Paper No.

982131
An ASAE Meeting Presentation

HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES FOR EROSION CONTROL

by

K. M. Robinson1, P.E. and William Irwin 2, P.E.

1
Research Hydraulic Engineer and 2National Design Engineer
USDA-ARS and USDA-NRCS
Stillwater, Oklahoma and Washington D.C.

Written for presentation at the

1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASAE

Coronado Springs Resort Convention Center

Walt Disney World
Orlando, Florida
July 11-16, 1998

Summary:
Hydraulic structures play an important role in the preservation of our natural resources. Rigid, semi-rigid,
and flexible structures are discussed as are current structural design challenges. While opportunities exist
for low-cost structures and alternative materials, the traditional treatments also provide proven solutions.
Structural treatments will continue to be sought that are safe, cost effective, and can exist in harmony with
the landscape.

Keywords:
Hydraulic Structures, Grade Control, Riprap, Bioengineering, Erosion Control

The author(s) is solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the
official position of ASAE, and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed.
Technical presentations are not subject to formal peer review process by ASAE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be
presented as refereed publications.
Quotation from this work should state that it is a presentation made by (name of author) at the (listed) ASAE meeting.
EXAMPLE -- From Author’s Last Name, Initials. “Title of Presentation.” Presented at the Date and Title of meeting, Paper
No. X. ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA.
For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please address inquiries to ASAE.

ASAE, 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, Ml 49085-9659 USA

Voice: 616.429.0300 FAX: 616.429.3852 E-mail: <[email protected]>
 Hydraulic Structure for Erosion Control
By
Kerry M. Robinson1 and William Irwin2
Abstract
Hydraulic structures continue to play an important role in preserving our natural
resources. While traditional structural treatments offer viable alternatives, current thinking has
placed increased emphasis on environmentally sensitive solutions. Local partnerships are being
encouraged to foster locally led conservation techniques. If concrete, wood, and steel structures
are considered rigid or semi-rigid treatments, then flexible structures include treatments such as
bioengineering methods, gabions, riprap, and other low initial cost treatments. In addition to a
wider use of flexible treatments, new structural challenges are also identified. For instance, a
structural low drop is needed for locations where space is limited. A means of handling the
sediment collected behind thousands of floodwater retarding structures is also needed. Structural
treatments will continue to be sought that are safe, cost effective, and can exist in harmony wit h
the landscape.

Introduction
Hydraulic structures have been widely used to stabilize or to modify a site to achieve a
desired purpose. The term hydraulic structure typically evokes an image of hard structures such
as stilling basins and drop structures. As discussed in the paper, hydraulic structures include any
landscape modification intended to achieve a desired watershed management objective.
Therefore, engineering treatments such as grassed waterways, diversions, and buffer strips are
also considered hydraulic structures. The objective of this article is to briefly discuss numerous
structural treatments that safely transport, impound, and control runoff water. Several current
structural challenges or needs are also described.
The use of a specific structural treatment involves consideration of the advantages and
disadvantages offered by that structure and the desired watershed management objective. The
designer appropriately applies engineering judgment to the structural type and location, as well
as the available manpower, equipment, materials, and money. As time passes, our knowledge of
structural treatments has evolved. Take for example the numerous channel alignment projects
completed in the past. The straightened channels had a higher bed slope, and many of these
channels exhibited bed degradation and bank stability problems as the channel attempted to
return to the original meandering configuration. We learned that consideration should be given to
the entire ecosystem of which a structure will be a part, and an appropriate treatment should
consider the long-term impact of the ecosystem in which it is placed.
Many structural treatments have been constructed, and numerous success stories exist.
While these treatments have had a significant impact on the landscape, structural challenges still
exist. In an era where available resources are never enough, the evaluation and application of

Contribution of the Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station. The authors are 1 Research Hydraulic Engineer with the Hydraulic
Engineering Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, Stillwater, OK, and 2 National Design Engineer with
the Conservation Engineering Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

1
alternative materials and innovative techniques are certainly important. While tremendous
opportunities exist for low-cost structures and bioengineering treatments, the traditional
treatments also represent viable and proven solutions.

