Applied Research Can Enhance Hydraulic

Engineering Education
Robert Ettema, F.ASCE 1; Christopher Thornton, M.ASCE 2;
Pierre Julien, M.ASCE 3; and Taylor Hogan, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Applied research projects can enhance student education in hydraulic engineering. This contention considers three lines of argu-
ment associated with societal context: historical necessity, educational merit, and issues associated with funding of universities. Necessity and
merit are especially important in keeping engineering education meaningfully engaged with engineering practice. Funding issues reflect
universities’ increased reliance on nonstate sources of funding. The lines of argument were supported using examples drawn mainly from
a university hydraulics laboratory and a course on hydraulic structures. The examples involved basic hydraulics principles and broader
considerations often arising in actual engineering projects. There are risks associated with applied research at a university, including
diminished basic-research activity and perceived unfair competition. The paper concluded that hydraulic engineering students greatly benefit
from exposure to applied research. However, hydraulic engineering education should align with a university’s core mission and stimulate
fundamental research. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001730. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Engineering education; Research; Service; Hydraulic engineering.

Introduction Although hydraulic engineering is not often thought of as part of

Engineering innately connects basic and applied research, and so
should engineering education. Applied research herein is taken to
mean engineering knowledge gained to solve practical problems.
Basic research, sometimes called pure or fundamental research,
seeks to expand knowledge of processes and principles. Hydraulic
engineering education aims to elucidate the processes and gov-
erning principles (notably, the three conservation laws regarding
continuity, momentum, and energy), and acquaint students with
methods available to practicing engineers. Because hydraulic
engineering education focuses on producing hydraulic engineers
capable of solving societal problems involving hydraulic engineer-
ing, hydraulic engineering education should pay close attention to
issues arising in applied research (e.g., bridge waterway design).
These points may seem self-evident, but this paper is motivated
in part by opinions occasionally expressed by faculty colleagues
and employees of private hydraulics laboratories that universities
should stick to teaching rote principles and conducting only basic
research.
1 world problems and putting faculty and students in direct contact
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado
State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372 (corresponding author). Email:
robert.ettema@engr.colostate.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372. Email: christopher
.thornton@engr.colostate.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado
State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372. Email: pierre@engr.colostate
.edu
4
Research Engineer and Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1372.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8853-591X. Email: taylor.hogan@
engr.colostate.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 26, 2019; approved on
October 4, 2019; published online on March 2, 2020. Discussion period
open until August 2, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
a social enterprise, societal needs and resources shape hydraulic
engineering, often causing it to be part of an overall societal venture
involving various sets of expertise with focus on water flow. This
paper contends that the university conduct of (and therefore student
exposure to) applied research facilitates societal relevancy of
hydraulic engineering education, and thereby enhances student
learning and appreciation of the broader societal issues associated
with hydraulic engineering. This contention expands upon thoughts
expressed in earlier papers on various aspects of the value gained by
enabling students to experience aspects of applied hydraulic
engineering (e.g., Fenton 2016; Chanson 2007; Georgakakos 2002;
Tullis and Tullis 2001; Weiss and Gulliver 2001; Ettema and
Kennedy 1990).
Three linked lines of argument are used to support the conten-
tion. The first line uses early societal necessity and circumstances
that compelled universities to develop and maintain hydraulic
laboratory facilities to engage in applied hydraulic engineering
research. The second (and main) line holds that doing applied re-
search benefits programs of hydraulic engineering education, doing
so by keeping faculty and students in touch with immediate real-
with the design and construction perspectives, not just with a
fundamental research perspective. The third line contends that fis-
cal considerations associated with operating university-based
hydraulic engineering laboratories compel engagement in applied
research. Substantial declines in per-student state-appropriated
funding, along with increased dependence on universities as sour-
ces of expertise and innovation, require universities to diversify
external sources of funding (NSB 2012; Ithaka 2019). Although
this paper dwells extensively on research done at laboratories,
the contention applies to research done as fieldwork or numerical
simulation that usually confront students with diverse real-world
problems in hydraulic engineering (Chanson 2004).
The three lines of argument require moderation when potential
risks are weighed. In addition to fiscal liability, the risks include
potential conflict of interest, unfair competition with some practi-
tioners and commercial laboratories, an apparent marketing of

