MISCELLANEOUS PAPER H-78-7

PRACTICAL RIPRAP DESIGN

by

Stephen T. Maynord
Hydraulics Laboratory
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
P. -o. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180

June 1978
Final Report
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

Prepared fo r

Office, Chief of Engineers, U.

Washington, D. C. 20314
Civil Works Investigation
Work Unit No. 030200/ 31028

under

s.

Army

Unclassifi ed
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

READ I~STRUCTIONS
BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT NUMBER

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT' S C ATALOG NUMBER

Miscellaneous Paper H- 78- 7

4 . TITLE (and Subtitle)

5.

PRACTICAL RIPRAP DESIGN

TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVI!:RED

Final repor t
6 . PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7.

AUTHOR(e)

8 . CONTRACT O R GRANT N U MBER( e)

Stephen T. Maynord
to.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

u. s .

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station

Hydraulics Laboratory
P. 0 . Box 631~ Vicksburg , Miss . 39180
1 t. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Office, Chief of Engineers,

Washington , D. c. 20314
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME

PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

AREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS

CWI Work Unit No .

030200/31028
'2. REPORT DATE

u. s.

June 1978
Army

'3.

NUMBER O F PAGES

74

ADDRESS(If dlllerant ltotn Controlling Olll c e)

1s. SECURITY C LASS. (ol thle report)

Unclassified
\Sa.

16.

DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol thla Report)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited .

17. DISTRIBUTION STA T EMENT (ol the ab et.r ac t entered In Bloclc 20 , II dllleren t from R ep ort)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. K E Y WORDS ( C on tinue on revere elde II nec eaeary and ldentlly by blo ck n umber)

.Riprap

20.. ABST"AAC:T" ('CaaUDue . . ,.,.,._ llfb

II~

ami ldenllfr by block number)

Determination of stable riprap size is a problem that has been studied

extensively but not yet solved. Existing design methods are based on the shear
stress exerted by the f l owing water on the channel boundaries. The various
methods available for computing the shear stress do not agree. Determination
of the amount of shear stress a given size riprap can withstand depends upon
which investigator ' s coefficient is used in the Shields ' equation.
(Continued)

DD

FORM
1 JAN 73

1473

EDtnON OF t NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE

Unclassified
S ECURtTY C LASSIFI C ATION OF TH IS PAGE ( ften Date E ntered)

IIpclassifjed
S!:CURITY CLASSI I' IC ATION OF THIS PAGE(W'Iaen DetelfltteNd)

20.

ABSTRACT (Continued).

The objective of this investigation was to develop a riprap design procedure based on known or easily calculated variables that properly describes
riprap stability . Model tests of riprap stability were used in thi s invest i gation to insure that the proposed design procedure is applicable to the higher
turbulence levels found in decelerating flow in open channels. Design curves
for bottom riprap and side slope riprap in straight channels are presented .
Tentative criteria for ripr ap in channel bends are discussed .

Unclas s i fied
SE CU R ITY CLASSI F ICATION OF THIS P AGE(When D t Enter ed)

PREFACE
This report was prepared by Mr. S. T. Maynard of the Spillways and
Channels Branch, Hydraulic Structures Division, Hydraulics Laboratory,
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES).

This report is

essentially a thesis submitted by Mr. Maynard in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering to the faculty of the University of Texas at Arlington, and is a
study concerned with riprap stability.

The study described herein was

conducted by the Hydraulics Laboratory, WES, under Civil Works Investigation, work unit No. 030200/31028, "Effects of Water Flow on Riprap in
Flood Channels," Waterways Research Program, sponsored by the Office,
Chief of Engineers (OCE).

The study was accomplished under the general

direction of Messrs. J. L. Grace, Jr., and N. R. Oswalt.

This report

was reviewed by Mr. S. B. Powell of OCE, Technical Monitor of the Waterways Research Program.
COL G. H. Hilt, CE, and COL John L. Cannon, CE, were Directors
of WES during the period of this study and the preparation and publication of this report.

Mr. F. R. Brown was Technical Director.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

V11

LIST OF TABLES

V111

LIST OF PLATES

1X

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

xi

I.

INTRODUCTION

II.

MODEL TESTS

2-1

Test Facilities

2-2 Scale Relations

2-3 Model Riprap

2-4

Test Procedures

2-5

Test Results

III.

IV.

COMPARISON OF MODEL RESULTS WITH EXISTING CRITERIA

17

3-1 St. Anthony Falls Laboratory - University of

Minnesota

17

3-2 Li, Simons, Blinco, Samad

25

3-3 Ramette

30

3-4

Corps of Engineers

31

3-5

Isbash

38

DEVELOPMENT OF SIDE SLOPE CRITERIA

44

4-1

44

Model Tests

4-2 Existing Criteria

44

Design Curves

53

4-3

'
v.

Page

DEVELOPMENT OF BEND CRITERIA

56

SUMMARY AND SAMPLE PROBLEM

60

VII.

CONCLUSIONS

63

VIII.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

64

VI.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

'

Title

Page

2-1

Model Test Facility

2-2

D /Depth Versus F - Model Test Results, Bottom Riprap

50

11

2-3

Velocity Profile - Q = 15 cfs, Depth

1V:2HSS, D = 0.026 ft
50

= 0.84

13

Velocity Profile - Q = 20 cfs, Depth

lV:2HSS, D = 0.026 ft
50

= 1.04

Velocity Profile - Q = 25 cfs, Depth

1V:2HSS, D = 0.026 ft
50

= 1.22

Velocity Profile - Q = 20 cfs, Depth

1V:4HSS, D = 0.037 ft
50

= 0.81

Velocity Profile - Q = 25 cfs, Depth

1V:4HSS, D = 0.037 ft
50

= 0.93

Velocity Profile - Q = 30 cfs, Depth

1V:4HSS, D = 0.037 ft
50

= 1.06

2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8

ft,
ft,
13
ft,
14
ft,
\

14

ft,
15
ft,
15

Velocity Profile - Q = 35 cfs, Depth = 1.19 ft,

1V:4HSS, D = 0.037 ft
50

16

3-1

Critical Shear Stress Versus D

50

18

3-2

Maximum Boundary Shear Stress on Bottom of

Trapezoidal Channels

19

D5o/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Anderson,

Incipient Motion

23

D5o/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Anderson,

Safe Design

24

D5o/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Li,

Incipient Motion

29

D5o/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Ramette,

Incipient Motion

33

D5o/Depth Versus F- Bottom Riprap, C.O.E.,

Safe Design

37

2-9

3-3

3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7

Vll

Figure

Title

Page

3-8

Isbash - Velocity Versus Stone Diameter

39

3-9

D5o/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Isbash,

Safe Design

42

4-1

D5o/Depth Versus F - 1V:2H Slide Slope Riprap,

Model Tests, Incipient Motion

45

4-2

Maximum Boundary Shear Stress on Sides of

Trapezoidal Channels

47

4-3

D5o/Depth Versus F - 1V:2H Side Slope Riprap,

Incipient Motion

54

5-1

Shear Distribution in ChanneL Bends

57

5-2

Maximum Shear at Channel Bends

58

5-3

C Versus Bend Radius/Water Surface Width, Incipient

Motion

59

Vlll

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Title

Page

2-1

Model Test Results

10

3-1

Bottom Riprap Sizes for Incipient Motion by

Anderson Method

21

Bottom Riprap Sizes for Safe Design by

Anderson Method

22

Bottom Riprap Sizes for Incipient Motion

by Li Method

28

Bottom Riprap Sizes for Incipient Motion by

Ramette Method

32

3-5

Bottom Riprap Sizes for Safe Design by C.O.E. Method

36

3-6

Bottom Riprap Sizes for Safe Design by Isbash

Method

41

4-1

Side Slope Riprap Sizes for Incipient Motion by

Anderson Method

4-2

Side Slope Riprap Sizes for Incipient Motion by

Ramette Method

50

Side Slope Riprap Sizes for Safe Design by

C.O.E. Method

52

3-2
3-3
3-4

4-3

ix

LIST OF PLATES
Plate

Title

Page

2-1

Model Test Facility, Dry Bed

2-2

Model Test Facility, Wet Bed

CONVERSION FACTORS,. U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
U. S. customary units of measurement can be converted to metric (SI)
units as follows:
Multiply

By

To Obtain

cubic feet

0.02831685

cubic metres

cubic feet per second

0.02831685

cubic metres per second

feet

0.3048

metres

feet per second

0.3048

metres per second

inches

25.4

millimetres

pounds (mass) per cubic

foot

16.01846

kilograms per cubic metre

xi

I.

INTRODUCTION

The subject investigation was conducted to develop practical design criteria for sizing riprap in open channels.

Existing design

criteria consider parameters such as shear or tractive force at the

boundaries (1-5)*.

Several methods are available for computing the

shear stress in an open channel (1,2).

These methods do not yield

comparable results (3,6), and can lead to confusion in using the tractive force method to design riprap.
Gradually varied flow in an open channel can be in one of three
conditions:

uniform flow, accelerating flow, or decelerating flow.

Equations for computing shear stress in an open channel have been

formulated for uniform flow conditions (2,4).

These equations are

routinely applied to all three flow conditions for the purpose of designing riprap.

According to Stevens at Colorado State University (7),

the shear stress equations can be used in uniform or accelerating flow.

For these two conditions the turbulence in the flow is created at the
boundary and shear stress is a good measure of the level of turbulence
in the flow.

For decelerating flow the shear stress equations should

not be used because of intensified vorticity generated in an expansion.

This vorticity is intense and irregular and can resemble the turbulence
downstream of an energy dissipater.

The subject investigation involved

Numbers in parentheses refer to reference numbers listed under

Bibliography.

determination of the design parameters which are applicable to all

three flow conditions.

Model studies (8,9) conducted at the U. S. Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station show that the relationship

D50
depth

--~-

= CF 3

(1)

where

50

= mean

stone size, ft*

depth - water depth, ft

C - coefficient determined from laboratory and field testing
F - Froude number of flow
- V/lg depth
V - mean channel velocity, ft/sec
g - gravity, ft/sec

is applicable for sizing riprap.

This investigation includes model

tests of riprap stability in straight reaches for decelerating flow.

From those tests the coefficient
riprap in an open channel.

