Prototype-Scale Investigation of Spillway Cavitation

Damage and Numerical Modeling of Mitigation Options

Faizal Yusuf, P.Eng. 1; and Zoran Micovic, Ph.D., P.Eng. 2

Abstract: This paper documents a prototype-scale investigation of cavitation damage to a newly resurfaced spillway being used opera-
tionally during phased construction work to replace all piers and radial gates. Initial concrete damage on the right abutment spillway steps
occurred in December 2015 as a result of over 300 h of continuous spilling from a new spillway gate. No cavitation damage had been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

observed on the original spillway constructed in the 1930s. Factors that contributed to the cavitation damage for this spillway are reviewed,
including the duration of continuous spill and the increased cavitation potential of both a smooth concrete surface compared to one that is
uniformly rough and sharp-edged steps compared to steps with rounded edges. Continued spilling through 2016 exacerbated concrete damage
to the spillway steps leading to an experimental interim measure of constructing a tetrahedron concrete wedge to reduce the magnitude of flow
separation and mitigate material loss in the location of greatest damage. Although damage to the steps continued to progress with ongoing
spilling, the concrete wedge was successful in reducing the extent of damage at that location. A numerical model was calibrated by comparing
simulated pressures to observed concrete damage allowing a long-term cavitation mitigation option to be designed with increased minimum
pressures of approximately 50% and greater at the spillway steps compared to the 2015 as-built geometry. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-
7900.0001671. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction Several researchers have attempted to relate flow velocity and σ

Preventing cavitation along concrete spillways is an important de-
sign consideration as high-velocity flow over surface irregularities
such as cracks, offsets, and surface roughness reduce local water
pressure leading to the formation of vapor bubbles or cavities.
The cavitation bubbles will collapse as they travel to areas with
relatively higher local pressure. This process can be damaging to
the surface material as the collapse of vapor cavities results in high-
pressure shock waves. Based on Hickling and Plesset (1964), the
pressure intensity is about 200 times the ambient pressure at a dis-
tance of two times the initial bubble radius from the collapsed
center. Fujikawa and Akamatsu (1980) indicated that collapse pres-
sure increases with decreasing initial bubble diameter and water
temperature. Impact pressures of up to 300 MPa due to the collapse
and rebound of cavitation bubbles were recorded by Zhang et al.
(2013), while Lesleighter (1988) measured cavitation implosion
pressure pulses of up to 1,500 MPa. These pressures are signifi-
cantly greater than the typical tensile strength of concrete.
The cavitation index, σ, is typically used to evaluate the poten-
tial for cavitation damage in a spillway. This index is calculated as
Po − Pv
σ¼ ð1Þ
ðρV 2o Þ=2
where Po = reference pressure (atmospheric þ gauge pressure);
Pv = vapor pressure of water; V o = reference velocity; and ρ = fluid
mass density.
1
Specialist Engineer, BC Hydro, 6911 Southpoint Dr., Burnaby, BC,
Canada V3N 4X8 (corresponding author). Email: faizal.yusuf@bchydro
.com
2
Principal Engineer, BC Hydro, 6911 Southpoint Dr., Burnaby, BC,
Canada V3N 4X8.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 15, 2019; approved
on June 11, 2019; published online on December 3, 2019. Discussion
period open until May 3, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
with cavitation in spillways. For flow over expanding offsets away
from the flow, Johnson (1963) and Cassidy and Elder (1984) sug-
gest that velocities greater than about 14 m=s will result in the onset
of incipient cavitation with occasional bubble formation but no
damage to the boundary surface. A typical value for the incipient
cavitation index for abrupt changes in geometry is around 2.0
(Falvey 1990). Using Eq. (1), the corresponding velocity is 10 m=s
assuming the reference pressure is equal to the barometric pressure
at sea level. Kermani et al. (2013) used a flow velocity greater than
16 m=s to assess the risk of spillway cavitation damage.
As σ decreases, there is an increase in cavitation bubble forma-
tion. Supercavitation occurs when large vapor cavities are formed
from individual cavitation bubbles for index values less than 0.3.
Based on historical observations, significant damage has occurred
on spillways when σ is less than 0.2 (Falvey 1990). Minor spillway
damage, which has generally not required repair, has been observed
for indices greater than 0.2.
The time dependence of the rate of erosion due to cavitation was
reviewed by Heymann (1967), who presented characteristic dam-
age rate curves. Based on work from Thiruvengadam and Preiser
(1963), the pattern often observed is that of an initial incubation
period with little material loss followed by a rapid increase in
the damage rate during the accumulation zone and then a decrease
in the rate during the attenuation zone. Plesset and Devine (1966)
suggested that the maximum erosion rate persists as a steady-state
rate for some time rather than forming a narrow peak, as described
by Thiruvengadam and Preiser (1963).
Falvey (1990) presented the concept of a damage index based on
spillway geometry and historical flow records that can be used to
predict damage to a chute or spillway following cumulative oper-
ation. Spillway damage is assumed to occur after a period of cu-
mulative operation at high discharges, i.e., the incubation period.
For prolonged spills that exceed the incubation period, damage
can increase rapidly. The calculation methodology was developed
for prismatic cross-sections and specific surface irregularity
geometries varying from 5 to 25 mm.

