This article was downloaded by: [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ]

On: 26 November 2014, At: 06:46

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hydraulic Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjhr20

Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged

conditions
a a
J.P. Martin-Vide & J.M. Prio
a
Technical University of Catalonia , Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034, Barcelona, Spain
Published online: 02 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: J.P. Martin-Vide & J.M. Prio (2005) Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions,
Journal of Hydraulic Research, 43:5, 515-521, DOI: 10.1080/00221680509500149

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221680509500149

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 IAHR ^ Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 43, No. 5 (2005), pp. 515-521
© 2005 International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research

'V- AIRH

Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions

Remous de pont a voute dénoyé et submerge
J.P. MARTIN-VIDE, Technical University of Catalonia, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain. Tel: +34 93 401 64 76;
fax: +34 93 401 73 57; e-mail: vide®grahi.upc.edu (author for correspondence)

J.M. PRIO, Technical University of Catalonia, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 06:46 26 November 2014

ABSTRACT
Experimental research on backwater effects in semicircular arch bridges is reported. Both pressurized and free-surface flows at the bridge were
investigated. Flows on a mobile bed in clear-water conditions were compared to those with a rigid bed. Methodologies for backwater computation
by Yarnell, the US Geological Survey, the US Department of Transportation and the HEC-RAS model were compared with the experimental data.
A simple expression for the head loss coefficient as a function of the obstructed bridge area is derived.

RÉSUMÉ
La recherche expérimentale sur des effets de remous avec des ponts a voute semi-circulaire est décrite. Des écoulements en charge et a surface libre
au droit du pont ont été étudiés. Des écoulements sur un lit mobile en eau claire ont été compares a ceux sur un lit fixe. Des methodes de calcul de
remous par Yarnell, Ie "US Geological Survey", Ie "US Department of Transportation" et Ie modèle de HEC-RAS ont été compares aux données
expérimentales. Une expression simple pour le coefficient de perte de charge en fonction du secteur obstrué de pont en est déduite.

Keywords: Backwater, bridge, afflux, arch, scour.

1 Introduction and objectives
This research was motivated by the numerous examples of old
bridges in Europe, dating back to Roman and medieval times,
many of them being still in use at important river crossings.
The objective was to provide data on their backwater effects.
Since much has already been done on the subject of bridge
backwater, a second objective was the assessment of different
techniques for backwater computation with respect to a new set
of laboratory data.
2 Description of experimental set-up
The flume used for the experiments was horizontal, 6.0 m long,
1.5 m wide and 0.5 m high. A recess 0.5 m deep and 2.7 m long
was located halfway across the flume. The bridge was placed in
the recess, supported laterally by a mechanical device able to lift
it and keep it at various elevations (Fig. 1). The recess was filled
with loose material for mobile-bed tests or covered for rigid-bed
tests. The complete bridge dimensions, inspired by European
examples of ancient bridges, are presented in Fig. 1. The bridge
vaults were cut from PVC pipes, which determined the arch diam­
eter, so that four equal sections, including one span and two half
piers each, fitted the flume width. The discharge was measured
by means of a thin-plate V-notch weir. At the downstream end of
the flume, the tailwater was controlled with a thin-plate weir.
Table 1 shows the experimental program in terms of discharge
(Q), tailwater depth (y), bed condition, and Froude number (Fr).
The series A test served as a reference in the sense that the other
series were "deviations" to higher y (series B), lower y (series C),
lower Q and y (D), and finally a movable bed (E), for which
a fairly uniform natural sand of d5a = 0.86 mm and standard
deviation {d^/d^Y12 = 1.34 was used. This sand proved to
be on the threshold of movement, so that there was no general
scour but only contraction and local scour in the mobile-bed tests.
The flow was always subcritical.
The elevation of the bridge structure was reduced by 1 cm in
each test of series A - D , from free surface flow at the beginning,
involving only the bridge piers, to submerged flow at the end.
In Fig. 2 the first and the last tests are represented. The ratio of
pier widths to the channel width, called the obstruction ratio m,
amounted to its minimum of 0.324 at the beginning. In the last
test the elevation of the lowest arch point (abutment) was close
to the flume bottom (s —>• 0, see Fig. 2). Pressurized flow means
that both the upstream and downstream faces are submerged.
Series E contained 11 tests at elevations 2 cm apart. Water
surface elevations were measured with a point gauge of ±0.1 mm

Revision received March 27, 2004/Open for discussion until August 31, 2006.

515
 516 Martin-Vide and Prió

lifting support ifting support

'\--r--

S5 ö__ ^_25 ^-55

I I
I I
UI

Dimensions in e n
Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 06:46 26 November 2014

Figure 1 Bridge dimensions in the experiments.

