Local scour around a bridge pier is a complex phenomenon resulting from the interaction of the three-dimensional turbulent flow field around hydraulic structures. An accurate estimation of scour depth below the stream-bed is important during design since it determines the foundation levels and the expansion of the bridge foundation structures. The present study reveals the results of flume experiments on equilibrium scour depth and scour volumes around circular bridge pier models in clay–sand sediment mixtures. The scouring process in a cohesive sediment mixture is a complex interaction between clay–sand network structure and bed shear stresses. The bed shear stress reduces inside the scour hole as scour depth increases, and this is related to the different modes of scouring in clay–sand mixtures. An exponential equation for the non-dimensional scour volume is proposed considering all the experimental runs to get a specific understanding of the surrounding volume of scour hole from maximum equilibrium scour depth in a clay–sand mixed cohesive bed, when the approach flow velocity is near to the critical velocity for mixed sand. The proposed equations are validated using the pre-existing data from the literature dealing with experimental investigations on bridge scour using clay–sand mixed cohesive sediment and show good agreement with observed data.

  • The present study reveals the results of flume experiments on equilibrium scour depth and scour volumes around circular bridge pier models in clay–sand sediment mixtures.

  • An exponential equation for the non-dimensional scour volume is proposed considering all the experimental runs.

  • The proposed equations are validated using pre-existing data from the literature.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract
Cp

clay percentage [M0 L0T0];

S1

fine sand (d50 = 0.182 mm);

S2

medium fine sand (d50 = 0.44 mm);

d

sediment particle diameter [L];

d16

16% finer particle diameter [L];

d50

50% finer particle diameter [L];

d84

84% finer particle diameter [L];

ds

equilibrium scour depth [L];

dst

scour depth at time t [L];

dm

scour hole diameter [L];

D

pier diameter [L];

[M0 L0T0];

[M0 L0T0];

g

acceleration due to gravity [LT−2];

PI

plasticity index [M0 L0T0];

t

time [T];

critical shear velocity for sand used in clay–sand mixture [LT−1];

V

depth-averaged velocity [LT−1];

Vcs

critical threshold velocity for sand used in clay–sand mixture [LT−1];

[M0 L0T0];

volume of scour hole in the equilibrium phase [L3];

[M0 L0T0];

Wc

water content by weight of dry mix [M0 L0T0];

WL

liquid limit [M0 L0T0];

WP

plastic limit [M0 L0T0];

y

approach flow depth [L];

[M0 L0T0];

Z

slope of scour hole;

bulk density of sediment [ML−3];

dry density of sediment [ML−3];

maximum dry unit weight [ML−3];

[M0 L0T0];

bed shear stress [ML−1T−2];

threshold bed shear stress for particle movement [ML−1T−2];

maximum bed shear stress around pier [ML−1T−2];

bed shear strength [ML−1T−2];

[M0 L0T0].

Local scour around bridge piers is a problem of special interest to hydraulic engineers. This is a complex phenomenon resulting from the interaction of the three-dimensional turbulent flow field around hydraulic structures such as bridge piers, abutments, spurs etc. One of the leading concerns of the stability of bridges founded in river-beds is the local lowering of the bed level (commonly known as ‘local scour’) caused by the flows around bridge piers (Kothyari et al. 2007, 2014; Sheppard et al. 2014; Muzzammil et al. 2015; Garfield & Ettema 2021; Jain et al. 2021; Karkheiran et al. 2021; Nou et al. 2021; Pandey & Azamathulla 2021). The perturbation of the flow field caused by a cylindrical obstruction (e.g., bridge pier) in rivers and streams introduces a complex flow field marked by turbulent structures such as a horseshoe vortex, surface rollers, and wake vortices (Ettema et al. 2006; Garfield & Ettema 2021; Jain et al. 2021; Pandey et al. 2021, 2022). The combination of these structures leads to removal of bed sediments from around the bridge pier, which ultimately results in the development of a scour hole around the base of the bridge pier. An accurate estimation of scour depth below the stream-bed is important during design since it determines the foundation levels and expansion of the bridge foundation structures such as pier, abutment, guide bank, spur, etc. Under-prediction of scour profile, including not only the depth but also its peripheral extension, can lead to costly bridge failures, while over-prediction can result in unnecessary expenditure in terms of construction costs.

For last few decades a number of field and flume studies have been carried out by researchers to estimate the equilibrium scour depth, proposing empirical equations and a reasonable understanding and quantification of scour depth around bridge piers (Shen et al. 1969; Breusers et al. 1977; Raudkivi & Ettema 1983; Yanmaz & Altinbilek 1991; Kothyari et al. 1992, 2007; Dey et al. 1995; Melville 1997; Raudkivi 1998; Melville & Chiew 1999; Oliveto & Hager 2002, 2005; Sheppard et al. 2004, 2014; Chavan & Kumar 2017; Das et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2022; Garfield & Ettema 2021). Most of the available studies on pier scour deal with non-cohesive sediment beds. By contrast, a comparatively limited number of studies have been reported on local scour around bridge piers on cohesive (muddy) sediment beds. This is probably because the mechanics of cohesive sediment transport processes itself is not yet properly understood due to the complexity of the problem that arises from interplay between various parameters required to characterize these sediments (Berlamont et al. 1993; Houwing & van Rijn 1998; Molinas & Hosny 1999; Ravens & Gschwend 1999; Debnath et al. 2007a, 2014; Debnath & Chaudhuri 2012; Kothyari et al. 2014; Najafzadeh & Barani 2014; Muzzammil et al. 2015; Chaudhuri et al. 2018; Pandey et al. 2019; Singh et al. 2019; Singh et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2022; Das et al. 2020; Jain et al. 2021). Further, flume experiments using cohesive sediment are challenging to conduct because of difficulties with preparing and handling cohesive sediment due to its sticky nature and the large number of physical parameters involved. The physics of transport of cohesive sediment is entirely different from that of sand and larger-sized particles (Debnath et al. 2007a, 2007b). Cohesion of individual grains, arising from molecular-scale physicochemical attractive forces, causes colliding grains to bond and form aggregates and is a major controlling factor in fine sediment transport, deposition, and erosion. Erosional properties of combined mud and sand are a direct function of the relative proportions of sand and mud (Debnath et al. 2007a). It was found that adding sand to mud or vice versa increases erosion resistance and reduces erosion rate. Also, the mode of erosion changes from cohesionless to cohesive at a low proportion of mud added to sand. This transition occurs in the range of 3%–15% mud by weight, depending on different compaction levels of the mixture and clay mineral type (Mitchener & Torfs 1996). Here, mud is defined as particles less than 63 μm in size, i.e., clay and silt. However, throughout the paper, clay will refer to particles less than 63 μm as has been done by others (Ting et al. 2001; Debnath & Chaudhuri 2012). This clay fraction or percentage clay (i.e. d ≤ 63 μm) by weight of clay–sand mix will be denoted by Cp, where d = size of sediment particle.

