Forum
Hydraulics of Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs:
100 Years of Prototype Structures, Advancements,
and Future Research Needs
B. M. Crookston, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah
Water Research Laboratory, Utah State Univ., 8200 Old Main Hill, Logan,
UT 84322-8200 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-0003-1259-8540. Email: brian.crookston@usu.edu
S. Erpicum, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Associate Professor, Research Group Hydraulic in Environmental and Civil
Engineering, Liege Univ., 13 Allée de la Découverte, Liège 4000, Belgium.
Email: s.erpicum@uliege.be
B. P. Tullis, Ph.D., M.ASCE
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah Water
Research Laboratory, Utah State Univ., 8200 Old Main Hill, Logan UT,
84322-8200. Email: blake.tullis@usu.edu
F. Laugier
Dam Safety Expert, Électricité de France Hydro—Centre d’Ingéniérie
Hydraulique, DT-MT Savoie Technolac, Le Bourget du Lac 73373, France.
Email: frederic.laugier@edf.fr
Forum papers are thought-provoking opinion pieces or essays
founded in fact, sometimes containing speculation, on a civil en-
gineering topic of general interest and relevance to the readership
of the journal. The views expressed in this Forum article do not
necessarily reflect the views of ASCE or the Editorial Board of
the journal.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001646
Introduction
Spillways and outlet works are essential dam safety structures for
releasing waters from reservoirs, including safe passage of floods
(Novak et al. 2007). Dam engineering is experiencing a strong
revival due to population growth, increased water demands, aged
structures requiring rehabilitation, and updated hydrologic and risk
analyses [e.g., ICOLD Bulletin 172 (ICOLD 2016)]. Many types of
linear weirs (e.g., broad-crested, ogee) have been used as the con-
trol section of a spillway. Engineers and scientists developed the
innovative labyrinth spillway in the first part of the twentieth cen-
tury (e.g., Gentilini 1941) in response to project or site limitations
(restricted footprint, project economics, etc.). This spillway simply
places the weir crest along a triangular, trapezoidal, rectangular, or
in few instances semicircular path in order to increase the length
of the spillway crest. Hager et al. (2015) and Crookston (2010) dis-
cuss numerous notable hydraulic studies performed on these weirs
during the past 70 years and highlight contributions to literature
including those of laboratories in Europe, Australia, and North
America. There certainly has been a bridge between research and
industry in the development of these structures, which shall be
highlighted herein. The construction of labyrinth weirs increased
exponentially in the United States following the construction of
© ASCE 02519004-1
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 02519004
Ute Dam and the publication of key US Bureau of Reclamation
and ASCE research such as Hinchliff and Houston (1984), Tullis
et al. (1995), and Falvey (2003). This is illustrated in Fig. 1, which
presents a selection of labyrinth weirs from 1910 to 2019 based
upon the year construction was completed, with the cumulative
number of labyrinth spillways referencing the left ordinate. The
first labyrinth weir identified in published literature is East Park
Dam (owned by the US Bureau of Reclamation), which features
nine semicircular cycles (with buttresses) placed along a slightly
curved axis.
Another spillway innovation, a modification to the labyrinth
weir, was proposed by Hydrocoop (Blanc and Lempérière 2001)
by including ramped floors and cantilevered apexes, known as
the piano key (PK) weir. Interestingly, two ancestral PK weir
structures were built in Algeria in 1938 and 1940. The PK weir
innovation [see Schleiss (2011) for details] further increases crest
length in a given channel width and accommodates smaller weir
footprints, which allows placement and increased practicality on
top of gravity dams. Following the construction of Goulours Dam
(2006), many studies on PK weir hydraulics were conducted
throughout the world (e.g., Electricité de France, Université de
Liège, École Polytechnique Fédéral de Lausanne, Université de
Biskra, Utah State University) with three landmark international
conferences focused on the topic (Erpicum et al. 2011a, 2013,
2017). Over 30 PK weirs have been constructed in 12 years (Fig. 1,
cumulative number of PK weirs is plotted on the right ordinate) in
Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America with more than two-
thirds associated with dam rehabilitations (increase in spillway
capacity). This fast development of PK weirs by the industry oc-
curred concurrently with research development.
With the wealth of projects and published literature, our profes-
sion and specifically hydraulic engineering is at a key point in time
regarding these structures. How has past research been used?
How have researchers benefited from the experiences of designers?
What have we learned from the field? Are there any observable
trends in these constructed weirs? What additional research topics
might, if explored, further our understanding and be of benefit to
practitioners? What path will we follow into the future? This article
responds to these questions by providing a perspective and discus-
sion regarding:
• Practice-oriented topics of labyrinth and PK weirs;
• A summary of prototype structures (both new and rehabilitation
projects), field observations, and the relationship between
design solutions and research; and
• Future areas of applied research to strengthen the bridge be-
tween researchers and practitioners.
Prototype Structures and Field Observations
The design and construction of a labyrinth or PK weir (as with other
hydraulic structures) often must draw upon many disciplines in
civil engineering, including geology; hydrology; and hydraulic,
structural, geotechnical, and environmental engineering. Project
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 constraints and goals drive design. Are there any clear differences
between new dam and rehabilitation construction? Are there any
observable trends in completed projects? How do these trends
correlate to past research, and are there any clear research needs
moving forward?
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Labyrinth Spillways
A summary of key labyrinth spillway parameters from a data sam-
ple of 155 designed prototypes (including constructed, not con-
structed, under construction) at locations throughout the globe is
presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2. Although the data set is relatively
large, it is incomplete because not all parameters were reported for
all projects. Furthermore, several recently constructed labyrinth
spillways are presented in Fig. 3, which provides examples of some
observed design variations. Each project in Fig. 3 includes design
elements in which limited hydraulic information is available and no
physical model study was performed.
Included in Fig. 2 are the total design head, H, the labyrinth weir
height, P, the headwater ratio, H=P, the sidewall angle, α, and the

cycle width ratio, w=P, where w is the width of a labyrinth cycle.

Finally, the unit discharge, q, is reported for the design flow rate, Q,
and the total width of the labyrinth weir, W. Table 2 also includes
the total centerline length of the labyrinth weir crest, Lc , the mag-
nification ratio Lc =W, the total number of labyrinth cycles, N, and
the depth of the labyrinth weir, B (length in streamwise direction).
Several notable hydraulic and geometric trends in this data set
can be observed. First, labyrinth weirs are commonly considered at
earthen embankments where there is typically space for these struc-
tures, either on the abutment or through the dam; no appreciable
design differences are observed between spillway rehabilitations
and new construction. As shown in Fig. 3(a), rehabilitation of this
Fig. 1. Sample of labyrinth weirs and PK weirs constructed worldwide embankment dam included a labyrinth weir followed by a long,
from 1910 to 2019. curved spillway chute (where complex flow conditions would be
expected) and a Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) stilling basin. Second,
there is a strong correlation between design parameters and exper-
imental studies either through hydraulic modeling or generalized
Table 1. Summary of geometric and hydraulic parameters from 155 research contributions in the literature. For example, reports of
labyrinth spillways physical model studies prior to about 1990 are common, and physi-
Parameter Min Mean Max cal modeling appears to be a standard component to design. In
more recent years, physical model studies have become less fre-
Q (cms) 14 1,407 24,609
H (m) 0.1 1.9 8.3
quent, with at least 50 projects designed using published literature
P (m) 0.5 3.9 15.5 without a physical or numerical model. As a result, many projects
H=P 0.1 0.5 1.0 constructed after 2000 appear to follow data-set limitations of Tullis
α (degrees) 0.0 12.9 27.5 et al. (1995) related to maximum headwater ratio, H=P, of
W (m) 2.1 54.4 380.4 ∼0.8–1.0 and w=P ≥ 2.0 (Fig. 2).
w (m) 0.9 10.5 95.1 This raises several questions. Why are fewer physical and
Lc (m) 7.9 197.7 1,441.2 numerical computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model studies in-
N 1.0 5.8 45.0 cluded in design? Is it primarily due to structure-specific design and
B (m) 5.8 17.5 37.6 construction experience and the amount of published design infor-
Lc =W 0.7 3.8 15.6
mation? In general, are design budgets no longer able to include a
w=P 0.2 2.9 13.0
model study? Also, would higher H=P ratios have been selected

Fig. 2. Distribution summary of geometric and hydraulic parameters from 155 labyrinth spillways.

© ASCE 02519004-2 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 02519004

 Fig. 3. Examples of three recently completed labyrinth spillways: (a) Leaser Lake Dam located in Pennsylvania, United States, construction com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pleted in 2011; (b) Hope Mills Dam located in North Carolina, United States, construction completed in 2017; and (c) Lake Ogletree Dam located in
Georgia, United States, construction completed in 2018. (Images courtesy Schnabel Engineering.)
following the publication of Tullis et al. (1995) if that data set
ranged 0 ≤ H=P ≤ 2? In addition to published data, selection of
high H=P for the inflow design flood appears to be based upon
project economics and structural stability (i.e., overturning), for
which labyrinth weirs are generally stable for these high heads due
to the cycle geometry.
There also appears to be a correlation in constructed labyrinth
weirs and research related to crest shape. The quarter-round
crest also increased in popularity with the Tullis et al. (1995) pub-
lication, and the half-round crest option is increasing in appearance
[Fig. 3(b)] following design information published by Crookston
and Tullis (2013a) and nappe oscillation research by Lodomez et al.
