Analysis on Local Scour in Downstream of

Ski-Jump Spillway
Jyotirmaya Behera *

ABSTRACT

Hydraulic model study was conducted on the 1:60 scale using 2-D model for mitigating
local scour downstream of ski-jump bucket type energy dissipater under supercritical flow
conditions with initial Froude number, Fr1 from 5.50 to 6.29 for all gates vented condition.
The objective of this research was to assess and quantify the scour in downstream side of
channel and select the most appropriate existing formulas for predicting maximum scour
depth of a local scour hole. The relative scour depth for the experimental data is compared
with different scour equations. Among these equations, a good estimate of the measured
scour depth was obtained for the Novak and Indian standard equation. The developed statistical equations
to predict scour depth give a good agreement with the experimental data. Each scour depth formula has
limitations, therefore does not perform well with different discharges for different gate operative conditions.
For depth of scour computation, the Novak method was found to provide high accurate results with Nash-
Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.91, root mean square error (RMSE) of 4.66 m and mean absolute percentage
error (MAPE) of 15%. However, in a data-constraint situation, the development of a new formula for scour
depth computation will be more feasible. Keywords: Scour, hydraulic jump, Froude number, spillway,
discharge, maximum scour depth

INTRODUCTION carried out an experimental investigation under different

The scouring at downstream of spillways are investigated
by many researchers in order to find out the number of the
variables governing this phenomena and also find possible
solutions for it (Mason & Arumugam,1985, Dey & Sarkar,
2006). The scouring is the removal of bed material by the
action of hydraulic jumps from spillways. The process of
scouring is affected by many interrelated parameters as
the flow in downstream of spillway is highly turbulent;
irregular geometry and varies with time. Scouring continues
until an equilibrium scour depth is reached. If the depth of
scour is large enough, then the stability of the spillway
foundations becomes risk for damage. Therefore, preventing
precautions has to be considered in designing of stilling
basins to ensure their stability under scour evolution.
Laursen (1952) is probably, the first who reported the
similarity of scour profiles developed by a horizontal jet,
without any theoretical implication. Farhoudi and Smith
(1982) applied the findings of Breusers (1966) to determine
the time scale of scour hole downstream of an Ogee
spillway. Dargahi (2003) presented an experimental study
to examine the similarity of scour profiles and the scour
geometry. Power-law type equations are introduced to
predict the geometry of scour depth, mainly in terms of
affecting variables such as, flow depth over the spillway
crest and sediment size. A physical model is employed
by Mohammed, et. al (2004), to simulate the effect of
downstream curvature of the spillway and its end sill angle
on local scour at downstream. Dey and Sarkar (2006)
* Superintending Engineer, Additional Spillway Di-
vision, Burla–768017.33
parameters affecting the depth of scour hole downstream
a submerged horizontal jets. Goel, 2008 reported that
prediction of maximum depth, width and length of scour
with a reasonable accuracy is of immense importance for
proper planning, design and management of hydraulic
structures. Certain geometrical similarity in scour profiles
at different times is exhibited and expressed by a
combination of two polynomials. An experimental data is
used by Othman, 2008 to develop two empirical relations
to predict the depth and the extent of the scour downstream
ogee spillway. The scour hole parameters are predicted
downstream of a spillway using ski jump bucket type
arrangement with linear regression and support vector
machines technique. Heng et. al. (2012) is studied an
appropriate movable river bed material for reproducing scour
depth in the physical model. Farhoudi and Shayan (2014)
reported the scour process downstream of hydraulic jump
featuring the characteristic parameters of scour hole.
Hydraulic jump on an adverse slope is an interesting
phenomenon which affects the sequent depths, energy loss
and length of stilling basins. Hong et. al. (2015) cited the
effects of tail water submergence, type of spillway flow
and riprap apron length on scour results are interpreted in
terms of the turbulent kinetic energy and velocity
distributions near the bed. Behera et al (2021) have
developed statistical equations to predict scour depth give
a good agreement with the experimental data. It has been
observed from the literature review that many formulae for
assessing the scour following hydraulic jump in a stilling
basin are developed or investigated by many researchers.
The literature review indicates that a regression

Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal 25 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023
mathematical model for predicting maximum depth, width viscosity, v is neglected in estimating the maximum scour
and length of scour under all circumstances is not readily depth due to minor effect, Also, due to the uniformity of
available using different flow, material and fluid parameters. type of used bed materials, the effects of ñs could be over
However, deterministic models of varying degree of looked. Considering d s (maximum scour depth), Ls
complexity have been employed in the past for modeling (horizontal distance of maximum scour depth from the lip
the scouring process, with varying degree of accuracy. The end) as dependent parameter and using the Buckingham
existing equations for scour depths do not take into account Ð theorem, then the Equation 1 will be reduced as following
all parameters. This paper is trying to correlate the various
parameters to compute the scour depths by conducting (2)
scale model for different discharges; compare and evaluate
with existing equations of scour depths from literature. It is assumed that the above dependent parameters would
EXPERIMENTAL SET UP be proportional to the product of some powered
dimensionless parameters as:
The experimental setup was created in hydraulic laboratory
of Model Studies & Research Division, Burla. and salient
features of the spillway are shown in Table 1. It envisages (3)
the construction of a 38.83m concrete gravity dam from
deepest bed level and length of dam including spillway is in which âi , (i=1) and áj (j = 1,2,3,4,5) are coefficients
266.61m. which should be determined from experiments.
The downstream of spillway in this study is simulated from The 1:60 scale model of spillway has the following scaling
lip end to RD 450 m. It is found that the specific gravity of relations for length, discharge, time, velocity and pressure
bed material varies from 2.66 to 2.71 and the effective size which are follows:
of the particle is defined by D50 (size at 50% finer by weight).
(4)
Consequently tests are required to obtain qualitative data
on bed response and to bracket possible influences of 1/27885.48 (5)
channel bed scour development (Wahi, 1993). A series of
non-dimensional relations are obtained from dimensional 1/7.75 (6)
analysis and Buckingham method by using its related
parameters (Moradinejad et al, 2019). Accordingly a 1/7.75 (7)
dimensional analysis is done for this study. The variables
are as follows: Pr = Pm / Pp=.Lr = (8)
ƒ ( Ls, b, v, g, D50, Fr1, S0, ñ, ñs, Y0, Y1, Y2, Yup, ds) = 0 (1)
where, Ls = horizontal distance of maximum scour depth A 2D model was constructed using a scale of 1:60 with
from the lip end, v = kinematic viscosity, b = Width of the the upstream profile equation
channel, g = Acceleration due to gravity, D50 = Mean size
of bed material, Fr1 = Supercritical Froude number, S0 = (9)
Bed slope of the channel, ñ = Density of water, ñs = Density
of bed material, Y0 = Tail water depth, Y1 = Initial water and downstream ogee profile equation
depth of the hydraulic jump, Y2 = Sequent water depth of
the hydraulic jump, Yup = Water depth at upstream side, . (10)
and ds = Depth of maximum scour. A layout plan for test flume is shown in Fig. 1. The test
Here b, g, D50, and S0 are kept constant throughout the flume is 33.5 m long and 0.60 m wide. The head bay is
investigation and in turbulent flows, the effect of kinematic 1.15 m deep and the tail bay was 1.15 m deep and has a
2.90 m by 1 m glass
window on either side.
The discharge end of
Table 1 Salient Features of the Spillway
the flume is equipped
with a tailgate geared
Spillway length 36 m Storage level 85.80 m
to raise or lower the tail
Number of span 3 nos. Bed level 65.00 m
water level slowly so
Clear span of each bay 10 m Radius of bucket 11.00 m
that continuous
Spillway Crest level RL 95.70 m Elevation of short apron 65 m
observations could be
Spillway height 30.7 m Gate size 10 m ´ 6 m
made. The spillway
Design flood 490 m3/sec Width of pier 3.0 m
model is constructed to
FRL/MWL 101.70 m Bucket type Ski-jump type
fill the flume width with
TBL 104.60 m Gate type Radial
an ogee crest up to RL.
Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal 26 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023
95.70 m. The spillway model is reproduced to three full
spans and two intermediate piers. The piers are spaced at
10 m wide intervals. The total 2 numbers of piers are fitted
in the spillway. The downstream crest profile is sloped in 1
(V):0.8 (H) from RL 90.501 m to RL 71.128 m so that the
emerging flow are made tangent to the bucket radius of 11