Huber (1991) stated that since 1950 about 500 bridges had failed in the USA and that a majority of them were the result of hydraulic conditions primarily due to the scour of foundation material. Therefore, it is essential to quantify both the depth and total volume of material dislodged from the base of hydraulic structures by the flow. To date, investigations on scour volume, that is, the total volume of the eroded bed material from the base of the structures, especially for cohesive sediments, is of the utmost rarity.

In this paper, we present 52 experimental data on scour volume around circular bridge piers in clay–sand sediment mixture that comprise clay–sand mixtures using two different sand sizes (S1 & S2). This allowed us to address whether sand size has any effect on equilibrium scour volume and depth in clay–sand mixtures. Regression based models are developed from 56 experimental runs to develop a relation between scour volume and slope with increasing clay content and maximum equilibrium scour depth. Detailed comparison has been made between present experimental data with those of one of the pioneering experimental works of Molinas & Hosny (1999) on bridge pier scour in clay–sand mixed cohesive sediment, for an overall understanding of the mentioned relations.

Molinas & Hosny (1999) conducted three sets of experiments on pier scour using montmorillonite clay as the cohesive material. In the first set, 39 experimental runs were conducted on clay–sand mixtures with Cp = 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% by dry weight of mixture at water content (Wc) in the range 10%–11% and median diameter (d50) of sand = 0.55 mm (an overview of their experimental conditions and results is provided in Table 1). It was observed that maximum scour depth (ds) increases with decrease in clay fraction or percentage clay (Cp), and they also proposed an empirical equation for estimation of ds given by:
(1)
where , = Froude number, D is the pier diameter; V is the approach flow velocity; g is the gravitational acceleration and y is the approach flow depth. It was also observed that the slope of the scour hole (Z) becomes steeper with increase in Cp. They proposed a relationship for given by and related scour hole diameter (dm) to Z and ds as
(2)
Table 1

Experimental conditions and obtained results from the data set of Molinas & Hosny (1999) 

Run NoCp (%)D (cm)d50 sand (mm)Wc (%)Vcs (Melville 1997)V (cm/s)ds (cm) (cm3)
15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 25.30 0.78 6.95 2,700.59 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 25.30 0.78 4.54 1,450.26 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.40 26.12 0.81 5.39 1,450.26 
10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 27.10 0.84 6.60 3,449.48 
40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 27.10 0.84 5.13 2,466.25 
10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.40 27.19 0.84 6.77 5,088.18 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 27.43 0.84 5.79 3,365.90 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 27.43 0.84 5.79 3,088.96 
15.24 0.55 11.00 32.83 28.04 0.85 8.81 8,100.13 
10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.40 28.22 0.87 7.65 6,700.67 
11 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 28.19 0.87 7.67 6,554.83 
12 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 28.19 0.87 5.21 2,730.08 
13 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.83 30.14 0.92 7.65 6,700.67 
14 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 30.72 0.94 10.55 13,999.47 
15 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 30.72 0.94 10.55 13,999.47 
16 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 30.72 0.94 5.67 5,076.71 
17 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.83 31.09 0.95 9.22 10,001.03 
18 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.96 31.64 0.96 11.59 16,600.10 
19 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 31.33 0.96 9.17 8,999.78 
20 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 31.33 0.96 9.17 8,999.78 
21 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 31.33 0.96 9.14 8,999.78 
22 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 31.33 0.96 5.97 4,104.96 
23 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.72 31.85 0.97 7.86 6,349.99 
24 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.95 32.74 0.99 6.63 6,559.74 
25 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.72 34.75 1.06 10.45 15,575.90 
26 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.72 34.90 1.07 9.60 11,316.91 
27 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.01 35.30 1.07 12.19 16,387.06 
28 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.96 35.63 1.08 12.71 19,600.57 
29 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.95 35.81 1.09 9.60 14,584.49 
30 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.01 36.15 1.09 19.05 32,816.73 
31 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.22 36.39 1.10 8.89 16,059.32 
32 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.95 36.24 1.10 8.38 9,099.74 
33 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.96 37.73 1.14 14.35 19,992.22 
34 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 51.69 1.53 24.77 47,999.35 
35 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 51.69 1.53 21.03 46,399.97 
36 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 52.18 1.55 16.56 39,335.51 
37 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 53.40 1.59 15.85 37,999.96 
38 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 55.47 1.65 13.46 31,140.34 
39 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 55.47 1.65 9.45 28,000.58 
Run NoCp (%)D (cm)d50 sand (mm)Wc (%)Vcs (Melville 1997)V (cm/s)ds (cm) (cm3)
15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 25.30 0.78 6.95 2,700.59 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 25.30 0.78 4.54 1,450.26 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.40 26.12 0.81 5.39 1,450.26 
10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 27.10 0.84 6.60 3,449.48 
40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 27.10 0.84 5.13 2,466.25 
10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.40 27.19 0.84 6.77 5,088.18 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 27.43 0.84 5.79 3,365.90 
20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 27.43 0.84 5.79 3,088.96 
15.24 0.55 11.00 32.83 28.04 0.85 8.81 8,100.13 
10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.40 28.22 0.87 7.65 6,700.67 
11 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 28.19 0.87 7.67 6,554.83 
12 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.34 28.19 0.87 5.21 2,730.08 
13 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.83 30.14 0.92 7.65 6,700.67 
14 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 30.72 0.94 10.55 13,999.47 
15 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 30.72 0.94 10.55 13,999.47 
16 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 30.72 0.94 5.67 5,076.71 
17 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.83 31.09 0.95 9.22 10,001.03 
18 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.96 31.64 0.96 11.59 16,600.10 
19 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 31.33 0.96 9.17 8,999.78 
20 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.61 31.33 0.96 9.17 8,999.78 
21 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 31.33 0.96 9.14 8,999.78 
22 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.60 31.33 0.96 5.97 4,104.96 
23 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.72 31.85 0.97 7.86 6,349.99 
24 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.95 32.74 0.99 6.63 6,559.74 
25 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.72 34.75 1.06 10.45 15,575.90 
26 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.72 34.90 1.07 9.60 11,316.91 
27 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.01 35.30 1.07 12.19 16,387.06 
28 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.96 35.63 1.08 12.71 19,600.57 
29 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.95 35.81 1.09 9.60 14,584.49 
30 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.01 36.15 1.09 19.05 32,816.73 
31 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.22 36.39 1.10 8.89 16,059.32 
32 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.95 36.24 1.10 8.38 9,099.74 
33 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 32.96 37.73 1.14 14.35 19,992.22 
34 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 51.69 1.53 24.77 47,999.35 
35 10 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 51.69 1.53 21.03 46,399.97 
36 30 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 52.18 1.55 16.56 39,335.51 
37 20 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 53.40 1.59 15.85 37,999.96 
38 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 55.47 1.65 13.46 31,140.34 
39 40 15.24 0.55 11.00 33.69 55.47 1.65 9.45 28,000.58 
It was further observed that the time (t) required to reach ds increases with increasing Cp. In the second and third experimental sets (Molinas & Hosny 1999), only cohesive material was used (sand was not mixed with cohesive sediment) to check the effect of compaction and water content (Wc) on scouring. It was observed that, for a given flow condition, ds decreases with increase in Cp, while a rise in Wc generally results in an increase of ds and also of the scour hole volume () at the equilibrium stage. Overall scour hole volume decreases with increase in clay fraction in the sediment, and they also obtained a relationship between scour depth (ds) and scour volume () in dimensionless form by fitting the best line between the points plotted against these parameters and obtained a relationship:
(3)

