See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309615500

Influence of riverbed degradation on bridge safety

Conference Paper · November 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 546

3 authors:

Gordon Gilja Neven Kuspilić

University of Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Zagreb
74 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Damir Bekic
University of Zagreb
62 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wavelet transform View project

Sustainable sediment management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gordon Gilja on 02 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1/10

Influence of riverbed degradation on bridge safety

Congress of Croatian Builders 2012

Gordon Gilja1, Neven Kuspilić1 & Damir Bekić1

1University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Fra Andrije Kačića Miošića 26, HR-10000 Zagreb

Abstract
We are evidencing continuous change in natural watercourses morphology, especially anthropogenic
induced erosion. Rate of these changes sometimes exceeds maximum expected values which in turn
causes problems on bridge sites. Existing bridges with piers on caisson foundations in riverbed which
are presently fully functional as parts of transport infrastructure are particularly endangered by afore-
mentioned changes. According to data collected through own research safety of Croatian bridges is
endangered with following scour related problems: (1) riverbed erosion below footing bottom; and (2)
impairment of steel caisson body which exposes caisson filling to flow field. These problems are
evident worldwide, with numerous examples of structures affected by riverbed erosion. This paper
analyzes domestic and foreign examples of bridge instabilities caused by riverbed degradation on
which Faculty of Civil Engineering (University of Zagreb) was consulted. Overview of morphological
changes in riverbed of Croatian and Irish watercourses with bridges is given and potential dangers
following problem neglecting are emphasized.

Key words: Bridge safety, riverbed erosion, scour, stability, case study

Utjecaj degradacije korita na sigurnost mostova

Sabor hrvatskih graditelja 2012

Sažetak
Svjedoci smo stalnih promjena geometrije korita prirodnih vodotoka, naročito produbljenja uglavnom
uzrokovanih antropogenim djelovanjima. Razmjeri tih promjena koji puta prelaze očekivane veličine
što stvara probleme na lokacijama izgrađenih mostova. Stupovi u vodotocima doprinose lokalnom
narušavanju stabilnosti korita te stabilnosti samoga mosta. Postojeći mostovi sa stupovima u koritu
koji su temeljeni na kesonima, a i danas su u funkciji kao dio prometne infrastrukture, naročito su
ugroženi spomenutim promjenama korita. Sigurnost određenih mostova ugrožena je zbog: (1)
degradacije korita do razine dna temeljne stope i (2) oštećenja čelične oplate kesona čime se ispuna
kesona od zidanog materijala izlaže direktnom djelovanju toka vode. Navedena dva problema uočena
su i na globalnoj razini, te postoji niz primjera u praksi o problemima koje je izazvao proces
produbljivanja korita. U ovom radu prikazani su domaći i inozemni primjeri narušavanja stabilnosti
mostova analizirani od strane Građevinskog fakulteta u Zagrebu. Dan je pregled promjena u koritu na
nizu mostova u Hrvatskoj i Irskoj te se ukazuje na potencijalne opasnosti u slučaju zanemarivanja toga
problema.

Ključne riječi: Sigurnost mostova, erozija korita, podlokavanje, stabilnost, primjeri iz prakse

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 2/10

1 Introduction

Riverbed stability strongly depends on sediment regime. Riverbed instability is a natural phenomenon,
resulting from degradation and aggradation processes induced by bedload sediment transport. It can
develop gradually over time and rapidly during flood events [1]. If natural equilibrium of sediment
transport is disrupted, riverbed degradation occurs leading to riverbank undermining; or riverbed
aggradation leading to displacement of main flow or even entire channel. Rivers with high bedload
yield are more suspect to erosion and stream instability. This phenomenon occurs both in sand-bed
and gravel bed rivers.

