Section 10-Hydraulic Design Aspects of Bridges

Drainage Design Manual Section 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 10 : HYDRAULIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF BRIDGES ........................................ 10.1

10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 10.1
10.2 Design Principles ................................................................................................... 10.1
10.3 Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 10.1
10.3.1 General Criteria ........................................................................................... 10.2
10.3.2 Specific Criteria ........................................................................................... 10.2
10.4 Investigation and Design Procedure ................................................................... 10.6
10.4.1 Physical Survey .......................................................................................... 10.6
10.4.2 Design Procedure Outline ........................................................................... 10.6
10.4.3 Hydraulic Performance of Bridges .............................................................. 10.8
10.4.4 The Region of Influence .............................................................................. 10.8
10.5 Bridge Scour and Aggradation ............................................................................. 10.9
10.5.1 Scour Types .............................................................................................. 10.10
10.5.2 Plan Form Changes .................................................................................. 10.10
10.5.3 Contraction ................................................................................................ 10.11
10.5.4 Local Scour ............................................................................................... 10.11
10.6 Natural Armoring ................................................................................................. 10.11
10.7 Naturally Occurring Scour Resistant Materials ................................................ 10.12
10.8 Methods of Computation of Extent of Scour .................................................... 10.12
10.8.1 Live-Bed Contraction Scour ...................................................................... 10.13
10.8.2 Clear Water Contraction Scour ................................................................. 10.13
10.8.3 Local scour at Pier .................................................................................... 10.13
10.9 Required Data for Scour Assessment ............................................................... 10.14
10.9.1 Bed Material .............................................................................................. 10.14
10.9.2 Geometry .................................................................................................. 10.14
10.9.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................. 10.14
10.9.4 Geomorphology ........................................................................................ 10.15
10.10 River Training and Stabilization ......................................................................... 10.15
10.10.1 Guide Banks ............................................................................................. 10.15
10.10.2 Spurs ......................................................................................................... 10.16
10.10.3 Rock Protection ......................................................................................... 10.17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 10.1 Variable Cross-section in the Vicinity of Bridges ............................................... 10.9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 10.1: K1 for determining of live-bed contraction scour ............................................. 10.13

Table 10.2: Correction Factor for pier nose shape ..................................................... 10.14
Table 10.3: Correction Factor k2 for angle attack of flow .................................................. 10.14
Ministry of Works and Transport

Drainage Design Manual
SECTION 10
HYDRAULIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF BRIDGES
10.1 Introduction
Bridges are defined as:
• structures that transport traffic over waterways or other obstructions; and,

• part of a stream crossing system that includes the approach roadway over the
flood plain, relief openings, and the bridge structure;
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance on the hydraulic design of a stream
crossing system through appropriate policy, design, and technical criteria. In addition,
this section will provide non-hydraulic factors that influence design, including
environmental concerns, emergency access, and traffic service.
Proper hydraulic analysis and design is as vital as the structural design. Stream
crossing systems shall be designed for minimum cost, to the desired level of hydraulic
performance up to an acceptable risk level, and to mitigate impacts on stream
environment.
10.2 Design Principles
Standards are a set of goals that establish a definite course of action or method of
action and that are selected to guide and determine present and future decisions.
Principles that are unique to bridge crossings are presented in this section. The
hydraulic analysis should consider various stream-crossing system designs to
determine the most cost-effective proposal consistent with design constraints.
These policies identify specific areas for which quantifiable criteria can be developed:
• The final design selection should consider the maximum backwater allowed
(0.5m) unless exceeding of this limit can be justified by special hydraulic
conditions;
• The final design should not significantly alter the flow distribution in the flood plain;
• The "crest-vertical curve profile" shall be considered as the preferred highway
crossing profile when allowing for embankment overtopping;
• A specified clearance shall be established to allow for passage of debris; a vertical
clearance shall be established based on normally expected flows and to allow for
the passage of small boats where necessary;
• Degradation or aggradation of the river as well as contraction and local scour shall
be estimated as part of the final design; the design should either eliminate scour
or provide scour protection; and,
• Foundation level shall be positioned below the total scour depth whenever
practical.
10.3 Design Criteria
There are a number of hydraulic as well as non-hydraulic factors affecting the design
of bridges. Hereunder, the different criteria are discussed for clarity of design
procedure.
10.1
10.3.1 General Criteria
Design criteria are the tangible means for placing accepted policies into action and
become the basis for the selection of the final design configuration of the stream-
crossing system. The following are the general criteria related to the hydraulic
analyses for the location and design of bridges:
• Backwater will not significantly increase flood damage to property upstream of

the crossing;
• Velocities through the structure(s) will not either damage the highway facility or
increase damages to adjacent property;
• Maintain the existing flow distribution to the extent practicable;
• Pier spacing, orientation, and abutment are to be designed to minimize flow
disruption and potential scour; spill-through type abutments using side slopes
are preferred over deep abutments to minimize scour and backwater, see
appendix 10.5;
• Select foundation design and/or scour countermeasures to avoid failure by
scour;
• Freeboard at structure(s) designed to pass anticipated debris;
• Acceptable risks of damage or viable measures to counter the unpredictability of
alluvial streams;
• Minimal disruption of ecosystems and values unique to the flood plain and
stream;
• Provide a level of traffic service compatible with that commonly expected
for the class of highway and compatible with projected traffic volumes; and,
• Design choices should support costs for construction, maintenance, and
operation, including probable repair and reconstruction and potential liability.
10.3.2 Specific Criteria
These criteria augment the general criteria. They provide specific, quantifiable values
that relate to local site conditions. Evaluation of various alternatives according to
these criteria can be accomplished by using the water surface profile computation.
a) Location of a Stream Crossing
Although many factors, including non-technical ones, are used to determine the final
location of a stream-crossing system, the hydraulics of the proposed location must
have a high priority. Hydraulic considerations in selecting the location include flood
plain width and roughness, flow distribution and direction, stream type (braided,
straight, or meandering), stream regime (aggrading, degrading, or equilibrium), and
stream controls. The hydraulics of a proposed location also affect environmental
considerations such as aquatic life, wetlands, sedimentation, and stream stability.
Finally, the hydraulics of a particular site determine whether or not certain national
objectives such as wise use of flood plains, reduction of flooding losses, and
preservative of wetlands can be met.
b) Inundation
Inundation of the carriageway dictates the level of traffic services provided by the
facility. The carriageway overtopping flood level identifies the limit of serviceability.
c) Risk Evaluation
The selection of hydraulic design criteria for determining the waterway opening, road
grade, scour potential, riprap, and other features should consider the potential
10.2
impacts to interruptions to traffic, adjacent property, the environment, and the

