Hydraulic Characteristics of Gabion-Stepped Weirs

Chaiyuth Chinnarasri1; Somchai Donjadee2; and Udomsak Israngkura3

Abstract: Experimental studies on the hydraulics of flow through and over gabion-stepped weirs are presented. Two flow components
were observed, i.e., base flow through the void between filled stones and overflow on the gabions. The energy loss ratios in the
gabion-stepped weirs are greater than those in the corresponding horizontal stepped weirs by approximately 7, 10, and 14% for weir
slopes of 30, 45, and 60°, respectively. As a result, the velocity at the outlet is lower. Stone size and shape have little influence on the
energy loss and flow velocity as compared to the increasing effect of the weir slope. The pressure acting on the step face for the
gabion-stepped weirs is less than that of the horizontal steps owing to the cushioning effect generated by filled stones. To reduce pressure
on a step face at a fixed discharge for different weir slopes, the void ratio of the filled stones should be low to allow a small amount of
base flow. The pressure distribution pattern on the horizontal face of a step is provided.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9429共2008兲134:8共1147兲
CE Database subject headings: Weirs; Hydraulic structures; Overflow; Energy; Pressure measurement.

Introduction
Although many studies have been carried out on flow over
stepped chutes and spillways, the hydraulics of flow through ga-
bions has received less attention due to the complexity to evaluate
the flow patterns and flow resistance. Considering the effect of
discharge on gabion stability, Peyras et al. 共1992兲 suggested that
gabion-stepped weirs could withstand unit discharge 共q兲 up to
3 m3 / s / m without great damage. However, for q ⬎ 1.5m3 / s / m,
care must be given to the design of the mesh, lacing, zinc-coated
box, and diaphragms of the gabions.
Stephenson 共1979, 1988兲 developed simple relationships for
energy loss and chute drop number for permeable gabion-stepped
spillways. Peyras et al. 共1992兲 tested gabion-stepped weir models
with a watertight facing on the upstream face. Their work focused
on the occurrence of different types of flow over the stepped faces
and evaluation of the energy dissipation, and included some sug-
gestions for preventing gabion deformation. These studies fail to
provide information regarding the energy loss 共EL兲 through
gabion-stepped weirs, how the gabions affect the pressure on the
step face, and how the pressure is distributed on the step face.
This study provides experimental tests results that reveal flow
1 bion dimensions used in the study are shown in Fig. 1. Gabions
Associate Professor, Water Resources Engineering Research Lab.
共WAREE兲, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s Univ. of Tech-
nology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: chaiyuth.chi@kmutt.ac.th
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Irrigation Engineering, Kasetsart Univ., Kampaeng
Saen Campus, Nakorn Pathom 71340, Thailand. E-mail: t_donjadee@
yahoo.com
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s
Univ. of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand. E-mail:
udomsak.isr@kmutt.ac.th
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2009. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review
and possible publication on January 18, 2006; approved on November 27,
2007. This technical note is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing, Vol. 134, No. 8, August 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/2008/8-
1147–1152/$25.00.
patterns, the energy loss, and that compare the energy loss be-
tween the horizontal and gabion-stepped weirs. The models had
downstream slopes of 共30, 45, and 60°兲 with 20 gabion steps. The
effect of fill stones on the energy loss ratio is presented too. In
addition, the maximum mean pressure on the step face 共Pmax兲 is
studied.
Experimental Apparatus and Procedure
A sketch of the experimental arrangement is shown in Fig. 1.
Water is pumped from a laboratory sump to the V-notch weir
tank, and then flows over stepped weir through an approach chan-
nel. At the bottom of the stepped channel, a horizontal outlet
carried the water back to the sump. The tested discharge values
ranged from 0.004 to 0.068 m3 / s 共from 0.01 to 0.17 m3 / s / m兲 and
the corresponding critical flow depths 共dc兲 vary from 0.022 to
0.143 m, which covered all flow types.
The stepped weirs, made of plexiglass, are 0.40 m in width
and have 20 steps. The tested angles 共␣兲 are 30, 45, and 60°
whereas the total drop height of the stepped channel 共HT兲 are
1.50, 2.12, and 2.60 m, respectively. The step ratio can be defined
as h / l, wherein h⫽step height and l⫽horizontal length. The ga-
were placed on each step face of the stepped weirs. The volume
of each gabion box is h ⫻ l⫻ channel width.
Three stone types were used, i.e., 共1兲 Stone I: crushed stone of
about 25– 35 mm diameter; 共2兲 Stone II: rounded stone of about
25– 35 mm diameter; and 共3兲 Stone III: crushed stone of about
50– 70 mm diameter. The size of Stone III is quite large com-
pared to the model gabion width; however, Stone III was selected
for this study only to investigate the role played by the void ratio
共e兲. The average values of e of the gabions were 0.27, 0.30, and
0.39, respectively. Four sets have been investigated, i.e., Set A:
gabion-stepped weir with Stone I; Set B: gabion-stepped weir
with Stone II; Set C: gabion-stepped weirs with Stone III; and Set
D: horizontal stepped weir 共no gabion兲. The flow characteristics
in Case D were compared with the gabion-stepped weirs. Ex-
amples of experimental data for Set A are shown in Table 1.
The location of the hydraulic jump at the toe of the flume is

