Improvement in Design Practice of Side Slope Protection of Guide Bunds

for Bridges
Dr S V Chitale, Fellow
Design norms for side slope protection and apron are given by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in IS 10751 : 1994 and Indian Road
Congress ( IRC ) in IRC : 89 - 1997. There are certain points not very clear requiring further consideration. The origin of the equation
recommended for stone size and weight is not given. The implied assumptions and limitations are therefore not known. The equations for apron
stone size and weight recommended by BIS and IRC are significantly different. The slope of launched apron specified for concrete blocks and
stone-crates is different from that for stones. Provision for allowance to be made in stone size and weight when flood flow is strongly turbulent,
the flow is obligue, current eddies and waves are present is left to the judgement of the designer. These points are discussed and possible
improvement suggested in this paper.
Keywords : Bridges; Guide bunds; Slide slope protection; Apron stones
NOTATION For apron stone, the BIS has recommended the relationship W =
0.031 V6 while the IRC has given the relationship W = 0.101 V6.
C : coefficient Thus, for the same velocity, the required weight of apron stone
D : stone size such that 50 % is of smaller size according to the IRC is 0.101/0.031 = 3.26 times heavier than that as
K : slope parameter per the BIS. No guidance is available at present for choice of either
of the two relationships. Relevant factors which should weigh in
Ss : specific gravity of stones applying personal judgment in choosing the appropriate relationship
V or Va : average velocity, m/s are suggested.
Vb : bottom velocity The launching slope for concrete blocks and stone crates is specified
W : weight of stone, kg as 1.5 H : 1 V in IRC and BIS guidelines. This is however a debatable
point deserving consideration of both theses organizations.
θ : angle of sloping bank
All these aspects are discussed here for possible improvement in the
φ : angle of repose of protection material Indian design practice.
γs : weight of stone per unit volume SIDE SLOPE PROTECTION
INTRODUCTION The BIS has the relation between the weight W and average velocity
Bridges on rivers in alluvial flood-plains in Indo-Gangetic and Va while the IRC has given the relation between equivalent diameter
Brahmaputra river basins are provided with constricted waterway of stone 2
0.0215D Vband the velocity Va . The dislodgement of the stone
and guide bunds. The guide bunds are normally of length nearly Dhowever = occurs= 0.02829 Vb2
due to bottom velocity Vb incident on the stone.
0.76
equal to the length of the bridge waterway. These are formed of Hence, basically the relation should be in terms of Vb. The Isbash
sand from the river bed and are protected from side erosion due to relation
flood flow by means of stone pitching on side slopes. For safety
from toe-failure due to bed-scour, an apron of stones is laid on river D = CVb2 = 0.0215Vb2 (1)
bottom beyond toe of the side slope. The stones in the apron are
normally of 40 kg to 70 kg weight laid in two or more layers according is of this type. This relation pertains to the extensive work of Isbash4
to the design norms. On major rivers like the Ganga and the on the construction of dams by depositing rock in running water. It
Brahmaputra, the guide bunds are long. For instance, at the Mokameh is applicable for stone on level bottoms. Equivalent D size on side
bridge on the Ganga river, the guide bund is 1524 m long on the slope having an angle θ is given by
upstream and 305 m on the downstream1. The apron provided is
2.44 m thick over a width of 45.73 m. The cost involved in providing CVb2
the side slope pitching and the apron is therefore high. D= (2)
K
Norms for design of side slope protection and apron are given in IS
10751 : 19942 and in IRC : 89 - 19973. According to BIS, the weight
0.5
of stone required to withstand erosive action of flow should be  sin 2 θ 
determined following the relationship in clause 5.6.1. For stone of wherein the slope factor K =  1 − 2  . In this equation θ is
 sin φ 
specific gravity = 2.65 and for guide bund side slope of 2 horizontal  
6
to 1 vertical, this relation reduces to W = 0.031 V . As per IRC also, the angle of repose of the protection material. For 2 H : 1 V side
the weight of stone for the pitching on side slope of 2 H: 1 V slopes, θ = 26.5651°. With φ = 43° for stone, K = 0.76. Hence,
should be determined by the relationship in clause 5.3.5.1 which is Isbash equation for D on 2 H: 1 V side slope would be
similar to that of BIS.
The origin of these relationships is not given. In this paper, an
attempt to trace this origin is made and implied assumptions (3)
assessed. Comparing these relationships with similar equations in
popular use in Europe and the USA, possibility of improvement is
suggested. This is nearly the same equation as
Dr S V Chitale resides at 425/14 T M V Colony, Pune 411 037.
D = 0.0282Va2 (4)
This paper(modified) was on November 03, 2005. Written discussion on this
paper will be entertained till July 31, 2006.
given in the IRC: 89 - 1997 for 2 H : 1 V side slope for stone size.