© ASCE 04019057-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057

 Insight into cavitation phenomena has been gained through
prototype observations of spillway concrete damage, e.g., Cassidy
and Elder (1984), Pugh and Rhone (1988), and Falvey (1990). In
addition, there are several examples of experimental investigations
using physical hydraulic and/or numerical models to improve the
understanding of spillway cavitation damage, such as Lee and
Hoopes (1996), Nie (2001), Amadour et al. (2009), Frizzell and
Renna (2009), Rafi et al. (2012), Frizzell et al. (2013), Rajasekhar
et al. (2014), Kermani et al. (2013), and Parsaie et al. (2016). This
paper presents a case study of Ruskin Dam in Canada, combining
observations of prototype spillway concrete cavitation damage,
experimental prototype-scale geometry modification for short-
term damage mitigation, and numerical model simulations cali-
brated to field observations to develop long-term mitigation
options.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ruskin Project
Ruskin Dam is situated on the Stave River, about 65 km east
of Vancouver, Canada. The Stave River watershed is located at
the south end of the Coast Mountains at the edge of the Fraser
Lowland. The Ruskin project is the lower project in the Alouette-
Stave-Ruskin hydroelectric system and consists of Hayward Lake,
Ruskin Dam, and Ruskin Powerhouse. Hayward Lake is a 6 km
long reservoir impounded by Ruskin Dam with a surface area of
about 2.8 km2 at the maximum normal operating level of El.
42.91 m. Hayward Lake has a negligible contributing watershed,
and its water supply comes almost entirely from the upstream Stave
Falls Dam spillway and generating station. The 105 MW Ruskin
Powerhouse includes three generating units and is located below
the left abutment of Ruskin Dam. Water discharged from the
Ruskin spillway and the powerhouse flows into the lower Stave
River. The confluence of the lower Stave River and the Fraser River
is located about 3 km further downstream (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. (Color) Location plan. (Image courtesy of BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia.)
© ASCE 04019057-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057
Completed in 1930, Ruskin Dam is a concrete gravity structure
composed of eight monoliths situated in a narrow valley and
founded predominantly on bedrock. The dam is about 110 m long
at the road deck with an 85 m long gated spillway section and
nonoverflow sections on either side. Three power intakes are
located to the left of the spillway. The dam is 59 m high from
the deepest foundation to the road deck, which spans the dam crest
at El. 45.73 m.
The original spillway was comprised of seven overflow crest
spillway bays with radial gates with the ogee crest at El. 34.98 m.
The piers between each spillway bay extended 11.75 m down-
stream of the spillway crest. Concrete benches and training walls
line both banks downstream of the spillway, following the contours
of the natural channel banks. In addition to providing erosion pro-
tection to the banks, these benches redirect discharge into the main
channel, particularly when the outer gates are used. The spillway
chute terminates with a concrete apron at El. −10.13 m located
downstream of old Bays 4 and 5, connecting the lowest benches
on either bank (Fig. 2).
The lower Stave River downstream of Ruskin Dam is an impor-
tant spawning area for anadromous fish, including chum, chinook,
coho and pink salmon, steelhead, and rainbow trout. To avoid
stranding fish and dewatering spawning habitat, sufficient dis-
charge must be released from the Ruskin facilities to maintain
minimum tailwater elevations, i.e., El. 1.8 m from October 15 to
November 30 and El. 1.7 m for the rest of the year. Tailwater el-
evations are a function of discharge from the Ruskin facilities and
backwater from the Fraser River. During peak snowmelt periods
when the Fraser River is high (late May to mid-July), the minimum
tailwater elevation requirements can generally be met without any
Ruskin discharge. For the rest of the year, the minimum tailwater
level is maintained by continuous Ruskin flow releases using a
combination of the powerhouse and spillway.
In 2007, investigative work to upgrade and modernize the
Ruskin spillway, abutments, and powerhouse was initiated.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 (a) (b)

Fig. 2. (Color) Overview of Ruskin project: (a) seven-bay spillway before spillway upgrades. Old spillway bays are numbered from 1 to 7
(left to right looking at the photo). Old spillway radial gates and old piers are 10.1 and 2.1 m wide, respectively. Powerhouse access bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and powerhouse shown in foreground; and (b) five-bay spillway and resurfaced concrete on spillway face and steps after upgrades. New spillway
bays are numbered from 1 to 5 (left to right looking at the photo). New spillway radial gates (SPOGs) and new piers are 13.5 and 3.5 m wide,
respectively. Photo date: April 2018. (Images courtesy of BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia.)

Structural analysis indicated that the original spillway piers and
gates were seismically deficient under the latest design criteria.
It was therefore decided to remove the original seven 10.1 m wide
radial gates and eight 2.1 m wide piers and replace them with five
new 13.5 m wide radial gates and six new 3.5 m wide piers. The
powerhouse upgrade included replacement of the three generating
units and associated ancillary equipment. In addition, the concrete
on the spillway face and steps was partially resurfaced to extend the
service life of the spillway surface for another 50 years.
A challenging aspect of this dam safety upgrade project was that
the Ruskin facility had to be operational during construction to the
extent required to maintain proper function and integrity of the
Alouette-Stave-Ruskin hydroelectric system. This involved main-
taining flow passage during construction as the seven-bay spillway
was converted to a five-bay spillway in phases with varying num-
bers of old and new gates available during each phase concurrently
with the Ruskin Powerhouse upgrade that resulted in periodic
unavailability of the generating units, which led to increased spill-
way operation.
Spillway capacity was significantly reduced during the multi-
year construction as a bulkhead was used to block flow through
the spillway bays under construction. Consequently, a complex
strategy was developed to allow for passage of large floods without
overtopping either Ruskin Dam or the upstream Stave Falls
Dam and without incurring lost generation revenue at Stave Falls
Generating Station (Finkenbine et al. 2017). In addition, continu-
ous spilling from available spillway gates was required to maintain
the required tailwater level while the powerhouse upgrade was in
progress.
Cavitation Damage Observed through May 2016
A series of historical photos of the concrete spillway steps on the
right abutment is shown in Fig. 3. The steps were originally con-
structed along with the concrete dam in 1930 with relatively sharp
edges. A photo taken in 1967 does not show any cavitation damage
to the spillway steps [Fig. 3(b)]. In 1973, a major program of com-
pletely resurfacing the spillway face and spillway steps with
shotcrete was undertaken. The shotcrete was reinforced with 5 mm
diameter wire mesh, and the edges of the steps were rounded.
In 2008, a condition survey of the spillway surface and
steps was conducted to determine the location and nature of de-
fects and prepare designs for repair and rehabilitation to extend
the service life of the spillway surface for another 50 years.
The assessment included visual inspection, a delamination survey
by sounding using a chain-drag method combined with hammer
testing and impact echo testing, and drilling of several cores
through the existing shotcrete and into the substrate concrete. The
cores were tested for density, compressive strength, volume of per-
meable voids, and absorption. The condition survey determined
that the shotcrete-faced spillway was still in reasonably good con-
dition 35 years after the resurfacing work performed in 1973,
although there was some cracking, delaminations, and localized
areas of erosion and seepage through the shotcrete face that re-
quired repair. The stepped structure was in generally poor condition
with extensive delamination, erosion, and deterioration of the
shotcrete overlay and near-surface deterioration in the substrate
concrete. However, there were no signs of cavitation damage to
the right abutment concrete steps.
Construction commenced in 2013 to upgrade the spillway gates
and piers with the work progressing in phases. In Phase A of con-
struction, new spillway gates (SPOGs) 1 and 2 were installed, and
the spillway surface and right abutment spillway steps were resur-
faced while old SPOGs 4 to 7 were available to pass required spill
discharges. For the stepped structure on the right abutment, the
mesh reinforced shotcrete that was installed in 1973 was com-
pletely removed and replaced with cast-in-place concrete of
200 mm nominal thickness and 15 mm diameter steel reinforcing
bars and anchors, with a radius of 50 mm for step edges and 28-day
minimum compressive strength of 40 MPa. The concrete minimum
cover was 50 mm for the steel reinforcement. The resurfacing work
for the right abutment steps was completed in 2015.
The new SPOGs 1 and 2 were operated for the first time on
December 2, 2015. A relatively steady discharge of 139 m3 =s was
passed through each of SPOGs 1 and 2 between December 4–9,
2015, with the reservoir at El. 38.19 m. SPOG 2 was closed on
December 9, while SPOG 1 releases continued until December
15 but at a lower discharge of approximately 72 m3 =s. After
SPOGs 1 and 2 were closed, concrete damage to the right abutment
spillway steps in the regions identified in Fig. 3(f) was observed.
Concrete damage was visible on the vertical face of Steps 11, 10, 9,
8, and 7 just below the horizontal edge of the steps and close to the
spillway chute. The damage occurred in zones of flow separation
that are shown in Fig. 4.
During Phase B of construction from December 2015 to January
2017, spillway upgrade work focussed on new SPOGs 3 and 4.
Because the Ruskin powerhouse was being upgraded concurrently

