21st Century Dam Design

Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference

San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

Hosted by
Black & Veatch Corporation
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Kleinfelder, Inc.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.
URS Corporation

On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide
a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions
imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117
feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the
United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision
To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.
Mission USSD is dedicated to:
Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,
performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.
Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673
ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5
U.S. Society on Dams
1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org

PIANO KEY WEIR HYDRAULICS

Ricky M. Anderson1
Blake P. Tullis2
ABSTRACT
A piano key (PK) weir is a modified labyrinth-type weir designed specifically for
spillways with relatively smaller footprints (e.g., gravity dam spillway). The PK weir has
a simple rectangular crest layout (in plan-view) with inclined inlet and outlet cycle floors.
Where the available footprint for the discharge control structure is limited, additional
weir length is produced with a PK weir, relative to traditional labyrinth weirs, by
cantilevering the inlet and outlet cycles beyond the structure footprint.
Because of the relatively recent development of the PK weir, a generally accepted
standard design procedure is not currently available. This is due, in part, to the large
number of PK weir geometric parameters and a limited understanding of their influence
on weir performance. Despite this fact, Hydrocoop (France), a non-profit dam spillways
association, has suggested a PK weir geometry with a specific inlet-to-outlet cycle width
ratio of 1.25 as close to optimal for maximizing weir performance; although
insufficient support data have been published for independent verification. The design is
accompanied with an equation for estimation of the head-discharge relationship.
To develop a better understanding of the effects of PK weir geometry on weir
performance, laboratory-scale sectional models with varying inlet-to-outlet cycle width
ratios were fabricated and tested. These weirs were tested over a wide range of flows to
investigate the sensitivity of PK weir performance to the inlet-to-outlet cycle width ratio.
Using test results, the head-discharge equation proposed by Hydrocoop was evaluated.
INTRODUCTION
With rising demands for reservoir water storage, increasing magnitudes of probable
maximum storm events, and the continuing need for improving dam safety, many
existing spillways are currently undersized and in need of replacement. Reservoir
spillways typically use weirs, gated or non-gated, as the flow control structure. In the
weir head-discharge relationship, Eq. (1), the weirs discharge capacity (Q) is
proportional to the weir length (L).
Q = Cd

3
2
2 g LH t 2
3

(1)

MS Research Assistant, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, 8200 Old Main Hill,
Logan, UT 84322, ricky.anderson@aggiemail.usu.edu
2
Associate Professor, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, 8200 Old Main Hill, Logan,
UT 84322, blake.tullis@usu.edu

Piano Key Weir Hydraulics

1697

In (1), Q is the discharge, Cd is the discharge coefficient, g is the gravitational constant, L

is the crest length, and Ht is the total head (piezometric head (H) plus velocity head
(V2/2g)) measured relative to the weir crest.
In general, there are three methods for increasing the discharge capacity of an
uncontrolled weir spillway when limited by a maximum pool elevation: (1) increasing the
width of the spillway, (2) lowering the spillway crest elevation, and/or (3) increase the
weir length within the existing discharge channel width by replacing the existing weir
with a labyrinth-type (non-linear) weir.
Increasing L of a linear weir, and consequently the discharge channel width, is often
impractical due the dam geometry and/or economic reasons. In addition to likely being
economically unfeasible, lowering the crest elevation (i.e., lowering the entire spillway
structure) decreases the normal pool elevation, reducing the amount of available water
storage. In general, the non-linear weir likely represents the most viable option.
A Labyrinth weir is a sequence of linear weirs, which has been oriented in a zigzag
fashion (thus the term non-linear), which increases L, relative to a linear weir, for a
fixed spillway channel (footprint) width. Despite the fact that labyrinth weir Cd values,
which are geometry and discharge dependent, are lower than linear weir Cd values, the
increase in L can increase Q, relative to a linear weir with the same footprint width, by 3
to 4 times (Tullis et al. 1995). The increase in Q means that less reservoir storage needs
to be reserved for flood routing (increased water storage) without compromising dam
safety.
For some spillway applications, the length and width dimensions of the control structure
footprint may be limited (e.g., narrow dam crest). For such cases, some of the benefits of
the traditional labyrinth weir are lost, and alternative non-linear weir designs should be
considered.
As stated by Lemprire and Ouamane (2003), the PK weir was originally developed by
Blanc of the University of Briska (Algeria), and Lemprire of Hydrocoop in France, to
facilitate and improve the performance of labyrinth-type weirs installed on smaller
footprints. As shown in Figure 1, The PK weir has a simple rectangular crest layout (in
plan-view) with inclined inlet and outlet cycles. The inclined or ramped cycle floors are
cantilevered beyond the spillway footprint providing the PK weir with a longer L, relative
to a traditional labyrinth weir (vertical wall) with the same footprint.