(2016, 2018). The half-round crest for the labyrinth spillway shown
in Fig. 3(b) was specifically selected from using these two publi-
cations. Furthermore, very few labyrinth weirs have been con-
structed with α ≤ 6°. Although information on high headwater
ratios (H=P > 1) has been available in literature since 2012
(Savage et al. 2016; Crookston et al. 2012), there appears to be
limited application for this information. Of the 155 designed
labyrinth weirs in this sample, 16 featured a crest with multiple
elevations (staged weirs) [Fig. 3(c)]. Fifteen of the weirs in this
sample were constructed within the past 8 years. A staged labyrinth
weir allows a designer to modify the head-discharge rating curve
of a proposed structure for more frequent storms which, for reha-
bilitation projects, may be requested by a regulator or client to gen-
erally match the rating curve of an existing structure for common
storms. Specifically, these structures are less efficient at lower
heads, thus facilitating the use of reservoir volume and restricted
crests to reduce flows downstream. This staged-weir trend in indus-
try motivated the research by Dabling et al. (2013, 2015). What is
also notable in Fig. 3(c) is the inclusion of piers to accommodate a
vehicular bridge. Of the labyrinth weirs that included bridge piers,
no clear trend is observed. Piers have been incorporated into the
upstream or downstream cycles and within the upstream or down-
stream apexes. No labyrinth-specific bridge pier hydraulic guid-
ance is available in literature for optimizing pier locations.
Certainly, additional project requirements, including structural
considerations, moderate the optimization of labyrinth hydraulics.
For example, taller prototypes (e.g., P > ∼3 m) have included a
battered weir wall on either the upstream or downstream face to
resist bending moments in the concrete. Hydraulically, the batter
could be considered negligible except for its influence on apex
widths, as an apex may need to be lengthened to accommodate
formwork of the tapered walls. Furthermore, the downstream
apexes are in tension and therefore require additional steel
reinforcement and any accommodating apex width; it is also a poor
© ASCE 02519004-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 02519004
location for construction joints and water stops. These two compo-
nents in combination have resulted in a growing preference to
widen the downstream apex on larger labyrinth spillways and lo-
cate the batter on the upstream face in order to minimize the up-
stream apex width; however, models used for published design
methods did not consider nonsymmetrical upstream and down-
stream apexes or batters.
One pitfall to be avoided in design is related to the H=P ratio. In
an effort to provide dimensionless hydraulic performance data,
various labyrinth weir design methods have published discharge
coefficient, Cd , values as a function of H=P and α, or H=P and
Lc =W. Clear trends of Cd decreasing with H=P have been estab-
lished for these types of weirs. Although P does have some influ-
ence on weir hydraulics, this parameter does not account for all
hydraulic variations. Mathematically, increasing P decreases this
ratio and shifts the design point of interest left along the Cd curve,
thus increasing Cd . Physically, this is only true to a certain point
since labyrinth weir hydraulics is influenced by the approaching
flow and the amount of space required in the outlet cycle to effi-
ciently evacuate flow; exceeding this critical weir height for a given
discharge would artificially alter predicted Cd values. Certainly,
with these weirs, it is possible to formulate geometries that deviate
from laboratory investigations, which would be anticipated to have
flow characteristics that also deviate from experimental observa-
tions. There is also limited published information regarding the
variation of unit discharge along the crest of a labyrinth weir
(Seamons 2014; Crookston et al. 2012). This is relevant when se-
lecting the depth and width of a labyrinth cycle and the number of
cycles for a spillway: two labyrinth spillways with equivalent
geometries [e.g., Lc , α, P, ts (ts is the weir wall thickness)] except
for being smaller but with more cycles (N) would not have identical
Q-H curves since increasing the number of upstream apexes would
increase the portion of Lc experiencing local submergence, thus
decreasing weir efficiency (Crookston 2010).
Furthermore, when considering published literature, numerous
studies have been performed that focus on the discharge coefficient
for free-flow conditions (labyrinths are typically designed with
crest elevations greater than tailwater elevation) for many geom-
etries and various crest shapes. For submerged conditions, such
as run-of-river structures in which elevated tailwater conditions
are possible, Tullis et al. (2007) provides guidance on tailwater sub-
mergence; however, limited information is available on other key
hydraulic characteristics such as flow surging (Crookston and
Tullis 2013b), dynamic pressures, energy dissipation and down-
stream flow characteristics (Melo et al. 2002; Lopes et al. 2006,
2008), the influence of a labyrinth crest on smooth or stepped
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Table 2. Summary of geometric and hydraulic parameters from 34 prototype PK weirs
Rehabilitation New Overall
Parameter Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
Q (cms) 4.35 428.50 4,288 13 5,250 9,700 4.35 1,608 9,700
H (m) 0.3 1.34 4.4 0.65 4.5 9 0.3 2.2 9
P (m) 1 3.41 9 1.8 5.45 10.45 1 4.1 10.45
H=P 0.16 0.46 1.47 0.36 0.84 1.2 0.16 0.55 1.47
W (m) 3.4 31.11 103 4.8 135.5 301.8 3.4 56.2 301.8
W u (m) 1.24 3.82 8.60 2.8 7.97 15.3 1.24 5.07 15.3
Lc (m) 13.5 160.34 650 22 721.37 1,704 13.5 300.1 1,704
N 2 9.71 24 8 20.8 60 2 14 60
B (m) 2.16 8.97 21.6 5.1 16.11 30.68 2.16 11.11 30.68
Lc =W 2.55 4.93 8.24 4.55 5.14 5.96 2.55 5.19 8.24
W u =P 0.59 1.28 3.10 0.96 1.53 1.9 0.59 1.40 3.10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

W i =W o 0.92 1.36 2.00 1.00 1.26 1.44 0.92 1.32 2.00

Note: Bold text identifies the min and max value between rehabilitations and new projects. Overall refers to the entire set of projects regardless of type.

