Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines
Version 3.0
© Copyright, January 2014
The Crown in right of the Province of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Transportation

Permission is given to reproduce all or part of this document without modification. If changes are
made to any part, it should be made clear that that part has been modified.
Version 3.0
Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 1

Classification: Public
[This page intentionally left blank for printing]

BRIDGE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Volume 3.0
Technical Standards Branch

Alberta Transportation
May 2020
© Copyright May 2020
The Crown in right of the Province of Alberta, as represented by the

Minister of Transportation
Permission is given to reproduce all or part of this document
without modification. If changes are made to any part, it should be
made clear that that part has been modified.

Preface
These guidelines cover all aspects of bridge conceptual design, also referred to as bridge planning,
including bridge location, sizing, geometrics, hydrotechnical design, and river protection works.
These guidelines apply to all Alberta Transportation projects involving bridge size structures,
including all tasks identified as Bridge Planning as per the current version of the Engineering
Consultant Guidelines, Vol. 1.
Although this document is intended to be thorough, certain cases may arise where specific
guidance is not provided or not applicable. Consultants working for Alberta Transportation must
exercise technically sound and well-justified engineering judgment in the application of these
guidelines. It is not the intent of the document to limit progress or discourage innovation.
Consultants are encouraged to explore all engineering options they deem appropriate for a
specific site.
For situations where engineering analysis reveals that standards in this guideline are not
appropriate for a specific project, the design exception process shall be followed, as per the
Department’s Design Exceptions Guideline. Subject Matter Experts shall be informed for any
proposed deviations from current standards or guidelines and will make a determination of
whether a formal design exception submission is required. Documentation, either through a
formal design exception submission or through content within the Conceptual Design Report,
should include an appropriate level of engineering analysis, evaluation of alternatives (for
example an option to meet the standard in comparison to an option to not meet the standard),
risk assessments, mitigation strategies, and recommendations. The Subject Matter Expert shall
determine if the design exception is approved, with final sign off required by the Executive
Director of the Technical Standards Branch.
Any project specific questions relating to these guidelines should be directed to the Project
Manager. Any feedback or technical clarification requests relating to this document should be
directed to the Bridge Planning Specialist, Bridge Engineering Section, Technical Standards
Branch, Alberta Transportation.
Approved:
caroline.watt@g Digitally signed by

caroline.watt@gov.ab.ca
john.alexander@ Digitally signed by
john.alexander@gov.ab.ca
ov.ab.ca gov.ab.ca DN: cn=john.alexander@gov.ab.ca
DN: cn=caroline.watt@gov.ab.ca
Date: 2020.06.03 10:44:29 -06'00'
Date: 2020.06.05 12:26:54 -06'00'
Caroline Watt, MEng. PEng. John Alexander, MSc. Peng.

Bridge Planning Specialist Director
Bridge Engineering Bridge Engineering
Technical Standards Branch Technical Standards Branch
Digitally signed by Des
Des Williamson Williamson

Date: 2020.06.05 12:36:56
-06'00'
Des Williamson, MSc. PEng.

Executive Director
Technical Standards Branch

LIST OF CHANGES
The following page is reserved for documenting changes to this version of the Bridge Conceptual
Design Guidelines. When changes are completed to the document, the following actions will be
completed:
 The version of the document will be updated;
 A revision triangle will be placed next to the change in the document;
 A basic description and the date of the change will be summarized below.
Document Date Description

Revision

Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 8
1.1 What is Bridge Conceptual Design? ..................................................................... 9
1.2 Why do Bridge Conceptual Design? ..................................................................... 9
1.3 Process Overview ............................................................................................... 10
1.4 Technical Considerations Overview ................................................................... 10
2 Data Collection Phase .................................................................................. 12

3 Site Inspection Phase .................................................................................. 13
4 Technical Input Phase.................................................................................. 15
5 Hydrotechnical Assessment Phase ............................................................... 16
5.1 Hydrotechnical Design Parameters .................................................................... 16
5.1.1 Channel Capacity......................................................................................... 17
5.1.2 Historic Highwater Observations ................................................................ 19
5.1.3 Basin Runoff Potential Analysis .................................................................. 20
5.2 Hydraulic Calculations ........................................................................................ 22
5.2.1 Bridge Hydraulics ........................................................................................ 22
5.2.2 Culvert Hydraulics ....................................................................................... 23
5.3 Navigation Protection Act Requirements .......................................................... 24
5.4 Fish Passage Requirements ................................................................................ 24
5.5 Deck Drainage Requirements ............................................................................. 26
5.6 Scour and Erosion Considerations ..................................................................... 30
5.6.1 Scour ........................................................................................................... 30
5.6.2 River Protections Works (RPW) Design ...................................................... 33
5.6.3 Degradation ................................................................................................ 35
5.7 Ice Considerations .............................................................................................. 35
5.8 Drift and Debris Considerations ......................................................................... 36
5.9 Channel Realignments........................................................................................ 37
6 Geometric Assessment Phase ...................................................................... 38

6.1 Geometric Constraints ....................................................................................... 39
6.2 Structure Width .................................................................................................. 40
6.3 Railway Grade Separation Considerations ......................................................... 41
7 Conceptual Design Option Development ..................................................... 43

7.1 Horizontal Alignment ......................................................................................... 43
7.2 Vertical Profile .................................................................................................... 44
7.3 Bridge Opening ................................................................................................... 44
7.3.1 Wildlife Passage Considerations ................................................................. 46

7.3.2 Structural Considerations ........................................................................... 46
7.3.3 Stormwater Considerations ........................................................................ 47
7.4 Bridge Sized Culvert Requirements .................................................................... 47
8 Options Analysis.......................................................................................... 50
8.1 Evaluate Alternatives ......................................................................................... 50
8.2 Design Exceptions............................................................................................... 51
9 Reporting Requirements ............................................................................. 53

10 References .................................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX A: Sample Hydrotechnical Summary ......................................................... 60
APPENDIX B: Bridge Conceptual Design Summary Sheet ............................................ 62
APPENDIX C: Sample Report Sketches ....................................................................... 64
Sample River Crossing Bridge Conceptual Design Sketches ......................................... 65
Sample Grade Separation: Bridge Conceptual Design Sketches .................................. 67
Sample Design Data Drawings (historically used)......................................................... 69
APPENDIX D: Reference Documents .......................................................................... 71

Comparison of Velocity Distributions in Channels and Culverts .................................. 72
Estimation of Navigation Clearance Box Reference Water Level ................................. 83
Discussion on the Selection of the Recommended Fish Passage Design Discharge .... 91
Comparison of 3Q10 to Depth-Based Approach for Fish Passage Evaluation ........... 102

1 Introduction
The flowchart below illustrates the overall lifecycle approach for bridge structure management at
Alberta Transportation:
The Department uses the following definitions to categorize bridge structures:
Bridge Sized Culverts

 Standard culverts are buried structures with diameters (or equivalent diameter based on
the sum of end areas) of greater than or equal to 1500mm and less than 4500mm.
 Major culverts are buried structures with diameters (or summation of diameters) of
4500mm of greater, or structures of lesser diameter having complex site restraints or
specialized engineering requirements.
Standard Bridges
 Bridge structures that are built using standard bridge design drawings. Typically standard
bridge construction comprises of standard precast girders with steel or concrete
substructure elements and supported on steel piles.
Major Bridges
 Includes all other bridge structures including large or complex buried structures such as
open bottomed culverts. Major bridges are typically built from site-specific drawings but
can also be built from standard girder drawings with engineered modifications. Typically,
major bridges are river crossings, highway interchanges, or railways crossings.

The Bridge Conceptual Guidelines shall apply to the new design of bridge structures and river
engineering protection works, and during portions of Functional Planning and Bridge Assessments
studies. This document describes the processes and technical considerations to be used to arrive
at the optimal bridge conceptual design. Depending on the project, bridge conceptual designers
may play a leading or supporting role. To achieve the optimal design in these circumstances,
significant communication and interaction is required. The Department has a number of other
reference documents including, but not limited, to:
 Highway Geometric Design Guidelines (HGDG) (Alberta Transportation, 2020)
 Bridge Structures Design Criteria (BSDC) (Alberta Transportation, 2020)
 Standard Specifications for Bridge Construction (SSBC) (Alberta Transportation, 2020);
 Roadside Design Guide (RDG) (Alberta Transportation, 2020)
 Engineering Drafting Guidelines for Highway and Bridge Projects (Alberta
Transportation, 2020)
 Engineering Consultant Guidelines for Highway, Bridge and Water Projects (ECG)
(Alberta Transportation , 2020)
In the event that discrepancies exist between this document and other references, the Bridge
Conceptual Design Guidelines shall take precedence.
1.1 What is Bridge Conceptual Design?
The purpose of the bridge conceptual design phase is to determine and document the most
suitable solution for a roadway to cross a stream, road, or other facility while considering relevant
issues, risks, and constraints, and exploring all potential options. The results should:
 Document data compiled, project constraints, design parameters, alternatives
considered, and decisions made
 Provide preliminary design information on the recommended concept to proceed to the
Detailed Design phase.
The main difference between a design project and a functional planning study is the level of detail
of data collection, analysis, and reporting. Refinement of bridge openings identified during high-
level planning studies shall occur during the bridge design process, as additional information
(survey, geotechnical, etc.) is gathered. Proceeding directly from functional planning level
concepts to detailed design is strongly discouraged.
1.2 Why do Bridge Conceptual Design?
During the functional planning and conceptual design phases of a project, significant savings can
result in comparison to the effort expended. Investing upfront effort into identification of
constraints and exploration of options oftentimes results in savings during future life cycle phases.
Additional benefits include better project scope definition, reduced project schedules, and
simplified issue resolution. Bridges are typically replaced due to structural condition rather than
functionality due to their high capital costs. With typical design lives of 75 years (50 years for
culverts), bridges are the least flexible infrastructure component of the roadway network. Failure
to consider future functional improvements can negatively affect safety, operations and
economics of the roadway network. Therefore, it is essential to consider scenarios that may occur
during the life span of a structure in order to develop an optimal lifecycle solution.

1.3 Process Overview
The main steps in the process are:
1) Data collection
2) Site inspection
3) Arrange for technical input
4) Hydrotechnical assessment (as required):
5) Geometric assessment
6) Review technical inputs
7) Develop feasible options
8) Prepare draft Conceptual Design Report
9) Submit final Conceptual Design Report
10) Follow up in future project stages (as required)
1.4 Technical Considerations Overview
Technical considerations for any given project will vary depending on the specific project. In
general, the list below shall be considered in developing an optimal bridge concept.
Future Plans:
 Life cycle analysis on bridge rehabilitation, culvert lining, traffic accommodation
 Highway widening, twinning, minimize throw-away costs
 Phased construction options
 Net Present Value
Hydrotechnical (stream crossings):
 Design parameters for stream at crossing site
 Structure impact on hydraulics – constriction, drift/ice handling
 River issues – scour/erosion, bank stability, flow alignment, protection works
Bridge/Highway Geometries:
 Highway alignment – radius, superelevation, spiral, skew, safety, accesses, land severance
 Gradeline – grade, K values, length of curve, bridge height, freeboard, cut/fill balance
 Bridge geometrics - width, cross slope, sight distances, clear zone requirements
 Roadside/median barrier requirements vs barrier free
Structural:
 Span arrangements (single vs. multiple spans), , pier location, skew
 Deck drainage
 Structure type, girder depths
 Culvert vs. bridge, major bridge vs. standard bridge
 Retaining walls vs open headslopes
Geotechnical:
 Slides, headslope ratios, remediation works
 Pile depths, settlements
 Retaining walls
Environmental:
 Regulatory requirements (Fisheries Act, Water Act, Navigation Protection Act, First Nations
Consultation, etc.)

 Environmental Evaluation report, QAES Report
 Highway drainage, ECO plan
 Sustainability and climate change considerations
Construction:
 Traffic accommodation (detour/staging)
 Berm flow constriction/fish passage considerations
 Method (culvert tunneling vs open cut, launching vs traditional girder erection, accelerated vs
traditional construction)
Stakeholder:
 Impacts to adjacent landowners
 Impact on route length, safety, access relocation
 Other stakeholders such as Municipalities
 ROW concerns and purchase
Other:
 MSE walls, Utilities, Railways
 Tunnel design (geometry, construction, dangerous goods impacts)
 Bridge barriers, transitions
 Pedestrian/cyclist requirements and warrants

2 Data Collection Phase
During the initial phase of a project, it is important to gather historical and current data related
to the project site, and nearby sites that may contain relevant information. The amount and type
of data available will vary by site but generally includes:
 Bridge assessment, design, and construction reports and drawings
 Bridge Inspection reports (Alberta Transportation , 2020) including Level 1 and Level 2
BIM Reports
 Hydrotechnical reports including scour inspections, bank protection repairs, and
highwater reports
 Roadway reports
 Functional planning studies
 Geotechnical reports
 Environmental reports
 Railway crossing agreements or board orders
 Topographic and other data is available through GIS data sets (Alberta Transportation,
2012). Data dates and sources should be noted, along with any changes from the date of
acquisition
 Aerial imagery (current and historical)
 Site surveys for local streambed elevations, utilities, existing structure details, soil and
waterside corrosion, etc.
Oftentimes, data will provided or identified as available in a project’s terms of reference. Requests
for historical or corporate data (Alberta Transportation, 2020) from Alberta Transportation can
be made through a project’s Project Manager. Note that historical data contained in the Regional
offices may not be the same as date contained at the head office (Twin Atria Building).
The Consultant is responsible for obtaining sufficient data and survey for each particular project.

3 Site Inspection Phase
For most projects, two site inspections are recommended. The purpose of the first inspection is
to take photographs, record measurements such as stream parameters or clear roadway width,
and identify any existing site issues or constraints such as debris, high load strikes, or tight
construction areas. For some projects, it is valuable to conduct a site visit during different
conditions such winter vs summer seasons, or high vs low traffic periods. Oftentimes, it is valuable
to visit sites adjacent to the project site as well such as a river crossing upstream and downstream
of the project site.
All sites are unique, however, a sample inspection checklist is provided below:
Action Description
Determine channel  Identify portions of the channel that appear typical of the
dimensions reach and represent the natural channel
 Estimate bed width, top width, and bank height
Note highwater data  Note type, location, elevation of any highwater/ice marks
 Talk to landowners, local officials about history
 Note any backwater impacts e.g. farmlands, buildings
Characterize stream  channel pattern – meandering or braided, incised channel or
and geomorphology floodplain, differences between natural channel and in the
vicinity of the structure
 bank stability – slope, vegetation, material, height, erosion,
rock outcrops, slides, springs
 bed material – gravel, sand, silt, D50
 bed forms – bars, islands
 flow alignment – bends, skew
 dimensions – water level and velocity
 Notes signs of degradation/aggradation
Assess operation of  general scour – bed lowering through the opening
existing crossing  local scour – holes near piers, protection works
 condition of slope protection – cracks, loss of material
 abrasion on pier nose plates
 water or soil side corrosion
 environmental sensitivities
 drift accumulated at opening
 high load strikes, deck drainage performance at overpasses
Identify hydraulic  rock ledges
controls  changes in cross section geometry or slope
 hydraulic structures like weirs, nearby bridges
 lakes, beaver dams
Assess basin  terrain – flat, rolling, foothill etc.
characteristics  land use – farming, forest, development
 surface storage – lakes, slews
 upstream controlling factors – outlets, weirs

Assess drift potential  size/type of trees
 active bank erosion, channel shifting
 beaver activity
 drift at bridge opening, on banks, on bars
Assess highway  Assess sight distance/visual problems on existing horizontal
geometrics and vertical alignments
 Note accesses/intersections near the bridge
 Assess impacts of proposed changes to gradeline/alignment
 Measure width of existing highway at either side of bridge,
and depth of cover for culvert
 Note if there will be significant ditch drainage toward stream
Note other features  Identify utilities, structures, landowners that may be
affected by bridge construction
 Note any features of interest to be surveyed
 Identify opportunities for a detour and detour structure, if
needed
 Identify access for survey and geotechnical testing
 Locate nearby survey controls or benchmarks
 Take photos/video for use in checking survey
 Inspect nearby structures in the vicinity, as needed
 Locate potential geotechnical testhole locations
Towards the end of the conceptual design phase it is useful to conduct a subsequent site visit,
particularly for complex sites or major bridge projects, to envision or lay out options in the field.
This helps to assess the feasibility of options in the field and allows an opportunity to identify any
additional unforeseen issues or constraints, before finalizing the recommended conceptual design
option.
The Consultant is responsible for determining the number and scope of site visits required
depending on the project and specific site needs, unless otherwise specified within a project’s
terms of reference.

4 Technical Input Phase
After the historical data gathering and initial site inspection phases, additional information is
often required to fully understand site constraints and issues. These tasks can range between
projects but may involve:
 Arranging for site survey to supplement data sets
 Arranging for desktop or preliminary geotechnical investigation (oftentimes phased for
major bridge or realignment projects, with boreholes drilled once an alignment is
finalized)
 Arranging for environmental data or regulatory inputs (refer to Environmental
Regulations, (Alberta Transportation , 2020))
 Arranging for subject matter expert input (roadway, structural, construction,
environmental operations etc.), oftentimes in in the form of value engineering sessions
 Completing structural assessments (Alberta Transportation , 2020) for rehabilitation
options, if in scope
Once preliminary conceptual options are developed, obtaining additional technical input is
recommended, particularly for major bridges or complex sites, including:
 Checking the field survey and other data sets for completeness and accuracy
 Obtaining opinions from others specialties on the feasibility of the option (roadway,
geotechnical, environmental, etc.), and
 Noting any new site constraints (e.g. ROW, site access, detour, environmental concerns,
restricted activity periods, utility relocation, land purchase, budgets, schedule,
stakeholders) or projects risks.

5 Hydrotechnical Assessment Phase
Hydrotechnical assessment and design parameters determination are required for stream
crossings and should include sensitivity analyses/risk assessments. Obtaining design parameter
confirmation with the Department is recommended prior to completing option analysis, to avoid
rework.
5.1 Hydrotechnical Design Parameters
Design of stream crossings requires the flow depth (Y), mean channel velocity (V) and resultant
flow (Q). Key principles in determination design parameters are:
 Representative of the capacity of the channel to deliver flow from the upstream basin
 Consistent with the historic high water observations
 Consistent with existing hydraulic performance
Flood frequency analysis has proven to be incapable of meeting these principles at most sites, as
documented in Context of Extreme Floods in Alberta (Alberta Transportation, 2007)
There are three main components to hydrotechnical design parameter determination:

 Channel Capacity (CC) estimates the physical capacity of the stream to deliver flow to the
crossing under flood conditions; governs for most sites
 Historic Highwater (HW) Observations ensures parameters are representative of the largest
observed historic events; can govern for some large crossing sites, confirms CC at others.
 Basin Runoff Potential (BRP) Check checks to see if the basin can supply enough water to fill
the channel; can govern for sites with very small drainage basins or down-cutting ravines.
Hydrotechnical summaries (accessible through the Department’s publically available

Hydrotechnical Information System, HIS) record the process below and exist for over 1500 sites
(see Appendix for sample). Existing summaries should be updated and new summaries developed
for sites where such information is not available. Appendix A contains a sample hydrotechnical
summary.
The overall process to determine hydrotechnical design parameters for a site is:
 Estimate typical natural channel parameters
o B (bed width), T (top width), h (bank height), S (slope)
 Calculate Channel Capacity (CC), using channel capacity calculator tool (CCCT) or other
methods
o Determine Y, V, Q
 Assemble Historic Highwater Data
 Check if HW exceeds CC: If YHW > YCC, set Y = YHW in CCCT
o Determine V,Q using CCCT
 Calculate Basin Runoff Potential (BRP)
o If drainage area < 100km2 , look up ‘q’, calculate QBRP
o If drainage area > 100km2 , method does not apply
 Check if BRP governs: If QBRP < Q, set Y = YBRP
o Determine V,Q using CCCT
 Recommend Q,Y,V values for Design

Additional data that is of interest in hydrotechnical design includes:
 Drainage Area (DA) – topographic area potentially contributing flows and used in Basin
Runoff Potential analysis. DA can be determined using DEM data and GIS tools, with some
values noted in HIS.
 Airphotos – can show changes in flow alignment over time, indicating lateral mobility of
a stream. Bank erosion can be tracked using georeferenced airphotos with some
banktracking summaries are available in HIS.
 Scour surveys – can show vertical changes in streambed over time, including local and
general scour and bed form movement. Some scour surveys are available in HIS.
 AEP Flood Hazard Mapping Tool – areas may be subject to additional constraints.
 AEP Fish and Wildlife Mapping Tool – provides information related to fish and wildlife
data
 AEP Code of Practice maps – these maps classify streams in terms of their importance in
fisheries management, and note restricted activity period dates.
 Local site hydraulic influences – such as other structures (weir, bridge, culvert, dam),
sudden channel changes (slope, width), and confluences with other channels.
 Site inspection observations – channel features, flow concentration and alignment, active
bank erosion, and ice scars on trees.
 Historical Reports (TRANS, AEP, Universities, Municipalities)
5.1.1 Channel Capacity
This technique estimates the capacity of the channel to deliver flows to a site at a defined depth
above the bank height. The typical channel is a trapezoidal representation of the stream reach
that the crossing is located on, as shown below:
Bed width (B) – width of the base