Experiments were conducted in a straight tilting flume (kept at constant slope = 0.001 m/m) 18.3 m long, 0.9 m wide, and 0.9 m deep, located in the Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulics Laboratory of the Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, India (Figure 1). The test section of the flume was 2.5 m long and 0.25 m deep and was located 10 m downstream of the flume entrance. Water was recirculated into the flume by one vertical turbine pump of 0.3 m3 s−1 capacity from a sump 57 m long, 3 m wide and 2 m deep. Water from the pump was first delivered into a stilling basin and thereafter passed through a series of wire mesh and baffle to break large-scale turbulence and waves. Water depth in the flume was controlled by a tail gate located at the downstream end of the flume.

Figure 1

Experimental set up: photometric view.

Figure 1

Experimental set up: photometric view.

Close modal

A point gauge was used to measure the scour hole profile. The discharge into the flume was controlled with a flow control valve. The depth-averaged mean velocity, V, was approximated by measuring the mean velocities with Micro ADV at 0.2y and 0.8y – with y flow depth and averaging them (similar to Ting et al. 2001; Debnath & Chaudhuri 2012). The values of V for the different runs are given in Tables 2 and 3 and are referred as approach flow velocity. The circular cylinder models of pier were made of (transparent) Perspex having diameter (D) = 6, 9 and 12 cm with vertical graduated tapes glued inside of the pier model at 0° (front), 90° (left side), 180° (behind), and 270° (right side). An NB Pro-Logitech camera was inserted inside the pier model from a carriage unit (camera holder) with vertical and rotational degrees of freedom, and was used for recording the temporal progression of scour depth (dst) at regular time intervals against the 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° scales and to confirm the (eventual) occurrence of the equilibrium state of scouring. Figure 1 shows the photograph of the experimental setup just before the experimental run.

Table 2

Summary of the experimental conditions, maximum scour depths and volumes of the of equilibrium scour hole profiles for the runs from no. 1 to 44 (sand type used S1)