chutes and hydraulic jump basins’ performance (shockwaves,
flow bulking, standing waves, sweep-out, etc.), the impact of
woody debris on spillway performance (Crookston et al. 2015),
sedimentation effects, aeration (Wormleaton and Soufiani 1998;
Wormleaton and Tsang 2000), scale effects (Tullis et al. 2019),
side weir flow characteristics (Karimi et al. 2018), and various res-
ervoir approach conditions (Houston 1983; Crookston and Tullis
2012a, b) including arced labyrinth weirs. What is the role of
CFD and corresponding turbulence models in geometric design
variations and in predicting these recently mentioned aspects of
labyrinth spillway hydraulics? Can we leverage trained machine-
learning algorithms to gain additional insights into the hydraulics
of these structures?
PK Weirs
PK weirs emerged less than 20 years ago. Research and construc-
tion projects developed concurrently when EDF, a large dam
operator in France, found a technical and economic solution in
the idea presented by Blanc and Lempérière (2001) to meet in-
creased discharge capacity requirements at several dams. From
the first completed PK weir project by EDF at Goulours Dam in
2006 (Laugier 2007), there has been a deep and long-lasting bridge
between this company and several research laboratories in Europe
that has included a collaborative and ambitious research effort
to continue the early developments of Blanc and Lempérière
(2001), Lempérière and Ouamane (2003), and Ouamane and
Lempérière (2006). Since 2010, the rehabilitation projects carried
out by EDF have been complemented by PK weir projects located
in various places throughout the globe, including new dams in
Vietnam.
A summary of key PK weir parameters for the 34 prototypes
existing to date is presented in Table 2 and Fig. 4. In general, each
project included design elements for which limited hydraulic infor-
mation is available. As a result, a physical model study was per-
formed for each project except for only a few [such as in Fig. 5(a)]
in which only a numerical study was performed to confirm
discharge capacity.
As shown in Fig. 4 and Table 2, several key parameters are
shared between labyrinth and PK weirs. Fig. 4 also includes the
ratio of inlet key width W i to outlet key width W o , W i =W o , and
the unit width ratio, W u =P, where W u is the width of a PK
weir unit.
Most of the PK weirs built to increase the flood discharge capac-
ity at existing dams have been designed for upstream head lower
than 2 m, which is in part due to rehabilitation project constraints to
maintain existing reservoir and maximum pool levels at these dams.
Also, the H=P ratios for PK weirs (average value of 0.46) are less
than labyrinth weirs in part to maximize their discharge coefficient
and also due to structural stability (the depth of PK weirs is gen-
erally much less than labyrinths, thus having less overturning re-
sistance). For new PK weir projects, larger upstream heads have
been considered with corresponding higher H=P ratios. New PK
weir projects typically have more footprint space available and

Fig. 4. Distribution summary of geometric and hydraulic parameters from 34 PK weirs.

© ASCE 02519004-4 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 02519004

 Fig. 5. Examples of three recently completed PK weirs: (a) Oule Dam located in France, construction completed 2018 (image courtesy of SHEM);
(b) Record Dam located in France, construction completed in 2016 (image courtesy of Electricité de France); and (c) La Raviège Dam located in
France, construction completed in 2015 (image courtesy of Université de Liège).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
have considered larger structures in terms of discharge, weir width,
and developed crest length (Table 2). Independent of the size of the
structure, however, the nondimensional geometric parameters of
the PK weir units remain similar, with mean values of W i =W o and
W u =P close to 1.3 and 1.4, respectively. The maximum P is similar
regardless of the scope of the PK weir construction, with structures
as high as 10 m for both rehabilitation and new projects.
As a direct result from research (Lempérière 2009; Machiels
et al. 2014), W i =W o tends to be equal to 1.25 for all projects, and
the Lc =W ratio is often equal to 5; however, Laugier et al. (2017)
advises that values of 6 or 7 may maximize discharge versus the
concrete quantity, improving project economics. Type A PK weirs
(equal upstream and downstream overhangs) are most common be-
cause the symmetry helps with the structural stability of the struc-
ture; however, in order to increase the discharge capacity, there is a
tendency to increase the upstream overhang length compared to the
downstream one, as recommended by research.
