Discussions and Closures
Closure to “Energy Dissipation of a Type III Basin under
Design and Adverse Conditions for Stepped
and Smooth Spillways” by D. Valero,
D. B. Bung, and B. M. Crookston
D. Valero, Ph.D.
Lecturer, River Basin Development Chair Group, Water Science and En-
gineering Dept., IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, 2611 AX,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 105.106.9.188 on 12/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Netherlands. Email: d.valero@un-ihe.org
D. B. Bung, Ph.D.
Professor, Hydraulic Engineering Section, Civil Engineering Dept., FH
Aachen Univ. of Applied Sciences, Aachen 52066, Germany. Email:
bung@fh-aachen.de
B. M. Crookston, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Assistant Professor, Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah
Water Research Laboratory, Utah State Univ., 8200 Old Main Hill, Logan
UT 84322-8200 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0003-1259-8540. Email: brian.crookston@usu.edu
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001482
The writers appreciate the discussers’ interest in this paper and
agree that further research is needed if standardized design guide-
lines are to be developed to account for the effects of a stepped
chute invert on hydraulic jump stilling basin performance. This
was indeed the ultimate motivation of the original paper. The writ-
ers are grateful for the opportunity to respond to several comments
noted by the discussers while providing additional thoughts and
perspective on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling
and hydraulic jump stilling basin design.
The discussers noted the linkage between the lowering tailwater
levels and the adverse flow conditions for the stilling basin perfor-
mance. Indeed, a hydraulic jump stilling basin has a design flow
and suggested minimum tailwater, yet performance should be
checked over the anticipated operation range including a sensitivity
analysis of backwater effects. Some uncertainty may exist in
backwater estimations provided by the downstream channel that,
depending on the numerical river model and input information,
may exceed
1 m for various flood events. Thus, a practitioner
is interested in the location and stability of the hydraulic jump
for a range of tailwater elevations. Streamwise momentum balance
can thereby shed some light on adverse flow conditions. By assum-
ing uniform velocity distributions and taking cross sections where
hydrostatic flow conditions are re-established, this balance can be
written as
1 1
ρgBD21 þ ρQV 1 ¼ ρgBD22 þ ρQV 2 þ Fx
2 2
where subscripts 1 and 2 refer to upstream and downstream sec-
tions, respectively; ρ = water density; g = gravity acceleration;
B = channel width; D = flow depth; V = mean flow velocity;
Q = volumetric flow rate; and Fx is a drag force opposing the flow.
For short, the term related to D will be named the pressure term
and the term related to V will be the velocity term. Note that in
© ASCE
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 07019015
subcritical flows the pressure term will be larger than the velocity
term, whereas the velocity term is larger than the pressure term for
supercritical flows. Thus, keeping constant the left side of Eq. (1),
while decreasing D2 implies that larger Fx (stilling basin response)
is required to keep the jump located at a given position. Hence, a
simplified momentum-based analysis suggests that lowering the
downstream tail water level directly represents adverse flow
conditions for the stilling basin, thus endorsing the validity of the
approach of the original paper.
The discussers added some further comments on the data extrac-
tion from the numerical model as well as the general model setup.
The writers also provide some contextual information regarding the
request to report pressure distributions from Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) eddy viscosity models to assist practi-
tioners on the design of stilling basins against high-pressure loads.
To begin, the mean pressure at a given point (gravity effect included
within the term p̄) can be estimated as (Pope 2000, p. 85)
1 ∂ ū ∂ ūj ∂ 2 ui0 uj0
− ∇2 p̄ ¼ ρ i þ ð2Þ
ρ ∂xj ∂xi ∂xi ∂xj
where ūi and ui0 = mean and fluctuating parts of the velocity field
and xi the cartesian coordinates. Subscripts denote the correspond-
ing coordinates (1, 2, 3 for x, y, z). The right side of Eq. (2) includes
two main sources that can result in deviations from hydrostatic
pressures, namely changes in flow trajectories, and the distribution
of Reynolds stresses. While changes in flow trajectories are one of
the weakest aspects of the RANS models (see roller length predic-
tions accuracy), Reynolds stresses are not directly computed or not
even incorporated (in the case of eddy viscosity models). Note that
Eq. (2) allows the computation of the mean pressure, yet the pres-
sure field is clearly transient, and the computation of peak pres-
sures, of greater interest for practitioners, would require further
considerations. Specifically, RANS equations provide approximate
time-averaged solutions (yet account for some unsteadiness) and it
would be prudent to compare the computed pressure field time
series from a RANS model to reliable experimental or field data.