Top width (T) – width of the top (at bankheight)
Bank height (h) – height
Slope (S) – hydraulic slope of channel (m/m) Figure 1: Hydraulic Channel Definitions Sketch
Sources of information for ‘B’ and ‘T’ include georeferenced airphotos, digital elevation models
including LiDAR, site measurements. Many cross sections within the river’s reach should be used
to determine an average natural channel section. The sections used should be on a natural, stable,
and straight portion of the river within proximity of the project site. In many cases, channels in
proximity to an existing crossing may have been modified during construction or influenced by
the existing structure or adjacent land use, and may not represent the natural channel. Surveyed
cross sections are usually too limited in number to enable estimation of the typical values. ‘B’
values can be estimated to the nearest meter from surface water width on airphotos at low water
levels, with adjustments based on observations and survey data as appropriate.
The bank height is the height at which the channel transitions to the floodplain, and there should
be a sudden change (decrease) in the slope of the terrain perpendicular to the channel. Sources
of information include surveyed cross sections, high resolution DEMs (e.g. LiDAR), photos with
scalable objects, and site measurements. Other bank height definitions exist such as based on the
line of permanent vegetation. This will typically be below the geometric definition of bank height
used in bridge hydraulic analysis, and should not be used for this purpose. For high-level

assessments, an estimated bank height can be approximated assuming 2H: 1V channel side slopes
between the channel bed (“B”) and top width (“T”). As the floodplain is activated at this level, the
parameters are representative of a flood, and significant flow routing will occur. The flow depth
assignment is:
Bank Height (h) Flow Depth (Ycc)
< 1.0 h + 0.5
1.0 – 2.0 1.5 * h
> 2.0 h + 1.0
These values are based on the Context of Extreme Floods in Alberta (Alberta Transportation, 2007)
analysis. Values that exceed the channel capacity are accounted for in historic highwater analyses.
The equation for B>=10m is based on the Evaluation of Open Channel Flow Equations (Alberta
Transportation, 2005) study. The Channel Capacity Calculator tool built by AT has all of these
calculations built in.
Hydraulic calculation of V is calculated based on bedwidth (B) as follows:
B Vcc n
>= 10 14R0.6S0.4 NA
7–9 R0.67S0.5/n 0.040
4–6 R0.67S0.5/n 0.045
<= 3 R0.67S0.5/n 0.050
Where:
R = hydraulic radius = A/P
A = typical cross section area of flow at YCC (m2)
P = wetted perimeter of typical cross section at YCC
n = Manning coefficient, with adjustment for Slope (S) as follows:
S ‘n’ adjust
< 0.0005 (B > 8) n = n – 0.005
0.005 – 0.015 n = n + 0.005
> 0.015 n = n + 0.01
The channel slope ‘S’ is typically a small number (<<1) so a significant length of channel profile
(kilometers) is required to estimate this parameter. Variations in bed levels measured in a survey
usually exceed the total drop observed over the length of the survey. Natural channels are a
difficult environment for surveying, with challenges in locating the thalweg, limited line of sight,
and hazards from flowing water, soft silt deposits, and slippery banks. Extending the length of
surveys is generally not a practical solution. Channel slopes are best estimated from DEM data
and have been extracted for most streams in the province into HIS. In some cases, the crossing
may be located close to a sudden break in the channel profile, and additional investigation may
be required to confirm which slope would apply to the crossing site.

5.1.2 Historic Highwater Observations
Key sources of historic highwater observations include:
Hydrotechnical Information System (HIS):

 Includes ~4000 flood/highwater records collected across the Province, dating from the
early 1900s to the present,
 Includes file histories and hydrotechnical summaries for bridge sites, along with basic
structural and site inventory data.
Water Survey of Canada (Canada, 2020) (WSC):
 Federal Government branch that measures, estimates, and publishes flow data at many
sites across Canada. AEP is a partner of WSC.
 Stage (depth above a datum) is measured continuously, with occasional flow
measurements used to convert these stages to flows using a rating curve. Rating curves
at higher values are often extrapolated. These should be used cautiously.
 Actual flow measurement and peak stage data from the files of WSC is published within
Alberta Transportation’s PeakFlow tool. This data can be used to assess published flow
values.
 Flow measurements in floods can be inaccurate (waves, turbulence, debris).
Bridge Correspondence Files:
 Twin Atria and Regional offices may not contain the same information.
Bridge Design Drawings:
 Often note highwater levels corresponding to floods, in addition to hydrotechnical design
values. These should be confirmed by checking the original data.
Bridge Inspection Reports:
 Sometimes, the observations carry over from previous inspections to the next, so it can
be difficult to associate them with a specific event, unless noted.
 Consultant access to inspection reports in TIMS can be submitted via the Bridge
Management website
Site Inspection Observations:
 Highwater marks may be present during a site inspection and can include deposits of silt
and drift, grass and weeds on fences, and abrasion marks on piers. Debris blockages can
sometimes influence highwater marks.
Local Sources:
 Information on past floods may be available from landowners, municipal officials,
newspaper records, social media, and maintenance contract inspectors.
Airphotos:
 Photos at the peak of a flood will show the horizontal extent of flooding and enable
estimation of high water levels. AEP maintains the provincial airphoto archives.
When evaluating highwater data, the flow depth should be for the channel. Any records caused
by a constricted opening, superstructure in the water, or blockage due to drift should be
accounted for. Data for structures located on the same stream and in proximity should be
considered and judgment should be applied when considering data from sites with substantially
different drainage areas or channel parameters. Measurements downstream of a bridge are more
representative of the natural channel response under flood conditions. Measurements upstream
and downstream will enable assessment of the bridge hydraulic performance. Timing of

observations should be considered, as some may have been before the peak (no higher marks
visible), and some may have been after (highwater marks visible). Some data may conflict with
other data, or seem infeasible compared to physical parameters. The source of data should be
considered when establishing validity.
5.1.3 Basin Runoff Potential Analysis
At some sites, there may not be enough supply of water from the basin to fill the channel to its
physical capacity. This can occur when the drainage area (DA) is small (< 100km2) relative to the
capacity of the channel. One case would be a small drainage basin (e.g. 5km2) that drains into a
ravine that cuts through the valley wall of a larger river. The ravine may be steep and have high
banks but the surrounding basin will not supply enough water to fill it. The Basin Runoff Potential
Map (Figure 2) assigns the largest observed unit discharges (‘q’) to various hydrologic regions
within Alberta. To estimate this upper bound QBRP from the basin, the selected unit discharge q
and defined ‘DA’ are multiplied. Details are found in the Development of Runoff Depth Map for
Alberta (Alberta Transportation, 2006).
Known exceptions to the Basin Runoff Potential Map are the Cypress Hills and Swan Hills area,
where higher unit discharges have been recorded due to the higher basin gradients and ‘q’ =
0.4cms/km2 is recommended.
Some potential adjustments and limitations to QBRP include:

 If a storage facility (dam/weir) is located upstream of the site, estimates for the downstream
drainage area should be added to peak outflows to account for flow routing.
 If there are significant amounts of poorly drained areas in the basin, these areas should be
excluded from the value for DA used in the calculation.
 If the basin covers multiple hydrologic regions, consider a weighted average for ‘q’.
 If the basin contains an urban center, consider not using this technique as natural drainage
patterns have been altered

Figure 2: Runoff Depth Map

5.2 Hydraulic Calculations
The hydrotechnical design values (along with fish passage and Q2, as required) will form the
boundary conditions for calculations. For culverts and constrictive bridges, calculations involving
gradually varied flow (such as backwater curves) and rapidly varied flow (abrupt energy losses
over a short distance) are necessary. These calculations can be done by simple models using
prismatic channels and one dimensional (section averaged) techniques, such as those facilitated
by Alberta Transportations Flow Profile (Alberta Transportation, 2015). Advanced techniques,
such as multi-section (e.g. HEC-RAS), two-dimensional, and unsteady flow calculations are not
necessary and offer little value in bridge design. Some of the reasons to avoid using models that
are more complex include:
 Boundary conditions are one dimensional anyway
 Natural rivers have mobile boundaries (scour, bed forms, lateral erosion)
 Many natural factors cannot be modeled accurately – drift, ice, sediment transport
 Data-sets don’t exist to support true calibration of complex models
 Complicated outputs are difficult to interpret and assess
 These models are expensive and require significant resources
 Most of the output, accurate or not, is not needed to design a bridge
Channel capacity method calculations do not account for flow adjacent to the channel in the
floodplain. Hydraulic calculations suggest that the down-slope component of flow on the
floodplain is a small portion of the channel flow (typically < 10%). Additional reasons include:
 Relatively shallow Y and low V (high relative roughness)
 Lack of a defined and continuous channel in the floodplain
 Presence of many natural and man-made obstructions (trees, roads, development)
 Most flow interacts laterally with the channel as levels change
With limitations in describing channel geometry, assumptions in hydraulic parameters such as

roughness and loss coefficients, and naturally occurring features such as drift, ice and sediment,
calculated precision should not be inferred as accuracy. In general, if confidence in Y is +/- 10%
and V is +/- 20%, the parameters are acceptable. Sensitivity analysis should always be completed.
For reporting, round Y and V to 10% (min. 0.1m for Y, min. 0.1m/s for V).
5.2.1 Bridge Hydraulics
Sizing a standard bridge, major bridge, or major buried structure involves placing the bridge fills
and setting the roadway gradeline to provide the desired freeboard. A starting point is to place
the fills parallel to the channel banks at the crossing location. From this point, a range of options
can be considered in the optimization process. As the bridge opening decreases, the degree of
constriction increases. This will result in increased velocities (V) and headloss (V2/2g) through the
bridge opening. The hydraulic impacts of a constriction and increased velocity will result in
increased size and quantity of riprap protection, bank erosion, increased water level and flood
risk on adjacent developments, and reduced freeboard (possibly requiring a gradeline raise).

Hydraulic impacts are not sensitive to small changes in fill location, especially for low velocity
crossings. Additional criteria for hydraulic modeling for bridges are as follows:
 Hydraulic modeling is typically only required for constricted options (less flow area than
the typical channel), for sites with high mean velocity (>3m/s), or for complex shapes such
as an oversized open bottom buried structure.
 The impact of cross-sectional flow area lost to protection works and piers should be
considered for smaller crossings (B < 30m or lost area > 20%).
 Head losses through a bridge opening should be based on the differential velocity head,
with common coefficients (K) of 0.3 for contraction and 0.5 for expansion.
Bridge openings wider than the typical channel can provide advantages such as less protection
works, if sufficient buffer is provided. In some cases, these benefits may counteract the expense
of additional bridge length. Openings much larger than the typical channel can result in adverse
impacts, such as sediment deposition and local flow realignment issues that can lead to increased
bank erosion, and are generally more costly.
Freeboard should be determined through optimization. The starting point for freeboard shall be
1.0m between design highwater elevation and the lowest point of the structure. Higher values
are seldom justified hydraulically, but may result from gradeline optimization. Lower values
should be considered if any the following conditions are met:
 Reducing freeboard could result in a significant cost reduction (>15%)
 There is a high degree of confidence in the design highwater level
 There is limited potential and/or history for drift or ice accumulation at the site
 The bridge is on a longitudinal grade, where most of the bridge has more than 1.0m
freeboard
 A single span bridge (no piers) is proposed, with less risk of blockage
 The volume of traffic is low and detour length is short
 A minimum freeboard amount of 0.3m is achieved
 A shorter design life is desirable, such as for a temporary structure
5.2.2 Culvert Hydraulics
Culverts are available in a range of materials, shapes and sizes. Historically, the most cost effective
and common solution is a single round culvert. In general, culvert shapes do not match the shape
of a natural channel, resulting in flow contraction and expansion when water is entering and
exiting a culvert. A useful starting point for sizing a culvert is the flow depth plus the burial depth
(diameter/4) that results in an opening that would have close to no freeboard. From here, the
culvert opening should be optimized for the site considering site-specific objectives and risks
including AADT, height of fill, detour length, and structure design life.
Hydraulic calculations are typically more complicated for culverts than for bridges, due to factors
such as the different shape, burial depth, and the potential for full flow. Various combinations of
rapidly varying flow, gradually varied flow, normal flow, and full flow are also possible.
Supercritical flow may result in some cases, with the potential for hydraulic jumps. As such,
hydraulic modeling is recommended to assess each option being considered. For the majority of
highway sites, ponding or pooling of water above the culvert is not desirable, resulting in most
culverts operating under subcritical flow conditions (flow depths controlled by downstream
tailwater conditions).

In addition to passing the design flow, fish, and drift, the following issues should be considered:
 Upstream flooding impacts - dependent on headloss and drift potential
 Protection works – High velocity flows directed at unprotected banks downstream may
result in increased erosion. Insufficient protection works at the downstream end may
result in scour holes, which can impact the structure, adjacent banks, and fish passage
 Uplift failure - ends should be checked against hydrostatic uplift pressure if design water
levels upstream and downstream are higher than the crown of the culvert. Additional
weight on the culvert ends, or installation of a cutoff wall may be required.
 Embankment stability – excessive headloss can result in a large differential head across
the culvert embankment, resulting in potential for piping failure. This can be mitigated
with extension of clay seals, installation of an impermeable membrane, or the extension
of concrete headwalls.
 Road overtopping – excessive headloss can also result in the road being overtopped.
 Future rehabilitation - for high fill (>6m) and high traffic (AADT >5000) crossings,
consideration should be given to allow for future lining with minimal traffic interruption.
 Sustainability and future climate change requirements
5.3 Navigation Protection Act Requirements
Transport Canada (TC) assesses navigation impact of a crossing structure based on the mean
annual flood (Q2 or 1 in 2-year flood). Vessel clearance is measured from the Q2 elevation flood
to the underside of the bridge. This applies to watercourses declared navigable under the
Navigation Protection Act, along with sites determined by AT to be navigable. Further guidance is
found on the Environmental Regulation webpage, including the Navigation Assessment form.
For sites with nearby WSC gauges with long records, Q2 can be calculated as the average of the
reported annual maximum mean daily flows. This analysis is documented in Estimation of
Navigation Clearance Box Reference Water Level (Alberta Transportation, 2011) in Appendix D.
For sites without data, the following method is proposed to estimate the equivalent to the Q2
water level:
1. Determine design flow (Q) as per Section 2.1
2. Calculate Q2 = Q/(4 + 600*S), where S is the channel slope in m/m
3. Calculate Y2 using channel capacity method
4. Add Y2 to streambed elevation to get the Q2 reference water level
5.4 Fish Passage Requirements
Alberta Transportation projects require adherence to Provincial and Federal legislation related to
accommodation of fish passage through structures. The main principle of fish passage through
culverts is to ensure the mean velocity throughout the structure is less than or equal to the mean
velocity in the channel at QFPD. The reasoning behind the velocity comparison approach is that if
the fish can adapt to comparable velocities in the stream, the culvert itself should not be a velocity
barrier to them. This approach does not involve the use of fish swimming performance curves as
these curves have often resulted in mean velocities that are a small fraction of the mean velocity
in the channel, and cannot be met with a culvert or bridge crossing. Many of the studies used to
develop such curves were completed in laboratories where natural stream variations such as
pools and riffles, or vegetation were not present.

The Comparison of Velocity Distributions in Channels and Culverts (Alberta Transportation, 2010)
study in Appendix D shows that there is significant variance in point velocities and areas of low
velocities within culverts. In some cases, natural channels provide opportunities for rest in the
form of riffles or reefs. However, many channels crossed by culverts have reaches with relatively
uniform cross sections over the typical length of culverts. If the mean velocity for fish passage
cannot be met, slight changes to the culvert configuration can be considered such as multiple
culverts or a horizontal ellipse structure.
A fish passage design flow, QFPD, is required for culverts on fish bearing streams as below:
1. Calculate YFPD = 0.8 – 34.3*S , where S is the channel slope in m/m
2. Minimum YFPD = 0.2
3. Calculate QFPD at YFPD
When comparing mean velocities, the precision should be extended to 0.01m/s due to the
relatively low magnitude. This approach was developed with support from Alberta Environment
and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and is documented in the Discussion on the Selection of the
Recommended Fish Passage Design Discharge (Alberta Transportation, 2012), in Appendix C. This
method ensures that fish passage is evaluated at a relatively high flow, while providing more
consistent results than statistical estimates such as the 3Q10 flow.
In general, increasing pipe diameter or burial depth are ineffective methods of reducing mean
velocities at QFPD, as most of the additional area will be above the flow depth. Increasing the burial
depth can also lead to sedimentation/maintenance issues, and construction challenges due to
increased excavation depth and a more difficult (steep/long) upstream transition from the culvert
to the channel for the fish to traverse. If a feasible configuration cannot be found, installation of
substrate and holders inside the culvert should be considered. Substrate holders assist in
retaining substrate material thereby increasing the effective roughness of the culvert and
decreasing the mean velocity.
For sites where substrate and holders are proposed, the following parameters are recommended:
 Substrate holder should be made of steel and conform to the shape of the pipe up to the
desired height.
 Height of substrate holder should be 0.3m (0.2m if culvert diameter < 3m)
 Spacing of holders should be based on height divided by culvert slope (minimum = 7m)
 Substrate should be Class 1M or Class 1 rock, with an average thickness matching the height
of the holder.
 Substrate and holders are only required for portions of the pipe where the mean velocity
exceeds the mean channel velocity (typically upstream 1/2 or 1/3).
 Materials shall be as per the Standard Specifications for Bridge Construction (Alberta
Transportation, 2020)
The hydraulic effect of substrate is assessed by blocking off the flow area filled by the substrate
and increasing the effective Manning roughness coefficient “n”. The relative roughness depends
on the substrate type and flow depth, as shown in Table 1 below. AT’s Flow Profile tool will block
the substrate flow area and adjust the roughness parameters, if a substrate value is entered.

Table 1: Hydraulic Roughness Parameters
Flow Adjusted Manning’s n Adjusted Manning’s n

Depth Y Class 1M Riprap Class 1 Riprap
(m)
0.1 0.161 ---
0.2 0.079 0.141
0.3 0.064 0.095
0.4 0.057 0.079
0.5 0.053 0.071
0.6 0.050 0.065
0.7 0.048 0.062
0.8 0.047 0.059
0.9 0.046 0.057
1.0 0.045 0.055
1.1 0.044 0.054
1.2 0.044 0.053
1.3 0.043 0.052
1.4 0.043 0.051
1.5 0.042 0.050
In February 2019, AT and AEP signed a Memorandum of Understanding stating that these Bridge
Conceptual Design Guidelines shall be used for bridge and culvert design for highway crossings
and that the Alberta Roadway Crossing Inspection Manual (Alberta Environment and Parks, 2015)
shall be used to assess fish passage inspection compliance. For further guidance on legislative
requirements, contact AT’s Environmental Regulation group.
5.5 Deck Drainage Requirements
The presence of barriers, curbs and raised medians impedes the ability of rainfall runoff to drain
off bridges. Rainfall collects and is channeled along these barriers until it reaches a drainage point
of sufficient capacity, or until the point of overtopping. Encroachment of water into driving lanes
can result in a road safety hazard due to hydroplaning, driver avoidance (swerving to avoid
ponding), and visibility (splashing on windshields). Local pooling of water for extended durations
on the bridge deck can also result in an increased rate of deck deterioration due to sub-surface
drainage. Historically, deck drains combined with optimized geometry is used to minimize lane
encroachment and local pooling. Use of below deck drainage systems is generally avoided due to
capital and maintenance costs, low reliability (durability, clogging, segments becoming
separated), and safety concerns. Drainage issues should receive early attention at the planning
stage, when there is opportunity to optimize bridge geometry. Optimization should include
considerations to longitudinal grade, shoulder width, number of deck drains, amount of driving
lane encroachment, roadway classification, safety concerns, risks, and costs. Detailed design of
components, including deck drain and trough design, is further discussed in the Bridge Structures
Design Criteria.
The minimum desirable longitudinal gradient for bridges of 1% is specified in the Bridge Structures
Design Criteria with deck drains as normal practice for river crossings. Bridge deck drainage
analysis shall combine the Rational Method equation for runoff flow rate estimation and the

Manning equation for calculation of the resulting flow depth adjacent to the barrier (bridge rail
or raised median). The equations are based on Design of Bridge Deck Drainage, Hydraulic
Engineering Circular No.2 (Federal Highways Administration, 1993). Combining these equations
and accounting for cumulative deck drain discharge at key locations along the deck facilitates the
calculation of encroachment of runoff into lanes.
For safety reasons, encroachment should be minimized with a desirable maximum encroachment
of 0m into the driving lane for divided highways and 1.0m for undivided highways. For all cases,
a minimum lane width of 2.5m shall be maintained and the maximum water depth within a travel
lane shall be 25mm. The following design parameters shall be used: i = 75 mm/hr, C = 0.9, n =
0.016, as further discussed below.
Reasons for selection of 75 mm/hr as the design rainfall intensity:

 Based on a factor of safety of 1.25 provided on a 60mm/hr rainfall intensity
 Allows for potential future climates change. Increased magnitude of short duration, high
intensity storms have been identified as a potential risk for infrastructure management by
Environment Canada
 Comparable to the City of Edmonton design rainfall intensity (76mm/hr) (City of Edmonton,
2015)
 Based on a threshold for driver visibility and probability of occurrence for Alberta
 60mm/hr is the average annual, maximum 5-minute rainfall intensity across Alberta, based on
Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) data published by Environment Canada. Twenty-nine IDF
Curves from across the Province were analyzed, with an average period of record of 28 years
of data and maximum period of record of 59 years. The earliest gauge data dates back to 1914
 Rainfall intensity exceeding this value would be expected about 40 times during a bridge
structure’s 75-year design life. Probabilities of occurrence for other rainfall intensities are
summarized in the table below:
 5 minutes is the shortest intensity rainfall measurement recorded by Environment Canada.

