C O R P S O F E N G IN E E R S , U . S .

A R M Y

M IS S IS S IP P I R IV E R C O M M ISSIO N

SLOPE PROTECTION FOR

EARTH DAMS

PRELIM INARY REPORT

PR E PA R E D BY

O F F IC E , C H IE F O F E N G IN E E R S

U . S , ARM Y

e ,0 ' '

P ©y ^ f,

^ Ve

PU B L ISH E D BY

W A TERW A Y S E X P E R IM E N T STATION

V IC K S B U R G , M IS S IS S IP P I

TC
543 _ _ ______________
.C 6 4 I
1949
M A R C H 1949
 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION U tN VtK
92079174

92079174

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARM Y

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION

SLOPE PROTECTION FOR

EARTH DAMS

PRELIMINARY REPORT

PREPARED BY
OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
U. S. ARMY

PUBLISHED BY
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI

MRC-WES-500-MARCH 49

P R IC E $1.00

ORDER FROM WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, VICKSBURG. MISS.

 CONTENTS

Page

PART I : INTRODUCTION

PART II: FACTORS AFFECTING WAVE ACTION AGAINST UPSTREAM SLOPES

Factors Which Influence Wave Height and Effect . . . . . . . 6

Maximum Wave Heights ....................................... 9
Determination of Wind Velocities and Maximum Wave Heights
at D a m s .................... 12

PART III: DISCUSSION OF UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION METHODS SURVEYED

Dumped Riprap Protection of Upstream S l o p e s .............. 19

Handplaced Riprap Protection of Upstream Slopes ........ . 2b
Concrete Upstream Slope Protection . .............. . . . . 28
Types of Rock Used in Upstream Slope P r o t e c t i o n .......... 32

PART IV: GRAVEL AND ROCK DOWNSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION

Comments by Various D i s t r i c t s ............ 3k

Discussion............................. 36

PART V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Upstream Slope Protection ................................ 37

Downstream Slope P r o t e c t i o n .......................... kO
Need for Further Study of Existing D a m s .................. kl

TABLES 1-9

APPENDIX A: LIST OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY DIVISION AND DISTRICT

OFFICES

APPENDIX B: DAMS SURVEYED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN EVALUATION OF UPSTREAM

SLOPE PROTECTION MEASURES

APPENDIX C: BIBLIOGRAPHY ON WAVE ACTION

 SLOPE PROTECTION FOR EARTH D A ®

Preliminary Report

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1. This report is based on the results of surveys conducted in

19^6 of slope protection measures in use at selected dams. These sur­

veys were directed by the Office, Chief of Engineers, and were conduc­

ted by the following Division Offices of the Corps of Engineers: Ohio

River, Missouri River, Southwestern, North Pacific, and South Pacific.

2. The ultimate aim and purpose of the study of slope protection

measures is to determine the most economical and practical methods of

protecting both the upstream and downstream slopes of earth dams located

in various sections of the United States. Upstream slopes must be pro­

tected against loss of material due to wave action; they must also be

protected against loss of material due to seepage within the embankment,

depending upon the type of embankment soil and the magnitude of the

seepage forces which can develop. Much research and experimentation

have already been done in the design of filters to drain and protect the

embankment soils; consequently this phase of protection is not discussed

in detail in this report, although data on filter and embankment grada­

tions are included. Downstream slope protection is required primarily

to prevent erosion by rain and wind; only rarely is it influenced by

consideration of seepage forces within the embankment.

3* Information on the following general items pertaining to dams

2

was requested by the Office, Chief of Engineers:

a. Relative efficiency of turf, gravel blankets, riprap or

other surface treatments for the protection of the crests
and slopes,

b. Deficiencies in the several treatments.

c. Improvements in customary construction procedures that may

be indicated by performance of the protection.

d. Regional or local limitations on use of any materials or

methods.

e. Need for further investigations to determine more effi­

cient construction and maintenance methods for slope
protection.

It was suggested that wherever possible test pits or trenches

be excavated to obtain samples of the embankment, sand and gravel blan­

ket, and riprap, for classification analysis and to determine the present

grading of materials.

5- The suggested general outline of data to be secured from the

surveys included the following*:

a. Riprap.

Rock: Size, type, quality.

Bedding course: Thickness, type.

Reservoir influence: Height of waves, fetch, slope of dam.

, Costs: Construction, maintenance.

Results: Photography, etc.

b. Gravel blanket.

Soil type: (Layer directly beneath blanket).

* That portion of the outline pertaining to turf and other vegetative

cover is not repeated here, since this type of protection will be
examined in a subsequent report.
 3

b. Gravel blanket (continued)

Blanket: Material used (description, origin); methods

(distribution, depth); special treatment (base
or surface material).

Slope of surface of dam:

Maintenance: Repair (type, extent, and frequency); mow^,_

jLng_j(hand, machine, frequency) .

Costs: Construction (unit costs); maintenance (average

annual unit costs).

Results: Estimated effectiveness of cover (protection of

slopes, extent of erosion, special problems
encountered). \ ,

Photographs:

Recommendations as to future use: (Based on performance

at this site).

Special limitations: (Availability of materials, length

of slope, base soil).

Desired improvement: (Construction and maintenance).

6. Selection of the dams to be investigated was delegated to the

Divisions with the request that they include, in addition to Corps of

Engineers dams, dams constructed and operated by other agencies. In

general, selections were made which would cover a variety of types of

slope protection and demonstrate performance under various climatic

conditions and ranges of wave action.

7. Table 1 lists the dams on which reports have been received to

date; types of slope protection are shown for each dam. Geographical

locations of the dams are shown on fig. 1 (page 4). The reports sub­

mit ued by the various offices are listed in Appendix A.

8. The evaluation of upstream slope protection in this report is-

confined to dams with fetches less than ten miles long since only three
 SAN PABLO
UPPER SAN LE ANDRO
S AN AND RE S
CHA BOT
CALAVERAS

TYPE OF UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTIO N

O DU M PED R I P R A P R E V E T M E N T
A HANDPLACED R IP R A P R E V E T M E N T
0 CONCRETE R E VETM EN T
X OTHER TYPES

Fig. 1. Locations of dams

 5

of the dams surveyed have longer fetches. These three dams together

with those excluded for other reasons from this phase of the report are

listed in Appendix B.

9. The main body of this report comprises discussions of the fac­

tors governing the intensity of wave action against upstream slopes of

dams, and of the three types of upstream slope protection commonly

used (dumped riprap, handplaced riprap, and concrete) as well as a

brief analysis of certain types of downstream slope protection. The

principal conclusions derived from the survey are then summarized, and

recommendations made for further study of existing dams so that slope

protection.measures now in use may be properly evaluated and design

data for future dams developed. Tables 1-9 follow the text. Appendix

C is a bibliography on wave action which was compiled in connection

with the preparation of this report.

6

PART II: FACTORS AFFECTING WAVE ACTION AGAINST UPSTREAM SLOPES

10. The discussion following is concerned with evaluation of wave

action based on maximum wave heights at the dams surveyed in order to

indicate deficiencies or overdesign of the slope protection measures in

this respect.

Factors Which Influence Wave Height and Effect

11. The height of waves generated hy winds in a reservoir depends

upon the wind velocity (at the water surface), the duration of the wind

(the length of time the wind has blown over the fetch), the fetch, depth

of water, and the width of the reservoir. The height of the waves as

they approach the upstream face of a dam may be altered by decreasing

depth of the water, or by decreasing width of the reservoir. Upon con­

tact with the face of the dam, the effect of the waves is influenced by

the following conditions: angle of the wave train with the dam, slope of

the upstream face, and texture of the slope surface.

Fetch

12. The fetch (the stretch of open water over which the wind

blows) of a reservoir as used in this report is considered to be the max­

imum straight-line length of water surface to which the upstream face of

a.darn is exposed, however, it must be borne in mind that the topography

of and timber stands on the land approach to a fetch can materially reduce

the effective length of water surface. On the other hand, since both the

wind and waves can be deflected around wide curves by topographic fea­

tures, the reported fetches may be too short in some cases. Islands,
 7

shoals, and promontories within the wave-generating area definitely

affect the generation and direction of waves, but the effects of such

conditions cannot be evaluated in this report with the data available.

Depth of water

13. It is believed that the depths of water in the reservoirs

studied are sufficient to allow generation of deep-water waves for the

fetches involved.

Width of reservoirs

14. The widths of the dam reservoirs studied are believed to be

sufficient to render negligible any influence of this factor on the gen­

eration of waves, except in the case of decreasing width of reservoir in

the direction of the dam as later discussed.

Decreasing depth of water

15» When waves advance into shoal areas or onto gently sloping

beaches, their length decreases and their height and steepness increase

until they break in water of depth between one and three times their

height (the lower value referring to a gently sloping beach), the waves

then continue their advance at reduced heights. Generally, such condi­

tions are not found in front of the main sections of the dams studied.

Decreasing width of approach

l6. Investigators have established by experiment and observation

that wave heights are increased by propagation in channels of gradually

decreasing width. Such conditions quite often prevail in dam reservoirs,

since dam sites are usually selected which will entail a minimum length

of dam, given suitable foundation conditions. However, this factor can

be given only general consideration in estimating the intensity of wave

8

action for a particular dam..

Oblique impact of waves

17 . Waves impinging obliquely against the upstream face of a dam

gain in height and steepness as they travel along its front. While impact

forces of such waves are less than in the case of direct frontal attack,

greater "sucking" action and differential water pressures are apparently

produced by the lateral passage of wave crests and troughs in rapid se­

quence along the slope. Severe wave action of this type was reported at

American Falls Dam (handplaced riprap), and at a number of dams having

concrete upstream revetments.

Slope of upstream face

18. Waves are reflected from vertical faces, and on meeting in­

coming waves establish standing or "clapotis" type waves. Such reflected

waves influence the water area for a considerable distance lakeward. At

the vertical face and at a distance of half a wave length from it, the

reflected wave is twice its original height. This reflection of waves

also applies in some degree to sloping faces as flat as 1 on 2- i A .

While the majority of upstream slopes studied were 1 on 3, this phenomenon

probably occurs at some of the dams where the upper slopes are as steep

as 1 on 2-1/4. It may be noted that a sloping face allows the waves to

move up the inclined plane and expend part of their energy in raising the

water instead of in direct force upon the face itself (as against a vertical

wall).

Texture of slope surface

19* While a rough surface, such as dumped riprap, reduces the wave

uprush, the individual stones are subjected to greater force than those
 9

presenting a smoother surface such as handplaced riprap. In the case of

very smooth surfaces, such as concrete or metal, the wave uprush is high,

and, assuming sufficient freeboard, danger lies not so much in the

effects of direct wave action as in high hydraulic gradients which may he

developed beneath the surfacing when the waves recede.

Maximum Wave Heights

20. The maximum wave heights reported in the surveys were esti­

mates made by observers. It is generally recognized that such estimates

may be quite inaccurate due to the personal element involved, the com­

plexity of water surfaces during storms, and the presence of reflected

waves. Therefore, in an attempt to determine more systematically the

probable maximum wave heights at the dams surveyed, the method described

in succeeding paragraphs was adopted.

21. The U. S. Wavy Hydrographic Office publication, "Wind, Waves

and Swell, Principles in Forecasting", develops the interrelation of

fetch, wind velocity, duration of wind, wave period and wave height. Due

to subsequent modification of the basic theory, the wave forecasting

graphs of this publication have been revised and are shown in a Hydro-

graphic Office publication, "Revised Wave Forecasting Graphs and Proce­

dure", Wave Report No. 73, 19^-8. Plates IV and V of the latter publication

are utilized and reproduced in this report as figs. 2 and 3 (page 10).

22. It must be borne in mind that the curves shown are based on

the following assumptions:

a. Deep-water waves.

b. Infinite width and uninterrupted front of wave advance.

WIND V E L O C I T Y , U , IN KN O TS

W IND V E L O C I T Y , U, IN KN O TS
n o te : R E P R O D U C E D FR O M " R E V I S E D w a v e f o r e c a s t i n g g r a p h s
AND P R O C E D U R E ." S C R IP P S IN S T IT U T E OF O C E A N O G R A P H Y
WAVE R E P O R T NO. 73, M A R C H I9 4 8 .( P R E P A R E D FO R U.S.NAVY
H YD R O G R A PH IC O FFIC E )

Pig. 2. Wave height and wave period as functions of

short fetch and wind velocity
IN K N O T S

WIND V E L O C I T Y , U, IN K N O TS

N O T E : R EP R O D U C E D FR O M "R E V IS E D W AVE FO R E C A S T IN G G R A PH S
AND P R O C E D U R E " S C R IP P S IN S T IT U T E OF O C E A N O G R A P H Y
LEGEND
W AVE R E P O R T NO. 73, M A R C H 1948. ( P R E P A R E D F O R U.S.N A VY L I N E S O F E Q U A L W A V E H E IG H T , H , IN F E E T
H Y D R O G R A P H IC O F F IC E .) L IN E S O F E Q U A L W AVE P E R IO D ,T ,IN S EC O N D S

Fig. 3- Wave height and wave period as functions of

short duration of wind and wind velocity
 11

c. A constant wind suddenly starting to blow over an undis­

turbed water surface.

d. Wind velocities measured at the water surface.

Applicability of the first two assumptions has already been discussed.

The last two assumptions will be treated in later paragraphs.

23. Since the Wavy Hydrographic Office report was based on obser­

vations and analyses of waves in the open sea, the fetches of primary

interest in that study (and therefore the minimum wind durations required

to generate maximum wave heights) are far greater than those at dam res­

ervoirs. It was therefore necessary to enlarge considerably the portions

of the curves applicable to

this investigation, and to

interpolate rather freely.

Wind velocities and fetch

were converted from nauti­

cal units to statute miles

per hour and statute miles,

respectively. Data from

the two figures were then

rearranged and combined in­

LEGEND
to fig, which shows wave --------------- MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT IN FEET
---- ---------- DURATION OF WIND IN HOURS

height as a function of
n o t e : fro m p l a t e s e t & tt
" r e v is e d w a v e f o r e c a s t in g g r a p h s
AND PROCEDURE." SCRIPPS INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY
wind velocity and fetch, WAVE REPORT NO. 73. MARCH 1948 (PREPARED FOR U.S.NAVY
HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE)

and also the minimum dura­

Fig. 4. Wave height as a function
tions of wind required to of wind velocity and fetch, and
wind duration required to create
create maximum wave heights. wave heights
12

Determination of Wind Velocities and Maximum Wave Heights at Dams

2k. Wind velocity records were available at only two dams (Fern

Ridge and Cottage Grove) where anemometers had been installed in connec­

tion with evaporation stations. Consequently, the probable wind veloci­

ties experienced at the remaining dams had to be estimated from observa­

tion stations as near as possible to the dam sites, and having as far as

possible similar topographical features. Such observation stations are

of the following types:

a. First-order Weather Bureau stations. There are several

hundred such stations in the United States at which con­
tinuous recordings of wind velocity and direction are
made. The data usually reported in Weather Bureau pub­
lications are:

(1) Maximum wind velocity and direction (the highest

average wind velocity observed for a 5 -min period).