m to prevent discontinuities in the surfaces over which the
flow passed. A concrete apron is constructed with an apron
length of 15 m for model test.
Fig. 1 Layout Plan of Eexperimental Model
In the downstream of the model one standard rectangular
weir of 0.60 m size was fitted at a height of 0.10 m from
the floor level. The downstream channel of spillway is
modelled with a movable bed consisting of river sand having
D50= 1.55 mm and specific gravity of 2.71 up to a length of
450 m with an average bed level at RL 65 m. The values of
D30, D50, D60, and D90 are equals to 1.05, 1.55, 2.3, and 6.6
respectively. After the required tail water depth is built up,
the measured discharge is allowed to flow over the model.
The model is run for different discharges for 6 hours. Given
that the scaling time for 1:60 Froude model is 1:7.75, 6
hour run time represent, theoretically, prototype spill
duration of 46.5 hours. The 6 hours run time is determined
during the calibration phase of the testing to ensure the
development of stable bed forms. During this period,
resulting flow field velocities are determined in spill channel
and river in downstream side using the Mini Current Meter
(M1) of Seba Hydrometrie. The downstream channel in
test flume scoured at different rates in the model till the
amount the recovery slope and model bed adjusted itself
to the set of flow conditions for different discharges. The
scour depth depends upon the water head above the crest,
the height of the spillway, the tail water level and the size
distribution and specific gravity of bed materials. The model
is then shut down, and the resulting erosion and deposition
are evaluated. Scour data is taken from the model after
complete drain of water from channel bed. The contour
interval of 6 m is used. The counter elevations are measured
down from a fixed reference level using bed profile indicator
in entire bed profile. By using this procedure mapping of
the bed contours are carried out.
Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The energy dissipator for spillway is in the form of ski-
jump jets where the flow is guided into the air before striking
the channel bed. The velocity measurements in the bucket,
before jump, during jump and post jump were an attempt
to quantify the variation in velocity profile. The quantitative
velocity data are used as a supplement to support the
visual observations. The velocities are observed for
prototype discharge Q equals to 82.31 m 3/sec 197.01 m3/
sec, 318.69 m3/sec, 449.09 m 3/sec, 623.42 m 3/sec, and
810.54 m 3 /sec
respectively subject to all
gates operative conditions
using Mini Current Meter
with signal counter for
recording impulses
generated from the current
meter. The velocities are
dominating on left and right
side of the channel at RD
50 m compared to the
centre. Various stages of
hydraulic jumps for all
gates opened condition at different discharges are depicted
inFig.2.At low discharge of Q equals to 82.31 m 3/
sec,energy dissipation takes place by pool diffusion &
impact on the floor.With further increase of discharges from
197.01 m3/sec to 810.54 m3/sec, the high velocity jet leaves
the bucket in the form of deflector &throws it into the air.
a) At RL 96.70m (Q=82.31 m3/sec) b) At RL 97.70m (Q=197.01 m3/sec)
d) At RL 98.70m (Q=318.69 m3/sec) e) At RL 99.70m (Q= 449.09 m3/sec)
f) At RL 100.70m Q=623.42 m3/sec g) At RL 101.70m Q=810.54 m3/sec
Fig. 2 Jets from ski-jump with deflector angle 350 and
bucket radius R = 11 m subject to all gates operative
conditions with different types of discharges
27 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023
A moderate amount of the energy dissipation occurred
during the trajectory of the jet to the impact location where
the jet spreads and frays. Along the trajectory path large
volumes of air is entrained into the jet due to extreme
turbulence. Air entrainment into the trajectory jet of a ski-
jump is an important aspect of the energy dissipation
system as a whole. This interaction of air and water creates
the white water which can be seen on any ski-jump energy a) At RL 97.70m Fr=0.21, b) At RL 101.70m Fr=0.35
dissipator. The air present around the water particles Q=197.01m 3/s Q= 810.54 m3/s
promotes further separation of the water jet to a point where
some of it becomes spray. The spray produced by a Fig. 3(a-b) Contours showing maximum scour pattern in
trajectory jet was a positive sign of good energy dissipation downstream of outflow channel upto RD 100 m at RL 97.70
as there is a lot of air entrainment into the system. The m and 101.70 m subject to all gates operative conditions.
60
majority of energy dissipated by the trajectory system is

