UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
CANAL BANK EROSION BY SURFACE WATER WAVES GENERATED IN A LABORATORY FLUME
Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-506
DIVISION OF RESEARCH
-f•
OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER DENVER, COLORADO
June 11, 1963 The information contained m this re port may not be used in any publica tion, advertising, or other promotion in such a manner as to constitute an I ._ endorsement by the Government or the Bureau of Reclamation, either explicit 9r implicit, of any material, product, device, or process that may be re- f erred to in the report. CONTENTS
Foreword
Summary ...... 1
Introduction ...... • ...... 2
Preliminary Investigations ...... • ...... 3
Review of Literature . . • • . . . • . • ...... 3 Wave Studies by U.S. Bureau of Reclaniation ...... 5 The General Program for this Study ...... 6
The Laboratory Studies . . . • • . . • . • • ...... • . • . . 7
Test Apparatus . . • ...... 7 Characteristics and Placement of Soil ...... 7
Classification and Soil Gradation ...... • . . • 7 Compaction Properties and Tractive Force Resistance . . . • ...... • • . 7 Preparation of Soil and Placement in Erosion Test Section ...... 8 Soil Density Samples ...... • . . 8 Saturation Effects on Embankment ...... • . • . • 8
Waves Used in Study...... 8
Generated Waves ...... • . . . . 8 Edge Waves ...... 9
Data Obtained ...... • . . . • 9
Profile Measurements ...... 9 Analysis of Data ...... 9
Comparison of Results with Previous Studies ...... 10
Conclusions ...... 12 CONTENTS- -Continued
APPENDIX
Bibliography ...... 14
List of Symbols ...... 16
Table
Summary of Data and Analysis ...... ·, 1 Comparison of Soil Properties 2
Figure
Laboratory Wave Channel and Equipment Schematic Sketches ...... 1 Laboratory Equipment ...... 2 Test Section without Soil Sample . • ...... 3 Phi Probability Graph of Kennewick Main .Canal Soil ...... • . • . 4 Compaction Properties ...... • . . . . 5 Soil Being Compacted in Test Section ...... 6 Fan-like Formation on Test Section Caused by Saturation Leaching . • . . . . . • ...... • . . • . . . 7 Equipment for Measuring Erosion Cross Sections ...... 8 Typical Wave Erosion...... 9 Wave Erosion Characteristics for Kennewick Soil ...... 10 Comparison of Wave Erosion Properties of Kennewick Soil with Driftwood-Meeker Soil ...... 11 FOREWORD
The studies described in this report were carried out as part of the Lower Cost Canal Lining Program and were conducted in the Divi- sion of Research, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver. Colorado. during the months of March through May 1960. The erosion tests were per formed by Eugene R. Zeigler and R. A. Dodge, Jr., under the direct supervision of E. J. Carlson, all of the Sediment Investigations Unit,. Special Investigations Section of the Hydraulics Branch. H. M. Martin is Chief of the Hydraulics Branch. R. J. Willson was Chairman of the Lower Cost Canal Lining Committee when these studies were conducted.
The soil for these studies came from Kennewick Main Canal, Yakima Project, Washington. The Soils Engineering Branch made standard soil tests for determining soil characteristics and for handling and controlling placement of soil test sections. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Office of Chief Engineer Laboratory Report No. Hyd-506 Division of Research Compiled by: R. A. Dodge, Jr. Hydraulics Branch Checked by : E. J. Carlson Denver, Colorado Reviewed by: A. J. Peterka June 11, 1963 Submitted by: H. M. Martin
CANAL BANK EROSION BY SURFACE WATER WAVES
GENERATED IN A LABORATORY FLUME
SUMMARY
The purpose of these studies was to determine the erosive effect of gravity water waves on earth material obtained from the Kennewick Main Canal, Yakima Project, Washington. The soil is classified as a fine silt having practically no cohesive qualities. Three place - ments of the soil were made in a side-slope test section of a canal represented in a wave flume. Each placement received the same kind and degree of compaction but was subjected to the action of a differ ent wave produced by a wave generator. The amount of bank erosion was measured and the relationship of the volume of eroded soil was determined with respect to wave length, wave period, wave height, and the time of exposure to waves. INTRODUCTION Canal bank erosion resulting from wind generated water waves in canals creates problems which are both bothersome and costly. Consequently the Lower Cost Canal Lining Committee of the Bureau of Reclamation formulated a general program to investi gate the problem. The general aims of this investigation were the development of: ( 1) criteria for predicting the characteristics of waves that occur in canals, (2) a laboratory wave flume in which canal waves and the resulting bank erosion can be repro duced under controlled conditions, (3) a better understanding of the mechanics of canal bank erosion by waves, (4) a classifica tion of various soil properties with respect to erosion by wave action, (5) methods and design criteria for stabilizing canal banks susceptible to damage by wave action, and (6) correlations be tween laboratory and field studies.
This report deals with the first four of these points and also pre sents the results of a series of laboratory wave erosion tests on a nonplastic soil.
2 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Very little research has been done on the subject of wind waves in canals. In recent years, however, an increasing amount of research has been undertaken on the generation of wind waves in oceans, lakes, reservoirs, and laboratory flumes.
Prior to World War II, prediction of wave characteristics was dependent on empirical relations developed by Stevensonl 7 /, 1874, Gaillard6/, 1904, Molitor14/, 1935, and others. Most mthese formulas express wave height as a function of wind velocity and fetch, which is defined as the length of the reach of water over which the wind blows at a particular velocity. None of these em pirical relations are intended to be applicable over a wide range of wind and fetch conditions.
