Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BD 9712
BD 9712
BD 9712
Part 21
bd 97/12
SUMMARY
May 2012
design manual for roads and bridges BD 97/12
Volume 3, Section 4,
Part 21
TRANSPORT SCOTLAND
Welsh Government
llywodraeth cymru
Summary: This standard outlines requirements for the assessment of scour and other
hydraulic actions at highway structures crossing or adjacent to waterways.
It provides processes to determine the level of risk associated with scour
effects. It also includes processes to assess the robustness of structures
in a flood, and references to measures for reducing risk. It supersedes
BA 74/06.
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 21 BD 97/12 Registration of Amendments
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend No Page No Signature & Date of
No incorporation of incorporation of
amendments amendments
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4
Registration of Amendments Part 21 BD 97/12
REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS
Amend Page No Signature & Date of Amend No Page No Signature & Date of
No incorporation of incorporation of
amendments amendments
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
May 2012
DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES
Part 21
bd 97/12
Contents
Chapter
1. Introduction
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
2. Assessment Processes
8. References
9. Bibliography
11. Enquiries
May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 1
Part 21 BD 97/12 Introduction
1. introduction
Scope
Implementation (England, Scotland and Wales)
1.3 This Standard is applicable to highway structures
crossing or adjacent to watercourses and covers the
assessment of highway structures for the effects of scour 1.9 This document must be used forthwith
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
and other hydraulic actions. It provides methods for on all projects for the assessment, design,
identifying structures most at risk of collapse due to a construction, operation and maintenance of
flood event. It also provides guidance on measures that motorway and all-purpose trunk roads in England,
can be used following the assessment to manage the Scotland and Wales except where procurement
risks of scour. of works has reached a stage at which, in the
opinion of the Overseeing Organisation, its use
1.4 This standard has been prepared by the would result in significant additional expense or
Overseeing Organisations specifically for use on delay progress (in which case the decision must
roads for which they are responsible and may also be be recorded in accordance with the procedure
applicable by other highway authorities to other roads in required by the Overseeing Organisation).
accordance with GD 01 (DMRB 0.1.2).
2. ASSESSMENT PROCESSES
2.1 All structures crossing a waterway must 2.6 Guidance on the assessment of vulnerability
be periodically assessed to determine whether to other hydraulic effects is given in Chapter 6.
measures are required to reduce the risk from
scour and other hydraulic effects in accordance 2.7 Assessments that relate to structural integrity
with the following: (the ability of the structure to resist hydraulic actions
and debris impact actions) require Technical Approval
(i) Structures that have not previously been in accordance with BD 2.
assessed in accordance with this standard
or BA 74 must be assessed within a period Immediate Risk Structures
to be advised by the Overseeing Organisation.
(ii) Periodic reassessment must be carried out 2.8 The Overseeing Organisation must be
as specified by the Overseeing Organisation. informed immediately if, at any stage during
inspection, assessment or whilst monitoring,
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
(iii) Where inspections carried out in accordance a structure is considered to be at immediate risk
with BD 63 (DMRB 3.1.4) (including of significant structural distress or collapse.
inspections after flood events) indicate Once confirmed and agreed with the Overseeing
significant changes to the characteristics Organisation, immediate risk structures must be
of the watercourse or the integrity of the managed in accordance with BD 79.
foundations, the structure must be assessed
in accordance with this standard as soon as
possible. Management of Scour Susceptible Structures
Start
Inspection
Level 1
Assessment
Scour Risk
Rating 1-4
Immediate Risk
Structure
Risk
BD 79
Management
Document Management
Table 3.1 – Default Ranges of Foundation Depths (iii) the potential for debris blocking the flow;
3.7 Photographs should be taken for reference (iv) the potential instability of the superstructure
in the subsequent assessment and to provide a during a flood or once scouring has occurred
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
Start
Yes
Foundations on Sound Rock?
No
No
No
No
Yes
Bridge immediately
No
downstream of sharp bend or angle
of attack > 10°?
Yes
3.11 If effective protection, such as described in 7.18 • abutments that protrude into the river
and 7.19, has been provided and the protection is in channel;
good condition, the risk from scour is likely to be low.
The design calculations for the protection measures • open spans of such lengths that the
should be reviewed, if they are available. abutments or piers cause significant
contraction of the river channel;
3.12 When checking the depth of foundations relative
to the maximum channel depth, the calculation should • relatively small bridge openings or bridges
be based on the depth from the average bed level to with debris screens or obstructions that
the underside of a spread footing or pilecap. Although could easily be blocked by floating debris.
there is less risk of scour causing damage to a piled
foundation, it is undesirable for the piles themselves 3.15 Consideration should be given to the potential
to be exposed, as this may affect their bearing capacity for changes to the plan geometry of the river channel.
or the lateral stability of the bridge. A channel may be considered as having only a small
risk of lateral movement if any of the following apply:
3.13 When considering whether abutments are set well
back from the river channel, the possibility of overbank (i) River confined within a valley with little or no
flood conditions should be taken into account. Local floodplain.
scour can occur at abutments under these conditions,
particularly if the bridge alignment is oblique to the (ii) No history of movement.
main flow direction.
(iii) Adequate bank protection or training works are
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
3.14 Examples of structures for which a Level 2 provided and there are no signs of deterioration.
assessment will be necessary include the following:
3.16 The prediction of future movement of the river
(i) structures currently experiencing scour or channel can involve a degree of uncertainty. If there
those which have a history of scour problems are clear signs that the channel is unstable then the
as identified, for example, from inspection and analysis must proceed to Level 2. Lateral erosion and
maintenance records, but which do not have movement of the watercourse tends to occur as a series
adequate scour protection; of steps associated with the flood events and even a
20-year period of relative stability does not necessarily
(ii) structures that do not have adequate scour indicate that large movements would not occur in a
protection and which have design features that major flood. However, if a river has shown no signs
make them more likely to be vulnerable to scour, of lateral instability and has clearly been confined
such as: to its present channel for a considerable time then it
may be reasonable to assume that the channel will
• piers and abutments founded on shallow remain stable. This assumption should be recorded and
spread footings in the river channel; reviewed in future inspections.
