6Bmzzsz~~?~=.-2~.

---

.L

._

.____

-^

._.._. .-.

_--..._.__ -..---

I..-

-.^.-

w_p_

Development of a Methodology for Estimating Embankment Damage Due to Flood Overtopping

Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Research Center 6300 Georgetown McLean, Virginia Highway Pike 22101-2296

Repon

No.

FHWA/RD=BG/

126

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Co-sponsored

by: Agriculture 20590

Final

U.S. Department of Forest Service Washington , D,C,

Report March 1987

FOREWORD This report describes a series of large-scale hydraulic model experiments to simulate floods overtopping highway embankments. Test conditions included embankments with and without pavement, with and without grass cover, with a range of headwater and tailwater elevations, and with a limited number of protective measures. The report will be of interest to hydraulic engineers for State highway agencies , consultants and other Government agencies who deal with flood damageevaluations of highway embankmentsor who deal with evaluations of dam safety in general. Sufficient copies of the report are being distributed to provide a minimumof tm copies to each FHWA regional office, one copy to each FHWA division office and one copy to each State highway office. Direct distribution is being made to the division offices.

Richard E. Ha Highway Operations Research and Development Federal Highway Administration

NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of info?mation exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflects the views of the author, who is responsible for the , The contents do not necessarily accuracy of the data presented herein. This reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.

Technical
1. Report No. 2. G ovcrnment Accession No. 3. Recipients

Report
Catalog

Documentation
No.

Page

FWA/RD-86/P26
4. Title and Subtitle

I
5. Report Dote

DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING EMBANKMENT DAMAGEDUE TO FLOOD OVERTOPPING

7. Author/s)

Karch
6. Performing

1988
Organization Code

8.

Performing

Organization

Report

NO.

Y. H. Chen and
9. P cr f orming Organization

Bradley
Nome

A. Anderson
and Address

Simons, Li & Associates., 3555 Stanford Road P.O. Box 1816 Fort Collins, Colorado
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Inc.

80522 Operations R&D

11
13. Type 14.

10.

Work

Unit

NO. (TRAIS)

of Report

and

Period

Covered

Office of Engineering & Highway Federal Highway Administration 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, Virginia 22101-2296 IS. supplcmantary Notes FHWA Contract
16. Abstract

Sponsoring

Agency

Code

Manager

(COTR):

J. Sterling
(MR-10)

Jones

Co-sponsored by: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington,

D-C.,

The objectives of this study are to conduct laboratory tests and develop a methodology to quantitatively determine embankment damage and assess protective During the study, available literature and field data were collected. measures. The embankments used .in this study are 6 ft (1.8 m) high, 10 to 22 ft (3.0 to 6.7 m) in crest width, and 3 ft (0.9 m) in length, with slope varying from 2:l to 3:l. The embankment surfaces include both with and without protective measures (pavement, grass, mattresses, Geoweb, soil cement, Enkamat, and others), The flood overtopping depths ranging from 0.5 to 4 ft (0.15 to 1.22 m), discharges ranging from 1 to 25 cfs/ft (0.1 to 2.32 ems/m) and tailwater conditions rangs'ng from 10 percent water-surface drop to free fall. A computer model was developed to determine hydraulics of overtopping flow and associated erosion damage. This model was verified using field data and laboratory test results, and was utilized to generate charts for estimating embankment damage.

17.

Key

Words

18.

Distribution

Statement

Embankment, Erosion, Protection, Velocity, Shear Stress, Flood Tailwater, topping, Headwater, Mathematical Model
19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Soil, OverFree Fall,

This document No restrictions. available to the public through National Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22161.
(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22.

is the Service,
Price

20.

Security

Classif.

215
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
Reproduction of completed poge authorized

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

For conversion Multiply ft (feet)

readers factors

who prefer metric units rather than inch-pound units, for the terms used in this report are listed below: E.Y 0.3048 To Obtain m (meters)

the

ft/s ft/ft

(feet (feet

per per

second) foot)

0.3048

m/s

(meters

per per

second) meter)

1.0

m/m (meters

ft*

(square

feet)

0.0929

m2 (square

meters)

ft3/s

(cubic second)

feet

per

0.0283

m3/s

(cubic second)

meters

per

in lb,

(inches) avdp (avoirdupois pound)

25.4 0.4536

mm (millimeters)

kg (kilograms)

lb/ft2

(pounds foot)

per

square

4.882

kg/m2

(kilograms square meter)

per

lb/ft3

(pounds foot)

per

cubic

16.02

kg/m3

(kilograms cubic meter)

per

mi

(miles)

1.609

km (kilometers)

ii

TABLF,OFCONIXNTS Section INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . DESCRIPTION OF PREDOMINANT MODES OF EMBANKMENT FAILURE................ 1.

2. 3: 4.

1 4
4 4 5 5

General ....................................................... Piping and Liquefaction ....................................... Mass Wasting by Slip Circle Failure ........................... Flood Overtopping .............................................

DATA ............................ COLLECTION OF FIELD EMBANKMENTDAMAGE 1.

2.

9 9
9

Field Data Collection Procedure ............................... Presentation of Field Data

....................................

. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. LAE3ORATORYEMBMXMENTTESTPROGRAM 1. Test Facilities and Instrumentation ........................... 2. Verification of Flow Hydraulics ............................... Characteristics of Embankment Soils ........................... 3. Embankment Construction Procedures ............................ 4. 5. Embankment Test Program ....................................... a. Test Procedures ........................................... b. Data Collection and Analysis .............................. ................................ HYDRAULICS OF FLOW OVER AN EMBANKMENT 1.
2. 3.

15 15 21 21 29
47 52 53 55 55

Flow Patterns ................................................. Discharge Equations for Flow Over an,Rnbankment ............... Method of Determining Hydraulic Variables .....................

59 61

PARAMETERS

. . . . . . . . . . . . 78 ANDEQUATIONS aOVERNING EROSION OF EMBANKMENT..

78

General ....................................................... Identification and Evaluation of Important Parameters ......... Z: Critical Shear Stress ......................................... 4. Evaluation of Existing Equations for Estimating Erosive Rate . . 5. Development of the Erosion Equation ........................... 1.

78 81 87 94

iii

TABLEOF CONTENTS (continued) Section DEVELOPMENT OF A PROCEDURE FORDETERMINING EMBANKMENT EROSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 DUETo FLOOD OVER!IOPPING 1. 2. 3. 4. Development of a CcanputerModel for Determining Embankment Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calibrations of the Computer Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of Namographsfor Determining Embankment Erosion Ixle to Flood Overtopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Example 1. Erosion of a High-Cohesive Earth Road . . . . . . . . 2. Example 2. Erosion of a Paved Road With a Low-Cohesive Soil Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 105 107 124 124 124 126 126 129 134

MEASURES ......................... EVALUATION OF EMBANKMENT PROTECTION 1. 2. Performance of Protection Measures ........................... Comparison of Protection Measures ............................

.............................................. SUMMARY ANDCONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A - Photographs Illustrating

Tests Conducted in this Study . . 139

APPENDIXB- Data Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 APPENDIXC- User's Manual and List of Computer Programs ............. REFERENCES ........................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................ 179 199 201

iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Flood data at field

study sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and damage . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 12 23

Summary of embankment characteristics Flow overtopping Soil Soil test test results, results, conditions soil soil of rigid

embankment runs

type I type II

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 28
30 47 49

Roadway surfaces and protection measures selected fortesting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seedmixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Schedule of tests

Maximum permissible velocities recommended by Fortier and Scobey and the corresponding unit-tractive-force values converted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation . . . . . . Liquid limit, index values Critical Critical plastic limit, and plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . derived for from McWhorter's lined with data . . . . . . vegetation . . .

82 84 85 88 89

10. 11.

shear stress shear stress

12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

channels

Existing embankmenterosion equations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. .

Sample input of embankment geometry and soil/structure characteristics for the embankment illustrated in figure Evaluation Critical of critical velocity conditions with for the protection

101
132 133 158 163 176 181 182

measures .

associated . .
l

protection

measures . . . . .

Schedule of tests Water surface Velocity

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (BS) elevations . . . . . .

(WS) and bed surface

measurements file

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20. 21.

Example input

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l

Input

file

description

LIST Table 22. 23. Example Listing output of file

OF TABLES (continued) Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

computer

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure 1. 2. 3. 4. Erosion Erosion Profile Testing of the downstream shoulder of the toe ....................... of testing facility facility .................. ............... Page 6 8 16 17 19 ............... measurements .......... ............... type II ............ ........... construction .......... ... 20 22 25 27 32 33 34 35 ....... 39 40 41 42 44

....................... .......................... facilities

5. .Site 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

layout

Overview of the testing Calibration

curve for discharge for soil

Size distribution Size distribution Installation Illustration Illustration Construction Cross-sectional Illustration Cross-sectional Illustration Cross-sectional

type I soil

curve for

and compaction of the soil

of embankment

11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

embankment following section

of a paved roadway test of full-scale embankment

............. measure

view of gabion protection of mattress protected

embankment

.......... measure .....

view of soil of soil-cement

cement protection protected

embankment ........ measure .......

view of geoweb protection

19.
20. 21.

Illustration
Cross-sectional Illustration

of geoweb protected embankment ..........

view of enkamat protection of enkamat protected measure .......

45
46 48 and 50

embankment ..........

22.

Illustration of embankment tests under high tailwater ...................... freefall conditions

vii

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure Page Principal variables over an embankment. Sumnary of incipient ranges ............................. Discharge Locations Water-surface Downstream Water-surface coefficients of measuring and slope and velocity surface velocity needed to describe ...................... submergence flow 57 transition 58 for flow over roadway embankment ... 60 62 64 flow ...... 65 66 flow 67 EMBANK ............... ........... jump conditions ..... profile. ..... by 90 ........... 69 70 72 75 77 86

23. 24.

and free-flow

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

stations profiles velocity profiles

............... .............. for surface .............. for plunging

Downstream slope with tailwater Flow chart for

surface velocity ........................ the computer model section step

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Embankment Headwater Flow chart

computational and tailwater the

hydrographs of

showing between of critical

computation

Comparison Relation

measured shear

and computed stress to

water-surface index computed ; ........ computed

plasticity that

Comparison of measured Wiggert and Contractor Comparison of by Cristofano Comparison by Ariathurai Embankment measured equation

erosion equation

rate with ....... with

38.

erosion rate ....................

that

92 that computed ............

39.

of measured erosion and.Arulanandan pavement losses

rate with equation .................. of paved

93 95

40. 41.

Water and bed.surface profile embankment ...........................

type

II soil
96

viii

LIST Figure 42. Embankment erosion

OF FIGURES

(continued) Page

equations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

43. 44. 45. 46.

Example Undermining Computed Average cohesive

embankment of versus

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pavement erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rate . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102 104 106

embankment measured

erosion rate during 4-hour flow overtopping of 5-foot bare soil embankment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . during 4-hour embankment flow overtopping of 5-foot . . n . . e . . . . . . . . . bare soil embankment with . e . . . . D s . . . . . the bare (h = 2 ft,

108

47. 48.

Average erosion rate noncohesive bare soil

109

Comparison of erosion rate a paved roadway (h = 2 ft,

between the t/h = 0.3)

110

49.

Comparison of erosion rate changes with time between soil embankment and embankment with a paved roadway t/h=0.3)..........................* Average erosion paved cohesive Average erosion paved noncohesive Average erosion paved cohesive Average erosion paved cohesive Average erosion paved cohesive Average erosion paved noncohesive

112

50. 51.

rate during 4-hour flow overtopping for 5-foot soil embankment without vegetal cover . . . . . . rate during 4-hour soil embankment flow overtopping without vegetal for cover 5-foot . . . .

113 114

52.

rate during 4-hour flow overtopping soil embankment with class A vegetal rate during 4-hour flow overtopping soil embankmenl with class C vegetal rate during 4-hour flow overtopping soil embankment with class E vegetal rate during 4-hour soil embankment

for 5-foot cover . . . for 5-foot cover . . . for 5-foot cover . . . . .

115

53.

116

54. 55.

117 118

flow overtopping for 5-foot with class C vegetal cover

56. 57. 58.

Average erosion paved noncohesive Average Adjustment erosion factor

rate during 4-hour soil embankment rate change with

flow overtopping for 5-foot with class E vegetal cover . . time duration height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119 120 121

considering

embankment

ix

LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure Page Comparison between data.............................. calculated and measured embankment damage 123 overtopping depth drop . . . . . . . . .

59.
60.

Bare-soil surface (type I soil) following of 0.5 feet and 20 percent water surface Bare-soil of 1 foot Bare-soil of 2 feet surface (type and 70 percent surface and free (type fall II

140

61.

soil) following overtopping depth water surface drop . . . . . . . . . . following overtopping depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141

62. 63.

II soil) conditions

142

Paved embankment (type II soil) without vegetation following overtopping depth of 0.5 feet and 70 percent water surfacedrop.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ing Paved embankment (type I soil) with vegetation follow overtopping depth of 0.5 feet and 70 percent water surface drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ing Paved embankment (type I soil) with vegetation follow overtopping depth of 1 foot and 70 percent water surface drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paved embankment overtopping depth (type I soil) with 0.5 feet and free vegetation following fall conditions . . . . .

143

64.

144

65.

145

66.

146

67.

Gabion protection following and free fall conditions:.

overtopping depth of 1 foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . depth of 2 feet . . . . . . . . . . .

147

68.

Gabion protection followinq overtopping and free fall conditions .-. . . ..; Gabion protection following and free fall conditions

.-.

148

69.

overtopping depth of 4 feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149

70.

Geoweb protection following overtopping depth of 1 foot, free fall conditions, and testing duration of 30 m i nutes

150

71.

Geoweb protection following overtopping depth - of _ 1 foot, free fall conditions, and testing duration ot 1 hour . , e . . Geoweb protection following overtopping depth and testing duration of free fall conditions, of 2 feet, 1 hour . . . . .

151

72.

152

LIST Figure 73.

OF FIGURES

(continued) Page

Geoweb protection following overtopping depth free fall conditions, and testing duration of Enkamat protection free fall conditions, Enkamat protection free fall conditions, Embankment following and testing (type II overtopping duration following overtopping and testing duration following overtopping and testing duration

of 2 feet, 2 hours . . . . feet, . . . .

153

74.

depth of 0.5 of 1 hour

154

75.

depth of 2 feet, of 1 hour . . . .

155

76.

soil) beneath enkamat protection depth of 2 feet, free fall conditions, of 1 hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156

xi

INTRODUCTION

Embankment highway floods develop attempts differ engineers larger an

damage

due

to

flood

overtopping they There estimating set of of have

is

a relatively ignored been the

new issue consequences attempts but data damage,

for of to all and'

because than the

traditionally "design method flood."

have

several

approximate the

embankment controlled

lacked by several

benefit of

of

experimental

orders

magnitude.

Numerous ments two sion, Materials Information embankments from ways: and

protection erosion. protect increase utilized the damage or

materials These

have measures soil roughness

been

utilized

for

protecting erosion resistance erosive cement, to

embankmainly to in eroforce. and mats. protect

flood (1) (2)

reduce to to

embankment its flood soil

strengthen surface include

increase reduce riprap, materials is quite

commonly about from

vegetation, of various overtopping

performance due to flood

available limited.

The collect quantitatively During this

objectives field.data,

of and

this

project

were damage sources

to and of

perform tests to to

a review develop

of

literature, to measures.

conduct

laboratory

a methodology

determine project the

embankment following

assess

protection were searched:

literature

ASCE (complete index ceedings, papers). U.S. Army Corps of

of

all

publications

of

journals,

conferences,

pro-

Engineers

(experimental Services

model (current

studies). published searches and

National Technical Information bibliography of abstracts). Federal reports). Highway Administration

(index

of

research

and

development

and Hydromechanics Laboratory, Indices,

Hydraulic Engineering The Netherlands).

Abstracts

(Delft

Hydraulics

Literature identified States Forest Service

by Federal (USFS).

Highway

Administration

(FHWA) and United

Seventy-nine ful to the study. These

reports reports

and

papers

were

identified to:

as

potentially

use-

were

reviewed

Identify

important the

parameters failure of rate

that

control

embankment

damage.

Investigate
Assess Assess tors. effects erosion embankment

mode of

embankments. and other protection measures on

pavement, of

vegetation, due to

stability. embankment flood overtopping and other fac-

Field at one yzed five site and

data sites in in

of

roadway Arkansas, and to due to

erosion three five sites

caused sites in in

by

flood Missouri,

overtopping seven These field sites

were in

collected Wyoming, were anal-

Colorado, utilized damages

Arizona.

data for

evaluate flood

the

methodology

developed

determining

embankment

overtopping.

Embankment this and ment study 3 ft were (0.9

overtopping 6 ft m) in which (1.8 length, were

tests m) high, with tested

were 10 to slope included

conducted. 22 ft varying various and five (3.0 from

The to 2:l

embankments 6.7 to m) in 3:l. of soils clay

tested crest The two width,

in

embanksurface (grass, the sandy

surfaces (bare

combinations protective Two base

materials mattresses, embankments clay. from (0.031 surface The develop 0.5 to The

soil soil tested ft (0.2

and

pavement) cement, and conditions 1.2 m),

measures

geoweb, were flood 4 to 0.77 to

enkamat). soils include

forming and depths 25 as

and to

included

classified ranging ranging

as from from

overtopping

overtopping

ranging ft3/s-ft water

discharges conditions

1 to

m3/s-m), free fall.

and tailwater

10 percent

drop

literature embankment

review, erosion

field

data,

and

laboratory

data the

were

analyzed

to and

equations

considering

configuration

material

characteristics model data.

of

the

embankment

and hydraulics using utilized by floods to the

of

overtopping field design

flow. data charts

A mathematical and for depths laboratory estimating

was developed This model damages

and verified was then caused

collected

generate of various

embankment conditions.

overtopping

and tailwater

This description embankment of sion, flood

report of

presents predominant data, the the of and the

the

study modes laboratory of

results. embankment

The following failure, test

sections collection

deal of

with field

damage

embankment and for of equations determining embankment

program, governing embankment

the

hydraulics erodue to

overtopping the

flow,

parameters a procedure evaluation

embankment erosion measures.

development

overtopping,

protection

DESCRIPTION

OF PREDOMINANT MODES OF EMBANKMENT FAILURE

1.

General Roadway embankments erosion are due subjected to flood slip to several types piping of and failure during

floods, and failure

including

overtopping, circle failure. high piping a soil type some occurs

liquefaction, common type overtopping require may be posfor longerof soil a of

possibly during

mass wasting flooding the is

due to caused

The most flood and

by excessively due to of

waters

and eroding substantial sible duration saturation leaving failure is where

embankment. of time serve wasting

Failures for saturation as

liquefaction This or

amount

matrix. structure significant as These due to flood

embankments Mass to

a detention require event and condition. Then, of this by flood

floods. due saturated are briefly upon, predicting

also flood

degree waters of

a longer banks in

recede, embankment

an unstable first.

types to flood

discussed as the purpose

failure is

overtopping and develop

focused of

study

understand

methods

damage

caused

overtopping.

2.

Piping Piping

and and

Liquefaction liquefaction zero. of such This can occur when occurs the in total a soil two has situations: force (2) in particle becomes water the of an effective (1) stress an upward equals of a

which flow the shock

approaches of total or water soil vibration the of and

commonly that

magnitude in

upward and

water

weight which effective these is the to ponding factor of

an unloaded produces stress

situation, decrease soil soil by of

occurrence soil the

a volume from occur, and This the the eroded type the soil for

a loose to

skeleton, pore water. a fluid or

transferring When either which flowing is not flows through expected

situations easily moved

essentially either

overtopping embankments and there However, serve

embankment. be common time required and

failure is quite

for

roadway

unless potential

permeable, saturation.

is

considerable this dual failure purpose

embankment when roadway

consideration for excess

embankments

providing

detention

storm

water.

3. If

Mass Wasting An alternate the embankment of in the

by Slip form of becomes

Circle

Failure failure and or forces is possibly slide are caused by local by mass wasting. flowing forces the forces water, are undercut

embankment saturated may slump These slope mass. materials or man's

blocks involved gravity shear

embankment mass wasting. of of the the

downslope. associated these any

Various with

downslope are the from When a set of from of the

component strength via acted is added. the

Resisting and slope over or

downslope

earths strength by water

additional

contributions activities.

vegetation slope forces the slope. toe it to or less of does move toe is

root upon

reinforcement through with it,

flowing are in

an additional of material

These slope, may fail is removed,

forces

associated groundwater is more The to

removal and from

of

fluctuations if stable the slope

levels, removed resistance slope

vibration toe.

A slope a slope

material loses forces. in order

the

When the than tend forces with provide is toes upset removed acted the a

by buttressing materials may then of

by downslope downward into

gravitational the void

establish is of the if

a new balance a slope failed this configuration mass can buttress For material slope can

equilibrium. than original against the erosive

Oftentimes, surface further

this gradient.

equilibrium The toe

new buttress by upon force erosion, by

movements.

However,

force water,

equilibrium the continual

may again removal

be upset. of toe

balance.

4.

Flood Once

Overtopping floodwater locally exceeds is overtops high the also velocities strength caused of by large an embankment, over the erosion embankment resisting waves of the create erosion. occurring embankment a high will erosion of

occur force the ment.

when which

embankment standing

Failure on the

embankment

embank-

The primary erosion of this of the of type

mode of downstream failure

embankment shoulder where

failure and slope. lines

due

to

flood erosion

overtopping 1 shows at the times

begins progression tl'

by

Figure show

dashed

tp,

Figure

1.

Erosion

of

the

downstream,shoulder.

and between tailwater just jump erosion break

t3. the

As water roadway

flows

over

the and

roadway the

it

accelerates slope. with

near

the

break

point of

shoulder an undulating

downstream jump energy

Within wave in greatly the

a range is created

condition downstream and the force point, is of high of

hydraulic The to

standing

the

breakpoint. due

dissipation will

hydraulic the the area

velocities the water. a nick from

acceleration is scoured

increase area near The

Embankment point turbulence which

from

the

forming also eroded

progresses in the hydraulic

upstream. jump.

downstream

Another erodes. tailwater, passes the toe.

mode

of

failure this water depth

occurs type of

when

the

toe

of

the

embankment failure. With embankment jump through material

slope low it near the above embank-

Figure often through The and

2 shows as critical toe then erosion down the

embankment over forms

erosion the top

accelerates and then

of

an

an undulating by water toe is eroded, its

hydraulic flowing the

may also the slope. erodible or slide.

be initiated As the

embankment it ment becomes in the

unstable form of

and more a headcut

as erosion

works

way up the

On an earth will not be uniform will

embankment over fail first washout erosion the

the

erosion

process

will length, to will

form

a breach. weaker at lateral

Breaching areas the failed erosion of

entire and of

embankment cause the flow

because concentrate occur from

embankment sections. along with

Continued overtopping

the of the

embankment embankment.

Figure

2.

Erosion

of

the

toe.

COLLECTION

OF FIELD

EMBANKMENT DAMAGE DATA

1.

Field Roadway

Data

Collection

Procedure damage of and data personnel Simons, from 1982 flood, in Li five flood, five Wyoming utilized due to from flood the overtopping FHWA; State were collected Agencies; These sites one site September The field in in at

embankment force

21 sites U.S. sites Missouri Colorado

by a joint

Highway (SLA). and three and the

Geological included due to due to and

Survey; data the the

& Associates, sites four sites due in in sites in to

Inc.
Arkansas in Arizona the

collected December May 1983 sites were

Wyoming

due to

1983 flood,
following

three

August

1985 flood.
these data:

procedures

generally

collecting

(1) (2)

FHWA and State FHWA invited budget allowed. in Arizona to residents to data, such as

Highway the

Agency

identified

potential

sites.

SLA team members to visit the study sites if time and SLA team members have visited all the sites except those acquaint themselves with the damage conditions; visit local comprehend the flooding history; and collect soil and stage soil samples, high water marks, and photographs.

(3)

FHWA contracted the U.S. Geological Survey to determine flood conditions based on indirect methods and facts collected following the flood. The USGS estimated peak streamflow, maximum depth and peak flow over the roadway, headwater and tailwater elevations, velocity over the roadway, and duration of the flood for all sites damaged by the 1983 flood, except SLA project team made estimates for these those in Wyoming and Colorado. sites. State Highway Agency highway embankment, repair. personnel provided some cross-sectional descriptions data, and of the itemized damage to the cost the for

(4)

2. the These damage for data

Presentation Table

of

Field the

Data estimated and to verify as

(w.)

1 summarizes

flood damage the

conditions conditions for

and for

table the 21

2 summarizes flood sites.

embankment data due were were to

characteristics utilized flood

methodology in

determining of Details

embankment a Procedure of field

overtopping Erosion elsewhere.

described Due to Flood

"Development

Determining

Embankment

Overtopping."

presented

Table 1.

Flood

data

at

field

study

sites.

Peak Peak site I. Castor Rtver at Zalma. State Hlghway 51, Bolilnger County, MO Black River st Hllllord, Highway W, Outler County, Llttle Gxm't; , 4. 5. Spring River at Imboden, AR 98,500 Eleven Point River near Ravenden Springs, AR, at Arkansas State Highway 93 at Dalton, AR South Fork Llttle Cllnton, AR Red River at 6,290 Arkansas 10,100 2.7 4.0 672 2.6 3.3 508 17,500 6.5 2.5 IO.5 3.7 1,863 1,255 Black River near Hzhway K. Ripley County MO Grandin 9,370 2.8 3.6 700 ;::F:~"" Average X" kxlmura Depth (ft)

Overtopping

Condltlons Average v;;;;Lp Maxlmum '%2 Headwater Elevation (ft) Tallwater Elevotlon (ft)

'y:W;

y-;p

19,500 35,300

2.7 4.5

3.0 6.7

1,795 1,370

26 41

4.7 5.7

5.4 6.2

380.73.81.8 66.2

379.6380.3 65.9

2.

3.

9 22 I5

5.B 10.5 6.5

5.9 12.6 7.8

417.0 310.5 340.3

414.2 307.6 344.63

6. 7.

10

5.2

6.3

515.7

514.8

Illlnols Bayou near Scottsvllle, AR. at State Highway 164

12

6.6

8.0

479.0

474.8

8.

West Fork Point Remove Creek near HattIevIlla, AR, at Arkansas State Highway 247 Gravel Road of Hillsdale, Mwrle Street Cheyenne, WY l-l/2 WY at Miles North

10,300 60

1.2 --_

2.0

3,118 80 ---

12 80 I2 10 42

4.2 3.0 4 -----

5.1 ---

317.3 -------

315.3 Lou Low ---

9. 10. Il. 12.

1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3

Crow Creek

In

---

-----

6 5 -me

Earth Road In Branlte Reservotr, WY Wyoming State Hlghway 487 at Sand Creek near Shirley Basin

300 6.680

120 1,134

v-e

7,005.B

Free

Fall

Table

1.

(continued)

Peak Peak site Dzr Average Depth lft) Msxlmum Dapth (it) Length (ft)

Overtdpplng Duration (hours)

Condltlons Average V::$;;y MaxImum tx Headwater Elevation (ft) Tal lweter Elevation (ft)

13.

Taft HI I I Road at Cache la Poudre River In Fort Cal I Ins, co Glla River 70 (Bylas at U.S. Grldge) Hlghray

500 27,oMT

--2.5 2.6

0.5 3.4 4.0

3Do 2,100 2,700

30 30 4

m-m

1
5.5 10.5 2.583.4

---

LOW 2.577.3 3,456.0

14.

5.1 0.7

15. 16.

San Francisco Hlghway 666 Gila River

River at at Clifton, at State

U.S. A2 87

7.200

3.457.5

Hlgnay

w~oacaton, . 17.

A7. (mIlepost

26,000

2.1

3.1

2,240

60

5.6

5.8

1.283.1

1.260.9

Peak Canyon at interstate Hlghway I9 near Nogales, (ml lepost 14) Santa Cruz River Road near Tucson, Ralrle Wlndmlll Rldge Ave., Road, Road, at Cortaro A2

AZ 6,200 23,000 4,200 5,500 5,700 1.5 3.9 ------1.6 5.3 2.5 3.0 1.5 1.100 1,600 --------44 3 3 3 3.6 3.6 -^--w-e 4.0 7.1 6.5 13 12 3.357.2 2.151.9 I% (H.E. &I &I (H-E. (H.E. 3,354.G 2.149.0 - TX.= - TX.= - T.E 3 ft) 3 ft) = 5 ft)

16. 19. 20. 21.

Cheyenne, Cheyenne,

WI WY WY

Cheyenne,

Table

2.

Summary

of

embankment

characteristics

and

damage.

Embankment WI dth/ Height lft) 24/4

Characterlstlcs Yldth of Pavement (ft) 20 (bltumlnous) 22 (bltumlnous) Side Slope 1i5: 1 Vege tatlo on Slope Fescueberwda Fescue Length (ft) 600 (shoulder) 75 (shoulder pavement) WI dth (ft) ---

Damage Vol me (yd II ) 200 Cost of RepaIrs 5.150 Time of Closure (hqurs) 26

s1te 1. Castor River Highway 51, MO at Zalma, State Bolllnger County, County MO Grandln

Soil

Type

Sandy, LowCohesl ve

2.

Black River at Hilllard, Hlghway W, Dutler County, Llttle County county, Spring Black River Hlghway K, MO River at near Ripley Imbode,

28/4

Sandy, LowCohesive Sandy -Clay

--1.5: 1

--and ---

---

1,450

41

3.

24/10

Fescue

& aggregate)

400 (shoulder and embankment)

700

3,000

4. 5.

AR

Eleven Point River near Ravenden Springs. AR, at Arkansas State Hlghway 93 at Dalton, AR South Fork Llttle Cl Into, AR Red River at 26/l 0 Arkansas 26/6 Sandy-Slit, NoncohesIve --20 2.5:) Grass 155 (washed) 2,500 (shoulder 1000 pavement) 80 20-55 2,000 -----

6. 7.

II llnols Bayou near Scottsvllle, AR, at State Hlghway 164

8.

West Fork Point Remove Creek near Hattlevllle, AR, at Arkansas State Highway 247

20

2:l

Brass

--and

920

---

---

9.

Gravel Road l-l/2 of HI I Isdale, WY

Ml les

North

20/3

d50=0.5 (surface)

mm

3:l

Sparse

17

, go

---

---

2OE:aZ NoncohesIve 10. I4xrle Street Cheyenne, WY at Crow Creek in 34/4 4 -0.12 mn S Pt 6 clay content = 24-42 Percent, LowCohesIve 24 2.5: I Sparse 25 54 (breached) 330 -----

13

The at peak

field flow, these

data total field the

are

limited

in

that

they after

consist the flood,

of

overtopping and limited modeling from

condition soil data. assumpcontrolled

embankment data are

damage useful that

However, tions laboratory and

for is

verification developed using

of

the data

of

methodology

conditions.

14

LABORATORY EMBANKMENT TEST PROGRAM The details of the hydraulic model utilized to collect the laboratory data and the characteristics of the embankment soils tested by the model are presented in this section. The calibration of the hydraulic model is documented and provided along with a description of the embankment construction This section also presents the details of the embankment test procedures. program, the schedule of tests, flow conditions tested by the model, and data Finally, a review of the procedures utilized to edit, collection procedures. review, 1. and analyze the data is presented.

Test Facilities and Instrumentation The embankment overtopping tests at the Engineering The outdoor testing

were conducted

in

an outdoor

testing

Research Center (ERC) of Colorado State facility was designed to conduct tests upon The utilization of a testing facility which full-scale roadway embankments. allows full-scale tests minimized the inaccuracies inherent with modeling the physical processes associated nics of embankment erosion. Testing the erosion with the hydraulic and sediment transport mecha-

facility University.

of the full-scale

embankments necessitated

the fabri-

cation of a large moveable flume and construction of a prototype section of roadway embankment. The design features of the flume included a headbox and tailwater control section, an embankment test section, and a data collection carriage mounted on the flume walls. An inlet diffuser was installed as an integral tailwater part of the headbox. A series of control for the flume. The flume four also outlet gates provided the includes a 60-foot (18.3-

meter) section of 8-inch (203~mm) pipe to pass water from the headbox to the downstream embankment slope. This allowed for setting the initial tailwater conditions during the high tailwater tests. The flume utilized for this study is depicted in figures 3 and 4.

15

POINT INLET DIFFUSER

GAGE & PROBE

VELOCITY

--.

EMBANKMENT

TEST

SECTION

--

OUTLET GATE

Figure

3.

Profile

of

testing

facility.

,,

.i,,;

Figure

4.