Lesser duration storms are considered to have minimal impact on traffic due to the very short
duration. Longer duration storms are likely to exceed the time of concentration of rainfall on
most bridges. As an example, the time of concentration of rainfall with a 60mm/hr intensity
on a 100m long bridge, assuming a 1% grade, is about 0.85 minutes (Federal Highway
Administration, 2009).
 A 60mm/hr rainfall intensity results in a significant reduction in visibility (25% of clear day
visibility). Little incremental visibility loss is expected to occur for higher intensities as shown
in the table below, adapted from (Texas Transportation Institute, 1977):

Reasons for selection of 0m lane encroachment for divided highways:
 These bridges typically carry higher volumes of traffic and are often located in urban areas.
 These roadways are typically designed to a higher standard (130km/hr, wider shoulders)
resulting in higher travel speeds, and drivers not expecting to slow down.
 There is a greater probability of a vehicle in the adjacent lane, travelling at different speeds,
which may impede the ability to see or react to a hazard such as an encroachment.
Reasons for selection of 1.0m lane encroachment for undivided highways:

 These bridges typically carry lower volumes of traffic and are typically in rural areas.
 These roadways are typically designed to a lower standard (110km/hr), resulting in lower travel
speeds and a reduced expectation of service.
 There is a low probability that encroachment will occur on both sides of a bridge structure, at
the same time as when two vehicles are passing by each other during a rainfall event.
 A typical design vehicle width of 2.6m and lane width of 3.7m (HGDG) allows a driver to stay
within their lane even after moving over to avoid the 1.0m encroachment.
Rational Method Equation:

This equates the rate of rain falling on the bridge to the volume of runoff, and the equation is:
Q = CiAd / 3600
Where:
Q= runoff rate (L/s)
C= runoff coefficient (0.9, representative of pavement, is to be used for bridge decks)
i = rainfall intensity (mm/hr) (75mm/hr recommended unless site specific data is available)
Ad= contributing deck area (m2) to point of analysis
Manning Equation:
The Manning equation relates the depth of flow to the runoff rate as follows:
Q = 1000AfR2/3 S1/2 / n
Where:
Q= runoff rate (L/s)
Af= flow area (m2)
P= wetted perimeter (m)
R= hydraulic radius (m)
S= longitudinal slope of deck (m/m) at point of analysis
n= roughness coefficient (use n = 0.016 for bridge decks)

The typical bridge deck runoff channel will have the following shape:
Where:
Y= depth of flow (m)
e= superelevation or crown rate
T= top width of flow (m)
Therefore:
Solution:
• For specified T (shoulder width for no encroachment), calculate longitudinal flow capacity (Q,
Manning eqn.).
• Use Q with the Rational Method equation to calculate length to first deck drain
• Calculate drain spacing using deck drain flow (at specified T) with Rational Method equation
• Use spacing as approximate guide to optimally locate deck drains on structure.
• Iterative solution may be required for variable grade/width bridges decks.
For detailed deck drainage design, including analysis and sizing of deck drains and trough drains,
Hydraulic Engineering Circular 21: Design of Bridge Deck Drainage (Federal Highways
Administration, 1993) and Hydraulic Engineering Circular 22: Urban Drainage Design Manual
(Federal Highway Administration, 2009) (Federal Highway Administration, 2009) shall be referred
to, in conjunction with the latest version of the Bridge Structure’s Design Criteria. Specific
considerations at the Conceptual Design Phase include:
 Minimizing the number of deck joints and deck drains
 Deck drains shall not discharge onto underpassing traffic lanes or pedestrian facilities
 Drainage shall not be discharged onto any exposed substructure concrete surfaces
 Shoulder use by bicyclists; eliminate snag hazards and minimize dips/elevation changes
with deck drains in the travel paths if bicycle traffic is expected
 Locating and designing future drainage considerations for projects where deck widening
will occur in the future
 Accommodation of hazardous materials or deleterious substances for environmentally
sensitive sites such as streams with critical fish habitat or adjacent water intake facilities
 Directing drainage away from MSE wall structures and major buried bridge structures,
through grading and the use of membranes (refer to Bridge Structures Design Criteria)
 Erosion control at discharge locations

5.6 Scour and Erosion Considerations
Natural channels have mobile boundaries, both vertically and horizontally. Lateral movement of
stream banks is referred to as erosion (typically addressed with river protection works), while
vertical changes are referred to as scour. Scour and erosion susceptible structures have features
located within the active floodplain. Examples includes culvert soil back-fill envelopes, roadway
embankments, open bottomed culverts, and shallow bridge foundations as loss of soil support for
these structures could result in sudden and complete failure of the structure.
If such structures are proposed, mitigation measures are required to reduce the risk of
vulnerability and increase resiliency. Potential mitigation solutions may include
 Increasing structure size or shape
 placing foundations below scour depths
 placing rock riprap or river protection works (see Section 5.6.1)
 the use of cutoff walls
 the use of clay seals
 low permeability end treatments
 encapsulating backfill with geotextile
 the use of sheet piles to protect a footing foundation
 establishing a monitoring program.
Historically, due to costs required for mitigation measures, open bottom structures and MSE walls
located within floodplains have had limited use for Provincial highway projects. Some situations
where they may prove to be cost effective include uses as temporary or detour structures, on
Local Road projects where additional risk may be acceptable, or at sites where erosion and scour
are not concerns such as wildlife passage structures or railways. For more guidance on culverts
and buried structures design, refer to Section 7.4.
5.6.1 Scour
The two main types of scour relevant to bridge design are:

 General/constriction scour - streambed lowered throughout the opening
 Local/pier scour – hydraulic conditions around pier shafts may cause scour holes to form
Figure 3: Scour Definitions (Adapted from Guide to Bridge Hydraulics (TAC, 2008))

In the early 1990s, Alberta Transportation developed a formalized pier scour monitoring program.
This involved collecting baseline site parameters, creating a criterion for prioritization and scour
susceptibility, determining site survey requirements, and developing scheduling requirements.
Through this process, about 200 scour susceptible bridge sites were identified and are now
monitored as part of the Level 2 BIM Scour Survey program.
As part of a research project, data collected during this program was compared to the industry
standard modified Melville approach recommended in the Guide to Bridge Hydraulics
(Transportation Association of Canada, 2004). In general, it was found that the modified Melville
approach over predicted the local scour when compared to design conditions. It is worth noting
that all of AT’s field data was collected after flood conditions have passed due to safety concerns,
and that some infilling may have occurred. For some sites, it is likely that scour deeper than that
measured occurred during high flow events. AT intends to update these results over time to
account for the collection of additional data for this program.
Figure 5 below shows the results of this research. The modified Melville approach predicted local
pier scour depths between 1.8m to 13.2m, with an average of 4.8m. The observed scour depth
measured through the Scour Survey program ranged from -0.3m (increase in streambed
elevation) to 4.0m, with an average of 1.5m. The difference between predicted and measured
scour ranged from -0.2m (underestimation) to 10.8m, with an average over estimation of 3.3m.
There also appeared to be no noticeable trend that related observed scour depth to flow, average
sediment size, or pier width, although these factors are used in the modified Melville approach to
determine the theoretical scour depth.

Figure 4: Theoretical vs Measured Scour Depths for Alberta Bridges
Although this research project focused on a small sample of bridge sites across the Province, there
was an observed data trend towards a maximum prolonged scour value of less than 3m. Measured
scour values at two bridge sites exceeded this value: BF78104 and BF73949. For BF78104
(Highway 32 over the Macleod River), the 4.0m measured depth of scour is thought to be due to
the 45 degree flow alignment with the center pier and thalweg location. For BF73949 (Highway 2
over the Peace River), the 3.8m measured depth of scour is thought to be due to the accumulation
of drift and thalweg location.
Modern bridge construction equipment and materials has made piled in-stream foundations cost-
effective. In general, as long as the foundation penetrates >5m into the streambed, pier scour
should not be an issue. In the rare case of spread footings or short pile foundations, the bottom
of the foundation should be lower than the estimated pier scour depth. The design pier scour
depth shall be estimated as 2 times the effective pier width to a maximum of 3.0m below
streambed unless site-specific data is available to suggest deeper parameters are warranted. To
minimize impacts to navigation, the top of pile cap shall be beneath streambed elevation, to a
maximum practical limit of 2m below streambed. Foundation design should consider the impact
of loss of material up to the design scour depth. Geotechnical recommendations, structural design
implications, and constructability should also be considered in the foundation design, as further
described in the Bridge Structures Design Criteria.

5.6.2 River Protections Works (RPW) Design
Fills placed in the active waterway generally require protection to prevent erosion. The major
types of protection works systems include headslope protection, guidebanks, and spurs. Rock
riprap is the preferred material for protection of bridge headslopes, culvert ends, and river
protection works. Reasons include over 60 years of proven performance history; systems that
resist drift, abrasion and ice forces with the flexibility to accommodate settlement and launching;
proven velocity based criteria for selection of rock protection systems, within many publications
and studies; relatively low cost and generally readily available sources of rock riprap; relatively
easy monitoring, maintenance and repair procedures; and laterally mobile streams require a
“hard” solution to maintain flow alignment.
Bioengineering options, such as willow staking within a rock riprap protection system, may
compromise the function of the geotextile and impact hydraulic capacity of the bridge opening
on smaller channels. These options may be considered for projects beyond the extent of the
crossing, such as fisheries compensation in a channel, and erosion protection within ditches.
Selection of the appropriate class of rock riprap is based on mean velocity (V) at the design flow
with materials as per the Standard Specifications for Bridge Construction. Rock class shall be:
Rock Class V (m/s)

Evaluate no rock 1.0
1 2.5
2 3.2
3 4.0
Class 1M riprap is seldom used on bridge projects, with either Class 1 or no protection options
typically assessed for very low velocity sites. Rock gradation is important to ensure interlocking of
the rock. In some very high velocity cases, a modified gradation has been used for aprons, with
smaller sizes excluded from the mix. The angularity of the rock (less rounded) becomes more
important at high V sites as the rock is more likely to interlock when it is angular. For sites where
V exceeds 4.0m/s, addition of H or sheet piles in the apron may be considered to enhance
protection. Rock larger than Class 3 is usually not considered due to limited availability, cost, and
difficulty in transportation and placement.
The typical rock protection detail (Figure 3) involves:

 Lining the bank with a single rock thickness (‘t’, equal to the maximum rock diameter)
 Double thickness launching apron at the toe, with half-buried below streambed to
accommodate rock launching into future scour holes.
 Typical apron length is 4-5 times the maximum thickness of the rock.
 The sloping portion is to be at a maximum slope of 2:1 (H: V). Trimming of the natural bank
may be required for extended bank protection options (no fill placed).
 The protection should extend to the design highwater/high ice elevation.
 Place non-woven geotextile filter fabric to prevent the loss of fines under the rock, as detailed
in the “Standard Specifications for Bridge Construction”. The key-in involves 0.3m of filter
fabric being trenched vertically into the fill.
 For protection placed on earthen material, extending the earthen slope vertically by 1m above
the top of rock will provide a suitable working base for placing protection works.

 An additional berm width (typically 3-4m wide, and about 1m about top of work elevation)
can address rock placement, geotechnical stability and/or wildlife passage.
The protection works system should extend well into a stable bank or naturally protected feature.
This will minimize the risk of the system being outflanked/eroded from behind. On streams with high
lateral mobility, historical river banktracking will help to determine the extent of protection works
required. Stable natural features, such as rock outcrops, should be utilized as appropriate. Guidebank
and spur configurations are often best developed in plan view on top of airphotos. Alberta
Transportation has developed a Spur Planning Geometry tool to support this.
Berm EL
Top of Rock EL
(Des. HW)
t
Bed EL
Berm
(Theor.)
Width
1
t RPW Definition Sketch
m
Apron
Bottom of Length
Headslope
Rock EL
Ratio
Figure 5: River Protection Works Definition Sketch
Guidebanks are protected fills built parallel to the flow that extend beyond the bridge. They
improve and maintain flow alignment through the openings on laterally mobile streams. Parallel
flow alignment is preferred to skew to reduce the structure’s size and minimize erosive forces on
banks/protection works. Guidebanks typically extend from the headslope, and flare towards the
bank in an elliptical shape with a 2:1 ratio of distance along the stream to perpendicular to the
stream. The transition from the channel into the bridge opening should be smooth.
Spurs are fills that project perpendicular into the river, with protection works on the ends. They
deflect flow from a bank or align flow. They are typically used in groups with other spurs or in
addition to guidebanks, and can be more cost-effective that continuous protection. Spurs with
significant projection may cause a contraction of flow, be difficult to construct/maintain, and may
require extensive environmental approvals.
Principles for spur design are:

 Spacing = 4 times the projected length of spur into the flow at highwater (each spur
assumed to protect the bank for 2 times the projected length upstream and downstream).
 Spacing should typically not exceed the bankfull channel width (minimize risk of channel
relocating between spurs
 For spurs with short shanks (relatively small projection into flow), spacing = 4 to 6 times
the effective protected width of the spur nose
 Adjustments to spur spacing may be necessary for river changes (e.g. bends).
Additional references for river protection design include Hydraulic Engineering Circular 23: Bridge
Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance

(Federal Highway Administration, 2009) and Hydraulic Design Series 6: River Engineering for
Highway Encroachments (Federal Highway Administration, 2001).
5.6.3 Degradation
Degradation is the long term lowering of a channel elevation over a significant distance, in
comparison to localized streambed scour. It can occur naturally or because of manmade activities,
such as channel straightening. Degradation can result in unstable banks and exposed structural
elements. It is important to differentiate degradation from scour as solutions and mitigation
measures may be different. Signs that degradation may be an issue at a site include:
 changes in historical streambed surveys
 changes in historic airphotos, showing progressive slumping, channel deepening over a
significant length, or vertical banks
 history of hydraulic structures and channel modifications/shortening on the stream
 ongoing maintenance concerns
 ravine like section approaching a confluence
If degradation has occurred, some judgment will be required to determine if further degradation
may occur. This can be based on changes in rates of progress over time, and whether the
degradation was caused by man-made (reaction of one-time intervention) or natural (potentially
ongoing) activities. Additional information is contained in the Steam Degradation Technical Note
(Alberta Transportation, 2013).
5.7 Ice Considerations
Ice impacts include design forces on piers, vertical clearance for ice jams, and structure blockage
due to icing (aufeis). Where historic observations of ice impacts are available, these shall be
considered in determining design parameters. Ice jams form when pieces of broken ice form a
partial blockage of the channel. The constricted opening may result in headloss, and the
accumulation of broken ice upstream of the toe may result in sustained high water levels for long
distances. Highwater levels are the result of the increased wetted perimeter of the floating ice
combined with the high effective roughness of the broken ice, and the submerged thickness of
the ice itself. Broken pieces of ice may also project above highwater. Jams can form during freeze-
up or break-up. Break-up jams form due to a weakened ice cover or increased runoff flows
physically breaking competent ice. In general, the more competent the ice, the more severe the
ice jam. Ice jam elevations can be several meters higher than highwater from summer flood events
and can form/release very quickly.
Some principles to consider in assessing ice jam potential are:

 Check available records. Note location of the toe of jam, the maximum depth or elevation,
ice thickness, and competency of the ice.
 Ice jam risk is high where there is potential for upstream portions of the basin to have
runoff in spring while there is still ice downstream (rivers flowing from south to north)
 The maximum height of a jam is generally upstream of the toe and is a function of the ice
thickness and roughness, and the depth of water below.
 If a jam forms, it requires lateral support to remain. The maximum elevation is restricted
to the range of bank height plus the thickness of the ice floes.

 Trees along the channel banks can develop ice scars, typically on the trunks facing the
stream (bark removed by ice abrasion).
 Ice jams tend to form at locations where there are significant changes to channel slope,
width or plan. Confluences of streams with tributaries are also susceptible.
When ice breaks up or ice jams release, floating ice moves downstream and potentially impacts
piers. This can result in significant loading on piers. As defined in the Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code, the three components of loads are ice strength (classified into situations, a – d),
elevation, and ice thickness. Historic records should be reviewed for information that may help
quantify these three parameters such as abrasion on pier nose plates. When historic observations
do not exist, the following parameters are recommended, based on a system wide review of
historical observations across Alberta. In Table 2 below, ‘Y’ is the design flow depth and ‘t’ is the
design ice thickness. In some cases, two combinations of parameters may be appropriate, such as
weaker load at higher elevation and stronger load at lower elevation. Structural analysis can
determine which set of parameters may govern pier design.
Table 2: Recommended Ice Design Parameters
Damage History Small Stream (B < 50m) Large Stream (B > 50m)
Minor Sit. ‘a’ Sit. ‘b’

EL ~ 0.8 * Y EL ~ 0.6 * Y
t ~ 0.6m t ~ 0.8m
Major Sit. ‘b’ Sit. ‘c’

EL ~ 0.6 * Y EL – observations.
t ~ 0.8m t ~ 1.0m
Icing (aufeis) occurs when a structure is blocked by solid ice. The ice can form due to repeated
freezing of water supplied to the site, such as an upstream spring. During spring runoff, a buried
structure may be blocked/iced due to not being exposed to the sun. Icing reports are often noted
in maintenance records. Remediation options include a larger opening or installation of an
additional culvert above the main structure. Maintenance such as removal of the icing before
spring runoff by thermal or physical means may be required for some sites. Deicing lines have
been used historically but are not recommended due to maintenance and environmental
concerns.
5.8 Drift and Debris Considerations
Flood events are frequently accompanied by drift that can impede flow, or change flow
alignments. Factors indicating potential drift at a site include significant amount of trees near the
channel and its tributaries in the drainage basin, laterally mobile streams with active bank erosion,
historic records noting issues, accumulations at piers/on point bars/or at a culvert opening, and
presence of beaver dams. Debris is often a controlling factor in design for mountainous streams
where the sediment capacity need is greater than the hydraulic capacity need. Culverts are more
prone to drift/debris concerns than bridges, as the surface width provided by a culvert decreases
at higher stages. Some mitigation options for culverts include:
 Increase in size/change in shape - consider cost-effectiveness.
 Flared inlets with raised crown elevations to maintain flow in case of a drift blockage.

 Drift alignment piles that may require expensive modeling to correctly configure the piles.
Success is not guaranteed in the event of channel changes.
 A single pipe is preferable to multiple smaller pipes for handling drift.
 Seek geotechnical advice regarding debris volume and design considerations
 Drift/debris collectors, such as racks placed upstream, have proven to be problematic.
Failure due to outflanking is common, releasing an accumulation of material towards the
crossing and creating lateral stream instability concerns.
 If a bridge is not a practical option, a culvert designed with flood resiliency features to
withstand a potential blockage and requiring maintenance after a runoff event, may be
the most cost-effective option.
For bridges, mitigation options include:

 Reducing the number of piers for drift to accumulate on
 Locating piers outside of the main flow
 Increasing span length over the main flow
 Providing additional freeboard to minimize risk to superstructure
 Consider guidebanks that may help align drift through the opening
 Remove drift from piers at existing bridges with pier scour vulnerability
5.9 Channel Realignments
Channel realignments can result in cost-effective, sustainable, and optimal solutions. Many
projects, such as twinned highway structures, high fill culverts, buried structure bridges, and
bridges on highly mobile streams require some form of channel work. The main benefit channel
realignment is reduced skews, resulting in simpler designs. Flow alignment and fish passage may
be improved with realignments. The main principle in designing channel realignments is to mimic
a stable section of natural channel in plan-form, cross section, and profile. A man-made channel
should be designed with similar B, h, T, and S values as the natural channel. This should result in
a stable, low-maintenance, and low environmental impact solution. A larger opening or milder
slope has the potential to result in aggradation (potential sediment accumulation) while a smaller
opening or steeper slope has the potential to result in degradation. It is important to
communicate this to regulators in the approval process.

