Nr.

73 Mitteilungen
der Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbau,
Hydrologie und Glaziologie

an der Eidgenossischen Technischen Hochschule Zurich

Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. D. Vischer

Scour Related to Energy Dissipaters

for High Head Stmctures

Jeffrey G. Whittaker
Anton Schleiss

Ziirich, 1984
Preface

The f o l l o w i n g communication d e a l s w i t h s c o u r problems a t t h e

t o e o f dams and w e i r s and g i v e s a g e n e r a l view o f t h e p o s s i -
b i l i t i e s of p r e d i c t i n g t h e f i n a l d e p t h and form of s c o u r s
u s i n g e m p i r i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d f o r m u l a s and h y d r a u l i c model
tests.

Thus t h e a u t h o r s , D r . J . G . W h i t t a k e r and A. S c h l e i s s , p r o -
vide hydraulic engineers with a very valuable state-of-the-
a r t r e p o r t and c o n t r i b u t e t o a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e s a f e t y o f
s t r u c t u r e s e n d a n g e r e d by s c o u r .

Prof. D r . D. Vischer
 - 4 -

CONTENTS
Page

Abstract

1, INTRODUCT ION

2, BACKGROUND
2.1 Jet Behaviour in Air
2.2 Jet Behaviour in Plunge Pool
2.3 Hydraulic Jump Behaviour

3, MODEL T E S T S
3.1 Grain Size Effects

4, SCOUR B Y HORIZONTAL J E T S
4.1 Scour Following a Horizontal Apron
4.2 Scour Following a Stilling Basin

5, SCOUR B Y P L U N G I N G J E T S 38
5.1 Empirical Equations of General Applicability 38
5.2 Semi-empirical Equations of General Applicability 42
5.3 Empirical Equations Specific to Ski-Jump Spill- 45
ways
5.4 General Comments 51

6, APPLICATION OF THE PLUNGING JET SCOUR FORMULAE 51

6.1 Cabora-Bassa 51
6.2 Kariba 54

7 , SCOUR CONTROL - PRACTICAL MEASURES

7.1 Scour from Plunging Jets
7.2 Scour from Horizontal Jets

9, REFERENCES 65

10, ANNEX - SOME SCOUR FORMULAE 73

 - 5 -

Abstract

The provision of means for spilling excess water from

reservoirs created by hydraulic structures has long been
recognised as a problem by engineers. The difficulty does
not so much lie in conveying the water to the downstream
river bed. Rather, it lies in being able to do this in
such a way that catastrophic scour does not occur down-
stream of the structure. Consequently, it is necessary
for the engineerto be able to predict the extent and lo-
cation of the scour downstream of hydraulic structures,
particuliarly high head structures, for a variety of
spillway and energy dissipator types. This report is
addressed to this problem.

Background theory is presented on predicting jet tra-

jectories and behaviour in air, as well as on the cha-
racteristics of a plunging jet in water. The role of mo-
del tests in predicting scour is discussed, and some
difficulties relating to grain size effects noted. Pre-
dicting scour caused by horizontal jets issuing from
energy dissipation basins and by plunging jets from free
overfall, pressure outlet or ski-jump spillways is then
covered in some depth. A large number of different for-
mulae are presented. The accuracy of a number of these
is checked in an application to two prototype scour si-
tuations - namely the Cabora-Bassa and Kariba dams. Some
recommendations as to which formulae to use in specific
situations are given, as well as some general recomrnen-
dations for reducing or preventing scour.
Die Beherrschung von energiereichen Hochwasserabflussen bei
Talsperren und Stauwehren stellt oft ein Schlusselproblem
hinsichtlich Sicherheit der Gesamtanlage dar. Problematisch
ist dabei nicht nur die Hochwasserableitung uber das Bauwerk
selbst; die Schwierigkeit besteht vor allem darin, das Hoch-
wasser ohne starke, lokale Erosion (Kolk) ins Flussbett zu-
ruckzufuhren. Die Kenntnis von Ort und Ausmass dieser Kolke
ist fur den Ingenieur bei der Wahl der Hochwasserentlastungs-
anlage und im Hinblick auf konstruktive Massnahmen im Unter-
wasser von entscheidender Bedeutung. Der vorliegende Bericht
befasst sich mit dieser Kolkproblematik.

Der erste Abschnitt behandelt den theoretischen Hintergrund

fur das Verhalten eines frei fallenden Strahles in der Luft
und beim Eintauchen in ein Wasserpolster, sowie die Besonder-
heiten des horizontal abfliessenden Strahles im Wassersprung.
Die Rolle von Modellversuchen bei Kolkprognosen wird anhand
der Fragen, wie Wahl der Korngrosse (Massstabseffekt) und
Simulation von bindigem oder felsigem Untergrund diskutiert.
Die Prasentation einer Vielzahl von Kolkformeln soll es dem
Ingenieur ermoglichen, die Kolkentwicklung fur folgende Falle
abzuschatzen: Horizontal abfliessende Strahlen bei unter-
stromten Schutzen, tiefliegenden Auslassen und nach Wechsel-
sprungbecken; Entlastungsstrahlen bei freien Ueberfallen,
Mauerdurchlassen und Sprungschanzen. Die Anwendung einiger
Formeln auf die aktuelle Kolksituation der Bogenmauern Cabora-
Bassa und Kariba soll deren Schwankungsbereich und die Grenzen
der Anwendbarkeit verdeutlichen. Verschiedene Empfehlungen
erleichtern zudem die Wahl der besten Kolkformel fur konkrete
Fragestellungen. Abschliessend enthalt der Bericht auch einige
praktische Vorschlage zur Begrenzung und Verhinderung von
Kolken.
 SCOUR RELATED TO ENERGY DISSIPATORS
FOR HIGH HEAD STRUCTURES

1, I NTRODUCT I ON

Scour associated with energy dissipators of high head struc-

tures can be caused by two different flow situations, namely

- vertical or oblique free jets impinging on an erodible

bed,

- horizontal flow eroding bed material immediately down-

stream of a structure such as a stilling basin.

The material eroded may be rock, cohesive material or non-

cohesive material.

Vertical or oblique jets are obtained with the spillway

types shown in figure 1.

Free overfalls and high and low level outlets are usually
used as spillway options only in connection with arch dams.
Jet range increases as the level of the outlet is lowered. If
the energy of the jet is not dissipated mechanically at the
point of impact with the downstream river channel, scour of
large proportions can occur.

The erosion process of a rocky river bed under the action

of free jets is very complex. The resultant scour depends on
the interaction of hydraulic factors, hydrologic factors and
morphological (considering the rather complex structural pat-
terns of the scouring rock) factors. It must be remembered
that scouring is a dynamic process, and so magnitudes, frequen-
cies and durations of spilled discharges need to be taken into
consideration.
If the rock bed on which the jet impacts is fissured, tre-
mendous forces can be created within the fissures by the dyna-
 CLASSICAL OVERFALL OUTFLOW UNDER PRESSURE

Small t h r o w
distance

e.g. Kariba

OUTFLOW UNDER PRESSURE

e. g. Sainte -Croix, Cabora - Bassa

SKI-JUMP SPILLWAY

e. g. Bort, Aigle e . g . Tarbela

- -- _- - ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~ - - - - - - - -

Figure 1 Spillway types.

mic pressure of the plunging jet and so break up the rock ma-
trix. These forces are to some extent dependent on the angle
of the fissures. Consequently, scour may occur in some condi-
tions to depths consistent with the end of the plunging jet.
The magnitude of scour decreases with a decrease in the ratio
of jet velocity to fall velocity of the disintegrated material
(Doddiah et al. [131 ) . Lencastre [ 401 and Martins [ 44,451 also
state that scour increases with increasing tailwater depth to
a critical value, and then decreases as tailwater depth in-
creases beyond this value.

With stilling basins located at the end of a spillway,

scour occurs at or near the end of the basin structure and is
caused by excess energy in the horizontal jet.
 The scouring process can have two major effects:

- The stability of part or whole of the hydraulic struc-

ture(s)may be threatened. This does not necessarily have
to be caused by direct structural failure. In some cases
a scour hole downstream of a stilling basin increases
the seepage gradient beneath the structure, leading to
instability.

- The stability of the downstream channel and side slopes

may be threatened. The failure or collapse of an energy
dissipation device may aggravate this severely.

Ramos [561 mentions that hillside streams may result from '

the mixture of air and water created as a free jet tra-

vels through the air, and these could aggravate side
slope erosion.

The actual development of a scour hole depends on two rela-

ted steps [191.

- Disintegration and/or entrainment of base material,

- Evacuation of the material from the scour hole.

Entrained material removed from the scour hole may be trans-

ported downstream as bed load, or form a mound immediately at
the downstream margin of the scour hole. This mound may limit
the depth of scour [15,161, but may also raise the tailwater
to a level at which it interferes with the operation of bottom
outlets. If the mound does limit the depth of scour, the scour
is considered to have attained a dynamic limit. However, if
the mound is removed and the scour proceeds to a maximum pos-
sible extent, it is considered to have attained the ultimate
static limit [161.
 2, BACKGROUND

2.1 Jet Behaviour in Air

2.1.1 Range of J e t

In evaluating the scour caused by free jets, it is first

necessary to predict the jet trajectory so that the location
of the scour hole is known.

For the situation shown in figure 2, a kinematic theory of

free jets gives the expression

Figure 2

From this, the travel length LT of the jet can be evaluated

for the situation shown in figure 3. This is given by the ex-
pression
LT = ZO -I\
sin.20+ 2 cos O (2)

Figure 3

Jet trajectory
parameters.
assuming no energy loss, the median velocity vo at the exit
of the outlet being given by

Equation (2) can be transformed to give

-
LT = -
h
ZO sin 20 + 2 cos
h
- (?l2 cos20

Martins [ 4 7 ] gives graphical solutions to this equation.

The angle of incidence 0' of the jet with the downstream

river bed or water surface can be evaluated from equations(1)
and (2);
tan 0' = I. \/sin2o + zl/z0
----
cos 0
Again, Martins [ 4 7 ] gives a graphical solution.to this equa-
tion. The free jet will penetrate a downstream pool at this
angle 0'.

The equations presented above predict the behaviour of an

ideal jet. Effects such as air retardation, disintegration of
the jet in flight and flow aeration (if the jet is derived
from a ski jump at the end of a long spillway) are neglected.
A number of researchers have developed equations to predict
jet behaviour accounting for these effects.

Gun'ko et al. give an equation for LT that encompasses

energy losses on the spillway. I t

Symbols are as defined in figure 3, except

Ah
-
difference between lip elevation and bucket invert elevation
(Ah R (1 - cos 0))
q q
hb= -c"
1 $ a coefficient characterising
vb 0 J2g ( z 2 - hb) energy losses on the spillway
$I can be determined graphically from figure 4 (given in Gun'ko
et al. [ 2 2 ] ) .

