Sustainable Hydraulics in the Era of Global Change – Erpicum et al. (Eds.

)
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02977-4

Relation between free surface profiles and pressure profiles with respective
fluctuations in hydraulic jumps

J.D. Nóbrega & H.E. Schulz

Department of Hydraulics and Sanitary Engineering, School of Engineering at São Carlos,
University of São Paulo, Brazil

M.G. Marques
Institute of Hydraulic Research, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

ABSTRACT: Because the hydraulic jump is a dissipative singularity, it is used to dissipate energy for example
in stilling basins downstream of spillways. On the other hand, concerns about stilling basins are the possibility of
cavitation and uplift of baffle blocks, which are mainly related to pressure fluctuations, and the water depths along
the hydraulic jump, relevant for the design of the walls of the stilling basins. Interestingly, pressure fluctuations
and depth fluctuations are caused by the same turbulence in the roller. So, both phenomena may present similar
behaviors for the statistical properties. This paper analyzes instantaneous water depth data, measured using
ultrasonic sensors, for inflow Froude numbers from 2.8 to 5.3. Statistical parameters of the water depth data
were obtained and compared to data of pressure fluctuations found in the literature. As expected, it is shown that
there are similarities between the behavior of both phenomena.

1 INTRODUCTION

Hydraulic jump (HJ) is the open flow phenomenon

related to the transition of a supercritical to a sub-
critical flow condition. The hydraulic jump may be
a useful phenomenon, for example in stilling basins
downstream of dam spillways, where the presence of
baffle and chute blocks imposes the hydraulic jump
formation and intense local energy dissipation.
The hydraulic jump is usually described as a com-
plex phenomenon, being characterized by a rapid
expansion of the free surface level. At the region of
rapid expansion, a high amount of air enters into the
flow in the form of bubbles. The air bubbles are then
advected and diffused in the flow, and finally released
back to the atmosphere, as the water flows downstream
(Chanson, 2011). Another determinant characteris-
tic of hydraulic jumps is the presence of turbulence,
causing intense fluctuations of flow parameters like
velocity, surface position and pressure. Regarding the
longitudinal position of the hydraulic jump, the front
of the jump moves back and forward in a very chaotic
movement. Similarly, the flow in the vertical direc-
tion changes rapidly in time, producing many splashes
and droplets, which reach heights that may exceed the
value of the vertical dimension of the jump itself.
The water surface mean profile (evolution of the
mean water depth with the longitudinal distance)
may be viewed as being composed firstly by a “sat-
uration exponential” profile which then rises until
the condition of uniform flow (Lj – hydraulic jump
length). In the first region, the flow usually presents a
Figure 1. Hydraulic jump. ∗ Lr = roller length; Ltr =
transition length; and Lj = hydraulic jump length.
recirculation pattern (Lr – roller length), with the water
at the vicinity of the free surface tending to move down
in the opposite direction of the main flow. Beneath
the roller region, the main flow stream expands in the
downstream direction (see Fig. 1).
Due to the complexity of the hydraulic jump phe-
nomenon, many of its characteristics are still not
completely understood, which explain the need of con-
tinuous studies in this theme. Some of the issues that
have been more recently addressed are: 1. numeri-
cal simulation of the flow (Chern & Syamsuri 2013,
Simões et al. 2010) 2. influence of the bed rough-
ness on flow patterns (Carollo et al. 2007, Ead &
Rajaratnam 2002) 3. performance of baffle blocks
(Habibzadeh et al. 2012, 2014) 4. air-water interface
characteristics (Murzyn et al. 2007, Nóbrega et al.
2014, Wang et al. 2015) 5. properties of the air-
water flow (two-phase flow) – (Chanson 2011, Zhang
et al. 2014) 6. determination of the turbulent field
using PIV (particle image velocimetry), BIV (bub-
ble image velocimetry) and ADV (acoustic Doppler
velocimeter) – (Lennon & Hill 2006, Lin et al. 2012,