infrastructure of the highway.
The evaluation of the consequence of risk associated with the probability of flooding
attributed to a stream-crossing system is a tool by which site specific design criteria
can be developed. This evaluation considers capital cost, traffic service,
environmental and property impacts, and hazards to human life.
The evaluation of risk is a two-stage process. The initial step, identified as risk
assessment, is more qualitative than a risk analysis and serves to identify threshold
values that must be met by the hydraulic design.
In many cases where the risks are low and/or threshold design values can be met, it
is unnecessary to pursue a detailed economic analysis. In those cases where the
risks are high and/or threshold values cannot be met, a Least Total Expected Cost
(LTEC) analysis shall be considered.
The results of a least-cost analysis can be presented in a graph of total cost as a

function of the overtopping discharge. The total cost consists of a combination of
capital costs and flood damages (or risk costs). Risk costs decrease with increases in
the overtopping discharge while capital costs simultaneously increase. The
overtopping discharge for each alternative is determined from a hydraulic analysis of
a specific combination of embankment height and bridge-opening length. The
resulting least-cost alternative provides a tradeoff comparison.
The alternatives considered in the least-cost analysis do not require the specification
of a particular design flood. This information is part of the output of the least-cost
analysis. In other words, the least-cost alternative has a specific risk of overtopping
that is unknown before the least-cost alternative has been determined. Therefore,
design flood frequencies are used only to establish the initial alternative.
Thereafter, specific flood-frequency criteria shall be considered only as constraints on

the final design selection. Deviation from the least-cost alternative may be necessary
to satisfy these constraints and the trade-off cost for doing so can be obtained from
the least-cost analysis.
Risk based analysis does not recognize some of the intangible factors that influence a
design. The minimum design that results from this type of analysis may be too low to
satisfy the site condition.
d) Design Floods
Design floods for such purposes as the evaluation of backwater, clearance, and
overtopping shall be established predicated on risk based assessment of local site
conditions. They should reflect consideration of traffic service, environmental impact,
property damage, hazard to human life, and flood plain management criteria.
e) Backwater
Backwater and/or increases over existing condition up to 0.5 m during the passage of
the 100-year flood, if practicable.
The expression for backwater is formulated by applying the principle of conservation

of energy between the point of maximum backwater upstream from the bridge, and a
point downstream from the bridge at which normal stage has been reestablished. The
expression is reasonably valid if the channel in the vicinity of the bridge is essentially
straight, the cross sectional area of the stream is fairly uniform, the gradient of the
bottom is approximately constant between the upstream and downstream section, the
flow is free to contract and expand, there is no appreciable scour of the bed in the
constriction and the flow is in the subcritical range.
10.3
f) Clearance
A minimum clearance conforming to the requirements of the Bridge Design manual

(usually 1.5 meters) shall be provided between the design approach water surface
elevation and the low chord of the bridge for the final design alternative to allow for
passage of debris.
g) Scour
Design for bridge foundation scour should be made considering the magnitude of
flood, through the 1% event (100 years return period), which generates the maximum
scour depth. The designer should use a safety factor of three. The resulting design
should then be checked using a superflood that is 1.7 times the magnitude of the 1%
event.
The extreme hazard posed by bridges subject to bridge scour failures dictates a
different philosophy in selecting suitable flood magnitudes to use in the scour
analysis.
With bridge flood hazards other than scour, such as those caused by roadway
overtopping or property damage from inundation, a prudent and reasonable practice
is to select first a design flood to determine a trial bridge opening geometry. This
geometry is selected either subjectively or objectively based on the initial cost of the
bridge along with the potential future costs for flood hazards. Following the selection
of this trial bridge geometry, the base flood (100 years return period) is used to
evaluate the selected opening. This two step evaluation process is used to ensure the
selected bridge opening based on the design flood implies no unexpected increase in
any existing flood hazards other than those from scour or aggradation. Not only is it
necessary to consider bridge scour or aggradation from the base flood, but also from
an even larger flood termed herein as the "superflood".
Scour prediction technology is steadily developing, but lacks at this time, the reliability
associated with other facets of hydraulic engineering. Several formulae for predicting
scour depths are currently available and others will certainly be developed in the
future. The designer should strive to be acquainted with the "state of practice' at the
time of a given analysis and is encouraged to be conservative in the resulting scour
predictions.
With potential bridge scour hazards, a different flood selection and analysis
philosophy is considered reasonable and prudent. The foregoing trial bridge opening
which was selected by considering initial costs and future flood hazard costs shall be
evaluated for two possible scour conditions with the worse case dictating the
foundation design and possibly a change in the selected trial bridge opening.
First, evaluate the proposed bridge and road geometry for scour using the base flood,
incipient overtopping flood, overtopping flood corresponding to the base flood, or the
relief opening flood whichever provides the greatest flood discharge through the
bridge opening. Once the expected scour geometry has been assessed, the
geotechnical engineer would design the foundation.
The foundation design would use the conventional foundation safety factors and
eliminate consideration of any stream bed and bank material displaced by scour for
foundation support.
Second, impose a "superflood" on the proposed bridge and road geometry. This
event must be greater than the base flood and shall be used to evaluate the proposed
bridge opening to ensure that the resulting potential scour will produce no unexpected
scour hazards.
10.4
The "superflood" is defined as the 500-year flood or a designated ratio (e.g. 1.7) times
the 100-year flood. Similar to the base flood to evaluate the selected bridge opening,
use either the "superflood', or the relief opening flood, whichever imposes the greatest
flood discharge on the selected bridge opening. The foundation design based on the
base flood would then be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer using an appropriate
safety factor and again, taking into account any stream bed and bank material
displaced by scour from the "superflood".
h) Preventive /Protection Measures Against Scour
Based on an assessment of potential scour provided by the Hydraulic Engineer, the

structural designers can incorporate design features that will prevent or mitigate scour
damage at piers. In general, circular piers or elongated piers with circular noses and
an alignment parallel to the flow direction are a possible alternative. Spread footings
shall be used only where the stream bed is extremely stable below the footing and
where the spread footing is founded at a depth that is below the maximum scour
computed in the scour subsection. Drilled shafts or drilled piers may be possible
where pilings cannot be driven. Drop structures or grade-control structures can
provide protection against general streambed degradation in or downstream of the
bridge opening.
Rock riprap is often used, where stone of sufficient size is available, to armor
abutment fill slopes and the area around the base of piers.
Whenever possible, clearing of vegetation upstream and downstream of the toe of the
embankment slope shall be avoided. Embankment overtopping may be incorporated
into the design but shall be located well away from the bridge abutments and
superstructure. Spur dikes are recommended to align the approach flow with the
bridge opening and to prevent scour around the abutments. They are usually elliptical
shaped with a major to minor axis ratio of 2.5 to 1. This issue is discussed in detail
under river training and stabilization in subsection 10.10.
i) Deck Drainage
Improperly drained bridge decks can cause numerous problems including

hydroplaning. Bridge decks should drain over the side. Where curb and gutter is used
deck drainage is carried to the ends, the bridge decks shall be watertight, and drains
at the end of the bridge should have sufficient inlet capacity to carry all bridge
drainage.
j) Environmental Consideration
Environmental criteria must be met in the design of stream-crossing systems. Such

considerations might require the expertise of an environmentalist on the design team.
Water quality considerations should also be included in the design process insofar as
the stream-crossing system affects the water quality relative to beneficial uses. As a
practical matter with bridges, the hydraulic design criteria related to scour,
degradation, aggradation, flow velocities, and lateral distribution of flow, for example,
are important criteria for evaluation of environmental impacts as well as the safety of
the stream-crossing structures.
All borrow areas existing within the flood plain shall be chosen so as to minimize the
potential for scour and adverse environmental effects within the limits of the bridge
and its approaches on the flood plain.
k) Construction Maintenance Aspects
Construction plans shall be reviewed jointly by the Contractor and the Hydraulic
Engineer to note any changes in the stream from the conditions used in the design.
10.5
Temporary structures and crossings used during construction shall be designed for a
specified risk of failure due to flooding during the construction period. The impacts on
normal water levels, fish passage, and normal flow distribution must be considered.
The stream-crossing design should incorporate measures which reduce maintenance

costs whenever possible. These measures include spur dikes, retards, guide dikes,
jetties, riprap protection of abutments and embankments, embankment overflow at
lower elevations than the bridge deck, and alignment of piers with the flow.
10.4 Investigation and Design Procedure
The investigation of bridge sites and hydraulic design of bridges involve a number of
steps which must be properly formulated to develop a systematic procedure. The
following sections discuss the relevant aspects and steps that are necessary in the
data collection and hydraulic design of bridges .
10.4.1 Physical Survey
The purpose of surveys is to gather all necessary site information. This should include
such information as topography and other physical features, land use and culture,
flood data, basin characteristics, precipitation data, historical high-water marks,
existing structures, channel characteristics, and environmental data. A site plan shall
be developed on which much of the survey data can be shown.
The designer of a stream crossing system requires a comprehensive engineering

approach that includes formulation of alternatives, data collection, selection of the
most cost effective alternative according to established criteria, and documentation of
the final design. Water surface profiles are computed for a variety of technical uses
including:
• flood hazard mitigation investigations;

• drainage crossing analysis; and,
• longitudinal encroachments.
The completed profile can affect the highway bridge design and is the mechanism for
determining the effect of a bridge opening on upstream water levels.
10.4.2 Design Procedure Outline
The following design procedure outline shall be used. Although the scope of the
project and individual site characteristics make each design a unique one, the
following procedure shall be applied.
I. Data Collection
A. Survey
1. Topography
2. Geology
3. High-water marks
4. History of debris accumulation and scour
5. Review of hydraulic performance of existing structures
6. Maps, aerial photographs
7. Rainfall and stream gage records
8. Field reconnaissance
10.6
B. Other Relevant Information
1. From Concerned Ministries

2. River basin studies
3. Hydraulic performance of existing bridges
C. Influences on Hydraulic Performance of Site
1. Other streams, reservoirs, water intakes

2. Structures upstream or downstream
3. Natural features of stream and flood plain
4. Channel modifications upstream or downstream
5. Flood plain encroachments
6. Sediment types and bed forms
D. Environmental Impact
1. Existing bed or bank instability

