(JL^<W

^ OOl5\

CvJUT-

M*

k^T?

TP 81-5

Design of Riprap Revetments for

Protection Against

Wave Attack

by

John

P.

Ahrens

WHO/
TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 81-5

DOCUMENT Auction

DECEMBER 1981

Approved

for public release;

distribution unlimited.

U.S.

ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

Kingman Building
Fort Belvoir, Va.

22060

UL

"S.<W
TP 81-5

Design of Riprap Revetments for

Protection Against

Wave Attack

by

John

P.

Ahrens

TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 81-5

WHO/ WCUMENT
COLLECTION

DECEMBER 1981

Approved

for public release;

distribution unlimited.

U.S.

ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

GP>

COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

Kingman Building
Fort Belvoir, Va.

22060

Reprint or republication of give appropriate credit to Engineering Research Center.

shall

any
the

of

U.S.

this material Army Coastal

Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are available from:

National Technical Information Service ATTN: Operations Division 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data
Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1.

READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

3.

REPORT NUMBER

2.

GOVT ACCESSION NO

RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

TP 81-5
4.

TITLE

(and Subtitle)

5.

TYPE OF REPORT

&

PERIOD COVERED

DESIGN OF RIPRAP REVETMENTS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST WAVE ATTACK

6.

Technical Paper
PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7.

AUTHORfa;

8.

CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfsJ

John P. Ahrens
9.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Department of the Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERRE-CS) Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060
11.

D31616
12.

CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

REPORT DATE

Department of the Army Coastal Engineering Research Center Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia
14.

December 1981
13.

22060
IS.

NUMBER OF PAGES 31
SECURITY CLASS,
(ot this report)

MONITORING AGENCY NAME

ft

ADDRESSf/f

different from Controlling Olllce)

UNCLASSIFIED

16.

DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMENT

(ol thla Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

(ol the abstract entered In

Block

20. It different from Report)

18.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19.

KEY WORDS

(Continue

overae aide

It

neceeaary and Identify by block number)

Armor overlays

Revetments

Riprap

Wave runup

20.

ABSTRACT

CCorrtraue

on reverme

ml<a ft

neceeaary and Identity by block number)

Basic information on the design of riprap revetments for protection against wave attack is presented. The topics covered include the selection of armor and filter layers, zero damage and reserve stability, design wave height, wave runup, and the use of armor overlays. Example problems are worked to illustrate the concepts presented.

1473

EDrTION OF

MOV 65

IS

OBSOLETE

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data
Ent

PREFACE
This report provides information and specific guidance on the design of stone riprap revetments exposed to wave attack, including several examples It supplements Sections 7.21 and 7.37 to illustrate the concepts presented. of the Shore Protection Manual (SPM)

The report was prepared by John P. Ahrens, Oceanographer , under the general supervision of Dr. R.M. Sorensen, Chief, Coastal Processes and Structures Branch, Research Division.
The author acknowledges the numerous contributions by various reviewers to an early draft of this report, and especially the comprehensive and helpful review by D.D. Davidson, Chief, Wave Dynamics Branch, Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army- Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES).

Comments on this publication are invited.

Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79th Congress, approved 31 July 1945, as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88th Congress, approved 7 November 1963.

TED E. BISHOP Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commander and Director

CONTENTS
Page

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

SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS
I

6
7

INTRODUCTION
RIPRAP DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Armor layer 2. Underlayers 3. Zero-Damage Stability 4. Wave Period Effects 5. Zero-Damage Conservatism and the Design Wave Height 6. Reserve Stability Location of Damage 7 8. Wave Runup Overlays 9.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

II

8
9

10 12 12 13 15 16
23 29

III

LITERATURE CITED
Average values of
Example problem
3

30

1
2
3

& U /H

and

$,

TABLES and the standard deviations

16
19

summary

Local wave conditions for various offshore slopes and water depths based on Goda's (1975) model

20
21 23 28 29

4
5

Values of

for application at d s /H'

<3

Example problem 4 summary Example problem

5

6
7

comparison data

Overlay stone data FIGURES

Definition sketch
Comparison of stability equations
Reserve stability as a function of the reserve stability parameter.
. .

13
14

4
5

Relative runup for riprap slopes

Sketch of quarrystone (riprap) embankment

17 21
.

Relative runup for smooth slopes on a

d s /H

on 10 bottom; /L

0.5;
22

= 1.5
> 0.5;

Relative runup for smooth slopes on a 1 on 10 bottom; /L d s /Ho = 1.0

27

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

U.S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric (SI) units as follows:

Multiply
inches
square inches cubic inches
feet

by

25.4 2.54 6.452 16.39

To obtain millimeters centimeters square centimeters cubic centimeters

square feet cubic feet

30.48 0.3048 0.0929 0.0283

centimeters meters square meters cubic meters

meters square meters cubic meters

yards square yards cubic yards

0.9144 0.836 0.7646

1.6093 259.0
1.852

miles square miles

knots

kilometers hectares

kilometers per hour

hectares
newton meters
].i

0.4047

foot-pounds

1.3558
1.0197 x
-3

millibars
ounces
pounds

kilograms per square centimeter

grams

28.35

453.6 0.4536
1.0160

grams kilograms

ton,

long

metric tons

ton,

short

0.9072

metric tons
radians

degrees (angle)

0.01745
5/9

Fahrenheit degrees

Celsius degrees or Kelvins 1

*To obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) readings, use formula: C = (5/9) (F -32). To obtain Kelvin (K) readings, use formula: K = (5/9) (F -32) + 273.15.

SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS

C

overlay stone weight per square meter of embankment surface (kilograms per square meter)
typical dimension of a stone (meters)

D
d ds
g

water depth (meters) water depth at toe of structure (meters)

acceleration of gravity (9.80 meters (32.2 feet) per second squared)

wave height at toe of structure (meters)

H
Hjnax

maximum wave height at toe of structure (meters)

deepwater unrefracted wave height (meters)
significant wave height at toe of structure (meters)

H
Hs

Krr
L
&

stability coefficient for riprap (eq.

6)

deepwater wavelength, L

= gT 2 /2iT

(meters)

lower limit of damage (meters)

^u

upper limit of damage (meters)

stability number (eq. 4)

Ns R
Rnjgx

wave runup (meters)

maximum wave runup for irregular wave conditions (meters)

runup of a wave with the significant height and period of maximum energy density (meters)

Rs
r

thickness of the armor layer when used with respect to runup; the ratio of the runup on riprap to the runup on a smooth surface for the same slope and wave conditions

wave period of a monochromatic wave (seconds)

Tp

wave period of maximum energy density of the spectrum (seconds)

average stone weight (kilograms)

W
W50

median stone weight (kilograms)

unit weight of stone (kilograms per cubic meter)
unit weight of water (kilograms per cubic meter)

wr ww
G

angle between the embankment slope and the horizontal

standard deviation

DESIGN OF RIPRAP REVETMENTS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST WAVE ATTACK

by

John P. Ahrens
I.

INTRODUCTION

Quarrystone is the most commonly used material for protecting earth embankments from wave attack because, where high-quality stone is available, it provides a stable and unusually durable revetment armor material at relatively low cost. This report provides information and specific guidance on the design of stone riprap revetments, including several examples to illustrate the concepts It supplements Sections 7.21 and 7.37 of the Shore Protection Manual presented. (SPM) (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
1977).
II.

RIPRAP DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The discussion in this section draws heavily on laboratory studies of riprap stability. Currently, there is little well-documented information available on the field performance of riprap. In the design of a riprap revetment, a careful evaluation of the performance of riprap or other revetments near the design site or at similar sites is an important adjunct to the guidance given in this report. Information on the design of armor and filter layers, zerodamage and reserve stabilities of the armor layer, selection of overlay armor to upgrade existing revetments, and wave runup is given in this section. Two design aspects which are particularly difficult to study in the laboratory include the toe design of a riprap revetment and tying the ends of the revetment into a nonreveted embankment. Consequently, these aspects are not discussed in this report since little information is available on them.

A definition sketch for some terms used in this section is shown in Figure
\_j^-Continuation
Filter Loyer,

of

Structure Slope
of

-Armor

Loyer

Riprop

r
Design

J
Water LevelSlope

\^ZZZ?Zz&yJl!l shore
Angle

Structure Face Makes

with Horizontol

Figure 1.

Definition sketch.

'MVMW////,

1.

