Difference between revisions of "1D Bridges"

From Tuflow
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(93 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<font size = 18>Page Under Construction</font>
+
=Introduction=
 +
The following section looks at bridges using the 1D component of TUFLOW. For information on bridges in the 2D domain see <u>[[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures | 2D Hydraulic Structures]]</u> and <u>[[Tutorial_M11#Part_2_-_1D_Open_Channel_with_1D_Bridges_and_Weir_inflow_.282D.29_and_Outflow_.281D.29 | Module 11]]</u>. <br>
 +
 
 +
'''Example of a bridge that could be modelled in 1D'''
 +
<br>
 +
[[File:Photo 04-12-2014 13 16 25.jpg|border|400px]]
 
<br>
 
<br>
 +
London, UK (pht: Rohan King)
 
<br>
 
<br>
 +
 +
Care must be taken when choosing the approach to modelling the bridge and setting appropriate loss values. <br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
=Introduction=
+
=1D Bridge Channel Types=
The following section looks at bridges using the 1D component of TUFLOW, for information on bridges in the 2D domain please see the following section on [[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures | 2D hydraulic Structures]] and [[Tutorial_Module06#Bridge_Modelling_Option_3:_2D_Layered_Flow_Constriction | Module 6]]. <br><br>
+
TUFLOW offers two 1D bridge channels, B and BB.  BB channels were introduced for Build 2016-03-AA and are a more advanced solution than B channels, which are retained for legacy models. By default, BB channels are superior to B channels as they:<br>
As a typical rule-of-thumb, if the channel up stream &/or downstream of the bridge is modeled in 1D then the bridge should also be modeled in 1D. Ideally any change in the channel from ESTRY 1D to 2D or vice-versa should also occur at a structure (i.e. bridge, culvert, etc) to facilitate the transition in solution schemes. The images below displays a typical preferred setup, however as is the case with hydraulic modeling your particular model situation may be different and therefore not always conform to these ideals.<br>
+
:*adjust the entrance and exit losses every timestep according to the approach and departure velocities (in the same manner as for other structures such as culverts); and
 +
:*automatically simulates pressure flow conditions. The only loss coefficients required to be specified for BB channels are those due to piers, and the bridge deck when it is submerged and not under pressure flow. 
 +
 
 +
Adjustment of losses according to approach/departure velocities is the default from 1D channel to 1D bridge to 1D channel. However, for TUFLOW Builds prior to 2020-10-AA, if the BB bridge is linked directly to a 2D domain (typically via a SX link), there is no adjustment of entrance / exit losses on the sides connected to the 2D. This capability was introduced for 2D channel to 1D bridge to 2D channel in Build 2020-10-AA and onwards, and losses can be automatically adjusted based on the approach/departure 2D velocities across the SX connections by setting "<font color="blue"><tt>Structure Losses SX</tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==</tt></font><tt> ADJUST</tt>" (see Section 6.2 of the <u>[https://downloads.tuflow.com/TUFLOW/Releases/2020-10/TUFLOW%20Release%20Notes.2020-10-AF.pdf 2020-10 Release Note]</u>). For B bridges the default is not to adjust losses (refer to the <u>[https://docs.tuflow.com/classic-hpc/manual/latest/ TUFLOW Manual]</u> for more information). In the case of 2D connections, refer to the links below for a discussion on the intricacies and challenges of taking into account contraction and expansion losses for 1D structures connected directly to 2D domains:
 +
:*<u>[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/Presentations/2012/2012%20Aust%20Workshops%20-%20TUFLOW%20Modelling%20Bends,%20Structures%20and%20Obstructions.pdf 1D and 2D Modelling Bends, Structures and Obstructions]</u>
 +
:*<u>[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/Modelling%20of%20Bends%20and%20Hydraulic%20Structures%20in%20a%202D%20Scheme,%20Syme,%202001.pdf Modelling of Bends and Hydraulic Structures in a Two-Dimensional Scheme]</u>
 +
 