Testing 17

facility

Extensive University embankment length paved sideslopes sideslopes the Federal was were

modifications made to allow An in roadway from vegetated 4:l with

to for

the

property

leased water

from supply 300 in to 2:l. by ft

Colorado

State

a recirculating

and full-scale (91.4 Unpaved combination m) in and with

construction. constructed of

embankment with embankment

approximately were to included

accordance

AASHTO guidelines.

sections ranging were

(horizontal a seed

vertical) approved

The embankment representatives of

mixture

Highway

Administration.

The owned and

discharge operated (435 If

required by SLA. BHP at needed,

for The 2100

the

testing plant,

was

provided

by of of

a pumping an Aurora (2.1 have

plant Diesel m3/s) been State conto

pumping rpm),

consisting in ft3/s excess (0.8 pump was facilities to the

8V-92T.engine to the flume. by

provided 30 electric the

75 ft3/s could

an additional (0.6-m) water for The from of the

m3/s) owned

provided University. structed recirculate to the

a 300-hp, The source testing design

24-inch of site. discharge view roadway

by Colorado pond designed pond the

testing

a detention were

at

the the

experimental the test flume site is

detention

and back

pump pit. supply system

A plan and

illustrating presented in

recirculating 5 and 6.

water

embankment

figures

As arranged stockpiled the which designed 300-ft 36-inch 36-inch

indicated to allow soil

by for materials

figure stockpiling were for

6,

the

test

site

was a variety the tests

sufficiently of soil

large materials.

and

was The of soils

and mixing utilized during

construction and duplicated The test telescoping successive locations.

and testing the site sections

roadway composed to (91.4-m)

embankment the allow 300-ft for

the

fixed-flume roadway flume

(91.4-m) moving the

embankment. to test (12.2-m) with required

was also of section lengths the of of

successive

roadway pipe pipe

embankment. was utilized in flume

A 40-foot conjunction to the

(0.9-m) (0.9-m)

to

move the

18

ClOIO

FLOW

*own

SECTION

A-A

HCADmOX

a* AWROXIYAW CALI

40*154xa4~ -S* I OAW OATE VALVII

wLeacocIwo

SLCIIOW

VAl.W

Figure

5.

Site

layout.

Figure

6.

Overview

of

the

testing

facilities.

20

The city, rate installed tube

data

collected water-surface flume the water was

during

the

testing and by

program embankment utilizing

included profile. a calibrated

discharge, The

velodischarge meter

depth, in the in

profile, determined supply in water coupled The line. heads

elbow to

The device across the the

was connected elbow meter curve the

a manometer The meter

and the in the is

difference water discharge. in use

determined. for the

difference provided device facilitated The carriage velocity water

heads

with

calibration curve the for testing, the and the taken the

calibration 7. During which the gauge point

discharge data length

measuring was flume. for bed and 201 0 to 20

provided by the provided

figure of

collection of the

a carriage for

traversed gauge

support

instrumentation of the

measurements. surface. Velocity current 6.1 m/s).

The point

measured were of

elevations by

measurements meter capable

a Marsh-McBirney from

electromagnetic ft/s (0 to

measuring

velocities

2.

Verification An understanding

of

Flow of

Hydraulics the hydraulics the were erosion conducted flow of water flowing over an embankment a series variables. this series of is of

essential rigid-bed Table tests.

to.

understanding tests the

process. to evaluate

Consequently, the hydraulic during

embankment 3 summarizes

various

conditions

generated

The elevations, the velocity

data and

collected velocity

during

each

test

included The of of data

discharges, were analyzed for free are

water-surface to flow determine and subin

measurements. and coefficient results

distribution conditions. of Flow Over

discharge the

merged "Hydraulics

flow

The

analysis

presented

an Embankment."

3.

Characteristics During this

of study used for

Embankment a soil

Soils program of on the was performed test to evaluate all Soil Federal

testing

fill

material were

construction based

embankment

sections. by the

materials

selected

specifications

provided

21

d
0 d 0 t-i

I i

CD
lllilllllllI I ! 1 I

11111111111I

I I

II

? 0 ? 0

(Y 0

Table 3.

Flow overtopping embankment runs.

conditions

of rigid

Run

Overtopping Depth, h (ft)

Water Surface Drop (Percent)

Discharge &/s 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11

0.5 0.5 1.0

1.0 1.0

20 40
10

2.0 2.5 4.9 6.2 6.4 22.5 22.9 23.4 24.0 72.0 78.5 75.0

20 40 10 20 40 75
10

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

20 40

12

23

Highway more

Administration soil.

and

included

a clayey

sand

mixture,

as well

as a sandy,

erosive

Two before type higher to I.

sources

of the

embankment initial a series

material testing of flood

were material, overtopping referred

tested

for

comparative referred a soil type II, to

purposes as soil of a

selecting Following percentage

hereafter tests, to as soil

composed

of

sand, test

hereafter sections.

was utilized

construct

additional

Laboratory engineering accordance fication, critical sivity.

and properties

field of

tests the

were fill

performed material.

to The

classify soil

and tests,

determine conducted soil

the in

with

ASTM procedures, distribution, shear

provided Atterberg strength,

information limits,

concerning hydraulic

classi-

grain-size shear stress,

conductivity, and disper-

compaction

characteristics,

Soil fied material for soil Soil

type

I was

classified

as

a clay to soil. 8. the

of

low

plasticity

(CL)

by the system,

Unithe curve

Classification. was classified type I is to provided

According be an A-6 on figure sand and

AASHTO classification The In grain-size general, silt 4. plus soil clay. of distribution type

I contained of the

approximately laboratory laboratory also provided

40 percent analyses analyses in are of table

60 percent in table and

Results the

presented soil 4. type

A comparison after embankment

selected is

I before

construction

Soil and curve ing mately analyses a A-4(0) is

type

II by the

was classified

as a SM-SC by the system. type I, II which type I. Soil type soil II are

Unified

Soil

Classification distribution mixapproxilaboratory

AASHTO classification on figure with more for sand soil 9. soil than type

The grain-size

provided material

was created produced The in results table

by mechanically a soil of 5. with the

a sandy

20 percent conducted

presented

24

U.S. STANDARD

SIEVE OPENING

IN INCHES

U.S. STANDARD

SIEVE NlJMlERS

H~DliOMElLR

-40

3 z E

-50 -60

5 8 i c E

- 70

a0

100 01 GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS

SAND 1 MIDIUM I NC n ----I I Sl11 OR CLAY

I
sN4nt No.

CDWLS clcv OR CWM

COARSE

GRAVEL 1

1
I

IHE

I 1 COARsf

CWSIfK*IlON

mxm DC-FHWA-01 EMBANKMENT

STUDY

GRADATION ENG FORM I MAY 63

CURVES

DAR

2087 Figure 8. Size distribution for soil type I.

Table

4.

Soil

test

results,

soil

type

I.

Soil

Property/Test

Results Before Construction

Results After Construction

Grain-size Distribution Percent Sand Percent Passing Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index AASHTO Classification Unified Specific Soil

#ZOO Sieve

40 60 32.8 to 47.8 20.7 to 23.2

11.6 to A-6 CL 24.6

32.7 to 35.1
19.3 11.7 to to A-6 CL 22.3 15.7

Classification

Gravity

2.58 to

2.60

Compaction Optimum Maximum Hydraulic

Moisture Content Dry Density

18 percent 108 lb/ft3

13 to 102 to

19 percent

111 lb/ft3

Conductivity

1.9 x ,107 to 4.8 x.107 cm/s

100.3 Proctor 92.7 15.6 to to 95 percent 16.3 percent to 102.8 lb/ft3

Dry

Density Maximum Standard Density Water Content

Torvane Shear Test Before Saturation After Saturation Pin-Hole Critical Dispersion Shear, Q Test

0.1

2.5 tons/ft2 to 3.2 tons/ft2 dispersive)

ND1 (no 0.078

lb/ft2

26

t i i t -i i

e ; ! i . ; i . . : . .
I
I

iill i i

I I I I I

I I

I
I

II

v If

III1 (
I I i

1
I

; : I

i81-I I I I I I i IYI i I I II !
!o, :h !O ; I I I,, I I 1 I I I A

0
c -.

lH313M

A0 KINId

lN33

13d

27

Table

5.

Soil

test

results,

soil

type

II.

Soil

Property/Test

Test

Result

Grain-size Distribution Percent Sand Percent Passing Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index AASHTO Classification Unified Soil

#ZOO Sieve

59 percent 41 percent

24.4 18.7 5.7 A-4(0) SM-SC

Classification

Compaction Optimum Maximum

Moisture Content Dry Density

14.7 113.5

28

A detailed is to provided the Federal in

discussion a report Highway

of entitled,

the

testing "Report for

procedures Task 28, D:

and Soil

soil Tests,"

test

results submitted

Administration

on January

1985.

4.

Embankment All

Construction test

Procedures sections width of the of were 12 ft constructed (3.7 m) and tested Two types tested types of the study. to be 6 ft shoulder during of along soil with this were five surfaces (1.8 width study utilized embankment and prom) high, of 10 ft varied as

embankment a top The

and (3.0 from fill

allow m). 2:l material

pavement sideslope to two

embankments to 3:l. were

(horizontal and measures. measures tested

vertical) roadway

surfaces 6 presents this

protection tection

Table during

roadway

The

original test

proposal various where soil

was

to by

construct moving

a long the flume

embankment, to were account the flume edges be obtained to various set up.

allow

it

to of

we,
the of After

and

conditions prescribed cohesion it the More in

segments The effect procedure. the to the

embankment aging on the

embankment could was effects reliable rather

conditions into move

be taken decided of the data than to

by this for next

several

experiments, only because

grassed flume

embankments walls the the were bare soil

disturbed could

significant. experiments sections.

by compacting move the flume to

place

attempting

precompacted

The and This soil

procedures

established

for

installing were For an

the important required tests,

embankment aspect the the procedure the the flume placement percent) fill

fill of this

materials study. of the of fill

embankment is especially

protection true within mixing the the by for

measures the flume. individual of tests

which these soils the

construction consisted

embankment

mechanically material, front-end material Engineering to

composing in during (-18 the

embankment with of

followed loader. ensure technicians

placement was optimum

material added content

a Bobcat the fill

Water that

carefully moisture

was obtained. in 6-inch

mechanically

compacted

material

29

Table

6.

Roadway selected

surfaces and protection for testing.

measures

Protection Roadway Surface

Measures For Testing

Selected

Soil Paved Paved Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Surface Surface/Gravel Surface/Gravel Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Enkamat Gabion Soil Shoulder Shoulder

None None Grass Geoweb Enkamat and Grass Mattress Cement

30

(152-mm)
dry tions Figure material. provided density, were

lifts

to Standard

obtain

the

compaction To the Federal installation of the soil

requirements maximum Highway and extent compaction

(95

percent all the

of

maximum test sec-

Proctor). to the meet

possible, of

constructed illustrates An illustration

Administration

specifications. embankment is

10
in

embankment

following

construction

figure

11.
roadway were in also conducted with was within the placed a 4-inch was 6 ft the flume. The soil previously surface of the

Tests embankment described. soil nous

of

a paved

was A

constructed

accordance gravel base

procedures on the

U-inch
The The of

(0.3-m) roadway completed (3.7

embankment. pavement. width

was test

capped section

with

(102-mm) thick
(1.8 width for m) high of with ft

bitumia top (3.0 m).

pavement Figure

12 ft

m) and roadway

a gravel test

shoulder section ready

10

12 illustrates

a paved

testing.

Testing tion of

an embankment

slope

vegetated Consequently, of

with

grass a 300-foot

required

the

construcembankment under with roada a

a full-scale to

embankment. test the

(91.4-m)
in base

was constructed variety Federal way of flow

influence

a vegetated

embankment

slope accordance and paved

conditions. Administration placed

The embankment specifications. of the soil the

was constructed A gravel embankment. construction were

Highway were of

surface

on top illustrating

Figure.13 procedure. planted The seed with

presents Following a seed is mixpre-

sequence construction ture sented

photographs of the road

embankment, Highway

sideslopes Administration.

accepted in table

by the 7.

Federal

mixture

The the pipe

vegetated

embankment After of

was excavated adding the

for

the

movable sections

flume of

tests

using (0.9-m) were 32 with a and

following to allow in (0.8

procedure. advancement the m) in mixture embankment. width

sufficient two test

36-inch trenches

flume,

18-inch section

(0.5-m)

excavated inches bentonite

The embankment the wall trenches. was placed

was approximately were lined

between

The trenches in each trench.

and a flume

The headbox

31

Figure

10.

Installation

and compaction 32

of

embankment.

Figure

11.

Illustration following

of the construction.

soil

embankment

33

Figure

12.

Illustration

of

a paved

roadway

test

section.

34

Figure

13.

Construction

of

full-scale

embankment.

35

.-^-^lll.*l .,.i _x,~*--,-*(*-__

Figure

13.

Construction

of

full-scale

embankment

(continued).

36

Table

7.

Seed

mixture.

Common Name

Lb/Acl

Western Fairway Smooth Buffalo White

Wheatgrass Wheatgrass Brome Grass Dutch Clover

7.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 1.0 21.5

' Lb/AC

of

live

seed

commonly

abbreviated

Pls/Ac.

37

tailwater culating compacted flume walls

control piping along

section system the

were

attached

to Excess

the fill to

flume material

walls

and

the

recirand of from to the and the benthe the a

was attached. outside of the test. Wyoming, Mixing and seal

was backfilled the bowing were obtained walls allowed walls the next

flume

walls gravel along

minimize chips the

during in test

the

Benton i te and the the p 1 aced

manufacturer embankment tonite

Casper, section. to swell procedure the

flume water the

bentonite void t ie loss

with between of water

mixture This

flume through

embankment. test section

minimized was moved.

embankment

when

flume

Several testing Testing flume; within

embankment were

protection gabion protection the procedures

measures mattresses, measures for

were soil did not

also cement,

tested. geoweb,

Included and movement the soil

in

the

schedule the

enkamat. of the

embankment

necessitate of

consequently, the flume were

construction

embankment

followed.

The m) long, gauge the double side and of wire, top

gabion and of were the

mattresses 6 inches filled (152

were with 3and

constructed depth. 6-inch to

to The (76-

be 3 ft wire to

(0.9

m> wide, made and rock The

8 ft from placed

(2.4 19 on were each

mm) in

mattresses, 152-mm)

embankment at each

downstream seam 3401

sideslope. and single wire filter 14

mattresses along

wire the

wrapped mattress. beneath view of

mattress Typar

wrapped fabric presents

A DuPont the the gabion

nonwoven Figure by gabion in

was placed a crossof A view

pinned

mattresses. protected flume is

sectional the gabion

embankment within the

mattresses. figure 15.

mattresses

provided

The layer, (see mix soil

erosion thick, 16). and called

protection along The soil

afforded the top of

by the

soil

cement

was

tested

by

placing sideslope readyfor the the

1 foot figure contractor cement

embankment

and downstream produced The of by a local

cement to the

was commercially testing site. by weight 10 percent. mixture.

delivered for

specifications sand section

a cement of the in

content

approximately Plaster

11 percent composed protected

and a moisture remaining soil cement

content to

approximately soil figure cement 17.

additive is

The test

by

depicted

38

TYPAR

LINER

3X8X6

GABION

MATTRESS

Figure

14.

Cross-

sectional

view

of

gabion

protection

measure.

39

Figure

15.

Illustration

of

mattress-protected

embankment.

40

\TYPAR

LINER

FLUME

FLOOR

Figure

16.

Cross-sectional view protection measure.

of

soil

cement

41

Figure

17.

Illustration

of

soil-cement

protected

embankment.

42

Geoweb The river runoff. 20 of was ft each (6.1 grid geoweb banks,

is system

a grid has for

confinement been utilized

system for

made erosion

of

high-density along due 8 ft The study, to

polyethylene. lake shores and water and

control washouts

and

controlling geoweb section 8 inches inch of 18. the

embankment expands (203 (1.2 mm). to mn) in For

surface (2.4 m) wide

A standard m) long wall along

a section depth. this

and is the

is

nominal the

thickness system in the

0.047 top

geoweb

placed

embankment Wooden to filled stakes, secure

and

downstream

sideslopes by the to the (25-

manner of The rock. fabric

indicated were

by figure initially grids the or

recommended the lgeoweb to Typar system.

manufacturer embankment. to 51-mm) filter the

geoweb, individual

utilized cells were mattresses, beneath

with a DuPont

2-inch 3401 Figure

As with was placed

gabion

nonwoven 19 depicts

and pinned

the

geoweb

embankment

protected

by geoweb.

The matting

final made

erosion from of the heavy

protection nylon material function

measure monofilaments

tested

was fused During turf

enkamat. at this their study,

Enkamat intersections. the

is

The thickness purpose ious artificial drainage slope tion der of

tested was have to

was 9 mm. as the

primary Prev-

enkamat

a permanent successful slopes,

reinforcement. of viaduct with (1.8-m) downstream side with than enkamat covered mixture down metal 12 inches after with natural aprons,

applications

included steep enkamat of the

stabilization bridge in and

and and

embankments, ditches. during of the the The conduct

excavated was testing enkamat was installed

utilized

conjunction On a 6-ft along the and not of the

a vegetated wide secshouland the (0.3 instal1 to 2

program. was placed with (76 mm) was buried view by

roadway

embankment, Enkamat

and

sideslope. were

peaked pinned less the was grass

sections every ml. lation. inches described. 3 ft Figure

overlapped m).

by

3 inches edge

stakes

(0.9

The upstream the

20 presents The entire

cross-sectional protected and seeded

embankment soil to the

enkamat the enkamat

(25

to In

51 mm) of addition

with of

previously embank-

installation

on the

roadway

43

8 i

3x20x8*

GEOWEB -METAL

SECTIONS STAPLES

FLUME

FLOOR

Figure

18.

Cross-sectional

view

of

geoweb

protection

measure.

44

Figure

19.

Illustration

of

geoweb-protected

embankment.

45

ENKAMAT

(3

mm) - 3 ft. 0.~.

STAPLES

FLUME

FLOOR

Figure

20.

Cross-sectional

view

of

enkamat

protection

measure.

46

ment, In this each

a separate instance, strip

section the

of enkamat

level

ground

was isolated was placed mm). in

for four

placing adjacent

the

enkamat. with 1 to this after on the

material (76 and

strips with For rolled

overlapped (25 to and 51 mn) testing

by 3 inches of of soil

The enkamat with material the grass was

was covered mixture. cut and

2 inches application vegetation soil tion of

seeded the

enkamat,

was established. and pinned material the enkamat

The enkamat/vegetation by metal prior to stakes. testing. Figure

material

was placed

embankment

21 provides

an illustra-

5. at

Embankment Following the testing of testing tests

Test the site, the

Program fabrication rigid flow of the as soil bed of the modeling tests in section was of side road completed in facility were 2. initiated. slopes, surfaces, during B. and conducted Once all construction to verify the the overdepths, prois pre-

embankment

hydraulics hydraulic topping

described

completed, The flood

embankments a variety durations, of are tests

included drops,

testing overtopping

overtopping and embankment this study

water-surface tection sented

measures. on table 8.

The Test

schedule data

presented

appendix

An tailwater topping overtopping of

integral conditions. depth and tests, flow. to of and

part

of The

the

study

involved conditions over the was different tailwater

the were

simulation dictated

of by During

different the the two overflood levels

tailwater drop condition of

water-surface a free-flow The purpose the

embankment. simulated along combinations depth upon

with of the

submerged was

testing of Figure

tailwater and a high

depth magnitude tailwater

determine embankment a free-fall

impact

location of program.

erosion. condition

22 provides during

an illustration the testing

simulated

Tailwater overtopping overtopping relationship

conditions depth depths between dictated and

also by

influenced the test

the

discharge

required Testing

to a wide

obtain range

the of the

schedule. discharges,

consequently, and

allowed The

for

assessing

discharge

erosion

rate.

relationship

between

47

Figure

21.

Illustration

of

enkamat-protected

embankment.

48

Table

8.

Schedule

of tests.

Series FHWA I FHWA I I FHWA I I I

Description Test

of

SOII Type

SI fdeslope 3: t 3:l 3: 1

Overtoppl Depth, ft 0.5, 0.5, 0.5,

ng (Dot)

Water Surface Drop Over Embankment (percent of Dot) 20, 70, Free 70 70 Fal I (FF)

Testing Duration fhr) 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 10, 10, 10, 20 20 20

Bar*So I I Surf ace; No Protect I on Bare-So 1 I Surf ace; No Protection Paved Surface/ Gravel Shoulder; No Protection Paved Gravel Grass Surface/ Shoulder; I

1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4

FHWA IV P m FHWA V

3: 1

0.5,

2, 4

1, 4,

10

Paved Surface/ Grave I Shou I der Grass Bare-Soil Enkmnat Bare-So Geoweb Surface; I I Surf ace;

3: 1

0.5,

70

1, 4,

10

USFS I USFS II USFS Ill USFS IV USFS V

II II II II II

3:l 3:l 3:1 2:l 2:l 0.5,

0.5,

FF FF 4 FF FF FF

1, 4, 2 2 2 2

10

1, 2, 4 1, 2, 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4

Bare-Sol I Surface; Enkamat/Grass Bare-Sol1 Surface; Gabion Mattress Bare-Sol1 Surface; Sol I Cement

Figure

22.

Illustration tailwater

and

of embankment tests freefall conditions. 50

under

high

Figure

22.

(continued)

51

tailwater flow is

depth,

overtopping (i.e., detail in

depth, flow "Hydraulics

and of

discharge versus Flow free Over

varies flow).

depending

upon relationship

the

conditions, explained in

submerged

This an Embankment."

The hours. cance sion of of

duration

of

the

flood

overtopping the its impact protection

tests overtopping on the

ranged

from

1 hour the

to signifiof

20

By systematically overtopping the embankment duration

increasing and or embankment

duration, magnitude could and

rate

ero-

measure

be ascertained.

Two information protection tion

series gained afforded

of

tests from

were these

conducted tests provided

over

bare

soil for other

embankments. judging the

The erosion protec-

a basis and the

by pavement,

vegetation,

embankment

measures.

As indicated tests instance, vegetated presented and tests the with in

by table which of

8,

the

embankment the coincided

test movement with followed following

program of tests in the

included flume.

fixed-flume

necessitated the flume

In every
over the slopes tests

movement grass. table

conducted accomplishing

The test 8 are described

procedures in the

section.

a.

Test

Procedures to the embankment testing testing procedure. insight flow The steps: into the testing filling, program was the development gained of minimizing developed establishment, four steps follows: from of the a conrigid for initial part of the

Essential sistent embankment establishing disturbance this test, study to and

accurate tests the the

Knowledge development while procedure flow of the

provided appropriate

a procedure the as

conditions

embankment. of four A detailed

consisted

running

and draining.

description

1.

water was slowly fed into the flume Filling: To initiate a test run, Except for zero tailwater cases, part of through the upstream manifold. the water entered the downstream side of the embankment through a bypass. In this way, water at both sides of the embankment slowly raised to the The initial disturbance in the embankment was a minimum. same level. This filling was completed when the tailwater reached the desired level.

52

2.

Flow Establishment: After the desired tailwater level had been reached, the water discharge was increased at a moderate rate to establish the desired discharge. Simultaneously, the tailwater-control device was adjusted to maintain the desired tailwater level. The flow establishment was not conducted quickly or initial surge damage would result, nor was it conducted too slowly or significant erosion would occur before the actual run. Running: Once the flow was established, the discharge and tailwater levels were maintained throughout the duration of the run. If the erosion was so severe that the embankment was washed out before the test was completed, the run was stopped. The run was also stopped if failure of the protection measure was evident. Draining: Immediately charge was stopped. was slowly drained, embankment. upon the completion The water remaining in resulting in minimum of the run, the water disboth sides of the embankment disturbance to the postrun

3.

4.

A sequence embankments and Data data depth, test The to

of

photographs

illustrating measures

the is

testing provided

of in

various appendix

types A.

of

embankment Collection collected water-surface

protection and Analysis during each profile, by means depth was After

b. The topping for tube. mounted appropriate carriage surface elevation the along the

test and of

included embankment

discharge, profile. flow by utilizing depth discharge the meter

velocity, The and a was

overdischarge manometer gauge and the The water surface with once the to

was

measured

a calibrated

overtopping the flume

established the

staff set

wall. conditions

overtopping the

tailwater mounted elevation,

established, flume flow, at facilitated and

was measured. of the

on top velocity

of

the of

measurement

bed elevation. of Flow at 3-ft 2 ft velocity (0.9-m) of all

Bed and water (0.6 m) beginning was intervals tests were measured

measurements shoulder top of the

were of

taken the

intervals

upstream the

embankment. and Still condition

embankment shoulder. the test

from taken

downstream assist in

embankment documenting

photographs and results.

53

The analyzed topping the

field to flow.

data

and the

laboratory hydraulic

test condition

data

collected associated

in with equations

this

study

were over-

determine This of flood

embankment to

information a methodology overtopping the

was applied for and to

to

erosion

facilitate embankment protective

development due to

quantitatively assess effects were

determining of various

damage measures.

Specifically

following

analyses

made:

The fixed-bed embankment test data summarized in table 3 were analyzed to determine hydraulic conditions of overtopping flow including flow mode, discharge coefficients, local velocity, and shear stress immediately above embankment surface. A mathematical model was developed to determine the hydraulic conditions of overtopping flow and was verified using the test data. These hydraulic parameters are important factors affecting the flood conditions and embankment damage. The results of analysis are presented in Hydraulics of Flow Over an Embankment." Data collected during FHWA test series I and II tests (refer to table 8) were analyzed to (1) determine the erosion patterns and critical shear stress of bare soil, (2) evaluate applicability of existing soil erosion equations, and (3) establish soil erosion equations that can be utilized to determine the rate of embankment soil erosion as a function of soil characteristics and hydraulics of overtopping flow. The results of analysis are presented in "Parameters and Equations Governing Erosion of Embankment." A mathematical model was developed by incorporating the erosion equations established in step two into the mathematical model developed in step one to determine embankment damage rate due to flood overtopping. This model was calibrated using the bare soil test results (FHWA test series I and II). The effects of pavement and grass were assessed by comparing the results of tests with and without pavement/grass (FHWA test series III, IV, and V with FHWA test series I, and II). The model was then applied to develop a set of nomographs for estimating embankment damages conThese sidering various flood conditions and embankment characteristics. nomographs were verified using the field data described in "Collection of Field Embankment Damage Data." The results of analysis are presented in "Development of a Procedure for Determining Embankment Erosion Due to Flood Overtopping." Based on the results of USFS test series I to V, the effects of various protective measures on embankment stability were assessed. The critical conditions that would initiate the failure of these protective measures were determined and are discussed in "Evaluation of Embankment Protection Measures."

54

HYDRAULICS

OF FLOW OVER AN EMBANKMENT

1.

Flow

Patterns of for in the the hydraul.ics the of erosion this the was to so the water flowing over Several an embankment have most Kinds-

An understanding provides been a basis

understanding past is of

conducted

concerning found his study weirs The in

process. (3,4,5) topic.

studies the by

Perhaps paper

comprehensive material (4) vater. The purpose istics estimates ful in of of

USGS water determine USGS of

supply the could

discharge make more tests

characteraccurate are have patterns surface usebeen were flow,

embankment-shaped flood discharges. this flows flow.

observations Various

laboratory flow These patterns flow (2) free

understanding as in water

phenomenon. over as (1) an

observed classified and (3)

embankment. free-plunging

Kindsvatert4)

flow,

submerged

For occurs At greater as well said flow the to to change on

the the

low-tailwater roadway,and levels, critical headwater. the

condition the depth, Under With occurs

known

as free is depth of

flow,

critical by the over control, the pattern change

flow upstream the by the the

control head. is is free to

discharge when the the

determined of is flow

higher than

tailwater as the be

roadway tailwater flow

discharge

controlled

conditions tailwater abruptly.

tailwater level, The flow

submerged. flow is described

a rising rather

from

submerged

antecedent

as incipient

submergence.

Free flow merged jet over surface occurs

flow

is

subclassified jet plunges on the roadway

into under

plunging the

flow tailwater

and

surface

flow. producing occurs and

Plunging a subwhen the

when the jump from

surface, Surface flow

hydraulic

downstream surface Whereas is always at free

slope. the flow

separates the

the

downstream can flow.

shoulder

"ridesl' or a

tailwater flow,

surface. flow

be either

a plunging

submerged

a surface

55

The which

free-flow

transition can

range produce conditions. this limit to pattern of

is either

the

range a plunging

of

tailwater flow

levels or a surface is

within flow,

a given

discharge antecedent plunging, the

depending low until ing initially tailwater whereupon or the stream and it flow the

on the flow reaches changes high drops the flow of of of

Thus, persists transition flow. flow, lower to the the

if

the as the range,

tailwater tailwater whereupon if the

initially level the rises plungis as the

upper

abruptly and until the flow it pattern the flow large, embankment.

a surface, is a surface the

However, this limit of

tailwater

pattern the

persfsts transition The is on

reaches changes patterns

range, stability related the to down-

abruptly within

plunging transition which

flow. range occur

persistence inertia side

the the

horizontal-axis

rollers

The the models

tailwater

level

limits by

of

the

investigated in useful This less the in

Kindsvater. of the is based plunging the

transition range were (4) These transition characteristic of the flow structure that

recorded range

for data Also

all are these

significant data erosion. doubtless are

description determining

pattern. against surface

safety on the flows.

destructive flows are

conclusion erosive than

observation

Kindsvatert4) ments. marizes ranges mine good the Figure the for-

presented .23 defines limits of

charts variables

for

determining in the

flow charts and

patterns and free-flow

over figure

embank24 sum-

utilized

the

incipient surface.

submergence Figure an embankment patterns.

transition to detera

screen-wire patterns of of

roughness flow

24 can be utilized and ultimately

overtopping erosion

provides

indicator

embankment

Figure tests ments. cate surface that and and The

24 was checked evaluated test to results 24 is flow

using determine are also

the its

data

collected on figure the

from for 24.

fixed-bed large-scale These

embankment embankindibetween results range

applicability

plotted to

figure plunging

applicable for

determine

transition

large-scale

embankments.

56

odwater He -- Ll( .- - - r7
A

K2

2g

level Crown line Tailwater level,.

Hi

4yo

;sP = pavement

cross

slope

= embankment

Figure

23.

Principal variables over an embankment.

needed

to

describe

flow

-a--

INCIPIENT SUBMERGENCE UPPER TRAfiSlTlON LlJvlIT AFTER LOWER TRANSITION LIMIT 0 OBSERVED SURFACE/SUBMERGED 0 OBSERVED PLUNGING FLOW

;;FjlDSVATER FLOW

1.0

o.e

0.6 E N 0.4

0.2

0.9

I
0.1

I
0.2

I
0.3

I
0.4 0.5

h/w

Figure

24.

Summary of incipient submergence and free flow transition ranges. 58

2.

Discharge The generally

Equations accepted the free

for

Flow form flow

Over of the

an Embankment equation is that computes discharge over

an embankment

for

condition

(1)
where determined total head q is the discharge per by unit width, of C is a coefficient tests, in and figure (5) the HI/W of of 0.7), off the that t$ 23. has been is the Using figure flowing obtain be the less

experimentally above data the for

a number crest roadway B C. C if

laboratory as surface, To defined

embankment a smooth

Kindsvater's 25 over than If with factor the to determine a roadway,

Bradley 25) with the curve than and read by value A

presented discharge and HI/W

discharge first is is enter of suggested present value The of

coefficient. curve discharge that (i.e.,

determine

(figure Should from is

free-flow 0.15,

coefficient it

be read t/H1

same figure. enter curve C

submergence the proper Cs/C. expression:

larger

submergence discharge

in, percent is obtained

the

submergence values in

resulting

substituting

Q = C L H3j2

(2)

where upstream coefficients Where the

represents head measured of depth discharge of portion The for flow

the above

length the free

of crown

inundated of the and

roadway, roadway, with and

HI C

is and

the Cs

total are

for varies

flow the can and

submergence, it is to advisable

respectively. to each divide reach

the inundated

along and

roadway, the be

into

reaches of of course, bridge

compute roadway

discharge aid

over in

separately. backwater

process,

reversed

determining

a combination

configurations.

