Articles | Volume 22, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-795-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-795-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Invited perspectives
| 
10 Mar 2022
Invited perspectives |
| 10 Mar 2022
| 10 Mar 2022
Invited perspectives: Challenges and future directions in improving bridge flood resilience
Enrico Tubaldi
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Christopher J. White
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Edoardo Patelli
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Stergios Aristoteles Mitoulis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Gustavo de Almeida
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Jim Brown
Transport Scotland, Glasgow, UK
Michael Cranston
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Perth, UK
Martin Hardman
Cumbria County Council, Carlisle, UK
Eftychia Koursari
Amey, Glasgow, UK
JBA Trust, South Barn, Skipton, UK
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Hazel McDonald
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Perth, UK
Richard Mathews
Mott MacDonald, Altrincham, UK
Richard Newell
Network Rail, Milton Keynes, UK
Alonso Pizarro
Faculty of Engineering and Sciences, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile
Marta Roca
HR Wallingford, Wallingford, UK
Daniele Zonta
Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Related authors
No articles found.
Lou Brett, Christopher J. White, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Bart van den Hurk, Philip Ward, and Jakob Zscheischler
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2591–2611, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2591-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2591-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Compound events, where multiple weather or climate hazards occur together, pose significant risks to both society and the environment. These events, like simultaneous wind and rain, can have more severe impacts than single hazards. Our review of compound event research from 2012–2022 reveals a rise in studies, especially on events that occur concurrently, hot and dry events, and compounding flooding. The review also highlights opportunities for research in the coming years.
Francesca Pianosi, Georgios Sarailidis, Kirsty Styles, Philip Oldham, Stephen Hutchings, Rob Lamb, and Thorsten Wagener
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3310, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3310, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Flood risk models are essential to support risk management. As they simulate complex interactions between climate, the natural and the built environment, they unavoidably embed a range of simplifying assumptions. In this paper, we propose a more rigorous approach to analyse the impact of uncertain assumptions on modelling results. This is important to improve model transparency and set priorities for improving models.
Alonso Pizarro, Demetris Koutsoyiannis, and Alberto Montanari
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-389, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-389, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for HESS
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce RUMI, a new metric to improve rainfall-runoff simulations. RUMI better captures the link between observed and simulated stream flows by considering uncertainty at a core computation step. Tested on 99 catchments and with the GR4J model, it outperforms traditional metrics by providing more reliable and consistent results. RUMI paves the way for more accurate hydrological predictions.
Christopher J. White, Mohammed Sarfaraz Gani Adnan, Marcello Arosio, Stephanie Buller, YoungHwa Cha, Roxana Ciurean, Julia M. Crummy, Melanie Duncan, Joel Gill, Claire Kennedy, Elisa Nobile, Lara Smale, and Philip J. Ward
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-178, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-178, 2024
Revised manuscript under review for NHESS
Short summary
Short summary
Indicators contain observable and measurable characteristics to understand the state of a concept or phenomenon and/or monitor it over time. There have been limited efforts to understand how indicators are being used in multi-hazard and multi-risk contexts. We find most of existing indicators do not include the interactions between hazards or risks. We propose 12 recommendations to enable the development and uptake of multi-hazard and multi-risk indicators.
Robert Ljubičić, Dariia Strelnikova, Matthew T. Perks, Anette Eltner, Salvador Peña-Haro, Alonso Pizarro, Silvano Fortunato Dal Sasso, Ulf Scherling, Pietro Vuono, and Salvatore Manfreda
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5105–5132, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5105-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5105-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The rise of new technologies such as drones (unmanned aerial systems – UASs) has allowed widespread use of image velocimetry techniques in place of more traditional, usually slower, methods during hydrometric campaigns. In order to minimize the velocity estimation errors, one must stabilise the acquired videos. In this research, we compare the performance of different UAS video stabilisation tools and provide guidelines for their use in videos with different flight and ground conditions.
Chun-Hsu Su, Nathan Eizenberg, Dörte Jakob, Paul Fox-Hughes, Peter Steinle, Christopher J. White, and Charmaine Franklin
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4357–4378, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4357-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4357-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Bureau of Meteorology Atmospheric Regional Reanalysis for Australia (BARRA) has produced a very high-resolution reconstruction of Australian historical weather from 1990 to 2018. This paper demonstrates the added weather and climate information to supplement coarse- or moderate-resolution regional and global reanalyses. The new climate data can allow greater understanding of past weather, including extreme events, at very local kilometre scales.
