BRIDGE SCOUR PREDICTION

Subir Kumar Podder #

3.2 There are two approaches to determine whether

ABSTRACT
sediment transport occurs or not. These are: critical
Empirical equations, widely practiced by hydraulic engineers, applicable velocity and critical shear stress approach.
to different scour components are presented. Prediction patterns with
these different equations, using available compiled data, are then 3.3 In the first approach, if the flow velocity is more
presented. Pertinent bridge hydraulics variables are also presented with
than the critical velocity, obtained by using an empirical
an objective of facilitating a dynamic spreadsheet analysis. Finally a
sample scour calculation example is presented. equation, then it is live-bed situation, otherwise clear-
water. Laursens 1963 equation is one such accepted
1. INTRODUCTION equation to determine critical velocity, Vc corresponding to
initiation of sediment transport. The equation is as follows:
While design and construction of new bridges parallel to
existing ones is an integral part of widening of existing Vc = 1.69 y1/ 6 d 501/3 .(1)
highways, very often design engineers encounter substantial
where, y = flow depth
problems with design scour depth, a fundamental
consideration in bridge foundation design. In India, 3.4 In the second approach, if Shields shear stress, is
engineers resort to IRC: SP-13 to determine the design greater than the critical Shields shear stress c, then it is
scour depth. However, quite frequently engineers find that live-bed situation, otherwise clear-water. Shields shear
the calculated scour depth values are too high, in the sense stress, is expressed as
that accepting such high scour depths implies accepting
inadequate foundation depth for the existing parallel bridge, [ ] [
= b / {Sg 1}g d50 = RS / {Sg 1}g d50 ] ..(2)
which on the contrary has survived reasonably high floods
Sg=sp. gravity, R=hydraulic radius, S=slope
without getting endangered by scour and associated
foundation failure. In such cases, an assessment of scour Engineers can resort to equations, as the one given by van
predictions by other widely practiced approaches3,9 and Rijn1, to determine c, and hence avoid referring to Shields
comparing the same with the IRC predicted values before curve and associated iterations.
arriving at a design scour depth for bridge foundation
design is therefore necessary. A brief description of the Rijn1 expression follows:
pertinent water-sediment hydraulics is presented first, 1
followed by scour prediction using widely practiced
D * 4.0, c* = 0.24 D* ( )
methods and set of equations. 4 < D * 10.0, c* = 0.14 D* 0.64
( )
10 < D * 20.0, c* = 0.04 D* 0.10
( )
2. COMPONENTS
20 < D * 150.0, c* = 0.013 D* 0.29 ..(3)
( )
Contraction Scour and Local Scour are the two components
of bridge scour (neglecting long term aggradations and D * > 150.0, c* = 0.055
degradations). The primary assumption in all accepted
Here D* is the particle parameter defined as:
approaches is that the total scour is obtained adding up
these two components, obtained separately. ( )
S g 1 gd50
1/ 3
D* =
3. HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS 2 ..(4)

3.1 Empirical relationships, both for contraction scour
and local scour, in general relate to two basic water-
sediment characteristics of channel flow: clear-water and
live-bed conditions. Conditions with sediment transport
to the bridge section from upstream section is referred to as
live-bed condition, else it is called clear-water
condition.
# Consultant (Highways), LEA Associates South Asia Pvt. Ltd.
= kinematic viscosity, d50 = particle size, g = acceleration
due to gravity
3.1 BED ARMORING
Apart from live-bed and clear-water conditions bed
armoring is another aspect that requires an assessment for
computing scour. Bed armoring occurs at the transition
from clear-water condition to live-bed condition for non-
uniform sediments. With non-uniform sediments, a flow

1
can disturb the grains, removing some but simply The generation of these tubes facilitates determination of
rearranging others into a stable pattern that develops into an the requisite parameters like approach velocity for a
armored bed and stabilizes. particular pier/abutment, velocity at the pier/abutment
location, segregating main channel discharge and over-bank
B.W.Melville and A.J.Sutherland 5 provided a detailed
discharge etc that are input variables in the scour prediction
description of the armoring process, wherein they have
formulae.
defined the limiting armor condition in terms of flow
velocity Va beyond which no armoring takes place. It requires mention here that the spreadsheet developed is
dynamic enough to generate equal conveyance tubes readily
The gist of their formulation is that for V/Vc < 1, clear
as basic cross-sectional data are provided.
water condition pertains for both uniform and non-uniform
sediments. If g < 1.3, the sediment acts as uniform, and for
5. LOCAL SCOUR COMPUTATION
this if V/Vc > 1, live bed scour occurs. If g > 1.3 and 1 <
V/Vc < Va/Vc, then armoring of the bed will occur as scour
5.1 SCOUR PREDICTION EQUATIONS
proceeds. For 1<V/Va, there is no armoring, and live bed
scour occurs, g being the geometric standard deviation Researchers have suggested a large number of equations for
6
given as d84/d50. predicting local scour. Molinas lists out prominent
However to account for armoring effect in the scour formulae pertaining to the local scour.
prediction, different methods adopt different equations as These are presented below to stress the fact that the
are presented later in section 8. magnitude of research data and resulting formulae available
are enormous and that different authorities dictate use of a
4. CALCULATING SCOUR ANALYSIS specific set of equations.
VARIABLES
Equations for local scour at piers:
Irrespective of the set of equations adopted for predicting Inglis-Poona Equation (1938)
bridge scour, assigning appropriate values to the hydraulic Chitale Equation (1944)
parameters constitutes the fundamental requirement of any
Inglis-Lacey Equation (1949)
prediction. It is very common to resort to the FHWA/USGS
Blench Equation (1957)
bridge backwater program, WSPRO2 to determine
Laursen Equations (1960)
hydraulic characteristics at the bridge location. The
program delivers the requisite hydraulic characteristics at Ahmad Equation (1962)
the approach cross-section and the bridge cross-section, the Blench Equation (1962)
approach cross-section being located at one bridge length Neill Equation (1964)
upstream. The basis is subdividing the cross sections into Arunachalam Equation (1965)
twenty (20) equal conveyance tubes. Hancu Equation (1965)
Shen, Schneider, Karaki (1966)
However spreadsheet programming can be resorted to in
deriving the requisite characteristics. The author developed Coleman (1971)
one spreadsheet that divides the cross sections into ten (10) Basak, Basamily, Ergun (1975)
equal conveyance tubes and the same for a typical bridge CSU (1975)
approach section is produced below. Jain-Fisher (1980)
Jain (1981)
27 Baker (1981)
26.5 Raudkivi and Ettema (1983)
Richardson et. al (HEC-18) (1987)
26
B.W.Melville and A.J.Sutherland (1987)
25.5
Equations for local scour at abutment:
25
Garde et. al. (1969)
24.5 Liu et. al. and Gill (1972)
24 Laursen (1980)
23.5
Froehlich (1987)
0 10 20 30 40 Richardson (HIRE Eqn, HEC-18) (1990)

Figure 1: Ten Equal Conveyance Tubes

However some general comments on scour are:

2
 There is a difference between clear water and live bed
scour
For a given pier geometry, the depth of scour increases
with the depth of flow
The scour depth increases with the pier size
Pier geometry, angle of attack, flow intensity are other
parameters that need to be accounted for prediction
Armoring effect need to be accounted for prediction
Prediction equations are specified for clear water and
live bed condition, pier geometry, flow depth etc.
But the most important aspect is that predictions vary a lot
employing different formulae available. Therefore it is quite
common that different authorities resort to studies3,9
pertinent to performance of prediction formulae with
respect to measured scour depth at selected bridge
locations.
5.2 HEC-18, FHWA, 2001 RECOMMENDATION
FOR LOCAL SCOUR AT BRIDGE PIERS
FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 187, 2001
recommends the use of Colorado State University (CSU)
equation with modifications to account for armoring and
other bed conditions (by Richardson & Davis).
In addition to this, an equation developed by Dr. David
Froehlich (1991) has also been added as an alternative pier
scour equation in HEC-18.
The HEC equation for pier scour is provided in section 8.
5.3 PERFORMANCE OF PIER SCOUR
PREDICTION EQUATIONS
As mentioned in 5.1 above, predicted scour using various
equations vary largely (both over prediction and under
prediction are reported3), it is therefore very relevant to
explore the nature of predictions from prominent equations
available with engineers.
Using the pier scour data available from U.S. Department
of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey for the Kentucky
District10 the author has determined predicted scour using
some prominent equations and compared them with the
observed scour data (ysp / Dpier Vs yso / Dpier), suffices p & o
representing predicted and observed scour depth
respectively, while Dpier representing the projected pier
dimension normal to the flow. These observations are
presented separately for clear-water conditions, armored
bed conditions and live bed conditions in figures 2, 3 and 4
respectively. Clear water, live bed or armored bed
conditions for the data set were determined using Melville-
Sutherland5 approach for uniformity in the segregation
process.
3
These figures clearly indicate that the Richardson et al
(HEC-18) equation seems to be giving the most economical
results for practicing engineers. However it is found that at
higher scour depths it tends to under-predict and therefore
other accepted approach e.g. Melville-Sutherland, Jain-
Fisher etc. can be employed.
Further these figures will also serve as useful guides to
design engineers in assessing the possible extent of
over/under predictions that their results (employing a
particular equation) yield.
5.4 HEC-18, FHWA, 2001 RECOMMENDATION
FOR LOCAL SCOUR AT BRIDGE
ABUTMENTS
The HEC-18, FHWA recommends two equations for the
computation of live-bed abutment scour. When the wetted
embankment (abutment) length divided by the approach
flow depth is greater than 25, it recommends use of the
HIRE equation, else it recommends use of the Froehlich
equation.
For clear water abutment scour it recommends the same
above-mentioned equations. Even though it is
acknowledged therein that for clear water these equations
potentially decrease scour at abutments due to the presence
of coarser material, but since such decrease is still
unsubstantiated by field data HEC-18 still recommends
these equations.
These equations for abutment scour prediction are provided
in section 8.
Laboratory data compiled by Dr. Miguel Palaviccini1 have
been used to identify the prediction behaviour of the HIRE
equation mentioned herein for abutment scour. These are
presented in figures 5 & 6 for clear-water and live-bed
scour respectively for assisting the practicing engineers to
assess on their own the application potential of these
equations.
6. CONTRACTION SCOUR COMPUTATION
6.1 LIVE-BED CONTRACTION SCOUR
The HEC-18 recommends using a modified version of
Laursens (1960) live bed scour equation, presented in
section 8.
6.2 CLEAR-WATER CONTRACTION SCOUR
The HEC-18 recommends using an equation based on
research from Laursen (1963), presented in section 8.
7. EVALUATION OF DESIGN 8.2 ABUTMENT SCOUR

