Chapter 5:

Design of Dissipation Structures

By
Dr. Nuray Denli Tokyay
5.1 Introduction
A stilling basin is a short length of paved channel placed at the foot of a
spillway or any other source of supercritical flow to dissipate the energy
of the flow.
The aim of the designer is to make a hydraulic jump to form within the
basin, so that the flow is converted to subcritical before it reaches the
exposed and unpaved river bed downstream.
The desirable features of stilling basin are those that:
1. To tend to promote the formation of the jump,
2. To make the jump stable in one position,
3. To make it as short as possible.
Usually, if the jump is to be formed unaided, the floor of the stilling basin
must be placed a substantial distance below the tailwater level. But the
required excavation may of course make the basin very expensive. The
excessive depth of excavation may be avoided
1. By widening the basin,
2. By installation of baffles to increase the resistance to flow,
3. By a raised sill.

5.2 Hydraulic-Jump Basins
Where the energy of flow in a spillway must be dissipated before the
discharge is returned to the downstream river channel, the hydraulic-
jump stilling basin is an effective device for reducing the exit velocity to
a tranquil state. The jump that will occur in such a stilling basin has
distinctive characteristics and assumes a definite form, depending on
the relation between the energy of flow that must be dissipated and the
depth of the flow.
A comprehensive series of tests have been performed by the Bureau of
Reclamation to determine the properties of the hydraulic jump.
The jump form and the flow characteristics can be related to
the kinetic flow factor, , of the discharge entering the basin;
to the critical depth of flow, d
c
;
or to the Froude number , .
Forms of the hydraulic-jump phenomena for various ranges of the
Froude number are illustrated on figure below.

gd
V
2
gd
V
Characteristic forms of hydraulic jump related to
the Froude number.
When the Froude number of the incoming flow is 1.0, the flow is at critical depth and a
hydraulic jump cannot form.
For Froude numbers from 1.0 to about 1.7, the incoming flow is only slightly below critical
depth, and the change from this low stage to the high stage flow is gradual and manifests
itself only by a slightly ruffled water surface.






As the Froude number approaches 1.7, a series of small rollers begins to develop on the
surface. These become more intense with increasingly higher values of the number. Other
than the surface roller phenomena,relatively smooth flows prevail throughout the Froude
number range up to about 2.5.
For Froude numbers between 2.5 and 4.5, an oscillating form of jump
occurs. The entering jet intermittently flows near the bottom and then
along the surface of the downstream channel. This oscillating flow
causes objectionable surface waves that carry far beyond the end of the
basin. The action represented through this range of flows is designated
as form B on figure below:
For Froude numbers between 4.5 and 9, a stable and well-balanced
jump occurs. Turbulence is confined to the main body of the jump, and
the water surface downstream is comparatively smooth. Stilling action
for Froude numbers between 4.5 and 9 is designed as form C on figure
below.
As the Froude number increases above 9, the turbulence within the jump and the
surface roller becomes increasingly active, resulting in a rough water surface with
strong surface waves downstream from the jump. Stilling action for Froude numbers
above 9 is designated as form D.

Basin Design in Relation to Froude Numbers
Basins for Froude Numbers Less Than 1.7:
For a Froude number of 1.7, the conjugate depth, d,, is about twice the
incoming depth, or about 40 percent greater than the critical depth. The
exit velocity,V
2
, is about one-half the incoming velocity, or 30 percent
less than the critical velocity. No special stilling basin is needed to still
flows where the Froude number of the incoming flow is less than 1.7,
except that the channel lengths beyond the point where the depth starts
to change should be not less than about 4d,. No baffles or other
dissipating devices are needed.
These basins, designated type I.
Basins for Froude Numbers Between 1.7 and 2.5
Flow phenomena for these basins will be in the form designated as the
prejump stage, as shown on figure . Because such flows are not
attended by active turbulence, baffles or sills are not required.
The basin should be long enough to contain the flow prism while it is
undergoing retardation.
The basin lengths given below will provide acceptable basins. These
basins, designated type I.