During World War II, investigation of the problem was accelerated because of the interest of the armed forces in amphibious op erations. By a combination of theoretical, dimensional, and em pirical analysis, Sverdrup and Munk18/, 1947, derived relation ships in which wave characteristics,such as height, length, celerity, and period are expressed as a function of fetch, wind velocity, and wind duration. Wind duration is defined as the in terval of time during which wind velocity exists. Their findings are expressed in the relationships between various dimension- less parameters which combine the wave, wind, and fetch char acteristics. Hirschberg9/, 1949, Johnson12/, 1950, and others have shown that these parameters may be readily obtained by application of the Buckingham Pi Theorem and dimensional analysis.
Although the Sverdrup-Munk relationships were derived for the purpose of predicting the characteristics of ocean waves, Johnsonll/, 1948, 12/, 1950, Bretschneider2/, 1952, 3/, 1954, 4/, 1958,Sibul 16/,1955, and otl).ers have shown that wTth minor modifications, the Sverdrup-Munk analysis is also applicable to bodies of water such as lakes, reservoirs, and laboratory flumes where the fetch dimensions are limited. The results of the Sverdrup-Munk analysis were modified by Bretschneideri_/.
According to the Sverdrup-Munk analysis, the transfer of energy from wind to waves occurs by the push of the wind against the wave crests and by the drag of the wind on the water. The push, or normal pressure is the dominating factor in the early stages of wave growth. The drag force is primarily responsible for the continued growth of waves, even when the wave celerity ex ceeds the wind velocity. Forces tending to retard the growth of waves are the norm.al pressure when the wind velocity is less
3 than the wave celerity, and viscous shear. the latter being of negligible importance. Thus. the waves continue to grow until equilibrium is reached between the energy added by shear and that lost by air resistance.
Wave growth is limited by wind velocity and either fetch length or wind duration. In relatively short fetches. maximum wave growth is achieved in a short time and the length of fetch is usu ally the limiting factor. In very long fetches. wind duration usu ally controls .
Sverdrup and Munk made another important contribution by intro ducing the concept of the significant wave. Natural wave trains are seldom uniform with respect to wave height and wave period. The significant wave is defined statistically as the wave having the average height and period of the highest one-third of the total number of waves observed. The Sverdrup-Munk-Bretschneider analysis is based on the concept of the significant wave.
Deepwater wave conditions exist when the ratio of the wave length to the depth L/y is less than two. When L/y becomes greater than two. the waves begin to "feel" bottom and the wave height and period are reduced accordingly.
Bretschneider3/. 1954. has extended the Sverdrup-Munk analysis to cover certain cases of shallow water waves by taking into ac count energy dissipation due to bottom friction and percolation.
Sibul 16/, 1955, in a series of experiments with wind waves in a laboratory channel demonstrated that the depth begins to affect the wave height when the ratio of the depth to wave height y/H becomes less than five. A reduction in wave period becomes no - ticeable when L/y becomes greater than five. Sibul's experiments included both smooth and rough bottom conditions. Results ap peared to be independent of bottom roughness.
HufftlO/, 1958, in another series of laboratory experiments with wind waves in shallow water, obtained results showing that ob served wave heights for L/y ratios up to about five do not differ appreciably from those predicted by the Sverdrup-Munk Bretschneider curves for deepwater conditions. Wave periods, lengths, and celerities were found to be in substantial agreement with their deepwater counterparts over the entire range of ex perimental conditions which included L/y ratios up to about seven.
Saville15/. 1954, developed a method for estimating the effect of fetch wiath in limiting the growth of waves. It is generally recog nized that where the width of the fetch is limited by land forms, waves are significantly lower than those that would be expected from the- same generating conditions over more open water. It
4 is also known that waves are generated not only in the immediate direction of the wind, but also at various angles with the wind direction. Thus, the wave characteristics measured at a par ticular point are dependent not only on the energy components in a direction coincident with the wind direction but also on those components from various angles to the wind direction. The ac - tual wave chacteristics at the point will result from the summing up of all these components.
Saville used several alternate assumptions in his analysis, but obtained the best results by assuming that the wind effectiveness varies as the cosine of the angle up to 45 ° on either side of the wind direction, and has no effect for angles greater than 45°. Saville established a graphical relationship for a rectangular fetch in which the ratio of the effective fetch to the actual fetch Fe/F is expressed as a function of the ratio of the fetch width to the actual fetch length W / F.
WAVE STUDIES BY U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
An earlier wave erosion study conducted by the Hydraulics Branch was reported in "Hydraulic Model Studies to Determine Required Cover Blanket to Prevent Fine Base Material from Leaching Due to Wave Action--Kennewick Main Canal, Yakima Project, Wash ington," Report No. Hyd-381, 19 /. In this study it was deter mined that for a silty base material, the protective cover must be fine enough to prevent leaching of the base material through it, and that particles on the exposed surface of the protective cover must be of sufficient size and weight to resist displacement by wave action.
Other Bureau wave erosion studies are recorded in "Progress Report No. 1--Canal Bank Erosion Due to Wind Generated Water Waves, 11 Report No. Hyd-465, 20/. The conclusion in this report, applicable to soils of low plasticity such as inorganic clays and silts, are listed as follows:
a. When started, the erosion of a homogeneous embankment by a uniform wave train tends to continue as a geometric pro - gression of time.
b. The rate of erosion is dependent primarily on the wave height and the density to which the soil has been compacted. Compaction above 95 percent of the Proctor maximum density greatly reduces the erosion rate.
c. Wetting and drying cycles have a deteriorating effect on the resistance of an embankment to erosion. This is caused by the disruptive effect of slaking on the soil structure and
5 occurs when dried soil is subjected to immersion. Freezing and thawing cycles seem to have a similar, though not as se vere. effect.