Table l Experimental program to develop equilibrium scour, this duration was warranted for the
Series v(cm) Bed Fr(-) comparison between tests. The final bed topography was also
Q (l/s)
recorded.
A 124.3 25.2 Rigid 0.209
B 124.3 31.5 Rigid 0.149
C 124.3 19.8 Rigid 0.300
D 70 21.5 Rigid 0.149 3 Theoretical framework for backwater
E 124.3 25.2 Mobile 0.209
The simplest theoretical approach to bridge backwater in subcrit-
ical flow is illustrated in Fig. 3. Important sections are: 1 flow
acceleration, 2 and 3 right at the upstream and downstream
First Test bridge faces (both plane and vertical) and 4 tailwater with con­
ditions uninfluenced by the bridge structure. Sections 1 and 4
are chosen at distances equal to one span width (B) and four
span widths, respectively, following the traditional 1 : 1 contrac­
tion and 4 : 1 expansion ratios. All methodologies to be reviewed
use Bernoulli's equation to compute backwater elevation. For a

Cross Section Front View

© © ©
Last Test üy|
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
""" ^ ^ ^ ^ 1
y <-Q
X
Cross Section Front View'

Figure 2 Sketch of the experimental program (see Table 1).

accuracy along the centerline of the second arch from the right
(looking downstream). The scour around the second pier from
the right was measured during the experiments of series E to Side View
±0.5 cm. Each scour test lasted 4 h. Although this was too short Figure 3 Control volume and notation for the theoretical framework.
 Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions 517

horizontal bottom it can be written as throughout the computation either in free-surface (called "low
v\
■< 2
vf
V 2
V1 flow") or pressurized flow ("high flow").
yi+ai~= yi + «,-^- + A«i_,-
A HM + X-, (1)
2g 2g 2g
where i — 2, 3, 4 is the number of the cross-section down­ 4 Experimental results
stream. AH denotes the friction loss and the local head loss
across the bridge is expressed as a coefficient X times a kinetic The backwater, measured as the free-surface elevation difference
energy head (V2/2g), which includes the corresponding Corio- 25 cm upstream of the bridge face and 100 cm downstream of it,
lis coefficient a. The backwater elevation difference is defined is plotted in Fig. 4 against the bridge elevation 5. The backwa­
as Ay = y\ — y4, i.e. the difference with and without the pres­ ter increases as the bridge is lowered except for the mobile bed
ence of the bridge, since the tailwater depth is assumed to hold tests (E). These are based on the final profile after scour, resulting
everywhere if there is no bridge (dotted line, Fig. 3). For mobile- in practically no backwater increase. For each series, free flows
bed tests with bed scour, the backwater is the difference in the are shown to the left of a vertical line and submerged flows to
free-surface elevations. the right. These lines are drawn through the first test in pres­
The empirical equation of Yarnell (1934) can be viewed as if all surized flow in each series. The vertical lines fall apart because
Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 06:46 26 November 2014

terms in Eq. (1), except for the backwater Ay and the local head the submergence of the bridge is very sensitive to the tailwater
loss, were dropped and aggregated in the empirical coefficient X. condition.
The local head loss is expressed with V = V4.lt then reads A dimensionless backwater (y\ — yA)l(v\/2g) is plotted
Av v\llg against the obstruction ratio m in Fig. 5. The ratio m is now the
X = 2k\k+ 10 0.6 (m 15m4) (2)
v%/2g \ y4 bridge face area over the channel area, both computed with the
downstream free-surface elevation (and its rigid bed elevation
The right-hand side of Eq. (2) depends on the pier shape expressed
in mobile-bed tests). The graph relating m and bridge eleva­
with coefficient k, the velocity and flow depth at section 4 and the
tion s is added. As expected, the experimental data collapse into
obstruction ratio (m) defined as the ratio of pier width to channel
a narrower band than in Fig. 4, except for the mobile bed tests.
width. A value k — 1.25 was found for piers with a square nose
The borders between the free-surface and pressurized flows come
geometry and tail features as in the present experiments.
closer.
The approaches of Kindsvater et al. (1953), Kindsvater and
Carter (1955), and Tracy and Carter (1955) consist in applying
Eq. (1) up to section 3 and using V = V3 in the local head loss 5 Comparison between experiments and predictions
term. A discharge coefficient c is worked out from Eq. (1) to yield
Ö Figure 6 shows the comparison with Yarnell's equation. The left-
(3) hand side in Eq. (2) is divided by the shape and flow factors,
A 3 y2g (y, - y3 - AHx_3 + ax vj/2g)
leaving the function of m on the right-hand side. In this way, the
where c = [a3 + X]~1/2. Because 03 > 1, and X is positive, equation for all tests is a single plot. The experimental data are
c < 1. The authors plotted c versus the degree of obstruction m. handled similarly, by using the measurements at sections 1 and 4.
In the approach by Bradley (1978), Eq. (1) is applied up to The change from free-surface to pressurized flows is indicated by
section 4. However, the local head loss is computed with the a vertical band.
velocity in section 2 as if y2 was equal to V4. Although not true,
this assumption avoids the computation of y2. The expressions
for the backwater and the local head loss coefficient are

