Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.
3.
4.
5.
May 2012
BD 97/12
Volume 3, Section 4,
Part 21
TRANSPORT SCOTLAND
Welsh Government
llywodraeth cymru
This standard outlines requirements for the assessment of scour and other
hydraulic actions at highway structures crossing or adjacent to waterways.
It provides processes to determine the level of risk associated with scour
effects. It also includes processes to assess the robustness of structures
in a flood, and references to measures for reducing risk. It supersedes
BA 74/06.
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Registration of Amendments
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend
No
May 2012
Page No
Amend No
Page No
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Registration of Amendments
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend
No
Page No
Amend No
Page No
May 2012
May 2012
1.
Introduction
2.
Assessment Processes
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
References
9.
Bibliography
10.
Further Reading
11.
Enquiries
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
Chapter 1
Introduction
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
1. introduction
Background
1.1 Scour of foundations by the action of water is a
major cause of bridge collapse, and it is important to
manage the risks in an effective and consistent manner.
A key part of that process is the assessment of structures
to identify those that are most at risk and require further
action.
1.2 This Standard replaces the Advice Note BA 74/06
Assessment of Scour at Highway Bridges.
Scope
1.3 This Standard is applicable to highway structures
crossing or adjacent to watercourses and covers the
assessment of highway structures for the effects of scour
and other hydraulic actions. It provides methods for
identifying structures most at risk of collapse due to a
flood event. It also provides guidance on measures that
can be used following the assessment to manage the
risks of scour.
1.4 This standard has been prepared by the
Overseeing Organisations specifically for use on
roads for which they are responsible and may also be
applicable by other highway authorities to other roads in
accordance with GD 01 (DMRB 0.1.2).
Purpose
1.5 The purpose of this Standard is to provide a
method to assess the risks associated with scour and
other effects on highway structures during floods, and to
provide some guidance on measures that can be used to
eliminate or manage those risks. This Standard includes
simple methods for identifying structures that have a
low risk of being affected by scour, with the aim of
minimising the cost associated with assessments.
1.6 This Standard has been written to be consistent
with the principles and requirements of BD 79 The
Management of Substandard Structures (DMRB
3.4.18).
1.7 More detailed guidance on hydraulic effects and
scour at bridges may be found in CIRIA C551, Manual
on scour at bridges and other hydraulic structures (May
et al., 2002).
May 2012
Mandatory Sections
1.8 Sections of this document containing
mandatory requirements are identified by being
contained in boxes. These requirements must
be complied with or a prior agreement to a
Departure from Standard must be obtained from
the Overseeing Organisation. The text outside
boxes contains advice and explanation, which
is commended to users for consideration.
Implementation (England, Scotland and Wales)
1.9 This document must be used forthwith
on all projects for the assessment, design,
construction, operation and maintenance of
motorway and all-purpose trunk roads in England,
Scotland and Wales except where procurement
of works has reached a stage at which, in the
opinion of the Overseeing Organisation, its use
would result in significant additional expense or
delay progress (in which case the decision must
be recorded in accordance with the procedure
required by the Overseeing Organisation).
Implementation (Northern Ireland)
1.10 This document must be used forthwith
on all projects for the assessment, design,
construction, operation and maintenance of
all roads in Northern Ireland except where
procurement of works has reached a stage at which,
in the opinion of the Overseeing Organisation, its
use would result in significant additional expense
or delay progress (in which case the decision must
be recorded in accordance with the procedure
required by the Overseeing Organisation).
1.11 The list of abbreviations and definitions used
throughout this standard can be found at Annex C.
1/1
Chapter 2
Assessment Processes
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
2. ASSESSMENT PROCESSES
Assessment of Vulnerability to Other Hydraulic
Effects
General
2.1 All structures crossing a waterway must
be periodically assessed to determine whether
measures are required to reduce the risk from
scour and other hydraulic effects in accordance
with the following:
(i)
(ii)
May 2012
2/1
Chapter 2
Assessment Processes
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Start
Inspection
Level 1
Assessment
Level 2
Assessment
Scour Risk
Rating 1-4
Immediate Risk
Structure
BD 79
Risk
Management
Figure 2.1 Scour Assessment Process
Document Management
2.10 For each structure crossing a waterway an
auditable record must be maintained to enable the
assessment and management of the structure to
be clearly documented. This record must include
details of the decisions taken at each stage of the
assessment process, evidence of the approval
and implementation of any measures or actions,
and documentation of the regular review of the
structure. Records should follow the requirements
of BD 62 (DMRB 3.2.1).
2/2
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 3
Inspection and Level 1 Scour Assessment
May 2012
3/1
Chapter 3
Inspection and Level 1 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Concrete
substructure
Masonry
substructure
1m
3m
0.3m
1m
3/2
Level 1 Assessment
3.8 The Level 1 Assessment considers the risk of
scour damage, the stability of the waterway and the
robustness of the structure under flood conditions.
3.9 Aspects to be considered at Level 1 include
the following:
(i)
(ii)
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 3
Inspection and Level 1 Scour Assessment
Start
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Bridge immediately
downstream of sharp bend or angle
of attack > 10?