Figure 4

Graphical solution
for determination
of spillway loss 0
co-efficient. 1.00 140 180 220 260 300
(after [ 2 2 ] ) . Spillway l e n g t h [m]

Figure 5 gives the ratio of actual distance traveled L to

the theoretical determined from equation 6 plotted against the
kinetic flow factor ( ~ r ? )for conditions at the lip of the
flip bucket. Figure 5 was prepared from experimental observa-

Figure 5 Jet travel length.

tions, and includes results from tests in which the spillway
flow was aerated by up to - 50 %.Lencastre 1401 concludes that
this is valid for two dimensional jets if the following cri-
terion is satisfied:

Figure 5 also contains the results of Taraimovich 1711 from

the observation of several prototype structures.

Kamenev [36] gives the theoretical jet range as

in which
ho flow depth a t l i p of f l i p bucket,

ZO d i f f e r e n c e i n elevation between t h e a x i s of t h e
f r e e j e t a t t h e e x i t point and t h e f r e e s u r f a c e ,

Z3 difference i n elevation between t h e l i p of t h e

f l i p bucket and t h e f r e e surface on which t h e
j e t impinges downstream,
a l o s s c o e f f i c i e n t a s defined above.

It can be seen that equation (8) can be derived from equa-

tion (2) by substituting 0 =O. Thus Kamenev's method is only
valid for horizontal ski jumps. Further, validity is restric-
ted to Fro2< 47.

Figure 6 10

Jet travel length. 0

( a f t e r Kamenev [ 3 6 1J .
 Kamenev g i v e s a g r a p h i c a l s o l u t i o n f o r L/LT (see f i g u r e 6)
that is valid f o r the intervals
2
0.57 < $ < 0.84 and 35 < F r < 47
0.67<0<0.75 and 13<~?<47

T h i s method a s s u m e s t h a t t h e j e t h a s a p a r a b o l i c f o r m , a n d
i n c l u d e s t h e e f f e c t o f a i r r e s i s t a n c e i n f l i g h t . The r a n g e o f
t h e j e t i s g i v e n by

L = - l n ( l + Z k ~ h6 ' )
9 k2
(valid for Z1=O)

i n which k = a dimensional coefficient of air

resistance (L-1 T) ,

vh = horizontal velocity component o f vo

6' (in radians) = tan-l (k vv)

in which vv = vertical component of vo.

k i s d e f i n e d g r a p h i c a l l y i n f i g u r e 7 . LT c a n b e e v a l u a t e d f r o m
equation (2). Interestingly, f o r vo 2 13 m/s, one a t t a i n s t h e
t h e o r e t i c a l l e n g t h . T h i s i s e q u i v a l e n t t o Gunko's c r i t e r i o n
2
(Fr. < 30) g i v e n h o - 0.6 m [471. L/LT i s a g a i n d e f i n e d g r a p h i -
c a l l y , as shown b e l o w i n f i g u r e 8 .

Figure 7 Figure 8

Air r e s i s t a n c e co- R a t i o of a c t u a l trajec-

e f f i c i e n t as- a f u n c - tory length t o theore-
t i o n of v e l o c i t y . t i c a l as a f u n c t i o n of
velocity.
 Zvorykin et a1.[82] present an empirical expression for
calculating the effective maximum range L measured in relation
to the downstream end of the impact zone. The difference bet-
ween this and L for the middle of the jet is - 1 to 8 %, with
a median of about 4 %.

L = 0.59 (1.53)logq Z2 sin 20 + 1.3 Z3 + 16 (10)

Z 2 = d i f f e r e n c e i n e l e v a t i o n between t h e f r e e
s u r f a c e and t h e l i p of t h e bucket.

Parameters are valid in the ranges

2.1.2 A p p l i c a b i l i t y of Cited Methods

A comparison of the above methods (excluding that of Tarai-

movich [71]) was made by Martins [47] using 27 conceptual situ-
ations, and parameters as defined by Zvorykin et al. [82]. Fi-
gure 15 of [751 was used to evaluate vo. Martins [47] recom-
mends the methods of Kawakami[37] and Zvorykin et al.[82];
the results of Gun'ko et al. showed considerable deviation
from those evaluated by the other methods.

Tangent to the free surface

/

Figure 9

Definition sketch
for downward
oriented jet.

Tangent to the lip

 For a free overfall jet situation as shown in figure 9,
Martins [ 4 7 ] recommends using 0 in equation (2), where

Of course 0 is a negative quantity.

2.1.3 Transverse Cross-Section

Strict Froude similarity modelling of the effect of air on

the evolution of a jet is not possible. Consequently, a study
of the transverse characteristics of a jet in flight can only
properly be performed with prototype structures.

Taraimovich [ 7 1 ] measured the characteristics of various

jets issuing from flip buckets. Figure 10 shows the variation
in cross-section of the jet during flight. (Ro is the cross-
section property of the jet as it leaves the bucket, and R
represents the cross-section property at some distance L 1 <L.
Curve 1 refers to the total thickness of the jet and curve 2
to the thickness of the core, both measured vertically).

Figure 10

Curves giving
change in jet
parameters with
flight distance.

U.S.B.R. [ 7 5 ] gives two figures (also quoted by Martins [ 4 7 ] )

for lateral divergence of a jet following two types of bucket
shape at the end of tunnel spillways.
 Gun'ko et al. [22] give a formula for the lateral angle of
jet expansion B .

in which vbk = t r a n s v e r s e component of t h e

v e l o c i t y i n t h e f l i p bucket.

(Note, the assumption behind.this equation is that the flow

is constrained by ribs on the spillway surface but begins to
spread laterally at or just before the flip bucket).

2.2 Jet Behaviour in Plunge Pool

Several studies have used the behaviour of a plunging jet

to derive the possible extent of scour caused by a free falling
jet 125, 28, 48, 49, 70, 791.

Tests performed with submerged jets of air and water (in

air and water respectively) have been observed to conform clo-
sely to equations developed from diffusion and turbulence theo-
ry [2, 26, 27, 60, 721. Because of the applicability of the theory
to both horizontal and vertical jets, Cola [9] states that sub-
merged jet behaviour is not influenced by gravity. Of course
this is not true for density currents or plumes diffusing in
a basin of fluid of different density, and so a jet that is
considerably aerated may in fact be influenced by gravity.

As the jet plunges into the pool, it diffuses almost line-

arly. Water from the pool is entrained at the boundary of the
jet. Plunging jet behaviour may be approximated as shown in
figure 11 (see also table 1 on page 19).

Hartung and Hausler [25] give the following information:

- y=yk at -5(2~,) or 5(2Ru)

I n t h i s zone ( 0 < y < y k ) ; vmax = vu i n t h e whole c o r e r e g i o n .

vu is considered to act uniformly over the whole entry

section.
 iure

Figure 11

Plunging jet
parameters.

- at y = Y ~ Ejet
I = 80 % E jet at entry (rectangular)
Ejet = 70 % E jet at entry (round).

- If the jet hits base material, part of the flow energy

builds up as dynamic pressure. At the jet centre this is
equal to the available energy head.

- Dynamic pressure reduces to zero at a distance of about

x =y/3 from the jet axis.

- For practical purposes, the end of the jet may be conside-

red be (rectangular) y - 40 (2Bu) E - 30 % Eu
(round) y - 20 ( 2 ~ ~E )- 15 % Eu.

For the round jet, a plot of P,/Pu v, Ru/y confirms this

[29] by showing that the data points asymptotically ap-
proach a line parallel to the zZ/Pu axis (decreasing), at
RU/y - 0.022.
 Rectangular j e t Circular j e t

-
vz
1 1
vu

Pz
1 1
Pu

Q
- 1 +0.414 y / y k 1+0.507 y/yk+o. 5oo(y/yk) 2
Qu
YSYk E 2
- 1 -0.184 y/yk 1-0.550 y/yk+o.21 7 ( y / y k )
Eu

-
v -~/8 ~ / y ~ - ~ 2~ / y )-I12 (l+r/Ru.yk/y-yk/y) 2
(l+x/~u-
e e
Vz
2 2
-P e-TI16 (x/BU) e - v 2 (r/RU)
Pz
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
vz
vu FZ- yk/y

Pz
- Y~ I Y (Y ~IY)
Pu

-Q
Qu
1.414 \rx 2 ~ / ~
YLyk
- 0.816\rx 0.667 yk/y
Eu

-
v
e - ~ /(x/B;-
8 yk/y) 2 e -112 (r/Q-yk/y)
2
z

-
P
2
e - ~ / 1 6(x/BU.yk/y) e -114 (r/%-yk/y)
2

Pz

Table 1 Jet behaviour characteristics.

The development presented above assumes that the angle ai

characteristic of the reduction of the core is constant. In
fact Cii is dependent onReynolds number [4], decreasing with
increasing Re.Characteristic values of ai for submerged jets
are 40-'6O [4], although Homma's [32] data indicates a rever-
sal in the trend of yk with Re for free falling jets with en-
trained air and shows an ai value of lo0. Further, Holdhusen
[31] notes that a velocity distribution at the orifice of a
nozzle corresponding to a normal turbulent profile might cause
a very significant shortening of yk.

The difficulty thus arises of accounting for effects such

as aeration of the jet in flight when evaluating dispersion
parameters. Jet aeration is likely to be considerable for a
jet originating at a flip bucket, and this complicates selec-
tion of entry velocities and characteristics jet dimensions.

In the free overfall jet, Hausler [29] asserts that although

aeration occurs, a core region in the jet will nearly always
remain during the drop until the tailwater level. He recommends
ignoring aeration for this situation, or considering it by a
careful reduction of the jet impact width. Such a reduction
may be estimated from the similar behaviour of a water jet in
air (see Eck [141 ) .

2.3 Hydraulic Jump Behaviour

Scour occurs in alluvium downstream of a stilling basin

even with good hydraulic jump formation in the basin. This
scour is caused by excess energy that is not dissipated within
the jump.
The loss of energy in an hydraulic jump is equal to the
difference in specific energies before and after the jump. The
theoretical energy loss EL in an hydraulic jump on a horizon-
tal floor (a,B assumed = 1.0; a =Coriolis coefficient and 6 =
Boussinesq coefficient) is

where hl and h2 are the hydraulic jump

conjugate depths.

However, the velocity distribution downstream of an hydraulic

jump is generally quite non-uniform and high velocity fila-
ments concentrate near the channel bed. Thus, a, f3 # 1.0, and
so the actual energy loss is <EL. The excess energy can be
called macroturbulent energy, and is given by [I81

in which
-
vt2
-,I is the velocity head immediately
Ly downstream of the jump.

