th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

FLOOD RESILIENT BRIDGE DESIGN: CASE STUDIES

FROM CHALLENGING DESIGN ENVIRONMENTS
Darren Leeson, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc, Australia
Cherry Fulmer, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc, Australia
Katherine Heron, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc, Australia

ABSTRACT
Case studies of bridges located in the Lockyer Valley in Queensland and the Solomon Islands
are presented in the paper. Historically these locations have experienced extreme flooding.
Flood damage at bridges can isolate communities and result in damage to the natural
environment. Current design codes mean that it is now rare for bridge structures to fail during
flooding. However road approaches and abutments are frequently damaged during flooding,
disconnecting road networks and communities.

These case-studies demonstrate the value of integrated engineering solutions for bridge design
and how this can reduce maintenance issues at bridges.

Design decisions that create future maintenance threats are discussed using the presented
case studies.

The paper highlights the importance of an assessment of scour, debris and deposition during
the development of the design if the road and bridge following a flood event. The authors argue
that some alternative approaches to design can improve the post disaster functionality of road
networks and reduce bridge maintenance requirements.

INTRODUCTION
As bridge designers we spend a significant amount of effort ensuring that bridges remain
structurally adequate for a defined set of loads. The placement of a bridge within the natural
environment and road network is often given minimal attention when determining the location,
extent and form of the bridge. For bridges that cross water courses, consideration of the impact
of flooding needs to be carefully considered. In such scenarios issues such as flood forces and
the impact of flooding up and down stream of the bridge are typically considered, with hydraulic
modelling undertaken routinely.

In addition, typical assessment of flood impact has considered time of closure and an estimate
of scour depths. The calculation of time of closure usually occurs during the hydraulic analysis,
and represents the time for which the flood waters remain above the trafficable depth on the
road or bridge deck. The calculation of scour depths has traditionally focused on structural
stability. In our experience some bridge engineers can interpret AS5100.2 cl 15.2.1 to mean
they only need to concern themselves with structural integrity and that therefore there is no
requirement to assess scour effects on creeks and approach roads.

The authors have been involved in post flooding restoration works for bridges, most recently in
Lockyer Valley, Queensland and the Solomon Islands. The impact of flooding on bridges,
associated roads and the communities they service can be significant, regardless of the time it
takes for flood waters to drop below the bridge deck level. In many cases it is clear that more
work should be done to help ensure resilient road networks are constructed to continue to serve
communities post flooding events.

In this paper we present experiences from recent flood events and suggest areas where
authorities and designers could look to improve bridge planning and design.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 1

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

CASE STUDIES

Lockyer Valley
Following the January 2013 flood event in Lockyer Creek and Murphy Creek, Jacobs undertook
inspections of all bridges that had been submerged by flood waters prior to reopening of the
bridges. This work was undertaken for the Lockyer Valley Regional Council (LVRC). Initially the
inspection work was undertaken as the flood water receded and clean-up work commenced. In
the two days following the flood event 28 bridges were inspected. A common observation was
that although many of the bridges may have been structurally adequate, the functionality of the
bridges had been compromised. Two main issues were observed – bridges were impassable
without significant emergency works and stability of approaches had been compromised.
Selected examples of these two issues are presented below. The January 2013 flood event was
the highest recorded flood in the Laidley Creek at Laidley and in the neighbouring catchments of
Black Duck and Tenthill Creeks (BoM 2013).

Liftin Bridge

Liftin Bridge is located on Robinsons Road, Gatton and is a crossing of Tenthill Creek.
Robinsons Road alignment crosses Tenthill Creek at an acute angle. The bridge has been
constructed almost perpendicular to the creek at approximately half the height of the banks. The
bridge is accessed by approach roads cut into the side of the banks. The bridge is a two span
deck unit bridge with vertically retained abutments. We estimate the flood waters almost
reached the top of the banks, with approximately 4 m of water passing over the bridge.

Damage to the bridge included stripping of the approach pavement wearing course,
undermining of abutment footings, approach embankment scour, build-up of debris on the
bridge and deposition on approaches. The bridge was impassable following the event.
Emergency works included removal of debris, excavation of deposited material and stabilisation
of embankments.

Figure 1: Silt deposition on Liftin Bridge approach

Figure 1 is a photograph of the northern approach taken as the flood waters are receding. The
water level has dropped to just below the bridge deck level. Substantial silt has been deposited
on the approach roads (shown to the right of the road delineator posts). The deposition extends
for approximately 60 m each side of the bridge and was up to 2 m in depth. The material was
soft, difficult to cross by foot and impassable for all vehicle types. Removal was time consuming
and required the use of earth moving equipment. The road provides access for local farms and
businesses. The road was closed for several days.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 2

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Murphy Bridge

Murphy Bridge is located on Back Flagstone Creek Road, Lockyer and is a crossing of Lockyer
Creek. The bridge and approach road are approximately perpendicular to the creek alignment at
the crossing location. The bridge is located within the creek flood plain with the bridge deck
sitting slightly higher than the surrounding terrain. We estimate the flood waters were
approximately 2 m deep on the northern approach.

Flood damage included stripping of the approach pavement wearing course, undermining of
abutment wing walls, deposition on the approaches and build-up of debris on the bridge deck.
The bridge was impassable following the event. Emergency works included removal of debris
and excavation of deposited material.

Figure 2 is a photograph taken from the southern approach with the flood waters receded to
below deck level. The deposition on northern approach was up to 500 mm thick and was
trafficable by four wheel drive vehicles. There was a substantial build-up of debris on the bridge
deck preventing use by all vehicles. Debris included logs up to 450 mm in diameter. The debris
could not be removed by hand; safe removal required the use of plant and equipment. The
bridge was closed for several days. Alternative access required a detour of several kilometres.

Figure 2: Debris build up on Murphy Bridge, deposition on approach road

The Willows Bridge

The Willows Bridge is located on Lockyer Siding Road and is a crossing of Lockyer Creek. The
bridge and approach road are approximately perpendicular to the creek and the bridge deck sits
slightly higher than the surrounding flood plain. We estimate the flood waters were
approximately 2 m deep over the bridge level.

Flood damage included stripping of the approach pavement wearing course, complete scour
through both abutments, removal of bridge rails and debris on the bridge deck. The bridge was
impassable following the event. Emergency works included reconstruction of the approaches
and removal of debris.

Figure 3 is a photograph taken two days after the flood event. The tree trunk on the bridge deck
is approximately 500 mm in diameter. The gap between the end of the bridge deck and the
approach road is approximately 1500 mm wide. The bridge was closed for almost one week;
alternative access was a 20 km detour.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 3

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 3: Damage to The Willows Bridge and approaches

Steinke’s Bridge

Figure 4: Damage to The Willows Bridge and approaches

Steinke’s Bridge is located on Lake Clarendon Road and crosses Lockyer Creek. The bridge is
a five span deck unit bridge. The deck level sits approximately 5 m below the creek banks.
During the flood event material up to 1500 mm thick was deposited on the approaches. We
estimate the material completely buried the northern approach bridge rails.

Solomon Islands
Jacobs was engaged by the Asian Development Bank to offer technical support to the Transport
Sector Development Project in the Solomon Islands. This involved a secondment of Jacobs into
the central project implementation unit (CPIU), working alongside engineers employed by the
Solomon Islands Government.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 4

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

The Solomon Islands experience frequent and severe flooding. This presents challenges in
maintenance and management of the national road infrastructure.

The following case study has been prepared to describe some of the challenges faced at one of
the bridges of the Solomon Islands.

Mberande River

The Mberande River is located on the eastern floodplains of Guadalcanal. The Mberande
catchment is assumed to be typical of larger catchments in the Solomon Islands. The catchment
has steep upper reaches before the relatively flat floodplain area. The land use in the catchment
is a mix of forestry, logging and agricultural use. The calculated catchment area is
2
approximately 204 km . Figure 5 is a photograph of the bridge in April 2013.

During July and August 2013, Jacobs staff observed flooding events that resulted in the
overtopping of this bridge. These events would not be considered to be rare events as
overtopping of this bridge occurs multiple times a year.

During these events the site experienced a build-up of debris upstream of the bridge, scouring
of the bridge abutments and sedimentation in the river channel after the flood receded.