In terms of material, all the PK weirs built to date are in concrete
with the exception of one steel structure (Erpicum et al. 2017).
There is probably room for research and optimization in this area,
similar to what has been done for fusegates.
As noted previously, all the PK weirs built to date have been
studied using a physical scale model except for only a few. Why
this trend, given the availability of head-discharge design guidance
(Kabiri-Samani and Javaheri 2012; Leite Ribeiro et al. 2012;
Anderson and Tullis 2013; Machiels et al. 2014; Crookston et al.
2018) valid over a large range of parameters values (Pfister et al.
2012) and the ability of numerical models to predict accurately the
discharge capacity of a PK weir geometry (Pralong et al. 2011;
Erpicum et al. 2011a, b, 2013, 2017; Crookston et al. 2018)? Ex-
perimental modeling was frequently required to study various flow
patterns (oscillations, waves, etc.) and energy dissipation down-
stream of the weir. In projects in which the downstream region
had less influence on design, projects have been validated and opti-
mized using numerical modeling [Fig. 4(a)].
Numerical models might be able to reproduce with acceptable
accuracy the complex flow conditions downstream of PK weirs and
thus be used to validate downstream structure design or to study
energy dissipation; however, the lack of systematic experimental
studies, and thus the lack of detailed data on flow conditions down-
stream of PK weirs, prevents the development and validation of
suitable numerical models. Further research effort is thus suggested
for this area to complement the preliminary works by Silvestri et al.
(2013) and Jüstrich et al. (2016).
Guidance is provided in published literature on debris blockage
(Pfister et al. 2013), scale effects (Erpicum et al. 2016; Tullis et
al.2019), and submergence (Dabling and Tullis 2012). Interest-
ingly, project engineers in Europe have added venting for the
© ASCE 02519004-5
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 02519004
nappes downstream of PK weirs, while no evidence of this need
has been provided by experimental research because of scale effects
limitations. Recent prototype measurements by EDF regarding air
demands of PK weirs (Erpicum et al. 2017) help in the definition of
adequate design equations.
Looking Ahead at the Bridge between Research and
Practice
As has been previously noted, advances in nonlinear weir hydraul-
ics have benefited from close collaborations between practitioners
and researchers. One directly measurable benefit from these collab-
orations has been a workshop series focused on labyrinth and PK
weirs. The first workshop was successfully held in Liege, Belgium,
in 2011 with sincere support of academic and professional organ-
izations in Belgium, France, and Switzerland. It was a landmark
event for these hydraulic structures with high technical and scien-
tific content and a field tour of recently completed PK weir projects.
The second and third events were held in Paris, France (2013), and
Qui Nhon, Vietnam (2017), again with many international attend-
ees from both research and practice. From these events, it is clear
that considerable research has been performed on both labyrinth
and PK weirs. Which areas seem to have in-depth and abundant
information? What questions have been raised that remain unan-
swered? Can we focus research efforts based upon field experience
and the interplay among different disciplines, including economics,
when designing and constructing these weirs?
Feedback from practitioners who are currently designing or
have recently designed these structures provides insight into future
research needs. For example, a number of studies have been men-
tioned that provide design guidance for estimating the head-
discharge relationship for a variety of geometries and approach
conditions; however, it is not uncommon to include vehicular ac-
cess across these spillways. For a number of projects, bridge piers
have been placed in various configurations within the footprint of
nonlinear weirs. A second observed trend is related to channels,
chutes, drops, and energy dissipation structures downstream of
these weirs. Research by Erpicum et al. (2011b) investigated the
complexities involved with spatially varied flows created down-
stream by these weirs and energy dissipation structures such as
stepped chutes. Unit discharges vary across the chute inlet, and
complex flow patterns including shockwaves are formed. How
do these hydraulic differences influence the application of existing
guidance and methods for stepped chutes and hydraulic jump stil-
ling basins that were developed assuming a uniform unit discharge?
Is there merit to new generalized studies focused on this down-
stream region, and are CFD tools viable? One project located in
the southern part of the United States includes a new labyrinth weir
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 and stepped chute; the design team relied on composite modeling to H= total head [L];
select the transition from the weir to the chute, chute wall height, H=P = headwater ratio;
and chute step height and to optimize the stilling basin. Although Lc = weir crest length [L];
the CFD results were valuable, the predicted flow depths in the Lc =W = magnification ratio;
stepped chute were much less than were observed in the physical
N= number of weir cycles or units;
model. And it is known that, because of scale effect, scaled physical
P= weir height [L];
models underpredict flow aeration and thus flow bulking on spill-
ways compared to prototypes. Thus, we see a continued need for Q= volumetric flow rate [L3 =T];
field data. With current technology, what are observed limitations q= volumetric unit flow rate [L3 =L=T];
or challenges with grid-based CFD solvers and might we overcome ts = sidewall thickness [L];
some of these in the near future? Looking forward, how can we W= weir width [L];
better leverage physical and numerical models that accurately pre- w= labyrinth weir cycle width [L];
dict prototype hydraulic performance? w=P = labyrinth weir cycle width ratio;
Looking beyond the spillway crest, chute, and stilling basin, Wi = PK weir unit inlet width [L];
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

practitioners are also interested in the transition of flows from
the structure into the natural channel and sizing the cutoff wall
at the basin exit. Guidance related to scour processes specific to
these types of weirs would also be of benefit when considering
various discharges, potential scour depths, and integrity of the spill-
way. Furthermore, how do these weirs respond to siltation in the
upstream reservoir or channel? What unit discharges are required
to flush these sediments downstream (Noseda et al. 2019; Gebhardt
et al. 2018)?
