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-thea 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

3,

2.1

Jet Behaviour in Air

2.2

Jet Behaviour in Plunge Pool

2.3

Hydraulic Jump Behaviour

MODEL T E S T S

3.1

Grain Size Effects

4, SCOUR

5,

6,

B Y HORIZONTAL J E T S

4.1

Scour Following a Horizontal Apron

4.2

Scour Following a Stilling Basin

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 Spillways

45

5.4

General Comments

51

APPLICATION

OF THE PLUNGING

10,

51

6.1

Cabora-Bassa

51

6.2

Kariba

54

7 , SCOUR CONTROL

9,

JET SCOUR FORMULAE

PRACTICAL

MEASURES

7.1

Scour from Plunging Jets

7.2

Scour from Horizontal Jets

REFERENCES
ANNEX

65
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 downstream of the structure.

Consequently,

it is necessary

for the engineerto be able to predict the extent and location of the scour downstream of hydraulic structures,
particuliarly

high head structures, for a variety

spillway and energy dissipator

types.

of

This report is

addressed to this problem.

Background theory is presented on predicting jet trajectories and behaviour in air,

as well as on the cha-

racteristics of a plunging jet in water. The role of model 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.

mulae are presented.

A large number of different for-

The accuracy of a number of these

is checked in an application to two prototype scour situations

namely the Cabora-Bassa and Kariba dams. Some

recommendations as to which formulae to use

situations are given,

in specific

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 Hochwasser ohne starke, lokale Erosion (Kolk) ins Flussbett zuruckzufuhren. Die Kenntnis von Ort und Ausmass dieser Kolke
ist fur den Ingenieur bei der Wahl der Hochwasserentlastungsanlage und im Hinblick auf konstruktive Massnahmen im Unterwasser 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 Besonderheiten 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 unterstromten Schutzen, tiefliegenden Auslassen und nach Wechselsprungbecken; Entlastungsstrahlen bei freien Ueberfallen,
Mauerdurchlassen und Sprungschanzen. Die Anwendung einiger
Formeln auf die aktuelle Kolksituation der Bogenmauern CaboraBassa 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 structures 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 downstream of a structure such as a stilling basin.

The material eroded may be rock, cohesive material or noncohesive 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 patterns of the scouring rock) factors. It must be remembered
that scouring is a dynamic process, and so magnitudes, frequencies and durations of spilled discharges need to be taken into
consideration.
If the rock bed on which the jet impacts is fissured, tremendous 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 matrix. These forces are to some extent dependent on the angle
of the fissures. Consequently, scour may occur in some conditions 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 increases 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 structure(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 travels through the air, and these could aggravate side
slope erosion.

The actual development of a scour hole depends on two related 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 transported 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 possible 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 expression
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 = ZO sin 20 + 2 cos
h
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 equation. 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.

Symbols are as defined in figure 3, except

Ah

hb=

difference between lip elevation and bucket invert elevation

(Ah R (1 - cos 0))
q

-c"

vb

J2g

( z 2 - hb)

a coefficient characterising
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
co-efficient.
(after [ 2 2 ] )

0
1.00

140

180

220

260

300

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 criterion 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 equation (2) by substituting 0 =O.

Thus Kamenev's method is only

valid for horizontal ski jumps. Further, validity is restricted to Fro2< 47.

10

Figure 6
Jet travel length.
( 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 which

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

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

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

r e s i s t a n c e coe f f i c i e n t as- a f u n c t i o n of v e l o c i t y .

R a t i o of a c t u a l trajectory length t o theoret i c a l as a f u n c t i o n of

velocity.

Air

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 between 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 Taraimovich [71]) was made by Martins [47] using 27 conceptual situations, and parameters as defined by Zvorykin et al. [82]. Figure 15 of [751 was used to evaluate vo. Martins [47] recommends 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 crosssection 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 closely to equations developed from diffusion and turbulence theory [2, 26, 27, 60, 721. Because of the applicability of the theory
to both horizontal and vertical jets, Cola [9] states that submerged 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 linearly. 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 =

Ejet
Ejet

=
=

80 % E jet at entry (rectangular)

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 considered

be

(rectangular) y
(round)

40 (2Bu)
20 ( 2 ~

~E )E

30 % Eu
15

Eu.