(2) Extreme wind velocity and direction (the velocity

of the fastest mile of wind movement; i.e., the
velocity determined by the shortest time in which
an anemometer records a mile of wind movement).

b. Civil airports. The Works Progress Administration, in

cooperation with the Weather Bureau, tabulated and sum­
marized observations at almost 200 airports, covering a
period of approximately five years ending in December
1938. (Airway Meteorological Atlas for the U.S. - U.S.
Dept, of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 19^-1.) While such
observations are still being made, daily records in most
cases are not being summarized but are being filed, it
is understood, at Weather Bureau section centers. Hour­
ly readings of 1-min velocities and directions are made,
which correspond roughly to the extreme velocities of
the regular Weather Bureau stations.

c. Army airfields. Wind velocity observations available

from this source are generally for a short period of
record, starting in the majority of cases about 19 ^2 .
At many of these fields,'observations have been discon­
tinued. Hourly readings of 1-min velocities and direc­
tion are made. Data were obtained from the Chief, Air
Weather Service, U.S. Army Air Forces, Washington, D.C.
 13

.25. Several points must be brought out in connection with the use

of the preceding types of records in the present study. The first is that

the observations are not surface observations in a strict sense. Weather

Bureau anemometers are generally located within city limits and are sub­

ject to interference from or influence of surrounding buildings. They

are located roughly from 18 to 50 ft above the roof of a building and

from 30 to ^-50 ft above the ground. At airfields the areas in which ob­

servations are made are more open, and the anemometers are closer to the

ground, but the point of observation is generally at one edge of the

field and quite often adjacent to hangars and other buildings. Thus, it /
i
would seem logical that higher velocities may be expected over open
/
water surfaces in dam reservoirs.

26 * The second consideration in the use of the weather information

is that it was not practicable to determine by research into Weather

Bureau files the highest wind velocities in directions corresponding to

the exposures of the dam, and even if this arduous task had been performed,

it is not a certainty that the results would have been any more accurate.

27. The third consideration is that wind velocities at localities

within a few miles of each other may have wide variance. For example, at

Bandolph Field, San Antonio, Texas, the highest wind recorded over about

an eight year period was 52 miles per hour in August 19^2, while at Kelly

Field, a few miles away, during the same period the highest velocity was

70 miles per hour in May 19^6.

28, It is shown by fig. ^ that a wind velocity of one to two hours !

duration will produce the maximum wave heights possible over the range of

fetches under consideration, except for very low wind velocities. Since
' j
Ik

Weather Bureau observations of hourly wind movement show only a slight

reduction in velocity for a two-hour against a one-hour period, the one-

hour average velocity (for the period in which the highest "maximum"

velocity occurred) is used. The fact that, for high velocities and very

short fetches, durations of much less than one hour produce maximum wave

heights is also taken into consideration, as will appear later.

29* In order to utilize the extreme velocity observations of civil

and Army airfields, it was necessary to find some correlation between the

OL
2

O
o
_J
111
>
O
z
£
z
2

2
UJ
a.
H*

WEATHER BUREAU STATIONS WEATHER BUREAU STATIONS

1. R O SE BU RG ,ORE. 14. B O IS E , IDAHO 1. T A Y L O R ,T E X . 14. V A L E N T IN E ,N E B R .
2. Y A K IM A ,W A S H . 15. M O D E N A ,U T A H 2. I O L A , KAN. 15. T O P E K A ,K A N .
3 /* ""NORTH P L A T T E ,N E B R . 16. P O C A TE LL O , IDAHO 3. C H A R LE S C IT Y , IA . 16. SIOU X C IT Y , IA.
4 . K A L I S P E L L , MONT. 17. LA N D E R ,W Y O . 4. R O S W E L L , N .M . 17. DODGE C IT Y , K A N .
5. W A L L A W A LL A ,W A S H . 18. S E A T T L E ,W A S H . 5. S H R E VEP O R T, L A . 18. K A N S A S C IT Y ,M O .
6. B A K E R ,O R E . 19. H E L E N A .M O N T . 8. ST. J O S E P H ,M O . 19. YA N K TO N ,S .D .
7. M EDFO R D, ORE. 20. LE W IS TO N , IDAHO 7. CO N C O R D IA ,MO. 20. DES M O IN E S , IA .
8. YE LLO W S TO NE PK,M ON T. 2 1. IN D E PE N D E N C E,C ALIF. 8. C O L U M B IA , MO. 21. BROKEN A R R O W ,O K LA .
9. EU REKA , CALIF. 22. C H E Y EN N E,W YO . .9 . DEL R IO ,T E X . 22. D A L L A S ,T E X .
10. M IS S O U L A , MONT. 23. E L P A S O ,T E X . 10. S A N A N T O N IO ,T E X . 23. P IE R R E ,S .D .
11. T O P A N A H , NEV. 24. SH ER ID AN,W YO . 11. A B IL E N E ,T E X . 24. W IC H IT A , KAN.
12. H A V R E ,M O N T. 25. ‘RAPID C IT Y jS .D . 12. O K LA H O M A C IT Y , O K L A .. 25. H O U S T O N ,T E X .
13. S A N F R A N C IS C O , CALIF. 13. KEOKUK , IA. 28. L IN C O L N , NEBR .

a. Rocky Mountains and west b. Middlewest and southwest

Fig. 5 . Correlation of extreme with maximuii%anä one-hour wind velocities

fî ^
 15

extreme, the maximum, and the one-hour velocities recorded at the Weather

Bureau stations. Accordingly, plots of a limited number of such observa­

tions were made. These observations apparently grouped themselves to

give two different relationships; one for the section of the United

States west of and including the Rocky Mountains, and one for the Middle-

western and Southwestern States. These are shown on fig. 5* The corre­

lations are admittedly none too clear-cut. Using these two figures,

one-hour velocities for the observation stations nearest the dams were

estimated. A different approach was used in the determination of maximum

and one-hour wind velocities at the dams in Ohio and at the TVA dams.

The dams in each of these two areas were grouped relatively close to­

gether, so the wind velocities reported at the nearest Weather Bureau

stations and airports were averaged to give a maximum and one-hour

velocity for each group. The computations are shown on the two compu­

tation sheets following (pages 16 and 17). It will be noted that the

wind velocity records shown do not cover the period of existence of the

dams. This is because the reports on these dams were received too late

to permit further search for pertinent weather data without unduly de­

laying the publication of this report, However, it^is believed that the

result is fairly accurate.

30. Using wind velocities obtained as above, the" maximum wave

heights which have probably been experienced at the c^tms were determined

from the curves on fig. k. Allowance was made in the case of very short

fetches for the shorter wind durations required to create maximum wave

heights. The values shown in such instances are intermediate between

wave heights produced by maximum velocities arbitrarily using a

16

COMPUTATION SHEET NO. 1

Determination of Prohahle Highest Wind Velocities at Leesville, Pleasant

Hill, and Mosquito Creek Dams in Ohio

(a) Weather Bureau stations at which one-hour velocities are known

(period, of record up to 1 9 4 4 ):

Max Veloc Extr Veloc 1 -hr Veloc

Station Year mph mph mph

Columbus, Ohio 1916 60 NW 84 NW 29 NW

Dayton, Ohio 1923 51 W 56 W 40 W
Sandusky, Ohio 1919 53 SW 63 SW 37 SW
Erie, Pa. 1915 55 SE 60 SE 51 SE

Averages 55 66 39

Batios: Maximum = Q>83 One-hour

Extreme Extreme

(Id ) Airports and. Weather Bureau stations at "which extreme velocities

are known:
Period of Max Veloc Extr Veloc
Station record mph mph

Cleveland, Ohio (Weather B) 1940 61 W 78 SW

Cleveland, Ohio (Airport) 1930-38 50
Cambridge, Ohio (Airport) 1934-38 50
Columbus, Ohio (Airport) 1930-38 55
Mercer, Pa. (Airport) 1930-38 55
Erie, Pa. (Airport) 1932-38 46

Average 56

(c) Average extreme velocity from (a) and (h) = 6 l mph

Average maximum velocity = 6 l x 0 .8 3 = 51 mph
Average one-hour velocity = 6 l x 0 .5 9 = 36 mph
 17

COMPUTATION SHEET NO. 2

D eterm in a tio n o f P ro b a b le H igh est Wind V e l o c i t i e s a t TVA Dams

(a) Weather Bureau s t a t i o n s a t w hich one-hour v e l o c i t i e s a re known:

Max V e lo c E x tr V e lo c l~ h r V e lo c
S t a t io n Year mph mph mph

N a s h v ille , Tenn. 1923 56 SW 65 SW 38 SW

A t la n t a , Ga. 1942 51 NW 63 NW 28 NW
Wythev i l l e , Va. 1932 34 W 49 W 30 W

A verages 47 59 32
Maximum One- hour
R a tio s :
Extreme 0,80 0 .5 4
Extrem e

(b) Weather B ureau s t a t i o n s a t w hich o n ly maximum and extrem e

v e l o c i t i e s a re known:
Max V e lo c E x tr V e lo c
S t a t io n Year mph mph

K n o x v ille , Tenn. 1873 59 S 65 s

C h a ttan o o g a , Tenn. 19 15 50 S 56 S
Birmingham, A la . 1921 38 SW 59 SW
A n n isto n , A la . 1925 43 E 50
A s h e v i l l e , N.C. 1943 42 NW 49 NW

A vera g es 46 56
Ratin- Maximum _ O.82
Extreme

(c) A ir p o r ts a t w hich o n ly extrem e v e l o c i t i e s a re known:

Station Period Extr V e lo c mph

N a s h v ille , Tenn. 1930-38 45
K n o x v ille , Tenn. 1936-38 48
C h a ttan o o g a , Tenn. 1932-38 52
A t la n t a , Ga. I93O-38 60
Birmingham, A la . 1932-38 49
S p a rta n b u rg , S . C . I93O-38 45

A verage 48
(d) A verage extrem e v e l o c i t y from ( a ) , ( b ) , and (c) = 52 mph
A verage maximum v e l o c i t y = 52 x 0 . 8 l = 42 mph
A verage one-hour v e l o c i t y = 52 x 0 .5 4 = 28 mph
18

quarter-hour duration of wind, and

those produced by velocities of one-

hour wind duration. Comparison of

wave heights determined in the fore­

going manner with those reported in

the surveys is made graphically in

fig. 6. In general, the computed

wave heights are lower than the re­

ported wave heights, the disparity

being very large in many cases,

COMPUTED WAVE HEIGHT IN FEET
particularly where the reported wave
LEGEND
• DUMPED R I P RA P
A HA N DP LA CE D RI P RA P
heights were in excess of four feet.
■ CO NC R ET E

31 - Tables 2 , 3 and k- present

Fig. 6. Comparison of reported
and computed wave heights data pertinent to the determination

of maximum probable wave heights at dams having the following types of

upstream slope protection: dumped riprap, handplaced riprap, and con­

crete revetments. Wave heights and wind velocities as reported in the

surveys are also shown. It will be seen that in many cases the period
*

of wind observations is far shorter than the age of the dam. In other

cases the topographical features at the dam differ considerably from

those, at the observation station. This indicates the great need for

records of wind velocities and directions at the dams themselves.

 19

PART III: DISCUSSION OF UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION METHODS SURVEYED

Dumped Riprap Protection of Upstream Slopes

Performance data

32. Data on twenty-seven dams having dumped riprap revetments on

the upstream slopes are presented in table 5* Computed wave heights

ranged from 1 to 6 ft. Riprap thicknesses were from 9 to 96 in. Average

size of riprap used ranged from 5 1° 36 in. Eight of the dams had no fil­

ter layer beneath the riprap; thickness of the filter for the remainder of

the dams ranged from 6 to ^-8 in. The 85 per cent grain size of the fil­

ters, and of the embankment materials where no filters were used, ranged

from 5 to 80 mm.

33- The reports show that revetments at the following dams have

experienced damage in varying degrees:

a. Cold Springs Dam: considerable displacement and loss of

riprap. Riprap consisted of quarry-run rock from one cu
ft in volume down, a high percentage of which is 3 to 8
in. in size. The rock shows considerable segregation,
with accumulations of 3- to 6-in, rock in places near
the high-water line. In April 1931, a severe storm
lasting several hours did considerable damage near the
center of the dam, washing out a large amount of rock,
and exposing the underlying sand and gravel.

b. Crane Valley Dam: loss of riprap. Located in moun­

tainous terrain, this dam of hydraulically placed sand
with an 8-in. concrete core wall, had, as upstream slope
protection in the damaged section, 2 to 3 ft of granite-
rock, averaging 5 in. in diameter. The rock was hand-
placed, but is considered in this report to belong in the
dumped rock group due to its small size in relation to
total thickness. Apparently no bedding layer was
planned, although in three of the four upstream test
holes a 6-in. layer of soil different in gradation from
the embankment material was found beneath the riprap,
probably derived from the finer portions of the riprap
material. The data shown under "Filter Data" in table
5 are for this 6-in. layer. The east section of the
20

upstream face of the dam, which is exposed to a fetch of

l-l/2 miles has undergone much damage from wave action.
Apparently the small size of the rock used was the cause
of the damage. Repairs were made "by dumping large rock
(12 in. average diameter) and decomposed granite soil
(probably used to fill scoured areas in the embankment)
upon the slope. Present repaired slopes are said to be
1 on 1. A log boom was placed in the reservoir parallel
to the dam axis to reduce wave action.

£_. Johnson Dam; considerable loss of filter and embankment

material. Riprap thickness is 9 to 15 in., and weights
of individual rocks are estimated at 25 to 50 lb. The
filter beneath the riprap was a 6 -in. layer of pit-run
gravel having a maximum size of about 3 A in. Embankment
soil was loess and fine sand. Waves generated by north­
west winds caused damage to the south and southeast sec­
tions of the dam. The filter material was washed through
the rock with the loess embankment material following.
To combat this condition, additional rock was dumped at
points of most severe wave action in 19^2, 19^3 , and 1 9 b k .
In 19^5 dolomite spalls less than k in. in diameter were
dumped over the bank on the southeast slope. Definite
decrease in turbidity of the water was reported, indicat­
ing that the spalls exercised a filtering effect.

d. Mountain Creek Dam; loss of filter material. The riprap

blanket, 12 in. in thickness, is tight and well keyed.
Estimate of rock sizes was as follows: 3 ft x 2 ft x 1
ft, 50 per cent; 1 ft x 1 ft x 6 in., kO per cent; the
remaining 10 per cent consisting of sizes approximately
8 in. x 8 in. x 5 in. and some spalls. The sand and
gravel filter below the riprap was about 12 in. thick
with a maximum grain size of 1 in. Fairly numerous lo­
calized oval areas, in which settlement from a few inches
to about 18 in. has occurred, are found immediately below
normal water level. These areas are up to 15 ft in length
parallel to the dam axis, with widths about a third of
the length. The engineer of the operating agency believed
that shifting of the filter blanket was the cause of these
depressions or at least a contributing factor. Near the
east end of the dam, where the water surface meets the
intersection of the natural ground and the riprap toe, a
gravel bar has formed. The material forming this bar ap­
parently came from under the riprap, since there are no
gravel outcrops in this vicinity. Such loss of filter
material has apparently caused no damage to the earth
embankment. Mechanical analyses of embankment soil showed
a clay content of almost 50 per cent, which would indicate
that the material has a high resistance to erosion (just
the reverse of the soil at Johnson Dam).
 21

e. San Pablo Dam: loss of embankment material and displace­

ment of riprap. Eiprap thickness is 18 in', with rock
sizes ranging from 4 to 18 in. No filter was placed on
the embankment soil which beneath the riprap had a maxi­
mum grain size of about 1 in., with 8 5 per cent grain
■ sizes ranging from l/k to l/2 in. The embankment soil
has been exposed in some areas by displacement of rip­
rap, probably where there were concentrations of smaller
rock. Near the normal water surface loss of embankment
soil by washing through the riprap has occurred, and a
narrow beach has been formed by the displaced material.

