Highway Design Manual 870-3

July 1, 2020

Limits. Horizontal and vertical limits of protection should be carefully designed. The bottom
limit should be secure against toe scour. The top limit should not arbitrarily be at high-water
mark, but above it if overtopping would cause excessive damage and below it if floods move
slowly along the upper bank. The end limits should reach and conform to durable natural
features or be secure with respect to design parameters.

Table 872.1

Guide to Selection of Protection

Armor Training
Flexible Rigid Bendway
Check
Guide Banks Weirs and
Mattresses Dams
Spurs
Location

Conc. Lined
Conc. Rock

Bulk Heads
Vegetation

Gabions
Rip Rap

Grouted

Grouted
Conc. F

Other

Other
Piling

Piling

Piling
Earth
Cribs
Rock

Rock

Rock

Rock
Drop
Cross Channel
Young Valley X X X X X
Mature Valley X X X X X X X X X X X X
Parallel Encroachment
Young Valley X X X X X
Mature Valley X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Desert-wash
Top debris cone X X X X X
Center debris cone X X X X X
Bottom debris cone X X X X X
Overflow and X X X X X X
Floodplain
Artificial Channel or X X X X X X
Roadside Ditch X X
(Ch. 860)
Culvert
Inlet X X X
Outlet X X X
Bridge
Abutment X X X
Upstream X X X X X X
Downstream X X X X X X X X X

871.3 Selected References

Hydraulic and drainage related publications are listed by source under Topic 807. References
specifically related to slope protection measures are listed here for convenience.
(a) FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circulars (HEC) The following seven circulars were
developed to assist the designer in using various types of slope protection and channel
linings:
Highway Design Manual 870-29
July 1, 2020

measures. The Caltrans Bank and Shore Protection Committee is available on request to
provide advice on extraordinary situations or problems and to provide evaluation and formal
approvals for acceptable non-standard designs. See Index 802.3 for further information on the
organization and functions of the Committee.
Combinations of armor-type protection can be used, the slope revetment being of one type and
the foundation treatment of another. The use of rigid, non-flexible slope revetment may require
a flexible, self-adjusting foundation for example: concreted-rock on the slope with heavy rock
foundation below, or PCC slope paving with a steel sheet-pile cutoff wall for foundation.
Bank protection may be damaged while serving its primary purpose. Lower cost replaceable
facilities may be more economical than expensive permanent structures. However, an
expensive structure may be economically warranted for highways carrying large volumes of
traffic or for which no detour is available.
Cost of stone is extremely sensitive to location. Variables are length of haul, efficiency of the
quarry in producing acceptable sizes, royalty to quarry and, necessity for stockpiling and
rehandling. On some projects the stone may be available in roadway excavation.

873.2 Design High Water and Hydraulics

The most important, and often the most perplexing obligation, in the design of bank and shore
protection features is the determination of the appropriate design high water elevation to be
used. The design flood stage elevation should be chosen that best satisfies site conditions and
level of risk associated with the encroachment. The basis for determining the design frequency,
velocity, backwater, and other limiting factors should include an evaluation of the consequences
of failure on the highway facility and adjacent property. Stream stability and sediment transport
of a watercourse are critical factors in the evaluation process that should be carefully weighted
and documented. Designs should not be based on an arbitrary storm or flood frequency.
A suggested starting point of reference for the determination of the design high water level is
that the protection withstands high water levels caused by meteorological conditions having a
recurrence interval of one-half the service life of the protected facility. For example, a modern
highway embankment can reasonably be expected to have a service life of 100 years or more.
It would therefore be appropriate to base the preliminary evaluation on a high water elevation
resulting from a storm or flood with a 2 percent probability of exceedance (50 year frequency of
recurrence). The first evaluation may have to be adjusted, either up or down, to conform with
a subsequent analysis which considers the importance of the encroachment and level of related
risks which may include consideration of historic high water marks and climate change. Scour
countermeasures protecting structures designed by the Division of Engineering Services (DES)
may include consideration of floods greater than a 1 percent probability of exceedance (100
year frequency of recurrence).
There is always some risk associated with the design of protection features. Special attention
must be given to life threatening risks such as those associated with floodplain encroachments.
Significant floodplain risks are classified as those having probability of:
Catastrophic failure with loss of life.
Disruption of fire and ambulance services or closing of the only evacuation route available
to a community.
870-30 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

Refer to Topic 804, Floodplain Encroachments, for further discussion on evaluation of risks and
impacts.
(1) Streambank Locations. The velocity along the banks of watercourses with smooth or
uniformly rough tangent reaches may only be a small percentage of the average stream
velocity. However, local irregularities of the bank and streambed may cause turbulence that
can result in the bank velocity being greater than that of the central thread of the stream.
The location of these irregularities is not always permanent as they may be caused by local
scour, deposition of rock and sand, or stranding of drift during high water changes. It is
rarely economical to protect against all possibilities and therefore some damage should
always be anticipated during high water stages.
Essential to the design of streambank protection is sufficient information on the
characteristics of the watercourse under consideration. For proper analysis, information on
the following types of watercourse characteristics must be developed or obtained:
Design Discharge
Design High Water Level
Flow Types
Channel Geometry
Flow Resistance
Sediment Transport
Refer to Chapter 810, Hydrology, for a general discussion on hydrologic analysis and
specifically to Topic 817, Flood Magnitudes; Topic 818, Flood Probability and Frequency;
and Topic 819, Estimating Design Discharge. For a detailed discussion on the fundamentals
of alluvial channel flow, refer to Chapter 3, HDS No. 6, and to Chapter 4, HDS No. 6, for
further information on sediment transport.
(2) Ocean & Lake Shore Locations. Refer to Chapter 880 for information needed to design
shore protection.

873.3 Armor Protection

(1) General. Armor is the artificial surfacing of bed, banks, shore or embankment to resist
erosion or scour. Armor devices can be flexible (self-adjusting) or rigid.
Hard armoring of stream banks, primarily with rock slope protection (RSP), has been the
most common means of providing long-term protection for transportation facilities, and most
importantly, the traveling public. With many years of use, dozens of formal studies and
thousands of constructed sites, RSP is the armor type for which there exists the most
quantifiable data on performance, constructability, maintainability and durability, and for
which there exist several nationally recognized design methods.
Due to the above factors, RSP is the general standard against which other forms of armoring
are compared.
The results of internal research led to the publication of Report No. FHWA-CA-TL-95-10,

methodology for RSP design adopted as the Departmental standard for many years, was
the California Bank and Shore, (CaBS), layered design. The CaBS layered design
methodology and its associated gradations have become obsolete. For reference only, the
full report is available at the following website:
Highway Design Manual 870-31
July 1, 2020

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hydrology/hydroidx.htm.
FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23 (HEC 23) presents guidelines for RSP for a
range of applications, including: RSP on streams and river banks, bridge piers and
abutments, and bridge scour countermeasures such as guide banks and spurs. These
guidelines were formally adopted by the Caltrans Bank and Shore Protection Committee
with a modified version of HEC 23 gradations. See Tables 873.3A and 873.3B as well as
HEC 23, Volume 1, Chapter 5 and Design Guideline 4, 5, 11, 12, 15 and 16 from Volume 2.
Section 72 of the Standard Specifications provides all construction and material
specifications for RSP designs. While standards (i.e., Standard Plans, Standard
(most notably for gabions, but also for certain rolled or mat-style erosion control products),
their primary application is for relatively flat slope or shallow ditch erosion control (gabions
are also used as an earth retaining structure, see Topic 210 for more details).
Rigid and other armor types listed below are viable and may be considered where conditions
warrant. Although the additional step of headquarters approval of any nonstandard designs
is required, designers are encouraged to consider alternative designs, particularly those that
incorporate vegetation or products naturally present in stream environments. The District
Landscape Architect can provide design assistance together with specifications and details
for the vegetative portion of this work.
(a) Flexible Types.
Rock slope protection.
Gabions, Standard Plan D100A and D100B.
Precast concrete articulated blocks.
(b) Rigid Types.
Concreted-rock slope protection.
Partially-grouted rock slope protection.
Sacked concrete slope protection.
Concrete filled cellular mats.
(2) Bulkheads. The bulkhead types are steep or vertical structures, like retaining walls, that
support natural slopes or constructed embankments which include the following:
Gravity or pile supported concrete or masonry walls.
Crib walls
Sheet piling
(a) General Design Criteria. In selecting the type of flexible or rigid armor protection to use
the following characteristics are important design considerations.
(1) The lower limit, or toe, of armor should be below anticipated scour or on bedrock. If
for any reason this is not economically feasible, a reasonable degree of security can
be obtained by placement of additional quantities of heavy rock at the toe which can
settle vertically as scour occurs.
(2) In the case of slope paving or any expensive revetment which might be seriously
damaged by overtopping and subsequent erosion of underlying embankment,
extension above design high water may be warranted. The usual limit of extension
for streambank protection above design high water is 1 foot to 2 feet in unconstricted
reaches and 2 feet to 3 feet in constricted reaches.
870-32 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

