performance of three innovative levee strengthening
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Performance of Three Innovative
Levee Strengthening Systems under
Full-Scale Overtopping Testing and
Design Guidelines
Farshad Amini, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE
Professor & Chair
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Jackson State University
October 23, 2014
Congressional Delegation Visit
![Page 2: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Problems Addressed
• Levees are subjected to overtopping, causing
significant damage. Prevention methods
against overtopping must be developed.
• This project addresses innovative methods to
strengthen the crest and landside slope from
erosive forces of overtopping flows.
LeveeCombined Wave and Storm Surge Overtopping
Landside
slope
Crest
![Page 3: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Research Objectives
• To determine the effectiveness of three
innovative levee strengthening systems
during full-scale overtopping conditions
simulating waves or combined wave and
storm surge.
– High performance turf reinforcement mat
– Articulated concrete block system
– Roller compacted concrete
![Page 4: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Capabilities
• JSU is the leader in the area of Levee
Overtopping with more than 40
publications, many in top engineering
journals.
• Received 1.45 M from DHS for research
• Full Scale Testing
• Numerical Modeling
• Slope Stability Analysis
![Page 5: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
High Performance Turf
Reinforcement Mats (HPTRM)
• The HPTRMs have extremely
high tensile strengths, and
use a unique matrix of
polypropylene yarns and fiber
technology specially created
to lock soil in place.
HPTRM
![Page 6: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Articulated Concrete Block
System (ACB)
• An ACB system is a matrix of machine compressed individual concrete blocks assembled to form a large mat.
• Blocks are 10 to 23 cm thick and 929 to 1858 cm2
in plan with openings penetrating the entire block.
![Page 7: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Roller Compacted Concrete
• RCC is formed by mixture of controlled-gradation aggregate, Portland cement, mixed with water and then compacted by a roller.
![Page 8: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Full Scale Testing at OSU
• Full-scale overtopping test bed in 104-m wave flume
• Unsteady flow consisting of wave and/or combined wave and surge.
Land-side slope
Land-side slope
Land-side slope
Land-side slope
Rc (negative)
SWL
SWL
SWL
SWL
Rc
Rc (negative)
Hs Hs
Hs
(a) Surge-only overflow (Rc < 0) (b) Wave-only overtopping (Rc > 0)
(c) Wave-only overtopping (Rc = 0) (d) Combined wave and surge overtopping (Rc < 0)
1m
1m
1m
1m
w
![Page 9: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Levee Embankment Section
13.87 m
Crest
1
3
Water-side slope Land-side slope
3.25 m
9.75 m2.57 m
14.25
2.57 m 9.75 m
3.25 m
Vegetated HPTRM
Metal Tray
Metal Tray
CrestLandside-
slope
![Page 10: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
1. Bermuda Seed Apply
2. After 3 wks
3. After 10 wks – 7”
4. Heat & Light Enhanced
Vegetated HPTRM Setup and Maintenance
![Page 11: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Levee Embankment in Large Wave Flume at OSU
• Physical model was set up at full scale (1:1)
• LWF is 104 m (L) x 3.66 m (W) x 4.57 m (H) with a unidirectional piston
wave maker for up to 1.6 m wave height.
