ARMOR -LIMITED CLEAR - WATER CONTRACTION SCOUR AT BRIDGES

By David C. Froehlich ,1 Member , ASCE

ABSTRACT: A simplified model of streambed armoring is used to extend Laursen’s well-known equation to
include the limiting effects of a coarse surface layer when calculating clear-water contraction scour at bridges.
An empirical relation for selective entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted riverbed material is used to
estimate the smallest nontransportable particle in the armor layer. If the smallest nontransportable particle
approaches the largest-sized particles in the bed-material mixture , evidence indicates that the armor layer will
be unstable and particles of all sizes will be nearly equally mobile. However , if the armor layer is stable , clear -
water contraction-scour depth estimates might be significantly less than for nonarmored conditions. To calculate
-
armor limited contraction-scour depths , two equations need to be solved simultaneously , one for the depth
of the so-called active layer provided by the armor layer model, and one for depth of clear-water scour in a
long constriction . The simple computational procedure will be especially useful for evaluating clear-water
contraction scour at flow relief bridges crossing floodplains composed of well-graded alluvial till where a coarse
protective surface layer is likely to form .

INTRODUCTION begins when nonmoving coarser particles segregate from the

Nearly 500 years ago Leonardo da Vinci noted that “ where
the river is constricted , it will have its bed stripped bare of
earth , and the stones or tufa will remain uncovered by the
soil ” [MacCurdy (1938) , page 84]. This phenomenon is well
illustrated at bridges where flow constrictions created by road ¬
way-approach embankments produce large velocities during
floods that scour channel bed and bank materials.
The component of bridge scour resulting from constriction
of the flow , usually called contraction scour [ Richardson
et al. (1993) , page 6], occurs when the capacity of streamflow
to remove or transport bed material from a bridge waterway
exceeds the rate at which replacement materials are supplied .
Bed material will continue to erode from the contracted sec¬
tion until the transport capacity of the flow is sufficiently
reduced . If no sediment is being carried by the approach flow
-
( that is, if clear water conditions exist ) , the contracted section
will be scoured until the bed shear stress reduces to a value
that is unable to entrain any more material. If the bed is
composed of graded materials, contraction scour might be
restricted by formation of an armor layer as finer grains are
scoured first , leaving the coarser grains behind , until a layer
of nonmoving particles forms that protects the underlying
sediments from further erosion (Sutherland 1987) .
The computational method recommended by the Federal
Highway Administration ( FHWA) ( Richardson et al. 1993)
for estimating clear-water contraction scour at bridges does
not directly account for the presence of an armor layer. Using
a simplified model of streambed armoring, the FHWA clear-
water contraction -scour procedure is extended to include con ¬
ditions in which the depth of scour is limited by armoring.
The method will be especially useful for analyzing contraction
scour at flow-relief bridge openings where floodplain soils
consist of well-graded sands and gravels and a coarse pro¬
tective surface layer is likely to form .
-
ARMOR LAYER MODEL
A simple model described by Borah (1989) and implicit in
finer material in transport and are gradually worked down
into the bed where they accumulate in a sublayer. As the bed
degrades, fine material from the underlying well-mixed orig¬
inal bed is leached up through the coarse sublayer and carried
away . A smallest nontransportable particle of diameter D„ is
assumed to exist in the sublayer , all grains of smaller diameter
having been eroded from the sublayer and removed by the
flow . As larger particles are eroded from the bed (i.e., as Da
increases) degradation continues and the sublayer increases
in thickness. The sublayer might eventually become thick
enough (and Da large enough ) to shield or armor the under ¬
lying bed and prevent further degradation , thereby becoming
a static armor layer (Sutherland 1987). Gessler (1971) finds
that an armor layer will form when the ratio DM / DS0 exceeds
about two, or equivalently if <rg > 2 and the subsurface ma¬
terial possesses a lognormal particle-size distribution , in which
<jg = ( DS 4/ D 16 )U 5 is the geometric standard deviation of the
mixture , and D, = particle diameter, which is larger than i%
of the mixture by weight. Raudkivi and Ettema (1982) con ¬
clude that sediments with <rg < 1.5 do not armor. Schumm
(1977) observes that a small fraction of the bed material,
perhaps the coarsest 1% , can control the behavior and mor¬
phology of an alluvial channel through the formation of an
armor layer.