In the field of hydraulics applied to civil engineering, and more
specifically the problem of flood passage at dams, both researchers
and practitioners often develop solutions for a problem that they
frequently are never able to observe in the field. They have to find
solutions with tools with limitations (models) and with limited
field data (design floods are rare, and measurements of such floods
are rarer still). The recent development of nonlinear weirs, de-
picted in this forum paper, highlights these limitations, but it also
demonstrates advances in knowledge and practice from mutually
beneficial collaborations between scientists and engineers, and re-
search and practice, in providing safe, sustainable, and optimized
hydraulic structures to humanity. Thanks to these collaborative ef-
forts, labyrinth and PK weirs have proved to be viable and valuable
resources for solving many of the spillway capacity issues in recent
years; however, the hydraulics community is presented with inter-
esting nonlinear weir challenges and problems that certainly could
make for an engaging future as we respond to unanswered ques-
tions that warrant continued research and collaboration.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
The authors express sincere appreciation to Électricité de France,
Schnabel Engineering, Société Hydroélectrique du Midi, and
Freese and Nichols. They also thank Labyrinth and PK Weir Work-
shop Series participants, and the US-based Association of State
Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) for their assistance in identifying
labyrinth spillways in the United States and for sharing their field
observations.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B = weir depth (streamwise direction) [L];
Cd = discharge coefficient;
Wo = PK weir unit outlet width [L];
W i =W o = PK weir inlet/outlet key ratio;
Wu = PK weir unit or cycle width [L];
W u =P = PK weir unit width ratio; and
α= sidewall angle [degrees].
References
Anderson, R. M., and B. P. Tullis. 2013. “Piano key weir hydraulics and
labyrinth weir comparison.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 139 (3): 246–253.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000530.
Blanc, P., and F. Lempérière. 2001. “Labyrinth spillways have a promising
future.” Int. J. Hydropower Dams. 8 (4): 129–131.
Crookston, B. M. 2010. “Labyrinth weirs.” Ph.D. dissertations. Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State Univ.
Crookston, B. M., R. M. Anderson, and B. P. Tullis. 2018. “Free-flow dis-
charge estimations for piano key weir geometries.” J. Hydro Environ.
Res. 19 (2018): 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2017.10.003.
Crookston, B. M., D. Mortensen, T. Stanard, B. P. Tullis, and V. Vasquez.
2015. “Debris and maintenance of labyrinth spillways.” In Vol. I of
Proc., 35th Annual USSD Conf., 63–64. Westminster, CO: USSD.
CD-ROM.
Crookston, B. M., G. S. Paxson, and B. M. Savage. 2012. “Hydraulic per-
formance of Labyrinth weirs for high headwater ratios.” In Proc., 4th
Int. Symp. on Hydraulic Structures. Madrid, Spain: IAHR.
Crookston, B. M., and B. P. Tullis. 2012a. “Arced labyrinth weirs.” J. Hy-
draul. Eng. 138 (6): 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943
-7900.0000553.
Crookston, B. M., and B. P. Tullis. 2012b. “Discharge efficiency of reser-
voir-application-specific labyrinth weirs.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 138 (6):
564–568. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000451.
Crookston, B. M., and B. P. Tullis. 2013a. “Hydraulic design and analysis
of labyrinth weirs. I: Discharge relationships.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
139 (5): 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.000
0558.
Crookston, B. M., and B. P. Tullis. 2013b. “Hydraulic design and analysis
of labyrinth weirs. II: Nappe aeration, instability, and vibration.”
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 139 (5): 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
IR.1943-4774.0000553.
Dabling, M. R., and B. P. Tullis. 2012. “Piano key weir submergence in
channel applications.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 138 (7): 661–666. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000563.
Dabling, M. R., B. P. Tullis, and B. M. Crookston. 2013. “Staged labyrinth
weir hydraulics.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 139 (11): 955–960. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000636.
Dabling, M. R., B. P. Tullis, and B. M. Crookston. 2015. “Closure to
‘Staged labyrinth weir hydraulics’ by M.R. Dabling, B.P. Tullis, and
B.M. Crookston.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 141 (10): 07015018. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000900.
