,

HYDRODYNAMICS LABORATORY
pa..APORNAA_11:4SIITUTE OF TECHNOLDOX
PASADENA

PUBLICATION NO. 23
AMERICAN SOCIETY OP CIVIL ENGINEERS
13 WEST 39TH STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y
t.

Hydraulic Design of Drop Structures

- for Gully Control
A

BY

B. T. MORRIS, JUN. AM. SOC. C. E., AND

D. C. JOHNSON, ASSOC. M. AM. SOC. C. E.

MERICA
SOCIETY OF
CVIL
4
ENGINEERS
MINDED
"11E72

WITH DISCUSSION BY
A
Y/IDssDs. JOHN HEDBERG, L. STANDISH HALL, J. E. CHRISTIANSEN,
WALTER T. WILSON, N. A. CHRISTENSEN AND DWIGHT GUNDER.
BORIS A. BAKHMETEFF AND NICHOLAS V. FEODOROFF, G. H.
HICKOX, AND B. T. MORRIS AND D. C. JOHNSON

Paper No. 2198 -

Reprinted from TRANSACTIONS, Vol. 108 (1943), p. 887

Pil. C1-tASED FILY. t "

DEPT. OF A GOIC LUF

!QFOFVICIll41%.' USE."
 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded November 5. 1852

TRANSACTIONS
Paper No. 2198

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF DROP STRUCTURES

FOR GULLY CONTROL
BY B. T. MORRIS,' JUN. AM. SOC. C. E., AND D. C. JOHNSON,'
Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E.

WITH DISCUSSION BY MESSRS. JOHN HEDBERG, L. STANDISH HALL, J. E.

CHRISTIANSEN, WALTER T. WILSON, N. A. CHRISTENSEN AND DWIGHT
GUNDER, BORIS A. BAKIIMETBFF AND NICHOLAS V. FEODOROFF, G. H.
HICKOX, AND B. T. MORRIS AND D. C. JOHNSON.

SYNOPSIS
In the stabilization of gullies, small overflow dams are used to retain silt
and to control the stream grade. These dams are simple drop structures
similar to those used in irrigation canals. In this paper the development of
rules for the proportioning of such dams is described in terms of the hydraulic
requirements for structure performance. The formulas included in the design
rules are presented graphically for convenience in application. These rules are
based on the accumulated experience of engineers in irrigation and soil con-
servation work and on the results of a series of laboratory test programs.

DESIGN PROBLEM
Small overflow dams, called drop structures, are installed in a gully to
establish perrnanent control elevations below which an eroding stream cannot
lower the channel floor. These dams control the stream grade, not only at the
spillway crest itself, but also through the ponded reach upstream from the dam.
Thus drop structures, placed at intervals along a gully, can stabilize it by
changing its profile from a continuous steep gradient to a series of more gently
sloping reaches separated by artificial spill ways.
Although the construction of large numbers of drop structures for the
stabilization of gullies in many different localities began with the operations of
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U. S. Department of Agriculture, the
development of designs for dams of this type started many years earlier with
their application to the control of grades in irrigation canals. There is a
NOTE.Published in January, 1942, Proceedings.
Research Engr., C. F. Braun & Co., Alhambra, Calif.; formerly Hydr. Erigr., SCS, Pa.sadena, Calif
Sacramento, Calif.; formerly Asst. Regional Engr., SCS, Berkeley, Calif.
887
888 GULLY CONTROL

marked similarity between dams that have been built in large gullies in the
Pacific Southwest and canal drops (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Records of the design and construction of canal drops are readily available
in the literature of irrigation engineering in the United States and the British
Empire. Engineers of the Soil Conservation Service have adapted design rules
taken from this source to gully-control drop structures. The design rules
presented in this paper have been developed from a typical canal-drop design
through the analysis of the differences in the operating requirements of the two
types of drop and through hydraulic laboratory tests of experimental drop
structures.
Notation.The following letter symbols, introduced in the paper, conform
essentially to American Standard Letter Symbols for Hydraulics, prepared by a
Committee of the 'American Standards Association, with Society representation,
and approved by the Association in 1942:1
a = offset for weir notch ventilation (Fig. 3);
b = width:
= width of notch (Fig. 3);
b. = width of water surface upstream from notch;
C = coefficient:
CL = coefficient of apron length =L (Eq. 2);
d,
Cx = coefficient of longitudinal-sill spacing = IT (Eq. 13a);
d = depth:
d, = critical depth of cross section;
da = depth in upstream or downstream channel;
g = acceleration of gravity;
h = height; height of fall; h' = height of transverse end sill or depth of
stilling pool;
L = length of the apron;
Q = discharge;
V = velocity:
= critical velocity of cross section;
= mean velocity in upstream or downstream channel;
x = spacing distance of longitudinal sills (Design B, Fig. 3);
x' = spacing distance of longitudinal sills (Design A, Fig. 3).
Gully-Control Problem vs. Canal-Drop Problem.Both the fundamental
purpose of drop-structure installation and the basic problem to be met in
drop-structure design are common to canal and gully applications. The
purpose is the control of stream grade; and the problem is the design of the
spillway part of the structure. In each type of drop installation the perma-
nence and the efficiency of the structure are controlled by the performance of
the energy-dissipating and scour-preventing devices installed downstream from
the dam proper, The efforts of the writers in the development of design rules
for drop structures have been concentrated on the spillway problem. The type
of energy-dissipating and scour-preventing device adopted by them, after
ASA-Z10.2-1942.
 GULLY CONTROL 889

Fa. I.A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED DROP ON sq. LAB POS.. PROJECT, VE/Tru. Courrrr, CALIF.
(BEFORE THE BACKFILL HA. BEEN PLACED BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE Reams)

no. 2.Aw Urn:Ter.r.usa WIDE STE rusE ill TEra Lks POS. BARRANCA, VENTURA Corwrr, Cam,
890 GULLY CONTROL

consideration of various types previously applied to small drop structures by

others, is the rectangular apron with transverse end sill that is made an integral
part of the dam and supporting walls. (This part of an overflow darn and
spillway has been given several names descriptive of its effect on the flow
stilling pool, stilling basin, water cushion, spillway bucket, tumble bay, and
cistern. Photographs of flow through the structure, as well as the analysis in
this paper under "Criteria for Satisfactory Drop-Structure Performance" will
demonstrate the inadequacy of each of these terms taken literally. Needing a
term to describe the function of this part of the structure and being unable to
provide a satisfactory name, the writers, on occasion, will use the term "stilling
pool." Suggestions of better names will be welcomed.) The simplicity of
layout and construction of this type of drop structure, as well as the available
knowledge of its performance-, was recognized in its selection for standard
design. Descriptions of its application to irrigation canals have been presented
elsewhere by B. A. Etcheverry,' M. Am. Soc. C. E.
Differences between the characteristics of flow in irrigation canals and in
natural gullies led to the selection of the,apron with end sill in preference to the
simple apron or any other device which depends on the tailwater stage for the
establishment of a hydraulic jump immediately below the dam. The steep
grades, irregular runoff rates, varying silt loads, and uncertain roughnesses of
gully channels make the elevations of tailwater surface and stream bottom very
difficult to predict and, at best, too unreliable for use in controlling the per-
formance of the structure. Although there are many uncertainties involved in
the prediction of equilibrium slopes and stable grades in earthen irrigation
channels, the controlled rates of flow, mild slopes, and low velocities make stage
determinations in canals much more reliable than those in gully channels. To
make matters more difficult, in natural gullies grades are such that streams
almost always flow near critical depth and often flow more shallowly. Under
the latter circumstance the energy-dissipating and scour-preventing devices of
drop structures must be independent of tailwater stage. The apron and sill
combination is well suited to this last requirement.
The drop structure resulting from the combination of a straight breast wall
dam and a rectangular apron with end sill is shown in Fig. 3. The important
variables in determining the proportions of the stilling pool are: The height of
fall, h; the length of the apron, L; the height of the end sill (or depth of the
pool),, h'; and the discharge Q, indicated by the critical depth for the weir notch

=
bi,C25 )i
. ... (1)

in which bn is the width of the notch. (In Fig. 3, Design A provides nappe
ventilation through the offset of the side-walls from the edge of the notch as
well as through the lateral contraction of the flow at the crest; Design B
provides nappe ventilation through flow contraction alone.) Professor
Etcheverry has presented a rational formu1a,6 relating these variables, that may
"Irrigation Practice and Dap:nearing," by B. A. Etcheverry, Vol. Ill. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Ice.,
New York. N. Y., 1916, Chapter VII.
Ibid., p. 235.
 -
GULLY tONTROC 891

be written, in terms of critical depth, cf,..;

L=CL (2)
in which CL, the coefficient of apron length, is variously determined at values
from 3.1 to 4.5. The assumptions upon which Eq. 2 is based are: (1) That the
nappe trajectory is a parabola with its vertex at the crest of the dam; and
(2) that the falling water .strikes the apron at kconstant fraction of its length
(from the crest).
In applying 'Eq. 2 to the determination of apron lengths in gully-control
drop design, it was believed that a smaller value of the length coefficient Might
be used. Whereas, in the design of drop structures for canal service, it inight
be well to include a factor of safety in the' value of the coefficient, CL, in gully-
, control, service, the factor Of safety for, the entire system of structures is included
- '
A
Bank 3 i
+Freeboard
2c
Wall
lamSide
Apron
Silt.
Center, -

Sill Une Trinsverse Sill

pron
- Stream Bed IV Longitudinal Sills
tn,

Cut-oft

CENTER LINE SECTION

4, SANi
FIG. . .2---Q17LLY,CONTROL DROP STICOCTURN
. .

in the determination of the design, discharge rate, so that the. inCIUSion of a

factor of safety in C1, would be a compounding of s'afety factors.. The com-
pounding of two or more safety factors does not lead to economical construction.,
, tnless the .cost ofconstthcting gullycontrol drops is kept as low, as posgible, it
is very difficult to justify their widespread use on farm land.
The use Of . gully-control drops on agricultural land imposes an additional
consideration, over those taken into account in the design of the canal drop..
Irrigation organizations and maintenance arrangements are such that preventive
measures niay be taken immediately wherever excess scour is noted at a drop
structure. This factor VS taken into account in the recommendation by many
designers that riprap stream protection be placed downstream from drops .and
that thia riprap be repaired and extended to snit conditions encountered. The
drop design should not rely on maintenance by the farm operator for the safety
of -the structure. In gully-control service, the drop structure will receive
maintenance that is no More likely to be regular than is its frequency of opera-
tion. For this reason, in the interest of the safety of the structure, there must
be an increased emphasis on the dependability a the original design and
construction of a drop for gully-control service. This factor of initial de-
892 GULLY CONTROL

pendability is an economic factor fully as important as initial cost because it

represents decrease in maintenance cost and decrease in the probability of loss
through damage, failure, and the necessity of replacement.
Early Gully-Control Drop ConstructionThe first drop structures built to
designs prepared by the Pacific Southwest iou. SCS, had aprons designed
with a length coefficient CL of 2.5 and a sill height h' of The original in-
8-

tent of the designer was that the operation of these structures be observed and
the design rules altered to suit observed deficiencies, if any. Some of these
structures have been in place since 1936 and none have failed from stilling-pool
inadequacy. However, observation of dams that have passed floods near
design capacity has indicated an urgent need for improved control of the flow as
it leaves the structure, as evidenced by serious scouring of the banks and
channel bottom immediately downstream from the transverse sill and the
end-walk
As more and more structures were examined, it was realized that, within
any reasonable length of time, sufficient data could not be obtained for the
development of satisfactory design formulas. The improbability of the
simultaneous presence of flood flows, competent observers, proper instruments,
and access to structures was enough to discourage reliance on observat;on alone.
It became clear, therefore, that some other means had to be used in developing
the sound rules for design that would be neceq.aary to the joint improvement of
the economy and the dependability of the drop-structure method of gully
control. Such a means was recognized in controlled experiments in the
hydraulic laboratory.
HYDRAULIC LABORATORY TESTS OF EXPERIMENTAL DROP STRUCTURES
The problem of the hydraulic design of drop structures was referred to the
hydraulic laboratory of the Soil Conservation Service at the California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., where a series of experiments was planned for
the development of satisfactory designs and rational design rules.
The first experiments dealt with a structure of typical proportions of height
of fall, width of crest, and depth of flow. Although it was not essential to the
interpretation of the tests that a scale model be used, the experimental drop
structure was designed as a one-eighth scale model of a laterally-contracted
drop structure (see fig. 3, Design A) having the dimensions:
Crest width, th., in feet ........ ..... 9.6
8.5
Fall height, h, in feet
Discharge, Q, in cubic feet per second 350
Critical depth for notch cross section, d in feet 3.45
Channel width, upstream, k, in feet 14,7
Apron width, b. + 2 a, in feet 100
Expressed in appropriate dimensionless ratios, these drop-structure proportions
critical depth d, - 0.36; and
are: .
fall height
cntical depth at the notch
- h
- 2.5-' notch width
6,
.
contraction ratio = stream width e. = 1.5.
notch width
 GULLY CONTROL 893

