Optimal Design of Stilling Basin

H. Moharrami1 , M. Ghodsian 2 and S. Bahramian3

Abstract
In this paper an efficient automated procedure for the optimal design of type III stilling basin is
presented. The cost of excavation and concrete construction has been taken as the objective
function. The automated optimal design is formulated in the form of a nonlinear optimization
problem that minimizes the objective function, while it satisfies all the hydraulic requirements. The
width of the basin and the elevation of its floor has been identified and taken as the basic design
variables of the problem. Both the theoretical and empirical hydraulic relations have been taken as
design constraints. The solution of the optimization problem results in the optimal dimensions of
type III stilling basin. Two solved examples have been provided to exhibit the capabilities of the
automated optimal design procedure.

Key words: Type III Stilling Basin, Optimum Design, Hydraulic Jump, Energy Dissipator.

Introduction
When water is released over the spillway, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy at
the base of spillway. This energy must be dissipated in order to prevent the possibility of sever
scouring of downstream riverbed and the undermining of foundation which may cause failure of
spillway and dam. For this purpose energy dissipators must be used which perform the energy
reduction by converting the kinetic energy into turbulence and finally into heat. The dissipation of
energy can be achieved by means of several methods such as stilling basins. The formation of
hydraulic jump in the stilling basin will lead to dissipation of excess energy. In the stilling basin, the
exiting supercritical flow from the spillway is reduced to subcritical flow by a hydraulic jump.

To ensure that a stilling basin performs its function efficiently (i.e. dissipation of energy is occurred
properly), basin should be designed in such a way that the elevation of tail water depth in the
downstream channel not be much less than the elevation of conjugate depth of jump. Otherwise
sweep out of the jump from the basin takes place and as a result scouring of downstream riverbed
will occur. If the conjugate depth is too low the jump will be drowned. As a result, it will loose its
function as an energy dissipator.

Design of stilling basin is governed by several parameters such as: 1) nature of foundation, 2)
approach Froude number, 3) impact angle of flow with respect to stilling basin floor, 4) tailwater
level and 5) economical considerations.

In order to reduce the cost of project, certain components, such as baffle blocks, end sills and chute
blocks are installed along the basin floor to control and stabilize the jump which helps to the
dissipation of excess energy (see Fig. (1)). The use of these devices permits the shortening of the

1- Hamid Moharrami, Ph.D., Assistant Prof., Civil Engineering Dept.,Tarbiat Modarres University, P.O. Box:
14115/143, Tehran-Iran. E-MAIL: hamid@modares.ac.ir
2- Masoud Ghodsian, Ph.D., Assistant Prof., Civil Engineering Dept.,Tarbiat Modarres University P.O. Box:
14115/143, Tehran-Iran. E-MAIL: ghods@modares.ac.ir
3
- Saeid Bahramian, Ex. Post Graduate Student,Tarbiat Modarres University.

1
basin and acts as a safety factor against sweep out of the jump. Elevatorski (1959) gives a detailed
description of the appurtenances of stilling basin.

Harleman (1955), Basco and Adams (1971), Rajaratnam and Murahari (1971), McCorquadale and
Giratalla (1972), Narayanan and Schizas (1980), Iwao et al. (1991), Farhoudi and Narayanan (1991),
Farhoudi and Volker (1995), have studied the flow features and drag forces over sill and baffle
blocks.

c
S

b
W

Ss W
s
b
c
W

B
W
LB
Figure 1: Baffle blocks, end Sills and Chute blocks

So far, different procedures have been developed for design of hydraulic jump type stilling basin,
which are mainly based upon laboratory experiments. Blaisdell (1948) investigated the SAF stilling
basin for small structures. Bradley and Peterka (1957) summarized their studies on design of USBR
types I, II, III, IV and V stilling basins for low Froude number. Ghodsian et al. (2000) developed a
design procedure for stilling basins by considering the effect of baffle block position on the amount
of dissipation of energy and conjugate depth.

Identification of Basic Design Variables

In order to ensure effectiveness of energy dissipator, optimal design of stilling basin leading to
optimal geometry of basin is required. Tung and Mays (1982) developed a model for obtaining
optimal dimensions of stilling basin and its appurtenances. To that end they suggested a two-phase
procedure. At the first phase the objective was to maximize the hydraulic performance of stilling
basin. The output of this phase was used as input data for designing a basin that satisfies required
basin performances and minimizes the cost. Rathod (1994) tried to improve the optimized model of
Tung and Mays by considering some suggestions from Basco (1984). He tried to include the length
of the basin among design variables. However, he did not use any mathematical programming
model for optimization. Instead, he introduced a procedure that uses Basco’s design suggestions
(Basco, 1984) as criteria of optimality in the design of basins.

In this paper first the effective parameters on the optimal design of type III stilling basin is
determined and discussed. Then a mathematical optimization model is introduced to automatically
determine the optimal dimensions of stilling basin.

If an optimally designed basin is defined as “a basin with minimum cost in which the requirements
of hydraulic performance are satisfied”, the parameters affecting the optimal design of stilling basin
may be counted as: 1) width of basin, 2) its length, 3) its height of walls, 4) level of floor of basin,
5) position of baffle blocks and 6) dimensions of chute blocks, baffle blocks and end sills. Some of
these parameters, like position of baffle blocks, affect only the hydraulic performance while some
others, like the width of basin, besides hydraulic performance, affect construction cost. Therefore in

2
this study, a distinction has been made between these two kind of parameters. Obviously in the
optimization model only those variables are considered that have simultaneous influence on both
hydraulic characteristic of basin and its cost. Hereunder a brief discussion is presented for the effect
of aforementioned parameters.

Based on data extracted from Farhoodi’s laboratory experiments, Ghodsian et al. (2000) have
shown that as the position of baffle blocks take distance from the entrance of the basin, the energy
dissipation characteristic of the type III stilling basin reduces. Therefore in the optimally designed
basin, the best position for the baffle blocks is as close as possible to the entrance of basin. However
the design engineer should be careful to put the baffle blocks far enough from the chute blocks to
prevent the interference of chute blocks and baffle blocks performances. A study that can answer
how far should the baffle blocks be placed from the chute blocks to maximize the total energy
dissipation, to the knowledge of authors, has not yet reported in the literature.

Z
H0 Zc

1 2

Y1 Y2 ZB Yt Z r

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of hydraulic jump in stilling basin.

The length of the basin LB , is usually taken as a linear function of jump i.e.

LB = α (Y2 − Y1 ) (1)

In this equation Y2 and Y1 are the depth of flow at section 2 and 1 respectively (see Fig. 2).
Therefore the hydraulic performance dictates the length of basin. Several values have been
suggested for α . In this study, according to USBR (1973) recommendation, value of α is assumed
to be equal to 5. Although the length of basin affects the cost function, it does not appear as an
independent design variable in optimization model. Of course in the evaluation of objective
function, Eqn. (1) is used.

The height of walls of basin HB , is mainly determined from the conjugate depth of jump. The
following equation is used for evaluation of cost of walls of basin:

H B = Y2 + 0.1(Y1 + V1 ) (2)

in which V1 is the velocity of the flow at the entrance of the basin. This equation shows that HB
depends on hydraulic characteristic of the basin and taking the width and floor level of the basin as
design variables, implicitly will consider the cost effect of walls on optimum design.

The dimensions of chute blocks, baffle blocks and end sills are mainly relevant to the drag forces
and energy dissipation. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation [USBR (1973)] and Basco (1984) have
some recommendation on the dimensions of these appurtenances. However it should be noticed that

3
there is not much difference between the cost of the optimum dimensions and non-optimum ones.
Therefore to simplify the optimization procedure it may be reasonable to ignore the minor effect
due to cost difference of appurtenances with optimum ones. The following equations which are
recommended by USBR (1973) has been used in this study to consider the cost effect of baffle
blocks:

hb = 2.5Y1 (3)

WB
Wb = S b = (4)
2n

in which n is the number of baffle blocks and hb is height of baffle blocks. In this way the
optimization of the type III stilling basins reduces to determine optimum values of its width, WB ,
and elevation ZB .

Design Constraints
It is obvious that every design has its own limitations. In the optimum design of type III stilling
basin, the limitations are mainly the hydraulic relations, which are briefly stated in the following
statements.

1- Equation of energy

The equation of energy between the crest of spillway and the entrance of stilling basin (Fig. 2) is as
follows:

V12
H 0 = Zc + 1.5Yc = + hl 0 ~1 (5)
2g

In this equation, Zc is the elevation of crest and Yc is critical depth of flow over the crest, V1 is the
velocity of the flow at the entrance of basin, hl0~1 is loss of energy between crest of spillway and
section 1 (Fig. 2) and g is the gravitational acceleration.

