge can be attained within days. The time progression of scour
downstream of the left chute is unknown because thirteen years of spillway
operation separate the two reference surveys performed in September 1984
and October 1997.
At Portage Mountain Project, a scour hole more than 100 ft deep has
formed following a single spill event in the early years of spillway
operation. The spill event lasted from 13 June to 3 September 1972 but
daily average spillway discharges greater than 100,000 cfs occurred on
five days only (non-consecutive). High flows spillway tests were performed
on one day during the 1972 spill and a peak discharge of 175,000 cfs was
held for eleven hours. During the 1996 spring flood, the historical peak
discharge (175,000 cfs) was not exceeded but spillway flows were more
constant and daily average discharges were maintained above 100,000 cfs
for thirty days. The 1996 scour hole configuration was essentially the
same as in 1972, with the exception that the scour hole invert had
progressed towards the left bank and scour depth was roughly 4 ft deeper.
This suggests that even a massive scour hole can form within a single
spill event and that scour can approach equilibrium after a few daily peak
flows.
Plunge pool scour at Revelstoke Dam was seen to progress gradually

throughout the years of spillway operation. The first and only prolonged
spill at Revelstoke occurred during reservoir filling (October 1983 to May
1984) with spillway discharges varying from a few hundred cfs to about
35,000 cfs. The line survey performed on December 1983 is consistent with
the soundings taken on 14 May 1984 indicating no significant change in
topography along the centreline of the plunge pool after December 1983,
although spilling lasted until May 1984. The next survey which showed a
plunge pool invert about 10 ft deeper and shifted to the left was
performed after the 1986 spillway tests. Such testing involved a maximum
spillway discharge of 70,000 cfs held for about 15 minutes, one spill up
to 60, 000 cfs within an hour, and two spills up to 50,000 cfs within an
hour, all this over a four-day period. During testing, erosion was noted
by the colour of the water which became muddy at the increase of
discharge. At the end of the second test up to 50,000 cfs, it was noted
that "the river downstream did not appear to be very muddy, indicating
that the scouring of river banks and riverbed in the vicinity of the
plunge pool might be nearing equilibrium for this discharge" (BCH Report
No. H1907, 986). Finally, the collapse of the right bank into the plunge
pool in 1991 occurred within eight hours of spilling at 59,000 cfs. The
Revelstoke plunge pool was seen to respond rapidly to increases in
spillway discharges but equilibrium conditions were also observed when
spill was constant.
From the available information, it appears that plunge pool scour can
progress rather quickly and that equilibrium conditions can be reached.
The concept of ultimate or equilibrium scour depth is well represented by
the Seven Mile plunge pool. Experience at Seven Mile Dam and Portage
Mountain Project also suggests that this scour limit can be attained
within a few days. Plunge pool scour can progress even more quickly
(within hours) as observed following the 1986 spillway tests at Revelstoke
dam.
4.5 TAILRACE IMPROVEMENTS
Loose material removed from the scour hole may accumulate at the
downstream margin of the scour hole and form a bar deposit. Accumulation
of debris in the tailrace area following important spills was observed at
all four sites of study, especially in the early stages of plunge pool
development. The tailrace bar can raise the tailwater level and hence
limit the depth of scour for a given spillway discharge. Once the debris
are removed and the riverbed restored to its original elevation, scour may
progress further without increase in spillway flows. A summary of
observations on plunge pool development relating to tailrace improvements
at each dam site is presented:
• At Peace Canyon Dam, the accumulation of material at the downstream

end of the plunge pool following the 1979/80 spill increased the
tailwater level by approximately 4 ft. Tailrace dredging was
performed in the summer of 1980 to restore the riverbed to its
original elevation. In the following years, further scour of the
plunge pool was not apparent until spillway discharges were greatly
increased to pass the 1996 spring freshet. After the 1996 spill
event, the tailwater level was raised by about 1.3 ft.
• At Seven Mile Dam, dredging of the tailrace area was performed for
the first time during the fall of 1980, after the first important
spring flood. A subsequent progression of scour in the plunge pool
,was observed from the 1982 soundings, but spills had also increased
in magnitude and duration. Tailrace improvements were undertaken for
a second time in the summer of 1989. The scour hole has remained
stable since, even after the largest spill ever to occur on site (in
1997) .
• At Revelstoke Dam, the sounding survey of 1986 showed a mound of
material in the middle of the tailrace channel downstream of the
plunge pool. The tailrace channel was excavated in 1989 and the
tailwater level was lowered by approximately 5.6 ft. Unfortunately,
plunge pool scour following the 1991 spill event could not be
assessed accurately due to the important thickness of overburden
caused by the collapse of the right bank into the pool.
• At Portage Mountain Project, the accumulation of scoured debris is
confined between the center and the left bank of the river channel
some 500 ft downstream of the centre of the scour hole. Tailrace
improvements were not performed to date.
Although the accumulation of scoured debris downstream of the plunge pool
caused an increase in tailwater level at all sites, no further scour
progression in direct response to tailrace improvements was perceived.
1
j | PEACE }
| SEVEN MILE 1
I CANYON | PORTAGE
j Bays Bays 1 Bays | Bays j MOUNTAIN |REVELSTOKE
I 1-2 3-6 | 1-2 | 3-5 ! 1
| Spillway Characteristics
| Total spillway length i
| 240 I 220 j 330 | 250 | 2400 | 1300
L [ft]
i
Clear span at crest ! i
i 100 | 200 | 100 | 150 I 150 | 90
! w 0 [ft] i 1 s
s i
1 Clear span at bucket lip
1 116 j 234 j 116 1 178 | 135 | 150
1 W £ [ft]
] Differential head between i
| MNRL1 and bucket lip 138 127 j 174 164 315 | 260
I h Q [ft]
1 Total head between MNRL1 i
j and tailwater level [ 132' I 2 07 550 j 421
I H 0 [ft] i
r 1
I Bucket lip angle
| 20 | 30 [ 30
1 e [°] 1 30
I
| 0
I Jet impingement angle^ ! 3 I 23 1 3 7 | 39 | 49 ! 38
| 9' [°] i i \ f
I Notes.
| 1. MNRL: Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
i 2. Theoretical value; no allowance for energy losses on spillway face, flow aeration, and
j air retardation.
j 3. The bucket structure is submerged at maximum normal tailwater level (four units rated
1 discharge).
PEACE CANYON SPILLWAY SEVEN MILE SPILLWAY BAY 3 BAY 4 BAY 5
BAY 6i BAY 5! BAY 4! BAY 3 i
BAY 2iBAY 1 i
BAY 1!BAY 2
POWERHOUSE
n
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN
SPILLWAY
Approximate REVELSTOKE DAM

Water Line ~
Figure 4.2. The Latest Plunge Pool Scour Configuration at Portage Mountain Project and Revelstoke Dam
200,000 200,000
PEACE CANYON DAM SEVEN MI LE DAM
150,000 150,000
I •e The spillway has operated

Q) 1979/80 spill: 172 days CD . Maximum = 116,000 cfs almost every year.
O) 1981 spill: 12 days 1980 spill: 188 days
co o> " Average = 112,000 cfs
xz 100,000
o 1983 spill: 15 days o 100,000 1981 spill: 124 days
c/> 1984 spill: 6 days (0 1982 spill: 141 days
b
1996 spill: 55 days >. 1996 spill: 175 days
CD to 1997 spill: 128 days
Q Q
50,000 50,000
Note. Note.
Data from 28 Oct. 1979 Data frcim 5 Nov. 1979
to 4 Aug. 1996 to 21 O ± 1997
—i—i—i—r -1—i—i—r —i—i—r
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
Number of days discharge is equalled or exceeded Number of days discharge is equalled or exceeded
200,000 200,000
MOUNTAIN PROJECT REVELSTOKE DAM
150,000 150,000
•6 1972 spill 85 days •8
1974 spill 36 days CD 1983/84 spill: ~200 days
<u O)
1976 spill 36 days 1985 spill: 6 days
O) 1981 spill 13 days —
o 100,000 O 100,000 1986 spill: 8 days
<2 1983 spill 68 days <2 1990 spill: 5 days
b b
1984 spill 25 days 1991 spill: 12 days
1996 spill 56 days Maximum = 70,000 cfs
'S
Q •TO
50,000 50,000 -
• Average : 35,500 cfs
Note. Note.
Data from 13 June 1972 Data frfam 1 Jan. 1984
to 4 Aug. 1996 to 22 S;pt. 1991
—I—I—I—r
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
Number of days discharge is equalled or exceeded Number of days discharge is equalled or exceeded
Figure 4.3. Spillway Flow Duration Curve of Each Site of Study
CHAPTER V
CONVENTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF PLUNGE POOL SCOUR
Conventional methods for the prediction of plunge pool scour consist

of physical model studies and empirical equations that target the ultimate
scour depth. In the laboratory, hydraulic models that respect the Froude
law scaling are used to simulate scour downstream of overflow structures.
Empirical formulas are derived from experiment and/or prototype
observations. Spurr (1985) addresses the limitations of conventional
methods for the assessment of plunge pool scour:
The use of empirical formulae, mostly developed from physical models
for predicting downstream scour in the prototype, has traditionally
been proven unreliable. Later attempts to include both rock and
hydraulic characteristics using hydraulic models with weakly cohesive
bed materials have met with partial success, although the difficulties
in calibrating the model bed materials to the prototype rock
characteristics still remain. (Spurr, 1985)
In this chapter, the reliability of hydraulic model studies and

empirical power formulas in the assessment of plunge pool scour is
questioned. First, the predicted plunge pool performance from small-scale
model testing of Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain
Project, and Revelstoke Dam is compared with observed plunge pool
development on site. Then, the accuracy of a number of empirical formulas
is examined when applied to past scour conditions identified at the four
dam sites.
5.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES
Hydraulic model studies were conducted for each site of study and
plunge pool scour tests were part of the investigation. The results of
model studies for Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain
Project, and Revelstoke Dam are summarized and modelled scour patterns are
compared with observed plunge pool scour on site. The aim of this section
is not to identify the flaws of each model study, but to highlight that
great care must be taken in order to achieve reasonable results in the
prediction of plunge pool scour.
5.1.1 Peace Canyon Dam

Small-scale model studies were conducted for the Peace Canyon Project
which included downstream scour investigation. The model was built to a
1:60 linear scale, respecting the Froude similitude criteria (BCH Report
No. H715, 1970) . However, the Project design was not final and only part
of the spillway was built in the laboratory. The first spillway bays
next to the powerhouse were reproduced to simulate the Inflow Design Flood
(IDF) (363,000 cfs at the time) considering a seven-bay, six-bay, and
five-bay spillway arrangement and using three different bucket shapes.
Crest elevation on the model was 2 ft higher (El. 1614 ft) than the as-
built prototype structure. Scour conditions were tested on both cohesive
and non-cohesive erodible beds representing prototype materials between 2
in. and 5 ft in diameter. For each assessment, the non-cohesive bed was
initially used to model the equilibrium scour depth. Then testing was
carried out to develop semi-cohesive stratification of the material, such
that a similar scour depth was obtained but with more realistic slopes.
One series of tests conducted on the small-scale model approaches

prototype scour conditions of the 1996 spill event. In 1996, Bay 3 was
operated at full capacity for over a month with the reservoir fluctuating
around El. 1649 ft for an average discharge of 47,000 cfs (Section 3.1.4) .
This is similar to the simulated IDF through the seven-bay spillway
arrangement (51,900 cfs per bay) at reservoir El. 1653 ft with a 20°
bucket lip at El. 1517.8 ft (5 ft lower than as-built). Figure 5.1
illustrates the scour profiles downstream of Bay 3 centreline as surveyed
after the 1996 spill and as modelled in laboratory. The major differences
between prototype and hydraulic model conditions are also listed. The
plunge pool bottom elevation as surveyed in 1996 (El. 1459 ft) was about
30 ft shallower than what was predicted from the model studies (El. 1430
ft) and the scour hole invert was located some 12 0 ft closer to the bucket
structure on the prototype. Upstream and downstream slopes of the scour
hole on both model and prototype are similar. The model prediction was
conservative with respect to scour depth, but not in terms of upstream
progression of scour.
5.1.2 Seven Mile Dam

Comprehensive hydraulic model studies of the Seven Mile Project were
conducted on a 1:100 scale model (BCH Report No. N68, 1976). Scour
downstream of the as-built spillway arrangement was investigated using
non-cohesive and cohesive bed materials. The erodible riverbed was first
modelled with loose 0.75 in. crushed gravel and then using a weak sand-
cement-gravel mixture. The gravel bed scour tests provided information on
general scour patterns and potential areas of undermining. The sand-
cement-gravel bed helped to better define the areal extent of scour and
boundary conditions. Two gate settings were tested on each bed and one run
of sequential flows up to 370,000 cfs was performed on the non-cohesive
gravel bed.
The scour testing program first involved spilling at Maximum Normal

Reservoir Level (El. 1730 ft) with all gates open at 13.3 ft for an
approximate discharge of 24,000 cfs per bay. To date, Bays 1 to 3 on the
prototype have all been used to release such discharge (and up) for a
prolonged period of time. During the 1997 spring flood, Bay 3 released a
steady discharge of approximately 30,000 cfs for a month while Bays 1 and
2 spilled daily average flows between 30,000 and 36,000 cfs (Section
3.2.4). Plunge pool soundings of October 1997 showed a depression with El.
1503-1509 ft over a 1200 sq.ft area downstream of Bay 3 and a scour hole
with invert at El. 1450 ft downstream of Bays 1 and 2 (Figure 3.19). The
predicted scour patterns on the 1:100 scale non-cohesive and cohesive
models corresponding to a total spill of 120,000 cfs (24,000 cfs per bay)
are presented in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. As expected, model scour is more
confined in the sand-cement-gravel mixture, but the scour depth is about
100 ft deeper than simulated on the loose gravel bed. Neither model
predicted the formation of a major scour hole downstream of the right
chute (Bays 1 and 2) as seen on the prototype. On the non-cohesive model,
the scour processes were likely hindered by the accumulation of deposits
whereas the long downstream leg observed on the cohesive model was caused
by scour surfacing through the bed as it sloped down towards the tailrace
excavation. As for prototype scour downstream of Bay 3, it corresponded in
depth to the bottom elevation modelled on the gravel bed (El. 1501-1509
ft) and the observed location of maximum scour was consistent with the
cohesive model prediction. Other simulations at higher flows resulted in
modelled plunge pool elevations above the existing topography on site.
Overall, the model scour patterns were not considered representative of
prototype scour.
5.1.3 Portage Mountain Project

Plunge pool scour at Portage Mountain Project was investigated using a
1:96 scale model (Johnson and Alam, 1969). The "spoon-like" shape of the
spillway flip bucket was designed from physical modelling in a way to
minimize scour depth by enhancing energy dissipation in the atmosphere.
The outfall model included the steep portion of the discharge chute
(starting about 1900 ft downstream of the headworks), the flip bucket, and
the river/tailrace area. Model scour tests were carried out using gravel
having a narrow range of grain size distribution.
Plunge pool scour patterns were investigated for spillway discharges

of 260,000 cfs and 390,000 cfs. Figure 5.4 illustrates the two scour
configurations obtained from model testing. The scour hole invert was
located near the center of the channel in both cases and reached El. 1580
ft and El. 1570 ft, respectively, in the lower and higher spillway flows
simulations. No reasoning for the small change in scour depth with large
discharge increase was given in the referenced report (BCH Report No.
H1756, 1988) . The side slopes of the plunge pool were measured on the
model to be approximately 2.4H:1V (ibid.) . The existing plunge pool at
Portage Mountain Project was scoured down to El. 1520 ft (Figure 3.26)
following a single spill event (1972) during which a maximum discharge of
175,000 cfs was released through the spillway (Section 3.3.4). Hence,
prototype scour depth exceeded model study expectations by 5 0 ft for a
maximum spillway discharge that was less than half that tested on the
model. As such, the side slopes are steeper on the prototype scour hole
than on the model.
5.1.4 Revelstoke Dam

Extensive hydraulic model studies were conducted to assess plunge pool
development at Revelstoke Dam. As part of the design studies, a model that
comprised the entire spillway and a 3300 ft reach of the Columbia River
with provision for powerhouse discharges was built to a 1:100 scale (BCH
Report No. 2278, 1983). Scour tests were performed on the final design of
the excavated plunge pool using two different types of bed. For the first
test series, the bedrock directly impacted by the spillway jet (plunge
pool floor and apron) was modelled in a sand, pea gravel, and bentonite
mixture while the bedrock outside this area was modelled using a scour
resistant mixture of sand and cement. In the second test series, the
bedrock strata were simulated by placing 1.25 to 1.75 in. (10 to 15 ft on
prototype) gravel rocks flat side down in layers held together with
bentonite clay and oriented to the prescribed foliations of the rock.
Overburden was represented by fine sand.
Testing in both test series involved progressive flows up to failure

of the right bank armour protection. The maximum scour depth for a given
discharge was generally greater in the second test series but the
difference lay in the thickness of one block (15 ft on prototype) . Figure
5.5 illustrates the model scour configuration for spillway discharges of
40,000 cfs and 60,000 cfs. In the first case, the simulation involved
increasing spillway flows in steps, from 0 to 40,000 cfs, using the low
level gates only. This test anticipated the expected initial operating
conditions during the period of filling the prototype reservoir (BCH
Report No. 2278, 1983). The scour patterns in the layered-gravel bed
showed a plunge pool floor down to El. 1380 ft some 170-190 ft downstream
of the concrete apron along the spillway centreline. On the prototype, the
plunge pool had reached El. 13 92-13 93 ft over an extended area further
downstream and to the right than predicted by the model (Appendix II, BCH
Drawing No. 212-C21-D7125) . With an increase in spillway discharge to
60,000 cfs, the modelled scour hole was 20 ft deeper (min. El. 1360 ft) in
both the layered-gravel bed and the pea gravel-bentonite mixture. In the
layered-gravel bed, the increase in simulated flow caused a progression of
scour downstream and towards the right bank. Scour in the pea gravel-
bentonite mixture was limited downstream by a bar of deposited material.
Spillway flows of 60,000 cfs were tested in 1986 on the prototype for
about half an hour. Plunge pool soundings following the spillway tests
showed a scour hole with minimum El. 1380 ft facing the left half of the
spillway at a distance of 300 ft from the concrete apron (Appendix II, BCH
Drawing No. 212-C21-D134) . Had the discharge of 60,000 cfs been held for
longer, the observed scour depth and extent on the prototype could have
been greater. Overall, the model scour predictions were conservative
compared to observed scour on site. The scour patterns modelled in the
layered-gravel bed were more representative of prototype scour
configuration.
In both test series, launching of the right bank apron started at