• bridges on unstable river channels; 3.17 The lack of potential for significant lateral
movement does not, however, indicate a lack of
• bridges on fast flowing steep channels; potential for local bank erosion. Narrow valleys with
a confined channel are often associated with steep fast
• bridges on or immediately downstream flowing rivers and streams. Local bank erosion can be
of bends in the river; a major problem in such cases and only if the bridge
abutments are founded on rock or are well clear of the
• piers subject to an oblique angle of attack watercourse under flood conditions may it be possible to
from the flow (note: this can be a particular conclude that the risk of such erosion leading to damage
problem if there is an upstream obstruction is small.
as, for example, another bridge with piers
aligned at a different angle to the bridge
under consideration causing the flow to be
directed obliquely towards the bridge being
assessed);
Reporting
General
Start
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
Go to Chapter 5 to calculate
Scour Risk Rating
4.7 The index flood should be scaled by a growth TTide is the tidal period.
curve derived from data extracted from a pooling group
of gauged UK catchments. The method is given in 4.13 QTide should be calculated for the average tidal
the Flood Estimation Handbook. Sites for the pooling range, which is the average of the mean spring and
groups should be selected based on a measure of neap tidal ranges. If the flow calculated in this way
hydrological similarity derived from catchment area, is less than 0.5 QF, then the Assessment Flow should
annual average rainfall, soil type, flood attenuation, be taken as:
and urbanisation. The number of sites within the
QA = QF + QTide
pooling group should ideally be sufficient to provide
a total of 1,000 years of data (or five times the return
However, if the tidal flow based on the average tidal
period), but no less than 500 years. The recommended
range is greater than 0.5 QF, then the maximum tidal
form of the growth curve to be used in the UK is the
flow QTide,max, should also be considered, based on the
Generalised Logistic distribution, as described in the
range between the Highest and Lowest Astronomical
Flood Estimation Handbook.
Tides, and the Assessment Flow should be taken as the
greater of
4.8 An adjustment to QF to account for the effects
of climate change is required. For design it is common
QA = QF + QTide
to allow for an additional 20% on the design flood to
account for potential climate change over the life of the and
structure (Planning Policy Statement 25). This addition
QF
should also be applied for assessment. QA = + QTide ,max
3
4/2 May 2012
Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 4
Part 21 BD 97/12 Level 2 Scour Assessment
Q A Q F QTide
4.20 Where the normal depth for the assessment flow
4.14 In an estuary the tidal rise during the exceeds the bank levels then an adjustment should
However,
incoming if the
tidetidal flow
can be much based on the
more average
rapid than tidal range be
is greater
made tothan 0.5 Q
account then
F ,the
for the of floodplains, as
effect
the ebb tide.
maximum tidal If the Q
flow seaward,face of the piers described in 4.25.
tide , max should also be considered, based on the range between the Highest
or abutments appears to be vulnerable to scour
andduring
Lowest Astronomical
reverse flows on Tides, andcycle
the flood the Assessment
of the Flow4.21
shouldThe
be taken
normalasdepth
the greater of
and velocity upstream of
tide, this must be assessed. the bridge based on uniform flow conditions may
Q A Q F QTide be calculated based on a simplification of Manning’s
equation for wide channels:
4.15
and Reverse flows may be allowed for by taking the
3
Assessment Flow as no less than 5
Qn
4Q.5 Q F Q yn A1
A QTide , max Tide , max Bs 2
π 3
Q 3
v nQAnA 5
Calculation of Assessment Flow Depth and Velocity yn By
12 n
Upstream
4.14 of Bridge Site
In an estuary the tidal rise during the incoming tidewhere Bs themore
can beynmuch 3
rapid than the ebb
is QAnormal
n 5 depth (in m), QA is the assessment flow (in
tide. If the seaward face of the piers or abutments appears to beQ
channelvulnerable
A y n(in to
m),normal
is the scour
s1 is thedepth during
slope of reverse
the QA is theas calculated in 4.23, n
m),channel
4.16
flows The
on the depth and
flood cycle of theupstream
velocity tide, thisofmust
the bridge
be assessed.v n where
defined
n
in
4.24, and
v is the
(in
normal velocity corresponding to yn.
site should generally be calculated from an hydraulic assessment
By n Bs
flow (in
2
m n3
/s), B is the average width
analysis based on the assessment flow and the of the channel
where yn is the Q (in
normal m), s is the slope of the channel
depth (in m), QA is the assessment as flow (in m3
4.15 Reverse flows may be allowed for
characteristics of the waterway and the floodplains.by taking the Assessment v
calculated in
Flow
A
4.23, as B n
no is Manning’s
less
usingof than
thethe coefficient
approach as defined
4.22 (innIfm),yBy
channel s is the slope channelin as4.21 then the
calculated in calculatio
4.23, n is
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
4 .5
However, where the flow through the bridge is governed in 4.24, and vnn is n the10 normal velocity corresponding
Qtide, max defined in 4.24, and vn is the normal velocity corresponding to yn.