4.57 mWave
maker
9.75 m13.87 m 2.57 m
311
4.25
3.25
m
Wave and surge
overtopping
Water-side
slope3.66 m
Side View
44.3 m
Wave
maker2.33 m
Cre
st Land-side
slope
Top View
17 m
9.75 m13.87 m 2.57 m44.3 m 17 m
![Page 12: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Setup of Hydraulic Instrumentation
Surface-piercing wire wave gage
4.57
m
Wave
maker
44.3 m
Acoustic range finder
Land-side slope
0.9 m1.2 m
1.2 m
2.4 m
5.4 m
Normal ADVSide ADV
Acoustic range finder
5 wave gages,
6 acoustic range
finders,
8 ADV
Sampling at 50 Hz
![Page 13: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Hydraulic Tests at RCC Test Section
Nine Surge-Only Overtopping Tests
Six Wave-Only Overtopping Tests
Seven Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping Tests
Combined overtopping
(Hm0 = 0.7 m, Tp = 7 s, Rc = -0.24 m
![Page 14: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Hydraulic Tests at ACB Test Section
One Surge-Only Overtopping Test
Three Wave-Only Overtopping Tests
Four Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping Tests
Combined overtopping
(Hm0 = 0.6 m, Tp = 5 s, Rc = -0.27 m
Laser beam
![Page 15: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
HPTRM Metal Tray Installation
1. Flat-bed Truck Delivered
3. Installed in LWF
4. Light & Heat Controlled
2. Crane Lift
![Page 16: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Hydraulic Tests at HPTRM Test Section
One Surge-Only Overtopping Test
Three Wave-Only Overtopping Tests
Five Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping Tests
Combined overtopping
(Hm0 = 0.85 m, Tp = 5 s, Rc = -0.26 m
![Page 17: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
440 445 450 455 460 465 470 475 4800
0.5
1
1.5
t, s
qw
s,
m3/s
/m
440 445 450 455 460 465 470 475 4800
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
t, s
flow
thic
kness,
m
440 445 450 455 460 465 470 475 480-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
t, s
wate
r surf
ace,
m
Combined wave and
surge overtopping Trial1
of RCC tests
(measured flow thickness at crest)
(measured water surface)
(calculated avg. overtopping discharge)
(Rc = -0.29 m, Hm0 = 0.41 m, Tp = 3.4 s)
Hydraulic Data
Analysis
![Page 18: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
qw
s/(
gH
m03)1
/2
Rc/Hm0
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Europe manual (2007)
Reeve et al. (2008)
Dimensionless Average Wave/Surge
Overtopping Discharge vs. Relative Freeboard
Results
0 R 53.0034.0
58.1
03
0
c
m
c
m
ws forH
R
gH
q
Peak wave period (Tp) had negligible influence on the determination of qws
(Hughes and Nadal 2009)
![Page 19: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 010
-1
100
101
102
Rc/H
m0
qw
s/q
s
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Best fit qws
/qs=36.12exp(19.59R
c/H
m0)+1
When Rc < -0.3 Hm0, qws qs (surge-dominated cases)
When Rc > -0.3 Hm0, qws > qs (wave-dominated cases)
Relative Average Wave/Surge Overtopping
Discharge to Surge-Only Discharge vs.
Relative Freeboard
qws = qs
At higher freeboard, discharge equivalence
At lower freeboard, wave overtopping is more influential
![Page 20: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
Average discharge - qw s , m3/s/m
Ave
rag
e d
isch
arg
e fro
m W
eib
ull -
q w
s ,
m3/s
/m
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Distribution of Individual Wave/Surge
Overtopping Discharge
Best fit Weibull cumulative
Probability
distribution
b
c
qqqP *
* exp1)(
![Page 21: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02 0.022
Overtopping parameter - qws/(gHm0Tp)
Weib
ull
shape f
acto
r -
b
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Best fit RCC
Best fit ACB
Best fit HPTRM
RCC ACB HPTRM
0.43
0
6.93( )ws
m p
qb
gH T 0.41
0
6.90( )ws
m p
qb
gH T 0.42
0
8.30( )ws
m p
qb
gH T
Best-fit equation for Weibull shape
factor b for all the tests
![Page 22: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
qws
Tp
We
ibu
ll S
ca
le p
ara
me
ter
- c v
Surge-dominated cases
Wave-dominated cases
Best fit curve
Distribution of Individual Wave Volume for
Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping
Best fit Weibull cumulative
Probability
distribution
Vb
Vc
VVVP *
* exp1)(
0.79v ws pc q T
RCC test section
![Page 23: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
qs , m3/s/m
(gd
s3)1
/2 , m
2/s
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
kd=0.1732
kd=0.2365
kd=0.3076
Steady Flow Thickness on Landward-side
Slope for Surge-only Overflow
![Page 24: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
qws - m3/s/m
(gd
m3)1
/2 -
m2/s
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
RCC surge
ACB surge
HPTRM surge
Average Flow Thickness on Landward-side Slope for
Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping
![Page 25: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Average Flow Thickness Equivalency between Surge-only
Overflow and Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
ds
dm
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Best fit
1.174m sd d
![Page 26: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0
Rc/Hm0
v ws/
v s
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Best fit
Average Flow Velocity Equivalency between Surge-only Overflow
and Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping
0
/ 3.35exp(13.59 ) 1cws s
m
Rv v
H
