Government of Nepal

Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads

Local Roads Bridge Program
(LRBP)

Determination of HFL and corresponding

Waterway Width for fixing Bridge Length
and Span Arrangement: Present Codal
Provisions and Practices
AConceptPaper

Preparedby:
Saroj Bhattarai
Senior Divisional Engineer
Department of Roads

March 2013

TableofContents:
S.N. Content Page
1 Introduction 1
2 TheCodalProvisions 2
2.1 TheIndianStandards 2
3 PresentPracticesforDeterminationofHFL 3
3.1 EmpiricalMethods 3
3.2 RationalMethod 4
3.3 AreaVelocityMethod 5
3.4 UnitHydrographMethod 6
3.5 WECS/DHMMethod 6
4 PresentPracticeofdeterminingWaterway 7
5 UseofComputerAidedModels 7
6 Conclusions 8

AppendixI:FactorsandCoefficientsusedindifferentformula
AppendixII:References

1. Introduction
If we review the cases of bridge failures in Nepal, we find that there are hardly any cases of
failure due to structural inadequacy. The most frequent causes of collapse or damage of the
bridges is flood, scour and/or foundation failure. The common types of damages are:
- Erosion or washing away of the approach road;
- Collapse or washing away of entire bridge or some spans due to heavy flood;
- Toppling of the bridge due to choked waterway with debris;
- Failure of foundation due to heavy scour;
- Washing away of the bridge by raised water level due to aggradations or siltation; etc.
On the other hand, we can see many bridges which are unnecessarily long, high and with
excessive depth or inappropriate type of foundation, which is simply waste of scarce time and
resources. The obvious reasons behind such damages or inappropriate structures are improper
estimates of the discharge, floods, waterway, length, span arrangement, scour during the design
of the bridge.
Although there maybe some negligence or malpractice in some cases, but we cannot entirely
blame the designers for the anomalies. The methods of determining discharge, HFL, waterway
need careful review and streamlining for the natural condition of this country.
Nepal has a unique diversity in a considerably small area. It lies in the subtropical zone but the
landscape varies from around 100 m from the MSL to almost 8850 m within a belt of average
250 km! The mountains are quite young with fragile geology. There are snow fed rivers from the
Himalayas, as well as spring originated streams and rainwater gullies within a same watersheds.
As an example, the mild Bagmati, originated from the springs of mid range mountains around
Kathmandu valley changes into a devastating river in the Terai plains, while it travels just about
100 km. There is sharp variation in the vegetation within the short range. The land use pattern
maybe different from the other countries. Since the past few years, probably due to the Global
climate change and changed socio-economic activities, the mountains are eroding and the plains
have shown signs of aggradations. Within a same geographical region we face heavy scours in
some rivers and siltation in others, probably due to different natures of the rivers and land use
patterns.
It is a well known fact that the popular methods or tools for estimating those parameters were
developed in countries which have different natural and socio-economic conditions. Further due
to the Global climatic changes the water flow patterns have changing significantly. Hence there

is a need of revision in the methods and parameters of formula popularly used in this region The
methods commonly used in this region are discussed briefly discussed in the subsequent chapters

2. The Codal Provisions
Since Nepal is still in the early stage of infrastructure development, it lacks sufficient
background to develop its own codes for highly technical matters like bridge engineering. The
Nepal Road Standards (NRS) was first published in 1970 (2027 BS) and later revised in 1988
(2045 BS). In 1994 (2050 BS) the Department of Roads (DOR) published The Feeder Road
Standards.
Similarly in 1998 (2055 BS) the Department of Local Infrastructure Development and
Agricultural Roads (DOLIDAR) also published Nepal Rural Road Standards (NRRS), which was
later revised in 2012.
All these documents sparsely cover the bridge matters. There is no guidelines to address the
hydraulic parameters for the bridges. Recently in 2011 the DOR has published Nepal Bridge
Standard - 2067 which also attempts to address a few hydraulic parameters such as standard
Return Periods for Design Discharge, Freeboard, Vertical Clearance, etc.
Apart from the Indian Standards, many hydrologists also follow the recommendation by
WECS/DHM (Water and Energy Commission Secretariat / Department of Hydrology and
Meteorology) formula which was derived for hydropower and irrigation projects in Nepal
Although the preface of the NRS refers to the standards set by ESCAP as the guiding standards,
hardly any designer has bothered to follow that. As a general practice, the Indian standards are
followed in the matter of the bridges.

