geosciences

Article
Quantification of Modelling Uncertainties in Bridge
Scour Risk Assessment under Multiple Flood Events
Alonso Pizarro 1 and Enrico Tubaldi 2, *
1 Department of European and Mediterranean Cultures, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, 75100 Matera,
Italy; alonso.pizarro@unibas.it
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK
* Correspondence: enrico.tubaldi@strath.ac.uk




Received: 10 September 2019; Accepted: 16 October 2019; Published: 18 October 2019


Abstract: Local scour is a dynamic process evolving during the lifetime of bridges as a result of the
changes in hydrologic and hydraulic conditions. Current approaches for scour risk assessment are
generally based on the evaluation of the equilibrium scour depth for a flood event with a prefixed
return period. The temporal evolution of the bridge-pier scour process is usually disregarded,
by assuming that equilibrium conditions are always attained, regardless of the flood properties.
However, recent studies have highlighted the importance of accounting for the contribution of
multiple flood events and their exact hydrograph shape. This study aims at quantifying the epistemic
uncertainty related to the modelling of the temporal evolution of scour under multiple consecutive
flood events in clear-water conditions. A simple numerical case study is considered, using a Markovian
framework to describe probabilistically the progression of scour. Well-known time-dependent scour
models are used to estimate the temporal evolution of the scour-depth under each flood hydrograph,
and the scour estimates are compared with those obtained using widely employed equilibrium scour
formulas. Results show that the expected scour depth is influenced by the parameters used to describe
the flood hydrograph and that the probability distribution of the scour depth is highly sensitive to
the choice of the time-dependent scour model. The uncertainty in the scour estimation stemming
from the formula adopted in this study for describing the temporal evolution of the scour depth can
be higher than those related to the formula adopted for equilibrium scour.

Keywords: scour progression; bridge piers; multiple floods; markov process; epistemic uncertainty

1. Introduction
Scour is among the leading causes of bridge collapse over the globe [1–7], and the assessment of
bridge scour hazard is of paramount importance for transport agencies in charge of bridge hydraulic
risk assessment, management, and mitigation. Current scour risk assessment procedures are mostly
deterministic and based on the evaluation of the final scour depth [8–10], produced by a single flood
event characterised by a fixed return period, whose value differs from code to code. Equilibrium scour
formulas are usually employed, by assuming that peak river discharge acts over a theoretical infinite
duration [8,9,11–13]. This is a very strong assumption, often leading to biased estimates of the scour at
a bridge site. In fact, flood events do not always manifest with the same hydraulic conditions, and peak
discharge, hydrograph shape and duration are expected to change from flood to flood.
Short duration floods may not lead to the development of the equilibrium scour depth, but they
may cause only partial erosion. Thus, the scour depth at a bridge pier may be the result of the action of
a sequence of multiple floods, with different intensity and hydrograph shape, acting during the bridge
lifetime. This is the case for floods of minor intensity, inducing clear-water conditions, such that no
refilling of the scour hole occurs. Under these conditions, the scour depth can only monotonously

Geosciences 2019, 9, 445; doi:10.3390/geosciences9100445 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences

Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 2 of 15

increase. On the other hand, under extreme flood events, live-bed and suspension of sediment take
place, resulting in the possibility of refilling mechanisms of the scour hole. Consequently, the scour
depth at a bridge pier may increase or even decrease during each event [14]. Nevertheless, the prediction
of the scour depth at underwater bridge foundations should be carried out by employing probabilistic
approaches, given the random nature of the variables affecting the hydrologic and hydraulic properties
of river flow [15–18].
The importance of employing non-deterministic approaches for evaluating the scour depth at
bridge foundations has been acknowledged since the early studies of Barbe et al. [19] and Johnson [20].
Probabilistic methodologies have been developed during the years to incorporate the effect of the
many uncertainties relevant to the phenomena [19,21–26]. In this regard, major focus has been on those
characterising the parameters associated with the hydraulic/hydrological conditions (e.g., discharge,
flow depth, and flow velocity) and the epistemic uncertainties affecting the scour predictions in the
scour depth evaluation [27].
Few probabilistic frameworks have been proposed to describe the stochastic evolution of the scour
depth at a pier under multiple flood events. Johnson et al. [20] presented a method for estimating the
probability of bridge failure due to pier-scour, explicitly considering the bridge lifetime. This approach
made possible the consideration of the short- and long-term progression of the time-dependent scour
depth. Hydrologic input was performed through a Poisson process and exponential distribution
for the numbers of generated events and their magnitude, respectively. Brandimarte et al. [21] and
Briaud et al. [1] developed a probabilistic framework for the scour temporal evolution based on Monte
Carlo replicates of discharge regimes for the service life of the bridge. The fractional integrated
autoregressive moving average (ARFIMA) process was fitted to the historic streamflow record and used
to generate synthetic hydrologic time-series with the same statistical properties as the observed ones.
Recently, Tubaldi et al. [28] developed a Markovian framework for describing the probabilistic evolution
of clear water scour at bridge piers accounting for memory effects. According to the Markovian
process assumption, the change of the scour depth during one flood event depends on the scour depth
reached before the occurrence of the event itself, rather than on the entire hydrologic and scour history.
The application of these probabilistic frameworks requires, in general, the use of a model for describing
the temporal evolution of scour. Brandimarte et al. [21] and Briaud et al. [1] used the Scour Rate In
COhesive Soils (SRICOS) model to calculate the scour depth associated with each streamflow synthetic
simulation. This model has been developed specifically for cohesive soils. Many other models have
been established for non-cohesive soils; for instance, the models developed by Oliveto and Hager [29],
Hager and Unger [30], Melville and Chiew [31], Link et al. [32], and Pizarro et al. [33]. Remarkably,
Link et al.’s [32] and Pizarro et al.’s [33] models make use of the dimensionless effective flow work
(W* ) [34] as their core, and they, therefore, are not constrained to steady hydraulic conditions.
This paper aims to evaluate the effect of several sources of epistemic uncertainty relevant to the
prediction of the progression of clear-water scour under multiple flood events, namely i) the one related
to the flood hydrograph shape, ii) the one related to the equilibrium scour depth, iii) the one related to
the description of the temporal evolution of scour. For this purpose, a simplified numerical case study
is considered to quantify the epistemic uncertainty under controlled conditions. The numerical case
study consists of a simple-geometry bridge with one submerged cylindrical pier. The occurrence of
floods is modelled through a homogeneous Poisson process. The flood peaks are assumed to follow
an exponential distribution and the flood hydrographs are assumed to be single-peaked flood waves
with an exponential shape. The effects of the epistemic uncertainties are quantified by evaluating the
probabilistic distribution of scour, obtained by considering different models for the temporal evolution
of scour and different parameters values for the hydrograph shape, as well as different formulas for
equilibrium scour. A comparison is also made between the estimates of the scour depth after 100 years
and at equilibrium.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the proposed framework for
describing the probabilistic evolution of scour under clear-water conditions, and its steps, namely
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 3 of 15

hydrologic, hydraulic, and scour analysis; Section 3 illustrates the case study and the application of the
framework; Section 4 analyses the influence of the choice of the hydrograph shape and time-dependent
scour model on the scour progression throughout the years, while Section 5 provides a comparison
with the scour estimates obtained with well-established equilibrium equations.

