See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245297101

Bottom Aeration of Stepped Spillways

Article  in  Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · August 2006

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:8(850)

CITATIONS READS
33 412

3 authors, including:

Michael Pfister Willi H. Hager

University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland HES-SO ETH Zurich
121 PUBLICATIONS   700 CITATIONS    322 PUBLICATIONS   5,300 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Scale effects in fluids and granular flows View project

Extreme Hydrodynamic impact onto buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Pfister on 25 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TECHNICAL NOTES

Bottom Aeration of Stepped Spillways

Michael Pfister1; Willi H. Hager, F.ASCE2; and Hans-Erwin Minor3

Abstract: The upstream reach of stepped spillway flows may become prone to cavitation damage for large specific discharges because
of the absence of air close to its bottom, until the point of bottom self-aeration is reached. This study considers the effect of two aerator
types located at the first vertical step face to add air to the chute bottom. Compared to standard stepped spillway flow, considerable
differences may be observed closely downstream of the aerator, whereas no significant deviations occur in the far-downstream chute
reach. The characteristics of bottom air concentration curves on stepped chutes are investigated with an experimental approach. The
results are then compared with flows on both smooth chutes and standard stepped chutes. The data analysis results in design equations that
may be applied to usual stepped spillways of chute angles around 50ⴰ. In addition, a sinusoidal variation of air concentration about the
average value as a novel phenomenon is described relating to a local instability in the minimum bottom air concentration reach.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9429共2006兲132:8共850兲
CE Database subject headings: Aeration; Spillways; Hydraulics.

Introduction Experimental Setup

A large number of hydraulic studies on stepped spillways were
presented during the past decade. Practically all of these investi-
gated stepped spillway flow originating with a standard spillways
crest located at its upstream end and a dissipater at its down-
stream end. The main topics investigated were the point of air
inception, the mean air concentration downstream of it, the char-
acteristics of the air–water mixture flow, and the overall energy
dissipation of the spillway structure 共Boes 2000; Minor and Hager
2000; Chanson 2002; Boes and Hager 2003a,b兲.
Depending on the unit discharge, the chute slope, and the step
height, air presence close to the chute bottom may be located far
downstream from the spillway crest. Accordingly, the bottom
reach between the spillway crest and the bottom air inception
point is not protected against cavitation damage. Stepped chutes
are therefore limited in unit discharge to some 30 m2 / s as com-
pared to typically 100 m2 / s for smooth spillways 共see the Appen-
dix兲. This work introduces the flow characteristics on a stepped
spillway in which two different aerator types were added. In both
cases, a deflector was employed, mounted upstream 共Type I兲 and
downstream 共Type II兲 of the first vertical step face.
1 Unit discharges considered were q = 0.11, 0.22, 0.43, 0.65, and
Ph.D. Student, Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology,
VAW, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
2
Professor, Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology,
VAW, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: hager@vaw.baug.ethz.ch
3
Professor, Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology,
VAW, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2007. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review
and possible publication on August 16, 2004; approved on August 19,
2005. This technical note is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing, Vol. 132, No. 8, August 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/2006/8-
850–853/$25.00.
Fig. 1共a兲 shows a definition plot with q as discharge per unit
width, hc = 共q2 / g兲1/3 as critical flow depth 共where g⫽gravitational
acceleration兲; s as step height; ␾ as angle of pseudobottom
against the horizontal; z as vertical coordinate; zA as deflector
elevation of takeoff; zB as elevation difference between the latter
and jet impact; zC as length of the steep bottom air decay zone; zD
as elevation difference between the latter and bottom air detrain-
ment; zE as elevation difference between the latter and uniform
mixture flow; and zF as uniform air–water mixture flow region.
The experiments were conducted in a stepped rectangular
chute of width 0.50 m, with a chute angle ␾ = 50ⴰ typical for
stepped spillways, a step height s = 0.093 m, and standard crest of
design 共subscript D兲 discharge qD = 0.863 m2 / s. For a prototype
step height of 1.2 m, the scale factor would be 1:12.9, and the
unit discharge q = 40 m2 / s. The two aerator geometries are shown
in Figs. 1共b and c兲: Type I ending at the first vertical step face,
and Type II mounted downstream from it. Both aerators have a
slope 1:7 and a length of 0.6s. Accordingly, length zA is 4.86s for
Type I and 5.34s for Type II. The air was supplied in both cases
from the chute side wall, corresponding to a prototype simplifi-
cation with a ducted air supply 共Rutschmann and Volkart 1988兲.
0.86 m2 / s, i.e., large enough to avoid scale effects 共Boes 2000;
Boes and Hager 2003a兲. Flow depths were measured with a con-
ventional point gage, whereas the RBI fiber-optic probe was used
for local air concentration and velocity measurements 共Boes
2000兲.
Experimental Results
Definitions
Fig. 2 relates to the typical bottom 共subscript b兲 air concentration
Cb observed in the present tests. Four main flow regions may

