Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Bridge Scour by HEC-RAS Model: A Case Study over Ganga Bridge

Harinarayan Tiwari1*, Dr. Nayan Sharma2, Afework Ashagrie Simegn3
1
M-Tech student, 2Professor and Head, 3M-Tech student,
Department of Water Resources Development and Management, IIT, Roorkee, India
ABSTRACT
Laceys equation is often used to find out the scour depth in rivers in India. Laceys regime formula
(1930) was developed on the basis of limited field data from irrigation canals in Punjab Province having
discharge ranges from 0.70 to 173 m3/s. The total scour at a highway crossing is comprised of three
mechanisms: long-term aggradation-degradation, contraction of reach, and local scours at piers and
abutments. In the present study, HEC-RAS model is used to estimate the bridge scour for the Ganges
road bridge and it is then compared with Laceys formula. Apparently, more realistic results are
obtained by HEC-RAS model as it considers more related factors as angle of attack, bed conditions,
shape of piers, flow concentrations, flow depth and Froude No. as against discharge intensity and silt
factor considered in case of Laceys equation. Comparative study is carried out for different angles of
attack and restricted flow condition near the bridge site. From the restriction of waterway by 3.6 km to
2 km, abutment scour and contraction scour change 1.6 times and 3.9 times respectively. So, the
waterway has significant role for the bridge foundation design. By changing angle of attack by 5 , the
change in pier scour is 10%.
Keywords: Scour, mathematical modelling, bridge, angle of attack

*Author For Correspondence E-mail: haribit31@gmail.com, Tel: + 91-7669298985

slower and more dependent on soil properties

1. INTRODUCTION

than that in non-cohesive soils.

Scour is a natural phenomenon caused by the
erosive action of flowing stream on alluvial

An accurate prediction of scour depth at piers

beds. Failure of bridges due to scour at their

is essential for safe design of the bridge

foundations, which consist of abutments and

foundation. Scour depth estimation at the pier

piers, is a common incident. Non-cohesive

site is necessary for safety and economy of the

soils resist erosion only by their buoyant

designed bridge. Scour is the hole left behind

weight and the friction between particles; on

when sediment (sand and rocks) is washed

the other hand, the behavior of cohesive soils

away from the bottom of a river. Although

against erosion is complex and depends on

scour may occur at any time, scour action is

many factors including electrostatic and van

especially strong during floods. Rapidly

der Waals forces. Fine-gained soils composed

flowing water has more energy than calm

of or containing significant fractions of

water to lift and carry sediment down the river.

cohesive materials have greater resistance

Bridge scour is the exclusion of sediment

against scour than coarse grained soils

around the bridge abutments or piers. If

composed

materials.

sediment or rock on which bridge supports rest

Therefore, scour in cohesive soils is much

is scoured by a river, the bridge could become

of

non-cohesive

unsafe for travel. It is the most common cause

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved
Page 1

Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

of highway bridge failure in the United States,

foundation materials capacity to resist erosion

where 46 of 86 major bridge failures resulted

typically is uncertain [4]. Development of

from scour near piers from 1961 to 1976

scour holes with time varied with pier shape.

(USGS). Huber (1991) acknowledged that

The propagation of scour to the downstream

since 1950 about 500 bridges failed in USA

end of the pier is highly dependent on whether

and that a majority of them were the result of

or not the pier is aligned with the flow

hydraulic conditions primarily due to the scour

direction. Scour development in gravel is

of foundation material. Railway bridge RDG1

considerably different from the development

in England failed in November 2009 due to

in sand size ranges [5].

being undermined by scour from the river. A

study

of

the

US

Federal

Highway

2. METHODOLOGY

Administration in 1973 concluded that of 383

bridge failures, 25% involved pier damage and

The total scour at a highway crossing is

72% involved abutment damage [1]. The

comprised of three components: long-term

drowning of four rail passengers during the

aggradation and degradation, contraction scour

collapse of Glanrhyd Bridge on the swollen

and local scour at piers and abutments.

River Towy, October 1987, illustrated the

Contraction scour occurs when the flow area

dangers of scour [2]. Scour has been a matter

of stream is reduced by natural contraction or

of concern to the railway and public work

a bridge constriction of the flow. The factors

departments in India. However, only a few

that affect the contraction scour are bridge

hydrologic and scour studies have been

opening, road embankments, bridge abutments

undertaken by governmental agencies like the

and bridge piers. It is based on Laursens live

Ministries of Surface Transport and Railways,

bed scour equation (1960). Pier scours due to

Government of India [3]. Pier scour is among

the acceleration of flow around the pier and

the more complex and challenging water flow

the formation of flow vortices are known as

and

to

horseshoe vortex (Figure 1). The factors that

understand, let alone formulate. This is true for

affect the depth of local scour at a pier are:

all

shape

velocity of flow just upstream of the pier,

complexities and bridge-site complications,

depth of flow, width of pier, gradation of bed

such as woody debris accumulation, readily

material, shape of pier, length of pier, bed

complicate

The

configuration and angle of attack of approach

erosive flow field is a class of junction flow

flow. In the HEC-RAS model used in the

(i.e., flow at the junction of a structural form

present analysis, Colorado State University

and a base plane), a notably three-dimensional,

(CSU) equation for computation of pier scour

unsteady flow field marked by interacting

under live bed condition is used.

boundary

types

turbulence

of

erosion

piers,

scour

phenomena

though

depth

structures.

pier

estimation.