byminimum energy considerations the depth and . where
thisyncase
to the yfollowing
n is the normal approach depthmay(inbe QA is the assessment
m),used: flo
velocity at the bridge may be directly determined from channel (in m), s is the slope of the channel as calculated in
4.22 If value B using the approach in 4.21 then the
4.22 defined
If y n in 4.24,
using thev approach
and is the normal velocity
in 4.21 corresponding
then the calculation m
4.32 and 4.33. (i)
Calculation of Assessment Flow Depth and Velocity Upstream 10 The of A
of n should nbe found such that Manning’s equation
Bridge Site 3
case the
thiscalculation Q Afollowing rather
5
2/3
Pmaynbe approach may be used:
B conservative. In this case the
4.17
4.16 In the absence of more detailed methods
The depth and velocity upstream of the bridge site which A
4.22
should If
generally y be using
calculated thefrom approacha in 4.21 then the calc
would need to be agreed with the Technical Approval following
n
approach
1 nmay be used:
10
hydraulic analysis based on the assessment flow and (i) theThe
characteristics s 2
of the waterway
value of An should be found such that Manning’s equation is and the
Authority, the simplified methods for calculating the this case the following approach may be used:
floodplains. However, where the flow through the bridge where The
(i) is
An is governed
/ 3the area
2value
3 of A by
of theminimum
should energy
flowbecorresponding
found such that to the normal depth
depth and velocity upstream of the bridge site given in mQ3 P nthe length
5 n
considerations the depth and velocity at the bridge may be directly A determined
P fromof4.32 and 4.33.
4.18 – 4.23 may be used. An (i) 1The value of An should be found such of
(in /s)
Manning’s is equation the
is wetted
satisfied: perimeter the channel (in
that Manning’s eq
calculated 2in 0, and n is Manning’s coefficient as defined in 4.24.
s 3
4.17 In the absence of more
4.18 For waterways with flood embankments on detailed methods which would need to be
agreed
Q A Pof the
2/3
with
5
the Technical
n flow corresponding to the normal depth (in
where An A is the area
Approval
both sides Authority,
of the river,the simplified
unless methods
it can be shownfor thatcalculating (ii)
the3 The
depth n
normaland depth
velocity flow yn. should
ofupstream of the be determined based on th
(in m /s) P is the length 1
2 ofthe wetted perimeter of the channel (in m)
bridgewould
these site given
not beinovertopped
4.18 – 4.23by may
thebe used.
assessment shape of the cross s section,
flow, calculated in 0, and n is Manning’s coefficient as illustrated in Figure 4.2. If the flow i
as defined in 4.24.
the maximum flood level upstream of the bridge yu banks where then PA
where Aand
n is
is A
then will
the area
area both
of
of thedepend
the flow
flow on the depth and
corresponding
corresponding to an
to theiterative
normal
3 n
4.18 For waterways with flood embankments
should be taken as 300mm above the top of the flood (ii) The normalon both the
sides equation.
of the
(in m river,
the normal /s)Where
P unless
is
depth the
the it depth
can
length 2beexceeds
of shown
the
QA is be
(in ymn. ),should the
wetted bank level then
assessmentbased onchann
perimeter
thedetermined of thethe cros
depth of flow the v
that these would not be overtopped by the assessment
embankments and the velocity upstream of the bridge shape of the flow, assumed
the maximum to
calculated
flowcross extend 3in vertically
flood
(in msection, 0 , level
and
/s) P isasthe n above
upstream
is Manning’s
length ofinthetheof banks
the for
coefficient
wetted the calculation
as defined inof
illustrated Figure 4.2. If the flow is no
bridge y should be taken as 300mm above the top of the flood embankments
perimeter and the velocity s is depth
should beu taken as banks then P and Anofwill the bothchannel depend (in m),on the the slope
and an iterative ap
upstream of the bridge should be taken as (iii) The (ii)
of normal
Thechannel
the velocity
normal asdepth corresponding
of flowiny4.23,
calculated n. shouldyn. should
to and be be determine
n isdetermined based
the equation. Where the depth exceeds the bank level then the cross s
Q assumed Q
shape
Manning’s of thecoefficient
toAextend vertically
cross section, as illustrated
as defined
above the banks in 4.24. in Figure 4.2. If the
for the calculation of yn
vu A v n banks then P and An will both depend on the depth and an ite
Byu An
(ii) the The equation.
normal depth Where of the
flow depth
yn should exceeds the bank level then th
be determined
where B is the average width of the channel. (iii) The normal velocity corresponding to yn. should be determined a
assumed
based on to theextendvalue vertically
of An and above the banks for the calcula
the approximate
where B is the average width of the channel. 4.23 Q Ashape Unless of themore cross detailed
section, survey data are available,
as illustrated in Figure the longitu
v
based on the height
4.19 Where flood embankments are not present, the depth and velocity flowofisvelocity
upstream contours on
of sufficient 1:25,000
thecorresponding
bridge orto1:10,000 OSbemaps
n
An(iii)
4.2. The
If the normal not to overtop yn. should
the dete
shouldWhere
4.19 be calculated assuming uniform
flood embankments are notflow conditions,
present, the channel
where the between
energy
banksQ then lost the to contour
drag at positions.
the
P and An will both depend on the At least two contours shou
depth and velocity
boundary upstream
layer is equal ofchange
to the the bridge should be
in potential energy, and bridge. vdepth
thedepth and
Unless isAthere
uniform
an is awith
iterative marked a value
approachchange of yof slope close to and upstr
4.23 Unless A
n more detailed survey datamay aren be required
available, the longitudin
calculated
as definedassuming
in 4.21. Thisuniform flow conditions,
simplified where the afflux
approach neglects slopeeffectshould be
caused calculated.
by the If
bridge there
itselfis such
and a change
exceedsofOS slope then t
based on to thesolve theofequation.
contoursWhere the depth
n
height on 1:25,000 or 1:10,000 maps and
the
willenergy
generallylost provide
to drag at the boundaryestimate
a conservative layer is equal
of theto velocitytakenfor asthe that of
calculation
the bankthe the
level riverof
then the reach
scour. immediately
cross section upstream
boundary of the bridge
the change in potential energy, and the depth is uniform channel between contour positions. At least two contours should
4.23
shouldthere beUnless
assumed moretodetailed
extend survey data
vertically are available,
above the l
theand upstream
with of ythe bridge. Unless is a marked change of slope close to
4.20 a value
Where asnormal
defineddepth
in 4.21.
for This simplified flow exceeds
the assessment 4.24 based Values
the
banks bank on
for of
levels
the
the Manning’s
height coefficient
thenofancontours
calculation adjustment
of y . n should be
on 1:25,000 assumed OS
or 1:10,000 to b
the bridge slope should be calculated. If there is such a change of slope then the
n n
approach
should beneglects
made tothe affluxfor
account effect
the caused
effect ofbyfloodplains, as described channel in 4.25. between the contour positions. At least two contour
itself and will generally provide a conservative estimate taken as that of the river reach immediately upstream of the bridge.
