Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Page 177
Fig. 5.1 Flow past bridge piers, (a) Longitudinal section, with the velocity heads exaggerated for clarity. The afflux is . (b) Plan view, showing the total opening width, b.
than arbitrarily opt for one of the formulae. Some of the equations have been included in computer software (e.g. HEC, 1990).
Page 178 so rearranging equation 5.1 gives (5.3) If it is assumed that the head loss during the contraction (hL1 3) is negligibly small, then it is apparent from equation 5.3 that the afflux can be estimated from the difference in the velocity heads at sections 1 and 3. In order to introduce the discharge, equation 5.3 can be rewritten as (5.4) If b is the total width of the waterway openings (Fig. 5.1b), then with the assumption above that Y3=Y4 the discharge (Q) can be expressed as Q=bY4 V3 (5.5)
(5.6) If an experimentally determined coefficient (KA) is introduced to allow for the head loss caused by the contraction of the flow between the piers (hL1 3) and any error arising from the simplifying assumptions, then (5.7) Frequently the value of KA is obtained from Yarnells work and typically has a value of between 0.90 and 1.05 (Table 5.1). Thus for a given discharge the normal depth (Y4) can be calculated and then obtained from a trial and error solution of equation 5.7. A trial and error approach is needed because V1 depends upon . Example 5.1 illustrates the use of the dAubuisson equation. The dAubuisson equation is said to model completely turbulent flows quite well, but for flows of low to moderate turbulence the Nagler equation is better, although neither is very good at high velocities. The dAubuisson equations assumption that Y3=Y4 has to be questionable under some conditions, such as when the piers form a large obstacle to flow and the water depth between the piers (Y3) falls considerably below the normal depth (Y4).
pier shapes. He derived his own equation for the discharge (Q) between the piers. This derivation is rarely presented in full, perhaps because the original paper is not always clear in its meaning. However, the basis is simply to consider the flow
Page 179
Table 5.1 Values of K A and KN for bridge piers. For use with equation 5.7 (KA) or 5.10 (KN)
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
KA KN KA KN KA KN KA KN KA KN
0.96 0.91 1.02 0.87 1.02 0.86 1.00 0.87 0.97 0.89 0.99 0.94 1.13 0.92 1.20 0.95 1.26 1.03 1.31 1.11 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.88 0.88
between the piers (Fig. 5.2) as that through a small orifice operating under a differential head, h. Thus: (5.8) where K N is a coefficient of discharge (Table 5.1) and A3 is the total cross-sectional area of flow between the piers (equivalent to the area of the orifice). If b is the total opening width between the piers (Fig. 5.1b) and Y3 is the minimum depth at section 3 then A3=bY3 , so: (5.9)
Nagler chose to present the equation with where is an adjustment factor, and with where is another adjustment factor that corrects the velocity of approach. Thus the Nagler equation is (5.10) The values of the adjustment factors and were evaluated experimentally. Normally can be taken as 0.3, although (logically) it has a value of zero when the piers have little or no effect on the flow and Y3=Y4, but is larger
Page 180
Fig. 5.2 Longitudinal section of flow past bridge piers for the derivation of the Nagler equation.
when the flow is shooting and turbulent. The value of varies with the opening ratio (M), as shown in Fig. 5.3. Example 5.1 provides an illustration of the application of the equation. The Nagler equation is rather more complicated than dAubuissons but, because there is some allowance for the recovery of head downstream of section 3 and it is not assumed that Y3=Y4 , it is more accurate under conditions of low turbulence. Like the dAubuisson equation it is not very accurate at high velocities.