Rigid or Semi -Rigid Structural Treatments

For discussion purposes treatments will be roughly divided into groups of rigid and
flexible structures. These are not hard and fast categories, and many examples exist that could
belo ng to both groups.

Flood Control Structures

The National Inventory of Dams (USACE 1996) identifies more than 74,000 dams in the
United States. USDA and particularly the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was
involved in the design of more than 25,000 of these structures. These structures typically address
the needs of the nation’s upstream, smaller rural watersheds. While typically smaller than the
dams constructed by the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation, these flood detention
structures have had a major impact on the landscape. These dams have brought about wide-
ranging positive benefits to rural America, such as flood control, sediment control, water supply,
fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation.
The first USDA project dam was built 50 years ago on the Cloud Creek Watershed in
Washita County, Oklahoma. Thus many of these structures have experienced a significant
portion of their design life. As these structures continue to age, several predicaments have been
identified. These structures were originally designed to meet low, intermediate, and high hazard
classification guidelines that affect the spillway capacity and the frequency of the storm they
were designed to impound. The hazard classification is largely determined by the risk a structure
poses to people and property downstream. Many of these dams have experienced downstream
development and encroachment that have increased their hazard classification. As an example of
the scope of the problem, Georgia has 141 high hazard NRCS project dams and 78 of these dams
were designed for low hazard conditions. Texas has 160 NRCS project dams that are currently
classified at a higher hazard level than their original design.
In addition to encroachment, many dams have filled with sediment, thereby reducing the
flood storage volume. The spillways would be expected to operate more frequently. In many
instances these sediments cannot simply be removed because they may contain trace amounts of
pesticides, herbicides, or other hazardous materials. Even with their flaws, flood detention
structures have done an excellent job of controlling runoff at the point of origin.

Flood Control Appurtenant Structures

Most of the flood detention structures were designed with a principal spillway and an
emergency spillway to safely discharge excess flood water through or around the dam. The

2
principal spillway slowly releases the
impounded flood pool to a downstream
channel via a conduit through the dam.
The spillway typically includes a trash
rack, inlet tower, conduit, a cantilevered
pipe outlet, and plunge pool. The trash
rack prevents flowing debris from
entering and plugging the principal
spillway. Gwinn (1976) provided design
information for a stepped baffle trash rack
design that has been widely used. The
stepped baffle (fig. 1), placed on top of an
inlet tower, is effective in preventing rigid
trash from entering the drop inlet while Figure 1. Stepped baffle trash rack
passing harmless non-plugging flexible trash. Water flows under each baffle, thereby retaining
the debris without plugging the inlet.
The inlet tower transfers water into a conduit that passes through the dam. This conduit
typically exits near the toe of the dam from a cantilevered pipe outlet into a riprap-lined plunge
pool. While the outlet energy may be dissipated with a stilling basin or an impact basin, the
cantilevered pipe outlet has been widely used. Blaisdell and Anderson (1989) describe the
cantilevered pipe outlet (fig. 2) and the plunge pool scour protection required. Rice and Kadavy
(1994a, 1994b) provide criteria for the design of a stable plunge pool for a range of tailwater
conditions.
The emergency or auxiliary
spillway safely transfers excess flood
water around the dam to protect it from
overtopping. This open channel is
normally constructed in native soil and
rock materials. The spillway surface is
Figure 2. Cantilevered pipe outlet typically vegetated to provide additional
erosion resistance. These grass-lined channels must be maintained to provide a uniform vegetal
cover that resists erosion from concentrated flow.

Stilling Basins
The energy of flowing water can be quite damaging, and a stilling basin is often used to
dissipate this energy The SAF stilling basin is a good example of an effective basin design.
Blaisdell (1959) provides generalized
design criteria for the SAF stilling basin.
This basin uses chute blocks, floor blocks,
and an end sill (fig. 3) to dissipate the flow
energy. The minimum design tailwater
must be maintained to ensure good
hydraulic performance of this structure. ilwood
Figure 3. SAF stilling basin

3
The SAF stilling basin is an excellent example of a hydraulic structure that can be applied to
numerous watershed management problems.
The SAF stilling basin is typically shorter than alternative stilling basin designs such as
the Bureau of Reclamation Type I, II, or III stilling basins (Peterka 1974). Therefore, the riprap
downstream of the SAF basin plays a critical role in the basin performance. Rice and Kadavy
(1992b) provide design guidance on placement and sizing of the riprap downstream of the SAF
stilling basin.

Grade Control Structures

Abrupt elevation changes or headcuts that migrate through rivers, streams, and channels
often require stabilization to prevent continued channel degradation. These structures are
typically divided into high and low drop structures depending on whether the ratio of the drop
height over the critical flow depth
(h/dc)is greater or less than unity.
High drop structures (h/dc > 1)
have performed well using a wide array
of treatments. The straight drop spillway
developed by Donnelly and Blaisdell
(1965) is an excellent example of a high
drop grade control structure (fig. 4). Figure 4. Straight drop stilling basin
Water flows over a vertical drop and
impacts a horizontal floor. The flow energy is dissipated by floor blocks, an end sill, and
tailwater. Design guidelines are provided
for the placement and sizing of riprap both
upstream (Rice and Kadavy 1992a) and
downstream of the straight drop (Rice and
Kadavy 1991).
Low drop structures (h/dc < 1) are
particularly challenging since the drop
Figure 5. Campbell Little grade control structure height is small and the structure can be
easily submerged. Little (1983) developed
a low drop design for a riprap structure
that made use of a baffle (fig. 5). Little noted that undular jumps were a problem at low drops,
and the baffle pier was used to break up this flow. These structures have a relatively large area
requirement, and recent work was performed by Rice and Kadavy (1998) to examine a structural
low drop (fig. 6) with a smaller area requirement. This structure is particularly well suited for
areas where land costs
are high, but it can be
used in all low drop
situations.

Figure 6. Structural low drop

4
 Alternative Structures
Alternative structures are typically proven structural designs that make use of alternative
materials. The application of timber and metal elements in these structures are often
accomplished to take advantage of a locally available material or to achieve a desired appearance.
The geometric dimensions of a traditional structure are maintained to ensure good hydraulic
performance. Timber elements offer a rustic appearance that may be desirable in an
environmentally sensitive area.
Metal structures such as corrugated metal or aluminum drop structures are relatively light
weight and can be installed comparatively quickly without large amounts of equipment and
skilled labor. Becker and Foster (1993) evaluated the hydraulic performance of semicircular inlet
drop structures. These structures are often used to prevent the formation and movement of gullies.
Rice and Gwinn (1981) performed a physical model study of a z-section sheet pile drop structure.
The sinuous crest length was used for low flow ratings, and the weir opening width was used for
high flow conditions. These are just a few examples of how metal materials can be adapted to a
structural treatment.
Gabion baskets or mattresses are another example of a widely used alternative structure.
These wire baskets are assembled on-site, placed in position, filled with stones, and then the
basket lids and adjoining baskets are laced together. These baskets provide a stable surface
treatment by retaining the stone material inside the wire grid. By stacking baskets in an
overlapping fashion, gabions can be used to construct traditional designs such as drop structures.
Obviously, flow conditions that threaten the wire, such as transport of large aggregates in the
flow, could also endanger the structure. While gabions require substantial manual labor to
assemble, these baskets are adaptable to a wide range of structural treatments. These wire
baskets are also flexible, so they can adjust to differential settlement.

Flexible Structural Treatments

Rock Chutes
A loose riprap structure or rock chute has been used to safely transfer water to a lower
elevation. Robinson et al. (1997, 1998) provides a design relationship that allows the calculation
of the highest stable discharge for a desired rock size and bed slope. Rice et al. (1998) also
provides a prediction equation for the Manning roughness coefficient as a function of rock size
and bed slope. Laboratory testing was conducted with angular riprap with a median size ranging
between 15 and 278 mm. A typical rock chute has a horizontal entrance section, a sloping chute,
and a horizontal exit reach (fig. 7). The stone is placed in a thickness equal to two times the
median stone diameter. Design guidance is provided for rock chute slopes between Entrance 2
and 40%. Rock chutes represent a safe, economical, and envrionmentally sensitive solution in
areas where stone is plentiful.

