This article was downloaded by: [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] On: 15 October 2013, At: 15:06 Publisher:

Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hydraulic Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions

J.P. Martin-Vide & J.M. Prio
a a a

Technical University of Catalonia , Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034, Barcelona, Spain Published online: 02 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: J.P. Martin-Vide & J.M. Prio (2005) Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 43:5, 515-521, DOI: 10.1080/00221680509500149 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221680509500149

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

IAHR

Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 43, No. 5 (2005), pp. 515-521 2005 International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research

'V- AIRH

Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions Remous de pont a voute dnoy et submerge
J.P. MARTIN-VIDE, Technical University of Catalonia, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain. Tel: +34 93 401 64 76; fax: +34 93 401 73 57; e-mail: videgrahi.upc.edu (author for correspondence) J.M. PRIO, Technical University of Catalonia, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain

Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 15:06 15 October 2013

ABSTRACT Experimental research on backwater effects in semicircular arch bridges is reported. Both pressurized and free-surface flows at the bridge were investigated. Flows on a mobile bed in clear-water conditions were compared to those with a rigid bed. Methodologies for backwater computation by Yarnell, the US Geological Survey, the US Department of Transportation and the HEC-RAS model were compared with the experimental data. A simple expression for the head loss coefficient as a function of the obstructed bridge area is derived. RSUM La recherche exprimentale sur des effets de remous avec des ponts a voute semi-circulaire est dcrite. Des coulements en charge et a surface libre au droit du pont ont t tudis. Des coulements sur un lit mobile en eau claire ont t compares a ceux sur un lit fixe. Des methodes de calcul de remous par Yarnell, Ie "US Geological Survey", Ie "US Department of Transportation" et Ie modle de HEC-RAS ont t compares aux donnes exprimentales. Une expression simple pour le coefficient de perte de charge en fonction du secteur obstru de pont en est dduite. Keywords: Backwater, bridge, afflux, arch, scour.

1 Introduction and objectives This research was motivated by the numerous examples of old bridges in Europe, dating back to Roman and medieval times, many of them being still in use at important river crossings. The objective was to provide data on their backwater effects. Since much has already been done on the subject of bridge backwater, a second objective was the assessment of different techniques for backwater computation with respect to a new set of laboratory data.

2 Description of experimental set-up The flume used for the experiments was horizontal, 6.0 m long, 1.5 m wide and 0.5 m high. A recess 0.5 m deep and 2.7 m long was located halfway across the flume. The bridge was placed in the recess, supported laterally by a mechanical device able to lift it and keep it at various elevations (Fig. 1). The recess was filled with loose material for mobile-bed tests or covered for rigid-bed tests. The complete bridge dimensions, inspired by European examples of ancient bridges, are presented in Fig. 1. The bridge vaults were cut from PVC pipes, which determined the arch diam eter, so that four equal sections, including one span and two half

piers each, fitted the flume width. The discharge was measured by means of a thin-plate V-notch weir. At the downstream end of the flume, the tailwater was controlled with a thin-plate weir. Table 1 shows the experimental program in terms of discharge (Q), tailwater depth (y), bed condition, and Froude number (Fr). The series A test served as a reference in the sense that the other series were "deviations" to higher y (series B), lower y (series C), lower Q and y (D), and finally a movable bed (E), for which a fairly uniform natural sand of d5a = 0.86 mm and standard deviation {d^/d^Y12 = 1.34 was used. This sand proved to be on the threshold of movement, so that there was no general scour but only contraction and local scour in the mobile-bed tests. The flow was always subcritical. The elevation of the bridge structure was reduced by 1 cm in each test of series A - D , from free surface flow at the beginning, involving only the bridge piers, to submerged flow at the end. In Fig. 2 the first and the last tests are represented. The ratio of pier widths to the channel width, called the obstruction ratio m, amounted to its minimum of 0.324 at the beginning. In the last test the elevation of the lowest arch point (abutment) was close to the flume bottom (s > 0, see Fig. 2). Pressurized flow means that both the upstream and downstream faces are submerged. Series E contained 11 tests at elevations 2 cm apart. Water surface elevations were measured with a point gauge of 0.1 mm

Revision received March 27, 2004/Open for discussion until August 31, 2006.

