Scour Guide

Scour Analysis Guide
September 2023
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 SCOUR ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS .......................................................... 2
Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2
Scour Design Flood .............................................................................................................. 2
Hydrology Study .................................................................................................................... 3
Determination of Channel Cross-Sections.......................................................................... 3
Hydraulic Modeling .............................................................................................................. 5
Channel Material Sampling and Testing ............................................................................ 5
Lateral Channel Migration ................................................................................................... 6
Contraction scour ............................................................................................................. 8
Pier scour ........................................................................................................................ 16
Lacustrine Scour ............................................................................................................. 21
Reporting ............................................................................................................................ 22
REFERENCES…....................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A SRICOS METHOD FOR CONTRACTION & PIER SCOUR ........................... 25
SRICOS Nomenclature and Units ...................................................................................... 26
Overview .............................................................................................................................. 28
SRICOS Erosion Categories ............................................................................................... 28
Procedure............................................................................................................................ 30
Initial Channel Bed Shear Stress ...................................................................................... 31
Maximum Contraction Scour ............................................................................................. 32
Maximum Pier Scour .......................................................................................................... 32
Equivalent Time .................................................................................................................. 33
Total Calculated Scour Depth ............................................................................................ 33
Appendix B CROSS SECTION REFERENCE FOR COMMON SCENARIOS ........................ 34
Common Contraction Scour Scenarios ............................................................................. 35
Case 1-a(1): Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge embankments;
bridge abutments project into main channel................................................................ 36
Case 1-a(2): Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge embankments;
bridge located on narrowing reach of the main channel ............................................. 40
Scour Analysis Guide i TxDOT 2023.09.01

Table of Contents
Case 1-b: Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge embankments; no
contraction of main channel; abutments near the channel banks ............................. 44
Case 1-c: Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge embankments;
abutments set back from channel banks ...................................................................... 48
Case 2-a(1): Flow confined to the main channel (i.e., there is no overbank flow);
bridge abutments project into main channel................................................................ 52
Case 2-a(2): Flow confined to the main channel (i.e., there is no overbank flow);
bridge located on narrowing reach of the main channel ............................................. 56
Case 3: Relief bridge over floodplain overbank without secondary channel .............. 60
Case 4: Relief bridge over floodplain overbank with secondary channel ................... 64
Parallel Bridges Scenarios ................................................................................................ 68
Case 1: Shared embankment ......................................................................................... 69
Case 2: Separate embankments.................................................................................... 72
Appendix C OPTIONAL TABLE TEMPLATES FOR REPORTING ...................................... 77
Scour Analysis Guide ii TxDOT 2023.09.01

Chapter 1 OVERVIEW
This document, the first edition of TxDOT’s Scour Analysis Guide, expands upon scour analysis
guidance that was previously provided in the State’s Scour Evaluation Guide. The Scour
Analysis Guide and Scour Evaluation Guide are now provided as companion documents:
• Design Division’s Hydrology & Hydraulics (H&H) Section maintains the Scour Analysis
Guide and provides H&H subject matter expertise for scour analyses.
• Bridge Division’s Geotechnical Branch maintains the Scour Evaluation Guide and is the
agency’s office of primary responsibility for bridge scour. The Geotechnical Branch
establishes program requirements and provides geotechnical subject matter expertise
for the determination of soil characteristics to be used for scour analyses and for the
phases of scour evaluation that occur after a scour analysis: bridge inspection
documentation, screenings, assessments, and scour countermeasures.
Several areas of scour analysis guidance were revised or expanded during the development
of this document:
• clarified the definition of incipient overtopping;
• added explicit recommendation to use pressure scour calculations for pressure flow
scenarios (i.e., bridge inundation and overtopping);
• described the six channel cross section locations associated with calculating energy
losses through a bridge;
• addressed scour analyses for parallel bridges;
• addressed the potential for lateral channel migration;
• explained that, if the Scour Design Flood results in overbank flow, separate scour
analysis calculations are needed for each conveyance zone;
• added flowchart for selecting contraction scour method;
• summarized contraction scour equations and parameter definitions from HEC-18;
• provided instructions for layer-by-layer analysis;
• added flowchart for selecting pier scour method;
• summarized pier scour equations and parameter definitions from HEC-18;
• simplified the approach for SRICOS method;
• provided cross section selection guidance for common scour analysis scenarios;
• provided example tables for reporting results.
Scour Analysis Guide 1 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Chapter 2 – Scour Analysis Calculations
Chapter 2 SCOUR ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS

Overview
Scour analyses provide calculated scour depths for the Scour Design Flood and the Scour
Design Check Flood. Scour analyses are required early in the design phase so that bridges
can be designed to withstand the effects of calculated scour depths. Calculated scour depths
may also inform the selection of countermeasures to protect new and existing foundations
within the main channel (MC) and the left and right overbanks (LOB, ROB).
A scour analysis includes each of the following components:

• Site investigation and desktop reconnaissance
• Perform a drainage study for the bridge (hydrology and hydraulics)
• Conduct sampling and testing of the channel material
• If available, review previous bridge inspection records
• Assess potential for lateral channel migration
• Perform scour depth calculations
• Prepare detailed report
Scour Design Flood

Evaluate the return periods listed in Table 2-1. Use the Scour Design Flood return period for
scour analyses, but also consider potential impacts from the Scour Design Check Flood.
If the Scour Design Flood causes bridge overtopping, also consider the incipient
overtopping event. Incipient overtopping is the flow event that produces a water surface
elevation where the water will begin to spill over the bridge deck. Consider pressure scour as
appropriate as described in the Scour Depth Calculations section.
The return period for the Hydraulic Design Flood is based on structure type and functional
classification. Guidance for determining the Hydraulic Design Flood is given in Table 4-2 of
the TxDOT Hydraulic Design Manual.
For an off-system bridge with a Hydraulic Design Flood less severe than the 10-year event,
evaluate the 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year return periods and report the maximum calculated scour
from those events for the Scour Design Flood.

Table 2-1 – Scour Design and Scour Design Check Flood Return Periods
Hydraulic Design Flood1 Scour Design Flood Scour Design Check Flood
< 10-year 2, 5, 10, and 25-year 50-year
10-year 25-year 50-year
1 Refer to most recent version of TxDOT Hydraulic Design Manual.
Hydrology Study
Conduct hydrologic studies in accordance with the most recent version of the TxDOT Hydraulic
Design Manual.
Determination of Channel Cross-Sections

Terrain data and/or surveyed cross sections are required for hydraulic modeling. Surveyed
cross sections are recommended when adequate digital elevation data is unavailable or when
additional bathymetric detail is needed. Cross sections should be laid out perpendicular to
the anticipated direction of flow and provided at any abrupt changes in channel geometry,
channel slope, terrain, or vegetation.
Cross section locations for scour analyses coincide with the standard cross sections HEC-RAS
uses to compute energy losses through a bridge (refer also to Figure 2-1):
• Cross Section 4 - Just upstream of the contraction zone upstream of the bridge
(typically assume 1:1 contraction ratio as shown in Figure 2-1)
If an upstream tributary joins the main channel near Cross Section 4, then
Cross Section 4 may be moved closer to the bridge; in such cases, it is important
to consider whether the tributary contributes to sediment transport.
• Cross Section 3 - Just upstream of the bridge embankment and roadside ditch
• Cross Section BU - Upstream face of bridge
• Cross Section BD - Downstream face of bridge
• Cross Section 2 - Just downstream of the bridge embankment and roadside ditch
• Cross Section 1 - Just downstream of the expansion zone downstream of the bridge
(typically assume 2:1 expansion ratio as shown in Figure 2-1)
Depending on the method chosen, scour analysis equations require hydraulic data from Cross
Section 4, Cross Section 3, Cross Section BU, or Cross Section BD.

