RECENT ADVANCES IN MODELLING FLOOD WATER LEVELS AT

BRIDGES AND CULVERTS

ROBERT LAMB, PETER MANTZ, SERTER ATABAY, JEREMY BENN
JBA Consulting
ANDREW PEPPER
ATPEC
Key Words: Afflux, bridges, culverts

Abstract:
Afflux at bridges and culverts can be a significant source of flood risk by causing elevated flood water
levels. A wide range of methods are currently used to model afflux, but a review of current practice found
that these are not always well understood and can be applied inappropriately. Some of the underlying
assumptions and calibration data are not the most relevant for typical situations in the British Isles. This
paper presents a summary of recent research to develop more consistent afflux methods and software for
use in Flood Risk Management and related activities.
INTRODUCTION
What is afflux?
Afflux is an increase in water level that can occur upstream of a structure, such as a bridge or culvert, that
creates an obstruction in the flow.
The afflux is illustrated in Figure 1 for a bridge structure located in a watercourse. The dashed line
represents the normal water surface for the undisturbed watercourse. The solid line represents the water
surface when the structure is present. Afflux is shown as the maximum increase of water level above
normal depth in the undisturbed stream. Note that the afflux differs from the headloss across the
structure, as the latter varies depending on the upstream and downstream locations of measurement.

Figure 1. Side elevation at a bridge contraction

3a.1.1

When a structure such as a bridge or culvert is placed in a stream, there is a local loss of stream energy.
This is due to the fluid friction in contact with the structure, and the stagnation zones that border the
contracting (Sections 4 to 3) and expanding (Sections 2 to 1) flow reaches. To maintain a steady flow,
this local loss of energy is compensated by an increase in potential energy immediately upstream of the
structure. A backwater is thus created which begins at the afflux location.
Why is afflux important?
Elevated water levels upstream of bridges and culverts are a potential source of flood risk. In general, the
afflux increases with increasing flow rates and with an increasing degree of obstruction, which may be
related to the size and form of the structure or to transient debris blockage. Whilst bridges and culverts
can be located anywhere, they tend to be concentrated in urban areas, and so the consequences of even
quite small increases in level above a threshold may be severe in terms of property flooding or disruption
of infrastructure.
The effects of bridges and culverts on flood water levels need to be understood for design, planning,
hydraulic modelling (including models used for flood mapping), risk analysis, maintenance and incident
management. The hydraulics of bridges and culverts are complex, and not all applications justify a costly,
detailed analysis. But what methods should be used for analysis or modelling?
SCOPING STUDY
Consultation with the Flood Risk Management professions
In 2001 the Defra/EA Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management joint research programme
commissioned a scoping study to review the requirements for analysis and modelling of afflux in the UK,
identify relevant theoretical approaches and data, and recommend research and development to improve
the capability for dealing with afflux within Flood Risk Management (FRM). The scoping study produced a
final technical report (Benn et al., 2004), research plan, interim best practice guidance and seven detailed
expert papers. These documents are available electronically via the Environment Agencys online
publications catalogue.
The scoping study included a consultation with 22 professionals involved with FRM or related activities
and for whom the analysis of bridges and culverts in flood conditions would be a concern. The
consultation revealed the lack of a common understanding of the appropriate methods for analysis and
modelling.
The scoping study identified at least 10 different methods or formulae for analysis of afflux at bridges and
culverts. There are several manual methods available for calculating bridge afflux using simple equations
(Hamill, 1999). These methods are specific to a type of structure. For example, bridge types may be
classified as pier bridges (DAubuisson, 1840, Nagler, 1917, Yarnell,1934), embankment bridges
(Kindsvater et al., 1953, Bradley, 1978) and arched bridges (Biery and Delleur, 1962, Brown, 1989). There
are several methods published in classical hydraulic textbooks for calculating the afflux at culverts of
simple geometry. More recently, these hand calculation methods have been updated in the form of
culvert design manuals (FHWA, 2001, CIRIA, 1997).
All of the above methods are too complex for rapidly producing a desired rating curve (water surface
elevation versus flow discharge) upstream of the structure. They have therefore become incorporated into
recent computer codes which model both the open channel and structure hydraulics.
Requirements for afflux analysis
The choice of analysis method should be influenced by the impact of the study and should in turn drive the
investment made in collecting data (in particular river survey), the time allocated, and the experience of
the analyst.
It is useful to think of two types of application. The first is a high impact, application, for example an
important bridge or culvert in a high flood risk urban area, where the costs of river survey and modelling
are justified by the value gained from a detailed analysis. The second, low impact application would not