40,000 cfs and continued in an orderly fashion for the remainder of the
tests. A weak return eddy formed along the right bank at a spillway
discharge of 75,000 cfs and increased in strength at each subsequent
increase in spillway discharge (BCH Report No. 2278, 1983). This return
eddy was the main factor in the attack on the right bank for spillway
flows greater than 90,000 to 95,000 cfs and lead to the failure of the
right bank at flows greater than 105,000 cfs (ibid.) . Launching of the
riprap was expected to be slower and more organized on the prototype so
that failure of the right bank armour would occur at higher flows than
exhibited in the model studies. During the flood of August 10-11 [1991],
the right bank protection work failed resulting in a section of the
powerhouse access road collapsed into the plunge pool (BCH Report No.
HYD.943, 1991). Spillway flows were increased from 16,000 cfs to 59,000
cfs within a two-hour period, and failure occurred within eight hours of
spilling at 59,000 cfs. The model was valuable in predicting the general
flow patterns in the plunge pool and subsequent failure of the right bank,
but somehow the erosion processes were underestimated.
5.2 SCOUR DEPTH EMPIRICAL FORMULAS
Case studies show wide variances in the accuracy of the predicted and
actual depths of scour (Wittier et al., Dam Foundation Erosion, 1995). The
reasons for the lack of accuracy are model specific formulas, site
specific application, fragmented results from multiple studies, and the
factors of geology and cohesive material properties (ibid.). The objective
of this section is to present some of the most common empirical formulas
for the assessment of maximum scour depth and evaluate their accuracy in
predicting past scour development at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam,
Portage Mountain Project, and Revelstoke Dam.
First, the empirical formulas selected for this study are listed with
brief comments of their derivation. Then, the accuracy of each equation is
evaluated through a back analysis of plunge pool development at the four
sites of study.
5.2.1 Descriptive List of Equations

The list of scour depth formulas found in the literature that were
developed empirically from laboratory experiments and/or prototype
observations is exhaustive. A comprehensive review of 31 expressions was
presented by Mason and Arumugam (1985) . Ten equations were selected for
this study, based on the conditions of their derivation and published
performance on case studies. Preferences were made to well-documented
equations derived from prototype scour observations. The scour depth
formulas are listed in Table 5.1 and brief comments on each of them
follow:
1. Veronese (1937) (reported by Hager, 1998) performed experiments on

scour processes from a vertically falling jet in a 20 in. wide
flume. For grain sizes smaller than 0.2 in., the scour depth was
found to be smaller than expected given the original trend observed
for larger particles (Whittaker and Schleiss, 1984). Veronese
proposed an equation independent of the bed material size, which is
endorsed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1977) as a limiting
scour depth.
2. Based on the work of Veronese, Jaeger (1939) (reported by Hager,

1998) suggested a different scour-depth equation in which the Froude
similarity law was satisfied. Jaeger also considered the addition of
tailwater depth as a significant factor.
3. Damle (1966) (reported by Mason and Arumugam, 1985; Breusers and

Raudkivi, 1991) considered both model data and field observations
from dams in India with ski jumps and presented three expressions: a
mean value for model scour, a mean value for prototype scour, and a
maximum worst case for both. The prototype version is shown in Table
5.1 and used in this study.
4. The Chian Min Wu (1973) expression is similar to the limiting

equation of Veronese and specific to ski-jump spillways (Whittaker
and Schleiss, 1984). Chian Min Wu (1973) (reported by Breusers and
Raudkivi, 1991) used model and prototype data from dams in Taiwan.
5. Martins' (1975) (reported by Breusers and Raudkivi, 1991) formula

presented in Table 5.1 was derived from prototype observations
specific to ski-jump spillways. One particularity of the Martins
equation is the preferential use of head drop between reservoir
level and bucket lip elevation (Z) instead of total head between
reservoir and tailwater levels (H).
6. Taraimovich (1978) based his work on detailed data sets of prototype
and model scour at hydrodevelopments in narrow canyons (arch dams)
and with a wide lower pool in the USSR. The original equation
proposed by Taraimovich includes many factors such as bucket flip
angle, upstream slope of the scour hole, rock strength, settling
velocity, and velocity coefficients, but which approach unity as a
whole. Therefore, a simplified version by Mason and Arumugam (1985)
is presented in Table 5.1 and used in this study.
7. Mason (1984) and Mason and Arumugam (1985) presented two equations
for the prediction of ultimate scour depth by a plunging jet based
on the analysis of 26 sets of scour data from prototypes and 47 from
models. The two equations, which are dimensionally balanced and
respect the Froude scaling law, are generally considered state of
the art. The Mason A formula (7A) was developed as a best fit for
all of the model data and the Mason B formula was derived using both
model and prototype observations (7B) . The model data best fit is
now considered to be an acceptable upper bound for prototype scour.
8. Wang Shixia's (1987) formula was developed from a regression

analysis of 50 data sets of scour from prototypes in China with
trajectory bucket type energy dissipators. The equation is
dimensionally balanced and incorporates a coefficient for the rock
condition.
9. Yildiz and Uziicek (1994) proposed a modified version of the Veronese

equation to account for the different behaviour of free-trajectory
jets as opposed to vertically falling jets. When discharge is issued
from spillway flip buckets, it is suggested that the effective scour
depth estimated by the Veronese formula be measured along the
tangent to the jet entering the tailwater.
In all formulas the ultimate depth of scour is measured from the

tailwater surface. The central parameters of the empirical power formulas
are essentially common between authors and the difference between
equations lies in the choice of exponents.
5.2.2 Performance of Empirical Formulas
In this section, the scour depth empirical formulas listed in Table
5.1 are applied to the four sites of study. From the review of plunge pool
performance at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project,
and Revelstoke Dam (Chapter III), specific spill events were linked to
different phases of plunge pool development. The hydraulic conditions
associated with the observed scour depths are listed in Table 5.2 for a
total of 14 scour data sets. Each equation of Table 5.1 was used to
process the assembled data sets and the main findings are discussed.
The accuracy of the selected empirical formulas can be assessed by

comparing calculated scour depths with observed plunge pool depths on
prototypes. Figures 5.6 to 5.15 illustrate the performance of each
equation in the predicted versus actual plunge pool floor elevation for
each of the 14 scour data sets. Clearly, the Veronese (Figure 5.6) and
Mason B (Figure 5.13) empirical equations are too conservative, while the
formulas by Damle (Figure 5.8) and Wang Shixia' (Figure 5.14) underestimate
the scour depth in 50% of the cases. The Mason B formula is particularly
unsuitable to Portage Mountain and Revelstoke plunge pools with calculated
elevations such as El. 1054 ft instead of observed El. 1520 ft and El.
1178 ft instead of El. 1380 ft (not shown in Figure 5.13). The equation by
Mason which is characterized by dependent exponentials (Table 5.1) is in
fact increasingly sensitive to larger head between reservoir level and
tailwater surface. The five empirical equations specific to ski-jump
spillways - Damle (Figure 5.8), Chian Min Wu (Figure 5.9), Martins (Figure
5.10), Wang Shixia (Figure 5.14), and Yildiz & Uziicek (Figure 5.15) - give
the best predictions. The most accurate expressions are the ones by Damle
(Figure 5.8) and Chian Min Wu (Figure 5.9) with a standard error of
estimate of 16.4 ft and 18.0 ft., respectively. Interestingly, the Damle
equation gives equal weight to both unit discharge q and total head H
(Table 5.1). Scour downstream of the spillway left chute at Seven Mile Dam
was overpredicted by all formulas, whereas most equations underestimated
the plunge pool depth at Revelstoke Dam.
The results of the back analysis using empirical formulas are combined
in Figure 5.16 in terms of scour depth below tailwater level. Differences
of 60-80 ft between computed depths for a unique set of hydraulic
conditions are common. The accuracy of each formula was assessed by the
ratio of calculated scour depth over observed depth, or relative error x e,
and the resulting coefficient of variation V •.
^calculated I ôbserved
V = Sjx e
where D is the maximum scour depth below tailwater level, S is the
standard deviation of the relative error, and xe is the mean relative

error.
The results of the statistical analysis compared with data from a

previous study by Mason and Arumugam (1985) are presented in Table 5.3.
Based on consistency, the best forms of equation are those with the lowest
coefficients of variation. From the present study, the Jaeger and Mason A
empirical formulas are identified as such. Both are expressions which
include the tailwater depth. However, the equations are rather
conservative with a mean ratio of calculated versus observed scour depth
around 1.5. The equations for which the estimates of scour depth are on
average closer to the observed depths on prototypes are the Damle and Wang
Shixia formulas, but with a coherence of about 60%. As noticed previously,
the plunge pool scour depths predicted by the Veronese and Mason B
equations are well beyond the observed ones, by more than a factor of two
on average. The Mason B formula was nonetheless the most accurate
expression to fit 26 sets of scour data from prototypes and 47 from models
based on a thorough analysis by Mason and Arumugam (1985) . From the same
study, the best form of equations identified for prototype scour besides
the one proposed by the authors was the one by Damle, with a coefficient
of variation of 33%.
In conclusion, the reliability of empirical equations as a means of

predicting plunge pool scour depth is doubtful. Although all equations
provide on average conservative values for design, the variability in
results from a single data set and inconsistency of a given formula from
one site to another are problematic. The Veronese limiting equation should
not be used as suggested by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the version
B of the equations by Mason should also be rejected. The Damle empirical
formula was seen to give the best combination of precision and accuracy in
the prediction of plunge pool scour depth at the four sites of study
despite a tendency for underestimation. The Wang Shixia formula could be
calibrated to each site by changing the bedrock condition parameter and
used as a predictive tool for future scour. The Mason A equation should be
considered as a limiting scour depth formula to assess the worst-case
scenario.
Table 5.1. List of Empirical Formulas for Ultimate Scour
Depth Prediction
1 ! Veronese - 1937 Ds + h = 1.32 q 0 ' 5 4 H°'225

i (U.S.B.R.)
2 Jaeger - 1939 Ds + h = 0.446 g°-5°H0-25 (h/dj0 333
3 Damle - 1966 Ds + h = 0.20 q 0 ' 5 0 H 0 ' 5 0

(prototype data)
4 Chian Min Wu - 1973 Ds + h = 0.872 q 0 ' 5 1 H 0 2 3 5

i
5 | Martins - 1975 Ds + h = 1.05 q 0 ' 6 0 Z°-10
6 Taraimovich - 1978 Ds + h = 0.314 q 0 67

H0'25
(simplified form by Mason &
Arumugam, 1985)
7A Mason A - 1984 Ds + h = 3.27 q 0 ' 6 0 H 0 - 0 5 h 0 ' 1 5

g0.30 d m 0. 1 0
(model data)
7B j Mason B - 1984 Ds + h = K [0 . 0929q"|x |"0 . 3048H"|y h 0 1 5

g0.30 dm0.10
(prototype & model data)
K = 28.35 - 12 .14H0'10
x = 0.60 - H/984
y = 0.15 + H/656
8 Wang Shixia - 1987 Ds + h = 2.44 K r [(q2/g)0'33]0-89 H 0 1 1
9 Yildiz and Uziicek - 1994 Ds + h = 1.32 q 0 ' 5 4 H 0 ' 2 2 5 sin0'

(Modified Veronese)
Jsin2 8 + (H-Z)/Z
tan 0'= V "
cos Q
Note.
Units are imperial.
Nomenclature
d m [ft] = Median particle diameter/Mean block size
d 9 0 [ft] = Size of bed material of which 90% by weight is smaller

Ds [ft] = Maximum depth of scour below original bed level
g [ft/s2] = Gravitational acceleration
h [ft] = Tailwater depth
H [ft] = Head difference between reservoir level and tailwater surface
Kr = Coefficient reflecting the capacity of rock strata to resist
scour (Wang Shixia, 1987)
= 0.70 - 1.10 (avg. 0.90) for solid rock
= 1.10 - 1.40 (avg. 1.25) for medium rock
= 1.40 - 1.80 (avg. 1.60) for soft or broken rock
q [cfs/ft] = Spillway unit discharge (discharge per unit width)
9 [°] = Angle of flip bucket exit
9' [°] = Impact angle of the jet to the horizontal with the tailwater
surface
Z [ft] = Head difference between reservoir level and bucket lip
elevation
Scour Survey Scour Hole Maximum 1 Effective Daily Width of Unit Reservoir Tailwater Total jTailwater
Data Date Invert El. Scour Spill Average Flow Discharge, El. El. Head, H | Depth, h
Set1 Depth2 Discharge q
[ft] [ft] [cfs] [ft] [cfs/ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] j [ft]
PCN80-3/4 Apr. 1458 50 1979/80 55,000 118 470 1639 1519 120 j 14
1980 (Bays 3-4) 1
PCN80-5/6 Apr. 1482 30 1979/80 36,000 116 310 1639 1519 120 | 14
1980 (Bays 5-6)
PCN96-3 Aug. I 1459 50 1996 47,000 58 810 1649 1519 130 14
1996 (Bay 3)
PCN96-5/6 Aug. 1481 30 | 1996 42,000 116 360 1649 1519 130 14
1996 (Bay 5-6)
SEV79-1/2 Dec. i 1465 35-40 1979 29,000 116 250 1710 1516 195 11
1979 i (Bays 1-2)
1
SEV80-1/2 | Aug. j 1462 33-38 1980 59,000 116 510 1714 1527 189 17
I 1980 (Bays 1-2)
SEV82-1/2 1 Aug. \ 1450 60-65 j 1982 66,000 116 570 1713 1528 185 23
! 1982 I
1 (Bays 1-2)
SEV97-1/2 I Oct. 1 1450 | 55-60 I 1997 72,000 116 620 1728 | 1535 192 30
1 1997 I i (Bays 1-2)
| Oct. 1503 30 1997 31,000 60 172 8 1535 192
j 1997 (Bay 3)
SEV97-4 | Oct. 1523 10 1997 9, 000 903 100 1728 1535 192
j 1997 (Bay 4)
) PMD72 j May 1520 115 1 1972 167,000 135 1240 2206 1651 555 17
1 1973 1 (Chute)
PMD96 | Aug. | 1516 118 i 1996 122,000 135 900 2190 j 1660 530 _
i 1996 (Chute)
REV84 j May i 1392 58 1983/84 29, 0004 150 190 1837 1448 389 | 8
[ 1984 i (Chute)
REV86 I Aug. : 1380 70 j 1986 50,000s 150 | 330 1879 1460 419 pr>-
i 1986 (Chute) i j
! Notes.
i 1. Labeled after the site abbreviation followed by the year of effective spill and the spillway bays downstream of which scouring occurred.
2. Maximum difference in elevation with respect to the original plunge pool topography.
3. Includes flow divergence in Bay 5.
4. Slightly lower than the maximum daily average discharge recorded (30,500 cfs), but the total head was greater by about 14 ft.
5. Observations near the end of the 1986 spillway tests showed that no further erosion would be expected for spillway discharges up to
50,000 cfs (BCH Report No. H1907, 1986).
Table 5.3. Statistical Analysis of Scour Depth Empirical Formulas Performance
PRESENT STUDY MASON & ARUMUGAM* (1985)
No. EMPIRICAL FORMULAS 4 DAM SITES PROTOTYPES

(14 scour data sets) (26 scour data sets)
| Maximum
error1
Minimum
error1
Mean
error1
Coefficient of
| variation2 [%]
Mean
error1
Coefficient of
variation2 [%]
!
I Veronese - 1937 | 4 .32 1.48 2 .19 | 40.8 1.4171 41. 63
j 1
j. 2 | Jaeger - 1939 j~ 1. 94 1. 05 1.52 17 . 7 j~ 1.3973 39.00
[ 3 1
i
Damle - 1966 j 2.32 0 . 78 1.14 39 . 7 | 0.7064 33 .16
i i
i
1 4 | Chian Min Wu - 1973 | 2 . 62 0 . 85 1.28 42 .1

i i
5 Martins - 1975 | 2.33 0 . 75 1.26 41. 5 0 . 8538 47 . 19
6 Taraimovich - 197 8 j 2.42 0 . 85 1.30 36 . 3 0.8644 44 . 13

f
| 7 A | Mason A - 1984 2 . 07 0 . 91 1.44 26 . 5 1. 003 25 .43
j 7B | Mason B - 1984 4 .56 1. 54 2 . 54 40 . 6 1. 07 30.1

1 i
1 8
jWangShixia - 1987 1.78 0 . 72 1.14 37.4
|
1 9 1 Yildiz & Uziicek - 1994 | 2 . 62 | 0.67 1.23 46 . 9
f
1 Notes.
i 1. Relative error (jt ) = calculated scour depth (D calculaled) / measured scour depth (D observetl)
j 2. Coefficient of variation (K) = standard deviation (5 ) / mean error (jf ) [%]
! 3. Mean error and coefficient of variation obtained using the model data only (47 scour data sets).
i
•Source: P.J. Mason and K. Arumugam, "Free Jet Scour Below Dams and Flip Buckets", Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. Ill
(Feb. 1985): 220-235, Table 3.
PEACE CANYON DAM
COMPARISON OF PROTOTYPE SCOUR AND MODEL SCOUR
Major Differences Between Prototype

and Hydraulic Model Conditions
MODEL PROTOTYPE
Crest El. [ft] 1614 1612

Reservoir El. [ft] 1653 1649
1600 -| Bucket lip El. [ft] 1517.8 1522.77
Profile Along Spillway Bay 3 Centreline Discharge per bay [cfs] 51,900 47,000
Unit discharge [cfs/ft] 885 810
Minimum bed El. [ft] 1430 1459
1550 -
c
o 1500
J->
ru
>
V
UJ
Prototype - October 1979
1450 -
Prototype - August 1996
Hydraulic Model
(Ref. BCH Report No. H715,
1970, Figure 20)
1400 T
~r r
t—|—i—i—r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
'l n—I—I—I—|—I—i—I—i 'I ~i i i i i r
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Station N [ft]
Figure 5.1. Peace Canyon Dam / Comparison of Prototype Scour and Model Scour
SPILLWAY DISCHARGE = 120,000 C F S
(24,000 CFS PER BAY)
7 MILE PROJECT
PEND D'OREILLE RIVER
IUOO SCALE MODEL
GRAVEL SCOUR PATTERN

