UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE FOSS DAM

RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

FOSS DIVISION--WAS HlTA BASIN PROJECT--OKLA HOMA

Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-466

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING LABORATORIES

J.
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
DENVER, COLORADO

August 23, 1960

 CONTENTS

Page
Purpose of the Study
Conclusions . • • •
.
•
•
.
.. ................
. ... .. .. . . .. . . . . . . 1
1
........
. . . . . . . . . . . . ........
Introduction . • • . • •
The Investigation • . • . ....... 2
3

The Model . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Preliminary Basin Operation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4
Horseshoe Tunnel Floor • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • 4
Chute Floor Pressures • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4
Basin Sweepout and Predicated Degradation. • • • • • • • • • 4
Baffle Piers. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Conjugate Depth Control Piers. • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • 5
Apron Flow Spreaders and End Sills • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6
Recommended Design ......... ...... . ..... 7
Changes and Relocations for Construction. . . . . . . . . . . 7
Operation-Rec ommended Design • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . 8
Spillway Stilling Basin . • • • • • • . • . . . . . . . . . . 8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
Location Map . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Plan and Sections . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
Preliminary Model. . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
Preliminary Design • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • 4
Pressures on Chute Floor. • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5
Tailwater and Sweepout Curves • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 6
Conjugate Depth Control Piers (Preliminary) • • • • • • • • • • • 7
Operation with Initial Control Piers • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8
Sloping Apron, No End Sill, One Gate Operation. • • • • • • • • • 9
Sloping Apron, No End Sill, High Tailwater and Scour • • • • • • • 10
Sloping Apron, No End Sill, Low Tailwater and Scour • • • • . • • 11
Sloping Apron, With End Sill, Scour. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. 12
Level Apron, Low Tailwater and Scour. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13
Recommended Design. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14
Recommended Design, High Tailwater and Scour • • • • • • • • • 15
Recommended Design, Low Tailwater and Scour. • • • • • • • • • 16
Spillway Stilling Basin Flow, High and Low Tailwater • • • • • • • 17
 UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Commissioner's Office, Denver Laboratory Report No. HYD-466
Division of Engineering Laboratories Compiled by: D. Colgate
Hydraulic Laboratory Branch Checked by: W. E. Wagner
Hydraulic Structures and. Equipment· Reviewed by: J. W. Ball
Section
Denver, Colorado Submitted by: H. M. Martin

Subject: Hydraulic model studies of the Foss Dam River Outlet Works
Stilling Basin--Foss Division--Washita Basin Project,
Oklahoma
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study was made to determine a design for the Foss Dam River Out-
let Works stilling basin which would maintain the hydraulic jump within
the basin between two extremes of tail-water elevations: a relatively.
high tailwater· expected during initial operation, and a 15-foot lower
tailwater anticipated after seventy-three years degradation of the river-
bed downstream from the basin.

CONCLUSIONS
1. A floor 1 foot higher at the center than at the walls of the tunnel
(Figure 14) improved the flow distribution in the tunnel during 1-gate
operation. For normal 2-gate operation, this ridge .decreased the tend-
ency for the flow to concentrate in the center of the chute and basin.
2. The pressures on the parabolic chute floor are satisfactory through-
out the full range of discharges and tail-water elevations. A minimum
pressure of about 1-1/2 feet below atmospheric (Figure 5 B) was re-
corded for the maximum discharge and low tail water.
3. Conjugate depth control piers are required to maintain the hydraulic
jump in the stilling basin at low tail water. The control piers shown in
Figure 14 will maintain a good jump in the basin for any discharge
throughout the full range of anticipated tail-water elevations.
4. Baffle piers 7-feet high placed 23-feet downstream from the chute
blocks (Figure 14) will stabilize the hydraulic jump.
5. A level apron downstream from the conjugate depth control piers
(Figure 14) is an improvement over the sloping apron of the preliminary
design. The level apron presents a larger flow area, and consequently
lower velocities and less tendency to scour where the stream enters the
unlined canal.
 6, Three flow spreaders on the apron (Figure 14) distribute the flow
uniformly across the basin exit during outlet works releases with low-
tail water,
, 7·. An end' sill as shown in Figure 14 will aid in preventing scour at the
downstream end of the apron.
8, The outlet works stilling basin arrangemen t as shown in Figure 14
will adequately handle the maximum outlet works discharge at maximum
tail water or at any lowered tail water.