6 Geometric Assessment Phase
Highway geometric design shall follow AT’s Highway Geometric Design Guide, along with any
relevant Design Bulletins. However, constraints due to bridges can have a significant impact on
road geometry. Identification of potential bridge constraints and accounting for them during
geometric layout of the road is often the most cost effective method of optimizing the overall
project. The roadway design and/or functional planning teams typically lead these projects.
Integration of bridge planning expertise will ensure bridge issues are identified during the
preliminary stages and that the project as a whole is optimized.
Existing data is required to assess the functionality and safety of the existing highway and bridge.
A new design should address and remediate existing concerns at a bridge site including high
collision rates, substandard geometrics, poor sight distances, access management, insufficient
clear zones, insufficient freeboard, high structure skew, or bridge grade. Future parameters are
required to ensure lifecycle performance.
Existing parameters required include:

 Horizontal alignment (curve radius, crown, super-elevation, clearance to barriers, clear zones,
shy distances, sight distances)
 Vertical profile (grades, K values for sags and crests, grade on bridge, sight distances)
 Existing bridge geometry (width, spans, height, skew)
 Other (traffic volumes, highway classification, detour length, collisions,drainage concerns)
New design parameters should consider:

 Potential to upgrade in the future (future classification), existing functional plans, horizontal
alignment, vertical alignment, roadside design parameters.
 Existing and future performance throughout the lifespan of the bridge.
 Geotechnical and environmental constraints
 Roadway constraints that may limit the use of a certain structure type such as limited height
of cover over a culvert, sag curves on bridges, super elevation, drainage, or preferential icing.
 For bridge projects with highway deficiencies, bridge impacts on future highway
improvements should be considered. A minimal option for “spot” bridge projects involves
replacing the bridge at its current location with similar geometry. The upper bound option
would meet all conditions of the design roadway designation. Additional options between
these extremes may include improvements to geometric deficiencies through modified
alignments and/or gradelines. Adjacent roadway alignment deficiencies away from the
bridge, such as horizontal or vertical curves can sometimes be addressed through a separate
project and/or at a later date.
 Twinned structure locations can be limited by the existing structure. Generally, a similar
roadway profile should be used when structures are in close proximity to minimize retaining
wall/grading needs and maintain driver expectations. An absolute minimum separation
distance of 3m is required for twinned highway structures to limit likelihood of pedestrians
jumping between structures and allow for an adequate construction work zone. Headlight
glare, signage, drainage, and impacts on existing structure foundations should also be
considered when locating a twinned structure. In the case of developer driven adjacent
structures, a minimum separation distance of 10m is required to minimize risk to the existing
structure.

6.1 Geometric Constraints
Horizontal clearances for bridge structures shall be as per the Roadside Design Guide. If lower
values are proposed, the design exception process shall be followed, with evaluations based on
level of risk, length of impact, economics, and past precedence. Bridges shall be on tangent
horizontal alignments as curved bridges require extra design and detailing, and cost more for
construction and maintenance. Curve effects on design include extra width for sight distances,
impact on operations, safety (icing, braking on bridges), deck drainage, maintenance, etc. Tapers
and spirals on bridges introduce similar challenges. Where practical, skews on bridges should be
minimized as skewed bridges require extra design and detailing efforts along with additional costs
for construction and maintenance. The presence of bridge rails can affect horizontal sight distance
by obstructing a driver’s field of vision. Solutions can include modifying the tangent alignment of
the bridge, increasing curve radii, using a wider shoulder at the inside of the curve, and using a
longer offset to intersection from bridge end.
Bridge rails can affect vertical sight distance for ramps and intersections at grade separations. The
impact can be calculated by reducing both height of eye and height of object by the effective
bridge rail height. Solutions include increased K value for vertical curves, longer offset to
ramps/intersection from bridge end, and wider shoulders. Guidance on calculations can be found
in the HGDG. River crossings can have significant impacts on gradelines due to freeboard and
structure depth requirements combined with minimum desirable grade. For these crossings, it is
essential for hydrotechnical, roadway, and structural expertise be involved in developing roadway
profiles.
For bridges over a roadway, the design vertical clearance shall be 5.4 m at the most critical
location. The design vertical clearance for pedestrian structures shall be a minimum of 5.7m.
Increased clearance may be required where there is an increase level of risk or reduced structural
redundancy, as further discussed in the Bridge Structures Design Criteria. The Department has a
commitment to the trucking industry to not change the posted vertical clearance of a bridge
structure over a structure’s lifespan. One rare exception is widening of a grade separation bridge,
for which allowance should be made during the initial design if widening is expected within 20
years. Allowance for future pavement overlays are not considered beneath a bridge structure
and the under passing pavement designs should reflect this. Mill and fill practices are assumed
for pavement rehabilitation beneath a bridge structure. Consultation with highway network
planners should occur to determine if the under passing road is (or will be) designated as part of
the Over Sized Over Weight (OSOW) Corridor (Alberta Transportation, 2018).
Bridge decks, including abutments, are susceptible to preferential icing (bridge is icy when the
approach road is not). As such, braking and steering adjustments on the bridge deck should be
avoided. Solutions include reducing the longitudinal gradient, reducing the superelevation
(tangent alignment or large radius curve), providing a constant road cross section across the
bridge (no spirals, no tapers), avoiding intersections on or in close proximity to the bridge (avoid
braking on structure) or considering a large culvert structure. Anti-icing measures may be required
if a suitable solution cannot be developed.
Available span lengths and structure type may affect the configuration of complex grade
separations structures. Gradelines may be affected by structure depth requirements, and
alignments may be affected by location of piers. Bridge costs and complexity of design can

increase significantly with slight changes in alignment. Solutions include crossing at a relatively
narrow section of stable channel with a low skew. Potential impacts on river protection works,
channel modifications, and environmental requirements should be assessed before finalizing the
road alignment.
6.2 Structure Width
A bridge width that matches the road width provides continuity for drivers. Functional aspects of
bridge width include achieving shy line offsets to barriers, storage of stalled vehicles,
consideration to cyclists/pedestrians, snow storage, deck drainage, and traffic accommodation
during maintenance. The optimal bridge width will balance functionality, capital construction
cost, and lifecycle performance.
Criteria in setting the optimal clear bridge width:

 Minimum bridge width on a two-lane highway shall be 9m.
 For bridges on rural highways, bridge width shall match the design roadway.
 For bridges on urban highways, the bridge width should meet the shy line offsets to the bridge
barriers for shoulder width, as per the most recent version of TAC’s Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads (Transportation Association of Canada, 2017).
 The maximum shoulder width shall be 3.5m to reduce risk of high angle strikes with barriers,
and reduce the likelihood of it being used as a lane.
Other factors to consider include:

 If standard precast girders (SL, SLW, and SLC) are proposed and within 0.3m of width
requirements above, the width is acceptable, as per the Department’s Standard Bridge
Designs
 Stopping sight distance on curved structures may increase shoulder widths
 Extending roadway tapers across the bridge is desirable from structural design, operational,
and future flexibility perspectives (parallel structure is preferred over a tapered structure)
 Widening a bridge to improve deck drainage for infrequent rainfall is typically not encouraged
from a cost-benefit perspective
If a one-lane bridge is proposed on a highway, the following conditions shall be met:

 Bridge width should be between 4.5 and 5.5m
 Vehicle type expected should be considered (ex. farm machinery, truck volumes)
 AADT < 500vpd for the lifespan of the structure
 Sufficient sight distance should be provided to see oncoming traffic
 Identify signage to be provided along with any other strategies to mitigate hazards
 Maximum bridge length of 100m
 Operating speed should be a maximum of 50km/hr to enable vehicles to yield and minimize
the severity of potential collisions
 Likelihood of adherence to speed limits should be considered such as road geometry, sight
lines, and driver behavior
 Assess how future rehabilitation will be undertaken, including traffic accommodation such as
the ability to maintain one lane of traffic at a reduced speed, or closure with a detour.

More information on geometric requirements to be incorporated during the detailed design
phased can be found in the Bridge Structures Design Criteria (Alberta Transportation, 2020). For
non-highway bridges, refer to the Local Road Bridge Design Guidelines (Alberta Transportation,
2020).
6.3 Railway Grade Separation Considerations
Most grade separated railway crossings in Alberta Transportation’s inventory, operated by

Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and Canadian National Railway (CN), lie under Federal jurisdiction
and are regulated by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). Although many short-line
railways (industrial, historical, recreational) are regulated by AT, few of these have grade-
separated crossings. All public crossings must adhere to legislation, including the Canada
Transportation Act, Traffic Safety Act, Railway Safety Act, and the Railway (Alberta) Act.
Requirements and processes for light rail systems in Edmonton or Calgary, or future High Speed
Rail facilities may differ. For these projects, assumptions should be confirmed with the Owner.
Approval from the railway operator and road authority must be obtained for one to cross another.
These approvals and associated conditions form the basis of a contractual agreement, called a
Crossing Agreement. These agreements typically contain information about who is senior at the
crossing location, apportionment of costs, maintenance and operation responsibilities, and any
future obligations. Historical agreements at a site set the precedent for future work at that site.
At the conceptual design phase, railway design criteria (horizontal and vertical curvature, sight
lines, span lengths, design loads, etc.) differ from those used on roadway design projects.
Standard railway clearance boxes are included as part of the Roadside Design Guide (Alberta
Transportation, 2020) and were developed in consultation with Railway operators and the CTA.
Design criteria shall be confirmed, in writing, with the railway for each site during the conceptual
design phase.
The basic grade separation concept (defined as “that portion of work that is required to provide
adequate facilities for present-day needs at the time of construction or reconstruction of the
grade separation”) forms the basis for apportionment of construction cost with typically an
85/15% split between the two parties (proponent/affected party) for grade separations on new
routes. Any deviations from the basic grade separation concept (such as overbuilding for future
highway lanes or an additional rail track) are typically considered at the full cost of the requesting
party.
Agreement details, including cost apportionment, are typically initiated during the conceptual
design phase of a project, as they can impact the crossing configuration, and are finalized during
latter project stages. It is prudent to seek legal advice when developing agreements. In the case
where the two parties involved cannot come to a consensus on crossing agreements or cost
apportionment, the CTA is consulted. Disputes may be handled by the CTA through facilitation,
mediation, adjudication, or arbitration with varying timeframes for each option. The CTA website
should be consulted for more information and updated references.

Specific considerations to railway crossings at the conceptual design phase include:
 Identification of crossing agreements, seniority, and board orders at existing crossings
 Identification of type of crossing (new route, route replacement)
 Identification of the basic grade separation
 Identification of any additional facilities proposed by any proponent
 Consideration to railway specific design criteria (geometry, drainage, etc)
 Confirmation of design requirements
 Initiation of early legal involvement for agreements
Additional Resources:
 Alberta Transportation - Rail Safety Website (Alberta Transportation, 2020)
 Railway Grade Separations: Application Guidelines Overview (historical reference guide)
(Alberta Transportation, 2004)
 Canadian Transportation Agency – Rail Crossing Agreements (Canadian Transportation
Agency, 2020)
 Canada Transportation Act (Government of Canada, 1996)
 Railway Safety Act (Government of Canada, 2019)
 Traffic Safety Act (Government of Alberta, 2018)
 Railway (Alberta) Act (Government of Alberta, 2010)

7 Conceptual Design Option Development
Option development is the key part of the conceptual design process. Many options need to be
considered before the optimal solution is determined. The Department has developed tools, such
as the Bridge Planning Geometry (BPG) tool, to allow for efficient option development. The
process for option development is:
1. Select a horizontal alignment, or interchange configuration
2. Set profile(s) on this alignment/configuration
3. Set optimal bridge width
4. Establish a bridge opening (locate fills), plus protection works if required
5. Quantify “A” level costs, and identify pros, cons, and risks
There may be a need to step back in the process to refine elements to derive a feasible option,
particularly after consultation with other technical areas. Multiple options often result due to the
combination of alignments, profiles, and bridge openings. On combined road/bridge projects,
bridge geometric constraints must be integrated into the overall project design and optimization.
The ability for a given bridge option to work with a potential future roadway improvement should
be documented in the conceptual design report. Once a horizontal alignment, road profile, and
bridge opening have been established for a given option, an estimate of road grading impact
should be determined. This will facilitate further optimization of the horizontal alignment and
gradeline, and allow comparison with other options. In general, an approximate balance of cuts
and fills will be preferable, to minimize the amount of borrow/waste material.
7.1 Horizontal Alignment
Options for horizontal alignment of a replacement bridge generally include:

 Existing alignment (on-site detour)
 Modified alignments with adjacent bridge (avoid detour bridge/staged construction)
 New routes
When considering new routes, major factors to consider are:

 River Crossing location – bank stability, bridge skew, channel width/depth
 Road Crossing location – intersection spacing, merge/diverge lengths, laning
 Topography – grades, land use, ROW impacts
 Geotechnical, environmental impacts
 Route length/highway network connectivity in the short and long term
Additional factors to consider for adjacent alignments are:

 Flow impacts on the existing bridge/twinned bridge during construction and in service
 Potential to incorporate or improve existing infrastructure and geometry
 Environmental impacts
 Offset distance to adjacent structure (10m minimum recommended)
 Location of connections to existing paths, trails, utilities, accesses, etc.
 Future plans (widening, rehabilitation of existing structures)
Major differences between bridges and roads that can affect horizontal alignment options are:
 the presence of bridge barriers (shy offset, sight lines)

 potential for preferential icing on the bridge deck
 higher unit cost for bridges (length and width)
 structural complexity and costs increases for >30 degrees skew and with curved structures
7.2 Vertical Profile
Once a horizontal alignment is established, a vertical profile can be added. Key criteria include:
 For streams, set bridge elevation to allow for flow, freeboard, and structure depth.
 For grade separations, set bridge elevation below to allow for required vertical clearance and
structure depth.
 Initial structure depth can be estimated as the maximum span length/20. This accounts for
all elements including girder depth, haunch, deck, wearing surface and crossfall.
 Initial pier shaft width estimates can be estimated as the maximum span/30 (used to
determine impact of cross sectional flow area reductions, and estimate fisheries habitat
losses).
 Proposed future widening of a structure needs to be considered in the structure depth
allowance (i.e. will widening to the outside reduce clearance?)
 Sag/crest K values should meet requirements as per the HGDG.
 Bridge elevation can influence the maximum grades on approach roads.
 A 1% minimum longitudinal gradient shall be evaluated for all options.
 A minimum of 0.5% longitudinal gradient shall be used on a structure to ensure positive
gravity drainage. For grade separations, this is typically accomplished by locating the VPI off
of the structure.
 Proposals to use gradients less than 0.5% shall follow the Design Exception process
 The bottom of a sag curve shall not be on a bridge.
 For bridge replacements with minimal road changes, minor variances in elevation between
the bridge and the road could be accommodated with a variable thickness wearing surface.
This approach should be confirmed with the structural and pavement designers.
 The resultant gradient (on diagonal) shall be less than 4% due to safety concerns related to
preferential bridge deck icing.
 The minimum length of curve shall be 2 times the design speed to minimize visual effects, as
per the HGDG.
 Intersection, stopping sight, and decision sight distance shall be considered as per the HGDG.
7.3 Bridge Opening
The bridge opening is defined by the bridge out-to-out fills and the bottom of the superstructure
(typically reported to the nearest meter). Laterally, the bridge headslope fills shall exceed the
structure width by 2m at the top of fill (bridge clear roadway width + 3m at conceptual design
stage). This provides a base for constructing the abutments, provides lateral support for
abutments and wingwalls, and allows for the installation of barrier systems with appropriate
deflections. Headslope ratios shall be 2:1 (H: V) and sideslope ratios shall be 3:1. An elliptical
transition is provided at the corners between the headslope and the sideslope. Open headslopes
are preferred to allow for improved sight lines, increased flexibility for future improvements, and
better performance from a drainage, operations, and maintenance perspective. The use of
retaining walls or MSE walls is discouraged unless major constraints are noted (e.g. urban setting)
or in the case of railway crossings. A sample is shown below, with more details contained in the

Bridge Structures Design Criteria (Alberta Transportation, 2020). Flatter ratios or the use of MSE
walls may be considered due to geotechnical conditions or other site constraints and shall follow
the design exception process.
Figure 6: Bridge and Roadway Transition Fills Sketch
Fills in an active waterway shall be aligned with the expected flow direction at high flows. River
protection works are linked to the location of the headslopes and the skew of the crossing. Fills
that project into the waterway will require protection works. For normal bridge fills with elliptical
transitions, riprap is placed on the fill, with excavation at the ends to ensure the rock is tied in to
the banks upstream and downstream (HS Definition Sketch). An alternative is to use a guidebank,
which maintains a 2:1 slope through the protection works, with the elliptical bridge fill transition
located above and behind the guidebank (GB Definition Sketch). If the bridge fills are outside the
waterway, and a buffer distance is provided, protection works may not be required. In this
scenario, a river engineering assessment including historical bank erosion and lateral mobility
potential is required.
CL Road
CL Road (increasing station in direction of arrow)
(increasing station in direction of arrow)
Left Right
Left Right
GB Extent
Angle
GB Berm
Skew Width GB Nose
HS Berm Wrap Angle
Width
GB Radius
Skew
HS Definition Sketch GB Definition Sketch

(Far HS, RHF skew shown) (Near HS, LHF skew shown)
Top of Top of
HS Rock Fill Width Fill Width
Extent Angle

7.3.1 Wildlife Passage Considerations
Consideration shall be given to wildlife passage accommodation if animal-vehicle collision issues

exist, as noted in the Alberta Wildlife Watch (Alberta Transportation, 2020) program or collision
statistics, or are anticipated during the life of a structure. The cross product of animals crossing
the road and traffic volumes throughout the design life of the structure should be evaluated in
comparison to the cost of mitigation measures or a separate wildlife passage facility. Minor design
modifications can incorporate wildlife passage into bridge designs where justified. Bridge design
modifications may include headslope berms, fill offsets, placing granular material over riprap
aprons, and/or adding characteristics of the natural channel within the bridge opening. Roadway
design modifications may include addition signage, advisory speed limits, or fencing. Extra costs
and safety impacts due to a longer or higher bridge must be justified economically by predicted
reductions in wildlife collisions through a benefit/cost analysis.
Conceptual design considerations for structures specifically designed for wildlife passage include:
 Assessing overpass vs underpass, considering pros, cons, risks and costs
 Determining wildlife specie(s) and associated design parameters (horizontal/vertical
clearance boxes, species and vegetation preferences)
 Consider use of natural topography such as natural high areas for overpasses and natural
low areas for underpasses, and use of existing wildlife paths
 Consider light and noise protection needs (berms/sound walls)
 Consider fencing needs (minimum 3km on either side recommended)
 Consider minimizing traffic sightlines and structure noise such as deck joints
 Avoid accommodation of pedestrians and wildlife within the same structure (unsafe for
pedestrians and wildlife will be less likely to use the structure)
Further guidance on wildlife requirements can be found within the Environmental Regulation
Section (Alberta Transportation , 2020) of the website.
7.3.2 Structural Considerations
Structural options should be considered at a high level when developing bridge opening options.
Expected span lengths will confirm assumptions made in setting the roadway profile to
accommodate desired freeboard. Potential pier locations should be assessed for impact on drift
and ice, in-stream berm needs during construction, and proximity to fills. Pier location/type can
have an impact on roadway design including shy line offsets, clear zones, and barrier requirements
along with future interchange plans (directional ramps, bridge widening, and lane expansions).
For stream crossings, bathymetry (ex: thalweg location) and environmental sensitives (ex:
construction berms impacts) can affect pier location. For long span structures, it is beneficial to
consider structure type (steel I-girders, steel box girders, concrete segmental, cable stayed,
suspension, etc.), and associated limitations (maximum spans, span depths, pier connections)
during the conceptual design phase. For these types of projects, preliminary structural alternative
reports often form part of the conceptual design submission.

7.3.3 Stormwater Considerations
Stormwater drainage from highway ditches shall be considered in the design of bridge fills and
associated structures such as MSE walls. For rural sites, specific stormwater management
facilities, such as ponds, are not required with more details provide in Best Practice Guideline 11:
Stormwater Management at Rural Bridges (Alberta Transportation, 2020). Rural highways are
designed with open channel ditches, as per the Highway Geometric Design Guide, which have
sufficient capacity to attenuate peak flows originating from roadway surfaces, and the ability to
filter runoff. Ditch drainage is typically directed into low-lying areas adjacent to the channel, and
erosion and sedimentation guidelines apply. Within a grade separated bridge opening, swales are
used between the headslope and roadway shoulder, as per the Roadside Design Guide.
Stormwater ponds may be required at large interchanges in urban areas that significantly increase
impervious area, when regulated release rates are required, or when more stringent quality
control is required (such as upstream of a water intake facility). Depending on the size and risk of
a pond, AEP Dam Safety Regulations may also be triggered. Additional information regarding
stormwater management for urban areas is found in Design Bulletin 16 (Alberta Transportation,
2007) and the Stormwater Management Guidelines (Alberta Environmental Protection, 1999).
7.4 Bridge Sized Culvert Requirements
Drawing S-1418 (Alberta Transportation , 2017), Installation of CSP and SPCSP Structures, provides
guidance for the design and installation of culvert structures. This drawing is applicable to bridge
sized culverts with a diameter of 3m or less, with site-specific details required for culverts with
greater diameters, or classified as a major bridge such as an open bottomed structure. Conceptual
design considerations for culverts include:
 Culvert inverts should be buried one quarter of the rise (D/4) below the average natural
streambed, up to a maximum depth of 1 m, to allow for future streambed changes and ensure
biological connectivity. Exceptions to the recommended burial depth may be considered
when site-specific features require special attention such as shallow competent bedrock or
historical stream degradation.
 Culverts have fixed opening dimensions with transition zones located at both ends of a
culvert, as the channel shape moves from the bevel end to a trapezoidal shape that can fit the
natural stream. Transition zones also connect the culvert invert elevations to the natural
streambed elevations. In some cases, berms perpendicular to the roadway may be required
to support the protection works. Channel realignments may also be beneficial in some cases,
to reduce culvert skew (length), improve flow alignment, or reduce property impacts.
 Sideslopes shall be designed as per the Roadside Design Guide (Alberta Transportation, 2020),
with a minimum 3:1 slope. Shallower, recoverable 4:1 sideslopes are preferred where not
limited by other sites constraints such as Right of Way. A 4:1 slope through the clear zone,
followed by 3:1 outside the clear zone (with no guardrail) is often a cost effective solution.
 Minimum cover for steel culverts shall be in accordance with the current version of the CHBDC
(CSA, 2019) or 300mm, whichever is the greater. The minimum cover shall be taken as the
least dimension between the crown of the culvert and the edge of the roadway shoulders.