Structures positioned in river channels locally constrict natural channel flow profile, induce backwater
effect and disrupt flow streamlines. Streamlines near structures are lengthened and concentrated in
proximity of structure, resulting in greater velocity and unit discharge as well as shear stress.
Therefore, flow conditions around structures and presence of turbulence allow development of more
intense riverbed erosion. Structures have been designed in such a way that water loading doesn't
result in damage, however their stability might be affected by riverbed erosion. Erosion represents
channel degradation under shear stress induced by flow of water and can undermine foundations of
structures located in river channel. Depth of eroded riverbed compared to its natural level is called
scour depth and in alluvial channels scouring appears mostly around structures. Types of erosion on
river reaches over which bridges are spanned are: (a) general scour, (b) contraction scour and (c)
local scour.

Development of general scour doesn't depend on bridge positioning; it is rather consequence of

riverbed degradation under geomorphological processes induced by hydrometeorological background
or anthropogenic impacts on watershed. In respect to origin general scour can be short-term or long-
term. Short-term general scour develops during flood events or between two shortly spaced flood
waves. Long-term general scour develops over significantly longer time period, several years and
over, and encompasses progressive riverbed degradation and lateral bank migration.

Unlike general scour, contraction and local scour are directly influenced by bridge positioning in river
channel. Contraction scour occurs over a whole cross-section as a result of the increased velocities
and bed shear stresses arising from narrowing of the channel by a constriction such as a bridge. The
first major issue when considering scour is the distinction between clear-water scour and live-bed
scour. If the upstream shear stress is less than the threshold value, the bed material upstream of the
bridge is at rest. This is referred to as the clear-water condition because the approach flow is clear and
does not transport sediment into bridge profile. Live-bed scour occurs where the upstream shear
stress is greater than the threshold value and the bed material upstream of the crossing is moving.
This means that the approach flow continuously transports sediment into a local scour hole. Criteria
used for distinction between clear-water and live-bed scour is threshold velocity for particle incipient
motion vgr. If vgr is greater than mean flow velocity v live-bed scour conditions can be anticipated, while
for clear-water scour conditions mean flow velocity v must be greater than vcr.

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 3/10

Local scouring of riverbed around bridge piers develops scour hole under locally accelerated flow and
vortices formed around structures. With increasing size of the scour hole vortices are deteriorating in
size until equilibrium scour depth is achieved, i.e. when material is transported into the scour hole at
the same rate at which it is transported out. Once equilibrium state us achieved, scour hole stops
developing and remains unchanged until flow parameters change drastically. Focus of state-of-the-art
research on local scour has been on determination of scouring around piers, mostly because
numerous bridges are affected by scour and have even collapsed due to its development.

2 Bridge hydraulics

Analysis of bridge hydraulics is essential when proposed bridge design interacts with river flow, either
by piers in main channel or road embankment on overbanks. Bridge constriction in channels usually
causes afflux which results in increase in backwater level well above the normal level. Increase in flow
velocity through bridge opening if often sufficient enough to cause erosion of riverbed [3]. Hydraulic
design of bridge elements can invoke flooding upstream of the bridge or intensify water elevation
during high flows. Water loading on exposed bridge elements under flood conditions is most likely to
cause damage to the stability of the bridge. Therefore, design of hydraulically smooth structure and
accurate calculation of its backwater effect is of utmost importance for structures spanning over rivers.

3 Bridge failure mechanisms

Riverbed erosion can be present in every possible mode of bridge failure and therefore flood is
perceived as most common cause of bridge collapses even when immediate cause is separate type of
failure, as water pressure on deck or floating debris build-up [1]. The data shows that during period
from 1940 to 2004, in order of importance, natural hazard, impact and overloading are the primary
causes of in-service bridge collapse together accounting for 82% of recorded failures [4]. The biggest
number of failures by far are caused by bridge hydraulics, around 60% [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
Overview of bridge failure modes from New York State DOT database on bridge failures is shown in
following table.

Table 1. Overview of bridge failure mechanisms [7].