© ASCE 04020031-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Hydraulic structures class of undergraduate (senior year) and
graduate engineering students viewing flow in a stepped spillway
simulated in a hydraulic model. Model length scale was 24 (prototype
length/model length). (Image by authors.)
students as cheap labor, and the apparent advantage that hydraulic
laboratories are state-supported facilities. The risks also include
some institutional (as well as faculty members’) aversion to or dis-
dain for applied research. This paper is mindful of the central issue
regarding the extent to which a university should conduct applied
research. This issue stems from several observations: when hy-
draulic engineering education rests solely on basic principles,
hydraulic engineering education declines; yet when hydraulic en-
gineering education rests rather weakly on basic principles, such
education also declines.
The arguments are fueled by the writers’ experience and knowl-
edge while working at Colorado State University (CSU), a US
university with a substantial hydraulic engineering program and
laboratory that engages students (both undergraduates and gradu-
ates) in its applied-research activities. Fig. 1, for instance, shows a
class of CSU undergraduate and graduate students observing flow
down a hydraulic model of a stepped spillway, whereas Fig. 2
shows graduate students collecting velocity and flow-depth data
associated with flow over a hydraulic model of a portion of a rock
weir.
Societal Need
During the early formative years of contemporary hydraulic en-
gineering education (the first decades of the twentieth century),
© ASCE 04020031-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031
Fig. 2. Graduate students at CSU measuring water velocities during
flume tests for a USBR project regarding the stability of rock structures
used for channel control. The nominal length scale was 5. (Image by
authors.)
universities extensively conducted research responding to “soci-
etal need,” associated with all aspects of water engineering
(e.g., Garbrecht 1985). Universities evolved as societal reposito-
ries of professional expertise and research facilities, and preceded
commercial facilities in most parts of the world. It is fair to say that
today’s employers value graduates who have a sense of the broader
constraints associated with the conduct of engineering projects.
Early programs in hydraulic engineering dealt primarily with
hydraulic engineering aspects associated with rivers, hydraulic
structures, harbors, and nonmechanical aspects of electric-power
generation. The labs associated the programs evolved with the
growing awareness that similitude and scale-modeling offered a
viable approach to investigating diverse hydraulics problems
(Freeman 1929). Other labs dealt with the development of hy-
draulic machinery or with ship performance, as was the case for
water-turbine laboratories and naval tank laboratories, respectively.
In the areas of hydraulic machinery and ships, industrial laborato-
ries operated by manufacturing companies (e.g., J.M. Voith in
Germany) emerged more or less simultaneously with those in uni-
versities. However, the nonuniversity labs generally were intended
for the development of turbines and ships to be manufactured by
the lab operators, who had little interest in disseminating the results
of their work.
Additionally, many early hydraulic engineering notables were
engaged in engineering projects while furthering basic understand-
ing of hydraulics principles. Antoine de Chézy (1718–1798), to
mention one notable name, developed his now widely used equa-
tion while designing canals and pipes to provide additional water to
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Paris. Robert Manning (1816–1897) did much the same while busy
with drainage and river control activities in Ireland. Henry Darcy
(1803–1866) developed Darcy’s law in the course of his design of
the municipal water-supply system for Dijon, and a later system for
Brussels. It was not from basic research but through applications of
hydraulic principles that Bélanger (1849) made lasting contribu-
tions to the understanding of hydraulic jumps. The US hydraulician
Clemens Herschel, developer of the widely used Venturi meter for
measuring water discharge, bluntly stated his view of the educa-
tional value of applied research
I know well the argument that groping, even aimless, research
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
must precede applied science. But, I have found that practical
inventions more often precede their scientific explanation,
while aimless research only too often results in nothing better
than having its printed record encumber the shelves of
libraries—the study of theoretical hydraulics having proved
a wholly barren field for centuries (ENR 1930).
Benefits
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET
2014) has specific requirements for engineering education. The
accreditation statements emphasize the preparation of graduates
to be effective, engineering practitioners in support of society’s
needs and to be aware that real-world projects often face various
complexities. Exposure to applied research and engineering proj-
ects benefits such preparation. These projects show how complex-
ities and broader considerations soon arise in real-life projects.
Moreover, they show that hydraulic engineering practice often in-
volves water-flow situations inadequately characterized by the
charts, equations, and methods available in coursework textbooks
(e.g., the Moody diagram) and design manuals (e.g., scour-depth
estimation). Furthermore, some practical situations may complicate
the use of theoretical concepts that looked so simple in the class-
room and are so difficult to evaluate in the field, such as methods to
estimate surface roughness in excavated areas. Water is a material
prone to change phase, and can turn to solid ice in response to
climatic and flow conditions. Balmy field survey conditions in
the summer may turn the bridge piers of a river into targets
obstructing the passage of sizable ice blocks in February. Many
students should get a feel for the design limitations and complica-
tions attributable to water’s material properties.
A deliberate feature of many higher-level courses in under-
graduate education is the increased amount of application content.
For example, courses such as Hydraulic Structures or Hydraulic
Design implement engineering principles (e.g., conservation of