INTRODUC TION
Foss Dam on the Washita River, about 12 miles west of Clinton, Okla-
homa, (Figure 1), is an earthfill structure about 18: 000 feet long, 152
feet high above the foundation trenches, and has a crest at elevation
1697, 0, The river outlet works and the spillway are located at the right
abutment of the dam; the canal outlet works and the municipal outlet
works are located 525 feet to the left in the river outlet works.
This model study was initiated primarily to investigate the river outlet
works stilling basin.
The flow passage for the river outlet works consists of an intake struc-
ture, 312-feet of 11-foot-dia meter conduit to the gate chamber, two 6-
by 7-foot 6-inch high pressure control gates with two guard gates the
same size in the control structure, and a single 13-1 / 2-foot high by 15-
foot wide modified horseshoe conduit extending 295. 3 feet from the gate
chamber t<;> ,the stilling basin. The outlet works discharge channel joins
the; spillway channel about 150 feet downstream from the outlet works
stilling basin. (Figure 2)

The river outlet works is capable of discharging about 3, 500 cfs at

normal reservoir elevation 1652. 0, and about 3860 cfs at reservoir
elevation 1668, 6, the elevation of the spillway crest. The river outlet
works will operate simultaneo usly with the spillway during flood re-
leases to handle the maximum design flood of 7,460 cfs at reservoir
elevation 1691. 0 with 3,050 cfs released through the spillway and the
remainder~ .4, 410. cfs,. through the river outlet works.
The. riverbed downstream from Foss Dam consists of fine sand and clay.
Clear water-relea ses· from the reservoir is expected to move large
quantities of this fine material. The resulting degradation of the river
channel is expected to lower the tail~water elevation for the spillway
and the river outlet works as much as 15 feet. This model study was
made to develop a stiiling basin which would:

1. Provide adequate stilling action for the maximum river outlet

works release-of 4,410 cfs at high tail-water elevation 1581. 3, without
. overtopping the training wall.

2
 2. Retain an adequate hydraulic jump in the stilling basin after
river degradation lowers the. tail water as much as 15 feet,· and,

3. Keep the scour at the downstream end of the stilling basin to a

minimum to prevent undercutting and endangering the structure.

The design of the outlet works control structure was not a part of this
study.
The spillway stilling basin will be identical to the outlet works stilling
basin, and at the same elevation (Figure 2). Although there is a slightly
different approach to the two basins, it was felt that since the spillway
will discharge only about 41 percent of the maximum design flood, the
stilling basin design proven satisfactory for the outlet works will be
satisfactory for the spillway.

THE INVESTIGATIO N
The Model
The 1 :1_5 scale model (Figure 3) included a simplified control chamber
to simulate prototype discharges, the horseshoe tunnel without the tun-
nel roof, the stilling basin, and a tail box 10 feet wide and 16 feet long
which contained an erodible sand bed, a tail-water control gate. and a
sand trap. The 6- by 7-foot 6-inch control gates were not included in
the model because no hydraulic problems are anticipated in this portion
of the structure. Instead, streamlined-co ntrol gates were used in the
model to provide the proper depth and distribution of flow for 1 or 2-
gate operation at the entrance to the modified horseshoe tunnel. It was
felt that the development of a basin which would operate satisfactorily
over the large range of predicted tail-water elevations would be accom-
plished by progressive model changes. therefore, no attempt was made
to incorporate conjugate depth control features in the preliminary
design.
Principal prototype dimensions of the preliminary stilling basin in- ·
eluded the following:
The floor of the modified horseshoe tunnel was flat in cross section and
on a longitudinal slope of S = 0. 02. The chute floor followed the parab-
ola, x 2 = -181. 779y, from elevation 1568. 25 at the end of the horseshoe
tunnel to elevation 1557. 54 at the basin floor~ The basin floor ·was level
for 76 feet, then sloped upward to elevation 1565 in 29. 9 feet. The walls
of the basin diverged from 15 feet apart at fhe end of the horseshoe tun-
nel to the 25-foot width of the basin at the end of the chute, were parallel
through the 95-foot basin, and then diverged to a spacing of 43 feet at the
end of the upward sloping apron. The design basin included 4 chute
blocks and 3 baffle piers. The prototype dimensions were reduced by
the factor of 1:15 in constructing the model.

3
Instrumentation included a point gage for tail-water elevation measure-
ments, the laboratory venturi meters for discharge determinations, and
a manometer board for determining the pressures at eight piezometer
taps along the center line of the parabolic chute floor.

Preliminary Basin Operation

The preliminary basin was operated over a large range of discharges

and tail-water elevations. For two-gate operation the jet was not uni-
formly distributed across the chute, having more water at the chute
center· line than near the sides. This caused the jump roller to build up
in the center of the basin and oscillate from side-to-side. Figure 4
shows the preliminary basin arrangement dry, and with a discharge of
3,860 cfs. -Note the jet concentration at the chute center line and the
roll buildup at the left training wall in Figure 4B. For one-gate operation
with maximum reservoir, the stream crossed to the opposite side of the
tunnel, then back across the tunne 1 to concentrate on the side wall of the
chute and create a rough jump in the basin.

Horseshoe Tunnel Floor

Previous experience has shown that raising the tunnel floor along the
center line and sloping it downward to the walls will aid in distributing
. the flow for one gate operation in a two-gate system. It appeared that
such a design would also be beneficial in producing a more uniform
flow at the chute for two-gate operation. Therefore, the tunnel floor
·.was sloped downward to the walls from a 1-foot rise at the tunnel center
line~ This change produced the desired effect and was incorporated in
the recommended design (Figure 14).

Chute Floor ~ressures

· The pressures on the preliminary design chute floor (with the revised
tunnel floor) were satisfactory for all heads and discharges (Figures 5A
and 5B). The lowest pressure recorded was about 1-1/2 feet of water
below atmospheric when the system was discharging 4, 410 cfs under a
h~ad of 120 feet. The chute with the floor following the parabola,
X = -181. 779y, was retained for the recommended design.