Based slope is

on

experimental in its

results, effect

it

was

found flow

that

the perhaps

embankment for the

side effect

insignificant

on the

except

59

PERCENT SLRMERGENCE
70 80 82 84 I 66 88 I

%l-t, X 100
90 I 92 I 94 I

96 /

98 I

-------

310 E! *?i.. 3.08 3.06 3.043.023.00 \

ti 0 3 CJ

I
a14

I
0.16

I I 0.18

I
0.20

s ! III 0.22 H,fw

!
0.24 0.26

II
0.28

I 0.30

NOTE: USE THIS CURVE FOR FREE-FLOW COEFKENTS WITH HNVRATIOS @.15. BASED ON LARGE SCALE EMBANKMENT TEST DATA I L2
16

0.4

08

II 2.0 oll

11
24

I
26

III 3.2

I
3.6

1
4.0

lil3.D

ROADWAY H, IN FEET

Figure

25.

Discharge embankment

coefficients (after Bradley 60

over

roadway

on rolling embankment hydraulic

waves height, conditions

on the

downstream cross on the

side. slope

For and

the

free-flow slope

case, do not

variation affect

in the

pavement, of flow

shoulder crest.

embankment

3.

Method The

of

Determining processes

Hydraulic governing velocity present,

Variables the and all to the velocity developed. flow of embankment effective the head shear hydraulic and field All condition. over in time this tailwater and of shear these Another as erosion study erosion stress equations are closely to have No distriare

physical to flow-induced

related the been

local At the the

adjacent that

embankment presented to over

surface. relate determine the

discharge nonuniform have rapidly hydraulic

conditions. stress variables complicating of

equations bution highly factor ment data

embankment in change this of

been varied

nonuniform is occurs. to evaluate the

conditions program factors. conducted

embankuseful

The experimental these governing

provided

A concrete-bed ditions overtopping

embankment the

model

was tested

in

this

study.

The

flow

con-

embankment

included:

0 0

Overtopping Tailwater conditions.

depth, drop,

h = 0.5, (h-t)/h

1, =

2, 0.1,

and 4 ft. 0.2, 0.4, and 0.75 and free-fall

The

data

collected as shown data

included on figure were analyzed

water-surface 26. to The flow determine

profiles conditions velocity

and were and

velocity summarized shear

at

selected in table of flow

stations 3. These

stress

overtopping

an embankment.

During face mode flow can or be

the

rigid

embankment flow, from data

tests, figure 24

the on the as that

overtopping tailwater a function for surface

flow of flow

was

either This and velocity

surflow t/t+ over

plunging determined of velocity

depending indicates

conditions. h/W the

Examination

61

WATER

SURFACE

DROP

(%I =

it;

a 100

DISTANCE

(f.d

STA.ili2\314 1516 x 110[21[24j27129133

Figure

26.

Locations

of

measuring

stations.

the Its than would

downstream magnitude the

slope would

surface

would

be in constant

reversed down the

direction the slope, actual if of the the

(e.g., and

figure generally

27). less erosion was test

be relatively velocity. than the

depth-averaged be less this in figure

Therefore computed erosion

embankment average rigid velocity

generally for as shown

utilized data

determination. 28 yields:

Examination

embankment

'r

= -0.15 vu

(3)
velocity over upper edge the of downstream slope slope surface 2 on figure and 26). Vu is

where the

Vr average

is

the velocity

flow at

the

(station

For generally dition dition developed

plunging be larger

flow than

the the

velocity

over

the

downstream velocity for velocity as

slope

surface

would concon30 was

depth-averaged

with-tailwater for in free-fall figure

and would (e.g., for

be the figure

same as the 29). flow The with

depth-averaged relation condition.

following tailwater

shown

plunging

vr =
where jump, V is

0.55 vuj

(4)
flow the velocity computer immediately program. upstream of a hydraulic

uj found

the

averaged in

by iteration

For city from vr the

plunging would standard

= v.

flow be the step

with

no appreciable flow

tailwater, velocities at

the each

representative grid point

veloobtained

average solution:

r is

I average velocity at a point i on the embankment.

(5)

where

v.

the

63

DISTANCE

(CootI RUN ND. 12

024

11810 SCALE:
(FT/SEC)

DOT = 4.0 feet WATER SURFACE FT3/SEC DROP (% DOT) ~40%

VELOCITY

=70

Figure

27.

Water-surface

and velocity

profiles.

VELOCITY

OVER THE DOWNSTREAM

SLOPE SURFACE,

V,(FT/SEC)

N .co

m m

DISTANCE

(CootI RUNNO.

0 24

6010 SCALItFT/SEC)

DOT= WATER

4.0 feet SURFACE FT3/SEC DROP (% DOT) = 20%

VELOCITY

0 = 78.6

Figure

29.

Water-surface

and velocity

profiles.

VELOCITY

OVER THE DOWilSTREAM

SLOPE

SURFACE,, V,(FT/SEC)

The

local II=

shear + fp v;

stress

can be related

to

local

velocity

by:
05)

where Vr is

is

the

Darcy-Weisbach velocity upstream downstream

coefficient, equa.1 slope, slope. to or

is

the

water velocity

density, over

and the from

a local crest

reference and the

depth-averaged equal to that

embankment equations

determined

3 or 4 for

A computer city tum and shear

model stress and

was developed of the

to

determine overtopping

water-surface flow

profile, the relations:

velomomen-

embankment the

by solving hydraulic

equation

incorporating

following

embankment

Discharge Flow mode,

coefficient, figure jump and 24. relations, shear stress

figure

25.

0 0
0

Hydraulic Velocity

Chow. (6) relations,(equations 3 to 6).

Figure are are tailed of not

31 shows for

a flow

chart

of flow

this

computer conditions

model. over rigid flood

Steps

2,

13,

and

14 but De-

required for

determining

embankments, overtopping. in "Development

needed

determining of for these

embankment computational

erosion steps Erosion

due will

to

explanation

be given Flood

a Procedure

Determining

Embankment

Due to

Overtopping."

The major

steps

for

hydraulic

computations

are

explained

below:

Step geometry putational Step tions (not

1. is

Divide then input

the as Figure

modeled (x,2)

embankment pairs.

into

computational n is input

sections. for each

The com-

Manning's an example.

section. 2. used Input for

32 shows

embankment rigid-bed

soil/structure version of model).

coordinates

and

erosion

equa-

68

10.

Computer water-surface profile downstream the control section solving momentum equation

of by t

2.

Input embankment soil/structure characteristics and erosion equations A

4.

J=O +

1 the each t bed

I 5.

Determine slope at section

*,

14. 6. Determine overtopping discharge using figure 25 t 7. Compute critical depth and critical slope

Determine erosion

at

embankment bed each section 1

15.
NO

Print

computed

results

L I1
I

I I

116.

J=J+l
t

17.

If

J > ITIME

8.

Determine the control section, IC, using singular point method (Chow)

Yes

t
9. Compute water-surface profile upstream of the control section by solving momentum eauation

Figure

31.

Flow

chart

of

the

computer

model

EMBANK.

69

X SEC. 1 TOTAL 5 NUMBER OF COMPUTATiONAL 10 SECTIONS 15 15

Figure

32.

Embankment

computational

section.

Step shows

3.

Input step hydrographs

For asumed steady

of flow,

headwater the

and

tailwater. is a straight

Figure line.

33

an example.

hydrograph

Step

4.

Initiate
Determine

the

computational

step.

Step

5.

the

bed

slope

at

each

section

using

the

equation:

z. - zi+l so = x-1 _ x
i where
i,

i+l i-l For

i-l indicate the most the downstream sect ion and upstream sections of

(7)

i+l

and lY.

section

respective

upstream

= z1 - z2 x2 - x1 Ol
downstream section

(8)

For

the

most

S 'NX=

NX-1 - 'NX
'NX 'NX-1

(9)
discharge 25 and coefficient then compute for the a given flow headwater discharge and from

Step tailwater equation

6.

Determine from

the figure

elevation 2.

Step

7.

Compute

critical

depth

y,

and critical

slope

SC

(10)

71

---J

I r---

HEADWATER
i ,--------

TAILWATER
.------.

I 1

2-3TIME

Figure

33.

Headwater

and tailwater

step

hydrographs.

2 SC=
2.2

i/3 Y,
unit width discharge, g is the gravitational acceleration,

(11)

where and n

q is

is the

the

Manning's Compare the slope

roughness the bed

coefficient. slope with the critical the than work were for set the slope control critical the rigid at each section, IC, at

Step starting which 5, ment only, 6, the

8. from bed

upstream is set erosion would just

section, equal to

and determine or larger will model

sections, slope. rigid

Steps embank-

7 and runs these

8 are

up so that runs. If

they the

either up for

or the steps

embankments

be simplified.

Step tions

9.

Compute the

water-surface equation

profile using the

upstream standard

from step

the

control

sec-

by solving

momentum

method:

hl
where ment, h Sf is is

= h2 + &- (V1 + v2)

(v2

- VI)

+ 9

$1

+ 'f2)

(12)

the the

stage, friction sections,

is

the

average and

velocity,

Ax 1 and

is

the

spatial the

increupstream

slope, respectively.

subscripts

2 denote

and downstream

Step by solving

10. the

Compute momentum

water-surface equation using

profile the

downstream standard step

of

the

control

section

method:

h2 =

hl + & (V1+ V2) (V1-

V2)

- 4 (Sfl + Sf2)

(13)

73

Step on figure on the

11. 34.

Compute

jump

conditions relations developed

considering are utilized

tailwater in and this Peterka.

effects step and

as shown are based

The following and figures

equations

by Bradley

(7) .
at computational

(1)

Compute section

sequent I

depth

assuming

the

jump

will

occur

y1 0 [JyYjyz Y2 = 2cos
in which yl 0 is is the the depth angle given before of by: the jump,

- 1)

(14)
is (tan8 the corresponding and K Froude is an

Fl slope

number, empirical

embankment

= So),

coefficient

K = 21.98 tan20 (2) Compute jump

- 14.40

tan

9 + 3.74

length:

Ll = y2 (2.87 + 1.89 So) d?

(3) Compute water surface elevation at the end of jump:

(15)

TWH = y2

(1 + 11.2 so32)
Ze is the water bed

+ z,
at the end of the is jump compared sections or it to

(16)

where: The

elevation surface

computed

elevation, The iteration at which on the to

TWH,

the con-

tailwater tinues concluded until

elevation, a section that a jump

TW. is cannot

downstream TW 1 slope. TWH

found occur

can

be

74

I = IC

+ 1

Assume at section depth, y3

+ begin of jump is I. Compute sequent using equation 14 4 jump length, LI equation 15

43

Compute using

4 Determine the of end of 4 Oetermine elevation at usino

location jump

the water-surface the end of jump, eauation 16

TWH,

Is the end the slope

of or

jump on beyond?

Beyond the embankment

Yes

rI

Is THW less than the tailwater elevation, TW and I equal to (IC+l)?

Yes I Determine the distance between end of jump and the toe of embankment, LR, using equatiott 17

Flow is Compute profile procedure from the section

submerged. water-surface using step 8 (figure 31 downstream with hNX = TW + .Return

11
Yes

No

I
curve 1

0
A

* Ljump by,:,I:;aic

Figure

34.

Flow

chart

showing

the 75

computation

of

jump

conditions.

(4)

Determine the

the

distance

between

the

end

of

the

jump

and the

edge

of

embankment

For

(TW - zNx)IY* = 2.05 S;"'78

5 I-3, [(TW ' I.3 y2 the + [(TW tailwater - ZNx) elevation. - 1.3 - ZNx) i 0.9

L2 For

y21

Wd

(TW - ZWJIY2 = 0.82 S;"'78 TW is

L2

y2]/So

Wb)

where:

Step figure shear

12.

Determine compute from local

the

flow reference

mode

(surface

flow using

or

plunging 3,

flow) 4, or

from 5 and

23 and stress

velocity

equations

equation

6.

Step erosion Step step (step

13. runs 14. used

Determine only). Determine for erosion

erosion

at

each

computational

section

(step

used

for

embankment runs only).

bed erosion

at

each

section

during

a time

The collected measured ment is

developed for the This

computer rigid model due to

model embankment

was

verified

using A comparison

the of In

water-surface the general for computed the

data and agree-

runs. shown in combined

water-surface good. erosion

profiles was flood

is later

figure with

35.

a submodel

estimating

embankment

overtopping.

76

---I
I b

Figure

35.

Comparison between surface profile.

measured 77

and

computed

water-

PARAMETERS AND EQUATIONS GOVERNING EROSION OF EMBANKMENT

1.

General Attempts to relied mathematically on mathematical data and for shear and laboratory characterize and physical were observational characterizing stress construction. test of data and other lacking. data embankment models In are failure based the due on broad to overassumpsection, (1) demonand related (2) to are

topping tions results strate

have because of

performance studies approaches the role using the of dike design

following to erosion, as erosion

model

utilized

different or

overtopping parameters in this Embankment conducted Parameters soil, is

demonstrate embankment then developed

equations study.

2.

Identification The erosion of

and Evaluation soil, particularly act

Important cohesive

complicated factors its of evaluating

because involved when The erodisoil, moni-

many are

controlling the physical and of fully

parameters and chemical saturated, are soil:

interdependently. of the soil

Principal itself,

properties and flow the

behavior the stress flow. the of have

partially following bility percent index, tored

hydraulic stress, cation

properties useful critical exchange for shear studies given

parameters cohesive clay, compaction, the role of and percent

generally organic

considered shear matter,

capacity, which

plasticity

and temperature. these parameters

Results more closely

of

model are

below.

Townsend using changes tion, failure centrifugal and

Goodings(8) models to

performed simulate results are in pressures embankments erosion, observed in

several

tests failure that

of due particle factors

waste to pore size

embankment pressure distributhe in mass

embankment indicate two

overtopping.

Their permeability, materials to pore

and. consequently of cohesionless are subject Less regarding The mode

important

governing materials can thus to cause

embankments. due to retard but are seepage,

Permeable which and

embankments instability. problems erosion.

permeable throughflow of failure

seepage susceptible with

eliminate overtopping per-

embankments

intermediate

78

meabilities The nature

was of

mass the

instability foundation such Hence,

(pore layers that the

pressures) did not foundation occurred affect

preceded stability strength in the

by

toe

erosion. the for itself

because was adequate

embankment the during

was constructed height.

embankment the

failure

embankment

experiments.

The Waterways Mississippi, overtopping mented in has occurs. unpublished

Experiment drawn several Their papers

Station

of

the

Corps about

of

Engineers

in

Vicksburg, when

conclusions are

embankment on case findings

performance histories

conclusions and reports.

based Their

and docu-

indicate:

Low embankments constructed of cohesive or well-graded granular material with fines having good compaction can withstand limited overtopping depths for limited periods. Seepage through relatively clean rockfill is detrimental to stability and can lead to shallow slides which progress downhill. Two of the most important factors influencing durability of the embankment are the effects of concentration of flow at abutments or low areas along the crest and erosion resistance of the construction material at the downstream toe area. If downstream toe material is undercut and erosion progresses upslope, large rock, concrete or other measures can Provision for tailwater can also reduce reduce scour in this area. erosion. High embankments, on the downstream i.e., slope over 75 feet, experience very compared to low embankments. high erosion forces

Other embankment failure modes, e.g., internal instability, can combine with the conditions breaching and failure of an embankment.

of

seepage and overtopping

mass bank to cause

Researchers overtopping uniform tion areas be used cannot of

at the

the

Waterways flow and

Experiment should abutments. on the

Station be directed They crest

(9) to

suggested more that

that vegetaslope.

if and

be prevented, embankment

resistant

recommended and downstream

as protection,

particularly

In highway

general, embankments

there by

are

three

major

problems destructive

resulting erosion,

from

overtopping impacts,

of

floodwaters:

backwater

79

and to layer

magnitude determine conditions flow

of the

flood

discharge. of

Kindsvater(4) embankment Results of is of form,

studied model tests

the

latter and indicated and height,

problem boundary that and

relationship with discharge.

roughness,

discharge the influence

is of

virtually boundary Hsu (10) plugs are

independent resistance

embankment only

shape for

appreciable

small

heads.

Tinney for sand dams. or

and Fuse

tested simply materials study

the

erodibility

of

fuse clay out in force,

plugs cores at and of

of

spillways by flow sediment traci.e., of

rockfill designed rates size), found increased. of clay at to

dams with to of tractive wash erosion

surrounded a certain of critical size, the rate

other The

filtering model

discharge. transport tive the force. rate

defined

terms

characteristics The washout decreased (decrease Scale field material Using critical the as grain the modeling model

(particle rate was size

be a function Also, core), laboratory at

grain

by increasing the washout scales 1:2 and rock of

volume decreased and 1:40. scales. in friction

rockfill slightly. Large-scale Cohesionless studies. factor equation of rate the length of length

thickness

was conducted studies ranging were from

1:20

conducted coarse to

prototype was used

crushed the

all

DuBoys stress for time. between the

erosion

rate

equation, and recession

Darcy-Weisbach of the

shear

equation, "rate of

geometry of the

embankment, face" ratio in of units the to

an

was derived per unit

eroding the

Based

on a theoretical model and

analysis, its prototype

recession ratio to

a physical power.

was found

be

the

one-third

When embankments significant As the the soil, shear due erosion Velocity important with amount larger of fine-grained damage. to high

are

overtopped velocities by The on is is the more the

by on the flow the

flood

waters,

erosion side critical with tailwater soil. when of of

damage the shear the

can

be

downstream exceeds the increases and of to the the erosion

embankment. stress increase conditions. of in

stress

exerted begins. depends parameter

shear

stress headwater

velocity. Another soil the cohesive,

erodibility resistant

Cohesive compared overtopping

soil to affects

or non-

particles soils.

Finally,

duration

80

Embankment permeability soil, and the of

failure the duration soil,

due

to the

piping head water

and difference

liquefaction driving the soil

depends the to water

mainly through

on the the

of

flood

allowing

become

saturated.

3.

Critical The critical shear

Shear or stress materials,

Stress permissible and the (11) velocity following shear of stress flow equation that can and velocity will not are cause to defined erosion. determine as the For the

largest noncohesive critical

be utilized

shear

stress:

0.05

(Y,

Y)

d50

(18)

where d50 Reynolds known can

and the

are

the

unit size 70. Canal

weights of soil.

of

soil

and water, 18 is

respectively, valid for the This

and a shear welltable as

is

median greater

particle than

Equation and

number table of

Fortier Velocities" shear

Scobey ('*) shown

published 9.

Permissible to estimate

on table for

be utilized soil.

an average

stress

noncohesive

as well

cohesive

Several oped initiate found plasticity ranging soil, from was: that for

relations soil. of

for

determining In the soils study in force

critical of open of hydraulic channels, cohesive for

shear

stress

have forces and

been

develto

cohesive motion

erosive Smerdon soil

required Beasley well

cohesive tractive The

(13,14)
with soils, clay

critical index. a silty

correlated Missouri

relation soil

developed with little

11 uncompacted
to a highly

loam

cohesion

cohesive

=C

= 0.0034 (PI)o*84

(19)

81

Table

9.

Maximum permissible velocities recommended by Fortier and Scobey and the corresponding unit-tractive-force values converted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (for straight channels of small slope, after aging).

Clear
VC

Water
'C

Water Transporting colloidal silts

VC *C

Material

ftJs

lb/ftz

ft/s

lb/ftz

Fine Sandy Silt Alluvial

sand, loam, loam,

colloidal noncolloidal noncolloidal silts, firm ash noncolloidal loam

1.50

0.027 0.037 0.048 0.048 0.075 0.075 0.26 0.26 0.67 0.075 0.38 0.43 0.30 0.91

2.50 2.50 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 5.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.50 6.00 5.50

0.075 0.075 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.46 0.46 0.67 0.32 0.66 0.80 0.67 1.10

1.75 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50

Ordinary Volcanic Stiff Alluvial Shales Fine Graded Graded Coarse Cobbles clay,

very silts,

colloidal colloidal

3.75 3.75 6.0 2.50

and hardpans gravel loam silts gravel, and to to cobbles cobbles noncolloidal shingles when when noncolloidal colloidal

3.75 4.00 4.00 5.00

82

where material and to is

PI to retain

is

the

plasticity shape

index. continuously after

Plasticity under removal of the for Lyle erosion stress and shear soil the the

is

defined

as the of

ability

of stress index limit. from

change the as the

influence stress. limit

an applied plastic obtained used to soil cation

new shape difference

The plasticity and clays,

defined of

between liquid table shear the critical limit 10.

liquid different and

Values Grissinger,

plastic limit and (15) are given in used a rotating critical of between relations organic

Smerdon (16) test stress apparatus of to the a variety

a flume study properties.

and the

Arumugam(") relationships They developed

cylinder

exchange

capacity,

percent

matter,

and other

parameters.

Because determined in the form stress. this for

the

plasticity types 19 the

index of

is soils,

generally it in

available that to al.,

or

can a power

be

easily relation

different of equation By using the

was decided this study et

be utilized data from

determine
08)

critical soil data

shear from

McWhorter, was obtained:

and

study,

following

relation

= 0.019 (PI)O*B8
(18)

(20)
a comprehensive lining materials. sand conducted study In the gravel a series study, for the design of an of the tests of open

McWhorter, channels tion, were mine were fit critical figure stress agrees critical equation 36, for with

et utilizing

al.,

conducted

artificial ranging in the of from tests. these

course to

experimentaclay deterrates were the on shear to

11 soils utilized erosion plotted to the

a noncohesive McWhorter soils

inorganic

rates versus data

by flow. for different to

In this
soils. zero

erosion lines determine

shear points

stress and then

Regression erosion on 20). table to

extended data are

shear and type the shear 20 was

stress. fitted I soil values stress derived by

These a power also

summarized (equation on figure

11, plotted
The critical 20 generally higher be

function plotted

was

36. However,

Equation it reason soils

recommended than using from tests

by Chow. (6) equation of well

calculates could (dry

19.

The compacted

that

density

83

Table

10.

Liquid index

limit, values,

plastic limit and (15) Grissinger.

plasticity

Material

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Grenada Mixed

silt with

loam

31

20

11

2 Percent Ca montmorillonite 5 Percent Ca montmorillonite 10 Percent Ca montmorillonite 2 Percent Na montmorillonite 5 Percent Na montmorillonite 10 Percent Na montmorillonite 2 5 10 I5 20 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent coarse coarse coarse coarse coarse fine fine fine kaolinite kaolinite kaolinite kaolinite kaolinite kaolinite kaolinite kaolinite

32 33 41

21 21

11
12 17

24
21

32

11
16

40 62
28 29 30 30 32 GT 29

24 27
21 ;:

35 7 1; 10 10 7 12 11

20 22
21

2 Percent 5 Percent 10 Percent

19
18

84

Table

11.

Critical

shear

stress

derived

from

McWhorter's

data.

Soil Identification Number (after 18) 1

Unified Soil Classification SC SM CH CL CL ML-CL CH CL

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Critical Shear Stress (lb/ft2)

31

16

15 4 29 12 15 6 47 23

Oil1

3 6 7 8 9 10 11

28 51 28 38 24 76 45

24 22 16 23 18 29 22

0.04 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.17 0.09

85

0 CO.MP.U.:TEb:: tJjsINti . MEASURED FROM

--0.8

.:MCbVHC#iTERS: TYP.E I. SOIL

DATA

liii

I I

I I I I1111111~11
I I I IlllllliliM

0.05 0.04 0.03 I

0.0 1;

I 2

I 3

I IIIIIIlll 456

PLASTICITY

INDEX,.

PI

Figure

36.

Relation of to plasticity 86

critical index.

shear

stress

ranging 19 to

from

about from (960

90 to

105

lbs/ft3) soil

(1,440 tests

to (dry

1,682 density increases

Kg/m3), ranging the

while from strength

equation about of 60 soil

was derived 75 lb/ft3) erosion.

uncompacted to 1,202 Kg/m3).

Compaction

against

Stability ferent critical of vegetal degrees, shear covers

of

vegetated

side on the

slopes kind lined decreased of

varies

with

flow

velocities Table
(20)

to

dif-

depending stress is in defined

vegetation with

channels by the be

present. (19) vegetation. when utilized

12 shows

Classification These protect to

USDA Soil

Conservation somewhat

Service.

permissible embankments

velocities with a slope

may up to

2H:lV.

4.

Evaluation From the

of

Existing

Equations review several These and velocity. by

for

Estimating erosion

Erosive equations

Rate related the these to erosion embankrate

literature were shear versus of the presented. stress the

ment to the The

erosion effective equations equations results

equations Table

mainly

relate

13 summarizes the erosion from provided the rates

equations. by tests. following

These

were

evaluated

comparing erosion analysis

calculated

measured

rates are

laboratory in the

comparative

paragraphs. Figure measured mined the the 37 erosion as the embankment, first hour for compares rate. average and of the the erosion measured on the the of first the Wiggert and velocity the middle rate from Contractor used point was in
(21)

equation comparison downstream

with

the

The average velocity the at

the on the the for

was deterslope during of

measured Only

erosion results

erosion series most of

amount I and the

tests.

FHWA test that, or

II were
the larger usually soil less, on

utilized calculated than the

comparison. rates values. velocity sensitivity to third to from

Figure the While the of the third erosion for

37'shows Wiggert and erosion to rate fifth

runs, are is

Contractor transport for

equation rate

dependent embankment, the order

power velocity soil

a noncohesive is usually

to

power,

a cohesive

embankment.

Therefore,

87

Table

12.

Critical shear with vegetation.

stress

for

channels

lined

CISSS

Cover

Condttlon

Crltical Shear sees (lb/f 3 1

Wwplng lovegrass .. . . . .. . . Yellow bluestem lschaemum . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . Kudtu . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. grass . . .. . . .. . . . .. Native grass mixture (I I+tte bluestem. bluestem, blue gamna. and other long and short midwest grasses)......... WeepIng lovegrass . . ..--..e Lespedeza serlcea ...e..... Alfalfa . . . . . .. . . .. . Weeping lovegrass .. Kudzu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blue g-a . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..a . . .. .. .. .. . .

Excellent Excellent Very Good dense stand,

stand, stand,

tall tall

(average (average

30) 36)

(76 (91

cm1 3.70 cm)

Bermuda

growth, uncut tall (average

12)

(30

cm)

Good stand. Good stand, Good stand, (40 cm) Good stand, C3op.i stand, Dense growth, Good stand, Fair kod Good stand, stand, stand,

unmcued tall (average 24) (61 cm) not Woody, tall (average 19) uncut (average 11) (2E cm) unmowed (average 13) (33 cm) uncut uncut (average 13) (28 cm1 uncut (10 to 48) (25 to 120 cm1 mowed (average 6) Cl5 cm) uncut (average 11) (28 cm)

2.10

Crabgrass . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . Eennrds grass .a........... Camfm lespedeza . . .. . . .. . . Grass-legume mixture-summsr (orchard grass, redtop, ltallan ryegrass, and common lespedeza).... Centtpedegrass...........~. Kentu&y bluegrass.......;.

Good stand, 7 rm, Very dense Good stand, 30 cm)

-- _....

uncut

(6 to

8 Inches) 6 Inches) I2 Inches

(15 to (15 cm) (I5 to

1 .oo

cover (average headed (6 to

Bermuda grass.............. Cownon lespedeta . .. . . . . .. . Buffalo grass . . . . . .. . . . .. . D Grass-legume mixturefall, spring (orchard grass, redtop, Italian ryegrass, and cann!cm lespedezs)............... Lespedera serlcea . . . .. . . . .

Good stand, cut to 2.5-Inch height (6 cm) Excellent stand, uncut (average 4.5) (II cm) Good stand. uncut (3 to 6 inches (8 to 15 cm)

0.60 Good stand, uncut (4 to 5 Inches) (10 to 13 cm) After cuttrng to 2-inch height (5 cm) Very good stand before cutting Good stand, cut Burned stubble to 1.5 Inch height (4 cm) 0.35

Bermuda Bermuda

grass grass

. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..--.

88

Q, Y
II

; v)

In

eI cc

n w

89

.-v

80

I
10 8
6 c

,,

I I I I ..

II

I I

3 Y

2.

t I

0 1 2 3 4 58 8
10

20

30

40

50 60

80 100

AVERAGE

VELOCITY,

V (FT/SEC)

Figure

37.

Comparison with that Contractor 90

of measured erosion computed by Wiggert equation.

rate and

the

Wiggert

and

Contractor

equation

is

more

applicable

to

noncohesive

soil

embankments.

The Cristofano('*) sion erosion the in an earth rate

equation

was developed overtopping. depth measured for rates

for

estimating This equation

the

rate shows

of that

erothe

dam failure

due to

depends equation

on overtopping with were larger the utilized erosion

exponentially. erosion comparison. rate.

Figure Only Again test the the

38 compares runs with

Cristofano

free-fall equation

conditions estimated

Cristofano flume.

than

those

measured

in

The against band that

equation measured

developed erosion rates type Ariathurai between Therefore,

by

Ariathurai 39.

and

Arulanandan

(23)
between

was the

plotted upperindicates correct. rate may

on figure erosion

The agreement is reasonable. is

equation the form the

and of

the the

I soil
the

rate

This generally stress as the

and Arulanandan erosion a more rate general

equation and net

However, not always

relation be linear. Agricultural

shear such

form,

one

recom-

mended

by the

Research

Laboratory

E = K (T - T-)' L

(21)
discussion equation. of equation 21 is provided in sec-

may be more tion

correct.

Additional of an erosion

5 on development

Chee's erosion ranging directly rates from

relation(24), of 0.14 for "fuse

as given plug" 10

in

table were clay of

13,

was formed

developed by uniform This

for

determining size material cannot be

dams which mm with erosion and

mm to

core. roadway data the

relation

applied

estimating

embankments. from The highway data agencies between were The based cumulative and overon

In 1980, the
work topping observations by Schneider depth and of

FHWA collected and loss roadway Wilson of

analyzed derive and to flood

(25)

to due

relationships overtopping.

pavement damage

embankments.

91

0.

0.0

0.00

0.000

0.0000

5 WATER

IO

16

20

25

DISCHARGE,

Qw(FT3/SEC-FT)

Figure

38.

Comparison of measured comphted by Cristofano 92

erosion equation.

rate

with

that

!&!!!!I

U/I-I

/LO

I I Illll

/ / 6 /.
0.1 1.0 10 100

Figure

39.

Comparison by Ariathurai

of measured erosion and Arulanandan 93

rate with equation.

that

computed

effects trated were asphalt, tional and

of by obtained

overtopping the relationship from

over

time in

based figure 48 slopes,

on these 40. ft Data (14.6 and

data

and

studies this 40 ft

are

illus-

defining m) wide, fill

relationship (12.2 m) of Additime

highway 3:l of for

sections side the

well hydraulic

vegetated analysis overtopping

sandy-clay data

material. to determine

observational floods.

was done

depth

of

various

Embankment for data the sion comparison (with test data t/h data showed

test with = 0.3 with higher

data the

collected erosion

for

this curve. good and the

study Type

were I soil

plotted

on figure erosion

40

20-hour conditions)

embankment the curve, soil embankment

showed conditions rates than

agreement the type

with

while ero-

free-fall erosion

II

curve.

FHWA test depths was of 0.5,

series 1, and Only

II 2 ft

to

V tested (0.15, 0.3 gravel was

paved and was 0.6

embankments. m), the

During damage to

overtopping the pavement the 4-ft

negligible. overtopping The entire situations are more and to

shoulder run, pavement

eroded. and

However, lifted off

during the in

(1.2-m)
surface. Similar however, ment ditions pavement Determining

broken in in four the

embankment figure situations, 41.

pavement have been

was eroded observed and

hours, field.

as shown The field

complicated effect a limited erosion Erosion

nonhomogeneous. erosion Further provided Flood in can

Laboratory be applied of of discussion "Development

study to the

of field effect

paveconof for

damage only

its

on embankment degree. is

on embankment Embankment

a Procedure

Due to

Overtopping."

5. review,

Development Based on the

of

the

Erosion of for

Equation existing estimating erosion the equations embankment and erosion the literature rate is

evaluation equation

a promising

E = K (T - T_)~

(22)

where

is

the

detachment

rate

per

unit

area,

is

the

local

effective

94

80
I.,,.,..,~ :, ,I il.l~l .ii:!./I (, 0 . II,.

L~~!llil~~ii~l

60

I& + 2

OTYPE *TYPE q TYPE

i SOIL, t,li= 0.3, DiiAT;&l=20 II SOIL, t/h=Q.3, DURATlONr20 III SOIL, FREE FALL,

hr hr

Figure

40.

Embankment pavement and Vilson.(~4) 95

losses

(after

Schneider

*ymuyuPqwa ~40s 11 adA2 paAed JO alk4oJd ax?&ms paq PUP JXJPM

lp aJn6i-J

(JJ)
n-m

33NuJsIa
I302 OS1

- -. I

OSC

OOC

OSZ

001 I

OS I

00

0 . 0

009 00.6 007. 001 000

-3WI.c - TJ.JIL - 3WI.L : f.J;i

--.-.________---. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. ..

shear stress

stress of soil,

based and

on K

hydraulic and a

conditions, are empirical

~c

equals

the

critical upon

shear soil

coefficients

dependent

properties.

