Proc. Instn Ciu.

Engrs, Part 1, 1982,72, May, 205-219

8552 Thechoice of hydraulicenergydissipator

for dam outlet works based on a
survey of prototype usage

P. J. MASON, BSc, MICE*

A wide range of hydraulic energy dissipators has been developed for use on large capacity
outlet works. However, the limits on their use are sometimes vaguely defined, if at all, and
may be based on model tests which cannot reflect all the factors affecting the prototype.
Often the choice of dissipator is based largely on the personal preference of the designer,
depending on his own particular experience. The Paper presents a survey of 370 prototype
dissipators from dams in 61 countries. This attempts to broadly establish the ranges of head
and flow over which the various main types of dissipator are most commonly used and also
the ranges where problems are most likely to occur or special measures be needed.

Introduction
The dissipation of surplus hydraulic energy fromthe spillways and outlet works on
large dams is one of the mostinteresting fieldsfor the hydraulicengineer and often
one of the most spectacular for the layman. In the days of masonry construction,
stepped or ‘cascade’ spillway chutes were common. Energy was dissipated evenly
alongthechutebutthe resultinglowflowvelocity meanta relatively large
cross-sectional chute area. To minimize the costs of conveyancing works on large
outfalls it is normal practice nowadays to maintain high velocities on spillway
chutes and to concentrate energy dissipation at the tailwater. A wide range of
techniques and structures have been developed towards this end. For convenience
the main ones are categorized by the Authoras rock basins, simplehydraulicjump
basins, baffle basinsand free trajectory jets.
2. Rock basins are defined here as basins where dissipation takes place over
unprotected rock but without the use of a free trajectory jet. They include such
casesaswhereflowover the downstream face of a gravityblock is deflected
directly into the tailwater over an unprotected river bed. Where tailwater depths
are adequate, this may be accomplished by means of a submerged roller bucket.
They have also been assumed to include cases where weirs simply dischargeon to
unlined chutes.
3. Simple hydraulic jump basins are concrete structures, usually rectangular,
proportioned to ensure a classic hydraulic jump butwithout any appurtenances to
obstruct theflow or increase turbulence.
4. Bame basins are concrete basins
where
baffle
blocks or similar
appurtenances are positioned in the upstream partof the basin to separate theflow
and increase the degree of turbulence. This may be to ensure that a jump occurs

Written discussion closes 15 July 1982 for publication in Proceedings, Part 1.

* Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners.
209
Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 MASON
where required, or to shorten the jump, and hence the basin length, in order to
reduce costs.
5 . Free trajectory jets include all cases where the flow travels in a free jet
through the air before strikingthe tailwater and dissipating energy. The
terminology used in such cases varies from country to country;for the purposes of
this study theterms used are simple overfall, ski jump and flip bucket.
6. Simple overfalls are most common on arch dams where discharge from the
overflowing crest, or through the upper part of the dam, falls to a basin at the
downstream toe. In such cases, aprons are often provided to protect the dam
foundations. Downstream weirs may also be built such as at Vouglans dam in
France,' to locally increase the depth of tailwater, and/or splitters may be used at
the crest, such as at Hendrik Verwood dam in South Africa' to split the jet and
reduce impact pressures.
7. Ski jumps aredefined here as occurring when a jetissues from the lower part
of the main body of a dam. This may be directly from a pressure gate, such as at
Cabora Bassa dam in Mozambique,' or via a chute on the downstream face such
as at Picote dam in Portuga1.j In both cases the flow is projected some distance
from themain body of the damin order to eliminate the need for an apronor other
protection works.
8. Flip buckets are defined here as structures situated at the end of spillway
chutes away from the main body of the dam. They are most widelyused in
conjunction with earth and rockfill dams where discharge directly through, or
over, the dam is not possible.
9. The widespread adoption of free trajectory jet dissipators is generally agreed
to have followed the development of ski-jump spillways on the Mareges, L'Aigle
and St Etienne-Cantales dams in France in the 1930s and 1 9 4 0 ~ . Bame ~ - ~ basin
usage was almost certainly encouraged by the development of standardized basin
designs in the USA in the 1 9 5 0 ~ . ' - ' ~In order to reflect modern practice, therefore,
the survey concentrated on dams built during thelast 30 years.
10. The type of dissipator chosen for a particular application will depend on
several factors, including hydraulic considerations, economic comparisons with
other dissipators, and the personal preferences of the designer." Associated
factors may include the topography and geology of the dam site, the type of dam,
the layout of other associated works, ease of maintenance and the risks associated
with damage or failure.
11. Another important consideration may be whether usage is likely to be
frequent or infrequent. For example, the spillway for the Oahe dam on the River
Missouri in the USA was formed as an unlined channel in highly erodible shale.
The spillway is remote from thedam and, owing to the system of reservoir
operation, is not considered likely to pass even small flood flows more than once in
150 years. It was feltthat the probability of serious damage affecting the main dam
was small enough to preclude the needfor more costly permanent works in
concrete.
12. Guidelines vary for the ranges of head and flow over which the various
types of dissipator canbe used and in some cases are notgiven at all. Model testing
is not always completely thorough nor may it be able to reflect all the factors
affecting the prototype, such as silt load, floating debris, degree of aeration and
geological conditions at the site. That the design of prototype hydraulic energy
dissipators is not the exact science that design charts sometimes suggest is con-
firmed by the problems that continue to be reported with all types of dissipator.
21 0
Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 HYDRAULIC ENERGY D I S S I P A T O R S F O R D A M O U T L E T S
The survey
13. To better appreciate the advisable ranges ofuse for the various types of
dissipator the Author carried out a literature survey of prototypes. The survey had
a twofold purpose: firstly to reveal the predominant values of head and flow for
which designers in recent years had selected the different dissipators, and secondly
to establish areas in which significant problems had occurred. Only those cases
involving extensive repairs, or even a change in the type of dissipator used, have
been included in this second category. Where repairs have been minor, and could
be regarded more asmaintenance, they have not been included.
14. Various sources were consulted in the course of the work but selection was
limited to those cases where photographs, diagrams or descriptions in the text
adequately showed the type of dissipator used. The survey included 370 dissipators
from dams in 61 countries. For the reasons stated in $9 all the undamaged cases
wereselected from dams constructed in the last 30 years,with a significant
majority coming from dams built in the last 20 years.
15. Of the cases involving damage, the majority also came from dams built in
the last 30 years though older dams have been included. Older dams will have
passed a greater number of floods and aremore likely to have passed flows near to
their design flood, and are thus morelikely to have had anydesign or construction
weaknesses revealed.
16. The likelihood of damage will also be increased by regular exposure to
prolonged flows. The spillways and stilling basins on Tarbela dam in Pakistan are
good examples. Each year the former are required to pass major floods due to
Himalayan snowmelt and the latter to pass irrigation flows throughout the dry
winter month^.'^.'^
17. Damage also occurred at the Alder dam in the USA when delays in the
authorization for power station construction resulted in much greater spillway
operation than had otherwise been en~isaged.'~
18. It should be appreciated in considering the results of the survey that not all
inadequacies will have beenrevealed. Those cases shown as damaged were so
included because the problems had been documented. Where dissipators are not
shown as damaged it may be that damage remains undetected or that details of
any repair works have not been made widely available. Failures often go
unreported for a variety of reasons: in underdeveloped countries, and/or in remote
areas, regular inspection may not be possible; damage may be permanently under
water and only be revealed by divers or if dewatering is undertaken; the dissipator
in question may not have been in service long enough to pass a significant flood
(e.g., a 20 year old dam is unlikely to have been called upon to pass, say, a 1 in 500
year design flood); and designers are unlikely to report their failures with the same
enthusiasm as they publish their successes.