Thus the actual energy loss is EL where

The efficiency of the jump can be written

at - a2 v2L
Q = (1- -) 100
EL 2g

Figure 12 Definition sketch: Hydraulic jump.

Garg and Sharma [I81 showed that Q = 100 for Fr- > 4.5, but
found that scour occurred up to FrlZ 6. This is because scour
occurs not only because of excess velocities in the transition
region downstream of the jump (i.e. where a < a2) but also be-
cause of turbulence features C21, 23, 41, 581. It has been found
that macroturbulence decays at a slower rate than velocity
distribution non-uniformities, and so scour is observed even
when the velocity distribution has become uniform. Velocity
pulsations in the flow immediately downstream of an hydraulic
jump have the structure

where is the root mean square value of the

pulsating velocity component [ 2 3 , 791.

The intensity of pulsations increases with the non-unifor-

mity of the velocity distribution [23].

The structure of the velocity distribution and macroturbu-

lence immediately following an hydraulic jump in a stilling
basin depend on the form of the stilling basin as well as the
incoming flow characteristics. Thus determination of the length -9
\
required for the turbulence intensity to decay to non-erodible
values must be determined for each particular case being in-
vestigated.

3, MODEL TESTS

Most prototype high head structures are modelled before

construction. Model scour depths are then used to predict ex-
pected prototype scour depths. Such predictions can be very
incorrect. For example, initial model tests (more were subse-
quently performed) predicted a scour depth of 30 m below the
original rock surface for the high level outlet spillway of
the Kariba Dam in Zimbabwe [29, 781. By 1979 the scour depth
was 85 m below the original rock surface, and Hausler [29]
predicts this will reach 100m. In order to use model data for
predicting scour depths associated with a stilling basin or
plunge pool, the model bed material type and size must be
chosen carefully to allow scaling.

For free jets impinging on rock underlying a plunge pool

(or for a horizontal jet issuing from a stilling basin onto
rock) a difficulty arises as to how to choose a material that
will behave dynamically in the model as fissured rock does in
the prototype. In most models the disintegration process is
assumed to have taken place, removing the need to model the
dynamic pressures in the fissures and the resistance of the
rock to disintegration. This means only the entrainment and
transport of material from the scour hole needs to be modelled.
Reasonable results are obtained if fissured rock is modelled
by appropriately shaped concrete elements [45, 791. However,
both Ramos [56] and Yuditskii [81] note that the ejection of
blocks is more intense in the model over the initial stages
of scour development than in the prototype. The large number
of blocks ejected lose speed and accumulate to form a bar at
the downstream end of the scour hole. The slower rate of ejec-
tion, combined with wearing down of material within the scour
hole, result in a lower prototype bar height. This in turn
will result in a realised prototype scour depth greater than
that predicted from the model.

If the bed material is chosen carefully, good predictive

results for scour depth can be obtained by using non-cohesive
material. However, the main disadvantage with using non-cohe-
sive material is that while the scour depth may be correct,
the extent of the scour hole is much greater than would occur
in rock. For flood discharges structures located in narrow
gorges, this can be overcome to an extent by considering the
banks to be rigid, only the bed being simulated by means of a
loose granular material [56].

Steep slopes similar to those found in rock and a more re-

presentative shape of scour hole are obtained in tests with
slightly cohesive material [19, 351. Because the eroding jet
is more confined than in the non-cohesive case, cohesive mate-
rial scours more deeply.

In choosing the sediment size for the cohesive mixture a

larger sediment size may have to be used in the model than in-
dicated by scaling prototype block sizes. The model scour depth
should then be adjusted using a formula such as Kotoulas [38].
The next sub-section indicates some difficulties involved with
grain size effects.
 In contrast, Yuditskii [81] considers that considerably
more accuracy is needed in modelling prototype conditions.
Block sizes, orientations and the binding effects of the fil-
ler material between blocks were modelled for an investi-
gation of scour below the Mogelev-Podol'sk spillway dam. Big-
ger cracks were left between blocks and layers. This was be-
cause it was realised that although the gradual removal (in a
way analogous to prototype behaviour) of interstitial material
is possible in the model, the weathering of rocks to a size
allowing them to be expelled from the scour hole and entrained
is not possible. Slightly smaller blocks renders this possible
once the binding material is removed.

It is possible to calibrate, in some circumstances, model

scour with scour resulting from first operational experiences
with the prototype. Eventual constructive measures can also
then be tested [24, 421.

Model tests can also be used to evaluate or choose an appro-

priate stilling basin location and geometry [591. The Conowingo
(USA) model tests [59] were subsequently validated by proto-
type behaviour.

3.1 Grain Size Effects

Care must be taken in scaling scour values obtained in mo-

del tests with non-cohesive material to prototype scales.
First, some scour formulae that could be used are dimensional-
ly incorrect (e.g. the equations of Veronese and Schoklitsch).
These will result in incorrect prototype scour values if pro-
totype variables are used. However, using model scale variab-
les (of the same range for which the equations were derived)
and then scaling the result to prototype scale should give
more correct results.
Secondly, there are two grain size limitations that affect
scour, one relative and the other absolute. Conceptually,
scour formula fall into two groups: those that consider such
grain size limitations, and those that do not.
 Veronese [77lfound (for the situation shown in figure 13)
that the measured scour with a bed material size of 4 mm was
smaller than that expected from the trend given by the larger
sediment sizes. For his second series of tests reported in

Figure 13
1st Veronese
# / test series 1.

[771 (figure 14), Veronese anticipated a similar trend for

grain sizes smaller than 5 mm. Consequently, Veronese altered
the equation derived for the second series of tests, viz

to indicate that for grain sizes smaller than 5 mm, a scour

depth independent of grain size would result. The scour depth
is then given by the formula

This is suggested by the U.S.B.R. [741 as defining a limiting

. . . . - - . -
. .. . . . . .. . . . . ..
Figure 14

Veronese
test series 2.
scour depth. This reflects the fact that plunging jets reach
an effective scouring limit that is much more dependent on jet
parameters than on bed material size.

Machado [43] also gives an equation for scour that is in-

dependent of grain size. Mirtskhulava et al. [49] commented on
a limiting grain size effect. They found their equation over-
estimated scour (at model scale) for grain sizes < 2mm. It can
thus be expected that if a prototype has a head/grain size
ratio (or perhaps a dimensionless ratio involving discharge
and grain size) corresponding to the limiting zones of Vero-
nese [77] or Mirtskhulava et al. [49], the same limiting of
scour depth will occur.

Breusers [5] also suggests that scour depth will become in-
dependent of grain size in the range O.lmrn < d < 0.5 mm, but
seems to infer that this is an absolute rather than a relative
(e.g. to head) feature. He supports this by showing that cri-
tical velocity (assumed to be the most relevant characteristic
of the sediment when analysing scour) becomes independent of
the grain size in that range.

The following example illustrates some of the points men-

tioned above. This example is based on a model test described
by Mikhalev [48].

ExumpLe: Have an overfall scour with the following parameters:

assuming a prototype
of scale 50 x the model

q = 0.011m3/ms q = 3.88m3/ms (assume

h = 0.19 m h = 9.5 m
-
d50 1.0 mm,
i.e. 0.05m
prototype
h2 = 0.040 m h2 = 2.0 m scale)

The model test gave a final scour depth of t+h2 = 0.25 m

(12.5 m at hypothetical prototype scale). The predictions of
various formulae are listed in table 2 (note: a list of the
respective formulae can be found in Annex 1).
 FORMULA SCOUR DEPTH PREDICTED t + h2 [ml
.-

Evaluated
scale

Model t e s t
r e s u 1t
C481

Veronese A [ 771

Veronese B
[771
(limiting eqn. )

Schokl i t s c h 1641

W Y W [481
Smol j a n i n o v [671

Patrashew 1481

I Tschopp-Bisaz 1731

Machado B
[431
(limiting eqn.)

Table 2 Scour predicted by various formulae

- Mikhalev example.

This model test was run with a head/grain size ratio of

126.667. Veronese [77] postulated that the limiting grain size
effect would begin with a grain size of about 5 mrn, which for
his tests corresponds to a head/grain size ratio of 200.00.
Further, the grain size of 1.5 mm employed by Mikhalev is lar-
ger than that indicated by Breusers [51 as giving an absolute
grain size effect.

From the table it can be seen that the Kotoulas formulae

is still accurate at this head/grain size ratio (126.667),
even though it lies well outside the test range of Kotoulas.
The erroneous values predicted at prototype scale (from proto-
type scale variables) by dimensionally incorrect formula are
clearly seen in the last column of the table. Figure 15 illu-
strates the trends in some of the different formulae (at model
scale) for the example just discussed, if a varying grain size
is assumed.

Sediment size ( m m )
-
- - .-

Figure 15 Trends in scour formulae with

changing grain size.

As can be seen, the scour formulae reflect either of two

forms for small grain sizes. The equations of Mikhalev, Kotou-
las and Veronese A continue the trend given by larger grain
sizes. However, Veronese B and- Tschopp-Bisaz 1 7 3 1 (derived
from fitting an equation of different form to the Kotoulas
data) attempt to reflect the limiting by grain size commented
on above. It should be noted that a limiting of scour depth
with small grain sizes is largely an anticipated trend with
little data to substantiate it.

The difficulty of scaling results from models requiring

very small grain sizes is illustrated by the following example:
 - 29 -
Example :

Assume the prototype situation from the previous example

(taken from Mikhalev [481) must be modelled at 1:50, but with
dgo (prototype) = 0.02 m.

This gives dgo (model) = 0.4 mm.

A check on whether the model size selected is appropriate

can be performed using the calculation sequence given by Yalin
[80j With some assumptions, this indicates that for the given
grain size, flow in the model will only be rough turbulent if
the model is constructed bigger than -1:18. (A prototype
grain size of 0.075 m would allow the model to be constructed
at - 1:50).
However, supposing the model was constructed at 1:50 and
d = 1.5 mm (0.075 m.prototype) was used. Then the scour depth
(prototype) for the dgo = 0.02 m material (prototype) could
be calculated with the Kotoulas formula:

But, it must be noted that the h/dgo value is greater than

300. Thus, a relative limiting effect may occur in the proto-
type, meaning that scaling using the Kotoulas formula may give
an excessive value. Conversely, if dgO = 0.4 mrn had been used
in the model (with a consequent lessening in scour depth as
anticipated by Breusers [5]), then the result scaled from the
model would be smaller than realised in the prototype.

