POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS FOR PIANO KEY WEIRS AT DAMS IN THE

UNITED STATES

Greg Paxson, PE1

Blake P. Tullis, PhD2
Dave Campbell, PE3

ABSTRACT

Similar to labyrinth weirs, piano key (PK) weirs are folded in plan to increase discharge
capacity for a given spillway channel width. Because of their configuration, PK weirs
may be better suited than labyrinth weirs for applications where the weir footprint (length
and/or width) dimensions are restricted (e.g., crest of gravity dams) as PK weirs can
facilitate a significant amount of weir length relative to their footprint size. For channel
applications without significant footprint restrictions, labyrinth and PK weirs may both
represent viable spillway options.

This paper provides an overview of some of the advantages and disadvantages of PK

weirs, labyrinth weirs, and gated structures in channel applications and/or dam
rehabilitation, including economic, structural, and hydraulic considerations. Two case
studies are reviewed where a labyrinth weir or other type of control structure were
constructed. The potential application of a PK weir was comparatively assessed for the
same projects, had the option been available at the time of design.

INTRODUCTION

The piano key (PK) weir concept was developed relatively recently by Blanc of the
University of Briska (Algeria) and Lemprire of Hydrocoop in France (Lemprire and
Ouamane, 2003). Similar to labyrinth weirs, PK weirs are folded in plan to increase
discharge; however, the PK weir has a smaller foundation footprint than a labyrinth weir,
due to their cantilevered apex geometry, making them a more practical alternative for
applications where the footprint is limited (e.g., crest of gravity dams). More than 100
PK weir model studies have been performed (Lemprire, 2009) and the first prototype
weirs were constructed in France at Goulors and Saint-Marc dams in 2006 and 2008,
respectively (Laugier, 2007, 2009).

The typical PK weir has a rectangular crest layout (in plan) with inclined inlet and outlet
cycle floors that are cantilevered beyond the spillway foundation footprint. Figure 1
shows a typical PK Weir geometry.

1
Principal, Schnabel Engineering, 1380 Wilmington Pike, Suite 100, West Chester, PA 19382, 610-696-
6066, gpaxson@schnabel-eng.com
2
Associate Professor, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, 8200 Old Main Hill, Logan,
UT 84322, blake.tullis@usu.edu
3
Director of Dam Engineering, Schnabel Engineering, 1380 Wilimington Pike, Suite 100, West Chester,
PA 19382, 610-696-6066, davec@schnabel-eng.com

Piano Key Weirs 1303

 Wo

A Inlet Key Wi A

Outlet Key

Plan

BT

P
Bo Bi

Section A-A (Inlet Key)

3D Isometric

Figure 1. Schematic of PK Weir

The authors are not aware of any PK weir installations in the United States; however, this
spillway concept may be a viable alternative for new dams and the rehabilitation of
existing dams, particularly those with inadequate spillway capacity to meet design flood
requirements.

PK WEIR HYDRAULICS

Similar to labyrinth weirs, PK weirs are hydraulically efficient at low upstream heads
relative to the weir height and this efficiency decreases with increasing upstream head.
Anderson and Tullis (2011) performed model studies for numerous PK weir geometries
and developed discharge coefficients (Cd) for estimating discharge (Q) using Eq. (1).

1304 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

 .
Q = C 2gLH (1)

In (1), g is the gravitational constant, L is the total length of weir crest, and Ht is the total
upstream head measured relative to the weir crest.

For this paper, the PK weir geometry studied by Anderson (2011) with an inlet to outlet
key width ratio of 1.25 was selected for evaluation and comparison with other spillway
upgrading approaches. Figure 2 shows the relationship between Cd and the
dimensionless upstream head ratio (Ht/P, where P represents the weir height).

Figure 2. Cd vs. Ht/P for PK Weir with 1.25 Inlet-to-Outlet Key Width Ratio (from
Anderson, 2011)

PK WEIR ELEMENTS FOR QUANTITY AND COST ESTIMATING

For the selected PK weir, geometric relationships were developed to estimate quantities
based upon the weir height. PK weirs would likely be constructed of concrete, either
cast-in-place or precast, depending upon the size of the structure and other site
conditions. The weir components were classified as either mass or reinforced
concrete elements and representative unit prices were applied to each group. Generally,
the unit cost of mass concrete is less than that of reinforced concrete since there is less
forming and reinforcing required per unit volume of concrete.