1698

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 1. PK weir geometric parameters

Important geometric parameters, as shown in Figure 1, for PK weir design include the
weir height (P), the weir wall height at the middle of the weir structure (Pm), crest
centerline length (L), total weir width (W), slope of the inlet and outlet cycle floors (S),
number of cycles (n), inlet cycle width (a), outlet cycle width (b), upstream overhang
length (c), downstream overhang length (d), and wall thickness (t).
Hydrocoop, who is responsible for the majority of the literature available on PK weirs,
has identified a specific PK weir geometry as being close to optimum for maximizing
discharge efficiency (Lemprire 2009), though insufficient support data have been
published for independent verification. The design is based on a line drawing, which
does not include guidelines for determining all needed design parameters (crest shape,
wall thickness, shape of weir beneath upstream overhangs, etc.). Eq. (2) represents the
PK weir head-discharge relationship proposed by Lemprire (2009) for the given design.
q = 4.3h Pm

(2)

In Eq. (2), Pm is measured in meters, as shown in Figure 1, h is head (no statement is

given as to if this is the piezometric or total head) over the weir crest in meters, within the
range of 0.4Pm to 2Pm, and q is the weir discharge per unit width of spillway channel in
cubic meters per second per meter of spillway width. The form of Eq. (2) differs
significantly from the standard weir equation [Eq. (1)].
In Eq. (2), the discharge coefficient (4.3) remains constant, as opposed to a varying
discharge coefficient (Cd) as in the standard weir equation [Eq. (1)]. In addition, the head
(h) is not raised to the 3/2 as done in Eq. (1). Eq. (2) suggests that the PK weir design
produces a linear head-discharge relationship, whereas Eq. (1) takes on any headdischarge curve shape.

Piano Key Weir Hydraulics

1699

Design parameters shown to affect efficiency include the crest shape, ratio of c/d, shape
of weir beneath upstream overhangs (hydraulic shape), the ratio of a/b, raising the crest
vertically with a parapet type wall, and the ratio of L/W (Lemprire and Ouamane 2003,
Lemprire and Jun 2005, Ribeiro et al. 2007).
Ouamene and Lemprire (2006) tested 3 PK weirs with varying a/b ratios of 0.67, 1.0,
and 1.5. They found that by increasing a/b, an increase in efficiency results, but gave
little insight into the reason behind it. Later, Lemprire (2009) proposed that a close to
optimal a/b is 1.25.
In an effort to develop a better understanding of the hydraulic characteristics of the PK
weir, a study with the following research objectives was undertaken.

Construct and test a lab-scale sectional model of a PK weir according to the design
guidelines outlined by Lemprire (2009) and determine how well Eq. (2) predicts
the head-discharge relationship. Evaluate the specific head measurement in Eq. (2)
(h) based on total head (Ht) and piezometric head (H). In addition, aerated and nonaerated nappe conditions will be evaluated.
Investigate the sensitivity of the PK weir to the a/b ratio by building and testing 3
laboratory-scale sectional models with varying a/b ratios of 1.25, 1, and 0.8.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Testing Facilities
All weirs were tested in a 36.75-inch wide by 24-inch deep by 24-ft long rectangular
flume. Acrylic flume sidewalls facilitated visual observations. Water enters the flume
through the head box containing flow-distribution manifold followed by a baffle wall (to
improve approach flow uniformity) and a floating surface wave suppressor. To measure
head (H), a point gauge (readability 0.0005-ft) mounted in a stand pipe, was hydraulically
connected to the flume a distance equal to 2-times the weir height (i.e., 15.5 inches)
upstream of the test weir. The flume has a maximum flow capacity of approximately 8.5
cubic feet per second (cfs). Calibrated orifice meters (0.2% average uncertainty) and
control valves, located in the parallel 4- and 12-inch supply lines enabled accurate flow
rate measurements over a broad range of discharges. A schematic of the test flume is
shown in Figure 2.