4, SCOUR BY H O R I Z O N T A L J E T S

4.1 Scour Following a Horizontal Apron

In this subsection, supercritical flow is assumed on the

apron, and the hydraulic jump (either submerged or non-submer-
ged) is assumed to form over the erodible bed downstream of
the apron. The supercritical flow may result from flow down
a spillway face or under gates from medium to lower head
Form 1

v-
--

Form 2

Form 3

v-
--
Wavy water, surface
- v
Form 4 -

v-
-
-
Smooth water surface
-
-
v
Form 5

v-
-- Smooth water surface
-
-
v
Form 6

Figure 16 Effect of submergence on form of jet.

structures. The form of the scour after a horizontal apron
depends on a number of factors such as submergence, degree of
dissipation of the jet energy, level of the bed relative to
the apron etc.

Scour following an apron may be modelled by the scour re-

sulting from flow under a sluice gate. The influence of sub-
mergence on the jet form can be seen in figure 16 (after Mul-
ler [161).

In the case of the non-submerged jump, the ultimate static

limit of scour (the mound having been removed as per the
Eggenberger method [15]) is given by the following diagram
(figure 17).

8
Figure 17

Scour as predicted
by Valentin [76].

The equation shown by the line in figure 17 is

This situation could result from a low tail water condition

on the apron. However, a high tail water is no guarantee that
the submerged jet will dissipate a significant amount of energy
by the end of apron, as the jet persists for a considerable
distance.

Several researchers have investigated the scour caused by

a submerged horizontal jet over an erodible bed.

Egg~nbmgm[ 7 51 performed tests with combined flow over a

weif and flow under the weir acting as a sluicegate. If the
overflow is zero, the scour resulting from the submerged hori-
zontal jet is
h0.5 0.6
t+h2 = 7.255 q (dgo in mm) (20
d9OOa4O

This refers to an ultimate static limit of scour, where the

mound has been removed. In the prototype this would correspond
to a situation in which the lower than scour forming flows
would remove the mound by higher velocities due to a much lo-
wer tail water level.

MWm [ I 6 1 defined the total scour depth t +h2 for two of

the wave forms shown in figure 16. Using the head behind the
weir To,

w = 6-70 Type 4
and w=10.20 Type3 (Ultimate s t a t i c l i m i t )

while for

w = 8.80 Type 4
and w=13.10 Type 3 (Ultimate s t a t i c l i m i t )

The position of the scour hole for Miillers' tests is given

S h d a h [63] gives the depth of scour resulting from flow

under gates onto an apron with no end sill (see figure 18) as
in which 2 = l e n g t h of apron
bin = 1.5 h
dgo i s defined i n mm.

crr
Figure 18 Scour following an apron
(after Shalash [63]).
-
% -----
e - - --

Fixed bed
..
I I

It is not clear whether the hydraulic jump (submerged or

otherwise) forms on the apron or over the erodible bed.

For the situation shown in figure 19, Shalash developed the

equation
&I
*
Figure 19 Scour following a low apron
(after Shalash [ 631 ) .

.
Moveable bed
where smin = 0.2 Rmin = 0.3 h

This gives

Wisner et al. [79] found a (shorter) countersloping apron

reduced scour from that obtained with a horizontal apon and a
sloping end sill.

The case where the hydraulic jump does not form over the
erodible bed is covered in the next subsection, where it is
assumed that the hydraulic jump always forms in the stilling
basin.

4.2 Scour Followins a Stillins Basin

The following discussion concerns scour following an hydrau-

lic jump in a stilling basin, irrespective of whether the in-
coming flow is from a spillway or a free overfall jet.

As an approximate guideline, Novak [53] states that stilling

basins decrease scour to about 50 % of the average of the re-
sults (at model scale) according to Veronese [77], Jaeger [33],
Smoljaninov [67] and Schoklitsch [641, and to about 12% of the
value according to Eggenberger [15]. (Note, all these formulae
are for plunging jet scour).

In a later paper [54], Novak gives the scour after a stil-

ling basin as (after Jaeger [33])

where k = 0.45 - 0.65 for submergence 0 of the

jump of cl = 1.6 -t 1.0 respectively.

Novak [53] cautions that scour must not be allowed to reduce

the tail water level to the point where the hydraulic jump
leaves the stilling basin. However, he also states that deep-
ening the stilling basin beyond a depth of approximately 1.05
to 1.10 times the conjugate hydraulic jump depth is unneces-
sary, and that the depth of scour is practically independent
of the dimensions of the stilling basin as far as it fulfills
the condition of holding the hydraulic jump. The passage of
bed load decreases scour markedly [54].

Catakli et al. [71 give a formula for scour at the end of

a stillina basin as

without a s i l l k = 1.62
with a s i l l k = 1.42-1.53 depending 'on t h e form.

They found that lateral beams set in the stilling basin (but
above the floor) did not decrease scour because, while dissi-
pating some flow energy, they also increased bottom velocities.

Schoklitsch [65!, 661 gives a formula

where - g i v e s t h e r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e weir c r e s t
B2 used a s s p i l l w a y ( i n c l u d i n g p i e r s ) t o t h e down-
stream channel width

6 r e f l e c t s t h e d i s c h a r g e management when more

t h a n one g a t e i s a v a i l a b l e
a r e f l e c t s t h e s t i l l i n g b a s i n and h y d r a u l i c s t r u c -
t u r e form (0.12 < a < 0.36)
(tables of a and B a r e given a s examples below)
and z i s a time i n hours f o r any p a r t i c u l a r q

(see Figure 20 on next page)

First, it should be noted that the formula is dimensionally

incorrect, and will only be valid at model scale. Secondly,
sediment size was found to be so poorly correlated that it was
not included in the formula. As can be seen from the formula,
scour is minimised as a' + 0.
 Energy line

-- -
- ---
-- - - --

Floor of weir

F i g u r e 20 Scour f o l l o w i n g a s t i l l i n g b a s i n
( a f t e r S c h o k l i t s c h [ 6 5 , 66 1 ).

Thirdly, t h e t i . m e f a c t o r r e s u l t s i n t o o g r e a t scour values

f o r very long l e n g t h s of t i m e .

Table 3 Table of v a l u e s of a

Stilling basin f o r m R
- h'
-
H
a
H

-- - - -
- - - - --
-----
-.
- - - - I -H- - -
1.5 0.36

-- -- - ----f---
---- --- -- - -
-- - - - H 2.5 0.30

- p-

--

-- -- - - - ---- - - f - - - - angl e
----- -
--- - H 1 :28.5 2.5 0.26
1 I ,,
h 1 :19,,,
0.26 I." 2.5 -
I
- I
I
m
/
1 :14.3 2.5 - 0.28
-- --
 - 37 -
C o n t i n u a t i o n Table 3

S t i l l i n g basin form -
R
H
-
h'
H ci

2.5 0.037 0.25

- - - - - - - - - - - f --- 2.5 0.049 0.22
-- - --- -- - 2.5 0.061 0.21
2.5 0.076 0.20
d) '.. .. ..
c!xqpy 2.5 0.092 0.19
/ 2.5 0.107 0.18
5 - L 2.5 0.122 0.17
( w i t h Rehbock d e n t a t e d s i 11 )

---- --- -- -- -- - -
- - A

---f --
1.5 0.039 0.30
I"' 1.5 0.057 0.23

( w i t h Rehbock d e n t a t e d s i l l )

----- -- -- -- --
--- -- ----
1.5 0.057 0.18
1
- --

-
-----
- ---I- --
1.5 0.029 0.35
- - -- -- H
1.5 0.057 0.28
1.5 0.086 0.24
I
- 1 4
1

1.5 0.029 0.32

-- --
- - -- - -
- - --
~---I--- 1.5 0.057 0.27
1.5 0.086 0.20
1.5 0.114 0.12

Z=l.OH
i=O.l5H 1.5 - 0.30
I Z=1.5H
i=0.275 H 1.5 - 0.04
--
b
 Discharge management Left Irr~rr~ediately R i ght Deepest
bank downstream o f scour
end o f apron

A1 1 t h r e e bays d i s c h a r g i n g 1 0.85 1 0 - 0.21 (

R i g h t and l e f t bays 1 0.75 1 0.75
I
M i d d l e and r i g h t bays / 0.70 1 1.0
I
M i d d l e and l e f t bays 1 1 . 0 1
1 1
1.0
I
M i d d l e bay o n l y 0.85 0.80
I
R i g h t bay o n l y 1 0.85 / 0.95 1
L e f t bay o n l y / 0.95 ( 0.95 1
Table 4 Values of f3 for a weir with
three equivalent bays.

Hay and White [30] show that aeration of the flow reduces
scour. For a stilling basin with only an end sill, a bulk air
concentration of 15 -20 % reduces scour by 5 to 10 %. However,
as appurtenances are added to the stilling basin, the effect
is reduced. With a complicated,basin, scour is reduced with
or without air entrainment in the spillway flow.

5, SCOUR BY PLUNGING J E T S

A number of empirical and semi-empirical equations have been

developed for predicting the scour resulting from plunging jets.
Some of these are of general applicability. Others are specific
to ski-jump spillways. The different formulae can be classified
as follows in Table 5 (see next page).

5.1 Empirical Equations of General Applicability

K u X u u R a [ 381

The Kotoulas [38] formula is

h0.35 qo.7
t + h2 = 0.78 0.4
(dgO d e f i n e d i n m) (31)
d90
(Symbols are as d e f i n e d i n f i g u r e 2 1 b e l o w ) .
 I
General Specific t o
applicability ski-jump s p i l l w a y

Empirical K o t o u l as [381 Martins B [461

Veronese A,B [77] Chian [8 1
Schokl it s c h L64.1 Rubinstein [62]
W~sgo [481 Taraimovich [70]
Smoljaninov [671 MPIRI [521
P a t r a s hew 1481
Jaeger [331
Tschopp-Bi saz [73]
S t u d e n i c h i kov [69]
Martins A [44,45 I
Machado A,B [43 I

Semi - Mi k h a l ev [48 I
ernpi r ic a l
M i r t s k h u l a v a A,B,C [49]
Zvorykin e t a l . [821
-
Table 5 Classification of plunging
jet scour formulae.

Figure 21 Free overfall jet scour.

 This equation was developed for a free overfall jet scour-
ing a non-cohesive bed. The final scour length &was evalua-
ted to be

and the distance of the point of maximum scour from the free
overfall as

The equation of Studenichikov [ 6 9 ] is

k=0.1 for B2>2.5Bo

= 0.2 for B2 = Bo

where Bo = width of flow on t h e s p i l l w a y c r e s t

and B2 = width of t h e downstream bed
hc = c r i t i c a l depth of t h e j e t
n i s a f a c t o r allowing f o r a i r entrainment and d i s -
i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e jet. n should be > 0.7 and = 1.0
i f t h e j e t i s compact

where q = s p e c i f i c d i s c h a r g e a t s e c t i o n of impact
and q, = i n i t i a l s p e c i f i c d i s c h a r g e of t h e j e t
dm = median diameter of bed m a t e r i a l ,

The formula is valid for the ranges

It is intersting that this equation accounts not only for

the reduction in scour depth due to lateral speading of the
jet, but also for the reduction in scour depth that occurs
when the width of jet impact is smaller than the bed width.
Martins [ 4 4 ] notes that small material was used by Studeni-
chikov [69] in his model tests. The maximum dm diameter was
= 16 mrn, and some tests were performed with dm = 0.2 mrn.

