See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316889289

Design of an economic spillway alternative: piano key weirs

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 808

2 authors:

Frank Denys Gerrit Basson

Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch University
14 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 153 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fluid Structure Interaction of Piano Key Weirs View project

Hydraulic model study of the blowback behaviour of hte bottom outlet of the Berg River Dam, South Africa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frank Denys on 31 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN OF AN ECONOMIC SPILLWAY ALTERNATIVE: PIANO KEY
WEIRS
1
FJM Denys
1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

ABSTRACT

Piano Key Weirs are a relatively recent development in the field of spillway hydraulics. A great deal of
research has been conducted in understanding and describing their hydraulic behaviour. This work
has resulted in several useable preliminary design methodologies. Experts, however, still recommend
the use of scaled physical or numerical models to ascertain the influence of secondary effects such as
approach conditions, sedimentation, aeration, energy dissipation, debris, submergence, etc.

This paper presents a broad summary of published research on these unique structures.

1. INTRODUCTION TO PIANO KEY WEIRS

Piano Key Weirs (often shortened to PKW or PK weir) are a relatively recent development in the field
of spillway hydraulics. They were first developed in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s as part of an
investigation by Hydrocoop (France) and the University of Biskra (Algeria), among others, into
improvements for the well-known labyrinth weir (Lempérière & Ouamane 2003). The typical labyrinth
weir has a zig-zag plan layout such that its total length is longer than that of a straight linear weir. PK
weirs take this concept one step further by having an alternating rectangular shape in plan.
Furthermore, these rectangular keys have sloping bases which guide flow over and away from the
crest of the weir, thus increasing the discharge capacity for a given overflow head. Incidentally, the
repeating staggered overhangs resemble piano keys, hence their name. A typical piano key weir
(Type-A) is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These figures also indicate some of the most influential
geometrical parameters that dictate their behaviour, where the subscript “i” refers to an aspect of the
inlet key and “o” the outlet key.

Figure 1. PKW schematic diagram Figure 2. Typical PKW cross section

(Machiels et al. 2014) (Kabiri-Samani & Javaheri 2012).)

Motivations for their use are varied but mainly revolve around their large specific discharge. As a
result, they are ideal for dam safety improvement programmes (inadequate spillway capacity) as well
as the rehabilitation of, or upgrades to, existing water resource schemes (dam raising). Both of these
aspects are currently of concern due to the increased variability in river runoff brought about by
climate change. There are several technologies that have been developed which are capable of
raising or altering an existing spillway without increasing the risk of overtopping. However, many of
these involve mechanical gates, which are susceptible to failure if not maintained or operated
correctly, and are thus not favoured by many dam experts. Gate management is also of concern
throughout Africa; so much so that avoidance of their use is being recommended by many dam
specialists (Lempérière et al. 2013). Piano key weirs, on the other hand, are permanent structures that
are able to safely, efficiently and economically achieve an increase in the full supply level or discharge
capacity without the need to raise the dam wall.

Several PK weir projects have been implemented worldwide despite historic shortcomings in a
comprehensive understanding of their behaviour. Countries where they have been successfully
implemented include France, India, Australia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Switzerland and Algeria (see Figure
3 and Figure 4). In most instances where they have been previously deployed, the designers made
use of scaled physical models and generalised performance curves to predict their behaviour
(Schleiss 2011). Locally, the proposed raising of the Hazelmere Dam using a PKW was iteratively
tested using scaled physical models in the Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation (DWS)
hydraulics laboratory (see Figure 7). It is likely that the design of the raising of the Tzaneen Dam using
PKWs will undergo a similar process (Botha et al. 2013). Other, smaller, dam sites have also been
investigated as possible candidates where PKWs could play a beneficial role.

Figure 3. L’Etroit Dam, France (Erpicum Figure 4. Malarce Dam, France

et al. 2011) (Erpicum et al. 2013)

2. PIANO KEY WEIR HYDRAULICS

2.1 Discharge efficiency

The piano key weir is a non-linear overflow structure which causes complex flow patterns in its vicinity.
As stated in Section 1, the design aims to provide a much longer overflow length than normal linear
weirs. In so doing, an increased specific discharge can be discharged at a given upstream head when
compared to linear weirs. At their peak efficiency these structures can allow specific discharges of up
3
to 100 m /s/m (Lempérière & Ouamane 2003), although in practice they are usually in the order of
3 3 3
20 m /s/m to 40 m /s/m. This is in comparison to the ∼10 m /s/m maximum of linear weirs.

As can be seen in Section 2.3, several methodologies have been developed to describe the discharge
behaviour of a PK weir. One such methodology is to assume that the PKW is a linear structure
meaning that the standard weir overflow equation applies, as follows:

𝑄 = 𝐶!" 𝑊 2𝑔𝐻 !

The discharge coefficient, CdW, can then be estimated from the physically measured, or numerically
modelled discharge (Pfister & Schleiss 2013b). The W subscript of the discharge coefficient refers to
the fact that the discharge being estimated uses the linear width of the PK weir (as defined in Figure 2)
and not that of the overflow crest length as a whole, which can be many multiples higher than the
width. The benefit of the longer crest is thus reflected in the discharge coefficient.

Typical discharge coefficients, as estimated using numerical modelling, for a number of overflow
structures are presented in Figure 5. They show that non-linear weirs are a great deal more efficient
than their linear counterparts. However, this behaviour only holds true for low upstream water heads.
As the water level increases, proportionate to the weir’s height, the relative benefit reduces
asymptotically. This is why PKWs should be designed to operate only at lower heads. Although PKWs
have been tested at a range of upstream heads (0 < Ht/P < 3), none have been built to operate at
larger than Ht/P = 0.66. Most prototypes are designed to discharge their maximum flows at around
Ht/P = 0.3 (Leite Ribeiro et al. 2013).

Figure 5. Total discharge coefficients for various weir types (Blancher et al.
2011)

2.2 Geometric parameters

Unlike a standard sharp crested weir, there are a large number of geometrical parameters which have
an influence on a PKW’s discharge behaviour. In order to assist in research efforts and prevent
confusion, a standardised terminology to describe these was proposed in Pralong et al (2011). The
terminology is comprehensive, thus, for brevity, has not been included here. However, the key
parameters relating to physical dimensions are depicted in Figure 1.

Of this plethora of factors, it has been determined that knowing four dominant geometrical parameters,
namely the crest length L, the overflow head Ht, the upstream weir height Pi, and the total weir
(channel) width W, (encapsulated into the dimensionless ratios, L/W and Ht/Pi) the discharge can be
empirically determined with a maximum error of only ±17% (Leite Ribeiro et al. 2013). The additional
parameters also play a role but their individual effect on discharge is generally limited to less than 5%
(Lefebvre et al. 2013). Interesting parameters which have been determined to boost the discharge
efficiency include:

• The ratio between the inlet key width and the outlet key width, Wi/Wo. Numerous
experiments have determined that an inlet key larger than the outlet key is generally
beneficial to discharge efficiency. The optimum value for this ratio is not fixed, as it is
dependent on other factors, but lies anywhere from 1.0 to 1.5. Most studies assume a ratio
of Wi/Wo = 1.2.
• The presence of parapet walls along the crest of the weir is also beneficial. These
parapets, in effect, increase the volume of the individual keys in addition to giving the weir
greater height. It has been found that there is only a marginal benefit to a parapet on the
downstream crest of the inlet key, but that there is a marked benefit to placing one on the
upstream crest of the outlet key (Machiels et al. 2013). This is because, with its greater
volume, the outlet key is able to operate under undrowned conditions for longer than would
otherwise be the case, allowing the crest to operate at its free-flowing efficiency for longer.
• The placement of a nose under the upstream (outlet key) overhang to guide flow to the
inlet keys either side of it has been found to be a promising design feature (Philips &
 Lesleighter 2013). Its presence leads to smoother flow lines, lower energy losses and less
vortex shedding which thus leads to increases in the PK weir’s discharge efficiency.