Fig. 5.3 Values of in the Nagler equation for flow past piers. (After Nagler, 1918; Obstructions of bridge piers to the flow of water, Transactions of the ASCE. Reproduced by permission of ASCE)
Page 181
Page 182 Two basic flow types were identified: class A or subcritical flow, and class B or supercritical flow. Yarnell used equation 3.13 to determine the limiting condition at which the flow becomes choked and supercritical flow may commence. With subcritical conditions the afflux and can be calculated from (5.11) where K is Yarnells pier shape coefficient (Table 5.2), Y4=YN is the normal depth at section 4, F 4=F N is the normal depth Froude number, and a is the channel contraction ratio =(1 b/B) or (1 M). Here a can also be defined as the ratio of the obstructed area to the total channel area. Equation 5.11 is conveniently based on normal depth conditions, which the designer can calculate easily using conventional open channel hydraulics (see Example 5.2). It may also be written as (5.12)
where is .This equation is used in some computer software (e.g. Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1990) With supercritical flow there will be a hydraulic jump downstream. The afflux can be calculated by using the critical flow section (say section 3) as a control point and working back upstream to section 1 allowing for the energy loss (E 1 E 3), which can be expressed as (5.13) where the coefficient, K P, has a value of about 0.35 for piers with square ends and 0.18 for rounded ends (Henderson, 1966). Equation 5.11 is easy to solve with a calculator, but Yarnell summarised his research in chart form, which has the merit of allowing the various relationships to be easily visualised. When the flow between the piers is subcritical Fig. 5.4 should be used, but when it is supercritical Fig. 5.5 should be employed. Both charts assume that the piers have a length-towidth ratio of 4.
Table 5.2 Values of Yarnells pier coefficients. For use with equations 5.11 and 5.12
Pier shape
Semicircular nose and tail Lens-shaped nose and tail Twin-cylinder piers with connecting diaphragm Twin-cylinder piers without connecting diaphragm 90 triangular nose and tail Square nose and tail
K
0.90 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.05 1.25
Page 183
V4=2.41 m/s, and piers with semicircular noses and tails. Enter the left-hand chart at M =0.865, move horizontally to V4 =2.41 m/s, then vertically down to read x=0.04 m. Enter the right-hand chart with move horizontally across to the sloping K= 0.90 semicircular nose and tail line, then down to x=0.04, and then horizontally across to obtain .
Figure 5.4 for subcritical flow was originally presented by Yarnell (1934a) in English units, but has been redrawn for this book in metric units. For simplicity, the metrication of the diagram assumes that 1 foot=0.30m. Several of the terms are dimensionless and do not need conversion; the variable x was defined by Yarnell as as in equation 5.12. Thus x has the unit of length and has also been converted. The diagram is used as follows. 1. Calculate M and V4. 2. Enter the left-hand chart at the value of M, then move horizontally across to the sloping line representing the calculated value of V4. Move vertically down the chart to obtain the value of x . 3. Calculate the value of (remember to square the Froude numberit is easy to forget!).
4. Enter the right-hand chart at the value of and move across horizontally to the sloping line representing the pier shape. Then move vertically down (or up, as the circumstances dictate) to the appropriate value of x obtained in step 2. 5. Move horizontally across to obtain the afflux from the right-hand scale.
Page 184
Fig. 5.5 Chart for determining the afflux caused by supercritical flow past bridge piers (after Yarnell, 1934a). As explained in the text, F4L is the normal depth Froude number at the limiting contraction when the flow in the opening is at critical depth (F3 =1).
An illustration of this procedure is given in Fig. 5.4 and Example 5.2. Note that if the afflux is already known and the discharge (Q=A4V4) has to be obtained using Fig. 5.4 it will be necessary to guess a value of V 4 and then keep repeating the steps listed above until the value of obtained from the chart equals that which was observed. When this happens V4 is correct and Q can be calculated. Naturally the generalised charts cannot be very accurate when applied to specific situations. Figure 5.5 was also presented by Yarnell and redrawn, but has not needed to be metricated. To use it, knowing Y4, start by calculating the actual value of F4 and M. Then with the actual value of M as ML, the limiting downstream condition (F4L) at which the flow between the piers will be at critical
Page 185 depth can be obtained from equation 3.14 or Fig 3.5. By entering the bottom scale of Fig. 5.5 at the appropriate value of F4/F4L, moving vertically up to the line representing the pier shape, and then horizontally across to the left scale, the value of can be obtained. Thus the afflux =
Fig. 5.6 Flow past a pile trestle bent (after Yarnell, 1934b): (a) longitudinal profile; (b) plan.
