Reservoir Dams: wave conditions,

wave overtopping and slab protection

A J Yarde
L S Banyard
NW H Aflsop

Report SR 459
April1996

£:.HR Wallingford
Address and Registered Office: HR Walllngford Ltd. Howbery Park, Wallinglord, Oxon OX 10 8BA
Tel: + 44 (0)1491 835381 Fax:+ 44 (0)1491 832233

Registered In Englan<j No, 2562099, HR Walltng!Oid Is a wholly owned subsidiary of HR Walllngfortl G1014> ll<t

SA 459 30/04/95

......
ii SR 459 30/04/95
Contract

This report describes work commissioned by the Department of the Environment (DOE) under DOE's
Reservoir Safety Research Programme. The work was completed by HR Wallingford. The
HR Wallingford job number was CAS 0021.

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors only and not necesarity those of DOE.
The authors have exercised all possible care in compiling and presenting the data in this report.
Nevertheless the possibility that inaccuracies may occur in this publication cannot be ruled out.
Anyone wishing to use the information in it will be deemed to do so at his or her own risk.
HR Wallingford decline - also on behalf of all persons associated with this publication - any liability
whatsoever in respect of loss or damage that may arise in consequence of such use .

Prepared by ..~~ ~·: .. ;kck....... .

(n:;~ (job title)

Approved by

Date
....~9/Y-/~~·············

© HR Wallingford Limited 1996

iii SR 459 30104/95

iv SR 459 30/04/95
Summary

Reservoir Dams: wave conditions, wave overtopping and slab protection

A J Yarde
L S Banyard
N WHAIIsop

Report SR 459
April1996

Severe wave action in reservoirs caused by high winds can damage embankment dam faces unless
they are adequately protected. Accurate methods of wave prediction, and design methods for
blockwork and slabbing are necessary to allow engineers to make reliable assessment of the integrity
of the embankment and for the design of new structures.

Wave induced overtopping of dam structures, sometimes termed over-slop, may also cause potential
hazards to the crest or downstream slope of the dam, and/or to the area downstream at potential risk of
flooding.

This report describes research to simplify and consolidate the prediction of wave action in reservoirs; to
calculate wave induced discharges on embankments; and to extend work on blockwork and slabbing
protection for dam faces presented by Herbert et al (1995) in the companion report, SR 345.

This report presents a method for the derivation of an appropriate wind speed and fetch length which
are used in the Donelan/JONSWAP wave prediction formulae to establish the design wave height and
period. lt includes a method for determining a crest level based on an acceptable wave overtopping
discharge using established formulae. Physical model testing of blockwork and slabbing was
undertaken and a new method for designing protection for dam faces was developed. This document
describes additional research on the stability of blocks and slabs and provides a guide to design of
dam face protection against wave attack.

The report should be used by engineers involved in the inspection, analysis, design and construction of
blockwork and slabbing protection against wave attack on faces of embankment dams or similar
revetments.

The report is intended to support and extend guidance in SR 345, by Herbert et al (1995), and the 3rd
Edition of the Floods and Reservoir Safety Guide, ICE (1996).

If any further information is required on this or related research, pleast contact Professor William Allsop,
Manager Coastal Structures at HR Wallingford.

V SR 459 30/04/95
vi SA 459 30/04/95
Notation

A,B coefficients for calculation of wave overtopping

~ adjustment factor for calculation of overtopping of recurve walls
A. area of slabbing unit
D, discharge factor
Df15 15% sieve value for filter layer material
d depth of water at toe of structure
F fetch length, in metres
g acceleration due to gravity
H wave height
Ho design wave height
Hmax maximum wave height
H. significant wave height, average of highest one-third of wave heights
H.b significant wave height after breaking
0" dimensionless overtopping discharge
q mean overtopping discharge
qw mean overtopping discharge over wave return wall
Re dam crest level
R, run-up factor
Ru2%, Rus 2% exceedance or significant run-up levels
R" dimensionless crest level of embankment
r roughness factor
Sa altitude factor
sb empirically derived value relating to stability of blockwork
se empirically derived value relating to stability of stabbing and blockwork
sd directional factor
s, duration factor
s. seasonal factor
sp probability factor
Sw over-water speed-up factor
sm,sp =
mean or peak wave steepness, 2nHj(gTm2) or 2nHj(gT/)
Tm, TP mean or peak wave periods
fa, t1 depth of armour layer, slab or block, or depth of filter layer
u design wind speed, m/s
vb basic wind speed, m/s
wh height of wave return wall
W" dimensionless height of wave return wall
w gap width between stabbing units
X* adjusted dimensionless sea wall crest level
X empirically derived coefficient for calculation of revetment slope stability
a angle between the plane of the revetment slope and the horizontal plane
A relative buoyant density of material, eg (P/Pw- 1) or (PcfPw -1)
A. altitude of site above mean sea level
~m• ~P mean or peak lribarren number,= tana/smM>, or tana/sPM>
p,, Pc density of rock, or concrete
Pw density of water
D ratio of gap area to surface area of cover layer units

vii SR 459 30/04195

viii SA 459 30/04/95
 2
Contents

Page

Title page
Contract iii
Summary V
Notation vii
Contents ix

1 Introduction ............................................................... .
1. 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives of the study ................................................ .
1.3 Outline of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Winds and waves ........................................................... .

2.1 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. 1. 1 Wind speed derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. 1.2 Wave prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Comparison of wave prediction methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Recommended method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. 1 Wind speed derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2 Wave prediction formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Wave overtopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. 1. 1 The run-up method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. 1.2 Owen overlapping method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Recommended method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. 1 Comparison of overlapping and run-up method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Stability of Blockwork and Slabblng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1 Previous work ......................................................... 16
4.2 Recommended method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5 Summary of design methods .................................................. 22

6 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................ 24

7 Acknowledgments ........................................................... 25

8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Tables
Table 2.1 Values of direction factor, Sd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 6
Table 2.2 Values of probability factor, SP . . . . • • • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . 6
Table 2.3 Values of duration factor, S1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6
Table 2.4 Values of over-water speed-up factors, Sw • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • 7
Table 2.5 Example wave heights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3.1 Recommended design wave heights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3.2 Values of A and B for simple slopes ................................ 12
Table 3.3 Values of roughness factor for types of wave protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3.4 Values of adjustment factor, A1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14

ix SR 459 30104195
Contents Continued

Table 3.5 Comparison of crest freeboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 4.1 Range of Sb values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4.2 Values of 95% confidence factors .................................. 20
Table 4.3 Range of individual parameters for design of slabbing ................. 21

Figures
Figure 2.1 Basic wind speed map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2.2 Modified method for measuring fetches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2.3 Relationship between wind speed and fetch length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 3.1 Run-up factor and dam slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3.2 Values of A and B for simple slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3.3 Discharge factor for re-curve walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3.4 Suggested safe overtopping discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 4.1 Typical blockwork and slabbing details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 4.2 Stability curves from Breteler (1991) ................................ 18
Figure 4.3 Design chart for slabbing ......................................... 21

Appendices
Appendix 1 Modelling studies of slabbing and blockwork stability

X SA 459 30104/95
1 Introduction

1.1 Background
This report describes research to simplify and consolidate the prediction of wave action in reservoirs; to
calculate wave induced discharges on embankments; and to extend work on the stability of blockwork
and stabbing protection for dam faces presented in SR345 by Herbert et al (1995). The previous work
identified aspects of wind and wave prediction and stabbing stability which required more investigation.
HR Wallingford were therefore commissioned by the Department of the Environment in April 1994 to
undertake a further programme of research. This document describes the additional research and
provides a guide to design of dam face protection against wave attack.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The original objectives of the present study were to:

1. Derive simple wave prediction methods for British inland reservoirs taking account of typical
fetch lengths and breadths, and recommend minimum wave allowances.

2. Identify the reduction in armour thickness that may be acceptable by casting large (plan area)
slabs to protect embankment dam faces against wave action.

During the course of the study, these objectives were extended slightly to include provision of support
by the HR team to the ICE Reservoir Floods Panel in their revision of the Floods and Reservoir Safety
Guide, thus to:

3. Derive a design method to find the required crest level of a dam to ensure that wave
overtopping is within acceptable limits.

4. Develop a revised design method for both blockwork and stabbing, to optimise the cover layer
thickness or, if preferred, the stab area, slope angle or filter thickness may be adjusted.

1.3 Outline of the report

This report looks at three aspects of embankment dam design against wave action:

• The derivation of an appropriate wind speed and fetch length which are used to find a design
wave height and period.

• The establishment of the crest level required to limit wave overtopping to acceptable limits.

• The design of blockwork and stabbing to provide sufficient slope protection.

These three areas are covered in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Each chapter contains a summary
of previous work, an assessment of new contributions and the development of a design method. The
full design method with worked examples is given in Chapter 5, and conclusions are drawn in Chapter
6.

The development of the new method for determining blockworklslabbing thickness was supported by
model tests which are described in Appendix 1.

2 Winds and waves

Severe wave action in reservoirs caused by high winds can damage embankment dam faces unless
they are adequately protected. Accurate methods of wave prediction are therefore needed to allow
engineers to make reliable assessment of the dam integrity and for the design of new structures. This

1 SR 459 30/04/95
chapter reviews current methods for wave prediction based on known wind speeds and fetch lengths,
and extends and clarifies the method recommended by Herbert et al (1995) in SR 345.

2.1 Previous work

The wave heights in any restricted area of water depend essentially upon the over-water wind speed,
the fetch length, and the duration for which the wind blows.

2. 1. 1 Wind speed derivation

Wind data from a reliable source is required to predict extreme wave conditions. Previous design
methods suggest that the Meteorological Office is approached to provide extreme wind speeds and
directions from the most suitable weather station. This is indeed valid for large scale projects. For
initial work and/or for studies on less important structures, methods are available however to predict the
design wind speed at the reservoir site starting with the basic wind speed used by BSI (1995) as shown
in Figure 2.1. A method was proposed in Herbert et al. (1995) to calculate the design wind speed at the
reservoir site by applying several wind speed factors.

2.1.2 Wave prediction

In the 1980's HR Wallingford completed wind and wave measurements at Megget and Glascarnoch
reservoirs in Scotland. This research concluded that the SMB/Saville and Donelan/JONSWAP
methods were the most appropriate for wave prediction in reservoirs. This section discusses the two
methods in more detail, and recommends one for use in predicting waves on reservoirs.