In another wave erosion study, 11 Laboratory Study to Determine the Equilibrium Beach Profile for Figarden Reservoir--Central Valley Project, California, " Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-475, 21/, it is demonstrated that the shape and location of an equilibrium beach can be expressed in dimensionless terms for both model and prototype. in terms of the incoming wave length.
THE GENERAL PROGRAM FOR THIS STUDY
The purpose of this study was to determine the erosion effect of gravity waves on earth material obtained from Kennewick Main Canal. The following program was formulated. Three place ments of the soil were to be made on a 1-1 / 2: 1 sloping side of a canal. Each placement was to be subjected to a wave of different wave steepness; this may be expressed as the ratio of wave height to wave length (H/L). The soil density of the placements were to be the maximum obtainable within the flume and test section container. Because the density was to be constant for the three placements it would be possible to determine the relationships of bank erosion to wave length, wave period, wave height and time of exposure to waves. Finally the results of this study were to be compared with those of Progress Report No. I, Hyd-465, 20/. previously discussed. -
6 THE LABORATORY STUDIES TEST APPARATUS
The bank erosion studies were conducted in the 70-foot-long wave flume in the hydraulic laboratory. The flume contained the wave producing equipment and had been provided with the necessary filters and absorbers to prevent undesirable reflec tive interference. Figure 1 shows schematic sketches of the wave channel and equipment. Figure 2(a) shows the wave gen erator and filters. Figure 2(b) shows the wave absorber at the downstream end of the channel. The test area in which the soil was placed was constructed in the 1-1/2:1 side slope of the canal as shown in Section B-B, Figure 1. The length of the test area was 8 feet and the depth was 6-1 / 2 inches. Figure 3 shows the section where the test soil was placed.
CHARACTERISTICS AND PLACEMENT OF SOIL
Classification and Soil Gradation
The soil used in this study was taken from locations be tween Station 246+75 and 249+00 on Kennewick Main Canal, Yakima Project, Washington. The soil was a cohesionless silt and is classified as a nonplastic soil in the ML group of the Unified Soil Classification System. A logarithmic-probability graph method, 22 /, for describing the mechanical analysis of soils was usedTn this study. A log-probability graph for the Kennewick soil is plotted in Figure 4, Met,_ for the soil was 5. 18, and the standard phi-deviation <1ct, was 1. 58. The phi-skewness for the fines K'ct, was 3. 0 and the phi-skewness for coarse par ticles Kcj, was 1. 3. The geometric mean size was O. 028 mm.
Compaction Properties and Tractive Force Resistance
The compaction properties of Kennewick Main Canal soil are shown in Figure 5. The equivalent maximum dry density of the sail is 100.1 pounds per cubic foot at an. optimum moisture con- tent of 21. 0 percent, based on the dry weight of the soil. The moisture versus penetration resistance curve is also presented in Figure 5. The soil was subjected to a tractive force machine test, 22/, and the critical tractive force was found to be 0 .. 024 lb/ft2. The compaction properties of Driftwood-Meeker soil which was previously tested and reported in Hyd-465, 20/, are also shown in Figure. 5. Comparison with the Kennewick soil is made and discussed later in this report.
7 Preparation of Soil and Placement in Erosion Test Section
The soil was prepared for placing in the erosion test section by breaking up the lumps and forcing it through a 1 / 2-inch screen. The moisture content was adjusted by adding water, mixing, and allowing the mixture to age at least 1 week under a plastic sheet before placing. The soil was compacted into the test section with an airhammer. Blows of the hammer were transmitted through a 2 - by 6 -inch plank which was slowly moved over the entire test section, Fig ure 6. The soil was compacted in layers not exceeding 2 inches in thickness. When near grade, the embankment was screeded with a steel straightedge. Some small low areas were filled in by hand tamping.
Soil Density Samples
After each soil placement, 4 ring density samples were ob tained along the compacted embankment at an elevation of 1. 5 feet from the bottom of the wave flume. Thus, for the 3 place ments, 12 samples were obtained. The average density for the 12 samples was 93. 4 percent of the maximum obtainable. The average absolute deviation from this value was 1. 05 percent. The maximum absolute deviation from this value was 3. 6 percent.
Saturation Effects on Embankment
After the density sample holes were refilled with soil, the canal was filled slowly with water to a depth of 1. 5 feet. The compacted soil was allowed to saturate overnight. As the soil became sat urated, it expanded, and colloidal material leached out between the coarser particles into the canal prism. Formations were de posited at the base of the side slope which looked much like the alluvial fans encountered in geology, Figure 7. The embankment settled and a slight crack formed just above the waterline.
WAVES USED IN STUDY
Generated Waves
Three generated wave forms were used, one for each soil place ment. The direction of wave travel for the three waves was along the canal axis. The wave characteristics are completely summarized in Table 1. The wave heights were 0.18, 0. 20, and 0. 38 feet, respectively, with corresponding wave lengths of 6. 8, 3. 2, and 4. 7 feet. The flatness ratios (L/H) for these same waves were 37. 8, 16. 0, and 12. 4.
8 Edge Waves
Edge waves and their related transverse oscillations are natural characteristics of waves in trapezoidal canals and are induced by the sloping banks of the trapezoidal cross section, Section B-B, Figure 1. The variation in wave phase caused by the slopingbanks of the canal causes a node to occur at some distance from the water's edge. The node distance, Ze, is a function of the L/Y ratio and increases as the ratio increases. L is the wave length and Y is the depth of water.
In addition to the change in phase, there is also a change in the wave height along the water's edge. Since edge waves occur in the bank erosion region, their properties are also included in Table 1 . Edge waves and their properties are described in greater detail in Progress Report No. 1, Hyd-465, 20/.