M~~ A C44, 451

Martins gives a formula for scour in a bed of rock cubes

(assuming that in the prototype any cohesion is quickly de-
stroyed but yet no fragmentation or abrasion of rocks occurs).
The equation is
0.73 h22
t = 0.14 N + 0.7 h2 - N
where

where a = dimension of one edge o f a cube.

Differentiation of equation (5) indicates that scour depth

will become a maximum at a tail water h2 value of

h2 = 0.48 N (37)

This agrees with the value derived by Martins in [44], but

disagrees with the value of h2 = 0.2 N given in [45].

Machado [43]

In reference [43] Machado gives two equations for scour of

rocky beds by jets. The first is

(dgO d e f i n e d i n m)
in which
c, is a coefficient reflecting aeration
of the j e t i n f l i g h t .

The other equation is a limiting form of equation (38),

No explanation seems to be given as to the origin of the

two equations. However, they are quoted in a paper dealing
with a dam with a mid-level outlet. The applicability of equa-
tion (38) seems a little doubtful, as can be seen from table 1.
However, equation (39) predicts a reasonable value of scour
depth for Mikhalevls example (see section 3.1).

5.2 Semi-Empirical Equations of General Applicability

The following equations are based on a semi-empirical ana-

lysis of flow behaviour within the scour hole. The basic as-
sumption is that scour caused by an impinging jet will cease
developing when the flow is no longer able to carry entrained
material beyond the mound at the downstream end of the scour
hole. This of course depends on the horizontal velocity com-
ponents of the flow within the scour hole, and so the angle of
impingement of the jet is important.

Using empirical relations for the change in flow velocity

along y and z (see figure 22), Mirtskhulava et al. [ 4 9 ] deve-
loped an equation for the depth of scour in non-cohesive ma-
terial:
30 vu (2BU)
t+h2=( - 7*5 (2k)) 1 - 0.175
sin 0'
cot0' +0.25 h2 (40)

in which ~l
= value of i n s t a n t a n e o u s maximum v e l o c i t i e s
r e l a t i v e t o t h e average v e l o c i t i e s
q = 2.0 f o r prototypes
a . n d 0 = 1.5 f o r models
w = f a l l v e l o c i t y of p a r t i c l e s , and may be
c a l c u l a t e d from

1.75 y
y s = s p e c i £ i c g r a v i t y of p a r t i c l e s
y = s p e c i f i c g r a v i t y of w a t e r / a i r mixture

For natural conditions, Mirtskhulava et al. note that the

entrance width of the jet is often

vU can be calculated from

where in many cases $I can be set equal to unity. To evaluate
y allowing for some air entrainment effects,

Figure 22
Definition diagram for scour
parameters of Mirtskhulava et
al. [49].

Equation (40) is valid in the range 5 < vu < 25 m/s, and for
dgo > 2 mrn. For smaller diameters dgO,( ( 3 ~ 7v,(2 B,) )/w - 7.5 (2B
must be multiplied by a factor nl (evaluated by Mirtskhulava
4
et al. [491 experimentally) and which is given by figure 23.

Over the range of sedi-

ment sizes given in figure 2,
nl can be determined by the
1 equation [ 44 1

n1 = 0.42 \I= (45)

(dgo in mm)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Sediment size [mml Mirtskhulava et al. [491
further present an equation
Figure 23 Correction factor nl for scour of rock beds. This

8.3 vu (2 Bu) sin 0'

t+h2 = + 0.25h2 (46)
1-0.175 cot0'
in which Rf = f a t i q u e s t r e n g t h t o r u p t u r e . ( T h i s i s determined i n
r e l a t i o n t o t h e s t a t i s t i c a l l i m i t o f compression
s t r e n g t h [ 4 9 ] . ~ l l o w i n gf o r t h e f a c t o r s o u t l i n e d above
r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f j e t s on a f r a c t u-r e d rocky bed,
- - - -- -
-

Rf can be s e t = 0 ,

n = q 2 = 4 f o r f i e l d s i t u a t i o n s and - 2.25 f o r laboratory

experiments,

m = c o l l o i d a l sediment i n f l u e n c e on t h e flow eroding ca-

pacity,
m = 1 . 0 f o r no sediment i n flow,
m = 1 . 6 f o r sediment i n flow,

a,b,c = l o n g i t u d i n a l , l a t e r a l and v e r t i c a l block dimensions

respectively.

Martins 1 4 4 1 quotes equation (46) from [50] in a slightly

different form as
4- 1
8-3 u vu (2Bu) sin 0'
- 7.5 (2Bu)
1-0.175 cot0'
+0.25h2 (47)

y sin 0'(0.6b2+0.2c2)

From 150) Martins notes that Mirtskhulava admits the possibi-

lity of quantifying the influence of a non-horizontal bed
downstream. To do this the following expression can be substi-
tuted for the numerator inside the square root part of equa-
tion (47), i.e.
\
2 mg b c b (ys-y)cos 6 2 3c ys sin 6 ) (48)

in which 6 = a n g l e t h e p l a n e o f t h e b l o c k s makes
with t h e h o r i z o n t a l .

In [49] Mirtskhulava et al. also give an equation for scour

in cohesiye bed material. It is similar in form to those listed
above, but contains some undefined factors. For this reason it
is not listed here.

The following figure from Martins [44] enables the correct

values of ys to be chosen for use in the formulae of Mirtskhu-
lava et al.
 '-

Dolomite
$
a
A ndesite
.-
.-U
Limestone Granite ~rystalline
Jschists
-
o
Q
Q
Argillite schists Rhyolite

Sandstone Marble Basalt Gneiss Gabbro

Figure 24 Specific masses of different rock types.

Mikhalev used a similar approach to that employed by Mirts-

khulava et al. to derive the following equation describing
scour in beds downstream of high head structures.

1 sin 0'
-IU1 I 1- 0.215 cot 0'
1 x 2 I

An example given by Mikhalev has already been discussed in

section 3.1.

5.3 Empirical Equations Specific

to Ski-Jump Spillways

The situation to which the equations presented in this sub-

section refer is shown in figure 25.

Figure 25 Scour following a ski-jump spillway.

R u b i ~ t c L n[ 6 2 1

For a two dimensional problem, the following equations give

the dimensions of scour (quoted by Gunko et al. [22] from Ru-
binstein [62])

The length of scour RSc is given by

D = diameter of a sphere with volume equal

t o t h a t of a j o i n t i n g block.

The coefficients E and X (from equations (50) and (51) respec-

tively) are products of a number of various factors:

and

Values of ~i and Xi are given in table 6.

Equations (50) and (51) are only valid in the range

where

Zvmykin eX d . [ti21
Zvorykin et al. [82] included in the development of their
equation an empirical determination of the distance travelled
by the plunging jet. Their equation is
in which va = admissable (non-erosive) velocity,
a = angle of internal friction, and

C = turbulence constant = 0.22.

-
Conditions Ei Xi

30° - 700 entrance angle o f j e t €1 = 1.0 Xi = 1.8 c o s 0 '

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
j e t non a e r a t e d €2 = 0.8 X2 = 1.0
j e t aerated €2 = 0 . 5 - 0 . 7 A2 = 1.0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Block
dimensions: cubic ~ 3 = 1.0 X3 = 1.0
1 : 1 . 5 : 2 . 0 (N1) &3 = 1 . 0 . A3 = 1.0
1 : 5.0 : 5.0 (N2) &3 = 0.8 A3 = 1.1
1 : 2.75: 6.5 (N3) ~ 3 = 0.8 X3 = 1.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Almost h o r i z o n t a l bed ~ 4 = 1.0 Xq = 1.0
D i p o f bed a t l a r g e
angle, and w i t h b l o c k s N1 ~ 4 = 0.8 -1.35 A4 = 0.8 - 1.1
N2 ~ 4 = 0.9 - 1.30 X4 = 0.65 - 1 . 0
I13 €4 = 0.7 - 1 .O X4 = 0.65 - 1.0
Table 6 Coefficients for Rubinstein's equation.

The difficulty of course lies in determining Va. The equa-

tion (in this form) is insoluble if va can't be determined.
-

However, Zvorykin et al. C821give

where

x can be substituted into equation (56), and then the equation

solved by trial and error approximation for t.

Tahaimvvich [70]
Taraimovich [ 7 0 ] states that the time for formation of the
maximum scouring depth during construction and operation of
spillways ranges from two to seven seasons of passage of maxi-
mum discharges. The maximum scouring depth during a season
varies from 27 % to 6 5 % of the total scour depth.

The length of the scour hole Rsc is given as

Rsc = (11 - 12) hc

where hc = critical depth of the flow.

Taraimovich then uses this to establish a stability criterion

for safety of the flip bucket structure. Stability is ensured

The maximum scour depth below the original bed level is

t = (5.5 -6.0)hc tan @, (61)

where @
, is the upstream angle of the
scour hole side.

A further expression is given for establishing the total scour

depth t + h2 as

in which kr = coefficient of strength of the rock, and

ri' = coefficient of transition from average and
maximum bottom velocities to velocities
on the ski jump.

In some examples cited by Taraimovich

0.9 < q'/kr w < 1.08

and so this factor can probably be treated as equal to unity.

The following empirical equations are much simpler in form

from those of Rubinstein, Taraimovich and Zvorykin et al. In
fact they reflect the form of equations such as that of Kotou-
las [38] developed for plunging jet scour.

Matim B 1461
Martins [46] evaluated the following empirical equation from
prototype observations. The equation is

t + h 2 = 1.5q 0.6 Z20.1 (64)

Plotted points are shown in figure 26. '

Figure 26 Prototype scour depths (after Martins [461).

( Martins1 data)

The equation of Chian for scour below ski-jump spillways is

It should be noted that, apart from the coefficient 1.18,

this is very similar to the limiting equation of Veronese [74].
Equation (65) is also similar to the Martins equation (64),
although Chian uses h instead of Z2.,(The small power exponent
minimises the difference due to the use of these two different
parameters). With this in mind, data from prototype observa-
tions of Chian [8] and from some other prototype structures
were re-evaluated with the equation of Martins (equation (64))
and the limiting equation of Veronese [74], assuming that the
error arising from equating Z2 and h is small. Results are
listed in table 7. Appropriate points are plotted in figure
26, and show good agreement.