energy), but soon alert students to practical limitations or compli-
cations in the application of principles. The worked examples and
homework assignments prepared by an educator can relate to the
proportions and dimensions likely found in engineering practice.
For instance, the dimensions and shapes of cylinders may corre-
spond to those common for bridge piers, and such cylinders may
be set in turbulent open-channel flows; or the proportions, dimen-
sions, and side slopes of open channels may be representative of
channels excavated for, say, water conveyance purposes.
ABET (2014) specifically requires engineering schools to pro-
vide “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of
engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and
societal context.” Students can gain a sense of the complexities aris-
ing in real-life situations through knowledge from other disciplines.
Most hydraulic engineering projects are funded to meet net man-
dates of societal concerns, requiring hydraulic engineers to work as
© ASCE 04020031-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031
part of a team formed by experts, whether a project involves con-
struction challenges; dam failures; control of alluvial channels to
facilitate navigation or water diversions; complications arising from
the juxtaposition of hydropower, flood-control, navigation, and
environmental needs; draining or irrigating land; or stream resto-
ration efforts to enhance fish habitat conditions along a stream.
Applied research gives students and faculty continuing hands-
on exposure to practical hydraulic engineering problems. In the
process, staff and students keep up with current trends and prob-
lems in hydraulics. In this way, applied research very tangibly dem-
onstrates applications and limits of theory. In a more prosaic sense,
applied research provides financial support for students who, with-
out such support, simply might be unable to undertake graduate
studies. The argument here could be pressed more forcibly as a
question: Just as medical colleges would not graduate doctors with-
out requiring them to have some clinical experience as interns/
residents, why should not hydraulics laboratories involve graduate
students in practical hydraulics projects?
ABET (2014) also requires engineering students to acquire “an
ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired
needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental,
social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and
sustainability.” Engagement in applied research may serve a further
educational function as an effective mechanism for introducing into
engineering practice recent developments from basic research.
Additionally, ABET stipulates that Engineering students must
“acquire knowledge of contemporary issues.” In addition to
potential educational benefits, applied research is a fertile field for
identifying and initiating subjects of basic research developing
new knowledge benefitting today’s society. In business parlance,
applied research keeps programs of hydraulic engineering and
associated research close to the customer (Peters and Waterman
1982; Ettema and Kennedy 1993). The merits of applied research
said, solid grounding in the “science of hydraulics” (Rouse 1962)
remains essential. Wise hydraulic engineering, after all, requires
understanding how water flows.
Fiscal Need
Although the origin and early growth of university-based hy-
draulic engineering education, and associated hydraulics labs,
obliged most US universities to engage in applied research, cur-
rent circumstances compel them to continue to do so. In the US,
the advancement of engineering and science, hydraulics research
being a prime example, has been and continues to be underwrit-
ten by a partnership of university, governmental, industry, and
philanthropic funding sources. This circumstance quickly led
many universities to depend on external funding, such as that
generated by applied research. In dealing with this circumstance,
university faculty members have had to hone and refine their
skills in preparing competitive proposals, and even marketing
themselves.
The dependency of universities on external funds comes as
somewhat of a surprise to many who have not attempted to subsist
in a university environment and contend with its special challenges.
For example, most US universities offer only 9 months of salary
(to cover the academic year). The stipends and salaries of most
graduate students and support staff (shop personnel, technicians,
secretaries, and so forth), are provided by external funds. An ex-
pense increasingly burdensome for faculty members is that associ-
ated with the acquisition of research equipment. There is at present
an equipment race in progress. Programs are continually behooved
to purchase sophisticated instrumentation and computers to stay at
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 the forefront of research. Contrary to belief, funding for hydraulics
laboratories is not subsidized by state funding, but is the lasting
legacy of faculty members.
In addition to the need to finance their own operations, univer-
sities (often somewhat equivocally needing the funds, yet also
keeping an eye on their core mission) welcome applied research.
An early announcement of the Engineering Research Centers
developed by the US National Science Foundation stated “The
ERC program was created by the National Science Foundation
in 1985 to develop a government-industry-university partnership
to strengthen the competitive position of US firms in world trade
and change the culture of engineering research and education in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
US” (NSF 1997). To be sure, many universities themselves tacitly
nurture the merging of research and consulting by permitting fac-
ulty to perform consulting activities at a nominal frequency of
1 day=week. The early role-model of an effective engineering fac-
ulty member as researcher and consultant remains the contempo-
rary model.
Risks
The foregoing lines of argument, however, need to be moderated by
pointing out that engagement may become preoccupation and result
in conflicts of interest when applied-research projects are carried
out at the expense of time devoted to education and basic research.
A university program preoccupied with commercial projects does
indeed compete unfairly with commercial laboratories.
Thus far, it is argued that university engagement in applied re-