Wave variables were not measured during these studies but were set by means of previous calibrations of the wave producing equip ment and flume, 20/.
DATA OBTAINED
Profile Measurements
Bank profile measurements were made following exposure to the waves shown in Table 1. The bank profiles were obtained using a swivel foot attached to a point gage assembly, Figure 8, mounted to slide along a support channel scaled for horizontal distances. The volumes of eroded material, computed for each bank profile measurement, are listed in Table 1. Testing was stopped when the soil test layer. had been eroded completely through at one point on any profile. A typical profile of the wave erosion obtained during a test is shown in the sketch and photograph in Figure 9.
Analysis of Data
The input variables considered in the analysis of data were wave height (H) from crest to trough, wave length (L), wave period (T), and (t), the interval of time the soil samples were exposed to the waves. The output variable considered in the analysis was the measured value of erosion (E), in volume per unit length of canal (one bank only).
Since this study involved one particular type of soil, and com paction was essentially constant, the following functional re lationship was assumed to exist
E = fl (H, L, T, t) ...... •...... (1)
9 By means of dimensional analysis. this relationship was reduce-cl to the more corripact form
E/H2 = f2 (t/T, L/H) ...... (2)
(E/H2) will be called the volume-of-erosion parameter through out the remaining.portion of this report. (t/T) will be designated as the time parameter and is identical to the number of waves to which the· soil is exposed. (L/H) is the reciprocal of the wave steepness and will be called the wave flatness. These parameters were computed and are listed in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 10. Straight lines were fitted by eye to these computed points. The equation for this set of lines was determined to be
4 13 (!2)= 5. 7X 10 (})(i)2 ...... (3) The symbols are as previously defined. Thus the amount of erosion in Kennewick Main Canal soil can be computed for any wave and time of wave exposure, within the limits of the labo ratory data. These limits can be determined from the data points in Figure 10. Another limitation, not apparent in the figure, is the fact that all waves traveled along the length of the canal.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES
. In previously reported studies. laboratory wave erosion data were obtained for Driftwood-Meeker soil; compaction properties are shown in Figure 5. These data are analyzed and presented in. Progress Report No. 1 "Canal Bank Erosion Due to Wind Generated Water Waves," Hydraulic Report No. Hyd-465, 20/. The wave erosion data were obtained using the same laborafory apparatus and techniques used in conducting the wave erosion studies with the Kennewick soil. Furthermore, one soil placement, reported in Progress Report No. 1, was subjected to nearly the same combination of wave form and soil compaction used in the Kennewick study. Therefore, it is possible to compare the Kennewick soil with the Driftwood-Meeker soil in regard to their resistance to wave erosion. To make this comparison, the pa rameters of Equation 2 were plotted for both soils in Figure 11 . This plot demonstrates that the Kennewick soil is much more sensitive to wave erosion than the Driftwood-Meeker soil. Since a common combination of wave form and soil compaction was used for both studies, the causes for the difference in wave erosion resistance must be soil properties other than compac tion. The effect of compaction on erosion resistance has been discussed in more detail in Progress Report No. 1, 20/. The
10 properties for both soils are given in Table 2. Column 2 of this table shows that the Kennewick soil was nearly three times larger in mean grain diameter than the Driftwood-Meeker soil. Despite the larger particles, the Kennewick soil was less resistive to erosion as shown in Figtire 11. Therefore, it must be inferred that when a soil is in the clay-to-silt class. some property or properties other than grain size must predominate when consid ering wave erosion. If it can pe assumed that the partical size or mean diameter has a minor effect, it must follow that all the log-normal properties are also of minor importance when deal ing with soils in the clay-to-silt class. This leaves the cohesive property or the plasticity index as the dominant factor since the other factors are intrinsically related to either the grain distri bution factors or to the plasticity index or both. Therefore, the zero plastic limit appears to be. the predominant factor in causing the Kennewick soil to be less resistant to wave erosion.
11 CONCLUSIONS 1. Equation (3) can be used to predict. within the limits of the laboratory data. the amount of erosion of Kennewick soil pro duced by water waves traveling along the length of a canal hav ing 1-1 / 2: 1 side slopes.
2. Figure 11 and Table 2 demonstrate that. other than the de - gree of compaction. the plasticity index of a soil in the silt-to clay class is probably the dominant soil property when consider ing resistance to water wave -erosion.
3. Figure 11 and Table 2 show that the mean diameter of the individual particles is of minor importance in a silt-to-clay class of soil when considering resistance to wave action.