(3) The upstream terminal can be determined best by observation of existing conditions
and/or by measuring velocities along the bank. The terminal should be located to
conform to outcroppings of erosion-resistant materials, trees, shrubs or other
indications of stability.
In general, the upstream terminal on bends in the stream will be some distance
upstream from the point of impingement or the beginning of curve where the effect of
erosion is no longer damaging.
(4) When possible, the downstream terminal should be made downstream from the end
of the curve and against outcroppings, erosion-resistant materials, or returned
securely into the bank so as to prevent erosion by eddy currents and velocity changes
occurring in the transition length.
(5) The encroachment of embankment into the stream channel must be considered with
respect to its effect on the conveyance of the stream and possible damaging effect
on properties upstream due to backwater and downstream due to increased stream
velocity or redirected stream flow.
(6) A smooth surface will generally accelerate velocity along the bank, requiring
additional treatment (e.g., extended transition, cut-off wall, etc.) at the downstream
terminal. Rougher surfaces tend to keep the thread of the stream toward the center
of the channel.
(7) Heavy-duty armor used in exposures along the ocean shore may be influenced or
dictated by economics, or the feasibility of handling heavy individual units.
(3) Flexible Revetments.
(a) Streambank Rock Slope Protection.
(1) General Features. This kind of protection, commonly called riprap, consists of rock
courses placed upon the embankment or the natural slope along a stream. Rock, as
a slope protection material, has a number of desirable features which have led to its
widespread application.
It is usually the most economical type of revetment where stones of sufficient size
and quality are available, it also has the following advantages:
It is flexible and is not impaired nor weakened by slight movement of the
embankment resulting from settlement or other minor adjustments.
Local damage or loss is easily repaired by the addition of similar sized rock where
required.
Construction is not complicated and special equipment or construction practices
are not usually necessary. (Note that Method A placement of very large rock may
require large cranes or equipment with special lifting capabilities).
Appearance is natural, and usually acceptable in recreational and scenic areas.
If exposed to fresh water, vegetation may be induced to grow through the rocks
adding structural value to the embankment material and restoring natural
roughness. See Index 873.3(3)(a)(2)(d) for further vegetative rock slope
protection information.
Additional thickness (i.e., mounded toe design) can be provided at the toe to offset
possible scour when it is not feasible to found it upon bedrock or below anticipated
scour.
It is salvageable, may be stockpiled and reused if necessary.
Highway Design Manual 870-33
July 1, 2020

In designing the rock slope protection for a given embankment the following
determinations are to be made for the typical section.
Depth at which the stones are founded (bottom of toe trench).
Elevation at the top of protection.
Thickness of protection.
Need for geotextile or rock filter material.
Face slope.
(a) Placement. Two different methods of placement for rock slope protection are
allowed under Section 72 of the Standard Specifications: Placement under
Method A requires considerable care, judgment, and precision and is
consequently more expensive than Method B. Method A should be specified
primarily where large rock is required, but also for relatively steeper slopes.
(b) Foundation Treatment. The foundation excavation must afford a stable base on
bedrock or extend below anticipated scour.
Terminals of revetments are often destroyed by eddy currents and other
turbulence because of nonconformance with natural banks. Terminals should be
secured by transitions to stable bank formations, or the end of the revetment
should be reinforced by returns of thickened edges.
While a significant amount of research is currently being conducted, few methods
exist for estimating scour along stream banks. One of the few is the method
contained in HEC 23 Volume 1, Index 4.3.5 and the CHANLPRO Program
developed by the U.S.

Experiment Station, the program is primarily used by the Corps for RSP designs
on streams with 2 percent or lesser gradients, but contains an option for scour
depth estimates in bends for sand channels. CHANLPRO is available at the
following USACE website: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a351838.pdf
along with a user guide containing equations, charts, assumptions and limitations
to the method and example problems.
(c) Embankment Considerations. Embankment material is not normally carried out
over the rock slope protection so that the rock becomes part of the fill. With this
type of construction fill material can filter down through the voids of the large
stones and that portion of the fill above the rocks could be lost. If it is necessary
to carry embankment material out over the rock slope protection a geotextile is
required to prevent the loses of fill material.
The embankment fill slope is usually determined from other considerations such
as the angle of repose for embankment material, or the normal 1V:4H specified
for high-standard roads. If the necessary size of rock for the given exposure is
not locally available, consideration should be given to flattening of the
embankment slope to allow a smaller size stone, or substitution of other types of
protection. On high embankments, alternate sections on several slopes should
be compared, practically and economically; flatter slopes require smaller stones
in thinner sections, but at the expense of longer slopes, a lower toe elevation,
increased embankment, and perhaps additional right of way.
Where the roadway alignment is fixed, slope flattening will often increase
embankment encroachment into the stream. When such an encroachment is
environmentally or technically undesirable, the designer should consider various
870-34 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

vertical, or near vertical, wall type alternatives to provide adequate stream width,
allowing natural channel migration and the opportunity for enhancing habitat.
(d) Rock Slope Protection Fabric. Rock Slope Protection fabrics are described in
Standard Specification Section 96. The RSP fabric placement ensures that fine
soil particles do not migrate through the RSP due to hydrostatic forces and, thus,
eliminate the potential for bank failure. The use of RSP fabric provides an
inexpensive layer of protection retaining embankment fines in lieu of placing a
gravel filter of small, well graded materials. See Index 873.3(3

Stronger and heavier RSP fabrics than those listed in the Standard Specifications
are manufactured. They are used in special designs for larger than standard RSP
sizes, or emergency installations where placement of large RSP must be placed
directly on the fabric. These heavy weight fabrics have unit weights of up to 16
ounces per square yard. Contact the Headquarters Hydraulic Engineer for
assistance regarding usage applications of heavy weight RSP fabrics.
(e) Gravel Filter. Generally, RSP fabric should always be used unless there is a
permit requirement that precludes the placement of fabric. Where RSP fabric
cannot be placed, such as in stream environments where CA Fish & Wildlife and
NOAA Fisheries strongly discourage the use of RSP Fabric, a gravel filter is
usually necessary with most native soil conditions to stop fines from bleeding
through the typical RSP classes. A gravel filter will be specified and placed
between the native base soil and RSP for hybrid revetments to avoid conflicts
associated with planting vegetation and placing RSP fabric together. A universal
gravel filter gradation is presented in Design Information Bulletin No. 87 (see
Table H, Index 7.1.2), which should work for many stream sites in California and
eliminate the need for a site-specific gravel filter design for every project.
When a gravel filter is to be placed, the designer is advised to work with the District
Materials Office to get a recommendation for the necessary gradation to work
effectively with both the native backfill and the base layer of the RSP that is being
placed. Among the methods available for designing the gravel filter are the
Terzaghi method, developed exclusively for situations where the native backfill is
sand, and the Cisten-Ziems method, which is often used for a broad variety of soil
types and recommended in HEC 23. Where streambanks must be significantly
rebuilt and reconfigured with imported material before RSP placement, the
designer must ensure that the imported material will not bleed through the
designed gravel filter. See HEC 23 Volume 2, Design Guideline 16, Index 16.2.1
Granular Filter Design Procedure and 16.3.1 Granular filter (design example).
(a) Streambank Protection Design. In the lower reaches of larger rivers wave action
resulting from navigation or wind blowing over long reaches may be much more
serious than velocity. A 2 foot wave, for example, is more damaging than direct
impingement of a current flowing at 10 feet per second. Therefore, consideration of
a wave attack based design may be necessary. See Chapter 880 for further
information.
Well designed streambank rock slope protection should:
Assure stability and compatibility of the protected bank as an integral part of the
channel as a whole.
Connect to natural bank, bridge abutments or adjoining improvements with
transitions designed to ease differentials in alignment, grade, slope and
roughness of banks.
Highway Design Manual 870-35
July 1, 2020