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

[29] by showing that the data points asymptotically approach a line parallel to the zZ/Pu axis (decreasing), at
RU/y

0.022.

Rectangular j e t

Circular j e t

vz
-

Pz
Pu

Q
-

1 +0.414 y / y k

1+0.507 y/yk+o. 5oo(y/yk) 2

E
-

1 -0.184 y/yk

1-0.550 y/yk+o.21 7 ( y / y k )

vu

Qu

YSYk

Eu

v
Vz

-~/8
(l+x/~u~ / y ~ - ~ 2~ / y )-I12 (l+r/Ru.yk/y-yk/y) 2

P
Pz

e - v 2 (r/RU)

e-TI16 (x/BU)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vz
vu

Pz
Pu

Q
Qu
YLyk

FZ-

yk/y

Y~ I Y

1.414

\rx

0.816\rx

v
-

8
yk/y) 2
e - ~ /(x/B;-

e - ~ / 1 6(x/BU.yk/y)

Eu

(Y ~IY)
2

0.667 yk/y

e -112 (r/Q-yk/y)
e -114 (r/%-yk/y)

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 reversal 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 selection 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 horizontal 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 filaments 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

downstream of the jump.

Ly

Thus the actual energy loss is

EL where

The efficiency of the jump can be written

Q

Figure 12

= (1-

at - a2 v2L
-)
EL
2g

100

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 because 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-uniformity of the velocity distribution [23].
The structure of the velocity distribution and macroturbulence 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
\

required for the turbulence intensity to decay to non-erodible

values must be determined for each particular case being investigated.

3,

MODEL TESTS

Most prototype high head structures are modelled before

construction. Model scour depths are then used to predict expected prototype scour depths. Such predictions can be very
incorrect. For example, initial model tests (more were subsequently 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

-9

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 ejection, 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-cohesive 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 representative 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 material 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 indicated 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 filler material between blocks were modelled for an investigation of scour below the Mogelev-Podol'sk spillway dam. Bigger cracks were left between blocks and layers. This was because 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 appropriate stilling basin location and geometry [591. The Conowingo
(USA) model tests [59] were subsequently validated by prototype behaviour.
3.1 Grain Size Effects
Care must be taken in scaling scour values obtained in model tests with non-cohesive material to prototype scales.
First, some scour formulae that could be used are dimensionally incorrect (e.g. the equations of Veronese and Schoklitsch).
These will result in incorrect prototype scour values if prototype variables are used. However, using model scale variables (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 independent of grain size. Mirtskhulava et al. [49] commented on
a limiting grain size effect. They found their equation overestimated 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 Veronese [77] or Mirtskhulava et al. [49], the same limiting of
scour depth will occur.
Breusers [5] also suggests that scour depth will become independent 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 critical 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 mentioned 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

0.011m3/ms

= 3.88m3/ms

0.19

= 9.5 m

h2

0.040 m

h2

= 2.0 m

The model test gave a final scour depth of

(assume
d50 1.0 mm,

i.e. 0.05m
prototype
scale)

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).

SCOUR DEPTH PREDICTED t + h2

FORMULA

[ml

.-

Evaluated
scale

Model t e s t
r e s u 1t

C481

Veronese A

[ 771

Veronese B
(limiting eqn. )

[771

Schokl i t s c h

1641

W Y W

[481

Smol j a n i n o v

[671

Patrashew

1481

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 larger 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 prototype scale variables) by dimensionally incorrect formula are
clearly seen in the last column of the table. Figure 15 illustrates 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, Kotoulas 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

- 1:50).

at

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 prototype, 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-submerged) 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

vWavy

water, surface

Form 4

v-

Smooth water

surface

v
-

Form 5

v-

Smooth water

surface

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 resulting from flow under a sluice gate. The influence of submergence on the jet form can be seen in figure 16 (after Muller [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).