Note.
Ref. BCH Report No. N68,
POST 123-36-I20-I3.3 A
1976, Figure 27. RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY
Figure 5.2. Seven Mile Dam / Model Scour Patterns in Non-Cohesive Bed
SPILLWAY DISCHARGE = 120,000 CFS
(24,000 CFS PER BAY)
7 MILE PROJECT
PEND D'OREILLE RIVER
IMOO SCALE MODEL
SAND CEMENT SCOUR PATTERN

Note.
Ref. BCH Report No. N68,
POST 123 - 36 - 120 - I3.3 A
1976, Figure 32. RECOMMENDED SPILLWAY
Figure 5.3. Seven Mile Dam / Model Scour Patterns in Cohesive Bed
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN PROJECT
PLUNGE POOL SCOUR FROM MODEL TESTS
Figure 5.4. Portage Mountain Project / Plunge Pool Scour From Model Tests
fwi
4,500 y

Note.
Ref. BCH Drawing Nos.
1006-C14-B305/306
REVELSTOKE DAM Note.
Ref. BCH Report No.2278,
SCOUR CONFIGURATION FROM MODEL STUDIES

1983, Figures 6, 14 & 16.
Scour Patterns #1 Scour Patterns #2 Scour Patterns #3
LAYERED GRAVEL-BENTONITE LAYERED GRAVEL-BENTONITE PEA GRAVEL-BENTONITE MIXTURE

DISCHARGES DISCHARGES DISCHARGES
Spillway: 40,000 cfs Spillway: 60,000 cfs Spillway: 60,000 cfs
Powerhouse: 59,200 cfs (after 1 / 2 hr) Powerhouse: 59,200 cfs Powerhouse: 0 cfs
Figure 5.5. Revelstoke Dam / Scour Configuration from Model Studies

1540
1520 Notes.
1. Refer to Table 5.1 for the
mathematical expression.
2. Refer to Table 5.2 for details
1500 H
on the scour data sets.
3. Constant value of dm: 0.82 ft
4. Equation not applicable to the
1480 data sets SEV97-3 & SEV97-4 'On• <T>
d o
00 Q
IE
o z a.
4-> u
f
>U 1460 Q. *
a) *
* *
"O 1440
a» vO
LiD rvl
U r
CL <~o
cn Qv
E 1420 z Z
o o
u CL
CL
1400
1380 rv
en
21
CO
1360
1340 !"T"I J' I I I " ' I ' | I I I I | I I I I | I 1 I I j I I I I j ! 1 I I " J I I I ! |T T T T j I I I i | H " l"l |"T
I l l l | l l l 111111111111111
l | l l l
1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560
Observed Elevation [ft]

1540
1520 - d Notes.
1500
1480 - d
c
o
U-> 1460 - d
0
>3
CD
T3
1440
<u
Q.
E
o 1420
1400
1380 - d
1360 - d
1340 r M I I | I II I | ! I! I | I I I I | I I I I i
| i
IiII
I i 11 i i i i i i i i I
i I
i II | I I II | I I M | I I I
1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560

1540 —d
1520 - d Notes.
1500
1480 - d
c
o
4-J
> 1460 - d
<u
T3 1440
CU
4->
Q. 1420
E
o
u
1400
1380 - d
1360 - d
1340 r M i i i i II i i i i i i i i i I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i II i i i i i i i i M i i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | II i i | I I i i | i i i i | i i M | i II i | i i i i
1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560

1540 - d
1520 - d Notes.
1500 - d
1480 - d
c
o
'•*->
> 1460
_QJ
LU
T3
C1J 1440
CL
E
o 1420 - d
u
1400 - d
1380
1360
1340 [ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i M i[ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i M | I i i i j i i i i
1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560

1540 - d
1520 -3 Notes.
1500
1480
c
o
4-> 1460
ro
>
cu
TJ
O) 1440
O 1420
U
1400
1380
1360
1340 [ I I I ! | I I I I | I I I I | i I I I | I I I I | : I :< j I !
1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500

1540
1520 -E Notes.
1500
3. Wang Shixia coefficient:
Kr = 1.25 for PCN
1480 Kr = 0.90 for SEV
Kr = 1.25 for PMD
c Kr = 1.10 for REV
o<->
'•
ro
> 1460
cu
T3
CU 1440
4—>
CL
E 1420
o
u
1400
1380
1360
1340 i i i i i i M i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i i i i i i i i i i i i i M i i i i M i i i i ii M i i i i i M i i ii i | i M i | i i i i | i M i | i i M | M M | i i i i | i i i i
1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560

1540
1520 Notes.
m
2. Refer to Table 5.2 for details o
1500 - d oo rsi
on the scour data sets.'
z
u i—1
CL 1
1480 ~d
# cn
>
a to
o
j-J #
ro
> 1460
_gj ro#
LU VO
cntN
T3 1440 - d lJ-r*
<3J CL i
J-J CO
>
O
LU
CL m
E
o 1420
1400 - d
1380 - d
1360 - d
1340 II M i i i M i i i i i i II i i i M IIiiiiiiiiiIIiii i |I iI iI iI iI iI iI III Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I

1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560

220 —
LEGEND
1 - Veronese
*
+
200 — 2 - Jaeger
3 - Damle
O 4 - Chian Min Wu
180 — X
•
5 - Martins
•
6 - Taraimovich
A
7A - Mason A
7B - Mason B
160 —
8 - Wang Shixia
9 - Yildiz & Uziicek
140 —
CL
oj 120
T3
i_
Z!
O
u
in
TJ 100
<u
4—»
=3
CL
E
o
u
80
60
Notes.
1. Scour depth below tailwater level.
2. Refer to Table 5.1 for the list of
empirical equations and Table 5.2
40 — for the scour data sets.
3. Constant value of dm: 0.82 ft
4. Wang Shixia coefficient:
Kr = 1.25 for PCN
Kr = 0.90 for SEV
Kr = 1.25 for PMD
20 — Kr = 1.10 for REV
5. Outside values:
Veronese: (131, 256)
Mason B: (131, 597)
Mason B: (144, 564)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Observed scour depth [ft]

CHAPTER VI
THE ERODIBILITY INDEX METHOD
When formed in 1993, the main objective of the Dam Foundation Erosion
Study Team (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Golder Associates Inc., Colorado
State University, and other partners) was to develop a state-of-the-art
procedure for predicting the extent of plunge pool scour caused by
overtopping dams. The Erodibility Index Method (or hydraulic erodibility)
by Annandale (1994, 1995) was chosen as the working basis for the study.
Extensive research was conducted at the Hydraulic Laboratories of Colorado
State University (Fort Collins, CO) to supplement the existing knowledge
of plunging jet hydraulics and validate the method on different erodible
media. This chapter presents an evaluation of the Erodibility Index Method
in the assessment of observed plunge pool scour at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven
Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project, and Revelstoke Dam. First, the
conceptual approach of the new technology is described. Then, the
methodology is applied to the four sites of study using past scour
conditions. A sensitivity analysis of key parameters is also performed to
complete the evaluation of the Erodibility Index Method.
6.1 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
The Erodibility Index Method relates the relative ability of earth

material to resist scour, expressed in terms of a geomechanical index
known as the Erodibility Index, to the relative magnitude of the erosive
power of water, expressed in terms of stream power, to define an erosion
threshold for an extensive range of earth materials (Annandale, 2 002b).
The Erodibility Index K was defined in Chapter II (Section 2.2.3) as the
product of four coefficients, each representing a geomechanical property
of the earth material:
K = Ms • Kb • Kd • Js (6.1)
where Ms defines the mass strength, Kb the block/particle size, Kd the

discontinuity/inter-particle bond shear strength, and Js the shape and
relative orientation to the flow. Kb and Kd can be further defined as:
Kb = RQD/Jn (6.2)
Kd = JrjJa
where RQD is the Rock Quality Designation, Jn the joint sets number, Jr
the joint roughness number, and Ja the joint alteration number. The
constituent parameters of the Erodibility Index are rated with the use of
standard tables (Appendix I) . The generic expression for the stream power
P or rate of energy dissipation per unit area was presented in Chapter II
(Section 2.2.3) in terms of velocity V and energy loss A E such as:
P = yQlsEj A = yvAE [KW/m 2] (6.4)

where y is the unit weight of water, Q the total discharge, and A the
area perpendicular to the flow. Specific equations can be derived to
compute the available stream power in various flow conditions. For flow in
a plunge pool, the power available P A to scour is a function of the jet
hydraulics (see Section 6.2.2). The erodibility threshold is a rational
correlation established by relating the Erodibility Index and the
calculated stream power for 150 field observations and published data on
initiation of sediment motion. From Annandale (1995) , the power required
PR to initiate scour of bedrock characterized by an Erodibility Index K

is given by:
P r=K 015 (6.5)

The graphical threshold relationship for rock and other complex earth
materials was presented in Chapter II (Figure 2.4).
The essence of the method that was developed to calculate the scour
depth by using the Erodibility Index Method entails a comparison between
available stream power [P A ] and stream power that is required to initiate
scour (Wittier et al. , New Technology, 1998). Hydraulic erodibility

occurs when the erosive power of water exceeds the power required to scour
the riverbed (P A > P R) . Figure 6.1 illustrates the conceptual approach of
the Erodibility Index Method in the assessment of maximum scour depth in a
plunge pool. First, the plunge pool bedrock profile is characterized using
the Erodibility Index (Section 6.2.1). The power required to scour the
bedrock material to a certain depth is determined from the erodibility
threshold relationship (equation 6.5). Then, the rate of energy
dissipation in the plunge pool (power available for scour) is computed
along the centreline of the submerged jet (Section 6.2.2) . The rate of
energy dissipation, or available power, is a discretized function of the
total head at various elevations along the centerline of the submerged jet
(Wittier et al., New Technology, 1998). Bed material strength normally
increases as a function of elevation below the surface, whereas the
erosive power of a jet decreases in the same direction (Annandale et al.,
1997) . The estimated elevation of maximum scour depth is determined from
the intersection of the two stream power curves (Section 6.2.3) .
6.2 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The Erodibility Index Method is applied to estimate plunge pool scour

at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project, and
Revelstoke Dam. The conceptual approach described in the previous section
is resumed in details and in a methodological fashion with the
geomechanical characterization of the plunge pool bedrock at first, the
spillway jet hydraulics computations in second, and finally the
combination of the two resulting stream power curves to determine the
maximum scour depth elevation.
6.2.1 Erodibility Index Characterization

Erodibility Index characterization of plunge pool bedrock at Peace
Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project, and Revelstoke Dam
is presented in Tables 6.1 to 6.4. The assessment of geomechanical
properties was based on laboratory rock testing results, drill logs, and
general observations from geotechnical investigations. Rating of
geomechanical parameters was based on standard tables presented in
Appendix I. To illustrate the existing range of rock mass parameters at
each site, the bedrock classification was divided in three categories:
low, typical, and high\ The "typical" classification is considered to be
representative of the average condition of the plunge pool bedrock at each
site. The "low" and "high" indexes should be taken as lower and upper
bounds, respectively.
According to the "typical" Erodibility Index, the investigated plunge

pools can be classified from the most vulnerable to scour to the least in
this order: Revelstoke, Seven Mile, Portage Mountain, and Peace Canyon.
Despite an average rock mass strength, the shale of the Peace Canyon dam
foundation is rated as the most scour resistant because of the high RQD,
the discontinuous character of the bedding fractures, and the unfavorable
orientation of discontinuities with respect to spillway flows. Rock in the
identified "hinge zone" at Peace Canyon Dam is better represented by the
"low" classification index. The thick-bedded shale of the Portage Mountain
plunge pool is stronger due to its high content in sand, but the presence
of open rebound fractures reduces its resistance to erosion. The strong
argillite at Seven Mile Dam is more vulnerable to hydraulic erodibility
because of the positive orientation of main discontinuities relatively to
the flow. The average plunge pool bedrock at Revelstoke Dam is rather
susceptible to the erosive power of water considering the low mass
strength and poor RQD. In each of the four cases of geomechanical
classification, the extended range of Erodibility Index values (low -
high) marks the heterogeneous character of bedrock.
Generally, the bedrock quality increases with depth. For instance, the
rebound fractures formed along bedding planes and relaxation joints
present in the Peace River Canyon (Peace Canyon Dam and Portage Mountain
Project) vanish with depth. Also, weathering of the argillite composing
the Seven Mile plunge pool is more important near the surface than at
depth. In this analysis, the rock mass quality is assumed constant with
depth in reason of a lack of information on the subsurface distribution of
geological parameters. The "typical" Erodibility Index is considered to be
representative of the bulk of the plunge pool bedrock.
6.2.2 Jet Hydraulics - Computational Methods

Prediction of the ultimate depth of scour by the Erodibility Index
Method requires that the erosive power of water be quantified along the
jet trajectory. The power (KW/m2) available to erode material is a function
of the jet hydraulics (Annandale, 2002c) . The rate of energy dissipation
in the plunge pool (power available for scour [PA~\) can be expressed as a
discretized function of the total head at various elevations (j , j +1,
etc...) along the centerline of the submerged jet (ibid.) :
dP A j yvjMj
(6.6)
dz 1000(zy -z j+ l)
The change in energy AEj between points j and j +1 represents the sum of
changes in velocity head, pressure head, and elevation head such as:
f..2 .2 A
Pj ~Pj +1 (6.7)
AEj = +
2g r
where V is the jet centreline velocity [m/s], p the static pressure [Pa],
Z the elevation [m] , g the gravitational acceleration [m/s2] , and y the
unit weight of water [Pa/m]. The second and third terms of equation 6.7
cancel out and the change in energy AEj is equal to the change in velocity
head (first term). The dynamic pressure of the jet above hydrostatic
converges towards hydrostatic pressure as the jet travels deeper under the
plunge pool surface (Golder Associates, 2001). The vertical distribution
of power available for scour (P A) in the plunge pool is essentially
related to the submerged jet velocity profile. The level of accuracy in
the prediction of the latter is determinant in the evaluation of the
Erodibility Index Method.
Most past research work on the diffusion of jets has been confined to
submerged entry cases (Ervine and Falvey, 1987). Little attention has been
paid to the more complex problems arising from the influence of impinging
free turbulent jets and air entrainment on the diffusion process (ibid.) .
Theoretical expressions on computation of jet velocity decay in a plunge
pool presented here are derived from two distinct studies: the work by
Ervine and Falvey (1987, 1997) and the research conducted at Colorado
State University as part of the Dam Foundation Erosion Study (Lewis et
al., 1996; Bohrer et al., 1998). Ervine and Falvey (1987) investigated the
characteristics of a turbulent circular jet issuing horizontally and
plunging through the atmosphere and diffusing into a pool. The free-fall
jet was treated as a continuous mass with a solid core (undeveloped jet)
dissipating most of its energy in the plunge pool. Research conducted at
Colorado State University focused on simulating dam overtopping conditions
(rectangular jet) to characterize the behavior of a free-falling jet in
both undeveloped and developed conditions. Ervine and Falvey (1987)
suggested a relatively simple expression for the calculation of velocity
along the centreline of a plunging jet in a pool, based on an estimated 8°
of inner core decay and the assumption of linear velocity decay with depth
in the zone of established flow. Bohrer et al. (1998) considered an
empirical approach using dimensional analysis. From Bohrer et al. (1998),
the velocity decay of the jet as it progresses towards the bottom of the
plunge pool is a function of the jet velocity at impact with the pool
surface, the angle of impingement, the air concentration of the jet at
impact, and the gravitational acceleration.
Table 6.5 summarizes the computational steps in the prediction of the
jet centreline velocity profile in a plunge pool, and subsequently the
rate of energy dissipation. First, the flow depth and velocity at the exit
of the flip bucket are estimated using the Bernoulli equation. The
required basic hydraulic data are the spillway unit discharge, the energy
head at the exit of the flip bucket, and the flip angle. Once the initial
jet velocity is known, the free jet velocity upon entrance in the plunge
pool can be calculated from the ballistic equations knowing the head drop
from the bucket lip to the pool surface. However, this overlooks the fact
that the jet loses its coherence with the fall and is affected by air
resistance. A Dimensional Equation Technique (DET) was developed by Lewis
to estimate the velocity of a turbulent, developed jet by incorporating an
aerodynamic drag deceleration term into the Ervine and Falvey (1987)
expression for undeveloped jets (Lewis et al., 1998). The coherence of the
jet (undeveloped or developed) at impact with the pool surface was
identified by Bohrer et al. (1998) to affect the submerged jet velocity
decay. The determination of the jet breakup length is thus an important
step in the computation of the jet velocity profile. Once the jet velocity
profile is known, equations 6.6 and 6.7 are used to derive the
distribution of the power available to scour.
6.2.3 Maximum Scour Depth