 +
As a typical rule-of-thumb, if the channel upstream and/or downstream of the bridge is modelled in 1D then the bridge should also be modelled in 1D. Ideally, any change in the channel from ESTRY 1D to 2D or vice-versa should also occur at a structure (i.e. bridge, culvert, etc) to facilitate the transition in solution schemes. The images below displays a typical preferred setup, however as is the case with hydraulic modelling your particular model situation may be different and therefore not always conform to these ideals.<br>
  
 
<div><ul>  
 
<div><ul>  
Line 12: Line 27:
 
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:2d_Channel_to_1d_Bridge_to_1d_Channel.JPG|thumb|none|307px|2D channel to 1D bridge to 1D channel]] </li>
 
<li style="display: inline-block;"> [[File:2d_Channel_to_1d_Bridge_to_1d_Channel.JPG|thumb|none|307px|2D channel to 1D bridge to 1D channel]] </li>
 
</ul></div>
 
</ul></div>
 
<br>
 
*Link to 2D section – this section explains 1D bridges only.
 
*Advice on when you would model a 1D bridge versus a 2D bridge (read module 6).
 
 
*Information on the checks you can carry out
 
*Method A & Method B for bridges – refer to Bill’s post on 1.56 value
 
 
<br>
 
<br>
  
 
=Loss Theory=
 
=Loss Theory=
Details on how the default loss coefficient of 1.56 was derived can be found [http://www.tuflow.com/forum/index.php?/topic/1419-1d-loss-coefficients-for-bridge-deck-surcharging/#comment-3673 here].
+
1D bridge channels do not require length, Manning's n, divergence or bed slope (they are effectively zero-length channels in terms of conveyance) and rely on a reasonable estimate of energy losses associated with re-expansion of water after the vena-contracta (entrance losses), expansion of water downstream (exit losses), pier losses, bridge deck and guard rail losses. Other factors include accounting for occurrence of bridge deck pressure flow and the effects of bridge skew and multiple bridges (shielding effects of an upstream bridge on a downstream bridge). <br>
 +
==Contraction/Expansion Losses==
 +
Energy loss is caused by the flow contraction due to the expansion of water after the vena-contracta inside a bridge section and the flow expansion downstream of the bridge. The contraction/expansion loss coefficients (or the entry/exit loss coefficients) can be specified for TUFLOW 1D BB bridge using the following attributes:<br>
 +
:*EntryC_or_WSa: the entry loss coefficients (default = 0.5).
 +
:*ExitC_or_WSb: the exit loss coefficients (default = 1.0).
 +
The entry/exit loss coefficients are adjusted based on the equations in the figure below, which consider the extent of flow contraction/expansion. For example, a clear spanning bridge over a stormwater channel does not cause any contraction/expansion. Therefore, the change in approach velocity, structure velocity and the departure velocity are effectively the same, and the loss coefficients can be automatically reduced based on the following equations:
 +
<br>
 +
[[File:Structure_Contraction_Expantion_Losses.png|600px]]
 +
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
*Theory
+
The entry/exit loss coefficients are not used in the legacy B bridge. Instead, the bridge opening ratio is used to obtain the backwater coefficient Kb value from Figure 6 "Backwater coefficient base curves" of <u>[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hds1.pdf Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways (Bradley, 1978)]</u>.
**Loss types (piers Kp, blockage Kb)
 
**Guidance/reference on how to derive losses
 
**Make sure to include section on automation of pier losses?
 
  
=Irregular shaped bridges=
+
==Pier Losses==
In the UK arch shaped bridges can often be seen on waterways, whereas in Australia these types of structures are quite uncommon. Modelling an irregular/arch shaped bridges utilises the hydraulic properties elevation-width (CS/HW) type cross section. <br>
+
Pier loss coefficients are treated as a direct energy (form) loss and can be derived from information in publications such as:
 +
:*<u>[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hds1.pdf Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways (Bradley, 1978)]</u>
 +
:*<u>[https://austroads.com.au/publications/bridges/agbt08 Hydraulic Design of Waterway Structures (AustRoads, 2019)]</u>
  