12 APPENDIX
1.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Biesel, F. and Suquet, F., "Laboratory Wave-generating Apparatus, 11 La Houille Blanche, Vol 6, No. 2, 1951, pages 147 to .165 (translated by Meir Pilch, SAF Hydraulic Labora tory. University o.f Minnesota)
2. Bretschneider, C. L. . "The Generation and Decay of Wind Waves in Deep Water, II Transactions AGU, Vol 33, No. 3, June 1952, pages 386 to 392
3. Bretschneider. C. L. • "Generation of Wind Waves Over a Shallow Bottom," Corps of Engineers. Beach Erosion Board, T.M.No. 51, 1954
4. Bretschneider. C. L .• "Revisions in Wave Forecasting: Deep and Shallow Water." Proceedings of Sixth Conference on Coastal Engineering, Council on Wave Research, University of Cal ifornia, 1958, pages 30 to 67
5. Carlson, E. J., "Gravel Blanket Required to Prevent Wave· Erosion," Proceedings ASCE, Journal of the Hydraulics Division. Vol 85, No. HY 5, May 1959
6. Gaillard, D. D., "Wave Action in Relation to Hydraulic Struc tures," Professional Paper No. 31, Corps of Engine·ers, U.S. Army, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1904
7. Hanson, E. T .• "The Theory of Ship Waves." Royal Society of London. Proceedings, Series A. Vol III, 1926, page 491
8. Herbich, J. B .• "Experimental Studies of Wave Filters and Absorbers," Project Report No. 44, St. Anthony Falls Hy draulic Laboratory, University of Minnesota. 1956
9. Hirschberg. L .• "Wave Action in Relation to the Design of Hydraulic Structures." M. S. Report. Colorado State Uni versity, 1949
10. Hufft, J. C .• "Laboratory Study of Wind Waves in Shallow Water." Proceedings ASCE, Proceedings Paper 1765, September 1958
11. Johnson, J. W .• "The Characteristics of Wind Waves on Lakes and Bays." Transactions AGU, Vol 29, No. 5, October 1948, pages 671 to 681
14 BIBLIOGRAPHY - -Continued
12. Johnson, J. W .• "Relationships Between Wind and Waves, Abbots Lagoon, California," Transactions AGU, Vol 31, No. 3, June 1950, pages 386 to 392
13. Lamb, Horace, "Hydrodynamics." Sixth Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1932, pages 446 to 450
14. Molitor, D. A .• ''Wave Pressures on Sea Walls and Break waters," Transactions ASCE, Vol 100, 1935, page 984
15. Saville, T., Jr., "The Effect of Fetch Width on Wave Gen eration." Corps of ·Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, T. M. No. 70, 1954
16. Sibul. 0 .• "Laboratory Study of the Generation of Wind Waves in Shallow Water," Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, T. M. No. 72, 1955
17. Stevenson, T .• "Design and Construction of Harbors: A Treatise on Maritime Engineering," Edition 2, Edinburgh, 1874
18. Sverdrup, H. U .• and Munk, W. H .• "Wind, Sea and Swell: Theory of Relationships for Forecasting," Publication No. 601, Hydrographic Office, U.S. Navy Department, 1947
19. U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation, "Hydraulic Model Studies to Determine the Required Cover Blanket to Prevent Fine Base Material from Le·aching Due to Wave Action--Kennewick Main Canal, Yakima Project, Washington," Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd~381, June 1954
20. U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation, "Progress Report No. 1--Canal Bank Erosion Due to Wind Generated Water Waves," Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-465, January 1961
21 . U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation, "Laboratory Study to Determine the Equilibrium Beach Pro - file for Figarden Reservoir--Central Valley Project, Cal ifornia," Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-475, July 1962
22. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, "Progress Report No. 3, Canal Erosion and Tractive Force Study (Correlation of Laboratory Test Data)--Lower-cost Canal Lining Program, " Appendices I and II. Hydraulic Laboratory Report No. Hyd-464, October 1960
15 SYMBOLS
E Volume of erosion
F Fetch
Fe Effective fetch f Denotes functional relationship
H Wave height
He Edge wave height
K~ Skewness of fines
K
L Wave length
M
T Wave period t time of exposure to waves
W Fetch width
Y Depth of water
Ze Edge wave node distance
16
47 47
80 80
70 70
/H2 /H2
3.02 3.02
1. 1.
2.48 2.48
0.94 0.94 4.00 4.00
2.80 2.80
4.79 4.79
1. 1.
8.36 8.36 3.21 3.21
1. 1.
E E
Erosion Erosion
parameter parameter
/H /H
L L
12.4 12.4
16.0 16.0
37.8 37.8
Wave Wave
flatness flatness
Parameters Parameters
020 020
540 540
300 300
300 300
750 750
840 840
375 375
750 750
500 500
250 250
/T /T
waves waves
t t
1, 1,
1,130 1,130
1, 1,
Number Number
of of
ft) ft)
E>'i< E>'i<
0.357 0.357
0.212 0.212
0.435 0.435
0.160 0.160
0.112 0.112
0.136 0.136
0.271 0.271
0.072 0.072
0.155 0.155
0.104 0.104
0.055 0.055
(cu (cu
erosion erosion
Volume Volume
Erosion Erosion
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
bank bank
05 05
AND AND
1 1
Ze Ze
(ft) (ft)
0.75 0.75
0.45 0.45
1. 1.
per per
Node Node
distance distance
Wave Wave
DATA DATA
Table Table
canal canal
15 15
OF OF
Edge Edge
He He
(ft) (ft)
of of
0.25 0.25
0. 0.
0.16 0.16
Wave Wave
height height
foot foot
300 300
540 540
300 300
840 840
900 900
600 600
900 900
600 600
300 300
per per
1,020 1,020
1,560 1,560
(sec) (sec)
Time Time
SUMMARY SUMMARY
elapsed elapsed
eroded eroded
0 0
2 2
1. 1.
0.8 0.8
1. 1.