2.3 Design methodologies

The hydraulic behaviour of piano key weirs, and the large number of variables which affect it, is now
reasonably well understood despite its complex nature. Several general rating curve formulas have
been compiled as described in the subsections below. It should be noted that each of these equations
is only applicable within the geometrical limits which were used to compile them. These limits should
be respected as some of the resultant rating curves are fairly sensitive to them (Pfister et al. 2012).
These limits are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Application limits for the Type-A PKW capacity equations (Pfister &
Schleiss 2013a)

L/W H/P W i /W o B/P B i /B, B o /B

Kabiri-Samani &
2.5 – 7.0 0.1 – 0.6 0.33 – 1.22 1.0 – 2.5 0.00 – 0.26
Javaheri (2012)
Leite Ribeiro et al. (2012) 3.0 – 7.0 0.1 – 2.8 0.50 – 2.00 1.5 – 4.6 0.20 – 0.40
Machiels (2012) 4.2 – 5.0 0.1 – 5.0 0.50 – 2.00 1.0 – 6.0 0.29 – 0.33

2.3.1 Kabiri-Samani & Javaheri 2012

Kabiri-Samani and Javaheri (2012), at the Isfahan University of Technology, Iran, conducted scaled
physical model tests incorporating PKW Types A, B and C with specific discharge ranges from 25 to
175 l/s/m. Both free flow and submerged flow were investigated although the equation below is only
applicable to free overflow. The method is based on the ogee crest overflow equation in the form of:

2
𝑄= 𝐶 𝑊 2𝑔𝐻 !
3 !

with the discharge coefficient, Cd, being defined as a function of the various relevant geometrical
parameters:

!!.!"# !.!"" !.!"# !.!"#

𝐻 𝐿 𝑊! 𝐵 !! !!
𝐶! = 0.212 𝑒 !.!"# ! !!.!"# ! + 0.606
𝑃 𝑊 𝑊! 𝑃

2.3.2 Leite Ribeiro et al. 2012

Leite Ribeiro M, Pfister M, Schleiss AJ, and Boillat J-L (2012) also conducted systematic physical
model tests at the Laboratory of Hydraulic Constructions, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Switzerland. Tests were limited to PKW Type-A with free overflow conditions and ranged across
specific discharges of 26 to 440 l/s/m. The resultant rating curve is expressed in terms of the
discharge enhancement ratio, which is defined as the discharge of the PKW, QPKW, relative to that of a
linear sharp crested weir, Qs.

𝑄!"# 𝑄!"#
𝑟= =
𝑄! 0.42𝑊 2𝑔𝐻 !

The ratio was found to vary primarily as a function of four key parameters, namely, the overflow
length, L, the weir width, W, the weir height, Pi and the overflow depth, H. Secondary parameters
were also incorporated to reflect the contributions of key widths, overhang lengths and parapet walls.

!.!
𝐿 − 𝑊 𝑃!
𝑟 = 1 + 0.24 𝑤𝑝𝑏𝑎
𝑊𝐻
 !! !.!" !! !.!"
where 𝑤 = is used to define the influence of the inlet and outlet key ratio, 𝑝 = to reflect
!! !!
!! !!! !!.!
any difference in the height of the inlet and outlet keys, 𝑏 = 0.3 + to specify the influence of
!
!! !
the overhang lengths and, 𝑎 = 1 + to stipulate the presence of any parapet walls.
!!

