DG15.

3
DESIGN GUIDELINE 15

GUIDE BANKS


15.1 BACKGROUND

When embankments encroach on wide floodplains, the flows from these areas must flow
parallel to the approach embankment to the bridge opening. These flows can erode the
approach embankment. A severe flow contraction at the abutment can reduce the effective
bridge opening, which could possibly increase the severity of abutment and pier scour.

Guide banks (formerly known as spur dikes) can be used in these cases to prevent erosion
of the approach embankments by cutting off the flow adjacent to the embankment, guiding
streamflow through a bridge opening, and transferring scour away from abutments to prevent
damage caused by abutment scour. The two major enhancements guide banks bring to
bridge design are (1) reduce the separation of flow at the upstream abutment face and
thereby maximize the use of the total bridge waterway area, and (2) reduce the abutment
scour due to lessening turbulence at the abutment face. Guide banks can be used on both
sand- and gravel-bed streams.

Principal factors to be considered when designing guide banks, are their orientation to the
bridge opening, plan shape, upstream and downstream length, cross-sectional shape, and
crest elevation. Bradley is used as the principal design reference for this section.
(1)


Figure 15.1 presents a typical guide bank plan view. It is apparent from the figure that
without this guide bank overbank flows would return to the channel at the bridge opening,
which can increase the severity of contraction and scour at the abutment. Note, that with
installation of guide banks the scour holes which normally would occur at the abutments of
the bridge are moved upstream away from the abutments. Guide banks may be designed at
each abutment, as shown, or singly, depending on the amount of overbank or floodplain flow
directed to the bridge by each approach embankment.

The goal in the design of guide banks is to provide a smooth transition and contraction of the
streamflow through the bridge opening. Ideally, the flow lines through the bridge opening
should be straight and parallel. As in the case with other countermeasures, the designer
should consider the principles of river hydraulics and morphology, and exercise sound
engineering judgment.

15.2 DESIGN GUIDELINES

15.2.1 Orientation

Guide banks should start at and be set parallel to the abutment and extend upstream from
the bridge opening. If there are guide banks at each abutment, the distance between them
at the bridge opening should be equal to the distance between bridge abutments. Best
results are obtained by using guide banks with a planform shape in the form of a quarter of
an ellipse, with the ratio of the major axis (length L
s
) to the minor axis (offset) of 2.5:1.0. This
allows for a gradual constriction of the flow. Thus, if the length of the guide bank measured
perpendicularly from the approach embankment to the upstream nose of the guide bank is
denoted as L
s
, the amount of expansion of each guide bank (offset), measured from the
abutment parallel to the approach roadway, should be 0.4 L
s
.
DG15.4
QUARTER
ELLIPSE
FLOW
L
s
0.4 L
s
Area of scour
REVETMENT ARMOR
(ROCK RIPRAP OR EQUAL)
VEGETATIVE
COVER
QUARTER
ELLIPSE
FLOW
L
s
0.4 L
s
Area of scour
REVETMENT ARMOR
(ROCK RIPRAP OR EQUAL)
VEGETATIVE
COVER

Figure 15.1. Typical guide bank (modified from Bradley 1978).

The plan view orientation can be determined using Equation 15.1, which is the equation of an
ellipse with origin at the base of the guide bank. For this equation, X is the distance
measured perpendicularly from the bridge approach and Y is the offset measured parallel to
the approach embankment, as shown on Figure 15.1.

X
L
Y
L
s s
2
2
2
2
0 4
1 + =
( . )
(15.1)

It is important that the face of the guide bank match the abutment so that the flow is not
disturbed where the guide bank meets the abutment. For new bridge construction, abutments
can be sloped to the channel bed at the same angle as the guide bank. For retrofitting
existing bridges modification of the abutments or wing walls may be necessary.

15.2.2 Length

For design of guide banks, the length of the guide bank, L
s
must first be determined. This
can be easily determined using a nomograph which was developed from laboratory tests
performed at Colorado State University and from field data compiled by the USGS (Karaki
1959, 1961, Neeley 1966). For design purposes the use of the nomograph involves the
following parameters:

Q = Total discharge of the stream, ft
3
/s (m
3
/s)
Q
f
= Lateral or floodplain discharge of either floodplain intercepted by the
embankment, ft
3
/s (m
3
/s)
Q
A
= Discharge in 100 ft (30 m) of stream adjacent to the abutment, ft
3
/s
(m
3
/s)
b = Length of the bridge opening, ft (m)
A
n2
= Cross-sectional flow area at the bridge opening at normal stage, ft
2
(m
2
)
V
n2
=
2 n
A
Q
= average velocity through the bridge opening, ft/s (m/s)
DG15.5