No
Yes
Proceed to Level 2
Assessment
3/3
Chapter 3
Inspection and Level 1 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
(ii)
3/4
(ii)
No history of movement.
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 3
Inspection and Level 1 Scour Assessment
(ii)
May 2012
3/5
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Start
Go to Chapter 5 to calculate
Scour Risk Rating
Figure 4.1 Outline of Level 2 Assessment Process
May 2012
4/1
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Assessment Flow
4.3 The Assessment Flow must be determined
for the bridge site based on a statistical analysis
of the available flood data, combined with tidal
data where appropriate.
4.4 The fluvial component of the Assessment
Flow QF must be no less than the flow
corresponding to a return period of 200 years
(equivalent to a probability of 0.005 that this flow
will be exceeded in any one year).
4.5 Data for estimating QF should be obtained
from The Flood Estimation Handbook and associated
software. QF may be derived from the index flood,
also known as QMED, scaled by a dimensionless
growth curve.
4.6 The index flood for a gauged catchment is the
median of the annual maximum flood. Where sites
are not gauged, the index flood may be estimated using
the method in the Flood Estimation Handbook based
on catchment descriptors and adjusted using one or
more donor sites, which are gauged stations located
in the vicinity of the site. Potential donor sites should
be selected based on geographical closeness rather
than hydrological similarity as defined by catchment
descriptors. Further guidance on the calculation
procedure for estimating and adjusting QMED is
provided in the Flood Estimation Handbook.
4.7 The index flood should be scaled by a growth
curve derived from data extracted from a pooling group
of gauged UK catchments. The method is given in
the Flood Estimation Handbook. Sites for the pooling
groups should be selected based on a measure of
hydrological similarity derived from catchment area,
annual average rainfall, soil type, flood attenuation,
and urbanisation. The number of sites within the
pooling group should ideally be sufficient to provide
a total of 1,000 years of data (or five times the return
period), but no less than 500 years. The recommended
form of the growth curve to be used in the UK is the
Generalised Logistic distribution, as described in the
Flood Estimation Handbook.
4.8 An adjustment to QF to account for the effects
of climate change is required. For design it is common
to allow for an additional 20% on the design flood to
account for potential climate change over the life of the
structure (Planning Policy Statement 25). This addition
should also be applied for assessment.
4/2
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
QTide =
VTide
TTide
Where
QTide is the peak tidal flow,
VTide is the volume of the tidal prism, calculated from the
area upstream of the bridge that is subject to inundation
at high tide multiplied by the tidal range,
TTide is the tidal period.
4.13 QTide should be calculated for the average tidal
range, which is the average of the mean spring and
neap tidal ranges. If the flow calculated in this way
is less than 0.5 QF, then the Assessment Flow should
be taken as:
QA = QF + QTide
However, if the tidal flow based on the average tidal
range is greater than 0.5 QF, then the maximum tidal
flow QTide,max, should also be considered, based on the
range between the Highest and Lowest Astronomical
Tides, and the Assessment Flow should be taken as the
greater of
QA = QF + QTide
and
QA =
QF
+ QTide ,max
3
May 2012
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Q A Q F QTide
Qn
yn A1
Bs 2
Q 3
v nQAnA 5
themore
4.14
In an estuary the tidal rise during the incoming tidewhere
can beynmuch
rapid than the ebb
is
QAnormal
5 depth (in m), QA is the assessment flow (in
n
tide. If the seaward face of the piers or abutments appears to
be
vulnerable
to
scour
during
Q
channel
m),normal
s1 is thedepth
slope
of reverse
the
is the
(in
m),channel
QA is theas calculated in 4.23, n
A y n(in
n
4.16
the bridge
depth
and
velocity
v n where
3
2
flows The
on the
flood
cycle
of theupstream
tide, thisofmust
be assessed.
defined
in
4.24,
and
v
is
the
normal
velocity
corresponding to yn.
n
assessment
flow
(in
m
/s),
B
is
the
average
width
Bs
By n
site should generally be calculated from an hydraulic
of
the
channel
(in
m),
s
is
the
slope
of
the
channel
as flow (in m3
analysis based on the assessment flow and the
normal
depth (in m), QA is the assessment
where yn is the Q
A
B
v
calculated
in
4.23,
n
is
Mannings
coefficient
as
defined
4.15
Reverse
flows
may
be
allowed
for
by
taking
the
Assessment
Flow
as
no
less
than
characteristics of the waterway and the floodplains.
usingof
thethe
approach
then the
4.22 (innIfm),yBy
channel
s is the slope
channelin
as4.21
calculated
in calculatio
4.23, n is
n the
in
4.24, and vnn is
normal velocity corresponding
4
.
5
10
However,
where
the
flow
through
the
bridge
is
governed
defined
in
4.24,
and
v
is
the
normal
velocity
corresponding
to yn.
n
Qtide, max
depth
(inbe
m),used:
QA is the assessment
flo
to
. where
n is the normal
thisyncase
the yfollowing
approach
may
byminimum
energy considerations the depth and
4Q.5 Q F Q
A QTide , max
Tide , max
3
5
rather
thiscalculation
case the
approach
may be used:
maynbe
In this case the
Q Afollowing
P
B conservative.
