Smooth and Stepped Spillway Modeling

Using the SPH Method

Juliana D. Nóbrega 1; Jorge Matos 2; Harry E. Schulz 3; and Ricardo B. Canelas 4

Abstract: The smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method was used to simulate the flow over smooth and stepped spillways in the
nonaerated, skimming flow regime. Two-dimensional numerical simulations were carried out using the DualSPHysics software and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

compared with experimental data on a 2H:1V sloping spillway for smooth and stepped inverts. Continuous inflow fluid layers with constant
height and uniform velocity were used to establish the flow rate on the broad crested weir. The ability of the SPH to reproduce the main flow
characteristics was analyzed by comparing the numerical flow depths and velocity profiles with their experimental counterparts. Firstly, a
convergence analysis was carried out for various initial particle spacing. The flow characteristics along the stepped spillway were
more sensitive to the particle spacing compared to the smooth chute one. In general, the numerical flow depths compared well with
the corresponding experimental data and with empirical formulas available in the literature. The velocity profiles, and the free-stream
velocity in particular, were also well reproduced by the SPH method; however, larger differences were obtained near the solid boundary.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001776. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Nonaerated flow region; Skimming flow; Smooth spillway; Smoothed particle hydrodynamics; Stepped spillway.

Introduction
Stepped spillways have been increasingly used to construct new
dams, as well as to rehabilitate embankment dams, especially to
increase the spillway discharge capacity (Sorensen 1985; Frizell
1992; McLean and Hansen 1993; Rice and Kadavy 1996;
McDonald and Curtis 1997; Chanson 2002; Hunt et al. 2008;
Matos and Meireles 2014; Frizell and Frizell 2015). Among their
positive aspects, stepped spillways lead to an increased flow energy
dissipation due to the macroroughness created by the steps. De-
pending on the specific flow rate and geometric characteristics of
the chute, the flow over stepped spillways is usually classified as a
nappe, transition, or skimming flow. In the latter, the water flows as
a coherent stream above the step edges, whereas the step cavities
are completely filled by the recirculating fluid (e.g., Essery and
Horner 1978; Chamani and Rajaratnam 1999; Matos 2001;
Chanson 2002; Ohtsu et al. 2004; Chanson et al. 2015).
Most stepped spillways have been designed to operate un-
der skimming flows, and consequently a significant number of
1
Research Fellow, Dept. of Hydraulics and Sanitation, São Carlos
School of Engineering, Univ. of São Paulo, São Carlos, SP 13566590,
Brazil (corresponding author). Email: junobreg@gmail.com
2
Professor, Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for Sustainabil-
ity, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon 1049-001,
Portugal. Email: jorge.matos@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
3
Professor, Dept. of Hydraulics and Sanitation, São Carlos School of
Engineering, Univ. of São Paulo, São Carlos, SP 13566590, Brazil; Visiting
Professor, Dept. of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Federal
Univ. of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE 60451-970, Brazil. Email: harry.schulz@
pq.cnpq.br
4
Researcher, Marine, Environment and Technology Center, Instituto
Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon 1049-001, Portugal.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1780-6273. Email: ricardo.canelas@
tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 7, 2019; approved on
February 5, 2020; published online on May 26, 2020. Discussion period
open until October 26, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
experimental and numerical works have focused on this flow re-
gime. Various studies have addressed detailed air–water flow prop-
erties along the chute, namely on flat to moderate–sloped spillways
(i.e., chute angles from the horizontal lower than 22° and between
22° and 30°, respectively), typical on embankment dams, such as
Ward (2002), Chanson and Toombes (2002a, b), Boes and Hager
(2003), André (2004), Felder and Chanson (2008, 2013), Bung
(2011), Takahashi and Ohtsu (2012), and Hunt et al. (2014), among
others. Experimental studies embracing the nonaerated flow region
were also conducted to date, namely by Gonzalez and Chanson
(2007), Amador et al. (2009), Meireles and Matos (2009), Hunt
and Kadavy (2010, 2011), Meireles et al. (2012), Hunt et al. (2014),
and Zhang and Chanson (2016).
Numerical studies of skimming flow over stepped spillways
have mainly focused on mesh-based methods, such as those by
Chen et al. (2002), Bombardelli et al. (2011), Chinnarasri et al.
(2014), Meireles et al. (2014), Lopes et al. (2017), and Toro et al.
(2017). The interest for meshless (or Lagrangian) methods, such as
smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) or moving particle semi-
implicit (MPS) has emerged in more recent years. Some general
advantages of the SPH method over the mesh-based methods
are the effectiveness in solving complex fluid dynamic problems
with highly nonlinear deformations; the ability to deal with multi-
phase flows and fluid-structure interactions; the natural tracking
of free surfaces and moving boundaries; and ease of numerical im-
plementation comparatively to mesh-based methods (Liu and Liu
2010; Violeau and Rogers 2016).
A fair number of studies using the SPH method for modeling
flows over spillways have been developed (e.g., Rebollo et al.
2010; Saunders et al. 2014; González-Cao et al. 2018, 2019;
Moreira et al. 2019). Rebollo et al. (2010) simulated the flow over
a smooth gated spillway of the Alarcón Dam in Spain, using a tri-
dimensional SPH model and a particles feedback circuit to deter-
mine a range of points of the rating curve and to obtain pressure
values on the spillway face, under different floodgate opening po-
sitions. The analysis of the rating curve and pressures on the spill-
way face showed good agreement between physical and numerical

© ASCE 04020054-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

 results, although significant differences on the pressures were
obtained mainly in the vicinity of the spillway crest.
Saunders et al. (2014) investigated the flow over a four-bay
gated spillway with a ski jump, focusing on the water depths at
the upstream reservoir. Six initial values of the spacing between
the SPH particles were tested. The accuracy of the results was
found to be dependent on the particle spacing, and the percentage
differences between simulated and experimental data decreased
from 14.6% to 7.0% when reducing the initial particle spacing from
0.035 to 0.010 m. Relationships between discharge and water level
at the upstream reservoir were also determined for several flow
rates, using the optimal particle spacing of 0.015 m (considering
the computational efficiency and results accuracy). The comparison
between simulated and experimental reservoir water depths showed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that the maximum percentage difference of 11.5% occurred for the
highest simulated discharge at a location of 1.2 m upstream of the
spillway crest. A qualitative description of the flow down the spill-
way ski jump and projected away was also presented by Saunders
et al. (2014). A more complete analysis of the free trajectory jet
from a ski jump was developed by González-Cao et al. (2019).
The general flow behavior obtained in their numerical simulations,
as well as the maximum water elevations and the upper nappe
profiles, were in accordance with the corresponding experimental
results.
The work developed by González-Cao et al. (2018) aimed to
evaluate the hydrological safety of the Belesar Dam spillway in
Spain under extreme overflow conditions. Two-dimensional simu-
lations were first carried out for an ogee spillway and a broad
crested weir, resulting in numerical free surface profiles similar to
those obtained in the experimental tests. The flow behavior of the
real spillway was then simulated. The time series and maximum
values of water depths and velocities were determined at several
distances from the crest on the right and left sides of the spillway.
The numerical velocities presented a reasonable agreement with
those obtained from a theoretical approximation. The water depths
were clearly asymmetric until the middle part of the spillway struc-
ture and no overtopping of the lateral walls was observed, showing
a proper operation of the structure.
Moreira et al. (2019) applied a single-phase SPH model to
simulate the flow in the energy dissipator of Crestuma Dam
(gate-structure type followed by a stilling basin and a rock fill bed
protection) and the complementary spillway of Caniçada Dam
(gate-structure controlled by an ogee crest, followed by a tunnel
and a ski jump at the outlet), both located in Portugal. The general
accuracy of the SPH results in predicting the water depths, veloc-
ities, and pressures was satisfactory. The discrepancies between the
simulated and experimental water depths became significant in the
final stretch of the Caniçada Dam spillway, which could be justi-
fied, to some extent, to the nonconsideration of air entrainment in
the SPH model. The pressures on the channel bottom and walls
were generally well captured, except at locations where subatmo-
spheric pressures were registered in the experiments. Other appli-
cations to model dam flows using the SPH method can be found in
the state-of-the-art review of Moreira et al. (2020).
Additionally, studies of SPH simulations of the flow over
stepped spillways were carried out by López et al. (2011), Husain
et al. (2014), Gu et al. (2017), and Wan et al. (2017a, b), among
others. Different inflow and outflow conditions were considered in
these studies. López et al. (2011) developed tridimensional numeri-
cal simulations for stepped spillways with lateral expansion. The
numerical model consisted of a recirculation system of the fluid
particles with a reservoir upstream of the spillway. The flow width
occupying the lateral expansion was analyzed and the results were
considerably improved with reducing the initial particle spacing,
© ASCE 04020054-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054
i.e., increasing the ratio between the step height and the particle
spacing (h=dp) from 5.3 to 10.0. Comparisons between the nu-
merical and experimental velocity profiles and pressures were also
provided for one step position where the flow was still not strongly
affected by aeration. The greater differences for the simulated ve-
locities were found for the higher discharges tested, and the veloc-
ities were overestimated near the free surface.
Husain et al. (2014) performed numerical studies to simulate the
flow over a stepped spillway with a broad crested weir. The numeri-
cal model comprised a large upstream reservoir, the stepped spill-
way and an open boundary at the downstream end. A sensitivity
analysis was firstly performed to evaluate the effect of several par-
ticle spacing on the discharge prediction and a good optimization in
terms of computation time and accuracy was achieved for the par-
ticle spacing equal to 0.005 m. The results were validated through
comparison between measured and simulated flow depths, velocity
profiles, and inception point locations, resulting in overall relative
errors lower than 10%. An analysis of the normalized simulated
pressure distributions on the horizontal and vertical step faces along
the nonaerated flow region were also presented, which were quali-
tatively consistent to those reported in the literature.
Following the work of Husain et al. (2014), Gu et al. (2017)
adopted a similar model, consisting of an upstream tank and an
open boundary at the downstream end of the channel. To reduce
the reservoir dimensions, the authors applied a push-paddle system
moving horizontally with a constant velocity. The simulations were
based on two physical models, and the study was mainly concerned
with the velocity distribution, pressures on the step faces, and en-
ergy dissipation. The pressure profiles on the horizontal step face
demonstrated an S-shape with positive values, while the general
pressure pattern on the vertical step faces presented negative values
on the upper part and positive values on the lower part of the face.
The average errors for pressures and energy dissipation were lower
than 4.7% and 8.2%, respectively.
The research developed by Wan et al. (2017a) aimed to inves-
tigate the flow hydrodynamics and the dissolved oxygen character-
istics along a stepped spillway, using a multiphase SPH model.
Similarly, Wan et al. (2017b) used an improved multiphase SPH
model to investigate the air concentration characteristics along a
stepped spillway. The simulated inception point location of free
surface aeration agreed well with the experimental results in both
studies. In the study from Wan et al. (2017b), the simulated air con-
centration profiles in different steps were consistent with the exper-
imental data, and the greatest discrepancies were found at the
inception point location. According to the authors, the violent flow
deformation and break-up at this position probably influenced the
experimental measurements or induced simulation inaccuracies.
The aim of the present study was to verify the applicability of
the SPH method for simulating the flow over smooth and stepped
spillways using the high-performance DualSPHysics implementa-
tion (Crespo et al. 2015), and to determine the main flow character-
istics of the nonaerated region (i.e., flow depths and velocity
profiles). The vorticity field in the skimming and recirculating flow
regions was also evaluated.
In previous studies, different approaches have been considered
for dealing with the inflow and outflow boundaries. In the present
study, a new functionality of the DualSPHysics code for a continu-
ous inlet condition was used to establish the flow rate at the up-
stream end of the broad crested weir. A similar inlet condition
was adopted by González-Cao et al. (2019) upstream of a ski jump
to simulate the free trajectory jet of the projected flow. Using the
continuous inlet condition, it is not necessary to consider a reservoir
of large dimensions upstream of the spillway, enabling a reduction
in the numerical domain, and therefore the initial particle spacing.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Schematic representations: (a) physical model, including locations along the broad crested weir and the spillway chute where the measure-
ments were taken; and (b) numerical model, with initial numerical conditions.
The lower the particle spacing, the higher the numerical resolution,
and more accurate results are expected; however, it requires greater
computational storage and longer simulation time.
The simulations were conducted using the same physical dimen-
sions and flow conditions of an experimental setup composed by a
26.6° (2H:1V) sloping spillway, with smooth or 2.5 cm high step-
chute inverts, and a relatively long broad crested weir. SPH simu-
lation results are presented for a range of flow rates and compared
with their experimental counterparts. Additionally, numerical pre-
dictions of the vorticity in the skimming and recirculating flows are
qualitatively compared with experimental results available in the
literature.
Methodology
Experimental Tests
The experimental tests were previously conducted at the Hydraulic
and Water Resources Laboratory at the Instituto Superior Técnico
(IST), by André and Ramos (2003) and Cabrita (2007). The setup
consisted of an 8.0 m long and 0.7 m wide rectangular flume with
Plexiglas walls. The spillway model was installed in the flume
occupying its whole width, and the remaining system comprised
the water supply and recirculation system, a reservoir and flow sta-
bilizing structure at the entrance, and a flap gate at the downstream
end of the flume. The inflow was controlled by a broad crested weir
which consisted of a 0.5 m high, 0.5 m long, and 0.7 m wide crest
with a vertical upstream wall, and upstream rounded nose. The
stepped chute configuration was formed by twenty, 2.5 cm high
steps, with the chute slope of 2H:1V (θ ¼ 26.6°).
The flow rate was determined using an electromagnetic
flowmeter installed in the supply pipe. The mean and maximum
flow rate fluctuations were 0.4% and 1%, respectively (André and
Ramos 2003). The accuracy of the electromagnetic flowmeter was
also tested with a Bazin weir temporarily installed at the down-
stream end of the flume. Maximum and mean absolute percentage
differences of the flow rate obtained from both measurement tech-
niques were lower than 2% and 0.9%, respectively.
The experimental procedure consisted of measuring the flow
depths and velocity profiles for different positions along the broad
crested weir and the spillway chute for the flow rates Q ¼ 35, 42,
49, and 56 Ls−1 (i.e., unit flow rates q ¼ 0.050, 0.060, 0.070, and
0.080 m2 s−1 ). The measurements along the broad crested weir
were taken at four positions from the upstream end of the crest
© ASCE 04020054-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054
(x ¼ 0.125, 0.250, 0.375, and 0.464 m), whereas the measurements
along the spillway chute were performed at several locations de-
fined by the step edges of the stepped spillway [Fig. 1(a)]. Flow
depths along the broad crested weir and the spillway chute were
obtained using a 0.05 mm resolution point gauge, at the flume
centerline, as well as by visual observation, using graduated rulers
at the flume sidewalls. The velocities at the broad crested weir and
the spillway chute were measured using a Prandtl-Pitot tube with an
external diameter of 8 mm, connected to a manometer.
Additional velocity measurements were conducted at the broad
crested weir with a total pressure (stagnation) probe, with a smaller
external diameter (1 mm), also connected to a manometer. To es-
timate the velocity from the total pressure probe data, the pressure
distribution was assumed hydrostatic, which should not be fully
satisfied at position x = 0.125 m, and particularly at position
x = 0.464 m of the broad crested weir, due to flow curvature, as
shown by static pressure measurements in identical or similar set-
ups (Cabrita 2007; Felder and Chanson 2012). Taking into account
that the effects resulting from the longitudinal separation between
the total and static tappings were not considered, the velocity es-
timation with the Prandtl-Pitot tube data in those sections, particu-
larly in cross section 4, is not accurate.
On the stepped chute, air entrainment was observed for low flow
rates (André and Ramos 2003; Cabrita 2007). Therein, the visually
observed inception point location was defined as the vertical edge
immediately upstream of the step cavity where a continuous pres-
ence of white water or air bubbles was noticed from above and also
through the Plexiglas sidewalls.
Table 1 presents the main flow properties in cross section 1
(x ¼ 0.125 m), namely the flow depth d, the mean flow velocity
pffiffiffiffiffi
U, the Froude number (F ¼ U= gd) and the Reynolds number
(R ¼ q=ν), where g = gravity acceleration constant; q = unit
flow rate; and ν = kinematic viscosity of water (approximately
10−6 m2 s−1 ).
Table 1. Main flow properties in cross section 1 of the broad crested weir
Q (Ls−1 ) q (m2 s−1 ) d (m) U (ms−1 ) F R
35 0.050 0.0620 0.806 1.034 5.0 × 104
42 0.060 0.0729 0.823 0.973 6.0 × 104
49 0.070 0.0841 0.832 0.916 7.0 × 104
56 0.080 0.0926 0.864 0.906 8.0 × 104
Source: Data from André and Ramos (2003); Cabrita (2007).
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Numerical Method dua X p p