(i) n =bridge.
0. 035 Unless for a reasonablythere is a straight
marked channel, change ofclear slope ofclose
obstruction
to and
of the velocity
4.21 for thedepth
The normal calculation of scour.
and velocity upstream of the bridge vegetation,
based
slopeonshould uniform be flow conditions
calculated. If there mayis such a change of slope
4.24 Values of Manning’s coefficient n should be assumed to be a
be calculated based on a simplification of Manning’s equation (ii) nfor =taken
0. 060
wide for
thataof
aschannels: channel
the river with reachirregular banks orupstream
immediately heavy brush of thean
May 2012 (iii) intermediate values may be adopted for channels4/3 between thes
(i) n = 0. 035 for a reasonably straight channel, clear of obstructions a
is given 4.24 in Open ValuesChannel Hydraulics,
of Manning’s Chow andn McGraw
coefficient should be(1959).
assume
vegetation,
(ii) n = 0. 060 for a channel with irregular banks or heavy brush and t
(in m3/s) P is the length of the wetted perimeter of the channel (in m), s is the slope of the channel as
calculated in 0, and n is Manning’s coefficient as defined in 4.24.
(ii) The normal depth of flow yn. should be determined based on the value of An and the approximate
Chapter 4 Volume 3 Section 4
shape of the cross section, as illustrated in Figure 4.2. If the flow is not sufficient to overtop the
Level 2 Scour Assessment Part 21 BD 97/12
banks then P and An will both depend on the depth and an iterative approach may be required to solve
the equation. Where the depth exceeds the bank level then the cross section boundary should be
assumed to extend vertically above the banks for the calculation of yn.
(iii) The normal velocity corresponding to yn should (i) n = 0. 035 for a reasonably straight channel,
(iii)
be determined as:velocity corresponding to yn. should be determined
The normal as :
clear of obstructions and with only light bank
QA vegetation;
vn
An (ii) n = 0. 060 for a channel with irregular banks
or heavy brush and trees on the banks;
4.23 Unless more detailed survey
4.23 Unless more detailed survey data are available, data are available, the longitudinal slope s should be estimated
based on slope
the height of contours on 1:25,000 (iii) intermediate values may be adopted for channels
the longitudinal s should be estimated based onor 1:10,000 OS maps and the total length along the
channel between between these two extremes. Further guidance
the height of contours onthe contourorpositions.
1:25,000 1:10,000 OS At least two contours should be used on either side of the
bridge. Unless there is a marked change of slope close to is given
and in Open
upstream of Channel
the bridge,Hydraulics,
an average Chow and
maps and the total length along the channel between
slope should be calculated. If there is such a change of slopeMcGraw
then the(1959).
relevant gradient should be
the contour positions. At least two contours should
be usedtaken as that
on either sideofofthe
theriver reach
bridge. immediately
Unless there is upstream
a of the bridge.
4.25 If the level of the normal depth for the assessment
marked change of slope close to and upstream of the
bridge, 4.24
an averageValues
slopeofshould
Manning’s coefficient
be calculated. should beflow
If nthere
as calculated
assumed to be asin 4.21 does not exceed the level of
follows:
the banks, then the upstream depth and velocity should
is such a change of slope then the relevant gradient
should be n = 0.as
(i) taken 035 forofa the
that reasonably straight
river reach channel, clearbeoftaken
immediately
as the normal
obstructions values:
and with only light bank
vegetation,
upstream of the bridge.
(ii) n = 0. 060 for a channel with irregular banks or heavy yu = ynbrush and trees on the banks,
(iii) intermediate
4.24 Values of Manning’s values may benadopted
coefficient should be for channels between these two extremes. Further guidance
and
assumedis to
given
be asinfollows:
Open Channel Hydraulics, Chow and McGraw (1959).
vu = vn
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
4.25 If the level of the normal depth for the assessment flow as calculated in 4.21 does not exceed
the level of the banks, then the upstream depth and velocity should be taken as the normal values:
yu y n
and
vu v n
(a)
(b)
(c)
shouldshouldbe compared
that there with
will bebeenergy the estimated
withloss at the slope value as calculated the in flow
4.23. through the bridge does not exceed the soffit level, i
solution beshould
compared selected thewith yB =bridge
estimated slope
yB,sup constriction,
basedvalue s (iii)as which
calculated
If the forconditions
subcritical
in 4.23. in flow would
(i) and (ii)result
are not in satisfied
a
reduced
on depth and
the smaller of the a faster
two positivevelocity. For the of
solutions calculation of velocity at the bridge,
then a calculation the water
of the y B should
depth height based on
sBernoulli’s
(ii) If (ii) 0
therefore
.9 s
If s be c , or if it is
sc , orasifas
0.equation
9taken considered
it in
no
likely
4.31. than the
isgreater
considered that
likely the local
that the
critical
slope
depthlocal at
forslope
the
pressure
minimum
bridge
at theflow would
bridge
energy:
exceed
conditions
would exceed s
should sif
c , or be , carried
or if out.