The layer of the well-mixed original bed from which par¬
ticles forming the armor layer have been derived is referred
to by Borah (1989) as the active layer and is illustrated in
Fig . 1. Borah (1989) and Borah and Bordoloi (1989) find that
despite its simplicity this armoring model provides accurate
-
estimates of scour depth and armor layer composition for
both experimental laboratory conditions and natural river sites.
Thickness of the active layer A is computed on the basis of
volumetric consistency as follows:
Active layer , A / Original Bed Surface
Scour
depth
Armor layer

the method of Strand and Pemberton (1982) is used to de¬

scribe formation of an armor layer on a stream bed . Armoring D . <0
' Asst. Prof . , Univ. of Kentucky, Dept , of Civ. Engrg. , 161 CE/TRANS
-
Build . , Lexington , KY 40515 0068.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1995. To extend the dosing
date one month , a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and <»>
Q
(!>)
rc .
possible publication on May 2, 1994. This paper is part of the Journal -
FIG . 1 . Formation of Armor Layer: (a) Well Mixed Original Bed ;
.
of Hydraulic Engineering , Vol. 121, No . 6, June 1995. © ASCE, ISSN (b) Armor Layer above Underlying Bed Material Showing Depth of
- -
0733-9429/95/0006 0490 0493/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper No. 8393. Active Layer and Scour Depth [after Borah ( 1989 )]

490 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995


where e = porosity of the armor layer; e = porosity of the
subsurface bed material; A = thickness of the armor layer;
and P „ = decimal fraction by weight of subsurface bed ma
terial coarser than the smallest nontransportable particle. Borah
(1989) assumes A = D„ , but Balloffet (1991) recommends A
= 1.5 Da, and Blazejewski ( 1991) suggests that A = ( Da +
Dmax)/2, where Dmax is the largest particle size that occurs in
the substrata. Lane and Carlson (1953) and Livesey (1963)
find from studies of natural stream channels that an armor
layer is composed mainly of coarse material one particle di
ameter thick arranged in a shingled or imbricated manner.
On the basis of evidence gathered from natural streams and
rivers, Lagasse et al. (1991) suggest that a stable armor layer
requires a minimum of two layers of armoring particles. Strand
and Pemberton (1982) assume A = 3Da or 0.15 m, whichever
is less. However, Dewey et al. ( 1979) observe the formation
of an armor layer that does not completely cover the sub
surface material of the Rio Grande downstream of the Cochiti
Dam. For the analysis to follow, the armor -layer thickness is
computed as A = £D„, where £ = 1.0 is assumed following
Borah ( 1989 ).
Contraction-scour depth ds is the difference between the
active -layer thickness and the thickness of the armor layer,
i.e., ds = A — A . Assuming e = e , the expression for scour
depth simplifies to the following:
as given by Strand and Pemberton ( 1982).
If the original bed material (i. e., the subsurface material
from which the armor layer is derived) possesses a lognormal
particle -size distribution, the complete distribution is defined
by just two parameters, the median particle diameter £>50 and
( . The diameter of a particle for which i % of material is
JK
finer is then given by D, = Z?5l>cr *', where the following is
the standard normal deviate of In D,:
In D, In
-
Dfu
K, = ( 3)
ln
Based on a simple truncation of the lognormal distribution
for particles smaller than D,„the armor layer model gives the
following:
,
D, = D „+ i( l • O.OIff ) ]
where a tilde denotes a property of the armor layer; a = 100
x ( 1 — Pa ) = percentage of subsurface bed material finer
than the smallest nontransportable particle; and = 96]; p, = mass density of bed material; and D = diameter
^ As bed
—
|<i + i ( l 0.01« ) ] *
shear stress increases and the armor layer coarsens,
a condition might eventually be reached in which nearly all
of the remaining particles in the armor layer are equally sus
ceptible to movement and further increases in bed shear will
result in their indiscriminate transport. Raudkivi (1990, pages
113- 114) reports that the limiting condition for a stable armor
layer is reached when the ratio Dl ( m/ D5 ~ 1.8. Lagasse et al.
( 1991) suggest that an armor layer will become unstable if
the D9S -size particle can be moved (i.e., if Da D95) . How
ever, Garde and Hasan (1967) find that the limiting non
transportable-particle size will range from D75 to Dino de
pending on the value of cr ,. , tci = 6<,(p,
The adopted model ignores most of the complexities of the
armoring process. For example, finer grains might be depos
ited in the shelter of larger ones in the armor layer and in
the crevices between the large particles. Therefore , it is likely
that particles of all sizes will be present in an armor layer as
observed by Harrison (1950), Lane and Carlson ( 1953),
Livesey ( 1963), and Little and Mayer ( 1972, 1976) . Although
most of the larger particles will remain in the armor layer, it
¬
is likely that some large particles that are particularly exposed
to the flow will be eroded. In addition, a fine sublayer under ¬
lying the armored layer but overlying the original material
might develop. Kulkarni (1991) notes that finer particles will
continue to migrate through the armor layer, and degradation
will continue, until a natural filter develops below the armor
layer. Formation of a natural filter between the larger par ¬
¬
ticles forming the armor layer and the subsurface material on
the Rio Grande is also noted by Dewey et al. ( 1979). How ¬
ever , if the subsurface material possesses bimodal distribution
(i. e., mostly coarse and fine particles with few particles of
intermediate size) a filter layer might not develop at all. Ac ¬
cepting its simplifications, the armor -layer - formation model
is used here to extend the current procedure recommended
¬
by the FHWA for estimating dear - water contraction scour
at bridges to include the possibility of a static armor layer
that limits erosion.
CLEAR- WATER CONTRACTION SCOUR
Where dear - water conditions exist, the limiting depth of
contraction scour occurs when bed shear stress just equals
the minimum shear stress needed to entrain sediment particles
(i. e ., the critical shear stress). Average bed shear stress for
,
')
uniform flow in a wide rectangular channel is given by Man ¬
2)
ning’s equation as follows:
^ v-
T p (5 )
where p = mass density of water; g = gravitational accel ¬
eration = Manning’s roughness coefficient; y = flow depth;
^
and V = average velocity. Manning’s roughness coefficient
n can be evaluated using any of several formulas based on
.
sediment size and flow depth [e.g. Hey ( 1979) and Bray
( 1982) ]. Strickler’s ( 1923) relation, which has been verified
i
^ ; for gravel-bed channels by Maynord ( 1991), gives the rough ¬
in
ness coefficient of an armored surface as n = k „Ds' ({*, where
k „ = 1/21.1 = 0.0474 if Dso is measured by meters. As the
ln CTS
bed degrades and Da increases in size, the median particle
size of the armor layer will coarsen causing the roughness
coefficient within the contracted section to increase propor -
tionately.
o,, <- (4)
Critical stress needed to entrain sediment particles
for beds composed of a uniform mixture is often computed
as Tr = 0 .(p - p)gD, in which 0,. = Shields' dimensionless
£ 5
critical shear -stress parameter [ Sedimentation ( 1977), page
of sediment particles. Because beds of most natural streams
depart markedly from a condition of essentially uniform grain
sizes, the median diameter or the geometric mean diameter
¬
of the mixture is often considered representative of the mix ¬
ture and is used to evaluate the critical shear stress of the bed
as a whole, thereby ignoring the potential for selective en ¬
trainment of particles of different sizes that leads to formation
„ of an armor layer . Influence of relative particle size on en ¬
trainment has been examined both theoretically and experi ¬
¬
mentally by many investigators who find that the critical shear -
¬
stress parameter of a single particle of diameter D, on a bed
¬
of mixed sizes is given by the following:
- „
P )gDi \ where 0IV- = 0, 5 ( Z), /D5ll)'" .
