Risk-Based Method for Selecting Bridge Scour

Countermeasures
Peggy A. Johnson1 and Sue L. Niezgoda2

Abstract: Bridge engineers are often faced with the task of selecting and designing effective bridge scour countermeasures. The
selection of an appropriate countermeasure is dependent on whether the problem is local scour at the pier or abutment, contraction scour
across the bed at the bridge opening, reach-wide channel degradation, or lateral channel movement. Confidence in a given countermeasure
depends on prior experience in using the measure, cost, maintenance, and the ability to detect failure. The use of countermeasures often
introduces uncertainty due to a lack of systematic testing and unknown potential for failure. In this paper, a risk-based method for ranking,
comparing, and choosing the most appropriate scour countermeasures is presented using failure modes and effects analysis and risk
priority numbers 共RPN兲. Failure modes and effects analysis incorporates uncertainty in the selection process by considering risk in terms
of the likelihood of a component failure, the consequence of failure, and the level of difficulty required to detect failure. Risk priority
numbers can provide justification for selecting a specific countermeasure and the appropriate compensating actions to be taken to prevent
failure of the countermeasure.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9429共2004兲130:2共121兲
CE Database subject headings: Risks; Scour; Bridges.

Introduction tematic decision-making process for selection based on various

There are many techniques, measures, and practices available for
countering scour at existing bridge piers and abutments. Scour
countermeasures can be categorized into three groups: armor, hy-
draulic control, and grade control. The selection of the various
countermeasures is dependent on the application and whether the
problem is local scour at the pier or abutment, contraction scour
across the bed at the bridge opening, reach-wide channel degra-
dation, or lateral channel movement or widening. The feasibility
of and confidence in each of the various countermeasures is a
function of several factors, including effectiveness, cost, mainte-
nance, and the ability to detect failure. Some countermeasures
have been systematically tested, while others may have been
laboratory tested, but not field tested. Still others are not trusted
by highway agency personnel. There is a wide range of costs
associated with the initial design and construction of the measures
as well as the maintenance costs. The ability to detect failure or
impending failure of scour countermeasures is important to assur-
ing that the bridge will be protected during high flow events.
Hydraulic Engineering Circular 23 共HEC-23兲 共Lagasse et al.
2001兲 is the Federal Highway Agency manual for scour counter-
measures. HEC-23 provides a very good summary of the uses and
applications of the countermeasures in the manual; however,
some countermeasures are not included in the manual and a sys-
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Penn State Univ.,
University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: paj6@psu.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Penn State
Univ., University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: sniezgoda@engr.psu.edu
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2004. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on February 20, 2002; approved on July 23, 2003. This paper
is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 2, Feb-
ruary 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/2004/2-121–128/$18.00.
risk factors is not provided. In this paper, we present a risk-based
method for ranking, comparing, and choosing the most appropri-
ate scour countermeasures using failure modes and effects analy-
sis 共FMEA兲 and risk priority numbers 共RPNs兲. Examples of ap-
plying the method will be developed for several scenarios at
bridges.
Bridge Scour and Scour Mitigation
Bridge scour can be categorized as: 共1兲 channel degradation, 共2兲
contraction scour, and 共3兲 local scour. Guidance on predicting
each type of scour is given in HEC-18 共Richardson and Davis
2001兲, although many other prediction methods exist in the litera-
ture. The three types of scour are typically assumed to be inde-
pendent so that the total scour at a bridge is simply the sum of the
three.
Channel degradation is typically a longer-term erosion that
would occur whether or not the bridge was in place. Degradation
is a naturally occurring process, but can be accelerated by human
activities, such as construction, channel modifications, and urban-
ization. This often causes the channel to become unstable and
incise. Most alluvial channels experience long-term degradation;
however, the engineer is typically concerned only with that which
occurs over the life of the bridge.
Contraction scour is a general lowering of the channel bed in
the vicinity of the bridge caused by contraction of the flow
through the bridge opening. Flow contraction is caused by: 共1兲
piers and abutments occupying a portion of the waterway and 共2兲
flood plain flow returning to the main channel where the bridge
approaches block the flow across the flood plain. The resulting
decrease in hydraulic area causes an increase in both the stream
velocity and bed shear stress, thus increasing sediment transport
capacity. The channel bed will continue to scour on the bed of the
waterway opening until the shear stress provided by the flow is
less than the shear stress required to move the channel bed mate-
rial.

