NYSDOT

BRIDGE SAFETY
ASSURANCE PROGRAM
HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT
&
FHWA 113 Scour Critical Codes
Mr. Bridge Owner
Commissioner of Bridge Owners
County of Bridge Owners
P.O. Box 123
County, New York 11421
HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
History of the Hydraulic
Vulnerability Assessment (HVA)
Brief Review of the Hydraulic
y
Vulnerability Assessment Process
FHWA Item 113 Codes
Plan of Action (POA)
HVA Review
Design
g of Simple
p Countermeasures
to Remove Structures from POA
HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
A i t l
Approximately
60% of bridge
failures are due
to hydraulic
forces.
forces

¾ Catastrophic
¾ Partial
Collapse
¾ Structural
Damage
 Steel/Deter. 39 (2%)
Collision 228 (13%)
Overload 220 (13%) Concrete/Deter.
Nature 31 ((2%)) 9 (1%)
Construction
12 (1%)
Misc. 91 (2%)
Misc. Deter.
64 (4%)
Hydraulic 998 (57%) Earthquake
22 (1%)

Fire 47 (3%)

US BRIDGE FAILURES 2011

 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
S h h i Bridge
Schoharie B id
Failure - April 1987
Technical Advisory
T 5140.20
5140 20 -- 1988
Technical Advisory
T 5140.23
5140 23 -- 1991
New bridges
d i
designed d to
t be
b safe
f from
f scour
Evaluate existing bridges for scour
23 CFR 650 Subpart C 313.e.3 -- 2005 – Plan
of Action for Scour Critical Bridges
 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT
1 Classifying
1. Cl if i -- Evaluates
E l t the th
y of a
vulnerability
structure to scour
f il
failure.

General Hydraulic Assessment

Foundation Assessment
 Components:
Total Scour –Three Components:
1 Long
1. L tterm aggradation
d ti and
dddegradation
d ti
2. Contraction scour
3. Local scour -- Pier & Abutment

Total
Scour
Abutment Local Scour
Pier Local Scour
 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT
2. Classifying
y g – General Hydraulic
y
Assessment
Streambed Material
River Slope
Historic Scour Depth
Adequate Opening
Channel Bottom – Degrading?
Channel Configuration
Backwater Effects
Depth of Flow during Storm Events
 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT

2. Classifying
Cl if i – Abutment
Ab t t & Pi
Pier
Foundation Assessment

Scour Countermeasure Installed

Foundation Type
Angle
g of Attack
Extent of Embankment Encroachment
 CLASSIFICATION

Final General Foundation

Classification = Hydraulic + Assessment
Score Assessment Score

Higher of the
Abutment and
Pier Scores
 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT
2
2. Classifying – Foundation Assessment
Abutments and Piers
Culverts
-- Less susceptible
to scour damage?
 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT
2. Classifying – Vulnerability Class

Classification
Score < 25 20 - 40 >35
35
Vulnerability LOW MEDIUM HIGH
Class
Medium

20 25 35 40

Low High
 Hydraulic Vulnerability Classes
Spread on Earth Supported on Piles

Assessed Piles Are

Scour Depth Stable

Classification – Low
Bridge has little potential for failure
 Hydraulic Vulnerability Classes
Spread on Earth Supported
pp on Piles
Assessed Piles Are
Scour Depth Unstable

Classification – Medium
There is a recognizable potential
for failure from several storm events.
 Hydraulic Vulnerability Classes
Spread on Earth Supported on Piles
Assessed Piles Are
Scour Depth Unstable

Classification – High
The occurrence of a single intermediate
or large flood could result in failure
 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT

3. Rating – Provide a uniform measure

of the structure’s vulnerability
to failure.