(6 7 )
¬ and 0 5 l and m = empirical coefficients. The exponent m
t (
defines the variation of critical shear stress between particles
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995 / 491
of different size . If m = - 1, all particles possess the same
critical shear stress and are equally mobile . Most studies find
that 0.03 0r5O 0.09 and - 1 m - 0.5 ( Miller and
Byrne 1966; Parker et al . 1982 ; Andrews 1983; Komar 1987a ,
1987 b ; Ashworth and Ferguson 1989) . Differences in the coef ¬
ficients 0rSI > and m might stem from inconsistencies regarding
the state of the channel bed at the time measurements were
taken . In addition , the simple form of the relation ignores
the effects of particle shape and angularity , two properties
that have a significant effect on the particle angle of repose
( Miller and Byrne 1966) , as well as the influence of bed -
material gradation . Although other expressions for critical
shear stress of a single particle on a bed of mixed sizes are
proposed [e .g . , Egiazaroff (1965 ) and White and Day ( 1982)] ,
(6) and ( 7 ) are used here with coefficients determined by
Andrews ( 1983) from bed -load measurements in three self -
formed rivers that have naturally sorted gravel and cobble
bed material ( i . e . , 0c5( ) = 0.0834 and m = - 0.872) . These
coefficients have been further verified by Andrews and Er-
man (1986 ) . A lower limit of 0 ra = 0.020 as implied by An ¬
drews ( 1983) is also adopted .
Following Laursen ( 1963) , the equilibrium clear-water con
traction-scour depth is estimated by equating bed shear stress
to the critical shear stress within a long constriction where
uniform flow is assumed to exist . For a constriction of width
W and a flow rate Q , equating bed shear stress T given by
Manning’s equation to critical shear stress Tra corresponding
to the smallest nontransportable particle of size Da given by
(6) yields the following:
6/7
Q
d, ^
y (8)
- V0„A - \ ) D„W
0
n d,2 = A ( 1 IP, - l ) .
where 5, = p, / p = sediment specific gravity ; ys = ya + du
= flow depth in the constriction ; ya = approach flow depth
in the unconstricted section ; and entrance losses and differ ¬
ences in velocity heads between the contracted section and
the approach section have been neglected . Substituting
Strickler’s relation for Manning’s n and (7) for 0^ gives the
following:
6/7
Q the length of time needed to attain the ultimate scour depth .
d, , 12*.
l V0„o{ S, -
1) DUi a- ~ k
^W
This expression is equivalent to Laursen’s (1963) well-known
relation for clear-water contraction -scour depth if kn = 0.042
(for particle size in meters ) ; 0 5O = 0.039; m = 1; Kx =
0 ; and 5, = 2.65.
f —
Considering an armor layer to become unstable when Da
exceeds D95 , the maximum shear stress that can be resisted
by an armor layer is found as follows:
Tmax = 0 max ( P, - P)gD50a ‘ ^
6
where
0max = max{0.0834cr 1 434
"
'*, 0.02}
and use is made of the assumed lognormal distribution of the
subsurface mixture , which gives DK = D50CT 1 M5/s . When T
exceeds Tmax , sediment particles of all sizes are capable of
being entrained , and it is reasonable to assume that the critical
bed shear stress and resulting scour depth are the same as
for uniform bed material characterized by the median particle
„
diameter of the mixture Ds with 0 5O = 0.045 as suggested
( floodplains composed of well-graded alluvial till.
492 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995
by Miller et al . ( 1977) and Yalin and Karahan ( 1979 ) . The
resulting expression for contraction -scour depth not limited
by armoring yields slightly larger estimates than Laursen 's
(1963) equation .
Given Q , ya , W , £ , D50 , and o,, , calculating clear - water
contraction -scour depth limited by armoring requires finding
the value of Da that yields the same estimate of ds from ( 2 )
and (9 ) . A graphical solution is obtained by plotting ds given
by the two equations as a function of D„; the intersection of
the two curves gives the solution for both D„ and d ,. A step-
by-step numerical trial -and -error procedure as follows pro ¬
vides a rapid solution :
Step 1: Select an initial estimate of Da . A good choice is
/9 X4 .
Step 2: Calculate K „ = ln ( D„/ D50) -F In cr,, ( i . e . , the stan
¬
dard normal deviate of Da ) and Pu = 1 - <t> ( K „) ( i . e . , the
decimal fraction of particles of the subsurface bed material
that are coarser than Da ) from a table of the cumulative
standard normal distribution <1> or from a log- probability plot
of the particle -size distribution of the subsurface bed material .
Then calculate a = 100 x (1 — Pu ) , which is the percentage
¬ of subsurface bed material smaller than Da .
Step 3: Calculate the standard normal deviate of the me ¬
_
dian -sized particle in the armor layer D5( ) as K 5lt = K(50 + n 5 * „|,
then calculate £>5 l using (4) with i = 50 .
(
Step 4: Calculate the depth of scour based on the critical
shear-stress relation in the constriction dsi using ( 9 ) with the
estimated values of Da and Ksn and specified values of Q . W ,
y„, DS( I , CTX , and S . The coefficients 0 .5„ = 0.0834 and m =
( (
- 0.872 are suggested subject to the constraint 0, „ = 0,.5( ( D„/
>
DMy 0.02 .
Step 5: Calculate the thickness of the armor layer A = D„,
and depth of scour based on the armor layer formation model
Step 6: If \ dxi - ds2\ some small value , then D„satisfying
.
( 2 ) and ( 9 ) has been found . Otherwise , if ds ] > ds2 increase
Da , or if dsl < d ,2 , decrease Da , and go to step 2.
Estimated average scour depth ds within a bridge is based
on the gross flow and sediment properties of the contracted
section as well as several assumptions regarding armor - layer
development and selective entrainment of particles from the
armor layer intended to simplify the analysis . In addition ,
equilibrium conditions are assumed without consideration of
y
0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
(9 ) A procedure is presented for calculating clear-water con ¬
traction-scour depth at bridges under armoring conditions . A
simplified armor-layer-formation model is used that is shown
by Borah (1989) and Borah and Bordoloi (1989) to predict
accurately scour depths and armor-layer compositions from both
laboratory experiments and natural river measurements. The
method extends Laursen 's ( 1963) well- known clear-water con-
traction-scour equation to include the condition of armoring ,
making use of Andrew’s (1983) relation for selective entrain ¬
ment of gravel from naturally sorted riverbed material . Two
( 10) equations need to be solved simultaneously , one for the depth
of the active layer provided by the armor-layer model , and one
for depth of clear-water scour in a long constriction . If the
smallest nontransportable particle in the armor layer is larger
(11)
than of the underlying bed material , evidence indicates that
the armor layer will be unstable and particles of all sizes will
be nearly equally mobile . However , if an armor layer is stable ,
clear-water contraction -scour estimates can be significantly less
than estimates that do not account for armoring . The simple
computational procedure will be especially useful for evaluating
clear- water contraction scour at flow- relief bridges crossing
 APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Andrews. E . D . ( 19X 3 ) . “ Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted
.
riverbed material . ” Geological Soc . of Am . Bull . 94 ( 10 ) , 1225- 1231 .
Andrews. E . D . . and Erman , D . C . ( 1986) . "Persistence in the size
distribution of surficial bed material during an extreme snowmelt flood."
.
Water Resour . Res . 12 ( 2 ) 191 - 197 .
Ashworth. P. J . . and Ferguson , R . I . ( 1989 ) . "Size-selective entrainment
of bed load in gravel bed stream ." Water Resour. Res. . 25( 4 ). 627- 634.
Ballollet . A . ( 1991 ) . " Discussion of Scour-depth prediction under ar ¬
.
moring uncertainty ' by D . K . Borah ." 7. Hydr . Engrg . ASCE , 117( 8 ) .
1082- 1084.
Btazejewski. R . ( 1991 ) . " Discussion of ' Scour-depth prediction under
armoring uncertainty' by D . K . Borah ." J . Hvdr . Engrg . , ASCE .
117 ( 8 ) . 1084- 1086 /
Borah . D . K . ( 1989 ) . "Scour -depth prediction under armoring condi ¬
. . .
tions . " J . Hydr . Engrg . ASCE 115 ( 10) 1421- 1425 .
Borah . D . K . , and Bordoloi , P . K . ( 1989 ) . " Nonuniform sediment trans
.
port model . ” Trans . ASAE 32 ( 5 ) , 1631 - 1636 .
Bray . D . I . ( 1982 ). "Flow resistance in gravel- bed rivers ." Gravel - bed
rivers . R . D . Hey , J . C . Bathurst , and C . R . Thorne , eds . , Chichester ,
United Kingdom , 109- 133.
.
Dewey , J . D . . Roybal F. E . , and Funderburg , D. E . ( 1979 ) . “ Hydrologic
data on channel adjustment , 1970- 1975 , on the Rio Grande down
stream from Cochiti Dam , New Mexico , before and after closure . "
.
Water Resour. Investigations Rep . No. 79-70 U .S . Geological Survey ,
Denver, Colo.
Egiazaroff . 1 . V . ( 1965 ) . "Calculation of nonuniform sediment concen ¬
trations." 7. Hydr. Div .. ASCE , 91 ( 4 ) , 225- 247.
Garde , R . J . . and Hasan . S . M . ( 1967 ) . “ An experimental investigation
.
of degradation in channels. " Proc. 12th Cong , of Int . Assoc , for Hydr.
Res . IAHR ) . 1 AHR . Delft , The Netherlands. Vol . 3, 38- 45 .
Gessler , J . ( 1971 ) . "Critical shear stress for sediment mixtures ." Proc.
.
Nth Cong , of hit . Assoc , for Hydr . Res . Vol . 3 , Cl - l -Cl -8.
Harrison , A . S . ( 1950 ) . " Report on special investigation of bed sediment
segregation in a degrading bed ." Series 33 , Issue I . Univ . of California
Inst ol Engrg . Res . , Univ . of Calif . , Berkeley , Calif .
,
1 lev . R . D . ( 1979 ) . " Flow resistance in gravel - bed rivers ." J . Hydr. Div ..
ASCE , 105 ( 4 ) , 365- 379 .
Komar. P . D . ( 1987a ). "Selective gravel entrainment and the empirical
evaluation of How competence ." Sedimentology , 34 ( 6 ) . 1165- 1176 .
Komar . P . D . ( 1978 b ) . "Selective grain entrainment by a current from
a bed of mixed sizes: A reanalysis ." J . Sedimentary Petrology 57( 2 ) , . g = gravitational acceleration ;
203- 211 .
Kulkarni . V . K . ( 1991 ) . " Discussion of ' Scour -depth prediction under
armoring uncertainty ' bv D . K . Borah . " J . Hydr . Engrg . ASCE , . kn = Strickler equation coefficient ;
117( 8 ). 1086- 1087.
Lagasse , P . F.. Schall , J . D . , Johnson , F. , Richardson , E . V . , Richard
son . J . R . , and Chang , F. M . ( 1991 ) . "Stream stability at highway
structures." Hydr. Engrg . Circular No . 20 , U .S . Dept of Transp . .,
Federal Hwy . Administration . Washington , D . C .
Lane. E . W . , and Carlson . E . J . ( 1953) . “ Some factors affecting the stability
of canals constructed in course granular materials. ” Proc . Int. Assoc , of
Hydr . Res . ( IAHR ) Conf , IAHR , Delft , The Netherlands. 37- 48.
Livescy , R . H . ( 1963 ) . "Channel armoring below Fort Randall Dam . "
Proc .. Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conf . , U . S. Dept , of Agr.
Miscellaneous Pttbl. No. 970 . U . S . Dept of Agr . , Washington , D . C . ,
,
461 - 470 .
Laursen . E . M . ( 1963 ) . " An analysis of relief bridge scour . " J . Hydr.
Div . . ASCE . 92 ( 3 ) .
Little , W . C. . and Mayer . R . G . ( 1972 ) . “ The role of sediment gradation
on channel armouring . " Pitbl . No. ERC -0672 , Georgia Inst of Tech - ,
nol .. Atlanta . Ga .
Little . W . C . . and Mayer. R . G . ( 1976 ) . "Stability of channel beds by
armoring. ” J . Hydr / Div . , ASCE , 102 ( 11 ) , 1647- 1661 .
MacCurdy . E . ( 1938 ) . The notebooks of Leonardo DaVinci . Revnal and
Hitchcock , New York , N . Y .
.
Mavnord S. T. ( 1991 ) . " Flow resistance of riprap." J . Hvdr . Engrg . .
117 ( 6 ) . 687 - 696 .
Miller , R . L . . and Byrne . R . J . ( 1966 ) . "The angle of repose for a single
grain on a fixed rough bed . " Sedimentology , 6( 3 ) , 303-314.
Miller. M . C . . McCave . I . N . . and Komar , P . D. ( 1977 ) . "Threshold of
sediment motion under directional currents . ' Sedimentology , 24( 5 ) ,
507-527.
.
