REC-ERG784

Engineering and Research Center

Bureau of Reclamation

August 1978
MS-290 (l-76)
Bureau of Reclamation
TECHNICAL Rf EPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG
3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE

August 1978
Low Froude Number Stilling Basin Design
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NO.
Robert L. George
REC-ERC-78-8
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

Engineering and Research Center

Bureau of Reclamation 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

Denver, Colorado 80225

13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
COVERED
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

Same

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

6. ABSTRACT

Hydraulic model investigations were performed to supplement existing data and to develop
general design criteria for low Froude number stilling basins. A generalized basin design for
Froude numbers from 2.5 to 5.0 was developed from model tests and existing low Froude
number designs. The recommended design is a relatively short stilling basin with chute blocks,
baffle piers, and a dentated end sill.

7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

I. DESCRIPTORS-- / hydraulic structures/ *stilling basins/ spillways/ dentated sills/ hydraulic

models/ model tests/ energy dissipators/ baffle piers/ chute blocks/ l Froude number/ fluid
flow/ design criteria/ laboratory tests/ test results/ hydraulic jump

). IDENTIFIERS--

:. COSATI Field/Group 138 COWRR 1313.1

6. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF PAGE
flHlS REPORT)
\voitable from the Notional Technical Information Service, Operations
UNCLASSIFIED 16
division. Springfield. Virgrnio 22151.
20. SECURITY CLASS 22. PRICE
I11115 PAGE)
REC-ERC-78-8

LOW FROUDE NUMBER

STILLING BASIN DESIGN

by
Robert L. George

August 1978

Hydraulics Branch
Division of Research
Engineering and Research Center
Denver, Colorado SI METRIC

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR * BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

 . .
.
 CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ................................................................. 1
Previousstudies.. ......................................................... 1
Current Bureau studies .....................................................
Summary ................................................................... :
Laboratory model description .................................................
Test procedures .............................................................. f
Measurements and criteria for evaluation ......................................
Basin length and flow patterns .............................................. :
Waves ....................................................................
Efficiency ................................................................. i
Preliminary tests .............................................................
Natural basin tests ......................................................... 1
SAF basin test ............................................................ 5
Bureau Type IV ............................................................
Developmenttests.. ......................................................... 55
Basicflowpatterns ........................................................
Recommended design ........................................................ i
Chute blocks and baffle piers ............................................... 6
End sill and basin length ................................................... 7
Tailwater depth ............................................................
Energy dissipation ......................................................... ;
Design example ............................................................
Bibliography .................................................................

FIGURES

Figure

Proportions for Froude numbers 2.5 to 4.5 (Basin IV) ...............