Armor Layer

Experience is Stone used in the armor layer should be hard and durable. the best guide in choosing a durable stone. Whenever possible, stone which has proven to be- satisfactory on earlier, similar projects should be used. Persons familiar with local quarries can often provide information on stone quality. Esmiol's (1968) study of rock used to protect the upstream slope of earth dams concluded that granite or granitic-type rock is the best for riprap and that the best means to evaluate durability before use are by a specific gravity test, an absorption test, and a petrographic analysis. A recent survey of riprap stone quality by M.L. Giles (Research Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City, personal communication, 1979) indicates that there are, at present, no foolproof tests which can give assurance of rock durability, but that the specific gravity test is the single, most reliable method.
Thomsen, Wohlt, and Harrison (1972) found that the gradation of stone used in riprap had little influence on stability when the median weight, W50, was used to characterize the stone size. Following Thomsen, Wohlt, and Harrison to characterize stone size. (1972), this report uses W50 Their laboratory tests of riprap stability included both narrow and wide stone gradations but only a few tests were conducted with a gradation ratio, Wgs/W^, greater than 8.0 (W35 is the weight of an armor stone where 85 percent of the total weight of the gradation is contributed by stones of lesser weight; Wj 5 is the corresponding weight for the 15-percentile stone) Prototype-scale riprap stability tests conducted by Ahrens (1975) used the stone gradation specified in EM 1110-2-2300 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971) and referred to as the "EM" gradation. Portions of EM 1110-2-2300 have been superseded by ETL 11102-222 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978). The EM gradation specifications for the maximum and minimum stone weights are
.

Wmax = 4W 5

Wmin = O.125W 50
Ahrens established the following approximate empirical relations for the EM gradation:

0.75W 50

* W15
and

4.9

W 15

O.4W 50

(1)

where W is the average weight of the riprap armor stone. Fully mixed, wide gradations are probably as stable to wave attack as narrow gradations with the same W50; however, gradations where the ratio Wqs/W^ exceeds 8.0 are not recommended due to the shortage of data on their performance. The advantages of a wide gradation over a narrow gradation are that a larger percentage of the quarry-run stone can be used and that the filter layer-size criteria can be met

the disadvantage is that the stone easier (discussed in the next subsection) may become segregated and some areas of the revetment can be unusually vulnerable to wave attack.
;

The thickness of the armor layer should be great enough to accommodate the largest stone in the gradation. To do this, the thickness of the layer must be slightly greater than a typical dimension of the largest stone. A typical dimension may be computed using the cube root of the volume of the stone. For the EM gradation, the typical dimension of the largest stone is

(VWV /3
\

(AW50V/ 3
\

wr

wr

=1

.
'

59

/W50Y /3
\wr
/

where wr is the unit weight of the stone in kilograms per cubic meter. The was set at twice the typical recommended minimum armor layer thickness, r m i n dimension of the median stone, i.e.,
,

I/3

r mi

n-2.o(^)

Equation (2) provides sufficient thickness to accommodate the largest stone in EM 1110-2-2300 also recommends that r min be at least 0.30 the EM gradation. meter (1 foot)
.

Flat and rod-shaped stones should not be used in the riprap armor gradaThe lift and drag forces on flat stones and the drag forces on rodtion. shaped stones are greater in proportion to their weight than the more desirable angular and blocky shapes. Flat and rod-shaped stones may also require a greater armor layer thickness to accommodate them and they do not key in well Stones with a maximum dimension greater than three with the other stones. times their minimum dimension are not recommended for the armor gradation.
2.

Underlayers

The stone used in the layer just beneath the armor layer (i.e., the filter layer) should be large enough to prevent removal of stone through the voids in To describe the required stone-size relationthe armor layer by wave action. ship between the armor and filter, it is convenient to use the concept of a typical stone dimension again. Let the typical stone dimension be given by

D* =|

W \!/3

where the subscript x indicates the percent of the weight of the total gradaThe proper size relationship tion contributed by stones of lesser weight. between the 15-percentile size of the armor and the 85-percentile size of the filter is given by

D 15 (armor)

D 85 (filter)

<

A.O

(3)

The filter criterion given by equation (3) is somewhat more conservative (i.e., requires larger stone in the filter layer) than the criteria accepted by Thomsen, Wohlt, and Harrison (1972) and given in the SPM, EM 1110-2-2300, and ETL 1110-2-222 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978), but it appears necessary based on the riprap stability tests conducted by Ahrens (1975)
If the armor stone is large, it may be necessary to have a second underlayer of stone beneath the first underlayer. The stone-size relationship The between the first and second underlayers is also given by equation (3) thickness of the underlayers should be at least three median stone diameters (i.e., 3D 50 ) and not less than 0.23 meter (9 inches) (see ETL 1110-2-222). Sometimes it is economical to replace the smallest size underlayer with a geotextile fabric; however, because of unsatisfactory experience, Corps policy currently does not permit the use of geotextile fabrics beneath riprap on embankment dams and navigation channels.
.

3.

Zero-Damage Stability

The usual method to evaluate riprap stability is by use of Hudson's (1959) The stability number is defined by the equation stability number, N s
.

Nc =
'

(4)
;

50 1/3

where H is the local wave height and ww is the unit weight of water (1,000 and 1,026 kilograms per cubic meter or 62.4 and 64 pounds per cubic foot for Normally, the wave height used in freshwater and for seawater, respectively) equation (4) would be the height at the toe of the structure; however, in some situations, particularly on deep reservoirs, where there is no clearly defined toe for the structure, the deepwater wave height may be used in equation (4). The use of the significant wave height in equation (4) is discussed in subsection 5.
.

When the stability number is used to define the zero-damage stability condition, the symbol N sz is used, and the corresponding wave height is the local zero-damage wave height, H z . For zero-damage stability, the relation between the stability number and the slope of the embankment to be protected
is

N sz = 1.45(cot

6)

/6

(5)

where 9 is the angle between the embankment face and the horizontal Equation (5) is intended for use with armor stone placed by dumping and is considered to be conservative enough to account for wave period effects (Ahrens and McCarthy, 1975), for both breaking and nonbreaking wave conditions, and for naturally occurring irregular wave conditions (discussed in the next two subsections)
.

***************
:

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

1***************

An earth embankment (to be protected from wave attack) located on a GIVEN freshwater lake has a slope of 1 on 3, i.e., cot 6 = 3.0; the design wave height at the toe of the embankment is 1.52 meters (5.0 feet). The unit weight of the stone to be used in the armor and filter layers is 2,644 kilograms per cubic meter (165 pounds per cubic foot)
FIND The zero-damage median riprap weight, the minimum armor layer thickness, and the minimum Wgs for the filter layer stone.
;

SOLUTION

Solving equation (5) gives

N sz = 1.45(3.0) 1/6 = 1.74

Next, using equation (4)

Nc

W 5 oy/3 /r _ wr /
and solving for
W50,

gives

W50 =

2,644(1.52)
(1.74)
3

2,644
n

\3
/

= 397 kii g rams (875 pounds)

\l,000

The minimum armor layer thickness given by equation (2) is

397 V /3 = 1 ' 6 meters 644 /

r min ~ 2 -

^3

'

49 feet ^

W 15

To compute Wgs for the filter stone, first use equation (1) to compute for the riprap, i.e.,

W 15 (riprap) = 0.4

397 = 159 kilograms (350 pounds)

Since the riprap and filter stone have the same unit weight, equation (3) can be written as
D 15 (riprap) D 85 (filter)

|"

w 15 (riprap)"] [ W 85 (filter) J

/3

|~

159

"

l^

3 <

|_W 85

(filter))

4.0

***************************************

If the which gives a minimum Wg5 (filter) of 2.48 kilograms (5.5 pounds). riprap had a gradation narrower than the EM gradation, the minimum Wqs (filter) would have had to have been greater than 2.48 kilograms, since W15 (riprap) would have been greater than 159 kilograms.

4.

Wave Period Effects

Some laboratory studies of riprap stability conducted with monochromatic waves (i.e., waves of constant height and period) show a strong influence of wave period (e.g., see Thomsen, Wohlt, and Harrison, 1972; Ahrens and McCartney, 1975); other studies such as Hudson and Jackson (1962) do not. A comprehensive laboratory study conducted at the Hydraulic Research Station (HRS) (1975) in Wallingford, England, for the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) of the United Kingdom, concluded that there was little influence of wave period on riprap stability for tests with irreguThe tests at HRS included a wide range of irregular wave conditions lar waves. considered to be typical of naturally occurring conditions.
-

Wave period is not considered in this analysis of riprap stability because the monochromatic test results were inconsistent, (b) the HRS tests with natural wave conditions do not indicate any period effects, and (c) there is no accepted method, at present, to account for the influence of wave period on riprap stability.
(a)
5.