c
there isthereany isother particular 1reason that the flow could be supercritical,
any other 2particular reason that the flow could be supercritical, The then
depth the
y supercritical
may
then
uf
be determined
the supercritical solution iteratively
solution using
(iii) Otherwise,
shouldshouldbe selected itwith
isQoften y 3reasonable to assume
y based on the smaller of the (iii)
twothe If the conditions
following
positive equation
solutions inbased
of (i) andon(ii)
Bernoulli’s a are notgate
sluice satisfied then a ca
y B theybe selected
willA2 bewith B yBB,sup y BHowever
subcritical. ,sup based it on the smaller ofpressure the two flow positive solutions of Bernoulli’s
conditions The depth yuf
that flow
C is approach, which initiallyshouldassumes be that
carriedthe out.
water
equation as
equation in 4.31.
likely thatasthere in B
4.31. g
Bwillbe energy loss at the bridge following equation
does exceed soffit level: based on a sluice gate approach, which in
constriction, which for subcritical flow would exceed soffit level:
(iii) Otherwise,
(iii)
result Otherwise,
in a itreduced
is oftenit is reasonable
often
depth and a to
reasonable assume
faster to that the
assume
velocity. For flow
that the will
flow bewillsubcritical.
becalculated However
subcritical. 2 it is likely
However it depth
is 2likely
4.33 The area of flow through the bridge opening ABy should be wouldbased on 2the y .
that there
that will
there be energy
will be loss
energy at the
loss bridge
at the constriction,
bridge constriction,which for
which
subcritical
for z
flow
subcritical Q
flow result
A would QinAa in a B
result
the
This calculation
should be of
takenvelocity
as no at the
greater bridge,
than the
the depth
total area of the g yufopening.
2bridge 0
reduced yB depth and a faster velocity. asForno the calculation theof velocity at the at bridge, Adepth
the depthy should
shoulddepth
reduced therefore and abe taken
faster velocity. greater
For thethan calculation of velocity 2 bridge,
the uf the B ABy B should
therefore be
critical
therefore
The mean taken
depth as no greater
for minimum
bevelocity
taken asatno than
thegreater the
energy:
bridge than critical
should thebe depth
critical
calculatedfor minimum
depthas energy:
for minimum energy:
1
1
where Auf is the area of flow just upstream from
Q A 2 Q3 2 3 the structure, AB is the area of the bridge opening
y B yyC y Q A2 A and z is the height from the bed level to the soffit.
v BB B C g B 2
g If there are no positive solutions for yuf greater
A B
B
By than z then it may be assumed that the water will
4.33 The The areaarea ofof flowflow through
through thethe bridge
bridge opening
opening AByABy should be notcalculated
reach thebased
soffit.based
on theon depth yB . y .
4.33 The area of flow through the bridge opening ABy should be calculated the depth
should Maximum
This shouldbe calculated
be taken depth
based
as ofon
no greater water
the depthat
than the the
y . upstream
This should face
B total area of the bridge opening.
of the structure B
This should be taken as
be taken as no greater than the total area of the bridge no greater than the total area of the bridge opening.
4.35 For structures where the water level just upstream
opening.
The mean 4.34 The The
mean
velocity maximum
velocity
at the at at depth
the
bridgebridge of
bridge water
shouldshould should just
be calculated upstream
be as from of thethe bridge yuf should
structure be compared
is expected to exceed withthe thesoffit level,
The
calculatedheight mean
as:of the velocity
structurethe soffit above bed be level,calculated as stability
z. The following
the methods may be considered:
and robustness of the bridge should be
considered as in Chapter 6. Debris impact should also
(i)Q AThe upstream betoconsidered in cases where:
v B v Q A depth y u will provide a lower bound the depth just upstream of the structure yuf. If
yuA , then it may be assumed that
By ABy using the method in 4.25 exceeds soffit ylevel,
B calculated i.e.
the water level just upstream of the structure will exceed b
vb2/2g
+ the ≥ zlevel.
soffit - 0.6
Maximum (ii) It depth
may beof assumed
water that
at the the upstream
water level face does not of reach
the the level of the soffit if the specific head of
Maximum
the flow through depth theofbridgewater doesat the upstream
not exceed face
the soffit ofstructure
level,thei.e. structure
4.34 4.34
The maximum
The maximumdepth depth
of water just upstream
of water of the of
just upstream bridge yuf should
the bridge be compared
yuf should with the
be compared with the
heightheight
of the of
structure soffit above bed level, z. The following methods may be considered:
the structure soffit above bed level, z. The following methods may be considered:
Chapter 4
Calculation of Constriction Scour Depth
Volume 3 Section 4
Level 2 Scour Assessment Part 21 BD 97/12
4.38 The average depth of constriction scour must be calculated
velocity through the bridge opening dropping to a threshold value
scouring of the bed.
Calculation of Scour Depth 4.39 The additional area of the flow consistent with the
constriction scour should be calculated as
4.39 The additional area of the flow consistent with the constric
4.36 The depth of scour consistent with the QA
A ABy
calculated flow parameters must be determined. vB,c
The effects of constriction scour and local scour
must be obtained and added together. where ∆A is
where A is the
the additional
additional area
area of
of bridge opening, vvB,c
bridge opening, is the mean
is
cause further scouring, as given in 0, and
the mean threshold velocity that would not By A B,c
cause furtherof flow thr
is the area
constriction
scouring, as scour, based
given in yB but
4.41,onand ABy no greater
is the area than the total area of
of flow
4.37 Constriction scour is associated with the erosion through the bridge opening without constriction scour,
of bed material caused by increased velocities through a 4.40
based onThe average
yB but depththan
no greater of constriction scour
the total area below the original
of the
constriction in the channel at the bridge location. Local calculated to
bridge opening. provide the additional flow area across the width of th
scour is associated with the additional effects of piers or Figure 4.6.
abutments disturbing the flow and causing vortices that 4.40 The average depth of constriction scour below the
erode the bed locally. original bed level Dc,ave should be calculated to provide
the additional flow area across the width of the channel
Calculation of Constriction Scour Depth bed, as illustrated in Figure 4.6.
