Streambed scour in cohesive sediment is complex because erosion processes depend on the physical, geochemical, and biological properties of the sediment. The scouring processes can also be characterized as a slow fatigue phenomenon. Therefore, repetitive hydraulic loadings from multiple stormflow events are likely necessary for equilibrium scour depths to develop in cohesive sediment compared with non-cohesive sediment. Cumulative effective stream power, which is a surrogate measure of effective stream power duration, showed a significant relation with scour development and propagation in cohesive sediments around bridge piers, where results from this study identified a statistically significant correlation between cumulative effective stream power and the observed scour depths around different bridge piers (R2 = 0.56, p < 0.001). However, some localized and site-specific variations were observed. It was also observed that scour depth development in cohesive soil appeared to be dependent on effective shear duration, rather than the number of flow events above erosion threshold values. In addition, the relationship between an erodibility index (K) and critical stream power showed a significant statistical correlation (R2 = 0.61, p = 0.017). Results from this study deviated from the Annandale empirical relationship for sediments when K < 0.1. This finding supports that site-specific critical stream power should be measured using an empirical relationship for cohesive bed sediments to predict scour depths.
ShiroleA.HoltR.Planning for a Comprehensive Bridge Safety Assurance Program. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1991. 1290: 39–50.
2.
WardhanaK.HadiprionoF. C.Analysis of Recent Bridge Failures in the United States. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 17, 2003, pp. 144–150.
WuN. C.An Exploratory Data Analysis of National Bridge Inventory. M.Sc. thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 2010.
6.
RichardsonE. V.DavisS. R.Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 4th ed.U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2001.
7.
Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 (HEC-18). Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 5th ed.U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2012.
8.
BenedictS. T.Clear-Water Abutment and Contraction Scour in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Provinces of South Carolina, 1996-99. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4064. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 2003.
9.
BrubakerK. L.GhelardiV.GoodingsD.GuyL.PathakP.Estimation of Long-Term Scour at Maryland Bridges Using EFA/SRICOS. Final Report, Project SP107B4E. Maryland Department of Transportation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2004.
10.
PierceC. E.GassmanS. L.RayR. P.Geotechnical Materials Database for Embankment Design and Construction. Final Report, FHWA/SCDOT Report No. FHWA-SC-11-02. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2011.
11.
BenedictS. T.CaldwellA. W.Development and Evaluation of Live-Bed Pier and Contraction Scour Envelope Curves in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Provinces of South Carolina. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations, Report 2009-5099. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 2009.
12.
AnnandaleG. W.Scour Technology: Mechanics and Engineering Practice. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2006.
13.
AnnandaleG. W.Erodibility. Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 471–494.
14.
USDA-NRCS. Field Procedures Guide for the Head-Cut Erodibility Index. Chapter 52, Part 628 Dams, 210-VI-NEH. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., 1997.
15.
BagnoldR. A.Sediment Discharge and Stream Power: A Preliminary Announcement. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 1960.
16.
YangC. T.Unit Stream Power and Sediment Transport. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Vol. 98, 1972, pp. 1805–1826.
17.
YangC. T.Incipient Motion and Sediment Transport. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Vol. 99, 1973, pp. 1679–1704.
18.
ChangH. H.Minimum Stream Power and River Channel Patterns. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 41, 1979, pp. 303–327.
19.
Van den BergJ. H.Prediction of Alluvial Channel Pattern of Perennial Rivers. Geomorphology, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 259–279.
20.
LagasseP.SchallJ.JohnsonF.RichardsonE.ChangF.Stream Stability at Highway Structures, 2d ed. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 20, Publication FHWA-IP-90-014. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1995.
BriaudJ. L.ChenH. C.ChangK. A.OhS. J.ChenS.WangJ.LiY., et al. The SRICOS-EFA Method. Summary Report, Texas A&M University, College Station, 2011.
23.
GrabowskiR. C.DroppoI. G.WhartonG.Erodibility of Cohesive Sediment: The Importance of Sediment Properties. Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 105, No. 1, 2011, pp. 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.01.008.
24.
CroadR. N.Physics of Erosion of Cohesive Soils. PhD thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 1981.
25.
TanS. K.Erosion of Cohesive Soils. PhD thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 1983.
26.
MehtaA. J.HayterE. J.ParkerW. R.KroneR. B.TeeterA. M.Cohesive Sediment Transport. I: Process Description. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 115, 1989, pp. 1076–1093.
27.
BriaudJ. L.TingF. C.ChenH.CaoY.HanS.KwakK.Erosion Function Apparatus for Scour Rate Predictions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, 2001, pp. 105–113.
28.
KeatonJ. R.Estimating Erodible Rock Durability and Geotechnical Parameters for Scour Analysis. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 19, 2013, pp. 319–343.
29.
BriaudJ. L.TingF. C.ChenH.GudavalliR.PeruguS.WeiG.SRICOS: Prediction of Scour Rate in Cohesive Soils at Bridge Piers. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, 1999, pp. 237–246.
30.
TingF. C.BriaudJ. L.ChenH.GudavalliR.PeruguS.WeiG.Flume Tests for Scour in Clay at Circular Piers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 127, 2001, pp. 969–978.
31.
MahalderB.SchwartzJ. S.PalominoA. M.ZirkleJ.Scour Hole Development in Natural Cohesive Bed Sediment Around Cylinder Shaped Piers Subjected to Varying Sequential Flow Events. Water, Vol. 13, No. 22, 2021, p. 3289. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223289.
32.
KirstenH.A Classification System for Excavating in Natural Materials. Civil Engineering South Africa, Vol. 24, 1982, pp. 293–308.
33.
MooreJ. S.Field Procedures for the Head-Cut Erodibility Index. Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 40, 1997, pp. 563–574. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.21315.
34.
MahalderB.SchwartzJ. S.PalominoA. M.ZirkleJ.Relationships Between Physical-Geochemical Soil Properties and Erodibility of Streambanks Among Different Physiographic Provinces of Tennessee, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2018, pp. 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4252.
35.
BenedictS. T.FeasterT. D.CaldwellA. W.The South Carolina Bridge-Scour Envelope Curves. Ver. 1.2, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5121. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, April2021, 96 p. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20165121.
36.
MahalderB.Evaluation and Prediction of Cohesive Soil Erosion Parameters Among Varying Soil Properties and Testing Procedures: Implications for River Bed Scour at Bridge Piers. PhD dissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2018. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4969.
37.
SklarL. S.DietrichW. E.A Mechanistic Model for River Incision into Bedrock by Saltating Bed Load. Water Resources Research, Vol. 40, 2004, p. W06301.
38.
LarsenE. W.FremierA. K.GrecoS. E.Cumulative Effective Stream Power and Bank Erosion on the Sacramento River, California, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 42, 2006, pp. 1077–1097.
39.
FlemingM.NearyV.Continuous Hydrologic Modeling Study with the Hydrologic Modeling System. ASCE Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2004, pp. 175–183.
40.
SutartoT.PapanicolaouT. A. N.WilsonC. G.LangendoenE. J.Stability Analysis of Semicohesive Streambanks with CONCEPTS: Coupling Field and Laboratory Investigations to Quantify the Onset of Fluvial Erosion and Mass Failure. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 140, No. 9, 2014, p. 04014041. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000899.
41.
WanC. F.FellR.Investigation of Rate of Erosion of Soils in Embankment Dams. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 4, 2004, pp. 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:4(373).
42.
BriaudJ. L.BernhardtM.LeclairM.The Pocket Erodometer Test: Development and Preliminary Results. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2012, p. GTJ102889.
43.
HansonG. J.Surface Erodibility of Earthen Channels at High Stresses. Part II: Developing an In Situ Testing Device. Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1990, pp. 132–137.
44.
SimonA.ThomasR. E.KlimetzL.Comparison and Experiences with Field Techniques to Measure Critical Shear Stress and Erodibility of Cohesive Deposits. Proc., 2nd Joint Federal Interagency Conference, Las Vegas, NV, ASCE, Reston, VA, 2010.
45.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Relationship Between Erodibility and Properties of Soils. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25470.
46.
HansonG. J.CookK. R.Apparatus, Test Procedures, and Analytical Methods to Measure Soil Erodibility In-Situ. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2004, pp. 455–462. https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/download/10012/PDF.
47.
DebnathK.NikoraV.AberleJ.WestrichB.MusteM.Erosion of Cohesive Sediments: Resuspension, Bed Load, and Erosion Patterns from Field Experiments. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 5, 2007, pp. 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2007)133:5(508).
48.
Al-MadhhachiA. T.HansonG. J.FoxG. A.TyagiA. K.BulutR.Measuring Soil Erodibility Using a Laboratory “Mini” JET. Transactions of the ASABE, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2013, pp. 901–910.
49.
MahalderB.SchwartzJ. S.PalominoA. M.ZirkleJ.Estimating Erodibility Parameters for Streambanks with Cohesive Soils Using the Mini Jet Test Device: A Comparison of Field and Computational Methods. Water, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2018, p. 304. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030304.
50.
MahalderB.SchwartzJ. S.Wynn-ThompsonT. M.PalominoA. M.ZirkleJ.Comparison of Erodibility Parameters for Cohesive Streambank Soils Between In Situ Jet Test Device and Laboratory Conduit Flume. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 143, No. 1, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001938.
51.
LeopoldL. B.WolmanM. G.MillerJ. P.Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, 1964.
52.
HickinE. J.NansonG. C.Lateral Migration Rates of River Bends. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 11, 1984, 1557–1567.
53.
ASTM D2487-17. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
WibowoJ.YuleD.VillanuevaE.TempleD.Earth and Rock Surface Spillway Erosion Risk Assessment. Proc., 40th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), American Rock Mechanics Association, Anchorage, AK, 2005.
56.
KwakK.Prediction of Scour Depth Versus Time for Bridge Piers in Cohesive Soils in the Case of Multi-Flood and Layered Soil Systems. Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, 2000.
57.
KeatonJ. R.MishraS. K.ClopperP. E.Scour at Bridge Foundations on Rock. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report 717. Transportation Research Board of National Academics, Washington, D.C., 2012.
58.
CostaJ. E.O’ConnorJ. E.Geomorphically Effective Floods. In Natural and Anthropogenic Influences in Fluvial Geomorphology (CostaJ. E.MillerA. J.PotterK. W.WilcockP. R., eds), American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph, Vol. 89, 1959, pp. 45–56. The Wolman Volume. Washington, D.C.
59.
WolmanM. G.Factors Influencing Erosion of a Cohesive River Bank. American Journal of Science, Vol. 257, 1959, pp. 204–216.