Results
19. Results are plotted in terms of the total head drop from reservoir level to
tailwater level (H) and the total discharge capacity (Q) of each dissipator. In cases
of damage the head and flow pertaining at the time of failure are plotted, where
such information is available.

Rock basins
20. Figure l(a) shows that the predominant use of rock basins isfor head
differences below 30 m, and that cases of damage represent a high proportion of
21 1

Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 MASON
15
10
5
0

10-
5-

0 20 40 8060 120 100 140 160 180

Head drop (H) from reservoir level to tailwater level: m

-Damage requiring significant remedial

work
(0
Fig. 1. Frequency of dissipator use and incidence of damage plotted against head drop:
(a) rock basins; (b) simple hydraulic jump basins; (c) baffle basins; (d) simple
overfalls; (e) ski jumps; (f) flip buckets

the totalfor head differences above 40 m. All the failures for head differences below
20 m were associated with weak rocks such as shales, mark, sandstones and soft
limestones. Between 20 m and 50 m geological details were available for only one
dam, the Tenkiller Ferry dam in the USA.” Here too the problems were with
weak shales and sandstones and the dissipator was eventually changed to a ski
jump.
21. The case of failure shown in Fig. l(a) in the 9&100 m range of head drop
was that of the roller bucket on the San Esteban dam in Spain,16 during a 3600
m3/s flood in 1955. The shortsubmerged bucket produced such intense turbulence
that rocks from the bank and river bed became entrained in the flow and effectively
21 2

Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 H Y D R A U L I C E N E R G Y DISSIPATORS F O R D A M OUTLETS

8ooo~
0 1

t
1 l 1
v) 7000 l l I
I I
E O I
L
. I l
- I l
6000 I I 0 l
a
.-
U)
I. I X
I 0 Simplehydraulic
2
v)
.-
5000- -0" I
* I
I
,
I
jump
basins

l
I
I I Baffle basins
z l I
.E 4000 - . l
ma 0 ; l
I l X Damaged baffle

. .. .
V basins
g 3000- 0
2
.c
I I
V

2 2000 - 0 1
I
l
l

I I.

Fig. 2. Head drop for simple basins andbaffle basins

demolished the bucket. A great number of stones totally rounded by erosion are
recorded as having been found in the remains and the bucket reinforcement is
described as having been sharpened like knives. The basin was subsequently
remodelled and rebuilt in a considerably lengthened form. The highest head failure
in Fig. l(a) was almost a carbon copy of the San Esteban failure and occurred
between the years 1954 and 1970 on the Ust'-Kamenogorsk dam in Russia."
22. No general design guidance is proposed here for rock basins as their use is
obviously heavily dependent on the local geology at each particular site.

Simple hydraulic jump basins

23. To guard against the dangers of unforeseen erosion which might occur in
unlined rock, the logical progression is to provide such a lining in concrete. This is
the standard hydraulic jump stilling basin. Fig. l(b) shows a surprisingly marked
change at a 50 m head difference between basins with and without problems. The
sort of problems that can occur range from surface damage due to abrasion from
trapped debris and/or cavitation to spectacular lifting and removal of whole apron
slabs. Libby and Dworshak dams in the USA" are good recent examples of the
former, while Netzahalcoyotle in Mexico" and Tarbela in PakistanI3 are good
examples of the latter. The Author is not claiming that construction of basins for
head differences greater than 50 m is impossiblethe basins mentioned above
have been repaired and are now working acceptably as far as he is awar-nly
21 3
Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 MASON

that considerable care is needed with design and construction, possibly requiring
the use of special techniques and materials. For example, the repaired Tarbela
stilling basin No. 3 features fibrous concrete, air troughs, an extensive network of
plain and prestressed anchors and a dual system of underdrainage, part of which
drains into a specially driven tunnel.
24. In fact Fig. 2 suggests that the recommended range of use for simple basins
on large outlet works is further restricted to head differences of CL10 m and
3&50 m. The reasons for this are discussed in 534.