629
Liu et al. 2004, Mignot & Cienfuegos 2011) 7. the-
oretical and semi-empirical formulations (Beirami &
Chamani 2010, Schulz et al. 2015, Valiani 1997).
Regarding the pressure field generated by hydraulic
jumps, an expressive number of researchers carried out
experimental investigations, some of them devoted to
describe the evolution of the pressure along the bot-
tom of the channel. The first papers on this theme were
probably published by Vasiliev & Bukreyev (1967),
Wisner (1967), and Abdul Khader & Elango (1974).
Abul & Elango (1974) used pressure cells on the bot-
tom of the channel for three series of experiments in
order to measure mean pressures and their fluctuations
in the center line of the jump.
Bowers & Toso (1988) also presented information
about pressure fields in order to analyze the possi-
ble causes of failure of the Karnafulli spillway. Based
on their experiments in a physical model, they dis-
cussed that the slab failure was probably caused by the
differences in fluctuating pressure at the chute of the
spillway and the chute slab. Additional information of
maximum and minimum instantaneous pressure distri-
bution along the flow, in relation to mean pressure, was
further presented by Toso & Bowers (1988). Moreover,
they evaluated the influence of different physical and
flow conditions (inflow Froude number, developed and
undeveloped incident flow, chute slopes, chute blocks,
intermediate blocks and end sill) on the pressure field.
Fiorotto & Rinaldo (1992) also developed studies
on fluctuating pressure in hydraulic jumps in view of
the stability of the stilling basin. The paper gives infor-
mation about statistical parameters along hydraulic
jumps, covering a broader range of inflow Froude num-
bers than the previous works. Armenio et al. (2000)
also evaluated statistical quantities of pressure fluctu-
ations at the bottom of a hydraulic jump over a negative
step, furnishing results of extreme values and spa-
tial correlation structures. Studies on different aspects
of pressure fluctuations and their decaying, pressure
distribution, among other relevant information about
the pressure fields were conducted by Marques and
coworkers, like: Marques et al. (1997), Marques et al.
(2000), Neto & Marques (2008).
In relation to the position of the free surface in
hydraulic jumps, some authors have focused their
attention on the investigation of the dynamics of the
air-water interface, viewed as dependent of interac-
tions between the large-scale eddies and the free
surface. Murzyn et al. (2007) worked on the theme
and used wire gauges in their experimental studies.
Besides determining the free surface and relevant tur-
bulence profiles, they furnished free surface length
scales for both longitudinal and the transversal direc-
tions. Kucukali & Chanson (2008), Chachereau &
Chanson (2011), and Murzyn & Chanson (2009) per-
formed measurements using acoustic displacement
meters, described as a non-intrusive technique. Simul-
taneously, two-phase flow properties were recorded
using phase detection probes. Their results include:
free surface profiles, free surface fluctuations, spectral
analysis of the data obtained with the phase detection
630
probes and the acoustic sensors, integral turbulent time
and length scales, and Strouhal numbers. The study
of Nóbrega et al. (2014) showed a good comparison
between mean free surface level from ultrasonic sen-
sor measurements and images, which were obtained
using a high speed camera focusing the flow from the
sidewall.
Because of the influence of the strong turbulence on
both the deformation and breakup of the free surface
and on the pressure fluctuations in hydraulic jumps,
it is expected that the statistical quantities of the free
surface fluctuations in hydraulic jumps may be cor-
related to those of the pressure fluctuations on the
bottom of the flume. However, there is not a study
that provides this comparison and quantitative analy-
ses for this relationship. Therefore, this paper aims to
furnish statistical information about the free surface
position and the pressure field along hydraulic jumps,
comparing the free surface measurements using ultra-
sonic sensor and the pressure data from the literature.
The results may conduce to indirect evaluations of
the behavior of mean statistical characteristics of the
pressure evolution based on observations of the free
surface.
2 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
2.1 Facilities and flow conditions
The experiments about the evolution of the surface
were conducted in two recirculating channels: one at
the Hydraulics Laboratory of the Engineering School
of São Carlos – University of São Paulo, Brazil;
and the other at the Undergraduate Laboratory of
the University of Alberta, Canada. The channels are
identified here as 1 and 2, respectively, as shown in
Figure 2.
Channel 1 is 41 cm wide, 60 cm height and has bed
and sidewalls built in concrete. The flow rate was mea-
sured by a triangular weir, displaced downstream of
the water tank. Hydraulic jumps were produced down-
stream of a broad crested weir of 24 cm height and
46 cm long.
Channel 2 is 50 cm wide, 5 m long and has plex-
iglass side walls and an aluminum bed. The flow
rate was measured by a magnetic flow transmitter
(Foxboro® Model IMT25) connected to the recircu-
lation pipe. The supercritical condition was formed
as the water passed under a sluice gate at the flume
entrance, with an opening of 2.8 mm.
The position of the hydraulic jump in both channels
was controlled by a tail gate. The mean front of the
hydraulic jump was positioned at the maximum water
jet contraction downstream of the broad crested weir or
sluice gate. Seven hydraulic jumps with inflow Froude
numbers from 2.8 to 5.3 were tested. Table 1 presents
the flow conditions.
In all studies the possibility of scaling is always
a present question. According to Murzyn & Chanson
(2008), for hydraulic jumps with Re1 up to 1 × 105 ,
the rate of entrained air and air-water interfacial area
Figure 2. Experimental apparatus: a) Flume 1: broad crested
weir; b) Flume 2: sluice gate.

