DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CECW-ED Washington, DC 20314-1000 ETL 1110-2-340

Technical Letter
No. 1110-2-340 31 March 1993

Engineering and Design

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE U-SHAPED
CHANNELS, BASINS, AND DROP STRUCTURES

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ETL 1110-2-340
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CECW-ED Washington, DC 20314-1000

Engineer Technical
Letter No. 1110-2-340 31 March 1993

Engineering and Design

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE U-SHAPED
CHANNELS, BASINS, AND DROP STRUCTURES

1. Purpose. The purpose of this engineer technical letter (ETL) is to

facilitate the structural design of low-hazard, U-shaped, channels, basins,
and drop structures. The ETL summarizes Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
experience and criteria, discusses the differences between SCS and Corps of
Engineers practices, and provides guidance on the use of three computer
programs developed by SCS and one program developed by the Corps for the
design of these structures.

2. Applicability. This ETL applies to all HQUSACE/OCE elements, major

subordinate commands, districts, laboratories, and separate field-operating
activities having civil works responsibilities for the design of civil works
projects.

3. References. Corps programs may be requested from the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (USAEWES), ATTN: CEWES-IM-DS (Engineer Computer
Programs Library), Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199.

a. ER 1110-2-1150. "Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects."

b. Hays, C. O. 1989. "Investigation and Design of U-Frame Structures

Using CUFRBC; Volume A, Program Criteria and Documentation," Technical
Report ITL-90-3, USAEWES, Vicksburg, MS.

c. Hays, C. O., and Ford, C. 1989. "Investigation and Design of U-Frame

Structures Using CUFRBC; Volume C, Users Guide for Channels," Technical
Report ITL-90-3, USAEWES, Vicksburg, MS.

d. Hays, C. O., and Wright, T. 1989. "Investigation and Design of

U-Frame Structures Using CUFRBC; Volume B, Users Guide for Basins," Technical
Report ITL-90-3, USAEWES, Vicksburg, MS.

e. Price, W. A., and Alling, E. S. 1989. "CBASIN--Soil Conservation

Service Program SAFBASIN for Structural Design of Saint Anthony Falls Stilling
Basins; Adapted to Corps of Engineers Structural Criteria," Technical
Report ITL-89-4, USAEWES, Vicksburg, MS.

f. Price, W. A., and Alling, E. S. 1989. "CCHAN--Soil Conservation

Service Program STRUCHAN for Structural Design of Rectangular Channels;
Adapted to Corps of Engineers Structural Criteria," Technical Report ITL-89-5,
USAEWES, Vicksburg, MS.

1
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

g. Soil Conservation Service. 1977. "Structural Design of Monolithic

Straight Drop Spillways," Technical Release No. 63, Engineering Division,
US Department of Agriculture (NTIS No. PB85-175578/AS).

4. Summary.

a. Scope. This ETL is limited to the structural planning and design of

reinforced concrete U-shaped channel cross sections along with associated
hydraulic jump stilling basins and drop structures. Soil Conservation Service
design criteria for hydraulic structures are introduced, and the differences
between Corps of Engineers and SCS practices are examined. Engineering needs
in the Reconnaissance, Feasibility, and Preconstruction Engineering and Design
Phases are recognized.

b. Background. The SCS has extensive experience in the planning, design,

construction, and maintenance of hydraulic structures. Over time, the Service
has developed and refined its design criteria and prepared a substantial
volume of engineering design tools and aids. The Corps of Engineers can
profit from this body of knowledge.

c. CCHAN and CBASIN. Two SCS mainframe computer programs for the
structural design of U-shaped channels and basins (STRUCHAN and SAFBASIN) have
been modified and adapted to Corps of Engineers criteria for working stress
design of hydraulic structures (References 3e and 3f). The resulting Corps
programs, CCHAN and CBASIN, are microcomputer programs with on-line interac-
tive input and screen output. They permit the selection of any desired
combination of concrete working stress and reinforcing steel allowable stress.

d. CUFRBC. The Corps mainframe computer program CUFRBC was developed to

investigate or design U-frame channel or basin structures (References 3b, 3c,
and 3d). Comments on the selection choice between CCHAN or CBASIN and CUFRBC
are provided. The program CUFRBC is listed and described in Hays (1989).

e. DROPSPIL. The SCS mainframe computer program DROPSPIL, for the

structural design of monolithic straight drop spillways, is available within
the Corps in microcomputer version. The program has not been modified to
Corps of Engineers criteria. It uses criteria from SCS Technical Release
No. 63 (Reference 3g).

5. Objectives. The principal objective of this ETL and the enclosed design
guidance and policy information (Enclosures 1-3) is to facilitate the struc-
tural planning and design of U-shaped channels, basins, and drop structures
through the use of available computer programs and other engineering
resources. Specific objectives are as follows:

a. To reinforce the procedures, requirements, and responsibilities for

engineering and design of civil works projects as described in Engineer
Regulation 1110-2-1150 (Reference 3a).

b. To create an awareness of some of the available SCS materials pertain-

ing to hydraulic structures in soil and water conservation engineering.

2
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

c. To provide an understanding and recognition of the similarities and

differences between Corps of Engineers and SCS criteria relating to reinforced
concrete design and external stability requirements for hydraulic structures.

d. To present guidance for the use of a group of computer programs

written for civil works project design and development.

e. To make available a reference list of research and/or design

literature concerning U-shaped channels, basins, and drop structures.

6. Action.

a. Where applicable, programs CCHAN, CBASIN, and DROPSPIL should be used

during the Reconnaissance and Feasibility Phases of all channel projects and
in the Preconstruction Engineering and Design Phase of low-hazard projects
(where failure of the structure would not result in major property damage or
loss of life). Typically, for projects that include dams, the subject struc-
tures might serve as the outlet works of low-hazard, small dams (height less
than 40 feet and storage less than 1,000 acre-feet) or might be situated in
channels downstream of such dams.

b. The use of SCS criteria will be on a project-by-project basis, with

Headquarters, USACE (CECW-E), approval, and should be identified in the
projects reconnaissance report. Specific SCS criteria to be used and the
rationale for their use should be stated.

c. The program CUFRBC may be used for all projects.

