Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Bridge Configuration Effect on Hydraulic Regime

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The presence of a bridge structure in the river induces changes in the natural geometry of the river cross section by, therefore, altering the hydraulic regime significantly and causing the so-called backwater effect. Nevertheless, the effect of the bridge configuration on the hydraulic regime is barely studied. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate the variations in the water surface profile and flow velocity due to the bridge structure configuration. For this purpose, the water surface profile and flow velocity on the upstream and downstream of the bridge were investigated for five flow discharges and four different bridge spans (M = b/B = 0.58, 0.67, 0.75, 0.83). In addition, the relationships between the bridge’s upstream and downstream average velocities were investigated. The analysis was carried out experimentally and numerically using the HEC-RAS model. The overall average velocity difference upstream of the bridge section was − 92.59%, while downstream of the bridge was determined as − 11.95%. So, the average velocities determined by HEC-RAS were considerably overestimated at the upstream part of the bridge. Linear relationships were identified for the average downstream and upstream measured velocities in the different openings. The correlation coefficients (R2) were significantly high for considered for all tested b/B ratios. Manning roughness coefficient n = 0.01 was found suitable for smooth open channel; nevertheless, a higher n value should be considered non-smooth open channel. The solution-oriented findings from this study might be helpful for engineers by assisting them to reduce uncertainties in the dimensioning of bridges structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

The first author should be contacted for the data.

Code Availability

The first author should be contacted for the data.

Abbreviations

A :

Submerged cross-section’s area (m2)

α:

Velocity weighting coefficient (–)

C :

Expansion or contraction loss coefficient (–)

1D /2D :

One dimensional/two dimensional

\({F}_{\mathrm{r}}\) :

Froude number (–)

g :

Gravitational acceleration (m/s2)

h :

Water depth (m)

\({h}_{\mathrm{e}}\) :

Energy head loss (m)

\({h}_{\mathrm{n}}\) :

Uniform water depth (cm)

HEC-RAS:

River Analysis System (RAS), developed by Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

L :

Distance between cross section (m)

n :

Manning's roughness coefficient (s/m1/3)

Q :

Flow discharge (m3/s)

R :

Hydraulic radius (m)

\({R}_{\mathrm{e}}\) :

Reynolds number (–)

\(\varepsilon\) :

Average difference (%)

S :

Channel’s slope (m/m)

\({S}_{\mathrm{f}}\) :

Friction slope (m/m)

V :

Mean flow velocity (m/s)

V downst.:

Flow velocity downstream (m/s)

\({V}_{\mathrm{HEC}}\) :

Flow velocity estimated with HEC-RAS (m/s)

\({V}_{\mathrm{meas}.}\) :

Flow velocity measured in the flume (m/s)

V upst. :

Flow velocity upstream (m/s)

W b :

Bridge deck width (cm)

WSPRO:

Water surface profile (m)

Z :

River elevation inverts (m)

References

  1. Argyroudis SA, Mitoulis SA (2021) Vulnerability of bridges to individual and multiple hazards-floods and earthquakes. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 210:107564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Breccolotti M, Natalicchi M (2021) Bridge damage detection through combined quasi-static influence lines and weigh-in-motion devices. Int J Civ Eng 19(11):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00682-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu C, Wu P, Wang J, Jiang R, Chen M, Wang X (2020) Critical review of data-driven decision-making in bridge operation and maintenance. Struct Infrastruct Eng 18(1):47–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1833946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sun L, Shang Z, Xia Y, Bhowmick S, Nagarajaiah S (2020) Review of bridge structural health monitoring aided by big data and artificial intelligence: from condition assessment to damage detection. J Struct Eng 146(5):04020073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shaker F, Rahai A (2019) Substructure responses of a concrete bridge with different deck-to-Pier connections. Int J Civ Eng 17(11):1683–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00455-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ardiclioglu M, Genc O (2015) Investigation of bridge afflux on urban transport by experiments and HEC-RAS package. In: (Ed.)^(Eds.), 7th Urban infrastructure symposium. Trabzon, Turkey, pp 1–12

  7. Ghaderi A, Daneshfaraz R, Dasineh M (2019) Evaluation and prediction of the scour depth of bridge foundations with HEC-RAS numerical model and empirical equations (Case Study: Bridge of Simineh Rood Miandoab, Iran). Eng J 23(6):279–295. https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2019.23.6.279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pizarro A, Manfreda S, Tubaldi E (2020) The science behind scour at bridge foundations: a review. Water 12(2):374. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hai DT, Yamada H, Katsuchi H (2007) Present condition of highway bridges in Vietnam: an analysis of current failure modes and their main causes. Struct Infrastruct Eng 3(1):61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470500254774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wardhana K, Hadipriono FC (2003) Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States. J Perform Constr Facil 17(3):144–150. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2003)17:3(144)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang Y, Xiong X, Melville BW, Sturm TW (2021) Dynamic morphology in a bridge-contracted compound channel during extreme floods: effects of abutments, bed-forms and scour countermeasures. J Hydrol 594:125930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cao F, Tao Q, Dong S, Li X (2020) Influence of rain pattern on flood control in mountain creek areas: a case study of northern Zhejiang. Appl Water Sci 10(10):224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-020-01308-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Deng L, Cai C (2010) Bridge scour: Prediction, modeling, monitoring, and countermeasures. Pract Period Struct Design Constr 15(2):125–134. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alemi M, Maia R (2018) Numerical simulation of the flow and local scour process around single and complex bridge Piers. Int J Civ Eng 16(5):475–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0137-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khandel O, Soliman M (2019) Integrated framework for quantifying the effect of climate change on the risk of bridge failure due to floods and flood-induced scour. J Bridg Eng 24(9):04019090. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mitoulis SA, Argyroudis SA, Loli M, Imam B (2021) Restoration models for quantifying flood resilience of bridges. Eng Struct 238:112180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Diaz EEM, Moreno FN, Mohammadi J (2009) Investigation of common causes of bridge collapse in Colombia. Pract Period Struct Design Constr 14(4):194–200. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu T-R, Wang H, Ko Y-Y, Chiou J-S, Hsieh S-C, Chen C-H, Lin C, Wang C-Y, Chuang M-H (2014) Forensic diagnosis on flood-induced bridge failure. II: framework of quantitative assessment. J Perform Constr Facil 28(1):85–95. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garg RK, Chandra S, Kumar A (2020) Analysis of bridge failures in India from 1977 to 2017. Struct Infrastruct Eng 18(3):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1832539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schaap HS, Caner A (2021) Bridge collapses in Turkey: causes and remedies. Struct Infrastruct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1867198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Noor M, Arshad H, Khan M, Khan MA, Aslam MS, Ahmad A (2020) Experimental and HEC-RAS modelling of bridge Pier scouring. J Adv Res Fluid Mech Thermal Sci 74(1):119–132. https://doi.org/10.37934/arfmts.74.1.119132OpenAccess