The Erodibility Index Method defines the maximum scour depth as that
elevation where the stream power available to scour converges with the
power required to scour the bedrock. The power required to scour the
plunge pool bedrock at Peace Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain
Project, and Revelstoke Dam was assessed in Section 6.2.1 and a constant
"typical" value was assigned to each site (Tables 6.1 to 6.4) . The power
available to scour decreases as the jet travels down the plunge pool and
for each site varies in function of the spillway discharge and the
reservoir and tailwater levels (Section 6.2.2). Derivation of the rate of
energy dissipation curve involves a series of computational steps
presented in Table 6.5. The Erodibility Index Method was used for each
site of study to estimate the maximum scour depth elevation corresponding
to each of the 14 scour data sets compiled in Chapter V (Table 5.2) . The
results are discussed and compared with the actual scour depth elevations
observed on sites.
The basic hydraulic data of the 14 scour data sets and the computed
parameters for the derivation of the stream power profiles are summarized
in Table 6.6. For each site, the jet velocities are similar and do not
reflect the changing magnitude of spillway discharges. The jet velocities
at impact with the plunge pool surface increase with the drop height from
the bucket exit to the water surface. The expression proposed by Lewis
(Lewis et al. , 1998) to estimate the impact jet velocity in the case of
developed jets is problematic since the retardation factor RF accounting
for air resistance exceeds the maximum jet velocity at impact (undeveloped
conditions) . In general, the free jet issued from the Peace Canyon and
Seven Mile spillways comprises a solid inner core upon entry in the plunge
pool, whereas the drop height from the Portage Mountain and Revelstoke
spillways is sufficient for the jet to reach the developed state.
Therefore, the impact jet velocity might be overpredicted by the ballistic
equations in the last two cases. The fall height from the bucket lip to
the river enhances the air concentration of the jet which enters the
plunge pool. Higher air concentrations are calculated for the hydraulic
conditions identified at Portage Mountain Project and Revelstoke Dam. The
computed angles of impingement of the jet with the plunge pool surface are
also steeper due to the large fall height resulting in the highest values
at the Portage Mountain spillway. The angle of impingement determines the
submerged jet centreline trajectory along which the velocity and stream
power are calculated. The basic parameters presented in Table 6.6 for the
derivation of the jet centreline velocity and stream power profiles are
based on theoretical considerations and empiricism. The turbulent nature
of free-trajectory jets brings a degree of uncertainty to the
calculations. The estimates of jet thickness are particularly questionable
considering the jet is comprised of two phases (solid inner core and
aerated outer shell) and the presence of surface waves.
The computed profiles of jet centreline velocity and stream power

corresponding to each of the 14 scour data sets are presented in Figures
6.2 to 6.5 for the four distinct plunge pools. The submerged jet velocity
profiles were computed using the equations developed as part of the Dam
Foundation Erosion Study (Bohrer et al., 1998) . The power required to
scour the bedrock at each site is identified on the stream power profiles
and the point where the two power curves intersect corresponds to the
predicted maximum scour depth elevation. In the case of Peace Canyon Dam
(Figure 6.2), the four distinct sets of hydraulic conditions merge into a
singular curve of jet centreline velocity and stream power. The
Erodibility Index Method predicts a minimum plunge pool elevation around
El. 1510 ft, which is actually above the original riverbed. The jet
hydraulic computations suggest that the erosive power of water is
essentially dissipated within the first ten feet of the plunge pool. The
same observation is applicable to the Seven Mile data sets (Figure 6.3).
For each profile, the stream power drops drastically in the early portion
of the submerged jet trajectory. The observed differences in jet velocity
profiles and stream power curves for Seven Mile result mainly from the
variation in tailwater levels between the scour data sets. Two of the data
sets (SEV79-1/2 and SEV97-4) also represent the behaviour of a developed
jet as opposed to undeveloped. The rate of velocity decay is slower in the
case of developed jets, but the effects on the stream power profiles are
not important (see Section 6.3.2) . The scour depth predictions are
acceptable for two sets of hydrauli cs conditions (SEV97-3 and SEV97-4)
corresponding to the spillway left chute observations. The assessment of
maximum scour downstream of the spillway right chute is however inadequate
with underpredictions ranging from 34 ft to 60 ft. The Erodibility Index
Method also underestimates the extent of plunge pool scour at Portage
Mountain Project (Figure 6.4). by as much as 100 ft. In the case of
Revelstoke Dam (Figure 6.5), the predicted maximum scour depth elevations
are similar for the two separate sets of hydraulic conditions and approach
the observed elevations of the scour hole invert. However, as will be
discussed further in the next section, the scour depth predictions at
Revelstoke Dam are extremely sensitive to uncertainties in the estimated
power required to scour the plunge pool bedrock. Figure 6.6 combines the
results for the four sites of study and illustrates the variance between
predicted and observed plunge pool floor elevation corresponding to each
set of hydraulic conditions. The overall performance of the Erodibility
Index Method in the assessment of maximum scour depth for four distinct
plunge pools can be characterized by a generalized tendency for
underestimation and a standard error of estimate of 53 ft.
6.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The Erodibility Index Method was applied to the four sites of study
based on the best information available at the time. Considering the
extended range of Erodibility Index that characterizes each plunge pool
bedrock and the uncertainties involved in the jet hydraulics computations,
a sensitivity analysis of key parameters involved in the scour depth
analysis is performed. The parameters which are further investigated based
on their respective influence on scour depth predictions are the
Erodibility Index, the jet velocity profile, the jet impact velocity, and
the jet air concentration at impact with the plunge pool surface.
6.3.1 Erodibility Index

The characterization of plunge pool bedrock accounts for half of the
Erodibility Index Method. As mentioned in Section 6.2.1, the "typical"
Erodibility Index was considered to be representative of the bulk of the
plunge pool bedrock for the maximum scour depth analysis (Section 6.2.3).
However, the heterogeneous character of the rock mass and uncertainties in
the assessment of geological parameters requires that the lower and upper
bounds defined for the Erodibility Index (Tables 6.1 to 6.4) be taken into
account. The effects of a changing Erodibility Index (K) on the scour
depth predictions are evaluated.
The predicted elevations of maximum scour depth for the expected range
of Erodibility Index (low, typical, and high rock mass quality) are
presented in Table 6.7. For each site, given the extended range of
Erodibility Index that characterizes the plunge pool bedrock, the power
required to scour the rock mass (P R ) varies over three orders of

magnitude, and up to four in the case of Revelstoke. For the Revelstoke
plunge pool, a stream power of 1.53 KW/m2 is required to scour the zones of
weaker rock as opposed to 1480 KW/m2 for the sounder rock. Accordingly, the
estimates of maximum scour depth elevation range between El. 1278 ft and
El. 1443 ft. However, the difference in predicted scour extent when
considering the low versus high Erodibility Index is not always
representative of the gap that separates the two indices. For instance,
the plunge pool bedrock at Peace Canyon Dam and Portage Mountain Project
shows a similar range of Erodibility Index but the corresponding variation
in elevation is more considerable in one case than in the other. For the
Peace Canyon plunge pool, uncertainties in the Erodibility Index value
result in less than 2 0 ft variation in elevation. In the case of Portage
Mountain, the difference in elevation reaches 70-80 ft. For all sites, the
sensitivity of the Erodibility Index Method to an uncertainty in the
Erodibility Index value is increased for small values of Erodibility Index
(K < 500, P R < 100). The Revelstoke scour depth predictions are the most
affected by the uncertainties regarding the Erodibility Index value and
the Peace Canyon results are the least sensitive.
A significant range of estimated scour depth elevations for each site

was to be expected from the variation between lower and upper bound values
of Erodibility Index, but the changing sensitivity of the Erodibility
Index Method with respect to the Erodibility Index is problematic.
However, this characteristic is directly attributed to the rather sharp
profile of stream power available for scour which is derived from a jet
velocity decay function (see next section). For most cases (ten scour data
sets out of fourteen), the Erodibility Index Method still underestimates
the scour depth even when considering the lower bound Erodibility Index
assigned to the plunge pool bedrock.
6.3.2 Jet Velocity Profile

As seen in Section 6.2.2, the vertical distribution of power available
for scour in the plunge pool is derived from the jet velocity decay along
its centreline trajectory. In the maximum scour depth analysis (Section
6.2.3), the jet centreline velocity was calculated using the equations
developed as part of the Dam Foundation Erosion Study (Bohrer et al.,
1998) and a function of the jet condition (undeveloped or developed) at
impact with the pool surface. The equation proposed by Ervine and Falvey
(1987) was presented in Table 6.5 along with the equations by Bohrer et
al. (1998), but was not used because it refers to circular jets. The two
forms of expression were here applied to a unique data set of each site to
observe the influence of the jet velocity profile on the Erodibility Index
Method. The extent to which the scour depth predictions are affected by
the equation used to compute the jet velocity decay in the plunge pool is
discussed.
The velocity profiles as given by the different equations and the

corresponding stream power profiles are illustrated for each of the four
study sites in Figures 6.7 to 6.10. The two equations developed by Bohrer
et al. (1998) for undeveloped and developed jets provide similar jet
velocity decay trends, although the rate of velocity decay is slower in
the case of developed jets. The difference between the two velocity
profiles by Bohrer et al. (1998) reflects on the stream power profiles
with a maximum variation in elevation of 11 ft in the case of Portage
Mountain (Figure 6.9). As expected, the equation for undeveloped jets
gives the most conservative scour depth estimates. The Ervine and Falvey
(1987) equation also refers to undeveloped jets but the resulting stream
power profiles show no consistent trend from one site to another
relatively to the computed profiles using Bohrer et al. (1998). The scour
depth predictions when using the velocity decay equation by Ervine and
Falvey (1987) as opposed to Bohrer et al. (1998) are more conservative for
Peace Canyon, similar for Seven Mile, and underestimated for Portage
Mountain and Revelstoke. The maximum range of estimated scour depth
elevations covered by the three different equations for a unique data set
varies from 5 ft in the case of Seven Mile to 43 ft in the case of
Revelstoke.
In general, the two forms of expression investigated for the

computation of jet velocity decay in the plunge pool result in similar
stream power profiles with moderate vertical discrepancy. Apart from Peace
Canyon, the use of the equation by Ervine and Falvey (1987) over the Dam
Foundation Erosion Study equations (Bohrer et al. , 1998) does not improve
the accuracy of the Erodibility Index Method. The performance of the
Erodibility Index Method lies in the description of the jet velocity
profile underwater and the need for an improved expression of jet velocity
decay in a plunge pool is obvious. The Bohrer et al. (1998) equations are
based on empiricism and were derived from a limited range of test
simulations whereas the equation by Ervine and Falvey (1987) refers to
circular jets and depends mainly on the estimated jet diameter at impact
with the plunge pool surface.
6.3.3 Jet Impact Velocity

The impact velocity of the jet with the plunge pool surface is the
starting point to the computation of the submerged jet velocity profile.
In the maximum scour depth analysis (Section 6.2.3), the jet impact
velocity was calculated using the ballistic equations. The velocities thus
computed represent maximum values that don't account for air resistance.
The deceleration caused by air drag becomes important when the plunge
length is such that the jet loses its coherence (e.g. Portage Mountain and
Revelstoke spillways). The equation proposed by Lewis et al. (1996) (Table
6.5) failed to estimate the air retardation factor that lowers the
impingement velocity of a developed jet (Section 6.2.3). To account for
the uncertainties involved in the calculation of the jet impingement
velocity, the velocity and stream power profiles were recalculated for one
scour data set of each site using a series of jet impact velocities below
the original one. The variation in scour depth predictions caused by each
diminution of jet impact velocity is examined.
The velocity profiles and associated stream power profiles derived

from a regression of jet impact velocity at each of the four sites of
study are presented in Figures 6.11 to 6.14. For all sites, the divergence
in stream power profiles originating from the values of jet impingement
velocity increases as the stream power decreases. Therefore, the scour
depth predictions using the Erodibility Index Method are more sensitive to
uncertainties in the calculation of jet impingement velocity when the
stream power required to scour the plunge pool bedrock is low. The
vertical discrepancies in stream power profiles resulting from the
regression of jet impact velocity with constant increments are also
lessened at each increment. For the Peace Canyon and Seven Mile plunge
pools, the estimated maximum scour depth is reduced by at most 2 ft and 5
ft, respectively, when the calculated jet velocity at impact with the
water surface is lowered by increments of 10 ft/s. As for the Portage
Mountain and Revelstoke plunge pools, the maximum variation in elevation
for each increment of 20 ft/s reaches 10 ft and 15 ft, respectively. To a
50% reduction in maximum jet impact velocity (calculated from the
ballistic equations) corresponds a difference in elevation of about 10 ft
for Peace Canyon, 20 ft for Seven Mile, 40 ft for Portage Mountain, and 50
ft for Revelstoke. The conservative approach when using the Erodibility
Index Method is to assume the jet that impinges the plunge pool surface as
compact and use the ballistic equations to calculate the impact velocity.
The sensitivity analysis confirms that the jet velocity at impact with
the plunge pool surface is an important parameter in the assessment of
maximum scour depth using the Erodibility Index Method. However, in the
cases of Peace Canyon and Seven Mile, the effects of a diminution in jet
impingement velocity are rather minor on the scour depth predictions. In
this study, the uncertainties regarding the estimation of jet impact
velocity were primarily directed toward the sites of Portage Mountain and
Revelstoke because of the lengthy plunge of the spillway jet.
Surprisingly, the Erodibility Index Method underestimates the maximum
scour depth elevation of both plunge pools although using the maximum
theoretical value of jet impact velocity.
6.3.4 Jet Air Concentration at Impact

The air concentration of the jet at impact with the plunge pool
surface is an important parameter in the computation of the jet velocity
profile when using the equations by Bohrer et al. (1998) . In Section
6.2.3, the air/water ratio of the jet at the moment of impact with the
water surface was estimated using an expression by Ervine and Falvey
(1987) which relates to the initial jet thickness and plunge length
through the atmosphere. Uncertainties arise from the. fact that the
expression was initially derived from small-scale experiments on compact
circular jets. To evaluate the importance of the parameter on the
Erodibility Index Method, the velocity and stream power profiles were
computed using different air concentrations of the impinging jet for a
unique scour data set of each site. The influence of the estimated jet
air concentration on the scour depth predictions is observed.
The velocity profiles as function of the jet air concentration at

impact and the corresponding stream power profiles are shown for each of
the four study sites in Figures 6.15 to 6.18. For all sites, the
divergence in stream power profiles caused by the different values of air
concentration increases as the stream power decreases. Therefore, the
scour depth predictions using the Erodibility Index Method are more
sensitive to errors in the estimation of jet air concentration when the
stream power required to scour the plunge pool bedrock is low. For the
Peace Canyon and Seven Mile plunge pools, an uncertainty of 20% in the
value of jet air concentration would translate to a maximum error in scour
depth elevation of 2 ft and 7 ft, respectively. The same increment of air
concentration produces a variation in scour depth elevation of
approximately 20 ft for Portage Mountain and 30 ft for Revelstoke. The
conservative approach when using the Erodibility Index Method is to
consider the jet that impinges the plunge pool surface as non-aerated (air
concentration of 0%).
Due to the uncertainties involved in the estimation of air

concentration of the spillway jet at impact with the plunge pool surface,
the level of sensitivity of the Erodibility Index Method to this parameter
is unacceptable. When using the equations developed as part of the Dam
Foundation Erosion Study (Bohrer et al. , 1998) to compute the submerged
jet velocity profile, the constituent value of jet air concentration at
impact should be estimated within 10% of accuracy. In the four study
cases, the Erodibility Index Method still underestimates the maximum scour
depth for Peace Canyon, Seven Mile, and Portage Mountain even when
assuming a maximum jet density (air concentration of 0%) .
6.4. EVALUATION
The concept of the Erodibility Index Method is appealing because it

gives equal weighting to both jet hydraulics and plunge pool geology. The
Erodibility Index, which is used to characterize the geological conditions
of the plunge pool, has well established roots in the engineering
classification of rock masses for tunnel support (the Rock Tunnelling
Quality Index, Q) and excavation (Kirsten's (1982) Ripability Index).
However, by incorporating a new set of parameters through the use of a
geomechanical index, a new series of uncertainties is added to the
estimation of maximum scour depth. This is especially true since
engineering and geological investigations don't usually cover the plunge
pool area. Besides, the geological conditions of the plunge pool are
commonly heterogeneous and cannot be represented adequately by a single
factor. This situation was portrayed in the analysis with the expected
power required to scour the bedrock of each plunge pool extending over at
least three orders of magnitude. With regard to the jet hydraulics, there
is an obvious need for improved analytical tools in the description of
two-phase jet velocity decay in a plunge pool. For the majority of
computed stream power profiles, the bulk of the energy was dissipated
within the initial few feet of jet submergence. Therefore, the maximum
scour depth was underestimated even when considering the maximum jet
impact velocity, the maximum jet density, and the minimum Erodibility
Index value. However, the main weakness of the Erodibility Index Method is
that the vertical distribution of power available for scour in the plunge
pool is essentially related to the submerged jet velocity profile which
does not reflect the changing magnitude of spillway discharges; jet
velocities are similar for a given site and vary as a function of the
reservoir and tailwater levels. In addition, of the 150 field observations
that form the basis of the erodibility threshold relationship (Figure
2.4), 137 were made from auxiliary earth spillways. The processes by which
these spillway channels resist the erosive attack of flowing water should
not be compared to the scouring action of a spillway jet. So even with an
accurate bedrock characterization and improved equations for the
computation of jet velocity profile, the use of the Erodibility Index
Method for the assessment of plunge pool scour is questionable. The
overall performance of the Erodibility Index Method in the assessment of
maximum scour depth for four distinct plunge pools was characterized by a
generalized tendency for underestimation and a standard error of estimate
of 53 ft.
As part of the Dam Foundation Erosion Study, The Erodibility Index

