A Pier-Scour Database 2427 Field and Lab Measurements of Pier Scour

Prepared in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation
A Pier-Scour Database: 2,427 Field and Laboratory

Measurements of Pier Scour
Data Series 845
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Failure of the State Highway 50 bridge crossing the Tallapoosa River near Tallassee, Alabama, April 14, 1979.
Photograph courtesy of H. H. Weldon, Eclectic, Alabama, at http://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/wsp-2375/al/.
A Pier-Scour Database: 2,427 Field and
Laboratory Measurements of Pier Scour
By Stephen T. Benedict and Andral W. Caldwell
Prepared in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation
Data Series 845

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014
For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living
resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.
For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,
visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod
To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the
U.S. Government.
Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials
as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
Suggested citation:
Benedict, S.T., and Caldwell, A.W., 2014, A pier-scour database—2,427 field and laboratory measurements of pier
scour: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 845, 22 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds845.
ISSN 2327-638X (online)

iii
Acknowledgments
The 2014 USGS Pier-Scour Database (PSDb-2014) includes 2,427 laboratory and field measure-
ments of pier scour. These data represent an extensive investment of time and effort by many
investigators to collect, document, and analyze those data. These investigators have made
individual and collective contributions to the advancement of the current understanding of pier
scour, and the authors of this report acknowledge the investigators’ contributions. The authors
also would like to acknowledge Mr. R. Wayne Corley, SCDOT Hydraulic Design Manager, and
Mr. Jess D. Weaver, USGS Southeast Area Regional Executive, whose support made this
investigation and report possible.
iv
Contents
Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................iii
Abstract............................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Scope...............................................................................................................................1
PSDb-2014 Data Sources..............................................................................................................................2
Laboratory Data.....................................................................................................................................2
Field Data................................................................................................................................................2
Previous Compilations of Field Data..........................................................................................3
Froehlich (1988)....................................................................................................................3
NBSD ...................................................................................................................................9
Sheppard and Others (2011)...............................................................................................9
Overview of Field Data by State and Country..........................................................................9
Alabama................................................................................................................................9
Alaska ...................................................................................................................................9
Arkansas.............................................................................................................................13
California.............................................................................................................................13
Canada.................................................................................................................................13
China and Russia...............................................................................................................13
Colorado..............................................................................................................................14
Delaware.............................................................................................................................14
Georgia................................................................................................................................14
Illinois .................................................................................................................................14
Indiana.................................................................................................................................14
Louisiana.............................................................................................................................14
Maine .................................................................................................................................15
Maryland.............................................................................................................................15
Minnesota...........................................................................................................................15
Mississippi..........................................................................................................................15
Missouri...............................................................................................................................15
Montana..............................................................................................................................15
New Hampshire.................................................................................................................15
New York.............................................................................................................................16
Ohio .................................................................................................................................16
Oklahoma............................................................................................................................16
South Carolina....................................................................................................................16
Virginia.................................................................................................................................17
Washington.........................................................................................................................17
v
Limitations of Field Data..............................................................................................................................17

Equilibrium Scour Depth.....................................................................................................................18
Measurement Technique....................................................................................................................18
Measurement Type..............................................................................................................................18
Determination of Hydraulic Properties............................................................................................18
Sediment Characteristics...................................................................................................................18
Pier Width Normal to Flow.................................................................................................................19
Real-Time Scour Evaluation...............................................................................................................19
Additional Scour Investigations........................................................................................................19
Future Assessment Criteria ...............................................................................................................19
Summary........................................................................................................................................................20
Selected References....................................................................................................................................20
Tables
1. Sources for laboratory data compiled in the PSDb-2014........................................................2
2. Type of laboratory data included in the PSDb-2014 for each laboratory
measurement..................................................................................................................................2
3. Range of selected variables associated with the laboratory data in the
PSDb-2014.......................................................................................................................................3
4. Sources for field data compiled in the PSDb-2014..................................................................4
5. Range of selected variables associated with the field data compiled in the
PSDb-2014.......................................................................................................................................7
6. Type of field data included in the PSDb-2014 for each field measurement.........................8
7. Range of selected variables associated with the field data compiled in the
PSDb-2014 grouped by State or Country.................................................................................10
vi
Conversion Factors
Inch/Pound to SI
Multiply By To obtain
Length
foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)
mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)
Area
square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)
Flow rate
foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)
Acronyms and Abbreviations

BSDMS Bridge-Scour Data Management System
GPR Ground Penetrating Radar
HEC-18 Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18
NBSD National Bridge Scour Database
PSDb-2014 2014 USGS Pier-Scour Database
SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WSPRO Water Surface Profile computation model
A Pier-Scour Database: 2,427 Field and Laboratory
Measurements of Pier Scour
By Stephen T. Benedict and Andral W. Caldwell
Abstract “2014 USGS Pier-Scour Database,” will be referred to as the

PSDb-2014 for the remainder of this report. While a portion of
the field data in the PSDb-2014 (480 measurements) was pre-
The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a literature review
viously published digitally in the National Bridge Scour Data-
to identify potential sources of published pier-scour data, and
base (NBSD; U.S. Geological Survey, 2001), most of the labo-
selected data were compiled into a digital spreadsheet called
ratory and field data in the PSDb-2014 were not previously
the 2014 USGS Pier-Scour Database (PSDb-2014) consisting
available in a readily accessible digital database. Because the
of 569 laboratory and 1,858 field measurements. These data
digital database offers a valuable resource to engineers and
encompass a wide range of laboratory and field conditions and
researchers seeking to understand pier-scour relations in the
represent field data from 23 States within the United States
laboratory and field, it was deemed important to publish the
and from 6 other countries. The digital spreadsheet is avail-
compiled data in a digital database for use by others.
able on the Internet (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/845) and offers While limitations are associated with the field data in
a valuable resource to engineers and researchers seeking to the PSDb-2014, the strengths of this database include (1) the
understand pier-scour relations in the laboratory and field. large number of measurements (1,858), (2) the diversity of site
characteristics (table 3), and (3) inclusion of the most thor-
oughly documented and screened field data currently (2014)
Introduction available (USGS, 2001; Holnbeck, 2011; Sheppard and others,
2011). These field data, in conjunction with the 569 labora-
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in coopera- tory measurements, offer a valuable resource to researchers
tion with the South Carolina Department of Transportation and practitioners that can be used in various ways including,
(SCDOT), collected 335 measurements of historical pier scour but not limited to, (1) evaluating the range of the dimension-
in South Carolina (Benedict and Caldwell, 2006; Benedict less parameters used in the laboratory with the range of those
and Caldwell, 2009), with nominal pier widths ranging from determined in the field, (2) confirming and extending the rela-
0.8 to 9 feet (ft). These data were used to develop field-derived tions observed in the laboratory data, (3) evaluating the influ-
pier-scour envelope curves that reflect the upper bound of pier ence of selected variables on pier-scour depth, (4) providing
an assessment of the performance of selected scour-prediction
scour with respect to pier width for bridges in South Carolina.
equations, (5) identifying ways to improve the performance of
To expand upon this previous work, the USGS and SCDOT
selected scour-prediction equations, (6) developing new scour-
initiated a subsequent cooperative investigation to combine the
prediction methods through various analysis, (7) defining
South Carolina data with pier-scour data from other sources
upper-bound envelopes of pier-scour depth that can provide
and evaluate upper-bound relations within this larger data-
guidance to practitioners, and (8) making site comparisons
set. A literature review was conducted to identify potential
using selected field data from the database that have simi-
sources of pier-scour data, and selected data were compiled
lar characteristics to a site of interest to gain insights into
into a database consisting of 2,427 measurements of pier scour
scour potential.
(569 laboratory and 1,858 field measurements). These data
substantially extended the nominal pier-width range to 0.05 to
64 ft. The spatial extent of the database increased to include Purpose and Scope
data from 23 States within the United States and 6 other coun-
tries, providing a means to evaluate the upper-bound of pier The purpose of this report is to briefly describe (1) the
scour with a significantly larger database. laboratory and field data compiled in the PSDb-2014, (2) the
Of the 1,858 field measurements compiled in this study, digital spreadsheet that contains the PSDb-2014, (3) limita-
78 percent (1,444 measurements) were associated with data tions of the data, and (4) potential uses of the data. The digital
collected or compiled by the USGS; therefore, the database, spreadsheet that contains the PSDb-2014 can be downloaded
consisting of the field and laboratory data and designated the from http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/845.
2 A Pier-Scour Database: 2,427 Field and Laboratory Measurements of Pier Scour
PSDb-2014 Data Sources Table 1. Sources for laboratory data compiled in the PSDb-2014.
Number of
The PSDb-2014 consists of 569 laboratory measurements
a
Source of data measurements
and 1,858 field measurements. The sources of the laboratory from the source
and field measurements are described in the following sections Chabert and Engeldinger (1956) 93
of the report. Chee (1982) 37
Chiew (1984) 101
Laboratory Data Coleman (unpublished personal commun.,
as sited in Sheppard and others, 2011) 6
The laboratory data in the PSDb-2014 consist of Dey and others (1995) 18
569 measurements taken from 17 previous investigations Ettema (1976) 19
(table 1) that were compiled by Sheppard and others (2011). Ettema (1980) 97
Through a screening process that included data review and
Ettema and others (2006) 6
statistical analysis, Sheppard and others (2011) identified 441
of the laboratory measurements that approximated equilibrium Graf (1995) 3
scour depths and used that data in their investigation of pier Jain and Fischer (1979) 34
scour. While the remaining 128 measurements may not fully Jones (unpublished personal commun., as
reflect equilibrium scour depths, the measurements still can sited in Sheppard and others, 2011) 17
be useful in formulating certain relations, such as envelope Melville (1997) 17
curves, and confirming basic relations and therefore were
Melville and Chiew (1999) 27
included in the PSDb-2014. Some of the laboratory measure-
Shen and others (1969) 23
ments compiled by Sheppard and others (2011) are of his-
torical interest. In particular, many of the data collected by Sheppard and others (2004) 14
Chabert and Engeldinger (1956) and Shen and others (1969) Sheppard and Miller (2006) 24
were used to develop the original Hydraulic Engineering Cir- Yanmaz and Altinbilek (1991) 33
cular No. 18 (HEC-18) pier-scour equation (Richardson and These data were taken from Sheppard and others (2011) and can be
a
others, 1991). The laboratory data included in the PSDb-2014 viewed at: http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/164161.aspx
were taken from Sheppard and others (2011), and a descrip-
tion of the data is listed in table 2. Table 3 provides the range
of selected variables associated with the laboratory data. The Table 2. Type of laboratory data included in the PSDb-2014 for
441 screened measurements used by Sheppard and others each laboratory measurement.
(2011) were identified in the PSDb-2014 with values of 1 or [N/A, not applicable]
2 assigned to the Sheppard and others (2011) usage code to
provide a means to extract those data. Symbol used in
Type of data Units
database
Field Data Pier width normal to flow bn Feet
Approach flow velocity Vo Feet per second
The field data in the PSDb-2014 consist of 1,858 mea-
surements taken from 32 publications (table 4) and collected Sediment critical velocity Vc Feet per second
in 23 States within the United States and 6 other countries. Approach flow depth yo Feet
The compiled data include a wide range of stream gradients,
Median grain size D50 Millimeter
drainage areas, sediment sizes, flow depths, flow veloci-
ties, and pier sizes (table 5), providing a diverse database for Sediment gradation σg Dimensionless
assessing pier-scour relations. The types of field data included Length of experimental test N/A Minutes
in the database are listed in table 6 along with brief descrip-
Measured pier-scour depth ys Feet
tions of each data type. The data compiled in the PSDb-2014
were taken directly from the cited sources. Some exceptions Sheppard and others (2011) 1-Used; Dimensionless
to this include computations of the pier width normal to flow usage code 2-Used in Wide
(described in the “Limitations in Field Data” section) when Pier Analysis;
not provided in the original source and the approach flow 0-Not Used
depth associated with the Hayes (1996) data. Most of the data
published in the cited sources (table 4) were included in the
PSDb-2014; however, some measurements were excluded
because of missing data, questionable data, or unusual site
PSDb-2014 Data Sources 3
Table 3. Range of selected variables associated with the laboratory data in the PSDb-2014.
[ft, foot; ft/s, foot per second; mm, millimeter]
Pier width Approach Approach Median Measured