ABy
4.38 The average depth of constriction scour
must be calculated that would result in the average A
velocity through the bridge opening dropping to
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
4.41 The threshold velocity vB,c should generally be the competent mean velocity depends on the depth of
assumed to be equal to the competent mean velocity, flow, accounting for scour. The bed material grain size
which may be estimated based on Figure 4.7 for should be based on an estimate of the median grain size
granular materials or Table 4.4 for cohesive materials. where this is practicable, and should be no less than the
An iterative approach will generally be required because default values in Table 4.3.
Dc = FsDc,ave
Para 4.49
0.65
L
f PA cos sin
Wp
4.50 The depth of flow factor fy should be taken as: 4.51 For piers comprising a line of columns then the
local scour may be calculated based on the following:
(i) 1.0 where the depth at the pier including
constriction scour ysp exceeds 2.6 times the pier (i) if the columns are in line with the flow then the
width, where ysp = yB + DC. local scour should be based on 1.15 times the
depth for a single column
0.255
y sp
(ii) In other cases, f y 0.78 (ii) if the columns are not in line with the flow and
Wp the spacing exceeds 5 column diameters then
the local scour should be based on 1.2 times
the depth for a single column.
Wp 2-6 1.4
>6 1.2
Triangular
Lenticular 2 0.9
Wp 3 0.8
4 0.7
DR = DT/DF
Reporting
5.1 The objective of scour assessment is to (vii) The foundations may be constructed on rock
allocate a Scour Risk Rating to each assessed or on piles that have not been recorded.
structure on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the
highest risk. Structures allocated a risk rating of 5.3 Where the estimates of scour depth are very much
1 must be designated as Immediate Risk Structures greater than the foundation depth but the bridge has no
and managed in accordance with BD 79. Structures history of problems, possible explanations including
allocated risk levels of 1 to 4 must be designated those in 5.2 should be investigated to achieve a more
as Scour Susceptible. The assessment results must realistic indicator of risk.
be recorded in the Overseeing Organisation’s
management information system.
5.4 Immediate Risk Structures are those
structures that are considered to be at immediate
5.2 It is important to recognise that the calculated risk of collapse, either based on qualitative
scour depth is a theoretical estimate of the potential observations of changes to the waterway or the
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
scour depth. If this estimate suggests that the scour structure, including the appearance of scour holes,
will extend below the foundation, it does not necessarily debris build up at the bridge, or damage to the
imply that the bridge is at high risk of failure. The structure indicative of scour; monitoring data;
calculation methods used to calculate scour depth are or by calculation of the assessed risk. Immediate
considered conservative. There may also be specific Risk Structures must be urgently identified to the
reasons why the depth of scour at a bridge may not be Overseeing Organisation as described in 2.8.
as great as the assessment suggests, including:
(i) The presence of an enlargement of the foundation Assessment of Scour Risk Rating
that is not exposed by the constriction scour
and hence is likely to restrict the depth of the 5.5 The approach adopted is to assess an approximate
local scour. depth of scour that potentially could occur under the
extreme flood condition and to compare that with the
(ii) The location of the maximum depth of actual depth of the bridge foundation. This comparison
constriction scour might not coincide with itself provides the dominant parameter in any
the location of the maximum local scour. prioritisation.
(iii) Local scour development below a pile cap could 5.6 However there are other parameters that may
be less than that calculated on the basis of the pile increase or reduce the likelihood of damage occurring.
cap width. Some of those have been taken into account in the Stage
2 assessment but there are others that are more difficult
(iv) The presence of earlier unrecorded protection to assess from any numerical analysis but which should
works, or the presence of more erosion resistant be considered. These include the following parameters:
layers of material below the bed, may inhibit the
development of scour. • a history of scour problems;
(v) The presence below the river bed of the original • the type of foundation and material on which the
cofferdam, or other sheet piling works built bridge is founded;
for the construction of the works and left in
place after completion of the bridge, may act • the type of river;
as an enlargement to the pier and suppress the
horseshoe vortex and resulting scour hole. • the importance of the bridge as indicated by
vehicle traffic volume and other factors.
5.10 The foundation depth as defined for DR, makes If the terrain is lowland or an estuary TR = 1.0
no allowance for the depth of any piles. Where the
foundation is constructed on piles the priority for further Importance factor, V
action is reduced as follows:
5.14 The greater the importance of the bridge and the
For a piled foundation F = 0.75 greater the disruption caused by any interruption to
its use, the higher the priority. Importance is typically
For a spread footing F = 1.0 related to traffic flow. Hence the Importance factor V
is given by:
History of scour problem factor, H
Type of road 12 hour traffic flow V
5.11 The history of scour problem factor,
H is given by: Motorway/A road ≥ 30,000 1.0
If the bridge has a history of scour Motorway/A road 10,000 – 29,999 0.9
problems then H = 1.5
A/B class road 1,000 – 9,999 0.8
If the bridge has no history of
problems then H = 1.0 B/other class road < 1,000 0.7
5.15 There are some circumstances where the traffic In such cases, the figures for V in 5.14 can be multiplied
flow alone does not fully reflect the importance of a by an additional factor of up to 1.3.
bridge. Examples include:
Scour Risk Rating
• bridges with no suitable diversion route or the
diversion route is very long; 5.16 The Scour Risk Rating is then assessed from
Figure 5.1, based on the Priority Factor and the Relative
• bridges on rural roads to ports serving island Scour Depth (4.54). This graph shows five bands which
communities where there is no diversion route define the risk rating (1 being the highest priority and
5 the lowest). Bridges falling in band 5 have either
• bridges that provide a link within a community been eliminated at Stage 1, as having a very low risk
where loss of the bridge would result in of scour damage, or have been assessed in Stage 2 as
unacceptable community severance. having a depth of foundation greater than the estimated
maximum depth of scour.