Additionally,

the

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved

Page 2

Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 1: Concept of Scour.

The factors involved for the vortex formation

pertaining to pier nose shape, angle of attack

around the bridge piers is considered in the

of flow, bed configuration and particle size

CSU equation more accurately. Bridge pier

gradation of bed material, scour retarding bed

scour module of HEC-RAS is a mathematical

armoring, flow depth and inertial forces of the

model to work out the bridge scour using CSU

flow represented by Froude No. along with an

equation.

additional factor of safety of 2. In view of the

D = 2.0K1K2K3K4a0.65y35F0.43

superiority of CSU equation, it is apparent that

where,

the scour depth estimation for bridge scour by

D = Depth of scour in meters

CSU equation in-built in HEC-RAS model is

K1 = Correction factor for pier nose shape

considered to be much more realistic and safer

K2 = Correction factor for angle of attack of

compared to Laceys equation developed in

flow

1930 [6] which does not account for the

K3 = Correction factor for bed condition

effects of any other fluvial parameters

K4 = Correction factor for armoring of bed

excepting only that of mean size of sediment

material

and discharge.

a = Pier width in meters

y = Flow depth directly upstream of pier in

2.1. Description of Case Study Area

meters

The study area is situated near Patna in Bihar.

F = Froude No. directly upstream of the pier

The bridge is in between Arrah having latitude

CSU equation developed in 1990 by Colorado

25 34N and longitude 84 32E and Chhapra

State University, which is adopted by United

having

States

84 47E. Index map showing location of the

Hydrologic

Engineering

Center

(USHEC) for estimation of bridge pier scour,

latitude

25 47N

study area is given in Figure 2.

duly accounts for multifarious fluvial effects

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved

Page 3

and

longitude

Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 2: Index Map.

2.2. Data Collection and Calibration of

2.

Mannings

roughness

coefficient

is

Model

calibrated to the model as per given condition

Contour Map: It is required to prepare HEC-

of HFL 52.00 m for the design flood of

RAS geometry with the help of Arc-GIS. The

67000 m3/s at the bridge site.

contour map of the studied bridge site is given

in Figure 3.

2.3. Model Run and Outputs

1. Soil Sample: Four soil samples from

The calibrated model is run for two different

different pier sections were collected and

flow conditions near the bridge site:

sieve analysis was done to find out the grain

1. Full waterway (3.6 km) (Figure 5)

size distribution curves (Figure 4) which

2. Restricted waterway (2 km) (Figure 6)

would be required as the raw data fed by

the user in the hydraulic design. Average d50
of the sample is 0.21 mm.

Fig. 3: Contour Map.

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved

Page 4

Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 4: Grain Size Distribution (Near Pier No. 22).

Elevation (m)

RS=4.5

Legend
Ground
Bank Sta

Elevation (m)

Ups trea m (Bri dge )

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
1000

2000

RS=4.5

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
0

1000

3000

4000

5000

3000

4000

5000

Downs trea m (Bri dge )

2000
Station (m)

Fig. 5: Full Waterway (3.6 km).

Elevation (m)

RS=4.5

Legend
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta

Elevation (m)

Ups trea m (Bri dge )

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
1000

2000

RS=4.5

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
0

1000

3000

4000

5000

3000

4000

5000

Downs trea m (Bri dge )

2000
Station (m)

Fig. 6: Restricted waterway (2 km).

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved

Page 5

Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

2.4. Scour Profile

(0,5,10,15,20). Scour profile for angle of

Scour profile is examined for both the

attack 20 is given in Figures 7 and 8 for both

conditions (full stretch 3.6 km and restricted

the conditions.

flow 2 km) and different angles of attack

Bridge Scour RS = 4.5

Elevation (m)

70

Legend

60

WS PF 1

50

Ground
Bank Sta

40

Contr Scour

30

Total Scour

20
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Station (m)
Fig. 7: Scour Profile (Full Stretch Flow 3.6 km).

Elevation (m)

Bri dge S cour RS = 4.5

70

Legend

60

WS PF 1

50

Ground

40

Ineff

30

Bank Sta
Contr Scour

20

Total Scour

10
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Station (m)

Fig. 8: Scour Profile (Restricted Flow 2 km).

3.

DICUSSION

OF

RESULTS

AND

scour have inceased as expected. Pier scour

increased from 12.52 m to 17.91 m as the

CONCLUSIONS

angle of attack increased from 0 to 20.

Angle of attack has been found as the measure

Contraction scour for 3.6 km waterway is

factor to effect pier scour and due to flow

0.97 m and the same for the 2 km waterway is

constriction contraction scour and abutment

calculated as 3.86 m. Abutment scour for the

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved

Page 6

Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

3.6 km waterway is 4.56 m with respect to

for every case. Contraction scour changes

7.2 m in the case of 2 km waterway. Pier scour

more than two times than the abutment scour.

is changing with respect to pier width from

(Tables I and II).

11.52 to 12.52 m with the increment ratio 1.07

From the model studies:

Table I: Summary of Model Results.

Type

of

Pier (8 m

Pier (9.5 m

dia)

dia) Scour

Scour(m)

(m)

0.97

11.6

0.97

10

Abutment

Total Scour

Scour (m)

(m) (Bridge)

12.52

4.56

13.49

12.76

13.78

4.56

14.75

0.97

13.92

15.03

4.56

16

15

0.97

15.31

16.53

4.56

17.5

20

0.97

16.59

17.91

4.56

18.88

3.86

13.1

14.14

7.2

18

Effective

3.86

14.41

15.55

7.2

19.41

Flow

10

3.86

15.72

16.97

7.2

20.83

(2 km)

15

3.86

17.29

18.67

7.2

22.53

20

3.86

18.34

19.8

7.2

23.66

Flow

Angle of Attack

Contraction

(degree)

Scour(m)

0
Full Stretch
(3.6 km)

Table II: According to Laceys Formula.

Q (m3/s)

67000

d50 (mm)

0.24

0.86222

R (m)

20.18

FOS

HFL

Scour Level

(provided)

(m)

(m)

40.36

52

11.64

From the restriction of waterway by 3.6 km to

The lowest bed level at the site is 43.2 m.

2 km, abutment scour and contraction scour

According to HEC-RAS model, total scour

change 1.6 times and 3.9 times respectively.

estimated from bed level is calculated as RL

So the waterway has significant role for the

19.54 m. As given by Laceys equation by

bridge foundation design. By changing angle

applying factor of safety of 2 RL is 11.64 m

of attack by 5, the change in pier scour is

which is a consevative value and may be

10%. Result found by Laceys equation is on a

uneconomical for a long stretch bridge. Less

consevative side as it is derived from the

scour in the case of HEC-RAS model can be

limited discharge data.

explained as the factor considered for the

model-like bed condition and armoring effect.

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved

Page 7

Recent Trends in Civil Engineering & Technology

Volume 2, Issue 2, August 2012, Pages 1-8
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Due to dune or ripple bed condition, some of

4. Robert Ettema, George Constantinescu,

the hydraulic energy has been lost to overcome

Bruce Melville. Evaluation of Bridge

it so the less energy gives the scour depth at

Scour Research: Pier Scour Processes and

lower side with respect to Laceys equation in

Predictions.

which there is only the consideration of

National Cooperative Highway Research

discharge intensity and silt factor. HEC-RAS

Program (NCHRP) Project 24-27(01).

model too has flexibility to impose various

5. Reda Mahmoud Abd Elaal Ali Diab.

conditions as angle of attack and bend effects

Experimental Investigation on Scouring

which is more realistic in long alluvial rivers.

around Piers of Different Shape and

Larras analysed various data to find that if the

Alignment in Gravel. 2011. PhD Thesis,

channel bed was in equilibrium without

Department of Civil Engineering and

general lowering of the bed then the maximum

Geodesy of Darmstadt University of

depth of scoured hole directly in contact with a

Technology.

pier was proportional to 0.75 power of the pier

2011.

Final

Report

for

6. Lacey G. Stable Channels in Alluvium.

width [79] which is 0.71 in the present model

Minutes

study. Real field study for long periods is

229(1930). 259292p. E-ISSN: 1753-

required to increase the use of model for field

7843.

application in a developing country like India

for safe and economical design.

of

the

Proceedings.

1930.

7. Neill C. R. Measurements of Bridge Scour

and Bed Changes in a Flooding Sandbed.
1965.
8. HEC-No 18. FHWA. 2001.

REFERENCES

9. U. S. Geological Survey (www.usgs.gov)

1. Richardson

E.

V.,

Harrison

L.

J.,

Richardson J. R, et al. Evaluating Scour at

NOTATIONS

Bridges. 1993. HI-90-0J7. HEC-18. Fed.

Q = Discharge (m3/s)

Hwy. Admin., McLean, VA.

B = Waterway(m)

2. Kamil H. M. Ali, Othman Karim. Journal

of Hydraulic Research. 2002. 40.
3. Gupta R. K. Case Studies of Bridges on

D50 = Sieve size in millimeters for praticle

50% finer than
f = Silt Factor

Alluvial Clayey and Boulder Streams with

R = Scour depth

regard to Pier Scour. National Workshop

FOS = Factor of safety

on Bridge Scour, River Training and

Protection Works. New Delhi. 2003.

ISSN:22498753 STM Journals 2012. All Rights Reserved

Page 8