Ay = X^- ai
2g 2g A E C and D
(4)
Av- 1 1
X 0LXA\
vz2/2g v-4 • A
3
where, by comparison with Eq. (1), friction losses are neglected o B
and CÜ4 = a j . Charts were provided with values of X/a2 as a A C
function of the degree of obstruction m. x D
The HEC-RAS model (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1997) ^ E
uses Eq. (1) between sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, with the local head
loss at every step of the calculation expressed as
V2 ,,2
v- v2
X— = X Cti—
-«,-+] (5) • • • » • 8
2g 2g 2g 0
9 ° » v
where i — 1, 2, 3. The values recommended for X are 0.3 for 25 21 13 1

contraction and 0.5 for expansion, even though values of 0.6 s [cm]

and 0.8 are allowed for abrupt transitions. This equation is used Figure 4 Experimental results of backwater versus abutment elevation.
 518 Ma rtin - Vide andPrió

^ are plotted (Matthai, 1967). These curves for vertical embank­

E ment and abutment, Fr = 0.5 and no bridge submergence are
0.6 X
corrected for the actual Fr (in A series) and for both Fr and bridge
10 -
0.5-
submergence by two additional curves. The last correction makes
the curve bend downwards at the onset of pressurized flow within
8 - 0.4- Trend / the vertical band. The experimental data are introduced in Eq. (3),
using the measurements at sections 1 and 3, the friction losses
C 5 10 15 20 s [cr
O)
6- ( A # ! _ 3 ) computed following Chow (1959) and a = 1.082. This
>• 5!
< tvrt
> • A
Coriolis coefficient was computed from velocity measurements
X o B taken with a current meter 2.0 m upstream of the bridge.
FREE PRESSURIZ ED ^
4- This methodology overpredicts the discharge coefficient c,
SURFACE FLOW A C
/ O X
FLOW • X y
A / O
X
x D
i.e. the local head loss coefficient X is underestimated, and so
*• / is the total backwater. The original curves were drawn to fit
2- A -*-E
A Scour
experimental c values within the range 0.70-0.95, very close
> *
W%p x to the range here, but for greater obstructions. The correction
Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 06:46 26 November 2014

n- »** O
0.3 0.4
Figure 5 Dimensionless experimental data. On the left-hand corner
m—s functions.
Yarnell (1934) considered cylindrical bridge piers, with a max­
imum obstruction ratio m = 0.50. Figure 6 supports an extension
to higher values of m, to arch bridges and to submerged flow.
However, Yarnell's equation overpredicts the results, specially
for low m values. The reason may be the fact that the points
where Eq. (2) should be applied are not clear in the original work
(1934). The difference in the pier length to width ratio (4 in
Yarnell, 3 in present work) is considered minor. Finally, Yarnell
did not consider any bed scour, resulting in a larger discrepancy
for the mobile-bed (E) than for the other tests.
The comparison with the second approach is shown in Fig. 7.
Two c—m curves for ratios of bridge length over relative spans
L/b equal to 1.0 and 1.5 (close to L jb — 1.44 in the experiments),
for bridge submergence fails to fit the experimental data of the
0.5 0.6
present work. The trend of the data does not depart from the
curve for unsubmerged conditions. Hamill (1999) suggested this
submergence factor to be one when both bridge faces are sub­
merged. The flow area A3 can include the scoured area in the
mobile-bed tests. If not, the values of c for the E series turn
out to be much larger than 1, which is absurd ("E" points
in Fig. 7). On the contrary, with the scoured area ("E modi­
fied") the experimental results do not behave different from the
other tests.
Figure 8 compares the data with Bradley's (1978) approach.
His X—m curve is for wingwall abutments at 90° to the bridge
span. Both a 2 and a\ are set to 1. Measurements at sections 1
and 4 are used in Eq. (4). A one-quarter section of the bridge
is considered so that no pier effects are taken into account. This
X—m curve covers some field data, giving higher X than in a pre­
vious curve based mainly on laboratory data. The field bridges

