With the ever increasing amount of hydraulic i n f o r ~ t i o n

atrailable, the Hydraulic Laboratory staff i s often called upon t o inter-

p ~ new t data and t o supply information which can be applied directly to
design. Since "Stilling Basinsn dl& not lend thell~~elves to l l l s ~ t i c a l
analpis, #ey becere ths center of discussion between laboratory and
design personnel. It was realized that unexplainable gaps existed i n
the available infoxmation moulting i n uncertainty, confusion, aud som-
t i g l e s appam3nt contradfction, when s t i l l i n g basin designs were 8ttempt;ed
w i t h a t t Individual hydraulic lrsodel testn. To lleeolve these differences,
t o close the gsps, .Ild t o epenerelize t h e design of s t i l l i n g basins, the
laboratory'e gene& investiwtion program f o r the pest 2 years has
included a coordinated p r o m of s t i l l i n g basin research.
As the study prognssed and the outcome became increasingly
p m a S s l n g , rrmrrraue requests f o r design criteria even i n b&'t foxm were
mceived. To mtisfy this iaredlate de& a tentative and liapited
edition of B[ydraulic Laboratory Report Bo. w-3& was issued, C o m m t e
and criticislnwure invited.
The h w d i a t e rcrqrrireraent hatrlng been temporarily satisfied,
t h e tentative edition vaa next given a c r i t i c a l review and certain pests
were mmltP;sn f o r 8&9 of clarity. Mom i n f o m t i o n , along w i t h
mom definite design llmltu, W B ~m n i t t e n into other parts. Bew =to-
rial, gathered since t&~ f i r s t plbliehing, hwr been added to aeet some
of t b daficieneleo of the tentative edition. The written =term ha8
been broksn dcnn into nom t i t l e d units t o the =port mra useful
as rr xwfexwuce volume. To sleo aid i n t h i e mspect, 0 pictoriel m m ~ y
of the sfx rectiom of the =port has also beta added as a Frontispiece.
Gsctlon 4 hat been entirely rewritten t o include the m e t recent devel-
f o r ogen channels. a c t i o n 6 is e n t i ~ e l y
o p n t e in wave mppm~~aore~
new aml prasentsr ma econalcal s t i l l i n g basin f o r use rn small
etmctuma whru t.il vrtcr I s nonexistunt o r indefinite.
Wera proper credit given t o a l l who have aided i n the ppara-
tion of thls report fhe authorship would indeed be a oarltiple one.
J. 11. Brrdlsy was the principal rasearch engipcer on this project,
a,ltho\neb 13- of the work was do= by A. J. Peter&. Pert crltlcism
wMeh mat4 afiected the type of mterial presented wrrs offered by
J. W. B a l l , C. W. !l%aasa, D. J. Hnberrt, L. G. Pula, P. W. T e m l l , and
C, J. H o f m . Il.ny other thou@tful maggastions were received fraar
dss- e a g h w r e throughout the ~ c a l a e i ~Off
r ~ices i n Demer.
. -

Tbie edition ?has pxepim~dby A. J, Pete* who edited the

material of the tentative edition, revised the form i n which the &ta
i e prelllented, arrd added the nev aaterial.

H. M. Mtartin
Chief, ~ l l Iaborator~r
c
 C01~l~RTS--Conttnued

Section ?~_~
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

_ . . . . . . . . ~l
Application of Rem, lts . . . . . . . 43
. Short Stilling Basin for Canal Structures, Small Outlet ;
Works, and Small Spillways (Basin III)

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 45
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 45
Verification Tests . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 50
Stllling BaslnPerformanee and Deslgn . . . . . . . 50

Chute Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5O
Baffle Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
End Sill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . 52
Tall Water Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 54
Water Surface an~ s . . . . . . 55
Recommen~atlons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 55
APplication of Results (E~ple 3) • • • .... 58
. Stilling Basin Design and Wave Suppressors for Canal
Structures, Outlet Works, and Diversion Dams
(Basin ~)
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . • 62
J~mr9 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s- -F r oude'Number 2 • 5 ;o'4:5" . • 62
Stilling Basin Design -Froude Rumber e.5 to 4.5 • . 63

Develol~ent Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Final Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Deflector blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 63
Tail water depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Basin length and end sill . . . . . . . . . . 66
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Alternate Stilling Basin Design--Small Drops . . . 67

Performance . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . 67
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

ii
-
NO.
 UNI~ STATES
D E P ~ O F THE INTERIOR
BtrREAU OFRECLAMATION

Commissioner, s Office Laboratory Report No. HYd-399*

Engineering Laboratories Hydraulic Laboratory
Denver~ Colorado Compiled by: J. N. Bradley*
June i, 1955 A. J. Peterka

Subject: Progress Report II; Research Study on Stilling Basins, Energy

Dissipators~ a n d Associated Appurtenances

INTRO~C~ON

Although the Bureau of Reclamation has designed and construc-

ted h u n ~ d s of stilling basins and energydissipation devices in con-
Junction with spillways~ outlet works s a n d canal structures, it is still
necessary in many cases t o m a k e model studies o f individual structures
to be certain that these will operate as anticipated. The reason for
these repetitive tests~ in many cases, is that a factor o f uncertainty
exists t which in retrospect is related to an incomplete understanding
of the overall characteristics of the h3~Iraulic jump and other types
of energy dissipators.

Previous laboratory stud/es made o n individual structures

over a period o f years, by different personnel, for different groups of
designers~ with each structure having a different allowable design limi-
tation f o r downstream erosion, resulted in a collection of data which on
any plotting p x~red t o be aketchy, inconsistent, and with only vague
connecting links. Extensive library research into the works of others
revealed the fact that these links were actually nonexistent.

To fill the need for up-to-date hydraulic design inform~.tion

on stilling basins and energy dissipators the laboratory initiated a
research program on this general subject. T h e program was begun with a
rather academic study of the hydraulic Jump, observing all phases a s it
occurs in open channel flow. With a broader understanding of this
phenomenon it was then ~ossible to proceed to the more practical aspects
of stilling basin design.

*Supersedes Laboratory Report No. Hyd-380; Progress Report~

Research Study on Stilling Basins and Bucket Dissipators; dated
June ii~ 1954. J. N. Bradley is now H ~ u l i c Engineer t Bureau o f
Public Road's, Washington, D. C.

i
collected from' Hydraulic ~ a b o r a t o r yrecordls and experience over a 23-
year period., was used t o e s t a b l i s h a direct,approach t o the pmct,ical
problems encountered i n hydraulic design. Hundreds of t e s t s were a l s o
performed on both available and specially constructed equipollent t o
obtain a fuller understanding of the data a t hand and t o close the many
loopholes. Testlng and analysis were synchronized t o establish v a l i d
curves i n c r i t i c a l regimes, providing s u f f i c i e n t understanding of the I

hydraulic jump i n i t s many forms t o e s t a b l i s h .workable design c r i t e r i a .

Since all the t e s t points were obtained. by the same personnel, using
standards established before t e s t i n g began, and since r e s u l t s and con-
clusions were evaluated from the same datum, the data presented a r e
consistent and mliabP2.
!;c
T h i s report, therefore, i s the r e s u l t of t h e ' f i r s t integrated
attempt t o generalize the design of s t i l l i n g basins, energy dissipaters,
and associated appurtenances. General design rule3 are presented so
t h a t the necessary dimensions f o r a p a r t i c u l a r structum may be e a s i l y
and quickly determined, and the selected values checked by other
designers without the need for exceptional judgment o r extensive
previous experience.
Although much of the original data a r e presented i n tahlar
form, the report emphasizes design procedures rather than the hydraulic
aspects of the data. Certain design procedures, recommended i n the -.
past, have been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y proven, while others have been modified .
o r discarded i n favor of improved methods. Satisfactory explanations
are given f o r pracedzrres, which i n the past were considered inconsistent;
f o r example, it i s now f i l l y understood why c e r t a i n hydraulic jumps
require a s t i l l i n g basin only 2,5 t b e s the downstream'depth of f l a w
while other jumps require basin lengths 4.5 times the depth of flow.

I n most instances design rules and procedures a r e c l e a r l y

stated in simple tenns with limits fixed i n a d e f i n i t e range. I n other
cases, however, it i s necessary t o s t a t e procedures-ami limits i n
broader terms, inaking it necessary t o carefully .read the accompanying
text. I

Proper use of t h e material i n t h i s report w i l l eliminate the

need f o r hydraulic .model t e s t s on ma^^ indi.ridual. structures, P ~ t i c u -
l a r l y the smaller ones, Structures obtained by following the recam-
mendations i n t h i s report will be conservative in t h a t they w i l l contain 8

a desirable f a c t o r of safety. However, t o firther reduce structure

s i z e s , . t o account f o r unsymmetrical conditions of approach o r getaway,
o r t o evaluate other unusual conditions not covered i n this discussion,
model studies will s t i l l prove beneficial.
 six numbers correspond t o the section mn'bers i n t h i s progress report.
Items 7 through 13 w i l l be completed a s time and finds permit.

. apron,
1. General investigation of the hydraulic jtwp on a harizantal

2. S t i l l i n g basin w i t h horizontal apron, utilizing chute

blocks at the upstream end and a dentated s i l l a t downstream end
such a s are often used on high dam and e a r t h spillways. The appur-
tenances modify the jl :rap, causing it t o f o m . i n a shorter thad
gannal length.
3
3. Unusually short .type of s t i l l i n g basin suitable f o r canal
structures, small. outlet works, and small spillways where baffle
blocks are used to effect a further shortening of the jump.
4. S t i l l i n g basin, alternate basin, and two types of ware
suppre8soss, f o r use on c a w structures, outlet works, and
diversion dams.
5. S t i U g basin w i t h sloping apron f o r large capacities
and high velocities, where appurtenances i n baein are undesirable.
6. Extremely short impact-type stilling baein for use on
outlets where tail water is nonexistent o r unknown.

7. Overchute type -of dissipater where baffle blocks dis-

tributed over the entire length and width of the chute dissipate
the energy i n the rater as it falls.
8. S t i l l i n g basin f o r diversion dams where teorporary
mtrogression i s expected.

9. Stilling basin f o r diversion dslas w h i c h can accmmoda&

both fm e and submerged flow.
1 . S t i l l i n g basin f o r use on high head outlet works, u t i l i z i n g
#
hollow- jet valves.
11. s l o t t e a burnt for =dim srrd l o w a v e r f a dams.
C
12. Solid bucket for overfall dams where an excess of tail
water exists.
13. F l i p bucket which discbarges a b m the t a i l water.
p a r t of a hydraulic Jppplp) o r ~ t h e renergy 'reducing action i s conrmea.
Other structures, such as buckets or impact dissipators, are designated
energy dissipators .
EXPERIMERFAL EQUIFMENP

Five t e s t flumes were used a t one thte o r another t o obtain

the experimental data reqtaired i n t h e present t e s t progratn, Flumes A
and B, Figure 1; Flumes C and D, Figure 2; a n d Flume F, Figure 3. The
arrangement shown a s F l m e E, Figure 3, actually occupied a.portion of
Flume D during one stage. of the testing, but it w i l l be designated a s
a separate flume f o r ease of reference. Each flume served a usef'ul
purpose e i t h e r i n v e r i w n g similarity o r extending the range of the
experiments. Flumes A, 8, C, D, and E contained overflow sections so
that the J e t entered the s t i l l i n g basin a t an angle t o the horizontal.
The degree of the angle varied i n each case. I n Flume F, the entering
j e t emerged fmm under a v e r t i c a l s l i d e gate so t h e i n l t i a l v e l o c i t y
was horizontal.

The experimen.Q;swere s t a r t e d i n an existing model of the

Trenton Dam spillway, Figure lA, having a small discharge and low veloc-
i t y . This was not an i d e a l piece of equipment f o r general experiments
a s the training w a l l s on the chute were diverging. The rapid expansion
caused the distribution of flow entering the s t i l l i n g basin t o s b l f t
with each chaage i n discharge; nonetheless, t h i s piece of equi-t
served a purpose i n that it aided i n getting the research program
underway.
Tests were then continued i n a glass-sided laboratory flume
2 f e e t wide and 40 f e e t long in which an o v e r f l w section was i n s t a l l e d ,
Flume B, Figure 1. The c r e s t of t h e overflou section was 5.5 f e e t above
the floor, w h i l e the downstream face was on a slope of 0.7:l. The
capacity was about 10 cfs.
Sater, the work was carried on a t the base of a chute 18
inches wide having a slope of 2 horizontal t o 1 . v e r t i c a l and a drop, of
appmximately 10 f e e t , Flume C, Figure 2. The s t i l l i n g basin had a
glass w a l l on one side. The discharge capacity w a s 5 cis.

The l a r g e s t scale exper&ments we= msde on a glass-s5ded lab- *

oratory flume 4 f e e t wide and 80 f e e t long, i n which an o v e r f a l l crest
w i t h a slope of 0.8:l was installed, Flume D, Figure 2. The d m p f m
headwater t o t a i l water i n t h i s case was approximately 12 feet, and the ..
maxinaun discharge was 28 cf s.
 FIGURE 1

TEST F L U M E A
Width of basin 5 feet, drop 3 feet, discharge 6 cfs

TEST F L U M E B
Width 2 feet, d r o p 5.5 feet, discharge 10 c f s
 TEST FLUME C
Width 1. 5 feet.drop 10 feet, discharge 5 cfs, slope 2:l

TEST FLUME D
Width 4 feet, d r o p 1 2 feet, discharge 28 cfs, slope 0 . 8 : l
 FIGURE 3

TEST F L U M E ( E )
W i d t h 4 feet, I l r o p 0.5-1. 5 feet, D i s c h a r g e 10 c f s

TEST F L U M E (F)
A d j u s t a b l e t i l t i n g type, m a x i m u m s l o p e 1 2 d e g r e e s ,
width one foot, discharge 5 cfs
testing small overflow section; 0.5 t o 1.5 f e e t .in height. The wwimnrm
discharge used was 10 cfs. As,stated aibove, khis piece of equipment
w i l l be designated as Flume E, ,and i s shown on Figure 3.
The sixth piece of e q u i w n t w a s a tilting.f'lume which could
be adjusted f o r slopes up t o ZO,Flume F, Figure 3'. ,This flume was
1 foot wide by 20 f e e t long; the head available w s s 2.5 feet, and the
flow was controlled by a slide gate. The discharge capacity was about
3 cfs.
Each piece of equipwent contained a head mtrge!, a tail gage, a
scale for measuring the length of the jump, a point gage f o r measuring
the average depth of flow entering the jump, and a ?neams of regulating
the tail water depth. The discharge i n all cases was ~aeasuredthrough
the laboratory venturi meters or portable venturi-orif ice 'meters. The
t a i l water depth was measured by a point gage op3rating:'in a stilling-
well i n most of the cases. The tail water depth was regulated by an
adjustable weir a t the end of each flume.

REMARKS
I t a i s f e l t %hat the design infonnatPon t o be presented w i l l be
found economical as well as effective, yet an e f f o r t was made t o lean
toward the conservative side. I n other words, a -rate factor of
safety has.been included Lbmughout. Thus, the information i s considered
suitable for general use with the following provision:
It should be made clear a t the outset that the iafowstion
herein i s based upon symWxical and uniform action i n tkw s t i l l i n g
basin and buckets. Should entrance conditions o r appurtenances near
the head of any of these structures tend t o produce asymmetry of flow
down the char* and i n the s t i l l i n g basin, these genemlized designs
may not be adequate. In this case it XUEY be advisable t o W the
basindin question of a more symmetrical nature, more conservative,
o r -itm y be wise t o invest i n a-laode1 study. Also, should water
economy be desired than these generalized designs indicate, a mods1
study i s reconm~nded.
 GE3lEWU IrWESTIGAIPIOIV OF THE BYDRAULIC
JUMP ONHORIZORTALAPROB '
('IBASIN 1)
Introduction
A trenx?ndaus amount of experimental, 'as w e l l as theoretical,
work has been performed in connection with the hydraulic jump on a
horizontal apron. To mention a few of the experimenters who contrib-
uted bas c information there are: Bakhmetef f and ~ a t z k e 9, l saf -z3,
t,
Woycicki ~hertonosovb,~inwachte*, ~lms12,~ i n d s l 4 ,~orcheime121,
Kennison22, ~ozer$3, ~ e h b o d r z ~~,c h o k l i t s c h ~ 5~oodward26,
, apd others.
There i s probably no phase of hydraulics that has received more atten-
tion, yet, from a practical viewpoint there i s s t i l l nuch t o be learned.
As mentioned previously, the . f i r s t phase of .thepresent study
was academic i n natufe consisting of c o m l a t i g g t h e results of others
and observing the hydraulic jump throughout i t s various phases; the
priraslry purpose being t o become nted w i t h the overall jurqp
phenomenon. The objectives in to determine the appli-
cability of the hydraulic jumg entire range of condi-
tions experienced i n desim; (2) as limited amaunt of information
exists on the length of jump, it w a s d t o correlate existing data
and extend the range of these determinations; and (3) it was desired t o
observe the various foms of the jump and to catalog tsad evaluate them.
Current Experimentation
To satisfactorily observe the hydraulic 'jrunp throughout i t s
entire range required a testing program i n all of the s i x fhm?s sbmm
on Figures 1, 2, and 3. This involved about 125 t e s t s , Table 1, at
discharges f r o m 1t o 28 cfs. The number of flumes used enhanced the
value of the results in that it was possible t o observe the degree of
similitude obtained for'- d o u s scales. Greatest reliance was
naturally placed on the results fm the larger scales, o r larger
flumes, a s it i s well lmam that the jtmg action i n small models occurs
too rapidly for -.eye t o follow details. Incidentslly, the length of
jumg obtained from tbe m.mdhr f l u r s , A and F, was consistently
shorter than that observed f o r the larger flumes. This was the llesult
of out-of-scale frictional msistsnce on t h e floor and side walls. As
t e s t i n g advanced and this deficiency became better understood, some
allcwance was made f o r t h i s effect in the observations.

9
Experimental Results
Definitions of the symbols used in connection w i t h the hydra-
l i c jump on a horizontal f l o o r are shown on Figure 4. * procedurr!
foLlowed i n each t e s t of this series was'to f i r s t establish a flow.
The t a i l water depth was then gradually increased u n t i l the front of
the jump mved upstream t o Section 1, indicated on Figure "4. The tail.
water depth was then measured, the length of the jump recorded, and the
depth of flaw entering the Jump, Dp, w a s obtained by averaging a I

generous number of point gage measurements taken immediately upstream

from Section 1, Figure 4.. The results of *themeasurements and succeed-
ing c o w t a t i o n s are tabulated i n Table 1. The measured quantities a m
tabulated as follaws: t o t a l discharge (column 3), t a i l water depth,
which should be the conjugate depth in t h i s case (column 61, length of
,
junp (column U.) and depth of f l o w entering jump (Column 8).

Column 1 indicates the test flumes i n which the experiments

were performed, and Column 4 shows the width of each flume, ' A l l cappu-
tations are based on discharge per foot width of flume, o r q, and unit
discharges are shown i n Column. 5.
The velocity entering the jump V1, Column 7, was computed by
dividing q (column 5) by ~1( ~ o ~ u m8).
n
The F m d e Number
The Froude number, Column 10, Table 1, is simply:

F1 = -
v1 ( 11
lm
where F1 i s a dinensionless parameter, V1 and Dl are velocity depth
of flow, respectively, entering the jut@, and g is the acceleration of
gravity. The law of similitude s t a t e s that when? gravitational forces
predominate, a s they do i n open channel phenomenon, the Froude number
should be the same value i n m d e l and prototype. Although energy,con-
versions i n a hydraulic jump bear some r e b t i o n t o t h e Reynolds number,
gravity forces p ~ ~ t aade the , Froude number is very useful f o r
plotting stilling b i n characteristics. Bahlaaeteff aad Matzbl demon-
strated this application in 1936 when they related2stilling basin char-
e a m s s i o n the kinetfc f l o w factor.
&.
a c t e r i s t i c s t o the square of the F m d e rmaiber,
@l
They termed this

The F m d e numbe!r will be used throughout this preeentstion.

AS the acceleration of gravity i s a constant, tihe term g caubd be
omitted. Its inclusion xnakes the expression dinrensionless, however,
and the fom shown as (1) i s preferred.

12
 The theory of the hydraulic jump i n horizontal channels has
been treated thoroughly by others (see Bibliography), and w i l l not be
repeated here. The expression for the hydraulic jump, based on
pressure-mntum, occurs in many fonns. !l%e following form is most
coaumrily used i n the Bureau:15

D2 = - DI
2
+ /- (2)

'Phis may also be mitten:

D2 = - b 1+
2 \im
-=ra1
Cafiylng D l over t o the left side of the equation and
substituting FA2 f o r 2
yI
@1'

D2= - 1 / 2 +
-
"1
JX
or
D2
-- = 112 (
"1
JZ- 1) (3)

Expression (3) shows t h a t the r a t i o of con

strictly a function of the Froude number. %Pti es depths
The r s t i o
is
plotted w i t h
E
respect t o the Frau& number on Fi-re 5. The line, which is virtually
straight except f o r the lower end, represents the above expression f o r
the hydraulic gursrp; while the pointe, which are experimental, are from
Columns 9 and 10, Table 1. The agreement ie quite good f o r the entire
range. There is an unsuspected characteristic,~howew?r, which should
be mentioned here but w i l l be enlarged on latar.

