PAP 1 18

HYDRAULICS BRANCH
OFFICIAL FILE COPY

tilt l,Ur l
WHEN BORROWED RETURN PROMPTLY

THE HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF SLOTTED

SPILLWAY BUCKET ENERGY
DISSIPATORS

by
G. L. Beichley
Hydraulic Engineer
and
A. J. Peterka
Supervising Hydraulic Engineer

Division of Engineering Laboratories

Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado

A PAPER TO BE PRESENTED
AT
THE ASCE-LOS ANGELES CONVENTION
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 9-13, 1959

 THE HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF SLO'ITED SPILLWAY BUCKET
ENERGY DISSIPATORS
by
1
G. L. Beichley Assoc M. ASCE, and A. J. Peterka 2 M. ASCE

SYNOPSIS

A slotted roller bucket for use as a submerged energy dissipator

at the base of an overfall is developed from hydraulic model tests, and its

performance is shown to be superior to that of a solid bucket. Charts are

presented in dimensionless form so that a slotted bucket may be hydraulically
designed for most combinations of discharge, height of fall, and tail water
range. Sample problems are used to illustrate the use of the recommended
general design procedures • .The slotted bucket is self-cleaning, provides
protection against excessive scour and undermining of the bucket structure,
and is shown to be of minimum size consistent with good performance.
The tail water requirements for the slotted bucket are compared
with those necessary for a hydraulic jump stilling basin,and the bucket is

shown to be particularly suited to installations where the tail water is

too deep for a hydraulic jump or where a short energy dissipater is

preferred.
A simplified version of the seven steps required to design a
bucket -:for any particular installation is given in the SUmmary of this

pa.per.

1 , 2Hydraulic Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

 INTRODUCTION
The development of submerged buckets has been in progress for

many years. Several t:YPeS have been proposed, tested, and rejected for

one reason or another. In 1933, with the aid of hydraulic models, the
Bureau of Reclamation developed a solid bucket of the t:YPe shown in
Figure 1A for use at Grand Coulee Dam.*
In 1945, a bucket-t:YPe energy dissipator was proposed for use at
Angostura Dlm** and hydraulic model tests were made in the Bureau laboratory
to develop an improved bucket, the slotted bucket shown in Figure lB. In
these tests, the bucket dimensions were determined, tooth size and spacing
were defined, and the proper vertical placement of the bucket established
for the Angostura spillway.

In 1953 and 1954, extensive hydraulic model tests, covering a

complete range of bucket sizes and tail water elevations, were conducted
to verify the bucket dimensions and details obtained in 1945 and to
establish general relations between bucket size, discharge capacity, and

the maximum and minimum tail water depth limits. The 1945 and 1953-54
studies are the subject of this paper.

*Grand Coulee lam is a major feature of the Columbia Basin Project,

is located on the Columbia River in northeastern Washington, and is a
concrete gravity-t:YPe dam having an overfall spillway 1,650 :feet wide by
390 feet high :from the bucket invert to crest elevation. The spillway is
designed for 1 million second-feet.
**Angostura Dlm is a principal structure of the Angostura Unit of
the Missouri River Basin Project, is located on the Cheyenne River in
southwestern South Iakota, and is an earthf'ill structure having a concrete
overfall spillway 274 feet wide by 117.2 feet high from the bucket invert
to crest elevation. The spillway is designed for 247,000 second-feet.

2
 From the 1953-54 data, dimensionless curves were plotted which
may be used to design hydraulically a slotted bucket for most combinations

of spillway height and discharge capacity without the need for individual

hydraulic model tests. In these generalization studies, every attempt was

made to set limits so that the resulting structure will provide safe

operation for the extreme limits and satisfactory or better performance

throughout the usual operating range. Strict adherence to the charts and

rules presented will therefore result in the smallest possible structure

consistent with good performance and a moderate factor of safety. It is

suggested, however, that confirming hydraulic model tests be performed

whenever: (a) sustained operation near the limiting conditions is
expected, (b) discharges per foot of width exceed 500 to 6oO second-feet,
(c) velocities entering the bucket are appreciably over 100 feet per
second, (d) eddies appear to be possible at the ends of the spillway, and

(e) waves in the downstream channel would be a problem.

PERFORMANCE OF SOLID AND SLO'.rTED BUCKETS

The solid and slotted roller or submerged buckets for spillways
are shown operatiu.g in Figure 2.* Both types requ.ire more tail water depth
than a hydraulic jump basin.

The hydraulic action and the resulting performance of the two

buckets are quite different. In the solid bucket, all of the flow is

directed upward by the bucket lip to -create a boil on the water surface

*Figure 2 and other drawings showing flow currents have been

traced from one or more photographs, similar to Figure 12, of the bucket
performing under the conditions given. This method of presentation is
used since a single photograph seldom portrayed typical action of the
bucket.

3
and a violent ground roller on the riverbed. The upstream current in the

ground roller moves bed material from downstream and deposits it at the

bucket lip. Here, it is picked up, carried away, and dropped again. The
constant motion of the loose material against the concrete lip and the fact

that unsymmetrical spillway operation can cause eddies to sweep material

into the bucket make this bucket undesirable in some installations.
Trapped material can cause erosion damage in the bucket itself. With the
slotted bucket, both the high boil and violent ground roller are reduced
by the flow passing through the slots, resulting in improved performance.
Very little motion of bed material occurs, and bed material will not stay
in the bucket arc. Since only part of the flow is directed upward, the
boil is less pronounced. The part of the flow directed downstream
through the slots spreads laterally and is lifted away from the channel
bottom by the apron extending downstream from the slots. Thus, the flow
is dispersed and distributed over a greater area, providing less violent
flow concentrations than occur with a solid bucket.
The usable tail water range is less with the slotted bucket
than with the solid bucket. Sweepout occurs at a slightly higher tail
water elevati on with the slotted bucket, and if the tail water is too
high, the flow dives from the apron lip to scour the channel bed, as shown

in Figure 3. With the solid bucket, diving is impossible with the usual
tail water elevations. In general, however, the slotted bucket is an
improvement over the solid type and will operate satisfactorily over a
wide range of tail water depths.

4
 SLOTTED BUCKET DEVELOPMENT TESTS
General

The basic concept of the slotted bucket was the result of tests
made to ad.a.pt the solid bucket for use at Angostura Dam. These tests,

made on a 1:42 scale sectional model, are summarized in the following

paragraphs.

Development from Solid Bucket

The first tests were undertaken to determine the minimum radius
of bucket required to handle the maximum flow and to determine the required

elevation of the bucket invert for the existing tail water conditions.
Solid type buckets were used in the model to determine these approximate
values since the slotted bucket had not yet been anticipated. The 42-foot

radius bucket was found to be the smallest bucket whieh would provide
satisfactory performance for 1,010 second-feet per foot of width and a

velocity of 75 feet per second.

Best performance occurred when the bucket invert was 77 feet below
tail water elevation. For all invert elevations tested, however, a ground

roller, Figure 2A, moved bed material from downstream and deposited it
against the bucket lip.
The second stage in the development was to modify the bucket to
prevent the piling of bed material along the lip. Tubes were placed in
the bucket lip through which jets of water flowed to sweep away the

deposited material. Results were satisfactory at low discharges, but for

the higher flows loose material piled deeply over the tube exits, virtually
closing them.

5
 Slots in the bucket lip were then used instead of larger tubes.

The slots were found to not only keep the bucket lip free of loose material,
but also provided exits for material that became trapped in the bucket
during unsymmetrical operation of the Sl)illwa.y.
To maintain the effectiveness of the bucket action in dissipating

energy, the slots were made just wide enough to prevent deposition at the
bucket lip. The first slots tested were 1 foot 9 inches wide, spaced three
times that distance apart. The slot bottoms were sloped upward on an 8°
angle so that the emerging flow would not scour the channel bottom, and
made tangent to the bucket radius to prevent discontinuities in the surfaces
over which the flow passed. The spaces between the slots then became known
as teeth. Three tooth designs, shown in Figure 4, were tested.
Tooth Sb.ape, Spacing, and Pressures
With Tooth Design I, the energy dissipating action of the bucket
and the elimination of piled material along the bucket lip were both
satisfactory. However, small eddies, formed by the jets leaving the slots,
lifted loose gravel to produce abrasive action on the do'Wllstream face of
the teeth. Therefore, an upw.rd sloping apron was installed downstream
from the teeth to help spread the jets from the slots and also to keep
loose material away from the teeth. The apron was sloped upward slightly
steeper than the slope of the slots, to provide better contact with the
jets. The apron was found to perform as intended. However, the best
degree of slope for the apron and the shortest possible apron length were
investigated a~er the tooth shape and spacing were determined.

6
 The profile of Tooth Design II, Figure 4, was made to conform to

the radius of the bucket, eliminating the discontinuity in the flow passing

over the teeth. A smoother water surface occurred downstream from the

bucket, Pressure measurements s~owed the necessity of rounding of the

edges of the teeth. Model radii ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 inch were

investigated. The larger radius (12.6 inches prototype) was found to be

the most desirable.
Tooth Design III, Figure 4, showed improved pressure conditions
on the sides and downstream face of the teeth. The radius on the tooth

edges was increased to 15 inches. Subatmospheric pressures occurred on

the downstream face of the teeth at Piezometers 3, 4, and 5, but were
above the .critical cavitation range.
Preliminary tests had shown that pressures on the teeth varied
according to the tooth spacing. The most favorable pressures consistent
with good bucket performance occurred with Tooth Design III, tooth width
0.125R and spacing 0.05R at the downstream end. Table I shows the pressures
in feet of water at the piezometers.

7
 Table I
Pressures on Tooth Design III
0.125R Width, 0.05R Spacing
1,000 cfs per foot--TW depth, 77 feet
t

Piezometer: Pressure :Piezometer: Pressure

No. :ft of water: No. :ft of water
:
1 +l to +16: 9 +58
.•
2 +5 to +13: 10 +42
. ..
3 -2 to +15: 11 +68
. :
4 -13 to +16: 12 +49
: .
5 -9 to +11: 13 +11
. .
6 +8 to +16: 14 +13
.
..
7 +22 15 +21
.
8 .• +62
..• 16
.••• +34
. •
17 . +39
For 1,000 second-feet per foot of width in a 1:42 scale model
having a 42-foot radius bucket, Piezometers 1 through 6 showed fluctuations
between the limits shown. Piezometers 3, 4, and 5 showed subatmospheric
values, but since these piezometers are on the dovmstream face of the teeth,
it is unlikely that damage would occur as a result of cavitationo According
to the pressure data, the teeth are sate against cavitation tor velocities
up to a.bout 100 feet per second, i.e., velocity computed f'rom the .difference

betveeR headwater and tail water elevations.

Reducing the tooth spacing to Oo035R raised the pressures on
Piezometers 3, 4, and 5 to positive valueso Pressures on the .tooth are
shown in Table II tor a discharge of 1,000 second-feet per foot of width
in a 1:42 scale model having a 42-foot radius bucket.

8
 Table II

Pressures on Tooth Design III

0.125R Width, o.035R Spacing
1,000 cfs per foot--TW depth, 77 feet

Piezometer: Pressure :Piezometer: Pressure

No. :ft of water: No. :ft of water
1 +36 9 +62
2 +27 10 +57

3 +30 11 +71
4 .. +26 12 +63

5 +14 13 +21
6 +27 14 . +28

1 +39 15 +40
8 +64 16 +47
17 +58
With o.035R spacing, the teeth should be safe against cavitation
for velocities well over 100 feet per second. For small buckets, the
spaces may be too small for convenient construction. In other respects,
the o.035R tooth spacing is satisfactory.
Apron Downstream from Teeth
The short apron downstream from the teeth serves to spread the
jets from the slots and improve the stability of the flow leaving the

bucket. A 16° upward sloping apron was found to be most satisfactory.

With a 12° slope, the flow was unstable, intermittently diving from the
end of the apron to scour the riverbed. With a 20° slope, the spreading
action of the flow was counteracted to some degree by the directional
effect of the steep apron.

9
 Two apron lengths, one 10 feet and one 20 feet, were tested to

determine the minimum length required for satisfactory operation. The

longer apron, o.5R in length, was found necessary to accomplish the

spreading of the jets and produce a uniform flow leaving the apron. The

20-foot apron on a 16° slope was therefore adopted for use.

Slotted Bucket Performance

The slotted bucket thus developed, shown in Figure lB, operated

well over the entire range of discharge and tail water conditions in the

sectional model, scale 1:42. The bucket was also tested at a scale of

1:72 on a wide spillway where end effects of the bucket could also be

observed and evaluated.

In the 1:72 model,minor changes were made before the bucket was

constructed and installed. The bucket radius was changed from 42 feet to

an even 40 feet, and the maximum discharge was lowered from 277,000 to

247,000 second-feet. Figure 5 shows the 1:72 model in operation with

247,000 second-feet (900 second-feet per foot), erosion after 20 minutes

of operation, and erosion after 1-1/2 hours of operation. Performance

was excellent in all respects and was better than for any of the solid

buckets or other slotted buckets investigated. For all discharges, the

water surface was smoother and the erosion of the riverbed was lesso

SLOTTED ~UCKET VERIFICATION TESTS

Verification tests were made to investigate possible improvements

in the size and location of the bucket teeth, Figure 7, to evaluate the

performance of the slotted bucket with the teeth remo_v ed, and to compare

the performance of the slotted and solid buckets. It was found, however,

10
that the tooth size and arrangement developed for the Angostura bucket,
shown in Figure lB, in terms of the bucket radius, provided best hydraulic

performance consistent with good structural practice.

Test Equipment
A testing nume and sectional model w:ere constructed, as shown in

Figure 6, and used in all subsequent tests. The test flume was 4-3 feet
6 inches long and 24 inches wide. The head bay was 14 feet deep and the

tail bay was 6 feet 3 inches deep and had a 4- by 13-foot glass window on
one side. The discharge end of the flume was equipped with a motor-driven
tailgate geared to raise or lower the tail water slowly so that continuous
observations could be ma.de.

The sectional spillway model was constructed to fill the nume

width with an ogee crest at the top of a 0.7 sloping spillway face. The
bucket assembly was ma.de detachable from the spillway face. Four inter-
changeable buckets having rad.ii of 6, 9, 12, and 18 inches, constructed
according to the dimension ratios shown in Figure lB, were designed so

that they could be installed with the bucket inverts located 5 feet below
the spillway crest and about 6 inches above the floor of the flume. All
flow surfaces were constructed of galvanized sheet metal with ,smooth joints.
The downstream channel was a movable bed molded in pea gravel. The gravel
analysis:

Retained on 3/4-inch screen 6 percent

Retained on 3/8-inch screen 66 percent

Retained on No. 4 screen 25 percent
Retained on Pan 3 percent

11
 Flow was supplied to the test flume through a 12-inch centrifugal

pump and was measured by one of a bank of Venturi meters permanently

installed in the laboratory. Additional water, beyond the capacity of the

12-inch pump, was supplied by two vertical-type portable pumps equipped

with two portable 8-inch orifice-Venturi meters. All Venturi meters were

calibrated in the laboratory. Water surface elevations were measured with

hook gages mounted in transparent plastic wells.

Bucket M:ldifications

To determine whether practical modifications to the bucket teeth

could be made to improve the performance of the Angostura slotted bucket,

the 12-inch radius bucket was used. The Angostura type of slotted bucket

shown in Figure land Figure 7 was tested first to establish a performance

standard with which to compare the modified buckets. Each modification was

subjected to a standard test of 3 second-feet per foot of bucket width,

with the tail water 2.3 feet above the bucket invert, Figure 2B. The

movable bed was molded level, just below the bucket apron lip, at the

start of each test.

Much of the energy dissipation in a slotted bucket is the result

of spreading action downstream rather than rolling action in the bucket.

Very little bed erosion occurs. However, flow passes through and over the

teeth to emerge at the water surface some 3 or 4 feet downstream from the

bucket, Figure 2B, producing a boil and waves on the water surface downstream.

It was apparent, therefore, that improvements in bucket performance should

be directed toward reducing wave action in the downstream channel.

12
 Four modifications of the bucket teeth were tested, the bucket

with teeth removed was investigated, and a solid bucket was tested to

indicate the relative advantages of the two types. To indicate the scope

of the investigation, a brief summary of these tests is given; however,

none of the modifications are recommended for general use.

Tooth Modification I. The teeth were extended in height along

the arc of the bucket radius from 45° to ti) 0 , as shown in Figure 7. For

the standard test, the bucket performed much the same as the original.

However, a boil occurred about 6 inches farther upstream and was slightly

higher. Waves were also slightly higher.

Tooth Modification II. The teeth were extended in height along

the arc of the bucket radius to an angle of 90°, as'shown in Figure 7. It

was realized that the teeth would be too tall to be structurally stable in

any but a small bucket, but the trend in performance was the primary

purpose in making the test.

Performance was excellent for the standard test. A large portion

of the flow was turned directly upward to the water surface where it rolled

back into the bucket. The tail water depth in the bucket was about the same

as the depth downstream. Only a slight boil could be detected over the

teeth. The flow passing between the teeth provided uniform distribution

of velocity from the channel bed to the water surface in the channel down-

stream. The downstream water surface was smooth and the channel bed was

not disturbed. The bucket also performed well for high and low tail water

elevations. In fact, the range of tail water depths for which the bucket
operated satisfactorily was greater than for any other slotted bucket

tested. The teeth are suggested for possible use in small buckets.

13
 Tooth M:>dification III. In the third modification, a radius, half'

that of the bucket radius, was used as shown in Figure 7 to extend the teeth
to a height of 90°. This modification was made to determine whether the

height of the teeth, or the 90° curvature of the teeth, provided the improved
performance.
Tests showed t~at the shorter teeth were not effective in lifting
f'low to the surface. Flow passed over and through the teeth to form a high
boil downstream similar to the first modif'ication.
Tooth Modification IV. The teeth from Modification III were placed
on the apron at the downstream end of the bucket, as shown in Figure 7.
Performance tests showed that the teeth turned some of the f'low upward but

the performance was no better than for the Angostura design.

Slotted bucket with teeth removed. Tests were made to indicate

the value of the teeth and slots in dissipating the energy of the spillway

f'low.. The bucket without teeth is shown in Figure 7. Operation was satis-
factory for f'lows of 3 and 4 second-feet but performance was poor for 6
second-feet. For f'lows of 5 to 6 second-feet, the flow leaving the bucket
was unstable and the water surface was rough. For a few seconds, the boil
would be quite high then suddenly would become quite low. However, erosion
of the riverbed was negligible for a1l flows.
The tests indicated that the primary function of the teeth is to
stabilize the f'low and reduce water surface fluctuations in the channel
downstream. The tests also suggested that should the teeth in a prototype

slotted bucket deteriorate over a period of time, the degree of deterioration

could be evaluated from the appearance of the surface f'low. Discharges up

to about half maximum would be satisfactory if the teeth were entirely gone.

14
 Solid bucket. The solid bucket, shown in Figure 7, was tested to
compare the action with that of a slotted bucket. The performance was
similar to that shown in Figure 2A and described previously. These tests

confirmed the conclusion that a solid bucket is not desirable when loose
material may be carried into the bucket or when the high boil would create
objectionable waves. Also, a deep erosion hole occurs from lR to 3R
downstream from the bucket lip.

SLO'rl'ED BUCKET GENERALIZA.TION TESTS

General

The investigation to determine the minimum bucket size and tail

water limits for a range of struct\ll'e sizes, discharges, and overfall

height was accomplished by the testing of 6-, 9-, 12-, and 18-inch radius
buckets. Each bucket was tested over a range of discharges and tail water

elevations in the test flume used for the verification tests, Figure 6.
For each test, the head on the spillway was measured and recorded.
The relationship between head and discharge on the spillway is shown in

Figure 8. For each discharge, the tail water depth was lowered slowly until
the flow swept out of the bucket, as shown in Figure 9A. The sweepout depth
considered to be too low for proper bucket performance was a limiting value
and was recorded in Tables III to VI (line 2) and plotted in Figure 10.
Tail water depth is the difference in elevation between the bucket invert
and the tail water surface measured at the tail water gage shown in Figure 6.
Figure 9B shows the 6-inch bucket operating with tail water depth just
safely above sweepout. The tail water depth just safely above the depth
required for the sweepout will, henceforth in this paper, be called the
lower or minimum tail water limit.

15
 For each discharge, the upper tail water limit was also

investigated. The tail water was raised slowly until the .flow dived from

the apron lip, as shown in Figures 3 and 9c. When diving occurred, a deep
hole was scoured in the channel bed near the bucket. The tail water depth
for diving, considered to be too high for proper performance of the bucket,
was also recorded in Tables III to V (line 12) and plotted in Figure 10.
The tail water depth just safely below the depth required for diving will,
henceforth, be called the upper or maximum tail water limit.
Six-inch Radius Bucket
Lower tail water limit. At the sweepout depth, the flow left the
bucket in the form of a jet, Figure 9A. The jet scoured the channel bed at
the point of contact but did not cause excessive water surface roughness
downstream. However, a more undesirable flow pattern occurred just before
sweepout. An unstable condition developed in the bucket causing excessive

erosion and water surface roughness. It is therefore undesirable to design

a bucket for both submerged and flip action in this transition region.

The lower tail water limit was estimated to be from 0.05 to 0.15
foot above the sweepout depth. Only the sweepout depth was actually
measured since it was a more definite point than the lower tail water limit.
A safe lower limit, Tmin, was established at the conclusion of all model
testing by adding 0.2 foot to the sweepout tail water depth.
Upper tail water limit. At the tail water depth required for diving

to occur, Figure 9C, it was noted that a~er 3 or 4 minutes (model time)
diving suddenly ceased and the flow rose to the surface as shown in Figure 9n.
The changeover occurred only a~er the movable bed had become sufficiently
scoured to allow a ground roller to form beneath the jet and li~ the flow

16
from the apron lip to the Wdter surface. The ground roller then moved the

deposited gravel upstream into the scoured hole until the riverbed was

nearly level with the apron lip. At the same time, the strength of the

ground roller was reduced until it was no longer capable of lifting the
flow to the water surface and the flow dived again to start another cycle
which was repeated over and over. Very little bed material was moved down-
stream out of reach of the ground roller even a~er several cycles. Five
or six minutes were required for one cycle.
When the flow was diving, the water surface was very smooth; but,
when the flow was directed toward the surface, a boil formed and a rough

downstream water surface was in evidence. In the former case, part of the
energy was dissipated on the channel bed; in the latter case, energy was

dissipated on the surface.

In approaching the upper tail water limit, diving occurred in
spurts not sufficiently long to move bed material. As the depth approached
that required for sustained periods of diving, the momentary spurts
occurred more often. In the test data recorded in Table III and plotted in
Figure 10, the tail water depth required to cause sustained diving was used
because it was a definite point. At the conclusion of all model testing,

the upper tail water limit, ~x' was established by subtracting 0.5 foot
from the tail water depth at which sustained diving occurred. This margin
of safety was sufficient to prevent momentary diving in all cases.
It was difficult to obtain consistent results for the tail water
depth at which diving occurred because the upper tail water limit was also
dependent upon the shape and elevation of the channel bedo Since it was

17
difficult to maintain the same bed shape between one test run and another,
the gravel was removed from the model in anticipation that the upper tail

water limit could be determined from observations of the flow pattern.

The gravel was removed completely so that the floor of the
test flume was the channel bed. This arrangement proved unsuccessf'ul.
since diving did not occur. However, this test showed that excellent
performance occurred, Figure llA, when the tail water depth above the
bucket invert was less than the bucket radius. With deeper tail water,
the performance was not as good but was still satisfactory.
The channel bed represented by a wood floor at the elevation
of the apron lip produced flow currents that followed along the floor
for quite some distance before rising to the surface, Figure llC. The
flow followed along the floor for a greater distance with higher tail
water. No other changes in flow pattern occurred at high tail water
elevations, and again no upper limit could be found.

Testing was continued with the gl"S,vel bed molded level slightly
below the apron lip. It was necessary to reshape the bed before each
test to obtain consistent upper limit results; even then it was difficult.
Testing showed that it was important that the channel bed be below the
apron lip elevation to prevent the diving flow pattern from occurring at
a much lower tail water elevation. Therefore, the bed was maintained at
approximately 0.05R, or 0.3 of an inch, below the apron lip of the bucket
at the beginning o:f' each test. However, in testing the larger radius
buckets, a sloping bed was included in the investigation.

18
 M:3.ximum capacity. As the discharge capacity of the bucket was
approached, the difference between the upper and lower tail water limits
became smaller. The maximum capacity of the bucket was judged from its

general performance and by the range of useful tail water elevations between
the upper and lower tail water limits, Figure 10. The maximum capacity of

the 6-inch bucket was found to be 3 to 3.5 second-feet or 1.5 to 1.75

second-feet per foot of bucket width. The performance of the bucket for
1.75 second-feet with normal tail water elevation is shown in Figure 9B.

Nine-inch Radius Bucket

The 9-inch bucket was tested in the same manner as the 6-inch
bucket. The bucket in operation, before and after diving occurred, is
shown in Figure 12. The maximum capacity of the 9-inch bucket was determined

to be between 2 to 2.5 second-feet per foot of width. Discharges of 1.5

to 3 second-feet with a normal tail water depth of 1.85 feet are shown in
Figure 13. For 3 second-feet, the tail water range for satisfactory
performance was quite narrow since a depth of 1.65 feet was too little and
2.3 feet was too great.

'lhe tail water sweepout depth and the depth at which diving
occurred are recorded in Table IV and plotted in Figure 10 for a range of

flows tested with bed elevation approximately 0.05R, or 0.5 inch, below the
apron lip. For a given discharge, the tail water sweepout depth was not
as low as for the 6-inch bucket but the diving depth was higher.
'!he upper tail water limit was again difficult to determine.
However, a safe upper limit appeared to be approximately 0.5 of a foot
below the average depth for diving to occur. The safe lower tail water
limit appeared to be from 0.05 to 0.15 of a foot above the sweepout depth.

