84 views

Uploaded by jcasafranca

salto hidraulico

save

- Lab 6 - Unconfined Compression Test
- Unconfined Compression Test_procedure and Data Sheet
- Hydraulic Jump
- Hydraulic Jump report
- Unconfined Compression Test & Foundation Design.docx
- hydraulic jump
- Jurnal Sharp Crested Weir (Important)
- Hydraulic Jump Experiment
- Hydraulic Jump Data
- Hydraulic Jump
- Hydraulic Jump
- Experiment 12-Direct Shear [EDocFind.com]
- Hydraulic Jump
- Hydraulic Jump
- Hydraulic Jump Serials Drops
- Span Deflection
- Instrumental Mode Slope Failure
- Direct Shear Test
- Direct Shear Test
- Hudraulic Jump
- Experiment Unconfined Compression
- Three Gorges Dam Project
- HYDRAULICS JUMP
- Introduction to Triaxial Testing
- To study the characteristics of the hydraulic jump developed in lab flume.
- UU
- geotech
- CFD Simulation of Hydraulic Jump in Triangular Channel Seminar Report
- Proper Orifice Meter Test
- Direct Shear
- USGS_Recession Groundwater Recharge
- ELPESCADOR[1]
- Predicting Scour Depth
- sediment transport
- Juncosa_HIdrogramas
- Boundary layer
- QIR000812
- Calculation of Contraction Coefficient Under Sluice Gates
- DISEÑO_HIDRAULICO_TOMAS_LATERALES
- Camara Disipadora
- tr25Appx
- Disenos complejos
- wama160-203
- Chandra Mohan 1989 A
- Criterios Diseno Losas Cimentacion Muros Estruc
- Tunel Hs2013 Lazaro 2
- wama158-157
- Exact Equations for Critical
- APG2A10 Hydro Prof Harvey Lec1
- El_Exito.pps
- El_Exito.pps
- T MarkRichardsPresentation
- Laonu
- Pch
- Blake Larsen
- T BillSiriosPaper
- Hacerlo
- T RubenGriffith
- wama157-151
- 06_2
- Chapter12.pdf
- Bridgerail Analysis May16
- PR1MA_LA RM405,000,000.xlsx
- STONE COLUMNS
- Simplified Design Guidelines for Seismic Base Isolation in Multi-storey Buildings for Bangladesh National Building Code BNBC
- EAPA Paper - Asphalt Pavements on Bridge Decks - 2013
- ConcreteHingesinBridgeEngineering.pdf
- Reinforced Concrete Structure
- Spillway Calc
- 050213 Dincel Design Tool (Dincel & Assoc Ltrhead)
- Schedule Chart
- Pile Footings for Flats for Golden Green at Asr
- Strength of Columns Under Combined Bending and Thrust. 1951
- Piperack Quantity Estimations
- G. ACI 360R-06 Brings Slabs on Ground into the 21st Century - Art McKinney (1).pdf
- Propose Plan on Septic Tank
- urat
- Strength of Materials 1
- Dewatering
- WW TREATMENT.pptx
- Summary of Concrete
- Design
- pfs-ppt-3
- Investigation on Behavior of Rcc Beams With Used Foundry Sand as a Aletrnative Material f0r Natural Sand
- THE ROOF.pdf
- 11 Composite Breakwater Design.pdf
- ComFlor Manual (1)
- CSP00138[GEN-Tutorial]Pushover Analysis as Per Eurocode 8 2004
- Scenario Korean Nuclear Plants

You are on page 1of 9

ISBN 9781742721156 - DOI: 10.14264/uql.2014.14

1

Jaypee University of Engineering & Technology, Guna (MP),

INDIA

2

Department of Civil Engineering,

Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad (UP),

INDIA

E-mail: sumit_gandhi2001@yahoo.co.in

Abstract: Empirical relations for hydraulic jump characteristics, viz. sequent depth ratio (Y2/Y1), efficiency

of jump (E2/E1) and relative length of jump (Lj/Y1) in non-prismatic channel (i.e., suddenly expanding)

with/without appurtenances are developed by introducing dimensionless Reynolds number, and

neglecting the frictional effect for approach Froude numbers between 2 to 9 under different channel

conditions. Developed empirical models were also tested, validated and compared with acquired

experimental data as well as with literature data. Close fitness of the empirical models with appurtenances

under varying dimensions, positions of baffle blocks and end sill provides accurate prediction of same for

higher value of Froude number.