Method has been computer coded and a first test version of the software
was available in June 2002. The project has however been shelved
indefinitely and the prospects of the Erodibility Index Method remain
unknown.
Table 6.1. Peace Canyon/Erodibility Index Characterization
BEDROCK - SHALE
Low ] Typical High
Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS)1 5,000 psi 10,500 psi 17,000 psi
Ms 34 72 117
2
Rock Quality Designation 70% 90% 95%
RQD 70 90 95
Number of Joint Sets 3 + random 3 3
Jn 3 .34 2 . 73 | 2 . 73
Roughness of Joint Open Discontinuous i Discontinuous
Jr 1. 0 4.0 [4.0
Alteration of Joint Crushed rock filling Unaltered j Unaltered
Ja 4.0 1. 0 i 1. 0
-Main Discontinuity N30-40 °/90 ° N60°/2° N60°/2°
-Dip Direction With flow With flow
-Apparent Dip in
Direction of Flow 90° 1° i 1°
-Ratio of Joint Spacing 1:1 1:2 1:1
Js 1 . 14 1 . 33 1 . 50
K=Ms»(RQD/Jn)•(Jr/Ja).Js | 203 12,600 24,400
r
P R = K0'75 [KW/m2] 53 . 8 1190 1950
Notes.
1. Based on Laboratory Rock Testing Program of 1959 5 tests-dry), 1967 (4 tests-dry), and
1975 (2 tests-dry) (BCH Report No. 354, 1959; BCH Drawing Nos. 1007-C14-C3854 &
1007-14-D424 9).
2. Based on 502 ft of core logging from 1977-78 post- grout drilling of the dam foundation
(hole series STH); the statistical distribution is presented below.
RQD Distribution
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
£ £ £
§ £ §
RQD [%]
BEDROCK - ARGILLITE
Low Typical High
Strength (UCS)1 5,000 psi 20,000 psi 33,000 psi
Ms 34 138 228
2
Rock Quality Designation 60% 90% 95%
RQD 60 90 95
Number of Joint Sets 3
4 3 + random 3
Jn 4 . 09 3 . 34 2 . 73
3
Roughness of Joint j Smooth planar Smooth undulating Discontinuous
Jr | 1.0 2.0 4.0
Alteration of Joint3 Graphitic Slightly altered Unaltered
Ja 4.0 2. 0 1.0
-Main Discontinuity N110-120°/4 0-4 5° N110-120°/40-45° N110-120°/40-45°
-Dip Direction With flow With flow With flow
-Apparent Dip in
Direction of Flow 40° 40° 40°
Js 0.46 0.49 0 . 53
K=Ms»(RQD/Jn)•(Jr/Ja)»Js 57 . 4 1, 820 16,800
P R = K0'75 [KW/m 2 ] 20 . 8 279 1480
Notes.
1. Based on Laboratory Rock Testing Program of 1973 (8 tests) (BCH Report No. 750, 1975).
2. Based on 414 ft of core logging from 1973 exploration drilling in the riverbed argillite
(DH73-1A/3/8/10); the statistical distribution is presented below.
3. Reference BCH Report No. PSE362 - Appendix G, 2001.
RQD Distribution
200
£ 150
o>
g 100
o 50
o
0 =F
5s $§
9
£
£ §
.
S
££
RQD [%]
BEDROCK
Low 1 Typical High
Unconfined Compressive 1
Strength (UCS)1 10,000 psi 22,000 psi
f 18,000 psi
Ms 69 j 124 152
Rock Quality Designation 50% | 80% 95%
RQD 50 ; 80 95
Number of Joint Sets 4 3 + random 3
Jn 4 . 09 3 . 34 2 . 73
Roughness of Joint Open Open Discontinuous
Jr 1. 0 1. 0 4.0
Alteration of Joint Crushed rock filling Surface staining Surface staining
Ja 4.0 1. 0 1. 0
-Main Discontinuity N132°/10° N132°/10° i N132°/10°
-Apparent Dip in
Direction of Flow 10° 10° 10°
Js 0 . 98 1.25 1 .25
K=Ms»(RQD/Jn)•(Jr/Ja)«Js 207 3 , 710 26,400
P R = K0'75 [KW/m2] 54 . 5 476 2070
Note.
1. Based on Laboratory Rock Testing Program of 1958 (4 tests-dry), 1959 (6 tests-dry), and
1965 (33 tests-dry); the statistical distribution is presented below (BCH Report No. 150,
1958; BCH Report No. 31, 1959; BCH File No. 003805546, 1965).
UCS Distribution - Shale
10
8
6
4
2
0
to O <V V- Co % iv >
V <b
UCS [x1,000 psi]
UCS Distribution - Sandstone
10
8
6
4
2
0
<b <v V- Co 'b is iV > A) ib is
^ <6
UCS [x1,000 psi]

Table 6.4. Revelstoke/Erodibility Index Characterization
( BEDROCK SOIL
| Low Typical | High j Typical
Strength (UCS)1 3,000 psi 9,000 psi 20,000 psi SPT=30-50
Ms 21 62 138 0 . 19
Rock Quality Designation 2
5% 10% 80% 5%
RQD 5 10 80 5
Number of Joint Sets r " 3 + random 3 5
Jn 5 . 00 3 .34 2 . 73 5 . 00
Roughness of Joint Smooth planar Rough planar Rough undulating
Jr 1.0 1.5 3. 0 Jr/Ja=0.6
Alteration of Joint Graphitic,>5 mm Slightly clayey Surface staining (<f> = 30°)
Ja 13 . 0 3. 0 1. 0
j -Main Discontinuity N56°/26° N56°/26° N56°/26°
-Apparent Dip in Flow
Direction 5° 5° 5°
Js 1 . 09 1 .23 1 .39 1 . 00
K=Ms*(RQD/Jn)•(Jr/Ja)*Js 1 . 76 114 16,900 "oTTi
PR = K - 0 75 2
[KW/m ] 1 1.53 34 . 9 1480 0 . 183
Notes.
1. Based on Laboratory Rock Testing Program of 1972 (16 tests), 1976 (42 tests), and 1978 (28
tests); the statistical distribution is presented below (BCH Report No.664, 1973; BCH File
No.15-2-57, 1976; BCH Report NO.H1204, 1980).
2. Based on 905.5 ft of core logging from exploration drilling in the plunge pool
surroundings (DH73-8/9, DH74-1A/2, DH75-17/18/19/20/21, and DH76-29/32/36); the
statistical distribution is presented below.
3. For cohesionless granular material, P„ = 0.480K0'44 [KW/m2] (Wittier et al. , 1998).
UCS Distribution
(0 20
in
« 15
10
o 5
o 0
z
$
to
o
<V
$ <V
UCS [x1,000 psi]
RQD Distribution
300
200
100 -
0
o Q .O ,S> ,§>
O ^
"> Is y
£ CO
£lb Q>
Kd tCV5 ê> fr <c0i £
C5 ,
RQD [%]
Table 6.5. Jet Hydraulics - Computational Steps
Computational Step Equation Source

1. Estimate the flow depth at the d 0= y COS 9
exit of the spillway bucket (jet
thickness), do. n 2
*E = y +- Bernoulli
2gy 2 Equation
2. Calculate the jet velocity at the V 0=q!y
exit of the spillway bucket, Vo .
3. Determine the jet breakup length, Ervine et
Lb. The jet breakup length is the C 2 =- al., 1997
fall distance before the free jet \2
loses its coherence and becomes a 2Lh
+ 1-1
conglomeration of discrete water
particles. The breakup length marks yd 0 F 0 2 d 0F:
the limit between undeveloped jet
and developed jet.
C = \.\A-Tu-Fg
Fo=Vol4gd~o
4. Compute the jet velocity at Undeveloped jet J Ervine et
impact with the plunge pool surface, ! al., 1997
Vi. V,=^+2gHd
Developed jet Lewis et
al., 1996
V ;=^+2gH d -RF
RF = ^ Cd(palpjH dl<S>)vZ
5. Estimate the jet thickness at Ervine et
impact with the plunge pool surface, d, = d„ al., 1997
di.
6. Estimate the mean air Ervine and

concentration of the jet at impact, B, H„ Falvey,
Ci. c, =-l + 5 where B: = 0.2
1987
;
7. Determine the underwater velocity Undeveloped jet Ervine and

at all points along the jet Falvey,
centreline trajectory, V. V = AVid;/L 1987
V = V, for L < Ad,
Undeveloped jet Bohrer et
al., 1998
— = 0.0675 + 0.1903
V;
V = V: for
Developed jet
In = 0.638 In
V = V, for In
0.638
Notes.
* Assumed energy loss on spillway surface of 5% for Peace Canyon and Seven Mile and 10%
for Portage Mountain and Revelstoke.
** Estimated turbulence intensity (Tu) of 5% for flip bucket jets.
*** Calculated from gravitational considerations only.
Nomenclature
Bi [--] = Ratio of air to water flow rate entering the plunge pool
C [--] = Jet turbulence parameter
Cd [--] = Drag coefficient
Ci [--] = Air concentration of the jet at impact with the plunge pool
surface
do [ft] = Initial jet thickness (at the exit of the flip bucket)
di [ft] = Jet thickness at impact with the plunge pool surface
E [ft] = Specific energy available at the exit of the flip bucket
Fo [--] = Initial Froude Number of jet
g [ft/s2] = Gravitational acceleration
Hd [ft] = Head drop from the bucket lip to the plunge pool surface
2
q [ft /s] = Spillway unit discharge (discharge per unit width)
L [ft] = Distance along the jet centreline trajectory beneath the
water surface
Lb [ft] = Jet breakup length
RF [ft/s] = Retardation factor (aerodynamic drag deceleration term)
Tu [--] = Turbulence intensity of jet
Vo [ft/s] = Initial jet velocity (at the exit of the flip bucket)
Vi [ft/s] = Jet velocity at impact with the plunge pool surface
V [ft/s] = Underwater velocity along the jet centreline trajectory
y [ft] = Elevation head at the exit of the flip bucket
0 [°] = Angle of flip bucket exit
® [ft] = Diameter of a sphere having the same volume as a water drop
pa [lbm/ft3] = Air density
pw [lbm/ft3] = Water density
Table 6.6. Jet Hydraulics - Basic Parameters
Scour q E 9 Vo do Hd ( Lb Hd/Lb Vi RF di 1Ci 1 6'
Data S e t 1 | [%]
[cfs/ft] [ft] [ft/s] [ft] [ft] [ft] (jet coherence) [ft/s] [ft/s] [ft]
| [°]
[°]
PCN80-3/4 470 | 110 20 | 82 . 1 5.3 6 .6 j 82 0.08 (undeveloped) 84 . 7 I 5.6 1 8 24

I
PCN80-5/6 [ 310 110 20 I 82.9 3.5 5.6 56 0.10 (undeveloped) ! 85.0 r~ 3.7 | 20 24
i i
PCN96-3
PCN96-5/6
| 810
| 360
120
| 120
20
20
84 . 3
| 86 . 3
9.0
3.9
8.6
5 . 9
| 133
| 62
0.06
0.09
(undeveloped)
(undeveloped)
| 87.5
| 88.5
| 9.4
4 .1
16
20
25
23
|i
SEV79-1/2 | 250 147 30 1 96 . 3 2.3 40 . 8 37 1.09 (developed) | 109 59 . 9 2.4 | 46 40
SEV80-1/2 | 510 151 30 | 96.7 I 4.6 31.2 73 J 0.43 107 5 .0 | 34 38

I (undeveloped)
s
SEV82-1/2
SEV97-1/2
| 570
| 620
150
164
30
30
J 96.2
| 101
I 5.1
5
30.5
23 . 6
!81
i 8 5
0.3 8
0.2 8
(undeveloped)
(undeveloped)
106
108
|
j
5 . 7
6.0 , 30
33 38
36
'4
1
I
SEV97-3 520 154 30 f~98 . 0 4.6 33.2 1 73 0.4 6 (undeveloped) | 108 j | 5.0 35 38
s
§
SEV97-4 100 154 30 I 99.4 0 . 9 31.0 | 15 2.08 (developed) 1 109 | 125 1.0 54 38
?
PMD72 [ 124 0 284 30 j 133 8 .0 244 | 129 1.89 (developed) j 183 j 519 | 7.9 52 51
1
!55
PMD96 900 270 30 130 6.0 | 233 98 2.3 9 (developed) | 179 533 5 . 9 51
REV84
s
I 190 195 0 | 112 1. 7 5 173 29 I 5.8 9 (developed) 154 431 1.5 | 67 43
REV86 J 330 j 233 122 2 .7 J" 1 6 1 " | 46 j 3.51 (developed) 159 | 430 2.4 40
0 6 1
1 1
| Notes.
| 1. Refer to Table 5.2 for a complete description of hydraulic conditions in each of the scour data sets.
| 2. Refer to Tables 6.5 and 5.1 for a description of parameters.
Table 6.7. Sensitivity Analysis of Erodibility Index
PREDICTED PLUNGE POOL FLOOR ELEVATION

SCOUR DATA SET OBSERVED
Low Typical I High
i '1
! K = 2 03 K = 12,600 K = 24,400
PEACE CANYON
P R = 53.8 PR = 1190 P R = 1950
PCN80-3/4 El. 1500 ft El. 1512 ft No scour El. 1458 ft
PCN80-5/6 El. 1501 ft El. 1512 ft No scour El. 1482 ft
PCN96-3 El. 1498 ft El. 1510 ft El. 1512 ft El. 1459 ft
PCN96-5/6 El. 1499 ft El. 1511 ft El. 1512 ft El. 1481 ft

j
K = 57 .4 K = 1,820 K = 16,800
SEVEN MILE
P R = 2 0.8 P R = 279 P R = 14 8 0
!
SEV79-1/2 El. 1474 ft i El. 1499 ft El. 1507 ft El. 1465 ft
SEV8 0-1/2 El. 1474 ft | El. 1504 ft El. 1513 ft El. 1462 ft
SEV82-1/2 El. 1474 ft I El. 1504 ft El. 1514 ft El. 1450 ft
SEV97-1/2 El. 1479 ft j El. 1510 ft El. 1520 ft j El. 1450 ft

1
SEV97-3 El. 1480 ft El. 1520 ft El. 1503 ft
! El. 1511 ft
SEV97-4 El. 1501 ft El. 1522 ft El. 1527 ft | El. 1523 ft

1 1 1
i " ::.: :: : v:/.:.:.:.:..:...: v...::.: i
PORTAGE K = 207 K = 3,710 K = 26,400
MOUNTAIN Pr = 54.5 P R = 476 P R = 2074
PMD72 El. 1544 ft El. 1600 ft El. 1621 ft El. 1520 ft
PMD96 El. 1565 ft j El. 1615 ft El. 1633 ft El. 1516 ft

' i
K = 1.76 I K = 114 K = 16,900
I REVELSTOKE
P R = 1.53 PR = 34.9 P R = 14 8 0
REV84 El. 1296 ft El. 1397 ft El. 1434 ft El. 1392 ft
REV86 El. 1278 ft El. 1399 ft El. 1443 ft El. 1380 ft

Notes.
K: Erodibility Index.
Pr: Power required to scour the bedrock; function of K.
THE ERODIBILITY INDEX METHOD - CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
Jj GEOTECHNICAL 2fj JET HYDRAULICS SCOUR DEPTH
Stream Power Stream Power Stream Power
-2.
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Erodibility Index, K
Figure 6.1. Conceptual Approach of the Erodibility Index Method in the Assessment of Plunge Pool Scour
PEACE CANYON
1540 -
S u b m e r g e d J e t Velocity Profile
1530 -
1520 -
1510 -
1500 -
1490 -
1480
.9 1470
(O
jj 1460 Scour Data Tailwater Impact
1450 Set Elevation Velocity
1440 PCN80-3/4 El. 1519 ft Vi: 84.7 ft/s

PCN80-5/6 El. 1519 ft Vi: 85.0 ft/s
1430 PCN96-3 El. 1519 ft Vi: 87.5 ft/s
PCN96-5/6 El. 1519 ft Vi: 88.5 ft/s
1420
1410
1400 I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I II I I l I II II I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Jet Centreline Velocity [ft/s]
1540
S u b m e r g e d J e t S t r e a m P o w e r Profile
1530
1520
1510
1500
1490
1480 —
.1 1470
(O
jy 1460 Scour Data Maximum Scour Depth El.
1450 Set Predicted . Observed
1440 PCN80-3/4 El. 1512 ft El. 1458 ft

PCN80-5/6 El. 1512 ft El. 1482 ft
1430 PCN96-3 El. 1510 ft El. 1459 ft
1420 PCN96-5/6 El. 1511 ft El. 1481 ft
1410
1400 | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i i| |II
i iiiii||iiiiiii i| |i IIi ii ii | i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Stream Power [KW/m2]
Figure 6.2. The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Peace Canyon
Plunge Pool
SEVEN MILE
1540
S u b m e r g e d Jet Velocity Profile
1530
1520
1510
1500
1490
1480
c
_o 1470 Scour Data Tailwater :—
Impact
a> 1460 Set Elevation Velocity E—
LLI
SEV79-1/2 El. 1516 ft Vi 109 ft/s E_
1450 SEV80-1/2 El. 1527 ft Vi 107 ft/s E
1440
SEV82-1/2 El. 1528 ft Vi 106 ft/s E—
SEV97-1/2 El. 1535 ft Vi 108 ft/s E
1430 SEV97-3 El. 1535 ft Vi 108 ft/s
SEV97-4 El. 1535 ft Vi 109 ft/s i
1420
1410
1400 111111111111111111111111111111111111111
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

1540
1530 S u b m e r g e d Jet S t r e a m P o w e r Profile

1520
1510
1500
1490
a 1480
c
_o 1470
Scour Data Maximum Scour Depth El.
J3 1460 Set Predicted Observed
1450 SEV79-1/2 El. 1499 ft El. 1465 ft

SEV80-1/2 El. 1504 ft El. 1462 ft
1440 SEV82-1/2 El. 1504 ft El. 1450 ft
1430 SEV97-1/2 El. 1510 ft El. 1450 ft
SEV97-3 El. 1511 ft El. 1503 ft
1420 SEV97-4 El. 1522 ft El. 1523 ft
1410
1400
i | > i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | ii i| II
i |i II
i ii i
| |i ii Mi i
i |
| i
i i i i
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
900 1000 1100 1200
Figure 6.3. The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Seven Mile Plunge
Pool
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN
Figure 6.4. The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Portage Mountain
Plunge Pool
REVELSTOKE
1460 —
_—
1450 —
Submerged Jet Velocity Profile
1440
1430 E—
1420 E—
1410 - -
E-
1400 —5 :—
ET - i
1390 —z E—
a 1380
o
'4-t
>
(U 1370
dJ
UJ 1360 -
1350 Scour Data Tailwater Impact

Set Elevation Velocity
1340
1330 REV84 El. 1448 ft Vi: 154 ft/s

z REV86 El. 1460 ft Vi: 159 ft/s -
1320 —
i—
1310 E—
1300 i
M i i | M i i | M 11 | 1 1 1 1 | 11111111111111111
111 |11 1 | 1 1 ! 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 | 11111111111111111111111
111| 1111| 1111|1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
1450 —-,
:
Submerged Jet Stream Power Profile i
1440 -
E
1430 i
1420 E—
:—
1410
i
1400
g 1390 E
-o
r
c 1380
o 73
<
>o 1370 - II E
Ul z—
33
LU 1360 —i lo -
1350 ; ÎI Scour Data Maximum Scour Depth El. -
ii
1340 —i * Set Predicted Observed
E—
1330 REV84 El. 1397 ft El. 1392 ft ~. .
REV86 El. 1399 ft El. 1380 ft