2- Equation of Momentum

In general the equation of momentum for two subsequent sections including a hydraulic jump is as
follows:

FH1 − FH 2 + γ Sin θ − F f − FD = ρ Q (V 2 − V1 ) (6)

In which FH1 and FH2 are hydrostatic forces at section 1 and 2 of Fig.(2) respectively,V1 and V2
are corresponding flow velocities, ρ is density of water, γ Sin θ is the component of gravity of
water along flow direction which is equal to zero because of zero slope of basin. F f and FD are
friction and drag forces and may be ignored because of their small values. If these forces are
ignored Eqn. (6) can be written as :

Y2
= 0.5 1 + 8 Fr2 − 1 (7)
Y1

4
in which Fr is the approach Froude number. If the last three forces are not ignored, different
equations may be obtained. However, since a theoretical procedure for evaluation of these forces
has not yet been developed, some empirical equations have been suggested that predict smaller
values for Y2 . In this study, Eqn. (7) is used for determination of Y2 .

.3-Stability of Jump

Laboratory tests show that to have a stable jump in small and moderate spillways, the water level at
section 2 (Fig. 2) should not be more than 10% of Y2 in excess of the level of tailwater. Therefore,
the following relation can be written:

(Y2 + Z B ) − (Yt + Z r ) ≤ 0.1y 2 (8)

In this equation, ZB and Zr is the level of the floor of basin and riverbed respectively. For high rise
spillways, this equation may be written as follows:

(Yt + Z B ) − (Yt + Z r ) ≤ −0.05 y 2 (9)

4- Limits of Froude Number

Since for the given discharge, the hydraulic jump should be formed steadily in the stilling basin,
there should be some limitations for the Froude number to prevent the highly waviness and
instability of the water surface. Laboratory tests show that if the range of Froude number is limited
to 4.5 to 9, a steady jump may be observed. However, sometimes higher values up to 12 are also
used in design of stilling basins. Therefore, in this study, the following limit has been assigned to
Froude number.

4.5 ≤ Fr ≤ 12. (10)

5- Limits on the width of basin

It is obvious that the width of stilling basin is not usually less than the width of spillway. However,
the use of wider basins is not prohibited also. This condition is satisfied in the optimization
algorithm as a side constraint and may be written as:

W B ≥ Lc (11)

Here Lc is the length of spillway crest

Objective (Cost) Function

In this study the cost function is assumed to consist of two parts: a) cost of excavation, Ce, and b)
cost of concrete construction, Cc. The cost of excavation is affected by the volume of cut, which in
turn is a function of width and level of floor of basin and the topography of the place. The cost of
concrete includes the cost of basin as well as baffle blocks, chute blocks and end sills. Their costs
are also a function of width of stilling basin, W B, and the level of its floor, ZB,. To evaluate cost of
concrete components, Eqns. (1) and (2) and appropriate relations for the dimensions of
appurtenances has been used. In this way the total cost can be evaluated upon determining some
values for independent design variables (i.e. width and level of the basin).

5
Optimization Problem
Having the objective function and constraints formulated in terms of the two basic design variables,
any nonlinear optimization algorithm may be used to find the solution for the problem. In summary
the optimization problem is constructed as follows:

Find { WB and ZB } that :

minimize cost function: F=Cc+Ce in accordance to equations 1 to 4,

and satisfy the constraint functions of equations 5,7,8,9,10 and 11 .

♣
Examples
Example 1

The first example, which has been extracted from paper by Tung and Mays (1982), is the stilling
basin of Twinbutts dam in USA with the following specifications:
Length of spillway crest, Lc = 61.0 m
Elevation of spillway crest (measured from sea level), Zc = 600.57 m
Elevation of river bed, Zr = 568.52 m
Thickness of floor of basin = 0.61 m
Design discharge = 1260 m3 /sec

A mathematical formulation of the optimization problem, which is not given here for the sake of
brevity, has been established and solved for this problem. The results are given in Table 1 and are
compared with optimal solution of Tung and Mays (1982). As it is shown, the proposed method,
while performs optimization in an automatic manner, has given slightly better results than Tung and
Mays’ procedure which finds optimum in two stage.
Table 1. Optimal design of stilling basin of Twinbutts’ dam, Example 1.

