Assessment of Hydraulic and Structural Interactions for Bridges

A. Melih Yanmaz
1
, and Secil Kurkcuoglu
2


Hydrologic, hydraulic and structural design steps of a bridge should be carried out in an interactive
and consecutive manner such that the bridge is safe under all physically possible structural and
hydraulic loading conditions. Unless the hydraulic and structural conformities are satisfied jointly
at an optimum level, the hydraulic conditions of the river in close vicinity of the bridge may be
adversely affected, eg., formation of a considerable backwatering, increased scouring potential
around bridge piers and abutments, formation of a hydraulic jump through the bridge opening, etc.
These modes lead to a reduction in the overall strength of the structure to withstand excessive
external effects under severe conditions. Investigation of the mutual interaction among the type of
bridge opening, geometric details and size of bridge piers and abutments, span length and slab
thickness of the bridge for various hydraulic and structural loading combinations provide valuable
information for the decision making in the planning and design stages. An application is carried out
to examine the aforementioned interactions among the governing factors.

Keywords: bridge, hydraulics, structural analysis, loading, bride opening, pier, abutment

1 Introduction

Design of a bridge crossing a wide river is highly complicated because of mutual interactions among
hydraulic, structural and geotechnical aspects. In the conventional bridge design, the main emphasis has
been given to the structural details concerning load distributions as a function of various combinations of
live and dead loads, type of material and structural system, etc. Recent statistical analyses on the failure of
river bridges show that the main cause of failure is the underestimates of hydraulic details (Ortiz, 1998;
Lagasse, et al., 1998).

Consideration of hydraulic and structural interactions in the design is of utmost importance for bridges
located in flood-prone zones. Hydraulic conditions of a river during the passage of a severe flood alter
progressively that may affect the bridge stability adversely. A safe structural design may impose placement
of a set of thick piers. However, this leads to a high constriction at the bridge opening which may result in a
considerable backwatering at the upstream and formation of a hydraulic jump at the downstream and
upstream in case of a mild and steep slopes, respectively. A thick slab, which may be required due to the
given structural loading, would decrease the available freeboard and may lead to pressure or weir types of
flows during severe floods.

The aim of this study is to investigate the mutual interaction among the type of bridge opening, geometric
details and size of bridge piers and abutments, span length and slab thickness of the bridge under various
hydraulic and structural loading combinations.

In a case study, the aforementioned interactions among the governing factors will be examined. A set of
alternatives will be assessed from view points of safety, hydraulic conformity, and structural requirements.
____________________________________
1
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University, 06531, Ankara, Turkey
2
M. Sc. Student, Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University, 06531, Ankara, Turkey


2 Structural Design Aspects of Bridges

Proper bridge design should start with the selection of a suitable construction site. The narrowest and the
straight portion of a river may be assumed to be a suitable site where intermediary piers in the flow section
may not be required. However, the alignment of a highway may sometimes restrict the design engineer to
construct the bridge at a river site where unfavorable interactions among structural and hydraulic
parameters may be generated. Structural design of a bridge is composed of designs of superstructure and
substructure. With this perspective, the forces acting on highway bridges are stipulated in the specifications
of the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as follows: dead
loads, live loads and their impact effects, wind loads, and other forces, such as longitudinal forces,
centrifugal forces, thermal forces, earth pressure, buoyancy, shrinkage stresses, rib shortening, erection
stresses, ice pressure, current pressure and earthquake stresses.