search is necessitated by origin, precedent, and circumstance, and
(in a more positive sense) that it intrinsically benefits education and
basic research. However, preoccupation with commercial projects
creates conflicts of interest and saps energy and resources from
education and basic research. At its outset, this paper mentioned
several risks. One risk is that applied research may interfere with
the missions of higher education and basic research. Another risk is
that universities possess unfair economic advantages if they are
largely subsidized by governments, endowments, tuition, and so
forth, and therefore should not engage in applied research. These
risks should not be read as advocating a complete ban on university
engagement in applied research. Rather, they caution that routine
engineering activities should not be regarded as detrimental, but
rather as boosting education and basic research.
Operators of commercial laboratories understandably tend to
perceive university laboratories as possessing a host of advantages
which give them an unfair edge in competing for projects. The ad-
vantage most often railed against is the apparent opportunity that
universities have to use cheap labor. This includes not only student
labor, but also the subsidized labor of support staff and faculty.
Other apparent advantages include minimal overhead expenses;
facilities acquired and supported with public monies; tax exempt
status; freedom from insurance requirements; projects from agen-
cies accessible only by universities; and even the old-school-tie
syndrome, or alumni cronyism. Some of these advantages may ex-
ist, and assuredly are misused when a university laboratory drifts
away from its mission of education and basic research to become
preoccupied with commercial projects.
Engagement in applied research is not without its problems and
perils. One prominent pitfall arises from the very fact that applied
research usually is more lucrative than research grants from gov-
ernmental agencies which usually allow lower indirect-cost rates.
Applied research may be assigned a higher priority for laboratory
resources because it is profitable, as well as being subject to strin-
gent time constraints. A serious longer-term problem is that, instead
© ASCE 04020031-4
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031
of invigorating basic research, preoccupation with commercial
projects may diminish research vitality. Researchers are at risk
of becoming mired in the lucrative dross of routine testing and en-
gineering to the extent that they do not tackle the harder task of
advancing the basic understanding and formulation of their subject.
In this day and age, the academic pressures on faculty members
have increased to the extent that applied research does not neces-
sarily ease the tasks and expectations of faculty members to get
tenure and promotion. Tenure and promotion requirements remain
largely focused on refereed journal publications and the develop-
ment of fundamental research. Perhaps the commitment of aca-
demic institutions to the pursuit of some applied research serves the
broader purpose of an adequate professional education of the next
generation of hydraulic engineers. In a nutshell, it is essential that
universities should not engage in applied research at the expense of
education and basic research.
Applied Hydraulic Research at CSU
Throughout its more than 100-year history, CSU has engaged ex-
tensively in applied research (Rouse 1980; Julien and Meroney
2003; Ettema and Abt 2016). Regarding the future, Julien (2017)
outlined several promising research areas in hydraulic engineering
for CSU. The three lines of argument (societal need, intrinsic merit,
and fiscal pressures) apply to CSU’s engagement in hydraulic
engineering research.
CSU Hydraulics Developed in Response
to Societal Needs
Since its inception, CSU’s program in hydraulic engineering and its
hydraulics laboratory have been motivated by societal needs
regarding water availability, especially for water issues relating
to the US West (e.g., irrigation and hydropower). CSU’s earliest
activities date back to the 1880s irrigation-related work of the pio-
neering hydraulics engineer of the American West, Elwood Mead,
for whom Lake Mead on the Colorado River is named.
The potential of CSU’s hydraulic engineering program and its
lab quickly drew the attention of engineers, including the noted
hydraulician Hunter Rouse, who in 1940 began a lengthy connec-
tion with the lab. Although his name is associated primarily with
hydraulic engineering at the University of Iowa, Rouse spent con-
siderable time at CSU and produced a book (Rouse 1980) describ-
ing the historic influences and people that led to CSU’s prominence
in hydraulic engineering. Rouse documents some of Mead’s con-
tributions, along with those by many other well-known engineers
who contributed to the program’s (and its lab’s) growth in produc-
tivity and stature, e.g., Ralph Parshall, Emory Lane, Maurice
Albertson, Daryl Simons, Everett Richardson, Ruff and Abt, to
name just a few people. Subsequent articles, including Bhowmik
et al. (2008), Simons (2004), and Julien and Meroney (2003), re-
counted the work of the many other notable engineers whose
principle contributions to hydraulic engineering involved a fertile
mix of applied and underlying basic research. CSU’s facilities also
drew the interest of talented scientists at CSU, including the noted
fluvial geomorphologist Stanley Schumm. At the time, the only
existing (North American) facilities for hydraulics research
were in the far east of the US, such as Holyoke Laboratory in
Massachusetts (Herschel’s old haunt), and did not focus on the
water needs of the US’s West.
Early publicity given to CSU’s new undertaking attracted inter-
est and projects from such agencies as the USDA, the US Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR), and the USACE. Like many of the European
laboratories (Freeman 1929), it was, because of circumstance, a
J. Hydraul. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Ralph L. Parshall in 1946 next to the measurement flume he
developed with the aid of undergraduate students in CSU’s Hydraulics
laboratory. (Reprinted from Ettema 2018, © ASCE.)
self-funding university unit with the pragmatic mission of coordi-
nating talent, facilities, and resources available throughout the
university to be brought to bear on problems in hydrology and
hydraulic engineering.
An illustration of the program’s responsiveness to societal need