number Froude with linearly increases jump of Length
. F 1.7 for .
r
5 2 5 5 4
2

y
L
Basins for Froude Numbers Between 2.5 and 4.5
Flows for these basins are considered to be in the transition flow stage
because a true hydraulic jump does not fully develop. Stilling basins that
accommodate these flows are the least effective in providing
satisfactory dissipation because the attendant wave action ordinarily
cannot be controlled by the usual basin devices. Waves generated by
the flow phenomena will persist beyond the end of the basin and must
often be dampened by means apart from the basin.
Where a stilling device must be provided to dissipate flows for this range
of Froude number, the basin shown on figure B-1, which is designated a
type IV basin, has proved relatively effective for dissipating the bulk of
the energy of flow.
Type IV Basin Dimensions
MinimumTailwater Depths for Type IV Basins
However, the wave action propagated by the oscillating flow cannot be
entirely dampened. Auxiliary wave dampeners or wave suppressors must
sometimes be used to provide smooth surface flow downstream.
Because of the tendency of the jump to sweep out and as an aid in-
suppressing wave action, the water depths in the basin should be about 10
percent greater than the computed conjugate depth.
Often, the need to design this type of basin can be avoided by selecting
stilling basin dimensions that will provide flow conditions that fall outside
the range of transition flow. For example, with an 22.65-m
3
/s capacity
spillway where the specific energy at the upstream end of the basin is
about 4.6 m and the velocity into the basin is about 9.14 m/s, the Froude
number will be 3.2 for a basin width of 3 m. The Froude number can be
raised to 4.6 by widening the basin to 6 m. The selection of basin widening
the basin to 6 m. The selection of basin width then becomes a matter of
economics as well as hydraulic performance.


Alternative Low Froude Number Stilling Basins
Type IV basins are fairly effective at low Froude number flows for small
canals and for structures with small unit discharges.
However, recent model tests. have developed designs quite different
from the type IV basin design, even though the type IV basin design was
included in the initial tests.
Palmetto Bend Dam stilling basin is an example of a low Froude number
structure, modeled in the Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulics Laboratory,
whose recommended design is quite different from type IV design.
The type IV design has large deflector blocks, similar to but larger than
chute blocks, and an optional solid end sill; the Palmetto Bend design
has no chute blocks, but has large baffle piers and a dentated end sill.
Dimensions for Alternative Low Froude Number
Basin
MinimumTailwater Depths for Alternative Basins
Length of Jump
The foregoing generalized designs have not been suitable for some
Bureau applications, and the increased use of low Froude number
stilling basins has created a need for additional data on this type
of design. A study was initiated to develop generalized criteria for the
design of low Froude number hydraulic-jump stilling basins. The criteria
and guidelines from previous studies were combined with the results of
this study to formulate the design guidelines recommended for low
Froude number stilling basins . However, it should be noted that a
hydraulic-jump stilling basin is not an efficient energy dissipator at low
Froude numbers; that is, the efficiency of a hydraulic-jump basin is less
than 50 percent in this Froude number range. Alternative energy
dissipators, such as the baffled apron chute or spillway, should be
considered for these conditions. The recommended design has chute
blocks, baffle piers, and a dentated end sill. All design data are
presented on figure B4..
The length is rather short, approximately three times d, (the conjugate
depth after the jump). The size and spacing of the chute blocks and
baffle piers are a function of d, (incoming depth) and the Froude number.
The dentated end sill is proportioned according to d, and the Froude
number. The end sill is placed at or near the downstream end of the
stilling basin. Erosion tests were not included in the development
of this basin. Observations of flow patterns near the invert downstream
from the basin indicated that no erosion problem should exist.
However, if hydraulic model tests are performed to confirm a design
based on these criteria, erosion tests should be included. Tests should
be made over a full range of discharges to determine whether abrasive
materials will move upstream into the basin and to determine the erosion
potential downstream from the basin. If the inflow velocity is greater than
15 m/s, hydraulic model studies should be performed.
Basins for Froude Numbers Higher Than 4.5
and V<15 m/s
For these basins, a true hydraulic jump will form. The elements of the
jump will vary according to the Froude number. The installation of
accessory devices such as blocks, baffles, and sills along the floor of
the basin produce a stabilizing effect on the jump, which permits
shortening the basin and provides a safety factor against sweep out
caused by inadequate tailwater depth.
The basin shown on figure B2, which is designated a type III basin, can
be adopted where incoming velocities do not exceed 15 m/s. The type
III basin uses chute blocks, impact baffle blocks, and an end sill to
shorten the jump length and to dissipate the high-velocity flow within the
shortened basin length. This basin relies on dissipation of energy by the
impact blocks and on the turbulence of the jump phenomena for its
effectiveness.
Type III Basin Dimensions
MinimumTailwater Depths for Type III Basins
Height of Baffle Blocks and End Sill
and
Length of Jump
Because of the large impact forces to which the baffles are subjected by
the impingement of high incoming velocities and because of the
possibility of cavitation along the surfaces of the blocks and floor, the
use of this basin must be limited to heads where the velocity does not
exceed 15 m/s.
Cognizance must be taken of the added loads placed on the structure
floor by the dynamic force brought against the upstream face of the
baffle blocks. This dynamic force will approximate that of a jet impinging
upon a plane normal to the direction of flow. The force, in Newtons, may
be expressed by the formula:



g
V
d AE F
2
2
2
1
1 1
+ = =
1
E where ,
where:
= unit weight of water, in N/m
3

A = area of the upstream face of the block, in m
2
, and
E
1
= the specific energy of the flow entering the basin, in m.
Negative pressure on the back face of the blocks will further
increase the total load. However, because the baffle blocks
are placed a distance equal to 0.8d
2
, beyond the start of
the jump, there will be some cushioning effect by the time
the incoming jet reaches the blocks, and the force will be
less than that indicated by the above equation. If the full
force computed by using the above equation is used, the
negative pressure force may be neglected.


Basins for Froude Numbers Higher Than 4.5
and V>15 m/s
Where incoming velocities exceed 15 m/s, or where impact baffle blocks
are not used, the type II basin (fig. B3) may be adopted.
Because the dissipation is accomplished primarily by hydraulic jump
action, the basin length will be greater than that indicated for the type III
basin.
However, the chute blocks and dentated end sill will still effectively
reduce the length. Because of the reduced margin of safety against
sweep out, the water depth in the basin should be about 5 percent
greater than the computed conjugate depth.
Type II Basin Dimensions
MinimumTailwater Depths for Type II Basins
Length of Jump
Rectangular Versus Trapezoidal Stilling Basin
The use of a trapezoidal stilling basin instead of a rectangular basin may
often be proposed where economy favors sloped side lining over vertical
wall construction. Model tests have shown, however, that the hydraulic-
jump action in a trapezoidal basin is much less complete and less stable
than it is in the rectangular basin. In a trapezoidal basin, the water in the
triangular areas along the sides of the basin adjacent to the jump does
not oppose the incoming high-velocity jet.
The jump, which tends to occur vertically, cannot spread sufficiently to
occupy the side areas. Consequently, the jump will form only in the
central portion of the basin, while areas along the outside will be
occupied by upstream-moving flows that ravel off the jump or come from
the lower end of the basin.
The eddy or horizontal roller action resulting from this phenomenon
tends to interfere and interrupt the jump action to the extent that there is
incomplete dissipation of the energy and severe scouring can occur
beyond the basin. For good hydraulic performance,
the sidewalls of a stilling basin should be vertical
or as close to vertical as practicable.

