Hydraulic Measurements and Experimental Methods 2002 2002
DOI: 10.1061/40655(2002)57
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of ADV Measurements in Bubbly Two-Phase Flows

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The results established a cut-off frequency (-3dB) of 12Hz which is quite reasonable considering previous studies. Liu et al [6] found a cut-off frequency of 7Hz. During the hydraulic jump measurements 640 samples were collected at a rate of 128Hz.for each position,…”
Section: Free Surface Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The results established a cut-off frequency (-3dB) of 12Hz which is quite reasonable considering previous studies. Liu et al [6] found a cut-off frequency of 7Hz. During the hydraulic jump measurements 640 samples were collected at a rate of 128Hz.for each position,…”
Section: Free Surface Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The spatial grid was defined with 0.03 m spacing in order to accurately characterize the large vortices structures inside the gully box ( Figure 3). The bottom of the grid is 0.05 m above the base of the gully box, which is well above the minimum (of 0.02 m) required to avoid boundary effects [22] and [23]. For reverse flow the first two columns away from the centre are displaced 0.04 from the centre and thus only 0.02 m from the next column.…”
Section: Experimental Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some discrepancies may also be caused by the use of discrete elements to represent the bed topography, which although they are very fine, cannot capture all of the bed details. Uncertainties in ADV measurements associated with the effects of turbulent structures smaller than the size of the sampling volume (Peltier et al, 2013) and increased noise in the vertical velocity component due to the presence of bubbles (Cea, Puertas, & Pena, 2007;Frizell, 2002;Liu, Zhu, & Rajaratnam, 2002) could have also introduced some errors.…”
Section: Flow Model Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%