FOR THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS:

3 Encl PAUL D. BARBER, P.E.

Chief, Engineering Division
Directorate of Civil Works

3
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

GUIDANCE ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE U-SHAPED

CHANNELS, BASINS, AND DROP STRUCTURES

1. Introduction.

a. Scope of Guidance. This guidance capitalizes on the experience of

the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
during the life cycles of SCS hydraulic structures in both soil and water
conservation works and in watershed protection and flood prevention projects.
Attention is focused on the structural design of U-shaped channels, basins,
and drop structures. SCS computer programs and design tools can be of use in
the several phases of structural design of channel components.

b. References. The list of references to Enclosure 1 is contained in

paragraph 7.

2. SCS Design Criteria and Practice for Hydraulic Structures.

a. Reinforced Concrete. The SCS participated in the final phase of

development of the Corps EM 1110-2-2104, "Strength Design for Reinforced
Concrete Hydraulic Structures" (Reference 7a) and may well be revising their
criteria accordingly. The use of SCS criteria should be verified with the SCS
whenever they are applied.

(1) Policy. SCS policy for reinforced concrete (Enclosure 2) permits con-
crete compressive strength values of 2,500, 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 psi
(34,475 kPa) and steel yield strengths of 40, 50, and 60 ksi (415 MPa). Most
hydraulic structures are designed for the de facto standard combination of fc
= 4,000 psi and fs = 20 ksi or, for strength design, fy = 40 ksi. With few
exceptions, structural design in reinforced concrete can be accomplished by
either strength design (SD) or working stress design methods (WSD). The SD
method is recommended. SCS policy establishes reinforced concrete design
criteria by structure environment class. Three general classes are specified.
Only Soil Conservation Service hydraulic structures (SHY) are considered here-
in. The strength design of these structures normally limits the design yield
strength to 40 ksi for material yield strengths of 40, 50, or 60 ksi.

(2) Steel Ratios. The maximum steel ratio permitted for SHY may not
exceed that allowed by SCS WSD criteria for the same material combination (SCS
Technical Release (TR) 67) (Reference 7l). Hence, the ratio of the maximum
steel ratio permitted for SHY to the steel ratio producing balanced strain
conditions in SD accordingly varies from approximately 0.24 to 0.40 for the
various material combinations (SCS Design Note (DN) 21) (Reference 7o). For
the de facto standard, the ratio of the SHY ratio to the balanced strength
design steel ratio is 0.31. The maximum steel ratio permitted for SHY is

fc 1.0
shy 0.40
fy 1.25fy
1.0 nfc

where n is given by
n 503.3
fc

Enclosure 1 1-1
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

The steel ratio for balanced strength design strain condition is

fc 87,000
bal
fy 87,000 fy
0.851

where, for fc less than 4,000 psi,

1 0.85

and for fc equal to or more than 4,000 but not more than 6,000 psi,

f 4,000
1 0.85 0.05 c
1,000

(3) Safety Factor. The SCS SD load factors basically follow the single
load factor concept with a value of 1.8. This load factor, plus a flexure
strength reduction factor of 0.9, produces a safety factor of 2.0 for pure
bending. Combined with the SHY steel ratio limitation, SD solutions tend to
be closely the same as those obtained from WSD.

(4) Design Aids. Design aids are available in several forms. These
include graphs and charts in Engineering Standard drawings, preprepared struc-
tural detail construction drawings in National Standard Detail Drawings
(NSDD), and computer programs for specific structure types (SCS TRs 42, 45,
50, 54, 63; References 7e-7i). Each TR documenting a computer program con-
tains a reinforced concrete design criteria sheet (Figure 1-1). Mylar copies
of available NSDD (SCS DN 18) (Reference 7j) are obtainable from Unit Head,
Cartographic Unit, South National Technical Center, SCS, PO Box 6567,
Fort Worth, TX.

b. External Stability. Stability design provides structural dimensions

that allow the structure to satisfactorily interact with its environment. The
following features are considered:

(1) Load Combinations. The parameter values used in a load combination

attempt to encompass reasonably severe conditions for that loading. Possible
critical combinations are recognized and investigated to ensure that appli-
cable stability considerations are adequately tested.

(2) Loadings for Stability Computations. Loads computed for stability

investigations are service values, i.e., they are not the factored loads used
in internal strength determinations.

(3) Lateral Earth Pressure Ratios. It is recognized that most hydraulic

structure proportions and configurations result in at-rest earth pressures.
Walls of hydraulic structures tend to be quite stiff and are often restrained

1-2
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

by their supports, so that wall movements are insufficient to reduce lateral

pressures to the active case. Even lateral pressures that might originally
approach the active case may, over time, increase to at-rest values. Further,
compaction of fill against a wall can produce lateral earth pressures that
significantly exceed normally consolidated at-rest values.

(4) Bearing Pressures. The maximum intergranular contact-bearing pres-

sures do not exceed allowable values for the site materials. Allowable values
are based on experience with similar materials, bearing tests, or theoretical
analyses. Except for some retaining walls, bearing pressures will seldom
govern structure proportions, for the types of structures contemplated herein,
unless the foundation is relatively soft. Such material would often be unac-
ceptable for other reasons and would thus be removed.

(5) Rotational Stability. Rotational stability is usually not of direct

concern. That is, an adequate margin of safety is obtained when structures
are founded on earth, contact-bearing pressures are held within normally con-
servative values, and it is required that the line of action of the resultant
of all applied forces lies within the middle third of the base. Some condi-
tions, e.g., rock foundations, hurricane conditions, or earthquake loadings,
can warrant relaxing the middle third rule.