Relative Relative Relative
normal to flow flow grain pier-scour
flow scour sediment
Range flow velocity depth size depth
depth depth coarseness
value — — — — —
— — —
bn Vo yo D50 ys
yo/bn ys/bn bn/D50
(ft) (ft/s) (ft) (mm) (ft)
Laboratory data
(569 measurements compiled by Sheppard and others, 2011)
Minimum 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.7
Median 0.2 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 2.7 1.5 79.8
Maximum 3.0 7.1 6.2 7.8 4.6 21.0 3.1 4,159.2
conditions. The quality of a given field measurement will vary included in more than one of these studies. For example, field
with the techniques used to collect the data and the hydraulic measurements originally published in Norman (1975) were
conditions associated with the measurement. To assist in eval- included in Froehlich (1988), NBSD, and Sheppard and others
uating measurement quality, selected information describing (2011), and all four sources were identified for these data in
data-collection techniques for each pier-scour measurement the PSDb-2014.
was included in the database, when readily available. This
qualitative information includes the measurement technique
Froehlich (1988)
used to collect the scour data, the measurement-type category,
and the method for determining the hydraulic properties asso- Froehlich (1988) compiled 83 field measurements of pier
ciated with the scour measurement. A description of this quali- scour and developed a predictive equation based on those data.
tative information is included in the “Limitations of the Field The data were compiled from various sources and included
Data” section. For many pier-scour measurements, the cited 68 measurements from the United States (Alaska, Colorado,
source provided adequate information to determine this quali- Louisiana, and Mississippi) and 15 from other countries (Can-
tative information. In some cases, however, the cited source ada, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Yugoslavia). Froehlich (1988)
provided limited or no information, and judgment was used to notes that the measurements were collected during sustained
define these qualitative data. A review of the data sources is high flows using various measurement methods including
advised for further understanding about the field data included
fathometers, sounding weights, and sounding rods. Much of
in the PSDb-2014 and any associated limitations.
the data from the United States (46 measurements) also were
included in the NBSD, and comparison of these common data
Previous Compilations of Field Data were made to assure consistency between the two databases.
Minor discrepancies between some of the common Colorado
The PSDb-2014 incorporates compiled pier-scour data
data from the NBSD and Froehlich (1988) were identified,
from three previous investigations including Froehlich (1988),
and preference was given to the NBSD data. Comments in
NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001), and Sheppard and
others (2011). Because of their historical significance, data the PSDb-2014 spreadsheet cells noted the values published
associated with these studies were included and identified in Froehlich (1988) when they differed from the NBSD data.
in the PSDb-2014 so that they could be extracted and used All 83 measurements from Froehlich (1988) were included
to confirm and (or) expand the previous findings. Data from in the PSDb-2014. Additional information describing the
these three sources frequently overlapped, and care was taken data compiled by Froehlich (1988) can be found in Froehlich
in the development of the PSDb-2014 to remove duplicate (1988) and the original sources he cites, some of which can be
measurements while still identifying measurements that were accessed online (table 4).
Table 4. Sources for field data compiled in the PSDb-2014.
[N/A, not applicable; NBSD, National Bridge Scour Database]
Number of
State or measure-
Source of data Link to primary source of data Link to secondary source of data
Country ments from
the source
Alabama Atkins and Hedgecock (1996) 24 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964137 N/A
Alaska NBSD [U.S. Geological Survey, 2001; 34 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri7532 http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm
from Norman (1975), as cited in
Froehlich (1988)]
Norman (1975), as cited in Froehlich 2 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri7532 N/A
(1988)
NBSD [U.S. Geological Survey, 2001; 2 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri7532 http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm
from Norman (1975)]
Arkansas Southard (1992) 14 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri924126 N/A
from Southard (1992)]
California Shen (1975) 10 N/A N/A
Canada Williamson (1993) 42 N/A N/A
Neill (1964) 3 N/A N/A

Neill (1965), as cited in Froehlich (1988) 1 N/A N/A
C. Watt, Alberta Transportation, written 19 N/A N/A

commun., November 2012
China Gao and others (1993), as cited in Sheppard 234 N/A http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/164161.aspx
and others (2011)
Colorado NBSD [U.S. Geological Survey, 2001; 12 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri864030 http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm
from Jarrett and Boyle (1986), and cited
in Froehlich (1988)]
Jarrett and Boyle (1986), as cited in 3 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri864030 N/A
Froehlich (1988)
from Jarrett and Boyle (1986)]
Delaware Hayes (1996) 9 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964089 N/A
from Hayes (1996)]
Georgia NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) 8 http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/ N/A
index.htm
Table 4. Sources for field data compiled in the PSDb-2014.—Continued
Number of
State or measure-
Country ments from
the source
Illinois NBSD [U.S. Geological Survey, 2001; 3 N/A http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm
from Mueller and others (1995)]
Indiana Mueller and Others (1994) 15 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri934066 N/A
NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) 10 http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/ N/A
index.htm
Louisiana Chang (1980), as cited in Froehlich (1988) 14 N/A N/A
index.htm
Maine Hodgkins and Lombard (2002) 23 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri20024229 N/A
Maryland Hayes (1996) 12 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964089 N/A
from Hayes (1996)]
Minnesota NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) 14 N/A http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm
Mississippi Wilson (1995) 145 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri944241 http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm
from Wilson (1995)]
Chang (1980) as cited in Froehlich (1988) 2 N/A N/A
NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) 2 http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/
index.htm
Missouri NBSD [U.S. Geological Survey, 2001; 11 N/A http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm
from Mueller and others (1995)]
index.htm
Montana Holnbeck (2011) 103 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5107/ N/A
index.htm
Table 4. Sources for field data compiled in the PSDb-2014.—Continued
Number of
State or measure-
Country ments from
the source
New Hamp- Boehmler and Olimpio (2000) 56 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri004183 N/A
shire
New York Butch (1991) 85 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri914083 N/A
from Butch (1991)]
index.htm
New Zealand Davoren (1985), as cited in Froehlich 11 N/A N/A
(1988)
Melville (1975), as cited in Froehlich 1 N/A N/A
(1988)
Breusers (1970) and Breusers and others
Nigeria 1 N/A N/A
(1977), as cited in Froehlich (1988)
Ohio Mueller and others (1994) 2 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri934066 N/A
from Jackson (1997)]