4.17
In
the
absence
of
more
detailed
methods
which
using
thefrom
approach
4.22
If
A
4.16
The depth and velocity upstream of the bridge site
should
generally
be
calculated
a in 4.21 then the calc
n
nmay be used:
1
following
approach
would
need to be agreed with the Technical Approval
10
2
s
calculated
coefficient
as
defined
in 4.24.
2in 0, and n is Mannings
3
s
2/3
5
4.17
In
the
absence
of
more
detailed
methods
which
would
need
to
be
agreed
with
the
Technical
Q A Pof the
n flow corresponding to the normal depth (in
4.18 For waterways with flood embankments on
where An A
is the
area
(ii)
normal
depth
ofupstream
flow yn. should
Approval
simplified
methods
the
depth
and
velocity
of the be determined based on th
n
3 The
1
unless
it can be
shownfor
thatcalculating
both
sides Authority,
of the river,the
length
(in m /s) P is the
2 ofthe wetted perimeter of the channel (in m)
s
shape
of
the
cross
section,
as
illustrated
in Figure 4.2. If the flow i
bridgewould
site given
4.18 4.23by
may
used.
these
not beinovertopped
thebe
assessment
flow, calculated in 0, and n is Mannings coefficient
as defined in 4.24.
both
depend
on the depth and
then PA
and
A
the
area
of
the
flow
corresponding
to an
theiterative
normal
n will
n is
banks where
where
A
is
the
area
of
the
flow
corresponding
to
the maximum flood level upstream of the bridge yu
n
3
2be
the
equation.
Where
the
depth
exceeds
the
bank
level
then
the
cros
4.18
For
waterways
with
flood
embankments
on
both
sides
of
the
river,
unless
it
can
shown
/s)
P
is
the
length
of
the
wetted
perimeter
of
the
(in
m
the normal
depth
(in ymn. ),should
QA is be
thedetermined
assessmentbased onchann
should be taken as 300mm above the top of the flood (ii) The normal
the v
depth
of flow
3in vertically
assumed
to
extend
above
the
banks
for
the
calculation
that
these
would
not
be
overtopped
by
the
assessment
flow,
the
maximum
flood
level
upstream
of
the
calculated
0
,
and
n
is
Mannings
coefficient
as
defined
inof
flowcross
(in msection,
/s) P isasthe
length ofinthe
wetted
embankments and the velocity upstream of the bridge shape of the
illustrated
Figure
4.2. If the flow is no
bridge
y
should
be
taken
as
300mm
above
the
top
of
the
flood
embankments
and
the
velocity
perimeter
the both
channel
(in m),
s is depth
the slope
should beu taken as
depend
on the
and an iterative ap
banks then
P and Anofwill
be determine
(iii) The
normal
velocity
corresponding
to and
yn. should
upstream of the bridge should be taken as
be
based
(ii)
Thechannel
normal
depth
of flowiny4.23,
n. should
of
the
as
calculated
n isdetermined
the equation. Where the depth exceeds the bank level
then the cross s
shape
of thecoefficient
cross section,
as illustrated
in Figure 4.2. If the
Q
Q
Mannings
as defined
in 4.24.
assumed
toAextend vertically
above
the banks
for the calculation of yn
v n banks
vu A
then P and An will both depend on the depth and an ite
An
Byu
equation.
Where
depth
exceeds
the bank level then th
(ii) the
The
normal depth
of the
flow
yn should
be determined
(iii) The normal velocity corresponding
to yn. should be determined a
where B is the average width of the channel.
assumed
the banks for the calcula
based on to
theextend
value vertically
of An and above
the approximate
Q Ashape
4.23
Unless
more
detailed
survey
data are available,
where B is the average width of the channel.
of the
cross
section,
as illustrated
in Figure the longitu
v
n
based
on
the
height
contours
on
1:25,000
orto1:10,000
OSbemaps
4.19
Where flood embankments are not present, the depth
and
velocity
upstream
of sufficient
thecorresponding
bridge
dete
The
normal
yn. should
4.2.
If the
flowofisvelocity
not
to overtop
the
An(iii)
channel
between
the
contour
positions.
At
least
two
contours
shou
shouldWhere
be calculated
assuming uniform
conditions,
where
the
energy
lost
to
drag
at
the
4.19
flood embankments
are notflow
present,
the
banksQ
then
P and An will both depend on the
bridge.
Unless
is awith
marked
change
slope
close to and upstr
depth
and velocity
upstream
ofchange
the bridge
should be
boundary
layer is equal
to the
in potential
energy, and
thedepth
isAthere
uniform
a value
of yof
vdepth
and
n be
an
iterative
approach
required
n
4.23
Unless A
more detailed
survey
datamay
are
available,
the longitudin
slopeeffect
should
be
calculated.