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 121

 Local scour is an abrupt decrease in bed elevation near a pier
or abutment due to erosion of the bed material. It is caused by the
obstruction to the normal flow pattern. Local scour is a compli-
cated function of many factors, including the size and shape of
the obstruction 共pier width or abutment length兲, the orientation of
the pier or abutment, flow depth and velocity, sediment size and
gradation, and bedforms present at flood conditions.
In addition to scour processes, bridge foundations can also be
adversely affected by channel widening and lateral migration.
Both widening and lateral migration can affect the bridge foun-
dations in the flood plain or overbank area as the channel widens
or encroaches on piers with shallower foundations or abutments
set back into the flood plain. Channel instabilities can act in com-
bination with bridge scour to further undermine the safety of
bridge foundations.
The type of protection that is used at a bridge depends on the
nature of the problem. Lagasse et al. 共2001兲 provide a comparison
of a selected group of countermeasures by qualitatively describ-
ing the functional application 共i.e., local scour, contraction scour,
and channel instability兲, suitable river environment 共river type
and size, flow conditions, and physical condition兲, maintenance,
and installation experience. Clearly, the best method of protecting
the bridge against scouring forces is to span the entire floodplain
so that the flow hydraulics and sediment transport are uninter-
rupted. This also has environmental benefits, such as wildlife pas-
sage and continuity of the floodplain. For a new bridge, consid-
eration of such a structure is worthwhile; however, the cost of
replacing multiple bridges with such large, expensive bridges is
prohibitive. Thus, this section will focus on existing bridges
which are not slated for replacement. At existing bridges, the
bridge engineer can choose from one of two categories of bridge
foundation protection: 共1兲 armor the channel bed and banks or 共2兲
alter the flow alignment. These methods can also be used in com-
bination. Below we describe a selected group of these methods.
Armor
By far, the most common treatment for protecting bridges from
scour is armor, particularly riprap. Other types of armor include
precast concrete units, grout filled bags, foundation extensions,
and concrete aprons. All of these measures armor the bed or bank
material against erosive forces. They do not break up vortices or
redirect the flow. If sized, graded, and placed well, armor can be
a very effective measure for preventing scour at both piers and
abutments. However, for bridges with narrow waterway openings,
armor can cause further contraction of the waterway opening and
actually exacerbate scour. At vertical wall abutments, riprap and
other armor may be ineffective due to the steepness of the banks.
Flow Altering Devices
There are two types of flow altering devices. One type is used to
break up vortices and reduce high flow velocities, particularly
upstream of a pier. Sacrificial piles, such as sheet or cylindrical
piles, are used for this purpose. Circular shields placed around the
base of the pier have also been used as a means of breaking up the
upstream vortices. These methods have proven rather ineffective
because appropriate placement for the 100-year flood is difficult
or they may fail as shear stresses increase.
The second type of flow altering device includes measures that
realign the flow to mitigate against local and contraction scour as
well as bank widening and lateral migration. These measures in-
clude Iowa vanes, bendway weirs, guidebanks, rock vanes, and
122 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
weirs. In the following paragraphs, each of these are briefly de-
scribed.
Small isolated submerged vanes, known as Iowa vanes, have
been used for many years to deflect flows and sediment and to
control spiral flow in bends and erosion at banks. In a variety of
experimental studies, Odgaard and Kennedy 共1983兲; Odgaard and
Lee 共1984兲; and Odgaard and Mosconi 共1987兲 found that sub-
merged vanes were effective over a wide range of flow depths
from two to eight times the vane height. The theory for the design
of Iowa vanes to control flow in bends was developed and tested
by Odgaard and Wang 共1990兲 and was used to develop design
charts. The discharge was determined not to be a primary design
parameter; discharge is used only to determine velocity. Vanes are
typically constructed from sheet pile or reinforced concrete
founded on adequately deep pilings, but could also be made of
large rocks or wood with footers of adequate depth to resist ero-
sional forces. The ability of submerged 共Iowa兲 vanes to reduce
scour at bridge piers was recently tested at the Univ. of Auckland
共Lauchlan 1999兲. They found that the vanes could reduce scour at
the pier by up to 50%.
Bendway weirs are low elevation stone sills, very similar to
vanes, used to improve lateral stream stability and flow alignment
problems 共Lagassee et al. 2001兲. Bendway weirs are typically not
visible at bankfull flow and redirect flow by causing it to pass
perpendicularly over the weir. They are made from stone, tree
trunks, or grout filled bags. Lagasse et al. 共2001兲, provide design
guidelines.
Guidebanks can be used when embankments encroach on wide
flood plains. They provide a smooth transition of flow though
bridge openings, and thus, reduce turbulence and move scour
away from the abutments 共Lagasse et al. 2001兲. Guidebanks are
constructed from earthen materials, then covered with riprap to
resist erosion. The height and length of a guidebank is a function
of the design discharge. The top of the guidebank must be at least
at the elevation of the flow depth associated with the design dis-
charge 共i.e., the bridge capacity兲.
Vanes, cross vanes, and w-weirs are stream restoration struc-
tures promoted by Rosgen 共1996兲 to improve lateral stability and
flow alignment and, in the cases of cross vanes and w-weirs,
provide some grade control on degrading beds. Like bendway
weirs, these structures tend to be very effective in flow depths up
to about five times their height. They were recently tested in a
laboratory flume to assess their ability to move scour away from
pier and abutment foundations, thereby reducing scour at bridges
共Johnson et al. 2001, 2002兲. A single span bridge was modeled for
testing vanes and cross vanes at an abutment and a double span
bridge was modeled for testing w-weirs at a bridge pier. The
results showed that scour at the pier or abutment was generally
reduced on the order of 65–90%, depending on flow conditions
and the structure configuration. The scour was moved away from
the abutment or pier into the center of the channel. These struc-
tures have not yet been systematically tested in the field and were
tested in the laboratory for only two types of bridges; however,
preliminary design criteria for these structures and their appropri-
ate applications, in terms of bridge and stream types, are given in
Johnson et al. 共2001, 2002兲.
Channel Realignment
Realignment of the existing stream channel upstream from the
bridge is sometimes necessary to reduce scour and improve the
conveyance capability of the bridge waterway opening. Such
channel modifications are often followed by channel adjustments,
including bed degradation and bank erosion, resulting in migra-
tion of the channel upstream of the bridge. The erosion of channel
materials upstream frequently deposits at the downstream side of
the bridge, forming a temporary or permanent bar in the channel.
Thus, realignment is often followed by the use of scour counter-
measures described above, including armor and flow diversion
techniques.
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