C will be determined for bottom

Curves for safe design will be presented

and comparisons will be made between the relations developed and five
existing riprap design methods.
After determining the coefficient

C for bottom riprap, values of

C will be &etermined for riprap on a channel side slope.

Using the

limited information that is available on channel bends, tentative design curves for stable rock size in channel bends will be determined.

A table of factors for converting U. S. customary units of measurement to metric (SI) units is presented on page xi.
2

II.
2-1

MODEL TESTS

Test Facilities
The experimental facilities shown in Figure 2-1 were used to test

riprap stability in decelerating flow.

5 ft.

The channel bottom width is

The channel side slopes were varied from 1V:4H to 1V:2H.

charge in the model ranged from 0-35 cfs.

model ranged from 0-1.3 ft.

Dis-

The depth of flow in the

The channel bottom slope is 0.008 ft/ft.

Dry and wet bed conditions are shown in Plates 2-1 and 2-2,
respectively.
Water used in the operation of the model was supplied by pumps and
discharges were measured by means of calibrated venturi meters.

Steel

rails set to grade along the sides of the flume provided a reference
plane and support for measuring devices.

Water-surface elevations were

measured by means of point gages and velocities were measured by means

of a pitot tube.

Tailwater elevations were regulated by a gate at the

downstream end of the flume.

2-2

Scale Relations
The accepted equations of hydraulic similitude, based upon

the Froude number equality, can be used to express the mathematical

relations between the dimensions and hydraulic quantities of the
models and prototypes.

The general relations expressed in terms of

model scale or length ratio,

, are presented in the following

tabulation:

BAFFLE

I
b

5 FT

....

I
A
~

PLAN VIEW

SECTION A-A

INFLOW
TAILGATE'

0.008 FT/FT

DRAIN-,..
ELEVATION YIEW

FIGURE 2-1
Model Test Facility

V1

PLATE 2.-1

Model Test Facility, Dry Bed

PLATE 2-2

Model Test Facility, Wet Bed

Dimension

Ratio

Length

L
r

Area

Weight

wr .... 13r
for constant g
'

Velocity

vv

Discharge

.... 15/2
Qr
r

....
....

12
r

1/2
....
.... 1
r

Quantitative measurements of discharge, water.... surface elevation,

and velocity in the model can be converted to prototype dimensions by
means of the above scale relations.
2-3

Model Riprap
The rock used for the model riprap was crushed limestone having

a unit weight of 167 lb/ft 3

following sizes:

The model rock is sieved into the

No. 4 (four openings per inch) to 3/8 in., 3/8 to

1/2 in., and l/2 to 3/4 in.

These three sizes are then mixed into

gradations representative of prototype riprap.

The gradation re-

quirements used for these tests are set forth in ETL 1110-2-120 (1).
A sample of each of the three rock sizes was weighed and the
number of stones in the sample was counted.
stone weight was computed.

From this the average

Knowing the average stone weight,

the average spherical diameter,

rock gradations the spherical

D
, was computed.
50
D
50

For the three

sizes were as follows:

w50

Gradation

These values of

0 . 026

0 . 032

0 . 037

were used in the analysis of the data from the

50

tests .
The riprap blanket thickness was equal to one and one-half times
the maximum stone size as set forth in ETL 1110- 2- 120 (1) .

2-4 Test Procedures

Each of the three channel side slopes was tested with three different stone sizes.

For each stone size a minimum of three water

depths were tested .

Prior to each test the channel was molded in sand

to the proper bottom width and side slope.

A nylon cloth was placed

over the sand to act as a filter to prevent leaching of the sand

through the riprap.

The model rock was then placed over the nylon

cloth to the proper blanket thickness .

tailwater high.

Each test was started with the

The discharge was held constant and the tailwater was

lowered in small increments until failure of the rock occurred.

test was run for 2 hr.

Each

Failure was assumed to be the point at which

the rocks began movement and resulted in exposure of the underlying

,
filter cloth.
2-5

Test Results
Results of the model tests conducted on riprap stability in

decelerating flow are shown in Table 2-1.

A plot of n

50

/depth versus

Froude number for channels with 1V:3H and 1V:4H side slopes is shown
in Figure 2-2.

The values plotted represent the tests in which the

riprap failed on the channel bottom or both the channel bottom and the
channel side slopes.

Model tests conducted with 1V:3H or 1V:4H side

slopes generally experienced failure on either the channel bottom or

the channel bottom and the channel side slope.

Model tests conducted

with 1V:2H side slopes experienced failure on the side slopes only in
every test.

A least squares fit of the model test results on channels

with 1V:3H and 1V:4H side slopes results in

D50 = 0 .14F 2 . 3
___,::;-.._
depth

(2)

Previous studies (8) have shown that the relation should be cubic in
F

Comparison of the Froude number concept with existing design cri-

teria (Part III) supports the use of the cubic in

determination of

in Equation 1.

F .

This requires

The relation for incipient motion

for channel bottom riprap in straight reaches adopted for this investiI

gation is
D50
depth
as shown in Figure 2-2.

= 0.22F 3

(3)

The relation for safe design with a factor of

1.5 x incipient motion based on the average stone weight is

D50
depth

(4)

Table 2-1
Model test results
Bottom
Width
(ft)

Side
Slope

D50

(cfs)

Bottom
Slope
(ftlft)

( ft)

Upstream
Depth
(ft)

Downstream
Depth
(ft)

Avg
Depth
(ft)

D /depth
50

FailtjJ2e

20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
20.0

0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

4
4
4
4
4

0.026
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.032

0.81
0.96
1.09
1.20
0.77

0.89
1.04
1.17
1.28
0.85

0.85
1.00
1.13
1.24
0.81

0.54
0.49
0.46
0.45
0.59

0.031
0.026
0.023
0.021
0.040

1
1
2
2
2

25.0
30.0
35.0
20.0
25.0

0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

4
4
4
4
4

0.032
0.032
0.032
0.037
0.037

0.92
1.04
1.15
0.75
0.87

1.0
1.12
1.23
0.83
0.95

0.96
1.08
1.19
0.79
0.91

0.53
0.51
0.49
0.62
0.59

0.033
0.030
0.027
0.047
0.041

2
3
3
1
1

30.0
35.0
20.0
25.0
30.0

0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

4
4
3
3
3

0.037
0.037
0.026
0.026
0.026

1.00
1.13
0.88
1.04
1.18

1.08
1.21
0.96
1.12
1.26

1.04
1.17
0.92
1.08
1.22

0.54
0.50
0.52
0.48
0.45

0.036
0.032
0.028
0.024
0.021

2
2
1
2
2

20.0
25.0
30.0
20.0
25.0

0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

3
3
3
3
3

0.032
0.032
0.032
0.037
0.037

0.82
0.97
1.14
0.81
0.95

0.90
1.05
1.22
0.89
1.03

0.86
1.01
1.18
0.85
0.99

0.58
0.54
0.48
0.60
0.56

0.037
0.032
0.027
0.044
0.037

2
2
2
3
3

30.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
15.0

0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

3
2
2
2
2

0.037
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.032

1.10
0.80
1.00
1.18
0.76

1.18
0.88
1.08
1.26
0.84

1.14
0.84
1.04
1.22
0.80

0.52
0.51
0.47
0.44
0.56

0.032
0.031
0.025
0.021
0.040

3
3
3
3
3

20.0
25.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0

0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

2
2
2
2
2
2

0.032
0.032
0.037
0.037
0.037
0.037

0.96
1.13
0.72
0.93
1.10
1.27

1.04
1.21
0.80
1.01
1.18
1.35

1.00
1.17
0.76
0.97
1.14
1.31

0.50
0.47
0.61
0.53
0.50
0.46

0.032
0.027
0.049
0.038
0.032
0.028

3
3
3
3
3
3

f-J
0

Failtype:

= bottom

only; 2

= bottom

and side slopes; 3

= side

slopes only.

LO

lmm

Dso
DEPTH

OJ

lmt

m!!ml

II

mm

8.-*

mm

I
0.01
0.1

F=
n

50

-==

-~

1.0

Jt DEf'TH

FIGURE 2- 2
/Depth Versus F - Model Test Results , Bottom Ripr ap

11

and a factor of 2.0 x incipient motion based on the average stone

weight is
D50
depth

= 0.28F3

(5)

Velocity profiles were determined for several of the tests and are
shown in Figures 2-3 through 2-9.

12

I--

. .. .. . . ... IJ~. ...... .-..

. .
.. - .
. - .. ..
--
-.. - .. ....... - ....
. .. .. . . ... I.
1-.... .. --. Il ~ .:
I
-

r
., . 1

..

0
-

...

0
0

.,

I~

l
-~r
t

.... ..
" I I
I J.

-4

f II 1l

P:..., T
I <" ~

. ~ l
!

l ' it

I I

...l-~".. f ..I ; t

... , ...

-.

. . I .

!I I;

., \

:;.

..

__ ...
..... ...
.

I I

I ' ]
-I
.I I I
I
1
l1
.
...
. t
....
j
I d I 1111
I~
.
.
.
.
I:
... l . . .
i : : : ~ l i : i11 lti
:l
IT
- - -- --0

j ..
o

1
0

1 t

u!u

. . I .

,.

' L.

.-

-r: .

I'

i f'T I

~I

tI

'

II

s I

..

.1 ! : _! t
Ii II l

I 1

I_J

1-

u .

, . .;

~h - .

~ ~

ill'

... . l

.......

1 "!'" .. ..

; r

f. 1 ,

..

'If ~ ll lif il;

~1 l
I

iT~

-rt

!' '

-~

f I

'

I' I

I t

h
6 ~

t.

'

- ...

. ; . I

..

' ... ""'

..
.
t::.:_
n l;
.. .,. ........ .
......'
~

~:

fH ..

f-.-t

h~ ll l :
li-W
,. - .. ,-;+= . ...
...........
l
: ' ~ . . :q-}. .,. ...
....
.
"'- ...
"
..
;:;:
!r 1i rj- .;:
T-t , .. f-t t
--f

't -ff

' I

J....

l--4

I :...

FIGURE 2-3
15 cfs, Depth = 0 .84 ft, 1V:2HSS, D
50

Velocit y Profile - Q

t
0

:-~.-

... .