2.3.3 Machiels 2012

As part of his PhD dissertation, at the University of Liège, Belgium, Machiels (2012) conducted an
extensive parametric study limited to free overflow conditions and charged with specific discharges
ranging from 13 to 400 l/s/m. The developed analytical discharge formula is based on a summation of
the calculated discharge over each of the three elements of a typical PKW, namely the downstream
overhang (d), the upstream overhang (u) and the lateral, side crests (s). The unit discharge is then as
follows:

𝑄!"# 𝑊! 𝑊! 2𝐵
𝑞= = 𝑞! + 𝑞! + 𝑞! 𝐾 𝐾
𝑊 𝑊! 𝑊! 𝑊! !" !"

with 𝑊! = 𝑊! + 𝑊! + 2𝑇 being defined as the width of an individual cycle. Each of the specific
discharges over each of the three PKW elements are estimated as follows:

!
1 𝐻
𝑞! = 0.374 1 + 1 + 0.5 2𝑔𝐻 !
1000𝐻 + 1.6 𝐻 + 𝑃!

!
1 𝐻
𝑞! = 0.445 1 + 1 + 0.5 2𝑔𝐻 !
1000𝐻 + 1.6 𝐻+𝑃

!
1 0.833𝐻 𝑃! ! + 𝛽
𝑞! = 0.41 1 + 1 + 0.5 2𝑔𝐻 !
833𝐻 + 1.6 0.833𝐻 + 𝑃! 0.833𝐻 + 𝑃! ! + 𝛽

Note that each of the above three equations defines the weir height differently. P is the height of the
weir, the total upstream height (including that of the dam the PKW is built upon) is 𝑃! = 𝑃 + 𝑃! , and Pe
!! ! !!
is the mean weir height along the side wall, 𝑃! = 𝑃! + 1− . The Greek symbols define the
! ! !
!.!!"
! !.! !.!" ! !
influence of the inlet key slope (𝑆! = ), where 𝛼 = − + 7.55 and 𝛽 = 0.029𝑒 ! .
!!!! !! ! !!

The KWi coefficient defines the influence of the variation in flow velocity along the lateral crest. The KWo
parameter has been incorporated to describe how the effective overflow length over the side wall is
reduced as the overflow nappes in the outlet key interfere with one another and eventually cause local
submergence effects. Designers are referred to the original study (Machiels 2012 p.229) for their
definition.

2.3.4 Comparison
Pfister & Schleiss (2013a) presented a comparative review of all three of the above methodologies.
Careful cognisance of each method’s application limitations was accounted for. The various PKW
rating curves were applied to an indicative example (with L/W = 5) and compared with those of a
standard, 100 m wide, ogee and a broad crested weir. The results are shown in Figure 6.
 Figure 6. Comparison of rating curves for PKW , ogee crest and broad crested
weirs (Pfister & Schleiss 2013a)

The comparison reveals that the models deliver similar though not identical results. The Machiels
(2012) methodology is the more conservative of the three in that, for a given head, it results in the
smallest discharge, or, for a given discharge, it results in a larger head.

It should be noted that several of the above physical tests were conducted in channels and may thus
not reflect the different approach flow conditions that are present in open reservoirs (Pfister & Schleiss
2013a). Furthermore, none of the equations allow for the economic optimisation of the weir
dimensions, hence additional mathematical or physical modelling investigations are recommended.

2.4 Modelling
Due to their complex nature and the limitations placed on the above design equations, it is still
recommended that either, or both, physical and numerical modelling are applied to any proposed
design. Examples of such modelling investigations are shown below in Figure 7 and Figure 8. These
tests can then also be used to optimize the design of the PKW and add assurance to its hydraulic
behaviour. The design formulas, however, provide a highly useful tool for preliminary design
purposes.

Any such design studies should preferably be published in relevant journals or conference
proceedings so that their findings may be incorporated into on-going research efforts.