Scour along the centre of

60

Scour along the centre

RL 99.70m

of channel (RL m)
accounted for at the point impact of the jet with the tail 55

channel (RL m)
55 RL 100.70m
water and riverbed. This impact will have sufficient forces 50 RL 50
96.70m
to change the topography of the riverbed, even if the bed 45 RL
45
97.70m
material comprises of hard rock. The velocity is measured 40
40
in mid depth of trajectory jet at maximum height which 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
Distance from apron end in m
indicates high velocity flow moving towards the channel Distance from apron end in m

surface. The result indicates the trajectory bucket a) At RL 96.70 m to RL 98.70 m b) At RL 99.70 m to RL 101.70 m
substantially reduced the velocities of jets in case of all Fig. 4 (a-b) Scour along the centre line of channel subject
gates opening condition at maximum design discharge after to all gates operative conditions at different reservoir
air is entrained into the jet causing a reduction in energy elevations
and ultimately a reduction in the scour potential of the
impacting jet on the channel bed. This study is conducted The standing wave which develops directly downstream of
under supercritical flow conditions with initial Froude the pier and the shock waves travel laterally reaching the
number, Fr1, ranged from 5.50 to 6.30. Table 2 shows a downstream of bucket for the water discharges of 623.42
good agreement between supercritical Froude number, Fr1, m3/sec and 810.54 m3/sec for all gates opened condition.
and subcritical Froude number, Fr2, for classical jumps atFor small discharges the forward flow is passes over the
different hydraulic loads. It can be seen that. Hydraulic bucket jumped to a shorter length in downstream side and
jumps have also been classified according to the pre-jump plunges to the channel floor as a result significant energy
Froude number, Fr1. The same table shows steady or good dissipation occurs. With the increase of reservoir elevation
jump type of hydraulic jump for all gates opened conditionfrom RL 98.7 m to 101.7 m, high velocity flows caused
with energy loss upto 70%. separation of flows at pier ends leading to formation of
standing waves. Bed scoour in downstream after water
ceases in model for all gates opening conditions with
diff erent
Table 2 Measurement of Experimental Flow at all Gate Opening Conditions
hydraulic loads
are shown in
Fig. 3. Under
t h e s e
Sequent water conditions, the
depth of the
RL Q Initial water depth Supercritical Subcritical Type a v e r a g e
hydraulic jump
of the hydraulic n e g a t i v e
(Y2)
jump (Y1) in m velocities
in m 3
m /sec Froude number in m Froude number of resulting from
Fr1 Fr2 jump turbulence are
96.7 82.31 0.17 6.29 2.96 0.17 Steady
sometimes
sufficient to
97.7 197.01 0.48 6.23 4.16 0.21 Steady
move bed
98.7 318.69 0.78 6.08 5.42 0.22 Steady material from
99.7 449.09 0.94 5.86 6.32 0.26 Steady the near field of
100.7 623.42 1.26 5.65 7.62 0.27 Steady exit channel
101.7 810.54 1.62 5.5 7.79 0.35 Steady
downstream
and washed
away. Scouring

Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal 28 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023
is observed in channel due to eddy action of flow and the observed scour depths corresponding to different
scour elevations are measured in channel using bed profile discharges. Among these equations, the Novak equation
indicator and data obtained are plotted. The maximum gave a good estimate of the measured scour depth.
observed scour at RL 97.70 m and RL 101.70 m Evaluation of scour depths
corresponding to discharge 197.01 m3/sec and 810.54 m 3/
sec are shown in Fig. 4(a) and 4(b). The maximum scour To illustrate the effect of Fr1 values on the calculated ds/Y1
observed along the centre line of downstream of channel values, in which ds is the maximum scour depth, the relation
is shown in Fig. 5. Then the maximum and minimum scours between Fr1 and ds/Y1 is depicted in Fig. 5.
are observed with their distances from lip end shown in 120
Schoklitsch (1932)
Table 3. It concluded that maximum scour at 48 m distance 100 Jaeger (1939)
Eggenberger (1944)
was 19.09 m from bed level at RL 97.70 m caused deep

ds/Y1, Predicted scour

80
scour in the immediate vicinity of the bucket lip.
60
EXISTING SCOUR DEPTH EQUATIONS AND
40
COMPARISON OF MEASURED SCOUR DEPTHS
20
It is necessary to predict the maximum scour depth and
length for the different cases being under investigation 0

