Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum
DanielCopelin

Excessive 1D weir (W) channel headloss when submerged

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have a weir (W) channel with a crest level of 19m as part of a 1D network. The weir geometry is being read from a mid cross-section file, and the check files seem to indicate that the geometry is being read correctly and the hydraulic properties seem correct.

 

However, I am seeing very large afflux (approx 1.5m) across the structure even under very high flows where the weir is drowned by ~20m+ of water over the crest. By comparison, a steady state HECRAS model only predicts about 0.15m difference in upstream and downstream water level, which is more reasonable. If I model the W channels as normal S channels, I get results that are similar to HECRAS.

 

I have a suspicion that the W channels are not using the submerged flow regime, but I don't know how to go about diagnosing this. I can't seem to find anything of relevance in the check files and .eof file.

 

I am using the latest version of TUFLOW.

 

Does anyone have any experience with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel,

Yes, I had noticed this problem and did a considerable amount of benchmarking of weirs modelling between ESTRY, ISIS, HEC-RAS and hand-calculations and contacted Bill Syme.  He investigated and recommended using Weir Flow == Method A in these situations where weirs are drowned and we are not expecting much headloss....see if this helps your weir....

all the best,

Kate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel,

Yes, I had noticed this problem and did a considerable amount of benchmarking of weirs modelling between ESTRY, ISIS, HEC-RAS and hand-calculations and contacted Bill Syme.  He investigated and recommended using Weir Flow == Method A in these situations where weirs are drowned and we are not expecting much headloss....see if this helps your weir....

all the best,

Kate

 

Thanks, Kate! This seems to have worked. I have upstream levels within 0.1m of HECRAS now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Daniel and thanks Kate.

 

For further explanation, Method B (the default in recent releases), was introduced to provide better stability for weirs embedded within 2D domains (eg. over culverts or a bridge that are modelled in 2D using 2D FCs).  We're still investigating, however, it seems that in some situations it does not converge well and can cause a large head drop.  For the 2013 release, you'll be able to select which method to apply on a weir by weir basis, and Method A is likely to be set back as the default (unless using a Defaults == Pre... command).  In the meantime, should there be a concern over the head drop of a drowned weir, try setting Weir Flow == Method A in the .ecf file.  If anyone has any feedback, please add to this topic or email support@tuflow.com.

 

Cheers

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...