Technical Guideline

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects April 2013

Copyright

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) 2013 Feedback: Please send your feedback regarding this document to: mr.techdocs@tmr.qld.gov.au

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

Contents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................................................................... 2 DATA COLLECTION................................................................................................................................... 2 SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 MAPPING AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 5 SITE VISIT..................................................................................................................................................... 6 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 7 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 8 BRIDGE INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................................. 9 TIMES OF SUBMERGENCE AND TIMES OF CLOSURE ............................................................. 10 SCOUR ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 11 REPORTING ........................................................................................................................................... 12 DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................................................................... 12 FILING ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

PROCESS

Hydraulic analysis is a critical component for design of bridges that cross water courses. Hydraulic analysis is not required for overpass bridges or similar structures as they do not convey water. Because of the importance of hydraulics in the performance and safety of most bridges, hydraulic analysis should be undertaken by either the Hydraulics and Marine Studies Unit (HMS) of Engineering and Technology Branch or a suitably prequalified and experienced consultant. All hydraulic analysis work undertaken for TMR should be reviewed by HMS and a copy of the final report should be recorded with HMS in a central location. The following is an overview of the general requirements of a hydraulic brief for bridge design.

OVERVIEW

This brief outlines the main issues involved in the hydraulic design for a bridge project. It also outlines the types of checking that may be needed. The brief also provides generic guidelines for relatively routine bridge designs, which includes bridges on single channels without significant overflow sections or floodplains. These can be analysed using a one-dimensional hydraulic modelling approach. Some specific applications may still require a more detailed specific and specialised methodology but the general intent and specification outline are the same. An example of specialised hydraulic designs for bridges includes floodplain bridges, with multiple bridges or with overflow culverts. The main components of a bridge hydraulic design project involve the following steps: Background investigations Data collection Survey Site visit Hydrology analysis, the calculation of flood discharges Hydraulic analysis, the calculation of flood flow patterns, flood levels and flow velocities Bridge investigations, including assessment of options Times of submergence and times of closure Scour assessment and scour protection measures Reporting Documentation, including bridge fixing form, and Filing.

A request for a hydraulic design for a new or replacement bridge may come from one of a number of sources. A Region or District is the most common source, but some of the larger bridges may involve a specific project or alliance. Sometimes, the request may arise from Bridge Design Unit or another specialist unit. Data as needed for the hydraulic design should be provided by the requesting unit and in all cases, it is important to confirm the requirements with other relevant units, such as Bridge Design. If the project is undertaken in-house by HMS, a job number for use in SAP should be provided and set up for HMS application. The project should also be catalogued in the HMS system and a file prepared.

Page 1 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

If the project is undertaken by a consultant, a brief should be prepared and reviewed by HMS to provide a clear and unambiguous outline of the scope of work. The scope of work should include the provision of all data and result files for the computer models used in the project. The consultant should provide a proposal outlining the scope of work and technical criteria, the inclusions and limitations, as well as an itemised fee proposal. The fee should be fixed for a clearly defined scope or time basis if the scope cannot be specified in detail.

BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

Whenever a hydraulic report is required for a bridge, the first process is to review any previous investigations that have been carried out on this bridge, or on other nearby locations. The first source to review is the HMS files to find any previous studies that may have been carried out in-house. If there is no information here, the second source is the Bridge Design Unit files. Even if there is no HMS file, there may be some useful information in the bridge design file on hydraulic results. In some cases, the TMR Plan Room will contain plans including useful hydraulic data, if there is no other information. If there is no information available in Structures Division, there may be some data available in the Region if a hydraulic study has been undertaken either in-house in the region or by consultants working for the region. Obtaining this background data ensures that there is a good understanding of the current status of hydraulic investigations for the Department to be the basis for the current project. As well, these old reports will often contain valuable base data such as flood observations or survey data which may be useful in the current project. As well as specific flood studies for the bridge, there may be related flood investigations that have been carried out for the bridge site or in a nearby reach of the river. These flood investigations will often be carried out for Councils for floodplain management and, while they have been prepared for other purposes, will often be useful for the current project. Information on flood studies completed for the region may be listed in data bases held by Geoscience Australia or the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, and these sources can be investigated.