 +
Energy loss estimates from bridge piers (or other obstructions, vertical or horizontal, that do not cause upstream controlled flow regimes like pressure flow), are dependent on the ratio of the obstruction's area perpendicular to the flow direction to the gross flow area of the bridge opening, the shape of the piers or obstruction, and the angularity of the piers/obstruction to the flow direction. For example, using Bradley (1978) the approach is to:
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>Calculate the ratio of the water area occupied by piers to the gross water area of the constriction (both based on the normal water surface) and the angularity of the piers. These inputs are used to calculate "J".</li>
 +
<li>Use Figure 7 (below) to calculate "Kp". This is the value that will be entered into the bridge's LC (loss vs height) table as the energy or form loss coefficient.  For piers or obstructions that are non-uniform in dimensions or shape the LC table can be used to vary the losses with height accordingly noting that losses will need to be proportioned with depth to reflect the combined effect of the different obstruction shapes/dimensions.<br>
 +
[[File:FHA_Kp_arrow.PNG|400px]]
 +
</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 +
==Deck Losses and Pressure Flow==
 +
A pressure flow condition can occur when the water level reaches the bridge deck level (as water is forced through a small opening confined by the bridge abutments and the deck), resulting in additional energy losses.  As the bridge becomes totally drowned by the water level, the condition will switch back to the normal submerged bridge deck flow condition. To account for this, once water reaches the height of the bridge deck, the TUFLOW BB bridge tests for either the pressure flow condition or drowned flow condition at every timestep by choosing the flow regime that gives the lower flow:
 +
:*The pressure flow equation is based on the Section 8.3 of the <u>[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hds1.pdf Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways (Bradley, 1978)]</u>, with a default deck discharge coefficient of 0.8. This value can be modified using the 1d_nwk HConF_or_WC attribute. Note that the original hydraulic experiment conducted by Liu (1967) used a flume with a pair of bridge abutments and a deck. This means the impact of both abutments and deck are considered in this approach. The entry/exit losses are switched off during the pressure flow calculation to avoid the overestimation of the contraction/expansion losses.
 +
:*For the drowned flow condition, the BB bridge considers extra energy loss caused by the bridge deck/rails using a deck loss coefficient (default = 0.5) in addition to the entry/exit losses. The deck loss coefficient can be adjusted using the WConF_or_WEx attribute or by specifying the LC (energy loss versus height) table. <br>
 +
 +
The _TSF and _TSL layers can be used to find out the regime/form loss values used for BB bridges:
 +
*"P": pressure flow
 +
*"D": ds water level > the soffit level, but it applies normal flow because the normal flow equation predicts smaller velocity
 +
*" ": ds water level < the soffit level, normal flow
 +
 +
For the legacy B channels, the deck loss coefficient was fixed at a value of 1.5625, which is derived from the discharge coefficient in Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways of 0.8 (1.56 = 1/0.8^2) to approximate pressure flow conditions.  Whilst this is reasonable when the bridge deck experiences pressure flow, it will over-estimate the losses once the bridge deck starts to drown out and flow returns fully to downstream controlled.<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
;Methodology
 
# Create a 1d_tab HW (height vs width) .csv file for each standard shape (ie. set up a database of the egg-shapes). For the height value you can start at a value of zero so that height becomes depth (this might making the .csv files easier).
 
  
# Any number of 1d_tab lines can reference the same .csv file, ie. you don't need to have a unique .csv file for every 1d_tab line.  
+
=Irregular Shaped Bridges=
 +
Modelling an irregular shaped bridge utilises the hydraulic properties elevation-width (CS/HW) type cross section and an irregular type culvert. <br>
 +
 
 +
[[File:Irregular_culvert_1.jpg|border|300px]]
 +
[[File:Irregular_culvert_2.jpg|border|400px]]
 +
<br>
 +
London, UK (pht: Rohan King)<br>
  