Table 1. Experimental flow conditions.

Flume 1
Broad crested Weir
Figure 3. Ultrasonic sensor in a displacement track (detail).
Q y1 y2 V1
Code L/s cm cm m/s Re1 F1
by Simões et al. (2010, 2013), in their studies on
II-21 21.0 2.5 14.2 2.04 51,000 4.11 hydraulic jumps and stepped spillways.
II-31 31.0 3.5 17.4 2.15 75,250 3.67 The ultrasonic sensor was mounted in a displace-
II-40 40.0 5.0 21.4 1.95 97,500 2.78
ment track at the central longitudinal axis of the flume,
Flume 2
above the free surface, in order to determine instanta-
Sluice gate neous positions of the surface (Fig. 3). The sampling
time and frequency for the measurements at each posi-
Q y1 y2 V1 tion were 2.0 minutes and 25.0 Hz, respectively. The
Code L/s cm cm m/s Re1 F1 range of distance measured by the sensor is from
15 to 600 cm, with a resolution of 1 mm. Accord-
III-21 20.9 2.8 10.6 1.56 43,680 2.98 ing to the manufacturer, the emitted sound waves
III-27 26.9 2.9 14.2 1.94 56,260 3.64 travel at a speed of about 343 m/s, forming a coni-
III-34 34.2 2.9 17.9 2.44 70,760 4.58 cal frustum with angle between 15 and 20 degrees and
III-39 38.9 2.9 20.5 2.80 81,200 5.26 smaller base diameter of 3.7 cm, corresponding to the
senser/detector. The sampling was accomplished by a
∗
Q = flow rate; y1 = supercritical depth; y2 = subcritical
depth; V1 = supercritical velocity; Re1 = supercritical
Logger Lite – Vernier® software. The ultrasonic sensor
Reynolds number; F1 = supercritical Froude number. records the time for the sound wave emitted by the sen-
sor (in a conical frustum region) to return to the device,
after reaching the air-water interface or its splashes.
This travel time is proportional to the distance between
are underestimated. The authors also discuss that the sensor and the obstacle, hence instantaneous posi-
the dynamic similarity of two-phase flow cannot be tions of the obstacles are registered, being the water
achieved unless working in a full scale 1:1. Teixeira depths statistically determined in the sequence. Details
et al. (2012), and Teixeira (2008) conducted pressure about the statistical procedures followed to obtain the
measurements in spillways, for the Porto Colômbia mean water depths at each measurement position may
Dam in the prototype and in scales 1:32, 1:50, 1:80, be found in Simões (2012) and Nóbrega (2014).
1:100. Their investigation showed that the mean pres-
sure behaviors could be studied in the 1:100 scale
without loss of information. Because pressure and 3 RESULTS
depths are correlated, but also air entrainment may
affect this correlation, future investigations regarding 3.1 Free surface profile
the scale effects are still welcomed.
Although the free surface profile of hydraulic jumps
are very unstable, both in horizontal and vertical direc-
tions, due to the jump toe oscillations and high level
of turbulence, a mean profile can be defined from the
2.2 Instrumentation
time series for each location obtained by the ultrasonic
An ultrasonic sensor (Vernier® – Go!Motion) was sensor. The time series in the experiments were com-
used to detect the free surface position along the posed by 3000 data for each position. Figure 4 shows
hydraulic jumps. This sensor was also previously used the mean depths along a hydraulic jump for F1 = 3.64,