Run NoCp (%)D (cm)ρb (g/cm3)Wc (%)ρd (g/cm3)V (cm/s)ds (cm)tan θ (cm3)
12 – – – 28.43 0.99 17.60 0.652 17,371.93 10.05 1.47 
12 1.72 19.17 1.44 30.02 1.04 17.20 0.654 21,937.06 12.70 1.43 
10 12 1.80 20.32 1.50 29.30 1.02 15.40 0.573 19,704.09 11.40 1.28 
20 12 1.86 19.81 1.55 31.47 1.09 12.90 0.552 6,528.77 3.78 1.08 
25 12 1.89 21.23 1.56 29.11 1.01 8.50 0.625 3,016.21 1.75 0.71 
35 12 1.84 21.49 1.51 29.73 1.03 4.60 0.620 931.33 0.54 0.38 
– – – 29.83 1.04 13.30 0.675 8,878.67 12.18 1.48 
1.74 19.77 1.45 30.74 1.07 13.40 0.509 13,155.16 18.05 1.49 
10 1.84 20.69 1.53 28.43 0.99 10.10 0.641 4,871.90 6.68 1.12 
10 20 1.88 20.35 1.56 29.31 1.02 9.70 0.664 5,031.69 6.90 1.08 
11 25 1.88 20.92 1.55 29.77 1.03 8.00 0.517 2,905.02 3.98 0.89 
12 35 1.90 21.05 1.57 29.56 1.03 4.00 0.524 1,162.26 1.59 0.44 
13 – – – 30.21 1.05 8.70 0.523 4,049.74 18.75 1.45 
14 1.72 20.24 1.43 30.77 1.07 8.60 0.486 3,413.44 15.80 1.43 
15 10 1.83 20.06 1.53 29.84 1.04 8.10 0.571 2,926.55 13.55 1.35 
16 25 1.86 20.15 1.55 29.28 1.02 6.40 0.696 1,063.46 4.92 1.07 
17 35 1.90 20.23 1.58 28.81 1.00 2.30 0.287 264.01 1.22 0.38 
18 12 – – – 25.92 0.90 16.30 0.780 15,801.11 9.14 1.36 
19 12 1.74 20.58 1.44 26.23 0.91 14.00 0.601 16,970.96 9.82 1.17 
20 12 1.70 20.08 1.42 25.21 0.88 12.10 0.559 13,388.30 7.75 1.01 
21 10 12 1.84 19.73 1.53 26.15 0.91 11.20 0.575 8,704.56 5.04 0.93 
22 20 12 1.86 19.70 1.56 26.78 0.93 9.60 0.690 4,263.41 2.47 0.80 
23 25 12 1.91 20.45 1.59 25.82 0.90 7.30 0.779 2,075.22 1.20 0.61 
24 35 12 1.81 20.28 1.51 25.98 0.90 3.90 0.477 855.00 0.49 0.33 
25 – – – 26.07 0.91 12.70 0.726 6,799.19 9.33 1.41 
26 1.70 20.19 1.41 26.33 0.91 10.50 0.333 7,460.14 10.23 1.17 
27 10 1.77 19.74 1.48 25.91 0.90 9.60 0.671 8,722.70 11.97 1.07 
28 20 1.89 19.96 1.58 25.42 0.88 7.90 0.626 2,824.28 3.87 0.88 
29 25 1.86 19.48 1.56 26.55 0.92 6.90 0.563 1,738.35 2.38 0.77 
30 35 1.88 20.59 1.56 26.15 0.91 3.40 0.563 1,139.65 1.56 0.38 
31 12 – – – 24.09 0.84 14.60 0.670 10,640.54 6.16 1.22 
32 10 12 1.79 20.35 1.49 24.56 0.85 8.50 0.520 3,625.53 2.10 0.71 
33 20 12 1.88 19.47 1.58 23.53 0.82 6.90 0.658 2,020.83 1.17 0.58 
34 25 12 1.90 20.12 1.58 23.33 0.81 6.00 0.621 2,989.89 1.73 0.50 
35 35 12 1.90 19.46 1.59 24.07 0.84 3.30 0.721 1,595.02 0.92 0.28 
36 1.73 19.65 1.45 23.18 0.80 10.20 0.477 8,893.16 12.20 1.13 
37 20 1.89 20.16 1.57 23.42 0.81 6.30 0.307 1,053.60 1.45 0.70 
38 25 1.90 19.84 1.58 23.16 0.80 5.70 0.678 1,291.28 1.77 0.63 
39 35 1.87 20.09 1.56 24.14 0.84 2.70 0.398 371.13 0.51 0.30 
40 – – – 22.50 0.78 8.00 0.502 2,641.04 12.23 1.33 
41 1.73 19.47 1.45 24.54 0.85 7.40 0.515 2,101.16 9.73 1.23 
42 20 1.83 20.16 1.52 22.72 0.79 5.50 0.872 872.73 4.04 0.92 
43 25 1.86 20.26 1.55 22.95 0.80 4.60 0.923 220.28 1.02 0.77 
44 35 1.91 20.23 1.59 23.34 0.81 1.10 0.243 28.41 0.13 0.18 
Run NoCp (%)D (cm)ρb (g/cm3)Wc (%)ρd (g/cm3)V (cm/s)ds (cm)tan θ (cm3)
12 – – – 28.43 0.99 17.60 0.652 17,371.93 10.05 1.47 
12 1.72 19.17 1.44 30.02 1.04 17.20 0.654 21,937.06 12.70 1.43 
10 12 1.80 20.32 1.50 29.30 1.02 15.40 0.573 19,704.09 11.40 1.28 
20 12 1.86 19.81 1.55 31.47 1.09 12.90 0.552 6,528.77 3.78 1.08 
25 12 1.89 21.23 1.56 29.11 1.01 8.50 0.625 3,016.21 1.75 0.71 
35 12 1.84 21.49 1.51 29.73 1.03 4.60 0.620 931.33 0.54 0.38 
– – – 29.83 1.04 13.30 0.675 8,878.67 12.18 1.48 
1.74 19.77 1.45 30.74 1.07 13.40 0.509 13,155.16 18.05 1.49 
10 1.84 20.69 1.53 28.43 0.99 10.10 0.641 4,871.90 6.68 1.12 
10 20 1.88 20.35 1.56 29.31 1.02 9.70 0.664 5,031.69 6.90 1.08 
11 25 1.88 20.92 1.55 29.77 1.03 8.00 0.517 2,905.02 3.98 0.89 
12 35 1.90 21.05 1.57 29.56 1.03 4.00 0.524 1,162.26 1.59 0.44 
13 – – – 30.21 1.05 8.70 0.523 4,049.74 18.75 1.45 
14 1.72 20.24 1.43 30.77 1.07 8.60 0.486 3,413.44 15.80 1.43 
15 10 1.83 20.06 1.53 29.84 1.04 8.10 0.571 2,926.55 13.55 1.35 
16 25 1.86 20.15 1.55 29.28 1.02 6.40 0.696 1,063.46 4.92 1.07 
17 35 1.90 20.23 1.58 28.81 1.00 2.30 0.287 264.01 1.22 0.38 
18 12 – – – 25.92 0.90 16.30 0.780 15,801.11 9.14 1.36 
19 12 1.74 20.58 1.44 26.23 0.91 14.00 0.601 16,970.96 9.82 1.17 
20 12 1.70 20.08 1.42 25.21 0.88 12.10 0.559 13,388.30 7.75 1.01 
21 10 12 1.84 19.73 1.53 26.15 0.91 11.20 0.575 8,704.56 5.04 0.93 
22 20 12 1.86 19.70 1.56 26.78 0.93 9.60 0.690 4,263.41 2.47 0.80 
23 25 12 1.91 20.45 1.59 25.82 0.90 7.30 0.779 2,075.22 1.20 0.61 
24 35 12 1.81 20.28 1.51 25.98 0.90 3.90 0.477 855.00 0.49 0.33 
25 – – – 26.07 0.91 12.70 0.726 6,799.19 9.33 1.41 
26 1.70 20.19 1.41 26.33 0.91 10.50 0.333 7,460.14 10.23 1.17 
27 10 1.77 19.74 1.48 25.91 0.90 9.60 0.671 8,722.70 11.97 1.07 
28 20 1.89 19.96 1.58 25.42 0.88 7.90 0.626 2,824.28 3.87 0.88 
29 25 1.86 19.48 1.56 26.55 0.92 6.90 0.563 1,738.35 2.38 0.77 
30 35 1.88 20.59 1.56 26.15 0.91 3.40 0.563 1,139.65 1.56 0.38 
31 12 – – – 24.09 0.84 14.60 0.670 10,640.54 6.16 1.22 
32 10 12 1.79 20.35 1.49 24.56 0.85 8.50 0.520 3,625.53 2.10 0.71 
33 20 12 1.88 19.47 1.58 23.53 0.82 6.90 0.658 2,020.83 1.17 0.58 
34 25 12 1.90 20.12 1.58 23.33 0.81 6.00 0.621 2,989.89 1.73 0.50 
35 35 12 1.90 19.46 1.59 24.07 0.84 3.30 0.721 1,595.02 0.92 0.28 
36 1.73 19.65 1.45 23.18 0.80 10.20 0.477 8,893.16 12.20 1.13 
37 20 1.89 20.16 1.57 23.42 0.81 6.30 0.307 1,053.60 1.45 0.70 
38 25 1.90 19.84 1.58 23.16 0.80 5.70 0.678 1,291.28 1.77 0.63 
39 35 1.87 20.09 1.56 24.14 0.84 2.70 0.398 371.13 0.51 0.30 
40 – – – 22.50 0.78 8.00 0.502 2,641.04 12.23 1.33 
41 1.73 19.47 1.45 24.54 0.85 7.40 0.515 2,101.16 9.73 1.23 
42 20 1.83 20.16 1.52 22.72 0.79 5.50 0.872 872.73 4.04 0.92 
43 25 1.86 20.26 1.55 22.95 0.80 4.60 0.923 220.28 1.02 0.77 
44 35 1.91 20.23 1.59 23.34 0.81 1.10 0.243 28.41 0.13 0.18 
Table 3

