You are on page 1of 1


Pgina 1 de 1

Types of SAF Stilling Basin

SAF Stilling Basins
Three types of SAP stilling basins are treated herein. Each type may be thought of as a structural variation of the
SAF outlet and each uses the alternate joint detail given in that drawing. All types are assumed symmetrical in
both construction and loading about the longitudinal centerline of the basin as well as about the vertical centerline
of any transverse cross section. Each basin is designed for the two loading conditions described below, and each
must satisfy both flotation (uplift) requirements and sliding requirements.

Type (A)
This type, most closely approximates the SAF outlet of ES-86. Structurally, the basin is a monolithic unit.
The floor slab thicknesses vary uniformly from the downstream end of the basin to the break-in-grade, and
from the break-in-grade to the upstream end.

Type (B)
This type, has a transverse articulated joint at the breakin-grade. Some form of floor joint step is normally
used at this joint. The upstream end section is vertical, rather than normal to the plane of the inclined floor
slab. The doweled, transverse articulation joint makes the structural behavior of this type of SAF differ from
that of type (A).

Type (C)
This type, has independent retaining wall portions and pavement slab. The pavement slab resists any
thrust imposed on it by the retaining wall portions. The most advantageous toe length, X, is determined in
the design.

Loading Conditions
Two loading conditions are considered in the design of SAP stilling basins. Parameter values should be selected
so that these loading conditions reflect extremes of probable conditions. The surface of the earthfill against the
sidewall varies linearly from the top of the wall at the upstream end to a height, HB, at the downstream end.

Loading Condition No. 1

This is the no flow loading. It is meant to represent conditions following a rapid lowering of the water
surface in the basin before the water table in the earthfill, and associated uplift have lowered significantly
from some higher level. The tailwater depth in the basin is ECWl. The uplift head above the top of the level
floor slab and footings is HWL. This loading should maximize the difference between HWl and HTWl.

Load Condition No. 2

This is the full flow loading. Flow enters the stilling basin at a depth, Dl, and velocity, Vl. These are
hydraulic parameters. Although it is admittedly a rough approximation, the water surface in the basin is
assumed to vary linearly from the depth, Dl, at the break-in-grade to the tailwater depth, HTW2, at the
downstream end. The uplift head above the top of the level floor slab and footings is HUE. Load condition
No. 2 is meant to represent governing conditions when the basin is operating at full flow. Thus this loading
should maximize both HTW2 and HUF2. The water surface on the outside of the basin walls is taken as
HUP2 for all analyses except sidewall bending. Observe that the following relations must exist between the
various water height parameters:
HTW2 >= HUP2 >= HTW1 >= HUP1