COMPARISON WITH LABYRINTH WEIRS

Using the Tullis et al. (1995) labyrinth weir design method, a 2-cycle labyrinth weir with
a 12 sidewall angle (), was selected for comparison with a 4-key PK weir with similar
head-discharge characteristics, as shown in Figure 3. For both weirs, the weir height (P)
was 15 feet. The geometry of each weir is presented in Figure 4.

Piano Key Weirs 1305

 14

12

10
Total Head (feet)

4
12d Labyrinth
PK Weir
2

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Discharge (cfs)

Figure 3. Discharge Rating Curves for PK and Labyrinth Weirs

PK Weir Labyrinth Weir

Plan

Section

Figure 4. PK and Labyrinth Weir Geometries

As presented in Figure 4, the PK and labyrinth weirs have comparable spillway widths.
The total weir length for the labyrinth and PK weirs are 233 and 345 feet, respectively.
This suggests that the labyrinth weir produces a larger unit discharge (higher discharge
efficiency) than the PK weir. The upstream to downstream footprint (BT) of the PK weir

1306 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

is 36% less than the labyrinth and the upstream to downstream footprint of the PK weir
foundation (B) is 67% less than the labyrinth.

The concrete volumes for the PK and labyrinth weirs were estimated based on typical
weir dimensions and are presented in Tables 1 and 2. In addition to the weir wall and
sloping floor concrete volume estimates, estimated concrete volumes for the training
walls and slabs were also included. The training walls were 27-ft high to accommodate
the maximum assumed design head of 12 ft. The slab for the labyrinth spillway included
the entire weir footprint, while for the PK weir, the slab extended from the downstream
end of the base to the downstream end of the weir (see Figure 4).

Table 1. PK Weir Concrete Volumes

Element Type of Concrete Volume
(cubic yards)
Base Mass 195
Weir Walls Reinforced 55
Overhangs Reinforced 20
Training Walls Reinforced 130
Slab Reinforced 40
Total Reinforced 245
Total All 440

Table 2. Labyrinth Weir Reinforced Concrete Volumes

Element Volume (cubic yards)
Weir 195
Slab 260
Training Walls 240
Total 695

For this example, the PK weir with similar head-discharge characteristics to the labyrinth
weir requires 40% less concrete volume, primarily due to the significantly reduced
upstream to downstream footprint of both the foundation and weir. Note that site
constraints may require that the overall length of training walls cannot be reduced; in
which case, total concrete volume savings would be reduced to about 20%. The more
complex geometry of the PK weir may result in higher unit prices for the reinforced
concrete; however a significant portion of the concrete for the PK weir is mass concrete
for the base, which would likely be less costly (per unit volume) than the reinforced
concrete for the labyrinth weir. Table 3 presents assumed unit costs and resulting
estimated costs for each of the structures.

Piano Key Weirs 1307

 Table 3. Cost Estimates for PK Weir and Labyrinth Weir
Structure Element/Type Unit Cost (per Concrete Cost
cubic yard)
PK Weir Base/Mass $600 $117,000
Weir and
$1000 $75,000
Overhangs/Reinforced
Slab and Training
$800 $136,000
Walls/Reinforced
Total N/A $328,000
Labyrinth Slabs/Reinforced $700 $182,000
Weir and Training
$800 $348,000
Walls/Reinforced
Total N/A $530,000

These results indicate that the estimated cost of the PK weir is 20% to 40% less than that
of a labyrinth weir with similar hydraulic capacity, depending upon the ability to reduce
the length of training wall adjacent to the PK weir spillway section.

For a PK weir installed on a deformable soil foundation, there are likely stability and
seepage concerns that would need to be addressed. The short upstream to downstream
footprint of the foundation results in high seepage gradients across the base of the
structure. In addition, the PK weir is unstable if full uplift is allowed to develop beneath
the base. The addition of a concrete slab extending from the upstream edge of the base to
the upstream end of the weir would add some stability to the structure. The addition of
this slab would increase the concrete quantity, reducing the cost savings of the PK weir
over the labyrinth weir by 5 to 10%. In addition, an upstream cutoff may be required for
the PK weir to further reduce uplift pressures.