Precast Blocks
Numerous prefabricated blocks
have been developed to provide erosion

Figure 7. Rock chute

5
protection on slopes. These blocks range from simple concrete wall blocks placed in a grid with the
voids filled with gravel (Mitchell et al. 1987), to more sophisticated interlocking arrangements
and/or overlapping configurations (Clopper 1989). The interlocking and overlapping blocks are
typically patented and marketed as a proprietary system. These block systems appear to protect
the surface quite well, and some systems use vegetation to provide additional reinforcement.
Block systems are typically as strong as their weakest link, because removal of one stone could
cause the entire system to unravel. While these structures are particularly vulnerable to
vandalism, testing suggests that they should perform well when installed according to
manufacturer’s specifications.
Another group of block treatments use cables to tie the individual block elements together.
Then the perimeter cables are used to fasten groups of these cable-tied blocks together. These
systems typically are placed directly on a geofabric material that allows water to pass through but
retains the fine sediments. This filter material is a critical part of the design because loss of
subgrade material by erosion along the slope, or washout through joints and open cells, is a
dominant failure mechanism. Shallow slippage of the underlying embankment can also be caused
by the ingress of water beneath the block system (Clopper 1989). A drainage layer below the
block system is considered important to allow pressure relief.

Other Linings
The erosion control industry has produced numerous woven and nonwoven linings that
can be used to stabilize a site immediately after construction. Many of these materials also allow
for vegetation to grow through the lining material to provide additional surface reinforcement.
The erosion control industry is moving toward a generalized performance standard that should
make evaluating individual materials more reliable. Manufactured linings have a promising future
as erosion control treatments.

Soil Bioengineering Techniques

Soil bioengineering treatments are popular because they use natural materials for erosion
control that exist in harmony with the landscape. Environmentally sensitive erosion control
solutions are attractive to the landowner because of their natural appearance and additional
benefits, such as wildlife cover and vegetation growth.
Stream stabilization measures are in great demand, and bioengineering methods appear
well suited for this purpose. If the stream bed can be stabilized, then numerous bank stabilization
measures can be employed. Root wads, live fascines, and willow post plantings are typical
examples of bioengineering techniques. Soil bioengineering methods may be used with or without
riprap toe stabilization measures, By encouraging natural material growth, the root development
binds the bank materials to improve erosion resistance. Shade provided by a tree canopy
enhances biological diversity of aquatic species and provides improved habitat and cover for
wildlife. Soil bioengineering treatments are labor intensive and can be costly.
Soil bioengineering treatments can be used for a multitude of land management solutions
to provide additional erosion control. Buffer strips are relatively narrow strips of vegetal material
that are planted to slow runoff water, trap nutrients and sediment, and encourage infiltration.
These buffer strips can be used along riparian zones or within a field. A grassed waterway

6
provides erosion protection where surface flows concentrate. Shelterbelts or windbreaks provide
protection against wind erosion. Living snow fences can help manage snow deposits to protect
buildings and roads. Grass strips can be placed on contours to minimize sediment transport from
agricultural fields. The treatments are numerous, but the objectives are the same: improve and
protect groundwater and surface water quality, reduce erosion on cropland and streambanks, and
provide protection and cover for livestock, wildlife, and fish (USDA 1997).

Structural Challenges
While traditional structural treatments remain in demand, new structural challenges often
arise. In some instances existing structural treatments can be adapted to meet the new
requirements. The proven methods and the new techniques will need to be filly exploited to
provide safe, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly structural treatments.
As previously mentioned, thousands of the flood retention structures are reaching their
design life, and in many of these structures the sediment pool is filled. Additional sediment
deposition will reduce the flood storage volume, and the spillways operate more frequently. A
method of passing sediment through the existing principal spillway is needed. In many instances
these sediments cannot simply be removed because they may contain trace amounts of pesticides,
herbicides, or other hazardous materials. A method of removing these sediments and turning them
into an asset instead of a liability is also needed.
As flood detention structures experience downstream encroachment, the spillway capacity
must be increased to handle a larger runoff events. Allowable embankment overtopping is being
investigated as a possible method of increasing discharge capacity. The top of the dam would be
leveled to ensure a low flow rate over the entire embankment length. The vegetation on the slope
would play an important role in protecting the embankment surface. Additional protection at the
toe of the slope may be needed to minimize erosion damage.
In some instances the design life of a structure may have occured, and decommissioning
the structure may be a viable alternative. While any number of reasons could require the removal
of a dam, the fact remains that little experience exists concerning dam removal. The impounded
sediments could be flushed downstream, but eliminating flood storage would pose a risk to
downstream people and property. As more structures reach their design life, additional information
is needed concerning the decommissioning of structures.
New materials need to be fully exploited for structural purposes. Alternative materials and
low-cost structures are sorely needed that will provide safe and reliable structural treatments.