2. Flood plain land use and flow distribution
3. Environmentally sensitive areas (fisheries, wetlands, etc.)
E. Site-specific Design Criteria
1. Preliminary risk assessment

2. Application of agency criteria
II. Hydrologic Analysis
A. Catchments area morphology
1. Drainage area (attach map)

2. Catchment area and stream slope
3. Channel geometry
B. Hydrologic computations
1. Discharge for historical flood that complements the high water marks
used for calibration
2. Discharges for specified frequencies
III. Hydraulic Analysis
A. Computer model calibration and verification

B. Hydraulic performance for existing conditions
C. Hydraulic performance of proposed designs
IV. Selection of Final Design
A. Risk assessment/least-cost alternative ( or Least Total Expected Cost)

B. Measure of compliance with established hydraulic criteria
10.7
C. Consideration of environmental and social criteria

D. Design details such as riprap, scour abatement, and river training
V. Documentation
A. Complete project records, etc.

B. Complete correspondence and reports
10.4.3 Hydraulic Performance of Bridges
The stream-crossing system is subject to either free-surface flow or pressure flow

through one or more bridge openings with possible embankment overtopping.
It is impracticable to perform the hydraulic analysis for a bridge by manual calculations

due to the interactive and complex nature of those computations. These hydraulic
complexities are best analyzed using a computer program such as WSPRO or HEC-2.
For purposes of illustration, the hydraulic variables and flow types are defined in
appendix 10.1 and appendix 10.2. Backwater is measured relative to the normal water
surface elevation without the effect of the bridge at the approach cross-section. It is the
result of contraction and re-expansion head losses and head losses due to bridge
piers. Backwater can also be the result of a “choking condition” in which critical depth
is forced to occur in the contracted opening with a resultant increase in depth and
specific energy upstream of the contraction. This is illustrated in appendix 10.2.
• Type I consists of subcritical flow throughout the approach, bridge, and exit cross
sections and is the most common condition encountered in practice (see appendix
10.2).
• Type IIA and IIB (see appendix 10.2) both represent subcritical approach flows
which have been choked by the contraction resulting in the occurrence of critical
depth in the bridge opening. In Type IIA the critical water surface elevation in the
bridge opening is lower than the undisturbed normal water surface elevation. In the
Type IIB it is higher than the normal water surface elevation and a weak hydraulic
jump immediately downstream of the bridge contraction is possible.
• Type III flow (see appendix 10.2) is supercritical approach flow and remains
supercritical through the bridge contraction. Such a flow condition is not subject to
backwater unless it chokes and forces the occurrence of a hydraulic jump
upstream of the contraction.
10.4.4 The Region of Influence
The water surface profile used in the hydraulic analysis of a bridge should extend
from a point downstream of the bridge that is beyond the influence of the constriction
to a point upstream that is beyond the extent of the bridge backwater (Figure 10.1).
The cross sections that are necessary for the energy analysis through the bridge
opening for a single opening bridge with and without spur dikes are shown in
appendix 10.3.
10.8
Figure 10.1 Variable Cross-section in the Vicinity of Bridges
Energy losses caused by structures such as bridges and culverts are

computed in two parts. First, the losses due to expansion and contraction of
the cross section on the upstream and downstream sides of the structure are
computed in the standard step calculations. Secondly, the loss through the
structure itself is computed by either the normal bridge or the special bridge
methods.
10.5 Bridge Scour and Aggradation
Reasonable and prudent hydraulic analysis of a bridge design requires that an

assessment be made of the proposed bridge vulnerability to undermining due to
potential scour. Because of the extreme hazard and economic hardships posed by a
rapid bridge collapse, special considerations must be given to selecting appropriate
flood magnitudes for use in the analysis. The designer shall use the most appropriate
scour forecasting methods.
According to recent studies as reported in HEC-18, the scour at deep abutments is

nearly twice that at the toe of the embankment slope of spill-through type abutments.
Therefore, spill-through type bridge structures are preferred for stream crossings, see
appendix 10.5.
10.9
The inherent complexities of stream stability, further complicated by highway stream

crossings, requires a multilevel solution procedure. The evaluation and design of a
highway stream crossing shall begin with a qualitative assessment of stream stability.
This involves application of geomorphologic concepts to identify potential problems
and alternative solutions. This analysis shall be followed with quantitative analysis
using basic hydrologic, hydraulic and sediment transport engineering concepts. Such
analyses could include evaluation of flood history, channel hydraulic conditions (up to
and including, for example, water surface profile analysis) and basic sediment
transport analyses such as evaluation of catchment area sediment yield, incipient
motion analysis and scour calculations. This analysis can be considered adequate for
many locations if the problems are resolved and the relationships between different
factors affecting stability are adequately explained. If not, a more complex quantitative
analysis based on detailed mathematical modeling and/or physical hydraulic models
shall be considered. This multilevel approach is presented in HEC-20.
Less hazardous perhaps are problems associated with aggradation. Where freeboard
is limited, problems associated with increased flood hazards to upstream property or to
the traveling public due to more frequent overtopping may occur. Where aggradation is
expected, it may be necessary to evaluate these consequences. In addition,
aggradation in a stream reach may serve to moderate potential scour depths.
Aggradation is sometimes referred to as negative scour.
10.5.1 Scour Types
Present technology dictates that bridge scour be evaluated as interrelated

components:
• long term profile changes (aggradation/degradation);