If
there
is
such
a
change
slope then t
calculated
uniform
flow conditions,
where the afflux
as definedassuming
in 4.21. This
simplified
approach neglects
caused
by
the
bridge
itself
and
n
theofequation.
the depth
exceedsofOS
based on to
thesolve
height
contoursWhere
on 1:25,000
or 1:10,000
maps and
taken
that
of
the
river
reach
immediately
upstream
of
the bridge
the
lost provide
to drag at
the boundaryestimate
layer is equal
willenergy
generally
a conservative
of theto
velocity
for as
the
calculation
of
scour.
the bankthe
level
then the
cross section
boundary
channel
between
contour
positions.
At
least
two
contours
should
the change in potential energy, and the depth is uniform
4.23
Unless
moretodetailed
survey data
are available,
the l
shouldthere
be
assumed
extend
vertically
above
theand upstream
bridge.
Unless
is
a
marked
change
of
slope
close
to
with
of ythe
asnormal
defineddepth
in 4.21.
simplified flow exceeds
4.24 based
Values
of
Mannings
coefficient
n should be
assumed OS
to b
4.20 a value
Where
for This
the assessment
the
bank
levels
thenofancontours
adjustment
on
the
height
on 1:25,000
or 1:10,000
banks
for
the
calculation
of
y
.
n
n
should be calculated. If there is such
a change of slope then the
approach
affluxfor
effect
the bridge slope
should beneglects
made tothe
account
the caused
effect ofbyfloodplains,
as described
in 4.25.
channel
between the contour positions. At least two contour
as that of the river reach immediately upstream of the bridge.
itself and will generally provide a conservative estimate taken
(i) n =bridge.
0. 035 Unless
for a reasonably
ofclose
obstruction
there is a straight
marked channel,
change ofclear
slope
to and
of
the velocity
for thedepth
calculation
of scour.
vegetation,
4.21
The normal
and velocity
upstream of the bridge
based
uniform
conditions
mayis such a change of slope
slopeonshould
be flow
calculated.
If there
4.24
Values of Mannings coefficient n should be assumed to be a
(ii) nfor
=taken
0. 060
for
channel
with
irregular
banks orupstream
heavy brush
an
be calculated based on a simplification of Mannings equation
wide
aschannels:
thataof
the river
reach
immediately
of the
May 2012
(iii) intermediate values may be adopted for channels4/3
between thes
(i) n = 0. 035 for a reasonably straight channel, clear of obstructions a
is given
in Open
Channel
Hydraulics,
Chow andn McGraw
4.24
Values
of Mannings
coefficient
should be(1959).
assume
vegetation,
(ii) n = 0. 060 for a channel with irregular banks or heavy brush and t
2/3
(in m3/s) P is the length of the wetted perimeter of the channel (in m), s is the slope of the channel as
calculated in 0, and n is Mannings coefficient as defined in 4.24.
(ii) The normal depth of flow yn. should be determined based on the value of An and the approximate
Chapter 4
Volume 3 Section 4
shape of the cross section, as illustrated in Figure 4.2. If the flow is not sufficient to overtop the
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Part 21 BD 97/12
banks then P and An will both depend on the depth and an iterative approach may be required to solve
the equation. Where the depth exceeds the bank level then the cross section boundary should be
assumed to extend vertically above the banks for the calculation of yn.
(i) n = 0. 035 for a reasonably straight channel,
(iii) The normal velocity corresponding to yn should
clear of obstructions
and with only light bank
as :
(iii)
The normal
be
determined
as:velocity corresponding to yn. should be determined
vegetation;
QA
vn
An
(ii)
vu = vn
4.25
If the level of the normal depth for the assessment
flow as calculated in 4.21 does not exceed
the level of the banks, then the upstream depth and velocity should be taken as the normal values:
yu y n
and
vu v n
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4.2 Definition of Parameters for Determining the Normal Depth
(a) simplified approach for wide channels based on average channel width B
(b) general approach
(c) approach for overbank flow conditions
4/4
May 2012
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
the floodplain level, as illustrated in Figure 4.2, and y and
depend on the floodplain factor Fp as defined in 4.27.
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Fp 1
0.25
1.00
1 < Fp 4
0.50
0.95
Fp > 4
0.70
0.90
Open
Floodplain classification:
Open
Weff = W
Partially obstructed
Weff = 0.5W
Very obstructed
Weff = 0
classification:
Weff = 0.5W
Open
Weff =Partially
0.5W obstructed
= 0 obstructed
Weff Very
Effective width o
(W= full width of the r
Weff = 0.5W
Weff = 0
Weff = W
=0.5W
0
eff
=
Weff = 0
WW
eff
Weffeff==00
Weff =
W
4/5
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
4/6
May 2012
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
4/7
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
QA 2 3
y B yC 2
BBWater
g at the Upstream Face of
Maximum Depth of
the Structure
4.33
The area of flow through the bridge opening ABy sho
4.34 The maximum depth of water just upstream of
This should be taken
as no greater
than the total area of the b
4.32
The possibility of supercritical flow through the bridge
considered.