(sec) (sec)
Wave Wave
period period
soil soil
Wave Wave
of of
L L T t
Main Main
(ft) (ft)
4.7 4.7
3.2 3.2
6.8 6.8
Wave Wave
length length
Volume Volume
= =
H H
(ft) (ft)
0.38 0.38
0.20 0.20
0.18 0.18
Wave Wave
>: of of 95 95 93.4 93.4 com- paction paction maximum maximum Percent Percent 4 4 age age 15.3 15.3 21. 21. limit limit Shrink- 32.8 32.8 None None limit limit Liquid Liquid CL CL ML ML Classi- fication fication 0.110 0.110 0.024 0.024 force force lb/ft-2 lb/ft-2 Critical Critical tractive tractive PROPERTIES PROPERTIES 12.1 12.1 None None index index 2 2 Plasticity Plasticity SOIL SOIL Table Table OF OF K'c/> K'c/> +0.40 +0.40 +3.00 +3.00 31 31 31 31 properties properties Kc/> Kc/> +1. +1. +1. +1. 58 58 (Tc/> (Tc/> 2.35 2.35 1. 1. normal normal COMPARISON COMPARISON .17 .17 Mcp Mcp 6.62 6.62 5 5 Log Log mm mm 0.010 0.010 0.028 0.028 Grain Grain diameter diameter 18F-1191 18F-1191 18F-1192 18F-1192 Soil Soil Meeker Meeker Sample Sample Driftwood! Driftwood! Kennewick* Kennewick* *Sample *Sample 1/t 1/t FIGURE I: REPORT HYO- 06 Parallel plate .-3 curtian filter B wave filter, / spaced at 12" r>- ,-Wave absorber \ ~ ~ \ J~\ 0 ,' 3:1 slope t<---10.1'--->4<-G.0' 1 ,....3,9#~ ,..; ,,-rest section I I I ! 11 I I I I I : , l . 12.di I , I , I , 3.o'l ...,..5_0.....,_5_2---:------30.o ------e.0------13.o- ___ ,___.., I ' I 1 ~- _ ------~ ------66.2 ------~ ',wave absorber ~ 3:1 slope, 1' thick B ,Wave generator, PLAN ; See detail A ' ,,--Wave obsorber ,-,Filters ,'rest section 2:1 slope /'/ / 'o, : I I I I 1 : ~------19.6'------~ :.C--6.8--~ I , I ,< ------37.2 ------______...., SECTION A-A ,-Stroke adjusting mechanism / variable tram 4" to 15" radius / ' ,---·Variable speed pulley system ,-3"X3" X 311~· L iron / 4'-5 318" from pin to hinge / DETAIL A WAVE GENERATING APPARATUS (SUPPORTING STRUCTURE NOT SHOWN) Compacted ,,-- Metal lath earth---,,, / ----~ I I -.:,. ---Supporting 0 structure .,; not shown I I ~------3.05'- ___ .,,.: I I I , I I<------8.0 ------>< SECTION B-B TEST SECTION LABORATORY WAVE CHANNEL AND EQUIPMENT-SCHEMATIC SKETCHES 565 FIGURE 2 Report Hyd-506 (a) Wave generator (b) Absorber at downstream end of channel LABORATORY EQUIPMENT FIGURE 3 Report Hyd-5 06 Test section without soil sample PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE FINER FINER 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 o.5 o.5 2 2 5 5 20 20 10 10 99 99 99.5 99.5 80 80 99.8 99.8 30 30 60 60 99.99 99.99 99.9 99.9 40 40 70 70 90 90 50 50 98 98 95 95 1 1 r r 0) 0) 0 0 I I l l .. .. J(JI~ J(JI~ .. .. -1.3 -1.3 ~ ~ )5 )5 3--10 3--10 - ::c ::c :::0 :::0 17 17 -ic -ic 18Qf=t=t 18Qf=t=t ::0 ::0 w G) G) rTT7 rTT7 [7 [7 0- 9 9 ~ ~ "'O.,, "'O.,, ::tn,.:+- rrl rrl F/'l7c> F/'l7c> ::0 ::0 2 2 It It ...... ~ti+ ~ti+ ...... J...-+_ ....J...-+_ .+-+-- ••. ••. -; -; ~ ~ . . o_=:.!. o_=:.!. l:::::==±:---1- µ5~ µ5~ [~:~' [~:~' 8 8 J~'b~ J~'b~ 0.. 0.. :L :L f-- ">--:. ">--:. I I z z 17' 17' 6- ,..... ,..... ::.: ::.: ~ ~ a:: a:: ,1_ ,1_ 7 7 :lO~ :lO~ .:JC=-::...- 0 0 1/H-tfF:: 1/H-tfF:: :::::. :::::. - ----. ----. - ttH ttH b1F b1F I I IIJl!lil.l IIJl!lil.l VJ VJ I I ...... _ _ tttf~~~~,n. tttf~~~~,n. 6 6 t---i=tt t---i=tt t7t1:IIll t7t1:IIll 11 11 ~ ~ --- -I -I lt.q vtt-titt.titt- ' . . ' +-++++++t++++ +-++++++t++++ I I I I I I 111111 111111 I I I I t t i I I i 11 11 •- -::r- ...... >-+-+-1,/'H-H-+i- ·- ··+- :t :t l l . . .ITT++ .ITT++ 8~ 8~ v~ v~ ...... :.-~-+- +• +• .l .l .l .l .J-.l .J-.l i.t· i.t· !- _+-, _+-, .4 .4 .=-l---t-- -~ -~ 11==i== 11==i== bi:i bi:i .&...~ .&...