'

~
+--

-4-

1I ,

.-..-i
l.~
.
't
...--l
~
--- . ' : -'
. ---. .--.. .....-.....
f-.T
;
;
t;
:r ~vv

..
.
.. . , ..
,:
.
d;
~ :I. ... -4 r +
....r-r
f
! I ~ ...
I II l lL !+ i:H-: ,. . ... r
I
~ ~ 1"' I .._t
J
r. -

...

f-o-

It

~-

I -

~ I I

t iifi~ -111 r+ ~; i

-I r1l :-+:T 1-t ~r""-fl, . .,.I h- .'t-r rt~ . r-,...

L. ,
.....

r;IT

41

, ,.,..--,
.
:if

--
-_j.
rr- .. .. -i

nn

1-.t ..

11.1
.

' I I t

I f-.~w I TI 1 I

1
;

.,

t '

-4

.,

1 ... ..

~~~
'i
~th;
!..1
....
~il::l
.. .. :, .'
-~
y'"!!I
:: 11 ~
. :
--

I:

'

I.__,

-
... ..
. -. . -... . ...
0

'

-~ --

' ,

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

~-..4-

,.

0. 026 f t

......

:
_
..
_
.i ... .:-:. __
- . .. : t.
..

=~.

- .

~~ ~ :.:_: ~~~~= ~..::.:: _j ;

. -i

.: . --1-- . .

. .

-_.

T:: ~

--+-- I
-

0::

. i

l.l,:

... ' I '

I ;

:0

~ :::

~:

.. ... .-~~~ ::t:G:

i:!:
:2_I:..: ! : :
:

I "

14-~

!:

i~

~..i.L

I . . 'I -~-,. I 1 i ; :
:'.t. ~.. ~1 ; :::
1

.,...

t-J..Li..

__;

ii:: ;;;;
i ''
1 ' ''

j! : l : : ! :

t-!

....ttl",

::~

r:

' 1'-

"": ::-:-;
:;jt~

........

1.1:
:

"1-t 'o ""

!:;I
.....

:-d r ::-:: ~~~

ll, LL.U:W.~I;fi~+f.
- !ttlrm'.,!,rr'ffii,.,
i Ti::l:..z.:~~iot :+~ ~: I"
I ~! ~i :.:~.: +i-d
'..
I l '
I" '
I llllt!J!
11!1,1 ! !' !l,:!l !II ::!! i!
I !: !~ ~:: ~! I~~:~[~
ill1
',
i
'
+
! ftl I
~ I~ -:-~. ~~j J,. ~;! ,. .j l
' !-t ,i:~
1l'll
11
~
~11
fJ
Jt
1
I. ..!..!.l.L... .l. .:. .l. f~l...L.L.L..UI
i ill 1- .: ill
jl
J
'i J1 it i ; ~ i : : . : : :
.....

:I
I

,,,

I.

I rr .

I.

'

. 'I J..Ito.

I '.

~ . ~1

:.i

'I:

! : T

i i~

'-H'

i! ;,; +tH ~1~;:

!
I

'

f !

--~ ..:.__r~~~'\.
: i\
\
~~'

I
: ::!:! .,- ; : : j

- -

miTt

I. ~ .;; , : .I .t ;. I
.. , :. : :.+ :-:: l: .: ~
'\. '\.;~ ! ~~ ! 'II rr~ l ,I ... . , ~l~L J

=..:.._ .

4 :tl

.. __ .... , . TT'"'t
l :Titn~m~.:~,
r J..m~m:.ul~mmmlnn
m
-...
~~ !t 1

11

t
:

-;

';,;""'./

0.

I I

0'

"l

i'

I
'

II

, I ..
' ' ' I

..

...
0

, T

.. : .. , . II
f

1:

. '.:

FIGURE 2- 4
Velocity Profile - Q - 20 cfs , Depth = 1 . 04 ft , 1V : 2HSS , D50 - 0 . 026 ft

...

1r+l
0

FIGURE 2-5
25 cfs, Depth = 1.22 ft, 1V:2HSS, D
50

Velocity Profile - Q

0.026 ft

Velocity Profile - Q

FIGURE 2-6
20 cfs, Depth = 0.81 ft, 1V:4HSS, D
50

= 0.037

ft

--I :.. :::I: q 1" j'~ n i I',I i

... ,._ ... ..... t:-2. '

~t

-:

:~~ ~ -~~~\::;~ ~:~~~~tl~ 1ftJ n 1~

....

.. :: ... : .: .

..
.

r:

. .

1-1-1

,.

. . .

. .

-~~

.-

lj
1

'

tf
'.

:;:

111

*I

::

...... .

:J.

:I"T

!j

: -'It''

j .! ' l' l lj

'I -~~I
t,r ,

I':

~ . ~
.
: : 1 j l ;Ito llr
...... ' .P, . . ,,.: .. - --.. ...

'".; -

I
1'1
.

1-+

rl~

~=-...,

-: . -::-_-:-

iJ:.!: -:-;.it ..J._

.ttii :;:1

.
.
~

:.

'!-~"

-..:::~

....

, .. ] ! " '

. .. ..: ....... ~ .. -~;,_;,~.....-..... "".t~ : - ~-

~~
. ,~;;,r.J
,_. ~
~

..

:::.: :

~.

_ . . .,

-~ ::!~~

. :

~
....1
... ___ ,_

,....-....,.;..r

-:
:
1

::-r:

o.

. '-

-=-- :-: f
- - ..
i' .... . ,~ .......
I
I '
-!
~-
-., ...... -...-+--+--+-.........---i-:-t--.---+--

"!'

.!

: : - - ~ -'t'l

' ..

... ,. -

..:

.: . ::;: :~t.:J~ l.tii -,~. ~ ... ~,

.1:1' ;.jl 1-1 ': . ::.: ,' . ,

I 'l l

rt<;- -t-t

H .

j 1 t;

li .. ,~,lj J!L ~~- ~Lt1~~1 ;_;_~~ :i~~lji; ~iff.~:~:t~;~~::

"t

.... ~~ ..... ~- ..... ..

-'-+
!+
~ ~L--- ........ . I
T
~ "
'!'

..' :. .:;j:.::
. I... .n
. :. .";
; ..... : ..
... __
: ~~ ::;: ::: :: !! : :t~! -~ ~ ~

. I . .

~-

. ..~'""~''-'~
!,~~
::,~~"'-.......... ~

i oj

...

--,---r~--,- I

'' I

. .

fj-~::_
j
1'+H
~~~irt}:.
~
~i
11i,l
,
:
o
~:
,
!:
lluil
t-~~
~
'i
t.1j
l
j
!
j
.,h~
-~