Martins1 data [46] was re-evaluated and plotted, along with

the data from table 7, in figure 27.

It can be seen that the limiting equation of Veronese pro-

 9 Z2,h t+h2 Refe- 90.6 ~ 2 0 . 1 q0.54 h0.225
rence
[m2/sl [ml [ml [341 [ 581

113.6 180 43.2 C8 I 28.76 41.432

40.0 34 19.7 [81 13.0 16.21
25.0 31 18.9 [81 9.73 12.32
95.2 97 30.1 [ 81 24.33 32.77
32.0 26.1 17.5 [82,591 11.09 16.628

. 31.4 27.0 15.0 [82,171 10.998 16.496

Table 7 P r o t o t y p e o b s e r v a t i o n s of s c o u r .

F i g u r e 27 Prototype scours.

v i d e s a r e a s o n a b l e upper e n v e l o p e f o r t h e s m a l l e r p r o t o t y p e
scour v a l u e s observed.

E q u a t i o n s ( 6 4 ) and ( 6 5 ) b o t h n e g l e c t t h e i n E l u e n c e of- s e -
diment on t h e s c o u r p r o c e s s . However, Akhmeuov [ l ] conunents
t h a t f r a c t u r e d r o c k s d i s i n t e g r a t e w i t h i n t h e s c o u r h o l e due
t o flow a c t i o n . Thus t h e s c o u r i n g p r o c e s s c o u l d be l i k e n e d to
- -

t h a t i n non-cohesive m a t e r i a l , w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e l i m i t i n g
s i z e a s p e c t s n o t e d i n s u b - s e c t i o n 3.1.
 The following relationship is presented in reference [ll] for
estimating the probable depth of scour below a ski-jump bucket.

5.4 General Comments

If the jet expands in plan during flight from width Bo on

the dam crest to width Bdown at the jet entry point to the
downstream water surface, then the scour depth is reduced ac-
cording to

(Gunko et al. [22],

after Solov'eva [681)

where max indicates the depth of scour in the absence of la-

teral jet expansion.

The scouring characteristics of submerged flip buckets

have been investigated by Doddiah [12]. Important parameters
are given by him in dimensionless graphical form.

6, APPLICATION OF THE PLUNGING

J E T SCOUR FORMULAE

The formulae given in the previous section will now be

applied to two examples.

6.1 Cabora Bassa (Mozambique)

The Cabora-Bassa Dam (see figure 28) has a middle-level

outlet. The outlet consists of eight sluices, with the outlet
section of each being 6 x7.80 m2. The maximum discharge (at
reservoir level 326m a.s.R.) through these 8 sluices is 13 100
m3/s, and the downstream water level is at 225.10 m a.s.2.
The lip of the spillway sluices is located at elevation 244.3
m a.s.2.
The following are the rele-
vant parameters:

I
rn k
C rd-
rd 2 4
k ,0
E C N
-4 I
C Cn
-4 rn Cn
E4
C rd
o n
-4 a
r n w a
rn 0
3
u urn
.
rn 3 m
-4 0 Cn
a
-GI
h4
rd
H
-
U C H
0

rd
d
- aE6dO
h U
4rnH
Q)
4 J 0 -
In the model tests (perfor-
c u m
-4 C a, med at a scale of 1:75), the
3 H b
O k bed was modelled as moveable,
a, 0
kS U
a, 4J with characteristic diameters
4J 3
w w 0 dg5, d50 and d15 of 35, 28 and
rdOk
V

13 mrn respectively [55]. The

03
CV bed was weakly aggregated with
a, aluminous cement. Assume, then,
k
3
b the following prototype dimen-
-4
F=l
sions :

The modelled scour depth for

all eight sluices discharging
was t + h 2 = 75m [55]. In Fek-
ruary 1982, t + h2, was measured
to be approximately t + h2 = 68m.
 The values of scour depth predicted by various formulae
are listed in table 8.

Formula Eqn. Comments Predic t e d

No. scour depth
t + h2 [ m l

Martins A (35) S t r i c t l y , j e t wrong shape f o r One s l u i c e :

a p p l i c a t i o n . Consider s c o u r 53
f r o m one and two s l u i c e s r e -
Two
spectively 56

MPI R I (66) 58
Chian (65 58
Martins B (64 68
Taraimovich (62) Assume a, = 30' 68
Machado General e q u a t i o n (eqn. (38) ) 84
L i m i t i n g e q u a t i o n (equ.(39)) 149

S t u d e n i c h i kov (34) Both v a l i d i t y c r i t e r i o n 89

satisfied

M i k h a l ev
Kotoul as
(49)
(31 )
I A e r a t i on c o n s i d e r e d negl i-
gible f o r j e t i n f l i g h t
117
136

1
M irtskhulava Non-cohesive ( e q n . ( 4 0 ) ) 163'
e t al. Rock-scour (eqn.(46)) 304
Assume D = 2.76 m 170
Rubinstein (50) and E = 0.8
b

Table 8

The following comments may be made regarding these results:

- The values predicted by the equation of Martins (eqn. (35)

are a little low. This seems to confirm the fears of Yudits-
kii [81] that scour is limited by the prematurely quick de-
velopment of the mound when using beds such as employed by
Martins in his tests. His formula then probably reflects
this limitation.

- The formulae developed for plunging jet scour (e-g-thoseof

Mikhalev, Mirtskhulava et al., Kotoulas) over-estimate the
scour depth. They should not be used for middle to low level
pressure outlet jets.
- Rubinsteins equation (eqn. (50) should only be used for
scour caused by jets from ski-jumps located at the end of
long spillway chutes.

- The empirical power formulae developed for ski-jump jet

scour give the best predictions.

6.2 Kariba (Zimbabwe)

The Kariba Dam (Zimbabwe) has a high level outlet spillway.

The structure is shown in figure 29, together with measured
scour depths.

The following are the relevant parameters:

Brighetti [6] noted fractured blocks of 0.5 m size at the

prototype. It can be assumed, then, that the dgO size is appro-
ximately 0.3 - 0.5 m.

The measured scour depth to 1979 was

The values of scour depths predicted by various formulae are

listed in table 9.

The following comments may be made regarding these results:

- Hartung and Hausler assumed the jet to be circular at the

point of impact with the downstream water pool, with a dia-
meter of 6.9 m. The jet at the discharge point is in fact
rectangular. However, allowing for distortion of the jet in
flight, and for the shortening of yk as noted by Homma [32]
and Holdhusen [31], the plunging length evaluated by Hartung
and Hausler for the circular jet may be considered to be a
reasonable approximation for the Kariba situation.

- The equation of Mirtshkulava (eqn.(46)) should not be used for

-- - .-
--- -- - -
--
-"- --- =' l 811
- $ @ l a y "-'PP 'xe"-'
"-' L'S 059 7saJ3 40 y 3 6 u a ~
 Formul a Eqn. Comments Predicted
No. scour depth
t + h 2 [ml

Mi khal ev (49) 129

Studenichikov (34) 46

Machado General equation (eqn. ( 3 8 ) ) 71

Limiting equation (eqn. ( 3 9 ) ) 112

Veronese B (18) 78

Martins A (35) Cube s i z e = 0.5 m 82

= 0.4 m 84
= 0.3 m 86

Kotoul a s (31) dgO = 0.5 m 165

= 0.4 m 180
= 0.3 m 2 03
= 0.2 m 238

Taraimovich (62) au = 45O 94

Mirtskhulava (46) Rf assumed = 0
e t al.
Cube s i z e = 0.5 m 51 1
= 0.4 m 576
= 0.2 m 833
Hartung and Evaluated from j e t theory.
Hausl e r Assuming scour develops u n t i l 138
P-rO
\

Table 9

cases such as described here.

- - - - - - -.
-- -

- Veronese's limiting equation should not be used for predict-

ing a limiting scour depth as suggested by USSR [ 7 4 1 .

- The jet based evaluations of Hartung and Hausler, and

Mikhalev give excellent results.

As a general comment, it should be noted that the mound

formed by scour in rock beds does not seem to be removed by the
flow in many cases (e.g. the Ricota Dam, see Cunha and Lencastre
[lo]). Thus the equation of Eggenberger [15] will not be able
to be used for the prediction of scour depths in such situa-
tions. Also, water cushions are relatively ineffective in dis-
sipating jet energy, unless very deep.

7, SCOUR CONTROL - P R A C T I C A L MEASURES

To avoid scour damage, two options are available:

- avoid scour formation completely

- limit the scour location and extent.

Because of cost usually only the latter is feasible. Ramos

[561 notes that structures for scour control are usually un-
economic.

7.1 Scour from Plunging Jets

One way to control scour from jets is to have them discharge

into a very deep water pool (which may be excavated or formed
by building a small downstream dam). As noted above, water
cushions are not amazingly effective in terms of dissipating
jet energy. However, if the jet is aerated (50 % by volume) the
depth of tail water required for no scour is reduced to half
that required for the solid (or dispersed, but with no air
entrainment) jet [34]. Or, in the absence of sufficient cu-
shioning, the final scour depth can be reduced by 25 % for to-
tal air entrainment, and by 10 % for partial air entrainment
[62]. An example of a deep plunge pool is shown in figure 30.

It should be noted that in view of the potential jet pene-

tration, the pool shown is still not deep enough to prevent
scour. It appears that the grouted base rock is covered by a
concrete apron to protect the bed. Ramos [56] states that such
apron structures should always be model tested to evaluate up-
lift forces that will occur.
 Figure 30 Arch Dam Vouglans (after [20]) .
If this solution is chosen, a danger exists if the main dam
is completed while the downstream dam is not. Over a duration
of approximately 20 days, the Calderwood Dam (USA) was forced
to spill flows of up to 10000 cusecs before the downstream
dam had been completed. With a fall of about 56 m to the base
material, this event scoured a hole 15 m deep at about 23 m
out from the toe of the dam. This depth of scour extended to
the depth of the foundation of the dam [31.

Another alternative to control scour is to fabricate a huge

prestressed and anchored slab at the point of jet impact.
Hartung and Hausler [25] illustrate this solution for the Ka-
riba Dam in figure 29. The slab should be of large enough ex-
tent to cover all points of impact for any spillway management
policy, and contain the hydraulic jump formed.
7.2 Scour from Horizontal Jets

As noted above, appurtenances in the stilling basin reduce

scour, but a similar effect can be achieved by aerating the
spillway flow. An optimum solution could be evaluated in terms
of the cost of providing for aeration of the spillway flow as
opposed to the cost of basin appurtenances.