Mostly use as a Planning

and Program Management
Tool
 FHWA Item 113 Code
Scour Critical Bridge

Is a single
single--digit CODE use to identify the current
status of a bridgeg regarding
g g its vulnerability
y to
scour.
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘N’ = Bridge not over waterway

FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘U’
U = “Unknown
Unknown” foundation that has not been
evaluated. A Plan of Action should be
implemented for a structure coded “U”
U .
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘T’ = Bridge over "tidal" waters that has not been

evaluated for scour, but considered low risk.
Bridge will be monitored with regular inspection
cycle and with appropriate underwater inspections
until an evaluation is performed ("Unknown"
foundations in "tidal" waters should be coded U.)
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

500 Year Flood Boundary

‘9’
9 = Bridge foundations (including piles)
on dry land well above flood elevations
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge
S
Spread
d on Earth
E h S
Supported
d on Piles
Pil
Assessed Piles Are
Scour Depth St bl
Stable

‘8’ = Bridge
B id ffoundations
d ti d
determined
t i d tto b
be
stable for the assessed or calculated
scour condition.
diti S
Scour iis d
determined
t i d tto
be above top of footing.
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘6
6’ = Scour calculation/evaluation has
not been made.

Not Acceptable !!!!

 FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge
Spread on Earth Supported on Piles
Assessed Piles Are
Scour Depth Stable

‘5’
5 = Bridge foundations determined to be stable
for assessed or calculated scour condition.
Scour is determined to be within the limits
of footing or piles by assessment or by
calculations.
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge
Spread on Rock

‘5’ = Bridge
B id foundations
f d ti are on rockk
formations that have been determined
to resist scour within the service life
of the bridge.
 FHWA 113 Code
Scour Critical Bridge re
re--coded to “8”
8

‘5’ = Bridge was analyzed, countermeasure has

been designed and installed to mitigate all
existing and potential scour conditions.
 FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘5’ = Bridge foundations determined to be stable

by
b the
th installation
i t ll ti off properly
l designed
d i d
Scour countermeasures (see HEC 23).
 FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge
Spread on Earth Supported on Piles
Assessed Observed
Scour Depth Field
Conditions

‘4’
4 = Bridge foundations determined to be stable
for assessed or calculated scour conditions;
Field review indicates action is required
q to
protect exposed foundations and/or piles.
(see HEC 23).
 FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘4’
4 = Bridge foundations determined to be stable
for assessed or calculated scour conditions;
Field review indicates action is required to
protect exposed foundations and/or piles.
(see HEC 23).
 FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘5’ = Bridge foundations determined to be stable

for assessed or calculated scour conditions;
(see HEC 23).
.
 FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘4’
4 = Bridge foundations determined to be stable
for assessed or calculated scour conditions;
Field review indicates action is required
q to
protect exposed foundations and/or piles.
(see HEC 23).
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge
S
Spread
d on Earth
E h S
Supported
d on Piles
Pil
Assessed Piles Are
Scour Depth U t bl
Unstable

‘3’ = Bridge foundations determined to be

unstable for assessed or calculated
scour conditions.
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

S
Spread
d on Earth
E th

‘3’ = Bridge foundations determined to be

unstable for assessed or calculated
scour conditions. No scour is
observed ---- Yet
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘2’ = Field review indicates that extensive

scour has
h occurred d att bridge
b id
foundations on a scour critical bridge
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘7’ = Bridge is Scour Critical

Critical. Countermeasures
have been installed to mitigate an existing
problem with scour and to reduce the risk
p
of bridge failure during a flood event. Plan
of Action was implemented.
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘7’
7 = Countermeasures have been installed to
mitigate an existing problem with scour
and to reduce the risk of bridge failure
d i a flood
during fl d event. Plan
Pl off Action
A i was
implemented.
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘1’ = Field review indicates that failure of piers

and/or abutments is imminent
imminent.
Bridge is to be closed to traffic.
FHWA 113 Code - Scour Critical Bridge

‘0’ = Bridge is Scour Critical. Bridge has

failed and is closed to traffic.
 Scour Critical Bridges
(Bridges that require a Plan of Action – POA)
Classification Score
High
Hi h
Medium, based on recommendation by RHE
FHWA Item
It 113 Code
C d
“2”
“3”
“7”
“U”
Rating Score
1 and 2
3, based on RHE recommendation
 PLAN OF ACTION (POA)
POA is to provide guidance for bridge owners,
that can be implemented for Scour Critical
Bridges before, during, and after flood events to
protect the traveling public.