When barriers are proposed, cover depth shall be sufficient to allow for proper foundation
embedment.
 Multiple culverts shall only be used if they fit the natural channel (i.e. bed width created
should be similar to the natural channel). Flow expansion and contraction associated with
structures being too small or too big in comparison to the natural channel should be avoided
to minimize erosion and scour risks.
 Open bottomed structures shall be larger than the natural channel bedwidth and shall have
mitigation measures to prevent failure due to scour or erosion, as further described in Section
5.9.
 Horizontal spacing between adjacent culverts shall be at least 1.0 m or span/10 of the larger
span, whichever is the greater, to allow for the soil envelope to be established and properly
constructed. Site specific backfill design details are required for sites with multiple pipes.
 Overflow culverts outside of the natural channel placed at a higher elevation or lateral
distance away shall be considered when aufeis/icing concerns are noted at existing or
adjacent culvert sites.
 Guidance on available culvert types and materials can be found in the AT Products List
(Alberta Transportation, 2020) and Section 18 of the Standard Specifications for Bridge
Construction (Alberta Transportation, 2020). Selection of the optimal culvert configuration
that meets the required service life should be based on life cycle analysis and site specific
constraints.
 Culvert upsizing to allow for future lining may be a cost effective strategy at sites where open-
cut replacement would be expensive or require extensive traffic accommodation (high fills,
high traffic volume).
 Cathodic protection systems are not permitted as service life extension strategies, as they are
difficult and costly to maintain/operate.
 Rolled Concrete Pipe or Precast Box Culverts shall be considered if
o height of cover is <600mm, and upgrading the roadway geometry is undesirable or

unfeasible
o if abrasion due to sediment or corrosion is a major concern,
o if soil side or water side corrosion is a concern
o if existing traffic volumes are high (>1000 AADT), or
o if significant user costs would be incurred from open cut replacement, currently or
during future replacement.
 Tunnelled culverts are an alternative to open-cut installation. Benefits include less

interference with traffic during construction, less grading work, and the potential for an
accelerated schedule. In most cases, this will involve a thick wall welded steel pipe (WSP) and

a combination of jacking (advancing the WSP into the fill by ramming), and boring (removing
the fill from within the WSP).
 Tunnelling shall be consider if the structure diameter is <3m, fill height is >5m, or traffic
volumes are >2000 AADT. A moderate increase in initial cost over an open-cut option may be
worth savings in user costs. Undertake a cost analysis of options and consider risks such as
geotechnical suitability. Costs may be affected by availability of experienced contractors and
equipment.
 For larger culvert sizes, fill removal by a bobcat within the advanced WSP may be feasible or
tunnel-boring machines may be required. If tunnelling is proposed, contacting potential
contractors regarding equipment availability and limitations is recommended during the
conceptual design phase.
 If tunnelling is proposed, consider winter construction to minimize dewatering issues.

Consider partial removal of sideslopes to minimize tunnelling distances while maintaining live
traffic. WSP thickness should be sufficient to meet the 50 year design life for corrosion or the
jacking forces, whichever is greater. Thinner/different materials may be considered suitable
for culvert ends (where jacking through fill is not required).
 For cattlepass and pedestrian culvert structures, the minimum vertical clearance should be
2200 mm, or as required by TAC based on the expected users. A flat floor, with a minimum
depth of 150 mm at the midspan, shall be considered for circular culverts. Length should be
determined such that sideslopes terminate at the top of the floor level when no bevel is used.
Surface water should not pond inside the structure. This could be achieved by setting the
inverts slightly above adjacent ground, by longitudinally sloping or crowning the inverts, or by
using ditch drainage when necessary.
Further guidance regarding bridge-sized culverts and buried structures can be found in the Design
Guidelines for Bridge Sized Culverts (Alberta Transportation, 2020), the Corrugated Steel Pipe
Institute (Corrugated Steel Pipe Institute, 2020), the Canadian Concrete Pipe and Precast
Association (Canadian Concrete Pipe & Precast Association, 2020), and local suppliers.

8 Options Analysis
8.1 Evaluate Alternatives
Alternatives shall be assessed during the conceptual design phase to identify the optimal solution
for the site. The comparison shall consider costs, pros/cons, and risks. The comparison will
typically only involve replacement options, as rehabilitation and maintenance options are
generally considered in the bridge assessment phase. Life cycle cost analysis is required for
options with different expected structure lives.
Options may cover a range of alignments, profiles, and bridge openings. They may also cover a
range of structures including steel culverts, concrete culverts, standard bridges, and major
bridges. Costs shall include all project costs at a type ‘A’ level, including:
 Structure costs - unit cost times deck area, in plan view
 River protection works – unit cost times rock volume
 Road Grading - unit cost for balanced grading, unit cost for borrow/waste
 Road construction – unit cost times length of road
 Geotechnical remediation – lump sum costs based on similar projects
 Land/ROW purchase costs – unit cost times area
 Utility costs – lump sum for major items paid for by the Department
 User costs – construction speed/lane reduction impacts, if these differ for the options or in
urban/high traffic areas
 Construction/detour costs
 Environmental costs – lump sum mitigation costs
 Operations/maintenance costs – if these differ for the options
 Throw-a-way costs
Pros and Cons shall address issues not accounted for by the costs, such as:
 Highway geometrics – functionality, performance, safety
 Hydrotechnical – backwater impacts, erosion, debris, ice
 Future plans - flexibility to upgrade in the future, ROW impacts
 Route length – temporary, permanent
 Construction issues – timing, risks, difficulty, staging, user impacts
 Environmental – impacts, approvals, mitigations, sustainability
 Geotechnical – unknowns, mitigations, risks
 Land/development impacts – sensitive areas, purchase delays
 Operations/Maintenance – icing mitigations, future rehabilitation
 Safety – potential collision reduction/increase
 Adherence to standards – non-conformance, or design exceptions
 Risks – for the Owner, stakeholders, travelling public
Appropriate technical experts (road designers, environmental, geotechnical, structural, etc.) shall
be engaged during this phase to ensure considerations are fully assessed. For complex projects,
discussion with the Department prior to completing the option analysis phase is recommended
to minimize rework. This will confirm any additional factors to consider in the comparison, or
other directions from the Department such as schedule or budget limitations.

Scoring matrices are generally not used in selection of the optimal bridge conceptual design.
These systems, where points and weighting factors are assigned to various issues, tend to be too
rigid in scoring, with considerable debate on scoring charts and weighting factors. These types of
methods are most useful in comparing options with large differences in options such as in
functional planning studies, and can be a valuable tool for communicating options to
stakeholders.
A recommendation on optimal bridge concept is required within the draft conceptual design
report. After discussion with the Department, direction may be given to proceed with the
recommended option, a different option, or evaluation of an additional option. Documentation
of the rationale for the final recommended plan shall be included in the final report.
8.2 Design Exceptions
For situations where engineering analysis reveals that standards in this guideline are not
appropriate for a specific project, the design exception process shall be followed, as per the
Department’s Design Exceptions Guideline (Alberta Transportation, 2018). Subject Matter Experts
shall be informed for any proposed deviations from current standards or guidelines and will make
a determination of whether a formal design exception submission is required. Documentation,
either through a formal design exception submission or through content within the Conceptual
Design Report, should include an appropriate level of engineering analysis, evaluation of
alternatives (for example an option to meet the standard in comparison to an option to not meet
the standard), risk assessments, mitigation strategies, and recommendations. The Subject Matter
Expert shall determine if the design exception is approved, with final sign off required by the
Executive Director of the Technical Standards Branch.
The bridge conceptual design process addresses the principals involved in the design exception
process, and a formal design exception request should not be required in most cases. It is the
responsibility of the project manager to ensure that appropriate effort has been undertaken and
sufficient documentation has been made from a liability perspective.
For roadway deficiencies, a design exception request may be required if:

 The bridge is part of a new road design project and the bridge is the functional bottleneck for
the project
 The bridge is the main part of a stand-alone bridge replacement project and the concept
provides a lower level of functionality than the existing section of road.
Conceptual design items that shall be clearly communicated and justified include:
 Freeboard at bridges < 0.3m
 Freeboard at culverts <0m
 Non-standard river protection works details
 Variable cross section on bridge deck
 Roadway spiral on a bridge deck
 Gradient on bridge deck < 0.5%
 Resultant gradient on bridge deck > 4%
 Bridge width less or more than standard
 Bridge vertical clearance less or more than standard

 Bridge headslope ratios other than 2:1
 Skew exceeding 30 degrees
 Bridge deck drainage encroachments that exceed allowable values
 Substandard roadway geometry (k values, grades, lane widths, etc)
 Reduced design life
 Innovative concepts/designs/products that AT may be unfamiliar with
 Recommendations to reduce the existing functionality and/or safety of a structure/roadway

9 Reporting Requirements
A draft Bridge Conceptual Design report shall be submitted noting all assumptions, limitations,
and constraints along with additional information required to complete the detailed design phase.
The report shall include sketches that illustrate the options assessed and contain sufficient detail
to facilitate review by the Department. As per the Engineering Consultant Guidelines, the report
and sketches shall be signed by the design engineer and checked/signed by an independent
reviewer. The report and sketches should:
 Confirm feasibility of the recommended concept
 Communicate bridge conceptual design parameters to used in the detailed design phase
 Capture any interim or ultimate plans (e.g. lane additions or structure widening)
 Document and assign liability for decisions made and approved design exceptions
The report shall summarize acquired data, analyses, options considered, and justification of the
recommended option. While the report content will vary depending on the project scope and
specific site constraints, all reports shall identify the following as a minimum:
 Rationale for Project

 Existing Structure and Site Conditions
 Roadway Design – Existing and Proposed
 Hydrotechnical Design – Existing and Proposed (as needed)
 Deck Drainage Assessment
 Environmental Parameters/Constraints
 Geotechnical Parameters/Constraints
 Construction Feasibility
 Development of Alternatives
 Assessment of Alternatives
 Risks - Project and Alternatives
 Cost Estimates for Alternatives
 Design Exception Summary
 Other: First Nations, ROW, railway, channel realignments, etc.
 Recommendations
 Sketches
 Bridge Conceptual Design Summary Sheet**
 Attachments (supporting documents, historical reports, etc.)
**Major bridge projects shall require the completion of a Bridge Conceptual Design Summary
Sheet (refer to Appendix B). This form is optional, but recommended, for culvert and standard
bridge projects.
Sketches shall include a site plan, elevation view, road profile view, and streambed profile (as
required). In the case of a culvert, the elevation view shall run along the culvert. Additional
sketches and details may be required for new road alignments, channel realignments, and river
protection works. Superimposing design elements, such as headslope protection works or bridge
fills, on airphotos and 3D views may be of value to communicate the proposed option.

The level of detail of the sketches will depend on the type of study. Higher level conceptual
planning studies not proceeding to design within approximately five years typically only require
details marked with *.
The typical contents are as follows, unless otherwise specified in a project terms of reference:
Site Plan:
 Extents – include fill transitions to roadway along road and tie-ins to bank along streams
 Centerline of road with at least two station points shown*
 Top and bottom of stream banks, as required
 Bridge fill extents*
 Headslope protection works
 Utilities (with labels)
 Existing and required right-of-way extents*
 Land ownership
 Existing bridge, as required*
 Skew angle of opening relative to roadway*
 Developments or significant natural features
Bridge and Roadway Elevations (cross section along bridge and road alignment):
 Extents – same as site plan along the roadway
 Elevation on vertical axis, station along road on horizontal axis
 Gradeline of existing road centerline (if applicable)*
 Gradeline of proposed road centerline*
 Profile of existing natural ground along proposed road centerline (if applicable)*
 Profile of existing natural ground offset on both sides of proposed roadway centerline (should
be clear of influence from existing fills, e.g. 20 to 30m offset)
 Bridge headslopes from fill to natural ground (slope, station and elevation for top of fill points)
 Design highwater elevation, as required*
 Protection works (if applicable), detailing thickness, top/bottom elevations, apron length
 Outline of existing bridge, including deck, abutments, piers and foundation, if applicable*
 Geotechnical test holes
 Road gradients at estimated bridge ends
 For culverts – show invert elevations, burial, channel transition lengths, and all elements that
affect culvert length, including sideslopes, berms, road cross section and clearances.
Roadway Gradeline (extended elevation view):

 Extents – extent of any proposed changes, include crest curves at valley tops (if applicable)
 Elevation on vertical axis, station along road on horizontal axis*
 Gradeline of existing road centerline (if applicable)*
 Gradeline of proposed road centerline*
 Profile of existing natural ground along proposed roadway (if applicable)*
 Profile of existing natural ground offset on both sides of proposed roadway centerline
 Bridge headslopes from fill to natural ground (note slope ratio)
 All BVC/EVC/VPI and ST/TC/PI (include station, elevation)*

 K value and curve length for all curves*
 Gradients along tangent sections*
 Note location of accesses and intersections*
 Future highway plans or improvements*
Extended Plan View (as required, superimpose on georeferenced air photo):

 Extents – extent of any proposed changes along the roadway, cover any proposed protection
works or channel changes along the stream
 Existing road centerline (if applicable)
 Proposed road centerline*
 Regular station points
 All curve transition points with labeled stations
 Curve data (radius, spiral parameter, length, deflection angle) not shown on other sketches*
 Road cut/fill extents
 River protection works and channel alignments not shown on site plan
 Adjacent land ownership
 Existing and required right-of-way extents*
 Location of accesses and intersections*
 Future highway plans or improvements*
Stream Profile (as required):

 Extents – cover extent of any protection works or channel changes
 Elevation on vertical axis, Station along the channel on horizontal axis, with zero at
intersection with proposed road centerline
 Thalweg profile (lowest point on each channel cross section)
 Surveyed water/ice profile (note date)
 Slope arrow and value (based on DEM data)
 Extents of any channel changes (include outline of culvert, if applicable)
 Note any anomalies (rock ledges, beaver dams)
 Note any confluences with other channels
 Additional stream profiles and/or cross-sections may be required when channel realignments
are proposed
Samples of functional planning sketches and bridge conceptual design sketches, are found in the
Appendix A. Historically, Design Data drawings were using by the Department but these were
found to be costly and provided limited additional value in comparison to well developed sketches
and general layout drawings generated in the detailed design phase.

Once the Department has reviewed and accepted the Draft Bridge Conceptual Design Report, the
Consultant shall submit a Final Bridge Conceptual Design Report. This report will inform the next
steps required during the detailed design phase, as per the new design flowchart below:

10 References
Alberta Environment and Parks. (2015). Roadway Crossing Inspection Manual. Retrieved
from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/a832eee1-53b4-45f7-a46c-
8e81b498080f/resource/d338eb1d-5609-4a3a-bc96-
e876442df0c4/download/6799953-2015-roadway-watercourse-crossing-
inspection-manual-version-5.2.2.-2015-03-13.pdf
Alberta Environmental Protection. (1999). Retrieved from Stormwater Management
Guidelines for the Province of Alberta:
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/75b4611e-d962-4411-ac56-
935ec2f8dcd1/resource/c6ccd70c-1a1e-4f2a-ae23-
58e287ed5ada/download/stormwatermanagementguidelines-1999.pdf
Alberta Transportation . (2017). Retrieved from Installation of CSP and SPCSP Structures:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/doctype30/production/s1418-
17.pdf
Alberta Transportation . (2020). Retrieved from Engineering Consultant Guidelines:
https://www.alberta.ca/engineering-consultant-guidelines-highway-bridge-
water-vol-1-design-and-tender.aspx
Alberta Transportation . (2020). Retrieved from Bridge Management:
https://www.alberta.ca/bridge-management.aspx
Alberta Transportation . (2020). Retrieved from Environmental Management of
Transportation and Water Projects: https://www.alberta.ca/environmental-
management-of-transportation-and-water-projects.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2004). Retrieved from Railway Grade Seperationsn Application
Guidelines Overview:
https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType30/Production/RwyGSa
pplguidel.pdf
Alberta Transportation. (2005). Retrieved from Evaluation of Open Channel Flow
Equations: https://www.alberta.ca/new-design-bridge-conceptual-design.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2006). Retrieved from Development of Runoff Depth Map of
Alberta: https://www.alberta.ca/new-design-bridge-conceptual-design.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2007). Retrieved from Context of Extreme Floods in Alberta:
https://www.alberta.ca/new-design-bridge-conceptual-design.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2007). Retrieved from Design Bulletin 16.
Alberta Transportation. (2010). Velocity Distributions in Channels and Culverts.
Alberta Transportation. (2011). Estimation of Navigation Clearance Box Reference Water
Level.
Alberta Transportation. (2012). Retrieved from GIS Data available for Alberta
Transportation Bridge Planning Projects:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType30/Production/GISDataf
orATProjects.pdf
Alberta Transportation. (2012). Discussion on the Selection of the Recommended Fish
Passage Design Discharge.

Alberta Transportation. (2013). Retrieved from Stream Degradation Technical Note:
https://www.alberta.ca/new-design-bridge-conceptual-design.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2015). Retrieved from Flow Profile:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/PlanningTools/Tools/Hydraulics/
Alberta Transportation. (2018). Retrieved from High Load Corridor:
https://www.alberta.ca/high-load-corridor.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2018). Retrieved from Design Exceptions Guideline:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType253/Production/DesignE
xceptions.pdf
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from New Design - Detailed Engineering:
https://www.alberta.ca/new-design-detailed-engineering.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from Bridge and Structures - Fabrication and
Construction: https://www.alberta.ca/bridges-and-structures-fabrication-and-
construction.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from New Design:
https://www.alberta.ca/new-design-detailed-engineering.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from Local Road Bridges:
https://www.alberta.ca/local-road-bridges.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from Roadside Design Guide:
https://www.alberta.ca/roadside-design-guide-table-of-contents.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from Rail Safety Overview:
https://www.alberta.ca/rail-safety-overview.aspx
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from Alberta Wildlife Watch:
https://albertawildlifewatch.ca/cma/report/
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from Products List.
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Retrieved from Request for Corporate Information
Instructions:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType29/Production/rqstcorpi
nfo.pdf
Alberta Transportation. (2020). Road Geometric Design. Retrieved from
https://www.alberta.ca/highway-geometric-design-guide-table-of-contents.aspx
Canada, E. (2020). Retrieved from Water Level and Flow:
https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/index_e.html
Canadian Transportation Agency. (2020). Retrieved from Agreements: Railway Crossings
and Construction: https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/rail-related-crossings
City of Edmonton. (2015). Retrieved from City Design and Construction Standards,
Volume 3: Drainage:
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/city-
design-construction-standards.aspx
CSA. (2019). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.
Federal Highway Administration. (2001). Retrieved from River Engineering for Highway
Encroachments:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/library_arc.cfm?pub_number
=8&id=20

Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Retrieved from Urban Drainage Design Manual,
Third Edition:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/library_arc.cfm?pub_number
=22&id=140
Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Retrieved from Bridge Scour and Stream
Instabilities Countermeasures:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/09111/09111.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Retrieved from Evaluating Scour at Bridges:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hif12003.pdf
Federal Highways Administration. (1993). Retrieved from Design of Bridge Deck
Drainage:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hec/hec21.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2010). Retrieved from Railway (Alberta) Act:
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=R04.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=077
9736737
Government of Alberta. (2018). Retrieved from Traffic Safety Act:
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=T06.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=978
0779784110
Government of Canada. (1996). Retrieved from Canadian Transportation Act:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/FullText.html#s-101.
Government of Canada. (2019). Retrieved from Railway Safety Act: https://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.2/index.html
Texas Transportation Institute. (1977). Retrieved from Visual Performance of Drivers
During Rainfall: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1977/628/628-004.pdf
Transportation Association of Canada. (2004). Guide to Bridge Hydraulics.
Transportation Association of Canada. (2017). Retrieved from Geometric Design Guide
for Canadian Roads: https://www.tac-atc.ca/en/publications-and-
resources/geometric-design-guide-canadian-roads

APPENDIX A: Sample Hydrotechnical Summary

BF 00548 Local Road Over Cripple Creek
Hydrotechnical Summary
Channel Capacity:
S = 0.014
B = 1.5 m, h = 1.2 m, Th = 6 m
n = 0.055
At Bank Height : Y = 1.2 m, V = 1.7 m/s, Q = 7.5 cms

At Channel Capacity : Y = 1.8 m, V = 2.5 m/s, Q = 20 cms
Historical Highwater Data:
HW was noted in 1908 (extent unknown), 1924 – causing both road approaches to wash
out, 1989 – backwall scour noted, estimated highwater mark of 1.7m, and 2005 – no
damage noted.
There are no WSC gauges on Cripple Ck. There is a nearby gauge on Trout Creek
(Gauge 05AB005, DA~440 sqkm) with records from 1908 – present. The largest event
recorded were in June 2005 (Q~60cms), June 1923 (Q~40cms), and June 1995
(Q~30cms). The largest storms in the storm database for this area are June 1953, May
1923, and June 1963 with about 110mm of rainfall.
Basin Runoff Potential:
The basin is located within areas of 100mm (rainfall) and 15mm (snowmelt) zones.
d = 100mm, Tp = 20hrs, q = 1.39 cms/km2.