(6) Sliding Stability. Acceptable factors of safety against sliding are

selected based on the following considerations: the assumptions inherent in
the choice of lateral earth pressure coefficients, i.e., active, at-rest, or
some mobilized condition; the totality of forces included in the analysis
(i.e., are all forces included, or have some been neglected?); the load combi-
nation under investigation; the risk or hazard class (consequences of failure)
of the structure; and the working definition of sliding factor of safety being
employed (i.e., which forces are to be treated as driving forces (and summed
with the driving forces) and which are to be taken as resisting forces).
Depending on these considerations, acceptable values of safety factor vary
from about 1.0 to 1.7 (SCS National Engineering Handbook, Sections 6 and 11
(References 7d, 7m, 7n, and 7r); SCS TRs 50, 54, 60, and 63 (References 7h,
7g, 7p, and 7i).

(7) Flotation/Uplift. The numerical ratio obtained for the flotation fac-
tor of safety depends upon the actual definition of safety factor being
employed; the assumed effectiveness of any drains, if present; the confidence
placed on assumed or computed uplift pressures (i.e., pressures may be based
on creep theory, on seepage analyses, on selected water table elevations, or
on assumed crack locations); the permeability of the foundation; the complete-
ness of the forces considered; and the load combination under investigation.
Depending on such judgments, acceptable values of safety factor may vary from
about 1.0 to 2.0 (SCS TRs 50, 54, 60, 63).

c. Site Investigation. In the past, most deficiencies of SCS structures

occurred as the result of unknown conditions due to inadequate geotechnical
information. Geotechnical investigations vary widely in intensity and scope.
In addition to required soil properties, factors that influence the degree of
study needed include complexity of the geomorphology in the site area, design
requirements that are independent of the soil materials in the study reach,
hazard to life or property in the event of failure, and environmental
concerns. Reconnaissance investigations provide the initial assessment of

1-3
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

project feasibility and serve as the basis for future structure planning and
design investigations.

(1) Channel Improvements. Investigations for channel improvements differ

from investigations at structure sites. Channels may extend for miles through
a variety of materials. This requires that data from any one test pit or
drill hole be correlated (on as knowledgeable a basis as reasonable) with data
obtained at the next test stations, both upstream and downstream. It is
important to determine what stratigraphic units exist and to identify their
relationships.

(2) Structure Sites. Design data are usually obtained at three cross sec-
tions at a structure site: an approach section, a transverse section through
midstructure, and an exit section. Information obtained at these sections is
supplemented at additional locations for either significant structures or
difficult foundation conditions. Design problems vary greatly with site con-
dition. In locations where the ground water elevation is a considerable dis-
tance below the foundation, the foundation is permeable, and the backfill
around the structure is normally dry, the problems of seepage, piping, and
uplift are minimal and other dangers are fairly limited. However, where the
water table is high and/or the foundation is relatively impermeable, a quite
different situation prevails. Here sliding, piping, uplift, high lateral
pressure on walls, and differential settlement may all require increased con-
sideration. It is here that adequate geotechnical investigation is of prime
importance.

3. Differences in Corps of Engineers and SCS Practice.

a. Reinforced Concrete. The following differences should be recognized

and dealt with in the analysis or design of concrete components.

(1) Materials. SCS uses a default value of 4,000-psi concrete while the
Corps default is 3,000 psi. SCS generally assumes 40-ksi steel yield whereas
the Corps specifies higher yields.

(2) Reinforced Concrete Design Methods. For WSD, SCS takes the ratio of
concrete working stress to ultimate compressive strength as 0.40 while the
Corps uses 0.35. For SD, SCS normally uses fy = 40 ksi even for higher
yields, while the Corps designs for the higher values. For SD, SCS criteria
permit the steel reinforcement ratio to vary over the range 0.24 to 0.40 of
the balanced reinforcement ratio, depending on the combination of concrete and
steel strengths selected. For the de facto standard, the ratio is 0.31.
Corps criteria require that the steel reinforcement ratio be limited to a
maximum of 0.25 of the balanced reinforcement ratio.

(3) Miscellaneous. Minor differences can be noted in the requirements for

concrete cover for steel. SCS normally requires 2 in. (5 cm) of cover, except
for bottom steel in bottom slabs where 3 in. of cover is specified. The Corps
often requires greater cover. Steel ratio requirements for temperature and
shrinkage also exhibit differences. SCS normally requires steel ratios of at
least 0.002 in an exposed face and at least 0.001 in an unexposed face. When
the distance between expansion or contraction joints exceeds 30 ft (9 m), the
minimum steel ratios of the steel in the direction normal to the joints are
increased to 0.003 and 0.002, respectively. Slabs more than 32 in. thick are

1-4
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

taken as 32 in. for purposes of temperature and shrinkage. Corps requirements

for hydraulic structures can be found in EM 1110-2-2104 (Reference 7a).

b. External Stability. The primary differences between SCS and Corps

external stability criteria lie in the formalizing of load combinations to be
treated, and in the differences in expressions for various safety factors.
These differences include:

(1) Load Combinations. SCS normally treats only a few load combinations,
e.g., channel empty and channel full. Corps references contain more formal
loading lists, e.g., usual loadings, unusual loadings, and extreme loadings.

(2) Resultant Location. SCS usually requires that the resultant lies
within the middle third of the base. Thus, since contact bearing is every-
where compressive, a rather high margin of safety against overturning results.
Corps criteria more readily permit, depending on loading, less than
100 percent of the base area in compression.

(3) Sliding. The numerical ratio determined as the safety factor against
sliding is dependent on whether any forces of opposite sense to the main driv-
ing force(s) are algebraically summed with the main driving force(s) or are
treated as part of the resisting force system. SCS references will show both
definitions used. Corps criteria are more consistent, as evidenced by
EM 1110-2-2502 (Reference 7b).

(4) Flotation. The numerical ratio determined as the safety factor

against flotation is dependent on the treatment of various water loads. SCS
uses the ratio of the sum of the downward loads to the sum of the upward loads
as the definition of flotation safety factor. The Corps follows ETL 1110-2-
307 (Reference 7c), which subtracts the weight of any gravitational surcharge
water from both the sum of the downward loads and the sum of the upward loads.

4. Availability and Selection of Computer Programs for Structural Design of

Channels and Basins.

a. Introduction. Many different channel cross sections are possible, and

diverse loading conditions are encountered in the design of concrete-lined
channels. The computer program CCHAN and its User Guide (WES Technical Report
ITL-89-5) serve as the basic channel structural reference herein. Correspond-
ingly, many basin configurations are dictated by the diversity of service
conditions confronted. The computer program CBASIN and its User Guide (WES
Technical Report ITL-89-4) serve as the basic basin structural reference
herein.

b. Computer Programs CCHAN and CBASIN.

(1) Adaptations. CCHAN (Corps library program X0097) and CBASIN (Corps
library program X0098) are Computer-Aided Structural Engineering (CASE) Pro-
ject programs. They were obtained by converting SCS programs STRUCHAN and
SAFBASIN to Corps of Engineers criteria for working stress design of hydraulic
structures. The adaption was a task of the U-Frame Basins and Channels Task
Group of the CASE project. CCHAN and CBASIN are microcomputer programs with
on-line interactive input and screen output. An additional optional data
input line permits the use of any desired combination of fc , fc/fc , and

1-5
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

fs . Also, both allowable bearing pressure and minimum allowable concrete

member thickness may be specified. The capability to optionally compute and
output moment, thrust, and shear values at each of the locations where steel
area and spacing are determined was added to both programs. Concrete cover
for steel is made a function of the ratio of concrete allowable working stress
to concrete compressive strength. If the ratio is less than 0.38, cover is
set to 3 in. If the ratio is 0.38 or more, cover is set to 2 in., except for
bottom steel in bottom slabs where cover is made 3 in. The expression for the
flotation safety factor has been modified to conform to the ETL 1110-2-307
definition.

(2) Usage. These two programs fit in admirably with the structural
planning and design needs of the Reconnaissance and Feasibility Phases of
project development. Use of the programs will be of great value in obtaining
the needed cost figures. Additionally, both of these programs permit the
rapid performance of sensitivity analyses, which quickly lead to an apprecia-
tion and understanding of the effect that various design parameters have on
structure proportions. Sometimes, depending on the hazard associated with a
structure in the project, the programs may also have application to the Pre-
construction Engineering and Design Phase. As stated in the abstracts of WES
Technical Reports ITL-89-4 (program CBASIN) and ITL-89-5 (program CCHAN), the
programs are for "use in obtaining preliminary structural designs of important
or unusual structures or complete designs of small, routine structures."

(3) Design Parameters. The concept of primary parameters and secondary

parameters is used. Seventeen independent parameters are identified for the
channels, and 22 for the basins. Values for primary parameters must be sup-
plied by the user for each design. Secondary parameters will be assigned
default values if values are not supplied by the user. The user is encouraged
to evaluate and provide the secondary parameter values. Use of default values
may result in an overly conservative design, or possibly, because of design
function interdependence, they may produce unconservative results. This is
especially true with the various water parameters. Also, the assumption of
earthfill unit weights in design that are heavier than those used at the
structure site can have adverse consequences.

(a) Primary Parameters. The primary parameters are usually associated

with the hydraulic design requirements. Three primary parameters are
identified for the channels, and six for the basins.

(b) Secondary Parameters. Fourteen secondary parameters are given for the
channels, and 16 for the basins. The intent in providing default values is to
permit a rough initial design to be obtained before site-specific parameter
values are available. Typical ranges of the secondary parameter values are
provided (see Figures 1-2 and 1-3).

(4) Design Modes. The computer programs operate, i.e., execute designs,
in two modes controlled by the user. The computer output labels these modes
as either preliminary designs or detail designs. These modes correspond well
with the Reconnaissance Phase and the Feasibility Phase of Project Develop-
ment, respectively. Preliminary designs will aid the designer in selecting
the type of structure desired for detail design. Trial concrete thicknesses
and distances are determined for various critical dimensions, and preliminary
concrete volumes are computed. The programs will execute the detail design of

1-6
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

a specified type of channel or basin. Each detail design begins with the set
of trial dimensions obtained in the preliminary design. Thicknesses are in-
cremented and the design recycled, whenever it is determined that the capacity
of any singly reinforced cross section being examined is exceeded. Required
(minimum) steel area and maximum allowable steel spacing are computed at a
sufficient number of points in the structure to adequately define the steel
requirements of the channel or basin. Schematic steel layouts are shown for
the various design elements. Actual steel sizes and layouts are not selected.

(5) Types of Channels. Four types of channel cross sections are consid-
ered (Figure 1-4). Each is assumed symmetrical about the channel center line
in both loading and construction. Reinforced concrete design in CCHAN is by
WSD. The channels are designed for two loading conditions (Figure 1-5) and
must satisfy flotation requirements.

(a) Type T1F. The walls and floor slab constitute a monolithic, rein-
forced concrete, U-shaped rigid frame. The floor slab steel requirements are
based on analysis of the floor slab as a symmetrically loaded, finite-length
beam on an elastic foundation.

(b) Type T3F. The walls are designed as reinforced concrete, cantilever
retaining wall stems. The stem base is similar to an inverted T-type canti-
lever retaining wall base. The most advantageous base toe length, X , is
determined in the design. The pavement slab, between the retaining wall
bases, is independent of the bases except that it resists any thrust imposed
on it by the retaining wall bases. Thus, the pavement slab may be subdivided
as desired.

(c) Type T3FV. This is similar to type T3F except that the joints between
the pavement slab and the retaining wall bases are designed to transmit shear
forces and the slab is monolithic between the two shear joints. Thus, pave-
ment slab and retaining wall base deflect equally at the joints, and bending
moment is induced in the pavement slab.

(d) Type T1S. This is similar to type T1F except that two reinforced con-
crete struts are provided in each longitudinal span between transverse joints.
Edge beams are provided along the top of the channel walls. Thus, walls are
not simple cantilevers as with the other types; instead, they are supported by
the edge beam and strut system and by the floor slab. The floor slab is de-
signed as a beam on an elastic foundation. The design of this type is
considerably more complex than any of the previous types (Figure 1-6). The
three-dimensional nature of this channel type is recognized in its design.

(e) Application. The type T1S channel finds use where walls are high and
the channel width is relatively narrow. The type T1F channel is one of the
most used, and finds application for medium channel widths. Next in order of
channel width is type T3FV. The shear joints transfer forces that may assist
either the retaining wall bases or the monolithic pavement slab, sometimes
with resulting economy over the type T3F channel. The T3F channel is a much-
used type since the T3FV pavement slab will require excessive thickness if
used for the wider channels. The most advantageous (requiring least concrete)
base toe length is determined in the design of T3F and T3FV sections. Some
designs of the T3F or T3FV will result in no pavement slab between retaining
wall bases.

1-7
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

(6) Types of Basins. Stilling basins depend on the hydraulic jump for
energy dissipation. Provision of adequate tailwater is critical to effective
operation. With low tailwater, the high-velocity jet leaves the structure
with little energy loss and hence aggravates downstream scour. Structurally,
designs obtained from the program CBASIN need not adhere precisely to the
hydraulic proportions determined for the Saint Anthony Falls (SAF) basin (Fig-
ure 1-7). However, caution should be exercised if the layout departs greatly
from the norm. Advantages of the SAF basin are good hydraulic performance, a
generalized design procedure, small size compared to other basin forms, and
economy. Three basin types are considered. Each is assumed symmetrical both
in construction and loading about the longitudinal center line of the basin as
well as about the vertical center line of any transverse cross section. These
structures are three-dimensional and are so treated in the various design
elements. Reinforced concrete design in CBASIN is by WSD. The basins are
designed for two loading conditions (Figures 1-8 and 1-9), and they must sat-
isfy flotation requirements. A wingwall is designed for each of the basin
types (Figure 1-10). The wingwall is articulated from the basin wall. Hence,
the wingwall stem acts as a simple cantilever. The layout shown in Fig-
ure 1-10 is quite restrictive. Since the wingwalls and their footings are not
included in the stability analyses of the basin proper, the wingwall propor-
tions and orientation may be changed or the wingwalls may simply be deleted.

(a) Type A. This basin is a monolithic unit (Figure 1-11). The upstream
end section is normal to the plane of the top of the inclined floor slab. The
floor slab thicknesses vary uniformly from the downstream end of the basin to
the break-in-grade, and from the break-in-grade to the upstream end.

(b) Type B. This basin has a transverse articulated joint at the break-
in-grade (Figure 1-12). Some form of floor joint step is normally used at
this joint. The upstream end section is vertical, rather than normal, to the
plane of the top of the inclined floor slab. The transverse articulation
joint makes the structural behavior of this type of basin differ from that of
the type A.

(c) Type C. This basin has independent retaining wall portions and pave-
ment slab (Figure 1-13). The pavement slab resists any thrust imposed on it
by the retaining wall portions. Although the pavement slab is not subjected
to transverse bending, it does carry longitudinal bending because of the vary-
ing loading along its length. The most advantageous base toe length is
determined in design. The stability computations for the retaining wall por-
tions are three-dimensional.

(d) Application. Basin types A and B are used for the narrower width
channels. The type used may be based on the personal preference of the
designer, or may be based on the design resulting with least volume of con-
crete. In the type B basin, sidewall thicknesses, footing and floor slab
thicknesses, and footing projections may be different on either side of the
articulation joint; thus, economies may sometimes be effected. The type C is
used for the wider channels. Some designs of type C basins will result in no
pavement slab.

c. Computer Program CUFRBC. CUFRBC is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

mainframe time-sharing program for the interactive analysis and design of U-
frame basin and channel structures. The program was developed under the CASE

1-8
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Project. A large number of options and features are available to the

designer. The program models basins and channels as planar structures (trans-
verse unit slices). Several optional methods of computing lateral earth pres-
sures and forces are provided. Options are available for the determination of
foundation bearing pressures. Foundations may include vertical tension-only
anchors. Sections may be analyzed or designed by either WSD or SD methods.
Graphic output of various members is optional. In addition to the normal
loadings from earthfills, surcharges, water loads, and self weight, provision
is made for special distributed and concentrated loads. Basins may have one,
two, or three bays. Structure geometry is symmetrical. In the design mode,
loading is also symmetrical. In the investigation mode, loading and steel
reinforcement may be unsymmetrical. Channels may have one or two bays. In
the design mode, structure geometry and loading are symmetrical. In the
investigation mode, structure geometry and/or loading may be unsymmetrical.

d. Comments on the Selection of CCHAN or CBASIN, or CUFRBC. The avail-

ability of these three computer programs facilitates the design process of
channels and basins. However, the designer must decide which is most appro-
priate to project needs. The programs may be compared in two ways as follows.

(1) Program Capability Comparison. CCHAN can be used for preliminary and
detailed designs of single-bay, symmetrically loaded channels. CBASIN can be
used for the design of single-bay, symmetrically loaded stilling basins that
are geometrically similar to the Saint Anthony Falls basin. Both programs are
limited to WSD and two load cases per run. CUFRBC can be used for most chan-
nel or U-frame structures and must be used for multiple bays, multiple-load
cases, the strength design method, and structures with foundation anchors.
Analysis runs using CUFRBC can be made for either symmetrically or
unsymmetrically loaded conditions.

(2) Design Process Comparison. CUFRBC is the obvious choice for the
design or analysis of multibay structures. It is the early stages of design
of single-bay structures that pose the selection decision. CCHAN or CBASIN
would be the design program of choice, as appropriate to the structural func-
tion and design phase, unless the site geometry requires an overly unsymmetri-
cal layout, or if significant special loads must be accommodated. Both CCHAN
and CBASIN permit the use of structure types not recognized by CUFRBC. That
is, CCHAN treats four types of channels and CBASIN treats three types of
three-dimensional hydraulic jump stilling basins. CCHAN and CBASIN permit
preliminary and detailed design of the structure types for which the programs
were written. They may be used to obtain preliminary designs of structures
that are beyond their applicability (in either structure geometry, loading, or
hazard potential) in order to obtain first guesses for input to CUFRBC, which
would then be used for final design. CUFRBC performs both investigation and
design. CCHAN and CBASIN only perform designs, but can also provide moment,
thrust, and shear values at critical locations. Finally, where both CUFRBC
and CCHAN (or CUFRBC and CBASIN) apply, it is designers choice. Either may
be selected. Perhaps best, both could be used, using one as a check on the
other.

5. Guidance on the Design of Drop Structures. Preceding sections discuss SCS

practice and experience with design criteria, design aids, structure types,
and computer programs relating to the structural design of channels and

1-9
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

basins. This section summarizes available information on the use and design
of drop structures.

a. Chute Spillways.

(1) Plain Chute Spillway. Plain chute spillways are sometimes used as
drop structures in channels. A typical chute spillway consists of an inlet, a
vertical curve section, a straight sloping section, and an outlet (Fig-
ure 1-14). Reinforced concrete chute spillways, in addition to their uses in
channels, often function as emergency spillways for earth or rock dams where
the usual vegetated earth spillway is inappropriate. The inlet portion can
take many forms. CCHAN can be used for the design of transverse sections of
the inlet, vertical curve, and sloping channel. CBASIN will design the SAF
basin outlet as well as many other variations of hydraulic jump stilling
basins.

(2) Baffled Chute Spillway. Baffled chute spillways are used as overflow
spillways and as drop structures in channel work (Figure 1-15). Baffled
chutes are in many ways an economical answer to the problem of dissipating
energy. They are interesting in concept. Flow impinges on the baffles, or
piers, arranged in a staggered pattern throughout the sloping channel, so that
the flow velocity can never greatly exceed critical. Hence, the need for a
normal stilling basin at the base of the chute is avoided. CCHAN can be
employed in the design of these chutes. The hydraulic design of baffled
chutes has been generalized from tests on individual models, prototype experi-
ments, and verification tests. They require no initial tailwater to be effec-
tive, although local scour at the base of the chute and channel bed scour
decrease when tailwater is provided.

b. High-Drop Structures. Drop structures may be classified as high or

low drop. The high-drop structure is one in which upstream water levels are
normally unaffected by tailwater levels downstream. Thus, discharges over the
high-drop structure weir are not a function of tailwater depths.

(1) Monolithic Straight Drop Spillway. Perhaps the most popular high-drop
structure is the straight drop spillway, which has received much hydraulic
research effort. The Waterways Experiment Station, for example, has performed
hydraulic investigations on inlet geometry and the use of shaped overflow
weirs. Occasionally, the drop may use steel sheet piles for headwall, side-
walls, and wingwalls. Cathodic protection may then be required. More
commonly, the structure is completely reinforced concrete, and is designed and
constructed as a monolithic unit (Figure 1-16). The SCS computer program
DROPSPIL was written to provide both preliminary and detailed designs of these
monolithic reinforced concrete structures (SCS TR 63, Reference 7i). The
three-dimensional behavior of these drop structures is recognized and treated.
Three structural variations of the straight drop spillway apron may be re-
quested. A microcomputer version of DROPSPIL is available for internal use
within the Corps from the Engineer Computer Programs Library at WES.

(2) Articulated Straight Drop Spillway. The monolithic drop spillway is

limited in the weir length and/or basin length that can be accommodated.
Hence, for the larger structures, the drop spillway may be articulated in
various advantageous ways. Articulation may permit essentially unlimited weir

1-10
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

length by constructing adjacent components that are essentially structurally

independent elements.

(3) Box Inlet Drop Spillway. The box inlet drop spillway has a three-
sided, rather than a straight, weir. The long crest permits large flows over
the crest with relatively low heads. The structure finds application as an
inlet to a chute spillway, as the outlet structure for a low dam, and as a
drop structure in a channel transitioning to a narrower width.

c. Low Drop Structures. Low drops, though important hydraulic struc-

tures, have not been formalized to the extent of high drops. They are diffi-
cult to design hydraulically with great assurance of their flow behavior.

6. Available SCS Resources. The Corps can use a number of SCS materials to
advantage, including preprepared NSDD for various types of standard two-way
drop inlet risers, standard concrete pipe conduits and, possibly, standard
impact basin outlets (SCS DN 18, Reference 7j). Alternate outlets might be
pipe cantilever outlets with preformed plunge pools (SCS DN 6, Reference 7q)
or perhaps SAF stilling basins with a transition between the circular pipe
conduit and U-shaped basin. The SCS criteria for vegetated and earth
emergency spillways (SCS TR 52, Reference 7k), in addition to those given in
TR 60 (Reference 7p), would also be useful.

7. References.

a. EM 1110-2-2104. "Strength Design for Reinforced Concrete Hydraulic

Structures."

b. EM 1110-2-2502. "Retaining and Flood Walls."

c. ETL 1110-2-307. "Flotation Stability Criteria for Concrete Hydraulic

Structures."

d. SCS. 1968. "Drop Spillways," NEH Section 11, Engineering Division,

USDA (NTIS No. PB-243645/AS).

e. SCS. 1969. "Single Cell Rectangular Conduits, Criteria and Proce-

dures for Structural Design," Technical Release (TR) 42, Engineering Division,
USDA (NTIS No. PB85-186021/AS).

f. SCS. 1970. "Twin Cell Rectangular Conduits, Criteria and Procedures

for Structural Design," TR 45, Engineering Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-
185130/AS).

g. SCS. 1974. "Structural Design of SAF Stilling Basins," TR 54, Engi-

neering Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-179869/AS).

h. SCS. 1977. "Design of Rectangular Structural Channels," TR 50

(Rev. 1), Engineering Division, USDA.

i. SCS. 1977. "Structural Design of Monolithic Straight Drop Spill-

ways," TR 63, Engineering Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-186765/XAB).

1-11
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

j. SCS. 1977. "Unattached ES Drawings," DN 18, Engineering Division,

USDA.

k. SCS. 1980. "A Guide for Design and Layout of Earth Emergency Spill-
ways As Part of Emergency Spillway Systems for Earth Dams," TR 52, Engineering
Division, USDA.

l. SCS. 1980. "Reinforced Concrete Strength Design," TR 67, Engineer-

ing Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-181576/AS).

m. SCS. 1980. "Structural Design," National Engineering Handbook

(NEH), Section 6, Engineering Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB-243890/AS).

n. SCS. 1980. "NEH Notice 6-4" (update concerning ACI 318-77 Working
Stress Alternate Design Method), Engineering Division, USDA.

o. SCS. 1983. "Considerations on the Substitution of Higher Strength

Steels in Reinforced Concrete Construction," DN 21, Engineering Division,
USDA.

p. SCS. 1985. "Earth Dams and Reservoirs," TR 60, Engineering Divi-

sion, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-243681/AS).

q. SCS. 1986. "Riprap Lined Plunge Pool for Cantilever Outlet," Design
Note (DN) 6, Engineering Division, USDA.

r. SCS. 1986. Circular No. 1, NEH Section 11, Engineering Division,

USDA.

8. Bibliography.

a. Beauchamp, K. H. 1969. "Chapter 6, Structures," Engineering Field

Manual, SCS, USDA.

b. Blaisdell, F. W. 1948. "Development and Hydraulic Design, Saint

Anthony Falls Stilling Basin," Transactions, American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, 113.

c. Blaisdell, F. W. 1959. "The SAF Stilling Basin," Agriculture Hand-

book No. 156, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

d. Blaisdell, F. W. 1973. "Model Test of Box Inlet Drop Spillway and

Stilling Basin Proposed for Tillatoba Creek, Tallahatchie County, Missis-
sippi," ARS-NC-3, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

e. Blaisdell, F. W. 1981. "Chapter 5, Engineering Structures for Ero-

sion Control," Tropical Agricultural Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

f. Blaisdell, F. W., and Donnelly, C. A. 1956. "The Box Inlet Drop

Spillway and Its Outlet," Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers,
121.

1-12
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

g. Blaisdell, F. W., and Donnelly, C. A. 1966. "Hydraulic Design of

the Box-Inlet Drop Spillway," Agriculture Handbook No. 301, Agricultural
Research Service, USDA.

h. Blaisdell, F. W., and Moratz, A. F. 1961. "Erosion Control Struc-

tures," Agricultural Engineers Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.

i. Bureau of Reclamation. 1973. "Design of Small Dams," 2d ed.,

US Department of the Interior (USDI).

j. Bureau of Reclamation. 1974. "Design of Small Canal Structures,"

USDI.

k. Bureau of Reclamation. 1977. "Design Criteria for Concrete Retain-

ing Walls," USDI.

l. Donnelly, C. A., and Blaisdell, F. W. 1965. "Straight Drop Spillway

Stilling Basin," Journal, Hydraulics Division; Proceedings American Society of
Civil Engineers, 91.

m. EM 1110-1-1804. "Geotechnical Investigations."

n. ETL 1110-2-236. "Design Criteria - Paved Concrete Flood Control

Channels."

o. ETL 1110-2-322. "Retaining and Flood Walls."

p. Frevert, Richard K., et al. 1955. Soil and Water Conservation,

John Wiley and Sons, New York.

q. Hayes, R. B. 1974. "Chapter VI, Energy Dissipators; Baffled Apron

Drops," Design of Small Canal Structures, Bureau of Reclamation, USDI.

r. Hoffman, C. J. 1973. "Chapter IX, Spillways," Design of Small Dams,

2d ed., Bureau of Reclamation, USDI.

s. Palmer, V. J., Law, W. P., and Ree, W. O. 1954. "Handbook of Chan-

nel Design for Soil and Water Conservation," Technical Paper (TP) 61, SCS,
USDA.

t. Peterka, A. J. 1964. "Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and

Energy Dissipators," Engineering Monograph No. 25, Bureau of Reclamation,
USDI.

u. Portland Cement Association. 1969. Concrete for Hydraulic Struc-

tures, PCA IS0012.03.

v. Rhone, T. J. 1977. "Baffled Apron as Spillway Energy Dissipator,"

Journal, Hydraulics Division; Proceedings, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 103.

w. SCS. 1968. "Some Comments on Flexural and Anchorage Bond Stresses,"

Design Note (DN) 5, Engineering Division, USDA.

1-13
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

x. SCS. 1970. "Gated Outlet Appurtenances for Earth Dams," Technical

Report (TR) 46, Engineering Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-189173/AS).

y. SCS. 1970. "Single Cell Rectangular Conduits, Catalog of Standard

Designs," TR 43, Engineering Division, USDA.

z. SCS. 1977. "Chute Spillways," NEH Section 14, Engineering

Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB-279759/AS).

aa. SCS. 1977. "Design of Open Channels," TR 25, Engineering Division,

USDA.

bb. SCS. 1977. "National Handbook of Conservation Practices," Engi-

neering Division, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-177137/AS).

cc. SCS. 1980. "Input Data for Design Unit Programs," DN 19, Engineer-
ing Division, USDA.

dd. SCS. 1982. "Seismic Analysis of Risers," TR 68, Engineering Divi-

sion, USDA (NTIS No. PB85-174241/AS).

ee. SCS. 1984. "Engineering Field Manual," Engineering Division, USDA

(NTIS No. PB85-175164/AS).

ff. SCS. 1985. "Considerations on the Use of General Purpose Structu-

ral Analysis Programs," DN 23, Engineering Division, USDA.

gg. SCS. 1986. "Specifications for Construction Contracts," National

Engineering Handbook, Section 20, Engineering Division, USDA.

hh. SCS. 1987. "National Engineering Manual," Engineering Division,

USDA.

ii. USDA. 1962. "After a Hundred Years," The Yearbook of Agriculture,

87th Congress, 2d Session, House Document No. 279.

jj. Young, R. B. 1974. "Chapter VI, Energy Dissipators; Baffled Out-

lets," Design of Small Canal Structures, Bureau of Reclamation, USDI.