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1147

Downloaded 17 Feb 2012 to 147.83.82.7. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 1. Sketch of experimental setup and gabion dimension in
millimeters
crucial for the accuracy of the indirect method used to estimate
flow depth 共Diez-Cascon et al. 1991; Pegram et al. 1999; Andre
2004兲. In this study, the measurements of depth and velocity at
the stilling basin have been measured at about three to four times
the step length away from the lowest step face. The stilling basin
is a 0.4 m wide and 6 m long rectangular plane-bed outlet with a
flap gate for controlling the location of the hydraulic jump as
shown in Fig. 2. At the location of the flow depth and velocity
measurements, the energy at the toe of the jump could be assumed
equal to the residual flow energy from the stepped channels 共Ya-
suda and Ohtsu 1999兲. The water fluctuation was reduced due to
the energy absorption of the voids in the gabions and turbulence
and air entrainment are significantly reduced. The depth across
the chute width was measured by a Vernier-depth gauge. Boes
and Hager 共2003a兲 pointed out that this method results in an
overestimation, but Ohtsu et al. 共2004兲 reported that, in an aerated
flow on the horizontal stepped channels with angles between
5.7° 艋 ␣ 艋 55°, a clear water depth corresponds to the represen-
tative flow depth within ⫾10% difference. The velocities 共VT兲
have been measured through two methods: by means of a Pitot
tube and using the measured flow area. The values obtained were
within 10% difference, which agrees with Chanson et al. 共2002兲.
From the distribution of mean flow velocity in an aerated flow,
Ohtsu et al. 共2004兲 reported that the mean velocity value of an
aerated flow is somewhat larger than the mean flow velocity in a
clear water about 5–15%.
The energy loss 共EL兲 was computed as the difference from
energy at the first step to that of the last step. The flow energy at
the last step is assumed equal to the flow energy at the toe of the
jump located immediately downstream of stepped weir end. This
can be expressed as

Table 1. Primary Details of Experimental Set A: Gabion-Stepped Weirs with Stone I

