See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280938869

Kariba Dam Plunge Pool Scour

Conference Paper · November 2006

CITATIONS READS
3 1,074

2 authors:

Michael F. George George William Annandale

BGC Engineering Inc., Golden CO USA George W. Annandale, Inc.
19 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   929 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Extending the life of reservoirs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael F. George on 11 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Kariba Dam Plunge Pool Scour
M.F. George*, G.W. Annandale**
* Engineering & Hydrosystems, Inc., Denver, USA
** Engineering & Hydrosystems, Inc., Denver, USA

Determination of the extent of scour is an important factor below the original ground surface to an elevation of about
in the design of dams and spillways. The case study 305 m [6].
presented herein for Kariba Dam provides a practical This case study has been performed using the same
application of the total dynamic pressure coefficient with initial assumptions made by Bollaert when he preformed a
Annandale’s Erodibility Index Method (EIM) and Bollaert’s similar study at the dam [7]. For Bollaert’s analysis a
Comprehensive Fracture Mechanics (CFM) and Dynamic single gate was analyzed assuming an average opening of
Impulsion (DI) models. The total dynamic pressure 75 %. Typical outlet velocities were approximated at 21.5
coefficient has been developed to incorporate the effects of m/s, with a maximum elevation in the reservoir at 487.5 m
jet break up on the average and fluctuating dynamic and an average tailwater elevation of 400 m [7].
pressures. The maximum scour depth predicted using the
above methods shows very good agreement with the scour
observed at the site to date.

I. INTRODUCTION
Determination of the extent of scour is an important
factor in the design of a dam whether it be during an
overtopping event or from flows discharged through the
spillway. Often times a plunge pool is used as a cushion
to dissipate energy from the falling jet of water.
Previous work by Bollaert [1] attempted to quantify
pressures within a plunge pool when subject to an
impacting jet by use of a dynamic pressure coefficient.
This coefficient accounts for the average dynamic
pressure associated with the impacting jet, the fluctuating
dynamic pressure, as well as any amplification that may
occur in rock joints due to resonance, but does not account
for the degree of jet break up. Advancements regarding Figure 1. Scour hole formation at Kariba Dam [6]
the effects of jet breakup on the mean and fluctuating
dynamic pressures have been made by Castillo [2] and
Ervine, Falvey and Withers [3], respectively. This has III. SCOUR PROCESSES
lead to the development of a total dynamic pressure Three mechanisms have been identified that lead to the
coefficient. break-up and removal of a rock mass when subjected to
The case study presented herein for Kariba Dam shows the forces associated with a falling jet of water. These
practical application of the total dynamic pressure include [1]:
coefficient using Annandale’s Erodibility Index Method • dynamic impulsion,
(EIM) [4,5] and Bollaert’s Comprehensive Fracture
Mechanics (CFM) and Dynamic Impulsion (DI) [1] in the • brittle fracture, and
verification of extent of plunge pool scour witnessed to • sub-critical (fatigue) failure.
date on site. Dynamic impulsion refers to the ejection or “plucking”
of individual rock blocks from their matrix due to pressure
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND imbalances between the top and bottom of the block
Kariba Dam is double curvature concrete arch dam caused by the impinging jet. This mechanism is only
located on the Zambesi River between Zambia and applicable when the rock mass is already completely
Zimbabwe. The dam itself extends 130 m above its broken into individual rock blocks or when the rock mass
bedrock foundation comprised of granitic gneiss [6]. The has been completely fractured by brittle fracture or fatigue
dam spillway contains six rectangular shaped gates with failure [1].
openings of 8.8 m by 9.1 m [7]. Since 1959 after the Brittle fracture refers to the instantaneous break-up of a
dam’s construction, several large flows passed through the rock mass along existing close-ended fissures. A close-
spillway and resulted in the formation of a downstream ended fissure refers to a discontinuity that is not persistent
plunge pool (Figure 1). The largest flow occurred in 1981 through the rock mass. Scour progression in this failure
with a peak discharge of 9444 m3/s, after which the scour mode generally occurs very rapidly and in an “explosive”
hole reached a maximum depth of approximately 85 m manner. The pressure from the falling jet applied to the
rock joint can be amplified as much as 20 times due to Average Dynamic Pressure Coefficient Rectangular Jets

resonance that can occur in a close-ended fissure [1]. 0.90

Fatigue failure refers to the time-dependent break-up of

Aerated 0.4<L/Lb<0.5
0.80
Aerated 0.6<L/Lb<0.8

a rock mass along existing close-ended fissures. Failure 0.70

Aerated 1.0<L/Lb<1.1

by fatigue is generally slower, occurring over an extended

Aerated 1.5<L/Lb<1.6
Region where Jet Core
Penetrates Plunge Pool Aerated 2.0<L/Lb<2.3