Oklahoma Tyagi (1987) 17 N/A N/A
Russia Zhuravlyov (1978), as cited in Sheppard 83 N/A http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/164161.aspx
and others (2011)
South Caro- Benedict and Caldwell (2006) 189 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20055289 N/A
lina
Benedict and Caldwell (2009) 146 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20095099 N/A
Virginia Hayes (1996) 105 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri964089 N/A
from Hayes, (1996)]
Washington Copp and Johnson (1987) 6 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/ N/A
Reports/100/118.1.htm
Yugoslavia Bata and Todorovic (1960), as cited in 2 N/A N/A
Froehlich (1988)
Table 5. Range of selected variables associated with the field data compiled in the PSDb-2014.
[mi2, square miles; ft, foot; ft/s, foot per second; mm, millimeter]
Pier
Approach Approach Median Measured
width Relative Relative Relative
Drainage Stream flow flow grain pier-scour
normal to flow scour sediment
Range area slope velocity depth size depth
flow depth depth coarseness
value — — — — — —
— — — —
(mi2) (ft/ft) Vo yo D50 ys
bn yo/bn ys/bn bn/D50
(ft/s) (ft) (mm) (ft)
(ft)
PSDb-2014
(1,858 field measurements compiled from selected authors)
Minimum 3.13 a 0.00007 b 0.7 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.001 d 0.0 0.0 e 0.0 5.7 e
Median 1,081 a 0.00053 b 4.9 4.20 c 9.8 c 0.9 d 2.3 2.1 e 0.5 1048 e
Maximum 708,600 a 0.02 b 94.2 18.0 c 73.9 c 228.6 d 34.1 26.3 e 5.4 1,840,000 e
Screened Field Data
(727 measurements—Subset of PSDb-2014 previously screened by Sheppard and others, 2011)
Minimum 64 f 0.00008 f 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5
Median 2,400 f
0.0006 f
7.7 4.1 7.7 1.3 2.8 1.1 0.5 994
Maximum 708,600 f
0.007 f
55.3 15.4 73.9 108.0 25.6 9.6 1.8 65,100
a
Five hundred fifty-six measurements have missing drainage area.
b
Seven hundred seventy-five measurements have missing stream slope.
c
Thirty-four measurements have missing flow velocity or depth.
d
Seventy-two measurements have missing median grain size.
e
Measurements with missing flow depth and (or) grain size data excluded.
f
Drainage area and stream slope missing for the measurements.
Table 6. Type of field data included in the PSDb-2014 for each field measurement.
[N/A, not applicable]
Symbol used
Type of data Units Description of data in worksheet column
in database
State or Country N/A N/A The State or Country in which the bridge resides.
Road N/A N/A The road on which the bridge is located.
Stream or site name N/A N/A The stream or site name of the bridge.
Drainage area N/A Square miles The drainage area at the bridge.
Stream slope N/A Foot per foot The slope of the streambed or water surface near the bridge.
Measurement type N/A N/A The type of measurement used to collect observed scour
data: during flow event, post flood, or historical.
Method of collecting scour data N/A N/A The method used to collect observed scour data: soundings,
survey, ground penetrating radar, or fathometer.
Date N/A N/A The date of data collection.
Time N/A N/A The time of data collection.
Pier ID N/A N/A The pier identification from the source database.
Side of bridge where pier measurement N/A N/A Side of bridge where pier scour measurement was made:
was made upstream or downstream.
Pier type N/A N/A The type of pier: single column or group.
Pier nose shape N/A N/A Identifies the shape of the pier nose.
Nominal pier width b Foot Pier width unadjusted for flow angle of attack.
Pier width normal to flow bn Foot Pier width projected to the approaching flow with respect to
the flow angle of attack.
Pier length L Foot The length of the pier.
Flow angle of attack θ Degrees The angle of flow approaching the pier.
Approximate recurrence interval for flow N/A year The recurrence interval for flow used to estimate the hy-
draulic properties.
Method for estimating hydraulic properties N/A N/A Indicates the method used to estimate the hydraulic proper-
ties at the pier: estimate from limited historical informa-
tion, model, or streamflow measurement techniques.
Approach flow velocity Vo Foot per second The flow velocity upstream of pier.
Approach flow depth yo Foot The flow depth upstream of pier.
Debris effects N/A N/A Indicates the effects of debris on the observed scour:
insigificant, moderate, or substantial.
Bed material type N/A N/A Identifies the type of bed material: cohesive or non-cohesive
D16 D16 Millimeter Grain size where 16 percent of the bed material is finer
by weight.
by weight.
by weight.
by weight.
σg σg Dimensionless Sediment gradation.
Pier-scour depth ys Foot Measured pier-scour depth.
Accuracy of ys N/A Foot The accuracy of the measured pier-scour depth.
Sheppard and others (2011) usage code N/A N/A Indicates how data was used in the Sheppard and others
(2011) study: 1–used, 2–used in wide pier analysis, or
0–not used.
Mueller and Wagner (2005) measurement N/A N/A The measurement number assigned in the Mueller and
number Wagner (2005) investigation.
Data source N/A N/A The publication source for the data.
Federal or State agency associated with N/A N/A Indicates the primary Federal or State agency that collected
collection or compilation of data or compiled the scour measurement.
NBSD only 727 measurements in the PSDb-2014 are identified with

the Sheppard and others (2011) study. Additional information
The NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) was devel-
about this data can be found in Sheppard and others (2011)
oped by the USGS in cooperation with the Federal Highway and accessed online (table 4).
Administration, the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, and the University of Louisville, Department of
Civil Engineering, and includes field measurements of pier, Overview of Field Data by State and Country
abutment, and contraction scour collected from various loca-
tions within the United States. Most of the data in the NBSD The field measurements included in the PSDb-2014
were compiled from previous scour investigations conducted represent data collected in 23 States and 6 countries (table 7).
by the USGS. The precursor to the NBSD was the Bridge- Much of the field data (about 75 percent) were collected
Scour Data Management System (BSDMS; Landers and in field investigations initiated and managed at the state or
provincial level (18 States and 1 province). In most cases,
others, 1996), which was a Fortran-based computer program
the state investigations were cooperative efforts between the
developed to store and manage field measurements of scour.
local USGS Water Science Centers and the respective state
The BSDMS was later converted to a Microsoft Access data-
Departments of Transportation. Because a large portion of the
base to provide a more accessible format that could be served
data is associated with state or provincial investigations, the
on the Internet (Mueller and Wagner, 2005; U.S. Geological field-data overview is presented by state, province, or country
Survey, 2001). The converted database was renamed the where the data were collected. Limited data from Nigeria,
USGS National Bridge Scour Database, or NBSD. The NBSD New Zealand, and Yugoslavia were included in the Froehlich
contains more than 200 site and measurement attributes for (1988) database, as described previously, and are not included
each scour measurement including the channel geometry, flow in this section. Internet addresses for many of the publications
hydraulics, hydrology, sediment, geomorphic setting, loca- that document the various field investigations are provided in
tion, and bridge specifications (Mueller and Wagner, 2005), this report (table 4), and review of these sources is advised to
thus providing the most thoroughly documented pier-scour gain additional understanding about the field data included in
database to date. The NBSD included 508 field measurements the PSDb-2014 and the associated limitations.
in an online spreadsheet. Twenty-eight of these measurements
were removed because of data limitations (see “Montana” Alabama
report section), and the remaining 480 were included in the
PSDb-2014. Additional information about the NBSD data can Atkins and Hedgecock (1996) published 24 measure-
be found in Landers and others (1996), Mueller and Wag- ments of pier scour at 15 bridge sites in Alabama (table 7).
ner (2005), and the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001; The scour data and associated hydraulic properties were col-
lected by using a sounding weight or fathometer and standard
table 4).
streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and others, 1982) during
flow events with recurrence intervals1 ranging from less than
Sheppard and Others (2011) 2 to 10 years. All of the measurements were included in the
Sheppard and others (2011) reviewed 943 field mea- PSDb-2014. Additional information about the Alabama data
surements of pier scour and selected 791 measurements for can be found in Atkins and Hedgecock (1996) and accessed
their investigation of scour at wide piers. The selected data online (table 4).
included 83 measurements from Russia (Zhuravlyov, 1978),
65 measurements from Froehlich (1988) as described previ- Alaska
ously, 234 measurements from China (Gao and others, 1993),
and 409 measurements from Mueller and Wagner (2005). A Norman (1975) published 38 measurements of pier scour
description of the data from China and Russia can be found at seven bridge sites in Alaska (table 7). The scour data and
in the “China and Russia” report section. The Mueller and associated hydraulic properties were collected by using a
Wagner (2005) data were originally published in the NBSD, fathometer and standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz
and the data from the NBSD were used to represent the and others, 1982) during flow events with recurrence intervals
Mueller and Wagner (2005) data within the PSDb-2014. The ranging from approximately 2 to 100 years. All 38 measure-
measurement numbers from Mueller and Wagner (2005) were ments were included in the PSDb-2014. Froehlich (1988) and
included in the PSDb-2014 to provide a means to identify the NBSD included 36 common measurements published in
these data. Twenty-one of the Mueller and Wagner (2005) Norman (1975). Additional information about the Alaska data
measurements were removed because of data limitations (see can be found in Norman (1975) and the NBSD (U.S. Geologi-
“Montana” report section), and the remaining 770 selected cal Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4).
measurements from Sheppard and others (2011) were included
in the PSDb-2014. A data column in the PSDb-2014 identifies
1
It is currently (2014) recommended that flood-frequency estimates for a
given streamflow be reported as the annual exceedance probability rather than
measurements associated with the Sheppard and others (2011) recurrence interval. However, “recurrence interval” was the terminology used
investigation. Because 43 of the Froehlich (1988) measure- in all of the data sources cited in this report, and therefore, was used in the
ments included in the Sheppard and others (2011) study were report. Definitions for annual exceedance probability and recurrence interval
duplicated in the Mueller and Wagner (2005) measurements, can be found in Feaster and others (2009).
Table 7. Range of selected variables associated with the field data compiled in the PSDb-2014, grouped by State or Country.—Continued
[mi2, square miles; ft, foot; ft/s, foot per second; ft/ft, foot per foot; mm, millimeter; –, missing data]

Drainage Stream normal to flow flow grain pier-scour
scour flow sediment
Range area slope flow velocity depth size depth
value — — — — — — —
— — —
mi2 ft/ft bn Vo yo D50 ys
ys /bn yo /bn bn /D50
Alabama (24 measurements)
Minimum 112 – 1.3 1.5 5.1 0.33 0.3 0.1 0.6 89
Median 246 – 2.5 3.4 12.2 2.94 1.1 0.5 4.7 418
Maximum 1,480 – 15.4 6.8 28.6 8.60 5.8 1.0 12.3 9,580
Alaska (38 measurements)
Minimum 150 0.0002 3.2 0.5 1.5 0.58 1.0 0.1 0.1 22
Median 11,500 0.0010 5.0 5.7 10.0 3.40 2.5 0.4 1.4 758
Maximum 25,600 0.0021 30.7 12.0 22.0 90.0 8.0 1.2 4.3 2,628
Arkansas (21 measurements)
Minimum 121 – 1.4 1.7 7.8 0.11 2.3 0.2 0.4 44
Median 1,123 – 4.5 4.3 23.8 0.32 4.9 1.0 4.8 3,878
Maximum 52,675 – 21.2 12.8 44.2 21.0 14.6 4.2 10.3 32,751
California (10 measurements)
Minimum – – 2.0 6.4 6.4 228.6 5.0 0.7 0.8 16
Median – – 4.0 9.8 7.2 228.6 9.5 1.9 1.6 24
Maximum – – 21.0 18.0 28.5 228.6 15.0 5.0 4.0 28
Canada (65 measurements)
Minimum – 0.0003 3.9 3.0 7.2 0.30 0.9 0.1 0.6 22
Median – 0.0010 6.9 6.6 22.6 40.0 5.6 0.8 3.2 53
Maximum – 0.0030 37.4 15.1 42.0 80.0 31.0 1.7 6.4 8,941
China (234 measurements)
Minimum – – 3.3 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 31
Median – – 8.2 4.7 5.0 6.0 4.0 0.5 0.6 391
Maximum – – 29.7 15.4 38.1 70.0 17.7 1.5 2.7 45,263
Colorado (66 measurements)
Minimum 1,590 0.0005 1.8 1.9 0.5 0.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 219
Median 12,120 0.0013 7.1 3.6 3.3 0.94 1.5 0.2 0.5 2,312
Maximum 12,120 0.0013 55.3 5.8 10.5 29.8 4.3 1.3 1.9 5,057
Delaware (34 measurements)
Minimum – – 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.18 0.2 0.1 0.0 953
Median – – 2.5 1.1 12.5 0.18 0.9 0.5 7.2 4,233
Maximum – – 2.5 2.2 26.2 0.40 5.2 2.1 13.8 4,233
Georgia (8 measurements)
Minimum 14,000 – 4.0 1.7 18.1 1.0 3.9 0.7 3.9 1,219
Median 14,000 – 4.0 2.0 22.0 1.0 5.0 1.1 4.6 1,219
Maximum 14,000 – 6.0 2.3 26.4 1.0 7.0 1.8 5.8 1,829
Illinois (3 measurements)
Minimum 708,600 0.0003 16.1 6.0 54.8 0.6 20.4 1.2 3.0 8,188
Median 708,600 0.0003 18.0 6.6 73.4 0.6 21.4 1.2 3.7 9,151
Maximum 708,600 0.0003 20.0 8.0 73.9 0.6 23.3 1.3 4.6 10,166

scour flow sediment
value — — — — — — —
— — —
Indiana (25 measurements)
Minimum 100 0.0001 2.0 1.0 7.1 0.20 0.8 0.1 1.4 282
Median 4,392 0.0002 4.7 5.5 15.6 0.90 4.1 0.8 3.6 2,134
Maximum 11,720 0.0024 24.0 7.9 39.1 4.0 18.0 5.4 10.6 36,527
Louisiana (34 measurements)
Minimum 60,700 0.0001 12.0 1.5 5.9 0.008 3.0 0.2 0.2 14,224
Median 60,700 0.0001 14.0 7.6 35.8 0.30 14.7 0.8 2.2 14,224
Maximum 60,700 0.0001 73.6 10.4 53.5 0.30 27.9 1.8 3.0 1,836,931
Maine (23 measurements)
Minimum 90 – 4.0 2.7 2.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 12
Median 5,110 – 8.1 4.6 17.4 37.0 1.9 0.1 1.5 151
Maximum 8,170 – 22.9 7.9 30.8 104 12.0 2.0 5.6 1,737
Maryland (32 measurements)
Minimum 102 0.0016 4.0 0.0 1.1 0.38 0.5 0.1 0.3 14
Median 295 0.0050 4.0 3.0 5.7 22.0 1.7 0.4 1.3 55
Maximum 295 0.0050 5.0 8.6 11.6 108 5.4 1.4 2.9 3,208
Minnesota (14 measurements)
Minimum 36,800 0.0002 10.3 1.5 14.0 0.48 1.3 0.1 1.1 6,541
Median 36,800 0.0002 14.2 3.8 24.0 0.48 2.7 0.2 1.7 8,985
Maximum 36,800 0.0002 18.1 5.2 38.6 0.48 15.0 0.9 3.1 11,494
Mississippi (194 measurements)
Minimum 61 0.0001 1.8 1.3 2.3 0.036 0.0 0.0 0.2 128
Median 2,340 0.0002 9.0 5.2 22.2 0.36 4.1 0.4 2.1 6,350
Maximum 5,720 0.0016 94.2 10.4 64.0 7.51 34.1 2.2 10.7 797,330
Missouri (16 measurements)
Minimum 1,870 0.0001 7.2 3.5 15.4 0.32 12.0 0.8 1.2 4,050
Median 697,000 0.0001 9.6 6.5 41.9 0.70 13.0 1.4 4.1 4,180
Maximum 697,000 0.0003 17.9 8.6 65.7 0.96 21.1 1.8 5.3 13,659
Montana (118 measurements)
Minimum 3 0.0002 1.0 3.0 0.8 0.001 0.3 0.1 0.2 6
Median 1,809 0.0070 3.1 6.2 5.6 45 1.4 0.4 1.5 24
Maximum 19,930 0.0070 15.3 11.1 19.4 108 9.0 1.0 5.8 609,600
New Hampshire (56 measurements)
Minimum 22 – 2.5 0.6 3.0 0.37 0.0 0.0 0.4 18
Median 330 – 8.4 5.8 8.3 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 56
Maximum 1,600 – 17.1 12.6 34.1 80.0 2.3 0.3 5.7 6,590
New York (114 measurements)
Minimum 39 0.0004 3.0 0.6 4.5 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 20
Median 792 0.0008 5.0 8.3 11.5 34.0 0.9 0.2 2.5 45
Maximum 3,070 0.0020 22.6 15.0 31.9 68.0 5.2 1.0 6.4 215

scour flow sediment
value — — — — — — —
— — —
New Zealand (12 measurements)
Minimum – – 5.0 3.1 2.0 0.78 1.3 0.3 0.4 76
Median – – 5.0 8.0 4.3 20.0 2.1 0.4 0.9 76
Maximum – – 12.8 8.8 11.3 20.0 9.0 0.9 2.0 4,998
Nigeria (1 measurement)
Minimum – – 33.1 2.1 29.5 0.67 25.6 0.8 0.9 15,058
Median – – 33.1 2.1 29.5 0.67 25.6 0.8 0.9 15,058
Maximum – – 33.1 2.1 29.5 0.67 25.6 0.8 0.9 15,058
Ohio (87 measurements)
Minimum 84 0.0001 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.01 0.4 0.0 0.1 13
Median 675 0.0005 8.7 3.2 8.4 6.80 1.7 0.2 1.3 646
Maximum 3,849 0.0036 53.4 9.3 19.8 60.0 23.1 1.1 5.9 1,630,000
Oklahoma (17 measurements)
Minimum – – 2.5 – – – 0.6 0.2 – –
Median – – 4.3 – – – 8.0 0.9 – –
Maximum – – 20.0 – – – 18.0 4.0 – –
Russia (83 measurements)
Minimum – – 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.20 0.6 0.2 0.3 533
Median – – 10.0 3.6 10.2 0.30 8.5 1.0 1.6 15,037
Maximum – – 33.5 8.9 56.1 1.80 18.9 1.8 7.3 34,036
South Carolina (335 measurements)
Minimum 11 0.0001 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.004 0.0 0.0 0.4 179
Median 307 0.0006 1.5 3.3 9.9 0.30 1.5 0.8 4.8 2,067
Maximum 12,990 0.0029 19.6 12.1 50.8 1.70 16.9 3.7 26.3 178,528
Virginia (186 measurements)
Minimum 64 0.0001 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 8
Median 1,081 0.0002 2.9 1.9 11.6 0.74 1.5 0.6 4.2 1,195
Maximum 2,730 0.0029 3.2 8.5 32.5 72.0 5.1 1.7 10.8 3,483
Washington (6 measurements)
Minimum 82 0.0066 1.5 4.0 8.1 15.9 1.7 0.2 0.6 115
Median 178 0.0200 4.5 10.0 12.7 15.9 3.1 0.9 3.9 115
Maximum 517 0.0200 24.3 11.0 18.1 15.9 8.0 1.7 6.8 115
Yugoslavia (2 measurements)
Minimum – – 14.8 6.0 57.1 0.25 9.8 0.7 3.9 18,000
Median – – 14.8 6.8 59.4 0.25 12.0 0.8 4.0 18,000
Maximum – – 14.8 7.5 61.7 0.25 14.1 1.0 4.2 18,000
Arkansas program includes collection of periodic measurements of pier-