COMPARISON WITH GATED SPILLWAYS

Spillway gates can be categorized as either underflow or overflow, where underflow

gates lift up and water flows beneath the gate and over the fixed crest spillway. For
overflow gates, the gate crest lowers to the fully open position. This paper compares PK
weirs to overflow gates, which include hydraulically operated steel crest gates and
inflatable bladders (with or without a steel plate).

Because of their ability to provide reservoir storage volume above the spillway fixed
crest elevation, gated spillways can provide more discharge capacity than passive control
structures such as PK and labyrinth weirs because of the additional head over the
spillway when the gates are lowered.

The fixed crest elevation and gate height of a gated spillway could be set to have the
same discharge as the 15-ft high, four cycle PK weir with a design head of 12 ft discussed
in the previous example. To obtain the design discharge of about 18,000 cfs with a 56-ft
long weir with a discharge coefficient of 0.7 (3.7 in english units), a total head of 19.5 ft

1308 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

is required. This corresponds to a gate height of 7.5 ft. This structure is illustrated in
Figure 5, along with a cross section of the PK weir.

Gated Spillway PK Weir

Figure 5. Gated Spillway and PK Weir Sections

Crest gates are commonly operated to begin lowering based upon a set upstream water
level and continue to maintain that level until the gate is completed lowered. For this
example, this design headwater level was set to be one foot above the normal pool (i.e.
top of crest gate before lowering). Discharge rating curves for the PK weir and gated
spillway are presented in Figure 6. Note that the total head term in this figure is
measured from normal pool as opposed to the fixed crest with the gate lowered.
14

12

10
Total Head (feet)

4
7.5 ft high gated weir
PK Weir
2

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Discharge (cfs)

Figure 6. Discharge Rating Curves for PK and Labyrinth Weirs

Piano Key Weirs 1309

This demonstrates that the PK weir could be a viable alternative to a gated spillway or
used to replace a gated spillway for an existing dam. In some cases, it may be beneficial
to use a PK weir in parallel with gated spillway structures, as was done at Saint Marc
Dam (see Figure 7). During a flood, the initial inflow hydrograph will pass over the PK
weir (passive control) and if the flood exceeds the capacity of the PK weir, the gated
spillway can be operated. Passive and gated spillway structures in parallel would be
particularly beneficial for remote dam locations without a full-time dam tender. The
discharge capacity of the PK weir would lengthen the required response time of operators
to reach the dam for gate operation.

A cost comparison between gated spillways and PK weirs is more difficult than the
comparison to a labyrinth spillway due to variables such as gate type and the
configuration of the spillway where the gates would be installed. One advantage of the
PK weir is the general owner preference for passive spillways to eliminate mechanical
operations and maintenance and the potential for gate failure or operator induced
downstream flow surges.

Figure 7. Parallel Gated and PK Weir Control Structures at Saint-Marc Dam, France
(Photo courtesy of Blake Tullis)

CASE STUDIES

Increasing the discharge capacity of existing dams is commonly a component of dam

rehabilitation projects. This is often accomplished by replacing a linear weir, such as an
ogee crest weir, with a non-linear weir (e.g., labyrinth) or by lowering the spillway crest
elevation and adding gates. The following section discusses the potential use of a PK
weir as an alternative to the actual spillway upgrades implemented for two completed
dam rehabilitation projects. These comparisons assume that the PK weir option had been
a proven approach at the time of the design

1310 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

Lake Townsend Dam

Lake Townsend serves as the primary water supply for the City of Greensboro, North
Carolina. The original dam consisted of a gated concrete spillway flanked by earth
embankments. The concrete spillway suffered severe deterioration caused by alkali-silica
reactivity (ASR). In addition to the ASR damage, the spillway had inadequate hydraulic
capacity to pass the design flood required by the dam safety regulations of North
Carolina.

The selected rehabilitation approach included replacement of the dam and spillway with a
new structure located just downstream of the original alignment. The replacement
spillway consists of a staged 7-cycle labyrinth weir with 2 cycle crests at normal pool and
5 cycle crests set 1-ft above normal pool and a sidewall angle of 11.4. The labyrinth
geometry is presented in Figure 6 and Table 5.