1320 —E - —
1310 —
E—
I
1300
i i i i | I Ii i j i i i i i i i i | II i i | i i i i | M i i | i M i | i i i i | i II i | i i M | M i i
c 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Figure 6.5. The Erodibility Index Method Applied to the Revelstoke Plunge
Pool
1620 -q
1600 -=
1580 -
Notes.
1560 - 1. Refer to Figures 6.2 to 6.5
for estimates of maximum scour
depth elevation.
1540 2. Refer to Table 5.2 for details
1520
c
.2
ro 1500
>
QJ
m
T3 1480
oi
Q.
E
o
U
1340 I I I I | I I II | I I I I | I II I | II II | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I II I | I I I I | I I I I | I II I | I
1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560 1580 1600 1620



PORTAGE MOUNTAIN
1660 —|
I I I I | I II I | M I I | I I I I| I I I I | I I I I| I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
1660 -q
1640 —
1620 -
1600 -
1580 - Predicted Maximum Scour Depth El.
c 1560 - Ervine and Falvey 1987: El. 1625 ft

+o
f-U»
& Bohrer et al. 1998 (Undeveloped): El. 1604 ft
1540 -
Bohrer et al. 1998 (Developed): El. 1615 ft
1520 -
Observed El. 1516 ft
1500 —
1480 —
1460 I I | I I I I | I I I I | II I I | I I I! | I I I I | I I I I | I I II | I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
1460
1450
1440
1430
1420
1410
1400
1390
c
o 1380
DATA SET: REV86
(D
1370 DEVELOPED JET
5
1360
1350 JET VELOCITY PROFILE

1340 Ervine and Falvey 1987
1330 Bohrer et al. 1998 (Undeveloped)
1320 Bohrer et al. (Developed)
1310
1300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
1460
1450
1440
1430
1420
1410
1400
1390
c 1380
o Observed El. 1380 ft
fD 1370
£
1360
1350
Predicted Maximum Scour Depth El.
1340
Ervine and Falvey 1987: El. 1432 ft
1330
Bohrer et al. 1998 (Undeveloped): El. 1389 ft
1320 Bohrer et al. 1998 (Developed): El. 1399 ft
1310
1300
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

1540
1530
1520
1510
1500
1490
1480
c
_o 1470
JS 1460
LU
1450
1440
1430
1420
1410
1400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
1540
1530
1520
1510
1500
1490 Vi = 108 ft/s: El. 1510 ft

Vi = 100 ft/s: El. 1514 ft
1480
Vi = 90 ft/s: El. 1519 ft
c
o 1470 Vi = 80 ft/s: El. 1523 ft
<u Vi = 70 ft/s: El. 1526 ft
J5 1460 Vi = 60 ft/s: El. 1529 ft
1450 Observed El. 1450 ft-
1440
1430
1420
1410
1400 i i i i | II i ii |i ii III | M ii|i ii i| i i M | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | M

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
PORTAGE MOUNTAIN




PORTAGE MOUNTAIN
1640 —
1620
1600 —
£7 1580 -
.1 1560 -
(D
>
CL>
1540 — |
1520 -
1500 —
1480 —
1460 ii 11 II 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111II11111111111

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
1660
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION
As part of this study on plunge pool scour, the plunge pool

performance at four of B.C. Hydro dam sites was reviewed with respect to
the spillway design, the plunge pool geology, and the spilling history.
Conventional methods of assessment of maximum scour depth such as
hydraulic model studies and empirical formulas were compared with a new
approach called the Erodibility Index Method. The main limitations,
conclusions, and recommendations of this study are discussed.
7.1 LIMITATIONS
When analyzing prototype observations with respect to plunge pool

scour, many factors are considered so that various uncertainties are
introduced. In particular, the representative spillway discharge to be
associated with a given episode of plunge pool development, the estimated
progression of scour from successive sounding surveys, and the
extrapolation of geological information to characterize the plunge pool
bedrock.
In general, the hydraulic records of spillway operation are available

and reliable, but uncertainties arise from the selection of representative
parameters to account for the observed scour. The quantitative analysis of
plunge pool scour requires the identification of a prevailing discharge
which formed the scour depth. Such discharge is ambiguous since the
observed plunge pool scour configuration, at any given time, is the result
of a unique combination of frequency and discharge magnitude/duration of
all prior spills. For the quantitative part of this study on plunge pool
scour, the observed maximum scour depth was associated with the preceding
most important spill and the maximum daily average discharge (discharge
averaged over a twenty-four hour period) of the spillway outflow
hydrograph was chosen as representative of the scour depth. Although this
approach is consistent with qualitative observations of scour rate on
prototypes (Section 4.4), the scouring power of the maximum daily average
discharge could be underestimated had the plunge pool equilibrium
conditions not been reached. Such might be the case for the 1972 spill at
Portage Mountain Project where the maximum daily average spill was an
isolated peak caused by high flows spillway testing. The value of daily
average discharge can also be deceptive when the gate operations are
irregular. For instance, the maximum daily average spillway discharge of
167,000 cfs recorded at Portage Mountain represents in fact a sustained
peak flow of 175,000 cfs for eleven hours preceded by thirteen hours of
continuous spill at 160,000 cfs. For most spills considered, the maximum
daily average discharge was representative of at least a few days of
spilling near this magnitude. The data of maximum spillway discharges
sustained for progressive periods of time in Tables 3.2, 3.5, 3.8, and
3.11 are a good indication of the fluctuations in spillway outflows. The
other hydraulic parameters of importance, i.e. the reservoir and tailwater
levels, were more constant with time and the mean elevation of the day was
used with confidence. In a few instances when the tailwater elevation had
not been recorded, the site tailwater rating curve (function of total
outflows) was used. The selection of representative hydraulic parameters
for the analysis of prototype scour development is a subjective task, but
decisions were based on careful observations and consistency.
For each plunge pool, the scour hole development was analyzed by means
of sounding surveys which involve some uncertainties. Although the depth
measurement from an echo sounder can be quite precise (within a foot), the
plan positioning accuracy can be more challenging depending on the method
used. The Global Positioning System technology was not available when the
first surveys were carried out and is not always functional in deep canyon
area. When a tag line with shore based control points is used, measuring
errors of approximately ± 3-6 ft can be encountered. The existing plunge
pool surveys for each site were often performed by different crews with
different instrumentation and means of positioning. The signal recorded by
the sonar beam is a reflection of the river bottom, without distinction
between sound bedrock and overlying loose rock or soil. The amount of
loose material trapped within the scour hole, if any, is unknown. Finally,
the sounding survey coverage can be limited by turbulent waters because
the excess of air bubbles interferes with the technology. Some limitations
with regard to plunge pool surveys are characteristic to each site in this
study:
• The accuracy of the plunge pool surveys performed at Peace Canyon

Dam is limited by the presence of loose material trapped inside the
scour hole and redistributed according to the spillway operation.
From the successive soundings, the plunge pool bottom elevation was
not shown to progress but it is likely that the maximum scour depth
to bedrock has.
• At Seven Mile Dam, none of the sounding surveys performed has
covered the main scour hole (downstream of the right chute)
satisfactorily in order to capture the entire geometry of the
depression and perhaps the lowest elevation. As for scour downstream
of the spillway left chute, the thirteen years that separate the two
available surveys prevent any evaluation of scour progression.
• The first sounding survey of the Portage Mountain plunge pool was
carried out almost nine months after the end of the initial spilling
period so that infilling of the scour hole was enhanced. No pre-
spill bathymetric survey of the plunge pool was undertaken at
Portage Mountain and the available riverbed topography was obtained
before the tailrace channel works.
• For many of the plunge pool surveys at Revelstoke Dam, the original
soundings record points were not available and the accuracy of the
interpreted contours maps is unknown. The survey of 1991 following
the most important spill on site was ineffective in the assessment
of scour depth because the plunge pool was filled with overburden.
For the monitoring of scour progression, sounding surveys of the plunge
pool should be carried out following each important spill, and cover the
entire area susceptible to scour. Since scouring is usually maximum in the
early years of spillway operation, a reference pre-spill survey of the
plunge pool is fundamental. Densification of the survey should allow a
single and accurate interpretation of elevation contours. Ideally, a plan
grid would be defined and followed for any subsequent survey. The use of
suitable geophysical techniques to determine the depth to bedrock is
necessary for a thorough assessment of plunge pool scour.
Information on the geology and geomechanical characteristics of the

plunge pool bedrock is limited. In general practice, engineering and
geological investigations are confined to the location area of the
structures to be erected. From preliminary design studies to dam safety
investigations, the Peace Canyon dam foundation has been drilled and
investigated extensively but the downstream riverbed subjected to the
spillway jet impact was omitted. As such, the downstream extent of
identified weakness features (the "hinge zone" and associated sub-channel)
remained uncertain and the geological condition of the plunge pool bedrock
was assumed to be that of the dam foundation. In the case of Seven Mile
Dam, extrapolation from foundation drill core logs is problematic since
the granite intrusion on which the dam is founded vanishes downstream of
the flip buckets and the bulk of the plunge pool is composed of argillite.
At Portage Mountain Project, the plunge pool geology was interpreted from
the site bedrock stratigraphy and the nearest drill hole of the riverbed
was located about 1,000 ft upstream of the spillway axis. Geological
information on the Revelstoke plunge pool was obtained from post
excavation inspection which revealed important weakness features
overlooked by the few exploratory drill holes. The plunge pool bedrock is
subject to intensive hydrodynamic action and the rock resistance to scour
is dependent on its properties. The plunge pool area should be included in
the geological investigations.
This study on plunge pool scour was based on the best information
available at the time. The limitations discussed above are common when it
comes to investigate plunge pool scour on prototypes. Complete reviews of
plunge pool performance with time and with respect to bedrock geology and
spilling history are seldom done because accurate details of spillway
discharge, head drop, tailwater depth, plunge pool geology, and scour
depth are difficult to come by. This study is very valuable in that
regard.
7.2 CONCLUSIONS
This study involved a review of plunge pool performance at four dam

sites of British Columbia with respect to site-specific factors such as
spillway design, plunge pool geology, and spilling history. One of the
objectives was to establish the relative influence of each factor on the
plunge pool development (Chapter IV) . The main• conclusions are repeated
here:
• The spillway layout does affect the plunge pool scour development,
mainly through the design unit discharge and total head drop for a
given outflow and reservoir level. The energy losses and cushioning
effect of air entrained on the spillway surface are negligible
relative to the remaining energy that dissipates into the plunge
pool. The spillway jet impingement angle induced by the design of
the terminal structure seems to affect the depth of scour, whereas
the effects of enhanced jet dispersion on the limitation of scour
depth are questionable.
• It is clear that the plunge pool scour configuration is affected by
the prevailing geological conditions. Scouring tends to initiate in
the weakness zones of the bedrock and can be limited by scour
resistant rock. The low resistance of peripheral rock with respect
to bottom rock directly impinged by the spillway jet is likely to
cause problematic conditions of plunge pool development (unconfined
conditions and/or asymmetry). The scour hole side slopes are
generally influenced by the jointing pattern of the bedrock.
• The magnitude of spillway flows seems to have a major impact on
plunge pool scour compared to the frequency and duration of spills.
Extended and/or repeated spills are not a condition to plunge pool
development. The bulk of the scour hole is generally formed
following the initial significant spill. In fact, the flow velocity
(associated with the head drop from reservoir to bucket lip) might
be predominant over the actual discharge in the early stages of
plunge pool development. Scour progression corresponds to an
increase in spillway flows.
• Observations support the concept of equilibrium conditions and
suggest that the maximum scour depth for a given discharge can be
attained within days.
• In any case, the plunge pool scour configuration results from the
spillway jet erosive power and geometry coupled with the resistance
and geological discontinuities of the bedrock.
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the Erodibility Index
Method for estimating plunge pool scour and see if there is an improvement
in accuracy when compared to conventional methods such as empirical
formulas and hydraulic model studies. The results of downstream scour
tests from small-scale model studies were comparable to prototype
observations in one of the four study cases (Section 5.1). The main
difficulty in modelling plunge pool scour in laboratory is the appropriate
scaling of bed material. The problem when using empirical equations to
estimate the maximum scour depth is the variability in results for a
single data set and the inconsistency of a given formula from one site to
another. Ten well-known formulas were tested and the standard error of
estimate varied from 16 ft for the Damle equation to 70 ft for the
Veronese expression (Figures 5.6 to 5.15). Despite a tendency for
underestimation, the Damle empirical formula was seen to give the best
combination of precision and accuracy in the prediction of plunge pool
scour depth at the four sites of study; accuracy of more than 60% should
however not be expected. The performance of the Erodibility Index Method
in the assessment of maximum scour depth was disappointing and did not
outclass the conventional methods. Even supposing an accurate bedrock
characterization and improved equations for the computation of jet
velocity profile, the use of the Erodibility Index Method is questionable.
The main weakness of the approach is that the vertical distribution of
power available for scour in the plunge pool is essentially related to the
submerged jet velocity profile which do not reflect the changing magnitude
of spillway discharges. The erodibility threshold relationship, which
forms the basis of the approach, was also derived from a majority of
observations on auxiliary earth channel spillways. The overall performance
of the Erodibility Index Method in the assessment of maximum scour depth
for four distinct plunge pools was characterized by a generalized tendency
for underestimation and a standard error of estimate of 53 ft.
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS
At this time, no new technology has been proven reliable for the
assessment of plunge pool scour. The Erodibility Index Method, even with a
refinement of equations to describe the jet hydraulics, is questionable.
Current effort is directed towards the numerical analysis of hydraulic
transients propagating through the discontinuities in the rock mass.
Simoes and Vargas (2001) proposed a hydromechanic, coupled analysis, using
the finite element method for the hydraulic problem, involving flow and
wave propagation in the fractures, and discrete element method for the
mechanical problem of block equilibrium. Bollaert (2002) (reported by
Schleiss, 2002) based his work on fully transient water pressures in rock
joints and developed a new model for the evaluation of the ultimate scour
depth which includes the hydrodynamic fracturing of closed-end rock joints
and dynamic uplift of rock blocks. Until these new approaches are tested
independently on an extensive database of known prototype scour
conditions, one must rely on the conventional methods of prediction. In
the feasibility design stage of a project, the scour tests results from
the hydraulic model studies should be used in conjunction with empirical
equations. Considering the great variability offered by the existing
equations, a careful selection should be based on the applicability of the
formula (ski-jump spillway vs free overfall) and its performance in
predicting scour depth in similar geological conditions. The engineering
decision could be based on a statistical analysis of results obtained from
the chosen empirical formulas, reinforced by the intuitive knowledge of
hydraulic action in the plunge pool gained from the small-scale model
studies. For an existing project with unforeseen plunge pool development,
complementary hydraulic model studies in which the bed material is
calibrated to the observed scour configuration are suggested to evaluate
future scour progression in response to higher spillway flows.
Even after a thorough review of plunge pool performance at Peace

Canyon Dam, Seven Mile Dam, Portage Mountain Project, and Revelstoke Dam,
and a careful analysis of different means of evaluation of maximum scour
depth, the plunge pool response to the Inflow Design Flood (IDF) can only
be assessed qualitatively:
• Since initial spilling at Peace Canyon Dam (1979/1980), the plunge
pool scour depth has not increased, although the largest spill on
site occurred in 1996. The maximum spillway discharge was recorded
in 1996 and reached 116,000 cfs, which represents 35% of the Inflow
Design Flood. The Peace Canyon plunge pool was seen to develop
laterally instead of in depth even with an increase in spillway
flows. The scour configuration downstream of spillway Bay 3 (El.
1459 ft) should be representative of the expected scour development
from the Inflow Design Flood since Gate 3 was fully open for one
month in 1996. Scour downstream of spillway Bays 1 and 2 is likely
to be deeper because of the steeper angle of the flip buckets (30°) .
The maximum scour depth elevation corresponding to the Inflow Design
Flood predicted by the Damle empirical formula (El. 1465 ft) is
above the current elevation.
• Since 1984, the major scour hole at Seven Mile Dam did not progress
either in depth or extent despite the reach of new historical limits
from the 1997 spill. The maximum spillway discharge recorded on site
reached 116,000 cfs which represents 31% of the Inflow Design Flood.
The 1997 survey of the Seven Mile plunge pool indicated minimum
elevations of 1450 ft and 1503 ft downstream of the right and left
chutes, respectively. The major scour hole is confined and effective
in containing spillway flows from the spillway right chute, whereas
the plunge pool configuration downstream of the spillway left chute
is not fully developed to contain a full discharge from the three
bays. The expected plunge pool bottom elevation to result from the
Inflow Design Flood using the Damle equation (El. 1461 ft) is above
the current low. The small-scale model studies suggest a minimum
bedrock elevation around El. 1450 ft downstream of the spillway left
chute.
The Portage Mountain plunge pool was submitted to large spillway
flows of 175,000 cfs (57% of the IDF) in the early years of
operation (1972). The plunge pool has remained relatively stable
since and the lowest elevation recorded from the 1996 soundings is
El. 1516 ft. The plunge pool is deep (more than 100 ft) and confined
and is therefore efficient in containing spillway flows and
dissipating the excess of energy. The Damle empirical formula
predicts a maximum scour depth at El. 1441 ft for the Inflow Design
Flood conditions.
The plunge pool at Revelstoke Dam is still immature since the
spillway has been used with restraint over the years. The spillway
discharge reached a peak of 70,000 cfs (28% of the IDF) for a few
minutes as part of the 1986 spillway tests, after which the plunge
pool was scoured down to El. 1380 ft. The Revelstoke plunge pool is
known to respond rapidly to increases in spillway discharges and its
performance is jeopardized by unconfined conditions. The maximum
scour depth associated with the Inflow Design Flood is estimated at
El. 1317 ft according to the Damle empirical formula. The hydraulic
model studies included scour tests up to a spillway discharge of
about half the Inflow Design Flood and the maximum equilibrium depth
of scour was observed near El. 1310-1320 ft.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
PAPERS
Akhmedov, T.Kh. 1988. Calculation of the Depth of Scour in Rock Downstream

of a Spillway. Water Power and Dam Construction 40 (December): 25-27.
Annandale, G.W. 1994. Taking the Scour Out of Water Power. International
Water Power and Dam Construction 46 (November): 46-49.
Annandale, G.W. 1995. Erodibility. Journal of Hydraulic Research 33