19
 Upper and lower tail water limits were also determined with the

channel bed sloping 16° uplrard from the apron lip to approximately 6 inches

above the lip. Tests on this arrangement showed that sweepout occurred at

the same depth but diving occurred at a much lower tail water depth.
Diving occurred at about the same tail water depth as for the 6-inch bucket
with the level bed just below the lip. The maximum capacity of the bucket
did not change with bed arrangement. Thus, the effect of the sloping bed
was '.;o reduce the operating range between minimum and maximum tail water
depth limits by lowering the upper tail water limit.
To aid in defining water surface profiles, measurements were made
for a range of :flows with the tail water at about halfway between the upper
and lower limits, Figure 14.
Twelve-inch Radius Bucket
The performance of the 12-incb bucket was similar to the 6- and

9-inch buckets. Figure 15 shows the performance for unit flows ranging
fI'om 2.5 to 4 second-feet with normal tail water depth o".f 2.3 feet.
Figure 14 shows water surface characteris~ics for the 9- and 12-inch
b~ckets. The maximum capacity of the bucket was estimated to be from 3.25

to 3.5 second-feet per foot of width.

Tail water depths for sweepout and diving with the bed level at
approximately o.05R, or o.6 inch, below the apron lip are recorded in
Ta:l:>le V and plotted in Figure 10. Again, it was difficult to get consistent

data for d:'i.ving and to determine the exact margin of safety required for

est.ablisJ:".ng the upper and lower tail water depth limits. However, the
safe 'IJlargins were Et.bent the same as for the smaller buckets.

20
 The tests were repeated with the bed sloping upward at 16° to

about 6 inches above the lip; again, the results were comparable to those

for the 9-inch bucket. Tb.e saf'e maximum limit was about the same a.s the
upper limit for the 9-inch bucket with the bed molded level below lip
elevation. These data a.re given in Table V and plotted in Figure 10. The

capacity of the 12-inch bucket did not change with the upward sloping bed.

Eighteen-inch Radius Bucket

The performance of' the 18-inch bucket is shown in Figure 16 for
unit discharges ranging from 3 to 5.5 second-feet with normal tail water

depths. The capacity of the bucket was determined to be 5 to 5.5 second-

feet per foot of width.
With the movable bed molded level, approximately 0.05R or 0.9_inch
below the apron lip, tests for sweepout were made and the data obtained are
recorded in Table VI and plotted in Figure 10. Depths for sweepout and
diving were even more difficult to determine precisely than for the smaller
buckets. In f'act, the sustained diving condition could not be reached by
raising the tail water as high as possible in the model f'or any discharge.
However, the tendency to dive was present and momentary diving occurred,

but in no ease was it sustained.

The minimum tail water depth at which the bucket operated
satisfactorily was found to be 0.1 foot above the sweepout depth; however,
0.2 f'oot was used, as for the other buckets, to provide a factor of safety.
The sloping bed tests could not be ma.de because of difficulties

in maintaining the bed shape while starting a test run. Performance with

the bed sloping was, therefore, assumed to be consistent with the sloping

bed test results on the 9- and 12-inch radius buckets.

21
Larger and Snaller Buckets

Increasing difficulties in measuring bucket capacity and tail

water depth limits for near capacity flows ma.de it inadvisable to test
larger buckets on the 5-f'oot spillway. In addition, maximum tail water
depths would either submerge the crest or closely approach that condition.
It was not intended at this time to investigate a bucket with a submerged

crest.
It was unnecessary to test smaller buckets because very few, if
any, prototype structures would use a bucket radius smaller than one-tenth
the height of the spillway. A short radius bend is usually avoided on
high structures where velocities are also high. Therefore, the available
data were analyzed and, with some extrapolation, found to be sufficient.
Ia.ta Analysis
Safety factor. At the conclusion of the testing, the data for
the four buckets were .surveyed and the margins of safety, between sweepout

depth and minimum tail water depth and between maximum tail water depth
and the diving depth, were definitely established. An ample margin of
safety for the lower limit was 0.2 foot and for the upper limit 0.5 foot.
These values were sufficient for both the level and sloping movable beds

previously described and are included in items Tmin and Tmax of Tables III,
!.V, V, and VI.

Evaluation of variables. To generalize the design of a bucket

from the available data, it is necessary to determine the relation of the

variables shown in Figure 17. The available data are shown in Tables III
through VI and are plotted in Figure 10.

22
 Figure 10 shows that, for a given height of structure having a

particular overfall shape and spillway surface roughness, the sweepout

depth and minimum tail water depth are functions of the radius of the

bucket Rand the head on the crest H. The height of structure may be

expressed as the height of fall h from the spillway crest to the tail water

elevation. Hand the overfall crest shape, which determines the discharge

coefficient, may be expressed as q. Since the spillway surface roughness

and the spillway slope had negligible effect on flow in the model, they

were not considered in the analysis of model data. Prototype effects,

however, are discussed in a subsequent section of this paper. By actual

test, it was found that the elevation or shape of the movable bed did not

affect the minimum tail water limits.

Therefore,

Tmin or Ts= f {h, R, and q)

Similarily, the maximum tail water depth limit is a function of

the same variables but since the slope and elevation of the movable bed

with respect to the apron lip does affect the tail water at which diving

occurs

Tma.x • f {h, R, q and channel bed)

The maximum capacity of a bucket is slightly greater for

intermediate tail water depths than for the extremes. But, since the

bucket is expected to operate over a range of tail water depths, the

minimum bucket radius is a function of only hand q.

Rmin • f (hand q)

23
 The Froude number, a dimensionless parameter, is a function of

velocity and depth of flow and may be expressed

in which Vi and D_i_ are at tail water elevation, as shown in Figure 17.
Since V1 and D_i_ are functions of hand g, they may be replaced by the
Froude number F.
Substituting, then

Tmin, Tmax and Ts= f (R, F)

and

. l\nin ,. f (F)

Numerical values for the Froude number were computed from the

available test data in the tables for points on the spillway face at the
tail water elevation. At these points, all necessary information for

computing velocity and depth of fl.ow can be determined from the available
test data which include headwater elevation, discharge, and tail water
elevation. Since the Froude number expresses a ratio of velocity to depth
and is dimensionless, a numerical VBlue represents a prototype as well as
a model flow condition.

To express Tmin, Tmax, and Ras dimensionless numbers so that

they may also represent prototype fl.ow conditions, Tmin and Tmax were

divided by D]_; R -was divided by D_i_ + v1 2 /2g, the depth of fl.ow plus the
velocity head at tail water elevation on the spillway face. These

dimensionless ratios and the Froude number, computed from .test data, are
shown in Tables III, IV, v, and VI. In computing the tabular values,
frictional resistance in the 5-foot model was considered to be negligible.

24
 In Figure 181 the dimensionless ratio for the bucket radius is
plotted against the Froude number, using only the test points bracketing

the estimated maximum bucket capacity. Values were plotted for both the

sweepout and diving tail water elevations since the Froude number and

R
2
D:J. + Vl both vary with tail water elevation. For example, the maximum
2g

capacity of the 6-inch bucket is q = 1.5 to 1.75 in Columns 7 and 8 of

Table III; data from lines 8 and 11 and lines 17 and 20 were plotted in
Figure 18. The two points thus obtained for each discharge were connected
by a dashed line to indicate the trend for constant discharge. Eight
dashed lines were thereby obtained for the four buckets. A single envelope

curve was then drawn, shown as the solid line to the right of the prelim-
inary lines, to indicate the minimum radius bucket. Values taken from the
solid line, therefore, include a factor of safety indicated by the distance
between the solid line and the test points.

Since both the upper and lower depth limits are functions of
T T
the bucket radius and the Froude number, min and max for each test point
15:t DI
in Tables III through VI were plotted versus the Froude number in Figure 19,
and each point and curve was labeled with the computed value of

R
v2
D:i. + l• The upper four curves are for the minimum tail water limit and
2g

apply to any bed arrangement. The 10 lower curves apply to the maximum

tail water limitation and have 2 sets of labels, l for the sloping bed

R
v2
and l for the level bed. Two curves are shown for each value of' D_i + _.L;
2g

25
the upper or solid line curves have an extra factor of safety included

because of the difficulty in obtaining consistent upper tail water limit

values. The lower or dashed line curves are a strict interpretation of

the values in Tables III through VI.

The curves of Figure 19 may be used directly to detert:1ine

minimum and maximum tail water limits for a given Froude number and bucket

ratio. However, a simpler and easier to use version of the same data is

given in Figures 20 and 21, which were obtained. by cross-plotting the

curves of Figure 19. Figure 20 contains a :family of' curves to determine

R
T V. 2
~ values in terms of the Froude number and Di_ + ..!._. Figure 21 contains
DJ. 2g
T
similar curves to determine~ and includes the extra factor of safety
11.
discussed for Figure 19. The two abscissa scales in Figure 21 dif':t'erent-

iate between the sloping bed and the level bed used in the tests.

The tail water sweepout depth Tin Tables III through VI was
T
also expressed as a dimensionless ratio....! and plotted versus the Froude
' D:i.
number in Figure 22, and a curve for each bucket size was drawn. These

curves were then cross-plotted in Figure 23 to provide means for determining

the sweepout depth for any installation. The difference between sweepout
depth indicated by the curves and the depth to be expected in the prototype

indicates the margin of safety.

To aid in determining approximate water surface profiles in and

downstream from the bucket, the data of Figure 14 and values scaled from
photographs of' other bucket tests were analyzed and plotted. Refinement

26
of the curves obtained resulted in the curves of' Figure 24. The height of
the boil above the tail water may be determined from the Froude number and

the ratio ~ where R is the bucket radius and X is the height of the
spillway from crest to bucket invert. The depth of the water in the bucket,
dimension Bin Figures 14 and 241 was found to remain fairly constant over

most of the design operating range, about 80 to 85 percent of the dimension

T. For minimum recommended tail water, the percentage dropped to 70 percent,
while with high tail water the value increased to 90 percent, approximately.

Practical Applications
To illustrate the use of the methods and ch.arts given in this

paper, a step-by-step procedure for designing a slotted bucket is presented.

Discharge data, height of fa·l l, etc., from Grand Coulee Imn spillway will
be used in the example so that the resulting slotted'bucket may be compared
with the solid bucket individually determined from model tests and now in

use at Grand Coulee Ihm. The calculations .are summarized in Table VII.
For maximum reservoir elevation 1291.65, the spillway discharge
is 1,000,000 second-feet. Since the spillway crest is at elevation 12601

the head is 31.65 f'eet. The width of the bucket is 1,650 feet, making the
discharge per f'oot 606 second-feet. The tail water in the river is

expected to be at elevation 1011 for the maximum now. The velocity head
of the now entering the basin is the difference between tail water
I
elevation and reservoir elevation or 280.65 feet. Then, theoretically,

the velocity entering the tail water is 134.4 feet per second;

v1 = J2g{H + h). See Figure 17.

27
 The actual velocity is less than theoretical at this point,
however, due to frictional resistance on the spillway face. Using

Figure 25, the actual velocity is found to be 91 percent of theoretical.

Figure 25 may be used to reduce the computation work on the preliminary
design of overfall spillways and is believed to be reasonably accurate.
However, only a limited amount of protot;ype data were available to develop
the cha.rt so that the information obtained should be used with caution.
Entering Figure 25 with the height of fall 280.65 feet as the ordinate
and intersecting the curve for 31.65 feet of head on the crest, the
abscissa is found to be 0.91. Therefore, the actual velocity in this
example is 91 percent of 134.4, or 122.4 feet per second. The corresponding
depth of now DJ.. on the spillway face is _g or 4.95 feet. Having dete:i;mined
V1
~ and v1 , the Froude number, ~ , is computed to be 9.7.
~g~

Entering Figure 18 with Froude number 9.7, the dimensionless

ratio for the minimum allowable bucket radius is found to be 0.12 from the
solid line curve. The minimum bucket radius is then computed to be 28.5
feet. In round numbers, a 30-foot bucket radius would probably be used.
For the 30-foot radius, the dimensionless ratio would be 0.13. Entering
T
Figure 20 with the dimensionless ratio and the Froude number, min is
DJ.
found to be 14.7. The minimum tail -water depth limit is then 73 feet,
measured from the bucket invert to the tail -water surface elevation.
T
Similarly,~ for the bed elevation below the apron lip is found to be
Dl

23 from Figure 21. The maximum tail water depth limit is then 114 feet.

28
 To determine the sweepout depth, enter Figure 23 with the Froude

number and the bucket radius dimensionless ratio; the sweepout depth

dimensionless ratio is 12.6. The sweepout depth then is approximately 63

feet. Thus, the minimum tail water depth limit of 73 feet provides 10
feet of margin against flow sweeping out of the bucket at the maximum

discharge.
The riverbed at Grand Coulee lam is at elevation 900, approximately.
If the bucket invert is placed at riverbed elevation, the tail water depth
would be 111 feet, which is close to the upper limit of 114 :reet. No diving
would occur. On the other hand, if the tail water depth was greater than
the upper tail water limit, diving still would not occur because the lip
of the bucket is considerably more than o.05R above the channel bed. With

the bucket invert at riverbed elevation, the appearance of the flow would

be similar to that shown in Figure llB and would be satisfactory, provided

the water surface profile computed from Figure 24 is satisfactory.

However, to obtain a smoother water surface, the bucket invert should be

set well above the riverbed so that the tail water depth above the bucket
invert is less than sweepout depth plus bucket radius (93 feet) but more
than the minimum depth of 73 feet. The performance would then appear as
shown in Figure llA.
The data in Figure 14 and the curves of Figure 24 may be used to
obtain an approximate water surface profile if the bucket invert is placed

near channel bed elevation 900. For F = 9. 7 and ~ =

3
gg = 0.083; ¥= 1.3.
The maximum height of boil A is then 1.3 x 111, or 144 feet above the
bucket invert and 33 feet above the tail water. In the bucket, the depth

29
of water B would be 90 percent of lll feet or approximately 100 feet. The

maximum difference (A-B) would be about 44 feet for the design tail water.