There are a number of methods available for qualitatively, semi-
quantitatively, or quantitatively assessing the causes and effects of
a wide variety of factors in uncertain, complex systems and for
making decisions in light of uncertainty. These methods, includ-
ing fault tree analysis, decision trees, and FMEA, are based on
analyses of failures. A potential failure can be affiliated with a
failure cause, a failure mode, and a failure effect, although these
are sometimes very unclear and difficult to define in real-life situ-
ations 共Rao 1993兲. A failure mode is the manner in which a sys-
tem or system component may fail to meet design intent
共Bluvband and Zilberberg 1998兲. For a failure mode analysis of
any type, it is of paramount importance to first define what con-
stitutes a system failure 共Krasich 2000兲.
Failure modes and effect analysis is a qualitative procedure to
systematically identify potential component failure modes and as-
sess the effects of associated failures on the operational status of
the system 共Dushnisky and Vick 1996兲. Failure mode and effect
analysis is performed prior to design implementation so that the
risk of component or system failure can be assessed and changes
to the design implemented at low relative cost. The following are
required to execute a FMEA 共McCollin 1999兲:
• A hierarchical structure for the system illustrating all system
components,
• Failure modes of all components of the system, and
• An objective criterion for implementing corrective action 共the
most commonly used being the risk priority number兲.
Due to the hierarchical nature of composite systems, failure
modes exist at differing levels of detail or scale; therefore, analy-
sis of the system starts with failure at the lowest level of scope
and describes how the next higher level is affected.
In the past, FMEA has been used to advance the understanding
of complex electrical and mechanical systems including numer-
ous applications in nuclear safety 共e.g., McCormick 1981; Ameri-
can Nuclear Society 1983; Fullwood and Hall 1988; Henley and
Kumamoto 1992; Shimizu et al. 1993兲 and to evaluate and rank
potential problems in manufacturing processes. Formulation of
the FMEA begins with identification of the system and all of its
components 共Dushnisky and Vick 1996兲. Next, the range of pos-
sible failure modes is defined as mutually exclusive, collectively
exhaustive events. Basic sources of failure modes typically in-
clude documented case studies, laboratory experimentation, field
experience, and expert opinion. Once the failure modes are iden-
tified for each component of the system, their effects on the sys-
tem and other system components, consequences, likelihoods of
occurrence, methods of detection, and compensating provisions
共i.e., possible corrective actions兲 are listed. The system designer
subjectively chooses numeric ratings 共e.g., 1–10兲 for these crite-
ria, with the largest values associated with the most severe con-
sequence level and the highest likelihood of occurrence. By using
ratings for consequences and occurrences, in addition to a rating
for detectability 共likelihood that the failure mode will be ob-
served兲, failure modes can be prioritized to focus a greater level
of effort on higher priority failures.
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 123
The most common method of establishing prioritization
among failure modes is through the implementation of risk prior-
ity numbers. A RPN is a characteristic quantitative result from a
FMEA used to suggest the appropriate nature and extent of cor-
rective actions for failures at all levels of system scope. The RPN
is the product of the occurrence, consequence, and detectability
ratings of a given failure mode, although other factors may be
included in an advanced FMEA, such as associated cost and re-
quired resources to implement corrective actions 共Bluvband and
Zilberberg 1998兲. Even though the ratings are somewhat arbitrary
labels rather than numbers representing explicit numeric quanti-
ties, the relative values can be compared and used to prioritize
failures. Failure modes having a high relative RPN 共i.e., a high
risk兲 are assumed to have a larger impact on system failure than
those with a lower RPN.
Use of the risk priority number can be highly subjective if the
criteria for determining its value and its implication toward cor-
rective adjustments are not adequately defined prior to conducting
the FMEA. Numerical values for consequence level, occurrence
frequency, and detectability need to be established as a prelimi-
nary step to any analysis. Associating degrees of corrective action
with ranges of RPNs prior to analysis requires establishing nu-
meric values for thresholds and cutoff points to define these
ranges.
Using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to Select
Scour Countermeasures
Failure modes and effect analysis is used here to illustrate a rela-
tively simple risk-based technique for selecting scour counter-
measures. The design and implementation costs of countermea-
sures vary widely. The initial cost to design and implement a
given countermeasure is not accounted for in a FMEA. However,
budgetary constraints and project goals may dictate, to a certain
extent, which countermeasures may be considered for a given
bridge mitigation project. Thus, the selection of countermeasures
to consider in the FMEA will should be based on a preliminary
analysis of budgetary constraints, project goals, and other factors,
such as site accessibility for construction equipment and rights of
way. There are several resources available to assist in the selec-
tion of a cost-effective scour countermeasure 共Elias 1994; Stein
et al. 2000; Lagasse et al. 2001兲. Each of these references exam-
ines the cost or allocation of resources needed to design and
implement a scour countermeasure at a given bridge with a cer-
tain life expectancy.
The basic setup for the FMEA is given in Table 1. Column 1
provides a selection of scour countermeasures, described above,
as well as realignment of the channel since this technique may be
used in combination with scour countermeasures. In Column 2,
the failure modes for each countermeasure are given based on
experience, prior failures at other sites, and knowledge of channel
adjustments. This column should include common modes of fail-
ure observed for a given countermeasure. Clearly, the omission of
one or more failure modes will reduce the accuracy of the results.
However, the application of this method will at least require that
the user examine critical components and consider as many fail-
ure modes as possible. This exercise can create an awareness of
possible failures that might otherwise have been overlooked. Col-
umns 3 and 4 describe the anticipated local and system-wide ef-
fects, respectively, of the stated failure mode associated with a
specific component. Column 5 describes methods for detecting
failure based on field experience and documented case studies.
Table 1. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Example for a Selection of Scour Countermeasures
Effects on other Effects on whole Detection Compensating
Countermeasure Failure modes components system methods provisions
Riprap Slide down bank Slide into and Contracts flow Slumping of rock at Reduce bank slope;
slope disrupt function bank toe; unprotected use more angular or
of vanes, etc. upper bank smaller rock; use
granular filter
rather than
geotextile fabric
Displaced None Local erosion Rock moved Increase rock size;
downstream 共rock downstream from increase rock
undersized兲 original location gradation
Erosion beneath Sediment input Downstream Scalloping of upper Use gravel or fabric
共improper filter兲 buries other vanes, deposition, bank; bank cutting; filter beneath
etc. clogging of vacant spaces
waterway opening beneath and
between rocks