Erosion this study following

equations and procedure:

were

developed soil

for tested

the

two

types

of et

soils al.,

utilized
(18)

for the

a noncohesive

by McWhorter

using

1.

Determine soils, stresses 0.085, and

the from

critical equation I soil,

shear 21 type

stress for II

from cohesive soil,

equation soils. and the

18 The

for

noncohesive shear soil are

critical

for 0.053,

type

noncohesive

and 0.050

lb/ft2,

respectively.

2.

Determine tests for

the

maximum

local

erosion I and

rates

during

the

first

hour

of

the

FHWA test

series

II.
based on

3.

Determine

the

local

shear

stress

t=

$fPV2

(23)
the local velocity and surface, p is at the the eroding site, f For is the the Darcy-

where Weisbach smooth

is

coefficient, clay-soil

water

density.

relatively

f = 0.02.

4.

Plot figure based

the

net

shear determine

stress the

(T

'c)

versus of

the K

local and a

erosion in

rate equation

on 22

42 and on a linear

coefficients method.

regression

Three

equations

were

thus

developed:

97

. TYPE Ii SOIL 0 NON COHESIVE

SO

w 0.000

0.0000

NET

SHEAR

STRESS,

(U-Xcc)(LB/FT*)

Figure

42.

Embankment 98

erosion

equations.

1.

For

embankments

made from

highly

cohesive

soil

such

as clay

(PI 2 10) (24)

= 0.000086 (T - T~)'*'~
made from low-cohesive soil such as sandy clay

2.

For

embankments

(PI 5 5)

= 0.00022 (T - Tc)o*43
made from noncohesive sand/gravel soil

(25)

3.

For

embankments E

= 0.00324 (T - ~~~~~~
is the erosion rate in ft3/s-ft2.

(26)

where

Equations mating of The were In embankment

24,

25 and 26 were damage due to

utilized flood

to

generate

design

charts in

for

esti-

overtopping Erosion grass

as discussed Due to covers with (0.15 high removed Flood

"Development Overtopping." erosion

a Procedure experiments inconclusive. tests with

for for

Determining evaluating All the

Embankment effects tests were depths well. of of

on embankment free-fall m)], the

conducted CO.5 ft with were

conditions. grass-lined depths the of or toe forthis area eroto the [2

low

overtopping to 1.2 perform m)], along

embankment and mation 4 ft of

appeared (0.6 local could root and

In tests grass

overtopping and induced

pockets the

scour be the system It of

embankment. of weak spots fully spot it a ~~ for is

A partial along the

explanation embankment Severe

phenomenon where sion the also

existence the grass

was not that this

established. and toe reasonable cover erosion to would

occurred. of equation underlying

appeared soil, K and only

was related assume be the that

erodibility erosion for the

underlying coefficients soil,

therefore and the

grass

same as

value

would

change.

99

DEVELOPMENT

OF A PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING

EMBANKMENT EROSION

DUE TO FLOOD

OVERTOPPING 1.
for Development The computer of a Computer model embankment Figure added to presented overtopping 31 presented the These basic steps model are Model in for Determining of Embankment Flow Over Erosion an Embankment" to compute Steps erosion 2,

"Hydraulics flow

determining erosion. 14 were flood

hydraulics chart

was modified of this model. embankment

embankment 13, and

a flow for

determining below.

due to

overtopping.

explained

Step equations. This grass values ness lists manual developed grass eroded, layer are and of the and

2.

Input embankmentsoil
Figure 43 shows an to The are input was considered and the four at input of also base soil.

and

structure embankment four

characteristics with pavement pavement, stresses the are shown model. input and Also, as data. 43.

and erosion and gravel Manning's the thickTable A user's C. The 14 grass. base, n

example contain critical

embankment cover, for the

layers: shear to

layers each data the

as data section embankment program

layers example a listing model'can with

computational for the

on Figure in

computer

are earth soil

provided

Appendix with

consider or

gravel

or

embankment base. n for

or without one layer is lower

homogeneous shear for next

nonhomogeneous and Manning's computation;

When the

the

critical

stress time-step

immediate

uti lized

Consider referenced following selected in

ing

the

erosion and

equations Equations by the

developed Governing Agricultural

by

the

various of

researchers the was

"Parameters form computer

Erosion

Embankment," Laboratory

equation for the

proposed model:

Research

K (T - T_)~

(27)
rate in ft3/s-ft2, respectively, and in 'c lb/ft2. and ~~ are effective

where shear

is

the

erosion shear

and critical

stress,

100

Table

14.

Sample input characteristics figure 43.

of

embankment geometry for the embankment

and soil/structure illustrated in

Layer Section Pavement

Thickness Gravel Base

(ft) Grass Depth

Base Soil

0.00

2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 10.20 10.40 10.50 10.40 10.20 10.00 7.50 5.00 2.50 0.00
Manning's Critical Erosion Erosion n shear coefficient coefficient stress K a

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.015
100.0 1.0 1.0

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.025 0.15 0.00324 1.300

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.030
1.00

0.00

0.00

2.00 4.50 7.00 9.50 9.45 9.65 9.75 9.65 9.45 9.50 7.00 4.50 2.00 0.00 0.015 0.53 0.000220 0.43

0.000220 0.43

101

102

As discussed Embankment," for determining the

in

section

5 of

"Parameters were embankment:

and

Equations in

Governing the computer

Erosion model

following erosion of

coefficients bare soil

utilized

For For For

highly low

cohesive cohesive soil soil

soil with

with

PI L 10,

K = 0.000086 and

and

a = 0.91

0 a

PI 5 5,

K = 0.00022 and a = 1.30

a = 0.43

noncohesive

K = 0.00324

Step 27 using was critical computation eroded

13. the

Determine critical shear a period stress the of

erosion stress shorter the

at of

each the than

computational surface layer.

section If the

from surface step,

equation layer then for the the

within shear for

a computational lower layer would

time

immediate time period.

be utilized

remaining

Step step. For

14. grass,

Determine gravel,

embankment or soil

bed surface,

erosion the

at

each

section depth

during is:

a time

bed erosion

AZ = E At where tion. due base figure to E For direct is the paved flow erosion sections, erosion, the rate it but from equation 27 and that the

(28)

At

is to

the the

time

step

durais not

was assumed instead to

damage erosion the

pavement the illustrated is:

undermining condition flow

roadway by

and cantilevering 44, the maximum

pavement. stress

Considering of pavement

normal

due to

cQx)max= gwhere water depth M is above of the point at

m movement and middle Sm of is induced the by section the weight modulus. pavement, t of Let the pavement

(29)
and

bending A, the

D = the

average of

flow

undermined

= the

thickness

103

Figure

44.

Undermining

of

embankment

pavement.

104

pavement, ment, then

yw = the

unit

weight

of

water

and

y,

= the

unit

weight

of

pave-

M = (yw D + y,t) = t2 6 equations

x2/2

(30) (31)

'rn Substituting

30 and 3(Yw

31 into x2

equation

29 yields

cl + y,t) t2

'"x)max

For of the tuting larger that

the the

computer eroded of

model, depth at

the the and

undermining edge
yw,

length, D t are

x is

is the

assumed computed variables.

to

be one-tenth flow depth By substiat

of
Y,,

pavement, and 32, stress

edge

pavement, values the

known is

these than the

into

equation tension the

(ox)max of edge the to step.

computed. ua,

If it

(ox)max is

is

allowable from is

pavement its

assumed comsec-

pavement section the

downstream within edge of

immediately Then for this the

upstream computation

putational tion step. becomes

eroded

one time the

downstream

pavement

next

computational

2. utilized teristics were during

Calibrations The bare-soil to of input the to

of

the

Computer test

Model data from FHWA test The series and and of I and soil II were

embankment the embankments computer hour. during is

calibrate these the

computer and

model. overtopping to calculate

geometry

characdepths eroded with the 45.

headwater the values volume were and then various

tailwater material

program Then the first the

first

calculated hour The of the

compared

measured The

volumes

tests was for

plotted utilized flow

on figure to and

agreement for

reasonable.

model damages

develop

nomographs conditions.

estimating

embankment

embankment

105

14

-T-T-n-i

12

10

MEASURED

EROSION.

RATE

(ft3U-w-ft)

Figure

45.

Computed

versus 106

measured

erosion

rate.

3.

Development Flood The

of

Nomographs

for

Determining

Embankment

Erosion

Due to

Overtopping computer model vegetal calibrated erosion cover of under in section various 2 was embankment conditions: applied and to develop nomoestimating bare-soil paved

graphs with a

for

embankment

and without

Base soils consisting and noncohesive material. Paved embankment heights depths tailwater with

of

high-cohesive

material,

low-cohesi

ve

material

*
l 0 0

and without from 1.0 to ft 2.5

class ft (0.3

A, (0.8

C, and m) to ten ft

E grass 15 ft (3.0

covers. (4.6 m). from free fall to m).

Embankment Overtopping Ratio 0.9. of

ranging ranging depth

m) to depth

overtopping

ranging

The plotted cohesive noncohesive for

computed on (PI figure = 5) soil

erosion 46 bare for soil

rates 5-foot

(averaged (1.5-m)

over

four-hour (PI 47 for figures =

period) 13) 5-foot can and

were low-

high-cohesive and on figure These two

embankments, (d50 of = 4 mm).

(1.5-m)

embankments erosion stress rates is to not

be utilized Because that and to with to

estimating shear

5-foot

(1.5-m) sensitive

bare-so.il parameter, embankment and For figure the

embankments. it with is suggested 10,

critical figure

a very

46 be applied soil soil

high-cohesive*soil with d50 rate PI 5 5, < 8 mm.

PI 1

low-cohesive cohesive between

embankment with

47 be applied embankment soil

nonPI

embankment the

5 and 10,

erosion

can be determined

by interpolation.

Other and grass files grass, affect eroded

factors duration the

considered of embankment with = 0.3) on figure and

in

the

procedure and rate. (0.6-m) runs--one most erosion

include

the

effects

of

pavement and pro-

overtopping, erosion a Z-foot in two 48,

embankment Figure

heights. the depth

Pavement embankment

48 shows

by a flow drop As on the (t/h

overtopping without of The the

and 70 percent the the roadsur-

water-surface way took paved. place

and one with bare-soil reduced pavement

shown top

embankment

downstream

shoulder.

107

---

HIGH -LOW

COHESIVE COHESIVE

SOIL SOILS

(PI 210) (PI= 5)

k a

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

46.

Average erosion rate during of 5-foot cohesive bare soil 108

4-hour flow embankment.

overtopping

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

47.

Average erosion rate during of 5-foot noncohesive bare (d50 less than 8 mm).

4-hour overtopping soil embankment

109

.. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . ------_-_--_

Tff?E T,r,ET,fiE

0.00 0.50 1.50

-.-'-

TllE

2.50

.O

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

DISTANCE IFTI Bare-soil embankment.

.. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. -----_------

11x TIpjE71C

0.00 1.00 2.00

-'-'-

TIPll: -

4.00

,i

b.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40 .o

DISTANCE IFT) Paved embankment. Comparison of erosion rate between the bare embankment with a paved roadway (h = 2 ft, t/h = G.3). soil

Figure

48.

face average the

area

that erosion

would rates

be eroded, versus 50 percent near is the time

as

shown for

on

figure two

48. runs.

Figure The

49

shows

the

these t/h

pavement is and the

reduced low, most effect of

erosion would

by about occur on erosion for estimating

with downstream

= 0.3. toe of the

When tailwater embankment 56 provide high

erosion of

pavement

less. average cover

Figures erosion on

50 through rate of paved

a series embankment

nomographs without overtopping: and

5-foot during

with

vegetal

embankment

slopes

four-hour

flood

Figure 50 ;: 53 54 55 56

Base

Soil

Vegetal None None A C E C E

Cover

Cohesive Noncohesive Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive Noncohesive Noncohesive

The for

classes other

of

vegetal

covers

have

been

defined

in

table

12.

Erosion

rates

conditions

can be determined

by interpolation.

The with on time high the time.

laboratory Figure test and Ea the and the of

test

data

clearly aproximated ziis

showed relations the

that of

the

erosion r/Es versus rate four flow erosion decrease erosion erosion when erosion is of

rate time, over hours.

reduced based a test With by

57 shows data, is

laboratory period tailwater, tailwater

where the

average'erosion during the first

erosion profile the shear and

rate

water-surface remains about and erosion

of same stress

overtopping during the

controlled embankment. during

Therefore, progress tailwater would height increases

velocity

generally reduce the in

the low time

embankment and free-fall Figure

thereby the the (1.5

rate. rate the

With with

conditions, 58 provides from 5 feet height.

reduction adjustment

be less. is different in

factor

embankment with

m).

Embankment

increases

embankment

111

10 8.0 6.0 5.3

h = .

4.0 3.0 2.0

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

0.3 0.2 0 BARE SOIL

TIME

(hours)

Figure

49.

Comparison of erosion rate changes with between the bare soil embankment.and.embankmerit with a paved roadway (h = 2 ft, t/h = 0.3).

time

112

-WV 1.0

HIGH -LOW

COHESIVE COHESIVE

SOIL SOILS

(PI 210) (Pl= 5)

0.8

0.8

a .L

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

50.

Average erosion overtopping for soil embankment

rate during 4-hour flow 5-foot paved cohesive without vegtal cover. 113

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

51.

Average erosion overtopping of soil embankment 114

rate during 4-hour flow 5-foot paved noncohesive without vegetal cover.

m-v-

HIGH LOW

COHESIVE COHESIVE

SOIL SOILS

(PI 210) (PI= 51

QVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

52.

Average flow rate during 4-hour flow overtopping of 5-foot paved cohesive soil embankment with class A vegetal cover. 115

m--v 1 .o

HIGH LOW

COHESIVE COHESIVE

SOIL SOILS

(PI 210) (Plc5)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

53.

Average erosion rate during 4-hour flow overtopping of 5-foot paved cohesive soil embankment with class C vegetal cover.

116

m-v-

HIGH LOW

COHESIVE COHESIVE

SOIL SOILS

(PI 210) (Plc 5)

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

54.

Average erosion rate during 4-hour flow overtopping of 5-foot paved cohesive soil embankment with class E vegetal cover. 117

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

55.

Average erosion rate during 4-hour flow overtopping of 5-foot paved noncohesive embankment with class C vegetal cover.

soil

118

OVERTOPPING

DEPTH

(ft)

Figure

56.

Average erosion rate during 4-hour flow overtopping of 5-foot paved noncohesive embankment with class E vegetal cover. 119

soil

1.0 0.8 0.8

0.4

0.2

i! ; 0.1 0
y' 0.a 0.a18

10

20

40

60

80

100

TIME

(hours)

Figure

57.

Average erosion time duration. 120

rate

change

with

FALL

t/h

Figure

58.

Adjustment

factor

considering

embankment

height.

121

Figures applied for

46,

47,

or

50 through embankment

56, erosion

coupled rate

with using

figures the

57 and 58,

can

be

estimating

following

procedure:

1.

Find out the type of or noncohesive soils), type of vegetal cover. Select design Compute headwater depth, flood (see figure t/h.

embankment embankment

base soil height,

(high-cohesive, paved or nonpaved

low-cohesive, surface, and

2.

h, and tailwater 23 for definition).

depth,

t,

and

duration

for

3. 4.

With h and t/h enter figure (for non-cohesive bare soil), or ments) to determine erosion rate, Determine duration. Determine 5 ft (1.5 Compute the adjustment factor K1

46 (for cohesive bare soil), figure 47 figures 50 through 56 (for paved embankEa, for a 5-foot (1.5-m) embankment. from figure 57 considering design flood

5.

6.

K2 m).

from

figure

50 if

the

embankment

height

is

different

from

7.

average

erosion

rate

over

the

design

flood

duration.

E- =
The (series The The graphs accuracy. these limited more earlier should data.

K1 K2 Ea

(33)

procedures FHWA I and results is useful However,

described

above 8) and to

were field

applied cases

to listed erosion that

laboratory on tables rates the rates in

test

data 2. 59. nomo-

II

in were

table

1 and figure

estimated agreement are

compared good.

measured indicates

reasonably for only effects

This

developed with in

estimating limited of Therefore, of

embankment soil pavement for bases and other

erosion were grass types the and

reasonable developing by or using for

considered were of

nomographs laboratory detailed should be verified

and

evaluated embankments mcdel

data.

estimation be utilized. and/or

embankment The modified

erosion,

computer developed field

developed model

nomographs using

computer and

additional

experimental

122

0 LABORATORY 0 FIELD IrTl1 DATA I

TEST

DATA

.O

CALCULATED

EROSION

RATE

(Cu

ydslhrlft)

Figure

59.

Comparison embankment

between damage

calculated data.

and measured

123

4.

Application Two examples

Examples were developed to demonstrate the application of the design

nomographs.

a. The

Example hydraulic (0.92

1.

Erosion

of of tailwater

a High-Cohesive overtopping depth embankment, follows: t flow

Earth are:

Road (1) feet (3.0 overtopping m), (3) height depth flood with

conditions m), (2)

h = 3 feet duration sparse

= 1.8 10 feet

(0.55

T = 20 hours, grass on slope. t 1.8 T; = 30 .

(4)

earth

m) in

The procedure

1.

Compute For

= 0.6. base soil, find erosion rate (0.92 E, = 0.06 m) and t/h yd3/hr/ft = 0.6. (0.15

2.

high-cohesive from figure

m3/hr/m)

46 for

h = 3 feet

3.

Determine 20-hour

the flood

duration and t/h

correction = 0.6.

factor

K1 = 0.40

from

figure

57 for

4.

Determine 58 for t/h

the

embankment = 0.6 and

height

correction height

factor of

K2 = 1.16 10 feet (3.0

from m).

figure

an embankment

5.

Compute

the

total

erosion

volume.

= FT

K1 K2 Ea T x 1.16 yd3/ft x 0.06 (1.39 x 20 m3/m)

= 0.40 = 0.56

b. The h = 3 feet

Example hydraulic (0.92

2.

Erosion conditions (2)

of of

a Paved overtopping depth

Road With flow t = 0.0

a Low-Cohesive are: feet, (1) (3) flood

Soil

Base depth T

overtopping duration

m),

tailwater

124

= 20 slope.

hrs,

(4)

paved

road,

10 feet

(3.0

m)

in

height

with

class

C grass

on

The procedure

follows:

1.
2.

Compute For paved

0.0 = 3.0

= 0.0. soil t/h = 0.0. K1 = 0.52 from figure 57 for a embankment (0.53 with class C grass from figure on slope, 53 for find h =

low-cohesive rate E = 0.21 m)aand

erosion 3 feet

yd3/hr/ft

m3/hr/m)

(0.92

3.

Determine 20-hour

the flood

duration and t/h

correction = 0.0.

factor

4.

Determine 58 for t/h

the

embankment

height

correction height of

factor 10 feet

K2 = 1.76 (3.0 m).

from

figure

= 0.0

and an embankment

5.

Compute

the

total

erosion

volume

VS

= FT

K1 K2 Ea T

= 0.52 x 1.76 x 0.21 x 20

= 3.84 yd3/ft (9.64 m3/m)

125

EVALUATION

OF EMBANKMENT PROTECTION MEASURES

As evaluated measures mattresses, tested

described the included soil the under

in

"Laboratory of geoweb,

Embankment several and erosion and enkamat.

Test

Program," protection

this

study

also These gabion were

effectiveness vegetated cement, flow conditions

measures. protected with measures

embankments indicated

embankments The 8. by table

protection

1.

Performance For each

of

Protection measure

Measures tested, a preliminary for was or failure of assessment the protection of the failmeasure change protection in

protection or threshold The

ure was the

mechanism conducted. water or

conditions signal the test following

failure during material

identified noticeable the test.

by a noticeable erosion of the

surface embankment

measure

The related to the affords liner During become topping upstream In the general, the

failure to the

mechanism movement end of of

associated the rocks mattress

with within

the

gabion the

mattresses

appears rocks

to

be

mattress. the liner

As the installed

move

downstream may

each

diaphragm,

beneath liner still the not overin mattress. was the

mattress some becomes the

become

exposed. of over most

Although the as the severe 10 to

a properly embankment

installed material, condition the [4-ft of end and in the of the

erosion exposed tests

protection was construed conducted

moment for failure. did

the gabion test to the

threshold mattresses, conditions 20 percent

liner (1.2-m) rocks the

exposed. depth, end of the in

Under free-fall the gabion danger

the

condition], mattress migrated mattresses of erosion.

downstream very well

performed

no instance

embankment

The tially layer tests,

potential

failure as the cement failure at

mechanisms presence the toe of of

associated surface the cracks

with or

soil the of

cement undermining the

were of of

inithe the

identified of soil

embankment. realized.

Due to A number

nature

neither

mechanism

was

cycles

involving

126

freezing catalyst period tion concrete recommended, placing general, hours either of the of

and

thawing for this in the

or

wetting

and cracks

drying to form.

of

the The

soi 1 cement relatively of of the the from

layer short

are

the

needed prevented undisturbed floor

surface effect. ground flume that as cement an

testing a secThe It is when In 10 in

To undermine is required the of prevented some means

the toe toe

toe erosion

embankment, embankment. occurring. be in afforded the well. field.

downstream

however, cement soil

protection measure performed very

soil the testing soil

embankment protective most severe

protection measure

After

under cement

the or the

conditions, material.

no erosion

was evident

embankment

For be the

the

geoweb with

grid the

confinement boiling of flow

system, rocks out

the of

failure the cells

mechanism of the

appears geoweb.

to As

associated rocks are and in water. which

boiled creates

out, an

the the

velocity of the

directly geoweb material to cells

impinges section. direct creates

on the The erosion a void the

geoweb by in the the is

structure effect, flowing cells directed

elongation

elongation

turn,

exposes

embankment of rocks

Increased loss
is filled the by the embankment performed made to and of geoweb found the each the

from water.

the

flowing and

Consequently, the the rate of

water erosion.

toward the Attempts the

increases under the of

embankment tested protection system.

In general,
study. by tion, series second expansion integrity an hour increasing the of test

geoweb were length

poorly improve

configuration of the also the

by this measure

stability in was

number the was

staples system to cases, system

geoweb

In addiIn the
first The allow The than

configuration tests, series across of the the

geoweb installed

changed. down the were

expand in the

sideslope. which the for would same. less

geoweb

installed

a manner results

sideslope. grid test.

In all
confinement

geoweb

was maintained

during

The stretching beneath

failure of the the

mechanism enkamat The

associated material presence or of

with

enkamat

was erosion the

related of

to the had

ripping embankment very little

or

noticeable grass in

enkamat.

enkamat

127

effect. length) growth mingled grass (0.3 near flow enkamat high the along degree stretching local staples the

This during period, with protection m), the the

resulted a growth the the root enkamat measure. enkamat

from period system

an of

unsatisfactory only one year. fully removed

stand

of

grass the

(density

and short inter-

Due to

relatively

was not

developed. during depths the less

The vegetation tests than or in of the equal flow

was quickly For

enkamat/ to 1 ft

overtopping caused

material and afforded with

a noticeable good in stretching In to near the the the flow

decrease erosion

velocity As the

embankment increased

reasonably increase from the

protection. depth, ripping, however, and stapling (0.9-m)

velocity

the

overtopping and

the

sustained scour were

severe occurred installed The 0.5 ft

damage near

unusually pattern, intervals to and than a minor severe 1 ft were the

staples.

initial at 3-ft

perpendicular local (0.15 scour

embankment. the of the

staples tests,

was evident while depths ripping greater the

during

m) overtopping at

enkamat stapling path of and

occurred pattern the only flow.

overtopping was tested case, 1 ft of in

(0.3
installed staples occurred

m).

A second along was at of as the m). the In tests beyond the minimized overtopping stapling flow

which the (0.3 the local

staples scour near

In this
than erosion with

minor greater minor

stretching/ripping m).

of In

the all

enkamat cases, material than 1

depths pattern, velocity

regardless occurred ft (0.3

embankment depths greater

increased enkamat afforded

overtopping reasonably

general, of 1 ft low (0.3 of

good As the

erosion overtopping

protection depths be accel-

during increased erated

overtopping m), the erosion enkamat. of

depths. the

embankment

appeared

to

by the

presence

For ciated and to m), along existence with

embankments the direct depths well. of

vegetated erosion CO.5 ft with or

with loss

grass, of m)],

the grass. the

failure

mechanism with low

was

asso-

In tests
grass-lined greater formation this

velocities appeared ft (0.15 scour the of

overtopping perform pockets the

(0.15

embankment than of 0.5 local

In tests
grass were

overtopping and induced

depths the of

removed

embankment. of weak spots

A partial along the

explanation embankment

phenomenon where the root

may be system

or areas

128

the toe ft city

grass erosion (0.6 and

was

not

fully

established. the tests

In

addition

to

the

local depths retard results.

scour, of flow

severe 2 and 4 velo-

occurred m).

during Although

involving slopes did not

overtopping usually those

and 1.2 reduce

grass-lined tests

the

erosion,

these

confirm

2. sion test tecting

Comparison Based on the

of

Protection results of can and

Measures the flood overtopping tests, is a comparison based very geoweb also are solely well of ero-

protection results, the

measures soil cement

be made. gabion

If comparison
mattresses Enkamat, grass, factors These

on the in prointo in

performed and must factors

embankment erosion in in that

from

erosion.

accelerated be taken discussed

embankment account, the paragraphs

some cases. the evaluation

Additional process.

hokever,

follow.

Soil erosion tests The ing form Based protection of

cement the

performed soil It cement must

the or

best

of

all

erosion material that cement soil mixing the soil

protection was these evident were

measures. in short-term long-term any of

No the

embankment however, with soil of for with

conducted.. failure processes. of toe on the of

be noted,

tests. weather-

mechanism In

associated addition, soil is of

involves is the

placement material

cement with

subject cement. protection of soil

to

the Finally,

local a

availability

suitable

protection results

recommended this study,

cement testing

measure. cement as a

additional

measure

should

include: such as rotating cylinders, to measure the rate of (with various proportions of cement) due to flow eroand thereby determine proper thickness and cement

1.

Develop a technique, wear of soil cement sion and weathering, ratio.

2.

Investigate the long-term subject the cement, i.e., cess before testing.
Vary the slope at which the

weathering protection

process for failure of the measure to a winter weathering

soil pro-

3.

protective

measure

is

tested.

129

4.

Test a different configuration of stairstep configuration or placement Gabion mattresses of only material however, which faster. of toe all the during performed gabion the very mattress most in well

the protection measure, in 6-inch (0.15-m) lifts. during the flood overtopping failure

such

as

tests.

Minimal it

failure

occurred, flow

and when condition.

was evident, of the

appeared

severe any test.

'No erosion aspect basket the with of the time.

embankment mattress, mattresses occur labor soil much

occurred is sustain The the the

An important of the and gabion wire drying,

gabion For will

deterioration periodic installation protection is wetting of

deterioration is also study. of the

mattresses tested by this

most

intensive cement,

measures

As with gabion

protection testing

recommended of this

with

the

installation may include:

mattresses.

Additional

protection

measure

Variation in fill material. Variation in

the

thickness

of

the

gabion

mattresses

and the

size

of

rock-

the

slopes

at which

the

protective

measure

is

tested.

Enkamat Minimal, tained (0.3 m), its if

performed any, erosion

well of

during the

tests embankment For the all type the

involving

the

low

overtopping the greater embankment. but to its enkamat

depths. main1 ft

was observed depths of the

and

structural however,

integrity. enkamat intensive greatly upon with if the of enkamat accelerated of the

overtopping erosion protective and pattern has Enkamat installed. an appropriate combined and with

than

Enkamat effecToe pro-

was the tiveness tection tive include

least

labor

measures, of the potential Proper stapling the

depended is also

staples.

required measure beneath growth

enkamat. properly enkamat, vegetation is

be an effecwould and material. a

protective a liner

installation pattern, enkamat

well-established Additional testing

of

recommended,

should

include:

Testing

an installation

involving

a liner

and enkamat.

130

Testing a well-established growth of vegetat ion in place on the enkamat materia 1. This type of test would require a long term (maybe two years), but the results would be very enlightening. the Testing ture on top Varying of enkamat with an improved of the enkamat. the slope at which the stapling pattern and an asphalt mix-

protection

is

tested. The sod the test could be embank-

Testing a well established sod on the enkamat material. established under ideal growth conditions, rolled onto ment, and stapled properly. The geoweb other of was of rocks subject the will to is be grid confinement measures. the direct cells of system The the geoweb main performed problem As this water, geoweb. test with

poorly the

in

comparison was the embankcases, toe of the

with boiling ment erosion

the

protective from to

geoweb the in most

system. flowing by the of the

occurred, and As with

erosion

by the

embankment be required.

was accelerated In spite

enkamat, testing

protection potential geoweb

results, Additional

geoweb

may have

an effective and

protective should include:

measure.

recommended,

Testing a variety of measures which prevent boiling cap the geoweb with.asphalt, cells of the geoweb, (e.g., a wire netting). Varying the slope at which the protection measures are

of

rocks from soil cement,

the or

tested.

The sistent the depths, ment. of are local

results with

of

the tests

tests

over results. performed

grass-protected For flows with well. with

embankments low overtopping Higher a grass-lined to the

were

incondepths,

previous

grass-lined however, The nature scour

embankment indicated of following and the

reasonably in erosion of erosion is

overtopping embankoccurrence results

an increase increase the in

attributable of vegetation.

removal tests

a pocket

These

inconclusive

additional

are

recommended.

3. tion

Hydraulic Table measures

Stability 15 shows before the

of

Protection failure 131

Measures conditions of occurred. flow overtopping The velocity the and protecshear

hydraulic

significant

Table

15.

Evaluation

of

crltical

conditions

for

the

protection

measures.

Protect I on Measure Geoweb

Overtopp I ng Depth (ft.1 1.0

D 1scharge (ft3/,-ft) 3.0

Average Flow Depth (ft) 0.38

Average Velocity (ft/s) 7.9

Max1 mum Velocity (ft/s) 8.3

Energy Slope 0.27

Mannings n 0.051

Shear* Stress (lb2/ft2) 1.0

Remarks Sfgnlflcant toe eros ion occurred after 9 hours of test. Stable Stable Some rock migrated, but gablon remalned stab le. Stable Stable Stable Stable Some erosion Stable

Gablon Gablon Gablon

1 .o 2.0 4.0

3.0 8.4 25.0

0.42 0.82 1.59

7.1 10.2 15.7

7.9 10.9 17.2

0.34 0.27 0.22

0.068 0.066 0.060

1.0 2.0 5.0

w g

Soi I Cement Soil Cement

1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1 2 T = - pfV , 8 by Chew,(6)

3.0 8.4 25.0 3.0 8.4 3.0

0.32 0.55 1.48 0.38 0.80 0.17

9.4 15.3 16.9 7.9 10.5 5.9

11.5 18.0 20.0 8.0 12.0 6.1

0.21 0.11 0.022 0.28 0.15 0.33

0.034 0.022 0.017 0.051 0.047 0.044

0.6 1.6 1.9 1.0 2.5 0.4

Soi I Cement Enkamat

Enkamat
Grass

*Note: Based

Shear

stress

where f = 0.02

Is the

water

density, 0.04 (grass),

Is Darcy-Weisbach 0.06 (geoweb), 0.07

coefficient (enkamat

and

is the

velocity.

on Information

(sol I cement),

and gablon).

stress ness started gabion m/s). testing of the the given by Chen soil flow of

of

flow the the

given protection flow

in

table measures.

15 provide In exceeded as the 8.0

indications general, ft/s erosion (2.4 velocity

of m/s).

stability of the Rocks 15

and geoweb within ft/s the

roughsystem each (4.6 15-hour

when were

velocity to still at migrate

observed gabion Even

flow

exceeded during (6.1 m/s),

However, period. cement

provided in

sufficient excess the of

protection 20 ft/s material on the

velocities Damage 10 ft/s 16 also

no failure when

was observed. exceeded Table for Critical

to

enkamat

was observed tests stress

velocities velocities table 16.

(3 m/s). with includes enkamat, associated the

Based various critical

conducted, measures are recommended

critical in

associated

protection shear

and Cotton

gabion, velocity

and grass. with protection measures.

Table

16.