• plan form change (lateral channel movement);
• contraction scour/deposition; and,
• local scour.
Long-term profile changes can result from streambed profile changes that occur from
aggradation and/or degradation.
• Aggradation is the deposition of bedload due to a decrease in the energy

gradient; and,
• Degradation is the scouring of bed material due to increased stream sediment
transport capacity that results from an increase in the energy gradient.
Forms of degradation and aggradation shall be considered as imposing a permanent

future change for the streambed elevation at a bridge site whenever they can be
identified.
10.5.2 Plan Form Changes
The form and shape of the stream path created by its erosion and deposition
characteristics comprise its morphology. A stream can be braided, straight, or
meandering, or it can be in the process of changing from one form to another
because of natural or manmade influences. A historical study of the stream
morphology at a proposed stream-crossing site is mandatory. This study should also
include an assessment of any long-term trends in aggradation or degradation.
Braided streams and alluvial fans should especially be avoided for stream-crossing
sites whenever possible.
Plan form changes are morphological changes such as meander migration or bank
widening. The lateral movement of meanders can threaten bridge approaches as well
10.10
as increase scour by changing flow patterns approaching a bridge opening. Bank

widening can cause significant changes in the flow distribution and thus the bridge's
flow contraction ratio.
It is difficult to anticipate when a change in plan form may occur. It may be gradual or
the result of a single major flood event. Also, the direction and magnitude of the
movement of the stream are not easily predicted. It is difficult to evaluate properly the
vulnerability of a bridge due to changes in plan form; however, it is important to
incorporate potential plan form changes into the design of new bridges and design of
countermeasures for existing bridges.
Assessing the significance of plan form changes, such as the shifting location of
meanders, the formation of islands, and the overall pattern of streams, usually cannot
be accomplished without field observations. Records and photographs taken by
bridge inspectors and maintenance personnel may provide some insight into the
nature of the stream for the initial assessments. Historical aerial photographs of the
stream can be extremely valuable in this analysis. Ultimately, an engineering
judgement must be made as to whether possible future or existing plan form changes
represent a hazard to the bridge, and the extent of field work required to evaluate this
condition.
10.5.3 Contraction
A constriction of the channel, which may be caused, in part, by bridge piers in the
waterway, can result in channel contraction scour. Deposition results from an
expansion of the channel or the bridge site being positioned immediately downstream
of a steeper reach of stream. Highways, bridges, and natural channel contractions are
the most commonly encountered cause of constriction scour.
10.5.4 Local Scour
The potential scour hazard at a bridge site is exacerbated by abutments or piers

located within the flood flow prism. The amount of potential scour caused by these
features is termed local scour. Local scour is a function of the geometry of these
features as they relate to the flow geometry. However, the importance of these
geometric variables will vary. As an example, increasing the pier or cofferdam width
either through design or debris accumulation will increase the amount of local scour,
but only up to a point in subcritical flow streams. After reaching this point, pier scour
should not be expected to increase measurably with increased stream velocity or
depth. This threshold has not been defined in the more rare, supercritical flowing
streams.
10.6 Natural Armoring
Armoring occurs because a stream or river is unable, during a particular flood, to move
the more coarse material comprising either the bed or, if some bed scour occurs, its
underlying material. Scour may occur initially but later become arrested by armoring
before the full scour potential is reached again for a given flood magnitude.
When armoring does occur, the coarser bed material will tend to remain in place or
quickly redeposit so as to form a layer of riprap like armor on the stream bed or in the
scour holes and thus limit further scour for a particular discharge. When a larger flood
occurs than used to define the probable scour hole depths, scour will probably
penetrate deeper until armoring again occurs at some lower threshold.
Armoring may also cause bank widening. Bank widening encourages rivers or
streams to seek a more unstable, braided regime. Such instabilities may pose serious
problems for bridges as they encourage further plan form changes that are difficult to
10.11
assess. Bank widening also spreads the approach flow distribution, which in turn
results in a more severe bridge opening contraction.
10.7 Naturally Occurring Scour Resistant Materials
Caution is necessary in determining the scour resistance of bed materials and the
underlying strata. With smaller size material, the passage of a single flood may result
in the predicted scour depths. Conversely, in scour resistant material the maximum
predicted depth of scour may not be realized during the passage of a particular flood;
however, some scour resistant material may be lost. Commonly, this material is
replaced with more easily scoured material. Thus, a later flood may reach the
predicted scour depth. Serious scour has been observed to occur in materials
commonly perceived to be scour resistant, such as consolidated soils, so-called bed
rock streams, and streams with gravel and boulder beds.
10.8 Methods of Computation of Extent of Scour
Determination of maximum scour depth that can occur at a crossing site is

necessary in the design of abutment and pier foundation. Actual extent of scouring at
a particular crossing site depends on various factors such as velocity of water,
change in the channel geometry and hydraulics resulting from the introduction of the
crossing structure, nature of river bank and river bed materials, shape and size of
Abutment/pier structure, etc.
A number of empirical formulas for computing depth of scour have been developed
over the years based on results of numerous experiments. The method
recommended by US Department of Transportation, Office of Research and
Development is re-commended.
According to this method, contraction scour and local scour are considered.
Constriction scour occurs when the waterway opening size provided by the bridge
is less than regime width. Otherwise no contraction scour occurs.
There are two cases of contraction scour to be considered; Live bed scour and Clear
water scour. For any case or condition, it is only necessary to determine if the flow in
the main channel or over-bank area upstream of the bridge, or approaching relief
bridge, is transporting bed material (live-bed), and then apply the appropriate
equation with the variable defined according to the location of contraction scour
(channel or over bank). The calculation procedure explained in this sub-section is
demonstrated by means of a worked example in appendix 10.4.
To determine if the flow upstream of the bridge is transporting bed material, calculate
the critical velocity for beginning of motion Vc and compare it with the mean velocity V
of the flow in the main channel or over-bank area upstream of the bridge opening. If
the critical velocity of the bed material is higher than the mean velocity (Vc > V), then
clear water contraction scour will exist. On the other hand if the critical velocity of the
bed, which is sufficient enough to transport the D50 size of the bed material, is less
than the mean velocity (Vc < V), then live-bed contraction scour will exist.
The critical velocity is calculated by Laursen’s equation: -

(1/6) (1/3)
Vc=10.95*Y1 *D50 10.2
Where: Vc = Critical velocity(ft/s)

Y1 = Mean depth of flow(ft)
D50 = Diameter at which 50% of the river bed material passes(ft)
10.12
10.8.1 Live-Bed Contraction Scour
Live-bed contraction scour is to be determined using the following relationship
ys = y2-y1 = (average scour depth)

6
k
 Q   W 
1
y 7
2
=  2
  1
 10.3
y 1  Q 1   W 2 
where:
y1 = average depth in the upstream main channel, [ft]

y2 = average depth in the contracted section, [ft]
w1 = bottom width of the upstream main channel, [ft]
w2 = bottom width of the main channel in the contracted section, [ft]
Q1 = flow in the upstream channel transporting sediment, [cfs]
Q2 = flow in the contracted channel, [cfs]
k1 = exponent determined below:
Table 10.1 K1 for determining of live-bed contraction scour
V./w K1 Mode of Bed Material Transport

<0.50 0.59 Mostly contact bed material discharge
0.50 – 2.0 0.64 Some suspended bed material discharge
>2.0 0.69 Mostly suspended bed material discharge
V = (τ/ρ)1/2 = (gy1S1)1/2, shear velocity in the upstream section, [ft/sec]

w = fall velocity of bed material based on D50, [ft/sec]
2
g = acceleration of gravity [32.2 ft/sec ]
S1 = slope of energy grade line of main channel, [ft/ft]
2
τ = shear stress on the bed, [lb/ft ]
ρ = density of water [1.94 slugs/ft3]
10.8.2 Clear Water Contraction Scour
Clear water contraction scour is determined using the following relationship:
where:   
7/6

 Q 
ys = y1 0.13×   −1 10.4
(Dm ) × (Y1 ) × W
1/3 7/6
 
ys = scour depth (ft)

y1 = mean depth of flow prior to scour [ft]
Q = Discharge through the bridge, [cfs]
Dm = Effective mean diameter of the bed material (1.25*D50), [ft]
W = Bottom width of the bridge less pier width, [ft]
10.8.3 Local scour at Pier
The local scour at pier is a function of bed material size, flow characteristics, fluid
properties and the geometry of the pier.
10.13
The scour depth at pier as given by the CSU (Colorado State University) equation is;
0 .6 5
 a 
Y s = 2 Y1 K 1 K 2 K 3   F r 0 .4 3 10.5
 Y1 
where;
Ys = scour depth
Y1 = flow depth directly upstream of the pier, [ft]
K1 = Correction factor for pier nose shape
K2 = Correction factor for angle of attack of flow
K3 = Correction factor for bed condition
a = Pier width, [ft]
V1 = mean velocity of flow directly upstream of the pier, [ft/sec]
1/2
Fr1 = Froude number = V1/(gy1)
Table 10.2: Correction Factor for Table 10.3: Correction Factor k2 for
pier nose shape angle attack of flow
Shape of pier nose K1 Angle L/a = 4 L/a = 8 L/a = 12

Square nose 1.1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Round nose 1.0 15 1.5 2.0 2.5
Circular nose 1.0 30 2.0 2.75 3.5
Sharp nose 0.9 45 2.3 3.3 4.3
Group of cylinders 1.0 90 2.5 3.9 5.0
L = Length of pier, [ft]

a = Pier width, [ft]
10.9 Required Data for Scour Assessment
10.9.1 Bed Material
It is necessary to obtain bed material samples for all channel cross sections when
armoring is to be evaluated. If armoring is not being evaluated, this information need
only be obtained at the site. From these samples try to identify historical scour and
associate it with a discharge. Also, determine the bed material size-weight distribution
curve in the bridge reach and from this distribution determine d16, d50, d84, and d90.
10.9.2 Geometry
Obtain existing stream and flood plain cross sections, stream profile, site plan and the
stream's present, and where possible, historic geomorphic plan form. Also, locate the
bridge site with respect to such things as other bridges in the area, tributaries to the
stream or close to the site, bed rock controls, manmade controls (dams, old check
structures, river training works, etc.), and downstream confluence with other streams.
Locate (distance and height) any “headcuts” due to natural causes or such things as
gravel mining operations. Upstream gravel mining operations may absorb the bed
material discharge resulting in the more adverse clear water scour case discussed
later. Any data related to plan form changes such as meander migration and the rate
at which they may be occurring are useful.
10.9.3 Hydrology
Identify the character of the stream hydrology; i.e., perennial, ephemeral, intermittent
as well as whether it is subject to broad hydrographic peaks resulting from gradual
flow increases such as occur with general thunderstorms.
10.14
Stage discharge relationships at the bridge site can be estimated by indirect iterative
procedure described in appendix 10.4. The procedure requires surveyed data with
regard to river cross-section and river slope at the site. Required parameters for the
use of the Manning’s equation are developed from surveyed data and the discharge is
calculated for different discrete levels of stages. For ease of understanding and
application, the procedure is clearly stated in appendix 10.4 with an accompanying
example.
10.9.4 Geomorphology
Classify the geomorphology of the site; i.e., such things as whether it is a flood plain
stream, crosses a delta, or crosses an alluvial fan; youthful, mature or old age.
10.10 River Training and Stabilization
Specific functions of bank protection and training works in relation to bridges and their
approaches include: (1) stabilize eroding river banks and channel location in the case
of shifting streams; (2) economize on bridge lengths by constricting the natural
waterway; (3) direct flow parallel to piers and thereby minimize local scour; (4)
improve the hydraulic efficiency of a waterway opening, thereby reducing afflux and
scour and facilitating passage of debris; (5) protect road approaches from stream
attack and prevent meanders from folding onto the approaches; (6) permit
construction of a square bridge crossing by diverting the channel from a skewed
alignment; (7) reduce the overall cost of a road project by diverting the channel away
from the base of a valley slope, thereby allowing a reduction in bridge length and
height; (8) secure existing works, or repair damage and improve initial designs; and
(9) protect longitudinal encroachments. Straight reaches and reaches of very small
curvature should be avoided, insofar as practicable, because there is a tendency for
flows to shift from side to side in such reaches. The optimum bend radius
approximates that of relatively stable bends in the general river reach. Some of the
common river training structures to effect the aforementioned measures are
discussed below
10.10.1 Guide Banks
Guide banks are effective means of decreasing the risk from scour at bridge
abutments. They achieve this by moving the contraction of the streamlines and the
generated velocities away from the abutment to the upstream end of the guide bank.
Guide banks also assist in the protection of approach embankments from scour by
reducing the flow along the face of the embankment. Details of a common type of
guide bank is given in appendix 10.6.
Three principal considerations are involved in proportioning a guide bank:
• Geometry;
• Height; and,
• Length.
Geometry - A guide bank in the form of a quarter ellipse, with ratio of major (length) to
minor (offset) axes of 2.5:1 performs as well or better than any other shape tested.
The equation for this ellipse (appendix 10.6) is:
X2 Y2
2
+ =1 (10.6)
Ls (0.4 Ls ) 2
10.15
Height - is based on the anticipated high water level. The guide bank should have
sufficient height and free board to avoid overtopping and be protected from wave
action.
Length - is estimated using the method recommended in "Hydraulics of bridge

