Countermeasures to Protect Bridge Abutments from Scour (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 24-37
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 24... ...
24 4.1 Introduction To assess existing practices with regard to the use of abutment scour countermeasures, a survey form was sent to the department of transportation office of each state in the United States. Additionally, general information and experience were obtained from certain other entities, such as county engineer offices, and overall experience in New Zealand, the home country of one of the co-investigators.
|
From page 25... ...
25 Countermeasure (none is also an option) Bridge Name Year Bridge Constructed Year Countermeasure Constructed # successful # unsuccessful MD - grout bags 48 5 MD - riprap 10 0 MD - sheeting 2 0 MI - riprap Most (65)
|
From page 26... ...
26 State Response AL Used to use pavement on slopes. Had failure.
|
From page 27... ...
27 State Response AK Velocity-based analysis. AZ HEC 23 and team consensus.
|
From page 28... ...
28 State Response AR Spurs use earth-moving equipment, riprap from barge, temporary work platforms, or from shore. CT Dump riprap from barges (large rivers)
|
From page 29... ...
29 5 Worst Scour Sites Abutment Characteristics CONNECTICUT 1 2 3 4 5 Name BN02781 BN 01048 BN01383 BN05419 BN08014R Location Stinington Oxford Haddam Sherman Stamford Scour depth (ft) 6 4 0-3 2 4-5 % gravel 50 10 10 % sand 50 75 % silt 15 % clay d90 58 mm 10 mm d50 38 mm 3 mm 1.6 mm d30 0.7 mm 0.75 mm Bed Material Bedload (high, med., low)
|
From page 30... ...
30 5 Worst Scour Sites Abutment Characteristics FLORIDA 1 2 3 4 5 Name 070026 Location Scour depth (ft) % gravel % sand % silt % clay d90 d50 d30 Bed Material Bedload (high, med., low)
|
From page 31... ...
31 5 Worst Scour Sites Abutment Characteristics GEORGIA 1 2 3 4 5 Name SR 38 SR 38 Location Long. Co Lowndes Co.
|
From page 32... ...
32 5 Worst Scour Sites Abutment Characteristics MICHIGAN 1 2 3 4 5 Name B01 B03/04 Location 81,032 61,075 Scour depth (ft) 4 % gravel % sand 90 100 % silt % clay d90 d50 0.0005 d30 Bed Material Bedload (high, med., low)
|
From page 33... ...
33 5 Worst Scour Sites Abutment Characteristics MINNESOTA 1 2 3 4 5 Name 5236 87007 87015 Location TH 212 - Lac Qui Parle R TH 23 - Minnesota R
|
From page 34... ...
34 5 Worst Scour Sites Abutment Characteristics NEW MEXICO 1 2 3 4 5 Name 6479 8996 8979 5714 Location Cuba Clayton US 285 Pecos River Scour depth (ft) None so far None so far Aggredation, 1' None so far % gravel % sand % silt % clay d90 d50 d30 Bed Material Bedload (high, med., low)
|
From page 35... ...
35 5 Worst Scour Sites Abutment Characteristics OKLAHOMA 1 2 3 4 5 Name East Clay Creek/US 64 Location Alfalfa Co. Scour depth (ft)
|
From page 36... ...
36 State Response AK Failure consists of embankment loss due to toe loss. AZ Abutment failure can occur in nonwaterway bridges due to deck drainage, nuisance water, or roadway drainage.
|
From page 37... ...
37 • Countermeasure structures placed in the waterway or that rely on approach-flow alignment are generally not desired. The main points arising from bridge scour experience in New Zealand are as follows: • Bridge waterways are inspected regularly.
|
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.