Stilling pools equivalent to the following combinations of prototype dimen-

sions (in feet) were tested in conjunction with this experimental drop at flow
rates from 28% to 200% of the hypothetical design capacity:
Length Depth
16 2
20 2
24 2
24 3
The downstream channel of the drop installation was represented by a
model that had a trapezoidal cross section with 1 on 1 side slopes and a bottom
width corresponding to 10.0 ft in the prototype.
The experimental drop-structure installation differed from the prototype
it represented in that it consisted of only one half of the symmetrical drop and
channel system. A sheet of heavy plate glass, placed at what would have been
the center line of the complete structure, made observation possible without
distorting the flow sufficiently to impair the similitude required for this type of
hydraulic experiment.
Another compromise with nature made interpretation of the experiments
difficult. To shorten the time required for tests and to simplify the test
technique, solid channel walls and bottom were provided where field installa-
tions would furnish natural erodible materials. Thus, the experimental channel
had fixed boundaries instead of a movable bed. In an installation of this kind
there was no direct measure of the scouring power of the effluent stream.
Therefore, other performance criteria had to be chosen that would aid in the
selection of the best structure proportions.
CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY DROP-STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE
In order to judge the excellence of drop-structure performance, the necessary
qualities of a good drop structure must be established in terms of drop-structure
use.
First, the structure must drop the water within its own confines and
discharge it downstream in such a way as to cause a minimum of locally
intensified erosion; and
Second, in order that the structure may perform its first function con-
tinuously, it must discharge the stream in such a manner that the flow will not
undermine the structure itself.
These two requirements will be recognized by hydraulic engineers as those
governing all spillway construction.' One difference is important: In soil
conservation work, the order of importance of the requirements is the reverse
of that found in most spillway work because the reduction of erosion is the
original purpose for which the structure is erected. In other types of dam
construction, the first rule is generally of secondary importance and there are
even some cases in which this consideration has been neglected entirely,
although the writers find it difficult to conceive of an installation where there is
not some value in saving the channel from gross enlargement.
"Low Lama" (handbook), National Rena111TOO Canunittee, Wszkington, D. C., 1938, p 108.
 894 GULLY CONTROL

Before these rules can be applied directly to the interpretation of the results
of experiments, they must be redefined and restated in terms of the behavior of
the flow through the structure. In order that this flow may conform to the
rules for structure performance, the kinetic energy of the falling water must
be "dissipated" through its conversion to turbulence energy in the eddy motion
of the "stilling pool" and this turbulence energy must be so distributed in the
flow (prior to its complete decay through conversion to heat energy by viscous
forces) that it will have a minimum of sediment-transporting power and thus a
minimum of scouring power. Furthermore, the flow over the end sill must
produce a movement of sediment along the channel toward the end sill, rather
than away from it, so that undermining may be prevented.

° //aV/OVA.40/4.4.4.4,AV /YAW

(a) CONDITION BEFORE SCOUR

T Oy r 0' T
11,

Ground Roller
',(b) SCOUR HOLE ENDANGERING APRON BEFORE GROWING
GROUND ROLLER ACTION HAS BECOME SIGNIFICANT

Ground Roller

(c) ADVANCED STAGE OF SCOUR HOLE GROWTH IN WHICH

MATERIAL MOVED UPSTREAM BY GROUND ROLLER PROTECTS APRON

4.Scotra ROLM FORMATION

In order that the flow through a drop structure may satisfy this second set
of rules, certain detailed requirements must be met. At the downstream end of
the structure the larger eddies and stronger velocity filaments of the stream
should not be directed toward the bank. Instead, the flow in this danger zone
should be made as quiet and low in eroding power as possible. The reasons for
these statements become clear when the equilibrium of scour and deposition at
a gully bank is considered. The equilibrium of scour and deposition in the
various parts of a natural gully cross section has been treated by N. A.
Christensen,' Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E.
So far as erosion by the stream may be concerned, such equilibrium is often
"Some Aspects of Gully Development, Classification and Control," by N. A. Christensen, thesia pre-
sented to California inatitute of Technology in 1935 in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
 GULLY CONTROL 895

imaginary, for the stream itself cannot deposit material on a bank whose slope
is equal ta, or greater than, the angle of repose of the inundated material. The
bank outline may remain fixed only if sufficient material is added through
sliding or flow down the bank to match that withdrawn by the stream. On the
basis of these considerations it may be seen that the banks below the structure
will be eroded by the stream until this equilibrium can be reached. Therefore:
Every effort that can be made to reduce the lateral attacking power of
the stream will reduce the extent of channel widening.
Just as the components of high transporting power must be kept away from
the stream banks at the exit from the stilling pool, so must they be kept away
from the stream bottom. The designer and constructor of a drop structure are
tempted, at first, to try to decrease the danger of scour by making an "easy"
transition from the end sill or apron to the gully floor. Unfortunately, a
smooth plane extension of the natural sediment bottom from the masonry of
the structure (see Fig. 4) is not always stable under the flow of the stream. If
such a surface were maintained by the equilibrium of scour and deposition of
the stream, the stability of any local part of the surface (say, at the downstream
edge of the structure) would be sensitive to random or accidental fluctuations
in the transporting power of the stream. Such a fluctuation would produce a
small disturbance in the bottom composed of a pit and a dune of excavated or
disturbed material. This disturbance in the bottom will itself give rise to
further local increase in the transporting power of the stream. Thus, the
requisites for instability are present in the phenomenon, and a scour hole is
certain to develop. The rate of growth of this scour hole is controlled, at first,
by the balance of the strength of the initial disturbance and the stability of the
sediment particles and, later after the scour hole has attained considerable
depth, by the relative depths of the scour hole and the stream itself.
Recognizing the futility of scour hole prevention as a means of protecting
the structure from caving, the designer must see to it that the hole that is
formed does not endanger the structure. This he may do by forcing it to be
developed far enough downstream from the end sill of the structure that the part
adjacent to the structure will be too shallow to be dangerous with normal cutoff
wall provision. After the first development of a scour hole downstream from
the structure, the scour process itself tends to place the deepest part of the hole
farther and farther downstream. The discontinuity of flow lines formed at the
downstream end of the structure, when scour lowers the stream-bed level,
encourages separation in the flow.
This separation is evident in the form of a "ground roller" whose top
elements move downstream and whose bottom elements move upstream.
Until this ground roller is formed, sediment immediately downstream froni the
structure can be removed by the stream but cannot be replaced because the
motion of the water and the entrained sediment is downstream. After the
ground roller has been formed, the upstream flow adjacent to the bottom can
bring sediment from the downstream parts of the scour hole to replace that
removed through the roller. From this understanding of the behavior of the
scour hole in the vicinity of the drop structure can be deduced a rule for the
896 GULLY CONTROL

determination of desirable flow conditions' at the end of the istructurii!

The flow must be such as to develop a protective ground roller befoid,
' the end of the structure has been laid bare to a dangerous depth.
(The importance of the "ground roller" to scour control has been emphasized
many times in the literature of spillway design.)'
In order that the effluent stream shall have the minimum sediment-trans-
porting power economically obtainable, the over-all dissipation effectiveness of
the stilling pool should be a maximum and the excess energy in the effluent
II. 4.
stream, a mum. ' ,..

-
N t

/Vt.":
e

WA"' /1
e
rt3 $
gars,1;ii01W.:: - "lb" 14`.Cifi

1- 4 go °Tailvtater Deffth Less than Critical,: . ' '

.10
Of Of 9

^
t

.4
,

(b), lump Forming Immediately Dovinstreani

, trl
(c) Stilling Pool Operating Submerged
-
FIG. 5.PLIUION.MANC1 'Of AN ExyzerwercLu. DROP STEGGIVEZ AT THRIII3 TA/LWATNE . STAGES
"Stanraumverlandung mid Kolkabwehr," by A. Sohoklitach, Julius Springer, Vienna, 1935. p. 85;
"Low. Dams" (handbook), National Resources Committee, Washington, D. C., 1938, p. 108; "The Causes
acid Prevention of Bed Erceion," by Arthur Douglas Deane Butcher and John Dekeyne Atkinson. Minutes
- of Priam:law, Inst. C. E., Vol. 235 (1932-33), pp. 175-222 and discussion; and "Dissipation of Energy
1.1ow Fell.," by C. C. Inglio and D. V. Joglekar, Bombay, P.W.D., Technical Paper No. 44, Bombay, 1933.
 GULLY CONTROL 897

For the selection of the best structure from the laboratory experiments,
the following forms of the drop-structure performance criteria were used:
The kinetic energy of the effluent stream, as measured by the excess of
local velocity over the velocity for absolute' minimum specific energy, shall
be a minimum (absolute minimum energy is obtained in flow at critical depth);
The flow in the vicinity of the banks of the gully shall be as nearly
parallel to the banks as possible and shall have a minimum of eddy motion; and
A large ground roller shall be produced in the flow over the end sill of the
stilling pool before any scour has occurred.

1 2 3
(a)

-...
KIER
win LigI gi
Si WM TA .I
immuniftliimill 8 9 10
2 3 4 5
de 1.46 de
(b)
- II

dc (Notch)
0 V2 Pc

mmuni Velocity Scale

cic (Channel)

,EimmwordealliNEMENNIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10
2 3 4 5 ds= 1.92 de (c)
Fro. 6.DimzNat0mmats PLOTS OP FLOW Pernatuta AT THE CHNTER LINE or THE
EXPER:16ENTAL DROP Szatocruity

RESULTS OF THE FIRST SERIES OF EXPERIMENTS

The first series of experiments with drop structures of varying stilling-pool
design furnished considerable information in regard to the selection of apron
lengths and sill heights, and led to the development of a new device for the re-
duction of bank scour.
898 GULLY CONTROL

Although photographs and flow and velocity measurement records were

made of more than one hundred combinations of apron length and sill height,
stream discharge and tailwater depth, it will be necessary to present only a few
of them to demonstrate the type of drop-structure performance obtained.

A.Tailwater Depth Less than Critical

B.Jump Forming Short Distance

Downstream

C.--Stilling Pool Slightly Submerged

(a) Twice Normal Discharge (Q 700 Cu Ft per Sec:

and L 16 Ft)
Fm. 7.PanroaataxcE or THIC.

Fig. 5 illustrates the performance of the experimental drop structure at

the "design rate of flow" (Q = 350 cu ft per sec) with the stilling pool (L = 16
ft, and h° = 2 ft) that proved to be the best according to the foregoing stand-
ards. Measurements of velocity, as well as observations of the general char-
acteristics of the flow, indicate that this pool was the best that was tried at
any of the tailwater stages shown. Although the quality of the effluent stream
is affected by the degree of submergence, the same stilling pool affords the best
performance at any depth in the downstream channel.
Measurements in the downstream channel gave maximum values of the
ratio of local velocity to critical velocity of 1.6, 1.2, and 1.1 for the conditions
shown in Figs. 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c), respectively. These maximum local ve-
locities occurred well above the stream bottom, away from the sides, and about
one pool-length downstream from the end of the structure (see velocity profiles
in Fig. 6).
The ground roller required for the protection of the structure from under-
mining is present even before the excavation of a scour hole might begin. The
end sill of the stilling pool has performed a double task in improving the energy
dissipation in the pool and in deflecting the departing stream upward suffi-
ciently to' insure the development of a ground roller.
 GULLY CONTROL 899

When the first tests were made with this experimental drop structure, a
large part of the flow leaving the stilling pool was directed against the bank
with a high velocity. To reduce the bank scour that would accompany such
conditions, flow-straightening longitudinal sills (see Fig. 3) were placed on the

(b) Twice Normal Discharge (Q 700 Cu Ft per Sec) (c) Original Discharge (Q = 350 Cu Ft per Sec) with
with Stilling Pool Lengthened (L 20 Ft) Stilling Pool Lengthened (L = 20 Ft)
lorarrAL Dam. STRUCTURE (A' = 2 Pr)

apron at the third points of its width. Only one of these sills may be seen in
Fig. 5 because only one is needed in the half model.
To emphasize the fact that material has not been wasted in constructing
stilling pools of the size shown in Fig. 5, the photographs of Fig. 7(a), which
indicate the performance of the same structure under a prototype flow of 700
cu ft per sec, are shown. It is immediately apparent that the apron is too
short for either satisfactory energy dissipation or proper development of the
ground roller. Unless the stream bed were otherwise protected, such a flow
would excavate a scour hole so close to the end sill and so deep as to endanger
the stability of the structure itself.
The photographs in Fig. 7(b) indicate the size of the stilling pool necessary
to accommodate the flow of 700 cu ft per sec just described. Velocity mea-
surements have shown that the energy dissipation performance of this structure
corresponds exactly to that of the first structure at 350 cu ft per sec. The
fact that both pools have the same depth may be taken as an indication that
the pool designed for the 350 cu ft per sec flow might be made a little shallower.
The photographs of Fig. 7(c) are presented to indicate the nature of flow
in stilling pools that are wastefully long. Here the flow of 350 cu ft per sec
has been handled in the stilling pool designed for 700 cu ft per sec. The slight
900 GULLY CONTROL

excess of depth is not at once apparent, but the section of parallel flow between
the impingement zone and the curving flow at the end sill is a direct indication
of the wasted length. Here again velocity measurements have shown energy
dissipation performance equivalent to that shown in Fig. 5.
Design rules based on the aforementidned drop-structure performance were
introduced in the engineering standards of the Pacific Southwest Region.
Within a year and a half, sufficient value had been attached to them by ex-
perience in their use, so that requests were made to the regional engineer and
to the laboratory for data that would allow the extension of the design rules to
structures of other proportions than those used in this first series of tests.
Examination of Fig. 5 and Fig. 7(b) will indicate that the experimental data
were restricted to fairly narrow falls, with height-to-flow-depth ratios,
between 2.5 and 1.5. Such drop structures were certainly typical of those
encountered in the field practice of the Service, but there were also many
drops of more extreme proportions.
As a means of extending the application of this type of laboratory data to
design, a second program of cooperative research and design development was
outlined.
THE SECOND SERIES OF EXPERIMENTS
Because experience in the first test program had indicated techniques to
be used and the possibilities to be encountered in further testing, it was possible
to plan the new test program in some detail and to design apparatus in ad-
vance. New, larger experimental drops were constructed in a testing flume
of larger capacity than had been available before.
The new experimental drop (Fig. 8) was designed for operation at discharge
rates from 0.5 cu ft per sec to 5.0 cu ft per sec for fall heights of 1.74 and
0.87 ft. Since the "half-model" technique was again used to facilitate examina-
tion of the flow at the center line of the structure, the 1.5-ft width of the supply
flume corresponded to an approach channel width of 3.0 ft in a complete struc-
ture. Although the first arrangement of the experimental drop produced a
condition geometrically similar to that used in the previous series of tests, this
drop was not considered to be a model of any particular prototype structure.
To emphasize the general applicability of the test results, all measurements
were expressed as dimensionless ratios.
Rapidity of measurement and adjustment of the experimental variables
and ease of visual and photographic observation were given consideration in the
design of the experimental drop installation. The flume in which the new in-
stallation was made is of the closed circuit type and is equipped with a remote-
control variable-speed pump and a pair of venturi meters. With this equip-
ment the time required to change and redetermine the rate of flow through the
experimental drop is very short. Timber and plywood construction mad, the
alteration of the proportions of the drop itself a simple task.
The entire working section of the experimental drop installation was placed
high enough above the ground to permit horizontal photography at convenient
tripod and camera heights. The several sheets of heavy plate glass making up
 GULLY CONTROL 901

the window side of the installation were butt-joined with a transparent plastic
cement that acted both as a water stop and as a structural "cushion" between
the' imperfectly cut edges of the individual panes. The top edge of the glass
was supported laterally by removable crossties or by removable outside braces,
depending on whether photographs were be made from the side or from the
top, respectively. The vertical load capacity of the glass sheets was supple-
mented by means of pipe stanchions which were kept in place except when
photographs were to be made from the side.
A reference grid was established using hard-drawn aluminum wires that
were spring-loaded to prevent sag from temperature change. The thrust of

8.ExpaandliNTAL DROP STaucroaa vmra PrroT TUBE AND TaAvaaanqo EQUIPMENT IN USE

the spring anchorage was transmitted through the glass as an added safeguard
against the opening of the butt joints.
A final precaution in the design of the drop installation, taken to insure
undistorted photography, was the arrangement of space so that the cameras
might be set 10 to 15 ft away from the glass.
Point-gage depth measurements and pitot-tube velocity measurements were
facilitated by the provision of a wheeled carriage supporting traversing equip-
ment and running on pipe rails. One of these pipe rails was connected to the
domestic water-supply lines in order to provide pressure for flushing the pitot-
tube and manometer velocity-measuring system. The carriage was made
heavy and stiff to insure dependability of the reference planes in measurement.
902 GULLY CONTROL

In making this provision, the designer unintentionally furnished the experi-

menters with a solid but movable working platform that was very convenient
in making photographs from above the drop and channel system.
Most of the photographs were made with a 5-in. by 7-in, reflex camera and
a studio-type 16 mm motion-picture camera. All still photographs were de-
veloped and examined in negative form before proceeding with successive stages
of the experiment. The care taken to insure good quality in the photographic
work was thoroughly justified by the fact that most of the final conclusions of
the study were based on measurements of the flow outlines as recorded in the
photographs.
Sketches and velocity-distribution records were prepared only in the extent
that they were necessary to the interpretation of the photographic record of the
experiments. The decision to conduct the experiments under such a policy was
made because of the great contrast between the time required for the two types
of data recording and the recognized brevity of the time allowed for active
testing. Only in this way was it possible to complete so widespread an in-
vestigation in nine weeks of active testing.
Selected parts of.the motion-picture record of the experiments have been
combined into an educational film which has been used in the instruction of
field technicians in the Pacific Southwest Region. This film is considered to
be a valuable auxiliary to the written report of the experiment.

RESULTS OF THE SECOND SERIES OF EXPERIMENTS

The first encouraging result of the second series of experiments was the
duplication, through experiment, by different individuals with equipment of a
different scale, of the results obtained in the first series of laboratory tests.
Fig. 9(a) may be compared with Fig. 5 to demonstrate this point.
When the results of the first series were discussed, no photographs were
presented that might show the purpose and result of the installation of the
longitudinal sills on the apron. Fig. 9(b), taken from the second series, may
be contrasted with Fig. 5 and Fig. 9(a) to show the performance of the struc-
ture without the longitudinal sills. Since the primary evidence of the im-
provement accomplished by the use of the longitudinal sills is the shifting of
the high "plume" of rapidly moving water and spray from the bank to the
center of the stream, these photographs do not show the difference as well as
does Fig. 10, which demonstrates the performance with and without the longi-
tudinal sill, respectively. Although the improvement in the flow conditions
near the bank was sufficient justification for the use of longitudinal sills, it has
been possible to detect an improvement in the over-all energy dissipation
effectiveness of the stilling pool, as well. This improvement was noted in
velocity measurements and in the decrease of the distance downstream to the
beginning of the hydraulic jump for a given tailwater stage.
The tests of this second series covered a wide range of structures, from low
drops with thick flows over their crests to high falls with thin sheets of water
passing over them. In terms of the ratio of fall height to critical depth (calcu-
 GULLY CONTROL 903

lated for the notch), the height range of the drops extended from 1.0 to 15.
Fig. 11 shows how stilling pools of appropriate length and depth, for falls
of many different heights, were used to give performance equivalent to that

.(a) With Longitudinal Sill

r:-

(b) Without Longitudinal Sill

h'
9.PaRFoitataNcE or ma Sworn, ExganniENTAL Ono, 2.5;.tjh--d.
,
awn
d. 0.60 )

already described in Flg. 5. As in that experiment, the maximum local ve-

locities were present in the flow well downstream from the structure and away
from the banks and the bed of the stream. These velocities again ranged
from 1.6 V, for supercritical velocities in the downstream channel to 1.1 V,
for submerged operation with the tailwater stage at 2 de (V, = critical, velocity
for the downstream channel).
To obtain the most efficient structures, the second test program included
pools that had other, proportions than those shown in Fig. 11. Inadequate
904 GULLY CONTROL

"stilling" and dangerous distribution of the flow over the end sill characterized
structures that were too small, such as the shallow pool of Fig. 12(a) and the
short pool of Fig. 13(a).
The long stilling pool of Fig. 13(b) gave (like the long pool of Fig. 7(c))
performance that was not measurably better than that of the pools already de-
scribed as satisfactory. Therefore, the use of long pools is regarded as wasteful

(a) With Sill (b) Without Sill

Fro. 10.EFFECT OT THE LONGITIIDINA-L SILL ON DROP-STRUL-ruHE PERFORMANCE

and uneconomic. The performance of a stilling pool that is of the most

efficient length, but has been made four times as deep as the most efficient
depth (see Fig. 12(b)), resembles the performance of the short structures of
Figs 7(a) and 13(a). Although the energy-dissipation performance of the deep
pool is fairly good, the direction of the flow over the end sill is such as to pro-
mote the formation of a deep scour hole immediately downstream from the
 144-.

gfF- Lr. -

11

4IILLT CONTROL' 905

...... -rise
,

1
. _

ENLIP'r ,1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1

18
r
'79' 11

.0 I 2 -0.39
(a) de =1.11''

him '
, 4 ,
..
.
..
,
, .

sipmaiim.".00, 16.
IMIDEM
VIIIIIMMILISO M.3
1 2 3 4 5=4
ILS.ZW.1111' MIIIIIMMINIMIll

(b)
1 2

2.53'
4

' bn
5

=0.33
6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18

. '

RIM
2 NMI=
3 111111111111*.ma
4

5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3.3 14 15 16 17 18-
b I 2 3 4 5 6 1E497,4 _017
(c) dc ;
ROM
EMU
2

3
=MN A
4 1111M1111
5 UMW=
MEMO" d, (Notch),
7 (Channel) a-
8
41.

9 121111111111111111111,ammin
10 REIMINMEIMIUMIENN ,

11
2.311a 56 7
11111111111111MINEVP'.

1
2 34 .5 67. 8 9
1
(d)
dt -10.88;:dc-6; -_,0.08
8 9 10
: -
11 I2r413 .1:4'.
"

Fro'. 11.=Friavi F,A'rribill'ili rola DROPS OF VARIOUS RiotyrrvE Hinartire

. ,
.

-
0O6 GULLY CONTROL

4.

(a) Dangerously Shallow = 10.9; CI., = 2.6, and h' = 0.31 )

d,

h'
(11) Excessively Deep (dh, = 2.5; CL = 3.0; and =
= 1.95 )
Fm. 12.ErrE, or DEACH or Smulto Fool.
 GULLY CONTROL 907

Dangerously Short ( and 0.30 )

a.

Exeeasively Long (dh.

h'
(b) 14.3; and d. 1.15 )
13.Ernecr or LENGTH OF STILLING POOL (CL 3.0)
908 GULLY CONTROL

structure. The writers did not conduct thorough tests of the possibilities of
deep stilling pools in which this behavior would be eliminated by increase in
the pool length but they believe that the improvement in energy dissipation
that might possibly be gained in this manner would not warrant the great
increase in construction cost necessary to obtain it.
DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN FORMULAS FROM' EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Although the experiment programs described herein were successful in
developing efficient drop structures of various proportions, the development of
these designs was not considered to complete the study. In order that struc-
tures of any proportions required in gully-control work may be designed with
equal facility and dependability, it is necessary that rational equations or rules
be written that will unite the information from individual designs into state-
ments of general principles. From these studies it has been possible to de-
velop, by rational methods, rules governing the length of aprons and the height
of end sills and describing the location and proportions of the flow-straightening
longitudinal sills. -
1. Apron Length.Eq. 2, which was already in use for the determination of
apron length at the time the first test program was started, has a sound enough
rational basis to make it a good starting point in developing a design formula
for the expression of the results of the experiments. The height of fall and the
critical depth for the notch are retained as the controlling variables.
The results of the tests shown in Figs. 5 and 7(a) suggested the use of Eq. 2
with a coefficient of CL = 3.0. The establishment of this value of the coeffi-
cient, together with the experimental finding that a similar equation with a
coefficient of CL = 2.0 could be used to describe the trajectory of the water
falling from the crest, suggests that the apron length requirement consists of
two parts(a) the distance required for the falling water to reach the apron
and (b) the length of apron required to establish the energy-dissipating flow
pattern.
For the time between the two series of tests, CL = 3.0 in Eq. 2 was made
the standard for apron length determinations. That the single value of the
coefficient used in this equation should be too great for one extreme type of
drop structure and too small for another was not surprising. The unsatisfac-
tory performance of designs arrived at through its use has already been shown
in Fig. 13.
As information was ploduced in the second series of tests, attempts were
made to analyze the changes that occurred in the performance of structures of
increasing or decreasing height. The experiments on high falls with thin
flows were conducted first.
Soon it appeared that the distance between the point of impingement of the
nappe and the end sill should not necessarily be either equal to or proportional
to/ArTic. It seemed more likely that this distance should be related to the
thickness of the impinging sheet of water. If this sheet has an original thick-
ness proportional to de, then, neglecting the effects of friction and of mixing of
air and water, it may be shown that the acceleration of gravity will make the
-
 GULLY CONTROL 909

thickness after falling a distance, h, proportional to de . Assuming that

this thickness controls the remaining length of the apron, an equation for the
coefficient, CL, of Eq. 2, may be written:

N S.
CL = 2.0 1- C, 2.0 -I- Ci (3)

This change in the coefficient proved too drastic (see Fig_ 11, = 4.97,
= 10.88) and, by cut-and-try methods, a new equation was determined
which represented the data correctly:
de
CL = 2.5 1.2 (4)

From the success of Eq. 4 it must be concluded that the effect of the thin-
ning of the falling jet on the additional length required after impingement is
not so severe as it was at first assumed to be.
The extension of the tests into the /ow fall, thick flow range (see Fig. 11,
-h = 1.11), showed that the foregoing adjustment is not sufficient to account
for all of the added length requirements of this type of fall. Here the physical
picture is different; additional length is now required before impingement.
It is not to be expected, in the first place, that the parabolic trajectory equa-
tion, with its origin at the crest of the drop,, should apply satisfactorily, to the
description of the flow near the crest itself. The finite thickness of the flow
alone is sufficient to make the nappe fall above and downstream from the loca-
tion thus predicted.
A second feature of the flow changes the pattern in low falls: The equi-
librium of forces and momentum changes in the vicinity of the point of im-
pingement requires that the water under the fall should stand above the
tailwater stage established by downstream conditions. This water under the
fall contributes to the support of the nappe even before the reduction of the fall
height creates support from submergence alone (see Figs. 9(a), 12(b), and 13(a)).
The development of an analytical expression to adjust the coefficient of
the apron-length equation for these effee' has been too complicated a task for
this study. Instead, an empirical term has been developed to express the
influence of those features of the flow that will require longer aprons for law-
drop structures:
e
CL = 2.5 + 1.1 + 0.7 (5) 4
Ta h/
If this coefficient is used, the complete equation for the stilling-pool length
may be written:
d )8
L= 2.5 + 1.1+
h
0.7 (-I
h
111ade (6a)
910 GULLY CONTROL

or
de
2.5 ( de 3
(6b)

For the convenience of designers Eq. 5 has been plotted in its dimensionless
form in Fig. 14. In developing Eqs. 2 to 6 it has been assumed that the dam
Values of )-
c
2010 5 3 2 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9

'"4

, 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Values of --C.