waterways" (Bradley, 1978) in which the length of guide bank, Ls, is determined from
the discharge ratioQf/Q30, relating the flow over the left or right flood plain to a specific
portion of the flow under the bridge, a representative velocity adjacent to the
abutment of the bridge, and the length of the guide bank needed. The length Ls is
determined from nomograph in appendix 10.7.
Definitions of the symbol used in the Figure are:
Q = total stream discharge (m3/s)

Qf = lateral of flood plain flow (one side) (m3/s)
3
Q30 = Q/bx30 = discharge (m /s) in 30 m of stream adjacent to abutment
b = length (m) of bridge opening
An2 = Water area (m2) under bridge referred to normal stage
Vn2 = average velocity (m/s) through bridge opening
Qf/Q30 = guide bank discharge ratio
Ls = top length (m) of guide bank (as shown on appendix 10.7)
It can be observed that the length of guide bank should be increased with an increase
in floodplain discharge, with an increase in velocity under the bridge, or both. The
chart is read by entering the ordinate with the proper value of Qf/Q30, moving
horizontally to the curve corresponding with the computed value of Vn2 and then
downward to obtain from the abscissa the length of guide bank required.
As a general rule, if the length read from the abscissa is less than 10m, a guide bank
is not required. For chart lengths from 10 to 30 m, it is recommended that a guide
bank not less than 30 m long constructed. This length is needed to direct the
curvilinear flow around the end of the guide bank so that it will merge with the main
channel flow and establish a straight course down river before reaching the bridge
abutment.
Curvilinear flow can have several times the capacity to scour than that of parallel flow,
depending on the radius of curvature, velocity, depth of flow and other factors.
Holding the depth flow and other factors constant, the depth of scour will increased
with decrease in radius of curvature. For this reason the deepest scour produced by a
guide bank occurs near the nose where the radius of curvature is least.
Appendix 10.6 shows the guide bank details including the provision of rock protection,
which should be extended out from the toe of the guide bank on the river bed, so that
as the scour hole forms, the rock will fall into place on the side of the scour hole to
prevent undermining of the guide bank.
10.10.2 Spurs
Spurs, retards or groynes are structures or embankments projecting into a stream

from the bank at some angle to deflect flowing water away from critical zones, to
prevent erosion of the bank, and establish a more desirable channel alignment or
width. By deflecting the current from the bank, a spur or a series of spurs may protect
the stream bank more effectively and at less cost than rock protecting the bank.
Also, by moving the location of any scour away from the bank, failure of the rock
protection on the spur can often be repaired before damage is done to structures
along and across the river. Spurs are also used to protect road embankments that
form the approaches to a bridge crossing. Often these embankments cut off the over
bank flood flows causing these flows to run parallel to embankment enroute to the
10.16
bridge opening. Spurs constructed perpendicular to the embankment keep the

potentially erosive current away from the embankment, thus protecting it. In this
context guide banks also act as spurs. The noses of spurs are generally rock
protected.
The length of bank or road embankment protected by each spur is about three times
its projected length perpendicular to the direction of flow, as shown of appendix 10.9.
Therefore, spurs of equal length need not be spaced closer than three times their
projected length. For a group of four or more, the spacing may be up to four times
their projected length.
10.10.3 Rock Protection
For abutments and piers where scour is expected, properly designed rock riprap will
afford protection against progressive erosion. This type of protection has generally
been found to be the most practical and economic solution for the protection of spill
through abutments and guide banks.
a) Selection of size and thickness of rock - The basic assumptions in determining

the rock size and thickness are as follows:
The stones are graded uniformly between specified minima for class of rock
protection with two thirds heavier than minimum required on face.
Minimum mass of stone (kg),
11x10 −3 V 6 S gr
W= (10.7)
( S gr − 1) 3 sin 3 (θ − α )
where,
V = Velocity (m/s)
S gr = Specific gravity of rock
θ = 70o for randomly placed rock rubble
α = Face slope (degrees)
1/3
Thickness (m) of rock protection, T=0.3sin α x W c
where, Wc = Class of rock protection (see appendix 10.8) expressed in kg.
(ie W c = 1/4 tonne = 250 kg)
o 6
Assuming, S gr = 2.65 and α= 1.5: 1(33.69 ), then W= 0.032 V and the size
and thickness of rock can be determined from appendix 10.8.
Note that the mass by which the class of rock protection, W c is designated
does not correspond to the mass W. The class of rock protection, W c should
be graded so that at least 2/3 of all rocks in the class have a greater mass than
W.
b) Grading of rock - the grading of rock riprap affects its resistance to erosion. The
stone should be reasonably well graded throughout the riprap layer thickness.
The grading of the various standard classes of rock protection should be in
accordance with appendix 10.8.
Each load of riprap should be reasonably well graded from the smallest to the
maximum specified. Stones smaller than the specified 10 percent size should
not be permitted in an amount exceeding 20 percent by weight of each load.
c) Quality of rock - the riprap should be hard, dense and durable. In addition, it
should be resistant to weathering, free from overburden, spoil, shale and
organic matter. Rock that is laminated, fractured, porous, or otherwise
physically weak is unacceptable as rock slope protection.
10.17
Stone shape is another important factor in the selection of an appropriate riprap

material. In general, riprap constructed with angular material has the best
performance. Round material can be used as riprap provided it is not placed on
slopes greater than 3:1. Flat slab-like stones should be avoided since they are
easily dislodged by flow. An approximate guide to stone shape is that the
breadth or thickness of a single stone should be not less than one-third its
length.
d) Method of placement of rock protection - the thickness of the rock protection

has been determined assuming the following method of placement.
A footing trench should be excavated, along the toe of the slope. Rock should
be placed so as to provide a minimum of voids. The larger rocks should be
placed in the foundation course and on the outside surface of the slope
protection. The rock may be placed by dumping and may be spread in layers by
bulldozers or other similar equipment.
Where filter fabrics are not used, best results are obtained when the
embankment and rock protection are raised in progressive horizontal layers. At
each level the large rocks are placed at the face by bulldozer, and where
required a graded sand/gravel filter material is pushed tightly in behind the rock
protection, before raising the general level of the embankment to the next level.
Local surface irregularities of the slope protection should not vary from the
planned slope by more than 300 mm measured at right angles to the slope.
e) Filter material - where necessary a filter should be placed between the

embankment fill and the rock slope protection to prevent fine embankment
material from being washed out through the voids of the face stones. The filter
may be a graded sand/gravel filter.
10.18

Section 10-Hydraulic Design Aspects of Bridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 10-Hydraulic Design Aspects of Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drainage Design Manual Section 10

SECTION 10 : HYDRAULIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF BRIDGES ........................................ 10.1

Figure 10.1 Variable Cross-section in the Vicinity of Bridges ............................................... 10.9

Table 10.1: K1 for determining of live-bed contraction scour ............................................. 10.13

Ministry of Works and Transport

HYDRAULIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF BRIDGES

Bridges are defined as:

• structures that transport traffic over waterways or other obstructions; and,

10.2 Design Principles

10.3 Design Criteria

10.3.1 General Criteria

• Backwater will not significantly increase flood damage to property upstream of

10.3.2 Specific Criteria

a) Location of a Stream Crossing

impacts to interruptions to traffic, adjacent property, the environment, and the

The results of a least-cost analysis can be presented in a graph of total cost as a

Thereafter, specific flood-frequency criteria shall be considered only as constraints on

The expression for backwater is formulated by applying the principle of conservation

A minimum clearance conforming to the requirements of the Bridge Design manual

h) Preventive /Protection Measures Against Scour

Based on an assessment of potential scour provided by the Hydraulic Engineer, the

Improperly drained bridge decks can cause numerous problems including

Environmental criteria must be met in the design of stream-crossing systems. Such

k) Construction Maintenance Aspects

The stream-crossing design should incorporate measures which reduce maintenance

10.4 Investigation and Design Procedure

10.4.1 Physical Survey

The designer of a stream crossing system requires a comprehensive engineering

• flood hazard mitigation investigations;

10.4.2 Design Procedure Outline

B. Other Relevant Information

1. From Concerned Ministries

C. Influences on Hydraulic Performance of Site

1. Other streams, reservoirs, water intakes

1. Existing bed or bank instability

E. Site-specific Design Criteria

1. Preliminary risk assessment

II. Hydrologic Analysis

A. Catchments area morphology

1. Drainage area (attach map)

III. Hydraulic Analysis

A. Computer model calibration and verification

IV. Selection of Final Design

A. Risk assessment/least-cost alternative ( or Least Total Expected Cost)

C. Consideration of environmental and social criteria

A. Complete project records, etc.

10.4.3 Hydraulic Performance of Bridges

The stream-crossing system is subject to either free-surface flow or pressure flow

It is impracticable to perform the hydraulic analysis for a bridge by manual calculations

10.4.4 The Region of Influence

Figure 10.1 Variable Cross-section in the Vicinity of Bridges

Energy losses caused by structures such as bridges and culverts are

10.5 Bridge Scour and Aggradation

Reasonable and prudent hydraulic analysis of a bridge design requires that an

According to recent studies as reported in HEC-18, the scour at deep abutments is

The inherent complexities of stream stability, further complicated by highway stream

10.5.1 Scour Types

Present technology dictates that bridge scour be evaluated as interrelated

• long term profile changes (aggradation/degradation);

• Aggradation is the deposition of bedload due to a decrease in the energy

Forms of degradation and aggradation shall be considered as imposing a permanent

10.5.2 Plan Form Changes

as increase scour by changing flow patterns approaching a bridge opening. Bank