Figure 7. Hazelmere Dam Raising model Figure 8. Darthmouth Dam spillway 3D

study model (Philips & Lesleighter 2013)

3. UNIQUE DESIGN ASPECTS

PW weirs have several unique design aspects which enable them to be effective solutions for both
dam and river applications.
3.1 Reduced structural footprint
One of the main advantages of a PK weir is its relatively narrow footprint when compared to normal
labyrinth weirs. This is not only beneficial from a cost perspective (with its much reduced volumes of
concrete) but also allows these structures to be placed on the narrow crests of gravity dams where
labyrinth weirs are not viable due to their large base widths. A cost comparative exercise conducted
by Paxson et al. (2013), which compared PK weirs, labyrinth weirs and gated spillways, concluded
that PKWs are an ideal and unique solution for increasing the spillway capacities of existing dams.

Furthermore, the internal slopes in each of the keys reduces the height of the transverse walls which
then leads to a reduction in the hydrostatic forces acting on these walls. This can lead to savings in
the structural costs. However, a typical PKW is generally designed with more reinforcement steel,
when compared to classic structural loads, in order to withstand the appreciable thermal loads which
can develop in the structure (Laugier et al. 2013).

3.2 Submergence
Due to the PKW’s unique flow patterns, it is able to operate under submerged conditions at a higher
efficiency (i.e. a lower upstream head for a given discharge). This is despite the fact that, at such large
heads, the weir’s discharge efficiency is not much different to that of a normal linear weir (Belaabed &
Ouamane 2013, Cicero & Delisle 2013). This characteristic makes PK weirs effective in riparian
conditions where developments upstream of the weir may place limits on the water elevations in the
river.

3.3 Debris/driftwood
The sensitivity of a PK weir to debris and driftwood has been investigated and found to be relatively
small. Although the presence of debris on the PK weir does marginally reduce the discharge
efficiency of the weir (Pfister et al. 2013), laboratory studies found that at larger flows, most debris
would be washed downstream. Should such debris not wash away, the PKW still retains
approximately 75-80% of its discharge capacity. This is probably because of the unique flow
dynamics of the structure which draws flow from below the surface of the upstream water level, thus
bypassing any debris that may be present (Laugier et al. 2013). PK weirs are thus generally safe to
use in afforested catchments although the potential of blockages occurring must be incorporated into
their design.

3.4 Modular construction

Due to its repetitive nature, it is be possible to construct a typical PKW off site in precast modular units
which are then assembled on site as was done at the Black Esk Reservoir, UK (Ackers et al. 2013).
This not only allows for easier quality control but can also lead to cost savings. In locations with very
short available time windows for construction (e.g. due to the regular occurrence of floods) much of
the PKW can be constructed off site and stockpiled prior to their installation.

4. KEY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

A significant volume of research investigating the hydraulic behaviour of piano key weirs has been
undertaken in the recent past. As documented above, in Section 2, the current state of knowledge is
quite advanced. Certain unanswered questions remain, however, which require further research.
Certain of these knowledge deficiencies are expanded upon below:

4.1.1 Sedimentation
It is relevant to note that the majority of the research into PKWs has been conducted by institutions
located in regions whose rivers have comparatively little sediment transport. As a result, the effects of
sedimentation on a PKW is not yet well defined.

Labyrinth weirs are known to establish secondary flow fields in the upstream water body as it
approaches the weir (Faruquzzaman Bhuiyan & Hey 2007). Under certain scenarios this flow field is
capable of scouring the area immediately upstream of the weir. It is expected that piano key weirs
exhibit similar behaviour. The effect may, however, be too localised to allow the weir to behave as it
would in its normal, sediment free, condition.
4.1.2 Aeration
Some physical models of PK weirs have shown that the flow over the weir is naturally aerated (Hien et
al. 2006, Laugier et al. 2013). This is, however, only true for relatively low flows. At higher flows the
air pocket under the nappe becomes isolated and sub-atmospheric pressure conditions may result.
The influence this negative pressure has on the hydraulic behaviour is thought to be beneficial to
discharge efficiency, however, its influence on the stability of the structure as a whole remains unclear.

Most PKWs built to date do incorporate aeration of the nappe in some shape or form as it is relatively
easy and comparatively cheap to do so. Such aeration is believed to be beneficial overall, however,
its precise necessity is ambiguous. The most effective methods to implement such aeration have also
not been explored.