631

Figure 4. Instantaneous depths and mean profiles for
hydraulic jump with F1 = 3.64.
the points representing the instantaneous values, and
blue curves representing the mean value ±3 times
the standard deviation. As can be observed in Figure
4, the standard deviation increases within the roller
length (x − x1 ≈ 50, defined by visual observations),
and gradually decreases afterwards. The maximum
depth (y = 16.5 at x − x1 ≈ 60), considering the mean
value plus 3 times the standard deviation, is about
16% higher than the subcritical depth y2 = 14.2, for
F1 = 3.64.
In order to define a representative curve for all
experimental data, the free surface profiles were plot-
ted in a nondimensonal graph. Figure 7a shows that
for hydraulic jumps with F1 = 4.58 and 5.26, the free
surface profile presented a wavy shape. A possible
cause may be the proximity of the jump toe to the
sluice gate. For the other inflow Froude numbers tested
here, the mean surface profiles of the hydraulic jumps
are smooth and gradually rise until the uniform flow
condition (and further decrease accordingly the flow
conditions).
Some authors have proposed experimental solu-
tion for the free surface. Hager (1993), for example,
defined an expression for the dimensionless depth as
a function of the dimensionless length x/Lr . Other
expressions for free surface profiles were proposed by
Schulz et al. (2015), which were adjusted to the same
experimental data presented here.
Visually comparing the mean depths to the mean
pressures along hydraulic jumps (Figures 7a and 5),
similar main patterns are observed. However, the curve
of mean pressure attains (Px − y2 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 1 near
the position x/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 8, while the curve of mean
depth attains the value of (y − y2 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 1 at
x/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 6 without considering the two oscillat-
ing surfaces. If considering the oscillating cases, the
value x/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 8 is also observed.
Figure 7b presents the mean and extreme depth val-
ues for the tested flow conditions. It can be observed
that near the jump toe, some negative values of water
depths are recorded, which are unreal. Negative values
may be caused by different positions in the measure-
ment cone region. Considering an angle of 20 degrees
for the cone, distances up to 1.5% larger than the ver-
tical height may be registered for horizontal surfaces.
632
Figure 5. Mean pressure distribution along hydraulic jump.
Marques et al. (1997).
Figure 6. Mean, maximum and minimum pressures along
hydraulic jump. Marques et al. (1997).
Additionally, multiple obstacles (drops) may generate
reflections between them before attaining the detec-
tor, implying in larger travel times, and, consequently,
larger calculated distances. Drops are caused by the
strong oscillations of the jump in the longitudinal and
vertical directions, so that the sound in the conical
frustum may be subjected to the mentioned reflec-
tions. The maximum extreme values form a cloud of
points which is more dense until about 1.5 times the
dimensionless subcritical depth (y − y2 )/(y2 − y1 ) = 1,
occurring in the range of positions x/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 2 to
6, approximately. The maximum differences between
maximum extreme depths and mean depths were found
at x/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 1. Comparing these behaviors and val-
ues with the results of Figure 6, which shows the max-
imum, minimum and mean dimensionless pressure,
we note that downstream x/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 8, the extreme
values of depth and pressure become approximately
constant. The maximum pressure events concentrate
around x/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 2. The behaviors of the events
of minimum pressure and minimum depths, although
of course located under the points representing the
mean values of both variables, evolve differently con-
cerning the length of the concavity of the subjacent
curve. One reason of this difference was already men-
tioned, that is, depths have no negative values (negative
measurements may be related to the conical frustum
measurement region and to reflections of the sound in
it). Another reason may be the fact that the pressure
field is affected by the flow separation at the flume
bottom.
Figure 7. a) Mean free surface profile; b) Minimum and maximum depths recorded using ultrasonic sensor; c) Fluctuation
coefficient depth distribution; d) Skewness depth distribution along the hydraulic jump.