¼ − mb 2a þ 2b ∇a W ab þ g
In the SPH method, the flow is represented by a set of computa-
dt b
ρa ρb
X  
tional moving nodes to which fluid properties such as mass, veloc- 4νrab · ∇a W ab
ity, and pressure are associated, effectively making them material þ mb uab
b
ðρa þ ρb Þðjrab j2 þ 0.01h2k Þ
X τ a τ b 
particles. The particles move according to the evolution of their
properties, which are updated for each time step of the simulation þ mb 2 þ 2 · ∇a W ab ð7Þ
following fluid conservation laws, namely mass and momentum b
ρa ρb
(Liu and Liu 2003).
The continuity and momentum equations for incompressible where uab ¼ ua − ub ; rab ¼ ra − rb ; W ab ¼ Wðra − rb ; hk Þ;
fluids are expressed by Eqs. (1) and (2), whereas the pressure is cab ¼ ðca þ cb Þ=2 = average speed of sound; ∇a = gradient of the
explicitly calculated by an equation of state for a nearly compress- kernel function in respect to the coordinates of the particle
ible flow [Eq. (3)], which relates the pressure with the fluid density a; δ = coefficient of Delta-SPH function; ν = kinematic viscosity;
and τ = SPS stress tensor.
dρ
¼ −ρ∇ · u ð1Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The discrete equations are integrated using a time integration

dt scheme, which is subjected to the Courant-Friedrich-Levy (CFL)
condition for stability. The time step of the simulation should be
du 1
¼ − ∇p þ Γ þ g ð2Þ proportional to the kernel function length (hk ), taking into account
dt ρ the viscous dissipation and the external forces (Liu and Liu 2003).
 γ 
ρ0 c2s ρ
p¼ −1 ð3Þ Numerical Model
γ ρ0
The numerical model was developed and validated based on the
where t = time; ρ = fluid density; u = velocity vector; p = pressure; previously described experimental setup, considering a scale factor
Γ = dissipative terms; g = gravity acceleration; ρ0 ¼ 1,000 kgm−3 of 10:1 (numerical model:physical model) and Froude dynamic
is the reference density; cs = numerical speed of sound (≥10 times similitude between prototype (numerical model) and physical
the maximum flow velocity); and γ ¼ 7 is the exponent of the model. Similar scale factors were previously adopted by López et al.
equation of state. (2011) and Gu et al. (2017), namely 15:1 and 10:1, respectively.
The numerical discretization of the basic physical law equations Considering that the present study focuses on the nonaerated flow
in the SPH form involves the interpolation of a function F at a region and given the experimental flow conditions (Table 1), scale
particle “a,” considering the flow properties on the neighboring effects are expected to be negligible.
particles “b” over an influence domain. The interpolation is done The continuous inlet condition adopted in the simulations is one
using a smoothing function (also known as kernel function) as rep- of the features released on the DualSPHysics 4.2 version. Using
resented by Eq. (4) (Liu and Liu 2003). Eq. (5) describes the fifth this condition, fluid particle layers of constant height and uniform
order Wendland kernel function used in this study (Wendland velocity profiles were continuously added to the upstream section
1995) of the broad crested weir. The boundary conditions are enforced
X using buffer particles, and their physical information (velocity,
m
Fðra Þ ≈ Fðrb Þ b Wðra − rb ; hk Þ ð4Þ water depth, density, and pressure) is imposed or extrapolated from
b
ρb the fluid domain. Further details about the open boundary condition
implementation in the DualSPHysics software can be found in
8 4
> Tafuni et al. (2018).
< 1 − qr ð1 þ 2q Þ 0 ≤ q ≤ 2
r r The numerical simulations were developed for the stepped
Wðr; hk Þ ¼ αD 2 ð5Þ
>
:0 (h ¼ 2.5 cm) and smooth chutes for the flow rates of 35, 42,
qr > 2 49, and 56 Ls−1 . Six fluid layers with uniform velocity were dis-
placed at the beginning of the broad crested weir, and the total
where a, b = subscripts referring to particle a and the neighboring height of these layers was equal to the measured flow depth in cross
particles b; W = smoothing kernel function; F = function at a section 1, 0.125 m from the upstream end of the broad crested weir.
particle; m, ρ = mass and density of a particle, respectively; r = The velocity of the input layers was equal to the maximum velocity
position vector; hk = kernel function length; αD ¼ 7=4π · h2k in estimated from the total pressure probe measurements, considering
2D; αD ¼ 21=16π · h3k in 3D; and qr ¼ r=hk is the normalized the prototype scale and Froude similitude. The second set of fluid
particle spacing in relation to the kernel function length. particles was used to fill the area over the spillway as the initial
The conservation equations of the flow discretized using the condition [Fig. 1(b)]. The SPH numerical results at the broad
SPH operators are given by Eqs. (6) and (7). Eq. (6) represents crested weir were also compared with those obtained by Lúcio
the continuity equation with an additional term to reduce fluid (2015) for identical geometry, using the FLOW-3D software
density fluctuations, known as Delta-SPH term (Molteni and version 11.0.3.
Colagrossi 2009). Eq. (7) is the momentum equation, based on the The relevant parameters which are detailed on the DualSPHy-
subparticle scale (SPS) turbulence model that considers both sics software (Crespo et al. 2015), such as the numerical speed
the effects of laminar and turbulent viscosity (Gotoh et al. 2004; of sound (cs ¼ 100 ms−1 ), CFL coefficient (0.15), kernel function
Crespo et al. 2015) (Wendland function), time integration algorithm (Sympletic
scheme), among others, were adopted based on the experimental
dρa X X data of the stepped spillway for the inflow rate of 35 Ls−1 and
¼ mb uab · ∇a W ab þ 2δhk mb cab
dt b b
the initial particle spacing equal to 15.0 mm. The viscosity model
  that presented better results, regarding the filling of the steps with
ρ 1
× a−1 2 · ∇a W ab ð6Þ fluid particles when simulating stepped spillways, was the SPS tur-
ρb rab þ 0.01h2k bulence model [Eq. (7)] compared to the artificial viscosity model

© ASCE 04020054-4 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

 Table 2. Number of fluid particles at t ¼ 20 s, and simulation time for the The values of h=dp adopted in previous studies using the SPH
smooth and stepped spillways, for Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 : convergence analysis method for modeling the flow over stepped spillways are shown in
Smooth spillway Stepped spillway Table 3. The condition of continuous inflow fluid layers used in the
a present study enabled us to adopt a higher numerical resolution,
dp Simulation Simulation
(mm) N fluid (−) time, t (h) h=dp (−) N fluid (−) time, t (h)
that is, larger values of h=dp compared to those adopted in pre-
vious studies, applying either a particle recirculation system from
5.0 236,332 10.94 50.0 298,287 11.67 the outflow to the inflow boundaries, or a push-paddle system to
7.5 105,316 3.79 33.3 134,471 4.32 establish the simulated flow rate.
10.0 58,945 2.00 25.0 77,304 2.16
12.5 37,432 1.02 20.0 49,878 1.35 Flow Depths and Velocity Profiles along the Broad Crested
15.0 26,140 0.70 16.7 34,521 0.81
Weir
a
Prototype scale (10 times lower in the model scale). The flow depths along the broad crested weir upstream of the
smooth spillway and the experimental versus numerical flow
depths are shown in Figs. 2(a and b), respectively, for Q ¼ 35 Ls−1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