3a.1.2

justify as much data and analysis, but require a simpler, and much quicker, approach to analyse the
structure; an example might be a pipe culvert for a farm access. One of the objectives of the research
reported in this paper was therefore been to provide methods for both the high impact and low impact
applications within a consistent theoretical framework.
VISION FOR THE AFFLUX ESTIMATION SYSTEM (AES)
To support analysis of bridges and culverts in flood conditions, the research and development has been
encapsulated within the Afflux Estimation System (AES). The AES is a collection of related project
outputs, consisting of
-

a simple Afflux Advisor providing quick, approximate results in an accessible spreadsheet form for
situations where only a single channel cross section is available and the bridge or culvert is described
in summary form

the Afflux Estimator, a more detailed backwater model for flow through a structure, implemented
within a steady-state hydraulic river model

research reports and technical guidance to assist users of the above software.

ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL AND FIELD DATA

Data sources
Table 1 summarises the most significant data sets for bridge afflux. Much of the early twentieth century
data is inaccessible and often specific to certain types of bridge found in the USA, but not common in the
British Isles.
Table 1. Sources of data for afflux
Source

Date

Details

Available?

Rehbock
Nagler

1922
1917

No

Yarnell
Kindsvater, Carter
and Tracy
Biery and Delleur
Matthai

1934
1953

Bradley
USGS

1978
1978,
1979
1988
1988
1993
2001

Over 2000 laboratory experiments

256 laboratory experiments on 34 different bridge
models
2600 laboratory experiments with pier bridges
Laboratory data from the Georgia Institute of
Technology
Laboratory study on arched bridges
Verified the Kindsvater et al. (1953) method with data
from 30 field sites
Laboratory experiments, Colorado State University
Hydrologic Investigations Atlases. Observed water
surfaces for 35 flood events, 22 field sites.
Laboratory study, arched bridges, 203 tests
Field data from bridges in the UK, 66 data sets.
Field observations from Canns Mill bridge, Devon
University of Birmingham laboratory tests in
compound channels, 145 measurements, bridges
normal to flow direction.
Extension of University of Birmingham lab tests in
compound channels, 225 measurements, skewed
bridges.

HR Wallingford
HR Wallingford
Hamill
Atabay and Knight

Seckin, Knight,
Atabay and Seckin

1962
1967

2004

3a.1.3

Yes, paper
maps
Yes, (partial
records)
Yes

It was hoped for this study to recover useful data from the original field measurements used in the HR
Wallingford (Brown, 1989) work on arch bridges. However, inspection of the archives revealed almost no
directly useful field data. The main limitation of the field measurements is that they gave only estimates of
headloss. Additionally, there was scant information to determine the exact locations of the measurements
or the flow conditions. The bridges were not originally instrumented for the study of afflux and so these
limitations are not surprising.
After careful review, it was concluded that the most relevant measurements for this study would be
contained within two data sets, the USGS (1978) field surveys and the recent University of Birmingham
(UB) laboratory measurements of Atabay and Knight (2002) and Seckin at al. (2004). Both data sets
provide high quality, detailed measurements of water surface elevations for some distance upstream and
downstream of a bridge. The USGS (1978) data is for wide (~100 to ~1000 m), rough, vegetated
floodplains with low bed slopes. Although rather extreme for the British Isles, the data are very detailed
and remain overall the best quality field measurements available.
The UB data have the possible limitation of being made in a laboratory flume. However, they also provide
the detailed information needed for a rigorous analysis of afflux. A total of 145 afflux measurements were
made for arch bridge types of single and multiple openings, and beam bridges with or without piers. An
important feature is that the tests were made for a compound channel and for bridges at various skew
angles.
The USGS and UB data therefore provide a basis for analysis over a range of scales from ~1 m to ~1000
m, and a range of roughness, expressed in terms of Mannings n. Clearly there is a gap in the data for a
scale of ~10 m to ~100 m, which is unfortunately the scale most relevant for typical applications in
practice. Only one detailed set of measurements exists for afflux analysis at this scale, which is the data of
Hammill (1999) at Canns Mill in Devon.
Recovery of afflux data
For practical purposes, afflux is not directly measurable in the field because it is the inferred difference
between water levels with and without an obstruction. To recover estimates of the afflux and associated
hydraulic variables from field data it is therefore necessary to model the reach in the absence of the
obstruction. For the USGS (1978) measurements, the authors therefore set up models using HEC-RAS
for 11 flood events at 10 bridges. This was a reanalysis of the data, required to extract relevant variables,
which has previously been investigated by Katz and James (1997) and HEC (1995). For calibration, the
HEC-RAS models included the bridge structures, however the reaches measured by the USGS were long
enough to allow for confidence in the hydraulic modelling, regardless of the presence of the bridges.
For the UB data, the laboratory measurements provided accurate estimates of the afflux and associated
flow conditions.
Dynamic similarity analysis
A preliminary analysis of the data was made using the dynamic similarity method of Raju et al, (1983),
also applied by Brown (1988). A simplified version of this method involved expressing bridge afflux (dh) in
dimensionless terms as follows:
dh/Y3 = f(F3, J3)
where Y3 is the normal flow depth at section 3 (see Figure 1) in the absence of the structure, F3 is the
Froude number of the flow in the absence of the structure, and J3 is a blockage ratio to the flow caused by
the structure, i.e, the ratio between the area of flow blocked by the bridge and the total flow area in the
undisturbed channel.
Figure 2 illustrates the available data plotted on the dimensionless scales used here, and shows the fitted
functional relationship for selected values of the blockage ratio J3. It can be seen that although the
available data do not include physical scales intermediate between the small laboratory flume and the
very large USGS floodplains, a range of hydraulic conditions (defined in terms of the Froude number and

3a.1.4

blockage) are represented. Figure 3 shows the close correspondence between afflux estimated from the
above analysis and measured in the laboratory flume for the UB data.

Dimensionless afflux (as a factor of

unobstructed flow depth)

1.2

1.0

UB laboratory data
J3 = 0.9

USGS field data

J3 = blockage ratio

0.8

J3 = 0.7

0.6
J3 = 0.5

0.4
J3 = 0.3

0.2
J3 = 0.1

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Froude number for unobstructed flow

Figure 2. Summary of afflux data plotted on dimensionless scales

Predicted afflux (mm)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0

20

40
60
80
Measured afflux (mm)

100

Figure 3. Comparison of afflux estimates for the University of Birmingham laboratory data

3a.1.5

The similarity analysis provides a robust estimate of afflux at some location upstream of a simple bridge
located in a uniform channel. However, a more detailed hydraulic model of the water surface profile
should allow for the channel to be non-uniform, and consider the location of the afflux and the downstream
transition to unobstructed flows.
The UB and USGS afflux data were therefore also used to study the transition lengths, defined as the
distance between the afflux and the upstream bridge face (contraction length), and between the
downstream bridge face and the location at which unobstructed flow recommences (expansion length).
Typically, these lengths are estimated as a function of the amount of obstruction across the channel at the
structure, following analysis by HEC (1995). The similarity analysis was also found to apply for the
transition lengths, expressed as a dimensionless variable. A robust, unbiased relationship was found that
fits both the UB laboratory data and the USGS field data, and which suggests greater variability than
previously assumed.
Further research needs
This research has made best use of available data, and shown that a range of flow conditions can be
represented. However, it remains the case that there are almost no suitable, detailed field measurements
of bridges in the UK. It is to be hoped that with the development of modern sensor technology such as
water level transducers, Doppler velocity meters and GSM telemetry, cost effective measurements can be
made that will improve our understanding of bridge and culvert hydraulics for practical analysis.
A related issue for FRM is the impact of blockage at structures. Blockage was an important element of the
original scoping study of Benn et al. (2004), but a combination of budget constraints and scarcity of data
meant that it was not pursued further. With the development of risk-based flood management methods
over recent years, it seems that further attention should be given to characterising blockage frequency,
and how it is represented in afflux calculations.
AFFLUX ADVISOR SPREADSHEET METHOD
The Afflux Advisor allows a user to enter survey data for a single cross section, together with summary
bridge data, and automatically calculates the afflux for a range of flow depths. The results can be viewed
as a rating curve (based on the assumption of normal depth) for the unobstructed section, a rating curve
upstream of the structure and an estimate of the afflux, with uncertainty, at a flow specified by the user.
The Afflux Advisor computes up to nine flow modes through a bridge as water levels increase. Note that
Afflux Advisor includes sluice and orifice flow when the water level reaches the bridge soffit, and then
modular and drowned weir flows (concurrent with pressure flow through the submerged opening) once
water levels rise above the deck. All these flow modes are computed and automatically incorporated
within the rating curve as required.
For culverts, the Afflux Advisor also calculates the upstream rating curve using the methods set out in
CIRIA (1997), assuming a culvert placed within a uniform channel, as specified by the user. The Afflux
Advisor assumes a subcritical, normal flow in a natural channel of uniform cross section. The bridge and
culvert types used in Afflux Advisor have been chosen to represent those commonly found in the UK.
AFFLUX ESTIMATOR MODEL
To provide detailed analysis of the water surface profile through a structure, and to relax some of the
assumptions within the Afflux Advisor, a bridge backwater model, referred to as the Afflux Estimator, was
developed. The backwater model uses the standard step method (Sturm, 2001, HEC, 2004) based on the
principle of conservation of energy to model the water profile. Conveyance in the channel is calculated
using Mannings equation with roughness defined in three panels (main channel, plus left and right
overbank panels).

3a.1.6

Conveyance through the structure is calculated using a composite roughness that takes account of the
structural surface friction. Beam or arch bridges of up to 20 openings can be simulated. For arches, the
conveyance calculation takes account of the changes in wetted perimeter and flow area above the
springer level.
The Afflux Estimator model computes orifice and weir flows as necessary if water levels exceed the soffit.
Extrapolation of the cross section is carried out automatically if water levels rise above the limits of the
survey data.
Using the UB and USGS data, energy loss coefficients were calibrated for the backwater model transition
reaches and related to the floodplain and bridge scales. Hence the Afflux Estimator automatically provides
suitable values for the transition lengths and energy loss coefficients, which do not need to be supplied by
the user.
The Afflux Estimator model has been tested against the UB and USGS data, and also compared with
outputs from HEC-RAS at every stage in development, with satisfactory results. Figure 4 shows the
results obtained after applying the Afflux Estimator model to the UB flume experiments. These results
indicate an overall unbiased fit to the data. The results shown here include cases where critical flow is
experienced locally through the bridge, as well as those where subcritical conditions apply throughout.
Further tests are underway with reference to the USGS field scale data, with good results.

0.08

Measured afflux (m)

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Modelled afflux (m)

Figure 4. Comparison of Afflux Estimator (modelled) and measured UB flume data

DELIVERY OF THE AES SOFTWARE

The methods for computing afflux (and hence water levels or rating curves) described here will be
delivered to users in the form of two software applications. The simpler Afflux Advisor is a spreadsheet
application that runs within Microsoft Excel.
The more sophisticated Afflux Estimator method is to be delivered to users as a component within the new
Conveyance Estimation System (CES) stand alone river modelling utility, developed as an output of
related R&D funded by Defra and the Environment Agency (HR Wallingford, 2004.). JBA Consulting and
Wallingford Software have been working together to embed the Afflux Estimator within CES, to provide a

3a.1.7

unified model incorporating the contemporary methods for water level calculation provided by CES and
AES. New source code developed within the project will also enable future implementation of the
research in other 1D river models.
Detailed descriptions of the theory, analysis and software developed in this study will be available within
the project record.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper is a brief overview of R&D carried out over the past three years. The research has distilled the
many theoretical and empirical approaches currently used to define a single, consistent, empirical basis
for analysis. This makes use of recent measurements for compound channels and spans a wide range of
physical scales and hydraulic conditions.
In contrast to the current situation, users will not be faced with a wide range of methods and coefficients to
apply. The Afflux Advisor spreadsheet will be available for quick calculations with limited data. The Afflux
Estimator model will provide greater flexibility and accuracy where there is more information to describe
the river channel and structure. There is no need for users to choose between different calculation
methods as the appropriate algorithms are applied automatically.
ACKNOWLDEGMENTS
This work was funded by the Defra/EA science projects W5A-061 and SC030218. The authors would like
to thank Mervyn Bramley, OBE, for initiating and guiding the project. The support of the Scottish Executive
is also acknowledged. We are grateful to Donald Knight, Les Hammil, Nigel Wright, Paul Samuels and
John Riddell who have provided expert technical review of the research and to Galip Sekin for laboratory
data.
REFERENCES
DAubuisson, J.F. (1840) Traite dHydraulique. 2nd Ed., Pitois, Levrant et Cie, Paris.
Atabay, S. and Knight, D.W. (2002) Bridge Afflux Experiments in Compound Channels, R&D Project
Record W5A-061/PR6 (Afflux at bridges and culverts Review of current knowledge and practice, Annex
6), The Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
Benn J.R., Mantz P., Lamb R., Riddell J., Nalluri C. (2004) Afflux at bridges and culverts Review of
current knowledge and practice. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report W5A-061/TR1 (ISBN 1 8443
2291 2), 135 pp.
Biery, P.F. and Delleur, J.W. (1962) Hydraulics of single span arch bridge constrictions, Proceedings of
the ASCE, Journal of Hydraulics Division, 88(HY2).
Bradley, J. (1978) Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways, 2nd Edition, US Dept. of Transportation, FHWA, US.
(Published electronically in 1978.)
Brown, P.M. (1988) Afflux at arch bridges, Report SR182, Hydraulics Research Ltd., Wallingford, UK.
CIRIA (1997) Culvert design guide, Report 168, London, UK.
FHWA (2001) Hydraulic design of highway culverts, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington D.C.
Hamill, L. (1999) Bridge Hydraulics, E. & F.N. Spon, London.

3a.1.8

HEC (1995) A comparison of one-dimensional bridge hydraulic routines from HEC-RAS, HEC-2 and
WSPRO, US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA, US.
HEC (2004) River Analysis System, Version 3.1.2, US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA, US.
HR Wallingford (2004) Reducing Uncertainty in River Flood Conveyance, Phase 2, Conveyance Manual,
Environment Agency R&D Technical Report W5A-057/PR/1.
Kaatz, K.J. and James, W.P. (1997) Analysis of alternatives for computing backwater at bridges,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 123(9), September, 784-792.
Kindsvater, C.E., Carter, R.W. and Tracy, H.J. (1953) Computation of Peak Discharge at Contractions,
USGS Circular 284, Washington, DC.
Liu, H.K., Bradley, J.N. and Plate E.J. (1957) Backwater effects of piers and abutments, Civil Engineering,
Report No. CER57HKL10, Colorado State University, US.
Matthai, H.F. (1967) Measurement of peak discharge at width contractions by indirect methods.
Techniques of water resource investigations of the USGS, Chapter A4, Book 3, Application of hydraulics,
US Govt Printing Press, Washington DC.
Nagler, E.A. (1917) Obstruction of bridge piers to the flow of water, Transactions of the ASCE, 82, 334395.
Rehbock, T. (1921) Bruckenstau und Walzenbildung. Der Bauingenier, Berling, 2, 13.
Seckin, G., Knight, D.W., Atabay, S. and Seckin N. (2004) Bridge afflux experiments in compound
channels, Unpublished Technical paper presented for JBA Consulting Engineers & Scientists and the
Environment Agency.
Sturm, T. (2001) Open channel hydraulics, McGraw Hill, Boston.
USBPR (1978) Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways, US Dept. of Transportation, FHWA, Hydraulic Design
Series No.1, published electronically in 1978.
USGS (1978) Hydrologic Investigation Atlases HA591 HA611, Department of the Interior, Denver, CO,
US.
WSPRO (1986) Bridge waterways analysis: Research report, by Shearman, J.O. and Kirby, W.H.,
Schneider, V.R. and Flippo, H.N., Report No. FHWA/RD-86/108, NTIS, VA, US.
Yarnell, D.L. (1934) Bridge piers as channel obstructions, Technical Bulletin 442, US Dept of Agriculture,
Washington DC.

3a.1.9