850 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006


Fig. 1. 共a兲 Definition sketch for stepped spillway flow with aerator
located at first step: 共1兲 black water and air cavity; 共2兲 transition flow
along z2; 共3兲 developing flow along z3; 共4兲 uniform mixture flow
共PB兲 = pseudobottom; definition sketch for 共A兲 aerators at first
vertical spillway step face; 共b兲 upstream 共Type I兲; and 共c兲 downstream
共Type II兲 configuration, 共B兲 first step, 共C兲 air supply
be identified: 共1兲 black water region along zA 共z 艋 zA兲 and jump
length along zB; 共2兲 transition region along zC and zD 关for
0 ⬍ z2 ⬍ 共zC + zD兲兴; 共3兲 developing flow region along
zE 共0 ⬍ z3 ⬍ zE兲; and 共4兲 uniform mixture flow region for z3 ⬎ zE,
with the coordinate origins z2 and z3 defined in Fig. 1共a兲. Along
length zC the bottom air concentration decreases significantly
from the air cavity value Cbo = 1 to a much smaller value; along
length zD air detrains much less to an absolute minimum at
z2 = zC + zD; further downstream air is entrained from the free sur-
face in Region 3, once the air–water interface has reached the
pseudobottom to finally attain the uniform 共subscript u兲 bottom
air concentration Cbu in Region 4. In the following subsections,
these reaches are analyzed.
Region 1
The aerators described deflect the water flow away from the chute
bottom. The impact location zB of the lower jet trajectory may be
described independently from the aerator type 共R2 = 0.94兲 关Fig.
3共a兲兴
zB/hc = 0.16 · 共hc/zA兲−2, for 0.2 ⬍ hc/zA ⬍ 1 共1兲
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006 / 851
Fig. 2. Bottom air concentration curve Cb共z兲 in Regions 1–4, 关see
also Fig. 1共a兲兴
Region 2
The end of the steep bottom air concentration decrease was at
zC / s = 1.5 independent of discharge. Accordingly, most of the air
entrained close to the spillway pseudobottom is detrained within
less than two step heights. This important effect was also ob-
served for smooth spillways 共Kramer 2003兲. Based on high-speed
video observations, the significant detrainment can be associated
with jet impact on the horizontal step face and the generation of
vortices that contain a large amount of air that is lost by rolling up
on the step face.
Downstream of the significant air decrease along zC, the bot-
tom air layer increases with distance, similar to a turbulent bound-
ary layer due to boundary roughness. For stepped chutes, the
roughness is extremely large as compared with smooth spillways
because the roughness height has the order of the flow depth.
Because no air is detrained in this region containing a black water
central flow portion, the air concentration reduces in the stream-
wise direction. Fig. 3共b兲 shows the normalized bottom air
concentration Cb共hc / s兲 as a function of the step number
n = 关共z2 − zC兲 / s兴 counted downstream from zC. The plot shows un-
expected sinusoidal curves of a wavelength of about two steps,
which depart from the mean 共subscript m兲 bottom air concentra-
tion curve Cbm once they enter Region 3. The bottom air concen-
tration was measured at the step corners typically over 20 s, at
distances 2, 6, 11, 16 mm and so on perpendicular to the pseudo-
bottom. The wave patterns of the individual curves thus reflect a
local feature. Note the small differences in the corresponding
curves for the two aerator types.
Consider, for instance, steps n = 0 and 1 in Fig. 3共b兲. Whereas
the deviation of Cb at Step 0 from the mean curve Cbm is almost
zero, the bottom air concentration at Step 1 is significantly above
the mean. This anomaly was attributed to the air cavity in Region
1, which undergoes pressure fluctuations and thus generates pul-
sating flow close to the pseudobottom. Small deviations of jet
impact on the next step may result in a slightly larger or smaller
pressure in the step niches that control individual step air entrain-
ment and detrainment. A detailed determination of total air flow
close to the pseudobottom demonstrated absolutely no air loss
between the individual steps along length zD, and indirectly sub-
stantiated the accuracy of the probes used in this research.
The mean bottom air concentration Cbm in terms of step num-
ber n was approximated as 关Fig. 3共b兲兴
 Fig. 4. 共a兲 Comparison of predictions 共lines兲 with observations
共symbols兲 for two runs; 共b兲 comparison of cavitation indices ␴ at first
step for 共—兲 hydrostatic pressure and 共䉱兲 pressure measurement with
共- - -兲 trend line; grey: cavitation reach upscaled for prototype
conditions