proposed by Monaghan (1994). Complementary information can
be found in Crespo et al. (2015). A GPU Tesla K20C board, with
13 multiprocessors (2,496 cores) and global memory of 5,061 MB
was used to run the simulations.
Results
The simulations ran for a total of 20 s, with output intervals of
0.01 s. The flow was initially unstable over the crest and stabilized
approximately after 12 s of simulation time. Hence, flow velocities
and flow depths were calculated as time-averaged values from 12
to 20 s.
First, a systematic convergence analysis for several initial par-
ticle spacing was carried out. Then, for the particle spacing consid-
ered adequate to reproduce the main flow properties, the study was
extended to other discharges.
Convergence Analysis of the Initial Particle Spacing
In the SPH method, the fluid and boundaries are represented by a
set of particles equally distributed as the initial condition. To verify
the adequate initial particle spacing (dp, or initial particle size), a
convergence analysis was developed considering various particle
spacings, as presented in Table 2. In an analogy with the mesh-
based methods, the convergence of the results is attained with the
increase of the numerical resolution (i.e., decreasing dp), until the
results become virtually independent of the particle spacing.
The numerical simulations for the convergence analysis were
carried out for the smaller experimental flow rate (Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 ),
for both smooth and stepped spillway configurations. The velocity
and flow depth of the input particle layers were respectively
2.66 ms−1 and 0.620 m. The convergence of the results was evalu-
ated by comparing the flow depths and the velocity profiles along
the broad crested weir and the chute spillway, for various dp.
The simulation time and number of fluid particles (N fluid ) at the
final instant of simulation (t ¼ 20 s) for each value of dp (or
h=dp, where h is the step height) are reported in Table 2.
and dp values of 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, and 15.0 mm (at prototype
scale). Similar results are expected for the stepped spillway because
of the identical entrance flow conditions. From Fig. 2, it can be
concluded that the flow depths along the broad crested weir are
close to their experimental counterparts and practically independent
of dp; the relative differences between the flow depths considering
the highest and lowest particle resolution (dp ¼ 5 and 15 mm,
respectively) were lower than 0.7%. Small differences may be
observed because the gap between the fluid particles and the solid
boundary is affected by the particle spacing due to the dynamic
boundary condition (DBC) implemented in the DualSPHysics
software.
Similar conclusions were obtained for the velocity profiles
along the broad crested weir, as shown in Fig. 3, where H1 is
the upstream total head above the broad crested weir. These pro-
files are not significantly influenced by the particle spacing, with
relative differences (relative to the results for dp ¼ 5 mm) lower
than 2.2% for y > 0.006 m (i.e., y=H1 > 0.061), although slightly
larger deviations can be observed close to the invert. In cross sec-
tion 4 (x ¼ 0.464 m; x=Lcrest ¼ 0.93), in particular, the experi-
mental data are not accurate, because of the nonnegligible flow
curvature, and the hydrostatic pressure distribution hypothesis
for estimating the velocity from the total pressure probe data.
Nevertheless, the SPH velocity profile in this cross section is sim-
ilar to that obtained by Lúcio (2015), using the FLOW-3D software
(Fig. 3), and follows the typical profile expected near the brink
of a broad crested weir, as obtained experimentally by Felder
and Chanson (2012).
Flow Depths along the Spillway Chute
The flow depths along the smooth and stepped spillways are pre-
sented in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively, for Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 and dp values
of 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, and 15.0 mm, along with the experimental
data of André and Ramos (2003), acquired in the chute centerline.
The origin of the longitudinal axis (L) corresponds to the down-
stream end of the broad crested weir [Fig. 1(a)]. The flow depth
data at the right and left sidewalls along the stepped chute, obtained
by André and Ramos (2003) through visual observations, are also
included in Fig. 5, as well as the inception point location given by

Table 3. Number of fluid particles and particle spacing applied in some previous studies
Reference dp (mm) h=dp (−) N fluid (−)
López et al. (2011) 120 (scale 15:1) 10.0 2,960,000
Husain et al. (2014) 3; 5; 7.5; 10.0 16.67; 10.0; 6.67; 5.0 621,332; 233,691; 100,820; 57,678
Gu et al. (2017) 4 12.5 162,098
Gu et al. (2017) 40 (scale 10:1) 7.5; 5.18; 3.75 300,000
Wan et al. (2017a) 8 12.5 12,238 (water); 32,524 (air)
Wan et al. (2017a) 4 8.25 15,738 (water); 34,024 (air)
Wan et al. (2017b) 7 14.29 18,916 (water); 37,161(air)

© ASCE 04020054-5 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Convergence analysis: (a) flow depths along the broad crested weir for 5 ≤ dpðmmÞ ≤ 15 and Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 ; and (b) experimental versus
numerical flow depths.
Fig. 3. Velocity profiles along the broad crested weir for 5 ≤
dpðmmÞ ≤ 15 and Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 : convergence analysis.
Fig. 4. Flow depths along the smooth spillway for 5 ≤ dpðmmÞ ≤ 15
and Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 : convergence analysis.
Li ¼ 0.780 m. In general, slightly higher flow depths were ob-
tained on the stepped chute sidewalls through visual observation,
as a result of free surface unsteadiness due to turbulence and wall
effects, in accordance with previous studies (Matos 1999, 2000;
André and Ramos 2003).
© ASCE 04020054-6
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054
Fig. 5. Flow depths along the stepped spillway for 5 ≤ dpðmmÞ ≤ 15
and Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 : convergence analysis.
The flow depth profiles along the smooth spillway were not very
sensitive to the variation of dp, since the mean absolute percentage
difference between the flow depths considering the highest and
lowest particle resolution (dp ¼ 5 and 15 mm, respectively) was
2.3%. The mean absolute percentage difference between the exper-
imental and the numerical flow depths for dp ¼ 5 mm was 8.4%
for the complete data set. The higher numerical flow depths ob-
tained at the initial spillway reach (L < 0.1 m) occurred due to the
formation of a cavity of air (i.e., in the absence of fluid particles)
below the jet formed in the transition from the broad crested weir to
the spillway.
Regarding the stepped spillway simulations, the flow depths
were more influenced by the particle resolution compared to the
smooth condition, with differences decreasing for smaller values
of dp, until the convergence was reached. The mean absolute per-
centage differences were 10.2% for the flow depth profiles between
dp ¼ 5 mm and dp ¼ 15 mm; and 2.6% between dp ¼ 5 mm
and dp ¼ 7.5 mm. The mean absolute percentage difference be-
tween the numerical and experimental data in the nonaerated flow
region, at the flume centerline, for dp ¼ 5 mm, was 8.2% for
0 < LðmÞ < 0.8. A better approximation of the numerical profile
was observed for the experimental values measured at the flume
centerline, as expected, because of the observed wall effects.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Velocity profiles along the smooth spillway for 5 ≤ dpðmmÞ ≤ 15 and Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 : convergence analysis.
It is worth noting that the free surface exhibited a wavy pattern
along the chute, particularly near the inception point, where it
was more difficult to take accurate measurements of the flow depth
(Meireles and Matos 2009).
Velocity Profiles along the Spillway Chute
The numerical velocity profiles for the smooth and stepped
spillways are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively, for Q ¼ 35 Ls−1
and dp values of 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, and 15.0 mm, along with the
experimental data of André and Ramos (2003).
The free-stream velocity along the spillway was calculated ac-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cording to the ideal-flow theory as V max ¼ 2gðHmax − d · cos θÞ,
where g = gravity acceleration constant; Hmax = upstream total
head relative to the invert; d = flow depth; and θ = chute slope.
The flow velocity within the boundary layer is smaller than the
free-stream velocity because of the friction losses (e.g., Chanson
2002). The free-stream velocities were calculated using the exper-
imental flow depths at the flume centerline, measured by André and
Ramos (2003), and were represented by dashed lines in Figs. 6
and 7.
Regarding the smooth spillway, the velocity profiles were de-
pendent on the particle resolution in the vicinity of the crest
(L ≤ 0.224 m), close to the invert, as expected. A better agreement
with experimental profiles and free-stream velocity was obtained
for dp ¼ 5 mm. Further downstream, the velocity profiles were al-
most independent of dp, although slightly larger deviations with
the experimental profiles were observed near the invert.
The velocity profiles along the stepped spillway show that
the differences among the numerical profiles can be considerable,
© ASCE
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054
depending on dp, and the differences tend to increase with the lon-
gitudinal distance. This may be explained by the decreasing flow
depth and consequent increase of the relative step macroroughness
down the slope. For example, for L ¼ 0.671 m, the mean absolute
percentage difference between the velocity profiles for dp ¼ 5
and 15 mm was around 17%. Up to cross section 9 (L ¼ 0.447 m),
the velocity profiles were well reproduced by the SPH method, and
the differences were generally smaller for the profiles obtained with
dp ¼ 5.0 mm. It should be noted that the experimental velocity data
is not expected to be accurate in the cross sections close to the
transition from the broad crest to the chute, because of the flow
curvature.
Overall, based on the particle resolution study, the convergence
of the results was attained for an initial particle spacing equal to
or lower than dp ¼ 7.5 mm. Therefore, dp ¼ 7.5 mm was used to
simulate the other flow conditions, for the flow rates of 42, 49, and
56 Ls−1 . The number of fluid particles at t ¼ 20 s and the total
simulation time are presented in Table 4.
Broad Crested Weir
The flow depths along the broad crested weir are presented in Fig. 8,
which comprises the experimental data of Cabrita (2007), the
numerical profile obtained by Lúcio (2015) using FLOW-3D, and
the results from the SPH simulations, using dp ¼ 7.5 mm. The
flow depth profiles shown in Fig. 8 were generated from the smooth
spillway simulation results.
For a short initial reach of the weir (x ≤ 0.125 m), the
free surface profiles obtained by Lúcio (2015) are expected to
04020054-7 J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Velocity profiles along the stepped spillway (h ¼ 2.5 cm) for 5 ≤ dpðmmÞ ≤ 15 and Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 : convergence analysis.