Keith J. Beven, Mike J. Kirkby, Jim E. Freer, and Rob Lamb
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 527–549, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The theory that forms the basis of TOPMODEL was first outlined by Mike Kirkby some 45 years ago. This paper recalls some of the early developments: the rejection of the first journal paper, the early days of digital terrain analysis, model calibration and validation, the various criticisms of the simplifying assumptions, and the relaxation of those assumptions in the dynamic forms of TOPMODEL, and it considers what we might do now with the benefit of hindsight.
Alonso Pizarro, Silvano F. Dal Sasso, Matthew T. Perks, and Salvatore Manfreda
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5173–5185, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5173-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5173-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
An innovative approach is presented to optimise image-velocimetry performances for surface flow velocity estimates (and thus remotely sensed river discharges). Synthetic images were generated under different tracer characteristics using a numerical approach. Based on the results, the Seeding Distribution Index was introduced as a descriptor of the optimal portion of the video to analyse. A field case study was considered as a proof of concept of the proposed framework showing error reductions.
Barry Hankin, Ian Hewitt, Graham Sander, Federico Danieli, Giuseppe Formetta, Alissa Kamilova, Ann Kretzschmar, Kris Kiradjiev, Clint Wong, Sam Pegler, and Rob Lamb
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2567–2584, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-2567-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-2567-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
With growing support for nature-based solutions to reduce flooding by local communities, government authorities and international organisations, it is still important to improve how we assess risk reduction. We demonstrate an efficient, simplified 1D network model that allows us to explore the
whole-systemresponse of numerous leaky barriers placed in different stream networks, whilst considering utilisation, synchronisation effects and cascade failure, and we provide advice on their siting.
Cited articles
Achillopoulou, D. V., Mitoulis, S. A., Argyroudis, S. A., and Wang, Y.:
Monitoring of transport infrastructure exposed to multiple hazards: A
roadmap for building resilience, Sci. Total Environ., 746, 141001,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141001, 2020.
Alipour, A.: Enhancing resilience of bridges to extreme events by rapid
damage assessment and response strategies, Transp. Res. Record, 2604,
54–62, https://doi.org/10.3141/2604-07, 2017.
Argyroudis, S. A., Mitoulis, S. A., Winter, M. G., and Kaynia, A.
M.: Fragility of transport assets exposed to multiple hazards:
State-of-the-art review toward infrastructural resilience, Reliab. Eng. Sys.
Safe, 191, 106567, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106567, 2019.
Argyroudis, S. A. and Mitoulis, S. A.: Vulnerability of bridges to individual
and multiple hazards – floods and earthquakes, Reliab. Eng. Sys. Safe, 210, 107564,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107564, 2021.
Akay, S. S., Özcan, O., and Şanlı, F. B.: Quantification and
visualization of flood-induced morphological changes in meander structures
by UAV-based monitoring, Eng. Sci. Tech., 27, 101016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2021.05.020, 2021.
Badroddin, M. and Chen, Z.: Lifetime Resilience Measurement of
River-Crossing Bridges with Scour Countermeasures under Multiple Hazards, J.
Eng. Mec., 147, 04021058,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001951, 2021.
Bandini, F., Lüthi, B., Peña-Haro, S., Borst, C., Liu, J., Karagkiolidou, S., Hu, X., Guillaume Lemaire, G., Bjerg, P. L., and Bauer-Gottwein, P.: A drone-borne method to
jointly estimate discharge and Manning's roughness of natural streams, Water
Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028266, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028266,
2021.
Bento, A. M., Gomes, A., Viseu, T., Couto, L., and Pêgo, J. P.:
Risk-based methodology for scour analysis at bridge foundations, Eng. Struct.,
223, 111115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111115, 2020.
Beven, K., Romanowicz, R., Pappenberger, F., Young, P. C., and Werner, M.:
The uncertainty cascade in flood forecasting, in: Proceedings of the ACTIF
meeting on Flood Risk, Tromso, Norway, 17–19 October 2005, 1–9, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240341310_The_Uncertainty_Cascade_in_Flood_Forecasting (last access: 9 March 2022), 2005.
Birch, C. E., Rabb, B. L., Böing, S. J., Shelton, K. L., Lamb, R.,
Hunter, N. H., Trigg, M. A., Hines, A., Taylor, A. L., Pilling, C., Dale.
M.: Enhanced surface water flood forecasts: User-led
development and testing, J. Flood Risk. Manag., 14, 14:e12691,
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12691, 2021.
Breusers, H. N. C. and Raudkivi, A. J. (Eds.): Scouring, Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9061919835 9789061919834, 1991.
Breusers, H. N. C., Nicollet, G., and Shen, H. W.: Local scour around
cylindrical piers, J. Hydraul. Res., 15, 211–252,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221687709499645, 1977.