hc
Cbm = 0.1 · 10−0.035·n, for n 艌 0 共2兲
s
Along the 16 steps, Cbm共hc / s兲 thus decreases from only 0.10 to
0.05, as compared to the much larger reduction along length zC.
Depending on discharge, the curve Cbm共q兲 of Eq. 共2兲 ends at
point z3 = 0 independent of the aerator type. Eq. 共2兲 applies along
the length zD as 共R2 = 0.99兲

zD
s
= 1.5
s
冉冊
hc 2
for 1 ⬍ 冉冊
hc
s
⬍3 共3兲

Fig. 3. 共a兲 Vertical location of jet impact on pseudobottom zB / hc as
function of hc / zA, 共—兲 共1兲; 共b兲 Bottom air concentration along
transition Region 共2兲, with individual data for both aerator Types I
共open symbols兲 and II 共full symbols兲, 共—兲 Cbm共hc / s兲关n兴 from 共2兲; 共c兲
Location zD / s of bottom air concentration increase as function of
relative discharge hc / s for both aerator designs, 共—兲 共3兲, 共- - -兲 Boes
and Hager 共2003a兲; and 共d兲 relative bottom air concentration Cb / Cbu
as function of z3 / s, 共—兲 共4兲
For a small discharge or a large step height, the air from the free
surface thus reaches the pseudobottom faster than for larger dis-
charges or small steps, resulting in a significant increase of bot-
tom air concentration in Region 3, as shown in Fig. 3共c兲. The
present observations relative to the bottom air inception point
compare on average with those of stepped spillways without aera-
tors. According to Boes and Hager 共2003a兲, small discharges re-
sult in larger zD values for the present configuration, whereas the
opposite applies to large discharges 关Fig. 3共c兲兴. For design dis-
charge, an aerator shifts the bottom air inception point upstream
as compared to standard stepped spillways.
Region 3
Fig. 3共d兲 shows the bottom air concentration Cb normalized with
the uniform bottom air concentration Cbu as a function of relative

852 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006

distance z3 / s, i.e., the step number downstream of zD. All data s = 1.2 m. Note that the cavitation risk increases in the down-
follow a tangent hyperbolic function as 共R2 = 0.95兲 stream direction due to higher velocities. So far cavitation dam-

冋 冉 冊册
Cb/Cbu = tanh 0.22
z3
s
for z3 艌 0 共4兲
age has not been reported in the upstream reach of stepped chutes,
certainly because the specific discharges were limited, associated
with a self-aeration point located in the upstream chute region.
With F* = 关q / 共g · sin␾ · s3兲兴1/2 the uniform bottom air concentration Increasing the hydraulic load shifts the point of self-aeration
in Region 4 is from Boes 共2000兲 downstream.