633
3.2 Fluctuation coefficient
The fluctuation coefficient relates the mean standard
deviation of the depth data set at a certain position – Cy′
(or pressure data set – Cp′ ) to the inflow kinetic energy
at the toe of the jump.
where σy = standard deviation of the depth data set;
σp = standard deviation of the pressure data set;
V1 = inflow velocity; and g = gravity.
Towards the tail of the jump, the fluctuation coeffi-
cient presented approximately a constant value, around
0.02 (Fig. 7c). In general, the maximum value of the
fluctuation coefficient is about 0.08, at the position
(x − x1 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 1. One exception was however
observed: experiment I 40, with F1 = 2.78, presented
a different behavior, with the maximum value of 0.13.
These results are similar to those presented by Neto
& Marques (2008), and Lopardo (2012), for pressure
fluctuations (Fig. 8). The maximum fluctuation coeffi-
cient of Neto & Marques (2008) experiments, based on
the mentioned pressure measurements (using pressure
transducers), were of about 0.08 at position x/y1 ≈ 10,
for hydraulic jumps with F1 = 4.55 and 5.01. Accord-
ing to Lopardo (2012) measurements, the maximum
values of Cp′ were also around 0.06–0.07, at position
(x − x1 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 2.
For both variables (depth and pressure), down-
stream the position (x − x1 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 10, the coef-
ficients become approximately constant. The value
obtained for depth measurements is about 0.02 (see
Fig. 7c), which however is higher than the value
of 0.01 found by Neto & Marques (2008), Lopardo
(2012), and Abdul Khader & Elango (1974), for the
decay of the standard deviation of the pressure along
the jump (Fig. 8). This is an interesting conclusion,
because it evidences that both measurements (depth
and pressure) may be used to limit the length of the
hydraulic jump. Because asymptotic behaviors are
observed, conditional definitions of lengths may be
used involving mean values or extreme values.
3.3 Skewness
The skewness is the third central moment and is a quan-
tity that represents the asymmetry of the probability
distribution of the measured instantaneous values in
relation to the mean value.
where yi = instantaneous depth at location x; yx = mean
value at location x; n = length of the sample data;
σx = standard deviation at location x.
As can be observed from Figure 7d, for the depth
measurements, the skewness distribution is positive
634
Figure 8. Fluctuation coefficient pressure distribution
along hydraulic jump. Adapted from Neto & Marques (2008),
and Lopardo (2012).
Figure 9. Skewness pressure distribution along hydraulic
jump. Adapted from Neto & Marques (2008), and Lopardo
(2012).
before the position (x − x1 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 5, i.e., the val-
ues tend to be higher than the mean value. This may
be also extracted from Figure 4, in which instanta-
neous values at the roller region tend to be higher than
the curve representing the mean depth + 3 times the
standard deviation.
The maximum skewness values were observed
near the jump toe. In the downstream direction,
the skewness values stabilize around zero. This
trend is similar to data of Neto & Marques (2008),
and Lopardo (2012) for pressure measurements,
as shown in Figure 9. However, downstream the
position (x − x1 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 4, the skewness values
attain a minimum negative value around the posi-
tion (x − x1 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 6, tending then to zero down-
stream of (x − x1 )/(y2 − y1 ) ≈ 8. As discussed by
Lopardo & Casado (2007), the transition from positive
to negative skewness values seems to imply the possi-
bility of a boundary layer separation from the stilling
basin bottom.
The present results show that there are remark-
able similarities between the general behavior of the
statistical variables associated to depth and pressure