is CSU’s research into the possibility of diverting snowmelt water
from the western slopes of the Rockies through the Continental di-
vide and onto the eastern plains where farming was (and remains)
reliant on irrigation. The drought and depression of the 1930s took
their toll on Colorado. With the help of Ralph Parshall, among
others, CSU’s President, Charles Lory, acquired land for CSU
to conduct a feasibility study. By 1938, the construction of the
then-$160,000,000 Colorado–Big Thompson River Project was
underway. Updates to the project continue at the present time.
In August 1930, USBR sent a dozen engineers technicians and
workshop personnel to work in the lab, which had been designed
initially by Parshall and faculty colleague Victor Cone for use in
addressing USDA’s research needs. Parshall’s work, for example,
led to his 1920s development of the Parshall flume (Fig. 3), which
became widely used for measuring irrigation flows. The USBR’s
involvement began with a study of proposed shaft spillways for
Hoover Dam. As a result of these tests, the side-channel spillway
was developed to control flow into each of the dam’s two spillway
conveyance tunnels. Thereafter, other studies were done, in particu-
lar for USBR’s Grand Coulee and Imperial Dams and for the
Tennessee Valley Authority’s Wheeler and Norris Dams. Today, the
lab continues to develop in response to the evolving needs of water-
engineering practice.
Hydraulic Engineering Education Benefits at CSU
In the ongoing process of shaping its hydraulic engineering
education in response to evolving societal needs and technological
© ASCE 04020031-5
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031
developments, CSU keeps applied-research themes in mind: the
broader design considerations associated with the contemporary
hydraulics expertise required of graduates, limitations to charts
and formulations in hydraulic engineering textbooks, construction
challenges, and differences in perspective that often are evident be-
tween engineering practice and engineering research.
CSU addresses these themes in various ways. At the under-
graduate level, CSU (like all US accredited B.S. programs in en-
gineering) has a capstone design course, structured to draw together
knowledge and skills developed from prior courses, usually doing
so in a manner that engages students at a professional level similar
to a practicing engineer completing a design project. Often, it is not
until the capstone course that students really begin to appreciate the
relevance and connections of the knowledge gained from the
breadth of earlier courses in the curriculum. Significant features
of CSU’s capstone design course, which runs for two semesters,
are that the PE-licensed director of CSU’s Hydraulics Laboratory
leads the course, and that all the course’s projects have an applied
hydraulic engineering emphasis.
Examples of applied research show students that hydraulic
engineering involves working with others to a significant extent
on project-based ventures. Others typically include engineering
practitioners (designers and constructors) and pertinent experts
(e.g., fish ecology or pump performance). The examples require
the use of hydraulic engineering principles and indicate when addi-
tional factors complicate design or introduce uncertainties into
design estimation. This point is well-illustrated by CSU’s course
Hydraulic Structures, which focuses on the design and performance
of structures designed to handle water in various ways. Table 1 lists
the content for this elective course (aimed at graduate and under-
graduate seniors) and briefly summarizes some of the broader con-
siderations associated with particular types of structures.
Design and Constructability
Practitioners usually define the research aims, provide the funding,
supply key background data, and ultimately implement research
results. For example, the height and length dimensions of the steps
forming the stepped spillway in Fig. 1 were influenced substan-
tially by the economics of how the steps would be constructed
in a roller-compacted concrete dam. Furthermore, practitioners usu-
ally set the criteria outlining the acceptable performance of a hy-
draulic structure. Designers, moreover, may shape the results from
a research project. It is useful for students to know that the perspec-
tives of designers and researchers may differ, and that applied re-
search often involves a dialogue between designers and researchers.
Designers commonly focus on completing a project or developing a
practicable design method, whereas researchers may focus on
elucidating, formulating, and possibly simulating (in as precise a
way as possible) certain processes. Dialogue typically entails first
delineating the extent and format of research needed to satisfy
designers’ requirements, and then confirming that researchers’ may
subsequently delve further into certain processes. The dialogue
associated with CSU’s testing of the stepped spillway in Fig. 1
required that the spillway’s design first be confirmed and docu-
mented, before faculty and students could use the spillway to study
basic aspects of the fluid mechanics associated with air entrainment
and conveyance down a steep, stepped spillway. The dialogue also
touched upon how and when findings from the spillway model
should be publicized.
A further example of differences in perspective involves the lay-
out of rock structures used for thalweg control along an alluvial
bend (Fig. 4). Because of the design methods at hand, designers
of such structures prefer that flow velocities around the bend be
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Table 1. Topics covered in CSU’s course Hydraulic Structures
Aspects covered
Topic Hydraulics principles Broader issues
1. Introduction: What are Hydraulic Water in our infrastructure Other disciplines involved in designing hydraulic structures
Structures? Design situations on and off the curve
Societal issues influencing selection of hydraulic structures
2. Useful hydraulic engineering and Fluid mechanics and thermal principles applied to When the principles apply but become hard to use
thermal principles water and its flow. Water is a material
3. Design for water-quantity Conservation of water-flow mass, momentum, Estimation of design flows
management and energy Estimation of water demand flows
• Flood control The range of water-flow and -quality issues associated with
• Water demand engineered systems and natural systems
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