Figure 2-1 – Standard Cross Sections for 1D Bridge Modeling and Scour Analysis
A channel cross section should include the following points: (1) left natural ground; (2) top of
left bank; (3) toe of left slope; (4) channel flow line; (5) toe of right slope; (6) top of right bank;
and (7) right natural ground. Additional cross section points may be included as necessary to
define major changes in slope and/or to characterize the conveyance capacity of the channel
and overbanks.
For an existing bridge site, the designer should review channel cross section measurements
from routine bridge inspections and use that information to refine Cross Section BU and/or Cross
Section BD.

Hydraulic Modeling
Use 1D or 2D hydraulic modeling to determine hydraulic parameters for scour analyses.
Conduct hydrologic and hydraulic analyses in accordance with the most recent version of the
TxDOT Hydraulic Design Manual. The accuracy of scour analysis is dependent on the
accuracy and quality of the hydraulic modeling.
Compared with 1D modeling, hydraulic results from a 2D model provide a more accurate
representation of the flow distribution between the main channel and overbank areas (FHWA,
2019). 2D model results also allow the user to assess the width of flow that is capable of
carrying sediment. 2D analysis may be preferred for braided streams, flow through abrupt
bends, very wide and flat floodplains, or crossings with multiple hydraulic openings.
• For contraction scour computations, 2D modeling provides a more accurate basis for
the determination of average conditions in the main channel and overbanks.
• For pier scour computations, 2D modeling allows precise definition of local velocity
and flow direction for each pier.
The scour analysis methods presented in this guide were developed in the context of obtaining
results from 1D models. When a 2D hydraulic model is used, the designer must insert cross
sections at the appropriate locations to determine average hydraulic results for contraction
scour computations. This can be accomplished using an arc if using SMS software or using a
profile line if using HEC-RAS 2D.
Separate studies are not necessary for parallel bridges located at a singular water crossing.
Parallel bridges should be analyzed in a single hydraulic model and may be treated as a single
bridge if there is no potential for expansion or contraction of flow between the bridges. For
more information, refer to cross section selection guidance for parallel bridges in Appendix B.
Exercise care in the selection of roughness coefficients for hydraulic modeling and scour
analyses. Increased channel roughness tends to result in a higher computed water surface
elevation (conservative), reduced velocity, and a smaller calculated scour depth (not
conservative). Given the diverging impacts from any misrepresentation of channel roughness,
the modeler should focus on accuracy in the selection of roughness coefficients.
Channel Material Sampling and Testing

Channel material must be characterized to perform a scour analysis. A laboratory gradation
test with determination of D50 is sufficient for the traditional HEC-18 method; for the SRICOS
method, Atterberg limits are also needed. In general, laboratory testing for scour analysis

should include gradation, Atterberg limits, and determination of United Soil Classification
System (USCS) classification.
Soil samples for a scour analysis should represent material just (≥ 1 ft) below the channel
invert. It is typically not necessary to drill a special boring for the scour analysis. If borings
are ordered solely for a scour analysis, consider including Texas Cone Penetrometer (TCP)
testing in case TCP blowcounts are needed to determine whether a hard layer is erodible (for
more on assessing erodibility, refer to Table 4-1 in the Scour Evaluation Guide).
Lateral Channel Migration

Scour analysis equations do not account for all of the fluvial processes which may impact a
bridge or a stream. The total calculated scour depth typically accounts for two riverine erosion
mechanisms, each localized at a bridge crossing: flow contraction and flow obstruction.
• Contraction scour equations apply to the horizontal contraction of flow
• Pressure scour refers to the vertical contraction of flow
• Pier scour equations account for local flow obstructions
The movement of a channel across a floodplain is called lateral channel migration (LCM). This
may have dramatic local effects at a bridge but is typically driven by larger, reach- or
watershed-scale processes and/or disturbances. HEC-20 discusses this in more detail.
Designers may routinely consider the effects of thalweg migration within the main channel,
but LCM is a more extreme condition and, when relevant, requires careful consideration.
The Engineer should not use any kind of standard, across-the-board assumption about the
potential for LCM. The potential for LCM may be incorporated into a scour analysis, but only
when LCM is ongoing or imminent and demonstrably likely to impact a bridge’s foundations.
Furthermore, if LCM is assumed and incorporated into the reported scour depths, the analyst
must provide data-driven documentation to support the assumption. For example, ongoing
LCM may be demonstrated through a time series analysis of aerial imagery and channel cross
section measurements.
LCM may significantly impact the design criteria for a new or existing bridge; it may even be
the driver for a bridge replacement. In these cases, coordination between the District, the
geotechnical engineer, and the H&H engineer is exceedingly important. As warranted by risk
and complexity, it may also be necessary to conduct a detailed geomorphic assessment (i.e.,
Level 2 or Level 3 as described in HEC-20) in consultation with fluvial geomorphology subject
matter experts.

Scour Depth Calculations
Scour depths may be calculated manually (i.e., using a spreadsheet) or using the FHWA
Hydraulic Toolbox. FHWA recommends against using the automated 1D scour computation
module in HEC-RAS (FHWA, 2022).
The Engineer is responsible for identifying any non-erodible layers in the channel profile. Refer
to the Scour Evaluation Guide for erodibility criteria. The top of a non-erodible layer marks the
maximum possible scour depth (ymp). Scour depth equations implicitly assume that an
unlimited depth of material is available to be scoured – the Engineer must reconcile the
calculated scour depth with the actual subsurface profile. Do not report calculated scour
depths that extend into non-erodible strata. Calculate the total scour depth as follows:
At toe of abutment
Total Scour = Contraction Scour
Under bridge, away from abutments and piers

Total Scour = Contraction Scour
At pier, column, pile, drilled shaft, or similar obstruction

Total Scour = Contraction Scour + Pier Scour
Do not use the abutment scour equations listed in Chapter 8 of Hydraulic Engineering Circular
No. 18, “Evaluating Scour at Bridges” (HEC-18); these equations have been found to be overly
conservative. However, abutment scour is an observable phenomenon. Therefore, all
abutments for bridges over water should be protected against potential scour. A flexible
revetment (e.g., stone protection riprap with filter fabric) is recommended (Briaud et al.,
2023).
When flow is present in the main channel and the overbanks, it is necessary to perform
separate scour depth calculations for each conveyance zone (i.e., left overbank, main
channel, and right overbank). Channel roughness, flow, depth, and velocity can be significantly
different in the overbanks compared to the main channel, resulting in different scour depths.
Use average depth and velocity (average computed separately for each conveyance zone)
for calculating contraction scour. Use local depth and velocity to calculate pier scour.

Contraction scour
The following methods are permissible for calculating contraction scour depths:
Figure 2-3 – Contraction Scour Method Selection Flow Chart

► Traditional HEC-18 Method | Recommended for sandy soils
Contraction scour depths for sandy soils may be calculated using HEC-18 Equations 6.1, 6.2,
and 6.4 as shown below. Sediment transport through the contracted section is a controlling
factor in the calculation of contraction scour depths. This method deals with the horizontal
contraction of flow.
The width (W) term in HEC-18 Equations 6.2 and 6.4 is defined by HEC-18 as the bottom width
of the main channel. Top width of flow can be more convenient to determine and may be used
instead of bottom width, provided that a consistent definition of W is used throughout the
scour analysis (FHWA, 2022). When the main channel and overbanks are evaluated
separately, W should represent the width of flow for the conveyance zone being analyzed. For
live-bed contraction scour (Equation 6.4), W should represent the width of flow that is
transporting bed material (i.e., V > Vc).
This method is overly conservative for clay channels. Do not use D50 values less than 0.0007
ft. (0.20 mm).
Step 1 – Determine critical velocity:
• Critical velocity (Equation 6.1 from HEC-18):
1 1
𝑉𝑐 = 𝐾𝑢 𝑦 6 𝐷3
Where:
𝑉𝑐 = Critical velocity above which the bed material of size D and
smaller will be transported (ft/s)
y = Average depth of flow (determined separately for each
conveyance zone) in Cross Section BU (ft)
D = Particle size for 𝑉𝑐 (ft)
𝐷50 = Median diameter of bed material (ft) ≥ 0.0007 ft (0.2 mm)
𝐾𝑢 = 11.17 English units
Clear-water contraction scour occurs when the sediment transport through the contracted
section is effectively negligible, which happens when the critical velocity of the bed material
is larger than the mean velocity ( 𝑉𝑐 > 𝑉 ). Live-bed contraction scour occurs when bed
material is transported into the bridge cross section, which happens when the critical
velocity of the bed material is smaller than the mean velocity ( 𝑉𝑐 < 𝑉 ).