Summary of the experimental conditions, maximum scour depths and volumes of equilibrium scour hole profiles, for the runs from no. 45 to 52 (sand type used S2)

Run NoCp (%)D (cm)ρb (g/cm3)Wc (%)ρd (g/cm3)V (cm/s)ds (cm)tan θ (cm3)
45 10 12 1.86 19.73 1.55 35.42 1.11 18.70 0.513 46,502.15 26.91 1.56 
46 25 12 1.91 19.71 1.59 34.60 1.09 9.30 0.563 6,621.41 3.83 0.78 
47 10 1.87 20.37 1.55 34.10 1.07 14.10 0.528 17,632.69 24.19 1.57 
48 25 1.86 20.49 1.54 48.43 1.52 8.3 0.507 3,395.73 4.66 0.92 
49 10 12 1.82 19.46 1.53 29.53 0.93 14.2 0.549 13,344.61 7.72 1.18 
50 25 12 1.86 19.49 1.55 27.76 0.87 5.90 0.474 3,622.46 2.10 0.49 
51 10 1.82 19.93 1.52 27.99 0.88 9.2 0.485 5,799.22 7.96 1.02 
52 25 1.91 19.81 1.60 28.20 0.89 6.20 0.418 1,571.10 2.16 0.69 
Run NoCp (%)D (cm)ρb (g/cm3)Wc (%)ρd (g/cm3)V (cm/s)ds (cm)tan θ (cm3)
45 10 12 1.86 19.73 1.55 35.42 1.11 18.70 0.513 46,502.15 26.91 1.56 
46 25 12 1.91 19.71 1.59 34.60 1.09 9.30 0.563 6,621.41 3.83 0.78 
47 10 1.87 20.37 1.55 34.10 1.07 14.10 0.528 17,632.69 24.19 1.57 
48 25 1.86 20.49 1.54 48.43 1.52 8.3 0.507 3,395.73 4.66 0.92 
49 10 12 1.82 19.46 1.53 29.53 0.93 14.2 0.549 13,344.61 7.72 1.18 
50 25 12 1.86 19.49 1.55 27.76 0.87 5.90 0.474 3,622.46 2.10 0.49 
51 10 1.82 19.93 1.52 27.99 0.88 9.2 0.485 5,799.22 7.96 1.02 
52 25 1.91 19.81 1.60 28.20 0.89 6.20 0.418 1,571.10 2.16 0.69 
Sediment beds for the experiments were prepared by mixing either medium sand (S1), with median diameter (d50) = 0.182 mm and geometric standard deviation of particle size distribution = 1.37, or medium fine sand (S2), with d50 = 0.44 mm and = 1.34, into a cohesive material (kaolinite). The specific gravity of S1, S2 and kaolinite clay was 2.65, 2.65, and 2.62, respectively. Particle size analysis of cohesive material was done by the laser diffraction method; the Malvern particle size analyzer revealed that the material had clay percentage, (d4 μm), equal to 40%, silt percentage, (4 μm < d64 μm), equal to 51%, and sand percentage, (d > 63 μm), equal to 9%, with d particle size. The median size of the volumetric distribution was 8.08 μm. The other properties of the cohesive soil were: liquid limit (WL) = 49%; plastic limit (WP) = 26%; plasticity index (PI) = 23%; maximum dry unit weight () = 1.83 g/cm3; optimum moisture content (OMC) = 20%; shear strength at optimum moisture content = 12.77 kN/m2; and specific surface area = 2.36 m2/g. At first, the cohesive material (kaolinite clay) was manually mixed homogeneously with either S1 or S2 in proportions by weight (Cp) as given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, in dry condition. Then 20% water by weight of dry mixture was added to the homogeneous mixture in a container. The clay–sand composition was then thoroughly mixed by hand until it became homogeneous. Finally, the mixture was laid around the pier at the sediment recess in layers of approximately 0.05 m thick. Each layer was compacted by giving 500 blows (approximately) of a 2.55 kg hammer of base diameter 0.075 m by dropping it freely from a height of 0.3 m. However, by this we are not commenting on the energy of compaction because this compaction was done manually standing on the sediment bed itself. After compacting each layer, the top surface of the compacted layer was roughened to improve bonding between layers. For the final layer, the extra sediment (approximately 0.01 cm thick) was chiseled off and finally made smooth with the help of a wooden trowel. Following this, the flume was filled with water up to 0.05 m depth and the mixed sediment bed was kept submerged under water overnight. Experimental runs were also conducted with a pure sand bed (i.e. Cp = 0). Prior to starting the experimental run for clay–sand mixed sediment bulk density (ρb), water content (Wc) and dry density (ρd) were estimated for the bed sediment. At the start of each run, first the pump was started and the flume was allowed to fill with water to a depth of approximately 0.3 m, keeping the tail gate closed to avoid a sheet flow condition. The discharge valve was gradually opened to achieve the desired discharge and the tail gate was operated simultaneously to achieve the desired approach flow depth (y) = 0.3 m (fluctuations <1.6%), which was monitored throughout the experimental run against graduated scales attached to the glass flume wall. According to Melville & Sutherland (1988), is independent of the approach flow depth y for = > 2.6. In the present study, y ≈ 0.3 m, which gave a = 2.5 corresponding to the shallowest case to make the scouring process independent of y. For neglecting the effect of the side walls, we took a pier diameter less than 20% of the channel width (Melville 1997). For dimensionless approach flow velocity (V), V is normalized to Vcs (i.e., ), with Vcs = critical threshold velocity for the sand size used in preparation of the clay–sand mixture (Tables 2 and 3). Vcs was estimated using the following equation (Melville 1997):
(4)
where is the critical shear velocity for the sand size used in the clay–sand mixture and is obtained from the Shields diagram.