because the maximum scour depth and its location 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3
Fr1, Froude Number
downstream of hydraulic structure are important design
Fig. 5 Relation between Froude number and computed
factors. Scour equations for downstream of the hydraulic
scour depth from others
structures for other researchers are available. For
comparison purposes, some of these equations were used The depth of maximum scour is increasing with decrease
to calculate the maximum scour depths downstream of Froude numbers for all equations. It can be said that,
hydraulic structures for the present experiments. The the experimental data for the all gates operative condition
experimental measurements for scour depths in the are acceptable compared to the Novak equation collected
present study were compared with the computed scour from review. The Comparison between experimental and
depths from prediction equations. All 8 prediction formulas computed scour values of ds/Y1 for Jaeger, Novak, and IS
of depth of scours, ds are summarized in Table 4. The same Code are shown in Fig. 6.
table shows the eight different types of equation to give 100
the maximum scour depths. These equations are 90 Jaeger (1939) Novak (1961) Indian Standard (1985)

80 ds/Y1, Computed = 0.005(ds/Y1, Observed)2 + 0.409(ds/Y1, Observed) + 10.46

Schoklitsch, (1932), Jaeger, (1939), Eggenberger, (1944), R² = 0.967
ds/Y1, Predicted

70
Novak, (1961), Kotulas, (1967), W u, (1973), Indian Standard, 60
ds/Y1, Computed = 0.012(ds/Y1, Observed)2 - 0.313(ds/Y1, Observed) + 17.76
R² = 0.978
(1985), and Bijan Dargahi, (2003). Where ds is depth of 50
ds/Y1, Computed = 0.007(ds/Y1, Observed)2 - 0.178(ds/Y1, Observed) + 9.733
40
scour, q is flow discharge per unit width, H is elevation 30
R² = 0.979

difference between reservoir and TWL, D90 is particle size 20

of which 90% of material is finer, Y0 is tail water depth, C
is If the out flow discharges are being 22.8 then the value
of the constant ratio will be zero, g is acceleration due to
gravity, h0 is operation head, and D50 is particle size of
which 50% of materials is finer. Different values of Q, b, q,
d 50, d 90, Y 0, h 0, H, d s and F r1 were experimentally
investigated, where the input data is the tested values of
q, Y0, H and Fr1 while the output data is the conjugate
depths of the formed hydraulic jump Y1 and Y2, and the
depth of scour ds.
Table 5 shows a comparison between the experimental
results of maximum scour depths for different discharges
and each of empirical equations. It is observed that, the
empirical equation of Novak and Indian Standard gives very
close values of the scour depth obtained from the present
study. On the other hand, Eggenberger equation predicted
a very high value of scour depth than those computed by
other equations. The wide variations of scour depths are
due to the particle size of material d90. Among these
equations, the Kotulas, Jaeger, Wu equation gave a very
less estimate of the measured scour depth compared to
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
ds/Y1, Experimental
Fig. 6 Comparison between experimental and computed
scour values of ds/Y1 for Jaeger (1939), Novak (1961), and
IS Code (1985)
The Fig 7 and 8 shows a comparison between the
experimental relative observed scour and the relative
computed scour values of d s/Y 1 for other empirical
equations. Regression models of computed scour depths
are shown in Figure 6 to 8 which gives the polynomial
equation that can develop in observed and computed scour
depth in all gates vented conditions. The R2 values are
measures how close the data are to the fitted regression
line and indicates model fits the data well. The higher the
R-squared, the better the model fits data, but it is still
acceptable. Here, the co-efficient of multiple can correct
or the graph should be accurate that can be describe in
that tables.

Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal 29 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023
 Table 3 Prototype Maximum and Minimum Scour Depths and Lengths
Observed at Different Discharges

Measured Measured
Distance
Distance Minimum Maximum
Sl. RL Q from lip
from scour scour
end
depth depth
(in
No. (in m) 3 lip end (in m) (in m) (in m)
m /sec)
(in m)
1 96.7 82.31 42 0.86 6 9.69
2 97.7 197.01 90 11.6 48 19.09
3 98.7 318.69 90 10.07 42 18.71
4 99.7 449.09 90 11.78 48 18.75
5 100.7 623.42 60 11.81 84 18.32
6 101.7 810.54 66 12.55 84 18.77