Step 2 – Calculate live bed or clear water scour depth as determined in Step 1
• Live-Bed Scour Depth (Equation 6.2 from HEC-18):
6
𝑦2 𝑄2 7 𝑊1 𝑘1
= ( ) ( )
𝑦1 𝑄1 𝑊2
Where:
𝑦1 = Average depth of flow in Cross Section 4 (ft)
𝑦2 = Average depth of flow in Cross Section BU after horizontal
contraction scour (ft)
𝑄1 = Flow transporting sediment in Cross Section 4 (cfs)
𝑄2 = Flow in Cross Section BU (cfs)
𝑊1 = Width of flow contributing to transport of bed material in Cross
Section 4 (ft)
𝑊2 = Width of flow contributing to transport of bed material less pier
width(s) in Cross Section BU (ft)
𝑘1 = Exponent determined using Table 2-2
Table 2-2 – Traditional HEC-18 Contraction Scour Coefficient
𝑉 ∗ ⁄𝜔 𝑘1 Mode of bed material transport

< 0.5 0.59 Mostly contact bed material discharge
0.5 to 2.0 0.64 Some suspended bed material discharge
> 2.0 0.69 Mostly suspended bed material discharge
Where:
𝑉 ∗ = Shear velocity in Cross Section 4 (ft/s)
𝜔 = Fall velocity of bed material based on 𝐷50 (ft/s)
And: 𝑉 ∗ = √𝑔𝑦1 𝑆1
Where:
𝑔 = Acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/s2
𝑆1 = Slope of energy grade line of main channel (ft/ft)
For live-bed contraction scour, use Figure 2-4 to determine fall velocity (ω) based on median
grain size (D50). For grain sizes not included in the table, see Figure 6.8 from HEC-18.

Figure 2-4 – Fall Velocity (ω) for Scour Analysis. (Adapted from Figure 6.8 in HEC-18)

• Clear Water Scour Depth (Equation 6.4 from HEC-18):
3
7
2
𝐾𝑢 𝑄
𝑦2 = [ 2 ]
(1.25𝐷50 )3 𝑊 2
Where:
𝑦2 = Average depth of flow in Cross Section BU* after horizontal
𝑄 = Flow BU Cross Section associated with width, W (cfs)
𝐷50 = Median diameter of bed material (ft) ≥ 0.0007 ft (0.2 mm)
W = Width of flow through contracted section (Cross Section BU) less
pier width(s) (ft)
𝐾𝑢 = 0.0077 English units
* The contracted section may be represented by Cross Section BU or Cross

Section BD; it is conservative to choose the one with higher flow velocity.
Step 3 – Determine Scour Depth
• Average Contraction Scour Depth (Equation 6.3 and 6.5 from HEC-18):
𝑦𝑠 = 𝑦2 − 𝑦0
Where:
𝑦𝑠 = Average contraction scour depth (ft)
𝑦2 = Average depth of flow in Cross Section BU after horizontal
𝑦0 = Average existing flow depth in Cross Section BU before scour (ft)
► Scour Rate in Cohesive Soils (SRICOS) Method | Recommended for clay and soft rock
This method accounts for the slower erosion rate of cohesive soils and intact rock. Instructions
for using the SRICOS method for contraction scour are provided in Appendix A.

► Pressure Method | Recommended for cases where water surface elevation inundates
bridge low chord by 6 inches or more
Pressure scour (also known as vertical contraction scour) can occur under pressure flow
conditions. Pressure flow causes a separation zone to develop underneath the bridge
superstructure, which can amplify the potential for contraction scour. When pressure flow
conditions are expected, the pressure scour methodology should be used for calculating
contraction scour.
Pressure flow conditions can develop before a bridge is fully overtopped by flow. Pressure
flow should be assumed when the water surface elevation of the analyzed flow event is six
inches or higher above the bottom of the low chord at Cross Section BU and the bottom of the
low chord is also submerged at Cross Section BD.
Figure 2-5 – Pressure flow contraction scour components and parameters

(adapted from HEC-18)

The following steps should be used to calculate pressure flow contraction scour:
1. Determine input parameters from hydraulic model, as shown in Figure 2-5 and listed
below. Assume the stagnation streamline is at the top of the bridge superstructure.
• hu = upstream channel flow depth (ft) (Cross Section 4)
• hue = effective upstream channel flow depth for live-bed conditions and bridge
overtopping from stagnation streamline to average channel bottom
elevation (ft) (Cross Section 4)
• hb = vertical size of the bridge opening prior to scour (ft) (equivalent to y0
which was defined previously for horizontal contraction scour; low chord
elevation minus the average channel bottom elevation from Cross Section BU)
• ht = distance from the water surface to low chord (equal to hu – hb) (ft)
• T = height of bridge from low chord to top of railing (ft)
• hw = weir flow height (ht – T for flow above bridge railing, otherwise zero) (ft)
• t = separation zone thickness (ft) (low chord elevation minus y2)
• Q1 = upstream channel discharge (cfs) (Cross Section 4)
• Q2 = discharge in contracted channel (cfs) (Cross Section BU)
• Que = effective channel discharge for live-bed conditions and bridge
overtopping flows (cfs) calculated in Equation 6.15 in Step 2
• y2 = average depth in the contracted section (calculated using parameters
below and clear water and live bed equations at Cross Section BU)
• ys = calculated pressure scour depth (ft) calculated below
2. Determine Que (Equation 6.15 from HEC-18):

8⁄
ℎ𝑢𝑒 7
𝑄𝑢𝑒 = 𝑄1 ( )
ℎ𝑢
3. Replace ‘Q1’ and ‘y1’ in Equation 6.2 HEC-18 in Step 2 of the contraction scour
calculations with Que and hue respectively, and Calculate y2 to be used in Step 5.
6
𝑄2 7 𝑊1 𝑘1
𝑦2 = ℎ𝑢𝑒 ( ) ( )
𝑄𝑢𝑒 𝑊2
4. Determine separation zone thickness, t (Equation 6.16 from HEC-18):
ℎ𝑏 ℎ𝑏 ℎ𝑡 0.2 ℎ𝑤 −0.1
𝑡=( ) ( 2 ) (1 − )
2 ℎ𝑢 ℎ𝑡
5. Solve for scour depth, ys (Equation 6.14 from HEC-18) using upstream face of the
bridge modified y2:
𝑦𝑠 = 𝑦2 + 𝑡 − ℎ𝑏

► Layer-by-Layer Method | Recommended for layered soil with both cohesionless and
cohesive materials
The layer-by-layer method accounts for the differing rates of scour between cohesionless and
cohesive soils. Due to the complexity of analysis with this method, it is not recommended to
use this process if the initial calculated scour depth is less than the typical disregard depth of
10 feet from the channel flow line. The layer-by-layer procedure proceeds as follows:
1. Identify the depths of the multiple layers; each layer should be represented by a
different material.
2. With the parameters from the top layer, calculate the total scour using the
appropriate method described in the sections above.
3. If the calculated scour is larger than the layer thickness and greater than 10 ft, assume
the top layer has eroded completely. This is to be represented in the hydraulic model
by lowering the contracted cross section (i.e., Cross Section BU and Cross Section BD)
elevations to match the top of the second layer.
4. Re-run the hydraulic model with the lowered terrain elevations and use the updated
flow data to calculate a revised contraction scour depth.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until the revised contraction scour depth is contained within the
“new” top layer thickness, or until the calculated scour depth reaches a non-erodible
layer.
6. When step 5 is satisfied, calculate the cumulative contraction scour depth. This is
equal to the final revised contraction scour depth plus the thickness of any layers that
were assumed to erode completely.