Discussion

3k. Rock size. The size of riprap which should be used in a sat­

isfactory revetment depends upon the magnitude of the wave action antici­

pated at the dam. At the two dams in this survey where considerable

displacement of riprap occurred (Cold Springs and Crane Valley) the aver­

age rock size was 5 in. and riprap was washed away under wave action

developed by computed wave heights of 4 and 2-l/2 ft, respectively.

Judging from the satisfactory performance in this respect of the riprap

revetments at the other dams surveyed, and taking into consideration the

possibility of significant errors in the computed maximum wave heights

at some of the dams, it is believed that the minimum average rock sizes

should be as follows:

Expected Maximum. Wave Heights Minimum Average Rock Size

From 0 to 1 ft 8 in.
From 1 to 2 ft 10 in.
From 2 to U ft 12 in.
From k to 6 ft 15 in.

Eig. 7 (page 22) shows a comparison of the average rock sizes of dumped

riprap at the various dams with computed wave height and fetch. The mini­

mum average sizes recommended above are shown, with a possible extrapola­

tion for wave heights and fetches greater than those covered in the survey.
22

35 • Bock gradation. Al­

though the desirable gradation of

riprap sizes cannot he determined

from available data, very uniform

riprap is not desirable, since

the rock would not key as well,

and the voids between the rocks

would be larger than in the case

of a better-graded riprap. Par­

ticular care must be taken in the

AVERAGE ROCK S IZ E CD50) IN INCHES placement of well-graded riprap,

DAMS
since segregation of large and
1. GRASSY LA K E 15. N O TTE LY
2. IS LA N D PARK 18. EAGLE M O U N TA IN -
3. PABLO VA LLEY SEC TIO N
4. LAKE NASW ORTHY 17 AGENCY V A LLE Y small rocks is undesirable. Con­
5. BROWNWOOD 18. JO H N SO N
6. L E E S V IL L E 19. D E N IS O N
7. LAKE KEMP 20. M A R S H A LL FORD sideration should also be given
8. SAN PABLO 2 I. MOSQUITO CR EEK
9. T IE TO N 2 2 . COLD S P R IN G S
10. FRESNO 2 3 . CLE ELUM
I I.DURAND 2 4 . BRIDGEPORT (C A L-) to greater use than has been cus­
12. O AKLEY 25. COTTAGE GROVE
13. CRANE V A L L E Y - 26. FERN RIDGE
O R IG IN A L 27. M O U N TA IN CREEK
14. CRANE V A L L E Y - tomary of rock spalls or quarry
REPAIRED

waste, since these serve to fill

Fig. 7. Average rock size versus
fetch and wave height the void-space between the riprap

and thereby give better protection to the bedding material, in addition

to keying the rocks more securely.

36. Biprap thickness. A minimum riprap thickness is necessary

not only to protect the bedding material from direct action of waves,

but also to insure that partial dislocation of the riprap will not ex­

pose the bedding material to the waves. In order that such protection be

given to the bedding material, this minimum thickness must be considered

In relation to the rock sizes of the riprap as well as to the height of

 23

waves. The ratios of riprap thickness to average rock sizes (-^50) at the

dams surveyed are shown in table 5 to range 1.1 to 7*2. In the two in­

stances where loss of filter material occurred (Johnson and Mountain Creek

Dams) the ratios were 1.1 and 1.5, respectively; however, such losses were

caused primarily by the small grain sizes of the filters. Only in two

other cases where the computed wave height was greater than 2 ft, was the

ratio less than 1.5 (Eagle Mountain Dam-Valley Section and Pleasant Hill

Dam). It is considered that the minimum riprap thickness should be

l-l/2 times the average rock size.

37• Filter blanket (or embankment material where filter is lacking).

The 85 per cent grain sizes of the filter layers at Johnson and Mountain

Creek Dams, and of the embankment material at San Pablo Dam, where losses

of material from beneath the riprap occurred, were less than 1 in. The

only other dams where the 85 per cent size was appreciably less than 1

in., with no loss occurring, were: Island Park and Lake Kemp where wave

heights were small; Bridgeport (Calif.), Mosquito Creek, and Crane Valley

Dams, where the ratio of riprap thickness to average size was greater

than 3* It is concluded therefore that for a filter blanket or other

bedding material to be stable beneath dumped riprap its 85 per cent size

must not be less than 1 in. Consideration should be given to increasing

this size to l-l/2 or 2 in- where wave heights above 3 ft are expected,

since at only one dam in this category (excluding Mountain Creek, Bridge­

port, Calif., and Mosquito Creek) was the 85 per cent size less than

l-l/2 in.

38 . Apparently this stipulation insures a bedding material of such

size that it cannot be easily moved by water either flowing down the
2k

slope between the riprap; through the riprap, or from the embankment.

The requirements of riprap thickness previously discussed must be met

however, as material of the grain size specified above would wash out

if exposed to direct wave action.

Handplaced Riprap Protection of Upstream Slopes

39. The inherent potential weakness of a handplaced riprap revet­

ment is its usual one-course construction. Any displacement of stones

in this single layer will, of course, expose the bedding material to the

direct force of waves and rainfall. Displacement can take place in sev­

eral ways. Differential settlement of the earth embankment may widen the

spaces between the stones, thereby allowing more opportunity for movement

of the stones by wave action. In extremely cold regions, ice may lift

the stones from their positions in the revetment. Spalling of rock is

more serious in the case of handplaced riprap than for dumped riprap,

for In the latter case many of the spalls are washed into the crevices

between the stones beneath, while in a single-course revetment, the

spalls might eventually wash away, leaving the bedding exposed.

Performance data

kO. Data on 18 dams having handplaced riprap revetments are pre­

sented in table 6. Computed maximum wave heights ranged from l-l/2 to

6 ft. Thickness of riprap ranged from 12 to ^-8 in. In general the

handplaced riprap was laid in one course, usually on edge, but in some

cases flat. As a general rule the rocks were chinked with rock spalls

or crushed stone. Two dams had no filter blankets beneath the riprap,

the stone being placed directly upon clay embankment soils (Tonganoxie
 25

and Herington). Three dams had two-layer filter blankets (Great Salt

Plains, Carl Blackwell and Magic). The other dams had single filter

' blankets ranging from 6 to 36 in. in thickness. The 85 per cent sizes
of filter blankets directly beneath the riprap ranged from 10 to 100 mm.

^1. No instances of the loss of filter or other bedding material

from beneath handplaced riprap were reported in the surveys. Displace­

ment of riprap in various degrees was reported as occurring at the

following dams:

a. Magic Dam. Riprap is 18 to 2k in. in thickness, with

rocks ranging from l/2 cu ft to 1 cu yd in volume.
Openings between the rocks are well-chinked with spalls
and the slope surface presents a smooth uniform ap­
pearance. Rock is bedded on a 6-in. layer of sand
and gravel of ^~in. maximum size, overlying 12 in. of
clayey sand and gravel of 2-in. maximum size. Ice in
the winter up to 36 in. thick sometimes lifts some of
the rock. There is some displacement of rock and slight
settlement in small areas below the high-water line at
the easterly end of the dam, where the force of strong
northwest winds is concentrated.

b. Jackson Lake Dam. The riprap is 12 to 18 in. thick,

Stones vary in size from l/2 cu ft to slabs 3 or k cu
ft in volume, with an average of 1 cu ft. Interstices
are well-chinked with gravel and spalls. Test pits
showed 36 in. or more of sand and gravel with maximum
size of 3 in. beneath the riprap, overlying compact
gravelly sand and silt embankment material. Trees left
standing in the reservoir were uprooted by winter ice,
and under the force of wind and waves pounded the re­
vetment and caused considerable damage which has since
been repaired. Recent inspection of the revetment
showed considerable damage in areas below or at the high-
water line for almost the entire length of the north
wing. This damage consisted of spalling of the rock and
displacement of the riprap. No significant loss of the
gravel bedding was in evidence. How much of the dis­
placement of the rock was due initially to wave action
alone, or to ice, could not be ascertained.

£. Sherburne Lake Dam. The riprap is 18 in. thick, con­

sisting of one-man field stones. . The top 10 ft of the
slope is grouted. The filter blanket is 12 in. thick
26

with a 6-in. maximum size. Prior to 1937, trees and

stumps from the uncleared reservoir area were driven
against the revetment by high waves and gouged out the
riprap in many places. The reservoir area was cleared
in 1937 and the slope has since been kept free of drift­
wood. Since that time, the damage to the revetment has
"been very much less.

d. Tonganoxie Dam. The riprap revetment consists of a 12-

in. thickness of one- and two-man stones placed on edge,
with the revetment toe sealed in concrete. No filter was
placed between the clay embankment material and the rip­
rap. Some deterioration of the stone has occurred near
the water!s edge. In several locations, stones have been
dislodged and lifted from their original positions. A
definite uniform settlement of the riprapped slope near
the spillway elevation has occurred.

£• Herington Dam» Riprap revetment consists of a 12-in.

thickness of one-man stone, placed on edge. Joints are
filled with crushed rock. No filter was used beneath
the riprap, the stone being placed directly upon the
clay embankment material. A definite uniform settlement
has occurred below the approximate spillway elevation.
While signs of displacement of the stones were not noted
in the survey, it was reported that waves have carried
some of the rocks halfway across the crest of the dam.

Discussion

^-2. Riprap thickness. Descriptions of the riprap revetments at two

of the dams, Carl Blackwell and Point of Rocks, indicate that they are

composed of several layers of stones, while the remainder of the revet­

ments are essentially of one-course construction. The performance history

of the single-layer revetments shows roughly that a thickness of 12 in.

was satisfactory where waves 2 ft or less in height were experienced.

Por wave heights between 2 and k ft, a l6-in. thickness has been generally

satisfactory, and for waves from k to 6 ft in height, a thickness of

about 20 in. appears adequate. As has already been pointed out, some

maintenance may be expected in locations where extremely cold winters

cause heavy ice formation, and where settlement of embankment material

 27

occurs after placement of the riprap. No particular damage will he done

to the slopes in such cases, provided that the bedding material is not

easily erodible and that repairs are promptly made.

43. Filter or bedding material. With the exception of Tonganoxie

and Herington Dams, where the riprap was placed directly on clay embank­

ment soils, and of Point of Rocks, where the riprap was exceptionally

thick (48 in.), the 85 per cent size of the bedding materials ranged
from 20 to 100 mm (0.8 to 4.0 in.). It so happened that in the case of

dams where the computed wave heights were greater than 3 ft, the 85 per

cent sizes were between 30 and 80 mm (1.2 and 3*1 in.), while where the

computed wave heights were below 3 ft, the 85 per cent sizes were between

20 and 65 mm (0.8 and 2.5 in.) excluding the value of 100 mm for Sher­
burne Lake. Since there are no instances of loss of filter through the

riprap to serve as a guide, it is arbitrarily proposed that, for ex­

pected wave heights under 3 ft, the 85 per cent size of the bedding ma­

terial beneath handplaced riprap should be not less than 1 in., and for

wave heights from 3 to 6 ft it should be between l-l/2 and 2 in. This

does not apply where the embankment material is cohesive and thus highly

resistant to erosion; in such a case a filter layer may not be required.

44. It is to be noted that these values are the same as for fil­

ters under dumped riprap. It would appear that one-course, handplaced

riprap would permit greater direct wave action on the bedding material

through the generally vertical spaces between the rocks. However, it is

probable that the bedding material is better confined under rocks seated

by hand than dumped, and that the customary chinking of open spaces be­

tween the rocks with spalls and crushed stone is effective in protecting
28

the tedding material from direct wave action.

Concrete Upstream Slope Protection

k^>. Bata on concrete revetments of fourteen dams are shown in

table 7* At one dam, Misselbeck, the surfacing was gunite, l-l/2 to 2

in. thick, reinforced with chicken wire. Thickness of the concrete

slabs at the other dams ranged from ^ to 12 in. No reinforcing steel

was used in five of the revetments. At only one dam, Belle Fourche,

were the concrete slabs precast. Spacing of the construction joints of

the slabs poured in place varied from 10 to 50 ft. There were no filter

blankets between the concrete and embankment soil at ten of the dams.

At the four dams having filters beneath the concrete, the filter thick­

ness ranged from 9 to 2k in.

Performance data

k6. Remarks on the performance of the individual revetments are

made in table 7« Although the gunite facing at Misselbeck was reported

to be satisfactory under the low wave action experienced there, the con­

dition of the covering resulting from freezing and thawing action and

from embankment settlement is such that it would not be satisfactory

under more severe conditions.

kj. At five of the dams, damage to the revetments by wave action

was reported. At Woodward and Babcock the major damage occurred when

the waves rode up past the paving, either to the unpaved crown (Woodward)

or to the upper unpaved slope (Babcock). At Belle Fourche, Point of

Rocks and Minatare, loss of slabs was preceded by loss of bedding ma­

terial through joints and cracks of the slabs. At these three dams,
 29

waves striking the revetment obliquely were reported to have caused the

greatest damage. Conditions at Point of Rocks were aggravated initially

hy considerable settlement of the uncompacted embankment.

48. At Fairmont Dam, where some wave action from winds with veloc­

ities of 25 to 30 mph is sustained over a period of several days, erosion

of the surface of the concrete slab has occurred in the immediate vicinity

of the normal pool elevation. Considerable repair work, consisting of

guniting the surface, has been required. However there has been no dis­

placement of the slab nor loss of embankment material due to wave action.

49. At McKay Dam, the computed wave height was 4 ft, based on wind

velocity observations at Pendleton, Oregon, about 7 miles north. However

actual wave heights at the dam were reported as low. The monolithic re­

inforced concrete slab is in excellent condition after 22 years service.

No filter layer was placed beneath the slab. The embankment was con­

structed, with close compaction control, of a dense well-graded sand-

gravel soil containing a little clay. Settlement of the embankment was

only l/2 in. seven months after construction. Apparently the embankment

soil is not susceptible to frost heave, as no effects were noted.

50. At all the other dams where performance of the concrete revet­

ments were reported to be satisfactory, wave action has been slight to

moderate, and generally no frost action has occurred.

51. Results of the survey show that concrete revetments are en­

tirely satisfactory when wave action is moderate, and when they are

placed on well-compacted embankments which subsequently undergo little

settlement. Reinforced concrete is the more prevalent type, and appears

to be preferable to unreinforced concrete since cracking caused by local

30

differential settlements within the embankment is minimized. (A filter

beneath the concrete slab may not be necessary as shown by the satis­

factory performance of the revetments having no filters.^ However the

need for a filter should be investigated in a proposed design, based on

the effects of frost action on the embankment soil, and the requirements

for draining the embankment soil

52. The surveys have shown the effects of open joints and of em­

bankment settlement in causing failure of concrete revetments subjected

to severe wave action. The following paragraphs discuss the general con­

ditions leading to such failures under severe wave action.

Discussion

53* The inherent weaknesses of a concrete revetment on an earth

embankment appear to be its rigidity and relative imperviousness. Set­

tlement within an earth dam (particularly differential settlement) may

cause the concrete to crack, open up the joints between the slabs, and

develop void areas beneath the concrete. These conditions allow en­

trance of wave wash and the consequent development of hydrostatic

pressures beneath the slab during periods of high waves, in addition to

the bedding material being more exposed to direct wave action. Since

wave uprush is much higher on smooth surfaces such as concrete, as

compared with rough, riprapped surfaces, the hydrostatic pressures de­

veloped beneath the slabs upon recession of waves may be considerably

greater. Based on observations reported in the surveys the action of

waves moving obliquely along the front of a revetment apparently creates

even higher pressures beneath the slabs, as troughs and crests of waves

pass alternately along the face, and this may be accentuated by the gain
 31

in height of such -waves as they travel along the slope.