Page 186
Table 5.3 Values of KA and kN for pile trestles. For use with equation 5.7 or 5.10
Arrangement of trestle
Bents in line with the current Single track 5 pile trestle bent Double track 10 pile trestle bent Two single track 5 pile bents offset Bents at an angle with the current Single track 5 pile trestle bent at: 10 angle 20 angle 30 angle
After Yarnell, 1934b
KA
0.99 0.87 0.85
KN
0.90 0.82 0.79
small amount of channel contraction, the question as to whether the pile trestle coefficient is the same for different bridge opening ratios does not arise. Consequently the coefficients presented in Table 5.3 can be used for subcritical flow (but not supercritical) without correction for the opening ratio. Other conclusions reached by Yarnell were as follows. In general, the dAubuisson and Nagler equations could be applied very favourably to most of the conditions encountered in the experiments concerning trestles. Until the angle of attack exceeds 10 there is little decrease in the coefficient, and hence in the discharge. With an angle of attack of 30 the discharge coefficient for trestle bents is about 4% less than for bents aligned with the current, while the backwater will be increased by 5070% for a single-track crossing. Some beneficial effect can be obtained by setting trestle bents in echelon if a roadway crosses the river at an angle. A double-track trestle with the bents offset offers a somewhat greater obstruction than a double-track trestle with the piles in line. All of the above may be unreliable if the velocity and depth of flow met in practice are much greater than used in the model tests.
5.5 Examples
Example 5.1 A rectangular river channel 107m wide is completely spanned by a bridge that has six equally spaced piers (but no abutments) in the watercourse. Each of the piers is 2.40m wide and has a semicircular nose and tail.
Page 187
During a flood it was observed that the afflux was 0.09m when averaged across the six piers. The average normal depth of flow downstream of the crossing (Y4=YN) was 2.44m. Estimate the discharge using the dAubuisson and Nagler equations.
Note that the dAubuisson and Nagler equations must be solved by trial and error because the velocities V1 and V4 are initially unknown when the discharge is unknown. However, to shorten this example, assume that V1= 2.34 m/s and V4=2.41 m/s. dAubuisson equation (5.7) By interpolation, from Table 5.1 for a pier with a semicircular nose and tail KA=1.04.
as assumed.
(5.10) From Table 5.1 KN=0.93, assume =0.3 and from Fig 5.3 =1.45 so:
Check:
Page 188
Example 5.2 Using the same data as in Example 5.1 and assuming that the discharge is 630.5 m 3/s but the afflux is unknown, determine its value when the piers have (a) semicircular noses and tails, and (b) square noses and tails. From Example 5.1, V4=2.41 m/s and Y4 =2.44 m. Thus F 4=V 4/(gY4)1/2=2.41/(9.812.44) 1/2=0.493 and so . M=0.865 so a=(1 M)=0.135 (or alternatively, a =62.40/107= 0.135). (a) From Table 5.2 piers with round noses and tails have K=0.90. Assuming subcritical flow: (5.11)
The same answer can be obtained from Fig. 5.4. The caption to the diagram relates to part (a) of this example. (Note that in Example 5.1 the initial value of was 0.090mdifferent equations yield different answers.) (b) For piers with square noses and tails Table 5.2 shows K=1.25, so equation 5.11 becomes
Similarly using the K=1.25 line in Fig. 5.4 with and x=0.04 gives (Note the substantially increased afflux compared with the semicircular nose and tail.)
References
dAubuisson de Voisins, J.F. (1840) Trait dhydraulique (Treatise on Hydraulics), 2nd edn, Piois, Levraut et Cie, Paris. Henderson, F.M. (1966) Open Channel Flow, Macmillan, New York. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) (1990) HEC-2 Water Surface Profile Users Manual, US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA. Nagler, F.A. (1918) Obstruction of bridge piers to the flow of water. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 82, 334395. Yarnell, D.L. (1934a) Bridge piers as channel obstructions. Technical Bulletin no. 442, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC. Yarnell, D.L. (1934b) Pile trestles as channel obstructions. Technical Bulletin no. 429, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.