Briaud, J. L., Gardoni, P., and Yao, C.: Statistical, risk, and reliability
analyses of bridge scour, J. Geotech. Geoenviron., 140, 04013011, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000989, 2014.
Cantero-Chinchilla, F. N., de Almeida, G. A. M., and Manes, C.: Temporal
Evolution of Clear-Water Local Scour at Bridge Piers with Flow-Dependent
Debris Accumulations, J. Hydraul. Eng., 147, 06021013,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001920, 2021.
Cappello, C., Zonta, D., and Glišić, B.: Expected utility theory for
monitoring-based decision-making, P. IEEE, 104, 1647–1661,
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2015.2511540, 2016.
Carnacina, I., Pagliara, S., and Leonardi, N.: Bridge pier scour under
pressure flow conditions, Riv. Res. Appl., 35, 844–854,
https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3451, 2019.
Chreties, C., Teixeira, L., and Simarro, G.: Influence of flow conditions on
scour hole shape for pier groups, P. I. Civil Eng.-Wat. M., 166, 111–119,
https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.11.00054, 2013.
Cranston, M. D. and Tavendale, A. C.: Advances in operational flood
forecasting in Scotland, P. I. Civil Eng.-Wat. M., 165, 79–87,
https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.2012.165.2.79, 2012.
Crotti, G. and Cigada, A.: Scour at river bridge piers: real-time
vulnerability assessment through the continuous monitoring of a bridge over
the river Po, Italy, J. Civ. Struct. Health Mon., 9, 513–528,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-019-00348-5, 2019.
Dal Sasso, S. F., Pizarro, A., Pearce, S., Maddock, I., and Manfreda, S.:
Increasing LSPIV performances by exploiting the seeding distribution index
at different spatial scales, J. Hydrol., 598, 126438,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126438, 2021a.
Dal Sasso, S. F., Pizarro, A., and Manfreda, S.: Recent Advancements and
Perspectives in UAS-Based Image Velocimetry, Drones, 5, 81,
https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5030081, 2021b.
Dikanski, H., Imam, B., and Hagen-Zanker, A.: Effects of uncertain asset
stock data on the assessment of climate change risks: A case study of bridge
scour in the UK, Struct. Saf., 71, 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2017.10.008, 2018.
Ebrahimi, M., Kahraman, R., Kripakaran, P., Djordjevic, S., Tabor, G.,
and Prodanović, D. M.: Scour and hydrodynamic effects of debris blockage at
masonry bridges: insights from experimental and numerical modelling, in:
Proceedings of 37th IAHR world congress, 13–18 August 2017, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, http://hdl.handle.net/10871/28314 (last access: 3 March 2022), 2017.
Eltner, A., Bertalan, L., Grundmann, J., Perks, M. T., and Lotsari, E.:
Hydro-morphological mapping of river reaches using videos captured with
unoccupied aerial systems, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 46, 2773–2787, https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.5205, 2021.
Environment Agency: Peak river flow climate change allowances by management
catchment,
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/peak-river-flow-climate-change-allowances-by-management-catchment (last access: 20 January 2022), 2021.
Fulton, J. W., Anderson, I. E., Chiu, C.-L., Sommer, W., Adams, J. D.,
Moramarco, T., Bjerklie, D. M., Fulford, J. M., Sloan, J. L., Best, H. R.,
Conaway, J. S., Kang, M. J., Kohn, M. S., Nicotra, M. J., and Pulli, J. J.:
QCam: sUAS-Based Doppler Radar for Measuring River Discharge, Remote
Sens.-Basel, 12, 3317, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203317, 2020.
Giordano, P. F., Prendergast, L. J., and Limongelli, M. P.: A framework for
assessing the value of information for health monitoring of scoured bridges,
J. Civil Struct. Health Monit., 10, 485–496,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00398-0, 2020.
Hamidifar, H., Zanganeh-Inaloo, F., and Carnacina, I.: Hybrid Scour Depth
Prediction Equations for Reliable Design of Bridge Piers, Water, 13, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152019, 2021.
Highway Agency: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (BD 97/12), The assessment of scour and other hydraulic actions at highway structures, http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol3/section4/bd9712.pdf (last access: 3 March 2022), 2012.
Honfi, D. and Lange, D.: Structural health monitoring, a tool for improving
critical infrastructure resilience, COST TU1402: Quantifying the Value of
Structural Health Monitoring, 1st workshop, 4–5 May 2015, Technical
University of Denmark, Denmark, https://www.cost-tu1402.eu/-/media/Sites/cost-tu1402/Documents/1,-d-,-Workshop/WG1/TU1402_cph_DH.ashx?la=da&hash=B48684FB7CDC978120F791D9BD656296B4EADDA3 (last access 3 March 2022), 2015.
Hossain, M. S., Khan, M. S., Hossain, J., Kibria, G., and Taufiq, T.:
Evaluation of Unknown Foundation Depth Using Different NDT Methods, J
Perform. Constr. Fac., 27, 209–214,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000268, 2013.
HR Wallingford: Hydraulic aspects of bridges: assessment of the risk of scour (EX 2502), Technical Report, HR Wallingford Ltd, Wallingford, https://eprints.hrwallingford.com/315/ (last access: 3 March 2022), 1992,
Hulet, K. M., Smith, C. C., and Gilbert, M.: Load-carrying capacity of
flooded masonry arch bridges, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.: Bridge Eng., 159,
97–103, https://doi.org/10.1680/bren.2006.159.3.97, 2006.
Jaroszweski, D., Wood, R., and Chapman, L.: Infrastructure, in: The Third UK Climate Change Risk
Assessment Technical Report, edited by: Betts, R. A., Haward, A. B., Pearson, K. V., Prepared for the Climate Change Committee,
London, https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Technical-Report-The-Third-Climate-Change-Risk-Assessment.pdf (last access: 3 March 2022), 2021.
Jeong, Y., Kim, W., Lee, I., and Lee, J.: Bridge inspection practices and
bridge management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and U.S., Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 3, 126–135,
https://doi.org/10.1080/24705314.2018.1461548, 2018.
Johnson, P. A., Clopper, P. E., Zevenbergen, L. W., and Lagasse, P. F.:
Quantifying Uncertainty and Reliability in Bridge Scour Estimations, J.
Hydraul. Eng.-Asce, 141, 04015013,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001017, 2015.
Kim, H., Sim, S.-H., Lee, J., Lee, Y.-J., and Kim, J.-M.: Flood fragility
analysis for bridges with multiple failure modes, Adv. Mech. Eng., 9,
1687814017696415, https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017696415, 2017.
Kirby, A., Roca, M., Kitchen, A., Escarameia, M., and Chesterton, O.: Manual
on scour at bridges and other hydraulic structures, second edition (C742),
CIRIA, 320 pp., ISBN 978-0-86017-747-0, 2015.
Kitchen, A., Roca, M., Kirby, A., and Escarameia, M.: Manual on scour at
bridges and other hydraulic structures – supplementary guide (SP171), CIRIA,
78 pp., ISBN 978-0-86017-939-9, 2021.
Komma, J., Reszler, C., Blöschl, G., and Haiden, T.: Ensemble prediction of floods – catchment non-linearity and forecast probabilities, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 7, 431–444, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-7-431-2007, 2007.
Koursari, E. and Wallace, S.: Infrastructure scour management: a case study
for A68 Galadean Bridge, UK, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.: Bridge Eng., 173,
42–49, https://doi.org/10.1680/jbren.18.00062, 2020.
Lagasse, P. F., Clopper, P. E., Zevenbergen, L. W., Spitz, W. J., and
Girard, L. G.: Effects of debris on bridge pier scour, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program 254 (NCHRP) Rep. No. 653, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/22955, 2010.
Lagasse, P. F., Zevenbergen, L. W., Spitz, W., and Arneson, L. A.: Stream
Stability at Highway Structures, Fourth Edition, Hydraulic Engineering
Circular No. 20, Publication No. Fhwa-Hif-12-004, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hif12004.pdf (last access: 3 March 2022), 2012.
Lai, Y. G. and Greimann, B. P.: Predicting contraction scour with a
two-dimensional depth-averaged model, J. Hydraul. Res., 48, 383–387,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2010.481846, 2010.
Lamb, R., Aspinall, W., Odbert, H., and Wagener, T.: Vulnerability of bridges to scour: insights from an international expert elicitation workshop, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1393–1409, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1393-2017, 2017.
Lamb, R., Garside, P., Pant, R., and Hall, J. W.: A Probabilistic Model of
the Economic Risk to Britain's Railway Network from Bridge Scour During
Floods, Risk Anal., 39, 2457–2478, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13370, 2019.
Laursen, E. M. and Toch, A.: Scour Around Bridge Piers and Abutments, HR-30
and Iowa Highway Research Board Bulletin No. 4, http://publications.iowa.gov/id/eprint/20237 (last access: 3 March 2022), 1956.
Le Coz, J., Hauet, A., Pierrefeu, G., Dramais, G., and Camenen, B.:
Performance of image-based velocimetry (LSPIV) applied to flash-flood
discharge measurements in Mediterranean rivers, J. Hydrol., 394, 42–52,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.05.049, 2010.
Lee, S. O., Abid, I., and Hong, S. H.: Effect of complex shape of pier
foundation exposure on time development of scour, Environ. Fluid. Mech., 21,
103–127, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-020-09765-3, 2021.