The SMB/Saville method uses the 1976 SMB wave prediction curves derived for deep water with a
modified fetch length proposed by Saville (1954). Saville's method replaced the direct fetch, measured
along the wind direction by an effective fetch. The effective fetch was determined by measuring the
lengths of individual fetch rays from the dam at intervals within a 90° arc centered on the wind direction
and taking the average. This was the method presented in the now superseded Floods and Reservoir
Safety Guide, ICE (1978).

JONSWAP was a comprehensive, international field study of wave growth and dissipation held in the
late 1960's. The main purpose of this project was to determine the physical processes governing the
development of the wave spectrum under the action of the wind. Under east winds, fetch-limited waves
were measured along a profile extending 160 km from the Island of Sylt (where the coastline is almost
straight) in the German Bight. The results from JONSWAP are given in Hasselmann et al. (1973).

lt was found that the principal features of wave growth could ~e accounted for by non-linear wave-wave
interactions. The energy transfer due to these interactions controls the overall balance within the wave
spectrum and also accounts for most of the wave growth on the forward face of the spectrum.
Measured wave spectra with narrow peaks, overshoot factors and fetch-dependent high frequency
tails could be explained in terms of the non-linear energy transfer due to wave-wave interactions.

One aspect of JONSWAP of particular interest to coastal engineers was the form of the wave spectrum
at limited fetch and the relation between the integrated properties of this spectrum (significant wave
height and average period) with wind speed and fetch. lt was found that fetch-limited spectra obeyed
the similarity hypothesis and scaling laws proposed by Kitaigorodskii et al (1962), that time and
distance are scaled by gVU and gx/U2 respectively, where t is time, xis distance, g is the acceleration
due to gravity and U is wind speed. lt is these relations which are used by Donelan (1980) and
recommended here (see section 2.3.2) for application to wave prediction in a reservoir.

The results from JONSWAP have been confirmed by other measurements in the laboratory and in the
ocean. In a series of laboratory studies, Mitsuyasu (1968,1969) also showed that the dominant
physical term governing the development of waves under the action of the wind was non-linear
wave-wave interactions. He gave relations between the wave height and period with fetch using the
scaling laws of Kitaigorodskii. These relations are close to those proposed by JONSWAP.

2 SR 459 30/04/95
Wave measurements by Liu (1981) in Lake Michigan, Kahma (1981) in the Gulf of Bothnia and
Donelan (1985) in Lake Ontario have also confirmed, with small differences, the fetch-limited relations
first given in JONSWAP. Wave measurements made by the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Birch
& Ewing (1986) in the QE 11 storage reservoir at Hersham, Surrey, also give scaled relations from
measurements with fetches of about 1 km in agreement with JONSWAP.

The main scientific conclusion from JONSWAP (that wave-wave interactions control the development
of the wave spectrum) has lead to important developments in numerical wave modelling. A
"third-generation" wave model has been developed by the WAM (Wave Modelling Group) which is now
in routine use at several meteorological agencies and oceanographic institutes. The source terms
used in present models follow the concepts and ideas from JONSWAP, but with improvements and
refinements in the physical terms from theoretical and experimental advances since the JONSWAP
study was completed. The work of the WAM group has been published in a recent book on the
dynamics and modelling of ocean waves by Komen et al. (1994).

Donelan (1980) gives a method for wave prediction over an area for which the fetch is not uniform, but
irregular as in reservoirs and in many coastal locations. In this method, the fetch length is not defined
by the wind direction, but is based on the wave direction. Furthermore, the wind speed used for
determining the wave properties is that component of the wind along the wave direction.

Wave height prediction has been based on methods derived for coastal water conditions, but adapted
for the limited fetch lengths of reservoirs. The series of wind and wave measurements in Megget in
1985/86 and Glascarnoch in 1987/88, have been compared with wave heights predicted by a number
of methods, Owen (1987) and Owen & Steele (1988). Further comparison and discussion was made by
Herbert et al. (1995). This work concluded that the Donelan/JONSWAP method gave the best
estimate of significant wave height, and any errors associated with this method are generally on the
conservative side.

2.2 Comparison of wave prediction methods

Further to work carried out by Herbert et al. (1995), comparison has been made between the full
Donelan/JONSWAP method and a simplified method as proposed in Section 2.3.2, for three reservoirs
namely Glascarnoch, Megget and Grafham Water.

The results showed that there was no significant difference in the results obtained. The simplified
method under-predicted the wave height by about 2.4% for Glascarnoch, over-predicted the wave
height at Megget by approximately 0.3% and under-predicted by 1.1% at Grafham Water

lt is recommended that in line with Herbert et al. (1995), the Donelan/JONSWAP method is used for the
prediction of wave conditions on UK reservoirs. lt is further proposed that the Donelan/JONSWAP
method can be simplified as shown in the following sections.

2.3 Recommended method

This section outlines the recommended method for calculating wave heights and periods on inland UK
reservoirs. The method firstly derives a design wind speed using an approach based on that used by
BSI (1995) in BS 6399 Part2. This design wind speed is then used as input into the wave prediction
method.

3 SR 459 30/04195
Figure 2. 1 Basic wind speed map
(source ICE (1996))

4 SA 459 30104195
2.3. 1 Wind speed derivation
The design wind speed U is calculated using a basic wind speed modified by a series of factors:

(2.3)

where Vb is the basic wind speed from Figure 2.1

sa is an altitude factor
sd is a directional factor
Ss is a seasonal factor
sp is a probability factor

The basic windspeed Vb corresponds to the fifty-year hourly mean windspeed irrespective of wind
direction, reduced to a height of 1Om over completely flat terrain at sea level. lt is assumed that the
terrain is of uniform roughness and equivalent to typical open country in the UK.

The problem addressed by these studies differs somewhat from the usual wind loading problem
addressed by BSI (1995) in BS 6399 Part2, so two extra factors have been applied to tailor the wind
speed prediction formula for use in this application; a duration factor, S1, and an over-water speed-up
factor, Sw. The seasonal factor Ss has been removed from the formula as this is mainly intended for the
design of temporary works against spring, summer, or autumn winds only, and is therefore less useful
for wave prediction in reservoirs. The wind speed formula therefore becomes:

(2.4)

where each of these factors are described below.

Altitude factor
The altitude factor Sa is applied to adjust the basic wind speed to the altitude of the site above sea level.
The following formula is used:

(2.5)

where 8. 5 is the altitude of the site above mean sea level in metres. This equation compensates for
residual topography effects, but if the local topography is considered significant, then Sa should be
calculated with reference to BS 6399 Part 2.

One aspect of topography that is considered here is potential wind funnelling along steep sided valleys
resulting in the fetch lengths being extended. The use of 'bent' fetches on 'banana' shaped reservoirs
is discussed in Section 2.3.2.

Directional factor
The directional factor Sd allows adjustment to be made for any particular direction, resulting in a basic
wind speed with the same risk of being exceeded. To be conservative assume Sd=1.0 (factor for a
wind direction of 240°N). The values of direction factor for the UK are given in Table 3 of BS 6399
Part 2, and summarised in Table 2.1.

5 SA 459 30/04195
Table 2. 1 Values of direction factor, Sd

Direction ON Direction factor s.

0 North 0.78
30 0.73
60 0.73
90 East 0.74
120 0.73
150 0.80
180 South 0.85
210 0.93
240 1.00
270 West 0.99
300 0.91
330 0.82

Note: Interpolation may be used within this table

(source BS 6399 Part 2)

Probability factor
The probability factor SP may be used to change the return period of the basic wind speed, which
corresponds to a 50 year return period. Adjustment factors for different return periods derived for the
UK are given in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Values of probability factor, SP

Return period (years) Wind speed ratio (Relative to 50 year

return period)

0.67
5 0.83
10 0.88
20 0.93
50 1.00
100 1.05
200 1.10

(source BS 6399 Part 2)

Duration factor
The duration factor S, is used to convert the hourly windspeed to a more appropriate duration. For
typical UK reservoir lengths, a duration of 10-20mins is usually considered appropriate, so the hourly
windspeed should be multiplied by a factor of 1.05. Other duration factors are given in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Values of duration factor, S,

Wind Duration Duration factor

3 sec 1.51
15 min 1.05
30min 1.03
1 hour 1.00
3 hour 0.96
6 hour 0.93
12 hour 0.87
(source Herbert et al. 1995)

6 SA 459 30/04/95
Over-water speed-up factor
The over-water speed-up factor Sw is used to take account of the reduced friction over water. The
general advice is that wind speeds derived from Figure 2.1 , and modified by the factors discussed
above, should be increased by a factor depending upon the fetch length as shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Values of over-water speed-up factors, Sw

Fetch (Km) Over-water

speed-up factor

0.5 1.06
1.0 1.09
2.0 1.16
4.0 1.24
6.0 1.28
8.0 1.30
10.0 1.31

2.3.2 Wave prediction formulae

Fetch derivation
Fetch lengths are usually drawn as straight lines from the centre of the point of interest, here from the
dam face to the opposite bank. In certain instances small promontories may interrupt the path of the
fetch causing an apparently significant reduction in length. In practice waves may refract and diffract
around these promontories causing larger wave conditions to reach the dam face. Guidance is given
on the effect of promontories in Figure 2.2. lt should be noted that this advice is based on the authors'
own engineering judgement.

Modified method
for promontories

Traditional method of
measuring fetches Fetch bent around
and extended

Promontory
lnteruptlng _ _~---.­
fetch

Lonqest ext..,ded
fetch

A similar approach to 'banana' shaped

reservoirs may be adopted for dealing
with promonitories.

lt should be noted that the methods

presented ore based on the authors own
engineering judgement. Core should be
token in the interpretation of the
guidence, and if necessary specialist
advice should be sought.

If 0<50' then acceptable to extend fetch, in steep sided volley's os

strong winds can be steered by surrounding topography.

Figure2.2 Modified method for measuring fetches

7 SA 459 30/04195
There is anecdotal evidence that wave heights tend to be under-predicted on 'banana' shaped
reservoirs where wind blowing over the upper reaches of the reservoir changes direction as the axis of
the reservoir changes. lt is suggested that the fetch length be bent to follow the axis of the reservoir,
thus increasing the overall fetch length. An example of this procedure is outlined in Figure 2.2, which
provides guidance as to when the method should or should not be applied. lt should be noted that the
method of calculating wave heights on 'banana' shaped reservoirs is based on the authors' own
engineering judgement and cannot, at present, be supported by scientific data.

Wave height prediction

As previously discussed it is recommended that wave conditions should be determined using the
Donelan/JONSWAP method. Research by Owen & Steele (1988) suggests that any errors in this
method will generally lead to over-prediction of wave heights thus ensuring a conservative solution.