The two primary components of a Plan of Action

are:
1. Instructions regarding type and frequency of
inspections to be made at the bridge
2. A schedule for timely design and construction
off scour countermeasures
t
 NYSDOT
Plan of
Action Form
Electronic version (MS
Access--based) of the
Access
POA form.
form
A copy should be
included in the Bridgeg
Inspection Folder for
State Own Bridges
NYSDOT MO requires i a
certification from the
Local Bridgeg Owners that
a POA was completed .
NYSDOT - Plan of Action Form

Flood Warning issued by Nation Weather

Service and/or follow instructions from the
NYSDOT Bridge Flood Warning Action Plan
NYSDOT - Plan of Action Form

Refer to Flood Watch Inspection

Guidelines on Critical Items in
the NYSDOT Bridge Flood
Warning Action Plan
NYSDOT - Plan of Action Form

A detour plan should be

included in the POA
NYSDOT - Plan of Action Form
 HYDRAULIC VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT

4. Plan of Action:
Monitoring -- Flood Watch
-- Post Flood
Inspection
 Plan of Action
Monitoring: Floodwatch
Post Flood Inspections

What ?
When ?
Who ?
Where ?
How ?
 Monitoring
Floodwatch & Post Flood Program
-- What bridges?
All Scour Critical Bridges
Bridges flagged by inspectors for scour
damage.
 Monitoring
Floodwatch & Post Flood Program
-- When?
Wh ?
During Flood Warning issued by the
National Weather Service (NWS).

During Flash Flood Warnings????

Reports of flooding from local

residents and/or maintenance crew.
 Monitoring
Floodwatch & Post Flood Program
-- Who?
…determines
determines what bridges are on the
Flood Watch Program?
…receives notification of Flood Warnings?
…carries out the Flood Watch?
…carries
carries out Post Flood Inspections?
…reopens a bridge after it was closed as
a result of Flood Watch?
 Monitoring
Fl d t h Program
Floodwatch P Wh ?
- Where?
GIS database of Scour Critical bridges
Track storms using satellite imagery
Internet
 Monitoring
Floodwatch Program - How?
Continual Monitoring
High Risk bridges: Potential to have a
sudden or catastrophic collapse.
 Monitoring
Floodwatch Program - How?
Periodic Monitoring:
-- Non
Non--High Risk bridges:
Bridges that will
undergo structural
damage/partial
collapse as a result
of substructure
movement.
Design of Scour Countermeasure
on Existing Structures
• Identifyy the cause(s)
( ) of the
Stream Instability at the Bridge
¾ Is
I it Local
L l Scour?
S ?
¾ Is it Contraction Scour?
¾ Is it Long Term Degradation?
¾ Is
I it cause by
b lateral
l t l
shifting/migration of the channel?
¾ Is the Instability cause by two or
more of the above?
Design Guidelines for Scour
Countermeasures
FHWA HEC 23
Bridge Scour and
Stream
St IInstability
t bilit
Countermeasures

Volume 1 & 2
 Design of Scour Countermeasure
• Instability -- Local Scour

¾ Riprap
¾ Jack Field
¾ Articulated
Concrete Mat
¾ Guide Banks
¾ Gabions
Design of Scour Countermeasure
• Instability -- Contraction Scour
¾ Add Relief Structures in the floodplain
¾ Allow overtopping of the approaches
¾ Armored entire channel under bridge
¾ Riprap
p p
¾ Gabions
¾ Concrete
with Cutoff wall
¾ Articulated
Concrete Mat
¾ Jack Fields
 Design of Scour Countermeasure
• Instability – Long Term Degradation

