Flow Structures Around Proposed Bridge Piers

[{“box”:0,”content”:”[user_role]

n

n

n

n

n

By

n

n

    n t

  1. n

      [foreach 286]n

      1. n

    n

    n

    Laxmi Narayana Pasupuleti

    n

    n

      n t

    1. n

    [/foreach]n

    n

    n

      [foreach 286] [if 1175 not_equal=””]n t

    1. Assistant Professor,Department of Civil Engineering, Aditya Engineering College,Andhra Pradesh,India

      2. n[/if 1175][/foreach]

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    Abstract

    nThe current study investigated the flow hydrodynamics around proposed bridge pier and made comparison with existing bridge pier. To quantify the flow structures around the piers, the flow and turbulence parameters are analysed to understand the interference of one bridge pier over another. The experiments were performed on recirculating channel of 15 m length, 0.89 m width and 0.65 m height. Instantaneous three-dimensional velocity data was recorded by acoustic Doppler velocimeter at different radial planes α = 0°, 45°, 90°, 135° and 180° around the piers of both the bridges, where the distance (centre to centre) was maintained two times the diameter of pier (d = 8.8 cm). The flow structures, velocity fields, vector patterns, distributions of turbulence fields are analysed around the
    piers. The results of planned bridge pier are compared with existing one under identical flow in the clear waters. The results from the current study reveal that the flow velocity was decreased by 30% of the mean flow velocity at α = 180°. Further, the turbulence was significantly reduced around the proposed bridge pier with respect to existing, due to sheltering effect imposed by the front pier. Turbulence intensities, turbulent kinetic energy and Reynolds shear stresses are decreased by 30%, 40% and 30%, respectively. Due to the horseshoe vortex, strength is reduced by 30% around new pier vis-à-vis the old one. The present study recommends that the placement of new bridge pier should be 2 to 3 times the diameter of the pier to avoid more scouring.

    n

    n

    n

    Keywords: Proposed bridge, vector fields, turbulence intensity, Reynolds shear stresses, local scour

    n[if 424 equals=”Regular Issue”][This article belongs to Journal of Polymer and Composites(jopc)]

    n

    [/if 424][if 424 equals=”Special Issue”][This article belongs to Special Issue under section in Journal of Polymer and Composites(jopc)][/if 424][if 424 equals=”Conference”]This article belongs to Conference Special Issue [/if 424]

    n

    n

    nn

    nn

    Full Text

    nn[if 992 equals=”open access”]https://storage.googleapis.com/journals-stmjournals-com-wp-media-to-gcp-offload/2023/06/9e4d3468-s14-s21-flow-structures_ed-1.pdfn[else]nnvar fieldValue = “[user_role]”;nif (fieldValue == ‘indexingbodies’) {ndocument.write(‘‘);ndocument.write(‘https://storage.googleapis.com/journals-stmjournals-com-wp-media-to-gcp-offload/2023/06/9e4d3468-s14-s21-flow-structures_ed-1.pdf’);n} else if (fieldValue === ‘administrator’) {ndocument.write(‘‘);ndocument.write(”);n}else if (fieldValue === ‘jopc’) {n document.write(‘‘);n} else {n document.write(‘ ‘);n}nn[/if 992]n

    n[if 379 not_equal=””]n

    Browse Figures

    n

    n

    [foreach 379]n

    n[/foreach]n

    nn

    n

    n[/if 379]n

    n

    References

    n[if 1104 equals=””]n

    1. Kothyari UC, Garde RCJ, Ranga Raju KG. Temporal variation of scour around circular bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng. 1992; 118 (8): 1091–1106.
    2. Garde RJ, Raju KG. Mechanics of Sediment Transportation and Alluvial Stream Problems. New Delhi: New Age International Publishers; 2000.

    3. Dey S. Fluvial Hydrodynamics. Berlin: Springer; 2014.

    4. Dey S, Bose SK, Sastry GL. Clear water scour at circular piers: a model. J Hydraul Eng. 1995; 121 (12): 869–876.

    5. Ahmed F, Rajaratnam N. Flow around bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng. 1998; 124 (3): 288–300.

    6. Richardson JE, Panchang VG. Three-dimensional simulation of scour-inducing flow at bridge piers. J Hydraul Eng. 1998; 124 (5): 530–540. 7. Graf WH, Istiarto I. Flow pattern in the scour hole around a cylinder. J Hydraul Res. 2002; 40: 13–20.

    8. Muzzammil M, Gangadhariah T. The mean characteristics of horseshoe vortex at a cylindrical pier. J Hydraul Res. 2003; 41 (3): 285–297.

    9. Sarkar K, Chakraborty C, Mazumder BS. Variations of bed elevations due to turbulence around submerged cylinder in sand beds. Environ Fluid Mech. 2016; 16 (3): 659–693.

    10. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Aslani-Kordkandi A. Flow field around single and tandem piers. Flow Turbulence Combustion. 2013; 90 (3): 471–490.

    11. Wang H, Tang H, Liu Q, Wang Y. Local scouring around twin bridge piers in open-channel flows. J Hydraul Eng. 2016; 142 (9): 06016008. 12. Keshavarzi A, Ball J, Khabbaz H, Shrestha CK, Zahedani MR. Experimental study of flow structure around two in-line bridge piers. Proc Inst Civil Eng Water Manage. 2018; 171 (6): 311–327.

    13. Vijayasree BA, Eldho TI, Mazumder BS. Turbulence statistics of flow causing scour around circular and oblong piers. J Hydraul Res. 2019; 58 (4): 673–686.

    14. Pasupuleti LN, Timbadiya PV, Patel PL. Flow field measurements around isolated, staggered, and tandem piers on a rigid bed channel. Int J Civil Eng. 2022: 20: 569–586.

    15. Pasupuleti LN, Timbadiya PV, Patel PL. Bed level variations around submerged tandem bridge piers in sand beds. ISH J Hydraul Eng. 2020; 28 (1): 149–157.

    nn[/if 1104][if 1104 not_equal=””]n

      [foreach 1102]n t

    1. [if 1106 equals=””], [/if 1106][if 1106 not_equal=””],[/if 1106]

      2. n[/foreach]

    n[/if 1104]

    nn

    nn[if 1114 equals=”Yes”]n

    n[/if 1114]

    n

    n

    Conference Open Access Original Research

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    Journal of Polymer and Composites

    n

    [if 344 not_equal=””]ISSN: 2321–2810[/if 344]

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    n

    Volume 11
    Issue 01
    Received December 21, 2022
    Accepted March 19, 2023
    Published June 19, 2023

    n

    n

    Views: 489
    n

    [if 1190 not_equal=””]n

    Editor

    n

    [foreach 1188]n

    n[/foreach]

    n[/if 1190] [if 1177 not_equal=””]n

    Reviewer

    n

    [foreach 1176]n

    n[/foreach]

    n[/if 1177]

    n

    nn .post-views{n text-align: center;n }n .ALLreveiwers img,.ALLeditors img{n width: 50px;n height: 50px;n border-radius: 50px;n margin: 10px;n }n .ALLreveiwers,.ALLeditors{n border-bottom:1px solid black;n }n .modaltext{color:white; padding: 0px 30px 0px 30px; text-decoration:none;}n .modaltext:hover{color:black background-color:rgb(255 221 204); color:black;}n .modal-content{ margin-top: 50%;}n Edit n function myfun() {n x=document.getElementById(“editor”);n y=document.getElementById(“down”);n z=document.getElementById(“up”);n if(x.style.display==”none”){n x.style.display=”block”;n }n else {n x.style.display=”none”;n }n if(y.style.display==”none”){n y.style.display=”block”;n }n else {n y.style.display=”none”;n }n if(z.style.display==”none”){n z.style.display=”block”;n }n else {n z.style.display=”none”;n }n }n function myfun2() {n x=document.getElementById(“reviewer”);n y=document.getElementById(“down2”);n z=document.getElementById(“up2″);n if(x.style.display==”none”){n x.style.display=”block”;n }n else {n x.style.display=”none”;n }n if(y.style.display==”none”){n y.style.display=”block”;n }n else {n y.style.display=”none”;n }n if(z.style.display==”none”){n z.style.display=”block”;n }n else {n z.style.display=”none”;n }n }n n table, tr, td{n padding: 10px;n border: none;n }n

    n

    n

    n h2{font-size:16px !important; font-family: ‘Roboto’, Slab !important; line-height: 1.4em;}n h3{font-size:18px !important;font-family: ‘Roboto’, Slab !important;}n h4{font-family: ‘Roboto’, Slab !important;}n a{color:blue; font-size:15px !important;font-family: ‘Roboto’, Slab !important;}n li, p{font-size: 15px !important; font-family: ‘Roboto’, Slab !important; text-align: justify;}n .authdiv img{max-width:17px; max-height:17px;}n .authdiv{display:flex; padding: 1px 2px;”}n n function myFunction2() {n var x = document.getElementById(“browsefigure”);n if (x.style.display === “block”) {n x.style.display = “none”;}n else {x.style.display = “Block”;}}n document.querySelector(“.prevBtn”).addEventListener(“click”, () => {n changeSlides(-1);});n document.querySelector(“.nextBtn”).addEventListener(“click”, () => {n changeSlides(1);});n var slideIndex = 1;n showSlides(slideIndex);n function changeSlides(n) {n showSlides((slideIndex += n));}n function currentSlide(n) {n showSlides((slideIndex = n));}n function showSlides(n) {n var i;n var slides = document.getElementsByClassName(“Slide”);n var dots = document.getElementsByClassName(“Navdot”);n if (n > slides.length) {slideIndex = 1;}n if (n (item.style.display = “none”));n Array.from(dots).forEach(n item => (item.className = item.className.replace(” selected”, “”))n );n slides[slideIndex – 1].style.display = “block”;n dots[slideIndex – 1].className += ” selected”;n }n

    “}]