Dead loads consist of the weight of the entire structure including the roadway, sidewalks, car tracks, pipes,
conduits, cables, and other public utility services. Live loads are nonstationary loads due to all types of
vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrians. The lane loading or standard truck is assumed to occupy a width of
3 m and is placed in 3.5 m wide design traffic lanes spaced across the entire roadway width measured
between curbs. The traffic lanes are placed in such numbers and positions on the roadway and the loads
are placed in such positions within their individual traffic lanes, so as to produce the maximum stress in the
member under consideration. Two systems of live loading are provided, the H loadings and the HS
loadings being heavier than the corresponding H loadings. The H loadings, which are designated by H
followed by a number indicating the gross weight in tons of standard truck, consist of a two-axle truck or
the corresponding lane loading. The HS loading are designated by the letters of HS followed by a number
indicating the gross weight in tons of the tractor truck. Impact load can be defined as a suddenly applied
load. The interaction of moving loads and the bridge superstructure leads to a dynamic amplification of
moving loads, resulting in vibrations and increased stresses. Wind loads form a major component of lateral
loads. Longitudinal forces act in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the bridge, i.e., in the direction of
the traffic which develop as a result of barking due to sudden stoppage or the tractive effort due to sudden
acceleration. The centrifugal force originates from the dynamics of the vehicle motion along a curved path
and is transmitted to the path itself, the bridge deck. Temperature variations cause bridges to expand and
contract. All piers and other portions of structures that are subject to the force of flowing water, floating ice,
or drift shall be designed to resist the maximum stresses induced thereby. Abutments and wing walls are
subject to lateral earth pressure. Earthquake forces should also be taken into account depending on the
location of the bridge (AASHTO, 1996).

A bridge and its all components should be designed to safely resist all loads to which it may be subjected
during its service life. In recognition of the improbability of the simultaneous application of all potential loads
at their maximum levels, a bridge and its components should be designed for suitable combinations of these
loads determined by combining maximum levels of some loads with partial values of other loads. There are
two approaches in the design according to the loading combinations, i.e., service load design and load
factor design. Group loading combinations for these approaches are given by (AASHTO, 1996):

[ ]
G D CF E B SF W WL LF EQ i
N D L C E B S W WL L R EQ i
+ + + + + + + + + + + (1)

where G
N
is the group number; is the load factor; is a multiplicative coefficient reflecting type of load; D
is the dead load; L is the live load; = L+I; I is the live load impact; E is the earth pressure; B is the
buoyancy; W is the wind load on the structure; WL is the wind load on live load; LF is the longitudinal
force from live load; CF is the centrifugal force; R is rib shortening; S is the shrinkage; T is the temperature;
=R+S+T; EQ is the earthquake; SF is the stream flow pressure, and i is the ice pressure. Values of
coefficients can be obtained from (AASHTO, 1996). Selection of relevant loads or groups is dictated by
the local conditions, type of bridge, characteristics and intensity of traffic, etc. Flexural members of bridges
should be designed to have adequate stiffness to limit deflections or any deformations that may adversely
affect the strength or serviceability of the structure at service load plus impact. Members having simple or
continuous spans should preferably be designed so that the deflection due to service live load plus impact
shall not exceed 1/800 of the span length, except on bridges in urban areas used in part by pedestrians
whereon the ratio shall not exceed 1/1000 of the span length (AASHTO, 1996).

3 Hydraulic Aspects of Bridge Design

The overall dimensions of a bridge are determined through a joint consideration of hydraulic and structural
requirements. Bridge piers and abutments form a hydraulic discontinuity in the flow and create an
interaction with the flow. A bridge can, therefore, be considered as an internal boundary condition for a
river engineering problem. Four different types of bridge openings are defined according to geometric
details of bridge piers and abutments and their orientation with respect to each other and the flow axis.
Type 1 bridge opening is composed of vertical embankments and vertical abutments with or without
wingwalls. Sloping embankments and vertical abutments comprise type 2 bridge opening. Type 3 bridge
opening has sloping embankments and sloping abutments and type 4 opening has sloping embankments and
vertical abutments with wingwalls (Chow, 1959 and French, 1987).

Forces produced by the flow on the piers are normally smaller than the structural loads. However, a
special emphasis should be given to the critical cases which may result from a high degree of constriction at
the bridge opening. To this end, the flow profile through the given bridge opening should be examined
under all possible flow rates with respect to backwater and scour computations. The backwater profile
under low flow conditions as shown in Figure 1 can be obtained by:

Q C A
y
C
A
A
gC
A
K
L L
K
K
d
e d d w

_
,
+

_
,
+

_
,

1
]
1
1
1
1
1
4 43
1 2
3
2 3
1
2
2 3
3
2
3
1
1/ 2
.