It is essential once scour computation is over to verify Froehlich's Live-Bed Abutment Scour Equation
certain criteria before accepting the design. The salient 0.43
ys '
ones, as presented in HEC-18, are as follows: = 2.27 K1K 2 L Fr1
0.61 + 1
(6)
ya y
a
Is the waterway area large enough (i.e. is the
contraction scour too large)? where:
Are the piers too close to each other or to the abutment K1 = Coefficient for abutment shape (Table 7.1 of
(i.e. do the scour holes overlap)? Estimate the top HEC-18)
width of a scour hole on each side of a pier at 2.0 times K2 = Coefficient for angle of embankment to flow
the depth of scour. If scour holes overlap, scour can be K2 = (/90)0.13 (see Figure 7.4 of HEC-18 for
deeper. definition of )
Is there a need for relief bridge? Should they or the 0
<90 if embankment points downstream
main bridge be larger? 0
>90 if embankment points upstream
At this point it is felt mention is required, immense research L = Length of active flow obstructed by the
literature on impact of pier spacing on local scour4 are embankment, m (ft)
available which can be availed to analyse specific cases Ae = Flow area of the approach cross section
whenever such crisis in regard to authenticity of predicted 2 2
obstructed by the embankment, m (ft )
values are encountered by practicing engineers, as
insinuated in the introductory section. Fr = Froude Number of approach flow upstream of
1/2
the abutment = Ve/(gya)
8. SCOUR EQUATIONS Ve = Qe/Ae, m/s (ft/s)
Qe = Flow obstructed by the abutment and approach
8.1 PIER SCOUR 3 3
embankment, m /s (ft /s)
Both for clear water and live bed conditions HEC-18 ya = Average depth of flow on the floodplain (Ae/L),
recommended pier scour Richardson equation that is m (ft)
given next: L= Length of embankment projected normal to the
flow, m (ft)
0.65
ys a 0.43 ys = Scour depth, m (ft)
= 2.0 K1K 2 K 3 K 4 Fr1
y1 y (5)
1
It should be noted that the above equation is not consistent since
where: as L tends to 0, ys also tends to 0. The 1 was added to the
ys = Scour depth, m (ft) equation so as to envelope 98 percent of the data.
y1 = Flow depth directly upstream of the pier, m(ft) HIRE Live-Bed Abutment Scour Equation
K1 = Correction factor for pier nose shape from Figure ys K1
= 4.0 Fr 0.33 K2
6.3 and Table 6.1 of HEC-18 y1 0.55 (7)
K2 = Correction factor for angle of attack of flow from
Table 6.2 or Equation 6.4 of HEC-18 where:
K3 = Correction factor for bed condition from Table ys = Scour depth, m (ft)
6.3 of HEC-18 y1 = Depth of flow at the abutment on the overbank or
K4 = Correction factor for armoring by bed material in the main channel, m (ft)
size from Equation 6.5 and Table 6.4 of HEC-18 Fr = Froude Number based on the velocity and depth
a= Pier width, m (ft) adjacent to and upstream of the abutment
L= Length of pier, m (ft) K1 = Abutment shape coefficient (from Table 7.1 of
Fr1 = Froude Number directly upstream of the pier = HEC-18)
V1/(gy1)1/2 K2 = Coefficient for skew angle of abutment to flow
V1 = Mean velocity of flow directly upstream of the calculated as for Froehlich's equation (Section
pier, m/s (ft/s) 7.7.1 of HEC-18)
g= Acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2) (32.2 ft/s2)

4
8.3 CONTRACTION SCOUR CLEAR-WATER CONTRACTION SCOUR
LIVE-BED CONTRACTION SCOUR Suggested by Laursen

A modified version of Laursen's 1960 equation: 3/ 7

K Q2
y2 = 2 /u3 2
6/7 k Dm W (9)
y2 Q W1 1
= 2


ys = y2 y0 = (average contraction scour depth)
y1 Q1 W2
y s = y 2 y 0 = (average contraction scour depth )
where:
(8) y2 = Average equilibrium depth in the contracted
section after contraction scour, m (ft)
where: Q= Discharge through the bridge or on the set-back
y1 = Average depth in the upstream main channel, m overbank area at the bridge associated with the
(ft) 3 3
width W, m /s (ft /s)
y2 = Average depth in the contracted section, m (ft) Dm = Diameter of the smallest non-transportable
yo = Existing depth in the contracted section before particle in the bed material (1.25 D50) in the
scour, m (ft) contracted section, m (ft)
Q1 = Flow in the upstream channel transporting D50 = Median diameter of bed material, m (ft)
3 3
sediment, m /s (ft /s) W= Bottom width of the contracted section less pier
3 3 widths, m (ft)
Q2 = Flow in the contracted channel, m /s (ft /s)
W1 = Bottom width of the upstream main channel that yo = Average existing depth in the contracted section,
is transporting bed material, m (ft) m (ft)
W2 = Bottom width of the main channel in the Ku = 0.025 SI units
contracted section less pier width(s), m (ft) Ku = 0.0077 English units
k1 = Exponent determined below
V*/ k1 Mode of 9. CONCLUSION
Bed Material Transport Different constituents of scour have been presented first,
Mostly contact bed material and then they have been supplemented by available
<0.50 0.59 discharge empirical equations to allow practicing engineers in
Some suspended bed material developing handy spreadsheet analysis tools. Use of Rijn1
0.50 to 2.0 0.64 discharge equations has been shown as one such means of eliminating
use of charts/graphs, and using a much more dynamic
>2.0 0.69 Mostly suspended bed material discharge
spreadsheet analysis to ascertain very primary aspects say
V* = (o/) = (gy1 S1), shear velocity in the live-bed or clear-water condition. Further to supplement the
upstream section, m/s (ft/s) requirements for determining scour calculation variables
= Fall velocity of bed material based on the D50, (inputs to different widely accepted formulae) mention has
m/s (Figure 5.8 of HEC-18). For fall velocity in been made of a sample spreadsheet that divides the cross
English units (ft/s) multiply in m/s by 3.28 section into equal conveyance tubes. It is mentioned here
g=
2
Acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s ) (32.2 ft/s )
2 just to emphasize that such requirements should not be
construed as deterrent to practicing engineers in
S1 = Slope of energy grade line of main channel, m/m
experimenting with alternate approaches (widely used in
(ft/ft)
different parts of the world) that very often is perceived as
2 2
o = Shear stress on the bed, Pa (N/m ) (lb/ft ) those that require advanced commercial software. Useful
3 3 graphs, based on results from applying available equations
= Density of water (1000 kg/m ) (1.94 slugs/ ft )
to reasonably big sets of field / laboratory scour data, have
been presented for the Engineers to assess the possible
extent of over/under predictions as a particular equation or
equation set is resorted to. These graphs also show that the
Richardson et al (HEC-18) equation seems to be giving the
most economical local pier scour results for practicing
engineers. However it is found that at higher scour depths it
tends to under-predict and therefore other accepted

5
approach e.g. Melville-Sutherland, Jain-Fisher etc. can be
employed. Finally to conclude, the objective of this paper is
to equip practicing engineers with alternate approaches in
situations where apparently the measured scour and the
observed scour are a gross mismatch, thereby questioning
not only the relevancy and authenticity of the engineers
analyses but also their competency in providing Value
Engineering.
10. REFERENCES
1. ABUTMENT SCOUR DATA BASE Compiled by Dr.
Miguel Palaviccini under direction of Dr. Ken Young,
"REFERENCE: Palaviccini, Miguel, "Scour Predictor
Model at Bridge Abutments"; Doctor of Engineering
Disseration, Catholic University of America,
Washington,D.C.,1993;web:
http://www.gky.com/scourdata.htm
2. Arneson, L.A. and J.O. Shearman, 1998, "User's
Manual for WSPRO - A Computer Model for Water
Surface Profile Computations," Office of Technology
Applications, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA-98-080.
3. E M Boehmler & J R Olimpio, Water-Resources
Investigations Report 00-4183, Evaluation of Pier-
scour Measurement Methods and Pier-scour
Predictions With Observed Scour Measurements at
Selected Bridge Sites in New Hampshire, 1995-98,
U.S. Department of Interior & U.S. Geological
Survey, Pembroke, New Hampshire, 2000.
4. K R Elliott & C J Baker, Effect of Pier Spacing on
Scour Around Bridge Piers, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Journal Hydraulic Division, Vol. 111,
No. 7, October, 1985.
6
5. Melville, B.W. and A.J. Sutherland, 1988, "Design
Method for Local Scour at Bridge Piers," American
Society of Civil Engineers, Journal Hydraulic
Division, Vol. 114, No. 10, October.
6. Molinas, A., 1990, "Bridge Stream Tube Model for
Alluvial River Simulation" (BRI-STARS), User's
Manual, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Project No. HR15-11, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C.
7. Publication No. FHWA NHI 01-001, May 2001,
Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, Evaluating
Scour At Bridges, Fourth Edition
8. Rijn., Sediment Transport, Part-I : Bed Load
Transport. Jr. of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE,
Vol.110, No.10, October, 1984
9. T A Heinrichs, B W Kennedy, D E Langley & R L
Burrows, Methodology and Estimates of Scour at
Selected Bridge Sites in Alsaka, Maryland, WRI
R00+4151.pdf.
10. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey - Kentucky District; web:
http://ky.water.usgs.gov/Bridge_Scour/BSDMS/BSD
MS_1.htm
 1.8 Scour data
8 Melville-Sutherland
Gao et al X=Y line
CSU
1.6
7
Froehlich Linear (X=Y line)
Jain-Fischer 1.4 Expon. (Scour data)
6 Perfect Match Line

Predicted scour
Linear (Melville-Sutherland) 1.2
Linear (Gao et al)
Predicted Scour

5 Linear (CSU)
Linear (Froehlich) 1
4 Linear (Jain-Fischer)
0.8
3 0.6
2 0.4
1 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
-1
Observed scour Observed scour
Figure 2: Clear Water Scour
Figure 5: Clear-Water Abutment Scour
18
Melville-Sutherland
16
CSU
14
Froehlich
Predicted Scour

12
Jain-Fischer
10 Perfect-match line 1.4
8 Linear (Melville- Scour data
Sutherland) X=Y LINE
6 Linear (CSU) 1.2
4 Linear (Froehlich) Linear (X=Y LINE)
Linear (Jain-Fischer) 1 Expon. (Scour data)
2

Predicted Scour (m)

0
0 2 4 6
Observed Scour 8 10 12 14 0.8

Figure 3: Live-Bed Scour 0.6

14
Melville-Sut herland 0.4
Gao et al
12 CSU
Froehlich 0.2
Jain-Fischer
10 perfect match line
Log. (Melville-Sut herland)
Log. (Gao et al) 0
Predicted Scour

8 Log. (CSU)
Log. (Froehlich) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Log. (Jain-Fischer)
O bse rve d scour (m)
6

4
Figure 6: Live-Bed Abutment Scour
2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

-2

Observed Scour
Figure 4: Armoured Bed Scour

7
 o (approach bed-shear) (= R Sf) (in Pascals) 83.332 Pascals
11. SCOUR CALCULATION EXAMPLE V* (friction velocity) =(o /)0.5 0.289 m/s
INPUTS
V*/ 11.547
Q 40.352 cumecs
k1 (for Laursens equation, against V*/w values) 0.690
S 0.013
Conclusion from k1 values mostly suspended load
d50 0.002 m
Q2 (bridge section main-channel discharge) 40.352 cumecs
d84 0.004 m
y2 (contraction scour) 0.768 m
(fall velocity for d50) (from Chart) 0.025 m/s
live-bed contraction
number of piers in the bridge section main channel 1.000 COMMENTS
scour
bridge pier width 1.520 m STEP-4
STEP-1 Computing hydraulic variables for pier scour
Number of equal conveyance tubes (both for Vp = Velocity in the conveyance tube where the
3.502 m/s
approach & bridge section) 10 pier is located
STEP-2 Y1(mean depth of flow in the tube) 0.897 m
Computing hydraulic variables for live-bed contraction scour STEP-5
K1 (approach) 352.555 Computing pier scour
K (total) (approach) 352.555 Fr1 1.181
W1 (TOPW) 20.773 m Correction Factor K1 (for round nose) 1.000
Ac (approach)(main-channel area) 13.022 sq.m Correction Factor K2 (angle of attack=zero) 1.000
WETP (approach) 20.082 m Correction Factor K3 (considering plain-bed) 1.100
K2 (bridge) 352.557 Correction Factor K4 (since d50<0.06) 1.000
K (total) (bridge) 352.557 ysp = y2 (pier scour using Richardson modified
2.986 m
Ac (bridge, mainchannel) 11.621 sq.m CSU eqn as in HEC-18)
Wc (bridge) (main channel width, bridge) 17.000 m STEP-6
W2 (bridge) (effective bridge main-channel Computing hydraulic variables for abutment scour using Froehlich Equation for
15.480 m
width) (Wc-total pier widths at bridge) LEFT ABUTMENT
Sf ~S 0.013 Ntube (no. of approach section tube obstructed by
0.750
STEP-3 left abutment)
Computing contraction scour L' (length of left abutment projected into flow) 3.000 m
Q1 (approach section main-channel discharge) 40.352 cumecs Ae (area obstructed by left abutment) 1.247 sq.m
V1 (approach section main-channel avg. velocity) 3.099 m/s q tube (discharge per equal conveyance tube for
4.035 cumecs
approach section)
y1 (approach section main-channel avg. depth) 0.627 m
Qe (flow obstructed by left abutment) 3.026 cumecs
Vc,50 approach 0.721 m/s
Ve 2.428 m/s
clear water Or live-bed live-bed
STEP-7
R (approach hydraulic radius) 0.648 m