1700

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 2. Flume (side view)

Model Weir Designs
All laboratory-scale weirs were fabricated using 0.5-in thick acrylic sheeting. The 0.5inch thick wall material was geometrically consistent with the concrete wall thickness
(scale = 15.75) for one prototype structure [e.g., Goulours Dam (Laugier, 2007)]. All
models were designed with n = 4, and feature a flat-top crest type. Three PK weirs were
designed and tested; all three PK weirs were identical geometrically [designed per the
recommendations of Lemprire (2009)], with the exception of the a/b ratio. For PKA,
a/b = 1.25. For PKB, a/b = 1.0. For PKC, a/b=0.8.
Model Weir Construction and Setup
Weir pieces were cut out and assembled using acrylic glue. Following assembly, the weir
crests were machined level using a CNC mill. The weirs were installed on an adjustable
base and leveled using surveying equipment. A ramp was installed upstream of the weir
to gradually transition the approach flow from the floor of the channel to the base of the
PK weir. A venting device was built to enable the testing of vented nappe conditions.
An overview of the weir setup is shown below in Figure 3.

Piano Key Weir Hydraulics

1701

Figure 3. Overview of PK weir setup

TESTING PROCEDURE
The crest lengths and weir heights were physically measured and agreed well with the
design dimensions. Following installation, a leak test was conducted to insure all joints
were water tight.
Test data were collected for flow rates ranging from 0.25- to 8.5-cfs. Flow rates were
measured using the calibrated orifice plate flow meters. The upstream piezometric head
(H) data, measured relative to the weir crest, were determined using the point
gauge/stilling well assembly after the water level had been allowed to stabilized for a
minimum of 5 minutes. To verify that stable flow conditions had been achieved, a
minimum of 3 point gauge readings were taken consecutively per flow rate condition. If
the H data were not consistent, the flow condition was allowed more stabilization time.
A spreadsheet was used to calculate the discharge (Q), total head (Ht), and the weir
discharge coefficient (Cd).
Initially, a 20-point data set ranging from 0.25- to 8.5-cfs for a vented nappe was
developed utilizing the removable venting device as shown above in Figure 3. After the
Cd vs. Ht/P curve was established, data for a non-vented nappe were collected for Ht/P
values of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and so forth to determine vented and non-vented effects.

1702

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The PKA weir head-discharge data proved to be independent of the nappe conditions
(vented and non-vented). Consequently, the PKB and PKC tests were limited to the
vented nappe condition. The measurement uncertainty associated with data collection
was calculated using the method outlined by Kline and McClintoch (1953). The
maximum and average measurement uncertainty for all data sets was 3.20% and 2.09%
respectively. The head-discharge data was collected for each weir over the Ht/P range of
0.05 0.9. Equations were fit to the data sets and appear as trend lines to the data, and
were used in to produce a subsequent figure (Figure 5). The average and maximum
percent error when using these equations is 0.39% and 1.9% respectively.
Head-discharge equations (1) and (2)
In Eq. (2), no distinction is given as to whether the head measurement (h) is the total head
(Ht) or the piezometric head (H); in order to determine which head measurement (H or
Ht) best represents h, Figure 4 (A) [using Ht as h in Eq. (2)] and (B) [using H as h in Eq.
(2)] were plotted. As seen in Figure 4, Eq. (2) more accurately describes the PK weir
head-discharge relationship when the piezometric head (H) is used rather than the total
head (Ht). This suggests that the equation was intended to be used when approach
velocities are negligible.

(A)

Piano Key Weir Hydraulics

1703

(B)
Figure 4. Eq. (2) and data utilizing (A) piezometric head (H), and (B) total head (Ht).
The percent error when using Eq. (2) [when h is measured as piezometric head (H)]
relative to PKA [which follows the suggested design of Lemprire (2009)] results in an
average and maximum (at lower values of H) of 1.98% and 3.69% respectively.
Differences in the data to Eq. (2) may in part be due to design parameters needed, but not
given in the recommended design by Lemprire (2009) (e.g. crest shape, wall thickness,
shape of weir beneath upstream overhangs, etc.). As seen in Figure 4 (B), If Eq. (2) is
used to predict the head-discharge relationship of PK weir geometries other than PKA,
significant errors will result. In such situations, only justifiable by sufficient data,
adjusting the constant in Eq. (2) [4.3] will result in more accuracy, although as seen in
Figure 4 (B), other PK weir data may produce a slightly more parabolic head-discharge
relationship. Therefore relatively small differences in Eq. (2) and PK weir data, is in
part, due to the fact that Eq. (2) forms a linear line, where as the data produces a slightly
parabolic discharge curve.
Effects of a/b ratio on head-discharge efficiency
The ratio of the discharge coefficient curves (Figure 5) was plotted with PKB (a/b = 1) as
the reference line 1. The data in Figure 5 show that the a/b = 1.25 geometry (PKA) is the
most efficient (higher Q at constant Ht) of the three geometries tested, followed by the
a/b=1 (PKB) and a/b=0.8 (PKC). This is consistent with the findings of Ouamene and
Lemprire (2006), which are that by increasing the a/b ratio relative to a/b = 1, an
increase in efficiency results.