Keywords: Non-prismatic channel, hydraulic jump characteristics, Reynolds number, baffles & sill.

1. INTRODUCTION

In stilling basin when supercritical flow changes to subcritical flow during hydraulic jump occurrence, air is

entrained and gets released in the form of air bubbles. Therefore, it is of considerable importance in many

practical problems to control high energy turbulent flow. Compared to prismatic channels non-prismatic

channels (suddenly expanding) with appurtenances not only modify the hydraulic jump characteristics but

also effect significantly the formation of symmetric flows downstream of the channel. Also, non-prismatic

channels are useful where there are design constraints to reduce basin length.

A significant work has been reported by Chanson (1996), Chanson and Montes (1998), Chanson (2000),

Ranga Raju et al. (1980), Pagliara and Chiavaccini (2006) on appurtenances and energy loss in the study

of hydraulic jump. Rajaratnam (1964) and Tyagi et al. (1978) have studied the effect of the force on baffle

blocks and sill in suddenly expanding channel. Rajaratnam and Subramanyam (1968), Negm et al. (2000)

and Negm (2000) proved that the sequent depth ratio is a function of approach Froude number and

expansion ratio only. There are some studies on hydraulic jump characteristics indicates that hydraulic

jump characteristics are dependent on Froude number only [Elevatorski (2008), Wu and Rajaratnam

(1996), Ranga Raju et al (1980), etc]. However, [Iwao et al. (2003) and Afzal and Bushra (2002)] have

shown that Reynolds number also has significant effect on the modification of hydraulic jump

characteristics.

Keeping above fact in view, the present study is oriented towards the development of data based

empirical models for different hydraulic jump characteristics for non-prismatic channel by introducing

Reynolds number Re1.

Rajaratnam and Subramanya (1968) suggested the use of the empirical equations for sequent depth ratio

in suddenly expanding channel which is valid for B1/B2 ratio in the range 0.3 to 0.9 and approach Froude

number Fr1 between 2 and 9 as:

Y2

Fr1 0.85

0.3 0.75

Y1

B1

B2

(1)

Herbrand (1973) proposed expressions for sequent depth ratio by neglecting frictional effects and

assuming that the channel bottom is horizontal:

Y2

Y1

2

B

Fr1 1

B2

2 B2

B1

(2)

Negm (2000) proposed an expression for the relative length of jump/roller for 2 Fr1 8.5, 0.33 B1 0.83

and 2.4 B1/Y1 13.76 based on the experimental results of Rajaratnam and Subramanya (1968). Length

of roller and length of jump is correlated as Lj/Lr = 1.3.

Lr

B

B

8.594 9.33 1 3.159 Fr1 0.141 1

Y1

B2

Y1

(3)

Chow (1959) produced analytical equations for jump efficiency (relative height of jump) which is

reproduced below:

1.5

1 8Fr21 4 Fr1 1

E2

E1

8Fr21 2 Fr21

(4)

Peterka (1958), based on the experimental study, proposed the relation for relative length of jump and

relative energy loss as:

eZ e Z

220 z

Z

Y1

e e

Lj

Y2

Fr21

2

2

Y1

B Y

2 2 2

EL

B1 Y1 1 E2 ,

1

F2

E1

E1

1 r1

2

here z Fr1 1

22

(5)

Elevatorski (1959) defined the relative length of the jump Lj/Y2 as a function of Fr1 and stated that it

becomes constant at the value of Fr1 > 5, i.e.,

L j 6 .9 Y2 Y1

(6)

Ivanchenkov (1936) plotted Lj/hj against Fr1 using Bahkmeteffs experimental data and developed an

empirical equation as

Lj

Y2

Y1

1

B2

B1

10.6h j

(7)

Fr0.37

1

1

2

; EL

2 Fr1 0.5

1

E1

Fr1

B2

B

1

(8)

Empirical relation for Y2/Y1 by Herbrand (1973) for suddenly expanding channel is found valid for 3.1 < Fr1

< 9.0. Hager (1985) has given the empirical relation for sequent depth ratio and relative energy loss in

terms of approach Froude number and expansion ratio as in Eq (8).