• Hydropower Societal constraints

• Environment
4. Hydraulic modeling (physical
and numerical)
5. Dams and selection of dam type
6. Spillways and energy dissipation
a. Controlled outflow works
b. Tunnels and large-diameter
pipes
c. Bridge waterways
d. Thermal powerplants
e. Pump intakes
f. Design of dispersion manifolds
g. Inland navigation
h. Stream restoration
Fluid mechanics plus similitude principles. Water is a material
Numerical modeling Approximate nature of physical models
Approximate nature of numerical simulated
Multiple purposes of dams Geotechnical characteristics of the foundation material
Seepage and drainage flows Structural loads and stresses, including seismic accelerations
Waves Construction methods
Seepage characteristics of foundation material and dam
Conservations laws applied to water flow Aeration
Phase change of water [liquid → vapor (and back)] Water is a material
Gaps in design guides
Construction methods
Water quantity and quality needs Water needs downstream
Mechanical devices Structural issues with flow-control devices
Structural loads Water is a material
Flow resistance Limits to flow resistance and flow dynamics
Cavitation
Unsteady flow dynamics Construction methods
Flow field Alluvial behavior of channels
The complexity of junction flows
Estimation of scour depth Flow dynamics of floodplains
Geomechanics
Construction methods
Water properties Water is a material
Plume flows Cooling options
Heat flux balances Steam-generation issues
Climate issues
Impacts on rivers and coats
Flow field Operating conditions of pumps
Sediment control
Pipe flow Mixing targets
Plume flow Construction methods
Mixing
River flow Type of vessel and vessel needs
Locks Lockage constraints
Channel-control structures Ice
River and stream flows Flow, thermal, and water-quality issues associated with
habitat
Habitat-creating structures Ice

normalized relative to a readily determined average velocity of flow
determined at the bend’s entrance. However, faculty and student
researchers using a three-dimensional (3D) numerical model and
a hydraulics model preferred that the velocities around the bend
fitted with rock structures be normalized with the corresponding
local values of velocity when the bend was not fitted with the rock
structures. Although both perspectives strived for the same objec-
tive, the perspectives differed.
Uncertainties
Applied hydraulic engineering often involves design uncertainties,
as students soon discover on entering practice and attempting to
design a specific hydraulic structure. In addition to the uncertainties
associated with estimating design flowrates and stages [extensively
discussed in, e.g., Mays (2005)] uncertainties arise from multiple
sources.
For example, estimation of scour depth in bridge waterways
along alluvial channels involves numerous sources of uncertainty
(Lagasse et al. 2013). Flow resistance calculations also may involve
considerable uncertainties. For certain water-flow conduits, design-
ers may find that the Moody diagram does not cover the range
of relative roughness and Reynolds number associated with the
flow conduit, or designers may face difficulties in estimating rel-
ative roughness. Fig. 5, for example, shows the case of a water-
diversion tunnel of irregular geometry formed by the different rock
strata. Some guidance is given by USBR (1965), USACE (1987),
and Idelchik (2008), but much is left to the designer’s judgment.

© ASCE 04020031-6 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Design of rock structures placed in a channel bend: (a) channel with normalizing section taken at the bend entrance; and (b) graduate student
arranging a hydraulic model of a channel bend fitted with bendway weirs (image by authors). The nominal length scale was 12.

Fig. 6. Graduate student observing the details of skimming flow down

the model steep, stepped spillway in Fig. 1. (Image by authors.)

Fig. 5. Irregular geometry of a blast-and-drill tunnel makes it

difficult to evaluate the tunnel’s hydraulic roughness and resistance.
(Reproduced from Hickox et al. 1948, © ASCE.)
A related practical difficulty concerns the effect on flow resistance
of the shape and spatial distribution of roughness heights.
A further difficulty arises with flow down steep spillways and
stepped spillways. These high-energy flows are substantially aer-
ated, such that questions arise as to the applicability of the Moody
diagram to flow conditions associated with the estimation of resis-
tance terms. Does the diagram even really apply for this situation?
Does air-laden flow skimming over the spillway’s steps develop a
different form of velocity profile from that for turbulent flow over a
rough boundary? What does flow over large roughness look like?
Examples from applied research expose students to these and other
questions (Fig. 6).
Societal Factors
Other than considering important factors such as project econom-
ics, scheduling, and management, societal factors typically are not
mentioned in courses on hydraulic engineering. However, societal
factors can influence hydraulic engineering design in various ways.
Designs suitable for some societies may not work in other societies
that are less well equipped to implement a design, possibly owing
to deficiencies in construction or operational capacities. Addition-
ally, for most engineering projects, the perspective of an engineer-
ing designer funding research can differ from that of an engineering
faculty member doing the research.
An example of a possibly inappropriate design concerns a hy-
dropower facility designed by an international hydraulic engineer-
ing company for a developing country. In concept, the design was a
clever use of the site. A flow-regulation barrage on a river convey-
ing a heavy sediment load was intended to divert water to an off-
line reservoir, where water (without sediment) passed through a
high-head hydropower facility. The shortcoming of this design
(Fig. 7) was that the barrage required informed operation to ensure
that only water was diverted to the off-line reservoir. Inadequate
operation of the barrage, owing to societal issues, and lack of fund-
ing, resulted in sediment being deposited in the off-line reservoir.
Fig. 7 shows sediment accumulated at the barrage and throughout
the reservoir. Consequently, the developing country was left with a
barely operable hydropower facility. Similar examples exist regard-
ing hydraulic structures designed to serve societies that, as it turned
out, lacked the resources or infrastructure to adequately maintain
the structures.