© ASCE 04019057-3 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 3. (Color) Right abutment spillway steps: (a) 1930s—original construction. Steps have sharp edges; (b) 1967—no cavitation damage to steps
below old spillway bays 1 and 2. Steps have sharp edges; (c) 1976—no cavitation damage to steps below old spillway bays 1 and 2. Steps have
rounded edges following shotcrete resurfacing in 1973; (d) 2008—no cavitation damage to steps below old spillway bays 1 and 2. Steps have rounded
edges; (e) December 2015—Steps have sharp edges following shotcrete resurfacing in 2015. New spillway gates (spillway bays 1 and 2) are shown;
and (f) December 15, 2015—Damage to concrete steps due to initial spill following shotcrete resurfacing in 2015. (Images courtesy of BC Hydro,
Burnaby, British Columbia.)

during this time and was periodically unavailable to pass flows
coming into Hayward Lake to maintain required tailwater levels
for fisheries, new SPOGs 1 and 2 were operated for much longer
durations than any other time in the dam’s history. Concrete dam-
age to the right abutment steps increased noticeably. By late May
2016, damage to the right abutment spillway steps had increased, as
shown in Fig. 5(a) with the largest zone of damage at Step 10,
which is below the central portion of SPOG 1. The approximate
extent of concrete damage at Step 10 was nearly 1.5 m high,
2.5 m long, and deep enough to expose the steel reinforcing bars.
Experimental Wedge to Mitigate Cavitation
In June 2016, repairs were performed for the damaged areas
below SPOG 1 using dry-mix Target Superstick shotcrete with steel
fiber reinforcement. Obviously, SPOG 1 was closed while the re-
pairs were being performed, but SPOG 2 continued to operate.
Fig. 5(b) shows the repairs, including a new 1.5 m high, 1.2 m wide,
and 3 m long tetrahedron concrete wedge that was constructed
between Steps 9 and 10 as an interim experimental measure to
mitigate further cavitation damage. The tetrahedron wedge was

© ASCE 04019057-4 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057

 Obstacles, wall boundaries, and other geometric features are em-
bedded in the mesh using a porosity technique by defining frac-
tional face areas and fractional cell volumes that are open to the
flow as described by Hirt and Sicilian (1985). The volume of fluid
method (Hirt and Nichols 1981) is used in FLOW-3D to enable
location and orientation of free surfaces within computational cells,
tracking of free surface motion through cells, and application of
appropriate boundary conditions at the free surface interface.
The general form of the mass continuity and RANS equations
used in FLOW-3D for free surface incompressible flows are
presented
∂ ∂ ∂
ðuAx Þ þ ðvAy Þ þ ðwAz Þ ¼ 0 ð2Þ
∂x ∂y ∂z
 
∂u 1 ∂u ∂u ∂u 1 ∂p
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

þ uAx þ vAy þ wAz ¼− þ Gx þ f x

∂t V f ∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂x
ð3Þ
Fig. 4. (Color) Spill from spillway bay 1 on December 15, 2015. Flow
 
separation at steps. (Image courtesy of BC Hydro, Burnaby, British ∂v 1 ∂v ∂v ∂v 1 ∂p
Columbia.) þ uAx þ vAy þ wAz ¼− þ Gy þ f y
∂t V f ∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂y
ð4Þ
 
anchored to the existing spillway concrete using 15 mm diameter ∂w 1 ∂w ∂w ∂w 1 ∂p
þ uAx þ vAy þ wAz ¼− þ Gz þ f z
steel bars at 400 mm spacing. Skin reinforcement was also pro- ∂t V f ∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂z
vided using 15 mm diameter steel reinforcing bars at 400 mm spac-
ing placed in either direction while maintaining a 50 mm concrete ð5Þ
cover. The photo in Fig. 5(b) showing almost no concrete damage
The variables in Eqs. (2)–(5) are defined as follows: u, v, and
was taken on July 15, 2016, after about 6 days of spilling from
w = velocities in the x, y, and z directions, respectively; V f =
SPOG 1 following the repairs.
fractional volume of fluid in each cell; Ax , Ay , and Az = fractional
Following the repairs in June 2016, continued spilling reiniti-
areas open to the flow in the subscript direction; ρ = fluid density;
ated concrete damage at the same locations that were previously
p = average fluid pressure; G = gravitational force in the subscript
affected. However, damage near the wedge structure did not appear
direction; and f = viscous accelerations in the subscript directions.
until much later compared to the other steps.
For turbulence closure of the RANS equations, the renormalization
A photo of Steps 9, 10, and 11 taken on December, 19, 2016,
group method (RNG), as presented by Yakhot and Orszag (1986),
is shown in Fig. 5(c) after about 37 days of spilling from
which is a variation of the k-e model, was used. Examples of val-
SPOG 1 (average discharge ¼ 93 m3 =s and maximum discharge ¼
idation of FLOW-3D for spillway hydraulics applications are pre-
111 m3 =s) following the repairs. Although some concrete damage
sented in Savage and Johnson (2001), Ho and Riddette (2010), and
to the repaired areas on Steps 9 and 11 is evident, the concrete tetra-
Oukid et al. (2015).
hedron wedge constructed between Steps 9 and 10 was successful
Using recently collected survey data and construction drawings,
in preventing additional damage after at least 37 days of spilling
CAD 3D geometry files were prepared for a portion of Hayward
following the June 2016 repairs.
Lake and Ruskin Dam, including the new five-bay spillway, right
Continued spill releases in the first few months of 2017, includ-
abutment steps, and tailrace area. The CAD 3D geometry files were
ing some periods of larger magnitude spillway discharges, reiniti-
exported to stereolithographic format for use with FLOW–3D. A
ated concrete damage on Step 10 and increased damage to the other
surface roughness height of 0.5 mm was assigned for the recently
steps, as shown in Fig. 5(d). This photo is taken after a total of
resurfaced concrete structures. Computational mesh extents and
124 days of spilling from SPOG 1 (average discharge ¼ 110 m3 =s
cell sizes are subsequently discussed.
and maximum discharge ¼ 323 m3 =s) following the June 2016
repairs.
Calibration to Field Observations
Numerical Modeling New SPOGs 1 and 2 were fully open on December 4–9, 2015, at an
average reservoir level of El. 38.19 m. The spill discharge was ap-
proximately 139 m3 =s in each bay. The numerical model was run
Model Background and Development
for these conditions to investigate the initial cavitation damage ob-
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was performed served in mid-December 2015. The model extents included the
with the software package FLOW-3D to simulate flow over the forebay extending about 25 m upstream of the spillway crest, which
Ruskin Dam spillway steps by solving the Reynolds–Averaged is sufficient to represent the water surface drawdown in the forebay
Navier–Stokes (RANS) and continuity equations for incompress- for these conditions, most of the five-bay spillway, and the tailrace
ible flow. Using a Cartesian coordinate system, the computational area below the spillway apron. The model boundary conditions
domain is discretized into hexahedral cells with varying sizes. consisted of a fixed stagnation pressure (i.e., constant reservoir
Local average values for all dependent variables are computed level) at the upstream boundary and a fixed water level in the tail-
at discrete time intervals at cell centers except for velocities in race 120 m downstream of the spillway crest. Computational mesh
the u, v, and w directions, which are calculated at cell faces. refinements were made in successive runs to improve the resolution