Liang, F., Wang, C., and Yu, X.: Performance of Existing Methods for
Estimation and Mitigation of Local Scour around Bridges: Case Studies, J.
Perform. Constr. Fac., 33, 04019060,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001329, 2019.
Link, O., Castillo, C., Pizarro, A., Rojas, A., Ettmer, B., Escauriaza, C.,
and Manfreda, S.: A model of bridge pier scour during flood waves, J. Hydraul.
Res., 55, 310–323, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2016.1252802, 2017.
Link, O., García, M., Pizarro, A., Alcayaga, H., and Palma, S.: Local
scour and sediment deposition at bridge piers during floods, J. Hydraul.
Eng., 146, 04020003, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001696,
2020.
Liu, L., Frangopol, D. M., Mondoro, A., and Yang, D. Y.:
Sustainability-informed bridge ranking under scour based on transportation network performance and multiattribute utility, J. Bridge Eng., 23, 04018082, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001296, 2018.
Maddison, B.: Scour failure of bridges, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers-Forensic Engineering, 165, 39–52,
https://doi.org/10.1680/feng.2012.165.1.39, 2012.
Majid, S. A. and Tripathi, S.: Pressure-Flow Scour Due to Vertical
Contraction: A Review, J. Hydraul. Eng., 147, 03121002,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001943, 2021.
Manes, C. and Brocchini, M.: Local scour around structures and the
phenomenology of turbulence, J. Fluid Mech., 779, 309–324,
https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2015.389, 2015.
Maroni, A: SHM-based decision support system for risk management of bridge
scour, PhD Thesis, University of Strathclyde, UK, 2020.
Maroni, A., Tubaldi, E., Ferguson, N., Tarantino, A., McDonald, H., and
Zonta, D.: Electromagnetic sensors for underwater scour
monitoring, Sensors, 20, 4096, https://doi.org/10.3390/s20154096, 2020a.
Mathews, R. and Hardman, M.: Lessons learnt from the December 2015 flood event
in Cumbria, UK, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Forensic
Engineering, 170, 165–178, https://doi.org/10.1680/jfoen.17.00009, 2017.
Melville, B. W. and Coleman, S. E.: Bridge scour, Water Resources
Publication, LLC, Highlands Ranch, USA, ISBN 13 978-1-887201-18-6
ISBN 10 1-887201-18-1, 2000.
Melville, B. W. and Sutherland, A. J.: Design method for local scour at
bridge piers, J. Hydraul. Eng., 114, 1210–1226,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1988)114:10(1210), 1988.
Merz, B., Kuhlicke, C., Kunz, M., Pittore, M., Babeyko, A., Bresch, D. N., Domeisen, D. I. V., Feser, F., Koszalka, I., Kreibich, H., Pantillon, F., Parolai, S., Pinto, J. G., Punge, H. J., Rivalta, E., Schröter, K., Strehlow, K., Weisse, R., and Wurpts, A.: Impact Forecasting to Support Emergency Management of Natural Hazards, Rev. Geophys., 58, 4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020rg000704, 2020.
Middleton, C.: Bridge management and assessment in the UK, in: Austroads
bridge conference, 5TH, 19–21 May 2004, Hobart, Tasmania, ISBN 0855886986, 2004.
Minsker, B., Baldwin, L., Crittenden, J., Kabbes, K., Karamouz, M., Lansey, K., Malinowski, P., Nzewi, E., Pandit, A., Parker, J., Rivera, S., Surbeck, C., Wallace, W., and Williams, J.: Progress and recommendations for advancing
performance-based sustainable and resilient infrastructure design, Water
Res. M., 141, A4015006,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000521, 2015.
Mitoulis, S. A. and Argyroudis, S. A.: Restoration models of flood
resilient bridges: Survey data, Data in Brief, 36, 107088,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107088, 2021.
Mitoulis, S. A., Argyroudis, S. A., Loli, M., and Imam, B.: Restoration
models for quantifying flood resilience of bridges, Eng. Struct., 238, 112180,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112180, 2021.
Mondoro, A. and Frangopol, D. M.: Risk-based cost-benefit analysis for the
retrofit of bridges exposed to extreme hydrologic events considering
multiple failure modes, Eng. Struct., 159, 310–319,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.029, 2018.
Montanari, M., Hostache, R., Matgen, P., Schumann, G., Pfister, L., and Hoffmann, L.: Calibration and sequential updating of a coupled hydrologic-hydraulic model using remote sensing-derived water stages, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 367–380, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-367-2009, 2009.