Forasmuch as the simplest case of the classic hydraulic jump has
served as a RANS modeling workbench, validation has to our
knowledge not been conducted for neither mean nor turbulent pres-
sures [see recent review of Viti et al. (2019)]. This step may be
addressed first. Moreover, little is known on how the aeration
will impact both terms of the right side of Eq. (2), and thus a
conservative analysis was preferred so as to not mislead the reader
ð1Þ
with the results. The original paper compared numerical results to
the important study of Frizell and Svoboda (2012), who did not
provide pressure field experimental data. Therefore, we are unable
to perform a validation assessment of the predicted average pres-
sures because quantitative information regarding numerical results
and model accuracy cannot be provided without this experimental
data. Caution must prevail when intensive validation has not been
reported by the community and little physical evidences hold.
07019015-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 105.106.9.188 on 12/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Folsom Dam auxiliary spillway looking upstream at the stepped chute with Type III hydraulic jump stilling basin and supercavitating blocks.
(Image courtesy of US Army Corps of Engineers.)
However, some information is available in the literature for hy-
draulic jump stilling basins of a different geometry. Meireles et al.
(2010) reported pressure head results in a Type III stilling basin.
Some additional information on pressures for stilling basin flows
can be found in Bung et al. (2012). The effect of air entrainment on
maximum pressures in plunge pools is discussed by Bollaert and
Schleiss (2003), illustrating a challenge with model scale with re-
gards to two-phase flow pressure fields. Hunt and Kadavy (2018)
provide preliminary results of a large-scale stilling basin study
equipped with pressure transducers limited to the basin centerline.
Additionally, the discussers state that the employed single-fluid
approach may have some effects on energy dissipation results and
stilling basin performance as the entrained air phase is ignored. To
overcome this issue, a two-fluid modeling approach is recom-
mended. We agree with the discussers on the aerated nature of
the flow, but nonetheless the RANS modeling community has
achieved relevant outcomes for the classic hydraulic jump case both
with single-phase and multiphase modeling. Moreover, entrain-
ment of big voids can still be captured by the model even if not
at all sizes. Please note that given the air–water density difference,
the impact on the overall momentum balance [Eq. (1)] may remain
low. When considering selection of either a single-phase or multi-
phase numerical model, a relevant question is whether for the de-
sired outcome, it is worth solving two sets of equations; i.e., will
solving these equations with the necessary model details including
a sufficiently small scale be more accurate than not solving them?
And, if the air effect is not completely reproduced, should we
use subgrid models to approximate its effect on the main flow? Note
that the latter includes use of numerous semiempirical equations
and flow conceptualizations for which little knowledge is available
on their validity out of the calibration range [e.g., calibration-
validation of Valero and García-Bartual (2016) and issues
reported by Valero and Bung (2015) for a different spillway].
Addressing these questions would be an interesting contribution
beyond the scope of the original paper. Flow bulking and also
splash and spray from the turbulent flows conveyed through a
spillway should be considered for spillway and stilling basin
© ASCE 07019015-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 07019015
design, e.g., for sidewall heights (Hunt and Kadavy 2017).