© ASCE 04019057-5 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. (Color) Damage and repairs to right abutment steps between May 2016 and April 2017: (a) May 25, 2016—Damage to concrete steps;
(b) July 15, 2016—Repairs to concrete steps. Photo taken after ∼6 days of spilling following repairs in June 2016; (c) December 19, 2016—
Close-up view of concrete steps. Photo taken after ∼37 days of spilling following repairs in June 2016; and (d) April 3, 2017—Close-up view
of concrete steps. Photo taken after ∼124 days of spilling following repairs in June 2016. (Images courtesy of BC Hydro, Burnaby, British Columbia.)

and accuracy of simulated local pressures and velocities. Numerical
model results shown in Fig. 6(a) are based on a computational cell
size of 125 mm for the spillway and right abutment concrete steps,
while Fig. 6(b) shows results over a portion of the spillway steps for
a finer cell size of 62.5 mm.
The CFD modeled discharge of 288 m3 =s is within 3% of the
rating curve discharge. General flow patterns of water cascading
over the spillway steps in the numerical model appear to be reason-
able, although spray and splashing are underestimated compared to
prototype observations. Interestingly, the absence of noticeable
spray and splashing in the numerical model simulation results al-
lows for more direct observation of flow patterns over the spillway
steps compared to what can be observed in the prototype during
spill events.
The physical processes of cavitation with surface material
erosion were not simulated with the CFD model. Instead, the
numerical simulations were run for the 2015 as-constructed geom-
etry of the resurfaced spillway steps, and zones of simulated low
pressure were reviewed in terms of cavitation potential. For nega-
tive pressures less than the vapor pressure of water, cavitation
would be expected.
Cavitation indices were calculated using Eq. (1) from numerical
model results for low pressures approaching the vapor pressure of
water to gain insight into the potential for cavitation. The local min-
imum pressure on the concrete surface was taken as the reference
pressure, and the modeled depth-averaged velocity near the loca-
tion of the reference pressure was used to calculate the cavitation
indices. Empirical relationships between the cavitation index and
observed damage in spillways presented in Falvey (1990) are based
on mean flow velocities likely calculated from prismatic cross-
sections. Because the flow patterns over the Ruskin right abutment
spillway steps are quite complex with the interaction between flow

© ASCE 04019057-6 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. (Color) Numerical model simulated flow patterns for December 4–9, 2015 spill with a discharge of 139 m3 =s from each of spillway
bays 1 and 2: (a) CFD modelled area with a 125 mm computational cell size for the spillway and right abutment steps to show overall flow patterns;
and (b) refined CFD model mesh for steps below spillway bay 1 with a 62.5 mm computational cell size to investigate local hydraulics for assessment
of cavitation potential.

traveling down the spillway chute and water falling over the sides photo from late May 2016 [Fig. 5(a)]. This indicates that the incu-
of the steps, there is some uncertainty in the selection of appropriate bation period for cavitation was longer for Steps 13 and 12 com-
reference velocities. Because of the uncertainties involved, calcu- pared to the other steps below SPOG 1. There are no negative
lated cavitation indices presented in this paper are expressed to the pressures simulated for Steps 5 and 6 because they are directly
nearest 0.1. downstream of Pier 2 and would not be impacted by spillway re-
Modeled gauge pressures in pascals on the concrete surface of leases from either SPOG 1 or 2. No damage was observed on these
the right abutment spillway steps below the new SPOG 1 are shown steps [Fig. 3(f)].
in Fig. 7. These results, which represent the base case scenario for
assessment of concrete damage mitigation options for the right
abutment spillways steps, were produced with cubic computational
cells with sides of 62.5 mm. The pressure scale is intended to high-
light regions of minimum and maximum modeled pressure. The
lowest pressures occur on the vertical face of the spillway steps
near the interface with the spillway chute. Comparing Figs. 3(f)
and 7, we find very good agreement with the location of minimum
modeled pressures and observed concrete damage indicating excel-
lent numerical model calibration. The dark blue regions represent
pressures close to or below −100 kPa. Gauge pressures less than
about −100 kPa are below the vapor pressure of water and re-
present regions where cavitation would be expected.
The lowest modeled pressures occur on the vertical face of
Steps 10 and 7 with minimum values of approximately −177 and
−259 kPa, respectively. Because these pressures are well below the
vapor pressure of water, cavitation would occur as confirmed by the
observed concrete damage.
Step 11 has the highest minimum modeled pressure of about
−86 kPa for the steps below SPOG 1. The corresponding σ of
0.2 is at the threshold between minor and major damage. As shown
in Fig. 3(f), concrete damage did occur on the vertical face of Step
11 near the zone of negative pressures.
The numerical model simulates negative pressures at Steps 13
and 12, which would be expected to result in cavitation. Although Fig. 7. (Color) Modeled gauge pressures on right abutment steps based
on geometry just prior to the December 4–9, 2015 spill. Base case
the photo from December 15, 2015 [Fig. 3(f)] does not show any
scenario. Same spill discharge as shown in Fig. 6.
damage, there is significant damage to these steps, as shown in the