=though the tailwater depth, recorded in Coluxm 6 of Table 1,

was sufficient t o bring the front of the Jump t o Section 1 ( ~ i g u r e4) in
each test, the a b i l i t y of the Juprp t o -in at Section 1for a 81-t
lowering of twril water depth beceme more d i f f i c u l t f o r tAe higher and
lower values of thg Froude &re The 'Jum was l e a s t sensitive!- t o
variation in tail water depth i n the middle range, or values of F1 fmm
4.5 to 9.
 The ,leng%&of the jump, Col~mm11, Table 1, w a s the most diff i-
cult lPeasurement t o determine. I n cases where chutes or overfalls were
used, the front of the jump was held near the intersection of the chute
and the horizontal floor, as shown on Figure 4. The length of Jump was
measured from t h i s point t o a point downstream where either the high-
velocity j e t began t o leave the floor o r t o a point on the syrfacs
lamediately downstream from the roller, whichever was the l o n k r . In
the case of Flume F, where the flow discharged from a gate onto er
horizontal floor, the front of the jump w a s maintained just dmstream
frosl the completed contraction of the entering je*, The point at which
the high-velocity j e t begins t o rise from the floor is nat fixed, but
tends t o s h i f t upstream and downstream. This i s also true of the r o l l e r
on the surface. It was a t first d i f f i c u l t to =peat length observations
w i t h i n 5 t o 10 percent by either criterion, but with practice satisfee-
tory measurements becanre possible.
A system devised t o masure velocities on the bottom, Lo aid
i n determining the length of jump, proved inadequate and too laborious
t o allow ccmgletion of the program planac?d. Visual observations, there-
fore, proved t o be the most satisfactory as well as the most rapid
nrethod for determining the length meam-nt. It was the intentioil t o
judge tRe length of the jump from a practical standpoint; i n other
words, the end of the Jump, as chosen, would represent the end of the
concrete floor and side walls of a conventional s t i l l i n g basin.
I,W length of Juan, has been plotted i n two ways. The first
is perhaps the better nrethod while the second i s the more common, The
first nethod i s shown on ~i8ul.e6 where ths r a t i o length of gump t o DL
(column 13 Talble 1) i s plotted with respect t o the Froude number,
(colurm 10j f o r rasults frrm the six fast fl-s. llsc result* nuTa
is fairly f l a t , which i s the p r h c i p e l advantage gained by the use of
these coamkha-s. The s e c a d of 3lctti?g, where the r a t i o of
length of jump t o the conjugate . t a i l water depth Dp (column 12) is
plotted .vi,th respect t o the Froude number, i e presented on Figure 7 .
This latte,r r t h o d of plotting w i l l be used throughout the study. The
m i n t s represent the exgerirmtntal values.
In addition t o the rmme established by the test paints,
curves representing the results of three other experimenters are ahom
on Figure 7. The best known sad most widely accepted c u m for length
of jump i s that of Bakbm?teff an$ ~ a t z k e whleh
l was defermrined ?om
experimants made a t Columbia University. The greater portion of this
curve, labeled 1, i s at variance with the preeent experimental remal'ts. .
Because of the wide use this curve has experienced, a rather conplete
exglanation is presented regarding tlr? disagreement.
flume 6 Inches wide, with limited head. The depth of f l a w entering the
jump w a s addusted by a v e r t i c a l s l i d e gate. The maximum-dlschaxge was
approximately 0.7 cfs, and the thickness of the j e t entering the Jump,
D l , was 0.25 foot f o r a Froude number of 1.94. The r e s u l t s up t o a
Froude number of 2.5 a r e i n agreement with the present experiments. To
increase the Fmude number, it was necessary f o r Bakbmeteff and Matzke
t o decrease the gate opening. The extreme case involved a discbarge of
0.14 cfs and a value of D l of 0.032 foot, f o r Il = 8.9, which i s much
sm&llerthan any discharge o r value of Dl used in t h e present experl-
nIexLtS. Thus, it i s reasoned that a s the gate opening decreased, i n
the 6-inch-wide f l m , frictional resistance i n the channel dawnstream
increased art of proportion t o that which would have occurred in a
larger flume o r a prototype s t z u c t u n . Thus, the jump formed .in a
shorter length than it should. I n laboratory language, this i s known
ae "scale e f f e ~ t ,and ~ i s construed t o mean that prototype action i s
not f a i t h f u l l y reproduced. It i s quite certain t h a t t h i s was the case
f o r the m j o r portion of the BahlnaAteff-Matzke curve. I n fact, they
were somwbat dubiaus concerning the small scale experiacnts.
To c o n f i m the above conclusion, it was found that r e s u l t s
from Flume F, which was 1foot wi&e, became e r r a t i c when the value of
Dl approached 0.10. Figures 6 and 7 show three points obtalae!d with a
value of ~1 of approximately 0.085. three points are given the
symbol x sad. f a l l short of the reccmmended c u m .
The two remaining curves, labeled 3 and 4, on Figure 7,
portray the saeae t ~ n as d the curve obtained from the current experi-.
ments. The c r i t e r i o n used by each experimenter f o r Judging the length
of the jump i s undoubtedly responsible f o r the displacement. The c u m
labeled 3 was obtained at the Technical University of Berlin on a
fltllne 1/2 meter wide by 10 meters long. The curve labeled 4 was deter-
mined from elrperireents performed a t the F e d e r s l I n s t i t u t e of Technology,
Zurich, Switzerland, on a flume 0.6 of a meter wide and 7 meters long.
!l!hcurve rnurbers are t h e same as t h e reference mlmhers i n the
Bibliography which , r e f e r t o the work.
As can be observed from Figure 7, the =bstr e s u l t s from
F l m s B, C, D, E, and F p l o t sufficiently w e l l t o estab1ish.a single
curve. The five pdints frc+ Flume A, denoted by squares,.appear some-
w h a t e m t i c and p l o t t o the right of the gene- curve. Henceforth,
c f e r e n c e t o Figure 7 w i l l concern only the reconrmended c u m which is
considered applicable f o r general use.
 With the experimental information available, it is only a
matter of computation t o determine the energy absorbed i n the Jump.
Columns 14 through 18, Table 1, l i s t the computations, and t h % symbols
may be defined by consulting the specific energy diagram on Figure 4.
Column 14 lists the t o t a l energy, E l , entering the jump a t Section 1
f o r each t e s t . TUs i s simply the depth of flow, Dl, plus t h e velocity
head computed at the point of measurement. The energy leaving the
jump, which i s the depth of flow plus the velocity head at Section 2,
i s tabulated in Column 15. The differences i n t h e values of Columns 14
and 15 constitute the l o s s of energy, i n f e e t of water, a t t r i b u t e d t o
the conversion, Column 16. column 1 8 lists the percentage of energy
l o s t i n the jump EL, to t o t a l energy entering jump, El. This percent-
age i s plotted with respect t o the Froude number and i s shown as t h e
curve t o the l e f t on Figure 8. For a Froude number of 2.0, which would
correspond to a r e l a t i v e l y thick Jet entering the jump a t low velocity,
t h e curve shows the energy absorbed i n the Jump t o about 7 percent
of the t o t a l energy entering. Considering the other extreme, f o r a
Fruude number of 19, which would be produced by'a r e l a t i v e l y t h i n j e t
entering the jump at very high velocity, the absorption by the jump
would amount t o 85 percent of the energy entering. Thus, the hydraulic
Jump can perform over a wide range of conditions. Them are paor jumps
and good jumps, with the most satisfactory occurring over the center
portion of the cumre.
Another method of expressing the energy absorption i n a jump
Is t o express the l o s s EL, i n terms of Dl. The c u m t o the r i g h t on
Figure 8, shows the r a t i o
D
3(Colrmn 17, Table 1)plotted against the
Frmde nunber. As there ad those who prefer this method of plotting,
the latter curve has been included.
Forms of the Hydraulic Jump
The hydraulic jump may occur i n a t l e a s t four d i f f e r e n t d i s -
t i n c t forms on a horizontal apron, as sham on Figurn 9. Incidentally,
a l l of these forms are encountered i n design. The i n t e r n a l character-
i s t i c s of the jump and t h e energy absorption i n the jump vary with each
form. Fortunately these forms, some of which axx desirable and some
undesirable, can be cahloged conveniently with respect t o the Froude
number.
The fom shown i n Figure 9A can be expected when the Froude
number ranges from 1.7 t o 2.5. When the F m d e m b e r i s unity, the
w a t e r would be flowing a t c r i t i c a l depth; thus a j\rmg could not form.
This would correspond t o Point 0 on the specific energy diagram of
Figure 4. For the values of Froude number between 1.0 and 1.7 there
i s only a slight d i f f e s n c e i n the conjugate depths Dl and D2. A
s l i g h t r u f f l e on the water surface i s the only a w n t feature that
 the Fraude number approaches 1.7, a series of smali. rollers develop .on
the surface as Indicated i n Figure gA, and this action remains nnrch the
'same but w i t h flzrther intensification up t o a value of about 2.5.
Actually there i s ao,particular s t i l l i n g basin problem involved; the
water surface i s quite smooth, the velocity throughout i s f a i r l y uniform,
and t h e energy loss i s luw.
Figure 9B Indicates the type of jump that may be encountered
a t values of the Froude number fm 2.5 t o 4.5. This i s an oscillating
type of action, so common in canal. structures, where the entering J e t
oscillates from bottom t o surface .and back again with no .regular period.
Turbulence occurs near tihe bottom $one instant and entirely ,on the sur-
face the next. Each.oscillation produces a large wave of irregular
period which, i n the case of canals, can travel for miles doing
unlimited damage t o earth banks and riprap. The case i s of sufficient
importance that a separate section, Section 4, has been. devoted,t o t&e
practical aspects of'desiga,

.
A w e l l stabilized jump can be expected for the range of F m d e
numbers b e m e n 4.5 and 9 ( ~ i g u r e9C) In tkiis range, .the downstream
extlwaity of the surface roller, and the point at which the high-
velocity j e t tends tolleave the floor practically occur i n the s-
vertical plane. .The j h p is w e l l balanced and the action is thus at
P t s best. TBe energy absorption i n the jump f o r Fraude llumbers from
4.5 t o 9 ranges from 45 t o 70 percent ( ~ i g u r e8).
As the F m d e number increases above 9, the form of the jumg
gndually cha.nges t o that sham in Figure 9. This i s the case where
V 1 is very high, Dl i s comparatively small, and the difference in con-
jugate depths i s large. The high-velocity j e t no longer carries thraugh
f o r the fuU length of the jump. I n other words, the downstream extrem-
i t y of the surface roller now becomes time determining factorAinjudging
the length of the jump. Slugs of water r-olling dawn the front face .of
the jump intermittently f a l l into the high-velocity~jet generating
additional waves damstrean,land a rough surface can psetrail. Figure 8
shows that the energy dissipation for this case may reach 85 percent.
The limits of the Fmude number given above f o r the various
forms of jump--,not definite values, but overlap sanewhat depending
on local factors. Returning t o Figure 7, it is faund that the lenglh
c u m catalogs the .various phases of the Jump quite well. The flat por-
tion of .thecum indicates the range of best operation. steep
portion of the c u m t o the l e f t defh i t e l y indicates an liaternal change
i n the form of the jump. In fact, two changes are manifeslt, the form
shown i n Figure gA and the f om, vhich mlght ,better be called a transi-
tion stage, shown i n Figure 9B. The right end of the curve on Figure 7
also indicates a change >inform, but tu less extent.
 A s s t a t e d previously, it w a s t h e intention t o stress the
academic rather than the p r a c t i c a l viewpoint in this section. An
exception has been made, as t h i s is the logical place t o point out a
few of the p r a c t i c a l aspects of s t i l l i n g basin design using horizontal
aprons. Viewing t h e four forms of jump just discussed, t h e following
is pertinent:

1. A l l fonns are encountered i n s t i l l i n g basin design.

2. The form i n Figure 9A requires nosbaffles o r special con-

sideratlon. The o n l y requirement necessary i s t o provide the proper
length of pool, which i s r e l a t i v e l y short. This c a n be obtained
fram Figure 7.

3. The form i n Figure 9B i s one of the most d i f f i c u l t t o

handle and i s frequently encountered i n the design of canal struc-
tures, diversion dams, and even o u t l e t works. Baffle blocks o r
appurtenances i n the basin are of l i t t l e value. Waves are the min
source of d i f f i c u l t y and lnethods f o r coping w i t h them are discussed
i n Section 4. The present infomation may prove valuable i n that
it w i l l help to r e s t r i c t the use of jumps in the 2.5 t o 4.5 P m d e
number range. I n many cases i t s u s e cannot be avoided, but i n other
cases, a l t e r i n g of dimensions may b r b g the jump i n t o the desirable
range.

4. No p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y i s encountered in the form shown

on Figure gC. hmngements of baffles and sills will be found
valuable as a means of shortening the length of basin.

5. A s the Froude &ber increases, the jump becollres more

sensitive t o t a i l water depth. For nunibers as low as 6, a t a i l
water depth greater than the conjugate depth i s advisable t o be
c e r t a i n t h a t tbe jump w i l l s t a y on the apron. This phase will be
discussed in more d e t a i l in the following sections.
6. Vhen the Fraude number i s great@rthan 19,.a s t i l l i n g
basin may no longer be the most wonomical dissipation device. The
difference i n conjugate depths %s mat, and, generally specking, a
very deep basin with high training w a U s i s rrquired. The cost of
the stilling basin amy not be commensurate w i t h tbe r r s u l t s obtained.
A bucket typ of dissipafor m y give comparable r e s u l t s a t less cost.
 Water-surface profiles for the jump on a horizontal floor were
not measured as Lhese have already been determined by Bakhmeteff and
Matzke,l Iewmnan and I,a~oon,~p and ~oore.2718 It has been sham by
several experimenters that the vertical pressures on the floor of the
s t i l l i n g basin are virtually the same as the water-surface profile
wmld indicate. Although there w i l l be more,air entrainment and bulking
i n the prototype, making the freeboard of tralhing walls less than
indicated i n the model, pressures obtained from models are sufficiently
accurate for design purposes.
Conclusions
The foregoing experiments and discussion serve t o associate
%he F m d e number w i t b s t i l l i n g basin design w h e ~it offers many admu-
tages. The r a t i o of conjugate depths, the length of jump, the type of .
jump t o be expected, and the losses involved have a l l been related to
this nrlmher. The princigal advantage of this fom of presentation i s
that one may see the entire picture at a glance. The forewing informfb-
t i o n i s basic t o the understanding of the hydraulic jump. The following
sections deal with the more practical aspects, such as modifying the
jump by baffles and sills t o increase s-bllity and shorten the Length.

An examgle follows which may help clarify the inform8tion so

far presented.
Application of Results (~xsmple1)
Water flowing under a sluice gate discharges into a rectangu-
lar s t i l l i n g basin the eame width as the gate. The average velocity
and the depth of f l a w a f t e r contraction of the j e t is complete are:
V 1 P 85 ft/sec and Dl = 5.6 feet. Determine the conjugate tail water
depth, the length of basin required t o confine the jump, the e f f e s t i ~ -
ness of the basin t o dissipate energy, and the type of jump t o be
expected.
v1 85
Flap= = 6.34
\Isl -/,
Entering Figure 5 w i t h t h i s value
 STILLING BASIN FOR HIGH DAM AND EARTH DAM SPILLWAYS
AND LARGE CmAL STRUCTURES
(BASIN 11)

INTRODUCTION
S t i l l i n g basins are seldom designed t o confine the entire
length of the hydraulic j w p on the paved apron as w a s assumed i n the
foregoing section; f i r s t , f o r economic reasons and secondly, becauee
there a m means f o r modifying the jump characteristics t o obtain com-
parable o r btter perf'onnsmce in shorter lengths. It is possible t o
reduce the Jump length by the installation of accessories such as
blocks, bsffles, and sills i n the s t i l l i n g basin. I n addition t o
shortening the Jump, the accessories exert a stabilizing effect and in
some cases increase the factor of safety.
Section 2 concerns s t i l l i n g basins which have been in common
use on high dam and earth dam spillways, and large canal structures,
and w i l l be denoted as Basin I1 ( ~ i g u r e10). The basin contains chute
blocks a t the upst=am end and a dentated s i l l mar the downstman end.
No baffle piers are used i n Basin I1 because of the relatively high
velocities entering the jump. The principal aitu was t o (1).generalize
the design, and (2) determine the range of operating conditions f o r
which this basin i s best suited. The first objective was not d i f f i c u l t
as the Bureau has designed and constructed many of these basins, saane
of which were checked w i t h models. The principal task esnsisted of
consulting laboratory records and tabulating the results. To sccom-
p l i s h the second objective r e q u i ~ dadditional laboratory experiments.

ANALYSIS OF EXIS!CING DATA

Beginning w i t h the f i r s t phase (I), the capacities and dimem-
sions of 36 s t i l l i n g basins f o r earth dams, s m a l l overflow daars and
large canal structures, which have been tested by models, are l i s t e d
in Tab3 2. The model studies were made in several laboratories by
many individuals over a 23-year period. Each individual was more o r
l e s s free t o experiPhentwith models of these structures as he saw f i t .
The final designs, tabulated i n Table 2, represent an agreement between
designer and experhelater f o r each case. Thus, the tabulation s h l d
be ideal f o r selecting a generalized design f o r Basin 11.
 With the aid of Figure 10, most of the symbols used I n Table 2
a r e self-explanatory. The use of baffle piers is limited t o Basin 111.
Column 1 l i s t s the reference material used i n compiling the table. .
Column 2 lists the maximum ~ s e r v o i elevation,
r Column 3 the maximum ,
t a i l water elevation, Column 5 the elevation of the s t i l l i n g basin '
floor, and Column 6 the maximum discharge f o r each spillway. Column 4
indicates the height of the structure studied, showing a maximum f a l l
f r o m headwater t o tail water of 179 f e e t , a minimum of 14 feet, snd an
average of 85 feet. Column 7 shars t h a t the width of the s t i l l i n g
basins varied from 1,197.5 t o 20 feet. The discharge per foot of basin
wid-th, Column 8, varied from 760 t o 52 cfs, with 265 as an average. The
computed velocity, V1, (hydraulic losses estimated i n same cases),
entering the s t i l l i n g basin (~olumn9) varied from 108 t o 38 f e e t per
second, and the depth of flow, D l , entering the basin (column 10) varied
from 8.80 t o 0.60 f e e t . The value of the Froude number (column U)
varied from 22.00 t o 4.31. Column 12 shows the a c t u a l depth of t a i l
water a b o the ~ s t i l l i n g basin floor, which varied from 60 t o 12 f e e t ,
while Column 14 l i s t s the computed, o r conjugate, t a i l water depth f o r
each s t i l l i n g basin. The conjugate depths, D2, w e r e obtained from
Figure 5 . The r a t i o of the a c t u a l t a i l water depth t o the conjugate
depth is l i s t e d f o r each basin i n Column 15.
T a i l water depth. The r a t i o of actual tail water depth t o
conjugate depth shows a maximum of 1.67, a minimum of 0.73, and an
average of 0.99. I n other words, on the average, the basin f l o o r waa
s e t t o provide a t a i l water depth equal t o the conjugate o r necessary
depth.
Chute blocks. The chute blocks used a t the entrance t o the
s t i l l i n g basin varied i n size and spacing. Some basins contained
nothing at t h i s point, others a s o l i d step, but i n the majority of
cases a serrated device, known as chute blocks, wets utilized. The
chute blocks a t the upstream end of the basin t e n d t o corrugate the
jet, l i f t i n g a portion of it from the floor, resulting in a shorter
length of jump than would be possible without them. These blocks a l s o
tend t o improve the action in the jump. The proportioning of chute
blocks has been the subdect of much discussion. The tabulation i n
Columns 19 through 24 of Table 2 shows the sizes which have been ueed.
Column 20 shows the height of the chute blocks, while Column 21 gives
the r a t i o of height of block t o the depth D l . The r a t i o s of height of
block t o D l indicate a maximum of 2.72, a minimum of 0.81, and an average
of 1.35. This i s somewhat higher than was shown t o be necessary by the
verification tests discussed l a t e r ; a block equal t o Dl i n height is
sufficient .
 gives the r a t i o of w i d t h of the block t o height, with a maximum of-
1.67, a m i n h m of 0.44, and an average of 0.97. The r a t i o of width
of block t o spacing, tabulated i n Column 24, shows a maximum of 1.91,
a minimum of 0.95, and an average of 1.15. The m e ratios indicate
that the proportion: height equals width, equals spacing, equals D l
shauld be a satisfactory standard for chute block design. The wide
variation shows t h a t these dimensions a m not c r i t i c a l .
Dentated sill. The s i l l in or a t the end of the basin was
e i t h e r soBid o r bad some form of dentated arrangement, as designated
i n Column 25. A dentated s i l l located at the end of the apron is
mcommended. The shape of the dentates and the angle of the! sills
varied considerably i n the spillways tested, Columns 26 through 31.
The position of the denL&ted s i l l also varied and *his is indicated by
-
the r a t i o X in Column 26. The distance, X, is measured t o the
LII
downstream edge of the sill, as illustrated i n Figure 10. The r a t i o
2 varied from 1 t o 0.65, w i t h an average of 0.97.
=11
The heights of the dentates a m given I n Column 27. The
r a t i o of height of block t o the conjugate tail water depth i s sham i n
Column 28. These ratios show a maximu of 0.37, a of 0.08,
and an average of 0.20. The width t o height ratio, Column 30, s h m a
maximu of 1.25, a aPiniaatm of 0.33, and an average of 0.76. he r a t i o
of width of block t o spacing, Column 31, shows a nrrrxinaun of 1.91, a
minimum of 1.0, and an average of 1.13. For the sakt of generalization,
the f o l l o v b g proportions are recanmended: (1) height or dentated
sill = O.2D2, (2) Yfdtb of bl0CkS .p 0.15D2, and (3) spacing O f blocks r
0.15D2, where D2 i s the conjugate tail water depth. It i s recommnded
that the dentated s i l l be placed at the downstream end of the apron.
Columns 32 through 38 show the proportions of additional
b s f i l e blocks used on three of the s t i l l i n g baslss. These are not
necessary and a= not reconmended for this type of basin.
Additional details. Column 18 indicates the! angle, with the
horizontal, a t which the high-velocity j e t enters the stilling basin
f o r each of the spillways. The maximum angle was 34' and the mlnham
lkO. The effect of the vertical angle of the chute on the action of
t h e hydraulic jump could not be evaluated from the information avail-
, able. factor will be considezed, however, i n Section 5 in
connection rith sloping apron design.
but three cases I&= basins were rectangular.' The three cross sections
t h a t were trapezoidal hsd side slopes varying f r m 1/4:1 t o 1/2:1. !he
generalized designs presented i n t h i s report are f o r stilliw basins
with rectangular cross sections. Where trapezoidal basins are used, a
model study i s strongly recommsended,
Designers have been concerned over the type of wing w a l l which
should be used at the end of s t i l l i n g basins. Column 40, Table 2, indi-
cates t h a t i n the majority of basins constructed f o r e a r t h dam spillways
the wing walls were normal t o the training walls. Five basins were
constructed without wing walls using a rock blanket f o r protection.
The reminder u t i l i z e d angling wing walls o r warped transitions d m -
stream f r o m the basin. The l a t t e r are common on canal structures. The
object, of course, i s t o build the cheapest wing w a l l t h a t w i l l afford
the necessary protection, The type of wing wall is usually dictated by
l o c a l conditions such a s width of the channel downstream, depth tb
foundation rock, degree of protection needed, etc., thus wing w a l l s are
not e n a b l e t o generalization.