5.3 Drop Structures and Plunge Pools
Basic Flow Features:
Drop structures are used when the tailwater required for
a stilling basin is not available.
The approach direction is nearly vertical onto a water
pool and impact forces are significant.
Scour is thus an important aspect whereas the length of
the basin is rather short.
The basic flow types occurring in a prismatic drop
structure depend on the approach depth h
o
, and the
tailwater depth h
u
measured from the drop elevation.

a) free-falling jet and supercritical tailwater,
b) hydraulic jump if tailwater depth is smaller than drop height w,
c) plunging jet flow for flow depth ratio and
d) undulating surface jet flow for


17 . 1 h / h
u 0

17 . 1 h / h 1
u 0

Drop structure in prismatic rectangular channel
Plunging jet flow is more effective because of
confined length and no tailwater waves. However, a
strong surface return current is generated which has a
comparable intensity to the roller of a classical jump.

Impact structure with plunging jet
a) low tailwater level b) high tailwater level
c) vorticity of flow close to bottom
Impact Structures
An impact structure receives a nearly plane and vertical
jet and the energy is dissipated by jet diffusion and jet
deflection.
Usually, the structures have a large water cushion of
thickness t
L
, and the jet has a thickness t
j
and an impact
velocity V
1
(Figure below).

Usually, the structures
have a large water cushion
of thickness t
L
, and
the jet has a thickness t
j

and an impact velocity V
1

From a review of experiments for the vertical jet,
Vischer and Hager (1995) found for the maximum
pressure P
M
,

the transverse pressure distribution

and pressure fluctuation P

with the extremes and .

( )
L
j
M
t
t
V
P
4 7
2
2
1
.
/
=

( ) ( ) | |
2
L M
t / x 023 . 0 exp P / x P =
( ) ( ) = 2 / V / P
2
1
__________
2 / 1
2
'
) x ( P
28 . 0 + = 04 . 0 =
.
Scour Characteristics
For free jets discharging in plunge pools the experiments yield
(Bormann and Julien, 1991) :


h
u
: tailwater depth,
z
e
: scour depth,
z
j
: drop height,
q : unit discharge,
V
o
: approach velocity,
d
o
: representative grain diameter, and

j
: impact jet angle,

( ) | |
8 . 0
j
0
j
4 . 0
n
0
8 . 0
0
2
0
0
j e
25 sin
sin
d
h
gh
V
61 . 0
h
z z
+

=
+
where
Scour in plunge pools
a) Submerged flow
b) Free jet flow
The impact angle
j
(in rad) is for submerged jets



And for free jets
The location of the maximum scour depth is with d
90
as
the dominant grain diameter

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =
0
u
0
j
b j
h
h
ln 13 . 0
h
z
1 ln 15 . 0 sin 32 . 0 ( ) | |
2 / 1
0 0
gh / V ln 05 . 0
0
=
j
( )
( )
4 . 0
90
0
8 . 0
j
0
0
2
0
0 e
d
h
25 sin
gh / V
61 . 0 h / L
(

+
=
5.4 TRAJECTORY BASINS
Description of Structure
In a trajectory basin or ski jump the energy is mainly
dissipated by jet dispersion. To become effective, the
approach energy head should at least be 50 m, and
the discharge in should be smaller than 250 (H-H
0
)
with H
0
= 8 m (Mason, 1982, 1993)
The trajectory basin is composed of five reaches:

1) approach chute,
2) deflection and take off,
3)dispersion of water jet in air,
4) impact and scour of jet,
5) tailwater zone.

Portions of trajectory basin
The basic trajectory basin is composed of a
rectangular chute of constant width and a circular-
shaped take-off bucket.
Special shapes involve buckets at orifice outlets in
arch dams, and flip buckets at bottom outlets with a
curved jet trajectory in the plan view.
In the following, the standard structure is
considered.

Take-off
The take-off elevation of a ski jump relative to the
dam height is about 30 to 50%.
The elevation of the bucket lip should in any case be
above the maximum tailwater level in order to
(1) prevent material entering the bucket that cause
abrasion and
(2) counter cavitation damage due to submergence
fluctuations.