Each experimental run was stopped when no changes in scour depths were observed for five successive hours in any of the four planes at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270°. Considering this as an equilibrium state of the scouring process (Dey & Westrich 2003), the flow was gradually reduced, before it was stopped by controlling the flow control valve, and the tail gate was carefully adjusted to avoid any disturbance to the final scour profile. The water from the scour hole was drained out by siphoning. Then, detailed readings of the scour hole geometry were taken with a point gauge with graduated traverse arrangement in all three coordinate directions. In order to measure the final equilibrium volume of the scour hole, a thin plastic sheet was carefully placed so that it could cover the entire scour hole and water was slowly poured into the lined scour hole from a calibrated measuring tube until the water level in the scour hole reached the (initial) undisturbed bed surface, as shown in Figure 2. The total volume of the water poured into the scour hole from the measuring tubes was assumed to be the volume of the equilibrium scour hole (). Tables 2 and 3 reveal the ranges of experimental conditions and obtained results, with the observed equilibrium scour depths and estimated scour volumes.

Figure 2

The method used to measure the volume of the final scour hole: (a) placing the fine plastic sheet, (b) pouring of water in the scour hole from a big measuring flask, and (c) matching the water level to the initial undisturbed bed surface by pouring water from a fine measuring flask.

Figure 2

The method used to measure the volume of the final scour hole: (a) placing the fine plastic sheet, (b) pouring of water in the scour hole from a big measuring flask, and (c) matching the water level to the initial undisturbed bed surface by pouring water from a fine measuring flask.

Close modal

Effect of clay content (Cp) on scour volume () and relation with

For both sand sediments (i.e., S1 and S2), it was observed that the increment in clay percentage, Cp, led to a noticeable reduction in scour volume while the other flow parameters were fixed. Figure 3 shows photographs of the scour hole morphologies at the equilibrium stage for the runs no. 8 (Cp = 5%), no. 9 (Cp = 10%), no. 10 (Cp = 20%), and no. 11 (Cp = 25%), which reveal a significant reduction of the scour hole volume with increasing Cp.

Figure 3

Photographs of the scour holes at the equilibrium stage for the runs: (a) no. 8; (b) no. 9, (c) no. 10, and (d) no. 11. It can be noted that there is a significant reduction in scour hole volume with the increasing of the clay content.

Figure 3

Photographs of the scour holes at the equilibrium stage for the runs: (a) no. 8; (b) no. 9, (c) no. 10, and (d) no. 11. It can be noted that there is a significant reduction in scour hole volume with the increasing of the clay content.

Close modal

To confirm what it has been just said, Figure 4 shows the longitudinal and lateral cross-sectional views of the scour hole profiles at the equilibrium stage for the runs from no. 8 to no. 11 It is immediately observed that there is a significant decrease of the scour volume as Cp increases, but the slopes of the scour hole do not show a specific trend.

Figure 4

Longitudinal and cross-sectional view of the final scour hole profiles for runs no. 8, 9, 10, and 11 ( = 0.99–1.1).

Figure 4

Longitudinal and cross-sectional view of the final scour hole profiles for runs no. 8, 9, 10, and 11 ( = 0.99–1.1).

Close modal

The average slope (i.e., tan θ) of the equilibrium scour hole was estimated by averaging the slope of the equilibrium scour hole profiles collected at all four sides of the pier (i.e., 0°, 90°, 180°, 270°). It was calculated by determining the slope of the best-fit straight line along each of the four sides. However, the plotting of data against Cp, and still considering the same intervals for the threshold dimensionless velocity, did not give any specific trend as can be seen in Figure 5. In contrast, Molinas & Hosny (1999) highlighted a rapid increase in slope as Cp increases. This discrepancy may be due to the difference between our study and that by Molinas & Hosny (1999) mainly in regard to the bed characteristics in terms of clay mineralogy. In this study, the slope of the scour hole would exhibit some tendency to increase only for a restricted range of Cp (5%–25%). The scouring process in a clay–sand mixture is very complex due to interaction of the clay–sand network structure and bed shear stresses. The flow-induced shear stresses tend to decline inside the scour hole as the scour volume increases, but scouring processes develop differently depending on the characteristics of the clay–sand mixtures, which are the most governing factors for the final shape and volume of the scour hole.

Figure 5

Tan θ as a function of Cp on the basis of present data and data from Molinas & Hosny (1999) for (a) = 0.99–1.1, (b) = 0.87–0.92, and (c) = 0.78–0.85.

Figure 5

Tan θ as a function of Cp on the basis of present data and data from Molinas & Hosny (1999) for (a) = 0.99–1.1, (b) = 0.87–0.92, and (c) = 0.78–0.85.

Close modal
The plots in Figure 6 illustrate the dimensionless scour volume versus Cp for the present experimental data as well as for those by Molinas & Hosny (1999). These plots are distinguished for the three different ranges of the threshold dimensionless velocity = 0.99–1.1, = 0.87–0.92, and = 0.78–0.85. It can be observed that there is a significant decrease in with increasing Cp, but at a reducing rate with the decrease in . Interestingly, the observed trend for the present data is a match for the data by Molinas & Hosny (1999), but in the present study the curve trend is comparatively steeper, probably because the water content Wc of the sediment bed was considerably higher (i.e., Wc ≈ 20%). Specifically, the range of Wc for Molinas & Hosny (1999) was 10%–11%, while in this study it was about 20%–40% (as can be seen in Tables 2 and 3). By increasing water content, the inter-granular distance between the particles (mud/sand) tends to increase, then the contact between particles decreases and, thereby, the sediment bed as a whole becomes loosely packed and prone to erosion (Postma 1967). Conversely, it is to be noted that the clay mineral used in this study was kaolin while that used by Molinas & Hosny (1999) was montmorillonite. The montmorillonite has a specific surface area and cation exchange capacity much higher than those of kaolinite (Ramachandran et al. 1962), which implies the cohesive forces would be more active. Ultimately, the effect of Cp on might be satisfactorily presented by the following best-fit exponential curves:
(5)
(6)
(7)
Figure 6

Dimensionless equilibrium scour volume as a function of Cp on the basis of present data and data from Molinas & Hosny (1999) for (a) = 0.99–1.10, (b) = 0.87–0.92, and (c) = 0.78–0.85.

Figure 6

Dimensionless equilibrium scour volume as a function of Cp on the basis of present data and data from Molinas & Hosny (1999) for (a) = 0.99–1.10, (b) = 0.87–0.92, and (c) = 0.78–0.85.

Close modal
The plots in Figure 7 show, in dimensionless form, the scour volume as a function of the equilibrium scour depth keeping the intervals for the threshold dimensionless velocity constant (i.e., = 0.99–1.1, = 0.87–0.92, and = 0.78–0.85). The data points show a considerable increase in with , with a trend consistent with the results of Molinas & Hosny (1999). For both sands (i.e., S1 and S2) the relationship between dimensionless scour depth and dimensionless scour hole would seem to be the same, though in the case of medium sand (S2) one should expect lower scour hole volumes; and that because for larger sand particles, more surface area is available to clay particles for contact, this results in formation of larger sediment flocs that require more energy to be dislodged or to be eroded out as bed load. Ultimately, the relationship between and might be satisfactorily presented by the following best-fit exponential curves:
(8)
(9)
(10)
Figure 7

Dimensionless equilibrium scour volume as a function of on the basis of present data and data from Molinas & Hosny (1999) for (a) = 0.99–1.10, (b) = 0.87–0.92, and (c) = 0.78–0.85.

Figure 7

Dimensionless equilibrium scour volume as a function of on the basis of present data and data from Molinas & Hosny (1999) for (a) = 0.99–1.10, (b) = 0.87–0.92, and (c) = 0.78–0.85.

Close modal

Equations from (8) to (10), as well as the previous ones from (5) to (7), were obtained considering only the experimental data collected in this study.

In order to determine a single exponential equation for the dimensionless scour volume as a function of the equilibrium scour depth, all 56 experimental data on scour volume were plotted against , as can be seen in Figure 8(a). The plot shows a definite trend of increase of with according to the following best-fit exponential equation:
(11)
Figure 8

as a function of on the basis of (a) present data and (b) data from Molinas & Hosny (1999).

Figure 8

as a function of on the basis of (a) present data and (b) data from Molinas & Hosny (1999).

Close modal

For this equation the coefficient of determination R2 is equal to 0.88, which is reasonably good taking into account the complexity of the problem. To validate the proposed equation, the data from Molinas & Hosny (1999) were considered and compared with Equation (11), as shown in Figure 8. The fitting can be considered as satisfactory, especially if divergences between the experimental work by Molinas & Hosny (1999) and the present one are taken into account.

The new experimental data set from the present study along with literature data reported in Molinas & Hosny (1999) for clay–sand mixed beds reveal that the presence of clay can significantly reduce the scour volume around a bridge pier.

  • With the rise of Cp, the reduction of the equilibrium scour hole volume is much less in fine sand (S1) than in medium sand (S2). This is probably because for fine sand particles more specific surface area is available to clay particles for agglomeration contact, which results in formation of larger sediment flocs that require more energy to be dislodged or to get eroded out initially as bed load.

  • Molinas & Hosny (1999) reported that with the increasing of the clay percentage Cp the slope of the scour hole increases. However, present experiments do not show any significant change in the slope of the scour hole in relation to Cp; instead, the scour holes observed in this study resembled more or less cones of reducing size with the increase in Cp.

  • In this study the slope of the scour hole would exhibit some tendency to increase only for a restricted range of Cp (5%–25%). The scouring process in a clay–sand mixture is very complex due to interaction of the clay–sand network structure and bed shear stresses. However, scouring processes develop differently depending on the characteristics of the clay–sand mixtures, which are the most governing factors for the final shape and volume of the scour hole.

  • The effect of the clay content Cp on the dimensionless scour volume was satisfactorily presented by best-fit exponential curves depending on three ranges for the threshold dimensionless velocity constant (i.e., = 0.99–1.1, = 0.87–0.92, and = 0.78–0.85).

  • Finally, a single exponential equation for the dimensionless scour volume as a function of the equilibrium scour depth was found by regression analysis with a coefficient of determination R2 equal to 0.88, which is reasonably good taking into account the complexity of the problem.

