Hydraulic Loss Coefficients for Culverts (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 31-49
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 31... ...
31 5.1 Summary In general, multibarrel culvert design is based on the assumption that the head-discharge relationships for the individual culvert barrels in a multibarrel culvert assembly are independent of the other culvert barrels and that the multibarrel culvert headdischarge relationship may be developed by multiplying the single culvert discharge by the number of barrels (assuming all culvert barrels are the same size, geometry, and material type and are installed at the same elevation and slope)
|
From page 32... ...
32 not been adequately verified. Jones et al.
|
From page 33... ...
33 head equal to the total head. The head box pressure tap location is shown in Figure 5-2.
|
From page 34... ...
34 The barrel inlet invert reference elevations were referenced on the piezometer as follows.
|
From page 35... ...
35 meter to determine the flow rate into the head box. Piezometers were used to determine Hw and culvert barrel flow depths (y)
|
From page 36... ...
36 sional drawings of some of the test configurations are shown in Figures 5-6 (A–D)
|
From page 37... ...
Figure 5-5(C)
|
From page 38... ...
38 Clayton, 1954; Schiller, 1956) have also reported that vortex activity played a role in the hydraulic efficiency of submerged inlet culvert hydraulics for ranges of Hw/D consistent with those evaluated in this study.
|
From page 39... ...
39 suggests that the geometry created by the presence of the capped barrels did not inhibit the single-barrel culvert flow performance. The "trend line" data represents the unsubmerged inlet control Form 2 (Equation 1-3)
|
From page 40... ...
40 Figure 5-6(C)
|
From page 42... ...
42 2D and 3D horizontal barrel spacings, reservoir and trapezoidal channel approach flow conditions, and a 0.5D depressed middle barrel culvert. The experimental, two-barrel, quasi-dimensionless data for the different test conditions are plotted in Figures 5-10 through 5-13.
|
From page 43... ...
43 Figure 5-11. Experimental data for two-barrel, 2D horizontal spacing tests with common invert elevations and a reservoir approach flow condition.
|
From page 44... ...
44 barrel culvert assemblies tested with the reservoir approach flow condition performed very similarly. The empirical coefficients, corresponding to Equations 1-3 and 1-4 (i.e., K, M, c, and Y)
|
From page 45... ...
45 single-barrel trend line for either the reservoir or trapezoidal channel approach flow condition for comparison. The barrels are identified as viewed from the upstream direction (i.e., left, middle, and right)
|
From page 46... ...
46 Figure 5-17. Experimental data for three-barrel, 3D horizontal spacing tests with common invert elevations and a reservoir approach flow condition.
|
From page 48... ...
48 to the outside barrels and the single-barrel trend line. The single-barrel trend line in Figure 5-21 underestimates the average individual-barrel trend line for the three-barrel configuration by approximately 4% at higher Hw/D values.
|
From page 49... ...
49 dition. The channelized approach flow associated with the upstream trapezoidal channel was more efficient than the reservoir approach flow condition, primarily due to a reduction in flow contraction entering the culvert barrel with the channelized approach flow.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.