Baffle basins
25. The prime purpose of baffles in a hydraulic jump basin is to intensify the
jump so that the basin can be shortened to reduce costs. Various standard basins
of this type have been developed such as the USBR types 11,111and IV and SAF
basins in thethe Gunko, Lyapin and Kumin basins in Russia,” the
Bhavani basin in India,*’ and a whole host of variations specifically developed for
particular dams.
26. Baffle basins, however, are susceptible to all the problems of simple basins,
while the baffles themselves are proneto damage both from transported debrisand
from cavitation due to high local turbulence. Examples of failure are numerous
and in many cases severe. Pit No. 6 and Pit No. 7 dams in California” are good
examples in the 4CL50 m and 60-70 m ranges respectively. Widespread damage
occurred to what were essentially modified SAF basins during the first 5 years of
operation between 1965 and 1970. Most floor (baffle) blocks were almost
completely destroyed and deposited downstream of the spillway. The remaining
blocks suffered so badly from cavitation andfor abrasion as to be beyond repair,
while steel facing plates were torn off the chuteblocks. The comment in one report
of the damage” that the energy dissipators were simply too efficient for the
materials from which they were constructed is a lesson that every hydraulic design
engineer should reflect upon.
27. The reconstructed baffles incorporated 50 mm thick weldedsteel plate
armouring andblocks prestressed into the bedrock. Even so it wasanticipated that
periodic.maintenance would continue to be required.
28. As recently as 1981 the spillway baffle blocks on the newly opened Salto
Grande dam, between Argentina and Uruguay, were removed by blasting after
early inspections had revealed extensive erosion damage.
29. Attempts have been made in the past to reduce turbulence by streamlining
baffles, but this is to some extent counter-productive. The less turbulence created
by the baffles, the less effectivethey will be in dissipating energy and the longer the
basin requirement becomes. Increasing the submergence of the bames by raising
tailwater depths will also reduce tendencies towardscavitation; however, the
baffles then affect a smaller proportion of the flow and again lose much of their
effecti~eness.’~
30. On USBR type I11 stilling basins, where impact blocks are positioned on
the upstream part of the apron, recommendations for the maximum allowable
incoming velocity vary from 12 m/s to 18 m/s.8*10*11 This represents an even
greater range of associated head drop if energy head is assumed to be proportional
to the squareof velocity. The recommended maximum permissible head drops for
the Russian baffle basins mentioned in $25 vary from 19 m to 40 m,2o while that
for the Bhavani basin is 33 m,”
31. The USBR type I1 basin does not have impact blocks on the floor of the
21 4
Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 HYDRAULICENERGYDISSIPATORS FOR DAM OUTLETS
basin but rather splitter blocks to separate the flow at the toe of the incoming
chute. Head drops of up to about 60 m have been recommended for this type of
basin.' However, tests by Suryavanshi et al. suggest a maximum head drop of only
22 m if cavitation is to be avoided. These findings were based on measured
pressure fluctuations at the blocks equal to f40% of the incoming velocity head.23
These pressure fluctuations confirmed the results of earlier studies by Bowers and
T~ai.'~
32. The results of the survey are shown in Fig. l(c), which indicates a marked
drop in the successful usage of baffle basins after a head drop of 40 m is reached.
The use of baffles for head drops below 10 m is also rare. For large flows and
economically sized basins, a head drop of 10 m would yield a very weak hydraulic
jump with a low Froude number. Baffles would not generate sufficient turbulence
to affect this sort of flow, which generally dissipates most of its energy by means of
surface waves and rollers downstream of the jump.
33. A more complete picture is given by Fig. 2. For moderately sized basins
with a discharge capacity up to, say, 500 m3/s there is a fairly even mixture of
basins with and without batlles. Most of those baffle basins where the head drop is
either &l0 m or 30-40 m are in this range, where presumably unit discharges can
be kept low at a fairly modest cost.
34. In the case of larger basins, say flows greater than 500 m3/s, where choice
and dimensions of basin are more likely to reflect economic as well as hydraulic
considerations," three clear zones appear. For head drop 0-10 m, there is
exclusive use of basins without baffles, as for an economically sized basin the jump
would be too weak to be significantly affected by them. For head drop 10-30 m,
basins are exclusively baffle basins, as flow velocities will not be too excessive and
significant economies can be effected by their use; basins with extensive impact
baffles, such as the USBR type 111 and SAF basins, should probably be used only
at the lower end of this range. For head drop 3&50 m there is a mixture of basins
with and without baffles, but whereas no problems are recorded for the simple
basins in this range, most of the baffle basins do have recorded damage.