![Page 27: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Measured H1/100
, m
Ra
yle
igh
H1
/10
0, m
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Distribution of
Waves on the
Landside Slope
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Measured H1/10
, m
Ra
yle
igh
H1
/10, m
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Measured H1/3
, m
Ra
yle
igh
H1
/3, m
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Rayleigh Distribution of
characteristic wave heights
![Page 28: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0
1
2
3
4
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Rc/Hm0
Hrm
s/(-
Rc)
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Best fit
Estimation of Hrms on Landward-side Slope
0.662
0
0.359( )rms c
c m
H R
R H
![Page 29: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
(gqws)1/3, m/s
Wave fro
nt velo
city
, m
/s
RCC
ACB
HPTRM
Best fit
Wave Front Velocity on Landward-side Slope
1/3
wv =4.33( )wsgq
![Page 30: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
4ft4ft
8ftarea1
area2area3
area4
8.42ft
8ft
area5
Deep
erosion
13%
Shallow
erosion
16%
No
erosion
71%
Deep
erosion
1%
Shallow
erosion
17%
No
erosion
82%
Erosion
Results
of RCC
Test
Section
No
erosion
77%
Shallow
erosion
3%Deep
erosion
20%
Area3
![Page 31: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Settlement or Uplift Data for ACB Tests
after 90 min combined wave
overtopping and surge overflow
with Rc = -0.18 m, Hm0 = 0.69
m and Tp = 4.94 s
after 90 min combined wave overtopping
and surge overflow with Rc = -0.21 m, Hm0 =
0.64 m and Tp = 4.85 s
after 6 hr combined wave overtopping
and surge overflow with Rc = -0.27 m,
Hm0 = 0.59 m and Tp = 4.86 s
![Page 32: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Erosion Data of HPTRM Tests
Cre
st
Te
st-s
ec
tion
1'
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
C4
C2
C3
2'
S9 2'
S10 2'
S11 2'
S12
La
nd
sid
e s
lop
e
13
'5"
2
L1
L2
L3
L4
14
"
5"
27
"
4"
17
"
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X XX X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
Cross flume, ft
Alo
ng
flu
me
,ft
(0in
dic
ate
scre
st
ed
ge
)
0 1 2 3 4 5
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Erosion
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X XX X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
Cross flume, ft
Alo
ng
flu
me
,ft
(0in
dic
ate
scre
st
ed
ge
)
0 1 2 3 4 5
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Erosion
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
12.25 After wave test2 12.25 After combined test1
(1) Elevation measurement
(inch) (inch)
![Page 33: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Soil erosion rate versus overtopping velocity
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
vws, m/s
Soil
loss r
ate
, m
m/h
r
P1
P3
P4
P5
Crest
Test-section
0.3m
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
C4
C2
C3
S9
S1
0
S1
1
S1
2
Landward-side slope
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
ed
ge
L1
L2
L3
L4
0.36m
Counting
Point 1Counting
Point 2
0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m0.6m 0.6m 0.6m
0.13m
0.69m
0.10m
0.43m
![Page 34: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
vw sRc/Hm0, m/s
So
il lo
ss, m
m
1.5hr
3hr
4.5hr
6hr1.5hr
3hr 4.5hr
6hr
Estimation for Erosion of Different Time Duration
HPTRM section
![Page 35: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Improvement of Soil Erodibility
• Soil erodibility: relationship between the erosion rate and
the shear stress at the soil-water interface.
• Measured with Erosion Function Apparatus (EFA) by
Dr. Briaud Group at Texas A & M University.
![Page 36: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Measurement of Soil Erodibility
![Page 37: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Soil Erodibility Improvement
From Very high/high
erodibility decrease to
Medium/low erodibility
(HPTRM system)
(clay + dormant grass)
![Page 38: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Soil Erodibility Improvement
From Very high/high
erodibility decrease to
Medium erodibility
(clay + dormant grass)
(HPTRM system)
![Page 39: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Design Parameters for Three Levee
Strengthening Systems
• Under combined wave and surge overtopping, strengthening levees in crest and landward-side slopes with:– HPTRM can withstand wave overtopping of 0.2 m3/s-
m, where Dutch guideline is 0.01 m3/s-m for good quality grass cover (TAW 1989).
– RCC can withstand wave overtopping of 0.34 m3/s-m, where Goda (1985) suggested 0.05 m3/s-m for concrete protected side slopes.
– ACB can withstand wave overtopping of 0.17 m3/s-m
![Page 40: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Empirical Equations for Three Levee
Strengthening Systems Design under Surge-
only Overflow Conditions
Design parameters Empirical equations developed by this study
steady overflow d ischarge q s 3/ 2
1s fq C gh where Cf is 0.5445 for RCC, 0.4438 for ACB, and
0.415for HPTRM strengthened levees.
average flow thickness d s on
landward -side slope
3
s
d
s
gdk
q , where kd is 0.1732 for RCC, 0.2365 for ACB, and 0.3076
for HPTRM strengthened levees.
steady flow velocity v s on
landward -side slope 1s vv k gh , where kv is 2.628 for RCC, 1.995 for ACB and 1.637 for
HPTRM strengthened levees.