© ASCE 04020031-7 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Ineffective operation of an offline reservoir designed for a developing country led to sediment deposition at the diversion barrage dam
and in the offline reservoir: (a) plan-view sketch of the layout of the barrage and offline reservoir; and (b) the sediment accumulation at the barrage.
(Images by Robert Ettema.)

Water is a Material Fiscal Benefits to CSU

Hydraulic structures in much of the continental US and Alaska must
operate in the middle of the water’s phase diagram (Fig. 8). Conse-
quently, changes in temperature and pressure may cause liquid water
to change phase, triggering a set of processes for which the standard
designs of most hydraulic structures are inadequately designed, as
applied-research experiences frequently show. Although students
of hydraulic engineering are made aware of liquid water’s physical
properties, few students are cognizant of the problems that arise
when water changes phase. Water at subatmospheric pressure runs
the risk of vaporization. Water supercooled risks ice formation. Care-
ful observation of Fig. 1, for example, reveals zones of subatmo-
spheric pressure (incipient cavitation at full-scale) occurring just
below the spillway crest. Fig. 9 shows supercooled water (water
slightly below its freezing temperature) entering a water intake
and forming ice crystals that readily grow and block the intake’s trash
rack. The cylindrical wedge-wire water intake evidently was de-
signed without Fig. 8 in mind.
Applied research funds almost all of the development of hydraulic
engineering research expertise and facilities at CSU and, in so
doing, keeps the research responsive to societal hydraulic engineer-
ing needs of the US. Almost three-quarters of the operating
expenses of CSU’s hydraulic engineering research lab (including
funding support for undergraduate and graduate students) is sup-
ported by projects that are substantially applied. Most university-
based hydraulics laboratories similarly rely on applied research
for fiscal support (Ettema and Kennedy 1990). Laboratories that
receive substantial fiscal support from state governments do so
in response to perceived societal need for the state.
In addition to the need for financial support, CSU recognizes
that applied research projects frequently lead to important lines
of basic research. It is common at CSU that a line of research begins
as an applied-research project, then is pursued further with funding
from an NSF grant or a grant from some other government agency.
An important fiscal benefit of applied research carried out by
students is that they not only develop practical hydraulic engineer-
ing skills within their studies, but they also benefit financially
from the operation in terms of scholarships and hourly employment.
This benefit helps them tremendously in offsetting the rising costs
of tuition and fees incurred with a university education.

Fig. 9. Anchor ice blockage of a wedge-wire water intake at 8-m water

depth in Lake Michigan. The wedge-wire screen is 1.6 m in diameter;
Fig. 8. Hydraulic structures in much of the continental US must individual ice crystals exceed 10 cm in length. (Image courtesy of
operate in the middle of the phase diagram for water. Manitowoc Public Utilities, Wisconsin.)