The length and location of the boil may be estimated from the data in
Figure 14.
If a larger usable range of tail water is desired, a bucket

radius larger than 30 feet could be used. With a 50-:f'oot radius, the

bucket dimensionless ratio, Rv?/ , would be 0.21. From Figures 20

D:J.. + 1 2g
and 21, the minimum and maximum tail water depth limit ratios are 15.8
and 7, respectively. The corresponding tail water depths are then 78 and
183 feet. From Figure 23, the sweepout depth is determined to be 67 feet.
With the bucket placed to provide lll feet of tail water~= 0.14 and~• 1.1.
X T
The height of the boil then would be about 122 feet above the bucket invert
or 11 feet above tail water. 'nle water in the bucket, 8o percent of lll,
would be 89 feet deep. The 50-foot bucket would provide a smoother water
surface profile.
If the invert of the 50-foot radius bucket is placed below
riverbed elevation and the bed is sloped upward from the apron lip, the

ratio T{max)/DJ.. is approximately 20.5 as found in Figure 21. The upper

depth limit, therefore, would be only 101 f'eet. In this case, the now
from the apron might scour the channel bed because. the tail water depth
above the bucket invert is greater than the maximum limit.
Before adopting either of' the bucket sizes discussed for the
design discharge, consideration should be given to the fact that the

bucket might be required to operate with tail water corresponding to the

discharge just before it was increased to maximum. other factors which

30
might affect the tail water elevation for a particular spillway discharge

such as powerplant, outlet works, or other discharges, should also be

investigated. Spillway discharges less than the design now may also be

investigated; however, it is seldom that a discharge less than design now

governs the bucket requirements because the tail water limits increase quite
rapidly as the discharge decreases in a g1 ven installation. After the
bucket radius has been determined, the bucket design may be completed from

the data in Figure 1.

Discharges less than maximum were investigated for the Angostura

installation in Table VII, using the methods presented in this paper. These
computations show that the bucket design obtained for the maximum flow is
larger than necessary for the smaller nows and that the tail water depth

range for satisfactory performance is greater for smaller flows than for
the maximum now.

The Angostura analysis in Table VII shows, too, that the bucket
radius determined from the Angostura model study is less than the radius

shown in the table, indicating that the methods presented in this paper
provide a factor of safety. This is a desirable feature when hydraulic
model studies are not contemplated. On the other hand, hydraulic model
studies make it possible to explore regions of uncertainty in particular
cases and help to provide the absolute minimum bucket size consistent with
acceptable performance.

Other examples in Table VII include an analysis using the data

from Trenton Olm spillway. This spillway utilizes a long fiat chute
upstream from the energy dissipator. Friction losses are considerably

higher than would occur on the steep spillways for which Figure 25 was

drawn. other means must therefore be used to obtain v1 and DJ. for the
31
bucket design. In this example, actual velocity measurements taken f'rom

a model were used. If frictional resistance is neglected in the velocity

computations, the minimum tail water limit would be higher, providing a

greater factor of safety against sweepout. But the maximum tail water
limit would also be higher which reduces the factor of safety against flow

diving.
Tail water requirements for bucket versus hydraulic jump. In
general, a bucket-type dissipater requires a greater depth of tail water
than a stilling basin utilizing the hydraulic jump. This is illustrated

in Table VIII 'Where pertinent data from Table VII are summarized to
compare the minim1m1 tail water depth necessary for a minimum radius bucket
with the computed conjugate tail water depth for a hydraulic jump. Line 6

shows Tmin for the buckets worked out in the section Practical Applications.
Line 7 shows the conjugate tail w.ter depth required for a hydraulic jump
for the same Froude number and D_i_ determined from the equation D2 = 1/2
D.I.
Jl + 8F
2
- 1.

Table VIII
COMPARISON OF TAIL WATER DEPTHS REQUIRED FOR BUCKET AND HYDRAULIC JUMP

a, .
• a, a, :
"M ~ ,-;
~:;-
~ : ~ : ~ : ~ 0 '8
+>
tO
0
! . +>~ ~.:
•
•
tQ •
+> § •
tlla·
~ :
0 •r-l
Ill (I.)
~
..a
+>
bO • ti.I

~ ~ ~ i! ~ ~
s--
. . ..
1 : Q in thousands : 247 :180 :roo 4o
:1,000:1,000:133 90
: cfs : . .. .
2 :V1 ft/sec 72 72 73 70 :122.4:122.4: 66 . . 39
3 :DJ. ft 12.5: 9.1: 5.0: 2.1: 5.0: 5.0: 7.6: 3.6
4 :F 3.6: 4.3: 5. 7: 8.5: 9.7: 9.1: 4.2: 3.7
5 :Trnax ft 71 72 89 :210 :114 :183 98 32
6 :Tmin ft 67 59 46 32 13 78 49 20
7 :Tconj ft 57 52 38 24 66 66 40 16
8 :Bucket radius 47 39 26 12 30 50 35 12.5
Note: If a larger than minim1m1 bucls:et radius is used, the
required mirrlmum tail water depth becomes greater, as shown for the
two Grand Coulee bucket radii.
32
 SUMMARY

The Angostura-type slotted bucket, Figure lB, is well adapted for

general use as an energy dissipater at the base of an overfall. Tests

showed the slotted bucket to be superior to the solid bucket in all respects.

Wherever practicable, the higher teeth recommended in Design Modification II,

Figure 7, should be usedo

A simplified version of the seven steps required to design a

bucket is given below. The letter symbols refer to Figure 17.

1. Determine Q, q (per foot of bucket width), v1 , I\; compute
V1
Froude number f'rom F =J for maximum f'low and intermediate f'lows.
g11_
In some cases v1 may be estimated from Figure 25.
2. Enter Figure 18 with F to find bucket radius ratio

Di+ VJ:._2 from which minimum allowable bucket radius R may be computed.
2g
R
v2 Tmin
Enter Figure 20 with D:i_ + J:._ and F to find~ from which
2g

minimum tail water depth limit may be computed.

4. Enter Figure 21 as in Step 3 above to find maximum tail water
depth limit, T •
max
5. Set bucket invert elevation so that tail water curve
elevations are between tail water depth limits determined by ~n and
~· Keep apron lip and bucket invert above riverbed, if possible.

For best performance, set bucket so that the tail water depth is near

~in· Check setting and determine factor of safety against sweepout

from Figure 23 using methods of Step 3 •.

6. Complete design of bucket using Figure 1 to obtain tooth size,

spacing, dimensions, etc.
33
 7. Use Figures 14 and 24 to estimate the probable water surface
profile in and downstream from the bucket.

The procedures outlined above summarize the main considerations

in the hydraulic design of a slotted bucket. The sample calculations in

Table VII may prove helpful in analyzing a particular problem. However,

other considerations are discussed in the paper, and the entire paper should

be read before attempting to use the procedures given above. The procedures

and data may also be used (with caution) to determine the radius and lower

tail water limit for a solid-type bucket. Figures 18 and 22 might prove

helpful in determining the radius and upper tail water limit for a flip-type

bucket.
 ACKNOWLEOOEMENTS
The bucket tests described in this paper are of recent origin

although bucket tests in general have been made since about 1933. Some

of the early tests were valuable in this study in that they helped to

point the way for the later tests and eliminated certain bucket schemes

from further consideration. These early tests were conducted by J. H.

Douma, C. W. Thomas, J. Wo Ball, and J. N. Bradley. Later tests were made

by R. C. Besel, E. J. Rushe, and J. N. Bradley under the laboratory

direction of J.E. Warnock. The final tests to develop the slotted bucket

and generalize the design were ma.de by G. L. Beichley under the supervision

of A. J. Peterka and J. N. Bradley and laboratory direction of H. M. Martin.

Some of the material contained in this paper was submitted by G. L. Beichley,

as a thesis for the degree of Mister of Science, University of Colorado.

All tests and analyses were conducted in the Bureau of Reclamation Hydraulic

Laboratory, Denver, Colorado.

35
 Table III

DATA AND CALCULATED VALUES FOR 6-INCH RADIUS BtXKET

:Bed was approx 0,05R below apron lip at beginning of each run
.. :1 :2 :3 :4
Sweepout Conditions
:5 :6 :7 :8: 9
l:H 0.198: 0.274: 0.352: o.413: o.480: o.481: 0.526: 0.581: 0.678
2:T (swpout): 0.767: 0.765: o.826: 0.943: 1.023: 1.081: 1.139: 1.203: 1.403
: (depth ) ; .
. . .
3:q 0.31: 0.54: 0.81: 1.03: 1.30: 1.30 : 1.50: 1.75 : 2.25
4:Tmin 0.967: 0.965: 1.026: - 1.143: 1.223: 1.281: 1.339: 1.403: 1.603
:v12
5: 2g : 4.231: 4.309: 4.326: 4.270: 4.257: 4.200: 4.187~ 4.178: 4.075
6:V1 :16.50 :16.65 :16.70 :16.58 :16.56 :16.45 :16.42 :16.41 :16.20
7:D1 : 0.019: 0.032: 0.048: o.o62: 0.078: 0.079: 0.091: 0.107: 0.139
: V1 : : : : :
8 '. F =Jg Di : 21. 2 :16.31 :13.36 :11. 72 :10.42 :10.31 : 9.50 : 8.85 : 7.65
: : : : : :
9;Tmin :51.43 :29.78 :21.10 :18.40 :15.57 :l6.21 :14.66 :13.16 :11.54
:'n:L . . .
: V 2 . . .. ..
10:Di + _l_ 4.245: 4.341: 4.374: 4.332: 4,335: 4.279: 4.278: 4.285: 4.214
2g
R

0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

.. .. Diving Flow Conditions

12:T (diving): 2.565; 2.576: 2.435: 2.464: 2,439: 2,397: 2.043: 2.200: 2.213
: (depth ) : . .. . . .. . .
13:Tmax 2.065: 2.076: 1,935: 1.964: 1,939: 1.897: 1.543: 1.700: 1.713
=v12
. .. . . .. . ..
14: 2g ·
.. 2,133:.. 2.198:. 2.417:.. 2.449: 2.541: 2.584: 2.983: 2.881: 2.965
.. .. .. .. ..
15:V1 :11.72 :11.89 :12.47 :12,55 :12·.78 :12.90 :13,86 :13.62 :13.81
16:Di
: V1
: 0.026: 0.045: o.o65: 0.089: 0.102: 0.101: 0.108: 0.128: 0.163
. . . . .. . .
17:F = ~ :12.67: 9.84: 8.62: 7.40: 7.o6 : 7.20: 7.42: 6 . 70: 6.02
:T vgDJ. .. . .. .
18:~ :77,92 :45 , 72 :29.76 :21.62 :19.06 :18.82 :14.26 :13.23 :10.51
·. Di V 1
2 .. . .. . . ..
19:Di + - 2,159: 2.243: 2.486: 2,538: 2.643: 2.685: 2.983: 3,009: 3.128
: 2g
R
: V 2
20:J\ + ...L 0.23 b.22 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16
: 2g

R= bucket radius (ft) D1 = depth of flow entering

H= tlt.of reservoir above the crest (ft) the bucket computed at
T= depth of TW above the bucket invert (ft) TW el (ft)
Tmin = min TW depth for good performance (ft)= F = Froude number of flow
sweepout depth+ 0.2 ft entering bucket
Tmax = max TW depth for good performance computed at TW el
(ft)= diving depth - 0.5 ft
q = discharge per ft of model crest length Maximum capacity of bucket
(cfs) estimated to be L 5 to L 75
X = lit. of crest above bucket invert = 5 ft second-feet per ft of width.
v = velocity of flow entering the bucket
1 computed at TW el (ft/sec)
 Table IV

DATA AND CALCULATED.VALUES FOR 9-INCH RADIUS BUCKET

: Bed approx o.05R below apron lip at beginning of each run
: Run No. . : 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sweepout Conditions .
.: o.419 o.476 o.·53i 0~642 0.682 0.722
1.02 1.11 1.19 1.33 1.41 1.45
1.05 1.28 1.52 2.05 2.28 2.50
1.22 1.31 1.39 : 1.53 1.61 1.65
4.199 4.166 4.141 4.112 4.072 4.072
16.45 16.38 16.33 16.28 16.20 16.20
o.o64 0.078 0.093 0.126 0.141 0.154
11.49 10.34 9.44 8.09 7.62 7.27
19.12 16. 77 14.93 12,15 11.44 10.69
4.244 4.234 4.238 4.212 4.226
R
11 · 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

Diving Flow Conditions

12 T (diving} 3.40 3.03 3.01 2.46 2.38 2.44
(depth )
13 : Tmax 2.90 2.53 2.51 1.96 1.88 1.94
=v2
14 · 1 1.519 1.946 2.021 2.682 2.8o2 2.782
; 2g
15 : V1 9.89 11.20 11.40 13.14 13.43 13.40
16 , D 0.+06 0.114 0.133 0.156 0.170 0.187
1

17 F = Vl 5.34 5.84 5.49 5.85 5.72 5.46

/gD]_
18 Tm.ax 2.733 22.13 18.82 12.56 11.07 10. 39
~v 2
1
19 Dl + 2g 1.625 2.060 2.154 2.838 2.972
R
20 o.46 0.36 0-35 0.26 0.25 0.25

Note: See Table III for definition of symbols.

