Evaluate new bridges with known foundations for potential scour in accordance with the following:

Guidelines outlined in Evaluating Scour at Bridges (HEC-18).
Do not use abutment scour equations because none of the equations to date yield acceptable results. Use contraction scour equations to calculate total scour at abutments. Protect abutments against potential scour through use of a flexible revetment, where possible.

Determine scour at bridges using the following analysis techniques:

Use the following table to determine susceptibility of competent rock to scour when it is present at moderate to shallow depths. Consider materials deemed either not susceptible or mildly susceptible to scour the limit of the maximum scour depth.
Table 5-4: Material Susceptibility to Scour
Material	Subtype	TCP Values	Susceptibility
Rock	Hard (granite, limestone, shale)	< 4 in./100 blows	Not susceptible
	Soft (shale)	< 12 in./100 blows	Mildly susceptible but not considered over time span of one flood event
Clays	Hard (redbed, shaley clays, very stiff clays)	< 12 in./100 blows	Mildly susceptible but not considered over time span of one flood event
	Soft to medium	> 12 in./100 blows	Susceptible to scour at a moderate rate
Sands	All	All	Very susceptible
Monitor shales and stiff clays for long-term degradation. Shales and stiff clays tend to break down and disintegrate when exposed to repeated wetting and drying, a major problem in northeast Texas where head cutting in the Sulphur River basin has resulted in the channels down-cutting into the shale. The rate of degradation of shale in this situation is typically on the order of inches per year. As a result, most shales and stiff clays are not considered susceptible to scour during a single flood event. Consider long-term history of channel cross sections when evaluating these materials.
For channels in cohesionless materials, such as sand and gravel, calculate contraction and pier scour using the following methods:
Contraction scour: use the equations in HEC-18.
Pier scour: use either the equations in HEC-18, Froelich’s Equation, or Sheppard’s Equations.
For channels in cohesive materials, such as clay, calculate contraction and pier scour using the following methods:
Limit d
50
to 0.2 mm (6.56 x 10-4 ft or 7.87 x 10-3 in). For contraction scour, use the equations in HEC-18. For pier scour, use the equations in HEC-18 with a reduction factor of 0.5 for soils with 11% or more clay.
Use the SRICOS Method. Refer to NCHRP Research Report 915 for determination of erodibility parameters.
Use Annandale’s Erodibility Index Method.
For channels in layered soil, calculate scour using the following methods:
Conduct a scour analysis layer by layer using the methods specified above for individual layers. If the calculated scour of a given layer is greater than the thickness of the layer, remove that layer and recalculate the hydraulic variables. Then continue the scour analysis with the next layer.
Use the SRICOS Method. Refer to NCHRP Research Report 915 for determination of erodibility parameters.
Use Annandale’s Erodibility Index Method.

Because of conservatism built into analysis techniques for calculating scour and limitations and gaps in existing knowledge, apply engineering judgment when using results from scour analyses.

Before using the scour analysis for bridge foundation design, check the scour predictions to ensure:

the scour calculations account for layered soil/rock profiles.
the scour calculations account for the soil/rock properties (that is, clay, silt, sand, gravel, rock, etc.)
the calculated scour depths do not extend into competent rock.

Determine if the calculated scour exceeds the typical disregard depth of 10 feet from the channel flow line. If so, use the following to evaluate the calculated scour:

Performance of the existing structure during past floods (compare historic data of cross section changes at the bridge with the scour predictions).
Hydrologic characteristics and flood history of the stream and similar streams.
Recalculation of the scour analysis using a step-wise procedure that incrementally removes material and recalculates the required hydraulic variables. This may decrease the total scour depth.

Upon completion of a scour evaluation for a new bridge, the (Form 2605) is to be completed and entered into the bridge inspection system, along with scour evaluation documentation. All Bridge Division and District contracts for bridge design and plan preparation should include a submission of completed Form 2605 and a full scour evaluation report as a deliverable. In addition, the results of the scour evaluation are to be used to determine the Bridge Inspection Coding for Item 113 – Scour. The results of the coding need to be entered into the BIMS.

Do not show scour depths on the Bridge Layout Elevation View. All pertinent scour information must be listed on the Scour Summary Sheet in the bridge inspection system.

The scour evaluation guidance for new bridges with known foundation also applies to existing bridges with known foundations.

In certain cases, existing bridges with known foundations may be evaluated for potential scour using the following:

Texas Secondary Evaluation and Analysis for Scour
(TSEAS, 1993)

The TSEAS Manual includes two parts: a) Secondary Screening Method; and b) Concise Analysis Method. The Secondary Screening Method is only applicable to low volume Off-System bridges with known foundations. The Concise Analysis Method is applicable to both On-System and Off-System bridges that are not on the interstate system or are otherwise high priority bridges. Bridges that would be considered high priority are:

Bridges on principal arterials;Bridges on evacuation routes;
Bridges that provide access to local emergency services such as hospitals; and
Bridges that are defined as critical in a local emergency plan (i.e., bridges that enable immediate emergency response to disasters).

Upon completion of a scour evaluation for an existing bridge, the (Form 2605) is required to be completed and entered into the bridge inspection system, along with scour evaluation documentation. In addition, the results of the scour evaluation are to be used to determine the Bridge Inspection Coding for Item 113 – Scour. The results of the coding need to be entered into the BIMS.

Contact the Geotechnical Branch for the evaluation of existing bridges with unknown foundations.

Evaluate new and existing bridge class culverts for potential scour using the following:

Bridge Class Culverts with Bottoms
Assess scour coding based on field observations using the criteria listed on the Scour Summary Sheet for Bridge Class Culverts (Form 2606)
Bridge Class Culverts without Bottoms
Use the guidelines for either new bridges or existing bridges outlined above for scour evaluation
New bridge class culvert without bottoms should be supported with deep foundations.

Existing bridges that require a coding in Item 113 of a 3, 2, 1, or 0 are considered scour critical. For each scour critical bridge, a Plan of Action (POA) needs to be developed, implemented, and entered into the BIMS.

Protecting abutments and piers at bridges is beneficial in limiting the effects of scour. The use of stone protection is recommended over concrete riprap due to its flexible nature. Concrete riprap, due to its rigidity, masks problems. Consequently, voids can form under them and eventually undermine the pavement or approach slab.

Stone protection needs to be designed for the conditions that exist at the bridge. The recommended methodology for the design of stone protection is to use HEC – 23 Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Guidance (see Volume 2 for guidance on design). Upon completing the design, the appropriate D50 will be determined. This value should then be compared to the tables in Item 432 – Riprap to determine the appropriate size of the stone protection. Once the appropriate size of the stone protection has been identified then the appropriate thickness of the stone protection needs to be determined. The thickness is a function of the conditions where the stone protection is being used. However, a general rule of thumb is that the thickness needs to be equal to or larger than 1.5 times the size of the stone protection listed in Item 432. This is consistent with the procedures outlined in HEC-23 for the thickness of the stone protection, where it is typically taken as the larger of either the 100% size (i.e. maximum size) or 2 times the D50 size. If one compares the range of the D50 values for the various sizes listed in table 2 of Item 432 and then multiplies by these by 2 one will obtain approximately 1.5 times the size of the stone protection listed. In the plans Stone Protection should be specified as follows:

Riprap (Stone Protection) XX in. (where XX is the size in inches)
Thickness = YY in. (where YY is the appropriate thickness)