Moore, M., Phares, B. M., Graybeal, B., Rolander, D., Washer, G., and Wiss, J.: FHWA-RD-01-020 Reliability of Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges, Volume I, Final Report, Federal Highway Administration, West Virginia, USA, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/33883 (last access: 3 March 2022), 2001.
Oliveto, G. and Hager, W. H.: Temporal evolution of clear-water pier and
abutment scour, J. Hydraul. Eng., 128, 811–820,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)128:9(811), 2002.
Oliveto, G. and Hager, W. H.: Further results to time dependent local scour at
bridge elements, J. Hydraul. Eng., 131, 97–105, 2005.
Oudenbroek, K.: Experimental research on hydrodynamic failure of river
bridges on spread footings, Master Thesis, TU Delft, Netherlands, https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:317525a3-e73f-4245-a79e-02005f6fde6f/datastream/OBJ/download (last access: 3 March 2022), 2018a.
Oudenbroek, K., Naderi, N., Bricker, J.D., Yang, Y., Van der Veen, C., Uijttewaal, W., Moriguchi, S., and Jonkman, S. N.: Hydrodynamic and debris-damming
failure of bridge decks and piers in steady flow, Geosciences, 8, 409,
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8110409, 2018b.
Pagliara, S. and Carnacina, I., Temporal scour evolution at bridge piers:
Effect of wood debris roughness and porosity, J. Hydraul. Res., 48, 3–13,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221680903568592, 2010.
Panici, D. and de Almeida, G. A. M.: Formation, growth, and failure of
debris jams at bridge piers, Water Resour. Res., 54, 6226–6241, 2018.
Panici, D. and de Almeida, G. A. M.: Influence of pier geometry and debris
characteristics on the accumulation of woody debris at bridge piers, J.
Hydraul. Eng., 146, 04020041, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001757, 2020.
Park, C. W., Park, H. I., and Cho, Y. K.: Evaluation of the applicability of
pier local scour formulae using laboratory and field data, Mar. Georesour.
Geotec., 35, 1–7, 2017.
Pizarro, A. and Tubaldi, E.: Quantification of modelling uncertainties in
bridge scour risk assessment under multiple flood events, Geosciences,
9, 445, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9100445, 2019.
Pizarro, A., Ettmer, B., Manfreda, S., Rojas, A., and Link, O.:
Dimensionless effective flow work for estimation of pier scour caused by
flood waves, J. Hydraul. Eng., 143, 06017006, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001295, 2017a.
Pizarro, A., Samela, C., Fiorentino, M., Link, O., and Manfreda, S.:
BRISENT: an entropy-based model for bridge-pier scour estimation under
complex hydraulic scenarios, Water, 9, 889, https://doi.org/10.3390/w9110889, 2017b.
Pizarro, A., Manfreda, S., and Tubaldi, E.: The science behind scour at
bridge foundations: A review, Water, 12, 374, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020374, 2020a.
Pizarro, A., Dal Sasso, S. F., and Manfreda, S.: Refining image-velocimetry
performances for streamflow monitoring: Seeding metrics to errors
minimization, Hydrol. Process., 34, 5167–5175,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13919, 2020b.
Porter, K.: Beginner's Guide to Fragility, Vulnerability, and Risk, in: Encyclopedia of
Earthquake Engineering, edited by: Beer, M., Kougioumtzoglou, I. A., Patelli, E., and Au, S. K., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_256, ISBN 978-3-642-35343-7, 2015.
Prendergast, L. J. and Gavin, K.: A review of bridge scour monitoring
techniques, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6,
138–149, 2014.
Prendergast, L. J., Limongelli, M. P., Ademovic, N., Anžlin, A., Gavin, K., and Zanini, M.: Structural health monitoring for performance assessment of
bridges under flooding and seismic actions, Struct. Eng. Int., 28, 296–307, 2018.
Pregnolato, M.: Bridge safety is not for granted – A novel approach to bridge
management, Eng. Struct., 196, 109193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.05.035, 2019.
Qi, M., Li, J., and Chen, Q.: Applicability analysis of pier-scour equations
in the field: Error analysis by rationalizing measurement data, J. Hydraul.
Eng., 144, 04018050, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001497, 2018.
RAC Foundation: Number of substandard road bridges on the rise again,
https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/number-of-substandard-road-bridges-on-the-rise-again,
last access: 3 December 2021.
Richardson, E. V. and Davis, S. R.: Evaluating Scour at Bridges, Hydraulic
Engineering Circular (HEC) No. 18, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, USA, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/50281 (last access: 3 March 2022), 2001.
RiverTrack: Flood Alerting for Resilient Communities,
http://www.rivertrack.org/, last access: 21 December 2021.