2. Probabilistic Framework for Scour Progression

2.1. Markov Process for Describing Scour Progression

The scour progression process under clear-water conditions is modelled via a discrete-time
and discrete-state Markovian process, originally developed in Tubaldi et al. [28]. The Markovian
assumption essentially implies that the change (increment) of the scour depth during a certain flood
event depends on the scour depth reached when the flood occurs, rather than on the entire hydrologic
and scour history. Therefore, the probability to be in the scour level j, given the k-th flood event
occurrence, can be expressed as follows:

Ns
X
Pkj = φkij Pk−1
i , (1)
i=1

where φkij denotes the probability to be in the scour level j at the end of the considered flood event,
given the initial state i at the beginning. Pk−1
i
denotes the probability to be in the scour level i, given
the k−1 flood event occurrence, i.e., the probability that the scour state is i at the beginning of the k-th
flood occurrence.
Assuming a time-homogeneous Markov process, Equation (1) leads to:

Ns
X
Pnj = φnij P0i , (2)
i=1

where Pnj is the conditional probability of having a scour depth z j given N = n floods, starting from
the initial state P0i . The transition operator containing the various φkij is the result of the hydrologic,
hydraulic, and scour analyses, which are briefly described in the next subsections.
Once the transition operator is known, it is possible to compute the unconditional probability of
having a scour depth z j through the following equation:

Ns
X
Pnj = Pnj ·Pn (t), (3)
i=1

where Pn (t) represents the probability of having n floods in t years, which is controlled by the occurrence
rate of the floods. Further details about the framework can be found in Tubaldi et al. [28].

2.2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis

The hydrologic analysis aims to describe the magnitude of future floods and their occurrence
rate. For modelling purposes, the rate of occurrence of floods with discharge Q exceeding a minimum
threshold q0 can be represented by an independent and stationary increment process, i.e., a homogeneous
Poisson process. A probability distribution must be specified for the flood magnitudes. For example,
these can be modelled assuming an exponential distribution.
The hydraulic analysis allows evaluating the flow properties at the bridge site, given the
hydrological properties of the flood. The Gauckler-Manning-Strickler formula can be considered for
the analysis under the simplified assumption of uniform flow conditions [35]:
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 4 of 15

Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

1
Qp = R2/3 i1/2 Ω, (4)
nGMS h
where 𝑄 is the flood discharge at peak conditions (m3/s), 𝑛 is the Manning’s roughness
where Qp is(s/m
coefficient the 1/3 ), 𝑅 discharge
flood at peak conditions
is the hydraulic radius (m),(m 𝑖 3is/s),
thenGMS
bed is the Manning’s
slope Ω the cross-section
(m/m), androughness coefficient
(s/m 1/3 ),2 R is the hydraulic radius (m), i is the bed slope (m/m), and Ω the cross-section area (m2 ).
area (m ). h
Since thethetemporal
temporalevolution
evolutionofof scour is of
scour is interest,
of interest, account mustmust
account be made of theof
be made hydrograph shape.
the hydrograph
This shape
shape. This is usually
shape not known
is usually a priori
not known and depends
a priori and depends on aon
series of factors,
a series thethe
of factors, most important
most importantof
which
of whichare are
rainfall, antecedent
rainfall, soil moisture,
antecedent and other
soil moisture, andcatchment processes
other catchment [36,37]. Although
processes different
[36,37]. Although
models exist
different for describing
models the hydrograph
exist for describing shape, in this
the hydrograph study
shape, in anthisexponential function is considered,
study an exponential function is
following thefollowing
considered, approximation of single-peaked
the approximation flood waves proposed
of single-peaked flood wavesby Hager and Unger
proposed [30]: and
by Hager
Unger [30]: " ! !#k
Q t t
𝑄 Q =𝑡 t exp 1 − 𝑡 , (5)
=p exp
p 1 − tp , (5)
𝑄 𝑡 𝑡
where Q is the discharge (m3 /s), t is the time (s), t is time to peak of the flood hydrograph (s), and k > 1
where Q is the discharge (m3/s), t is the time (s),p 𝑡 is time to peak of the flood hydrograph (s), and
is the hydrograph shape parameter.Figure  1Figure
shows the influence of the hydrograph shape parameter
𝑘 > 1 is the hydrograph shape parameter. 1 shows the influence of the hydrograph shape
k, for k = 2, 5, 10, and 50. Qp = 200 m3 /s and(𝑚 assuming tp = 30 (hours).
parameter k, for k = 2, 5, 10, and 50. 𝑄 = 200 /𝑠) and assuming 𝑡 = 30 (hours).

Figure 1. Equation (5) for different values of k (= 2, 5, 10, 50). Peak discharge 200 (m3 /s) and time to
Figure 1. Equation (5) for different values of k (= 2, 5, 10, 50). Peak discharge 200 (m3/s) and time to
peak 30 (hours).
peak 30 (hours).
2.3. Scour Analysis
2.3. Scour Analysis
Different time-dependent scour models have been proposed in the literature to describe the
Different
temporal time-dependent
evolution scour
of scour. In this models
study, onlyhave
threebeen
of themproposed in the literature
are considered, namely the to Melville
describe and
the
temporal
Chiew [31], evolution
the Hager of scour. In this
and Unger study,
[30], and only three ofetthem
the Pizarro aremodels.
al. [33] considered, namely
The first twothe Melville
models are
and
among Chiew [31], widely
the most the Hager and and
known Unger [30], andand
employed, thethey
Pizarro
rely et
onal.
the[33] models. Theoffirst
representation the two models
hydrograph
are
as a among
sequence theof most
steadywidely known
discharge stepsand employed,
[38,39]. The modeland of they rely on
Melville andthe representation
Chiew’s [31] dependsof the
on
hydrograph as a sequence
flow characteristics such asofmean
steadyflowdischarge
velocitysteps [38,39].
(u) and flow The
depthmodel of Melville
(h), and and Chiew’s
the sediment [31]
coarseness
depends
defined as onthe
flow characteristics
ratio between the such as mean flow
pier diameter velocity
(D) and (u) and flow
the sediment depth
size (d (h), and
50 ). The model thedeveloped
sediment
coarseness defined as the ratio between the pier diameter (D) and the sediment
by Hager and Unger [30] extended the Oliveto and Hager [29]’s equation, for the temporalmodel size (d 50). The scour
developed by Hager
evolution under andhydraulic
steady Unger [30] extended in
conditions, theorder
Oliveto and Hager
to account for [29]’s equation,
more realistic for the
flood temporal
hydrograph
scour evolution under steady hydraulic conditions, in order to account for more realistic flood
hydrograph shapes. According to them, the final scour depth after the hydrograph essentially
depends on the peak flow velocity. Pizarro et al. [33]’s model is also considered in this study because
it is among the first ones allowing evaluation of the temporal evolution of scour under complex flood
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 5 of 15

shapes. According to them, the final scour depth after the hydrograph essentially depends on the peak
flow velocity. Pizarro et al. [33]’s model is also considered in this study because it is among the first
ones allowing evaluation of the temporal evolution of scour under complex flood scenarios, without
requiring the assumption of the hydrograph as a sequence of steady discharge steps. It relies on the
concepts of effective flow work parameter W* [34] and on the principle of maximum entropy.
The estimates of the scour depths at different times are also compared with the values of the
scour depth obtained by using equilibrium scour formulas and a peak of flood event corresponding
to a return period of 100 years. In particular, five different formulas are considered, as proposed
by Froehlich [40], Melville [41], Sheppard et al. [42], Richardson and Davis [10], and Gao et al. [43].
These equilibrium-scour formulas have been selected for their widespread use worldwide and also
because they rank as the best scour equations in Sheppard et al. [44]. For instance, the HEC-18 and
FDOT equations (Richardson and Davis [10] and Sheppard et al. [42], respectively) are widely used in
the USA, whereas the equation proposed by Gao et al. [43] is very diffused in China.
Table 1 presents the time-dependent scour formulas, while Table 2 the equilibrium-scour prediction
formulas considered for benchmarking analyses.

Table 1. Time-dependent scour prediction formulas.

Authors Mathematical Expression Observations Eq. N◦
Subscript “eq” means equilibrium.
(   1.6 )   
48.26D u
Melville and Chiew [31] z
= exp −0.03 uuc ln teqt   u  uc − 0.4 

 for Dh > 6, 1.0 > u
uc > 0.4 (6)
zeq teq = 
 30.89D u h 0.25

u uc − 0.4 D for Dh ≤ 6, 1.0 > u
uc > 0.4
Subscript “M” means at maximum or peak conditions.
ZM = z/zM
Hager and Unger [30] ZM (TM ) = [QM (TM )]0.80n log(γTM ) (7)
QM = q/qM
TM = t/tM
D2
zR = 2d
 500.957
λ = 4.237 dD
50
W∗ [
n o
z 1
Pizarro et al. [33] zR = λ ln 1 + ∗
Wmax exp(S) − 1] 21.185(D/d50 )
0.957 (8)
S= 1.2
 ) +10.6
0.4(D/d50 (D/d50 )−0.13 
 −0.295
Wmax = exp 21.84 ln dD
∗
50

3. Case Study
A simplified numerical case study is considered to evaluate how the choice of the formula for the
temporal evolution of scour affects the bridge scour predictions. This case study consists of a two-span
bridge with one submerged pier. The bridge-pier shape is cylindrical with a diameter of 1.5 (m) and
the river cross-section with an average width of 22 (m). The channel slope is assumed having a value
of 0.0001 (m/m), and the riverbed is considered as uniform sand with a grain-size
 diameter
 of 2.0 (mm).
Therefore, the corresponding Manning coefficient value is nGMS = 0.017 s/m1/3 . Figure 2 shows a
sketch of the numerical case study considered for scour analysis.  
The mean annual frequency of flood events occurrence is set to λ = 8 yrs−1 for Qp > q0 =
 
1.0 m3 /s , while the river discharge at peak conditions is modelled following an exponential distribution
with scale parameter β = 1 (m3 /s). The simulated flow discharge values always ensure clear-water
conditions in terms of scour. Five different hydrograph shape parameters are considered within the
probabilistic framework (k = 2, 5, 10, 25, 50). Monte Carlo simulations, with a set of Nsamples = 10, 000
samples of Qp , are carried out to estimate the transition probability matrix. Figure 3A presents the
probability mass function of the number of flood occurrences with Qp > q0 , while Figure 3B the
empirical cumulative probability function of peak discharges for flood events with a magnitude
Qp > q0 .
Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 6 of 15
𝐷
⎧ 2.4𝐷 for < 0.7
⎪ ℎ
𝐷
Table 2. Equilibrium-scour prediction formulas considered
𝐾 = 2(ℎ𝐷) for benchmarking
.
for 0.7 < < analyses.
5
⎨ ℎ
⎪ 𝐷
Authors Mathematical Expression
⎩ 4.5ℎ for
Observations >5 Eq. N◦
ℎ
D = Projected width of pier.
⎧ 𝑢 − 𝑢 − h𝑢 = flow depth. 𝑢 − 𝑢 −𝑢
p
Dp 0.62  h 0.46  D 0.08 for < 1.0
 
Froehlich [40]
Melville z
= 0.32Ks Fr0.2 +1 ⎪ 𝑢 𝑉 (9)
D 𝑧=𝐾 𝐾𝐾 D𝐾 𝐾 D d50 Fr = Froude number. (10)
[41] 𝐾 =
⎨ KS = Factor for pier shape.
𝑢 − 𝑢 −𝑢
⎪1 
2.4D for for Dh < 0.7 ≥ 1.0
⎩ 
 𝑢
2(hD)0.52.24𝐷

Kh =  for 0.7 < Dh < 5 𝐷

⎧0.57  log 4.5h for D > 5 for ≤ 25


𝑑 h 𝑑
𝐾 =

( uI −(uIp −uc )) (uI −(uIp −uc ))
⎨
 for < 𝐷1.0
1 uc
(uI −(uIp for
V
> 25

Melville [41] z = Kh KI Kd50 KS Kθ KI =  c
−uc )) 𝑑 (10)
⎩

 1 for ≥ 1.0
𝐾 = Factor for
 angle ofucattack.
 0.57 log10 d50
 2.24D
for D ≤ 25
⁄ ) . )d50
 1 𝑓 = tanh((ℎ 𝐷 for dD > 25

Kd50 = 
𝑧 𝑢

Sheppard et 𝑓 = 1 − 1.2 ln(𝑢⁄𝑢 ) 50
= 2.5𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 for 0.4 ≤ ≤ 1.0 Kθ = Factor for angle of attack.
(𝐷⁄𝑑 ) (11)
al. [42] 𝐷 𝑢
𝑓 = )0.4 ) ⁄𝑑 ) .
0.4(𝐷f1⁄= ) . ((+h/D
𝑑 tanh 10.6(𝐷
z u 2
Sheppard et al. [42] = 2.5 f1 f2 f3 for 0.4 ≤ ≤ 1.0 f2 = {1 − 1.2
𝐾 = Factorfor mode of sediment [ ln ( u/u c )] } transport. (11)
D uc 
(D/d50 )
Richardson 𝐾 = Factorf3 = for armouring 1.2
0.4(D/d50 ) +10.6(D/d by50bed
)−0.13 material.
.
𝑧 ℎ . 𝐾 = Factor
K3 =for veryforwide
Factor mode piers after Johnson
of sediment transport. and Torrico
and Davis = 2𝐾 𝐾 𝐾 𝐾 𝐾 𝐹𝑟 (12)
[10] 𝐷 𝐷  0.35 K4 = Factor for armouring [45]. by bed material.
Richardson and Davis [10] z
D = 2Ks Kθ K3 K4 Kw h
D Fr0.43 Kw = Factor for very𝑧 wide = 2.4𝐷
piers 𝑓𝑜𝑟after𝐹𝑟 ≤ 0.8and Torrico [45].
Johnson (12)
𝑧zmax = 3𝐷 2.4D𝑓𝑜𝑟 f or𝐹𝑟 Fr ≤> 0.8
0.8
𝑢 ′=Incipientzmax = 3D ffor
velocity or Fr > 0.8
local scour at a pier.
uc 0 = Incipient velocity for𝑑local . scour at a pier.
𝑢 ′0= 0.645 d 0.053 𝑢
uc = 0.645 D𝐷 uc
u ℎ= . h 0.14 h17.6𝜌 ρs−−ρ𝜌

d + 6.05 × 10−7 10
 i + ℎ .
+h100.5
Gao Gao
et al.et al. [43] 0.60.h0.15𝑢 − 𝑢 u′I −uc 0 η 𝑢 = c d 17.6 ρ 𝑑 + 6.05𝑥10 d0.72
𝑧 = 0.46𝐾z𝐷= . 0.46K
ℎ . ς D𝑑 d−0.07 𝑑 K = Shape 𝜌
and alignment factor. 𝑑 . (13)
(13)
[43]
50 u−uc 0
𝑢−𝑢 ′  ς

 𝐾
1 =Shape and alignment
for clear-waterfactor.scour
η= 1 for clear-water scour



 uc 9.35+2.23 log10 d

  
𝜂 = 𝑢
u . .
for live-bed scour
for live-bed scour
𝑢

Illustration of
Figure 2. Illustration of the
the numerical
numerical case
case study
study considered
considered for
for scour
scour analyses.
analyses. Image
Imagenot
notto
to scale.
scale.
Dashed lines
lines indicate
indicate(i)
i) water-level
water-levelrelated
relatedtotoa adischarge
dischargewith
witha return period
a return of 100
period years,
of 100 and and
years, (ii) the
ii)
original bed level.
the original bed level.
Geosciences 2019,9,9,445
Geosciences2019, x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of
of 15
15

P occurrence
P(Qp<q)

Figure 3. (A) Probability mass function of the number N of flood event occurrences with Qp > q0 .
Figure
(B) 3. (a) Probability
Empirical cumulativemass function
probability of the number
function of peak N of flood event
discharges occurrences
for flood witha 𝑄
events with > 𝑞 . (b)
magnitude
Empirical
Qp > q0 . cumulative probability function of peak discharges for flood events with a magnitude 𝑄 >
𝑞 .
The water stage h, associated with a given discharge value, is computed assuming a rectangular
The water
and wide channel stage ℎ, associated with a given discharge value, is computed assuming a rectangular
as follows !0.6
and wide channel as follows nGMS Q
h(Q) = 1
, (14)
BS 2 .
𝑛 𝑄
whereas the flow velocity is evaluatedℎ(𝑄) as = , (14)
𝐵𝑆
whereas the flow velocity is evaluated asu(Q) = Q = Q . (15)
Ω Bh
𝑢(𝑄) = = . (15)
All the analyses are performed in MATLAB [46], and the scour depth is evaluated using the
All the
formulas analyses
presented in are performed
Tables 1 and 2.inToMATLAB [46], and
better illustrate thethe scour depth
framework is evaluated
applied using the
on the numerical
formulas
case study,presented
Figure 4A in Table
shows the1 probability
and Table mass 2. Tofunction
better illustrate the scour
(PMF) of the framework applied onwith
depth computed the
numerical
Pizarro case
et al.’s study,
[33] Figure
formula. The4a shows
initial thedepth
scour probability mass function
state is treated (PMF) ofand
deterministically theitscour depth
is assumed
computed
equal withwhereas
to 0 (m), Pizarro the
et al.’s [33] formula.
considered bridgeThe initial ranges
lifetime scour depth
from state is treated
1 to 100 years. deterministically
There is a trend
and
in it is assumed
observing equal to
single-peak 0 (m),where
PMFs, whereas thebridge
larger considered bridge
lifetimes lifetime
produce ranges
higher fromof1 z.
values to Figure
100 years.
4B
There the
shows is a probability
trend in observing single-peak
of exceedance PMFs,the
of z under where
samelarger bridge lifetimes produce higher values
conditions.
of z. Figure 4b shows the probability of exceedance of z under the same conditions.
Geosciences 2019,
Geosciences 2019, 9,
9, 445
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of 15
15

PMF
P(Z > z)

Figure 4. (A) probability mass function (PMF) of z in function of the considered bridge lifetime (T from
Figure 4. (a) probability mass function (PMF) of z in function of the considered bridge lifetime (T from
1 to 100 years). (B) Probability of exceedance of z in function of the considered time.
1 to 100 years). (b) Probability of exceedance of z in function of the considered time.
4. Influence of Hydrograph Shape and Model for Describing the Temporal Evolution of Scour
4. Influence of Hydrograph Shape and Model for Describing the Temporal Evolution of Scour
The effect of the epistemic uncertainty on the scour hazard estimate is evaluated by applying
The effect of
the Markovian the epistemic
framework withuncertainty
the different onscour
the scour hazardmodels,
predictive estimate is evaluated
assuming by applying
a bridge lifetimethe
of
Markovian
100 years andframework
an initial with
scourthe different
depth scourThe
of 0 (m). predictive
expected models, assuming
scour depths anda empirical
bridge lifetime of 100
probability
years and anobtained
distributions initial scour
withdepth of 0 (m).
the different The expected
models are comparedscour to depths and empirical
each other, probability
by also considering
distributions obtained with the different models are compared
different values of the parameters k and tp describing the hydrograph shape. to each other, by also considering
different values
In order of the parameters
to illustrate the variouskmodels,
and tp describing the the
Figure 5 plots hydrograph
estimatesshape.
of the temporal variation of the
In order to illustrate the various models, Figure
scour depth under a single hydrograph scenario characterized by 5 plots theaestimates
very severeof flood,
the temporal variation
corresponding to
ofp =
Q the
8.7scour
(m /s)depth
3 (maximum under a singlevalue
generated hydrograph scenario
of discharge), k = 2,characterized
time to peak ofby147a (min),
very severe flood,
and obtained
corresponding
by starting fromtoa Q p = 8.7
scour (m3/s)
depth of(maximum
0 (m) (Figure generated
5A) and value
1.0 (m)of(Figure
discharge),
5B). k = 2, time to peak of 147
(min), and obtained by starting from a scour depth of 0 (m) (Figure 5a) and 1.0 (m) (Figure 5b).
Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 9 of 15

Figure 5. Temporal evolution of the scour depth under a single flood scenario corresponding to Qp =
Figure
8.7 (m35./s),Temporal
k = 2, tp =evolution
147 (min),ofand
the total
scourflood
depth under aofsingle
duration flood (A)
294 (min). scenario
Initialcorresponding to0Q(m).
scour depth z = p =

8.7 (m 3/s), k = 2, tp = 147 (min), and total flood duration of 294 (min). (a) Initial scour depth z = 0 (m).
(B) Initial scour depth z = 1.0 (m).
(b) Initial scour depth z = 1.0 (m).
The obtained results, referring to a single flood scenario, are helpful to illustrate the differences
The the
between obtained
various results,
models referring
and how tothey
a single
mayflood
affectscenario, are helpful
the estimates to illustrate
of the scour hazard.theIt differences
is observed
between
that scourthe various computed
estimates models and byhow
Hagerthey may
and affect[30]
Unger thealways
estimatesgiveofthe
thehighest
scour hazard.
values ofIt is observed
z with both
scour-depth initial conditions (z = 0 (m)
that scour estimates computed by Hager and z = 1.0 (m)). Figure 5B shows a horizontal curve for the
Unger [30] always give the highest values of z with both
scour-depth
computed scour initial conditions
depth recovered(z = by
0 (m) and z and
Melville = 1.0Chiew
(m)). Figure 5b shows
[31]. This is dueatohorizontal curve
the fact that thefor the
initial
computed
scour depth, z = depth
scour 1.0 (m),recovered
is alreadybyhigher
Melville thanandtheChiew [31]. This
equilibrium valueis that
due can
to the
be fact that the
reached initial
under the
scour
assumeddepth,
flood z =event,
1.0 (m),
andistherefore
already the higherflood than thedoes
event equilibrium
not causevalue
extra that can around
erosion be reached under pier.
the bridge the
assumed
Pizarro etflood event,
al.’s [33] and therefore
estimates are betweenthe floodthoseevent does not
computed cause and
by Hager extraUnger
erosion[30]around the bridge
and Melville and
pier.
Chiew Pizarro
[31]. et al.’s [33] estimates are between those computed by Hager and Unger [30] and Melville
and Chiew
Figure [31].
6 shows the expected scour depths according to the different temporal evolution models vs
Figure 6 shows
the hydrograph shape the expectedk.scour
parameter depths according
The expected scour depth to the different
(E[z]) generally temporal
decreasesevolution modelsk.
by increasing
The rate of decrease also reduces with k, until the rate of variation is almost zero for k = 50. Hager and
vs the hydrograph shape parameter k. The expected scour depth (E[z]) generally decreases by
increasing
Unger [30]’s k. The
formularate provides
of decrease thealso reduces
highest with k,for
estimates until rate of of
all the values variation is almost
k considered, whilezero for k =
Melville
50.
andHager
Chiew and Unger
[31]’s [30]’s
scour formula
depths givesprovides the highest
the lowest estimates.estimates for all
The ratio of the
thevalues
expectedof kvalue
considered,
of the
scour depth for k = 50 with respect to the value for k = 2 is equal to 31%, 26%, and 11% for Hager
while Melville and Chiew [31]’s scour depths gives the lowest estimates. The ratio of the expected
value of the[30],
and Unger scour depthetfor
Pizarro al.k[33],
= 50 and
withMelville
respect and
to the value[31],
Chiew for krespectively.
= 2 is equal Therefore,
to 31%, 26%, theandtrend11% of
for Hager and Unger [30], Pizarro et al.
variation of E[z] is not the same for all the models. [33], and Melville and Chiew [31], respectively. Therefore, the
trend of variation of E[z] is not the same for all the models.
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 10 of 15
Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

2.7
Hager & Unger (2010)
2.4 Pizarro et al. (2017)
Melville & Chiew (1999)
2.1

1.8

1.5

1.2

0.9

0.6

0.3

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure6.6.Expected
Figure Expectedscour
scourdepth
depthinin
function of of
function thethe
hydrograph shape
hydrograph parameter
shape k (= k2,(=
parameter 5, 2,
10,5,25,
10,50)
25,and
50)
employed scour model. Considered bridge lifetime: T = 100 years.
and employed scour model. Considered bridge lifetime: T = 100 years.

The
Thescatter
scatterbetween
betweenthe thevarious
variousscour
scourestimates
estimatesisishighest forkk==2.2. In
highestfor In particular,
particular,the
therelative
relative
difference
difference between the values obtained with the Hager and Unger [30] and Melville and Chiew[31]
between the values obtained with the Hager and Unger [30] and Melville and Chiew [31]
formula
formulaare areof
ofthe
theorder
orderofof1.42
1.42(m),
(m),which
whichisis94.7%
94.7%ofofthe
thepier
pierdiameter.
diameter.
In
In order
order to
to better
better highlight
highlight the
the differences
differences between
between the
the various
various models,
models, Table
Table 33 reports
reports the
the
expected values of the scour depth normalised by the value evaluated with the Hager
expected values of the scour depth normalised by the value evaluated with the Hager and Unger [30] and Unger [30]
formula
formulafor forkk== 2.
2. The
The normalisation
normalisation factor
factor has
has been
been chosen
chosen based
based on
onthe
theobservation
observationthat
thatthe
thescour
scour
depth by Hager and Unger [30] for k =
depth estimated by Hager and Unger [30] for k = 2, gives the highest scour depth value withinthe
estimated 2, gives the highest scour depth value within the
framework.
framework. The The results
results reported
reported inin the
thetable
tableshows
shows how
howthe
therelative
relativedifferences
differencesbetween
betweenthe theresults
results
according
accordingto tothe
thevarious
variousmodels
modelschange
changewithwithk.k.

Table 3. Normalised scour depth estimates computed with the three different considered
Table 3. Normalised scour depth estimates computed with the three different considered time-
time-dependent scour models. Maximum relative differences between Hager and Unger [30] and
dependent scour models. Maximum relative differences between Hager and Unger [30] and Melville
Melville and Chiew [31] scour estimates for different values of k.
and Chiew [31] scour estimates for different values of k.
Hager
Hager & Unger
& Unger [30] [30] Pizarro
Pizarro et et
al.al. [33]
[33] Melville
Melville&& Chiew
Chiew [31]
[31] (z1 -z(z
3 )1-z
/ z3)1(k
/ z= 2)
k k
1(k=2)
z1/ z1(k = 2) z2/ z1(k = 2) z3/ z1(k = 2) %
z1/ z1(k=2) z2/ z1(k=2) z3/ z1(k=2) %
2 2 1.00 1.00 0.61
0.61 0.23
0.23 77.277.2
5 5 0.93 0.93 0.55
0.55 0.20
0.20 73.473.4
1010 0.88 0.88 0.51
0.51 0.18
0.18 70.170.1
2525 0.81 0.81 0.45
0.45 0.15
0.15 65.865.8
50 0.74 0.40 0.14 60.9
50 0.74 0.40 0.14 60.9

Figure 7 shows E[z] in function of the ratio between time-to-peak and total flood duration,
Figure 7 shows E[z] in function of the ratio between time-to-peak and total flood duration, defined
defined as the percental time-to-peak (PTP). The total flood duration is computed deterministically
as the percental time-to-peak (PTP). The total flood duration is computed deterministically by the
by the relation 𝑡 = 0.0263 𝑄 − 𝑞 days [28,47]. PTP ranges between 0.2 and 0.5 in this study. The
relation t = 0.0263 Qp − q0 days [28,47]. PTP ranges between 0.2 and 0.5 in this study. The value of k is
value of k is assumed equal to 2, which, based on previous results, corresponds to the most
assumed equal to 2, which, based on previous results, corresponds to the most unfavourable condition.
unfavourable condition. It can be observed in Figure 7 that E[z] generally increases with the PTP,
It can be observed in Figure 7 that E[z] generally increases with the PTP, reaching a maximum value at
reaching a maximum value at PTP = 0.5. The maximum difference between the results obtained with
PTP = 0.5. The maximum difference between the results obtained with the Hager and Unger [30] and
the Hager and Unger [30] and Melville and Chiew [31] models is found at PTP = 0.5, and it is of the
Melville and Chiew [31] models is found at PTP = 0.5, and it is of the order of 1.55 (m), which is 103.6%
order of 1.55 (m), which is 103.6% of the pier diameter. The mean value and the coefficient of variation
of the pier diameter. The mean value and the coefficient of variation of the average scour estimates for
of the average scour estimates for T = 100 years, k = 2 and PTP = 0.5 are equal to respectively 1.30 (m)
T = 100 years, k = 2 and PTP = 0.5 are equal to respectively 1.30 (m) and 0.59.
and 0.59.
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 11 of 15
Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

[z] (m)
E [z]E (m)

Figure 7. Expected
Figure scour
7. Expected depth
scour E[z]
depth (m)
E[z] (m)ininfunction
function of the percental
of the percentaltime
time
to to peak
peak (PTP)
(PTP) according
according to to
the various scour
the various models,
scour models, T =T 100
forfor = 100years and kk =
yearsand 2.
= 2.
Figure 7. Expected scour depth E[z] (m) in function of the percental time to peak (PTP) according to
the various scour models, for T = 100 years and k = 2.
Figure 8A shows
Figure 8a showsthethePMFPMF and andFigure
Figure8B8b shows
shows thetheexceedance
exceedanceprobabilities
probabilities of the
of the scour scour
depthdepth
z z
for thefor
various
the models,
various obtained
models, assuming
obtained assumingk = 2,
k =PTP
2, =
PTP 0.5,
= and
0.5, T
and =T100
= years.
100 Melville
years.
Figure 8a shows the PMF and Figure 8b shows the exceedance probabilities of the scour depth z MelvilleandandChiew
Chiew [31]’s
[31]’s
and Pizarro
for theand Pizarro
et al.’s
various [33]etmodels
models,al.’s [33]result
obtained models inresult
single
assuming k in single
PTP peaked
= peaked
2, =PMFs,
0.5, andPMFs,
while while
Hager
T = 100 Hager
years.and and Unger’s
Unger’s
Melville and [30] [30]
Chiewmodel
resultsmodel results
in PMFs
[31]’s in PMFs
with two
and Pizarro with
peaks
et al.’s two
[33] at z = 1.90
peaks
models at z = 1.90
andin2.25
result and
(m).
single 2.25 (m).
The PMFs
peaked The PMFs
PMFs, according according
while Hager toandto the
the Unger’s various
various[30] models
models
model
are very are very
results
different. in different.
PMFs
For with
instance,For
two instance,
the peaks thez exceedance
at
exceedance = 1.90 probability
and 2.25
probability (m). Theof
of the the scour
PMFs
scour depth
according
depth z =the
z = 1.32
to 1.32
(m) (m) is for
various
is 0%
0% for
models Melville and Chiew [31], 50% for Pizarro et al. [33], and a 100% for Hager and Unger [30].
Melville andare very [31],
Chiew different.
50%Forfor instance,
Pizarro ettheal.
exceedance
[33], and probability
a 100% forof the scour
Hager anddepth
Ungerz =[30].
1.32 (m) is
0% for Melville and Chiew [31], 50% for Pizarro et al. [33], and a 100% for Hager and Unger [30].
PMFPMF
> z) > z)
P(Z P(Z

Figure 8. PMF (a) and empirical exceedance probability (b) of z for k = 2, T = 100 years, and PTP = 0.5.
Scour
Figure
Figure models
8. PMF (A)benchmarking
8. PMF (a)
andand
empiricalinexceedance
empirical terms of probabilities.
exceedance probability (b)
probability (B)of fork k= =
ofzzfor 2, 2, = 100
T =T100 years, and and
years, = 0.5.= 0.5.
PTP PTP
ScourScour models
models benchmarking
benchmarking in in terms
terms ofofprobabilities.
probabilities.
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 12 of 15

Geosciences 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

5. Comparisons with Estimates Based on Equilibrium Scour
5. Comparisons with Estimates Based on Equilibrium Scour
Equilibrium scour depths are computed considering five well-known and wide-spread scour
Equilibrium
equations scour adepths
considering flood withare computed considering five
a peak corresponding to a well-known
return period andTR wide-spread
= 100 years, scour and a
equations considering a flood with a peak corresponding to a return
hydrograph shape with k = 2 and PTP = 0.5. Figure 9 compares these equilibrium scour depths with period TR = 100 years, and a
hydrograph shape with k = 2 and PTP = 0.5. Figure 9 compares these
the scour estimates according to the three time-dependent scour formulas considered in the previous equilibrium scour depths with
the scour
section estimateskaccording
(assuming = 2 and PTP to the threeattime-dependent
= 0.5), T = 1, 5, 10, 25, 50,scour
100formulas
years. considered in the previous
section (assuming k = 2 and PTP = 0.5), at T = 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 years.
First of all, it can be observed that the scour estimates according to the time-dependent scour
First do
formulas of all,
not itreach
can bea peakobserved
at T =that the scour
100 years and estimates
would continue according to the time-dependent
to increase by increasing thescour time,
formulas
albeit at ado not reach
reduced rate.a peak
This isatbecause
T = 100 years and would
by increasing the continue
exposure to increase
time T, it isby increasing
more likely that theatime,
very
albeit at a reduced rate. This is because by increasing the exposure time T, it
intense flood will occur, resulting in a further increase of the scour depth. At T = 100 years, the average is more likely that a very
intense flood willvalues
of the expected occur,of resulting
the scour in adepth
further increaseto
according of the
the three
scour time-dependent
depth. At T = 100modelsyears, the average
is 1.30 (m),
of the expected values of the
and the coefficient of variation is 0.59. scour depth according to the three time-dependent models is 1.30 (m),
and the coefficient
Overall, of variation
it is found that the is 0.59. of the equilibrium scour depths are less scattered compared to
estimates
thoseOverall,
obtained it is found thatthe
considering thetemporal
estimatesevolution
of the equilibrium
of scour and scour
T =depths are less
100 years. They scattered
have a meancompared value
to those obtained considering the temporal evolution of scour and T = 100 years.
of 1.29 (m) and a coefficient of variation of 0.28. It is also worth noting that there is a relative difference They have a mean
value
of aboutof 1.29
100% (m) and a coefficient
between the maximum of variation
and theof 0.28. It isequilibrium
minimum also worth noting that there
scour values is a relative
(corresponding
difference
respectivelyoftoabout Froelich’s100%[40] between
and Gaothe maximum
et al.’s and theObviously,
[43] formulas). minimumthe equilibrium
obtained valuesscourstrongly
values
(corresponding respectively to Froelich’s [40] and Gao et al.’s [43] formulas).
depend on the models chosen for evaluating the equilibrium scour depth and the temporal evolution Obviously, the obtained
values
of scour. strongly
At thisdepend
regard,on the models
using differentchosen
modelsformayevaluating
result inthe equilibrium
different resultsscour depth
in terms of and
average the
temporal evolution of scour.
values and scatter of the scour estimates. At this regard, using different models may result in different results in
termsItofcan average values and scatter of the scour estimates.
be observed that the scour depth according to Melville and Chiew [31]’s time-dependent
scourIt equation
can be observedis below thatallthe
thescour depth equilibrium
computed according to scourMelville and Chiew
depths for the[31]’s
whole time-dependent
range of time.
scour
In turn, Hager and Unger’s [30] equation for T = 1 year reported a higher value than Gao etofal.time.
equation is below all the computed equilibrium scour depths for the whole range In
[43] for
turn, Hager and Unger’s [30] equation for T = 1 year reported a higher value
E[zeq ]. Pizarro et al. [33] provided a scour depth value equal to Sheppard et al. [42], for T = 100 years, than Gao et al. [43] for
E[z
whileeq]. Hager
Pizarroand et al. [33] provided
Unger [30] computed a scour thedepth
samevalue
scourequal
valueto ofSheppard
Froehlich et al.for
[40] [42],
T=for25Tyears.
= 100 years,
while Hager and Unger [30] computed the same scour value of Froehlich [40] for T = 25 years.
E[z] (m)

