Assessment of Scouring of Bank of River
Abstract
The thrust of water due to standing water and velocity of flow are taken. In flood cases, more depth of water and more velocity are to be taken and it is seen whether the embankment is safe or not. The maximum velocity of flow = 1.2 d taken where d is the depth of flow of water. The bearing strength of the soil of the embankment should be taken against the thrust of water. In flood scenarios, the safety of embankments against the thrust of water becomes crucial. The thrust force exerted by standing water and flowing water depends on factors such as depth and velocity. During floods, the depth of water increases significantly, and higher velocities are observed, which results in greater forces acting on the embankment. It is essential to analyze whether the embankment can withstand these forces and remain stable. To determine the maximum velocity of flow during flood events, a commonly used approach is to assume a relationship with the depth of water. The maximum velocity can be estimated as 1.2 times the depth of flow (V = 1.2 d), where ‘V’ represents the velocity and ‘d’ represents the depth of water. This relationship provides a conservative estimate and considers the increased flow rates associated with higher water depths. The bearing strength of the embankment soil is a critical factor in assessing its stability against the thrust of water. The embankment soil should have sufficient shear strength to resist the horizontal forces induced by the water. Geotechnical investigations play a vital role in determining the bearing strength through laboratory tests and site-specific soil analysis. The results obtained from these investigations are used to assess the embankment’s capacity to withstand the forces exerted by the water. In the analysis process, the thrust force exerted by the water against the embankment is calculated using appropriate methods. The choice of method depends on factors such as the flow characteristics and complexity of the analysis. Common approaches include the hydrostatic pressure approach, which considers the pressure distribution due to the water’s weight, and the momentum principle, which accounts for the dynamic effects of flowing water.References
Richardson EV, Davis SR. Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 4th edition. Washington D.C.: Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; 2001.
Melville BW. Local scour at bridge sites (No. FHWA-RD-97–028). Federal Highway
Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-97–028. DC: Washington; 1997. Available from:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/scour/
Ettema R, Melville B, Barkdoll B. Scour at Bridge Foundations on Rock, Report No. NCHRP 24–
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board; 2012.
Chen D, Yen BC. Scour evaluation of bridge foundations: state-of-the-practice. J Hydraul Eng.
;134(1):72–80.
Froehlich DC, Beck LR. Guidelines for Bridge Hydraulic Scour Determination. ASCE Manuals
and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 130. Reston, VA. 2004.
Knight DW, Demetriou JD. Scour at bridge foundations in noncohesive sediments. J Hydraul Res.
;49(3):305–14.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). HEC-18: evaluating scour at bridges (No.
FEMA-267). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2006. Available from:
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726–1825–25045–9786/fema267.pdf.
Raudkivi AJ, Ettema R. Clear-water scour at cylindrical piers. J Hydraul Eng. 1983;109(3):338–
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9429(1983)109:3(338).
Shields FD, Simon A. Streambank Erosion: Processes, Assessment, and Control. John Wiley &
Sons; 2009.
Laursen EM, Toch A, Rüther N. Bank erosion and bank protection in rivers. Aquat Sci.
;64(4):384–412.
Rinaldi M, Wyżga B, Surian N, Comiti F, Bussettini M, Mao L. Sediment management in the fluvial
system: a review. J Soils Sediments. 2015;15(4):953–81.
Schwindt S, Muste M, Foufoula-Georgiou E. Controls on riverbank sediment erosion: insights from
a field study. Water Resour Res. 2006;42(9).
Thorne CR, Bray DI. Controls on bank erosion and stability in incised channels. Geomorphology.
;44(1–2):147–67.
Thornton CI. The nature of bank erosion and sedimentation on the River Severn, UK.
Geomorphology. 1996;16(3–4):243–53.
Wiekenkamp I, Schielen R, de Vries M, Nederhoff F. Quantifying riverbank erosion processes: a
review. Geomorphology. 2017;290:1–15.
Willgoose G. Modeling bank erosion on the Mekong River. Earth Surf Processes Landforms.
;16(7):603–14.
Zhang S, Kondolf GM. Predicting channel migration and bank erosion in meandering rivers.
Geomorphology. 2004;63(3–4):261–75.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Declaration and Copyright Transfer Form
(to be completed by authors)
I/ We, the undersigned author(s) of the submitted manuscript, hereby declare, that the above manuscript which is submitted for publication in the STM Journals(s), is not published already in part or whole (except in the form of abstract) in any journal or magazine for private or public circulation, and, is not under consideration of publication elsewhere.
- I/We will not withdraw the manuscript after 1 week of submission as I have read the Author Guidelines and will adhere to the guidelines.
- I/We Author(s ) have niether given nor will give this manuscript elsewhere for publishing after submitting in STM Journal(s).
- I/ We have read the original version of the manuscript and am/ are responsible for the thought contents embodied in it. The work dealt in the manuscript is my/ our own, and my/ our individual contribution to this work is significant enough to qualify for authorship.
- I/We also agree to the authorship of the article in the following order:
Author’s name
1. ________________
2. ________________
3. ________________
4. ________________
| We Author(s) tick this box and would request you to consider it as our signature as we agree to the terms of this Copyright Notice, which will apply to this submission if and when it is published by this journal. |