Maximum mean pressure head
共cm兲
Experimental Q ⫻ 103 VT do Type of
set 共m3 / s兲 共m/s兲 共cm兲 R ⫻ 10−4 W Dm ⫻ 106 Hi / h⫽8 Hi / h⫽12 Hi / h⫽16 Hi / h⫽18 flow
A-1 4.08 0.54 * 1.02 24.49 1.04 * * * * Nappe
20.66 2.05 * 5.15 92.97 26.82 * * * * Transition
28.49 2.45 7.21 7.10 111.11 51.02 12.30 10.30 9.50 10.50 Skimming
35.85 2.62 7.85 8.94 118.82 80.74 13.10 10.80 9.80 10.80 Skimming
44.21 2.82 8.62 11.02 127.89 122.80 14.30 11.20 10.50 11.10 Skimming
51.16 2.99 9.37 12.75 135.60 164.48 14.80 11.60 11.20 11.40 Skimming
58.99 3.12 9.87 14.70 141.50 218.61 15.50 11.90 11.60 12.10 Skimming
68.04 3.19 10.19 16.96 144.67 290.87 16.10 12.10 12.10 12.80 Skimming
A-2 11.47 1.55 * 2.86 70.29 8.80 * * * * Nappe
29.71 2.86 * 7.41 129.70 59.02 * * * * Transition
36.84 3.13 6.82 9.18 141.95 90.73 13.70 12.70 13.20 12.60 Skimming
43.77 3.25 7.53 10.91 147.39 128.08 14.40 13.30 13.70 13.60 Skimming
50.92 3.44 8.14 12.69 156.01 173.39 15.30 13.60 14.20 14.10 Skimming
60.04 3.54 8.56 14.97 160.54 241.07 15.90 15.10 15.70 15.40 Skimming
68.04 3.61 8.97 16.96 163.72 309.54 16.50 15.40 16.20 15.90 Skimming
A-3 3.97 0.77 * 0.99 34.92 1.71 * * * * Nappe
36.04 3.38 * 8.98 153.29 141.49 * * * * Transition
44.65 3.58 6.88 11.13 162.38 217.16 ** 12.30 11.90 11.70 Skimming
52.14 3.70 7.34 13.00 167.80 296.04 ** 12.90 12.60 12.60 Skimming
60.31 3.84 7.69 15.03 174.15 396.12 ** 13.20 13.40 13.80 Skimming
68.04 3.94 8.31 16.96 178.68 504.17 ** 14.00 14.20 14.30 Skimming
Note: Q⫽discharge; VT⫽outlet flow velocity; d0⫽normal flow depth; R⫽Reynolds number; W⫽Weber number; Dm⫽modified drop number; Hi⫽drop
height measured from the approach to the step being considered; and h⫽step height. Condition for Set A-1: weir slope ␣ = 30°; HT = 1.50; h = 0.075 m; and
step length l = 0.130 m. Condition for Set A-2: ␣ = 45°; HT = 2.12; h = 0.106 m; and l = 0.106 m. Condition for Set A-3: ␣ = 60°; HT = 2.60;h = 0.130 m; and
l = 0.075 m. *⫽flow is not in skimming flow regimes and **⫽flow in skimming flow regimes but not uniform flow.

1148 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

Downloaded 17 Feb 2012 to 147.83.82.7. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fig. 2. Variables, definition in dimensional analysis, and pressure tapping