Table 4 Equation of Scour Depths Downstream of the Spillway

Sl. No. Source Year Scour equation

1 Schoklitsch 1932 ds= (4.75 × q0.57 × H0.2 ×D90-0.32) - Y0
2 Jaeger 1939 ds= 0.6 ×q0.5 × H0.25 × (H/D90) 0.33
3 Eggenberger 1944 ds= (C×q0.6× H0.5 ×D90-0.4) - Y0
4 Novak 1961 ds= 0.55×(6×H0.25× q0.5 × (Y0 / D90)1/3 -Y0)
5 Kotulas 1967 ds= 0.78 × (Y0 0.35 × q0.7/ D900.4)
6 Wu 1973 ds= 2.11×H× (q/ (g ×H3)1/2)0.51
7 Indian Standard 1985 ds = 1.90 ×H0.225 ×q0.54
8 Bijan Dargahi 2003 ds = 1.7× h0 ×(h0/D50)1/4.5

Table 5 Comparison of Depths of Maximum Scour Observed and Computed Maximum Scour Depths
using the Equations in Literature

Computed depth of scour , ds in m

Observed
scour
Schoklitsch

Eggenberg

3
Q m /sec
Wu (1973)

Standard
er (1944)

Dargahi

depth, ds
Kotulas
Novak
Jaeger
(1932)

(1939)

(1961)

(1967)

(1985)

(2003)
Indian

Bijan

(m)

82.31 9.69 2.49 4 16.44 8.7 1.23 4.22 6.72 1.54

197.01 19.09 8.67 6.23 32.76 15.04 2.19 6.6 10.8 3.6
318.69 18.71 13.68 7.98 46.39 19.6 2.97 8.46 14.04 5.91
449.09 18.75 19 9.43 59.2 21.89 3.39 10.06 16.87 8.39
623.42 18.32 25.18 11.01 73.88 22.09 3.5 11.85 20.07 11.03
810.54 18.77 30.42 12.6 87.88 21.91 3.56 13.56 23.15 13.78

Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal 30 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023
 30 value greater than 0.50. RMSE value ranges from 4.66 m
Schoklitsch (1932) Kotulas (1967)
25 (Novak) to 39.29 m (Eggenberger). There are only one
ds/Y1, computed = -0.002(ds/Y1, Observed)2 + 0.060(ds/Y1, Observed) + 18.93
equations having RMSE value less than 10 m. In term of
ds/Y1, Predicted

20 R² = 0.795
MAPE, Eggenberger equation contain very high error
15
(MAPE > 100%). Only Novak and IS code have less MAPE
ds/Y1, Computed = 0.000(ds/Y1, Observed)2 + 0.056(ds/Y1, Observed) + 1.815
10
R² = 0.958 value. Based on these statistical indices (NSE, RMSE
5 and MAPE), Novak is the most ideal formula in predicting
0 scour depth, ds. It has the highest value of NSE = 0.91
10 20 30 Experimental
ds/Y1, 40 50 60 and the lowest value of RMSE = 4.66 m and MAPE =
15%. IS code is the second ideal method with NSE, RMSE
Fig. 7 Comparison between experimental and computed and MAPE correspondingly equal to 0.57, 10.42 m and
scour values of ds/Y1 for Schoklitsch (1932), and Kotulas 24%. Each ds formula has its own limitation and therefore
(1967) does not perform well with different ranges of discharges
and also different for different gate operative conditions.
100
90
Eggenberger (1944) Wu (1973) CONCLUSIONS
80
ds/Y1, Computed= 0.020(ds/Y1, observed) - 0.569(ds/Y1, Observed) + 61.54
R² = 0.962
2
The experimental work is conducted for the spillway under
70
ds/Y1, Predicted