Maximum capacity of bucket estimated to be 2.0 to 2.5 second-feet per ft

of width.
 Table IV--Continued

:, Bed approx O. 05R below apron .l ip at beginning of each run

Run No. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13'
Sweepout Conditions
l:H 0.764 0.805 0.852 o.884 .: 0.534 0.578 0.585
2:T (awpout): 1.51 1.60 1.67 1.70
: (depth ) :
3:q 2.74 3.00 3.30 3.52 1. 53 1.73
4:Tmin 1.71 1.80 1.87 1.90
:v 2
5;_!_ 4.054 4.005 3,982 3.984
: 2g
6:V1 16.16 16.06 16.02 16.02
7:Di_ 0.170 0.187 0.206 0.220
: V1
:F
8 =./gDi_ 6.92 6.56 6.22 6.03 .
9;Tmin 10.08 9.63 9.07 8.64
:~
·. v1 2 4.192 4.188 4.204
lO:D1 + -.2g
.
.
R
11: V 2 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
.,n. + - 1
:-.L 2g
.
·.• .. Diving Flow Conditions
12:T (diving): 2.44 2.32 2.46 2.37 ,2.68 2.39 2.37
: (depth ) :
13:Tmax 1.94 1.82 1.96 1.87 2.18 1.89 1.87
:v 2
14:_!_ 2.824 2.985 2.892 2.014 2.354 2.688 2.715
: 2g
15:v1 13.48 13.87 13.65 13.94 12.31 13.16 13.22
.
16:D1 O. 203: O·. 216 0.242 0.252 0.126 0.131 0.135
: ~
17:F =/gD]_ 5.26 5.25 4.89 4.89 6.11 6.41 6.38
18;Tmax 9.54 8.54 8.10 7.40 17.28 14.38 13.89
:ni-
V12
19:D1 + 2 2.077: 3.201 3.134 3.266 2.480 2.819 2.850
.
. g
R
20: V 2 0.25 0.23 0.2~ 0.23 0.30 0.27 0.26
.,n.. +1-
=-.1 2g
 Table IV--Continued

Bed slopes up from apron lip

Run No. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sweepout Conditions
l:H : 0.633 0.54 o.433 o.485 0.527 0.634 0.723
2 : T ( swpout) :
. (depth ) :
3'%
4: min
2.02 L 56 1.12 1.32 L 50 2.01 2.50

=v 2
5:.1:..._
: 2g
6:V1
7:D1
. ,
V1
8:F =.jgDi_
9;Tmin
: Dl
: V12
lO·D1
. + - 2g :

R
11: V2
. 1
:n1 + 2g
•-. : :
: : Diving Flow Conditions
12:T (diving): 2.42 3.07 1.96 1.86 2.23 2.69 2.43
: (depth ) :
13:Tmax : 1.92 2.57 1.46 1.36 . 1. 73 2.19 1.93
:v 2
14:..2:_ 2.713 1.970 2.790 3.125 2.797 2.444 2.793
: 2g
15:V1 13.21 11.26 13.84 14.18 13.42 12.55 13.40
:
16:D1 0.153 0.138 0.081 0.093 0.112 0.160 0.187
: V
17:F = .l. 5,95 4.15 8.59 8.19 7.08 5.53 5.46
. .jgDl
18:Tmax 12.55 18.55 18.00 14.6ci 15.47 13.67 10.34
·--
: Dl
V2
1 2.866 2.108 3.054 3.218 2.909 2.604 2.980
19:D:1. + 2g
R
20: V2 0.26 0.35 0.25 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.25
:Di+ ...L
: 2g
 Table V

DATA AND CALCULATED VALUES FOR 12-INCH RADIUS BUCKET

:Bed was approx 0.05R below apron lip at beginning of each run
: Run No. 1 2 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 7 : 8
Sweepout Conditions
l:H 0.543: 0.592: 0.637: 0.679: 0.729: 0.765: 0.811: 0.850
e :T ( swpout) 1.27 1.33 1.40 1.45 1.52 1.56 1.68 1.72
: (depth ) . . . .
3:q . 1.58: 1,82: 2.03 2.25 2.53 2.75 3.05 3.28
4:Tmin 1.47: 1:53: 1.60 1.65 1.72 1.76 1.88 1.92
:yl2 .. . .. .
.. . . . . . .
5:- 4.0731: 4.o62: 4.037: 4.029: 4.009: 4.005: 3,931: 3.930
: 2g
6:v1 :16.20 :16.17 :16.12 :16.11 :16.07 :16.o6 :15.92: 15.91
7: Di : 0.099: 0.112: 0.126: 0.140: 0.157: 0.171: 0.192: 0.2o6
:
8~F =JgD:i_
V1
. 9.10 : 8.51 : 8.01 : 7.60 : 7.14 : 6.84 6.41 6.18
9:Tmin :14.91 :13.60 :12.71 :11.81 :10.93 :10.28 9.81 9.31
:~
V 2 :
10:D:i_ + .J:_ 4.172~ 4.175: 4.163: 4.169: 4.166: 4.176: 4.123:
: 2g . : : :
4.136
11: R .
0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 : 0.24 : 0.24 0.24 0.24
V12
:Dl +2 g . ..
.. Diving Flow Conditions
12:T (diving) : 3. 90 4. 00 3. 95 3. 95 3, 95 3. 95 2.91
: (depth ) . ...
13:Tm.ax 3,45 3.50 3.40: 3.45 : 3.45 : 3.45 2.41
• 2 . .
14:v1 1.093: 1.092: 1. 237: 1. 229: 1. 279: 1. 315: 2.440
; 2g . . . . .
15:Vl 8.39: 8.39: 8.92: 8.90: 9.07 : 9.20: 12.54
16:DJ. 0.188: 0.217: 0.228: 0,253: 0,279: 0.299: 0.262
: V1
.
·,

17:F =J
. . ~Di . 3.42 . 3.17 . 3.29 . 3.11 : 3.02
.
: 2.96 4.31
18;Tmax :18.35 :16.12 :14.91 :14.63
: Dl V 2 . .:12.36 :11.53
. . 9.19
19:D:!_ + _L 1. 281: 1. 309: 1.465; 1. 482,; i. 558; 1.614: 2.702
: 2g ...
R
20: V 2 0.78 0 . 72 o.68 0.67 o.64 0.62 0.37
. 1
;n1 + 2g .

Note: See Table III for definition of symbols.

Maximum capacity of bucket estimated to be 3. 25 to 3. 50 second-feet per ft
of width.
 Table V--Continued

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : Bed slopes up from apron lip

: Run No. 9 10 : Ill : 12 : 13 : If!: : 15 : 16
Sweepout Conditions
l:H 0.887: 0.961: 1.02: 1.221: 0.565: 0.651: 0.723: 0.839
2 :T ( swpout)
: (depth )
1.78 1.89 1.96 : 2.23
. . . .
3:q 3.54 ; 4.o6 ; 4.48 ; 6.08 ; l.67 2.00 2.50 3.21
4:Tmin 1.98: 2.09: 2.16 : 2.43:
:V12 . . . .
5: 2g .. 3.907;. 3.871;. 3.860;
.
3.791;
.
6:V1 :15.86 :15,79 :15,77 :15.63:
7:Di 0.223: 0.257: 0.284: 0.389:
: V1 .
5.93 5.49: 5.22: 4.42
8:F =/g!>i .. .
9;Tmin 8.87 8.13: 7.60: 6.25
=T V 2 .
.. . . .
.
10:D]_ + .l_ 4.133: 4.128: 4.144: 4.18o:
: 2g . . .. ..
11: R : 0.24: 0.24 0.24: 0.24
V12
=n1
:
.
+-
2g .. .. .
Diving Flow Conditions
12:T (diving) 2.87 3.22 3.17 3.00 3.25 3.00 2.45 2.35
:T (depth)
2.37 2.72
13:
·v
. 12
max
. 2.67 2.50: 2.75 : 2.50
.
1.95 1.85
14·- 2.721: 1.815: 2.131: 2,773: 2.889
: 2g . 2.517: 2.241: 2.35
. .. . . ..
15:Vl :12,72 :12.01 :12.30 :12.23 :10.81 :11.71 :13.36 : 13.64
16:Di : 0.218: 0.338: 0.364: o.460: 0.154: 0.111: o.1s1: 0.235
: V1 . : :
17:F =J n.. 4.25 3.64 3.41 3.44 : 4.86 : 4.98 : 5;54 4.96
•T g_.L : : :
• max
18,-- 8.52 8.04 7.33 5.54 :17.85 :14.61 :10.42 7.$7
:. Di V1 2 : : : :
2.795: 2.579: 2.714: 3.181: 1.969: 2.302: 2.960: . 3.124
.. + 2 g
19:Di
R
20: V 2 0.36 0.39 0.37 0.31 : 0.51 o.43 0.34 0.32
. 1
,Dl +-2
: g ..
 Table VI
DATA AND CALCULATED VALUES FOR 18-INCH RADIUS . BUCKET
:Bed was approx 0.05R below apron lip at beginning of each run 1

Run No. : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8
Sweepout '!Conditions
: : : : . .. ..
1 H :: 0.631: 0.734: o.8o4: 0.898: 0.926: 1.001: 1.083: 1.150
2 T (swpout) 1.45 1.78

3 q
(depth)
2.00 2.56 2.99 3.61 3.8o ... 4.35 4.98 .: · 5.48
4 Tmin 2.07 2.15 2.23 2.32 : 2.45
v12
1.65
. 1.85
. 1.98
.. .. .. .. ..
5 2g . 3,981:. 3.884:.. 3.824:.. 3.828:.. 3,776:.. 3,771:.. 3.763:.. 3.700
:16.02 :15.86 :15:70 :15.70 :15.27 :15.68 :15,67: 15.44
0.125: 0.161: 0.190: 0.230: 0.249: 0.277: 0.318: 0.355

6.33 5.39 5.24 4.88

Tmin .
:13,22 :11.46 :10,39 9.00
9 ~
. . .. .. 8.64 . 8.03 . 7.30 .
6.70
10 Di+ V12 4.lo6: 4.045: 4.014: 4.058: 4.025: 4.043: 4.081: 4.055
2g
R
11 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37

Diving Flow Conditions

12 T (diving)
( depth)
13 Tmax
V12
14
2g
15 v1
16 Di
V1 No Data Takeu
17 F =/gD]_
18 Tmax
~
19 D1 + v12
2g
R

20

Note: See Table III for definition of symbols.

Maximum capacity of bucket estimated to be 5. 0 to 5. 5 second-feet per ft
of width.
 Table VII
EXAMPLES OF BUCKET DESIGN PROCEDURES
. Grand ~ Missour1
Angostura Dam :Cou.lee :Trenton: Diversion
• ])a. . Dam Dam
Q (1,000) 247 : 180 100 40 ~1000 • 133 90
{ cfs ) .. : : . ~
HW el :3198.1 :3191.0 :3181.5 :3170.4 :1291. 65 F2185 2043.4
Crest el :3157,2 :3157,2 :3157,2 :3157,2 :12€i0 : 274 3 2032
H . 40.9 : 33.8 : 24.3 : 13.2 : 31.65: 42 11.4
: 274 274 : 274 : 274 :1650 • 266 644
L
q : 901 .: 657 . 365
. : 146 : (io6
~

: 500 140
TW el :3114 :3106 :3095 :3084 :l.Ol.l. :2700.6 2018.3
*V12 84.1 85.0 86.5 86.4 : 28o.65; 84.4 25.1
2g . C

*V1 73.6 74 . 74.6 74.5 .: 134.4 ·~ 73,7 4o.2

: :
**V1 0.98; 0.98; 0,97: 0,93: 0.91: 0.98
*V1 : :
**Vl 72.2 . 72.5 72.4 69.3 : 122.4 ': 66.3 39.4
:
**V12 Bo.9. : 81.6 81.4 74.6 : 233.0 .. 68.3 24.1
2g : .. ' : .. ..
Di 12.48: 9.o6: 5.04: 2.11: 4.95: 7.54: 3,55
fDlIJ,_ 3.53: . 3.01: 2.24:
. 1.45: 2.23: 2.75: 1.88
F =.fgf5j_ 3.61; 4.25; 5.68; 8.42; 9.70: 4.25; 3.70
+ Vi2 : : : .. .
·, :
D1 2g 93.38: 90.66: 86.44: 76.71: 237.95: 75.84: 27.65
: : " :
R 0,50: o.43: 0,30: 0.16: o.12~ o.43: o.49
v12 . .!
D:i. + - 2g
~

.
: .
R 47 39 26 12 . 2a., .•.• 33 14
R {used) 40 4o 40 46
R (rec) . . . i
30 . 35 : 12.5
R o.43: 0.44: o.46: 0,52: 0.1.3; o. 46: o.45
V12
. .
.