Gross DA1 = 8 km2
Qp1 = 11 cms (rainfall)
d = 15mm, Tp = 40hrs, q = 0.10 cms/km2

Gross DA2 = 27 km2
Qp2 = 3 cms (snowmelt)
Qp = Qp1 + Qp2
Qp = 14cms
Conclusion :
The basin runoff potential governs for this site.

Recommended parameters : Y = 1.5 m, V = 2.1 m/s, Q = 14 cms

APPENDIX B: Bridge Conceptual Design Summary Sheet

Bridge Conceptual Design Summary Sheet
Bridge File: Highway: Road Authority:
TSB Liaison: Date:
Consultant: CE Agreement #:
APPROVALS
Required? Status Reference Number
AEP – Water Act
AEP – Public Lands Act
Transport Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Right of Way
Other
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN INFORMATION

Structure Type Culvert Standard Bridge Major Bridge Other
(x)
Clear roadway Skew Length (out-to-out

Width fills)
Min. center Span Min. horizontal Min. vertical
clear zone clearance/freeboard
Culvert type Culvert shape Culvert span x rise x
length
Design flow Design velocity Design highwater
depth/elevation
Streambed width Stream slope Deck drains? (Y/N)
Riprap class Stream Design ice situation
realignment
Roadway Posted speed Barrier system
classification
Max. grade on Max. grade on Sag/crest k values
Road Bridge
Environmental Geotechnical Stakeholders
comments comments comments
Other:
Design Exceptions Summary:
Cost Estimate:
Draft Submission Date: Review Meeting Date: Final Submission Date:
Approval Consultant Project Manager AT Project Manager AT Project Sponsor

Name
Signature
APPENDIX C: Sample Report Sketches

Sample River Crossing Bridge Conceptual Design Sketches
Sketch 1: Site Plan
Sketch 2: Existing and Proposed Gradelines

Sketch 3: Bridge Elevation

Sample Grade Separation: Bridge Conceptual Design Sketches
Sketch 4: Extended Plan Overview
Sketch 5: Site Plan

Sketch 6: Bridge Cross Section
Sketch 7: Roadway Gradeline
Sketch 8: Bridge Elevation

Sample Design Data Drawings (historically used)

APPENDIX D: Reference Documents
Preface
The following reference documents were developed by Alberta Transportation and are
provided as historical background information to supplement the current version of the
Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines. The documents in Appendix D are listed below and
provided in full, as per their original date of publication.
 Comparison of Velocity Distributions in Channels and Culverts (2010)

 Estimation of the Navigation Clearance Box Reference Water Level (2011)
 Discussion on the Selection of the Recommended Fish Passage Design Discharge
(2012)
 Comparison of 3Q10 to Depth-Based Approach for Fish Passage Evaluation (2008)
Note that some references within these documents are outdated, including, but not
limited to:
 Navigable Waters Protection Act
 Currently Canadian Navigable Waters Act
 Hydrotechnical Design Guidelines (AT)
 Superseded by the Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines
 Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Stream Crossings (AT)
 Removed from circulation, contact AT’s Environmental Regulation group
for more information
 Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation (AIT)
 Currently Alberta Transportation (AT)

Comparison of Velocity Distributions in Channels and Culverts (Originally
Published 2010)
Introduction
Assessment of flow velocity in a culvert is an important component of assessing the

potential for fish passage. Velocities may need to be computed over a range of flow
conditions that are likely during periods of fish passage need. Tools have been developed
to accurately predict the longitudinal distribution of the mean (section-averaged) velocity
for a given flow condition and culvert geometry. These tools account for flow profile
changes along a culvert due to tailwater effects of culvert embedment.
Alberta Transportation (AT) has proposed a fish passage assessment methodology that
compares the mean flow velocity in the pipe to that of the typical channel. Comparable
mean velocities would suggest that a given culvert configuration would not be a velocity
barrier to fish passage. In addition, culverts providing similar mean flow velocities to the
channel at the most frequent flows should minimize the impact on overall river processes.
However, concerns have been expressed about the validity of the mean velocity being
used to compare fish passage in channels and culverts. Culverts provide a length of
constant section, profile, and alignment that in many cases will exceed that of a natural
channel, and this may affect the availability of low velocity zones in the flow. In order to
quantify this impact, a study has been undertaken to compare the distribution of flow
velocity over a cross section between culverts and channels. Knowledge of the velocity
distribution at culverts may also provide useful guidance in the application of fish
swimming performance curves.
Methodology
Data on the distribution of flow velocity over a cross section for both culverts and open
channels is available from several sources. Data on velocities within round corrugated
metal pipes has been published based on field studies such as Katopodis et al (1978) and
Behlke et al (1991), and based on laboratory studies such as Barber and Downs (1996)
and Ead et al (2000). Laboratory studies have the advantage of more control over flow
conditions, but come with unavoidable scale effects. Additional data for embedded
culverts has been published by House et al (2005) and Magura (2007).
A convenient source of open channel velocity distribution data covering a wide range of
flow and channel geometry conditions is the gauging data collected by the Water Survey
of Canada (WSC). Data from about 40 gaugings at sites across Alberta have been
analyzed. Some recent data sets, collected using Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)
equipment at the Hwy 63 over Athabasca River crossing near Fort McMurray in Alberta
provide an additional source of data.

In all cases, each data-set was processed into a table of percentage of flow area (%A) with
maximum point velocity (vmx) less than a certain ratio of section-averaged mean velocity
(V). For data that was in the form of velocity contour plots at a cross section, the contours
were digitized and the areas enclosed by each contour calculated (see Figure 1 and Figure
2). For data that was in the form of x,y,v data-sets, GIS tools were used to develop
cumulative velocity histograms for the cross section. Culvert data was limited to sections
with flow below half full, which is typical for fish passage conditions. In addition, the
culvert data was limited to sections of fully developed flow, meaning that the data is not
influenced by local effects such as contractions and expansions near the ends of the
culvert. The %A and vmx/V data were compiled into separate databases for culverts and
channels to facilitate the comparative analysis.
Analysis
Figure 3 shows a plot of %A versus vmx/V for all culvert and WSC open channel data. Each
data-set shows some scatter, but significant trends are visible. Best-fit regression lines
have been added to the plot to clarify the differences between the two sets of data. Little
difference was observed between culvert data derived from field and laboratory
investigations, so all culvert data were combined into one set. The ADCP channel data set
compared well with the WSC channel data, but was not included on the plot due to the
influence of a channel constriction.
Two areas of difference between the two data-sets are readily apparent from Figure 3.
The first difference is that culverts provide a somewhat smaller %A for vmx/V ratios less
than 1.0. The magnitude of this difference can be seen in Table 1. Values of vmx/V are
reduced by about 10% of V for %A values in the 10 to 30% range. This range is likely of
most interest to fish passage assessment. The second difference is that channels tend to
have much higher vmx/V ratios at higher values of %A. This difference in the high velocity
regions is about 5 times larger (~ 50% of V), but is of less interest to fish passage
assessment.
%A Channel Culvert Difference

vmx/V vavg/V vmx/V vavg/V %V
10 0.38 0.24 0.50 0.35 12
20 0.57 0.35 0.69 0.47 12
30 0.73 0.46 0.83 0.57 10
Table 1 – velocity distribution difference - fish passage range

Another observation that can be made from both data-sets is that a considerable portion
of the flow area has velocities that are well below the section-averaged mean velocity.
For example, 20% of the flow area at a typical culvert section will have maximum point
velocities less than 70% of the mean velocity, and the average velocity over this region is
less than 50% of the section-averaged mean velocity. This would suggest that application
of fish swimming performance curves based on section-averaged mean velocity of flow
would significantly underestimate the potential for a culvert to pass fish.
The WSC channel data shows an increase in scatter when compared to the assembled
culvert data. As the WSC data-set covers a wide range of site, a brief investigation of
potential factors that may affect the velocity distribution was undertaken. Separate plots
of data within ranges of parameters such as channel width, depth, mean velocity (see
Figure 4a), and cross section aspect ratio (width to depth, Figure 4b) were prepared.
However, no significant trend or reduction in scatter with any of these parameters was
observed.
Figure 5 shows a comparison of the effect of culvert roughness on the distribution of

velocity. The smooth wall pipe data (Barber and Downs, 1996) shows a reduction in the
amount of low velocity area compared to the best fit corrugated steel pipe data. The field
data for an embedded culvert with granular substrate (House et al, 2005), shows an
increase in the amount of low velocity area, and plots close to the best fit line for natural
channels. The laboratory data for an embedded culvert with granular substrate (Magura,
2007) does not show this difference, and actually shows a small decrease in low velocity
area. The substrate material in both embedded culvert studies was similar, with the
largest difference being the extent of coverage of the substrate. The field study had
substrate covering most of the wetted perimeter, whereas the laboratory study had
substrate covering about one third of the wetted perimeter. In general, it is apparent
that increased roughness results in a slight increase in the relative amount of low velocity
areas in addition to the reduction in mean velocity.
Conclusion
A comparison between flow velocity distribution in culverts and open channels was
undertaken, based on published data-sets. Best fit lines to the two data-sets on %A vs.
vmx/V plots show differences in regions both above and below the mean velocity. The
difference in the region of interest to fish passage assessment is about 10% of the mean
velocity, with the velocities in these regions being a higher percentage of the mean
velocity at culverts than at natural channels. This difference is within the range of
accuracy of determination of design parameters and hydraulic modelling results.
Therefore, it is concluded that the practice of assessing fish passage based on comparison
of mean velocity between the culvert and the channel appears to be valid. Culvert
embedment with granular substrate may reduce the difference in velocity distributions
between culverts and channels.

The results also show that significant portions of the flow in culverts will have point
velocities well below the mean velocity. For example, 20% of the flow area will have point
velocities less than 70% of the mean velocity, and the average of all point velocities in the
region will be less than 50% of the section-averaged mean velocity. This suggests that
application of fish swimming performance curves using the mean velocity from culvert
hydraulics models can substantially underestimate the potential for fish passage.

References
Barber, M.E., and Downs, R.C., 1996. “Investigation of Culvert Hydraulics Related to
Juvenile Fish Passage”. Washington State DOT Technical Report No. WA-RD 388.2.
Behlke, C., Kane, D.L., McLean, R.F., and Travis, M.D., 1991. “Fundamentals of Culvert
Design for Passage of Weak-Swimming Fish”. FHWA Research Report No. FHWA-AK-RD-
90-10.
Ead, S.A., Rajaratnam, N., Katopodis, C., and Ade, F., 2000. “Turbulent Open-Channel Flow
in Circular Corrugated Culverts”. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 10, p750.
House, M.R., Marvin, R.P., White, D., 2005. “Velocity Distributions in Streambed
Simulation Culverts used for Fish Passage”. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 41(1):209-217.
Katopodis, C., Robinson, P.R., and Sutherland, B.G., 1978. "A study of model and
prototype culvert baffling." Canadian Fisheries and Marine Service, Technical Report 828
Magura, C.R., 2007. “Hydraulic Characteristics of Embedded Circular Culverts”. Master

of Sciences Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Manitoba.
WSC Data – gauging records, Alberta Region, Water Survey of Canada, Environment
Canada

Figure 1 – Sample Culvert Calculation (based on data from Behlke, 1991)
Contour Incremental Plot Points

v A A v Q v/V %A
(ft/s) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (ft/s) (cfs)
9.5 0.0 0.0 1.50 1.00
9 1.5 1.5 9.25 13.6 1.42 0.90
8 4.6 3.1 8.5 26.6 1.26 0.70
7 6.8 2.2 7.5 16.8 1.10 0.55
6 8.7 1.8 6.5 11.9 0.95 0.43
5 10.7 2.0 5.5 11.2 0.79 0.30
4 12.2 1.4 4.5 6.5 0.63 0.21
3 13.2 1.1 3.5 3.7 0.47 0.14
2 14.2 0.9 2.5 2.4 0.32 0.08
1 14.8 0.6 1.5 1.0 0.16 0.04
0 15.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.00 0.00

Figure 2 – Sample Channel Calculation (WSC data)
Contour Incremental Plot Points

v A A v Q v/V %A
(m/s) (sq. m.) (sq. m) (m/s) (cms)
0.8 0.0 0.0 1.68 1.00
0.7 4.1 4.1 0.75 3.1 1.47 0.85
0.6 8.8 4.7 0.65 3.1 1.26 0.67
0.5 13.9 5.1 0.55 2.8 1.05 0.48
0.4 18.8 4.9 0.45 2.2 0.84 0.30
0.3 20.9 2.1 0.35 0.7 0.63 0.22
0.2 22.7 1.8 0.25 0.4 0.42 0.15
0.1 24.5 1.8 0.15 0.3 0.21 0.08
0 26.7 2.2 0.05 0.1 0.00 0.00

Figure 3 – Velocity Distribution Comparison
100
90 Natural Channels
(WSC)
80 Round Corrugated
Culverts
70
60
%A
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
vmx/V
Figure 4a – Velocity Distribution - Effect of Mean Velocity
100
90 V < 1.5m/s
80 V > 2m/s
70
60
%A
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
vmx/V
Figure 4b – Velocity Distribution - Effect of Channel Shape (T/Y)
100
90 T/Y < 10
80 T/W > 10
70
60
%A
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
vmx/V
Figure 5 – Velocity Distribution - Effect of Roughness
100
90 Corrugated Culvert Fit

Natural Channel Fit
80 Granular Substrate - Magura
Granular Substrate - House
70 Smooth Wall Culvert
60
%A
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
v/V
Estimation of Navigation Clearance Box Reference Water Level (Originially
Published 2011)
Introduction
Stream crossings over streams that have been deemed navigable by Transport Canada require
approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). Part of the submission to Transport
Canada involves identification of a clearance box that shows that navigation is provided for. This
clearance box sits on top of a reference water level. Current TC practice appears to be to use the
water level associated with 1 in 2 year flood (Q2) as this reference water level (TSH, 2006).
Alberta Transportation (AT) has identified many issues with the use of statistical techniques
involving return periods to determine design flow values for stream crossings (AT, 2007). Due to
these issues, AT have established Hydrotechnical Design Guidelines that are based on physical
parameters and historic observations (AT, 2006). Although the Q2 avoids many of the
extrapolation issues involved with structure design flows, it is still not possible to determine Q2
accurately and with confidence at ungauged sites using statistical basin transfer techniques. In
order to comply with the TC practice for clearance box determination, a practice for determining
Q2 and its associated water level is required. This document describes such an approach.
The use of a flood for the navigation reference level appears questionable to Alberta
Transportation. Flow conditions at this level may be unsafe for navigation, and the amount of
time that such a flow is exceeded is very small relative to the navigation season. In order to
quantify this impact, a study of the duration of flow exceeding portions of Q2 has been
undertaken.
Approach
In order to relate Q2 to structure design flows, WSC gauges in Alberta with at least 20 years of
record and in close proximity to stream crossings were identified. The selection of gauges was
limited to a drainage area of less than 5000km2, as most sites that exceed this value have gauge
records sufficient to determine Q2. Some additional sites were eliminated due to known influence
from water management structures that may affect runoff response and low flow conditions. For
each of the selected sites, the design flow was determined by applying the AT Hydrotechnical
Design Guidelines to the nearby structure.
The 1 in 2 year flood is equivalent to the mean annual flood. It can be estimated as the average
of annual flood peaks published for each gauge. However, the peak flow record is usually highly
skewed due to the presence of large flows that may be an order of magnitude higher than typical
annual peak flows. Therefore, the median of the annual peak flows has been selected in this
study, as it is more representative of the typical mean annual flood at each site.
Values for Q2 and structure design flow (Qdes) have been compiled for all identified WSC gauges,
and are shown in Table 1. Physical properties of each site, such as typical channel geometry, were
also compiled, in order to facilitate analysis of the results.
The daily flow gauging records for each site were also examined to quantify the duration of flows
exceeding certain values. A range of flows up to and exceeding Q2 were used as benchmarks. The

number of days that these benchmark flows were exceeded during the navigation season over
the entire flow record was counted. The navigation season is assumed to be from April to
September.
Qdes / Q2 Ratio Analysis

Review of the ratio of Qdes to Q2 at the 62 sites selected shows that the average ratio is about 9,
with most sites having ratios between 4 and 16. The amount of scatter observed is not surprising,
as hydrologic routing characteristics and frequency of runoff events are highly variable from basin
to basin and across the province.
Figure 1 shows the ratios plotted against drainage area. No significant trend is visible. For larger
drainage areas (i.e. > 5000km2), it would be expected that the ratios would tend to decrease with
increasing drainage area, as the storm inputs are typically confined to a portion of the basin and
flood peaks will attenuate as they go downstream.
Figure 2 shows the ratios plotted against channel slope. Channel slope is a strong indicator of
hydraulic capacity. It would be expected that there would be less routing of extreme events with
higher slopes, yielding higher ratios. As with Figure 1, there is significant scatter, as there are
other significant factors that affect these ratios. However, a trend is apparent at the lower
envelope of the data.
Approximately 5 sites appear as outliers at the low end of the range of ratios. A common
characteristic of these sites is that they all have significant portions of their drainage basins at
very high altitudes (> 1500m). The high altitude areas are less likely to see high intensity rainfalls,
and these areas may provide snowmelt/glacier-melt flows to the basin throughout the navigation
season, resulting in lower ratios.
Approximately 3 sites have ratios > 20. Two of these sites are high capacity channels that have
little basin storage and infrequent runoff responses. The other is a basin that requires a high
volume input (e.g. snowmelt) to generate significant runoff, but this occurs infrequently.
Due to the significant scatter, a best fit line would have little relevance for prediction at ungauged
sites. However, a lower envelope line could be of use as a conservative estimate (i.e. high flow)
for the purposes of defining the navigation clearance box reference level. Using Figure 2 as a
reference, a lower envelope line can be constructed between a ratio of 4 and 10 as the channel
slope increases from 0 to 0.01. This line results in the equation:
Qdes / Q2 = 4 + 600 S ; S < 0.01
where S is the channel slope. Although there are likely to be very few navigable crossings with S
> 0.01, a ratio of 10 can be applied for these sites, if necessary.
Analysis of Flow Exceedance

The flow exceedance analysis has identified the percentage of time that a given flow value
(expressed relative to Q2) has not been exceeded for each gauge in the study. Averaging these
values over all of the gauges and plotting results in Figure 3. This plot shows that for lower flow
ratio values (Q/Q2 < 0.2), a slight change in flow can result in a significant change in percentage of

time not exceeded. However, as the flow ratio surpasses ~ 0.5 Q2, a small change in flow results
in very little change in the percentage of time that the flow is not exceeded.
These results show that flows are lower than Q2 98% of the time, and are lower than 0.5Q2 ~ 90%
of the time, during the navigation season. This suggests that using Q2 for assessment of navigation
is a very conservative approach, and that using a smaller value (even as low as ½ of Q 2) would
have little impact on time available for navigation.
Proposed Clearance Box Reference Level Calculation Procedure

For stream crossings over navigable rivers, Q2 must be determined for identification of the
reference level for the navigation clearance box. For sites that have a nearby WSC gauge with a
significant record length (> 20 years), Q2 can be determined as the median of published annual
extreme mean daily flow values. For all other sites, Q2 can be estimated as a fraction of the design
flow (Qdes) as determined by the AT Hydrotechnical Design Guidelines. The fraction can be
determined as the reciprocal of the Qdes/Q2 ratio identified in the analysis above. This results in :
Q2 = Qdes / (4+ 600S) ; S < 0.01
For sites with basins with significant drainage area higher than 1500m in elevation, lower ratios
may be applicable. For sites with channel slopes > 0.01, Q2 = Qdes / 10 can be used.
Once Q2 has been determined, the reference water level can be determined using the typical
channel parameters as identified in the calculation of Qdes in an open channel flow hydraulics tool,
such as the AT Channel Capacity Calculator tool. The reference water level can be taken as the
design water level minus the difference in depth between Ydes and Y2.
As the ratio is based on a lower envelope curve, the resulting reference water level should be a
very conservative approach to meeting the NWPA Q2 practice. In addition, an analysis of flow
durations indicates that navigation availability is not sensitive to this value. In cases where
navigability requirements appear to govern the minimum gradeline across a bridge, further
refinement of the reference water level and clarification of the navigation clearance criteria
should be considered.
References :
AT, “Hydrotechnical Design Guidelines for Stream Crossings”, Alberta Transportation WWW site
(http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2646.htm), September 2006.
AT, “Context of Extreme Alberta Floods”, Alberta Transportation WWW site

(http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2647.htm), May 2007.
TSH. “Determining the Minimum Navigational Clearances Required for Un-Powered (Paddle)
Vessels”, Transport Canada Internal Use Document, May 2006

Table 1 – Flow Data for All Gauges
Gauge No. Description DA #yr Bridge Lat Lon Q2 S B h T Y V Qdes Ratio

