2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2013.05.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An evaluation of scour measurement devices

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
32
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Measures of bed elevation require some further comments. Although echosounders are standard in marine environments and widely used for riverbed surveys, literature suggests that they may present some criticalities as permanent sensors of riverbed elevation; in particular, during high‐velocity flow conditions, signals may be disturbed by the turbidity of the water and/or presence of air bubbles; moreover, depending on the geometry of the bridge, it may not be easy to mount them in such a way that the echoes are not disturbed by the bridge foundations; finally, their periodical inspection may be critical, especially for bridges over large rivers. We consequently installed the sedimeter that, despite its lower spatial and temporal resolution with respect to the echosounder, does not suffer from flow disturbances, thus providing a robust cross‐check for the identification of the bed elevation.…”
Section: Alternative Approach To Structural Risk: Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measures of bed elevation require some further comments. Although echosounders are standard in marine environments and widely used for riverbed surveys, literature suggests that they may present some criticalities as permanent sensors of riverbed elevation; in particular, during high‐velocity flow conditions, signals may be disturbed by the turbidity of the water and/or presence of air bubbles; moreover, depending on the geometry of the bridge, it may not be easy to mount them in such a way that the echoes are not disturbed by the bridge foundations; finally, their periodical inspection may be critical, especially for bridges over large rivers. We consequently installed the sedimeter that, despite its lower spatial and temporal resolution with respect to the echosounder, does not suffer from flow disturbances, thus providing a robust cross‐check for the identification of the bed elevation.…”
Section: Alternative Approach To Structural Risk: Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Simple systems such as Float-Out Devices and Tethered Buried Switches [6,7] float out of the soil when scour reaches their installed depth, triggering a signal. Time-Domain Reflectometry (TDR) systems use changes in dielectric permittivity to monitor the location of the soil-water interface relative to a fixed probe [8,9]. Similarly, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) can be used to detect scour holes using high frequency electromagnetic waves, which are partially reflected as they pass through different media [3,10].…”
Section: Direct Monitoring Of Bridge Scour Using Depthmeasuring Instrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) can be used to detect scour holes using high frequency electromagnetic waves, which are partially reflected as they pass through different media [3,10]. Sound wave devices such as Sonic Fathometers [5,9,11], Reflection Seismic Profilers [5,10] and Echo Sounders [10] emit sonic pulses to locate the soil-water interface and, hence, the scour depth, using a similar approach to the radar methods. A variety of methods rely on the installation of rods into the soil near a foundation.…”
Section: Direct Monitoring Of Bridge Scour Using Depthmeasuring Instrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To 3.3-5 overcome limitations in this assessment process, significant efforts have been made to design remote systems capable of relaying information about scour reducing the need for manual intervention. These systems can be broadly categorized as follows (Prendergast & Gavin 2014): single-use devices (NCHRP 2009;Briaud et al 2011), pulse or radar devices (Forde et al 1999;Yu 2009;Yankielun & Zabilansky 1999), buried or driven rod systems (NCHRP 2009;De Falco & Mele 2002;Zarafshan et al 2012;Fisher et al 2013), sound-wave devices (Nassif et al 2002;Fisher et al 2013;Anderson et al 2007), fiber-Bragg grating devices (Lin et al 2006;May et al 2002) and electrical conductivity devices (Anderson et al 2007). Table 1 gives an overview of the function and detection methodology of a number of types of instrument available.…”
Section: Shm For Scourmentioning
confidence: 99%