Pier scour
The following methods are permissible for calculating local pier scour depths:
Figure 2-6 – Pier Scour Method Selection Flow Chart

► Traditional HEC-18 Method | Recommended for sandy soils
Pier scour depths for sandy soils may be calculated using Equation 7.1 from HEC-18 as shown
below.
• Scour depth (Equation 7.1 from HEC-18):
𝑦𝑠 𝑎 0.65 0.43
= 2.0 𝐾1 𝐾2 𝐾3 ( ) 𝐹𝑟1
𝑦1 𝑦1
Where:
𝑦𝑠 = Calculated pier scour depth (ft)
𝐾1 = Correction factor for pier nose shape from Table 2-3 and
Figure 2-7
0.65
𝐿
𝐾2 = [𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃)] ≤ 5.0
𝑎
𝐾3 = Correction factor for bed condition from Table 2-4
𝜃 = Skew angle of flow with respect to pier (°)
a = Pier width (ft)
L = Length of pier (ft)
𝐹𝑟1 = Froude number in Cross Section 3
𝑉1 = Local velocity (just upstream of pier) from Cross Section 3 (ft/s)
And:
𝑉1
𝐹𝑟1 =
√𝑔𝑦1
Where:
𝑔 = Acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/s2
𝑉1 = Local velocity (just upstream of pier) from Cross Section 3 (ft/s)
If the soil has more than 12% fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve), reduce the
calculated pier scour by 50%.

Table 2-3 – Correction factor, K1, for pier nose shape (Table 7.1 from HEC-18)
Shape of pier nose K1

Square nose 1.1
Round nose 1.0
Circular cylinder 1.0
Group of cylinders 1.0
Sharp nose 0.9
Figure 2-7 – Common pier shapes (from HEC-18)
Table 2-4 – Scour depth amplification, K3, for bed condition (Table 7.3 from HEC-18)
Bed condition Dune height (ft) K3

Clear-water scour N/A 1.1
Plane bed and antidune flow N/A 1.1
Small dunes 10 > H ≥ 2 1.1
Medium dunes 30 > H ≥ 10 1.2 to 1.1
Large dunes H ≥ 30 1.3

► Complex Pier Method | Recommended for sandy soils with complex pier foundations
The Complex Pier Method may be used to analyze bridge piers that include a pier stem, pile
cap, and pile group, as shown in Figure 2-8. The scour depths for each component should be
calculated separately and then added to determine the total pier scour depth.
Complex pier scour depths may be calculated using Equations 7.23-7.27 from HEC-18. This
method is overly conservative for clay channels. Do not use D50 values less than 0.0007 ft.
(0.20 mm). If the soil has more than 12% fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve), reduce
the calculated pier scour by 50%.
Figure 2-8 – Complex Pier Foundation, from HEC-18
► FDOT Pier Scour Method | Recommended for fine soils with wide piers
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Pier Scour Method is an alternative for wide
piers in shallow flows with fine bed material. A pier is considered wide when the pier width (a)
is approximately 5 times as wide as the flow depth (y) or wider (y/a is less than 0.2). The FDOT
Pier Scour Method is a modified version of HEC-18 Equation 7.1. This method is documented
in Section 7.3 of HEC-18, using Equations 7.5-7.19. The FDOT Pier Scour Method is overly
conservative for clay channels. Do not use D50 values less than 0.0007 ft. (0.20 mm). If the
soil has more than 12% fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve), reduce the calculated
pier scour by 50%.

► Scour Rate in Cohesive Soils (SRICOS) Method | Recommended for clay and soft rock
This method accounts for the slower erosion rate of cohesive soils and intact rock.
Instructions for using the SRICOS method for pier scour are provided in Appendix B.
► Annandale’s Erodibility Index Method | Recommended for fractured/jointed rock
This methodology for calculating pier scour may be used for rock or hard clay with a secondary
structure of open joints or cracks. These materials tend to be eroded by quarrying and
plucking, which involves the erosion of relatively intact rock blocks, rather than by a gradual,
grain-by-grain removal, as shown in Figure 2-9.
Figure 2-9 – Quarrying and plucking at a bridge pier, from HEC-18
The Erodibility Index classifies rock materials by their rock mass properties based on their
potential to erode due to exposure to flowing water. The index is then used to calculate the
critical stream power necessary to initiate scour. The relationship between local stream
power, pier width, and the stream power in the scour hole is used to ascertain the scour depth
at the pier. Annandale’s Erodibility Index Method is documented in HEC-18 Sections 4.7.2 and
7.13.1, using equations 4.17-4.19 and 7.37-7.40 along with Tables 4.19-4.26.

Lacustrine Scour
If a public highway bridge crosses a waterway, then a scour analysis is required — and this
includes bridges that cross a lake or reservoir.
The equations presented in this guide and in HEC-18 are for fluvial (i.e., riverine) conditions,
where scour is driven by flowing water. And even at a lake or a reservoir, fluvial conditions
may develop as a result of extreme events over the life of the bridge; for example:
• Dam or embankment breach
• Long-term drought, which can lower the water surface and morph a lake into a river
When determining whether to investigate the effects of an extreme event, consider the
following: the level of detail of the analysis should be proportional to the priority of the
structure and the consequence of its failure.
Outside of extreme events, wind is the primary driver of scour for a bridge that crosses a
lake or reservoir. For lacustrine bridge crossings, the depth of scour caused by wind-
generated waves may be assumed equal to one pier diameter, applied locally at each
pier and abutment.
This design assumption was determined and validated through TxDOT research project 0-
7163, which provides a simple, step-by-step procedure for calculating wind-generated wave
scour in a lake or reservoir (Ali et al., 2023).

Reporting
Documentation of a scour analysis must be signed and sealed by a professional engineer and
should include the following information:
• Site investigation
- Channel cross section measurements from routine bridge inspections (for
existing crossings)
- Site description (including photos) to document existing conditions and any
active reach-scale instabilities (e.g., lateral channel migration, headcutting)
• Hydrologic method(s) and details
- Rainfall and/or stream gage data
- Drainage area, time of concentration, curve number, etc.
- Summary of discharges
• Channel cross section and site description
- Data source(s): survey, digital terrain data, datum adjustment notes
- Land use and Manning’s roughness values
- Assumptions related to stream bathymetry
• Hydraulic method(s) and assumptions
- Type of hydraulic model (1D, 2D, or 1D-2D coupled; steady or unsteady)
- Program and version number; boundary conditions, etc.
- Hydraulic data for Scour Design Flood & Scour Design Check Flood
• Soil conditions near the bridge
- Layering, depth to bedrock, gradation and D50, USCS classification, etc.
• Scour calculations
- Method(s) used and explanation of why they were chosen
- Summary of calculations
▪ Identify which cross section(s) from the hydraulic model were used to
determine input parameters for scour analysis equations
- Summary table showing contraction, pier, and total scour depths
▪ Clearly indicate when lateral channel migration has been assumed; this
may be presented as an additional row in the summary table
A preliminary scour analysis (i.e., one with a preliminary engineering seal) is adequate for a
Preliminary Bridge Layout Review (PBLR) submittal. However, the final deliverables for a scour
analysis must be signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer.
Scour analysis documentation should include enough information to defend the chosen
methodology and reproduce the results.