Figure 5: Western bank of Mberande River, April 2013

The flood debris that collected upstream of the Mberande River in July 2013 was a mix of small
logs and grasses. The logs were up to 20 m in length and roughly 200mm in diameter. This
debris could easily be removed through labour based work, with limited machinery. Flood debris
of greater diameter may reach this bridge during larger flow events.

The size of debris at the bridge is determined in design by the width of the channel and the
depth of the channel. The perpendicular distance across the channel upstream of the bridge will
determine the maximum debris length. (FHWA, 2009)

Wider rivers, typical of the larger river catchments of the Solomon Islands are able to convey
longer flood debris. Larger flood events (deeper flow) will convey debris of larger diameter.
(FHWA, 2009). High flow events can result in damage to river banks riverside vegetation
resulting in a greater debris load.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 5

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 6: Photo showing flood debris upstream of central bridge spans, 15 July 2013.
Photograph was taken from western bank.

We estimate the volume of debris to be 50 m wide by 10 m long by 4 m deep. This represents

3
approximately 2000 m of debris from one minor flood event. The actual flood debris in the
rivers may have been higher than this, as a proportion of the debris may have been able to flow
past the bridge when it was overtopped.

Figure 6 shows the Mberande River in July 2013.

Discussion

The Mberande River Bridge is representative of the challenges faced in designing bridges in the
Solomon Islands. The bridge is located in the Guadalcanal flood plain. This flood plain is
significantly wider than the main channel of the river. The bridge sits approximately 1 to 2 m
higher than the average water level, resulting in approach embankments of an elevation similar
to the surrounding flood plain level. In contrast a higher bridge crossing would require a
higher/raised road embankment and would consequently result in significant afflux and an
increased blockage of flow area due to the approach embankments.

This bridge is frequently overtopped, and requires frequent maintenance such as the clearing of
flood debris and repair of scour damage to the bridge abutments.

Repairs to the approach embankments are undertaken by using flood debris and backfilled with
gravel. These repairs did not require significant machinery and allowed for the repair of the
bridge approach at a relatively low cost and timeframe.

A higher bridge at this river may improve the flood immunity of this structure. However, this
would may require a higher/raised road embankment and consequently result in significant
afflux and an increased blockage of flow area. In addition the failure of higher approach
embankments could result in longer times of closure as repairs to the bridge are arranged.

INTEGRATED APPROACH

Introduction
The design of bridge structures typically follows a process where the design passes through
several client approval phases. The phases of design can include concept, preliminary and
detailed design. Inputs to the design such as survey, geotechnical profile, loading and hydraulic

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 6

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

requirements, as well as traffic conveyance volumes are required and used at each of these
phases to inform and assist in the design advancement and computation of the structural
requirements for the bridge.

In the concept design phase designers are tasked with defining the horizontal and vertical
placement of the bridge within the catchment as well as its physical make up including length,
width, pier placement and structure type. Based on this bridge definition, further studies and
investigations such as geotechnical and hydraulic studies are commissioned, and capital
budgets for construction confirmed and often set. It is therefore the case that the design work
undertaken at the concept phase has a large impact on the design advancement in later phases
and the performance of the bridge in service. If the bridge and its fit within the natural
environment is not adequately considered at concept phase, it can often be too challenging to
change the alignment, raise the bridge elevation or change the structure type at a later design
stage.

Typically bridge designers are provided a road alignment and vertical profile and fit the bridge
within this to suit a desired flood immunity level. Designers tend to focus on structure type and
span length to define the bridge rather than incorporating and considering the performance of
the catchment, or scour to the banks upstream or downstream of the loss of approach
performance.

The overall performance and resilience of structures can benefit from an integrated approach
between bridge design and the hydraulic assessment team. This would mean that a broader
view of the waterway catchment, which would include an assessment of the behaviour of the
waterway and impact the structure has on the waterway, would be undertaken during the
concept phase, and this assessment used as input to the design. This integrated approach
would provide the design team with an opportunity to define a structure that promotes resilience
of not just the structure but also the waterway and bridge approach network.

Advances in flood modelling

Advances in computer hardware allow for enhancements to the capability of hydraulic models.
Combined with increased availability and of survey data, two dimensional (2D) flood models are
fast becoming an affordable option in assessing flooding at bridges.