Experiments were carried out on suddenly expanding (with & without baffle blocks/sill)] channels. Set-up

consists of a constant head tank of volume 3.6 3.6 3 m3, water reaches to the inlet tank of volume

0.43 0.31 0.80 m3 through the connecting pipe of diameter 10 cm provided with regulating valve.

Upstream face of inlet regulating gate is covered by stilling basin of length 3 m and width 0.3 m to prevent

side wave reflection and surface undulation so that a stabilized flow is available at the inlet of main

channel. Experiments were performed in 2.1 m 0.445 m 1.2 m rectangular channel made up of perspex

sheet. Parallel rails were mounted for sliding of pointer gauge to measure depth at different positions

along the length and across the width of main channel. The arrangements were also made for the

installation and removal of the baffle blocks from the top of the rails.

Fig. 1 shows expanding channel setup providing the approaching channel part of width B1 having length

30 cm and width ratio B1/B2= 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8 (data have been taken for different range of approach

Froude number for each expansion ratios separately). Parameters measured and parameters varied

under each channel conditions are summarised in Table 1. Table 2 shows dimensions of appurtenances

varied under different channel conditions and the range of different hydraulic jump characteristics

calculated are shown in Table 3.

Lbt

Jump

S

B1

Lbt

Y1

Ws

B2

Baffle

Sil

hs

Lbb

Lss

0.3 m

2.8 m

The important variables affecting the jump pattern and energy dissipation can be expressed as a function:

f (Y1, Y2, V1, V2, Lr, Lj, EL, , g, , ) = 0

(9)

Using Buckinhams -theorem and treating Y1, g and as repeating variables, the various dimensionless

groups are developed. Using linear fitting of the experimental data following empirical model for Y2/Y1,

E2/E1 and Lj/Y1 were developed and expressed below.

Dimensionless groups and hydraulic jump characteristics are the function of expansion ratio, approach

Froude number, incoming Reynolds number and position and dimension of baffle blocks & sill, which can

be represented as:

Y E L j B V 2 V Y x h h L L

f 2 , 2 , , , 1 , 1 , 1 1 , b , b , s , bb , bt 0

Y1 E1 Y1 Y1 B2 gY1 xs nWb Ws Lss S

(10)

The effect of surface roughness is ignored in the present work due to experimental limitations. From the

analysis of experimental results, it is observed that all the three hydraulic jump characteristics namely

Y2/Y1, E2/E1, Lj/Y1 in suddenly expanding channel are function of expanding ratio, approach Froude

number and Reynolds number. The empirical models developed for suddenly expanding channel are:

Fr21

0.5 1.53

Re1

B F 0.3

E2

3.114 1 r01.05 1.3583

E1

B2 Re1

B

Y2

201.24 1

Y1

B2

B F 2

312.81 1 0r1.5 3.6454

Y1

B2 Re1

Lj

(11)

(12)

(13)

(R = 0.9902)

(R = 0.9867)

(R = 0.9916)

The empirical models developed for suddenly expanding channel (with baffle blocks and sill) are:

B F 0.5 x h h L L

2

Y2

2 10 6 1 r1 b b s bb bt 1.4949 (R =0.9890)

Y1

B2 Re1 x s nWb Ws Lss S

B F 0.2 x h h L L

2

E2

601531 1 r01.5 b b s bb bt 1.5503 (R = 0.9673)

E1

B2 Re1 x s nWb Ws Lss S

B F 0.2 x h h L L

Lj

(R2=0.9698)

4 10 6 1 r01.5 b b s bb bt 43.485

Y1

B2 Re1 x s nWb Ws Lss S

(14)

(15)

(16)

Y2/Y1: Figure 2 shows the comparison of Herbrand (1971) [Eq. (2)], Rajaratnam and Subramanyam

(1968) [Eq. (1)], Hagers (1985) [Eq. (8)], developed model [Eq. (14)] and the experimental data from the

present study for sequent depth ratio (Y2/Y1) against approach Froude number (Fr1) for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5,

0.6 and 0.8. A small deviation between the Herbrand (1971) and the Rajaratnam and Subramanaym

(1968) data when compared with Hager (1985), which may be attributed to the reason that Herbrand

(1971) have considered toe of the jump exactly at the expansion part whereas Rajaratnam and

Subramanyam (1968) considered it in the expanded part of the channel similar as in present study. The

sequent depth ratio Y2/Y1 values from the present model for B1/B2 = 0.4, lies slightly above the Hager

(1985) line which is drawn for B1/B2 = 0.33, shows satisfactory prediction of sequent depth ratio. Figure 2

also reflects the significant effect of Reynolds number when expansion ratios (B1/B2) are higher. For

developing figure 4, Eqs. (14) and (8) and Hager (1985) data for sequent depth ratio were used, present

model [Eq. (14)] is also compared with the Hager (1985) model [Eq. (8)] for different sequent depth ratios.