REFERENCES
Ali, T., Briaud, J.-L., and Chen, H.-C. (2023). Synthesis of Lacustrine Wave Scour Evaluation
Methods: Technical Report. TxDOT Research Project Number 0-7163. Report 0-7163-R1.
Briaud, J.-L., Ting, F., Chen, H.-C., Gudavilli, R., Kwak, K., Philogene, B., Han, S.-W., Perugu,
S., Wei, G., Nurtjahyo, P., Cao, Y., and Li, Y. (1999). SRICOS: Prediction of Scour Rate at
Bridge Piers. TxDOT Research Project Number 7-2937. Report 2937-1.
Briaud, J.-L., Chen, H.-C., and Park, S. (2001). Predicting Meander Migration: Evaluation of
Some Existing Techniques. TxDOT Research Project Number 0-2105. Report 2105-1.
Briaud, J.-L., Chen, H.-C., Li, Y., Nurtjahyo, P., and Wang, J. (2003). NCHRP Report 24-15:
Complex Pier Scour and Contraction Scour in Cohesive Soils. Transportation Research
Board. www.trb.org/main/public/blurbs/155161.aspx.
Briaud, J.-L., Chen, H.-C., Li, Y., Nurtjahyo, P., and Wang, J. (2004), NCHRP Research Report
516: Pier and Contraction Scour in Cohesive Soils. Transportation Research Board.
www.trb.org/publications/blurbs/155161.aspx.
Briaud, J.-L., Chen, H.-C., Chang, K.-A., Oh, S.J., Chen, S., Wang, J., Li, Y., Kwak, K., Nartjaho,
P., Gudaralli, R., Wei, W., Pergu, S., Cao, Y.W., and Ting, F. (2011). Summary Report: The
SRICOS-EFA Method. Texas A&M University.
https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/briaud/research_wip.html.
Briaud, J.-L., Govindasamy, A.V., and Shafii, I. (2017). Erosion Charts for Selected
Geomaterials. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2017, 143(10).
Briaud, J.-L., Shafii, I., Chen, H.-C., and Medina-Cetina, Z. (2019). NCHRP Research Report
915: Relationship Between Erodibility and Properties of Soils. Transportation Research
Board. www.trb.org/main/blurbs/179128.aspx.
Briaud, J.-L., Sfeir, J., and Shidlovskaya, A. (2023). Riprap Filters and Stability of Riprap
Covered Slopes. Project Summary Report. TxDOT Research Project 0-7091.
Barnes, H.H Jr. (1967, 1977, 1987). Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels. United
States Geological Survey, Walter Supply Paper 1849.
FHWA Bridge Scour Workshop (2022). Department of Transportation Federal Highway

Administration. www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/scourtech/scour_workshop/
Hydraulic Design Manual. (2019). TxDOT.

Onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/hyd/index/htm.

Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18: Evaluating Scour at Bridges: Fifth Edition. (2012). U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-
003. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hif12004.pdf.
Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20: Stream Stability at Highway Structures: Fourth Edition.
(2012). U.S. Dept of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-
HIF-12-004. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hif12003.pdf.
Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23: Bridge Scour and Stream Instability
Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance – Third Edition, Volume 2.
(2009). U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-09-112.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/09111/09112.pdf.
Straub, T.D., Over, T.M., and Domanski, M.M. (2013). Ultimate Pier and Contraction Scour
Prediction in Cohesive Soils at Selected Bridges in Illinois. Illinois Center for Transportation
Series No. 13-025. Research Report No. FHWA-ICT-13-025.
Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling for Highways in the River Environment. (2019). U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HIF-
19-061. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hif19061.pdf.
Willett, T.O. (1991). Technical Advisory T5140.23: Evaluating Scour at Bridges. FHWA.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/policymemo/t514023.cf.

Appendix A SRICOS METHOD FOR CONTRACTION & PIER SCOUR

Appendix A – SRICOS Method for Contraction & Pier Scour
SRICOS Nomenclature and Units

α = pier skew (°)
a = pier width (ft)
a′ = projected pier width for skewed bents (ft)
A1 = flow area at Cross Section 4 (ft2)
γw = unit weight of water = 62.4 lb/ft3
g = acceleration due to gravity = 32.2 ft/s2
θ = abutment transition angle (°)
kα = correction factor for pier skew angle effect on initial shear stress of pier scour (-)
kθ = correction factor for transition angle effect on initial shear stress for contraction scour (-)
kLc = correction factor for contraction length effect on initial shear stress for contraction scour (-)
kr = correction factor for contraction ratio effect on initial shear stress for contraction scour (-)
ksh = correction factor for pier shape effect on initial shear stress of pier scour (-)
ksp = correction factor for pier spacing effect on initial shear stress of pier scour (-)
kw = correction factor for water depth effect on initial shear stress of pier scour (-)
KW = correction factor for water depth effect on pier scour depth (-)
KSH = correction factor for pier shape effect on pier scour depth (-)
KSP = correction factor for pier spacing effect on pier scour depth (-)
Lc = length of contracted channel section measured in the direction of flow (ft)
Lp = length of pier in the direction of flow (ft)
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient for channel bed (-)
nb = number of interior bents (-)
P = wetted perimeter at Cross Section 4 (ft)
Re = Reynolds number (-)
Rh = hydraulic radius = A1 / P (ft)
ρw = density of water = γw / g = 1.94 slugs/ft3

S = span length between bents (ft)
Δt = remaining life of structure = design life – age ≥ 15 (yr)
te(C) = equivalent time for contraction scour (hr)
te(P) = equivalent time for pier scour (hr)
τ = channel bed shear stress (lb/ft2)
τc = critical channel bed shear stress (lb/ft2)
τi(C) = initial channel bed shear stress for contraction scour (lb/ft2)
τi(P) = initial channel bed shear stress for pier scour (lb/ft2)
ν = kinematic viscosity of water = 0.000 011 ft2/s
V1 = average velocity in upstream section (ft/s)
V2 = representative velocity in contracted section (ft/s)
Vc = critical velocity (ft/s)
W1 = width of flow at Cross Section 4 (ft)
W2 = width of flow through contracted section (Cross Section BU) less pier widths (ft)
y1 = average depth of flow in Cross Section 4 (ft)
y2 = average depth of flow in Cross Section BU before contraction scour (ft)
y2Δ = average depth of flow in Cross Section BU after contraction scour (ft)
Ż = scour rate (in/day)
Żi(C) = initial scour rate (corresponding to τi(C)) for contraction scour (in/day)
Żi(P) = initial scour rate (corresponding to τi(P)) for pier scour (in/day)
Zmax(C) = maximum uniform contraction scour depth (ft)
ZC = uniform contraction scour depth expected during remaining life of structure (ft)
Zmax(P) = maximum pier scour depth (ft)
ZP = pier scour depth expected during remaining life of structure (ft)
Ztot = total scour depth expected during remaining life of structure (ft)

Overview
The Scour Rate In COhesive Soil (SRICOS) method was developed at Texas A&M by
Professor Briaud and his colleagues over the past several decades. This appendix provides
instructions for using the SRICOS equations to calculate contraction and pier scour.
SRICOS Erosion Categories

Table A-1 summarizes six erosion categories, for the SRICOS method, which range from very
high erodibility to nonerosive. The designer should select an erosion category that best
represents the channel material at the bridge, using Table A-1 as a guide. Each erosion
category is presented in Figure A-1 with an expected value equation which can be used for
design purposes. Upper and lower bound curves (i.e., boundary lines between erosion
categories) are also presented to provide more flexibility to the designer. Designers may
refer to Briaud et al. (2017) for additional information about the development of these
erosion categories.
Table A-1 – Description of SRICOS Erosion Categories
Erosion category Material description

1 Very high erodibility Fine sand / Non-plastic silt
2 High erodibility Medium sand / Low plasticity silt
3 Medium erodibility Fine gravel / Highly plastic silt / Low plasticity clay / Fissured, blocky clay
4 Low erodibility Jointed rock (1″ - 6″ spacing) / Cobbles / Coarse gravel / High plasticity clay
5 Very low erodibility Jointed rock (6″ - 60″ spacing) / Stone riprap
6 Nonerosive Hard rock (TCP < 4″ per 100 blows) / Hard, jointed rock ( > 60″ spacing)

