Technical Note

Discharge Efficiency of Reservoir-Application-Specific

Labyrinth Weirs
B. M. Crookston1 and B. P. Tullis, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Published labyrinth weir design methods, which have primarily been developed on the basis of labyrinth weir test data from
laboratory flumes, are specific to in-channel labyrinth weir applications in which the approach flow is oriented normal to the weir axis.
Consequently, some uncertainty exists regarding the hydraulic performance of labyrinth weir configurations that are specific to reservoir
applications (i.e., projecting, flush, rounded inlet, and arced labyrinth weirs). The discharge efficiency, as characterized by the weir discharge
coefficient, of laboratory-scale projecting, flush, rounded inlet, and arced labyrinth weirs with 12 degree sidewall angles, were evaluated as a
function of H T ∕P and compared with in-channel labyrinth weir discharge efficiencies. The arced labyrinth weir configuration had a higher
discharge efficiency (∼5 –11% higher than an in-channel labyrinth weir orientation). In general, the projecting, flush, and rounded inlet
orientations were less efficient than the in-channel labyrinth weir configuration. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943–4774.0000451. © 2012
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Weirs; Reservoirs; Water discharge; Laboratory tests.
Author keywords: Labyrinth weir; Arced labyrinth weir; Reservoir labyrinth weir; Head-discharge relationship; Weir approach flow.

Introduction the weir crest elevation). A weir's discharge efficiency is character-

The sustainability of existing spillways has been improved in recent
years by replacing linear weirs with nonlinear weirs (e.g., labyrinth
weir), increasing the total weir length within a given channel width.
Most labyrinth weir design methods are based on physical model-
ing conducted in laboratory flumes, in which the approaching flow
field is relatively uniform and is perpendicular to the weir
(e.g., Crookston 2010; Tullis et al. 1995; Magalhães and Lorena
1989; Hay and Taylor 1970). Design guidance for applications
(e.g., reservoirs) in which the approaching flow field is nonuniform
and is not perpendicular to the weir axis (e.g., Prado Spillway;
Copeland and Fletcher 2000), however, is not included in current
design methods.
The labyrinth weir design method presented by Crookston
(2010) utilizes the general weir equation [Eq. (1)] and presents dis-
charge coefficient data (C d ) for quarter-round and half-round
labyrinth weirs for 6° ≤ α ≤ 35° as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffi 3∕2
Q ¼ 2∕3 C d Lc 2gH T
ized by C d, which is representative of the weir discharge per unit
length (Q∕Lc ) at a specific value of H T .
In addition to the in-channel configuration, as shown in
Fig. 1(d), several additional labyrinth weir installation options
(Crookston 2010) may be considered for reservoir spillway
applications {e.g., partially or fully projecting [Fig. 1(a)], rounded
inlet [Fig. 1(b)], flush [Fig. 1(c)], and arced [Fig. 1(e)]}. Houston
(1983) reported that a two-cycle, partially projecting labyrinth weir
orientation increased Q by 10.4% relative to a flush orientation with
rounded abutments. Traditionally, labyrinth weir cycles are placed
in a linear configuration; the cycle configuration, however, may be
arced [Fig. 1(e)] to better align the cycle orientations with the con-
verging approach flow vectors and to further increase the weir crest
length. The hydraulic efficiency of the Prado Spillway could have
been increased had the cycle configuration been curved to improve
alignment to the approaching flow (Falvey 2003). Avon (Darvas
1971), Kizilcapinar (Yildiz and Uzecek 1996), and Weatherford
(Tullis 1992) are examples of arced labyrinth weir spillways.
ð1Þ