Basin Sweepout and Predicted Degradation

Studies w.ere made to determine the sweepout characteristics of the

preliminary stilling basin for a range of discharges. Results of these
studies are shown in Figure 6, where the sweepout curve is plotted for
comparison with the computed tail water elevations versus river dis-
charge for both the present river conditions and after degradation has
taken place. These results show that the hydraulic jump will remain in
the basin for all discharges with the relatively high tail water predicted
for the -present riyer condition. However, at a discharge of 4,000 cfs,
with the tail water lowered one foot, the hydraulic jump swept from the
outlet works stilling basin. The need for some type of conjugate depth
control to force the hydraulic jump to remain in the basin after a few
years degradation was evident.

4
Baffle Piers

During the tests concerning the conjugate depth control piers (discussed
in the following section of this report) it was noted that the hydraulic
jump was rough, with distinct side-to-side oscillation, in the vicinity of
the baffle piers. To minimize this tendency and stabilize the jump, the
4. 5-foot high baffle piers were increased in height to 7 feet. The pier
width and spacing of the preliminary design was retained. This modi-
fication stabilized and improved the appearance of the jump when used
in conjunction with conjugate depth control piers. The 7-foot high baffle
piers are recommended, Figure 14. Subsequent tests with the conjugate
depth control piers disclosed that the upstream face of the baffle piers
should be placed 23 feet downstream from the chute blocks for optimum
operation.

Conjugate Depth Control Piers

With the velocities and depth expected for the river outlet works at Foss
Dam, the computed length of a Type III stilling basin is 84 feet. The
length for the preliminary design basin was 125 feet in anticipation that
some type of conjugate depth control appurtenance would be installed
about 85 feet from the beginning of the basin. The extra basin length
would provide a concrete-lined flow passage downstream from the con-
trol for protection of the structure. Design required that the maximum
expected flood would not overtop the training walls when the tail water
was high, and the basin would not sweep out when the tail water was low.
For the initial test, two rectangular control piers were installed at
Station 13+05, 85 feet from the end of the chute. These control piers,
18 feet high and 5 feet wide, were placed 5 feet apart and equidistant
from the training walls. The upstream faces of the control piers were
in a plane perpendicular to the basin floor and sidewalls (Figure 7A).
With these piers installed and with a maximum flow of 4,410 cfs and the
initial high tail water, the water surface above the control piers reached
about elevation 1583 or 5 feet below the tops of the training walls. The
jump swept out when the tail water was lowered about 9 feet to elevation
1572. This sweepout condition indicated that the control piers did not
offer sufficient resistance to the flow.

For structural stability, the piers should be triangular in front eleva-

tion with substantial buttresses downstream since the section would have
to be quite large to retain the jump in the basin. Conjugate depth control
piers shown in Figure 7B were installed at Station 13+05. This made
two piers joined at the bottom corners, each 15 feet high, 5 feet wide
on top, and 10-1/2 feet wide at the bottom. With a discharge of 4,410
cfs and high tail water, the flow did not overtop the training walls (Fig-
ure 8A), but again the basin swept out with lowered tail water (Figure
8B). The test was repeated using the larger baffle piers discussed in
the previous section of this report. For maximum discharge and high
tail water the jump appeared more stable, and swept out at about tail-
water elevation 1570, or 1/2 foot lower than with the smaller preliminary

5
design baffle piers. For all subsequent tests the larger baffle piers
were used.

Triangular-shaped conjugate depth control piers of various heights,

widths, spacing, and locations in the basin were tested. Piers 17 feet
high and with a frontal area of 260 square feet seemed optimum. The
most desirable location, hydraulically, of the baffle piers and the con-
trol piers was to place the baffle piers 23 feet downstream from the
chute blocks and the conjugate depth control piers 60 feet downstream
from the baffle piers. With this placement of the appurtenances the
basin operated satisfactorily for all discharges and tail-water eleva-
tions. The buttresses holding the control piers were made 12 feet long
to terminate at a construction joint in the basin floor. The recommended
shape and location of the control piers, and the placement of the baffle
piers, are shown in Figure 14.

Apron Flow Spreaders and End Sills

The stilling basin with the baffle piers and conjugate depth control piers
will satisfactorily handle any discharge independent of any predictable
downstream tail water. The remaining problem concerned scour at the
downstream end of the apron. With the preliminary design apron this
scour was severe with maximum discharge and high tail water; with max-
imum discharge and low-tail water, much of the cutoff wall at the down-
stream end of the apron was exposed.

It appeared that some type of piers or baffles installed on the apron and
in line with the three openings through the control piers would spread
the flow and break up the jets sufficiently to aid in preventing scour.
Three such appurtenances, referred to here as "flow spreaders," were
installed on the sloping apron in the model. Each flow spreader was 20
feet long, 4 feet wide, and 8. 5 feet high at the vertical upstream face,
anci with the top sloped downward from the upstream face to the down-
stream end of the apron (Figure 9A). This design was first tested with
one gate fully opened and discharging about 2, 200 cfs. The tailwater-
was lowered to elevation 1567, about 7 feetbelowthe initial high tail
water. The hydraulic action in the horseshoe tunnel and in the stilling
basin was quite satisfactory (Figure 9B), and the scour downstream was
nominal.

