Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 747–758 | Cite as

Developing Cost-Effective Design Guidelines for Fish-Friendly Box Culverts, with a Focus on Small Fish

  • Xinqian Leng
  • Hubert ChansonEmail author
  • Matthews Gordos
  • Marcus Riches
Article

Abstract

Low-level river crossings can have negative impacts on freshwater ecosystems, including blocking upstream fish passage. In order to restore upstream fish passage in culverts, we developed physically-based design methods to yield cost-effective culvert structures in order to maintain or restore waterway connectivity for a range of small-bodied fish species. New guidelines are proposed for fish-friendly multi-cell box culvert designs based upon two basic concepts: (1) the culvert design is optimised for fish passage for small to medium water discharges, and for flood capacity for larger discharges, and (2) low-velocity zones in the culvert barrel are defined in terms of a percentage of the wetted flow area where the local longitudinal velocity component is less than a characteristic fish speed linked to swimming performances of targeted fish species. This approach is novel and relies upon an accurate physically-based knowledge of the entire velocity field in the barrel, specifically the longitudinal velocity map, because fish tend to target low-velocity zone (LVZ) boundaries. The influence of the relative discharge threshold Q1/Qdes, characteristic fish swimming speed Ufish, and percentage of flow area on the size of box culvert structures was assessed. The results showed that the increase in culvert size and cost might become significant for a smooth culvert barrel with Ufish < 0.3 m/s and Q1/Qdes > 0.3, when providing 15% flow area with 0 < Vx < Ufish. Similar trends were seen for culvert barrel with recessed cell(s).

Keywords

Box culverts Upstream fish passage Design guidelines Low velocity zones 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Colin J. APELT (The University of Queensland, Australia), Dr Gangfu ZHANG (WSP Brisbane, Australia), and Professor Daniel BUNG (FH Aachen University of Applied Science, Germany) for valuable comments. Further comments from discussions with a number of professional engineers and biologists were considered.

Funding

The financial support of Australian Research Council (Grant LP140100225) is acknowledged.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2019_1167_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (191 kb)
Supplementary information