8
Computing hydraulic variables for abutment scour using HIRE Equation for RIGHT ABUTMENT
LEFT ABUTMENT Vtube (mean velocity of tube 10, bridge section,
2.932 m/s
Vtube (mean velocity of tube 1, bridge section, adjacent to right abutment)
2.916 m/s
adjacent to left abutment)
y1 (average depth of tube 10, bridge section,
0.878 m
y1 (average depth of tube 1, bridge section, adjacent to right abutment)
0.972 m
adjacent to left abutment)
y a = Ae / L' 0.463 m
y a = Ae / L' 0.416 m
COMMENTS use FROEHLICH eqn
COMMENTS use FROEHLICH eqn STEP-12
STEP-8 Computing abutment scour using Froehlich Equation for RIGHT ABUTMENT
Computing abutment scour using Froehlich Equation for LEFT ABUTMENT Fr (Froehlich) 1.104
Fr (Froehlich) 1.203 Correction Factor K1 (considering spill-through
0.550
Correction Factor K1 (considering spill-through abutment)
0.550
abutment) Correction Factor K2 (considering flow parallel to
1.000
Correction Factor K2 (considering flow parallel to abutment)
1.000
abutment)
ys (abutment scour as in HEC-18) 2.502 m
ys (abutment scour as in HEC-18) 2.358 m
STEP-13
STEP-9 Computing abutment scour using HIRE Equation for RIGHT ABUTMENT
Computing abutment scour using HIRE Equation for LEFT ABUTMENT Fr1 (HIRE) not applicable
Fr1 (HIRE) not applicable Correction Factor K1 (considering spill-through
0.550
Correction Factor K1 (considering spill-through abutment)
0.550
abutment)
ys (abutment scour as in HEC-18) not applicable m
ys (abutment scour as in HEC-18) not applicable m
STEP-10
Summary
Computing hydraulic variables for abutment scour using Froehlich Equation for
RIGHT ABUTMENT Total Pier Scour 3.754 m
Ntube (no. of approach section tube obstructed by Total Left Abutment Scour 3.126 m
1.000
right abutment) Total Right Abutment Scour 3.269 m
L' (length of right abutment projected into flow) 3.700 m
NOTE:
Ae (area obstructed by right abutment) 1.714 sq.m
q tube (discharge per equal conveyance tube for 1.) Calculations for determining live-bed / clear-water / armored-bed have
4.035 cumecs not been explicitly shown here.
approach section)
Qe (flow obstructed by right abutment) 4.035 cumecs 2.) Calculations for bridge hydraulic variables (those in steps 1 &2) too have
Ve 2.354 m/s not been explicitly shown here.
STEP-11
Computing hydraulic variables for abutment scour using HIRE Equation for