FIG. 14.Tax APRON LENGTH RULE (CURVE or EQ. 6)

crest constitutes a control section. If shooting flow in the upstream channel

is not forced to jump before reaching the crest, these pool-length rules are not
applicable to the design of the structure in question.
2. Height of Transverse End Sill.-The rules used for the determination of
the end-sill height have been completely changed during the period of the
laboratory work on drop structures. At the beginning of this period, the
standard design of the Engineering Division of the Pacific Southwest Region
called for a stilling pool whose depth was one eighth of the fall height, so that
1
8
(7a)

After the tests shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7(b) were made, this rule was dis-
carded in favor of
h' = 0.10L 0.3 -V1/ /, (7b)
At the conclusion of the second series of experiments the third rule was
stated:
h' = 2ed (7c)

in which dc is still the critical depth at the weir notch. The weakness of the
second rule is apparent in Fig. 13 which has been cited as belonging to the same
stage of design development.
This form of the sill-height rule (Eq. IC) was not anticipated before the
experiments were completed and was accepted, with some reluctance at first,
 GULLY CONTROL 911

as the only reasonable statement of the results of the experiments. Rather

than attempt a complete analysis, the writers will state their conception of the
factors that make this relationship possible.
The height of the end sill of the stilling pool necessary to develop energy-
dissipating action is apparently determined by the depth and energy content
of the flow in the pool.
Other tests conducted in the laboratory have demonstrated 9 that the loss of
kinetic energy incident to the impingement of the nappe on the apron is a large
quantity and that this loss increases rapidly with increasing fall height so as
to offset, to an appreciable extent, but not completely, the increased energy of
the higher falls. From these findings it can be stated that the flow away from
the impingement zone still will be shallower for high falls than for low drops.
Such shallow flows, of course, will have greater momentum than the deeper
ones. It was desired to turn these shallower, swifter flows upward and over
the end sill in such a manner as to insure the development of the energy-dis-
sipating flow and the ground roller so essential to the protection of the struc-
ture. For this purpose the end sill must be proportionally higher than for the
deeper slower currents from the impingement of lower falls. -
- The results of the experiments would indicate that the increase in relative

sill height with increasing velocity and decreasing flow depth in the pool is
such that the same depth of stilling pool, or height of end sill, relative to the
flow depth at the crest is required for all fall heights.
3. Location of Longitudinal Sills.Longitudinal sills were introduced as
flow-straightening devices in drop-structure stilling pools for the first time dur-
ing the first series of experiments. The size and shape of the sills were estab-
lished during the first stages of the experiments and have remained unaltered
so far as recommended designs may be concerned. Sills, three quarters of the
end-sill height, are the most satisfactory. The width of these sills is deter-
mined by the materials used and structural considerations in general. For
ordinary reinforced concrete construction (sills less than 3 ft high) a 6-in.
width is adequate.
When the second series of experiments was planned, it was believed that
the operation of the experimental drop at many flow stages at a constant width
would produce data from which the possibility of other arrangements of the
longitudinal sills than the third-point spacing originally used might be in-
vestigated. The experiments failed to satisfy this prediction. The third-
' point spacing furnished the best performance from beginning to end of the
series of experiments originally planned. -
From this result of the tests and from observation of the effects of the
lateral contraction of the flow at the crest of the drop, it was concluded that
the spacing of the longitudinal sills, like the lateral contraction of the nappe,
was determined by the horizontal configuration of the contraction alone and
was independent of the fall height and the flow depth. Accordingly, an auxil-
iary series of experiments was conducted in which the amount of the contraction
."Energy Loss at the Base of a Free Overfall," by Walter L. Moore. See this volume of Trans,
actions.
912 GULLY CONTROL

of the flow at the crest of the drop was varied, whereas the fall height and the
flow depth were held constant.
Fig. 15(a) shows the performance of the drop with the sill at the third
point of the width of the hypothetical complete structure. The pronounced
contraction of the flow and the presence of an offset for the ventilation of the
nappe make this, the contraction used in all previous experiments, a very severe
lateral effect. The distance between the edge of the nappe and the side-wall of
the stilling pool may be considered to be a measure of this severity.
Figs. 15(b) through 15(d) show, continuously, the effect of the successive
elimination of the causes of the contraction of the nappe. In each case the
longitudinal sill has been placed in a position for maximum efficiency in flow
straightening. In the case of parallel flow (Fig. 15(d)) this adjustment of the
longitudinal sill has necessitated its complete removal since its ultimate loca-
tion would be flush with the side-wall.
The importance of flow contraction at the drop-structure crest to the pro-
duction of crosscurrents over the end sill was noted by Professor Etcheverry,"
who recommended avoiding lateral contraction where possible. In gully-con-
trol work the shape of natural gully cross sections makes contraction difficult to
avoid in any simple structure. The flow-straightening sills are the simplest and
most economical devices that may be used to counteract contraction effects.
Although an investigation of nappe-ventilation provisions had not been
anticipated in either series of drop-structure tests, the provision of ventilation
by lateral offset or contraction, the two flow features governing the longitudinal-
sill location, has become an inseparable part of the design problem.
It is possible to describe, with some confidence, the flow phenomena that
govern the longitudinal-sill locations. As the contracted, or offset, flow passes
from the crest of the drop to the stilling pool, the nappe fails to span the apron
width uniformly. This lateral inequality becomes effective, at impingement,
as a pair of lateral pressure gradients giving the flow over the end-sill compo-
nents of velocity toward the banks of the gully. The function of the longi-
tudinal sills is to prevent the development of such lateral components by
separating the high-pressure and low-pressure regions of the impingement zone.
It becomes clear, from this analysis, that the longitudinal sills must be placed
near the third points when the pressures are changing over a large part of the
apron width and nearer to the side when the region of pressure differences is
small.
In the development of an equation for the spacing of the longitudinal sills
as controlled by the notch contraction and the ventilation offset, it has proved
more convenient to use an analogy with another flow contraction phenomenon
than to attempt to follow step by step the process of producing the pressure
gradients on the apron.
As the stream flow above the drop is contracted, it experiences a drawdown
from the depth before contraction to a depth slightly less than the critical at
the notch itself. The effect of curvature is to make this last depth depart from
the calculated critical depth; but if this difference is neglected, the drawdown
i° "Irrigation Practice and Engineering," by B. A. Etcheverry, Vol. III, McGraw-Hill Book Co_, Inc.,
New York, N. Y., 1918, pp. 238, 243.
 a x' b. a b. a
(a) = 1.47; 0.031; = 0.32 (b) = 1.38; t77, =. 0; 0.21 (c) 1.11; 0; 0.12 (d) 1.00; = 0; 0
b. b. =
15.EXPERIMENTS ON THE Coarratm or THE SPACING OF LONOITIJOINAL SILLS BY LATERAL CONTRACTION
914 GULLY CONTROL

can be computed from the energy of a stream flowing at critical depth and the
Bernoulli energy equation written for the section upstream from the contraction
and the section at the notch.
The energy in the flow over the crest is

2
=d 2g
(8)

which is the energy upstream from the contraction.

From continuity requirements,
Q= V. c = V, b. d = V, b., d, . (9a)
and
=-=
,, b. de b. d, _1 ,
d, b,, d,
g a, (9b)

Substituting in Eq. 8: = d, d, t' )2 ( t 2 ; and

3(d1\2 = city ± 12 (bi ...)2 (10)

Substituting the identity,

dc d,
d,
+1= (11)

(3
in Eq. 10 and transposing, the drawdown equation is obtained,

d, 3( d, 1 ( )2
. (12)
1
...... . . .
de 2 d b.\2 2
f
The tests devised for the study, of sill location as a function of the notch
contraction showed that no sills were required when there was no contraction
and that increasing contraction moved the sills from their hypothetical position
flush with the walls to positions near the third points of the apron width.
Comparison of the experimental values of with the corresponding computed
d
values of indicated that each had the same functional trend with
changing values of the contraction ratio. From this observation it was con-
cluded that the sill spacing, the departure of the nappe edge from the plane of
the notch edge, and the drawdown were similar measures of the contraction of
the flow at the crest. From the experiments shown in Fig. 15,
C. = = 0.60 d,
(13a)
and
2 1
(ky ± 0.90 ( = 0.108 (le . (13b)

(
 GULLY CONTROL 915

Or,

C3z + 0.90 C2. = 0.108 \y y (14)

Sine.; cubic equations of the type of Eq. 13b -do not lend themselves to quick
solution, a graph of Eq. 14 in its dimensionless form is used in design work.
0.3

0.2

01'

ol0 12 14 16 1.8 20 22 24 26 28
Values of

Fro. 16.THE SILL-LOCATION RULE (EQ. 14)

This graph (Fig. 16) shows the relation between the sill spacing and the notch-
contraction ratio.
The data on which Eq. 13b is based were determined from experimental
drops with wing walls directed 30° upstream from the line of the crest. Al-
though no experiments were made with walls of different orientation, sills
located according to Eq. 13b should improve the flow conditions for almost any
angle ordinarily met. The results of experiments with sill locations other than
those recommended show that they still enabled the sills to improve flow
conditions.
,Eq. 13b gives the best sill location for drop structures that do not have an
offset between the edge of the notch and the side-wall of the stilling pool.
From what little information was obtained in tests it appears that the best
results are produced if the distance between the sill and the edge of the notch,
x, is increased by an amount equal to three times the notch offset, so that
x = Cz b. and
x' = x + 3 a . (15)
The contraction of the flow not only makes the edge of the nappe depart
from the plane of the notch edge, but also distorts the cross section of the nappe
so that the flow is thickest near the center. The ventilation offset, for the
purposes of these tests a small distance by comparison with the notch width,
serves only to offset the nappe, the high pressure area on the apron, and the sills
farther from the side-walls.
 916 GULLY CONTROL

SUMMARY OF DESIGN RULES AND FORMULAS

Two general rules for all drop structures are:
1. The structure must drop the water within its confines and discharge it
downstream in such a way as to cause a minimum of locally intensified erosion;
and
The structure must discharge the stream in such a manner that flows less
than, or equal to, the design discharge rate will not bring about the undermining
of the structure itself.
Three specific rules for rectangular structures of the type treated in this
paper are:
In order to provide efficient energy-dissipating action and to avoid waste
of material, the design should provide an apron of a length derived by Eq. 6a
(for graphical presentation of this formula see Fig. 14). Aprons shorter than
this length are susceptible to undermining by scour at the end sill. Longer
aprons do not give appreciable improvement in scour control. The application
of Eq. 6a should be restricted to falls higher than I = 1.0 because of the in-

creasing importance of the empirical term, 0.7 (y

a
-I , to very low falls.
In order to provide sufficient depth without waste of material the end
sill should have the height expressed by Eq. 7c. Lower end sills do not give as
complete energy dissipation as sills of the recommended height. Higher sills
add to the danger of undermining by scour unless they are used with longer
aprons than would be provided by Eq. 6a. The amount of improvement in
scour control, which may possibly be obtained through simultaneous increase
in depth and length of stilling pools, is believed to be so small as not to justify
the increased cost of construction.
If the drop is laterally contracted, longitudinal sills should be installed
on the apron at a distance x' from each side of the weir notch as given by Eq. 15,
in which x is determined from the solution of Eq. 131' (for graphical presentation
of formula, see Fig. 16). These recommended spacings are based on the use of
wing walls placed at angles of 30° with the axis of the dam, but should be
applicable to most wing-wall orientations commonly used. Sill locations other
than those recommended are less effective in flow straightening and scour
control, but give better performance than does the complete omission of the
sills.
The longitudinal sills should be made three quarters of the height of the end
sill of the stilling pool. The width of the sills is determined by the strength of
the material used for their construction. Since Eq. 15 is empirical and is based
a
on measurements at = 0.031, its application should be restricted to the range
a
0 < b. < 0.031.
It is recognized that the foregoing design rules are based on hydraulic con-
siderations only. Therefore, they must be regarded as minimum requirements
susceptible to increase on the basis of other design considerations.
 GULLY CONTROL 917

