Investigation of flow characteristics in open channel with leaky barriers

Huang, Rui; Zeng, Yuhong; Zha, Wei; Yang, Fan; Guymer, lan

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128328

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For monitoring environmental flows on larger scales, Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) are used, which allow for rapid cross-sectional surveys, but at the same time, cannot capture velocity data for turbulence analysis [1]. For research oriented towards turbulence, hydraulic models in scaled laboratory experiments are often used to replicate the detailed flow field for specific applications, such as structures [2,3], river restoration measures [4,5], near-wall turbulence [6], flow-vegetation interaction [7][8][9], and inside hydraulic conduits [10,11], amongst others. The usage of scaled models has several disadvantages that need to be accounted for, such as relevant data resolution [12], sidewall interference [13], or special cases of flow, such as sediment transport [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Calibration and Verification of Operation Parameters for an Array of Vectrino Profilers Configured for Turbulent Flow Field Measurement around Bridge Piers—Part II

Gilja

Fliszar

Harasti

et al. 2023

Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-frequency velocimeters used for flow measurements during laboratory experiments allow the user to select the range for several operation parameters to set up the instrument for optimal velocity measurement. The discrepancies between velocity measurements collected with different instrument configurations can be significant, depending on the flume bed configuration and boundary conditions. The aim of this paper is to quantify the differences in flow velocity profiles measured with Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Profilers (ADVPs) configured using a combination of profiling parameters: Ping Algorithm (PA), Transmit Pulse Size (TPS), and Cell Size (CS). Whereas in Part I of this research, the goal was to identify the optimal probe configuration for downstream measurement of the complex hydraulic structure (pier protected with riprap) based on a match of the flow rate with measurements from other instruments, in this paper, effect of distinct probe configuration on velocity profile and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is demonstrated. Differences between ADVPs’ configurations were analyzed through sensitivity analysis with the intention to calculate and compare any discrepancies in the velocity measurements for all the three measured velocity components: streamwise u, spanwise v and vertical w collected on two characteristic flume cross-sections. The results show that each parameter change has a significant effect on the measured values of each velocity component when compared to the Target Configuration (TC). The largest root-mean-square-error (RMSE) is observed when TPS is changed, followed by CS and PA. Absolute RMSE calculated for TPS change from 4 mm to 1 mm is, on average, 6.30 cm/s, 0.90 cm/s, and 0.82 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for CS change from 1 mm to 4 mm is, on average, 4.49 cm/s, 0.88 cm/s, and 0.71 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for PA change from Adaptive to Max interval is, on average, 4.04 cm/s, 0.63 cm/s, and 0.68 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. For a change in all parameters, RMSE is greater for the cross-section downstream of the pier than for the approach cross-section: on average, 90%, 57% and 54% for a change in the PA, TPS, and CS, respectively.

show abstract