~•
'
:
D:i. + - 2g
.. .
Tmin. 5.4 6.5 9.1 15.3 11t..7 ': 6.5 5.6
D:L .
Tmin 67 59 46 32.5 73 49 20
Tmax 5,7 7.9 17.6 100 : 23 .
·~ 13.0 8.9
~ •'

Tma.x . 114 ..
71 72 89 210 . 98 32
... 12.6 ':
,:

Ts 5.0 6.o 8.2 14.4 6.0 5.2

.
'
DJ.
Ts 62 54 41 30
. 63 :
,.
•i .,
45 18
Note: See Table III for definition of symbols.
*Theoretical velocity.
**Actual velocity.
 FIGURE I

'" ' .... '

I .....
I ', ...................
I ', ..................
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q:-

A. GRAND COULEE TYPE SOLID BUCKET

See Figure 4 for -=-: :<- 0.05 R

I I
tooth detail I I
I I
I I
' I I

0.05R

B. ANGOSTURA TYPE SLOTTED BUCKET

SUBMERGED BUCKETS

437
 FIGURE 2

A. SOLID TYPE BUCKET

"
., ' ~'
.·~. '~
... ·' ~ - - - - -
------:'
~,1t
/.
. . . ~ ~ ( /""' '(''/.
---
,,,.....-
// - : ,
--------
---- ------.
-:,,_ -

_->,.
-.:i.. -..__ - - -
~ '> -
--
. o .. ~- ' .. A. . ) -- -----..

~'-= ~-</., /~~ c r"~ ~~ '---->

• •0 • • '-." __) ~ ';11' :-r ~
··: 27·. ,
·.·· ,~__.r/ r{1
~"""'-?""
, 'o ,' •--:-;- -<- " , ,-..._
~,J,
A../ ) ,:i... '--->
.
· ·.o. ·. ·o·. .. · . . . · .·o· ·..
· . ·o · ~·o· ..
<- ...
'\...

. . . . o·. ..

8. ANGOSTURA TYPE SLOTTED BUCKET

11
Bucket radius = 12 , Discharge (q) = 3 c.f.s.,
1
Tailwater depth= 2.3
Crest elevation to Bucket invert = 5.0'

PERFORMANCE OF SOLID AND SLOTTED BUCKETS

 Note: The diving flow condition occurs with the slotted bucket
only when the tailwater depth becomes too great.

DIVING FLOW CONDITION

SLOTTED BUCKET

437
 FIGURE 4

C TOP
!I ,.

END
SI DE
DESIGN I

~=-~(

END

DESIGN II

--=*M~~~~~(~f~g•:; ~~-~::~;g_J
\
§g1~:..J.l-
20_.-Yx, T-0 p- ->t t<-
:
0.05R rad.-~1 0.125R

0.05 R
5
r-
\
\
15 1
13 6 4
\ '~-- 3 2
~ 14 ', ;·Radial
\ • 0 '"
16 - fief;,
, Reduce 0.05 R corner
~I ra d'1us to O at ,,.--~
\ bucket P.T. - /
I
I END
f ---- -------- --1.8° SIDE
t/P.T. • DESIGN m- RECOMMENDED
TOOTH SHAPES TESTED FOR SLOTTED BUCKET
43
igure 5

Maximum discharge
900 second feet
per foot of width
Bucket Invert Elevation 3040
T. W. Elevation 3114

Erosion after
20 minutes

Erosion after
90 minutes

Erosion Test
on Angostura Dam Spillway
1 :72 Scale Moclel
Recommended Slotted Bucket
kFlume width 4'-o" .J...--Flume width flores --,J... ____ Flume width 23lio' from here 1o downstream end --- - - ---,...,...
! i I
r-------4' o" - - --- +------- I

5'-0"------- +--------------7' 4~2·------------+--------4'-10" ------~

I

! ,., 2-12" Supply Pipes i ! l !

I' I ! l I
! --t- 1-12"Supply pipe I I !
I I ---------------------1--------f-
O 0

:' :'
'' ''
'' ''
! !
l
'
=:
a,
! -~
'
I
:
:
l.----------------- e' s"--------------~
-i l '
o

''
'I
'
RemO¥Oble crest--\ ! '0 ''
I
) t k---------------------------- 13' e" -------- ---- ---------------..; J
-{~2~· : -~
.-!_ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, :_ _ _ _ _ _ 4_ Tail water
Control Gate---,
',
-Fixed Spillway Face : -,.,
,..- Headwater
'. gage tap
"'"" __q :' -.,I
JJ_ "--Glass Window ----, .-" "o

' --:- bucket (} -~

I ,-Floor of flume

I' _,f ,--False Floor

"
-~f\
:/
,,

: ,t• ! : : I :

~--J-
i:~

L_____________________________________________________ l----_______________ 10·-o· ______ __________ ---~ .:. _____ _______________ ___ ____________ :-:~~-::~- ·- •
3
5 0
-----t-~~;:;~---~·~~ -------+----
3 0
'

. '

SECTION ON t OF TEST FLUME

"Tl
c:,
TEST FLUME AND SECTIONAL SPILLWAY C
,,,
;;u

m
 FIGURE 7

/
,,
//
'1'
I
',
, ' 072->'1<--6-->1
• I I
II
I
II

,,,""
,." I ', ,
I I
I I
I
I
,,,, ' I I I
,,,"' o ~' I I I
~,.... ' I I o I
..c--llt '.1 I
I
16~,
~ \
I
I

ANGOSTURA TYPE SLOTTED BUCKET SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATION I

, 1.5'~>1 1<-

/'
,,1--------~-----' : I 11
/' I k-- 6 -->l
I

,,.,,
.,/,, '~
,o.,o
./ I
I
I

--- -
I
,
I
I ,

.:. -;_-. :_-.·:. .?·:·/:·_.·~ ·:_~~.~;~~?.·}~:;?

SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATION n SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATION m

l<--6"-->t
I I
I I
I I
I I

: 16~ :
I \ ' I
I

SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATION 1Jl ANGOSTURA TYPE BUCKET

WITHOUT TEETH

Dimensions applicable to all designs-

Bucket invert to downstream edge
11
of s.t ructure = 15.21 •
Approach chute slope = 7: 10.
Bucket radius = 12':
Where shown,
11
tooth width = 1.5 and
space between teeth = 0.72".
_SOLi D BUCKET

SLOTTED BUCKET MODIFICATIONS TESTED

"
 FIGURE 8

1.6

1.5

1.4

./
1.3

1.2
V
~v V

/
.
I.I
~v~
1.0
I-
w /
w /
LL 0.9
V
z
:J: 0.8 I/
:
0
<l 0.7
,/
w
:I:
0.6 /
/V- V
-Design heod=0.587

0.5
,v;
V
I
ID
.....
..:
0.4 II

0.3 V
I/
CD
Cl
0
L
.s:.
CJ

0.2 / Ill
"C

0.1 I
I 0
C:
.!:?'
Ill
CD

00 I 2 3 4 -5 6· 7
DISCHARGE "q" IN SECOND FEET
PER FOOT OF WIDTH

DISCHARGE CALIBRATION OF
THE 5-FOOT MODEL SPILLWAY

4l7
 FIGURE 9

A. Tailwater below minimum. Flow sweeps out.

·.. ~
. :\.'\
. ..
. : .. .~
. . ·. . -,/7--) ~
/7
~-------;---
...--------
- >-----
----------- -------
> >

...:·:··.':\ ~ //%y ~ ) ~ : ~ __; -~-__,_.-...;>

. -:~_>___,>
•• •,
. .
: , :
.
. • . . . . . . ,......._,,
:
.
: · :: : : : : : :
~
0
<-
C •
.,,,
- -
;;,
-
-- -- -- -- -----------

B. Tailwater below average but above minimum.

Within normal operating range.

·.~
.·~ ---
.·.·. ~c,-
·· ~
: •• ·:: ~ \.. <;:
~
1 ("
V
-------,, -----::,,.- - - - - -
- ,- ....-
( ~
-<:;>
::,,.
>-
/
->
'If / /
, , /,,.~
>- - > · ;:,,
__.>
->
-
... . ··:~ _-r - / / /~/ -> ~ ->
·.. : : : : . ~~ -:::::__- . , . . 7'~/,_;:<;..,- ...................(> <.) - > - - ; . . ->
.•. •. • ... ·. . •-:,.._;,. . ~ __./ p .• ,:,.,,
,,"y~o '-... - - - - - - -_
...__ _ _ - ; ; ,_
, . ._ _
• •• · :.-::·.·:: : -...... 0

C. Tailwater above maximum. Flow diving from

apron scours channel

·.\.
::.~ -- - A.........--- . . _____---- -------------
· .··.

.·.
•
. . . . : ~' '----
·.. :~~
. •••• . . . ~
r.<-
'4 .. __
<-._-,,

·.... : :. :.:. t~: ;~c: ~/?.----

/ /
/
-_,,.." ,,,.-,-"'
_./--- -
---.,.~,...
----
~..:---.,...

-:,,.
~ -:;;:> --- '-~----==-:..
-- ~

---
_ _,. ----;,,.

..,-......_-
~

~
->-

____
. ~
~
~
>

>

D. Tailwater same as in C. Diving jet is lifted by ground

roller. Scour hole backfills similar to B. Cycle repeats.

( Bed level 0.3-inch below apron lip at start of test}

6-INCH BUCKET - DISCHARGE (q) = 1.75 C.F.S.

( DESIGN CAPACITY)
4 ,
 .5
-
.4

.3
/
Approx. Cop. of 1s"-Bucket A -
with bed opprox. O.OSR

I/
I
I below apron lip. -Maximum depth for satisfactory
.2
I /
performance of bucket when bed
- 6

.I
V -· ~
y
7 I
I
I
is approx. O.OSR below apron lip.

-
/,
[J{ 5
/
I. 0
Approx. Cap. of 9" -Bucket
with bed approx. o.osR ~ .../." / - -Approx. Cap. of 12'-Bucket
with bed approx. o.OSR
A

below apron lip--, , ./v Lt<" I

I below apron lip. I
I
A - 4 ...(/)
'
...
'-' 0 .9
- r Ar,-/- ,__ 0

l/': ~ "
Approx. Cop. of 6"-Bucket with
,./ . D
bed approx. a.05R below apron lip - - -,
' r--- ....._
-

t?iv
E o. 8
I;, . --- f.,/
~- ; ~-.
'[/ / I D
Ii f'
J::
, -;r, /I ,v ' 1-- ,..__

-- ;"-- ' ---.'

I
0 .7
C
....._ -
Cl

"'J::
I I
--- v".y--- ""
_,,
~ V
. / 'y ~1
i.,,·1
' ·::/' ••"< ~-
D
D
D
, t--,,7
,
/
,
t-- -r---

--
Sweepout depth- I I

--
0. 6

~
LJ ...._ ,/ r;·. . . 7 ,
, I
I
b
D .... x

vi>' I
ro- ......_ ......_
I
0. 5
I ....r--.,,.._ 1--...........
,
' -t--r._ • 14
0 .4
/ I
K -....._
0 r-- '
I r--o I

V
-, L'
Minimum depth for satisfactory/
---'
0
d
performance of the buckeot.- ' ;if ~
-,,.
, -
, • Minimum tail water depth for
diving to occur when bed is

0. 2
I
I
I

'I-Minimum tailwcter depth for divino to occur

k approx. O.OSR below apron lip.

when bed slopes up from apron lip .

0. I

i.4 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 I.I 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3,9 4.0
TAILWATER DEPTH (T) FEET

BUCKET CAPACITY IN TABLE TEST BUCKET

BUCKET C.f.S. PER FT. OF WIDTH NO DATA RADIUS BED ARRANGEMENT DESCRIPTION OF TEST DATA SYMBOLS
RADIUS SYMBOLS (RI INCHES
BED APPROX . BED SLOPES
(RI INCHES 0.06R BELOW UP FROM
APRON LIP APRON LIP
m 0 6 Bed approx. o.OSR below apron lip. Tailwater sweepaut depth and Min. toilwoter depth at which diving occured
:m: D 9 Bed approx. O.OSR below apron lip. Tailwater sweepout depth and Min. toilwater depth ot which diving occured
6 1.5 TO 1.75 -1.5 Jz: A 12 Bed opprox. o.OSR below apron lip. Tailwater sweepaut depth and Min. tailwater depth at which diving occured.
9 2 .0 TO 2.5 18
12 3.1!5 TO 3.5 2.0 TO 2.5
JI! 0 Bed approx. O.OSR below apron lip. Tailwoter sweepaut depth
ll. 18 Bed approx. O.OSR below apron lip. Est. Min.10ilwater depth for satisfactory performance of the bucket.
18 5.0 TO 6.6 - • 9 Bed approx. 0.05R below apron lip. Est.Max. tailwater depth for satisfactory performance of the bucket.
12 Bed approx. 0.05R below apron lip. Est. Mox. tailwater depth for satisfactory performance of the bucket.
II[ '• 9 Bed sloped up from apron Ii p. Min. tailwater depth at which diving occured.
:ir X 12 Bed sloped up from apron lip. Min. toilwater depth at which diving occured .
...
G>
C:
;u
TAILWATER LIMITS AND BUCKET CAPACITIES
"'
0
 FIGURE II

Tailwater elevation Is less than (R)

above the sweepout depth.

A. FIXED 8 ED BE LOW BUCKET IN VERT.

DESIRABLE TAILWATER DEPTH

Fixed bed-

B. FIXED BED BELOW BUCKET INVERT

LESS DESIRABLE TAILWATER DEPTH

_foilwater elevation is above sweepout depth.

C. FIXED BED AT APRON LIP LEVEL

Note:
Bucket radius (R) is 6 inchtl.
Design discharge - 1.75 1tcond feet per unit foot of width.