A
f
Q
Q

= Guide bank discharge ratio
L
s
= Projected length of guide bank, ft (m)

A nomograph is presented in Figure 15.2 (English) and Figure 15.3 (SI) to determine the
projected length of guide banks. This nomograph should be used to determine the guide
bank length for designs greater than 50 ft (15 m) and less than 250 ft (75 m). If the
nomograph indicates the length required to be greater than 250 ft (75 m) the design should
be set at 250 ft (75 m). It is recommended that the minimum length of guide banks be 50 ft
(15 m). An example of how to use this nomograph is presented in the next section.

FHWA practice has shown that many guide banks have performed well using a standardized
length of 150 ft (46 m). Based on this experience, guide banks of 150 ft (46 m) in length
should perform very well in most locations. Even shorter guide banks have been successful
if the guide bank intersects the tree line. If the main channel is equal to or less than 100 ft
(30 m) use the total main channel flow in determining the guide bank discharge ratio (Q
f
/Q
A
).

15.2.3 Crest Height

As with deflection spurs, guide banks should be designed so that they will not be overtopped
at the design discharge. If this were allowed to occur, unpredictable cross flows and eddies
might be generated, which could scour and undermine abutments and piers. In general, a
minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m) of freeboard, above the design water surface elevation should be
maintained.

15.2.4 Shape and Size

The cross-sectional shape and size of guide banks should be similar to deflector, or
deflector/retarder spurs discussed in Design Guideline 2. Generally, the top width is 10 to 13
ft (3 to 4 m), but the minimum width is 3 ft (1 m) when construction is by drag line. The
upstream end of the guide bank should be round nosed. Side slopes should be 1V:2H or
less.

15.2.5 Downstream Extent

In some states, highway departments extend guide banks downstream of the abutments to
minimize scour due to rapid expansion of the flow at the downstream end of the abutments.
These downstream guide banks are sometimes called "heels." If the expansion of the flow is
too abrupt, a shorter guide bank, which usually is less than 50 ft (15 m) long, can be used
downstream. Downstream guide banks should also start at and start parallel to the abutment
and the distance between them should enlarge as the distance from the abutment of the
bridge increases.

In general, downstream guide banks are a shorter version of the upstream guide banks.
Riprap protection, crest height and width should be designed in the same manner as for
upstream guide banks.

DG15.6


Figure 15.2. English nomograph to determine guide bank length (after Bradley 1978).
DG15.7

Figure 15.3. SI version of nomograph to determine guide bank length (after Bradley 1978).

15.2.6 Riprap

Guide banks are constructed by forming an embankment of soil or sand extending upstream
from the abutment of the bridge. To inhibit erosion of the embankment materials, guide
banks must be adequately protected with riprap or stone facing. Rock riprap should be
placed on the stream side face as well as around the end of the guide bank. It is not
necessary to riprap the side of the guide bank adjacent to the highway approach
embankment. As in the case of spurs, a gravel, sand, or geotextile filter may be required to
protect the underlying embankment material (see Design Guideline 16).


DG15.8
Because guide banks are designed to protect abutments from deep scour by providing a
smooth flow transition through the bridge, it is reasonable to use the abutment riprap
equations for guide banks. The designer is referred to Design Guideline 14 for design
procedures for sizing riprap. Design guidance for riprap for countermeasures was
investigated under NCHRP Project 24-23 (Lagasse et al. 2006). This study confirmed the
applicability of the Set Back Ratio (SBR) approach for designing riprap at bridge abutments
(Design Guideline 14) to riprap design for guide banks. It is recommended that the riprap
size for guide banks be computed using 0.85 times the characteristic average velocity
computed using the SBR approach discussed in Design Guideline 14.

Riprap should be extended below the bed elevation to a depth as recommended in Design
Guideline 4 (below the combined long-term degradation and contraction scour depth), and
extend up the face of the guide bank to 2 ft (0.6 m) above the design flow. Additional riprap
should be placed around the upstream end of the guide bank to protect the embankment
from scour.

As in the case of spurs, it is important to adequately tie guide banks into the approach
embankment for guide banks on non-symmetrical highway crossings. Hydraulics of Bridge
Waterways (Bradley 1978) states:

"From meager testing done to date, there is not sufficient evidence to warrant
using longer dikes (guide banks) at either abutment on skewed bridges.
Lengths obtained from [the nomograph] should be adequate for either normal
or skewed crossings."