Vol 87, May 2006 1

Thus, the equation for stone size given in IRC : 89 - 1997 without
indicating the source appears to have been adopted from Isbash
equation assuming Va = Vb .
The equation for size of stone on side slope of guide bunds given
by BIS in IS 10751 : 1994 is
0.02323Ss
W = Va6
K ( Ss − 1)
3 (5)
wherein Ss is the specific gravity of stones. The source of this equation
is not given and hence assumptions made in its derivation cannot be
known.
2
On horizontal floor sin θ = 0 . Hence K = 1. Therefore, with Ss for
stone = 2.65, sin 2 φ
W = 0.0137Va6 (6)
The size D and weight are interrelated, the relation being
6W
D= or D = 0.0897W 0.33 (7)
πγ s
in which γs is the weight of stone per unit volume = 2650 kg/m3.
Hence, the BIS relation in terms of D is
1 recommended by IRC and BIS is thus not convincing.
D = 0.0897 × ( 0.0137 ) 3 Va2 = 0.215Va2 (8)
which is the Isbash equation in terms of Vb . Thus, in the BIS
equation also, the assumption is Vb = Va though not so mentioned.
When the velocity distribution over a vertical is logarithmic as given
by Rouse5, the bottom velocity is lower than the average velocity
shown in Figure VII.65 of CBIP pub no 204 vol I1. Due to turbulence
in flood flow, it is likely that Vb equals Va along the guide bund,
though field date validating this assumption is lacking. In the interest
of safety it is advisable to adopt the IRC and BIS equations assuming
Va = Vb .
FACTORS AFFECTING RELATIONSHIP OF STONE
SIZE
In 5.3.5 of IRC : 89 - 1997 and 5.7.2 of IS 10751 : 1994 it is mentioned
that the predominant flow characteristic which affects the stability of
the pitching is velocity along the guide bund. Other factors like
obliquity of flow, eddy action and waves are indeterminate which
could be studied on the model and may be accounted for by providing
adequate margin of safety over the size obtained from velocity
considerations. The additional safety margin is, however, not indicated.
Guidance for allowance to be made for severity of flow conditions is
given for the HEC - 116 equation for stone size in use by the Federal
Highway Administration, USA. Pilarczyk’s7 relation used in Europe
for the stone size gives guide values of safety factors depending on
application. Allowance for turbulence is made by adopting the
recommended turbulence factor KT in the equation.
It would be useful if BIS and IRC relations for stone size and
weight could be modified incorporating suitable factors to account
for flow obliquity, turbulence, eddy action, etc as in HEC-11 and
Pilarczyk’s equations.
IRC AND BIS RELATIONSHIPS FOR APRON STONE
According to the IRC relationship for apron, the stone weight
required for a velocity of 3 m/s is 76 kg. For bridges on major rivers,
2 IE(I) Journal-CV
the velocities at design High Flood Level ( HFL ) or discharge, are
more often higher than 3 m/s. If IRC relation for apron-stone is
adopted, the crated stone or C-C blocks will invariably be required to
be provided for apron. The past experience of existing bridges on
major rivers like the Ganga and the Brahmaputra shows that provision
of 60 kg to 70 kg weight stones in apron have proved to work
satisfactorily. This justifies the use of BIS relationship in preference
to IRC relationship. Reconcilation of the apron stone relationship
by the IRC is therefore considered necessary.
SLOPE OF LAUNCHED CONCRETE BLOCKS AND
STONE CRATES
This is taken as 1.5 H : 1 V as recommended in IRC 89 - 1997 and IS
10751 : 1994.
The angle of response of scoured face of sand after bed scour is 2 H
: 1V having an angle of 26.56°. In case of loose stone apron after bed
scours, the stones cover the scoured face by launching. The launched
apron stone thus acquire the side slope of 2 H : 1 V as shown in IRC
89 - 1997 and IS 10751 : 1994. In case of loose stone apron, the
launched apron thus does not have the slope of 1.19 H : 1 V which
is the side slope equal to angle of repose of loose stones of 40°.
In case of stone crates also, the scour would first occur and the
scoured face of sand would acquire the angle of repose of 26.56°
giving side slope of 2:1 and a single layer crates will cover this face as
reported by Inglis8 and Verhagen, et al 9. It can acquire the side slopes
1.5 H : 1 V when crates are in a single layer. The side slope of 1.5 H
: 1 V for launched apron of concrete blocks and stone crates
CONCLUSIONS
1. Field date of distribution of velocity along a vertical at the toe
of side slope of guide bunds would help to verify the justification
of assumption of bottom velocity being equal to average velocity.
Such data is lacking at present and an attempt to collect this data is
warranted.
2. It would be useful if BIS and IRC relations for stone size and
weight could be modified by incorporating factors to account for
flow obliquity, eddy action, turbulence, wave action, etc, as done in
HEC - 11 and Pilarczyk’s equations.
3. Reconcilation of the relationship for apron stone given in IRC:
89 - 1997 needs consideration.
4. Slope of launched concrete blocks and stone crates in apron has
been specified as 1.5 H : 1 V by BIS and IRC. This needs
reconciliation as 2 H : 1 V launched slope appears more appropriate.
REFERENCES
1. ‘River Behaviour, Management and Training’. CBIP Publication , vol I, no 204,
1989, New Delhi.
2. IS 10751 : 1994. ‘Planning and Design of Guide Banks for Alluvial Rivers -
Guidelines’. First Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, 1994.
3. IRC : 89 - 1997. ‘Guidelines for Design and Construction of River Training
and Control Works for Road Bridges’. First Revision, Indian Roads Congress.
4. S V Isbash. ‘Construction of Dams by Dumping Stones in Flowing Water’.
1935.
5. H Rouse. ‘Engineering Hydraulics’. John Wiley & Sons, 1950, New York,
USA.
6. HEC 11. ‘Design of Riprap Revetment’. Federal Highway Administration, US
Department of Transportation, Publication no FHWA - 1, 1989, p 89-016.
7. K W Pilarczyk. ‘Design of Revetment’. Dutch Public Works Department, Hydraulic
Engineering Division, Delft, Netherlands.
8. C C Inglis. ‘The Behaviour of Rivers and Canals’. Central Water & Power
Research Station, Pune, 1949.
9. H J Verhagen , M Hoeven and B Thiel. ‘A New View of Falling Aprons’.
COPEDEC VI, 2003, Colombo, Sri Lanka.