  • The proposed equations were validated by the data set of Molinas & Hosny (1999) and they have shown a satisfactory agreement with the experimental data.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Berlamont
J.
,
Ockenden
M.
,
Toorman
E.
&
Winterwerp
J.
1993
The characterisation of cohesive sediment properties
.
Coastal Engineering
21
(
1–3
),
105
128
.
Breusers
H. N. C.
,
Nicollet
G.
&
Shen
H. W.
1977
Local scour around cylindrical piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Research
15
(
3
),
211
252
.
Chaudhuri
S.
,
Singh
S. K.
,
Debnath
K.
&
Manik
M. K.
2018
Pier scour within long contraction in cohesive sediment bed
.
Environmental Fluid Mechanics
18
(
2
),
417
441
.
Das
V. K.
,
Roy
S.
,
Barman
K.
,
Chaudhuri
S.
&
Debnath
K.
2020
Cohesive river bank erosion mechanism under wave–current interaction: a flume study
.
Journal of Earth System Science
129
(
1
), 99.
Debnath
K.
,
Nikora
V.
,
Aberle
J.
,
Westrich
B.
&
Muste
M.
2007a
Erosion of cohesive sediments: resuspension, bed load, and erosion patterns from field experiments
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
133
(
5
),
508
520
.
Debnath
K.
,
Nikora
V.
&
Elliott
A.
2007b
Stream bank erosion: in situ flume tests
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE
133
(
3
),
256
264
.
Debnath
K.
,
Chaudhuri
S.
&
Manik
M. K.
2014
Local scour around abutment in clay/sand-mixed cohesive sediment bed
.
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
20
(
1
),
46
64
.
Dey
S.
&
Westrich
B.
2003
Hydraulics of submerged jet subject to change in cohesive bed geometry
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
129
(
1
),
44
53
.
Dey
S.
,
Bose
S. K.
&
Sastry
G. L. N.
1995
Clear water scour at circular piers: a model
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
121
(
12
),
869
876
.
Ettema
R.
,
Kirkil
G.
&
Muste
M.
2006
Similitude of large-scale turbulence in experiments on local scour at cylinders
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
132
(
1
),
33
40
.
Garfield
M.
&
Ettema
R.
2021
Effect of clearwater scour on the flow field at a single bendway weir: two-dimensional numerical modeling supported by flume data
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE
147
(
12
),
04021055
.
Houwing
E.-J.
&
van Rijn
L. C.
1998
In Situ Erosion Flume (ISEF): determination of bed-shear stress and erosion of a kaolinite bed
.
Journal of Sea Research
39
(
3–4
),
243
253
.
Huber
F.
1991
Update: bridge scour
.
Civil Engineering – ASCE
61
(
9
),
62
63
.
Jain
R.
,
Lodhi
A. S.
,
Oliveto
G.
&
Pandey
M.
2021
Influence of cohesion on scour at piers founded in clay–sand–gravel mixtures
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE
147
(
10
),
04021046
.
Karkheiran
S.
,
Kabiri-Samani
A.
,
Zekri
M.
&
Azamathulla
H. M.
2021
Scour at bridge piers in uniform and armored beds under steady and unsteady flow conditions using ANN-APSO and ANN-GA algorithms
.
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
27
(
sup1
),
220
228
.
Kothyari
U. C.
,
Garde
R. C. J.
&
Ranga Raju
K. G.
1992
Temporal variation of scour around circular bridge piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
118
(
8
),
1091
1106
.
Kothyari
U. C.
,
Hager
W. H.
&
Oliveto
G.
2007
Generalized approach for clear-water scour at bridge foundation elements
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
133
(
11
),
1229
1240
.
Kothyari
U. C.
,
Kumar
A.
&
Jain
R. K.
2014
Influence of cohesion on river bed scour in the wake region of piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
140
(
1
),
1
13
.
Melville
B. W.
1997
Pier and abutment scour: integrated approach
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
123
(
2
),
125
136
.
Melville
B. W.
&
Chiew
Y.-M.
1999
Time scale for local scour in bridge piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
125
(
1
),
59
65
.
Melville
B. W.
&
Sutherland
A. J.
1988
Design method for local scour at bridge piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
114
(
10
),
1210
1226
.
Mitchener
H.
&
Torfs
H.
1996
Erosion of mud/sand mixtures
.
Coastal Engineering
29
(
1–2
),
1
25
.
Molinas
A.
&
Hosny
M. M.
1999
Experimental Study on Scour around Circular Piers in Cohesive Soils
.
Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-186, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation
,
McLean, VA, USA
.
Najafzadeh
M.
&
Barani
G. A.
2014
Experimental study of local scour around a vertical pier in cohesive soils
.
Scientia Iranica A
21
(
2
),
241
250
.
Nou
M. R. G.
,
Zolghadr
M.
,
Bajestan
M. S.
&
Azamathulla
H. M.
2021
Application of ANFIS–PSO hybrid algorithm for predicting the dimensions of the downstream scour hole of ski-jump spillways
.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
45
(
3
),
1845
1859
.
Oliveto
G.
&
Hager
W. H.
2002
Temporal evolution of clear-water pier and abutment scour
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
128
(
9
),
811
820
.
Oliveto
G.
&
Hager
W. H.
2005
Further results to time-dependent local scour at bridge elements
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
131
(
2
),
97
105
.
Pandey
M.
,
Chen
S.-C.
,
Sharma
P. K.
,
Ojha
C. S. P.
&
Kumar
V.
2019
Local scour of armor layer processes around the circular pier in non-uniform gravel bed
.
Water
11
(
7
),
1421
.
Pandey
M.
,
Jamei
M.
,
Karbasi
M.
,
Ahmadianfar
I.
&
Chu
X.
2021
Prediction of maximum scour depth near spur dikes in uniform bed sediment using stacked generalization ensemble tree-based frameworks
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE
147
(
11
) , 04021050.
Pandey
M.
,
Jamei
M.
,
Ahmadianfar
I.
,
Karbasi
M.
,
Lodhi
A. S.
&
Chu
X.
2022
Assessment of scouring around spur dike in cohesive sediment mixtures: a comparative study on three rigorous machine learning models
.
Journal of Hydrology
606
,
127330
.
Postma
H.
1967
Sediment transport and sedimentation in the estuarine environment
. In:
Estuaries
(
G. H. Lauff
, ed.),
American Association for the Advancement of Science
,
Washington, DC
, USA, pp.
158
179
.
Ramachandran
V. S.
,
Kacker
K. P.
&
Patwardhan
N. K.
1962
Adsorption of dyes by clay minerals
.
The American Mineralogist
47
(
1–2
),
165
169
.
Raudkivi
A. J.
1998
Loose Boundary Hydraulics
.
A.A. Balkema
,
Rotterdam
,
the Netherlands
.
Raudkivi
A. J.
&
Ettema
R.
1983
Clear-water scour at cylindrical piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
109
(
3
),
338
350
.
Ravens
T. M.
&
Gschwend
P. M.
1999
Flume measurements of sediment erodibility in Boston Harbor
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
125
(
10
),
998
1005
.
Shen
H. W.
,
Schneider
V. R.
&
Karaki
S.
1969
Local scour around bridge piers
.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE
95
(
6
),
1919
1940
.
Sheppard
D. M.
,
Odeh
M.
&
Glasser
T.
2004
Large scale clear-water local pier scour experiments
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
130
(
10
),
957
963
.
Sheppard
D. M.
,
Melville
B.
&
Demir
H.
2014
Evaluation of existing equations for local scour at bridge piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
140
(
1
),
14
23
.
Singh
U. K.
,
Ahmad
Z.
,
Kumar
A.
&
Pandey
M.
2019
Incipient motion for gravel particles in cohesionless sediment mixtures
.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
43
(
2
),
253
262
.
Singh
R. K.
,
Pandey
M.
,
Pu
J. H.
,
Pasupuleti
S.
&
Villuri
V. G. K.
2020
Experimental study of clear-water contraction scour
.
Water Supply
20
(
3
),
943
952
.
Singh
N. B.
,
Devi
T. T.
&
Kumar
B.
2022
The local scour around bridge piers – a review of remedial techniques
.
ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
28 (sup1), 527–540.
Ting
F. C. K.
,
Briaud
J.-L.
,
Chen
H. C.
,
Gudavalli
R.
,
Perugu
S.
&
Wei
G.
2001
Flume tests for scour in clay at circular piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
127
(
11
),
969
978
.
Yanmaz
A. M.
&
Altinbilek
H. D.
1991
Study of time-dependent local scour around bridge piers
.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE
117
(
10
),
1247
1268
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).