Yarnell (1934)
4.5
• A
o B
A C
3.5-
x D
x .•'
x E
t
E
in 2.5-
+
E PRESSURIZED-'»
FREE X
il FLOW .-•'?
SURFACE A
>> 1.5- .■■* o
FLOW
X» QA
A
0.5- A * f O
* X X
X
X
X
*?o*
* x o x
-0.5-
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
m[-]
Figure 6 Comparison between experimental results and Yarnell's Figure 7 Comparison between experimental results and Kindsvater
equation (Yarnell, 1934). etal. (1953).
 Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions 519

2.0 for pressurized flow. This equation should not be extrapolated

• A to severe contractions (m -*■ 1) or very gentle contractions
o B (m —► 0). Applying the analysis of Naudascher and Medlarz
A C
x D (1983) for pressurized flow to the arch bridge geometry, a good
1.5
x E approximation is X = mC^, where d is the drag coefficient of
Bradley the bridge. Combining the two expressions for X, it follows that
Graph
X
C d = 2.30 - 0.345/m.

1.0
FREE
< A
'••* SURFACE
" j 7 Discussion of the effect of scour on backwater
O X X
x xo a • A
x o a
A The backwater measured in mobile bed was almost constant,
0.5 o « O C
around 0.6-0.7 cm, irrespective of bridge elevation (Fig. 4).
X
Figure 9(a) shows a direct comparison between rigid-bed (A)
PRESSURIZED
x
Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 06:46 26 November 2014

FLOW 0 \
0.0 X

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

1-m [-]
Figure 8 Comparison between experimental results and Bradley
(1978).

had width to depth ratios up to 700 and rough vegetated flood-

plains, whereas this ratio is close to 1 here. By adding the scoured
area to the flow area A2 in Eq. (4), the points for the E series
fall far from the rest and close to the curve. Scour probably
developed in the prototype bridges used to derive the graph in
Fig. 8.
Pressurized flow is treated separately by Bradley (1978) by
neglecting upstream velocity head and friction losses in Eq. (3).
A constant value c = 0.80 was proposed. Figure 7 shows that
this value does not keep track with the decreasing trend of c
as m increases. For pressurized flow, Naudascher and Medlarz
(1983) showed that the coefficient X should be proportional to
the obstruction ratio m. Assuming X = m, then c = X/s/m + a.
This is plotted in Fig. 7 with a = 1.082 to result in a reasonable
fit with the new data.

