{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01642512077294686, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000966183574879227, 'mean_word_length': 5.278787878787878, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
STREAM RESTORATION IN THE VICINITY OF BRIDGES 1

ABSTRACT: The number of stream restoration and enhancement projects being implemented is rapidly increasing. At road crossings, a transition must be created from the restored channel through the bridge or culvert opening. Given conflicting design objectives for a naturalized channel and a bridge opening, guidance is needed in the design of the transition. In this paper we describe the use of vanes, cross vanes, and w‐weirs, commonly used in stream restoration and enhancement projects, that may provide an adequate transition at bridges. Laboratory experiments were conducted on vanes and cross vanes to provide a transition for single span bridge abutments and on w‐weirs to provide a transition for double span bridges which have a pier in mid‐channel. The results of the experiments provided design criteria for transitions using each of the three structures. Prior field experience provided guidance on appropriate applications in terms of the stream and bridge characteristics.