Erpicum, S., F. Laugier, J. L. Boillat, M. Pirotton, B. Reverchon, and A. J.
Schleiss. 2011a. Labyrinth and piano key weirs: PKW 2011. London:
CRC Press.

© ASCE 02519004-6 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 02519004

 Erpicum, S., F. Laugier, M. Ho, and M. Pfister. 2017. Labyrinth and piano
key weirs III: PKW 2017. London: CRC Press.
Erpicum, S., F. Laugier, M. Pfister, M. Pirotton, G. Cicero, and A. J.
Schleiss. 2013. Labyrinth and piano key weirs II: PKW 2013. London:
CRC Press.
Erpicum, S., O. Machiels, P. Archambeau, B. Dewals, and M. Pirotton.
2011b. “Energy dissipation on a stepped spillway downstream of a
piano key weir: Experimental study.” In Labyrinth and piano key weirs:
PKW 2011, edited by S. Erpicum, F. Laugier, J. L. Boillat, M. Pirotton,
B. Reverchon, and A. J. Schleiss, 105–111. London: CRC Press.
Erpicum, S., B. P. Tullis, M. Lodomez, P. Archambeau, B. Dewals, and
M. Pirotton. 2016. “Scale effects in physical piano key weirs models.”
J. Hydraul. Res. 54 (6): 692–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686
.2016.1211562.
Falvey, H. T. 2003. Hydraulic design of labyrinth weirs. Reston, VA:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ASCE.
Gebhardt, M., J. Herbst, J. Merkel, and F. Belzner. 2018. “Sedimentation
at labyrinth weirs: An experimental study of the self-cleaning process.”
J. Hydraul. Res. 57 (4): 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686
.2018.1494053.
Gentilini, B. 1941. “Stramazzi con cresta a pianta obliqua e a zig-zag [Weirs
with oblique and zig-zag crests].” [In Italian.] L’Energia Elettrica
18 (10): 653–664.
Hager, W., M. Pfister, and B. P. Tullis. 2015. “Labyrinth weirs: Develop-
ments until 1985.” In E-proc., 36th IAHR World Congress. Madrid,
Spain: IAHR Secretariat.
Hinchliff, D., and K. Houston. 1984. “Hydraulic design and application
of labyrinth spillways.” In Proc., 4th Annual USCOLD Lecture.
Westminster, CO: USSD.
Houston, K. 1983. Hydraulic model study of Hyrum Dam auxiliary
labyrinth spillway. Rep. No. GR-82-13. Denver: US Bureau of
Reclamation.
ICOLD (Commission Internationale des Grands Barrages). 2016. Techni-
cal advancements in spillway design: Progress and innovations from
1985 to 2015. ICOLD Bulletin 172. Paris: ICOLD.
Jüstrich, S., M. Pfister, and A. J. Schleiss. 2016. “Mobile riverbed scour
downstream of a piano key weir.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 142 (11):
04016043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001189.
Kabiri-Samani, A., and A. Javaheri. 2012. “Discharge coefficient for free
and submerged flow over piano key weirs.” J. Hydraul. Res. 50 (1):
114–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2011.647888.
Karimi, M., J. Attari, M. Saneie, and M. R. Jalili Ghazizadeh. 2018. “ide
weir flow characteristics: Comparison of piano key, labyrinth, and linear
types.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 144 (12): 04018075. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001539.
Laugier, F. 2007. “Design and construction of the first piano key weir spill-
way at the Goulours Dam.” Int. J. Hydropower Dams. 14 (5): 94–101.
Laugier, F., J. Vermeulen, and B. Blancher. 2017. “Overview of design and
construction of 11 piano key weir spillways developed in France by
EDF from 2003 to 2006,” In Labyrinth and piano key weirs III:
PKW 2017, edited by S. Erpicum, F. Laugier, M. Ho, and M. Pfister,
37–51. London: CRC Press.
Leite Ribeiro, M., M. Pfister, A. J. Schleiss, and J. L. Boillat. 2012.
“Hydraulic design of A-type piano key weirs.” J. Hydraul. Res.
50 (4): 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2012.695041.
Lempérière, F. 2009. “New labyrinth weirs triple spillways discharge.”
Accessed December 10, 2013. http://www.hydrocoop.org.
Lempérière, F., and A. Ouamane. 2003. “The piano keys weir: A new
cost-effective solution for spillways.” Int. J. Hydropower Dams.
10 (5): 144–149.
Lodomez, M., B. Crookston, B. Tullis, M. Pirotton, and S. Erpicum. 2016.
“Nappe vibration mitigation techniques for free-overfall structures.”
In Proc., 6th IAHR Int. Symp. on Hydraulic Structures, edited by B.
Crookston and B. Tullis, 359–366. Logan, UT: Hydraulic Structures
and Water System Management, Utah State Univ.
Lodomez, M., B. M. Crookston, B. P. Tullis, and S. Erpicum. 2018.