measurements in hydraulic jumps. When consider-
ing details as the length of concavity regions and
the presence of critical points (minima, for example),
differences were also observed. The similarities are
related to the same cause of both fluctuations (pres-
sure and depth), that is, the turbulent movement of
the flow in the hydraulic jump. The differences follow
from the different nature of the physical parameters
being analyzed, which point that more studies are nec-
essary to verify possible quantitative relations between
them. A goal for such a relationship would be to use
one of the measurements as indirect “quantification”
of the second. Results of laboratory flumes were used
in the present study, involving small dimensions and
flow rates. The observed similarities suggest to extend
the study to larger dimensions, so that eventual scale
effects may also be also evidenced.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasonic sensors have been employed in hydraulic
jumps for measurement of flow depths. It has proved
to be a simple and promising technique for studies of
strongly turbulent open flows. Because the flow depth
fluctuations and pressure fluctuations are caused by
the same turbulent condition, it is expected they are
also related to each other. In the present study, results
of experiments conducted for different inflow Froude
numbers and upstream conditions (broad crested weir
and sluice gate), using ultrasonic sensors, were pre-
sented. The sensors were moved along the central line
of the experimental flumes, and were used to provide
statistical information about the surface evolution. Sta-
tistical parameters of the flow depths (mean values,
standard deviation, skewness) were compared to sta-
tistical values of pressure fields obtained from the
literature.
The statistical treatment of the pressure fluctuations
in the literature showed results having behaviors simi-
lar to that of the flow depths. The values of the standard
deviations of both fluctuations (depth and pressure)
reached their maxima in the region of the jump roller,
decaying then to a reasonable constant value after-
wards, when the flow turbulence is less intense, and
the flow stablishes the subcritical condition.
The present results involve relatively small dimen-
sions and flow rates, but the mentioned similarities
point to the convenience of more studies for larger
dimensions, evidencing scale effects, considering that
phenomena of different natures are involved in the data
for depths and for pressure.
This study also allows to suggest that the length of
hydraulic jumps (and eventually also of the rollers)
may be quantified based on the decay of the fluc-
tuations of the flow depths or the pressures. These
characteristic lengths are of difficult measurement by
visual observation, pointing to the necessity of quanti-
tative criteria for them, which depend on the equipment
used to obtain the experimental data.
SYMBOLS
Cy′ , Cp′ Fluctuation coefficient of water depth and
pressure data at location x, respectively
Lr Roller length
Lj Hydraulic jump length
Ltr Hydraulic jump transition length
635
F1 Inflow Froude number
P Pressure at location x
Q Flow rate
Re1 Inflow Reynolds number
V1 Velocity of the flow at the supercritical
position
X Longitudinal distance along hydraulic jump
x1 Jump toe position
Y Water depth at location x
y1 Supercritical depth
y2 Subcritical depth
σy , σp Standard deviation of water depth data and
pressure data at location x, respectively
ACKNOWLEDMENTS
The authors thank CAPES, CNPq and Fapesp for fund-
ing this study. The authors acknowledge Dr. David
Z. Zhu for supervising the student Juliana during her
stay at the University of Alberta, and the technician
Perry Fedun, for helping during the experiments in the
University of Alberta.
REFERENCES
Abdul Khader, M.H. & Elango, K. 1974. Turbulent pres-
sure field beneath a hydraulic jump. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 12(4): 469–489.
Armenio, V., Toscano, P. & Fiorotto, V. 2000. On the effects