An alternative solution is to design a particular stilling

basin, then use a rigid boundary model to determine how far
downstream of the basin the macroturbulence is still erosive.
Rand [57] proposes on the basis of tests that additional pro-
tection given to a length LE downstream of a stilling basin
will prevent scour. He found LE/LUN = 1.15 (at any scale)
where LUN = length required from the beginning of the hydrau-
lic jump for the establishment of uniform flow (see figure 31).

1- h ' a n d htd

Entrance Exit section,

Section nonerodable bottom
Continuous sill
or dentated sill @ I

Figure 31 Flow transition with erosion (after 1571).

Ribeiro [61] used a rigid bed model to determine (with la-

ser Doppler anemometry) the distribution of macro-turbulence
downstream of the stilling basin. An appropriate rip-rap blan-
ket was then designed to resist erosion.
a Sluice gate opening / dimension of one edge of cube

a,b,c Longitudinal, lateral and vertical block dimensions

respectively

a' Difference in height between original bed level and

stilling basin outlet height

b Flow width of spillway crest (including piers). [Flow

discharging through more than one bay]

d Sediment size

g Acceleration due to gravity

h Difference in height between upstream and downstream
water levels / [with subscriptldepth of flow

Ah Height of flip bucket lip above invert

h' Height of end sill above stilling basin floor

i Thickness of riprap following stilling basin

k Aeration coefficient /Coefficient

Coefficient of rock strength

Length of apron or stilling basin

Length of scour hole

Colloidal sediment influence (eqns. 46, 47)

Factor allowing for disintegration of jet in flight

Sediment size (d X 2 m m ) adjustment coefficient

Pressure

Specific discharge

Drop in height from bottom of flow outlet section to

stilling basin or apron

Maximum depth of scour below original bed level

Velocity

Pulsating component of velocity

 F a l l v e l o c i t y / C o e f f i c i e n t o f form ( e q n s . 2 1 , 2 2 )

x direction (horizontal)

D i s t a n c e from o u t l e t o f f l o w t o s t a r t o f s c o u r h o l e

D i s t a n c e from o u t l e t of f l o w t o p o i n t o f maximum s c o u r

D i s t a n c e from o u t l e t o f f l o w t o end p o i n t o f s c o u r (i.e.

where downstream end o f s c o u r i n t e r s e c t s o r i g i n a l bed
level)

D i s t a n c e from o u t l e t of f l o w t o t o p o f mound downstream

of scour h o l e

y d i r e c t i o n ( v e r t i c a l ) / D e s c e n d i n g l e n g t h of p l u n g i n g
j e t t o bottom o f s c o u r h o l e

Core l e n g t h o f j e t

Ascending l e n g t h of j e t from bottom o f s c o u r h o l e t o

w a t e r s u r f a c e / T i m e / L e n g t h of r i p r a p beyond end o f
s t i l l i n g basin

B T o t a l c r e s t w i d t h of s p i l l w a y

Bdown J e t w i d t h a t e n t r y p o i n t t o downstream p l u n g e p o o l

B~ J e t w i d t h on s p i l l w a y

B2 Width o f downstream bed

2Bu J e t t h i c k n e s s of r e c t a n g u l a r j e t a t e n t r y p o i n t t o
downstream p l u n g e p o o l

Cv Turbulence c o n s t a n t

Cr F a c t o r f o r r e f l e c t i n g a e r a t i o n of j e t i n f l i g h t
D Diameter o f a s p h e r e w i t h volume e q u a l t o t h a t o f a
j o i n t i n g block

E Energy / W i d t h between d e n t a t e s i n a d e n t a t e d s i l l

E~ Energy l o s s
Fr Froude number ( v / a )

H D i s t a n c e from w a t e r l e v e l u p s t r e a m t o s t i l l i n g b a s i n
floor

L Actual jet range

Jet travel distance (I L)

Distance from start of hydraulic jump to end of scour

downstream of stilling basin

Theoretical jet range

Distance from start of hydraulic jump to establishment

of uniform flow conditions downstream of stilling basin

Factor of Martins

Limiting variable of Rubinstein

Discharge

Radius of flip bucket

Diameter of circular jet at entry point to downstream

plunge pool

Spillway length

Depth of water above bed level upstream of a dam struc-

ture

Width of dentates in a dentated sill

Difference between upstream water level and mid point

of jet at exit from flip bucket

Difference between downstream water level and mid point

of jet at exit from flip bucket

Difference between upstream water level and lip of flip

bucket

Difference between downstream water level and lip of

flip bucket

Angle of spread of plunging jet /Angle of internal fric-

tion / A coefficient

Angle of reduction in core of plunging jet

A coefficient

Specific weight of water

Specific weight of sediment

Angle of dip of bed

E Coefficient of Rubinstein

rl Efficiency of hydraulic jump /Value of instantaneous

maximum velocities to average velocities

' Coefficient of transition from average and maximum bot-

tom velocities to velocities on the ski jump

O Angle of flip bucket, and of jet at flip bucket exit

O' Angle of jet at entry point to downstream plunge pool

X Coefficient of Rubinstein

0 Submergence of hydraulic jump

@ Energy loss coefficient/Angle of scour hole sides

52 Cross-sectional characteristics of the jet in flight

Ro Cross-sectional characteristics of jet at exit from flip

bucket

0 At exit from flip bucket

1 At section 1

2 At section 2

a Admissable

b At invert of flip bucket

c Critical

h Horizontal

R Lateral

m Mean

t Excess

u Jet entry conditions to plunge pool/Upstream

v Vertical

z Along axis of plunging jet

 9, REFERENCES

Akhmedov,T. Kh. 1968. Local erosion of Fissured Rock at

the Downstream End of Spillways. Hydro-
technical Construction No 9.

Albertson, M.L., 1948. Diffusion of Submerged Jets. Proc.

Dai,Y.B., A.S.C.E., Vol 74.
Jenson,R.A. ,
Rouse,H.

Anonymous. 1930. Flood Overflow on Calderwood Dam

Scours Deep into Rock. Engineering News-
Record, June 26.

Baines,W.D. 1949. Discussion of "Diffusion of Sub-

merged Jetsf1.Proc. A.S.C.E., Vol 75,
September 1949.

Breusers,H.N. C. 1963. Discussion of "Sediment Transport

Mechanics: Erosion of Sedimentft.Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, A.S.C.E.,
Vol 89, No HY1, Jan. 1963.

Brighetti,G. 1975. Etude sur modsle rgduit'de 1 1 6 r o -

soir du lit rocheux en aval d l u n dever-
sior en saut de ski. 16th Congress of
the I.A.H.R., Vol 2, Sao Paulo.

Catakli,0., 1973. A Study of Scours at the End of

Ozal,K., Stilling Basin and use of Horizontal
Tandogan,A. R. Beams as Energy Dissipators. llth Con-
gress of Large Dams, Madrid.

1973. Scour at Downstream End of Dams in

Taiwan. I.A.H.R. International Symposium
on River Mechanics, Bangkok.

Cola,R. 1965. Energy Dissipation of a High-Velo-

city Vertical Jet Entering a Basin. llth
Congress of the I.A.H.R., Leningrad.

1966. La dissipation de l'snergie dans

un evacuateur en saut de ski observation
de 116rosion. L.N.E.C. Publication No
288, Lisboa.

1982. Behaviour of Pandoh Spillway. A

Field-cum-model Study. B.H.R.A. Interna-
tional Conference on Hydraulic Modelling
of Civil Engineering Structures, Septem-
ber 1982, Coventry.
Doddiah,D. 1967. Scour Below Submerged Solid Bucket-
Type Energy Dissipators. 12th Congress
of the I.A.H.R., Vol 3, Fort Collins.

Doddiah,D., 1953. Scour from Jets. Proc. Minnesota

Albertson,M.L., International Hydraulics conference.
Thomas,R.

1961. Technische Stromungslehre. 6. Auf-

lage, Springer Verlag, Berlin/Gottingen/
Heidelberg.

Eggenberger,W. 1943. Kolkbildung bei Ueberfall und Un-

terstromen. Dissertation, V.A.W., E.T.H.,
Zurich.

Eggenberger,W., 1944. Experimentelle und theoretische

Muller ,R. Untersuchungen uber das Kolkproblem.
Mitteilung Nr 5 der V.A.W., E.T.H.,
Zurich.

Engez ,N. 1959. Betrachtungen uber die Hochwasser-

uberfalle in Bauart Springschanze bei
der neuen Elmali-Talsperre (Istanbul).
Die Bautechnik 36, Jahrgang Heft 10,
Okt. 1959.

Garg,S.P., 1971. Efficiency of Hydraulic Jump. Jour-

Sharma,H. R. nal of the Hydraulics Div. A.S.C.E.,
Vol 97, HY3, pp 409-420.

Gerodetti,M. 1982. Auskolkung eines felsigen Fluss-

bettes (Modellversuche mit bindigen Ma-
terialien zur Simulation des Felsens).
Arbeitsheft Nr 5, V.A.W., E.T.H., Zurich.

Groupe de travail du Comite Franqais des Grands Barrages.

1973. Les ouvrages d16vacuation d6fini-
tifs des barrages. llth Congress on
Large Dams, Madrid.

1967. Macroturbulence of Flows Below

Spillways of Medium Head Dams and their
Protection against Undermining. 12th Con-
gress of the I.A.H.R., Fort Collins.

Gunko ,F .G. , 1965. Research on the Hydraulic Regime

Burkov,A.F., and Local Scour of River Bed Below Spill-
1sachenk0,N.B.~ ways of High-Head Dams. llth Congress of
Rubinstein,G.L., the I.A.H.R., Leningrad.
Soloviova,A.G.,
Yuditsky,G.A.
 1961. Energy Dissipation in Protected
Beds Downstream of River Barrages in
the Case of Shallow Stilling Pools.
9th Congress of the I.A.H.R., Dubrovnik.

1975. Some Experiences in the Investiga-

tion of Local Scour in a Rock Bed Caused
by Dam Overflowing. 16th Congress of the
I.A.H.R., Vol 2, Sao Paulo.

1973. Scours, Stilling Basins and Down-

stream Protection Under Free Overfall
Jets at Dams. 11th Congress on Large
Dams, Madrid.

1962. Energieumwandlung bei einem frei

fallenden, kreisrunden Strahl in einem
Wasserpolster. Diss., Versuchsanstalt
fiir Wasserbau, TH Miinchen, Bericht Nr 1.

1966. Dynamische Wasserdrucke auf Tos-

beckenplatten infolge freier Ueberfall-
strahlen bei Talsperren. Wasserwirt-
schaft 2.

