National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

NCHRP Report 516: Pier and Contraction Scour in Cohesive Soils (2004)
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Citation Manager

Wang, J, Briaud, J-L, Li, Y, Chen, H-C, Nurtjahyo, P, Transportation Research Board. "5.9 Shallow Water Effect on Initial Shear Stress." NCHRP Report 516: Pier and Contraction Scour in Cohesive Soils. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
36
bottomleft bottomright
Page
36
Front Matter (R1-R10)
Summary (1-7)
1.4 Why Was This Problem Addressed? (8-8)
1.5 Approach Selected to Solve the Problem (9-9)
2.4 Erodibility and Correlation to Soil and Rock Properties (10-13)
3.3 EFA Test Data Reduction (14-14)
3.4 EFA Precision and Typical Results (15-16)
4.2 Small Flood Followed by Big Flood (17-17)
4.3 Big Flood Followed by Small Flood and General Case (18-18)
4.4 Hard Soil Layer Over Soft Soil Layer (19-20)
4.6 Equivalent Time (21-21)
4.7 Extended and Simple SRICOS-EFA Method (22-23)
4.8 Case Histories (24-25)
4.9 Predicted and Measured Local Scour for the Eight Bridges (26-28)
4.10 Conclusions (29-29)
5.4 Measuring Equipment (30-31)
5.5 Soils and Soil Bed Preparation (32-32)
5.6 Flume Tests: Procedure and Measurement (33-33)
5.8 Shallow Water Effect on Maximum Pier Scour Depth (34-35)
5.9 Shallow Water Effect on Initial Shear Stress (36-36)
5.11 Pier Spacing Effect on Maximum Scour Depth (37-37)
5.12 Pier Spacing Effect on Initial Scour Rate (38-38)
5.15 Pier Shape Effect on Initial Scour Rate (39-39)
5.18 Attack Angle Effect on Maximum Scour Depth (40-41)
5.20 Attack Angle Effect on Scour Hole Shape (42-42)
5.21 Maximum Scour Depth Equation for Complex Pier Scour (43-44)
6.2 Existing Knowledge on Numerical Simulations for Scour (45-45)
6.5 Shallow Water Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (46-46)
6.6 Shallow Water Effect on Maximum Shear Stress (47-47)
6.7 Pier Spacing Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (48-48)
6.9 Pier Shape Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (49-50)
6.10 Pier Shape Effect on Maximum Shear Stress (51-51)
6.11 Attack Angle Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (52-52)
6.12 Attack Angle Effect on Maximum Shear Stress (53-53)
6.13 Maximum Shear Stress Equation for Complex Pier Scour (54-55)
7.3 Flume Tests and Measurements (56-56)
7.4 Flume Tests: Flow Observations and Results (57-58)
7.5 Flume Tests: Scour Observations and Results (59-59)
7.6 Maximum and Uniform Contraction Depths for the Reference Cases (60-62)
7.7 Location of Maximum Contraction Depth for the Reference Cases (63-63)
7.8 Correction Factors for Transition Angle and Contraction Length (64-64)
7.9 SRICOS-EFA Method Using HEC-RAS Generated Velocity (65-65)
7.11 Scour Depth Equations for Contraction Scour (66-67)
8.3 Transition Angle Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (68-68)
8.4 Contracted Length Effect: Numerical Simulation Results (69-71)
8.6 Maximum Shear Stress Equation for Contraction Scour (72-75)
9.3 The Integrated SRICOS-EFA Method: Step-by-Step Procedure (76-80)
9.5 The SRICOS-EFA Program (81-83)
9.6 Output of the SRICOS-EFA Program (84-84)
10.4 Gill (1981) Database: Contraction Scour (85-87)
10.5 Remarks (88-88)
11.2 Preparation of the Future Hydrographs (89-89)
11.3 Risk Approach to Scour Predictions (90-90)
11.4 Observations on Current Risk Levels (91-92)
12.2 Example 2: Single Rectangular Pier with Attack Angle and Approaching Hydrograph (93-94)
12.3 Example 3: Group Rectangular Piers with Attack Angle and Approaching Constant Velocity (95-98)
12.4 Example 4: Contracted Channel with 90-Degree Transition Angle and Approaching Constant Velocity (99-102)
12.5 Example 5: Contracted Channel with 60-Degree Transition Angle and Approaching Hydrograph (103-104)
12.6 Example 6: Bridge with Group Piers and Contracted Channel with Hydrograph in Contracted Section (105-110)
13.1 Conclusions (111-112)
13.2 Recommendations, (113-113)
References (114-115)
Nomenclature (116-117)
Unit Conversions (118-118)
Appendix A - Photographs from the Flume Tests (119-125)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (126-126)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read 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, chapter-representative 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 36
36 1.6 0.34 H H B < 1.62 Kw = 0.8493(H/B) 0.3385 0.85 B Kw = 1.4 R2 = 0.7753 (5.2) 1.2 1 H B < 1.62 1.0 0.8 5.9 SHALLOW WATER EFFECT ON INITIAL Kw Test SHEAR STRESS Meville Equ(3.7) 0.6 Johns on 0.273/0.3, Equ(3.6A) For a given scour depth versus time curve, the initial 0.4 0.273/0.3 , Equ(3.6C) scour rate is the initial slope of that curve. It can be obtained Johns on, 0.16/0.4, Equ(3.6A) by fitting a hyperbola to the data. These are the rates shown 0.2 0.16/0.4, Equ(3.6C) in Table 5.3. The two groups of initial scour rates are plot- Best Fit of Test ted in Figure 5.12. Test Sh-8 gave a much higher initial 0.0 scour rate than the other tests (11 mm/hr), so the large pic- 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 ture does not show its value, but the inset one does. The inset H/B indicates that the initial scour rate tends to increase as the Figure 5.11. Correction factor for shallow water effect water depth decreases and that the increase becomes partic- on maximum pier scour depth. ularly significant when H/B< 0.5. The figure also shows that the scour rates for the larger pier (B = 0.273 m) are smaller than the rates for the smaller pier (B = 0.160 m). Since the correction factor can be derived. These values correspond to initial scour rate is directly tied to the initial shear stress the curves labeled "0.273/0.3, Equ(3.6C)" and "0.160/0.4, through the erosion function, it can be stated that the initial Equ(3.6C)" with H/B = 2.5 as the reference cases for B = shear stress increases when the water depth decreases and 0.273 m, V = 0.3 m/s and B = 0.160, V = 0.4 m/s, respectively. decreases when the pier diameter increases. These trends are Figure 5.11 shows that the shallow water effect factor the opposite of the trends for the maximum scour depth. obtained in this study is close to the correction factors for This means that a pier in shallow water subjected to a con- cohesionless soils. stant velocity will scour faster at the beginning but will end By regression, the expression for the proposed cohesive up scouring to a shallower maximum depth than the same soil correction factor Kw is pier in deep water (Figure 5.13). 5 12 Erosion Rate (mm/hr) 10 8 4 6 4 Erosion Rate (mm/hr) 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 H/B 2 1 V=0.3m/s, B=273mm V=0.4m/s, B=160mm 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 H/B Figure 5.12. Initial scour rate as a function of water depth.