Free trajectory jet dissipators

35. Parts (dHf)of Fig. 1 show that simple overfalls, ski jumps andflip buckets
can all be used for heads of 10-180 m. In fact the survey included several operating
at heads above 200 m. Few problems have occurred and, apart from the severe
cavitation erosion of the bucket lip at Guri dam in Venez~ela,2~ most are related
to unacceptable scour in the downstream plunge pool, such as at Nacimiento dam
in the USA,26Ricobayo dam in Spain" and Tarbela damin Pakistan."
36. There seems no hydraulic reason why any flow at any head difference
could not have its energy dissipated in this way. However, Fig. 3 shows a clear
range offlow against head where all three dissipators tend not to beusedin
practice. This is to the left of a straight line defined by the points H = 8 m, Q = 0,
and H = 48 m, Q = loo00 m3/s. The graph stops at 1OOOO m3/s as this includes
the overwhelming majority of cases and applications, though the survey also
revealed a flip bucket and a ski jump at 13 OOO m3/s and 14 OOO m3/s respectively,
to the left of the dividing line.
37. It can only be presumed that where large flows are accompanied by low
heads it is generally uneconomic, or topographically impossible, to spread the flow
sufficiently to obtain an acceptable free jet and the dividing line on Fig. 3 is a
reflection of this.
21 5

Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 MASON
v Simple overfalls
m Ski jumps
o Flip buckets
l

X
U
Q
0
U
m
P : m
0 0
S
a
m
I
140
Head drop ( H ) from reservoir level to tallwater level: m

Fig. 3. The use of free trajectory jet dissipators in terms of discharge capacity and head
drop

mSimple hydraulic jump basins

BBafflebasins
1

X
V
a
V

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Head drop ( H ) from reservoir
level to tailwater level: m

Fig. 4. Preferred ranges of use for

the main types of dissipator
21 6

Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 H Y D R A U L I C E N E R G Y D I S S I P A T O R S F O R D A M OUTLETS

Conclusions
38. Most unprotected rock basins are usedwhen the head drop between
upstream and downstream water levelsisless than 30 m, while basins with
problems represent a major proportion of the total where head differences are
above 40 m. Where geological details were available for basins with a head drop
below 40 m, all failures were associated with weak rocks such as shales, mark,
sandstones and weak limestones.
39. Problems have been recorded with hard rocks and large head differences
when pebbles and boulders entrained in the turbulent flow caused serious damage
to the dissipators.
40. Simple hydraulic jump stilling basins in concrete are most usually used
when the head drop is CL10 m or above 30 m. For head drops above 50 m,
however, the proportion of basins with problems is veryhigh.
41. The head drop range 1&30 m is the most commonly used problem-free
range for baffle basins, particularly where the basin capacity is greater than 500
m3/s. However, the type of baffles needs to be considered carefully, with the use of
extensive impact blocks, such as occur on USBR type I11 and SAF basins,
probably limited to the lower end of this range.
42. Free trajectory jet dissipators are relatively problem-free for almost any
head drop, but there seems to be a practical range where they tend not to occur.
That is to the left of a line defined by the points H = 8 m, Q = 0 and H = 48 m,
Q = loo00 m3/s (Fig. 3).
43. Apart from rock basins, where design must be heavily dependent on the
local geology at each site, the above results can be summarized graphically as
shown in Fig. 4. The graphreveals an intriguing triangular areaabove H = 50 and
Q = 10500, which is outside the recommended zones. The choice here between
whether to adopt a simple concrete basin, with careful detailing and construction
to guard against damage, or alternatively a free trajectory jet, would have to
depend on the particular case andon the experience and judgement of the
designer.

Acknowledgements
44. The survey was carried out during research studies at The City University
and the Author would like to thank Professor P. 0. Wolf and Dr Arumugam for
their help and guidance.

References
1. AUBERTet al. Les ouvrages d'tvacuation dtfinitifs des barrages. Trans. 11th I n t . Congr.
Lnrge Dams, 1973, Q41, R35,64=70.
2. PAWLITZKI U. Die Entlastungsanlage der Sambesi-Talsperre CaboraBassa.
Wasserwirtschaji, 1980,10, Mar. 94-91.
3. CUHNA L. V.and LENCASTRE A. C. La dissipation de I'inergied a m un kvacuateur en saut
de ski, observation del'irosion. Laboratori National deEngenharia Civil, Lisbon, 1966,
memoria 288.
4. COYNE A. Observations sur les deversoirs en saut de ski. Trans. 4th Int. Congr. Large
Dams, 1951,412, R89,131-156.
5. ELEVATORSKI E. A. Hydraulicenergydissipators. McGrawHill, New York, 1959,
155-163.
6. RAJANB. M. and SHIVASHANKARA RAO K. N. Design of trajectory buckets.Irrig. Pwr J . ,
1980,31, Jan., 63-76.
21 7

Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 MASON

7. BRADLEY H. N. and PETERKA A. J. The hydraulic design of stilling basins, J . Hydraul.

Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs,1957,83, Oct., HY5, Papers 1401 to 1406.
8. CHOW V. T. Open channel hydraulics. McGraw Hill KogakashaLtd,Tokyo, 1959,
414-422.
9. ELEVATORSKI E. A. Hydraulicenergydissipators. McGraw Hill, New York, 1959,
107-127.
10. UNITEDSTATFS BUREAUOF RECLAMATION. Design of small dams. US Government
Printing Office, Washington, 1973,2nd edn, 393-403.
11. BERRWILL R. H. et al. Energy dissipators for spillways and outlet works. J . Hydraul.
Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs, 1964,90, Jan., HYl, 121-147.
12. Tarbela spillway pool erosion prompts 100 million dollar repair job. Engng News Rec.,
1979,4 Jan., 10.
13. APPLETON B. Third time lucky for Tarbela’s stilling basin three? New Ciu. Engr, 1977,
5 May, 19-21.
14. COLEH. A. Repairing eroded spillway channel. West. Constr., 1953, Apr.,5942.
15. BERRYHILL R. H. Experience with prototype energy dissipators. J . Hydraul. Diu. Am. Soc.
Ciu. Engrs, 1963,89, May, HY3,181-201.
16. CAMPOA. et al. Some problems in operation of San Esteban Dam spillways. Trans. 9th
Int. Congr. Large Dams,1967, Q33, R33,599-618.
17. PAVLENKO V.V. Abrasive damage of the concrete of the overflow dam of the
Ust’-Kamenogorsk hydroelectric station. Hydrotech.Constr., 1974, Feb., No. 2,
137-140.
18. REGANR. P. et al. Cavitation and erosion damage of sluices and stilling basins at two
high-head dams. Trans. 13th Int. Congr. LargeDams, 1979,Q50, R11.177-198.
19. SANCHEZ BRIBIESCA J. L. and CAPELLA VISCAINO A.Turbulence effects on the lining of
stilling basins. Trans. l l t h Inc. Congr. Large Dams,1973,441, R83,1575-1592.
20. LEMOSF. 0. and FERREIRA J. P.C. L. Estructuras compactas para dissipaqdo de energiu
por ressalto.Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, 1978, memoria 502.
21. KUTTIAMMU T. P. and VISWESWARA RAOJ. Bhavani type stilling basin for spillways of
large dams.Trans. 4th Int. Congr. LargeD a m . 1951, Q12,R44,397413.
22. STRASSBURGER A. G. Spillway energy dissipator problems. Trans. 11th Int. Congr. Large
Dams, 1973, Q41, R16,249-268.
23. SURYAVANSHI B. D. et al. Use of chute blocks in stilling basin-an assessment. Trans.
11th Int. Congr. LargeDams, 1973.441, R56,lOll-1036.
24. BOWERS C. E. and TSAIF. Y. Fluctuating pressures in spillway stilling basins. J . Hydraul.
Diu. Am. Soc. Ciu. Engrs,1969,95, Nov., HY6,2071-2079.
25. CHAVARRI G. Spillway and tailrace design for raising of Guri Dam using large scale
hydraulic model. Trans. 13th Int. Congr. Large Dams,1979. Q50, R12,199-213.
26. REDLINGER J. F. etal. Lessons from dam incidents USA. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, 1975,259-261.
27. GALINDEZ I. A. et al. Spillways in a peak flow river. Trans. 9th Int. Congr. Large Dams,
1967, Q33, R22,365-389.

