<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Joseph R. Olimpio</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Erick M. Boehmler</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2000</dc:date>
  <dc:description>In a previous study, 44 of 48 bridge sites&#13;
examined in New Hampshire were categorized as&#13;
scour critical. In this study, the U.S. Geological&#13;
Survey (USGS) evaluated pier-scour measurement&#13;
methods and predictions at many of these&#13;
sites. This evaluation included measurement of&#13;
pier-scour depths at 20 bridge sites using Ground-&#13;
Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys. Pier scour was&#13;
also measured during floods by teams at 5 of&#13;
these 20 sites. At 4 of the 20 sites, fixed instruments&#13;
were installed to monitor scour.&#13;
At only one bridge site investigated by a&#13;
team was any pier scour measurable during a&#13;
flood event. A scour depth of 0.7 foot (0.21 m)&#13;
was measured at a pier in the channel at the State&#13;
Route 18 bridge over the Connecticut River in&#13;
Littleton. Measurements made using GPR and&#13;
(or) fixed instruments indicated pier scour for six&#13;
sites. The GPR surveys indicated scour along the&#13;
side of a pier and further upstream from the nose&#13;
of a pier that was not detected by flood-team&#13;
measurements at two sites.&#13;
Most pier-scour equations selected for this&#13;
examination were reviewed and published in&#13;
previous scour investigations. Graphical comparison&#13;
of residual pier-scour depths indicate that the&#13;
Shen equation yielded pier-scour depth predictions&#13;
closest to those measured, without underestimating.&#13;
Measured depths of scour, however,&#13;
were zero feet for 14 of the 20 sites. For the&#13;
Blench-Inglis II equation and the Simplified&#13;
Chinese equation, most differences between&#13;
measured and predicted scour depths were within&#13;
5 feet. These two equations underpredicted scour&#13;
for one of six sites with measurable scour. The&#13;
underprediction, however, was within the resolution&#13;
of the depth measurements.&#13;
The Simplified Chinese equation is less&#13;
sensitive than other equations to velocity and&#13;
depth input variables, and is one of the few&#13;
empirical equations to integrate the influence of&#13;
flow competence, or a measure of the maximum&#13;
streambed particle size that a stream is capable of&#13;
transporting, in the computation of pier scour.&#13;
Absence of a flow-competence component could&#13;
explain some of the overprediction by other&#13;
equations, but was not investigated in this study.&#13;
Measurements of scour during large floods at&#13;
additional sites are necessary to strengthen and&#13;
substantiate the application of alternatives to the&#13;
HEC-18 equation to estimate pier scour at&#13;
waterway crossings in New Hampshire.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3133/wri004183</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey ;&#13;
Branch of Information Services [distributor],</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Evaluation of pier-scour measurement methods and pier-scour predictions with observed scour measurements at selected bridge sites in New Hampshire, 1995-98</dc:title>
  <dc:type>reports</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>