Figure 7: Representation of Bridges in 2D flood models

Benchmarks set by the leading software suppliers are being raised with almost yearly software
releases. Latest software releases make use of GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) processing.
This allows for a finer scale (number of computational points) and faster speeds (run times).

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 7

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Key outputs from these models include “traditional” outputs of water levels/depths and velocity
grids. These results can be post-processed to provide additional outputs through the modelling
package or GIS tools. Useful outputs include flow or velocity vectors, velocity depth product,
flood hazard and shear stress grids. These outputs will need interpretation prior to their
application in design.

This information is useful for assessing the flood risk at and around structures. The way
structure can be represented in hydraulic models is also being improved. Hydraulic structures
may be represented in hydraulic models in the 2D grid, or linked to the 2D grid as a one
dimensional element in the model as shown below.

Figure 8: Two Dimensional flood model capabilities

The 2D representation of the structure applies flow constriction losses calculated from
publications such as Hydraulics of Bridge and Waterways (Bradley 1978) and Waterway Design
(Austroads 1994). The flow constriction may be layered, to represent debris, and guard rail at
bridges.

Models may also be used to assess changes in bed levels, and the failure of road
embankments during flooding by making use of variable terrain. This allows for the modeller to
lower the channel elevation to replicate scoured conditions. The authors recognise that this
needs to be undertaken with guidance from experienced staff. This method could be used to
test scour depths estimated using equations in publications such as Bridge Scour and Stream
Instability Countermeasure, Experience, Selection and Design Guidance (Lagasse 2009) and
Bridge Scour (Melville 2000).

Advances in computing and modelling capability improve the level of detail that can be extracted
from hydraulic models. Care needs to be taken to ensure that any model is representative of
actual conditions. Model calibration and validation will improve confidence in the model results.
Model results will require interpretation and use by experienced staff.

Debris
The impact of flood debris is considered by both structural engineers and hydraulic engineers
when designing bridges.

In hydraulic design the key drivers for considering blockage from flood debris is worsening in
flood levels and flow velocities.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 8

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

AS5100.1 - 2004 states that:

Structures shall be checked for—

(a) hydrodynamic forces without debris;

(b) forces due to debris mats; and
(c) forces due to log impact.

Where large logs or trees are expected, consideration shall be given to increasing both the span
length and the freeboard, to permit passage of debris.

There is currently no clear methodology that describes how debris effects are to be assessed at
bridges during flooding. Historical records on the debris build up at structures may be used to
assess the likely amount of debris collected at a bridge during flooding.

Blockage caused by debris is linked to the size of the structure, length of the catchment,
frequency of overtopping, catchment conditions and the maintenance of the structure.

Australian Rainfall and Runoff Project 11 – Blockage of Hydraulic Structures (2013) proposes
two approaches to blockage assessments. The risk of blockage is used to evaluate whether
design or severe blockage conditions need to be applied at the structure. Design blockage is
the most likely blockage condition that can be expected to occur during a design storm of a
given frequency. Severe Blockage refers to the extent of infrequent blockage possible during the
design life of a structure (Weeks and Witheridge et al 2013).

Table 1 shows debris blockage guidelines from Engineers Australia (ARR 2013) and the
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Table 1: Blockage consideration for design (Weeks and Witheridge et al 2013)

Structure Design Blockage Severe Blockage

Bridges
Opening Height <3 m 25% 100%
Opening Height >3m 0% Blockage considerations are normally
managed by assuming 100% blockage of
handrails and traffic barriers, plus expected
debris matter wrapped around central piers.
Piers* 3m debris matt 3m debris matt
Guardrail 100% 100%
Culverts 25% 100%
*Pier blockage to be used if only substructure affected by flooding, Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2012;
Engineers Australia, 2013

These blockage factors may be used to test the sensitivity of the impact from the structure on
flooding.

Where the risk of debris is considered high, the consequences of severe blockage should be
considered. Measures to reduce the likelihood of debris collection should also be considered.

Scour prediction
Scour occurs when the flow velocities exceed the force required to cause movement of the bed
material. This process will continue to occur until there is a sufficient change in bed level,
causing the velocities to drop or the flood recedes.

