Q. 94 R.

15
COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE
DES GRANDS BARRAGES
-------
VINGT QUATRIME CONGRS
DES GRANDS BARRAGES
Kyoto, Juin 2012
-------






GUIDELINES ON THE DESIGN AND HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
OF STEPPED SPILLWAYS
1


Robert Michael BOES
Prof., Director of Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (VAW),
ETH Zurich

SWITZERLAND



1. INTRODUCTION


Spilling floods safely from a reservoir to the tailwater of a dam is a key issue
regarding dam safety. Stepped cascades are both spillways and energy dissipators
combining a number of advantages. On the one hand, the free-surface flow on
surface spillway chutes allows for a safe passage of water even under flood events
larger than the design flood, i.e. for an overload scenario such as the safety check
flood. On the other hand, a stepped chute can easily be incorporated into the dam
body of concrete structures such as RCC dams, leading to economic savings due to
relatively simple and fast construction both of new dams and for armouring of
existing embankment dams. Moreover, the high amount of energy dissipation
achieved along stepped spillways enables savings on the stilling basin, the length of
which can be considerably reduced compared to those downstream from
conventional smooth chutes. The energy dissipation is due to the step macro-
roughness, leading to air entrainment and greatly reduced flow velocities and
consequently limiting the cavitation risk. The aeration produces flow bulking,
however, and therefore requires higher sidewalls.

1
Guide pour le dimensionnement et les caractristiques hydrauliques des vacuateurs de
crue en marches descalier.
203
Q. 94 R. 15



2. GENERAL DESIGN ASPECTS


A standard stepped spillway typically consists of a control section at its upper
portion, e.g. a standard ogee-crested weir, the spillway chute with uniformly sized
steps (Fig. 1) and a terminal dissipator structure at the chute toe, mostly a stilling
basin. Two different stepped spillway types should be distinguished:

(1) Large-width stepped spillways with small maximum unit discharges up to about
30 m
2
/s, featuring no bottom aerator and only a small terminal energy dissipater.
(2) Narrow stepped spillways with peak unit discharges above 30 m
2
/s or so,
including bottom aerator and terminal energy dissipator.





















Fig. 1
Definition sketch of stepped spillway with standard ogee-crested weir as control
structure and step-aerator on first step (adapted from [1])
Schma dun vacuateur de crue en marches descalier avec dversoir standard
comme ouvrage de contrle et arateur de marche (adapt de [1])

204
Q. 94 R. 15
Type (1) is the favorite spillway if the hydrologic and topographic boundary
conditions are favorable, i.e. if the peak flood discharge Q
max
is either relatively small
or the spillway width B large, resulting in maximum unit discharges q
max
=
Q
max
/B < 30 m
2
/s. However, these conditions are often not met, resulting in q
max

considerably above the mentioned threshold. Then, type (2) should be selected to
avoid cavitation damage to the structure. In the following, the need for a bottom
aerator will be discussed and criteria for its application are given. Furthermore, the
hydraulic design procedure will be explained.


2.1. CAVITATION RISK AND COUNTERMEASURES


It is well known (e.g. [2]) that cavitation on chutes is initiated for high velocity
flows and local pressures below the vapour pressure, resulting in the local cavitation
index

o = (h
p
+ h
a
h
v
)/[v
2
/2g] [1]