scour at selected bridges throughout the province of Alberta
Southard (1992) published 22 measurements of pier
and has been ongoing since the late 1950s. Scour measure-
scour at 12 bridge sites in Arkansas (table 7). The scour
ments were obtained by various sounding techniques with
data and associated hydraulic properties were collected by
most measurements representing post-flood data that could
using soundings and standard streamflow-gaging procedures
possibly include limited amounts of infill. The hydraulic prop-
(Rantz and others, 1982) during flow events with recurrence
erties associated with the measurements are estimates of the
intervals ranging from approximately 3 to 100 years. All but
peak-flow conditions at the time of the flood with recurrence
1 of the 22 measurements were included in the PSDb-2014.
intervals for 42 measurements ranging from less than 5 to
Seven of the measurements were included in the NBSD. The
100 years. Additional information about the Alberta Transpor-
one excluded measurement (May 13, 1968, Saline River at
tation pier-scour survey program can be found in Williamson
U.S. Highway 70) was likely influenced by abutment scour.
(1993) and Chapter 9 of the agency’s Bridge Inspection and
Additional information about the Arkansas data can be found
Maintenance System—Level 2 Inspection Manual (Alberta
in Southard (1992) and the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey,
Transportation, 2007). All of the Alberta Transportation mea-
2001), and accessed online (table 4).
surements from Williamson (1993) and Watt (written commun.,
November 2012) were included in the PSDb-2014.
California Neill (1964) conducted a review of selected laboratory
Shen (1975) reviewed selected bridge-maintenance investigations of pier scour and made a limited comparison
records from the California Department of Transportation and with field measurements from eight bridge sites in Canada.
identified 16 measurements of pier scour at 12 bridge sites Some of the sites had complex features such as rip rap,
in California (table 7). The data were collected by various exposed footings, and contraction scour in conjunction with
methods including post-flood soundings near the piers (1 site), pier scour, and these measurements were excluded; however,
post-flood analyses of soil borings (9 sites), and unknown three of the measurements were included in the PSDb-2014.
methods (2 sites). The analysis of post-flood soil borings is These measurements have limited documentation making it
a useful method for assessing scour depths. However, the difficult to fully assess the quality of the data, and this should
interpretive nature of this method introduces additional uncer- be considered when using these data in any scour analysis.
tainty into the scour measurement. Hydraulic properties were Froehlich (1988) included one measurement from Canada that
approximated at 6 of the 12 sites by using limited historical was originally published in Neill (1965), and this measure-
information regarding the floods thought to have created the ment was included in the PSDb-2014.
measured scour. These approximated hydraulic properties
associated with these pier-scour data typically consisted of the China and Russia
average flow depth and velocity at the bridge. Six measure-
Sheppard and others (2011) compiled 943 field measure-
ments without hydraulic estimates were excluded from the
ments of pier scour from four sources including Zhuravlyov
database; therefore, only 10 measurements were included in
(1978), Froehlich (1988), Gao and others (1993), and Mueller
the PSDb-2014. Based on photographs, it appears that most of
and Wagner (2005). The compiled data included 252 measure-
the piers associated with the 10 measurements have footings
ments from China (Gao and others, 1993) and 187 measure-
which could potentially influence scour. Additionally, seven of
ments from Russia (Zhuravlyov, 1978). Sheppard and others
these measurements are associated with moderate to substan-
(2011) noted that “there is little information regarding the
tial debris accumulations. While the California data are useful
measurement and data reduction techniques (e.g., how local
for gaining insights into pier-scour relations, the uncertainty
scour was distinguished from the other forms of scour, how
associated with the scour-measurement method, the approxi-
the measurements were made, etc.)” for the data making it
mate hydraulic properties, pier footings, and debris accumula-
difficult to assess the quality of the data in comparison to
tion should be considered when using these data in any scour
the more thoroughly documented data in Froehlich (1988)
analysis. Additional information about the California data can
and Mueller and Wagner (2005). Sheppard and others (2011)
be found in Shen (1975) and accessed online (table 4).
screened the field data from China and Russia by comparing
it with the more thoroughly documented data and removed
Canada selected data that seemed inconsistent with the Froehlich
The PSDb-2014 includes 65 field measurements from (1988) and Mueller and Wagner (2005) data. The screened
Canada, including 61 measurements collected in Alberta by measurements, as published in Sheppard and others (2011),
Alberta Transportation (Williamson, 1993; C. Watt, Alberta were included in the PSDb-2014 with 234 measurements from
Transportation, written commun., November 2012), 3 mea- China and 83 measurements from Russia (table 7). Additional
surements published in Neill (1964, 1965), and 1 measurement information about the data from China and Russia can be
published in Froehlich (1988) (table 7). The field data from found in Gao and others (1993), Zhuravlyov (1978), and Shep-
Alberta Transportation represent selected data taken from the pard and others (2011), some of which can be accessed online
agency’s pier-scour survey program (Williamson, 1993). This (table 4).
Colorado not normally reverse direction over the tide cycle. All of the
measurements were included in the PSDb-2014. Additional
Jarrett and Boyle (1986) conducted a pilot study to
information about the Georgia data can be found in the NBSD
develop and test guidelines for collecting streambed-scour
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4).
data at bridges during high flows. Jarrett and Boyle (1986)
collected pier-scour and hydraulic data by using a sounding
weight and standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and Illinois
others, 1982) at the upstream and downstream faces of four The NBSD included three measurements of pier scour
bridge sites that included 21 piers in Colorado. The data were collected in Illinois during the 1993 flood in the upper Mis-
collected during two events associated with record or near- sissippi River Basin. The scour data and associated hydraulic
record snow packs in the basin headwaters and during one properties, originally published in Mueller and others (1995),
lower flow condition. Jarrett and Boyle (1986) only published were collected by using a fathometer and standard streamflow-
the maximum pier-scour depth at each bridge associated with gaging procedures (Rantz and others, 1982), and all three
the two high-flow events (8 measurements). Froehlich (1988) measurements were included in the PSDb-2014. Additional
included 15 measurements in his investigation, using the data information about the Illinois data can be found in the NBSD
from Jarrett and Boyle (1986) and obtaining additional data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4).
by written communication. The NBSD includes 63 pier-scour
measurements taken from the original field data collected Indiana
for the Jarrett and Boyle (1986) investigation. Twelve of the
The PSDb-2014 includes 25 measurements from Indiana,
measurements in the NBSD also were included in Froehlich
including 15 measurements of pier scour collected by Mueller
(1988), but the NBSD had slightly different values based on
and others (1994) at 9 bridges and 10 measurements published
the reinterpretation of the data. In such cases, preference was
in the NBSD (table 7). The data collected by Mueller and
given to the NBSD data with any differing values published
others (1994) are historical scour measurements (similar to
in Froehlich (1988) noted in the PSDb-2014 spreadsheet. All post-flood measurements) that, at the time of the field mea-
66 measurements (table 7) were included in the PSDb-2014. surement, were assumed to represent the maximum pier-scour
Additional information about the Colorado data can be found depth at the bridge pier since the bridge was constructed. (A
in Jarrett and Boyle (1986) and the NBSD (U.S. Geological more detailed description of historical scour measurements is
Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4). provided later in the report under the section “South Caro-
lina.”) Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) was used to measure
Delaware the maximum historical pier-scour depth at the pier, and the
hydraulic properties associated with these pier-scour data
Hayes (1996) collected pier-scour measurements at
were determined from a one-dimensional flow model based
15 bridge sites in the States of Delaware, Maryland, and
on the historical peak flow at the bridge. GPR has been used
Virginia. The scour data and associated hydraulic properties
successfully to locate and estimate scour depths in the field
were collected by using a sounding weight or fathometer and (Placzek and Haeni, 1995; Webb and others, 2000; Benedict
standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and others, and Caldwell, 2009). The interpretive nature of this method
1982). Thirty-four measurements collected at two bridge introduces additional uncertainty into the scour measurement
sites in Delaware (table 7) were included in the PSDb-2014, (Benedict and Caldwell, 2009), and this should be considered
with all of these measurements in common with the NBSD. when analyzing the data collected by GPR. The NBSD data
Hayes (1996) published the total flow depth at the pier, which were collected by using soundings and standard streamflow-
represents the total flow depth from the water surface to the gaging procedures (Rantz and others, 1982). Additional infor-
bottom of the scour hole, and this total flow depth was used in mation about the Indiana data can be found in Mueller and
the NBSD to represent the approach flow depth. In the PSDb- others (1994) and the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001)
2014, the approach flow depth for the Hayes (1996) data was and accessed online (table 4).
determined by subtracting the pier-scour depth from the total
flow depth. Additional information about the Delaware data Louisiana
can be found in Hayes (1996) and the NBSD (U.S. Geological
The PSDb-2014 contains 34 measurements from Loui-
Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4).
siana, including 20 measurements associated with 1 bridge
site from the NBSD and 14 from Chang (1980) as cited in
Georgia Froehlich (1988) (table 7). The NBSD pier-scour data and
The NBSD included eight measurements of pier scour associated hydraulic properties were collected by using a fath-
collected at the Interstate 95 crossing of the Altamaha River ometer and standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and
located in southeastern Georgia (table 7). The scour data and others, 1982). The Chang (1980) measurements were taken
associated hydraulic properties were collected by using a fath- from Froehlich (1988). Additional information about the Loui-
ometer and standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and siana data can be found in the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey,
others, 1982). This site is tidally affected, but the flow does 2001) and Froehlich (1988) and accessed online (table 4).
Maine Missouri
Hodgkins and Lombard (2002) published 23 measure- The PSDb-2014 includes 16 field measurements from
ments of pier scour at 8 bridge sites in Maine (table 7). The Missouri that were included in the NBSD (table 7). Eleven
scour data and associated hydraulic properties were col- of these measurements were originally published in Mueller
lected by using soundings and standard streamflow-gaging and others (1995) and were noted to have recurrence intervals
procedures (Rantz and others, 1982) during flow events with greater than 100 years. The scour data and associated hydrau-
recurrence intervals ranging from less than 2 to 25 years. lic properties were collected by using a sounding weight or
The piers associated with these measurements have footings fathometer and standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz
which could potentially influence scour. Information about and others, 1982). Additional information about the Missouri
the footings is in Hodgkins and Lombard (2002). All of the data can be found in Mueller and others (1995) and the NBSD
measurements were included in the PSDb-2014. Additional (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4).
information about the Maine data can be found in Hodgkins
and Lombard (2002) and accessed online (table 4). Montana
The PSDb-2014 includes 118 measurements from
Maryland
Montana, with 103 measurements from Holnbeck (2011)
Hayes (1996) collected pier-scour measurements at and 15 from the NBSD (table 7). [Note: The NBSD includes
15 bridge sites in the States of Delaware, Maryland, and 41 measurements from Montana; however, 26 were excluded
Virginia. The scour data and associated hydraulic properties based on guidance from S.R. Holnbeck of the USGS Wyoming-
were collected by using a sounding weight or fathometer and Montana Water Science Center (written commun., January
standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and others, 2014), because of limitations associated with the data.] The
1982). Thirty-two measurements collected at 3 bridge sites scour data and associated hydraulic properties were collected
in Maryland (table 7) were included in the PSDb-2014, with
primarily with a sounding weight and standard streamflow-
20 of these measurements also in the NBSD. Hayes (1996)
gaging procedures (Rantz and others, 1982) during flow events
published the total flow depth at the pier, which represents the
with recurrence intervals of approximately 2 years for the
total flow depth from the water surface to the bottom of the
scour hole, and this total flow depth was used in the NBSD Holnbeck (2011) data and from 2 to 100 years for the NBSD
to represent the approach flow depth. In the PSDb-2014, the data. Hydraulic characteristics at selected sites in the NBSD
approach flow depth for the Hayes (1996) data was determined data were determined from hydraulic models. All 118 mea-
by subtracting the pier-scour depth from the total flow depth. surements were included in the PSDb-2014. The Montana data
Additional information about the Maryland data can be found from Holnbeck (2011) represent the single largest coarse-bed
in Hayes (1996) and the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, pier-scour database collected to date by the USGS, and these
2001) and accessed online (table 4). high-quality data need no qualifications. In contrast, the Mon-
tana data associated with the NBSD may reflect remnant scour
Minnesota holes (S.R. Holnbeck, USGS Wyoming-Montana Water Sci-
ence Center, written commun., January 2014) which should be
The PSDb-2014 includes 14 field measurements from taken into consideration when using these data in any analysis.
Minnesota published in the NBSD (table 7). The documenta- Additional information about the Montana data can be found
tion in the NBSD does not state the method of data collection. in Holnbeck (2011) and the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey,
Additional information about the Minnesota data can be found 2001) and accessed online (table 4).
in the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) and accessed
online (table 4).
New Hampshire
Mississippi Boehmler and Olimpio (2000) published 56 measurements
of pier scour at 20 bridge sites in New Hampshire (table 7).
The PSDb-2014 includes 194 measurements from Mis-
The scour data were collected by various methods including
sissippi, including 190 measurements from Wilson (1995),
GPR, fixed instruments, and soundings. The hydraulic proper-
with 45 of those measurements also in the NBSD, 2 additional
ties associated with these pier-scour data were determined
measurements from the NBSD, and 2 from Chang (1980) as
cited in Froehlich (1988) (table 7). The scour data and associ- from standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and oth-
ated hydraulic properties for the data in Wilson (1995) and the ers, 1982) or from hydraulic models, with recurrence intervals
NBSD were collected by using a sounding weight or fathom- ranging from less than 2 to approximately 100 years. The
eter and standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and interpretive nature of GPR introduces additional uncertainty
others, 1982) with recurrence intervals ranging from less than into the scour measurement (Benedict and Caldwell, 2009),
2 to about 500 years. Additional information about the Mis- and this should be considered when analyzing the data col-
sissippi data can be found in Wilson (1995), Froehlich (1988), lected by GPR. Some of the data reflect measurements at the
and the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001), some of which same pier for the same flow event using different measurement
can be accessed online (table 4). methods. Additionally, some of the data reflect the change in
scour from a past flow event rather than the maximum scour 1986 with a recurrence interval between 50 and 100 years.
since bridge construction. These characteristics should be con- The pier widths associated with the measurements were
sidered when using these data in any scour analysis. All of the determined from scaled drawings of the scour holes and piers
measurements were included in the PSDb-2014. Additional included in the report. Hydraulic properties associated with
information about the New Hampshire data can be found in these pier-scour data were not published. All 17 measurements
Boehmler and Olimpio (2000) and accessed online (table 4). were included in the PSDb-2014. While these measurements
have limited supporting data, the pier width and scour depth
New York data can be used to assess upper bounds of relative scour and
therefore, were included in the PSDb-2014. The Oklahoma
The PSDb-2014 includes 114 measurements from New
data can be useful for gaining insights into pier-scour relations,
York, including 110 measurements received from the New
but the limited documentation makes it difficult to fully assess
York Water Science Center (Butch, 1991; G. Butch, written
the quality of the data. This should be considered when using
commun., July 2008), with 25 of these measurements also in
these data in any scour analysis. Additional information about
the NBSD and an additional 4 measurements from the NBSD
the Oklahoma data can be found in Tyagi (1987; table 4).
(table 7). The scour data were collected by soundings or from
cross-section data at the bridge site. The hydraulic properties
for the data were mostly obtained from a hydraulic model South Carolina
calibrated to the peak flow associated with the scour measure- Benedict and Caldwell (2006, 2009) published
ment, with some hydraulic properties obtained from flow 335 measurements of pier scour in South Carolina that
measurements (G. Butch, written commun., August 2013). The included 189 measurements of clear-water scour on the
NBSD often assumed that a past flow event of larger magni- overbanks of 112 bridges and 146 measurements of live-bed
tude than that at the time of the scour measurement created scour in the main channel at 61 bridges (Benedict and
the observed scour, and hydraulic properties associated with Caldwell, 2006; table 7). The data are historical scour mea-
the past event were recorded for the scour measurement. The surements (similar to post-flood measurements) that, at the
recurrence intervals associated with the pier-scour data ranged time of the field measurement, were assumed to represent the
from less than 2 to greater than 100 years. All 114 measure- maximum pier-scour depth at the bridge pier since the bridge
ments were included in PSDb-2014. Additional information was constructed.
about the New York data can be found in Butch (1991), Welch In the case of clear-water scour measurements on the
and Butch, (2001), and the NBSD (U.S. Geological Survey, bridge overbank, the minimal infill of the scour holes allowed