05BB001 BOW RIVER AT BANFF 2210 97 84071 51.18 115.57 208 0.002 60 1.8 100 2.5 1.9 400 1.9
05DA009 NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER AT WHIRLPOOL POINT 1920 36 78277 52.00 116.47 255 0.0023 60 2 80 3 2.4 500 2.0
07GA001 SMOKY RIVER ABOVE HELLS CREEK 3840 33 76474 53.95 119.16 424 0.0025 75 3 100 4 3 1100 2.6
05DC010 NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BELOW BIGHORN 3890 33 74342 52.31 116.32 149 0.0023 60 4 100 3 2.3 500 3.4
05DC006 RAM RIVER NEAR THE MOUTH 1860 39 78142 52.37 115.43 115 0.0045 40 2.4 65 3.4 3.3 650 5.7
07BJ001 SWAN RIVER NEAR KINUSO 1900 47 75197 55.32 115.41 192 0.00045 25 6 55 7.5 2.1 700 3.6
07HA005 WHITEMUD RIVER NEAR DIXONVILLE 2010 31 71106 56.51 117.66 44 0.00035 15 4 35 5 1.4 200 4.5
07GD001 BEAVERLODGE RIVER NEAR BEAVERLODGE 1610 23 71054 55.19 119.44 37 0.0004 13 4.5 22 5.5 1.7 170 4.6
07GG001 WASKAHIGAN RIVER NEAR THE MOUTH 1040 38 73837 54.75 117.20 74 0.0012 25 3 50 4 2.1 350 4.7
05CC007 MEDICINE RIVER NEAR ECKVILLE 1916 44 1122 52.32 114.34 62 0.00035 18 5 40 6 1.6 300 4.8
07BK007 DRIFTWOOD RIVER NEAR THE MOUTH 2100 38 1767 55.26 114.23 69 0.0015 25 3 45 4 2.3 350 5.1
07HC001 NOTIKEWIN RIVER AT MANNING 4680 45 70594 56.92 117.62 172 0.0018 40 4.5 70 5.5 3.1 1000 5.8
07HF002 KEG RIVER AT HIGHWAY NO. 35 667 23 73425 57.74 117.62 28 0.0008 10 4 20 5 2 165 5.9
07CA006 WANDERING RIVER NEAR WANDERING RIVER 1110 35 72186 55.20 112.47 20 0.0007 20 2 35 3 1.5 120 6.0
07CD004 HANGINGSTONE RIVER AT FORT MCMURRAY 959 32 76081 56.71 111.36 32 0.004 15 2.2 25 3.2 3 200 6.3
05AD008 WATERTON RIVER NEAR STAND OFF 1730 47 1606 49.50 113.33 160 0.0025 50 3 80 4.5 3.2 1000 6.3
05BL004 HIGHWOOD RIVER BELOW LITTLE BOW CANAL 1953 27 589 50.59 113.87 107 0.002 40 3.5 65 4.5 2.7 700 6.5
05AE027 ST. MARY RIVER AT INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY 1206 102 286 49.01 113.30 105 0.004 45 2.5 70 3.5 3.2 700 6.7
07AF002 MCLEOD RIVER ABOVE EMBARRAS RIVER 2560 51 73136 53.47 116.63 176 0.0012 50 5 90 6 2.8 1200 6.8
05BL009 HIGHWOOD RIVER NEAR ALDERSYDE 2340 42 223 50.70 113.86 102 0.0017 40 3.5 60 5 2.9 700 6.9
05DB002 PRAIRIE CREEK NEAR ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE 859 58 8261 52.27 114.93 26 0.0025 15 2.3 25 3.3 2.6 180 6.9
05DC012 BAPTISTE RIVER NEAR THE MOUTH 1350 20 72142 52.66 115.08 62 0.002 35 2.5 60 3.5 2.4 450 7.3
07HA003 HEART RIVER NEAR NAMPA 1960 43 13117 56.06 117.13 37 0.001 18 3.5 35 4.5 2.1 270 7.3
05BL024 HIGHWOOD RIVER NEAR THE MOUTH 3952 36 599 50.78 113.82 161 0.0022 60 6 90 5 3.4 1200 7.5
11AA001 NORTH MILK RIVER NEAR INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY 238 25 9096 49.02 112.97 20 0.0025 15 1.8 30 2.7 2.2 150 7.5
05EA005 STURGEON RIVER NEAR VILLENEUVE 1910 41 2302 53.66 113.76 18 0.0004 15 3.5 25 4.5 1.5 140 7.8
05EA001 STURGEON RIVER NEAR FORT SASKATCHEWAN 3350 27 2301 53.79 113.22 18 0.001 14 2.7 24 3.7 1.9 140 7.8
05AD028 WATERTON RIVER NEAR GLENWOOD 1631 39 7401 49.44 113.47 126 0.0025 50 3.5 80 4.5 3.1 1000 7.9
05BJ004 ELBOW RIVER AT BRAGG CREEK 791 71 7425 50.95 114.57 44 0.0065 25 1.8 45 2.7 3.4 350 8.0
11AA005 MILK RIVER AT MILK RIVER 2720 95 1426 49.14 112.08 44 0.0012 30 3 55 4 2.1 350 8.0
05AD002 BELLY RIVER NEAR STAND OFF 1210 54 135 49.48 113.30 56 0.0018 35 2.5 60 3.5 2.4 450 8.0
07BB002 PEMBINA RIVER NEAR ENTWISTLE 4420 60 75014 53.61 115.00 174 0.001 50 6 80 7 2.9 1400 8.0
05AD005 BELLY RIVER NEAR MOUNTAIN VIEW 319 94 1427 49.10 113.70 54 0.0075 28 2.2 40 3.2 4 450 8.3
05AA008 CROWSNEST RIVER AT FRANK 403 65 395 49.60 114.41 29 0.005 20 1.8 40 2.7 2.9 250 8.6
05CB004 RAVEN RIVER NEAR RAVEN 645 34 70148 52.09 114.48 15 0.0006 11 3.5 20 4.5 1.7 130 8.7
05CC001 BLINDMAN RIVER NEAR BLACKFALDS 1790 51 73496 52.35 113.79 45 0.0015 18 4 38 5 2.6 400 8.9
07BF002 WEST PRAIRIE RIVER NEAR HIGH PRAIRIE 1160 56 78832 55.45 116.49 67 0.0009 25 9 55 6.5 2.4 600 9.0
07BB003 LOBSTICK RIVER NEAR STYAL 1570 32 13073 53.61 115.11 19 0.0004 15 3.5 35 4.5 1.4 180 9.5
05DB001 CLEARWATER RIVER NEAR ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE 3220 49 7487 52.34 114.94 137 0.0012 55 4.5 90 6 2.8 1300 9.5
07GA002 MUSKEG RIVER NEAR GRANDE CACHE 706 29 76528 53.93 118.81 41 0.0065 25 2 45 3 3.5 400 9.8
05AE006 ST. MARY RIVER NEAR LETHBRIDGE 3527 94 73053 49.57 112.84 101 0.0018 60 3.5 90 4.5 2.8 1000 9.9
05AA022 CASTLE RIVER NEAR BEAVER MINES 821 61 1169 49.49 114.14 119 0.0045 40 4 70 5 4.2 1200 10.1
05FA001 BATTLE RIVER NEAR PONOKA 1830 56 78896 52.66 113.58 27 0.00045 20 3.5 40 5 1.7 275 10.2
05BL014 SHEEP RIVER AT BLACK DIAMOND 594 43 2487 50.69 114.24 43 0.006 30 2 50 3 3.4 450 10.5
05BG006 WAIPAROUS CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 333 40 73899 51.28 114.84 20 0.0075 14 1.8 26 2.7 3.4 210 10.5
05BJ005 ELBOW RIVER ABOVE GLENMORE DAM 1220 44 75407 51.00 114.10 49 0.004 35 2.2 65 3.2 3 520 10.6
05CB001 LITTLE RED DEER RIVER NEAR THE MOUTH 2578 45 290 52.03 114.14 40 0.0013 35 3 60 4 2.2 450 11.3
05AA002 CROWSNEST RIVER NEAR LUNDBRECK 676 22 2488 49.59 114.17 31 0.004 30 2 50 3 2.9 350 11.3
05AA024 OLDMAN RIVER NEAR BROCKET 4401 39 74141 49.56 113.82 261 0.002 70 5 110 7 4.3 3000 11.5
05AD041 BELLY RIVER NEAR GLENWOOD 653 21 1241 49.35 113.48 43 0.0025 35 2.5 60 3.5 2.8 500 11.6
07AG003 WOLF CREEK AT HIGHWAY NO. 16A 829 51 9903 53.60 116.27 41 0.0013 22 4 45 5.5 2.7 550 13.4

Gauge No. Description DA #yr Bridge Lat Lon Q2 S B h T Y V Qdes Ratio
05AA023 OLDMAN RIVER NEAR WALDRON'S CORNER 1446 56 1153 49.81 114.18 95 0.0045 40 5 65 5.5 4.5 1300 13.7
05DB006 CLEARWATER RIVER NEAR DOVERCOURT 2230 30 70277 52.25 114.85 73 0.0012 40 4.5 70 6 2.8 1000 13.7
05AB002 WILLOW CREEK NEAR NOLAN 2290 22 992 49.79 113.54 36 0.001 30 3.5 50 5 2.3 500 13.9
05AD010 DRYWOOD CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 239 49 2064 49.29 113.79 25 0.008 20 1.8 45 2.7 3.4 350 14.0
05BH009 JUMPINGPOUND CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 571 40 283 51.15 114.53 21 0.0045 20 2 40 3 3 300 14.3
05DD009 NORDEGG RIVER AT SUNCHILD ROAD 875 34 72103 52.82 115.52 40 0.003 40 2.5 70 3.5 2.8 600 15.0
05AB021 WILLOW CREEK NEAR CLARESHOLM 1181 62 8487 50.02 113.71 32 0.001 30 3.5 50 5 2.3 500 15.6
05BK001 FISH CREEK NEAR PRIDDIS 261 27 1312 50.89 114.33 14 0.0035 15 2.5 25 3.5 3 230 16.4
05AA001 OLDMAN RIVER NEAR COWLEY 1940 21 81531 49.61 114.05 85 0.0035 60 5 90 19 0.8 1700 20.0
05AE002 LEE CREEK AT CARDSTON 312 89 78730 49.20 113.30 12 0.005 20 2 40 3 3.1 300 25.0
05BM008 CROWFOOT CREEK NEAR CLUNY 1374 21 6985 50.83 112.76 7 0.0008 15 3.5 30 4.5 1.9 200 28.6

Figure 1 – Flow Ratio Relationship to Drainage Area
16
DA < 5000sq. km
14
High Elevation
12
10
Qdes / Q2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Drainage Area (sq. km)

Figure 2 - Flow Ratio Relationship to Channel Slope
16
14
12
10
Qdes / Q2
6 DA < 5000sq. km
High Elevation
4 Envelope Line
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Channel Slope

Figure 3 – Flow Duration Relationship
1.2
0.8
Q/Q2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Time Not Exceeded

Discussion on the Selection of the Recommended Fish Passage Design Discharge
(Orginally Published 2012)
Introduction
The provision of fish passage is a requirement for most proposed culvert and bridge installations in
Alberta, depending on the recommendations from a qualified environmental professional. A fish passage
design discharge is required to assess a structure’s performance and evaluate fish passage through the
structure. The difficulty lies in selecting an appropriate maximum fish passage discharge for culverts
where insufficient historical hydrological information exists.
In 2006, Alberta Transportation undertook a statistical analysis in an attempt to establish a depth based
approach for the provision of fish passage in consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
This study used physical channel characteristics (bed width, slope, etc) to calculate discharge based on
the Manning’s Equation. Hydraulic performance was then evaluated against a range of discharges based
on flow depth, typically between 0.5 m and 1.0 m. The culvert was assumed to be passable by fish if the
section averaged velocities at the prescribed depth of flow within the culvert were the same, as or lower,
than the averaged velocity within the typical natural channel.
The work from 2006 has been continued here in an attempt to develop an alternate fish passage design
discharge (FPDD) that could be calculated based on physical channel characteristics and applied to all sites
across the Province.
Background
Various methodologies have been used in the past to determine the Fish Passage Design Discharge
(FPDD). Most recently (~2006 to 2014), comparing velocities at a range of flow depths from 0.5 to 1.0m
was used. Previous to this, the 1 in 10 year 3 day delay discharge (3Q10) was used. This method was
related to fish swimming performance and, oftentimes, resulted in very low velocities in the culvert
relative to the stream.
There are a couple of significant drawbacks in the application of the 3Q10 discharge. The first drawback
is the assumption about the applicability of its use. The use of a maximum delay of three days appears to
have first been recommended in a consultant report (Dillon, 1979) for construction of the Liard Highway
in Alaska which led to further studies in the region. In particular, a population of arctic grayling in Fish
Creek in Alaska was studied with the recommendation that arctic grayling not be subjected to an artificial
delay of more than 3 days (Fleming, 1991). The recommendation did not apply a return period to this
delay. It is not clear where the return period was originally recommended but it is assumed that it is
related to the consecutive risk of failure of the spawning migration. The 1:10 year return period was used
in calculation of fish passage discharges in the Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Stream Crossings
(Alberta Government, 1992).
The application of 3Q10 discharge assumes that this same delay period should be applied at all locations
for all fish species; there have been no additional studies completed to suggest that this is the case.
Anecdotal reports from staff at Alberta Environment and Park’s Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) have
suggested that some species of fish may wait longer to move upstream. No studies have been completed
in Alberta to suggest what length of delay would be appropriate.

The second drawback of the use of the 3Q10 discharge is the lack of data for smaller streams. Use of
statistical analysis on a site by site basis to determine the FPDD does not yield accurate results for fish
passage evaluation. For the purpose of this evaluation there were only 41 gauges in the entire province
that were considered appropriate for review (an appropriate size where a culvert would likely be used
and had more than 30 years of record). In order to evaluate a FPDD for a location on an ungauged stream,
basin data transfer techniques would be required. However, these techniques have no physical meaning
as each basin is unique and have yielded poor results in the past.
The 3Q10 methodology overall generally did not work unless baffle systems were installed within culverts
to reduce velocities. These baffle systems were difficult to install, created maintenance issues including
acting as debris catchers, reduced the lifespan of the culvert, and caused safety issues during inspections.
The majority of baffles installed in the past have been abraded due to drift and bedload to the point of
being ineffective, or have washed away completely from within the structure.
Methodology
The Water Survey of Canada has hundreds of active gauging staging across the provinces which were
relied upon for the current study. Gauges selected for evaluation were required to be on a stream where
it would be feasible to install a culvert. Based on this requirement, streams with a bed width of less than
8 m were used. The second criterion was a minimum gauge record of 30 years in order to evaluate the
statistical record with some statistical reliability.
For the purpose of this review, mean daily discharges occurring during the spring spawning migration
were considered, as this is the timeframe when flows are the highest for an extended period of time. The
period selected by DFO staff for evaluation was March 1 to May 15 (76 days), noting that this should cover
the migration period for all spring spawners along with annual variations in the run timing.
Several different discharges were evaluated for this exercise to aid in assessing an appropriate maximum
FPDD. During the evaluation process five discharges were selected for further evaluation: 3Q10, 7Q10,
Q90, Q95 and Q98. The methodology for determining these discharges is summarized below and their
advantages and disadvantages are included in the Analysis and Discussion section.
The 3Q10 is based on the assumption that fish will only sustain a delay of up to 3 days before giving up on
their migration, and the females begin reabsorbing their eggs (Fleming, 1991). The 3Q10 is evaluated by
selecting the fourth highest consecutive mean daily discharge during the spawning period for each year
of record. These discharges are then used to complete a frequency analysis, typically using a Pearson III
distribution. For this evaluation both the Pearson III distribution and a rank and percentile evaluation
were employed with no significant variation. (Alberta, 1992)
The 7Q10 is based on similar assumptions to the 3Q10 only it allows for a delay of 7 days. The 7Q10
discharge is evaluated in a similar manner to the 3Q10 with the exception that the eighth highest
consecutive flow during the spring spawning migration period is selected instead of the fourth. This
assumption was used based on anecdotal reports from some staff at Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Resource Development (AESRD) Fish and Wildlife that some species of fish can withstand a delay of 7 days
or possibly more.
The Q90, Q95 and Q98 discharges are equivalent to the 10% exceedence, 5% exceedence and 2%
exceedence discharge respectively. Q90, Q95 and Q98 were used as the terminology to indicate that fish
passage would be achievable 90, 95 and 98% of the time in a given year.

Exceedence discharges were calculated by using data within the spring migration period (76 days), ranking
the data set from highest to lowest (for all years on record) and selecting the relevant percentile in the
ranking. For example, if one were to assume 30 years of record with 76 days for each year this would
result in 2280 data points for that particular gauge. In selecting the 10th percentile the 228th data point
was used and for the 5th percentile this would be the 114th highest discharge in the entire period of record
for the spring spawning migration window.
The flow depth for each discharge, whether delay or exceedence discharge, was calculated based on the
physical channel characteristics to provide a consistent basis for comparing the discharges to one another.
As fish require adequate depth of flow for migration, the minimum depth of flow applied for determining
the FPDD was 0.2 m. Below this level, there may be insufficient water depth for fish migration to occur.
Analysis and Discussion

The selection of a FPDD requires assessment of risk associated with the loss of fish passage in a particular
year as well as consecutive annual losses. Several discharges were evaluated to put context to this risk.
For simplicity they are referred to as delay discharges, 3Q10 and 7Q10, and exceedence discharges, Q90,
Q95 and Q98.
The migration window selected for this analysis is 76 days long. Given that not all fish move at the same
time, the probability of each species encountering the delay discharge is quite low. For example, the
probability of fish encountering the 3Q10 is 4/76 for the given year multiplied by the frequency of 1/10
years. This results in a probability of 1/190 or 0.5%. Similarly, the probability of fish encountering the
7Q10 is 1% (8/76 x 1/10), double the probability of encountering the 3Q10. The 7Q10 is more lenient
than 3Q10 with respect to the allowable delay but is still conservative when considering the probability
of encountering the discharge.
Due to the low probability of encountering the delay design discharge and because most species of fish in
Alberta move to spawn after the peak discharge (and many of them are less sensitive than arctic grayling),
the Department is suggesting that a less conservative discharge than the 3Q10 be applied for assessing
fish passage.
Two streams of analysis were taken for this discussion. The relationship between discharge and the
physical parameters of the stream was explored to determine if there is a strong enough correlation that
physical parameters can be relied upon to develop design criteria. Based on observations made during
the first portion of the analysis, the relationship between the exceedance discharges and the delay
discharges was also evaluated.
Slope was selected as the independent variable for the analysis as it is easily measured and it showed a
reasonably good relationship to the depth. The data sets for each of the depths at the defined discharge
were plotted against the corresponding slope. A linear regression was completed on each data set with
poor results (Figures 1 and 2).
Due to the poor correlations of all the data sets, a more conservative approach was taken and a best fit
envelope was established for each data set (Figures 3 and 4). The two outliers appear to be ice affected
water levels and were ignored.

When the data was plotted, and in particular when the envelopes were plotted, similarities were noted
between the 3Q10 and Q98 data sets and the 7Q10 and Q95 data sets. A regression analysis was
completed between the 3Q10 and Q98 data sets and the 7Q10 and Q95 data sets. Figure 5 shows that
the 3Q10 has a strong correlation (perfect correlation would be a 1:1 relationship) with the 2%
exceedance discharge (Q98). The correlation of the 7Q10 with the 5% exceedance (Q95) discharge was
reasonable with a lower R2 was lower. However when comparing the envelope of the 7Q10 and the Q95,
they are almost the same. For the purpose of further discussion, the 3Q10 will be referred to as Q98 and
7Q10 will be referred to as Q95.
With further examination of Figure 2, approximately 70 percent of the 3Q10 data points are below the
7Q10 envelope. This means that for the majority of sites, the 7Q10 envelope is more conservative than
using the 3Q10 method.
The recommendation of an envelope to use for determining the FPDD depth must consider the risk to the
fish populations. The Q98 has a 2% probability of exceedance during the spring spawning migration. Also,
earlier in the discussion, it was shown that during the 3Q10, now Q98, there was a 0.5% probability of fish
encountering the discharge. Likewise, for the Q95 there is a 5% probability of exceedance during the
spring spawning migration with a 1% probability of fish encountering the discharge. The likelihood of
experiencing the Q90 discharge is 10% on an annual basis. The probability of fish encountering this
discharge was not determined. The probability of encountering the delay is independent of the
exceedance probability. If a delay discharge were determined to correlate with the Q90, the delay would
be greater than 7 days. Increases in annual probability of occurrence, and associated delay probabilities,
may increase the risk of year upon year failures in the spawning and therefore could have significant
negative impacts on the fish populations. Without significant, and costly, research this cannot be
determined; as such a moderate approach to calculating the FPDD is suggested.
Recommendations
All of the exceedances evaluated in this study occur during high flow events with low probability where it
is possible that fish may choose to wait rather migrate. Ideally, risk to fish populations and fishery
management objectives during these types of events, should be considered. Without studying the
movements of fish populations at specific sites in the field, this application of risk is somewhat subjective.
Based on the discussion, it is clear that the 3Q10 (Q98) discharge is the most conservative approach, the
Q95 (7Q10) is somewhat conservative, and the Q90 is the least conservative of the discharges evaluated,
although all are still considered to be flood events.
Due to the uncertainty with risks to the fish populations it is recommended to use the moderate approach
to determination of the FPDD, the Q95 envelope. The envelope curve, Figure 6, is equated to be:
YFPDD = 0.8 – 34.3 * S, for S < 0.017
YFPDD = 0.2, for S ≥ 0.017
While this is a somewhat conservative approach it will help to ensure that fish passage is achievable in
years when larger runoff events occur. These larger events are considered to be essential for high
recruitment for juvenile fish by staff at AEP Fish and Wildlife Division. This approach will also allow for
consideration of site specific channel characteristics in a consistent manner.

Figure 1: Correlations for Depth as a Function of Slope at Delay Discharges
1.40
1.20
1.00 Y@3Q10
Y@7Q10
Linear (Y@3Q10)
0.80
Linear
R3Q10²(Y@7Q10)
= 0.4166
Depth (m)
R7Q10² = 0.3219
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200
Slope (m/m)
Figure 2: Correlations for Depth as a Function of Slope at Exceedence Discharges
1.40
Y90
Y95
1.20
Y98
Linear (Y90)
Linear (Y95)
1.00 Linear (Y98)
RY90² = 0.1033
RY95² = 0.2186
0.80
R² = 0.3966
Depth (m)
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200
Slope (m/m)

Figure 3: Envelopes for Depth as a Function of Slope at Delay Discharge
1.40
Y@3Q10
Y@3Q10 envelope
1.20
7Q10
Y@7Q10 envelope
1.00
0.80
Depth (m)
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200
Slope (m/m)

Figure 4: Envelopes for Depth as a Function of Slope at Exceedence Discharges
1.40
1.20
Y90
1.00 Y90 envelope
Y95
Y95 envelope
0.80 Y98
Q98 envelope
Depth (m)
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200
Slope (m/m)

Figure 5: Correlations for Delay Discharge vs. Exceedence Discharge
1.40
1.20
1.00
Delay Discharge (cms)
0.80
0.60
3Q10 vs Q98
0.40
7Q10 vs Q95
Linear (3Q10 vs Q98)
Linear (7Q10 vs Q95)
0.20
R² = 0.7141
R² = 0.3969
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Exceedence Discharge (cms)

Figure 6: Recommended Envelope for Calculation of Depth at FPDD
1.4
1.2
0.8
Depth (m)
0.6
YFPDD = 0.8-34.3 * S
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Slope (m/m)

References
Alberta Transportation. Comparison of 3Q10 to Depth-Based Approach for Fish Passage

Evaluation. Edmonton, Alberta. 2008
Alberta Transportation, Fish Passage Flow Determination. Edmonton, Alberta. 2012
Alberta Transportation and Utilities and Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 1992. Fish Habitat
Protection Guidelines for Stream Crossings. Edmonton, Alberta. 41 p.
Fleming, D. F. and J. B. Reynolds. 1991. Effects of spawning run delay on spawning migration of
Arctic grayling. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:299-305.
Katopodis, Christos, Review of Culvert Fish Passage Methods for Freshwater Species, Proceedings
of the Resource Roads Workshops Whitehorse and Yellowknife, March 16-20, 1981,
Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Canada
Comparison of 3Q10 to Depth-Based Approach for Fish Passage Evaluation (Originally
Published 2008)
Introduction
Poor culvert installations can result in barriers to fish passage. Major factors that present
a barrier are hanging outlets which result in a break in connectivity, and constrictive
openings which can result in flow velocities that exceed the ability of the typical fish to
traverse. Current design standards for burial and end protection works, combined with
appropriate construction, have eliminated most of the concern with hanging outlets.
However, issues relating to the ability of fish to pass upstream through culverts under
certain hydraulic conditions remains.
One of these issues is the magnitude of the fish passage design flow. The concept of the
1 in 10 year, 3 day delay flow (3Q10) has been used in Alberta for hydraulic assessment
of fish passage dating back to 1992. The 3 day delay portion of the flow was based on the
observation that some fish types would not tolerate a delay of more than 3 days before
abandoning their attempts to pass a blockage. The 1 in 10 year portion was based on the
intention that it was permissible for fish passage to be blocked for no more than 1 year
out of every 10, on average.
Tools have been developed to facilitate the calculation of 3Q10 values at gauged sites.
However, due to the relatively small number of gauges and the great variance in
hydrologic response within and between basins, a great range of flow estimates can result
for any given culvert site. The two biggest factors in this variance are the selection of
nearby gauges and the drainage area transfer exponent. As this approach is statistical in
nature, there is no ability to make use of physical indicators of hydraulic response at the
site, such as channel geometry and slope.
Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation (AIT) have proposed an alternate approach to

fish passage design flow. This physical approach involves calculating the flow in the
natural channel at a range of in-bank depths that would be representative of higher flow
conditions, but not flood conditions. A range of depths between 0.5 and 1.0m has been
proposed. This approach ensures a value that is representative of the site, and can be
derived with some certainty and accuracy.
Due to the difficulties in transferring 3Q10 values and the lack of assigned return period
with the AIT approach, direct comparison at any given site is difficult. However,
comparing the results of the two approaches at actual gauge sites with long records
should eliminate most of these issues. A comparison between the results of the statistical
approach and the physical approach at these sites may provide some context on the
application of the physical approach at the many un-gauged potential culvert sites across
the province.

Methodology
For the purposes of this study, selected sites should have relatively long records to
minimize sampling issues, be in the range of stream where culverts are a feasible option,
and be on streams for which channel data is available. Therefore, the following criteria
have been established :
 Water Survey of Canada (WSC) gauge in Alberta

 Record length should be at least 30 years
 The maximum recorded mean daily flow should be less than 70cms
 The stream should be in the AIT Hydrotechnical Information System (HIS)
 Mean channel width should be less than 15m
These criteria result in a list of 41 sites. The geographic distribution of these sites can be
seen can be seen to cover most of southern Alberta (Figure 1).
3Q10 flow values and associated flow depths have been developed for each site. Daily
flow data have been extracted from the WSC Hydat software, and used within the AIT
QFish tool to identify the 3 day delay flows for each year within the specified fish passage
period. The tool identifies and reports the highest value during the period for each year
that is the 4th highest out of any continuous 7 day group of daily flows. The Pearson III
distribution is then applied to the data to calculate the 1 in 10 year value (exceedance
probability of 0.1).
Fish passage periods have been provided by Rick Orr of DFO, specified as either spring or
fall. Spring dates have been set to the period of March 1 to May 15, and fall dates have
been set to between September 1 and October 30. The spring dates were assigned to the
few sites for which no dates were specified, as spring flows are typically higher than fall
flows.
The 3Q10 flow values have been converted to flow depths using hydraulic calculations.
This process requires estimation of channel geometry data at each site. Channel slopes
have been extracted from the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) based stream profiles in the
AIT HIS tool. Typical channel cross section data, in the form of bed width, top width, and
bank height have been estimated using a variety of sources, including :
 Published AIT hydrotechnical summaries

 WSC gauging measurements
 AIT drawings
 Geo-referenced satellite photography and airphotos

Bank height values are very approximate, but of limited value for this study as all flows
examined are contained within the channel banks. Additional effort would be required
to refine the bank height for determination of the design parameters for structures, as
per the AIT Hydrotechnical Design Guidelines.
In addition to the channel geometry parameters, a roughness coefficient has been

selected for each site, based on the AIT Hydrotechnical Design Guidelines. The AIT
Channel Capacity Calculator tool has been used to perform hydraulic calculations. These
calculations have been confirmed using WSC rating curves, where available.
The magnitude of flow depths associated with 3Q10 flows have been compared to the
AIT approach, which recommends evaluation of fish passage over a range of flow depths
between 0.5 and 1.0m. In addition, trends between these 3Q10 flow depths and some of
the channel parameters have been investigated. It is hoped that these observations will
help explain the results and provide additional confidence in the application of the AIT
approach.
Results
The results of this study are summarized in Table 1. The gauge column presents the WSC
gauge number, and the description column presents the stream name and approximate
location. The columns in the “Channel Parameters” group include the channel slope (S),
the channel bed width (B), the channel top width (T) at the channel bank height (h), and
the Manning roughness coefficient (n). The “3Q10” group of columns includes the fish
passage period (Period), the 3Q10 flow (Q), the calculated flow depth at 3Q10 (Y), and
the mean channel velocity at 3Q10 (V). For interest, results of the AIT approach are
presented in the “Q at Flow Depth” group, with the flow corresponding to flow depths of
0.5m, 0.8m, and 1.0m presented.
The average flow depth corresponding to 3Q10 is 0.65m with a standard deviation of
0.27m (meaning 2/3 of the data points would fall between 0.38m and 0.92m). The
minimum flow depth is 0.08m and the maximum is 1.28m. The 3Q10 flow depth exceeds
Y = 1.0m at 2 sites (gauges 05EC002 and 05GA003).
Investigation of trends with channel parameters reveals correlation between the flow
depth at 3Q10 and channel slope and width. Figure 2 shows a plot of 3Q10 flow depth
vs. channel slope, and although there is significant scatter, flow depth tends to decrease
with increasing channel slope. Figure 3 shows a plot of 3Q10 flow depth vs. mean channel
width. Again there is significant scatter, but it can be seen that 3Q10 flow depth tends to
increase with increased channel width.

Discussion
The magnitude and range of equivalent 3Q10 flow depths appears to match the proposed
AIT criteria of Y = 0.5 to 1.0m quite well. The only 2 significant exceptions are at sites with
fairly wide channels where round culverts may not be competitive. In addition, the
channel slopes are relatively flat at these sites, resulting in velocities that are likely to be
less problematic for fish passage even when the flow depth is higher than 1.0m.
The observed trend between 3Q10 flow depth and channel slope is consistent with
expected hydraulic performance. At steep channels, runoff response is usually rapid and
large events generally occur in the summer, resulting in relatively lower values of 3Q10.
This combined with the higher flow capacity at shallower depths due to the increased
slope would lead to expectations for typically shallower depths. This observation suggests
that the proposed 0.5 to 1.0m range is likely somewhat conservative for evaluation of fish
passage at culverts on steeper channels.
Similarly, the observed trend between 3Q10 flow depth and channel width appears
reasonable. Wider channels will typically have larger basins with more storage potential,
resulting in relatively higher 3Q10 values. In addition, larger channels tend to have higher
banks to convey the higher runoff volume, with Y = 1.0m being a smaller fraction of bank-
full flow than at smaller channels. Many of the gauge sites examined have channel widths
that exceed the typical channel parameters of sites were culverts are considered a viable
solution, as there are very few gauges in the province on streams with mean widths less
than 5m. The observed trend between 3Q10 and channel width suggests that the
proposed 0.5 to 1.0m range is somewhat conservative for evaluation of fish passage at
culverts on relatively narrow channels.
Based on these results, it appears that the AIT flow depth approach is consistent with the
principles behind the 3Q10 flow. The value in the AIT approach is that it can be applied
at most sites based on derivable physical parameters. As the 3Q10 approach is statistical,
it loses consistency and physical relevance for sites that are not in the proximity of a long-
term runoff gauge. This represents most bridge-size culvert sites in Alberta.
Conclusion
Flow depths at 3Q10 flows at all long-record WSC gauges in Alberta over the size of
channel where culverts may be a feasible option have been calculated in this study. These
depths are consistent with those proposed for use with the depth-based AIT fish passage
flow assessment technique. For culverts on relatively steep or narrow streams, the AIT
approach appears to be somewhat more conservative than the 3Q10 approach. It
therefore appears that the AIT approach meets the goals of the 3Q10 technique. The AIT
approach has the advantage of being based on physical parameters at a site, resulting in
more consistent and defendable design parameters at sites lacking WSC gauge data,
which represents the vast majority of culvert installations in the AIT system.

Figure 1 – Map of Gauge Locations

Channel Parameters 3Q10 Q at Flow Depth
Gauge Description S B T h n Period Q Y V Y=0.5m Y=0.8m Y=1.0m
(m) (m) (m) (cms) (m) (m/s) (cms) (cms) (cms)
05AB005 TROUT CREEK NEAR GRANUM 0.0030 8 15 1.2 0.040 Spring 3.3 0.47 0.75 3.7 8.4 12.6
05AB013 BEAVER CREEK NEAR BROCKET 0.0075 5 12 1.0 0.050 Spring/Fall 2.0 0.39 0.80 3.1 7.5 11.5
05AB028 WILLOW CREEK ABOVE CHAIN LAKES 0.0085 8 15 1.5 0.045 Spring/Fall 7.1 0.59 1.30 5.4 12.2 18.1
05AB029 MEADOW CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0030 4 8 1.0 0.045 Spring 1.2 0.42 0.60 1.7 3.8 5.8
05AC023 LITTLE BOW RIVER NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0007 8 15 1.5 0.040 Spring 3.5 0.75 0.48 1.7 3.8 5.6
05AD016 DRYWOOD CREEK NEAR TWIN BUTTE 0.0110 5 10 1.5 0.045 Spring/Fall 3.1 0.44 1.21 3.8 8.6 12.8
05AD035 PRAIRIE BLOOD COULEE NEAR LETHBRIDGE0.0045 6 12 1.0 0.045 Spring 2.8 0.47 0.79 3.1 7.2 10.9
05AE005 ROLPH CREEK NEAR KIMBALL 0.0035 5 10 1.0 0.045 Spring 5.0 0.78 0.92 2.3 5.2 7.9
05AG003 EXPANSE COULEE NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0032 4 8 1.0 0.045 Spring 2.1 0.56 0.73 1.7 4.0 6.0
05AH037 GROS VENTRE CREEK NEAR DUNMORE 0.0020 7 14 1.5 0.040 Spring 5.9 0.80 0.83 2.6 5.9 8.8
05AH041 PEIGAN CREEK NEAR PAKOWKI ROAD 0.0022 8 18 1.0 0.040 Spring 9.0 0.85 0.86 3.3 8.0 12.2
05BF016 MARMOT CREEK MAIN STEM NEAR SEEBE 0.1200 3 5 1.0 0.060 0.3 0.08 1.04 5.5 12.2 18.0
05BM007 PARFLESH CREEK NEAR CHANCELLOR 0.0010 6 12 1.5 0.045 Spring 4.9 1.02 0.59 1.4 3.2 4.7
05BM009 TWELVE MILE COULEE SPILLWAY NEAR CARSELAND
0.0026 4 8 1.5 0.045 1.3 0.46 0.60 1.5 3.3 4.9

05BN002 TWELVE MILE CREEK NEAR CECIL 0.0020 6 12 1.0 0.045 Spring 2.8 0.60 0.61 2.1 4.8 7.3
05BN006 NEW WEST COULEE NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0022 5 8 0.7 0.045 Spring 1.8 0.50 0.58 1.7 3.8 5.6
05CE010 RAY CREEK NEAR INNISFAIL 0.0024 3 5 1.0 0.050 Spring 1.7 0.72 0.64 0.9 2.1 3.0
05CE011 RENWICK CREEK NEAR THREE HILLS 0.0018 4 7 2.0 0.045 Spring 1.4 0.56 0.56 1.2 2.5 3.6
05CE018 THREEHILLS CREEK BELOW RAY CREEK 0.0007 7 16 2.0 0.040 Spring 4.7 0.95 0.54 1.5 3.5 5.2
05CG003 BULLPOUND CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0030 5 10 1.5 0.045 Spring 4.5 0.80 0.89 2.0 4.5 6.7
05CJ007 MATZHIWIN CREEK ABOVE WARE COULEE 0.0030 8 16 1.5 0.040 Spring 7.4 0.75 0.99 3.6 8.3 12.4
05CJ008 WARE COULEE ABOVE MATZHIWIN CREEK 0.0070 6 12 1.5 0.050 Spring 1.2 0.28 0.67 3.3 7.5 11.2
05CK001 BLOOD INDIAN CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0025 5 12 1.0 0.045 Spring 4.3 0.75 0.74 2.0 4.8 7.4
05CK005 ALKALI CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0018 7 12 1.0 0.040 Spring 5.6 0.80 0.78 2.5 5.7 8.4
05DA010 SILVERHORN CREEK NEAR THE MOUTH 0.0150 3 6 1.0 0.060 Spring/Fall 0.9 0.32 0.85 2.0 4.7 7.1
05EC002 WASKATENAU CREEK NEAR WASKATENAU 0.0015 8 16 1.5 0.040 13.2 1.25 0.93 3.0 6.8 10.1
05FC002 BIGKNIFE CREEK NEAR GADSBY 0.0016 8 16 2.0 0.040 Spring 8.5 1.00 0.86 2.6 5.8 8.6
05FD001 RIBSTONE CREEK NEAR EDGERTON 0.0006 7 15 1.2 0.040 Spring 3.8 0.85 0.46 1.5 3.4 5.2
05FE002 BUFFALO CREEK AT HIGHWAY NO. 41 0.0011 8 16 1.5 0.040 Spring 4.9 0.79 0.61 2.2 5.0 7.5
05GA003 MONITOR CREEK NEAR MONITOR 0.0004 8 12 1.5 0.040 Spring 6.3 1.28 0.50 1.4 3.2 4.7
Table 1 – Summary Of Results (see text for description of fields)
05GA008 SOUNDING CREEK NEAR OYEN 0.0005 9 18 2.0 0.040 Spring 3.8 0.81 0.43 1.8 4.0 5.9
06AC001 JACKFISH CREEK NEAR LA COREY 0.0007 7 12 1.0 0.040 Spring 4.3 0.89 0.52 1.5 3.5 5.3
07AA007 SUNWAPTA RIVER AT ATHABASCA GLACIER 0.0150 4 8 1.0 0.055 Spring/Fall 0.7 0.22 0.75 3.0 7.0 10.6
07AF003 WAMPUS CREEK NEAR HINTON 0.0150 4 8 1.0 0.055 Fall 0.8 0.23 0.77 3.0 7.0 10.6
07AF010 SUNDANCE CREEK NEAR BICKERDIKE 0.0015 7 12 2.0 0.040 Fall 2.4 0.54 0.59 2.1 4.7 6.9
07AH002 CHRISTMAS CREEK NEAR BLUE RIDGE 0.0050 8 14 1.0 0.045 Spring 11.9 0.90 1.24 4.4 10.2 15.2
07CA003 FLAT CREEK NEAR BOYLE 0.0027 6 12 1.0 0.045 Spring 3.7 0.64 0.73 2.4 5.6 8.4
11AA027 SAGE CREEK NEAR INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY0.0006 7 14 1.0 0.040 Spring 1.0 0.40 0.30 1.1 2.6 4.0
11AA028 BEAR CREEK NEAR INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY0.0050 3 6 1.0 0.050 Spring 1.3 0.48 0.74 1.4 3.3 4.9
107
11AA029 MINERS COULEE NEAR INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY
0.0050 4 8 1.0 0.050 Spring 1.1 0.36 0.64 1.9 4.5 6.7
11AA032 NORTH FORK MILK RIVER ABOVE ST. MARY CANAL
0.0023 6 10 1.0 0.045 3.7 0.69 0.72 2.1 4.8 7.1
Figure 2 – Plot of Y at 3Q10 vs. Channel Slope
1.4
1.2
3Q10 Equivalent Flow Depth (m)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016
Channel Slope (m)
Figure 3 – Plot of Y at 3Q10 vs Channel Width
1.4
1.2
3Q10 Equivalent Flow Depth (m)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mean Channel Width (m)


Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines

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

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines

© Copyright, January 2014

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 1

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 2

Technical Standards Branch

© Copyright May 2020

The Crown in right of the Province of Alberta, as represented by the

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 3

caroline.watt@g Digitally signed by

Caroline Watt, MEng. PEng. John Alexander, MSc. Peng.

Des Williamson Williamson

Des Williamson, MSc. PEng.

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 4

 A revision triangle will be placed next to the change in the document;

Document Date Description

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 5

2 Data Collection Phase .................................................................................. 12

6 Geometric Assessment Phase ...................................................................... 38

7 Conceptual Design Option Development ..................................................... 43

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 6

9 Reporting Requirements ............................................................................. 53

APPENDIX D: Reference Documents .......................................................................... 71

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 7

The Department uses the following definitions to categorize bridge structures:

Bridge Sized Culverts

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 8

1.1 What is Bridge Conceptual Design?

1.2 Why do Bridge Conceptual Design?

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 9

The main steps in the process are:

1.4 Technical Considerations Overview

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 10

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 11

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 12

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 13

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 14

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 15

5.1 Hydrotechnical Design Parameters

There are three main components to hydrotechnical design parameter determination:

Hydrotechnical summaries (accessible through the Department’s publically available

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 16

5.1.1 Channel Capacity

Bed width (B) – width of the base

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 17

Hydraulic calculation of V is calculated based on bedwidth (B) as follows:

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 18

Key sources of historic highwater observations include:

Hydrotechnical Information System (HIS):

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 19

5.1.3 Basin Runoff Potential Analysis

Some potential adjustments and limitations to QBRP include:

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 20

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 21

With limitations in describing channel geometry, assumptions in hydraulic parameters such as

5.2.1 Bridge Hydraulics

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 22

5.2.2 Culvert Hydraulics

Bridge Conceptual Design Guidelines 23