The results of present model are in close proximity to those predicted by Hager (1985) model, slight

deviations are attributed to the inclusion of Reynolds number in the present model.

E2/E1: Figure 3 shows non-linear variation of efficiency E2/E1 against approach Froude number (Fr1) for

different expansion ratios. For developing figure 3, linear model of Eq. (15) were fit for the present

experimental data and the Hagers (1985) data for testing, R2 value of 0.99, 0.99, 0.98 and 0.98 for B1/B2

= 0.2, 0.5, 1 and 0.33 respectively shows good fitting of Hager (1985) data in presented model. Same

model has been validated with Bremen (1990) data for B1/B2 = 0.2 and 0.5 in figure 5 with R2 value of 0.98

and 0.99 showing good fitting in presented model, however a deviation is observed from the presented

model drawn for B1/B2 = 0.4 and 0.5 with R2 value 0.99 and 0.98 which may be attributed to experimental

conditions like Bremen assumed toe of the jump lying in approaching channel part while in present study

toe is located in the expanded part. Figure 6 shows comparison of E2/E1 of present model Eq. (15) with the

Peterka (1958) model [Eq. (5)] for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.8. R2 value close to 1 for present model and

Bremen (1990) model, predicts correctly the value of E2/E1 for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.8. It is therefore

concluded that Eq. (15) may be used for the satisfactory prediction of efficiency.

Lj/Y1: Figure 7 shows non-linear variation of relative length of jump (Lj/Y1) against approach Froude

number (Fr1) for different expansion ratios. For developing figure 8, linear model Eq. (16) were fit for the

present experimental data and the Bremen (1990) data for testing with R2 value of 0.99 and 0.99 having

B1/B2 = 0.2 and 0.5. In the same figure model Eq. (16) has also been shown for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6

with R2 value of 0.98, 0.98 and 0.99 respectively, which shows good fitting of experimental data in

developed model [Eq. (16)]. Figure 8 shows validation of Eq. (16) by fitting Hager (1985) data with R2

value 0.8, 0.97, 0.95 and 0.99 for B1/B2 = 0.2, 0.33, 0.5 and 1. However, R2 value for present model are

0.98, 0.98 and 0.99 for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 showing deviation from Hager (1985) result which may be

attributed to the different expansion ratios and Hager (1985) explained & presented the length of jump by

significant scattering of data in the range of 0.17 > B1/B2 > 0.83 and 2 < Fr1 < 9. From the two figures 7

and 8 it is clear that Bremen (1990) and Hager (1985) experimental data fitting well in the present linear

model with good R2 value 0.99 and 0.97. It is concluded that for the present condition Eq. (16) may be

used for approximate estimation of Lj/Y1.

6. CONCLUSION

Testing and validation of empirical models with R2 values presented above for suddenly expanding

channel with baffle blocks and sill shows the feasibility of these models under varying dimension, position,

number of baffle blocks and end sill. It is therefore, recommended that these models may be used for the

prediction of corresponding hydraulic jump characteristics with significant accuracy. It is also been

concluded that after applications of appurtenances in suddenly expanding channel the characteristics are

modified and found suitable for energy dissipation i.e., efficiency of jump increased.

10

0. 93

=0

. 95

15

R 2=

B1/B2 = 0.8

B1/B2 = 0.8

65

0.

