Portable Scour Monitoring Equipment (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix B: Field Testing Results
Appendix B: Field Testing Results
Pages 71-93
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 71... ...
The Chickasaw Bridge is a four-span structure taking State Highway 213 across Chickasaw Creek in northwest Mobile. This bridge is tidally influenced and was rated scour critical based on calculations.
|
From page 72... ...
Figure B18 plots the data collected at these bridges. Wisconsin State Highway 80 Wisconsin STH 80 crosses the Wisconsin River near Muscoda, Wisconsin.
|
From page 73... ...
The bridge has had scour problems at Pier 1, which is in an eddy along the left bank creating reverse-flow condiB-3 tions at the pier. The inspection was completed on May 14, 2002, and included arc measurements at Pier 1, a cross section from Piers 1 to 3, and kneeboard measurements to get further under the bridge deck at Pier 1.
|
From page 74... ...
Missouri had received significant rainfall in the week prior to the inspection, but most of the smaller drainages had already peaked. After visiting several bridges around the Macon area that were on smaller drainages and finding little flow in the channels, this bridge was selected to evaluate the performance of the gabion baskets during and after a large flow event.
|
From page 75... ...
The flat-bottom design could create a separation zone off the nose of the sounding weight, which would not be an issue for current meter applications but was a concern when mounting a sonar transducer in the bottom of the weight. Figure B35 plots the data collected at these bridges.
|
From page 76... ...
Figure B14a. Heron Bay results.
|
From page 77... ...
Figure B14b. Chickasaw Creek results.
|
From page 78... ...
Figure B14c. Little Lagoon Pass results.
|
From page 79... ...
with no shoulder, requiring a lane closure for traffic control that was provided by Bingham County. Arc measurements were made at the upstream side of the piers at both bridges, supplemented by kneeboard measurements at Ferry Butte and a cross section at West Shelley.
|
From page 80... ...
Figure B18a. Minnesota Trunk Highway 93 cross section results.
|
From page 81... ...
Figure B18b. Minnesota Trunk Highway 93 pier 1 results.
|
From page 82... ...
Figure B20. Kneeboard on a rigid frame.
|
From page 83... ...
Figure B23a. Wisconsin State Highway 80 cross section results.
|
From page 84... ...
Figure B23b. Wisconsin State Highway 80 pier 1 results.
|
From page 85... ...
Figure B24. Approach conditions at U.S.
|
From page 86... ...
Figure B26. Missouri Highway 24 results.
|
From page 87... ...
Figure B30. Sonar in the water as the truck is moving across the bridge during a cross section measurement.
|
From page 88... ...
Figure B34. Close up of sounding weight showing wedge on leading edge of sonar.
|
From page 89... ...
Figure B35. Indiana State Route 61 downstream side results.
|
From page 90... ...
Figure B39. Arc measurement upstream at West Shelley.
|
From page 91... ...
Figure B41a. Ferry Butte results.
|
From page 92... ...
Figure B41b. West Shelley cross section results.
|
From page 93... ...
Figure B41c. West Shelley pier results.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.