Table 4. Number of fluid particles at t ¼ 20 s, and simulation time for the smooth and stepped spillways
Smooth spillway Stepped spillway
Q (Ls−1 ) q (m2 s−1 ) dc =ha (−) N fluid (−) Simulation time, t (h) N fluid (−) Simulation time, t (h)
35 0.050 2.537 105,316 3.79 134,471 4.32
42 0.060 2.865 129,179 4.28 159,978 4.99
49 0.070 3.175 145,837 4.70 175,252 5.44
56 0.080 3.470 159,217 4.99 186,009 5.73
a
Stepped spillway.

be more representative of the flow pattern over a broad crested weir
(see, e.g., Felder and Chanson 2012), since the SPH profile is ap-
proximately constant in this region due to the upstream boundary
condition of six layers with uniform velocity profiles. However,
for the second half of the weir (x > 0.25 m), the flow depths are
generally well estimated by the SPH profile.
The largest relative differences between numerical (SPH) and
experimental flow depths were observed in cross section 2, for Q ¼
42 and 49 Ls−1 (approximately 7%). For the other sections,
the relative differences were lower than 5%. Such differences
were of the same order of magnitude as those obtained by Lúcio
(2015).
The velocity profiles along the broad crested weir for the flow
rates 42, 49, and 56 Ls−1 (not shown herein) were similar to those
presented in Fig. 3. The most significant differences between the
SPH results and the experimental velocity profiles were observed
near the invert, mainly for y ≤ 0.01 m, probably because of the
DBC implemented in the DualSPHysics software.
Smooth Spillway
Flow Depths along the Spillway Chute
The free surface profiles for the smooth spillway simulations us-
ing dp ¼ 7.5 mm (based on the convergence analysis) for the
flow rates from 35 to 56 Ls−1 are shown in Fig. 9. The experi-
mental data from André and Ramos (2003), measured at the flume
centerline, are also included in this figure. The experimental ver-
sus numerical flow depths at the chute centerline are plotted in
Fig. 10.
In general, the numerical results were found to fit well to the
experimental data, with relative differences lower than 10%, and

© ASCE 04020054-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

 Fig. 8. Flow depths along the broad crested weir for various simulated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
flow rates (dp ¼ 7.5 mm).
Fig. 9. Flow depths along the smooth spillway for various simulated
flow rates (dp ¼ 7.5 mm).
an overall mean value of 5.3%. Because of the formation of a void
under the water jet immediately downstream of the broad crested
weir (i.e., without fluid particles), the numerical results differed
considerably from the experimental counterparts for L < 0.1 m
(i.e., corresponding to smooth chute data points outside the 10%
error interval, in Fig. 10), whereas they are quite close on the
remaining reach.
Velocity Profiles along the Spillway Chute
The velocity profiles for each flow condition are presented in Fig. 11,
whereas the instantaneous velocity contour field for the flow rate of
35 Ls−1 (at model scale) is plotted in Fig. 12. For the flow rates of
35 and 42 Ls−1 , the SPH results are compared with the experimental
values obtained by André and Ramos (2003). Due to the absence of
velocity data for the flow rates of 49 and 56 Ls−1 , the experimental
values obtained by Cabrita (2007) for a spillway with two converg-
ing sidewalls of 9.9° were used. It should be noted that for this
geometry and flow rates, the flow conditions in the chute centerline
were not influenced by the cross waves.
The relative velocity differences were generally small, but close
to the pseudobottom, varying on average from 1% to 5%, for
L ≥ 0.224 m, whereas larger values were obtained for L ¼
0.112 m, as a result of higher flow depths in such a transition region
from the SPH simulations.
Stepped Spillway
Flow Depths along the Spillway Chute
The free surface profiles for the stepped spillway simulations using
dp ¼ 7.5 mm are shown in Fig. 13. The experimental data
© ASCE 04020054-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054
Fig. 10. Experimental (centerline data) versus numerical flow depths
along the smooth and stepped spillways.
presented in this figure were obtained by André and Ramos
(2003) at the flume centerline and sidewalls for Q ¼ 35 and
42 Ls−1 , whereas for Q ¼ 49 and 56 Ls−1 , the flow depths were
obtained only through visual observation from the sidewalls. The
visually determined inception point locations are also indicated in
Fig. 13, namely Li ¼ 0.78 m, for Q ¼ 35 Ls−1, and Li ¼ 0.89 m,
for Q ¼ 42 Ls−1. For the largest flow rates, the inception point oc-
curred approximately at the downstream end of the chute, or did not
take place in the chute, respectively, for Q ¼ 49 and 56 Ls−1 .
The comparison between experimental and numerical flow
depths at the stepped chute centerline is also presented in Fig. 10.
In general, the numerical results were found to fit well to the
experimental data, with relative differences lower than 10%, and
an overall mean value of 6.3% (considering data for Q ¼ 35
and 42 Ls−1 ). Data points indicating larger differences than 10%
refer to two cross sections located in a reach with considerable
free surface oscillations, where the experimental data may be
inaccurate.
The relationship for the clear-water depth (d=di ) presented by
Meireles and Matos (2009) for L=Li < 1, as well as the relationship
(d=dc ) developed by Hunt et al. (2014) for a broad range of
step height to critical flow depth ratio and chute slopes, were ap-
plied herein to compute d=di or d=dc as a function of L=Li
(for 0.1 ≤ L=Li ≤ 1.0). The properties at the inception point (loca-
tion Li and flow depth di ) were then calculated from the relation-
ships developed in the respective studies to subsequently compute
the values of d and L, as plotted in Fig. 13.
In general, the numerical profiles were close to the results ob-
tained both from Meireles and Matos (2009) and Hunt et al. (2014)
for the identical chute slope. As expected, the flow depths mea-
sured at the flume sidewalls through visual observations were gen-
erally higher than those acquired at the flume centerline, as well as
those estimated from Meireles and Matos (2009), and Hunt et al.
(2014), or obtained from the SPH simulations.
The mean absolute percentage differences between the numeri-
cal flow depths and those estimated from the equation proposed by
Meireles and Matos (2009), for 0.1 ≤ LðmÞ ≤ 0.95, were 3.6%
(Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 ), 6.4% (Q ¼ 42 Ls−1 ), 3.5% (Q ¼ 49 Ls−1 ), and
7.1% (Q ¼ 56 Ls−1 ). It should be noted that the largest flow
rate was outside of the range of data used for developing such
an equation. In turn, the mean absolute percentage differences be-
tween the numerical flow depths and those calculated from the
J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Velocity profiles along the smooth spillway: (a) 35; (b) 42; (c) 49; and (d) 56 Ls−1 .

Fig. 12. Instantaneous velocity contour field on the smooth spillway for Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 and t ¼ 20 s.

Hunt et al. (2014) relationship, for identical chute slope, were
quite small: 1.6% (Q ¼ 35 Ls−1 ), 2.6% (Q ¼ 42 Ls−1 ), 1.8%
(Q ¼ 49 Ls−1 ), and 2.5% (Q ¼ 56 Ls−1 ).
A comparison of the normalized flow depths (d=dc ) along the
chute (L=Li ) is shown in Fig. 14, based on the experimental data
from André and Ramos (2003), measured at the flume centerline,
on the experimental clear-water flow depth obtained by Hunt et al.
(2014) for θ ¼ 18.4° and 1.67 ≤ dc =h ≤ 3.23, as well as the rela-
tionships proposed by Meireles and Matos (2009) and their em-
pirical relationship to compute di , and by Hunt et al. (2014), for
θ ¼ 26.6° and dc =h ¼ 2.87. The chute slope has a nonnegligible
effect on the normalized flow depths, as also shown in Hunt et al.
(2014). However, a larger data scatter can be observed in the down-
stream half of both chutes (L=Li > 0.6), due to increased free
surface waviness. For the identical chute slope (θ ¼ 26.6°), the
experimental data and the SPH results are in good agreement with
the values estimated from those equations, but for the initial reach,
and for few cross sections in the vicinity of the inception point lo-
cation, where the flow depth data may be inaccurate. In general, the
mean absolute percentage differences between the experimental

© ASCE 04020054-10 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Flow depths along the stepped spillway: (a) 35; (b) 42; (c) 49; and (d) 56 Ls−1 .