© ASCE 04020031-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031

 Risks
The potential risks associated with applied research relate to CSU’s
hydraulic engineering program, as indeed they do to all programs.
CSU is alert to the risks, and takes a balanced approach to under-
taking applied research, seeking opportunities to use such research
to enhance student education and develop new lines of research.
When applied research opportunities have appeared abundant,
CSU’s hydraulic engineering program has spun off consultancies,
such as Simons, Li, and Associates, or its faculty have shifted their
efforts to handle the opportunities. For example, Daryl Simons and
Ruh-Ming Li, originally faculty members associated with CSU, in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Industrial de Santander on 03/22/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1979 developed a productive consultancy that eventually was
absorbed by the large consultancy Tetra Tech. The writers view
CSU’s hydraulic engineering program and its lab as constantly
evolving in response to societal issues in water engineering.
Concluding Remarks
It was argued here that university programs in hydraulic engineer-
ing should provide an educational environment in which academic
instruction, basic research, and engineering service coexist and in-
teract with mutual benefit. The arguments in support of this case
include the extent of the engagement of applied research and its
benefits in hydraulic engineering education. To be sure, applied
research should supplement rather than replace basic research. It
should not dictate, nor be at the expense of, the primary collegiate
missions of sound engineering education and basic research.
Over several decades, the Hydraulics Laboratory at CSU has
gained significant income from applied-research projects. At CSU,
numerous advances in fundamental hydraulic research emerged
from practical applications to engineering problems that had not
been previously explored. Whether this mix of basic and applied
research is sustainable remains for the reader to judge. ABET
requirements in recent years definitely have promoted a broadening
of the curriculum rather than a focus on governing principles.
It is interesting to report the gist of a verbal comment made by
a senior consulting engineer recently visiting CSU’s hydraulics
laboratory: “CSU is precisely the kind of research organization
that consulting-engineering companies appreciate at American
universities.”
The writers’ contention and their experiences at CSU fold into
the broad set of experiences described by the many contributors to
the valuable book Hydraulics and Hydraulics Research (Garbrecht
1985), written to celebrate International Association for Hydraulic
Research (IAHR), an International Professional Association founded
in 1935 with a focus on hydraulic engineering.
References
ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). 2014.
Criteria for accrediting applied science programs. Baltimore: ABET.
Bélanger, J. B. 1849. “Notes sur le Cours d’Hydraulique.” (“Notes on a
Course in Hydraulics.”). [In French.] Session 1849–1850. Paris:
Mémoires Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées.
Bhowmik, N., E. V. Richardson, and P. Y. Julien. 2008. “Daryl B.
Simons—Hydraulic engineer, researcher, and educator.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 134 (3): 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(2008)134:3(287).
Chanson, H. 2004. “Enhancing students’ motivation in the undergraduate
teaching of hydraulic engineering: The role of field works.” J. Prof.
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 130 (4): 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1052-3928(2004)130:4(259).
© ASCE 04020031-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020031
Chanson, H. 2007. “Hydraulic engineering in the 21st century: Where to?”
J. Hydraul. Res. 45 (3): 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686
.2007.9521764.
ENR (Engineering News Record). 1930. “Herschel will cites need for
hydraulic research.” Eng. News Rec. 105 (1): 30–31.
Ettema, R. 2018. “Review of book hydraulicians of the USA:1800–2000.”
J. Hydraulic Eng. 144 (1): 446–447. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
HY.1943-7900.0001405.
Ettema, R., and S. Abt. 2016. “The hydraulics laboratory at Colorado State
University.” Hydrolink, Int. Assoc. Hydro-Environ. Eng. Res. 4 (1): 12–13.
Ettema, R., and J. F. Kennedy. 1990. “University laboratories and commer-
cial projects: Student training or unfair competition?” Int. Assoc.
Hydraulic Res. Bull. 7 (2): 1–7.
Ettema, R., and J. F. Kennedy. 1993. “Listening to research clients.” J. Prof.
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 119 (4): 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1052-3928(1993)119:4(416).
Fenton, J. D. 2016. “Hydraulics: Science, knowledge, and culture.” J. Hydraul.
Res. 54 (5): 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2016.1218370.
Freeman, J. R. 1929. Hydraulic laboratory practice. New York: ASME.
Garbrecht, G., ed. 1985. Hydraulics and hydraulic research: A historical
review. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Georgakakos, K. P. 2002. “U.S. corporate technology transfer in hydrome-
teorology.” J. Hydroinf. Eng. 145 (10): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.2166
/hydro.2002.0002.
Hickox, G. H., A. J. Peterka, and R. A. Elder. 1948. “Friction coefficients in
a large tunnel.” Trans. ASCE 113 (1): 1027–1055.
Idelchik, I. E. 2008. Handbook of hydraulic resistance. New Delhi, India:
JAICO.
Ithaka. 2019. Supporting the changing research practices of civil and envi-
ronmental engineering scholars. Report submitted to the American
Society of Civil Engineers. New York: Ithaka S+R.
Julien, P. Y. 2017. “Our hydraulic engineering profession.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 143 (5): 03117002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943
-7900.0001267.
Julien, P. Y., and R. N. Meroney. 2003. “History of hydraulics and fluid
mechanics at Colorado State University.” In Proc., Hydrology Days
2003, 92–103. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ.
Lagasse, P. F., M. Ghosn, P. A. Johnson, L. W. Zevenbergen, and P. E.
Clopper. 2013. Reference guide for applying risk and reliability-based
approaches for bridge scour prediction. Rep. No. 761. Washington,
DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
Mays, L. W. 2005. Water resources engineering. New York: Wiley.
NSB (National Science Board). 2012. Diminishing funding and rising
expectations: Trends and challenges for public research universities.
Arlington, VA: NSB, National Science Foundation.
NSF (National Science Foundation). 1997. The engineering research centers
(ERC) program: As assessment of benefits and outcomes. Arlington, VA:
Directorate of Engineering, NSF.
Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman. 1982. In search of excellence: Lessons
from America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper and Row.
Rouse, H. 1962. “On the art of advancing the science of hydraulics.” In
Proc. 1st Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conf. New York: Pergamum.
Rouse, H., ed. 1980. Hydraulics, fluid mechanics and hydrology at
Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ.
Simons, D. B. 2004. “The influence of Whit Borland and Maurice
Albertson on my research related to regime theory applied to uniform
conveyance channels.” In Proc., Hydrology Days 2004. Fort Collins,
CO: Colorado State Univ.
Tullis, B. P., and J. P. Tullis. 2001. “Real-world projects reinforce funda-
mentals in the classroom.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (12): 992–995. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:12(992).
USACE. 1987. Hydraulic design criteria. Sheets 224-1/5 to 1/6. Vicksburg,
MS: USACE.
USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation). 1965. Friction factors for large con-
duits flowing full. Water Resources Technical Publication. Engineering
Monograph 7. Denver: USBR.
Weiss, P. T., and J. S. Gulliver. 2001. “What do students need in hydraulic
design projects?” J. Hydraul. Eng. 127 (12): 984–991. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2001)127:12(984).
J. Hydraul. Eng.