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
protection measures as a high priority. (i) the cost of carrying out the investigation and
Structures with a Risk Rating of 1 to be reassessment;
managed as Immediate Risk Structures
in accordance with BD 79. (ii) the cost of providing protection measures.
3&4 Carry out further investigations,
determine and if necessary implement 7.4 The first step following the assessment should
appropriate monitoring and scour be an appraisal of the conclusions by a specialist river
protection measures when resources engineer. Before any significant expenditure on further
allow and after Risk Rating 1 and 2 studies and/or remedial works it needs to be confirmed
structures have been dealt with. that the simplifications inherent in this methodology are
Re-inspections, both as part of regular not leading to an excessively conservative conclusion.
bridge inspections and after major
7.5 The second step should be to review the
floods, should examine for signs of
theoretical conclusions in the light of the age and
scour and bank erosion. If conditions at
history of the bridge. There may be particular reasons
the bridge change then re-assessment
why scour could not develop at a site to the extent
should be carried out.
predicted. For example, an old bridge with no history
5 No action required other than routine of problems may well be founded in a scour-resistant
inspections in accordance with BD 63. layer of material or even rock.
Table 7.1 – Actions in Response Example
to Scour Risk Rating
7.6 One particular bridge, included in the sample set
7.2 Management strategies for scour susceptible on which the methodology was tested, is a large multi-
structures should be developed by the Maintaining span structure on a major river. The bridge is located
Organisation. Management strategies will vary immediately downstream of an abrupt 90° bend, with
according to structure type and risk level but will angled approach flow across the face of the wide piers –
typically comprise a selection of risk management all the circumstances which would be expected to lead
measures including further investigation/refined to a major scour problem.
assessment calculations, emergency planning,
monitoring measures and scour protection measures.
7.7 The theoretical depth of scour is some six times assessment of the conditions at the site. Where control
the depth to the pile cap and comparable to the depth structures affect the downstream levels or other bridges,
of the piles themselves, yet the bridge has been in or training works affect the approach flow, it may be
place for 70 years with no instances of major problems worthwhile having further analysis carried out by
having been noted in the summary records held by the hydraulic engineers. This could involve mathematical
Overseeing Organisation. The fact that the river channel or even physical modelling but before such studies are
has remained stable at the bend is, however, indicative embarked on, their costs need to be compared with the
of erosion resistant soils and the construction drawings costs of providing protection.
do indicate layers of clay beneath the gravel bed. It
could also be seen when the bridge was examined at a Flood Emergency Plan
time of low flow in the river that cofferdam works had
been left in place following either construction of the 7.12 A flood emergency plan may be appropriate for
original bridge or modifications to the bridge piers. some structures most at risk of scour-related collapse in
the event of a flood of a particular magnitude. The plan
7.8 Those modifications, which involved reshaping should include the relevant trigger levels, associated
the bridge pier noses, are perhaps indicative that scour actions (e.g. closure of the structure and diversion
problems were experienced at some stage despite the of traffic), details of relevant authorities to authorise
lack of any such note in the bridge records. Further and implement the measures, and the processes for
searches as suggested in 5.3 might discover additional reviewing the measures as appropriate.
records which describe the modifications to the bridge,
their purpose and their date, all of which would be Monitoring Measures
helpful to a reviewing engineer. It may also be the case
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
that the pile caps are fully exposed in quite moderate 7.13 In the interim period before protection measures
flows but that the scour does not develop to an extent can be implemented, Scour Susceptible Structures
that endangers the bridge. This could be either because should be monitored to identify changes to the structure
of the cofferdam works or the layers of scour resistant or the watercourse, or to measure the development of
material below the river bed. scour where appropriate. Methods for managing the
monitoring of structures are described in BD 79.
7.9 In this case there may be no need of additional
protection works but borehole confirmation of the 7.14 Scour monitoring techniques fall into the
foundation material and monitoring of the bed profile following broad categories:
and the development of any scour may be appropriate.
However, it would also be sensible to carry out a more (i) those that seek to measure the maximum scour
detailed investigation of the remnants of the cofferdams levels that have occurred at the bridge site;
and their condition. If the bridge is dependent upon
(ii) those that seek to measure the development of
these cofferdams to prevent damaging scour then they
scour adjacent to the structure as it develops
must be considered as an essential part of the bridge
during a flood;
and be subject to the same inspection criteria.
(iii) systems based on monitoring analogues
7.10 In some cases further theoretical studies may be
(conditions that may correlate with the
appropriate, possibly backed up by site measurements.
development of scour) such as flow velocities,
For example, the theoretical approach outlined in this
water level, or weather warnings.
document for bridges in tidal locations is very simplified
and will be over-conservative in some cases. Further 7.15 Retrospective measurement of scour depth can
analysis of the potential flows and velocities through be difficult because scour holes tend to refill on the
such bridges may be warranted and could be cross- receding flood. Generally therefore the techniques rely
checked by site velocity measurements. on assessing the differences between material filling a
scoured hole and the underlying bed material. This may
7.11 Generally, however, the relative lack of sensitivity
be indicated by changes in the material grading, caused
of the local scour depth to the depth and velocity of
by the natural armouring effect that occurs at the bottom
flow make any further refinement of the flood flow
of a scour hole, or, if investigations are carried out
unlikely to be worthwhile unless there were particular
shortly after a flood, by changes in the compaction of
uncertainties with the estimation at a particular site.
the material. There are a number of possible techniques,
In most cases this will also apply to the hydraulic
including:
(i) Test pits: These may be costly and the results 7.19 Specialist input is generally required to determine
may not be sufficiently sensitive to identify subtle the most appropriate option. Selected remedial measures
changes in the bed material. to provide scour protection to a vulnerable pier or
abutment are described below (for further information
(ii) Borings: These also have limitations and may see BA 59 and CIRIA C551):
disturb the material such that the distinctions
looked for are masked. They are not suitable in (i) Stone (riprap) aprons
coarse material.
