Submitted:
12 June 2024
Posted:
13 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. Factors Affecting Scour at Embankment Toe
1.2. Local Scour Protection with Ripraps
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials and Equipment
3. Results
3.1. Typical Development of Scour and Deposition Characteristics
3.2. Effect of Energy Head on Scour Depths
3.3. Effect of Energy Head on Deposition Height
3.4. Effect of Energy Head on Plunge Pool Depth
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of Riprap Size, Tailwater and Flow Structure on Scour Phenomenon
4.2. Relationship between Energy Head and Energy Dissipation
5. Conclusion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- L. Schmocker, The failure of embankment dams due to overtopping, vol. 47, no. 2. 2009.
- J. A. Feliciano Cestero, J. Imran, and M. H. Chaudhry, “Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Soil Properties on Levee Breach by Overtopping,” J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 141, no. 4, p. 04014085, 2015. [CrossRef]
- Z. Liu, T. Li, Y. Ding. A soil tensile strength based headcut migration model of breach side slope. Water (Switzerland) 2020, 12, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- T. Afreen, Yagisawa, Binh. Investigation of Scour Pattern Downstream. J. Japan Soc. Civ. Eng. Ser. B1 (Hydraulic Eng. 2015, 59, 175–180. [Google Scholar]
- M. M. Billah and J. Yagisawa. Headcut Migration in Earthen Embankment Induced by Varying Sub-surface and Seepage State under Overflow. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2023, 41, 4659–4676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. M. Billah and J. Yagisawa. Experimental Investigation on Effect of Initial Phreatic Line Position Inside Earthen Embankment on Headcut Migration During Overtopping Flow. J. Japan Soc. Civ. Eng. Ser. B1 (Hydraulic Eng. 2020, 76, I_565-I_570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. P. R. Jayaratne et al. Failure mechanisms and local scour at coastal structures induced by Tsunami. Coast. Eng. J. 2016, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- G. Zhao, P. J. Visser, P. Peeters, and H. K. Vrijling. Prediction of Headcut Erosion Development on the Breach Slope. ICSE6, August 27-31, 2012, Paris 2012, 1257–1264. [Google Scholar]
- J. Farhoudi and K. V. H. Smith. Local scour profiles downstream of hydraulic jump. J. Hydraul. Res. 1985, 23, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- E. B. Johnson, F. Y. Testik, N. Ravichandran, and J. Schooler. Levee scour from overtopping storm waves and scour counter measures. Ocean Eng. 2013, 57, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M.-T. Pham, D.-D. Pham, D.-L. Vu, and D. Dias. Embankments Reinforced by Vertical Inclusions on Soft Soil: Numerical Study of Stress Redistribution. Geotechnics 2023, 3, 1279–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- S. Pagliara, M.; S. Pagliara, M. Palermo, and I. Carnacina. Live-bed scour downstream of block ramps for low densimetric Froude numbers. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2012, 27, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- S. Pagliara and S. M. Kurdistani. Scour downstream of cross-vane structures. J. Hydro-Environment Res. 2013, 7, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O. R. Stein, P. Y. Julien, and C. V. Alonso. Mechanics of jet scour downstream of a headcut. J. Hydraul. Res. 1993, 31, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- P. Taylor and B. Dargahi, “Scour development downstream of a spillway,” no. April 2013, pp. 37–41, 2010.









| Case No. | Height of Embankment | Downstream Slope of Embankment | Riprap | Overtopping flow depth | Case ID(Slope - Riprap - flow depth) | |
| H (cm) | (V:H) | Size | d50 (mm) | h (cm) | ||
| 1 | 20 | 1:2 (Steep) | No.5 (Coarse) | 16.41 | 1 | S-C-h1 |
| 2 | 2 | S-C-h2 | ||||
| 3 | 3 | S-C-h3 | ||||
| 4 | No.6 (Medium) | 8.48 | 1 | S-M-h1 | ||
| 5 | 2 | S-M-h2 | ||||
| 6 | 3 | S-M-h3 | ||||
| 7 | No.7 (Fine) | 3.39 | 1 | S-F-h1 | ||
| 8 | 2 | S-F-h2 | ||||
| 9 | 3 | S-F-h3 | ||||
| 10 | 20 | 1:3 (Moderate) | No.5 | 16.41 | 1 | M-C-h1 |
| 11 | 2 | M-C-h2 | ||||
| 12 | 3 | M-C-h3 | ||||
| 13 | No.6 | 8.48 | 1 | M-M-h1 | ||
| 14 | 2 | M-M-h2 | ||||
| 15 | 3 | M-M-h3 | ||||
| 16 | No.7 | 3.39 | 1 | M-F-h1 | ||
| 17 | 2 | M-F-h2 | ||||
| 18 | 3 | M-F-h3 | ||||
| 19 | 20 | 1:4 (Gentle) | No.5 | 16.41 | 1 | G-C-h1 |
| 20 | 2 | G-C-h2 | ||||
| 21 | 3 | G-C-h3 | ||||
| 22 | No.6 | 8.48 | 1 | G-M-h1 | ||
| 23 | 2 | G-M-h2 | ||||
| 24 | 3 | G-M-h3 | ||||
| 25 | No.7 | 3.39 | 1 | G-F-h1 | ||
| 26 | 2 | G-F-h2 | ||||
| 27 | 3 | G-F-h3 | ||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).