(2)

where Q is the discharge; C
d
is a discharge coefficient which is function of the contraction ratio, =b
3
/b
4
;
geometric characteristics of piers and abutments; Froude number at section 3; angle of attack of the
approach flow with the pier axis; slope of the embankments, etc., A
1
and A
3
are the flow areas at sections
1 and 3, respectively; y is the difference in water surface elevations between sections 1 and 3;
e
is the
energy correction coefficient at section 1; g is the gravitational acceleration; L
w
is the horizontal distance
between the upstream face of the bridge and section 1 through which the backwatering is effective; L is the
width of the roadway, and K
1
and K
3
are the conveyances at sections 1 and 3, respectively.














a) Profile











b) Plan
Figure 1. Definition sketch for low flow through a bridge opening.

Section 1 in Figure 1 is assumed to be located a distance approximately equal to the width of the bridge
opening upstream from the bridge. Application of Equation 2 is based on the availability of relevant
hydraulic information at section 3. Under low flow conditions, the flow depth at the downstream face of the
bridge opening, y
3
, is increased to the normal depth y
n
=y
4
over a distance x as shown in Figure 1.
Henderson (1966) states that the value of x is approximately equal to 2(b
4
-b
3
). The flow depth y
3
in a
rectangular channel can be determined using the momentum equation between sections 3 and 4:

( )
y b y b y b b
Q
g
u
Q
b y
3
2
3 4
2
4 4
2
4 3
4
3 3
2 2 2
+

_
,
(3)

where is the specific weight of water and u
4
is the average flow velocity at section 4. For given flow
conditions, there is a critical value of the contraction which corresponds to the critical flow through the
bridge opening. Structural requirements may sometimes dictate a further contraction of the opening beyond
the critical contraction ratio,
c
. This leads to choked flow conditions at the upstream and formation of a
hydraulic jump in close vicinity of the opening. Increased backwatering at the upstream would decrease the
flow carrying capacity of the river under low flow conditions. Pressure and weir types of flow may then be
expected during the passage of extreme flows through the bridge opening which would cause undesirable
inundation and danger to the traffic on the bridge. The critical contraction ratio,
c
, can be obtained by
combining the energy and continuity equations between sections 3 and 4 as follows:

(2)
b
2

(4) (1)
b
1
b
4
b
3

(3)
y
4

x


y
3


y
n

y
1
y
2

L
w

L

( )

c
r
r
F
F

+
27
2
3
4
2
4
2
3

(4)

in which is the energy loss factor between sections 3 and 4 and F
r4
is the Froude number at section 4.
The hydraulic conformity of the bridge opening should be tested under all possible flow conditions that are
likely to occur at the bridge site. The flow duration curve of the river, which may be obtained from the
records of a nearby stream gaging station or derived synthetically, can be used to determine the range of
flows which are expected under certain frequencies.

4 Assessment of Hydraulic and Structural Interactions

From viewpoints of hydraulic conformities, the bridge opening should be large and slab elevation must be
high enough to pass the design flood without creating excessive backwater and causing pressure and weir
types of flows. Degree of backwatering depends on the flow velocity and the contraction ratio. Although
structural requirements may sometimes dictate the use of massive piers or long approach embankments
encroaching on the waterway of the stream, the resultant constriction may be beyond the hydraulically
tolerable limits. As the overall stability of the bridge decreases due to poor hydraulic conditions, the
designer may either be supposed to search for a narrower section where intermediary piers may not be
required or a number of thin piers may be selected to carry the structural loads safely to the foundation.
Change of the type of structural system, which may withstand to the given loading under greater span
lengths, can also be considered. An economic design not only requires the determination of minimum clear
length of span that will not cause intolerable backwater conditions but would also satisfy the structural
design requirements. In case of wide rivers, it may be necessary to construct multi-spans. However, the
location of the piers in the flow section is important from hydraulics viewpoint. The piers should not be
located at the high flow velocity zones in the cross-section. Determination of a detailed velocity profile and
isovels in the bridge opening would provide a useful information for the location of piers. Bridge piers
located at high velocity zones can be subject to considerable scours during severe floods. An example to
such a deficiency is given for the piers of Afsin Inci and Icel Delicay bridges in Turkey which were
damaged due to accelerated scours around bridge piers during floods (Yanmaz, 1994).