IIERIFICAIPION TESTS

It was e a r l y learned t h a t the information on Table 2 did not

cover the e n t i r e range of operating conditions desired. There was
insufficient information t o determine the length of basin f o r the larger
values of the Froude number; there was little o r no infomation on the
tail water depth a t which sweepout occurs, and the information available
was of l i t t l e value for generalizing water-surface profiles. It was,
therefore, necessary t o perfom a s e t of experiments t o extend the range
and t o supply the missing data. The experiments were made on 17 Type I1
basins, progortioned according t b the above rules, and i n s t a l l e d i n
Flumes B, C, D, and E (see Columns 1 and 2# Table 3). Each basin was
judged at the discharge f o r which it w a s designed; the length was
adjusted t o the nrinbmm that would produce satiefactory operation, and
the absolute m i n i n u n tail water depth for acceptable operation w a s
e a s u r e d . The basin operation was a l s o observed f o r flows l e s s t b s i
t h e designed discharge and found t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y i n each case.
Table 3 i s quite similar to Table 2 with tbe exception that
the length of basin LII (column 11)wsa determined by expezimmt, and
tee -1 wster depth at which the jurag just began t o m e p out of the
basin was recorded (~olunm13).
T a i l Water Depth

The s o l i d l i n e on Figure 11 was obtained from the hydraulic

jump formula !k .1/2 ( -
1 ) and represents conjugate tail water
Dl,
depth. It is the same as the l i n e shown on Figure 5. The dash l i n e s
on Figure 11 a m =rely guides drawn f o r t a i l water depths other than
conJugate depth, The points shown a s dots were obtained fzum Column 13
of Table 2 and constitute the r a t i o of actual tail water depth t o D l
f o r each basin l i s t e d . It can be observed that the ~ p a j o r i t yof the
basins were designed f o r conjugate tail water depth o r less. The mini-
mum tail water depth f o r Basin IP, obtained from Column 14 of Table 3,
i s shown on Figure ll. The curve labeled 'Wniramr TU Depth Basin XIn
Indicates the point a t which the f m n t o f ,the Jump m s away from the
chute blocks. I n other words, any additional lowering of the tail water
would cause the jum t o leave the basin. Consulting Figure 11 it can be
observed t h a t the -gin of s a f e t y f o r a Praude number of 2 is 0 percent;
v h i l e f o r a mmber of 6 it increases t o 6 percent, f o r s number of 10 it
diminishes t o 4 percent, and f o r a number of l6 It is 2.5 percent. To
be c e r t a i n t h a t thls is understood, it w i l l be stated another way. The
Quqpw i l l no longer operate pmperly when the tail w8kr depth
approaches 0.98D2 f o r a Froude number of 2 o r 0 . 9 4 ~f ~o r a nwnber of 6
o r 0 . 9 6 ~f~ o r a number of 10, o r 0.975D2 f o r a number of l6. The mwgln
of safety i s l a r g e s t i n the middle range. For the two extremes of the
curve it i s advisable t o provide a tail water greater than conjugate
depth to be safe. For these masons the 'Pype If basin should never be
designed f o r l e s s than conjugate depth and a mh¶mum safety factor of
5 percent of D2 is recosllllended.
Them e several other considerations in regard t o tail water
which are mentioned as a reminder. F i r s t , tail water curves are u u
exbrapolated ,for the discharges encountered i n desigtl, 60 they can be I n
error. Secondly, the actual tail water depth usually lags, in a temporal
eepse, that of the t a i l water cum f o r r l s l n g flaw emd leads the curvc
f o r a f a l l i n g discharge. Extra tail water should therefore be provided
if masonable increasing incregente of discharge limit the perforaance of
the structure because of a lag in building up tail water depth. Thirdly,
a tail water c u m may be such that the mst adverse condition occurs at
l e s s than #e maximum designed discharge; and fourthly, te~lgorargor
pemane!nt retrogression of the riverbed downsthcrar may be a f a c t o r need-
ing considemtion. These factors, sanre of which are d i f f i c u l t t o
evaluate, are all important in stilling basin design, mgge8t mt
an adequate factor of safety is essential. It is advisable to construct
a jump height c u m , eupeirimgosed on the t a i l water curve, f o r each barsin
t o determine the most adverse operating condition. m e procedure w i l l
be i l l u s t r a t e d later.
 Fl GURE I I

HYDRAULIC J U M P STUDIES
STILLING B A S I N S 1,II AND 111
M I N l M U M TAILWATER D E P T H S
simple remedy f o r a deficiency i n t a i l w a t e r depth. Increasing the
length of basin, which i s the remedy often attemgted i n the field, w i l l
not compensate f o r deficiency i n tail water depth. For these reraone,
care should be t8ken t o consider all factom -that may affect the tail
water at a futuxe date. A s t i l l i n g basin that does not perf'ow properly
cannot be N s t i f i e d i n the l i g h t of money saved by skimping, r e p r d l e s s
of the amount.
Length of -in
The necessary length of Basin 11, detelmined by +,Be verifica-
tion tests, i s shown as the intermediate curve on F i w r e 12. !l%e
squares indlf cate the test paints (~olumn~~
black dots rep-sent existing basins (CO~UPQ~S
10 and 12 of Table 3)
U and 17, Table 2).
.The
C o n j u g a t e depth was used i n the ordinate r a t i o rather than actual tail
water depth since it could be coqputed f o r each case,
The dots scatter considerably but an average curve d m
through these polnts would be lower than the Basin II curve. In
F i g ~ l p12, therefore, it apgears that in practice a basia about 3 tiaPee
the conjugate depth i s actually used when a basin about 4 times the con-
jugate is recapmrended fsam the verif icatlon tests. It should.be
remembered, however, that the shorter basins we= all node1 tested and
every opportunity was taken t o reduce the basin length. The extent and
depth s f bed erosion, wave heights, favorable flood f ~ q u e n c l e s ,?laad
duration and other factors were all used to justify r e d u c l q the bash
length. Lacking definite knowledge .of this t,ype i n designing a basin
f o r f i e l d construction without model tests, the longer basins indicated
by the verif icetion t e s t s curve are recoamended.
The 'Pype I1 basin c u m has been a r b i t r a r i l y tcxmimted at
Fwude number 4, as the jump may be unstable at lower nu2nbers. The
chute blocks have a tendency t o stabilize the jump 8aB reduce the 4.5
l i m i t discussed f o r Basin I. Far basins baying Froude mambers below
4.5 see Section 4.
Water-starface Profiles
Water-surf'ace profiles were measured during the tests t o aid
in caqputing u p l i f t pmssures under the basin apmn. As the water sur-
face i n the stilling basin *sts fluctuated rapidly it mrs f e l t that a -
high degree of accuracy in measurement was not necessary. This was
found t o be txue when the a p p r o a t e water-surface profiles obtained
were plotted, then ge11cralized. It was found that the profi* i n the
baein could be closely approximated by a straight 1- maklne an
an@ OG with the horizontal. This line can also be considered to be
a pressure profile.
3
t

Jlo"
3

VI
F, = -
GiT 2
Q
HYDRAULIC JUMP STUD1 E S c
3 ,

STILLING BASINS I, Q A N D 111 -

m
r o S
4 37
L E N G T H OF JUMP ON HORIZONTAL FLOOR
verification tests has &en plotted witih respect t o the Froude &r
on Figure 13. The slope increases w i t h the Fmude number. To use the
c u m i n Figure 13, a horizontal l i n e i s drawn a t conjugate depth on a
scale drawing of the basin. A vertical l i n e is a l s o d v fram the
upstream face of the dentated sill. Beginning at the point,of inter-
section, a sloping l i n e i s constructed as sham. The above procedure
gives the approximate water surface and pressure profile f o r conjugate
t a i l water dspth. Should the t a i l water depth .be greater than Dg, the
profile will msemble the uppennost l i n e o n , F i g u ~ e13; the angle
remains unchanged. T h i s infonuation applies only f o r the Type I1 basin,
constructed as recommended i n t h i s section.

Tke following rules are recommended f o r generalfzation of

Basin 11, Figure 14:
1. S e t apron elevation t o u t i l i z e f u l l conjuga-be t a i l water
depth, plus an added factor of safety i f needed. An additional
f a c t o r of safety i s advisable f o r both low and high values of the
Fraude number (see Figure 11). A minimum margin of safety of 5
percent of Dg is recommmded.
2. Basia I1 may be effective d m t o a F m d e m b e r of 4 but
t h e lower values should not be taken f o r granted (see Section 4 f o r
values less than 4.5).
3. The length of basin can be obtained from intemdiate
curve on Figure 12.
4. The height of chute blocks i s - e q u a l t o the depth of f l o w
entering the basin, o r Dl, Figure 14. The width and spacing should
be equal t o approximately D l ; however, t h i s may be varied t o eliminate
-
the needof fractional blncks. A space equal t o D l is preferable
2
aleng each w a l l t o reduce spray and maintain desirable pressures.

5. The height of the dentated s i l l i s equal t o 0.2D2, while

the maximum width and spacing 'mixsumended i s approxigaat@Q0,15D2.
Xn this case a block i s recommended sdjacent t o each side w a l l ,
f i g u r e 14. The slope of the continuous portion of the end s i l l is
2:1. I n the case of narrow bas'ins, whichwauld Involve om a few
dentates according t o the above mle, it is sdvisable t o reduce the
width and the spacing so long as this is done proportionstely.
Reducing the width snd spacing actually inrpms the perfomfmce in
nsrrov basins, thus, the minimum vidth and spacing of the -dentabs
i s governed only by structural considerations.
 6. It i s not necessary t o stagger the chute blocks and the
sill dentates. I n fact this prsctice is usually inadvisable from a
construction standpoint.

7. T3e verification tests on Basin 11 .indicated no gerceptlble

change i n the s t i l l i n g basin action w i t h respect t o tBe slope of the
chute preceding the basin. The slope of chute varied fron 0.6:1 t o
'

2:l in these tests, Column 25, Table 3. Actually, the slope'of tke
chute does have an effect on the hydraulic jump in soae cases. This
subject w i l l bebdiscussed In more d e t a i l in Section 5 . r l t h regard t o
sloping aprons. It i s recommended t h a t the sharp intersection
between chute and basin apron, Figure 14, be replaced with a ,curve
of reasonable radius (R 5 ' 4 ~ when
~ ) the slope of the chute is 1:l o r
greater. Chute blocks can be incorporated on the curved face a s
readily as on the plane surfaces.
Following the abwe rules w i U result i n a safe, conservative
s t i l l i n g basin f o r spillways with fall up t o 200 f e e t and f o r flcnrs up I

t o 500 cfsaper foot of basin widtlh;providing the jet entering the baein
Is reasonably uniform both as t o velocity and dew. For greater fells,
larger unit discharges, o r possible asymmtry, amdel study of the
specific design i s recomended.
Aids in Cangnatstion

Previous t o presenting an exarmgle illustrating the nethod of

proportioning Basin 11, a chartswillbe preeentd which should be of
special value f o r preliminary computations. Thz chart makes it possible
to debmine V 1 and D l with a fair degree of accuracy, f o r chutes having
sloper? of 0.8:~. o r steeper, vhere congutation i s a d i f f i c u l t and srduous
p~ocedure. The chart presented as Figum 15 represents a composite of
experience, computation, and a limited ansount of experfPlentsl infoma-
tion obtained from pmtotype t e s t s a o n Shssta and Grand Coulee Dams.
There i s mch t o be desired in tbe way of experimental confirmation;
hcrwever, it i s f e l t tbat this c h a r t - i s sufficiently accurate for pre-
liminary design. A concerted e f f o r t will be made t o obtain additional
experimental Information whenever possible.
The omlinate on Figure 15 is fall frsm reservoir level to
s t i U h g basin floor, while the abscissa $8 the r a t i o of actual t o -0-
r e t i c a l .velocity at entrance t o the stilling basin. !Fhe theoretical
velocity VT = d-) (see .Figure 15). !Fhe actual velocity is the
t e r m desired. The r e p s e n t 8ifferent heads, H, on the c m s t of

-
the epillway. As is naaonable, the larger the head on the crest, the
.more nearly the wtual velocity at ithe base of the epillway w f U appmadh
:the theoretical, For exzmple, w i t h PI 40 f e e t and Z = 230 feet, ,%he
a c t a d velocity a t the base of %he dam would be 0.95 of the c-ted
theoretical velocity; w h i l e w i t h a bad of 10 f e e t on the crest, the
ai

:z
,actual .velocity ?#auldbe 0.75 VT. !the value of D l I s c04ntted'by
dividing the u n i t discharge by ,the actual velocity obtained f roa Figure 15. z

41
f r i c t i o n a l rksistance assumes added m r t a n c e in this range. There-
fore, i t ' w i l l be necessary t o cwpu-t;e the draw-down curve as usual
s t a r t i n g a t the gate section where c r i t i c a l depth i s knawn.
i
>I
Insufflation, produced by a i r fmn the atmosphere mixing with
the sheet of water during the f a l l , need not be cansidered i n the hybma-
l i c jump computations. Insufflation need be considered princ1piU.y in
the design of chute and s t i l l i n g basin walls, It i s not possible t o
construct w a l l s sufficiently high t o confine a l l spray and splash; thus,
t h e best that can be hoped f o r i s a height that i s reasonable and
commensurate with the material and terrain t o be protected.
Application of Results ( ~ m l 2)
e
The crest of an overfall dm, having a downstream slope of
0a7tlr i s 200 f e e t above the horizontal floor of %he s t i l l i n g basin.
The head on the crest i s 30 f e e t snd the maximam discharge i s 480 c f s
per foot 0% s t i l l i n g basin width. Proportion s Type I1 s t i l l i n g baein
f o r these conditions.
Entering Figure 15 with a head of 30 f e e t mr the crest and
a t o t a l f a l l of 230 feet,

2
VT
= 0.92

The theo-ticd velocity VT - ~ 7 . 6ft/sec

The aotua.1 velocity VA x V1 = U7.6 x 0 . 9 = 108.2 ft/sec

D
1
=roc '
v 08,2 = 4.44 f e e t
1480
The Froude number
v1 108.2
F 1 = = = 9.04 \

-/,
Entering Figure l l with a F m d e nuniber of 9.04, the solid l i n e gives, ,

As TW and D2 are synonoIlraus i n this case, the 'conjugate t a i l water

am, .
Dg P 12.3 x 4.44 = 54.6 f e e t
 SHORT S T I m BASIN FOR CANAL STRIIIC'RTRES,
S W OUTLET WORKS, AND SMALL SPILLWAYS
(BASIN 111)

INTRODUCTION
Basin 11 often is considered too conservative and consequently
overcostly f o r structures carrying small discharges a t moderate veloc-
ities. This can be especially true i n the case of canal chutes, drops,
wasteways, and other structures which am? constructed by the dozen on
cansl syatenrs. Any eerving that can be effected in decreasingbthe size
of these structures can amount t o a sizable sum w&en lmltiplied by the
nuibr of structuzles involved. There is, of course, anotlher consider-
ation which shuuld be kept in miad. If the dlnrensions of s particular
structure are reduced to the point where it no longer operates satis-
factorily, t h i s mistake will be xepeated laany tir;bas over. I n t h i s
section a generalized design i s developed f o r a claas of smaller struc-
tures i n which the velocity at the entrance to the basin is moderate or
las (5 t o 60 feet per second, corresponding:to an averall bad of about
100 feet). Further economies i n basin length are accomplished with
baffle piers.

The mst effective way t o shorten a s t i l l i n g basin is t o

modify the jump by the addition of appurtenances in the basin. One
restriction bpoaed on these app~rtenances, however, is t h a t they must
be self-cleaning or nonclogging. Thls restriction thus l i n l t s the
appurtenances t o blocks or sills which can be incorporated on the
s t i l l i n g basin apron.
Ihe D e p r t r n t of Agriculture l6developed a very short
s t i l l i n g basin designated "The SAF Basin," f o r use on drainage struc-
tures such as the S o i l Conservation Service constructs. The SAF basin,
Figure 16, f i t s the needs f o r which it w a s developed but does not pro-
vide the factor oZ safety necessary f o r Bureau use. This was demon-
strated by canstmcting and testing several basin8 proporti.med t o SAF
specifications. It w a s discovered, however, thst the arrsngearent ~f
this basin had excellent gassibilitiee, and that by dmqging dimsnsions,
such a8 the length, the t a i l water depth, the height and location of the
bafYle blocks, etc., the desired degzee of conservatism could 'loe
obtained.
 porf'onwzd using various types and arrangements ' of baffle blocks on t b
apron in an e f f o r t t o ~ b t a i n ~ t hbest.possible
e solution. Sane of:-
baffle blocks t r i e d are shom on'Figure 17. The blocks were positioned
i n both single .and double rows w i t h the second row staggexx?d,witLr
respect to,* first. Arrangement on Figure 17 consisted of a
solid bucket s i l l which was t r i e d i n several poftitions on the apron.
This s i l l required an excessive .tail water depth t o be effective. !Phe .
solid sill was then replaced w i t h blocks and ' spaces. For certain
heights, widths, and spacing, black Ybn performed quite well, resulting
in.a water surface sWlar t o that shown on Figure 20. Block "cn w
ineffective f o r any height. The velocity passed over the block a t a b k t
a 4 5 O angle, thus wars not Impeded, and the vater surface downstream vtps
very turbulent w i t h waves, The stepped block *dn was also Ineffective
both f o r a single row and a double row. !RE action was-much the aapr
as f o r "c." The cube "emwas effective v k n the best height, width,
spacing, and position on the apron we= faund. The front of the' juarp
was -almost vertical and the 'water surface d o ~ s t r e e mwas quite f l a t sad:
smaoth, much l i k e the water surface on'F1gux-c 20. Block "f ,*
which i s the sazru? shape used i n the :SAF basin, performsd identiceUy.
~ 5 t hthe cubical'block "eon The lmportant.feaksre a a ?toshape appeerrrd
t o be the vertical upstream face. The foregoing blocks were runurged
i n sirrgle and double ravs. The second row in each case was of l i t t l e
value, sketch *h," Figure 17.
Block "gn i s the ssllae a s block "fn w i t h the corners rounded.
It was found that round- the comers greatly reduced the effectiveness
of the blocks. In fact a double row of blocks vith rounded corners Bid
not perform as well as a single rar of blocks ?b," * or clf
block "fn i s usually prefersble from a constnktion standpoint, it was
."
As
used throughout the remaining tests t o deteraaine -a.general design with
respect t o height, width, spacing, and position on the apron.
I n addition t o experimenting with the baffle blocks, varla-
tions were t r i e d w i t h respect t o the size and shape of the chute ;blocks
and the end sill. It was found t h a t the chute blocks should be kept
s m a l l , no larger thsn D l , i f possible. The end s i l l h8d l i t t l e o r no
effect on the jump .proper when baffle piers are placed 8s recommended.
The basin as finally devel~pedi s shown on Figure 18. This basin 'is
principally an impact dissipation devlce whelleby the baffle blocks are
called upan t o do mst of the work. The . c h t e blocks aid i n stabilina-
tion'of the jump and the.so1id type end s i l l is f o r scour control.

t7
 A t the conclusion of t3e development work, a set of Verifica-
t i o n tests was made t o examine and record the performance of W s ' b a s i n ,
which w i l l be designated a s Basin 111, over the e n t i r e rsnge of operat- ,-.
ing conditions t h a t may be m e t i n practice, The tests were made on a
t o t a l of 14 basins constructed i n F 3 . m ~B, C, D, and E. The conditions
under which the tests were run the dimensions of the basin, and the
r r s u l t s are recorded on Table I.The headings are;:identical w i t h those
of Table 3 except f o r the dimensions of the b a f f l e block8 and end sills.
The additional symkols can be identified from Figure 18.

