Comparison of Minimum and Maximum Permissible Velocity of Flow with Respect to Advantage of Roughness
- March 16, 2019
- Posted by: RSIS
- Category: Civil Engineering
International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume VI, Issue III, March 2019 | ISSN 2321–2705
Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh
Civil Engineering Department, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi-835215 (Jharkhand), India
Abstract:-The comparison of minimum permissible velocity and maximum permissible velocity is done with respect to mean depth of flow. We find that the minimum permissible velocity of flow or non silting velocity is more advantageous as compared to maximum permissible velocity of flow or non erodible velocity of flow from mean depth of flow point of view. Also, we get more conveyance with respect to minimum permissible velocity. Hence, minimum permissible velocity of flow or non silting velocity is more advantageous as compared to maximum permissible velocity or non erodible velocity from advantage of roughness point of view.
Keywords: Minimum permissible velocity; Maximum permissible velocity; Advantage of roughness; Mean depth of flow; Conveyance
I. INTRODUCTION
The values of non-silting velocity of flow or minimum permissible velocity, maximum permissible velocity or non erodible velocity are calculated with respect to mean depth of flow, conveyance and hydraulic radius. The Analysis of the results derived is done to suggest that the minimum permissible velocity of flow or non silting velocity is more advantageous as compared to maximum permissible velocity of flow or non erodible velocity of flow from mean depth of flow point of view.
II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP & PROCEDURES
Data was obtained for 0.5, 0.75 & 2.0 inch roughness bed.
Flume – The flume is open and 1.168m wide and 9.54m long. Roughness bed was constructed by smearing masonite boards with fiberglass resin. The boards were then screwed to the bed of the flume.
Experimental Procedure – Five to seven flows were measured for three different slopes (2, 5 and 8%). At each flow, depth was gaged at a single cross section, so that mean flow and channel properties could be calculated.