The foregoing rules and formulas have been in use by the Engineering
Division of the Pacific Southwest Region, SOS, since July, 1940.
GULLY-CONTROL INSTALLATIONS OF FREE-OVERF.kLL DROP STRUCTURES
The gully-control structures most nearly resembling those used in the
experiments are constructed of reinforced concrete and are of substantial size.
Structures similar to the one shown in Fig. 1 have been built for falls from 5 to
30 ft in height, from. S to 75 ft in width, and from 50 to 5,000 cu ft per sec in
discharge rate. To all sizes of structures of this type, the design rules developed
in this study are directly applicable. Obviously, structural and economic
considerations will limit the height of structures for which the free-overfall type
of spillway is feasible; but the hydraulic principles involved in the designs given
are independent of scale for flows more than a few inches deep.
Smaller structures are often more economically constructed of masonry
using local stone. The same rules that govern the outline of the water passages
in the reinforced concrete structure have been adapted to these. The down-
stream face of a masonry drop normally has an appreciable batter. Since these
drops are ordinarily designed to operate at low ratios of height to depth, the
nappe will not strike the face of the wall and, therefore, the starting point of the
pool length has been considered to be the crest of fall. The space taken up by
the sloping section of the breast wall is not considered to be important in the
action of the stilling pool, except that the nappe should fall free of the face for its
entire height.
Under special conditions of exposure and operation it is desirable to con-
struct rectangular drop structures of logs or of timber. Here again, the rules
developed for the reinforced concrete structure will govern the hydraulic
proportions of the structure.
The writers do not expect that the limitations in the applicability of Eq. 6a
to low falls will be encountered often in gully-control drop design, because of the
possibility of the use of other types of structures in place of the free-overfall
and rectangular stilling-pool type they have discussed.
APPLICATION OF DROP-STRUCTURE RULES TO OTHER TYPES OF
HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES
The principles used in developing the rules for the design of rectangular drop
structures for gully control are sufficiently general for application to many
problems. There is no great difference between the methods that have been
used in insuring energy dissipation and in protecting the structure from
undermining and those commonly used in the design of spillways for major
engineering structures. Although structural and economic considerations
require departure from the rectangular construction discussed herein, the flow
patterns for major spillways and stilling pools are still such that kinetic energy
is converted to turbulence in the pool and that the flow over the end sill produces
a reverse ground roller that protects the end of the structure.
At the other end of the scale of spillway structures used in hydraulic
engineering are temporary "checks" constructed of various types of inexpensive
materials, such as boards, loose rock, and brush. Only the promise of inex-
918 GULLY. CONTROL

pensive construction has kept this type of dam a part of engineering practice.
Perhaps the application of some of the ideas presented herein may help in the
identification and elimination of some of the characteristic weaknesses of this
type of construction. Already experience has pointed out several types of
failure: Undermining due to scour downstream, undermining due to percolation,
lateral by-passing, and structural disintegration brought about by hydrostatic
or hydrodynamic forces.
The first of these causes of check-dam failures has been analyzed in this
study of the rectangular drop structure and it would appear that the thoughtful
application of the design rules presented in this paper should prevent failures
from this cause alone. The other three causes of failure may be regarded as
expressions of rules limiting the use of cheaply-erected checks of various
materials.
CONCLUSION
The writers have presented hydraulic design rules and formulas now in use
by the Pacific Southwest Region, SCS, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and
have described the experimental and analytical development of these rules at
the laboratory of the Cooperative Research Project of the Soil Conservation
Service and the California Institute of Technology.
The analyses presented in the development of design rules for drop struc-
tures may be regarded as statements of progress in a long-term investigation
of the mechanics of energy dissipation and of localized scour. The writers
realize that many problems remain to be studied, and hope that this paper will
serve to indicate some of them. Conspicuous among items considered for future
study are: (a) The importance of lateral contraction and divergence of the flow
in the structure to energy dissipation performance; (b) stability of fl.,w over
the end sill; (c) energy dissipation at the end sill; (d) analysis of eddy-production
in the lateral separation zone at the banks below the end wall of the structure;
and (e) development of methods for reducing the scouring power of the eddy
system of Item (d).
The particular studies reported in this pa.per were made through the
cooperation of field technicians and a laboratory research group. It is antici-
pated that this valuable method of design data development will be continued.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The operations of the Soil Conservation Service in the Pacific Southwest

Region are directed by Harry E. Reddick, Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E., Regional
Conservator. Engineering activities in the Region are supervised by J. G.
Bamesberger, Regional Engineer. The research work of the laboratory is under
the direction of Robert T. Knapp, M. Am. Soc. C. E., for the California
Institute of Technology, and Vito A. Vanoni, Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E., for the
Soil Conservation Service.
Prior to August, 1938, the work of the laboratory in this particular field was
directed by Mr. Christensen, to whom the writers are much in debt for the
information developed in the first series of experiments. In the second
series, the writers were assisted by Wilson B. Jones, Jun. Am. Soc. C. E., who
made the experimental measurements and collected the data of that series.
 HEDBERG ON GULLY CONTROL 919

DISCUSSION 1

JOHN HEDBERG,. Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E.The authors have done a

very commendable job in establishing rules for the design of drop structures.
It is especially gratifying to find that the rules have been founded on the
basic fundamentals of flow rather than upon purely visual inspection.
However, there are several factors involved in the study that the authors
have not chosen to discuss but which deserve some attention. The first of
these is the use of a half section of the structure instead of the whole. The
center wall interferes with the lateral movement of eddies, and therefore a
better alinement of flows probably results in the model tested than in the
corresponding prototype. Is it justifiable to dismiss this factor?
There is also a question of whether a model study involving a large amount
of entrained air yields comparable results. The authors have varied dimen-
sions to find the best combination in their model, based upon the flow char-
acteristics of a combined air and water mixture. Is it not possible that the
mixture will be quite different in the prototype and consequently have some-
what different flow characteristics?. -
There remains the question of the influence of the surrounding air pressure
on the flow through the structure and its effect on the model comparison. It
is so much trouble to run tests at less than atmospheric pressure that it is not
surprising that strict similarity of forces is usually ignored. However, the
shape and size of the ground roller will depend on the surrounding air pressure.
Since the protection of the structure depends on this roller, there is a real ques-
tion of ,hether the violation of similarity here is not of some importance.
L. STANDISH HALL," M. Am. Soc. C. E.The research work reported by
the authors to determine the proper design of drop structures is noteworthy
both for the way in which the experiments were made and for the manner in
which the results have been presented. The existing knowledge of the proper
length of the basin below the drop has been extended so that a proper design
is now possible under a wide range of conditions.
One of the most important features, in the writer's opinion, was the de-
velopment of the longitudinal sill, which has proved very effective in eliminat-
ing bank scour below drops. It is remarkable that so simple a device can be
so effective in solving a troublesome problem. Twenty drop structures built
under the writer's direction have operated very satisfactorily and show no
signs of bank erosion. Some of these structures, under flood conditions, are
described elsewhere."
The authors have suggested several names descriptive of these structures
and have adopted the term "stilling basin." The terms "roller basin" or
"tumble bay" would be more descriptive of the action of the water in passing
through the basin. The action greatly resembles that occurring in a jump
basin at the toe of a dam where the basin is too shallow."
11 Associate Prof., Civ. Eng., Stanford Univ., Stanford University, Calif. Professor Hedberg died
on August 3, 1942.
Hydr. Engr., East Bay Municipal Utility Dist., Oakland, Calif.
1. "Drop Structures for Erosion Control," by L. Standish Hall, Civil Engineering, May, 1942, p. 247.
14 "Study of Stilling-Basin Design," by C. Maxwell Stanley, Transactions, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. 99
(1934). 17. 400.
920 HALL ON GULLY CONTROL

Mention has been made of the difficulty of determining equilibrium slopes

and stable grades between drop structures. Some data have been gathered on
this phase of the problem that may be of interest. At the end of the 1941
runoff season, the silt grade was determined above several of the erosion-
control dams on the San Pablo Creek (California) watershed, where an appreci-
able deposit had occurred. The ponds are only partly full at the present time
(March, 1942), and the grade which the silt deposits finally will take after the
ponds are eventually filled with detritus is of importance in determining the
effective capacity of the structures. Sufficient observations have not been
made to arrive at any definite conclusions, but it appears that the grade taken
by the silt deposits is inversely pro-
TABLE 1.SILT GRADIENTS portional to the size of the drainage
ABOVE DROP STRUCTURES area. The maximum size of ma-
terial carried by the creek also has
Structure Drainage Esti- Silt G
an effect on the silt grade, coarser
No.; area mated grade (in.) material taking a steeper slope. The
SP: (acres) runoff
size of rock fragments is governed in
(a) WEST SIDE Sax Pam. RESERVOIR part by the type of rock formation
in a specific drainage area. On the
26
26X1
321
321
253
253
2.1
1.8
12
3
small drainage areas ranging up to
11 177 161 I
2.3 3 600 acres, the silt grade was found
HA 177 161 1.8 3
10 133 131 2.0 8 to vary between 1.3% and' 2.3%,
10A 133 131 2.0 s
whereas on the larger areas it ranged
EAST SIDE, Sex PABLO RESERVOIR
from 0.25% to 1%. The results from
the several areas are given in Table 1.
18 548 408 2.2 1 After the pond above a drop
18
24
47
97
63
110
1.6
1.3 structure has filled with debris so
that sand and gravel pass over the
(c) Scow Cazrroat crest during flood discharges, there
appears to be a pronounced tend-
13 1,210 618 1.0 1.25 ency to scour the central part of
the stream bed between the longi-
w SAN PABLO CREEK tudinal sills. On one or two struc-
-
201D 8,700 3,000 0.4 6
tures, under the writer's observation,
501N 1,100 640 0.25 the placing of riprap or paving in
this location is indicated as desirable
Estimated 25-yr storm runoff, in cubic feet per sec-
Ma-
within a few years.
ond. 1 Material graded from 0 inches down.
terial graded from fine silt to a 1.25-in. maximum. This bed erosion has occurred on
Private dam above crossroads; material would pass
a No. 10 screen, channels having a steep profile. In
many cases the natural longitudinal
profile of the stream ranges from 1
to 5%. Calculation indicates that the velocity in the channel below the
structure is slightly above the critical. Under these circumstances, the "ground
roller" would be greatly reduced in size from that observed in the laboratory
model, in which the exit channel was on a relatively flat grade. This problem
of bed erosion below the drop would arise on structures for gully control, and
would not be of importance generally where the structure was used as a drop
 CHRISTIANSEN ON GULLY CONTROL 921

in an irrigation canal due to the controlled rates of flow, flatter slopes, and
lower velocities in the latter.
J. E. CHRISTIANSEN," ASSOC. M. Am. Soc. C. E.-Most hydraulic labo-
ratory studies are confined to large important works, where possible savings in
a single structure would pay the costs involved. The fact that appreciable
savings may be effected by improving the design of small, relatively simple drop
structures, used in large numbers, often has been overlooked. The paper by
Messrs. Morris and Johnson is apparently the first record of a laboratory study
to determine the proper proportions of such structures.
For several years the writer has been interested in the improvement of
irrigation systems, especially farm systems and others composed of relatively
small canals that ordinarily receive little engineering consideration. Especially
significant in this field is the large number of small structures. Since they are
individually inexpensive, they are seldom designed carefully. Often they are
not designed at all-just built according to the ideas of the construction fore-
man. That such structures could be greatly improved is clearly evident from
field inspections. One might make many improvements by applying sound
engineering practice, but still more improvements might result from laboratory
investigations of the type described by the authors.
Among the most common structures in irrigation systems in California are
combination check gates and drops, which are used to take up the excess grade
in the canals, and also to control the water-surface elevation for diversions. In
design these resemble the drop structures described by the authors, but they are
generally lower and therefore may have higher ratios of do/h. They differ also
in that they have adjustable crests controlled by flashboards. -
Typical check gates are those used by the Consolidated Irrigation District
near Fresno, Calif. These structures are representative of those used in dis-
tricts that have had the
benefit of a good engineering TABLE 2.-PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS OF CHECK
department. Originally de- GATES USED BY CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION
signed about 1925 by I. H. DISTRICT (SEE FIG. 17)
Teilman, M. Am. Soc. C. E.,
chief engineer of the Dis- A h. L' L h' A B C. G UW LW
trict, they have been only 3 0 6 4.0 0.5 0 1.50 0 1.0 4 4
4 0.5 7 5.0 0.5 0 1.50 1.0 1.0 4 4
slightly modified since then, 5 1.0 8 6.0 0.5 0.5 1.50 1.5 1.0 5 6
and have proved entirely 6 1.5 10 8.0 0.5 1.0 1.50 2.0 1.5 6 8
7 2.0 12 9.5 1.0 1.5 2.00 3.0 1.5 7 9
satisfactory. 8 3.0 14 11.5 1.0 2.0 2.00 4.0 1.5 8 10
9 4.0 18 12.75 1.0 2.5 2.75 5.0 1.5 8 12
Fig. 17 shows the general 10 4.0
5.0
16
18
12.75 1.0 3.0 2.75 5.0 1.5 9 12
12 13.75 1.0 3.0 3.75 7.0 3.0 9 14
design of these check gates; 14 8.0 20 15.75 1.0 4.0 3.75 8.0 3.0 9 15
16 7.0 22 17.75 2.0 4.0 3.75 9.0 3.0 9 16
Table 2 gives their princi-
pal dimensions. The letter
Minimum values.
symbols are the same as
in Fig. 3. Representative
views appear in Figs. 18 and 19. The former is a relatively small structure
with single opening. Although it has been in use for some time, there is no
Irrig. and Drainage Eng, U. S. Regional Salinity Laboratory, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Riverside,
Calif. (formerly Asst. Irrig. Engr., Coll. of Agriculture, Univ. of California, Davis. Calif.).
922 CHRISTIANSEN ON GULLY CONTROL

A r
Upper Wing Wall

Lower Wing Wall

Side Wall,\

Flashboard Grooves
2rx24", 12-Gage
Galvanized Iron Channels

Apron

Walk

Transverse

Center Pier
Center Line -1

(a) HALF PLAN

Flashboards

Fixed Crest

4.1

Center Pier 140WAtAw

a ° °
-,r?.

Cutoff Walls

L'

(b) SECTION A.A.