5k. Excepting weepholes sometimes provided at the toe of the re­

vetment, the principal exits for water trapped beneath concrete revet­

ments are through joints and cracks in the slabs. Thus, high exit

velocities may be developed at those places, which may carry out the

bedding material. This restriction of discharge area may also permit

the pressures beneath the slabs to persist for some time, and to be

maintained or augmented by water from succeeding waves until the slab,

is displaced,

55* The grouting of joints and cracks to prevent the entrance of

wave water beneath the slabs, and to prevent the erosion of bedding ma­

terial, has been practiced and recommended by some dam maintenance forces.

This is believed to be satisfactory where adequate drainage of the under­

lying filter is provided for by weepholes at lower levels, or possibly

where the concrete is placed directly upon relatively impervious embank­

ment material, as will be discussed later. Otherwise, critical conditions

affecting the stability of the embankment might be imposed, should the

embankment become saturated by rainfall, or should it be subjected to

material drawdown after long exposure to high pool levels.

56 . The proposal has been advanced in one of the survey reports

that filters between concrete revetments and embankments be eliminated

where the permeability of the embankment material is approximately the

same as that of the concrete. Then hydrostatic pressures could not

build up beneath the slabs, and entrance of wave water through openings

in slabs would not be facilitated by the presence of a pervious filter

layer. However, in cold climates a filter blanket is essential over

32

embankment materials highly susceptible to frost heave. Another point

against general elimination of the filter blanket is that settlement of

the earth embankment may result in open spaces beneath the slab in which

hydrostatic pressures could develop without the relief by drainage which

a filter would provide.

57* it has been shown by the cases cited, that a concrete revetment

should be carried to the top of the slope and that, where waves may reach

the crest, measures should be taken to reduce to a minimum the infiltra­

tion of water behind the concrete slabs. This would also apply to loca­

tions where heavy rainstorms or windstorms occur.

Types of Bock Used in Upstream Slope Protection

58. Figs. 8-9 show several types of handplaced and dumped riprap.

Table 8 lists pertinent data on the rock used in riprap revetments at the

dams surveyed, including the year

placed, type and description, source,

and comments concerning quality. A

wide range of rock types was covered

in the survey. Of particular inter­

est are the satisfactory performance

records of rock types which are some­

times considered of too inferior

quality to be used as riprap (e.g.,

- Fig. 8. Dumped riprap; Lake
Murray Dam, Oklahoma Point of Rocks Dam and Eagle Mountain
Conglomeratic sandstone placed
in 1935 Dam-Valley Section) .
Dumped riprap; shell conglomerate placed in 1933 Dumped riprap; dolomitic limestone placed in 1931
Eagle- Mountain-Dam Valley Section, Texas Mountain Creek Dam, Texas

Handplaced riprap; limestone placed in 1933 Handplaced riprap; dolomitic caprock placed in 19^2
Eagle Mountain Dam-Levee Section, Texas Fort Supply Dam, Oklahoma

Fig. 9. Types of rock used upstream slope protection

3^

PART IY: GRA.VEL.AHD ROCK DOWNSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION

59. As previously mentioned, vegetative cover will be treated

in a subsequent report. Table 9 summarizes the data on the downstream

slopes of dams at which the slope protection consists either of rock or

gravel downstream embankment zones, or of rock or gravel blankets. Gen­

eral and specific comments by various Districts, Corps of Engineers, in

reports on downstream slope protection follow.

Comments by Various Districts

Sacramento District

60. This section of the country is not adapted to planting of grass

seeds for slope control because of the marked differences in weather sea­

sons. The weather cycle in California is dry summer and fall seasons

and wet winter and spring seasons. A considerable proportion of the pre­

cipitation is in the form of snow, dependent upon the geographical loca­

tions of the dams, and heavy runoff periods do not occur. There has been

no excessive erosion at Misselbeck Dam where there is no protective cov­

er, and the fill material on the downstream slope is very loose.

San Erancisco District

61. Where vigorous grass growth can be attained, this type of slope

protection is best; but where such growth is prevented by climatic con­

ditions, gravel is the most efficient cover.

Portland District

62. None of the downstream slopes, whether covered with gravel or

gravelly soil with scattered sagebrush, or with rock, showed any evidence
 35
of wind or rain erosion. All of the dams with these types of slopes are

in arid or semiarid regions with light rainfall hut subject to occasional

strong winds.

Fort Peck District

63 . Sherburne Lake Dam is an example of the satisfactory perform­

ance of a 12-in. gravel blanket in protecting a high, steep downstream

slope subjected to occasional severe rainstorms and a moderate annual

rainfall. At Tongue River Dam, the spalling and slaking of the shaley

portions of the scoria in the downstream slope, plus wind-deposited fines,

have permitted the development of an effective natural vegetative cover.

At Dead ManTs Basin (where a small amount of erosion occurred in 19^-2),

the few weeds that are growing and the few small rocks that are on the

slope as a part of the embankment are providing protection against ero­

sion, but this slope would probably erode if subjected to heavy rainstorms.

Tulsa District

6k. Great Salt Plains and Fort Supply Dams are in a semiarid region

where long periods of drought occur. For this reason, and because of the

infeasibility of slope irrigation over the pervious downstream sections,

a crushed rock blanket (at Great Salt Plains), and a gravel blanket (at

Fort Supply) were used. The crushed rock blanket at Great Salt Plains

was only 3 in. thick, due to economic factors. Much maintenance has been

expended on this slope, due to displacement of the rock by foot traffic

and rain water and subsequent erosion of the embankment material. In the

survey report it was suggested that the use of a 6-in. blanket would have

cut the maintenance in half. The gravel in the 6-in. blanket at Fort

Supply was uniform and rounded, and the slope on which it was placed
36
approached its angle of repose. Consequently, it was easily displaced by

foot traffic and rain water, and much maintenance has been required.

Galveston District

65. In a note concerning Lake Nasworthy Dam, where sodding of the

downstream slope was ineffective and the clayey sand and gravel soil was

exposed, the statement was made that apparently where rainfall is not

sufficient to support grass or weed growth, neither is it a serious men­

ace to the unprotected slope.

Discussion

66. There is general agreement that, where climatic conditions

permit vigorous growth, grass slope protection is desirable. In arid

or semiarid regions where this is not possible, slopes of gravel or

rock are satisfactory. When the downstream embankment zone is composed

of material susceptible to erosion, such as silts, sands, or fine gravel,

protection must be provided by a gravel or rock blanket. As shown at

Great Salt Plains Dam, a very thin blanket is not satisfactory. It is

believed that 6 to 8 in. should be the minimum thickness, depending

upon the size and gradation of the blanket material. The constant

maintenance required at Fort Supply Dam indicated the undesirability

of uniform, rounded gravel for this purpose.

 37
PART V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Upstream Slope Protection

67 . Dumped riprap is the preferable type of upstream slope pro­

tection. On the basis of this survey, the following tentative criteria

of size and thickness are set up:

Expected Minimum Average Minimum Thickness of Riprap

Wave Height Rock Size (1.5 Times Average Size)
Ft In.______ ____________ In.____________

0 to 1 8 12
. 1 to 2 10 15
2 to 4 12 18
4 to 6 15 22
rb n
Rock should be fairly well-graded and care should be taken to prevent

segregation of sizes. Spalls should be used in sufficient quantities

to fill voids between the rocks.

68. Handplaced riprap is not recommended for use in areas where

heavy ice conditions develop in the winter. Elsewhere it is satisfactory

for slope protection, but the rock used should be of better quality than

that suitable for use as dumped riprap, and the rocks should be fairly

uniform in size and shape to permit their being fitted closely together.

Openings between the rocks should bo tightly chinked with spalls. The

following minimum thicknesses of handplaced riprap revetments are ten­

tatively established.

Expected Wave Minimum Riprap

Height, Ft Thickness, In.

Less than 2 10
2 to 4 16
4 to 6 20
38

69 c A filter 'blanket "between riprap and the embankment material

on the upstream slope of a dam should have an 85 per cent size, of not

less than 1 in. when waves of moderate heights are expected (up to 3 ft)

and of not less than l-l/2 to 2 in. for wave heights greater than 3 ft.

When the embankment material is such that it must be protected against

seepage forces developed within the embankment under conditions of steady-

seepage or rapid drawdown^ the filter material should also satisfy the

established criterion that its 15 per cent size should not be larger

than 5 times the 85 per cent size of the embankment soil.

70 . A filter between the revetment and the embankment material

may not be required when the embankment is composed of cohesive material

resistant to surface erosion^ and is not required where the embankment

material meets the specifications of the 85.per cent sizes stated above.

71 . Fig. 11 shows the general gradation limits of dumped riprap^

filter materials? and embankment soils of those dams surveyed which have

had satisfactory performance records. The overlap between the range of

filter gradation and the embankment soil gradations is due to the fact

that in a few cases the embankment soil served as its own filter and in

others the filter was formed by raking the coarser embankment material to­

ward the outside edge of the fill. Only a few of these dams had two-layer

filters^ and it appears that a single well-graded material can generally

be used successfully as a filter blanket beneath riprap. While Fig. 11

provides a general guide to the relative gradations of riprap^ filter,, and

embankment^ it is not presented for use as a design chart. Each design

problem should be examined in the light of the specific requirements dis­

cussed in this report. ;

 EQUIV STONE DIAMETER ININCHES TYLER SIEVE OPENINGS IN INCHES TYLER STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
m o t* »a_u 4 3 2 1.5 3! 48 65 IOO 150 200

Percent Finer by Weight

1870*

° V 1 2 0 *-
ç I.- tr Based on unit weight= 160 Ib/cu f t
and volume = 0.75 diam3

Fig. 11. Range of dumped riprap, filter, and embankment soil gradations of dams surveyed
 72. Concrete revetments are satisfactory under moderate wave

action. Slats should he reinforced, and not less than 6 or 8 in. in

thickness. Where possible, monolithic construction appears desirablej

otherwise expansion joints should be kept to a minimum, and construction

joints spaced as far apart as possible. Joints should be sealed with du­

rable plastic fillers, and subsequent open cracks in the concrete should

be grouted or sealed promptly. When required, a filter blanket should be

provided beneath the slab to drain the embankment soil safely and to elim­

inate frost heave of the embankment soil. When a filter is used, or when

the embankment soil beneath the concrete is pervious, weepholes should be

provided at the toe of the revetment. The concrete paving should be car­

ried up the slope well beyond the uprush of the maximum waves expected.

73 - Where severe wave action is anticipated, a concrete revetment

appears justified only when the embankment soil and compaction control are

such that settlement within the embankment after construction will be in­

significant. The concrete paving should be monolithic to the greatest

extent possible; and every measure taken to prevent access of water and

consequent development of hydrostatic pressures beneath the concrete.

Downstream Slope Protection

7^. Where vigorous growth of grass can be expected, vegetative

cover is generally the most desirable type of downstream slope protection.

In arid or semiarid regions where this is not possible, embankments com­

posed of soils susceptible to erosion (silts, sands, and fine gravels)

must be protected with coarse gravel or rock blankets at least 6 to 8

in. thick, depending on the gradation of the blanket material. Where

slopes are steep, uniform rounded gravels should not be used.

 Need for Further Study of Existing Dams

75* The lack of essential information on wind and waves at

existing dams upon which to judge the performance of the slope protection

measures used is shown by the present survey. The need for this infor­

mation has been previously recognized, as demonstrated by the following

excerpt from Engineer Bulletin No. 2, 1937, Office, Chief of Engineers.

”5. In view of the dearth of information concerning wave

heights and wind, velocities for existent reservoirs in the
United States, and particularly that relating to the action
of waves on the sloped surfaces of dams, data on this sub­
ject should be recorded whenever practicable.. It is there­
fore desired that all Division Engineers and District
Engineers take the necessary steps when the occasion offers
to record wave heights and wind velocities occurring during
unusual storms at reservoirs within their jurisdiction.”

76 . Such observations correlated with available data from the

nearest Weather Bureau and airport observations would be valuable not

only in the evaluation of slope protection measures already in use, but

also in the development of design data for future dams in the same

general area, both in respect to slope protection and freeboard require­

ments.

77- The following data should be recorded at the time of the

observations:

a. Fetch at the existing pool elevation (taking into account

the wind direction).

b. Slope of face and description of slope protection within

the zone of wave action.

_c. Wind velocities, direction, and duration.

d. Wave heights (in the reservoir beyond the influence of

the dam face). Wave uprush on the slope. Whether waves
break upon or just before reaching the slope. Angle of
wave approach with the dam axis. Wave reflection.
Effect of wave action: displacement or movement of revet­
ment material, loss of bedding material, overtopping.
TABLES
 Table 1

TYPES OF SLOPE PROTECTION OF DAMS SURVEYED

Upstream Slope Protection Downstream Slope Protection

BiPr Vege- EmbarìTnrifìrit
Con- Mis­ tative Blanket Zone
Dam and Location Operating Agency Dunged placed crete cellaneous Cover Rock Gravel Rock Gravel
Ohio River Division

Huntington District

Leesville, McGuire Creek, Tuscarawas R., Ohio Corps of Engineers x

Tappan, Little Stillwater Creek, Tuscarawas Corps of Engineers 0

River, Ohio
Pleasant Hill, Clear Fork of Mohican River, Corps of Engineers x
Ohio

Nashville District

Chickamauga Lock, Earth Sections, Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority x - - 0

River, Term.
Watts Bar Lock, Earth Section Tennessee Valley Authority x - - 0
Nottely, Nottely River, Ga. Tennessee Valley Authority 0 Rock fill
emb, zone
Chatuge, Hiwassee River, N. C. Tennessee Valley Authority X - X

Pittsburgh District

Berlin Dam (Earth Emb. Wings) Corps of Engineers o - - x

Berlin Reservoir - Highway Crossing Ohio State Highway Department 0 0
Berlin Reservoir - Railroad Crossing Lake Erie, Alliance & Wheeling R. R. 0 - - 0
Mahoning River, Ohio
Mosquito Creek Corps of Engineers x - - x
Mosquito Creek Reservoir - Highway Crossing Ohio State Highway Department 0 - - 0

Tionesta, Tionesta Creek, Pa. Corps of Engineers 0 - . - - x

Missouri River Division

Denver District

Point of Rocks, Horsetail Creek, Colo. North Sterling Irrigation District x

Notes : x, data used in evaluation of slope protection} 0, data not used in evaluation of slope protection (see Appendix B for reasons): i, initial type of
protection — later changed to that shown.
(Continued)
 Table 1 (Cont)

Upstream Slope Protection Downstream Slope Protection

Riprap Vege- Embankment
Hand- Con­ Mis­ tative Blanket Zone
Operating Agency Pi imped placed crete cellaneous Cover Rock Gravel Rock Gravel
__________ _____ Dam and Location _______

Denver District (Cont)

Minatare, off North Platte Riverr Nebr. Bureau of Reclamation x

Sutherland, off South Platte River, Nebr. Platte Valley Public Power & Irriga­ x x
tion District
Kingsley, North Platte River, Nebr. Central Nebraska Public Power & Oi X
Irrigation District

Fort Peck District

Corps of Engineers 0 - - - X
Fort Peck, Missouri River, Mont.

Bureau of Reclamation X - - - X
Fresno, Milk River, Mont.