period of time as is the case for Kariba Dam. Cyclic 0.60 Aerated 2.3<L/Lb<3.0

pulses generated by the impinging jet propagate fractures 0.50

bit by bit until the rock mass is completely broken-up into

Cp
0.40
individual rock blocks [1]. The time to propagate a fissure Region where Jet Core
does not Penetrate

through a certain distance of rock may be calculated by

Plunge Pool
0.30

[8]: 0.20

dL (1)
= C (ΔK ) m 0.10

dN 0.00

Where: 0 5 10 15 20
Y/d
25 30 35 40

N = number of pressure cycles or “pulses” that will lead

Figure 2. Calculation of Cp [2]
to fatigue failure,
C, m = rock properties, The length of the jet, calculated by Annandale [5], may
ΔK = range of stress intensities within the rock joint be expressed as:
due to the impinging jet, and 2
L = distance of fissure growth required for failure (m). ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ (3)
2x
1 + ⎢ tan(θ ) − ⎥ ⋅ dx
x
L=∫
IV. TOTAL DYNAMIC PRESSURE COEFFICIENT 0 ⎢ ⎡ v2 2⎤
⎥
⎢ K ⎢4(d + ) cos(θ ) ⎥ ⎥
Recent research by Castillo [2] and Ervine, Falvey and ⎣ ⎣ 2 g ⎦⎦
Withers [3] regarding the effects of jet break up on the Where:
average dynamic pressure and fluctuating dynamic
x = horizontal distance to impact (m).
pressure, respectively, has been combined with that from
Bollaert [1] to form the total dynamic pressure coefficient. θ = the angle of issuance.
This may be written as: d = the depth/thickness of the jet at issuance (m).
Ct = C p + Γ ⋅ RF ⋅ C `p (2) v = the initial velocity of the jet at issuance (m/s)
Where: K = a coefficient representing energy loss of the jet.
Cp = average dynamic pressure coefficient [2]. Two separate equations to calculate the jet break up
length are used depending on the method being utilized to
C`p = fluctuating dynamic pressure coefficient [1]. determine the erosive capacity of the jet. Case studies
G = amplification factor for resonance that can occur in have shown that the equation developed by Horeni [9] for
close-ended rock joints applied to C`p [1]. rectangular nappes yields best results when used with
RF = reduction factor dependent on the degree of jet Annandale’s method. However, an equation developed
breakup applied to C`p based on research by Ervine, from experimental testing on round jets by Ervine, Falvey
Falvey and Withers [3]. and Withers [3] provides best results when used with
Bollaert’s method. The two equations are provided
A. Average Dynamic Pressure Coefficient (Cp) below.
Recent research by Castillo [2] compares the effects of Lb ( Horeni) = 6 ⋅ q 0.32 (4)
varying degrees of jet break up on the average dynamic Where:
pressure coefficient for rectangular jets. Castillo
q = the unit discharge (m2/s).
compares the average dynamic pressure coefficient to the
ratio of plunge pool depth (Y) to jet impact thickness (d) −1 1 1
⋅ C + 1 + ⋅ (C 2 + 4 ⋅ C ) 2
for varying jet break up ratios (Figure 2). The degree of 1 2 2 (5)
Lb ( Ervine) = ⋅ d ⋅ Fr ⋅
2

jet break up is determined by the ratio of the jet trajectory 2 C

length (L) to the jet break up length (Lb). As the jet break Where:
up ratio (L/Lb) increases the average dynamic pressure d = the depth/thickness of the jet at issuance (m).
coefficient decreases. Fr = the Froude number at issuance.
C = 1.07 ⋅ Tu ⋅ Fr 2 , where Tu is the turbulence intensity.

B. Fluctuating Dynamic Pressure Coefficient (C`p)

The fluctuating dynamic pressure coefficient relates the
variation in pressure fluctuations with respect to the
average dynamic pressure. C`p is calculated from the
following graph (Figure 3) based on research conducted
by Bollaert [1].
 pressure coefficient (C`p) depending on the degree of jet
break up [5].