below a threshold value o
c
, where h
p
= bottom pressure head, h
a
= atmospheric
pressure head, h
v
= vapour pressure head, v = local flow velocity and g =
acceleration of gravity. The higher the flow velocity and the smaller the pressure
difference between the actual and the vapour pressure, the smaller the cavitation
index. Whereas the critical (subscript c) lower threshold is commonly taken as
o
c
= 0.2 for smooth chute inverts, that for a singular step is of the order of
o
c
= 1.00.1 according to [2] and [3], see [4]. For stepped spillways as a series of
isolated steps the critical cavitation index is higher than on smooth chutes but
smaller than for a singular step due to the following reasons: (i) steps form large
offsets away from the flow direction, preventing cavitation from residing on the
boundary ([5]) and (ii) a uniformly rough surface has a lower cavitation potential than
an isolated roughness of the same geometry due to reduced velocities and wake
effects ([5]) and [6]). In a recent laboratory study, [7] report of incipient cavitation at
o = 0.6 to 0.7 and o 1.3 for steps inclined by an angle to the horizontal of | = 21.9
and 68.1 (slopes of 1V:2.48H and 1V:0.4025H), respectively, and of critical o
c
-
values of roughly 0.4 and 0.6 to 0.7, respectively. According to [6][6], the critical
cavitation index is roughly four times the friction factor f
b
both for smooth and rough
surfaces, i.e. o
c
= 4f
b
. For the typical slope range of stepped spillways of 1:2.9
(| = 19) to 1:0.7 (| = 55) this would amount to values between o
c
= 0.27 (| = 45)
and o
c
= 0.8 (| = 19). Taking into account that no evidence exists so far that a
stepped spillways has ever experienced cavitation damage ([1], [7]), even those
submitted to unit discharges largely superior to 30 m
2
/s, the limit cavitation index is
assumed to be around 0.5 for stepped spillways in the common slope range of 1:2.9
(| = 19) to 1:0.7 (| = 55).
205
Q. 94 R. 15
2.2. REQUIREMENT FOR BOTTOM AERATOR


As shown above, for a given velocity and pressure head, a stepped invert
would be more prone to cavitation than a smooth chute along the un-aerated chute
portion, i.e. upstream from the inception point of self-entrainment, because of a
higher critical inception number. Once air is entrained at the free surface, it is quickly
transported by turbulent mixing to the step surfaces, where the compressible air-
water mixture may counteract the strain on the concrete surface resulting from
collapsing vaporized bubbles caused by cavitation pitting. According to a common
definition formulated by [8], the inception point bottom (subscript b) air concentration
at the step edge is C
b
= 0.01. It has been demonstrated by [9], among others, that a
small local air concentration of 1% may be sufficient to prevent or at least
considerably reduce cavitation damage.

Fig. 2 shows the inception number as a function of unit discharge for stepped
spillways of various step heights and pseudo-bottom (PB) slopes. Also given is the
critical index of 0.5, as discussed above. The o-values have been computed
according to [10] for water temperatures of 14C. The larger the step height, the
larger the cavitation index for a given unit discharge. For a given step height, the unit
discharge at critical cavitation index o
c
= 0.5 decreases with increasing inclination
angle. Depending on step height and slope, o-values fall below the critical threshold
for unit discharges of between roughly q = 20 and 40 m
2
/s. This corroborates the
hesitation to design classical stepped spillways without aerators for greater unit
discharges. An aerator to artificially entrain air is therefore required upstream from
the inception point for unit discharges larger than the limit values given in Table 1.


2.3. SELECTION OF CONTROL STRUCTURE


The following control structures may be combined with stepped chutes:

(i) Ogee-crested weir with or without steps
(ii) Broad-crested weir with or without gates
(iii) Piano key weir

Most spillway crests are designed as an uncontrolled smooth ogee weir
according to the US Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Design Criteria ([11]). For
stepped chutes, transitional steps of increasing height along the standard ogee-
crested profile down to the point of tangency (e.g. [12]) may be used to reduce
nappe deflection along the first steps (see also 0). However, if a bottom aerator
becomes necessary (see 2.2. and 3.1), the standard crest should have no steps so
206
Q. 94 R. 15
that the nappe velocity at the aerator is sufficiently large to ensure its proper
performance.

Stepped spillways may have an unregulated broad-crested weir as described
by [13]. If a broad-crested weir is to be regulated by tainter or flap gates, it should be
followed by a sufficiently long and rather mildly sloped smooth chute connected to a
constantly-sloped stepped chute by a parabolic transition, see e.g. [7] for Folsom
Dam in California, USA. Otherwise, there is a risk of jet deflection, resulting in a
considerably spray and weak energy dissipation ([13]).