Zero-Damage Conservatism and the Design Wave Height

The equation recommended for calculating the zero-damage stability numbers 5) is more conservative than some other design equations; e.g., the equation given in the SPM is
(eq.

Krr = cot \=2.2 6

(6)

where Krr is the stability coefficient for riprap. The additional conservatism is intended to account for the most severe wave breaking conditions and Equations (5) and (6) are compared in the effects of irregular wave attack. Figure 2 which shows that they give about the same stability number on a steep The reason for the slope (1 on 2) but diverge considerably for flatter slopes. divergence is that equation (5) is based on a small absolute measure of damage,' while equation (6) is based on a 5-percent allowable damage which causes it to be more slope dependent. Since a percent-damage equation is useful in evaluating the progress of damage toward failure, the following equation was developed for a 5-percent level of damage (also shown in Fig. 2)

N s = 1.37(cot

6)

1/3

(7)

Equation (7) is consistent with equation (5) since both equations were developed primarily from large wave tank tests of riprap stability conducted by Ahrens (1975) and both were based on the most damaging wave conditions. Equation (7) is equivalent to Krr = 2.37 and can be used to compute the median In Figure riprap weight in situations where some damage could be tolerated. 3, equation (7) is used to give perspective on the concept of reserve stability discussed in the next subsection.
Ahrens (1975) and ETL 1110-2-222 indicate that stability coefficients as high as 4.37 can be used if damage to the riprap can be accepted. Using K RR =4.37 necessitates consideration of maintenance costs and safety factors.

12

3.0

Eq. (7), 5-pct 2.5

Domoge
Eq.(6)

2.0 Eq. (5), Zero

Domoge

1.5

1.0
1.5

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Cotongent

of

Embonkment Slope, Cot O

Figure

2.

Comparison of stability equations.

10

Reserve Stobility Porameter

/w 50 y3 tucot V*

Figure 3.

Reserve stability as a function of the reserve stability parameter.

Normally the significant wave height should be used as the design wave height for riprap, e.g., in equation (4). The guidance provided in Section 7.12 of the SPM should be followed in the selection of the design wave. Research underway (1980) at CERC is expected to provide improved guidance on the choice of the design wave for irregular wave attack on riprap.

6.

Reserve Stability

The ability of riprap to provide protection to an embankment when it is exposed to waves greater than the zero-damage wave height is well known and constitutes an important advantage in this type of revetment . This is referred to as vesevve stability Reserve stability increases with the thickness of the armor layer and the flatness of the embankment slope; these characteristics are quantified in Figure 3 which is based on tests by Ahrens The reserve stability in the figure is indicated by H/H z , the ratio (1975). of the wave height to the zero-damage wave height. This ratio is equivalent to the ratio of the stability number to the zero-damage stability number given by equation (5) Reserve stability is plotted in Figure 3 versus the parameter
. .

[(wso/v^Vs]

(1

+ cot 2

e)

/2

where the quantity inside the bracket is the armor layer thickness in terms of the typical stone dimension. In Figure 3, the zero-damage criterion (eq. 5) is represented by the horizontal line where H/H z = 1.0; there is no damage below this line. In the wedge-shaped region above this line, damage would be expected but not failure. Failure, as used here, indicates that wave action will remove filter stone from the damaged slope, but does not necessarily mean the embankment will be destroyed The dashline through the wedge-shaped region is the 5-percent damage level given by equation (7) using the recommended minimum armor layer thickness defined by [r/(W 5 g/wr ) /3] = 2.0.
.

***************

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

2***************

This example, which is a continuation of example 1, illustrates the concept of reserve stability and the use of Figure 3.

GIVEN

cot

= 3.0

H = 1.52 meters (5.0 feet)

(design wave height)

w r = 2,644 kilograms per cubic meter (165 pounds per cubic foot) ww = 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter (62.4 pounds per cubic foot)

w5

= 397 kilograms

(875 pounds)

(computed in example 1)

In addition, it is specified that the armor be two layers thick, i.e., the minimum thickness is given by equation (2)
x

W=2.0(Si)' w
r

/3

This is required to determine the reserve stability parameter.

14

FIND:

The maximum wave height above the design value which will not cause riprap failure and the smallest median weight riprap which will not fail for the design wave height.

SOLUTION:

The reserve stability parameter is

(1
/ 3

[(Wwr)

+ cot 2

0)

/2

= 2/10 = 6.32

and using Figure 3 gives

= 1.31

Therefore, H = 1.31 x 1.52 = 1.99 meters or 2.0 meters (6.5 feet). Thus, a wave height as great as 2.0 meters will not cause failure; for wave heights between 1.5 and 2.0 meters, some damage would be expected but not failure. No damage would be expected below H = 1.5 meters; failure could occur for H > 2.0 meters.

From Figure

and recalling from example 1 that N sz = 1.74, gives

Ns
N sz
or

= rr-TT = 1-31

Ns

1.74

N s = 1.31(1.74) = 2.28

Then, using equation (4)

"S

1.52
/

W 50

= 2.28
\

\ 1/3

/2,644

and solving for

W50
(1

gives,
52
/

W 50 =

'

644)
a?/

<" &-!)'
3

\3

= 176 kil g rams

<

389 pounds)

VJ5

Example 1 showed that W50 = 397 kilograms was necessary for no damage; for between 176 and 397 kilograms, damage could be. expected but no failure. However, for W50 < 176 kilograms, failure could occur.

***************************************
7.

Location of Damage

Damage to the armor layer can extend over a surprisingly large extent of the revetment face. Generally, the worst damage is above the Stillwater level Table 1 quantifies (SWL) on steep slopes and below the SWL on flat slopes. the findings of Ahrens (1975) regarding the upper limit of damage, u and the are divided by the wave & u and & lower limit of damage, 1%. In the table,
,

15

Table 1.
Slope
1 1 1

Average values of U /H and ^^/H and the standard deviations, a, for slopes of 1 on 2.5, 3.5, and 5.0.

on 2.5
on 3.5

1.20

0.38 0.24
0.29

-0.65 -0.76

0.33

0.56 0.48

0.29
0.34

on 5.0

-0.85

height, H, which caused the damage. The parameters u and l^ are measured in the vertical from the SWL. Table 1 indicates that typically the vertical range of damage was about 1.8 wave heights on a 1 on 2.5 slope and 1.3 wave heights on slopes of 1 on 3.5 and 1 on 5. When inspecting for damage, it is necessary to consider the water level which may have existed during a storm.
8.

Wave Runup

Wave runup on riprap may be estimated using the method in Stoa (1979) Stoa indicates that runup on riprap ranges from 60 to 72 percent of the value for smooth embankments with similar slopes and wave conditions. An alternative method has been developed using the runup data from Ahrens (1975) Runup, R, is given by the general equation
.

b + (e/l

1/2 cot

(8)
e

where

a and b are the dimensionless coefficients, H the wave height at the toe of the structure, and L the deepwater wavelength, given by

2T7

where T is the wave period and g the acceleration of gravity. The best fit coefficients for predicting runup on riprap in equation (8) are a = 0.956 and b = 0.398; these coefficients were rounded off to 1.0 and 0.4, respectively, for the runup prediction method given in ETL 1110-2-221 (U.S. Army Corps of' Engineers, 1976). Equation (8) has been determined to give reliable estimates of monochromatic wave runup for d /H > 3.0 and for slopes from 1 on 2 to 1 on s If there is no clearly defined toe, equation (8) may still be used 10. as shown in the following example

***************

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

3***************

This example illustrates how to compute the maximum runup for situations where there is little truncation of the wave height distribution due to depthlimit breaking. Three different methods are used to illustrate the runup calculations and to show comparative answers.

