Bridges, 5th Edition Overview of HDS 7. View and Download SANYO HEC-DR5000 service manual online. Chair Type Massager. HEC-DR5000 Massager pdf manual download. Hec-22 Manual Read/Download The intent of the VTrans Hydraulics Manual is to identify approaches to the analysis of road and FHWA's HEC-22, “Urban Drainage Design Manual,”. Breaking the HEC-RAS Code: A User's Guide to Automating HEC-RAS Mr. Christopher R. Goodell, Gary Brunner on Amazon.com.FREE. shipping on qualifying offers. One of the most powerful, yet relatively unknown features available in HEC-RAS is the HECRASController.
| HEC-RAS |
What is HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS provides a rich Graphical User Interface (GUI) where it has various components like hydraulic analysis components, data storage, management, graphics and reporting components.
HEC-RAS supports one-dimensional analysis of river flow; that means if the cross-sectional shape changes, if bends are there or other two or three dimensional aspects are there, their hydraulic effects would not be included in the modeling and analysis.
For What Purpose HEC-RAS is Used
With the help of HEC-RAS you can do;
- Steady water surface profile calculations
- Un-steady water surface profile calculation
- Sediment transport computations
- Water quality analysis
- Bed computations
- Water temperature modeling
- Water quality analysis
- Hydraulic design features are also there; after you have developed the basic water surface profiles are computed
Download
You can download HEC-RAS by clicking the button below; or right click and then click Save Link As; after which give a certain destination; you are done;
Download HEC-RAS full free with User Manual
In this Package
Disclaimer
the trademark of respective owner, we here on iamcivilengineer doesn’t host the
software we are just sharing here the links to download;
and are just for sharing it for student and education purpose; if you have any
problem about this link or software you can contact us via contact us page or
email at [email protected]
Your Feedback
sharing; stay tuned for the remaining updates about this topic; and don’t
forget to share it to your friend and buddies on facebook, twitter and gplus.
Abstract
The performance of two popular hydraulic models (HEC-RAS and WSPG) for modeling hydraulic jump in an open channel is investigated. The numerical solutions are compared with a new experimental data set obtained for varying channel bottom slopes and flow rates. Both the models satisfactorily predict the flow depths and location of the jump. The end results indicate that the numerical models output is sensitive to the value of chosen roughness coefficient. For this application, WSPG model is easier to implement with few input variables.
Background
Modeling one dimensional rapidly varying flow in open channels has drawn the attention of many researchers. Referred to as hydraulic jump, it serves as a transition region between supercritical and sub-critical flows. Numerical formulations used for solving the one dimensional unsteady flow equations are considered satisfactory if they can capture the jump location and the flow depths. While initial efforts for solving the flow equations used standard explicit and implicit finite difference (Fennema and Chaudhry 1986) and finite element (Katapodes and Strelkoff 1988) formulations, the reliability in using high resolution numerical schemes was first detailed in the work of Shu and Osher (1988). The primary advantage in using high resolution schemes lies in their ability to generate a numerical solution that is devoid of any oscillations, which is a characteristic feature of second and higher order accurate finite difference schemes. Most of the published works (Birman and Falcovitz 2007; Ying et al. 2004; Venutelli 2004) over the last few years have highlighted the application of a variant of high resolution schemes. In this work, we take two popular hydraulic models and test their ability for modeling hydraulic jump over a variable bottom slope channel.
Given the apparent validity of Moore’s Law regarding the doubling of computer capabilities every 18 months (for example, refer to various references including the web video by Phil Roe entitled “Colorful Fluid Dynamics: Behind The Scenes”, among others), the application of computational engineering mathematics to fluid and flow energy transport problems has become commonplace. Additionally, computer software investments are increasingly focused towards pre- and post-processors that simplify computer program input efforts and enhance computational outcome visualization to the extent that the end-user’s analysis energy is increasingly focused towards enabling computer program input–output capability rather than validating and verifying computational accuracy in solving the governing flow equations. As a result, complex computer program capabilities may be applied towards computationally modeling boundary value problems that may be poorly posed in the numerical approximation sense. However, the computer program computational procedure may still produce modeling results that are embraced by the end-user as being accurately modeled. An approach to assessing the modeling accuracy is to apply multiple computer models to the target problem and compare the computational results. Differences in modeling outcomes between computational models may be a signal of various complications with the computational model itself or with the problem definition, among other issues. In this paper, we identify a computationally challenging flow problem that commonly occurs in flood control design and planning; namely, the problem of predicting the location and natures of a hydraulic jump. Other such computationally challenging benchmark level situations are of interest and will be the subject of future evaluations, including flow over a “hump” in a prismatic channel, and the flow regime involved with a junction of two flow paths. These benchmark situations, among others, may provide insight to computational model users as to the veracity of such computational modeling predictions. The validation of computational models stems ultimately from laboratory or measured flow situation data and, therefore, comparison of such modeling outcomes to measured data are of high value. In this paper, computational outcomes are compared with laboratory measured data for hydraulic jump scenarios.
Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) is a one dimensional model that was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center (2005). It has found wide application for analyzing flow in rivers and in flood plain studies. The Water Surface Pressure Gradient (WSPG) model was initially developed by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Subsequent enhancements has made it popular among the southern California flood control districts (Civil Design Corporation 2010).
Literature review points out to the popularity of HEC-RAS model for analyzing flow in rivers with hydraulic jump. While a couple of related papers are referenced here, more references can be found in these cited works. Lee et al. (2006) used HEC-RAS model to simulate flooding in a river basin across a Typhoon. The effect of bridge blockage and over bank flow on water stage variation was modeled. Horritt and Bates (2002) comparatively assessed the predictive power of flood inundation models produced with HEC-RAS, LISFLOOD-FP, and TELEMAC-2D to determine the models suitability for hazard assessment. By analyzing two flood events, on the same 60 km reach of the river Severn, in the UK, they found that both HEC-RAS and TELEMAC-2D, after suitable calibrations, give good predictions of the inundated area. Jowhar and Jihan (2012) used HEC-RAS to predict the water surface profile, determine the location of the hydraulic jump, and establish the head discharge relationship of the trapezoidal profile weir. Endreny et al. (2011) used HEC-RAS to predict the steady state hydraulic jumps across river steps.
In this work, the model results are compared to the experimental data that was generated at the Hydraulics laboratory in California State University, Fullerton. This data was obtained for a variety of steady state flow conditions. Readers who would like to have the complete data are encouraged to correspond with the first author.
Experimental setup
A review of the published experimental data did not yield any satisfactory complete data set that can be used for this investigation. The closest published data set was that of Gharangik and Chaudhry (1991) who conducted hydraulic jump experiments across a horizontal channel. Since both WSPG and HEC-RAS models require a specified channel bottom slope, we could not use their data. Our correspondence with few of our colleagues did not generate any new leads. Hence, experiments were conduced in the Hydraulics Laboratory at California State University, Fullerton. The schematic of the experimental facility is shown in Fig. 1.
Definition sketch of the experimental facility
The 15.2 m (50 ft) open channel has glass walls along the sides. The channel cross section is rectangular with a width of 0.46 m. The channel bottom slope can be adjusted by raising the channel at the upstream end. The water circulates in the test facility and the discharge can be varied by changing the pump speed. The tests were conducted for three bottom slopes, across a range of discharge values. The channel bottom roughness varied from 0.007 to 0.011. Table 1 lists the experimental data for all the test runs. For each run, flow measurements were taken after steady state flow conditions have been established.
Table 1
| Data set | Bed slope | Y (m) at X = 0 | Y (m) at X = 15.2 m | Q (m3/s) | Y1 (m) | Y2 (m) | F1 | F2 | X1 (m) | X2 (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.047 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 1.59 | 0.7 | 7.62 | 7.93 |
| 2 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.054 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 1.74 | 0.68 | 9.75 | 10.2 |
| 3 | 0.012 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.036 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 3.37 | 0.66 | 6.71 | 6.86 |
| 4 | 0.012 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.045 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 2.14 | 0.54 | 8.84 | 9.14 |
| 5 | 0.012 | 0.08 | 0.23 | 0.051 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 2.03 | 0.76 | 10.06 | 10.21 |
| 6 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.034 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 2.76 | 0.6 | 7.8 | 8.05 |
| 7 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.040 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 2.05 | 0.53 | 9.32 | 9.51 |
| 8 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.27 | 0.049 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 2.22 | 0.49 | 10.52 | 10.67 |
Y1 and Y2 are the flow depths before and after the hydraulic jump. F1 and F2 are the respective Froude numbers. X1 and X2 are the distances from upstream corresponding to Y1 and Y2
Model theory
The HEC-RAS model solves the one dimensional unsteady flow equations. These equations, in conservation form, can be written as (USACE 2005)
Click on Your Model Number from the list belowto view the manual for your machine!. Manuals can be saved and/or printedAdobe Acrobat Reader or a similar PDF reader is required to view and/or print these manuals. Clarke 2500dc floor machine user manual 5891. If your machine is not listed below please to assist youin obtaining part numbers. Manuals may take several minutes to download.