of a negative step in pressure fluctuations at the bottom of
a hydraulic jump. Journal of Hydraulic Research 38(5):
359–368.
Beirami, M.K. & Chamani, M.R. 2010. Hydraulic jump in
sloping channels: roller length and energy loss. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 37: 535–543.
Bowers, C.E. & Toso, J.W. 1988. Karnafuli project, model
studies of spillway damage. Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering 114(5): 469–483.
Carollo, F.G., Ferro, V. & Pampalone, V. 2007. Hydraulic
jumps of rough beds. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
133(9): 989–999.
Chachereau,Y. & Chanson, H. 2011. Free surface fluctuations
and turbulence in hydraulic jumps. Experimental Thermal
and Fluid Science 35(6): 896–909.
Chanson, H. 2011. Bubbly two-phase flow in hydraulic
jumps at large Froude numbers. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 137(4): 451–460.
Chern, M. & Syamsuri, S. 2013. Effect of corrugated bed on
hydraulic jump characteristic using SPH method. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 139: 221–232.
Ead, S.A. & Rajaratnam, N. 2002. Hydraulic jumps on cor-
rugated beds. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128(7):
656–663.
Fiorotto, V. & Rinaldo, A. 1992. Turbulent pressure fluc-
tuations under hydraulic jumps. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 30(4): 499–520.
Habibzadeh, A., Loewen, M.R. & Rajaratnam, N. 2012. Per-
formance of baffle blocks in submerged hydraulic jumps.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 138(10): 902–908.
Habibzadeh, A., Loewen, M.R. & Rajaratnam, N. 2014.
Mean flow in a submerged hydraulic jump with
baffle blocks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000713, 04014020.
Hager, W.H. 1993. Classical hydraulic jump: free surface
profile. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 20(3):
536–539.
Kucukali, S. & Chanson, H. 2008. Turbulence measure-
ments in the bubbly flow region of hydraulic jumps.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 33: 41–53.
Lennon, J.M. & Hill, D.F. 2006. Particle image velocimetry
measurements of undular and hydraulic jumps. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 132(12): 1283–1294.
Lin, C., Hsieh, S-C., Lin, I-J., Chang, K-A. & Raikar, R. 2012.
Laboratory measurements of a steady breaker using PIV
and BIV. Coastal Engineering Proceedings 33: 1–9.
Liu, M., Rajaratnam, N. & Zhu, D.Z. 2004. Turbulence struc-
ture of hydraulic jumps of low Froude numbers. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 130(6): 511–520.
Lopardo, R.A. 2012. Internal flow of free hydraulic jump
in stilling basins. In 4th IAHR International Sympo-
sium on Hydraulic Structures, 9–11 February 2012. Porto
Portugal: IAHR.
Lopardo, R.A. & Casado, J.M. 2007. Boundary layer sep-
aration beneath submerged jump flows. In XXXII IAHR
Congress. Venice, Italy.
Marques, M.G., Drapeau, J. & Verrette, J-L. 1997. Flutuação
de pressão em um ressalto hidráulico. Revista Brasileira
de Recursos Hídricos 2(2): 45–52. [in Portuguese]
Marques, M.G., Gomes, J.F. & Endres, L.A.M. 2000.
Oscilação da posição inicial do ressalto hidráulico e o
campo de pressões na soleira de bacias de dissipação.
In Simpósio de Recursos Hídricos do Nordeste, 21–24
November 2000. Natal, Brazil: ABRH [in Portuguese]
Mignot, E. & Cienfuegos, R. 2011. Spatial evolution of tur-
bulence characteristics in weak hydraulic jumps. Journal
of Hydraulic Research 49(2): 222–230.
Murzyn, F. & Chanson, H. 2008. Experimental assessment
of scale effects affecting two-phase flow properties in
hydraulic jumps. Experiments in Fluids 45(3): 513–521.
Murzyn, F. & Chanson, H. 2009. Free-surface fluctuations in
hydraulic jumps: Experimental observations. Experimen-
tal Thermal and Fluid Science 33: 1055–1064.
Murzyn, F., Mouzé, D. & Chaplin, J.R. 2007. Air-water inter-
face dynamic and free surface features in hydraulic jumps.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 45(5): 679–685.
Neto, E.F.T.N. & Marques, M.G. 2008. Análise do campo de