Failure type Number of failures Percentage
Hydraulics 1027 58%
Collision 224 13%
Overload 220 12%
Fire 52 3%
Earthquake 19 1%
Deterioration 116 7%
Other 111 6%
Total 1769 100%

Hydraulic-related causes of bridge failure are riverbed erosion around bridge piers and abutments and
floating debris build-up. A study by the US Federal Highway Administration in 1973 concluded that of
383 bridge failures, 25% involved pier damage whereas 72% were due to abutment damage. A more

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 4/10

extensive study in 1978 showed that scour at bridge piers was just as significant as scour at the
abutments [3]. Research for 31 case studies of bridge scour damage having occurred in New Zealand
conducted by Melville and Coleman has also confirmed this presumption, with following percentages
of bridge failure modes [1]:
 pier failure (42%);
 erosion of the approach or abutment (26%);
 general degradation (13%);
 debris flows or aggradation (19%).

Riverbed erosion is dynamical long-term process, but can advance significantly during floods. Effects
of isolated flood event superimposed on already ongoing riverbed degradation can abruptly undermine
riverbed under pier footing and invoke loss of structural integrity of the bridge. One flood event in river
reach can cause several instantaneous failures of bridges spanning over it, especially if they have
smaller spans [5], [11], [12]. In 1985, in Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, 73 bridges were
destroyed by flooding, including scour. During the floods in spring 1987, 17 bridges in New York and
New England were damaged or destroyed by scour [3].

Most common cause of increased riverbed erosion during floods is contraction of flow profile in bridge
openings, mostly due to construction of road embankments on overbanks. As a result of contraction,
flow velocity is higher through bridge opening than threshold velocity for particle incipient motion vgr
and scour around piers and abutments develops. Culverts and one span bridges are more prone to
scouring as they present obstacle to natural flow, as well as older bridges with insufficient spans. In
August 1952, the catastrophic flood at Lynmouth damaged or destroyed 28 bridges, the openings
being too small for flood flows. Flood was triggered by torrential rain (229 mm) in a 14-hour period –
one of the 3 biggest rainfalls ever recorded in the UK. Limited historical dataset of available data and
inevitable climatic change makes determination of design flood for certain return period highly
unreliable. It has been shown that severe floods have higher frequency of occurrence then expected.
If design data is unreliable for areas with moderate climate, then in areas with extreme climate
unpredictable hydrological events, like typhoons, can be expected. When typhoon Fran hit Kyushu in
Japan in 1976, giving 1.95m of rainfall, a record at that time, the result was 233 bridges washed away.
The evidence suggests that there were three principal factors involved, either singly or in combination:
an inadequately sized opening, scour, and the accumulation of flood debris [1], [3], [13].

4 Case studies in Croatia and Ireland

Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb has been investigating several bridge failures
resulting from scour in Croatia and Ireland. For each mode of bridge failure due to scour case study
has been conducted and results are presented in following section.

4.1. Bridges affected by general scour

Most important bridge that failed due to riverbed scour in Croatia is railway bridge „Jakuševac“,built in
1968, that carries railroad Velika Gorica – Sesvete over Sava River near Mičevec. On May 30 th 2009
at 22:30 hours bridge lost its load-bearing capacity while freight train was passing over it, which in turn

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 5/10

resulted in deformation of deck slab. Riverbed degradation in their upper course, i.e. like Sava River
near Jakuševac, is natural event. Nevertheless, rate of riverbed degradation is influenced by human
activities. Sava River riverbed degradation rate is affected by: (1) Smaller sediment inflow from
upstream reach due to construction of dams and reservoirs; (2) Increase in shear stress due to
increase on river slope resulting from shortening of river length by river training measures and
constraining overbank flow during high flows by construction of levees; (3) extraction of gravel from
riverbed. Ongoing general erosion lowered riverbed for 5 m compared to its elevation in time of bridge
construction. Construction of bridge piers in the channel triggered local scour, which in turn has further
eroded riverbed near piers by additional 5 m (Fig. 1). Total scour depth ultimately amounted to
clearance of bearing soil under pier foundations and bridge stability was affected. In moment of bridge
failure water elevation of Sava River was very high, as was discharge and flow velocity. These high
hydraulic loadings, coupled with static and dynamic loading from passing train, led to bridge failure
through tilting of the pier into the scour hole [16], [17], [18], [19].