Figure A-1 – Erosion Rate-Shear Stress Relationships for SRICOS Erosion Categories
(adapted from Briaud et al., 2017)

Table A-2 – Critical Shear Stress and Critical Velocity for SRICOS Erosion Categories
Erosion category Critical shear stress, τc (lb/ft2) Critical velocity, Vc (ft/s)

1 Very high erodibility 0.002 0.3
2 High erodibility 0.004 0.6
3 Medium erodibility 0.027 1.6
4 Low erodibility 0.19 4.4
5 Very low erodibility 1.2 11
6 Nonerosive 10 32
Procedure
• Select an appropriate erosion category based on channel materials at the bridge.
• Start by calculating the initial channel bed shear stress using Equation 1 for
contraction scour (τi(C)) and Equation 6 for pier scour (τi(P)).
• Next, choose an appropriate equation from Figure A-1 and calculate the initial
erosion rate (Żi(C) and Żi(P)) corresponding to the previously calculated initial channel
bed shear stresses.
• Next, calculate maximum scour depths using Equation 13 for contraction scour
(Zmax(C)) and Equation 14 for pier scour (Zmax(P)).
• Compute equivalent time parameters using Equations 20 and 21.
• Calculate the contraction and pier scour depths for the anticipated remaining life of
the bridge using Equations 22 and 23, respectively.

Initial Channel Bed Shear Stress

Use Equation 1 to calculate the initial channel bed shear stress (τi(C)) for contraction scour:
𝜏i(𝐶) = 0.45 ∙ 𝑘𝑟 𝑘𝐿𝑐 𝑘𝜃 𝛾𝑤 𝑛2 𝑉1 2 (𝑦1 )−1/3 [Eq. 1]
Where:
𝑊 1.75
𝑘𝑟 = 0.62 + 0.38 (𝑊1) [Eq. 2]
2
2
𝐿𝑐 𝐿𝑐 𝐿𝑐
0.77 + 1.36 ( ) − 1.98 ( ) ;( ) < 0.35
𝑊1 − 𝑊2 𝑊1 − 𝑊2 𝑊1 − 𝑊2 [Eq. 3]
𝑘𝐿𝑐 =
𝐿𝑐
1.0 ;( ) ≥ 0.35
{ 𝑊1 − 𝑊2
𝜃 1.5
𝑘𝜃 = 1 + (90°) [Eq. 4]
𝐴1
𝑅ℎ = [Eq. 5]
𝑃
Use Equation 6 to calculate the initial channel bed shear stress (τi(P)) for pier scour:
1
𝜏i(𝑃) = 𝑘𝑤 𝑘𝑠ℎ 𝑘𝑠𝑝 𝑘𝛼 (0.094𝜌𝑤 𝑉2 2 ) ( − 0.1) [Eq. 6]
log 𝑅𝑒
Where:
−4(𝑦1 )
𝑘𝑤 = 1 + 16(2.71828) 𝑎′ [Eq. 7]
−4(𝐿𝑝 )
𝑘𝑠ℎ = 1.15 + 7(2.71828) 𝑎′ [Eq. 8]
−1.1(𝑆)
𝑘𝑠𝑝 = 1 + 5(2.71828) 𝑎′ [Eq. 9]
𝛼 0.57
𝑘𝛼 = 1 + 1.5 (90°) [Eq. 10]
𝑉2 𝑎′
𝑍𝑚𝑎𝑥(𝐶) = 0
𝑅𝑒 = { 𝜐 ′ [Eq. 11]
𝑉𝑐 𝑎
𝑍𝑚𝑎𝑥(𝐶) > 0
𝜐
𝑎′ = (𝐿𝑝 )𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼) + (𝑎)𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛼) [Eq. 12]

Maximum Contraction Scour

Use Equation 13 to calculate the maximum uniform contraction scour. Equation 13 uses
the velocity in the contracted section (V2). For contraction scour, V2 should represent the
average velocity in the contracted section. If only the upstream velocity (V1) is known,
Equation 14 may be used to approximate V2.
𝜏
√ 𝜌𝑐
0.88(𝑉2 ) [Eq. 13]
𝑍max(𝐶) = 2.09𝑦1 − 1 ≥0
√𝑔𝑦1 𝑔𝑛(𝑦1 )3
( )
Maximum Pier Scour

Equation 14 is the SRICOS equation for maximum pier scour.
𝐾𝑆𝐻 𝐾𝑆𝑃 𝐾𝑊 (𝑅𝑒 )0.635

𝑍max(𝑃) = [Eq. 14]
1693
Where:
1.0 round pier shape [Eq. 15]
𝐾𝑆𝐻 ={
1.1 square pier shape
𝑊1
𝐾𝑆𝑃 = [Eq. 16]
𝑊1 − (Number of piers in contracted section)(𝑎′ )
KW depends on the calculated contraction scour, Zmax(C). If there is no contraction

scour (i.e., Zmax(C) = 0), use Equation 17. If there is contraction scour (i.e., Zmax(C) > 0),
use Equations 18 and 19. For pier scour, y2, y2Δ, and V2 should represent local flow
in front of the pier at Cross Section 3.
𝑦2 0.34 𝑦2
0.85 ( ′ ) ( ′ ) ≤ 1.6
𝐾𝑊 = { 𝑎 𝑎
𝑦2 [Eq. 17]
1.0 ( ′ ) > 1.6
𝑎
𝑦2Δ = 𝑦2 + 𝑍max(𝐶) [Eq. 18]
𝑦 0.34 𝑦
0.85 ( 𝑎2Δ
′ )
( 𝑎2Δ′ ) ≤ 1.6
𝐾𝑊 = { [Eq. 19]
𝑦
1.0 ( 𝑎2Δ′ ) > 1.6

Equivalent Time
The preceding equations for maximum pier and contraction scour assume a constant flow
velocity over an indefinite period of time. The scour depths expected during a bridge’s
remaining life (Δt) are less than the maximum scour values. The design life for most new
bridges is either 75 years or 100 years. In most cases, a bridge’s remaining life is equal to
its design life minus its age. However, Δt should never be taken less than 15 years.
Use Equations 20 and 21 to calculate the equivalent time for contraction scour (te(C)) and
pier scour (te(P)), respectively. Note: these equations use mixed units.
1.648
𝑡𝑒(𝐶) = 644.32(𝛥𝑡)0.4242 (3.2808
2
)
𝑉
(1.058 ∙ 𝑍̇𝑖(𝐶) )
−0.605 [Eq. 20]
1.706
0.126
𝑉2 −0.200 [Eq. 21]
𝑡𝑒(𝑃) = 73(𝛥𝑡) ( ) (1.058 ∙ Ż𝑖(𝑃) )
3.2808
Where:
te(C) = equivalent time for contraction scour (hr)
te(P) = equivalent time for pier scour (hr)
Δt = remaining life of bridge in years = (design life) – (age) ≥ 15 years
V2 = for contraction scour, average velocity in Cross Section BU (ft/s);
for pier scour, max velocity in Cross Section 3 (ft/s)
Żi(C) = initial scour rate of pier scour corresponding to τi(C) (in/day)
Żi(P) = initial scour rate of contraction scour corresponding to τi(P) (in/day)
Use Equations 22 and 23 to calculate the scour depths expected during the remaining life of
the structure.
𝑡𝑒(𝐶) [Eq. 22]
𝑍𝐶 = 𝑡𝑒(𝐶)
288
+
Ż𝑖(𝐶) 𝑍max(𝐶)
𝑡𝑒(𝑃)
𝑍𝑃 = 𝑡𝑒(𝑃) [Eq. 23]
288
+𝑍
Ż𝑖(𝑃) max(𝑃)
Total Calculated Scour Depth

Calculate total scour for the anticipated remaining life of the bridge using Equation 24.
𝑍𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝑍𝐶 + 𝑍𝑃 [Eq. 24]