# One option is to copy and paste the 1d_tab lines across each pipe (if you use a two vertex 1d_tab line there is no requirement that the 1d_tab line is snapped to the 1d_nwk pipe line - they just need to intersect). Each line will need to reference the relevant standard egg-shape HW .csv file (this could be automated using SQL Select if you have an attribute on the pipe to indicate which egg-shape it is).
+
To create an irregular shaped bridge:
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>Create a 1d_tab HW (height vs width) .csv file for each standard shape (ie. set up a database of the irregular shapes). For the height value you can start at a value of zero so that height becomes depth (this might making the .csv files easier). As the height increases the width changes to reflect the particular irregular shape you are modeling. In the example below, the width at the top of the arch (2.1m) is set to a small value of 0.001m as opposed to zero as the HW becomes NA past the top of the irregular shape. <br>
  
# The inverts of the pipes should raise or lower the standard egg-shape cross-section to the appropriate height.
+
[[File:HW_arch_example.JPG|border|900px]] <br>
 
+
<br>
 +
GIS example set up:<br>
 +
[[File:Irregular_culvert_attribute_details.JPG|border|500px]]<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
*Examples on a XZ and HW bridge type – pictures & csv examples
+
<li>Any number of 1d_tab lines can reference the same .csv file, ie. you don't need to have a unique .csv file for every 1d_tab line. <br>
 +
[[File:Arch HW attributes.JPG|border|300px]] <br>
 +
<br>
 +
<li>One option is to copy and paste the 1d_tab lines across each pipe (if you use a two vertex 1d_tab line there is no requirement that the 1d_tab line is snapped to the 1d_nwk pipe line - they just need to intersect). Each line will need to reference the relevant standard irregular shape HW .csv file (this could be automated using SQL Select if you have an attribute on the pipe to indicate which irregular shape it is). <br>
 +
<li>The inverts of the pipes should raise or lower the standard irregular shape cross-section to the appropriate height.
 +
</ol>
 
<br>
 
<br>
  
=Typical checks=
+
=Check Files=
The table below highlights some of the commonly used check files when reviewing 1D bridges. The full list of TUFLOW check files can be found [[TUFLOW_Check_Files | here]].
+
The table below highlights some of the commonly used check files when reviewing 1D bridges. The full list of TUFLOW check files can be found <u>[[TUFLOW_Check_Files | here]]</u>.
{| align="center" class="wikitable" width="75%"
+
{| align="left" class="wikitable" width="20%"
  
 
! style="background-color:#005581; font-weight:bold; color:white;"| Filename prefix / suffix
 
! style="background-color:#005581; font-weight:bold; color:white;"| Filename prefix / suffix
! style="background-color:#005581; font-weight:bold; color:white;" width=75%| Brief Description
+
 
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_bc_tables | _1d_bc_tables_check.csv]]|| Contains the inverts of the 1D nodes and at the ends of the 1D channels. Very useful for checking for smooth transitions from one channel to another and with the nodes. 
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_bc_tables | _1d_bc_tables_check.csv]]
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_ta_tables | 1d_ta_tables_check.csv]]|| Tabular data as read from tables via the 1d_tab layers for cross-section, storage and other data.  Provides full traceability to original data source and additional information such as hydraulic properties determined from a cross-section profile.  Flood Modeller XZ processed, and MIKE 11 processed cross-section data included.  Refer also to the _xsl_check layer.
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_ta_tables | _1d_ta_tables_check.csv]]
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_hydroprop | _hydroprop_check.mif<br>_hydroprop_check_L.shp]]|| Contains the hydraulic properties at the top of the hydraulic properties tables as attributes of the 1D channels.  Other information such as the primary Manning’s n is also provided.  Very useful for carrying out quality control checks on the 1D channels.
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_hydroprop | _hydroprop_check.mif<br>_hydroprop_check_L.shp]]
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_inverts | _inverts_check.mif<br>_inverts_check_P.shp]]|| Contains the inverts of the 1D nodes and at the ends of the 1D channels. Very useful for checking for smooth transitions from one channel to another and with the nodes. 
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_inverts | _inverts_check.mif<br>_inverts_check_P.shp]]
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_IWL | _iwl_check.mif<br>_iwl_check_P.shp]]|| GIS .mif/.mid or .shp files of the initial water levels at the 1D model nodes.
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_IWL | _iwl_check.mif<br>_iwl_check_P.shp]]
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_nwk_C | _nwk_C_check.mif<br>_nwk_C_check_L.shp]]|| GIS .mif/.mid or .shp files of the final 1D model network.  This check layer contains the channels of the 1D domain only. The _nwk_N_check layer contains the nodes.<br>
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_nwk_C | _nwk_C_check.mif<br>_nwk_C_check_L.shp]]
The layers lines are coloured based on the channel type (available for the .mid/.mif format only).<br>
 