Calculations have been carried out during this project to compare the full Donelan/JONSWAP
approach to the simplified (Donelan/JONSWAP) approach using equations (2.6)-(2.8) shown below.
The results showed that for the cases tested there was no significant difference in the results obtained
from the two methods. lt is therefore recommended that the simplified approach is used.

On reservoirs with several fingers, it may be appropriate to test a number of directions with their
appropriate fetch length and facto red wind speed. If it is assumed that the direction factor is 1.0 for all
directions, then only the greatest fetch direction needs to be calculated.

In its simplified form, the wave prediction method is given by:

(2.6)

where H. is the significant wave height in metres

U is the design wind speed in metres per second
F is the fetch length in metres
g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81ms·2 )

and the wave period can be derived using:

(2.7)

the relationship between TPand Tm is given as:

(2.8)

The relationship between wave height, wind speed and fetch length is shown in graphical format in
Figure 2.3 for easy reference.

The height, period and direction of the waves generated will depend on the wind speed, duration and
direction and the fetch. In most situations, one of either the duration or fetch become relatively
unimportant. For example in an inland reservoir even a short storm can produce large wave heights.
Because of the small fetch lengths, any increase in the duration of the wind will then cause no extra
growth. Thus such waves are described as "fetch limited".

For convenience, wave heights on reservoirs with fetches less than 1km, are given in Table 2.5. These
wave heights have been calculated for windspeeds of U = 20, 23 and 25 m/s.

8 SA 459 30104/95
 40
'\.
'\.
'\.
'\. '\.
'\. '\.
30 '\. '\.
'\. '\.
'\. '\.
m
.......... '\. '\.
E '\. '\.
"'0
'\. '\.
'\.
Q,)
Q,)
a.. '\. "-o '\,."'ll'
(/) 20 '\. ~·
'\. ;~?_,.
'\. '\.
"'0
c '\. --~
'\. "e>.
3: '\.
'\.
'\.
'\.
"" % .t.-0!>
'\. Q..? '\.
"\ '\. ~-~
'\. '\. ~ ...
'\. '\.
'\. '\.
'\. '\.
0
'\. '\.
•)' '\. '\.
10
100 1000 10 000 15 000
Fetch (m)

Figure2.3 Relationship between wind speed and fetch length

Table 2.5 Example wave heights

Fetch length U=20mls U=23 mls U=25mls

(m)

100 0.11 0.13 0.15

300 0.20 0.23 0.25
500 0.25 0.29 0.32
1000 0.36 0.41 0.45

3 Wave overlapping
Large waves at times of high water levels may lead to overtopping of the embankment crest, with
potential consequences to access and/or to the stability of the downstream face. This chapter is
concerned with wave induced overtopping only, not with overflowing arising when the static water level
exceeds the level of the crest. The terminology and notation are generally consistent with coastal
engineering practice, see Simm (1991).

3.1 Previous work

The method discussed in section 2.3.2 will predict a significant wave height and wave period for
extreme conditions on the reservoir. The design crest level can then be determined using one of

9 SA 459 30104/95
several different methods. Two such methods, namely a wave run-up method, and an overtopping
method are discussed in the next two sections.

This section reviews work carried out in the areas of overtopping and run-up. Comparisons are made
between the two methods. Recommendations are made as to the most suitable method for
determining a crest level.

3. 1. 1 The run-up method

The run-up method is used to calculate the upward excursion of water on a sloping face. Run-up levels
are defined relative to still water level, and vary as do wave heights and lengths in a random sea state.
Methods are available to predict the significant run-up level Rus or the 2% exceedance level, Ru2% or
other exceedance levels. The form of the probability distribution of run-up levels is generally well
established. Results of some tests by Allsop et al (1985) suggest that, for simple configurations with
slopes between 1:1.33 and 1:2.5, a Rayleigh distribution for run-up levels may be assumed. This
distribution may be used to relate the 2% run-up and significant run-up levels giving:

(3.1)

In order to determine a design crest level using the run-up method factors have to be applied to the
significant wave height depending upon the embankment construction. Current practice for checking
the crest levels on British reservoirs against potential wave run-up can be found in the ICE guide on
Floods, and reservoir safety, (1996).

This method is based on modifying the significant wave height to give a wave surcharge allowance.
The extent to which waves can be permitted to go over the crest of a dam depends on the type of the
dam. A concrete dam for example is more resistant to erosion than an earth-fill dam. The allowable
height, referred to as the design wave height H 0 , can be more or less than the significant wave height
H5 • The roughness and permeability of the armouring on the upstream slope of the dam also
influences the height to which a wave will run up. Factors that can be applied to Hs in order to estimate
H 0 are given in Table 3.1.

Table 3. 1 Recommended design wave heights

Dam type Crest configuration Design wave height {H 0 ) metres

Concrete/masonry - 0.75H,

Rockfill Surfaced road 1.0H,

Earthfill with reinforced downstream face Surfaced road 1.1H,

Earthfill with grass downstream face Surfaced road 1.2H,

Earthfill with grass downstream face Grass crest 1.3H.

All dam types - no stillwater or wave surcharge carryover permitted 1.67H,

(source ICE (1996))

Once the design wave height has been estimated, Figure 3.1 can be used to determine the run-up
factor R1• Three different dam face surfaces are shown and interpolation can be used between them.
The wave surcharge is then simply calculated using the formula below:

Wave surcharge =R, H0 (3.2)

In the ICE guide minimum wave surcharges are given which should be compared to the calculated
wave surcharge, and the larger of the two values adopted. The dam freeboard should then be
determined, and should not be less than the wave surcharged derived above.

10 SR 459 30104/95
 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 07
2.6

----
2.4

2.2 ~
2.0
V
/
0/ ~r.o\\O ~~
1.8 ,...,....

.... 1.6 ~ ~ 0 ,o()r!8

-'5

-....
0
1.4 A'J .~~ """ .__.
~ ~ ~
0
.E 0
Q.
1.2 ~ / '04
:::s
I
c:
:::s
0:::
1.0
//. ? ~~ -
Typical vertical
face in deep -

0.8 /. / / water (note 4)

0.6 / /
/
0.4

0.2

0.0
1:10 1:5 1:4 1:3 1:2t 1:2

Dam slope (V : H)

1. Maximum line from Savflle et al. p.115 for typical wave steepness
(height / length) 0.05

2. Intermediate line Is 0.8 x maximum from Technical Advisory Commission

on Protection Against Inundation p.69

3. Intermediate line is 0.6 x maximum from Technical Advisory Commission

on Protection Against Inundation p.69 and 133

4. For faces off-vertical the run-up ratio rises above unity and can approach
2 in some circumstances where the deep water condition is not fulfilled
Figure 3.1 Run-up factor and dam slope

3. 1.2 Owen overtopping method

During 1978 and 1979 an extensive series of model tests was carried out at the former Hydraulics
Research Station, now HR Wallingford, to determine mean wave overtopping discharges for a range of
seawall designs subjected to different wave climates.

These model tests enabled empirical methods for evaluating overtopping discharges to be developed
by Owen (1980) based on dimension less parameters for freeboard, crest height and discharge.

The design wave height calculated using the methods presented in Chapter 2 assumes that no wave
breaking occurs. In a few instances where the embankment is in relatively shallow water depths, it
may not be possible for that wave height to reach the embankment before breaking. In this case the
wave height and thus, wave overtopping at the dam will be reduced. A method is described whereby
the calculated wave height H. is replaced by an equivalent post-breaking wave height Hsb· Where the
underwater ground slope is shallow (less than 1:50), the breaking wave height can be determined
using the following equation:

11 SR 459 30/04/95
 H.b = 0.55d (3.3}

where d is the water depth at the toe of the structure.

if Hsb< H. then Hsb should be used in overtopping discharge calculations, otherwise use H•.

Where approach slopes are steeper, a less simplistic approach will be needed because the breaking
wave can be rather larger. Methods used by Owen (1980) or Simm (1991) will be more appropriate.

Once the wave height at the toe of the structure has been determined the wave overtopping discharge
can be calculated using the method presented in this section.

The dimensionless freeboard R*, is determined from;

R• = RJ(T mJ(gH 5 )) (3.4)

where Re is the crest elevation above still water level

T m is the mean wave period
g is the acceleration due to gravity
H. is the significant wave height at the toe of the structure
(allowing for wave breaking)

The dimensionless discharge Q* is determined from;

Q* A exp (-BR*/r) (3.5)

where r is a roughness factor

A and B are dimensionless coefficients whose values depend on the embankment geometry

Values of A and B derived by Owen (1980) for simple slopes are given in Table 3.2. To determine the
values of intermediate slopes Figure 3.2 should be used, which show the values of A and B in
Table 3.2 plotted and joined with smooth curves.

Table 3.2 Values of A and B for simple slopes

Dam slope A B
1:1.5 1.02 X 10-2 20.12
1:2 1.25 X 10·2 22.06
1:1.5 1.45 X 10·2 26.1
1:3 1.63 X 10-2 31.9
1:3.5 1.78 X 10-2 38.9
1:4 1.92 X 10-2 46.96
1:4.5 2.15 X 10·2 55.7
1:5 2.50 X 10-2 65.2
(source Owen (1980))

12 SR 459 30104/95
 :ti I*
0.05
I I

++= ffi
/
110
/
~

-- =tt=
/ 1-

* ti
0.02 I
1-- 40 1-
........ 1-- B
A
/
V V JO
/
/ /
O.DI
/
21) -~---
/

*
/
10 I I

I I I i

I I I 0

Seawall slope, 1: Seawall slope, 1:

Figure3.2 Values of A and 8 for simple slopes

Table 3.3 Values of roughness factor for types of wave protection

Dam construction Rougness Value

r

Smooth, Impermeable 1.0

Stone blocks, pitched or mortared 0.95
Concrete blocks 0.9
Stone blocks, granite sets 0.85 to 0.9
Turf 0.85 to 0.9
Rough concrete 0.85
One layour of stone rubble on impermeable base 0.8
Stones set in cement, ragstone etc 0.75 to 0.8
Two or more layers or rubble 0.5 to 0.6

(source Owen (1980))

To obtain the mean overtopping discharge due to waves, the expression is:

(3.6)

where q is the overtopping discharge in m3/s per m run of crest

Allowance can also be made if the crest has a wave return wall built on top. This method involves
multiplying the calculated discharge over the dam crest by a factor dependant on the recurve wall
height and freeboard. In 1991 HR Wallingford carried out a further series of physical model tests to
measure the overtopping discharges of a range of recurved wave return walls, for different wall slopes,
water levels and wave conditions, Owen & Steele (1991).

