Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

BNSF Railroad Bridge

Redesign Proposal
ENGINEER: Lisa Courtney

CEE 577 Final Report

DATE: March 12, 2020

 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

OVERVIEW
This report proposes a possible redesign for the BNSF Railroad Bridge located at River Station (RS) 17.54 on the
Skagit River. The redesign focused on creating a bridge that is more resistant to scour and does not trap debris by
decreasing pier sizes, increasing the deck/roadway, and adding riprap. Analysis was conducted by modeling both
the original bridge and redesigned bridge in HEC-RAS. The redesigned bridge was shown to minimize debris
accumulation and accommodate the 250-year flood without water reaching the low chord of the bridge.
Assumptions used to create the design and for the HEC-RAS model are as follow:
• Bridge design is possible from structural engineering perspective
• River has unsteady flow
• Cost and ease of construction are not prioritized
• Initial flow is 43000 cubic feet per second at RS 23.2
• Boundary condition set to Normal Depth at RS 9.48

DESIGN CHANGES
The redesign focused on changing the piers, deck/roadway, and sloping abutments of the original bridge in order to
make a bridge more resistant to scour and accommodate the 250-year flood without water touching the bridge’s low
chord. The changes for each category are described below.

Piers
In order to decrease the amount of debris the bridge traps, piers that were originally collecting debris were removed,
and the remaining piers were increased in size to account for the fewer number of piers. The cross-section of the
original bridge (Figure 1) is shown below. From Figure 1, it is evident that Piers #3 and #4 collect a lot of debris,
so they are removed.

Figure 1. Original Bridge Cross-Section

The 250-year max water surfaces for the original (Figure 2) and redesigned bridges (Figure 3) are compared
below. Piers #7, #9, #10, and #13 were removed to keep the water from reaching the low chord of the bridge.

1
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Figure 2. 250-Year Max Water Surface for Original Bridge

Figure 3. 250-Year Max Water Surface for Redesigned Bridge

Finally, Piers #5 and #6 were widened to account for removing piers. The changes to the piers are summarized in
Figures 4 and 5 on the next page.

2
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Figure 4. Pier #5 for Redesigned Bridge Figure 5. Pier #6 for Redesigned Bridge

Deck/Roadway
To accommodate for the requirement of the water not reaching the low chord of the bridge during the 250-year
flood, the bridge deck/roadway was raised 30 feet to be conservative. The difference between the heights can be
seen in Figures 2 and 3 on the previous page.

Riprap (Sloping Abutments)

Decreasing scour was done by adding riprap upstream of the bridge. Riprap is added to protect bridge piers by
absorbing and deflecting wave impacts. In the model, sloping abutments were added on either side of the river at
the bridge in order to model riprap. The abutments can be seen in Figure 3 on the previous page. The dimensions
of the sloping abutments are summarized in Figures 6 and 7 below.

Figure 6. Left Side Abutment Dimensions for Redesigned Bridge Figure 7. Right Side Abutment Dimensions for Redesigned Bridge

HYDRAULIC EFFECTS AND COMPARISON

Hydraulic Effects of Design
The model was run for 10-year, 250-year, and 500-year flows for both the original and the redesigned bridge. To
see the hydraulic effects of the redesign, the flows at each year’s max water surface at a station upstream of the
bridge, at the bridge, and downstream of the bridge were compared between the original and the redesigned bridges.
The upstream measurements were taken at RS 22.27, where the city of Sedro-Woolley is located. The downstream
measurements were taken at both RS 16.82 (city of Mt. Vernon), and RS 13 (city of Burlington). Table 1 on the

3
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

following page summarizes the results of the model. The Table shows that the flows at and after the bridge are
consistently less for the redesign compared to the original bridge.

Table 1. Original vs. Redesign Flows for Max Water Surface Upstream, Downstream, and at Bridge for 10-, 250-, and 500-Year Flows

Original Flows (cfs) @ Redesign Flows (cfs) @

City RS
10-Year 250-Year 500-Year 10-Year 250-Year 500-Year
Sedro Woolley 22.27 123,746.6 286,889.4 337,046.0 123,755.9 286,654.0 336,607.9
Bridge 17.54 114,182.9 174,610.3 192,527.0 114,162.3 162,600.1 163,992.3
Mt. Vernon 16.82 114,172.2 172,577.4 185,429.3 114,153.3 162,059.9 163,330.2
Burlington 13.00 114,132.6 170,164.9 178,041.1 114,113.9 160,247.0 161,450.2

The water surfaces and velocities at each of the stations defined in the previous section are compared
for the original and redesigned bridges at the max surfaces for 10-Year, 250-Year and 500-Year Flows
(Table 2 and 3).

Table 2. Water Surface Elevation (WSE) Comparison

Original Bridge Redesign Bridge
WSE (feet) @ WSE (feet) @
City RS
10-Year 250-Year 500-Year 10-Year 250-Year 500-Year
Sedro Woolley 22.27 44.31 51.83 52.56 44.24 51.98 52.82
Bridge 17.54 39.59 49.13 49.27 38.95 49.57 44.36
Mt. Vernon 16.82 38.1 44.26 45.02 38.1 43.31 43.43
Burlington 13.00 31.74 36.63 37.09 31.73 35.97 36.06

Table 3. Velocity Comparison

Original Bridge Redesign Bridge
Velocity (ft/s) @ Velocity (ft/s) @
City RS
10-Year 250-Year 500-Year 10-Year 250-Year 500-Year
Sedro Woolley 22.27 6.82 10.72 12.18 6.84 10.62 11.94
Bridge 17.54 8.35 8.97 9.89 6.53 7.61 7.64
Mt. Vernon 16.82 6.56 7.99 8.38 6.56 7.74 7.76
Burlington 13.00 7.5 9.09 9.35 7.5 8.79 8.83

Comparison
The requirement for not reaching the low chord of the bridge during a 250-year flood was achieved
through the redesign as shown in the comparison between the original bridge with the max water surface
during a 250-year flood (Figure 2) and the redesigned bridge with the max water surface during a 250-
year flood (Figure 3). Figures 2 and 3 are copied below, side by side for viewing ease to see the difference.

4
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Figure 2. 250-Year Max Water Surface for Original Bridge Figure 3. 250-Year Max Water Surface for Redesigned Bridge

The profile plots for the original (Figure 8) and redesigned bridge (Figure 9) at 250-Year flood are
shown below.

Figure 8. Profile Plot for Original Bridge at 250-Year Max Water Surface

5
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Figure 9. Profile Plot for Original Bridge at 250-Year Max Water Surface

The stage flow plots for the original (Figure 10) and redesigned bridge (Figure 11) at 250-Year flood are
shown below.

Figure 10. Stage Flow Plot for Original Bridge at 250-Year Max Water Surface

6
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Figure 11. Stage Flow Plot for Redesigned Bridge at 250-Year Max Water Surface

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed bridge design accommodates the requirements of decreasing debris accumulation, scour
resistance, and refraining water from reaching the low chord of the bridge. The design proposed is quite
conservative and does not take cost into consideration. If cost and construction were taken into
consideration, it is recommended that the road/deckway is not increased as high as 30 feet, and abutments
could be increased. Another key assumption made was that the bridge would be safe from a structural
engineering perspective. If this were not the case, decreasing the number of piers would most likely cause
the remaining piers to be wider to support the road. Widening the piers may once again cause debris
accumulation, in which case the riprap sizes should be increased to slow the flow.

For the given requirements, the proposed design goes above and beyond what is needed from the bridge.
However, if more restrictions were to be added to the bridge, the design should change to accommodate
these restrictions.