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bonner VR (1996) Bridge hydraulic analysis with HEC-RAS. In: (Ed.)^(Eds.). US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, USA

  23. Brunner GW, Hunt JH (1995) A comparison of the one-dimensional bridge hydraulic routines from HEC-RAS, HEC-2 and WSPRO. In: (Ed.)^(Eds.). Hydrologic Engineering Center Davis CA, USA, pp. 1–80

  24. Brunner GW (2002) Hec-ras (river analysis system). In: (Ed.)^(Eds.), North American Water and Environment Congress & Destructive Water. ASCE, pp 3782–3787

  25. Al-Husseini TR, Hamad HT, Al-Madhhachi A-ST (2021) Effects of an upstream sluice gate and holes in pooled step cascade weirs on energy dissipation. Int J Civ Eng 19(1):103–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-020-00568-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tung Y-K, Mays LW (1982) Optimal risk-based hydraulic design of bridges. J Water Resour Plan Manag Div 108(2):191–203. https://doi.org/10.1061/JWRDDC.0000252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Benedict ST, Knight TP (2021) Benefits of compiling and analyzing hydraulic-design data for bridges. Transp Res Rec. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211023757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ling M, Wang J, Wu M, Cao L, Fu B (2021) Design and modeling of an improved bridge-type compliant mechanism with its application for hydraulic piezo-valves. Sens Actuators A 324:112687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2021.112687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Abd El-Hady Rady R (2020) Prediction of local scour around bridge piers: artificial-intelligence-based modeling versus conventional regression methods. Appl Water Sci 10(2):57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-020-1140-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahamed T, Duan JG, Jo H (2020) Flood-fragility analysis of instream bridges—consideration of flow hydraulics, geotechnical uncertainties, and variable scour depth. Struct Infrastruct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1815226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sturm TW (2001) Open channel hydraulics. 1. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Hadi AM, Ardiclioglu M (2018) Investigation of bridge afflux on channels by experiments and HEC-RAS package. Int J Eng Technol 7(4):4829–4832. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.21068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ardiclioglu M, Seçkin G, Seçilir S (2006) Experimental investigation of the effects of bridge structures on maximum afflux on rivers. In: (Ed.)^(Eds.), 5th GAP Engineering Congress. Şanlıurfa, Turkey, pp. 25–36

  34. Ardıçlıoğlu M, Kuriqi A (2019) Calibration of channel roughness in intermittent rivers using HEC-RAS model: case of Sarimsakli creek, Turkey. SN Appl Sci 1(9):1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1141-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Arcement GJ, Schneider VR (1989) Guide for selecting Manning’s roughness coefficients for natural channels and flood plains. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, pp 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brunner GW, Gibson S (2005) Sediment transport modeling in HEC RAS. Impacts of Global Climate Change. pp 1–12

  37. Instrumart, Shop industrial and laboratory instruments, 2022. https://www.instrumart.com

  38. HydroMet, Water flow, 2022. https://www.ott.com/products/water-flow-127/

  39. Mehta DJ, Yadav SM (2020) Analysis of scour depth in the case of parallel bridges using HEC-RAS. Water Supply 20(8):3419–3432. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2020.255

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Alban Kuriqi acknowledges the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) support through PTDC/CTA-OHR/30561/2017 (WinTherface).

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Research, Kayseri, Turkey

    Mehmet Ardiclioglu

  2. Environmental and Pollution Department, Kirkuk Technical College, NTU, Kirkuk, Iraq

    Arzu M. W. Mohamed Hadi

  3. Independent Research, Tirana, Albania

    Erion Periku

  4. CERIS, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, 1649-004, Lisbon, Portugal

    Alban Kuriqi

Authors
  1. Mehmet Ardiclioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arzu M. W. Mohamed Hadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erion Periku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alban Kuriqi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MA, AMWMH, EP, and AK: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft. MAAK: writing—review and editing, resources, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alban Kuriqi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ardiclioglu, M., Hadi, A.M.W.M., Periku, E. et al. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Bridge Configuration Effect on Hydraulic Regime. Int J Civ Eng 20, 981–991 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00715-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00715-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation