Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Progressive bridge collapse analysis under both scour and floods by

coupling simulation in structural and hydraulic fields. Part I:
Numerical solver
Rongzhao Zhang a, Wen Xiong a, *, Xiaolong Ma a, C.S. Cai a, b
a
Department of Bridge Engineering, School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing, 211189, China
b
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik Hydraulic bridge failures have become the greatest threat to the structural safety of bridges. Combined numerical
simulations are rare due to the high computational cost of structural nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA)
Keywords: and computing fluid dynamics (CFD). Structural analysis and design for extreme hydrological hazards are
Bridge engineering challenging due to complicated hydrodynamics-soil-structure interactions. This paper proposes a numerical
Hydraulic bridge failures
solver to simulate hydraulic bridge failures through coupling simulations. The solver applies hydrodynamic load
Reinforced concrete
and updates scour boundary in a structural model by utilizing a scatter linear interpolation method based on the
Coupling simulation
Data interaction Delaunay triangulation algorithm in each loop solution. Then, a simplified sediment stress model considering
Progressive collapse external forces in the vertical plane and a complex model with an arbitrary slope in three-dimensional co­
Foundation scour ordinates are introduced into the basic incipient motion model of sediment, resulting in a more realistic stress
state of sediment. Finally, the numerical solver is adapted to provide an accessible method to investigate the
influence of such a modified model on the scour process and structure response. Meanwhile, the validation of this
numerical solver is conducted in a companion paper based on the comparison between the numerical result of
the hybrid model and the field data.

1. Introduction are challenging because of multiple influencing factors, including hy­

In recent years, hydraulic bridge failures occurred frequently,
resulting in huge economic losses and casualties. According to Ward­
hana and Hadipriono (2003), 503 bridges collapsed in the United States
from 1989 to 2000, 55% of which were caused by hydraulic hazards.
Cook et al. (2014) and Nowak and Collins (2012) found that the annual
failure frequency of bridges was 1/5000, with hydraulic failures ac­
counting for the major proportion. Fig. 1 shows several instances of
hydraulic bridge failures during the flood discharge of a barrier lake in
the Sichuan province of China in 2018. It has been observed that hy­
drological factors such as scour and floods have gradually become the
principal causes of bridge failures. Furthermore, according to Flint et al.
(2017), the incidence of hydraulic bridge failures would keep growing
due to climate effects. Therefore, the research of bridges under hydraulic
loads is of great significance to provide more references and guidance for
bridge design and maintenance.
The analysis and design of bridge structures under hydrawlic loads
drodynamic effects and structural responses. Generally speaking, nu­
merical simulations of hydraulic bridge failures involve nonlinear finite
element analysis (NLFEA) for the structural model and computing fluid
dynamic (CFD) analysis for the fluid model. This structure and fluid field
combination certainly increases the complexity of the numerical solu­
tion and has attracted extensive research interest.
Nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) has been widely utilized
to simulate structural failures, which is essential to describe the me­
chanical behavior of materials up to fracture. The model setup, espe­
cially the integral algorithm and element type, is heavily associated with
the computational time cost (Tamura et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). As
NLFEA is generally accompanied by large deformation, it requires a finer
grid size to converge the calculation and achieve higher accuracy. The
preferred method for numerical simulations of structural failures is
typically a refined simulation that can reflect the local details of the
failure. However, bridge collapses tend to be global rather than local,
which requires more elements and a larger model scale. A common

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wxiong12@hotmail.com, wxiong@seu.edu.cn (W. Xiong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.113849
Received 17 November 2022; Received in revised form 27 January 2023; Accepted 30 January 2023
Available online 17 February 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. Failed bridges during the flood discharge of a barrier lake in Sichuan province of China in 2018 (images by Wen Xiong).
approach is to reduce the number of elements or adopt high-precision
computational theories (Tamura et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). The
scale of models and the size of grids are still limited by the solution ef­
ficiency (Scattarreggia et al., 2022).
Hydraulic bridge failure analyses are associated with large-scale
structural fracture simulations, whose accuracy was generally sacri­
ficed to ensure the efficiency of the solution when balancing the
computational cost and precision. For more refined stress analysis or
failure prediction, large-scale models tend to be too expensive and have
been more frequently applied for comparing and validating failure
modes (Scattarreggia et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2015). In summary, the
failure simulation of large-scale structures such as bridge progressive
collapse is a relatively comprehensive and difficult project due to the
need of balancing many factors such as computing resources, solution
efficiency, result accuracy, etc. Once coupled with CFD analysis, a hy­
draulic bridge failure analysis even becomes a more complicated
problem.
The hydrological effect of bridges includes two aspects: hydrody­
namic load and scour morphology evolution. The former includes
buoyancy, drag forces, and impact forces that exacerbates the risk of
hydraulic bridge failure (Tubaldi et al., 2022), and the latter has a more
critical impact on the hydraulic damage of inland bridges (Wardhana
and Hadipriono, 2003; Flint et al., 2017; Diaz et al., 2009; Deng and Cai,
2010). Due to the complexity of the N–S equations and sediment
transport model, a local scour simulation is also a complex project
requiring significant solution time. Moreover, the numerical simulation
of scour requires visualization techniques that generally involve dy­
namic mesh (Xiong et al., 2016) and volume of fluid (VOF) algorithms
(Ghaderi and Abbasi, 2019), increasing the complexity of solution.
It should be noted that the methods of dynamic mesh, the VOF al­
gorithms, and even most of the previous scour numerical simulations are
derived from the Euler method. Comparatively, the general structural
failure simulation is based on the Lagrange method. Therefore, hy­
draulic bridge failure simulation is a multi-field coupled problem. In
addition to the challenge of updating boundary conditions across
different physical fields, scour simulation can not provide enough ac­
curacy compared with experimental data (Deng and Cai, 2010). Besides,
the precision of numerical results depends on the scale of grids, while
grids of the CFD models are generally finer than those of the structural
models. Instead of combining hydrodynamic calculation and structural
response analysis to simulate the overall process of bridge collapse,
previous studies of hydraulic bridge failures are generally carried out by
simplifying the model.
Zhuang et al. (Zhuang Wu et al., 2020) used an implicit static beam
bridge model to simulate flood resistance, whose hydrological effects
were obtained through empirical formulas and applied as a static load
on the model. Scozzese et al. (2019) and Tubaldi et al. (2018) investi­
gated the problem of flood-induced scour on masonry arch bridges, in
which the scour progression was simplified as an inverted pyramidal
form with a gradual increase in proportion, sacrificing the accuracy of
2
Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849
scour boundary development. Zampieri et al. (2017) studied the struc­
tural behavior of existing masonry bridges subject to local scour that was
simulated by a predefined configuration of incremental scour profile. It
can be concluded that most studies reduce the progression of scour to a
predefined boundary in the structure. However, scour is the most critical
hydraulic action on bridges as it weakens the stability of foundation
through erosion of the buried depth. In other words, the morphology of
scour hole has a greater influence on the failure modes of hydraulic
bridge collapses. Furthermore, the structural vibration may affect the
stress state in surrounding sediment and further feed back into the scour
development in the fluid field. Most of the previous models reviewed
above are unsuitable for real-time analysis of hydraulic bridge failures.
Therefore, coupling calculations are necessary for the numerical simu­
lation of hydraulic bridge failures.
To overcome the problems of interaction across different fields and
redundant solving time, this paper presents a numerical solver based on
a data interface for coupled simulation of bridge progressive collapses
considering hydrodynamics-soil-structure interactions. The developed
data interface can automatically import the boundary matrices from the
target model, export it to another model after modification, complete
the boundary transition across different physical fields, and update it
with time. The difficulties of the multi-fields simulation are overcome
through the interaction of boundary conditions, and the hydrological
effects during structural collapse are comprehensively considered in
structural analysis. In addition, the coupled simulation based on the data
interface allows for parallel computation. The data interface exchanges
the data matrices between the structural and fluid models at constant
time intervals, while at the other time, the structural and fluid models
are executed separately and do not affect each other. Therefore, the
solutions of structural and fluid models can be performed separately and
simultaneously. The time cost depends on the longer solution module,
which significantly reduces the computational resources.
Following the accessibility of fluid-structure interaction (FSI) in
progressive bridge collapse simulations, the foundation effect or foun­
dation load (the same in the following content), which is referred as the
state of stress induced by the forces transmitted to the soil by the sub­
structure through the foundation, should not be simplified, because it
might exacerbate the bridge collapse through undercutting the foun­
dation (Wang and Liu, 2021; Zhang Dai et al., 2021). However, the stress
changes of soil due to the change in bed elevation caused by the scour
erosion have not been considered in this paper, as this action hardly
affects the sediment at the location of the water-sand interface where
scour occurs. Therefore, a preliminary investigation for the modification
of critical bed stress considering the soil-pier interaction and further for
the influence on bridge failure is carried out. A simplified sediment
stress model considering the external force in the vertical plane is
deduced. Then a more complex condition for arbitrary slope in 3D co­
ordinates is considered in the basic incipient motion model of sediment.
The numerical solver proposed above is then adapted to provide an
accessible method to investigate the influence of such interaction effect
R. Zhang et al.
on scour process and structures responses.
2. A numerical solver for hydraulic bridge failures considering
hydrodynamics-soil-structure interaction
2.1. Brief description of coupling algorithms of numerical solver based on
data interface
Due to the features of the data interface, the NLFEA and CFD model
can be solved simultaneously, which can greatly accelerate the solution.
As illustrated at the top of Fig. 2, two types of data matrices from the
fluid model, including scour boundary and flow force, are converted
across fields based on the interface. The data matrices are extracted from
the CFD model through the data interface at the beginning of a time step
(i.e., one interaction period, the following is consistent). After conver­
sion in the interface, the structural model will update the boundary
conditions based on the data matrices and restart calculation to take into
account the hydrodynamic effects. At the end of the structural solution,
the current time step is completed, and the next time step follows. The
solver is terminated once the set total solution time is reached. The
coupled numerical solver has been developed by utilizing NLFEA soft­
ware LS-DYNA for continuous collapse analysis, CFD software Flow-3D
for fluid analysis, and Matlab to compile the code of the data interface. It
is worth noting that this numerical solver is not restricted to these two
numerical simulation packages but is equally feasible for other packages
of the same type.
2.2. Structural failure considering hydrodynamic effect
2.2.1. Hydrodynamic solution and numerical simulation of scour
The hydrodynamic effects solution includes the flow force calcula­
tion and scour evolution simulation. Turbulence effects are governed by
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of solver I: hydraulic bridge failures considering hydrodynamics-soil-structure interaction.
3
Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849
the Navier-Stokes equations (Tang et al., 2018), which give two forms of
conservation equations for the mass (Eq. (1)) and momentum (Eq. (2))
as:
1 dρ
+ ∇⋅u = 0 (1)
ρ dt
du 1
= − ∇p + υ∇2 u + g (2)
dt ρ
where u denotes the velocity vector, ρ is the fluid density, and p is the
pressure. g represents the external force including gravity, and υ is the
kinematic viscosity. The momentum equation (Eq. (2)) indicates that the
movement of particles is jointly affected by the pressure gradient ∇p, the
viscosity force υ∇2 u, and the external force g.
In this hybrid model, two models are applied to simulate the local
scour, i.e., the sediment incipient motion model and the transport
model, which will be introduced in 3.2 detailedly.
2.2.2. Application of the hydrodynamic loads
Due to the grid difference between the fluid and structural models
(Fig. 3), the hydrodynamic effects can not be directly applied to the
progressive collapse model of the structure. In the data interface, the
scatter linear interpolation method is utilized to complete the data
conversion of hydrodynamic loads across fields. In Flow 3D, the resul­
tant force of the flow is obtained from the summation of the pressure-
area product for each cell and is equally distributed over the 4 grid
points of the surface. For a grid point associated with several surfaces,
the resultant forces obtained from each surface are treated according to
the vector superimposition method. Finally, the hydrodynamic loads of
each grid point are extracted from the model as the “nodal force”, which
contains three-dimensional coordinates (X, Y, Z) and the resultant force
R. Zhang et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of grid difference across fields.
(f). Based on this dataset, a scatter linear interpolation function can be
fitted to obtain the hydrodynamic loads of the target grid with co­
ordinates (x, y, z) in the structural model. Moreover, as illustrated in
Fig. 3, the grid in the fluid field is generally finer, ensuring sufficient
sample grids to guarantee the accuracy of the fitting function. Thus, the
reasonable division of sample grids significantly influences the fitting
accuracy of the target grids in the structural model. In this study, the
Delaunay triangulation is used to process the dataset, ensuring that a
circle/sphere circumscribing any of its triangles/tetrahedra contains no
other scatter point of the dataset, and therefore no other triangle/tet­
rahedron (Amidror, 2002).
Subsequently, for each grid in the structural field, the triangle/tet­
rahedron containing them is searched for, which is constructed by fluid
grids and divided based on the Delaunay triangulation. As illustrated in
Fig. 4, the P1, P2, P3, and P4 are derived from the fluid field and P from
the structural field. The linear relation of position between the P with
P1, P2, P3, and P4 is provided as:
⎧ springs are used to represent the soil reactions, including the lateral
⎪
⎪
⎨
x = a1 x1 + a2 x2 + a3 x3 + a4 x4
y = a1 y1 + a2 y2 + a3 y3 + a4 y4
(3)
⎪
⎪
⎩
z = a1 z1 + a2 z2 + a3 z3 + a4 z4
a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 = 1
Then, the hydrodynamic load of P is derived from the corresponding
values of P1, P2, P3, and P4 as:
(4)
′
F = a1 F1 + a2 F2 + a3 F3 + a4 F4
Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (4) can deduce the hydrodynamic load
on a grid at a specific moment in the structural model as:
Fig. 4. Delaunay triangulation algorithm (Volume).
4
Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849
V1 V2 V3 V4
(5)
′
F = F1 + F2 + F3 + F4
V V V V
where the V1, V2, V3, and V4 denote the volume of PP2P3P4, PP1P3P4,
PP1P2P4, and PP1P2P3, respectively. V refers to the total volume of
P1P2P3P4.
2.2.3. Application of the scour boundary
In the hybrid model, scour boundary in the structural model is
updated at the beginning of a time step. Scour development in the CFD
model during this period is ignored due to the short time. Similar to the
hydrodynamic loads, the scour data includes the two-dimensional co­
ordinates (X, Y) of the riverbed and the scour depth (Z). After the
triangulation of the scour data, each structural grid point can be
assigned to the corresponding triangle, as shown in Fig. 5.
where P (x,y) denotes the grid from the structural model and Pi (xi,yi)
the grids of scour data from the CFD model. There is a similar linear
relationship between the P and P1, P2, and P3 as hydrodynamic loads,
and the scour depth of a grid at a certain moment in the structural model
is given as:
A1 A2 A3
z= z1 + z2 + z3 (6)
A A A
where A1 , A2 , and A3 represents the area of ΔPP2 P3 , ΔPP1 P3 , and
ΔPP1 P2 , respectively, and A is the total area of ΔP1 P2 P3 .
Due to the fact that the scour-induced instability of the foundation
requires a large order of magnitudes of scour depth, the scour depth
variation between each boundary update in the coupled calculation does
not require a fine scale. According to relevant studies (Tubaldi et al.,
2018, 2022; Scozzese et al., 2019; Zampieri et al., 2017), the spring
models are widely utilized in the structural analysis of collapse,
considering the balance between the accuracy and efficiency of nu­
merical simulation, and have a strong influence in describing the
response of pile foundation support structures (Rovithis et al., 2009).
The Winkler model is widely used in the coupled calculations of hy­
draulic bridge failures to simulate soil-structure interactions. Soil
force (p) against the lateral displacement (y) (p-y springs). The
nonlinear stiffness of p-y springs is determined based on a p-y curve
based on API code (American Petroleum Institute, 2000) as:
Pu = min{(C1 × H + C2 × D) × γ × H, C3 × D × γ × H}
[ ]
A × Pu × tanh
k×H
×y ×d×
π (7)
A × Pu 2
P=
n
where A denotes the factor to account for cyclic static loading condi­
tions. C1, C2, and C3 represent the coefficients for functions of the
R. Zhang et al. Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849

Fig. 5. Delaunay triangulation algorithm (Plane).

internal friction angle of soils, d the vertical spacing of soil springs be­
tween two layers (m), and D the average pile diameter from surface to
depth (m). H refers to the depth of soils (m), n the number of p-y springs
in one layer, p the lateral force against lateral displacement y (kN), and
Pu the ultimate lateral resistance (force/unit axial length) (kN/m). k
refers to the initial modulus of subgrade reaction (kN/m3) as a function
of the internal friction angle of soils, y the lateral displacement (m), and
γ the effective soil weight (kN/m3).
The bearing force of the soil under the foundation can be also
simplified as springs, whose stiffness is obtained by API code as:
( both sides and at the bottom when the scour undercut the foundation;
′ ) S
K d = N q p0 (8)
Δhmi
where Nq denotes the coefficient of bearing capacity, and p0 = γH
′
design of bridges for water resistance. However, for the scour simula­
tion, the traditional numerical model is categorized as a fluid analysis,
where the foundation is simplified as the fixed boundary (Xiong et al.,
2016; Ghaderi and Abbasi, 2019), and the fluid-structure interaction
(FSI) is ignored. Following the accessibility of FSI in progressive bridge
collapse simulations, this foundation effect, i.e., foundation load of
soil-pier interaction on the scour development, should not be simplified,
as it may exacerbate the bridge collapse through undercutting the
foundation. The foundation effect on the sediment is illustrated in Fig. 6.
For the shallow foundation, the extrusion force is applied to the soil on
for the pile foundation, due to the asymmetric scour, the sediment on
both sides is squeezed by the pile. Since the incipient motion of sediment
is established based on the force balance in a critical state of particles,

this foundation effect may further affect the critical velocity of sediment
referring to the effective pressure of soil. S represents the area of the
scour due to the change of their stress states.
foundation bottom, Δh the ultimate vertical displacement (m) of the pile
Wang et al. (Wang et al., 2021) verified the horizontal stress differ­
against the ultimate vertical force, and mi the number of springs in the
ence in the soil around the pier caused by the asymmetry scour between
bottom. Finally, the evolution of the scour boundary with time in the
upstream and downstream through the numerical model. The difference
structural field is performed by updating the stiffness of springs based on
will be exacerbated by the increase of maximum scour depth, as the
the scour data.
deeper asymmetry scour leads to more instability of the pier. Zhang et al.
(Zhang Dai et al., 2021) defined an asymmetric scour in the calculation
3. Modification of critical bed stress model considering soil-
of the laterally loaded offshore monopole foundations. According to
structure interaction
their study, the soil stress will be changed after scour due to the pier
load, which affects the lateral soil resistance and further aggravates the
3.1. Necessity of modified critical bed stress model
head deflection of the pier. It can be concluded that the soil-pier inter­
action affects both sides in the field environment. This effect is reflected
Scour is the principal threat to the stability of the foundation
in the soil stress variation, which ultimately threatens foundation safety.
(Argyroudis and Mitoulis, 2021), which further contributes to the great
However, most previous studies ignore the soil-pier interaction/FSI
majority of hydraulic bridge failures (Wardhana and Hadipriono, 2003).
in the incipient motion model of the sediment. The foundation is
Therefore, the accuracy of scouring calculation is significant to the
considered as a fixed boundary, and the FSI effect is ignored in scour

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of foundation effect on the sediment: (a) Shallow foundation; (b)Pile foundation.

5
R. Zhang et al.
Suspended-load
Flow transport
FL
Sediment FD
Bed-load
particle Fc transport
W River bed
Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of sediment transport.
simulations. The bed stress generated by the drag force of flow is
generally considered to be the principal source of force on sediment in
the scour (Briaud, 2015; Briaud Chen et al., 2005; Wang Shao et al.,
2018). The Shield criterion proposed by Soulsby (1997a) is widely uti­
lized to estimate the critical stress of sediment. Several modified bed
stress models were proposed based on Soulsby (1997a) when consid­
ering the different influence factors. Soulsby (1997b) investigated the
slope effect of gravity for sediment particles in the vertical plane and
considered the slope in the critical bed stress model. Chen et al. (Chen
Ma et al., 2010) deduced the sediment critical bed stress on an arbitrary
slope under 3D conditions, which is more suitable for steep slopes and
avoids the problem of singularity that arises in the numerical calculation
of sediment transport rate. Wang et al. (Wang Shao et al., 2018) further
considered the flow lift force on an arbitrary slope under 3D conditions
in a critical bed stress model, which is consistent with the experiment
result.
From the above research review, the incipient motion of sediment
was established based on the force balance in a critical state of particles,
including gravity, friction force, drag force, and lift force. In other
words, each stress factor exerted on the sediment particles might in­
fluence its initial state and further scour development. However, the
variation of soil stress with the position after scour due to the foundation
loading mentioned above was rarely discussed in previous studies of
sediment bed stress models. The effect of soil-pier interaction on sedi­
ment and structures is inaccessible in the analysis of hydraulic bridge
failures. The change in scour may exacerbate or postpone the undercut
of the bridge foundation and finally accelerate or delay the failure
process. Moreover, most research on scour simulations was based on the
numerical integration of empirical formulas to accomplish the sediment
movement and transport and finally presented the elevation change of
the riverbed by the forms of grid positions or volume fractions (Deng and
Cai, 2010; Sharafati Haghbin et al., 2021). For instance, Xiong et al.
(2016) numerically simulated the complicated three-dimensional scour
behavior around bridge piers with the dynamic mesh update technique.
Ghaderi and Abbasi (2019) numerically investigated the effectiveness of
airfoil-shaped piers with and without a collar in reducing local scour
depth by utilizing a FLOW-3D model based on the volume of fluid (VOF)
algorithms. Therefore, the accuracy of the empirical formula has the
most significant influence on the result of numerical simulations, i.e.,
considering the effect of soil-pier interaction on the incipient motion of
sediment is necessary for progressive bridge collapse analysis under
both scour and floods.
3.2. Standard model of sediment incipient motion and transport
In most research, two models are typically applied to simulate the
local scour, i.e., the sediment incipient motion model (or critical bed
stress model) and the transport model. As illustrated in Fig. 7, at the
critical moment of its incipient motion, the particle is in static equilib­
rium under the effect of the drag force (FD) and friction force (Fc) on the
horizontal bed. After the movement of the particle, it is transformed into
the bed load. Afterward, since the lift force (FL) increases with the
6
Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849
Fig. 8. Illustration of the force on sediment particle in the vertical plane.
increase of the velocity, the bed load is transformed into the suspended
load once the lift force is greater than the gravity (W). Finally, when
gravity is greater, the process is reversed.
The drag force of sediment particles is derived from the bed-stress or
shear stress of the river bed. The criterion for the incipient motion of
sediment particles, i.e., the critical bed stress, is obtained from the
empirical formula proposed by Soulsby (1997a) as:
τ
θi = (9)
d50(ρs − ρ)g
where τ denotes the shear stress of the river bed, d50 is the median size of
sediment, ρs is the density of sediment, ρ is the density of water, and g
represents the ground acceleration.
After particle initiation, the Van Rijn (Van Rijn, 1984) empirical
equation is generally used to calculate the sediment transport rate of
unit width and volume. With the velocity of the particles being changed,
the sediment would be transformed between the bed load and suspended
load. According to Soulsby (1997b) and Mastbergen and Van den Berg
(Mastbergen and Van den Berg, 2003), a criterion of velocity is generally
used to estimate the threshold value.
3.3. Modified critical bed-shear stress model in the vertical plane
As analyzed before, the soil stress caused by foundational load could
be integrated into the bed stress τ. Due to the single direction of initial
particle motion, the bed shear stress model was first simplified in a
vertical plane to obtain the reduced form. In this study, the sediment
particle is assumed to have uniform diameters, i.e., sphere. The motion
mode is rolling, and the friction forces are ignored. The schematic dia­
gram of sediment force is presented in Fig. 8, where D denotes the me­
dian diameter of sediment, and K1, K2, and K3 refer to the coefficients for
the force arm. O represents the point of contact, and W′ , FL, and F’D are
vertical force, horizontal force, and lift force, respectively.
The relationship between the forces ccan be expressed as:
{ ′
FD = F D + Δ 1
(10)
′
W = W + Δ3
where W refers to the gravity of sediment excluding buoyancy, FD the
drag force of flow, Δ1 the horizontal component of the foundation load,
and Δ3 the vertical component of the foundation load. FD, W and FL are
R. Zhang et al. Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849

expressed as (Wang and Liu, 2021; Chu Tran et al., 2021): to the assumption of uniform particle size, it can be deduced that a3 = 6π,
⎧
⎪ 2
K1/K3 = √3 3
, and the denominator of the target bed stress equation can be
⎪
⎪ FD = CD a1 D2 γ u0
⎪
⎪ expressed as:
⎪
⎪ 2g
⎪
⎨ ( √̅̅ )
√̅̅̅
u2 (11) π
K3 Δ 3 − K1 Δ 1 4 σ z − 3 τ D
3 2
3
⎪
⎪
⎪ FL = CL a2 D2 γ 0
2g = = 1.5σ z − τ (17)
⎪
⎪ K3 a 3 D 2 π
D 2 2
⎪
⎪ 6
⎪
⎩ W = a D3 (γ − γ)
3 s
where σz denotes the vertical resultant stress of the foundation load, and
where CD and CL denote the coefficient for the drag and lift force of flow,
τ the horizontal resultant shear stress of the foundation load.
Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (16), the final form of the modified/
and a1, a2, and a3 are the coefficients for the contact area of particles
amended Shield coefficient considering the foundation load can be ob­
with flow. γ represents the gravity per unit volume of water, γ s the
tained as:
gravity per unit volume of sediment, and u0 the velocity of flow.
According to the rolling moment balance at point O, the static τl
(18)
′
θi = √̅̅
equilibrium equation can be deduced as: D(γs − γ) + 1.5σ z − 2
3
τ
(12) Compared to Eq. (9), the foundation load is considered in the de­
′ ′
K1 DFD + K2 DFL = K3 DW
nominator of the modified Shield coefficient equation. The effect of
Substituting Eq. (10) and Eq. (11) into Eq. (12) can furtherly simplify
foundation load on sediment motion depends on the difference between
the equation as:
the vertical and horizontal resultant stress. In other words, the scour will
γu20 be intensified due to the reduction of the critical Shield coefficient when
D2 ⋅ [K1 CD a1 + K2 CL a2 ] = K3 a3 (γs − γ)D3 + K3 Δ3 − K1 Δ1 (13)
2g the vertical resultant stress is higher. In comparison, the opposite is true
when the horizontal stress is higher.
The velocity square can be expressed as:
Finally, the finite element analysis of the soil-structure interaction
( )
K3 a3 (γs − γ)D3 + K3 Δ3 − K1 Δ1 2g system can be modeled by the spring elements based on the Winker
u20 = (14) model, whose stiffness of p-y springs can be determined based on a p-y
γ[K1 CD a1 + K2 CL a2 ]D2
curve from API code (American Petroleum Institute, 2000). This
Substituting η2 = K1 CD 2K 3 a3
a1 +K2 CL a2
into Eq. (14), the flow velocity u0 can modeling strategy was utilized considering the balance between the
be obtained according to the logarithmic distribution velocity formula accuracy and efficiency of coupled calculation according to relevant
(Einstein, 1942; Einstein and El-Samni, 1949). Eq. (14) can be expressed studies (Tubaldi et al., 2018, 2022; Scozzese et al., 2019; Zampieri et al.,
alternatively as: 2017), and its accuracy was also verified by Rovithis et al. (2009). In the
[ ] present study, the bearing reactions of each spring element are extracted
gD(γs − γ) g(K3 Δ3 − K1 Δ1 )
η2 + 2
= [5.75U∗ lg(30.2αx)]2 (15) as the concentrated force of the foundational load, and the soil stress
γ γK3 a3 D
variation caused by the foundational load is calculated using vector
superposition according to the Mindlin formula (Mindlin, 1936) as:

{
P (1 − 2μ)(z − c) 3x3 (z − c) (1 − 2μ)[3(z − c) − 4μ(z + c)] 3(3 − 4μ)x2 (z − c) − 6c(z + c)[(1 − 2μ)z − 2μc] 30cx2 z(z + c)
σx = − + − + +
8π (1 − μ) R31 R51 R32 R52 R72
( )} (19)
4(1 − μ)(1 − 2μ) x2 x2
+ 1− − 2
R2 (R2 + z + c) R2 (R2 + z + c) R2
{
P (1 − 2μ)(z − c) 3y3 (z − c) (1 − 2μ)[3(z − c) − 4μ(z + c)] 3(3 − 4μ)y2 (z − c) − 6c(z + c)[(1 − 2μ)z − 2μc] 30cy2 z(z + c)
σy = − + − + +
8π(1 − μ) R31 R51 R32 R52 R72
( (20)
2 2 )}
4(1 − μ)(1 − 2μ) y y
+ 1− −
R2 (R2 + z + c) R2 (R2 + z + c) R22

where U∗ denotes the friction velocity which can be replaced by: U∗ =

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ghJ, J is the water surface gradient, α = y/Ks , y the depth to the river
bed surface, and Ks the roughness of the river bed, and x refers to the P
{
(1 − 2μ)(z − c) 3(z − c) (1 − 2μ)(z − c)
coefficient for flow layers distribution. σz = − + −
8π(1 − μ) R31 R51 R32
Subsequently, the local shear stress of the current can be derived } (21)
from U∗ as τl = ρU∗ 2 (Soulsby, 1997b), and Eq. (15) finally can be 3(3 − 4μ)z(z + c)2 − 3z(z + c)(5z − c) 30cz(z + c)3
+ +
expressed as: R52 R72
[ ]2
η τl {
=[ ] (16) Py (1 − 2μ) (1 − 2μ) 3(z − c)2
5.75 lg(30.2αx) D(γs − γ) + K3KΔ33a− 3KD12Δ1 τyz = − +
8π(1 − μ) R31 R32 R51
} (22)
The left side of the equal mark is a value associated with the sediment 3(3 − 4μ)z(z + c) − 3c(3z + c)(5z − c) 30cz(z + c)2
+ +
properties and flow depth and is equivalent to the Shield coefficient. R52 R72
Therefore, the equation of the target bed stress considering the addi­
tional foundation load is on the right side of the equal mark. According

7
R. Zhang et al. Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849

the slope and each coordinate axis, uf the direction of flow, and FD ,
and FL the drag force and lift force of flow, respectively. G denotes the
gravity of the sediment particle with a value of W, and W t is the
component force on the slope of G; Δx, Δy, and Δz refer to the compo­
nent force of foundation loads in each coordinate axis. Fe represents the
resultant force of sediment within the slope, and Fc the static friction
force caused by Fe . The flow is assumed to be within the slope surface,
and the ratio of drag force to lift force is constant in this model, i.e. FFDL = η
(Dey, 2003).
The vector of flow direction is expressed as Eq. (25):
→ → → →
f = wx ⋅i + wy ⋅j + wz ⋅k (25)

where wi refers to the weight of each coordinate axis with

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
w2x + w2y + w2z = 1. The drag force can be expressed as:

̅→ → → → →
FD = F ⋅ f = Fwx ⋅i + Fwy ⋅j + Fwz ⋅k (26)

Subsequently, the lift force can be obtained, whose direction is

assumed to be normal to the slope:
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ ̅→⃒ ⃒ ̅→⃒
⃒ FL ⃒ = η⃒ FD ⃒ = ηF (27)
Fig. 9. Simplified model of sediment incipient motion on the arbitrary slope.
Since the α, β, and γ are the angles between the slope and each co­
{ ordinate axis, respectively, the vector normal to slope should be:
Px (1 − 2μ) (1 − 2μ) 3(z − c)2
τzx = − + 1
8π(1 − μ) R31 R32 R51 →
n = (tan α, tan β, 1) (28)
} (23) l
3(3 − 4μ)z(z + c) − 3c(3z + c) 30cz(z + c)2
+ + √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
R52 R72 where l = 1 + tan2 α + tan2 β = (cos γ)− 1 . Thus, the component force
of gravity within the slope (W t ) can be expressed as:
{
Pxy 3(z − c) 3(3 − 4μ)(z − c)
τxy = + − ̅→ ̅→ = W tan α→ W → W( )→
8π(1 − μ) R51 R52 Wt = W sin γ⋅e wt ⋅i + 2 tan β ⋅j + 2 1 − l 2 ⋅k
(24) l 2 l l (29)
( ) } → → ( )→
4(1 − μ)(1 − 2μ) 1 1 30cz(z + c) = W cos2 γ tan α ⋅i + W cos2 γ tan β ⋅j + W cos2 γ − 1 ⋅k
2
+ + 7
R2 (R2 + z + c) R2 + z + c R2 R2
̅→
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ where ̅→
ewt refers to the unit vector of Wt . The foundation loads are
where R1 and R2 are given alternatively as: R1 = x2 + y2 + (z − c)2 , expressed as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
→ → → →
R2 = x2 + y2 + (z + c)2 . c refers to the depth of force, and μ the P = Δx ⋅i + Δy ⋅j + Δz ⋅k (30)
Poisson ratio. The resultant stress can be obtained by integrating the
discrete force in the same direction. where Δx, Δy, andΔz denote the component force of the foundation load
on each coordinate axis, respectively. Assuming the direction of lift force
is normal to the slope, the friction force of the particle can be deduced as:
3.4. Modified critical bed-shear stress model on the arbitrary slope ⃒ ⃒ ( )
⃒ ̅→⃒ →
⃒ Fc ⃒ = W cos γ − ηF − P ⋅ → n tan φ (31)
Although the previous bed stress model has a concise form and is
suitable for programming, it is based on several assumptions and lacks → →
P • n is a positive value as the direction of the foundation load is in the
sufficient accuracy for complicated boundaries such as arbitrary slopes. negative range of the Z-axis. The resultant force within the slope (Fe ) can
Thus, it is necessary to deduce the modified critical bed-shear stress be expressed as:
model on an arbitrary slope.
̅→ ̅→ ̅→ →
Several studies have investigated the incipient motion of sediment on Fe = FD + Wt + P (32)
the spatial slope. Chen et al. (Chen Ma et al., 2010) assumed that par­
When a particle reaches the critical condition of motion, the force
ticles slide on an arbitrary slope and are in static equilibrium under the
balance requires:
effects of the drag force of flow, friction, and gravity. Wang et al. (Wang
Shao et al., 2018) utilized the same motion mode of sediment, but the lift { ̅→ ̅→
force was considered in the static equilibrium. In this section, a new bed ⃒Fe +⃒ Fc⃒ = 0⃒ (33)
⃒ ̅→⃒2 ⃒ ̅→⃒2
⃒ Fe ⃒ = ⃒ Fc ⃒
stress model is established based on previous works, and the founda­
tional compressive force is taken into account, as shown in Fig. 9. Substituting Eq. (25)–(32) into Eq. (33) for simplification leads to:
where l, and t are the orthogonal boundary vectors of the slope. n
denotes the normal vector of the slope. i, j, and k refer to the direction
vectors of the coordinate axis, α, β, and γ represents the angle between

8
R. Zhang et al. Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of solver II: scour simulation considering the soil-pier interaction in the sediment bed stress model.

( ) [( → ) →→ ]
1 − η2 tan2 φ F 2 + 2F W cos γ − P ⋅→n η tan2 φ + P ⋅ f − W⋅wz =
[
→ (→ )2 ] ( → →2 ) (34)
tan2 φ W 2 cos2 γ − 2 P ⋅→
n W cos γ + P ⋅→
n − W 2 sin2 γ + 2 P ⋅ ̅→
ewt W sin γ + P

Applying the following symbols to simplify Eq. (34):

⎧ →
⎨ f1 = W cos γ − P ⋅→n
→→ (35)
⎩ f2 = →
P ⋅ f − W⋅wz
f3 = P + W sin γ ̅→
ewt

and applying an additional algebraic expression to make the left half of

Eq. (34) a perfect square expression gives:
[( ) ]2 ( )2 ( )
1 − η2 tan2 φ F + η tan2 φf1 + f2 = f1 + η tan2 φf2 + 1 − η2 tan4 φ f2 2
( )
+ 1 − η2 tan2 φ f3 2
(36)
The value of drag force (F) can be obtained according to Eq. (36). In
addition, when the slope is horizontal, the original static equilibrium
can be derived as:
(W − FL )tan φ = FD = Fo (37)
The original critical shear force (Fo ) for the incipient motion of Fig. 11. Illustration of hybrid model based on the numerical solver.

