Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machineread text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapterrepresentative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 18
18
Figure 4.1. Example of the SRICOS Method for constant velocity and uniform soil.
order to investigate the influence of the difference between depth versus time curve proceeds from Point B on Figure 4.2c
the two velocity histories or hydrographs on the depth of until Point C after a time t2. The z versus t curve for the
scour at a bridge pier, the case of a sequence of two different sequence of Floods 1 and 2, follows path OA on the curve for
yet constant velocity floods scouring a uniform soil was first Flood 1 then switches to BC on the curve for Flood 2. This is
considered (Figure 4.2). Flood 1 has a velocity v1 and lasts a shown as curve OAC on Figure 4.2d.
time t1 while the subsequent Flood 2 has a larger velocity v2 A set of two experiments was conducted to investigate
and lasts a time t2. The scour depth z versus time t curve for this reasoning. For these experiments, a pipe with a diame
Flood 1 is described by: ter of 25 mm was placed in the middle of a flume. The pipe
was pushed through a deposit of clay 150 mm thick that was
t made by placing prepared blocks of clay side by side in a tight
z = ( 4.4)
1 t arrangement. The properties of the clay are listed in Table 4.1.
+
i1
z zmax 1 The water depth was 400 mm and the mean flow velocity was
v1 = 0.3 m/s in Flood 1 and v2 = 0.4 m/s for Flood 2 (Fig
For Flood 2, the z
versus t curve is: ure 4.3a). The first of the two experiments consisted of set
ting the velocity equal to v2 for 100 hours and recording the
t z
versus t curve (Figure 4.3c). The second of the two experi
z = ( 4.5) ments consisted of setting the velocity equal to v1 for 115 hours
1 t
+ (Figure 4.3b) and then switching to v2 for 100 hours (Fig
i 2
z zmax 2
ure 4.3d). Also shown on Figure 4.3d is the prediction of the
After a time t1, Flood 1 creates a scour depth z 1 given by portion of the z
versus t curve under the velocity v2 accord
Equation 4.4 (Point A on Figure 4.2b). This depth z 1 would ing to the procedure described in Figure 4.3. As can be seen,
have been created in a shorter time t* by Flood 2 because v2 the prediction is very reasonable.
is larger than v1 (Point B on Figure 4.2c). This time t* can be
found by setting Equation 4.4 with z =z1 and t = t1 equal to
4.3 BIG FLOOD FOLLOWED BY SMALL FLOOD
Equation 4.6 with z =z 1 and t = t*. AND GENERAL CASE
t1 Flood 1 has a velocity v1 and lasts t1 (Figure 4.4a). It is fol
t* = ( 4.6)
zi 2
+ t1 z
i 2 1

1 lowed by Flood 2, which has a velocity v2 smaller than v1 and
i1
z zmax 1 zmax 2 lasts t2. The scour depth z versus time t curve is given by
Equation 4.4 for Flood 1 and by Equation 4.5 for Flood 2.
When Flood 2 starts, even though the scour depth z 1 was due After a time t1, Flood 1 creates a scour depth z 1. This depth z
1
to Flood 1 over a time t1, the situation is identical to having had is compared with z max 2; if z
1 is larger than z
max 2 then when
Flood 2 for a time t*. Therefore, when Flood 2 starts, the scour Flood 2 starts, the scour hole is already larger than it can be