~ r r C C 5 5 ±: ±: -& -& -::fE -::fE ---n111~· ---n111~· l l -~1--r1n· -~1--r1n· ...... -·-1· -·-1· + + ...... +-- -·- -- ...... . . . . -- . . + + •_+_1 •_+_1 +- - ...... ·• ·• ...... · · .· .· ...... . . ·--····=:~:~ ·--····=:~:~ 1-. 1-. fllfmt fllfmt t-t:S t-t:S =- ;=-~-~-~ ;=-~-~-~ -_ -_ t"- -r:tc -r:tc --~ --~ 5=, 5=, t t ~: ~: ~~-2 ~~-2 a. a. ·~- =--+=. =--+=. _:z:::- L7. L7. :i: :i: 2 2 'F· 'F· .. .. m m ··-+ ··-+ - ----=-~ ----=-~ -·!!I=== -·!!I=== -_ -_ . . .: .: 4~ 4~ H H ;c=4:c, ;c=4:c, ...... 5- o: o: ~- 2- Et=·- E E t+-r-wtt-FFF 3l~ 3l~ ·t=l=: ·t=l=: . . ·-. ·-. l- ' ' -·-- ITtf· ITtf· -t-rr-1 -t-rr-1 .£~t- .. .. f f I I ~~- H' H' I- ,+ ,+ . . L L _. _. ._ ._ I I ! ! ~:: ~:: .:~ .:~ -~~ -~~ '.:? '.:? - 7-I 7-I : : - ._,.=~· ._,.=~· r- w w 6i=-3 6i=-3 .. .. ----··· ----··· :..: :..: ...... ;...... ;.. - ·~. ·~. - ··-+· ··-+· u u ,111 ,111 t.t t.t }- ~ ~ L. L...... - -.- L- -- u u ~~: ~~: - j j •. •. __ __ i_c; i_c; ·Lr ·Lr · · • • , , ' ' '-~ '-~ ft ft . . , , ii- It.° It.° I I ) ) j j , , •, •, !J !J ! ! ! ! 0 0 I I ' ' I I I I . . ' ' 1111 1111 TI TI ,; ,; --H-1-++ --H-1-++ ---!-:--- I I ------1---+4-++-...... _· ------1---+4-++-...... _· -· -· - ...... b,f~r=····· ~'-- +--+--+-+--+-Uc.i--H-++t-+-tHtt:t·....W...UJUJLil +--+--+-+--+-Uc.i--H-++t-+-tHtt:t·....W...UJUJLil ! ! ~:·:t":+Hf--HI,+ ~:·:t":+Hf--HI,+ '_· '_· ...... 1-+-+---;...... +.---µt-·- -H-+-111,-1, -H-+-111,-1, ..+++--4 ..+++--4 0 0 / / 4_..L_, 4_..L_, +-+-+- ...... -+·-+1-+--< -+·-+1-+--< 3~ 3~ '+ '+ ~'-- t-t·Tt-t-t+--1H--+-+--+++H11-t+++++11.A--- 1-..!.... 1-..!.... ~-~l-+-l+~f--+1-H-+-~-+-· ~-~l-+-l+~f--+1-H-+-~-+-· ' ' ILi ILi 1 , , , , ·111 ·111 111111(11111 111111(11111 I I I I I I 111 111 I I !!11111 !!11111 I I I I ++++-+-+.+-+++-+--+--+--i-1--i++ ++++-+-+.+-+++-+--+--+--i-1--i++ I/I I/I 1 1 ..,., ..,., l- '.::! '.::! L L 1 1 n,qq1 n,qq1 11, 11, 1 1 1,, 1,, 111,111 111,111 1 1 1 1 , , 11·111 11·111 1 1 1 1 ri ri 1 1 1 1 w w w w ~--, ~--, -, -, ...... ~ ~ 111 111 ·t7 ·t7 ~- I I I I I I I I I I II II / / I I II II I I I I I I I , , I ;J ;J I I / / /. /. / / I I I I II II I I I I I I I I , , I I .I .I I I -4 -4 . . ! ! I I I I J.--...+-+- • • 1111 1111 Ill Ill I I I I I I 111 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I I I I I I -6'· -6'· ----1-..JT,-+l--+-+-J..l++--H-.!...... l...... L ----1-..JT,-+l--+-+-J..l++--H-.!...... l...... L 1 1 11 11 0: 0: · · I I 1 1 t-J t-J --4---U~.+-U..~W...... j__;._J._ --4---U~.+-U..~W...... j__;._J._ i i I I I I I I .J.. .J.. I I -~~- w w -, -, --+-+7 --+-+7 ·+-+-1---i+ ·+-+-1---i+ I 30 I -5 -5 ~4'5"'.: ~4'5"'.: 1- .:i=-. .:i=-. - z z 0 0 50 50 - 1-+l+l-:tt=t=ffl'...: 1-+l+l-:tt=t=ffl'...: j- 1,mtt::t::::t:= 1,mtt::t::::t:= ~ ~ .. ...!Q..: ...!Q..: ~l.Lm ~l.Lm ...... § § -6 -6 ~.-J---+- ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ t9J::==.= t9J::==.= -+=· -+=· ...... l~~ l~~ --.--i== --.--i== > > ILi ILi ~ ~ Q Q '.::?= '.::?= ·:;:..:::-+-'-- ~ 0 0 ' ' w~,Q!! w~,Q!! (/) (/) 1-i-- 1 1 ~Ill ~Ill 111111111111111 111111111111111 I I I I I I llllllllll!llllllliiltillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllit+-+- O::t-- i i -, -, Ui.-- ' ' i i I I 411 411 tt tt +-t, +-t, +H +H 11111 11111 11 11 I I t t tt11htrit tt11htrit -H -H ! ! -+ -+ +··•---1-----W-+-W-rn+..w. +··•---1-----W-+-W-rn+..w. -t+ -t+ • • • • ----W--1-+H ----W--1-+H 0--- tf1 tf1 ~7111111 ~7111111 . . ',··, ',··, I I ' ' I I · · +-'-· +-'-· · · · · rt'+ rt'+ -!