Record Details
page 83
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 83 Results of the Currant Creek Pipeline Impact Loading Study, Central Utah Project, page 83 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 83 text/PDF |
| Rights | Brigham Young University; http://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/generic.php Public Domain Public |
| Language | English; eng; en |
| Relation | Central Utah Project; Western Waters Digital Library; APPENDIX D derivation OF ESTIMATED IMPACT FACTOR PROFILES AND STATIC PRESSURE distribution impact factor profiles the data presented in this appendix were fabricated to simplify the explanation of impact factor profile derivation they are not actual test data the steps involved in producing the data which are graphically presented on figures D 1 D 2 and D 3 were carried out on a computer these figures were not drawn for every case the computer plotted only the data shown on figure D 4 step stop 1 the location of the front tire of the scraper was determined asafunction as a function afunction of timefor time for fon both a static run and a dynamic run byusingthe by using the location locationtire tire tine switch data dataseefig see fig D 1 both runs are from the same test step stop 2 the pressure recorded on each of the eight stress meters was determined as a function of the scrapers front tire location for the static and dynamic runs by using the results of step 1 tire location versus ti time me plot and the eight stress meter oscillogram pressureversus pressure versus time records for the respective runs this resulted in a pressu pressure kressu re versus location plot for each stress meter for both the static and dynamic conditions see figs D 2 and D 3 step stop 3 the ratio of th6 thfc tha dynamic pressure to the static pressure estimated impact factor was calculated and plotted as a function of the scrapers front tire location for each stress meter for any given dynamic run eight impact factor profiles are determined one for each stress meter see f fig ig D 4 these generally showed high and low impact factors occurring in nearly the same location however impact factors did not necessarily agree in magnitude step 4 one approximate impact factor profile was drawn to best fit the eight profiles 35 epp loo 100 ero emd 3025 z 20 0 U W qatic batic nun run 10 U dynamic Y run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a STRESS METER NO 0 6 12 is 18 24 30 36 DISTANCE FT FRONT TIRE LOCATION figure D 1 front tire location as a function of time 83 bisi BEST HEST biti COPY AVAILABLE |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/12992 |