References

  1. Allen GR, Midgley SH, Allen M (2002) Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. Western Australia Museum, Australia, p 394Google Scholar
  2. Anderson GB, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ, Straight CA, Hagler MM, Peterson JT (2012) Dealing with uncertainty when assessing fish passage through culvert road crossings. Environ Manage 50:462–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates K, Barnard B, Heiner B, Klavas JP, Powers PD (2003) Design of road culverts for fish passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington, p 111Google Scholar
  4. Behlke CE, Kane DL, Mcleen RF, Travis MT (1991) Fundamentals of Culvert Design for Passage of Weak-Swimming Fish. Report FHW A-AK-RD-90-10. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, USA, p 178Google Scholar
  5. Blank MD (2008). Advanced Studies of Fish Passage through Culverts: 1-D and 3-D Hydraulic Modelling of Velocity, Fish Energy Expenditure, and a New Barrier Assessment Method. Ph.D. thesis, Montana State University, Department of Civil Engineering, Bozeman, Montana, USA, p 231Google Scholar
  6. Briggs AS, Galarowicz TL (2013) Fish passage through culverts in central michigan warmwater streams. N Am J Fish Manage 33:652–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabonce J, Fernando R, Wang H, Chanson H (2017) Using Triangular Baffles to Facilitate Upstream Fish Passage in Box Culverts: Physical Modelling. Hydraulic Model Report No. CH107/17. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, p 130Google Scholar
  8. Cabonce J, Fernando R, Wang H, Chanson H (2019) Using small triangular baffles to facilitate upstream fish passage in standard box culverts Environ Fluid Mech 19(1):157–179.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-018-9604-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabonce J, Wang H, Chanson H (2018) Ventilated corner baffles to assist upstream passage of small-bodied fish in box culverts. J Irri Drain Engg 144(8):Paper 0418020.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001329) Google Scholar
  10. Cahoon JE, Mcmahon T, Solcz A, Blank M, Stein O (2007) Fish Passage in Montana Culverts: Phase II - Passage Goals. Report FHWA/MT-07-010/8181, Montana Department of Transportation and US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bozeman, Montana, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Chanson H (1999) Culvert Design. In: Chanson H (ed.) The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction, 1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK, p 365–401Google Scholar
  12. Chanson H (2000) Introducing originality and innovation in engineering teaching: the hydraulic design of culverts. Euro J Engg Edu 25(4):377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chanson H (2004) The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p 630Google Scholar
  14. Chanson H, Leng X (2018) On the Development of Hydraulic Engineering Guidelines for Fish-Friendly Standard Box Culverts, with a Focus on Small-Body Fish. Civil Engineering Research Bulletin No. 25. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, p 79Google Scholar
  15. Chorda J, Larinier M, Font S (1995) Le Franchissement par les Poissons Migrateurs des Buses et Autres Ouvrages de Rétablissement des Ecoulements Naturels lors des Aménagements Routiers et Autoroutes. Etude Expérimentale. Rapport HYDRE n°159 - GHAAPPE n°95-03. Groupe d’Hydraulique Appliquée aux Aménagements Piscicoles et à la Protection de l’Environnement, Service d’Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Toulouse, p 116Google Scholar
  16. Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia (1991) Hydraulics of Precast Concrete Conduits, 3rd edn. Jenkin Buxton Printers, Australia, p 72Google Scholar
  17. Concrete Pipe Association of Australasia (2012) Hydraulics of Precast Concrete Conduits. CPAA Design Manual, Australia, p 64Google Scholar
  18. Courret D (2014) Petits Ouvrages Hydrauliques et continuite pisicole. Equipement des OH existants: principes de choix et de dimensionnement des dispositifes.” Presentation, NancyGoogle Scholar
  19. DWA (2014) Fischaufstiegsanlagen und fischpassierbare Bauwerke – Gestaltung, Bemessung, Qualitätssicherung. Merkblatt DWA-M 509, Deutsche Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e. V., Hennef, Germany, p 334Google Scholar
  20. DPI-Fisheries (2013). Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wollongbar, NSW, Australia, p 80Google Scholar
  21. Dynesius M, Nilsson C (1994) Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266:753–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fairfull S, Witheridge G (2003) Why do fish need to cross the road? Fish passage requirements for waterway crossings. NSW Fisheries, Cronulla NSW, p 14Google Scholar
  23. Gardner A (2006) Fish Passage through Road Culverts. North Carolina State University, USA, p 103. Master of Science thesisGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodrich HR, Watson JR, Cramp RL, Gordos M, Franklin CE (2018) Making culverts great again. Efficacy of a common culvert remediation strategy across sympatric fish species. Ecological Eng. 116:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hee M (1969) Hydraulics of Culvert Design Including Constant Energy Concept. Proc. 20th Conf. of Local Authority Engineers, Dept. of Local Govt, Queensland, paper 9, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  26. Henderson FM (1966) Open Channel Flow. MacMillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Herr LA, Bossy HG (1965) Capacity Charts for the Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts. Hydraulic Eng Circular, US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin, HEC No. 10, MarchGoogle Scholar
  28. Hotchkiss RH, Frei CM (2007) Design for Fish Passage at Roadway-Stream Crossings: Synthesis Report.” Publication No. FHWA-HIF-07-033, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, p 280Google Scholar
  29. Hunt M, Clark S, Tkach R (2012) Velocity distributions near the inlet of corrugated steep pipe culverts. Canad J Civil Engg 39:1243–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hurst TP, Kay BH, Ryan PA, Brown MD (2007) Sublethal effects of mosquito larvicides on swimming performances of larvivorous fish Melanotaenia duboulayi (Atheriniformes: Melanotaeniidae). J Econ Entomol 100(1):61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jensen KM (2014) Velocity Reduction Factors in Near Boundary Flow and the Effect on Fish Passage Through Culverts. Brigham Young University, USA, p 44Google Scholar
