Search USGSSearch

USGS · ofr97364

Level II scour analysis for Bridge 12 (CHESVT01030012) on State Highway 103, crossing the Williams River, Chester, Vermont

Abstract

This report provides the results of a detailed Level II analysis of scour potential at structure CHESVT01030012 on State Route 103 crossing the Williams River, Chester, Vermont (figures 1–8). A Level II study is a basic engineering analysis of the site, including a quantitative analysis of stream stability and scour (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1993). Results of a Level I scour investigation also are included in Appendix E of this report. A Level I investigation provides a qualitative geomorphic characterization of the study site. Information on the bridge, gleaned from Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTAOT) files, was compiled prior to conducting Level I and Level II analyses and is found in Appendix D. The site is in the New England Upland section of the New England physiographic province in eastern Vermont. The 23.9-mi 2 drainage area is in a predominantly rural and forested basin. In the vicinity of the study site, the surface cover is pasture on the downstream right and upstream left overbank areas and short grass on the downstream left and upstream right overbank areas. The surface cover along the upstream and downstream immediate banks consists of trees and brush. In the study area, the the Williams River has an incised, sinuous channel with a slope of approximately 0.0054 ft/ft, an average channel top width of 75 ft and an average bank height of 4 ft. The predominant channel bed material is gravel with a median grain size (D 50 ) of 52.4 mm (0.172 ft). The geomorphic assessment at the time of the Level I and Level II site visit on September 18, 1996, indicated that the reach was laterally unstable. The State Route 103 crossing of the Williams River is a 99-ft-long, two-lane bridge consisting of three concrete T-beam spans (Vermont Agency of Transportation, written communication, March 29, 1995). The bridge is supported by two piers and vertical, concrete abutments with wingwalls and spill-through slopes. The channel is skewed approximately 20 degrees to the opening while the opening-skew-to-roadway is 0 degrees. Downstream of the bridge are the remains of a dam which is acting as a drop structure. A scour hole, approximately 3 ft deeper than the mean thalweg depth, was observed along the upstream left bank extending from 78 ft upstream of the upstream bridge face to 25 ft downstream of the downstream bridge face during the Level I assessment. Lateral migration of the channel has resulted in flow being directed at an angle to the piers, which has resulted in increased local scour at the bridge. The scour protection measures at the site included type-2 stone fill (less than 36 inches diameter) under the bridge along the entire base length of the left and right spill-through slopes and extending up to the abutments. Type-2 stone fill (less than 36 inches diameter) scour protection was also found along the upstream left bank from the bridge to 46 ft upstream and along the downstream right bank from the bridge to 70 ft downstream. Rock walls were found along the left bank from 88 ft to 200 ft downstream and along the right bank from 124 ft to 224 ft downstream. There are two wood pile drop structures located at 47 ft and 61 ft downstream of the bridge. Additional details describing conditions at the site are included in the Level II Summary and Appendices D and E. Scour depths and recommended rock rip-rap sizes were computed using the general guidelines described in Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18 (Richardson and others, 1995). Total scour at a highway crossing is comprised of three components: 1) long-term streambed degradation; 2) contraction scour (due to accelerated flow caused by a reduction in flow area at a bridge) and; 3) local scour (caused by accelerated flow around piers and abutments). Total scour is the sum of the three components. Equations are available to compute depths for contraction and local scour and a summary of the results of these computations follows. Contraction scour for all modelled flows ranged from 0.0 to 0.2 ft. The worst-case contraction scour occurred at the 500-year discharge. Abutment scour ranged from 4.0 to 12.4 ft along the right spill-through abutment and from 8.4 to 10.7 ft along the left spill- through abutment. The worst-case abutment scour occurred at the 500-year discharge. Pier scour ranged from 7.1 to 8.9 ft along Pier 1 ( northerly pier) and from 13.5 to 17.1 ft along Pier 2 (southerly pier). The worst case pier scour occurred at the 500-year discharge. Additional information on scour depths and depths to armoring are included in the section titled “Scour Results”. Scoured -streambed elevations, based on the calculated scour depths, are presented in tables 1 and 2. A cross-section of the scour computed at the bridge is presented in figure 8. Scour depths were calculated assuming an infinite depth of erosive material and a homogeneous particle-size distribution. It is generally accepted that the Froehlich equation (abutment scour) gives “excessively conservative estimates of scour depths” (Richardson and others, 1995, p. 47). Usually, computed scour depths are evaluated in combination with other information including (but not limited to) historical performance during flood events, the geomorphic stability assessment, existing scour protection measures, and the results of the hydraulic analyses. Therefore, scour depths adopted by VTAOT may differ from the computed values documented herein.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 43.25° to 43.375° latitude; -72.625° to -72.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert H. Flynn, Ronda L. Burns. 1997. Level II scour analysis for Bridge 12 (CHESVT01030012) on State Highway 103, crossing the Williams River, Chester, Vermont. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr97364

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona