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. "11.2 Preparation of the Future Hydrographs." 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
89
bottomleft bottomright
Page
89
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 89
89 CHAPTER 11 FUTURE HYDROGRAPHS AND SCOUR RISK ANALYSIS 11.1 BACKGROUND a given sequence of daily stream-flow values throughout the life, Lt, of the structure. The randomness of the hydrologic Since the SRICOS-EFA Method predicts the scour depth as forcing suggests combining the scour model with some hydro- a function of time, one of the inputs is the velocity versus time logical and statistical analyses. If the stream-flow sequence (or curve, or hydrograph, at the foundation location. This hydro- hydrograph) is modeled as a stochastic process, it is possible graph should cover the period over which the scour depth must to set up a Monte Carlo procedure that samples different real- be predicted. A typical bridge is designed for 75 years. There- izations of the hydrograph (of length Lt) from that process and fore, the design for a new bridge requires the knowledge of the estimates (using the SRICOS-EFA Method) the scour depth, hydrograph from the year of construction until 75 years later. d, at the end of the bridge life for each of them. Thus, d is The question is: how can one obtain the future hydrograph regarded as a random variable and its statistics can be studied covering that long period of time? This requires predicting the in detail to determine the risk of failure associated with differ- future over a 75-year period. ent choices of the design value of the scour depth. One solution is to use a hydrograph recorded at a nearby The modeling of daily stream-flow, Q, can be tackled using gage station over the last 75 years and assume that the future different approaches (e.g., Bras and Rodriguez-Iturbe, 1986; hydrograph will be equal to the past hydrograph. If the gage Montanari et al., 1997; 2000) corresponding to different levels is not at the future bridge location, the discharge can be mul- of complexity. A first simple analysis suggested here consid- tiplied by the ratio of the drainage area at the bridge site over ers Q as a random, uncorrelated variable. A suitable distribu- the drainage area at the gage site. If the record at the gage sta- tion is fit to the data and the hydrographs are then generated as tion is not 75 years long, one can simply repeat the recorded a series of values sampled from such a distribution. Ongoing hydrograph until it covers the 75-year period. If the recorded research also is applying other stochastic models to account for hydrograph does not include the design flood (100-year flood both the autocorrelation and the memory of the process and is or 500-year flood), one can spike the hydrograph with one or assessing whether the temporal structure (i.e., both autocorre- more of those floods before running the SRICOS program lation and memory) of the stream-flow sequences is able to (Figure 11.1). affect the statistical properties of the scour-depth probability Another solution is to use the new technique that is pre- distribution. sented here. This technique consists of using a past hydro- The theoretical distribution used to model daily stream-flow graph, preparing the frequency distribution plot for the floods observations needs to be defined only for positive values of Q, within that hydrograph, sampling the distribution randomly to have a positive skew, and to be able to provide an accurate and preparing a future hydrograph for the required period representation of the extreme values (i.e., good fit at the upper that has the same mean and standard deviation as the mea- tail of the distribution). As expected, the extreme values are sured hydrograph. This process is repeated 10,000 times and, found to greatly affect the scour depth estimates and an impre- for each hydrograph, a final scour depth (the depth reached cise modeling of stream-flow maxima could easily lead to after 75 years of flow) is generated. These 10,000 final depths unrealistic estimations of the scour depth statistics. Logarith- of scour are organized in a frequency distribution plot with a mic transformations are frequently used to study stream-flow mean and standard deviation. That plot can be used to quote extremes (e.g., Chow et al., 1988; Benjamin and Cornell, a scour depth with a corresponding probability of occurrence, 1970); therefore, a log-normal distribution can be a good can- or better, to choose a risk level and quote the corresponding didate for modeling the daily stream-flows. The method of final depth of scour. moments is used to determine the parameters of the distribu- tion. As such, Q is expressed as the exponential of a normally distributed random variable, y, with mean 11.2 PREPARATION OF THE FUTURE HYDROGRAPHS 1 µQ2 µ y = Log (11.1) 2 Q 2 The SRICOS-EFA Method determines the scour depth at 1 + the end of the bridge life as a progressive process driven by µQ