GIVEN An earth dam is being constructed to form a deep reservoir. The upstream face of the dam will have a 1 on 3 slope which will require riprap protection. The design wave has a significant height of 1.52 meters and a period of 4.7 seconds. No wave refraction is assumed for the design condition.
:

FIND

The height to which the riprap must extend above the design water level to prevent being exceeded by the runup
: :

SOLUTION It is necessary to compute d s /H^ to determine which figure to use in Stoa (1979). Since there is no clearly defined toe for this structure, a water depth of one-half the deepwater wavelength will be used (this is the depth where the waves first "feel" the bottom)
- 0-5 x 9.80 x d c = 0.5L n =

(4.7)

6.28

= 17.24 meters

(56.5 feet)

therefore,
dg
'

Ho

17.24 1.52

11.3
To use Figure 4,

which leads to using Figure 4 (Fig. B-3 in Stoa, 1979). the wave steepness parameter is required, so
1.52
gT 2
= 0.0070
:

9.80

(4.7)

56789

10

Structure

slope (cot 8)

Figure 4.

Relative runup for riprap slopes; d s /HQ = 8.0; Hq/Kj- - 2.8. Use this figure also for d s E > 8.0 (from Stoa, 1979).
17

and from Figure 4

Tand

0.88

= 0.88(1.52) = 1.34 meters (4.39 feet)

.

Assuming that As a check, the runup will be calculated using equation (8) the toe of the structure is in a water depth of 17.24 meters (56.5 feet), the required local wave height is the incident deepwater height of 1.52 meters.
Using equation
(8)

with the best fit coefficients gives

0.956
0.398 + (1. 52/34. hi)
1

R
H

= 0.93
1^

(3.0)

and

R
Using equation
(8)

= 0.93 x

(1.52) = 1.41 meters (4.64 feet)

with the ETL 1110-2-221 coefficients gives

1
and

Lfl 0.4 + (1.52/34.47) /2 (3.0)

-T7-

R = 0.97

1.52 = 1.47 meters (4.82 feet)

Agreement among the three methods shown above is good, and since the significant wave height was used in the computations the runup will be referred to as the significant runup, R s Since some waves will produce runup greater than R s one way to estimate the maximum runup, Rmax is to assume that the ratio of Rmax to Rs is the same as the ratio of the maximum wave height at the toe of the structure, Hmax , to the significant wave height at the toe of the structure, H s For the deepwater conditions of this example, Goda (1975) gives
. ,
.

"max -

1.64

where H^^x represents the average highest wave in a group of about 250 waves. For wave breaking in shallow water, the ratio of the maximum to significant wave height is lower than shown above and can be calculated using a model developed by Goda (illustrated in example 4) The value H^^Hs = 1.64 is consistent with the limiting value for deep water in Goda's model. Thus, the maximum runup for Stoa's method is
.

Re;

Hmax \ _ 1.34(1.64) = 2.20 meters (7.22 feet) = -rr^ ;( hs

I

and the maximum runup using the best fit coefficients in equation (8) gives

Rma

= Rs

f^pi
J

1.41(1.64) = 2.31 meters (7.58 feet)

The method used in ETL 1110-2-221 to compute the maximum runup assumes a constant 50 percent greater than the significant runup; therefore,

Rmax = R s O-- 5 ) = 1-47(1.5) = 2.20 meters

Table
2

summarizes the results of this example problem.

Table

2.

Example problem

summary.

Method
(m)

\iax
(ft)

Stoa (1979)

2.20
2.31

7.22
7.58

This report

ETL 1110-2-221
J

2.20

7.22

of

The three methods yield similar results and possibly the highest value Rmax should be chosen to be conservative.

***************************************
In computing the maximum runup, the assumption is that

Rmax
Rs

^max
Hf

This assumption is not intended to suggest that the maximum runup is caused by the maximum wave but only to provide a reasonable factor by which to obtain If relatively shallow water Rmax from a typical value of runup such as R s fronts the structure there will be truncation of the wave height distribution due to depth-limited and steepness-induced breaking which should cause a corresponding truncation in the runup distribution. Using a constant factor, such as 1.5, to estimate the maximum runup from the significant runup (by the method in ETL 1110-2-221) may overestimate Rmax f r shallow-water conditions. In example 4, a shallow-water situation where there is truncation of the wave height distribution due to wave breaking will be considered. The three methods used in example 3 are also used in example 4 to show comparative answers; the' problem requires the use of Table 3 which gives the ratios Hmax/K s and H /Hq s based on the Goda (1975) model.
.

19

Table 3.
-.
H o

Local wave conditions for various offshore slopes and water depths based on Goda's (1975) model.
H

U;/ l

0.002

/Lo - 0.005

"o /Lo " ' 010

H /H
s

"o/H,

- 0.020 H
s

Vo
0.83
1.26 1.67

"max^U
1.49 1.35 1.30 1.28 1.32 1.39 1.46 1.53

Vo
0.76 1.18
1.59 1.85 1.74 1.56 1.41 1.30

>W

Hs

"max^-s

V'Ho
1

H /Lo - 0.040 o Hs H s /H o

o'^
H s /H o

- 0.080

>W

"max/"*

OffBhore slope 0.5 1.0

1.5

on 10
1.30 1.26 1.38 1.61 1.61 1.59 1.61 1.62

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

2.04 2.00
1.87 1.73

1.60

1.38 1.29 1.27 1.35 1.46 1.54 1.59 1.61

0.70
1.11 1.45 1.49 1.31

1.18
1.11 1.06

1.32 1.26 1.30 1.52 1.60 1.62 1.61 1.61

0.63
1.02 1.26 1.16 1.06 1.03

0.58 0.94
1.06

1.31

0.51

0.99 0.97
1

0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.94

1.25 1.44 1.62

1.61

0.80 0.89
0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.97

1.58 1.58 1.58

1.24 1.26 1.42 1.54 1.58 1.59 1.61 1.61

Offshore slope 0.5

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

on 20 1.29 1.24 1.30 1.50 1.61 1.59 1.61 1.62

0.60 0.95
1.31 1.64
.

4.0

1.90 1.87 1.73 1.60

1.50 1.36 1.29 1.28 1.31 1.39 1.46 1.51

0.56
0.91 1.25 1.55 1.67 1.56 1.41 1.30

1.39 1.28 1.26 1.28 1.41 1.54 1.59 1.61

0.51 0.86 1.18

1.36 1.29 1.18 1.11 1.06

1.34 1.26 1.26 1.38 1.58 1.62 1.61 1.61

0.48 0.82
1.08 1.13 1.06 1.03

0.99 0.97
1

0.44 0.75 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94

1.26 1.24 1.34 1.53 1.61 1.61 1.60 1.58

0.40 0.67 0.81 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.96

1.23 1.24 1.33 1.44 1.51 1.56 1.57 1.60

Offshore slope
0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

on 50

0.50 0.80
1.12 1.44 1.68 1.83 1.73 1.60

1.51 1.35 1.28 1.25 1.29 1.36 1.46

0.46 0.77
1.08 1.37 1.54 1.53
1.41

1.41

1.53

1.30

1.28 1.25 1.26 1.34 1.51 1.59 1.61

0.43 0.74
1.03 1.25 1.27 1.18
1.11

1.06

1.35 1.25 1.25 1.31 1.49 1.61 1.61 1.61

0.40 0.70 0.96

1.08 1.04 1.02 1.00 0.97

1.29 1.24 1.26 1.41 1.58 1.61 1.59 1.62

0.38 0.65 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93

1.25 1.24 1.28 1.45 1.57 1.60 1.61 1.61

0.35 0.59 0.75 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.97

1.24 1.22 1.29 1.38 1.46

1.51

1.55 1.57

0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0.48 0.77
1.07 1.36 1.62 1.78 1.73 1.60

4.0

1.50 1.34 1.28 1.26 1.28 1.35 1.46 1.53

0.44 0.74 1.03

1.31

1.50 1.52
1.41 1.30

1.40 1.28 1.25 1.26 1.32 1.47 1.59 1.61

Offshore slope - 1 on 100 0.41 1.35 0.38 1.29 0.71 1.25 0.68 1.24 1.00 1.24 1.26 0.92
1.21 1.25 1.18 1.11 1.06

1.30 1.47 1.60 1.61 1.61

1.06

1.04 1.02 0.99 0.97

1.38 1.56 1.61 1.60 1.62

0.36 0.63 0.84 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.94

1.25 1.23 1.28 1.42 1.55 1.61 1.61 1.60

0.33 0.58 0.73 0.83 0.88 0.92 0.94 0.97

1.24 1.21 1.28 1.37 1.44 1.50 1.53 1.55

***************
:

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

4***************

GIVEN A riprap revetment with a slope of 1 on 2.5 is to be built where the design water depth at the toe is 4.57 meters (14.99 feet). Seaward of the toe, the offshore slope is 1 on 100. The deepwater, unrefracted, significant wave height is 3.05 meters (10.01 feet) and the design wave period is 7.0 seconds. Assume no wave refraction from deep water to the structure site,
FIND The elevation above the design water level to which the riprap must extend to prevent being exceeded by the runup
:

SOLUTION The first method follows the procedure of Stoa. For d s /Ho =1.5, Table 4 and Figure 5 (App. A in Stoa, 1979) indicate that the smooth-slope reduction factor, r, for runup on riprap on a 1 on 2.5 slope is r = 0.63, To find the smooth-slope runup, Figure 6 (Fig. 10 in Stoa, 1978) is used with
:

3.05 = 0.0063 ~ gT 2 ~ 9. 80(7. 0) 2

Hi

which yields R/Hq = 2.05. According to Stoa (1979), there is no scale correction for this condition, so the runup is

20

'

"

Table

4.