STIILING BASIN PERFORMANCE AZm) DESIGH

S t i l l i n g basin action was quite stable f o r t M s &si@; i n

f a c t , mare so than f o r e i t h e r Basins I o r 11. The f r o n t of the -Juar(p t ;

w a s steep and there was l e s s wave action t o contend with downstm€Un

than i n e i t h e r of the f o m r basins. I n addition, Basin 111 hss a ,
large f a c t o r of safety against jump.sweepout and operaws equally w a l l
f o r a l l values of the F m d e number above 4.0. The'v e r l f i c a t i a n 'beets
served t o show t h a t Bsrsin I11 was very satisfactory.
Basin 111 should not be used where baffle p i e r s w i l l be
exposed t o velocities above the 50 t o 60 f e e t per second ranee w i t h h t
the f u l l realization that cavitation and resulting damage may occur.
For velocities above 50 f e e t p e r second Basin 11 o r hydraulic model
studies a r e recommended.
Chute Blocks
The recommended proportions for Basin I11 are s h m on.
Figure 18. The height, width, and spacing of the chute blocks a r e
equal t o Dl, t h e sane a s was recommended f o r Besin11. Urger heights
were t r i e d , as can be 05served from C o l m 18, !Cable 4, but are not
recommended. The larger chute blocks tend t o throw a portion of the
high-velocity jet over the b a f f l e blocks. Some cases w i l l be encoun-
tered in design, however, where Dl i s l e s s than 8 inches. I n such
cases the blocks may be made 8 inches high, which i s cons,idered by 8-
designers t o be the minimum s i z e possible from a construction s ~ d p o p o i n t .
The width and spacing are the same as the height, but t h i s m y be varied
so long as the aggregate width of spaces eJZJroximateelyequals the total
width of the blocks.
 The height of the baffle blocks increases with the Froude
number as can be obsexved from Columns 22 and 10, Table 4. The height,
i n terms of D l , can be obtained from t h e upper l i n e on Figure 19. The
width and spacing can vary so long a s the t o t a l spacing i s equal t o the
t o t a l width of blocks. The most satisfactory width and spacing w e r e
found t o be three-fhrths of t h ? height. It i s not necessary t o stagger
the b a f f l e blocks with the chute blocks as U s i s often d i f f i c u l t and
there i s l i t t l e t o be gained from a hydraulic standpoint.
The baffle blocks are located 0,8D2 dawnstream from the chute
blocks as shown i n Figure 18. The actual positions used i n the verifi-
cation tests are shown i n Column 25, Tsble 4. The position, height and
spacing of the b a f f l e blocks on the apron should be adhemd t o carefully,
as these dimensions a r e important. For example, i f the blocks are set
appreciably upstrzam from the position shawn, they w i l l produce a cas-
cade with resulting wave action. On the contrary, i f the blocks are s e t
f a r t h e r dawnstrean than shown, a longer basin w i l l be required. Like-
wise, i f the b a f f l e blocks are too high, they can produce a cascade,
while i f too l o w a rough water surface w i l l r e s u l t , It i s not the
intention t o give the Impression t h a t the position o r bight of the
baffle blocks a= c r i t i c a l . Their position o r b i g h t are not c r i t i c a l
so long as the above proportions are followed. There e x i s t s a reason-
able amount of leeway i n a l l directions; however, one cannot place the
baffle blocks on t h e pool f l o o r a t random and expect anything like the
excellent action associated with the Type 111 basin.
The b a f f l e blocks may be in the form shown on Figure 18, o r
I they may be cubes; e i t h e r shape i s effective. The corners of the b a f f l e
blocks a r e not rounded, a s the sharp edges are effective i n producing
eddies which i n turn a i d i n the dissipation of energy. It is advisable
i t o place reinforcing s t e e l back a t i e a s t 6 inches frm the block sur-
faces when possible, as there is solne evidence that s t e e l placed close
t o the surface aids .spalling.
End S i l l
I

I The height of the s o l i d end s i l l i s a l s o s h m t o vary w i t h

the Fraude mmbes although there I s nothing c r i t i c a l about t h i s dimen-
sion. The heights of the s i l l s used i n the ,verification '%ests are shemn
i n Columns 27 and 28 of Table 4. The height of the end sill i n term
of D l is plotted' with respect t o the Froude nwnber and shown as the
lower l i n e on Figure 19. A slope of 2:l was used throughout the tests.

1 .
 The SAF rules suggest the use of a tail water depth less than
full conjugate depth, D2.. A s i n the case of Basin 11, f u l l con'Jugate
depth, measured above the apron, is also recommended f o r Basin 111.
There are several reasons f o r this statement: F i r s t , the best operation
f o r this s t i l l i n g basin occurs at fill conjugate tail water depth;
second1y;if l e s s than the conjlagate depth i s used, the surface veloci-
t i e s leaving the pool are high, the jump action is impaired, and there
i s a greater chance f o r scour downstream; and thirdly, i f the baffle
blocks erode w i t h - time, the additional tail water depth w i l l serve t o
lengthen the interval between repairs.. On the other hand, -there is no
particular advantage t o using greater than the conjugate depth, as the
action i n the pool w i l l show l i t t l e or no improvement.
The margin of safety f o r Basin 111 varies from 15 t o 18 per-
cent depending on the value of the F m d e number, as can be observed by
the dotted l i n e labeled, %nbmm Tsil Water Depth--Basin 111," on
Figure 11. The points, fromwhich the l i n e was drawn, were obtained
from the verification tests, Columns LO and 14, Table 4. Again, m e
l i n e does not represent complete sweepaut, but the point at which the
front of the juag moves away f ~ l a athe chute blocks and the basin no
longer functions properly. I n special caees it m y be advieable t o
encroach on this w i d e -gin of safety, however, it i s not advisable
as a general rule f o r the reasons stated above.
Length-of m s i n
The length of Basin 111, which i s related t o the Froude.mmber
can be obtained by conoulting t h e lower curve on Figure 12, page 37.
The points, indicalx%zl'bycircles, . w e r e .obtained from Columns 10 and 12,
Table 4, and inficate the extent of the verification tests. The length
i s nteasured R m the downstr~amside of the chute blocks t o the down-
stream edge of t& end sill, Figure 18. Although this curve was deter-
nined conservatively, it w i l l be found t h a t the length of Basin 111 i s
l e e s than one-half the length needed f o r a basin without appurtenances.
Basin 111, as was true of Basin 11, may be effective f o r values of the
~roudenumber as low as 4.5, thus the length c u m wss terminated a t
this d u e .
 Approximate water-surface profiles were obtained for Basin 111
during the verif icrrtion t e s t s . The front of tke jump was so steep,
Figure 20, that only two.measurements were necessary-atbe tail water
depth and the depth upstream from the .baffle blocks, ' i 3 ~tsiL water
iiepth i s shown i n Column 6 and the upstream depth i s recorded in
Column 29 of Table 4. The r a t i o of the upstream depth t o conjugate
depth is sharjn ia Column 30. A s can be observed, the r a t i o i s much the
regardlees of the value of the Fraude number. !Ihe average of the
rqtios In Column 30 i s 0.52. Thus it will be assumed that the depth
upstream from the baffle blocks i s one-half the t a i l water depth.
The profile represented by the crosshatched area, Figure 20,
i s f o r conjugak? tail water depth. Far a greater t a i l water depth DZ,

2
-.
ths upstream depth would be Dz For a tail water depth l e s s than con-
D
jugate, D ~ ,the upstream depth would be approximately 2. ~ h r appears e
2
t o be no particular signiffcsnce t o *& f a c t that this r s t i o is ma-hslf.
The information on Figure 20 applies only t o Bsln.111, pro-
portioned accoxdhg t~ the rules s e t forth. It can be assumzd that for
practical purposes t h e preesure and water-surface profiles are the
8-. Them w i l l be a localized i n e l ~ a s ei n pressure on %heapron
inmediately upstre- froan each baffle'block but this has becn taken
into account, nore o r less, by extending the dlagrama t o full tail water
depth beginning at the upstream face of the baffle blocks.

R E C O ~ A T I O ~

The following rules pertain t o the design of the .Type 111

*basin, Figure 18:
1. The s t i l l i n g basin operates best a t f u l l .conJugate tail
water depth, D2. A reasonable factor of safety is involved at con-
jugate depth for a l l values of the F m d e lnuaber ( ~ i g u r el l ) , but
it i s recommended that the designer not make a general practice of
Bncroachlng on t h i s -gin of safety.
2. The length of pool, which i s l e s s than one-half the length
of the natural jump, can be obtained by consulting the mae f o r
Basin I11 on Figure 12.

3. S t i l l i n g Basin I11 may be effective f o r values or the Fraude

number a s l o w as 4.0 but this canr~otbe stated for certsin (consult
Section 4 f o r values under 4.5).

. -
55
 the average depth of f l o w entering the basin, o r Dl. Width o i blocks
m y be decreased, providing spacing i s reduced a llke amount. Should
D l prove t o be less than 8 inches, make the blocks 8 inches high.

5. The height of the baffle blocks varies with the Fraude

number and i s given on Figure 19. !Phe blocks may be cubes o r they
may be constructed as shown on Figure 18 so long as the upstream face
i s v e r t i c a l aad i n one plane. This feature is important. The width
and spacing of baffle blocks are a l s o shown on Figure 18. I n narrow
structures where.the specified width and spacing of blocks do not
appear practical, block width and spacing may be reduced, providing
they are reduced a like amount. A half space Is reconmended adjacent
t o the walls.
6. The upstream face of the baffle blocks should be set at a
distance of 0.m2 from the downstream face of the chute blocks
( ~ i g u r e18). This djmznsion i s also important.

7. The height of the solid s i l l st the end of the basin can be

obtained f m m Figure 19. The slope i s 2:1 upward i n the direction of
flaw.
8. There is no need t o Knrnd o r atmanline the edges of the
chute blocks, end s i l l o r baffle piers. Strsaiiilining of baffle piers
may r e s u l t in lose of half of t h e i r effectiveness. Small chamfers
t o prevent chipping of the edges i s permissible.

9. A s a reminder, a condition of excess tail water depth docs

not Justify shortening the basin length.
10. It i s recanaaPended that a radius of reasonable length
(R 5 4 ~ 1 )be used a t the intersection of the chute and basin apron
f o r slopes of 4 5 O o r greater.
11. As a general rule the slope of the chute has l i t t l e effect
on the jump unless long f l a t slopes are involved. This phase w i l l
be csnsidemd i n Section 5 on sloping aprons.

A s the Type I11 basin i s short coupled, the above rules s h l d

be followed closely f o r i t s proportioning. If the proportioning is t o
be varied fram t h a t rec-nded, o r i f the L i m i t s given belaw aze
exceeded, a model study i s advisable. Arbitrsry limits f o r the Type 111
bas- are s e t at.200 cf s per foot of basin width, o r 100 feet of fall,
u n t i l experience demonstrates o t k m i s e .
 Olven the following computed values f o r a small overflow dam

Q q "1 Dl
- cfs -cf s ~tlsec -
ft

3r 900
3 t 090
78.0
61.8
69
66
.
1 130
0,936
2,022 40 -45 63 0.642
662 " 13-25 51 0.26~
and the t a i l water curve f o r the river, identified by Lhe solid line on
Figure 21, proportion a Type I11 basin f o r the most adverse condition
utilizing f'ull conjugate t a i l water depth. The flow i s eymetriclrl and
the width of the basin i s 50 feet. h he purpose of U s example i s t o
demonatrate the use of the jump height curve .)
The f i r s t step i s to compute the jump high6 curve. As V 1
and D l are given, the Froude number i s computed and ts'bultrted tn
Column 2, Table 5, below:
Table 5

Q -
D2 - -
D2 Jump height elevation
-
cfs
( 1) (5
F1 Dl
(5 (V
ft ft
(5
curve a
(6)
cumre a*
(7)
3t900 U.42 15-75 1.130 17.80 617.5 615.O
3,090 12.02 16.60 0.936 15.54 615.2 612.7
2,022 13.85 19.20 0.642 12-33 612.0 609.5
662 17.62 24.5 0.268 6 -37 606.1 603.6
Entering Figure ll (page 35) Kith these values of the Froude number
v a l u e s of 'lW a= obtained f o r conjugate t a i l water depth from the solid
Dl
line. These values are also % and are shown l i s t e d i n Column 3. !l!h
conjugate t a i l w a t e r depths f Do rl the various discharges, Column 5, were
obtained by multiplying the values i n Column 3 by those i n Column 4.

If it were assumed that the most Bdverse operating condition

occurs at the maximum discbarge of 3,900 cfs, the s t i l l i n g basin apron
should be placed at elevation 617.5 -
17.8 o r elevation 599.7. *
 --- .
conJugate tail water-depth f o r each discharge would follow tG eleva-
t i o n s l i s t e d i n Column 6. Plotting Columns 1 and 6 on Figure 21 results
i n Curve a, which shows t h a t the tail w a t e r depth i s inadequate f o r a l l
but the maximum discharge.
The tall water curve is unusual i n that the moet adverse t a i l
water condition occurs at a discharge of approximately 2,850 c f s rather
than ~aaximum. As f u l l conjugate t a i l w a t e r depth i s desired f o r t h e
most adverse t a i l water condition, it i s necessary t o s h i f t the jump
height curve downward t o match the t a i l water curve f o r a discharge of
2,850 c f s (see Curve at, Figure 21). 'The coordinates f o r Curve a' are
g i n n in Coluarns 1 and 7, Table 5. This w i l l place the basin f l o o r 2.5
f e e t lower, o r elevation 597.2 f e e t , as ehcrm i n sketch on Figure 21.
Although the position of the basin f l o o r was s e t f o r a dia-
charge of 2,850 cfs, the remaining d e t a i l s are proportioned f o r the
f m s l n m discharge 3,900 cfs.

Entering Figure 12, page 37, with a Froude number of 11.42,

-
411
D2
2.75, and the length of

basin mquired bI= 2.75 x 17.80 = 48.95 feet.

( l o t i c c that conjugate depth was used, n o t , t a i l water depth.)

The height, width, and spacing of chute blocks are equal t o D l
- -
o r 1.130 f e e t (use 13 o r 14 inches).
The height of the b a f f l e blocks f o r a F m d e number of XI.-42
(~it3- 19, P w e 53) is 2.5Dp
h3 = 2.5. x 1.130 P -
2.825 f e e t (use 34 inches).
The v i d t h and spacing of the b a f f l e blocks are preferably
m e - f o u r t h s of t h e height o r

-
0.75 x 34 = 25.5 inches.
 SECTION 4
STILLING BASIN DESIGN AND WAVE SUPPRESSORS FOR CANAL
STRUCWRES, OUTLET WORKS AHD DIVERSION DAMS
(BASIN IV)

ImRoWCTION
I n t h i s section the characteristics of the hydraulic jump and
the design of an adequate s t i l l i n g basin f o r Froude numbers between 2,5
and 4.5 are discussed. !Chis range i s encountered principally in the
design of canal structures, but occaeionally diversion dams aud outlet
works f a l l i n t h i s category. I n the 2.5 t o k.5 Froude number range,
the Jut@ is not f u l l y developed and the previously discussed methods
of design do not apply. The main problem concerns the waves created i n
the hydraulic Jump, making the design of a suitable wave suppzwsor a
part of the s t i l l i n g basin problem.

Four means of reducing wave heights are discussed. The first

i s an integral part of the s t i l l i n g basin design &nd should be used
only i n the 2.5 t o 4.5 Froude number range. The second may be considered
t o be an alternab design and may be used over a greater range of 'Froude
numbers. These types are discussed as a part of the s t i l l i n g basin
design. The third and fourth devices are considered as appurtenances
which m y be included i n an original design or added t o an existing
structure. Also, they may be used i n any open channel flow-way without
consideration of the! Froude munber. .These latter devices are described
under the heading Wave Suppressors.

JUMP CHARACTERIS!CICS--FROUDE NUMBER 2.5 TO 4.5

For luu values of the Froude number, .2.5 t o 4.5, the entering
J e t oscillates intermittently from bottom t o surface, as indicated i n
Figure gB, page 22, with no particular period. Each oscillation gener-
a t e s a wave which is d i f f i c u l t t o dampen. I n narrow stxuctures, such
as canals, waves may persist t o som degree f o r d l e s , A s they
encounter obstructions i n the canal, such as bzidge piers, turnouts,
checks, and transitions, reflected waves may be generated which tend t o
daqpen, modify, o r intensify the orig9xxl wave. Waves are destructive
t o earth-lined canals and riprap and produce undesirable surges a t -
gaging stations and i n measuring devices. Stxuctums in this range of
Froude numbers are the ones that require the most m a i n t e m e . I n
fact, it bas been necessary t o replace o r rebuild a number of existing ..
s t ~ u c t u r e si n this category.

62
as pronounced sjnce the waves can t r a v e l l a t e r a l l y as well a s 2 p a r a l l e l
t o the direction of flow. The combined action produces sonre damgenlmg
e f f e c t , but a l s o r e s u l t s i n a choppy water burface. These waves may o r
may not be dissipated i n a short d'istance. Where o u t l e t works,
operating under heads of 50 f e e t iirr greater, fall within the r m g e of
Froude numbers between 2.5 and 4,.5, a model study of the s t i l l i n g basin
i s i q x r a t i v e . A model study i s the only means of including preventive
o r corrective devices i n the structure so t h a t proper perforrnsnce can
be assured.

STILLING BASIN DESIGN--FROUDE NUMBER 2 .5 TO 4.5

Development Tests
The best way t o combat a wave problem is t o eliminate the
wave at i t s source; i n other words, concentrate on altering t h e con-
d i t i o n which generates the wave. I n the case of the s t i l l f s g basin
preceded by an overfall o r chute, two schemes were appare!"t; f o r ellmi-
natj.ng waves a t th@irsource. The f i r s t was t o break up or eliminate
the entering jet, shcrwn on Figure gB, by opposing it wi- directional.
J e t s deflected f r o m baffle p i e r s o r sills. The second m a t o bolster
o r i n t e n s i f y the roller, shown i n the upper portion of Fighre 9B, by
d i r e c t i o n a l jets deflected from large chute blocks.
The f i r s t mthod v a s unsuccessful in t h a t the number and size
of appurtenances necessary t o break up the r o l l e r occupied so much
volume t h a t these i n themselves posed an obstruction t o the flow. This
conclusion was based on tests in which various shaped b a f f l e blocks and
guide blocks were systematically placed in a stilling basin in caanbina-
t i o n with numerous types of spreader t e e t h and deflectors i n the chute.
The program involved dozens of t e s t s , and not u n t i l all conceivable
ideas were t r i e d was this approach abandoned. A few of the basic ideas
t e s t e d a r e shown OIL Figure 22, a, b, c, f , g, and h.
Finnl Tests
Deflector blocks. The second approach, that of attempting to
i n t e n s i f y the r o l l e r , yielded b e t t e r results, I n this case, large
blocks were placed w e l l up on the chute, while nothiag was .installed i n
the s t i l l i n g basin proper. The object in this case was t o d i r e c t a j e t
at t h e 'base of the m l l e r i n an attempt t o strengthen it. After a
number of trials, the r o l l e r was actually intensified which did improve
the s t a b i l i t y of the jump. Sketches d and e on Figure 22 indicate the
only schemes t h a t showed promise, although msny variations w e r e t r i e d .
After finding an arrangemnt that w a s effective, it was then attempted
to make the f i e l d construction as simple as possible. The dimensions
and proportions of the deflector blocks as f i n a l l y adopted are shown on
F i m 2 ~3.
 --

tenances as possrble i n the path of 'the flow, as volume occupied by

appurtenances helps t o create a backwater problem, thus requiring
higher training w a l l s . The. number of deflector blocks shown on
Figure 23 i s a minimarm requirement t o accamplish the purpose set forth.
The w i d t h of the blocks i s shown equal t o Dl and t h i s i s the maximum
width recommended. From a hydraulic standpoint it i s desirable t h a t
the blocks be sonstructed narrower than indicated, preferably O.75D1.
The ratio of block width t o spacing should be maintained as lt2.5.
The extreme topsrof the blocks a m 2D1 above the floor of the s t i l l i n g
basin. The blocks may appear t o be rather high and, i n same cases,
extremely long, but this i s essential'as the j e t nust play a t the base
of the r o l l e r to be effective. To accomwdate the various slopes of
chutes and ogee shapes encountered, a rule has been established that
the horizontal length of the blocks should be a t least 2D1. The upper
surface of each block i s sloped at 5* in a dmstream direction as it
was found t h a t 'this feature resulted i n better operation, especially
a t the lower discharges.
T a i l water depth. A t a l l w a t e r depth 5 t o 10 percent greater
th8~ the conJugate depth i s strongly recommended for the above basin.
Since the jump is very sensitive t o t a i l water depth a t these low d u e s
of the Fraude mrmber, a slight deficiency In t a i l w a t e r depth may allow
the jump t o sweep c m l e t e l y out of the basin. Many of the d i f f i c u l t i e s
that have been encountered in small f i e l d structure8 i n the past can be
attributed t o t h i s aspect of the jump f o r low numbers. I n addition, the
J~UQperform mch better an& wave action is diminished i f the tail water
depth i s increased t o approximately 1.XDg.
Basin length snd end sill. The length of this basin, vhich i s
ralatively short, can be obtained from the upper curve on Figure l2. l o
additional blocks o r appurtenances are needed i n the basin, a s these
w i l l prove a greater detriment than aid. .The addition of a small tri-
angular s i l l placed a t the end of the apron for'scour control is
desirable.
Perfor~ence. If designed f o r the maximum discharge, t h i s
stilling basin w i l l perform satisfactorily f o r all flows. Waves below
the s t i l l i n g basin w i l l a t i l l be i n evidence but w i l l be of the ordiaaw
variety usually encountered with jumps of a higher Froude number. This
design is applicable t o rectsnguhr cross sections only.