Roca, M. and Whitehouse, R.: Scour risk assessment at river crossings, in:
Proceedings of ICSE6 Paris, 27–31 August, 1–10, https://eprints.hrwallingford.com/887/1/HRPP528_Scour_risk_assessment_at_river_crossings.pdf (last access: 3 March 2022), 2012.
Sasidharan, M., Parlikad, A. K., and Schooling, J.: Risk-informed asset
management to tackle scouring on bridges across transport networks, Struct.
Infrastruct. E, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2021.1899249, 2021.
Shahriar, A. R., Ortiz, A. C., Montoya, B. M., and Gabr, M. A.: Bridge Pier
Scour: An overview of factors affecting the phenomenon and comparative
evaluation of selected models, Transportation Geotechnics, 28, 100549, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100549, 2021.
Sharafi, H., Ebtehaj, I., Bonakdari, H., and Zaji, A. H.: Design of a
support vector machine with different kernel functions to predict scour
depth around bridge piers, Nat. Hazards, 84, 2145–2162, 2016.
Sheppard, D. M., Melville, B., and Demir, H.: Evaluation of existing
equations for local scour at bridge piers, J. Hydraul. Eng., 140, 14–23, 2014.
Scozzese, F., Ragni, L., Tubaldi, E., and Gara, F.: Modal properties
variation and collapse assessment of masonry arch bridges under scour
action, Eng. Struct., 199, 109665, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109665, 2019.
Schmocker, L. and Hager, W. H.: Probability of drift blockage at bridge
decks, J. Hydraul. Eng., 137, 470–479, 2011.
Smith, A. W., Argyroudis, S. A., Winter, M. G., and Mitoulis, S. A.:
Economic impact of bridge functionality loss from a resilience perspective:
Queensferry Crossing, UK, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Bridge Engineering, 1–11, Thomas Telford Ltd,
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/full/10.1680/jbren.20.00041 (last access: 3 March 2022), 2021.
Speight, L. J., Cranston, M. D., White, C. J., and Kelly, L.: Operational
and emerging capabilities for surface water flood forecasting, Wires Water,
8, e1517, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1517, 2021.
Takano, H. and Pooley, M.: New UK guidance on hydraulic actions on highway
structures and bridges, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Bridge Engineering, 174, 231–238,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jbren.20.00024, 2021.
Tanasić, N. and Hajdin, R.: Performance indicators for bridges exposed
to a flooding hazard, in: Proceedings of the Joint COST TU 1402 – COST TU
1406-IABSE WC1 Workshop, Zagreb, Croatia, Zagreb, 2–3 March 2017, https://doi.org/10.5592/CO/BSHM2017.3.5, 2017.
Tanasić, N., Ilić, V., and Hajdin, R.: Vulnerability assessment of
bridges exposed to scour, Transp. Res. Record., 2360, 36–44,
https://doi.org/10.3141/2360-05, 2013.
Thacker, S., Barr, S., Pant, R., Hall, J. W., and Alderson, D.: Geographic
Hotspots of Critical National Infrastructure, Risk Anal., 37, 2490–2505,
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12840, 2017.
Transport Scotland: Scour Management Strategy and Flood Emergency Plan.
Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative
study, Springer, ISBN 978-1-4757-3157-6, 2000.
Tubaldi, E., Macorini, L., Izzuddin, B. A., Manes, C., and Laio, F.: A
framework for probabilistic assessment of clear-water scour around bridge
piers, Struct. Saf., 69, 11–22,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2017.07.001, 2017a.
Tubaldi, E., Macorini, L., and Izzuddin, B.: Flood risk assessment of
masonry arch bridges, in: 2nd International Conference on Uncertainty
Quantification in Computational Sciences and Engineering, UNCECOMP, 15–17 June 2017, Rhodes Island, Greece, https://doi.org/10.7712/120217.5358.16942, 2017b.
Tubaldi, E., Macorini, L., and Izzuddin, B. A.: Three-dimensional mesoscale
modelling of multi-span masonry arch bridges subjected to scour, Eng. Struct.,
165, 486–500, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.031, 2018.
Tubaldi, E., Maroni, A., Ferguson, N., and Zonta, D.: Evaluating the benefit
of structural health monitoring for improving bridge resilience against
scour, Deliverable D1 – Report on critical review of alternative techniques
for bridge scour monitoring, National Centre for Resilience, Dumfries,
United Kingdom, https://sway.office.com/paZdmLnyF7wb5Zbh?ref=Link (last access: 3
February 2022), 2020.
Tubaldi, E., Maroni, A., Ferguson, N., and Zonta, D.: Evaluating the benefit
of structural health monitoring for improving bridge resilience against
scour, Deliverable D2 – Framework for sensor data fusion, National Centre
for Resilience, Dumfries, United Kingdom, available upon request, 2021.