FLOW CURRENTS FOR VARIOUS

ARRANGEMENTS OF FIXED BEDS
 Figure 12

A. Flow is about to dive from apron lip--maximum tailwater

depth limit has been reached.

B. Flow is diving from the apron lip--maximum tailwater depth

limit has been exceeded.

Nine-Inch Bucket--Discharge (q) = 1.5 c.f .s.

 FIGURE 13

A. q • 1.5 c.f.s.
:_.~
.. ~
...
.·.:_:;::.
..... , ~
-~ r
--- ~7
,
--- ---->--
"?::
Y ~--...~ - ---~~-------
:..--:.

• --~
!II>

~...____
. . ·.. ·.·~
. . .· : ; \.. '-A'/~~- !(
.. ~ : ·.·:·~-~ :' i!. <.
. ••• • ••
' : /'// ~-.

~ "~
. .. ·. ·.· ··: :·.: . 0-0-------------------
••• · . : . · . · . · : : : 0
._,

•
) ~~
--~> _..:._ > ,..

B. q, = 2.0 c.f.s .

__ --,..
..
.··....
.. ·::. - -~ ' ~----:. ~-::- ... - ~ ------
~
/ ~
-
------
.·. ·_:_:_~~";:-~/ y/
. . . . .. ~~ ~
~
,.,--
-:-·--),,. -- . ,.

.'. .: .:.·. .-~.=:.&_

•• ••
..
_:::.; ~
• • • •••• • • • • ·~·.:·.
& ~,) <: c::.
• 0
>- ;-
.,,
)
~
~~
./"-,,.
•--;-a-----.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
----'7
'.:·.·.·.·.·:::-:·::
C. 'l = 2.5 c.f.s. ( Design capacity)

::::. ~'
. :::':\."
//~ -- -:--==:-~
- _.,,--,_, . V- - ~ --~
----::-
•

•
.. <:_: ~ ~" ~
. . . . ..... .
• • • '
~ ~Jl .,/ I' / ..,----
•, •'•~~~>
.. :· :' .·· ·.:.:..:~~.,.-::_ )
• •
I,••. I
• • • •• ·: ·.:·.:. :·.·:·.: • 0
-,.. -- :____--.......__
( ( ) ) .) ~
>,.

-v~...._.----------------
•
---
---,.
'-.

---
~

D. C\ • 3.0 c. f. I.
( Bed level 0.5-inch below apron lip at start of test.)

9-INCH BUCKET - TAILWATER DEPTH• 1.85 FEET

 FIGURE 14

K-------- C - - - - - - - ~
I I
I I
D - - - - -;:..,

i\
t<- - - - - - I
I I I

:.C-E--t I -:---------7.i
: :. ·. ":-.--=-=,,..,,...,...;.11___....!.-:__ - - - r
-_- I
t
I
: -_-
I

. ,, .... I +I I I I
I a:: I I <r
.. .: .··Ll." ·.
· .... · · . ,t
: ~ cp
I
7
I
:I
. 11 · .. , . · ·• ~ 0 , I -I
·.·.:·.:.:. ·:a.·.· , : ~ __ l ! ..,,·River bed 1 1
. . I). . . . . . . I .-. ~~,.¥.•.•. '·'· '·' .. ,, .... I • • ••• :J... . .... '::/..--:
..,--.-c-.,--.:-,,,-,-,.~
-: :. . .' ·:··.: ::-..·".·.· :- ··.'°.·:/... ~--~ .~.:(·· •·--: ·.. :-· .-.:a. 7.·-:-· :':_-:-.-:-. -;-:-,:- . . •~ .-.7.- . , ... , . ·. •.' .' ,

( Crest elevation to bucket invert x = 5 feet) II 11

9-INCH BUCKET (R)

Q-cfs Q-CfS T-ft. A B C D E

3.0 1.50 1.85 .25 19 45 25 5

3.0 1.50 2.40 32 26 46 27 I
3.50 I. 75 I. 85 26 19 45 25 5
4.00 2.00 1.85 27 19 46 25 5
4,50 2.25 1.85 28 19 48 28 6
5.oo* 2.50 1.85 28 18 50 32 6
5.50 2.75 1.85 29 17 51 31 6
6.00 3.00 1.85 30 16 52 32 6

12-INCH BUCKET { R)

Q-cfs q-cn T-ft. A 8 C D E

5.0 2.5 2.30 32 23 52 35 14
6.0 3.0 2.30 33 22 62 37 11
7.0 * 3.5 2.30 33 21 68 37 9
8.0 4.0 2.30 35 19 70 37 6
12.0 6.0 - 36 7 9.0 40 I

NOTE: Dimensions A,B,C, D,and E ore in inches

* Design capacity

AVERAGE WATER SURFACE MEASUREMENTS

4!7
 FIGURE 15

----~
· :·. ~-------~~-: _::___-----=====---
-~

:_:~ ,, ( ) ) ; ~ / >--:._.~-:,,.---~
• • .. • ~ "-..
..... -.._,~'\ /~
,;r
~7'
>
(
-
)
- - - - .~
- - - -------~-........." ' -
J C "'= ~~
.... ·. ~"--.,..
••••••
c~ <- < ./
:l,,,_/ /(~
---
. • . • . ......___/.,,

. . . . . . .: : . : .... ·. :, : .·.
I • I -O-<J,::,o--~---=---
<-
I I:.·, I
<-
I,•'
-- - - --
.)
~ ~

. : ·.. ·.. : ...... ·.;;

....'\'\
.. ~ ------
8. q = 3.0 c.f.s.
/
/
------ ----~
_,..,--;:..
~
---- - - -- - -
~
· _:_:.~-~ ( ) J/~~ ,., ----:---:::. ----.. . -
~~
. .-·.::.~~-2;f~ /:r~ ---->
~- - - - -
. • ••• ' / ./ -----:,,,. ----------- :,.. >
.. . • "-..__.,.. / :r J )
( J; J;, ) ( ~ - - - -....

..... : . •
•••••••
• - ' ' " ~:},,,
•••
/ . ( '-
\':
- -
"t" ......._
~
( )
,I,!
)
,I.;
/ 7'

¥
)
,C----
. .. . . .
I I • t - - - - - - .......__

'\
·.. \. '\
C. q = 3.5 c.f.s.

_/~
/--:---.. ----- {Design capacity)

--> :__
'----> - - - --
·. ._/t~
·:: -~;c--r -:
. ·: :...~~/~ <.,.. <7" ~')
• • • • • • ' "-.::..
_)d

...
<) ~/-(/7"
d

/
/,,

t''P"
-;>
~>

:--> ~
(7)
~
r
>

,tL
J
>

• • • • • ........- - - - - - - ~ "- "C"- ~ _.....,,

I I I I I I 0Gr:r, < - -< --- tlllt.,;. ~ ---
1 •••••• •• •• •• • • • • 0::,-<=ti---.......____ <---
• ••
.. I I •• - - - - - - -

D. q = 4.0 c.f.s.
{ Bed level 0.6-inch below apron lip at start of test.)

12-INCH BUCKET - TAILWAT_E R DEPTH= ·2.30 FEET

 FIGURE 16

C\ = 3 c.f.s.,

.:\.·.\.~
A.

--- -
_______ ,,,~/~>- --------,..
Tailwater depth= 2.30 feet.

....
-~'---
-->
\. __./,.~-,

··.·~cf
•
.. . . ' ~
•
•• ••
~ (
:.•
•
.
• :lo.
-
' )
~ -<)~,, ,. /.., ~. . - : .
/'
~~ ~
/.,
,.,
..,,,
___-; )
C
., (,r ... _ ( .&
-<- ) )I ~
~
- - - - ----
"""" ~
.:i..

. .. ..... ·..
~
....... · -~~~
••••• • --- -0-0--.:::>

C. Cl = 4 c.f.s. , Tailwater depth = 2.30 feet.

. \. _.--;= - - - - - - - ----- -

.·:.:. ..~\:\~x-c- -")~-----~~=-----~ ~

:.~ \.

•
~
••' '( 'W //
-<-, ) .---..,.
~
/-c)

--'
<~:,,.

>
:>
---
~

----
~
·.·:~·:::·: .. ~'-> ~/.,~7 ,.,. ,~ ~::::.
•.. .. . .· .
• • • • • • •• ,
"'" .,.-~
.-
::....------/1 • • •
.
• '• •
C , . ,'-
0 - 0 -0- ~
/ i ) ' \•)
"' 4; (
-r
)

........ : : :.: . :.. : :. ·.. : ·. : :... ·: ·•

• , • , , : • • •• • · . : •• • • • : • • ·.: • • 0 o.--. - - - - - __!_ -

D. C\ = 5.5 c.f.s. , Tailwater depth = 2.45 feet

(Design capacity)
( Bed level 0.9-inch below apron lip at start of test)

18-INCH BUCKET PERFORMANCE

437
 FIGURE 17

...,._=-c-=:-- _____________ R_tservoir _Elevation ________________ f-

1
H
• I
__________ Crest Elevation __________________ ~_
I
I
I

•Froude Number F =
v.
~
h
: __ Tmax .
/ ~oo, I -

~ --'"'' ' ------------- T.W. levation

1· - -
:~Tmin.
' =-:!: - Ts
,,Apron Lip T -
1
I •
Channel Bed: Elevat1on ~,
Bucket Invert-'

DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

4~1
 FIGURE 18

12

10 ,
I

9
• \

8 ' 1
- ·- --Q= 1.s cfs.
I
I I

7
'
'
~

........ Q•l.75 cfs?

>-~-
OI
6 '""
II.

II
: q=2.ocfs/:
.... '
:: q =2.5 cfs.,
I'\.
5 ,
: Q=3.25 cfs.- ,
~ q=~.ocfs.:
: q=3.5 cfs.-- - ', ...
I'\.'!. - q=5.5 cfs.:
4
"-

3
"-
I"
.
2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE R
D1+v.212g

.EXPLANATION,
o For bucket radius (R) = 6 inches
c For bucket radius (R) -: 9 inches
t. For bucket radius (R) =12 inches
~ For bucket radius (R} =18 inches
Bed level approximately 0.05R below
li p of apron .

MINIMUM ALLOWABLE BUCKET RADIUS

43"1
 "~--,---,--~=--~--r---r--~---r--,--~--,---,--~:--~--,---r--~--,---,--~=-----,--,,--,--~:--~--,---r--~---r--,--~--,---,---,-----,----r--,--~--,---,---,----- , ---,---,---,

" t-----t--+--+--+-+-+---t-+-+-+--t---+--+---t-t---t--+--+--+-+---t-1-----t--
l+--+---ta-+--+---t-+-+-+--t---+--+---J-t--+-+--+--+-+---t- t--t----i
l---+--+--+---t--+-+---,.----+-+--1---+--+-- t---t--+-+---,l---+-+--t---t--+--cc+- .- ~O ·
1. ,,-v--- I
'31---t--+- +---,l---+-+-- ~ ~- ~ -~ ~ - ~ - ~~ ~ ~ - + -+---+- -+--+-----J,..-C/~1'0,• ,-'-+-+---t- -+-+---,1--+-+--+---t
~q u~i~: :·(~m:and~~,~comput1d
Figure II
~)':b~:r~:i~:o:o::~~::~~~~·r
in TablH m ton--------,
depth

Use these cUrVIS to determine minimum toilwoter depth _.............v Use thue voluts when bed level is opprox . ]
"f---t--+-+-1-1--+--I 1)
limit : (Tmin.fD obtained from the data shown 1--+-+--,.-"'--t--+-+--1--+-+--t---t--+-+---,--+-+----t ,.~ oi:::n 1 5j~,-,-~;--·~~ Us~-~~:.,b:!r:.. ~:d - :
in Fi gure II and computed in ToblH m to~- -..
I:
0 0
../l)V'"'" e,...-"" : from apron llp.
~ _.,..o·'·.-q.-J---+--1--1---l----1----l-+---+----+- +---+--1----11--',--~- ~ - ~ ~~ -~l~l--"v~I
l

0 0
==;=:j~=~~=~
:

0
•0 t--t-+-t---ir-t- t--t--t--t--t--t-+--t---it--:::lit
_£, V
/::t"'~r-"9v_+-t---i--t-t--t--t--t--t--t-+-t--
0_
i.•_ r-t;--t---:'t:-::t:::=!==+--1c-~~.+v,12g·-
'.::
~ - o ·.)o
0-·',:-:0=--~=c!l=a·'~-··+-,,-,
- - _, · I ; : ,'P-
.,....0.7. V - --o+v1/lg 0.~o=i
- f-
·--+-- -~::~_.,,;:._~-{--+--+---t- -+--i --.:, ~o.E:::_ ·
I
I~- /~ ·;;..--.o.~·t~---
:,.oS ~
..,.-0.2> -'>;>--- I : ,
o.,o-+-+.J-i-+-1
5

u.
~ at--t-+-+--+- + -r--,--+-+- t--t-;.,P:.6"5,0'~-4---'--"r-~""'o.2:!
~ , , , , ......... l,.,lll"""
r C i ~ ' . 0.11
.--- .--;;:;o
~ ~Q.26
R

-~tio.2c
---
, -1----

l:('-
_, ------ -
--
1- - 1- , - · -
--0.2 0

o·.~";,------ - · -
I
0.310
-+--~-"-•!-==l

,o
"
,, ,. •• . " " " ,0
" " "
T min./0 1 and T mox./0 1
24 . 26 27 28
"
,o
" " "
,. ,. ,.
" " " 40
., ., ., . •• .
BUCKET R FROM
DATA RADIUS BED ARRANGEMENT DESCRIPTION OF DATA POINT
SYMBOL (R) INCHES 0 1+v,Z1zu TABLE
0. 12 For any position of the bed Min. toilwoter depth limit m
0.11 For any position of the bed Min. to ilwat er depth limit Il[
0.24 for any position of the bed Min. toilwoter depth limit l[
0 " O. l7 For any position of the bed Min. toilwoter' depth limit l!I
"• o.16to o.u For bed lewel approx . o.o5R below apron lip Mox. toilwoter depth limit :m
" OJ!lto 0 .46
o.llto o.61
For
For
bed
bed
level approx . o.05R below apron lip
IHel oppro1 . o.o5R belo• apron l i p
Mo11.
Mox.
toilwoter
foil water
depth
depth
limi t
limit
:nr:
l[
" O.Z5 For bed slopi n9 up from apron lip Moic. toilwoter depth limit :nr: :!!
0 .4lt0 0.51 For bed slopin9 up from apron lip Mox. foilwoter death li mit l[ G)
" C:
:JI
DIMENSIONLESS PLOT OF MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TAILWATER DEPTH LIMITS "'

•
 FIGURE 20

10 [',.
r-....
1, ......... "r-,...
"'r-,... .........
1,. . ' ........ .... ~
..........
"16.._
--
-.--- ------
r,..... !',,,,
9 ....... 115 ~ -r-,
......
......... ........ ~

~ 14- -i-
r-.....