Rock vanes, w-weirs, Burial by incoming None or minimal Minimal Measure has a Reorient or
bendway weirs sediment lower profile; reposition measure;
vegetation growth decrease Q s *
Rapid lateral None or miniml May cause property Bank retreat at bank Armor opposite
migration away or infrastructure pins; proximity to bank; construct
from vane damage structures and/or vanes on opposite
survey marker bank upstream to
direct flow toward
vane
Erosion of opposite Erosion around May erode at pier Bank retreat at bank Reorient or
bank other measures or opposite pins; raw banks; reposition measure
abutment undercutting of bank
Ineffective angles Minimal, nearby Minimal, may Scoured pool Rebrient or
measures may be cause design to be position incorrect; reposition measure
less effective less effective scour around bank-side
of vane
Displacement Nearby measures May not be Rock moved Increase rock size;
may be less effective in downstream from use gravel filter to
effective concentrating flow original location prevent
away from bank undermining

Submerged vanes Burial by incoming None or minimal Minimal Measure has a Reorient or
sediment lower profile; reposition measure;
vegetation growth decrease Q s *
Rapid lateral None or minimal May cause property Bank retreat at bank Armor opposite
migration away or infrastructure pins; proximity to bank; construct
from vane damage structures and/or vanes on opposite
survey marker bank upstream to
direct flow toward
vane
Erosion of opposite Erosion around May erode at pier Bank retreat at bank Reorient or
bank other measures or opposite pins; raw banks; reposition measure
abutment undercutting of bank
Ineffective angles Minimal, nearby Minimal, may Scoured pool Reorient or
measures may be cause design to be position incorrect; reposition measure
less effective less effective scour around bank-side
of vane
Displacement Nearby measures Will not be able to Vane moved Use deeper
may be less redirect flow away downstream from foundation/rebar;
effective from bank and original location make sure footing
abutment material is adequate