Any generated pit channels are shown as a small channel flowing from north to south into the pit node.  The upstream pit channel node that is generated is also shown.  The length of the pit channel is controlled by <tt>Pit Channel Offset == </tt> command.
 
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_nwk_N | _nwk_N_check.mif<br>_nwk_N_check_P.shp]]|| GIS .mif/.mid or .shp files of the final 1D model network.  This check layer contains the nodes of the 1D domain only.  The _nwk_C_check layer contains the channels.<br>
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_nwk_N | _nwk_N_check.mif<br>_nwk_N_check_P.shp]]
The node symbology is displayed as a red circle for nodes connected to two or more channels, a larger magenta circle for nodes connected to one channel and a large yellow square for nodes not connected to a channel (available for the .mid/.mif format only).  '''This is very useful for checking for channel ends or nodes that are not snapped.'''<br>
 
The top and bottom elevations of the NA table at nodes is now shown using the Upstream_Invert and Downstream_Invert attributes.
 
 
|-
 
|-
| [[Check_Files_1d_xsl | _xsl_check.mif<br>_xsl_check_L.shp]]|| GIS layer containing tabular data as read from 1d_xs input layers.  Contains the XS ID and other useful information on the cross-section properties, etc.  Refer also to [[Check_Files_1d_ta_tables | _ta_tables_check.csv]].
+
| [[Check_Files_1d_xsl | _xsl_check.mif<br>_xsl_check_L.shp]]
 
|}
 
|}
  
 +
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
 +
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
  
<br>
+
Any further questions please email TUFLOW support: [mailto:support@tuflow.com?Subject=TUFLOW%201D%20bridges%20help support@tuflow.com]
<br>
+
<br><br>
[[File:Small_bridge.jpg|border|600px]] <br>
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
<br>
+
{{Tips Navigation
<br>
+
|uplink=[[ TUFLOW 1D Channels and Hydraulic Structures | Back to 1D Channels and Hydraulic Structures]]
Any further questions please email TUFLOW support: [mailto:support@tuflow.com support@tuflow.com]
+
}}

Latest revision as of 10:24, 23 September 2024

Introduction

The following section looks at bridges using the 1D component of TUFLOW. For information on bridges in the 2D domain see 2D Hydraulic Structures and Module 11.

Example of a bridge that could be modelled in 1D
Photo 04-12-2014 13 16 25.jpg
London, UK (pht: Rohan King)

Care must be taken when choosing the approach to modelling the bridge and setting appropriate loss values.

1D Bridge Channel Types

TUFLOW offers two 1D bridge channels, B and BB. BB channels were introduced for Build 2016-03-AA and are a more advanced solution than B channels, which are retained for legacy models. By default, BB channels are superior to B channels as they:

  • adjust the entrance and exit losses every timestep according to the approach and departure velocities (in the same manner as for other structures such as culverts); and
  • automatically simulates pressure flow conditions. The only loss coefficients required to be specified for BB channels are those due to piers, and the bridge deck when it is submerged and not under pressure flow.