-'_t
l
-~,~ui
:
u
J
:
ti~lJi~
t

1
J
~
~
~
l
-~i;IItT~r:-;l!.~~~i~j
,
~:~;
~;F~!;:P:
~;;
~~~
. . . . . . . . . . - ... , ,
. ,. .. 1 J, I i
ri I
.
t
II I
1.u
..1
i r .. -. ,
, j

...:::._

..

1 1 ,:

~~

j'. ' i1

I'

~.L

:j

-f .. . Ll.. ...

'

.t ,+
t +

, . 't"
,
~ ~

~ --H ,

~ , .. _, .. -M--..- .. -

rr-e--

-,--

FIGURE 2-7
Velocity Profile - Q- 25 cfs, Depth = 0 .93 ft, 1V:4HSS, D = 0.037 ft
50
1-'
V1

.:, ..

:2~

..

.... ! . I ' .
__ j; ::: .. .. - ' . ,. 1 '
. :: 1:..::.:.4:-- I . f--

,.,

'
.
, . . f - .... -- ......_..,
I
-.:.
I
.~

rtf:i

'

.. "t.

wmm . .. . .

mmrmimnmm
~
~

'

-~

I t

,._

t++++-41++

~ H
:t- tl
:L !t'+tiji_ ifij~tf~ttt +t4 :~~=;
:~ J . Ji It 1. . q .. T-P ;:r+:- - ..
RHT-i1-Ht!
1 r,. I,,il :;! Itflii r: t .::;,

H~-~-+-

:-1
; ,-: .

!.

~~::. i:: !~: :~. ~~~~~

:x,, "
! 1!
111
ll+l
~
'
I~;,:
-r~:~~
!
:~~~~:.::::
::::~
;-:~~
.~.
~
J!l
. t.'"!.~.~. T+,H.ffi,T+UWU,r.!.U.Ul!L;.. LWU:U-h,~+Hi+-,+1. r..~Irrr~
~.
' .. ! . . : ' . . . '
I

'

II

' '

t
,.
I

___ , . __

:::11~: :

'
..

r--

--. '

.........

!.

....

. ..........~,

~-......::

'

'

...

I '

:.:.j:
,-.;;..___1-...;;:~-.:.
-,......._~
: :::i~: : ::::!:..::. ,~~ : -~~..

oT

illj

!:!

1!1 !i:l'b; ;,j_ I

:t:

I;; ::
I
.. -::-: :-::-:!:-:--:: :-:;: :::-: ~T!,,~t! : ;-; r: l; :i; ;li'~ II ..
I
I ti

; : : ~~ . :: : ! ..
. .

_. -

. . .

I . . . .

~-~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ;

i.:11 ~ ;

. - -

. ' .

. . .

i:

I . '

- .. .. . .. "_......-i .. __..
: :: 1 1 . :
....--__. _. - ._._. ....u._
._
. ! d ...:.! Ul.1..J

: :

,.
r 1' 1
I

l
1
.

, I

11

I .

~-

. ..i. . I _! _, ....
!

~- LJ....I.

':t
I

~ I: '

r',:
1

1l! ' 1
.I .

L:...L.J..U

.. I

I :

!.: ..

,11.!

-:-1
.

,.,I

""T

I.;,.

' ....... ...

if~

Jl ~~;I..

.,...~

~~r

~, .. r ~.: t:.~

..

:t':j

.I

-I . : .
:1:!: ~~trt

.L1_: ,;;:

..

-.

;::: :.:: 1
i:: ::i: ~::. :

'(, 1 :': : ..II1 ::~ i i;' i :_1 '1; L1lTi u 11 ~ ;_( 1~f t }~
HI:
jl!!i 1 II' Wtt fJtl : ~~-.. T,~ .+~:- ......
I:
I : i I I j' I' j I 'U'!I : : r !!1 i : ! . : , :
1 '

I r

I
j ll
1

,..

:_ .Ll-I I

L;

_:1 J .

1
:

!:

illi'

FIGURE 2-8
Velocity Profile - Q- 30 cfs, Depth = 1.06 ft, 1V:4HSS, D
50

..:...

I L: : : : :

'
l..:.. :~ '-,-: ~.1. !' ! :...u.._
. ~-~: L. _-- .

0.037 ft

FIGURE 2-9
Velocity Profile- Q- 35 cfs, Depth= 1.19 ft, 1V:4HSS, n = 0.037 ft
50

III.
3-1

COMPARISON OF MODEL RESULTS WITH EXISTING CRITERIA

St. Anthony Falls Laboratory - University of Minnesota

Al Anderson (2) conducted tests at the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory

to determine a design procedure for riprap lined channels.

stress or tractive force approach is used.

The shear

The critical shear stress

is the amount of shear stress required to initiate particle motion.

The relationship between critical shear stress and particle size as
used by Anderson is shown in Figure 3-1.

The relationship for incip-

ient motion is

(6)
For the design of stable channels, Anderson used the relationship

(7)
The maximum shear stress exerted by the flowing water on the channel
bottom is

(8)

tb = CyRS
where

C is a function of the aspect ratio and is determined from

Figure 3-2.
The Manning roughness coefficient "n" as a function of the mean
particle size is determined from
n

= 0.0395D~~

Solution of this approach to riprap design is an iterative

17

(9)

1.8r-----~-------r------~------r-----~------~------~------

1.6

Sloe Stope

~
.:r 6

)(

elf
C[

?--.

.,

1.4

II

.D

a:

I . .S
1.2

1.00

B/ y

FIGURE 3-2
Maximum Boundary Shear Stress on
Bottom of Trapezoidal Channels (After Anderson ( 2))

19

procedure.

For a given discharge, channel bottom width, side slope,

o50

and channel bottom slope, a

is assumed and the critical shear

stress is computed from Equation 7.

is determined from Equation 9.
depth of flow.

The Manning roughness coefficient

The Manning equation is solved for the

The tractive force exerted by the flowing water is de-

termined from Equation 8.

If the tractive force determined from Equa-

tion 8 is equal to the critical shear stress determined from Equation 7

the solution is complete.

If not, a new

o50

is assumed and the pro-

cedure is repeated until Equations 7 and 8 agree.

Rock sizes for typical channel discharges, bottom widths, side
slopes, and channel bottom slopes are determined using Anderson's approach and

o50 /depth

and Froude numbers are computed for each condition.

Incipient motion and safe design conditions are shown in Table 3-1
and Table 3-2, respectively, and plotted in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4,
respectively.

Also shown on the figures is the curve for incipient

motion as determined from the model tests of decelerating flow.

0

50 - 0. 22F 3
_.:;....;...._
depth
Values of

o50 /depth

(3 bis)

and Froude number computed by Anderson's approach

for incipient motion agree with the results of the model tests.

least-squares fit of these values results in

0

50 - 0. 234F 2 " 87
___,;;_
depth

20

(10)

TABLE 3-1

BOTTOM RIPRAP SIZES FOR mCIPIENT MOTION BY ANDERSON METHOD

DISCHARGE
CFS
15795
21904
25751
40919
56744
66712
70917
98343
115619
121045
167857
197345
170719
236742
278331
14116
20358
24137
35166
50719
60134
63376
91405
108373
105934
152784
181146.
152566
220039
260887
12384
18802
22503
29621.
44973
53825
55601
84420
101035
91092
138305
165526
133849
203224
243223

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
000501
001337
002172
000237
o.oo633
001029
000251
000668
001086
000159
000424
000689
000167
000446
000724
000416
o.o1247
002079
000198
000595
000991
000208
000624
001039
000132
000397
000661
000139
000416
Q.QQ693
000330
001156
001982
000161
000562
000964
000165
000578
000991
000106
000373
000639
000110
000385
000661

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300.
300
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300

SIDE DSO
SLOPE
FT
060
4
4
1 60
260
4
060
4
1. 60
4
260
4
060
4
1. 60
4
260
4
060
4
1 60
4
260
4
060
4
1. 60
4
260
4
o.so
3
1. so
3
250
3
o.so
3
1 50
3
250
3
o.so
3
150
3
250
3
o.so
3
150
3
250
3
o.so
3
1. so
3
250
3
040
2
1 40
2
240
2
040
2
1. 40
2
240
2
040
2
1 40
2
240
2
040
2
2.
140
240
2
040
2
140
2
240
2

21

DEPTH

DSO/D

FT
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300

0060
0160
0260
0030
0080
0130
0030
0080
0130
0020
0053
0087
0020
0053
0087
o.oso
0150
0250
0025
0075
0125
0025
0075
0125
0017
0050
0083
0017
o.oso
0083
0040
0140
0240
0020
0070
0120
0020
0070
0120
0013
0047
0080
0013
0047
0080

0629
0872
1026
0448
0622
0731
0499
0692
0814
0406
0563
0662
0436
0605
0711
0605
0873
1035
0433
0625
0741
0481
0693
0822
0392
0565
0670
0420
0605
0718
0575
0874
1046
0417
0633
0758
0457
0693
0830
0376
0571
0683
0399
0606
0725

TABI.E 3-2
B>TTOM RlPRAP S rz~ POR SAFE DESIGN BY' mDEHSON METHOD

DISCHARGE
CFS
14128
19591
23033
36599
50754
59669
63430
87961
103413
108266
150136
176511
152696
211748.
248946
12625
18209
21589
31454
45364
53786
56686
81755
96932
94750
136654
162022
136459
196809
233344
11 076
16817
20127
26494
40225
48143
49731
75507
90369
81475
123704
148051
119718
181769
217545

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
000401
001069
001738
000190
000507
000823
000201
000535
000869
000127
000339
000551
000134
000356
000579
000333
000998
001663
000159
000476
000793
000166
000499
000832
000106
000318
000529
000111
000333
000554
000264
000925
001586
000129
000450
000771
000132
000463
000793
000085
000298
000511
000088
000308
000529

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
1 oo.
100
100

too.

100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100

too.

100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300

SIDE D50
SLOPE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

22

"

060
160
260
060
160
260
060
l 60
260
060
160
260
060
160
260
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
040
140
240
040
140
240
040
140
240
040
1. 40
240
040
1 40
240

DEPTH

D50/D

FT
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300

0060
0160
0260
0030
0080
0130
0030
0080
0130
0020
0053
0087
0020
0053
0087
0050
0150
0250
0025
0075
0125
0025
0075
0125
0017
0050
0083
0017
0050
0083
0040
0140
0240
0020
0070
0120
0020
0070
0120
0013
0047
0080
0013
0047
0080

0563
0780
0917
0401
0556
0654
0447
0619
0728
0363
0503
0592
0390
0541
0636
0542
0781
0926
0388
0559
0663
0430
0620
0735
0351
0506
0600
0375
0542
0642
0515
0781
0935
0373
0566
0678
0409
0620
0742
0336
05 11
0611