1980. Zum Kolkproblem bei Hochwasser-

Entlastungsanlagen an Talsperren mit
freiem Ueberfall. Wasserwirtschaft 3.
1982. Spillways and Outlets with High
Energy Concentration. Trans. of the Int.
Symp. on the Layout of Dams in Narrow
Gorges, I.C.O.L.D., Brazil.

,1975. Effects of Air Entrainment on the

Performance of Stilling Basins. 16th
Congress of the I.A.H.R., Sao Paulo.

1311 Holdhusen,I.S. 1949. Discussion of "Diffusion of Sub-

merged Jetsi'. Proc. A.S.C.E., Vol 75,
June 1949.

1953. An Experimentel Study on Water

Fall. Proc. Minnesota International
Hydraulics Conference.

1939. Ueber die Aehnlichkeit bei fluss-

baulichen Modellversuchen. Wasserwirt-
schaft .

1967. The Effect of Entrained Air in the

Scouring Capacity of Water Jets. 12th
Congress of the I.A.H.R., Vol 3, Fort
Collins.
[351 Johnson,G. 1977. Use of a Weakly Cohesive Material
for Scale Model Scour Tests in Flood
Spillway Design. 17th Congress of the
I.A.H.R., Vol 4, Baden-Baden.

[36] Kamenev ,I.A. 1966. Alcance de Jactos Livres Proveni-

entes de Descarregadores. (Trans No 487
L.N.E.C.). Gidrotekhnicheskoe Stroitel'
stvo No 3.

[371 Kawakami ,K. 1973. A Study on the Computation of Ho-

rizontal Distance of Jet Issued from
Ski-jump Spillway. Trans. of the Japanese
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 5.

[381 Kotoulas ,D. 1967. Das Kolkproblem unter besonderer

Beriicksichtiguncj der Faktoren "Zeit" und
nGeschiebemischung" im Rahmen der Wild-
bachverbauung. Schweizerische Anstalt
fiir das Forstliche Versuchswesen, Vol 43,
Heft 1.

1982. Flow under Weir on Scoured Bed.

Journal of the Hydraulics Div. A.S.C.E.,
HY4, pp 529-543, April 1982.

1982. Spillways with High Energy Concen-

tration - General Layout and Dissipation
of Energy. Trans. in the Int. Symp. on
the Layout of Dams in Narrow Gorges,
I.C.O.L.D., Brazil.

[411 .
Lipay ,I.E , 1967. On the Vanishing of Intensive Ma-
Pustovit,V.F. croturbulence in Open Channel Below Hyd-
raulic Outlet Structure. 12th Congress
of the I.A.H.R., Fort Collins.

[421 Lowe,J.(III)., 1979. Tarbela Service Spillway Plunge

Chao,P.C., Pool Development. Water Power and Dam
Luecker ,A.R. Construction.

[43] Machado,L. I. 1982. 0 Sistema de Dissipacao de Energia

Proposto para a Barragem de Xingo. Trans.
of the Int. Symp. on the Layout of Dams
in Narrow Gorges, I.C.O.L.D., Brazil.

1973. Accao Erosiva de Jactos Livre a

Justante de Estruturas Hidraulicas. Me-
moria No 424, L.N.E.C., Lisboa.

[45] Martins,R. 1973. Contribution to the Knowledge on

the Scour Action of Free Jets on Rocky
River Beds. 11th Congress on Large Dams,
Madrid.
[461 Martins,R. 1975. Scouring of Rocky River Beds by
Free Jet Spillways. Water Power and Dam
Construction, April 1975.

[471 Martins,R. 1977. Cinematica do Jacto Livre no Arnbito

das Estuarias Hidraulicas. Memoria No 486,
L.N.E.C., Lisboa-

[481 Mikhalev,M.A. 1960. Determination of the Depth of

Scour of a Non Rock Base by a Falling
Nappe. Gidrotekhnicheskoe Stroitel'stvo 9.

[49] Mirtskhulava,T.E., 1967. Mechanism and Computation of Local

Dolidze,I.V., and General Scour in Non-Cohesive, Cohe-
Magomedova,A.V. sive Soils, and Rock Beds. 12th Congress
of the I.A.H.R., Fort Collins.

[50] Mirtskhu1a~a~T.E.
1967. Alguns Problemas da Erosao nos
Leitos dos Rios. Moscow. (Trans. No 443
do L.N.E.C.).

1511 Mirtskhulava,T.E,,1968. Forecasting Depth of Local Erosion

Dolidze,I.V. Taking Account the time Factor. Hydro-
technical Construction No 2, pp 145-150,
Feb. 1968.

[52] MPIRI (Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Research Institute) 1974.

To Estimate Probable Depth of Scour Below
a Ski-jump Bucket- 32nd Annual Research
Review, C.B.I.P., New Delhi.

[531 Novak,P. 1955. Study of Stilling Basins with Spe-

cial Regard to their End Sill. 6th Con-
gress of the I.A.H.R., The Hague.

[54] Novak ,P . 1961. Influence of Bed Load Passage on

Scour and Turbulence Downstream of a
Stilling Basin. 9th Congress of the
I.A.H.R., Dubrovnik.

[551 Quintella,A.C., 1982. Cabora-Bassa Dam Spillway, Concep-

Da Cru2,A.A. tion, Hydraulic Model Studies and Proto-
type Behaviour. Trans. of the Int. Symp.
on the Layout of Dams in Narrow Gorges,
I.C.O.L.D., Brazil.

[56] Ramos,C.M. 1982. Energy Dissipation in Free Jet

Spillways'. Bases for its Study in Hydrau-
lic Models. Trans. of the Int. Symp. on
the Layout of Dams in Narrow Gorges,
I.C.O.L.D., Brazil. (Memoria No 575,
L.N.E.C., Lisboa).
 1970. Sill-Controlled Flow Transitions
and Extent of Erosion. Journal of the
Hydraulics Div. A.S.C.E., Vol 96, HY4,
April 1970.

1967. Rgsultats de l'gtude du mouvement

macroturbulent en aval du ressaut hydrau-
lique. 12th Congress of the I.A.H.R.,
Fort Collins.

1932. Erosion Below Conowingo Dam Proves

Value of Model Tests. Engineering News-
Record, Jan. 28, 1932.

1942. Gesetzmassigkeit der freien Turbu-

lenz. Forschungsheft 414, Verein Deut-
scher Ingenieure.

1975. The Macroturbulence Downstream a

Stilling Basin. Erosion (Scouring). 16 th
Congress of the I.A.H.R., Vol 5, Sao
Paulo.

1963. Laboratory Investigation of Local

Erosion on Channel Beds Below High Over-
flow Dams. Trans. of Co-ordination Confe-
rences on Hydraulic Engineering. 1ss.VII.
Conference on Hydraulics of High Head
Water Discharge Structures. Gosenergoiz-
dat M.L.

1959. Die Kolkbildung beim Ausfluss unter

Schutzen. Diss. von der Fakultat fur Bau-
wesen der Techn. Hochschule Munchen.

1932. Kolkbildung unter Ueberfallstrah-

len. Wasserwirtschaft.

1935. Stauraumverlandung und Kolkabwehr.

Verlag von Julius Springer.

1951. Berechnung der Kolktiefen flussab-

warts eines Stauwerkes. Wasser- und Ener-
giewirtschaft Nr 2.

Smoljaninov,T . 1941. Vlivanije Rezima Protekanija Potoka

i Krupnosti Nanosov na Mestnyj Rozmyv v
Niznem Bjefe Soorruzenij. Gidrotechnices-
koe Stroitel'stvo 4.

1962. Influencia do Alargamento do Jacto

na Profundidade da Escavacao, Izvestiya
VNIIGNo 96 (Trans. No 464 do L.N.E.C.).
[69] Studenichiko~~B.1.1962. Calcul des 6rosions locales et a
quelques moyens dlall$ger des 6vacua-
teurs. Trudy Gidravlicheskoi Laborato-
rii No 8 (Trans. No 1086 de l16lectri-
cit6 de France).

[70] Taraimovich,1.1. 1978. Deformations of Channels Below

High Head Spillways on rock Foundations.
Hydrotechnical Construction No 9,
pp 917-923, September 1978.

[71] Taraimovich,1.1. 1980. Calculation of Local Scour in Rock

Foundations by High Velocity Flows.
Hydrotechnical Construction, No 8.

[721 Tollmien,W. 1926. Berechnung turbulenter Ausbreibungs-

vorgange. Zeitschrift fiir Angewandte Ma-
thematik und Mechanik, Heft 6.

[731 Tschopp,J., 1972. Profundidad de Erosion a1 Pie de

Bisaz ,E. un Vertedero para la Application de Cor-
reccion de Arroyos en Quebrados Empina-
des. 5th Congreso Latinoamericano de
Hydraulics, I.A.H.R., Lima.

[741 U.S.B.R. 1973. Design of small Dams (2nd Ed).Water

Resources Technical Publication, 816 p.

[75] U.S.B.R. 1978. Hydraulic design of Stilling Basins

and Energy Dissipators. Water Resources
Technical Publication. Engineering Mono-
graph No 25, 4th Printing.

[76] Valentin,F. 1967. Considerations Concerning Scour in

the Case of Flow under Gates. 12th Con-
gress of the I.A.H.R., Fort Collins.

[771 Veronese ,A. 1937. Erosion de fond en aval dlune d6-

charge. I.A.H.R. Meeting for Hydraulic
Works, Berlin.

[781 Water Power. 1962.

[791 Wisner ,P. , 1967.~Note sur les m6thodes d16tude sur

Radu,M., modsle r6duit des affouillements locaux
Armences,G. des lits rocheux. 12th Congress of the
I.A.H.R., Vol 3, Fort Collins.

[801 Yalin,M. 1971. Theory of Hydraulic models,

MacMillan.
[81] Yuditskii,G.A. 1971. Experimental Prediction of Rock
Bed Scour Below a Ski-jump Spillway Dam.
Izvestiya Vsesoyuznogo Nauchno-Issledo-
vatel'skogo Instituta Gidroteckhniki,
Vol 91. (Trans. from Russian by the IPST,
Jerusalem, 1971).

[82] Zvorykin,K.A., 1975. Scour of Rock Bed by a Jet Spil-

Kouznetsov,N.V., ling from a deflecting Bucket of an
Akhmedov,T.K. Overflow Dam. 16th Congress of the
I.A.H.R., Vol 2, Sao Paulo.
 10, ANNEX

SOME SCOUR FORMULAE

All the following formulae have been developed for the

plunging jet scour case. h and q are defined in m and m2/s,
respectively, and g in m/s2.

(Kotoulas [38] incorrectly gives d as

dgo for Veronese A and ~aeger).

limiting equation: t + h2 = 1.9 h 0 - 2 2 590.54

k defined in a table in a reference

given in Mikhalev [48]

dgO [m]; for 0' > 60°, k " 1