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 horizontal jet is

h0.5

t+h2

= 7.255

0.6

(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 lower 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,

and

w = 6-70
w=10.20

Type 4
Type3

(Ultimate s t a t i c l i m i t )

and

w = 8.80
w=13.10

Type 4
Type 3

(Ultimate s t a t i c l i m i t )

while for

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

= l e n g t h of apron

bin

dgo

1.5 h
i s defined i n mm.

crr

Figure 18 Scour following an apron

(after Shalash [63]).
-

-----

Fixed bed

--

..
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 hydraulic jump in a stilling basin, irrespective of whether the incoming 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 results (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 stilling basin as (after Jaeger [33])

where

- 0.65 for submergence 0 of the

jump of cl = 1.6 -t 1.0 respectively.

k = 0.45

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 deepening the stilling basin beyond a depth of approximately 1.05
to 1.10 times the conjugate hydraulic jump depth is unnecessary, 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
with a s i l l

k = 1.62
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 dissipating some flow energy, they also increased bottom velocities.

Schoklitsch [65!, 661 gives a formula

where

B2

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
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 downstream channel width

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

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

and

and

a r e given a s examples below)

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

--

- -

- - - - --

-.

---- --- -- -

1.5

0.36

2.5

0.30

2.5
2.5

0.26

2.5

0.28

- ----f---

-- - - -

h'
-

- - - - I -H- -

-----

R
-

p
-

-- -- - - - ---- - - f - - - -

-------

1 :28.5

0.26
h
I ,,
1 :19,
,,
I."

- I
--

angl e

m
/

1 :14.3

37

C o n t i n u a t i o n Table 3

R
H

h'
-

ci

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

0.037
0.049
0.061
0.076
0.092
0.107
0.122

0.25
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17

1.5

0.039

0.30

1.5

0.057

0.23

1.5

0.057

0.18

1.5

0.029

0.35

1.5

0.057

0.28

1.5

0.086

0.24

1.5

0.029

0.32

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

Z=1.5H
i=0.275 H

1.5

0.04

S t i l l i n g basin form

- - - - - - - - - - - f ---- --- -- d)

.. ..

c!xqpy
'..
/

- L

( w i t h Rehbock d e n t a t e d s i 11 )

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

---f

--

I"'
( w i t h Rehbock d e n t a t e d s i l l )

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

--- -- ----

1
-

---I-

--

-----

- --

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

I
-b

--

~---I---

Discharge management

Irr~rr~ediately R i ght
downstream o f
end o f apron

Left
bank

A1 1 t h r e e bays d i s c h a r g i n g
R i g h t and l e f t bays

1
1

0.85
0.75

1
1

- 0.21
0.75

M i d d l e and r i g h t bays

M i d d l e and l e f t bays

1 1 . 0 1

1.0

0.85

0.80

M i d d l e bay o n l y

1
/

R i g h t bay o n l y
L e f t bay o n l y

Table 4

0.70

0.85
0.95

1.0

0.95
0.95

Deepest
scour

I
I
I
1
1

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

t

+ h2 =

0.78

h0.35 qo.7

d90

0.4

(dgO d e f i n e d i n m)

(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 ) .

(31)

Empirical

Semi ernpi r ic a l

General
applicability

Specific t o
ski-jump s p i l l w a y

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

Mi k h a l ev

[48 I

M i r t s k h u l a v a A,B,C
Zvorykin e t a l .

Table 5

Figure 21

[49]

[821

Classification of plunging
jet scour formulae.

Free overfall jet scour.

This equation was developed for a free overfall jet scouring 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 destroyed but yet no fragmentation or abrasion of rocks occurs).
The equation is
t = 0.14 N

+ 0.7 h2 -

0.73 h22
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 analysis of flow behaviour within the scour hole. The basic assumption 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 components 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 ] developed an equation for the depth of scour in non-cohesive material:
t+h2=(
in which

30 vu (2BU)

- 7*5 (2k))

1 - 0.175
sin 0'
cot0' +0.25 h2

(40)

~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
a . n d 0 = 1.5

f o r prototypes
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

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
equation [ 44 1

n1

0.42

\I=

(45)

(dgo in mm)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Sediment size [mml

Figure 23 Correction factor nl

t+h2 =

8.3 vu (2 Bu)

Mirtskhulava et al. [491

further present an equation
for scour of rock beds. This

sin 0'
+ 0.25h2
1-0.175 cot0'

(46)

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
experiments,

--

2.25 f o r laboratory

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 capacity,

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
1

4-

8-3 u vu (2Bu)

7.5 (2Bu)

sin 0'
+0.25h2
1-0.175 cot0'

(47)

y sin 0'(0.6b2+0.2c2)
From 150) Martins notes that Mirtskhulava admits the possibility of quantifying the influence of a non-horizontal bed
downstream. To do this the following expression can be substituted for the numerator inside the square root part of equation (47), i.e.
\

2 mg b c b (ys-y)cos 6 2 3c ys sin 6 )
in which

(48)

= 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 Mirtskhulava et al.

'-

Dolomite

A ndesite

Limestone

Granite

Rhyolite

Argillite schists
Sandstone

Figure 24

.-

.-U

~rystalline
Jschists
Basalt

Marble

o
Q

Gneiss Gabbro

Specific masses of different rock types.

Mikhalev used a similar approach to that employed by Mirtskhulava et al. to derive the following equation describing
scour in beds downstream of high head structures.

1
-IU1

sin 0'
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 subsection 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 Rubinstein [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

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,

= angle of internal friction, and

= turbulence constant = 0.22.

Conditions
30

- 700

Xi

Ei

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

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

~ 4 = 1.0

Xq = 1.0

N1

~ 4 = 0.8 -1.35

A4 = 0.8

N2

~ 4 = 0.9

I13

4 = 0.7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Block
dimensions:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Almost h o r i z o n t a l bed
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

Table 6

- 1.30
- 1 .O

- 1.1

X4 = 0.65 - 1 . 0
X4 = 0.65

- 1.0

Coefficients for Rubinstein's equation.

The difficulty of course lies in determining Va. The equation (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

Rsc
where

= (11

is given as

- 12) hc

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
where

(5.5 -6.0)hc tan @,

(61)

@
, 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 Kotoulas [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 observations 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-

Z2,h

t+h2

[m2/sl

[ml

[ml

Refe-

90.6 ~ 2 0 . 1

q0.54 h0.225

[341

[ 581

rence

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

F i g u r e 27

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 .

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 according to

(Gunko et al. [22],

after Solov'eva [681)
where max indicates the depth of scour in the absence of lateral 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 relevant parameters:

rn k
C rdrd 2 4

k ,0

E C N
-4 I

Cn

-4 rn Cn
E4

C rd

o n

-4

r n w a
rn 0
3

u urn

rn 3 m

-4

0 Cn

h4

rd

-GI

U C H

- aE6dO

rd

h U

4rnH
Q)

4 J 0 c u m
-4 C a,
3 H b

a, 0
kS U
a, 4J
4J
3
w w 0
rdOk

In the model tests (performed at a scale of 1:75), the

bed was modelled as moveable,
with characteristic diameters
dg5, d50 and d15 of 35, 28 and

13 mrn respectively [55]. The

03
CV

bed was weakly aggregated with

a,
k

aluminous cement. Assume, then,

3
b

-4

F=l

the following prototype dimensions :

The modelled scour depth for

all eight sluices discharging
was t + h 2 = 75m [55]. In Fekruary 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.
No.

Comments

Predic t e d
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
a p p l i c a t i o n . Consider s c o u r
f r o m one and two s l u i c e s r e spectively

One s l u i c e :
53

Two
56

MPI R I

(66)

58

Chian

(65

58

Martins B

(64

68

Taraimovich

(62)

Assume a, = 30'

Machado

General e q u a t i o n (eqn. (38) )

L i m i t i n g e q u a t i o n (equ.(39))

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
satisfied

M i k h a l ev

Kotoul as

(49)
(31 )

M irtskhulava
e t al.
Rubinstein

(50)

A e r a t i on c o n s i d e r e d negl igible f o r j e t i n f l i g h t

68
84
149
89
117
136

163'

Non-cohesive ( e q n . ( 4 0 ) )
Rock-scour (eqn.(46))

304

Assume D = 2.76 m
and E = 0.8

170

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 Yuditskii [81] that scour is limited by the prematurely quick development 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 approximately 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 diameter 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'S
059

$ @ l a y "-'PP 'xe"-'
7saJ3 40 y 3 6 u a ~

Formul a

Comments

Eqn.
No.

Predicted
scour depth
t + h 2 [ml

Mi khal ev

(49)

129
46

Studenichikov (34)
General equation (eqn. ( 3 8 ) )
Limiting equation (eqn. ( 3 9 ) )

Machado
Veronese B

(18)

Martins A

(35)

71
112
78

Cube s i z e

0.5 m

m
0.3 m

= 0.4
=

m
m
m
m

Kotoul a s

(31)

dgO = 0.5
= 0.4
= 0.3
= 0.2

Taraimovich

(62)

au

Mirtskhulava
e t al.

(46)

Rf assumed = 0

165
180
2 03
238

45O

94

Cube s i z e

Hartung and
Hausl e r

82
84
86

=
=
=

0.5 m
0.4 m
0.2 m

Evaluated from j e t theory.

Assuming scour develops u n t i l
P-rO

51 1
576
833
138

Table 9

cases such as described here.

-

- -.
--

- Veronese's limiting equation should not be used for predicting 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 situations. Also, water cushions are relatively ineffective in dissipating 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 uneconomic.
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 cushioning, the final scour depth can be reduced by 25
tal air entrainment, and by 10

for to-

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 penetration, 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 uplift 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 Kariba Dam in figure 29. The slab should be of large enough extent 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 protection 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 hydraulic jump for the establishment of uniform flow (see figure 31).

1-

Entrance
Section

h ' a n d htd

Exit 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 laser Doppler anemometry) the distribution of macro-turbulence
downstream of the stilling basin. An appropriate rip-rap blanket was then designed to resist erosion.

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

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

discharging through more than one bay]

Sediment size

Acceleration due to gravity

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

Thickness of riprap following stilling basin

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

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

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

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 )

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

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 structure
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 friction / 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

Coefficient of Rubinstein

rl

Efficiency of hydraulic jump /Value of instantaneous

maximum velocities to average velocities

'

Coefficient of transition from average and maximum bottom velocities to velocities on the ski jump

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

O'

Angle of jet at entry point to downstream plunge pool

Coefficient of Rubinstein

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

At exit from flip bucket

At section 1

At section 2

Admissable

At invert of flip bucket

Critical

Horizontal

Lateral

Mean

Excess

Jet entry conditions to plunge pool/Upstream

Vertical

Along axis of plunging jet

9,

REFERENCES

Akhmedov,T. Kh.

1968. Local erosion of Fissured Rock at

the Downstream End of Spillways. Hydrotechnical Construction No 9.

Albertson, M.L.,
Dai,Y.B.,
Jenson,R.A. ,
Rouse,H.

1948. Diffusion of Submerged Jets. Proc.

A.S.C.E., Vol 74.

Anonymous.

1930. Flood Overflow on Calderwood Dam

Scours Deep into Rock. Engineering NewsRecord, June 26.

Baines,W.D.

1949. Discussion of "Diffusion of Submerged 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 deversior en saut de ski. 16th Congress of
the I.A.H.R., Vol 2, Sao Paulo.

Catakli,0.,
Ozal,K.,
Tandogan,A. R.

1973. A Study of Scours at the End of

Stilling Basin and use of Horizontal
Beams as Energy Dissipators. llth Congress 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-Velocity 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. International Conference on Hydraulic Modelling
of Civil Engineering Structures, September 1982, Coventry.

Doddiah,D.

1967. Scour Below Submerged Solid BucketType Energy Dissipators. 12th Congress
of the I.A.H.R., Vol 3, Fort Collins.

Doddiah,D.,
Albertson,M.L.,
Thomas,R.

1953. Scour from Jets. Proc. Minnesota

International Hydraulics conference.
1961. Technische Stromungslehre. 6. Auflage, Springer Verlag, Berlin/Gottingen/
Heidelberg.

Eggenberger,W.

1943. Kolkbildung bei Ueberfall und Unterstromen. Dissertation, V.A.W., E.T.H.,

Zurich.

Eggenberger,W.,
Muller ,R.

1944. Experimentelle und theoretische

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

Engez ,N.

1959. Betrachtungen uber die Hochwasseruberfalle in Bauart Springschanze bei

der neuen Elmali-Talsperre (Istanbul).
Die Bautechnik 36, Jahrgang Heft 10,
Okt. 1959.

Garg,S.P.,
Sharma,H. R.

1971. Efficiency of Hydraulic Jump. Journal of the Hydraulics Div. A.S.C.E.,

Vol 97, HY3, pp 409-420.

Gerodetti,M.

1982. Auskolkung eines felsigen Flussbettes (Modellversuche mit bindigen Materialien 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 d6finitifs des barrages. llth Congress on
Large Dams, Madrid.
1967. Macroturbulence of Flows Below
Spillways of Medium Head Dams and their
Protection against Undermining. 12th Congress of the I.A.H.R., Fort Collins.
Gunko ,F .G. ,
Burkov,A.F.,
1sachenk0,N.B.~
Rubinstein,G.L.,
Soloviova,A.G.,
Yuditsky,G.A.

1965. Research on the Hydraulic Regime

and Local Scour of River Bed Below Spillways of High-Head Dams. llth Congress of
the I.A.H.R., Leningrad.

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 Investigation 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 Downstream 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 Tosbeckenplatten infolge freier Ueberfallstrahlen bei Talsperren. Wasserwirtschaft 2.
1980. Zum Kolkproblem bei HochwasserEntlastungsanlagen 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 Submerged 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 flussbaulichen Modellversuchen. Wasserwirtschaft .
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 Provenientes de Descarregadores. (Trans No 487

L.N.E.C.). Gidrotekhnicheskoe Stroitel'
stvo No 3.

[371

Kawakami ,K.

1973. A Study on the Computation of Horizontal 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 Wildbachverbauung. 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 Concentration - 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 ,
Pustovit,V.F.

1967. On the Vanishing of Intensive Macroturbulence in Open Channel Below Hydraulic Outlet Structure. 12th Congress
of the I.A.H.R., Fort Collins.

[421

Lowe,J.(III).,
Chao,P.C.,
Luecker ,A.R.

1979. Tarbela Service Spillway Plunge

Pool Development. Water Power and Dam
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. Memoria 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, CoheMagomedova,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. Hydrotechnical 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.

[54]

Novak ,P

[551

Quintella,A.C.,
Da Cru2,A.A.

1982. Cabora-Bassa Dam Spillway, Conception, Hydraulic Model Studies and Prototype 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 Hydraulic 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).

1955. Study of Stilling Basins with Special Regard to their End Sill. 6th Congress of the I.A.H.R., The Hague.
1961. Influence of Bed Load Passage on
Scour and Turbulence Downstream of a
Stilling Basin. 9th Congress of the
I.A.H.R., Dubrovnik.

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 hydraulique. 12th Congress of the I.A.H.R.,
Fort Collins.
1932. Erosion Below Conowingo Dam Proves
Value of Model Tests. Engineering NewsRecord, Jan. 28, 1932.
1942. Gesetzmassigkeit der freien Turbulenz. Forschungsheft 414, Verein Deutscher 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 Overflow Dams. Trans. of Co-ordination Conferences on Hydraulic Engineering. 1ss.VII.
Conference on Hydraulics of High Head
Water Discharge Structures. Gosenergoizdat M.L.
1959. Die Kolkbildung beim Ausfluss unter
Schutzen. Diss. von der Fakultat fur Bauwesen der Techn. Hochschule Munchen.
1932. Kolkbildung unter Ueberfallstrahlen. Wasserwirtschaft.
1935. Stauraumverlandung und Kolkabwehr.
Verlag von Julius Springer.
1951. Berechnung der Kolktiefen flussabwarts eines Stauwerkes. Wasser- und Energiewirtschaft Nr 2.
Smoljaninov,T

1941. Vlivanije Rezima Protekanija Potoka

i Krupnosti Nanosov na Mestnyj Rozmyv v
Niznem Bjefe Soorruzenij. Gidrotechniceskoe 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 6vacuateurs. Trudy Gidravlicheskoi Laboratorii No 8 (Trans. No 1086 de l16lectricit6 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 Ausbreibungsvorgange. Zeitschrift fiir Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Heft 6.

[731

Tschopp,J.,
Bisaz ,E.

1972. Profundidad de Erosion a1 Pie de

un Vertedero para la Application de Correccion de Arroyos en Quebrados Empinades. 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 Monograph No 25, 4th Printing.

[76]

Valentin,F.

1967. Considerations Concerning Scour in

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

[771

Veronese ,A.

1937. Erosion de fond en aval dlune d6charge. I.A.H.R. Meeting for Hydraulic
Works, Berlin.

[781

Water Power.

1962.

[791

Wisner ,P. ,
Radu,M.,
Armences,G.

1967.~Note sur les m6thodes d16tude sur

modsle r6duit des affouillements locaux
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-Issledovatel'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 SpilKouznetsov,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

"