1-14
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-1. Typical SCS design criteria sheet

1-15
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

1-16
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

1-17
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

1-18
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

1-19
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-4. Structural channel types

1-20
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-5. Channel loadings

1-21
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-6. Definition sketch, type T1S channel

1-22
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-7. Saint Anthony Falls stilling basin

(SCS ES-86), rev. October 1977)

1-23
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-8. Basin load condition 1

1-24
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-9. Basin load condition 2

1-25
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-10. Wingwall Layout

1-26
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-11. Type A basin

1-27
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-12. Type B basin

1-28
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-13. Type C basin

1-29
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

1-30
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

1-31
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

Figure 1-16. High-drop structures

1-32
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS) REINFORCED CONCRETE POLICY

Copied from SCS National Engineering Manual

Part 536 - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

536.20 Design criteria for reinforced concrete.

(a) The structural design of reinforced concrete structures is commonly

guided by the ACI Standard, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318) developed by Committee 318 of the American Concrete Institute. This
code covers the design and construction of buildings. The code provides mini-
mum requirements and contains several precautions about special attention
needed when corrosive environments or other severe exposure conditions exist.
SCS uses reinforced concrete in hydraulic structures for components of water
resource projects. These structures are often subject to severe exposure.
Because of the type of structure usually involved, design must often exceed
the minimums required by building codes.

(b) Concrete is to be designated by class. The class corresponds to the

compressive strength assumed in the design and specified in construction. The
class selected for use is to be determined by evaluating the requirements for
strength and durability. The availability of materials and construction qual-
ity control must also be recognized in making the determination. The strength
values normally used are 2,500, 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 pounds per square inch
(psi).

(c) With one exception contained in the criteria for waste storage struc-
tures, structural design in reinforced concrete may be carried out by either
strength design or working stress design methods.

(1) For waste storage structures, design is to be in accordance with

Practice Standard 313, Waste Storage Structure, contained in the National
Handbook of Conservation Practices.

(2) For Service hydraulic structures, the design yield strength, fy , is

to be taken as 40 kips per square inch (ksi) for grade 40, grade 50, or grade
60 steels. The only exception to this general requirement is for a special
design at critical locations where higher yield strengths will reduce exces-
sive congestion of reinforcement and the potential for accelerated deteriora-
tion due to increased flexural cracking is acceptable.

(i) The strength design method is to be in accordance with the require-

ments of Technical Release No. 67, Reinforced Concrete Strength Design.

(ii) The working stress design method is to be in accordance with

requirements of NEH Section 6, Structural Design, subsection 4, Reinforced
Concrete, as updated by National Engineering Handbook Notice 6-4.

(3) For other structures -- with uncontrolled environments, the design

yield strength, fy , may be taken in accordance with the grade of steel spec-
ified for construction.

Enclosure 2 2-1
ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

(i) The strength design method is to be in accordance with the require-

ments of Technical Release No. 67, Reinforced Concrete Strength Design, except
that temperature and shrinkage steel may be in accordance with ACI Standard,
Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77).

(ii) The working stress design method is to be in accordance with the ACI
Standard, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77),
Appendix B - Alternate Design Method, except that the allowable extreme fiber
stress in compression is to be fc = 0.40 fc and the Z factor controlling
flexural crack widths is not to exceed 145.

(4) For other structures -- with controlled environments, design is to be

in accordance with the ACI Standard, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-77).

(d) The following additional criteria are to be used in the design of

Service hydraulic structures.

(1) Reinforcing steel is required in both faces and in both (orthogonal)

directions in all concrete slabs and walls, except that only one grid of rein-
forcing is required in:

(i) Concrete linings of trapezoidal channels, and

(ii) Structures of Class V or less, as defined in par.501.04 of this

manual, if authorized by the state conservation engineer (SCE). If authorized
by the SCE under this exception, a single grid of steel reinforcement is per-
mitted in slabs and walls having a maximum thickness of 8 inches, provided the
steel is positioned approximately in the middle of the wall and strength and
durability requirements are satisfied.

(2) Redistribution of moments in continuous members is not permitted in

either:

(i) The strength design method when grade 50 or grade 60 steels are spec-
ified for construction and the design yield strength, fy , is taken as
40 ksi, or

(ii) The working stress design method.

2-2
 ETL 1110-2-340
31 Mar 93

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACI American Concrete Institute

ARS Agricultural Research Service (USDA)

CASE Computer-Aided Structural Engineering

DN Design Note (SCS)

EFM Engineering Field Manual (SCS)

ES Engineering Standard [Drawing] (SCS)

HQUSACE Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers

NEH National Engineering Handbook [Sections] (SCS)

NEM National Engineering Manual (SCS)

NSDD National Standard Detail Drawings (SCS)

NTIS National Technical Information Service (USDC)

PCA Portland Cement Association

SAF Saint Anthony Falls

SCS Soil Conservation Service (USDA)

SD Strength Design [Reinforced Concrete]

SHY Service Hydraulic Structure (SCS)

TP Technical Paper (SCS)

TR Technical Release (SCS)

USA US Army

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

USDA US Department of Agriculture

USDC US Department of Commerce

USDI US Department of the Interior

WES Waterways Experiment Station

WSD Working Stress Design [Reinforced Concrete]

Enclosure 3 3-1