2001), and some of this information can be accessed online for the direct measurement of the pier-scour depth using
(table 4). standard surveying techniques. In the case of live-bed scour
measurements in the main channel, where infill sediments
Ohio partially or totally refill the scour holes, GPR was used to
measure the maximum historical pier-scour depth at the pier.
Jackson (1997) published 85 measurements of pier scour
As noted previously, GPR is a useful tool for measuring scour.
at 20 bridge sites in Ohio (table 7). All of these data are also in
However, the interpretive nature of this method introduces
the NBSD. The scour data and associated hydraulic proper-
additional uncertainty into the scour measurement. Benedict
ties were collected by using a sounding weight or fathometer
and Caldwell (2009) noted that the average trend line (pier
and standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and others,
width versus scour depth) through the South Carolina live-bed
1982), with recurrence intervals ranging from less than 2 to
pier-scour data was approximately 1 to 2 ft above the trend
greater than 50 years. All 85 measurements were included
line for selected field data from the NBSD, indicating that the
in the PSDb-2014. An additional two measurements from
South Carolina live-bed pier-scour measurements are slight
Mueller and others (1994) were included in the PSDb-2014.
overestimates of the actual scour depths. The uncertainty and
These were historical measurements collected with GPR with
overestimate of scour depths associated with the South Caro-
hydraulic properties estimated with a model. The interpre-
lina live-bed pier-scour data should be considered when using
tive nature of GPR introduces additional uncertainty into the
these data.
scour measurement (Benedict and Caldwell, 2009), and this
The hydraulic properties for the clear-water and live-bed
should be considered when analyzing the data collected by
pier-scour data were estimated with a one-dimensional flow
GPR. Additional information about the Ohio data can be found
model using the maximum historic flow since the bridge was
in Mueller and others (1994), Jackson (1997), and the NBSD
constructed as determined from limited historical flow records.
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4).
When historical flow records were not available for a bridge
of interest, the 100-year flow was used as a common index
Oklahoma flow. Use of the 100-year flow as a common index flow was
Tyagi (1987) published 17 measurements of pier-scour based on a review of limited historic flood data that indicated
depth from bridge sites in Oklahoma (table 7). The data are bridge sites in the investigation had likely experienced histori-
post-flood measurements taken after a large flood in October cal flows equaling or exceeding 70 percent of the 100-year
Limitations of Field Data 17
flow. The hydraulic properties based on the 100-year index have footings which could potentially influence scour. Limited
flow are likely high estimates of the hydraulic conditions information on the footings is provided in Copp and Johnson
that created the scour, and this should be kept in mind when (1987). The six measurements were included in the PSDb-
analyzing these data. For the clear-water pier-scour data, 88 of 2014. While the Washington data are useful for gaining
the 189 scour measurements have hydraulic data based on the insights into pier-scour relations, the uncertainty associated
maximum historical flow since the bridge was constructed, with the scour-measurement method, the approximate hydrau-
and the remaining data use the 100-year index flow. For the lic properties, and influence of pier footings, should be consid-
live-bed pier-scour data, 122 of the 146 scour measurements ered when using these data in any scour analysis. Additional
have hydraulic data based on the maximum historical flow information about the Washington data can be found in Copp
since the bridge was constructed, and the remaining data use and Johnson (1987) and accessed online (table 4).
the 100-year index flow.
Benedict and Caldwell (2006, 2009) did not report the
recurrence interval associated with the maximum historical
flow, but rather the ratio of the maximum historical flow with Limitations of Field Data
respect to the 100-year flow. By using this ratio, approximate
Investigations of scour in the controlled environment
recurrence intervals were estimated for the maximum histori-
of the laboratory allow for relatively accurate and precise
cal flows and were included in the PSDb-2014. These flood
frequency values were not rigorously calculated and should be measurements of downscaled parameters used in the analysis
considered approximate only. The recurrence interval for mea- of pier scour including sediment grain size, pier width normal
surements using the 100-year index flow was identified as the to flow, flow depth, flow velocity, and scour depth. In the com-
“100 (index).” All of the clear-water and live-bed pier-scour plex and harsh environment of the field, however, measuring
measurements were included in the PSDb-2014. Additional these parameters can be a difficult task that typically cannot be
information about the South Carolina data can be found in accomplished to the same degree of accuracy and thorough-
Benedict and Caldwell (2006, 2009). ness as in the controlled environment of a flume study in a
laboratory. Field measurements of pier scour, therefore, must
be understood to generally have more uncertainty and poten-
Virginia tial error than that associated with laboratory data. While the
Hayes (1996) collected pier-scour measurements at uncertainty must be acknowledged, previous investigations
15 bridge sites in the States of Delaware, Maryland, and have demonstrated that the general patterns of field data are
Virginia. The scour data and associated hydraulic properties similar to those of laboratory data (Mueller and Wagner, 2005;
were collected by using a sounding weight or fathometer and Benedict and Caldwell, 2006, 2009; Sheppard and others,
standard streamflow-gaging procedures (Rantz and others, 2011) and can be used to confirm and extend the findings of
1982). One hundred and eighty-six measurements collected laboratory investigations. The uncertainty associated with the
at 9 bridge sites in Virginia (table 7) were included in the field data will typically be displayed by larger scatter within
PSDb-2014, with 81 of these measurements also in the NBSD. various relations and by outliers that require some inves-
Hayes (1996) published the total flow depth at the pier, which tigation to determine the cause of the divergence from the
represents the total flow depth from the water surface to the majority of the data. Additionally, measurement quality will
bottom of the scour hole, and this total flow depth was used in vary with the techniques used to collect the field data, and data
the NBSD to represent the approach flow depth. In the PSDb- collected by one technique to quantify a certain parameter may
2014, the approach flow depth for the Hayes (1996) data was display a slightly different relation from data collected by a
determined by subtracting the pier-scour depth from the total different technique intended to quantify the same parameter.
flow depth. Additional information about the Maryland data Therefore, it is important to understand the limitations of field
can be found in Hayes (1996) and the NBSD (U.S. Geological data, in general, as well as the limitation of selected data based
Survey, 2001) and accessed online (table 4). on measurement techniques. To help provide an understanding
of data limitations, potential sources of measurement error in
Washington the field data are described in this section of the report. This
information may be helpful to evaluate the quality of a given
Copp and Johnson (1987) published six measurements of
measurement and perhaps explain why selected measurements
pier scour at six bridge sites in Washington (table 7). The data
deviate from the majority of the data. A review of the sources
are similar to historical scour measurements that represent the
of the field data included in the PSDb-2014 is advised to gain
maximum scour depth since bridge construction at the time of
additional understanding about the data and its associated
the site visit. The data were collected at low-flow conditions
limitations (table 4).
using various surveying techniques. The hydraulic properties
associated with these pier-scour measurements, as presented in
Copp and Johnson (1987), were estimated from limited flow
information and represent average hydraulic properties in the
bridge opening. The piers associated with these measurements
Equilibrium Scour Depth may have infill, and therefore, the scour that actually occurred
may be underestimated. This underestimation is more likely
The pier-scour field data typically reflect measurements to occur at live-bed scour sites where geophysical techniques
during a short time increment in the scour event, and the history were not used to measure the scour depth.
of the scour-depth evolution is unknown. Some of the pier- Flood measurements are scour depths measured during
scour measurements may reflect remnant scour holes created high flow, typically with sounding weights or a fathometer.
by previous flow events of larger magnitude, and the concur- While all three types of pier-scour measurements yield useful
rent (or assumed) hydraulic conditions associated with the data, flood measurements likely provide the most accurate
measured scour may not be the flow conditions that created scour measurements because the measurements are directly
the scour. This observation may apply more at sites where associated with concurrent flow and scour conditions. The
clear-water scour conditions predominate and where a much measurement type for a given pier-scour measurement was
larger flood had occurred in the recent past. Scour measure- noted in the PSDb-2014 if such information was available.
ments may not, therefore, reflect equilibrium scour depths for
the associated flow conditions, particularly at some sites with
conditions similar to those described above. Determination of Hydraulic Properties
The hydraulic properties associated with a given pier-
Measurement Technique scour measurement were generally determined by one of
three methods: estimates from limited historical information,
The pier-scour field data were collected with various one-dimensional flow models based on flows thought to have
measurement techniques, including survey levels, sound- created the measured scour, or flow measurements concurrent
ings using fathometers or sounding weights, geophysical with the scour measurements. Hydraulic properties based on
equipment, and soil borings. The accuracy of a pier-scour limited historical information reflect approximate values that
measurement varies with the measurement technique. As were determined without the aid of current meter measure-
noted previously, GPR is a useful tool for assessing scour, but ments or models and likely have the largest measurement
the interpretive nature of this method introduces additional uncertainty. Historical and post-flood scour measurements
uncertainty into the scour measurement. (See the report sec- typically relied on one-dimensional flow models to estimate
tion “South Carolina” for additional information regarding the hydraulic properties that may have created the scour. In
potential error associated with GPR measurements.) Simi- the case of post-flood scour measurements, the historical flows
larly, the use of soil borings to estimate scour depth requires used in these models typically represented conditions for a
interpretation, which introduces additional uncertainty in that known flow event occurring just prior to the scour measure-
estimate. While all measurement techniques used in the PSDb- ment. For historical scour measurements, the historical flows
2014 yield useful data, measurements associated with standard used in these models typically represented the maximum
surveying methods and soundings by fathometers or sounding historical flow since bridge construction as determined from
weights likely provide the most accurate scour measurements. historical flow records or an assumed index flow. The accu-
To provide insights into the potential accuracy of a given racy of the historical flows used in the one-dimensional flow
pier-scour measurement, the measurement technique used to models will influence the degree of uncertainty associated
collect the data was noted in the PSDb-2014, if such informa- with the estimated hydraulic properties derived from those
tion was available. models. Models using an assumed index flow likely have a
larger uncertainty associated with the estimate of the hydraulic
properties. Flow measurements concurrent with the scour mea-
Measurement Type surements likely provide the most accurate estimates of the
hydraulic properties that created the scour; therefore, if a given
The pier-scour measurements were classified into three
pier-scour analysis is dependent upon hydraulic properties, it
measurement-type categories: historical, post-flood, and flood
may be advisable to give preference to data associated with
measurements. For the historical measurement category, the
flow measurements concurrent with the scour measurement.
measured scour is assumed to reflect the maximum scour
To provide insights into the potential accuracy of the hydraulic
depth that has occurred at a pier since bridge construction. For
properties associated with a given pier-scour measurement, the
clear-water scour sites that have minimal infill, historical scour
method for determining the hydraulic properties was noted in
can typically be measured by survey or soundings. For live-
the PSDb-2014 if such information was available.
bed scour sites where scour holes may have some infill, histor-
ical scour is often measured with geophysical techniques, such
as GPR (Mueller and others, 1994; Benedict and Caldwell, Sediment Characteristics
2009) in order to evaluate the maximum scour depth.
Post-flood measurements are scour depths measured Sediments in the field are non-uniform in grain size
shortly after a flood by using various measurement techniques. and typically have characteristics that vary spatially. Flood-
Some scour holes associated with post-flood measurements plain sediments, in particular, reflect the varying depositional
Limitations of Field Data 19
environments that created them. Additionally, natural streams analysis. The data for the nominal pier width, pier length,
often have subsurface strata that can be more or less resistant skew angle, and pier width normal to flow were incorporated
to scour than the surface sediments. Where there is underlying into the PSDb-2014 as published in the cited sources with no
bedrock of competent nature, pier-scour depths may be limited attempt to verify those values. Some sources did not publish
by the more scour-resistant underlying material. In contrast, the pier width normal to flow; in such cases, this value was
coarse-bed alluvial streams having non-uniform sediment determined by using equation 1.
characteristics can experience armoring during high flows.
Armoring occurs when the upper layer of sediments coarsens
as flows remove the finer material; the remaining coarser Real-Time Scour Evaluation
material may then armor the scour hole, causing the hole to be
Pier-scour data collected by the flood-measurement
more resistant to further scour. If the armor layer is mobilized,
method (previously defined) should represent scour resulting
scour may resume and accelerate if the underlying material
from the hydraulic conditions at the time of the field measure-
is not of sufficient size and gradation. The median grain size,
ment (real-time scour). Some flood measurements of pier
the grain-size distributions, and a simple description of the
scour may reflect remnant scour created by a past flow event
sediments based on limited samples of surface bed material
larger than the measured flow. Of particular concern are cases
are provided for certain sites in the PSDb-2014. Such data are
where the flow conditions measured concurrently with the pier
useful for defining the bed sediments, but are subject to any
scour are insufficient to initiate scour at a pier and therefore,
limitations in the data.
no real-time scour was occurring at the time of the measure-
ment. (Note: Some of the Montana measurements associated
Pier Width Normal to Flow with the NBSD likely fall into this category; S.R. Holnbeck,
USGS Wyoming-Montana Water Science Center, written
The pier width normal to flow is the width of the pier commun., January 2014.) Such data could be misleading for
projected to the approaching flow and is known to influence certain data analysis, and it may be of value to identify these
the depth of pier scour (Ettema and others, 2011; Sheppard data. Screening the PSDb-2014 for such data was beyond the
and others, 2011). An accurate determination of the pier width scope of this investigation; however, Gao and others (1993)
normal to flow requires knowledge of the nominal pier width and Holnbeck (2011) provide guidance for identifying these
(the width at the frontal pier face measured perpendicular to types of measurements.
the flow), the pier length, and the skew angle of the approach-
ing flow to the major axis of the pier, as shown in the follow-
ing equation: Additional Scour Investigations
Because the list of data sources included in this report is
bn = b cosineθ + L sineθ, (1)
not exhaustive, other reports could have useful data associated
with bridge sites included in the PSDb-2014. Additionally,
where
future scour investigations could be conducted at selected
bn is the pier width normal to flow, in feet;
bridge sites in the PSDb-2014 for the purpose of scour
b is the nominal pier width, in feet;
monitoring or additional field research that expands upon the
θ is the skew angle of the major axis of the
previous studies. These future investigations could include
pier with respect to approaching flow, in
additional bed-material characterization and more detailed
degrees; and
scour measurements based on new and improved data-collec-
L is the pier length along the major axis, in feet.
tion techniques, providing a more comprehensive dataset than
that in the PSDb-2014. There are currently (2014) no plans for
The nominal pier width and pier length can be readily
future updates and maintenance of the PSDb-2014, and data
determined for uniform pier geometries; however, at complex
associated with existing studies not included in this investiga-
and non-uniform pier geometries, which are often associated
tion, or future studies, will likely not be incorporated in the
with larger piers, the determination of these variables can
database. However, users of the PSDb-2014 may want to con-
be challenging. The most accurate measurement of the skew
sult such studies and incorporate these data into their analyses.
angle is obtained during flood conditions and concurrent with
the scour measurement. For historical and post-flood scour
measurements, the skew angle is typically determined from a Future Assessment Criteria
review of site characteristics during low-flow conditions and
topographic maps and therefore has a larger uncertainty. The As the understanding of stream stability and bridge scour
challenges of accurately determining the variables in equa- processes evolves, it is possible that data in this report could
tion 1 introduce some uncertainty in those data, as well as in be assessed differently. For example, changes in future assess-
the estimate of the pier width normal to flow, and this should ment criteria could lead to existing data being categorized dif-
be taken into consideration when using these variables in any ferently based on better understood scour processes, modified
because certain parameters can be quantified more accurately, Boehmler, E.M., and Olimpio, J.R., 2000, Evaluation of pier-
or perhaps even eliminated because a variable is no longer scour measurement methods and pier-scour predictions with
considered to be important. Users of the data in this report observed scour measurements at selected bridge sites in
should, therefore, be aware that future assessment criteria may New Hampshire, 1995–98: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
change how certain data are viewed. Resources Investigations Report 00–4183, 58 p.
Breusers, H.N.C., 1970, Discussion of local scour around