5 Application

A slab type reinforced concrete bridge will be constructed at a hypothetical site in an urban area where the
mean bed slope of the river is 0.0005. The trained river is rectangular in cross-section having the width of
80 m. The bed material has the following characteristic sizes: D
50
=1 mm, D
65
=1.5 mm, D
90
=1.8 mm. The
flow duration curve and the corresponding flow frequency histogram of a nearby stream gaging station
having 27 years of record length are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. A set of alternatives, that
satisfy structural and hydraulic requirements jointly, will be generated for final decision making. The height
of the slab above the river thalweg is obtained by adding a proper freeboard to the flow depth obtained
under 100-year return period. A flood frequency analysis is performed for the stream gaging station. The
log-Pearson type 3 distribution is selected on the basis of test of goodness using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
technique under 90% confidence interval. The 100-year discharge is obtained as 78 m
3
/s.
Figure 2. Flow duration curve for the application

Figure 3. Frequency histogram of flows for the application

The rating curve at section 4 is obtained using the Engelund-Hansen method (Simons and Senturk, 1992).
The structural loading is accepted to be the group 3 in which the wind load, moving load, dead load, wind
load on moving load and impact load are considered. The loading group is obtained according to the
specifications of AASHTO (1996) as follows:

WL 3 . 1 W 39 . 0 L 35 . 1 D 3 . 1 G
3
+ + + (5)

The impact load and longitudinal load are taken as 30% and 5% of live load, respectively. Sidewalk
loading is considered in the live load by increasing the load factor of impact. Wind load is considered to be
1.5 kN/m in the direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bridge in one direction. Wind
loads on vehicles are taken as 1.5 kN/m along the bridge. The maximum allowable deflection is accepted
as 1/1000 of the span length. HS 20-44 truck loading, a heavy loading for a bridge located in an urban
area, is considered. In the structural computations, 22 cases are considered in which various combinations
of span lengths and number of piers, n
p
, are tested. SAP-2000 computer program (Structural Analysis
Program, 1995) is used throughout the computations. The results of the structural computations are
outlined in Table 1 in which
+
m
M is the maximum positive moment in the span;

m
M is the maximum negative
moment at the supports;
+
m
V and

m
V are the positive and negative shear forces at the supports,
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Q (m
3
/s)
%

t
i
m
e
0.003 0.004
0.012 0.015
0.036
0.050
0.113
0.252
0.305
0.116
0.077
0.017
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
70 60 50 40 30 25 20 15 10 8 7 0.8
Q (m
3
/s)
f
respectively; L
1
is the length of the longer span; L
2
is the length of the shorter span; is the deflection of the
span, and d is the slab thickness. Various slab thicknesses are tested against the maximum deflection of the
span. The remarks on the deflection are presented in column 10 of Table 1 with abbreviations A and NA
for allowable and not allowable cases, respectively. As can be observed from Table 1, the maximum slab
thickness tested for a particular combination of span lengths is accepted. For the alternatives having
structural safety against deflection should further be analyzed for the hydraulic conformity. In this study, the
hydraulic computations will be carried out only for case 3. The minimum allowable thickness for the
reinforced pier having rounded noses and length equal to the length of the roadway is obtained as 1.3 m.
The thickness of the vertical abutment in the flow section at one side is obtained as 1.75 m from a stability
analysis of the abutment. The soil forming the river banks is assumed to be poorly graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures with little or no fines. The dry and saturated specific weights of the soil are taken as
10.6 and 20.6 kN/m
3
, respectively, and the angle of repose is assumed to be 37. With this information,
the contraction ratio is obtained as 0.9075 which needs to be checked with the critical contraction ratio
under all possible flows. The hydraulic computations are carried out for types 1 and 3 openings in Tables 2
and 3, respectively. The mean discharges of each class interval in the frequency histogram of flows
presented in Figure 3 are tested. For the bed material characteristics, the critical shear velocity is obtained
as 0.02076 m/s using the Shields criterion.