The ,basin was next tested with maximum discharge, 4, 410 cfs, and tail-
water elevation 1581. 3 (Figure l0A). Scour for this flow condition was
not too severe (Figure l0B). The test was repeated with the tail water
lowered to elevation 1568 (Figure llA). Appreciable scour occurred
during this test; the cutoff wall at the downstream end of the apron was
exposed to a depth of about 5 feet (Figure llB). An end sill was added
between the flow spreaders (Figure 12) to deflect the high velocity flow
upward and away from the cutoff wall. However. the water depth at the
end sill was only about 13 feet for high tail water and 5 feet for low tail
. water, making the average stream velocity here relatively high. Scour
downstream from the end sill was extensive with the maximum discharge
for either high or low tail water (Figures 12A and 12B).

6
The sloping apron was removed and replaced with one extending level
from the stilling basin floor. This change made a larger flow area,
thereby reducing the velocity at the downstream end of the basin. Since
the water surface over the flow spreaders in the previous design appeared
satisfactory, the tops of the three new spreaders were held at about the
same elevation as that of the previous ones. Figure 13A shows the basin
with level apron and three flow spreaders discharging 4, 410 cfs with
tail-water elevation 1568. Figure 13B shows that the scour was not too
severe near the cutoff wall, but was about 8 feet deep 25 feet downstream.
It appeared, from the pattern of the scour, that the addition of an end sill
would minimize the scour for the condition of low tail water. Tests made
with an end sill added to the model showed that the scour was nominal
for all conditions of discharge and tail-water elevations.

RECOMMENDED DESIGN
Changes and Relocations for Construction

The features of an acceptable stilling basin for the river outlet works
had been developed by this model study; however, a few minor changes
in the basic stilling basin design were made to aid in construction and to
reduce excavation. It appeared that these change,a would not affect the
hydraulic operation.

The following changes from the preliminary design were made:

1. The entire basin was moved upstream about 12 feet.

2. The length of the diverging portion of the chute was increased
from 54 feet to 67 feet.

3. The upstream end of the diverging portion of the chute was

moved 25. 0 6 feet upstream into the tunne 1.

4. The width at the downstream end of the apron was decreased

from 43 feet to 40 feet.

5. The apron length was increased from 29. 9 feet to 30. 5 feet.
The following dimensions or locations of the preliminary design re-
mained unchanged:

1. The tunnel portal Station of 11+66.

2. The equation of the chute floor x2 = -181. 779y.

3. The size and relative location of the chute blocks.

4. The basin length of 95 feet from the end of the diverging chute
to the apron.

7
 5, The basin width of 25 feet.

6. The top of the training walls, elevation 1588.

The above-ment ioned unchanged portions of the stilling basin, and those
portions subjected to minor changes, together with the necessary fea-
tures determined by model study, constitute the recommend ed design
and is shown in Figure 14.

Operation-R ecommende d Design

At maximum discharge, 4,410 cfs, and the highest expected tail-water,
elevation 1581. 3, the operation of the recommend ed stilling basin was
satisfactor y (Figure 15A). The highest portion of the jump roller in the
basin was about 1 foot below the top of the training wall (Figure 14).
Scour downstream from the apron for high-tail water was negligible
(Figure 15B).

To determine the stilling basin operation for various tail-water eleva-

tions, the outlet works discharge was set at 4, 410 cfs with high-tail
water. The tail water was then lowered slowly to the minimum expected
tail water. As the tail water was lowered, the water surface in the
basin lowered until, at tail-water elevation 1573 a stable water surface
was established in the basin forming a profile as shown for low tail
water in Figure 14. Further lowering of the tail water in the river
channel had no effect on the conjugate depth in the basin. The water
surface in the river channel was dropped to elevation 1568, approxi-
mately the minimum tail water expected after degradation of the river
channel (Figure 16A). Scour with this operating condition was slight
(Figure 16B), and the design was considered adequate to prevent exces-
sive scour in the outlet channel.

Various combinatio ns of discharge and tail-water elevations were tested,

including single-gate operation, and in all cases the appearance of the
flow was satisfactor y and the scour slight.

Spillway Stilling Basin

Except for tµe chute, the Foss Dam spillway stilling basin was identical
to the outlet works basin in size, shape, and elevations, thus its ade-
quacy was checked on the outlet model. The expected maximum spill-
way discharge was 3, 050 cfs, or about 70 percent of the maximum for
the outlet works. The spillway flow entered the stilling basin from a
chute on a 2:1 slope. The maximum spillway flow was discharged
through the outlet works stilling basin (Figures 17 A and 17B), and ap-
peared-sati sfactory over the full range of tail-water elevations. The
sweepout curve for the preliminar y design is shown on Figure 5. The
jump could not be _swept from the recommend ed basin, regardless of
tail-water elevation.