Therefore, for skewed crossings, the length of guide banks should be set using the
nomograph for the side of the bridge crossing which yields the largest guide bank length.

15.2.7 Other Design Concerns

In some cases, where the cost of stone riprap facing is prohibitive, the guide bank can be
covered with sod or other minimal protection. If this approach is selected, the design should
allow for and stipulate the repair or replacement of the guide bank after each high water
occurrence. Other measures which will minimize damage to approach embankments, and
guide banks during high water are:

C Keep trees as close to the toe of guide bank embankments as construction will permit.
Trees will increase the resistance to flow near and around the toe of the embankment,
thus reducing velocities and scour potential.

C Do not allow the cutting of channels or the digging of borrow pits along the upstream side
of approach embankments and near guide banks. Such practices encourage flow
concentration and increase velocities and erosion rates of the embankments.

C In some cases, the area behind the guide bank may be too low to drain properly after a
period of flooding. This can be a problem, especially when the guide bank is relatively
impervious. Small drain pipes can be installed in the guide bank to drain this ponded
water.

C In some cases, only one approach will cut off the overbank flow. This is common when
one of the banks is high and well defined. In these cases, only one guide bank may be
necessary.


DG15.9
15.3 DESIGN EXAMPLE OF GUIDE BANK INSTALLATION

For the example design of a guide bank, Figure 15.4 (English units) or Figure 15.5 (SI units)
will be used. These figures show the cross-section of the channel and floodplain before the
bridge is constructed and the plan view of the approach, guide banks, and embankments
after the design steps outlined below are completed.


Figure 15.4. Example guide bank design (English).


Figure 15.5. Example guide bank design (SI).
DG15.10
Step 1. Hydraulic Design Parameters

The first step in the design of guide banks requires the computation of the depth and velocity
of the design flood in the main channel and in the adjacent overbank areas. These studies
are performed by using step backwater computations upstream and through the bridge
opening. The computer programs WSPRO or HEC River Analysis System (RAS) are suitable
for these computations (Arneson and Shearman 1987, USACE 1998). Using these programs
or by using conveyance curves developed from actual data, the discharges and depths in the
channel and overbank areas can be determined.

To use the conveyance curve approach, the designer is referred to example problem number
4 in Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways (Bradley 1978) for methods to determine these
discharges and areas. That publication also contains another example of the design of a
guide bank.

For this example, the total, overbank, and channel discharges, as well as the flow area are
given. We also assume that a bridge will span a channel with a bottom width of 230 ft (70 m)
and that the abutments will be set back 148 ft (45 m) from each bank of the main channel.

The abutments of this bridge are spill-through with a side slope of 1V:2H. The design
discharge is 12,360 cfs (350 m
3
/s), which after backwater computations, results in a mean
depth of 11.8 ft (3.6 m) in the main channel and a mean channel velocity of 3 ft/s (0.91 m/s).

Step 2. Determine Q
f
in the Left and Right Overbank

The depth in each overbank area is given as 3.9 ft (1.2 m)and the widths of the left and right
overbank areas are 295 ft (90 m) and 590 ft (180 m), respectively. Velocity in the overbank
areas (assuming no highway approach embankment, i.e., at an upstream cross section) is
1.2 ft/s (0.37 m/s). The floodplain flow is equal to 1,413 cfs (40 m
3
/s) for the left overbank
and 2,825 cfs (80 m
3
/s) for the right overbank.

Using the continuity equation and noting that the abutments are set back 148 ft (45 m) from
each bank, the floodplain discharge intercepted by each approach embankment is:

Q = AV

(Q
f
) right = 2,825 - (148) (3.9) (1.2) = 2132 cfs (60 m
3
/s)

(Q
f
) left = 1,413 - (148 (3.9) (1.2) = 720 cfs (20 m
3
/s)

Step 3. Determine Q
A
and Q
f
/Q
A
for the Left and Right Overbank

The overbank discharge in the first 100 ft (30 m) of opening adjacent to the left and right
abutments needs to be determined next. Since for this case the flow is of uniform depth [3.9
ft (1.2 m)] and velocity [1.2 ft/s (0.37 m/s)] over the entire width of the floodplain, and both
abutments are set back more than 100 ft (30 m) from the main channel banks, the value of
Q
A
will be the same for both sides:

(Q
A
) right = (100) (3.9) (1.2) = 468 cfs (13.3 m
3
/s)

(Q
A
) left = (100 (3.9) (1.2) = 468 cfs (13.3 m
3
/s)
DG15.11
For the left and right overbanks the reference values of Q
f
/Q
A
can be determined by simple
division of the discharges determined in previous steps:

Q
Q
right
f
A

= =
2132
468
4 5 .