where g = acceleration constant of gravity; Lc = total weir crest

length; and H T = total upstream head, which is defined as H T ¼
V 2 ∕2g þ h (V = average cross-sectional velocity at the upstream
gauging location; and h = piezometric head measured relative to
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State Univ., 8200 Old Main
Hill, Logan, UT 84322-8200. E-mail: bcrookston@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State Univ., 8200 Old
Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-8200 (corresponding author). E-mail:
blake.tullis@usu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 15, 2011; approved
on December 14, 2011; published online on December 19, 2011. Discus-
sion period open until November 1, 2012; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 6, June 1, 2012.
©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437/2012/6-564–568/$25.00.
Geometric Layout of Arced Labyrinth Weirs
To fully describe the geometric layout of an arced labyrinth weir
[Fig. 1(e)] compared to a traditional labyrinth weir, additional arced
labyrinth weir-specific geometric parameters have been defined as
shown in Fig. 1(e): the downstream cycle width (w0 ), The arc radius
(R), the central arc angle (Θ), the cycle arc angle (θ), the down-
stream cycle sidewall angle (α), and the upstream cycle sidewall
angle (α0 ), with α equal to α0 for nonarced labyrinth weirs.
Page et al. (2007) conducted a study on the María Cristina Dam
(Castellón, Spain), in which two labyrinth weir geometric designs
for the emergency spillway were examined: A nine-cycle labyrinth
weir with four of the cycles following an arced configuration, and a
seven-cycle labyrinth weir featuring five arced cycles. The physical
model study found that weir discharge efficiency increases with the
number of arced cycles.

564 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012


Fig. 1. Summary schematic of tested labyrinth weir geometries and
arced labyrinth weir-specific parametric notation: (a) projecting;
(b) rounded inlet; (c) flush; (d) in-channel; (e) arced
The purpose of this study is to provide a relative comparison of
the discharge efficiency associated with various labyrinth weir con-
figurations relevant to reservoir spillway applications. The reservoir
labyrinth weir discharge efficiencies are also compared with the in-
channel configuration to give some indication of the potential varia-
tion in discharge efficiency that can exist between reservoir
labyrinth weir applications and the discharge efficiencies predicted
by the published in-channel labyrinth weir design method pre-
sented by Crookston (2010). Note that the results presented in this
study are representative of the specific labyrinth weir geometries
tested and are presented as examples of the variation in hydraulic
performance between channelized labyrinth weirs and reservoir-
specific labyrinth weir configurations.
Experimental Method
Physical modeling of reservoir-specific labyrinth weir configura-
tions, consistent with the weir geometries shown in Fig. 1, was con-
ducted at the Utah Water Research Laboratory (Utah State
University). The laboratory-scale labyrinth weirs were fabricated
from high density polyethylene (HDPE) sheeting, featured a
half-round crest shape, and were tested in an elevated head box
(7:3 × 6:7 × 1:5 m deep). The labyrinth weirs were leveled
to
0:4 mm.
With the exception of the in-channel configuration, all labyrinth
weir cycle geometries remained consistent for all configurations
tested [α ¼ 12°, weir height ðPÞ ¼ 203:2 mm, wall thickness
ðt w Þ ¼ 25:4 mm, Rcrest ¼ t w ∕2, inside apex ðAÞ ¼ 25:4 mm,
N ¼ 5, cycle width ðwÞ ¼ 134:9 mm, Lc ¼ 634:6 mm, θ ¼ 10°
(arced only) half-round crest shape, and trapezoidal cycles
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 565
(plan view)]. The labyrinth weir installations tested included flush,
rounded inlet [the radius for the rounded inlet abutment walls was
equal to the cycle width ðRabutment ¼ wÞ], projecting, and arced
projecting. A two-cycle, α ¼ 12° in-channel labyrinth weir con-
figuration with a half-round crest was also tested in a 1.2-m-wide,
1-m-deep, 14.7-m-long rectangular flume. The cycle geometry of
the in-channel labyrinth weir was geometrically similar to the
cycles of the reservoir labyrinth weir cycle geometries, with a scal-
ing factor of 1.5; the C d data for the in-channel labyrinth weir are
consistent with the support data associated with the Crookston
(2010) labyrinth weir design method. The in-channel labyrinth weir
data were used to determine the relative discharge efficiency of the
reservoir-specific labyrinth weir geometries and the channelized
labyrinth weir application data used in the published labyrinth weir
design methods.
Experimental data were collected under steady-state conditions.
Flow rates were determined using calibrated orifice meters in the
supply piping. The head box was lined on three sides with a plenum
and a baffle located between the water supply and the test section to
create relatively uniform and tranquil flow conditions entering the
headbox. The point gauge instrumentation (
0:15 mm), located in
a stilling well hydraulically connected to a pressure tap in the floor
of the head box (located away from the weir in a region of negli-
gible velocity head), was carefully referenced to the labyrinth weir
crest. All labyrinth weirs were tested without any artificial nappe
aeration; the nappe behavior and head-discharge relationship can
vary between natural (air entrainment caused by turbulent mixing
of the flow) and artificial (e.g., nappe breakers or vent pipes) nappe
aeration conditions (see Crookston 2010 for a discussion on
labyrinth weir nappe aeration influences). A system of checks
was established, in which at least 10% of the data were repeated
to ensure accuracy and to determine measurement repeatability.
Experimental Results
Flow Characteristics
When the approach flow angle deviates from perpendicular to the
labyrinth weir axis (nonarced weir configurations), abutment-
induced flow separation can reduce discharge efficiency and pro-
duce wake-induced flow turbulence near the upstream apexes [see
Fig. 2(a)]. An example of abutment-induced flow separation is
shown in Fig. 3(a) with the flush labyrinth weir. At higher dis-
charges, converging streamlines in the reservoir approach flow
and abutment wall-induced flow separation caused a portion of
the flow that would normally enter cycles I1 and I5 to be carried
into cycles I2 and I4 (see Fig. 3), reducing the overall weir dis-
charge efficiency. The relative significance of abutment-induced
flow separation on discharge efficiency diminishes as the number
of cycles (N) increases. Where appropriate, improved abutment
geometries, such as the rounded inlet (Fig. 2), are recommended
to reduce abutment flow separation.
Arcing a projecting labyrinth weir increases α0 relative to α and
increases the inlet cycle flow area, creating a higher and more uni-
form discharge efficiency in the labyrinth weir inlet cycles. If the
arced labyrinth weir inlet cycle discharge capacity exceeds the out-
let cycle free-flow discharge capacity, part or all the water surface
gradient in the outlet cycle, beginning with the upstream apex, may
exceed the labyrinth weir crest (i.e., local submergence; see Fig. 2).
Local submergence differs from traditional weir submergence in
that partial weir submergence is possible, and a downstream control
point does not cause the elevated tailwater. Local submergence
reduces the labyrinth weir discharge efficiency; consequently,
 Fig. 2. Examples of labyrinth weir flow: (a) surface turbulence; (b) local submergence
Fig. 3. Examples of flow conditions for labyrinth weir geometries at H T ∕P ¼ 0:4  0:6: (a) flush; (b) rounded inlet; (c) projecting; (d) arced
(α ¼ 12°, θ ¼ 10°)
Fig. 4. C d versus H T ∕P for α ¼ 12° half-round trapezoidal labyrinth
weirs
additional modifications to the downstream cycle geometry and
channel may be warranted (e.g., lower or sloped downstream apron;
increased upstream apex length) to maximize the improved
566 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012
discharge efficiency associated with an arced labyrinth weir. Local
submergence also occurs with nonarced labyrinth weir geometries;
at very low H T ∕P values, however, local submergence does
not occur.
Hydraulic Performance
The Cd data for the five-cycle, reservoir-application-specific,
labyrinth weir geometries (half-round crest shape) were determined
using Eq. (1) and are presented (Fig. 4) in terms of the dimension-
less headwater ratio H T ∕P. As expected, the flush orientation was
the least efficient labyrinth weir geometry, being the most suscep-
tible to abutment wall flow separation effects. The arced configu-
ration was the most efficient because of the improved orientation of
the labyrinth weir cycles to the approach flow. The decreasing trend
of C d with increasing H T ∕P (H T ∕P ≥ 0:1) is caused, in part, by the
progressive development of local submergence. With sufficient lo-
cal submergence, the projecting labyrinth weir head-discharge con-
trol section can eventually move from the labyrinth weir to the
outlet channel transition [see Fig. 2(b)].
To illustrate the variations in discharge efficiency between res-
ervoir and channel labyrinth weir applications, the C d data from
each α ¼ 12° reservoir labyrinth weir geometries (C d-res ) were nor-
malized by the in-channel α ¼ 12° C d data and are presented in
Fig. 5 as a function of H T ∕P. The abrupt increase in C d that occurs
at H T ∕P ∼ 0:25 is caused by a sudden decrease in the reference

Fig. 5. Comparison of discharge efficiency (Cd ) for reservoir-specific
labyrinth weir geometries relative to a channelized labyrinth weir
(α ¼ 12°)
(in-channel configuration) C d data caused by the nappe shifting
from a nonaerated (i.e., clinging) to an aerated nappe condition.
Relative to the α ¼ 12° in-channel labyrinth weir configuration,
the flush discharge efficiency decreased by as much as ∼11%. The
rounded inlet and projecting geometries performed similarly, being
slightly more efficient than the in-channel labyrinth weir at small
H T ∕P values and less efficient (∼5–7%) at higher H T ∕P values.
The discharge efficiency of the rounded inlet labyrinth weir con-
figuration should improve with an increased abutment wall radius.
The arced labyrinth weir configuration provided increased dis-
charge efficiencies of ∼5–11%. The decrease in efficiency gains
at higher H T ∕P values for the arced labyrinth weir is caused by
the growing influence of local submergence. Fig. 5 also demon-
strates that the improved approach flow conditions associated with
this specific arced labyrinth weir configuration more than compen-
sate for the negative effects of local submergence on discharge ef-
ficiency, producing an overall net increase for the arced labyrinth
weir over the traditional linear cycle configuration. Because C d rep-
resents the labyrinth weir discharge per unit weir length, the addi-
tional weir length achievable with an arced labyrinth weir layout
provides additional hydraulic benefit.
A single-sample data uncertainty analysis was performed as out-
lined by Kline and McClintock (1953). The average single-sample
uncertainties for all data sets ranged from 1–1.9%. Uncertainties
were largest (∼5% for H T ∕P ≤ 0:075) for very small values of
Q and h (instrument accuracy) and were smallest (≤ 0:9% for
H T ∕P ≥ 0:3) for large values of Q and h.
The intent of this study was to show the relative differences and
general trends associated with representative reservoir-specific
labyrinth weir configurations relative to the in-channel labyrinth
weir configuration. The labyrinth weir discharge efficiency
(i.e., Cd ) data presented are specific to the labyrinth weir configu-
rations tested and are not representative of the discharge efficien-
cies for all reservoir-specific labyrinth weir configurations. The
relative performance of the flush, rounded inlet, projecting, and
arced labyrinth weir geometries in reservoir applications may vary
as the site conditions α, α0 , N, and other labyrinth weir geometric
parameters change. A physical model study is recommended to
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 567
verify the hydraulic performance of a reservoir-application-specific
labyrinth weir design.
Summary and Conclusions
This study provides weir C d data for four labyrinth weir reservoir
application geometries (α ¼ 12°; half-round crest shape): flush,
rounded inlet, projecting, and arced. The C d data, which are
representative of the weir discharge efficiency, were presented as
a function of H T ∕P for each reservoir-specific labyrinth weir con-
figuration (all reservoir labyrinth weir cycle geometries were con-
sistent) and were compared with the corresponding C d data for a
geometrically similar (cycle geometry) in-channel labyrinth weir
configuration. Additional arced labyrinth weir geometric parame-
ters were also introduced [see Fig. 1(e)]. The results of this study
produced the following conclusions:
• The flush labyrinth weir had a maximum hydraulic efficiency
reduction of ∼11% relative to the in-channel labyrinth weir con-
figuration and a 5% reduction relative to the rounded inlet,
which featured rounded abutment walls. Projecting reservoir la-
byrinth weir configurations were ∼5–7% less efficient than the
in-channel configuration. The discharge efficiency of the arced
labyrinth weir exceeded the in-channel labyrinth weir efficiency
by ∼5–11% (the most efficient geometry tested). The improved
hydraulic efficiency of the arced labyrinth weir is primarily re-
lated to the improved orientation of the labyrinth weir cycles