6 Comparison between experiments and HEC-RAS

By letting X vary in Eq. (5) the experimental and numerical

backwaters Av are compared based on the least-square best-fit
for A.. Because the experiments involved different obstructions, X
is assumed to depend on the ratio m. This is justified by the
results in Fig. 5 and also is a common feature in the previ­
ous methods. Biery and Delleur (1962) found that the actual
arch geometry did not influence the backwater significantly, pro­
vided that m is the same. Values of X = 0.1 and 0.3, for gentle
contraction and expansion, give a reasonable agreement for the
pier case (m = 0.324). Then, the function X(m) chosen for
best-fit is 0.1C for contraction and 0.3C for expansion, where
C = 1 + k(m — 0.324) and k = 5.75 is the best-fit constant for
all rigid-bed experiments. 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Therefore, the total local head loss coefficient (i.e. the sum (b) m[-]
of the contraction and expansion) is X = 2.30 m — 0.345, for Figure 9 Experimental results for series A and E (up), (down): plot of
0.324 < m < 0.65, i.e. from 0.40 for the pier case up to 1.15 scour versus obstruction.
 520 Martin-Vide and Prió
10
ra
>
CD
"O
a>
CO =13 cm
■ s=15 cm
< s=19 cm • s=21 cm
i s=23 cm o s=25 cm
Distance [cm]
Figure 10 Final bed profiles in the mobile bed experiments.
Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 06:46 26 November 2014
and mobile-bed (E) tests for the same hydraulic conditions. For
m > 0.40 the backwater in the rigid-bed tests exceeded that of the
mobile bed. This is the expected effect because scour reduces the
velocity difference between the approaching flow and the flow
under the bridge. Surprisingly enough, the opposite occurs when
m < 0.40.
A scoured volume is computed by using the scour depths at
four points. It is then divided by the flow volume (computed
downstream) to give a dimensionless scour as the ordinate of
Fig. 9(b), where it is plotted versus m. A 1:1 slope line is added.
It can be seen that scour increases quite linearly with m. In other
words, after 4 h the flow has scoured roughly as much volume as
volume lost by the flow due to the bridge. Therefore, the mean
flow velocity should remain nearly constant through the bridge
and the head loss should be produced by the change in the shape of
the flow area only, which narrows and deepens. The fact that the
head loss is almost constant, irrespective of the bridge elevation,
is thought to be caused mainly by this "shape resistance". The bed
profiles through the scoured area are similar in shape, as shown
in Fig. 10.
Bradley (1978) recommended the use of a factor to decrease
the backwater when scour is present. This factor is in the range
0.50-0.75 for the present scoured area over flow area. Our results
do not support this correction because the decrease showed in
Fig. 9(a) is much higher for large m. In addition, the agreement
found between the Bradley curve and the mobile-bed experiments
(Fig. 8) would disappear if this correction were applied.
8 Conclusions
1. The experiments support that the local head loss coefficient
X of arch bridges depends mainly on the obstruction ratio
m, defined as the obstructed area divided by the downstream
flow area. The expression X — 2.30 m — 0.345 (0.324 <
m < 0.65) for the sum of contraction and expansion losses
provides good results when applying HEC-RAS, both for
free and submerged flow. This conclusion refers to rigid-bed
conditions only. If a discharge coefficient c for pressurized
flow is preferred, the experiments support c — 1/\fmCd + a
where C<\ is the drag coefficient.
2. Scour reduces the backwater for high obstruction ratios. The
scour adds as much flow area as is lost due to the bridge itself.
However, due to the shape of the scour hole, there is an almost
constant backwater throughout the tests, irrespective of m.
This conclusion refers to clear-water scour only.
3. Since most actual bridges are neither in rigid bed nor under
long-duration clear-water flow, it is difficult to extend the
results to prototypes. The method by Bradley (1978), based
on live-bed field data, results in much larger backwater than
our experiments, but the agreement improves for clear-water
mobile-bed tests. His scour factor is not supported by this
research. Yarnell's equation, based on laboratory data, gives
a larger backwater too but it traces well the trend of backwater
in pressurized flow. The method of the US Geological Survey
gives a lower backwater, is suitable for both free-surface and
pressure flow and the effect of the scour can be included
successfully. His submergence factor is not supported by this
research.
Notation
A = flow area
b — bridge span (also B)
c = discharge coefficient in the approach by Kindsvater etal.
Ci = drag coefficient
Fr = v/(gy)1/2—Froude number
g = gravitational acceleration
k = pier shape factor in Yarnell formula; constant in local
head loss coefficient
L — bridge pier length
m = obstruction ratio, i.e. obstructed area/channel area
Q — water discharge
.y = bridge elevation (abutment elevation with respect to
channel bottom)
y = water depth; tailwater
v — mean velocity
V = reference mean velocity
a — Coriolis velocity distribution coefficient
A H = friction head loss
A v = backwater elevation equal to y\ — y4
X = local head loss coefficient
References
1. BlERY, P.F. and DELLEUR, J.W. (1962). "Hydraulics of Sin­
gle Span Arch Bridge Constrictions". J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE
88(2), 75-108.
2. BRADLEY, J.N. (1978). Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways,
2nd edn revised. US Department of Transport, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
3. CHOW, V.T. (1959). Open-channel Hydraulics. Mc-Graw
Hill Book Co., New York.
4. KINDSVATER, C.E. and CARTER, R.W. (1955). "Tranquil
Flow through Open-channel Constrictions". Trans. ASCE
120,955-980.

5. KINDSVATER, C.E., CARTER, R.W. and TRACY, H.J.
(1953). Computation of Peak Discharge at Contractions.
US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Circular
284, Washington, DC.
6. HAMILL, L. (1999). Bridge Hydraulics. E & FN Spon,
London.
7. MATTHAI, H.F. (1967). Measurement of Peak Discharge
at Width Contractions by Indirect Methods. Techniques
of Water-Resources Investigations of the US Geological
Survey, Chapter A4, Washington, DC.
8. NAUDASCHER, E. and MEDLARZ, H.J. (1983). "Hydro-
dynamic Loading and Backwater Effect of Partially
Submerged Bridges". J. Hydraul. Res. 21(3), 213-232.
Downloaded by [Uni Tecnica Particular de Loja ] at 06:46 26 November 2014
Backwater of arch bridges under free and submerged conditions 521
9. TRACY, H.J. and CARTER, R.W. (1955). "Backwater
Effects of Open-channel Constrictions". Trans. ASCE 120,
993-1006.
10. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (1997). HEC-RAS.
River Analysis System. Hydrologie Engineering Centre,
Davis, CA.
11. YARNELL, D.L. (1934). Bridge Piers as Channel Obstruc­
tions. Technical Bulletin No. 442. US Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.