. -< ,'
b.'
-
.--z
Perforaance
A n alternate basin for mducing wave action a t the source for
values of the F m d e number between 2.5 and 4.5 i s applicable t o small
drops I n canals. The Fraude number i n t h i s case would be computed tb
sane as though the drop were an overflow crest. A series of s t e e l
rails, channel imns or timbers in the form of a grizzly are :installed
at the drop, as shown on Figurn 24. The overfalling j e t is separated
.into a number of long, thin sheets of water which f a l l nearly vertically
into the canal below. Energy dissipation i s excellent and the usual
wave problem i s avoided. If the r a i l s are t i l t e d downward a t an angle
of 3' o r more, the grid i s self-cleaning.
Design
Two spacing arrangements w e r e tested i n the laboratory: in
the f i r s t , the spacing was equal t o the width of the beams, and i n the
second, the spacing was two-thirds of the beam width. The Patter was
the more effective. In the first, the length of g r i z z l y required was
about 2.9 times the depth of f l a w (y) i n the canal upstream, while i n
the second, it was ~lecesssryt o increase the length t o approximately
3 . 6 ~ . The following expression can be used f o r computing the length of
grizzly:
I&= Q
(4)
m,G
where Q i s total discharge, C i s an experinrental coefficient, W i s the
width of spacing in feet, N i s the number of spaces, g is "the accelera-
tion of gravity and y i s the depth of flow i n the canal upstream (see
Figure 24). The value of C f o r the two arrangements tested was 0.245.
I n this case the grizzly makes it possible t o avoid the
h y & ~ l i jump.
c Should it be desired t o maintain a certain level i n
the canal upstream, the grid may be t i l t e d upwad t o a c t a s a check;
however, t h i s arrangement may pose 8 cleanbg problem.
$6

WAVE SUPPRESSORS

The two s t i l l i n g basins described in the first p a r t of

Section 4 msy beaconsidered t o be wave mppressors,+although the mrp-
pressor effect i s obtained from the necessary featu=s of the s t i l l i n g
basb. If greater wave reduction i s required on a proposed stmcture,
or i f a wave suppressor i s rehuired t o be added toden existing flow-way,
t h e tvo types discussed below may p m useful. Both of these types are!
applicable t o most open channel flow-ways having rectangular, trapezoidal,
 o r other cross-sectional shapes. The f i r s t or r a f t type may prove more
economical than the second or underpass type, but rafts may not provide
the degree of wave reduction obtaiaeble w i t h the underpass type. Both
types may be used without regard t o the Froude number.
R a f t Type Wave Suppressor

I n a structure of t h e type sham in Figure 25, there are no

means f o r eliminating waves a t t h e i r source. Tests showed that appur-
tenances in the s t i l l i n g basin merely produced severe splashing and
created a backwater effect, resulting in submerged flow at the gate f o r
. the larger flows. Submerged f l o w reduced the effective head on,the
structure, and i n turn, the capacity. Tests on several suggested
devices showed that r a f t s provided the best answer t o t h e wave problem
when additional submergence c d d not be tolerated. The general
arrange!ment of the tested structure i s shown i n Figure 25. The l%aude
number varied from 3 t o 7, depending on the head behind the gate and
the gate opening. Velocities i n the c a r d ranged from 5 t o 10 feet per
secon8. Waves were 1.5 f e e t high, measured from trough t o crest.
During the course of the experiments a m b e r of raf'ts were
tested; thick r a f t s w i t h longitudinal slots, t h i n rafts made of per-
forated s t e e l plate, and others, both floating and fixed. Rigid and
articulated rafts w e r e tested i n various arrangements.
; ,1
!Phe most effective! raft arrangement consisted of two r i g i d
stationary r a f t s 20 f e e t long by 8 f e e t w i d e , made frara 6- by 8-iqch
tirmbers, placed i n the canal downstream from the s t i l l i n g basin (~igure
25). A space was l e f t between timbers and lighter cross pieces warn
placed on the r a f t s p a r a l l e l t o $ t h e flcm, giving the appearance of many
rectangular holes. Several essential requirenu?nts f o r the raft were
apparent: (1)that the r a f t s be perforated i n a 'regular pattern;
(2) that there be some depth t o these holes; (3) that at least two rafts
be used; and (4) that the rafts be rigid and held stationary.

It was found that the r a t i o of hole area t o t o m area of

raft could be from 1:6 t o l:8. The 8.-foot width, W on Figure 25, i s
a minimum dimension. !l!he rafts must have sufficient thfclraess so that
tbe tzoughs of the waves do not break f r e e from the underside. The top
surfaces of the r a f t s are set a t the mean water aurf'ace i n a fixed
position so that they cannot move. Spacing between rafts should be at
least three times the raft dimension, naeasured parallel t o the flow.
The first r a f t decreases the wave height about 50 percent, while--
second raft effects a further mduction. Surges over the raf't dissipate
themselves by f l o w dowmard thraugh the holes. For this specific case
the waves were reduced from 18 t o 3 inches i n height.
the maximum discharge when freeboard i s endangered, so the rafts can be
a permanent installation. Should it be desired t o BUPpre88 the waves
at partial flow's, the r a f t s may be made adjustable, or, i n the,caee of
trapezoidal channels, a second set of rafts m y be placed under the
f i r s t set f o r partid flows. The rafts should perform equally well in
trapezoidal RS w e l l as rectangular channels.
The recom~lendedraft arrangemPent i s also applicable f o r sup-
pressing waves .with a regular period such as w i n d wsves, waves produced ,
i
by the starting.and stopping of pumps, etc. I n this case, the position
of the downstream raft is important. The second raft should be p ~ s i -
tioned downstz%am-at same fraction of the wave length. Placing it at 8
f u l l wave length could cause both rafts t o be ineffective. Thus, f o r
n a m caasls it may be advisable t o make t h e second raft portable.
Barever, if i t becornea necessary to make the rafts 'adjuetable o r
portable, or if a noderate increase i n depth i n the stillling basin can
be tolerated, consideration should be given t o the type of wave
suppressor discussed below,
Underpass Type Wave Suppressor
General description. By far -the most effective wave dissipater
i s the short-tube type of underpass suppressor. The neme "short-tabem
is used because the structure has many of the charact6'ristics of the
short-tube discussed i n hydraulics texkbooks. -This wave suppressor m y
be added t o an existing structure or included i n the original canstruc-
tion. I n either case it provides a sightly stmcture, p e m e n t i n
nature, which is economical t o construct and effectitre in operation.
The r e c ~ n d s h t i a n sf o r this structure are based on zhree
separate model investigations, each~havingdifferent flow conditions
and wave reduction requirements.

Z s s e n t ~ ,the structure consists of a horizontal roof

placed in the flow chnnnelwith a headwall sufficiently high t o cause
all flav t o pass beneath the roof. The height of the roof above the
channel floor nay be s e t t o effectively reduce wave heights f o r a con-
siderable range of flows o r channel stages. The length of the roof,
homer, determines the anount of wave sup>p&ssion obtained f o r sny
psrticular roof setting.
7
'

Perfomlance. The effectiveness of this wave suppressor is

illustrated i n Fiwm 26. In this instance it was desired t o reduce
wave heights entering a lined canal t o prevent overtopping of the canal
1
- at near m8xinun discharges. Belaw 3,000 second-feet, waves were
i n evidence but did not overtop the lining. For larger discharges,
bowever, the s t i l l i n g basin produced moderate waves which wen? acfuslly
intensified by the ,short transition between the basin and the canal.
 Without suppressor - waves overtop canal.

Suppressor in place - Length 1.3D2, submerged

30 percent

Performance of Underpass Wave Suppressor

1:32 Scale Model
Discharge 5 , 0 0 0 Second-feet
became a r e a l problem a t 4,500 second-feet. Anxiety developed when it
became known t h a t water demands would soon require 5,000 second-feet,
the design capacity of the canal.. Tests were made with a suppressor
21 f e e t long using discharges from 2,000 t o 5,000 second-feet. The
suppressor was located between the s t i l l i n g basin and the c < m a l .
Figure 27, Test 1, shows the r e s u l t s of t e s t s t o determine the
optimum opening between the roof and the channel f l o o r using the maxinnrm
discharge, 5,000 second-feet. With a 14-foot opening, waves w e r e
reduced from about 8 f e e t t o about 3 feet. Waves were reduced t o l e s s
than 2 f e e t with an opening of 11 f e e t . Smaller openings produced less
wave height reductions, due t o the turbulence created a t the underpass
exit. Thus, it may be seen that an opening of from 10 t o 12 f e e t
produced optimum results.
With the opening s e t a t 11f e e t the suppressor e f f e c t was then
determined f o r other discharges, These r e s u l t s are shown on Figure 27,
Test 2. Wave height ~ d u c t i o nwas about 78 percent a t 5,000 second-feet,
increasing t o about 84 percent at 2,000 second-feet. The device became
ineffective at about 1,500 second-feet when the depth of flow became
l e s s than the height of the roof.
To determine the e f f e c t of suppressor length on the wave
reduction, other factors w e r e held constant while the length was varied.
Tests were made on suppressors 10, 21, 30, and 40 f e e t long f o r dis-
c h r g e s of 2, 3, 4, and 5 thousand second-feet, Figure 27, Test 3.
Roof lengths i n terms of the downstream depth Dg f o r 5,000 second-feet
were 0 . 6 2 ~ ~1.3D2,
, and 2.5D2, respectively. I n terms of a 20-foot-
long underpass, halving the roof length almost doubled the downstream
wave height while d e b l i n g the 20-foot length slmost halved the
resulting wave height.
The same type of wave suppressor was successfully used i n an
i n s t a l l a t i o n where it was necessary t o obtain optimum wave height reduc-
flume i n which it w a s desired t o obtain accurate discharge measukments
The capacity of the structure was 625 cubic f e e t per second but it was
.
tions, since f l a w from the underpass discharged d i r e c t l y i n t o a Parshall

necessary f o r the underpass t o function for low flms as well as f o r

t h e maximum. W i t h an underpass 3.51)2 long and s e t . a s s h m i n
Figure 28, the wave reductions were a s shown i n Table 6.
U-STA. 12*14.33 k- STA. Il*W.Sa I L O k -$oVm

CARTER LAKE DAM NO.I OUTLET WORKS

WAVE HEIGHT RECORDS I

 1
Maximum Head
Discharge : 625 : 550 : 400 : 200 : 100
i n cfs :Upstre&:Downstre&:
: : . . . .
U :D :U :D : U : D :U : D
. .
Wave heights:
-- --- -
In f e e t r
H3.8
-
D~US
:
?
0.3
f : . . .
:4.2:0.3:4.5:0.4:3.6:0.4:1.7:0.3

Wpstream s t a t i o n i s a t end of s t i l l i n g basin. Downstream

s t a t i o n i s i n Parshall flume.
WRecorder pen reached limit of t r a v e l i n t h i s t e s t only.
Figure 28 shows some of the a c t u a l wave t r a c e s recorded by an
oscillograph. Here it may be seen t h a t the maximum wave height? measured
from minimum trough t o maximum c r e s t did not occur on successive waves.
Thus, the water surface w i l l appear smoother t o the eye than is indicated
bv the max.lmum wave heisrhts recorded i n Table 6.

General design procedure. To design an underpass f o r a par-

t i c u l a r structure there are three main considerations: F i r s t , how
deeply should the roof be submerged; second, how long an underpass
should be constructed t o accomplish the necessary wave reduction; and
third. - how
I -- much
-- increase
- i n flow d e ~ t hw i l l occur upstream from the
-

-.---- a a s-s - These

~ n d e r=--- --- considerations
- ---. -- are discussed in order.
-. .- -

Based on the two i n s t a l l a t i o n s shown on Figures 27 and 28, and

on other experiments, it has been found that maximum wave reduction
occurs when the roof i s submerged about 33 percent, i.e., when ,the under
s i d e of the underpass i s s e t 33 percent of the flow depth below the
water surface f o r maximum discharge, Figur@ 29C. Submergences greeter
than 33 percent ( f o r t h e cases tested) produced undesirable turbulence
a t t h e underpass o u t l e t resulting i n less o v e r a l l wave reduction. With
t h e usual t a i l water curve, submergence and the percent reduction i n
wave height w i l l becollhe less, i n general, f o r smaller than maximum d i s -
charges. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the upper c u m i n Figure 29C. The
- - - - curve
lower - - . - shows
-. - . a near constant value f o r l e s s submergence, but it

I is f e l t t h a t t h i s i s a somewhat special case since the wave heights f o r

less than maxinnm discharne w e r e smaller and of shorter period than i n

I t h e usual case.
It i s known t h a t the wave period g r e a t l y a f f e c t s the -?rforn-
ance of a given underpass, w i t h the greatest wave reduction O C C U S ~ ~ ~ ~
-f o
- -r short
- -- - - - *~ e r i a dwaves. Since the designer usually does not know i n
- - - -

avarice the wave periods t o be expected; this f a c t o r should be eliminated

Y
from -- d---- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - as far
e s i a n consideration - a s ' w s s i b l e . Fortunately, wave action
- -

be1Low a s t i l l i n g basin usually has no measurable period b;t consists of

a Bnixture of generated and reflected waves b e s t described a s a choppy I
t i o n from limited data and t o eliminate the wave period from considera-
t i o n except i n t h i s general way: waves mst be of the variety ordinarily
found downstream from hydraulic Jumps o r energy dissipators. These
usually have a period of not more than about 5 seconds. Longer period
waves may require special treatment not covered i n t h i s discussion.
Fortunately, too, there generally i s a tendency f o r the wave period t o
become l e s s with decreasing discharge. Since the suppressor provides
a greater percentage reduction on ahorter period waves, t h i s tends t o
o f f s e t the characteristics of the device t o give l e s s wave reduction
f o r reduced submergence a t lower discharges. It i s therefore advisable
i n the usual case t o submerge the underpass about 33 percent f o r the
maximmi discharge. For l e s s submergence, the wave mduction can be
estimated from Figure 2%.
The minimum length of underpass required depends on the amount
of wave reduction considered necessary. I f it is s u f f i c i e n t t o obtain a
nominal reduction t o prevent overtopping of a canal l i n i n g a t near maxi-
mum discharge o r t o prevent waves from attacking channel banks, a
length lD2 t o 1.5D2 w i l l provide from 60 t o 75 percent wave height
reduction, provided the i n i t i a l waves have periods up t o about 5 seconds.
The shorter the wave period the greater the reduction f o r a given under-
pass. For long period waves, l i t t l e wave reduction may occur because
of the p o s s i b i l i t y of the wave length being nearly a s long o r longer
than the underpass, with the wave passing untouched beneath the underpass.
To obtain greater than 75 percent wave reductions, a longer
underpass i s necessary. Under i d e a l conditions an underpass 2D2 t o
2.5D2 i n length may provide up t o 88 percent wave reduction f o r wave
periods up t o about 5 seconds. I d e d conditions include a velocity
beneath the underpass of l e s s than, say, 10 f e e t per second and a length
of channel 3 t o 4 times the length of the underpass downstream from the
underpass which may be used as a qluieting pool t o s t i l l the small
turbulence waves created a t the underpass exit.
Wave height reduction up t o about 93 percent may be obtained
by using an underpass 3.5D2 t o 4~~ long. Included i n t h i s length i s a
4:l sloping roof extending from the underpass roof elevation t o the t a i l
water surface. The sloping portion should not exceed about one-quarter
of the t o t a l length of underpass. Since slopes greater than 4:l do not
pzxwl.de the desired draft tube action they should not be used. Slopes
flatter than 4:1 provide b e t t e r d r a f t tube action and are therefore
desirable.
underpass length, it-may appear advantageous t o construct two short
underpasses rather .than one long one. I n .the one case tested, two
underpasses each' lD2 long, with a length 5D2 between them, gave an
added 10 percent wave reduction advantage over one underpass 2D2 long.
The extra cost of another headwall should be considered, however.
Table 7 summarizes the amount of wave reduction obtahnable
f o r various underpass lengths.

Table 7
EFFECT OF UNDERPASS UNGTH ON WAVE REDUCTION
For Underpass Submergence 33 Percent and
.
Maxinnrm Velocity Beneath 14 f t / s e c
Underpass length : Percent wave reduction*
.
~2 t o 1 . 5 ~ ~ : 60 t o 75
.
2D2 to 2.5D2 : 80 to 88
.
- ;If. 3.5 to 4.m2 : ww90 t o 93
', *For wave periods up t o 5 seconds.
WJpper l l m i t only w i t h d r a f t tube type
outlet.
To determine the backwater e f f e c t of placing the underpass
in the channel, Figum'29B w i l l prove helpful. Data from four different
underpgsses were used t o obtain the two curves shuun. Although the te8t
po$nts f r o m which the curves were d.I-a~showed @.nor inconsietencles,
probably 'because factors other than those considered also affected the
depth of w a t e r upstream from *he underpass, it i s believed that the sub-
mitted curves are sufficiently accu-te f o r deaign purposes. ~ d g u r e29B
shows two curves of the discharge coefficient "C" versus average veloeity
beneath the underpsss, one f o r underpaas length^ of lD2 t o 2D2 8nd the
other f o r lengths 3D2 t o 4 ~ Intemediste
~ . vslues may be int@rpoLated
although eccuracy of this order i s not usually required.
preceding data in dt?signing an underpaas, a s~mpleproblem w i l l . be
helpful.
Assume a rectangular channel 30 f e e t wide and 14 f e e t deep
flows 10 feet deep at maximum discharge, 2,400 cfs. It i s estirated
t h a t waves w i l l be 5 f e e t high and of the ordinary variety bsving a L

period l e s s than 5 seconds. It i s desired t o reduce the height of the

waves t o approximsrtely 1 foot at maximum discharge by installing an
underpass-type wave suppressor without increasing the depth of water
upstream r'mm the underpass more than 15 inches.
To obtain maximum wave reduction at mWmm discharge, the
underpass shauld be submerged 33 percent. Therefore, the depth beneath
the underpass is 6.67 f e e t w i t h a corresponding velocity of L2 ftlsec,
boo To reduce the height of the vares inr. 5 t o 1 foot, an
'v '3sXs1.
80 percent reduction i n wave height i s indicated, and, from Table 7,

-
requires an underpass approximately 2D2 in length.
From Figure 29B, C 1.07 f o r 2D2 and a veloclty of 12 ft/sec .
Fxwm the equation given on Figure 29B:
n

h + 4. i s the t o t a l head xequired t o pass t k e f l o w and h

represents the backwater effect o r incmase in depth of water upstream
fram the underpass. The detefiaination of values f o r h and is done
by trial and error. As a first determination, assume tbat h + 12,
represents the increase i n head.
Then, channel approach velocity, VL = 5.

4s-'( v d 2 (6.71~
2g -6474 = 0.70 foot
and h P 1.95 - 0.70 P 1.25 f e e t .
 To refine the calculation t the above computation is repeated
using ~ h e n e w h e a d

2t~O0 = 7.1 ft/sec

Vl = '(lO + i.Z5)30

by= 0.72 f o o t

and h = 1.17 feet

Further refinement is unnecessary.

T~ms, the average water surface upstream from the underpass

is 1.2 feet higher than the tail water which satisfies the assumed
design requirement of a maximum backwater of 15 inches. The length of
the underpass is 2D 2 or 20 feet, and the waves are reduced 80 percent
to a maximum height of approximately i foot.

If it is desired to reduce the wave heights still further~ a

longer underpass is required. Using Table 7 and Figure 29B as in the
a b o v e p r o b l e m , an u n d e r p a s s 3 . 5 t o 4.OD 2 o r 35 t o 4 0 f e e t i n l e n g t h
r e d u c e s t h e waves 90 t o 93 p e r c e n t , m a k i n g t h e d o w n s t r e a m waves
approximately 0.5 foot high and creating a backwater, h, of 1.61 feet.

In using the above heads, allowance should be made for waves

and surges which, in effect, are above the computed water surface. One-
half the wave height or more, measured from crest to trough, should be
allowed above the computed surface. Full wave height would provide a
more conservative design for the usual short period waves encountered
in flow channels.

The headwall of the underpass should be extended to this

same height and a seawall overhang placed at the top to turn wave spray
back into the basin. An alternate method would be to place a cover s
say 2D 2 long, upstream from the underpass headwall.

To insure obtaining the maximum wave reduction for a given

length of underpass, a ~:i sloping roof should be provided at the down-
stream end of the underpass, as indicated on Figure 28. This slope may
be considered as part of the overall length. The sloping roof will
help reduce the maximum wave height and will also reduce the frequency
with which it occurs, providing in all respects a better appearing water
surface.

A close inspection of the submitted data will reveal that

slightly better results were obtained in the tests than are claimed in
the example. This was done to illustrate the degree of conservatism
required, since it should be understood that the problem of wave
reduction can be very complex if unusual conditions prevail.

81
 STILLING BASIN WITH SLOPING APRON
(BASIN V)

I10TRODUCTION
Much has been argued, pro and con, concerning the advantages
and disadvantages of s t i l l i n g basins with sloping aprons. !Che discus-
sion continued indefinitely simply because there was not sufficient
supporting data available from which t o d r a w conclusions. It w a s
decided i n this study, therefore, t o investigate the sloping apron
basin s u f f i c i e n t l y t o answer the many debatable questions and a l s o t o
provide more d e f i n i t e design data.
Four flumes, A, B, D, and F, Figures 1, 2, and 3, were used
t o obtain the range of Froude numbers desired f o r the t e s t s . In the
case of Flumes A, B, and D, f l o o r s were i n s t a l l e d t o the slope desired,
while Flume F could be t i l t e d t o obtain slopes from 0' t o 1 2
'. The
slope, as referred t o i n t h i s discussion, i s the tangent of the angle
between the f l o o r and the horizontal, and w i l l be designated 8s "don
Five principal masurements made i n these tests, namely: the dis-
charge, the average depth of flow entering the jump, the length of the
jump, t h e t a i l water depth, and t h e slope of the apron. 'The tail water
w a s adjusted so t h a t the f r o n t of the jump formed e i t h e r a t the i n t e r -
section of the spillway face and the sloping apron or, i n the case of
t h e t i l t i n g flume, at a selected point.
The jump that occurs on the sloping apron takes many fonns
depending on the slope and arrangement of the apron, the value of the
Froude number, and the concentration of flow o r discharge p r foot of
width; but from all appearances, the dissipation i s as effective a8
occurs i n the t r u e hydraulic jump on a horizontal apron.

PREVIOUS EXPERIMEWIAL WORK

Previous experimental work on the sloping apron has been

carried on by several experimenters. I n 1934, the late C. L. Ya.rneU.
of the United States Depart;ment of Agriculture supervised a s e r i e s of
experiments on the hydraulic jump on sloping aprons. C a r l ~ i n d s v a t e r 5
later compiled these data and presented a rather complete picture, both
experimentally and theoretically, f o r one slope, namely: 1:6 ( t a n 6
0.167). G. He Hickox5 presented data f o r a s e r i e s of experiments on
a slope of 1:3 (tan 6 = 0.333). Bakhmeteffl and Matzke6 perfo-d
-
e x p e r h . , a t s on slopes of 0 t o 0.07 i n a flume 6 inches wide.
 From an academic standpoint, the jump may occur i n several
ways on a sloping apron, as outlined by Kindsvater, presenting separate
and d i s t i n c t problems, Figure 30. Case A i s a jump on a horizontal
apron. I n Case B, the toe of the jump forms on the slope, while the end
occurs over the horizontal apron. I n Case C, the toe of the jump i s on
the slope, and the end i s a t the junction of the slope and the horizontal
apron; while i n Case D, the e n t i = jump forms on the slope. With so many
'--possibilities, it i s e a s i l y understood why experimental d a t a have been
lacking on the sloping apron. Messrs, Yarnell, Kindsvater, m e t e f t ? ,
and Matzke limited t h e i r experiments t o Case D. B. D. ~ i n d l a u b 7of the
University of California concentrated on the solution of Case B, but h i s
experimental r e s u l t s are complete f o r only one slope, t h a t of 12.33O
( t a n fd = 0.217).