If scour is assessed it is for a 1 in 2000 AEP event (ultimate design flood), or the event at which
the bridge overtops, whichever results in the most severe flood conditions. This consideration
complies with the The Bridge Code AS5100.1 2004 that requires a bridge to be structurally
stable following these events.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 9

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Likelihood of Design Event ocurring

120%

100%

80%
Chance of Occurring

in 100 years

60% in 50 years
in 20 years
in 10 years
40% in 5 years
in 1 year

20%

0%
1 10 100 1000 10000

Flood Event Annual Exceedance Probability (1 in X)

Figure 9: Chance of occurring and flood Exceedance probability

Scour is a complex process with no precise method for its prediction. Scour depth calculations
are largely based on empirical formula. Estimated scour depths can be highly sensitive to the
equation variables and are often considered to be conservative. The estimated scour depths do
not take into consideration embankment stability or flood debris resulting in additional scour.
They also do not take into consideration scour that may occur due to changes to the upstream
catchment conditions or the deposition of sediment during a flood. These factors will impact on
the observed scour depths.

Appropriate consideration of the risk of a flood event and the corresponding consequences is
best undertaken on a case-by-case basis. Figure 9 compares the likelihood of different design
flood events for a range of time periods.

Risk is equal to the likelihood (as shown in Figure 9) multiplied by the consequence. An
understanding of the consequences due to scour of the range of flood events that may occur is
important. The consequence of a flood event should also be considered, rather than a
nominated AEP. (Queensland Reconstruction Authority 2012)

This approach is consistent with flood plain management guidelines to assess flood risk. The
assessment is not limited to a particular design event to capture the risk of scour at the structure
for a range of events.

Deposition
Deposition is the build-up of sediment deposits that occurs during a flood event. Deposition will
predominantly occur where a road alignment is cut into the banks of a watercourse and the road
elevation is below the flood height level. In a flood event the watercourse level will rise above
the road surface and overtop the crossing resulting in the collection of sediment and debris to
deposit and collect in the road cutting. In cases where there is a large volume of sediment in the
flood event and approach roads cut into embankments this can render the road impassable

Raising the elevation of a roadway, increasing the conveyance cross section area and reducing
the embankment cutting would be one method of reducing the degree of deposition. However
this practice would result in the construction of significantly longer and more expensive
structures. A means of assessing the economic requirements offset against the required
network resilience could alleviate this challenge. Done early in the design phase, such an
assessment would consider more than just the structural design requirements and allow
engineers to evaluate the optimum structure length, elevation and position to provide

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 10

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

infrastructure that provides the necessary and optimum resilience to match the community’s
requirements for the required level of access after a flood event.

Figure 10: Low level bridge with deposition at approaches

CONCLUSION
The authors have witnessed firsthand the impact that flooding can have on communities and the
extent that impacted communities rely upon a serviceable road network post flooding. The
duration of the flood impact on road connectivity can be significantly greater than the time of
inundation. Substantial scour of bridge structures can impact on not only structural capacity but
also serviceability of approach roads. Deposition of sediment or debris can render a road
impassable until people, plant and equipment are mobilised to remove the blockage of the road.

This situation could be improved during the planning stage of road projects potentially subject to
flood events, with a determination made of the extent to which the community will rely upon the
road after a flooding event. The importance of the road after a flood event would then inform
decisions for creek and river crossings. Such an assessment could impact the alignment, level
of road surface, form of bridge approaches, length of bridges, placement of piers and/or
placement of abutments.

In addition, bridge engineers should take advantage of advancements in hydraulic modelling,

such as 2D modelling, to place bridge elements where they have the least impact on flow and
have the lowest risk of scour. Scour prediction tools can be used to estimate impacts of flood
events and assess potential risks to road network integrity. For bridges in catchments with high
risk of debris, estimates of the build-up of debris for particular deck levels will assist in
determining deck levels. The potential for deposition in flooded road cuttings can be assessed
from the road design geometry.

The design of flood resilient bridges requires collaboration between all design disciplines, the
road authority and use of available modelling tools.

NOTE
In December 2013 Jacobs and Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) combined to form one of the world's
largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction services across
multiple markets and geographies. The work described in this paper for Lockyer Valley Regional
Council and the Asian Development Bank was originally undertaken by SKM.