where Φ=KcKc+Kf; K=A5/3nP2/3; Sfc=Φ2Q2nc2Rc4/3Ac2; Sff=(1-Φ)2Q2nf2Rf4/3Af2.
Subscripts c and f indicate the channel and floodplain, Q is the flow rate, Xc and Xf are the distances along the channel and floodplain, Ac and Af are the flow areas in channel and flood plain, Rc and Rf are the hydraulic radius for the channel and floodplain, P is the wetted perimeter, Φ is the flow partitioning factor between the channel and floodplain and n is the Manning’s roughness coefficient. The model solves the above equations using a four-point implicit scheme. The model version 3.1.3 was used in this work.
The WSPG model solves the Bernoulli energy equation between any two sections, using the standard step method (Civil Design Corporation 2010). The program computes uniform and non-uniform steady flow water surface profiles. As part of the solution, it can automatically identify any hydraulic jump in the channel reach. The model version 12.99 was used in this work.
Results
Table 1 lists the required flow data for the simulations. Column 2 is the bed slope of the channel. The maximum bed slope that was possible for this experimental setup was 0.02. Columns 3 and 4 are the flow depths at the upstream and downstream end of the channel. The measurements were taken after the flow reached a steady state condition. Column 5 is the flow rate. Columns 6 and 7 are the flow depths in the vicinity of the hydraulic jump. Even though, the flow profile had some fluctuations, they were minimal. However, more measurements were taken in this vicinity, to capture these small variations. Columns 8 and 9 are the Froude numbers Manual download free.
References
- Birman A, Falcovitz J. Application of the GRP scheme to open channel flow equations. J Comput Phys. 2007;222(1):131–154. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.07.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Civil Design Corporation (2010) Water surface pressure gradient users manual, version 14.05. http://www.wspg.com/demos/wspgwmanual.pdf, http://www.civildesign.com. Accessed 20 June 2015
- Endreny T, Lautz L, Siegel D. Hyporheic flow path response to hydraulic jumps at river steps: hydrostatic model simulations. Water Resour Res. 2011;47:W02518.[Google Scholar]
- Fennema RJ, Chaudhry MH. Explicit numerical schemes for unsteady free surface flows with shocks. Water Resour Res. 1986;22:1923–1930. doi: 10.1029/WR022i013p01923. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Gharangik AM, Chaudhry MH. Numerical simulation of hydraulic jump. J Hydraul Eng. 1991;117(1195–1211):1991.[Google Scholar]
- Horritt MS, Bates PD. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation. J Hydrol. 2002;268(87–99):7.[Google Scholar]
- Jowhar RM, Jihan MQ. Comparison of 1D HEC-RAS with 2D ADH for flow over trapezoidal profile weirs. Casp J Appl Sci Res. 2012;1(6):1–12.[Google Scholar]
- Katapodes N, Strelkoff T. Computing two-dimensional dam break flood waves. J Hydraul Div. 1988;110:1269–1288.[Google Scholar]
- Lee KT, Ho YH, Chyan YJ. Bridge blockage and overbank simulations using HEC-RAS in the Keelung river during the 2001 Nari typhoon. J Hydraul Eng. 2006;132(3):319–323. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:3(319). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Shu CW, Osher S. Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock capturing schemes. J Comput Phys. 1988;77:439–471. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(88)90177-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2005) HEC-RAS river analysis system. User’s manual, version 3.1.3, May. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis. http://www.wrc-hec.usace.army.mil
- Venutelli M. Time-stepping Pade–Petrov–Galerkin models for hydraulic jump simulation. Math Comput Simul. 2004;66(6):585–604. doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2004.05.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Ying XY, Khan AA, Wang SSY. Upwind conservative scheme for the saint venant equations. J Hydraul Eng. 2004;130(10):977–987. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130:10(977). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ipod User's Manual