  32. Kapitzke IR (2010) Culvert Fishway Planning and Design Guidelines. Report. James Cook University, Townsville, version 2.0Google Scholar
  33. Katopodis C, Gervais R (2016) Fish Swimming Performance Database and Analyses. DFO CSAS Research Document No. 2016/002. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, p 550Google Scholar
  34. Kemp P (2012) Bridging the gap between fish behaviour, performance and hydrodynamics: an ecohydraulics approach to fish passage research. River Res Appl 28:403–406.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koehn JD, Crook DA (2013) Movements and migration. In: Humphries P, Walker K (eds) Ecology of Australian Freshwater Fishes. CSIRO Publishing, Australia, pp 105–130Google Scholar
  36. Khodier MA, Tullis BP (2017) Experimental and computational comparison of baffled-culvert hydrodynamics for fish passage. J Appl Water Engg Res 6(3):191–199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2017.1287018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kilgore RT, Bergendahl BS, Hotchkiss RH (2010) Culvert Design for Aquatic Passage. Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number No. 26, Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-HIF-11-008, p 234Google Scholar
  38. Larinier M (2002) Fish Passage through Culverts, Rock Weirs and Estuarine Obstructions. Bulletin Français de Pêche et Pisciculture 364(Supplement):119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lintermans M (2013) Recovering threatened freshwater fish in Australia. Marine Freshwater Res 64:iii–vi.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MFv64n9_IN CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maddock I, Harby A, Kemp P, Wood P (2013) Research Needs, Challenges and the Future of Ecohydraulics Research. In: I Maddock, A Harby, P Kemp and P Wood (eds) Ecohydraulics: An Integrated Approach, John Wiley, pp 431–436Google Scholar
  41. Mallen-Cooper M (1996) Fishways and Freshwater Fish Migration in South-Eastern Australia. Ph.D. thesis. University of Technology Sydney, Australia, p 442Google Scholar
  42. Milt AW, Diebel MW, Doran PJ, Ferris MC, Herbert M, Khoury ML, Moody AT, Neeson TM, Ross J, Treska T, O’hanley JR, Walter L, Wangen AR, Yacobson E, Mcintyre PB (2018) Minimizing opportunity costs to aquatic connectivity restoration while controlling an invasive species. Conserv Biol 32(4):894–904.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Monk SK, Hotchkiss RH (2012) Culvert Roughness Elements for Native Utah Fish Passage: Phase II. Report No. UT-12.09. Utah Department of Transportation—Research Division, USA, p 47Google Scholar
  44. Morvan H, Knight D, Wright N, Tang X, Crossley A (2008) The concept of roughness in fluvial hydraulics and its formulation in 1D, 2D and 3D numerical simulation models. J Hydraul Res 46(2):191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oberkampf WL, Trucano TG, Hirsch C (2004) Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics. Appl Mech Rev 57(5):345–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Hanley JR (2011) Open rivers: barrier removal planning and the restoration of free-flowing rivers. J Environ Manage 92:3112–3120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olsen A, Tullis B (2013) Laboratory study of fish passage and discharge capacity in slip-lined, baffled culverts. J Hydraul Engg 139(4):424–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olson LJ, Roy S (2002) The economics of controlling a stochastic biological invasion. Am J Agric Econ 84:1311–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Papanicolaou AN, Talebbeydokhti N (2002) Discussion of “Turbulent open-channel flow in circular corrugated culverts. J Hydraul Engg 128(5):548–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. QUDM (2013) Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, 3rd edn. Queensland Department of Energy and Water Supply, Brisbane, p 459Google Scholar
  51. Rizzi A, Vos J (1998) Toward establishing credibility in computational fluid dynamics simulations. AIAA J 36(5):668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roache RL (1998) Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering. Hermosa Publishers, Albuquerque NM, p 446Google Scholar
  53. Rodi W (2017) Turbulence modeling and simulation in hydraulics: a historical review. J Hydraul Engg 143(5):Paper03117001.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001288
  54. Rodi W, Constantinescu G, Stoesser T (2013) Large-Eddy Simulation in Hydraulics. IAHR Monograph, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Leiden, p 252Google Scholar
  55. Schall JD, Thompson PL, Zerges SM, Kilgore RT, and Morris JL (2012) Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts. Hydraulic Design Series No. 5, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-026, 3rd edn, Washington, DC, USA, p 326Google Scholar
  56. Wang H, Chanson H (2018) Modelling upstream fish passage in standard box culverts: interplay between turbulence, fish kinematics, and energetics. River Res Appl 34(3):244–252.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang H, Chanson H, Kern P, Franklin C (2016a) Culvert Hydrodynamics to enhance Upstream Fish Passage: Fish Response to Turbulence. Proceedings of 20th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Australasian Fluid Mechanics Society, G. Ivey, T. Zhou, N. Jones, S. Draper Editors, Perth WA, 5–8 December, p 682Google Scholar
  58. Wang H, Beckingham LK, Johnson CZ, Kiri UR, Chanson H (2016b) “Interactions between Large Boundary Roughness and High Inflow Turbulence in Open channel: a Physical Study into Turbulence Properties to Enhance Upstream Fish Migration.” Hydraulic Model Report No. CH103/16. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, p 74Google Scholar
  59. Warren Jr. ML, Pardew MG (1998) Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Trans Am Fish Soc 127:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilkes MA, Webb JA, Pompeu PS, Silva LGM, Vowles AS, Baker CF, Franklin P, Link O, Habit E, Kemp PS (2018) Not just a migration problem: Metapopulations, habitat shifts, and gene flow are also important for fishway science and management. River Res Appl  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3320
  61. Zhang G, Chanson H (2018) Three‐dimensional numerical simulations of smooth, asymmetrically roughened, and baffled culverts for upstream passage of small‐bodied fish. River Res Appl 34(8):957–964.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.New South Wales Department of Primary IndustriesWollongbarAustralia

Personalised recommendations