Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 11002
Number of page(s) 4
Section Risk evaluation and assessment
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. Kirby A.M., Roca M., Kitchen A., Escarameia M. and Chesterton O.J. (2015). Manual on scour at bridges and Web hydraulic structures, 2nd edition, Report C742, CIRIA, London, 320 pp. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kattell J. and Eriksson M. (1998). Bridge Scour Evaluation: Screening, Analysis, and Countermeasures, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Technology & Development Program, 7700-Transportation Systems, Report 9877 1207-SDTDC, 12pp ( [Google Scholar]
  3. Rail Safety and Standards Board (2004). Impact of scour and flood risk on railway structures, Infrastructure Integrity (4) Research Theme: Report Number T112. [Google Scholar]
  4. van Leeuwen Z. and Lamb R. (2014). Flood and scour related failure incidents at railway assets between 1846 and 2013, JBA Trust Report W13-4224, Skipton, UK, [Google Scholar]
  5. Melville B. (1997). Pier and abutment scour: Integrated approach, ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123, 125–136. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Melville B.W. and Chiew Y.M. (1999). Time Scale for Local Scour at Bridge Piers, ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 25, 59–65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Coleman S.E., Lauchlan C.S. and Melville B.W. (2003). Clear-water scour development at bridge abutments, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 41, 521-531, DOI: 10.1080/00221680309499997 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hong J-H., Goyal M.K., Chiew Y-M., Chua L.H.C. (2012). Predicting time-dependent pier scour depth with support vector regression, Journal of Hydrology, DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.038 [Google Scholar]
  9. Department for Transport, Table RAI0101, London, [Google Scholar]
  10. Marti-Henneberg J. (2013). European integration and national models for railway networks (1840-2010), Journal of Transport Geography, 26, 126-138, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.09.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Haywood R. (2007). Britain’s national railway network: fit for purpose in the 21st century?, Journal of Transport Geography 15, 198-216, doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.02.015 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bradbrook K., Waller S. and Morris D. (2005). National floodplain mapping: datasets and methods: 160,000 km in 12 months. Natural Hazards, 36, 103–123. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lamb R., Keef C., Tawn J., Laeger S., Medowcroft I., Surendran S., Dunning P., Batstone C. (2010). A new method to assess the risk of local and widespread flooding on rivers and coasts, Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Porter K., Kennedy R. and Bachman R. (2007). Creating Fragility Functions for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Spectra, 23, 471–489 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nelder J.A. and Mead R. (1965). A simplex algorithm for function minimization, Computer Journal 7, 308–313 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. McCullagh P. and Nelder J.A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition, Volume 37, Chapman and Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, CRC Press, 532 pp [Google Scholar]
  17. Heffernan J. E. and Tawn J. A. (2004). A conditional approach for multivariate extreme values. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Statistical Methodology), 66, 497–546 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Keef C., Tawn J., and Lamb R. (2013). Estimating the probability of widespread flood events. Environmetrics, 24, 13–21 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Pant R., Blainey S.P., Hall J.W. and Preston J.M. (2016). Criticality assessment of a national railway network to inform risk and resilience estimation. Risk Analysis, in review. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.