¾ Install Streambed Grade Stability Structure

¾ Sheetpile Check Dams
¾ Stone Check Dam
¾ Gabion Check dam
¾ Rock Riffle
– Consider more
environmentally
friendly
 Design of Scour Countermeasure
• Instability – Lateral Channel Shifting
¾ Install River Training Structures
¾ Spur Dikes
¾ Rock Vanes
¾ Bendway
Weirs
Hydraulic Vulnerability Re-Assessment
HVA Re-assessment is carried out based on information
obtained through
g the Biannual Bridge
g Inspection
p Process

Items Rated during Inspection

Erosion and Scour
-- Wingwall
-- Abutments
Stream Channel Items
-- Stream
St Alignment
Ali t
-- Erosion and Scour
-- Waterway
Water a Opening
-- Bank Protection
 When Should an HVA Re-
Re-
Assessment be completed??
Th
There is
i a New
N Bridge
B id – May
M nott always
l cause
a change in FHWA 113
Scour Critical Code

Anyy condition at the structure that may

y cause
a change in the FHWA 113 Scour Critical Code

If there is a change in rating of any of the

Channel, Erosion & Scour items or
combination of items by +3.+3 (A NYSDOT
Region 5 guidance)
 HVA Review

Check Winbolts or
Record Plans for
Foundation Type
-1

-2
 HVA Review – 2009 Inspection
Footing on short timber
piles and is protected by
St
Stone Riprap
Ri (somewhat
( h t !)
FHWA 113 Code 5?or 7
HVA Review – 2011 Inspection

Footing on short timber

piles – Riprap
p p p protection
p
removed
-- Footing slightly
undermined
d i d
FHWA 113 Code ?2
HVA Review – 2013 Inspection
Footing on short timber
piles – Riprap protection
replaced
p to correct
Yellow Flag (Scour)
condition
FHWA 113 Code 7?
HVA Review

6
 HVA Review – 2004 Inspection
Spread
S d footing
f ti on earth
th &
Footing undermined
FHWA 113 Code 2?
HVA Review – 2005 Scour Retrofit
Stone Check Dam &
Riprap embankment
protection installed
 HVA Review – 2010 Inspection
Scour along end
abutment filled in with
stream
t b
bed
d material
t i l
FHWA 113 Code 3?or 5
HVA Review
Case Study
2004 Inspection
FHWA 113 Code – 3
Foundation is unstable
for the assessed Scour
depth – (Short Timber
Piles)
Yellow Flag issued for
undermining of End
Abutment and
Wingwall
FHWA 113 Code – ?2
 HVA Review
Case Study
2006 Inspection
FHWA 113 C
Code
d –2
Scour countermeasure
installed to correct scour
deficiencies
-- Riprap Bank
Protection
-- Stone Check Dam
Yellow Flag Removed for
the undermining of End
Abutment and Wingwall
2
FHWA 113 Code – ?
HVA Review
Case Study
2012 Inspection
p
FHWA 113 Code – 2
Foundation is unstable
for the assessed Scour
depth – (Short Timber
Pil )
Piles)
Stone fill placed in
Scour Hole to address
an existing scour
problem
5
7
FHWA 113 Code – ?
 HVA Review
Case Study
Old Bridge
FHWA 113 Code – 5
Long Steel H
H-Piles
Piles
New Bridge
-- Precast 3-Sided
Structure
-- Spread Footing on
Earth (3’-4’ Deep)
-- Footing Exposed
FHWA 113 Code – ?3
 HVA - References

NYSDOT
Hydraulic
Vulnerability
Manual.
 HVA - References

FHWA HDS 7
Hydraulic Design
off Safe
S f Bridges
B id
 HVA - References

FHWA HEC 20
Stream Stability
att Hi
Highway
h
Structures
 HVA - References

FHWA HEC 23
Bridge Scour and
Stream
St IInstability
t bilit
Countermeasures

Volume 1 & 2
Lallman Rambali
Regional Hydraulics Engineer

NYSDOT Region 5
100 Seneca Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
Phone: (716) 847-
847-3202
E-mail: [email protected]