8
 FIGURE I
REPPRJ ttYb~ ~66
:~A.26W.
•• •• 23 l2~ 21

E L L s

KEY MAP

EXPLANA TION
(VICINITY MAP ONLY l

- ROCK DEPOSITS
SECTIONS 24 AND 25 T, 6 N., R. 14 W. - KIOWA CO,
2 SECTIONS II AND 12, T. 5 N., R.15 W. - KIOWA CO.
3 RICHARDS SPUR - COMANCHE CO.
4 SECTION 19, T. 5 N,, R, 12 W. - CADDO CO,
5 SECTION 31, T, 6 N., R.20W, - GREER CO,
8 SECTION 27, T. 5 N., R.20W, - KIOWA CO.

A M

.N"

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

tl BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT
FOSS DIVISION-OKL AHOMA

FOSS DAM
10 ,. 20 LOCATION MAP
SCALE OF MILES

T,.S,f :;:.,::::::~'.~'.~:_·::_·:~==~::«:~~~:-·:~~~-
T E X CHll:CK£Dt1B_,.ff-,_" !·_ _ ___ -~,.__.,_.,_..,_..........
ST COMM. AND CH
 FIGURE 2
REf»ORT HYD. 466
ADDED REFERENCE ~W1'1itf$. GHAN.ED

,-f x 2f' Brass or STATIONS AND £1,.EVATIONS

.J( " t Conduit-· -- --.,

1 / stliinless steel
carriage bolt
2;:, .----Axis of dam
............... "i N. 6° 30' E. n6-conduit floor

rE/.1660.012,
"'

~
'
) ~
qj ~,_

d= 15°30'
R= JOO'
T= 13.61'
L= 27.05'
DETAIL X
Settlement point
li~
. .
.
;)/---specially compacted
. . . ..
..
......:..
earth fill

·-1 ,,,.,

' I
,.---€ River outlet works
~µ,- . ! s.18°oo'E. . ··.v:_:. -----J.----Settlement ·faint.

·= ~ ---~l.:+_____ , , , ,
0
-· ,,,.,./
'2 See deta1 X
o-
- -~
Pl. Sta. 4 +63 ': -~-kt-====-
', - - -
_, -.: ·

d = 4-0"0d: El. 1624.50 -, , ,--E Spillway

R. = 60' :------- ......._~
T = 21.84-' \
L = 4-l 89'J Gate chamber-
~-c._--
\--Outlet works ,., , ~
;:: Max.
,."p_"
s L>-
2:1--' Sta. 8•65.20 ~ ITOOr--,--,--,--,----::;.::..:::.:;.:::.:.::;:.:.:.::...;~- _.. -Type "8' rubber s E oT I ON A-A
198 34804 N j ,--Spi //way ,
---
~li~!:1-Siisi~
l,64~,287.80 E·. waters top
w 16ao --tf,----·--r-__:__+------b -.c-+-+--1-LJ
~

.·. , -tiit:'··~·
1660 --~-----

~ '-'--Crest El. 1668.6

<n 1640t------t--~--L-- L-- J ..:.,. l°'
"'"' l 1\ , -
; 1620 -r 1 r---- I ks--
(Sill ~I 159720 I' i ' , I
!!;
0
>
0:
,.ocb ___ ,.i I
1000
1 ."'f'
2000
DISCHARGE (C.F.S l
3000 4000 ,.r "' r _-w6o9 45 +
"'

~+t2m~&1~:~w1·
U)

"'"' RIVER OUTLET WORKS AND

SPILLWAY DISCHARGE CURVES

SEOTION F-F
"'
~

~~;tr·······1-\,~(l)·~
v~ '\~.·. SEOTION
:--;-1-
-:18"~
B-B

''~s·~a't><
.....s-.,.0

PLAN
'~${~,-
Specially compacted _i :·_·o::
..,
-"---t&d~ c
~.L! ..
;': ~;--
--:-;-1
'
j\l O :i .--·'Type"B"rubber
waterstop

"" 100 200

earth fill·--------- ;t , .:;/- Radius constant
in upper half-------
SCALE OF FEET L -- : : i
~
,Radius varies from
o- O>< ,._,,. _,· ·-: ·'I"' · · · · · ':~~~:
.,j:' , "t .
EInlet struc!_u!_e______ --'1I EJ./697.0--
-Crest El. 1668.6
•···,
. !
- - • - - - •. A, is of dom, ,,,,,.,,,
Sta. 2. 54.47 . . \-41Gr"""- .
for lower
/F --Uniform
t "'"""'"'
half o c section
tt~ngoniidtcross
T ,--
Lil ~ITI 20L
I •'I<--------
/2~
. ,_ ,• - . -----
"''--+-----T,
O,-.N ·. · I L.J I· 0 , .• 4-9 o zero in
lower half