Values of r for application at d /H^ < 3 (from Stoa, 1979)

s

Slope (cot
1.5 2.5 3.5 5.0 5.0 5.0

6)

H/k r
3 3

to 4 to 4 3 to 4
3

4
5

0.60 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.72

^H was used to derive these values from experiments with d s /H^ > 3; for application H, where H is the wave at d /H^ < 3, use s height at the proposed structure location.

Filter loyer

^^-Armor

layer; 1.5 to

3 stones

thick

Embankment

Figure

5.

Sketch of quarrystone (riprap) embankment (from Stoa, 1979)

_
i
l 1 1 i

1 :

' 1 |

!
|

'i

1-

4_jj_|
:

j.

.;--;

.1
: : '

11

~. i

^ -~^J
i

Tr:
1

n
*

T_

T
i
!

"

-771+

A \-'
:

==^4^>

--+-

-4

:-.:^.-

1-

4^^P\Pn Ni\f ^v3\\^\xVi V\ \ r

'"=;
x
1

3
I

:.:
.J.

o.oop?"
vQb

'

:;i

!'

=Bf:

I--;

-:.

4
TZ
*""t-

2
:;i;i-:
1

....

V\N\
!

,j

:;::!:;;;

\Ksv0i 0.O009 l\ V<NN0.O0>2

19

:':
::::

xNXxN.o.oo're:
._j_j

::::|::

Ho

+H-r

it
!

I
I

h
i
:

0.8
1

-rf

Lff^l

- ir*M<-

0.6

.=-.:

\SNXS0.004? 00.0062

r:-

._:!_.

LIX?
i.vr:
:

-j-

V _._iS

0078
!

"J_
|.

0.4 0.3

S> 0,0093
0.0
,.

_;.-.::

!!

^ri

(SeelFi U 13
}.

for sc
.

tie

-ef lect-co rre

:tibn

"f M
0.1

;::
i

0.2

0.3 0.4

0.6 0.8

10

20

30 40

60 80100

Structure Slope [Cot 9)

Figure

6.

Relative runup for smooth slopes on a 1 on 10 bottom; 1/1 > 0.5; d s /H^ = 1.5 (from Stoa, 1978).

21

R s = r (r)(H

= 0.63(2.05)(3.05) = 3.94 meters

(12.93 feet)

This runup is regarded as the significant runup since it was computed from the deepwater significant wave height. The maximum runup is estimated by The value of Hmax /H s is derived multiplying R s by the ratio Hmax /H s from Table 3 by using the parameters
.

K
L

3 ' 05

76.46

= 0.040

where
L
=

~
g(7.0) 2
2tt
'

= 76.46 meters (251 feet)

and

W =1
*o

50

With an offshore slope of 1 on 100, Table

Hmax = 1.28 H
;

shows

Therefore, Stoa's method yields

Rmax = Rs ("If21 ) = 3.94(1.28) = 5.04 meters (16.54 feet)

The second method uses equation (8) with the best fit coefficients. To use this equation it is necessary to have the local significant wave height at the toe of the structure, obtained from Table 3 recalling that H /L = 0.040, d s /Ho = 1.50, and the slope is 1 on 100. Therefore, from Table 3, H s /Ho = 0.84 and H s = H x K s /H = 3.05(0.84) = 2.56 meters (8.40 feet). Equation (8) gives
Rs

Hs
and

0.956 = 1>12 0.398 + (2.56/76.46) 1 /2 (2.5)

R s = 1.12
then

2.56 = 2.87 meters (9.42 feet)

Rmax = R s

(-^

-)= 2.87(1.28) = 3.67 meters (12.04 feet)

where the value for

Hmax /H s

was previously determined for Stoa's method,

22

The third method based on ETL 1110-2-221 uses equation (8) with the rounded-off coefficients, i.e.,

1.0

= 1.17

Hs

0.4 + (2.56/76.46) 1 /2 (2.5)

and. R s = 2.56 (1.17) = 3.00 meters (9.84 feet). runup by 50 percent gives

Increasing the significant

Kmax = 3.00(1.5) = 4.50 meters (14.76 feet)

Table
5

provides a summary of methods used in this problem.

Example problem 4 summary. Table 5. Method ^nax
(m)

(ft)

Stoa (1979)
This report

5.04
3.67

16.54
12.04

ETL 1110-2-221

4.50

14.76

***************************************
The rather wide range of estimates for Rmax shown in the example 4 summary (Table 5) is partly due to the inherent difficulty in estimating extreme values and the specific difficulty of adapting the results of monochromatic wave tests to irregular wave conditions in relatively shallow water. To evaluate which of the three methods would produce the best estimates of Rmax* a comparison was made with observed values from the laboratory tests of Ahrens and Seelig (1980) These tests measured the maximum wave runup on a riprapprotected dike using various irregular wave conditions. The dike had a slope of 1 on 2 and a submerged fronting slope of 1 on 15; some of the water levels tested had wave conditions similar to those in example 4. All three methods overpredicted the observed maximum runup on an average, and overpredicted for Stoa's method overpredicted Rmax most of the individual conditions compared. by an average of 38 percent, the method of this report by 29 percent, and the method of ETL 1110-2-221 by 38 percent. Since data were available only for one slope with which to compare predicted and observed values, it is not clear how general the tendency to overpredict is. Based on the comparison, the method of this study is regarded as the best estimate of maximum runup; however, the value from another method might be selected in order to be conservative. Laboratory tests to improve the existing guidelines for estimating the characteristics of irregular wave runup are now underway at CERC.
.

9.

Overlays

Overlays are single layers of larger stone placed on top of existing riprap which is too small to provide adequate protection to the embankment The concept of an overlay as a simple and logical method to upgrade existing revetment was developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Missouri River (see McCartney and Ahrens, 1976). Overlays using 100-percent coverage are recommended to upgrade existing riprap; this means that all stones touch adjacent stones. Photos in McCartney and Ahrens show 100-percent coverage.
.

23

A more quantifiable means to estimate the amount of stone required for an overlay is given by the coverage fraction, C.F., where
C.F. =
rr~,
1 (w/wr ) /3 wr

(9)

where C is the overlay stone weight per square meter of embankment surface. McCartney and Ahrens (1976) found that the coverage fraction of 100-percent coverage varied by stone shape when C.F. = 0.42 (typical for a relatively blocky quarrystone) and C.F. = 0.55 (typical for rounded boulders). The minimum W50 weight for the overlay stone should be computed using equation (5). A wide gradation in the overlay stone is not recommended since each stone is exposed to wave action and receives little support or shelter from adjacent stones. The prototype-scale overlay tests (discussed by McCartney and Ahrens) used an overlay with the following maximum, minimum, and average overlay weights:

Wmax

=3.1 W 50
(10)

Wmin = 0.4 W 50

0.87 W 50

where W50 is the median weight of the overlay gradation; an overlay gradation wider than denoted above is not recommended

***************

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

5***************

This example reviews concepts discussed throughout the text, introduces a few new ideas, and develops several possible alternate designs to present advantages and disadvantages of each design.