Fig. 14. Normalized flow depths along the stepped spillway. (Data of Hunt et al. 2014 obtained through digitalization.)

data and the relationship of Meireles and Matos (2009) or Hunt
et al. (2014), for the identical chute slope (θ ¼ 26.6°), were lower
than 5.6% (for 35 and 42 Ls−1 , and L=Li ≥ 0.1). The mean abso-
lute percentage differences between the numerical results and the
values predicted by the Meireles and Matos (2009) and Hunt et al.
(2014) relationships, for all tested flow rates, were limited to 6.8%
and 2.6% (L=Li ≥ 0.1), respectively.
Overall, the numerical flow depth results of the present study
compared well with those estimated from the formulas presented
by Meireles and Matos (2009) and by Hunt et al. (2014) for the
identical chute slope.
Velocity and Vorticity Fields along the Spillway Chute
Velocity profiles along the nonaerated flow region of the stepped
spillway for the flow rates of 35 and 42 Ls−1 are shown in Fig. 15
(for Q ¼ 49 and 56 Ls−1 ; experimental velocity data were not
available). Fig. 15 shows that the maximum numerical velocities
were close to the free-stream velocities for an ideal-fluid flow,
as one would expect in the developing flow region, upstream of the
inception point. The largest differences between the experimental
data and the SPH results were obtained for locations closer to the
upstream and downstream ends of the nonaerated flow reach, as
well as in the vicinity of the pseudo-bottom (y ≤ 0.01 m), similarly
as obtained on the smooth chute.
Considering the simulations for Q ¼ 35 and 42 Ls−1 , the mean
absolute percentage velocity differences varied from 0.7% to 6.2%
for 0.224 ≤ LðmÞ ≤ 0.671 and vertical positions y ≥ 0.010 m.
Larger values were obtained for L ≤ 0.112 m as a result of
higher numerical flow depths in this transitional region, and for
L ≥ 0.783 m, closer to the inception point location.

© ASCE 04020054-11 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Velocity profiles along the stepped spillway: (a) 35; and (b) 42 Ls−1 .

Fig. 16. Instantaneous velocity contour field on the stepped spillway for Q ¼ 56 Ls−1 and t ¼ 20 s.

The instantaneous velocity contour field is displayed in Fig. 16
for the flow rate of 56 Ls−1 (at model scale). The step cavities along
the chute were completely filled with fluid particles, with the ex-
ception of the first step. In the experimental tests, for such flow
conditions, all step cavities were completely filled by the recircu-
lating fluid. Moving voids were also observed as the flow evolved
with the simulation time. Voids were possibly created at locations
where the free surface instantaneously rose because of the unsteadi-
ness of the free surface, or as a result of local outflows from the step
cavities to the main stream.
The instantaneous velocity field and the horizontal and vertical
components of velocity (V x and V z ) at some steps are shown in
Figs. 17(a–c), for Q ¼ 56 Ls−1, where Lcav is the step cavity
length, in the chute direction [Fig. 1(a)]. The flow pattern inside the
step cavities suggests unstable vortices and a wake–wake interac-
tion in sequent steps, as described by Chanson (2002) and Ohtsu
et al. (2004), for similar chute slopes.
Spanwise vorticity fields (ω) for Q ¼ 56 Ls−1 are presented in
Fig. 17(d). As expected, the magnitude of the recirculation was
small in the skimming flow, whereas large vorticity values were ob-
tained in the shear layer that forms above the step tips, namely at the
impact region of the flow on the outer edge of the horizontal step
faces. For this flow rate (dc =h ¼ 3.47), the largest vorticities ex-
ceeded 300 s−1 , particularly near the outer step edges. These values
are of the same order of magnitude as those obtained experimentally
by Amador (2005) and Amador et al. (2006) using a particle image
velocimetry (PIV) technique to characterize the nonaerated flow re-
gion over a 51.3° (1V:0.8H) steeply sloping stepped spillway, for
dc =h ¼ 2.15, regardless of the dissimilar slope and normalized criti-
cal flow depth; they are also similar to those presented by Zhang
and Chanson (2018), using two local optical flow methods applied
to an ultrahigh-speed camera data to visualize and analyze the
flow patterns in aerated skimming flows for a 45° (1V:1H) slope,
with dc =h ¼ 0.9. The dominant vorticity reported in the study by
Amador et al. (2006) was 360 s−1 near the outer step edges, whereas
a vorticity between 80 and 100 s−1 was observed inside the cavities.
The numerical results of Toro et al. (2016) for two-dimensional sim-
ulations using OpenFOAM and two Reynolds stress models, for
similar conditions to those of Amador (2005), led to a representative
value of 300 s−1 for the vorticity peak, close to the outer step edges.
Conclusion
The SPH method was used for modeling the flow over spillways,
using the DualSPHysics software. The physical models to be
simulated consisted of smooth and stepped spillways with a broad
crested weir, and a slope of 2H:1V, typical of embankment dams.

© ASCE 04020054-12 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. Instantaneous contour fields on the stepped spillway for Q ¼ 56 Ls−1 and t ¼ 20 s: (a) velocity magnitude; (b) horizontal velocity
component V x ; (c) vertical velocity component V z ; and (d) spanwise vorticity.

The stepped geometry comprised twenty 2.5-cm-high steps. Using
continuous inflow fluid layers at the upstream end of the numeri-
cal domain allowed to increase the particle spacing resolution
compared to other studies, with reasonably limited simulation
time.
First, a convergence analysis was carried out for the lower
specific flow rate and for both smooth and stepped spillways. Five
values of initial particle spacing (dp, or particle size) were inves-
tigated (from 5 to 15 mm, at 10:1 prototype scale simulations). For
the stepped spillway, the ratio between the step height and particle
spacing (h=dp) varied from 17 to 50. The numerical flow depths
were found to vary with dp, and the resulting differences among
the flow depths were more significant in the stepped spillway. The
convergence analysis also revealed that the flow depth and velocity
profiles along the smooth spillway were almost independent of dp,
whereas those for the stepped spillway could vary considerably
with the adopted initial particle spacing.
In general, the flow depths along the smooth and stepped spill-
ways were well predicted by the numerical simulations. The largest
differences were observed in the initial short reach of the spillway
because of the flow separation under the water jet, in the transition
region from the broad crested weir to the spillway chute, which was
not observed in the experiments. Downstream of the initial reach,
the relative differences between numerical and experimental results
were fairly small in the studied nonaerated flow region.
The numerical velocity profiles along the smooth and stepped
spillways were also found to agree well with the experimental data,
except in the initial short reach and when approaching the point of
inception, as well as close to the pseudobottom. The numerical
free-stream velocities agreed quite well with those obtained from
the ideal-flow theory for maximum velocities, using the experimen-
tal flow depth data. SPH spanwise vorticity fields were comparable
to those obtained experimentally by other researchers.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available in a repository online in accordance with funder
data retention policies (www.dual.sphysics.org).
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings
of this study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request (experimental and numerical flow depths and
velocities).