Figure 1. Influence of general and local scour on Sava River profile at Jakuševac bridge during 20-year
period.

Second example of general scour shows bridge at which highest flow area was deflected towards left
bank (Fig. 2). Riverbed was locally deepened next to the left pier, and flow area in general was
reduced. Comparison of collected bathymetric data with historic data shows that significant
morphological changes took place in bridge vicinity. Main channel flow shifted from passing between
piers to passing between left bank and left pier. Morphodynamic analysis shows that during mean flow
conditions riverbed material is in motion, indicating that general erosion is constantly present on this
river reach.

Figure 2. River cross-section at bridge profile.

Results from hydraulic model describe hydraulic flow parameters for mean flow conditions which result
in mean flow velocity v = 1.88 m/s that is higher than critical velocity for particle incipient motion, vcr =
1.47 m/s. For current hydraulic regime further riverbed erosion is expected and scour development
around pier S1. Location of pier S2 near convex bank is favorable for its stability and it is not currently

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 6/10

endangered by local scour, but general scour development could impact its stability as well in long
term. Ongoing general erosion lowered riverbed near bridge pier to elevation 119 m a.s.l., which is 6
m lower than top of pier foundation (125 m a.s.l.). Unfavorable pier positioning and skew angle are
having negative impact on riverbed erosion and scour hole development.

4.2. Bridges affected by cotraction scour

The following bridge has 5 piers in main channel, with stone weir constructed in 3 bridge openings,
obstructing the flow and channeling it only through on bridge opening during mean flow conditions.
Due to concentration of flow, riverbed downstream of bridge profile is eroded compared to upstream,
unconstricted channel. Riverbed bathymetry is given on figure 3 where location of stone weir is visible,
as well as riverbed erosion.

Figure 3. Bathymetric survey of riverbed in bridge vicinity (flow from left to right).

In natural conditions riverbed elevation would be around 75 m a.s.l., as currently is on river reach
further downstream and can be read from wider bathymetric survey data. Flow contraction through
bridge profile accelerated flow next to left bank bridge profile and immediately downstream. Flow
acceleration is accompanied by intense turbulence. Energy dissipation is disabled near the bridge
piers where flow pattern is disturbed and therefore flow dissipation occurs in riverbed downstream,
unprotected by rockfill. Bathymetric survey shows that local increase in flow velocity initiated
development of deflected scour hole with bottom at 68 m a.s.l. Another problem induced by rockfill is
flow overtopping over weir crest during high flows. This results in hydraulic jump formation on
downstream weir slope. Energy dissipation in hydraulic jump and resulting turbulence cause scour
hole development behind weir. Complex flow pattern in bridge vicinity make precise determination of
scour development stage difficult.

The following bridge has 2 piers located in riverbed around which scour countermeasures have been
installed. Current elevation of scour countermeasures at both piers is 102 m a.s.l. and spreads out in
radius of 3 m away from piers (Fig. 4). Installation of scour protection significantly constricted flow
profile at the bridge and riverbed was eroded.

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 7/10

Figure 4. Riverbed bathymetry in bridge vicinity (flow from left to right).

Scour countermeasures have stabilized the riverbed in pier vicinity where turbulence occurs and flow
energy is dissipated downstream where no scour countermeasures exist. Piers are positioned close to
the banks and therefore installed scour protection obstructs flow behind the piers, channelling it
between the piers where scour hole has developed. Riverbed bathymetry shows that scour hole
extents from the piers downstream, with bottom on 94 m a.s.l. Scour hole depth from natural riverbed
is approx. 7 m, with top length of 65 m and width of 25 m. Scour hole dimensions suggest that erosion
potential of both piers has superponed in one scour hole.

Figure 5. Digital Terrain Model of Malahide weir.

A 180 m twelve span Malahide viaduct railway bridge crosses the 1.7 km wide Broadmeadow Estuary
north of the town of Malahide. A tidal estuary, with a relatively narrow opening for a viaduct due to
construction of railroad embankments, meant that as the tide rose and fell, large volumes of water
were travelling through the viaduct both ways and flow was constantly changing regime at bridge weir,
from subcritical to supercritical [18], [19], [20]. This change of regime means that on both sides of weir
hydraulic jump was forming under tidal influence, which in turn resulted in scouring around the viaduct
piers. Scour holes developed on both sides of weir, at its toe, throughout its entire length and
extended 10 m below the riverbed (Fig. 5). The collapsing of the railway bridge is the result of

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 8/10

combination of two effects: partial erosion of the weir armouring over a long period, and subsequent
undermining of one of eleven bridge piers in a relatively short time period. Hydrodynamic forces
associated with high spring ebb tide flows finally washed away a 25 m wide section of the weir. This
left an opening in the weir through which an estimated peak ebb tide discharge of 100 m 3/s flowed with
water flow velocities of up to 6 m/s. At this stage, there was a potential risk of further erosion and
collapsing of the remaining bridge structure and weir.

4.3. Bridges affected by local scour

At piers of the following bridge scour countermeasures have been installed that have significantly
constricted the natural flow profile and as a result of increased velocities riverbed downstream has
been eroded. Bridge cross-section is given on figure (Fig. 6) where scour holes are clearly visible near
scour countermeasures. Natural riverbed elevation is 77 m a.s.l. Current elevation of scour
countermeasures at both piers is 78.4 m a.s.l. and spreads out in radius of 10 m away from piers.
Scour countermeasures have stabilized the riverbed in pier vicinity where turbulence occurs and flow
energy is dissipated downstream where no scour countermeasures exist. Bathymetric survey shows
that local increase in flow velocity initiated development of deflected scour holes at downstream end of
scour countermeasures for each pier. Depth of scour holes from natural riverbed is 3-4 m. These
depths are consistent with calculated local scour depth DS(LS) = 3.8 m, therefore it is concluded that for
current hydraulic conditions scour holed have reached their equilibrium depth. Although it is assumed
that scour holes have reached their final depth, of concern is their vicinity to rip-rap scour
countermeasures and its current condition. Rip-rap has begun to deteriorate on its downstream end,
with stones being rolled into the scour hole. Amount of protective rip-rap around pier S2 is significantly
smaller than for pier S1, which is consequence of higher flow velocities as pier S2 is located next to
concave bank in river bend.

Figure 6. Riverbed bathymetry in bridge vicinity (flow from left to right).

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 9/10

4.4. Bridges affected by mechanical abrasion

Flow field can have negative impacts on bridge structure other than erosion of riverbed and scour.
These impacts cause mechanical abrasion of steel caisson lining, floating debris impact or ice loading.
Underwater visual inspection reveals that foundations can be critically damaged under this kind of
loading. Especially vulnerable are caisson type pier foundations. In Croatia exist series of bridges
constructed in late 19th or early 20th century that have been built using this method, popular at that
time. Many of these bridges have been reconstructed to this day, but foundation have been mostly left
intact. In the meantime, advanced morphological evolution of rivers in most cases caused riverbed
degradation and exposed steel caisson lining to flow. Flow impact causes corrosion and deterioration
of steel caisson body, and falling out of masonry stone elements that are used as fill. Greatest
damage occurs on mean flow level, where most alternating events of wetting and drying are most
frequent. Masonry blocks are unstable because erosion causes washout of the mortar in joints
between them. Following figure shows example of damage where stone masonry block is missing and
void behind it is 80 cm deep, while average void is 50 – 60 cm deep. Dimension of stone masonry
blocks are 50 x 35 x 35 cm.

Figure 7. Downstream face –stone masonry blocks are missing and steel caisson lining is destroyed.

5 Conclusion

Morphological evolution of alluvial river channel is natural process. This phenomenon is sometimes
overlooked during bridge design, which can lead to bridge failure or even bridge collapse. Despite
well-known fact that most common bridge failure mechanism during peacetime is water flow, it is not
given enough attention. Current know-how on scour development gives us appropriate tools for
reliable prediction bridge hydraulics influence on riverbed. Engineering evaluation can be based on
results of numerical/physical modelling developed on high quality input data. Stability of riverbed
depends on series of variables that are difficult to measure and control. Therefore, monitoring of
temporal changes of riverbed is very important for analysis of morphological evolution. Current
techniques and tools enable fast and accurate data collection of riverbed changes, whether they are
bathymetric data or hydrologic and hydraulic flow parameters. When surveyed data is combined with
numerical modelling support, morphodynamical changes in riverbed can be reliably estimated and
their particular impact on bridge safety evaluated.

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054
 10/10

References
[1] Melville BW, Coleman SE. Bridge Scour. Colorado, USA: Water Resources Publications, LLC; 2000.
[2] Maddison B. Scour failure of bridges. Proceedings of the Institution Civil Engineers - Forensic Engineering
2012;165:39-52 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/feng.2012.165.1.39.
[3] Hamill L. Bridge Hydraulics. London, UK: E & FN Spon; 1999.
[4] Imhof D. Risk assessment of existing bridge structures. Cambridge: University of Cambridge; 2004, p. 216.
[5] Smith DW. Bridge failures. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1; 1976, p. 367–82.
[6] Brice JC. Assessment of channel stability at bridge sites. Second Bridge Engineering Conference, Vol 2.
Washington DC: Transportation Research Board/National Research Council; 1984, p. 163-71.
[7] WordPress. Bridges 202 - More Depth on the Failure Statistics. 2012.
[8] Thomas M. An Amazing Bridge Collapse Statistic. 2007.
[9] Khan MA. State-of-the-Art Bridge and Highway Rehabilitation and Repair Methods: McGraw-Hill Prof
Med/Tech; 2010.
[10] Brice JC. Assessment of channel stability at bridge sites. Transportation Research Record 950, Second
Bridge Engineering Conference, Vol 2. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board/National Research
Council; 1984, p. 163-71.
[11] Criswell H. East Devon Floods 10th-11th July, 1968. Exeter: Report to Roads Committee, Devon County
Council; 1968.
[12] George AB. Devon floods and the waterways of bridges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Part 2, 73; 1982, p. 125-34; discussion, 73, 687-92.
[13] Holford I. The Guinness Book of Weather Facts and Feats. Enfield, Middlesex: Guinness Superlatives;
1977.
[14] Watson R. Hundreds of bridges to undergo scour tests. New Civil Engineer 1990;9.
[15] RAIB. Failure of Bridge RDG1 48 (River Crane) between Whitton and Feltham 14 November 2009. 2010, p.
35.
[16] Gilja G, Kuspilić N, Bekić D. Impact of morphodynamical changes on the bridge stability: Case study of
Jakuševac bridge in Zagreb. In: Zima JMSaP, editor. Current events in hydraulic engineering. Gdansk,
Poland: Gdansk University of Technology; 2011, p. 112-22.
[17] Gilja G, Oskoruš D, Kuspilić N. Erosion of the Sava riverbed in Croatia and its foreseeable consequences.
BALWOIS Conference on Water Observation and Information System for Decision Support. Ohrid; 2010, p.
123-4.
[18] Kuspilić N, Bekić D, Gilja G. Praćenje morfodinamičkih promjena korita vodotoka u zoni stupova mostova.
Prometnice - nove tehnologije i materijali. Zagreb: Građevinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu; 2010, p. 69-
112.
[19] Kuspilić N, Bekić D, McKeogh E, Gilja G. Monitoring of river channel morphodynamical changes in the zone
of bridge piers. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure (CETRA
2010). Opatija; 2010.
[20] Bekić D, Kerin I. Rekonstrukcija željezničkih mostova-iskustva iz Irske. In: Lakušić S, editor. Građenje
prometne infrastrukture. Zagreb: Građevinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu; 2012, p. 119-56.

CONGRESS OF CROATIAN BUILDERS 2012, November 15-17, 2012., Cavtat

SABOR2012_054

View publication stats