Tubaldi, E., Ozer, E., Douglas, J., and Gehl, P.: Examining the contribution
of near real-time data for rapid seismic loss assessment of structures,
Struct. Health Monitoring, 21, 1475921721996218,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921721996218, 2021.
Tucker, S. E., Briaud, J. L., Hurlebaus, S., Everett, M. E., and Arjwech,
R.: Electrical resistivity and induced polarization imaging for unknown
bridge foundations, J. Geotech. Geoenviron., 141, 04015008,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001268, 2015.
Van Leeuwen, Z. and Lamb, R.: Flood and scour related failure incidents at
railway assets between 1846 and 2013, JBA Trust, Skipton, United Kingdom, https://www.jbatrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/JBA-Trust-Flood-and-scour-failure-at-railway-assets-1846-to-2013-W13-4224-FINAL.pdf (last access: 3 March 2022), 2014.
Vardanega, P. J., Gavriel, G., and Pregnolato, M.: Assessing the suitability
of bridge-scour-monitoring devices, in: Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers-Forensic Engineering, 74, https://doi.org/10.1680/jfoen.20.00022, 2021.
Wagenaar, D., Curran, A., Balbi, M., Bhardwaj, A., Soden, R., Hartato, E., Mestav Sarica, G., Ruangpan, L., Molinario, G., and Lallemant, D.: Invited perspectives: How machine learning will change flood risk and impact assessment, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1149–1161, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1149-2020, 2020.
Wang, C., Yu, X., and Liang, F.: Comparison and estimation of the local scour
depth around pile groups and wide piers, in Geotechnical Frontiers, edited by: Brandon, T. L. and Valentine, R. J., ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, 11–19,
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480465.002, 2017.
Wetterhall, F. and Di Giuseppe, F.: The benefit of seamless forecasts for hydrological predictions over Europe, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3409–3420, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3409-2018, 2018.
White, C. J, Carlsen, H., Robertson, A. W, Klein, R. J. T., Lazo, J. K., Kumar, A., Vitart, F., de Perez, E. C., Ray, A. J., Murray, V., Bharwani, S., MacLeod, D., James, R., Fleming, L., Morse, A. P., Eggen, B., Graham, R., Kjellstrom, E., Becker, E., Pegion, K. V., Holbrook, N. J., McEvoy, D., Depledge, M., Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S., Brown, T. J., Street, R., Jones, L., Remenyi, T. A., Hodgson-Johnston, I., Buontempo, C., Lamb, R., Meinke, H., Arheimer, B., and Zebiak, S. E.: Potential applications of
subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) predictions, Meteorol. Appl., 24, 315–325,
https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1654, 2017.
Wiggins, D., Mudd, K., and Healey, M.: Rehabilitation of Brougham Castle
Bridge, UK, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering
History and Heritage, 172, 7–18, https://doi.org/10.1680/jenhh.18.00027, 2019.
Wu, R. T. and Jahanshahi, M. R.: Data fusion approaches for structural
health monitoring and system identification: past, present, and future,
Struct. Health Monitoring, 19, 552–586,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921718798769, 2020.
Ye, C., Butler, L., Calka, B., Iangurazov, M., Lu, Q., Gregory, A., Girolami, M., and Middleton, C.: A digital twin of bridges for structural health monitoring,
in: Structural Health Monitoring 2019: Enabling Intelligent Life-Cycle Health
Management for Industry Internet of Things (IIOT), Proceedings of the 12th
International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring,
https://doi.org/10.12783/shm2019/32287, 2019.
Yu, W., Nakakita, E., Kim, S., and Yamaguchi, K.: Impact assessment of
uncertainty propagation of ensemble NWP rainfall to flood forecasting with
catchment scale, Adv. Meteorol., 2016, 1384302, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1384302, 2016.
Zampieri, P., Zanini, M. A., Faleschini, F., Hofer, L., and Pellegrino, C.:
Failure analysis of masonry arch bridges subject to local pier scour, Eng.
Fail. Anal., 79, 371–384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.05.028,
2017.
Download
The requested paper has a corresponding corrigendum published. Please read the corrigendum first before downloading the article.
- Article
(1800 KB) - Full-text XML
Short summary
Bridges are critical infrastructure components of transport networks. A large number of these critical assets cross or are adjacent to waterways and are therefore exposed to the potentially devastating impact of floods. This paper discusses a series of issues and areas where improvements in research and practice are required in the context of risk assessment and management of bridges exposed to flood hazard, with the ultimate goal of guiding future efforts in improving bridge flood resilience.
Bridges are critical infrastructure components of transport networks. A large number of these...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint