联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981
这是一篇是撰写关于流体和土壤的报告
CEGE0026: Fluids and Soils III
Alternative Assessment – 2019/2020
The Assessment is worth 50% of the total module

Answer ALL questions. Question 1 is on Fluids [pages 2-7]; question 2 is on Soils [pages 8-9].
Your submission should not exceed 1,500 words, excluding references and figures. A penalty of 10% on the overall mark will be applied for submissions exceeding the word limit. Messy presentation will also be penalised.
This assignment should take you half a day to one day of solid work (about 4-6 hours) to complete.
Marking guidelines are appended at the end of the assignment.
Only one upload is required for submission. Submissions may be typed or hand-written, and may include diagrams, formulae etc. where appropriate.
Please insert a table as shown below on the front page of your submission:

Word count

Number of figures

Number of tables

Question 1 [50 marks]

You have been tasked to use your knowledge from Fluids III to analyse the flow of a South American river as allocated in Table Q1a. The information in Table Q1a and Figures Q1b and Q1c have been taken from Sichangi et al (2016). You have been allocated a river as shown in the Table Q1a, and you must use data for your allocated river to solve the question. You may want to refer to the original source for a more complete understanding of the problem, however the elements that are being tested in this question are based on your Fluids III knowledge – not the new concepts that are the focus of Sichangi et al (2016).

Please answer the following questions for your allocated river. If you answer the questions for a different river you will only be marked for the methodology.

(a) Use Manning’s equation with the information in Table Q1a, Figures Q1b and Q1c (ignore H0 values) to estimate the maximum and minimum river flow velocity. Briefly provide explanations of any assumption used in your analysis/calculations. If required extend your river banks vertically upwards at either side of the river banks (do not extend the width of your river basin).
[10 marks]

(b) How do your results compare with the given discharge values in Table Q1a Provide an assessment of your analysis.
[10 marks]

(c) You have been tasked to draw and annotate a specific energy curve for your allocated river. In your analysis you should include the Froude number and the critical flow properties (water depth, energy and velocity). For this assume that the river discharge per unit width ( ) is constant and is given as where is the river discharge (m3/s) (use the discharge value from Table Q1a) and is the river width (m). State and explain any additional assumptions that you have used in your analysis.
[15 marks]
(d) The next stage of the river analysis will require some Computational Fluids Dynamics modelling. It is proposed to use a Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes method. You have been tasked to provide an explanation of (1) by identifying the physical properties of the flow that are picked-up using this model.
, (1)
where ( ) are the horizontal, vertical and depth velocity components, is time, is pressure, is kinematic viscosity ( ), ) are the velocity fluctuation and ( ) are the horizontal, vertical and depth axis.
[15 marks]

Table Q1a: River allocation and properties

River

Surname
Forename

Discharge (m3/s)
Slope
Length (km)

Amazon (Jatuanara)

ZHUGE
YIXIU

SIVALOGARAJAH
KIRISHOTH

GONG
HAOTIAN

TOUMAZIS
CHARALAMBOS

ALJUFAIRI
BATOOL

OLIVER
TOBY

AZAGURY
LUCIAN

ROULA
KEYUR

LEWIS
JOSEPH

128,826
1.8 ±0.17
4792

Purus (Canutama)

WARREN
SALOME

CHEN
YU

TELIANI
NAEL

SALEB
MEIRIAM

JAVAID
LAYYABA

SHIRE
MOHAMED

HE
YUYING

CHEN
CHENG

CHE
PAK

HAN
JAYNE

6204
7.4 ±0.71
1181

Amazon (Manacupuru)

CHUNG
SIU

POON
WING

MOMOH
OSILAMAH

UDAYAKUMAR
SUREN

WAI
JEREMY

LEONG
SI

YIM
TSZ

ALSAFFAR
EAMON

SARWAR
SAIRAH

PIGNATELLI
GIOVANNI

110,234
1.4 ±0.12
4690

Negro (Sao Felipe)

CHEN
LYUXI

CHU
ADRIAN

BINTI ZAINAL
BALQIS

BINTI FAISAL
ALIA

MAHALINGAM
NISANTH

BATTE
COLLIN

SHI
YANG

KRAVCOVS
IVANS

SAFIN
ILDAR

ZHANG
YUXI

8610
5.4 ±0.61
639

Amazon (Santo Antnio do Ia)

SHEN
YUQI

WU
CATERINA

ABI AAD
MICHAEL

LAO
HANGE

ABBAS BATOOL
MUHAMMAD

FU
WAI

MOHD FISOL
NUR

PHAN
MINH

ONG
PEI

MAHARJAN
MANI

57,984
2.4 ±0.21
3084

Amazon (So Paulo de Olivencia)

CZAJKOWSKA
DOMINIKA

LI
YIN

KHOURI
ANTHONY

BIN ROSLI
AHMAD

LI
WEIHUA

LEBRECHT
OLIVER

RASHAD
AHMED

IAI
REIA

CHAN
CHOI

CULLINAN
MUNGO

48,344
3.4 ±0.32
2883

Negro (Serrinha)

THACKORIE
BRITTANY

LI
XIANG

GARRIDO CARRERAS
FERNANDO

GHEMATI
MEHDI

JASIM
LENA

ABUBAKER
ALI

AMADI
AMA

PHILLIPS
EMILY

CUMMINS
PHOEBE

PIRANAVAN
VARMAN

18,589
6.9 ±0.59
1160

Width (m)
Figure Q1b: River cross sections taken from Sichangi et al (2016).

Date
Figure Q1c: River depth estimates (ignore H0 values) taken from Sichangi et al. (2016) Fig 5.

Reference
Sichangi, A.W., Wang, L., Yang, K., Chen, D., Wang, Z., Li X., Zhou, J., Liu W. & Kuria, D. (2016). Estimating continental river basin discharges using multiple remote sensing data sets. Remote Sensing of Environment, 179, 36-53.

Question 2 [50 marks]

Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram (not to scale) of a smooth retaining wall founded on impermeable ground. The aim of this exercise is to determine the force resulting from active earth pressures exerted at the back of the wall, using different approaches and comparing them.

The retained ground is silty clay, with properties shown in the figure. The water table is at the retained ground surface. For each approach, you are expected to describe the assumptions and the different steps taken, with detailed text as well as equations. You will also need to show, for each approach, that the force you have calculated is the optimum one for design. Note that the word numbers provided for each sub-question are only suggestions of how you may want to divide your text between them.

Figure 2

(a) Calculate the active force on the wall by using an upper bound approach. The failure mechanism can be assumed to be a plane. You must show the velocity (displacement) diagram.
[20 marks]

(b) Calculate the active force on the wall using Coulomb’s approach.
[20 marks]

(c) Compare the answers in (a) and (b) with what would be predicted using Rankine’s approach, and comment.
[10 marks]

END OF ASSESSMENT

Marking guidelines

Exemplary (90%-100%): Fulfilled all the required tasks with an exceptional level of insight, thoroughness, and originality. Comprehensive yet clear and concise. Impeccable English and presentation.
Outstanding (80%-89.99%): Fulfilled all the required tasks to a very high standard with no significant error but may be lacking slightly in some aspects of secondary significance (e.g. conciseness or some minor presentation flaws).
Very Good (70%-79.99%): Shows an understanding of the problem and how to solve it. Got everything right except for a few minor errors, inaccuracies or presentation flaws.
Good (60%-69.99%): Good understanding of the problem and how to solve it. Got most of the results right but made a few mistakes or showed some slight misunderstandings. Good overall presentation but may be lacking in a few places.
Satisfactory (50%-59.99%): Shows a Satisfactory understanding of the problem and solves a significant fraction of it correctly but may contain some serious mistakes or misunderstanding. Presentation acceptable but can be poor in places.
Fair (40%-49.99%): Most requirements attempted but shows limited understanding of the problem or detailed knowledge. Contains mistakes, misunderstandings, or irrelevant material. Organisation and expression and presentation inadequately poor and standard or presentation.
Fail (0%-39.99%): Very limited understanding of the question asked and how to answer it. Some marginally relevant material and limited content but badly organised with frequent errors and misconceptions. Serious weaknesses in presentation. Also applies to submissions that are most completely irrelevant, messy or missing altogether, or submissions showing clear plagiarism.