4.1.3 Structural response

Related to the abovementioned aeration concerns (or the lack thereof) is the unknown effect it has on
the structural behaviour of the various components of the weir. Under certain conditions the sub-
atmospheric region of pressure behind the nappe can induce oscillations within this nappe. Additional
sources of vibrations include the turbulent flow regime upstream of the weir as well as the potential for
vortex shedding.

These flow-induced vibrations are a known concern of overflow structures. In many dam spillways,
these vibrations are not specifically accounted for, since the natural frequencies of these structures
(related to their mass and their stiffness) are such that they do not resonate with those accelerations
or excitations induced by the flow for significant periods of time. However, in thin-walled structures,
such as PK weirs, the possibility of resonance and its corollary, fatigue induced failure, are real risks.
This is especially the case since such vibrations chiefly occur at low heads, and it is at these low head
ranges that PKWs are expected to operate most of the time since it is at these levels that they are at
their most efficient.

With the support and sponsorship of SANCOLD, the author is presently investigating certain of these
flow-induced vibration and aeration aspects at the University of Stellenbosch.

4.1.4 Energy dissipation

Generally speaking, since PK weirs are capable of such large specific discharges, energy dissipation
downstream of these spillways becomes a crucial design aspect.

When placed on a gravity dam with a stepped discharge chute, a PK weir is able to induce fully
aerated flow on the steps much sooner than a standard ogee can (Silvestri et al. 2013). It is thus
thought that their use can increase the energy dissipation on these steps. Laboratory tests have,
however, determined that the residual energy in the flow on the steps downstream of a PKW is, in fact,
higher than if it were downstream of a normal ogee crest (i.e. the energy dissipation is less). The
exact reason for this puzzling finding remains unknown.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This summary of published research has been compiled as a part of an on-going research project into
Piano Key Weirs being undertaken at the University of Stellenbosch under the sponsorship of
SANCOLD. The authors would like to avail themselves of this opportunity to express their sincere
gratitude to SANCOLD for their valued support.

6. NOMENCLATURE

B Base width PKW Piano Key Weir

Cd Linear weir discharge coefficient Q Discharge

CdW Discharge coefficient relative to weir q Unit discharge

width
g Gravity acceleration Ro Parapet wall height

H Water depth S Inlet slope

i Inlet key T Crest thickness

L Crest length W Weir (channel) width

3
m /s/m Unit discharge Wi Inlet key width

o Outlet key Wo Outlet key width

P Weir height

7. REFERENCES

Ackers JC, Bennett FCJ, Scott TA, & Karunaratne G (2013). Raising the bellmouth spillway at Black
Esk reservoir using Piano Key weirs. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and
Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 235-242. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Belaabed F & Ouamane A (2013). Submerged flow regimes of Piano Key Weir. Proceedings of the
2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 85-92. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.

Blancher B, Montarros F & Laugier F (2011). Hydraulic Comparison Between Piano Key Weirs and
Labyrinth Spillways. Proceedings of the International Conference on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs
(PKW 2011), pp. 141–150. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Botha AJ, Fitz IP, Moore, AJ, Mulder FE & van Deventer NJ (2013). Application of the Piano Key Weir
spillway in the Republic of South Africa. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth
and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 185–194. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Cicero G-M & Delisle JR (2013). Discharge characteristics of Piano Key weirs under submerged flow.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp.
101–109. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Erpicum S, Laugier F, Boillat J-L, Pirotton M, Reverchon B & Schleiss AJ (eds.)(2011). Labyrinth and
Piano Key Weirs - PKW 2011. CRC Press/Balkema, 2011.

Erpicum S, Laugier F, Pfister M, Pirotton M, Cicero G-M & Schleiss AJ (eds.)(2013). Labyrinth and
Piano Key Weirs II - PKW 2013. CRC Press/Balkema, 2013.