Table 1. Structural Computations
Case Span Lengths M
+
m
M
-
m
V
+
m
V
-
m

max

max
d Remarks
in L
1
in L
2
on
(m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN) (kN) (m) (m) (m)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1 20-20-20-20 17814.8 23077.8 6768.0 6768.0 0.041 0.041 1.00 NA
2 n
p
=3 20921.4 27361.1 7987.6 7987.6 0.028 0.028 1.20 NA
3 24736.0 32599.6 8425.1 8425.1 0.019 0.019 1.45 A
4 16-16-16-16-16 11785.4 14697.0 5547.3 5547.3 0.018 0.018 1.00 NA
5 n
p
=4 12770.0 16016.5 6024.3 6024.3 0.014 0.014 1.10 A
6 15-15-20-15-15 10647.8 12647.6 4722.0 4722.0 0.045 0.024 0.80 NA
7 n
p
=4 12811.6 15414.8 5708.2 5709.1 0.003 0.015 1.00 A
8 10-15-15-15-15-10 4430.9 6965.3 3010.6 3010.6 0.023 0.006 0.60 NA
9 n
p
=5 4942.8 7928.1 3392.2 3392.2 0.016 0.004 0.70 NA
10 5455.2 8890.9 3773.9 3773.9 0.010 0.003 0.80 A
11 20-10-10-10-10-20 12218.0 13245.4 4328.9 4328.9 0.134 0.013 0.60 NA
12 n
p
=5 18719.2 20565.5 6667.6 6667.6 0.045 0.004 1.00 NA
13 26892.4 29591.0 9585.0 9585.0 0.020 0.002 1.50 A
14 10-10-10-20-10-10-10 8422.6 9911.7 3740.0 3740.0 0.083 0.008 0.60 NA
15 n
p
=6 15044.8 18081.9 6698.7 6698.7 0.019 0.002 1.20 A
16 15-10-10-10-10-10-15 7209.0 7536.9 3359.9 3359.9 0.045 0.006 0.60 NA
17 n
p
=6 10884.0 11606.2 5150.8 5150.8 0.015 0.002 1.00 A
18 10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10 2500.9 2846.0 1867.4 1867.4 0.023 0.023 0.40 NA
19 n
p
=7 2884.2 3364.9 2165.9 2165.9 0.014 0.014 0.50 NA
20 3267.9 3882.9 2464.3 2464.3 0.009 0.009 0.60 A
21 5-5-15-15-15-15-5-5 4501.2 7067.7 3039.6 3039.6 0.022 0.002 0.60 NA
22 n
p
=7 5315.3 8547.6 3622.8 3622.8 0.014 0.001 0.75 A







































As can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, the shear velocity, u
*
, for each discharge is greater than its critical
value. Therefore, live bed conditions prevail for the scour around bridge piers. The mean threshold velocity
is computed in column 7 of Tables 2 and 3. The upstream water depths at section 1 are computed from
Equation 2. The depth of pier footing is required in the determination of the total height of the pier. To this
end, the depth of local scour around bridge piers should be computed using the hydraulic information
presented in Tables 2 and 3. Richardson et al. (1975) equation is used to compute the scour depths. As
can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, the contraction ratio is always greater than the critical contraction ratio
Table 3. Hydraulic Computations for Type III Bridge Opening
Q y
4
y
3
F
r3

c
u
*
u
c
(m/s) y
1
d
s
(m
3
/s) (m) (m) (m/s) (m/s) (m) (m)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
7.00 0.169 0.162 0.517 0.655 0.0281 0.352 0.263 1.006
8.00 0.192 0.185 0.481 0.624 0.0301 0.359 0.280 1.001
10.00 0.238 0.232 0.430 0.576 0.0336 0.371 0.316 1.000
15.00 0.349 0.342 0.359 0.500 0.0408 0.391 0.409 1.020
20.00 0.451 0.445 0.324 0.458 0.0464 0.405 0.502 1.050
25.00 0.546 0.539 0.303 0.433 0.0510 0.415 0.592 1.082
30.00 0.634 0.626 0.290 0.417 0.0549 0.422 0.677 1.115
40.00 0.790 0.781 0.278 0.401 0.0613 0.434 0.833 1.176
50.00 0.927 0.917 0.273 0.395 0.0662 0.442 0.970 1.232
60.00 1.048 1.037 0.272 0.394 0.0703 0.449 1.093 1.284
70.00 1.158 1.146 0.274 0.396 0.0738 0.454 1.205 1.331
78.01 1.240 1.226 0.275 0.398 0.0763 0.457 1.288 1.366
Table 2. Hydraulic Computations for Type I Bridge Opening
Q y
4
y
3
F
r3

c
u
*
u
c
(m/s) y
1
d
s
(m
3
/s) (m) (m) (m/s) (m/s) (m) (m)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
7.00 0.169 0.165 0.459 0.658 0.0284 0.353 0.254 0.994
8.00 0.192 0.189 0.429 0.627 0.0303 0.360 0.272 0.991
10.00 0.238 0.235 0.386 0.578 0.0338 0.372 0.310 0.993
15.00 0.349 0.345 0.325 0.501 0.0410 0.392 0.405 1.016
20.00 0.451 0.448 0.293 0.459 0.0466 0.405 0.499 1.047
25.00 0.546 0.543 0.275 0.434 0.0512 0.415 0.589 1.081
30.00 0.634 0.630 0.264 0.418 0.0551 0.423 0.675 1.114
40.00 0.790 0.786 0.253 0.402 0.0614 0.434 0.831 1.176
50.00 0.927 0.922 0.248 0.396 0.0664 0.443 0.968 1.232
60.00 1.048 1.043 0.248 0.395 0.0705 0.449 1.092 1.283
70.00 1.158 1.152 0.249 0.396 0.0740 0.454 1.204 1.330
78.01 1.240 1.233 0.251 0.399 0.0765 0.458 1.287 1.366
for all cases. The effect of type of bridge opening can be assessed by comparing the upstream water
depths. Type 3 opening resulted in slightly greater water depths compared to the case of type 1 opening.
Comparison of the results of other types of bridge opening and span combinations will be subject of a
further study.

6 Conclusions

Bridges crossing wide rivers are important elements of highways. Recent analyses show that the major
mode of bridge failure is the hydraulic deficiencies, such as excessive local scour around bridge piers and
abutments. A detailed assessment of hydraulic and structural interactions in bridge design is then of utmost
importance to have a conservative design. An application is presented to interpret the interactions for a
bridge located in an urban area. A number of span lengths and slab thicknesses are tested against structural
stability and various discharges are considered in determining the critical contraction ratio and backwater
computations. To assess the hydraulic and structural interactions in a broader sense, combination of other
types of bridges and openings may be considered in a future study.


References

AASHTO. (1996). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard
specifications for highway bridges, 16
th
edition, Washington, D.C.
Chow, V. T. (1959). Open channel hydraulics, McGraw Hill, New York.
French, R. H. (1987). Open channel hydraulics, McGraw Hill, Singapore.
Lagasse, P. F., Byars, M. S., and Zevenbergen, L. W. (1998). Bridge scour and stream instability
countermeasures, Proccedings of International Water Resources Engineering Conference, ASCE,
Memphis, Vol. 1,
Ortiz, J. E. P. (1998). Status of scour evaluation of bridges over waterways in the United States,
Proccedings of International Water Resources Engineering Conference, ASCE, Memphis, Vol. 1, 2-4.
Simons, D. B. and Senturk, F. (1992). Sediment transport technology, Water Resources Publications,
Michigan, USA
Yanmaz, A. M. (1994). Flood interaction with river crossings: a case study, Proceedings of Coping with
Floods, NATO ASI Series, Series E: Applied Sciences-Vol:257, 565-569.