Pm. 17.--S1ANDA1tD Cincis GATE USED IN CONSOLIDATED Imucianots tharat,

 CHRISTIANSEN ON GULLY CONTROL 923

visible erosion on the downstream side. Fig. 19 shows one of the larger
structures, the total height above the apron being 16 ft. There are eight
openings, with a total width between the side-walls of 64 ft, 8 in. The photo-
graph was taken shortly after the structure was completed and before water
had passed through.
The main differences between these and the drop structures described by the
authors are as follows:
.(1) Upper wing walls at right angle to center line of structure;
,(2) Crest a short distance downstream from upper cutoff and wing walls;
,:(3)' Adjustable flashboard crest;
Walkway over crest to handle flashboards; and
ort (5), No longitudinal sills.
Originally, the transverse sill was placed from 1 to 2 ft upstream from the
lower cutoff wall, but more recently was moved to the end of the structure,
thereby increasing the length of the apron. These check gates have been built
in heights (top of walk to top of apron) from 3 ft to 20 ft, and in widths (inside
of side-walls) from 3 ft, 8 in., to more than 60 ft. Standard practice is to make
the widths 4 in. less than an even number of feet so that flashboards can be

18.TYPICAL CHECK GATE As USED IN SMALL CANAL-HEIGHT, 7 FT; W/DTH, 7 FT 8 Is.

cut from even-dimensioned lumber without waste. For widths between 7 ft 8

in. and 15 ft 8 in. a center supporting pier is used, and the flashboards span both
openings. For greater widths, two or more intermediate piers are used, and
alternate ones are provided with flashboard grooves. Normally, wide struc-
924 CHRISTIANSEN ON GULLY CONTROL

tures are built with an odd number of intermediate piers, so that all flashboards
span two openings.
To minimize the cost of these structures, the practice in the Consolidated
District is to standardize the principal dimensions and use collapsible forms
made up in panels that can be bolted together. In height, these standard sizes
range from 3 to 16 ft. The length and most of the other dimensions are func-
tions of the total height above the apron. Under special conditions, certain
other dimensions are varied.
Longitudinal sills are not used and would possibly offer no advantage, since
lateral contraction is eliminated largely by placing the crest a short distance
downstream from the upper wing walls. There is no provision for ventilating
the nappe. Where the drop is not great, the crest is often submerged, especially
at high flows. Under these conditions wave action downstream is severe. The
downstream wing walls are made longer than the upstream wing walls to give
maximum protection against bank erosion downstream. Additional bank pro-
tection for a short distance is sometimes required.
To compare the apron length and the height of the transverse sill with the
authors' recommendations as stated in Eqs. 6a and 7c, the critical depths, d
were computed from the design capacities furnished by Mr. Teilman. This
allows a freeboard of 1 ft or more under maximum flow conditions. During
normal operation there will be one or more 6-in. flashboards in place. An
additional comparison, therefore, is made on the assumption that the height of
fall, h, is 1 to 2 ft more than indicated in Fig. 17. Table 3 gives the results of
the computations for these comparisons. The 3-ft structure was omitted for
obvious reasons. The 3-ft, 4-ft, and possibly the 5-ft structures can scarcely
be classed as drop structures. Although Eqs. 5 and 6a were developed to give
additional length for conditions of low fall and deep flow, obviously these equa-
tions should be restricted to ratios of hid, that do not exceed 1.0, as mentioned
by the authors in their summary of design rules. A relation of the same form
as Eq. 4 might be applicable over a wider range of values of do/h. One might
use, for example, one of the equations
2 d,
CL = 2.5 + h
(16a)
or
2 dc
CL = 2.2 -I- (16b)
h

Eq. 16a gives only slightly higher values of CL for values of dclh between 0 and
1.1, and might apply reasonably well for values of c1,111 up to 2 or more. The use
of this equation would give a length of 4.6 and 4.7 ft, respectively, for the
assumed values of dc and h for the 4-ft structure as compared with 7.3 and 4.3
ft (Table 3). Eq. 16b gives almost the same values of CL as Eq. 5 for values of
dclit between 0.4 and 0.9, and lower values of CL outside of this range.
Although the authors recommend shorter aprons, experience indicates that
the longer aprons are better than the shorter ones formerly used. Quite likely
 CHRISTIANSEN ON GULLY CONTROL 925

FIG. 19.-LARGE CHECK GATE SHORTLY AFTER COMPLEI/ON-HEIGHT, 16 FT; WIDTH. 64 Pr 8 Is.

TABLE 3.-COMPARISON OF APRON LENGTH AND HEIGHT OF TRANSVERSE

SILL WITH AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS

Ac-rom, DIMENSIONS FIRST COMPARISON SECOND COMPARISON.

d. h CL L h' h CL L
H L 5' (max.) (min.) (Eq. 5) (Eq. 6a) (Eq. 7c) (Eq. 5) CEO. 60,

4 5.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 10.30 7.3 0.50 1.5 3.45 4.3
5 6.0 0.5 1.2 1.0 5.03 5.3 0.60 2.0 3.31 5.1
6 8.0 0.5 1.4 1.5 4.08 5.9 0.70 2.5 3.25 f6.1
7 9.5 1.0 1.6 2.0 3.74 6.7 0.80 3.0 3.18 7.0
8 11.5 1.0 1.8 3.0 3.31 7.7 0.90 4.0 3.06 8.2
9 12.75 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.14 8.9 1.00 5.0 2.98 i 9.4
10 12.75 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.14 8.9 1.00 5.5 2.93 9.7
12 13.75 1.0 2.1 5.0 3.01 9.7 1.05 6.5 2.88 10.6
14 15.75 1.0 2.1 6.0 2.92 10.4 1.05 8.0 2.80 U.S
16 17.75 2.0 2.3 7.0 2.89 11.6 1.15 9.0 2.79 12.7

Based on values' of d. computed from design flows, and minimum values of h (no flashboards). Based
on same d. and higher values of h (assuming flashboard in place).

the depth of water downstream is greater, and the velocities lower, than for the
tests. Would this depth influence the desirable length of the apron?
Although any extension of the total length of the structure would increase its
cost, the placement of the upstream cutoff wall a short distance upstream from
the crest gives greater stability and additional insurance against undermining.
This would seem to be a particular advantage in gully-control structures in the
West, where during the long periods of droudit the soil dries out and shrinks
away from the walls. A sudden flow in the dry channel may result in water
926 WILSON ON G ULLY CONTROL

passing beneath the structure before the soil can become wetted and swell tight
again.
The writer wishes to thank Mr. Teilman for furnishing the data used in
making these comparisons.
WALTER T. WILsoll," Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E.During the years
1934 through 1938 the writer designed, supervised construction of, and made
field inspections of, many gully-control structures. Literally hundreds of re-
inforced concrete and masonry erosion-control structures came to the writer's
attention during this period. Had the research described in this paper been
available at that time, great savings would have resulted not only from
the economy of rational design, but also from the reduction of losses from
under-design and subsequent failure.
Although the authors stressed the fact that they recognized that hydraulic
limits are only part of the problem, it is relevant to mention a few of the others.
The length of the floor must be great enough to provide adequate fill slope,
top width of fill, and reasonable freeboard. The floor of the structure must be
long enough to prevent overturning or "floating" of the structure from the
hydrostatic head of the impounded water retained by it.
Lateral scour seems to have been given too little attention. Toe walls and
downstream wing walls or retaining walls have failed from the erosion of part
of the fill or of the original gully banks by the water discharging from the
structure and forming a vortex. Attempts to control this lateral scour have
included pervious pile wing dams radiating out from the sides of the structure.
The study of seepage past the structure may be included logically under the
subject of hydraulics. The dimensions of the cutoff walls and other parts of
the structure must be considered in the light of Darcy's law relating the static
head to the path of flow or the length of seep or creep lines.
In the upper Mississippi region it was found that under many conditions
the economical type of gully drop structure was either a drop inlet or a flume.
Drop inlets, consisting of a box culvert with riser, have many advantages over
the open-notch type of structure. One of the advantages is the provision for
a roadway across the gully at the site. An early laboratory study of the hy-
draulics of gully-control structures was reported at the University of Wis-
consin in 1934."
The writer believes that the most effective energy dissipater is a fairly
deep stilling pool. Ile has seen many structures with a horizontal floor that
were either too high or too low relative to the gully floor. In one case the floor
might be silted full, eliminating the effectiveness of an acrobatic outlet as an
energy dissipater. In the other case the floor might be left hanging, with
danger of undercutting.
A properly designed flume with the lower end carried far enough below the
subgrade has many advantages. An adequate stilling pool forms naturally.
Variations in the elevation and gradient of the gully bottom from season to
season can be accommodated. The flume, consisting of a hypotenuse in con-
Asst. Hydrologic Engr., Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C.
"Erosion Control StructuresDrop Wets and Spillway.," Research Bolletin No. In, Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison. Wis., June, 1934.
 CHRISTENSEN AND GUNDER ON GULLY CONTROL 927

trast to the vertical and horizontal elements of a vertical drop structure, na-
turally requires less materials.
-

N. A. CHRISTENSEN," ASSOC. M. Am. Soc. C. E., AND DWIGHT GUNDER,"

ESQ.The exceedingly large number of drop structures needed in gully-
control and irrigation work is reason enough for laboratory research of this
kind. The actual value of the research becomes very evident when one con-
siders the large number of failures of drops already built and also the large
number which have been overbuilt in order to insure safety. The value of this
research has already been demonstrated; but, if another wave of conservation
and reclamation sweeps the United States after World War II, these researches
will pay unusually large dividends.
The "half model" technique used in these experiments deserves further
elaboration. The two principal advantages of this technitple are:
It permits accurate observation of conditions at the center line of the
channel; and
With a given model size, the quantity of water required is reduced by
half.
The objections which might be raised are:
(1) Extraneous friction forces are introduced by the glass plate; and
(2) The turbulent action normally found at the center of the stream is
eliminated by the rigid glass plate serving as a boundary.
The two advantages enumerated are obvious and need no further discus-
sion. The following remarks will be confined to the disadvantages mentioned.
The friction forces introduced by the glass plate are a source of error, but
in every model study of this kind friction forces are always a source of error
because Froude's number is used as a criterion for similarity. With this num-
ber as a criterion, one is assured of the proportionality of the gravity and inertia
forces in the prototype and model. The friction forces, on the other hand, are
entirely neglected and considered insignificant as far as results are concerned.
The smaller the model, the more serious is the error introduced by this assump-
tion. It is quite likely that the increase in scale made possible by the "half
model" technique more than compensates for the extra friction force introduced
by the presence of the glass plate at the center line.
In order to appraise the importance of the second objection to the "half
model" technique, attention is called to natural channels in which drop struc-
tures have been erected. From a study of these natural channels, it is obvious
that the excessive scour which sometimes occurs just below the structure is
caused by lateral currents of the stream itself and not by the haphazard
turbulence which is present in most streams. If normal stream turbulence
were the cause of the excessive scour, it would not be localized just downstream
from the drop structure but would occur equally along the entire reach of the
stream. These lateral currents and excessive scour are invariably associated
"Dean of Eng., and Chairman Eng. Div., Experiment Station, Colorado State College of Agriculture
and Mechanic Arta, Fort Collins, Colo.
"Assoc. Prof. of Civ. Eng., Colorado State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arta, Fort Collins,
Colo.
928 CHRISTENSEN AND GUNDER ON GULLY CONTROL

with an unlevel water surface and the pressure gradients within the body of
water which cause continuous currents having lateral velocity components.
In most drop structures, a vertical plane of symmetry exists, which includes
the center line of the structure. Not only is the structure itself symmetrical
about this plane, but also the mean flow and the pressure field within the flow.
In such structures a vertical plane may be inserted at the center line, and the
mean flow will be essentially unchanged. It is true that the turbulent flow
components will be reduced, but these components play only a secondary part
in the excessive erosion that sometimes takes place just downstream from the
drop structure.
The requirements necessary for the "half model" technique would seem
to be:
Geometric symmetry about the center line of the structure;
Kinematic and dynamic symmetry of the mean flow; and
Stability of the flow pattern normal to the plate at the center line.
Whenever these three conditions do not obtain, the "half model" technique
should not be used.
In the paper, an inference was made that gully-control structures designed
according to the principles set forth would require very little maintenance.
For a series of drop structures to be permanently and completely successful,
each structure must not only be soundly designed, but the reaches between
the structures must also be completely stable. The question of what is a
stable grade for the gully must first be answered before the height and spacing
of the various drops can be determined. The importance of an accurate deter-
mination of a stable grade under the varying flow conditions of the gully
should be emphasized as part of the over-all problem of gully control by means
of structures. This problem is further complicated by the fact that the flow
conditions of gullies may change rather rapidly due to various erosion-control
practices.
The writers would like to request elaboration of certain parts of the paper.
The statement made beginning nine lines from Eq. 7c"The height of the
end sill of the stilling pool necessary to develop energy-dissipating action is
apparently determined by the depth and energy content of the flow in the
pool"seems to be somewhat inconsistent with Eq. 7c. This formula would
call for the same sill height regardless of the height of drop. The height of
drop, on the other hand, has much to do with the energy content of the flow
in the pool. Eq. 7c seems to indicate that the height of the sill is determined
by dc alone, which in turn is a direct measure of quantity of flow. As far as
Eq. 7c is concerned, the question of energy does not enter.
The last sentence of the third design rule (see heading "Summary of Design
Rules and Formulas") seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the material
contained in the article proper. The discussion involving Eqs. 3 to 6, as well
as Fig. 14, seems to indicate that Eq. 6a would apply for values of el,
smaller

than 1. If the use of this formula is hazardous for values of smaller than 1,
then a certain part of Fig. 14 should be deleted.
 'CHRISTENSEN AND GUNDER ON GULLY CONTROL 929

It should be noted also that, whereas the derivation of Eq. fla starts with
what appears to be a rational attack, the final equation is almost completely
empirical, especially so in that it contains a purely empirical term. Further,
the expression for the thickness of the falling sheet (given as proportional to
de -de is Et, rather rough approximation, which is satisfactory only if d` is

relatively small. It can be seen at once that this expression, d, \i d--E'

h
for the
thickness approaches infinity as h becomes smaller. One is thus inclined to
suspect that any equation using this thickness will be inaccurate in the region
de
where is large. This is just what was found by the authors.
h
A slightly different attack on this problem will now be given. If the depth
cL is included in the calculation of the location of the point of impingement of
the jet on the floor, and the other assumptions are as given in the paper, it is
found that the horizontal distance x from the crest to the middle of the im-
pinging sheet is x = Ire-/-, (2 h ± de), The thickness of the falling sheet under
the same conditions is given by the continuity equation as

I de
lac (17a)
AI 2 (h ± c1)
and the horizontal width of this sheet is given by

w = t sec 0 =
de Nrci, x -s) 2 g (A + dc) de
(17b)
2 (h + de)
2g h 42- ) 2 -h- + 1
2 dc

in which 61 is the angle between the vertical and the direction of the sheet
filaments.
If one now assumes that the length of the apron is linearly dependent upon
each of these equations (C and Ci are empirical factors):
de
L=C de (2 h de) + C1 h
2 --1- 1

Ci
= C+ de (2 h + dc) ... . (18)
1+2
--d-c

Since the writers did not have the original data available for computations.
a rough comparison of the apron lengths given by Eq. 18 and by Eq. 6a was
made by assuming C = Ci. This gives

(1+d ) e
dc (2 h (lc) (1 4- (-1)
L =2C 2C \r/Tiro = C'L .(19)
1 + 2 (7, \I 2 +
T
 930 BAKHMSTEFF AND FEODOROFF ON GULLY CONTROL

The coefficient C'L of liTiTic in Eq. 19 corresponds to the CL of the author's

paper. Using 2 C = 3.5, the values of C'L were computed and are compared
with the values of CL estimated
TABLE 4.VALUES OF C'L COMPARED WITH in Fig. 14 (see Table 4). These
VALUES OF CL ESTIMATED IN FIG. 14 results show a maximum varia-
- tion of C'L of about 5% from
RATIO, the values of CL (excluding the
Coefficient
doubtful value = 1.2). Since
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2.
2.5 2.8 3.15 3.45 3.8 4.1 4.35 . this is accomplished without the
CL 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.3 3,75 4.3 5.0 inclusion of a purely empirical
These values are in the range where the authors claim
that CL should not be used.
values should be used.
The writers do not know what term such as the 0.7 d () in
Eq. 6a, it might be considered
as somewhat better than Eq. 6a.
It should be noted that the foregoing results were obtained with just one em-
pirical constant. Perhaps even better results could be obtained by adjusting
both C and Cr'.
The writers do not wish to claim that this is a rigorous rational derivation
of the expression for apron length L, but it is felt that it may be helpful in
further study of the problem of the design of gully-control structures, which the
authors have so admirably attacked.

BORIS A. BAKHMETEFF,2' M. Am. Soc. C. E., AND NICHOLAS V. FEODOROFF,21

ESQ.The paper presents an interesting endeavor to proportion structural
design by basing the dimensioning on data derived from detailed observations
of the physical aspects of the flow. It is evident from Fig. 6 that the dimensions
of the stilling pool are principally conditioned by the horizontal distance from
the wall at which the falling live vein strikes the apron, and implicitly by the
angle at which such striking is effected. The latter seems in particular to
determine the direction followed by the rebounding vein, and thus the length of
the downstream channel required for the flow to assume more or less normal
features.
It stands to reason that economy in construction, as well as more favorable
outflow, would be secured if the falling vein were caused to strike the apron close
to the wall and thus at a larger angle. This could be achieved by resorting to
the so-called "adherent" type of nappes, which would follow the surface of the
wall and which would strike the floor at the very toe of the structure. The
general disadvantage of such nappes, of course, is their instability. In fact,
when the brink of the fall has a sharp wedge, as in Figs. 3 and 6, the nappe,
except for extremely low heads, will tend to detach itself from the wall, changing
to the customary outline.
The situation can be remedied, however, by properly rounding the exit
wedge. Indeed, observations show that, if the brink of the fall is shaped by
2° Prof., Civ. Eng., Columbia Univ.. New York, N. Y.
"Research Associate, Civ. Eng. Dept., Columbia Univ., New York, N. Y.
 BAKFIMETEFF AND FEODOROFF ON GULLY CONTROL 931

inserting an arc of a circle, the adherent nappes become quite stable. Even a
relatively small rounding seems to serve the purpose in securing a dependable
vertical falling nappe, and that at comparatively high rates of flow. The situa-
tion is illustrated by Fig. 20, which depicts flow profiles obtained in the Fluid
Mechanics Laboratory at Columbia University in New York, N. Y. The
0.4 (a) r=1 Inch '
Outflow Without Sill
----Outflow with 2" Sill at x=6.25'
0.2

Symbols g de c.4. cic

(11 0.573 0.208 2.5 4.19
r= 1,,
0 0.343 0.154 1.85 5.65
0 0.185 0.102 1.22 8.52
0 057 0,046 0.57 18.8

-0--

a
0.6 demitgpilw..
lII 0
Sill 2".1-ligh

0.8
0.4
16±1111,1111.1.111111=1.111111IMMV
0. 8 71
(6) r-3.5 Inches
Outflow Without Sill
0.2 111111ft.... _Outflow with 2" Sill at x = 6 .25'
(for q= 1.02, Sill at x-7')

Milinalii* 110.N.
111111111M11111
Symbols çj

1.02
dC
0.319 1.09
rd
dc ha,

2.73
0.343 0.154 0.530 5.65
0.185 0.102 0.350 8.52
0.2 0.057 0.046 0.159 18.8

0.4

.5
.1; 0.6
Ii
1111 Sill 2" High

0.8

50 5.5 6.0 6.5

Horizontal Distance in Feet, x '
FIG. 20.-SURFACE PROFILES WITH AND WITHOUT SILL

apparatus used in the experimenting has been well described elsewhere." In

Fig. 20(a) the wedge is rounded to a radius r = 1 in., whereas, in Fig. 20(b),
r = 31 in. In both figures the solid lines show the downstream surface profiles
in free undisturbed outflow. The broken lines demonstrate the eventual effect
.2 "Energy Loss at the Base of a Free Overfall," by Walter L. Moore; see discussion by Boris A. -
Bakhmeteff and N. V. Feodoroff in this volume of Tramactions.
932 HICROX ON GULLY CONTROL

of an interposed 2-in, sill forming a stilling basin. The unit width discharges
are reflected in the parametric values of the critical depth dc, and the last two
dc
columns present the dimensionless ratios and dc' h,c being the height of the
fall. Obviously, the foregoing ratios govern the flow forms. No exhaustive
studies were made to establish the exact relationship at which the adherent
nappe changes its form. In both instances, however, the profiles as plotted
were close to the safe limit, as further increases in the flow brought about signs
of instability.

(a) r = 1 in.; and = 0.343 cu ft per eke (b) r = 3.5 in.; and q 0.343 cu ft per sec
Fin. 21.Viawe or now CHARAcrmarevca vrrrw Two-limn SILL

A characteristic feature is the comparatively small rebounding effect ac-

companying vertically dropping veins, especially in the presence of a sill. Also,
in the latter case, the outflow into the downstream ehannel was relatively calm,
except in the instance of q -1.02 cu ft per sec per ft of width in Fig. 20(b),
In fact, the general
where the size of the stilling pool was obviously insufficient.
impression is that, with adherent vertical nappes, the quieting effect exercised
by the stilling pool is more decisive than with detached nappes. The general
physical aspects are partly illustrated by Fig. 21. The underpressures de-
veloped next to the rounded surface of the wedge were relatively small.

G. H. Hicsox," M. Am. Soc. C. E.A number of descriptions of stilling

basins for large dams have been published, but the results have not been
generally applicable. This paper should be of particular interest to the
U Senior Hydr. Engr., TVA, Hydraulic Laboratory, Norris, Tenn.
 COX ON GULLY CONTROL 933

designer of small structures, the costs of which are not sufficient to support
independent model studies, and the authors are to be commended on its
presentation, and on the studies that preceded it.
It is believed that a word of caution is necessary, however, with respect
to the general applicability of the results. The writer does not share with the
authors the optimism implied in the following statements (see heading "Appli-
cation of Drop-Structure Rules to Other Types of Hydraulic Structures"):
"The principles used in developing the rules for the design of rec-
tangular drop structures for gully control are sufficiently general for
application to many problems. There is no great difference between the
methods that have been used in insuring energy dissipation and in pro-
tecting the structure from undermining and those commonly used in the
design of spillways for major engineering structures."
A casual reading of the foregoing statements might lead the reader to assume
that the criteria developed in the paper were directly applicable to spillways
for major engineering structures, although it is quite probable that the authors
did not mean to imply this.
There are at least two important differences between the gully-control
structures described in the paper and spillways for large dams. The first of
these differences is contained in the statement of the authors (see heading
"Development of Design Formulas from Experimental Data: 2. Height of
Transverse End Sill")
"* * * that the loss of kinetic energy incident to the impingement of
the nappe on the apron is a large quantity and that this loss increases
rapidly with increasing fall height so as to offset, to an appreciable extent,
but not completely, the increased energy of the higher falls."
This may be true for the type of structure tested, in which the water falls
directly on a horizontal apron, but it is not generally true for major structures.
There, an effort is usually made to prevent this type of energy loss because of
the tremendous impact forces that would exist immediately at the toe of the
structure. Instead of striking on a horizontal floor, the flow is usually turned
in a horizontal direction at the toe by means of a vertical curve or bucket
having a radius, depending on the depth of flow, of from 35 ft to 100 ft. This
gradual change of direction involves less loss of energy and means that a
greater amount must be dissipated in the stilling basin. This difference is
not on the side of safety.
The second important difference is in the assumption made with respect
to tailwater elevations. The tests apparently were made on the assumption
that flow below the structure would occur at relatively high velocities and small
depths. Thus, the ground roller below the end sill was always formed under
similar conditions. Dams on large rivers are usually relatively low, and the
elevation of tailwater becomes an important factor. In many cases, tailwater
for maximum discharge may be above the spillway crest. This is true at
Dams Nos. D1, D2, and D3, Table 5, and at two other main dams on the
Tennessee River, and doubtless in many other instances. When the tailwater
is sufficiently high above the spillway crest, the type of flow changes and,
- 934 HICKOX ON GULLY CONTROL

instead of plunging beneath the tailwater to the apron on the river bed, con-
tinues near the surface for a time. The conditions for energy dissipation are
thus completely changed and the criteria proposed ate no longer applicable.
The criterion for the length of structure is based on the assumption that
the discharge falls freely from the crest to the apron. This is not true for
TABLE 5.COMPARISON OF ACTUAL DAM DIMENSIONS WITH EQB. 6a AND 7c

L (Fr) W (Fr)
Key designation (ft) (ft)
Actual By Eq. fla Actual By Eq. 7e
D1 38 30.7 130 129 5 15.4
D2 20 30.7 106 167 8 15.4
D3 48 24.5 150 108 5 12.2
D4 56 24.5 167 113 5 12.2
D5 237.5 17.3 420 165 17 8.6
D6 203.5 24.5 395 186 12 12.2

overflow spillways on gravity dams because the requirements of stability place

the toe of the dam downstream from the normal trajectory of the overfalling
sheet. As a result, the distance L from crest to end sill is necessarily increased.
Table 5 is a comparison of values of L and h' as calculated from Eqs. 6a and 7c
and as adopted on the basis of model tests for a number of dams built by the
Tennessee Valley Authority. These dams were all built with horizontal aprons
and plain end sills, and provide typical examples of both low-head and high-
head dams to which a general relationship might be expected to apply. The
lack of satisfactory agreement is evident.
Another factor of importance in many spillway designs is the formation of
waves below the spillway and their effect on bank erosion and navigation. The
slope of the upstream face of the end sill has an important bearing on the pro-
duction of waves as well as on the formation of the ground roller. On none
of the dams listed in Table 5 is the upstream face of the end sill vertical. Until
many more experiments have been made under a wide range of conditions,
special investigations should be made for all major structures.
The writer is puzzled by criterion (1), which states (see heading "Criteria
for Satisfactory Drop-Structure Performance"):
"The kinetic energy of the effluent stream, as measured by the excess
of local velocity over the velocity for absolute minimum specific energy,
shall be a minimum."
The reason for the choice of the kinetic energy at the critical velocity as a
reference base is not clear, since it is the total energy, and not the kinetic energy,
that is a minimum at that point. It would also seem necessary to specify the
point at which the energy (or velocity) was measured, since there is consider-
able dissipation of energy a short distance below the structure, as illustrated
by Fig. 6. If the purpose of the structure is the prevention of erosion, is not a
low bottom velocity the end to be desired?
It is noted that extensive use was made of photography for taking data.
The possibilities of photography for this purpose are very great but, so far,
 MORRIS AND JOHNSON ON GULLY CONTROL 935

