Revision as of 05:19, 24 September 2015 view source Chris Huxley (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 7,786 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 05:22, 24 September 2015 view source Chris Huxley (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 7,786 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 7: The TUFLOW form loss coefficients can be derived from information in publications such as ''Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways'' ([http://www.ciccp.es/ImgWeb/Castilla%20y%20Leon/Documentaci%C3%B3n%20T%C3%A9cnica/Hydraulics%20of%20Bridge%20Waterways%20(1978).pdf FHA, 1973]). For example, backwater caused by introduction of piers in a bridge constriction is dependent on the ratio that the area of the piers relative to the gross area of the bridge opening, the type of piers (or piling in the case of pile bents) and the angularity of the piers with the direction of flood flow. </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. This value is assigned the letter J in the FHA documentation.</tt></li> <li> Use the FHA (1978) ''Incremental backwater coefficient for piers"'' data to calculate Kp. This is the value which will be entered into TUFLOW as the form loss coefficients.</li> <li> Digitise 2d_lfcsh or 2d_fcsh_ inputs using either a line or polygon feature. When applying FCs the best approach is to view the structure as a collection of 2D cells representing the whole structure, rather than being too specific about the representation of each individual cell: * Line features will apply the form loss value to a single row of cells across the waterway. The TUFLOW form loss input should be entered representing the total value (eg. FC = 0.2). * Polygon features will distribute the form loss between multiple cells across the width of the bridge and across the waterway. Due to this the TUFLOW form loss input should be entered as the total value per unit width in the direction of flow (eg. FC = 0.2/20m = 0.01).</li> <li> The head loss across key structures should be reviewed, and if necessary, benchmarked against other methods (Recorded calibration data, HEC-RAS). Note that a well-designed 2D model will be more accurate than a 1D model, provided that any “micro” losses are incorporated.</li> <li> TUFLOW check files should also be reviewed to confirm that the correct form losses are being applied.</li> <li> The flow area through the structure should also be reviewed. </li> * Digitise a 2d_po QA line through the structure from bank to bank, and use this output to cross-check the flow area of the 2D FC cells is appropriate (the QA line will take into account any adjustments to the 2D cells due to FC obverts and changes to the cell side flow widths). If the overall structure flow area is not correct, then the velocities within the structure will not be correct and therefore the energy losses due to the changes in velocity direction and magnitude and additional form losses will not be well modelled.</li> ▲</ol>

TUFLOW 2D Hydraulic Structures: Difference between revisions