DATA COLLECTION

Data on the hydraulics of the bridge site and the neighbouring reach of the river is valuable to assist in setting the parameters for the hydrology and hydraulic modelling. Without any data, the modelling must rely on regional parameters and this application leads to greater uncertainty in the results. The data to be collected will include: Streamflow data. If there is a streamgauge in the catchment (especially close to the bridge site) or in a neighbouring catchment, this data should be applied. Streamflow data can be used directly in a flood frequency analysis, to assist in calibrating a rainfall runoff model or to determine the discharge for selected historical flood events to use in calibration of the hydraulic models. It is also used for the calculation of times of submergence. Current and historic streamflow data is available from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM), with most routine data needed for bridge hydraulic analysis available on their website. More detailed data, such as flood hydrographs or rating curve details must be obtained from the Department officers directly, either through a website query or directly to individual officers. There is no charge for provision of streamflow data from DNRM. There are also some stream gauges operated by other agencies, and these should be identified where available. Sunwater operate some gauges especially in irrigation areas, or streams where they have an interest. The rating for these stations will often be

Page 2 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

less reliable than that for DNRM gauges since Sunwater is especially interested in irrigation supplies. There is a charge for supply of data from Sunwater. The Bureau of Meteorology operates flood warning stations in some catchments. The Bureau is generally only interested in flood levels and therefore most of their gauges are not rated. These stations normally record maximum flood levels and sometimes also flood hydrographs. Bureau data must be requested from the Bureau and there is a charge. Streamflow data can be used to calibrate both hydrology and hydraulic models, since they usually provide flood discharges, not just flood levels. Observed flood levels. Observations of flood levels are useful to help in calibration of the hydraulic model. Flood levels can be obtained from one of a number of sources, such as historical records collected by TMR surveyors, from Councils or other stakeholders or directly from local property owners. Care should be taken with the datum used especially for older records. While observed flood levels are very useful, they should be carefully checked for consistency and the reliability should be reviewed. The exact location of the measurements is also often important, considering whether the level is taken upstream or downstream of a bridge or in a local tributary rather than the main channel for example. Localised effects may have important impacts on observed flood levels so the data must be carefully reviewed. Observed flood levels are critical for calibration of hydraulic models, though when there are no recorded flood discharges, there will always be some uncertainty in model parameters. As well as flood levels at an individual point such as the bridge, flood levels along a reach of a water course allows an accurate assessment of flood profiles and a better representation of model parameters. Many observed flood levels result from debris levels, and there may be questions about the accuracy of these debris levels, so care should be taken in the assessment of these levels. General flood observations. Even if there are no detailed measurements of flood levels, general observations of flooding patterns are often useful. For example, there may be information that a bridge has never been inundated, and this can give some guidance on the flood immunity expected when the analysis has been carried out. This information can include anecdotal information from inspectors or other TMR staff. As well the 131940 system will include details on road closures, but this data is available only for the last few years and may be limited. Flow conditions. Observations on general flow conditions may be useful and these may be obtained from local residents or other stakeholders. For example, an observation that flow velocities are low may be an indication that flooding results from backwater rather than local runoff. Observations on debris or sediment mobility can assist in a general understanding of flood behaviour, which contributes to more reliable hydraulic modelling.

These observations and data may be obtained from a number of sources. Local residents or stakeholders may have data, which can be obtained by TMR surveyors or as part of the consultation programme. As well, this data can be obtained from the Council, who collect flood data for a range of purposes such as floodplain management and planning. Data that is suitable for use in hydraulic analyses may also be available in previous reports. These may be TMR reports or studies carried out for other organisations. The most significant of these would be Councils, who are responsible for floodplain management, where flood data is often collected. However depending on the individual situation, a range of other organisations may collect data. One of these is the Bureau of Meteorology who often prepare reports following major flood events, and these reports usually contain a comprehensive compendium of data. Whenever this type of data is collected, it is important to review it carefully. The data may be inaccurate and it is often hard to determine the reliability. It can be checked for consistency both

Page 3 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

internally and with other sources. The source of the data can also provide an indication of how reliable it is likely to be. However in general any flood information is likely to be valuable and can assist the flood study, though interpretation and weighting may be needed at times.

SURVEY

Survey is a critical component of any flood report for a bridge, and may be collected specifically for the particular project or may be available from either TMR or some other organisation where it has been collected for some other purpose. HMS has prepared a detailed brief for the survey requirements for bridge hydraulic investigations and this should be followed. This brief has an outline of the different requirements depending on the type of project. The recommended survey requirements for a simple water course include cross sections for the reach both downstream and upstream of the crossing. An example of the required cross sections for a simple analysis can be seen below.

Downstream of the crossing, the general requirement is to have at least five cross sections spaced approximately 100 m apart. These cross sections should be at right angles to the flow and should extend to higher than the highest expected flood level, so that the model can represent all of the flow. The maximum surveyed level is usually higher than the bank level of the stream, since over-bank or floodplain flow is common. The cross sections should represent the downstream reach sufficiently to allow the backwater model to calculate the flood level immediately downstream of the bridge accurately. In some circumstances, some changes to this guideline may be needed if the water course is small or large or there are other special features. These five cross sections however are generally adequate for most requirements.

Page 4 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

Upstream of the crossing, at least five cross sections are also suggested, also spaced about 100 m apart. These upstream cross sections ensure that the afflux or the impact of the crossing on flood levels can be calculated accurately. As well as the cross sections, the stream bed profile over the reach of the river upstream and downstream of the bridge site (included with the cross sections above) should also be surveyed. This provides assistance with the estimation of the flood profile and also helps to identify locations where there are changes in bed slope, which is useful in the hydraulic modelling. The survey at the road alignment itself is usually prepared for the road and bridge design and this survey is usually suitable for the flood study. It needs to include the cross section at the bridge and immediately upstream and downstream. Where there is an existing road alignment, there should be survey of the road crown levels and drainage structures. It is important that the cross sections should extend up to above the level of the highest expected flood. If the cross sections do not extend sufficiently high, the calculated flood levels and velocities will be too high because the cross sections are extended vertically in the hydraulic modelling. Photographs of the locations of the surveyed cross-sections should be taken to aid in hydraulic analysis of the site, especially if a site visit by the hydraulic specialist is unlikely. As well as these cross sections that are used for the hydraulic analysis, additional survey data may also often be useful. In some cases, survey of the floor levels of potentially affected buildings or other infrastructure such as pumps or dams for example should be taken to assist in assessing afflux at these buildings. If survey is specially commissioned for a bridge hydraulic study, the survey brief can specify the actual requirements. However if there is survey available for another purpose, there may be some shortcomings. Where regional ALS data is available, having been obtained for other applications, the required cross sections can be extracted. As well as specific survey, other survey data can be obtained from aerial photographs, SRTM or other mapping, which give a wider perspective for the project area.

MAPPING AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

Mapping is needed for both the local area of the bridge and also for the catchment and is used for a number of applications in the hydraulic design. A catchment map, either hard copy or electronic is needed to delineate the catchment area, as an input to the calculation of design flood inflows, the hydrology analysis. The map scale should be appropriate for the catchment size being analysed. This map can be used to calculate catchment area, stream length and slope and to subdivide the catchment into sub-catchments for application in runoff-routing models. While traditional maps have been used, CatchmentSIM or another GIS based approach are becoming more widely used and can be used for analysis of catchment data. An aerial photograph of the catchment allows determination of catchment land use and thereby relevant parameters for the hydrology model. Any obvious features of the catchment that may affect runoff, such as urbanisation or dams can be easily identified. Aerial photography of the immediate vicinity of the bridge site allows determination of local features that may affect the hydraulic design. These include buildings or other infrastructure immediately upstream of the bridge where they could be affected by an increase in flood level. There may also be weirs or stream diversions that may not be immediately obvious but which may have an impact on the design.

Page 5 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

Photogrammetry commissioned in-house by TMR is a common source of this data, but it can also be obtained from other government agencies. Other sources include Geoscience Australia, but Google Earth is an accessible source.

SITE VISIT

A site visit is almost always recommended during the preparation of a hydraulic design for a bridge. While a site visit does require funding, in general, the benefits in having a better understanding of the local issues, outweigh the costs. During a site visit, a number of important features can be noted and this background data can assist in the preparation of the hydraulic design report by ensuring that the analysis is consistent with local features. The site visit should be scheduled early in the project, though usually not at the very beginning. The best time is after there has been some progress with the analysis and some understanding of the main features of the project has been gained. If the site visit is carried out too early, the importance of some issues may not be understood and these may be missed. If it is too late, some work may need to be repeated if the site visit finds some unexpected details. The general details that need to be investigated during the site visit include: General appreciation of the local conditions around the bridge Understanding of the conditions of the existing bridge and channel, both upstream and downstream Scour at the bridge site and in the neighbouring channel as well as channel migration history and stability Roughness conditions in the reach of the creek and overbank sections upstream and downstream of the bridge site Locations of any nearby infrastructure (such as other bridges, pipelines, buildings, dams or creek diversions for example) that may influence the flood investigation. These features may not be picked up in maps and survey Any obvious environmental constraints in the vicinity of the bridge, and Indications that the bridge has been overtopped or damaged by flooding.

It is usually recommended that the site visit be undertaken with the local project manager, who can explain important details. It is often useful to involve other stakeholders including other specialists in the project such as environmental, survey or geotechnical specialists for example or council representatives. In some cases, it is useful to involve local residents in the site inspection. While they can assist in guidance around the site, they can also provide local on-site assistance on flooding patterns and levels. During the site visit, it is important to take notes and photographs so that the local observations can be interpreted back in the office. While a site visit is usually very valuable, sometimes it is not practical or achievable. For example if the bridge site is remote, the project is very small or the issues are particularly simple, the site visit may not be justified. In this case, it is valuable to obtain as many photographs as possible from the region project officer to understand the issues in the same way as if a site visit had been undertaken.

Page 6 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS

The first analysis process in the hydraulic design for a bridge is the hydrology, or the calculation of design flood discharges and sometimes discharges for historical floods. There are several floods that need to be calculated. Firstly, design floods for a range of probabilities up to an annual exceedence probability of 1% (AEP 1%). This range should include the standard AEPs of 50, 20, 10, 5, 2 and 1% for most projects. As well the flood with an annual exceedence probability of 0.05% is needed for the structural design of the bridge. In some cases, other large floods are also needed in special circumstances. Sometimes only a few design floods may be needed. If there is sufficient data for model calibration, floods should also be calculated for the specific historical flood events that are used for calibration. The approach to the hydrology analysis depends on the particular circumstances. In all cases, efforts should be made to use any available streamflow data for either the bridge site itself, elsewhere on the river or on a nearby similar catchment. The general approaches are as follows, though usually a combination of methods will be most appropriate: Flood frequency analysis. At-site flood frequency analysis is used if there is a long term streamgauge located near the bridge site. If the gauge is located close to the bridge site, say with a difference in catchment area of less than 10%, the gauge can be used directly, with the calculated discharges modified for the small differences in catchment area. If the gauge is located further away, the flood frequency analysis can be used to help estimate parameters for a runoff routing model. Flood frequency analysis is usually the most reliable method for calculating design flood discharges, but it only provides peak discharges, not flood hydrographs. If flood hydrographs are also needed, say for calculating times of closure, these must be calculated in some other way. The two methods are by scaling recorded hydrographs or by using a runoff routing model. Even if the nearest stream gauge is located some distance from the bridge site or even in a neighbouring catchment, flood frequency analysis on this station may be of value to obtain local regional flood estimates to compare with general regional values. Australian Regional Flood Frequency (ARFF) Method. This newly released methodology provides a regional flood peak estimates for small and medium sized catchments anywhere in Queensland (and in fact for any catchment in Australia). It also applies for any size catchment up to 1,000 km2, including small catchments. The data requirements are catchment area and design rainfall data with specific parameters defined for different regions of the state. As with at-site flood frequency analysis, this method only provided flood peak discharges. If flood hydrographs are required, as they often are, a runoff-routing model should be calibrated to the flood peaks from the ARFF and then used to calculate flood hydrographs. This procedure also calculates uncertainty limits which are useful for assessing risk in the design. Runoff routing. This is a rainfall runoff model where flood hydrographs are calculated from rainfall using one of a range of different software packages. The most common packages used for bridge design include RORB, XP-RAFTS and URBS, but there are several others that can also be appropriate. Rainfall inputs are calculated using Australian Rainfall and Runoff. Model parameters can be calibrated using recorded streamflow data if available, or can be calculated using the formulae for ungauged catchments given in Australian Rainfall and Runoff. As well the model parameters can be calibrated using design flood peaks calculated using ARFF. Runoff routing analysis gives both flood peak discharges and hydrographs.

Page 7 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

When design floods have been calculated, they should be checked for consistency. This check can be with nearby similar catchments that have been previously analysed or with the regional graph of AEP 1% floods prepared by the Department of Natural Resources & Water, now the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA). Once the design floods are decided, this data is available for the next process, the hydraulic analysis.

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Hydraulic analysis is the calculation of flow patterns, flood levels and flow velocities for the bridge and nearby river reach. This information is the data used directly in the analysis of the bridge and the impacts of the bridge on local flooding in the water course. The hydraulic analysis relies on the survey data described above, which is used to control the flood flow patterns in the model. The most commonly used hydraulic analysis procedure used for routine bridge design is HEC-RAS, developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This software is well suited to the hydraulic analysis of bridges and culverts and is widely used around the world for this type of work. It is freely available. The hydraulic analysis is carried out following the standard procedures for HEC-RAS as described in the program manual. More complex hydraulic designs, which are not covered in this note, may use more advanced hydraulic modelling procedures, such as two-dimensional models. However for routine projects, HECRAS is the more common approach and this is the only method described here. More specialised projects are more individual and standard procedures are less applicable. HEC-RAS is a steady - unsteady one-dimensional hydraulic model, so it represents flow along channels with constant conditions at each cross section on the channel. In some cases, flow may be more complex with poorly defined flow spreading across floodplains. In this case, the flow is twodimensional and the HEC-RAS approach does not really apply. It may be possible to approximate the complex flow by a one-dimensional channel (and many applications can use this approach successfully), but in other situations, an alternative two-dimensional modelling approach will be needed. HEC-RAS needs survey data of stream cross sections, as discussed above. The HEC-RAS analysis is carried out for a reach of the stream upstream and downstream of the bridge site. The reach should extend sufficiently far downstream that the tailwater level for the bridge is represented correctly and should extend upstream sufficiently to represent the afflux caused by the bridge. The HEC-RAS model usually works upstream from a downstream boundary (for subcritical flow, which is the most common in natural channels), and this downstream level needs to be carefully assessed. The downstream boundary will usually be based on a downstream slope or the level of the receiving water. The downstream boundary should be sufficiently far downstream that the level does not affect the tailwater of the bridge, but in some cases, careful analysis and sensitivity testing may be needed. The main parameter used for HEC-RAS analysis is Mannings n, a measure of channel roughness. Guidelines for selection of Mannings n are included in text books and manuals, including the HECRAS Users Guide and the TMR Road Drainage Manual. Calibrated hydraulic models for other projects in the region can also be a useful starting point for estimation of Mannings n. It is often useful to consider a sensitivity analysis using Mannings n where there is uncertainty in selection of an appropriate value. Any observed flood data comes in useful with the hydraulic modelling. The flood levels may be available for specific historical floods and these levels can be used directly in model calibration. If there is only general information, this can also be used to help in ensuring that the model results are at least reasonable. The observed flood levels are used to estimate Mannings n roughness values to

Page 8 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

make sure that the calculated flood levels match the observations. The observed flood levels can also help in testing for the effects of backwater and for the downstream starting level for the HEC-RAS model. Three scenarios should be analysed: Natural or unrestricted. This is the analysis for the reach assuming there is no bridge, and provides the natural conditions so that the risk of scour and natural flood levels can be determined. This is the base case for assessing bridge scenarios for the existing or proposed bridge conditions. Existing bridge. The conditions for the existing bridge need to be analysed to understand the current flow conditions. New bridge scenarios. Normally a number of scenarios need to be analysed to test options used in developing the plans for the proposed replacement bridge.

In each case, flood levels and flow velocities along the reach must be calculated and the flow velocities though the bridge need to be determined. The hydraulic modelling should consider the flood levels along the reach of the water course containing the bridge. The analysis should also consider the possibility of backwater from a downstream stream, dam or the ocean. If these conditions seem likely, careful analysis of the downstream conditions is needed to check for the possibility of backwater. The hydraulic analysis should be carried out for a range of flood probabilities. Usually these probabilities include the standard AEPs up to AEP 1% and the AEP 0.05% floods. As well the flood that just overtops the bridge should also be considered, since this will be the most critical event considering velocities through the bridge and the afflux. However in some cases, a range of large floods may need to be analysed if there are significant impact issues, especially if floods significantly larger than the design flood do not overtop the bridge. The hydraulic analysis should normally be undertaken using HEC-RAS with the upstream and downstream cross sections described here. The downstream cross sections are especially important because these ensure that the tailwater level at the bridge is calculated correctly. However on some occasions, the survey data may be inadequate and a less extensive investigation may be the only possibility. In this case, a single cross section, along the road alignment may be the only available data. If this is the case, the hydraulic analysis can be carried out with this single cross section and the tailwater level must be calculated as well as possible. While this approach can provide reasonable results for preliminary analysis, it must be recognised that there are uncertainties in the results.

10

BRIDGE INVESTIGATIONS

The hydraulic analysis is used to analyse the proposed bridge design and a range of scenarios need to be tested. Usually the region will provide an initial option which will be the basis for the assessment or they will provide an indication of the expected hydraulic performance (flood immunity for example) for the bridge. This performance is subject to constraints. The issues that may need to be considered are: Flood immunity. The TMR standard flood immunity criterion is AEP 2% and this is the usual objective unless there is a documented reason to adopt a different value. Sometimes it is not feasible to adopt an AEP 2% criterion because of an extensive floodplain or the wide expanse of shallow flows. This is especially the case for less important roads, where there is likely to be less

Page 9 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

disruption to traffic. In other situations, it may be preferable to allow flow over the road to limit the afflux when water overtops the road and in some cases, the limited traffic may not justify a high flood immunity. Occasionally, the road geometry may lead to a very high flood immunity with the bridge deck well above flood levels. In every case, the flood immunity needs to be calculated and provided in the hydraulic documentation. Flow velocity. The velocity of flow through the bridge is a critical design parameter, and defines the risk of scour for the bridge. Flow velocity usually increases as the flood size increases, but is often at a maximum for a bridge at the point where the bridge is overtopped. Setting an acceptable flow velocity is usually an important constraint on the size of a bridge, because the flow velocity will increase as the bridge is shortened or embankments are raised and the constriction to the flow is increased. As the bridge is made shorter, the velocity increases, but the afflux also increases, as noted further below. The allowable flow velocity depends on the local stream conditions under the bridge, but an average velocity of more than 2.5 m/s is often a concern as the peak localised velocity in the waterway will be higher. Assessing the natural stream conditions without a bridge is often useful, since this will indicate the velocities that will occur and provide an understanding of possible limits. The TMR Scour Manual gives more guidance on the topic of scour estimation and mitigation related to flow velocity. Afflux. The afflux is the increase in water level produced by the bridge, and is often a critical constraint on the bridge design. This increase in level is produced by the constriction to the flow width. As mentioned above, as the bridge reduces in length, the flow velocity through the bridge and the afflux both increase. Afflux is usually a concern in urban areas or at locations where there is a building or other infrastructure upstream of the bridge and in the region of influence. Afflux is at a maximum for the flood that just overtops the bridge and associated approach embankments and immediately upstream. Afflux is less for smaller floods that flow relatively unconstrained under the bridge and for floods where the bridge is overtopped and water can spread over an extent of floodway. Afflux reduces with distance upstream, with the extent of influence depending on the channel slope and other conditions. Afflux must be calculated for the appropriate distance upstream from the bridge and for a range of flood sizes. It may be impossible to reduce the afflux at a building to zero, but the individual risk should be assessed carefully. Large floods. In some cases, the bridge may not be overtopped by floods significantly larger than the design flood. In this case, there is the possibility that there may be significant impacts or stream diversions if a major flood occurs. If this situation occurs, larger floods should be considered and analysis of these events carried out. The situation occurs where the road geometry results in a high alignment, where there is an overpass over another road as well as over the water course or where there are safety or noise barriers on the bridge. AEP 0.05% flood. This flood probability needs to be analysed to provide flood levels and flow velocity for input to the bridge design process.

During the investigations into bridge design options, it is common for a number of options to be tested. The adopted option needs to be agreed with the project manager in the region, while meeting required constraints of flow velocity and afflux.

11

TIMES OF SUBMERGENCE AND TIMES OF CLOSURE

Assessment of these times is important especially where the flood immunity of either the existing or proposed bridge is low. The time of submergence is the time that the bridge is inundated by any water even if it is shallow. The time of closure is based on the understanding that the road may be

Page 10 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

inundated, but still trafficable so depends on the depth and velocity of the flow. TMR defines a road to be trafficable if the total head is less than 0.3 m. Total head (H, m) is the depth of water over the road (h, m) plus the velocity head (V / 2g, m, where g is gravity and V is velocity). Because of the risk to traffic, the Police will often close a road whenever it is submerged. As well bridges will not be reopened after inundation until an inspection has confirmed that it is safe, which may extend the period of closure. Times of submergence can be expressed as a time for a major historical flood (such as the 1974 flood in Brisbane), a large design flood (such as the AEP 2% flood) or as the average time per year, the average annual time of submergence (AATOS). These measures, in conjunction with the flood immunity, provide valuable information on the disruption to traffic that can be expected. If the flood immunity of the bridge is AEP 2% or higher, the AATOS can be regarded as negligible, though the bridge may be submerged occasionally by very large floods. The calculated AATOS may be underestimated for bridges where the flood immunity is low so these results should be analysed and reported carefully. A TMR paper published by HMS on an appropriate adjustment to the calculated AATOS should be referred to and the calculated value adjusted accordingly if the flood immunity is less than AEP 10%. The AATOS is calculated from streamflow data or from flood hydrographs, as described in the Road Drainage Manual. These times should be calculated for the existing and proposed bridges and results provided, to assist in the analysis of the benefits of the upgrade.

12

SCOUR ASSESSMENT

Scour is a major risk for a bridge, and it is possible for a bridge to be completely destroyed by scour (though this is extremely rare in Queensland). Therefore an understanding of scour should be a part of the hydraulic design for a bridge. The TMR Scour Manual has a detailed consideration of all aspects of scour for bridges and provides detailed guidance. Generally the risk of scour is increased with high flow velocities through the bridge, but other factors such as turbulence or complex flow patterns around the abutments or the bridge location on a bend in the stream could also be a risk. Therefore the design should aim to maintain the flow velocities below a threshold and to minimise the constriction caused by the bridge. While it is not possible to give a clear rule, scour is not likely to be a problem if the flow velocity through the bridge is increased by less than 10% from the case with no bridge. As well, a flow velocity less than 2.5 m/s in a defined water course is not usually a problem, but the channel conditions need to be considered for possible problems. While scour can occur in the constricted flow area under the bridge, scour is more commonly found to be a problem at the bridge abutments and on the bridge approaches. These are locations where scour risk and scour protection should be examined more carefully. Where there seems to be a possibility of a risk of scour, a scour assessment should be carried out. This scour assessment could routinely follow the procedures in the Austroads Waterway Design manual or HEC-RAS, which provides an approach to estimating the total expected depth of scour. Otherwise a detailed and site specific scour assessment could be considered, but this is a major project.

Page 11 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

If it is not possible to mitigate the scour risk by changing the bridge size, scour protection measures may be required. This is a site specific design procedure and detailed analysis will be required. Scour assessment should be assessed for the whole floodplain and approach embankments and not just for the bridge itself, between the abutments. As part of the design for scour, a detailed General Arrangement, incorporating both bridge, approach embankments, associated culverts and road design, is needed. The TMR guide to scour protection, produced by HMS should be referenced and appropriate scour protection measure implemented.

13

REPORTING

Following completion of the hydraulic design, an important part of the project is the preparation of a design report. This report is the main deliverable for the project from HMS or the consultant. The report should be self contained and include all of the background information, base data, assumptions, analysis procedures, results and conclusions. The report is prepared specifically for the project manager in the region, but the report will often be used by others and may be sent to the council or other stakeholders for their information and comments. Sometimes, the report will be used as part of the public consultation programme and may be sent to members of the public. The hydraulic report will also often be incorporated as part of the design report or a business case for a project. The text should be clear, concise and descriptive and the results should be presented as tables and figures as well as maps. All information and assumptions needed to reproduce the results should be included. Where bridge design has been carried out by consultants, the deliverables should include all computer files, including GIS layers. Because this text may be incorporated into other reports and documents, it should be written in MS Word to allow this editing to be carried out easily. A PDF issue copy should also be provided.

14

DOCUMENTATION

While the hydraulic design report and result files are important deliverables, there are several forms that must be completed as part of the bridge hydraulic design. The Bridge Hydraulic Design Summary (Form M2303) has a summary of the principal results from the hydraulic analysis. The Bridge Fixing Form (Form M2304) provides design details that are agreed with Bridge Design Branch prior to the design of the bridge. Both forms are prepared after the hydraulic report has been accepted by the region and a bridge design has been agreed. The two forms are sent from the hydraulic designer to both Bridge Design Branch and the region or other stakeholders as required. Depending on the particular project, they may sometimes need to be sent also to consultants or other interested parties. Once the hydraulic fixing has been accepted, details of the design should be incorporated into the Bridge Information System (BIS).

15

FILING

While it is important to do the technical analysis correctly, it is also vital that the work can be understood by others in the future. This means that the project should be well documented and filed,

Page 12 of 13

Department of Transport and Main Roads

April 2013

Hydraulic Guidelines for Bridge Design Projects

Guideline

with appropriate quality assurance systems. The HMS Unit Quality Assurance system should be used. The file should include all correspondence, including noting of phone conversations, emails and reports. Records of phone conversations and meetings are important since decisions are often made at these times. The file should also include all quality assurance forms and technical workings. Sometimes even issues that appear minor at the time become significant in the future and it is important that they should be documented. The file is the main future source of all data concerning the project and it is vital that it should be well prepared and clearly understood.

Page 13 of 13