2.1 The Indian Standards
The principle document among the Indian Standards, followed for hydraulic aspects for bridges
is the Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section - I, General
Features of Design, published by Indian Road Congress and popularly known as IRC:5. This
documents addresses various general aspects including the hydraulic parameters such as:
- Collection of data;
- Determination of Design Discharge;
- Determination of Linear Waterway and Effective Linear Waterway;
- Spacing and location of piers and abutments;
- Vertical clearance and freeboard;

- Restricted Waterways;
- River Training Works;
- Determination of Scour Depths; etc.
As one would expect, this document is based on the natural and socio-economic aspects of the
country. Basically, majority of the Indian territory is in the tropical zone with alluvial plains and
coastal borders. Only a small part at the northern side of the country has mountainous landscape,
which is similar to Nepal. The IRC:5 although addresses the features of mountains and foothills,
it is felt insufficient, since it generalizes the features whereas Nepal has significant diversity. The
recommendations of IRC:5 for the determination of Highest Flood Level and Waterway are
discussed below.

3. Present Practices for Determination of Highest Flood Level (HFL)
Since HFL is directly related to the discharge, the methods of discharge calculations are
discussed herewith.
The IRC:5 recommends the following general methods for determining the Design Discharge:
- By records (such as from gauging station) if available
- By Empirical methods pertinent to the site
- By Rational Method involving the rainfall and physical characteristics
- By Area-Velocity or Slope-Area method
- By Unit Hydrograph method
In absence of reliable data required for the above methods, visual observation of the bridge site
for any marks or evidence of high flood levels and interview with the elderly people at the
surroundings is also recommended. Such practice is also recommended to verify the results
obtained from the above mentioned methods.
Use of computer aided modeling of the water flow (e.g. HEC-RAS) is also widely used by the
hydrologists these days. The reliability of such programs are discussed below.
3.1 Empirical Methods
The empirical formula for discharge estimation have a very generalized form :
Q =CA
n
, where,
Q =Maximum flood discharge in cumecs
A =Catchment area in km
2

C =Coefficient depending upon various characteristics

n =Constant

Ryve's and Dicken's formula are commonly used among the empirical formulas.

In Ryve's formula (Q =CA
2/3
) the coefficient C varies from 6.75 for areas within 24 km
from the coast, 8.45 for areas within 24 km to 161 km from the coast and 10.1 for limited
areas near the hills, particularly at the southern part of India. For Nepal the later value is
used as an indicative figure at the foothills.

In Dicken's formula (Q =CA
3/4
) the coefficient C varies from 11 to 22. For northern
part of India it's taken as 11.4. It is more appropriate to decomposed residuals from basalt
instead of alluvial deposits.

Thus we can see that both these formula hardly address the geographical and geological
conditions of Nepal. An ad hoc selection of the coefficient will lead to a very unreliable result.

3.2 Rational method

The Rational method is more reliable than empirical methods since it takes into account the
catchment area, its terrain, rainfall intensity and duration, permeability and wetness of the
catchment. A typical formula is expressed as:

Q = A * io * o
where,
Q =
Maximum flood discharge (m/s)
A =
Catchment area (km)
io =
Peak intensity of rainfall (mm/hour)
o
=
Function depending on the characteristics of the catchment



t
c
=

Concentration time, hours =

d
s
= Distance from the critical point to the bridge site, km
d
e

=
Difference in elevation between the critical point and bridge site, m
P
r
= Percentage coefficient of run-off for the catchment characteristic
1
56 . 0
+
=
c
l r
t
f P
385 . 0
88 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
e
s
d
d

f
i
= A factor to correct for the variation of intensity of rainfall io over the area of the
catchment
The tables of coefficients and factors used in the formula are presented in Appendix

Whereas Rational method involves more physical parameters of the catchment area and more
precise than empirical methods, its use is recommended only for a small catchment area, say 25
km
2
. The reason is that it assumes that the rainfall intensity is uniform throughout the catchment
area (although there is a correction factor with respect to the area, but that will only uniformly
reduce the intensity over the entire area). Further it's more difficult to determine the run-off
coefficient as the catchment area becomes larger.


3.3 Area-Velocity (Slope-Area) method

The Area-Velocity method is based on Manning's theory. Among the other methods this method
is more popular, particularly for verifying the HFL. It is more site specific and takes into account
the parameters of actual cross section, nature of the river, vegetation and river slope. The formula
is expressed as:

Q =AV, where,
Q =Maximum discharge
A =Wetted area of the cross section of the river channel

V =Velocity of water flow

n =Manning's coefficient of roughness of the river channel
S =Longitudinal Bed Slope of the river
R =Hydraulic mean depth of river channel (Wetted area/Wetted perimeter)
The Manning's coefficient for different situations are presented in the Appendix.

This method is different than others in the regards that it does not involve the catchment area and
rainfall records. The main parameters are the river characteristics and the discharge depends
upon the water velocity derived from those characteristics. A designer arrives at the design
discharge by trials of different HFL and it is compared with the discharge from other methods. A
spreadsheet computation for various HFL will be quite quick and easy.

Although this method is quite site specific it has its own drawbacks. Unless there is a gauging
arrangement at the vicinity of the bridge site and sufficient records (say for last 15 to 20 years),
determining the HFL can be quite tricky. In absence of such arrangement and records the
designer has to depend on the flood marks and local enquiry. Further, in areas with large flood
5 . 0 67 . 0
1
S R
n
=

plains and shoals it is difficult to correctly find out the longitudinal bed slope. Similarly the value
of Manning's coefficient is also different from place to place depending upon the vegetation,
surface type and meandering. A small change in the value of the bed slope or the Manning's
coefficient can result in large difference in discharge and HFL.


3.4 Unit Hydrograph method

A Unit Hydrograph is defined as the run off hydrograph representing a unit depth of direct run
off as a result of rainfall excess occurring uniformly over the basin and at a uniform rate for
specified duration. The area under a unit hydrograph represents the volume of rainfall excess due
to a rain of 1 mm over the entire basin. [] This method is not so common since it requires details
prepared for different region of the country. Although some graphs were prepared for seven
regions of the country by Medium Irrigation Project (MIP) in 1982 but, as the name suggests, it
was targeted towards small irrigation schemes and it gives only mean monthly flow.

3.5 WECS/DHM method


Apart from the methods recommended by the IRC:5, Sometimes hydrologists also use this semi
empirical method, particularly for verification purpose. This method was developed by Water
Energy Commission Secretariat, together with Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, with
the assistance of World Meteorological Organization (WMO). A formula has been derived based
on a comprehensive study long term flow records from several DHM stations. The method
considers the whole country as a single homogeneous region, hence no other information is
required except the catchment area. There are two basic equations* for 2 years and 100 years
flood as follows:
Q
2
=1.8767 (A+1)
0.8783

Q
100
=14.63 (A+1)
0.7343


(* There are two sets of equations: for average daily and instantaneous maximum floods. The
instantaneous flood is considered for the bridges)

Where, A =Catchment area in km
2
.

Flood peak discharge for any return period
Q
n
= e
(ln.Q2 + S. o)

Where,
Q
n
=Flood discharge of the required return period
S =Standardized normal variate for a particular return period (Ref. Tables Appendix I)
o =Standard deviation of natural logarithms of annual floods =Ln(Q
100
/ Q
2
) / 2.326

This method is simple with less variables and developed on the basis of local features of Nepal.
But it has some other limitations. It is applicable for a catchment below 3000m, with the bridge
site not in the Siwalik range or Terai plains. Further, it is reliable if the catchment area is more
than 100 km
2
. Hence it is not much reliable for a large part of the country.