Supercritical
the bridge yuf should be compared with the height of
The critical slope should be calculated, using the
flow is most likely over steep gradients.
the structure soffit above bed level, z. The following
following equation:
The equation:
mean velocity at the bridge should be calculated as
(i) The critical slope should be calculated, using the following
methods may
be considered:
1
B 2 g 10
s c n 2 B 2
QA
(i)
depth
vtoB the
A just upstream of the structure yuf. If
By using the method in 4.25 exceeds
y calculated
where ssc is
is the
the critical
critical slope,
slope, nn is
is Mannings
Mannings coefficient, BB isu the width of the bridge waterway (in
where
soffit level, i.e. yu > z, then
it may be assumed that
2
c
m),
g
is
the
acceleration
due
to
gravity
assessment
flow of
(inwater
m3/s).This
value
coefficient, BB is the width of the bridge(in m/s ) and QA is the
Maximum
depth
atthe
the
upstream
the
water
level
just
upstream
of
structure
willface of the
4.32 4.32
The
possibility
of
supercritical
flow
through
the
bridge
should
be
considered.
Supercritical
should be
compared
the
estimateddue
slope
value s the
as calculated
in 4.23.
The
possibility
ofacceleration
supercritical
flow
bridge
should
be considered.
Supercritical
waterway
(in
m), g iswith
the
tothrough
exceed
the
soffit
level.
flow isflow
mostislikely
over
steep
2
most
likely
over
steep
gravity
(in m/s
) and
QAgradients.
is thegradients.
assessment flow
4.34
The maximum depth of water just upstream of the br
(i) The(i)
critical
should
be
using
thethat
following
equation:
(ii)
If3/s).This
scritical
slope
0.9svalue
, or if
it iscalculated,
considered
likely
the following
local
slope
atof
the
bridge
would
exceed
sclevel
, or if
The
should
be compared
calculated,
using
equation:
(in
m
should
be
with
the
cslope
(ii)
It
may
be
assumed
thatsoffit
the
water
does not
height
the
structure
above
bed
level,
z. The followin
1
1
estimated
slope
value
s
as
calculated
in
4.23.
2 any
reach
the
level
of
the
soffit
if
the
specific
head
of
10
there
is
other
particular
reason
that
the
flow
could
be
supercritical,
then
the
supercritical
solution
29g 10 9
2 BB g
the
flow
through
the
bridge
does
not
exceed
the
2be selected
s c nshould
yu will
provide a lower bound to the
twoupstream
positive depth
solutions
of Bernoullis
2 B
with y B y B ,sup based on the smaller of(i)theThe
s cs> n0.9
(ii) If
or 2if it is considered
likely that the
Q A sc,Q
soffit
level,
i.e.:
calculated
using
the
method
in 4.25 exceeds soffit level, i.
y
u
equation
4.31.
asatinAthe
local
slope
bridge
would exceed sc, or if
the
water
just
of(in
the structure
will exceed the
wherewhere
sc is the
critical
slope, slope,
n is Mannings
coefficient,
BB is the
width
of level
the of
bridge
waterway
2
is the
critical
n is Mannings
coefficient,
the
width
the 3upstream
bridge
waterway
(in
there
isscany
other
particular reason
that the
flow
2
BB(ii)
yisb +
vbmay
/2g
< z(in
2QA is the assessment
3 the
It
be
assumed
that
water
level
does
not reach the
m), g is
the
acceleration
due
to
gravity
(in
m/s
)
and
flow
m
/s).This
value
(iii)gOtherwise,
it is often
reasonable
to(in
assume
flow
be subcritical.
However
it isvalue
likely
m),
isbethe
acceleration
due
to gravity
m/s ) that
and the
QA is
thewill
assessment
flow (in
m /s).This
could
supercritical,
then
the
supercritical
the
flow
through
the
bridge
does
not
exceed
the
soffit
level, i
shouldshould
be
compared
with
the
estimated
slope
value
s
as
calculated
in
4.23.
that there
will bebeenergy
at the
constriction,
forconditions
subcritical
flow
would
in satisfied
a
beshould
compared
withloss
thewith
estimated
slope
value s (iii)
as which
calculated
in 4.23. in
(ii)result
are not
If the
(i) and
solution
selected
yB =bridge
yB,sup
based
reduced
depth and
a faster
velocity.
For the of
calculation of velocity
at the bridge,
the water
depth height
y B should
then a calculation
of the
based on
on
the smaller
of the
two positive
solutions
(ii) If (ii)
sBernoullis
0
.
9
s
,
or
if
it
is
considered
likely
that
the
local
slope
at
the
bridge
would
exceed
s
,
or
c
c
pressure
conditions
should sif
be
carried
4.31. than the
If s be
0.equation
9taken
sc , orasifas
it in
isgreater
considered
likely
that the
local
at theflow
bridge
would exceed
,
or
if out.
therefore
no
critical
depth
forslope
minimum
energy:
c
there isthere
any isother
particular
then
the
supercritical
solution
1reason that the flow could be supercritical,
The
depth
y
may
be
determined
iteratively
using
uf
any other 2particular reason that the flow could be supercritical,
then
the supercritical
solution
(iii)
If the conditions
inbased
(i) andon(ii)
are notgate
satisfied then a ca
3reasonable to assume
(iii)
Otherwise,
itwith
isQoften
the
following
equation
a
sluice
shouldshould
be selected
based
on
the
smaller
of
the
two
positive
solutions
of
Bernoullis
y
y
B
selected
on the smaller ofpressure
the two flow
positive
solutions of Bernoullis
yBB,sup y BHowever
subcritical.
willA2 bewith
,sup based it
conditions
be that
carried
The depth yuf
y B theybe
that
flow
is
C
approach,
which
initiallyshould
assumes
the out.
water
equation
as
in
4.31.
B
g
following
equation
based
on
a
sluice
gate
approach,
which in
Bwillbe energy loss at the bridge
4.31.
equation
in
likely thatasthere
does exceed soffit level:
exceed soffit level:
constriction, which for subcritical flow would
(iii) Otherwise,
itreduced
is often
reasonable
to
assume
that the
flow
will
bewill
subcritical.
However
2 it is likely
(iii)
Otherwise,
it
is
often
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
flow
becalculated
subcritical.
However
it depth
is 2likely
result
in
a
depth
and
a
faster
velocity.
For
be
based
on
4.33
The area of flow through the bridge opening ABy should
y .
would
2the
z
Q
Q
that there
will
be
energy
loss
at
the
bridge
constriction,
which
for
subcritical
flow
result
inAa in a B
A would
that
there
will
be
energy
loss
at
the
bridge
constriction,
which
for
subcritical
flow
result
the
calculation
of
velocity
at
the
bridge,
the
depth
0
g yufopening.
2bridge
This
should
be
taken
as
no
greater
than
the
total
area
of
the
Adepth
depth
reduced
and
a faster
velocity.
calculation
at the at
bridge,
the
y should
2 bridge,
of velocity
yB depth
shoulddepth
therefore
taken
asFor
no the
greater
theof velocity
reduced
and abe
faster
velocity.
For
thethan
calculation
the
uf the
B ABy B should
therefore
be
taken
as
no
greater
than
the
critical
depth
for
minimum
energy:
critical
depth
for minimum
energy:
therefore
bevelocity
taken
asatno
than
thebe
critical
depthas
for minimum energy:
The mean
thegreater
bridge
should
calculated
1
where Auf is the area of flow just upstream from
1
Q A 2 Q3 2 3
the structure, AB is the area of the bridge opening
y B yyC y Q A2 A
and
z is the height from the bed level to the soffit.
B B
C
2
g
v
B
B
B
g
If
there
are no positive solutions for yuf greater
A B
By
than z then it may be assumed that the water will
4.33
The
area
ofof
flow
through
thethe
bridge
opening
AByABy should be
notcalculated
reach
thebased
soffit.based
on theon
depth
4.33 4.33
The
area
flow
through
bridge
opening
yB . y .
be calculated
the depth
The area of flow through the bridge opening ABy should
B
Maximum
depth
of
water
at
the
upstream
face
of
the
structure
should
be
calculated
based
on
the
depth
y
.
This
should
B total area of the bridge opening.
This should
be taken
as
no greater
than the
This
should
be
taken
as
no
greater
than
the
total
area
of
the
bridge
opening.
4.35 For structures where the water level just upstream
be taken as no greater than the total area of the bridge
be compared
withthe
thesoffit level,
4.34
The
maximum
depth
of
water
just
upstream
of
thethe
bridge
yuf should
structure
is expected
to exceed
opening.
The
mean
velocity
at
the
bridge
should
be
The mean
velocity
at the at
bridgebridge
shouldshould
be calculated
as from
The
mean
velocity
calculated
as stability
height
structurethe
soffit above
bed be
level,
z. The following
methods
may be considered:
the
and robustness
of the bridge should be
calculated
as:of the
considered as in Chapter 6. Debris impact should also
(i)Q AThe
upstream
betoconsidered
in cases
where:
depth
y
will
provide
a
lower
bound
the depth just
upstream
of the structure yuf. If
u
v B v Q A
yuA
B calculated
i.e.
, then it may be assumed that
By ABy using the method in 4.25 exceeds soffit ylevel,
+ the
vb2/2g
zlevel.
- 0.6
b
the water level just upstream of the structure will exceed
soffit
(ii) It depth
may beof
assumed
that
the upstream
water level face
does not
reach
the level of the soffit if the specific head of
Maximum
water
at the
of
the
Maximum
depth
water
at the
upstream
face
ofstructure
thei.e.
structure
the flow through
theofbridge
does
not exceed
the soffit
level,
be compared
with the
4.34 4.34
The maximum
depth depth
of water
just upstream
of the of
bridge
yuf should
be compared
with the
The maximum
of water
just upstream
the bridge
yuf should
heightheight
of the of
structure
soffit
above
bed
level,
z.
