Monday, February 27, 2012

Coefficients of Contraction/Expansion at Bridges.

Written by Chris Goodell, P.E., D. WRE | WEST Consultants
Copyright © RASModel.com. 2012. All rights reserved.

In HEC-RAS, it is a well known modeling technique to increase the coefficients of contraction and expansion in the vicinity of a bridge for steady flow modeling. 
This is done to capture the energy loss resulting from increased flow contraction approaching the bridge, and increased flow expansion when leaving the bridge.  This energy loss is not accounted for in the friction loss, so HEC has added in the ability to account for it using the contraction and expansion coefficients, multiplied by the difference in velocity head between two cross sections.  Typically, RAS modelers will apply the higher coefficients (0.3 for contraction, 0.5 for expansion) at Cross Sections 4, 3, and 2 of the traditional cross section layout for bridges (see figure at the bottom of this post).  Cross Section number 1 (the most downstream of the 4-cross section layout) is typically left at the default values of 0.1 and 0.3, respectively.  imageA common question is “why is Cross Section #1 left with the default values?”
The coefficients of contraction and expansion are applied to the reach from the cross section at which they are defined to the next cross section downstream.  In the energy equation,
clip_image002, he represents the head loss from one cross section to the next.  The equation for head loss, he, is:
clip_image004
Where C is the coefficient of contraction or expansion.  Subscripts 1 and 2 represent the two neighboring cross sections.  So here you can see clearly that the coefficient of contraction or expansion is applied over a reach, defined by L, which is the length between Cross Sections 1 and 2.
So, for bridge modeling, the reach from Cross Section 4 to 3 defines the zone of contraction as flow approaches the bridge.  The higher coefficients are applied to Cross Section 4 in this case.
The reach from Cross Section 3 to 2 defines the fully contracted zone though the bridge.  You could make a case that since the flow is fully contracted in this zone, that the typical coefficients should be used (0.1 and 0.3).  However, since there is usually a higher amount of turbulence in this zone, traditionally everyone keeps the higher coefficients (0.3 and 0.5).  The higher coefficients are applied to Cross Section 3 in this case.
The reach from Cross Section 2 to 1 defines the expansion zone downstream of the bride.  The higher coefficients are applied to cross section 2 in this case.
At Cross Section 1 and further on downstream, the flow is considered fully expanded, so Cross Section 1 maintains the typical coefficients (0.1 and 0.3). 
clip_image002[4]

16 comments:

  1. I have a bridge, and there is a new bridge desigfned some 35 m from the actual. The piles of the new bridge are not aligned with the existing ones. I´m doing a sensibility of the contraction/expansion coeficients. Is there any publication of suggested values for coeficients in this case? One question besides the modeling. Is there a criteria for the piers protection in the case? What is the protection of the upstream pile overlap part of the protection of the downstreampile? the CAD file show the distribution of the piles and the bridges

    ReplyDelete
  2. In your case, I would probably use the higher values suggested for bridges in the HEC-RAS manual. Not sure of any publications specifically on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have assigned contraction & expansion coefficients of 0.3 and 0.5, respectively, at sections 2, 3, and 4; however, check-ras continues to give me the following error code:

    "Contraction and expansion loss coefficients are 0.3 and 0.5, respectively. However, this cross section is not at a hydraulic structure."

    Anyone else have this issue?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Never have, but it doesn't suprise me. If I recall, FEMA will accept a reasonable justification for ignoring a CheckRAS error code. Sounds like this is a good candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How about culvert crossing? Will it be considered abrupt change with culvert crossing in comparison to bridge crossing? Will a higher loss coefficients 0.6 and 0.8 be applied to culvert crossing?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes. In fact the RAS manual suggests those higher contraction and expansion losses at culverts vs bridges.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does Hec-Ras apply default contraction and expansion losses at internal bridge cross sections? I ask because I'm modeling a bridge that completely spans a 100-yr floodplain (No contraction expansion), yet I still get some inconsistencies between XC 3-upstream inside and downstream inside-XC 2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The defaults everywhere in HEC-RAS is 0.1 and 0.3. If you have a bridge, generally you'll increase the coefficients at cross sections 2, 3, and 4 (and all intermediate cross sections in between) to 0.3 and 0.5. If you have a culvert with a significant constriction, go to 0.5 and 0.7. The inconsistencies you are seeing may be a result of ineffective flow trigger placement (both laterally and in elevation)and/or bank station placement. There may be some small differences, but the flow distribution inside the structure upstream and downstream should be similar.

      Delete
  8. Would it be necessary to adjust these coefficients for greenway bridges low in the floodplain that are typically flooded in a 100-year storm event? I've not seen anything done different and thought the default coefficients would be acceptable for a bridge located bank-to-bank that is over topped or completely submerged during the 100-year storm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Can hecras model handle an open channel and pipe in the same cross section. We have a storm pipe running parallel with river and was used to divert the certain amount of flow

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unfortunately no it cannot. But you could run a parallel reach with "lids" to handle that scenario. But keep in mind that RAS is not built for lins distance pressure flow.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Would it be recommended to leave the default contr/exp coefficients (0.1/0.3) for a flyover bridge with no abutments in the floodplain, but only piers? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would probably be okay as long as the piers are not too big relative to the bridge opening. However, why not bump them up to the standard for bridges-it will be more conservative? You can always try both (actually you should) to see how sensitive the results are to the contraction and expansion coefficients.

      Delete
  12. I have a floodplain model between two bridges. My cross sections 1,2,3, and 4 for bridge 1 justify using the recommended 0.3 and 0.5 expansion and contraction coefficients. However, for Bridge 2 we it is our assumption that section 4 is too far upstream to justify using a 0.3 contraction coefficient as the ratio between the effective flow and the total floodplain width is 0.4. We are leaning towards using the default contraction coefficient of 0.1 in this case. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a well-reasoned thought-out justification for using 0.1. Hard to argue with that.

      Delete