60
supercritical flow conditions with initial Froude number, Fr1
50 is 5.50 to 6.29 and hydraulic jump have also been classified
ds/Y1, Computed = 0.007(ds/Y1, observed)2 - 0.197(ds/Y1, Observed) + 10.53
40 R² = 0.979 according in the pre-jump Froude number, Fr1 shows steady
30
ds/Y1, Computed = 0.002(ds/Y1, Observed) - 0.171 (ds/Y1, Observed) + 10.57
2 of good jump type of hydraulic jump for all gates opened
20 R² = 0.588
10 condition with energy loss up to 70%. The following
0 conclusions are derived from the foregoing study:
10 20 30 40 50 60
ds/Y1, Experimental  The main flow characteristic is the development of a
hydraulic jump from the initial super-critical conditions.
Fig. 8 Comparison between experimental and computed  The standing wave which develops directly in
scour values of ds/Y1 for Eggenbergr (1944), Wu (1973), downstream of the pier and the shock waves travel
and Bijan Dargahi (2003) equations laterally reaching the downstream of bucket for higher
discharge at 810.54m3/sec. These standing waves with
Table 6 Statistical Measures of Predicted Equations shock waves are highly fluctuating and created
additional scouring damage in the downstream spillway
Name of Scour Equations All gates operative together with regular hydraulic jumps. Under these
NSE MAPE % RMSE (m) circumstances, such waves should be eliminated to
Schoklitsch -0.58 43 19.94 save cost and avoid potential catastrophic hazard. The
Jaeger -0.44 51 19.03
thickness of the pier at the downstream end is the
Eggenberger -5.13 196 39.29
Novak 0.91 15 4.66 primary contributor to the formation of the standing
Kotulas -2.05 84 27.74 wave. Therefore, a modified version of nose pier with
Wu -0.33 48 18.29 rounded face with side taper in the flow direction is
IS Code 0.57 24 10.42 suggested.
Bijan Dargahi -1.5 59 25.08
 The experimental maximum scour depth observed for
all gates vented condition is validated through eight
scour depth equations established in literature. The
The efficiency of each scour depth ds method is measured relative scour depth for the experimental data for the
by statistical index called Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) spillway is compared to that derived by Schoklitsch,
which is the most widely used goodness-of-fit indicator. Jaeger, Eggenberger, Novak, Kotulas, W u, Indian
The efficiency of the applied formula is judged satisfactory, Standard, and Bijan Dargahi. Among these equations,
with NSE greater than 0.50 (Moriasi et al. 2007). Together a good estimate of the measured scour depth is
with NSE, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and obtained for the Novak equation.
root mean square error (RMSE) are evaluated for comparing  A comparison between the experimental relative
the performance of each method. The most ideal formula observed scour depths and the relative computed scour
should contain the highest value of NSE and the lowest depths is established. The developed polynomial
value of RMSE and MAPE. NSE, RMSE and MAPE are equations to compute scour depth give a good
calculated for all eight equations and results are shown in agreement with the experimental data. The efficiency
Table 6. The efficiency of each equation indicated by NSE of each regression equations are checked with three
varies from -0.44 (Jaeger) to 0.91 (Novak). Only IS code statistical indices called NSE, RMSE and MAPE.
and Novak equations provide satisfactory result with NSE
Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal 31 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023
 The Novak and IS code equations are 1st and 2nd ideal
equations based on NSE, RMSE, and MAPE values
for computing the scours.
 Each individual equation has its own limitation and
therefore does not work well with different ranges of
discharges.
 More research is required to for establish a new scour
depth equation for different gate operative conditions
in a data constraint situation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to Model Studies & Research
Division, Burla under Department of Water Resources,
Govt. of Odisha for providing necessary data to conduct
the present study.
REFERENCES
 Breusers, H.N.C. (1966), “Conformity and time scale in two-
dimensional local scour. In: Proceedings of the symposium on
model and prototype conformity”, Hydraulics Research
Laboratory, Poona, India, pp.1–8.
 Behera, JM, Kar, Anil, & Khamari, A. (2021), “Scour at the
downstream of Ghatakeswar spillway using non-cohesive
hydraulic model”, ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, https://
doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2021.1929520
 Dargahi, B. (2003), “Scour development downstream of a