冉
EL = HT + d1 +
V21
2g
冊冉
− dT +
VT2
2g
冊 共1兲
Flow Types
The flow regime in a stepped chute may be nappe flow, transition
flow, or skimming flow. The nappe flow regime occurs when dis-
where d1⫽flow depth at the first step; V1⫽flow velocity at the
charges are low and the water generates a flow cascade. In hori-
first step; and dT⫽flow depth at the outlet. All variables are shown
zontal stepped weirs, small air pockets at each step could be
in Fig. 2.
generated and a hydraulic jump can occur. In contrast, due to the
The mean pressures on the step faces 共Pmean兲 were measured
occurrence of base flow through the void between the filled
by U-tube manometers tapped at the holes on the faces of the
stones, there was no air pocket in gabion-stepped weirs. No hy-
odd-numbered steps. Five pressure taps were located on the hori-
draulic jump on a step could be observed because the water hit-
zontal step face as shown in Fig. 2. Before reading the manometer
ting the successive step face flowed through the voids between
heads, air bubbles were expelled. Only a mean pressure measure-
the filled stones. Skimming flow occurs at higher discharges and
ment was recorded. In this way, a profile of Pmean on each step
water flows over the gabions as a coherent stream almost parallel
face can be drawn and the maximum mean pressure 共Pmax兲 at
to the weir slope. A recirculating region in each weir step could be
each step face can be approximately located. An additional check
observed in the horizontal stepped weir but not in the gabion-
on the accuracy of the measured mean pressure was made by
stepped weir.
comparing the pressure measured by U-tube manometer and that
When water flows over a gabion box, the flowing water can be
measured by a pressure sensor 共diameter 10 mm, response fre-
divided into two components, i.e., base flow and surface flow. The
quency 3.4 kHz兲, which was located at Point 1 of the horizontal
base flow of either nappe flow or skimming flow depends on
face of Step Number 17 of 45° weir. The Pmax from both mea-
gabion size, stone porosity, and turbulence. The small Reynolds
surements were found to be within ⫾10% difference for all flows.
numbers do not guarantee that the ratio between base flow and the
The maximum instantaneous pressure may be higher than the
surface flow is realistic in the model. This ratio obviously affects
Pmax by up to 24% for very high flows. Therefore, Pmax, which is
the results, as an unknown portion of the discharge flows between
the term used for pressure estimate on a step face, can be used
the stones, and the magnitude of this portion can vary from model
with 90% confidence.
to prototype. In this study, only total flow rates were measured,
hence base flow was not evaluated.
In skimming flows, R and W for lower slope 共e.g., 30°兲 are
Results and Discussion about 7.0⫻ 104 and 110, respectively. These values increase when
the weir slope increases, e.g., for a weir slope of 60°, R and W
For a range of q used in the study 共0.01– 0.17 m3 / s / m兲, no dam- start from 1.1⫻ 105 and 160, respectively. Therefore, for skim-
age of the gabions was observed. For higher flows, the frames of ming flow, the scale effect due to viscosity and to surface tension
the gabions were twisted and inclined less than 10° from their can be neglected.
original positions. To investigate the onset of skimming flow on gabion-stepped
In an open channel, Froude similitude plays an important role. weirs, the experimental data obtained in this study have been
Pegram et al. 共1999兲 reported that models of 1:20 or larger scale compared with the results of Stephenson 共1988兲 and Peyras et al.
could represent the prototype behavior of stepped weirs. In this 共1992兲. The lower limit of skimming flow can be defined when
study, the scale ratio of 1:5 was selected. Prototype discharges per the free surface is almost parallel to the pseudobottom formed by
unit width are in the range of 0.11– 1.90 m3 / s / m and the maxi- the step edges. A rough estimate of the occurrence of skimming
mum flow velocity is equivalent to 8.9 m / s. Boes and Hager flow on gabion-stepped weirs can be obtained by as
共2003b兲 recommended that when aeration process is considered,
Reynolds 共R兲 and Weber numbers 共W兲 should be higher than 105
and 100, respectively. In the model, q = R v should be at least
about 0.10 m3 / s / m. Considering W = ū / 冑␴ / 共␳Ls兲, where
dc
h
艌 0.61
h
l
冉冊 −0.26
共2兲

Ls⫽distance between two step edges 共Fig. 2兲, the depth-averaged

mixture flow velocity should be at least 2.205 m / s. These values
of R and W correspond to skimming flow conditions in the per-
formed tests so the note deals only with reliable data in the skim-
ming flow field.
Energy Dissipation
Generally, EL depends on q, HT, h, l, ␣, e, the local air concen-
tration 共C兲, and the acceleration due to gravity 共g兲. The local air

