Revision as of 14:49, 12 August 2025 view source Abigail.lillo (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 539 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 10:16, 18 August 2025 view source Abigail.lillo (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 539 edits →2D Layered Flow Constriction (2d_lfcsh) Newer edit →
Line 85: \| 1 \|\| Pier layer \|\| ~5% (can be omitted if included in FLC) \|\| Estimate using <u>[[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures#Pier_Losses \| Pier Losses]]</u> \|\| Represents flow obstruction from piers beneath the bridge deck \|- \| 2 \|\| Bridge deck \|\| 100% \|\| Use calibration data, if available, to determine FLC. <br> If no calibration is available, estimate using <u>[[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures#Bridge_Design_.28hB.2FT.29_vs_Form_Loss_Coefficient_Table \| hB/T vs FLC]]</u> table \|\| Full blockage, no flow through the deck If using the <u>[[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures#Bridge_Design_.28hB.2FT.29_vs_Form_Loss_Coefficient_Table \| hB/T vs FLC]]</u> table, it is recommended to enable the Method C Form Loss Approach \|- \| 3 \|\| Bridge rails \|\| 10% – 100% \|\| Use calibration data, if available, to determine FLC. <br> Line 92 ⟶ 93: *L2 FLC and L3 FLC should sum to the combined FLC \|Blockage and FLC depends on rail type <br> Sensitivity testing with 100% blockage is recommended due to potential for debris during flood If using the <u>[[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures#Bridge_Design_.28hB.2FT.29_vs_Form_Loss_Coefficient_Table \| hB/T vs FLC]]</u> table, it is recommended to enable the Method C Form Loss Approach \|- \| 4 \|\| Above rails \|\| 0% \|\| 0 \|\| Represents unimpeded overtopping flow

TUFLOW 2D Hydraulic Structures: Difference between revisions