0357
0542
0648

LO

1m

1m

t:

Dso
DEPTH

0.1

~ ~

It

* ..
-=
I

as~

~~

l~ft

III I

0.01

1.0

0.1

n50

rw

FIGURE 3-3
/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Anderson, Incipient Motion
23

Dso
DEPTH

..
M

w~

rnwmt.tttt:m:t:t:mtumfmm~~wmmmmmtm~+mmu
~01

1111111

0.1

50

~~

~
I

1.0

FIGURE 3-4
/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Anderson, Safe Design

24

Values computed for safe design are on the safe side of the curve
predicted by the model tests.

A least squares fit of these values re-

sults in
D50 = 0.323F2.87
depth
3-2

(11)

Li, Simons, Blinco, Samad

Li, Simons, Blinco, and Samad (3) developed a riprap design method

whereby the probability of failure or a safety factor could be incorporated into the design procedure.
in this method.

The tractive force concept is used

The analysis of the forces acting on a single particle

includes the lift force that acts on that particle whether on a channel
bed or bank.

The equation defining the safety factor in the design is

'

(12)

F.S. where

SlZe,
ft
average
stone
D50
3
lb/ft
weight
of
stone,
unit
ys

yw
6

unit weight of water, lb/ft

- side slope angle

o-

proportionality number, ft

ll.l4D

50
- 0.85 + cot

where
<P -

angle of repose

8 - ratio of lift to drag - 0.85

25

<P

(13)

The proportionality number

riprap

50

= oo .

relates drag force to shear force.

grteater than 6 in.,

For incipient motion,

into Equation 12 and solving for

= 41 .

F.S.
T

= 1.0

For

For channel bottom riprap,

and

Substituting

(14)

This is the Shields' (10) equation as modified by Gessler (11).

The tractive force exerted by the flowing water is
2

(15)

2.5 ln (12.3 depth)

D50

where
p - density of water

'

V - mean velocity in the vertical, at channel center line,

ft/sec
depth - water depth, ft

50

- average stone size, ft

This equation is based on the velocity distribution equation developed

by Keulegan (12).
An analysis of the velocity profiles presented in Figures 2-3 to
2-9 show that the mean velocity in the vertical is 1.2
velocity.

mean channel

The test channels have an aspect ratio of about 5.

For an

infinitely wide channel the average velocity in the vertical is equal

26

to the mean channel velocity.

Prototype channels generally fall some-

where in between these extremes.

In using the Li approach

V (average velocity in vertical)

= 1.1 V (average channel velocity)

Solution of this method requires assuming a

the proportionality number
Tb

from Equation 15.

tion 12.

(16)

and determining

50

from Equation 13 and the tractive force

Then the safety factor is determined from Equa-

The procedure is repeated until the desired safety factor is

reached.
Rock sizes for typical channel discharges, bottom widths, side
slopes, and channel bottom slopes are determined using the Li approach,
and n

50

/depth and Froude numbers are computed for each condition.

In-

cipient motion conditions are shown in Table 3-3 and plotted in Figure 3-5.

Also shown in Figure 3-5 is the curve for incipient motion

as determined for the model tests of decelerating flow.

D50
depth

-.:.-- - 0 22F

Values of n

(3 bis)

/depth and Froude numbers computed by the Li approach

50
are less than the incipient motion results obtained from the model
tests of riprap stability in decelerating flow.

A least-squares fit

of these values results in

D50 = 0 .12F 3 . 2
-.:.-depth
This further supports the use of a cubic relation in

27

(17)
F .

TABIE }-'

BOT'.rolaf RIPRAP S tzp.s JOR INCIPIENT KO'l'ION BY l.I IIEmDD

DISCHARGE

CFS
20681.
27549
31192
60105
82150
94624
93497
127789
147192
171084
236706
274817
224547
310677
360697
18131
25137
28690
50250
71610
83188
81656
116366
135180
145554
210167
246149
195745
282639
331028
15576
22768
26220
40743
61353
71953.
69845
105176
123348
120664
184318
217994
167073
255209
301838

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
000488
o.ot30l
o. 02115
000244
000651
001057
000244
000651
001057
000163
000434
000705
000163
000434
000705
000407
001220
002034
000203
000610
001017
000203
000610
001017
000136
000407
000678
000136
000407
000678
000325
001139
001952
000163
000569
000976
000163
000569
000976
000108
000380
000651
000108
000380
000651

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
100.
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300

SIDE D50
SLOPE

"

060
160
260
060
160
260
060
160
260
060
160
260
060
160
260
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
040
140
240
040
140
240
040
140
240
040
140
240
040
140
240

4
4
4
4

''-

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

28

DEPTH

"

100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300

D50/D

0060
0160
0260
0030
0080
0130
0030
o.o8o
0130
0020
0053
0087
0020
0053
0087
0050
0150
0250
0025
0075
0125
0025
0075
0125
0017
0050
0083
0017
0050
0083
0040
0140
0240
0020
0070
0120
0020
0070
0120
0013
0047
0080
0013
0047
0080

0824
1097
1242
0658
0900
1036
0658
0900
1036
0574
0794
0922
0574
0794
0922
0778
1078
1231
0619
Oe882
1025
0619
0882
1025
0539
0778
0911
0539
0778
0911
0724
1058
1218
0574
0864
1013
0574
0864
1013
0498
0761
0900
0498
0761
0900

I
,

Dso
DEPTH

0.1

1111!114
-~

~
~01

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ww~~~~~~

1.0

0.1

FIGURE 3-5

n ;Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Li, Incipient Motion

50

29

3-3

Ramette
Ramette (5) conducted tests of riprap stability for channel side

slopes.

The shear stress or tractive force approach is used.

From

Ramette's results for riprap on channel side slopes, the equation developed by Lane (6)

f(e) - cos e 1 -

tan
tan

2
2

(18)

~
t

was used to determine stability criteria for channel bottoms.

The crit-

ical tractive force as computed by Ramette is

(19)
The tractive force exerted by the flowing water is

v
8.48 + 5. 75
where

= velocity

at 0.8

depth.

log c d;~~h)

2
(20)

For design of side slope riprap,

the velocity is taken at the toe of the slope.

For design of bottom

riprap, the velocity is taken at the center line of the channel.

An

analysis of the velocity profiles shown in Figures 2-3 to 2-9 gives

the relation
V(0.8 depth at center line)

= 1.3

x V(average channel velocity) (21)

Solution of this approach to riprap design is an iterative procedure.

For a given discharge, channel bottom width, side slope, and

30

n 50 is assumed and the critical shear stress

channel bottom slope, a

is computed from Equation 19.

The tractive force

water is determined from Equation 20.

solution is complete..

ex~rted

by the flowing

If the values obtained agree, the

If not, a new n

is assumed and the procedure

50

is repeated.
Rock sizes for typical channel discharges, bottom widths, side
slopes, and channel bottom slopes are determtned using Ramette's criteria and n
tion.

50

/depth and Froude numbers are computed for each condi-

Incipient motion conditions are shown in Table 3-4 and plotted

in Figure 3-6.

Also shown in Figure 3-6 is the curve for incipient

motion as determined from the model tests of riprap stability in decelerating flow.

D50 _

depth- 0.22F
Values of n

/depth and Froude

n~bers

(3 bis)

computed by the Ramette ap-

50
proach agree for incipient motion of cnannel bottom riprap.

A least-

square fit of these values results in

D50
depth
3-4

= 0.27F2.8

( 22)

Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers criteria for designing channel riprap is set

forth in EM 1110-2-1601 (4).

2-120 (1).

These criteria were amended by ETL 1110-

The shear stress or tractive force approach is used.

critical shear stress is estimated by the Shields' equation.

31

The

TABT.E

~-4

:OOT'roM RIPRAP SIZES R>R INCIPIENT MOTION BY RAMETTE METHOD

DISCHARGE
CFS
14779
20704
24229
41818
59471
70246
65051
92510
109272
117469
168310
199716
154178
220907
262127
12858.
18818
22220.
34748
51684
61621
56465
83986
100133
99395
149045
178543
133670
200440
240110
10950
16975
20247
27975
44141
53178
47957.
75671
91163
81879.
130353
157813
113370
180489
218510

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
000506
. 001350
002193
000253
000675
001096
000253
000675
001096
000169
000450
000731
000169
000450
000731
000422
001265
002109
000211
000633
001054
0. 00211
000633
001054
000141
000422
'
000703
000141
000422
o.oo7 o3
000337
001181
002024
000169
000590
001012
000169
000590
001012
o.oo112
000394
000675
000112
000394
00067~

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
100
100
100
100
100
2-00
200
200
200
,
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300

SIDE

D50

DEPTH

D50/D

0060
0160
0260
0030
0080
0130
0030
0080
0130
0020
0053
0087
0020
0053
0087
0050
0150
0250
0025
0075
0125
0025
0075
0125
0017
0050
0083
0017
0050
0083
0040
0140
0240
0020
0070
0120
0020
o. 070
0120
0013
0047
0080
0013
0047
0080

0589
0825
0965
0458
0651
0769
0458
0651
0769
0394
0564
0670
0394
0564
0670
0552
0807
0953
0428
0637
0759
0428
0637
0759
0368
0552
0661
0368
0552
0661
0509
0789
0941
0394
0622
0749
0394
0622
0749
0338
0538
0651
0338
0538
0651

SLOP~

FT
Oe60
160
260
060
1 60
260
060
160
2 .. 60
060
1 60
260
060
160
260
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
050
150
250
040
140
240
.040
140
240
040
140
240
040
1. 40
240
040
140
240

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

"4

4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

32

FT

100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
100
100
1 o. 0
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300

Dso
DEPTH

0.1

II
I#

FmfGl~

till!

~J]~

**

--~
~ tm
kt

50

fiR

FIGURE 3- 6
/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap , Ramette , Incipient Motion

33

(23)
This equation represents the safe design condition.
The tractive force exerted by the flowing water is based on the
velocity distribution developed by Keulegan (12).
-2

12.2 depth
1
32.6 og
D
50
where

V = average

(24)

velocity in vertical from Equation 16.

Additional guidance set forth in ETL 1110-2-120 (1) requires that

the tractive force determined in Equation 24 be multiplied by 1.5 if
the flow is not at or near normal depth.
"Equation (32) is based on the assumptions of fully rough flow
conditions and normal logarithmic vertical velocity distribution
produced by uniform channel flow.

Fully rough flow conditions, in the

range indicated on Hydraulic Design Chart 631, normally occur in channels which require riprap protection, but significant deviations from
the normal logarithmic vertical velocity distribution occur in channels
which have nonuniform cross sections, varying slopes, and different bed
and bank roughness coefficients.

Thus, unless a uniform channel cross

section with identical bed and bank riprap material occurs on a constant slope over a sufficient distance to produce uniform channel flow
at normal depth and velocity, maximum local boundary shear values will
be greater than indicated by Equation (32), due to greater localized
velocities and pressure pulsations.

As the effects of contributing

34

factors to deviations from normal logarithmic vertical velocity distribution have not been established, values of local boundary shear
computed from Equation (32) should be increased by a factor of 1.5,
except when flow is at or near -normal depth in a channel with uniform

cross section and equal bed and side roughness." (1)

By adding the factor outlined in ETL 1110-2-120 (1), the tractive
force exerted by the flowing water is
-2

32.2 1 og

12.2 depth

(25)

50
Solution of this method requires assuming a

50

and solving

Equation 23 for the critical shear stress and Equation 25 for the tractive force.
new

o50

If the values agree, the solution is complete.

If not, a

is assumed and the procedure is repeated.

Rock sizes for typical channel discharges, bottom widths, side

slopes, . and channel bottom

slop~s

are determined using the Corps of

Engineers approach and

each condition.

o50 /depth

and Froude numbers are computed for

Safe design conditions are shown in Table 3-5 and

plotted in Figure 3-7.

Also shown in Figure 3-7 is the curve for

incipient motion as determined from the model test of riprap stability

in decelerating flow.
"I

'

D50
3
- - - 0.22F
depth

(3 bis)

Values of n /depth and Froude numbers for safe design computed by the
50

35

TABI,E

}-5

BOTTOM RIPRAP SIZF$ FOR S.APE DESIGN BY C.O.E. IIE'IHOD

DISCHARGE
CFS
1SS24
20673
23401
45126
61660 ..
71011~

70196
95916
110461
128457
177689
206267
168600
233217
270726
13611
18863
21S24
37728
53750
62429 ...
61309
87344
101448
1 09292
157770
1847S3
146980"
212173.
248461
11694
17086
19672
30591
46052
53999
52442
78947
92570
90607
138368.
163623
125455
191586.
226554

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
o.0041S
001107
o. ot798
000207
o.oo553
000899
000207
000553
000899
000138
000369
OOOS99
000138
000369
o.OOS99
000346
001037
001729
000173
000519
000865
o. oo173
000519
000865
000115
o. oo346
000576
000115
000346
000576
000277
000968
001660
000138
000484
000830
000138
000484
000830
000092
000323
000553
000092
o. oo323
000553

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
100
100
1 oo .
1 oo.
100
200
200
200
2oo.
200
2oo.
300
300
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
3oo.
300
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
2oo.
300
300
3oo.

SIDE DSO
SLOPE
FT
060
4
1 60
4
260
4
060
4
160
4
260
4
4
060
1 .60
4
2"60
4
060
4
4
60
260
4
4
o-.6o
1.. 60
4
4"
2"60
o.so
3
3 . lSO
2~SO
3
o. so
3
1"50
3
2-.so
3
o. -so
3
1.-so
3 '
2"SO
3
3 "
050
, . so
3
2 . 5o
3
o. so
3~
1- so
3
2-.so
3
2 . o.-4o
1"40
2
2 ..
2"40
o. 4o
2
1".. 40
2
2 ..
2 .. 40
o. 4o
2
2.
140
2"40
2
040
2
2 ..
1"40
2 ".. 40
2
040
2
2 ...
, ... 40
240
2

36

DEPTH
FT
100
10~0

1 o. o
200
2o.o
200
20 0
2o .o
2o.o
30... 0
3o.-o
30 .. 0
300
3o.-o
3o.o
1 o.-o
1 o. o
10 .. 0
200
20 -~0

2o .-o
200
20.-o
2o-.o
300
300
30" 0
30" 0
3o.-o
30 .. 0
1o. o
100
1 o. o
2o. o
2o.-o
2o.-o
200
2o. o
200
30" 0
3o.-o
30 .. 0
3o. o
3o.o
300

DSO/D

0060
0160
0260
0030
o. o8o
0130
0030
0080
o 130
o.-o2o
o.os3
o. -o87
o.o2o
o. os3
0087
o.-oso
01SO
02SO

0618
0823
0932
0494
0675
0"778
0494
067S
0778
0431
OS96
0692
o 431
OS96
0692
o. s84
0809
0923
046S
0" 662
0769

0~02S

o. o75
o 12S
o. o2s
o.o7s
0125
o. o17
o.-oso
o. o83
o. o11
o~oso

o. o83
0040
o-.140
0240
o.-o2o
0070
0"120
0020
0070
0~120

0013
0047
0080
0013
0~047

o. o8o

o~ 46S

o. -662
0"769
0404
o-.s84
0 "684
o. 4o4
0584
0684
OS43
0794
o-.914
0431
0649
0760
0431
0649
0760
0374
0571
o67S
0"374
0571
0675

"'t. ...

'

'

' &''

Dso

0.1

DEPTH
..

_,

,, '
r

..

.....
!IIi

~. $

fl

..

f! ~..t-H+e
1.0

..
. ..

50

FIGURE 3-7
/Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, CE, Safe Design

37

Corps of Engineers approach fall on the curve for incipient motion

determined from the model tests.

A least-squares fit of these values

results in
D50 = 0. 29F 3 2
____._
depth

(26)

3-5 Isbash
Isbash (13) conducted riprap stability tests by dropping rounded
stones into flowing water.

The Isbash criteria are used in Hydraulic

Design Criteria (14) Sheet No. 712-1 for sizing riprap below stilling
basins and for low turbulence river closures.

The ASCE task committee

on preparation of sedimentation manual recommends the Isbash formula

for riprap design.
The Isbash equation for stable rock size in low turbulence river
closures is
1/2

v = 1.2

(D

2g

50

)1/2

Hydraulic Design Chart 712-1 is shown in Figure 3-8.

(27)

The curves for

low turbulence should be used in designing channel riprap.

Rock sizes for typical channel discharges, bottom widths, side
slopes, and channel bottom slopes are determined using the Isbash
criteria and D /depth and Froude numbers are computed for each con50
dition.

Safe design conditions are shown in Table 3-6 and plotted in

Figure 3-9.

Also shown in Figure 3-9 is the curve for incipient

38

,.

'1-/fl . '1-

r=

-~

-#

rr

' - ~~'~

1- ~

t-'"-

TJ"

,-

'
~

-"

..

...

....

w
~

I"

\0

-...

Ill I

r!fiJ

711
11 J

r-7iJ:

-T

7 II

rfrl If/

' .

... ~--

II
AvtltAGl YlLOCITY, '~I

IASIC EQUATIONS

r: (,.,_.,_),1'
.12( )"'
rw ~ 0 50

Cl2g

3
tW$0 )"

0 so ( nl's

WHtM:

IPHIIt1CAL OIAM(T!It 0 50 , FT
V
vtLOCITY, FPS
Yt II'ICIFIC STOHl WIIGHT, L8/P'TJ
Yw SPICifiC W[ICOHT or WAT(ft, 11.5 LIIP'TJ

Wto W(IGHT OF STOH[. SU81Cit1PT ONOT[S

PCitCNT M TOTAL WEIGHT M MATllttAL
CONTAINING STON( M LIIS W[IGHT.
Dto IPH(ftiCAL OIAWTIIt M STOHl HAv.NG
TH( SAW( wttGHT AS Wte
C
IS8ASH C:OHSTANT (O.C. rOit MtGH
T~IHCI LEvt\. rLOW AHO 1.10
,Oit LOW TUitlt\.t.EMCI Ll11. fLOW)
t
ACClLfltAT10N OF' GltAYITY, "IKC:1

STONE STABILITY
VELOCITY VS STONE DIAMETER
HYOitA~IC

HSIGM C:HAitT 111 -I

(SHUT I OF~

wue-P

\.

FIGURE 3-8 (Sheet l of 2)

Isbach- Velocity Versus Stone Diameter (from Hydraulic Design Criteria (14))

!
f

10,000

--

10.000

I
i

..

'

..
~

~aoAA.~~~~-~~~~~~-r~-f

I,-

.II

t- 1-

+::-

1.11

l--+--+-+-4-41f-+l I
Ill II J

....,.

'

J/1

II

1/ll