515

516

Martin-Vide and Pri

lifting support ifting support

'\--r--

S5

__

^_25
I I I I

^-55

UI

Dimensions in e n

Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 15:06 15 October 2013

Figure 1 Bridge dimensions in the experiments. Table l Experimental program Series A B C D E Q (l/s) 124.3 124.3 124.3 70 124.3 v(cm) 25.2 31.5 19.8 21.5 25.2 Bed Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Mobile Fr(-) 0.209 0.149 0.300 0.149 0.209

to develop equilibrium scour, this duration was warranted for the comparison between tests. The final bed topography was also recorded.

Theoretical framework for backwater

First Test

The simplest theoretical approach to bridge backwater in subcritical flow is illustrated in Fig. 3. Important sections are: 1 flow acceleration, 2 and 3 right at the upstream and downstream bridge faces (both plane and vertical) and 4 tailwater with con ditions uninfluenced by the bridge structure. Sections 1 and 4 are chosen at distances equal to one span width (B) and four span widths, respectively, following the traditional 1 : 1 contrac tion and 4 : 1 expansion ratios. All methodologies to be reviewed use Bernoulli's equation to compute backwater elevation. For a Cross Section Front View

Last Test
y|

" " "

y

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
<-Q
Cross Section

Front View'

Figure 2 Sketch of the experimental program (see Table 1).

accuracy along the centerline of the second arch from the (looking downstream). The scour around the second pier the right was measured during the experiments of series 0.5 cm. Each scour test lasted 4 h. Although this was too

right from E to short

Side View Figure 3 Control volume and notation for the theoretical framework.

Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions 517 horizontal bottom it can be written as < V v\ vf V1 yi+ai~= yi + ,-^- + Ai_,+ X-, (1) A HM 2g 2g 2g where i 2, 3, 4 is the number of the cross-section down stream. AH denotes the friction loss and the local head loss across the bridge is expressed as a coefficient X times a kinetic energy head (V2/2g), which includes the corresponding Coriolis coefficient a. The backwater elevation difference is defined as Ay = y\ y4, i.e. the difference with and without the pres ence of the bridge, since the tailwater depth is assumed to hold everywhere if there is no bridge (dotted line, Fig. 3). For mobilebed tests with bed scour, the backwater is the difference in the free-surface elevations. The empirical equation of Yarnell (1934) can be viewed as if all terms in Eq. (1), except for the backwater Ay and the local head loss, were dropped and aggregated in the empirical coefficient X. The local head loss is expressed with V = V4.lt then reads
2
2

throughout the computation either in free-surface (called "low flow") or pressurized flow ("high flow").

4 Experimental results The backwater, measured as the free-surface elevation difference 25 cm upstream of the bridge face and 100 cm downstream of it, is plotted in Fig. 4 against the bridge elevation 5. The backwa ter increases as the bridge is lowered except for the mobile bed tests (E). These are based on the final profile after scour, resulting in practically no backwater increase. For each series, free flows are shown to the left of a vertical line and submerged flows to the right. These lines are drawn through the first test in pres surized flow in each series. The vertical lines fall apart because the submergence of the bridge is very sensitive to the tailwater condition. A dimensionless backwater (y\ yA)l(v\/2g) is plotted against the obstruction ratio m in Fig. 5. The ratio m is now the bridge face area over the channel area, both computed with the downstream free-surface elevation (and its rigid bed elevation in mobile-bed tests). The graph relating m and bridge eleva tion s is added. As expected, the experimental data collapse into a narrower band than in Fig. 4, except for the mobile bed tests. The borders between the free-surface and pressurized flows come closer.

Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 15:06 15 October 2013

v\llg 0.6 (m 15m4) (2) = 2k\k+ 10 v%/2g \ y4 The right-hand side of Eq. (2) depends on the pier shape expressed with coefficient k, the velocity and flow depth at section 4 and the obstruction ratio (m) defined as the ratio of pier width to channel width. A value k 1.25 was found for piers with a square nose geometry and tail features as in the present experiments. The approaches of Kindsvater et al. (1953), Kindsvater and Carter (1955), and Tracy and Carter (1955) consist in applying Eq. (1) up to section 3 and using V = V 3 in the local head loss term. A discharge coefficient c is worked out from Eq. (1) to yield X
Av

5 Comparison between experiments and predictions Figure 6 shows the comparison with Yarnell's equation. The lefthand side in Eq. (2) is divided by the shape and flow factors, leaving the function of m on the right-hand side. In this way, the equation for all tests is a single plot. The experimental data are handled similarly, by using the measurements at sections 1 and 4. The change from free-surface to pressurized flows is indicated by a vertical band.