Stepped spillways may even feature a piano key weir as upstream control
structure as for the case of the Gloriettes Dam in France ([14]).

Fig. 2
Cavitation indices o as function of unit discharge q for various
chute inclination angles | and step heights s
Indices de cavitation en fonction du dbit spcifique q pour de nombreux
angles dinclinaison | et hauteurs de marche

207
Q. 94 R. 15

2.4. SELECTION OF STEP HEIGHT


The determination of the step height should primarily be based upon the
construction procedure. RCC dams are often constructed in layers of 0.3 m and
formwork heights of 0.6 to 1.2 m, so that step heights between 0.3 and 1.2 m are
convenient. Larger steps of 2 to 3 m or so may be favourable for stepped spillways
cut into rock such as in the valley flanks at embankment dams to facilitate the
construction by drilling and blasting.

Results of model tests indicate that large step heights are preferable in terms
of hydraulic behaviour. Firstly, the location of the inception point of air entrainment
moves slightly towards the spillway crest with increasing step height, so that the un-
aerated spillway portion prone to cavitation damage is shorter, see equation [6].
Secondly, energy dissipation slightly increases with increasing step height ([15],
[16]), see also equation [14].

The step height should be selected in such a way that for both the design and
the safety check floods the flow regime on the chute is either distinctively in the
skimming flow or nappe flow regimes (see 3.3), i.e. at least about 20% larger or
smaller than h
c
/s given by equation [5] ([16]). Otherwise the maximum hydraulic load
occurs in the transition regime with potential hydrodynamic instabilities resulting from
a change from aerated to un-aerated nappe flows, or vice versa ([17]). Obviously, for
un-gated spillways, the transition regime cannot be avoided if the chute is designed
for skimming flow.

Table 1
Unit discharge q [m
2
/s] at critical inception index o
c
= 0.5 for various chute
inclination angles | and PB slopes, respectively, and step heights s
Dbit spcifique q [m
2
/s] pour lindex critique de cavitation o
c
= 0.5, de
nombreux angles dinclinaison | et hauteurs de marche

slope (V:H) 1:2.5 1:2 1:1.5 1:1 1:0.8 1:0.7
q
[m
2
/s] | [] 21.8 26.6 33.7 45.0 51.3 55
s

[
m
]

0.3 27 24 20 17 16 16
0.6 33 29 25 21 19 19
1.2 41 35 30 25 23 23
2.4 51 43 36 30 28 27
3.0 54 46 39 32 30 29

208
Q. 94 R. 15

3. HYDRAULIC DESIGN


3.1. AERATOR DESIGN (IF APPLICABLE)


Different types of bottom aerators on stepped spillways have been thoroughly
model-tested at VAW over several years, among which deflector- and step-aerators
([4], [10], [18]). A step-aerator as shown in Fig. 3 Fig. 3has proved to be the best
option to entrain a small but sufficient quantity of air remaining close to the chute
bottom, thereby hardly affecting the depth-averaged air concentration C
a
, the mixture
flow depths h
90
or the energy dissipation along the chute while still preventing
cavitation damage. Although no aerator blockage was observed by [18] even for
large unit discharges of up to q = 113 m
2
/s (based on a prototype step height of
2.4 m) and q = 40 m
2
/s (based on a prototype step height of 1.2 m), respectively,
step-aerators may not be apt to sufficiently entrain air for so high unit discharges
(see [19]). For these, a deflector-type aerator (see [4]) may be the best option, as
these generally cause higher bottom aeration than step-aerators. Deflector-aerators
may be placed in an existing stepped chute at any step, if required. However, a
drawback of deflector-aerators is the higher spray production for small unit
discharges, see 3.2.















Fig. 3
Definition sketch of step-aerator on stepped spillways, with PB = pseudo-bottom
Schma dun arateur de marche avec PB = pseudo-fond

A step-aerator should be placed at the first step of constant step height
(Fig. 3). The optimum dimensions are c/c
d
= 0.90 to 0.95, where c= horizontal base
209
Q. 94 R. 15
length of the step-aerator and c
d
= base length from the vertical step face to the PB.
The tip angle should be identical to the chute angle | of the PB ([18]).