© ASCE 04019057-7 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057

 Fig. 9. (Color) Typical layout of tetrahedron geometry offset from
spillway chute for spillway steps cavitation mitigation options.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Numerical model simulated minimum pressures for right

abutment spillway steps cavitation mitigation options
Change in
Minimum minimum
pressure pressure from
Offset
(kPa)a base case (%)
distance
Fig. 8. (Color) Modeled gauge pressures on right abutment steps with Option (m) Step 10 Step 7 Step 10 Step 7
1.5 m high, 1.2 m wide, and 3 m long tetrahedron concrete wedge con-
structed between Steps 9 and 10 [as per Figs. 5(b)]. Same spill dis- Base caseb — −177 −259 — —
R1 0 −98 −158 þ45 þ39
charge as shown in Fig. 6.
R2 0.4 −107 −169 þ40 þ35
R3 1.5 −109 −168 þ38 þ35
R4 3.0 −109 −122 þ38 þ53
R5 6.0 −105 −118 þ41 þ54
The 1.5 m high, 1.2 m wide, and 3 m long tetrahedron concrete
a
wedge that was constructed between Steps 9 and 10 in June 2016 as Minimum modeled gauge pressures on the vertical face of Steps 10 and 7.
b
an interim experimental measure to mitigate further cavitation dam- Base case scenario results are shown in Fig. 7.
age was also assessed with the numerical model for the same setup
as the base case scenario. Modeled results presented in Fig. 8 in-
dicate a noticeable increase in local pressures at Step 10. The mini- concrete prisms formed a polyhedron shape, as illustrated in the
mum pressure is increased by nearly 50% to −93 kPa with a typical layout shown in Fig. 9.
corresponding σ ¼ 0.1. These results suggest that the cavitation The right abutment spillway steps mitigation options that
damage potential with the wedge is reduced substantially, but were evaluated with the numerical model are labeled as Options
damage would still be expected. Numerical model results are con- R1 to R5 with offset distances of 0, 0.4, 1.5, 3, and 6 m, respec-
sistent with field observations as the concrete wedge was successful tively (Table 1). These options were simulated with a 50 mm radius
in preventing additional damage as a result of at least 37 days of on the steps similar to the spillway step geometry constructed as
SPOG 1 operation at an average discharge of 93 m3 =s following part of the 2015 resurfacing work. A larger radius for the spillways
the repairs [Fig. 5(c)]. However, continued spilling in the first steps is evaluated in the Discussion section but was not practical
several months of 2017 reinitiated concrete damage on Step 10 to incorporate into the design of the mitigation options due to
[Fig. 5(d)]. the 200 mm nominal thickness of the cast in place concrete used
for resurfacing and 50 mm minimum required cover for steel
reinforcement.
Mitigation Options The numerical model was run for each option using the same
A series of cavitation mitigation options for the right abutment setup and boundary conditions as the base case scenario previously
spillway steps were assessed with the numerical model by apply- described. Because the lowest modeled pressures occur on the ver-
ing a 3 m long tetrahedron concrete wedge similar to the one tical face of Step 10 (near the center of the new SPOG 1) and Step 7
constructed between Steps 9 and 10 in June 2016 to all steps (the lowest elevation step downstream of the new SPOG 1), results
below new SPOG 1 where cavitation damage has been observed, at these locations were used for screening the mitigation options.
i.e., the vertical face of steps 7 to 13 below SPOG 1. Numerical Simulated minimum pressures at these locations are listed in
model testing previously presented shows that maximum flow sep- Table 1.
aration occurs near the topmost point of the tetrahedron at the in- Minimum gauge pressures for all options are either below or
tersection of flow traveling down the spillway chute and water very close to the vapor pressure of the water, so cavitation would
falling over the sides of the concrete steps. The effects of shifting likely occur in all cases. However, the minimum pressures are in-
this flow separation point away from the spillway chute and poten- creased by 38%–45% at Step 10 and 35%–54% at Step 7 for the
tially improving cavitation mitigation performance was evaluated. various options. Option R1 has the highest pressure for Step 10 as
The tetrahedron wedges were moved downstream along the spill- an increase in the offset distance generally leads to a slight decrease
way steps for various offset distances with a concrete prism with in the minimum pressure. However, Options R4 and R5 have the
sloping surface filling in the gap along each step between the spill- highest pressures at Step 7 as increasing the offset distance leads to
way chute and tetrahedron wedge. The tetrahedron wedge and an increase in the minimum pressure at that location.

© ASCE 04019057-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. (Color) Modeled gauge pressures on right abutment steps
for the recommended cavitation mitigation option. Same spill discharge
as Fig. 6.
The spatial extent of pressures less than approximately −75 kPa
on the vertical face of the steps was also reviewed to give a general
indication of how large an area on the concrete surface could be
affected by cavitation. For Step 10, the area of very low negative
pressures is approximately 70% smaller with Option R1 compared
to the base case. For Options R4 and R5, the areas of very low
negative pressures at Step 7 are about 85%–95% smaller relative
to the base case. The low-pressure region at Step 7 is 60% smaller
for Option R5 compared to R4. A smaller region of very low neg-
ative pressures indicates that if cavitation does occur, it would be
quite localized.
Tailrace flow patterns for the cavitation mitigation options were
also reviewed for Option R5 using the numerical model. The 6 m
long concrete prisms on the right abutment spillway steps would
reduce energy dissipation that could increase velocities in the tail-
race downstream of the spillway. Numerical model testing showed
that velocities near the bottom of the main channel close to the
powerhouse access bridge were increased from around 1 m=s
for the base case scenario to about 2 m=s for Option R5. Overall,
tailrace flow patterns with Option R5 are similar as the base case
scenario. Higher velocity flow near the bottom of the tailrace
channel indicates greater plunging of spill discharges, which can
lead to increased total dissolved gas (TDG) values that are poten-
tially harmful to fish (Hughes et al. 2009). Therefore, some
minor increase in TDG downstream of the spillway is possible for
Option R5.
Based on the results previously presented, Option R6 for the
right abutment spillway steps was developed by combining Options
R1 and R5, as shown in Fig. 10. Three meter long tetrahedron
wedges with 0 m offsets are applied to all steps below SPOG 1
except between Steps 6 and 7, where the polyhedron geometry
from Option R5 with an offset distance of 6 m is used to mitigate
the cavitation potential on the vertical face of Step 7. This location
had the largest spatial extent of pressures below −75 kPa for
Option R1 but showed a significant reduction in the area of low
negative pressures for Option R5. Simulated pressure contours
for Option R6 are shown in Fig. 10 and tabulated minimum
pressures and calculated cavitation indices are presented in
Table 2.
© ASCE 04019057-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057
Table 2. Numerical model results for the selected cavitation mitigation
option (R6)
Minimum Cavitation
Step pressure (kPa)a indexb
13 −46 0.5
12 −39 0.6
11 −53 0.4
10 −98 Approximately 0
9 −62 0.3
8 −93 0.1
7 −84 0.1
a
Minimum modeled gauge pressures on the vertical face of steps.
b
Cavitation indices are rounded to the nearest 0.1.
Option R6 is recommended to mitigate cavitation damage to
the right abutment spillway steps. Minimum pressures are signifi-
cantly higher compared to the base case scenario with increases in
the order of 50% and greater for some steps. Although cavitation
damage would still be expected to occur at Steps 10, 8, and 7, the
spatial extent affected by very low pressures is considerably smaller
than the areas damaged by spill releases in late 2015.
Discussion
According to Falvey (1983), the extent of spillway concrete dam-
age due to cavitation depends on the duration of cavitating flow
conditions, roughness and alignment of the boundary, and surface
material strength. Testing of the cast in place concrete used for
resurfacing the right abutment spillway steps showed that it meets
or exceeds the specified 28-day compressive strength of 40 MPa
and field inspections showed that the resurfacing work was com-
pleted according to design specifications with no deficiencies that
would have contributed to the concrete damage. Therefore, the
remaining factors, the spill duration, and the effects of boundary
roughness and alignment are discussed subsequently in terms of
the initial concrete damage that occurred to the Ruskin right abut-
ment spillway steps below SPOG 1 in December 2015.
Duration
Prior to the recent upgrade work, the Ruskin spillway was used
almost exclusively to pass floods, which generally consisted of less
than a few days of continuous spilling. Because discharge from a
single generating unit is adequate to provide the required tailwater
level, spilling to maintain downstream water levels was only re-
quired in rare situations when all three units were forced out of
service. Therefore, the recent construction work to upgrade the
spillway and powerhouse has led to unprecedented extended
operation of the Ruskin spillway gates.
The original construction of the dam and spillway in 1930 had
relatively sharp edges and a smooth surface for the right abutment
concrete steps similar to conditions following the 2015 resurfacing.
Because there were no recorded observations of cavitation damage
prior to the resurfacing work in 1973, it is assumed that old SPOG 1
was rarely used in the first 43 years following initial construction.
Spillway gate usage records from this period are not available for
confirmation. It is likely that spills during that time were managed
by preferentially using the central gates for more efficient energy
dissipation rather than the current operational strategy, which pla-
ces greater emphasis on using the outer spill gates for improved
total dissolved gas mitigation (Hughes et al. 2009). Anecdotal in-
formation from a very large magnitude spill from November 1975
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Table 3. Largest spill events for old SPOG 1 and new SPOG 1 from 1989 to 2015
SPOG 1—old or new Date of spill
Old October 1–19, 1997
Old October 16–23, 2003
Old November 14–20, 2006
Old May 7–11, 2007
Old November 16–20, 2009
Old January 11–18, 2010
Old October 31 –November 9, 2012
Old November 17–27, 2012
Old May 8–17, 2013
New December 2–15, 2015
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with a peak discharge of about 2,100 m3 =s noted that the old SPOG
1 was not used during that event.
Electronic records for Ruskin spillway operation are available
from 1989 to present, while paper records for periods prior to
1989 are very sparse with extended time periods noted as either
missing or destroyed by fire. Usage of the old SPOG 1 from 1989
to November 2015 and the new SPOG 1 from December 2015 and
onwards are reviewed subsequently.
The cumulative operation of the old SPOG 1 was approximately
3,800 h from 1989 to November 2015, or less than 2% of the time,
prior to the spillway upgrade work. Over 95% of the hours of op-
eration of the old SPOG 1 during this period was at a gate opening
of 2 m or less (∼3,580 h). Many of these spills were at very low
discharges during reservoir drawdown that were required during
spillway crest block anchoring work or construction related to
the right abutment to address seismic deficiencies between 2006
and 2013. For example, the old SPOG 1 was open 2 m for nearly
800 h during June and July 2012 at a reservoir level below El. 36 m
resulting in an average discharge around 10 m3 =s. Such a low
discharge would not be expected to lead to cavitation damage.
On the basis of available electronic records, it was noted that
there were nine spill events for the old SPOG 1 longer than 3 days
with an average spill discharge greater than 70 m3 =s between 1989
and November 2015. This is a somewhat arbitrary threshold, but it
allows comparison of relatively large magnitude spill discharges
that have greater potential to lead to cavitation. Table 3 summarizes
these nine spill events for the old SPOG 1 as well as the spill in the
first half of December 2015 for the new SPOG 1.
From December 2–15, 2015, the new SPOG 1 had an average
discharge of 103 m3 =s for 315 h. The duration and volume of
SPOG 1 spill releases in the first half of December 2015 were
at least 30% and 50% greater, respectively, than any spill event
from the old SPOG 1 in the previous 27 years corresponding to
the period of reliable spillway gate records.
The new SPOG 1 was used for about 3,700 h between December
2015 and May 2016, which is about 84% of the time. Therefore, the
new SPOG 1 was used for approximately the same duration in its
first 6 months of service compared to the previous 27 years of op-
eration for the old SPOG 1. There was also a significant increase in
the operation of larger gate openings, which generally led to higher
spill discharges. Hours of operation for different gate opening
ranges were as follows between December 2015 and May 2016:
2,965 h for gate openings up to 2 m (81% of operation), 558 h for
2 m to 4 m gate opening (15% of operation), and 159 h for gate
openings greater than 6 m (4% of operation).
The initial damage that was observed in mid-December 2015
occurred after 315 h of spilling (average discharge ¼ 103 m3 =s),