•·>- :'1 :'1 ·· ·· · · +-++H++---1- i-- r-7 r-7 f- I I I I 111 111 I I 1 1 I I --r-·+ll+'"r --r-·+ll+'"r . . I I I I I I -1---1-4-1~ -1---1-4-1~ UULm~·-3= UULm~·-3= I I , , I I 1·-111111 1·-111111 · · -- I I (=i:=i (=i:=i .. .. I I :::;;,___ :::;;,___ -I -I ··---=~-,-· ··---=~-,-· Hh 4i,-tuJ~OO· 4i,-tuJ~OO· 1 1 ·-=-t-1 ·-=-t-1 T!Tllllllll T!Tllllllll T,,,,T T,,,,T T,, T,, T T EE EE ·t:t ·t:t ...... ~ ~ µ µ -8 -8 t t i:= i:= ++-I-+- l= l= 1---+- H+ H+ - :j~l=:: :j~l=:: -+;: -+;: --~-I~ --~-I~ . . f.::f:=:::.~ f.::f:=:::.~ E E -2 -2 ~ ~ t· t· t t . . ; ; .. .. ··.r- •. •. t: t: · · ~ ~ ·fc_-±- __ __ · · . . ; ; tti.t:...f:j tti.t:...f:j - _,_ _,_ -±± -±± -T-+- ----f=TC ----f=TC 6Q~ 6Q~ ffl ______ ._.. ._.. . . _#~=++ _#~=++ 100 100 ~ ~ -3 -3 t,. t,. =· =· _.+_·.·-J· _.+_·.·-J· ...... '··_· '··_· ·--=::F--~. ·--=::F--~. = = .=-....:to .=-....:to . . t t .:.:l:=f .:.:l:=f .. .. ;:1 ;:1 ...... ~ ~ "T_,.,c--2 "T_,.,c--2 50 50 30 30 20 20 {t5 {t5 60 60 80 80 0-2 0-2 5 5 40 40 01 01 90 90 005 005 9S 9S 10 10 98 98 70 70 95 95 99.5 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 O.QI O.QI PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE COARSER COARSER Bureau Bureau of' of' Reclamation Reclamation PROBABILITY PROBABILITY 18-50) 18-50) PHI PHI GRAPH GRAPH DC-20& DC-20& FIGURE 5 REPORT HYO. 506 3000 MOISTURE-PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVE 2800 ' 2600 ' ~ ' ' ' . 2400 . .. ~ .. . 0 2200 •. "'er: w 2000 ~ a. ~ ., .. ... ,.. ~ ui ~- ----.: m .J 1800 I w z0 1600 ~ 06 10 15 20 25 30 MOISTURE-PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 6 10 15 20 25 3 0 MOISTURE-DRY DENSITY CURVES THEORETICAL CURVE AT COMPLETE SATURATION (NUMERALS INDICATE PER- CENTAGE OF TOTAL VOLUME OCCUPIED BY WATER ie %VOIDS 110 ..,: I u. I ::i DRIF TW ooo ME Kl R-1... 0 1-~ a: 105 w ~- a. '"'" ui m / "" ~ .J ,, ' ,-I ~ 100 KEN "E MIC K z ~ ~ - w .... ,,._ 0 / , a: ·" 0 7 "'I 95 90 I DENSITY TEST CURVE COMPACTION PROPERTIES OF SOILS FIGURE 6 Report Hyd-506 Soil being compacted in test section FIGURE 7 Report Hyd-506 Fan-like formation on test section caused by saturation leaching FIGURE 8 Report Hyd-506 Equipment for measuring erosion cross sections FIGURE 9 REPORT HYO. !506 INITIAL PROFILE-,'> /// STILL WATER SURFACE--_ ', / ' / ' \ / ..... ------FINAL PROFILE (a) CROSS SECTION ( b) VIEW LOOKING TOWARDS WAVE GENERATOR TYPICAL WAVE EROSION FIGURE 10 REPORT HYO. 506 E = Volume of soil eroded per unit length -~ / of canal bank. s-1 y H = Wave height. I 11_.,., I L = Wave length. 2' 1-- T = Wave period. CROSS SECTION t = Time exposure to waves. E 1/3 H2.= ( 5.7 X I0-4 ) (tfr)(L/H) 10 9 -1.\1 :I: 8 '?)1-~ ~ I a ~ ~ / / ...... ---::: ~ I ~ -- ~ ~ 200 400 600 800 l000 1200 NUMBER OF WAVES -(t/r) WAVE EROSION CHARACTERISTICS FOR KENNEWICK SOIL 93.4% OF MAX COMPACTION FIGURE II REPORT HYO. 506 9------.....------. ? 8 1------1------!----+----!1-----1---11---1------!-----!---I Notes Comp. = % of max. possible compaction. ~71------1------+------+--~lC-..----+------+-----+--¼ = Wave flatness. l a:: UJ 6 1------1------1----+---I-~ Q) ~ -~ ~ ff) UJ 4 ,, ~ ~ ~ .... ~ 0 ~ ~ 0~ ~·~5~-----1------+------+------+-----+--~ I . 4 o / I : KENNEWICK SOIL---- - ·/ ~31------+------+--+--+------Y-J~_-+----~ ~ I )(V 9 0 / 00~ / >2~--"----~-~----.--=-~~------..1------+----+--/ w.rv~,,:). .,. ---·DRIFTWOOD - MEEKER SOIL ~q_ • ,tt-. ,, I (,0 ,, / :\ I - -i-- 1------+---=-:.,_e , "'"' --1---1---:-'--1-...... : 9 6. 5 ....--~~~:.....::..._j... _ _j ~ '- L COrnr• - ______... - _,_ ---- - l~II;-=: \2.4 200 400 600 8001000 2000 4000 6000 8000 N U M B E R O F W A V E S - ( t/T) COMPARISON OF WAVE EROSION PROPERTIES KENNEWICK SOIL WITH DRIFTWOOD-MEEKER SOIL GPO 836-396