SLOPIXG APRON TESTS

From a practical standpoint, the scope 2.r. the present test

program need not be so broad a s outlined i n Figure 30. For example,
the action i n Cases C and D i s For a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes the same, i f
it i s assumed t h a t a horizontal f l o o r begins a t the end of the jump for
Case D. The f i r s t of the current experiments t o be described i n t h i s , .
chapter involves Case D, However, sufficient t e s t s were made on Case'C
t o v e r i f y the above statement that Cases C and D can be considered a s
one. The second s e t . o f t e s t s w i l l deal with Case B. Case B i s v i r -
tually Case A operating with excessive t a i l water depth. As the tail
water depth i s further increased, Case B approaches Case C. The r e s u l t s
of Case A have already been discussed i n the preceding chapters, and
Cases D and B w i l l be considered here i n order.
T a i l Water Depth (case D)
Data obtained from the four flumes used i n the sloping-'apmn
t e s t s (case D experiments) are tabulated in Table 8. The headings are
very much the same a s those i n previous tables, but w i l l need some
explanation. Column 2 l i s t s :,the tangents of the angles of the slopes
tested. The depth of flow enwring the jump, D l , Column 8, was measured
a t the beginning of the jump i n each case, corresponding t o Section 1,
Figure 30, It represents the average of a generous number of point gage
measurements. The velocity a t %his s b point, V1, Column 7, was cam-
puted by dividing t h e u n i t discbarge, q (column 5), by D l . The length
of jump, Column 11, vas masured i n the flume, bearing in mind that the
object of the t e s t was t o obtain practical data f o r s t i l l i n g basin
design. The end of the jump was chosen a s the point w h e r e the high
velocity j e t began t o lift from the floor, o r a point on the level t a i l 1
w a t e r surface inmediately downstream f r o m the surface r o l l e r , whichever
 : q : : V l : D : : L : : .. . .
- -
- 7 - -

1 Slops Q I
:Discharge: TU :Velocity: k i t h : :Iangth: : : 4 : : : K
-
W
Tsst :of rpmn: Total : Width
:psr foot :Tail-vater:entering:entcring: W A: of ! L . :ConJu(pts:~lU : L :lb.p.
fl-: ~ A U $ :dirchrg.e:of kain:of b r i n : depth : JY.) j JUMP : h i p l
: cfr : it : crs : it :it/mec. rt :
J.P :I
@ l I it : . : . . 8 :W &pth :
it
6
:& : f a ~ t ~ r

--
(1) I
(2) : (3) : (4) : (51 : .(6) : (7) : (8) : 9 I 1 0 : 1 : I : 3
.-
4 f ( s ) j ( i 6 ) i (17)
.
A :0.0b7 . 22.250
:
.0 0 0 -
:
., . . .

: 2.300 : : 0.5l.2 : 0.589 : 8.26 : 0.062 : 9.50: 5.85 : 3.10 :5.26: 7.85: 0.486 :1.21:6.38: 2.40
: 2.750 : :0.564 : 0.629 :,8.42 :0.067 :g.39: 5.73 : 3.30:5.25:7.70: 0.516 :1.22:5.40:2.45
: 3.000 : : 0.615 : 0.660 : 8.54 : 0.072 : 9.17: 5.61 : 3.40 85.15: 7.55: 0.544 :1.21:6.25: 2.45
: 3.250 : : 0.666 : 0.694 : 8.65 :0 - ~ 7: 9.01: 5.49 : 3.45 t 4 . g : 7.40: 0.570 :l.n:6.05: 2.50
: 3.500 : : 0.717 : 0.744 : 8.74 : 0.082 : 9.07: 5.38 : 3.60::4.84: 7.20: 0.590 :1.26:6.10: 2.80
: : 1.500 : 4.350 : 0.3k5 : 0.474 : 7.67 : 0.045 :10.53: 6.37 : 2.40 :5.06: 8.60: 0.387 :1.22:5.20: 2.50
: 2.500 : : 0.575 : 0.642 : 8.46 : 0.068 : 9.44: 5.72 : 3.20 :4.98: 7.70: 0.523 :1.23:6.12: 2.50
: 3.500 : : 0.805 : 0.792 : 8.85 : 0.091 : 8.70: 5.17 : 4.W :5.05: 6.90: 0.628
. . :1.26:6.37: 2.75
*. . . 2.04
I 0.096 2.000 4.830 0.414 0.560 I 7.w 1 0.052 I10.vI 6.15 1 2.50 :4.47: 8.20; 0.426 :1.31:5.87:
: 2.500 : : 0.518 : 0.652 : 7.97 : 0.065 :10.03: 5.51 : 3.60 :5.52: 7.45: 0.484 :1.35:7.&: 2.28
1 : 3.000 : : 0.621 : 0.745 : 8.28 : 0.075 : 9.93: 5.33 : 3.23 :4.30: 7.10: 0.532 :1.40:6.01: 2.40
: 3.500 : : 0.725 : 0.835 : 8.53 : 0.085 : 9.82: 5.15 : 3.60 :4.31: 6.90: 0.586 :1.42:6.15: 2.50
: 4.000 : : 0.828 : 0.940 : 8.63 : 0.056 : 9.79: 4.90 : 4.00 :4.26:
. . 6.50: 0.624
. . .
:1.51:6.41: 2.75
: 0.135 : 2.000 : 4.810 : 0.4l6 : 0.620 : 6.93 : 0.060 :10.33: 4.99 : 2.56 :&.06: 6.60: 0.396 :1.56:6.32: 2.15
: 2.500 : : 0.520 : 0:710 :."7.54 : 0.069 :lO.29: 5.06 : 3.00 10.23: 6.75: 0.466 :1.52:6.44: 2.07
: 3.000 : : 0.624 : 0.895 : 7.80 : 0.080 :lo.&: 4.86 : 3.20 :3.97: 6.40: 0.512 :1.57:6.25: 2.15
: 3.900 : : 0.728 : 0.905 : 8-09 : 0.090 :lo.&: 4.75 : 3.60 t3.98: 6.30: 0.567 :1.60:6.34: 2.22
: b . W : : 0.832 : 0.935 : 8.58 :0.m :l0.15: 4.85 : 3.90 :3.%: 6.40: 0.621 :1.59:6.28: 2.15
2 : : : : :
: 0.152 : 1.500 : 4.350 : 0.345 : 0.540 : 6.27 : 0.055 : 9.82: 4.71 : 2.10 :3.89: 6.20: 0.341 :1.58:6.16: 1.94
: 2.000 : : 0.460 : 0.663 : 6.76 : 0.068 : 9.75: 4.57 : 2.55 :3.85: 6.10: 0.415~ :1.60:6.15: 2.00
: 2.500 : : 0.575 : 0.790 : 7.57 : 0.076 :10.39: 4.84 : 3.10 z3.92: 6.45: 0.490 :1.61:6.33: 2.00
: 3.000 : : 0.690 : 0.939 : 7.67 : 0.090 :lO.OO: 4.50
.. .
: 3.40 :3.78: 6.00: 0.540 :1.67:6.30:
.: . .
2.10
; O.I.85, I 1.500
: 2.000
1 4.350 I 0.345
: : 0.460
f: 0.600
0.720
I:6.05
6.57
I: 0.070
0.057 Il0.53;
:l0.29:
4.47
4.38
1: 2.15 :3.58:
2.60:3.61:
5.90; 0.336
5.80: 0.406
:1.78;6.40I 1.83
:1.n:6.40: 1.83
: 2.500 : : 0.575 : 0.840 : 7.01 : 0.082 :10.24: 4.31 : 3.00 :3.57: 5.70: 0.467 :1.80:6.42: 1.85
:0.218 : 1.750 :lr.350 :0.402 : 0.700 : 6.00 :O.C67
1
:10.95:
:
L.oB
. .
:2.30:3.29:5.45:0.365
: : :
:1.92:6.30:1.70
: 2.250 : 0.517 : 0.862 : 6.63 : 0.078 :ll.05: 4.19 : 2.70 :3.13: 5.55: 0.433 :1.99:6.24: 1.73
. .. ..:2.39:5.18:
.. .. 1.44
:

I 0.280 I 1.250 4.350 I 0.187 I 0.620 I 4.70 1 0.61 i10.16: 3.35 1 1.60 :2.58: 4.25;
0.259
: 1.5001 : : 0.345 : 0.675 : 4.79 r 0.072 : 9.38: 3.15 : 1.80 :2.67: 4.05: 0.292 :2.31:6.17: 1.4b
.. .
: 1.750 : : 0.402 0.752 : 4.79 : 0.084 : 8.B: 2.91 : 1.95 :2.59: 3.70: 0.311 :2.42:6.27: 1.46
B :0.052 : 1.000 :2.OM) 20.500
:

: 0.855 :17.2L :O.029 :29.48: 17.85 :4.10:4.79:24.75:0.718

.:1.19:5.71:2.$4
. .
: 1.500 : : 0.750 : 1.010 : 16.30 : 0.046 ~1.96: 13.40 : 5.10 :5.@:18.45: 0.849 :1.19:6.01: 2.80
: 2.000 : : 1.000 : 1.160 : 16.39 : 0.061 :19.02: 11.69 : 6.10 :5.26:16.10: 0.982 :1.18:6.21: 2.78
: 2.500 : : 1.250 : 1.300 : 17-32 : 0.073 :17.81: 11.16 : 6.50 :5.00:15.35: 1.121 :1.16:5.&: 2.45
: 3.000 : : 1.500 : 1.426 : 17.05 :0.m :16.20: 1 0 ~ 1 3 : 7.50 :5.26:13.85: 1.218 :1.17:6.15: 2.70
: 3.500 : : 1.750 : 1.570 : 17.16 : 0.102 :15.39: 9.46 : 8.00 :5.10:12.%! 1.321 :1.19:6.06: 2.80
: 4.000 : : 2.000 : 1.693 : 17.09 : 0.117 :14.47: 8.80 : 8.90 :5.26:12.10: 1.416 :1.20:6.28: 2.92
: b.500 : : 2.250 : 1.813 : 17-05 : 0.132 :13.73: 8.27 : 9.60 :5.29:11.30: 1.492 :1.22:6.44: 3.10
: 5.poO : 1.- : 17.01 : 0.147 :13.06: 7.82 : 9.80 :5.10:10.60: 1.558 :1.23:6.29:
: 5.500 :
: i. 22. . 50y : 2.020 : 17.08 : 0.161 :32.55: 7.50, :lO.5O :5.20:10.20: 1.642 :1.23:6.40:
3.20
3.20

: 0.102
: 6.000

: 1.000
:

:
: 3.000

: 0.500
:

:
2.U0
0.970
: 16.95

: 18-63 : 0.032
: 0.177 :ll.P:
~30.31: 15.40
.. .
7.10 :11.00 :5.21: 9.65: 1.708
: 4.20 :4.33:21.25: 0.680
.:1.42:6.17:
. . 2.51
:1.24:6.44: 3.30

: 1.533 : : 0.750 : 1.180 : 15.63 : 0.q48 :24.58: 12.57 : 5.20 :4.41:17.30: 0.830 :1.42:6.U: 2.50
: 2.000 : :-1.000 : 1-39 : 15.87 : 0.063 :2l.h9: 11.14 : 6.10 :4.51:15.35: 0.567 :1.40:6.31: 2.44
: 2.500 : : 1.250 : 1.543 : 16.23 : 0 . 4 7 :20.04: 10.30 : 6.80 :4.40:14.15: 1.0% :1.42:6.24: 2.50
: 3.000 : : 1.500 : 1.724 : 16.48 : 0.091 :18.95: 9.63 : 7.60 :4.41:13.20: 1.200 :1.44:6.34: 2.56
: 3.000 : : 1.500 : 1.720 : 16.30 : 0.092 :18.70: 9-47 : 7.50 :4.36:~.95: 1.191 :1.44:6.30: 2.58
: 3.500 : : 1.750 : 1.890 : 16.36 : 0.107 :17.66: 8.81 : 8.20 :4.%:12.10: 1.293 :1.46:6.34: 2.75
: 4.000 : : 2.000 : 2.040 : 16.53 : 0.122 :16.86: 8.37 : 8.80 :4.31:11.40: 1.379 :1.48:6.38: 2.72
: 4.500 : : 2.250 : 2.152 : 16.42 : 0.137 :15.71: 7.82 : 9.40 :4.37:10.60: 1.452 :1.48:6.47: 2.70
: 5.000 : : 2.500 : 2.300 : 16.45 : 0.152 :15.13: 7.44 :10.00 :4.3&:10.10: 1.536 :1.50:6.51: 2.75
: 5.500 : : 2.750 : 2.450 : 16.18 : 0.170 :14.41: 6.91 :10.60 :4.33: 9-35: 1.590 :1.9:6.67: 2 85

4 37

86
 GTILLIII; BASINS VlTH SIbPIliC mom
Case D, -in V

I
I*
: ' a x : V1 : D l : : L . ..
. : . . :. K
: Olope : Q r W :Mschrge: TV :Velocity: Depth :
Tart :of apron: Total : width :per foot :Tail-ntcr:entsriagrenteriq: TW
@ :diachtge:of hrfn:of hmin : . depth : jrrap :
I zbngth:
of : L
:B I
. :
02
: D2 : :
:Conjugate: 'RI : L :Shape
. :actor
f1~10r
(1) : (I) : of8 : ft : 8 : It : ft/se~c: '2 3) :(l2):(13)
:TU dipth :
: ft, :(15];(%): (17)

..
: 3 : (4) : (5) : (6) : (7) : (8) : : :( : : : (14) : : :
B : O.lb4 : 2.000 : 2.000 :
r 2.500 : r
+ . :
: ; .:
3
:
.
:: : .. . : . : . : . ::..
. ::
I. :. : .
::.g::t: :.g
: 3.000 : : 1.500 940 1 1 :0 1 1 6-11 : 7.53:3.86:11.05: 1.128 :1.72:6.&: 2.02
: 3.500 : : 1.750 : 2.m : 14.83 r 0.118 ~17.97: 7.61 : 8.20r3.87r10.30: 1.215 :1.74:6.75: 2.03
: : 4.000 : r 2.000 : 2.270 : 15-04 r 0.133 :17.07: 7.27 r 8.7013.83: 9.85: 1.310 :1.73:6.&: 2.01
I : k.W : : 2.250 : 2.420 : 14.90 r 0.151 t16.03: 6.75 : 3.2033.80: 9.10: 1.374 :1.76:6.70: 2.08
I r5.W : : 2.500 : 2.590 : 14.M : 0.168 ~15.42: 6.39 t 9.70c3.7k: 8.65: 1.454 :1.78:6.67: 2.e
+. :1.81r6.73:
I
I
r 5.500 r
t I
:2.750 : 2.750 : 14.86 : 0.1B5 :14.86:
: I
6.09 : 10.2013.71: 8.20:
: : :
1.517
. . . 2-10
: 0.213 : 2.000 : : 1.000 : 1.750 : 13.33 : 0.075 :23.33r 8.60 : 6.00t3.43111.75: 0.a :1.99:6.81: 1.71
I : 2.500 : : 1.250 : 2.000 : 13.59 : 0.092 :21.74: 7.89 : 6.60:3.30:10.70: 0.984 :~.03:6.71: 1.76
t : 3.000 : : 1.W : 2.150 : 13.51 : 0.ll1 219.37: 7.15 : 7.30r3.40: 9.70: 1.W r2.0036.78: 1.73
x r 3.500 : x 1.750 : 2.370 : 13.57 : 0.129 ~18.37: 6.65 : 8.00:3.38: 9.00: 1.161 r2.0426.89: 1.76
: I k.000 : : 2.000 : 2.600 : 13.51 I 0.148 :17.57: 6.19 : 8.3013.19: 8.39: 1.236 12.10:6.71: 1.79
: I L.500 : r 2.250 : 2.720 : 13.55 : 0.166 ~16.39: 5.86 r 9.10:3.34: 7.85: 1.303 r2.09:6.98: 1.78
I r 5.000 r r 2.500 : 2.890 : 13.59 : 0.1& :15.71: 5.9 : 9.at3.32: 7.50: 1.380 :2.09:6.96: 1.79
I : 5.500 : x 2.750 : 3.100 : 13.55 : 0.203 :15.27: 5.30 : 10.0013.22: 7.10: 1.441 :2.15:6.9$: 1.81
I
: 0.263
I
r 2.000
x
: I 1.000 ; 1.900 ; 11.63 I
:
0.086 ~22.09: 6.98 I
:
5.60:2.%:
:
9.15; 0.813
. . . 1.55
:2.3br6.89:
r : 3.000 1 : 1.500 a 2.330 : u.63 : 0.l29 tl8.s: 5.70 : 6.90:2.%: 7.65: 0.987 :2.36:6.99: 1.56
: k.000 r : 2.000 : 2.820 : 12.35 : 0.162 :17.41: 5.kO : 8.10:2.01: 7.25: 1.174 :2.40:6.90: 1.57
: x 5.000 : : 2.500 : 3.270 :12.38 : 0.202 :16.19: 4.85 : 9.2022.81: 6.45: 1.303 :2.51:7.06: 1.59

D
I

1 0.100
: 6.000
:r 4.000
: : 3.000

1: 3.970 1:1.007 I
: 3.602
1.530
: 12.35 10.243 ~14.82:

I 18.b
.
0 . m I28.33:
:
4.41
14.1k
. : : 1.053 .:1.45r6.27:
:10.00:2.71: 5.80:
6.6074.31:19.50:
. .
1.409 :2.56:7.09:
2.65
1.59

6.000 1.5 : 1.888 : 19.12 : 0.079 :23.90: ll.9 : 8.20;4.34:16.50: 1.303 :1.45:6.29: 2.65
x r 8.000 : : 2.015 : 2.200 r 19.75 : 0.102 :21.57: 10.90 : 9.70:1(.41:14.%: 1.525 :1.44:6.36: 2.65
I r lO.000 I : 2.528 : 2.630 : 20.14 : 0.125 :21.&: 10.04 : ll.~Orb.37:13.75: 1.719 :1.53:6.69: 2.85
: : 2.250 : : 0.567 : 1.200 : 18-90 : 0.030 140.00: 19.23 : 4.79:3.%:26.70: 0.801 :1.50:5.93: 2.75
x 4.m : : 3.134 I 1.710 : 18.29 : 0.662 :r1.58: l2.9k : 7.80:4.56:17.90: 1.109 :1.%:7.03: 2.90
r r 6.7% r r 1.700 : 2.100 : 19.9 r 0.087 :24.14:
. .
U.67 : 9.10:&.33:16.10: 1.400
. . .
r1.50:6.50: 2.78
? : 0.17b :
r
1.W
2.800
; 1.000 f
:
1.980
: 2.800 :
1.452
1.663
r 7.17 ;
:
0 . ~ 6 : 5.26:
: 7.69 : 0.361, : 4.57:
:
2.41
2.24
4.3@;2.%I
: 5.0O:j.Ol:
3.001 0.828
2.80: 1.018
i1.75;5.191 1.88
:1.63:L.91: 1.76
I
I
r 0.200
t
: 2.980 : : 2.980 : 2.035 : 8.32 : 0.358 : 5.68: 2.45
. .
: 5.80:2.85: 3.05: 1.092
: :
:1.86:5.31:
:
1.72

: 0.150
: 3.850
: 3.850
:
:
:
: 3.850
r 3.850
:
:
2.460
2.095
: 8.48
: 7.97
: 0.454 : 5.42:
: O.b8g : 4.33:
2.22
2.02
. ..
: 6.70:2.72: 2.75:
: 5.90t2.82: 2.45: 1.183
1.248
. . 2.10
:1.97:5.37:
.:1.n:4.99: 1-81

: 1.780 : : 1.780 : 1.S0 : 6.93 : 0.257 : 4.90: 2.41 : 4.00:3.17: 3.00: 0.71 :1.63:5.19: 2.00
: I : : : : :
: 0.m : 1.940 : ? 1-90 : 1.l& I 6.40 : 0.303 : 3.89: 2.05 : 3.70:3.1&: 2.50: 0.757 rl.%:4.89: 2.93
x
I
: 3.870
r 0.050
r
r 3.620
1

:
: 3.870
t: 32..682200
:

1
1.648
1.357
: 9.38

1 7.62
..
: 0,524

0.475
: 3.1&:
2 .
: 2.86;
1.80 : 4.80~2.91: 2.15: 1.126
. .
1-95 1 h.30:3.17: 2.35; 1.116
. . ..
:1.46:4.26: 2.55

:1.22:3.85: 3.00
I x 1.820 : : 1.306 : 12.38 : 0.147 : 8.88: 5.69 : 6.8015.21: 7.65: 1.124 :1.16:5.05: 3.90
: 3.910 : : 3.910 : 1.291 : 6.66 : a.587 : 2.20: 1.53 : 3.60~2.79: 1.80: 1.057 x1.22:j.bl: 3.20
I : 2.300 : : 2.300 : 0.943 : 5.87 : 0.392 :2.41: 1.65 : 2.80:2.97: 1.95: 0.764 :1.23:3.67: 3.20
Column ll, i s the horizontal distance From Sectioie i ' t o 2, Figure 30.
The tail water depth, tabulated i n Column 6, is the depth measured a t
the end of the jump, corresponding t o the depth at Section 2 on
Figure 30.