bridge piers: Journal of the Hydraulic Division, American
Summary Society of Civil Engineering, v. 96, no. HY7, p. 1638–1639,
as cited in Froehlich (1988).
The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a literature review
to identify potential sources of published pier-scour data, and Breusers, H.N.C., Nicollet, G., and Shen, H.W., 1977, Local
selected data were compiled into the PSDb-2014, consisting scour around cylindrical piers: Journal of Hydraulic
of 569 laboratory and 1,858 field measurements. These data Research, v. 15, no. 3, p. 211–252, as cited in Froehlich
(1988).
encompass a wide range of laboratory and field conditions
and represent field data from 23 States within the United Butch, G.K., 1991, Measurement of bridge scour at selected
States and from 6 other countries. The majority of the field sites in New York, excluding Long Island: U.S. Geological
measurements compiled in this effort were associated with Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91–4083,
data collected or compiled by U.S. Geological Survey person- 21 p.
nel. Because the digital database offers a valuable resource to
engineers and researchers seeking to understand the relations Chabert, J., and Engeldinger, P., 1956, Etude des affouille-
of pier scour in the laboratory and field, it was deemed ments autour des Piles des ponts (Study on scour around
important to publish the compiled data in a digital spreadsheet bridge piers): Chatou, France, Laboratoire National
format for use by others. The digital spreadsheet is available at d’Hydraulique, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/845. Chang, F.M., 1980, Scour at bridge piers; field data from
Louisiana files: Federal Highway Administration Report
FHWA-RD-79-105, as cited in Froehlich (1988).
Selected References Chee, R.K.W., 1982, Live-bed scour at bridge piers: Auck-
land, New Zealand, School of Engineering, The University
Alberta Transportation, 2007, Bridge inspection and main- of Auckland, Report No. 290, as cited in Sheppard and
tenance system, level 2 inspection manual, version 1.1, others (2011).
accessed August 8, 2013, at http://www.transportation.
alberta.ca/2658.htm. Chiew, Y.M., 1984, Local scour at bridge piers: New Zealand,
School of Engineering, The University of Auckland, Report
Atkins, J.B., and Hedgecock, T.S., 1996, Scour at selected No. 355, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
bridge sites in Alabama, 1991–94: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4137, 19 p. Copp, H.D., and Johnson, J.P., 1987, Riverbed scour at bridge
piers: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Bata, G., and Todorovic, V., 1960, Erozija iko novosadskog Washington State University, WA-RD-118.1, 61 p.
mostovskog stuba (Scour around bridge piers – Novi Sad):
Institut za vodoprivredu, Jaroslav Cerni, Beograd, Yugosla- Davoren, A., 1985, Local scour around a cylindrical bridge
pier: Publication no. 3, Hydrology Centre, Christchurch,
via, p. 59–66, as cited in Froehlich (1988).
New Zealand, as cited in Froehlich (1988).
Benedict, S.T., and Caldwell, A.W., 2006, Development and
Dey, S., Bose, S.K., and Sastry, G.L.N., 1995, Clearwater
evaluation of clear-water pier and contraction scour enve-
scour at circular piers—A model: Journal of Hydraulic
lope curves in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Provinces of
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineering, v. 121,
South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investi-
no. 12, p. 869–876, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
gations Report 2005–5289, 98 p. (Also available at http://
pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5289/.) Ettema, R., 1976, Influence of bed material gradation on local
scour: Auckland, New Zealand, School of Engineering,
Benedict, S.T., and Caldwell, A.W., 2009, Development and
The University of Auckland, Report No. 124, as cited in
evaluation of live-bed pier- and contraction-scour enve-
Sheppard and others (2011).
lope curves in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Provinces
of South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Ettema, R., 1980, Scour at bridge piers: Auckland, New Zea-
Investigations Report 2009–5099, 108 p. (Also available at land, School of Engineering, The University of Auckland,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5099/.) Report No. 216, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
Selected References 21
Ettema, R., Constantinescu, G., and Melville, B., 2011, Landers, M.N., Mueller, D.S., and Martin, G.R., 1996, Bridge-
Evaluation of bridge scour research—Pier scour processes scour data management system user’s manual: U.S. Geo-
and predictions: Transportation Research Board, National logical Survey Open-File Report 95–754, 75 p.
Cooperative Highway Research Program Web Document
175 (Project 24–27(01)), 195 p., accessed July 21, 2011, at Melville, B.W., 1975, Local scour at bridge sites: Auckland,
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w175.pdf. New Zealand, School of Engineering, University of Auck-
land, Report No. 117, as cited in Froehlich (1988).
Ettema, R., Kirkil, G., and Muste, M., 2006, Similitude of
large-scale turbulence in experiments on local scour at cyl- Melville, B.W., 1984, Live bed scour at bridge piers: Journal
inders: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of Civil Engi-
of Civil Engineering, v. 132, no. 1, p. 33–40, as cited in neers, v. 110, no. 9, p. 1234–1247.
Sheppard and others (2011).
Melville, B.W, 1997, Pier and abutment scour—Integrated
Feaster, T.D., Gotvald, A.J., and Weaver, J.C., 2009, Mag- Approach: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, American
nitude and frequency of rural floods in the Southeastern Society of Civil Engineering, v. 123, no. 2, p. 125–136, as
United States, 2006—Volume 3, South Carolina: U.S. Geo- cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
logical Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5156,
226 p. Melville, B.W., and Chiew, Y.M., 1999, Time scale for local
scour at bridge piers: American Society of Civil Engi-
Froehlich, D.C., 1988, Analysis of onsite measurements of neering, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 125, no. 1,
scour at piers, in Hydraulic Engineering, Proceedings of the p. 59–65, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
1988 National Conference on Hydraulic Engineering: New
York, American Society of Civil Engineering, p. 534–539. Mueller, D.S., Landers, M.N., and Fischer, E.E, 1995, Scour
measurements at bridge sites during the 1993 Upper Mis-
Gao, D., Posada, G.L., and Nordin, C.F., 1993, Pier scour sissippi River Basin flood: Transportation Research Record,
equations used in the People’s Republic of China: Washing- v. 1483, p. 47–55.
ton, D.C., Federal Highway Administration report FHWA-
SA-93-076, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011). Mueller, D.S., Miller, R.L., and Wilson, J.T., 1994, Historical
and potential scour around bridge piers and abutments of
Graf, W.H., 1995, Load scour around piers: Lausanne, Swit- selected stream crossings in Indiana: U.S. Geological Sur-
zerland, Laboratoire de Recherches Hydrauliques, École vey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93–4066, 123 p.
Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Annual Report,
p. B.33.1–B.33.8, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011). Mueller, D.S., and Wagner, C.R., 2005, Field observations
and evaluations of streambed scour at bridges: McLean,
Hayes, D.C., 1996, Scour at bridge sites in Delaware, Mary-
Virginia, Office of Engineering Research and Development,
land, and Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Federal Highway Administration.
Investigations Report 96–4089, 39 p.
Neill, C.R., 1964, Local scour around bridge piers—A
Hodgkins, G., and Lombard, P., 2002, Observed and
comparative analysis of model experiments and field data:
predicted pier scour in Maine: U.S. Geological Survey
Highway and River Engineering Division Research Council
Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4229, 30 p.
of Alberta, 54 p.
Holnbeck, S.R., 2011, Investigation of pier scour in coarse-bed
streams in Montana, 2001 through 2007: U.S. Geological Neill, C.R., 1965, Measurements of bridge scour and bed
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5107, 68 p. changes in a flooding sand-bed river, in The Institution of
Civil Engineers: London, England, p. 415–435.
Jackson, K.S., 1997, Evaluation of bridge-scour data at
selected sites in Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Norman, V.W., 1975, Scour at selected bridge sites in Alaska:
Resources Investigations Report 97–4182, 92 p. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 32–75, 160 p.
Jain, S.C., and Fischer, E.E., 1979, Scour around circular
bridge piers at high Froude numbers: Federal Highway Placzek, Gary, and Haeni, F.P., 1995, Surface-geophysical
Administration Report FHWA-RD-79-104, available from techniques used to detect existing and infilled scour holes
NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, near bridge piers: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
as cited in Sheppard and others (2011). Investigations Report 95–4009, 44 p.
Jarrett, R.D., and Boyle, J.M., 1986, Pilot study for collec- Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation
tion of bridge-scour data: U.S. Geological Survey Water- of streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
Resources Investigations Report 86–4030, 50 p. 2175, v. 1, 631 p.
Richardson, E.V., Harrison, L.J., Richardson, J.R., and Davis, U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, National bridge scour database,
S.R., 1991, Evaluating scour at bridges: Federal Highway accessed April 15, 2014, at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/tech-
Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, niques/bs/BSDMS/index.htm.
Publication No. FHWA-IP-90-017, 105 p.
Webb, D.J., Anderson, N.L., Newton, Tim, and Cardimona,
Shen, H.W., 1975, Compilation of scour data based on Cali- Steve, 2000, Bridge scour—Application of ground penetrat-
fornia bridge failures: Department of Transportation Federal ing radar: Federal Highway Administration and Missouri
Highway Administration, Publication FHWA-RD-76-142, Department of Transportation special publication, accessed
28 p. April 15, 2014, at http://transportation.mst.edu/media/
research/transportation/documents/scour.pdf.
Shen, H.W., Schneider, V.R., and Karaki, S.S., 1969, Local
scour around bridge piers: Journal of the Hydraulics Divi- Welch, L.J., and Butch, G.K., 2001, Evaluating selected scour
sion, v. 95, no. HY6, p. 1919–1940, as cited in Sheppard equations for bridge piers in coarse streambeds in New
and others (2011). York: Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimenta-
Sheppard, D.M., Demir, Huseyin, and Melville, Bruce, 2011, tion Conference, March 25–29, 2001, Reno, Nevada, v. 1,
Scour at wide piers and long skewed piers: Washington, p. I-120–I-127.
D.C., Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- Williamson, D., 1993, Local scour measurements at bridge
emies, NCHRP Report 682, 65 p. piers in Alberta—Proceedings of the 1993 National Con-
Sheppard, D.M., and Miller, W., 2006, Live-bed local pier ference on Hydraulic Engineering: New York, American
scour experiments: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Society of Civil Engineering, p. 534–539.
American Society of Civil Engineering, v. 132, no. 7, Wilson, K.V., Jr., 1995, Scour at selected bridge sites in Mis-
p. 635–642, as cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
sissippi: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investi-
Sheppard, D.M., Odeh, M., and Glasser, T., 2004, Large scale gations Report 94–4241, 48 p.
clear-water local pier scour experiments: Journal of Hydrau-
Yanmaz, A.M., and Altinbilek, H.D., 1991, Study of time-
lic Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineering,
dependent local scour around bridge piers: Journal of
v. 130, no. 10, p. 957–963, as cited in Sheppard and others
Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of Civil Engi-
(2011).
neering, v. 117, no. 10, p. 1247–1268, as cited in Sheppard
Southard, S.E., 1992, Scour around bridge piers on stream and others (2011).
banks in Arkansas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Zhuravlyov, M.M., 1978, New method for estimation of local
Resources Investigations Report 92–4126, 29 p.
scour due to bridge piers and its substantiation: Transac-
Tyagi, A.K., 1987, Scour around bridge piers in Oklahoma tions, Ministry of Transport Construction, State All Union
streams: Stillwater, Oklahoma, Water Resources Engineer- Scientific Research Institute on Roads, Moscow, Russia, as
ing, Oklahoma State University, Report No. 87-1, p. 24. cited in Sheppard and others (2011).
For additional information regarding this