GIVEN A low bluff composed of bank-run gravel is eroding due to wave attack. Behind the bluff is a large industrial park and further erosion cannot be permitted. A riprap revetment is to be built with a design freshwater depth at the toe of 1.83 meters (6.0 feet); no overtopping should be permitted, however, the consequences of overtopping would not be life threatening. The offshore slope is 1 on 100; the design deepwater, unrefracted, significant wave height is 1.52 meters and the design wave period is 5.0 seconds. There is no wave refraction between deep water and the structure site. The unit weight of the armor and filter stone is 2,644 kilograms per cubic meter and the EM-size gradation should be assumed for the armor stone.
:

FIND Consider slopes of 1 on 1.5, 1 on 2, 1 on 3, and 1 on 5. For each slope, compute the zero-damage median riprap armor weight, the minimum armor layer thickness, the minimum Wss for the filter layer, and the elevation above the design water level to which the riprap must extend to prevent overtopping. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of the various slopes.
:

As a second part of this example, assume there is existing riprap protecting the bluff but the stone is too small for the design wave conditions. Compute the weight of overlay stone required to upgrade the existing riprap

24

to the design wave height for both blocky quarrystone and rounded boulders. Also compute the overlay weight per meter of revetment length based on the selected maximum runup.

SOLUTION To compute the zero-damage median weight, use Table 3 to calculate the local significant wave height at the toe of the structure. To use Table 3, compute
;

5 L

-Js
(gT 2 /2iT)

LI?
9.8(5.0) 2 /6.28

039

s _ 1.83 = 1.20 H 1.52

and the offshore slope =
1

on 100.

Use Table 3 for H^/L = 0.040, since interpolation Hq/L would not change values of H s /H or H^ax/H^ appreciably, and then interpolate on d s /H^ to get

Hs 77T =
Ho

0.71 (to be used to calculate

H) &

and

Hs

= 1.25

(to be used for runup calculations)

The local significant height is

H s = 0.71(H) = 0.71(1.52) = 1.08 meters (3. 54 feet)

The considerable reduction in the significant height from the deepwater value is due to breaking of the larger and steeper waves over the shallower parts of the 1 on 100 offshore slope. Solving equation (5), using cot 9 = 1.5, gives
N sz = 1.45(1.5) 1/6 = 1.55

and using this value in equation (4) with H s = 1.08 meters gives
/ w 50 y/3 V2.644/

1.08

n
*

/ 2,644 _ 55) ;

= 0.424
\

^l.ooo

and

W5Q = 202 kilograms (445 pounds)

The minimum armor layer thickness for this stone size is computed using equation (2)

rmin = 2.0

'

(y^)

' 3

= 0.85 meter

(2.79 feet)

25

Equation

(1)

is used to compute
*

W15
x

(armor)

W 15 (armor) = 0.4

W 50 = 0.4

201 = 80 kilograms (179 pounds)

which is used to compute the minimum

D 15 (armor)

Wss

(filter) using equation (3)

' 3 (80/2,644) 1/3

/80
=

\V ^/ 3

D 85 (filter)

"

(W85/2.644) /?
1

V^j

which gives the minimum

Wss

(filter) = 1.25 kilograms (2.76 pounds).

The maximum runup is computed using the three methods given in examples 3 and Taking Stoa's (1979) method first, for d s /H = 1.2, the smooth-slope reduction factor for runup on riprap, r, is given in Table 4. For a 1 on 1.5 slope, r = 60. The smooth-slope runup is computed by interpolating between Figures 7 and 6 (Figs. 9 and 10 in Stoa, 1978). To use the figures, calculate
4.

HI gT 2

1.52
9.8(5) 2

= 0.0062

which gives
rrf =

1.0 and

"O

r
No

= 2.63 (Fig. 7)

=7 H
o

= 1.5 and |j- - 2.43 Ho

(Fig. 6)

therefore, for ds/H^ =1.2, R/H = 2.55. Following the procedures illustrated in example 4, the maximum runup may be computed

Rmax = R s

(^r)

= Cr)

(Ho)

(fr) ^g*-

(0.60) (1.52) (2.55) (1.25)

= 2.91 meters (9.55 feet).

Computing the maximum runup by the method developed in this report requires using a = 0.956 and b = 0.398 in equation (8), thus
Rs Hs
0.956
r-T

=
6

0.398 + (H S /L

/2 cot

0.956 . , Q . = l.HO 0.398 + (1 .08/39.01) 1/2 (1.5)

and the maximum runup is

-x-.(^)-0..)(^)(^)-tt-08)(l.*8)
=2.00 meters
(6.56 feet).

1.25

Computing the maximum runup by the ETL 1110-2-221 method requires using a = 1.0 and b = 0.40 in equation (8), therefore

26

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4

0.6 0.8

10

20

30 40

60 80100

Structure Slope (Cot 9)

Figure 7.

Relative runup for smooth slopes on a 1 on 10 bottom; 2,/L > 0.5; d s /H = 1.0 (from Stoa, 1978).
1.0

1.0
)

= 1.54

Hs

0.40 + (H s /L

1/2 cot

0.40 + (1.08/39.01) (1.5)

and the maximum runup is

= Rs
(1.5) =

(1. 5 >

(M(fe)

(1.08)(1.54)(1.5)

= 2.49

meters (8.17 feet).

Computations shown above were performed for the other slopes and are tabulated in Table 6. Table 6 also shows some additional data (e.g., the length of the revetment) to provide information for comparing the advantages of the various slopes. The length of the revetment is the slant length distance from the toe to the top of the riprap as determined by the chosen value of i.e., length of revetment = (d s + Rm ax ) (1 + cot 2 G) 1 /2. RmaxJ
Table 6 shows that the 1 on 1.5 slope has the shortest length and requires the smallest quantity of armor per meter. The length for each slope was calculated using Rmax as estimated by the method of this report. The the slope length, the weight of stone per meter is the product of r min unit weight, and 1.0 minus the porosity. The unit weight is 2,644 kilograms' Since the 1 on 1.5 per cubic meter and the porosity is assumed to be 0.40. slope needs the least armor stone per meter it may have the lowest first costs; however, in some locations it might be cheaper to purchase smaller stone for a flatter slope. Problems with the 1 on 1.5 slope include the
,

27

Table 6.
Slope
N sz

Example problem
(Stoa
1978

comparison data.
"max (ETL 1110-2221 method m(ft) 2.49 (8.17)

Zero damage
"50

min

Hin. w 85

filter

kg(lb) 'm(ft)
1

kg(lb)
1.25 (2.76)

method) m(ft)
2.91 (9.55)

"max (this report method) m(t) 2.00 (6.56)

1.77

Length of revetment
m(ft)

Armor weight 2

Reserve stability
factor 3 (H/H )
z

kg/m(lb/ft)
9,304 (6,253)
10,344 (6,952) 12,303 (8,269)

on 1.5 on 2 on 3

1.55

201

(443)
1

0.85 (2.79)
0.81 (2.66)

6.90 (22.64)
8.05 (26.41)

1.12 1.18

1.63 1.74

173 (381) 142 (313) 109 (240)

1.08 (2.38)

2.72 (8.92)

(5.81)
1.44 (*.72) 1.05 (3.44)

2.20 (7.22)
1.80 (5.91)
1.31

0.75 (2.46)

0.89 (1.96) 0.69 (1.52)

2.02 (6.63)
1.15 (3.77)

10.34 (33.92) 14.69 (48.20)

1.31

on 5

1.90

0.69
(2.26)

(4.30)

16,080 (10,807)

1.59

2 Void space in the riprap armor Is

3

!Used to compute length of revetment. assumed to be 40 percent of the total volume.

From Figure

3.

lack of riprap stability and runup data for this condition, and its anticipated low reserve stability. These factors indicate that a 1 on 1.5 slope is useful to consider as an example, but it would not be the most acceptable design.
In Table 6 the height of the revetment was chosen to be the value of Kmax calculated by the method developed in this report. If overtopping might cause a life-threatening situation, then a more conservative estimate f Rmax should be used due to the uncertainty in predicting extreme values of runup and model studies to determine Rmax should be considered. Additional conservatism could also be used in the riprap weight and armor layer thickness. Since the riprap weight is proportional to the cube of the wave height, an uncertainty of 15 percent in the wave height becomes 52 percent in the riprap weight. It may be assumed that the uncertainty about the incident wave height is compensated for by the reserve stability; however, for steep slopes there may not really be enough compensation so that use of a larger W50 might have to be considered.