spillway”, Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol.41 (4), pp.417–
26.
 Dey S., and Sarkar, A. (2006), “Scour downstream of an apron
due to submerged horizontal jets,” J. Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 132(3), pp.246-257.
 Eggenberger, W. (1944), “Investigation of major damage of
scour”, Journal of Water Resources Engineering in Germany.
 Farhoudi, J. and Shayan, H.K. (2014), “Investigation on Local
Scour Downstream of Adverse Stilling Basins”, Journal of Ain
Shams Engineering Journal, Vol.5, pp.361-375.
 Farhoudi, J. and Smith, K.V.H. (1982), “Time scale for scour
downstream of hydraulic jump”, Journal of Hydraulic Division,
Vol.108 (1), pp.1147–62.
 Goel, A. (2008), “Estimation of Scour Downstream of Spillways
Using SVM Modelling”, Journal of the world congress on
Engineering and Computer Science, Vol.4, pp.978-988.
 Hong S., Biering C., Sturm TW, Yoon KS, & Gonzalez-Castro JA,
2015, Effect of submergence and apron length on spillway
scour:case study, Water, vol. 7, pp.5378-95
 Heng, S.; Tingsanchali, T. and Suetsugi, T. (2012), “Analysis of
plunge pool scour hole formation below a chute spillway with
flip bucket using a physical model”, ASEAN Engineering Journal,
Part C, Vol.1 (1), pp.88–101.
 Jaeger Ch. U ber die A hnlic hkeit bei fluss baulichen
Modellversuchen. W asserwirtschaft und W assertecknik
1939;34(32/27) : 269 [in Germany].
 Kotulas , D. (1967). Das Kolk problem im Rahm en der
Wildbachverbauung. Mitteil., Schweizer Anstalf f. forsliches
Versuchswesen, 43/1, Birmensdorf, CH.
 Laursen, E.M. (1952), “Observations on the nature of scour”,
In: Proceedings of the 5th hydraulic conference, bulletin 34,
State University of Iowa, Iowa, USA, pp.179–97.
 Mohammed TA, Megat Mohd Noor MJ, Hunt BK, Ghazali AH, &
Geominetech: The Indian Mineral Industry Journal
Yunis TS. (2004), Effect of curvature and end sill angle on local
scouring at downstream of a spillway. International Journal of
Engineering Technology Vol.1(1) pp. 96-101.
 Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Liew, M.W.V., Bingner, R.L., Harmel,
R.D. and Veith, T.L., (2007), “Model evaluation guidelines for
systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations”,
Transactions of the American Society of Agriculture and
Biological Engineers, Vol. 50(3), pp. 885-900.
 Moradinejad, A., Saneie, M., Ghaderi, A. and Shahri, S.M.Z
(2019). Experimental study of flow pattern and sediment
behavior near the intake structures using the spur dike and
skimming wall. Appl Water Sci Vol.9(8), 195. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13201-019-1069-7
 Mason, P. J., and Arumugam, K. (1985). “Free jet scour below
dams and flip buckets.” Journal of Hydraulic Eng., Vol. 111(2),
pp. 220–235.
 Novak, P.J. (1981), “Models in Hydraulic Engineering”, Pitman
Advanced Publishing Program, London.
 Othman, K.I. (2008), “Scour downstream an ogee spillway”, Al-
Rafidain Engineering, Vol.16 (3), pp.143–50.
 Schoklitsch, A. (1932), “Investigation of local scour downstream
of grade control structures based on two-dimensional jet
diffusion and particle stability is experimentally verified”, Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering in Germany, pp.341.
 Wahi, T. (1993), “Hydraulic model study of Horseshoe dam fuse
plug auxiliary spillway”, Hydraulic Branch, Research and
Laboratory Services Division, US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, May, R-93-10.
 Wu, C. M. (1973). “Scour at downstream end of dams in Taiwan.”
Proc. of Int. Symp. on River Mechanics, Bangkok, Thailand,
Vol. I, A 13, pp.1–6.
Jyotirmaya Behera,Superintending Engineer, Additional
Spillway Division, Burla He received his Master of
Engineering by Research from
Victoria University, Melbourne,
Australia in Logistics and
Transportation in 2001. He is
graduated in Civil Engineering from
UCE (Now VSSUT), Burla in 1989.
He is also the life member of IEI
and ISH. He has published 23
papers in referred national and
international journals and
international conferences and also
guided two M.Tech students thesis
in model studies from VSSUT Burla in 2018. Prior to joining
in the Govt he was working in NERIST, Itanagar, Wapcos,
Sheladia Associates (USA), and Gherzi Eastern India Ltd.
His main field of research interests focused on Physical
modeling of hydraulic structures. He has completed 9
numbers of physical model studies of major and medium
dams of Odisha. Beside his other research interest
includes construction materials, quality assurance and dam
instrumentation. He was awarded Institute of Engineers
(India) Odisha award consecutively five times for best
technical papers. He was also recipient of IPRS from
Commonwealth Govt. of Australia in 2000.
32 Vol- 10 Iss-No02-Jun / ENTMS 2023