Adjustment of losses according to approach/departure velocities is the default from 1D channel to 1D bridge to 1D channel. However, for TUFLOW Builds prior to 2020-10-AA, if the BB bridge is linked directly to a 2D domain (typically via a SX link), there is no adjustment of entrance / exit losses on the sides connected to the 2D. This capability was introduced for 2D channel to 1D bridge to 2D channel in Build 2020-10-AA and onwards, and losses can be automatically adjusted based on the approach/departure 2D velocities across the SX connections by setting "Structure Losses SX == ADJUST" (see Section 6.2 of the 2020-10 Release Note). For B bridges the default is not to adjust losses (refer to the TUFLOW Manual for more information). In the case of 2D connections, refer to the links below for a discussion on the intricacies and challenges of taking into account contraction and expansion losses for 1D structures connected directly to 2D domains:

As a typical rule-of-thumb, if the channel upstream and/or downstream of the bridge is modelled in 1D then the bridge should also be modelled in 1D. Ideally, any change in the channel from ESTRY 1D to 2D or vice-versa should also occur at a structure (i.e. bridge, culvert, etc) to facilitate the transition in solution schemes. The images below displays a typical preferred setup, however as is the case with hydraulic modelling your particular model situation may be different and therefore not always conform to these ideals.

  • 1D channel to 1D bridge to 1D channel
  • 1D channel to 1D bridge to 2D channel
  • 2D channel to 1D bridge to 1D channel


Loss Theory

1D bridge channels do not require length, Manning's n, divergence or bed slope (they are effectively zero-length channels in terms of conveyance) and rely on a reasonable estimate of energy losses associated with re-expansion of water after the vena-contracta (entrance losses), expansion of water downstream (exit losses), pier losses, bridge deck and guard rail losses. Other factors include accounting for occurrence of bridge deck pressure flow and the effects of bridge skew and multiple bridges (shielding effects of an upstream bridge on a downstream bridge).

Contraction/Expansion Losses

Energy loss is caused by the flow contraction due to the expansion of water after the vena-contracta inside a bridge section and the flow expansion downstream of the bridge. The contraction/expansion loss coefficients (or the entry/exit loss coefficients) can be specified for TUFLOW 1D BB bridge using the following attributes:

  • EntryC_or_WSa: the entry loss coefficients (default = 0.5).
  • ExitC_or_WSb: the exit loss coefficients (default = 1.0).

The entry/exit loss coefficients are adjusted based on the equations in the figure below, which consider the extent of flow contraction/expansion. For example, a clear spanning bridge over a stormwater channel does not cause any contraction/expansion. Therefore, the change in approach velocity, structure velocity and the departure velocity are effectively the same, and the loss coefficients can be automatically reduced based on the following equations:
Structure Contraction Expantion Losses.png

The entry/exit loss coefficients are not used in the legacy B bridge. Instead, the bridge opening ratio is used to obtain the backwater coefficient Kb value from Figure 6 "Backwater coefficient base curves" of Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways (Bradley, 1978).

Pier Losses

Pier loss coefficients are treated as a direct energy (form) loss and can be derived from information in publications such as:

Energy loss estimates from bridge piers (or other obstructions, vertical or horizontal, that do not cause upstream controlled flow regimes like pressure flow), are dependent on the ratio of the obstruction's area perpendicular to the flow direction to the gross flow area of the bridge opening, the shape of the piers or obstruction, and the angularity of the piers/obstruction to the flow direction. For example, using Bradley (1978) the approach is to:

  1. Calculate the ratio of the water area occupied by piers to the gross water area of the constriction (both based on the normal water surface) and the angularity of the piers. These inputs are used to calculate "J".
  2. Use Figure 7 (below) to calculate "Kp". This is the value that will be entered into the bridge's LC (loss vs height) table as the energy or form loss coefficient. For piers or obstructions that are non-uniform in dimensions or shape the LC table can be used to vary the losses with height accordingly noting that losses will need to be proportioned with depth to reflect the combined effect of the different obstruction shapes/dimensions.
    FHA Kp arrow.PNG