Figure 6. Lake Townsend Spillway Plan

Physical and numerical modeling was performed for the Lake Townsend Spillway
(Paxson et al. 2008). The labyrinth weir for the Lake Townsend Dam has a discharge
capacity of about 81,000 cfs with a surcharge pool elevation of 10 feet, which
corresponds to the top of the earth embankment.

A 15-cycle (or key) PK weir with staged keys (i.e., 4 cycle crests at normal pool and 11
cycle crests 1 ft above normal pool), an inlet to outlet key width ratio of 1.25, and P = 20
feet was designed to pass ~81,000 cfs with 10 feet of total head above normal pool (i.e.,
Ht/P=0.5). The geometries of the labyrinth weir and the hypothetical PK weir are
summarized in Table 4.

Piano Key Weirs 1311

 Table 4. Summary of Lake Townsend Labyrinth and Hypothetical PK Weir Geometries
Labyrinth Weir PK Weir
Weir Height, P (ft) 20 20
Sidewall Angle 11.4 N/A
Cycle Width (ft) 42 19
Total Spillway Width (ft) 294 285
Weir Depth, (ft)* 83.5 50
Foundation Depth (ft)* 83.5 25
Total Weir Length (ft) 1,218 1,725
* For PK Weir, the weir depth is BT and the foundation depth
is B, as defined in Figure 1.

As presented in the earlier example, while the total weir length is greater, the upstream to
downstream footprint for the PK weir foundation is significantly smaller than for the
labyrinth weir and slab. Estimated concrete volumes for the PK weir are presented in
Table 5.

Table 5. Lake Townsend Hypothetical PK Weir Quantities

Element Type of Concrete Volume (cubic yards)
Base Mass 1,730
Weir Walls Reinforced 490
Overhangs Reinforced 160
Slab Reinforced 260
Total Reinforced 910
Total All 2,640

The concrete volume of the Lake Townsend labyrinth weir and slab is about 5,400 cubic
yards, or more than twice the estimated volume for an equivalent discharge capacity PK
weir. The Lake Townsend spillway was constructed on a soil foundation, which would
likely present challenges in achieving stability for a PK weir. Including an upstream
concrete slab to lengthen the seepage gradient and improve stability would add at least
260 cubic yards of concrete. The labyrinth spillway did include a cutoff that extended to
bedrock, which would also be required for the PK weir. If the cutoff and slab adequately
addressed the seepage concerns, it is likely that the application of a PK weir for this
project would have provided a cost advantage over the constructed labyrinth weir.

Sugar Hollow Dam

Sugar Hollow Dam is a concrete gravity dam located near Charlottesville, Virginia. The
225-ft long ogee spillway was originally equipped with a system of eight, 25-ft wide by
5-ft tall lift gates. This system was difficult to operate during floods and the
superstructure used to lift the gates reduced the hydraulic capacity of the spillway bays
and collected substantial debris. As part of the dam rehabilitation completed in 2000, the
piers and the antiquated gate system were removed and replaced with a 5-ft tall inflatable

1312 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

bladder crest gate (see Figure 7). The dam and spillway upgrade details were
documented in Campbell et al. (1999) and Paxson et al. (1999).

Figure 7. Sugar Hollow Dam with Inflatable Bladder Crest Gate

With the bladder deflated, the estimated discharge of the spillway with a head of 18 ft is
67,000 cfs. This head corresponds to a head over a fixed crest PK weir of 13 ft. A 16
cycle PK weir with a height of 14.5 ft and total spillway width of 216 ft was found to
have a discharge capacity of about 74,000 cfs. Cross sections of the PK weir and
inflatable crest gate are shown in Figure 8.

5-ft High Inflatable

14.5-ft High PK Weir Bladder Spillway

Figure 8. Typical Sections of Hypothetical PK Weir and Inflatable Bladder Crest Gates
(Sugar Hollow Dam)

Piano Key Weirs 1313

The concrete quantities for the PK weir were estimated and are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Sugar Hollow Hypothetical PK Weir Quantities

Element Type of Concrete Volume (cubic yards)
Base Mass 700
Weir Walls Reinforced 200
Overhangs Reinforced 65
Total Reinforced 265
Total All 965

Using an assumed concrete unit price of $1000 per cubic yard, this corresponds to a cost
of $965,000. The cost of materials for the inflatable bladder was $230,000 and the bids
for the installation ranged from $70,000 to $200,000. During design, the bladder
manufacturer suggested an installation cost about equal to the material costs. Assuming a
real cost in 1998 of about $500,000 and an escalation rate of four percent per year, the
2012 estimated cost for the inflatable bladder is about $865,000.

