A reappraisal of bridge piers scour vulnerability: a case study in

the Upper Tiber River basin (central Italy)

S. Barbetta, S. Camici and T. Moramarco
National Research Council, Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection, Perugia, Italy

Correspondence
Silvia Barbetta, National Research Council,
Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological
Protection, Vai Madonna Alta, 126, 06128
Perugia, Italy
Tel: +390755014406
Email: s.barbetta@irpi.cnr.it
DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12130
Key words
Bridge pier; degradation; local scour; scale
factor; scour vulnerability index.
Abstract
The issue of bridge piers vulnerability to scour is addressed by comparing two
procedures. The first method quantifies the Scour Vulnerability Index (SVI)
considering the combined effects of local and contraction scour. The method
requires that a scale factor, for taking account of the scour depth overestimation
provided by empirical formulae, is quantified for the selected case study through
inspection campaigns. The second approach identifies a vulnerability index to
vertical instability depending on several indicators. The study is carried out for
a sample of 46 bridges in the Tiber River basin, central Italy, and shows that the
two methods identify the same number of piers affected by ‘high’ vulnerability.
Results are supplemented by outcomes of inspections that identified, through
the scale factor, a high correlation between measured scour depth and SVI value.
SVI, simpler and most practical, seems useful for an expeditious estimate of
scour vulnerability in large areas and can be adopted by decision makers to
identify the structures requiring attention in terms of maintenance and control.
The presented results do not provide a general rule for a correct estimate of
scour. They refer to solely the investigated case study and need to be verified in
other rivers context.

Introduction dations have not been adequately considered in the design of

In the last century, many river bridges worldwide suffered
heavy damages or were even destroyed during flood events
[Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1988; Rhodes
and Trent, 1992; Yeo, 1998; Ballio, 2000; Melville and
Coleman, 2000]. According to a comprehensive collection of
bridge failure dataset, natural hazard is recognised as the
main cause of collapse. In particular, flooding and scour are
responsible for about 60% of the failures (Brandimarte et al.
2012).
The potential calamitous consequences of the bridges
hydraulic inadequacy, both in terms of casualties and eco-
nomic losses, make the assessment of their vulnerability
among the primary needs of the institutions in charge of
the territory planning and hydraulic risk management and
mitigation.
The large number of studies available in the literature
concerning the scour at bridge piers and abutments demon-
strate the interest for this issue. Moreover, many existing
river bridges were designed when the knowledge of the
involved river flow processes was limited. For example, in the
United States, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
recognised that the effects of the scour at the bridge foun-
many structures before 1985 (FHWA, 1988). Furthermore,
many structures have an age close or exceeding the expected
average life and, hence, the evaluation of their safety appears
a priority. The awareness of this necessity prompted many
developed countries to undertake research projects and cam-
paigns of field investigations aimed at identifying the main
causes of vulnerability of bridges and the most critical situa-
tions for hydraulic risk. For example, FHWA promoted an
inventory of existing bridges highlighting the critical condi-
tions of about 18 000 of them. The survey showed that the
main cause of the bridges failure in the United States is the
erosion that occurs during flood events (FHWA, 1988;
Parola et al. 1997).
A similar study was conducted for the Italian territory by
considering a sample of about 400 bridges hit by eight dif-
ferent flood events in the period 1987–1996 (Ballio, 2000).
The analysis showed that the erosion is not the only cause of
the failure events. It was found out that the embankment
allowing access to the bridge is most frequently damaged by
the flood (41% of the failure events) with respect to piers and
abutments (26% of the failure events), whereas the cases
involving the deck (19% of the failure events) are also
relevant.

JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered Institution
Institution of of Water
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
284
2 Barbetta et
The results of the above studies, similar to those obtained
in other European countries and in different countries all
over the world (Smith, 1976; Melville, 1992; Rhodes and
Trent, 1992; Richardson and Davis, 1995; Morris and
Pagan-Ortiz, 1997; Parola et al. 1997; Yeo, 1998; Hamill,
1999; Melville and Coleman, 2000), pointed out the need to
develop simple and practical procedures for assessing the
hydraulic vulnerability of existing bridges to total scour that
is typically estimated by evaluating the general, contraction
and local scour separately and then adding them up without
considering mutual interactions (Hydraulic Research Ltd,
1989; Meadowcroft and Whitbread, 1993; Richardson and
Davis, 1995; Ballio, 2000; Melville and Coleman, 2000).
Local and contraction scours have been widely studied in
the literature, and a large number or equations, both derived
from conceptual models and experimental data, are pro-
vided (Liu et al. 1961; Laursen, 1963; Hydraulic Research
Ltd, 1989; Breusers and Raudkivi, 1991; Young and
Pallavicini, 1993; Ansari and Qadar, 1994; Richardson and
Davis, 1995; Lim, 1997; Melville and Coleman, 2000;
Kothyari and Ranga Raju, 2001; Federico et al. 2003).
It is worth noting that due to the scarcity of field data and
to the complexity of the scour process, the empirical
approaches are affected by some limitations (Deng and Cai,
2010; Ettema et al. 2011; Toth and Brandimarte, 2011;
Brandimarte et al. 2012): first, such approaches are typically
derived for simple solid pier foundations not considering
pile groups (Salim and Jones, 1996) even if in the last years
several papers with experiments for pier groups have been
published (Coleman, 2005; Zarrati et al. 2006; Ataie-
Ashtiani et al. 2010); second, the laboratory representation
of the reach where the bridge affects the river flow is typically
represented through straight-rectangular flumes; third, these
formulae assume steady flow condition (equilibrium state);
and, fourth, they consider piers founded in cohesionless
sediments. Applying these conservative equations, one can
achieve overestimated scour depths mainly because the flood
duration does not allow to reach the equilibrium condition
(Johnson, 1995; Melville and Coleman, 2000; Richardson
and Davis, 2001; Deng and Cai, 2010; Toth and Brandimarte,
2011; Brandimarte et al. 2012; Sheppard et al. 2014). For this
reason, recently the interest of the scientific community has
focused also on the study of the temporal scour evolution
(Brandimarte et al. 2006; Ballio et al. 2010; Kothyari and
Kumar, 2010, 2012; Pagliara and Carnacina, 2010; Hong
et al. 2012). In particular, Ballio et al. (2010) presented the
results of experimental studies showing that under live-bed
condition and depending on the flow velocity approaching
the bridge the time to reach equilibrium can be even short,
whereas for clear water condition, the equilibrium state was
not reached during the laboratory experiments. Therefore,
the scour process involving bridges is affected by high
uncertainty.
© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
Barbetta et al.
al.
However, the need to identify bridges with high vulner-
ability to scour in large areas implies the necessity to define
simple and practical procedures allowing for a quick prelimi-
nary estimate of the level of the expected damage (FHWA,
2012). This first level of analysis should identify in large areas,
where several bridges are present, the potential critical struc-
tures for which a deeper study should be carried out also on
the basis of bridge inspections and safety considerations sug-
gested by scour signs (FHWA, 2012). Few procedures for a
practical and quick estimation of the bridge scour vulner-
ability have been proposed in literature. Among them, the
method developed by the Hydraulic Research Ltd (Hydraulic
Research Ltd, 1989; Meadowcroft and Whitbread, 1993) that
quantifies the vulnerability index, RN, depending on total
scour, foundation type and river characteristics. This pro-
cedure requires to estimate the potential scour (sum of local
and contraction scour) along with the knowledge of the
general river conditions, of the embankment stability and of
the bridge foundations characteristics. Three vulnerability
classes were identified: high (3 ≤ RN ≤ 7); middle
(−3 ≤ RN ≤ 3); and low (−7 ≤ RN ≤ −3). The procedure was
also tested in Italy on a sample of 26 railway bridges, and the
results showed the necessity to identify limits of the classes
more suitable for the Italian territory.
More recently, Fiorentino et al. (1999) proposed a simple
procedure based on the Scour Vulnerability Index (SVI).
They investigated a sample of 50 river bridges in the south of
Italy and identified different vulnerability classes by compar-
ing the index values with the state of the bridge piers as
observed during site inspection. Specifically, the selected
limits of the classes, mainly the lower limit of the ‘high
vulnerability’ class, indicate that a tendency of the empirical
equations to overestimate the scour depth was observed by
Fiorentino et al. (1999). Therefore, field data are of para-
mount importance as shown by Johnson (1995), who com-
pared seven pier-scour equations, among which the one
provided by Melville and Sutherland (1988), that is the fore-
runner of Melville (1997), using a large set of field data (p.
515). The results indicated that the above equation is char-
acterised by the highest bias values (in the range 2.5–4)
nearly always providing overestimated scour depths. Simi-
larly, Toth and Brandimarte (2011) carried out an interesting
comparison between empirical formulae and artificial
neural networks using both field (p. 215) and laboratory
(p. 331) data. They considered also the equation provided by
Melville and Chiew (1999), which can be assumed equivalent
to Melville (1997), and found that it provided almost always
overestimated predictive scour depths with highest biases,
up to 4, for field data.
Finally, a further study can be found in Sheppard et al.
(2014), who deeply discuss the issues of field data uncer-
tainty due to measurement accuracy, lack of knowledge of
the substructure shape/dimensions and of the level of
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability 285
3