Sherburne Lake, Swift Current Creek, Mont. Bureau of Reclamation - X - - - -

Durand, N. Fork Musselshell River, Mont. Mont. State Water Conservation Board X - - - -

Mont. State Water Conservation Board

_ O’ R o c k em b. .
Dead Man’s Basin, off Musselshell River, Mont
zone

Tongue River, Tongue River, Mont. Mont. State Water Conservation Board _ - . - 0 R o ck e m b .. -
zone
Bureau of Reclamation X X
Belle Fourche, off Belle Fourche River,
South Dakota

Kansas City District

Wyandotte County, Marshall Creek, Kansas Wyandotte County Engineer _ X - _ X

Kansas Forestry, Fish & Game Comm. X - - X

Tonganoxie, Nine Mile Creek, Kansas -

City Engineer, Herington, Kansas - X - - X

Herington, Coal Creek, Kansas

Omaha District

Loup River Public Power District - - X - X

Babcock, off Loup River, Nebr.

X _ - X
Johnson, off Platte River, Nebr. Central Nebraska Public Power 8s
Irrigation District

Notes: x, data used in evaluation of slope protection; 0, data not used in evaluation of slope protection (see Appendix B for reasons); i, initial type of
protection -- later changed to that shown.

(Continued)
 Table 1 (Cant)

Upstream Slope Protection Downstream Slope Protection

Riprap Vege- Embankment
B and- Con- Mis- tative Blanket Zone
Dam and Location Operating Agency Dumped placed crete cellaneous Cover Rock Gravel Rock Gravel

Southwestern Division

Albuquerque District

Conchas (Wing Dams), Canadian River, N. M. Corps of Engineers 0 - - - - 0 - - -

John Martin, Arkansas River, Colo. Corps of Engineers 0 - - - - 0 - - -

El Vado, Chama River, N. M. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist. - - - 0 Steel membrane - 0 - - -

Alamogordo, Pecos River, N. M. Bureau of Reclamation 0 - - . - - 0 - - -

Caballo, Rio Grande, N. M. Bureau of Reclamation 0 - - - - 0 - - -

Elephant Butte (Saddle Dam), Rio Grande, N. M. Bureau of Reclamation - O1 0 - - 0 - - -

Galveston District

;
Mountain Creek, Mountain Creek, Trinity Creek, Dallas Power & Light Co. X _ X
Trinity River, Tex.
Eagle Mountain, West Pork Trinity River, Tex. Tarrant County Water Control 8s X X X ~ «• ” —
Improvement Dist. No. 1 (Valley (Levee '
sec.) sec.)
Bridgeport, W. Pork of Trinity River, Tex. Tarrant County Water Control 8s X - - X - - - -
Improvement Dist. No. 1
Lake Worth, W. Fork of Trinity River, Tex. City of Fort Worth, Tex. 0 - X - X ■ - - -
(So. emb. )
Marshall Ford, Colorado River, Tex. Bureau of Reclamation X - . - - - - - X -
Brownwood, Pecan Bayou, Colorado River, Tex. Brown County Water Improvement Dist. X - - - X - - - -
Lake Nasworthy, So. Concho River, Colorado West Texas Utilities Co. ac .. X
River, Tex.

Tulsa District

Great Salt Plains, Salt Fork of Arkansas Corps of Engineers X X

River, Okla.
Fort Supply, Wolf Creek, Okla. Corps of Engineers - X - - - - X - -
Denison, Red River, Tex., Okla. Corps of Engineers X - - - X - - . _

Notes: x, data used in evaluation of slope protection; 0, data not used in evaluation of slope protection (see Appendix B for reasons); i, initial type of
protection — later changed to that shown.
(Continued)
 Table 1 (Cant)

Upstream Slope Protection Downstream Slope Protection

Riprap Vege- Embankment
Band- Con- Mis­ tative Blanket Zone
Dam and Location Operating Agency Dumped placed crete cellaneous Cover Rock Gravel Rock Gravel

Tulsa District (Cont)

Lake Murray, West Fork of Hickory Creek, Okla. Oklahoma State Park Board

Carl Blackwell, Stillwater Creek, Okla. Oklahoma A. & M. College x

Lake Kemp, Wichita River, Tex. Wichita County Water Improvement x

District
Spavinaw, Spavinaw Creek, Okla. City of Tulsa, Okla. x

North Pacific Division

Portland District

Agency Valley, N. Fork Malheur River, Ore. Bureau of Reclamation X x

Cold Springs, near Hermiston, Ore. Bureau of Reclamation X x

Cottage Grove, Coast Fork Willamette R., Ore. Corps of Engineers X x

Fern Ridge, Long Tom River, Ore. Corps of Engineers X x

McKay Dam, McKay Creek, Ore. Bureau of Reclamation

American Falls, Snake River, Ida. Bureau of Reclamation 0 x

Lower Deer Flat, Caldwell, Ida. Bureau of Reclamation x - 0* Gravel X

Island Park, H e n r y k Fork, Ida. Bureau of Reclamation X X

Magic, Big Wood River, Ida. Big Wood Canal Co. x - X

Oakley, Goose Creek, Ida. Oakley Canal Co. X

Grassy Lake, Grassy Creek, Wyo. Bureau of Reclamation X X

Jackson Lake, Snake River, Wyo. Bureau of Reclamation x X

Seattle District

Keechelus, Keechelus River, Wash. Bureau of Reclamation X

Notes: x, data used in evaluation of slope protection; 0, data not used in evaluation of slope protection (see Appendix B for reasons); i, initial type of
protection -- later changed to that shown.
(Continued)
 Table 1 (Cont)
Upstream Slope Protection Downstream Slope P rotection
Biprap ,. , Vege~ Embankment
Hand- Con- Mis- ta tiv e Blanket Zone
Dam and Location Operating Agency Dumped placed crete cellaneous Cover Bock Gravel Rock Gravel
S eattle D istric t (Cont)
Cle Elum, Cle Elum River, Wash. * Bureau of Reclamation X - - - - - - - X

Tieton, Tieton River, Wash. Bureau of Reclamation X - - - - - - X -

Pablo, Flathead River, Mont. U. S. Indian Service X - - - - - - - X

South Pacific Division

Los Angeles D istric t
Cajalco Dam and Dike, Lake Mathews, Riverside Metropolitan Water D is tric t of x x
County, C alif. Southern California
Santiago, Santiago Creek, Orange County, Irvine Co., Carpenter Irrig a tio n Co., X x
C alif. and Serrano Irrig a tio n Co.
Bouquet Canyon/ Los Angeles County, C alif. City of Los Angeles X X

Fairmont, Los Angeles County, C alif. City of Los Angeles X X

Lower San Fernando, Los Angeles County, C alif. City of Los Angeiles 0 X

Upper San Fernando, Los Angeles County, C alif. City of Los Angeles 0 Plant-mix X
asphaltic concrete
Stone Canyon, Los Angeles County, C alif. City of Los Angeles 0 Sprayed X
road o il
Elysian, Los Angeles County, C alif. City of Los Angeles 0 Plant-mix X
asphaltic concrete
Peters Canyon, Orange County, C alif. Irvine Co., Carpenter Irrig a tio n Co., 0 Asphalt mixed X
and Serrano Irrig a tio n Co. in place
Sepulveda, Los Angeles River, C alif. Corps of Engineers X

Prado, Santa Ana River, C alif. Corps of Engineers

Sheffield, Santa Barbara County, C a lif. City of Santa Barbara
Sacramento D istric t
Misselbeck, N. Fork of Cottonwood Creek, Happy Valley Water Co., Happy Valley, X
Shasta County, C alif. C alif. (Gunite)

Notes: x, data used in evaluation of slope protection; 0, data not used in evaluation of slope p ro tectio n (see Appendix B fo r reasons).

(Continued)
 Table 1 (Cont)

______ Upstream Slope Protection Downstream Slope Protection

Riprap Vege- Embankment
Hand- Con- Mis- tative Blanket Zone
Dam and Location Operating Agency Dumped placed crete cellaneous Cover Rock Gravel Rock Gravel

Sacramento District (Cont)

Woodward, Simmons Creek, Stanislaus County,
Calif.
Priest, Rattlesnake Creek, Tuolumne County,
Calif.
Crane Valley, N. Fork San Joaquin R., Calif.
South San Joaquin Irrigation Dis­ x
trict, Manteca, Calif.
City of San Francisco, Calif. 0 x
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. X

Bridgeport, E. Walker River, Calif. Walker River Irrigation District, X X

Yerington, Rev.

San Francisco District

Chabot, San Leandro Creek, Alameda County East Bay Municipal Utility District
Calif. Grouted riprap
Upper San Leandro, San Leandro Creek, Alameda East Bay Municipal Utility District
County, Calif.
Calaveras, Calaveras Creek, Alameda County, San Francisco Municipal Water Supply
Calif. System
San Andres, San Mateo County, Calif. San Francisco Municipal Water Supply 0
System
San Pablo, San Pablo Creek, Contra Costa East Bay Municipal Utility District x
County, Calif.
Lafayette, Contra Costa County, Calif. East Bay Municipal Utility District x

Notes: x, data used in evaluation of slope protection; 0, data not used in evaluation of slope protection (see Appendix B for reasons).
 Table 2

M AXIMUM WAVE HEIGHTS — DUMPED RIPRAP SLOPE PROTECTION

(Dans listed in same order as Table l)

Com­
Wind Velocity Data puted Reported Data
Tear Location of Dam Extreme Max l'-!hr Fetch Wave Wind Wave
Com- in Relation to Period of Velocity Veloc Veloc in Ht Veloc Ht
Dam pleted Weather Station Named Record Date MPH MPH MPH Miles ft MPH ft

Leesrille 1937 - - - 6la 51a 36a 1 E 2 - 2

Pleasant Hill 1938 - - - 6la 51a 36a I-I/2 N 2-1/2 - I-I/2

Mosquito Creek 19*4*4- - - - 6la 51a 36a 5 N *4- . - *1+

Fresno 1939 1*4- mi W Havre, 63 yr 10/39 53 SW 43b 38* 2 W 2-1/2 _ 6

Mont, (l)
Durand 1939 65 mi SW Lewistovn, 12/14-2-11A 4 1/44 55 W 51e 39e I-I/2 NW 2-1/2 - 5
Mont. (2)
Johnson 19*40 *»■5 mi W Kearney, 3A3-10A6 39C
4/45 55 E 51° 3 NW 3 “ 3
Nebr. (2) 3A 3-10A 6
Mountain Creek 1931 10 mi W Dallas, 30 yr 7/36 77 N 68b *45b 5 S 5* - High
Tex. (1)
Eagle Mountain 1933 12 mi NW Ft Worth, *4-5 yr 5/35 68 W 55b 30d 3 N 2-1/2 . *4-5
(Valley) Tex. (1)
Marshall Ford 19*41 10 mi NW Austin, 1 A 2- H A 6 1/46 60 WNW 52d 26d 6-1/2 N 3 - 8
Tex. (2)
Brownvood 1932 65 mi SE Abilene, I2 A 3-I2 A 5 6/45 5*4- SSW 48a 22d 1 -1/3 w 1-1/2 - 2-1/2
Tex. (2)
Lake Nasworthy 1930 5 mi S San Angelo, 9A 1 - I I A *2
6
3 6/43 50 SE *45d 20d 1 W 1-1/2 - -
Tex. (2)
Denison 19*4*4 15 mi N Sherman, 1 A 2- H A 6 3/45 50 WNW **•5° 20d 10 NW 3 - -
Tex. (2)
Lake Hemp 1923 *4-0 mi SW Wichita k/k2-3/kb 6/42 50 N 45c 20d 5 SW 2 . _
Falls, Tex. (2)
Agency Valley 1936 60 mi W Ontario, 1/3*4-12/38 10/38 52 SW kQc 36e 2-3A N 3 52 *4
Ore. (3)
Cold Springs 1908 50 mi ENE Arlington, 6/35-12/38 3/36 70 W 66e 56e 2 NE k Strong _
Ore. (3)
Cottage Grove 19te Dam Records - 12/45 83 SW 79e 65e 2-1/2 SW *4-1/2 83 5

Fern Ridge 19*42 Dam Records - 12/45 76 SW 72e 62e *4-1/2 SW 6 76 -

Island Park 1938 35 mi E Monida, 3A3-10A5 7/44 *4-0 W 36e 2kc 1 N 1-1/2 Mod 3
Mont. (2)
Oakley 1910 35 mi WNW Strevell, 1 /3*4-12/38 2/37 *4-6 SE k2c 30e 3 SW 2-1/2 Mod -
Ida. (3)
Grassy Lake 1939 65 mi S Yellowstone to 19*4-1 8/39 33 SW 29C 16c I-I/2 SE 1 Mod -
Park, wyo. (l)
Cle Elum 1933 35 mi NW Ellensburg, 6/35-12/38 12/38 52 WNW *4-8° 36e 7 NW *i- 3 A - 3
Wash. (3)
Tieton 1925 30 mi W Yakima, 15 yr 9/40 38 SW l9b 6 SW 2 30
35b 3
Wash. (1)
Pablo 1911-33 *4-0 mi S Kalispell, *4-1 yr 37t 27b 1 W I-I/2 ■_ 2-1/2
6/31 *4-3 SW
Mont. (1)
Crane Valley 1910 *4-0 mi N Fresno, 56 yr 1/16 50 SW 4lb 3*4-° I-I/2 NW 2-1/2 _ _
Calif. (1)
Bridgeport 192*4 80 mi SSE Reno, 1/32-12/38 2/36 60 SW 56e *4-5° *4- S *4-l/2 - 3
(Calif.) Nev. (3)
San Pablo 1922 Near San Pablo, 8 yr 31-33 39 35° 23e 5 SE 2-1/2 - 1 -1/2
Calif. (3)

Notes: (1) 1st Order Weather Bureau Stations

(2) Army Airfield Records
(3) Weather Bureau Airport Records

a See computation, sheet

b Actual observations
c Using Figure 5a
d Using Figure 5b

* Value probably too high due to shoals in front of dam,

 Table 3
MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHTS — HÄNDPLACED RIPRAP SLOPE PROTECTION

(Dams listed in same order as Table 1)

Com­
Wind Velocity Data puted Reported Data
Year Location of Dam Extreme Max 1-hr Fetch Wave Wind Wave
Com­ in Relation to Period of Velocity Veloc Veloc in Ht Veloc Ht
Dam pleted Weather Station Named Record Date MPH MPH MPH Miles ft MPH ft

Chickamauga 1940 - - 52a 42a 28“ 6 NE 3-1/2 - -

Watts Bar 1942 - - 52 42s 28s 5 N 3 - -

Chatuge 1942 - - 52 42a 28s 4 E 3 - -

Point of Rocks 1934-5 30 mi SSW Sidney, 6/30-12/38 5/33 69 WNW 65b 55* 2 NW 3-1/2 - 6 +
Neb. (1)

Sherburne Lake 1916 55 mi WNW Cut Bank, 4/37-2/40 10/37 50 SW 46b 3^D 1-1/ 2 W 2 -I/2 6+
-
Mont. (1)

Wyandotte 1941 15 mi NW Kansas City, 56 yr 8/lH 72 NW 63e 37° 1 S 1 -1/2 - 1 -1/2

County Mo. (2)

Tonganoxie 1931 35 mi W K. C., Mo. (2) 56 yr 8Al 72 NW 63e 37e 1 NE 1-1/2 - 1 -1/2
Heringtan 1928 45 mi NNW Cassoday, 1 /34- 12/38 n /36 54 NNW 48b 22b 1- 1/4 S 2 - 2 - 3
Kan. (1)

Eagle Mountain- 1933 12 mi NW Ft Worth, 45 yr 5/35 68 W 55e 30a 4 3 - 4 . 5

Levee Section Tex. (2)