Height of end sill (Basin IV). ......................................
Laboratory test facility for modeling hydraulic jump stilling basins ...
99
10
Energy loss compared to incoming energy .........................
Dimensionless length of stilling basin ............................. ::
Ratio of tailwater to inflow depth ................................. 13
Recommended stilling basin (2.5sF15.0) ......................... 14
Distance from toe of chute to baffle piers (X) and end sill(L) ........ 15
Example of recommended design ................................. 16
 INTRODUCTION damage occurs or on intermittent streams where
a certain amount of erosion is tolerable. The SAF
basin design criteria were established for flows
The hydraulic jump has been used as an energy
with 4i F, I 100, where:
dissipation device for many spillways, outlet
works, and canal structures. Model studies have
often been required to assure proper perform- F, =
v:
ance of particular structures. These studies 90,
require large investments in both time and
money for each specific structure modeled.
This range of f, is equivalent to the more
conventional F(Froude number)varying between
Previous Studies 21F,<lO. where:
Several general studies have been made to
investigate hydraulic jump stilling basins. One of
the main objectives of these studies was to F=v-&
develop guidelines which could be used in the
future to design hydraulic jump stilling basins
and minimize the need for individual model tests.
Some of these general studies are: “Hydraulic The Bureau criteria in EM25 (Engineering
Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators, Monograph No. 25) are a combination of field
Engineering Monograph No. 25” [l]“, “Hydraulic experience, model studies for specific projects,
Design Criteria” [2], “Development and Hy- and generalized model tests. The monograph
draulic Design, Saint Anthony Falls Stilling contains general design criteria for most types of
Basin” [3], and “Criteria for Design of Hydraulic stilling basins, energy dissipators, and asso-
Jump Type Stilling Basins With Horizontal and ciated appurtenances. The designs obtained by
Sloping Apron” [4]. Other design guidelines are following these recommendations are usually
used in specific applications; however, the conservative. Generally, model studies will not
general studies are used more frequently for be required on structures that lie within the
design of hydraulic jump stilling basins. An limitations specified in the monograph. However,
additional design was developed by Bhowmilk[5] model studies are usually necessary to verify a
for a low Froude number stilling basin down- design when ideal conditions do not exist; for
stream from a sluice gate. example, when incoming or outgoing flow is not
symmetrical about the spillway centerline. The
first five sections of the EM25 specify guidelines
for hydraulic jump stilling basins for various
“Hydraulic Design Criteria” was developed by conditions. For example, section 1 (Basin I)
the Corps of Engineers from many model tests of specifies the recommended design for a natural
large flood control structures which had high jump basin and section 5 (Basin V) specifies the
heads and large unit discharges. As a result, the recommended design for a sloping apron-type
guidelines are not directly applicable to thisstudy basin. Basin IV, (figs. 1 and 2)** was the
and will not be discussed further. recommended design for Froude numbers less
than 4.5 that would minimize wave problems and
dissipate the energy. Basin IV is fairly effective at
The SAF (Saint Anthony Falls) stilling basin was low Froude number flows for small canalsandfor
developed for canal and diversion structures on structures with small unit discharges. However,
agricultural distribution systems and small recent model tests have developed designs quite
streams which typically have low heads and different from the Basin IV design, even though
small unit discharges. However, the SAF basin is the Basin IV design was included in the initial
so short that a significant amount of the energy tests.
dissipation must occur downstream from the end
sill. The downstream channel can be allowed to
erode until a stable scour hole occurs or suitable
protection can be provided downstream from the l Numbers in brackets refer to literature cited in the
bibliography.
stilling basin to minimize scour. Often these
structures are located in lined canals where no l * All figures are at the end of this report.
Palmetto Bend Dam stilling basin [61 is an report, erosion tests should be included. Such
example of a low Froude number structure, tests should be made over a full range of dis-
modeled recently in the Bureau Hydraulic charges todetermine whether abrasive materials
Laboratory, and the recommended design isquite will move upstream into the basin, in addition
different from a Basin IV design. The Basin IV to determining erosion potential downstream
design has large deflector blocks, similar to but from the basin.
larger than chute blocks, and an optional solid
end sill; the Palmetto Bend design has no chute
blocks, large baffle piers, and a dentated end sill. LABORATORY MODEL DESCRIPTION

Current Bureau Studies A flume 760 mm deep, 760 mm wide, and 11.6 m
long was used for the study (fig. 3). An overflow
The foregoing generalized designs have not been crest was placed in the flume 330 mm above the
suitable for some Bureau applications and the floor. A 2:l inclined chute connected the crest to
increased use of low Froude number stilling the horizontal apron. The walls of the 8.5-m-long
basins has created a need for this information. center section of the flume were clear plastic to
This study was initiated to develop generalized allow visual observations from the side.
criteria for the design of low Froude number
hydraulic jump stilling basins. The criteria and
guidelines from the previous studies were The permanent piping in the laboratory supplied
combined with the results of this study to the water to the flume from the pump, and the
formulate the design guidelines recommended discharge was measured with venturi meters.
for low Froude number stilling basins. However, The discharge was varied for each test to obtain
it should be noted that a hydraulic jump stilling the desired Froude number. The theoretical
basin is not an efficient energy dissipator at low depth was 152, 68, and 24 mm for Froude
Froude numbers; that is, the efficiency of a numbers 2,3, and 5 respectively; the q(unit dis-
hydraulic jump basin is less than 20 percent for charge) for the same Froude numbers was0.371,
F<2.7. Alternative energy dissipators, such as 0.165, and 0.058 (mJ/s)/m, respectively.
the baffled apron chute or spillway, should be
considered for these conditions.
Depth measurements at the toe of the chute
(section 1 of fig. 3) were not possible for all
SUMMARY discharges because the tailwater covered the
lower portion of the sloping chute when the
This study was undertaken to consolidate the chute blocks were in place. Measurements were
knowledge of low Froude number stilling basins, made immediately upstream from the toe of the
and to supplement this with model tests to jump and were correlated to measurements at
develop design criteria for a stilling basin for section 1 without any appurtenances in place so
Froude numbers between 2.5 and 5.0. The the proper depth at section 1 could be estimated
recommended design has chute blocks, baffle with chute blocks in place.
piers, and a dentated end sill. All data are
presented in dimensionless form. The length is
rather short, approximately three times D2 (the TEST PROCEDURES
conjugate depth after the jump). The size and
spacing of the chute blocks, and baffle piersarea After reviewing the available data from refer-
function of D1 (incoming depth) and the Froude ences [l] through [5], preliminary tests were run
number. The dentated end sill is proportioned for a natural hydraulic jump stilling basin
according to 02 and the Froude number. The end (Basin I), a SAF stilling basin, and the Bureau
sill is placed at’or near the downstream end of the low Froude number basin (Basin IV).
stilling basin. Erosion tests were not included in
the development of this basin. Observations of
flow patterns near the invert downstream from The designs for the Palmetto Bend and SAF
the basin indicated that no erosion problem stilling basins recommend that baffle piers and
should exist. However, if hvdraulic model tests end sills be used. The SAF design recommends
are performed to confirm a design based on this that chute blocks be used in addition to baffle

2
 piers and end sill. These designs were compared Basin Length and Flow Patterns
to Basins Ill and IV designs. The Basin Ill design,
for a Froude number of 5, was similar to the SAF Both the length and theflowpatterns in the basin
design and the Palmetto Bend design, both of are subjective observations and will vary from
which worked well. Therefore, a stilling basin observer to observer. The L (length of basin) was
was built according to the Basin Ill criteria for a taken as the longer of (1) the distance from the
Froude number of about 6.0, which performed toe of the chute to the point at which the high-
very well. Data extrapolated from the Basin Ill velocity jet leaves the floor, or (2) the ‘distance
design were used as the initial design for lower from the toe of the chute to a point immediately
Froude number tests. The size and location of the downstream from the surface roller. These
chute blocks, baffle piers, and end sills were criteria were used for the length of the jump both
varied from this extrapolated design to obtain the in EM25 and in this study.
best configuration for Froude numbers from 2.5
to about 6.0. The optimum size and placement of
the chute blocks were established first, and then The distribution of flow was observed with
various sizes and locations for the baffle piers particular attention to the velocity along the floor,
were tested. After the location and size of the The best flow pattern was the flow which had a
baffle piers and chute blocks were determined, stable jet that hit the baffle piers directly, re-
different sizes and shapes of end sills were tested sulting in:
near the end of the basin to determine the best lower velocities along the floor
size and location. the upstream toe of the jump locating near
section 1 (fig. 3).
a “smooth” water surface immediately down-
MEASUREMENTS AND CRITERIA stream from the hydraulic jump.
FOR EVALUATION

The depths at sections 1 (toe of the chute) and 2 Waves

(downstream from the end sill) (fig. 3). the
observed wave heights at section 2, and the Initially, wave characteristics were observed
discharge were recorded for each configuration visually; comments about wave height, wave
tested. The Froude number, discharge, basin length, and surface roughness were written on
length, and the size and location of the the data sheets. Later, wave heights and wave
appurtenances were also recorded. Observations lengths were scaled from oscillograph strip chart
of the velocity patterns, surface flow, eddy size records of the waves and were used to evaluate
and location were noted. These observations each stilling basin configuration.
were combined with the data to form parameters
used to evaluate the different configurations.
Efficiency

The parameters used to evaluate the perform- Specific energy at section 1 and section 2 (fig. 3)
ance of the various stilling basins tested were: was determined by measuring the depth and
discharge and computing E (specific energy)
basin length above the bottom of the flume from
energy dissipation
observed wave heights
tailwater depth near 0,
even distribution of flow throughout the basin (1)
with no stagnant or high-velocity flow
areas.
where

The best stilling basin design had the shortest

length with ever, flow distribution, minimum D = depth of flow
wave heights, maximum energy dissipation, and 4 = unit discharge
tailwater at or near 0,. 9 = acceleration of gravity

3
 Efficiency of the stilling basin is defined as the discharge. These data were combined to form
difference of specific energy between sections 1 dimensionless ratios and are plotted as functions
and 2 divided by the energy at section 1. of the Froude number (fig. 4, 5, and 6) for the
basins tested.

Efficiency = 6-kE EL (2)

1 =E, The efficiency is shown as a function of Froude
number (fig. 4) and the data from the preliminary
The vertical depth of water on the chute was tests aie in agreement with the computed
measured by a point gage connected to an theoretical maximum energy loss curve shown
electronic device which gave an audible signal as a dashed line.
when the point gage contacted the water surface.
This measured depth was corrected for the slope
of the chute to obtain the depth normal to the The ratio of L to D2 is plotted (fig. 5) as a function
floor of the chute at section 1. A stilling well and of Froude number. The dashed line is the length
point gage were used to measure the water depth recommended in EM25 for a natural hydraulic
at section 2, and this depth was used as the jump stilling basin, Basin I. The basin length data
tailwater. from the current tests for Basin I are shorter than
the length recommended in EM25. The dif-
ferences between these two data sets were most
PRELIMINARY TESTS likely caused by the following:

The initial tests were performed on a natural (1) The front of the jump may have been main-
hydraulic jump stilling basin (Basin I) and on tained more completely on the sloping chute
stilling basins designed according to the SAF and during this study than the previous studies,
Bureau Basin IV criteria before tests were run to which would decrease the length of the hy-
develop a low Froude number stilling basin. The draulic jump.
eight Basin I tests were for Froude numbers from
2.7 to 6.0; the tests for the SAF and Basin IV
designs were for a specific Froude number. The (2) The differences between observations
existing basins were tested togain experience on made by different people may account for
performance of existing designs and to obtain some of the difference between the current
data to compare with later tests. data and the dashed line because each set of
data appears to be consistent within itself.

Natural Basin Tests The curve for the conjugate depth ratio, &/O, =
‘ii ( m - l), is a function of the Froude
The flow downstream from the Basin 1 design number and is plotted on figure 6. The data points
was quite smooth at low Froude numbersand the are bounded by the curves which correspond to
jump was maintained in the basin if the tailwater tailwater depths of 1 .l and 0.9 times 4.
depth was at least equal to 4. Sweepout
occurred (the hydraulic jump moved downstream
from the toe of the chute) in a natural basin when Tests that had ratios of ‘TW (tailwater depth) to 0,
the tailwater was about 3 percent lower than 4. higher than those shown, (fig. 6) had very little
energy dissipation even though the flow was very
smooth. Tests with a high TW/D, were observed
Two main disadvantages of using a Basin I design and the efficiencies computed; however, these
for low Froude number flows are: (1) the basin data were not recorded because of the small
length, 6 4, and (2) the relatively high-velocity amount of energy dissipation. if the tailwater
jet that exists along the floor may extend intoand depth was reduced below 02, a rough wavy
erode the downstream channel. surface developed and eventually the hydraulic
jump would sweep out of the stilling basin. The
best conditions for energy dissipation and flow
Preliminary test data included upstream and existed when the tailwater was at or slightly
downstream depths, length of the jump, and above 0~.

4
 In summary, the following were characteristic of tests of this structure. The upper data point on
the natural basin (Basin I) design: (1) The length figure 5 is with the end sill and the lower point is
of the jump was about six times D2 and tailwater without the end sill.
was nearly equal to 02 (2) The velocity was
distributed uniformly over the depth except for
the high-velocity jet near the floor. (3) Usually, The flow approached critical depth across the
minimal waves occurred downstream from the solid end sill proportioned according to EM25. As
jump; however, surging waves occurred down- a result the flow alternately accelerated,
stream when the high-velocity jet oscillated reducing the depth, then raised back up to the
between the floor and the water surface. As a tailwater height immediately downstream from
result, channel erosion is likely to occur for a the end sill. This alternate decrease and increase
Basin I design because higher velocity flow in depth caused a very rough water surface .
stayed close to the floor. downstream from the end sill, which required a
longer stilling basin than would be required
without the end sill. The water surface was not as
SAF Basin Test rough and turbulent without the end sill. Ap-
parently, the end sill was too high for the Froude
A stilling basin was built and tested for a Froude number tested. The full conjugate depth was
number of 3.5 according to the SAF design required to keep the jump from sweeping out of
criteria [3]. The upstream face of the hydraulic the basin. The efficiency of the type IV basin was
jump was very rough. Waves and large slightly lower (fig. 4) than that for Basin I.
fluctuations in velocity occurred immediately
downstream from the baffle piers and caused a
rough wavy surface. The rough turbulent flow DEVELOPMENT TESTS
continued some distance downstream from the
end sill and much of the energy dissipation
occurred there. Consequently, the potential for The development of a low Froude basin design
scour downstream from an SAF stilling basin is started with the Basin Ill design and modified
high. Ribrap or other protection must be provided according to the results of model tests. Data
unless a scour hole is permissible. obtained during these tests included basin
length, upstream depth, tailwater depth, and
discharge. These variables were used to create
The length of the SAF stilling basin was shorter the dimensionless plots for the design criteria on
than the natural basin for the same Froude figures 5, 6, and 8.
number (fig. 5). but higher waves were observed.
The SAF basin is about 5 percent more efficient
(fig. 4) than the other basins. However, the SAF Basic Flow Patterns
basin is generally not more efficient than a
natural hydraulic jump stilling basin. The Several different types of flow patterns were
increased efficiency shown was mainly caused observed in the stilling basins. Without chute
by the inadvertently lower tailwater set during blocks the jet hit the floor at a downward angle,
the SAF test. At section 1 most of the energy is deflected off the basin floor, and almost jumped
velocity head, while at section 2 most of the compl.etely over the baffle piers, making them
energy consists of pietometric head. As a result, ineffective. When chute blocks (fig. 7) were
higher energy losses than normal were com- placed at the toe of thechute, the jet wasdirected
puted between sections 1 and 2 (fig. 6) because toward the vertical face of the baffle piers, which
the tailwater was slightly less than D2 for the test. increased the energy dissipation. However, if the
baffle piers were too close to the toe of the chute,
rough turbulent flow occurred between the chute
. Bureau Type IV blocks and the baffle piers, and the jet was
deflected upward along the upstream face of the
Oversize def;sctor blocks on the chute and an baffle piers. This vertical flow caused a boil above
optional solid r;nd sill characterize the Bureau the baffle piers and rough turbulent waves
Basin IV. The reccmmended length of the stilling downstream. As the baffle piers were shifted
basin for this structure is the same as for stilling downstream, a much smoother flow occurred and
Basin I. Two data points were recorded from the the downstream waves diminished. At the other

5
extreme, when the baffle piers were too far hit the channel floor, consequently, a dentated
downstream they were ineffective, and the jet- end sill is recommended instead of a solid end
,
like flow from the chute blocks oscillated sill to minimize erosion and provide a smoother
between the water surface and the floor of the flow downstream for a wider range of conditions.
stilling basin immediately upstream from the
baffle piers.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN
Baffle piers that ‘were too high caused a
secondary jump to occur downstream from them. This design was developed from the tests of the
If the baffle piers were too short; there was current study and from design criteria that have
insufficient energy dissipation. Placing the baffle been used successfully in previous applications.
piers downstream from the openings in the row The recommended design is a relatively short
of chute blocks produced a smoother flow than stilling basin (L equals approximately 3 4). with
when the baffle piers were not offset. As a result, chute blocks, baffle piers, and dentated end
the width and spacing of the baffle piers and sill (fig. 7).
chute blocks must be the same to obtain the exact
offset.
Chute Blocks and Baffle Piers

Changes in tailwater significantly affected the The recommended height and width of both the
flow downstream from the baffle piers. If the baffle piers and the chute blocks are equal to DI
tailwater depth was much below the conjugate and 0.70 0,. respectively. The recommended
depth, a high-velocity jet existed along the floor spacing between these piers or blocks is equal to
but did not increase the efficiency above the the width, that is, S = W = 0.70 &.
dashed line of figure 4. These high velocities
decreased as the tailwater approached the
conjugate depth and most of the kinetic energy in
The following relationship can be used to obtain
the flow was dissipated by turbulence in the
N (the total number of blocks and spaces):
tailwater. Maximum energy dissipation resulted
when the tailwater was equal to oz. Energy
dissipation decreased as the tailwater was raised N _ Width - 2kW
above D2. As a result of the above, a tailwater (3)
W
slightly above the conjugate depth is preferred to
a low tailwater condition at the sacrifice of a where
slight decrease in efficiency.
k = fractional width of block equal to side
clearance, 0.375_<k$0.50
Either a solid or dentated end sill is often used to Width = total width of stilling basin
lift the high-velocity flow away from the floor of W = 0.70 0,
the channel downstream from the end sill and to
increase the stability of the hydraulic jump. End
sills that were too high caused rough flow and The N obtained should be rounded to the nearest
waves downstream. Small end sills generally odd number and then adjusted values of either or
allowed more erosion because the water flowed both Wand k can be computed.
over the end sill, turned downward, and
eroded the channel downstream from the basin.
The baffle piers should be placed in line with the
openings between the chute blocks to increase
Rougher flow occurred with a solid end sill than their effectiveness and to decrease the waves.
with a dentated end sill of the same height. The The clear space between the sidewall and the
dentated end sills tended to improve the mixing of chute blocks should not be less than 0.375 W nor
the higher energy water with the surrounding greater than 0.50 W. Usually, no baffle piers will
water and produced a better velocity distribution be placed within 1.375 W of the sidewall.
downstream from the end sill. Also a dentated However, if the blockage (summation of the
end sill reduced the tendency for the flow to widths of baffle piers divided by the width of the

6
 channel) is less than 0.40, then partial sections of Tailwater Depth
the baffle piers could be placed along the sidewall
to obtain approximately 0.50 blockage. Any A tailwater depth of D: maintained the jump at
configuration with less than four baffle piers will the intersection of the horizontal apron and the
need partial baffle piers placed along the chute. However, sweepout did not occur for the
sidewalls to obtain the necessary blockage. recommended design when the tailwater was
Blockage should be kept between 0.45 to 0.55. 0.8 of Dz. The TW (tailwater depth) should be
When more than four baffle piers were tested, no maintained at or slightly higher than D2(five per-
difference in performance was noted when cent or less). The additional depth increases the
partial side piers were in place, thus the partial factor of safety against sweepout and decreases
side piers would usually not be needed. the flow velocity.

Energy Dissipation
The location of the chute blocks and baffle piers is
shown in figure 7. The distance from the chute The energy loss ratio (EL/E,) is shown (fig. 4) as a
blocks to the baffle piers (X in fig. 8) varies from function of the Froude number. These data are in
1.3 to about 0.7 times Dz as the Froude number agreement with the theoretical curve for higher
varies from 2.5 to 5.6. Froude numbers and are slightly belowthis curve
for lower Froude numbers. The energy loss in a
hydraulic jump stilling basin is less than 20
percent for Froude numbers less than 2.7;
End Sill and Basin Length therefore, it may be better to use another type of
energy dissipator. For example, a baffled apron
spillway is a more efficient energy dissipator for
The dimension L&he distance from the toe of the
Froude numbers below three.
chute to the upstream side of the end sill) may be
obtained from figure 8. L, plus the length of the
end sill is somewhat shorter than L for Froude
Design Example
numbers greater than 3 and almost equal toL for
Froude numbers less than 3. The additional The following calculation describes the design
length beyond the end sill was required for
of a stilling basin according to the recommenda-
acceleration and deceleration of the flow.
tions of this report. The resulting structure is
However, the distance LI plus the length of the
shown (fig. 9) with dimensions.
end sill might be slightly longer than L for Froude
numbers less than 2.7. The stilling basin must be
extended to include the end sill for the latter.
Design of stilling basin for: Q = 62.77 (ma/@/m,
D, = 2.74 m, and a basin width of 112.8 m.

The end sill is approximately 0.2 02 high. The

width of the dentates and spacing between the 62.77
dentates are both equal toapproximatelyO.15 D2. ‘0”2- = 4.42
This width may be adjusted to obtain an integer
number of dentates across the end sill.
Generally, dentates should be placed against the
sidewalls of the stilling basin. Basin dimensions:

The recommended L shown as the ratio L/4,

(fig. 5) is very close to the value 3, for all
Froude numbers shown and could be used in-
stead of the value obtained from the curve. Suit-
able scour protection will generally be needed
downstream from the end of the stilling basin in
highly erodible channels. TW = 1.05D 2 = 1.05 (15.8) = 16.60 m

7
1. Lz3.1 D2 (from fig. 5) = 3.1 (15.8) = 49m Dentates should be placed against either
2. XsO.97 D2(fromfig.8)=0.97(15.8)=15.30m sidewall.
3. L1z2.24 D*(fromfig. 8)=2.24(15.8)=35.4Om
d. Therefore, the sill will have 49 blocks f
4. Design of chute blocks and baffle piers
and spaces, each 2.302 m wide.
a. height = 01 = 2.74 m
b. W= 0.70, = 1.92 m tentative value’ e. The top of the end sill piers = 0.2 times the .
c. The number of blocks and spaces end sill height = 0.2 (3.16) = 0.63 m.

