All dam-safety tools Print with PE stamp box Designed for sealed engineering submittals — print drops PE stamp + signature block at the end.

Stepped Spillway Energy Dissipation

Skimming-flow energy dissipation calculator for stepped chute spillways (RCC dams, stepped masonry, embankment overlays). Identifies nappe vs skimming regime, computes equilibrium friction depth and velocity per Boes & Hager (2003), and returns residual head plus dissipation efficiency along the chute.

cfs/ft
ft
degrees (1V:0.8H = 51.3°)
ft
— (Boes-Hager: 0.18–0.30)
ft
ft
ft/s
ft
ft
%

Default chute is 1V:0.8H (typical RCC dam), q = 50 cfs/ft, h = 2 ft, H_dam = 80 ft. Compare against equivalent smooth-chute residual (V_smooth = √(2g·H_dam)) — stepped chutes typically dissipate 5–10× more head per unit chute length.

$$ d_c = \left(\frac{q^2}{g}\right)^{1/3}, \quad d_e = \left(\frac{f\,q^2}{8\,g\sin\alpha}\right)^{1/3}, \quad V_e = q/d_e $$
$$ H_{\text{max}} = H_{\text{dam}} + 1.5 d_c, \quad H_{\text{res}} = d_e\cos\alpha + V_e^2/(2g), \quad \eta = 1 - H_{\text{res}}/H_{\text{max}} $$
q unit discharge · h step height · α chute angle from horizontal · f equivalent Darcy friction factor for skimming flow ≈ 0.2 · dc critical depth · de equilibrium uniform depth.

Flow regime transition

Chamani & Rajaratnam (1999) identified the upper limit of nappe flow at dc/hstep ≈ 0.89 − 0.40·tan(α). Above this, the steps fill with recirculating wake eddies and skimming flow develops over the pseudo-bottom formed by the step tips. For most RCC dam slopes (1V:0.8H, α = 51°), the transition is at dc/h ≈ 0.4. Designers usually target skimming flow for the design event because it has higher friction and more predictable behavior.

Boes & Hager design recommendations

Worked example

Example — RCC dam stepped spillway

Given: q = 50 cfs/ft, h = 2 ft, α = 51.3° (1V:0.8H), Hdam = 80 ft, f = 0.20.
dc = (50²/32.2)1/3 = 4.27 ft
dc/h = 2.13 → well above 0.4 → skimming flow ✓
de = [0.20 · 50² / (8 · 32.2 · sin51.3°)]1/3 = [500/200.8]1/3 = 1.36 ft
Ve = 50 / 1.36 = 36.8 ft/s
Hmax = 80 + 1.5·4.27 = 86.4 ft
Hres = 1.36·cos51.3° + 36.8²/(2·32.2) = 0.85 + 21.0 = 21.8 ft
η = 1 − 21.8/86.4 = 75% energy dissipated
Compare: A smooth chute would deliver V = √(2·32.2·80) = 71.7 ft/s and Hres ≈ 80 ft (≈8% loss). Stepping cuts toe velocity by half and turns a Type II stilling basin into a Type III, saving substantial concrete in the basin.

References: Chanson, H. (2002). The Hydraulics of Stepped Chutes and Spillways. A.A. Balkema. Boes, R.M. & Hager, W.H. (2003). Hydraulic Design of Stepped Spillways. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(9), 671–679. Chamani, M. & Rajaratnam, N. (1999). Characteristics of Skimming Flow over Stepped Spillways. ASCE JHE 125(4), 361–368.

Related tools

Monthly engineering case studies

One real design problem per month. No tutorials, no fluff.

Free. Privacy.

Engineer of Record — Stamp & Signature
APPLYPE STAMPHERE
Engineer Name
License No.
State
Signature
Date
Project / Sheet
By stamping and signing, the Engineer of Record certifies that the inputs, formulas, and applicability of this calculation have been reviewed for the specific design context. PE-Calc tools provide computational support only — the engineer is responsible for verifying results, applying engineering judgment, and complying with applicable codes and standards.
Calculation generated at pe-calc.com