Bibliography
DIRECCIONGENERALDE OBIUS HIDRAULICAS.Inuentario depresas Espaiiolas 1973.
Ministerio de ObrasPublicas, Madrid, 1973.
GREEKCOMMITTEE ON LARGE DAMS. Large dams in Greece. Greece, 1975.
IBERDUERO S. A. Grandes presas 1973. Spain, 1973.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LARGEDAMS. Replies to question 41 on flow control and
energy controlduringconstruction and after completion. Trans. l l t h Int.Congr.
Large Dams, Madrid,1973,II.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LARGEDAMS.Lessons from dam incidents. ICOLD, Paris,
1974.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LARGEDAMS.Replies to question 33 on temporary and

21 8

Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 H Y D R A U L I C E N E R G Y DISSIPATORS FOR DAM OUTLETS
permanent provision for the control of flows. Trans. 9th Int. Congr. Large Dams,
Istanbul, 1967,II.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LARGEDAMS.Replies to question 50 on large capacity
outlets and spillways. Trans. 13th Int. Congr. Large
Dams, Delhi, 1979,111.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LARGE DAMS.World register of dams. ICOLD, Paris, 1973.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LARGE DAMS. World register of dams,jrst updating. ICOLD,
Paris, 1976.
International Water Power and Dam Construction. IPC Electrical-Electronic Press Ltd,
London, issues from 1975to 1980.
KONTEATIS C. A. C. Dams of Cyprus. The Public Information Ofice, Nicosia, 1974.
MARTINH.M. and WAGNER W. E. Experience in turbulence in hydraulic structures. Proc.
9th Convention Int. Ass. Hydraulic Research,Dubrovnik, 1961, 153-172.
MERMEL T. W. Register of dams in the United States.
McGraw Hill, New York, 1958.
NARAYANA PILLAIN. andUNNY T. E. Shapes for appurtenances in stilling basins. J .
Hydraul. Diu. Am. Soc. Cio. Engrs, 1964.90, May, HY3,l-21.
PRATTH. K. 1970 Register of dams in Canada. The Canadian National Committee of the
International Commission on Large Dams, Canada, 1970.
URAL0. M. and UNGANU. Large dams inTurkey. The GeneralDirectorate of State
Hydraulic Works, Turkey, 1967.
Water Power. IPC Electrical-Electronic Press Ltd, London,issues from 1960to 1974.

21 9
Downloaded by [ University College London] on [24/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.