relative to the approach flow from the reservoir. The relative
influence of the abutment detail on discharge efficiency will de-
crease as N increases.
• Local submergence causes the discharge efficiency of labyrinth
weirs to decrease; local submergence occurs when the discharge
carrying capacity of the outlet cycles is exceeded by the dis-
charge capacity of the inlet cycles.
• The discharge capacity of the arced labyrinth weir (the most
efficient configuration tested) can further exceed that of a chan-
nelized labyrinth weir as a result of the longer weir lengths that
can be achieved using an arced labyrinth configuration.
The results of this study are limited to the specific labyrinth weir
geometries and configurations tested. Because discharge perfor-
mance may change with differing labyrinth weir cycle geometries,
further testing of additional arced labyrinth weirs is recommended
to further develop the knowledge base and provide additional de-
sign guidance and insights for arced labyrinth weirs.
Acknowledgments
The State of Utah and the Utah Water Research Laboratory (Utah
State University) provided funding for this study.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A = inside apex width;
C d = discharge coefficient, data from current study;
C d-channel = discharge coefficient specific to a labyrinth weir
located in a channel;
Cd-res = discharge coefficient for a labyrinth weir spillway
located in a reservoir;
g = acceleration constant of gravity;
h = depth of flow over the weir crest;
H T = unsubmerged total upstream head on weir;
H T ∕P = dimensionless headwater ratio;
 I = inlet cycle number (e.g., I1, I2, …I5); Crookston, B. M. (2010). “Labyrinth weirs.” Ph.D. dissertation, Utah State
Lc = total centerline length of labyrinth weir; Univ., Logan, UT.
N = number of labyrinth weir cycles; Darvas, L. (1971). “Discussion of ‘Performance and design of labyrinth
O = outlet cycle number (e.g., O1, O2, …O5); weirs’ by Hay and Taylor.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 97(80), 1246–1251.
P = weir height; Falvey, H. (2003). Hydraulic design of labyrinth weirs, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Q = discharge over weir; Hay, N., and Taylor, G. (1970). “Performance and design of labyrinth
weirs.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 96(11), 2337–2357.
R = arced labyrinth weir arc radius;
Houston, K. (1983). “Hydraulic model study of Hyrum Dam auxiliary
Rabutment = radius of rounded abutment wall;
labyrinth spillway.” Rep. No. GR-82-13, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Rcrest = radius of rounded crest (e.g., Rcrest ¼ t w ∕2); Denver, CO.
tw = thickness of weir wall; Kline, S. and McClintock, F. (1953). “Describing uncertainties in single-
V = average cross-sectional flow velocity upstream of weir; sample experiments.” Mech. Eng. Soc. Mech. Eng., 75(1), 3–8.
w = width of a single labyrinth weir cycle; and Magalhães, A., and Lorena, M. (1989). “Hydraulic design of labyrinth
w0 = cycle width for the arced labyrinth weir spillway. weirs.” Rep. No. 736, National Laboratory of Civil Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Page, D., García, V., and Ninot, C. (2007). “Aliviaderos en laberinto. Presa
de María Cristina.” Ingenieria Civil, 146, 5–20 (in Spanish).
References Tullis, P. (1992). “Weatherford spillway model study.” Hydraulic Rep. No.
311, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Logan, UT.
Copeland, R., and Fletcher, B. (2000). “Model study of Prado Spillway, Tullis, P., Amanian, N., and Waldron, D. (1995). “Design of labyrinth weir
California, hydraulic model investigation.” Rep. ERDC/CHL TR-00- spillways.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 121(3), 247–255.
17, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Yildiz, D., and Uzecek, E. (1996). “Modelling the performance of labyrinth
Vicksburg, MS. spillways.” Int. J. Hydropower Dams, 3, 71–76.

568 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

Copyright of Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil
Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.