Figure 9.
Figure Comparisonamong
9. Comparison amongexpected
expectedscour
scourvalues
valuesfor
forthree
threedifferent
different time-dependent
time-dependent scour
scour models
models
and Equilibrium
and Equilibrium formulas.
formulas. Q
QTR=100
TR=100 = 5.6
= 5.6 /s. /s.
m3m
3

Table 44 reports
Table reports the
the equilibrium
equilibrium scour
scour depths
depths considering
considering different
different formulas.
formulas. In
Inthe
thesame
sametable,
table,
the corresponding
the correspondingvalues
valuesof of
thethe
exceedance probabilities
exceedance according
probabilities to the three
according different
to the three time-dependent
different time-
dependent models are reported. Again, the values of the exceedance probability are significantly
different for the different models, corresponding to a substantial scatter in the scour hazard estimates.
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 13 of 15

models are reported. Again, the values of the exceedance probability are significantly different for the
different models, corresponding to a substantial scatter in the scour hazard estimates.

Table 4. Benchmarking of different scour models in terms of the exceedance probability of z. T = 100
years, k = 2, and PTP = 0.5.

P(Z > z)
Equilibrium Equation ZEq (m)
Melville and Chiew [31] Pizarro et al. [33] Hager and Unger [30]
Froehlich [40] 1.84 0% 0% 95%
Gao et al. [43] 0.87 0% 100% 100%
Melville [41] 1.34 0% 33% 100%
Richardson and Davis [10] 1.11 0% 100% 100%
Sheppard et al. [42] 1.27 0% 76% 100%

6. Conclusions
The epistemic uncertainty associated with various bridge scour formula is analysed, considering
a Markov process to describe the temporal evolution of scour under multiple consecutive floods.
For this purpose, synthetic flood waves with exponential shape are generated, considering different
values of the shape parameter (k) and percental time-to-peak (PTP). Three different models are used
for describing the temporal evolution of scour during a single flood, leading to different estimates of
the probability of scour depth exceedance during the years. These estimates are also compared to the
equilibrium scour estimates obtained using five different widespread scour formulas.
With reference to the effect of the hydrograph shape on the scour hazard, it is shown that the
choice of k and PTP has some influence on the expected value of the scour depth. Decreasing k
from 50 to 2, for PTP = 0.2, results in a maximum increase of the scour depth of 0.47 (m). Moreover,
increasing the PTP from 0.2 to 0.5, for k = 2, results in a maximum increase of the scour depth of
0.25 (m). Furthermore, the probabilistic distribution of scour is highly sensitive to the choice of the
time-dependent scour model. The probability of exceeding a given scour depth may be equal to 0% for
one model, and 100% for another. Moreover, even after 100 years, the expected scour depth continues
to increase, even though at a very slow rate.
The scour depths obtained with the different equilibrium scour formulas considering a peak flood
with return period TR = 100 years are compared with the estimates obtained using time-dependent
scour models and considering a bridge lifetime of T = 100 years. The comparison shows that the
effect of the epistemic uncertainty associated with the equilibrium scour models is lower than that of
associated with the time-dependent models. Although this result may depend by the choice of the
models for the equilibrium scour and temporal scour evolution, it unequivocally shows that there is a
huge need for more laboratory experiments and field data to further validate and enhance current
models for the temporal evolution of scour.
It is noteworthy that the obtained results refer to a single case study that, although realistic, is not
representative of any real bridge. Further investigations considering a larger set of both idealized and
real case studies and scour formulas should be carried out to generalize the obtained results.

Author Contributions: A.P. and E.T. equally contributed to all phases of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Briaud, J.L.; Brandimarte, L.; Wang, J.; D’Odorico, P. Probability of scour depth exceedance owing to
hydrologic uncertainty. Georisk 2007, 1, 77–88. [CrossRef]
2. Cook, W. Bridge failure rates, consequences, and predictive trends. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University,
Logan, UT, USA, May 2014.
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 14 of 15