Q
Q
left
f
A

= =
720
468
15 .


For design purposes, the largest value will result in the more conservative determination of
the length of the guide banks, except where Step 4 indicates a guide bank is required for
only one of the overbank areas.

Step 4. Determine the Length of the Guide Bank, L
s


The average channel velocity through the bridge opening can be determined by dividing the
total discharge of the stream, Q, by the cross-sectional flow area at the bridge opening, A
n2
,
which in this case includes the main channel (2,714 ft
2
) plus 148 ft of the left and right
overbank areas adjacent to the abutments at the bridge opening (1,154 ft
2
). Thus:

V
Q
a
n
n
2
2
12360
118 230 2 3 9 148
= =
+ ( . )( ) ( . )( )


V
n2
= 3.2 ft/s (0.97 m/s)

For Q
f
/Q
A
equal to 4.5 and an average channel velocity of 3.2 ft/s (0.97 m/s), the length of
the guide bank is determined using the nomograph presented in Figure 15.2.

(L
s
) right = 138 ft (42 m)

For the left abutment, a Q
f
/Q
A
of 1.5 and V
n2
of 3.2 ft/s (0.97 m/s) indicate that L
s
would be
less than 50 ft (15 m). Thus, no guide bank is required for the left overbank for this example.

Step 5. Miscellaneous Specifications

The offset of the guide bank is determined to be 55.2 ft (16.8 m) by multiplying L
s
by 0.4.
The offset and length determine the plan layout of the guide bank. Coordinates of points
along the centerline can be determined using Equation 15.1, which is the equation of an
ellipse with a major to minor axis ratio of 2.5:1. The coordinates for a 138 ft (42 m) long
guide bank with a 55.2 ft (16.8 m) offset are presented in Table 15.2.

Table 15.2. Coordinates for Guide Bank on the Right Bank of Figure 10.4.
X (ft) X (m) Y (ft) Y (m)
0 0 55.2 16.8
30 10 53.9 16.32
60 20 49.7 14.77
90 30 41.8 11.76
120 36 27.3 8.7
138 42 0.0 0.0
DG15.12
These coordinates would be used for conceptual level design. For construction, coordinates
at an offset or along the toe of side slope would be necessary.

The crest of the guide bank must be a minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m) above the design water
surface (elevation 1070.2 ft (326.2 m)). Therefore, the crest elevation for this example should
be greater than or equal to 1072.2 ft (326.8) m. The crest width should be at least 3 ft (1 m).
For this example, a crest width of 10 ft (3 m) will be specified so that the guide bank can be
easily constructed with dump trucks.

Stone or rock riprap should be placed in the locations shown on Figure 15.4. This riprap
should extend a minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m) above the design water surface (elevation 1070.2 ft
(326.2 m)) and below the intersection of the toe of the guide bank and the existing ground to
the combined long-term degradation and contraction scour depth.

15.5 REFERENCES

Arneson, L.A. and Shearman, J.O., 1987, "User's Manual for WSPRO - A Computer Model
for Water Surface Profile Computations," Office of Technology Applications, Federal Highway
Administration, FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA-98-080, June 1998.

Bradley, J.N., 1978, "Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways," Hydraulic Design Series No. I U.S.
Department of Transportation, FHWA.

Karaki, S.S., 1959, "Hydraulic Model Study of Spur Dikes for Highway Bridge Openings,"
Colorado State University, Civil Engineering Section, Report CER59SSK36, September, 47
pp.

Karaki, S.S., 1961, "Laboratory Study of Spur Dikes for Highway Bridge Protection," Highway
Research Board Bulletin 286, Washington, D.C., p. 31.

Lagasse, P.F., Clopper, P.E., Zevenbergen, L.W., and Ruff, J.F., 2006, "Riprap Design
Criteria, Recommended Specifications, and Quality Control," NCHRP Report 568,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Neeley, B.L., Jr., 1966, "Hydraulic Performance of Bridges in the State of Mississippi," U.S.
Geological Survey, Jackson, MS, June. (Unpublished report).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998, "HEC-RAS River Analysis System," User's Manual,
Version 2.2, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.