The bucket of a trajectory basin has to deflect the
water into the air and guide it to the proper impact
location. It should operate properly under all
discharges and be designed for both static and the
dynamic pressure loads.
The shape of the bucket is normally a circular arc of
bucket radius R
b
and take-off angle
j
. The approach
slope should be smaller than 4:1 and the take-off
angle between 20 and 40
0
[Figure below].
Trajectory basin
a) section
b) Transverse spread of jet
Assuming a flow with concentric streamlines of
approach depth t
b
and with as the
approach Froude number, the maximum pressure
head due to flow deflection is



In a preliminary design, this maximum pressure head
is assumed to apply along the bucket length,
independent of the turning angle.

( )
2 / 1
3
b 0
gt / q F =
2
0
b
b
b
M
F
R
t
gt
P
=

Vischer and Hager (1995) reviewed various approaches

for the bucket radius R
b
. With as the
approach energy head and P
M
the maximum pressure,
Damle, and USBR proposed, respectively,

g 2 / V H
2
0 0
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
b b
b
t
H
t
R
0
( ) /
M b
b
P
V
t
R
2
2
0
=
The flaring gate pier is a recent development of the
trajectory bucket to enhance the dispersion of flow
[Figure below].
Those piers are located upstream from the bucket
and induce air pockets in the pier wake. An air-water
mixture is thus deflected into the air, instead of
compact water flow. No practical experience of this
Chinese design is actually available.

Flaring gate pier
a) plan
b) Side view
c) Section A-A d) Section B-B
The slit-type flip bucket was introduced by Zhanlin,
et al. (1988) mainly for bottom outlets.
The bucket contracts the flow, promotes air
entrainment and thus the dispersion of flow [Figure
below].
The contraction ratio must be carefully chosen to
inhibit flow choking and the formation of a hydraulic
jump on the bucket. This design looks promising but
relevant experience is currently also not available.
Slit-type of bucket
a) section
b) Plan and jet section
(- - - - ) jet caused by conventional bucket
Jet Disintegration
A vast number of papers are available on the disintegration of
liquid jets in air.
Most of the studies involve means to improve to compactness of
the jet, such as in fire nozzles or irrigation sprinklers.
The formation of a highly disintegrated jet is desirable for energy
dissipation.
In the extreme, the more or less compact approach flow is
deflected into the air by the trajectory bucket and a highly
concentrated spray falls back on to the tailwater, such that scour
would be no concern. Such a high degree of disintegration is not
feasible, however.

The spray flow by trajectory basins was studied by Zai-Chao
(1987). Figure below shows various zones to be distinguished.
Spray flow induced by a ski-jump
1) Splash drop
2) Rainstorm
3) Atomization by rain
4) Atomization by wind
The disintegration of a water jet in air can be enhanced
by the:
approach turbulence,
approach swirl,
approach geometry,
counter-current wind, and
fluid properties
Because the jets studied under laboratory conditions
are normally small in diameter, the effects of surface
tension and viscosity are significant.

The number of parameters that influence a liquid jet in air
is so large that few general results are actually available.
From the published information, the disintegration
process can be enhanced by (Vischer and Hager, 1995):
A non-circular cross-section to counter the compactness
of the jet
roughening the jet to increase its turbulence level
(beware of damages by cavitation),
Abrupt transition from the bucket to the air, and
Adding air to the jet and creating an air-water mixture at
the take-off zone.

Air entrainment in water jets studied by Ervine and
Falvey (1987). The lateral jet spreading was related
to the turbulence number with u as the rms (root
mean square)- value of the instantaneous axial
velocity and V
0
as approach velocity (Figure below).