which included a mix of gate openings less than 2 m with
© ASCE 04019057-10
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057
Average discharge Duration Volume of spill
(m3 =s) (hours) (×106 m3 )
110 197 78
101 154 56
82 142 42
104 106 40
94 94 32
80 164 47
98 210 74
70 239 60
71 219 56
103 315 117
discharges below 80 m3 =s and full gate opening with releases
around 139 m3 =s. The more severe damage below SPOG 1 that
was observed in late May 2016 prior to the interim measure involv-
ing wedge construction occurred after approximately 3,700 h of
operation (average discharge ¼ 109 m3 =s) with a maximum hourly
discharge of 338 m3 =s.
For comparison, Falvey (1990) presents data for several spill-
ways showing observed cavitation damage after about 400 h of op-
eration with flow velocities approaching or exceeding 40 m=s.
Flow velocities over the Ruskin right abutment spillway steps dur-
ing the December 2015 spill were in the 15–20 m=s range based on
numerical model simulations. The 315 h of new SPOG 1 operation
in December 2015 that led to the initial cavitation damage is close
to the lower end of the range of observed cavitation damage noted
in Falvey (1990), although the flow velocities over the Ruskin right
abutment spillway steps are much lower than the data from Falvey
(1990). The effects of boundary roughness and alignment are
investigated in the following section to gain further insight.
Boundary Roughness and Alignment
Singular or isolated roughness elements can create sudden local
changes in flow direction resulting in turbulence in the shear
zone and cavitation. However, for flow over a uniform roughness,
there is a shear layer over the entire flow surface, which can
reduce the potential for cavitation damage. Falvey (1990) presents
analysis showing 3.2 times reduction in cavitation damage poten-
tial for the Glen Canyon Dam tunnel spillway with a very rough
surface (rugosity ¼ 1.5 mm) compared to a new, smooth surface
(rugosity ¼ 0.015 mm). Nie (2001) summarizes experimental re-
sults demonstrating that a uniformly rough surface upstream of
an irregularity reduces the pressure drop caused by the irregularity,
which decreases cavitation damage potential.
Misalignments of the boundary, such as offsets into or away
from the flow, can create flow separation leading to a reduction
in local pressures. For example, the misalignment of the spillway
tunnel invert at Hoover Dam led to cavitation problems in the 1940s
(Pugh and Rhone 1988).
Prior to the 2015 resurfacing work, the Ruskin right abutment
spillway steps had a rough surface with rounded edges [Fig. 3(d)].
The recent rehabilitation strategy involved replacing the shotcrete
installed in 1973 with cast-in-place concrete with a relatively
smooth finish and sharper edges [Fig. 3(e)]. The specified radius
of the step edges constructed in 2015 is 50 mm, which creates much
more flow separation compared to the previous step geometry.
Two tests were performed with the numerical model to inves-
tigate the effects of surface roughness and the step edge geometry
in terms of cavitation potential reduction for the base case scenario.
Increasing the concrete surface roughness height in the numerical
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 model from 0.5 to 2 mm leads to an increase of about 10% in mini-
mum simulated pressures compared to the base case scenario.
While this increase in modeled pressures support Falvey (1990)
and Nie (2001) that uniformly rough surfaces will reduce cavitation
damage potential, the magnitude of the increase is not sufficient to
prevent cavitation to the Ruskin right abutment spillway steps. The
2 mm roughness height was then combined with a 300 mm radius
on the step edges, which led to minimum pressures that are nearly
60% higher at Step 10 (σ ¼ 0.3) compared to the base case sim-
ulation with sharp step edges and a roughness height of 0.5 mm.
Cavitation damage would not be expected at Step 10 with this
geometry.
Although a step edge radius of 300 mm and surface roughness
of 2 mm may not correspond exactly to the spillway steps prior to
the recent resurfacing, the numerical model results demonstrate the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reduction in cavitation potential due to these factors and provide
further insight into why cavitation damage was not observed prior
to the 2015 resurfacing work.
In this case, the rounded step edges have a much more signifi-
cant role in reducing flow separation that leads to very low negative
pressures compared to the surface roughness. As discussed previ-
ously, it would be very costly to implement a step edge radius of
300 mm while maintaining a minimum cover of 50 mm for the
reinforcing steel bars used for the 2015 resurfacing. Also, it would
be expensive to uniformly roughen the surface of the spillway steps
using either shotblasting, sandblasting, or water blasting in a con-
trolled manner.
Bottom aerators can be used to protect against spillway cavita-
tion when high velocity flows in a chute lead to decreased pressures
and natural aeration does not satisfy the minimum air concentration
requirements to develop positive pressures [e.g., Rafi et al. (2012)].
However, as discussed previously, the negative pressures that occur
in the flow separation zones at the Ruskin Dam right abutment
spillway steps are due to the sharp transitions in boundary align-
ment rather than high velocity flows in a chute. Therefore, artificial
aeration would not be an effective means of cavitation mitigation in
this case.
Summary and Conclusions
The Ruskin Dam spillway right abutment steps are intended to pro-
tect against bank erosion and direct spill releases toward the center
of the downstream channel. Releases from spillway gate 1 flow
down the spillway chute and onto the right abutment spillway steps.
A portion of the flow plunges over the sides of the steps with flow
separation occurring where the vertical face of the steps meet the
spillway chute (Fig. 4). This leads to local pressure drops and in-
creased potential for cavitation.
Prior to recent phased construction work to resurface the
spillway concrete and replace all spillway piers and radial gates,
the spillway had not shown signs of damage due to cavitation.
On the basis of the analysis described previously, the cavitation
potential was lower for the old spillway steps with a rougher sur-
face and rounded edges. It is postulated that relatively infrequent
spills from old SPOG 1 either did not result in cavitating conditions
or led to bubble formation associated with incipient cavitation that
did not exceed the incubation period.
The construction upgrades for the Ruskin Dam spillway and
powerhouse required an extended duration of spilling, which
was unprecedented in the dam’s 80+ year history based on available
records. The initial concrete damage to the right abutment spillway
steps that occurred in December 2015 is due to cavitation as a result
of over 300 h of continuous spilling from new SPOG 1 (peak spill
© ASCE 04019057-11
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057
discharge from SPOG 1 was 139 m3 =s). The duration and volume
of SPOG 1 spill releases in the first half of December 2015 were at
least 30% and 50% greater, respectively, than any spill event from
the old SPOG 1 in the previous 27 years corresponding to the
period of reliable spillway gate records. In addition, the effects
of the boundary misalignments that lead to the flow separation
zones have been magnified with the sharper edges and to a lesser
extent the smoother concrete surface following the resurfacing
in 2015.
The initial concrete damage created additional surface irregular-
ities exacerbating the cavitation potential of high velocity flows,
which led to further damage in 2016 as the new SPOG 1 was used
for approximately the same duration in its first 6 months of service
compared to the previous 27 years of operation for the old SPOG 1.
The magnitude of the new SPOG 1 discharges was also increased in
early 2016 with 550 h of spilling greater than 180 m3 =s.
As concrete damage progressed, an interim measure to mitigate
the loss of material in the area of greatest damage was implemented
with the construction of a tetrahedron concrete wedge to reduce the
magnitude of flow separation. Although damage to the steps con-
tinued to progress with ongoing spilling, the concrete wedge was
successful in reducing the extent of damage at that location.
Numerical model results of negative pressure regions are con-
sistent with observed initial concrete damage to the right abutment
spillway steps. Numerical analysis of the tetrahedron wedge in-
stalled between Steps 9 and 10 as part of repairs in June 2016 shows
an increase in minimum pressures of nearly 50%. The cavitation
index calculated based on simulation output indicates that damage
would still be expected, as was observed on the prototype after
several months of additional spilling following the repairs.
Options using 3 m long concrete tetrahedron wedges with vari-