Appendix B – Bridge Scour Scenarios with Equations
Appendix B CROSS SECTION REFERENCE FOR COMMON SCENARIOS

Common Contraction Scour Scenarios
HEC-18 Section 6.2.2 summarizes the contraction scour scenarios most commonly
encountered in practice:
• Case 1: Overbank flow forced back into the main channel by bridge approach
embankments
o 1-a(1): Bridge abutments project into main channel
o 1-a(2): Bridge located on a narrowing reach of the main channel
o 1-b: No narrowing of the main channel; abutments near channel banks
o 1-c: Abutments set back from the channel banks (with or without narrowing of
main channel)
• Case 2: Flow is contained within the main channel (i.e., there is no overbank flow)
o 2-a(1): Bridge abutments project into main channel
o 2-a(2): Bridge located on a narrowing reach of the main channel
• Case 3: Relief bridge over floodplain overbank without secondary channel
• Case 4: Relief bridge over floodplain overbank with secondary channel
This section provides additional visual guidance for each of the common contraction scour
scenarios. We adopt the same numbering convention as HEC-18 (i.e., Case 1-b in HEC-18 is
the same as Case 1-b in this guide).
This appendix provides guidance for laying out cross sections and applying scour analysis
equations for commonly encountered contraction scour scenarios. The guidance is
presented for ideal one-dimensional flow conditions, and designers will need to apply
engineering judgment when deviating from this guidance for more complex scenarios.
For clarity, the figures in this appendix include two simplifying assumptions:
• The contraction ratio is shown as 1:1, and the expansion ratio is shown as 2:1.
• Cross Section BU is shown to represent the contracted section for scour analysis
equations.
These simplifying assumptions are not required in practice. The contracted section may be
represented by Cross Section BU or Cross Section BD; using the internal cross section with the
higher velocity will give the more conservative results. Likewise, contraction and expansion
ratios may be refined to reflect conditions at the bridge.

Case 1-a(1): Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge
embankments; bridge abutments project into main channel
Figure B-1 – Contraction Scour Case 1-a(1): Idealized Bridge Cross Section

Figure B-2 – Contraction Scour Case 1-a(1): Idealized Cross Section Layout

Figure B-3 – Contraction Scour Case 1-a(1): Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Clear
Water Contraction Scour Equation
Figure B-4 – Contraction Scour Case 1-a(1): Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Live-
Bed Contraction Scour Equation

Figure B-5 – Contraction Scour Case 1-a(1): Cross Section Reference for HEC-18
Pressure Flow Scour Equation
Figure B-6 – Contraction Scour Case 1-a(1): Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pier
Scour Equation

Case 1-a(2): Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge
embankments; bridge located on narrowing reach of the main channel



Scour Equation

Case 1-b: Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge
embankments; no contraction of main channel; abutments near the channel
banks
Figure B-13 – Contraction Scour Case 1-b: Idealized Bridge Cross Section

Figure B-14 – Contraction Scour Case 1-b: Idealized Cross Section Layout

Figure B-15 – Contraction Scour Case 1-b: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Clear
Figure B-16 – Contraction Scour Case 1-b: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Live-Bed
Contraction Scour Equation

Figure B-17 – Contraction Scour Case 1-b: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pressure
Flow Scour Equation
Figure B-18 – Contraction Scour Case 1-b: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pier
Scour Equation

Case 1-c: Overbank flow forced back into main channel by bridge
embankments; abutments set back from channel banks
Figure B-19 – Contraction Scour Case 1-c: Idealized Bridge Cross Section

Figure B-20 – Contraction Scour Case 1-c: Idealized Cross Section Layout

Figure B-21 – Contraction Scour Case 1-c: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Clear
Figure B-22 – Contraction Scour Case 1-c: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Live-Bed

Figure B-23 – Contraction Scour Case 1-c: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pressure
Flow Scour Equation
Figure B-24 – Contraction Scour Case 1-c: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pier
Scour Equation

Case 2-a(1): Flow confined to the main channel (i.e., there is no overbank
flow); bridge abutments project into main channel



Scour Equation

Case 2-a(2): Flow confined to the main channel (i.e., there is no overbank
flow); bridge located on narrowing reach of the main channel



Scour Equation

Case 3: Relief bridge over floodplain overbank without secondary channel
Figure B-37 – Contraction Scour Case 3: Idealized Bridge Cross Section

Figure B-38 – Contraction Scour Case 3: Idealized Cross Section Layout

Figure B-39 – Contraction Scour Case 3: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Clear
Figure B-40 – Contraction Scour Case 3: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Live-Bed

Figure B-41 – Contraction Scour Case 3: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pressure
Flow Scour Equation
Figure B-42 – Contraction Scour Case 3: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pier Scour
Equation

Case 4: Relief bridge over floodplain overbank with secondary channel
Figure B-43 – Contraction Scour Case 4: Idealized Bridge Cross Section

Figure B-44 – Contraction Scour Case 4: Idealized Cross Section Layout

Figure B-45 – Contraction Scour Case 4: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Clear
Figure B-46 – Contraction Scour Case 4: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Live-Bed

Figure B-47 – Contraction Scour Case 4: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pressure
Flow Scour Equation
Figure B-48 – Contraction Scour Case 4: Cross Section Reference for HEC-18 Pier Scour
Equation

Parallel Bridges Scenarios
Parallel bridges are often provided where a large or divided highway crosses a waterway.
For example, a highway crossing may include one bridge for northbound lanes and a second
bridge for southbound lanes. Such bridges may be inches apart and geometrically parallel,
or hundreds of feet apart on different bearings.
The figures in this appendix provide guidance for laying out cross sections and applying
scour analysis equations for parallel bridges. The guidance is presented for ideal one-
dimensional flow conditions, and designers will need to apply engineering judgment when
deviating from this guidance for more complex scenarios.
For the purposes of a scour analysis, parallel bridges fall into two broad categories: (1) those
close together which share a common embankment, and (2) those further apart which have
a separate embankment for each bridge.

Case 1: Shared embankment
Figure B-49 – Parallel Bridges on Shared Embankment: Idealized Cross Section Layout

Figure B-50 – Parallel Bridges on Shared Embankment: Cross Section Reference for
HEC-18 Clear Water Contraction Scour Equation
HEC-18 Live-Bed Contraction Scour Equation

HEC-18 Pressure Flow Scour Equation
HEC-18 Pier Scour Equation

Case 2: Separate embankments
Figure B-54 – Parallel Bridges on Separate Embankments: Idealized Cross Section

Layout

Figure B-55 – Parallel Bridges on Separate Embankments: Cross Section Reference for
HEC-18 Clear Water Contraction Scour Equation (Downstream Bridge)
HEC-18 Live-Bed Contraction Scour Equation (Downstream Bridge)

HEC-18 Pressure Flow Scour Equation (Downstream Bridge)
HEC-18 Pier Scour Equation (Downstream Bridge)

HEC-18 Clear Water Contraction Scour Equation (Upstream Bridge)
HEC-18 Live-Bed Contraction Scour Equation (Upstream Bridge)

HEC-18 Pressure Flow Scour Equation (Upstream Bridge)
HEC-18 Pier Scour Equation (Upstream Bridge)

Appendix C – Optional Table Templates for Reporting
Appendix C OPTIONAL TABLE TEMPLATES FOR REPORTING

Table C-1 – Example Table: Scour Analysis Input Parameters

SCOUR ANALYSIS INPUT PARAMETERS
JUST U/S OF CONTRATION ZONE IMMEDIATELY U/S OF
U/S OF THE BRIDGE CROSSING THE BRIDGE CROSSING
LOB Channel ROB LOB Channel ROB

SCOUR DESIGN FLOOD
A (SQ. ft.)
WP (ft.)
n (-)
Q (cfs)
Vavg (ft./sec.)
y avg (ft.)
W (ft.)
WSEL (ft.)
Total Vavg (ft./sec.)
Qpeak (cfs)
SCOUR DESIGN CHECK FLOOD