A complete analysis would have to weigh the first costs against maintenance costs and the possibility of other losses if the design conditions were exceeded. These considerations are beyond the scope of this report.
Since the weight of overlay stone required to upgrade an existing revetment is the same as the weight of armor stone required for stability (eq. Using the 5), the overlay stone weight is the same as given in Table 6. slope of 1 on 3 and blocky-shaped stone as an example, the average overlay stone weight and weight of overlay per square meter can be calculated using equation (10) and (9) respectively
,

W = 0.87 W 50 = 0.87(142) - 124 kilograms (273 pounds)

and

5 CC. F .(^)'

\l/3 3
( r , = 0.4 2

(^)'

1/3 3
C2,

644 >

= 400

kilograms per square meter (82 pounds per square foot)

28

The weight of overlay stone per linear meter is the product of the weight per square meter times the length of the revetment. For this example, overlay stone weight per linear meter = 400 x 10.34 = 4,136 kilograms per meter or 1.4 tons per foot. Table 7 shows the results of the overlay computations for each of the four slopes using both blocky quarrystone and rounded boulders as overlay stones. Overlay would normally be used to repair a damaged revetment and the reserve stability would be partly a function of the thickness and size of the original armor. The overlay layer itself will have little reserve stability as is suggested by comparing the weight of overlay per linear meter in Table 7 with the weight of armor per linear meter in Table 6.

Table
Slope
on 1.5

Overlay stone data.

Rounded boulders
C.F.
C

Blocky quarrystone
"50 kg(lb)
201

W kg(lb)
175

C.F.-

Armor weight
k S /m(lb/ft)

Armor weight

kg/m 2 (lb/ft 2 )
0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
449
(92)

kg/m 2 (lb/ft 2 )
0.55 0.55 0.55
588 (120)
560.

kg/m(lb/ft)
4,057 (2,727)

(443)
1

(386)
151

3,098 (2,082)

on 2

173 (381)
142 (313)

428
(88)

(333)
124

3,445 (2,315)

(115)

4,508 (3,030) 5,418 (3,641)

7,051 (4,739)

on 3 on

400
(82)

(273)
95 (209)

4,136 (2,780)
5,377 (3,614)

524 (107)

109 (240)

366
(75)

0.55

480
(98)

***************************************
III.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A number of design considerations relating to riprap stability to wave attack and maximum runup elevations are discussed; examples are worked to illustrate techniques. The information presented is primarily the result of laboratory studies. Equally important to the development of a good design are considerations difficult to quantify, such as a careful evaluation of the performance of other revetments near the design site or in similar sites. It is extremely important to utilize the experience of others and when this is coupled with the guidance provided in the literature, many alternative designs can hopefully be reduced to a few good ones. The best design may have to be selected on the basis of model tests.

29

LITERATURE CITED
AHRENS, J. P., "Large Wave Tank Tests of Riprap Stability," TM-51, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., May 1975.

AHRENS, J. P., and McCARTNEY, B.L., "Wave Period Effect on the Stability of Riprap," Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on 'Engineering in the Oceans/Ill, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1975 (also Reprint 76-2, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., NTIS A029 726). AHRENS, J. P., and SEELIG, W.N., "Wave Runup on a Riprap Protected Dike," Coastal Engineering Research Center report to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, unpublished, May 1980.
ESMIOL, E.E., "Rock as Upstream Slope Protection for Earth Dams 149 Case Histories," Report No. DD-3, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo., May 1968.
GODA, Y., "Irregular Wave Deformation in the Surf Zone," Coastal Engineering in Japan, Vol. 18, 1975.

HUDSON, R.Y., "Laboratory Investigations of Rubble-Mound Breakwaters," Proceedings of the Waterways and Harbors Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 85, No. WW3, 1959.

HUDSON, R.Y., and JACKSON, R.A., "Design of Riprap Cover Layers for Relocation Fills, Ice Harbor, and John Day Lock and Dam Projects; Hydraulic Model Investigation," Miscellaneous Paper No. 2-465, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1962.

HYDRAULIC RESEARCH STATION, "Riprap Design for Wind-Wave Attack, a Laboratory Study in Random Waves," Report No. EX707, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England,
1975.

McCARTNEY, B.L., and AHRENS, J.P., "Overlay of Large, Placed Quarrystone and Boulders to Increase Riprap Stability," TP 76-19, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Dec. 1976.
SEELIG, W.N., and AHRENS, J.P., "Estimating Nearshore Conditions for Irregular Waves," TP 80-3, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., June 1980.
STOA, P.N., "Revised Wave Runup Curves for Smooth Slopes," CETA 78-2, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., July 1978.

STOA, P.N., "Wave Runup on Rough Slopes," CETA 79-1, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., July 1979.

THOMSEN, A.L., WOHLT, P.E., and HARRISON, A.S., "Riprap Stability on Earth Embankments Tested in Large- and Small-Scale Wave Tanks," TM-37, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., June 1972.

30

U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, "Earth and Rock-Fill Dams, General Design and Construction Considerations," EM 1110-2-2300, Washington, D.C., Mar. 1971. U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, "Wave Runup and Wind Setup on Reservoir Embankments," ETL 1110-2-221, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1976.

U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, "Slope Protection Design for Embankment in Reservoirs," ETL-1110-2-222, Washington, D.C., July 1978. U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, Shore Protection Manual, 3d ed., Vols. I, II, and III, Stock No. 008-022-00113-1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1977, 1,262 pp.

31

<i

<

X
oo

x:

M
.

M
QJ CO

3 U

>* > 60
--

u ^ c i u aiM ^

00

O
oj

x:
QJ

^ " TJ
to
0) qj

3
i-i

QJ co

d M

O M
4-i

ciM
O
01

x:
1-.

M X
CO

Q.

0)

C
.

3 3

O
CO QJ
Cfl

OO

U
1-.

QJ

>.
Cfl

TJ

t-i

d oioo h
<0 QJ

4J
4-1

C M
CT*
1

o
1-.

u u gja: > > d i- o

j-

QJ

d >
qj
co

QJ

00

a. -o

co

oo

d
oj

co QJ

oo--

UJ

- OO h
co

d
.LJ

m
60

d d

a 13 3 U M
4-1

> > O
0)
Cfl

CD

CO
QJ
l-i

3
.

CO

60

hm dH 3 UH U 3 M
(0 CO

s
>-. cfl

> d
60
(0

to
cfl

O O d

M
U
d
qj QJ

J-.

3
co
1

d
CJ

O H O
ct)

O w
4-1

4J
co CO

OO
CO

>-,

O O *
O,

B w >
> U
QJ

W
QJ

QJ

d
CO qj
cfl

a a
4-4

4-

H S
S

H
U
>
qj OJ

qj
1-.

CO
r-H

o e u
4-|

am

en

O
co

OJ CJ

U W da o
Q)
4->

d
JJ
cfl

c
CO qj

a
QJ

a, oo
CO

cfl

QJ

H O
00
cfl

B
4-i

O
OO
Cfl

qj

e O

B 3
Cfl

c*:

CO
4-1

>>

O M
X
>
cfl

QJ

>
QJ

O O
*

QJ
Cfl

da M M
CJ

c W
tfl

QJ

<h -v
CO

J-

<

a-H

CO cj

CO
Cfl

t3

a)

x: CN

x:

o O M
l-i

Q
Jj

^
a
o

3
qj

O
4->

Di

4-1

a
co

u-o

x: cn

cfl

U
QJ

<H

a
QJ

x:
*j

o
O M W

UD
U
o
en
ffl

>
ID

a
C
x:

a. 4J
l-i

oj-o

N c

u d
CO

qj

cfl

qj

QJ

*J

O
cfl

M
l-i

N C
tfl

CO

QJ

o d
aj

f5
.

> >
u

B)

. S S S3 a aa 3 M w >nChuh .Hi QJ

a.

M
o
cfl

> >
U
T3

cfl

d
x:

^-t

T3
OJ

H
1
I

d O
5)
4-)

>-h
QJ

^ n

00

O
I

d u
QJ oj
QJ

qj

jj

T3
oj

>

o d
x;
aj

H
1
i

en

00

QJ

CO

>

c O

w
S*
>-<

j-i

acNi
en
.* '"

o d
:

^
i

.-

c au a^ j^cOHm ^ a. m o d d co-ox: 3 oo "oo . O -H d OO M d .y oji-iOj-Ho a cyoot4x:coai-id 4J M O

XlK-H

d
qj

oj

a 4-J
QJ

h
QJ

O >

m
4-i

QJ

^ m
i

O
i

. s t s e " o w a 3 3 a 3 M >* C M M C OOT3c0 3Mcjlcfl M M w CO O O M jj u

OJ
t-.

4-1

QJ

Cfl

4-1

qj

qj

"O
QJ

en

OJ CO

QJ

> 3

o d
C
CO

X! "3 T3
QJ

4_i

CQ

> M h
cfl
|

B d o
00

-H

oo

a
a
:

X!
4-1

OJ

4-1

Cfl

-H CL4-t

Jd
4J
(-

QJ
|

in

i-l

cfl

QJ

CO

QJ

O. CN co
.

o
d
.

(fl

QJ

a,

u
C

m
..
.

u
C

aouco4-it4>B(n
o>

c
iw

QJ
i-i

H
i-i

x:

c
00
co
at

<

qj

O
O

oj

-h
4-1

x:
CJ

ax:

43id'H3C-Hft)
B U
O
CO

X J-i3M-.>OCOa QJUdcO
Li

a d o O QJ >M

cj

4J
OJ

.^.

a.
1-.

(j
4->

M
QJ

d o

d
QJ

CO

OOI-44-*

>

.ZD
s-/

x:

d
00
CO OJ

<
.

1-,

to

ax:

oj to

en >

(0 oj
co qj

U > Qj-Hcodo o aJcfl-nqj

CJ4J-H W
;
:

OHOi a.

iJ

'

cj

DO

cfl

^H
QJ
Cfl

>,
4-1

<

aj

00
CO

*-}

Pd

OS

-H

thoj o *s H u C o X MO H W
cO .

MO.
e ox:

i-34-i>odOS o o m QJ4-ICC0 O0W4-1 4J XCflMJCMaaJ ax; r O > B O

".
l-i

m M

(j
4-

. M -H O O Ci QJOOMX^cOanC 4J M O m ^r 4u ju B u co, 0OUefl4-)|- >ecn

Cfl tJJ

d tflTJx: 3 O M C 00
l-i

o d
oo
OJ

"co

cfl

I i

QJ

CM
O
l-i l-i cfl

QJ

WOQJ4-I

XOJM. co

cfl

qj

w
QJ

^D

(0 QJ co

i
m

QJ

-^

QJ
co

> o

Qj-Hcoco a moj ajeoMQj o -b .H u CO M >, C

:
cfl cfl
i

04-1M

Cfl4-)T3MO;4-l h
60
QJ

QJ

<

4-1

-a

oi

pi

o H

>>

.
. co

x:

XI

h
u
O
-
.

-h

Xi
QJ
cfl

a u
cfl

>y X

ci
60
-H
4-i

. en

x:

---

-^
to

CJ

>,
cfl

QJ
Cfl

c
t-.

QJ

XT
QJ

4-1

T3
4J
qj to

I-.

X
CO

d M u
QJ

OO
.

aj

CO

U
-h

U
OJ QJ

qj co

Pi

cO

00---

a)

> d 3
to

u CO C H H w uZh
i-i

c -oo

a. -a

u.

> > o
qj

d >

00

c M

O
QJ
U.

M X
QJ
tfl

C
.

>,
cfl

3 U 3 OJ
tfl
tfl

^O

X:
QJ

4-1

T3

J-,

O ^ ^ h S

oo

a T3
d
-H

QJ l-

QJ

> >
qj

C >
QJ
tfl

qj CO

$
60

O o
l-i

3:

C
oj QJ

-i

d
ri
qj OJ

W s
d
co
qj
4-1

an
aj CJ co
I-,

111

oj QJ

> 3

W
cfl

* 60
co

d
,H
4J
Cfl cfl

4-1

fO

4->

d
at

H 2
B
1-.

h B d
Cfl

am
CO
4-i

w
d
QJ
4-1

Cfl

H
CO

C O O
CJ)

co

jj
CO CO

(0

00

^
S

d H O < U
OJ

O o -^. M xi
<*-i

U
QJ

B
4->

u
> o

c- o. oo

-o -a
qj
OJ qj

to
u_,

O
oo
cfl Cfl

do.
o O
*-

d w
i-i
cfl

tfl

cfl

M O
CO

C O O
60
CO

at a>
l-i

> O
CO cj

qj
cfl

-h
pi
.

cm

>~,

b 3
QJ QJ

U S > QJ O > a
oj

a a
QJ
Cfl

m
60

O U
60
co
cfl

QJ
cfl

c O o
OJ

C m W a M M
pi,

00

co

j->

CO
Cfl

-o

x: CN

CO

w
CO

a. -h

d
l-i

a
O

o
l-i

x;

o
tj
.

C U O <
H
4J

m i
cfl cfl

OJ

^
QJ CO

a 3
.

4J
cfl

cfl

o
c

CO

CO

>

&

QJ
Cfl

^-^
l-i

4J

p.

CJTJ4J d N c O
.l-i

O
ai

CO

M M M a > a

o. H
1-.

4.1

at

N d
QJ
Cfl

-o

4-i
Cfl

U "

ifl

eS

.
a.

O
tJ

M
o

U
4-1
Cfl

d O H
-H
4.1

cj to co

l-

**
tO

l-i

3 -H U d >nCH4JH O0T3 d 3 'H

(U

3 3
(fl

So.

a
n
O
**
9)

4-1

x: F*
.

CO tQJ

-H
qj

QJ

.
T3

H
1 I

^.

H
4->

i-i

do
cfl

> >
-

co

to

d
XJ
QJ

O0T3tfl3McflC0
QJ
l-l

>,

3 d

3 M m
4J

w
4J

O 3

a a m
Cfl

QJ

C O > Hi B >H
4-1

OJ

m
1

en

O
i

d u
QJ co QJ QJ

T3
QJ"

> 3

qj

4_i

QJ

W 00
*H

QJ

03

>

S d U 00

. x: o. -u

u
'H

M -h
u-i

to

T3 t3

a
.:

a.

4_.

^
3

QJ i-

o d x: o d QJ
co

H-OH
M
QJ

cnwu^^oo-H C O C
o
|

QJ

-o

qj

qj

>

x:

a
.

h m
i

qj

>

m
4-1

E
4-1

m u arg o d o to

d O
-rH

bo C
CO

o d
oo
-rH

00

a
CO

m M
1

^1)

a x:
.

Sws"S w m ^
a.
4-i

C
co

4->

H m
i

l!

00

i_.

j: 60

CO

-< cc

>
0)

M
4J
l-i

a.

u
d

O .^4J4-iSQJCfl|W.*
4_)
1

QJ1-.QJ-HO C^! O ojoo^(x:cflav-.d

QJ ai

a
co
l-<

O
ct,
|
1

CO *

c
=

C ui-OX 3 00 M . O M d 60 0JI-.QJMO C ^ O Qjooi-ixicoai-id 4J M O

Cfl
Cfl
1

"00

QJ

ooocfl4-tc.>e a* u s d d d
-QJ1-.
QJ
4-1

qj

o
l-i

x: <:
.

MO,
Cfl

00
qj

c ax:
fj

d m P3U-.>0C0B CO u m d 00 U u X)coi-t3di-iaQj .=) ar > w S U O Oh cju-^oiuOMCdup W . > QJi-ICOdO rl en H U o O^Jcfl-HQJ B o CO iflH >,(flH u
CO
4-1

.^ 3fHCM^.
Cfl

d o

"8

QJ

<J co <u co

1-.

Q)

CO oj wi

CU

Q)

d
x:

<

oo
<fl

qj

4->

CO

-H

fjj

MO

aj

o H

<

i^ 3MdM^N M w34-.>OdOB Qj4-idca O0W4-I 8 " 8 S u xt m 3 e m a < 3 ax: o > m^ c O Oh B u " > ojMtodo a MQJ en o QJCOMQJ *B .H o e -h w o ox: d H d u O M x MO o H
M
CO
QJ
I-l

4-1

M M
.

QJ

o>
-

4-1

QJ

ooocfl4_ii-.>ecfl d d d o) 4J QJ s Xt QJ U O QJ 4-1

-"

CO

oj

x:

co

00
CO qj

cfl

cfl

qj
tfl

qj QJ

AJ

CO

>,

cfl

OJ

oo
Cfl

i-3

p;

q;

a> CO

oj

LlJ