Figure 3. Determination of C`p [1]

As indicated, peak pressure fluctuations occur for Figure 5. Relation of C`p to break up length ratio (L/Lb) [3]
plunge pool to jet thickness ratios (Y/Dj) of approximately
six. For clarification, Dj in Figure 3 refers to the inner
core thickness of the jet at impact. This is opposed to V. SCOUR PREDICTION METHODS
Castillo’s research which uses the outer thickness of the
Two methods are used to predict the amount of scour
jet at impact (this accounts for jet spread due to aeration).
likely to occur for a given discharge. These are
Two scaling factors are also applied to the fluctuating Annandale’s EIM [4,5] and Bollaert’s CFM and DI
dynamic pressure coefficient to account for amplification models [1]. In general, the EIM is used to determine a
in close-ended rock joints as well as for varying degrees of total scour depth, while the CFM and DI model are used
jet break up. to give insight to the type of failure (i.e., brittle fracture,
Amplification in close-ended ended can occur due to fatigue, or dynamic impulsion) occurring over that total
resonance, thus causing significant pressure spikes at the depth, in addition to providing a total scour depth. For
tip of the fissure. These pressure spikes may be quantified Kariba Dam, the scour depths predicted by the EIM as
by applying an amplification factor, G, developed by well as the CFM (namely fatigue failure) are of most
Bollaert (Figure 4) [1]. importance.
As indicated, peak amplification of nearly 8 to 20 times A. Rock Resistance
the original signal occurs for Y/Dj ratios of approximately
8 to 10. The resisting power of the rock material is calculated
for Annandale’s method by assigning an empirical geo-
mechanical index to the rock mass known as the
Erodibility Index [5]. This is defined as:
EI = M s ⋅ K b ⋅ K d ⋅ J s (6)
Where:
Ms = mass strength number,
Kb = particle/block size number,
Kd = discontinuity or inter-particle bond shear strength
number, and
Js = relative ground structure number.
The resisting power of the rock material (kW/m2) is
then calculated from the equation below [5]:
Prock = EI 0.75 (7)
Figure 4. Determination of G [1] When the erosive power of the jet is greater than the
resisting power of the rock, scour shall occur. When the
Additionally, the erosive capacity of the jet needs to resisting power of rock is greater than that of the jet, scour
account for the response of the fluctuating pressures to the will not occur.
degree of jet break up. Similar to the average dynamic
pressure, the fluctuating dynamic pressure decreases with B. Jet Erosive Capacity
increasing degrees of jet break up, ultimately resulting in Two methods are used to determine the erosive capacity
diminished erosive capacity. Figure 5 shows a of the impinging jet. The first method, by Annandale,
relationship developed by Ervine, Falvey and Withers [3] describes erosive capacity in terms of unit stream power
between the fluctuating dynamic pressure coefficient and (W/m2), while the second method, by Bollaert, relates
the jet length to jet break up length ratio (L/Lb). erosive capacity in terms of pressure (Pa). The total
Based on this relationship, a reduction factor (RF) was dynamic pressure coefficient has been applied to both
determined and applied to Bollaert’s fluctuating dynamic methods to account for variations in the average and
fluctuating dynamic pressures due to jet break up.
 The stream power of the impinging jet (W/m2) for the TABLE I. ROCK MASS PARAMETERS
EIM may be expressed as [5]: Parameter Value
γ ⋅Q ⋅ H (8)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
125 MPa
SPjet = ⋅ Ct _ avg (UCS)
A Joint Persistency 25%
Where: Maximum Joint Length 1m
g = unit weight of water (N/m3), Joint Tightness Tight
Joint Alteration/Filling* None
Q = discharge over the top of the dam (m3/s), Rough &
Joint Roughness*
H = head associated with the falling jet (m), Undulating/Planar
Number of Joint Sets 3
A = impact area of the jet (m2), and Rock Quality Designation (RQD)* 80
Ct_avg = average total dynamic pressure coefficient [5], Fatigue Coefficient, m 10
which can be defined as: Ct_avg = Ct_1 + Ct_max, where Ct_1 Fatigue Coefficient, C 1.3x10-6
= total dynamic pressure coefficient not accounting for *Value assumed for EIM
amplification in fissures (i.e., Г = 1) and Ct_max = total
dynamic pressure coefficient accounting for amplification Given the rock parameters above, a rock resistance of
with Г defined by Figure 4. approximately 600 kW/m2 was calculated for the EIM.
For use with Bollaert’s CFM and DI models, three Figures 6 and 7 show the maximum scour depths
separate pressure calculations are required. The first is the predicted for fatigue failure and the EIM.
calculation of the pressure at the rock/water interface (i.e., Kariba Dam: Fatigue Failure
the joint opening). This is the pressure used to calculate 400
the amount of dynamic impulsion, which assumes fissures
are open-ended and hence there is no amplification that
may occur. This may be expressed as: 380

