Revision as of 11:40, 5 May 2022 view source Chris Huxley (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 7,767 edits →Common Questions Answered ← Older edit		Revision as of 09:50, 1 June 2022 view source Pavlina Monhartova (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 5,365 edits →Should I use both FLC and blockage for layer one in 2D bridge layered flow constriction? Newer edit →
Line 74: * FLC values are often sourced from publications such as Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways or AustRoads (e.g. Kp chart for piers). * If possible, establish whether the source of the FLC value is based on the approach velocity or structure velocity noting that it often isn’t clear or stated. If it is the structure velocity, this is usually the velocity at the vena-contracta (point of greatest contraction within the entrance to the structure and therefore highest velocity) –- see image below. Bluff or sharp-edged obstructions will have a much more pronounced vena-contracta, and therefore higher velocity compared with a round-edged obstruction. FLC values based on the approach velocity will be higher than those based on the structure velocity to achieve the same energy loss. * Applying a blockage equivalent to the obstruction width will increase, usually very slightly, the velocity of the 1D channel or 2D cell face. This won’t be the vena-contracta velocity, but a velocity between the approach velocity and the vena-contracta velocity. A greater blockage will need to be applied to emulate the vena-contracta velocity.

TUFLOW 2D Hydraulic Structures: Difference between revisions