Depending on the unit discharge and the step height, a second step-aerator
may become necessary if the bottom air concentration falls below C
b
= 0.01, see 2.2.
Manipulating the equations given by [10] and [18], the latter can be determined as
function of the streamwise coordinate x originating at the first step (Fig. 1) as

(
(
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

c
c c
c
b
h
x
h
s
h
x
h
x
x C
3
083 0 1 5
2 1
2 1
tanh
. ) (
/
/
|

[2]

Equation [2] is limited to 0 < x/h
c
< 4, 0.1 < (x/h
c
)(s/h
c
)
1/2
< 2.3 and to | 50, i.e. for
slopes between 1:0.75 and 1:0.9 as typically found on gravity dam spillways.

The ratio of air supply | = Q
a
/Q
w
, where Q = discharge of air (subscript a) and
water (subscript w), respectively, depends on the aerator type and is expressed as
follows for | 50:

Step-aerator ([18])

5 5 F 7 2 for 001 0 7 2 (F 0016 0
o
3
o
. . . ) . . < < + = | [3]

Deflector-aerator ([20])

5 6 F 5 2 for F 0002 0
o
25 3
o
. . .
.
< < = | [4]

Here, F
o
= v
o
/(gh
o
)
1/2
denotes the Froude number at the first step edge (subscript o),
i.e. at the point of tangency for the smooth standard-crested profile, with v
o
= flow
velocity and h
o
= flow depth. Solving equation [2] for C
b
(x = x
crit
) = 0.01 yields the
critical distance x
crit
from the first step where a second aerator should be placed to
counter cavitation inception. E.g., for steps of s = 2.4 m and q
d
= 80 m
2
/s, a second
aerator should be placed not beyond x
crit
= 27 m from the first step, i.e. at step
number 8, whereas air inception from the free surface occurs at L
i
96 m from the
crest according to equation [6], see 3.4.1.



210
Q. 94 R. 15
3.2. SPRAY REDUCTION


Spray results from the impact of a relatively thin jet flow onto the first horizontal
step face ([10], [18]). For small discharges, the jet impinging onto the horizontal step
face is deflected at about the same angle to the atmosphere (Fig. 4a). Accordingly,
the spray height may become much larger than the flow depth under design
discharge. There are generally two options to reduce the spray height along the first
steps of the constantly-sloping stepped chute at small discharges. It is suggested by
[12] to insert transitional steps of increasing height along the standard crest profile
down to the point of tangency as shown in Fig. 5. It was further found by [10] and
[18] that steps with broken edges along the constantly-sloped stepped chute reduce
the spray height significantly, as schematically shown in Fig. 4b. The broken step
edges are finished with a formwork containing the negative of the inset shape. The
height of the sloping portion should be around 0.20s.

A step-aerator placed on the first step partially lifts the flow over the first two
steps and therefore reduces their effect. Broken edges downstream of this reach
(n 3) reduce the spray height effectively. The tests performed at VAW indicated
that a step aerator combined with 5 treated step edges provides optimum chute
performance under minimum unit discharges.


3.3. FLOW REGIME


Two distinct flow regimes occur on stepped spillways, namely the so-called
nappe flow and skimming flow ([17]). Nappe flow occurs for low discharges and large
step heights with the water plunging from one step to another. For small steps and
large discharges the water usually skims over the step edges, and recirculating
zones develop in the triangular niches formed by the step faces and the pseudo-
bottom. Strictly speaking, a distinction between an upper limit for nappe flow and a
lower limit for skimming flow may be considered, with a transition regime separating
these characteristic limits ([21]). The transition from nappe to skimming flow can be
expressed by the ratio of critical depth and the step height h
c
/s. The VAW
experimental results indicate the onset of skimming flow for approximately
26

<|

<

55 at ([15], [16])

| tan . . 14 0 91 0 =
s
h
c
[5]



211
Q. 94 R. 15










a) b)

Fig. 4
Definition sketch comparing (a) standard step with (b) improved step (with
inset in light grey; step-aerator in dark grey) (after [1])
Schma comparant (a) marche standard avec (b) marche amliore (avec
insertion en gris clair; arateur de marche en gris fonc) (selon [1])


3.4. AIR ENTRAINMENT


A main advantage of the significant aeration along stepped spillways is the
reduction of the cavitation risk potential, see 2.2. Knowing the inception point
location is thus important to determine the un-aerated spillway zone potentially prone
to cavitation damage ([15]) and to decide whether an aerator is required, or not.


3.4.1. Location of inception point

The inception (subscript i) point location is usually expressed either in terms of
length L
i
of the black-water reach, or by the vertical distance w
i
L
i
sin| from the
spillway crest (Fig. 1). According to [15] L
i
is defined as

2 0 4 1
2 1
90 5
. .
.
) (sin
.
s
h
L
c
i
|
= [6]

Equation [6] indicates that the critical depth h
c
or the unit discharge q predominantly
govern the value of L
i
, whereas the effect of s is small. By doubling s, L
i
is reduced
by only 13%, whereas doubling q leads to an increase of 74%. The steeper the
spillway slope, the more upstream the water becomes aerated. An increase of slope
from 1:2 to 1:0.8 (| = 26.6 to 51.3) reduces L
i
and w
i
by about 54% and 20%,
respectively.
212
Q. 94 R. 15

Fig. 5
Crest profile of stepped spillway with steps of increasing step height fitted to
standard ogee-crested weir profile down to point of tangency (adapted from [12]12]
Crte dun dversoir marches descalier avec hauteurs de marche
croissantes insres dans le profil dun dversoir standard (adapt de [12]12]


3.4.2. Inception flow depth

For 26< | < 55 the flow depth at the inception point h
m,i
is ([15])

3 0
1 0
9 0
40 0
.
.
.
) (sin
.
|
s h
h
c
m,i
= [7]

Here again, h
c
has a greater effect on h
m,i
than s. Because the flow is already
affected by aeration at the inception point ([12]) the depth-averaged inception air
concentration C
a,i
is useful for the computation of the so-called equivalent clear-water
inception depth h
w,i
. According to [8], it is given by

) ( .
,
| =

240 10 2 1
3
i a
C

[8]

213
Q. 94 R. 15

3.5. UNIFORM FLOW CHARACTERISTICS


Once the flow on stepped spillways becomes aerated, a distinction should be
made between the equivalent clear-water depth h
w
and the mixture flow depth h
90
,
the later being defined as the flow depth with an air concentration of 90% at the
surface. The term equivalent implies that h
w
= h
90
(1C
a
) is a computed value in
two-phase flow determined analytically with the characteristic mixture flow depth h
90
and the depth-averaged air concentration C
a
.


3.5.1. Attainment of uniform flow

The normalized vertical distance from the spillway crest needed for uniform
flow (subscript u) to be attained increases almost linearly with | and follows the
power formula ([15], {16])

( )
3 2
24
/
sin| ~
c
u
h
w

[9]



3.5.2. Flow depths

The uniform equivalent clear-water depth h
w,u
is given by ([15], [16])

3 1
215 0
/
) (sin .

= |
c
w,u
h
h
. [10]

The ratio h
w,u
/h
c
thus varies exclusively with the chute angle |, independent from s
and q.

The uniform mixture flow depth h
90,u
partly determining the sidewall height
(see 3.8.20) is described by ([15], {16]).