The r a t i o
(~01um.n9, Table 8) is plotted with ~ s p e c tt o the
Dl
F m d e number (Column 10) f o r sloping aprons having tangents 0.05 t o 0.30
on Figure 31. The plot f o r the horizontal apron (tan $ = 0) i e the same
as shown i n Figure 5. Superimposed on Figure 1 are data f m
Kindsvater,5 Hickox,5 Bahkmeteff,l and Matzkej The agreement i s wlthin
experimental error.
The small chart on Figure 31 was constructed using data from
t h e l a r g e r chart, and shows, f o r a range of apron slopes, t h e r a t i o of
tail water depth f o r a continuous sloping apron, t o conjugi~tedepth f o r
a horizontal apron. A s indiiated on the small sketch i n Figure 31, Dg.
and TW a r e identical f o r a horizontal apron. The conJugate depth, Dg
l i s t e d in Column 14, Table 6, i s the depth necessary f o r a juxup t o form
on an imaginary h o r i z o n t a f l o o r beginning a t Section 1, Figure 31.
The s m a l l chart, therefore, shows the e x t r a depth, required
f o r a jump of a given F m d e number t o form on a sloping apron, rather
than on a horizontal apron. For example, i f the tangent of the slope
i s 0.10, a t a i l water depth equal t o 1.4 times the conjugate depth
( ~ for
2 a horizontal apron) w i l l occur at the end of the jump; while
i f the slope i s 0.30, the t a i l water depth a t the end of t h e jump w i l l
be 2.8 times the conjugate depth D2. The conjugate depth D2 used i n
connection with a slop- apron i s merely a convenient reference figure
which has no other meaning. It w i l l be used throughout t h i s discussion
on sloping aprons.
Leugth of Jump (case D)

The length of jump f o r the Case D experiments has been pre-

sented in two ways. F i r s t , the r a t i o length of jump t o t a i l water
depth, Column 12, was p l o t t e d with respect t o the Froude number on
Figure 32 fox sloping aprons having tangents from 0 t o 0.25. Secorzdly,
t h e r a t i o of length of sump t o the conjugate tail water depth, Column
16, Table 8, has been plotted with respect t o the F m d e mmber f o r the
same range of slopes on Figure 33. Although not evident on Figure 32,
it can be seen from Figure 33 t h a t the length of jump on a sloping
apron i s longer than that which occurs on a horizontal floor. For
example, f o r a Froude n u d e r of 8, the r a t i o -L
"2
v a r i e s from 6.1, f o r a
horizontal apron, t o 7.0, f o r an apron with a slope of 0.25. Length
determinations from ~ i n d s v a t e r 5f o r a slope of 0.167 are a l s o plotted
on Figure 32. The points show a wide s p ~ a d .
. . , F=K
' m
HYDRAULIC JUMP STUDIES
STILLING BASIN Y [CASE D l
H Y D R A U L I C JUMP ON SLOPING A P R O N
R A T I O OF T A I L W A T E R D E P T H T O Dl
 - ---

Several mathematicians and experimenters have developed

expressions f o r the hydraulic jump on sloping aprons,2 5 6 13 so there
i s no need t o repeat any of these derivations here. A n expn?ssion
presented by ~ i n d s v a t e r 5i s the more common and perhaps the more
p r a c t i c a l t o use. .
D2
- 1. (5)

A l l symbols have been referred t o previously, except f o r the coefficient

K, a dimensionless parameter called the shage factor, which v a r i e s with
the Froude number and the slope of the apron. Kindsvater and Rickox
evaluated this coefficient from the p r o f i l e of the jump and the measured
f l o o r pressures. Surface p r o f i l e s and pressures were not measured i n
the current t e s t s but, a s a matterr"of i n t e r e s t , K was computed from
Expression 5 by substituting experimental values and solving f o r K, The
resulting values of K a r e l i s t e d in Column 17 of Table 8, and are shown
plotted with respect t o the Fruude number f o r the various slopes on.
Figure 3 4 ~ . Superinposed on Figure 3 4 are ~ data from Kindsvater f o r a
slope of 0.167, and data from Hickox on a slope of 0.333. The agreement
i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g nor do the points p l o t well, but it should
be remembered that the value K i s dependent on the method used f o r
determining the length of jump. The current experiments indicate t h a t
the Froude number has l i t t l e e f f e c t an the value of K. Assuming t h i s
t o be the case, values of individual points f o r each slope we= averaged
and K i s sham plotted with respect t o t a n fd on Figure " 3 4 ~ .This phase
i s incidental t o the study a t hand and has been discussed only a s a
matter of =cord.

Jump Characteristics (case B)

Case B i s the one usually encountered i n sloping apron design
w h e ~t h e jump forms both on the slope and ob-r t h e horizorxtal portion
.
of the apron ( ~ i g u r e3 0 ~ ) Although this fom, of jump may appear quite
complicated, it can be reedily analyzed when ~pproachedfrom a p r a c t i c a l
standpoint. The primary concern i n sloping apron design i s the t a i l
water depth ~ q u i r e dt o move the f r o n t of the jump up the slcvpe t o
Section 1, Figure SOB. There i s l i t t l e t o be gsined with a sloping
apron unless t h e e n t i r e length of t h e sloping portion i s u t i l i z e d .
Referring t o the sketches on Figure 35A, it can be observed
t h a t f o r a t a i l water equal t o the conjugate depth, D2, t h e f r o n t of
t h e jump w i l l occur a t a point 0, a short distance up the slqpe. This
distance i s noted as loand varies wlth t h e degree of slope. I f the
tail w a t e r depth i s increased a v e r t i c a l increment, A Y1, it would be!
reasonable t o as- that the f r o n t of the jump would r a i s e a corre-
sponding incremaent. This I s not true, the jump profile undergoes an
 f o r an increase i n t a i l water depth, A Y1, the front of 9 e jump moves
up the slope t o Point 1, o r moves a v e r t i c a l distance AY1, which i s
several times A Y1. Increasing the t a i l water depth a second increment,
say.AY2, the same e f f e c t occurs t o a l e s s e r degree, moving the front of
the Jump t o Point 2. Additional increments of t a i l water depth produce
the same e f f e c t but t o a s t i l l l e s s e r degree, and t h i s continues u n t i l
the t a i l water depth approaches l.3D2. For t a i l water depths greater
than this amount, the r e l a t i o n i s geometric; an increase i n t a i l water
. depth, A Y4, moves the f r o n t of the jump up t h e slope an equal verbical
distance A Y&, from Point 3 t o 4.
, . From ,the above discussion, it is evident that .the change i n
p r o f i l e produced by allowing the jump t o move onto the slope i s very
much i n favor of the designer. Should the slope be very flat, a s i n
Figum? 35B, the'horizontal movement of the f r o n t of the jump i s even
more pronounced. The f o l l m i n g studies were made t o d e f i n i t e l y tabulate
the characteristics described above f o r conditions encountered i n design.
It has been necessary i n the past t o check p r a c t i c a l l y a l l sloping apron
designs by model studies t o be c e r t a i n that the e n t i r e sloping portion
of the apron w a s utilized.
Experimental Results (case B)
The experiments f o r determining the magnitude of the above-
mentioned characteristics were carried out on a large scale in F 1 m D,
and the r e s u l t s are recorded i n Table 9. A sloping f l o o r was placed i n
the flume as i n Figure 30B. A discharge was' established (~olunm3,
Table 9) and the depth of flow, Dl (column 6) .was meaaured h n e d i a t e l y
upstream from the f r o n t of the jump i n each instance. The velocity
entering the jump, V 1 (~olumn7), and the Fraude number (~olunm8) were
computed. Entering Figure 31 w i t h the computed values of F1, the r a t i o
2
Dl
(column 9) was obtkined from the l i n e labeled wHorizontal apron."
Multiplying t h i s r a t i o by D l r e s u l t s i n the conjugate depth f o r a hori-
zontal apron which i s listed i n Column 10 of Table 9. !RE tail water
was then set at conjugate depth (point-0, Figure 35) and the distance,
&, measured and tabulated. The distance gives t h e position of the
f r o n t of the jump on t h e - slope, neasured f ram the break i n slope, f o r
conjugate depth. The tail water vas then >increased, moving the f r o n t
of the jump up t o Point 1, Figure 35. Both the distance 11and the
t a i l water depth were measured, and these sre recorded i n Columns ll
and 32, respectively, of Table 9. The tail water w a s then raised,
moving t h e front of the jump to Point 2 w h i l e the length 12 and the
t a i l water depth were recorded. The same procedure was repeated u n t i l
the entire apron w a s u t i l i z e d by the jump. I n each case, Dl was measured
immediately upstream f m m the f r o n t of the jump, thus cawensati~lgf o r
 (Cue B. n u i n V)
I
r 8-
Tartlof .pronl
I
I Q
I
I W
I P 1
tbircbyor
9

lbt.1 I Width 1p.r foot t.nt.rimtont.riwR1

l V 1 l
;?4ceity1
-m~
LI
I
1
k+
I
1 %
1
I&-I
1 I
n
1 -
I
I
I 1h2th
:

rCaaJugot.lof Jlnp : f i l l - m t a t t 1 : TV :of rloping

f l w l tan fi ~ d i r c h u g o r o fb u l n l a f b u i n I r 3 r rW &pth ron rlapr: depth r I 5: floor
I r c l r r tt I a i r 1 rt I f z e c r I t i t f t t i t 1 I I it
(111 ( 2 ) I ( 3 ) I (4) I ( 5 ) I (6) I (7) I (8) : ( 9 ) : (10) I (u) I (12) ( : ) I (15)
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1
 number were computed a t the same location. The t e s t s were made f o r
slopes with tangents varying from 0.05 t o 0.30, and i n some.cases,
several lengths of floor were used f o r each slope, as i n d i k t e d i n 15
Column 15 of Table 9.
The resulting lengths and t a i l water depths, divided by the
conjugate depth, are shown i n Columns 13 and 14 of Table 9, and these
values have been plotted on Figure 36. The horizontal length has been
used rather than the v e r t i c a l distance, A Y, as the former dimension
i s ml.e convenient f o r use. Figure 36 shows t h a t the straight l i n e s f o r
the geometric portion of the graph tend t o in+.?rsect a t a common point,
I
"2
= 1 and
D2
= 0.9, indicated by the c i r c l e on the graph. The change
i n the profile of the Jump as it moves from a horizontal f l o o r t o the
slope i s evidenced by the curved portion of the lines.
Csse C, Figure 30, i s the upper extreme of Case B; and as
there i s practically no difference i n the performance f o r Cases D and C,
data f o r Csse D a able 8) can again be utilized. By assuming t h a t a
horizontal f l o o r begins at the end of the jump i n Case D, Columns 15 and
16 of Table 8 can be plotted on Figure 36. I n addition, data from
.
experiments by D D. RiadLaub of the University of California, f o r a
slope of 0.217, have been plotted on Figure 36. The agreement of the
information from t h e - m e sources i s very satisfactory.
Length of Jump (Case BL
It i s suggested t h a t the length of jump f o r Case B be obtained
from Figure 33, Actually, Figure 33 i s f o r continuous sloping aprons, ,

bu+, these lengths can be applied t o Case B with but negligible error.
In some cases the length of jump i s not of particular concern because
it may not be economically possible t o design the basin t o confine the
e n t i r e jump. This i s especially true when sloping aprons are used i n
coli'junction with medium o r high o v e r f a l l spillways where the rock i n the
riverbed i s i n f a i r l y good condition. When sloping aprons are designed
shorter than the length indicated on Fj.gure 33, the rock i n the river
downstream must a c t as part of the s t i l l i n g basin. On the other hand,
when the quality of foundation material is questionable, it i s advisable
t o W e the apron -sufficiently long t o confine the e n t i r e jump,
F i ~ m 33.
P
~ Existing Structures
To determine the p r a c t i c a l value of the methods given f o r the
design of sloping aprons, e x i s t i n g basins employing sloping aprons were,
i n e f f e c t , redesigned using the current experimental information. Per-
t i n e n t data f o r 13 e x i s t i n g spillways are tabulated i n Table 10. The
slope of the spillway face i s l i s t e d i n Column 3; the tangent of the
sloping s t i l l i n g basin apron i s l i s t e d i n Column 4; the elevation of the
upstream end of the apron, o r f r o n t of the jump, i s l i s t e d i n Column 7;
the elevation of the end of the apron i s l i s t e d i n Column 8; the f a l l
from headwater t o upstream end of apron is tabulated i n Column 9; and
t h e t o t a l discharge i s shown i n Column 11. Where o u t l e t s discharge I n t o
the spillway s t i l l i n g basin, t h a t discharge has a l s o been included i n
the t o t a l . The length of t h e sloping portion of t h e apron i s given i n
Column 14; the length of the horizontal portion of the apron is given
i n CoXumx~15; and the o v e r a l l length i s given i n Column 16. Columns 17
through 27 a r e computations similar t o those performed i n the previous
table.
The lower portions of the curves of Figure 36 have been repro-
duced t o a l a r g e r scale on Figure 37. The coordinates from Columns 26
and 27 of Table 10 have been plotted on Figure 37 f o r each of the 13
spillways. Cross sections of the basins are shaan on Figures 38 and 39.
Taking the s t i l l i n g basins i n "Uhe order s h m on Figure 37, we find that
the basin apron i s not completel$ u t i l i z e d f o r t h e maximum discharge con-
d i t i o n a t the Shasta Dam. This discharge includes both spillway and out-
l e t works. The t a i l Kater depth i s m o r ~than s u f f i c i e n t f o r the ju@ t o
u t i l i z e the e n t i r e s t i l l i n g basin apron a t Capilans Dam; and the full
apron length i s u t i l i z e d at Friant, Madden, and Norris Dams spillways.
The e n t i r e apron length will not be u t i l i z e d f o r the maximum discharge
a t Canyon Ferry Dam. I n t h i s case the apron w a s designed f o r a dis-
charge of 200,000 c f s but tk? ~ + . i l l i n g basin w i l l operate a t 250,000 c f s
w i t h m t sweeping out. Keswick shcvws a deficiency in t a i l water depth
f o r u t i l i z a t i o n of the e n t i r e apron, but this i s compensated for, t o
some extent, by large spreader t e e t h a t the upstream end of the apron.
For t h e preliminary and f i n a l basin designs f o r t h e Bhakra Dam spillway,
both u t i l i z e p r a c t i c a l l y the f u l l length of apron. The jump w i l l n o t
occupy the f u l l length of apron f o r maximum discharge on Olympus,
Folsom, o r Rihand Dams spillways. The jump w i l l forn! downstream from
t h e upstream end of the slope. The models of t h e latter two structures
a c t u a l l y showed t h i s t o be true. The f u l l length of apron w i l l be
u t i l i z e d by the jump for t h e s t i l l i n g basin a t Dickinson Dam. This was
e a r t h dam spillway in which apmrtenances were used i n tbe basin.
 I 88- oft I :lUevation:Elcntion :bedy.tsrr8sd on r Q r )(u 8 1 r : h : l + h
I 1 r t i ~ r R . r m J i r : .Crert l ~ p r t r a m:&bmtream: to U.3. :crmrt of : k rIangth of :Length of : mt.l
:tail-ntsr: TW
Du : Iacrtia~ : S l q m of r b u i n : ~ b ~ t i o n r e b ? a t i o n m: d of r m a d of : end of :apilluw :diachugu:elentlon :depth: .loping :horirontd: length -
r : d u lac. I YDZOII I ft 8 tt I a m n 8 ~PDII : apmn I It : e f r : it 1 ft : a m n :- a w n :of apron
I : :tin@ : : : r t r t : r t :
1 ) 8 (2) r (3) r (b) r (5) r . ( 8 ) : (7) : (8) r (9). r (lo)
tr :W f o r n i a : 0.681 : 0 . 0 ~ 3 r Mb5 : lo37 : 570.6 t 549.5 : 49.4 : 26.0

,v
STbormtid:
: "A
: Actad
v1 :
:: O D 1 :
: f A :
r
I
1
I
:
r
r L :
: r~locity : : v w b c i t ~: W :Dirchy.r D8pt.h : V1 : 8 % 8 r : : A c W :
Dm : antaring : V~
: w i n
r it/.=
: :ent.rin# : Vidtb :per foot : e n t e r i w
rii : w i n o f i n f i n : mi.
:o/..e:.ft r cia : tt
:-
:
r
-mi :CoaJr-jst.:
:
r e
:
:
f :
:5 :
L
a;
: l e ~ @ h :l + h
: of 3-
r ft :
I T .

h a t .
: (17) r (z~:
) (19) : (20) r (21) 1 (22) r (23) i r (25) : (26) i(n) f (28) r (29) : (9)

Borri.
sbrlm (PmU=)
-n hm
Bhklm (find)
Wddcn
Tobar
0-
wf-
R i m
-1-t
Kenrick : 69 :1.W : 69 : 240 t lob2 t 1S.U
Diokimon 8 51 -- r b8 .: 2m : 166 i. 3.W 5 . t 20.0. r 3.08 8 1 . 4 : 6.00 1
An=* 0.M)
38 and 39 w e r e designed with the aii! of model studies. The.degree-of
conservatism used i n each case was dependent on l o c a l conditions and the
individual designer.
The t o t a l lengths of apron provided f o r the above 13 existing
structures a r e shown i n Column 16 of Table 10. The length of jump f o r
the maximum discharge condition f o r each case i s tabulated i n Column 29
of the same table. The r a t i o of t o t a l length of apron t o length of jump
i s sham i n Column 30. The t o t a l apron length ranges from 39 t o 83 per-
cent of the length of jump; o r considering the 13 structures collectively,
the average t o t a l length of apron i s 60 percent of the length of the jump.

Evaluation of Sloping Aprons

A convincing argument, quoted by the laboratory and others i n
the past, has been t h a t sloping aprons should be designed so t h a t the
jump height curve matches the t a i l water curve f o r a l l discharge condi-
tions. This procedure r e s u l t s i n what has been designated a tailor-made
b.asin. Same of the existing basins shown on Figures 38 and 39 were
designed i n this m e r . i n l i g h t of -t&e current experiments, it was
d i s c w e m d that t h i s course i s not the most desirable approach. Ins-bad,
matching the jump height curve with the t a i l water curve should be a
secondary consideration, except f o r the maximum discharge condition.
Thus, the first consideration i n design i s t o determine the
ap& slope t h a t w i l l 'involve the minimum mount of excavation, t h e
minimum amount of concrete, o r both, f o r the maximum discharge and tail
w a t e r condition. This i s the prime consideration. Only then i s the
jump height checked t o determine whether the t a i l water depth i s adequate
f o r the intermediate discharges. It w i l l be found that the t a i l water
depth usually exceeds the reauired jump height f o r the intermediate dis-
charges. This may r e s u l t i n a s l i g h t l y submerged condition f o r i n t e r -
mediate discharges, but performance w i l l be very acceptable. The extra
depth w i l l provide a smoother water surface i n and downstream f r o m the
basin. Should the t a i l water depth be insufficient f o r intermediate .
flows, it w i l l be necessary t o increase the depth by increasing the
slope, o r reverting t o a horizontal basin. It i s not necessary f o r the
f r o n t of the jump t o form a t the upstream end of the sloping apron f o r
intermediate discharges provided the t a i l water depth and the length of
basin available for.energy dissipation a r e considered adequate. Using
t h i s method, the designer i s f r e e t o choose the slope he desires, since
t e s t s showed t h a t the slope i t s e l f had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the performance
of the s t i l l i n g basin action.
nearly as much as f o r the horizontal aprons, as much more individual
judgment i s required. The slope and overall shape of the apron must be
determined from economic reasoning, while t h e length must be judged by
the type and soundness of the riverbed downstream. The e x i s t i n g struc-
t u r e s shown on Figures 38 and 39 should serve ao a guide i n proportioning
future sloping apron designs.
Sloping Apron Versus Horizontal Apron
A point, which it i s f e l t has been anisunderstood i n the p a s t
with regard t o horizontal aprons f o r high dams, can now be c l a r i f i e d .
The Bureau has constructed very few s t i l l i n g basins with horizontal
aprons f o r i t s l a r g e r dams. I t has been the consensus t h a t the hydrau-
l i c jump on a horizontal apron i s very sensitive t o slight changes i n
t a i l water depth. This i s very t r u e f o r the l a r g e r values of t h e Froude
number, but t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c can be re1ned:Led. Suppose a horizontal
apron i s designed f o r a Froude number of 10. The basin w i l l operate
s a t i s f a c t o r i l y f o r conjugate t a i l water depth, but as the t a i l water i s
lowered t o 0.981)2 the front of the jump w i l l 'begin t o move. By the t h e
the t a i l water is dropped t o 0.96~2, the jump w i l l probably be completely
out of the basin. Thus, t o design c. s t i l l i n g basin i n t h i s range the
t a i l water depth must be known with c e r t a i n t y o r a f a c t o r of s a f e t y
should be provided i n the design. To guard against a deficiency i n t a i l
water depth, the same procedure i s suggested he:re a s f o r Basins I and
11. Referring t o the minirrmm t a i l water curve f o r Basins I and I1 on
Figure 11, the margin of safety can be observed f o r any value of the
Froude number. It i s recommended tbat the t a i l water depth f o r maximum
discharge be a t l e a s t 5 percent l a r g e r than the minimum shown on
Figure 11, For values of the Froude number greater than 9, a 10 per-
cent f a c t o r of s a f e t y may be advisable as this w i l l not only s t a b i l i z e
the Jmp but w i l l improve the p e r f o m n c e . With the additional t a i l
water depth, the horizontal apron w i l l perform on a par with the sloping
apron. Thus, t h e primary consideration i n design need not be hydraulic
but structural. The basin, w i t h e i t h e r horizontal o r sloping apron,
which can be constructed a t the lea.st cost i s the most desirable.
Effect of Slope of Chute
A factor which occasionally a f f e c t s s t i l l i n g basin operation
i s the slope of chuke entering the basin. The foregoing experimentation
was s u f f i c i e n t l y extensive t o shed some l i g h t on t h i s f a c t o r . The tests
showed t h a t the slope of chute upstream from the s t i l l i n g basin was
unimportant, a s f a r as jump performance was concerned, so long as the
velocity d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the jet entering the jump w a s reasonably uni-
fom. I n t h e case of steep chutes o r short f l a t chutes, the velocity
d i s t r i b u t i o n can be considered normal. The principal d i f f i c u l t y i s
experienced with long f l a t chutes where f r i c t i o n a l resistance on bottom
and side walls i s s u f f i c i e n t t o produce a center velocity g r e a t l y
exceeding t h a t on the bottom o r sides. When t h i s happens, greater
a c t i v i t y r e s u l t s i n the center of the s t i l l i n g basin than on the sides
producing an asymmetrical jump with strong side eddies. This same
e f f e c t i s also witnessed when the angle of divergence of a chute i s too
great f o r the water t o follow properly. I n e i t h e r case the surface of
the jump i s unusually rough sad choppy and the position of the f r o n t of
t h e jwsp i s not always preclictable.
I n the case of e a r t h dam spillways the practice has been t o
make the upstream portion unusually f l a t , then steepen the slope t o 2:1,
o r .that corresponding t o the natural trajectory of the jet, immediately
preceding the s t i l l i n g basin, 'F!igure 1A, vhich shows the model spillway
f o r TEnton Dam, i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s practice. Bringing an asymmetrical
jet i n t o the s t i l l i n g basin a t a steep angle usually does a i d i n stabi-
l i z i n g the jump, This i s not effective, however, where very long f l a t
slopes are involved and the velocity distribution i s completely out of
balance.