Notwithstanding its conspicuous occurrence in prototypes and
many scaled physical models, air entrainment (and detrainment for
that matter) is oftentimes neglected in analytical analysis, yet ac-
curate flow descriptions have been obtained (e.g., Castro-Orgaz and
Hager 2017, pp. 481–485). A guiding principal for numerical
analyses is, for a given objective, determining the appropriate
model and corresponding complexity. The original paper refer-
enced numerous instances in the literature where investigators
successfully employed a single-phase flow model, and the paper
provides insights into the performance of this approach for a Type
III basin for consideration. A single-fluid approach should be bal-
anced against prediction accuracy and computation cost. Specific
considerations must be given to the computational mesh and resolv-
ing scales related to air entrainment and sufficient resolution of air
bubbles while avoiding large numerical diffusion, etc. Approaches
to include air effects merit greater insight on the flow behavior to
formulate accurate models for highly aerated turbulent flows, such
as those occurring in spillways and stilling basins. In many instan-
ces, this additional complexity represents an unjustified increase in
computer power while introducing additional uncertainty into the
model results by considering air entrainment, which in this case
might be larger than the deficiencies observed in analytical analyses
where it was not considered at all. Further knowledge on air–water
flows behavior may assist scientists on formulating robust multi-
phase models, but at this point we believe that numerical modeling
of air entrainment is not at a mature stage.
The writers hope that the community will continue to investigate
complex flows in spillways, including various types of hydraulic
jump stilling basins downstream of stepped chutes (Fig. 1). Addi-
tional insights from numerical modeling, laboratory studies, and
field observations are needed. This would provide further under-
standing into their complex flow behaviors and hydraulic structure
design guidance for practitioners, who balance a variety of project
requirements against hydraulic performance including project
economy, constructability, and site-specific conditions ranging
from site geology, basin hydrology, ecological impacts, and project
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 risks to public safety, emergency response, and even unauthorized
recreational activities occurring in spillways.
References
Bollaert, E., and A. J. Schleiss. 2003. “Scour of rock due to the impact of
plunging high velocity jets. Part I: A state-of-the-art review.” J. Hydraul.
Res. 41 (5): 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221680309499991.
Bung, D. B., Q. Sun, I. Meireles, T. Viseu, and J. Matos. 2012. “USBR type
III stilling basin performance for steep stepped spillways.” In Proc. 4th
IAHR Int. Symp. on Hydraulic Structures. Madrid, Spain: International
Association for Hydro-Environmental Engineering and Research.
Castro-Orgaz, O., and W. H. Hager. 2017. Non-hydrostatic free surface
flows: Advances in geophysical and environmental mechanics and
mathematics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 105.106.9.188 on 12/12/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Frizell, K. W., and C. D. Svoboda. 2012. Performance of type III stilling
basins: Stepped spillway studies. Do stepped spillways affect tradi-
tional design parameters? Denver: US Department of Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation.
Hunt, S. L., and K. C. Kadavy. 2017. “Estimated splash and training wall
height requirements for stepped chutes applied to embankment dams.”
J. Hydraul. Eng. 143 (11): 06017018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
HY.1943-7900.0001373.
© ASCE 07019015-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(2): 07019015
Hunt, S. L., and K. C. Kadavy. 2018. “Preliminary results for embankment
dam stepped spillway stilling basin research.” In Proc., 7th IAHR Int.
Symp. on Hydraulic Structures, edited by D. Bung and B. Tullis.
Logan, UT: Utah State Univ.
Meireles I., Matos J., and A. Silva-Afonso. 2010. “Flow characteristics
along USBR type III stilling basins downstream of steep stepped spill-
ways.”In Proc., 3rd Int. Junior Researcher and Engineering Workshop
on Hydraulic Structures, edited by R. Janssen and H. Chanson.
Brisbane, Australia: Univ. of Queensland.
Pope, S. B. 2000. Turbulent flows. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Valero, D., and D. B. Bung. 2015. “Hybrid investigations of air transport
processes in moderately sloped stepped spillway flows.” In E-proc.,
36th IAHR World Congress. Madrid, Spain: International Association
for Hydro-Environmental Engineering and Research. https://www.iahr
.org/Portal/About_US/IAHR_World_Congresses/36th_IAHR_World
_Congress.aspx?hkey=ad94a6b7-6ad3-4082-8289-b701ac858c92.
Valero, D., and R. García-Bartual. 2016. “Calibration of an air entrainment
model for CFD spillway applications.” In Advances in hydroinfor-
matics. Singapore: Springer.
Viti, N., D. Valero, and C. Gualtieri. 2019. “Numerical simulation of
hydraulic jumps. Part 2: Recent results and future outlook.” Water
11 (1): 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010028.
J. Hydraul. Eng.