(April): 471-493.
Annandale, G.W., S.P. Smith, R. Nairns, and J.S. Jones. 1996. Scour Power.
Civil Engineering, July, 58-60.
Annandale, G.W., T.M. Lewis, R.J. Wittier, S.R. Abt, and J.F. Ruff. 1997.
Dam Foundation Erosion: Numerical Modeling. In Energy and Water:
Sustainable Development: Proceedings of the XXVII IAHR Congress Held in
San Francisco, California, 10-15 August 1997, Theme D, edited by F.M
Holly and A. Alsaffar, theme editor J.S. Gulliver, 429-434. New York
(NY): ASCE.
Annandale, G.W., R.J. Wittier, J.F. Ruff and T.M. Lewis. 1998. Prototype
Validation of Erodibility Index for Scour in Fractured Rock Media.
Proceedings of the 1998 ASCE International Water Resources Engineering
Conference Held in Memphis, Tennessee, 3-7 August 1998, 1096-1101.
Annandale, G.W. 2002b. Quantification of the Relative Ability of Rock to

Resist Scour. In Rock Scour Due to Falling High-Velocity Jets:
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rock Scour Held in
Lausanne, Switzerland, September 25-28, edited by A.J. Schleiss and E.
Bollaert, 201-212. Lisse (Switzerland): Swets and Zeitlinger.
Annandale, G.W. 2002c. Quantification of Extent of Scour Using the

Erodibility Index Method. In Rock Scour Due to Falling High-Velocity
Jets: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rock Scour Held in
Lausanne, Switzerland, September 25-28, edited by A.J. Schleiss and E.
Bollaert, 63-72. Lisse (Switzerland): Swets and Zeitlinger.
Bin, A.K. 1984. Air Entrainment by Plunging Liquid Jet. In IAHR Symposium
on Scale Effects in Modeling Hydraulic Structures Held in Esslingen,
West Germany, September 3-6, edited by H. Kobus, 5.5-1-5.5-6.
Bohrer, J.G., S.R. Abt, and R.J. Wittier. 1998. Predicting Plunge Pool
Velocity Decay of Free Falling, Rectangular Jet. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 124 (October): 1043-1048.
Bollaert, E. 2002. Transient Water Pressures in Joints and Formation of

Rock Scour Due to High-Velocity Jet Impact. Communication No. 13 of the
Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions (LHC), EPFL, Lausanne.
Breusers, H.N.C., and A.J. Raudkivi. 1991. Scouring. IAHR Hydraulic

Structures Design Manual 2. Rotterdam (Netherlands): A.A. Balkema.
Chaudhry, M.H. 1993. Open-Channel Flow. New Jersey (NY): Prentice-Hall.

Chian Min Wu. 1973. Scour at Downstream End of Dams in Taiwan. Proceedings
of the IAHR Symposium on River Mechanics Held in Bangkok, Thailand,
paper A13.
Da Cunha, L.V., and Lencastre, A.C. 1966. La dissipation de l'energie dans

un evacuateur en saut de ski. Observation de 1'erosion. Laboratorio
Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisboa, Portugal. Publication No. 288.
Damle, P.M. et al. 1966. Evaluation of Scour Below Ski-Jump Buckets of

Spillways. Proceedings of the Golden Jubilee Symposium Held in Poona,
India, 154-163.
Davies, T.W., and M.K. Jackson. 1982. Optimum Conditions for the Hydraulic
Mining of China Clay. Proceedings of the First U.S. Water Jet
Conference Held in Golden, Colorado, 7-9 April 1981, 129-146. Golden
(CO): Colorado School of Mines Press.
Davies, T.W., and M.K. Jackson, n.d. Nozzle Design for Coherent Water Jet
Production. Exeter (U.K.): Exeter University, Department of Chemical
Engineering.
Elevatorski E.A. 1959. Hydraulic Energy Dissipators. New York (NY):

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
Ervine, D.A., E. McKeogh, and E.M. Elsawy. 1980. Effect of Turbulence

Intensity on the Rate of Air Entrainment by Plunging Water Jets.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 69 (June):
425-445.
Ervine, D.A., and H.T. Falvey. 1987. Behaviour of Turbulent Water Jets in
the Atmosphere and in Plunge Pools. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Part 2, 83 (March): 295-314.
Ervine, D.A., H.T. Falvey, and W. Withers. 1997. Pressure Fluctuations on

Plunge Pool Floors. Journal of Hydraulic Research 35 (February): 257-
279.
Fiorotto, V. and A. Rinaldo. 1992. Turbulent Pressure Fluctuations Under

Hydraulic Jumps. Journal of Hydraulic Research 30 (April): 499-520.
Galvagno, G. 1998. A Study of Scour Below Ruskin Dam Spillway Using a Non-
Cohesive Bed Hydraulic Model. M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British
Columbia.
George, R.L. 1980. Impinging Jets. Denver (CO): Engineering and Research
Center, Water and Power Resources Service. REC-ERC-80-8.
Golder Associates. 2001. GoldDFE 1.0 - User Manual.
Hager, W. H. 1998. Forum Article - Plunge Pool Scour: Early History and
Hydraulicians. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124 (December): 1185-
1187 .
Hamilton, K.J., S.R. Abt, R.J. Wittier, and G.W. Annandale. 1997. Erosion
at Dam Foundations: Plunge Pool Circulation. Proceedings of the
Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference Held in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 7-10 September 1997, 693-702.
Hartung, F. 1959. Die kolkbildung hinter iiberstromten wehren im hinblick
auf eine bewegliche sturzbettgestaltung. Die Wasserwirtshaft 49(1):
309-313. In German.
Hartung, F., and E. Hausler. 1973. Scours, Stilling Basins and Downstream
Protection Under Free Overfall Jets at Dams. Transactions of the 11th
International Congress on Large Dams Held in Madrid, Spain, 11-15 June
1973, 39-56.
Henderson, F.M. 1966. Open Channel Flow. New York: Macmillan.
Jaeger, C. 1939. Uber die Ahnlichkeit bei flussbaulichen Modellversuchen

[On Similarity for River Engineering Experiments]. Wasserkraft und
Wasserwirtschaft 34(23/24): 269-270. In German.
Johnson, R.E and S. Alam. 1969. Spillway - Part 2. Engineering Journal,

October, 82-87.
Johnson, P.L. 1974. Hydraulic Model Studies of Plunge Basins for Jet Flow.
Denver (CO) : Engineering and Research Center, Bureau of Reclamation.
REC-ERC-74-9.
Kirsten, H.A.D. 1982. A Classification System for Excavation in Natural

Materials. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, July, 293-308.
Lewis, T.L., S.R. Abt, J.F. Ruff, R.J. Wittier, and G.W. Annandale. 1996.
Erosion at Dam Foundations: Predicting Jet Velocities. Proceedings of
the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference Held in
Seattle, Washington, 8-11 September 1996, 437-446.
Liu, P.Q., J.R. Dong, and C. Yu. 1998. Experimental Investigation of

Fluctuation Uplift on Rock Blocks at the Bottom of the Scour Pool
Downstream of Three-Gorges Spillway. Journal of Hydraulic Research 36
(January): 55-68.
Lowe III, J., P.C. Chao, and A.R. Luecker. 1979. Tarbela Service Spillway
Plunge Pool Development. Water Power and Dam Construction 31
(November): 85-90.
Manitoba Hydro. 1970. Stabilization of Spillway Scour Hole at Grand

Rapids, Manitoba. Presented to the Hydraulic Power Section - Canadian
Electrical Association in Winnipeg, Canada, September 1970.
Martins, R.B.F. 1975. Scouring of Rocky River Beds by Free Jet Spillways.
Water Power and Dam Construction 27 (April): 152-153.
Mason, P.J. 1984. Erosion of Plunge Pools Downstream of Dams Due to the
Action of Free-Trajectory Jets. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Part I, 76 (May): 523-537.
Mason, P.J. 1985. Discussion on "Erosion of Plunge Pools Downstream of

Dams Due to the Action of Free-Trajectory Jets" by P.J. Mason, 1984.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part I, 78 (August):
991-999.
Mason, P.J., and K. Arumugam. 1985. Free Jet Scour Below Dams and Flip
Buckets. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 111 (February): 220-235.
Mason, P.J. 198 9. Effects of Air Entrainment on Plunge Pool Scour. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 115 (March): 385-399.
Mason, P.J. 1989. Closure of Discussion on "Effects of Air Entrainment on

Plunge Pool Scour" by P.J. Mason, 1989. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering: 262-265.
Mason, P.J. 1993. Practical Guidelines for the Design of Flip Buckets and
Plunge Pools. Water Power and Daw Construction 45 (September/October):
40-45.
Novak, 1985. Discussion on "Erosion of Plunge Pools Downstream of Dams Due

to the Action of Free-Trajectory Jets" by P.J. Mason, 1984. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part I, 78 (August): 991-999.
Otto, B. 1986. Study of Scour Potential at Burdekin Falls Dam Due to Rock
Stresses. Queensland Water Resources Commission.
Prochukhan, D.P., S.A Fried, and L.K. Domansky. 1971. The Rock Foundation
of Hydraulic Structures. Stroiizdat, Moscow.
Quintela, A.C., J.S. Fernandes, and A.A. Da Cruz. 1979. Barrage de Cahora-
Bassa. Problemes poses par le passage des crues pendant et apres la
construction. Transactions du Treizieme Congres des Grands Barrages
tenu a New Delhi, India, 713-730.
Ramos, C.M. 1982. Energy Dissipation in Free Jet Spillways. Transaction of

the International Symposium on the Layout of Dams in Narrow Gorges,
I.C.O.L.D., Brazil.
Schleiss, A.J. 2 002. Scour Evaluation in Space and Time - The Challenge of
Dam Designers. In Rock Scour Due to Falling High-Velocity Jets:
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rock Scour in Lausanne,
Switzerland, September 25-28, edited by A.J. Schleiss and E. Bollaert,
3-22. Lisse (Switzerland): Swets and Zeitlinger.
Shixia W. 1987. Scouring of Riverbeds below Sluices and Dams. In Design of

Hydraulic Structures: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Design of Hydraulic Structures Held at Colorado State University August
24-27 1987, edited by A.R. Kia and M.L. Albertson, 295-304.
Simoes, G.F., and E.do A. Vargas JR. 2001. Analysis of Erosion Processes
Downstream of Spillways in Large Dams. Proceedings of the 38th U.S. Rock
Mechanics Symposium Held in Washington, D.C., 7-10 July 2001, 959-966.
Spurr, K.J.W. 1985. Energy Approach to Estimating Scour Downstream of a

Large Dam. Water Power and Dam Construction 37 (July): 81-89.
Sutcliff H. 1985. Discussion of "Erosion of Plunge Pools Downstream of

Dams Due to the Action of Free-Trajectory Jets", by P.J. Mason, 1984.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part I, 78 (August):
991-999.
Taraimovich, I.I. 1978. Deformations of Channels below High-Head Spillways

on Rock Foundations. Hydrotechnical Construction No. 9 (September):
917-923 .
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1973. Design of Small Dams, 2nd Edition.
Denver: Water Resources Technical Publication.
Veronese, A. 1937. Erosioni di fondo a valle di un scarico [Bottom

Erosions Downstream of a Dam] . Annali dei Lavori Pubblici 75(9) : 717-
726. In Italian.
Whittaker, J.G., and A. Schleiss. 1984. Scour Related to Energy

Dissipators for High Head Structures. Zurich (Switzerland): VAW
Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology, and Glaciology/Federal Institute
of Technology ETH. Mitt. Nr. 73. VAW/ETH.
Wittier, R.J., J.F. Ruff, S.R. Abt, G.W. Annandale, B.W. Mefford, K.
Adhya, and D. Morris. 1995. Dam Foundation Erosion: 1994 Year End
Summary Report. Denver (CO) : US Bureau of Reclamation Water Resources
Research Laboratory.
Wittier, R.J., B.W. Mefford, S.R. Abt, J.F. Ruff, and G.W. Annandale.
1995. Spillway and Foundation Erosion: Estimating Progressive Erosion
Extents. Proceedings of Waterpower'95 Held in San Francisco,
California, 25-28 July 1995, 1706-1714.
Wittier R.J., G.W. Annandale, S.R. Abt, and J.F. Ruff. 1998. New
Technology for Estimating Plunge Pool or Spillway Scour. Proceedings of
Association of St-citZG D3.ni S3.fs ty Off i. ci 3 2. st D3.n\ Ss.f s t y' 98, Hq 2. c?
Vegas, Nevada, 11-15 October 1998, 755-766.
Wittier R.J., G.W. Annandale, J.F. Ruff, and S.R. Abt. 1998. Prototype
Validation of Erodibility Index for Scour in Granular Media.
Proceedings of the 1998 International Water Resources Engineering
Conference Held in Memphis, Tennessee, 3-7 August 1998, 1090-1095.
Yang, C.T. and A. Molinas. 1982. Sediment Transport and Unit Stream Power
Function. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 108, HY.6: 774-793.
Yildiz D., and E. Uziicek. 1994. Prediction of Scour Depth from Free
Falling Flip Bucket Jets. International Water Power and Dam
Construction 46 (November): 50-56.
BC HYDRO REPORTS
Peace Canyon Dam
BCH Report No. 354: Report of Laboratory Testing on Rock Core Samples /
Peace River Project (by Ripley and Associates). June 1959.
BCH Report No. H715: Peace River Site 1 Development / Detail Spillway
Hydraulic Model Studies (by Lasalle Hydraulic Laboratory Ltd.).
December 1970.
BCH Report No. 822 - Appendix A: Site 1 Dam / Engineering Geology of

Foundation Bedrock of Dam-Powerhouse-Spillway (Phase A) (by Dolmage
Campbell & Associates Ltd.). December 1976.
BCH Report No. 966: Peace River / Site 1 Project / Gravity Dam and
Spillway Foundation Report. December 1978.
BCH Report No. HY296: Peace Canyon Project / Review of Spillway Scour
Potential. February 1985.
BCH Report No. GEO 9/85: Peace Canyon Project / Memorandum on Plunge Pool
Development. July 1985.
BCH Report No. H1879: Peace Canyon Project / Deficiency Investigations /

Spillway Scour / Status March 1986. November 1986.
BCH Report No. H1742: Peace Canyon Dam / Design Report. December 1987.
BCH Report No. H2 003: Williston Lake / Probable Maximum Flood. June 1988.
BCH Report No. H2767: Peace Canyon Dam / Comprehensive Inspection and
Review 1993. November 1994.
BCH File No. C-PCN-1206.12: Peace Canyon Plunge Pool, Spillway and
Tailrace Channel Inspection. June 1997.
BCH Report No. OMSPCN/03: Peace Canyon Dam / Operation, Maintenance and
Surveillance Manual for Dam Safety. February 2001.
Seven Mile Dam
BCH Report No. 750: Pend d'Oreille River / Seven Mile Project / Summary of
Information for Advisory Board Meeting No.1. June 1975.
BCH Report No. N68: Addendum to Final Report / Detailed Comprehensive

Hydraulic Model Studies of Seven Mile Project / Pend d'Oreille River
(by Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratory Ltd). November 1976.
BCH Report No. H1743: Seven Mile Dam / Design Report. August 1988.
BCH Report No. H2062: Seven Mile Dam / Deficiency Investigations. March
1990 .
BCH System Operating Order No.4P-36: Seven Mile Project. May 1997.
BCH Report No. MEP507: Seven Mile Dam / Deficiency Investigations /

Spillway Adequacy for Extreme Floods (by Klohn-Crippen Integ and NHC) .
March 1999.
BCH Report No. PSE362: Seven Mile Dam / Dam Safety Improvements /
Auxiliary Spillway / 1999-2000 Investigations Report. May 2001.
BCH Report No. PSE401: Seven Mile Dam / Dam Safety Improvements / Working
Dam Foundation Summary (Draft). October 2001.
BCH Report No. N1926: Seven Mile Dam / Plunge Pool Scour Report. March
2002 .
Portage Mountain Project
BCH Report No. 150: First Report of Laboratory Testing on Soil and Rock
Samples / Peace River Project (by Ripley and Associates). June 1958.
BCH Report No. 31: Report of Laboratory Testing on Rock Core Samples /
Peace River Project (by Ripley and Associates). July 1959.
B.C. and B.B. Power Consultants Limited. Report on the Peace River Hydro-
Electric Project Vol. II - Appendix A2.1: Geological Report #3 /
Portage Mountain Site (by D. Campbell). June 1959.
B.C. and B.B. Power Consultants Limited. Report on the Peace River Hydro-
Electric Project Vol. II - Appendix A2.3: Geology of Portage Mountain
Dam Site (by V. Dolmage). June 1959.
BCH File No. 003805546: Laboratory Testing of Rock Cores / Portage

Mountain Project (by Coast Eldridge). June 1965.
IPEC Report No. H692: Portage Mountain Development / W.A.C. Bennett Dam /
1972 Spillway Tests. July 1973.
BCH Report No. H1756: Portage Mountain Development / Design Report.

October 1988.
BCH Report No. H2417A: W.A.C. Bennett Dam / Comprehensive Inspection and
Review 1990 / Hydrotechnical. October 1992.
BCH Report No. OMSGMS/03: W.A.C. Bennett Dam / Operation, Maintenance and
Surveillance Manuel for Dam Safety. January 2001.
Revelstoke
BCH Report No. 664: High Revelstoke Versus Downie - Low Revelstoke /
Feasibility Study. January 1973.
BCH Report No. 746: Revelstoke Project / Spillway Design Flood. March
1975 .
BCH Report No. 786: Revelstoke Project Preliminary Design Study /

Foundation Investigations. April 1976.
BCH File No.15-2-57: 1976 Testing Program / Revelstoke Project (Rock) /

Laboratory Test Results - Vol II (by Thurber Consultants Ltd.). 1976
BCH Report No. H1204: Memorandum on In Situ Rock Investigations 1978-1979.