A 3 y 2g (y, - y3 - AHx_3 + ax vj/2g)

(3)

where c = [a3 + X]~1/2. Because 03 > 1, and X is positive, c < 1. The authors plotted c versus the degree of obstruction m. In the approach by Bradley (1978), Eq. (1) is applied up to section 4. However, the local head loss is computed with the velocity in section 2 as if y2 was equal to V4. Although not true, this assumption avoids the computation of y2. The expressions for the backwater and the local head loss coefficient are Ay = X X^Avai

2g
0LXA\

2g 1
1

(4)
A

A E

C and D

vz2/2g v-4 where, by comparison with Eq. (1), friction losses are neglected and C 4 = a j . Charts were provided with values of X/a2 as a function of the degree of obstruction m. The HEC-RAS model (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1997) uses Eq. (1) between sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, with the local head loss at every step of the calculation expressed as
,,2 vv2 -,-+] (5) 2g 2g where i 1, 2, 3. The values recommended for X are 0.3 for contraction and 0.5 for expansion, even though values of 0.6 and 0.8 are allowed for abrupt transitions. This equation is used

o B A C x D ^ E

V2 X = X 2g

Cti

8 9 v 25 21
0

13 s [cm]

Figure 4 Experimental results of backwater versus abutment elevation.

518

Ma rtin - Vide andPri ^

E 10 0.6 0.58 - 0.4Trend /
X

O)

C 6-

10

15

20

s [cr A

<

> 5!

tvrt

>

4-

FREE SURFACE FLOW

A

PRESSURIZ ED FLOW
X
A / O

^
X

o B A C x D

/ O X

2A

* /
Scour

-*-E

>
W%p x

*
0.4 0.5 0.6

Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 15:06 15 October 2013

n0.3

** O

Figure 5 Dimensionless experimental data. On the left-hand corner ms functions.

Yarnell (1934) considered cylindrical bridge piers, with a max imum obstruction ratio m = 0.50. Figure 6 supports an extension to higher values of m, to arch bridges and to submerged flow. However, Yarnell's equation overpredicts the results, specially for low m values. The reason may be the fact that the points where Eq. (2) should be applied are not clear in the original work (1934). The difference in the pier length to width ratio (4 in Yarnell, 3 in present work) is considered minor. Finally, Yarnell did not consider any bed scour, resulting in a larger discrepancy for the mobile-bed (E) than for the other tests. The comparison with the second approach is shown in Fig. 7. Two cm curves for ratios of bridge length over relative spans L/b equal to 1.0 and 1.5 (close to L jb 1.44 in the experiments),

are plotted (Matthai, 1967). These curves for vertical embank ment and abutment, Fr = 0.5 and no bridge submergence are corrected for the actual Fr (in A series) and for both Fr and bridge submergence by two additional curves. The last correction makes the curve bend downwards at the onset of pressurized flow within the vertical band. The experimental data are introduced in Eq. (3), using the measurements at sections 1 and 3, the friction losses ( A # ! _ 3 ) computed following Chow (1959) and a = 1.082. This Coriolis coefficient was computed from velocity measurements taken with a current meter 2.0 m upstream of the bridge. This methodology overpredicts the discharge coefficient c, i.e. the local head loss coefficient X is underestimated, and so is the total backwater. The original curves were drawn to fit experimental c values within the range 0.70-0.95, very close to the range here, but for greater obstructions. The correction for bridge submergence fails to fit the experimental data of the present work. The trend of the data does not depart from the curve for unsubmerged conditions. Hamill (1999) suggested this submergence factor to be one when both bridge faces are sub merged. The flow area A3 can include the scoured area in the mobile-bed tests. If not, the values of c for the E series turn out to be much larger than 1, which is absurd ("E" points in Fig. 7). On the contrary, with the scoured area ("E modi fied") the experimental results do not behave different from the other tests. Figure 8 compares the data with Bradley's (1978) approach. His Xm curve is for wingwall abutments at 90 to the bridge span. Both a 2 and a\ are set to 1. Measurements at sections 1 and 4 are used in Eq. (4). A one-quarter section of the bridge is considered so that no pier effects are taken into account. This Xm curve covers some field data, giving higher X than in a pre vious curve based mainly on laboratory data. The field bridges

Yarnell (1934) 4.5 o 3.5A B

A C x x
t

D E

x .'

