2015
DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2015.1017778
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hydraulic jumps on rough and smooth beds: aggregate approach for horizontal and adverse-sloped beds

Abstract: Hydraulic jumps, which frequently occur in hydraulic structures, have been extensively studied over the last century. However, only a few studies have evaluated hydraulic jumps in flows over rough beds and there are no studies that consider the air entrainment effect on conjugate depths. The current paper reports the results of an experimental investigation of hydraulic jump properties in flows over adverse-sloped rough beds, including the effect of air entrainment. Furthermore, a semi-theoretical predictive r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

6
43
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
6
43
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The data were overall in agreement with previous studies of roughness effects (e.g. Hughes and Flack 1984;Carollo et al 2007;Afzal et al 2011;Pagliara and Palermo 2015). The present data for the two rough bed configurations were in good agreement and no downwards shift of the conjugate depth relationship was observed for rough bed 2.…”
Section: Free-surface Characteristicssupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The data were overall in agreement with previous studies of roughness effects (e.g. Hughes and Flack 1984;Carollo et al 2007;Afzal et al 2011;Pagliara and Palermo 2015). The present data for the two rough bed configurations were in good agreement and no downwards shift of the conjugate depth relationship was observed for rough bed 2.…”
Section: Free-surface Characteristicssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…This finding differed from previous studies, showing a downward shift of conjugate depth ratio with increasing equivalent sand roughness height (e.g. Carollo et al 2007;Afzal et al 2011;Pagliara and Palermo 2015). It is believed that the exact definition of d1 may have had an impact upon the conjugate depth relationship: i.e., specifically the measurement of the free-surface with a pointer gauge in previous studies and possibly the definition of the zero position in rough bed 2 in the present study.…”
Section: Free-surface Characteristicscontrasting
confidence: 56%
“…The reliability and accuracy of LES for this study were verified by the computing and experimental results. Similar hydraulic jumps in the stilling basin were observed from the regime of both the test and computation ( Figure 3) in all 3 cases, and the numerical model captured the flow profiles [30] accurately compared with test data (Figure 4) and the differences of the average pressure between test results and calculated results ( Figure 5) were very small except for individual locations in case 3.…”
Section: Verification Of Mathematical Modelsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Their results showed that the tail-water depth, the roller length, and the hydraulic jump length on a gradual expansion basin with the rough bed were significantly smaller than that of the classical hydraulic jumps in a rectangular basin with smooth and rough bed. It should be mentioned that Pagliara and Palermo [23] and Felder and Chanson [24] took into consideration the effect of air concentration, bed roughness and channel slope on both sequent depth ratio and other lengths of HJs occurring on rough beds.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the effects of the air concentration on the hydraulic jump characteristics have been studied. Pagliara and Palermo [23] showed that in a two-phase flow (water and entrained air), locating the water surface is problematic and an equivalent flow depth (d e ) is commonly used. The depth de represents the normal distance from the channel invert reference (effective top ET) to an elevation where the air concentration reaches 90 %.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%