-
I""-,.._
....... .... - ..... 13 ,_ r-,
8

--- - -- - -..... r-, -

-- --- ---- -- - -- ---

I',. ...
.... 12
!-,.
r--,.

1
-- -- --- -- -- --- --
....
r--,.
II,..._
)

-- - ---- -- -- - --
r-
I"' r - i--
!-,.

----
- -
9...._
i--

- 8

u
II.
- 1

--
4 6

15

3
.

3
2
I~
Tm1n./D1

NOTE
For valu11 of "F" greater
than 10 use Figure 19.

0.1 0.2 0.3 0 ..4 0.5 0.6

# R
0 1 +v~/2g

MINIMUM TAILWATER LIMIT

 FIGURE 21
10
\ \ \ ' \ \ \, \\ .\
,,'
\

\.' \ \ \
\ \' ' \ \
\' ,,
\ \' \'
--
\ \ \ .\ '\~:•.
\ \. ' ' \ \ \' \ \' \ \ __ ..,,---- -
'' '' ,
\ :,. I'
\ \ . \ \ \' 'I\ \'
• ::. I

9
I\
\. \. \ . \. I\ \. ' \ \ \ \ '\ \"' if\
,,
·::,. IR
··.\:,~·--:::,r-- ' \ .,
A

\
- --
'' ''
\

.\ I\ \ ' I\'
' ' 80I\.
--
\
'\. \. I

,,
\

\. \. .\\ \ ~ ,\ Bed slopes up"' I

' ' ' [\.' ,,,, ' ' ,, . ' '

' \' \. 7C I\ I\ I

\. '\ "' ~ \ \
' .\ ,\ I\ I\
.\ \
~
l'I.' '
Bed approx. 0.015 R )
below apron lip·· -
8
' ' " "' ' ' ".
I\.
'\. ' " \. \ \. [\. \.' 5( \. '\ '\

' " ' \'' " . '

, ... ' ' \ \. \ I\.'
' ' \. l\. \.
' ' \.
\. \. '\
M , , l'I. I\. ~ 1,
' ' ' ' "' .'\ \ \ \. \' I'\ ;15I\' ,.., ' r\.. I\...
7
r-....
"" ' ' ' " ' ' "'' ,, ' ,.., ' " ' ' '
'\ \. \. l'\ " •"' ' l'\ 1,
~

"
r-,. ....
"' "'
"' ' " "' "'' ' "' " ' '
r-.... 'i... \.
-r-. '"'
!'\.
'
"'
"'
I\.

' '
l'\
,\ \. 1'. '\ '\ ~
' .'\

I\. I\' ,\ '\ i'\ L'\ ~ I\. I'\ I\... ~ "'i,...

'
-
I'-..
r-....
' I',..
1,,..., '"
,, ' """ '
"''·'" N,
I"""',.._
"' "' r,,.' ~ I'\ i"2 N ~ r-.... ....
..__ L'\ I\. 201'' "'' I\... I\... I\... r-. r-. ...
• .....
~ '11.. l'I..
' '
..__
~

"... " """''"''"'' "'JI..'r-..'' "',, ' ,~ I\.:I\: I\:P,."r...' r,.;:,, ""'N "" '"'" "'"'""' r-...."'
......
'11..
I' ~
1~1\.
:'\ l'
"'r,..," r-....
:-.... ......... r-.... ....."'
-- I"--,
~
r-.... .....
"'" 1: r-...'
I! I\.
I' l'..::
'\:' ~
s: "'
" r,...' i,...'
['..; r-,..: ~ .....

"' ' "'"" ~., "'' r... r-. """'

:,;- la 15 "' "'' 1"'- .... ~ ..... ""
~ 1, l"'- ['.. l'
..... I',..
12

-- ,,...."' "a""I',, I' '""" 1, I"'I"'--....."'"

..... .... .....
·~ ,_
~ ~~ ~ !'I.. ~ ~~
..... """'"'
r-.... ' 111 I\... ~ r...: ~ ~ ~ r,.;::
...
ti
I""' ~
......
I',..

"'
',_9 l"....: ~
"-
' r,... ~
~ ~ t-...
"I'-"...." I"'-. r-.:. ....... "' """
l"'- l '
........ r,...,"'
"""' "'
r-.;

""""r,...I' "".... "' "'............"' .... "

~ 1'..
4 7. ..... r-,. ..... .......... .........
~ r-.... t-,..
"'~6 ' r-,.... t-, """' r-,;:: I""'

r-
"' .......
"' ............ "'"........"" """",.......... r--
I"" ....... ........
""r-.... "-
""" '"15 '""' ...
""- ""-
.......... .... "- .... ""'-

- -
..... ~

,4,-
. i-
r-- ... ""r,.. 'r--
..... ..... I""'
Tmax./~rt
-- .... r-,.

----
I'""'

I I - .....

Tmax/0 1 includes the extra f~tor of safety shown in

NOT~S ---
Figure 19.
For valuea of "F" greater than 10 UH Figure 19.
For channel bed elevation o.Ol5R below apron lip or lower
use coordinatea for bed approx. o.Ol5R below lip;
For channel bed elevation higher than 0.015R below apron
lip UH coordinates for bed sloping up ·from apron.

00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.15 0.6 0.7

BED APPROXIMATELY 0.015R BELOW LIP
0.1 0 .2 0.3 o.4 0.15 o.e 0.7 0.8
BED SLQPES UP FROM APRON
R '

MAXIMUM TAILWATER LIMIT

 FIGURE 22

18

17
.
_)Y
R //
16
0 1 + V.if2g= 0.11
15 /
Bucket radius R = 6 inches- ~
,/' /
14
0 V /
13
V 0.17
/ V
cl I/' - R = 9 inches
12
..
V l,Y V
II V l/0.23
OJ Jl /

V y/
,v I /
~,.--
\; R = 12 inches

d ~ ""o.35 ';'
II
V/ tl V ·, R = 18 inches
LL
8
A ~· V
,./ PJl V

7
,0 V
A 'i
j~
6
h!
5
~ti'
~

4
1/J
)~

3
V
/J
r
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
T6 /D 1

Note : Bed arrQngement not critical for sweepout condition

,
t
TAILWATER DEPTH AT SWEEPOUT

437
 FIGURE 23

10
I'- , ... ~
I'-. I"-..; "",
' ---~ I' '"'- ....... ........
r-,.. ...
.... , ~
.... , I',.
'"1!5
...
9 .... "",
I',.
......... '
r-......_
i'l4
. ..
I',.
.......
' ...... ~
..........
r-,.
...........
"13 '
............
r-..._
.......
.... .......... ro- 12 ....... .....
a r-... r-...
....... po,. II
-..... .....
I""-,..._ .......
....... ..... ~ .....
... ....... r-...

~- --- - -
~~

7
......
-- ~,o .... r-...
I""-,...._

---- ......

6
-
--- --- - i-,.
- s_
--- -
-- -
i-,. ,_
-

-- -
8-
~

-
J.
II
- r-
-- --
-~ 7
--- -
LL -e-
........
4
---~ 5

3
-.... - 4
I

'""t-,, ...... I
Ts,l: 3
o,
2

~ ote:
I I
For
I I
values
I I I I
of"F"~reater
I I I I I
t~anI 10
I
use
I I
Fi
I
Jure
. I I
22.
I
--
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.15 0.6
R
01+ v12
2g

TAILWATER SWEEPOUT DEPTH

4 7
 FIGURE 24

10.-----.---.--.----.........---,.--.--. -..""""""""""------

\ ', T- ~/\.:...
I :• ::.

' , l X ·:: ::.. --,.:-

1 :·. ·:. ,--x---_=-
' ,:· ·::.-. . --~- A I
I ~-: ,:·•• ,""
010
T B '
~- ~:------1~.:-:-:-::,.
I •• -i'----~-----t-

'
"

\ \

a-----'--'-.---.----
\ '\ ( See Figure 14 also)

, \ ' B values vary between

NOTES

\ \
'
l
80 to 85 °/o of T over
\ most of recommended
\\
operating range.
1----+----.---,-,--\---
, \ l
Minimum B value is 70°/o
of T and o.c curs for min.
l \ , ,
recommended tailwoter.
\ \ \ Maximum B value is 90°/o

:>I@ 61--+--+--+--1--+--+-'....,--1' ~,+'--I,. . . ~\~---t

\+--+.,
and occurs for max.
recommended tailwater.
These curves
II \ \ ' \
I!.. \ 1 apply only
, \ \\ \ A-
, T - I.I when river
bed elevation
5 ~-+-+--+-+-+--1~\++--+-,-+--+'\lr+--+--+-+--t--+--t--t
is at or near.
\
, l\ '
\ apron lip
\ l '
elevation.
...... ~ = 1.2
~---+--+--+---+---+---t--+-'---\--\. l--+-------4
~
4
' \.
l

\
\

'
' '
\. ~ = I '2. l--+-------4
\
T .~
3 1--+---+---+---+--+--+--+-........+--+--+--+--'l\r-+-+--,-.....,......-+--+--1

'"
o-----+--+-----+--+--+---+--+-----+--+--o---+--+-----+----+--'\_ ,A. _ I 41--+---4
r-·

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

•
R/x

WATER SURFACE PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS

FOR SLOTTED BUCKETS ONLY
 FIGURE 25
600
I I ~ I
. i i l~w.re.•}, •
580 ' 0 ~ CR e. s'T . ··-· I 30 '
\'I e,P.0 20 25
• 5 7. 5 10 1_~ I I
560
2f I I I I ''
-i·
I I I I \
5
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I

'
520
I : I I

500
I I
-------------------r--------~
-?f\-:·,.
I I I
I I Q
I I I
or
I
I H
48
I
I I I q I
T
I
{
I 1 1 '
/
I I
I
I
480 VT= /2g (H+h)
I I :-.·.o.
:.:.· . :\:\:. h
I

II ' . ...
....
I
I
''
440
:::,:.·: ·:·~):-. ,,v,. I
I
'
I
II

I '\
·.o·
::_.;. ···.· 'I
·.·. : _____J.- -
-- ,;,'
42
I I I \ \:·.· Q',\/'
I I \ \
I-
UJ
UJ
LL
400 I
I I 1
I .·":~\~.'.\ ·-.-~~~Fr
I I

'
I
..J
380
UJ
>
UJ
I I ~
..J
I
I I I I 1
er:
UJ
I-
360
I I
·1

' '
<t \
ii: 340
..J
<t
I-
0 32
II
I- I \ '
..J
UJ
> 30
I I 1
UJ
..J I I I
er:
0
>
er:
UJ
28

\ \ I
' PROTOTYPE TESTS
X Shasta Dom
0 Gr.and Coulee Dom
(/)
260
UJ
er: \ \ \. I
II
:.
0
er:
LL

..J
240
I
I
\

\
' \
\
220
..J
' I\ or\ '
<t
LL

200
\ ' ".! \
'
\
\ \ I

180
\ \ \
I \ \\ \
I / \ ~l
\ I \ x~
160
\ I

140
\ '" ' I
~ '•
1\ -;\ I
120
; \
''
I
\ ~ \ ~\
100 I
\
...., 1 X
'SI>
80
I

. ...\ \
~
~
\
...
\
\ \ \
\

I
60 '
\ \ \
!\ \ HYDRAULIC JUMP STUDIES
•
40
I\ I\ \1\\\11
\
CURVES FOR DETERMINATION OF
' 1\
20
o'!', . '\N VELOCITY ENTERJNG BUCKET
.q ...... t-,...1" FOR STEEP SLOPES
0 0.1 0.2 0,3 0.4 O.o 0• 0. D.I o., ~
0.8:1 TO 0.6:1
~(actual)
437 T (theoretical)

GPO 85694 9