95

1

B1/B2 = 0.8

Herbrand B 1/B 2 = 1

B1/B2 = 0.8

Raja & Sub B 1/B 2 = 0.5

7

0. 9

57

Hager B 1/B 2 = 1

Hager B 1/B 2 =0.5

Hager B 1/B 2 = 0.33

Hager B 1/B 2 = 0.2

Exp Data B 1/B 2 = 0.5

Exp Data B 1/B 2 = 0.6

Exp Data B 1/B 2 = 0.8

Linear (M o del line B 1/B 2 = 0.6)

Linear (M o del Line B 1/B 2 = 0.8)

Figure 2 - Validation of Eq. (14) for suddenly expanding channel with Hager (1985) data

1.2

Pow er (Present

model B1/B2 = 0.4)

R2 = 0.9104

Efficiency E2/E1

Pow er (Present

model B1/B2 = 0.5)

0.8

Pow er (Present

model B1/B2 = 0.6)

R2 = 0.9961

Pow er (Present

model B1/B2 = 0.8)

R2 = 0.952

R2 = 0.9823

R2 = 0.9856

0.4

Pow er (Hager's

(1985) B1/B2 = 0.2)

R2 = 0.9909

R2 = 0.9967

R = 0.9916

2

0

0

12

Pow er (Hager's

(1985) B1/B2 = 0.5)

Pow er (Hager's

(1985) B1/B2 = 1)

Pow er (Hager's

(1985) B1/B2 = 0.33)

Figure 3 - Testing of model Eq. (15) for suddenly expanding channel with Hager (1985) data

25

0.2

R2 = 0.9365

0.33

20

0.5

15

R2 = 0.9942

R2 = 0.9926

R2 = 0.9512

R2

10

= 0.9878

R2 = 0.9888

Linear (Hager's B1/B2 =

1)

Linear (Hager's B1/B2 =

0.5)

R2 = 0.9757

0.33)

0.2)

0

0

10

12

0.8)

Linear (Model B1/B2

=0.5)

Linear (Model B1/B2 =

0.4)

Figure 4 - Comparison of Eq. (14) with Hager (1985) model [Eq. (8)] and Hager data

0.8

R2 = 0.9849

R2 = 0.9776

Efficiency E2/E1

Efficiency E2/E1

R2 = 0.9847

R2 = 0.9982

0.8

0.6

0.4

R2 = 0.9771

R2 = 0.9921

0.4

R2 = 0.9892

R2 = 0.9961

0.2

0.6

0.2

R2 = 0.9771

R2 = 0.9571

10

10

12

(1990) data

(1958) model [Eq. (5)]

80

R2 = 0.9938

R2 = 0.9853

60

R2 = 0.9842

40

20

R2 = 0.9987

80

70

R 2 = 0.9938

R2 = 0.9853

60

50

R 2 = 0.9842

40

30

R 2 = 0.9995 R 2 = 0.9535

R 2 = 0.9719

20

R 2 = 0.8001

10

R2 = 0.9954

10

12

data for relative length of jump

10

12

data for relative length of jump

7. NOTATIONS

B1 and B2

E1 and E2

hb and hs

Lbb and Lbt

Lss

Lj

n

S

Ws and Wb

Y1 and Y2

= energy per unit weight before the jump (m) and after the jump (m)

= height of baffle and height of sill (m)

= length of baffle at base (m) and at top (m)

= length of sill (m)

= length of jump (m)

= number of baffle blocks (-)

= spacing between baffle and channel (m)

= width of sill (m) and baffle (m)

= pre-jump depth (m) and post-jump depth (m)

= density of water (Kg/m3)

= dynamic viscosity of water (Ns/m2)

Channel Types

Suddenly expanding channel without baffle & sill

Suddenly expanding channel with baffle block & sill

Measured Parameters

Y1, Y2, Lj, Lr

Y1, Y2, Lj, Lr

Varied Parameters

Fr1

Fr1, B1/B2, hb, Wb, nb, xb

Table 2 Details of the dimensions (in meters) of appurtenances (baffle blocks & sill)

Channel Types/Conditions

Lbt

hb

Wb

Lbb

nb

hs

Ws

Lss

Suddenly expanding channel with 2 baffle blocks & sill for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8

Suddenly expanding channel with 1 baffle blocks & sill for B1/B2 = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.05

0.025

0.03

0.04

0.04

2

1

0.02

0.02

0.3

0.3

0.02

0.02

Table 3 Parameters and range of different hydraulic jump characteristics computed from experimental results

Channel Types

Suddenly

expanding

channel

Channel

Conditions

B1/B2 = 0.4

B1/B2 = 0.5

B1/B2 = 0.6

B1/B2 = 0.8

Suddenly

expanding

channel with 1

baffle blocks & sill

Suddenly

expanding

channel with 2

baffle blocks & sill

Y1 (m)

0.0431

0.0271

0.0532

0.0188

0.0322

0.0158

0.0266

0.0121

Y2 (m)

0.0832

0.2096

0.1231

0.1784

0.0699

0.163

0.0672

0.1449

0.1755

0.2361

Lj (m)

0.25 - 1.2

0.42 1.1

0.195 - 1

0.29 0.96

B1/B2 = 0.4

0.061 0.027

B1/B2 = 0.5

0.028 0.019

0.063 0.16

0.22 0.88

B1/B2 = 0.6

0.034 0.016

0.079

0.187

0.28 1.05

B1/B2 = 0.8

0.03 0.012

0.1 0.18

0.4 0.95

B1/B2 = 0.4

0.06 0.027

0.176 0.25

0.69 1.35

B1/B2 = 0.5

0.038 0.028

0.068 0.18

0.19 0.91

B1/B2 = 0.6

0.047 0.024

0.14 0.21

0.54 1.1

B1/B2 = 0.8

0.032 0.019

0.134 0.21

0.62 1.25

0.68 1.3

Q (m /s)

0.00644-0.015

0.0123

0.01203

0.00644

0.01066

0.0063

0.0098

0.0123

0.0137

0.0052

0.011

0.0064

0.011

0.011 0.009

0.0123

0.0137

0.0064

0.0154

0.0123

0.014

0.011

0.0135

Fr1

2-9

2-9

2 - 9.5

2 -10

2 8.5

2-9

2 - 10

3 - 10

2-8

2-7

2-7

3-7

Re1

526457 1232182

801169 786994

350971 581118

258601 401376

10014611121881

336543 705342

350971 594477

450896 401376

1001461

-1121881

421165 1003723

667641 740694

455952 550118

Y2/Y1

E2/E1

Lj/Y1

5.8 44

7.9

58.5

2-8

0.71- 0.19

2-9

0.74 - 0.19

2 - 10

0.79 - 0.23

6.1- 63

3 - 12

0.94 - 0.25

11 - 79

39

0.88 0.25

11 - 48

2-9

0.63 0.21

8 - 47

2 - 12

0.92 0.26

8 - 65

3.25 15

0.75 0.31

13 - 78

3-9

0.87 0.27

11 - 50

2-7

0.7 0.25

5 - 33

3-9

0.9 0.39

12 - 47

4 - 11

0.99 0.44

19 - 66

8. REFERENCES

Afzal. N., Bushra. A. (2002), Structure of Turbulent Hydraulic Jump in a Trapezoidal Channel, Jl of

Hydraulic Research, 40 (2), 205214.

Bremen, R. (1990), Expanding Stilling Basin, Laboratoire de Constructions Hydrauliques, Communication

3, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Chanson, H. (1996), Non-Breaking Undular Hydraulic JumpDiscussion, J. Hydraulic Research, IAHR, 34

(2), 279-287.

Chanson, H. and Montes, J. S. (1998), Characteristics of Undular Hydraulic Jumps: Results and

Calculations, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 124 (2) 192205.

Chanson, H. (2000), Boundary Shear Stress Measurements In Undular flows: Application To Standing

Wave Bed Forms, Water Res. Res., AGU, 36 (10) 30633076.

Chow, V. T. (1959), Open Channel Hydraulic, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.

Elevatorski, E. A. (2008), Hydraulic Energy Dissipators, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Hager, W. H. (1985), Hydraulic Jump in Non-Prismatic Rectangular Channels, Jl of Hydraulic Research,

23 (1), 2134.

Hager, W. H. (1989), Hydraulic Jump in U-Shaped Channel, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering, 115 (5), 667

675.

Hager, W. H. and Wanoschek, R. (1989a), Hydraulic Jump in Triangular Channel, Jl of Hydraulic

Research, 27 (1), 178188.

Hager, W. H., and Bremen, R. (1989b), Classical Hydraulic Jump: Sequent Depths Ratio, Jl of Hydraulic

Research, 27 (5), 565-585.

Herbrand, K. (1973), The Spatial Hydraulic Jump, Jl of Hydraulic Research, 11 (3), 205-217.