~~~ ~

11/<JIJII

'.

....

., c..

.. ..j ~o,

Ill

..

..
J

1-

Jlf r/1/l/1/

~~Ill

..

1 ..

1- ~
1- I

I - t-

...

IJ
~-

i.'il
V:

ll~~

t.t

..

.. 10

JO

AvtltAGI VI:&.OCITl,

IASIC EQUATIONS

WH[It[:

~ (7s-Tw}~'

12

C 2t

(0 10) " '

iff:"

Oao ( ew )'"

I"

1-

3 .0

'~~'I

V
?1

'i

1-i

e,oooL-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.u~~~~~

10

v.
'

: ~ ~~ ~[I~~ ~

1-

1/.!'fh/~~1-H+I

1-

II

v 1!1

MIJ

Cl""

1-- - I-

11 I I I /liP/ J
I if 1/ 'I '
II I

U~~rr~n:~fJ~+I-+H-H--4-1-4-4-++H

~4~~~.~ ~~~~~~~~HH~~~~~~++++~~~~-+~+;

/-,-

~~~4-~~J~~/~j

l~. f-1 ~
~

.. .

~ f .r.' I

::~ l ~ LOW
141 r ~ ''"~"

III
Ill

- f-

II

.o

s.o

t .O
PHlltiCAL OIAW(Tlft 0 10 , FT

f.O

1.0

1.0 10.0

VI:&.OCITY, ' " '

SII'I:C"IC STONI: WI:IGHT, &..1/'TJ

fw .SP[C"IC W[IGHT OF' WATlfl, II.S L81FTJ
w10 W[IGHT CW Sf(IN( . SUBSCftlf'T O[NOT[S
P[fiC[NT CW TOTAL MIGHT CW MATlfiiAL
CONTAINING STONE 0' LESS WEIGHT
Dso SPHlltiCAL OIAMETEII CW ITOH[ HAVING
THE SAME WEIGHT AS Wso
C
ISIASH CONSTANT (O.M 'Oit HIGH
TUitiUt..rHC[ LlV&. 'LOW ANO 1.10
'Oit &.OW TURIU&.EHCI &.lVO. 'LOW)
t
ACCIL[ItATIOH CW C.ltAVITY, 'fiS(tl

STONE STABILITY
VELOCITY VS STONE DIAMETER
H'tOitAULIC DitcH CHAitT fll-1
~lTIMI)

MV IN,17e

wu ,

FIGURE 3-8 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Isbach- Velocity Versus Stone Diameter (from Hydraulic Design Criteria (14))
..

TABLE 3-6
BOTTOM R!PRAP

SIZ~

FOR SAFE DESIGN BY ISBASH METhOD

DISCHARGE
CFS
..

13382
21853
27857
31&4 11.
56192
71632
53528 "
87410
111427"
91762.
149846
t91017 ..
120437
196673
25071 o.-1131&3"
19647
25365
27922"
48363 "
62436
45374 ...
78589
101459"
75914
131486 ...
169748"
102091
176826
228282 ..
9365 "
17521
22940"
21853
40882 ..
53528 ..
37462 ...
7 0084
91762"
60875"
113887...
149113 . .
84289 "
157690...
206464

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
000415
o. 01107
001798
000207
000553
o . oo899
000207
o . oo553
o . oo899
o . -oot38
o. 00369
o . oos99
o.-oo 138
000369
o.-oos99
000346
0 " 01037
o-.ot729
o.-oot73
o-.oos19
o. -oos6s
o.oo173
o. -oost9
o. oo865
o.-oo1ts
o-.oo346
o. -oo576
000115
o.- 00346
0" 00576
o-.oo277
000968
o . ot660
o..-oo138
.o .- oo.ta84
o .- oo830
o.- oo 138
o. oo484
o. 00830
000092
o. oo323
000553
o. ooo92
o. oo323
o. -ooss3

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
100
1 00
100
1 oo.
too.
2oo .
2oo.
200"
2oo.
2oo.2oo.
3oo.3oo.3oo.
too-.
1 oo.
1oo.aoo
100
too-.
2oo.2oo.2oo-.
2oo.
200-.
200
3oo.
3oo.3oo.1 oo.1oo.
too.
too .
1oo.1 oo-.
2oo.200 ...
2oo.
2oo.2oo.2oo.3oo.3oo-.
3oo.-

SIDE DSO
SLOPE;
4

'44"
"
~a .

~a.-

I&

"
"...
..

~a ;

4 ...
~~ -.-

I&.-

"...
3 ...
3 ..
3 ...
3 ...
3-.
3 ..
3-.
3
3 ..
3 ...

3
3
3 "
3 ...
3
2 "
2
2 "
2 ..
2 ...
2 "
2
2 "
2 ..
2 ..
2 ..
2 ...
2 ..
2 ...
2-.

FT
060
1~60

2 "60
060
1" 60
2 .; 60
o.- 60
160
2 " 60
o.--6o
1 .. 60
2 "60
o-.6o
60
2 .. 60
o-.so
50
2-.so
o.so
a. -so
2-. ~o

o-.so
1" 50
2 " 50
o-.so
1.so
2" 50
o. -so
1" 50
2 . -so
o.- 40
1" 40
2 " 40
o. -4o
1-.40
2 " 40
o .t&o
, . 40
2 .. 40
o. -4o
, ... 40
2 ". -40
o. 4o
1. . 40
2 . . 40

DEPTH

DSO/D

FT
100
100
1 o.-o
20" 0
2o-.o
20 " 0
20 ... 0
200
200
30 .. 0
30"0
3o.-o
3o. o
3o.-o
30" 0
1 o. o
t o-.o
to-.o
2o. o
2o.o
2o.-o
20 0
2o.o
2o o
3o.-o
30" 0
300
3o.-o
3o.o
30 .. 0
1 o.-o
10 .. 0
10 .. 0
20 ... 0
~o-. o

20"0
20" 0
2o.-o
20 .... 0
30 ..'0
3o.-o
30 .... 0
30" 0
30 .... 0
3o-.o

0060 0533
0 " 160 0870
o.-260
1" 11 0
o ~ o3o
0377
0080 o;.615
o..-130 0" 785
o. -o3o o.-377
o-.o8o o. -615
o.- 130 0785
o.o2o 0308
o. -o53 0503
o. -o87 "" 0. 641
0"020 0" 308
o . os3 0503
o . o87 0641
o-.o5o 0487
0" 150 0843
o .2so 1088
oo2s o. 344
o-.s96
oo1s
o.12s Oe769
o . -o2s 0" 344
o-.o7s 0596
o.-12s 0769
o.-o17 0281
ooso 0" 487
o. o83 0628
o. 011 0"281
o-.o5o 0487
o. o83 0"628
o-.o.t&o 0 " 435
o.-140 08tl&
0" 240 1066
o .- o2o 0" 308
o.-o7o 0576
o.-t2o 0" 754
0020 o-.3o8
o.o1o 0576
o.-t2o 0 754
o. -o13 o.-251
o . 0111 0"470
o...-o8o o. -615
o..-ot3 o.-251
o.- 047 0" 470
o. o8o o. -6t s

41

EE
~~
~~

!::E:

~
;E:

~E

F=E:

~~

~
EE
EE
f::E

I+

:m

I
I

Dso

O.l

DEPTH
,.

Iff

I
Mit

~~

IW

I*

~
E::
t:

II

ffi11

'

if!:

=
H

-~

K
~
I II

0.01
0.1

--

I II I

1.0

FIGURE 3- 9
n50 /Depth Versus F - Bottom Riprap, Isbach , Safe Design

42

motion as determined from the model test of riprap stability in decelerating flow.
D50
~
depth

Values of n

50

= 0.22F3

( 3 bis)

/depth and Froude numbers for safe design computed by the

Isbash approach fell on

th~

Froude numbers less than

safe side of tQe incipient motion curve for

1.9. A

least-squ~es

fit of these values

results in
D
I

50, =

dept~

o. 21F2 0

(28)

43
I

,I

IV.

DEVELOPMENT OF SIDE SLOPE CRITERIA

The coefficient

C in Equation l will be determined for riprap

on channel side slopes. Results from the model tests will be used to
determine
4-l

C and this value will be... compared -to existing criteria

Model Tests
Tests of the lV:4H and lV:3H channels.showed that failure occurred

on both the channel bottom and the channel side slopes.

Therefore the

equation for channel bottom riprap at incipient motion

D50
depth

= 0.22F 3

(3 bis)

is applicable to channel side slope riprap at incipient motion for side

slopes of lV:3H or flatter.
The results of the model tests of the 1V:2H channel are shown in
Table 2-1.
only.

In every test, the 1V:2H channel failed on the side slope

A plot of D /depth versus Froude number for these tests is

50

shown in Figure 4-l.

The relationship for incipient motion for riprap

on a lV:2H side slope as shown in Figure 4-l is

D50
depth
4-2

= 0.25F 3

(29)

Existing Criteria
Anderson's criteria for sizing riprap on channel side slopes are

also based on the tractive force or shear stress method.

The critical

shear stress that is required to initiate motion is reduced by the

44

'

Dso
DEPTH

0.1

II

~01

uu~~~llll~~~~~~~~ww~~~~~~~~~~~~

0.1

F=

1.0

JtOErrH

FIGURE 4-1
D5o/Depth Versus F - 1V:2H Side
Slope Riprap, Model Tests, Incipient Motion

__./ I

factor

K which is a function of the angle of the side slope

the angle of repose of the material

. 2

s~n

1 -

e and

(30)

. 2 "''f'

s~n

The critical shear stress for incipient motion for channel side
slopes is

=5D

50

(31)

The critical shear stress for safe design for channel side slopes

~s

(32)

The tractive force exerted by the flowing water on the channel

side slope is
T

= CyRS

(33)

where

C is a function of the aspect ratio and is determined from

Figure

4-2.

Solution of Anderson's approach to side slope riprap is the same

as Anderson's approach to channel bottom riprap.
Rock sizes for typical channel

disch~ges,

bottom widths, and

channel bottom slopes are determined for 1V:2H side slopes using
Anderson's approach and

o50 /depth

and Froude numbers are computed for

46

2.0

1.8

1.6

SII:J' .Si.

Op~

)(

- '*
0

z,.

0::

..

II

1.4

a:
0

1.2

1.0

o.8

1.$

~----_.------~------~------~----~----~~------~----~

ely
FIGURE 4-.2

Maximum Boundary Shear Stress on

Sides of Trapezoidal Channels (After Anderson (2))

47
I

each condition.

Incipient motion conditions are shown in Table 4-1.

By comparing incipient motion conditions for 1V:2H side slopes from

Table 4-1 to incipient motion conditions for channel bottoms from
Table 3-1, a relation between the two conditions can be determined for
the value

C to be used in Equation 1.
Cl:2SS

(34)

= 1 135CBOTTOM

Equation 1 for incipient motion for 1V:2H side slopes becomes

D50
3
depth = 0.25F

(35)

based on the ratio of Anderson's bottom criteria to side slope

criteria.
The riprap stability criteria presented by Ramette was based on
'

..

tests of channel side slopes of 1V:2H and 1V:3H.

Incipient motion rock

sizes are determined by solving Equations 18, 19, and 20.

The veloc-

ity used in Equation 20 is taken 0.8 depth above the toe of the slope.
Based on the velocity profiles in Figures 2-3 to 2-9, this value can
be estimated by
V(0.8 depth above toe) - 1.2V(average channel velocity)

(36)

Incipient motion rock sizes for typical channel discharges, bottom widths, and channel bottom slopes are determined for 1V:2H side
slopes using Ramette's approach and

n50 /depth

and Froude numbers are

computed for each condition as shown in Table 4-2.

48

By comparing rock

TAN.g

4-1

SIDE SLOPE RIPRAP SIZES FOR DiCIPIENT MOTION BY ANDERSON METHOD

DISCHARGE

21575"..
28399 "

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
o.oo304
o. o 1 063
o-.o1822
000148

43119 "~

o ~o0517

51606"
53309
80939
96869
87335
132602
158701
128330
194844
233193

o . oo886
000152
000531
000911
000098
000342
000587
o. oo1o1
000354
o. oo607

CFS
11873
18027 "~

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
100
100
180
1 oo.
1 oo .
200 ~

2oo.
2oo.
2oo.
200
2oo.
3oo-.
3oo.300

SIDE DSO
SLOPE
FT
040
2
1 "~40
2 "
2 ...
2 "~40
o-.-4o
2 "
2 "
1" 40
2 ".2 ""40
o.4o
2
1.-40
2 "
2 "~40
2 "
2
0" 40
1 "~40
2 "
2 ".2".-40
o-.4o
2 "
1" 40
2 "
2 "~
2-."40

DEPTH

D50/D

0040
o. -140
o. -240
o. -o2o
o-.-o7o
o. -120
o . 020
o.o7o
0" 120
o ~o 13
o.o47

0552
0" 838
. ... 003
0 " 400
0""607

o~ o8o

o.-655
0" 383
o-.581
o-.695

FT
100
1 o-.o
1 o.-o
20 -~0

2o. -o
2o. o
20 0
20" 0
20" 0
3o.-o
3o-.-o
30"i 0
3o-.o
3o. -o
3o-.-o

o. ol3
o. 047
o.-o8o

o.-121
0" 438
o66S
o. -796
0" 360
o ~547

TlBieE 4-2
SIDE SLOPE RIPRAP SIZES POR INCIPIENT MOTION BY RAMETIE METdOD

DISCHARGE
CFS
10048
15575
18577
25668
40502
48794
44003
69432
83646
75128
119606
144801
1 04023 ..
165608
200494

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
o.oo337
001181
o. o2o24
000169
000590
001012
000169
000590
001012
000112
o. o0394
000675
o.oo112
000394
000675

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
1 oo.
100
1 oo-.
100
1oo.
2oo .
200
200
200
2oo.
200
3oo.
300
300

SIDE 050
SLOPE
FT
040
2
140
2
2
240
2.
040
140
2
2"40
2
2"
040
2"
140
2 "40
2
0"40
2
2-.1.-40
2.
2 "40
0"40
2
140
2
240
2

50

DEPTH

D50/D

FT
100
1 o. o
100
200
200
200
2o . o
200
2o. o
300
3o.-o
3o.-o
3o.-o
3o-.-o
3o.-o

0040
0140
0"240
0020
a. 010
0"120
0020
0010
0120
o.-o 13
o. 047
o. o8o
0013
o.o47
0080

0467
0724
0863
0361
0570
0687
0361
0"570
0687
o-.31 o
0494
0598
0"31 0
o ~494

o598

sizes for 1V:2H side slopes from Table 4-2 with rock sizes for channel
bottom riprap from Table 3-4, a relation between the two conditions
can be determined for the value