comparatively little progress in its use as a laboratory tool has been reported.
The authors are to be commended for their use of this versatile tool.
B. T. MORRIS," JUN. Am. Soc. C. E., AND D. C. JOHNSON," Assoc. M.
Am. Soc. C. E.The interest that so many hydraulic engineers and labora-
tory specialists have shown in discussing a paper on the hydraulics of a common
erosion-control structure has repaid the writers many times over for their
efforts in bringing their work to publication. That the late Professor Hedberg
should have found strength during his last illness to prepare the first discussion
was a tribute that they shall not soon forget.
For the sake of clarity, the writers have organized their closure by subject
rather than by specific reply to individual discussion.
Performance of Drop Structures and Spillways.-The importance of the
trajectory of the overflow to the apron-length requirement was recognized and
emphasized by Professor Bakhmeteff and Mr. Feodoroff. Most of the length
determined by Eq. 6a is occupied by the freely falling nappe. Where such a
nappe does not exist, apron-length rules based on free fall cannot be used.
Professor Bakhmeteff and Mr. Feodoroff have suggested the use of a
rounded overf all crest to produce a clinging nappe and, consequently, a shorter
apron; but elinging nappes indicate underpressure at the overfall crest. The
writers would be quite apprehensive of the safety of any design in which under-
pressures, however small in the model, are important to the stability of the
flow. That pressures below atmospheric must exist in the flow of Fig. 20 and
Fig. 21 will be obvious to any one who seeks to locate the force producing the
change in horizontal momentumfrom a large quantity to zero. Perhaps
very small structures might have sufficiently rounded crests to form stable
clinging nappes, but structures with overflow depths of 3 ft to 5 ft would re-
quire underpressures of the order of 4.5 ft to 7.5 ft in average value over
an area equal to the stream cross section. Moreover, these underpressures
would not be evenly distributed. Variations in velocity and imperfections
of crest profile may produce areas with negative pressure approaching or
reaching the limit of barometric head less the vapor pressure of water and
entrained air. Under such circumstances clinging flow would be unstable.
Dean Christensen and Professor Gunder have emphasized the uselessness
of Eq. 6a when is less than 1.0. The writers agree that the graph of Eq. 5
de
de
in Fig. 14 should be a broken line beyond = 1.0. or that the diagram should
de
be restricted to less than 1.0. The overflow is continuously supported at
less than 1.0 even when the tailwater depth is less than critical in the down-
stream channel. Because Eq. 6a is empirical in so far as it applies to supported
nappes, it should not be used beyond the range of the experimental data on
supported nappes.
u Research Engr C. F. Braun & Co., Alhambra, Calif.; formerly Associate Hyclr. Engr., SCS, Pasa-
dena, Calif.
2i Sacramento, Calif.; formerly Asst. Regional Engr.. SCS, Berkeley, Calif.
936 MORRIS AND JOHNSON ON GULLY CONTROL

Mr. Hickox has demonstrated, forcefully, the fact that Eq. 6a cannot be
applied to overfalls in which the nappe is supported continuously by an ogee
crest or similar spillway section of the type he describes. However, the writers
believe that the flow conditions on drop-structure aprons downstream from
the free trajectory intersection are closely related to those on the aprons of
large dams.
Mr. Hall has pointed out, directly and through reference to the valuable
work of C. Maxwell Stanley, M. Am. Soc. C. E., the resemblance between the
flow conditions on the drop-structure aprons and those in basins too shallow
for hydraulic jump operation. In recent months, the senior writer and James
T. Rostron, Jun. Am. Soc. C. E., have conducted experiments like those of
Mr. Stanley, although with sluice entrance rather than chute entrance. By
mean& of these experiments they have isolated a shock-wave system of flow
much like the hydraulic jump but belonging peculiarly to channels with cross
sills of height greater than 0.5 el,. This phenomenon they have named the
"forced shock-wave." Although their investigation is too extended to report
herein, it may be stated that apron lengths and sill heights may be chosen so
as to attach the forced shock-wave flow system to any high-velocity stream.
The writers believe that forced shock waves are produced at many struc-
tures. The close agreement (Table 3) between the values of h' given for Mr.
Teilman's check gates by Mr. Christiansen and those given by Eq. 7c is evi-
dence that these structures employ the forced shock-wave flow.
Flow Downstream from the Structure.-The manner in which the flow over
the end sill produces a ground roller and a scour hole adjacent to the toe of
the structure is discussed in the paper. Dean Christensen and Professor
Gunder have added an excellent statement of the relative significance of large-
scale eddy motion and the kind of turbulence that is characteristic of normal
channel flow in producing scour at the toe of the structure. They have dis-
cussed also the importance of the estimated stable grade on which the layout
of the entire system of structures in a gully is based before any individual drop
can be designed. Mr. Hall has presented some data to offset the almost com-
plete lack of factual information on which to base the estimation of the hypo-
thetical stable grade.
Mr. Wilson states that "Lateral scour seems to have been given too little
attention." Perhaps the writers did not make themselves clear. Even with
properly proportioned stilling pools and longitudinal sills for the control of
cross flow, lateral scour is the most important unsolved problem. The writers
certainly have no ready-made answer. The senior writer has recorded else-
where" his conception of the mechanics of lateral scour. Fig. 22, taken from
that paper, shows scour at a model of a drop structure designed according to
the rules already stated.
Mr. Hall reports scour of the central part of the stream bed between the
longitudinal sills. This is contrary to the writers' experience and may be
peculiar to the conditions he describes. Central scour should be far less
dangerous than lateral scour unless the structure has been installed with too
steep a downstream grade.
n "Scour Control and Scour-Resistant Design for Hydraulic Structures," by Brooks T. Morris,
Transactiems, Am. Geophyaical Union, Pt. I, 1942, p. 60.
 MORRIS AND ;JOHNSON ON GULLY .CONTROL 937

., Mr. Hall calls attention, as well, to the fact that the structure may dis-
charge into a steep channel whose normal rate of flow is faster than critical
velocity; Figs. 6(a) and 11 show such flow for various heights of drop.
From time to time during the life of a structure, its apron may be carVered
with silt and debris, particularly if the stable grade has been chosen con-
servatively. As the structure is self-cleaning, this condition is not dangerous,

1' . ,

., s . , t.- kr,J, .410 ,,.

--4, !I ''

Roller
:
111\ NW _

.. ;
.

....,,,,,,:.....,w9:::....... :::...,..A,..., :c..,..,.

......... ...... . ... _ . .,..
2 : - . . . ,7
1.4'. ''.-.Sand Bed e 1.. '-....-'
-
PIG. 22.--SCOUR HOLZ AT MOD= DROP STRUCTURE
(Reference Grid Spaces Are 0.25% by 0.5 Ft)
IX: P., 0.

"on the other hand, if the steepness of the stable grade has been overestrmated,
the apron will remain above the channel and the structure will discharge with
a second free fall. Although the structure may survive a short period of
operation at this condition, the channel may suffer rapid enlargement. Perhaps .
Mr. Wilson had this situation in mind when he urged, deep stilling pools.. The
938 MORRIS AND JOHNSON ON GULLY CONTROL

writers are aware of a long-standing practice of deep stilling-pool Construction

in which hi might range from 1 to 3 or even deeper. Although they are
convinced of the necessity for deep settings and conservatively estimated
stable grades, they have satisfied themselves by experiment and practice that
deep pools (that is, high transverse sills) are not necessary.
Other Considerations.-Mr. Wilson fists several other factors affecting the
apron length in addition to those presented by the writers. Not only
must these factors always be taken into account, but also, for high dams
(say (I greater than 5) they may be expected to require greater length, L,
than that given by Eq. 6a. :, Only when much of the stability of the structure
is furnished by abutment resistance may Eq. 6a alone determine the apron
length of a,high drop.
Mr. Wilson calls attention to certain characteristics of flumes that have
led him to favor that type of fall over the drop structure. The writers have
used flumes in a few instances but only with recognition of to weaknesses of
the flume as a drop installation. For one thing, the flume is essentially an
eitettf Conserving device. For another, it is susceptible to heavy damage from
Miixiefoundation shifts. The rectangular drop Structure, particularly when
built of reinforced concrete or framed timbers, is a caisson-like unit that can
withstand undermining, tilting, and settling without structural disintegration.
Design Criteria.Dean Christensen and Professor Gunder present an apron-
length formula (Eq. 19) based on a more exact treatment of the overfall tra-
jectory than that given by the writers in their extension of Professor
Etcheverry's formula, Eq. 2. That Eq. 19 should fit the data of Figs. 6 and 11,
de
as well as Eq. 4 or Eq. 6a for less than 0.8, is not surprising. However, the
de
writers doubt that Eq. 19 is even as good as Eq. 6a between = 0.8 and
de
= 1.0. In that region, and at lower falls, there is no freely falling nappe.
-h
True, there may be a depression of the surface such as to direct the principal
current toward the bottom, but neither Eq. 19, Eq. 4, nor the first two terms of
Eq. 6a can describe the flow, for each of these is based on the trajectory of
free fall. The third term of Eq. 6a was introduced to correct the relationship
for the supporting effect of the underlying water over a small range of fall
heights on which this effect produced only a small part of the required length, L.
de d.
Eq. 6a is substantiated by experiment for as great as 1.0 and as

great as 2.0.
Mr. Christiansen and Mr. Hickox have reminded the writers that high tail-
water stages can alter the flow over the stilling pool at low falls. An extreme
case of altered flow would be the submergence of control. This might be
d.
anticipated, for example, at -- = 1.0 and = 3.0. The stilling pool would
de
be only an indentation in the bottom for such a flow as that. So long as
 MORRIS AND JOHNSON ON GULLY CONTROL 939

do
remains equal to, or less than, 1.0 and d, equal to, or less than, 2.0, control
exists at or near the drop structure crest and Eq. 6a is sufficient for the deter-
mination of L.
Dean Christensen and Professor Gunder have called attention to apparent
discrepancies in the presentation of Eq. 7c. A little algebraic manipulation
would show that Eq. 7c implies a unique relationship between the sill height,
the depth on the apron, and the kinetic energy of flow such that
d [ 4,1)2 11/3 [ di 12/3
h' = 2 (20)
2g 2

The new studies by the senior writer and Mr. Rostron indicate that h' 0.5 cl,
is the criterion for stability of the forced shock wave below overfalls. Unless
this wave is formed, the flow leaves the apron over the end sill without sig-
nificant energy dissipation downstream from the free trajectory intersection.
Mr. Hickox discusses the eff ect of steepness of the upstream face of the
end sill on the violence of motion downstream from it. In so doing, he reveals
the most essential difference between the stilling pools for low dams with
tranquil downstream channels and those for drop structures. Where the tail-
water stage can be relied upon to stabilize a hydraulic jump over the spillway
apron, the function of the end sill is only to invert the velocity profile and
produce a ground roller. Neither the large amounts of energy dissipation nor
the violent motion attendant to it are necessary. In the drop-structure stilling
pool the shock wave acts at and immediately upstream from the end sill.
Violent motion is characteristic; but, as Mr. Hickox implies, such violent
motion is to be compared with that in the normal regime of the particular
downstream channels involved.
Laboratory Technique.Professor Hedberg raises three questions, each one
of which is important to the interpretation of the results of laboratory tests.
His first question deals with the reliability of the half-model technique. Dean
Christensen, who originated the method in connection with these studies, has
presented a statement of its value and limitations that the writers will not
attempt to improve.
The second question has to do with air entrainment. Knowledge of the
controlling factors of air entrainment is so meager that positive description of
air entrainment relationships in model and prototype is not now possible. In
general, the writers subscribe to the analysis n of air entrainment proposed by
their former adviser and colleague, Professor Knapp. They have relied on
relatively large-scale experiments to minimize the discrepancies of air entrain-
ment behavior between model and prototype. Observation of the experimental
drop structure indicated active air intake at all points where it might be ex-
pected in larger structures, except at the surface of the falling nappe itself.
The writers would expect difficulties from the effect of bulking on the density
of the falling water relative to that in the pool to occur first. Such difficulties
would become apparent in reduced capacity of a given apron length. However,
such difficulties remain hypothetical. No trouble has yet been reported from
,7 "Entrainment of Air in Flowing Water: A Symposium"; see discussion by Robert T. Knapp in this
volume of Tran.sactions.
940 MORRIS AND JOHNSON ON GULLY CONTROL

the highest fall among drop structures built by the Pacific Southwest Region,
SCSa six-year-old structure with h = 25 ft and = 15.
The third question raised by Professor Hedberg has to do with the effect
of the net absolute pressure on the stability of flow in the mode/ and the
prototype. Had their structure incorporated a curved surface or a plane
surface with adverse pressure gradients in a zone of low total pressure, the
writers might have worried over this element of similitude for the reasons set
forth in their discussion of the clinging overfall. They believe that the regions
of flow separation in the vicinity of the end sill are so located in reference to
the corner of the sill as to be stable with respect to changes in the character of
the fluid passing them. Unstable flow occurred only where the apron was
critically short. No structure installed in the field has shown the anomalous
performance necessary to confirm doubt of the writers' assumptions.
Mr. Hickox questions the value of criterion (1), which was used to compare
the laboratory drop structures. The critical velocity was chosen as a reference
base to give appropriate seal,: to local velocity measurements while still pro-
ducing a dimensionless description of the magnitude of eccentricities in the
velocity distribution. The writers did not make use of bottom velocity mea-
surements because such quantities would apply only to specific localities in the
artificial downstream channel. Instead they chose a criterion through which
the maximum local velocity was taken to be a measure of the intensity of eddy
motion and the availability of energy for further eddy production. The
measurement of bottom velocity, or, preferably, velocity gradient, is useful in
straight channels of uniform roughness where such measurements can be corre-
lated with shear intensity and turbulence. However, as Dean Christensen and
Professor Gunder have so neatly pointed out, localized scour is related more
closely to large-scale and locally intensified turbulence or eddy motion than
it is to the turbulence that is characteristic of channel flow.
Mr. Hickox' kind remarks in regard to the photographic procedure em-
ployed in these studies have been communicated to Hugh Stevens Bell of the
SCS Laboratory staff at the California Institute of Technology. Mr. Bell, who
is responsible for photographic control and procedures at the laboratory, ad-
vised and assisted the writers in many ways during the investigations.