Bridgeport 1931 45 mi NW Ft Worth, 45 yr 5/35 68 W 55e 30d 2- 1/ 2 w 2-1/2 - 4 - 5

(Tex.) Tex. (2)

Great Salt 1941 45 mi ENE Waynoka, 3 /31^ 12/38 2/35 60 WNW 52a 25d 6w 3 - -
Plains Okla. (1)
.on
co

9
on
H

Fort Supply 1942 40 mi W Waynoka, 2/35 60 WNW 52a 25d SSW 4 - -

Okla. (1)
to

60 6w
1

Carl Blackwell 1940 50 mi NNE Oklahoma SW 52a 25d

£
H

9 M 3 - -
City, Okla. (3)

Spavinaw 1924 55 mi ENE Tulsa, I/3O-I2/38 9/k6 60 NNW 52a 25* 4 E 2- 1/2 - -
Okla. (1)

Lower Deer 1936 25 mi W Boise, 58 yr 7M 60 W 56* 44b 9 SE 6 Strong -

Flat Ida. (2)

Magic 46 mi NE King Hill, 1 /34-12/38 62 WNW 58b 4fb 6 NW 5-1/2 Strong

1909 1/37 -
Ida. (1)

Jackson Lake 19 11-16 78 mi S Yellowstone 38 yr to 4l 6/29 47 sw 13e 31e 5 SW 3-1/2 - -

Pk, Wyo. (2)

Keechelus 1917 50 mi NW Ellensburg, 6/35-12/38 12/38 52 WNW 36b 36b 5 NW 4 3

Wash. ( 1 ) ________

Notes s (l) Weather Bureau Airport Records

(2) 1st Order Weather Bureau Stations
(3) Army Airfield Records

a See computation sheet

b Using Figure 5a
c Actual observations
d Using Figure 5b
 Table it-

MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHTS — CONCRETE SLOPE PROTECTION

(Dams listed In same order as Table l)

Com­
Wind Velocity Data puted Reported Data
Tear Location of Dam Extreme Max 1-hr Fetch Wave Wind Wave
Cam- in Relation to Period of Velocity Veloc Veloc in Ht Veloc Ht
Dam pleted Weather Station Named Record Date MPH MPH MPH Miles ft MPH ft

Point of Rocks 1911 30 mi SSW Sidney, 6/30-12/38 5/33 69 WNW 65a 55a 2 3-1/2 - -
Nebr. (l)

Minatare 1915 60 mi NW Sidney, 6/30-12/38 5/33 69 WNW 65*

* 55* 2 3-1/2 - 6
Nebr. (l)

Sutherland 1936 6 mi SW North Platte, 1 /3 1 -12/38 6/32 60 NW 56* 45a 2 3 - 6

Regulating Nebr. (l)
Reservoir

Belle Fourche 1906 50 mi NNW Rapid City, 56 yr 9/ita 73 NW 66* 60* 8 8 >50 6-8
S. D. (2)

Babcock - East 1938 60 mi NE Lincoln, 47 yr 8/00 84 W 60* 4oc 2 2-3/4 - 6-7

& SE Sections Nebr. (2)

Lake Worth- 1913 5 mi NW Fort Worth, 45 yr 5/35 68 W 55b 30 4 3 - -

North Embank­ Tex. (2)
ment

McKay 1926' 6 mi S Pendleton, I/34 - 12/38 12/3*t- 55 51* 40* 4 4 - Low

Ore. (l)

Cajalco Dam 1938 50 mi E Los Angeles, 67 yr 1A 3 47 SE 43* 31* 3 -1/2 3 Mod. Mod.
Calif. (2)

Cajalco Dike 3 2 -1/2 Mod. Mod.

Santiago 1932 35 mi SE Los Angeles, 67 yr iA 3 47 SE 43b 3la 2 2 Mod. Mod.

Calif. (2)

Bouquet Canyon 1934 13 mi NE Saugus, 5 yr 45 4la 28a 2 2 Mod. Mod.

Calif. (1)

Fairmont 1928 16 ml SE Sandberg, 7 yr 68

Calif. (1)
20 mi NW Palmdale, 5 yr - 46 53a 42* 2 2-3/4 50 High
Calif. (1) 57 Avg

Misselbeck 1920 15 mi W Redding, 9 yr 12/33 54 SE 42* 38 * 1-2 2 - Low

Calif. (2)

Woodward 1918 45 mi NNW Merced, l/42-10/46 3/tó 44 SE 40s 28* •2d 2 - High
Calif. (3)

Lafayette 1932 Approx 15 mi W San 8 yr 31/33 39 35a 23 * 3/4 I-1/4 - 3/4

Pablo, Calif, (l)

Notes: (1) Weather Bureau Airport Records

(2) 1st Order Weather Bureau Stations
(3) Army Airf ield Records

a Using Figure 5&

* Actual observations
c Using Figure 5b
d Estimated
 Table 5

DATA ON DUMPED RIPRAP UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION

(Dams listed In order of Increasing computed wave height)

Com-
puted Riprap Data Filter Data
Wave Thick: Thick- Thick­ Emb. Ratios
Fetch
in Ht ness d50 ness d15 . ness d85 d 15 ® 85 d 1 5 Riprap D15 Filter
’
Dam Slope Miles ft in. in. D*5o in. thth mm U 8 5 Filter D '8 5 Emb .

Grassy Lake 1 on 3 1-1/2 1 36 16 2 .3 280 12 50 0 .3 25 6 0.01

Island Park 1 on 4 1 1-1/2 36 16 2 .3 280 (None » _ 18 l6a -

1 on 5 (12 50 0 .7 19 6 0 .0 4

Pablo 1 on 3 1 1-1/2 12 9 1 .3 l60 6 25 0 .3 2 No Data 6 -

Lake Nasvorthy 1 on 2-1/2 1 1-1/2 32 10 1.2 170 16-20 35 0 .0 4 0.20 5 0.2

1 on 3

Brownwood 1 on 3 1 -1 / 3 1-1/2 17 9 1 .9 170 None _ 60 3a -

48 9 5 .3 170 None - - 70 2* -

Leesville 1 an 2 to 1 2 36 17 2.1 8 No Data - No Data - -

1 on k-l/2

Lake Kemp 1 an 2 2 18 12 1 .5 150 6 11 0.02 2 .5 14 0.01

5
1 on 3

Tieton 1 on 3 6 2 48 15 3 .2 220 s None - - No Data - -

(Avg)
(12 12a
San Pablo 1 an 2 5 2-1/2 18 10 1.8 150 None - - 5 30a -
1 on 3 (1 5 10a

Fresno 1 an 3 2 2-1/2 24 14 1 .7 190 (12 23 0 .3 5 2.2 9 0.16

(12 45 1.0 - 4 -

Durand 1 on 2 1-1/2 2-1/2 30 15 2.0 180 12 45 9 .0 N o Data 4 -

1 an 3

Oakley 1 an 3 3 2-1/2 36 7 5 .1 - None - - 30 - -

Pleasant Sill 1 coi 2 to 1-1/2 2-1/2 48 36 1 .3 - None - - No Data - -

1 an 3-1/2

Crane Valley Dam 1 an 1-1/2 1-1/2 2-1/2 ( 2 4 5 4 .8 89 6 19 0.08 1.1 4 .7 0.07

Unrepaired Sec.b (3 6 5 7*2 89 6 25 0.06 1.0 ( 3 .5 0.06

Notes: a Ratio, 1% size of riprap to 8jf> size of embankment material; * probably typical of repaired section before wave damage.

Data on materials are derived generally from test pits. Where several pits show differences in thickness or gradations, data are shown separately.

(Continued)
 Table 5 (Cont)

Com-
puted Riprap Data Filter Data Ratios
Fetch Wave Thick­ Thick­ Thick­ Emb.
In Ht d50 ness d15 ness D 15 Filter
ness D85 d15 D85
Dam Slope Miles ft in, in. ih. D85 Filter d85 Emb. Comments

Crane Valley Dam 1 on 1 1-1/2 2-1/2 (3° 12 2.5 0.6 30 15 0.05 1.5 0.0h 0.03 East section of dam repaired after
Repaired Sec. (36 12 3.0 0.6 None - - h3 0 .0 1 a - much damage by wave action

Nottely Dam, TVA h 2-1/2 36-96 20 1.8- 2h-h8 38(Max)

h.8

Eagle Mountain 1 on 2-l/h 3 2-1/2 ( ib 12 1.2 180 6 22 0.01 0.2 8 0.05

Valley Section 1 on 3 (20 Ì2 1.7 l80 11 22 0.01 o.o6 8 0.17

Agency Valley 1 on 3 2-3A 3 36 12 3.0 2ho None « (22 lla

(h7 5a «

Johnson 1 on 3 3 3 (9 7 1.1 160) 6 8 0.3 (0.3 20 1 .0 Loss of filter and embankment

(15 7 1.9 160) (0.08 20 3.5 material due to wave action

Denison 1 on 2 to 10 3 36 lh 2.6 280 12/18° 8 0 /l2 2 5 /0 .h 0.13 h 3

1 on h

ho

IO
Marshall Ford 1 on 3 6-1/2 3 ho 15 2.7 l8(min)* 0.5 No Data 6 -

o
Mosquito Creek 1 on 3 to 5 h 36 n 3.3 « None «.
5
1 on 5

Cold Springs 1 on 3 2 h 20 5 h .o 85 (12 5 0.05 1.8 17 0.03 Severe storm in April 1931 washed
(12 37 3.5 5.0 2 0.7 away considerable riprap

Bridgeport (Calif. ) 1 on 3 h h-l/2 (36e 8 3.0 200) None «. «.

(18 n a
(h8 8 h .o 200) (50 ha -

Cottage Grove 1 on 2 to 2-1/2 h-l/2 2h 9 2.7 130 lt O (M a )a (59 5.3 No Data 2

1 on 3 (80 15.0 2

Cle Elum 1 on 3 to h-3/h 30 16 300 12 No Data «

7 1.9 65 0.5 5
1 on 4

Mountain Creek 1 on 2-1/2 5 5f 12 8 1.5 l60 (11 7 0.06 0.08 23 0.8 Loss of filter material evidenced
1 on 3 (12 18 5.5 0.08 9 69 by formation of gravel bar

Fern Ridge 1 on 3 h-l/2 6 2h lh 1.7 270 (IS» 35 0.02 0.19 8 0 .1

(36a 79 0.h7 - 3 -

Notes: a Ratio,, 15$ size of riprap to 8 5 $ size of embankment material; c two-layer filter; ^ actually outer embankment zone, increasing in thickness from crown to toe;
6 riprap up to 7 ft thick in maximum section; f this value is probably too high since there are shoals in front of the dam.

Data on materials are derived generally from test pits. Where several pits show differences in thickness or gradations, data are shown separately.
 Table 6

DATA ON HANDPLACED RIPRAP UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION

(Dams listed in order of increasing confuted wave height)

Com- Riprap Filter Data

Fetch puted Thick­ Thick­ Emb. Ratio
In Wave ness ness d85 D15 D 85 d15 Filter
Dam Slope Miles Ht ft in. in. mm mm d 85 Emb. Comments

Wyandotte County 1 on 4 1 1-1/2 12 6-9 50 1.0 0.7 -

1 on 6

Tonganoxie 1 on 2 1 1-1/2 12 None - - 0.03 - Some displacement of stones

1 on 3

Herington 1 on 3 1-1/4 2 12 None - - 0.03 - Some displacement of rocks during storms

reported, but not in evidence during survey

Sherburne Lake8, 1 on 2 1-1/2 2-1/2 18 12 100 9 .5 No Data - Damage to slope in 1937 attributed to
1 on 3 driftwood

Bridgeport (Tex.) 1 on 2 2-1/2 2-1/2 13-15 7 4o 2 .5 0.06 42

1 on 3 8 27 0.06 0.1 0.6

Spavinaw 1 on 3 4 2-1/2 15 6 28 8.0 15 0.5

Chatuge 1 on 3 4 3 36b 12 No Data - No Data -

1 on 4

Watts Bar 1 on 3 5 3 24 12 60 6.5 0.4 16

1 on 4

Great Salt Plains 1 on 2-1/2 6 3 16 5/3° 20/0.7 O.28 /0 .18 O.O5 4

to
1 on 3-1/2

Carl Blackwell 1 on 3 6 3 24b 3/3° 65/31 32 /0 .12 0.12 1

00 00
d d
O H
Eagle Mountain- 1 on 2-1/4 4 3 12 6 1|0 2 .5 31
Levee Section 1 on 3 25 0 .15 0.8

Notes: a Top 10 ft grouted. Due to a long narrow channel connecting dam and main reservoir area, wave hieght shown may he considerably
in error.
b Comprising more than one layer of rocks.
, c Two-layer filter.
Data on materials derived from test pits. Where pits showed differences in thickness of gradation, data are shown separately.

(Continued)
 Table 6 (Cont)

Com- Riprap Filter D ìita

Fetch puted Thick­ Thick­ Emb. Ratio
in Wave ness ness d 85 d15 d 85 d 15 Filter
Dam Slope Miles Ht ft in. in. d 85 U > . Comments

Jackson Lake 1 on 1 5 3-1/2 12-18 30 0.1^ 15 0.03' Damage to slope in early history attributed
1 on 3 to driftwood. Spalling and displacement
below high water line possibly due to ice.

Chickamauga 1 on 2 6 3-1/2 l8-36b 8-12 25 0.7 0.08 9

1 on 3

Point of Rocks 1 on 2 2 3-1/2 l+8b 12 10 0.5 No Data .

Fort Supply 1 on 2 -1/2 9 1+ 16 6 37 15 0.2 30

1 on 3

Keechelus 1 on 3 5 2k 36 0 0 55 2 .7 No Data _
^0\0N

M a g ic 1 on 3 6 5-1/2 18-21). 80/30 0 .1/0.02 10 0.002 Some displacement and slight settlement at
80/20 0 .5/0.007 15 0 .001 easterly end belpw high water line. Some
displacement of rocks by ice.
Lower Deer Flat 1 on l-l/2d 9 6 18 (18 O .15
0 0
• •
55 0.5 Erosion of gravel beach has caused under­
1 on 5 (24 50 mining and partial loss of rock toe for
21+00 ft.

Notes : ^ Comprising more than one layer of rocks.

c Two-layer filter.
1 on l-l/2 rock slope wall extending 10 ft below crown. Rest of slope is gravel on average 1 on 5 slope.
Data on materials derived from test pits. Where pits showed differences in thickness or gradation, data are shown separately.
 Table 7

DATA ON CONCRETE UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION

(Dams listed in carder of increasing computed wave height)

Concrete Filter Data Tïl«i|W

Thick­
JüZu Di Ratio
Tear Fetch Maximum Wave Ht Thick­
ness ness d85 d 15 d 85 d 15 Filter
Com­ in Reported Computed
Milès ft ft Description in. in. lìfflì Piftl D8 5 Tümh7~ Dftimnftnts
Dam pleted Slope

1-1/4 5° x 100 ft reinforced slabs 6 9 Gravel No Data No Data General condition very
Lafayette 1932 1 on 3 3A 3A good. Asphaltic filler
with thickened lap joints
separated by l/2 in. asphal­ flowed out of transverse
tic filler. Slabs anchored joints during summer heat.
to horizontal cutoffs to
prevent sliding
Horizontal cracks have
Woodward 1918 1 on 2-1/2 2a High 2 Unreinforced concrete slabs 4-6 None - - 0*5
developed, spaced 10 to
with transverse construc­
tion joints on 10-ft cen­ 12 ft apart. Major
ters. Weep holes along damage during storms when
wave wash reaches unpaved
face of slope
crown; water backwashes
behind concrete, and
hydrostatic pressures dis­
place slabs.