Disintegration of turbulent water jet in air
a) Flow geometry
b) Spreading of jet

d
=spread angle

c
=decay angle of inner core


For a typical turbulence level of 5 to 8 %, the spread
of the jet was
d
= 3 to 4 %, and the inner core had a
decay angle
c
= 0.5 to 1 %.
A turbulent jet thus begins to break up when the
inner core has completely disappeared, i.e., when
the relative breakup distance is L
0
/D
0
=50 to 100.
The jet trajectory geometry may be approximated by
a conventional parabola in the x-z coordinate system
with reference to Figure below.




where

j
is the take-off angle and
V
j
is the take off velocity.
( )
2
j
2 2
j
j
x
Cos V 2
g
x tan z

=
Definition of one-dimensional jet trajectory
If is the take-off velocity head, the
location x
m
and the maximum jet elevation z
m
are



Further, the local trajectory angle
t
is


and the trajectory length L
t
is with the impact height
z
i
(Figure above)
( ) g 2 / V H
2
j j
=
j j j m
Cos Sin 2 H / x =
j
2
j m
sin H / z =
( ) ( )
j
2
j j t
Cos 2 / H / x tan x tan =
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

+ + =
2 / 1
j
2
j
i
j j j t
sin H
z
1 1 Cos Sin 2 H / L
The bucket take-off angle
j
does not in general
coincide with the bucket terminal angle
b
because
of the particular pressure distribution.
Orlov (1974) studied this problem and presented a
diagram for the determination as
as a function of the deflecting angle
b
and the
relative bucket radius R
b
/t
b
(Figure below), which is
limited to approach Froude numbers:

0 b j
=
( )
2 / 1
0 0
sin 5 F
Takeoff angle
j
=
b
-
0
a) Flow geometry
b) Bucket angle ratio
b
/
o
as a function of relative
bucket radius R
b
/t
b
for various deflection angles
b
The transverse jet expansion
j
was reanalyzed by Vischer and
Hager (1995) based on a Russian study.
It depends mainly on the bucket flow depth relative to the fall
height z
b
, and the relative discharge
with L
s
as spillway length. An estimation for
j
is



( )
2 / 1
3
5
gL / q q=
( )
( )
3 / 1
2 / 1
b b
j
q 6 tanh
z / h 05 . 1
tan =
Typically, the angle
j
is between 5
0
and
10
0
, and thus significant in determining
the impact zone.
Scour
The performance of a trajectory basin is mainly related to the
quality of the impact zone.
If the impact area behaves differently than assumed during the
design, the entire dam structure can be damaged with significant
consequences to the dam safety.
In the past, damage to basins of dams such as those of the Kariba
(Zambia) and the Tarbela (Pakistan) power plants have led to
serious concerns and considerable works after the completion of
the dams only to guarantee the dam safety.
Often, the geological predictions were too optimistic and the
actual scour holes were much larger than predicted.

The progress of scour should be modeled physically for each
trajectory basin.
The scour material is reproduced according to the Froude
similarity law and either a filler is used to simulate the cracks, or
an uncohesive material is taken and only the ultimate scour area
investigated.
The erosion process is made of two stages:
1) the disintegration phase where the matrix is fractured due to the
dynamic pressure action, and
2) the transportation phase with the rock fragments lifted
entrained in the flow and deposited at the rims of the scour area.

The scour depth was determined both in model and in
prototype situations. Figure below relates to either an overfall
spillway or a trajectory spillway.
a) Scour in overfall b) Scour in trajectory basin
Mason (1989) observed a significant effect of
approach jet aeration for the latter scour depth. The
aeration ratio between air and water unit
discharges


with an entrainment velocity, V
i
as impact
velocity, H
0
as fall height and t
i
as impact jet
thickness.

45 . 0
i
0
i
e
a
t
H
V
V
1 13 . 0
(

=
q / q
a a
=
s / m 1 . 1 V
e

The ultimate scour depth relative to the tailwater
depth h
u
depends mainly on the tailwater Froude
number , the aeration ratio
a
and is
practically independent of the relative particle size
d
m
/h
u
. For , it may be expressed as


The effect of tailwater Froude number is thus highly
significant, and the ultimate scour depth can be
reduced by adequate submergence.

e
z
( )
2 / 1
3
u u
gh / q F =
2
a

( ) ( )
06 . 0
m u
3 . 0
a
6 . 0
u
u
e
d / h 1 F 4 . 3 1
h
z
+ + =