v 2j
P = γ ⋅ Ct _ 1 ⋅ φ ⋅ (9)
2g Elevation (m) 360

Where:
g = unit weight of water (N/m3), 340

Ct_1 = total dynamic pressure coefficient (not

accounting for amplification, i.e., Г = 1), 320
φ = energy coefficient (usually assumed = 1),
vj = impact velocity of the jet (m/s), and 300
0 20 40 60 80 100
g = acceleration of gravity (m/s2).
The second is the calculation of the maximum pressure Time to Failure (Days)
that can be found in a close-ended fissure. This is similar Sub-Critical Failure Time
to Equation 9 except that the total dynamic pressure
coefficient has been adjusted to account for amplification
Figure 6. Scour by fatigue failure using CFM model.
that may occur due to resonance.
v 2j Kariba Dam: Erodibility Index Method
Pmax_ fracture = γ ⋅ Ct _ max ⋅ φ ⋅ (10) 400
2g
Finally, the average pressure within a close-ended
380
fissure may be calculated by making use of the previous
two equations. This is defined as [1]:
Elevation (m)

Pavg _ fracture = 0.36 ⋅ P + 0.64 ⋅ Pmax_ fracture (11) 360

The average pressure within close-ended fissure is used

340
when calculating the amount of brittle fracture as well as
fatigue failure time with Bollaert’s CFM model.
320
VI. SCOUR AT KARIBA DAM
Scour calculations for Kariba Dam were performed for 300
the peak discharge observed during the 1981 event and 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1 .10
4

“average” rock mass parameters assumed by Bollaet [7].

These values are summarized in Table 1 below. Stream Power (kW/m2)
Additional rock mass assumptions for the EIM are also Rock Resistance
included in Table 1 based on engineering judgment. Erosive Capacity of Jet
Observed Scour

Figure 7. Scour prediction with the EIM

 In Figure 6, the scour extent is shown as a function of
time. Note that at about an elevation of 310 m (i.e., a
plunge pool depth of nearly 90 m), the time it takes to fail
the rock mass by fatigue begins to increase exponentially.
It is just below this elevation that it is believed that scour
progression would cease.
Figure 7 relates the scour extent by the use of a
threshold value. At an elevation approximately a few
meters above the observed scour elevation (305 m), the
erosive capacity of the jet (measured by stream power)
becomes less than the resisting capacity of the rock mass,
suggesting no further scour.
As indicated, both methods produce nearly spot-on
results in predicting the ultimate scour depth. This gives
good promise to the use of the total dynamic pressure
coefficient with the EIM, CFM and DI models.

VII. CONCLUSIONS
The application of the total dynamic pressure
coefficient to Annandale’s EIM and Bollaert’s CFM and
DI models appears to produce accurate representations of
the maximum scour depth witnessed at Kariba Dam. The
total dynamic pressure coefficient incorporates the effects
of jet break up on the average and fluctuating dynamic
pressures likely to result in a plunge pool from an
impinging jet based on research by Castillo and Ervine,
Falvey and Withers.
Incorporating the effects of jet break up is key when
determining the extent of scour likely to occur for a given
discharge as for increased degrees of break up, less scour
is to be expected. This is an important factor when
designing a plunge pool or plunge pool protection in the
sense that huge costs could be alleviated if the extent of
scour predicted is less than what would have been
calculated not accounting for jet break up.

VIII. REFERENCES
[1] Bollaert, E. 2002. Transient Water Pressures in Joints and
Formation of Rock Scour due to High-Velocity Jet Impact,
Communication No. 13. Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions,
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
[2] Castillo, L.G. 2003. Contribution to discussion of Bollaert and
Schleiss’ paper “Scour of rock due to the impact of plunging jet
Part 1: A state-of-the-art review”. Journal of Hydraulic Research.
41: 451-464.
[3] Ervine, D.A., H.T. Falvey, and W. Withers. 1997. Pressure
Fluctuations on Plunge Pool Floors. Journal of Hydraulic
Research. 35: 257-279.
[4] Annandale, G.W. 1995. Erodibility. Journal of Hydraulic
Research. 33: 471-494.
[5] Annandale, G.W. 2006. Scour Technology. 1st ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
[6] International Commission On Large Dams (ICOLD). 2002. Large
Brazilian Spillways. 193-196.
[7] Bollaert, E. 2002. Erodibility of Fractured Media: Case Studies.
[8] Paris, P.C., M.P. Gomez, and W.E. Anderson. 1961. Trend
Engineering. 13: 9-14.
[9] Horeni, P. 1956. Disintegration of a Free Jet of Water in Air. Sesit
93. Praha, Pokbaba.
 KEY WORDS
Scour, plunge pool, Erodibility Index Method, jet break
up, dynamic pressures, prediction, case study, Kariba
Dam, Comprehensive Fracture Mechanics, Dynamic
Impulsion.

View publication stats