9
R. Zhang et al.
sediment should be:
tan φ
Fo = W (38)
1 + tan φ⋅η
In the end, the effect of slope and foundation load can be considered
as a ratio (κ) to the original critical Shield coefficient (θcbr,0 ) of sediment
as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
F τc
′
θcbr
′
(f1 + η tan2 φf2 )2 + (1 − η2 tan4 φ)f2 2 + (1 − η2 tan2 φ)f3 2 − η tan2 φf1 − f2
κ= = = =
Fo τc,0 θcbr,0 (1 − η tan φ)W
4. Adaption of numerical solver considering the soil-pier
interaction in the sediment bed stress model
In difference from the solver presented in Figs. 2 and 10 illustrates
the improved solver on the basic of solver in Fig. 2 that can consider the
soil-pier interaction in the sediment bed stress model. This solver is
expected to provide a new method to allow the outcome of the structural
analysis to feed back into the scour development. As illustrated in
Fig. 10, the data matrices of scour boundary and flow force are extracted
from the CFD model through the data interface at the beginning of a time
step. Meanwhile, the solution of the CFD model is paused. After con­
version in the interface, the structural model updates the boundary
conditions based on the data matrices and restarts the calculation to take
into account the hydrodynamic effects. At the end of the structural so­
lution, the soil stress caused by the foundation load is transferred from
the structural model to the CFD model and is considered in the particle
incipient motion based on Eq. (18). After modification of the particle
incipient motion, the solution of the CFD model is restarted. At the end
of the CFD solution, one time step of coupling simulation is completed,
and the next time step follows. The solver is terminated once reaching
the set total solution time. The accuracy of interpolation methods has
been verified in the companion paper and not repeated in this section.
Fig. 11 presents a sample hybrid model based on the numerical
solver containing a structural FE and a CFD model. The scour pier is
modeled in both the structural and fluid models. In the FE model, spring
elements based on the Winkler model are utilized to simulate the pier-
soil interaction surrounding the pier. Two circular arrows with
different colors refers to the data coupling between the structural FE
model and the CFD model. In the numerical solver I (Fig. 2), only the
hydrodynamic effects (red arrow) are transferred from the CFD model to
the structural FE model. In contrast, in the numerical solver II (Fig. 10),
the foundation effect (the blue arrow) from the structural FE model is
additionally considered in the critical bed stress model of sediment in
the CFD model.
5. Conclusion
This paper proposes a numerical solver for hydraulic bridge failure
simulations through data interaction. It has the following advantages.
1. The solver utilizes the scatter linear interpolation method based on
the Delaunay triangulation algorithm for boundary conversion
across the fields. The difficulties of the multi-fields simulation are
overcome through the interaction of boundary conditions, and the
hydrological effects during structural collapse can be comprehen­
sively considered in structural analysis.
2. The coupled simulation based on the data interface allows for par­
allel solving, i.e., the solutions of structural and fluid models, which
can be performed separately and simultaneously. Therefore, the time
10
Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849
cost depends on the longer solution module, which significantly re­
duces the computational resources.
3. A simplified sediment stress model considering the external force in
the vertical plane and a more complex model with an arbitrary slope
in 3D coordinates is introduced in the basic incipient motion model
of sediment. It results in a more realistic stress state of the sediment.
4. The adaption of the numerical solver provides an accessible method
to investigate the influence of the soil-pier interaction effect on scour
(39)
simulation and further feedback of scour variation on the structure.
However, several limitations still exist in the present study. This
paper provides a method for the quantification of scour changes in fluid
analysis, considering the foundation effect based on the modified critical
bed-shear stress model in the vertical plane. Meanwhile, a preliminary
investigation on the scour simulation considering the foundation effect
under more complex conditions has been conducted based on the deri­
vation of the modified critical bed-shear stress model on the arbitrary
slope. More future works should be devoted to the implementation of the
scour simulation considering the foundation effect through the modified
critical bed-shear stress model on the arbitrary slope. Besides, the hybrid
model in this paper is less efficient than the two sub-models and still
requires larger computational resources.
The validation of this numerical solver has been conducted in a
companion paper based on the comparison between the numerical result
of the hybrid model and the field data.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Rongzhao Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Wen
Xiong: Project administration, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Re­
sources. Xiaolong Ma: Writing – review & editing. C.S. Cai: Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
The financial supports for this work from the National Natural Sci­
ence Foundation of China (Projects 52022021, 51978160) and the Key
Research and Development Program of Jiangsu Province of China
(Project BE2021089) are gratefully acknowledged. The opinions and
statements do not necessarily represent those of the sponsors.
References
American Petroleum Institute, 2000. Recommended practice for planning, designing, and
constructing fixed offshore platforms-working stress design: upstream segment. In:
API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD): Errata and Supplement 1,
December 2002. American Petroleum Institute.
R. Zhang et al.
Amidror, I., 2002. Scattered data interpolation methods for electronic imaging systems: a
survey. J. Electron. Imag. 11 (2), 157–176.
Argyroudis, S.A., Mitoulis, S.A., 2021. Vulnerability of bridges to individual and multiple
hazards-floods and earthquakes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 210.
Briaud, J.L., 2015. Scour depth at bridges: method including soil properties. ii: time rate
of scour prediction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (2).
Briaud, J., Chen, H.C., et al., 2005. SRICOS-EFA method for contraction scour in fine-
grained soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (10), 1283–1294.
Chen, X., Ma, J., et al., 2010. Sediment transport on arbitrary slopes: simplified model.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 136 (5), 311–317.
Chu, C., Tran, T.T.T., et al., 2021. Numerical analysis of free-surface flows over rubber
dams. Water 13 (9), 1271.
Cook, W., Barr, P.J., Halling, M.W., 2014. Segregation of Bridge Failure Causes and
Consequences. Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington
DC.
Deng, L., Cai, C.S., 2010. Bridge scour: prediction, modeling, monitoring, and
countermeasures. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Construct. 15 (2), 125–134.
Dey, S., 2003. Threshold of sediment motion on combined transverse and longitudinal
sloping beds. J. Hydraul. Res. 41 (4), 405–415.
Diaz, E.E.M., Moreno, F.N., Mohammadi, J., 2009. Investigation of common causes of
bridge collapse in Colombia. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Construct. 14 (4), 194–200.
Einstein, H.A., 1942. Formulas for the transportation of bed load. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ.
Eng. 107 (1), 561–577.
Einstein, H.A., El-Samni, E.A., 1949. Hydrodynamic forces on a rough wall. Rev. Mod.
Phys. 21 (3), 520.
Flint, M.M., Fringer, O., Billington, S.L., et al., 2017. Historical analysis of hydraulic
bridge collapses in the continental United States. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 23 (3),
04017005.
Ghaderi, A., Abbasi, S., 2019. CFD simulation of local scouring around airfoil-shaped
bridge piers with and without collar. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 44 (10), 216.
Mastbergen, D.R., Van den Berg, J.H., 2003. Breaching in fine sands and the generation
of sustained turbidity currents in submarine canyons. Sedimentology 50 (4),
625–637.
Mindlin, R.D., 1936. Force at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite solid. Phys.-a J.
General Appl. Phys. 7 (1), 195–202.
Nowak, A.S., Collins, K.R., 2012. Reliability of Structures. CRC press, Florida, USA.
Peng, W., Pan, R., Dai, F., 2015. Theoretic framework and finite element implementation
on progressive collapse simulation of masonry arch bridge. Math. Probl Eng. 2015,
707269.
Rovithis, E., Kirtas, E., Pitilakis, K., 2009. Experimental p-y loops for estimating seismic
soil-pile interaction. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 7, 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-009-9116-7.
Scattarreggia, N., Salomone, R., Moratti, M., et al., 2022. Collapse analysis of the multi-
span reinforced concrete arch bridge of Caprigliola, Italy. Eng. Struct. 251.
11
Ocean Engineering 273 (2023) 113849
Scozzese, F., Ragni, L., Tubaldi, E., Gara, F., 2019. Modal properties variation and
collapse assessment of masonry arch bridges under scour action. Eng. Struct. 199,
109665.
Sharafati, A., Haghbin, M., et al., 2021. The application of soft computing models and
empirical formulations for hydraulic structure scouring depth simulation: a
comprehensive review, assessment and possible future research direction. Arch.
Comput. Methods Eng. 28 (2), 423–447.
Soulsby, R.L., 1997a. Bedload transport: chapter 9. In: Dynamics of Marine Sands,
pp. 155–170.
Soulsby, R.L., 1997b. Dynamics of marine sands: a manual for practical applications.
Oceanogr. Lit. Rev. 9 (44), 947.
Tamura, K., Mori, Y., Takabatake, K., et al., 2022. Validation study on a toroidal
approximation-based capillary force model in the discrete element method
simulation. Phys. Fluid. 34 (2), 023319.
Tang, Y., Jiang, Q., Zhou, C., 2018. A Lagrangian-based SPH-DEM model for fluid-solid
interaction with free surface flow in two dimensions. Appl. Math. Model. 62,
436–460.
Tubaldi, E., Macorini, L., Izzuddin, B.A., 2018. Three-dimensional mesoscale modelling
of multi-span masonry arch bridges subjected to scour. Eng. Struct. 165, 486–500.
Tubaldi, E., White, C.J., Patelli, E., Mitoulis, S.A., De Almeida, G., Brown, J., et al., 2022.
Invited perspectives: challenges and future directions in improving bridge flood
resilience. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 22 (3), 795–812.
Van Rijn, L.C., 1984. Sediment transport, part I: bed load transport. J. Hydraul. Eng. 110
(10), 1431–1456.
Wang, S., Liu, H., 2021. Numerical and experimental analysis on the hydrodynamic
behaviors of nanoparticle agglomerates at moderate Reynolds numbers. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 60 (1), 753–761.
Wang, Z., Ma, D., Suo, T., et al., 2021. Investigation into different numerical methods in
predicting the response of aluminosilicate glass under quasi-static and impact
loading conditions. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 196, 106286.
Wang, D., Shao, S., et al., 2018. 3D ISPH erosion model for flow passing a vertical
cylinder. J. Fluid Struct. 78, 374–399.
Wang, Z., Zhou, H., et al., 2021. Simplified model of soil stress calculation under the
condition of three-dimensional asymmetrical local scour hole of pile foundation.
J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 43 (5), 45–57.
Wardhana, K., Hadipriono, F.C., 2003. Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United
States. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 17 (3), 144–150.
Xiong, W., Cai, C.S., Kong, B., et al., 2016. CFD simulations and analyses for bridge-scour
development using a dynamic-mesh updating technique. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (1),
4014121.
Zampieri, P., Zanini, M.A., Faleschini, F., Hofer, L., Pellegrino, C., 2017. Eng. Fail. Anal.
79, 371–384.
Zhang, F., Dai, G., et al., 2021. Analysis solution of the lateral load response of offshore
monopile foundations under asymmetric scour. Ocean Eng. 239.
Zhuang, Y., Wu, K., et al., 2020. Investigation on flooding-resistant performance of
integral abutment and jointless bridge. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 1520278.