SWMM-USERS Digest - 22 Dec 2009 to 23 Dec 2009 (#2009-141)

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Automatic digest processor

unread,

Dec 24, 2009, 12:00:02 AM12/24/09

to Recipients of SWMM-USERS digests

There is one message totalling 185 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. Multiple Box Culvert Inlet Outlet losses

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:57:46 +1000
From: George Wolvaardt <George.W...@KBR.COM>
Subject: Re: Multiple Box Culvert Inlet Outlet losses

I would go along with Neil's approach. Alternatively one could consider
a storage unit as inlet structure. One has the option of defining as
many orifices at as many inverts as you like. This will also give some
indication of flood routing as well as the afflux. In both instances the
process requires a fair amount of experience and a number of options
need to be assessed in order to be comfortable with the ultimate design.

Regards

George Wolvaardt

Principal Civil Engineer
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd
Level 13, 199 Grey Street, South Bank
Phone: (07) 3721 6337

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Kuhan Kuhanesan
Sent: Wednesday, 23 December 2009 10:47 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] Multiple Box Culvert Inlet Outlet losses

Hi,

Thanks for your suggestions. But, the problem is little more complicated
with the multi-cell box culvert, as the cells have varying invert
elevations, and also utilise precast link slabs. As such the vertical
walls also vary in thicknesses.

The invert of the two centre barrels 3300W x 2400H match the invert of
the creek and the other three barrels 3300W x 1800H are elevated 600mm
above the creek invert. The wing walls are located at the outer barrels.

In SWMM modelling, the five barrels are divided into two sets of box
culverts with standard inlet and outlet energy loss coefficients of 0.5
and 1.0 respectively.

What is the energy loss coefficient for the lower barrels and higher
barrels? We would prefer not to use 0.5 and 1.0 for all barrels, as the
flow patterns differ for each barrel. I think by using 0.5 and 1.0 for
all barrels, we may be over-estimating upstream afflux.

Comments are welcome.

Kuhan Kuhanesan
Drainage Engineer

P 07 3280 9395
F 07 3280 9111
E Kuhan.K...@d2g.com.au

Chalk Street, Redbank Q 4301
PO BOX 505, Booval Business Centre Q 4304 Safe Work, Safe Travel, Safely
Home lThink before you print, embrace the green office l
************************************************************************
*****************
WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended
to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed
to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy
this e-mail without appropriate authority.

If this e-mail was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or e-mail me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this e-mail and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any
legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this e-mail is not
waived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this e-mail does not contain
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).

Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, Queensland
Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations
utilising the same infrastructure.
************************************************************************
*****************

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Bill James
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 1:54 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] Multiple Box Culvert Inlet Outlet losses

See also:
"Minor Loss Coefficients for Storm Drain Modeling with SWMM" at

http://www.computationalhydraulics.com/Publications/Papers/PapersForPurc
hase
Info.asp?paperid=R225-23&index=0&ret=filter=search%2Bq=coefficients&reth
int=
search

-Bill James

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Heineman, Mitchell
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:55 PM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] Multiple Box Culvert Inlet Outlet losses

Kuhan - I typically use US Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering
Circular No. 22, URBAN DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL to obtain values of this
sort. Table 7-5b. Coefficients for Culverts; Outlet Control, Full or
Partly Full should have what you're looking for.

This, various other helpful documents, on-line calculators, etc for SWMM
modeling are referenced at www.dynsystem.com/netstorm/cdmuswmm.htm

Mitch Heineman, P.E., D. WRE, BCEE
Associate | Collector Systems and Surface Water Subdiscipline Leader CDM
50 Hampshire Street Cambridge MA 02139

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Kuhan Kuhanesan
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:27 PM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: [SWMM-USERS] Multiple Box Culvert Inlet Outlet losses

Hi,

In SWMM, I am modelling a culvert crossing a small creek consisting of
five large box culverts (RCBCs) each 3.3m wide and 1.8m depth. What
are the best values for the inlet and outlet loss factors to be used to
model these multiple box culverts? Any references please?

Thanks

Regards

Kuhan Kuhanesan
Drainage Engineer

**********************************************************
* To sign off, email to: list...@listserv.uoguelph.ca *
* In the body of the message type: signoff swmm-users *
**********************************************************
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

------------------------------

End of SWMM-USERS Digest - 22 Dec 2009 to 23 Dec 2009 (#2009-141)
*****************************************************************

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages