Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Distinguished Professor Texas A&M University
OBSERVATION METHOD: A NEW TOOL FOR THE BRIDGE
SCOUR ENGINEER
2Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Acknowledgements
• Texas DOT (John Delphia)
• Massachusetts DOT (Rich Murphy, HananFouad)
• Texas A&M University (Hamn-Chin Chen, Francisco Oliveira, Anand Govindasamy, Dekay Kim, Inwoo Jung, Hans Kim)
SCOUR DEPTHS
Normal Water Level
LC
z(abut)
z(abut) Applies z(cont) Applies
Probable Flood Level
z(pier) z(cont)
PROBLEM
1. Comparison between measured and calculated scour depths by current method (HEC-18) exhibits a lot of scatter
2. Comparison between measured and calculated scour depths by current method (HEC-18) shows excessive conservatism on the average
HEC-18 RESULTS
0 2 4 6 8 100
2
4
6
8
10
Measured Landers-Mueller Pier Scour, zmax (m)
Det
erm
inis
tic H
EC-1
8 Sa
nd, z
max
(m)
Zpredicted/Zmeasured = 3.26
LANDERS-MUELLER DATABASEPIER SCOUR
6Jean-Louis BRIAUD
HEC 18 Results–Bridge Case Histories
7Jean-Louis BRIAUD
OMS Results-Bridge Case Histories
8Courtesy of the University of Kentucky at Louisville
9
10
11
12
13
14
Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University
15
EFA - EROSION FUNCTION APPARATUS
Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University
16
Scour Rate vs Shear Stress
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Shear Stress (N/m2)
Scou
r R
ate
(mm
/hr)
Sand D50=0.3 mm
Scour Rate vs Velocity
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Velocity (m/s)
Scou
r R
ate
(mm
/hr)
Sand D50=0.3 mm
EROSION FUNCTION FOR A FINE SAND
Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University
17
Scour Rate vs Shear Stress
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Shear Stress (N/m2)
Scou
r R
ate
(mm
/hr)
Porcelain Clay PI=16%Su=23.3 Kpa
Scour Rate vs Velocity
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Velocity (m/s)
Scou
r R
ate
(mm
/hr)
Porcelain Clay PI=16%Su=23.3 Kpa
EROSION FUNCTION FOR A LOW PI CLAY
Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University
POCKET ERODOMETERPET test result = Depth of hole in mm after 20 squirts at 8 m/s
18
$0.49 atWalMart
Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University
BOREHOLE EROSION TEST - BET19
Fluid circulation
Borehole caliper
Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University
BOREHOLE EROSION TEST - BET20
21
EROSION CLASSIFICATION
22
EROSION CLASSIFICATION
Jean-Louis BRIAUD – Texas A&M University
25
26Jean-Louis BRIAUD
OBSERVATION METHOD FOR BRIDGE SCOUR
• Step 1: Observe maximum scour depth = Zmo• Step 2: Find out the maximum flood the bridge
has been subjected to : Collect gage data, RI from TAMU-OMS, Qmo/Q100, Vmo/V100
• Step 3: Extrapolate field measurements to predict future scour depth
Zfut / Zmo = F (Vfut / Vmo) • Step 4: Compare future scour depth to
foundation depth (pier) Zfut < Zfound / 2
27Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Step 1: Observe maximum scour depth = Zmo
28Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Step 2: Find out the maximum flood the bridge has been subjected to = Vmo
930 Flow Gages in Texas and neighbor States
29Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Step 2: Find out the maximum flood the bridge has been subjected to = Vmo
Maximum RI map between 1970 and 2005
Automated with TAMU-OMS software
30Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Step 2: Find out the maximum flood the bridge has been subjected to = Vmo
Maximum RI map between 1920 and 2005
Automated with TAMU-OMSsoftware
31Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Step 3: Extrapolates field measurements to predict future depth Zfut
Zfut / Zmo = F (Vfut / Vmo)
•Known = Zmo and Vmo•Choose Vfut•Obtain Zfut from charts•The Z-Future Charts were developed by performing a large number (~350,000) of HEC-18 Clay simulations using varying pier, contraction & abutment scour geometries, varying soil conditions, varying velocities, and varying age of the bridge.
32Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Category III MaterialsUpstream Water Depth (H1): 5 m to 20 mContraction Ratio (Rc) : 0.5 to 0.9Critical Velocity (Vc) : 0.5 m/sPier Diameter (D) : 0.1m to 1.0 mthyd = 25 years
Vfut/Vmo2.00
Z fut
/Zm
o2.8
1.0
Step 3: Extrapolates field measurements to predict future scour depth Zfut/Zmo = Vfut/Vmo
33Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Step 4: Compare future scour depth to foundation depth Zfut < Zfound / 2
34Jean-Louis BRIAUD
• 15 bridges selected (12 scour critical, 3 stable)• 6 scour critical bridges out of the 12 found
stable by the observation method• 3 stable bridges found stable by the
observation method• 6 of 12 bridges originally classified scour
critical were found stable by the observation method
APPLICATION TO SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGESTexas
35Jean-Louis BRIAUD
36Jean-Louis BRIAUD
37Jean-Louis BRIAUD
38Jean-Louis BRIAUD
39Jean-Louis BRIAUD
40Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Drawbacks
• Requires a good network of flow gages• Cannot be used directly for new bridges• Estimate in filling (USGS and a TxDOT survey
have found that it was rare (10% of the time) and ranged from 2 to 4 ft)
• Not yet developed for layered soil (be careful with thin hard layer over soft layer)
41Jean-Louis BRIAUD
Advantages
• Valuable tool to prioritize bridge repairs, countermeasure decisions, asset management
• Can serve as an input to FHWA risk approach• Part of the practical design concept• No need for erosion testing• Actual soil• Actual flow history• Actual geometry • Based on observed measurements
42
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HEC 18AND OBSERVATION METHOD
HEC 18
• Flume tests (scale pb?)
• Wrong worst soil (Fine sand)
• Simplified geometry
• Simplified single velocity
OMS
• Full scale
• Right soil
• Exact geometry
• Exact velocity hydrograph
43
COMPARISON
HEC 18 OMS
44
The Million Dollar Stickwith TAMU-OMS
Freecourtesy of TxDOT, MassDOT and TAMU