Parker G . . Klingeman . P . ('. , and McLean , D. G . ( 1982 ) . "Bedload
and size distribution in paved gravel - bed streams . " J . Hvdr . Div. ,
ASCE. 108( 5 ) . 544- 571 .
Raudkivi . A . J . ( 1990 ) . Loose boundary hydraulics , 3rd Ed . , Pcrgamon
.
Press Oxford , England .
View publication stats
Raudkivi , A . , and Ettema , R . ( 1982 ) . “ Stability of armor lavers in rivers."
J . Hydr . Div . , ASCE , 108( 9 ) . 10147- 1057 .
Richardson . E . V . , Harrison , L . J . , Richardson , J . R , , and Davis , S. R .
( 1993 ) . " Evaluating scour at bridges . ” Hydr. Engrg . Circular No. IS ,
2nd Ed.. U . S. Dept . ofTransp . , Federal Hwy . Administration , Wash ¬
ington , D . C.
Schumm , S. A . ( 1977 ) . The fluvial system . Wilev Interscience , New York ,
N . Y.
Sedimentation engineering — ASCE manuals and reports on engineering
practice No. 54 . ( 1977 ) . V . A . Vanoni . ed . , ASCE . New York .
Strand , R . I . , and Pemberton , E . L . ( 1982 ) . " Reservoir sedimentation . "
Technical guideline for Bureau of Reclamation . Sedimentation and
River Hydr . Section , Hydro . Branch , Div . of Ping . Tech . Services ,
Engrg . and Res . Ctr . , Denver , Colo .
Strickler , A . ( 1923 ) . " Beitrage zur Frage der Geshwindigkeitsformcl und
der Rauhigkeitszahlen fur Strome , Kanale und geschlossene Leitun -
gen ." Mitteilungen des eidgcnossischen Amies fur Wasserwirtschaft ,
¬
Bern , Switzerland . Vol . 16, 12 - 13 ( in German ) .
Sutherland , A . J . ( 1987 ) . "Static armour layers by selective erosion ."
Sediment transport in gravel -bed rivers , C . R . Thorne , J . C . Bathurst ,
and R . D . Hey . eds . , John Wiley & Sons , Chichester . United King ¬
dom , 243- 260.
White , W . R . , and Day , T . J . ( 1982 ) . Transport of graded gravel bed
"
¬
-
material . " Gravel bed rivers , R . D . Hey , J . C . Bathurst , and C. R .
Thorne , eds . , John Wilev & Sons , Chichester , United Kingdom , 181 —
223.
Yalin , M . S. . and Karahan , E . ( 1979 ) . "Inception of sediment transport ."
J . Hydr . Div . , ASCE , 105( 11 ) . 1433- 1443 .
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in litis paper:
. a = percent of subsurface material finer than smallest non
transportable particle ;
¬
D = sediment particle diameter ;
D„ = diameter of smallest nontransportable particle present
in bed material ;
D, = diameter of particle for which i percent of mixture is
finer ;
d , = contraction scour depth ;
e = porosity of sediment mixture ;
K = standard normal deviate ;
m = critical shear-stress relation exponent ;
¬
n = Manning roughness coefficient ;
y = flow depth ;
y „ - approach flow depth ;
P„ = fraction of all armor sizes present in bed material ;
Q = volumetric flow rate ;
S , = specific gravity of sediment ;
V = average cross-section velocity ;
W = constriction width ;
z - channel - bed elevation ;
A = thickness of armor layer ;
£ = ratio of armor - layer thickness to diameter of smallest
nontransportable particle present in bed material ;
0, = dimensionless critical shear stress (Shield 's parameter ) ;
0, „ = dimensionless critical shear stress of smallest nontrans ¬
portable particle ( i . e . , smallest particle in armor layer ) ;
0, S1 I = dimensionless critical shear of median -size particle in
bed material ;
0 „ = maximum dimensionless critical shear stress resisted by
nl;
armor layer based on D,l5 ;
A = thickness of active layer ;
p = mass density of water ;
p, = mass density of sediment ;
crB = geometric standard deviation of bed material ;
T = bed shear stress ;
T,. = critical bed shear stress;
T,. = critical bed shear stress for particle of diameter D „\ and
Tmux = maximum shear stress resisted by armor layer .
Superscript
~ = a property of the armor layer .
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING / JUNE 1995 / 493