Debris Loads, Bridge/Culvert failure, and Climate Change Identifying stream reaches most susceptible to climate-exacerbated debris load

Transcription

1 Debris Loads, Bridge/Culvert failure, and Climate Change Identifying stream reaches most susceptible to climate-exacerbated debris load Seth Lawler, Mathew Mampara, Kristine Mosuela, Mathini Sreetharan

2 Debris Accumulation & Scour Wears away earth and soil that anchors piers Compromises capacity to withstand lateral forces (flow, accumulated debris, cars)

3 Bradley, J.B. et al., Debris Control Structures Evaluation and Countermeasures, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 9. US Department of Transportation, FHWA. October Cook, W. Bridge Failure Rates, Consequences, and Predictive Trends, Utah State University Lee, et. al. A Study of U.S. Bridge Failures ( ), Technical Report MCEER Trent, R. An Evaluation of Highway Flood Damage Statistics, ASCE Water Forum Wardhana, K. Analysis of Recent Bridge Failures in the United States, ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Impact Scour and flood cause ~half of all bridge failures FHWA ~$20 million/year spent on repairing failed bridges HEC-09

4 NYSERDA & NYSDOT Identify HUC-12 s most at risk Climate Resilience à Increased temperatures& precipitation Bradley, J.B. et al., Debris Control Structures Evaluation and Countermeasures, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 9. US Department of Transportation, FHWA. October 2005.

5 Debris Risk: 3 main components 2 1 Transport 3 Generation Accumulation

6 Debris Risk: 3 main components 2 1 Transport 3 Generation Accumulation

7 Debris Risk: 3 main components 2 1 Transport 3 Generation Accumulation _erosion.jpg

8 Debris Risk: 3 main components 2 1 Generation Transport 3 Accumulation _erosion.jpg

9 Data: Structures NYGIS Data Clearing House: 1. ~20,000 Bridges (blue) 2. ~10,00 Large Culverts (red)

10 Data: Structures at Crossings NYGIS Data Clearing House: 1. ~20,000 Bridges (blue) Ø 10,000 crossing waterways 2. ~10,000 Large Culverts (blue) Ø 1,500 crossing waterways

11 #1: Generation Channel bank stability Stream power Debris type

12 #1: Generation Soil Data Channel bank stability Initial Data Source Stream power Debris type

13 #1: Generation Soil Data Channel bank stability Initial Data Source Stream power Surficial geology Debris type

14 #1: Generation USGS Equations Channel bank stability Stream power Ω = QS USGS 10m DEM Stream power = Flow x Slope Dewberry Debris study Type

15 #1: Generation Bridge/Culvert points Channel bank stability Stream power SSURGO Soil Classification Debris Type

16 #2: Transport Debris Geometry & Channel Characteristics Flow Index Sinuosity 40d9328f3471b936d618fd53105f84713b99af4-s900-c85.jpg

17 #2: Transport SSURGO Debris Geometry & Channel Characteristics Flow Index Sinuosity Lagasse, P. F. et al, Effects of Debris on Bridge Pier Scour, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 653. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies

18 #2: Transport Debris Geometry & Channel Characteristics Flow Index Sinuosity Lagasse, P. F. et al, Effects of Debris on Bridge Pier Scour, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 653. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies

19 #2: Transport Debris Geometry & Channel Characteristics Flow Index Current Discharges Bankfull Discharges Sinuosity Recurrence Interval Flow Threshold for Debris Transport? Lagasse

20 #2: Transport Debris Geometry & Channel Characteristics Flow Index Sinuosity Abrupt turns in smaller waterways near the bridge approach

21 #2: Transport Debris Geometry & Channel Characteristics Flow Index Sinuosity Abrupt turns in smaller waterways near the bridge approach

22 #2: Transport Debris Geometry & Channel Characteristics Flow Index Sinuosity Abrupt turns in smaller waterways near the bridge approach

23 Bradley, J.B. et al., Debris Control Structures Evaluation and Countermeasures, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 9. US Department of Transportation, FHWA. October Parola, A. Highway Infrastructure Damage Caused by the 1993 Upper Mississippi River Basin Flooding, Transportation Research Board #3: Accumulation Impediments to flow: Piers & Abutments Presence Orientation Span HEC-09

24 *Climate Variability HEC-09 USGS Future Flows tool HEC

25 Analysis: Risk Factors Risk Factor Name Description SP Stream Power Hydraulic force working on channel banks EF Erodibility Factor Soil erodibility potential LL/CW DRW/CD Log Length vs. Channel Width Factor Debris Root Width vs. Channel Depth Factor Ratio of log length to channel width Ratio of root mass diameter to channel depth SI Sinuosity Index Degree of sinuosity of reach FI Flow Index Nearest return interval flow at calculated bankfull discharge P Piers Presence and orientation of piers FFI Future Flow Index Projected change in future flow CRF Climate Risk Factor Climate induced change in risk

26 Analysis: Weighting & Regression Regression Equation DR = 1 + e '() *+), -, +) ) 0-0 ) '2 DR = X 0 + a 1 X 1 + a 2 X a N X N

27 Analysis: Validation & Calibration Risk Factor Name Description SP Stream Power Hydraulic force working on channel banks EF Erodibility Factor Soil erodibility potential LL/CW DRW/CD Log Length vs. Channel Width Factor Debris Root Width vs. Channel Depth Factor Ratio of log length to channel width Ratio of root mass diameter to channel depth SI Sinuosity Index Degree of sinuosity of reach FI Flow Index Nearest return interval flow at calculated bankfull discharge P Piers Presence and orientation of piers FFI Future Flow Index Projected change in future flow CRF Climate Risk Factor Climate induced change in risk

28 Final Products HUC 12 Level Assessment Interactive Notebooks HEC-09 Attributed data for each Crossing

29 Outstanding Tasks Finalizing methodology HEC-09 Developing regression equations Validating methodology on test cases Individual and Total risk factor development for NY bridges and culverts Statewide application and HUC-12 based risk factor development HEC-09 Develop Updated Design Standards to Reduce Debris-caused Failure

30 Open Source Tools

31 Questions?