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. "5.12 Pier Spacing Effect on Initial Scour Rate." 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
38
bottomleft bottomright
Page
38
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 38
38 4 .0 A .J .R a ud k ivi 3 .5 S te rling J o ne s K e ith R . E llio t V e lo c ity ra tio 3 .0 P ro je c tio n W id th P ro je c tio n W id th(K w ) 2 .5 M e a s ure m e nt K sp 2 .0 1 .5 1 .0 0 .5 1 3 5 7 C /B Figure 5.15. Correction factor for pier spacing effect. Jones (1998) was used by adding the widths of all of the piers 6 in the row. This was done by using Equation 5.1 with the equivalent width. The Ksp curve obtained in such a way is Initial S c our R ate (mm) shown under the label "Projection Width" in Figure 5.15. That 5 curve does not fit the measured data well (too conservative). Even after accounting for the water depth effect, the Ksp curve is still too high as shown under the label "Projection Width 4 (Kw)" in Figure 5.15. This indicates that the single equivalent pier model would overestimate the pier spacing effect at least for piers installed in a row. It was found that the ratio of the 3 width of the channel without the piers over the unobstructed width of the channel with the piers fit the data quite well. This 2 equation is shown in Figure 5.15 under the label "Velocity 1 2 3 4 5 Ratio" because the velocity also can be estimated through that C /B ratio. For example, if the flume width is B1, the approaching velocity V1, and there are n piers installed in a row with same Figure 5.16. Initial scour rate for the group pier tests. diameter B, then the velocity with n piers can be estimated by: Vn = (V1B1)/(B1 - nB), and the velocity ratio is: Vn/V1 = B1/(B1 - nB). The equation proposed for Ksp is: 180 B1 150 K sp = (5.3) ( B1 - nB) Scour Depth (mm) 120 5.12 PIER SPACING EFFECT ON INITIAL 90 SCOUR RATE A For C/B, A>B>C 60 B The initial scour rate for the pier spacing flume tests is pre- C sented in Table 5.4 and plotted in Figure 5.16 where C is the center-to-center distance and B the pier width. It shows that 30 the initial scour rate tends to increase as the piers become more closely spaced. In summary, both the maximum pier 0 scour depth and the initial scour rate will increase as the piers 0 50 100 150 200 Time (hr) become more closely spaced. This means that curves such as those presented in Figure 5.17 can be expected. Figure 5.17. Scour curves for groups of piers in a line.