The most adverse condition has been observed where long canal
chutes terminate i n s t i l l i n g basins. A t y p i c a l example i s the chute and
basin a t Station 2 9 1 9 on the South C a n a l , Uncompahgre Project, Colorado,
Figure 40. The operation of this s t i l l i n g basin i s not particularly
objectionable, but it w i l l serve as an i l l u s t r a t i o n . The above chute
i s approximately 700 f e e t long with a slope of 0.0392. The s t i l l i n g
basin a t the end i s a l s o shown on Figure 40. A photograph of the pro-
totype basin operating a t normal capacity i s shown on Figum 41. The
action i s of the surging type; the jump i s unusually rough, with a
greet amount of splash and spray. Two f a c t o r s contribute t o the rough
operation: the unbalanced velocity distribution i n the entering jet,
and excessive divergence of the chute i n the steepest portion.
A d e f i n i t e improvement csn be accomplished i n f'uture designs
where long f l a t chutes are involved by u t i l i z i n g the Type 111 basin
described i n Section 3. The baffle blocks on the f l o o r tend t o a l t e r
the asymmetrical jet, resulting i n an overall improvement i n operation,
This i s the only corrective measure that can be suggested a t t h i s time.
Recommendatlans
-
The following m l e s have been devised f o r the design of sloping
aprons a s developed from the foregoing exger-nts:
1. Determine an apron arrangement which will give the greatest
economy f o r the maximum discharge condition, This i s the governing
f a c t o r and the only j u s t i f i c a t i o n for.using a'sloping apron.
a t the upstream end of the slope f o r the maximum disc ha^& and t a i l
water condition by means of the information on Figure 37. Several
t r i d s w i l l usually be required before the slope and location of the
apron are compatible with the hydraulic requirement. It may be
necessary t o r a i s e o r l a r e r the apron, o r change the original slope
entirely.

3. The length of the jump f o r maximum o r partS.al flows can be

obtained from Figure 33. The portion of the jump t o be confined on
t h e s t i l l i n g basin apron i s a decision f o r the designer. I n making
t h i s decision, Figures 38 and 39 may be helpful. The average overall
apron i n Figures 38 and 39 averages 60 percent of the length oi' jump
f o r the maximum discharge condition. The apron may be lengthened o r
shortened, depending upon the quality of the rock i n the riverbed and
other l o c a l conditions. If the apron i s set on loose material and
t h e downstream channel i s i n poor condition, it may be advisable. t o
make the t o t a l length of a p m n the same as the length of jump.

4. With the apron designed properly f o r the maximum discharge

condition, the next step i s t o be certain that the t a i l water depth
and length of basin available f o r energy dissipation are s t f f i c i e n t
for, say, 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 capacity, If the t a i l water depth i s
s u f f i c i e n t o r i n excess of the jwnp height f o r the i n t e m d i a t e dis-
charges, the design i s acceptable. If the t a i l water depth i s
deficient, it may then be necessary t o t r y a f l a t t e r slope o r reposi-
t i o n the sloping portion of the apron. It i s not necessary that the
f r o n t of the j'mp form a t the upstream end of the sloping apron f o r
-
psfiial flows. I n other words, t h e f r o n t of the jump may remain a t
Section 1 (F'igure ~oB), move upstream frorn.Section 1, o r move down
the slope f o r p a r t i a l flows, providing the t a i l w a t e r depth and
length of the apron a r e considered sufficient f o r these flows,

5. A horizontal apror; w i l l perform on a par with the sloping ,

apmn, f o r high values of the Froude number, i f the proper t a i l water
depth i s provided. .,.f.'
6. The slope of the chute upstream from a s t i l l i n g basin has
l i t t l e e f f e c t on the hydraulic jump so long a s the velocity d i s t s i -
bution and depth of flow are reasonably uniform on entering the jump.

7 . A small s o l i d triangular sill, placed a% the end of the

apron, i s the only appurtenance needed i n conjunction with the sloping
apron. It serves t o l i f t the flow a s it leaves the apron a115 thus
a c t s t o control scour. I t s dimensions are not c r i t i c a l ; t h e most
effective height is between O.Om2 and 0.10D2 and a slope of 3 : l t o
2:l (see Figures 38 and 39).
 NO TAIL WATER REQUIRED
(BASIN VI)

SUMMARY
The s t i l l i n g bssin developed i n these tests i s an impact-type
ene:g disoipator, contained in a r e l a t i v e l y s & l b o x l i k e structure,
which requires no t a i l water f o r successful performance. Althou@ the
emphasis i n tuis discussion i s placed on use w i t h pipe outlets, tbe
entrance structure may be modified t o use an open channel entrance,
Generalized design ruies and procedures are presented t o allow
determining the proper basin s i z e and a l l crit,tcal, dinaensions f o r a
range of discharges up t o 339 f e e t per second a d v e l o c i t i e s up t o 30
f e e t per second,* Greater discharges may be handled by constructing
multiple u n i t s aide by side, The efficiency of the basin b accnnplish-
ing energy losses i s greater than a hydraulic jump of the same Froude
number.

ImTRODlJCTION
The development of this short impact-type basin was i n i t i a t e d
by the need f o r some 50 o r more s t i l l i n g structures on the Franklin
Canal, Bostwick Division, Missouri River Basin Project. The need was
f o r r e l a t i v e l y small basins providing energy dissipation independent of
a t a i l water curve o r tail water of any kind. The demand f o r informa-
t i o n on general design procedures f o r use on other projects prompted
the laboratory t o include ntrther investigation of this basin i n the
l+boratory's general research program, Continued research on t h i s type
of basin w i l l be made as time and mnds permit.

Whe laboratory has developed two basins f o r s p e c i f i c instal-

l a t i o n s where v e l o c i t i e s were considerably higher. One basin was f o r
10 second-feet a t 80 feet per second, the other f o r 4 second-feet at
106 f e e t per second (see Bibliography, No, 33). Sufficient data are
not available, however, t o provide general design r u l e s o r procedures,
Hydraulic Models
Hydraulic models w e r e used t o develop t h e s t i l l i n g basin,
determine the discharge limitations, and obtain dimensions f o r the var-
ious parts of the basin. Basins 1.6 t o 2.0 f e e t wide were used i n the
tests. The inlet pipe w a s 6-3/8 inches, inside diameter, and was
equipped with a slide gate w e i l upstream from the basin entrance so t h a t
the desired relations between head, depth, and velocity could be obtained.
The pipe was transparent so that backwater effects i n the pipe could be
studied. Discharges of over 3 cubic f e e t per second and velocities up
t o 15 f e e t per second could be obtained during the tests. Hydraulic
model-prototype relations w e r e used t o scale up the r e s u l t s t o predict
performance f o r discharges up t o 339 second-feet and velocities up t o
30 f e e t pcr second.

The basin was tested i n a tail box containing gravel formed

i n t o a trapezoidal channel. The size of the gravel was changed several
times during the tests. The outlet channel bottom was s l i g h t l y w i d e r
than the basin and had 1:l side slopes. A t a i l gate was provided at;
the downstream end t o evaluate the e f f e c t s of t a i l water.
Development of Basin
The finall* evolved basin was the result of extensive tests
on many different arrangements. A detailed discussion of these t e s t s
i s not glven since they had l i t t l e i f any bearing on the f i n a l design
except i n R general way. This i s discussed belw.
W i t h the many combinations of discharge, velocity, and depth
possible f o r the incoming flow, it became apparent during the e a r l y
t e e t s t h a t so- device was needed a t the s t i l l i n g . b a s i n entrance t o
convert the many possible flaw patterns i n t o a coxwn pattern. The
v e r t i c a l hanging baffle proved t o be t h i s device, Figure 42. Regard-
less of the depth o r velocity of the incoming flow (within the pre-
scribed limits) the flow after striking the baffle acted the ~€IJJE as
any other combination of depth and velocity. Thus, sople of the
variables were eliminatied from the problem.
!Che e f f e c t of velocity alone was then investigated, and i t
w a s found that f o r velocities 30 f e e t per second end below ( f o r a
42-inch pipe) the performance of the structure was primarily dependent
on the diecharge. Actually, the velocity of the incoming flow dm6
affect the perforaance of the basin, but from a practical point of view
it could be eliminated from consideration. Had this not been done,
considerably more t e s t i n g would have been required t o evaluate an8
express the e f f e c t of velocity.
was found t o be a function of the discharge, with other basin dimensions
being r e l a t e d t o the width, Figure 42. To determine the necessary
width, erosion t e s t r e s u l t s , Judgment, and operating experiences were
a l l used and the advice of laboratory and design personnel was used t o
obtain the f i n a l l y determined limits. Since no d e f i n i t e Line of demar-
cation between a "too widew o r "too narrow" basin e x i s t s , it w a s neces-
sary t o work between two more d e f i n i t e l i n e s , shown on Figure 42 as the
upper and lower limits. These l i n e s required f a r l e s s j u d ~ e n t o
determine than a single intermediate l i n e .

Various basin sizes, discharges, and v e l o c i t i e s were tested

taking note of the erosion, wave heights, energy losses, and general
performance. When the upper and lower l i m i t l i n e s had been established
a l i n e about midway between the two w a s used t o e s t a b l i s h the proper
width of basin f o r various discharges. The exact l i n e i s not shown
because s t r i c t adherence t o a single curve would r e s u l t i n d i f ' f i c u l t t o
use f r a c t i o n a l dimensions. Accuracy of this degree i s no% j u s t i f i a b l e .
Figure 43 s h m s t y p i c a l performance of the recommended s t i l l i n g basin
f o r the three limits discussed. I t i s evident t h a t the center photo-
graph represents a compromise between the upper l i m i t operation which i s
very mild and the lower l i m i t operation which i s approaching t h e unsafe
range.

Using the middle range of basin widths, other basin dimensions

were determined, modified, and made minimum by means of trial and error
t e s t s on the several models. Dimensions f o r nine d i f f e r e n t basins are
shown i n Table 11. These should not be a r b i t r a r i l y reduced since i n
t h e i n t e r e s t s of economy the dimensions have been reduced as far as is
safely possible.

Perfo=~cr of Basin

Energy dissipation i s i n i t i a t e d by flow s t r i k i n g the v e r t i c a l

hanging b a f f l e and being turned upstream by the horizontnl. portion of
t h e b a f f l e and by t h e floor, i n v e r t i c a l eddies. The structure, there-,
fore, requires no t a i l water f o r energy dissipation a s i s necessary f o r
a hydraulic Jump basin. T a i l water as high as d + g, Figure 42, however,
'2
w i l l Uprove the performance by reducing o u t l e t velocities, providing a
smooth water surface, and reducing tendencies toward erosion. Excessive
t a i l water, on the other hand, w i l l cause some flow t o pass over the t o p
of the baffle. This should be avoided i f possible.

The effectiveness of the basin is b e s t i l l u s t r a t ~ dby comparing

t h e energy losses within the structure t o those which occur i n a hydrau-
l i c jump. Based on depth and velocity meamrement,~made i n the approach
pipe and in the d m s t r e e ~ mchannel (no t a i l water), the change i n
momentum was computed as explained i n Section 1 f o r the hydraulic Sump.
 Lowest value of maximum
-
discharge Corresponds
to upper limit curve

Intermediate value of
maximum discharge -
Corresponds to tabular
values

Largest value of maxi-

-
mum discharge Corre-
sponds to lower limit
curve

Typical Performance at Maximum Discharge

-
Impact Type Energy Dissipator B
QoTailwater
VI
The Froude number of the incoming flow was computed using D l , obtained
by converting the flow area i n the p a r t l y f u l l pipe into an equivalent
rectangle as wide as the pipe diameter. Compared t o the losses i n the
hydraulic jump, Figure 44, the impact basin shows greater efficiency i n
performance. Inasmch a s the basin would have performed Just a s e f f i -
c i e n t l y had the flow been introduced i n a rectangular cross section,
the above conclusion i s valid.

BASIN DESIGN
Table il and the key drawing, Figure 42, may be used t o obtain
dimensions f o r the usual structure operating within usual ranges. How-
ever, a further understanding of the design limitations may help the
designer t o modify these dimensions when necessary f o r special-loperating
conditions.
The basin dimensions, Columns 4 t o ~13,are a function of the
maximum discharge t o be expected, Column 3. Velocity at the s t i l l i n g
basin entrance need not be considered except that it should not exceed
about 30 f e e t per s e c o ~ d .
Columns 1 and 2 give the pipe sizes used i n designs originat-
ing i n ' t h e Commissioner's Office, Denver, Colorado. These,msycbe
changed as,necessary, however. These suggested sizes were obtained by
assuming th6 velocity of flow t o be 12 f e e t per second. The pipes s h m
would then f l o w f u l l a t maximum discharge o r they would f l o w half fill
a t 24 f e e t per second. me basin oyerates as w e l l whether er small pipe
flowing f u l l o r a l a r g e r pipe flawing p a r t i a l l y full i s used. The pipe
size may therefore be modified t o f i t existing conditions, but the =la-
tion between structure size and discharge should be maintained as given
in the table. I n f a c t , a pipe- need not be used a t a l l ; an open channel
having a width l e s s than the basin width w i l l perform equally a s well.
The invert of the entrance pipe, o r open channel, should be
held a t the elevation shown on the drawing of Figure 42, i n l i n e with
the bottom of the baffle and the top of the end sill, reganiuess 69 the
size of the pipe selected. The entrance pipe may be tilted,acnmward
somewhat without affecting performance adversely. A l i m i t of 1S0 i s a
suggested maximum although the l o s s i n efficiency a% 20' maytnot cause
excessive erosion. For greater slopes use a horizontal o r s1,oping pipe
(up t o 15') 2 o r more diameters long j u s t upstr@amfrom the s t i l l i n g
basin.

Under certain conditions of flow a hydraulic jump nay be

expected t o form i n the downstream end of the pipe sealing the':,exit
end. If the upper end of the pipe i s a l s o sealed by incoming flow, a
vent may be necessary t o prevent pressure fluctuation i n the system.
A vent t o the atmosphere, say one-sixth t h e pipe diameter, shdld be
instahled upstream from the jump.

118
 The notches shown i n the baffle are provided t o a i d in'cleaning
'
out the basin a f t e r prolonged nonuse of the structure. When the basin
'has s i l t e d 'level f u l l of sediment before the start of the s p i l l , the
notches,pmiride concentrated j e t s of water t o clean the basin. The basin
i s designed, however, t o carry the f u l l discharge, sham i n Table 11,
over the top of the baffle i f f o r any re8,son the space beneath the baffle
becomesclogged, Figure 4 5 ~ . Performance i s not a s good, naturally, but
v
acceptable. With the basin operating normally, the notches provide some
concentration of flow passing over the end sill, resulting i n some tend-
ency t30 scour, Figure 4 5 ~ . Riprap as shown on the drawing w i l l provide
ample protection in the usual installation, but i f the beet possible per-
fonnance i s d e s i r e d , it i s recommended t h a t the a l t e r n a t e end s i l l and
45' end-walls be used, Figure 45~. The extra s i l l length reduces flow
concentration, scour tenaencies, and the height of waves i n the
downstream channel. ,

CONCIUSIONS AI& RECOMMENDATIOrOS

The following procedures and r u l e s pertain t o the design of
Basin V I :
1. Use of Basin V I i s limited t o cases where the velocity a t
t h e entrance t o the s t i l l i n g basin i s about 30 f e e t per second o r
less.
2. Fromthe maximum expected discharge, determine the s t i l l i n g
basin dimensions, using Table 11, Columns 3 t o 13. The use of
multiple u n i t s side by side may prove economical i n s o k cases.

3 . Caupute the necessary.pipe area from the velocity and dis-

charge. The vrslues i n Table 11, Columns 1 and 2, are suggested sizes
based on a velocity of 12 f e e t per second and the desire t h a t t h e
pipe m n full a t the discharge given i n Column 3. Regardless of the
pipe s i z e chosen, maintain the relation between discharge and basin
s i z e given i n the table. An open channel entrance may be used in
place of a pipe. The approach channel should be narrower than the
basin with invert elevation the same as the pipe.
4. Although tail water i s not necessary f o r successful opera-
tion, a moderate depth of tail water will improve the perfonasnce.
For best performance s e t t3e basin so t h a t maximum t a i l water does ,#

not exceed d ' + Figure )+2. 's,

2
5. The'thickness.of various parts of the basin as used i n the re
Commissionerls Office, Denver, Colorado, is given i n Columns 14 t o
18, Table 11.

L d ' - ,.
6 .
* .
. , ?

' . . ,
2 .

. > . . 120
Channel Erosion and Emergency Operation for Maximum Tabular Discharge
No Tailwater
-
Impact Type Energy Dissipator Basin VI
-
.

10.
2.

4.

5.

7.

8.

+.
1. Bakhmetef f, B. A. and Matzke, A. E., 'The Hydraulic Jump i n Terms
of ,Dynamic Similarity," Transactions ASCE, Vol. 101, p. 630, 1936

Puls, L. G., "Mechanics of the Hydraulic Jump," Bureau of Reclamation

Technical Memorandum No. 623, Denver, Colorado, October 1941

3. D r . Ing. Kurt Safranez, "Untersuchungen uber den Wechselsprungw

,
( ~ e s e a r c hRelating t o the Hydraulic ~ump) Bausinginieur, 1929,
Heft. 37, 38. Translation by D. P. Barnes, Bureau of Reclamstion
f i l e s , Denver, Colorado. Also C i v i l Engineer, Vol. 4, p. 262,
1934
Woycicki, K,, "The Hydraulic ;Runp and i t s Top Roll and the Discharge
of Sluice gate^,^ a translation from'German by I. B. Hosig, Bureau
of Reclamation 6TechnicalMemorandum No. 435, Denver, Colorado,
January 1934

,
Kinsvater, Carl E, nThe Hydraulic Jump i n Sloping Channels,"
Transactions ASCE, Vol. 109, p. 1107, 1944

6 . Bakhmeteff, $.
A. and Matzke, A. E., "The Hydraulic. Jump i n Sloped
Channels," Transactions ASME, Vol. 60, p. 111, 1938

Rindlaub, B. D., m e Hydraulic Jump i n Sloping Channels," Thesis

f o r "Masterof Science degree i n C i v i l Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, California

Blaisdell, F. W., "The SAF S t i l l i n g Basin," United States Department

of Agriculture, S o i l Conservation Service, St. Anthony F a l l s
Hydraulic Laboratory, Minneapolis, Minnesota, December 1943

9. Bakhmeteff, B. A., "The Hydraulic Jump and Related ~henomek,"

Transactions ASME, Vol. 54, 1932, Paper APM-54-1

Chertonosov, M.'D. (some Considerations Regardiog th,p L e ~ g t ; hof the

Hydraulic ,Jump), Transactions S c i e n t i f i c Research I n s t i t u t e of
'Hydrotechnics, Vol. 17, 1935, Leningrad. Translation-from
fZussian in f i l e s of University of Minnesota

11. Einwackter, J., Wossersprung and Deckwalzenlange (The ?fydraulic

12.
Jump and Length of the Surface ~ o l l e r )Wasserkraft und
Wassemirtschaft, Vol. 30, April 17, 1935

E m s , R. W., vComputation of Tail-water Depth of the Hydraulic

~ r f m pi n ' Sloping F
Hyd..50-5, 1928
~ ~ Transactions
S , ~
a ASME, Vol. 50, Paper j
27. Moore, W. L., "Energy Loss a t the Base of a Free Overfall,"
~ r a n s a c t i o n sASCE, Vol. 109, 1943, p. 1343

28. "Hydraulic Model Studies, Fontana Projeet," Technical Monograph 68,

Tennessee Valley Authority, p. 99

29. Rhone, T. J., wHydraulic Model Studies on the Wave Suppressor

Device a t Friant-Kern Canal head work^,^ Bureau of Reclamation
Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. 395

30. Beichley, G. L., "Hydraulic Model Studies of the Outlet Works at

Carter Lake Reservoir Dam No. 1 Joining the St. Vrain Canal,"
Bumau of Reclamation Hydraulic Laboratory Report Hyd. 394

31. Peterka, A. J., "Impact Type Energy Dissipators '?or Flow a t Pipe
Outlets, Franklin C a n a l , " Bureau of Reclamation Bydraulic
Laboratory Report Hyd. 398

32. Simmons, W. P., "Hydraulic Model Studies of Outlet Works and

Wasteway f o r Lovewell Dam,n Bureau of R e c a t i o n Hydraulic
Laboratory Report Hyd. 400
<

33. S c h s t e r , J. C., "Model Studies of Davis ~ q u e d u c tTurnauts 15.4 and

11.7, Weber Basin, Utah,* Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic
Laboratory Paper No. 62

Ir**rlor - Rechnutlon - Denver. Colo.