Protection

Measures

Critical

Velocity

(ft/s)

Critical Shear Stress (lb/ft2)

Geoweb Gabion Soil Cement Enkamat Grass

-6.0 15.0 >20.0 10.0 Varies

isee

table

12)

Kl w-m 2.0 Varies

133

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The collect quantitatively assess to due papers papers damage, protection tors. ment

objectives field data,

of and

this

project

were

to

perform tests due to to

a review develop flood

of

literature, to to

conduct

laboratory damages

a methodology overtopping and conducted

determine measures.

embankment

protection existing

A. comprehensive works protection and data

literature pertinent

review to

was

identify to flood were were

research and

embankment reports reports

damage and and

overtopping identified reviewed to the on the data flood

measures. useful to the

Seventy-nine study. that and overtopping These control assess and estimating

as potentially identify failure

important mode of due for

parameters embankments, to flood

embankment effects other of fac-

investigate measures Very limited due to

embankment are available

quantitatively

embank-

damage

overtopping.

Field at. one lyzed five site and

data sites in in

of

roadway Arkansas, and to

erosion three five

caused sites sites the in in

by

flood Missouri,

overtopping seven These field for sites

were in data

collected Wyoming, were anathe

Colorado,

Arizona.

utilized damage

evaluate flood

methodology

developed

determining

embankment

due to

overtopping. The (3.0 to from comfive and soils by the overranging ranging

Embankment embankments 6.7 2:l m) in to 3:l. of tested crest The two

overtopping in width, this and

tests study 3 ft

were were (0.9

conducted (1.8 were soil

in m) high, with tested

large 10 to slopes

flume. 22 ft varying various along with cement,

6 ft m) in which

length,

embankment surface (grass, soils of

surfaces

included

binations protective enkamat). classified Unified topping from 1 to

materials rock-filled forming low the

(bare

and

pavement), geoweb, were tested, clay

measures Two base as Soil depths a clay

mattresses, embankments (CL) flood 4 ft and

soil

including (SM-SC) include

plasticity The

a sandy

Classification. ranging from (0.031

overtopping (0.15 to 1.2

conditions m),

0.5 to

to 0.77

discharges conditions

25 ft3/s-ft

m3/s-m),

and tailwater

134

from flume. inside

10 percent For the the flume to

water tests

surface tests that and did

drop tests not

to

free which

fall. grass,

The embankment the embankments (0.15-m) (95 percent grass, with lifts of the were

test

program of the

included

fixed-flume

necessitated

movement

involve in

constructed

by filling the

material compaction For the

6-inch

and mechanically maximum flume Highway dry den-

compacted sity, to tration

obtain Proctor). slope

required tests in

Standard an embankment

involving

was moved Adminis-

constructed and vegetated

accordance with grass.

Federal

specifications

Also the along charge over cients totype flow shoulder stream flow an hydraulic with

a series

of

fixed-bed of model flow It

embankment overtopping data conducted velocity that flow.

tests

were This set

conducted of (4) data to and and

to

determine

conditions small-scale

was analyzed determine shear disstress coeffito or the near free the pro-

by Kindsvater distribution, patterns tests free the Flow are

coefficients, embankment. determined conditions. occurred and slope occurred with "rides" surface when from

patterns, was found

flow model

discharge

the

small-scale was separating tailwater reversed. plunged on the than was

applicable flow at low,

When tailwater the flow the jet

high, from surface.

surface roadway velocity was

submerged downstream the downplunging a

over

became the jump jet

When tailwater under the tailwater

surface, The for plunging the same the

producing flow causes

submerged more depth. ditions erosion

hydraulic of

downstream the surface

slope. flow to

embankment model flow.

overtopping con-

A mathematical of overtopping

established

determine

hydraulic

Bare-soil erosion erosion relation tion of equations. rate

embankment The be

tests results to to

were of the a net

analyzed evaluation shear the

to

evaluate indicate

existing that a power stress to and in

embankment general relation. as a funcdetermine noncohesive the A

can

related

stress critical were

by

was then plasticity erosion

developed index. rate

determine Three

shear established

equations

embankment soils.

for

high-cohesive,

low-cohesive,

135

A mathematical model flood with the soil

model erosion This I and

was

then

developed to

by

integrating embankment the was

the erosion

hydraulic due test to to

equations model was The

determine using model the

overtopping. series of

calibrated calibrated

bare-soil utilized erosion

data

(FHWA test three sets

II).
for

generate rates for The confield the of For for more should verified

nomographs

determining

embankment

high-cohesive effects sidered data with of in

(PI 2 lo),
embankment the procedure.

low-cohesive heights, The flood

(1 < PI 5 5) and noncohesive

duration, procedure were be pointed these using pavement was and evaluated to that and grass

soils. are using explain only effects data. or

developed

reasonable of were this

agreement. procedure. in

Two examples It should developing by

developed out

applications soil bases .and

limited

considered were

nomographs, laboratory analyzed, model

pavement embankment detailed be utilized.

grass soil

assessed

limited from those

with estimation

significantly of embankment nomographs additional

different erosion, and field the the

computer

developed be

These when

computer

model data

should become

and/or

modified

and experimental

available.

The gabion ties

effectiveness soil the gabion

of

five

erosion geoweb, of these and Some of rock the

protection enkamat, protection soil cement movement embankment mattress, and

measures grass. materials performed was material however, testing of is

was Critical were very

evaluated: velociestimated. well during in during the the

mattresses, that initiate that

cement, erosion mattresses tests. no erosion of with

It
the

was found flood tests.

overtopping However,

observed

gabion tests. tion of

occurred the

An important the wire

aspect basket

the time.

gabion

deterioramattresses

Additional

gabion

may include:

Variation material. Variation Soil cement study.

in

thickness

of

the

gabion

mattresses

and the

size

of

rock-fill

in

the

slopes

at the of

which best the of soil

the all

protective erosion or

measure protection embankment

is

tested. measures tested was evi-

performed No erosion

in

the

cement

material

136

dent toe cement

in

the

tests. were not

However, evaluated

the in

long-term the

weathering study.

effects

and testing

potential of soil

erosion

Additional

may include:

Develop a technique to measure the weathering and thereby to determine Investigate cement. Vary Test the slope the long-term weathering

rate of wear due proper thickness process for

to flow erosion and and cement content. failure ,of the soil

0 0

at

which

the

protective of the

measure protection

is

tested. measure.

a different

configuration

Enkamat For the the overtopping erosion staples

performed depths of and measure the

well greater embankment

during than

tests 1 ft of

involving (0.3 m),

the however,

low

overtopping enkamat

depth.

accele.rated generated at

because Enkamat installed. an

additional has the

turbulence potential installation pattern, enkamat to

ripped if

enkamat. properly

be an effective would and material. include a wellAddia

protective liner

Proper

beneath

the growth is

enkamat, of vegetation

appropriate combined with

stapling the

established tional testing

recommended:

0 0

Test Test

an installation a well-established

involving growth an improved

a liner of

and

enkamat. on the pattern enkamat material. mixture

vegetation stapling

Test the enkamat with on top of the enkamat. Varying The the slope grid

and an asphalt

at which confinement performed

the

protection system with in

is

tested. filled with upon the the with other boiling lto Z-inch

geoweb

geoweb

(25- to 51-mm) gravel

measures. from direct ment the The cells erosion was main of the

poorly with the As this water, geoweb.

comparison focused the

protective of rocks to

problem system. flowing by the

geoweb

occurred, and In in spite most of

embankment erosion test results,

was subject of the

by the

cases the

embankmay

accelerated

geoweb

137

also of the

have

potential is

to

be an effective

protective

measure.

Additional

testing

geoweb

recommended.

Test measures geoweb. Vary the slope

which

prevent

boiling

of

rocks

from

the

cells

of

the

at which

the

protection

measures

are

tested.

The results topping overtopping embankment. occurrence These

results inconsistent depths, the depths, The of local are

of

the with however,

tests previous caused the following

over tests

grass-protected results. performed in erosion of For

embankments flow with with well. reasonably erosion is

indicated low overHigher

grass-lined

embankment

an increase in

a grass-lined to vegetation. the

nature scour

of

increase the

attributable of

removal tests

a pocket are

results

inconclusive,

and additional

recommended.

138

APPENDIX A - PHOTOGRAPHS ILLUSTRATING

LABRATORY TESTS CONDUCTED IN THIS STUDY

The laboratory during cement not soil report. The embankment without afforded Figures sion of illustrated

following tests.

series

of

photographs are soil not cement of

depict provided

the

embankment for are every provided protection

following test for

the

Photographs

conducted the soil was the main measure of in the

this tests.

study. Erosion following embankment series (figures

In particular,
of the the completion protection of 60 is to photographs 62). in

no photographs embankment

evident cement first

testing. refer

For to

an illustration figure 17

measure, illustrate Erosion figures is the during of

the the

erosion paved The in

of erosion figures

the

bare-soil with protection 67 to the enkamat 69. erois and

embankment

vegetation by 70 to the in gabion

provided

63 to illustrated geoweb the

66.

protection the 74 to

measure erosion sustained 76. of

73 depict embankment figures

material. utilization

Finally, of

139

Figure

60.

Bare-soil 0.5 feet

surface (Type and 20 percent

I Soil) following overtopping water surface drop.

depth

of

140

Figure

61.

Bare-soil surface (Type II Soil) following 1 foot and 70 percent water surface drop.

overtopping

depth

of

141

Figure

62.

Bare-soil surface 2 feet and freefall

(Type II Soil) conditions.

following

overtopping

depth

of

142

Figure

63.

Paved embankment overtopping depth drop.

(Type II Soil) without vegetation of 0.5 feet and 70 percent water

following surface

143

Figure

64.

Paved embankment (Type I Soil) overtopping depth of 0.5 feet water surface drop. 144

with vegetation and 70 percent

following

Figure

65.

Paved embankment overtopping depth drop.

(Type I Soil) with vegetation following of 1 foot and 70 percent water surface

145

Figure

66.

Paved embankment overtopping depth

(Type I Soil) of 0.5 feet

with vegetation following and freefall conbitions.

146

Figure

67.

Gabion protection following free fall conditions.

overtopping

depth

of

1 foot

and

147

Figure

68.

Gabion freefall

protection conditidns.

following

overtopping

depth

of

2 feet

and

148

Figure

-69.

Gabion freefall

protection conditions.

following

overtopping

depth

of

4 feet

and

149

Figure

70.

Geoweb protection fall conditions,

following and testing

overtopping duration

of

depth of 1 foot, 30 minutes.

free-

150

Figure

71.

Geoweb protection fall conditions

following and testing

overtopping duration

of

depth of 1 hour.

1 foot,

free-

151

Figure

72.

Geoweb protection following overtopping depth conditions and testing duration of 1 hour.

of

2 feet,

freefall

152

Figure

73.

Geoweb protection following overtopping depth conditions and testing duration of 2 hours.

of

2 feet,

freefall

153

Figure

74.

Enkamat protection fall conditions

following and testing

overtopping duration of

depth 1 hour.

of

0.5

feet,

free-

154

Figure

75.

Enkamat protection fall conditions

following and testing

overtopping duration of

depth 1 hour.

of

2 feet,

free-

155

Figure

76.

Embankment (Type II Soil) beneath enkamat protection following overtopping depth of 2 feet, freefall conditions and testing duration of 1 hour.

156

APPENDIX

B -

DATA SUM+lARY

Table in this

17 lists

a schedule Table

of

tests. the

Totally water-surface the velocity

there

were and

35 runs

conducted profile

study. with time.

18 tabulates 19 tabulates

bed-surface

changes

Table

measurements.

157

Table 17.

Schedule

of

tests.

Run No.

Series

Description of Test

Soil Type

Side Slope

Discharge (cfs)

Overtopping Depth, ft (Dot)

Water Surface Drop (% of Dot)

1 2 3 E4 5 6 7
8

FHWA I

Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; IJo Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection

I I

3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l

3.0 3.2 9.0 28.0 28.5 28.0 72.6 70.0 70.0

0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Free

70
Fall (FF)

FHWA I

FHWA I

20 20 70
FF

FHWA I

FHWA I

FHWA I

FHWA I

20 70
FF

FHWA I

FHWA I

Table

17.

Schedule

of

tests.

(continued)

Run No.

Series

Description of Test

Soil Type

Side Slope

Discharge (cfs)

Overtopping Depth, ft (Dot)

Water Surface Drop (% of DotI

10 11 12
13

FHWA II FHWA II FHWA II FHWA II FHWA III

Bare Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Bare-Soil Surface; No Protection Paved Surface/ Gravel Shoulder; No Protection Paved Surface/ Gravel Shoulder; No Protection Paved Surface/ Gravel Shoulder; No Protection

II II II II II

3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l

3.0 9.0 30.0 70.0 3.0

0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 0.5

70 70 70 70 70

+ 0-l u3

14

15

FHWA III

II

3:l

9.0

1.0

70

16

FHWA III

II

3:l

30.0

2.0

70

Table

17.

Schedule

of

tests.

(continued)

Run No.

Series

Description of Test

Soil Type

Side Slope

Discharge (cfs)

Overtopping Depth, ft (Dot)

Water Surface Drop (% of Dot)

17

FHWA III

Paved Surface/ Gravel Shoulder; No Protection Bare-Soil Geoweb Bare-Soil Geoweb Bare-Soil Gabion Bare-Soil Gabion Bare-Soil Gabion Surface;

II

3:1

70.0

4.0

70

18

USFS II USFS II USFS IV

II II II II II II II

3:l 3:l 2:l 2:l 2:l 2:l 2:l

9.0 30.0 9.0 30.0 70.0 9.0 30.0

1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.0

FF

w 59 20
21

Surface;

FF

Surface;

FF

USFS IV USFS IV

Surface;

FF

22 23 24

Surface;

FF

USFS V

Bare-Soil Surface; Soil Cement Bare-Soil Surface; Soil Cement

FF

USFS V

FF

Table 17.

(continued)

Run No.

Series

Description of Test

Soil Type

Side Slope

Discharge (cfs)

Overtopping Depth, ft (Dot)

Water Surface Drop (% of DotI FF

25

USFS V

Bare-Soil Surface; Soil Cement Paved Gravel Grass Paved Gravel Grass Paved Gravel Grass Paved Gravel Grass Paved Gravel Grass Bare-Soil Enkamat Surface/ Shoulder;

II I

2:l 3:l

70.0 3.0

4.0 0.5

26

FHWA IV

FF

27

FHWA IV

Surface/ Shoulder;

3:l

30.0

2.0

FF

28

FHWA IV

Surface/ Shoulder;

3:l

70.0

4.0

FF

29

FHWA V

Surface/ Shoulder;

3:l

3.0

0.5

70

30

FHWA V

Surface/ Shoulder;

3:l

30.0

2.0

70

31

USFS I

Surface;

II

3:l

3.0

0.5

FF

Table 17.

Schedule of tests.

(continued)

Run No. 32 33 k-r is 34 35

Series USFS I USFS III USFS III USFS III

Description of Test Bare-Soil Enkamat Surface;

Soil Type II II II -1I

Side Slope 3:l 3:l 3:l 3:l

Discharge (cfs) 30.0 3.0 9.0 70.0

Overtopping Depth, ft (Dot) 2.0 0.5 1.0 4.0

Water Surface Drop (% of Dot) FF FF FF FF

Bare-Soil Surface; Enkamat/Grass Bare-Soil Surface; Enkamat/Grass Bare-Soil Surface; Enkamat/Grass

Table

18.

Water

surface

(US)

and

bed surface

(BS)

elevations.

------------------------,-------,-------------------------------------------------------------------Distance Mona Eabatkrent (ft0 * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i&&r k 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 0 2 4 6 --------------------_^____^____^______^_-----------------------------------------------------------------------1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 0.00 0.75 4100 10100 20tOO 28 30 32 34 35

US 6.53 6.50 6.48 6.46 6.44 6.43 6.39 &,37 6.36 6.30 6.06 6.14 6.19 6.16 6.16 6.15 6.16 6118 6.19 BS St77 5,88 5.91 5.97 5.96 5.97 $96 5194 5891 5t96 5.83 5t40 4,&l 4.04 3.39 2,&7 2.14 1.51 1.19 US &,53 6.50 6.48 6.46 6.44 6.43 6.39 6.37 6.36 6.30 6.06 6.14 &,I9 6.16 6.16 6.15 6.16 6.18 6.19 DS 5.80 5.89 5.91 Jt97 5.95 5.90 5t93 5196 5,89 St95 5.82 St44 4573 4,03 3.43 2.68 2.33 1.51 1,21 US 6.60 6.54 6.50 6.49 6.44 6.44 &,43 6.41 &A7 &,32 5.97 6.17 6.18 &,13 btll btl3 6.14 &tlb &tl& BS 5t81 5.90 5.91 5,93 5195 5,90 5.90 5.89 5.84 St85 St59 5640 4t58 3.93 3640 2t69 2.15 1.45 1,22 WS &A9 bt54 &,50 6150 6.47 6.45 6.44 6.41 &,38 &,33 5.93 &,13 6.17 6.14 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.16 &rl& BS 5,80 5,88 5.90 5t92 5,94 5192 St90 5488 5480 5t80 5t45 5135 4.55 3.90 3,35 2667 2,15 1.44 ltl8 WS 6,&l 6856 6.51 6.50 6.45 6644 6.43 6.41 6.37 6.34 5.85 &tlO 6.16 6.13 6.12 be13 be14 6.16 6.16 BS 5.80 5t89 5.89 5.90 593 5t90 5t90 5t88 5,82 5~70 Jt40 5.31 4.50 3t84 3.36 2t68 2.15 lt42 1.17

0,OO US 6.58 6.54 6.52 6.50 bt49 6.48 6.43 6131 6,33 &,30 bt07 5.68 5.01 4t40 3t74 3.11 2.52 2103 1+80 BS 5,98 6415 btl2 &,17 6.12 6812 bt12 &all bt04 6t12 5487 5.54 4,87 4t29 3,62 2,99 2t40 1.86 1.61 1.75 5.00 10.00 20,OO WS be57 6153 6.51 be50 6.49 6.48 6.43 6.31 be33 6.30 6.05 5.67 5.00 4.34 3.80 3,08 2149 2.02 1.78 BS 599 bt13 btll &,lO btl0 be10 btll 6.09 605 &+07 5.85 5.45 4t85 4,24 3.67 2.96 2.36 1.86 1.61 WS &,52 6.49 bt46 6+41 6.43 6.45 6.39 &,33 &,39 6.37 6.04 5e65 fit02 4.34 3t72 3101 2t48 lt95 1172 BS 5.95 b,O3 6109 bt08 &,08 6105 &a04 6,OO &,04 &,05 5.83 5t42 4184 418 3,54 2.89 2839 1.84 lt57 WS 6,56 6.52 6147 6.42 be44 6.40 6.39 6.44 6,40 6.35 6104 5.54 4195 4.28 3.73 3,Ol 2,45 1.98 1680 ES 5.92 &tOl 6.07 &,O& &,08 6.03 6.01 5.99 5.98 6.01 5.83 5.37 4.76 4,13 3.53 2.86 2.36 1.81 1.54 MS ba55 6153 6.47 be43 be43 6.40 6.44 6t38 6tl5 6109 5,9& 5t44 4,79 4,21 3,54 2898 2.39 1.82 1,74 BS 5t90 6802 6,Ob &,04 6402 6.01 5,99 5194 5.80 5.75 5,&8 5.25 4,66 4,lO 3143 2.80 2.24 1.65 1,50

*See

figure

26 for

the

measurement

locations.

Table

18.

Water

surface

(US)

and

bed surface

(BS)

elevations.

(continued)

-------_------------____________^_______-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Run fire Number (hrs)

Distance Along Erbmkaent (ft,) __-------------_---------------------------------------------------------------------------28 30 32 34 35

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 -^----------_-------__s_________________-----------------------------------------------------------------------3 3 3 3

otoo
ltO0 4.50

US 6.98 6,95 6.90 6t82 6.73 6.65 6.73 6185 6t94 7.05 7.10 7,12 7tl5 7.07 6,92 7.00 6.85 6,88 6.90
BS 5.77 5t85 5.91 5199 5899 5t94 6.00 5.99 6rOO 5t99 5.85 5.49 4171 4.08 3.46 2r68 2,18 1,50 1.18 US 6,96 6.93 6t90 6t85 6,77 6t70 6t73 6.85 6.94 7+00 7.07 7110 7113 7.06 6195 7,Ol 6.85 6.85 6.87 BS 5t76 5,85 5,91 5.99 5497 594 6,OO 6.00 6,OO 5497 5.82 5.47 4870 4t05 3145 2.70 2r19 lt49 1,19 WS 6.97 6.95 6.90 6e88 6.74 6170 6.73 6,83 6t91 6.98 7tOO 7.08 7.11 7.08 6,98 6t99 6,90 6.85 6.88 BS 5177 5,88 S.91 5.94 5t96 5196 5.96 5894 5,91 5696 5483 5,40 4.61 4.04 3839 2,67 2.14 1851 lr19 Us 6.99 6.95 6.92 6t90 6,77 6.71 6.75 6481 6.92 6,98 6197 7,05 7tlO 7.08 6,99 6t94 6.88 6,90 6,90 BS 5,76 5,88 5.90 5195 5,96 5,96 5t97 5.95 5.90 593 5,79 5.30 4.55 4t03 3137 2.66 2.13 1.50 1.18 US 6t97 6e94 6,93 6,90 6dO 6,75 6.74 6,82 6,92 6,97 6e99 7~03 7tO8 7.07 7100 6.93 6.87 6.88 6,87 BS 577 5.87 5.89 5194 5t95 5.96 5,94 5.94 5,88 5.91 5.77 5,27 4.50 3,98 335 2663 2.13 1.50 1.18 WS 7t85 7.79 7169 7.64 7,60 7.62 7t61 7160 7.63 7.61 7843 7,62 7t57 7.65 7155 7.00 7.65 7t72 7t62 BS 5.82 5,91 5,92 5.95 5.95 5,90 5.90 5,89 5.85 5,92 5.69 5t45 4,62 3,98 3.41 268 2411 1844 1,21 US 7.81 7+75 7.66 7,63 7.58 7.61 7,57 7t54 7.59 7.59 7142 771 7.59 7.73 7,55 7,78 7t65 7,71 7t60 BS 5t77 5.88 5891 5t94 5191 5,78 5880 St79 5t76 5.85 5068 5,41 4t76 4111 3.41 2,68 2t21 1,52 1.20

10,oo
20too

0.00 lrO0 lOI

4 20,oo

MS 7,75 7.69 7.64 7tbl 7,58 7.61 7t53 7160 7.61 7+60 7t58 7t66 7170 7t70 7.63 7.71 7.74 7.71 7.65
BS 5.77 5,85 5t87 5185 5.80 St85 5t69 5171 5.60 5t69 5157 5.37 4t51 400 3138 2142 2t06 1.46 1.17 US 7,74 7.68 7.63 7t58 7.56 7.60 7t50 7t58 7.60 7.60 7.56 7.63 7.67 7,66 7t60 7.70 7.72 7.71 7.63

BS 5t76 5.83 5.85 5180 5,79 5.78 5.55 5166 5148 5.58 5,50 5.31 4.40 3.95 3t30 2t35 2.01 1.35 1,13

Table

18.

(continued).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Distance Alons Edmnkrent (Pt. 1 --------------^-----^___________________---------------------------------------------------~Run The Number Uws) 0 2 4 6 8 IO 12 14 16 18 ; 20 22 24 26 28 --------^----_-_----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 0.00 0.75 3675 9,75 19.50 0,OO I,00 3.50 9,50

30

32

34

35

WS 7.73 7.62 7.49 7.39 7t31 7419 7.05 6.86 6,87 7.00 6.91 6.65 6t40 6r51 6t53 6.65 6t66 6.61 6,73 BS 5,77 5.85 5t87 5.86 5.84 5.87 5.75 5t73 Jt65 5,75 5t63 5.39 4t71 4tO3 3.43 2.52 2.10 1.51 1.19 WS 7.73 7.62 7.49 7t39 7.29 7.17 7.03 6.82 6683 7.01 6,87 6t42 6.36 6.49 6.50 6,62 6,65 6.58 6.71 BS 5.76 5.87 5t85 581 5.77 5.84 5.57 St56 St52 5.58 5,57 5t35 4,63 4101 3.36 2t66 2.13 I,45 It17 US 7,62 7.50 7936 7.25 7.14 6t97 6.82 6164 6.52 6,72 6t79 6.44 6t27 6.41 6.54 6.58 6.61 6*61 6.68 BS 5t74 5t81 5.80 5t71 5t74 $82 5.52 5.39 5.33 5.47 5.49 5.26 4.63 4.02 3.27 2.63 2.08 1.39 1.11 WS 7.58 7.47 7.29 7,18 7.09 6187 6.70 6.46 6.33 6t51 6.65 6t32 6t34 6645 6.56 6.66 6.66 6.72 6.71 BS 5t69 5.79 5,74 5.68 5172 5,68 5.43 FL15 5.13 5.21 5138 5,12 4843 3.83 3.23 2151 1.93 I,31 0.57 US 7,61 7850 7.33 7,19 7,09 6,86 6.68 6,43 6,30 6.51 6.66 6,30 6.33 6.42 6,51 6.58 6t62 6965 6.67 BS 5,68 5t78 5873 5,68 5.68 5t46 5.22 5100 5tOl St08 5.18 4t80 4.25 3t68 3tlO 2.38 I,82 It28 0,50 WS 7.85 7.74 7,65 7.55 7.44 7,65 7.68 7846 7.41 7837 6,95 6.46 5,87 5.26 4.55 3.70 3.23 2.57 2.21 BS 5,89 6,OO 6.06 6104 6,03 6tOO 6,Ol 5t98 5.97 6.08 5.86 5.45 4.94 4.46 3t78 3101 2161 I,98 1.66 WS 7.84 7,71 7,63 7.52 7,41 7,62, 7.64 7.46 7r40 7.31 6.93 6,41 5.54 4.65 4.27 3.76 3.23 2.45 2.15 BS 5.89 5.99 6t05 6tO3 5t98 6tOO 5199 5.97 5.97 6.07 5.86 5.45 4.77 3,96 3650 2.98 2148 I.86 It61 US 7,82 7671 7.61 7.49 7,39 7,56 7.66 7,41 7.35 7.25 6.87 6.36 5.19 4.46 3897 3.34 2,93 2.61 2.23 BS 5,89 5.97 6.05 6,02 5,95 5.92 5,96 5.98 5.96 6.01 5.80 5842 4.31 3,86 3t44 2165 2t37 It80 1.50 US 7,81 7.69 7.56 7t43 7,23 7.43 7t83 7.31 7.19 7,13 6.74 6.19 5,02 4+06 3.37 2+82 2.15 3.73 1.73 BS 5,87 5,93 5.96 5.97 5,94 5,79 5197 5.91 5.93 5,92 5,74 !i,l4 4,17 3134 2t68 2106 Ot57 Ot52 0.52

20,OO US 7.75 7,61 7.49 7.31 7103 7.08 7.63 7.39 7,15 7.04 6.58 5.96 4.70 3.27 1.30 I,30 lr30 It30 It30 BS 5t83 5.91 5t89 5,87 5t77 5166 5,81 5,80 5,88 5,80 5167 4,95 3.80 0.68 0.31 OtOO0.00 0.00 0.00

Table

18.

Water

surface

(US)

and

bed

surface

(6s)

elevations.

(continued)

^-^---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distance blonrl Embankment (ft.1 Run Time --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number (hrs) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 lb 18 20 22 24 26 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.00 0*95 3.25 lOI00 + iii? 7 8 8 20too 0.00 4too lot00 20*#0

28

30

32

34

35

US BS 9tlO 5t86 8,85 5+94 8*&l 5t99 8.42 b,Ol 8130 5.93 8.01 5.89 9.99 5.95 7rb8 5t95 9.92 5196 850 5.99 8.93 5t99 8t94 5.16 8.63 4t28 8t91 3.44 8.81 2t81 882 8.60 8.65 9.05 2.33 1.92 0.61 Ot52 BS US 5.66 9.05 8t80 5.96 8.56 5.90 8.41 5~66 8.28 $69 9.99 5,&b Se39 9894 9.61 4e99 5.06 8t46 5.33 8191 8,91 8.91 8.81 9tb8 5.12 5106 8.61 4t48 3.83 3.24 8t81 2t56 8.51 8.56 1138 8.91 2.10 Ot81 US 8,88 8.90 Be49 8.36 8t21 7.92 7.69 7.56 9.58 9.98 8.58 8,55 8t43 8.26 8198 8.63 8.45 8.47 8.45 BS 5.65 St96 5.90 St69 5+92 St69 5,42 St01 5804 5~18 5.39 5.14 4,59 3.88 3,24 2.59 2.15 lt41 0.93 US 8.89 8,91 8.48 8t34 8117 9.90 9,51 9.42 7.49 9.91 8.42 Bt44 8t39 8t29 8,80 8,&2 8,44 8,49 8t47 ES 5164 5491 St68 5,&5 5tb9 5.60 5.21 4t85 4.80 5105 5.11 5.05 4,45 3680 3.20 2t47 2101 1.32 0153 WS 8t90 8173 Et51 8139 8.11 9.85 9t38 9.25 9t19 7t39 8,21 8035 8.36 8.25 Be90 8.59 8.45 8846 8tb8 BS 5.61 5,&9 St65 5.61 5.60 5t41 4195 4,44 4t35 4,91 4.89 4190 4.31 3.68 3,ll 2,41 1.95 lt30 0148 US 9tlO 8t92 871 851 8.48 8,4& 8.35 8.33 8,12 8.05 9,44 7,SO 7,54 9,&2 9,71 7680 7.67 7,32 9.23 BS 5.86 5196 fit94 6.01 5,91 5+87.5,92 5,9& 5t89 5.84 Wl 5,lb 4t24 3a46 2882 2.32 1.94 0.63 0.56 US 8.74 8,54 B&30 8.08 9,82 7e45 9t22 9,04 6.83 6167 be53 &t&O 6+&l 9,08 9.91 9,90 9,72 7,31 9t25 BS 5.56 5,&9 5458 5S2 5.28 5.18 Se18 4,93 4.65 4,92 4,72 4.65 4.26 3192 3.19 2133 2101 1.15 0.51 US Be&l Be43 Be12 9.81 7,4& 7.06 9,Ol be43 6.35 6.91 9.35 6,&l 7,22 9,20 9t38 9.56 7t48 9,32 9,21 BS 5.41 5142 5137 502 4t99 466 4150 4t54 4t35 4120 4,03 3t94 3190 3.49 2.45 2,lb 1.54 l,21 0.76 US Be59 8.33 8.21 9~86 7.55 9.13 6881 6118 6.39 be50 6.59 6.63 bt56 6.87 6.80 9,lO 9,lb 9.19 9,20 BS 4~81 5102 4480 3t34 3940 3,22 2.95 2,99 2.82 2.13 1.82 lt96 1.59 1.41 1.62 1849 lt52 1.44 1139

Table

18.

(continued).