![Page 41: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Empirical Equations for Three Levee
Strengthening Systems Design under Combined
Wave and Surge Overtopping ConditionsDesign parameters Empirical equations developed by this study
dimensionless average
wave overtopping
d ischarge qws/ qs 0
/ 36.12exp(19.59 ) 1cws s
m
Rq q
H
distributions of
instantaneous
overtopping d ischarge
**( ) 1 exp[( ) ]bq
P q qc
, where c can be calculated by , b
can be calculated by where is 6.93 for RCC, 6.9 for
ACB and 8.3 for HPTRM strengthened levees, and Γ is the gamma
function.
average flow thickness
d m on landward -side
slope
1.174m sd d
average flow velocity vws
on landward -side slope 0
/ 3.35exp(13.59 ) 1cws s
m
Rv v
H
Distribution of wave
heights on landward -
side slope
1/3 1.416 rmsH H , 1/10 1.80 rmsH H , 1/100 2.36 rmsH H
![Page 42: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Empirical Equations for Three Levee
Strengthening Systems Design under Combined
Wave and Surge Overtopping ConditionsDesign parameters Empirical equations developed by this study
Wave front velocity vw
on landward -side slope
1/3
wv =4.33( )wsgq
Root-mean-square of
shear stress t,rms on
landward -side slope
, 0.0547t rms w mh for HPTRM strengthened levee
Distribution of shear
stress on landward -side
slope
t,1/3 t,rms0.976 , t,1/10 t,rms2.36 ,
t,1/100 t,rms7.04 for HPTRM
strengthened levee
Maximum soil loss
depth Emax, in mm max 11.23 16.24wsE v for HPTRM strengthened levee, where vws is
the average overtopping flow velocity in m/ s
Erosion rate E in mm/ hr 5.3 9.3wsE v for HPTRM strengthened levee
Erosion rate E in mm/ hr 4.44
0
0.394+0.735( )cws
m
RE v
H
![Page 43: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Summary & Conclusions• Effectiveness of HPTRM, RCC, and ACB were
investigated with full-scale overtopping tests.
• HPTRM, RCC, and ACB can significantly decrease the flow velocity on landward-side slope.
• Average overtopping discharges are HPTRM < ACB <
RCC for the same hydraulic conditions.
– For Rc/Hm0 < -0.3, qws/qs is close to 1.
– For -0.3 < Rc/Hm0 < 0, qws/qs increases sharply with -Rc/Hm0
• Average flow thicknesses on landward-side slope are
RCC < ACB < HPTRM for the same overtopping
discharge
– dm/ds = 1.174
![Page 44: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Summary & Conclusions• Average flow velocities are HPTRM < ACB < RCC for the same
overtopping discharge
– For Rc/Hm0 < -0.3, vws/vs is close to 1.
– For -0.3 < Rc/Hm0 < 0, vws/vs increases sharply with -Rc/Hm0
• Wave front velocities are HPTRM < ACB < RCC for the same
relative freeboard.
• HPTRM system has the best effect in reducing overtopping
discharge and wave front velocity on landward-side slope, while
RCC has the least effect.
• Flow equivalency shows that the impact of wave on overtopping
parameters weakens with an increase in the negative relative
freeboard.
• The maximum erosion depth in HPTRM test section is mainly
impacted by overtopping flow velocity.
![Page 45: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
Summary & Conclusions• After the maximum soil loss is reached, the relationship between
erosion rate and average overtopping flow velocity is approximately
linear.
• Both the grass roots and HPTRM can increase the critical velocity
by 1 m/s. The erodibility of the soil is lowered from high erodibility to
median erodibility by both the grass roots and HPTRM.
• HPTRM can strengthen the clay levee by increasing the threshold
value of both flow velocity and shear stress.
• Aside from the surface erosion, the RCC remained intact throughout
all of the experimental tests, and there was no catastrophic failure in
the RCC test section.
• According to this full-scale overtopping test, the crest and landward-
side slope strengthened by HPTRM, RCC and ACB can withstand
wave overtopping of 0.2, 0.34, and 0.17 m3/s/m, respectively in the
combined wave and surge overtopping conditions.
![Page 46: Performance of Three Innovative Levee Strengthening](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022053020/6291558fb94afc08ca10feb8/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy – Supporting the Department of Homeland Security
THE END