3. Imam, B.M.; Marios, K. Causes and consequences of metallic bridge failures. Struct. Eng. Int. 2012, 22, 93–98.
[CrossRef]
4. Kattell, J.; Eriksson, M. Bridge Scour Evaluation: Screening, Analysis, & Countermeasures; USDA Forest Service,
San Dimas Technology and Development Center: San Dimas, CA, USA, 1998.
5. Smith, D.W. Bridge failures. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK, August 1976;
Volume 60, pp. 367–382.
6. Wardhana, K.; Hadipriono, F.C. Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States. J. Perform. Constr.
Facil. 2003, 17, 144–150. [CrossRef]
7. Proske, D. Bridge Collapse Frequencies Versus Failure Probabilities; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018;
ISBN 3319738321.
8. Kirby, A.; Roca, M.; Kitchen, A.; Escarameia, M.; Chesterton, O. Manual on Scour at Bridges and Other Hydraulic
Structures; CIRIA: London, UK, 2015; ISBN 0860177475.
9. MOP Highways design manual 2000. Available online: http://www.vialidad.cl/areasdevialidad/
manualdecarreteras/Paginas/default.aspx (accessed on 17 October 2019).
10. Richardson, E.V.; Davis, S.R. Evaluating Scour at Bridges. Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) No. 18; U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
11. Arneson, L.A.; Zevenbergen, L.W.; Lagasse, P.F.; Clopper, P.E. Evaluating Scour at Bridges (Hydraulic Engineering
Circular No. 18); US DOT: Washington, DC, USA, April 2012.
12. Melville, B.W.; Coleman, S.E. Bridge Scour; Water Resources Publication: Highlands Ranch, CO, USA, 2000;
ISBN 1887201181.
13. TSO UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges UK Roads Liaison Group: Background Briefing on Highway Bridges;
Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation: London, UK, 2009.
14. Hamill, L. Bridge Hydraulics; CRC Press: Boca raton, FL, USA, 2014; ISBN 148227163X.
15. Koutsoyiannis, D.; Montanari, A. Statistical analysis of hydroclimatic time series: Uncertainty and insights.
Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43. [CrossRef]
16. Dimitriadis, P. Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in Hydrometeorological processes and in the microscale of
turbulence. Ph.D. Thesis, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece, December 2017.
17. Markonis, Y.; Moustakis, Y.; Nasika, C.; Sychova, P.; Dimitriadis, P.; Hanel, M.; Máca, P.; Papalexiou, S.M.
Global estimation of long-term persistence in annual river runoff. Adv. Water Resour. 2018, 113, 1–12.
[CrossRef]
18. Koutsoyiannis, D. HESS Opinions “A random walk on water.”. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010. [CrossRef]
19. Barbe, D.E.; Cruise, J.F.; Singh, V.P. Probabilistic approach to local bridge pier scour. Transp. Res. Rec. 1992.
Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/164643 (accessed on 17 October 2019).
20. Johnson, P.A. Reliability-based pier scour engineering. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1992, 118, 1344–1358. [CrossRef]
21. Brandimarte, L.; Montanari, A.; Briaud, J.-L.; D’Odorico, P. Stochastic flow analysis for predicting river scour
of cohesive soils. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2006, 132, 493–500. [CrossRef]
22. Kwak, K.; Briaud, J.L.; Chen, H.C. SRICOS: Computer program for bridge pier scour. Proceedings of
The International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering; Aa Balkema Publishers:
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume 3, pp. 2235–2238.
23. Johnson, P.A.; Ayyub, B.M. Assessing time—variant bridge reliability due to pier scour. J. Hydraul. Eng.
1992, 118, 887–903. [CrossRef]
24. Johnson, P.A.; Hell, T.M. Bridge Scour—A Probabilistic Approach. Infrastructure 1996, 1, 24–30.
25. Yanmaz, A.M.; Üstün, I. Generalized reliability model for local scour around bridge piers of various shapes.
Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 2001, 25, 687–698.
26. Manfreda, S.; Link, O.; Pizarro, A. A theoretically derived probability distribution of scour. Water 2018, 11,
520. [CrossRef]
27. Lagasse, P.F.; Ghosn, M.; Johnson, P.A.; Zevenbergen, L.W.; Clopper, P.E. Risk-Based Approach for Bridge
Scour Prediction; National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Board National
Research Council: Washington, DC, USA, 20 October 2013.
28. Tubaldi, E.; Macorini, L.; Izzuddin, B.A.; Manes, C.; Laio, F. A framework for probabilistic assessment of
clear-water scour around bridge piers. Struct. Saf. 2017, 69, 11–22. [CrossRef]
29. Oliveto, G.; Hager, W.H. Temporal evolution of clear-water pier and abutment scour. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2002,
128, 811–820. [CrossRef]
Geosciences 2019, 9, 445 15 of 15

30. Hager, W.H.; Unger, J. Bridge pier scour under flood waves. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2010, 136, 842–847. [CrossRef]
31. Melville, B.W.; Chiew, Y.-M. Time scale for local scour at bridge piers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1999, 125, 59–65.
[CrossRef]
32. Link, O.; Castillo, C.; Pizarro, A.; Rojas, A.; Ettmer, B.; Escauriaza, C.; Manfreda, S. A model of bridge pier
scour during flood waves. J. Hydraul. Res. 2017, 55. [CrossRef]
33. Pizarro, A.; Samela, C.; Fiorentino, M.; Link, O.; Manfreda, S. BRISENT: An Entropy-Based Model for
Bridge-Pier Scour Estimation under Complex Hydraulic Scenarios. Water 2017, 11, 889. [CrossRef]
34. Pizarro, A.; Ettmer, B.; Manfreda, S.; Rojas, A.; Link, O. Dimensionless Effective Flow Work for Estimation of
Pier Scour Caused by Flood Waves. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2017. [CrossRef]
35. Manning, R. On the Flow of Water in Open Channels and Pipes. Trans. Inst. Civ. Eng. Irel. 1891, 20, 161–207.
36. Salas, J.D.; Maidment, D. Handbook of Hydrology. In Analysis and Modeling of Hydrologic Time Series;
McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
37. Rogger, M.; Kohl, B.; Pirkl, H.; Viglione, A.; Komma, J.; Kirnbauer, R.; Merz, R.; Blöschl, G. Runoff models
and flood frequency statistics for design flood estimation in Austria–Do they tell a consistent story? J. Hydrol.
2012, 456, 30–43. [CrossRef]
38. Kothyari, U.C.; Garde, R.C.J.; Ranga Raju, K.G. Temporal variation of scour around circular bridge piers.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 1992, 118, 1091–1106. [CrossRef]
39. Chang, W.-Y.; Lai, J.-S.; Yen, C.-L. Evolution of scour depth at circular bridge piers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2004, 130,
905–913. [CrossRef]
40. Froehlich, D.C. Analysis of onsite measurements of scour at piers. In Hydraulic Engineering: Proceedings of the
1988 National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, New York, NY, USA, 8–12 August 1988; ASCE: New York,
NY, USA, 1988; pp. 534–539.
41. Melville, B.W. Pier and abutment scour: Integrated approach. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1997, 123, 125–136. [CrossRef]
42. Sheppard, D.M.; Melville, B.; Demir, H. Evaluation of existing equations for local scour at bridge piers. J.
Hydraul. Eng. 2014, 140, 14–23. [CrossRef]
43. Gao, D.; Pasada, L.; Nordin, C.F. Pier Scour Equations Used in the Peoples Republic of China; FHWA-SA-93-076;
US Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
44. Sheppard, D.M.; Melville, B. Scour at wide Piers and Long Skewed Piers. In Scour at wide Piers and Long
Skewed Piers; NCHRP Report 682; Transp. Res. Board Natl. Acad.: Washington, DC, USA, March 2011.
45. Johnson, P.A.; Torrico, E.F. Scour Around Wide Piers in Shallow Water. Transp. Res. Rec. 1994, 1471, 66–70.
46. MATLAB, R2019a; MathWorks: Netik, MA, USA, 2019. [Computer software].
47. Cunderlik, J.M.; Ouarda, T.B.M.J. Regional flood-duration—Frequency modeling in the changing environment.
J. Hydrol. 2006, 318, 276–291. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).