Tine Nuaber (hrs)

RW

Distance Along Embankment(ft. 1 ---_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

28

30

32

34

35

9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10

0,oo 1*oo 4.00 lOI 20.00 0.00 1650 4t50 10,50 20.00

MS 9.09 8.93 8.75 8.70 8+67 8+67 8,70 8t57 8.43 8.12 7.72 7.25 6.36 5+71 5.05 4.38 4.01 3621 3,03 BS 5.81 5.83 5t82 5.86 5.84 5.81 5.90 5.98 5.99 St88 5675 5.41 4t78 4.20 3,62 2687 2.47 1.95 1.67 Ws 9.09 8.93 8.75 8.55 8.53 8.67 8,80 8S7 8.43 8,12 7.39 6.81 6.06 5.45 4.85 4.28 3.73 3.06 2.93 BS 5,75 5677 5t87 5180 5462 5.61 5t85 5190 5.93 5677 5t35 4.90 440 3692 3.38 2.75 2.18 1.75 1.56 US 9tOl 8.78 8.58 8831 8.28 8.34 8.43 8.47 8.25 7,89 7107 6.34 5.61 5.07 4t77 4t23 3.63 3.06 2,82 BS 5.75 5.74 5.76 5.76 5t54 5.71 5,79 5,93 5.86 5.76 5.01 4.51 4.06 3.41 3t29 2,65 2.16 1,69 1.44 US 8,93 8,78 8.46 8.27 8.03 7.84 7.95 8,21 8tl3 7.73 6.58 5.56 4.11 2,76 lb75 1.56 1.56 1.56 lt56 BS 5.63 5.67 5.67 5,63 5.45 535 5.59 5,75 5t76 5,69 4s33 3147 1649 0124 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 US 8t61 8t43 8.12 7.81 7&i 7.06 7tOl 7+08 6t86 6135 535 4,Ol 2t76 it56 1.56 1.56 lt56 lt56 1.56 ES 5136 5,44 5.43 5.15 4,89 4,46 4.40 4t46 4.16 3,72 2.65 1,12 OtOOOtOO0.00 0,OO OtOO0.00 0.00 US 6162 6r59 6.55 6.53 6,47 6,42 6.39 6r30 6,26 6,20 6,30 6,39 6t40 6t45 6.49 6,38 6.20 6.19 6.20 BS 5t98 6.03 6tO6 6.11 6.09 6tOO 6,02 5.99 6tOl 5.93 5,78 5,42 4.82 4.18 3859 2+81 2127 lt76 1.55 YS 6t58 6.54 6t50 6,48 6.43 6.40 6,32 6,28 bt21 6tl5 5.90 6.29 6.28 6,17 6.17 6t23 6628 6t28 6.27 BS 5.66 5,76 5+75 5.83 5177 5178 5.79 5t73 5,71 5t67 St41 5.29 4di6 3.93 3,33 2t75 2.32 1.81 1.52 WS 6.46 6.47 6.41 6.46 6.43 6.46 6.39 6.33 6.24 6.23 6,lO 6.31 6.41 6.45 6.57 6164 6.21 6.31 be36 BS 5t44 5.65 5,75 St37 5+44 5146 5.48 5.43 5.31 5~31 5629 5.28 4.65 3,95 3.36 2178 2~33 1.85 1.56 MS 6,47 6.47 6.47 6.43 6.41 6t39 6t41 6,40 6.40 6.41 6.36 6839 6t41 6t42 6,39 6.40 6.36 6.38 6.36 BS 5136 5142 5.47 5.40 5,46 5,48 5,47 5,44 5t35 5,27 5,27 5507 4.62 4.27 3+bl 2.81 2t42 1,82 1+53 US 6045 6.43 6.40 6.29 6.26 6t33 6,33 6.26 6.30 6,31 6.30 6129 6.32 6,33 6131 6830 6t29 6.28 6.27 BS 5.37 5.41 5.44 5.34 5931 5,33 5t41 5,19 5.17 4,91 4,91 5,04 4t62 3.68 3,36 2.54 2.32 1,73 1.53

Table

18.

Mater

surface

(US)

and bed surface

(BS)

elevations.

(continued)

Distance Alana Edmhnt (ft * 1 ---_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------N%er :i% 0 2 4 b 8 10 12 14 lb 18 20 22 24 26 _____--___-_---____-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 0.00

28

30

32

34

35

US 7tOb 7.00 6.94 6.91 bt91 bt86 bt79 6.71 6.89 btb7 6.90 7.01 6692 be81 b,46 bt41 be40 6.41 bt42 BS 5.74 St91 6101 5,94 5.92 5.99 6.01 be00 5.94 St92 St62 5,19 4.61 4107 3,42 2e79 2.31 L71 le41

11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12

2tOO WS 6.86 bt85 6.79 6.76 6.74 6.61 6.59 6.41 6.21 6,47 6.51 6.46 6.52 6.57 bt57 6,61 6,bl 6.56 6.53 BS 5.60 5,69 St74 5t92 St80 St97 6601 6.00 5.56 5.57 5t2b 4.83 4,bl 4+01 3t21 2,70 2,19 1.59 It26 4.00 WS be71 6.67 6.61 6.57 6,56 6,53 b,47 6,41 6.50 6.50 6.59 6.51 6.50 6.52 6.57 6.61 btbl bt59 6.57 %S 5.51 Jt59 Se52 5,56 5859 5861 St51 5.47 5t26 5.17 5.01 4.89 4657 4.10 3,37 2e76 2.26 it66 lt31

lOtO 20.00

US 6tb3 6.56 6651 6.48 6.42 b,27 6.23 6.30 6.41 6.38 be45 6.52 6.49 6.52 6.51 be51 b,49 6.48 6,47 BS Se39 5t44 5t49 5t49 5.56 5153 5.47 5.42 5.26 5.16 4t91 4157 4.33 3+81 3,33 2.82 2,49 1.59 lt40
YS 6.60 6.57 6.52 6.46 be41 6.23 6,35 bt49 6.50 6.41 6843 6.43 6.48 b,51 6,51 6.47 6.46 6.49 6649 BS 5.36 5.43 5,40 5.46 5,54 5.43 St45 5130 5.13 4t95 4,bl 4,50 4126 3t80 322 2180 239 1.57 1.40

OtOO MS 7.74 7,73 7t58 7t45 7.39 7.32 7.25 7.20 6.95 bt79 bJ5 b,20 b,49 6.48 bt52 bt53 6.56 be46 6.53 BS Se81 St80 5488 5,83 5.83 5.89 5.92 5.93 5.91 5.90 5S9 St18 4159 4.12 3.44 2t83 2.33 1.65 lb41 lr50 4tSO US 7,bS 7tb3 7t53 7,41 7123 7tOO 6t73 btbl 6.45 6.24 5t90 5.69 6.06 6.13 6.34 bt39 6.41 6.41 6.53 BS 5,29 5.27 5153 5179 5.78 St48 5847 St43 St29 St18 St02 4tb7 4617 3t74 3,19 2.40 2.11 1.59 1.23 MS 7.22 7.24 7t29 7,ll 7903 6895 bt81 be71 b,SO 6.32 St81 btO9 6,33 6131 be49 bt41 6.57 6.54 6.62 %S 5~25 5.26 5t26 5,33 5.38 5031 5.47 5t42 5,29 5.19 4,68 4148 4t19 3.84 3.21 2,40 2609 1.45 I,09

9,OO US 7t18 7.15 7,19 7t05 be95 6.76 6.61 6.49 6.39 bt13 5.71 6615 bt31 bt48 be55 6.55 6.57 6.58 6.63 BS 5t24 St22 5124 5,28 5.34 5,28 5842 535 5.20 5.18 4rb2 4.42 4.01 3,59 2t91 2,41 2.03 1.33 1.10 20100 US 7t20 7,18 7.22 7.07 6.97 6,85 b,74 bt60 6t43 bt20 5t78 bt10 b,25 6.35 be49 6.59 6.64 6.65 6.65 BS 5.22 5,18 5120 5,23 5t30 Se23 5836 5rlO St14 5.15 4154 4t36 3tR8 3.40 2.M) 2t25 1193 1.21 in02

Table

18.

(continued).

Distance Along Embankrent (It, I -------_-----------_______I_____________-----------------------------------------------------Run Time th.mber (hrs) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 --------_-__--_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 OdO lb00 4.50 10.50 20.00 000 ltO0 5.00 9,oo 20,oo

30

32

34

35

US 9&I 8.93 8183 8666 8SO 8.18 8,14 7t99 7181 7.70 7t35 6.90 ii,71 7.01 7rlO 7,18 7.22 7,28 7.28 BS 5.85 5t98 6.04 6,02 6.01 6.00 6tOl 5.96 5t90 St91 5.62 5,22 4.67 4103 3.47 2t78 2t33 1.87 1.46 US 9.02 8691 8,81 8.64 8.48 8.15 8114 7.97 7.79 7t63 7.31 6.75 6.51 6.88 7.08 7.16 7.21 7,29 7,26 BS 5.44 5t86 5.91 5.91 Se98 5t95 5.95 5.92 5.87 St86 5.61 4186 4,43 3,77 3a20 2157 1.99 1.48 1.41 Id5 8.98 8.81 8.73 8.64 8.52 8139 8r31 8.07 7.79 7.47 6,76 6t31 6,130 6,93 7,05 7.17 7.31 7,41 7,31 BS 5,39 5.65 5662 5.71 5t73 5.69 St89 5.88 5.76 5856 4.85 4.54 4t02 3166 3.11 2,41 lt90 1.34 1.23 WS 877 8.60 8.43 8831 8.13 7.91 7t82 7+67 7.32 6.87 6,32 6,17 6.71 6.91 7.03 7.18 7,26 7.28 7.31 BS 5.31 5.60 5.61 5.69 5,70 St68 5,63 5157 5t51 5.17 4,68 4.33 3.96 3,51 3.01 2.32 1,76 1,15 1.00 WS 8.76 8t58 8.41 8,27 8.10 7187 7,77 7,60 7,25 6t81 6.24 6.09 6.58 6.81 6t94 7.11 7.24 7627 7t30 BS 5,21 5.56 St57 5,65 5.67 5.58 5t37 5t27 5.21 4145 4,40 4.09 3,88 3,27 2.85 2120 1.52 0.95 0180 MS 6160 6.59 6.58 6.53 6.50 6.49 6t48 6.39 6.34 6.26 6,30 6,28 6,25 6.24 6.26 6,28 6.27 6t26 6,27 BS 5t91 5.98 6,16 620 6,19 6.17 6818 6,14 6.11 5+94 5,56 5.15 4.44 3.86 3.21 2r53 2t19 1.59 lt41 WS 6,59 6.59 6.59 6.53 6.50 6.49 6,48 6.39 6.34 6,24 6t30 6,28 6.24 6*24 6.26 6,27 6t27 6t25 6,28 BS 5191 6.02 6.16 6,19 6,19 6.17 6t17 6t13 6.11 5837 5,32 S&l 4+41 3t79 3818 2.49 2.08 1.54 1.48 WS 6.59 6.59 6.55 6.53 6.50 6.49 6846 6t35 6.35 6.39 6.27 6.28 6.29 6,26 6.27 6.28 6.25 6.26 6.23 BS 5.89 5t99 6+15 6,20 6819 6118 6,18 6.13 6,ll 5.32 5,22 4,98 4t36 3.81 3.25 2.57 2.11 1,51 1.45 US 6,59 6.59 6.56 6.55 6Sl 6.50 6.49 6.39 6136 6.19 6.18 6.21 6,15 6,19 6.25 6.29 6t26 6,25 6.24 BS St90 6.00 6+15 6.19 6tl9 6.18 6tl8 6,14 btll 5.21 5.13 4.81 4.42 3.85 3121 2,53 2107 lt56 1.40 US 6.60 6.60 6.56 6.55 6.51 6.54 6.47 6,38 6.33 6t29 6.27 6,28 6.27 6.26 6827 6,28 6.26 6.25 6,23 BS 5.88 5497 6~15 6tl9 6~19 6,18 6t18 6413 6tll 5.02 4,97 4,Sl 4.36 3+81 3.14 2.45 1.98 1~51 1.38

Table

18.

Water

surface

(MS) and bed surface

(BS)

elevations.

(continued)

-^-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distance Along Elbankrent (Pt+l --_---------------------------------------------------_------_-__-------------------------Run Tire Rusher hrs) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 lb 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 -^---_---------L--------------------------------------------_________I__________------------------------------15 1s 15 15 15 lb lb

lb

34

35

0,OO WS 7t13 7612 7,07 7.01 6.94 bt91 6+87 6.75 6.67 6.65 be30 6.40 6.41 be45 bt48 6.66 6.45 6.43 6842 BS 5.96 bt05 bt14 bt19 6119 6.16 &,17 6.14 6.12 5.98 5.61 5.07 4t4S 3tBl 3,19 2S4 2.08 lt51 1.01

1,OO US 7.12 7.12 7t07 7t09 6+94 &,94 6.87 6675 &,67 6.23 6+27 6,48 6.41 6.45 6,48 bt45 br44 6.43 6.4i BS 5.92 6.03 &,19 6621 &,21 6.18 6.17 6.13 bell 5.51 5.23 4181 4t39 3.80 3.21 2,43 2tO5 lt29 1.03
400 WS 7.12 7.09 7t03 6.97 6.92 be90 6.89 6.76 &t&B bt30 6.33 635 6.47 6.45 6.45 6.45 bt46 6.46 6,44 BS 5.89 bt03 bt15 bt19 6~19 bt19 6.18 b,l$ &,12 St45 4t59 4t25 3.99 4819 3,15 2.54 1.53 1,53 1.08 7t03 6.99 be95 6.99 6.85 6.76 6431 bt39 6.39 &+40 6.38 bt44 &SO 6.49 6.48 6.47

9tOO US 7.22 7.17 7,ll

BS 5,91 5.98 bt13 &,19 6.19 6.18 6118 be15 &,12 5.30 4,51 4120 3185 3,&3 3,ll 20100

2499 2,&l 1849 lt05

US 7.20 7.16 7rOB 7,03 be97 6.97 be96 6.88 bt71 6631 be32 &,33 6.35 6.47 6.46 br44 646 &+4& 6.47 BS 5.88 5,95 be13 6,19 bt19 6.17 6.17 be14 btll 5813 4.31 4,lB 3tBl 3t35 3105 2,75 2660 lt45 1.02

On00 US 7,9& 7,91 7.76 7,&l 7151 7,48 7,45 7,33 7619 bt89 be40 6,Ol btb9 6.80 b,S3 6.62 6.81 6.70 be73 BS 5t92 6.03 btlb bt20 6119 be18 6.17 &,14 btll 5t93 St52 5.07 4149 3.87 3.16 2.61 2.13 1,&O 1.47

1.00
4.00

WS 7.95 7.90 7t76 7.61 7.51 7,48-7t45 7.33 7,19 6.65 5.94 Se86 6.69 7.10 bt53 bS2 6.85 6.69 6.71 BS 5t71 5.87 &al& &,20 bt19 6818 6.17 be14 6.10 St41 5~04 4.81 4.44 4.03 3,23 2163 2.21 1.68 1.45
US 7193 7,89 7475 7.60 7t47 7.49 7.43 7.31 7118 6.55 5.85 5.65 6.24 6.36 6.49 6.53 6154 6.63 6.64 BS St63 5.78 6415 6t20 6119 &,I& &,17 614 6.11 St36 5,04 4175 4.36 3,Bl 3.16 2.49 2,07 1.65 1.47

lb lb

lOtO
20.00

WS 7t96 7193 7675 7165 7.51 7.49 7t45 7.31 7tlB 6.47 6.45 6.07 6.28 6.31 bt47 bt49 6.51 6.53 6.52 BS 5.58 5877 6.15 6119 be19 btlb btlb 6.12 be10 5t17 4t51 4.04 3.68 3858 3,OS 2,41 1.84 1,31 0.87
YS 7t96 7.91 7.76 7tbl 7.49 7,49 7t45 7t31 7.15 &,55 St78 6.04 6.05 be23 6.36 b,37 6,51 &,53 6.53 BS 5.57 Se73 6~15 6.19 bt19 6.15 be16 be13 6110 5110 4.03 3.95 3.67 3.30 2.98 2t29 1.78 1.15 0181

Table

18.

(continued).

--c--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Distance Aland Edmkrent (f t, 1 c-------------------__________^_________---------------------------------------------------*-Run Time 18 20 22 24 26 28 Muaber (hrs) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 lb _--^----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 30 32 34 35

0,OO US 9.60 9t4b 9.27 9.04 8,PO 8.68 0.47 8836 8t20 7694 7655 7r05 7.17 7.20 7.70 7.77 7.50 7.65 7.71 BS 5,98 bt07 6.15 6.20 6.19 6.17 6.17 6.15 6.10 5194 5.51 4.95 4.32 3.77 3.18 2.48 I,88 1.22 0.99 1.00 4.00 US 9.57 9.43 9t24 8.99 8.82 8S9 8.36 8,28 8.13 7.63 7.05 6.48 6.87 6.91 7~76 7.77 7.30 7.36 7.69 BS 5.43 5.48 6.19 6.23 bt23 6.19 bt19 6,15 6411 Xi5 4~81 3t90 3,82 3.51 2.92 2t31 lt71 0.97 0.78 US 8.66 8.55 8.26 8109 8tOl 7t97 7~76 7.59 7.60 7.15 6.96 7.35 7.30 7tbl 7.64 7t86 7.88 8.01 8,Ol BS 5.43 5.47 5,51 5,47 5.50 5a46 5.45 5+39 5t42 4.93 3,96 3.65 3.50 3.28 2.87 2.18 1,bl ltO0 Ot73

10,OO US 8.68 8t47 8t30 8.01 7.93 7,84 7.63 7151 7.43 6,911 bt17 be31 be81 6.67 6.97 7.17 7,17 7.41 7.40 BS 5e34 5,47 5.43 5.49 5.49 5649 5.46 5.36 5.38 5.01 3.95 3t63 3tJb 3425 2681 2.17 1.62 0.89 0,70 20.00 US 8tbl 8.51 8,32 8t03 8100 7.85 7t71 760 7t34 6690 bt21 6.29 be71 be82 6197 7.16 7.21 7431 7.35 BS 5.20 5,43 5t41 5+32 5134 5.34 5.43 5,28 5.32 3.98 lt05 0.93 0192 Ot53 0.52 0.71 0.82 0,51 0.20

OtOO US 7.08 7,07 7,Ob 7.05 7.05 be90 6.81 bt79 6.75 be52 6,19 5.69 4,9h 4,57 4.01 3.51 3.00 2.63 2.40 BS bt01 be01 6.01 btO1 b,Ol 6.19 6.15 6.16 bt18 be17 5181 5.37 4.64 4.08 3,bl 3.11 2tb5 2.14 2.01 2dO WS 7606 7tOb 7.06 7eOb 7106 be89 b+81 6.79 6.75 6.51 6.19 5tb9 4t95 4842 3.89 3.49 3101 2t59 2,38 BS 5.99 5,99 5t99 5.99 5.99 6.21 6.16 btO9 6.17 6.09 5t59 5.27 4.47 3,93 3.41 2t99 2~71 1,99 1.93

4,OO WS 7.03 7,03 7,03 7.03 7.03 be89 6.81 be72 6.71 b&52 6.19 5.63 4,93 4143 3.95 3t41 3t05 2.49 2137 BS 5t93 5.93 5.93 5,93 5.93 6.19 6.15 6.13 bell 5.97 5.75 5.29 4,41 3.91 3.55 3tOl 2tbl 2,ll 1.97 0,OO WS 7.97 7,95 7164 7~55 7.50 7,ll be69 6.51 5.70 5.14 4.43 3t87 3.40 2882 2,43 2.11 2810 2.10 2,lO BS 6.10 be31 6.30 6431 6122 6.17 5.94 5+42 4,81 4t25 3~64 3108 2451 202 1164 OtOOOtOOOtOO0,OO 2,50 WS 7494 7,93 7159 7151 7.48 7110 6.66 5.81 4.85 4t40 3.40 3.09 3.01 2,ll 2,ll 2.11 2111 2811 2.11 BS 5.49 be05 bt30 be32 6,24 6,12 5,98 4.42 3.95 3.56 2tbb 2.14 it65 OtOO0,OO 0.00 0.00 0,OO OtOO

Table

18.

Water

surface

(MS) and bed surface

(BS)

elevations.

(continued)

Run Time Number Ihrs)

Distance Alond Eabankrent (tt,) ----I--_----------_-____________________-----------------------------------------------------0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

30

32

34

35

20 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 24 24

OtOO US 7.15 7,14 6t90 6.94 6,81 6.59 6.30 5.92 4t79 4.30 3t79 2.92 2t35 2,11 1,90 1,90 1.90 1.90 1.90 BS bt33 6.33 6.22 b,22 6.24 btl4 St86 5.52 4,38 3,74 2.88 2.31 l,IIS 1.64 1.51 0100 O,OOOtOO0,OO 2,17 US 7.09 7.09 6t74 6.81 6,76 6.48 6.29 5.58 4.91 4.15 3tb4 3101 2t38 2.06 1,89 lt89 1,89 I,89 1.89 BS 6.33 6,33 bt22 b,21 b,20 btl8 5.88 5.20 4.54 3.82 2.87 2.44 1.88 1,65 1.54 0.00 0,OO 0100 0.00

OtOO WS 7.95 7,95 7.59 7t27 7.29 7t07 6.78 6,09 5.31 4,bO 376 3.09 2171 2.44 2.34 2,34 2134 2,34 2t34 BS b,33 6,33 b.28 b,22 6.23 btl4 5.90 St35 4.59 3.76 2.96 2t45 1,90 1.65 1.53 OtOO0.00 OtOO0,OO 2tOO US 7,95 7.95 7.56 7t25 7,27 7,11 6,71 6.13 St31 4.53 3t7S 3.12 2t80 2.37 2127 2.27 2.27 2t27 2.27 BS 6.35 6t35 6.27 6.22 6.21 6.16 5.85 5,34 4169 3,80 2t89 2.53 lt87 l,b2 lt54 OtOO0.00 0,OO OtOO 0.00 2100
b,OO

WS 9,55 9,55 9.55 8.80 8,34 8,ll 7,81 7t15 6129 5.53 4,Sb 401 3131 3,03 2t90 2.90 2.90 2,90 2t90 BS 6.31 b,21 6.21 6.19 6.23 6,13 5.92 5.23 4.57 3,79 2,87 2,57 1,83 1.65 1,69 0,OO 0.00 0.00 0,OO US 9.38 9138 9r24 8161 8.44 8,Ol 7.73 7tl2 6.31 5157 4.51 3t95 3.27 2,96 2,84 2t84 2,84 2.84 2.84 BS 6.26 b,26 bt25 6.22 6,23 6.14 St93 5.17 4.63 3189 2.87 2,50 1.85 ltb5 1165 OtOOOtOOOtOO0.00
MS 9.43 9.43 9t22 8,76 8,38 8t13 7.81 7.10 6.43 5.61 4.57 3,92 3.30 3,00 2.93 2.93 2193 2,93 2,93 ES 6.22 bt22 6.25 b,20 6.20 6,13 5.95 5.18 4.70 3t87 2.91 2,50 1.87 ltb4 it52 0.00 0.00 0,OO 0,OO

OtOO WS 7,07 7,0b 6.95 6191 6.89 6.81 6,57 St67 4.65 3.80 2,70 2,Ol 1,35 0,91 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0,91 ES btl7 6.17 6.22 b,22 bt23 6.21 b,l8 5.35 4,38 3.54 2.42 1,73 1.13 0,8S 0,OO 0.00 0.00 0,OO 0.00 2,OO US 7t05 7,05 6,95 6.91 6r91 6181 bt57 5.67 4.63 3,?5 2.69 1.95 1.32 0,91 0.91 0.91 0191 0,91 0191 BS 6.14 6.14 6.21 6.23 6.25 6.22 b,l7 5t35 4.36 3.48 2t41 1.68 1.10 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,OO 0,OO On00 US 7,83 7.82 7.63 7.56 7,55 7.39 7.11 b,lJ 5.06 4tl3 3,01 2,29 1158 1.17 ltl7 1.17 1.17 1117 1.17 BS 6,18 6,18 b,21 6.23 b,25 b+22 brl8 5,34 4,3b 3,49 2.41 l&8 1.07 Ot71 0100 OtOO0,OO 0100 0100 2.00 US 7,82 7,82 7.63 7.56 7t53 7,39 7,11 6,15 5.06 4t09 2t97 2.29 lt58 1,17 1.17 lrl7 1.17 1,17 1.17 BS b.18 6118 6,21 6.23 bt23 6,22 6.18 5.32 4.37 3.41 2.34 1,75 1,07 0,71 OtOO0.00 OtOO0.00 0.00

Table

18.

(continued).

Run Tine Number (hrs)

Distance Alord Edankrent (ft * 1 --------------------_^__________________---------------------------------------------------0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 lb 18 20 22 24 26 28

30

32

34

35

25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27

0.00

WS 9.35 9.34 9.09 8.84 8.51 8t18 7t94 7,21 6.16 4893 3.83 3.06 2t39 1.92 1192 1.92 1192 1.92 1,92 BS 6.16 6.16 6.21 6.22 &,24 6.22 btl8 5.35 4436 3t48 2.37 1,&4 1.08 0,71 OtOOOtOO0.00 0.00 0.00

2,OO US 9.34 9t34 9t09 8.84 8.51 8.18 7694 7,ll 6.16 4.83 3,43 3,05 2t29 1,92 1,92 1,92 lt92 1.92 1.92 BS 6.13 be13 6.21 6.23 6124 &,22 6117 St21 4t35 3.27 2.17 1,&3 Ot95 0669 0.00 0~00 0.00 0.00 OtOO
0,OO 1.00 WS 6.58 be56 6.51 6.47 6.42 &,34 bt22 br14 6.02 5,70 5.56 5.62 4.17 3160 3.07 2.62 2003 ln5b lt41 BS 5.93 6.04 btO1 bt04 &to& 4,!I9 6.01 5,95 5.83 5169 5,17 4667 4.00 3,41 2.68 2127 1868 lr26 0.91 WS be59 6.55 &,51 6147 6.42 6.32 6.22 6.14 5.97 5.44 5t46 5.63 4,14 3.55 3.04 2t39 lt85 lt55 1.41 BS 5.93 6.03 6,Ol 6.04 &,07 &,05 6.01 5,94 5179 5.31 5.05 4,89 3t97 3.35 2+&5 1.98 1.45 1,14 Ot91

3~50
10100

WS 6.43 6140 6137 bt33 6.31 6.23 6.13 6.08 5t35 5.32 5,39 4.83 4t07 3,52 2.84 2.16 1.90 lt93 1.19 BS 5,89 b,Ol 6.01 6.07 6808 6605 6,OO 5,94 5620 5.18 5616 4.64 3.95 3.34 2,51 1,8R 1.73 ltl0 0190
US 6.40 6.36 &,39 be33 be32 6.25 be15 btll 5.34 5.37 5+35 483 4,ll 3.49 2.54 2t37 1.86 1.41 1.13 BS 5987 6.00 6601 &,09 &a08 6605 6601 5,95 5.05 5.17 5115 4.59 3.85 3617 2,lb 1.80 1.44 ltO1 0.80

OtOO WS 7680 7111 7t67 7.57 7,42 7135 7.14 bt97 6,&l 6.13 5t87 5.41 4.75 4.11 3t52 3.03 2t31 2.01 lt98 BS 5,81 6.03 b,Ol 6807 6.08 6.05 btO1 5t94 5,80 5.47 5,13 4.53 3,95 3,33 2.37 1,90 1,70 1.06 0.88 la25 US 781 7,71 7,&7 7.55 7142 7,35 7814 bt96 6859 be03 5t77 5.31 4,67 4.05 3,48 2Sl 2,03 1.85 lr31 ES Se86 be03 6.01 6.05 6.08 &,05 btO1.5.95 5.21 5,lb 5tOl 4~48 3884 3.25 2.31 le39 1.35 0.05 0109 WS 7.81 7.71 7,&7 7.55 7t42 6.96 6.86 bt56 6.62 6.24 5.60 5.15 4r22 3,40 1.58 1,35 1,30 1.07 1.07 BS 5,8& 6.03 6.01 &,05 6808 &,05 btO1 5695 5.10 5,OS 4,99 4,45 3.80 3.15 1823 0,53 0,41 0.27 0.00 WS 7.82 770 7,&b 7.54 7.43 &,95 6.88 6.15 5,74 5.65 5140 4,89 4.08 2,75 1.51 lt06 1,Ob 1.06 1.06 ES 5.85 6.03 &a01 &,05 &,08 be05 6.01 St26 4,87 4175 4.70 4,35 3.66 2,3S 0.71 0115 OtOO0.00 0,OO

3.50
10.00

Table

18.

Water

surface

(MS) and bed surface

(BS)

elevations.

(continued)

----------------------------------------------------------,-------------------------------------------------------Distance blow Eabmkaent (ft. 1 ---_-----_--^------___________f________----------------------------------------------------Tire Run Nuaber (hrs) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 lb 18 20 22 24 26 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 0.00 1.00 4.00 lot00 0.00 1100 4.00 LO,00

30

32

34

35

YS 9.56 9.54 9.53 9.52 9.50 9.49 9t25 8.80 8.43 7,83 btb9 6.20 5159 4.81 3.93 3.21 2t85 2,56 2rlb BS 5.35 5867 5695 5193 5.94 5.93 St92 5,93 5.85 5.63 4t81 4149 3,83 3t15 2.31 1.79 1.49 1.03 O,b7 US 9.54 9t54 9.53 9.53 9.50 9.49 9t25 8.73 7r04 b,93 b,l? 5,137 5.39 4.71 3+93 3,ll 2,71 2.34 2,Ob BS 5435 5.67 St95 5t93 fit94 St93 5.92 5193 4t84 4t73 4,43 4415 3,59 3105 2.29 lt98 1.16 Otb7 Ot43 US 8863 8.61 8.62 8,63 8,45 8.37 8.12 7.55 6.96 be74 bt23 5tb4 5.51 4,67 3.29 2.37 1.73 1.71 1.71 BS 4.92 4,90 4.91 4.90 4t91 4,81 4.79 4,77 4tbl 4157 4.26 3,83 3.58 2t7R ltb4 0.61 OtOO0.00 0~00 WS 8,bl 8,bO 8.57 8.55 8.38 8.29 8t05 7145 6.86 6.59 6~08 Se33 5.25 4+54 2S8 1~73 1173 1,73 1,73 BS 4,88 4,85 4180 4,83 4,80 4.71 4.69 4.58 4SO 4,37 4106 3.43 3t20 2161 0181 0,OO 0.00 0.00 OtOO WS 6.61 brb0 6.52 6.35 6.25 6.24 6.20 be09 5~86 St86 5,80 5.39 5.32 5.01 5,12 St40 5,39 5.70 5.68 BS 5,93 5.93 5.93 St93 5,93 5193 St85 5,82 5.59 5141 5807 4.17 3t51 2S3 2,09 1,63 lt23 0.95 Ot90 WS btbl btbl b+SO6.34 be25 6.24 b,19 btl0 5t85 Se86 5t74 5,29 5,32 5,Ol 5.16 S,41 5.37 St68 5.66 ES 5.93 5693 St93 5.93 5,93 5.93 5186 5,82 5.61 4,99 4975 4.08 3.50 2t57 2,ll 1,62 it19 0.97 0.88 WS btbl be55 6.34 6.25 6.22 bt23 6.12 6.02 5.91 6.01 5.92 5,41 5,53 5.11 5+27 5.31 5,49 5.80 5.84 BS St93 5.93 5.93 Fit93 5493 5193 5184 5.82 5,64 4,94 4671 4tOO 3146 2.54 2tO7 1.64 1.16 0.94 Ot88 WS be61 6.56 6,33 6,24 b,23 be21 6.08 5,95 5.88 5,90 5.84 5t37 5t49 5,13 5,22 5,32 5,49 5,70 5.66 BS 5s93 5t93 5,92 5t92 5.91 5,90 5.80 5t77 5161 4,82 4tbl 3195 3.41 2t48 2t03 1463 1,15 0892 0.85

O+OO US 7195 7t94 7160 7.35 7,27 7.23 7.05 be96 btbb b+b3 5.87 Se18 5.37 5S9 5,38 5,52 5,84 5,90 b,ll ES 5.93 5t93 St93 !L93 5,93 5193 5.85 Se82 5859 5.41 5e07 4.17 3Sl 2853 2.09 1.63 1123 0.95 0190 1,OO US 7.95 7,95 7.55 7.34 7.27 7.22 7tlO 7tOl btbb 6.62 St91 5.18 5,33 5159 5.37 5.49 5,81 5,91 b,lO PS 5,93 5t93 5,93 5,93 5,93 5s93 5.84 5,81 5t59 5140 5101 4115 3,48 2.54 2061 1159 1.20 Ot91 0~88 4too 10.00 ws 7.95 7.95 7.59 7,34 7 ,22 7.24 7.09 6,94 6162 6.57 6864 5.91 St86 5.35 5,44 5,58 5.74 6.02 6.11 BS 5+93 5,93 5,93 5,93 5,93 5893 5182 5680 5.57 5,39 LO4 4.10 3t47 2,53 1,97 1.59 I,18 0.88 0.87 WS 7,94 7,94 7,53 7+3S 7.22 7,24 7.08 bt91 bt55 6.57 be40 5688 5.81 5.33 5.40 5,57 5874 be04 6.12 ES 5893 5+93 5,93 5193 J+93 5693 5t77 5t76 5S3 5e29 5,OO 4,05 3145 2,49 1.67 it51 ltl0 0.87 0,83

Table

18.

(continued).