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1149

Downloaded 17 Feb 2012 to 147.83.82.7. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 3. Energy dissipation and modified drop number
concentration is a ratio of the discharge of air 共qa兲 and the total
discharge of air and water 共qa + qw兲. These variables are shown in
Fig. 2 and can be expressed functionally as
EL = f 1共q,HT,h,l,␣,e,C,g兲
Using the Buckingham pi theorem, the variables in Eq. 共3兲 can be
expressed in dimensionless terms. Only the most important func-
tions are here considered. It is found that the dominant dimen-
sionless term is q2 / 共gHT3 兲, termed the “drop number.” The slope
of the weir can be included in the drop number which then is
termed the “modified drop number, Dm = q2共tan ␣兲2 / 共gHT3 兲.” As
the local air concentration is related to the estimation of clear
water depth, which is included in the computation of energy loss,
the effect of local air concentration would not be studied here. For
skimming flow, the relationship between EL / HT on gabion-
stepped weirs and Dm is shown in Fig. 3. The ranges of Dm for
␣ = 30, 45, and 60° are 100⫻ 10−6 ⬍ Dm ⬍ 291⫻ 10−6, 100⫻ 10−6
⬍ Dm ⬍ 310⫻ 10−6, and 180⫻ 10−6 ⬍ Dm ⬍ 504⫻ 10−6, respec-
tively. The total drop heights 共HT兲are 1.50, 2.12, and 2.60 m for
␣ = 30, 45, and 60°, respectively. When the number of steps or
HT / h is constant at 20, the relationships between EL / HT and Dm
for horizontal stepped weirs and gabion-stepped weirs can be ex-
pressed as follows:
EL
for horizontal stepped weirs: = 0.36Dm−0.08
HT
EL
for gabion-stepped weirs: = 0.53Dm−0.05
HT
The energy losses in the gabion-stepped weirs are greater than
those in the corresponding horizontal stepped weirs by approxi-
mately 7, 10, and 14% for weir slopes of 30, 45, and 60°, respec-
tively. The total energy loss is due to the recirculating vortices
between the steps and the form-drag effects of the step shapes
The rough surface, due to the stones and meshes also increase the
flow resistance. More flow energy is dissipated in the case of
milder weir slopes than in the case of steeper slopes at the same
drop number.
The void ratio 共e兲 affects energy dissipation; crushed stone
dissipates more energy than rounded stone within 1%. Gabions
filled with bigger stones are characterized by a higher void ratio
than those filled with smaller stones thereby allowing a larger
base flow. As energy is partially dissipated in the gabion voids,
1150 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008
Downloaded 17 Feb 2012 to 147.83.82.7. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 4. Outlet flow velocity and modified drop number
higher void ratios result in a higher energy dissipation rate due to
form-drag effects. When e increases from 0.27 to 0.39, the energy
loss ratio increases about 2%. Stone size and shape seems to have
little influence on the energy loss as compared with the increasing
effect of the weir slope.
共3兲
By means of a similar approach used for evaluating the energy
dissipation, the outlet flow velocity VT can be determined. A
simple function to evaluate the flow velocity can be expressed in
dimensionless form as
VT
冑gHT = f 2共Dm兲 共6兲
In the skimming flow regime, the velocity ratio 共VT / 冑gHT兲
increases when Dm increases for any slope and any void ratio
共Fig. 4兲. When compared with the horizontal stepped weirs, lower
velocity occurs as result of higher energy loss. Within the same
ranges of Dm in the discussion of energy dissipation, the correla-
tions between VT / 冑gHT and Dm for horizontal stepped and
gabion-stepped weirs 共HT / h = 20兲 can be expressed as
VT
for horizontal stepped weirs:
冑gHT = 0.12 ln共Dm兲 + 1.83
共7兲
VT
共4兲
for gabion-stepped weirs:
冑gHT = 0.09 ln共Dm兲 + 1.49 共8兲
Flow velocity in cases of the steeper weir slopes is higher than
共5兲 that at the milder slopes for the same drop number. The void ratio
共e兲 has little effect on flow velocity; crushed stone reduces more
flow velocity than rounded stone within 1%. When void ratio
increases from 0.27 to 0.39, flow velocity decreases about 2%.
Pressure on the Step Face
Neglecting the effects of flow aeration, skin roughness, and vis-
cosity of the fluid, variables affecting the pressure on a step face
are
Pmean = f 3共q,Hi,x,l,␣,e,␳,g兲 共9兲
where Pmean⫽mean pressure at a point on a step; Hi⫽drop height
measured from the approach to the step being considered 共Hi
艋 HT兲; x⫽distance from the outer edge of the step to the point
being considered; and ␳⫽density of the fluid. On the step face,
