Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'loss'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • About This Forum and Announcements
    • How to Use This Forum
    • Forum Feedback
    • Announcements
  • TUFLOW Modelling
    • 1D/2D Linking
    • 1D Domains
    • 2D/2D Linking
    • 2D/2D Nesting
    • 2D Domains
    • Boundaries
    • Documentation & Tutorial Model
    • Dongles/Licensing/Installation
    • Ideas / Suggestions / New Features
    • Mass Balance/Mass Error
    • MATH Errors & Simulation Failure
    • Restart Files
    • Post-Processing
    • Software/Hardware Requirements
    • Text Files (.tcf, .tgc, .tbc, .ecf)
    • Utilities
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other Software
    • ISIS-TUFLOW
    • MapInfo/Vertical Mapper
    • miTools
    • Other GIS/CAD
    • SMS
    • XP-SWMM2D
    • UltraEdit/Excel
    • TUFLOW Apps

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 3 results

  1. Hi, My question is in regards to the use of X connectors and their impact on the Engelhund approach. For example: Scenario 1 - The end of a channel is connected directly to a pit which has a single outlet pipe. Scenario 2 - The end of a channel is connected to a pit via a X connector which has a single outlet pipe. Would the Engelhund automated methodology apply the same losses throughout the section in both scenarios or does the X connector cause them to be different. Thanks, James
  2. Hi there, Im modelling an Arched bridge in a 1D network channel and trying to calculate the Loss Coefficients to form part of an LC table. Im using Figure 6 in the Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways from March 1978 Backwater coefficient to help me. I am using a 30 degree wingwall value. My Bridge is 4.42m wide at an elevation of 55.799mAOD and the cross section is 6.025m on the upstream face. Using this value gives me a M value of 0.73 and conversely a Kb value of 0.5. This loss seems a little high as this is the springing point of my arch. As I work out the LC table, nearing the top of the arch, I recalculate the coefficients. At an elevation of 57.449, the channel section is 12.796 and the arch is 3.552 wide, giving me a constriction of 9.244. This gives me an M value of 0.277 and a Kb value of 2.2 Finally, just below the soffit, the bridge width is 1.776 at the top. The channel width is 12.796 and hence the constriction is 11.02m. Which gives me an M value of 0.13 and a Kb value of 3 How do the Kb values listed above, fit in with an accepted loss value of 1.56 at the soffit. Is the 'M' opening ratio being calculated and applied correctly.
  3. Q: Why is the loss coefficient set to 1.56 when flow is surcharging against a bridge deck in a 1D bridge channel? A: The loss coefficient is derived from AustRoads, Waterway Design. Refer specifically to Figure 5.18 (pg 47, 1994 edition) (attached) The discharge coefficient, Cd, for a surcharging deck is 0.8, as shown highlighted in the attached figure Assuming that V=Q/(bn*Z) and rearranging the equation given at the bottom of the figure, one arrives at V=Cd* (2g* dh)^(0.5). Where bn is the net waterway width. Also given the loss formula used by the ESTRY engine dh=k*(V^2/2g), the final formula is k=1/(Cd^2). Thus, using a Cd of 0.8 as stated in AustRoads, k=1.5625.
×
×
  • Create New...