Compute (IV) from equation (3).

N= 112.8 - 2(0.375) 1.82 = 58

1.92 BIBLIOGRAPHY
By rounding up to the nearest odd
number, N = 59; adding 2 k (where k =
111 Peterka, A. J., “Hydraulic Design of Stilling
0.5) for side clearance, Basins and Energy Dissipators,” Engineer-
ing Monograph No. 25 (revised), Bureau
*Consequently, the adjusted width, of Reclamation, 1974.
VI “Hydraulic Design Criteria,” U.S. Army
= width _ -112.8 =1.88m Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
W
N + 2k 60 Vicksburg, Miss., 1973.
(either W or k could have been adjusted) I31 Blaisdell, F. W., “Deve!opment and Hy-
draulic Design, Saint Anthony Falls Stilling
d.The top of the baffle piers (fig. 7) = 0.20, = Basin,” Transactions, ASCE, v. 113 Paper
0.2 (2.74) = 0.55 m No. 2342, pp. 483-561, 1948.
5. Design ot end silt
[4] “Criteria for Design of Hydraulic Jump Type
a. height = 0.2D2 = 3.16 m
Stilling Basins with Horizontal and Sloping
b. W = 0.1 5D2 = 2.37 m tentative value”
Apron,” Indian Standards Institution, New
c. The number of blocks and spaces N = 49
Delhi, 1969.
(from eq. 3, where k = zero) similar to
the calculation shown for the baffle piers [5] Bhowmik, N. G., “Hydraulic Jump Type
and chute blocks. Stilling Basins for Froude Numbers 2.5 to
4.5,” Illinois State Water Survey rept. No.
67, 1971.
**Consequently, the adjusted width,
[6] Zeigler, E. R., “Hydraulic Model Study for
w= 112.8 Palmetto Bend Dam Spillway,” USBR rept.
= 2.302
49 GR-78-8, 1978.

8
 D,- Depth of flow on chute / /
\

actional space
w= k~x. tooth width
20, ,minl Space=2.5 w

‘. .’.:-. .
..d . .~:\Jy.$i: ‘-‘o
:.‘~‘r:-:‘:‘a:‘:..::.:o:.‘...~:~:,~...~::ii:~$~::;&.
. . . . _. . ..* .,*. .
L . . ::.:. ::,
l-

Figure 1 .-Proportions for Froude numbers 2.5 to 4.5 (Basin IV).

3
hs
DI
2

Figure 2.-Height of end sill (Basin IV).

9
 rom loboratory recirculated
water supply
Tailwoter elevation
COlltl-0~ Q&O
/Wood heodbox side

I> ~Tmnspannt plastic sides-

r\ p\ I 17 / Wood floorofmodel box r \ \

VI
t - Water return
21 slope -Legs A
iii Floor to laboratory
b '. ', ._ 1 system
.‘..0 ‘,
+

d '.'O'.
.,. :,a.. .
:
‘.. :
‘, .' . . . ; :
0 . .
Sections .,
ELEVATION .4:

*so00
t
I
0 0 0
0 co
N 0
I 01
r :
Dimensions in mm
PLAN

Figure 3.-Laboratory test facility for modeling hydraulic

jump stilling basins.
 V- Basin I!Z Bureau
0 - SAF Basin
80

Theoret ical Maxi mtim Energy Loss

6 8

Figure 4.- Energy loss compared to incoming energy.

 ‘

7.0

V Design Ckve,‘Bweau
Basin I
-)- 1 --
6.0 /
0
/
/
/’
5.0 /I r7 e
/
/ 0
I/ 0 0 C

4.0
0”
\
-I
3.0

2.0

. - Test Data
I .o
0 - Natural Basin Tests
. v - Bosin IP USBR
o- SAF Basin

.O I I
0 2 5 6 7

Figure I.-Dimensionless length of stilling basin.

12
 V- Type IX USER
0 - SAF Basin -

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 a

!!L
F =$n,

Figure 6.-Ratio of tailwater to inflow depth.

13
 El
El
El

I
End sill J
I
Chute blacks/ \ Baffle piers

hute blocks

Toe of chute

* ELEVATION

Figure 7.--Recommended stilling basin (2.5SFS5.0).

14
 X/D2
”
% a in 0
0 r

h) .

PJ W P
b -0 b b

b/D2
 Figure 9.-Example of recommended design.

, *