Cl:2SS

C
. -ta be used in Equation 1.

,,

= 1 29CBOTTOM

(37)

Equation 1 for incipient motion for 1V:2H side slopes becomes

,.

. "'

:050
depth

=a.284F 3

(38)

based on the ratio of Ramette's bottom criteria to side slope criteria.

r

Side slope criteria used by the Corps of Engineers in EM 1110-2J

1601 (4') is similar to that used by Ramette.

The critical shear stress

determined from Equation 23 is reduced by

given in Equation 30.

(39)
The velocity u:sed in Equation 25
vertical at the toe of the slope.

is the average V'elocity in the

Based on the velocity profiles in

Figures 2-3 to 2-9

V( 0. 6 depth at toe)

= V( average

(40)

channel velocity)

Rock sizes for typical channel discharges, bottom widths, and

channel bottom slopes are determined for 1V:2H side slopes using the
Corps approach and n

50

/depth and Froude numbers are computed for each

condition as shown in Table 4-3.

By comparing rock sizes for 1V:2H

side slope from Table 4-3 with rock sizes for channel bottom riprap

51
,
I

TABLE 4-3

SIDE SLOPE RIPRAP SIZES FOR SAFE DESIGN BY C .0 .E. METhOD

DISCHARGE

BOTTOM
SLOPE
FT/FT
000198
000695
001191
000099
000347
o-.oo595
o. ooo99
000347
000595
000066
000232
000397
o. ooo66
o .- oo232
000397

CFS
10897
15921.
18331
28507
42914
50319
48869
73567
86261
84432
128938
152472
116906"
178530
2111 .15

BOTTOM
WIDTH
FT
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
2oo.
300
3oo.
300

SIDE D50
SLOPE
2
2
2
2
2 "
2 ..
2 ...
2
2'
2 ..
2
2
2"
2 "..
2

. .
,

52

DEPTH

FT

FT

040
140
2"40
040
1"40
2 "40
0"40
140
2 "40
o.-4o
1 .. 40
2 " 40
040
, . 40
2 " 40

100
10 .. 0
100
2o. o
2o. o
2o-.o
200
200
20' 0
3o.-o
30" 0
3o.-o
3o.-o
3o. o
3o.-o

D50/D

0040
o-.140
0240
o. -o2o
0010
0"120
0020
o. -o7o
0' 120
0013
0047
o.-o8o
o..-o13
0"047
o. oso

0506
0740
0852
0401
0604
0 " 709
o-.401
0"604
0"709
0"348
0532
0629
0348
0"532
o-.629

from Table 3-5, a relation between the two conditions can be determined
for the value

C to be used in Equation 1.

(41)

cl.2SS = 1 236 CBOTTOM

Equation 1 for incipient motion for 1V:2H side slopes becomes

D50

----::~

depth

= 0. 272F

(42)

based on the ratio of EM 1110-2-1601 (4) bottom criteria to side slope

criteria.

4-3 Design Curves

A summary of the values of

C for incipient motion on 1V:2H side

slopes is as follows:

Method
Model tests

0.25

Anderson

0.25

Ramette

0.284

EM

1110-2-1601

For this investigation a

0.272

C value of 0.26 will be used.

Equa-

tion 1 for incipient motion on 1V:2H side slopes as shown in Figure 4-3
is

D50 _

----::- - 0. 26F

depth

(43)

The curve for safe design with a factor of 1.5 x incipient motion
for 1V:2H side slopes based on the average stone weight is

53

Dso
DEPTH

~01

uu~~~llll~~~~~~~~~~~uwww~ww~~~~~w

~
.

F = I tOEf'rH

'

FIGURE 4-3

n50 /Depth Versus F - 1V:2H Side Slope Riprap, Incipient Motion

54

50

depth= 0.30F

(44)

and a factor of 2.0 x incipient motion for 1V:2H side slopes based on
the average stone weight is

D50 _
depth -

'

'

..

'

55

0 3

~F

(45)

V.

DEVELOPMENT OF BEND CRITERIA

Information on sizing riprap in channel bends is relatively

scarce.

In Figpre

~-1

the shear distribution in a channel bend is

shown as presented in EM 1110-2-1601 (4).

Tbe maximum shear in a chan-

nel bend as a function of bend radius and water surface width is shown
in Figure 5-2.

This figure was taken. from EM . lll0-2~1601 and is a good

summary of the work previously conducted in the field of shear distribution in channel bends.

Additional research is needed to determine

the effects of total bend angle and side slope angle on the shear distribution in a channel bend.

Figure 5-2 was based on a channel with

1V:2H side slopes and a 60 bend angle.

mine tentative values of

Figure 5-2 was used to deter-

C in Equation 1 for sizing riprap in channel

bends.
The equation for rough channel conditions as shown in Figure 5-2
is
T

3.2 ( !.)

-0.5

(46)

where
Tb

= maximum

boundary shear as affected by bend

T - average boundary shear in approach channel

0

= center

= water

line radius of bend

surface width at upstream end of bend

The Shields' equation for the critical shear stress is

T

= o.o4(y - y

in the approach channel and

)D

50APPROACH

(47)

Dso
C=

DEPTH

FJ

0.1

1.0

BEND RADIUS
WATER SURFACE WIDTH

FIGURE

10.0

5-3

C Versus Bend Radius/Water Surface Width, Incipient Motion

59

20.0

in the channel bend.

(48)

o.o4(y - y )n 50
s
w
bend

Tb =

Substituting Equations 47 and 48 into equation 46

D50

_ _....;;b;..;;e;;.;.;n;.;.;d~
D

= 32

50APPROACH

!:..
w

-0.5

(49)

From Equation 1, let

D50

bend

= Cbend

depth F

(50)

and
D

50APPROACH

= 0.22 depth F 3

(3 bis)

Substituting

cbend = 0.70!:.
w
as shown in Figure 5-3.

-0.5

(51)

This curve represents incipient motion for

only the point on the curve where the shear stress is the highest.
Based on Figure 5-l the point of maximum shear is located on the side
slope of the outside bank at the downstream end of the bend.
Additional work is needed to determine the coefficients that
should be used for safe design for the entire length of the curve and
the area downstream that is affected by the curve.

60

VI.
A

SUMMARY AND SAMPLE PROBLEM

summary of the coefficients determined in this investigation for

the equation for riprap stability

D50
depth

_.:;..___ = CF

(1)

is as follows:
Condition

Coefficient

Straight channel, bottom riprap, incipient motion

Straight channel, bottom riprap, F.S. - 1.5
Straight channel, bottom riprap, F.S. = 2.0
'

0.22
0.25
0.28

Straight channel, 1V:3HSS or flatter, incipient motion

Straight channel, 1V.:3HSS or flatter, F.S. - 1.5
Straight channel, 1V:3HSS or flatter, F.S. = 2.0

0.22
0.25
0.28

Straight channel, 1V:2HSS, incipient motion

Straight channel, lV:2HSS, F.S. - 1.5
Straight channel, 1V:2HSS, F.S. = 2.0

0.26
0.30
0.33

Curved channel, incipient motion*

*

= 0.70(r/w)-0.50

Incipient motion for only the point on the curve where the shear is
highest.
A sample problem to illustrate the use of the Froude number ap-

proach is as follows:
Design Data--Straight channel
100-ft bottom width
1V:3H side slopes
0 . 004 ft/ft bottom slope
Design discharge = 30,000 cfs
Determine the required rock size to provide a safety factor of 1.5 and
the depth of flow at the design discharge.

Solution:

Assume

= 1.0

50

ft

= 0.0395D~~ 6

(9 bis)

n = 0.0395
From Manning's equation
Normal depth

= 16.2

ft

Velocity = 12.5 ft/sec

F

= 0.55

From Froude's number concept

0
50
depth

n50
This

lS

50

Ass tune 0

50
n
n

= 0.25F

= 0.67

ft

not close enough to the assumed

(4 bis)

0 50

0.75 ft

= 0.0395D~~
= 0.038

From Manning's equation

Normal depth
Velocity
F

= 15.9

= 12.8

ft

ft/sec

= 0.57

From Froude's number concept

..
0

50
depth

50

= 0.25F

:; 0.72 ft

62

The assumed

50

of 0.75 ft is close enough to the computed

50
0.72 ft. The channel requires a ri~rap blanket with a 9-in.

on both the channel bottom and side slope.

50

..

'

'

'

63

. ..

'

VII.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this investigation show that riprap stability can

be described by parameters that are known or easily computed.

Froude

number and depth of flow are used to determine stable riprap size.
Comparison of the Froude number approach with existing shear stress
design methods shows that Froude number and depth of flow properly describe riprap stability.
The model tests show that riprap on channel side slopes of 1V:3H
or flatter require no increase in rock size to maintain stability.
Appropriate relations for determining stable rock sizes on 1V:2H side
slopes were developed from the model test and existing design concepts.
Additional research is needed so that stable rock sizes in channel
bends can be determined.

64

VIII.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Corps of Engineers, "Additional Guidance for Riprap Protection,"

ETL 1110-2-120 (1971).

2.

Anderson, A. G., "Tentative Design Procedure for Riprap Lined

Channels," National Cooperative Highway Research Program,,
St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. 96 (1968).

3.

Li, R., Simons, D. B., Blinco, P. H., and Sa.ma.d, M. A., "Probabilistic Approach to Design of Riprap for River Bank Protection," Symposium on Inland Waterways for Navigation, Flood
Control, and Water Diversions, vol. II, CSU (1976).

4.

Corps of Engineers, "Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels,"

EM 1110-2-1601 (1970).

5.

Ramette, M., "Riprap Protection of River and Canal Banks," U.

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Translation
No. 63-7, Vicksburg Miss. (1963).

6.

Lane, E. W., "Progress Report on Results of Studies on Design of

Stable Channels," USBR, HYD 352 (June 1952).

7.

Stevens, M.A., Simons, D. B., and Lewis, G. L., "Safety Factor

for Riprap Protection," Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
ASCE, vol. 102, No. HY5, pp. 637-655 (May 1976).

8.

Grace, J. L., Jr., Calhoun, C. C., Jr. , and Brown, D. N., "Drainage and Erosion Control Facilities, Field Performance Investigation," U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
CE, MP H-73-6 (June 1973).

9.

Rothwell, E. D. and Bohan, J.P., "Investigation of Scour and Protection Around Bridge Piers," U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, CE, Memorandum Report (November 1974).

s.

10.

Shields, A., Anwendung der Achnlichkeitsmechanik und der Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung, Mitteilungen der
Pruess Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbau m1d Schiffbau Heft 26,
Berlin (1936).

11.

Gessler, J., "The Beginning of Bed Load Movement of Mixtures

Investigated as Natural Armoring in Channels," W. M. Keck
Laboratory of Hydraulics and Water Resources, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. (1965).

65

>

12.

Keulegan, G. H., "Laws of Turbulent Flow in Open Channels,"

Journal of Research, vol. 21, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, D. C., pp 701-741 (1938).

13.

Isbash, S. V., "Construction of Dams by Dumping Stones in Flowing

Water," Translated by A. Dorijikov, Eastport, Maine, CE

(1935).
14.

Corps of Engineers, Hydraulic Design Criteria, Sheet 712-1, Stone

Stability-Velocity Versus Stone Diameter (1970).

66