E in + E
il

2.5FREE SURFACE 1.5FLOW PRESSURIZED-' FLOW .-'?

.*

>>

X A

QA

0.5X

* X

O
* X
X

*?o* * x o x
-0.50.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

m[-]

Figure 6 Comparison between experimental results and Yarnell's equation (Yarnell, 1934).

Figure 7 Comparison between experimental results and Kindsvater etal. (1953).

Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions

2.0 o A x x A B C D E Bradley Graph

519

1.5

for pressurized flow. This equation should not be extrapolated to severe contractions (m -* 1) or very gentle contractions (m 0). Applying the analysis of Naudascher and Medlarz (1983) for pressurized flow to the arch bridge geometry, a good approximation is X = mC^, where d is the drag coefficient of the bridge. Combining the two expressions for X, it follows that C d = 2.30 - 0.345/m.

1.0
< A " O X
a

FREE '* SURFACE j X

A O C X

Discussion of the effect of scour on backwater

x 0.5

xo a A o o

Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 15:06 15 October 2013

PRESSURIZED FLOW 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

The backwater measured in mobile bed was almost constant, around 0.6-0.7 cm, irrespective of bridge elevation (Fig. 4). Figure 9(a) shows a direct comparison between rigid-bed (A)
x 0

\
X

0.7 1-m [-]

0.8

Figure 8 Comparison between experimental results and Bradley (1978).

had width to depth ratios up to 700 and rough vegetated floodplains, whereas this ratio is close to 1 here. By adding the scoured area to the flow area A2 in Eq. (4), the points for the E series fall far from the rest and close to the curve. Scour probably developed in the prototype bridges used to derive the graph in Fig. 8. Pressurized flow is treated separately by Bradley (1978) by neglecting upstream velocity head and friction losses in Eq. (3). A constant value c = 0.80 was proposed. Figure 7 shows that this value does not keep track with the decreasing trend of c as m increases. For pressurized flow, Naudascher and Medlarz (1983) showed that the coefficient X should be proportional to the obstruction ratio m. Assuming X = m, then c = X/s/m + a. This is plotted in Fig. 7 with a = 1.082 to result in a reasonable fit with the new data.

6 Comparison between experiments and HEC-RAS By letting X vary in Eq. (5) the experimental and numerical backwaters Av are compared based on the least-square best-fit for A.. Because the experiments involved different obstructions, X is assumed to depend on the ratio m. This is justified by the results in Fig. 5 and also is a common feature in the previ ous methods. Biery and Delleur (1962) found that the actual arch geometry did not influence the backwater significantly, pro vided that m is the same. Values of X = 0.1 and 0.3, for gentle contraction and expansion, give a reasonable agreement for the pier case (m = 0.324). Then, the function X(m) chosen for best-fit is 0.1C for contraction and 0.3C for expansion, where C = 1 + k(m 0.324) and k = 5.75 is the best-fit constant for all rigid-bed experiments. Therefore, the total local head loss coefficient (i.e. the sum of the contraction and expansion) is X = 2.30 m 0.345, for 0.324 < m < 0.65, i.e. from 0.40 for the pier case up to 1.15 (b)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

m[-]

Figure 9 Experimental results for series A and E (up), (down): plot of scour versus obstruction.

520
10

Martin-Vide and Pri 2. Scour reduces the backwater for high obstruction ratios. The scour adds as much flow area as is lost due to the bridge itself. However, due to the shape of the scour hole, there is an almost constant backwater throughout the tests, irrespective of m. This conclusion refers to clear-water scour only. 3. Since most actual bridges are neither in rigid bed nor under long-duration clear-water flow, it is difficult to extend the results to prototypes. The method by Bradley (1978), based on live-bed field data, results in much larger backwater than our experiments, but the agreement improves for clear-water mobile-bed tests. His scour factor is not supported by this research. Yarnell's equation, based on laboratory data, gives a larger backwater too but it traces well the trend of backwater in pressurized flow. The method of the US Geological Survey gives a lower backwater, is suitable for both free-surface and pressure flow and the effect of the scour can be included successfully. His submergence factor is not supported by this research.

ra

> CD
"O

a>

CO

=13 cm s=15 cm < s=19 cm i s=23 cm s=21 cm o s=25 cm

Distance [cm] Figure 10 Final bed profiles in the mobile bed experiments.

Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 15:06 15 October 2013

and mobile-bed (E) tests for the same hydraulic conditions. For m > 0.40 the backwater in the rigid-bed tests exceeded that of the mobile bed. This is the expected effect because scour reduces the velocity difference between the approaching flow and the flow under the bridge. Surprisingly enough, the opposite occurs when m < 0.40. A scoured volume is computed by using the scour depths at four points. It is then divided by the flow volume (computed downstream) to give a dimensionless scour as the ordinate of Fig. 9(b), where it is plotted versus m. A 1:1 slope line is added. It can be seen that scour increases quite linearly with m. In other words, after 4 h the flow has scoured roughly as much volume as volume lost by the flow due to the bridge. Therefore, the mean flow velocity should remain nearly constant through the bridge and the head loss should be produced by the change in the shape of the flow area only, which narrows and deepens. The fact that the head loss is almost constant, irrespective of the bridge elevation, is thought to be caused mainly by this "shape resistance". The bed profiles through the scoured area are similar in shape, as shown in Fig. 10. Bradley (1978) recommended the use of a factor to decrease the backwater when scour is present. This factor is in the range 0.50-0.75 for the present scoured area over flow area. Our results do not support this correction because the decrease showed in Fig. 9(a) is much higher for large m. In addition, the agreement found between the Bradley curve and the mobile-bed experiments (Fig. 8) would disappear if this correction were applied.

Notation = flow area bridge span (also B) = discharge coefficient in the approach by Kindsvater etal. = drag coefficient = v/(gy)1/2Froude number = gravitational acceleration = pier shape factor in Yarnell formula; constant in local head loss coefficient L bridge pier length m = obstruction ratio, i.e. obstructed area/channel area Q water discharge .y = bridge elevation (abutment elevation with respect to channel bottom) y = water depth; tailwater v mean velocity V = reference mean velocity a Coriolis velocity distribution coefficient A H = friction head loss A v = backwater elevation equal to y\ y4 X = local head loss coefficient A b c Ci Fr g k

References 8 Conclusions 1. The experiments support that the local head loss coefficient X of arch bridges depends mainly on the obstruction ratio m, defined as the obstructed area divided by the downstream flow area. The expression X 2.30 m 0.345 (0.324 < m < 0.65) for the sum of contraction and expansion losses provides good results when applying HEC-RAS, both for free and submerged flow. This conclusion refers to rigid-bed conditions only. If a discharge coefficient c for pressurized flow is preferred, the experiments support c 1/\fmCd + a where C<\ is the drag coefficient. 1. BlERY, P.F. and DELLEUR, J.W. (1962). "Hydraulics of Sin gle Span Arch Bridge Constrictions". J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE 88(2), 75-108. 2. BRADLEY, J.N. (1978). Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways, 2nd edn revised. US Department of Transport, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 3. CHOW, V.T. (1959). Open-channel Hydraulics. Mc-Graw Hill Book Co., New York.
4. KINDSVATER, C.E. and CARTER, R.W. (1955). "Tranquil

Flow through Open-channel Constrictions". Trans. ASCE 120,955-980.

Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions 521

5. KINDSVATER, C.E., CARTER, R.W. and TRACY, H.J.

(1953). Computation of Peak Discharge at Contractions. US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Circular 284, Washington, DC. 6. HAMILL, L. (1999). Bridge Hydraulics. E & FN Spon, London. 7. MATTHAI, H.F. (1967). Measurement of Peak Discharge at Width Contractions by Indirect Methods. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the US Geological Survey, Chapter A4, Washington, DC. 8. NAUDASCHER, E. and MEDLARZ, H.J. (1983). "Hydrodynamic Loading and Backwater Effect of Partially Submerged Bridges". J. Hydraul. Res. 21(3), 213-232.

H.J. and CARTER, R.W. (1955). "Backwater Effects of Open-channel Constrictions". Trans. ASCE 120, 993-1006. 10. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (1997). HEC-RAS. River Analysis System. Hydrologie Engineering Centre, Davis, CA. 11. YARNELL, D.L. (1934). Bridge Piers as Channel Obstruc tions. Technical Bulletin No. 442. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
TRACY,

9.

Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 15:06 15 October 2013