Ivanchenkov, A. L. (1936), The Hydraulic Jump in Terms of Dynamic Similarity, Discussion by Bakhmateff,

B.A. and Matzke, A.E., Transactions, ASCE, 101, 668.

Iwao, O., Youich, Y. and Hiroshi, G. (2003), Flow Conditions of Undular Hydraulic Jumps In Horizontal

Rectangular Channels, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 129 (12), 948955.

Negm, A. M. (2000a), Empirical Prediction of Properties of R-Jump and Submerged S-jump in Abruptly

Expanding Stilling Basins, Submitted to The Egyptian Journal for Engineering Sciences and Technology,

(EJEST), Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Negm, A. M. (2000b), Characteristics of Jump in Case of Symmetric and Un-Symmetric Operation of

Regulators, Proc. of ICHE2000, Published on CD, Seoul, Korea, 2629.

Negm, A.M., Ibrahim, A. A., and Salem, M. N. (2000), Modeling of Depth Ratio of Hydraulic Jumps in

Abruptly Enlarged Stilling Basins, Civil Engineering Research Magazine (CERM).

Noor, A and Bushra, A., (2002), Structure of The Turbulent Hydraulic Jump In A Trapezoidal Channel, Jl

of Hydraulic Research, 40 (2), 205214.

Pagliara, S., and Chiavaccini, P. (2006), Energy Dissipation on Block Ramps, Jl of Hydraulic Engineering,

ASCE, 132 (1), 4148.

Peterka, A. J. (1958), Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy Dissipaters, US Department Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Monograph, 25: Denver, Col.

Rajaratnam, N. (1964), Discussion to Silvester (1964), Jl of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 90 (HY4), 341-350.

Rajaratnam, N., and Subramanya, K. (1968), Hydraulic Jump below Abrupt Symmetrical Expansions, Jl of

Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 94 (HY3), 481503.

Ranga Raju, K. G., Mittal, M. K., Verma, M. S., and Ganeshan, V. R. (1980), Analysis of Flow over Baffle

Blocks and End Sills, Jl of Hydraulic Research, 18 (3), 227241.

Tyagi, D M, Pande, P K and Mittal, M K (1978), Drag on baffle walls in Hydraulic jump, Jl of Hydraulic

Division, ASCE, April, 515525.

Wu, S. and Rajaratnam, N. (1996), Transition from hydraulic jump to open channel flow, Jl of Hydraulic

Engineering, 122 (9), 526528.

- Lab 6 - Unconfined Compression TestUploaded bydixn__
- Unconfined Compression Test_procedure and Data SheetUploaded byphaei
- Hydraulic JumpUploaded bySusi Susilowati
- Hydraulic Jump reportUploaded bySukrit Sood
- Unconfined Compression Test & Foundation Design.docxUploaded bymahrbhojia
- hydraulic jumpUploaded byHarshad Shrigondekar
- Jurnal Sharp Crested Weir (Important)Uploaded byDante Tjandra
- Hydraulic Jump ExperimentUploaded byArvin De Lara Sanchez
- Hydraulic Jump DataUploaded byWho_cares2
- Hydraulic JumpUploaded bysafder_ali90
- Hydraulic JumpUploaded byAhmed Gamal
- Experiment 12-Direct Shear [EDocFind.com]Uploaded byPatrick Campbell
- Hydraulic JumpUploaded byRyan Hirani
- Hydraulic JumpUploaded byKafeel Bichu
- Hydraulic Jump Serials DropsUploaded byjcasafranca
- Span DeflectionUploaded bynirmala_siva_1
- Instrumental Mode Slope FailureUploaded byhanuma_ben
- Direct Shear TestUploaded byChristina Ng
- Direct Shear TestUploaded byNishanth Nanthakumar
- Hudraulic JumpUploaded byShanidu Madushanka
- Experiment Unconfined CompressionUploaded byLon Odi
- Three Gorges Dam ProjectUploaded bySugandh Kr Choudhary
- HYDRAULICS JUMPUploaded byEngr. Ikhwan Z.
- Introduction to Triaxial TestingUploaded byrockymin
- To study the characteristics of the hydraulic jump developed in lab flume.Uploaded byAfzal Waseem
- UUUploaded byJude Anthony
- geotechUploaded byAnvesh Reddy
- CFD Simulation of Hydraulic Jump in Triangular Channel Seminar ReportUploaded byRanjitDesai
- Proper Orifice Meter TestUploaded byIwayan Sunarto
- Direct ShearUploaded byQUEIZ

- USGS_Recession Groundwater RechargeUploaded byjcasafranca
- ELPESCADOR[1]Uploaded byjcasafranca
- Predicting Scour DepthUploaded byjcasafranca
- sediment transportUploaded byjcasafranca
- Juncosa_HIdrogramasUploaded byjcasafranca
- Boundary layerUploaded byjcasafranca
- QIR000812Uploaded byjcasafranca
- Calculation of Contraction Coefficient Under Sluice GatesUploaded byjcasafranca
- DISEÑO_HIDRAULICO_TOMAS_LATERALESUploaded byhyunkun
- Camara DisipadoraUploaded byjcasafranca
- tr25AppxUploaded byjcasafranca
- Disenos complejosUploaded byjcasafranca
- wama160-203Uploaded byjcasafranca
- Chandra Mohan 1989 AUploaded byjcasafranca
- Criterios Diseno Losas Cimentacion Muros EstrucUploaded byjosejuanferro
- Tunel Hs2013 Lazaro 2Uploaded byjcasafranca
- wama158-157Uploaded byjcasafranca
- Exact Equations for CriticalUploaded byjcasafranca
- APG2A10 Hydro Prof Harvey Lec1Uploaded byChurchill Oliver Odhiambo
- El_Exito.ppsUploaded byIngrid Saelzer
- El_Exito.ppsUploaded byIngrid Saelzer
- T MarkRichardsPresentationUploaded byjcasafranca
- LaonuUploaded byjcasafranca
- PchUploaded byjcasafranca
- Blake LarsenUploaded byjcasafranca
- T BillSiriosPaperUploaded byjcasafranca
- HacerloUploaded byjcasafranca
- T RubenGriffithUploaded byjcasafranca
- wama157-151Uploaded byjcasafranca

- 06_2Uploaded byPratik Solanki
- Chapter12.pdfUploaded byMahmoud Reda ElSherif
- Bridgerail Analysis May16Uploaded byshams-87
- PR1MA_LA RM405,000,000.xlsxUploaded byShahrir
- STONE COLUMNSUploaded bySujay Raghavendra N
- Simplified Design Guidelines for Seismic Base Isolation in Multi-storey Buildings for Bangladesh National Building Code BNBCUploaded byfausto giovannardi
- EAPA Paper - Asphalt Pavements on Bridge Decks - 2013Uploaded byprdojee
- ConcreteHingesinBridgeEngineering.pdfUploaded byDong-Yong Kim
- Reinforced Concrete StructureUploaded byKetsmy Desrosiers
- Spillway CalcUploaded byChundang Kedu
- 050213 Dincel Design Tool (Dincel & Assoc Ltrhead)Uploaded bytranthanhquyen
- Schedule ChartUploaded byaneesh awasthi
- Pile Footings for Flats for Golden Green at AsrUploaded byraman_2107
- Strength of Columns Under Combined Bending and Thrust. 1951Uploaded byfefahim
- Piperack Quantity EstimationsUploaded byLandon Mitchell
- G. ACI 360R-06 Brings Slabs on Ground into the 21st Century - Art McKinney (1).pdfUploaded byNur Ramadhan
- Propose Plan on Septic TankUploaded byRachel Ingram
- uratUploaded byJetmir Kurti
- Strength of Materials 1Uploaded byLaksh Man
- DewateringUploaded byDrishti Jain
- WW TREATMENT.pptxUploaded byPreetha Sreekumar
- Summary of ConcreteUploaded byikreddy
- DesignUploaded bySingaram Velu
- pfs-ppt-3Uploaded byapi-303720407
- Investigation on Behavior of Rcc Beams With Used Foundry Sand as a Aletrnative Material f0r Natural SandUploaded byesatjournals
- THE ROOF.pdfUploaded byRay Pascua
- 11 Composite Breakwater Design.pdfUploaded byAnonymous U353mI1
- ComFlor Manual (1)Uploaded byFlasipa
- CSP00138[GEN-Tutorial]Pushover Analysis as Per Eurocode 8 2004Uploaded bybosnia76
- Scenario Korean Nuclear PlantsUploaded byMohinuddin Ahmed