Santiago 1932 1 on 2-1/2 2 Moderate 2 10-ft square reinforced 6 None 0 . 8- 2.0 Slope sheltered from pre­
concrete slabs; transverse vailing winds. Little
joints staggered. No filler variation in pool level.
in joints Some weed growth in
joints but no particular
maintenance.

Reinforced concrete slabs, 6-9 None 0.8-1.0 - Sheltered reservoir.

Bouquet Canyon 1934 1 on 3 2 Moderate 2
(Crest Little fluctuation in
poured continuous longitu­
dinally in 10 ft width to toe) pool level. Well-
compacted embankment over­
strips
filled then cut back to
grade. Cracks 0.02 in.
wide developed 2-7 ft
apart. No loss of embank­
ment material. No main­
tenance required.

Gunite reinforced with 1- 1-1/2 None 1.8 - Satisfactory under exist­

Misselbeck 1920 1 on 3 1-2 Low 2b
ing conditions. Regularly
l/2-in. mesh chicken wire. to 2
Transverse joints on 15-ft spaced cracks have develop­
centers ed an approximately 5-ft
centers, horizontally and
vertically. All construc­
tion Joints have risen a
ni-fnimnn of 3 in., maximum
of 10 in. Some horizontal
displacement. Such damage
attributed to freezing,
________________ thawing and settlement.

Notes: a Assumed fetch. Surrounding terrain open and flat.

probably too high as reservoir is surrounded by high mountains (Continued)
 Table 7 (Cont)

Concrete Filter Data

Thick­ Enib• Ratio
Tear Fetch Maximum Wave Ht Thick­
Reported Computed ness ness d 85 d 15 Filter
Com­ in d 85 d 15
Dam pleted Slope Miles ft ft Description in. in. d 85 Enib. Comments

Cajalco Dike 1938 1 on 2-1/2 3 Moderate 2-1/2 Monolithic reinforced con­ 8 None - 0.5-0.8 - Slope on lee side of pre­
crete slab vailing westerly winds. No
frost action, little varia­
tion In pool elev. Cracks
0.02 to 0.05 in. In width
at Intervals of 6-8 ft. No
erosion of well-compacted
clayey sand fill. No main­
tenance.

Fairmont 1928 1 on 3 Fairly 2-3/1* 6 x 12 ft unreinforced None 1.5-2.0 - Considerable wave action as
High concrete slabs with winds 25-30 mph occur for
longitudinal Joints several days. Erosion of
staggered slab surface along entire
length for 6-8 ft width at
and above normal pool elev
caused considerable mainte­
nance consisting of l-l/2 in.
thick granite. Concrete
easy to chip with air hammer
near water surface

Babcock-East & 1938 1 on 2 2 6-7 2-3/1* Reinforced concrete slabs
SE Sections with transverse construction
Joints on 12-l/2-ft centers.
Radial expansion Joints at
points of tangency of dam
axis are overlapped and
thickened; filled with 2 in.
asphaltic filler
8 None 0 . 01* Generally satisfactory per­
formance. Where concrete
face was not carried to
crown, some washing out of
fill and settlement of
slabs•

Sutherland- 1936 1 on 2 2 6 3 Reinforced concrete slabs. 8 None 0.1 Monolithic reinforced con­
Regulating 15 ft wide with Joints on crete wave breakers above
Reservoir 12 x 6 in. sleepers maximum pool elev. No pro­
longed wave action, nor
drawdown conditions. Sat­
isfactory performance.

Lake Worth- 1913 1 on 2-l/l* 1* 3 Concrete slabs with trans- 9-l/2 to 12 15 0.25 0.06 1* No rapid or excessive draw­
North Em­ verse construction Joints 12 downs. Pavement in excel­
bankment on 30-ft centers. Joint lent condition. No waves
openings L to 2 in. Hori­ have reached earth crest of
zontal lips at crown and toe dam. Purpose of 12- in.
are 32 and 52 in. thick square holes in concrete on
respectively 10-ft centers longitudinally
along toe of slope (just
above lip) not known.

Cajalco Dam 1938 1 on 3 3-l/2 Moderate Monolithic reinforced con- None 1 .0 See Cajalco Dike above.
crete slab______________ _

Notes : Filter may not be present under the entire pavement,

(Continued)
 Table 7 (Cont)

C o n c r e t e ________ ___________ filter Data

Tear Fetch Maximum Wave Ht " ' W T c k Z Thick­ Emb. Ratio
Com- in Reported Computed ness ness d85 “15 D85 D 15 Filter
Dam pleted Slope Miles ft ft Description in. in. mm iwm mmW7“ Comments

Point of Rocks I9H 1 on I-I/2 2 6+ 3-1/2 Slabs reinforced with wire k None _ _ 0 .06- 0.3 d Uncompacted embankment
fencing with construction material settled causing
joints every 20 to 25 ft cracking of concrete »nd
widening of joints. Wave
action eroded embankment
material through these
openings (greatest damage
by waves striking face
obliquely). In 193^ much
concrete facing washed out
and slope eroded to verti­
cal face. Resloped to 1
on 2, and ft handplaced
riprap laid in 1935-

Minatore 1915 1 on 2 2 6 3-l/2 10 x 20 ft unreinforced 8 12 25 0.3 0.2 1.5 Settlement of slabs due to
1 on 2-1/2 slabs with keyed joints and loss of underlying material
edge reinforcing through slab joints, caused
cracking of slabs, and re­
moval of cracked pieces by
wave action. Oblique waves
caused most severe damage.
Slabs washed away in worst
storms. Repairs using
grouted riprap and grouting
joints have given best re­
sults .

McEay 1926 1 on 1-3A 4 Low k Monolithic reinforced con- 8 (top) None - - Not given Concrete poured directly on
crete slab tied into con- to 12-1/2 compacted well-graded sandy
crete parapet wall at top at base gravel fill with some clay.
and keyed into concrete cut­ A dense uniform mortar sur­
off wall at toe. Upper face was secured. Compres­
portion of slab stepped to sive strength of 2000 psi
break up wave action was achieved. Only l/2 in.
settlement of embankment 7
months after coupletion.
Present condition is excel­
lent.

Belle Fourche 1908 1 on l-l/2 8 6 -8 8 5 x 6-1/2 ft precast unre­ 6 & 8 12/12® (screened gravel O.OT4 Much damage by wave action
1 on 2 inforced slabs l/2 in. open over bank-run after 19li, particularly by
joints gravel) waves striking face ob­
No size data liquely. Slabs displaced
and earthfill eroded. Re­
pairs consisting of mono­
lithic concrete and grout­
ing slab joints reported
satisfactory.___________ _

Notes: ^ Subsurface material under downstream slope, assumed similar to upstream slope.'
® Two-layer filter.
 Table 8

TYPES OF ROCK USED IN UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION

Tear
Dam _____ Placed Type and Description Source Comments on Quality

Nashville District

Chickamauga 19^0 Limestone from three formations: Local quarries and struc- Considerable deterioration of rock, principally
(1) Upper Carters or Tyrone: thin-bedded dove-colored limestone ture excavations of rock from upper Carters and Hermitage forma­
(2) Hermitage: thick-bedded, nodular limestone tions (according to TVA representatives). Riprap
(3) Cannon: thin-bedded, dark, pure limestone from upper Carters or Tyrone is thin-bedded and
appears to have split down along its bedding
planes. That from Hermitage formation is break­
ing down owing to its argillaceous nodular
character
Watts Bar 19^2 Copper Ridge dolomite, a member of the Knox dolomite Nearby quarry Excellent condition
Nottely 19^2 Quartzite, from the Carolina gneiss Excellent quality. No apparent weathering
Chatuge 19^2 Garnet mica gneiss from the Carolina gneiss Excellent quality. No deterioration
/
Denver District

Point of Rocks 1935 Local sandstone (the harder variety of cap-rock sandstone occurring Quarried locally Appears of dubious quality but no serious deteri­
in this region) oration. Leaching of clay particles from rock
has caused pitted condition, but no effect on the
whole
Kingsley 19^6 Dolomite Guernsey, Wyoming

Fort Peck District

Fort Peck 1939 Syenite Snake Butte, Montana Satisfactory. Very slight amount of spalling and
cracking
Fresno 1939 Syenite Snake Butte, Montana Satisfactory. Very slight amount of spalling and
cracking
Sherburne Lake 1916 Field stones; glacial boulder type Good
Durand 1939 Slate; hard, blocky (referred to also as chert) Spillway excavation Some spalling along water's edge
Dead Man's Basin 19^1 Cretaceous sandstone, containing some shale Considerable deterioration
Tongue River 1930 "Scoria" (sandstones and shales fused by heat and cooled quickly - Shaley fragments have slaked and spalled con­
to form rock similar in appearance to volcanic scoria) siderably. Sandy fragments show little deteri­
oration

Kansas City District

Wyandotte County 19^1 Limestone, some shale laminations (local formation known as Quarried locally Good. Some spalling of shaley portions of rock
Argentine limestone)

Tonganoxie 1931 Limestone Spillway excavation Good. Some deterioration at water line

(Continued)
 T*ble 8 (Cont)

Tear
Placed Type and Description Source Comments on Quality
Dam

Kansas City District (Cont)

Good. Apparently not susceptible to weathering

Herington 1928 Limestone Quarried locally

Omaha District

Johnson 19*K> Quartzite Woodruff, Kansas

Albuquerque District

Sandstone; moderately hard to hard grey sandstones of the Dockum Local quarries Quality good
Conchas 1939
group and Triassic Age

Sandstone; soft to medium hard Dakota sandstones Local quarries Quality considered poor
John Martin 19*6
Spillway excavation Satisfactory (pink sandstone also found in spill­
Alamogordo - Sandstone; grey
way excavation was poor in quality and was used
on downstream embankment zone)

Caballo - Limestone; hard Nearby quarry

Sandstone; relatively soft Nearby quarry Rapid disintegration. Upstream slope paved in
Elephant Butte - 1916
(Saddle Dam)
1920

Galveston District

Dolomitic limestone; dense, hard, amorphous or finely crystalline. Southwest Stone Co., No disintegration
Mountain Creek 1931
167 lb/cu fti Chico Ridge formation, Middle Pennsylvania Age, Chico, Tex.
containing large number of small calcitized fossils

Two types of shell conglomerate from base of the Fredericksburg Local deposits Much disintegration into loose shells
Eagle Mountain - 1933
Valley Section group, Lower Cretaceous Age. 153 lb/cu ft
(1) Fossil, gryphea, predominates and matrix is dark and shaley
(2) Fossil, exogyra, predominates, little matrix: shells tightly
cemented with calcareous binder

Limestone; dense, hard, finely crystalline containing many small, Local pit No signs of disintegration or weathering
Eagle Mountain -
Levee Section calcitized fossils* 165 lb/cu ft. Probably from near top of
Fredericksburg group, Lower Cretaceous Age

Dolomitic limestone; dense, hard, amorphous or finely crystalline, Quarry 2 mi north No signs of disintegration or weathering
Bridgeport (Tex.) 1931
containing number of small calcitized fossils. Pennsylvanian Age

Lake Worth - 1913 Two types:

(1) Shell conglomerate, similar to second type described under Spillway excavation Some disintegration into loose shells
South Emb
Eagle Mountain (Valley Section). Walnut formation at base
of Fredericksburg group, Lower Cretaceous Age
(2) Goodland limestone: relatively soft, chalky, finely granular Spillway excavation Badly weathered. Many pieces disintegrated com­
highly argillaceous; occurring at base of the Fredericksburg pletely leaving masses of spalls
group. Lower Cretaceous Age (in this locality immediately
overlying the Walnut formation)

(Continued)
 Table 8 (Cant)

Dam Placed Type and Description Source Comments on Quality

Galveston District (Cont)

Marshall Ford 19*41 Two types:
(1) "Pedernales" limestone: hard, dense, finely crystalline or Quarry 20 mi upstream No weathering or disintegration
amorphous; dolomitic. Probably of Pennsylvanian Age. l68
lb/cu ft
(2) Dolomite; dense, medium to coarsely crystalline, pinkish- Quarry between Marble No weathering or disintegration
white; from Ellenberger formation, Ordovician Age. 173 Falls and Burnet, Tex.
lb/cu ft
Brovnwood 1932 Grayford limestone; hard, dense, amorphous, dolomitic, containing Excavations No weathering or disintegration
numerous small calcitized fossils. Canyon group of Pennsylvanian
Age. 167 lb/cu ft
Lake Nasworthy 1930 Choza limestone of Permian Age; hard, finely granular, arenaceous. Local quarry 3 mi down­ No weathering or disintegration
152 lb/cu ft stream

Tulsa District
Great Salt Plains 19*4-1 Limestone; dense, fosslliferous, with some shale seams Quarry near Moline, Kan. Some disintegration of argillaceous limestone near
permanent pool elevation
Fort Supply 19*42 Dolomite; dense, very fine-grained, arenaceous, medium hard to Local caprock deposits Satisfactory
hard
Limestone; dense, fosslliferous with same shale seams Quarry near Moline, Kan.
Denison 19*4*4 Chert; dense, hard to medium hard, with very fine slate seams Quarry at Stringtown, Bock beginning to show signs of separation at
Okla. seams
Lake Murray 1935 Sandstone of two types:
(1) Coarse-grained, slightly porous tan to medium red Nearby deposits No evidence of weathering
(2) Fine to coarse, conglomeratic
Carl Blackwell 19*40 Limestone; dense, fine-grained, argillaceous, slightly Quarry near Tale, Okla. Satisfactory (original riprap placed 1938 was "red-
fosslliferous bed" local sandstone which disintegrated)
Lake Kemp 1923 Limestone; dense, very fine-grained, massive, chalky Caprock near site Satisfactory - no disintegration
Spavinav 192*4 Limestone; argillaceous. Some chert present Local deposits Only minor disintegration
Portland District
Agency Valley 1936 Basalt. 177 lb/cu ft Good
Cold Springs 1908 Basalt; coarsely vesicular fine-grained rock. 158 lb/cu ft Quarried locally Excellent
Cottage Grove 19*42 Basaltic andesite; intermediate in composition between andesite Quarried locally (*4- mi Satisfactory
and basalt. 169 lb/cu ft south)
Fern Bidge 19*42 Diabase; coarse-grained basalt. 169 lb/cu ft Quarried locally Satisfactory. Spalling and breaking due to burning
of debris

(Continued)
 T able 8 (Coat)

Tear
Dam Placed Type and D escription Source Comments on Q uality

Portland D is t r ic t (Cont)

American F a lls 1927 B a sa lt; highly v e sic u la r o livin e b a sa lt (nearly sco riaceo u s). l 60 - S a tisfa c to ry
lb/cu f t

Lower Deer F la t 1936 B a sa lt; fin e ly v e sic u la r, o livin e b a s a lt. l 64 lb/cu f t - S a tisfa c to ry

Island Park 1938 B a sa lt; v a rie s only in texture and v e s ic u la rity . 169 lb/cu f t - S a tisfa c to ry

Magic 1909 B a sa lt; h igh ly v esic u la r o liv in e b a sa lt (nearly scoriaceous). - S a tisfa c to ry

170 lb/cu f t

Oakley 1910 D acite; p la te y , intermediate in composition between rh y o lite and - S a tisfa c to ry

andesite. 150 lb/cu f t

Grassy Lake 1939 B h yo lite; specimens of lig h t grey-green rh y o lite , obsidian, ~ S a tisfa c to ry . Some sp allin g of lig h te r colored
p e r lit e , and g la ssy rh y o lite (probably a pitchstone or p e r lit e and rh y o lite
vitro p h yre). 135 to 1^8 lb/cu f t

Jackson Lake 1 9 I I- I6 B h yo lite; normal. 1 ^8 lb/cu f t - Considerable sp a llin g of rh y o lite ( s p littin g into
th in slabs)

S e a ttle D is tr ic t

Cle Elum 1933 Andesite Quarried lo c a lly Good. Blocks cracked where debris was burned

Pablo 1933 A r g i lli t e and f i e l d stone cobbles A r g illit e quarried lo c a lly Good

Sacramento D is t r ic t

P r ie s t 1923 Andesite sch ist Tunnel excavations Good

Crane V alley 19IO-23 Granite -

Bridgeport (C a lif.]1 192^ Not given Handpicked from f i l l

San Francisco D is tr ic t

Chabot I892-5 Franciscan sandstone; indurate - Good

Upper San Leandro 1925 Sandstone; reasonably hard cretaceous - Good

Calaveras 1925- 3^ Franciscan sandstone Quarried lo c a lly Good. Some weathering of older stone

San Andres 1868 Franciscan sandstone; hard indurate - Good

San Pablo 19 2 1 B a sa lt; hard, black ; massive in nature with some v e sic u la r pieces - Very good
 Table 9

DATA ON BOCK AND GRAVEL BLANKETS, OR OUTER EMBANKMENT ZONE

Climatic Datab
Year Slope Protection or Outer Embankment Zone Emb.a Ratio Precipitation - In.
Com­ Ht d 85 d 15 •*^85 d15 Blanket Avg. Maximum Temp. - °F
Dam pleted ft Slope Description ^85 Emb. Observation Station Annual Avg. Monthly Max. Min.