Distance Alon3 Embankment (ft, 1 ---------------_----------------------------------------------------------------------------Run Tire Nurber (hrs) 0 2 4 b 8 10 12 14 lb 18 20 22 24 26 ---____-------------___c________________-----------------------------------------------------------------------31 31 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 0.00 ltO0 0800 0.00 1400 2.00 4.00

28

30

32

34

35

US b.65 6.65 6.58 bt55 6.53 6.50 6.48 6.43 6.39 6.34 5+85 Se46 4.75 4+20 3t45 2.62 1,9b 1.30 1.20 BS 5,49 5,83 6.08 6104 6.00 6.12 6.13 b.lb btl0 6.08 5173 5t21 4.66 3.82 3,lb 2,26 1.66 la12 0,92 US b+b3 b.59 6.56 be57 bt51 bs48 6.48 6.42 6.37 6.32 5.44 5t2b 4.47 4.05 2.64 2.61 1877 1.11 1.11 BS 5.43 5e79 5t99 b,Ol 6.01 b,O8 6.08 bell be13 bt05 5t24 4t93 4138 3,b7 2.32 2.21 1.44 0,89 0.78 US 7t85 7.73 7.67 7,58 7,44 7,65 7t50 7.48 743 7839 6153 5.99 5,65 4e49 3.67 2,98 2.25 ltb0 1631 BS 5.36 5683 6.03 6.08 be03 6.05 b.03 be08 6.03 St81 5.36 4.99 4145 3t85 3.07 2.34 1.65 0.98 Ot72 WS 6.68 6.60 6.58 be57 bt57 6.56 bt54 be43 6.35 6.28 5.70 5.42 St25 4.48 3.61 2.82 1.95 1.42 1.34 BS 5,4b 5,85 be09 6.05 btO8 6610 btO7 6.14 6.07 5,95 Jt45 5t23 4t79 4105 3.26 2.39 1.47 1412 Ot89 US 6.67 6.59 b,58 6.57 6.57 b,57 6.53 6.41 6134 6.23 5.60 5.28 4.90 4.10 3t47 2.64 1.99 lt28 lt2b BS 5.33 5.81 bt07 bt01 6.05 be08 6,09 6.11 bt05 5.89 5133 St00 4,41 3,b5 3,lO 2,21 lS6 0.95 OtBl WS 6860 b,bl btb9 6155 6.57 b,53 6.51 be37 6834 be21 5,71 5121 5.01 3181 3153 2t46 1665 1.19 1801 BS 5.43 5,81 6,07 b.01 LO3 btOb 6.07 be10 6.07 5.88 5,24 4,84 4t43 3160 3,13 2t15 1.36 Ot98 Ot76 klS b,b2 b,bl be57 be61 6151 be49 6.51 be37 6,35 6819 5.63 5,ll 4182 3,81 3.39 2,45 1.99 1811 lrl0 BS 5.45 5.81 b,O2 6.01 be03 6.09 be09 6.16 6.07 5.86 5t17 4.83 4.45 3.58 3,12 2tll 1151 Ot93 0,71

OtOO YS 7,Ob 7,05 6,97 6,96 6t88 6686 6t82 b,75 6t62 bt44 5.94 5.52 4t86 4820 3,59 2tbl 2.17 lr43 1.27 ES 5t37 5t81 6.03 6.01 6107 bJI8 be03 btll be04 5t8b 5.41 5.16 4A9 3,81 3t25 2t2b 1159 1,OO 0.75 ltO0 WS 7,Ob 7,05 6196 6896 6690 b,84 6682 bt72 bt61 6.42 5.91 5,43 4,87 4,18 3,59 2158 2.14 la40 1.27 BS 5.37 5.81 b,Ol b,Ol btO1 b,O5 6107 6t07 6t02 5t84 5t34 $04 4.58 3.79 3.10 2.21 1.53 0.96 0.74

2,OO WS 707 7,Ob 6893 6.94 6.90 b,84 688 bt71 be60 be39 5,98 5845 4,83 4117 3.65 2.69 la90 1.47 1.70 BS 5,34 5,80 be05 btO0 be02 6.03 6102 be08 6803 5,83 5135 5,03 4.48 3.81 3,20 2~27 1.51 0.98 0.73 OtOO US 9,79 9,70 9.48 9,23 9811 8192 8.77 8.44 8.20 7191 7.70 bt96 6925 5.70 4898 4.18 3.36 2,62 2.23 BS 5,39 Se84 6,02 5.98 6,04 be06 6,03 6,Ob 5,92 5.80 5.54 5105 4,54 3.97 3.76 2.46 1.79 ltO5 0,80 ltO0

WS 9t75 9tb4 9t48 9,21 9.04 8.89 8173 8,41 8.18 7.92 7,40 6,95 bt21 5t71 4.79 3t88 3t30 2t4b 2.18
BS 5,34 5t76 btO1 5195 5192 6,Ol 5,97 6.02 5,90 5,Rl 5,19 5.02 4648 4,Ol 3.07 2.12 1.72 0688 0474

Table

19.

Velocity

measurements.

Distance Alond Eabankrent (ItO 27tO m------------29.0 ----..--------3380 ..----..--------

8:: 55:85 -0.3

-0*3 -0.6 -0,b 4.4 1% _:*; -1:5 55:25 21:; 0*2 -;*; -0:s 11s 29 = averaged keYfigure Detailed velocity, Vr = local velocity at uuon about formal 0.5" above the bed surface.

26 for velocity

the measurement locations. information is available

reauest.

M.M~~OQ.~N-N

0.

-0

r******%***%%*%

-O-GON - - rrv-lnm

-*

177

APPENDIX

C - USER'S

MANUAL AND LIST OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS

1.

Introduction A computer model due to "EMBANK" flood has been developed The input to determine data required unit-width to apply

embankment the model Number studied. Digitized Critical

damage are: of

overtopping.

computational

points

and

composition

layers

of

the

embankment

cross-sectional shear stresses

shapes and erosion

of

the

embankment.

equations.

Manning's Thickness Headwater Tailwater Section data, a listing section of

roughness of

coefficients. layers.

composition

hydrograph. hydrograph. 2 of this appendix describes of the an output procedure file, for preparing input

3 presents the computer of

an example program.

and section

4 presents

2. cedures input

Description The example for data

Input
the

Data
20 and 21 is data file. utilized Table 20 to demonstrate an example the of proan input shows

shown

on tables

preparing file.

3.

Description Table

of

Output

Results of output results. The variables on table 22

22 shows below:

an example

are

explained

J = Computational

time after

step. beginning in in feet. feet. of flood overtopping.

TIMEP = Time in hours

HW = Headwater Tw= Tailwater

elevation elevation

Q = QO.

179

YC = Critical SC = Critical IC = Location

depth at control slope. of control point.

piont.

of surface layer. For example, if the pavement layer LAYER = Identification remains on the embankment surface points, LAYER = 1. But if the pavement layer is removed and the gravel layer is exposed, then LAYER becomes 2, and so on. X = Horizontal distance of computational points in feet.

Y = Flow depths in feet. Z = Embankment elevations H = Water surface V = Velocity elevation in feet. in feet.

in ft/s.

F = Froude number. SF = Friction so = Bed slope. QE = Erosion rate in ft3/s-ft. in lb/ft2. of surface layer in feet. slope.

SH = Shear stress

TL = Remaining thickness DZTL = Cumulative 4.

embankment elevation

change in feet.

Listing of Computer Program The listing of the computer program is provided

in table

23.

180

I-

d N

181

Table

21.

Input file

description.

Card Number

Variable

Format

Description

1
2

NCASE TITLE NX

110 -110

Number Title

of

study

cases.

description. of NX 50. digitized should computational less than

Number points. equal to = 1, paved = 0, earth

be

or

IPAV

110 110

embankment embankment

NLAYER

Number of composition layers. In the example shown on figure c and table there are, 4 20 , NLAYER = 4, indicating layers: pavement, gravel, grass, and NLAYER should be less than or soil. equal to 10. = f, = 0, Output lated erodible embankment, rigid embankment. control results to print out the calcuonce every IPRINT step.

IEOS IPRINT ITM

110 110 110

= 0, overtopping flood hydrographs are single-step hydrographs with a constant headwater and tailwater. = 1, overtopping flood hydrographs are multiple-step hydrographs. Coordinates of = horizontal X(I) vation in feet. Upstream embankment Critical composition computational distance,

4-7

CxW,ZO(I) I =l, NXI 8

9

8FlO.O

Z(I)

points, = eleof

UP(I), L21 CSHCIW,

1,

I = I =

2110

and downstream surface. shear stresses for layers in lbs/ft2.

edges

4FlO.O

individual

NLAYERI

182

Table

21.

(continued).

Card' Number

Variable

Format

Description

10 11 12

CRNI(I),
1,

I =

4FlO.O

NLAYERI

Manning's individual Density of

roughness composition flow fluid.

coefficient layers.

for

P [SCIU), BCIU), I = 1, NLAYER]

F10.0 8F10.0

Coefficients of each composition

erosion equations for layer: G(J) =

ACI(1)
where ftS/ft/s, stress point

* (SH(J) - SHCI(I)) ** BCI(1) QS(J) is the erosion rate in and SH(J) is the flow shear
in lb/ftz, at each computational

J.

13

CLPAV(I), I = 1,21
PS TS SA

2110

Upstream and downstream edges of paved section. This card should be deleted if IPAV = 0. Unit weight of of pavement in in lb/ftS.

14

F10.0 F10.0 F10.0

Thickness

pavement

feet. pavement in be deleted

Allowable tension stress of lb/f& This card should if IPAV = 0.

15 - 20

8FlO.O

Thickness of individual composition layers from Layer 1 to Layer (NLAYER These cards should be deleted if 1). NLAYER = 1. Number of time flow hydrographs. steps for overtopping

21 22

ITIME

110
8FlO.O

CDT(J), J = 1,
ITIMEI

Duration of each time step (ITM = 1). ITM = 0 indicates stant DT and only a single has to be input.

in hours a conDT value

23

CHW(J), J =l, ITIMEl

8FlO.O

Headwater elevation of each step hydroin feet (ITM = 1). ITM = 0 graph indicates a constant HW and only a single HW value has to be input.

183

Table

21.

Input

file

description.

(continued)

Card Number

Variable

Format 8FlO.O

Description Tailwater elevation of each step hydrograph in feet (ITM = 1). For free-fall condition, let TW = 0. ITM = 0 indicates a constant TW and only a single TW value has to be input. Maximum overtopping each step hydrograph C * (HW - ZMAX) ** discharge coefficient, crest elevation of indicates a constant single QO value has flow discharge for in fts/s-ft. QO = 1.5, where C is the and ZMAX is the embankment. ITM = 0 QO and only a to be input.

24

CTW(J), J = 1,
ITIMEI

25

CQO(J>, J = 1, ITIMEI

8FlO.O

184

Table

22.

Example

output

file.

EXAWLEEHBANKHENT WITHPAVEHENT t C VEGETAL COVER, TYPE1 SOIL JITI~EP~HU~TUIG~~YC~SC~~C 2 0,300OEtOl 0,1150Et02 0,500OEtOl 0, 3032EtOl 0.6595EtOO 0,1051E-01
I LAYER

9 SH TL DZTL

SF

SO

QE

0,OOOEtOO 0.115Et02 0.500EtOl 0,900EtOl O+lOOEt020,650EtOl O.lSOEt02 Ot400EtOl 0.200Et02 0,148EtOl Ot250Et02 0,125EtOl

O~OOOEtOO 0,115Et02 Ot250EtOl Ot115Et02 0,500EtOl 0.115Et02 Oe750EtOl O.llSEt02 O,lOOEt02 0.115Et02 0.102Et02 0,115Et02 0,300Et02 0,993EtOO 0,104Et02 Ot114Et02 0,350E+02 0,559EtOO ym;~2 Oow;2 0.400Et02 0,659EtOO Oe450Et02 0.451EtOO 0:995EtO: 0:107EtO; 0,500Et02 0,425EtOO 0.888EtOl 0.104Et02 0,550Et02 0,244EtOO 0,701EtOl 0,774EtOl 0,600Et02 0~116Et01 0,500EtOl 0,616EtOl 0.650Et02 Ot300EtOl 0,250EtOl 0,550EtOl 0.700Et02 OSOOEtOl0,OOOEtOO 0,500EtOl

O.l97E-03 0,OOOEtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0.264EtOO 01137E-01 Ot276E-Ok0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,337EtOO 0,19RE-01 0,25OE-05-0.500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0+8?6E-03 0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO O,158E-02 0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO O,322E-01 O,738E-05-Ot500EtOO0,OOOEtOO 0*668E-01 O,372E-04-0,500EtOO O,OOOEtOO O,418E-02 0,500Et00 OtOoOEt00 0,297EtOO Ot709E-03-0,270EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,331E.e01 0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO &242EtOl 0,382EtOO O,447E-03-0,40OE-01 0,OOOEtOO 0,?14E-01 0,250EtOO 0,OOOEtOO O,339E-01 0,250EtOO O.OOOEtOO Ot305EtOl 0,54tiEtOO O,962E-O3-0,30OE-01 O+OOOEtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,107EtOO 0,250EtOO 0,OOOEtOO Ot542EtOl 0,128EtOl 0,65OE-02 O+OOOEtOO O,769E-01 0,250EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0.460EtOl Ot998EtOOO,376E-02 O,553E-01 0,OOOEtOO Oi673EtOl 0,177EtOl O,l33E-01 0,152EtOO 0.165EtOO 0.497EtOO 0,253EtOO 0,401EtOO 0,888EtOl 0,112EtOl 0,713EtOl 01193EtOl 0,45lE-01 0,294EtOO 0,124Et02 Ot444EtOl Ot414EtOOOt388EtOO 0,113Et01 O,113E-01 0,489EtOO Ot261EtOl 0,428EtOO 0,23OE-02 0,451EtOO 0,282EtOO 0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,lOlEtOl 0,103EtOO O,966E-04 0.500EtOO 0*2B2Etoo 0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,145EtOO 0,OOOEtOO OtOOOEtOO 0,606EtOO O,478E-01 O,442E-05 0,500EtOO

CASE 1 TIHE(HRS)= 3.00 TOT EROSION(FTfS3/FT)= 0+9327EtOl

AVGEROSION RATE(YDtWFT/HR)= 0,115lEtOO 9 SH TL DZTL

3 Ot3800EtOl Ot1300Et02 O,lOOOEt020,1204Et02 Otl654EtOl 0,7736E-02 I LAYER 1 2 3 4 5 6

SF

so

RE

4 0,OOOEtOO 0,13OEtO2 0,926EtOO O,453E-01 O,289E-05-0.500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO O,233E-02 0,000E+00 0,OOOEtOO 0,130Et02 OtOOOEtOO 3 OtSOOEtOl0,105Et02 0,250EtOl 0.130Et02 0,115EtOl 0625E-01 Ot237E-04-0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 01959E-02 0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 3 O.lOOEt02 Oe797EtOl Ot500EtOl 0,130Et02 0,151EtOl O,943E-01 0,59OE-04-Ot500EtOO0,OOOEtOO O,lbSE-01 O*5OOEtoO O+OOOEtOO 3 0.150Et02 OS43EtOl 0,750EtOl 0,129Et02 0,222EtOl 0,168EtOO O,212E-03-0,498EtOO 0,OOOEtOO O,358E-01 0,500EtOO pg;; 2 0+200Et02 Oe269EtOl Ot998EtOl 0,127Et02 0.448EtOl Ot481EtOOO,153E-02-0,270EtOO O,602E-05 0,158EtOO 0,483EtOO 1 0.250Et02 0,?41EtOl 0.102Et02 0,126Et02 OSOOEtOl 0,569EtOO 0+797E-03-O,417E-01 0,OOOEtOO Oa91 lE-01 0,250EtOO 0 :OOOE;OO 7 1 0,3OOEt02 0,206EtOl 0.104Et02 Ot125Et02 0,585EtOl 0+719EtOOO,134E-02-0,30OE-01 0,OOOEtOO 0,125EtOO 0,250EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 8 1 0.350Et02 Ot165EtOl Ot105Et02 0,122Et02 0,728EtOl 0.997EtOO O,277E-02 OtOOOEtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,193EtOO 0,250EtOO 0,OOOEtOO Ot400Et02 Ot165EtOl 0,104EtO2 0.121EtO2 Ot728EtOl 0,997Etoo O,277E-02 0,159EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,193EtOO 0,250EtOO 0,OOOEtOO 109 : Ot450Et02 0,114EtOl 0.891EtOl OtlllEt02 Oe105Et02 0,174EtOl Ot265E-01 0,212EtOO O,202E-03 0,877EtOO 0,891EtOl 011.29Etol 11 4 0.500Et02 0,868EtOO 0,828EtOl 0,974EtOl ,O,139Et02 Ot262EtOi O,237E-01 0,190EtOO 0+206E-03 Ot908EtOO0,828EtOl 0,172EtOl Ot550Et02 0,286EtOl Ot701EtOl 0,987EtOl 0,421EtOl Ot438EtOOO,179E-02 0,328EtOO 0,00OEt00 0,349EtOO &113E-01 0,489EtOO t23 3 0.600Et02 Oe493EtOl 0,500EtOl 0,993EtOl 01244Etol 0,194EtOO 0+293E-03 0,451EtOO O+OOOEtOO 0.349EtOO 0,500Et00 0,000Et00 14 3 01650Et02 0,747EtOl 0,250EtOl Ot997EtOl 0,104EtOO O,734E-04 0,SOOEtOO 0,OOOEtOO 0,349EtOO 0,500EtOO 0,OOOEtOO OelOOEt02;;t;;:;: 0,67lE-01 O,693E-05 0,500EtOO O,779E-04 0,143EtOO O~OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 15 4 0.700Et02 OtlOOEt02 0,OOOEtOO t 4.

CASE 1 TIHEE(HRS)= 3180 TOTEROSION(FTtWFT)= 0,1754Et02

AVGEROSION RATE(YDfS3/FTfHR)= 0,171OEtOO

Table

23.

Listing

of

computer

program.

-LO)- -rSF(SO) .I- .50) XON/EROS:: PAV9NLAYER9 TL(5091 0) 9 Iliosf lILAYER(5O)tQE ,(50) ,DZT(SO )rDZISO
9V (50) 9YI 9Fl50

1)) XJUM iF

~SAYELISHC~SO) C cc ttt 1

9TS9ACI(lO) 9llEC9 I::Pi INT9TIMF.P OPEN(UNIT=59F 'ILE='INPUT' OPEN(UNIT=69F ILE=OUTPUT 9 STATUlS=NEW ) OPEN(UNIT=79F ILE=TEMP, STATUS= UNKNOWtj! I OPEN(lfNIT=89F 'If..E='OUTERO y&w; INPUT THE EMBANKMENT CHARsm: AYDRoGIRAPH FORtfAT(I10) DO 200 NC=lrNCASE TDvE:L;o +
CALS ~NP(TXTLE) IF(IPRINT,EG,O)IPR WRITE(69 300)TITf..E WRITE(7~300)TITLE READ(591)NCAS ;E

19PtPStA 9BCI(10 1)9XE150) ) 9STATUS ;=OLD

SHCI(1 9l?blIii0) iC(50) 9Ho;:(50) 9

IMT=l

E 300

WRITE(89300)TITLE Dif iO0 J=ltITIME

FORMAT(///2X9A80) ;klLpL%YER = .

c St% COMPUTE OVERTOPPING DISCHARG TIMEP=TItlEPtDT(J~/3600+ CALL DIS&H(J) IF(Q(J).LT9O,Ol)GO TG 100 YN=(Q(J)%RN(IS)/(1+486tSQRT( )%SO .6 c %X% COMPUTE CRITICAL DEFTH AND C SECTION CALL CRICT(J) c %%% COMPUTE UPSTREAM STAGE4 FROM THE CONTROL SECTIGN IF(IC,EQ,l)GO TO 10

I=IC ID=I-1 ;; ;lKK+;191D

:ii CONTINCIE c St% COMPUTE DOWNSTREAM STAGE FROM THE CONTROL SECTION IF(IC.EQ,NX)GQ TO 20

CATL-USWS(KI9J) CONTINUE

CALL DSWS(K9J) 21 CONTINUE ; x% COMPUTE FLOW PROFILE UPSTREAM FRGM THE TAXLWATER DEPTH AND DETERllINE .fIfMP LOCATION CALL JUMP(J) c %%S DETERNINE EROSION OF EMBANKMENT IF(IEOS.EQ,O)GO TO 101 CALL SHEAR(J)

I=IC NXl=NX-1 DO 21 K=I9NXl CONTINUE

186

Table
CALL SEBQ CALL SEDZtJ) IF(IPAU.NE+O)CAl..L CALL NEWSO @yTp:;UE

23.

(continued).

PAUZ

101 wt

IJ=(J-l)/IPRINTZIPRINT IF(IJ,ER+(J-1))CALL 011 TPI J) TJOL=O + no 210 1=19NX 210 nZTL(I)=ZO(I)-Z(I) no 102 1=19NXl 602 TVOL=TUOLt(nZTL(I)tDZTL(Itl~~~~X~Itl)-X~~~~~2, ERATE=TVGL/TIMEP/27. MRITE(69103)NC9TIMEP9TVOL9ERATE 100 COMTINUE 1031FC&f$;A~((' CASEtI31 TIMEtHRS)=?F6,2, TOT EROSJON(FTt%3/FT)= A'JG EROSION RATE(YBt*3/FT/HR)='9Ell+41 POO~~ONTiNiE

1 2

REAn~Sr4~(X~I)9ZO(I~91=19iqX) no io I=irNx ;;m;zy TLT(I;=;)+ DZT(I)=O, FOR~AT(I1097F10,O~ COMTINUE REAn(S92)(IP(I)91=192) REAn(594)~SHCX~I~rf=l9NLAYER REAn(594~~RNI~I)9I=ltNLAYER) IF(IEGS.EQIO)GO TO 21 REAn(594)P READ(S94)~ACI~I~9BCI(I)rX=lt IF(IPAU,EQ+l~REAnI592~~LPAV~ IF(IPAV+EQ,l)REAB(594)PS,TS9 ML=NLAYER-1 IF(NL.EG,O)GO TG 40 no 41 J=lrNL REAn(594)(TL(194~9I=l9NX) CONTINUE yT~;)I=019NX = * no 43 J=l,NL TLT(I)=TLT(I)tTL(I9J) CONTINUE CONTINUE

1;

:I

Nl..AYER )

SA

li)*I=192)

41

43 42

187

Table

23.

Listing

of

computer

program.

(continued)

40 DO 44 1=17NX
44 TL(I~t~LAYER)=Z(I)-TLT(I) 21 CONTINUE

NXl=NX-1 so~l~=~Z~1~-z~2~~/~X~l)-xI1~ 1 SD~NX~=~Z1NX-l~-Z~~~X~~/~x~~~x I-XINX-111 DO 11 1=2,NXl SO~I~=~f~I-l~-Z~It1~~/~x~Itl )-XII-l) 1 11 CONTINUE ;; y;l7Nx XB7I~=Xm-Xm~ CONTINUE SilAX=SO(l) DO 13 1=2fNX IF(SMAX,GT.SO(I))GQ p~=Sow =
iF($MAX.LT.l.OE-6 :NUE

50

TO 13

13

SHAX :=l.OE -6

5,2)ITIME 's'"; yEi!; GO 0 60

51.4) HWM

61 60

55':; ;;; ~=~ITIHE DT(J) =DTM HW(Jj=iiWtl TW(J)=TWM QO(J)=QOM CONTINUE GO TO 62 CONTINUE

62

124

lTCB(SO)rIP(2)~RL~NXISMAXP COHHON/EROS/IPAU,NLAYER,T lILAYER(50),QE(SO)rDZT(50) 2SA~EL,SHC(SO)~TS,ACIo, DO 22 I=lfNX ILAYER(I)=l RN(I)=RNI(l) SHC(I)=SHCI(l) AC(I)=ACI(l) BC(I)=BCI(l)
IF(NLAYER+LEI~)GO NLA=NLAYER- 1 DO 23 K=lyNLA TO 22

COiWON/GI IOM/X(SO)rZ(50)~1

7TCSISQ)

5O)fDZTL(50)

lO)rRNI(lO), SH(50)p VBC(50) I IPRINTtTIMEP '?ITM

IF(IEOS,EQ,O)TL(IIK~=Z(I~

188

Table

23. TO 24

(continued).

IF(TL(I7K),GE,Ot01fGO

23 24 C 1 22

RN(I)=RNI(KtI) SHC(I)=SHCI(Ktl) AC(I)=ACI(Ktl) EC(I)=BCI(Ktl)

CONTINUE CONTINUE

ILAYER(X)=K+l

WRITE~7t1~I,ILRYER~I~tRN~Il,SHC~I~tTL~I,K~~AC~I~tBC~I~
FORMATf E;T;;lUE LAYER

I~XLAYER~RN~SHC?TCPAC~~C~~~~~~E~~,~)

END SUBROUTINE DISCH(J) C Sdt COMPUTE OVERTOPPING llISCHARliE llSING EMFIRICRL RELATION CHARACTERS80 TITLE COMMON/GEOM/X~5Ol~Z~5O~~ITo,RN~5O~~SO~5~~~TCS~5~~~ lTCB(SO)~IP(2)~RL~NX9SMAX1IS1ZMAX1LPAV(2)~ZO(5~~~~ZTL(50) COMMON/HYDRO/TIME~5O~~HW~5O~~TW~50),R~50~~YN~~T~M~~DT~5O~~Q~~5~~ c %%X COMPUTE ZMAX

ZMcIX=Z(l) DO 10 1=2gNX IF(ZMA~.f.%.Z(I))GO ZMAX=Z(I) 10 !zNK'i':

12==IP(2) RL=XtI2)-X(11)

TO

10

c ttt

COMPUTE OVERTOPPING HEADWATER AND HM=HW(J)-ZMAX IFtHMrGT.O,)GO TO 100

IF(RL+LT,O~O1)RL=O,O1 R(J)=O,

TAILWATER DEPTH

RETURN 100 CONTINUE TM=TW(J)-ZMAX It%%~~M;;;;LOVERTOFPING

DISCHARGE IF7HL,LT+O,lS)GO TG 11 CF=-1,80?tHLtS2+1~~74tH1+2,930 IF(HL,GT.O,30)CF=3,09 GO TO 16 11 IF(HM-2.7)14~15~15 15 CF=3,05 GO TO 16 IF(HM-0,05~17~17rlS 1'74CF=2 90 GO TO 16 18 IF(HM,LE,0,6)GO TO 19

l

CF=3,052fHMf#Ot0176 E p;T:/;M IF(;M:LTtO,)GO TO 12 IF(TH.LE.O,92)GO TO 20 ~~Ff~6~~830tTHtt2+115,833YTH-51+666 20 IF(TH+GE~O+SO)GOTO 21 21 CSF=-9.$221THlf2+15.!306#TH-5,432

CF=3,032tHMSS0,#046 GO TO 16

Er,: lf

Table

23.

Listing

of

computer

program.

(continued)

12 Q(J)=CFbHMt*leStCSF IF(Q(J).GT,QO(J))Q(J)=QG(J) RETURN END SUBROUTINE CRICT(J)C tt8 COflPUTE CRITICAL DEPTH YCI SLOPE SC1 AND SECTION IC CHARACTERtGQ TITLE COM~ON/GEOM/X~SO~~Z~5O~~IT~5O~~RNo1SO~5O~~TCS~S~~~ lTC8(5O)~IP(2)~RL1NXrSMAX1IS~ZM.~X~LPAV(2)~ZU~5O)~~ZTL(50) COM~ON/HYDRO/TI~E~~O)PHU~~O~~TW~~O~~Q~~O~~Y~~~TX~~~~IT~~~~~~G~~O~ COMMON/YSC/YC~SC~IC~G ~O~~O~/WS/H(5O),SF(S~~~U~5O)rY(SO),F~5~~~IJUM~ ai11 YC=Q(J)~S0.667/GttO.333 SC=GtRN(I)ft2/(2.2sYCXs0,333) no 10 1=11NX IF(SO(I)+GT,SC)GO TO 11

ii!

iYNUE IFkGT,NX)IC=NX Y(I)=YC H(I)=YCtz(I~ J(I)=Q(J)/YC F(I)=U(I)/SQRT(Y(I)YG) SF(I)=(RN(I)t~(I))t$2/(2,2SYIX)fs1,33)

KTnURN SUBRCtUTfNE USWS(IYJ) St* COMPUTE UPSTREAH ST&GE AT SECTION I-1 CHARACTERS80 TITLE COilHON/GEOH/X~50)~Z(5O~~IT(5 O)tRN( 50) ?SQ lTCR~SO)eIP(2)~RL~NXISnAX1ISr f.llW~ .PAV(?) COMMON/HY~RO/TIflE(5O),HW(50) )9Q(50 COMliOM/YSC/YC~SC~IC~G COHHON/WS/H(50)~SF~5O),Vo rY (50) tF(50) I HTRY=H(I)tl,l

50)rTCS(50), ZOI50~1DZTL(5Oi 9YNl XTXMEvDT(50) I JU t1P

rQO(50)

DX=X(I)-XIID) 11 YTRY=HTRY-Z(ID) ITRY=ITRYtl IF(YTRY.LT,YN)YTRY=YN HTRY=YTRYtZ(ID) IF(HTRY,LE,HW(J))GO HTRY=HW(J) YTRY=HTRY-Z(ID) 110 CONTINUE IF(HTRYIGT+H(I))GO HTRY=H( I) 200

IX:3 IF:I,EQ.l)RETURN

TO 110

TO 200,

(2+2tYTRY%#lt33) .UiX)-VTRY)/(2.%G) ltCSF(I)tSFTRY)tRX/2, GO TO 11 10 FUNC=GXDXt(SF(I)tSFTRY)+(V(I)+VTRY)t(V(I~-UTRY) lt2,dGt(H(K)-HTRY)

190

Table

23.

(continued).

FP=-GLDXt3,33SSFTRY/YTRYt2+#VTRYft2/YTRY-2,%G HTRYN=HTRY-FUNC/FP WRITE(7,2)ID~J,ITRYtHTRY~HTRY~~FU~C?FP1VTRY~SFTRY~FRO 2 FORHAT( uSWSr314r7Ellt4)

IF(AES(HTRYi+HTRY),LT,O,Q1)GO IF(ITRY+GT,lO)Gtl TO 13

TO 12

13 1

!!'/' HTRYrHTRYNtFllHCrFP=8;~4Ei2r4/) 12 V(ID)=VTRY SF(ID)=SFTRY Y(ID)=YTRY H(ID)=YTRYtZ(ID) ~:fE~~V(ID)/SQRT(GSY(ID))

END SUSROUTINE DSWS(IIJ) C %X% COHPUTE DOWNSTREAM STAGE AT CHARACTER*80 TITLE

HTRY=HTRYN GO TO 11 CONT XNUE ~~~;~~~,~)IDIJ,XTRY,HTRYIHTRYN,FUNC,FP SFCTION XP TItiE J'~213~ THEUSWS Is NOT CONVFRGFD AFTER STEP,I3t

SECTION It1

CO~~ON/GEO~/X~SO~rZ~50),1 lTC8(50)1IP(2)1RL1MXISnAX~ COHHON/HYDRO/TIHE(5O)~H~~ COIIHON/YSC/YCISC~IC~G

COnnON/WS/H(JO)~SF(5O)rV(

(50)) 01 .9 50)9QO(50) tFTK

pmy=;'I"o.? =

DX=X(ID)-X(I) HTRY=YTRYtZ(ID) 11 CONTINUE YTRY=HTRY-Z(ID) ITRY=ITRYtl IF(YTRY.LT.YN)YTRY=YN IF(YTRY+GT.Y(I))YTRY=Y(

HTRY=YTRYtZ(ID) VTRY=Q(J)/YTRY

~F(KEQ,M)RETuRN

I) 12e2tYTRYbS1.33)

SFTRY=(RN(Il?)tVTRY)~t2/
FRO=VTRY/SQRT(G$YTRY)

IF(ITRY,GE,l)GO TQ iti l;;X/2,Y(SF(I)tSFTRY) TO 11 10 FUN C=GtDXt~SF(I)tSFTRY)+(V(X)+VTRY)X(VTRY-V(I)) lt2rYGt(HTRY-H(I))

HTRY=H(I)-(V(I)+VTRY)t(VTRY-V(I))/~2.~G~ FP=-G%DXt3+33K?iFTRY/YTRY-2+itcUTRYlt2/YTRYt2+z#G HTRYN=HTRY-FUNC/FP TO 12

DSWS'~314~7Ellr4) 2 FORHAT( IF(ABS(HTRYN-HTRY)+LT,OlOr)GO IF(ITRY+GT+lO)GO TO 13 [iR;;HIljY N 13 CONTINUE

URITE(7,2)ID~JtITRY~HTRY,HTRYN1FUNC1FPtVTRY~SFTRY~FRO

ll ?ORHAT( 8

WRITE(7~l)ID,J~XTRY,HTRYvHTRYN,FUNC,FF SECTXDN XITTHE J'g213r ---. THE DSWS IS NOT CONVERGf;;;IFTFR 21 HTRY rHTRYNpFUNCyFP= 14L,,. 1, ,

STEP'913,

I91

Table

23.

