Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorD. A. Lyn
dc.contributor.authorS. Dey
dc.contributor.authorS. Saksena
dc.contributor.authorV. M. Merwade
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-27T22:50:23Z
dc.date.available2024-04-27T22:50:23Z
dc.date.issued2024/03/01
dc.identifier.other10.1061-JHEND8.HYENG-13650.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4297630
dc.description.abstractA bridge versus culvert hydraulics approach may be taken to estimate the headwater of larger-span (or equivalently short) culvert-like structures, and design manuals often argue that the former should be technically preferred. A laboratory study was undertaken to investigate short and long box culverts, including roughness effects, with special attention paid to short-structure cases with entirely open-channel flow. The data were analyzed using discharge coefficients and approximate analytical models. Simulations were conducted with the HEC-RAS bridge model (with mainly default or recommended parameter values and options) and HY-8 to assess the predictive performance and benefits, if any, of a bridge versus culvert hydraulics approach. Observations support the presence of shortness and roughness effects, but do not support any significant advantage of a bridge versus culvert hydraulics approach. On the contrary, the performance of HY-8 was found to be superior to that of the HEC-RAS bridge model for rough-bed cases, perhaps fortuitously, due to its often conservative choice of parameter values.
dc.publisherASCE
dc.titleCulvert versus Bridge Hydraulics for Larger-Span or Short Culverts
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.journal.volume150
dc.journal.issue2
dc.journal.titleJournal of Hydraulic Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-13650
dc.journal.fristpage04024002-1
dc.journal.lastpage04024002-14
dc.page14
dc.treeJournal of Hydraulic Engineering:;2024:;Volume ( 150 ):;issue: 002
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record