124 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

Table 1. 共Continued兲
Grout bags Displaced None Local erosion Rock moved Increase rock size;
downstream 共rock downstream from increase rock
undersized兲 original location gradation
Erosion beneath Sediment input Downstream Scalloping of upper Use gravel or fabric
共improper filter兲 buries other vanes, deposition, bank; bank cutting; filter beneath
etc. clogging of vacant spaces
waterway opening beneath and
between rocks

Check dam End-around erosion Nearby measures Widening of Local scour along Plant woody
may be less channel; redirection mid- to upper bank vegetation at bank
effective of high shear at dam edge edge; add vanes
stresses upstream to direct
flow to center of
dam
Undermining Other May permit headcut Underwater Riprap toe;
measures may to proceed to inspection; in situ construct ramped or
be destroyed bridge methods; exposed sloped toe
footers
Channel Channel migration Burial of other Loss of property Bank retreat at bank Install vanes on
realignment measures; pins proximity to migrating side
undermining of structures and/or armor banks
other measures survey marker
Excessive Minimal Loss of conveyance Bar formation Install vanes and/or
deposition d/s of at bridge, increased narrowing of cross vanes;
bridge flooding channel narrow and/or
straighten channel
Note: Q s ⫽sediment discharge 共load entering restoration reach兲. Q s can be decreased at either the watershed or reach level, depending on the source of the
material. At the watershed level, steps must be taken to decrease sediment input into stream. At reach level, steps must be taken upstream of the project
reach to reduce bank widening and/or bed degradation.

Column 6 gives compensating provisions, or possible corrective
actions, should failure occur. Columns 1– 6 must be established
prior to calculating RPNs and prior to taking action to reduce
uncertainty.
The calculation of RPNs requires that consequence, occur-
rence, and detectability ratings are first established. Tables 2– 4
were developed to provide these ratings for this example. The
numerical range of rating values given in these tables are chosen
arbitrarily 共for example, the range could be 1–100, 1–2, 0–1,
etc.兲. Here, the various factors are given ratings of 1–10. The
failure or partial failure of a scour countermeasure can have both
safety and economic impacts. Thus, Table 2 reflects these out-
comes categorized into four levels of consequences. Table 3 pro-
vides the occurrence likelihood as a function of prior experience,
the level of testing, the effectiveness, and the durability of the
countermeasure. A high level of systematic testing and analysis
will be reflected in a higher level of certainty in the ability of the
countermeasure to effectively protect against scour. The catego-
ries and ratings in Table 4 were based on the level of difficulty to
detect failures, ranging from visual observations to installation of
equipment, such as pressure transducers.
The effectiveness in protecting a bridge against scour can vary
significantly among countermeasures. Lauchlan 共1999兲 found that
properly designed submerged vanes can reduce scour depths
around a pier by as much as 50%. Johnson et al. 共2001, 2002兲
have shown that vanes, cross vanes, and w-weirs generally re-
duced scour on the order of 65–90%, depending on flow condi-
tions and the structure configuration. Rock riprap has been found
to be very effective for certain applications in protecting bridge
foundations from scour where it is of adequate size, of suitable
size gradation, and properly installed 共Lagasse et al. 2001兲. How-
ever, for applications such as riprap dumped at the base of vertical
wall abutments, riprap frequently fails by displacement down-
stream during high flows. Sacrificial piles have been tested to
determine their effectiveness in reducing scour at bridge piers
共Chabert and Engeldinger 1956; Levi and Luna 1961; Paice and
Hey 1993; Hadfield 1997兲. The results showed that piles placed
upstream of a pier can be used to minimize scour; however the
effectiveness of these piles is often quite low since other factors
may dominate 共Hadfield 1997兲.
To illustrate the use of FMEA and RPNs in the selection of
scour countermeasures, three hypothetical examples have been
developed. It is not the goal of these examples to provide an
exhaustive list of countermeasures and failure modes for every
scenario. Certainly, there are many more countermeasures and
scenarios that could be included and further developed for differ-
ent circumstances. When applying FMEA to real bridge mitiga-
tion projects, designers should consider all practical scour coun-
termeasures and their failure modes. In the following examples,
ratings of consequence, occurrence, and detectability are based on
HEC-23, current literature, and prior experience. The examples
are developed for the purpose of illustrating the use of RPNs for
risk-based decision making.
Example 1. Flow Contraction at Single-Span Bridge
At small, single-span bridges it is not uncommon for the abut-
ments to be at or near the channel edge. In this case, roadway
embankments cut off flood plain flow and all or part of the flow in
the flood plain must return to the main channel to pass under the

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 125

Table 2. Consequence Categories
Outcomes of failure
Consequence
category Loss of life Economic impact Rating
I 共Low兲 None Minimal replacement cost relative to project budget 1
Susceptibility to failure of other measures is not increased
No or minor impacts to public and/or private property
II 共Marginal兲 None Moderate replacement cost relative to project budget 4
Replacement of supporting or integrated enhancement measures required
Slight to moderate public and-or private property damage
共e.g. minor roadway embankments compromised兲
III 共High兲 None Moderate to high replacement cost relative to project budget 7
Replacement of a significant portion of the project
Failure of minor infrastructure, moderate to high public or private property damage
IV 共Critical兲 Possible High replacement cost relative to project budget 10
Replacement of a significant portion of the project
Failure of hydraulic or engineering infrastructure; loss of service provided
by infrastructure and/or public utilities; high public or private property damage

bridge. The result is often a combination of local scour around the
abutments and contraction scour of the channel bed beneath the
bridge. Flood plain relief structures, such as flood plain culvert
cells, may be an option to correct a flood plain that is cut off by a
roadway embankment. However, as shown by Johnson and
Brown 共2000兲, this option can be quite costly and will not pro-
duce desired results in all locations. Riprap is the most commonly
used solution to armor the banks and foundations. Guidebanks
can be used to promote a smooth flow through the waterway
opening and protection from scour at the wingwalls of the bridge
or culvert. However this option is prohibitively expensive and
will not be considered. Rock or submerged vanes may also be
used to transition the flow as smoothly as possible, concentrating
the flow into the center of the channel beneath the bridge
共Johnson et al. 2001; 2002兲.
Table 5 provides the components and failure modes, ratings for
consequences, occurrences, and detectability and the RPNs calcu-
lated as the product of the three ratings. Displacement of riprap
and ineffective angles of rock vanes and submerged vanes have
significantly higher RPNs than any other failure mode for any of
the countermeasures. Thus, if riprap is to be used, special atten-
tion should be given to sizing and placement of the riprap. Vanes
and cross vanes have not been systematically tested and docu-
mented in the field for scour applications. However, they have
been tested in a laboratory setting and have been used extensively
Table 3. Occurrence Likelihood
Occurrence likelihood
Impossible or has never occurred previously; well tested;
known to be effective treatment; low maintenance
Remotely possible; similar events may have occurred
previously; tested at many sites; moderately effective; low
maintenance
Possible; has previously occurred rarely; tested at several sites;
appears to be effective treatment; moderate maintenance
Probable; has previously occurred occasionally; not
systematically tested; effectiveness not well documented; high
maintenance
Reasonably probable; has previously occurred frequently; never
been tested in the field; effectiveness unknown; high
maintenance
and effectively in the field for bank erosion. Submerged vanes
have been tested in the laboratory and in the field for at least one
bridge. They have also been used effectively to treat bank erosion.
For both types of vanes, careful attention must be paid to con-
structing the correct angle from the bank. These issues are re-
flected in the occurrence rating in Table 5. Overall, submerged
vanes have the lowest set of RPNs of the three options and would
likely provide the best results for this case. Another option is to
use both submerged vanes and riprap, since it is often difficult to
properly size riprap for application at the base of a vertical wall.
This would provide more certainty in terms of total protection.
Example 2. Meandering Channel, Poor Alignment
A meandering channel migrates laterally or down valley, often
causing channel misalignment at bridges. This can result in depo-
sition at one abutment and increased local scour at the other abut-
ment, and a decrease in the waterway opening, resulting in in-
creased contraction scour. There are basically two different
options for this scenario. Submerged vanes can be used to pro-
duce deposition in the misaligned area and to gradually move the
channel back in line with the bridge opening. The second option
is to physically relocate the channel bank by backfilling and veg-
etating the misaligned portion, moving the channel back into
alignment with the bridge or culvert. This option would then be
followed by either constructing rock or submerged vanes to keep
the flow in the new alignment or placing riprap to armor the
effected bank.
Rating Table 6 gives the RPN values for this example. The primary
difference between Examples 1 and 2 is that Example 2 includes
2 a second option that involves channel realignment. If this option
is used, there are several high RPNs. For the channel realignment,
4 a very high RPN results. To reduce the RPN, vanes or riprap can
6 Table 4. Detection Rating
Detection methods Rating
8
Simple visual from field inspection 1
Simple analysis from photo record, bank pins 4
10 Cross sectional or longitudinal surveys; sediment sampling 7
Scour chains, pressure transducers, on other in-situ installations 10
required

126 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

Table 5. Risk Priority Numbers for Selected Countermeasures for Example 1
Risk
Consequence Occurrence Detection priority
Component Failure mode rating rating rating number
Riprap Slide down slope 4 6 1 24
Displaced downstream 共rock undersized兲 10 10 4 400
Erosion beneath 共improper filter兲 4 6 7 168

Vanes and cross vanes Burial by incoming sediment 4 6 1 24

Rapid lateral migration away from vane 7 4 4 112
Erosion of opposite bank 7 8 4 224
Ineffective angles 7 6 10 420
Displacement 4 8 4 128