Listing

of

computer

program.

(continued)

12 U(ID)=UTRY SF(ID)=SFTRY Y(ID)=YTRY H(ID)=YTRYtZ(ID) ~:fe~=~v(ID)/saffTIGXY(Xnf) END SUBROUTINE JUHP(J) COMPUTE FLOW PROFILE UPSTREAM FROM THE TAILWATER DEPTH AND DETERHINE JUMP LOCATION CHARACTER*80 TITLE COM~ON/GEO~/X~5O~,Z~5O~~ITf50)1RN~5O~~SO~5~~~TCS~5O~ .TCB~5O~rIP~2~,RL,NX,SMAX,IS,ZMAX~~.PAU~2~~ZO~5~~~DZTL~5O~ COMMON/HYDRO/TI~E~5O~~HW~5O~~TW~5~~~~~50~~Y~~ITI~~~DT~5O~~~G~~O~ COHilON/YSC/YC~SC?IC~G COMMON/WS/H(5O)~SF~5O)~U~5O)rYo1F(50)~IJUMP WS DETERMINE EFFECT OF TAILWATER GM WATER SURFACE PROFILE AMD JUMP iOEUTE D2 H:UMP=H(I) 101 IF(SOII),GT.O,)GO I=Itl I JUfiP= I N&G;;:X)RETURN

c c ttr

TO 100

Yl=H(I)-Z(I) IF (I.ER+l)RETURN soI=(so(I)d2*tso(I-l))/3* IF(SOI.LT.O,~SOI=l,OE-10 PHI=ATAN(SOI) Dl=YlSCOS(PHI) Vl=Q(J)/Dl Fl=Ul/SQRT(GtDl) RK=21,978tSOISt2-l4~396%SOIt3,74O f??!=l+-2,it!RK$SOI 1F~RKl.LT10,15)RKl=0.15 D2=Dl/2./COStPHI~%~SQRT~8~~Fl~~2~COS(PHI~~~3/~RKl~ 1.+1,)-l,) C WRITE(7~2)I~Yl,PHI~Dl~Vl~Fl~RK~D2 FOREIAT(/' JUHP I~YlrPHI~D1~UlrF1~RK~D2~I4~7Ell~4~ c **a COHPUTE JUHP LENGTH ON SLOPE 8: LOCATION RLl=D2%(2,89+1,89tSOI)tSBRT(Fl) XX=RLltX(I) DO 10 K=XvNX iE(;XiGE.X(K))GO TO 10 -.. = ._- GO TO 11 10 f;N;;NliE 11 COiTIiUE IF(IK,LT.XC)IK=IC C Stl: COMPUTE THE JUMP WATER SURFACE PROFILE CC=(XX-X(IK))/(X(IKtl)-X(IK)) ZS~=ZS6:K)t(Z(IKtl)-Z(IK))t(XX-X(IK))/(X(IKtl~-X(IK)) IFtSS.LT,O.1!%=0 TWX=D2S(l.tli,2Shl.5) TWH=TWXtZZ WRITEf7r3)IK~RLl,XX~TWX~ZZ~TWH 3 FORnAT{ XK~RL~~XX,TWXIZZ~TUH~X~~SE~~.~) IF(XX+GT.X(NX))GO TO 20 IF(HJUHP.LE.TW(J)t,2l~AND~TWH.GE~TW~J~-~2l~GO

100

OW SLOPE

TO 44

192

Table

23.

(continued).
TO 44

44 C Stl:

IF(HJUHP.GE.TW(J)-,2l,~~n~T~~+L~,T~~,~)t+2~)GO GO TO 22 ASSUflE HORIZONTAL II0 23 K=IKtNX HiK)=TWf I;i;$y J(K)=Q&/Y(K)

IJ=I-1 IJUtiP=IJ

IF~IK~LT.~ICtl))IK=ICtl

SURFACE NNJNSTREMI

OF THE JUMP

4 FORtlAT( JUnPl KIHIYIVISF~F~ CONTINUE c *$3 APPROXIMATE THE JUMP PROFILE DO 24 K=IJvIK

IF(IJ.EQ.IK)IK=IJtl

BY

H(K)=H(IJ)t(H(IK>-H(XJ))bSaRT(D Y(K)=H(K)-Z(K) IF(Y(K),LT,O,2)Y(K)=0,2 U(K)=Q(J)/Y(K) SF(K)=(RN(K)~V(K)>SY2/(2,2 F(K)=U(K)/SQRT(GtY(K)) Fo~~~:::J;n~~T~H(K)rY(K) 6 KtDISTtHv NIJE 29 CONTI --... -..-RETURN 22 I=Itl

RIST=(X(K)-X(IJ))/(X(XK)-X(IJ)) IF(DIST,LT+O.)DIST=O,

IST)

SY (K) Sbl*33) ,V(K) ,SF(K),F(K Y 9VlS iFvF~15~6E i2.4)

yw~y4=

c sm 21

H JUHPITWH IF(TWH,LT,TW(J),AN~,I,EQ,(XC+1) IF(TWH.LT,TW(J) )GO TO 44 GO TO 100 FLO&J BECOtiES SUBMERGED

)GO TO 21

NX)) 02/(2 :GfY( NX)) Kl=NX-Kt 1 CALL USWS(KlrJ) 25 EONTINUE

+21Y (NX)t#1*33)

LT +1.,4ltYC) NXl= IC-2

RETURN 20 IF(TU(J),GT,H(IC))GO TO 21 IF((TW(J)-Z(NX))rGT,(D2t017))GO IF(I.LT+NX)GO TO 22

TO 30

WRITE(791) 1 pWffl;t

THERE IS

NO JUMP OCCURRING ON SLOPE 1

REACH

c ttli

DETERnINE JUMP LENGTH ON THE SLOPE/HORIZONTAL 30 DTW=TW(J)-Z(NX) RD=DTW/D2 XXL=X(NX)-X(I)

IF(XXL+LT,O~Ol~XXL=O.Ol

193

Table

23.

Listing

of

computer

program.

(cant

inued

SS=(Z(I)-Z(NX))/XXL IF(SS.LT.O,Ol)SS=O,Ol IF(RD.LE.P+3)GO TO 31 RGLg2~~S02;82$SStt(;0.7S~t(RD-l,3)/SSXD2 31 RL2=D2t2+051SStX(-Ot78)#tRD-O,?) 32 CONT INN IF(RD.LT,l~Ol)RL2=Q, IF(RL2,GT+RLl)RL2=RLl XX=X(NX)-RL2 WRITE(7*6)DTW7RDrRLl7RL21XX 6 DO FORHClT( 43 K=I JNlnF3 DTW~RDtRLltRL2rXXt5Ellt4 IF(XX,GE&K))GQ -. . . _
1 J=K-1

TO 43

GO TO 45 CONTINUE :+i :XJ=;!NX) IJu=nP=IJ DO 46 K=IJ7NX XXL=XX-X( I J) DIST=(X(K)-X(IJ))/XXL IFIDIST,LT.O,>DIST=O+ H(K)=H(IJ)t(TW(J)-H(IJ))tSRRT(DIST) Y(K)=H(Kl-Z(K) IF(Y(K).LTeYN)Y(K)=YN VtKl=Q(J)/Y(K) SF(K)=(RN(K)SV(K))Xt2/(2.2XY(~)~~l.~~~ F(K)=V(K)/SQRT(GtY(K)l UFR~~RT~EA::~~)K~DIST~H(K),Y(K),V(K)VSF(K)VF(K) JlMS K~DISTVH~Y~V~SFIF~I~~,?,E~ CONTINUE RETURN

c 4i
C ttt

.1+4)

SUBROUTINE 01 lJTP( J) PRINT OUT THiE COflPUTED RESULTS CHARACTERt80 TITLE CO~~ON/GEOM/X~50~vZ~5O~vIT~5O~vR~~5O~vSO~5~~vT~S~5~~v 1TCB~5O~~IP~2~vRL~NXvS~~XvIS~Z~~XvLPAV~2~~ZO~5O~~D7TL~5O~ CO~~ONJHYDRO/TIME~5O)rHW~5O~vTW~5O~vQ~SO~vY~vITI~~vDT~5O~vQO~~ CO~MOM/YSC/YC~SCIICVG

XtYv?XvZv9XvHr9XvlHV SH~GX1TL~8X7DZTL/)

ILAYER(I)tX(I)vY(I)vZ(I)vH~I)vV(I), ;H(IhTL(IvNLhDZTL(I) )

SFII)vSOII

194

Table

23.

(continued).

) 9QO(50) SH(50) 9

c b%

7 ITM

CSS?

IFcFc.GilRNiIj,~MD;S~c~Ij;~~~~;jj FC=RN~ CONSIDERFLDtl YODE (SURFACE OF PLUNGING FLOW)

HH=HW(J)-ZHAX

.. (;HH+GT+THHC)GO c am /$ LUNGINGFLOW

f~T~~~;lnGT.0.65)THWC=0.65 TO 20

'(IILEIIJUMP~GO TO 21. Vi=o+sI(v(:IJUMP) IF(VLILT.V(I))VL=V(I) C URITE(~~~)I~IJUMPIHM~TH~HL~THMC~THM~VL 2 FORHATt PLUNGINGFLOW T9I.JUMP9HM9TH9HL9TH~C9T 1;;4;pg3 21 VL=VII) GO TO 23 C S$X SURFACEFLOW 20 IFlI.LE,IC)GO TO 21 IF~IS.EQ.1.AMD~SO~I~tGTIOI1S~GO TO 30 GO TO 31 30 ;,";y GO 70 32 31 IF(IS.ERI~)GO TO 32
UL=0,2tV(ISG) GO TO 33

'HMtVL',

32 VL=V(I) 33 CONTINUE C URITE(7~3)I~ISG~IS~HM~TM~HL,TXnCITHM~VL 3 FOR#AT( SURFACEFLOW IIISG~IS~HM~TM~THMC~THM~ 1VL'r 131496ElOe3)

23 SH(I)=PSFC%ULSS2/8, C

WRITE(~~~)IIFCIRN~I)~Y(I~~SH(I) 1 FORMAT(' SHEAR I?FCIRN~Y~SH'IIS~~E~~*~) 10 k;Xl;;!t.tE

END

SURROUTINESEDQ

CHARACTER%80 TITLE

195

Table

23.

(continued).

20 21
3

30 1 10 ($dd;;UE

IF(SHC(I),GT,SH(I))GO TG 20 QE(I)=AC(I)S(SH(I)-SHC(I))flBC(I) GO TO 21 RE(I)=O+ RN(I)=RNI(NL) WRITE~7~3~I~ILAYER~I),QEorDZ(I~PZ(I~~Tl~~I~NL~~BTT~BZT~I~~RTl FORMAT{' SEDZ2 I~ILAYER~~~E~UZ~Z~TL~IJTT~~ZT~BT~'~~I~~~E~~~~~ GO TO 13 CONTINUE WRITE~7~1~I,ILAYER~I~tRE~I~,nZ~I~~Z~I~~T~~~~~~L~~SHC~I~~BZT~I~~B FORMAT{' SEDZ3 I~ILAYERIQE~DZIZ~TL~SHC~BZT~~T~'~~X~~~E~~*~)

Tl

EL=EZf0,125
C

EZ=BZT(KKtl)

RM=(PtGYY(KK)tPSSGXTS)dEL%%2/2, SH=TSXS2/6, STM=RM/SM ~RO~~~:::~)KKIEZ,ELIRK~SM,STH,SA PAVZl KKIEZ~EL~RM~SMI ;$;TM.LT.SA)RETURN TO

11 :~;:LKI:T.(X(KK)-X(KK-IK))IGa
;;;;;K;:K).LTI1)GO TO

10

10

10 ;F ;; f=+:dK BZTKl;=BZT(KKtl)Q(EL-X(KK)+Xo )/(ELtX(KKtl)-X(K)) Z(Kl)=Z(Kl)-DZ(Kl)-TS DZT~Kl)=DZ(Kl)tBZT(Kl) C WRITE(7~2)Kl~BZ(Kl~~Zo,DZT(K1 ,) 2 FORMAT{' PAVZ2,Kl~DZ~Z~BZT'~ISr 3El1.4) 12 CONTINUE
;; $2 t+;9IK

22 IF(TL(KlrNL)+LT.DZ(Kl))GO-TO ILAYER(Kl)=NL SHC(Kl)=SHCI(NL) AC(Kl)=ACI(NL) BC(Kl)=BCI(NL) RN(Kl)=RNI(NL) GO TO 30 21 DZZ=DZ(Kl)-TL(KlrNL)

IF(NL+GT+NLAYER)NL=NLAYER TL(K19NL)=TL(KlrNL)-DZ(Kl)

NL~ILiYERIKl)+l

21

197

Table NL=MLt

23.

Listing

of

computer

progra

m.

(continued)

C c

AC(Kl)=ACI(NLJ DZ(Kl)=BZZ Rt& tg;ry I ( NI.. 1 30 CONTINUi

BCiKl)=BCP(NL) URITE(7t3)Kl,NL

ILAYER(Kl)=NL SHC(K1 )=SHCI(NL)

1 IF(NL.GT,NLAYERjGO TO 30

3 FORHAT( PAVZJ 20 CONTINUE LFAU(2)=LPAV12) -1 WRITE(7~4)LPAW(I) 4 pl?;" PAVZ4

END

?I

( .7

Kl)rTL(

K1pNL)r SHC (Kl ILAYERr TLrSHCp RN1 a2 '

( F

GAV2 I 215)

CONTINUE s~~l~=~z~l~-z~2~~/~x~2~-xo~

DO 10 1=2rNXl sc~I)=(z(I-l)-z~It1~)/(xo-x(I-l~)

IF(SHAXeGT,SO(I))GO TO 11
IF(SMAX,LT,I.OE-6) SHAX=l.OE-6 CONTIWE DETERMNE THE CHANGE IN THE ROADWAY WIDTH ,LT,O +5)GO TO 20

IF(II,GE,I 2)GO TO 22 GO TO 21 IF(DZT(I2) eLT.0 ,516O TO 23 12=12-l IP(2)=12 IF(IL,LE,P 1)GO TO 22 GO TO 20 22 IP(l)=Il IP12)=11 23 KURN

198

REFERENCES (1) Simons,

SgeDue J&;ary
(2)

"Presentation of & Associates, Inc., to Flood Overtopping," Progress Report of Transportation, Federal Department Li

Field Data on Embankment for Task A, Prepared-for Hlghway Adminlstratlon,

1984.

"FLood Characteristics and Highway Damage at Five H. W. Hjalmarson, U.S. Geological Survey prepared in Arizona Sites, Flood of October 1983," of Transportation, Federal Highway cooperation with the U.S. Departme,nt Administration, Tucson, September 1984. D. L. Yarnell, and Highway Embankments," C. E. Kindsvater, Studies of Flow 1617-A, 1964. F. A. Nagler, "Flow Public Roads, Vol. of II, Flood Water Over Railway No. 2, 30-34, 1930. of Embankment-Shaped Dams, USGS Water-Supply Hydraulic Design Federal and

(3)

(4)

"Discharge of Water

Characteristics Over Weirs and Bridge of

Weirs," Paper Series Highway

(5)

J. N. Bradley, No. 1, Administration,

V. T. 1959. Stilling Division, Chow,

tlHydraulics of Department U.S. 1973. Open-Channel

Waterways," Transportation,

(6) (7)

Hydraulics,

McGraw-Hill

Book

Company,

New York, Basins: Hydraulics

J. N. Bradley,

"Hydraulic Design of Stilling and A. J. Peterka, Basin with Sloping Apron (Basin V), Journal of ASCE, Vo1.83, No. HY5, October 1957. and D. J.

(8)

F.

C.

Townsend,

Waste
Station (9)

"Centrifugal Model Analysis of Coal Goodings, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Embankment Stability, for Bureau of Mines, Open File Report, 1979. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Fuse 31-59.

P. Miller, Personal Communication, Experiment-Station, 1983. E. R. Plug," Library

(10)

Tinney, and H. Y. HSU, "Mechanics of Washout of an Erodible 3283, Vol. 127, Part 1, 1962, pp. Trans. ASCE, Paper No. Reference. "Beginning and Ceasing of edited by H.W. Shen, 1971. F. C. Scobey, pp. 940-956. "Permissible "Relation Soils,ll Sediment Canal Motion," Velocities," River

(11) (12)

J. Gessler, Chapter 7, S. Fortier Vol. 89,

Mechanics,

and 1926,

Trans.

ASCE,

(13)

E. T. Smerdon, Properties to

and R. P. Beasley, Erosion Resistance

of

of Compaction Trans. ASCE,

and Other Soil Vol. 8, 1959.

199

REFERENCES (continued) (14) E. T. Smerdon, and R. P. Beasley, "The Tractive Stability of Open Channels in Cohesive Soils,11 University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, October, 1959. E. H. Water," W. Lyle, Properties Force Theory Applied to Research Bulletin 715, Agr. Exp. Station,

(15)

Grissinger, "Resistance of Selected Clay Systems Water Resources Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1966, pp. and E. Smerdon, "Relation to the Erosion Resistance of of Compaction Soils," Trans. Erosion Davis,

to Erosion 131-138.

by

(16)

and Other ASAE, 1965. of Cohesive 1974.

Soil

(17)

A. Arumugam, "Fundamental Aspect of Surface Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California,

Soils,lt

(18)

J. C. McWhorter, T. G. Carpenter, and R. N. Clark, "Erosion Control Criteria for Drainage Channels," prepared for the Mississippi State Highway Department in Cooperation with U.S. Department of Transporation, Federal Highway Administration, by Agricultural Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, State College, Mississippi, March 1968.
Y. H. Chen and G. K. Cotton, "Design of Roadside Linings," Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. Administration, February 1986. Conservation Conservation, Service, 1954. Handbook of Channel Channels with 15, Federal Flexible Highway

(19)

(20) USDA Soil

Water

Design

for

Soil

and

(21) J.

M. Wiggert, and D. N. Contractor, "A Methodology for Estimating Embankment Failure,"' an unpublished paper presented to Water Resources Engineers, Inc., Springfield, VA, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24060, no date, written around 1969. E. A. Earthfill Bureau 1965. Cristofano, "Method of Computing Erosion Dams," unpublished memorandum, Engineering of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and Hydraulics K. Rate for Failure of and Research Center, Denver, CO, April

(22)

(23)

R. Ariathurai, Journal of pp. 279-283. P. Chee, Conference Technology,

Arulanandan, "Erosion Rates of Cohesive Soils,fl' Division, ASCE, Vol. 3104, No. HY2, February 1978,

(24) S.

in Proceedings of "Design of Erodible Darns," Asian of Water Resources Enginirings, Bankok AIT, V. 1, 105-113, 1978.

International
Institute of

(25) V. R. Schneider,
Analysis," U.S. FHWA-TS-80-226,

and K. V. Wilson, "Hydraulic Design of Bridges with Risk Geological Survey for FHWA Office of Development, Report FHWA HDV-21, March 1980.

200

BIBLIOGRAPHY (1)
(2) J. 0. Riprap Abreu-Lima, of Uniform and W. B. Morgan,

Size, M.S. Thesis, Univ.

"Protection Iowa,

of Earth Embankments Iowa City, 1951.

by

K. Arnulanandan, P. Logannathan, Influences on Surface Erosion Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. Il. T. Babbit, (Chrmn), Proceedings of Conference ASCE, 1386, 1978.

and R. B. Kron, "Pore and Eroding Fluid of Soil," Journal of Geotechnical 101, No. GTl, January 1975, pp. 51-65. and Embankments," and Soil Dynamics,

(3)

"Specialty Session of Slopes on Earthquake Engineering

(4)

N. J. Brogdon, and V. L. Grace, "Stability of Riprap and Discharge Characteristics, Overflow Embankment, Arkansas River, Arkansas," Army Engineering Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 94 p, June 1964.

(5)

J. Davidian, and Channels," Article 1963.

Federal Plains HNG-31,

D. I. Cahal, "Distribution 113, U.S. Geological Survey

of Shear Professional

in

Rectangular Paper 475-C,

(6)

Highway Administration, "The Using Risk Analysis," Hydraulic Washington, D.C. 20590, 1980.

Design of Engineering

Encroachments on Flood Circular No-. 17, FHWA

(7)

J. Fowler, "Design Construction and Embankment Test Section of Pinto Pass, U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment 1981. J. Fowler, Engineering,
Fortier, S. Transactions, "Synthetic ASCE, 51(10), and ASCE, F. Vol. A. V. Study Fabrics 48-51, C. 89, for 1981.

Analysis of Fabric-Reinforced Mobile Alabama," Rpt. EL-81-7, Station, Vicksburg, MS; 225 p, Reinforced Embankments,ll Civil

(8)

(9)
(10)

Scobey, *Permissible pp. 940-956, 1926.

Canal

Velocities,"

H. P. Greenspan and an Impounding Dike," H. P. Greenspan and Mechanics, 87:179-192, R. H. Haas and H.

Johansson, "An Experimental

Application "Flow Math Over 64(3)

Study of Flow 211-223, 1981. Dike," by

Over

(11) (12)

R. E. Young,

a Containment

3. Fluid
and

1978.
E. Walker, "Bank 118, 849-879, Stabilization Revetments

Dikes, ASCE Proceedings

(13) R. S. Varved Haupt Silt,"

1953.
Failure on Soft Structures,

and J. P. Olson, ASCE Performance

"Case History - Embankment of Earth and Earth-Supported

I-l,

1972.

201

BIBLICK!?APHY (14)

(continued) Ashish, "Verification Port, of Changes in Flow Regime Coastal and Ocean Division, Stroitelstvo), Moscow, "The PP.

E. J. Hayter and J. M. Due to Dike Breakthrough," ASCE, 79:729, 1979.

J. Waterway,

(15)

Hydrotechnical Construction (Gidrotekhnicheskoie Maximum Permissible Mean Velocity in Open Channels," 5-7, May 1936.

No.

5,

(16) A. T. Ippen et al.,

Trapezoidal Engineering,

The Distribution of Boundary Shear Stress Channels," Technical Report No. 43, MIT, Department Hydrodynamics Lab, October 1960.
Thesis, University Protected of Iowa, Against

in Curyed of Civil

(17) K. Jetter,
Water," (18) M.S.

Tests on Sand Dikes

Iowa City,

Erosion 1931.

by Overflowing

S. Karaki, K. Mahmood, E. V. Richardson, D. B. Simons, and M. A. Stevens, "River Environment, Hydraulic and Environmental Design Considerations," Federal Highway Administration, CER-73-74EVR-SK-KM-DBS-MAS49, 1974. V. C. Kartha Open Channels," and H. J. Lentheusser, "Distribution Journal of the Hydraulics Division, "Measuring 1969, Soil pp. Rooting of 497-498. of Tractive ASCE, HY7, Sodded Turfs," Force 1970. in

(19) (20)

J. W. King and J. B. Beard, Journal, Vol. 61, July-August,

T. W. Lambe and 553 p*, 1969. Y-D Lion, Dissertation,

Agronomy New York,

(21)

R. V. Whitman,

Mechanics,

Wiley

and Sons,

(22)

"Hydraulic Department

Erodibility of Civil

of Two Engineering,

Pure Clay Colorado

Systems," Ph.D. State University,

1970.
(23) H. K. Liu, J. and Abutments," 364, 1957. N. Bradley, and E. J. Plate, "Backwater Effects of Colorado State University, Civil Engineering,'CER57HKLlO, Piers

(24)

H. S. Manamperi, "Tests of Graded Riprap Material," M.S. Thesis, University of Iowa, T. E. Murphy and J. L. Research Board, HRR-30, H. Nasner, in

for Overflow

Protection

of

Erodible Highway

Iowa City,

1952.
Embankments,"

(25)

Grace, "Riprap
1963. Protection on Coastal Y.

for

(26)

International
Abstracts (27)

"Storm Surge Conference Depth, 1980.

for the Ensineerinq,

Elbe

River," Sydney,

in' 17th Australia;

E. M. O'Loughlin, S. Effects in Hydraulic University, Iowa City

C. Mehrotra, Model Tests

Institute

of

C. Chang, and of Rock Protected Hydraulic Research,

J. F. Kennedy,
Structures," 37 p, 1970.

"Scale

Iowa

202

BIELIOGR4FHY (continued)
(28) R. Q. Palmer and J. R. Walker, "Honolulu Reef Proceedings of 12th Coastal Engineering Conference, Chapter 99, 1629-1646, 1970. E. Partheniades, "A Study of Salt Water," Ph.D. Disseration, E. Partheniades, the Hydraulics 105-139. V. C. Patel, in Pressure 1965. G. Pilot, Performance "Erosion Division, "Calibration Gradients," Erosion and University Deposition of of California, of 91, Cohesive No. HYl, Runway Dike," Wash., Vol. in 3,

(29)

Cohesive Soils in Berkeley, 1962. Soils," January Journal 1965, on its Part of pp. Use I,

(30)

and Deposition ASCE, Vol. of the Journal

(31)

Preston Tube and Limitations of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.

23,

(32)

"Study of Five Embankment of Earth and Earth-Supported

Failures Structures,

on

Soft

Soils,"

ASCE

I-l,

1972.

(33)

T. J. Pokrefke and W. France, the Mississippi River; Rpt. Investigation," Vicksburg, MPH-70-1, 30 p. 1981.

Investigation of Proposed Dike Systems on 2, New .Madrid Bar Reach; Hydraulic Model MS, USAE Waterways Experiment Station,
for 1957. Highway Library Fills," Trans. Reference. ASCE,

(34)

C. J. Posey,
Paper No. 2871,

"Flood Vol.

Erosion Protection 122, pp. 531-555,

(35) (36)

J.
Pitot

H.

Preston, Tubes," Rowlison ASCE,

"The Determination of Turbulent Journal of the Royal Aeronautical and G.L.

Skin Friction by Means of Society, Vol. 58, 1954. Slope

P. L. Erosion,"

Irrigation

Martin, "Rational Model Describing and Drainage 97, 39-50, 1971. Numerical Station, Model Report

(37)

P. G. Samuels, EMBER - A Wallingford Hydraulic Research H. W. Schen, Stream-Related 1980. E. E. 1966. Seelye,

of an Embanked River," IT 183, 28 p, 1979. of p,

(38)

S. A. Schumm, and J. Hazards to Highways

D.
and

Nelson, "Methods for Assessment Bridges," FHWA/RD-80/160, 252

(39) (40)

Data

Book

for

Civil

Engineers,

Vol. Doubles

1,
As

NY,

Wiley

and Sons, Civil

P. Singh Engineering

Shiwendra, Journal,

"Highway Embankment 79:80, 1979.

Dam,"

ASCE,

(41)

D. B. Simons, Y. H. Chen and A. A. Fiuzat, for the U.S. Army Flood Control Channels," Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1981.

"Stability Waterways

Tests of Experiment

Riprap in Station,

2C3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(continued)

(42) Il.

6. Simons, G. L. Lewis, and W. G. Field, "Embankment Protection at Eleventh /Annual Bridge Engineering River Constrictions," Proceedings, Conference 1970, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1970.

(43)

"Flood Protection at Bridge Crossings," preD. B. Simons, G. L. Lewis, pared for Wyoming State Highway Department, Planning and Research Department of Transportation, Division in Cooperation with the U.S. Public Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Roads, 1970, CER70-71DBS-GLL31. D. B. Simons, R. M. Li, K. G. Eggert, D. M. Hartley, J.N.H. Ho, Miskimins, "Computer Simulation for Evaluating the Effectiveness for Environmental Research Laboratory, Vegetation Buffer Strips," of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Stability Analysis for M. A. Stevens and D. B. Simons, Material on Slopes," Chapter 17, River Mechanics, edited Colorado State University, November 1971. and R. of

(44)

Office 1981.

(45)

Coarse Granular by H. W. Shen,

(46)

E. Tautenhain and S. Kohlhase, "Investigation on Wave Run-Up Overtopping at Sea Dikes," in Proceedings of International Conference Water Resources Development,Taipei, Vol. 3, Taipei, Chinese Institute Engineering, 873-882, 1980. M. T. Tseng, A. 3. Knepp, Factors in the Design of FHWA-RD-75-54, 1975. U.S. Army Corps.of Office, Washington, U.S. Army Corps of Office, Washington, U.S. Bureau of Earthfill and R. A. Schtnalz, "Evaluation Highway Stream Crossings," Fed. Embankments,'! 1959. Control," 1982.

and of of

(47)

of Flood Risk Highway Adm., Printing

(48)

Engineers, "Earth DC, EM-1110-2-2300,

US Government

(49) (50)

Engineers, "Seepage DC, EM-1110-2-1091,

US Government

Printing

"Method of of Reclamation, Dams," Unpublished Report, W. G. Holz, ASCE Proceedings Technique 1158, 1951.

Computing Erosion Rate for Failure USDI, B.R., Denver, CO, 1965. by

(51)

F. C. Walker and Laboratory Testing,"

"Control of Embankment Material 77, No. 108, Dec. 25 p, 1951. of Passing Floods Over Earth

(52) A.
(53)

Weiss, "Construction Trans. ASCE, V. 116, p. R. N. Yong and co., New York, G. K. Young, Risk Factor Vol. 1 of 2,

Dams,"

B. P. Warkentine, 1966.

Introduction

to

Soil

Behavior,

MacMillan

(54)

R. S. Taylor, and L. in the Design of Box FHWA HRS-42, Washington,

S. Costello, Culverts," DC 20590,

"Evaluation of the Flood Report No. FHWA-RD-74-11, September 1970.

204

5.

GOVERNMENT

PRINTING

OFFICE:

1987--.181-763--40,175

FEDERALLY

COORDINATED PROGRAM (FCP) OF HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH,

The Offices of Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are responsible for a broad research, development, and technology transfer program. This program is accomplished using numerous methods of funding and management. The efforts include work done in-house by RD&T staff, contracts using administrative funds, and a Federal-aid program conducted by or through State highway or transportation agencies, which include the Highway Planning and Research (HP&R) program, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) managed by the Transportation Research Board, and the one-half of one percent training program conducted by the National Highway Institute. The FCP is a carefully selected group of projects, separated into broad categories, formulated to use research, development, and technology transfer resources to obtain solutions to urgent national highway problems. The diagonal double stripe on the cover of this report represents a highway. It is color-coded to identify the FCP category to which the reports subject pertains. A red stripe indicates category 1, dark blue for category 2, light blue for category 3, brown for category 4, gray for category 5, and green for category 9. FCP Category Descriptions
1, Highway Design and Operation for Safety

maintenance; traffic services for maintenance zoning, management of human resources and and identification of highway equipment, elements that affect the quality of the human environment. The goals of projects within this category are to maximize operational efficiency and safety to the traveling public while conserving resources and reducing adverse highway and traffic impacts through protections and enhancement of environmental features.
4. Pavement Management Design, Construction, and

Pavement RD&T is concerned with pavement design and rehabilititation methods and procedures, construction technology, recycled highway materials, improved pavement binders, and improved pavement management. The goals will emphasize improvements to highway performance over the networks life cycle, thus extending maintenance-free operation and maximizing benefits. Specific areas of effort will include material characterizations, pavement damage predictions, methods to minimize local pavement defects, quality control specifications, long-term pavement monitoring, and life cycle cost analyses,
5. Structural Design and Hydraulics

Safety RD&T addresses problems associated with the responsibilities of the FHWA under the Highway Safety Act. It includes investigation of appropriate design standards, roadside hardware, traffic control devices, and collection or analysis of physical and scientific data for the formulation of improved safety regulations to better protect all motorists, bicycles, and pedestrians. 2
Traffic Control and Management

Traffic RD&T is concerned with increasing the operational efficiency of existing highways by advancing technology and balancing the demand-capacity relationship through traffic management techniques such as bus and carpool preferential treatment, coordinated signal timing, motorist information, and rerouting of traffic.
3. Highway Operations

Structural RD&T is concerned with furthering the latest technological advances in structural and hydraulic designs, fabrication processes, and construction techniques to provide safe, efficient highway structures at reasonable costs. This category deals with bridge superstructures, earth foundations, culverts, river structures, mechanics, and hydraulics. In addition, it includes material aspects of structures (metal and concrete) along with their protection from corrosive or degrading environments.
9. RD&T Management and Coordination

This category addresses preserving the Nations highways, natural resources, and community attributes. It includes activities in physical

Activities in this category include fundamental work for new concepts and system characterization before the investigation reaches a point where it is incorporated within other categories of the FCP. Concepts on the feasibility of new technology for highway safety are included in this category. RD&T reports not within other FCP projects will be published as Category 9 projects.