maturity of the scour hole at the time of measurement. They

tested the equilibrium scour equations by using the field data
as lower bounds, i.e. by verifying that the predicted scour
depths were always higher than the measured values, and for
the Melville formula they found that almost never it pro-
vided underestimation.
In this context, this paper is addressed to identify a poten-
tially useful and expeditious procedure for bridges vulner-
ability by comparing two different methods based on
indices. The first method is based on the SVI (Fiorentino
et al. 1999). It is here modified by introducing a scale factor,
f, for taking account of the overestimation of scour depths
provided by the empirical formulae. This factor has been
estimated for the selected case study through inspection
campaigns. The second approach, more complex, quantifies
a vulnerability index to vertical instability due to flow-
structure interaction (IV) (Tartaglia et al. 2002; Tartaglia and
Caporali, 2003).
A sample of 46 river bridges located in the Upper Tiber
River basin (central Italy) is used as case study.
The paper is organised as follows: in section 2, the models
used for the assessment of the scour depth due to local scour,
contraction scour and general scour (degradation) are
described, whereas section 3 introduces the two vulnerability
indices (SVI and Iv) used for comparison purposes.
Section 4 is dedicated to the description of the selected case
study. Section 5 contains the analysis of the results obtained
through the application of the two procedures and deeply
discusses the main sources of uncertainty affecting the pre-
sented outcomes. Final considerations on the potential use-
fulness and the limitations of the simpler and more practical
approach are given in section 6.
Scour Models
The total variation of the river bed level at the foundation of
a bridge pier or abutment depends on the scour depths
caused by three different phenomena (see Figure 1) that are
usually investigated separately and, then, added up without
considering the mutual interactions (Ballio, 2000):
• general scour, i.e. river bed degradation (Gessler, 1970);
• contraction scour due to the river cross-section contraction
for the presence of the crossing bridge that causes an
increase of the mean flow velocity and a consequent scour
over the all section width; and
• local scour due to the distortion of streamlines around the
pier/abutment that produces a local increase of the veloc-
ity and, hence, local scouring effects.
In the last years, approaches to consider the mutual inter-
action of different scour processes have been also proposed
in the literature (Ballio et al. 2009).
In what follows, the models for the assessment of the
scour depth due to contraction scour and local scour used in
original streambed
degradation '
ddS‘S dF
contraction scour
local scour
Figure 1 Type of scours at the base of a bridge pier foundation
( dS′ = maximum observed total scour depth; dF = depth of
foundation).
the analysis for the assessment of the vulnerability indices
are described. The contribution of general scour, not shown
for sake of brevity, is found to be negligible in comparison
with local and contraction scour.
Contraction scour
The contraction scour is caused by the general increase of
the flow velocity throughout the cross-section due to the
river channel reduction for the presence of the bridge piers/
abutment (Graf, 1998). The scour effects are generally
limited to the length of the contraction and affect the width
of the stream segment, whereas they typically vanish with
increasing distances from the discontinuity as the flow
re-establishes stable velocity distribution. To assess the con-
traction scour depth, dC, several empirical formulae can be
found in the literature for both clear-water (Laursen, 1963;
Komura, 1966; Webby, 1984; Lim, 1993; Richardson and
Davis, 1995) and live-bed scour (Straub, 1934; Laursen,
1962; Gill, 1981; Richardson and Davis, 1995; Franzetti and
Ballio, 1997). These equations provide the water depth in the
contracted section after that the contraction scour has hap-
pened, hr. The equation proposed by Laursen (1963) for
clear-water condition is used in the software HEC-RAS
(USACE, 2010):
⎡ Qr2 ⎤
hr = ⎢ 2 3 2 ⎥ (1)
⎣ Cdm Wr ⎦
where Qr is the discharge at the contracted section; C is a
constant (40 for SI units); dm is the diameter of the smallest
non-transportable particle in the streambed material at the
contracted section (dm = 1.25d50 with d50 equal to the median
grains size); Wr is the top width of the main channel or
floodplain at the contracted section less piers width.

JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered Institution
Institution of of Water
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
286
4 Barbetta et
In order to assess the maximum scour depth, dC, the initial
condition, i.e. the water depth before the scouring, hr,t = 0, has
to be also known:
dC = hr − hr ,t = 0
Local scour
The local scour is due to the flow accelerations around
the bottom of the bridge piers/abutments that generate
vortices removing the surrounding sediments (Graf, 1998;
Richardson and Davis, 2001). The process is very difficult to
analyse theoretically because of the complexities of the
three-dimensional vortex and its interaction with the sedi-
ment transport (Muzzammil and Gangadhariah, 2003).
Among the classical formulae available in the literature to
assess local scour depth one of the most widely applied is
that proposed by Melville (1997):
dL = kha ke kd ks ka
where kha is a factor to account for the combined effects of
the pier width, a, and the water depth, hm; ke is the flow
intensity and bed armouring factor depending on the ratio
v/v1, with v the mean flow velocity and v1 the mean threshold
velocity; kd is the sediment size factor depending on the
median grains size, d50; ks is the pier shape factor; ka is a factor
to account for the pier inclination respect to the flow (ka = 1
for piers with axis aligned with the flow).
The empirical equations to assess local scour at bridge
abutments are less numerous (Liu et al. 1961; Laursen, 1963;
Gill, 1972; Melville, 1992; Richardson and Davis, 1995; Lim,
1997). Typically, the abutments are more protected than the
piers from the erosive action of the flow, because they are
often located outside the main river channel.
Vulnerability indices
The assessment of the bridge piers vulnerability to scour is
here addressed by applying and comparing two different
vulnerability indices whose estimation requires that the
scour depth due to contraction and local scour has already
been assessed. The use of vulnerability indices allows to
provide the stakeholders, in charge of the territory planning
and hydraulic risk management and mitigation, with a prac-
tical method able to clearly identify through a simple code
(High, Middle, Low and Null) the hydraulic vulnerability of
bridges, meaning for vulnerability the conditions for which a
more in-depth control and maintenance of the structure is
required.
The first index used in the study, named SVI, is simpler to
be quantified, and its estimate is based on the local and
contraction scour only, whereas the contribution of general
scour, found negligible, is not considered in the analysis. The
© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
Barbetta et al.
al.
second approach is based on a vulnerability index to vertical
instability due to flow-structure interaction (IV) whose esti-
mate depends on several factors among which the local and
contraction scour depths. It is worth noting that for IV evalu-
(2)
ation also the contribution of the general scour has taken
into account.
SVI
The Scour Vulnerability Index, henceforth referred as SVI,
was defined by Fiorentino et al. (1999) and potentially rep-
resents a useful tool for a quick assessment of the vulnerabil-
ity in large areas allowing to verify the safety of pier/
abutment foundations respect to the undermining.
SVI is defined as the ratio between the maximum observed
total scour depth at the base of the bridge pier/abutment, dS′ ,
and the depth of foundations, dF (see Figure 1):
dS′
SVI = (4)
(3) dF
Considering the difficulty to observe dS′ during inspection
campaigns, the contraction scour depth, dC, and the local
scour depth, dL, are estimated through empirical equations
and their value turned in the maximum observed one
through a scale factor, f, for which:
dC + dL
dS′ = (5)
f
f in Eqn (5) represents the scale factor between maximum
observed scour depth and the equilibrium scour depth pre-
dicted by the empirical formulae. An equivalent factor, β,
was introduced by Johnson (1995), who estimated the bias
between the local scour predicted by empirical formulae and
the observed one.
f value needs to be identified for each case study through
inspection campaign and, as indicated in the scientific litera-
ture, it is expected to be a factor of two or more (Landers
et al. 1994; Johnson, 1995; Yoon and Lee, 1998; Ballio, 2000;
Melville and Coleman, 2000; Richardson and Davis, 2001;
Toth and Brandimarte, 2011) considering the limitations
affecting the empirical formulae, mainly due to the assump-
tion of steady flow condition, and the difficulties for carrying
out field measurements.
It is worth noting that the mutual interaction between
contraction and local scour, that is not made explicit in the
definition of the vulnerability index, can be considered
embedded in the scour reduction parameter f.
For the defined index, four classes of expected damage are
identified:
SVI ≤ 1/3, null vulnerability;
1 /3 < SVI < 2/3, low vulnerability;
2/3 ≤ SVI ≤ 1, middle vulnerability;
SVI > 1, high vulnerability.
(CIWEM) John Wiley
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability
Based on the results obtained for a sample of 50 river
bridges in the south of Italy, Fiorentino et al. (1999) identi-
fied indirectly a scale factor f between 3 and 4. In particular,
they compared the values of SVI with the state of the bridge
piers as observed during site inspections. It was found that
75% of the investigated bridges characterised by SVI > 3
showed clear signs of erosion, 50% of the sample with
2 < SVI < 3 was already identified as ‘vulnerable bridge’ and
26% of the bridges with 1 < SVI < 2 was characterised by
incipient erosion. Finally, no section that was characterised
by SVI < 1 showed signs of incipient erosion.
Vulnerability Index to vertical instability due to
flow-structure interaction (IV)
A comprehensive procedure for the scour vulnerability
analysis of river bridges was proposed by Tartaglia et al.
(2002). The effects due to the instability processes of the
river bed are also considered for the erosion assessment
(Tartaglia and Caporali, 2003). They have collected informa-
tion about damage events happened on 77 railway bridges in
Tuscany region, central Italy, during the last decades.
From the total sample, about 30 bridges were interested by
river bed instability. Based on the observed damages occurred
at the investigated structures, the bridge–flow interaction was
surmised as the sum of two instability processes:
• the lateral instability, due to long-term evolution of the
stream or localised collapse phenomena of the banks that
can undermine the lateral bridge structures (piers with
shallow foundations in the floodplain, long abutments,
etc.); and
• the vertical instability, due to the bed-level lowering as a
consequence of geo-morphological phenomena at the
basin scale (degradation) and at the local scale close to the
river section (contraction scour and local scour) that can
undermine the bridge foundations.
In particular, as the vertical instability is one of the most
common causes of bridge failure, the attention is here
focused on the estimation of the vulnerability index due to
vertical instability, IV, defined as:
IV = (1 − FVV ) FVS
where FVV (0 ≤ FVV ≤ 1) is a factor quantifying the bridge
vulnerability due to vertical vulnerability of the river and it
decreases if the vulnerability increases. FVS is a factor related
to the vertical instability of the river (0 ≤ FVS ≤ 1) and it
increases with increasing magnitude of the scour phenom-
ena (see Table 1).
FVS value depends on several indicators such as: degrada-
tion (general scour), local scour around the base of piers and
abutments, presence of weirs and their conservation condi-
tions (see Tables 1 and 2). FVS is calculated as weighted mean
of the ratios pi/mi, where pi is the score assigned to the ith
JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered
Institution of of Water
287
5
indicator and mi is the corresponding maximum score (with
mi ≠ 0):
⎛
pi mi ⎟
⎞ ∑p i
FVS = ∑ ⎜ = i
(7)
⎜ mi ∑ mi ⎟ ∑m i
i
⎝ ⎠
i i
The indicators and the relative scores considered in the
procedure for the factor computation are listed and
described in details in Table 1.
FVV depends on four indicators: the foundation and sub-
foundation type for piers and abutments; the ratio between
the foundation depth (when known) and the total scour
depth, dS; the presence of foundation protections; the pres-
ence of downstream weirs and their conditions (see Tables 2
and 3). The procedure to compute FVV is detailed in Table 3.
In particular, this factor is assessed by:
nf
∑p k
(8)
k =1
FVV =
4n f
where nf is the total number of piers and abutments with
foundations in the main channel or in the floodplain.
The calculation of both factors is typically carried out for
two return periods: 50 years, that may represent the bridge age
(TA), and 100 years, the bridge life expectancy. For both the
return periods, different quantities have to be computed, such
as the water depth at the bridge section, the contraction scour
depth, the local scour depth at the base of piers and abut-
ments, the ratio between average shear stress and critical shear
stress at the bottom of the main channel (see Tables 1 and 3).
The threshold value of the risk index, IV, which defines the
stability conditions of the bridge, is defined as:
IV ≤ 0.2, low vulnerability;
IV > 0.2, high vulnerability.
The threshold was identified by Tartaglia et al. (2002) con-
sidering the outcomes of the field campaign carried out on
77 railway bridges in Tuscany region. In particular, they
identified two classes of bridges, critical and no critical, on
the basis of the inspections and the gathered information on
deep investigations, monitoring and consolidation work
carried out in the past. Then, they fitted a normal density
(6)
probability function to both classes that allowed to identify
the threshold value for the index equal to 0.2.
Case study
The analysis is carried for 46 bridges with piers located in
the Upper Tiber River basin, central Italy (see Figure 2). In
particular, the analysed structures are located along the Tiber
River, between the Montedoglio dam and Deruta site, and
the Chiascio River, between Bastia site and the confluence
with the Tiber River.
First, all the river crossings located in this area are
catalogued so identifying a database of 46 structures. Each
Institution
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
288
6 Barbetta et
Barbetta et al.
al.

Table 1 Procedure to compute the factor of vertical stability FVS (pi = score of the ith indicator; mi = maximum score of the ith indicator,
i = 1, 2, . . ., 8)
1. Degradation due to river bottom evolution (m1 = 4)
vertical evolution (ve)=dg/TA (m/year)
(with TA = bridge age; con dg = observed degradation observed during inspections)
ve ≤ 0 0 < ve ≤ 0.01 0.01 < ve ≤ 0.02 0.02 < ve ≤ 0.04 ve > 0.04
p1 0 1 2 3 4
2. Local scour around the bottom of piers/abutments (m2 = 4)
rj = dlo,j/dLp,j is assessed for each pier/abutment (dLp,j = local scour around the bottom of the jth pier/abutment (Melville, 1997);
dlo,j = local scour observed around the bottom of the jth pier/abutment during inspections)
rj = 0 0 < rj ≤ 1/8 1/8 < rj ≤ 1/4 1/4 < rj ≤ 1/2 rj > 1/2
p2,j 0 1 2 3 4
If no inspections are available, it is assumed p2,j = 3
3. Constriction ratio next to the bridge (m3 = 4)
% of obstruction at the bridge section
0–5% 6–15% 16–30% 31–50% >50%
p3 0 1 2 3 4
4. Presence of graven channels in the streambed (m4 = 4)
rp = pmax/pm (with pmax = depth of the deepest channel; pm = mean depth bank full condition)
rp > 1 0.75 < rp ≤ 1 0.25 < rp ≤ 0.75 0 < rp ≤ 0.25 rp = 0
p4 4 3 2 1 0
5. Mean bed shear stress (m5 = 4)
τm/τc (τm = mean bed shear stress for the water depth hr; τc = critical shear stress for initiation of motion)
τm/τc
<1 1–1.5 1.5–2 2–2.5 >2.5
p5 0 1 2 3 4
6. Presence of foundation protections (m6 = 4; 0 without protections)
Good condition Slightly damaged Moderately damaged Severely damaged Removed
p6 0 1.5 2.5 3.5 4
7. Presence of transverse structures of protection (weirs, check dams), quote and conservations
(m7 = 8 in presence of weirs, check dams; 0 otherwise)
Weirs or check dams downstream the bridge
Good condition Slightly damaged Moderately damaged Severely damaged Removed
p7 (built after the bridge) 0 1.5 3 4.5 6
p7 (built before the bridge) 0 2 4 6 8
Weirs or check dams upstream the bridge
Built after the bridge Built before the bridge
p7 6 3
Bottom sill downstream the bridge
Good condition Slightly damaged Moderately damaged Severely damaged Removed
p7 (built after the bridge) 0 1.5 3 4.5 6
p7 (built before the bridge) 0 2 4 6 8
8. Obstruction of the channel upstream the bridge (m8 = 4)
% of obstruction (or contraction) upstream the bridge
0–5% 6–15% 16–30% 31–50% >50%
p8 0 1 2 3 4

structure is identified by a code that is reported along with The selected vulnerability indices, SVI and IV, are com-
the main characteristics in the technical-logistic record card puted for 38 bridges of the total sample, because five cross-
compiled for each one of the bridge of the sample (see ings are without piers and three of them have piers out of the
Table 4). main river channel.

© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability 289
7

Table 2 Indicators for the assessment of FVS and FVV

FVS – Factor of vertical stability of the river
1. Degradation due to river bottom evolution near the bridge
2. Local scour around the base of piers and abutments
3. Contraction ratio close to the bridge
4. Presence of graven channel in the streambed
5. Mean bed shear stress
6. Presence of foundation protections (apron)
7. Presence of transverse structures of protection (weirs, check dams), altitude and conservation status
8. Obstruction of the channel downstream the bridge
FVV – Factor of vertical vulnerability of the river
1. Foundation and sub-foundation type for piers and abutments foundations (e.g. foundations on rock)
2. Ratio between foundation depth (when known) and the sum of computed contraction scour, computed local scour and observed
degradation.
3. Presence of foundation protections
4. Presence of downstream weirs, quote and conditions

Table 3 Procedure to compute the factor of vertical vulnerability FVV (pk = score of the kth pier/abutment, nf = total number of piers/
abutments with foundations in the main channel or in the floodplain)
nf = number of piers and abutments with foundations in the main channel or in the floodplain
pk = 4, if pier/abutment foundations are built on rock or there is a concrete apron in good conditions and extended across the
riverbed width
Otherwise
Step 1
a) for direct foundations, Qk = height of laying of the direct foundation;
b) for caisson foundations or foundations protected with concrete diaphragm walls, Qk = height of the bottom of the caisson or of
the diaphragm;
c) for deep sub-foundations with concrete or steel poles, Qk = height corresponding to half of the sub-foundation;
d) for deep sub-foundations with micro poles or jet-grouting, Qk = height corresponding to a quarter of the sub-foundation depth.
Step 2
Qk − Qrf
Ck =
dC + dL ,k + dg
where Qrf = height of the resaw of the foundation of kth pier/abutment; dL,k = local scour around the kth pier/abutment;
dC = contraction scour depth; dg = degradation observed during the inspections.
Step 3
0 ≤ Ck ≤ 1/4 1/4 ≤ Ck ≤ 1/2 1/2 ≤ Ck ≤ 3/4 3/4 ≤ Ck ≤1 1 ≤ Ck ≤ 1.5 Ck > 1.5
pk 0 1 2 2.5 3 4
In the case of unknown foundation depth:
Direct foundation Direct foundation Diaphragm Diaphragm walls
piers abutments walls piers abutments
Qk – Qr 4.2 3.75 11.8 10
Step 4
nf
p
p = ∑ pk ⇒ FVV =
k =1 4nf

1) SVI1: by considering the effect of the local scour, dL, and

Results and discussion the contraction scour, dC. Therefore, dS is identified as the
sum of dL, for which the formula proposed in the litera-
Bridge piers vulnerability assessment ture by Melville (1997) is used, and dC, quantified by
In order to assess the bridge vulnerability through the SVI, using Eqns (1) and (2); and
the total scour depth around the piers, dS, is computed in two 2) SVI2: by neglecting the effect of the contraction scour
different ways: (dS = dL).

JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered Institution
Institution of of Water
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
290
8 Barbetta et
Barbetta et al.
al.

Figure 2 Location of the river crossings investigated in the study.

Considering that the depth foundation is unknown for the
selected pier sample, the analysis is carried out for different
values of dF assumed equal to 1.0 m, 1.5 m and 2.0 m.
In order to evaluate for the investigated case study the f
factor in Eqn (5), an inspection campaign to identify the
reliability of scour depth formulae used here was carried out
by retrieving systematically measurements of the scour
depth around piers of pilot bridges selected along the rivers.
The bridges were chosen considering, on the one hand, the
accessibility of the piers due to the flow depth conditions
around them and, on the other hand, the representativeness
of them for the river reach. For the former, some piers were
found not accessible for the presence of a lot of floating
material accumulated around the pier itself or for the high

© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability 291
9

Table 4 Example of technical-logistic record card of a bridge flow velocity that made impossible to perform the measure-
River: Tiber ments from the bridge. For the latter, we divided the length
Road type: Provincial road N°377 of rivers in five reaches according to the bottom slope and for
River code: TV each one we selected at least three bridges having different
Road code: SP377 level of vulnerability and that were found to be accessible
Bridge code: TV(675)
and available for inspection. Following the above criteria, a
Section code: TV_0675
Location: between Deruta and Fanciullata (Municipality of
sample of 11 bridges has been identified for which the ‘meas-
Deruta) ured scour’ around the piers during the field inspection,
North UTM coordinates (ED50, zone 33) (m): 4762428 henceforth referred as dmeas, was used in Eqn (5) in place of
East UTM coordinates (ED50, zone 33) (m): 288483 d ′s and compared with the one obtained by the empirical
Altitude (m above sea level): 160 formulae in order to identify the scale factor, f, for the
River cross-section geometry: Irregular selected case study. In particular, dmeas was derived by survey-
Building typology of the bridge: multiple spans with piers,
ing the flow depth in several point along a linear path per-
beam structure
Bridge height (distance river bottom-low cord): 12.5 m
pendicular to the base of the pier, from the upstream to the
N° of spans: 3 downstream side. Specifically, as shown in Figure 3, dmeas was
N° of piers: 2 computed as dp – du.
N° of piers in the main channel: 1 In some cases, also the sediment accumulation area down-
Piers shape: semi-circular nose and tail stream the pier was detected. The choice of the measurement
N° of foundation plinths: 1 procedure was due to flow conditions during inspection
Plinths shape: semi-circular nose and tail
campaign, characterised by medium-high water depths that
Parapets: metallic, with a average height of 1 m
Deck: higher than ground level, perpendicular to the flow
did not allow a direct survey of scour depth. Furthermore, at
Notes: bridge on the Provincial road Deruta-Fanciullata the time of the survey the level of maturity of scour process
inspected on 15/3/2004 was unknown and, hence, the measured depth does not rep-
Photographic documentation: picture taken on 15/3/2004 resent, most likely, the maximum value.
(bridge seen from upstream) The results of the inspection campaign are summarised
in Figure 4, where the scale factors computed by consider-
ing SVI1 and SVI2 are shown. As it can be seen, we found
that the observed scour is, on average, approximately
one-fourth of the estimated one and, hence, we assume
for the vulnerability analysis f = 4. This evidence confirms
the indication in the scientific literature that the com-
parison between field and scour predictions identified a
factor of two or more (Landers et al. 1994; Johnson, 1995;
Yoon and Lee, 1998; Ballio, 2000; Melville and Coleman,
2000; Richardson and Davis, 2001; Toth and Brandimarte,
2011).

Bridge pier

measurement points
upstream Water surface downstream

du
dp

dmeas River bed

scour depth from measurements

Figure 3 Procedure adopted for scour depth estimate around piers during the inspection campaign.

JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered Institution
Institution of of Water
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
292
10 Barbetta et
Barbetta et al.
al.

6 equation proposed by Melville (1997) is the most critical

providing the highest scour equilibrium depths. However,
5 introducing factor f in the SVI definition, i.e. in Eqn (4),
makes the choice of the empirical formula not important
4 provided that the value of f is correctly assessed for each
equation. Obviously, higher is the overestimation of the
3
f

measured depth provided by the equation higher is f. It is

demonstrated that the results obtained in terms of bridges
2
vulnerability classes are substantially the same regardless the
used empirical equation applied with the appropriate scale
1
SVI1 SVI 2
factor f. In particular, the study carried out considering for
0
equilibrium local scour prediction the equations proposed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 by Laursen (1958), Shen et al. (1969), Froehlich (1988) and
Bridge
Ansari and Qadar (1994) provided a scale factor f equal to
Figure 4 Scale factor assessed for the 11 inspected bridges. 3.4, 2.8, 2.5 and 3, respectively. On the basis of these out-
comes, it was found that for nearly 75% of the pier sample,
the same vulnerability class was identified by all the empiri-
6 cal formulae when applied with the relative f factor. More-
over, for the remaining 25% of the piers, a similar evaluation
5 of the pier vulnerability was provided with always adjacent
classes.
4
It is worth noting that some of the empirical equations
y = 0.2664x + 3.0125
R2 = 0.7632
considered in the study, such as Shen et al. (1969) and
3
f

Froehlich (1988), were also investigated by Toth and

2
1
pier width, a (m)
0 with piers in the main channel are analysed by computing IV
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 5 Relationship between the scale factor and the pier
width for the 11 inspected bridges.
Moreover, the relationship between the scale factor, f, and
the pier width, a, is also investigated identifying a linear
relationship with an increasing factor with the pier width.
However, the f value is found varying in a limited range with
mean value equal to 4 (Figure 5) that was considered for the
study. The correlation between f and the pier width is not the
only one that can be detected from inspection campaign
outcomes; different parameters affecting the scour process,
such as pier shape and skew-angle of the alignment to the
flow direction, are expected to be related to the scale factor
value.
It is worth noting that the analysis has been carried out by
using different formulae for local scour assessment that is
found to be the main component in the total scour estimate.
In particular, besides the Melville equation, the formulae
proposed by Laursen (1958), Shen et al. (1969), Froehlich
(1988) and Ansari and Qadar (1994) have been used. The
results show that for nearly 70% of the bridges with piers in
the main channel/floodplains affecting the river flow, the
Brandimarte (2011), and the results presented for field data
corroborate the outcomes mentioned for Tiber River case
study with overestimated predictive scour depths.
For comparison purposes, the same 38 bridges catalogued
8 9 10 as well. Likewise the SVI assessment, the local scour depth is
computed through the equation proposed by Melville
(1997), the contraction scour is estimated through the
formula proposed by Laursen (1963) for clear-water condi-
tion, a more precautionary approach.
The results obtained for a return period, TR, of 50 years,
assumed equal to the bridge age, TA, for all the bridges are
summarised in Table 5. The water levels corresponding to
the selected TR at the sections of interest are derived from the
hydrological plan developed for the Tiber River basin that
considers flood events with return periods of 50, 100, 200
and 500 years.
SVI shown in Table 5 is obtained considering a depth of
foundations dF of 1.5 m. It is worth noting that the IV values
shown in the same table have been assessed by using all the
available information except the ‘presence of graven chan-
nels in the streambed’ and ‘obstruction of the channel
upstream the bridge’ (see Table 1). Moreover, for the estima-
tion of FVV the depth of pier foundations is considered
unknown so neglecting the influence of the foundation and
sub-foundation depth on the computation. However, Iv
method includes some information at least through the
foundation typology, whereas for SVI method, only a sensi-
tivity analysis can be performed. On the other hand, it is also

© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability 293
11

Table 5 Comparison between IV and SVI computed for a return period of 50 years assumed equal to the bridge age, TA. The local scour
depth, dL, is computed through the equation by Melville (1997) and the contraction scour, dC, is estimated through the equation by
Laursen (1963). f is the scale factor estimated equal to 4 for the selected case study
SVI (Vulnerability)
dF = 1.5 m
SVI1 SVI2
Bridge Fvs Fvv Iv Vulnerability (dL + dC)/f dL/f
TV(659)-SC 0.53 0.54 0.24 Critical pier 1.22 (High) 1.22 (High)
TV(675)-SP377 0.56 0.25 0.42 Critical pier 1.91 (High) 1.60 (High)
TV(688)-E45 0.62 0.54 0.29 Critical pier 0.99 (Middle) 0.78 (Middle)
TV(690)-SP400 0.54 0.25 0.41 Critical pier 1.83 (High) 1.49 (High)
TV(706)-SP403 0.62 0.44 0.35 Critical pier 1.51 (High) 1.38 (High)
TV(735)-E45 0.62 0.25 0.47 Critical pier 2.04 (High) 1.84 (High)
TV(741)-FS 0.69 0.37 0.43 Critical pier 2.27 (High) 2.15 (High)
TV(764)-SC 0.62 0.25 0.47 Critical pier 2.24 (High) 2.24 (High)
TV(777)-SP170 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 0.58 (Low) 0.50 (Low)
TV(783)-SC 0.69 0.44 0.39 Critical pier 2.58 (High) 2.58 (High)
TV(793)-FS 0.53 0.62 0.19 No critical pier 2.68 (High) 2.68 (High)
TV(796)-Pd 0.67 0.25 0.50 Critical pier 1.38 (High) 0.72 (Middle)
TV(806)-SP 0.56 0.50 0.28 Critical pier 1.37 (High) 1.37 (High)
TV(836)-SP169 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 0.68 (Middle) 0.55 (Middle)
TV(846)-SP168 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 0.58 (Low) 0.46 (Low)
TV(856)-FS 0.56 0.50 0.28 Critical pier 1.20 (High) 1.20 (High)
TV(857)-SS3bis 0.62 0.25 0.47 Critical pier 1.79 (High) 1.69 (High)
TV(870)-E45 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 0.65 (Low) 0.54 (Low)
TV(875)-E45 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 0.48 (Low) 0.48 (Low)
TV(878)-SS3bis 0.56 0.25 0.42 Critical pier 2.27 (High) 2.16 (High)
TV(892)-SP 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 1.24 (High) 1.12 (High)
TV(894)-SP105 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 0.54 (Low) 0.54 (Low)
TV(905)-FS 0.56 0.25 0.42 Critical pier 1.40 (High) 1.30 (High)
TV(912)-E45 0.67 0.00 0.67 Critical pier 2.88 (High) 2.85 (High)
TV(922)-SS221 0.50 0.25 0.37 Critical pier 2.45 (High) 2.28 (High)
TV(926)-E45 0.67 0.25 0.50 Critical pier 1.92 (High) 1.91 (High)
TV(929)-SS221 0.56 0.25 0.42 Critical pier 1.91 (High) 1.91 (High)
TV(943)-SP100 0.62 0.50 0.31 Critical pier 1.40 (High) 1.30 (High)
TV(948)-SP100 0.54 0.25 0.41 Critical pier 1.88 (High) 1.82 (High)
TV(958)-SS73 0.55 0.25 0.41 Critical pier 0.96 (Middle) 0.96 (Middle)
CH(11)-SP403 0.62 0.50 0.31 Critical pier 1.11 (High) 0.78 (Middle)
CH(25)-SS 0.58 0.75 0.15 No critical pier 0.48 (Low) 0.22 (Null)
CH(33)-SS 0.67 0.69 0.19 No critical pier 0.48 (Low) 0.36 (Low)
CH(46)-SP404 0.67 0.75 0.17 No critical pier 0.64 (Low) 0.55 (Low)
CH(62)-SS75 0.58 0.75 0.15 No critical pier 0.60 (Low) 0.42 (Low)
CH(65)-SC67 0.62 0.70 0.19 No critical pier 1.27 (High) 1.20 (High)
CH(68)-FS 0.69 0.67 0.23 Critical pier 1.24 (High) 1.18 (High)
CH(72)-SS147 0.69 0.37 0.43 Critical pier 2.00 (High) 1.96 (High)

clear that, even for known foundation depths, the simple
ratio in Eqn (4) does not represent uniformly the vulnerabil-
ity, as different types of foundation behave very differently to
a given scour/depth ratio.
By inspecting Table 5, interesting results can be drawn.
First, the procedure based on SVI provides high vulnerability
when the approach based on IV calculation identifies critical
piers. Only for the bridges TV(688)-E45, TV(796)-Pd and
TV(958)-SS73, the method based on SVI identifies a ‘middle’
vulnerability. This result indicates that the threshold values
used to identify different vulnerability classes for both
indices SVI and IV are suitable to distinguish bridges where
deeper investigations are required. As it can be inferred from
Table 5, only for four bridges, highlighted in grey, the vul-
nerability classes estimated with IV and SVI disagree regard-
less the way of calculation of SVI. It may be due to the fact
that in these sections some indicators neglected in the com-
putation process significantly affect the IV value or the factor
f = 4 does not represent the condition for these crossing
structures.
Figure 6 shows for TR = TA = 50 years, the bridge piers
vulnerability estimated through Iv and SVI2. As it can be seen,

JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered Institution
Institution of of Water
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
294
12 Barbetta et
Barbetta et al.
al.

30 foundation depth equal to 1.5 m. As it can be seen, SVI1

SVI2 dF=1.0 m identifies a larger number of bridge piers affected by ‘high’
25
SVI2 dF=1.5 m vulnerability and no one characterised by ‘null’ vulnerability.
This last result indicates that for the selected case study, the
Number of bridges

20 SVI2 dF=2.0 m
contraction scour should be considered in the analysis even
Iv
15 though the results clearly show that the main process affect-
ing the scouring at the base of the piers is due to local
10 phenomena.
For a comprehensive comparison of the two approaches,
5
four classes of scour vulnerability are identified for IV, too:
0 IV ≤ 0.1, null vulnerability;
Null Low Middle High 0.1 < IV < 0.2, low vulnerability;
Vulnerability
0.2 ≤ IV ≤ 0.3, middle vulnerability;
Figure 6 Vulnerability of bridge piers assessed through Iv and SVI2 IV > 0.3, high vulnerability.
with different dF and for a return period of 50 years. When the above classes are considered for IV, most of the
investigated bridges are included in the same vulnerability
class by using both the procedures (see Table 6 and Figure 8).
30 It is worth noting that only three bridges, highlighted in grey
SVI1 dF=1.5 m in Table 6, are classified as ‘low vulnerability’ structures
25
when the method based on IV is used and as ‘high vulner-
SVI2 dF=1.5 m
ability’ crossings when SVI is considered and regardless the
Number of bridges

20
Iv
15
10
5 around pier foundations are necessary. A preliminary test of
0 of the inspection campaign outcomes. Particularly, during
Null Low Middle
Vulnerability
Figure 7 Vulnerability of bridge piers assessed through Iv and SVI
(dF = 1.5 m) for a return period of 50 years.
the approach based on IV provides a number of bridges with
high vulnerability lower than the one obtained through SVI2
when a foundation depth, dF, equal to 1 m and 1.5 m is
considered, whereas for a higher dF = 2 m SVI identifies as
‘high’ vulnerable only 45% of the bridges sample.
Overall, by inspecting Table 5 and Figures 6 and 7, it can
be seen that for a foundation depth of 1.5 m, SVI1 classifies as
‘high’ and ‘middle’ vulnerable 68% and 8% of the sample,
respectively. SVI2 indicates that 63% of the sample is char-
acterised by ‘high’ vulnerability, 13% by ‘middle’ vulnerabil-
ity, 21% by ‘low’ vulnerability and 3% by ‘null’ vulnerability.
For a deeper foundation (2 m), the percentage of ‘high’
vulnerable bridges drops to 45%, the ‘middle’ vulnerable
structures represent 21% of the sample, whereas the ‘low’
and ‘null’ vulnerable bridges are equal to 29% and 5%,
respectively.
This can be seen in Figure 7, where the comparison
between the vulnerability classes estimated through IV, SVI1
and SVI2 are compared for a return period of 50 years and a
way of calculation (see also Figure 8).
Overall, by defining four vulnerability classes for each
index, both approaches allow to identify bridges with ‘safe’
piers from bridges where more accurate investigations
the vulnerability indices reliability is carried out on the basis
High
the inspections, we identified and highlighted the presence
of signs of erosion (sediment deposit downstream the pier,
damage to the structure such as cracks in the pier, etc.) useful
to support the classification of the bridges. Figure 9 shows
the evidence of erosion signs and/or damages detected for
two bridges classified as ‘high’ vulnerable (Figure 9(a)–9(d)).
The bridge in Figure 9(e) is identified as ‘low’ vulnerable by
both procedures and for it the observed scour depth was
found lower than 1 m, the lowest within the measured ones.
Finally, in Figure 9(f), an example of a bridge pier where the
inspection was not carried out due to the large amount of
accumulated floating material is shown.
Moreover, the magnitude of the scour depths measured
for the 11 inspected bridges is related to the SVI computed
value. Figure 10 shows the expected high correlation
between the observed scour depth and the index value with
depths increasing with the index. By inspecting Figure 10, it
can be inferred that for some of the investigated piers, the
effect of the contraction scour is negligible and that almost
always the pier is characterised by the same vulnerability
class, supporting the reliability of the procedure used for the
presented study.
The comparison between the two approaches is carried
out also in Figure 11 in terms of distribution function for the
two dimensionless indices SVI′ and IV′ , defined as:

© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability 295
13

Table 6 As for Table 5 but considering four vulnerability classes 3.0

for both indices, SVI and IV

SVI
2.8
Vulnerability 2.6
2.4
SVI1 SVI2
2.2
Bridge Iv (dF = 1.5 m) (dF = 1.5 m)
2.0
TV(659)-SC Middle High High High 1.8
TV(675)-SP377 High High High 1.6
TV(688)-E45 Middle Middle Middle 1.4 SVI1
TV(690)-SP400 High High High 1.2 SVI2
TV(706)-SP403 High High High 1.0
TV(735)-E45 High High High Middle
0.8
TV(741)-FS High High High 0.6
Low
TV(764)-SC High High High 0.4
TV(777)-SP170 Low Low Low
Null 0.2
TV(783)-SC High High High Iv
0.0
TV(793)-FS Low High High 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
TV(796)-Pd High (High) Middle Null Low Middle High
TV(806)-SP Middle High High
TV(836)-SP169 Low Middle Middle Figure 8 Comparison between IV and SVI1–SVI2 values for the
TV(846)-SP168 Low Low Low scour depth assessment at piers (TR = 50 years, dF = 1.5 m). The
TV(856)-FS Middle High High classes of vulnerability are referred as: null, low, middle and high.
TV(857)-SS3bis High High High
TV(870)-E45 Low Low Low 0.5 ≤ dimensionless index ≤ 1.0, middle vulnerability;
TV(875)-E45 Low Low Low
dimensionless index > 1.0, high vulnerability.
TV(878)-SS3bis High High High
TV(892)-SP Low High High
Figure 11 shows the vulnerability classes assessed by using
TV(894)-SP105 Low Low Low both SVI′ and IV′ considering a return period of 50 years and
TV(905)-FS High High High a depth of foundations, dF, equal to 1.5 m. As it can be seen,
TV(912)-E45 High High High when the approach based on SVI′1 and SVI′2 is used the
TV(922)-SS221 High High High percentage of the investigated bridges expected to be affected
TV(926)-E45 High High High by middle-high damage due to scour at piers is found equal
TV(929)-SS221 High High High
to 74% and 72%, respectively, whereas the procedure based
TV(943)-SP100 High High High
TV(948)-SP100 High High High
on IV′ identifies a middle-high vulnerability for 68% of the
TV(958)-SS73 High Middle Middle sample.
CH(11)-SP403 High High Middle
CH(25)-SS Low Low Null
Uncertainties
CH(33)-SS Middle Low Low
CH(46)-SP404 Low Low Low Despite the several effort made by the scientific community
CH(62)-SS75 Low Low Low over the past decades, relevant uncertainties still affect the
CH(65)-SC67 Low High High estimate of the scour depth by using the literature formulae.
CH(68)-FS Middle High High
The main sources of uncertainty are: 1) the approximation
CH(72)-SS147 High High High
in the observed hydraulic variables used as input for the
scour estimation methods (observation uncertainty); 2)
SVI − Thresmin parameter uncertainty, due to imperfect parameterisation of
SVI ′ = (9) the methods; 3) structural uncertainty derived from the
Thresmax − Thresmin
inability of the estimation methods to perfectly identify the
IV − Thresmin physical scour processes.
IV′ = (10) An example of ‘observation uncertainty’ is the inaccuracy
Thresmax − Thresmin
that may occur in measuring field scour depth measurement.
where Thresmin and Thresmax represent the minimum and It is well known that the measurement reliability of field
maximum threshold value for the vulnerability classes, campaigns is, in general, less than that for laboratory condi-
respectively. tions, where all pertinent parameters are known. Therefore,
Accordingly, the new threshold values for the four vulner- the ‘field measured scour depth’ is affected by uncertainties
ability classes for SVI′ and IV′ are (see Figure 11): derived from the difficulties of carrying out the survey, espe-
dimensionless index ≤ 0.0, null vulnerability; cially for high-velocity flows where there are significant
0.0 < dimensionless index < 0.5, low vulnerability; quantities of suspended sediment in the water column,

JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered Institution
Institution of of Water
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
296
14 Barbetta et
Barbetta et al.
al.

Figure 9 Pictures of some bridges along the Tiber and Chiascio River: (a–b) TV(796)-Pd; (c–d) TV(783)-SC; (e) CH(46)-SP404; (f)
CH(11)-SP403.

and also depending on the methodology adopted for field
inspection (Toth and Brandimarte, 2011; Sheppard et al.
2014). Finally, it is not known if the river bed has reached
an equilibrium state at the time of scour measurements
(Sheppard et al. 2014).
In this context, the quantity dmeas used in this study is
characterised by two main sources of uncertainty: first, it was
derived by surveying the flow depth in several point along a
linear path perpendicular to the base of the pier (see
Figure 3) and, hence, it is not a direct observed quantity but
a derived one; second: at the time of the survey, the level of
maturity of scour process was unknown and, hence, the
measured depth does not represent, most likely, the
maximum observed value. The choice of the measurement
procedure was due to flow conditions during inspection
campaign, characterised by medium-high water depths that
did not allow a direct survey of scour depth. Overall, the
adopted procedure can be considered able to identify a rea-
sonable estimate of the ‘observed depth’.
The dmeas values are used in the presented study to evaluate
the scale factor, f, that quantifies the tendency of different
empirical equations to overpredict the ‘observed scour
depth’. It is expected that if the ‘maximum scour depth’ was
measured during inspection campaign, a lower f would be
estimated so providing higher values of SVI.
Therefore, the results of the analysis in terms of piers
scour vulnerability is mainly affected by the level of maturity
of the scour hole during the inspection campaign.
Finally, SVI has been evaluated for different values of
foundation depth, dF, that is not available for the selected

© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability 297
15

3.2 is also investigated by neglecting the effect of the contraction

3.0
Observed scour depth (m)

2.8
scour (SVI2).
2.6 The second procedure, developed by Tartaglia et al.
2.4 (2002), is more complex and, besides the estimate of degra-
2.2
2.0 dation, contraction scour and local scour depth, it needs
1.8 many information on the foundation of piers, presence of
1.6
1.4 SVI 1 protections and weirs, presence of graven channels, contrac-
1.2 SVI 2 tion ratio of the river section, mean bed shear stress, obstruc-
1.0 tion of the channel downstream the bridge, etc.
0.8
0.6 The analysis is carried out for a sample of 38 bridges with
0.4 piers in the main channel located in the Upper Tiber River
0.2
0.0
SVI basin, central Italy.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 The comparison between the results of the two
Null Low Middle High approaches, carried out by considering four vulnerability
classes for each of the selected vulnerability index, shows that
Figure 10 Relationship between the scour depth around the piers
both allow to identify the crossing structures with high vul-
observed during the inspections, dmeas, and SVI.
nerability. The two procedures provide similar results dem-
onstrating that the approach based on SVI, more practical
1
and easier to be applied mainly when the contraction scour
% Bridges

0.9 effect is not included in the study, potentially represents a

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 SVI is used.
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Null Low Middle
Figure 11 Cumulative distribution function for IV′ , SVI′1 and SVI′2 .
bridges sample. This is a quite common condition, mainly
for old crossing bridges (Sheppard et al. 2014). Obviously,
for higher dF values, the vulnerability of an investigated pier
decreases; therefore, the results of all assumptions should be
taken into account. This source of uncertainty is avoid when
dF is known.
Conclusions
The issue of bridge piers vulnerability to scour through the
comparison of two procedures based on two different vul-
nerability indices is addressed here. The first method is based
on the assessment of the SVI as defined by Fiorentino et al.
(1999) and requires that the equilibrium contraction and
local scour at bridge piers are assessed (SVI1). The method is
here modified by including a scale factor, for taking account
of the overestimation of the scour depths provided by
empirical formulae, that has to be quantified for the selected
case study by carrying out inspection campaigns. The index
useful tool for a quick assessment of the vulnerability in large
areas allowing to verify the safety of piers foundations
respect to the undermining. In fact, SVI2 estimation requires
Iv' a relatively limited amount of input data and, hence, it is
SVI1' appealing for the engineering practice.
SVI2'
thresholds The disagreement between the two methods is really
limited with only three bridges (8% of the sample) classified
as ‘low’ vulnerable by using IV and as ‘high’ vulnerable when
dimensionless index ( Iv' and SVI')
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
The SVI approach seems to be potentially a useful tool to
High
address the activities of the institutions in charge of man-
agement and mitigation of hydraulic risk of crossing bridges.
Obviously, all the methodologies based on simple indices
and empirical formulae are affected by limitations mainly
due to steady flow condition and non-cohesive material
assumptions. However, the overestimation of scour depths
provided by these equations is taken into account through
the introduction of a scale factor, f, that represents the factor
between the maximum observed scour depth and the equi-
librium scour depth predicted by the empirical formulae and
that has to be assessed for the selected rivers through inspec-
tions campaign. If f was correct, the result of the investiga-
tion not would seem to depend on the selection of empirical
equations.
The reliability of the results for the selected case study is
tested considering the outcomes of the inspection campaign
carried out for the scale factor assessment that identifies a
high correlation between the measured scour depth and the
SVI value, with higher depths detected for piers character-
ised by ‘high’ vulnerability.
Overall, despite the limits and consequent uncertainties
affecting the procedures based on vulnerability indexes, the
presented study indicates that the method based on SVI may

JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered Institution
Institution of of Water
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
298
16 Barbetta et
Barbetta et al.
al.

be adopted by decision makers, in charge of the territory
planning and hydraulic risk management and mitigation, for
an expeditious identification of the bridges that may have
need of more attention in terms of maintenance and control.
Finally, it has to be pointed out that the outcomes of this
work do not provide a general rule for estimating in a correct
way the scour and results can refer, at present, to solely our
case study and need to be verified in other rivers context.
Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Watershed Authority of Tiber River
(ABT) for providing the water level data for different return
periods and the geometry of the bridges used for the analysis
(PAI project, 2002). The writers also wish to thank Cristiano
Corradini for his technical assistance. Finally, the two
Reviewers and the Associate Editor are gratefully acknowl-
edged for their valuable comments.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a = pier width measured transversally to the flow direction
[L]
C = constant
dC = contraction scour depth from empirical equation [L]
dF = depth of foundations [L]
dg = observed general scour depth (degradation) [L]
dL = equilibrium local scour depth from empirical equations
[L]
dLp,j = local scour around the bottom of the jth pier/
abutment [L]
dlo,j = local scour observed around the bottom of the jth pier/
abutment during inspections [L]
dm = diameter of the smallest non-transportable particle in
the streambed material at the contracted section [L]
dmeas = scour depth estimated during inspection campaign
[L]
dp = water depth at the base of the bridge pier [L]
dS = total scour depth from empirical equations [L]
dS′ = maximum observed total scour depth [L]
du = water depth upstream the bridge [L]
d50 = median grains size [L]
f = scale factor [−]
FVS = factor related to the vertical stability of the river [−]
FVV = factor quantifying the vertical vulnerability of the river
[−]
gE = weight of the eroded material for unit river bed area
[ML−2]
hr = water depth in the contracted section after that the con-
traction scour has happened [L]
hr,t=0 = water depth before the scouring [L]
IV = vulnerability index due to vertical instability [−]
IV′ = dimensionless vulnerability index due to vertical
instability [−]
ka = factor to account for the pier inclination respect to the
flow [−]
kd = sediment size factor [−]
ke = flow intensity and bed armouring factor [−]
kha = correction for the combined effects of the pier length
and the flow depth [−]
ks = pier shape factor [−]
mi = maximum score of the ith indicator [−]
nf = number of piers and abutments exposed to the flow field
[−]
pi = score of the ith indicator [−]
pk = score of the kth pier/abutment [−]
pm = mean depth bank full condition [L]
pmax = depth of the deepest graven channel [L]
Qk = height of the foundation [L]
Qrf = height of the resaw of the foundation [L]
q = Gaussian probability density function
rj = dlo,j/dLp,j [−]
rp = pmax/pm [−]
SVI = Scour Vulnerability Index [−]
SVI1 = Scour Vulnerability Index considering degradation,
local and contraction scour [−]
SVI2 = Scour Vulnerability Index considering degradation
and local scour [−]
SVI′ = dimensionless Scour Vulnerability Index [−]
TA = bridge age [T]
Thresmax = maximum vulnerability classes threshold [−]
Thresmin = maximum vulnerability classes threshold [−]
TR = return period [T]
v = mean flow velocity [LT−1]
v1 = mean threshold velocity [LT−1]
ve = vertical evolution [LT−1]
Wr = bottom width of the main channel or floodplain at the
contracted section less pier widths [L]
γ s′ = weight for unit of volume of the eroded sediments
[ML−3]
τ = mean bed shear stress [ML−1T−2];
τc = critical shear stress [ML−1T−2];
τm = mean bed shear stress for the water depth hr [ML−1T−2].
References
Ansari S.A. & Qadar A. Depth of scour around bridge piers. In:
George V. Cotroneo, Ralph R. Rumer, eds. Proceedings of
hydraulic engineering, Vol. 1. Buffalo, NY: American Society
of Civil Engineers, 1994, 51–55. August 1–5.
Ataie-Ashtiani B., Baratian-Ghorghi Z. & Beheshti A. Experi-
mental investigation of clear-water local scour of compound
piers. J Hydraul Eng 2010, 136, (6), 343–351.

© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300
Reappraisal of
of bridge
bridge piers
piersscour
scourvulnerability
vulnerability
Ballio F. Bridge vulnerability due to local and constriction erosion,
Vol. 14. Rome: Excerpta, 2000.
Ballio F., Teruzzi A. & Radice A. Constriction effects in clear-
water scour at abutments. J Hydraul Eng 2009, 135, (2), 140–
145.
Ballio F., Radice A. & Dey S. Temporal scales for live-bed scour
at abutments. J Hydraul Eng 2010, 136, (7), 395–402.
Brandimarte L., D’Odorico P. & Montanari A. A probabilistic
approach to the analysis of contraction scour. J Hydraul Res
2006, 44, (5), 654–662.
Brandimarte L., Paron P. & Di Baldassarre G. Bridge scour: a
review of processes, measurements and estimates. Environ
Eng Manage J 2012, 11, (5), 975–989.
Breusers H.N.C. & Raudkivi A.J. Scouring. In: A.A. Balkema, ed.
IAHR hydraulic structures design manual. Rotterdam: The
Netherlands, 1991.
Coleman S.E. Clearwater local scour at complex piers. J Hydraul
Eng 2005, 131, (4), 330–334.
Deng L. & Cai C.S. Bridge scour: prediction, modeling, moni-
toring and countermeasures. Pract Period Struct Des Constr
2010, 15, 125–134.
Ettema R., Constantinescu G. & Melville B. (2011), Evaluation
of Bridge Scour Research: Pier Scour Processes and Predic-
tions, NCHRP Web-only document 175. Available at http://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w175.pdf.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Revisions to the
National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). McLean, VA:
Federal Highway Administration, 1988. Technical Advisory T
5140.21.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Evaluating scour at
bridge piers, 5th ed. U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, 2012. Publication No.
FHWA-HIF-12-003.
Federico F., Silvagni G. & Volpi F. Scour vulnerability of river
bridge piers. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2003, 129, (10), 890–
899. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:10(890).
Fiorentino M., Oliveto G. & Raimondo M.A. Analisi
semplificata della vulnerabilità idraulica degli attraversamenti
fluviali. In: U. Maione & A. Brath, eds. ‘L’ingegneria
naturalistica nella sistemazione dei corsi d’acqua’. Cosenza:
Editoriale BIOS, 1999, 333–362. Atti del corso di aggiorna-
mento, 5-9 October 1998.
Franzetti S. & Ballio F. (1997) Sulla vulnerabilità idraulica dei
ponti per erosione localizzata. Corso di aggiornamento
‘Moderni criteri di sistemazione degli alvei fluviali’, La difesa
idraulica di territori fortemente antropizzati, ed. Bios (in
Italian).
Froehlich D.C. Analysis of onsite measurements of scour at
piers. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Hydraulic
Engineering. Colorado: ASCE, 1988, 534–539.
Gessler J. Self-stabilizing tendencies of alluvial channels.
J Waterways Harbors Div, ASCE, 1970, 96, (WW2), 235–249.
Gill M.A. Erosion of sand beds around spur dikes. ASCE J
Hydraul Div 1972, 98, (HY9), 1587–1602.
JJ Flood
Flood Risk
Risk Management
Management••
10(2015)
(2017)••–••
283–300 © 2014
© 2014 TheThe Chartered
Chartered
Institution of of Water
299
17
Gill M.A. Bed erosion in rectangular long contraction. ASCE J
Hydraul Div 1981, 107, (HY3), 273–284.
Graf W.H. Fluvial hydraulics. Chichester: Wiley, 1998.
Hamill L. Bridge hydraulics. London: E&FN Spon, 1999.
Hong J.H., Goyal M.K., Chiew Y.M. & Chua L.H.C. Predicting
time-dependent pier scour depth with support vector regres-
sion. J Hydrol 2012, 468-469, 241–248. doi: 10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2012.08.038.
Hydraulic Research Ltd. Hydraulic aspects of bridges: assess-
ment of the risk of scour. In: Civil Engineering Department,
Handbook n° 47. Wallingford: Hydraulic Research, 1989.
Johnson P.A. Comparison of pier-scour equations using field
data. J Hydraul Eng 1995, 121, (8), 626–629.
Komura S. Equilibrium depth of scour in long constrictions.
ASCE J Hydraul Div 1966, 92, (HY5), 17–37.
Kothyari U.C. & Kumar A. Temporal variation of scour around
circular bridge piers. ISH J Hydraul Eng 2010, 16, 35–48. doi:
10.1080/09715010.2010.10515014; Taylor & Francis, No. 3
SP-1.
Kothyari U.C. & Kumar A. Temporal variation of scour around
circular uniform and compound bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng,
ASCE 2012, 138, (11), 945–957.
Kothyari U.C. & Ranga Raju K.G. Scour around spur dikes
and bridge abutments. J Hydraul Res 2001, 39, (4),
367–374.
Landers M.N., Sterling Jones J. & Trent R.E. ‘Hydraulic aspects
of bridges: assessment of the risk of scour’ Proceedings of the
ASCE National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering,
Buffalo, USA, 1994, Vol. 2, 41–45.
Laursen E.M. Scour at bridge crossings. In: Iowa Institute of
Hydraulic Research, ed. Bulletin 8, Iowa highway research
board. Ames, IA: 1958.
Laursen E.M. Scour at bridge crossings. ASCE Trans 1962, 127,
(Pt I), 41–45.
Laursen E.M. An analysis of relief bridge scour. ASCE J Hydraul
Div 1963, 89, (HY3), 93–118.
Lim S.Y. Clear water scour in long contractions. In: Proceeding
Institution of Civil Engineering – Water, Maritime and Energy,
Vol. 101. London, UK: Institution of Civil Engineers, 1993,
93–98.
Lim S.Y. Equilibrium clear-water scour around an abutment.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 1997, 123, (3), 237–243.
Liu H.K., Chang F.M. & Skinner M.M. (1961) Effect of bridge
constriction on scour and backwater. CER60HKL22, Colo-
rado State University, Fort Collins Colorado.
Meadowcroft I.C. & Whitbread J.E. Assessment and monitoring
of bridges for scour. In: Second International Conference on
Bridge Management, ed. Hydraulic Research Ltd Wallingford
Publication n° 77. Guildford, UK: Hydraulic Research Ltd
Wallingford Publication, 1993, 18–21.
Melville B.W. Local scour at bridge abutments. J Hydraul Res
1992, 118, (4), 615–631.
Melville B.W. Pier and abutment scour: integrated approach.
J Hydraul Eng, ASCE 1997, 123, (2), 125–136.
Institution
Water andand EnvironmentalManagement
Environmental Management(CIWEM)
(CIWEM) and
and John
John Wiley
Wiley &
& Sons
Sons Ltd
Ltd
300
18
Melville B.W. & Chiew Y.M. Time scale for local scour at bridge
piers. J Hydraul Eng 1999, 125, (1), 59–65.
Melville B.W. & Coleman S.E. Bridge scour. Colorado: Water
Resources Publications, 2000.
Melville B.W. & Sutherland A.J. Design method for local scour
at bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng 1988, 10, (1210), 1210–1226.
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1988)114:10(1210).
Morris J.L. & Pagan-Ortiz J.E. Bridge scour evaluation program
in the United States. In: S. Francisco & A. Theme, eds.
Proceeding of the 27th IAHR Congress. NY: ASCE, 1997, 110–
115.
Muzzammil M. & Gangadhariah T. The mean characteristics of
horseshoe vortex at a cylindrical pier. J Hydraul Res 2003, 41,
(3), 285–297.
Pagliara S. & Carnacina I. Temporal scour evolution at bridge
piers: effect of wood debris roughness and porosity.
J Hydraul Res 2010, 48, (1), 3–13. doi: 10.1080/
00221680903568592.
Parola A.C., Hagerty D.J., Mueller D.S., Melville B.W., Parker G.
& Usher J.S. The need of research on scour at bridge cross-
ing. In: S. Francisco & A. Theme, eds. Proceeding of the 27th
IAHR Congress. NY: ASCE, 1997, 124–129.
Rhodes J. & Trent R. An evaluation of highway flood damage
statistics. In: Hydraulic Engineering: Saving a Threatened
Resource – In Search of Solutions, ed. Proceeding of Hydraulic
Engineering. Baltimore, MA: ASCE, 1992, 1082–1087.
Richardson E.V. & Davis S.R. Evaluating scour at bridges, 3rd ed.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995.
HEC-18, Federal Highway Administration.
Richardson E.V. & Davis S.R. Evaluating scour at bridges, 4th ed.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2001.
Rep. FHWA-NHI 01-001, HEC No. 18.
Salim M. & Jones J.S. (1996) Scour around exposed pile foun-
dations, Proceed. ASCE North America and Water Environ-
mental Conference, Anaheim, California.
Shen H.W., Schneider V.R. & Karaki S. Local scour around
bridge piers. J Hydraul Div, ASCE 1969, 95, (6), 1919–1940.
Sheppard D.M., Melville B. & Demir H. Evaluation of existing
equations for local scour at bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng 2014,
140, (1), 14–23.
© 2014
© 2014 The
The Chartered
CharteredInstitution
InstitutionofofWater
Waterand
andEnvironmental
EnvironmentalManagement
Management(CIWEM) andand
(CIWEM) John Wiley
Barbetta et
Barbetta et al.
al.
Smith D.W. Bridge failures. In: Proceeding Institutions of Civil
Engineering. London: ICE Publishing, 1976, 367–382. n. 60.
Straub L.G. Effect of channel contraction works upon regime of
movable bed streams. In: Transactions of the 15th annual
meeting. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union,
1934, 454–463.
Tartaglia V. & Caporali E. Interaction between rivers and
bridges in Tuscany (Italy). In: Copernicus Publications, ed.
European Geophysical Society 2003, Vol. 5. Nice (France):
European Geosciences Union, 2003, 13151.
Tartaglia V., Caporali E. & Becchi I. Vulnerabilità idraulica degli
attraversamenti ferroviari di corsi d’acqua in Toscana. In:
CNR-GNDCI, ed. Proceeding of the 28th Conference of
Hydraulics and Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 3. Cosenza:
Editoriale BIOS, 2002, 235–246.
Toth E. & Brandimarte L. Prediction of local scour depth at
bridge piers underclear-water and live-bed conditions: com-
parison of literature formulae and artificial neural networks.
J Hydroinform 2011, 13, (4), 812–824.
USACE. HEC-RAS river analysis system, hydraulic reference
manual. Davis, CA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydro-
logic Engineering Center, 2010.
Webby M.G. General scour at a contraction. Bridg Des Res
Semin, Natl Roads Boards, N.A. RRU Bulletin 1984, 73, 109–
118.
Yeo W.K. (1998) Field investigation of bridge scours in Korea.
3rd International Conference on Hydroscience and Engineer-
ing ICHE, Cottbus, 31 August-3 September.
Yoon Y.N. & Lee J.S. Estimation of scour depth at bridges and
comparative analysis between estimated and measured scour
depth. In: Advances in Hydroscience and Engineering, ed.
Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Hydro-Science
and Engineering. Cottbus, Berlin: Germany, 1998.
Young G.K. & Pallavicini M. Scour prediction models at bridge
abutment. In: S. Francisco, ed. Proceeding of Hydraulic Engi-
neering National Conference, Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: ASCE,
1993, 755–760.
Zarrati A., Nazariha M. & Mashahir M. Reduction of local
scour in the vicinity of bridge pier groups using collars and
riprap. J Hydraul Eng 2006, 132, (2), 154–162.
John & Sons
Wiley Ltd Ltd
& Sons J Flood
J Flood RiskRisk Management
Management •• (2015)
10 (2017) ••–••
283–300