The
following
methods
may
be
considered:
the structure soffit above bed level, z. The following methods may be considered:
(iii)
If the conditions
in (i)
and (ii)
are notbound
satisfied
then
a calculation
of the
height based
(i) The
upstream
depth depth
yu will
a lower
to the
depth
just upstream
of water
the of
structure
yuf. If on
(i)
The upstream
yprovide
will provide
a lower
to
the
upstream
the structure
yuf.the
If
ushould
pressure
flow conditions
be carried
out. bound
The depth
yufdepth
may just
be determined
iteratively
using
using using
the method
in 4.25inexceeds
soffit level,
i.e. i.e. , then ,itthen
mayitbemay
assumed
that that
yu calculated
calculated
the
method
4.25
exceeds
soffit
level,
be
assumed
yfollowing
u
equation based on a sluice gate approach, which initially assumes that the water does
the water
level just
of the of
structure
will exceed
the soffit
the
water
levelupstream
just upstream
the structure
will exceed
the level.
soffit level.
exceed
soffit
level:
May
2012
(ii) It (ii)
mayItbemay
assumed
that
the
water
level
does
not
reach
the
level
of the soffit if the specific head of
be assumed that
the water
2
2 level does not reach the level of the soffit if the specific head of
the flow
through
the
bridge
does
not
exceed
the
soffit
level,
i.e.
z
Q
Q
2
through
the bridge does not exceed the soffit level, i.e.
the flow
2 g yuf A A 0
A
2 A
4/9
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Part 21 BD 97/12
4.38
The average depth of constriction scour must be calculated
velocity through the bridge opening dropping to a threshold value
scouring of the bed.
4.39 The additional area of the flow consistent with the
constriction scour should be calculated as
4.39
The additional area of the flow consistent with the constric
QA
ABy
vB,c
is the mean
where
where A
A is
is the
the additional
additional area
area of
of bridge
bridge opening,
opening, vvB,c
is
B,c
is
the
area
cause
further
scouring,
as
given
in
0,
and
A
the mean threshold velocity that would not By
cause furtherof flow thr
constriction
based
yB but
greater
the total area of
scouring, as scour,
given in
4.41,onand
ABy no
is the
area than
of flow
through the bridge opening without constriction scour,
4.40
average
depththan
of constriction
scour
below the original
based onThe
yB but
no greater
the total area
of the
calculated
to
provide
the
additional
flow
area
across
the width of th
bridge opening.
Figure 4.6.
4.40 The average depth of constriction scour below the
original bed level Dc,ave should be calculated to provide
the additional flow area across the width of the channel
bed, as illustrated in Figure 4.6.
ABy
4.41
The threshold velocity vB,c should generally be assumed to
velocity, which may be estimated based on Figure 4.7 for granular
cohesive materials. An iterative approach will generally be require
velocity depends on the depth of flow, accounting for scour. The b
based on an estimate of the median grain size where this is practica
default values in Table 4.3.
4/10
May 2012
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Mountainous, steep
10mm
5mm
Hilly, moderate
Gravels, sands
2mm
Lowland, flat
0.5mm
Estuary
0.1mm
Average values
Resistant material
1.5
0.6
1.0
1.8
0.65
1.2
2.0
0.7
1.3
2.3
15
0.8
1.5
2.6
May 2012
4/11
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Outside of bend
Centre of channel
Inside of bend
2.0
1.25
1.5
1.25
1.25
1.25
On straight reach
yb +
a factor
vb2flow
/2g and
z -fy0.6
Para 4.49
vb2/2g
may<bez
z - 0.6
yb + vb2/2g
on the maximum potential scour depth, which depends
L
sin
f PA cos
Wp
0.65
Para 4.47
Dl , pier 1.5W p f PS f PA f y
Para 4.49
L
sin
f PA cos
Wp
4/12
0.65
May 2012
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
(ii)
(ii)
0.255
May 2012
4/13
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Plan shape
of nose
L/WP
Shape
Factor
Circular
1.0
1.0
Rounded
All values
1.0
Rectangular
<2
1.2
2-6
1.4
>6
1.2
= 60
All values
0.8
= 90
All values
1.2
Lenticular
0.9
0.8
0.7
Wp
Wp
Wp
Triangular
Wp
Wp
Figure 4.9 Pier Shape Factors
4/14
May 2012
Chapter 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
May 2012
4/15
Chapter 5
Scour Risk Rating
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
(ii)
May 2012
5/1
Chapter 5
Scour Risk Rating
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
M = 1.0
M = 0.75
M =0.5
TR = 1.5
TR = 1.3
TR = 1.2
TR = 1.0
F = 0.75
F = 1.0
H = 1.5
H = 1.0
5/2
Importance factor, V
5.14 The greater the importance of the bridge and the
greater the disruption caused by any interruption to
its use, the higher the priority. Importance is typically
related to traffic flow. Hence the Importance factor V
is given by:
Type of road
Motorway/A road
30,000
1.0
Motorway/A road
10,000 29,999
0.9
1,000 9,999
0.8
< 1,000
0.7
May 2012
Chapter 5
Scour Risk Rating
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
5/3
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 6
Assessment of Vulnerability to Other Flood Effects
(ii)
May 2012
6/1
Chapter 7
Scour Risk Management Measures
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
3&4
May 2012
(ii)
7/1
Chapter 7
Scour Risk Management Measures
7/2
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
(ii)
Chapter 7
Scour Risk Management Measures
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
(i)
(ii)
(ii)
Paved invert
(ii)
sensor-based systems;
(ii)
7/3
Chapter 7
Scour Risk Management Measures
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
7/4
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 8
References
8. references
8.1 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
BD 79 The Management of Sub-Standard Highway
Structures
BD 62 As Built, Operational and Maintenance
Records for Highway Structures
BD 63 Inspection of Highway Structures
May 2012
8/1
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 9
Bibliography
9. bibliography
9.1 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
GD 01 Introduction to the Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges
BD 2 Technical Approval of Highway Structures
BA 59 Design of Highway Bridges for Hydraulic
Action
9.2 Other Documents
Manual on Scour at Bridges and Other Hydraulic
Structures; CIRIA C551, Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, 2002.