Eliminate or ease local embayments and capes so as to streamline the protected

bank.
Consider the effects of backwater above constrictions, superelevations on bends,
as well as tolerance of occasional overtopping.
Not be placed on a slope steeper than 1.5H:1V. Flatter slopes use lighter stones
in a thinner section and encourage overgrowth of vegetation, but may not be
permissible in narrow channels.
Use stone of adequate weight to resist erosion, derived from Index
873.3(3)(a)(2)(b).
Prevent loss of bank materials through interstitial spaces of the revetment. Rock
slope protection fabric should be used.
Rest on a good foundation on bedrock or extend below the depth of probable
scour. If questionable, use heavy bed stones and provide a wide base section
with a reserve of material to slough into local scour holes (i.e., mounded toe).
Reinforce critical zones on outer bends subject to impinging flow, using heavier
stones, thicker section, and deeper toe.
Be constructed of rock of such shape as to form a stable protection structure of
the required section. Rounded boulders or cobbles must not be used on prepared
ground surfaces having slopes steeper than 2.5H:1V.
(a) Stone Shape. The shape of a stone can be generally described by designating
three axes of measurement: major, intermediate, and minor, also known as the
3A.

Figure 873.3A

Stone Shape

Riprap stones should not be thin and platy, nor should they be long and needle-
like. Therefore, specifying a maximum allowable value of the ratio A/C, also known
as the shape factor, provides a suitable measure of particle shape, since the B
axis is intermediate between the two extremes of length A and thickness C. A
maximum allowable value for A/C of 3.0 is recommended.
Based on field studies, the recommended relationship between stone size and
weight is given by:
870-36 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

Table 873.3A

RSP Class by Median Particle Size(3)

Nominal RSP Class
by Median Particle d15 d50 d100 Placement
Size(3)
Class (1),
(2) Size (in) Min Max Min Max Max Method

I 6 3.7 5.2 5.7 6.9 12.0 B

II 9 5.5 7.8 8.5 10.5 18.0 B
III 12 7.3 10.5 11.5 14.0 24.0 B
IV 15 9.2 13.0 14.5 17.5 30.0 B
V 18 11.0 15.5 17.0 20.5 36.0 B
VI 21 13.0 18.5 20.0 24.0 42.0 A or B
VII 24 14.5 21.0 23.0 27.5 48.0 A or B
VIII 30 18.5 26.0 28.5 34.5 48.0 A or B
IX 36 22.0 31.5 34.0 41.5 52.8 A
X 42 25.5 36.5 40.0 48.5 60.5 A
XI 46 28.0 39.4 43.7 53.1 66.6 A
NOTES:
(1)Rock grading and quality requirements per Standard Specifications.
(2)RSP-fabric Type of geotextile and quality requirements per Section 96 Rock Slope Protection Fabric of the
Standard Specifications. For RSP Classes I thru VIII, use Class 8 RSP-fabric which has lower weight per unit area
and it also has lower toughness (tensile x elongation, both at break) than Class 10 RSP-fabric. For RSP Classes
IX thru XI, use Class 10 RSP-fabric.
(3)Intermediate, or B dimension (i.e., width) where A dimension is length, and C dimension is thickness.
Highway Design Manual 870-37
July 1, 2020

Table 873.3B

RSP Class by Median Particle Weight(3)

Nominal RSP Class
by Median Particle W15 W50 W100 Placement
Weight
Class (1),
(2) Weight Min Max Min Max Max Method

I 20 lb 4 11 15 27 140 B
II 60 lb 14 39 50 94 470 B
III 150 lb 32 94 120 220 1,100 B
IV 300 lb 63 180 250 440 2,200 B
V 1/4 ton 110 300 400 700 3,800 B
VI 3/8 ton 180 520 650 1,100 6,000 A or B
VII 1/2 ton 250 750 1000 1,700 9,000 A or B
VIII 1 ton 520 1,450 1,900 3,300 9,000 A or B
IX 2 ton 870 2,500 3,200 5,800 12,000 A
X 3 ton 1,350 4,000 5,200 9,300 18,000 A
XI 4 ton 1,800 5,000 6,800 12,200 24,000 A
NOTES:
(1)Rock grading and quality requirements per Standard Specifications.
(2)RSP-fabric Type of geotextile and quality requirements per Section 96 Rock Slope Protection Fabric of the
Standard Specifications. For RSP Classes I thru VIII, use Class 8 RSP-fabric which has lower weight per unit area
and it also has lower toughness (tensile x elongation, both at break) than Class 10 RSP-fabric. For RSP Classes
IX thru XI, use Class 10 RSP-fabric.
(3)Values shown are based on Table 873.3A dimensions and an assumed specific gravity of 2.65. Weight will vary
based on density of rock available for the project.
870-38 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

Where:
W = Weight of stone, lb;
d = Size of intermediate ("B") axis, ft;
s = Density of stone, lb/ft3;
= Sg w

Where:
w = 62.4 lb/ft3;
Sg = Specific gravity of stone.
Tables 873.3A and 873.3B provide recommended gradations for eleven standard
classes of riprap based on median particle size d50 as determined by the
dimension of the intermediate ("B") axis. The D or W refers to size or weight,
respectively. The number is the percent finer by weight. Tables 873.3A and
873.3B are modified versions of Tables 4.1 and 4.2 in HEC 23, Volume 2, Design
Guideline 4, which provide recommended gradations for ten standard classes of
riprap and conform to those recommended in NCHRP Report 568 (Lagasse et al.
2006). The gradation criteria in Table 873.3A are based on a nominal or "target"
d50. See Index 873.3(3)(a)(2)(b) for equations to calculate d30 and d50. The most
significant modifications to Tables 873.A and 873.B from the gradations shown in
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 are to the d100max and W 100max gradation for classes VIII through
XI, which have been truncated for practicality. An additional class XI is included
in Tables 873.3A and 873.3B. Contact the Headquarters Hydraulic Engineer if
more information is needed on the modification to the HEC 23 gradations.
Based on the recommended relationship between size and weight, which
assumes the volume of the stone is 85% of a cube, Table 873.3B provides the
equivalent particle weights for the same eleven classes as Table 873.3A using a
specific gravity of 2.65 for the particle density.
(b) Stone Size. Where stream velocity governs, rock size may be estimated from the
following formula, which can be used with uniform or gradually varying flow.
Coefficients are included to account for the desired safety factor for design,
specific gravity of the riprap stone, bank slope, and bendway character;

Where:
d30 =Particle size for which 30% is finer by weight, ft;
y = Local depth of flow, ft;
Sf = Safety factor (typically = 1.1);
Highway Design Manual 870-39
July 1, 2020

CS =Stability coefficient (for blanket thickness 1.5d50 or d100, whichever is

greater) = 0.30 for angular rock;
CV =Velocity distribution coefficient;
=1.0 for straight channels or the inside of bends;
=1.283 0.2 log (Rc/W) for the outside of bends (1.0 for Rc/W > 26);
=1.25 downstream from concrete channels;
=1.25 at the end of dikes;
CT =Blanket thickness coefficient = 1.0;
Sg =Specific gravity of stone (2.5 minimum);
g =Acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/s2;
Vdes =Characteristic velocity for design, defined as the depth-averaged velocity
at a point 20% upslope from the toe of the revetment, ft/s;
For natural channels,
Vdes=Vavg (1.74 0.52 log (Rc/W))
Vdes=Vavg for Rc/W > 26
For trapezoidal channels,
Vdes=Vavg (1.71 0.78 log (Rc/W))
Vdes=Vavg for Rc/W > 8
Where:
Rc = Centerline radius of curvature of channel bend, ft;
W = Width of water surface at upstream end of channel bend, ft;
Vavg = Channel cross-sectional average velocity, ft/s;
K1 = Side slope correction factor;