Submerged vanes Burial by incoming sediment 4 6 1 24

Rapid lateral migration away from vane 7 4 4 112
Erosion of opposite bank 7 4 4 112
Ineffective angles 7 4 10 280
Displacement 10 4 4 160

be used following realignment. However, if the vane angle is not
correctly installed or if the riprap is undersized, the risk to the
project will remain quite high in terms of the relative RPN value.
Submerged vanes appear to be the best alternative based on the
RPN values. However, gradual realignment may not be accept-
able to the bridge owner. In that case, the combination of channel
realignment and vanes or riprap may be the best alternative.
Example 3. Bed Degradation in Vicinity of Bridge
or Culvert
If a channel is degrading or incising, grade control may be nec-
essary. If the degradation is moving from upstream of the bridge
toward the bridge, then grade control should be placed upstream
of the bridge. This would be the case if the sediment load from
upstream was decreased by detention or land use changes. If the
degradation is moving upstream toward the bridge from a down-
stream location, then the grade control should be placed down-
stream of the bridge. This would be caused by a change in base
level downstream. For example, a downstream reach might have
been straightened or a dam removed. w-weirs, cross vanes, and
check dams can be used to slow or halt degradation both upstream
and downstream of the bridge. It is also possible that other chan-
nel modifications could be designed to lessen the slope; however,
this will effect sediment transport and will require that sediment
transport and bridge scour analyses to be conducted first.
Check dams have been used at many bridges across the coun-
try to control degradation; thus, there is considerable experience
in their use. w-weirs and cross vanes, on the other hand, have not
been well tested for this purpose 共or at least such testing has not
been documented兲. The effectiveness of a check dam is consid-
ered to be moderate. w-weirs are considered to be as effective as
vanes and cross vanes. Table 7 gives the RPN values for this
example and shows that the RPN values for the check dam are
lower. However, undermining of a check dam, which can cause

Table 6. Risk Priority Numbers for Selected Countermeasures for Example 2

Risk
Consequence Occurrence Detection priority
Component Failure mode rating rating rating number
Channel realignment Channel migration 10 8 7 560
Excessive deposition d/s of bridge 7 4 1 28

Riprap Slide down slope 4 6 1 24

Displaced downstream 共rock undersized兲 8 8 4 256
Erosion beneath 共improper filter兲 4 6 7 168

Vanes and cross vanes Burial by incoming sediment 4 6 1 24

Rapid lateral migration away from vane 7 4 4 112
Erosion of opposite bank 7 8 4 224
Ineffective angles 7 6 10 420
Displacement 4 8 4 128

Submerged vanes Burial by incoming sediment 4 6 1 24

Rapid lateral migration away from vane 7 4 4 112
Erosion of opposite bank 7 4 4 112
Ineffective angles 7 4 10 280
Displacement 10 4 4 160

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 127

Table 7. Risk Priority Numbers for Selected Countermeasures for Example 3
Component Failure mode
w-weirs or cross vanes Burial by incoming sediment
Rapid lateral migration away from vane
Erosion of opposite bank
Ineffective angles or heights
Displacement
Check dam End-around erosion
Undermining
failure of the structure, is a critical factor. During a high flow
event, a head cut can move very rapidly upstream and threaten the
bridge foundation if the check dam fails. Therefore, it might be
desirable to secure the stability of the check dam with compen-
sating measures given in Table 1.
Conclusions
Failure modes and effects analysis was used here to demonstrate a
relatively simple, systematic technique for assigning relative risk
to scour countermeasure choices at the design phase. The ratings
can then be used to determine components of the design that
require particular attention to prevent failure of the countermea-
sure and to adequately protect the bridge. This information yields
the appropriate compensating actions to be taken and provides
justification for decision making. Failure modes and effect analy-
sis is an appealing method because it considers risk in terms of
the consequences of failure, the likelihood of a component failure,
and the level of difficulty required to detect failure. With a
‘‘design-not-to-fail’’ philosophy, FMEA is implemented to deter-
mine failure modes and remove their causes before the design is
implemented 共McCollin 1999兲. Thus, the preventative action in
the FMEA implies modification of the system design for risk
reduction before the design is in place.
References
American Nuclear Society. 共1983兲. Probabilistic risk assessment guide: A
guide to the performance of probabilistic risk assessments for nuclear
power plants, NUREG/CR-2300, Vol. 1, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Bluvband, Z., and Zilberberg, E. 共1998兲. ‘‘Knowledge base approach to
integrated FMEA.’’ American Society for Quality’s 52nd Annual
Quality Congress Proc., Philadelphia, 535–545.
Chabert, J., and Engeldinger, P. 共1956兲. ‘‘Etude des affouillements autour
des piles de ponts.’’ Laboratoire d’Hydraulique, Chatou, France.
Dushnisky, K., and Vick, S. G. 共1996兲. ‘‘Evaluating risk to the environ-
ment from mining using failure modes and effects analysis.’’ Proc.,
1996 Conf. on Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment, Madison,
Wis, 848 – 865.
Elias, V. 共1994兲. ‘‘Strategies for managing unknown bridge foundations.’’
FHWA Rep. No. FHWA-RD-92-030, U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Va.
Fullwood, R., and Hall, R. 共1988兲. Probabilistic risk assessment in the
nuclear power industry, Pergamon, Oxford, U.K.
Hadfield, A. C. 共1997兲. ‘‘Sacrificial piles as a bridge pier scour counter-
measure.’’ ME thesis, Univ. of Auckland, Auckland, N.Z.
Henley, E., and Kumamoto, H. 共1992兲. Probabilistic risk assessment—
Reliability engineering, design, and analysis, Institute of Electrical
128 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004
Risk
Consequence Occurrence Detection priority
rating rating rating number
4 6 1 24
7 4 4 112
7 8 4 224
7 10 10 700
4 8 4 128
7 8 6 336
10 4 10 400
and Electronics Engineers, New York.
Johnson, P. A., and Brown, E. R. 共2000兲. ‘‘Stream assessment for multi-
cell culvert use.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 126共5兲, 381–386.
Johnson, P. A., Hey, R. D., Brown, E. R., and Rosgen, D. L. 共2002兲.
‘‘Stream restoration in the vicinity of bridges.’’ J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc., 38共1兲, 55– 67.
Johnson, P. A., Hey, R. D., Tessier, M., and Rosgen, D. L. 共2001兲. ‘‘Use
of vanes for control of at vertical wall abutments.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng.,
127共9兲, 772–778.
Krasich, M. 共2000兲. ‘‘Use of fault tree analysis for evaluation of system-
reliability improvements in design phase.’’ Proc., Annual Reliability
and Maintainability Symp., IEEE, Los Angeles, 1–7.
Lagasse, P. F., Byars, M. S., Zevenbergen, L. W., and Clopper, P. E.
共2001兲. ‘‘Bridge scour and stream instability countermeasures, expe-
rience, selection, and design guidance.’’ FHWA Rep. No. NHI-01-003,
HEC-23, 2nd Ed., Federal Highway Administration, Arlington, Va.
Lauchlan, C. S. 共1999兲. ‘‘Pier scour countermeasures.’’ Univ. of Auckland,
School of Engineering, Rep. No. 590, Auckland, New Zealand.
Levi, E., and Luna, H. 共1961兲. ‘‘Dispositfs pour reduire l’affouillement au
pied des piles de ponts.’’ Proc., 9th Int. Association of Hydraulic
Research Congress, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 1061–1069.
McCollin, C. 共1999兲. ‘‘Working around failure.’’ Manuf. Eng., 78共1兲, 37–
40.
McCormick, C. 共1981兲. Reliability and risk analysis, Academic, Orlando,
Fla.
Odgaard, A. J., and Kennedy, J. F. 共1983兲. ‘‘River-bend bank protection
by submerged vanes.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 109共8兲, 1161–1173.
Odgaard, A. J., and Lee, H. Y. E. 共1984兲. ‘‘Submerged vanes for flow
control and bank protection in stream.’’ IIHR Rep. No. 279, Iowa
Institute of Hydraulic Research, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Odgaard, A. J., and Mosconi, C. E. 共1987兲. ‘‘Streambank protection by
submerged vanes.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 113共4兲, 520–536.
Odgaard, A. J., and Wang, Y. 共1990兲. ‘‘Sediment control in bridge water-
ways.’’ IIHR Rep. No. 336, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research,
Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Paice, C., and Hey, R. D. 共1993兲. ‘‘Control and monitoring of local scour
at bridge piers.’’ Proc., National Conf. on Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE, New York, 1061–1066.
Rao, G. L. 共1993兲. ‘‘Failure modes and effects analysis for chemical plant
processes.’’ Proc., 1993 ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Safety Engi-
neering and Risk Analysis, New Orleans, La., 29–33.
Richardson, E. V., and Davis, S. R. 共2001兲. ‘‘Evaluating scour at
bridges.’’ HEC-18, FHWA-NH-01-001, 4th Ed., U.S. Dept. of Trans-
portation, Washington, D.C.
Rosgen, D. L. 共1996兲. Applied river morphology, Wildland Hydrology,
Pagosa Spring, Col.
Shimizu, S., Sugawara, M., Sakurai, S., Mori, T., and Saikawa, K. 共1993兲.
‘‘Decision-making support systems for reliability-centered mainte-
nance.’’ J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., 30共6兲, 505–515.
Stein, S. M., Pearson, D. R., and Jones, J. S. 共2000兲. ‘‘Economic consid-
erations in designing bridge scour countermeasures.’’ Proc., 2000
ASCE Joint Conf. on Water Resources Engineering and Water Re-
sources Planning and Management, ASCE, Reston, Va.