Flood Estimation Handbook Volumes 1-5; Institute
of Hydrology, 1999.
Admiralty Tide Tables, Vol 1, European Waters;
The Hydrographer to the Navy, Published annually
by UKHO.
Guide to Bridge Hydraulics; Second Edition;
Transportation Association of Canada,
Thomas Telford, 2000.
Open Channel Hydraulics; Chow VT, McGraw Hill,
Tokyo, 1959.
Evaluating Scour at Bridges, Fourth edition, Hydraulic
Engineering Circular No 18, Federal Highway
Administration, US Dept of Transportation, May 2001.
Planning Policy Statement 25. Development and flood
risk; PPS25. Communities and Local Government,
March 2010.
May 2012
9/1
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Chapter 10
Further Reading
May 2012
10/1
Chapter 11
Enquiries
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
11. enquiries
All technical enquiries or comments on this Standard should be sent in writing as appropriate to:
G CLARKE
Chief Highway Engineer
R BRANNEN
Director, Trunk Road and Bus Operations
Director of Transport
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
F DUFFY
Director of Transport
Director of Engineering
The Department for Regional Development
Roads Service
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street
Belfast
BT2 8GB
R J M CAIRNS
Director of Engineering
This document was notified in draft to the European Commission in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC,
as amended by Directive 98/48/EC.
May 2012
11/1
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
May 2012
A/1
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Scour Inspection
Structure name and number:
OS Grid
Ref:
Details of Inspection
Inspected by:
Inspection Date:
Weather:
Flow Conditions:
Details of Structure
Road over
structure:
Foundation Type:
Waterway under
structure:
Construction Date:
Items to be included with this inspection (minimum)
A/2
May 2012
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Scour Inspection
Structure name and number:
Inspection
Date:
General
Answers must be accompanied by further details in the notes section
Does the river geometry agree with the OS plan of the site?
Is there evidence of ongoing scour at the bridge site (note approximate depths
and locations of any scour holes)?
Is there erosion at the outside of river bends, e.g. undermining of the river bank?
May 2012
A/3
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Inspection
Date:
Notes:
A/4
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Inspection
Date:
Pier width (if piers are not uniform, provide details for all)
Pier length
May 2012
A/5
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Inspection
Date:
A/6
May 2012
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Notes
May 2012
A/7
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Assessment
Date:
Notes
Start
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Bridge immediately
downstream of sharp bend or angle
of attack > 10?
No
Yes
Proceed to Level 2
Assessment
A/8
Scour Risk
Rating 5
May 2012
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Assessment
Date:
Support Location
May 2012
Depth of
Constriction Scour
Depth of
Local Scour
Total Depth
of Scour
A/9
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Assessment
Date:
Comment on the calculated scour depths. Are there any specific reasons why there may be uncertainty?
Foundation depth
Importance Factor, V
A/10
May 2012
Annex A
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Assessment
Date:
May 2012
A/11
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
Annex B
List of TPB Contributing Organisations
May 2012
B/1
Annex C
Definitions and Abbreviations
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
The effect whereby water will back up behind an obstruction, such as a bridge,
in the river channel. This acts to increase the depth upstream of the bridge
beyond that which would occur if the bridge were not there. This may also be
referred to as a backwater effect.
Assessment Flow
Flow rate to be used for the assessment, typically calculated based on a return
period, and including fluvial and tidal components as appropriate.
Constriction Scour
Local Scour
Scour due to effects of the bridge structure on the local flow patterns. It is most
likely to develop around piers or abutments in the main river channel but may
also occur around piers and abutments set back on a floodplain when there is
overbank flow.
Maintaining Organisation
DC
An
DC,ave
ABy
DL
DR
DT
BB
f A
D s
fAA
fAS
D F
fPA
May 2012
C/1
Annex C
Definitions and Abbreviations
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12
fPS
Importance factor
fT
VTide
fy
Floodplain width
Weff
Fs
WP
FP
Floodplain factor
Depth of flow
yB
yB,sup
Length of pier
yB,sub
Mannings coefficient
yc
P F
Priority factor
yn
Flood flow
yp
QA
Assessment Flow
yu
Upstream depth
Q F
QTide
sc
TTide
Tidal period
TR
vB
vB,c
vu
vn
C/2
May 2012