Where:
=is the bank angle in degrees.
The flow depth "y" used in the above equation is defined as the local flow depth.
The flow depth at the toe of slope is typically used for bank revetment applications;
alternatively, the average channel depth can be used. The smaller of these values
will result in a slightly larger computed d30 size, since riprap size is inversely
proportional to (y0.25). The blanket thickness coefficient (CT) is 1.0 for standard
riprap applications where the thickness is equal to 1.5d 50 or d100, whichever is
greater. Because limited data is available for selecting lower values of CT when
greater thicknesses of riprap are used, a value of 1.0 is reasonable for all
applications. The recommended Safety Factor Sf is 1.1 for bank revetment.
Greater values should be considered where there is significant potential for ice or
impact from large debris, freeze-thaw degradation that would significantly
decrease particle size, or large uncertainty in the design variables, especially
velocity. The specific gravity (Sg) of stone is commonly taken as 2.65 for planning
870-40 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

purposes, however, this will result in a less conservative design than utilizing a
2.5 specific gravity assumption, which would be the minimum accepted in the field.
Therefore, the designer should contact the District Materials Engineer in the

region. Where such information or history is unavailable, use of a 2.5 specific

gravity within the design should be considered.
The d30 size of the riprap is related to the recommended median (d 50) size by:
d50 = 1.20d30
Using standard sizes the appropriate gradation can be achieved by selecting the
next larger size class, thereby creating a slightly over-designed structure, but
economically a less expensive one. For example, if a riprap sizing calculation
results in a required d50 of 16.8 inches, Class V riprap should be specified because
it has a nominal d50 of 18 inches. See Table 873.3A.
A limitation to the rock size equation above is that the longitudinal slope of the
channel should not be steeper than 2.0% (0.02 ft/ft). For steeper channels, the
riprap sizing approach for overtopping flows presented in HEC 23, Volume 2,
Design Guideline 5 should be considered and the results compared with the rock
size equation above .
Where wave action is dominant, design of rock slope protection should proceed
as described for shore protection, see Chapter 880.
(c) Design Height. The top of rock slope protection along a stream bank should be
carried to the elevation of the design high water plus some allowance for
freeboard. Cost and severity of damage if overtopped as well as the importance
of the facility should also be considered. The goal for the design high water is
based on the 50-year (2% probability) flow, but can be modified using engineering
judgment which may include consideration of historic high water marks and
climate change. This stage may be exceeded during infrequent floods, usually
with little or no damage to the upper slope. See Hybrid RSP cross section in
Figure 873.3D for an example showing the top of rock slope protection.
When determining freeboard, or the height above design high water from which
the RSP is to extend, one should consider: the size and nature of debris in the
flow; the resulting potential for damage to the bank, the potential for streambed
aggradation; and the confidence in data used to estimate design highwater.
Freeboard may also be affected by regulatory or local agency requirements.
Freeboard may be more generous on the outside bends of channels, or around
critical bridges.
The 50-year design high water plus freeboard goal should be followed whenever
possible, but the biggest exception to this goal occurs when the design height
exceeds the main channel top of bank. Because floodplain overbank areas can
be wide and extensive, the footprint of the RSP could grow exponentially if
extended above and beyond the top of bank. This increased footprint would bring
higher costs and permitting challenges that could make a project no longer viable.
Given this possibility, the RSP vertical limit (height) should typically end at the
main channel top of bank; however, a vegetation component may extend above
and beyond the top of bank.
For cases where significant erosion has occurred above the main channel top of
bank into its overbank(s), contact the District Hydraulic Engineer to discuss
alternatives for repair and protection.
Highway Design Manual 870-41
July 1, 2020

Design Example The following example reflects the HEC 23 method for
designing RSP. The designer is encouraged to review Design Guideline 4, Riprap
Revetment from HEC 23, Volume 2. The following example assumes that the
designer has conducted the appropriate site assessments and resulting
calculations to establish average stream velocity, flow depth at bank toe,
estimated depth of scour, stream alignment (i.e., parallel or impinging flow), width
of channel, radius of bend (if impinging flow ), length and side slope of stream
bank to be protected and locations of natural hard points (e.g., rock outcroppings).
Field reviews and discussions with maintenance staff familiar with the site are
critical to the success of the design.
Given for example:
Average stream velocity for design event of 9.8 feet per second
Flow depth of 11.4 feet at bank toe
Estimated scour depth 3.5 feet
Length of bank requiring protection 550 feet
Bank slope 2:1
Specific gravity of rock used for RSP 2.54 (based on data from local quarry)
Embankment is on outside of stream bend of 100 ft wide natural channel on a
bend that has a centerline radius (Rc) of 500 ft. The radius of curvature divided
by width (Rc/W) is 5.0.
A desired factor of safety (Sf) of 1.2.
Determine the target d50, select appropriate RSP class from Table 873.3A and
determine the blanket thickness:
Step 1: Compute the side slope correction factor:

=0.87
Step 2: Select the appropriate stability coefficient for riprap:
Cs (for blanket thickness 1.5d50 or d100, whichever is greater) = 0.30 for angular
rock
Step 3: Compute the vertical velocity factor (Cv) for Rc /W = 5.0:
Cv = log (Rc/W)
= 1 log (5.0)
= 1.14
Step 4: Compute local velocity on the side slope (V des) for a natural channel with
Rc/W = 5.0:
Vdes = Vavg c /W)]
= 9.8[1.74 0.52 log (5.0)]
= 13.5 ft/s
870-42 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

Step 5: Compute the d30 size using stone size equation from Index
873.2(2)(a)(2)(b):

= 1.35 ft
Step 6: Compute the d50 size = 1.2d30= 1.2(1.35)
= 1.62 ft = 19 inches.
Note: Use next larger size class (see Table 873.3A)
Step 7: Select Class VI riprap from Table 873.3A: d 50 = 21 inches
Step 8: Blanket thickness = 1.5d50 or d100, whichever is greater
1.5d50 = 1.5 (21 inches)
= 31.5 inches
d100 = 42 inches, therefore, use 42 inches
Step 9: Determine the depth of riprap embedment below the streambed at the
toe of the bank slope:
Since toe scour is expected to be 3.5 ft, the 2H:1V slope should be extended
below the ambient bed level 7 ft horizontally out from the toe to accommodate this
scour. Alternatively, a mounded riprap toe 3.5 ft high could be established at the
base of the slope and allowed to self-launch when toe scour occurs, see Figure
873.3D.
Step 10: Assess Stream Impact Due to Revetment. In some cases, the thickness
of the completed RSP revetment creates a narrowing of the available stream
channel width, to the extent that stream velocity or stage at the design event is
increased to undesirable levels, or the opposite bank becomes susceptible to
attack. In these cases, the bank upon which the RSP is to be placed must be
excavated such that the constructed face of the revetment is flush with the original
embankment.
Step 11: Exterior Edges of Revetment. The completed design must be compatible
with existing and future conditions. Freeboard and top edge of revetments were
covered in
estimated scour was given as 3.5 feet. This is the minimum toe depth to be
considered. Again, based on site conditions and discussions with maintenance
staff and others, determine if any long-term conditions need to be addressed.
These could include streambed degradation due to local aggregate mining or
headcutting. Regardless of the condition, the toe must be founded below the
lowest anticipated elevation that could become exposed over the service life of
the embankment or roadway facility. As for the upstream and downstream ends,
the given length of revetment is 550 feet. Again, this will typically be a minimum,
as the designer should seek natural rock outcroppings, areas of quiescent stream
flow, or other inherently stable bank segments to end the RSP.
(d) Vegetated Rock Slope Protection. The use of vegetation in streambank
stabilization has positive attributes on stream integrity, such as improving stream
ecology, increasing soil strength, and providing flow resistance, but vegetation
can also have negative impacts on stream integrity by altering conveyance
Highway Design Manual 870-43
July 1, 2020

characteristics of the stream, affecting soil characteristics, in addition to being

unpredictable in its long term establishment and performance.
Streams with stable vegetation typically have good water quality, as well as good
biological and chemical health due in part to the ability of the vegetation to filter
pollutants including nitrates and phosphates through their uptake of moisture in
the soil. Vegetation will also promote good fish, wildlife, and aquatic organism
habitat by providing cover, reducing stream temperature and controlling
temperature fluctuations, and supplying an organic food source. In addition to
ecological improvements, vegetation can strengthen the underlying soils. It can
create additional cohesion and binding properties through its roots. The fibrous
woody roots are strong in tension, but weak in compression, which is the opposite
case for soil. Therefore, roots and soil working in tandem can complement the
other providing a material that has both tension and compression resistance.
Vegetation can also improve soil strength by lowering pore-water pressure
through its soil moisture extraction.
These benefits of the vegetation root system also carry some negative effects.
Their additional mass and surcharge can increase slope failure potential under
saturated conditions where the magnitude of saturation can actually be
compounded because of root development. Another positive effect of vegetation
use in revetments is its ability to improve flow resistance creating higher
roughness that will dissipate energy, shear stress, and velocity. The vegetation
deflects velocity upwards away from the streambank, which reduces the influence
of drag and lift. For example, willows planted on a streambank have the capacity
to deflect and resist velocities up to 10 feet/second in their mature state, which
would equate to a 12-inch to 18-inch rock (RSP Class III to IV) having similar
permissive velocity. To reach this point, it may take three to five years. In the first
few years after planting, the vegetation is providing little resistance. During this
establishment period, the streambanks can be subject to scour and erosion
because of the lack of flow resistance without some other means of protection.
Even after vegetation reaches maturity and beyond, potential exists for it to
succumb to drought conditions or to yield to large flows/velocities and break apart
rendering the vegetation ineffective to dissipating velocity and hydraulic forces.
Because the stages of vegetation growth can be dynamic as it is affected by
drought or high flows, the vegetation may go through a reestablishment process,
and the n-value and velocity/flow resistance will also be dynamic making
revetment performance unpredictable. Even though the use of vegetation in bank
stabilization may have negative effects, its ecological benefits generally outweigh
them.
The design premise is to use rock and vegetation together in a streambank
revetment in such a way that will highlight their positive attributes while also
addressing and managing their negative impacts. In the design of hybrid
revetments, mounded toes referenced in Index 873.3(3)(a)(1) are not
recommended because of their encroachment into the middle of the channel,
which can impact cross-sectional area and capacity. With the use of vegetation
on the bank and possible projection toward the middle of the channel, cross-
sectional area could possibly be impacted as well. A mounded toe used with bank
vegetation would only exacerbate this issue, therefore an embedded toe is chosen
for hybrid revetment application. See Figure 873.3D for an example cross section
of hybrid RSP with an embedded toe. For hybrid revetment design, the 50-year
(2% probability) flood event should be used. Per Index 873.2, depending on the
importance of the encroachment and level of related risks, subsequent analysis
may consider historic high water marks and climate change for design. In order
870-44 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

to manage possible negative impacts from vegetation use, planting needs to be

performed in a controlled manner. Placement of vegetation within the bank-toe
zone and the main channel is highly discouraged to keep turbulence intensity in
check that could cause excessive sediment accumulation. Plant mortality must
be considered during the initial planting and establishment period. Overplanting
must be avoided so that high density and projection does not occur causing
increased sediment deposition and capacity/conveyance reduction. Given these
issues, plant density in the design of a hybrid revetment and consideration of
natural plant density is critical to the performance of the hybrid revetment. The
goal for design should be medium density, where horizontal projection and cross-
sectional area reduction at maturity are minimal. See Figure 873.3B. For woody
vegetation, medium density is described as mature trees or shrubs with full foliage
on a streambank, where preferably individual canopies or outer layers retain some
free space between them, but may have minimal overlapping without being
interwoven.

Figure 873.3B

Medium Density Vegetation

Lower limit of medium vegetation density

Pre-construction and post- construction hydraulic modelling and hybrid revetment
design are discussed in more detail in Design Information Bulletin No. 87. For
rock sizing, Index 7.1.1.2 should be substituted with Index 873.3(3)(a)(2)(b) of this
manual.
(e) Gabions. Gabion revetments consist of rectangular wire mesh baskets filled with
stone. See Standard Plan D100A and D100B for gabion basket details and the
Standard Specifications for requirements.
Gabions are formed by filling commercially fabricated and preassembled wire
baskets with rock. There are two types of gabions, wall type and mattress type.
In wall type the empty cells are positioned and filled in place to form walls in a
Highway Design Manual 870-45
July 1, 2020

stepped fashion. Mattress type baskets are positioned on the slope and filled.
See HEC 23, Volume II, Design Guideline 10 and Figure 873.3B. Wall type
revetment is not fully self-adjusting but has some flexibility. The mattress type is
very flexible and well suited for man-made roadside channels (with uniform flow)
discussed in Chapter 860 and as overside drains that are constructed on steep,
unstable slopes. For some stream locations, gabions may be more aesthetically
acceptable than rock riprap or may be considered when larger stone sizes are not
readily available and flows are nonabrasive. Due to abrasion, corrosion and
vandalism concerns and difficulty of repairs, caution is advised regarding in-
stream placement of gabions. In addition, the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife recommends against using gabions as weirs in streams. If gabions are
placed in-stream, some form of abrasion protection in the form of wooden planks
or other facing will typically be necessary for wall type, see Figure 873.3C.
Maintenance-free design service life in most environments is generally under 20
years.

Figure 873.3C

Gabion Lined Streambank

Gabion wall with timber facing to protect wires from abrasive flow.
(f) Articulated Precast Concrete. This type of revetment consists of pre-cast concrete
blocks which interlock with each other, are attached to each other, or butted
together to form a continuous blanket or mat. A number of block designs are
commercially available. They differ in shape and method of articulation, but share
common features of flexibility and rapid installation. Most provide for
establishment of vegetation within the revetment.
The permeable nature of these revetments permits free draining of the
embankment and their flexibility allows the mat to adjust to minor changes in bank
geometry. Pre-cast concrete block revetments may be economically justified
where suitable rock for slope protection is not readily available. They are
generally more aesthetically pleasing than other types of revetment, particularly
after vegetation has become established.
870-46 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

Figure 873.3D

Rock Slope Protection

Hybrid RSP with Embedded Toe

Rock Slope Protection

NOTES:
(1) Thickness "T" = 1.5 d50 or d100, whichever is greater.
(2) Face stone size is determined from Index 873.3(2)(a)(2)(a).
(3) RSP fabric not to extend more than 20 percent of the base width of the Mounded Toe past the Theoretical
Toe.
Highway Design Manual 870-47
July 1, 2020

Individual blocks are commonly joined together with steel cable or synthetic rope,
to form articulated block mattresses. Pre-assembled in sections to fit the site, the
mattresses can be used on slopes up to 2:1. They are anchored at the top of the
revetment to secure the system against slippage.
Pre-cast block revetments that are formed by butting individual blocks end to end,
with no physical connection, should not be used on slopes steeper than 3:1. An
engineering fabric is normally used on the slope to prevent the migration of the
underlying embankment through the voids in the concrete blocks.
Refer to HEC 11, Design of Riprap Revetment, Section 6.2, and HEC 23, Bridge
Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures, Design Guideline 4, for further
discussion on the use of articulated concrete blocks.
(4) Rigid Revetments.
(a) Concreted-Rock Slope Protection.
(1) General Features. This type of revetment consists of rock slope protection with
interior voids filled with PCC to form a monolithic armor. A typical section of this type
of installation is shown in Figure 873.3E.
It has application in areas where rock of sufficient size for ordinary rock slope
protection is not economically available.
(2) Design Concepts. Concreting of RSP is a common practice where availability of large
stones is limited, or where there is a need to reduce the total thickness of a RSP
revetment. Inclusion of the concrete, and the labor required to place it, makes
concreted RSP installations more expensive per unit area than non-concreted
installations.

Figure 873.3E

Concreted-Rock Slope Protection

NOTES:
(1) If needed to relieve hydrostatic pressure.
(2) 1.5d50 or d100, whichever is greater from Table 873.3A for section thickness.
Dimensions and details should be modified as required.
Design procedures for concreted RSP revetments are similar to that of non-concreted
RSP. Start by following the design example provided in Index 873.3(3)(a)(2)(c) to
select a stable rock class for a non-concreted design based on the d50 and the next
larger class in Table 873.3A. This non-concreted rock size is divided by a factor of
roughly four or five to arrive at the appropriate d50 size rock for a concreted revetment.
The factor is based on observations of previously constructed facilities and
870-48 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

represents the typical sized pieces that stay together even after severe cracking (i.e.,
failed revetments will still usually have segments of four to five rocks holding
together). As with the non-concreted design procedures, use the rock size derived
from this calculation to enter Table 873.3A (i.e., round up to the next larger d 50 rock
to select the appropriate RSP Class.
As this type of protection is rigid without high strength, support by the embankment
must be maintained. Slopes steeper than the angle of repose of the embankment
are risky, but with rocks grouted in place, little is to be gained with slopes flatter than
1.5:1. Precautions to prevent undermining of embankment are particularly important,
see Figure 873.3F. The concreted-rock must be founded on solid rock or below the
depth of possible scour. Ends should be protected by tying into stable rock or forming
smooth transitions with embankment subjected to lower velocities. As a precaution,
cutoff stubs may be provided. If the embankment material is exposed at the top,
freeboard is warranted to prevent overtopping.

Figure 873.3F

Toe Failure Concreted RSP

Toe of concreted RSP that has been undermined.

The design intent is to place an adequate volume of concrete to tie the rock mass
together, but leave the outer face roughened with enough rock projecting above the
concrete to slow flow velocities to more closely approximate natural conditions.
The volume of concrete required is based on filling roughly two-thirds of the void
space of the rock layer, as shown in Figure 873.3E. The concrete is rodded or
vibrated into place leaving the outer stones partially exposed. Void space for the
various RSP gradations ranges from approximately 30 percent to 35 percent for
Method A placed rock to 40 percent to 45 percent for Method B placed rock of the
total volume placed.
Specifications. Quality specifications for rock used in concreted-rock slope protection
are usually the same as for rock used in ordinary rock slope protection. However,
as the rocks are protected by the concrete which surrounds them, specifications for
specific gravity and hardness may be lowered if necessary. The concrete used to fill
the voids is normally 1 inch maximum size aggregate minor concrete. Except for
freeze-thaw testing of aggregates, which may be waived in the contract special
provisions, the concrete should conform to the provisions of Standard Specification
Section 90.
Highway Design Manual 870-49
July 1, 2020

Size and grading of stone and concrete penetration depth are provided in Standard
Specification Section 72.
(b) Partially Grouted Rock Slope Protection. Partially grouted rock slope protection
(PGRSP) is a viable alternative to larger rock or concreted rock slope protection where
either the availability of large material is limited, or site limitations regarding placement
of large material (e.g., no excavation below spread footing base) would lead the designer
to consider using some form of smaller rock held together with a cementitious material.
With partially grouted rock slope protection, there are no relationships per se for selecting
the size of rock, other than the practical considerations of proper void size, gradation,
and adequate stone-to-stone contact area. The intent of partial grouting is to "glue"
stones together to create a conglomerate of particles. Each conglomerate is therefore
significantly larger than the d50 stone size, and typically is larger than the d100 size of the
individual stones in the matrix. The proposed gradation criteria are based on a nominal
or "target" d50 and only stones with a d50 ranging from 9 inches to 15 inches may be used
with the partial grouting technique. See rock classes II, III and IV in Table 873.3A. In
HEC 23, PGRSP is presented as a pier scour countermeasure, but it may be also used
for bridge abutment protection, as well as for bed/bank protection for short localized
areas with high velocities and shear stresses that require a smaller rock
footprint than a non-grouted design. Both Headquarters Office of Highway Drainage
Design and District biologist staff should be consulted early on during the planning phase
for subject matter expertise relative to design and obtaining project specific permits. For
more guidance, see HEC 23, Volume 2, Design Guideline 12.
(c) Sacked-Concrete Slope Protection. This method of protection consists of facing the
embankment with sacks filled with concrete. It is expensive, but historically was a much
used type of revetment. Much hand labor is required but it is simple to construct and
adaptable to almost any embankment contour. Use of this method of slope protection is
generally limited to replacement or repair of existing sacked concrete facilities, or for
small, unique situations that lend themselves to hand-placed materials.
Tensile strength is low and as there is no flexibility, the installation must depend almost
entirely upon the stability of the embankment for support and therefore should not be
placed on face slopes much steeper than the angle of repose of the embankment
material. Slopes steeper than 1:1 are rare; 1.5:1 is common. The flatter the slope, the
less is the area of bond between sacks. From a construction standpoint it is not practical
to increase the area of bond between sacks; therefore for slopes as flat as 2:1 all sacks
should be laid as headers rather than stretchers.
Integrity of the revetment can be increased by embedding dowels in adjoining sacks to
reinforce intersack bond. A No. 3 deformed bar driven through a top sack into the
underlying sack while the concrete is still fresh is effective. At cold joints, the first course
of sacks should be impaled on projecting bars that were driven into the last previously
placed course. The extra strength may only be needed at the perimeter of the revetment.
Most failures of sacked concrete are a result of stream water eroding the embankment
material from the bottom, the ends, or the top.
The bottom should be founded on bedrock or below the depth of possible scour.
If the ends are not tied into rock or other nonerosive material, cutoff returns are to be
provided and if the protection is long, cutoff stubs are built at 30-foot intervals, in order
to prevent or retard a progressive failure.
Protection should be high enough to preclude overtopping. If the roadway grade is
subject to flooding and the shoulder material does not contain sufficient rock to prevent
870-50 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

erosion from the top, then pavement should be carried over the top of the slope protection
in order to prevent water entering from this direction.
Class 8 RSP fabric as described in Standard Specification Section 96 should be placed
behind all sacked concrete revetments. For revetments over 4 feet in height, weep tubes
should also be placed, see Figure 873.3E.
For good appearance, it is essential that the sacks be placed in horizontal courses. If
the foundation is irregular, corrective work such as placement of entrenched concrete or
sacked concrete is necessary to level up the foundation. Refer to HDS No. 6, Section
6.6.5, for further discussion on the use of sacked concrete slope protection.
(5) Bulkheads. A bulkhead is a steep or vertical structure supporting a natural slope or
constructed embankment. As bank protection structures, bulkheads serve to secure the
bank against erosion as well as retaining it against sliding. As a retaining structure,
conventional design methods for retaining walls, cribs and laterally loaded piles are used.
Bulkheads are usually expensive, but may be economically justified in special cases where
valuable riparian property or improvements are involved and foundation conditions are not
satisfactory for less expensive types of slope protection. They may be used for toe
protection in combination with other revetment types of slope protection. Some other
considerations that may justify the use of bulkheads include:
Encroachment on a channel cannot be tolerated.
Retreat of highway alignment is not viable.
Right of Way is restricted.
The force and direction of the stream can best be redirected by a vertical structure.
The foundation for bulkheads must be positive and all terminals secure against erosive
forces. The length of the structure should be the minimum necessary, with transitions to
other less expensive types of slope protection when possible. Eddy currents can be
extremely damaging at the terminals and transitions. If overtopping of the bulkheads is
anticipated, suitable protection should be provided.
Along a stream bank, using a bulkhead presumes a channel section so constricted as to
prohibit use of a cheaper device on a natural slope. Velocity will be unnaturally high along
the face of the bulkhead, which must have a fairly smooth surface to avoid compounding the
restriction. The high velocity will increase the threat of scour at the toe and erosion at the
downstream end. Allowance must be made for these threats in selecting the type of
foundation, grade of footing, penetration of piling, transition, and anchorage at downstream
end. Transitions at both ends may appropriately taper the width of channel and slope of the
bank. Transition in roughness is desirable if attainable. Refer to HDS No. 6, Section 6.4.8,
for further discussion on the use of bulkheads to prevent streambank erosion or failure.
(a) Concrete or Masonry Walls. The expertise and coordination of several engineering
disciplines is required to accomplish the development of PS&E for concrete walls serving
the dual purpose of slope protection and support. The Division of Structures is
responsible for the structural integrity of all retaining walls, including bulkheads.
(b) Crib walls. Timber and concrete cribs can be used for bulkheads in locations where
some flexibility is desirable or permissible. Metal cribs are limited to support of
embankment and are not recommended for use as protection because of vulnerability to
corrosion and abrasion.The design of crib walls is essentially a determination of line,
foundation grade, and height with special attention given to potential scour and possible
loss of backfill at the base and along the toe. Concrete crib walls used as bulkheads and
exposed to salt water require special provisions specifying the use of coated rebars and
special high density concrete. Recommendations from METS Corrosion Technology
Highway Design Manual 870-51
July 1, 2020

Branch should be requested for rebar protection and type of concrete. DES Structures
Design should be consulted with the physical, structural design of a crib wall.
(c) Sheet Piling. Timber, concrete and steel sheet piling are used for bulkheads that depend
on deep penetration of foundation materials for all or part of their stability. High
bulkheads are usually counterforted at upper levels with batter piles or tie back systems
to deadmen. Any of the three materials is adaptable to sheet piling or a sheathed system
of post or column piles.
Excluding structural requirements, design of pile bulkheads is essentially as follows:
Recognition of foundation conditions suitable to or demanding deep penetration.
Penetration of at least 15 feet below scour level, or into soft rock, should be assured.
Choice of material. Timber is suitable for very dry or very wet climates, for other
situations economic comparison of preliminary designs and alternative materials
should be made.
Determination of line and grade. Fairly smooth transitions with protection to high-
water level should be provided.
(6) Vegetation. Vegetation is the most natural method for stabilization of embankments and
channel bank protection. Vegetation can be relatively easy to maintain, visually attractive
and environmentally desirable. The root system forms a binding network that helps hold the
soil. Grass and woody plants above ground provide resistance to the near bank water flow
causing it to lose some of its erosive energy.
Erosion control and revegetation mats are flexible three-dimensional mats or nets of natural
or synthetic material that protect soil and seeds against water erosion prior to establishment
of vegetation. They permit vegetation growth through the web of the mat material and have
been used as temporary channel linings where ordinary seeding and mulching techniques
will not withstand erosive flow velocities. The designer should recognize that flow velocity
estimates and a particular soils resistance to erosion are parameters that must be based on
specific site conditions. Using arbitrarily selected values for design of vegetative slope
protection without consultation with the District Hydraulic Unit and/or the District Landscape
Architect Unit is not recommended. However, a suggested starting point of reference is
Table 865.2 in which the resistance of various unprotected soil classifications to flow
velocities are given. Under near ideal conditions, ordinary seeding and mulching methods
cannot reasonably be expected to withstand sustained flow velocities above 4 feet per
second. If velocities are in excess of 4 feet per second, a lining maybe needed, see Table
865.2.
Temporary channel liners are used to establish vegetative growth in a drainage way or as
slope protection prior to the placement of a permanent armoring. Some typical temporary
channel liners presented in Table 865.2 are:
Single net straw
Double net coconut/straw blend
Double net shredded wood
Vegetative and temporary channel liners are suitable for conditions of uniform flow and
moderate shear stresses.
Permanent soil reinforcing mats and rock riprap may serve the dual purpose of temporary
and permanent channel liner. Some typical permanent channel liners are:
Small rock slope protection
Geosynthetic mats
870-52 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

Polyethelene cells or grids

Gabion Mattresses (see Index 873.3(3)(a)(2)(e))
However, geosynthetics and plastic (polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, etc.) based
mats with no enhanced UV resistance must be installed in a fashion where there will be no
potential for long-term sunlight exposure, as these products will degrade due to UV radiation.
Composite designs are often used where there are sustained low flows of high to moderate
velocities and intermediate high water flows of low to moderate velocities. Brush layering is
a permanent type of erosion control technique that may also have application for channel
protection, particularly as a composite design.
Additional design information on vegetation, and temporary and permanent channel liners
is given in Chapter IV, HEC 15, Design of Roadside Channels and Flexible Linings and in
Chapter 860 of this manual.

873.4 Training Systems

(1) General. Training systems are structures, usually within a channel, that act as
countermeasures to control the direction, velocity, or depth of flowing water. When training
systems are used, they generally straighten the channel, shorten the flow line, and increase
the local velocity within the channel. Any such changes made in the system that cause an
increase in the gradient may cause an increase in local velocities. The increase in velocity
increases local and contraction scour with subsequent deposition downstream, where the
channel takes on its normal characteristics. If significant lengths of the river are trained and
straightened, there can be a noticeable decrease in the elevation of the water surface profile
for a given discharge in the main channel. Tributaries emptying into the main channel in
such reaches are significantly affected. Having a lower water level in the main channel for
a given discharge means that the tributary streams entering in that vicinity are subjected to
a steeper gradient and higher velocities which can cause degradation in the tributary
streams. In extreme cases, degradation can be induced of such magnitude as to cause
failure of structures such as bridges, culverts or other encroachments on the tributary
systems. In general, any increase in transported materials from the tributaries to the main
channel causes a reduction in the quality of the environment within the river.
(a) Bendway Weirs. Bendway weirs, also referred to as stream barbs, bank barbs, and
reverse sills are low elevation stone sills used to improve lateral stream stability and flow
alignment problems at river bends and highway crossings on streams and smaller rivers.
They are placed at an angle with the embankment in meandering streams for the purpose
of directing or forcing the current away from the embankment, see Figure 873.4A. They
also encourage deposition of bed material and growth of vegetation. When the purpose
is to deposit material and promote growth, the weirs are considered to have fulfilled their
function and are expendable when this occurs.
Highway Design Manual 870-53
July 1, 2020

Figure 873.4A

Thalweg Redirection Using Bendway Weirs

Bendway weirs in conjunction with rock slope protection.

Bendway weirs are similar in appearance to stone spurs, but have significant functional
differences. Spurs are typically visible above the flow line and are designed so that flow
is either diverted around the structure, or flow along the bank line is reduced as it passes
through the structure. Bendway weirs are normally not visible, especially at stages above
low water, and are intended to redirect flow by utilizing weir hydraulics over the structure.
Flow passing over the bendway weir is redirected such that it flows perpendicular to the
axis of the weir and is directed towards the channel centerline. See Figure 873.4B for
typical cross section and layout. Similar to stone spurs, bendway weirs reduce near bank
velocities, reduce the concentration of currents on the outer bank, and can produce a
better alignment of flow through the bend and downstream crossing. Experience with
bendway weirs has indicated that the structures do not perform well in degrading or
sediment deficient reaches.
Material sizing should be based on the Isbash equation plotted in Figure 873.4C. Riprap
stone size is designed using the critical velocity near the boundary where the riprap is
placed. Typically the size ranges between 1 and 3 ft and should be approximately 20%
greater than that computed from the rock sizing formula presented in Index
873.3(3)(a)(2)(b). The minimum rock size should not be less than the D 100 of the
streambed material. See Tables 873.3A and 873.3B to determine rock class.
See HEC 23 Volume 2, Design Guideline 1 for detailed guidance on weir height, length,
angle, location and spacing,
(b) Spurs. A spur can be a pervious or impervious structure projecting from the streambank
into the channel. Similar to bendway weirs, spurs are used to halt meander migration at
a bend and channelize wide, poorly defined streams into well-defined channels by
reducing flow velocities in critical zones near the streambank to prevent erosion and
establish a more desirable channel alignment or width. The main function of spurs is to
reduce flow velocities near the bank, which in turn, encourages sediment deposition due
to these reduced velocities. Increased protection of banks can be achieved over time,
as more sediment is deposited behind the spurs. Because of this, spurs may protect a
streambank more effectively and at less cost than revetments. Furthermore, by moving
the location of any scour away from the bank, partial failure of the spur can often be
repaired before damage is done to structures along and across the stream.
870-54 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

In braided streams, the use of spurs to establish and maintain a well-defined channel
location, cross section, and alignment can decrease the required bridge length, thus
decreasing the cost of bridge construction and maintenance.
Spur types are classified based upon their permeability as retarder spurs,
retarder/deflector spurs, and deflector spurs. The permeability of spurs is defined simply
as the percentage of the spur surface area facing the streamflow that is open. Deflector
spurs are impermeable spurs which function by diverting the primary flow currents away
from the bank. Retarder/deflector spurs are more permeable and function by retarding
flow velocities at the bank and diverting flow away from the bank. Retarder spurs are
highly permeable and function by retarding flow velocities near the bank.
These structures should be designed not to overtop. Therefore, for permeable spurs,
the rock sizing formula presented in Index 873.3(3)(a)(2)(b) may be used and a Cv value
of 1.25 is recommended. Where overtopping the spur is unavoidable, the riprap size
may be determined by equations 5.2 (for slopes > 25%) or 5.3 (for slopes < 25%) in HEC
23 Volume 2, Design Guideline 5. Since these equations are for free flow down the
slope, always check to see if the structure is actually drowned (submerged) by high
tailwater. If that is the case, then use the rock sizing formula presented in Index
873.3(3)(a)(2)(b) for sizing riprap on a stream bank should be used. See Tables 873.3A
and 873.3B to determine rock class.
In general a top width equal to the width of a dump truck can be used. The side slopes
of the spur should be 2H:1V or flatter. Rock riprap should be placed on the upstream
and downstream faces as well as on the nose of the spur to inhibit erosion of the spur.
Highway Design Manual 870-55
July 1, 2020

Figure 873.4B

Bendway Weir Typical Cross Section and Layout

870-56 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

Figure 873.4C

Bendway Weir Rock Size Chart

Highway Design Manual 870-57
July 1, 2020

Depending on the embankment material being used, a gravel, sand, or geotextile filter
may be required. It is recommended that riprap be extended below the bed elevation to
the combined long-term degradation and contraction scour depth. Riprap should also
extend to the crest of the spur, in cases where the spur would be submerged at design
flow, or to 2 feet above the design flow, if the spur crest is higher than the design flow
depth. Additional riprap should be placed around the nose of the spur, so that spur will
be protected from scour.
See Figure 873.4D for example of spur design and HEC 23 Volume 2, Design Guideline
2, for detailed guidance on spur height, length, shape, angle, permeability, location and
spacing.

Figure 873.4D

Example of Spur Design

(c) Guide Dikes/Banks. Guide banks are appendages to the highway embankment at bridge
abutments, see Figure 873.4E. They are smooth extensions of the fill slope on the
upstream side. When embankments encroach on wide floodplains to attain an economic
length of bridge, the flows from these areas must flow parallel to the approach
embankment to the bridge opening. These flows can cause a severe flow contraction at
the abutment with damaging eddy currents that can scour away abutment and pier
foundations, erode the approach embankment, and reduce the effective bridge opening.
Guide banks can be used in these cases to prevent erosion of the approach
embankments by cutting off the flow adjacent to the embankment, guiding streamflow
through a bridge opening, and transferring scour away from abutments to prevent
damage caused by abutment scour. The two major enhancements guide banks bring to
bridge design are (1) reduce the separation of flow at the upstream abutment face and
870-58 Highway Design Manual
July 1, 2020

thereby maximize the use of the total bridge waterway area, and (2) reduce the abutment
scour due to lessening turbulence at the abutment face. Guide banks can be used on
both sand and gravel-bed streams.
Guide banks are usually earthen embankment faced with rock slope protection.
Optimum shape and length of guide dikes will be different for each site. Field experience
has shown that an elliptical shape with a major to minor axis ratio of 2.5:1 is effective in
reducing turbulence. The length is dependent on the ratio of flow diverted from the
floodplain to flow in the first 100 feet of waterway under the bridge. If the use of another
shape dike, such as a straight dike, is required for practical reasons more scour should
be expected at the upstream end of the dike. The bridge end will generally not be
immediately threatened should a failure occur at the upstream end of a guide dike.
Toe dikes are sometimes needed downstream of the bridge end to guide flow away from
the structure so that redistribution in the floodplain will not cause erosion damage to the
embankment due to eddy currents. The shape of toe dikes is of less importance than it
is with upstream guide banks.
Principal factors to be considered when designing guide banks, are their orientation to
the bridge opening, plan shape, upstream and downstream length, cross-sectional
shape, and crest elevation.
It is apparent from the Figure 873.4E that without this guide bank, overbank flows would
return to the channel at the bridge opening, which can increase the severity of contraction
and scour at the abutment. With installation of guide banks the scour holes which
normally would occur at the abutments of the bridge are moved upstream away from the
abutments. Guide banks may be designed at each abutment, as shown, or singly,
depending on the amount of overbank or floodplain flow directed to the bridge by each
approach embankment.

Figure 873.4E

Bridge Abutment Guide Banks

The goal in the design of guide banks is to provide a smooth transition and contraction
of the streamflow through the bridge opening. Ideally, the flow lines through the bridge
opening should be straight and parallel. As in the case with other countermeasures, the
designer should consider the principles of river hydraulics and morphology, and exercise
sound engineering judgment.
The Division of Engineering Services (DES) and Structures Maintenance and
Investigations (SMI) Hydraulics Branches are responsible for the hydraulic design of
Highway Design Manual 870-59
July 1, 2020

bridges, therefore, for protection at bridge abutments and approaches, the District is
responsible for consulting with them to verify the design parameters and also obtaining
the bridge hydraulic model. S rdination with the Division of
Engineering Services and Structures Maintenance and Investigations.
For further detailed information on guide bank design procedures, refer to HEC 23,
Volume 2, Design Guidelines 14 and 15. See Tables 873.3A and 873.3B to determine
rock class.
(d) Further Information and Other Countermeasures for Lateral Stream Instability. General
design considerations and guidance for evaluating scour and stream stability at highway
bridges is contained in HEC 18, HEC 20, and HEC 23.
For further information on other countermeasures such as retarder structures,
longitudinal dikes and bulkheads, see HEC 23 Volume 1, Chapter 8.
(e) Check Dams and Drop Structures. Drop structures or check dams are an effective
means of gradient control. They may be constructed of rock, gabions, concrete, treated
timber, sheet piling or combinations of any of the above. They are most suited to
locations where bed materials are relatively impervious otherwise underflow must be
prevented by cutoffs. Rock riprap and timber pile construction have been most
successful on channels having small drops and widths less than 100 ft. Sheet piles,
gabions, and concrete structures are generally used for larger drops on channels with
widths ranging up to 300 ft. Check dams can initiate erosion of banks and the channel
bed downstream of the structure as a result of energy dissipation and turbulence at the
drop. This local scour can undermine the check dam and cause failure. The use of
energy dissipators downstream of check dams can reduce the energy available to erode
the channel bed and banks. In some cases it may be better to construct several
consecutive drops of shorter height to minimize erosion. Lateral erosion of channel
banks just downstream of drop structures is another adverse result of check dams and
is caused by turbulence produced by energy dissipation at the drop, bank slumping from
local channel bed erosion, or eddy action at the banks. The usual solution to these
problems is to place rock slope protection on the streambank adjacent to the drop
structure or check dam. Erosion of the streambed can also be reduced by placing rock
riprap in a preformed scour hole downstream of the drop structure. A row of sheet piling
with top set at or below streambed elevation can keep the riprap from moving
downstream. Because of the problems associated with check dams, the design of these
countermeasures requires designing the check dams to resist scour by providing for
dissipation of excess energy and protection of areas of the bed and the bank which are
susceptible to erosive forces. Refer to HEC 23 Volume 2, Design Guideline 3 and HDS
No. 6, Section 6.4.11, for further discussion on the use of check dams and drop
structures.

873.5 Summary and Design Check List

The designer should anticipate the more significant problems that are likely to occur during the
construction and maintenance of channel protection facilities. So far as possible, the design
should be adjusted to eliminate or minimize those potential problems.
The logistics of the construction activity such as access to the site, on-site storage of
construction materials, time of year restrictions, environmental concerns, project specific
permits and sequence of construction should be carefully considered during the project design.
See Index 872.1, Planning, Index 872.3(6), Construction, Easements, Access and Staging, and
Index 872.3(7), Biodiversity. The stream morphology and its response to construction activities