Stone aprons may be placed around piers and
(iii) Ultrasonic or radar-based measurements. abutments as a flexible ‘falling apron’ to prevent
local scour development. The stone must be large
7.16 There are technical limitations to retrospective enough to remain stable under the maximum
measurement of scour and it can be difficult to velocities. Comprehensive design methods are
economically obtain reliable evidence. Monitoring the available, which cover not only size and grading
development of scour holes during a flood can be more of stone riprap but also the extent and thickness
reliable if robust equipment is used. This can typically of the protection and the possible need for
be carried out using: underlying filter layers. Such designs will require
specialist involvement with manufacturers of
(i) systems based on a simple weighted line or rod; proprietary systems and water engineers. Where
an apron is installed the stone should be placed
(ii) sensor-based systems; in a pre-excavated position below the bed of the
river so that velocities through the waterway are
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
8. references
9. bibliography
Hydrometric Register and Statistics 1996-2000; Centre Stream Stability at Highway Structures, Third edition,
for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, and British Hydraulic Engineering Circular No 20, Federal
Geological Service 2003 (4th edition). Highway Administration, US Dept of Transportation,
March 2001.
Comparison of Pier Scour Equations Using Field Data;
Johnson PA, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures
pp626-629, August 1995. Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance Third
Edition, Volumes 1 & 2, Third edition, Hydraulic
Evaluation of Field and Laboratory Research on Engineering Circular No 23, Federal Highway
Scour at Bridge Piers in the United States; Mueller Administration, US Dept of Transportation,
DS and Jones JS, paper presented at conference on September 2009.
Managing Water: Coping with Scarcity and Abundance,
ASCE, 1997. Evaluation of Bridge Scour Research: Abutment and
Contraction Scour Processes and Predictions, Web only
Floods and Reservoir Safety: an Engineering Guide; document 181, National Cooperative Highway Research
The Institution of Civil Engineers, London 1996 Program, TRB, 2011.
(3rd edition).
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
11. enquiries
All technical enquiries or comments on this Standard should be sent in writing as appropriate to:
Buchanan House
58 Port Dundas Road
Glasgow R BRANNEN
G4 0HF Director, Trunk Road and Bus Operations
Director of Transport
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff F DUFFY
CF10 3NQ Director of Transport
Director of Engineering
The Department for Regional Development
Roads Service
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street
Belfast R J M CAIRNS
BT2 8GB Director of Engineering
This document was notified in draft to the European Commission in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC,
as amended by Directive 98/48/EC.
Scour Inspection
OS Grid
Structure name and number: Ref:
Details of Inspection
Details of Structure
Record details of the following, identifying any estimated values.
Road over
Construction Type:
structure:
Waterway under
Foundation Type:
structure:
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
Construction Date:
Notes
Scour Inspection
Inspection
Structure name and number: Date:
General
Answers must be accompanied by further details in the notes section
Does the river geometry agree with the OS plan of the site?
Is there evidence of ongoing scour at the bridge site (note approximate depths
and locations of any scour holes)?
Is there erosion at the outside of river bends, e.g. undermining of the river bank?
Pier width (if piers are not uniform, provide details for all)
Pier length
May 2012
Part 21 BD 97/12
Volume 3 Section 4
Notes
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment
A/7
Annex A
Annex A Volume 3 Section 4
Forms for Scour Inspection and Assessment Part 21 BD 97/12
Start
Yes
Foundations on Sound Rock?
No
No
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
No
No
Yes
Bridge immediately
No
downstream of sharp bend or angle
of attack > 10°?
Yes
Scour Risk
Proceed to Level 2
Rating 5
Comment on the calculated scour depths. Are there any specific reasons why there may be uncertainty?
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
Foundation depth
Importance Factor, V
Highways Agency
Transport Scotland
Welsh Government
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
Definitions
Afflux The effect whereby water will back up behind an obstruction, such as a bridge,
in the river channel. This acts to increase the depth upstream of the bridge
beyond that which would occur if the bridge were not there. This may also be
referred to as a backwater effect.
Assessment Flow Flow rate to be used for the assessment, typically calculated based on a return
period, and including fluvial and tidal components as appropriate.
Constriction Scour Scour associated with the increased flow velocity at a constriction in the
channel. The presence of a bridge across a waterway will tend to restrict the
waterway opening. Even if the bridge opening is wider than the main channel,
it is likely to create a restriction to flood flows when the water level is above
bank level. This impedance of flood flows causes an increase in the velocity
through the bridge opening and a greater depth of scour results. This type of
scour in the bridge waterway is referred to as “constriction scour”.
Downloaded from https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk on 23-Apr-2024, BD 97/12, published: May-2012
Local Scour Scour due to effects of the bridge structure on the local flow patterns. It is most
likely to develop around piers or abutments in the main river channel but may
also occur around piers and abutments set back on a floodplain when there is
overbank flow.
Maintaining Organisation The organisation appointed by the Overseeing Organisation to manage highway
assets on its behalf.
Scour Risk Rating A whole number in the range 1 – 5 determined in accordance with Chapter 5
of this standard.
Scour Susceptible Structure A structure allocated a risk rating in the range 1 to 4 in accordance with
Chapter 5 of this standard.
DF Depth of foundation below average bed level fPA Pier alignment factor
fT Flood growth factor for period of T years VTide Volume of tidal prism
H History of scour problem factor yB,sup Depth of flow through bridge opening
for supercritical flow conditions
L Length of pier
yB,sub Depth of flow through bridge opening
M Foundation material factor for subcritical flow conditions