pressões em ressalto hidráulico submergido a jusante de
uma comporta. Revista Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos
13(4): 55–68. [in Portuguese]
Nóbrega, J.D. 2014. Metodologia teórica e experimental para
determinação das características do ressalto hidráulico
clássico, MScDissertation, School of Engineering at São
Carlos, University of São Paulo, Brazil, Available from:
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/18/18138/tde-
30092014-105847/pt-br.php. [in Portuguese]
Nóbrega, J.D., Schulz, H.E. & Zhu, D.Z. 2014. Free surface
detection in hydraulic jumps through image analysis and
ultrasonic sensor measurements. In Hubert Chanson and
Luke Toombes (ed.), Hydraulic structures and society –
Engineering challenges and extremes. 5th IAHR Interna-
tional Symposium on Hydraulic Structures, 25–27 June
2014. Brisbane Australia, doi:10.14264/uql.2014.42.
636
Schulz, H.E., Nóbrega, J.D., Simões, A.L.A., Schulz, H.
& Porto, R.M. 2015. Details of Hydraulic Jumps for
Design Criteria of Hydraulic Structures, Hydrodynamics-
Concepts and Experiments, Schulz, H.E. (ed.), InTech,
Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/hydro
dynamics-concepts-and-experiments/details-of-hydraulic-
jumps-for-design-criteria-of-hydraulic-structures.
Simões, A.L.A. 2012. Escoamentos turbulentos em canais
com o fundo em degraus: resultados experimentais,
soluções numéricas e proposições teóricas, PhD Thesis,
School of Engineering São Carlos, University of São
Paulo, Brazil. Available from: http://www.teses.usp.br/
teses/disponiveis/18/18138/tde-01092014-090055/en.php.
[in Portuguese]
Simões, A.L.A., Schulz, H.E. & Porto, R.M. 2010. Sim-
ulação numérica e verificação experimental da posição
da superfície livre de um ressalto hidráulico em um
canal retangular. In XXIV Congreso Latinoamericano de
Hidráulica, November 2010. Punta Del Este, Uruguay:
IAHR. [in Portuguese]
Simões, A.L.A, Schulz, H.E., Porto, R.M. & Gulliver, J.S.
2013. Free-surface profiles and turbulence characteristics
in skimming flows along stepped chutes. Journal of Water
Resource and Hydraulic Engineering 2(1): 1–12.
Teixeira, E.D. 2008. Efeito de escala na previsão dos
valores extremos de pressão junto ao fundo em
bacias de dissipação por ressalto hidráulico, PhD The-
sis, Institute of Hydraulics Research, Federal Univer-
sity of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Available from:
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/17516. [in Portuguese].
Teixeira, E.D., Dai Prá, M., Wiest, R.A. & Marques, M.G.
2012. Efeitos de escala nos valores de pressão média
junto ao fundo em bacias de dissipação por ressalto
hidráulico submergido. Revista Brasileira de Recursos
Hídricos 17(2): 87–100. [in Portuguese]
Toso, J.W. & Bowers, C.E. 1988. Extreme pressures in
hydraulic jumps stilling basins. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 114(8): 829–843.
Valiani, A. 1997. Linear and angular momentum conservation
in hydraulic jump. Journal of Hydraulic Research 35(3):
323–354.
Vasiliev, O.F. & Bukreyev, V.I. 1967. Statistical characteristics
of pressure fluctuations in the region of hydraulic jump.
In 12th Congress of the International Water Association
for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research, 11–14
September 1967. Colorado, USA: IAHR.
Wang, H., Murzyn, F. & Chanson, H. 2015. Interaction
between free surface, two-phase flow and total pressure in
hydraulic jumps. ExperimentalThermal and Fluid Science
64: 30–41.
Wisner, P. 1967. On the bottom pressure pulsations of the
closed conduit and open channel hydraulic jumps. In
12th Congress of the International Water Association for
Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research, 11–14
September 1967. Colorado, USA: IAHR. [in French]
Zhang, W., Liu, M., Zhu, D.Z. & Rajaratnam, N. 2014. Mean
and turbulent bubble velocities in free hydraulic jumps
for small to intermediate Froude numbers. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 140(11): 04014055 1–9.