4. Present practice of determining the Waterway

For non-meandering rivers with defined non-erodible banks the waterway is taken as the distance
between the banks at the water level for the design discharge. For natural channels in alluvial
plains with undefined banks its a common practice to determine the linear waterway from
Lacey's equation:

Where,
L =Regime width in meters (Effective linear waterway)
C =Lacey's constant, usually taken as 4.8 for regime channels but may vary from 4.5 to 6.3
according to local conditions
Q =design discharge in m
3
/sec

This is a straight forward formula but it's not clear how to select the constant C, since neither the
code of practice (IRC:5) nor the popular literature give any guidance in this regard.

To address the difficulties of determining the appropriate discharge and waterway in our context,
the DOR has recently revised the freeboard standard, in an ad-hoc basis. The minimum
freeboards are slightly increased than those recommended by the Indian Standards.


5. Use of Computer Aided Models

These days the hydrologists also use the Computer Aided Models (e.g. HEC-RAS) for
determining the discharge, HFL and Linear Waterway. Such models require reliable and
sufficient data as input for correct results. In absence of such data, the use of computer alone
cannot be recommended as the guiding method.

6. Conclusions

Based on the above discussions it can be concluded as follows:
- The available methods and formula for determining the hydraulic parameters for a bridge
are mostly developed in or for conditions different than the conditions of this country.
The few attempts to address the natural conditions of the country are still insufficient.
- We have to rely on those formula until comprehensive studies are carried out in our
context. But there is a strong need for a guidelines regarding various aspects of
hydrology. As example:
o Guidelines for selecting appropriate formula for determining discharge, HFL,
waterway etc.
o Guidelines for selecting appropriate coefficient used in those formula
o Guidelines for use of computer aided models
- A unified standard regarding the bridge hydrology for all the concerned agencies is
needed to be developed.

Appendix I
Factors and coefficients used in different formula

Value of P
r
in Rational formula

Values of factor f
i
in Rational formula


Surface Pr
Steep bare rock, and also city pavements 0.90
Rock, steep but with thick vegetation 0.80
Plateaus, lightly covered 0.70
Clayey soils, stiff and bare 0.60
Clayey soils, lightly covered 0.50
Loam, lightly cultivated 0.40
Loam, largely cultivated 0.30
Sandy soils, light growth 0.20
Sandy soils, heavy brush 0.10
Area (km) fi
0 1.000
10 0.950
20 0.900
30 0.875
40 0.845
50 0.820
60 0.800
70 0.775
80 0.760
90 0.745
100 0.730
150 0.675
200 0.645
300 0.625
400 0.620
2000 0.600

10

Manning's roughness coefficient, n

Surface Perfect Good Fair Bad
Clean straight banks, no rifts of deep pools 0.025 0.028 0.03 0.033
Clean straight banks, no rifts of deep pools, some weeds
and stones 0.03 0.033 0.035 0.04
Winding, some pools and shoals, clean 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Winding, some pools and shoals, clean, more effective slope
and sections 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055
Winding, some pools and shoals, clean, some weeds and
stones 0.033 0.035 0.04 0.045
Winding, some pools and shoals, clean, more effective slope
and sections, stony section 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06
Sluggish river reaches, rather weedy 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Hidhly weedy reaches 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15

Standardized normal variate, in WECS/DHM method
Years : 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
S= 0 0.842 1.282 1.645 2.054 2.326 2.576

11

Appendix II

References
1. IRC:5-1998, Standard Specifications and Code of Practice for Road Bridges, Section-I -
General fatures of design, Indian Road Congress.
2. Nepal Bridge Standards - 2067, Department of Roads
3. Analysis and Design of Substructures, Swami Saran, Oxford & IBH Publication Co. Pvt.
Ltd.
4. Essentials of Bridge Engineering, Fourth Edition, D. J ohnson Victor, Oxford & IBH
Publication Co. Pvt. Ltd.
5. Determination of Waterway Under A Bridge in Himalayan Region - Some Case Studies,
S.K. Majumder, J ournal of Indian Road Congress, J uly-September 2009.