Summary
A brief description of structural treatments for erosion and flood control is presented. The
applicability of rigid, semi-rigid, and flexible hydraulic structures to past, present, and future
problems is discussed. Success stories, and problem areas are presented along with future
challenges. In an era where resources are shrinking, the evaluation and application of alternative
materials and innovative techniques are certainly important. Tremendous opportunities exist for
low-cost structures and bioengineering treatments, but the traditional treatments also represent
viable and proven solutions.

7
References
Becker, S. M. and G. R. Foster. 1993. Hydraulics of semicircular-inlet drop structures.
Transactions of the ASAE 36(4): 1131-1139.

Blaisdell, F. W., 1959. The SAF stilling basin. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Agriculture
Handbook 156. l6 pp.

Blaisdell, F. W. and C. L. Anderson. 1989. Scour at cantilevered pipe outlets: Plunge pool
energy dissipator design criteria. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., ARS-76.

Clopper, P. E. 1989. Hydraulic stability of articulated concrete block revetment systems during
overtopping flow. Fed. Highway Admin. Publication No. FHWA-RD-89-199.

Donnelly, C. A. and F. W. Blaisdell. 1965. Straight drop spillway stilling basin. J. of the Hyd.
Div., ASCE 91(HY3):101-145.

Gwinn, W. R. 1976. Stepped baffled trash rack for drop inlets. Transactions of the ASAE
19(1):97-104.

Little, W. C. 1983. Stilling basin design for low drop structures. ASAE Paper No. 83-2115. St.
Joseph, Mich. ASAE.

Mitchell, J. K., J. L. Evans, and J. Kellerman. 1987. Hydraulic performance of concrete block
chutes. ASAE Paper No. 87-2056. St. Joseph, Mich. ASAE.

Peterka, A. J. 1974. Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipators. Engineering
Monograph No. 25. Washington, D.C., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Rice, C. E. and W. R. Gwinn. 1981. Rating of z-section, steel-sheet piling drop structures.
Transactions of the ASAE 24(1): 107-112.

Rice, C. E. and K. C. Kadavy. 1991. Riprap design downstream of straight drop spillways.
Transactions of the ASAE 34(4): 1715-1725

Rice, C. E. and K. C. Kadavy. 1992a. Riprap design upstream of straight drop spillways.
Transactions of the ASAE 35(1): 113-119.

Rice, C. E. and K. C. Kadavy. 1992b. Riprap design for SAF stilling basins. Transactions of the
ASAE 35(6)1817-1825.

Rice, C. E. and K. C. Kadavy. 1994a. Riprap design downstream of submerged pipe outlets.
Transactions of the ASAE 37(1):85-94.

8
Rice, C. E. and K. C. Kadavy. 1994b. Plunge pool design at submerged pipe spillway outlets.
Transactions of the ASAE 37(4): 1167-1173

Rice, C. E. and K. C. Kadavy. 1998. Low-drop grade-control structure. Transactions of the

ASAE (In Press).

Rice, C. E., K. C. Kadavy, and K. M. Robinson. 1998. Roughness of loose rock riprap on steep
slopes. J. of Hydr. Eng., ASCE 124(2):179-185.

Robinson, K. M., C. E. Rice, and K. C. Kadavy. 1997. Rock chutes for grade control. In S. S.
Y. Wang, E. J. Langendoen, and F. D. Shields, Jr. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, 19-23 May 1997, Center for
Computational Hydrosciences and Engineering, Univ. of Mississippi.

Robinson, K. M., K. C. Kadavy, and C. E. Rice. 1998. Design of rock chutes. Transactions of
the ASAE (In Press).

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. National Inventory of Dams, Updated Data:
1995-96.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1997. Buffers: Common-sense conservation. USDA

Brochure 1997-576-666.