March 1980.
BCH Report No. H1624: Summary of Information for Advisory Board Meeting
No. 11. June 1983.
BCH Report No. 2278: Report on Revelstoke Project / Spillway Plunge Pool
Model Study (by Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories Ltd.). August
1983 .
BCH Report No. H1907: Revelstoke Project / Spillway Freeboard Tests.

October 1986.
BCH Report No. H1864: Revelstoke Project / Design Report. February 1988.
BCH Report No. HYD.943: A Fact Finding Report on the Failure of Revelstoke
Powerhouse Access Road During the August 1991 Flood - Draft. November
1991.
BCH Report No. N1315: Report on Overwater Acoustic Profiling and Seismic
Refraction Survey / Revelstoke Dam - Access Road Replacement Project.
January 1992.
BCH Local Operating Order No. 3P03-47: REV - Outlet Works and Spillway
Operation (Non Power Water Discharges). March 2000.
Appendix I
Erodibility Index Charts
ERODIBILITY INDEX CHARTS
Erodibility Index. K
K = Ms- Kb • Kd • Js where Kb = RQD/Jn

Kd = JrjJa
T h e R o c k Q u a l i t y D e s i g n a t i o n ( R Q D ) is a s t a n d a r d p a r a m e t e r in drill c o r e l o g g i n g a n d is c a l c u l a t e d a s
the ratio (in p e r c e n t ) of the c u m u l a t i v e length of all p i e c e s of c o r e g r e a t e r than 10 c m to the total
length of the c o r e run. T h e other p a r a m e t e r s a r e d e f i n e d in the following t a b l e s from A n n a n d a l e
(1995).
T a b l e 1. M a s s S t r e n g t h N u m b e r for R o c k s ( M s )
Unconfined Mass
Hardness Identification in Profile Compressive Strength
Strength Number
(MPa) (Ms)
Very soft Material crumbles under firm (moderate) blows with sharp < 1.7 0.87
rock end of geological pick and can be peeled off with a knife; is
too hard to cut triaxial sample by hand. 1.7-3.3 1.86
Soft rock C a n just be scraped and peeled with a knife; indentations 1 3.3-6.6 3.95
mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with firm (moderate)
blows of the pick point. I 6.6-13.2 8.39
r
Hard rock Cannot be scraped or peeled with a knife; hand-held j 13.2-26.4 17.70
specimen can be broken with hammer end of geological I
pick with a single firm (moderate) blow. I
Very hard Hand-held specimen breaks with hammer end of pick under j 26.4-53.0 35.0
rock more than one blow. 53.0-106.0 70.0
Extremely Specimen requires many blows with geological pick to >212.0 280.0
hard rock break through intact material.
Note.
The value of Ms for rock can be determined by equating it to the unconfined compressive strength in MPa if the strength is
greater than 10 MPa, and equal to 0.78*UCS 1 0 5 when the strength is less than 10 MPa.
T a b l e 2. M a s s S t r e n g t h N u m b e r for G r a n u l a r S o i l s ( M s )
Mass
Consistency Identification in profile SPT B l o w Strength
Count Number
(Ms)
^ e r y loose Crumbles very easily when scraped with geological pick. 0-4 0.02
Loose Small resistance to penetration by sharp end of geological 4-10 0.04
pick.
Medium Considerable resistance to penetration by sharp end of 10-30 0.09
dense geological pick.
Dense Very high resistance to penetration by sharp end of 30-50 0.19
geological pick - requires many blows of pick for excavation.
Very dense High resistance to repeated blows of geological pick - 50-80 0.41
requires power tools for excavation.
Note.
Granular materials in which the SPT blow count exceeds 80 to be taken as rock - see Table 1.
Table 3. Joint Set Number (Jn)
Number of J o i n t Sets J o i n t Set Number
(Jn)
Intact, no or few joints/fissures 1.00
One joint/fissure set 1,22
One joint/fissure set plus random 1.50
Two joint/fissure sets 1.83
Two joint/fissure sets plus random 2.24
Three joint/fissure sets 2.73
Three joint/fissure sets plus random i 3.34
Four joint/fissure sets j 4.09
Multiple joint/fissure sets ! 5.00
Note.
For intact granular materials take Jn = 5.00.
Table 4. Relative Ground Structure Number (Js)

Dip direction Dip angle of
of closer closer spaced Ratio of J o i n t Spacing, r
spaced j o i n t j o i n t set 1:1 1:2 1:4 1:8
set O 0
180/0 90 1.14 [ ] 20 1.24 | "L26
In direction of 89 0.78 0.71 0.65 0.61
stream flow 85 0.73 0.66 0.61 0.57
80 0.67 0.60 0.55 0.52
70 0.56 0.50 0.46 0.43
60 0.50 0.46 0.42 0.40
50 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.41
40 0.53 0.49 0.46 0.45
30 0.63 0.59 0.55 0.53
20 0.84 0.77 0.71 0.67
10 1.25 1.10 0.98 0.90
5 1.39 1.23 1.09 1.01
1 1.50 1.33 1.19 1.10
0/180 0 1.14 I 1.09 1.05 1.02
Against 1 0.78 0.85 0.90 0.94
direction of 5 0.73 0.79 0.84 0.88
stream flow 10 0.67 0.72 0.78 0.81
20 0.56 0.62 0.66 0.69
30 0.50 0.55 0.58 0.60
40 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.57
50 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.61
60 0.63 0.68 0.71 0.73
70 0.84 0.91 0.97 1.01
80 1.26 1.41 1.53 1.61
85 1.39 1.55 1.69 1.77
89 1.50 1.68 1.82 1.91
180/0 90 1.14 1.20 | 1.24
Notes.
1. For intact material take Js = 1.
2. For values of r greater than 8 take Js as for r = 8.
Table 5. Joint Roughness Number (Jr)
J o i n t Roughness
J o i n t Separation Condition of J o i n t Number
(Jr)
Joints/fissures tight Discontinuous joints/fissures 4.0
or closing during Rough or irregular, undulating 3.0
excavation
Smooth undulating 2.0
| Slickensided undulating 1.5
I Rough or irregular, planar 1.5
| Smooth planar 1.0
i Slickensided planar 0.5
Joints/fissures open Joints/fissures either open or containing relatively 1.0
and remain open soft gouge or sufficient thickness to prevent
during excavation joint/fissure wall contact upon excavation
Shattered or micro-shattered clays 1.0
Notes.
1. For intact granular material take Jr = 3.0.
2. For granular materials, the quotient Jr/Ja crudely approximates tan (<f>r), where 4>r is the equivalent residual
friction angle.
Table 6. Joint Alteration Number (Ja)

J o i n t Alteration Number (Ja)
Description of Gouge for J o i n t Separation (mm)
<1.0 1 1.0-5.02 > 5.0 3
Tightly healed, hard, non-softening impermeable 0.75 — —
filling
Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only 1.0 — —
Slightly altered, non-softening, non-cohesive rock 2.0 2.0 4.0

mineral or crushed rock filling
Non-softening, slightly clayey non-cohesive filling 3.0 r 6.o 10.0
4
Non-softening, strongly over-consolidated clay 3.0 6.0 10.0
mineral filling, with or without crushed rock
Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings and 4.0 8.0 13.0
small quantities of swelling clays
Softening moderately over-consolidated clay mineral 4.0 8.0 4 13.0
filling, with or without crushed rock
Shattered or micro-shattered (swelling) clay gouge, 5.0 10.0 4 18.0
with or without crushed rock
Notes.
1. Joint walls effectively in contact.
2. Joint walls come into contact after approximately 100 mm of shear.
3. Joint walls do not come into contact at all upon shear.
4. Also applies when crushed rock occurs in clay gouge without rock wall contact.
5. For granular materials, the quotient Jr/Ja crudely approximates tan (4»r), where <>
j r is the equivalent residual
friction angle.
Appendix II
Plunge Pool Surveys
List of Drawings Attached
Peace Canyon Dam

1007-C14-X8423 Soundings Taken in Plunge Pool Area - April 15/80
1007-C14-U8440 Soundings Taken in Plunge Pool Area - Sept 5/81
1007-C14-D44 71 Plunge Pool Elevations & Contours Before 1983 Spill -

April 1983
1007-C14-D44 72 Plunge Pool Elevations & Contours After 1983 Spill-

Oct 1983
1007-C14-D4 54 4 Depth Sounding and Video Camera Survey of Plunge Pool

Oct 7-9, 1985
Unlabeled Depth Sounding Survey of Plunge Pool - July 22, 1987
1007-C11-D1983 Plunge Pool Bathymetric Survey After Spilling on August

4 1996
Seven Mile Dam

224-C11-E7024 Spillway Plunge Pool / Rock Contours Before Spillway
Operation (Survey taken before 30 Oct 1979)
224-C11-D192/ Spillway Plunge Pool / Elevations After Spilling to

D7025 Dec 14, 1979
Unlabeled Survey of Tailrace Channel on 7 Aug. 1980
224-Cll-D117 Tailrace Soundings Survey /August 1982
224-Cll-D119 Tailrace Soundings Survey / September 2 0 t h , 1984
224-C22-D2 Tailrace Soundings Survey / October 15 th , 1986

-C11-D116
Unlabeled Tailrace Soundings - Oct. 1988 / Plan
224-C11-U217 3D Topography / River Soundings - Surveyed Oct 1997 /

Plan
Portage Mountain Project

1006-C14-B1262 GMS Spillway Scour Hole After First Spill Event 13 June
1972 to 3 September 1972 - Underwater Contour Plan
10 06-C11-D1107 Spillway - Plunge Pool Bathymetric Survey - 1996

212-C21-D7126 Spillway Plunge Pool / As Excavated by CR-6 and CR-4
Prior to Use of Spillway
212-C14-B4371 Section Along Centreline of Spillway Plunge Pool
212-C21-D7125 Spillway Plunge Pool / Sounding Survey Taken 15 May 1984

Following Initial Spillway Operation
212-C21-D134 Survey of River Channel Immediately Downstream of Plunge
Pool Following Spill Tests 11 to 14 August 1986
212-C14-C5579 Revelstoke Plunge Pool / Bathymetry Data / September 22 nd

1991
212-C14-C5580 Revelstoke Plunge Pool / Overburden Isopach Plan

N
to
o
(_n
/
X
TOE OF RANiOOM ROCK.FIU-
DAAWI\G Nc. '.V4S B2:
A/or*: OCT 30j~19

n 1 -.1™ 8KT-SH COLUMSIA aOW UH'POWp'AU7H0WT
—•! . • S U C H Mitt '
-j — i
.'.S Pi wb&Ar. Pt-UOKlt^Fioi. ' . ;, JJ '
1
•Mii'-'-j:• ' OitiiimM. •• • ••
-fcr-i— : I-. - 224 —CI 1 - E 7 0 2 4
J I I L -1100
-1000
-900
V)
CD
800 o'
-700
-600
-500
1200 2100
Line [ft]
SEVEN MILE DAM
SURVEY OF TAILRACE CHANNEL
ON 7 AUG. 1980
Reference Drawing No. 224-C17-X7016
1000
900
cn
Q)
i—t-
800 o"
13
700
600
500
1200 1700 2200
Line [ft] SEVEN MILE DAM
TAILRACE SOUNDINGS - OCT. 1988
PLAN
Reference Drawing Nos. 224-C22-D6 to D9
t TOO Reference line
1630
% 1600
a
I* 13 SO
ISOO
SECTION LA
NOTES
/. Sounding undertaken on Hay IS and Uay 16, 1973
by Burnett Resource Surveys Ltd.
( Owg No. IOOS - C26- D! )
2. Dotted contours taken from IPEC
Dwg No. U-3040-II35 (June 1969 )
Very shallow, rocks and

boulders above Water Lint
Stele too too 200 300 reel
KL0HN-CR1PPEN 1NTEQ
BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
GMS TAILRACE WEIR AND DOWNSTREAM RIVER

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT - RESOURCE SMART
GMS SPILLWAY SCOUR HOLE AFTER FIRST n
SPILL EVENT 13 JUNE 1972 TO 3 SEPTEMBER
1972 - UNDERWATER CONTOUR PLAN
FIG. 2 - 3
OATE
mi
FEB 1993
D. Y. /HCP OWO Ma I 0 0 6 - C I 4 - B I 2 6 2
REPORT No. KCt 139 (H2709! _
215
E 48600.000 E 48700.000 E 48900.000 E 49000. 000 E 49100.000
+ + + +
Stc 33+43. 42 N 1800. 000
E 48800.000
0*00 r 8
-)-N 1700.000
A
IP t 6 M
B E R M
-j- N 1600. 000
TMs Survey was done by Survey

& Photogrammetry on 4 Aug 1996.
Contour Interval 2.0m.
Water Elevation 500.2m (approx).
Coordinates are on tne Dam Construction Datum.
Elevations are Geoaetic.
N 1500.000
+
I *«JNCTI0NAI CvCE
1 2. 07
C«*»N PPOJECT NO
C. 0. B.
S2 BChydro
CMCCICO INSPECTED SLRvEr anO PhOTOCRaumCTRi CEPaATwCnT
G. M. SHR'JM GENERATING S T A T I O N
l*SPeCT£0 :.NSP£CTE0
Spillway - Piange Pool
inspected NTS fi£?. Ba+hyme+ric Survey - 1996
93016
OAIE 5C't£ i:2ooo " 1 0 0 6 - C t l - D i l O T i"
DCS nico BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
MW COLUMBIA R I V E R - R E V E L S T O K E PROJECT
CCA (TtCK)
CMKD WfO
SPILLWAY PLUNGE POOL
IMP AWO
SOUNDING SURVEY TAKEN 15 MAY 1984
I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 OATI
'FOLLOWING INITIAL SPILLWAY OPERATION
MO 18 MAY 1984
•McnoriLMce
m v i t i O N t jmno. °°'SS*CT acALi I'-20' MOW 212- C2I - 07125 R 0
aid
1443-6
-| /SOO £
-] /480 k
1460
^
$
I4Z0 ^
1 S
1400 ki
-I /3SO ^
PLAN Horixonto/ sco/e /"-/OO

Sco/ei/'- too' Vertico/ SCO /a /'-SO'
1, JOB SSCZIQ1S THB00G8 EIP SAP FS0TBCT10B

SXB DUG. 212—C2V-D133
BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO aad POWER AUTHORITY APPROVALS B. C. H Y D R O - CIVIL INSPECTION SECTION
DATE DATE REVELSTOKE G. S.
OKS.
DM SURVEY OF RIVER CHANNEL IMMEDIATELY
DOWNSTREAM OF PLUNGE POOL
Contours redrawnDA I /8 Oft. DAJ FCB'tn FOLLOWING SPILL TESTS
DR.
A
Section A notes chongec/
\DAJ\ CM.
A! i=t»'<7
II TO 14 AUGUST 1986
I. iff. SCALC: MICROFILM ID
REFERENCE PRAWlNO» M M C I PRAWINOR REMARKS 9Y [ cw. \rrml pate . M . » T _ . , _ | •"•« • » 212 - C 2 I — D 1 3 4 |"2

Ubc 2004-0713

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ubc 2004-0713

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF PLUNGE POOL PERFORMANCE

AT FOUR OF BC HYDRO DAM SITES

B.A.Sc. (Geological Engineering), Universite Laval, 1999

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

® Maryse Monfette, 2004

The plunge pool performance at four of BC Hydro dam sites is reviewed.

A total of 14 sets of scour data were assembled from the review of

The results of downstream scour tests from small-scale model studies

The performance of the Erodibility Index Method in the assessment of

Table of Contents iii

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 PHYSICAL PROCESSES 5

CHAPTER III DAM SITES DESCRIPTION 22

3.1 PEACE CANYON DAM 22

CHAPTER IV COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING PLUNGE POOL SCOUR . 88

4.1 SPILLWAY CHARACTERISTICS 88

CHAPTER V CONVENTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF PLUNGE POOL SCOUR 105

5.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES 105

CHAPTER VI THE ERODIBILITY INDEX METHOD 13 6

6.1 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH 136

CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION 177

7.1 LIMITATIONS 177

Selected Bibliography 185

Appendix I Erodibility Index Charts 193

Appendix II Plunge Pool Surveys 197

I would like to acknowledge BC Hydro for providing access to all

Free-trajectory jets are commonly used in large dam operation as a

Breusers and Raudkivi (1991), in their book on scouring, note the

The potential for excessive downstream scour should be addressed early

The difficulty in estimating plunge pool scour remains in the numerous

The main objective of this study is to evaluate new technology for

Chapter II includes a review of the physical processes involved in

To facilitate describing the sites and the plunge pool configuration,

The study of plunge pool scour covers several disciplines. Erosion

First, background theory on the physical processes related to scour

2.1 PHYSICAL PROCESSES

The power (kW/m2) available to erode material is a function of the jet

2.1.1 Free-Trajectory Jets

Important aspects of plunging jet behaviour are: the ability to spread

Although a clear understanding of the air entrainment process has not

Ervine and Falvey (1987) summarize results of studies on the behavior

2.1.3 Scour Mechanisms

Akhmedov (1988) identifies three stages to the development of a scour

2.2 PLUNGE POOL SCOUR ASSESSMENT

Numerous physical model studies described in the literature have

The main limitations of hydraulic model studies are discussed below, a

2.2.1 Hydraulic Model Studies

One of the largest difficulties in modelling plunge pool scour is

Another limitation of model scour is the failure to reproduce the

Other limitations include scale effects associated with jet

2.2.2 Empirical Formulas

Mason and Arumugam (1985) made a thorough review of existing scour

Some theoretical approaches have been proposed for the assessment of

2.2.3 The Dam Foundation Erosion Study

The new technology is based on Annandale's hydraulic erodibility

Annandale (1995) acknowledges the fact that the fluctuating pressures

P = yQ&E/A = yvAE [KW/m 2 ]

the area perpendicular to the flow.

The Erodibility Index is a replica of Kirsten's (1982) Ripability

surface boil-up sediment