The overtopping discharge passing over the wave return wall crest is calculated from the discharge
that would be predicted at the base of the return wall, a dimensionless wall height and adjusted w·.
dimensionless freeboard x·.
X*= R*A1 (3.7)

where A1 is the adjustment factor, and R* is determined as in equation (3.2)

The adjustment factors for various embankment slopes and crest widths are shown in Table 3.4.

13 SR 459 30/04195
 Table 3.4 Values of adjustment factor, A,
W"/R,;, 0.66

1:2 slope Om crest 1.00

1:2 slope 4m crest 1.07
1:2 slope am crest 1.10
1:4 slope Om crest 1.27
1:4 slope 4m crest 1.22
1:4 slope am crest 1.33

W"/R, s 0.5

1:2 slope Om crest 1.00

1:2 slope 4m crest 1.34
1:2 slope am crest 1.3a
1:4 slope Om crest 1.27
1:4 slope 4m crest 1.53
1:4 slope am crest 1.67

For the wave return wall, the dimensionless wall height is

(3.8}

where Wh is the wave return wall height

and Re is the distance between still water level and the base of the wave return wall.

The adjusted dimensionless freeboard X* and the dimensionless wall height Wh, are then used in
conjunction with Figure 3.3 to determine the discharge factor D,.

The mean overtopping discharge, qw, over the wave return wall is then determined;

(3.9}

where q is the predicted mean discharge at the base of the return wall.

Lines of constant w•

0.5

1
0.67

3
2
\
\ 1.5
"' ' "' '
0.1
\
\
\
\
\
\
'' ''
._
2u
\
\
\
\
\ '' ''
0
"-
.,
\
\
\
\
\ '' ''
~
\ '\\ \
\
'' ''
0
.s:::
.,u
\
\ \ \
\
'' "
0 \ \
'
0.01
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
"
\ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \
\ \
\

0.001+---------------.---------,-----,----.---,---.--,--,~
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Dimensionless Adjusted Crest Berm Freeboard x•
Figure3.3 Discharge factor for re-curve walls

14 SR 459 30/04/95
 3.2 Recommended method
The run-up method recommended by ICE (1996) in Floods and Reservoir Safety Guide, should be
used as a simple check of the adequacy of the crest level. lt does not however give any indication as
to the volume of water which will overtop the dam under wave action.

The Owen overtopping method allows the engineer to check the design crest level based on safe
wave-induced overtopping passing over the embankment crest. Assessment is made depending upon
the type of embankment construction and the use of the crest, for example vehicle access or
pedestrian access. Suggested safe overtopping discharges are shown in Figure 3.4 taken from Franco
et al (1994).

200

Very 50
dangerous
20
..-.. Unsafe at
E any speed Damage if
...
(!) 10 crest
a. Structural not protected
damage
~
.:::::;. 2
(!)

...0'10
.r:
0
0
i:S 0.6
0'1
c
a. 0.3

-
a. No
0
.... 0. damage
~
0
c
0 No 0.03
(!)
::::!: damage

0.004

Wet, but not

Safe at uncomfortable No
all speeds damage

0.0001-+------+------+-------+------l------1
Buildings Embankment Revetment
Vehicles Pedestrians
seawalls seawalls

Figure3.4 Suggested safe ovettopping discharges

The Owen overtopping method has been incorporated into a software package developed by HR
Wallingford, called SWALLOW, which enables the engineer to calculate the overtopping discharge for
simple and bermed embankment geometries. lt can also be used to determine the minimum crest level
required to meet an acceptable overtopping discharge.

3.2. 1 Comparison of overtopping and run-up method

Calculations were carried out using both the run-up method and the Owen overtopping formulae. Both
methods can be used to predict crest levels. The calculations were carried out for three dam slopes
and two roughness factors.

15 SR 459 30/04/95
The Owen formulae can be used to set the crest level depending upon the acceptable overtopping
discharge required. Three overtopping discharges were used in the calculations and corresponding
crest levels derived.

The values obtained were compared assuming the dam has a grass crest. The CIRIA Rock Manual
edited by Simm ( 1991) suggests that the safe overtopping limit for this would be 2 Vs per m. The
results of the calculations shown in Table 3.5 suggest that the crest levels derived using the Owen
method are significantly lower than those predicted by the run-up method.

Table 3.5 Comparison of crest freeboards

Slope Crest freeboard (m)

Run-up method Owen's method

1:2 smooth 2.76 1.83

1:3 smooth 2.16 1.31
1:4 smooth 1.63 0.93
1:1.5 rock 2.39 1.53
1:2 rock 2.20 1.47
1:3 rock 1.69 1.05

The results above show that for a grass crested embankment the run-up method produces the largest
values for dam freeboard. This implies that the run-up method is probably conservative.

The overtopping method outlined above provides a logical, and better supported approach to the
derivation of crest levels against wave overtopping. The method is easy to use, consistent with other
practice, and more easily understood.

4 Stability of Blockwork and Blabbing

The upstream face on an embankment dam needs protection against wave action to prevent erosion of
the underlying fill which could otherwise lead to potential breaching of the embankment. Stone or
rough-dressed masonry pitching or blockwork have been traditional means of protection. Since 1945,
other measures such as pre-cast concrete blocks and cast in-situ concrete slabbing have been
frequently adopted, as has rock armour or rip-rap. Comprehensive details of rock protection can be
found in the Rock Manual edited by Simm (1991), and details on the performance of blockwork and
slabbing protection in HR Wallingford report SR 345, Herbert et al (1995).

Much existing slope protection has been designed using formulae based on previous experience and
hydraulic model tests. Recent model tests have provided greater confidence in the design and
assessment of blockwork revetments. Larger slabbing units provide cost savings for protection of new
dams, due to improvements in pre-cast and cast in-situ concrete production. Examples of both types of
construction are shown in Figure 4.1 Further economies may be achieved by optimising the
dimensions and permeability of the slabbing revetments. This chapter briefly reviews existing design
methods, outlines new research conducted on both blockwork and slabbing, and suggests a universal
method for the design of both types of slope protection under wave action.

4.1 Previous work

A comprehensive review of existing design methods for blockwork and slabbing stability is given by
Herbert et al (1995). For convenience a summary of the most relevant recent developments is
included here.

Recent design formulae have generally concentrated on predicting armour thickness needed to resist
blocks being extracted from the slope by uplift pressures. Pilarczyk (1984) identified eight loading
processes that occur as waves reach the structure. The most likely cause of failure is considered to

16 SR 459 30104/95
 A
I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I I I
Blockwork ._: ,. I I I I I ~::,.

I I I I I
I I I I I Section A-A
__J
A
Plan

A
I

Slabbing

Section A-A
__J
A
Plan

Figure 4.1 Typical blockwork and stabbing details

occur during return flow, after wave run-up when water may penetrate between the blocks into the filter
layers. Since wave run-up levels are generally greater than the wave draw-down, relative to the still
water level, flow into the filter layer can take place over a larger area than flow out of the filter layer.
The residual water produces an increase in the phreatic level within the filter layer and consequently an
increase in the uplift pressure on the blockwork. This effect is dependent upon the relative
permeabilities of the blockwork and filter layers and upon the slope of the face. lt is also cumulative for
a number of waves.

The method recommended by Herbert et al (1995) was developed by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen (1991)
for blockwork revetments. This relates the wave conditions in terms of significant wave height and
peak period to the physical properties of the revetment in terms of slope angle, blockwork relative
density, and blockwork depth. The equation used may be written;

where x = -0.67 (4.1)

where H. is the significant wave height

l:l is the relative density of the blockwork (P/Pw -1)
Pc is the density of the block or slab material
Pw is the density of water
ta is the blockwork depth
~ is the peak lribarren or surf similarity number
(tan a) I (2nHJ gTp2) 0 ·5
a is the slope angle
TP is the peak wave period
Sb is an empirically derived value

17 SR 459 30/04/95
 B 8
\
I \
I
\ \I
'', /),. \I
6 .__ 6

Ho 4 \ D
/),.
',
/),. ''-,
lS< ', Unstable

~~-,~--~
<>

Ho
',
' ,,' Unstable

~r-
AD AD
xf <> -------
2 2
Stable x V'x

0 o~----~--~~--~~--~~--~
0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5
~op ~op
Figure4.2 Stability curves from Breteler ( 1991)

The peak lribarren number is the ratio of embankment slope gradient to peak wave steepness. A high
lribarren number indicates a steep slope or a long wave length. The model testing showed that
blockwork was less stable under high lribarren numbers for a given wave height. This is shown in
Figure 4.2, which may be used directly for design purposes, or Equation (4.1) with a suitable value of
Sb, as shown in Table 4.1.

A range of values for Sb were found through physical model testing by Breteler & Bezuijen (1991) with
regular waves. For loose blockwork on a granular filter layer two ranges are given:

Table 4.1 Range of Sb values

low stability (L) 2.6 5.6

normal stability (N) 3.7 8.0

(source Breteler & Bezuijen, (1991))

A slope has "low stability" when the cover layer is thin compared to the filter layer, the cover layer is of
low permeability and the filter is of high permeability. Thus Breteler defines "low stability" to be when:

0/~ ~ 0.5, and 0 115 > 0.4 and Q < 2% (4.2)

where tr is the thickness of the filter layer

0 115 is the 15% particle size for the filter layer
Q is the ratio of gap area to surface area of the units

For the design of slabbing Herbert et al {1995) suggest the use of equation (4.1) with Sb =4.3. This
value was found from a review of embankments protected by slabbing. No slab failure have been
recorded after storm events where the calculated value of Sb was less than 4.3.

These design methods pose a number of problems when used in practice. Further guidance for
choosing an appropriate value of Sb within the ranges for blockwork embankments is not given by Klein
Breteler & Bezuijen (1991) or by Herbert et al (1995) The user is likely, therefore, to use the lowest
value of Sb to ensure a conservative design (see Figure 4.2). In most cases this will probably result in
an over conservative design.

The criteria for selecting the lowest range of values of Sb is very strict and in most cases results in
selection of the "normal" range. In certain cases where one or two (but not all) of the criteria are greatly
exceeded, this may result in an over-estimation of the revetment stability.

18 SR 459 30/04/95
The value of Sb = 4.3 for slabbing provides a first approximation of stability, but takes no account of
different geometries and permeabilities of revetments. lt is not supported by model test data.

4.2 Recommended method

Due to the lack of test data for evaluating slabbing stability, a physical model study was conducted at
HR Wallingford. Testing under a range of wave conditions was conducted on various slabbing and
blockwork revetment configurations. Full details of the testing method and analysis of results are given
by Banyard in Appendix 1.

The new method uses Breteler's general expression for blockwork stability reproduced here for
convenience:

(4.1)

Initially the model test results were compared with the previous work. Values of Sb were found using
equation (4.1) with x=-0.67. These were compared to the existing ranges of Sb given in Table 4.1.
The new results were found to be sufficiently consistent with previous work to allow an extension of this
method to investigate the stability of slabbing.

Breteler's work was conducted on the stability of revetments under a wide range of lribarren number,
~p· The design method provided may be used for blockwork on dams or on the coast. When
considering only dam slope protection the lribarren number is limited by two physical constraints. The
short fetch lengths on reservoirs limit wave development and so only wind waves (wave steepness, sP
greater than approximately 0.03) can be generated. The slope gradient at which blockwork and
slabbing is laid is unlikely to exceed 1:1.5 due to the difficulty of placing units at a steeper angle. These
two factors result in an lribarren number limited to ~ < 4.

The results for all the blockwork and slabbing revetments was re-analysed using only the test data
where ~ < 4. By varying the values of both x and Sb, the best agreements were achieved with x = -1
and a new coefficient Se. Thus:

(4.3)

The value of Se varied between 6 and 13 depending on the revetment configuration. Such a wide range
is of limited practical use because the lowest value would always be used to ensure a safe design.

The influence of the geometry and permeability of the cover and filter layers on the stability of the
revetment were considered to develop a more exact design method.

As the depth and permeability of the filter layer are increased, the in-flow that penetrates under the
cover layer just after wave run-up also increases. The wave run-up level is generally greater than the
wave run-down relative to stilt water level. The increase of in-flow due to increased filter permeability
during wave run-up is proportionately greater than the increase in out-flow during wave run-down. Up-
lift forces on the cover layer are therefore increased.

Conversely, increased permeability of the cover layer allows proportionately greater out-flow during
wave run-down than the increase of in-flow during wave run-up. Wider gaps between the cover units
therefore increase the slope stability for this particular mode of failure. Wide gaps may however result
in loss of fine material from the filter layer, causing under-cutting of the cover units and failure of the
slope by subsidence. The loss of fine material will also increase the permeability of the filter and
therefore create greater up-lift forces on the cover layer as discussed above.

Increasing the depth of the cover layer influences the permeability due to the increased flow path from
the surface to the filter layer. This was examined during analysis of the test data and found to have no
significant effect when compared to the increased weight of the unit. The surface area and relative
density of the cover units can also be altered to change the effective weight of the unit.

19 SR 459 30/04/95
An expression for Se was found:

(4.4)

where As is the area of slabbing unit

~ is the depth of filter layer
w is the gap width between slabbing units
D115 is the 15% sieve value for filter layer material.

This expression may be easily incorporated into spreadsheet calculations, or the design chart in
Figure 4.3 may be used. Any five of the six design parameters may be selected and the value of the
sixth is found.

Since the expression is derived empirically, there is an uncertainty implicit in any of the results
obtained. The expression will give a predicted value which is not the same as the result obtained from
the model testing. To allow for this uncertainty a confidence factor may be used by the engineer.
When a value is found from Equation (4.4) or from the design chart it should be multiplied by the factor
given in Table 4.2. This will give a 95% certainty that the result obtained gives a safe value for design,
based on the results of the model testing. For example, the value of ta from the design chart
(Figure 4.3) should be multiplied by 1.3 to find the recommended slab depth.

Table 4.2 Values of 95% confidence factors

Parameter notation 95% confidence

factor

slab depth t. 1.3

revelment slope tan a 0.77
slab density Pc 1.3
filter depth ~ 0.63
slab area0·5 A."·' 1.6
gap width w 4.1
filter grading Dt,s 0.24

No extrapolation beyond the curves should be made. The design method provided is only valid for
failure due to extractions of units as a result of high piezometric head difference between the filter layer
and the surface of the revetment. Any revetment configuration which lies beyond the limits of the
design curves may be liable to some other mode of failure.

Interpolation between each of the four curves relating permeability of the cover layer to permeability of
the filter layer (w I D115 ) may be made. The highest value of w/0115 given is 1.5. Beyond this point
failure due to loss of fine material from the filter layer becomes likely and when w/0115 reaches 6 this
becomes the critical mode of failure.

Care should also be taken not to choose individual parameters outside the ranges given in Table 4.3,
since scale effects may influence the accuracy of the results:

20 SR 459 30104195
 14-,--------------------------------------------------~

12 w/Dns
1.5
0.5
0.2
0.05

10

eX 8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t
As/tt
Figure 4.3 Design chart for slabbing

Table 4.3 Range of individual parameters for design of slabbing

revetment !l eometrv mln max

2
slab area (m ) A. 0.07 9.0
slab depth (m) t. 0.01 0.4
gap width (mm) w 0.2 60
filter 0 115 (mm) 0,,5 0.5 100
. fiHer depth (m) t. 0.03 0.8
wave conditions
significant wave height (m) H, 0.1 4
peak wave period (s) r. 1.0 10.0
surf similaritv oarameter 1-l E 1.7 4

lt may be possible to work outside these ranges but there is no model data to confirm this.

21 SR 459 30/04/95
lt is unlikely that these limits would be exceeded in normal design practice. The upper limits of slabs
area and slab thickness should, however, be noted carefully.

The method is not valid for lribarren numbers ~ greater than 4. This would only occur when designing
revetments as part of sea defences which are subjected to long period swell waves, rather than
reservoir embankments where only short period wind waves are encountered.

5 Summary of design methods

The recommended design methods are summarised in the following examples which are provided to
aid the user in the application of the methods.

The first stage in the design process is to derive the design wind speed, in this instance for a 10 year
return period, a relatively frequent event.

Box5.1 Derivation of design wind speed

Given basic wind speed (from Figure 2.1) = 24m/s
altitude of reservoir =200m
fetch length = 6.4km
fetch direction = 240°
return period = 10 years

Calculate design wind speed

1. calculate altitude factor Sa= 1+0.001 6.s

sa= 1+0.001*200
sa= 1.2

2. determine direction factor from

Table 2.1

3. determine probability factor from sp =o.88

Table 2.2 for 10 year extreme

4. determine duration factor from s, = 1.05

Table 2.3.

5. Using fetch length of 6.4km and SW= 1.28

Table 2.4 to find Sw

6. calculate design wind speed u =Vbsasdsps,sw

using equation (2.4) u = 24 * 1.2 * 1.0 * 0.88 * 1.05 * 1.28
U = 34.1m/s

Then the wave conditions are estimated using the Donelan/JONSWAP method.

22 SR 459 30/04195
Box 5.2 Calculate significant wave height H5

1. calculate Hs from equation (2.6) H5 = 0.00178uv'Ftv'Q

Hs= 0.00178 " 34.1 " 6400°· 5 " 9.81"0·5
Hs= 1.55m

2. calculate TP from equation (2.7) TP= 0.07118P'·3U0.4

TP= 0.07118 * 6400°·3 * 34.1° 4
TP= 4.05s

3. calculate Tm from equation (2.8) Tm= 0.82TP

Tm= 0.82 * 4.05
Tm= 3.32s

If wave overtopping is the primary influence on the embankment crest level, Owen's wave overtopping
method can then be used to calculate a design freeboard. In this example, a limit on overtopping
discharge has been set to avoid damage to grass on the crest and downstream face of the
embankment.

At this stage it is important to check that the calculated wave heighty can reach the embankment before
wave breaking occurs. If the toe of the embankment is assumed to be in "deep" water, no allowance
has to be made. If, however, the embankment is in relatively shallow water equation (3.3) should be
used.

Box5.3 Calculate crest level to limit the wave overtopping

Given significant wave height at structure Hs = 1.55m
mean wave period Tm = 3.32s
allowable overtopping discharge q =0.002m 3/s per m
roughness factor r = 1.0

Calculate design crest level for a 1:3 sloping embankment dam

1. using equation (3.6) 0* =qi(TmgHs)

Q* =0.002/(3.32 * 9.81 * 1.55)
Q* = 3.9618E.5

2. substitute Q* into equation (3.5) Q* =A exp (-BR*/r)

=
3.9618E-s 1.632E.2exp<·31 ·9R't1.o)
0.002431 = exp<·31 ·9 R'l
-6.021 = -31.9R*
R* = 0.18875

3. substitue R* into equation (3.4) R • = Rj(TmJgH 5 )

0.18875 = Rj(3.32J9.8h1.55)
A0 =2.44m
4. The crest level should be 2.44m above top water level to satisfy allowable overtopping
discharge by waves.

In the last stage of this example, the thickness of slabbing is calculated from the predicted wave height
and assumed values of other parameters.

23 SR 459 30/04/95
Box5.4 Design example of slab stability
Given significant wave height in deep water H.= 1.5m
peak wave period TP = 5.5s

Design slabbing protection for a 1:3 sloping embankment dam

1. calculate the peak wave steepness sP = (2nH.) I (gT/)

sP = (2n*1.5) I (9.81 *5.5 2 )
sP = 0.032

2. calculate the surf similarity parameter ~P =tan a I sP0·5

~P = 0.333 I 0.032°·
5

~p = 1.87
~P is less than 4.0 and so the design method may be applied

3. Density of concrete for the cover layer Pc = 2.35 kglm 3

and water density Pw = 1.00 kglm 3

4. Choose slab area and maximum width of gaps between slabs

(With reference to Table 4.3) 3m x 3m slabs with 1mm gaps

5. Choose filter grading and filter depth D1, 5 = 4mm

(With reference to Table 4.3) ~ = 300mm

6. Find (A.) 0·5 It,, where A. is the slab area (A.) 0·5 I~ = 3 I 0.3 = 10
Find w I D115 , where w is the gap width w I D,, 5 = 1 I 4 = 0.25

7. From design chart (Figure 4.3) find Se

8. Calculate depth of slab H. I (b.ta) = Se I~P

ta =(H.~P) I (b.Sc)
ta = (1.5 * 1.87) I (1.35 *11)
ta = 0.19m

9. Apply the probability factor from Table 4.2 ta = 1.3 * 0.19 = 0.25m

10. We can be 95% certain that a slab of 250mm depth will be stable under the design conditions

6 Conclusions and recommendations

This study has supported and extended guidance in SR345, Herbert et al (1995) and the Floods and
Reservoir Safety Guide 3rd Edition ICE, (1996). The study has drawn together areas of best practice,
and has derived new design guidance for slabbing protection based on physical model testing carried
out as part of the study.

The design method recommended in this study was developed specifically for locally generated wave
conditions which occur on inland reservoirs. For coastal and estuarine sites where swell waves may
also be significant, the method should be extended to identify the stability of slabbing protection under
shallow wave steepnesses.

lt has however become clear that there still remain uncertainties in the derivation of a design wind
speed, and in the response of different types of embankment protection to wave action.

24 SR 459 30/04/95
In order to clarify these uncertainties it is proposed that future work is undertaken in the following areas:

(a} Determine whether "funnelling" down a narrow, steep-sided valley over water does cause a local
increase in wind speed.

(b) Investigate further the use of "speed-up" coefficients to take account of valley slope and lower
friction over water. The recommendations in this report are based on sound engineering
judgement, but they are not well-supported by good data and it is the authors' belief that further
work is needed.

(c) Establish if wave propagation can continue along a gently curved valley.

(d) Investigate further the effect of wave diffraction caused by structures in front of the upstream face
such as valve towers.

(e) Investigate whether Dutch practice for river bank/coastal protection (geomembrane beneath
interlocking blocks with gravel packing between blocks) can be applied to dam faces.

(f) Development calibration and validation of numerical models to calculate uplift pressures acting on
blocks or slabs.

7 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank their colleagues at HR Wallingford for assistance in the study, in the
publication of this report and tor their contribution in carrying out the physical model testing. Random
wave testing of slabbing and blockwork was carried out by Mr M Seivewright and Mr M K Osbourne.
Regular wave testing was undertaken by Mr Hindle and Mr J Mallander. The authors are grateful to
Mr J Dennis of Oxford Brookes University for his assistance in supervising these researchers.

Particularly helpful guidance on wave generation was given by John Ewing, Peter Hawkes and Duncan
Herbert.

The authors are grateful for constructive discussions with Michael Kennard, John Beaver, and others
involved in the ICE Reservoirs guide working party.

25 SR 459 30104/95
8 References

Allsop N W H, Hawkes P J, Jackson FA, & Franco L, (1985). Wave run-up on steep slopes - model
tests under random waves. Report SR 2, HR Wallingford.

Birch, K G & Ewing, J A (1986). Observations of wind waves on a reservoir. Rep. No. 234, Inst. of
Oceanographic Sciences, Wormely.

BSI (1995 ). Loading for buildings: Code of practice for wind loads BS 6399 Part 2, British Standards
Institution, London

BS CP3: Chapter V: Part 2 (1972). Wind loadings for buildings Ammended June/October 1986 British
Standards Institution, London.

Donelan, M A (1980). Similarity theory applied to the forecasting of wave heights, periods and
directions. Proc. Canadian Coastal Conf. National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada.

Donelan M A, Hamilton J & Hui W H (1985). Directional spectra of wind-generated waves. Phil. Trans.
Roy. Soc. London, A315, pp509-562.

Franco L, de Gerloni M, & van der Meer J W, (1994). Wave overtopping on vertical and composite
breakwaters. Proceedings? ICCE, Kobe, pp1030-1045.

Goda Y, Kishira Y, & Kamiyana Y, (1975). Laboratory investigation on the overtopping rates of
seawalls by irregular waves. Vol14 No 4 pp3-44, Ports & Harbours Research Institute, Yokosuka,
Japan.

Hasselmann K et XV al. (1973) Measurements of wind-wave growth and swell decay during the Joint
North Sea Wave Experiment (JONSWAP). Dt Hydrogr Z. A8(12).

Herbert D M, Lovenbury H T, Allsop N W H, Reader RA, (1995) Performance of blockwork and

slabbing protection for dam faces Report SR 345, HR Wallingford in association with CIRIA.

ICE (1989) Floods and Reservoir Safety Guide. Institution of Civil Engineers, London.

ICE (1996) Floods and Reservoir Safety Guide. Thomas Telford, London.

Kahma K K (1981 ). A study of the growth of the wave spectrum with fetch. J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 11,1503-1515.

Kitaigorodskii SA et al. (1962). On Phillips' theory of equilibrium range in the spectra of wind-generated
waves. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,5, pp410-420.

Klein Breteler M & Bezuijen A, (1991) "Simplified design method for block revetments", Proceedings
ICE Conference, on Coastal Structures and Breakwaters, Institute of Civil Engineers, London.

Komen G J, Cavaleri L, Donelan M, Hasselmann K, Hasselmann S & Janssen P A EM, (1994).

Dynamics and modelling of ocean waves. Cambridge Press, pp532.

Liu PC, (1981 ). Normalized and equilibrium spectra of wind waves in Lake Michigan. J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 1, pp249-257.

Mitsuyasu H, (1968). On the growth of the spectrum of wind generated waves. I. Rep. Res. Inst. Appl.
Mech.,Kyushu Univ., 16, pp459-482.

26 SA 459 30/04/95
Mitsuyasu H, ( 1969). On the growth of the spectrum of wind generated waves. 11. Rep. Res. Inst. Appl.
Mech.,Kyushu Univ., 17, pp235-248.

Owen MW, (1987). Wave prediction on reservoirs, a literature review. Report EX 1527, HR
Wallingford.

Owen MW, & Steele A A J, (1988). Wave prediction in reservoirs, comparison of available methods.
Report EX 1809, HR Wallingford.

Owen M W, & Steele A A J, (1991 ). Effectiveness of re-curved wave return walls. Report SR 261, HR
Wallingford.

Pilarczyk KW, (1984) "Closure of Tidal Basins". Chapter 2.4.13, Delft University Press, 1984

Saville T, (1954). The effect of fetch width on wave generation. Tech. Memo. No. 70, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, December 1954, Washington.

Saville T, McCiendon E W, & Cochran A L, (1962) Freeboard allowances for waves in Inland
Reservoirs Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, Proc ASCE, Vol 18, No. WW2, May 1962 ,
pp92-124, New York.

Seymour R J, (1977). Estimating wave generation on restricted fetches. Proc. ASCE, vol. 103, No.
WW2, May 1977, New York.

Simm J D, (ed) (1991) Manual on the use of rock in coastal and shoreline engineering. CIRIA Special
Publication No 83 I CUR Report No 154, CIRIA, London.

Technical advisory commission on protection against inundation (1974). Wave run-up and
overtopping. Netherlands Government Publishing Office, The Hague.

27 SR 459 30104/95
Appendix 1

Modelling Studies of slabbing and blockwork stability

L S Banyard

SR 459 30/04/95
Appendix 1 Modelling studies of slabbing and blockwork stability

A.1.1 Model designs

Two sets of physical model tests were undertaken at HR Wallingford to investigate the stability of
blockwork and stabbing protection. Tests with regular waves were conducted in a flume 27m long by
0.62m wide by 0.91m deep. Random wave tests were conducted in the wind wave flume which is 50m
long by 1.22m wide by 1.1 m deep and has a computer controlled wave paddle capable of generating
random wave spectra.

The experiments were designed to investigate the influence of various design parameters on the
stability of the cover revetment. These parameters were: the depth, plan area, density and permeability
of the cover layer, the thickness and permeability of the filter layer, and the slope angle. The
arrangement of the test sections is given in Table A.1.

TableA1 Arrangement of test sections

Series Slope slab slab gap width filter filter

no. angle dimensions density grading thickness
(mm) (kg/m 3 ) (mm) (mm) (mm)

S1 1:2.5 120x60x20 2400 0 0.5-4 30

S2 1:2.5 120x60x20 2400 0 4 6 30
S3 1:2.5 120x60x20 2400 3 4-6 30

S4 1:2.5 200x200x11 2400 0 0.5-4 30

S5 1:2.5 200x200x11 2400 0 4-6 30
S6 1:2.5 200x200x11 2400 3 4-6 30

S7 1:2.5 300x300x10 2400 0 0.5-4 30

sa 1:2.5 300x300x10 2400 0 4-6 30
S9 1:2.5 300x300x10 2400 3 4-6 30

H1 1:3 120x84x20 2400 3.5 4-6 80

H2 1:3 130x84x20 2400 3.5 10- 14 80
H3 1:3 130x84x20 2400 6 4-6 80
H4 1:3 130x84x20 2400 6 10-14 80

M1 1:3 120x84x20 2400 4 10-14 80

M2 1:3 200x200X11 2400 4 10-14 80
M3 1:3 200x200x11 2250 4 10-14 ao

A granular filter layer was placed on an impermeable slope. Blockwork or stabbing were laid on the
filter material. The required spacing of the cover layer units was achieved by placing metal spacers of
known thickness between adjacent units.

A.1.2 Test procedures

Wave calibration
Wave calibration tests were completed to measure the wave conditions in the physical models. A
spending beach was installed in the position of the test structures to ensure that only the incident wave
energy was recorded and reflected wave energy was kept to a minimum. Wave conditions close to the
position of the toe of the test structures were measured using twin wire resistance wave probes.

During calibration of random waves, the wave probes were connected to a computer which recorded
the complete test sequence of 1000 waves and determined the significant wave height and the mean
period statistically. For regular waves the output from the wave probes was connected to a chart
recorder. A short series of regular waves was created for each wave condition and the wave height
and period determined.

SA 459 30104/95
To relate the stability of blockwork and slabbing under regular waves with wave height H, to stability
under random wave attack with significant wave height Hs. it is generally assumed that a simple
multiplication factor may be used. In tests conducted by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen (1991) the
piezometric pressure on the slope under regular and random wave attack was compared. This
comparison indicated that at the threshold of damage:

(A1)

The damage to a revetment under random wave action is caused by the most severe waves of the
particular storm event. The maximum wave height may therefore be directly compared to the wave
height of a train of regular waves, all of which are equally likely to cause damage. Comparisons of
maximum wave height and significant wave height for random waves have been made by Longuet-
Higgins (1952) and Goda (1985). Longuet-Higgins provides a formula which predicts the relationship
for a given length of wave train.

Hmax = H5 ((In N)l2)

05
(A2)

where N is the number of waves in the train

For a typical UK storm of 3 hours with mean period in the range 4-8s

1.8 < H I Hs < 2.0 (A3)

Goda compares Hmax and H5 as waves approach breaking for a range of wave spectra and wave
steepness. In tests using 200 waves in deep water, where diHs < 20, Goda suggest that a
simplification may be made:

(A4)

For the present study the regular wave height was related to an equivalent significant wave height
using

HI Hs = 1.8 (A5)

which is based on Longuet-Higgins' and Goda's equations (A2) & (A4). Since there is a wide range of
suggested values for HI H5 , it was appropriate to use a ratio which produces more conservative values
of Sb and will therefore result in a conservative design method.

Testing
The random wave tests were conducted for 1000 waves and the regular wave tests for 30 waves.
Movement of the cover layer was observed under wave action and the state of the revetment was
noted after each test. Failure of the revetment was defined as displacement of one or more of the slabs
or blocks from their original position(s).

A.2 Results

A.2.1 Test Observations

Most of the revetment failures observed were due to extractions between still water level and maximum
run-down level. In most cases individual units were lifted as waves ran down the revetment slope.
When blockwork was tested with longer period waves, (ie lribarren number between 7 and 15),
movement of several blocks together was observed, with extractions occurring after the units had
worked loose.

Another mode of failure was observed in one series of tests. This revetment had been constructed with
a fine filter layer (0.5-4mm) and relatively wide gaps between the slabs (w =3mm). Much of the filter

SR 459 30/04195
layer was washed out of the slope through the cover layer and the revetment failed prematurely due to
under-cutting and subsidence of the armour. lt is not recommended that such an arrangement would
be used normally for slope protection without some form of geotextile placed between the cover and
the filter layers. The results from this test series were not used in the analysis of revetment stability.

A.2.2 Comparison of results of blockwork tests with previous research

The previous method recommended by Herbert et al (1995) was developed by Klein Breteler &
Bezuijen (1991) for blockwork revetments. This relates the wave conditions in terms of significant
wave height and peak period to the physical properties of the revetment in terms of slope angle,
blockwork relative density, and blockwork depth. The equation used may be written;

where x =-0.67 (A.6)

where H. is the significant wave height

ll is the relative density of the blockwork (P./Pw- 1)
Pc is the density of the block or slab material
Pw is the density of water
la_ is the blockwork depth
~P is the peak lribarren or surf similarity number
(tan a) I (2nH. I gTP2) 0 ·5
a is the slope angle
TP is the peak wave period
Sb is an empirically derived value

The peak lribarren number is the ratio of embankment slope gradient to peak wave steepness. A high
lribarren number indicates a steep slope or a long wave length. The model testing showed that
blockwork was less stable under high lribarren numbers for a given wave height. This is shown in
Figure A.1 a & b, which may be used directly for design purposes. Alternatively Equation (A.6) may be
used with a suitable value of Sb. A range of values for Sb were found by Breteler & Bezuijen (1991)
through physical model testing with regular waves. For loose blockwork on a granular filter layer two
ranges were found:

TableA.2 Range of Sb values

low stability (L) 2.6 5.6

normal stability (N) 3.7 8.0

(source Breteler & Bezuijen, (1991 ))

A slope has "low stability" when the cover layer is thin compared to the filter layer, the cover layer is of
low permeability and the filter is of high permeability. Thus Breteler defines "low stability" to be when:

tA _.,_; 0.5, and D115 > 0.4m and a < 2% (A.7)

where ~is the thickness of the filter layer

D115 is the 15% particle size for the filter layer
a is the ratio of gap area to surface area of the cover layer units
The new test results will be compared with the existing ranges and the agreement between the two
sets of results will be discussed.

When the criteria in equation (A.7) were strictly applied, all the armour configurations tested in this
study were categorised as having "normal stability" (Table A.3). Revetment configurations H1, H2, H3,

SR 459 30/04195
H4 and M1 greatly exceed two of the three criteria for "low stability", but are classified as "normal
stability" because they do not meet the third criteria regarding gap area between adjacent armour units.
Although Breteler suggests that all three criteria must be met, to ensure a conservative design under
these circumstances the engineer would be advised to select the "low stability" factor.

Graphs of Hj(L1ta) against~ were plotted for each test condition, and curves were fitted to the failure
=
envelope using equation A.6 with x -0.67, as used by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen (1991) (Figures A.2 a-
h). Values of Sb were found for each revelment configuration tested here (Table A.3). Configurations
H1, H2, H3, H4 and M1 gave values of Sb between 2.3 and 4.1 which compares well with the "low
stability" range from previous research of 2.6 to 5.6. Configurations S1, S2, and S3 gave Sb between 4
and 4.7 which lie within the appropriate "normal stability" range of 3.7 to 8.

Thus the physical model tests on blockwork slopes are consistent with those found in previous
research. The results from all the tests were then used to extend the design method for blockwork to
include design of slabbing.

A.2.3 Stability of blockwork and slabbing

Graphs of Hj(L1 ta) against ~P were plotted for the tests on slabbing revelments. Curves were fitted as
before using equation (A.6) with x =-0.67. Although these curves gave a good agreement at high
lribarren numbers (~P > 4) they tended to under-predict the value of Hj(L1 ta) for low lribarren numbers
(~ < 4). If used for design this would give low values of Sb and result in an over-design. This is,
however the only region of the curves that is of interest in the design of dam slope protection. Wave
development on reservoirs is limited by the short fetch lengths and so only wind waves (wave
steepness greater than approximately 0.03) can be generated. The slope gradient at which blockwork
and slabbing is laid is unlikely to exceed 1:1.5 due to the difficulty of placing units at a steeper angle.
These two factors limit the lribarren number to ~ < 4.

The curve fitting was repeated varying the value of both x and Sb using only the test data with ~ < 4.
=
The best agreements were achieved with x -1 (Figures A.3 a-p). So equation (A.6) was revised to
give:

(A.8)

The value of Se varied between 6 and 13 depending on the revetment configuration (Table A.4). Such a
wide range is of limited use in practice because the lowest value would always be used to ensure a
safe design. The dependence of Se on the geometry of the revetment was therefore investigated to
develop a more exact design method.

SR 459 30/04/95
 TableA.3 Classification of blockwork slopes tested

Series No Revetment Dimensions Stability Criteria

Slope angle dimensions n Df15 Vtr cover filter relative cover overall sb
(mm) (%) (mm) (·) permeability permeability thickness stability

S1 1:1.25 120x60x20 5 0.5 0.67 N L N N 4.7

S2 1:1.25 120x60x20 5 4 0.67 N L N N 4.0
S3 1:1.25 120x60x20 15 4 0.67 N L N N 4.2

H1 1:3 120x84x20 14 4 0.25 N L L N 4.1

H2 1:3 120x84x20 14 10 0.25 N L L N 2.6
H3 1:3 120x84x20 24 4 0.25 N L L N 4.1
H4 1:3 120x84x20 24 10 0.25 N L L N 4.0

M1 1:3 120X84X20 16 10 0.25 N L L N 2.3

Stability criteria Nonnal stability (N) Low stability (L)

0 = gap area I slab surface area (%) >2% <2%

0 115 (mm) <0.4 >0.4

tA =depth of cover layer I depth of filter layer(-) >0.5 <0.5

For overall to be classified as "Low Stability" all three criteria must indicate "Low Stability".

(source Breteler & Bezuijen, (1991))

..
5jl
tll

I"' ~~
TableA4 Revetrnentconfigurailons

Series Slab D,s t. t, w ao.s se

dimensions
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (-)

S8 300x300x10 4 10 30 0.2 300 11.5

ss 200x200x11 4 11 30 0.2 200 8.5
S9 300X300X10 4 10 30 3 300 10
S2 120x60x20 4 20 30 0.2 85 6
S6 200x200x11 4 11 30 3 200 8.5
S3 120x60x20 4 20 30 3 85 6.3
H1 120x84x20 4 20 80 3.5 100 5.5
H3 120x84x20 4 20 80 6 100 6
S1 120x60x20 0.5 20 30 0.3 85 6
S4 200x200x11 0.5 11 30 0.3 200 11.3
S7 300x300x10 0.5 10 30 0.3 300 13
M2 200x200x11 10 11 80 4 200 8.5
H2 120x84x20 10 20 80 3.5 100 3.5
M1 120x84x20 10 20 80 4 100 3
H4 120X84X20 10 20 80 6 100 4.1

A.2.4 Dependence of stability factor on revetment configuration

To examine which geometrical parameters are important to the stability of the slope the critical mode of
failure should be considered. Previous experience has shown that the most common failure occurs
when individual units are extracted due to high piezometric head difference across the cover layer.
This scenario is consistent with the modes of failure observed in the physical model testing conducted
during this study. The maximum piezometric head difference is dependant on the geometry and
permeability of the filter and cover layers. The restoring forces are dependant on the weight of the
cover layer (ignoring friction forces).

The following expression was developed to incorporate the parameters discussed:

(A.9)

to be used in the equation A.B

where A. is the area of a cover layer unit

~ is the depth of the filter layer
w is the gap width between adjacent cover layer units
D,15 is the 15% sieve value of the filter layer material

The values of Se from all the physical model tests are plotted on Figure A.4. A straight line was fitted to
the data and the following expression was found:

(A.10)

This expression is dimension less and so may be used for design blockwork and slabbing
arrangements other than those tested in the physical models. A design chart was developed to be used
in place of equation (A.1 0) see Figure A.5.

Since the design method uses dimensionless parameters, it may be applied to proportionately larger
revelment configurations than were tested in the model.

Hydraulic scale effects are expected to be insignificant in blockwork and slabbing slopes up to a scale
of 1:20. For most of the design parameters a limit of 1:10 is sufficient to allow for the ranges used in
normal design practice. The limiting ranges of the design parameters are given in Table A.5

SR 459 30/04/95
TableA.5 Range of individual parameters for design of slabbing

revetment geometry mln max

slab area (m 2 ) A. 0.07 9.0

slab depth (m) t. 0.01 0.54
gap width (mm) w 0.2 60
filter 0 115 (mm) Dns 0.5 100
filter depth (m) \ 0.03 0.8

wave conditions

significant wave height (m) H. 0.1 4

peak wave period (s) T" 1.0 10.0
surf similarity parameter(-) ~ 1.7 4

lt is unlikely that these limits would be exceeded in normal design practice.

The upper limits given were found by multiplying the greatest value of each parameter tested in the
physical models by a factor of ten. For the depth of cover layer ta this gives a maximum of 0.2m. For
larger stabbing units (above 4m 2 ) the required cover layer depth may exceed this value.

This limiting value may however be increased by considering the failure mechanism of the stabbing. An
increase in cover layer thickness has two additional effects on the stability of the revetment. The length
of flow path between the surface and the filter layer is increased and the friction between adjacent units
is also increased. The change of flow path will decrease the cover layer permeability, which would be
expected to decrease the revetment stability. In the regression analysis of the test results, however, the
length of flow path had no significance for thin slabs. If deeper cover units are used the increased
length of flow path may however become more significant to the stability of the revetment to a small
degree.

Any decrease in stability is likely to be offset by the increased friction between blocks. The extraction of
deeper units will require proportionately greater up-lift force. A thin slab which rotates as it is lifted
under wave action will probably be extracted, but a cube which rotates will tend to jam against adjacent
units. The upper limit of cover layer depth was therefore increased to 0.5m.

To evaluate the error implicit in equation (A.10), predictions of the slab depth (ta) were found, given the
other original model test conditions. The average and standard deviation of the error between the
predicted slab depth and the actual depth tested were calculated. By assuming that the errors form a
normal distribution about the average, the probability that a certain error will be exceeded may be ·
found. When designing the slab depth it is 95% certain that the error is less than ±30%. This process
was repeated for the other design parameters. and the results compiled in Table A.6. The slab density
and slope angle may be designed with similar accuracy to the slab depth. For slab area and filter depth
it is 95% certain that the error is less than ±56%.

Table A.6 Errors implicit in derived expression

Parameter Average Standard 95% Confidence

error deviation of error probability factor
(%) (%) limit
(%)

slope angle (tan a) -2 18 30 0.77

Slab depth (t.) -2 18 30 1.30
Slab density (p.) -2 18 30 1.30
Slab area (A, o.s) -0 36 60 1.60
Filter depth (\) -0 36 60 0.63
Gap width (w) 17 178 310 4.10
o.,. -17 178 310 0.24

SA 459 30/04/95
The gap width of the cover layer and the D115 for the filter layer are more sensitive to the uncertainty
inherent in equation (A.1 0). This is due to the 0.1 power factor applied to these two parameters. lt is
95% certain that the error is less than ±240%. This error may initially appear to be prohibitively large
for design purposes, but when since the gap widths and values of D115 are small, applying such a large
error factor does not result in a large absolute difference. For example, given a D115 of 2mm, application
of the error factor of 0.3 gives a value of D115=0.7mm which is not a large difference.

lt is unlikely, however, that the gap width between adjacent units would be selected as the main design
parameter. The gap width will vary due to movement of the embankment dams during and after
construction. Fortunately the influence of the gap width (and the value of D115) is very small compared
to the other design parameters. An uncertainty of a factor of ten in the value of w/D115 will only vary the
value of stability factor Se by a maximum of ±1 (see Figure A.5). The value of gap width used in the
design chart should be the minimum spacing of the armour units at the time of placement. If the gap
width becomes larger due to dam movement the permeability of the cover layer increases and the
stability of the revetment also increases.

The error bounds indicate the improvement of accuracy obtained from use of the new expression for
design purposes. Previously the wide range of suggested values of Se could used result in uncertainty
of blockwork depth greater than 100%. The evaluation of probability limits for the results also gives a
greater measure of confidence when using the design method.

References

Goda V (1985) "Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures", University of Tokyo Press

Herbert D M, Lovenbury H T, Allsop N W H & Reader R A (1995) "Performance of Blockwork and

Slabbing Protection for Dam Faces• HR Wallingford, Report SR345, May 1995

Klein Breteler M & Bezuijen A (1991) "Simplified design method for block revelments" Coastal
Structures and Breakwaters, ICE Conference Proceedings, November 1991

Longuet-Higgins M {1952) "On the statistical distribution of wave heights of sea waves" Journal of
Marine Research, Vol XI, No. 3, 1952

Pilarczyk KW {1984) "Closure of Tidal Basins". Chapter 2.4.13, Delft University Press, 1984

SR 459 30/04195
Appendix Figures

SR 459 30/04/95
 8
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
6 ~
\
\
\
\
'" Unstable
''
~V', ...... ...... ....
2
\ ~ox!
.......................
£:.

0+"
1--~~

u
V
~~~-~-- 0
-- u
-........&..e:: ~J...h V
0
~
£:.
Stable lW" ....'"U'V~
0 I~

0
0 2 3 4 5

8 \
\
\
\
\

.,,
\
\
\
\ £:.
6

Hs 4
\ 0
£:.
''
£:. ''...............
>x ......... Unstable
<>

~ X'f
~~
~~

flD <> ~~
~~-

2
Stable
~ ~
X
_<>

~X
......
---------
-
0
0 2 3 4 5

Figure A 1a & b Stability curves from Breteler (1991)

SR 459 30/04/95
 z
I Test Section s1 I
10

.. 6 • Stable
<i
'""1.
<> Near limit
:::c 4 A Failure

2
--.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

~p

I Test Section 821

10

.. 6 • Stable

-
<i (/)

:::c 4
<> Nearlimit
A Failure

~-. 11
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

~
I Test Section 831
10

-
6
. • Stable
<> Nearlimlt
~
:::c 4 A Failure

2 4 6 8
--.
10 12

Figure A2a, b & c Stability curves from model test results

SR 459 30/04/95
 ITest Section H1 I
10

...."' 6 - • Stable
~ <> Near limit
J:"' 4 I& Failure

0 L_____ _ _. •• •
0 2 4 6 8 10
~

[!est Section H2f

10 ,---------------------------------------------~

-"' 6 • Stable
~
J:"' (> Near limit
4 I& Failure

0 '-------
~··4
_.~.__
.....
-~~-----·--.w------­•
___ ---'----~--.-l..__ _ _ _.~--_ _ ____;

0 2 4 6 8 10

ITest Section H3l

10

6 • Stable
....."'
~., 4> Near limit
J: 4 I& Failure

0 L __ _ _·····~- ------~------~----~--------~

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure A2d, e & f Stability curves from model test results

SR 459 30/04195
 I Test Section H4 J
10

., 6 • Stable
~ + Nearlimit
:c"' 4 .&. Failure

0
•• •
0 2 4 6 8 10
fop

I Test Section M1 I
8

_ .. 6
• Stable
~ <a> Near limit
:c"'
4 .&. Failure

~
... ...
• ••
I
-
0 2 4 6 8 10
fop

Figure A2g & h Stability curves from model test results

SR 459 30/04/95
 I Test Section S1 I

6
"' • Stable
~
:::c
~ Nearlimit
4 A Failure

2
~• • I" 'A
•• • •
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
~

I Test Section S21

10

<i "' 6 • Stable

..._
U> ~ Nearlimit

..
:::c 4
~ A Failure

~
:t 0 2 4
,~
... _ J_ _

6
··~ •
8
• •
10
•
12
E,p

I Test Section ssj

10

8 -
_.. 6 1- • stable
~ ~ Nearlimit
:::c 4 r- A Failure

2 r-
~•••• r~P- a• rt•
0
~
• •
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
~p

Figure A3a, b & c Stability curves from model test results

SR 459 30/04/95
 2
ITest Section S41
10

8 -

- 6 - • Stable

·. •
"'

~
~ ~ Nearlimit
J: 4 - • Failure
...
....... ...
2 -
•• • • ••• •• •
0
•
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

~
I Test Section ss!
10

6 • Stable

~ ...
• Nearlimit
J: 4

2
.
~ ... •... ...... ...
• •• • ...
• ...
• • •
• Failure

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
~p

I Test Section S61

10

8 -

-"' 6 -
• Stable
~<IJ
J:
4 ~
.... -\. •
•
Nearlimit
Failure

2 -
~• ......
• ~• . ...... •
... ...
• •
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure A3d, e & f Stability curves from model test results

SA 459 30/04/95
 z
ITest Section S71
10

8 A

-..
~.,
6
A
• Stable
<> Near limit
J: 4
•• • A
A Failure

.A .A •
2 •• • A
•
2 4 6 8 10 12

ITest Section sal

10

-., 6 • Stable

~•
<& Nearlimit
~.,
J: 4

2
.
A
A

• •• •
.A •

6
... A

• •
8 10 12
A Failure

2 4
~

I Test Section S91

10

-..
~
., 6 •
•
Stable
Near limit

...
A

~
J: 4 A Failure

A
2 r • •• A A • A

• • • •
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure A3g, h & i Stability curves from model test results

SA 459 30104195
 2
I Test Section H 1 (
10

_. 6 •
•
Stable
Nearlimit
:::!., 4 A Failure
:c

0
0
~
2
.. ,.,
4 6
•
8 10
~

ITest Section H2 r
10

-
6 • Stable
"' • Nearlimit
:::!
:c"' 4 A Failure

~
2
A At. A,

0
•
0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure A3j & k Stability curves from model test results

SR 459 30104/95
 ITest Section H3f
10

_., 6 • Stable
~ ~ Near limit
:c"' 4 A Failure

0
r-

0
~
2
......, ., 4 6
•
8 10

ITest Section H4f

10 ~----~---~---·------------------------------~

_., 6 j.stable
~ I ~ ~ear limit
:c 4 1
A Failure

0
0
~ , ·~~
~------_L

2
..
4 6
••
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. L __ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. L __ _ _ _ _ _

8
~

10

Figure A31 & m Stability curves from model test results

SR 459 30/04195
 I Test Section M1 I
10 ,-------------------------------------------------------,

8 -

6 - • Stable
-'"
~ o Near limit
r."' 4 I- • Failure

2 I-

0 •• •
L _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~--------~

0 2 4 6 8 10
~p

I Test Section M21

10 ,------------------------------------------------------,

8 I-

-'" 6 I- • Stable
~ o Near limit

..
r."' 4 I- • • • Failure

2 I- ~· ••
•• •
0 L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~--------~----------~--------~

0 2 4 6 8 10

I Test Section M31

10 ,-------------------------------------------------------,

8 I-

• Stable
-'"
~ o Nearlimit

~·• •..
r."' 4 - • Failure

••
2 I-

0
•
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

0 2 4 6 8 10
~p

Figure A3n, o & p Stability curves from model test results

SR 459 30/04/95
 0
0
T'""

• • • 0
T'""

• • --
,....

• 0
10
,....

•
..• 6
-
~
~
10
0

--
(/)
<(

•• ••

0
1.() 0 1.() 0
T'"" T'""

Figure A4 Values of Se from the physical model tests

SA 459 30104195
 14~--------------------------------------------------~

12 w/Dt15
1.5
0.5
0.2
0.05

10

Jf a

2~------~--------.-------,-------,-------~------~
0 2 4 8 10 12

Figure A5 Design chart for slabbing

SR 459 30/04/95