REFERENCES
Australian Standards, 2004, AS5100.2: Bridge design – Design loads, Australian bridge design
code
Sinclair Knight Merz, 2013, Bridge Inspections, Post Flooding Bridge Report for Lockyer Valley
Regional Council, Report reference QB10463-0000-ECR-RP-00-0001_01
Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2012, Bridge Scour Manual, State of Queensland,
Brisbane

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 11

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Weeks W, Witheridge G, Rigby E, Barthelmess A , and O’Loughlin G, February 2013, Project 11:
Blockage of Hydraulic Structures Stage 2 Report, Australian Rainfall and Runoff Revision
Projects
Queensland Reconstruction Authority 2011 – 2012, Planning for stronger, more resilient
floodplains, State of Queensland, Queensland
BMT WBM 2010, Tuflow User Manual, Tuflow BMT WBM (http://www.bmtwbm.com.au/)
Bradley JB, Richards DL, Bahner CD 2005, Debris Control Structures Evaluation and
Countermeasures Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 9, Third Edition, The National Technical
Information Service Springfield
Lagasse PF, Clopper PE, Pagán-Ortiz JE, Zevenbergen LW, Arneson LA, Schall JD, Girard LG,
2009, Bridge Scour And Stream Instability Countermeasure, Experience, Selection and Design
Guidance, Volumes 1 and 2, Third Edition, The National Technical Information Service
Springfield
Melville Coleman, 2000, Bridge Scour, Water Resources Publications Colorado
Flavell D, Audora H, 1994, Waterway Design: A guide to the hydraulic design of bridges culverts
and floodways, Austroads, Sydney
Bradley JB, 1978 Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways, United States Federal Highways Association
Tuflow Modelling Bridge Piers in 2D using TUFLOW, Accessed 13 April 2014,
http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Technical_Memos/Modelling%20Bridge%20Piers%20in%202D
%20using%20TUFLOW.pdf
Rogencamp G Barton J, 2012, The Lockyer Creek Flood of January 2011: What Happened and
How should We Manage Hazard for Rare Floods, 52nd Annual Floodplain Management
Authorities Conference,
Bureau of Meterology, [Accessed April 2014], Known Floods in the Brisbane & Bremer River
Basin, Australian Government,
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
Bureau of Meterology, 2013, Ex-TC Oswald Floods - January and February 2013, Australian
Government,

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Darren Leeson is a bridge engineer with over 25 years of experience, he has a Bachelor of
Engineering and a Masters of Engineering Studies from the University of Queensland. Darren
has experience in investigation, design, contract documentation, construction, maintenance and
asset management for bridges and other road infrastructure structures. Darren has had leading
bridge roles in government and consulting. Darren has been working for Jacobs for over 8
years. Darren lead the Jacobs team for the Lockyer Valley Regional Council bridge assessment
work after the 2013 flood event, including visiting over half the impacted bridge sites. Darren
was recently the design manager for the Gateway Motorway Upgrade South/South East
Busway Extension project.

Cherry Fulmer is a bridge engineer with over 12 years of experience, she has a Bachelor of
Engineering from Queensland University of Technology and a Masters of Engineering from the
University of Southern Queensland. Cherry has worked for Jacobs for 2 ½ years, during this
time she has led and been involved in several bridge projects for both government and private
industry. Most recently Cherry led the design of the Kinsellas Road Bridge and has held a
leading design role on the Bloomfield River Bridge project. Prior to joining Jacobs Cherry
worked in the UK and North America providing technical design and advisory to both private and
public sector clients. During 2013 Cherry undertook the inspection and assessment of
approximately half of impacted structures for the Lockyer Valley Regional Council to determine
remediation and maintenance requirements.

Katherine Heron has over seven years’ experience in undertaking Hydrologic and Hydraulic
Studies to assess flood risk for planning and design projects. Katherine has a Bachelor of
Engineering from the University of Southern Queensland. Katherine has worked in government
and consulting, working for Jacobs for close to 3 years. Katherine was seconded into the

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 12

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Solomon Islands Ministry of Infrastructure Development in 2013 to provide flooding advice for
infrastructure planning, design and maintenance projects

Copyright Licence Agreement

The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 9th Austroads Bridge
Conference, granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:

• publish the work in printed format

• publish the work in electronic format
• publish the work online.

The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works

The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.

© ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 13