A (SQ. ft.)
WP (ft.)
n (-)
Q (cfs)
Vavg (ft./sec.)
y avg (ft.)
W (ft.)
WSEL (ft.)
Qpeak (cfs)
INCIPIENT OVERTOPPING FLOOD

A (SQ. ft.)
WP (ft.)
n (-)
Q (cfs)
Vavg (ft./sec.)
y avg (ft.)
W (ft.)
WSEL (ft.)
Bridge Low
Chord (ft.)
Qpeak (cfs)

Table C-2 – Example Table: Contraction Scour Calculations

SCOUR ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS
SCOUR DESIGN SCOUR DESIGN INCIPIENT OVERTOPPING
FLOOD CHECK FLOOD FLOOD
LOB Channel ROB LOB Channel ROB LOB Channel ROB

CONTRACTION SCOUR CONDITION
D50 (ft.)
y (ft.)
Ku (-)
Vc (ft./sec.)
V1 (ft./sec.)
V1/Vc (-)
Condition
LIVE BED CONTRACTION SCOUR

Q1 (cfs)
Q2 (cfs)
y0 (ft.)
y1 (ft.)
y2 (ft.)
W1 (ft.)
W2 (ft.)
k1(-)
ys (ft.)
g (ft./sec.)
S1 (ft./FT,)
V* (ft./sec.)
Cross Section
Inside Bridge
CLEAR-WATER CONTRACTION SCOUR
Ku (-)
Q (cfs)
Dm (ft.)
W (ft.)
y0 (ft.)
y2 (ft.)
ys (ft.)
Cross Section
Inside Bridge

Table C-3 – Example Table: Pressure Scour Calculations


PRESSURE SCOUR
hu (ft.)
hue (ft.)
hb (ft.)
ht (ft.)
T (ft.)
hw (ft.)
t (ft.)
Q1 (cfs)
Q2 (cfs)
Que (cfs)
y2 (ft.)
WSE
Lowest Elev. of
Bridge Railing
Lowest Low
Chord. Elev.
ys (ft.)
Cross Section
Inside Bridge
Table C-4 – Example Table: Pier Scour Calculations


PIER SCOUR
V1 (ft./sec.)
y1 (ft.)
g (ft./sec.)
Fr (-)
Pier Shape
a (ft.)
L (ft.)
L/a
Ɵ (°)
K1 (-)
K2 (-)
K3 (-)
Red. Factor (-)
ys (ft.)
Cross Section US
of Embankment

Table C-5 – Example Table: Complex Pier Scour Method


COMPLEX PIER-PIER STEM
KhPier (-)
h0 (ft.)
T (ft.)
h1 (ft.)
apc (ft.)
apier (ft.)
F (ft.)
F/apier (ft./ft.)
h1/apier (ft./ft.)
Pile Cap Top
Elevation (ft.)
Pile Cap Bottom

Elevation (ft.)
Starting Bed
Elevation (ft.)
Y1 (ft.)
K1 (-)
K2 (-)
K3 (-)
COMPLEX PIER-PIER STEM
L (ft.)
Fr (-)
V1 (ft./sec.)
Theta (degrees)
YsPier (ft.)
COMPLEX PIER-PILE CAP
Case
h2 (ft.)
Y2 (ft.)
V2 (ft./sec.)
a*pc (ft.)
a*pc/apc (ft./ft.)
K1 (-)
K2 (-)
K3 (-)
Kw (-)
YsPc (ft.)
COMPLEX PIER-PILE GROUP
a*pg (ft.)
aproj (ft.)
apile (ft.)
S (ft.)
Ksp (-)
Km (-)
h3(ft.)
Y3 (ft.)
V3 (ft./sec.)
Khpg (-)
YsPg (ft.)
COMPLEX PIER-TOTAL SCOUR DEPTH
Red. Factor (-)
Ys (ft.)

Table C-6 – Example Table: SRICOS Method


SRICOS METHOD SCOUR
Pier Shape
α (degrees)
a (ft.)
aproj (ft.)
A1 (ft.)
W1 (ft.)
W2 (ft.)
Theta (degrees)
h1 (ft.)
h2 (ft.)
h2Δ (ft.)
kα (-)
kθ (-)
kLc (-)
kr (-)
ksh (-)
ksp (-)
kw (-)
Kw (-)
Lc (ft.)
Lp (ft.)
n (-)
nb (-)
P (ft.)
Re (-)
Rh (ft.)
S (ft.)
Δt (yr.)
te(C) (hr.)
te(P) (hr.)
τc (lb./sq.ft.)
τi(C) (lb./sq.ft.)
τi(P) (lb./sq.ft.)
V1(ft./sec.)
V2 (ft./sec.)
Vc (ft./sec.)
żi(C) (in./hr.)
żi(P) (in./hr.)
Zmax(C) (ft.)
ZC(Δt ) (ft.)
Zmax(P) (ft.)
ZP(Δt ) (ft.)
Ztot(Δt ) (ft.)

Scour Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scour Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scour Analysis Guide

Chapter 1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 1

Scour Analysis Guide i TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide ii TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 1 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Chapter 2 SCOUR ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS

A scour analysis includes each of the following components:

Scour Design Flood

Scour Analysis Guide 2 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Determination of Channel Cross-Sections

Scour Analysis Guide 3 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 4 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Channel Material Sampling and Testing

Scour Analysis Guide 5 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Lateral Channel Migration

Scour Analysis Guide 6 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Depth Calculations

Under bridge, away from abutments and piers

At pier, column, pile, drilled shaft, or similar obstruction

Scour Analysis Guide 7 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Figure 2-3 – Contraction Scour Method Selection Flow Chart

Scour Analysis Guide 8 TxDOT 2023.09.01

► Traditional HEC-18 Method | Recommended for sandy soils

Step 1 – Determine critical velocity:

• Critical velocity (Equation 6.1 from HEC-18):

Scour Analysis Guide 9 TxDOT 2023.09.01

• Live-Bed Scour Depth (Equation 6.2 from HEC-18):

Table 2-2 – Traditional HEC-18 Contraction Scour Coefficient

𝑉 ∗ ⁄𝜔 𝑘1 Mode of bed material transport

Scour Analysis Guide 10 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 11 TxDOT 2023.09.01

• Clear Water Scour Depth (Equation 6.4 from HEC-18):

* The contracted section may be represented by Cross Section BU or Cross

Step 3 – Determine Scour Depth

Scour Analysis Guide 12 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Figure 2-5 – Pressure flow contraction scour components and parameters

Scour Analysis Guide 13 TxDOT 2023.09.01

2. Determine Que (Equation 6.15 from HEC-18):

4. Determine separation zone thickness, t (Equation 6.16 from HEC-18):

Scour Analysis Guide 14 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 15 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Figure 2-6 – Pier Scour Method Selection Flow Chart

Scour Analysis Guide 16 TxDOT 2023.09.01

► Traditional HEC-18 Method | Recommended for sandy soils

• Scour depth (Equation 7.1 from HEC-18):

Scour Analysis Guide 17 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Shape of pier nose K1

Figure 2-7 – Common pier shapes (from HEC-18)

Bed condition Dune height (ft) K3

Scour Analysis Guide 18 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Figure 2-8 – Complex Pier Foundation, from HEC-18

Scour Analysis Guide 19 TxDOT 2023.09.01

► Annandale’s Erodibility Index Method | Recommended for fractured/jointed rock

Figure 2-9 – Quarrying and plucking at a bridge pier, from HEC-18

Scour Analysis Guide 20 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 21 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 22 TxDOT 2023.09.01

FHWA Bridge Scour Workshop (2022). Department of Transportation Federal Highway

Hydraulic Design Manual. (2019). TxDOT.

Scour Analysis Guide 23 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 24 TxDOT 2023.09.01

Scour Analysis Guide 25 TxDOT 2023.09.01

SRICOS Nomenclature and Units

a = pier width (ft)