Fort Peck District

O
3 -1/2 (June)

CVJ

CVJ
H H
Sherburne Lake 1916 87 1 on 2 12 in. gravel blanket; volunteer 3.0 0.2 15 Babb, Mont. 19 96 -53

1
grasses 0.2 0.8 O .25

Durand 1939 100 1 on 3 Emb. zone: dumped blocky slate (or - - - - White Sulphur Springs, 1*4 2 -1/2 (June) 100 -I42
"chert") 10 in. max. size Mont.

<0
H
H CVJ
Dead Man’s 19*4l 30 1 on 2 - l A Emb. zone: disintegrated sandy O.OO5 Harlowton, Mont. 12 2 (May) 102 -5*4
Basin (l) shale 0.008 _ _

Tongue River 1939 86 1 on 2 -I/2 Emb. zone: sand, gravel and scoria; - - - - Sheridan, Wyo. 15 3 (May) IO6 -I45
fairly thick cover of wild sweet
clover

Galveston District

Marshall Ford 19*4-1 130 1 on 2 Embankment zone: rock fill - - - - Austin, Tex. 3*4 5 (May) IO9 -1

Tulsa District

Great Salt
Plains (2) 19*4-1 70+ 1 on 2-l/*4 3 in. blanket of crushed rock 3A 0.3 • 0.7 0.143 Cherokee, Okla. 26 3-1/2 (June) 117 -1*4
1 on 3-3A
(3 berms)

Fort Supply (3) 19*42 60+ 1 on 2 -1 A 6 in. blanket of rounded gravel 7/8 6 0.4 15 Supply, Okla. 20 3 (May) II5 -18
1 on *4-l/*4

Lake Murray 1935 80 1 on 3 20 in. blanket of rock spalls 3-1/2 ko *40 1 Ardmore, Okla. 36 5 (May) 11*4 -8
(2 berms)

Portland District

Agency valley 1936 93 1 on 2 Emb. zone: dumped rock. 5-ft - - - - Beulah, Ore. 12 1-1/2 (Jan) 112 -23
minimum thickness

Cold Springs 1908 98 1 on 2 12 in. blanket of dumped rock . « - 20 - Hermiston, Ore. 8 1 (Nov) no -37
American Falls 1927 5*4-d 1 on 2 12 in. blanket of handplaced rock - - 0.*4e - American Falls, Ida. 13 I-I/2 (Jan) 106 -33
Lower Deer Creek 1906-11 38 1 on 1 - 1/2 Emb. zone: gravel; scattered sage 2 0.2 - - Deer Flat, Ida. 8 1 (Jan) 105 -28
brush, and grass

Notes: a When protected by blanket, * From Ü.S. Dept, of Agriculture Yearbook 19*4l "Climate and Man". Period of record from 12 to *40 years, ending 1938. c Two test pits.
d North earth embankment section. 6 Upper 12 ft of slope. Dumped rock zone beneath handplaced blanket for the rest of the slope.

Notes on Performance: Slope protection measures for all dams except following were considered adequate: (l) Small amount of erosion in 19*42. (2) Constant maintenance
required. (3) Half-inch rain causes erosion. Washing frequent.
(Continued)
 Table 9 (Cont)

i; n ïïiht.i n JL/cLlia
Tear Slope Protection or Outer Embankment Zone Emb.a Ratio ---------------:--------------:— P re cip itatio n - In-------------------
Com- Ht ^85 ^15 ^85 Blanket Avg. Maximum Temp.- °F
Dam pleted ft Slope D escription mm mm mm ^85 Emb. Observation Station Annual Avg. Monthly Max. Min,

Portland D is t r ic t (Cont)
Island Park 1938 91 1 on 2 Embankment zone: rock f i l l - - - - Lake, Ida. 18 2 -1/2 (Mar) 92 - 1*2
Magic 19 11 129 1 on 2 -1/2 Emb. zone: g rav elly m aterial; - - H ailey, Ida. 2 (Jan)
scattered sage brush
- - 15 109 -36

Oakley 1910 ll*5 1 on 2 2 k in . blanket of dumped p latey rock - - 60 - Oakley, Ida. 10 I - I / 2 (May) 108 -27
(avg .size 7 in*)

Grassy Lake 1939 118 1 on 2 -1/2 Emb. Zone: dumped rock (avg. siz e - - - - P e lt, Ida. 13 I - I/ 2 (May) 98 -50
16 in .)

Jackson Lake 19 11-16 30d 1 on 1 . 7 Emb. zone: gravelf l - l /2 6 . 1* - - Moran, Wyo. 22 2 -I/2 (Jan) 92 -63
1 on 2
S e a ttle D is t r ic t

Keechelus 19 17 75 1 on 2 12 in . blanket of small rock and - - - - Lake Keechelus, Wash. 65 12 (Dec) 102 -20
g rav el

Cle Slum 1933 135 1 on 3 Emb. zone: gravel and cobbles 2-1/1* 0 .15 - - Lake Cle Elum, Wash. 35 6 -1/2 (Dec) IO5 -19
1 on 1 1

Tieton 1925 225 1 on 2 avg. Emb. zone: rock from sp illw ay - - - - Eimrock, Wash. 25 5 (Dec) 103 -28
(3 berms) excavation

Pablo 1933 to 1 on 2 Pervious emb. zone: volunteer I-I/2 0 .5 - - Poison, Mont. 15 2 (June) 101* -27
vegetative cover

Sacramento D is t r ic t

Misselbeck 1920 100 1 on 2 -1/2 Emb. zone: decomposed granite 1/1* 0 .12 - - Eedding, C a lif . 37 7 (Jan) 113 17
(gutters at
1/ 3 points)
P r ie st 1923 160 1 on 2 Emb. zone: slu iced . Grassy. 1- 3/ 1* o.oi* - - Hetch Hetchy, C a lif . 31* 6 (Feb) IO6 -3
Eock to e.

Crane V alley I9IO 130 1 on 1 - 1 / 2 l8-2l* in . blanket of rock. 9 75 1 .0 0.03 - -

1 on 1 Crown widened 1*5 f t by dumping 7 0 .1
widened s e c t. pitrun rock and fin e s on slope

Bridgeport (Calif.) 192k 80 1 on 2 36-72 in . blanket of dumped rock - - 30 - Gem Lake, C a lif . 25 5- 1/2 (Feb) 91 -20
(a vg .size 12 in .)

San Francisco D is t r ic t

Calaveras 1925 220 1 on I - I / 3 Blanket of weathered sandstone, - - - - San Jo se , C a lif . ll*8 3 (Jan) IO6 18
(3 berms) thickness unknown; volunteer
growth of grass

Notes: a When protected by blanket. 13 From U.S. Dept, of A griculture Yearbook 19**1 "Climate and Man". Period of record from 12 to 1*0 ye a rs, ending 1938. d North earth
embankment sectio n . f Upper slope i s g ra v e lly s o i l with volunteer grass growth. 6 About 23 in . a t dam reported in survey.
 APPENDIX A

LIST OE REPORTS
SUBMITTED BT DIVISION AND DISTRICT OFFICES

Date of
Division and District Title report

Ohio River Division

Pittsburgh District Survey and Investigation of Aug. 19^6

Slope Protection for Earth Dams

Huntington District Slope Protection for Earth Dams Mar. 19^7

Nashville District Slope Protection Study - TVA Jan. 19^7

Dams

Missouri River Division Report on Slope Protection Dec. 19^6

Methods for Earth Dams in the
Missouri River Basin

Southwestern Division

Tulsa District Slope Protection Investigation Sept . 19^6

Galveston District Investigation Of Slope Pro­ July 19^6

tection for Earth Dams

Albuquerque District Report on Slope Protection for Sept . 19^6

Earth Dams

North Pacific Division

Seattle District Slope Protection Surveys Oct. 19 h6

(unbound)

Portland District Report on Investigation of Dec. 1 9b 6

Slope Protection for Earth Dams

South Pacific Division

.Sacramento District Report on Slope Protection for Apr. 19^7

Earth Dams

San Francisco District Report on Slope Protection for Aug. 19^6

Earth Dams

Supplement to Report on Slope Oct. 19^7

Protection for Earth Dams
A2

Date of
Division and District Title report

South Pacific Division

(Contd)

Los Angeles District Revised Report, Slope Protection July 19^-7

for Earth Dams
 APPENDIX B

DANE SURVEYED BUT NOT INCLUDED

IN EVALUATION OF UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION MEASURES

District Dam Eeason for Exclusion

Huntington Tappan No water has been against riprap.

Nashville Nottely Slope protection provided By upstream

(TVA Dams) embankment zone composed principally
of derrick stone.

Pittsburgh Berlin Wave action against left and right

earth embankment sections is damped by
spit of lands and shallow water,
respectively.

Highway and rail­ Eiprap used was inferior, consisting

way embankments of light-weight, blast furnace slag,
crossing Berlin which disintegrated rapidly, and
Eeservoir eroded badly.

Highway embank­ Inferior riprap; see remarks above for

ment crossing highway and railway embankments over
Mosquito Creek Berlin Eeservoir.
Eeservoir

Tionesta Insignificant wave action.

Denver Kingsley Fetch in excess of 20 miles. (Only

three dams were reported with fetches
in excess of 20 miles. The remaining
dams had fetches less than 10 miles
and the investigation of upstream
slope protection is therefore con­
fined to fetches within this range.)

Port Peck Fort Peck Fetch in excess of 20 miles.

Dead Man!s Basin Slope protection provided by thick

rock-fill upstream embankment zone.

Tongue Eiver Slope protection provided by thick

rock-fill upstream embankment zone.

Albuquerque All dams Insufficient data.

B2

APPENDIX B (CONT)

District Dam Reason emitted in Evaluation

Galveston Lake Worth Insignificant wave action.

(South em­
bankment )

Tulsa Lake Murray Reservoir not filled until 19^6.

Portland American Falls Fetch in excess of 20 miles.

Lower Deer Flat The original 36-in. gravel blanket on

the upstream slope was washed out by
wave action. A thick gravel section
was then added which extended the
crown width about 50 ft upstream. By
1936 this increased width was eroded
about 22 ft by wave action; at this
time a handplaced rock slope wall
(slope 1 on 1-1/2) was placed extending
from the crown to 10 ft below. Only
the performance of this slope wall
against wave action is discussed in
the main report.

Los Angeles San Fernando Insignificant wave action.^"

Stone Canyon Insignificant wave action.

Peters Canyon Insignificant wave action.

Sheffield Insignificant wave action.

Elysian Insignificant wave action.

Prado Incomplete data.

Sepulveda Incomplete data.

Sacramento Priest Lake Insignificant wave action.

San Francisco Chabot Insignificant wave action.

Calaveras Insignificant wave action.

San Andres The effect of a log barrier in front of

the upstream slope in reducing wave action
cannot be evaluated.
 B3

District Dam Reason Omitted in Evaluation

San Francisco Upper San Leandro Incomplete data on thicknesses and gra-
(Contd) dation of riprap and tedding material.
 APPENDIX C

BIBLIOGRAPH! ON WAVE ACTION

1. U.S. Hydrographic Office. Breakers and surf; principles in forecast-

, , ing. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 19kk. (Publication
H.O. no. 2 3k)

2. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Wind waves and swell; prin­

ciples in forecasting. La Jolla, Calif., 19^3* (U.S.
Hydrographic Office Misc. 11,275)

Presents results and some theory of wave studies of Scripps.

Charts have teen revised since publication, in reference 4.

3. Sverdrup, H. U. Wind, sea, and swell; theory of relations for fore­

casting, by H. U. Sverdrup and W. H. Munk. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 19^-7• (U.S. Hydrographic Office Publication
no. 601 )

Presents basic theory underlying H.O. Mise. 11,275* Contains

non-dimensional graphs which are suggested for use in correla­
tion of experimental data.

k. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Revised wave forecasting,

graphs and procedure. La Jolla, Calif., 19k8. (Wave report
no. 73)

Contains revisions of graphs of reference 2 "based on modifications

of basic theory as presented in reference 3 *

5 . Bigelow, H. B. Wind waves at sea, breakers and surf, by H. B.

Bigelow and W. T. Edmondson. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 19^7 . (U.S. Hydrographic Office Publication no. 602)

6 . Sverdrup, H. U. Empirical and theoretical relations between wind,

sea, and swell, by H. U. Sverdrup and W. H. Munk. American
Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 27, no. 6 , p. 823-827,
December 19k6.

Contains a digest of theory in relatively non-technical form.

Also contains non-dimensional charts (see 3)

7. Sverdrup, H. U. Theoretical and empirical relations in forecasting

breakers and surf, by H. U. Sverdrup and W. H. Munk. American
Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 27, no. 6, p. 828 -836 ,
December 19k6.

8. U.S. Corps of Engineers. Beach Erosion Board. A study of

02

progressive oscillatory waves in water. Washington, 19^1.

(Technical report no. l)

9. U.S. Corps of Engineers. Beach Erosion Board. A summary of the

theory of oscillatory waves. Washington, 19^2. (Technical
report no. 2)

10. Munk, W. H. Refraction of ocean waves: a process linking under­

water topography to teach erosion, by W. H. Munk and M. A.
Traylor. Journal of Geology, v. 55, no. 1, p. 1-26, January
■19V7.
Eon-mathematical discussion -- good aerial photographs showing
wave refraction.

11. Munk, W. H. Wave action on.structures. Will be published early

in 19^8 in Petroleum Technology (Publication of A.I.M.E.)

Gives method of determining wave forces on piles and other

marine structures and the variation of force with depth.

12. Putnam, J. A. Estimating storm-wave conditions in San Francisco

Bay. American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 28, no. 2,
p. 271-278, April 19^7.

. Summary of data in H.O. Mise. 11,275 with special application

to San Francisco Bay. Data are not in agreement with Scripps
Institution charts as revised (see 2)