Faruquzzaman Bhuiyan ABM & Hey R. (2007). Computation of three-dimensional flow field created by
weir-type structures. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 1(4), 350-360.

Hien TC, Son HT, & Khanh MHT (2006). Results of some piano keys weir hydraulic model tests in
Vietnam. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Large Dams (pp. 581-595).

Kabiri-Samani A & Javaheri A (2012). Discharge coefficients for free and submerged flow over Piano
Key weirs. Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 114–120, February 2012.

Laugier F, Vermeulen J & Lefebvre V (2013). Overview of Piano Key Weirs experience developed at
EDF during the past few years. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and
Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 213-226. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Lefebvre V, Vermeulen J & Blancher B (2013). Influence of geometrical parameters on PK-weirs

discharge with 3D numerical analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth
and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 49–56. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
 Leite Ribeiro M, Pfister M, Schleiss AJ, & Boillat J-L (2012). Hydraulic design of A-type Piano Key
Weirs. Journal of Hydraulic Research, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp. 400-408, 2012.

Leite Ribeiro M, Pfister M & Schleiss AJ (2013). Overview of Piano Key weir prototypes and scientific
model investigations. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key
Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 273–281. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Lempérière F & Ouamane A (2003). The Piano Keys Weir: a new cost-effective solution for spillways.
The International Journal on Hydropower and Dams, vol. 10, no. 5, 2003.

Lempérière F, Ouamane A & Vigny J-P (2013). Piano Keys Weirs (PK weirs) could be used for most
African spillways. http://www.hydrocoop.org/.

Machiels O (2012). Experimental study of the hydraulic behaviour of Piano Key Weirs, PhD Thesis
ULgetd-09252012- 224610, University of Liège (Belgium), 2012.

Machiels O, Erpicum S, Archambeau P, Dewals B & Pirotton M (2013). Parapet Wall Effect on Piano
Key Weir Efficiency. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, vol. 139, no. 6, pp. 506–511, June
2013.

Machiels O, Pirotton M, Archambeau P, Dewals BJ & Erpicum (2014). Experimental parametric study
and design of Piano Key Weirs. Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 326–335, 2014.

Paxson GS, Tullis BP, & Hertel DJ (2013). Comparison of Piano Key Weirs with labyrinth and gated
spillways: Hydraulics, cost, constructability and operations. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 123–130. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group.

Pfister M & Schleiss AJ (2013a). Comparison of hydraulic design equations for A-Type Piano Key
Weirs. Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Storage and Hydropower Development
for Africa (AFRICA 2013). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 16 to 18 April 2013.

Pfister M & Schleiss AJ (2013b). Estimation of A-type Piano Key weir rating curve. Proceedings of the
2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 139–147. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.

Pfister M, Schleiss AJ, & Tullis BP (2013). Effect of driftwood on hydraulic head of Piano Key weirs.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp.
255–264. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Pfister M, Erpicum S, Machiels O, Schleiss AJ & Pirotton M (2012). Discussion of ‘Discharge

coefficient for free and submerged flow over Piano Key weirs’. Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 50,
no. 6, pp. 642–643, Dec. 2012.

Philips MA & Lesleighter EJ (2013). Piano Key Weir spillway: Upgrade option for a major dam.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp.
159–168. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Pralong J, Vermeulen J, Blancher B, Laugier F, Erpicum S, Machiels O, Pirotton M, Boillat J-L, Leite
Ribeiro M & Schleiss AJ (2011). A naming convention for the Piano Key Weirs geometrical
parameters. Proceedings of the International Conference on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW
2011), pp. 271–278. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Schleiss AJ (2011) From Labyrinth to Piano Key Weirs - A historical review. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2011), pp. 3–15. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.

Silvestri A, Archambeau, P, Pirotton M, Dewals B & Erpicum S (2013). Comparative analysis of the
energy dissipation on a stepped spillway downstream of a Piano Key Weir. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs (PKW 2013), pp. 111–120. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.

View publication stats