© ASCE 04020054-13 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

 Acknowledgments δ = coefficient of the Delta-SPH function for the continuity
equation;
The authors acknowledge the support of the Portuguese Foundation θ = spillway slope;
for Science and Technology (FCT), through the RECI/ECM-HID/
ν = kinematic viscosity;
0371/2012 Project, and Prof. Rui Ferreira in particular, for provid-
ρ = density;
ing the computational server to run the simulations. Thanks also are
extended to Luís Palma Mendes for his assistance. The first author ρ0 = reference density;
acknowledges the scholarships from the Capes, CNPq and Erasmus ω = spanwise vorticity; and
Mundus-Smart2 Project. The third author acknowledges CNPq τ = stress tensor.
Project 307105/2015-6.
Subscript

Notation a = reference particle;

b = neighboring particle; and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The following symbols are used in this paper: ab = values between particle a and b.
c = speed of sound of a particle;
cs = numerical speed of sound;
d = flow depth; References
dc = critical flow depth;
Amador, A., M. Sánchez-Juny, and J. Dolz. 2006. “Characterization of the
di = flow depth at the inception point; nonaerated flow region in a stepped spillway by PIV.” J. Fluids Eng.-
dp = initial particle spacing or initial particle size; Trans. ASME 128 (6): 1266–1273. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2354529.
F = continuous function; Amador, A., M. Sánchez-Juny, and J. Dolz. 2009. “Developing flow region
F = Froude number; and pressure fluctuations on steeply sloping stepped spillways.” J. Hy-
g = gravity acceleration; draul. Eng. 135 (12): 1092–1100. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY
.1943-7900.0000118.
Hmax = upstream total head relative to the chute invert; Amador, A. T. 2005. “Comportamiento hidráulico de los aliviaderos esca-
H1 = upstream total head above the broad crested weir; lonados en presas de hormigón compactado.” [In Spanish.] Ph.D. thesis,
h = step height; Dept. de Ingeniería Hidráulica, Marítima y Ambiental, Universitat
hk = kernel function length; Politècnica de Catalunya.
L = longitudinal position in the chute direction, originating at André, M., and P. Ramos. 2003. Hidráulica de descarregadores de cheia
the downstream end of the broad crested weir;pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi em degraus: Aplicação a descarregadores com paredes convergentes.
[In Portuguese.] Graduate Research Rep. Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto
Lcav = step cavity length in the chute direction: Lcav ¼ l2 þ h2 ; Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa.
Lcrest = length of the broad crested weir; André, S. 2004. “High velocity aerated flows on stepped chutes with
Li = longitudinal position of the inception point, originating at macro-roughness elements.” Ph.D. thesis, École Polytechnique
the downstream end of the broad crested weir; Fédérale de Lausanne.
l = horizontal step length; Boes, R. M., and W. H. Hager. 2003. “Two-phase flow characteristics of
stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 129 (9): 661–670. https://doi.org
m = particle mass;
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2003)129:9(661).
N fluid = number of fluid particles; Bombardelli, F. A., I. Meireles, and J. Matos. 2011. “Laboratory measure-
p = pressure; ments and multi-block numerical simulations of the mean flow and tur-
Q = flow rate; bulence in the non-aerated skimming flow region of steep stepped
q = unit flow rate; spillways.” Environ. Fluid Mech. 11 (3): 263–288. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10652-010-9188-6.
qr = normalized particle spacing in relation to the kernel
Bung, D. B. 2011. “Developing flow in skimming flow regime on embank-
function length: qr ¼ r=hk ; ment stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Res. 49 (5): 639–648. https://doi
R = Reynolds number; .org/10.1080/00221686.2011.584372.
r = position vector; Cabrita, J. 2007. “Caracterização do escoamento deslizante sobre turbil-
t = time; hões em descarregadores de cheias em degraus com paredes conver-
U = mean flow velocity; gentes.” [In Portuguese.] M.Sc. thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico,
Universidade de Lisboa.
u = velocity vector; Chamani, M. R., and N. Rajaratnam. 1999. “Characteristics of skimming
V = flow velocity; pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi flow over stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 125 (4): 361–368.
V max = free-stream velocity: V max ¼ 2gðHmax − d · cos θÞ; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1999)125:4(361).
V x = horizontal velocity component; Chanson, H. 2002. The hydraulics of stepped chutes and spillways. Lisse,
V z = vertical velocity component; Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Chanson, H., D. B. Bung, and J. Matos. 2015. “Stepped spillways and
W = smoothing kernel function;
cascades.” In Energy dissipation in hydraulic structures, IAHR Mono-
x = horizontal coordinate originating at the upstream end of graph, edited by H. Chanson, 45–64. Leiden, Netherlands: CRC Press,
the broad crested weir; Taylor & Francis Group.
y = transverse coordinate originating at the bottom or the Chanson, H., and L. Toombes. 2002a. “Air-water flows down stepped
pseudo-bottom; chutes: Turbulence and flow structure observations.” Int. J. Multiphase
z = vertical coordinate; Flow 28 (11): 1737–1761. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9322(02)
00089-7.
αD = coefficient of the Wendland kernel function:
Chanson, H., and L. Toombes. 2002b. “Energy dissipation and air entrain-
αD ¼ 7=4π · h2k in 2D, αD ¼ 21=16π · h3k in 3D; ment in stepped storm waterway: Experimental study.” J. Irrig. Drain.
Γ = dissipative terms of the momentum equation; Eng. 128 (5): 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437
γ = exponent of the equation of state; (2002)128:5(305).

© ASCE 04020054-14 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054

 Chen, Q., G. Dai, and H. Liu. 2002. “Volume of fluid model for turbulence
numerical simulation of stepped spillway overflow.” J. Hydraul. Eng.
128 (7): 683–688. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)
128:7(683).
Chinnarasri, C., D. Kositgittiwong, and P. Y. Julien. 2014. “Model of flow
over spillways by computational fluid dynamics.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-
Water Manage. 167 (3): 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.12
.00034.
Crespo, A. J. C., J. M. Domínguez, B. D. Rogers, M. Gómez-Gesteira, S.
Longshaw, R. Canelas, R. Vacondio, A. Barreiro, and O. García-Feal.
2015. “DualSPHysics: Open-source parallel CFD solver based on
Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH).” Comput. Phys. Commun.
187 (Feb): 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.10.004.
Essery, I. T. S., and M. W. Horner. 1978. The hydraulic design of stepped
spillways. Rep. No. 33. London: Construction Industry Research and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Information Association.
Felder, S., and H. Chanson. 2008. Turbulence and turbulent length and
time scales in skimming flows on a stepped spillway. Dynamics simi-
larity, physical modelling and scale effects: Hydraulic model report
CH series. Rep. No. CH64/07. Brisbane, Australia: Div. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Queensland.
Felder, S., and H. Chanson. 2012. “Free-surface profiles, velocity and pres-
sure distributions on a broad-crested weir: A physical study.” J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 138 (12): 1068–1074. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR
.1943-4774.0000515.
Felder, S., and H. Chanson. 2013. “Aeration, flow instabilities, and residual
energy on pooled stepped spillways of embankment dams.” J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 139 (10): 880–887. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR
.1943-4774.0000627.
Frizell, K. H. 1992. “Hydraulics of stepped spillways for RCC dams and
dam rehabilitations.” In Proc., 3rd Specialty Conf. on Roller Compacted
Concrete, 423–439. New York: ASCE.
Frizell, K. W., and K. H. Frizell. 2015. Guidelines for hydraulic design
of stepped spillways. Hydraulic Laboratory Rep. No. HL-2015-06.
Denver: Bureau of Reclamation.
Gonzalez, C., and H. Chanson. 2007. “Hydraulic design of stepped
spillways and downstream energy dissipators for embankment dams.”
Dam Eng. 17 (4): 223–244.
González-Cao, J., O. García-Feal, J. M. Domínguez, A. J. C. Crespo, and
M. Gómez-Gesteira. 2018. “Analysis of the hydrological safety of dams
combining two numerical tools: Iber and DualSPHysics.” J. Hydrodyn.
30 (1): 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42241-018-0009-6.
González-Cao, J., O. García-Feal, J. M. Domínguez, A. J. C. Crespo, and
M. Gómez-Gesteira. 2019. “Numerical analysis of ski jumps using
DualSPHysics.” In Proc., 14th Int. SPHERIC Workshop, 308–312.
Exeter, England: Univ. of Exeter.
Gotoh, H., S. Shao, and T. Memita. 2004. “SPH-LES model for
numerical investigation of wave interaction with partially immersed
breakwater.” Coastal Eng. J. 46 (1): 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1142
/S0578563404000872.
Gu, S., L. Ren, X. Wang, H. Xie, Y. Huang, J. Wei, and S. Shao. 2017.
“SPHysics simulation of experimental spillway hydraulics.” Water
9 (12): 973. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9120973.
Hunt, S. L., and K. C. Kadavy. 2010. “Energy dissipation on flat-sloped
stepped spillways: Part 1. Upstream of the inception point.” Trans.
ASABE 53 (1): 103–109. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.29506.
Hunt, S. L., and K. C. Kadavy. 2011. “Inception point relationship for flat-
sloped stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 137 (2): 262–266. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000297.
Hunt, S. L., K. C. Kadavy, and G. J. Hanson. 2014. “Simplistic design
methods for moderate-sloped stepped chutes.” J. Hydraul. Eng.
140 (12): 04014062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0000938.
Hunt, S. L., D. Reep, and K. C. Kadavy. 2008. “RCC stepped spillways for
Renwick Dam—A partnership in research and design.” Dam Saf. J.
6 (2): 32–40.
Husain, S. M., J. R. Muhammed, H. U. Karunarathna, and D. E. Reeve.
2014. “Investigation of pressure variations over stepped spillways using
smooth particle hydrodynamics.” Adv. Water Resour. 66 (Apr): 52–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.11.013.
© ASCE 04020054-15
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054
Liu, G. R., and M. B. Liu. 2003. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: A
meshfree particle method. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Liu, M. B., and G. R. Liu. 2010. “Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH):
An overview and recent developments.” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng.
17 (1): 25–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-010-9040-7.
Lopes, P., J. Leandro, R. F. Carvalho, and D. B. Bung. 2017. “Alternating
skimming flow over a stepped spillway.” Environ. Fluid Mech. 17 (2):
303–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-016-9484-x.
López, D., M. de Blas, R. Marivela, J. J. Rebollo, R. Díaz, M. Sánchez-
Juny, and S. Strella. 2011. “Estudio hidrodinámico de vertederos y
rápidas escalonadas con modelo numérico tridimensional SPH:
Proyecto ALIVESCA.” [In Spanish.] In Proc., II Jornadas de Ingen-
iería del Agua: Modelos Numéricos en Dinámica Fluvial, 1–10.
Barcelona: FLUMEN.
Lúcio, I. 2015. “Modelação numérica do escoamento deslizante sobre tur-
bilhões em descarregadores de cheias em degraus: Aplicação a peque-
nas barragens de aterro.” [In Portuguese.] M.Sc. thesis, Instituto
Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa.
Matos, J. 1999. “Emulsionamento de ar e dissipação de energia do
escoamento em descarregadores em degraus.” [In Portuguese.] Ph.D.
thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa.
Matos, J. 2000. “Hydraulic design of stepped spillways over RCC dams.”
In Proc., 1st Int. Workshop on Hydraulics of Stepped Spillways, edited
by H.-E. Minor and W. H. Hager, 187–194. Rotterdam, Netherlands:
A.A. Balkema.
Matos, J. 2001. “Discussion of ‘Onset of skimming flow on stepped spill-
ways’ by M. R. Chamani and N. Rajaratnam.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (6):
519–525. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:6(519).
Matos, J., and I. Meireles. 2014. “Hydraulics of stepped weirs and dam
spillways: Engineering challenges, labyrinths of research.” In Proc.,
5th IAHR Int. Symp. on Hydraulic Structures, edited by H. Chanson and
L. Toombes, 1–30. Brisbane: Univ. of Queensland.
McDonald, J. E., and N. F. Curtis. 1997. Applications of roller-compacted
concrete in rehabilitation and replacement of hydraulic structures.
Rep. No. REMR-CS-53. Washington, DC: USACE.
McLean, F. G., and K. D. Hansen. 1993. “Roller compacted concrete for
embankment overtopping protection.” In Proc., Specialty Conf., Geo-
technical Practice in Dam Rehabilitation. New York: ASCE.
Meireles, I., F. A. Bombardelli, and J. Matos. 2014. “Air entrainment onset
in skimming flows on steep stepped spillways: An analysis.” J. Hy-
draul. Res. 52 (3): 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2013
.878401.
Meireles, I., and J. Matos. 2009. “Skimming flow in the nonaerated region
of stepped spillways over embankment dams.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 135 (8):
685–689. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000047.
Meireles, I., F. Renna, J. Matos, and F. Bombardelli. 2012. “Skimming,
nonaerated flow on stepped spillways over roller compacted concrete
dams.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 138 (10): 870–877. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000591.
Molteni, D., and A. Colagrossi. 2009. “A simple procedure to improve the
pressure evaluation in hydrodynamic context using the SPH.” Comput.
Phys. Commun. 180 (6): 861–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2008
.12.004.
Monaghan, J. J. 1994. “Simulating free surface flows with SPH.” J. Com-
put. Phys. 110 (2): 399–406. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1994.1034.
Moreira, A., A. Leroy, D. Violeau, and F. Taveira-Pinto. 2019. “Dam spill-
ways and the SPH method: Two case studies in Portugal.” J. Appl.
Water Eng. Res. 7 (3): 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676
.2019.1611496.
Moreira, A. B., A. Leroy, D. Violeau, and F. A. Taveira-Pinto. 2020. “Over-
view of large-scale smoothed particle hydrodynamics modeling of dam
hydraulics.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 146 (2): 03119001. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001658.
Ohtsu, I., Y. Yasuda, and M. Takahashi. 2004. “Flow characteristics
of skimming flows in stepped channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 130 (9):
860–869. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130:9(860).
Rebollo, J. J., M. de Blas, D. López, R. Díaz, and R. Marivela. 2010.
“Hydrodynamic verification with SPH of under gate flow in the Alarcón
spillway (Spain).” In Proc., 1st European IAHR Congress, 1–9.
Edinburgh, UK: School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt Univ.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Rice, C. E., and K. C. Kadavy. 1996. “Model study of a roller compacted
concrete stepped spillway.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 122 (6): 292–297. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1996)122:6(292).
Saunders, K., M. Prakash, P. W. Cleary, and M. Cordell. 2014. “Application
of smoothed particle hydrodynamics for modelling gated spillway
flows.” Appl. Math. Modell. 38 (17-18): 4308–4322. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.apm.2014.05.008.
Sorensen, R. M. 1985. “Stepped spillway hydraulic model investigation.”
J. Hydraul. Eng. 111 (12): 1461–1472. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(1985)111:12(1461).
Tafuni, A., J. M. Domínguez, R. Vacondio, and A. J. C. Crespo. 2018. “A
versatile algorithm for the treatment of open boundary conditions in
smoothed particle hydrodynamics GPU models.” Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 342 (Dec): 604–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma
.2018.08.004.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/26/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Takahashi, M., and I. Ohtsu. 2012. “Aerated flow characteristics of skim-
ming flow over stepped chutes.” J. Hydraul. Res. 50 (4): 427–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2012.702859.
Toro, J. P., F. A. Bombardelli, and J. Paik. 2017. “Detached eddy simulation
of the nonaerated skimming flow over a stepped spillway.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 143 (9): 04017032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0001322.
Toro, J. P., F. A. Bombardelli, J. Paik, I. Meireles, and A. Amador.
2016. “Characterization of turbulence statistics on the non-aerated
skimming flow over stepped spillways: A numerical study.” Environ.
© ASCE 04020054-16
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(8): 04020054
Fluid Mech. 16 (6): 1195–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-016
-9472-1.
Violeau, D., and B. D. Rogers. 2016. “Smoothed particle hydrodynamics
(SPH) for free-surface flows: Past, present and future.” J. Hydraul. Res.
54 (1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2015.1119209.
Wan, H., R. Li, C. Gualtieri, H. Yang, and J. Feng. 2017a. “Numerical
simulation of hydrodynamics and reaeration over a stepped spillway
by the SPH method.” Water 9 (8): 565. https://doi.org/10.3390
/w9080565.
Wan, H., R. Li, X. Pu, H. Zhang, and J. Feng. 2017b. “Numerical simu-
lation for the air entrainment of aerated flow with an improved multi-
phase SPH model.” Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 31 (10): 435–449.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10618562.2017.1420175.
Ward, J. 2002. “Hydraulic design of stepped spillways.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Colorado State Univ.
Wendland, H. 1995. “Piecewise polynomial, positive definite and com-
pactly supported radial functions of minimal degree.” Adv. Comput.
Math. 4 (1): 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02123482.
Zhang, G., and H. Chanson. 2016. “Hydraulics of the developing flow re-
gion of stepped spillways. II: Pressure and velocity fields.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 142 (7): 04016016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0001136.
Zhang, G., and H. Chanson. 2018. “Application of local optical flow
methods to high-velocity free-surface flows: Validation and application
to stepped chutes.” Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 90 (Jan): 186–199. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2017.09.010.
J. Hydraul. Eng.