Fig. 5. Maximum mean pressures on steps and modified step drop
number
five locations of pressure taps were provided with the ratio be-
tween distance x and step length l equal to 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and
0.9 as shown in Fig. 2. At each location of pressure tap, only the
mean pressure was recorded.
When only important variables are considered, the maximum
mean pressure 共Pmax兲 at any point on a step face can be expressed
as
冋 册
Pmax q2共tan ␣兲2 n
=m = mDmn i
␥Hi gH3i
where ␥⫽specific weight of fluid. The relationships between
Pmax / ␥Hi and Dmi both for horizontal stepped weirs and gabion-
stepped weirs are quite similar 共Fig. 5兲. The Pmean for the gabion-
stepped weirs is lower than Pmean for the horizontal stepped weirs
about 29% for all weir slopes due to the capacity of the gabions to
absorb the force acting on the step face by the seepage of fluid to
the lower void of the meshes. The Pmax on a step in the steeper
weir slopes is higher than that in the milder slopes at the same
step drop number. The void ratio 共e兲 significantly affects Pmax;
when e increases from 0.27 to 0.30 and 0.39, Pmax increases about
7 and 20%, respectively. The larger stone size 共higher void ratio兲
allows the water to pass through it with higher velocity. This
increases the impact force of water on the step face.
To estimate Pmax on a step face, the coefficients m and n,
which are functions of weir slopes and porosity, have to be de-
termined. For horizontal stepped weirs, the coefficient
m⫽1.66共tan ␣兲−0.36 and ranges from 1.38 to 2.04, whereas n
= 0.34共tan ␣兲0.07 and ranges from 0.33 and 0.35. For gabion-
stepped weirs, the coefficients m and n are
m = 共− 0.40 tan ␣ + 1.23兲ln共e兲 − 0.96 tan ␣ + 2.89
n = 关0.04共tan ␣兲0.64兴ln共e兲 + 0.35共tan ␣兲0.06
The values of m range from 0.58 to 1.40, whereas n ranged from
0.27 to 0.32.
Pressure Distribution Pattern on the Horizontal Face of
a Step
From the present experiments, various mean pressure distribution
patterns on the horizontal face of a step can be observed. Based
Downloaded 17 Feb 2012 to 147.83.82.7. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 6. Mean pressure profiles on the horizontal face of a step on
steep stepped weir
on the location of Pmax, Pmin and the range of mean pressure
fluctuations, the distribution patterns can be divided roughly into
three zones.
For the skimming flow regime, when ␣ 艌 45°, Pmax occurs
near the outer edge of a step 共Point 1 in Fig. 2兲 and Pmin occurs
around the middle of the horizontal step length 共between Points 3
and 4兲, with the dimensionless horizontal step length between 0.5
共10兲
and 0.7. This result agrees well with the Sanchez et al. 共2000兲
who measured pressure fields of the skimming flow over a 51.3°
stepped spillway with piezoresistive transducers. The maximum
impact force occurs close to the outer edge of the horizontal step.
The mean dimensionless pressure profiles on the horizontal face
of a step located in a uniform flow region for dc / h = 0.891 is
shown as an example in Fig. 6. When the weir slope becomes
flatter 共␣ = 30° 兲, the location of Pmax moves to a dimensionless
horizontal step length equal to 0.3 共Point 2兲. Pmin is observed
close to the vertical face of the step 共Point 4兲, where the circulat-
ing internal eddies were observed, with the dimensionless hori-
zontal step length at 0.7.
Computational Application
The case of a 60° weir 2.60 m high with unit discharge of
0.17 m3 / s / m is considered as an example. The weir has 20 steps.
The void ratio of the gabions is 0.27. From Eq. 共2兲, the flow
regime is skimming flow. The modified drop number is 503
⫻ 10−6. The relative energy dissipation can be estimated by Eqs.
共4兲 and 共5兲, whereas the relative outlet flow velocity can be esti-
mated by Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲. For horizontal stepped weir, EL / HT
共11兲
= 0.66 and VT / 冑gHT = 0.92. For gabion-stepped weir, EL / HT
= 0.77 and VT / 冑gHT = 0.81. Considering Step 19 with Hi
共12兲 = 2.47 m, the modified step drop number is 586⫻ 10−6. The maxi-
mum mean pressure on a step face can be estimated by Eq. 共10兲.
Therefore Pmax / 共␥Hi兲 on this step of the horizontal stepped weir
and gabion-stepped weir are 0.10 and 0.06, respectively.
Conclusions
In a gabion-stepped weir, there are two parts of flow, i.e., base
flow through the voids of filled stones and surface flow on the
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1151
gabions. The energy loss ratios in the gabion-stepped weirs are Pmean ⫽ mean pressure at a point on a step;
greater than those in the corresponding horizontal stepped weirs Pmin ⫽ minimum mean pressure at a point on a step;
by approximately 7, 10, and 14% for weir slopes of 30, 45, and q ⫽ discharge per unit width of channel;
60°, respectively. As a result, the velocity at the outlet is lower. R ⫽ Reynolds number;
The size and shape of the fill stones have small effects on the V ⫽ mean flow velocity;
energy dissipation, within the range of investigation. The other VT ⫽ flow velocity at the outlet;
parameters, i.e., weir slope and drop number have been found to V1 ⫽ flow velocity at the first step;
effect the energy dissipation in the same manner as found in the W ⫽ Weber number;
horizontal stepped weirs. The pressure acting on the step face for x ⫽ distance from the outer edge of the step to
the gabion-stepped weirs is lower than the pressure for the hori- the point being considered;
zontal stepped weirs. The average pressure difference is about y ⫽ normal coordinate from the bottom;
29% because the stones in the gabions absorb the fluid force ␣ ⫽ weir slope;
acting on the step face by the seepage of fluid to the lower void of ␥ ⫽ specific weight of fluid; and
the meshes. For steep weir slopes 共␣ 艌 45° 兲, the location of the ␳ ⫽ density of fluid.
maximum mean pressure is at the outer edge of the step 共Point 1兲,
whereas for a flatter weir slope 共␣ = 30° 兲, the maximum mean
References
pressure is about Points 1 and 2. For all weir slopes, the minimum
mean pressure is observed about the middle of the step face 共be-
Andre, S. 共2004兲. “High velocity aerated flows on stepped chutes with
tween Points 2 and 4兲.
macro-roughness elements.” Communication 20, A. Schleiss, ed.,
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Laboratoire de Construc-
tions Hydrauliques, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Acknowledgments Boes, R. M., and Hager, W. H. 共2003a兲. “Hydraulic design of stepped
spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共9兲, 671–679.
The writers would like to thank the Commission on Higher Edu- Boes, R. M., and Hager, W. H. 共2003b兲. “Two-phase flow characteristics
cation 共CHE兲, and the Thailand Research Fund 共TRF兲 under of stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共9兲, 661–670.
Grant No. RMU4880003 for providing financial support for this Chanson, H., Yasuda, Y., and Ohtsu, I. 共2002兲. “Flow resistance in skim-
study. ming flows in stepped spillways and its modeling.” Can. J. Civ. Eng.,
29共6兲, 809–819.
Diez-Cascon, J., Blanco, J., Revilla, J., and Garcia, R. 共1991兲. “Studies on
the hydraulic behaviour of stepped spillways.” Int. Water Power Dam
Notation Constr., 43共9兲, 22–26.
Ohtsu, I., Yasuda, Y., and Takahashi, M. 共2004兲. “Flow characteristics of
The following symbols are used in this technical note: skimming flows in stepped channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 130共9兲, 860–
C ⫽ air concentration; 869.
D ⫽ stone diameter; Pegram, G. G. S., Officer, A. K., and Mottram, S. R. 共1999兲. “Hydraulics
Dm ⫽ modified drop number; of skimming flow on modeled stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
Dmi ⫽ modified step drop number; 125共5兲, 500–510.
dc ⫽ critical flow depth; Peyras, L., Royet, P., and Degoutte, G. 共1992兲. “Flow and energy dissi-
pation over stepped gabion weirs.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 118共5兲, 707–
dT ⫽ flow depth at the outlet;
717.
d1 ⫽ flow depth at the first step; Sanchez, J. M., Pomares, J., and Dolz, J. 共2000兲. “Pressure field in skim-
d0 ⫽ normal flow depth; ming flow over a stepped spillway.” Proc., Int. Workshop on Hydrau-
EL ⫽ energy loss across weir; lics of Stepped Spillways, H. E. Minor and W. H. Hager, eds., A.A.
e ⫽ void ratio of the filled stones in the gabions; Balkema, Zurich, Switzerland, 137–145.
g ⫽ acceleration of gravity; Stephenson, D. 共1979兲. “Gabion energy dissipators.” Proc., 13th ICOLD
Hi ⫽ drop height measured from the approach to Congress, Q.50, R.3, New Delhi, India, 33–43.
the step being considered; Stephenson, D. 共1988兲. “Stepped energy dissipators.” Proc., Int. Symp. on
HT ⫽ total drop height of the stepped weir; Hydraulics for High Dams, IAHR, Beijing, 1228–1235.
h ⫽ step height; Yasuda, Y., and Ohtsu, I. 共1999兲. “Flow resistance of skimming flows in
l ⫽ step length; stepped channels.” Proc., 28th IAHR Congress 共CD-ROM兲, IAHR,
Pmax ⫽ maximum mean pressure at a point on a step; Graz, Austria, Session B14, 6 pages.

1152 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

Downloaded 17 Feb 2012 to 147.83.82.7. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org