Deck Losses and Pressure Flow

A pressure flow condition can occur when the water level reaches the bridge deck level (as water is forced through a small opening confined by the bridge abutments and the deck), resulting in additional energy losses. As the bridge becomes totally drowned by the water level, the condition will switch back to the normal submerged bridge deck flow condition. To account for this, once water reaches the height of the bridge deck, the TUFLOW BB bridge tests for either the pressure flow condition or drowned flow condition at every timestep by choosing the flow regime that gives the lower flow:

  • The pressure flow equation is based on the Section 8.3 of the Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways (Bradley, 1978), with a default deck discharge coefficient of 0.8. This value can be modified using the 1d_nwk HConF_or_WC attribute. Note that the original hydraulic experiment conducted by Liu (1967) used a flume with a pair of bridge abutments and a deck. This means the impact of both abutments and deck are considered in this approach. The entry/exit losses are switched off during the pressure flow calculation to avoid the overestimation of the contraction/expansion losses.
  • For the drowned flow condition, the BB bridge considers extra energy loss caused by the bridge deck/rails using a deck loss coefficient (default = 0.5) in addition to the entry/exit losses. The deck loss coefficient can be adjusted using the WConF_or_WEx attribute or by specifying the LC (energy loss versus height) table.

The _TSF and _TSL layers can be used to find out the regime/form loss values used for BB bridges:

  • "P": pressure flow
  • "D": ds water level > the soffit level, but it applies normal flow because the normal flow equation predicts smaller velocity
  • " ": ds water level < the soffit level, normal flow

For the legacy B channels, the deck loss coefficient was fixed at a value of 1.5625, which is derived from the discharge coefficient in Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways of 0.8 (1.56 = 1/0.8^2) to approximate pressure flow conditions. Whilst this is reasonable when the bridge deck experiences pressure flow, it will over-estimate the losses once the bridge deck starts to drown out and flow returns fully to downstream controlled.

Irregular Shaped Bridges

Modelling an irregular shaped bridge utilises the hydraulic properties elevation-width (CS/HW) type cross section and an irregular type culvert.

Irregular culvert 1.jpg Irregular culvert 2.jpg
London, UK (pht: Rohan King)

To create an irregular shaped bridge:

  1. Create a 1d_tab HW (height vs width) .csv file for each standard shape (ie. set up a database of the irregular shapes). For the height value you can start at a value of zero so that height becomes depth (this might making the .csv files easier). As the height increases the width changes to reflect the particular irregular shape you are modeling. In the example below, the width at the top of the arch (2.1m) is set to a small value of 0.001m as opposed to zero as the HW becomes NA past the top of the irregular shape.
    HW arch example.JPG

    GIS example set up:
    Irregular culvert attribute details.JPG

  2. Any number of 1d_tab lines can reference the same .csv file, ie. you don't need to have a unique .csv file for every 1d_tab line.
    Arch HW attributes.JPG

  3. One option is to copy and paste the 1d_tab lines across each pipe (if you use a two vertex 1d_tab line there is no requirement that the 1d_tab line is snapped to the 1d_nwk pipe line - they just need to intersect). Each line will need to reference the relevant standard irregular shape HW .csv file (this could be automated using SQL Select if you have an attribute on the pipe to indicate which irregular shape it is).
  4. The inverts of the pipes should raise or lower the standard irregular shape cross-section to the appropriate height.


Check Files

The table below highlights some of the commonly used check files when reviewing 1D bridges. The full list of TUFLOW check files can be found here.

Filename prefix / suffix
_1d_bc_tables_check.csv
_1d_ta_tables_check.csv
_hydroprop_check.mif
_hydroprop_check_L.shp
_inverts_check.mif
_inverts_check_P.shp
_iwl_check.mif
_iwl_check_P.shp
_nwk_C_check.mif
_nwk_C_check_L.shp
_nwk_N_check.mif
_nwk_N_check_P.shp
_xsl_check.mif
_xsl_check_L.shp




















Any further questions please email TUFLOW support: support@tuflow.com


Up
Go-up.png Back to 1D Channels and Hydraulic Structures