.... _,, ~ ,,,...-··.,.,,,.,.,

'I

.• . Begm ,.,,.. •• ro ,~ ' f """' D

51'. ••OO ·· ~,,... , t-, •
'". --- ---- --- --- ,-•.J 'i ~,_,,., (~,./;I,,.m',e,t_
';'&;"" ' - SE 0
' ,.,..,, "· "" ~---..
••.,,," ,-- ---· ' -- ---- ---<> ,~,,, "'"'"
--- -<--,.,.,.
------------- ----------
. ,..._~,, ,~' +....-n ""·"'
----- . . !, i ,, "'".
,. 1/: __ SEOTION G-G

·-~ ,,
NOTES
,,,,, "=-
'(. ,,_,,,,------c~
" - " surface
, i, /'"<';. ; ..,,,.,,....,,.,,,"\,.,,,,•,..,,._,-,...,."\·'"·N,,.,_~:l I: , SEO Tl ON E-E Concrete in all 4-6" conduit closure sections shall
t ,o ... ___,.
/nE(l,,,;
.
. ,\,
~~.--,,- ' ,,,....
I , ,
..,,_,,. ·-.,..... ,,,_., ,
:! /,
•
/! ii , , II ,
__
,I , :,,. .,.,.sta. 8+06.50
; ,·EJ./582.00
ri----- ,,--T. W El. 1581 far
not be placed until 10 days after placing adjacent
sections.
/ , " 'S,,.,,d P,,le<tiw .,,,r;"'J ro .. 'PPhed G il,__,,er,:•;,,,
i : ·
:_'L_ --1:. 0 = 7610 C. fs.
REFEREN06 DRA 'WINGS
,;, to finished excavated shale surfaces .,-·-El. /565.0 RIVER OUTLET WORKS INTAKE STRUCTURE ________________854-D-70
f.. .. ---.... -- ·---- ---s,tt._t ,o,t, @ '5'-o' a,.-- ----- - - - . . - - ---- --->J E

~~r ,fi,~'~-" ;t;,fflJ\)];

ON CONDUIT REINFORCEMENT ___ .__________________ _______ 1154 -D-69

. •o IOO
;;
1lil
i:
Mox. WS. El./691.0---- -.,
SPILLWAY-PROFIL E ,:Drains
not shown
,--r.
·---sta. 7 + 76
·------3' Riprap_ on
18' bedding
GATE CHAMBER ___ - - ---- ______________________ _____654- D-72

SCALE OF FEET
Top of flood control pool El/668-6-,
Top of conservation storage EJ./652.0,\ '\,
;11[:,;;1~~1~ :_~~-~=~~~~~~~-~~:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_::;::g:~
5
SPILLWAY INLET STRUCTURE __________________ ________ 854- D-62
._ Shaft house------'7LJ f-<--·--·-:;-~---------------Axis
of dam, outlet CONDUIT REINFORCEMENT. ____________________ _____ 1154 - D-93
'\ ~ '--EJ.1697.0 works Sta. 8• 65.W STILLING BAS/N ____________________________ ___ 654-0-64 8 65
-·c:·_;q: .. ~ .
-=- = -- GENERAL CONCRETE OUTLINE NOTES ___________________ 40-D-551K)
SPILLWAY- SURFACE ORA/NS _______________________ B54--D-ll3

~-----£ Intake strutture \ -~ Closure

UNJTED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
· Sta.5•00 ~ S h a f t and gate : · ,----Two-6'0''x7'-6"H.P gates(emerge!!_cy} BUREAU OF RE CL.AMA TION

Channel chamber Sta.8•44-' ,, ,---Two-6'0''X7"6"HPgates(regulating} WASHITA BASIN PROJECT

FOSS DIVIS/ON - OKLAHOMA
EJ.1575.0\ (Sill, El./597.2
)\.v,.:~;;-,.-:-::::,.------:12
I I
Cutoff collars@ 2J'-O"crsc--
-
, ,.--·Sta. 13 +33.50 FOSS DAM
I I S.=0.0/964::------- /'.,,..--,_..,,,/ ~EJ.1582.00 ,,---T.W El. 158/ for RIVER OUTLET WORKS ANO SPILLWAY
•
.
1 ---
;::;,.r,;;;rr ------ -... .... 1-.b- ~ O= 7610 c.fs. PLAN AND SEOTIONS
£/. /565.0·,
• IF"; ,:, -, ·:1' :·: 6•, .::• ,,):: 2 . ,:• •:, •, .,:• 'i.J" ....---;r:, -
6·6-l.\,i--2 -6>11i-26-o~A:+ 9'-~1i--26'6!i1'"26'6'1~'-26'6 1~-6"•!"\Et/5
.,-4,I DRAWN _____ t!.,_4,.,ti.,_ ______ S U B M I T T E D - a ? J ' / / . ~ - ______ _

lnve'r·~ .. · · .- ' ,->-l•-:-4!..6!'··~

8
"11i-lf6'6'-l,;
_ _ ... , /
1
"---4'-6!-· \._4'-6!~) ~--4'-6~-- ~~-4!.p!!{'r<-\ ' v--3' Rif.rap on TRACED- --- _If..]",.~... ---- __RECOMMENDED_ - _tg.!.:l__~ - --------1
EJ.l5T5.00 / 4 f< -f -----Settlement points @25'-o"crs,--------->; 23'6'\-<- ; k-, I8 bedding /8!!.~ OHEOKl!D_,/f'l/£?!!_42:..APPR OVED ____~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - -
OH/61'" 1.aieNtN. 6N.IN66"
Sta. 5•26---- ,1>:13• 'Sprayed protective coating to be applied Sta.8• 12----' 1
'·-Sta. I 3+03 SEOTION D-0 DENVER, COL.ORADO,MARCH 111, ,ses
854-D-9
to finished excavated shale surfaces RIVER OUTLET ON£
.
=
r--16.2 •• ..,I :-:I Nt
\ J
I
I
r~~
-~

"'
!l!
=
"'.......
=q
N
.-·tf' I
I

~=
AL -r-· ----.1-+---=~ II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fl'- -- - 1 '
l
a::::r;ll'!-.:. ----·~ _ __,___
I
"f · o-+-
I
I o
~-:::-....
~ 1
=
_jI
A
I I - I

J I Lu' I
I
I : I
Central pier--·-'
::b.,
•• I \ \
"'"'! ~:.:-7.l f ..

d
Toilbox 10' wide x 16 1 long------
Note: Stations and-elevations shown ore
prototype dimensions, a II other PLAN
dimensions ore model. ,:.:::_
.~~~::,,

,,--2 - Control gates

---24.0~- ----le------- -180. 0.-----1-------t'--- ------43:2 ·-------- -----1<------- - --- - - --- ---- 76. 0 ·------- -- - ------ -- ___ _..,___ -- -23.9~----""'

I I I -~• c1
a I I I
-----48.0 ··-·---j : I i
~ .~ iI ,_,:··'""
, , Sto.11+78.1 ! -St, ,, ..,. "·""·":--,. i
,.. ----.1~ . o
P.C.
• 1 El. 1568.01
. _,.-Sto.13+44.9
7 ~j _ ::: Ei.1568.25--- 1 ' ----22.0 '---..., .-Sta .13 + 15
=l(l -li'~-1.125' El.1565.0-••
u, ,,
t\. l'l "
_,...12'Gote valve ·s1ape =0,02 \..;<··I"\. El.1557.54-,_ f~:;::.--_':-::~:;,:-.::.:.:-'-::::;
\.
8 -Piezometer tops, 3.o' centers on ~ chute-··/ '--x 2 - 145.423V :...~4.75"
( inches model)
\
'12' Dia. pipe SECTION A-A
A
>,
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA

...
CL
::,
FOSS DIVISION
FOSS DAM "'i:1-n
<JI o-
>IG)
PRELIMINARY MODEL INSTALLATION -<c
:,::U
RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN ~fT1
MODEL SCALE 1:15 ;\';(>I
en
 FIGURE 4
REPORT HYD 466

A. No flow

B. Q = 3860, TW = el 1578. 6

WASIDTA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

Preliminary Design
FIGURE 5
REPORT HYD 466

A. For Q = 3300 cfs, TW Elev 1577. 6

B. For Q = 4410 cfs, TW Elev 1581. 3

WASlilTA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN
Pressures on Chute Floor Centerline
 FIGURE 6
REPORT HYO. 466

·-,-River outlet works stilling

,-/ basin sweepout curve
- (Preliminary design)

1574 -------1----
Spillway stilling basin I
sweepout curve ,
( Pre I iminory design)-/

1572

z
0
j::
<( 1570
>
l&J
.J
Note: Predicted toilwoter
l&J roting curves (1·15·58)
l&J
()

ii! 1568
IC
::>
(/)

IC
l&J
I-
<(
31: 1566
.J
<(
I-

1564

IS 58 o
1,,...z._ _ _10..Lo-0_ _ _2_0_0""0----3-L00-0_ _ _ _4_0...
00____500_.__0_ _ _ _6_00._0_ _ _ _70..LO-O_ _ ___.

COMBINED DISCHARGE -cfs

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA
FOSS DIVISION
FOSS DAM
PRESENT AND PROJECTED TAILWATER CURVES
SWEEPOUT CURVES FOR PRELIMINARY OUTLET WORKS
599 AND SPILLWAY STILLING BASINS, COMBINED FLOW
 FIGURE 7
REPORT HYD 466

A. Rectangular piers

B. Triangular piers

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

Initial Conjugate Depth Control Piers

FIGURE 8
REPORT HYD 466

A. Q = 4410 cfs, TW = el 1581.3

B. Q. = 4410 cfs, TW = el 1568. O: Basin swept out

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN
Operation with Initial Conjugate Depth Control Piers
 FIGURE 9·
REPORT HYD 466

A. The model arrangement

B. One-gate operation, Q = 2200 cfs, TW = el 1567

WASfilTA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA. FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN
Seven-foot High Baffle Piers. Triangular Conjugate
Depth Control Piers. Flow Spreaders on Sloping Apron.
Flow Conditions for One-gate Operation
FIGURE 10
REPORT HYD 466

A. Q = 4410 cfs, TW = el 1581.3

B. Scour after 1/2-hour model operation shown above.

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

Flow Condition and Scour for High Tail Water

(Same Basin as Fig. 9)

 FIGURE 11
REPORT HYD 466

A. Q = 4410 cfs, TW = el 1568

B. Scour after 1/2-hour model operation shown above.

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OK LAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

Low Tail Water

(Same Basin as Fig. 9)
FIGURE 12
REPORT HYD 466

A. Scour after 1/2-hour model operation of

Q = 4410 cfs, TW = el 1581. 3

B. Scour after 1/2-hour model operation of

Q = 4410 cfs, TW = el 1567

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM. RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

Scour Conditions

(Same as Fig. 9, Plus End Sill)

 FIGURE 13
REPORT HYD 466

A. Q = 4410 cfs, TW = 1568

B. Scour after 1/2-hour model operation shown above.

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN
Flow Conditions and Scour

Seven-foot High Baffle Piers, Streamlined Triangular

Conjugate Depth Control Piers, 11-foot High Flow
Spreaders on a Level Apron
 FIGURE 14
REPORT H¥O. 466

I I o!-17.25->i
l<-15.0->l PLAN A-A
I I

-ro-r-,;-
-~-
~
.LI

1SECTION C-C I
I~

- _L ~
I

I SECTION D-0
/
1?~

01---------~----....L..------------- -~----~
El. 1588---..._

Ar - Sta. 12 +08 Conjugate depth control piers,

y / S=0.0196 I
1,
" ,--P.C.(X.,.1.785,Y=.018) ,, Chute blocks
/" ,,/-Baffle piers
__i I
,
DI 'X =-181.779Y 2 El. 1557.50--
1<------ 41.94----->j
ELEVATION B-B

0
Ellipticol--
K- 4.33->l ...;:.l k- 1.5 ->l h-1.5
1__ , __ ~
f<~----7.07----->J --,--:~,~~3.12--j
1 II E l l i p t i c aI l - - - - - = • 7 _
N
;;
- I
- I
t I
-x-- -- T 'I
~ ~ ~
_j_ 4 -o.5 I ~ 0 ~
SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ::'. _y___ . y_'
I --
CHUTE BLOCKS
__ l__ PLAN

~
.·.· '· .... k---- 8.5-----~
_i) .-. ·r -:_ ~_:_._:·<
~
I I
FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION
x• v• - BAFFLE PIERS
SECTION E-E (1.5)'+(0.6i2 :')
-r-f:---
, Elliptical--
:
I
I
I
I ->1' I~0.5 PLAN
I
I
I
T-
E
I
I
I
'II
I

f? 0
,-.:
I
I
=
':
I
:
I
I II - 1.5 II
, --t-1- I I ,; . ---------
~l ~ I
I .,.. i \, j
I .
-:> ·- _- . ·:">?:-:· •.. i-
I _y ___ lL_.___,.__ _ _ __,I :-< · ----------~2.5------------------ >t
I
2.0 :<--6.0---.>j<2.n r-
: I
t<------- 12.0 -------->!
'
I
I
SIDE ELEVATION
APRON FLOW SPREADERS AND END SILL
------ 10.33----->-tI 2.17 I
FRONT E_LEVATION SIDE ELEVATION TW before degradation- Elev. 1581.2--
CONJUGATE DEPTH CONTROL PIERS El.1588--....._ TW ofter degradation- Elev. 1566.2,,
==+===i5~=========;;:;:::::;;;;:;;:;;:;;:::::;::::::;:=i:======i
- - - - - - - - - - + - - 1 5 8 5 ___ ,______ ------ -------- \\
----------c-±,,.-.-158u
=---,,,---_,,::-_--_--_-...,-.,.----+---:--.-=-1575 - ---- --- ---- - ------- . . _______ --------...
~i:;;::---~-- 1570 ------- ,"'°_ r\ --
P.C. Sta. 11 t 66.06'
.. '-'////~ ......
, , . ~ __ El. lS 57 _5_ r,
1565--------------+--'+-+--+r---------l - - - - ~
\ ·---_
Sto.12+08----> 'f<-_:_sto. 12+31 Sta. 13 +03.:.:> Sto.13+33.50--q
WATER SURFACE PROFILES BEFORE AND AFTER DEGRADATION
Q= 4410 CFS
NOTE
All dimensions ore in feet.
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA
FOSS OIVISION
FOSS DAM
RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN
RECOMMENDED DESIGN

599
 FIGURE 15 ":
REPORT HYD 466.

A. Q = 4410, TW = el 1581. 3

B. Scour after l/2-hour model operation shown above.

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

Flow Conditions and Scour for High Tail Water

Recommended Design
FIGURE 16
REPORT HYD 466

A. Q = 4410 cfs, TW = el 1568

B. Scour after 1/2.-hour model operation shown above.

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAHOMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM RIVER OUTLET WORKS STILLING BASIN

Flow Conditions and Scour for Low Tail Water

Recommended Design
 FIGURE 17
REPORT HYD 466

A. Q = 3050 cfs, TW = el 1581.3

B. Q = 3050 cfs, TW = el 1567

WASHITA BASIN PROJECT-OKLAH OMA, FOSS DIVISION

FOSS DAM SPILLWAY STILLING BASIN

Flow Conditions for Spillway Stilling Basin GPO 841488