ous offset distances from the spillway chute were developed to mit-
igate concrete damage to the right abutment spillway steps with
significantly higher simulated minimum pressures at all steps be-
low the new SPOG 1 compared to the base case scenario. In addi-
tion, the spatial extent of very low negative pressures that may lead
to cavitation is substantially smaller. For example, the area of pres-
sures below −75 kPa at Step 10 is reduced by 70% for the recom-
mended mitigation option.
With the recommended mitigation option, concrete damage due
to cavitation would only occur in the future as a result of an ex-
tended duration of spilling or the cumulative effects of several large
spill events. For reference, the 3 m long tetrahedron concrete wedge
installed between steps 9 and 10 in June 2016 was successful in
preventing cavitation damage after at least 37 days of spilling at
an average discharge of 93 m3 =s. This is a longer duration of spill-
ing than the cumulative operation of the Ruskin old SPOG 1 at
large spill events during the 20+ year period from the late 1980s
to 2010. Following the completion of the recent Ruskin Dam
spillway and powerhouse upgrade work, such extended periods
of spilling are improbable.
Finally, the presented work shows the case in which observed
cavitation damage on a prototype spillway was used opportunisti-
cally to calibrate a numerical model to help develop mitigation
measures for future use while gaining valuable insight into the
cavitation phenomenon.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be pro-
vided with restrictions (e.g., anonymized data). Historical discharge
data for the Ruskin spillway SPOG 1 discussed in this report may
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 be provided. These data are summarized in Table 3. The Ruskin
spillway numerical model and associated data are proprietary to
BC Hydro.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Saman Vazinkhoo, BC Hydro Design Manager
for the Ruskin Dam and Powerhouse Upgrade Project, for initiating
and supporting this investigation into concrete damage at Ruskin
Dam spillway. Amec Foster Wheeler/Wood Group designed the
Ruskin spillway resurfacing performed as part of the spillway
upgrade work that commenced in 2013. They also provided input
regarding the constructability of the recommended cavitation
mitigation option that is presented in this paper.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Faizal Yusuf on 12/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ax , Ay , and Az = fractional areas open to flow in subscript
direction;
G = gravitational force;
Po = reference pressure;
Pv = vapor pressure of water;
V f = fractional volume of fluid in each cell;
V o = reference velocity;
f = viscous acceleration;
p = average fluid pressure;
u, v, and w = velocities in x, y, and z directions;
ρ = fluid mass density; and
σ = cavitation index.
References
Amadour, A., M. Sanchez-Juny, and J. Dolz. 2009. “Developing flow
region and pressure fluctuations on steeply sloping stepped spillways.”
J. Hydraul. Eng. 135 (12): 1092–1100. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
HY.1943-7900.0000118.
Cassidy, J. J., and R. A. Elder. 1984. “Spillway of high dams.” Chap. 4.
In Developments in hydraulic engineering–Vol. 2. New York: Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers.
Falvey, H. T. 1983. “Prevention of cavitation on chutes and spillways.”
In Proc., Conf. on Frontiers in Hydraulic Engineering, 432–437.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Falvey, H. T. 1990. Cavitation in chutes and spillways. Engineering mono-
graph 42. Denver, CO: US Bureau of Reclamation.
Finkenbine, J. F., Z. Micovic, and S. Vazinkhoo. 2017. “Construction flood
management of extreme consequence Ruskin dam with reduced spill-
way capacity.” In Proc., CDA 2017 Annual Conf., Paper #6-03.
Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Dam Association.
Frizzell, K. W., and F. M. Renna. 2009. Cavitation potential of the Folsom
auxiliary stepped spillway. Denver, CO: US Bureau of Reclamation.
Frizzell, K. W., F. M. Renna, and J. Matos. 2013. “Cavitation potential of
flow on stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 139 (6): 630–636. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000715.
Fujikawa, S., and T. Akamatsu. 1980. “On the mechanisms of cavitation
bubble collapse.” In Proc., International Association for Hydraulic
Research 10th Symposium of Section for Hydraulic Machinery, Equip-
ment and Cavitation, 91–102. Madrid, Spain: International Association
of Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research.
© ASCE 04019057-12
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019057
Heymann, F. J. 1967. “On the time dependence of the rate of erosion due to
impingement or cavitation.” In Erosion by Cavitation or Impingement.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Hickling, R., and M. S. Plesset. 1964. “Collapse and rebound of a spherical
bubble in water.” Phys. Fluids. 7 (1): 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1063/1
.1711058.
Hirt, C. W., and B. D. Nichols. 1981. “Volume of fluid (VOF) method for
the dynamics of free boundaries.” J. Comput. Phys. 39 (1): 201–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5.
Hirt, C. W., and J. M. Sicilian. 1985. “A porosity technique for the defi-
nition of obstacles in rectangular cell meshes.” In Proc., 4th Inter-
national Conference on Numerical Ship Hydrodynamics, 450–468.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Ho, D. K. H., and K. M. Riddette. 2010. “Application of computational
fluid dynamics to evaluate hydraulic performance of spillway in
Australia.” Aust. J. Civ. Eng. 6 (1): 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1080
/14488353.2010.11463946.
Hughes, B., W. D. Clohan, and Z. Micovic. 2009. “Total dissolved gas as-
sessment at the Ruskin dam.” Int. J. Hydropower Dams. 16 (4): 72–75.
Johnson, V. E., Jr. 1963. “Mechanics of cavitation.” J. Hydraulics Div.
89 (3): 251–275.
Kermani, E. F., G. A. Barani, and M. Ghaeini-Hessaroeyeh. 2013. “Inves-
tigation of cavitation damage levels on spillways.” World Appl. Sci. J.
21 (1): 73–78. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.1.2630.
Lee, W., and J. A. Hoopes. 1996. “Prediction of cavitation damage for spill-
ways.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 122 (9): 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(1996)122:9(481).
Lesleighter, E. J. 1988. “Cavitation in hydraulic structures.” In Proc.,
National Conf. on Hydraulic Engineering–Int. Symp. on Model-
Prototype Correlation of Hydraulic Structures. Reston, VA: ASCE..
Nie, M. 2001. “Cavitation prevention with roughened surface.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 127 (10): 878–880. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(2001)127:10(878).
Oukid, Y., V. Libaud, and C. Daux. 2015. “3D CFD modelling of spillways:
Practical feedback on capabilities and challenges.” Int. J. Hydropower
Dams. 22 (6): 67–73.
Parsaie, A., S. Dehdar-Behbahani, and A. H. Haghiabi. 2016. “Numerical
modelling of cavitation on spillway’s flip bucket.” Front. Struct. Civ.
Eng. 10 (4): 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-016-0337-y.
Plesset, M. S., and R. E. Devine. 1966. “Effect of exposure time on cav-
itation damage.” J. Basic Eng. 88 (4): 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1115
/1.3645943.
Pugh, C. A., and T. J. Rhone. 1988. “Cavitation in bureau of reclamation
tunnel spillways.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Hydraulics for High Dams,
645–652. Madrid, Spain: International Association of Hydro-
Environment Engineering and Research.
Rafi, M., A. Ali, G. Qadir, and R. Ali. 2012. “Modeling the Mangla dam
spillway for cavitation and aerators optimization.” J. Water Resour.
Prot. 4 (12): 1051–1060. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2012.412121.
Rajasekhar, P., Y. V. G. Santhosh, and S. Soma Sekhar. 2014. “Physical and
numerical model studies on cavitation phenomenon—A study on
Nagarjuna Sagar spillway.” Int. J. Recent Dev. Eng. Technol. 2 (1): 1–10.
Savage, B. M., and M. C. Johnson. 2001. “Flow over ogee spillway:
Physical and numerical model case study.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (8):
640–649. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:8(640).
Thiruvengadam, A., and H. S. Preiser. 1963. On testing materials for cav-
itation damage resistance. Hydronautics Inc. Technical Report #233-3.
Fort Belvoir, VA: Defense Technical Information Center.
Yakhot, V., and S. A. Orszag. 1986. “Renormalization group analysis of
turbulence I: Basic theory.” J. Sci. Comput. 1 (1): 3–51. https://doi
.org/10.1007/BF01061452.
Zhang, H., B. Han, X. G. Yu, and D. Y. Ju. 2013. “Numerical and exper-
imental studies of cavitation behavior in water-jet cavitation peening
processing.” Shock Vib. 20 (5): 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013
/910613.
J. Hydraul. Eng.