1704

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 5. Weir comparisons

The ratio of a/b likely influences the efficiency of the PK weir as follows. As the inlet
cycle width and total inlet area increases, the overall effect of the flow contraction and
subsequent energy loss associated with flow entering the inlet cycles on efficiency
decreases. In consequence of the increase in inlet cycle width, the outlet cycle width
decreases (assuming that a + b = constant). As the outlet cycle width decreases, its
ability to collect all of the flow from the more efficient adjacent inlet cycles and
discharge it downstream while maintaining minimal local submergence conditions
decreases. Submergence effects in the outlet cycles reduce the discharge efficiency of the
weir.
As the discharge over the weir increased, the upstream apex became less efficient due to
the local submergence at the upstream end of the outlet cycle, as shown in Figure 6. The
downstream apexes, also shown in Figure 6, did not experience submergence effects for
the discharges tested.

Piano Key Weir Hydraulics

1705

Figure 6. PKA (Ht/P = 0.4)

CONCLUSIONS
A laboratory-scale sectional model of a PK weir was built according to the design
guidelines outlined by Lemprire (2009), and the geometry specific head-discharge
equation proposed by Lemprire (2009) [Eq. (2)] was evaluated. The head measurement
when using this equation (piezometric vs. total head) was also evaluated. In addition,
aerated and non-aerated nappe conditions were considered. The sensitivity of the PK
weir to a/b was investigated by building and testing 3 laboratory-scale sectional models
of a PK weir with varying a/b ratios of 1.25, 1, and 0.8. Following are the findings of
this study.

Limitations to the design proposed by Lemprire (2009) include that it produces a

line drawing which does not include all parameters needed in design (i.e., crest
shape, wall thickness, shape of weir beneath upstream overhangs).
Eq. (2) is geometry dependant as a result of the constant or coefficient (4.3), and
gives an estimate of discharge with an average percent error of 1.98% and maximum
percent error of 3.69%, given the piezometric head is used rather than the total head.
Limitations of Eq. (2) include the fact that the equation forms a linear line, whereas
measured PK weir data can produce a slightly parabolic head-discharge relationship.
Therefore even if the constant or coefficient (4.3) was adjusted its use would still
likely be limited.
Factors affecting the optimal balance between the inlet and outlet cell widths include
flow contraction and subsequent energy loss, inlet and outlet cell capacity, and local
submergence. Though a limited number of a/b ratios were studied, an a/b of 1.25, as
recommended by Lemprire (2009), seems to function satisfactorily.

1706

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Additional research is needed to investigate the effects of various design parameters (e.g.
crest type, wall thickness, floor slope, etc.) on discharge efficiency, and to determine the
absolute optimum value of a/b. Research on PK weirs continues at the Utah Water
Research Laboratory.
REFERENCES
Kline, S.J., McClintock F.A., (1953). Describing Uncertainties in single-sample
Experiments. Mechanical Engineering, 75(1), 3-8.
Laugier, F. (2009). Design and construction of a labyrinth PKW spillway at Saint-Marc
dam, France. The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams,15(5), 100-107.
Leite Ribeiro, M., Boillat, J-L., Schleiss, A., Laugier, F., Albalat, C., (2007).
Rehabilitation of St-Marc dam Experimental optimization of a Piano Key Weir.
Proceedings of the 32nd Congress of IAHR. Venice, Italy.
Lemprire, F. (2009). New Labyrinth weirs triple the spillways discharge.
<http://www.hydrocoop.org > (Feb. 8, 2010).
Lemprire, F., Jun, G., (2005). Low Cost Increase of Dams Storage and Flood
Mitigation: The Piano Keys weir. answer to question 53, International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage, 19th Congress, Beijing, China.
Lemprire, F., Ouamane, A., (2003). The Piano Keys weir: a new cost-effective
solution for spillways. The international journal on Hydropower and Dams. 10(5).
Ouamane, A., Lemprire, F., (2006). Design of a new economic shape of weir. Dams
and Reservoirs, Society and Environment in the 21st Century, L. Berga, eds., Taylor &
Francis Group, London, 463-470.
Tullis, J. P., Amanian, N., and Waldron. D. (1995). Design of Labyrinth Spillways.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 121(3), 247-255.

Piano Key Weir Hydraulics

1707