The estimated cost for the PK weir does not include removal of the top 10 ft or more of
the existing mass concrete to allow installation of a 14.5-ft tall weir. In addition, the
geometry of Sugar Hollow Dam would not permit installation of the PK weir with height
of 14.5 ft and corresponding base width of 18 ft. Additional concrete would have to be
removed and a concrete overbuild constructed. The estimated cost for this work is likely
more than $300,000, making the estimated cost of the PK weir alternative at least 40%
higher than the inflatable bladder crest gate. The estimates do not consider costs
associated with operation and maintenance of the inflatable bladder. One advantage of
the PK weir alternative is that no operation is necessary and there is no risk of an
uncontrolled release of reservoir storage due to mis-operation or a bladder failure.

CONCLUSIONS

PK weirs present a unique solution to provide significant hydraulic capacity for new
dams and for the rehabilitation of existing dams. As presented herein, the construction
cost for PK weirs can be less than that of a labyrinth or gated weir having similar
hydraulic capacity. For the two case histories presented, a PK weir would have been a
viable alternative for the upgrading of the dams. For the Lake Townsend project, it
appears that a PK weir may have been a more cost effective solution. However, there are
likely stability and seepage issues with the PK weir and addressing these issues would
increase the cost of the structure. For the Sugar Hollow project, the PK weir would likely
have been more costly, but may have had some benefits related to operation and
maintenance. Since each project presents its own set of opportunities and constraints, the
applicability for a particular application needs to be evaluated on a site by site basis.

1314 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

 REFERENCES

Anderson, R.M. (2011), Piano Key Weir Head Discharge Relationships, All Graduate
Theses and Dissertations. Paper 880. Utah State University School of Graduate Studies.

Anderson, R.M. and Tullis, B.P. (2011). Piano Key Weir Hydraulics, 21st Century Dam
Design Advances and Adaptations, 31st Annual USSD Conference, San Diego,
California, April 11-15, 2011.

Campbell, D., Harrison, J., and Kent, C. (1999). Upgrading of Sugar Hollow Dam Is
Enhanced by Team Approach, Dam Safety 1999, the 16th annual conference of the
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, held Oct. 10-13, 2000 in St. Louis, Missouri.

Laugier, F. (2007). Design and Construction of the First Piano Key Weir Spillway at
Goulours Dam, Intl. J. Hydropower & Dams, 14(5), 94-100.

Laugier, F. (2009). Design and Construction of a Labyrinth PKW Spillway at Saint-

Marc Dam, France, Intl. J. Hydropower & Dams, 15(5), 100-107.

Lemprire, F. (2009), New Labyrinth Weirs triple the Spillways Discharge,

<http:///www.hydrocoop.org>, Feb. 8, 2010.

Lemprire F. and Ouamane, A. (2003). The Piano Keys Weir: A Cost-effective

solution for Spillways, Hydropower and Dams, 10(5), 144-149.

Paxson G., Harrison, J., and Campbell, D. (1999). Hydraulic Assessment of Rubber
Dam Spillway Crest Control, Dam Safety 1999, the 16th annual conference of the
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, held Oct. 10-13, 2000 in St. Louis, Missouri.

Paxson, G., Crookston, B., Savage, B., Tullis, B., and Lux III, F. (2008). "The Hydraulic
Design Toolbox: Theory and Modeling for the Lake Townsend Spillway Replacement
Project." Dam Safety 2008, the 25th annual conference of the Association of State Dam
Safety Officials, held Sept. 7-11, 2008 in Indian Wells, California.

Tullis, J.P., Amanian, N., & Waldron, D. (1995). "Design of labyrinth spillways," J. of
Hydraulic Engineering. ASCE, Vol 121, No. 3, pp. 247-255.

Piano Key Weirs 1315