“Mitigation techniques for Nappe oscillations on free-overfall struc-
tures.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 144 (3): 04018001. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001558.
© ASCE 02519004-7
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2019, 145(12): 02519004
Lopes, R., J. Matos, and J. Melo. 2006. “Discharge capacity and residual
energy of labyrinth weirs.” In Proc., Int. Junior Researcher and Engi-
neer Workshop on Hydraulic Structures, Montemor-o-Novo, edited by
J. Matos and H. Chanson, 47–55. Brisbane, Australia: Univ. of
Queensland.
Lopes, R., J. Matos, and J. Melo. 2008. “Characteristic depths and energy
dissipation downstream of a labyrinth weir.” In Proc., Int. Junior Re-
searcher and Engineer Workshop on Hydraulic Structures (IJREWHS
‘08). Madrid, Spain: IAHR.
Machiels, O., M. Pirotton, P. Archambeau, B. J. Dewals, and S. Erpicum.
2014. “Experimental parametric study and design of piano key weirs.”
J. Hydraul. Res. 52 (3): 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686
.2013.875070.
Melo, J., C. Ramos, and A. Magalhães. 2002. “Descarregadores com sol-
eira em labirinto de um ciclo em canais convergentes. Determinação da
capacidad de vazão.” [In Portuguese.] In Proc., 6° Congresso da Água.
Lisboa, Portugal: APRH. CD-ROM.
Noseda, M., I. Stojnic, M. Pfister, and A. J. Schleiss. 2019. “Upstream
erosion and sediment passage at piano key weirs.” J. Hydraul. Eng.
145 (8): 04019029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0001616.
Novak, P., A. I. B. Moffat, C. Nalluri, and R. Narayanan. 2007. Hydraulic
structures. 4th ed. New York: E and FN Sopn.
Ouamane, A., and F. Lempérière. 2006. “Design of a new economic shape
of weir.” In Dams and reservoirs, societies and environment in the 21st
century, edited by L. Berga, et al., 463–470. London: Taylor & Francis.
Pfister, M., D. Capobianco, B. Tullis, and A. J. Schleiss. 2013. “Debris-
blocking sensitivity of piano key weirs under reservoir-type approach
flow.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 139 (11): 1134–1141. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000780.
Pfister, M., S. Erpicum, O. Machiels, A. J. Schleiss, and M. Pirotton. 2012.
“Discharge coefficient for free and submerged flow over Piano Key
weirs: Discussion.” J. Hydraul. Res. 50 (6): 642–643. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00221686.2012.728025.
Pralong, J., F. Montarros, B. Blancher, and F. Laugier. 2011. “A sensitivity
analysis of piano key weirs geometrical parameters based on 3D
numerical modeling.” In Labyrinth and piano key weirs: PKW 2011,
edited by S. Erpicum, F. Laugier, J. L. Boillat, M. Pirotton, B.
Reverchon, and A. J. Schleiss, 133–139. London: CRC Press.
Savage, B. M., B. M. Crookston, and G. S. Paxson. 2016. “Physical and
numerical modeling of large headwater ratios for a 15 degree labyrinth
spillway.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 142 (11): 04016046. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001186.
Schleiss, A. J. 2011. “From labyrinth to piano key weirs: A historical re-
view.” In Labyrinth and piano key weirs: PKW 2011, edited by S.
Erpicum, F. Laugier, J. L. Boillat, M. Pirotton, B. Reverchon, and
A. J. Schleiss. London: CRC Press.
Seamons, T. 2014. “Labyrinth weirs: A look into geometric variation and its
effect on efficiency and design method predictions.” M.S. thesis, Dept.
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State Univ.
Silvestri, A., S. Erpicum, P. Archambeau, B. Dewals, and M. Pirotton.
2013. “Stepped spillway down-stream of a piano key weir: Critical
length for uniform flow.” In Proc., Int. Workshop on Hydraulic Struc-
tures, 99–107. Karlsruhe, Germany: Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau.
Tullis, B., B. M. Crookston, and N. Young. 2019. “Nonlinear weir free-flow
hydraulics and size-scale effects.” J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001661.
Tullis, B. P., J. Young, and M. Chandler. 2007. “Head-discharge relation-
ships for submerged labyrinth weirs.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 133 (3):
248–254. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2007)133:3(248).
Tullis, J. P., N. Amanian, and D. Waldron. 1995. “Design of labyrinth weir
spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 121 (3): 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(1995)121:3(247).
Wormleaton, P. R., and E. Soufiani. 1998. “Aeration performance of tri-
angular planform labyrinth weirs.” J Environ. Eng. 124 (8): 709–719.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1998)124:8(709).
Wormleaton, P. R., and C. C. Tsang. 2000. “Aeration performance of rec-
tangular planform labyrinth weirs.” J. Environ. Eng. 126 (5): 456–465.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2000)126:5(456).
J. Hydraul. Eng.