Cbu = 0.268 − 5.69 · 10−3F* for ␾ = 50ⴰ 共5兲

Accordingly, an aerator downstream from the spillway crest has
Notation
no farfield but only a local effect in Regions 3 and 4 immediately
The following symbols are used in this technical note:
downstream of the jet impact point in Region 2. Smooth spillways
with or without an aerator behave identically 共Kramer 2003兲. To b ⫽ width;
verify these predictions, two experimental runs were recalculated. C ⫽ air concentration;
Fig. 4共a兲 demonstrates a reasonable agreement. F ⫽ Froude number;
g ⫽ gravitational acceleration;
h ⫽ flow depth;
Conclusions n ⫽ step number;
q ⫽ unit discharge;
The effect of two different aerator designs located immediately s ⫽ step height;
upstream of the stepped chute on the bottom air concentration z ⫽ vertical coordinate;
was investigated. The bottom air concentration development ␴ ⫽ cavitation index; and
downstream of an aerator was subdivided into four regions, which ␾ ⫽ angle of pseudobottom.
are described in terms of hydraulic parameters. Immediately Subscripts
downstream from jet impact onto the chute, a large amount of air
is detrained, followed by a region with a relatively small air de- b ⫽ bottom;
trainment, associated with the development of an air boundary c ⫽ critical;
layer. Once the point of bottom air inception is reached, the bot- m ⫽ mean;
tom air concentration increases to an equilibrium value that de- o ⫽ upstream;
pends on the step height and the chute bottom slope; it agrees u ⫽ uniform; and
with previous findings relating to the standard stepped chute with- 1,2,3 ⫽ numbers relative to region.
out the aerator. The hydraulics of the various flow regions is
described and relations allow the prediction of air concentration
along the chute bottom. References

Boes, R. M. 共2000兲. “Zweiphasenströmung und Energieumsetzung an

Acknowledgment
The first writer was supported by the Swiss National Science
Foundation, Grant No. 200021-101548/1.
Appendix. Estimation of Cavitation Risk
The first aerator is placed at the beginning of the stepped chute
because: 共1兲 each step edge represents a singular bottom irregu-
larity with a risk for cavitation damage. Following Drewes 共1988兲
and Falvey 共1990兲 the critical cavitation index for a singular step
is on the order ␴c ⬇ 1.0 共±0.1兲; and 共2兲 the measured minimum
pressures along the upper portion of the vertical step face are
negative, as observed by Sánchez et al. 共2000兲 at z = 3.09 m for
s = 0.10 m and ␾ = 51ⴰ. Pressures at the first vertical step face were
collected by Pfister 共2002兲 in the model used herein. These are
relevant in the following discussion.
Assuming hydrostatic pressure at the first step edge based on
the local flow depth results in a too high cavitation index. Fig.
4共b兲 shows both the latter as a continuous line and the test data of
Pfister 共2002兲. The cavitation index at the first step is below the
critical value of ␴c = 0.9 for a unit discharge q ⬎ 30 m2 / s. The test
data were upscaled to the prototype described previously with
Grosskaskaden.” VAW Mitteilung, 166, H.-E. Minor, ed., ETH, Zur-
ich, Switzerland 共in German兲.
Boes, R. M., and Hager, W. H. 共2003a兲. “Two-phase flow characteristics
of stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共9兲, 661–670.
Boes, R. M., and Hager, W. H. 共2003b兲. “Hydraulic design of stepped
spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共9兲, 671–679.
Chanson, H. 共2002兲. The hydraulics of stepped chutes and spillways,
Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands.
Drewes, U. 共1988兲. “Oberflächentoleranzen bei Betonschussrinnen im
Hinblick auf Kavitation.” VAW Mitteilung, 99, D. Vischer, ed., ETH,
Zürich, 11–33 共in German兲.
Falvey, H. T. 共1990兲. Cavitation in chutes and spillways, Engineering
Monograph 42, USBR, Denver.
Kramer, K. 共2003兲. “Bottom air concentration of aerated chutes.” J.F.
Kennedy Student Paper Competition, Proc. 30 IAHR Congress, Thes-
saloniki, Greece, 17–24.
Minor, H.-E., and Hager, W. H., eds. 共2000兲. Hydraulics of stepped spill-
ways, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Pfister, M. 共2002兲. “Kaskadenbelüfter—Hydraulische Modelluntersu-
chung.” MSc thesis, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland 共in German兲.
Rutschmann, P., and Volkart, P. 共1988兲. “Spillway chute aeration.” Int.
Water Power Dam Constr., 40共1兲, 10–15.
Sánchez, M., Pomares, J., and Dolz, J. 共2000兲. “Pressure field in skim-
ming flow over a stepped spillway.” Hydraulics of stepped spillways,
H.-E. Minor and W. H. Hager, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth-
erlands, 137–145.

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2006 / 853

View publication stats