Results of the Results ofTung Difference

Proposed method and Mays

Width of basin (m) 69.3 70.3 -1.0

Elevation of floor of basin 562.92 563.03 -0.11

Length of basin (m) 45.42 46.33 -0.91

Height of walls (m) 11.64 12.33 -0.69

Total cost ($) 2.1E+6 2.113E+6 0.62%

Example 2

6
The second example compares the ordinary design of basin of the Pashakola dam (in north of Iran)
with the optimum solution that is obtained from the proposed method. The major data for this dam
are as follows:

Width of spillway = 8.0 m

Elevation of crest (measured from sea level), Zc = 234.4 m
Elevation of river bed, Zr = 229 m
Design discharge = 429 m3 /sec
Considering Cc =60000 Rials/m 3 and Ce=20000 Rials/m 3 the optimal design is obtained as given in
table 2. Table 2, also compares the constructed design with the optimal one.

Table 2. Optimal design of Pashakola’s basin, Example 1.

Optimum Constructed Difference

Design Design

Width of basin (m) 15.3 16 -0.7

Elevation of floor of basin 221.9 221.5 0.4

Length of basin (m) 39.9 39.6 +0.3

Height of walls (m) 10.8 13.0 -2.2

Total cost (Rials) 3.889E+8 4.212E+8 8.3%

Conclusion
The optimal design of type III stilling basin was discussed. It was concludes that among various
design variables that encounter in the design problem, only two design variables (i.e. WB and ZB )
play the main role in the hydraulic performance of the stilling basin. Other dimensions of stilling
basin and dimensions of appurtenances could be found using equations 1 to 4. It was shown that
taking the cost of excavation and concrete construction as objective function and taking hydraulic
relations as design constraints, an optimization problem could be established that gives the values of
basic design variables WB and ZB in an automatic manner. Two solved examples show that the
proposed method is quite capable to result optimal design of type III stilling basin in an efficient
fashion.

References
Basco D.R., discussion on “Optimal Design of Stilling Basin for Overflow Spillways”, ASCE,
Journal of Hydraulic Division, Vol. 110, No.1, pp79, (1984).

Basco D.R. and Adams J.R. “Drag Force on Baffle Blocks in Hydraulic Jump”, Proceeding of
ASCE, Journal of Hydraulic Division, Vol. 97, No. 12, PP 2033-2035, (1971)

7
Blaisdell F.W, “ Development of Hydraulic Design, Sant Anthony Fall Stilling Basins”, Tans.
ASCE, Vol. 113, PP 483-520,(1948).

Bradley J.N. and Peterka A.J., “The Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins: Hydraulic Jump on
Horizontal Apron”,ASCE, Journal of Hydraulic Division, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp1-24, (1957)

Elevatorski, E.A., “Hydraulic Energy Dissipators”, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, (1959).

Farhoudi, J. and Narayanan, R., “Force on Slab Beneath Hydraulic Jump”, ASCE, Journal of
Hydraulic Division, Vol. 117, No.1, PP 64-82, (1991),

Farhoudi, J and Volker, R.E. “Drag Force Acting on Baffle Blocks in the Stilling Basin”
International Journal for Water Resources Engineering Vol.3, No.1, PP 47-67, (1995),

Ghodsian M., Moharrami, H. and Bahramian, S. “The Effect of Position of Baffle Blocks on
Energy Dissipation in Type III Stilling Basin.”, Proceeding of 5th International Conference in Civil
Engineering, Mashhad, Iran, May 9-11 (2000).

Harleman, D.R.F., “Effects of Baffle Piers on Stilling Basin Performances” Journal of the Boston
Society of Civil Engineers, (1955).

Iwao, O., Yasuda, Y. and Yamanaka, Y., “Drag on Vertical Sill of forced Jump”, Journal of
Hydraulic Research, Vol.29, No.1, PP 29-47, (1991).

McCorquadale, J.A. and Giratalla, M.K. “Supercritical Flow Over Sills” ASCE, Journal of
Hydraulic Division, Vol. 98, No.4, pp667-679, (1972).

Narayanan, R. and Schizas, “Force Fluctuation on Sill of Hydraulic Jump”, ASCE, Journal of
Hydraulic Division, Vol. 106, No. 4, (1980).

Rajaratnam, N. and Murahari, V., “A Contribution to Forced Hydraulic Jumps”, Journal of

Hydraulic Research, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 217-240, (1971).

Rathod, R.D. “Development of Procedure for Optimized Design of Stilling Basin”, National
Symposium on Recent Trends in Design of Hydraulic Structures. University of Roorkee, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, India, March 18-19, (1994).

Tung, Y.K. and Mays L.W. “Optimal Designs for Overflow Spillway”, Proceeding of ASCE,
Journal of Hydraulic Division, Vol. 108, No. 10, PP 1163-1178, (1982).

USBR, “ Design of Small Dams”, Water Resource Technical Publication, Denver, Colorado, USA,
(1973).