publication, contact:
Director
USGS South Carolina Water Science Center
Stephenson Center, Suite 129
720 Gracern Road
Columbia, SC 29210-7651
(803) 750-6181
email: [email protected]
Or visit the USGS South Carolina Water

Science Center Web site at:
http://sc.water.usgs.gov
Prepared by:
USGS Science Publishing Network
Raleigh Publishing Service Center
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Benedict and Caldwell—A Pier-Scour Database: 2,427 Field and Laboratory Measurements of Pier Scour—Data Series 845

A Pier-Scour Database 2427 Field and Lab Measurements of Pier Scour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Pier-Scour Database 2427 Field and Lab Measurements of Pier Scour

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A Pier-Scour Database 2427 Field and Lab Measurements of Pier Scour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prepared in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation

A Pier-Scour Database: 2,427 Field and Laboratory

Data Series 845

U.S. Department of the Interior

Prepared in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation

Data Series 845

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014

ISSN 2327-638X (online)

Limitations of Field Data..............................................................................................................................17

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Abstract “2014 USGS Pier-Scour Database,” will be referred to as the

Pier width Approach Approach Median Measured

Neill (1964) 3 N/A N/A

C. Watt, Alberta Transportation, written 19 N/A N/A

from Jackson (1997)]

NBSD only 727 measurements in the PSDb-2014 are identified with

Pier width Approach Approach Median Measured

Pier width Approach Approach Median Measured

Pier width Approach Approach Median Measured

Arkansas program includes collection of periodic measurements of pier-

Breusers, H.N.C., 1970, Discussion of local scour around

For additional information regarding this

Or visit the USGS South Carolina Water

You might also like