( ) 5 0 .1tan 0 90,
0.50F
.
*
+
=
|
s
h
u
, [11]

where F
*
= q/(g sin| s
3
)
1/2
is the characteristic roughness Froude number. For a
given relative discharge h
c
/s, both h
w,u
and h
90,u
decrease with increasing chute
slope.
214
Q. 94 R. 15


3.6. FRICTION FACTOR


The friction factor of uniform two-phase flow may be used to calculate the flow
velocities and energy heads on relatively long spillways on which uniform flow is
attained, equation [9]. Based on the findings of [16] the bottom roughness friction
factor f
b
on stepped chutes with 19 | 55 and 0.1 < K/D
h,w,u
< 1.0 is approximated
by

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
h,w,u
b
D
K
f
log 25 0 0 1
) 2 sin( 42 0 5 0
1 1
. .
. . |
, [12]

where D
h,w,u
4h
w,u
is the hydraulic diameter of uniform flow in wide rectangular
channels and K = scos| the step roughness perpendicular to the PB. Equation [12]
indicates that the effect of chute angle | is much larger than that of the relative
roughness K/D
h,w,u
. Flow aeration is taken into account using the uniform equivalent
clear-water depth h
w,u.
Also, equation [12] accounts for both a shape correction factor
and a sidewall correction method ([16)].

Interestingly, no difference in friction factors results for stepped chutes with
equal roughness spacing K/L
s
where L
s
=s/sin| = K/(sin|cos|) = 2K/sin(2|) is the
distance between step edges along the pseudo-bottom. For instance, for given s and
q, the friction factor is equal for chutes with | = 40 and | = 50, because sin(240) =
sin(250).


3.7. ENERGY DISSIPATION


Knowledge of the residual kinetic flow energy at the toe of a stepped spillway
is important to design the downstream energy dissipator. The residual head above
the pseudo-bottom at any section along a stepped spillway (Fig. 1), regardless of
uniform or non-uniform flow conditions, is expressed by

2
2
2g
w
w res
h
q
h H o | + = cos
, [13]

where o 1.1 is the energy correction coefficient. To determine the residual energy
heads on stepped chutes, a distinction is made between conditions where uniform
215
Q. 94 R. 15
flow is attained, or not. For uniform flow, i.e. for w/h
c
15 to 20 according to equation
[9], the normalized residual head is expressed by [16]

3 2 3 1
sin 8 2

cos
sin 8
with ,

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
+
=
|
|
|
b b
c
res
f f
F
F
h
w
F
H
H
max
for w/h
c
15 to 20
[141a]

with the friction factor f
b
computed from equation [12]. If the spillway chute is too
short for uniform flow to be attained, the following approximation of [16] [16] based
upon an approach of [17] may be used

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

c h,w
res
h
w
D
K
H
H
8 0
1 0
) (sin 045 0 exp
.
.
max
. |
for w/h
c
< 15 to 20 [14b]


3.8. TRAINING WALL DESIGN


While the local flow depths in the upper portion of a stepped spillway are
mainly governed by a considerable spray formation for small discharges, the uniform
mixture flow depth h
90,u
at design discharge may serve as a guide for the design of
spillway training walls in the aerated or white-water region further downstream,
where considerable aeration leads to flow bulking.


3.8.1. Upper spillway portion

The required training wall (subscript t) heights along the upper chute portion
(subscript 1) h
t,1
where jet deflection causes spray (subscript s) is designed
according to the envelope of spray profiles given by [1] and [18][18]. With the
dimensionless coordinates X
s
=(xx
o
)/(sF
o
) and Z
s
=(h
s,1
h
o
)/(h
s,max
h
o
), where
x
o
= (3s)/sin| is the origin of the spray flow and h
s,1
= spray height due to jet
deflection, the spray profiles follow

Z
s
= [0.65MX
s
exp(10.65MX
s
)]
1/2
for 0<X
s
<1.5 [15]

with M=2 for a chute without aerator and M=1 with a step-aerator. The maximum
spray height h
s,max
is given by ([1], [18])

h
s,max
/h
o
= 6.6(h
c
/s)
-2o
for 0.35<(h
c
/s)
o
<1.5. [16]
216
Q. 94 R. 15

The exponent o=(1+n)
-1/3
accounts for the number n of treated step edges,
see 3.2. Equation [15] indicates that for chutes below a step-aerator, the jet
reattaches further downstream than on standard-stepped chutes without aerator due
to the slightly lifted lower jet trajectory beyond its contact with the step-aerator ([18]).
Note that equations [15] and [16] are applicable for gravity dam chutes with | 50.
A safety factor q should be employed when computing the design training wall height
h
t,1
, such that

h
t
,
1
= qh
s,1
. [17]

Depending on the erosion potential along the chute sidewalls, q = 1.2 for
concrete dams with no concern of erosion of the downstream face and q = 1.5 for
emergency spillways on embankment dams or on valley flanks prone to erosion.


3.8.2. Lower spillway portion

The proposed design height h
t,2
for the training walls along the aerated lower
spillway portion (subscript 2) reads

h
t,2
= qh
90,u
, [18]

again with a safety factor taking into account the erosion potential of the spillway
chute sides as given in 3.8.1 above. Note that equation [18] is valid for the whole
range of spillway angles 19 | 55 and is based upon the skimming flow regime.
For nappe flow, the nappe impact onto the steps may cause a considerable spray
overtopping the training walls designed after [Erreur ! Source du renvoi
introuvable.], so that the sidewalls should be designed according to equations [15]
and [17], see 3.8.1.



217
Q. 94 R. 15
REFERENCES


[1] PFISTER M., HAGER W.H. & MINOR H.-E. Step aerator and spray
reduction for stepped chutes. Proc. 32 IAHR Congress, Venice, 282, pp. 1-
10, 2007.
[2] FALVEY H.T. Cavitation in chutes and spillways. Engineering Monograph
42, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1990.
[3] DREWES U. Oberflchentoleranzen bei Betonschussrinnen im Hinblick auf
Kavitation (Tolerances of concrete surfaces in spillway chutes with regard
to cavitation). VAW-Mitteilung 99 (D. Vischer, ed.), ETH Zurich, pp. 11-33,
1988 (in German).
[4] Pfister M., HAGER W.H. & MINOR H.-E. Bottom aeration of stepped
spillways. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 132(8), pp. 850-853, 2006.
[5] FRIZELL K.H., MEFFORD, B.W. Designing spillways to prevent cavitation
damage. Concrete International 13(5), pp. 58-64, 1991.
[6] ARNDT R.E.A., IPPEN A.T. Rough surface effects on cavitation inception.
ASME Journal of Basic Engineering 9(3), pp. 249261, 1968.
[7] FRIZELL K.H., RENNA F.M. Laboratory studies on the cavitation potential
of stepped spillways. Proc. 34 IAHR Congress, Brisbane, pp. 2420-2427,
2011.
[8] BOES R.M., HAGER W.H. Two-phase flow characteristics of stepped
spillways. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(9), pp. 661-670, 2003.
[9] RASMUSSEN R.E.H. Some experiments on cavitation erosion in water
mixed with air. Intl. Symposium Cavitation in Hydrodynamics 20, pp. 1-25,
National Physical Laboratory, London, 1956.
[10] PFISTER M., HAGER W.H. & MINOR H.-E. Stepped chutes: Pre-aeration
and spray reduction. Intl. Journal of Multiphase Flow 32(2), pp. 269-284,
2006.
[11] Hydraulic Design of Spillways, Technical Engineering and Design Guides,
as adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 12, ASCE, 1995.
[12] MATEOS IGUCEL C., ELVIRO GARCIA V. Stepped spillways. Design for
the transition between the spillway crest and the steps. Proc. HYDRA 2000
London UK (D.A. Ervine, ed.): 1(1B11), pp. 260-265. Thomas Telford,
London UK, 1995.
[13] PFISTER M. Effect of control section on stepped spillway flow. Proc. 33
IAHR Congress Vancouver 10229, pp. 1964-1971, 2009.
[14] BIERI M., LEITE RIBEIRO M., BOILLAT J.-L., SCHLEISS A., LAUGIER F.,
LOCHU A., DELORME F., VILLARD J.-F. Rhabilitation de la capacit
dvacuation des crues intgration de PK-Weir sur des barrages existants
(Rehabilitation of the spillway capacity integration of PK weir on existing
dams). Proc. Colloque CFBR-SHF Dimensionnement et fonctionnement
des vacuateurs de crues (CD-ROM), Paris, 2009 (in French).
218
Q. 94 R. 15
[15] BOES R.M., MINOR H.-E. Hydraulic design of stepped spillways for RCC
Dams. Hydropower & Dams 9(3), pp. 87-91, 2002.
[16] BOES R.M., HAGER W.H. Hydraulic design of stepped spillways. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 129(9), pp. 671-679, 2003.
[17] CHANSON H. Hydraulic design of stepped cascades, channels, weirs and
spillways. Pergamon, Oxford UK, 1994.
[18] SCHIESS ZAMORA A., PFISTER M., HAGER W.H., Minor H.-E. Hydraulic
performance of step aerator. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 134(2), pp.
127-134, 2008.
[19] SCHIESS ZAMORA A., PFISTER M., HAGER W.H., MINOR H.-E. Closure
to Hydraulic performance of step aerator. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
135(7), pp. 621-622, 2009.
[20] PFISTER M., HAGER W.H., MINOR H.-E. Closure to Bottom aeration of
stepped spillways. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 134(8), pp. 1183-1185,
2008.
[21] YASUDA Y., OHTSU I. Flow resistance of skimming flows in stepped
channels. Proc. 28 IAHR Congress Graz (H. Bergmann, R. Krainer, H.
Breinhlter, eds.), CD-ROM, Theme B14, 1999.
[22] MATOS J., SNCHEZ M., QUINTELA A., Dolz J. Air entrainment and safety
against cavitation damage in stepped spillways over RCC dams. Proc. Intl.
Workshop on Hydraulics of Stepped Spillways VAW, ETH Zurich (H.-E.
Minor, W.H. Hager, eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 69-76, 2000.



SUMMARY


Stepped spillways are commonly used as a flood evacuating structure at dams
combining spillway chute and energy dissipator. Most stepped chutes have been
limited to design unit discharges of some 30 m
2
/s due to risk of cavitation damage.
For high design floods this requires wide spillway structures. Therefore, as a rather
recent measure to increase the applicability of stepped chutes to higher unit
discharge, aerators have been developed to artificially entrain air into the flow
upstream of the inception point of free surface air entrainment. This paper discusses
the need to apply these aerators and presents general design recommendations.
Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis of the flow features of stepped chutes is
presented together with design guidelines for the hydraulic and structural layout of a
stepped spillway, including the aspects of: control structure and measures to limit
spray height along the chute, flow regimes and air inception characteristics, uniform
flow features, friction factor and energy dissipation as well as design of training walls.


219
Q. 94 R. 15

RSUM


Les vacuateurs de crue en marches descalier sont actuellement souvent
utiliss comme ouvrages dvacuation de crues combinant le coursier et le
dissipateur dnergie. La plupart de ces vacuateurs de surface ont t limits des
dbits spcifiques denviron 30 m
2
/s en raison des risques de dgts dus la
cavitation. Ceci ncessite des coursiers larges pour des dbits de crue importants.
Des arateurs de marche ont donc t rcemment dvelopps pour entraner de lair
dans lcoulement en amont du point dentranement dair de la surface deau, afin
damliorer lapplicabilit des vacuateurs de crue en marches descalier des
dbits spcifiques plus levs. Dans cet article, lopportunit dappliquer de tels
arateurs est discute et des recommandations de dimensionnement sont donnes.
De plus, une analyse dtaille des phnomnes dcoulement sur des vacuateurs
en marches, ainsi quun guide de dimensionnement la fois hydraulique et
structurel, sont prsents. Les aspects suivants sont abords: ouvrage de contrle
et mesures pour limiter la hauteur de spray le long du coursier, rgimes
dcoulement et caractristiques de lentranement dair ainsi que de lcoulement
uniforme du mlange eau-air, coefficient de frottement et dissipation dnergie,
dimensionnement des parois latrales.


220