Table 3 Comparison of the present study results with similar studies.

Pagliara and Carnacina

¹¹

Rec

Tri

Cylindrical

0.0–-1

–

ds for Rec > Tri > Cylindrical

higher the thickness, higher the \({h}_{s}\)

\({h}_{s}\) with debris up to 3 times without debris

Dias et al

³⁹

Rec

Tri

0.33, 0.67

–

ds for Rec is 20% more than the Tri

26% increasing the debris submersion ratio increases the scour depth by 36%

Al-Jubouri et al.⁴³

Rec,

Tri Bow (TB),

High Wedge (HW), Low Wedge (LW),

Tri Yield (TY)

Half Cylinder (HC)

0.25–0.1

–

The scour depth in HW > Rec > HC > LW > TB > TY

increasing the \({T}_{d}/h\) from 0.25 to 0.5 increased the \({d}_{s}\) by 30 to 50%

Ebrahimi et al.⁴¹

Rec

semi-C

0.03–0.195

–

ds for Rec > Tri > semi-C

increasing the \({T}_{d}/h\) from 0.25 to 0.5 increased the \({d}_{s}\) by 59%

Fakhimjoo et al.⁴⁶

–

–

0.075

0.15

0.3

increasing the \({d}_{ap}/B\) from 0.075 To 0.3 decreased the scour depth by 42%

Present study

Rec

Semi-C

Tri

0.09–0.39

0.1

0.2

Accumulation of debris significantly increased the ds

Scour depth for Rec debris was more than semi-C debris followed by Tri debris

Increasing relative thickness of Rec debris caused 41% and 47% increase in scour depth at the pier and the abutment, respectively

Maximum scour depth was observed close to the abutment

Reducing pier-to-abutment distance increased the scour depth